Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 20, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:41:20

Ep. 174: Trump Indictment, Attorneys Targeted, Vivek Rises, Maui Fires, AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I got it.
	Okay, Ethan.
	Ethan, I need you to guide the thing.
	This guy's head seems to be stuck.
	Come around this way because we're going to have to guide his head down.
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	Okay, so hold on.
	I'm going to stretch from here.
	Okay, go, go, go, like this.
	Here you go.
	Now, push it down.
	Push it down.
	Push it down.
	Okay, wait.
	You know what?
	Can you pull the bars?
	I'm going to do it like this.
	Give me more of that.
	Like this.
	Okay.
	There we go.
	Damn cute animal.
	I want to point out the obvious here before we get too far into this stream.
	Call me a baby.
	Call me immature.
	Won't be the first.
	Certainly won't be the last time.
	Do you see how big the balls on that goat are?
	Oh my goodness!
	I don't understand how they walk around.
	I saw one goat.
	This is at Strawberry Girls, you picked, strawberry place in Florida.
	Look at the size of those things.
	How do they walk around with that?
	My goodness gracious.
	Big.
	That was our daily adventure yesterday.
	Why?
	Oh, great.
	Now people are going to think I'm like trying to...
	Play games.
	I got a clock from a fan in the mail.
	Thank you very much.
	I don't know how it got to be one hour off.
	Great.
	I'm gonna block it the entire time now.
	Good to have a clock in the background so that, you know, people can have a specific date and time of when you said something, and if they try to pull like a rock-bottom Homer Simpson type edit, take things out of context, you got your evidence right there.
	For the record, I don't know why the heck that's one hour behind.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Are we live?
	Are we good?
	And are we well?
	Let me make sure before we go anywhere.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Very nice.
	We're live on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where everybody is good, good, and above average.
	Holy crab apples.
	It's going to be another show tonight, people.
	It's like...
	It's going to go nuts between now and 2024.
	Politically, legally, social media-y.
	I don't know who's on Twitter these days, but we're going to talk about some of the recent drama.
	Perhaps Elon Musk is playing four-dimensional chess with James Woods, or perhaps Elon Musk, you know, occasionally has, what's the word, an intempestive?
	Perhaps occasionally, Elon Musk gets offended, replies to a tweet in a manner that indicates he's offended, and things go downhill from there.
	We'll get there in a second, people.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Before we do anything tonight, we're going to get into some of the Twitter wars, and we're starting off with, you know, a fun...
	Saving a goat.
	It got its antlers stuck in a fence because the fence flexed and that thing wedged its horns in and spread the fence and then got stuck with its head between the fence.
	Hopefully the staff that were watching me free the goat will remedy that for the future.
	You saw that this stream, it said it contains a paid sponsorship, which it does, people.
	A sponsorship that I use.
	Last week I did a GenuCell product called...
	Prover.
	For thickening hair, regrowing hair, you all know I don't have a problem with that just yet.
	And in as much as it's a good product and people should use it, I don't need that one just yet, nor do I use it.
	What I do use, people, because it's a very good, healthy habit to get into.
	Fieldofgreens.com There's this thing called powdered greens that are all the rage these days.
	Desiccated greens.
	Most of you don't know you're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables every day and just so you know iceberg lettuce doesn't count iceberg lettuce is useless it has no nutrients it's as good as waste if you think you're eating a nice iceberg wedge blue cheese salad oh i have my my vegetables that doesn't count okay today for example i had a lot of vegetables uh romaine lettuce tomatoes avocado with a little bit of dressing and i had that for lunch You're supposed to have five
	to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables every day.
	Most people do not do that.
	In fact, most people are very, very unhealthy.
	I say this non-judgmentally.
	We live in a world now where the Lizzo's get praised as, forget beauty, as normal and healthy.
	When it's not normal, people are supposed to be healthy.
	You're supposed to exercise.
	You're supposed to eat well.
	You're supposed to have a BMI that doesn't put undue stress on your heart.
	And enough of this politically correct garbage.
	I don't think you should shame people, but we should not normalize unhealthy behavior.
	Five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
	And most people do not have that.
	Especially when you're traveling, as I will be.
	Let me just take this out.
	Milwaukee for the Rumble exclusive live stream.
	I've got press credentials.
	I'm going to have a one hour at the booth at Milwaukee on Wednesday.
	Set that aside.
	Bring it back to the sponsor here.
	Let's do this.
	When you travel, it's virtually impossible to get healthy fruits and vegetables when you're on the road.
	Whatever.
	So, Field of Greens.
	Desiccated, powdered, pulverized fruits and vegetables with all of the antioxidants, all of the good stuff.
	It's not an extract.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's a food.
	It's USDA organic.
	It's approved.
	It's made in America.
	One spoonful twice a day is two servings of fruits and vegetables with all of the goodies.
	And that's all it takes.
	It tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water because swamp water is rich in nutrients and vitamins.
	And it's fantastic.
	Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA for 15% off your first order.
	Did I mention I'm going to Milwaukee for the Rumble exclusive online streaming of the primaries?
	I think I might have been a little bit too mean to Chris Christie in my tweet, so I don't think he'll sit down for an interview with me.
	We'll see.
	I think I might have been a little too mean to Mike Pence at some points in time.
	We'll see.
	Vivek, I have yet to be too mean with, because I think he hasn't given the world reason to call him out for being a lamentable political creature.
	You know the old expression, politics?
	It comes from the word poly, meaning many, and ticks, meaning blood-sucking parasites.
	It's going to be fun, so stay tuned for that.
	I head there Tuesday, then they have the event Wednesday.
	I've got one hour at the Rumble streaming booth on Wednesday, 1 o 'clock, so I'll be doing something exclusive live there.
	And then the evening event, and it's going to be glorious.
	Now, before we get into the standard stuff, Dostolav Akt Mankari.
	$1 Super Chat.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	When you see those highlighted comments called Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't like that and you want to support the channel, you can go to Rumble, where they have Rumble Rants, and Dusta Love Actman, Carrie, has been there as well.
	I'll just bring these up so that we can see them.
	Rumble typically takes 20% of their Rumble rants.
	Now they take 0% for the rest of the year.
	2024, they'll go back to it.
	Here we go.
	Tetsco, why didn't Robert Rico Suave Barnes get indicted in Georgia?
	I don't think he was official counsel of record.
	Also, I don't know.
	I'll ask him.
	I think that's the answer.
	Or maybe they're just smart and don't indict the lawyer who's going to burn down the house of this.
	Okay, we've got a good show tonight.
	But before we get into the good show tonight, this is the question, people.
	It's either 4D chess or everyone has a day where they do something stupid.
	On Twitter, even if it's Elon.
	For those of you who have not been following the news or the drama, it was yesterday or the day before, Elon says, we're going to get rid of the mute, not the mute, we're going to get rid of the block feature on Twitter.
	It's useless.
	Or he says, it serves no purpose.
	Something along those lines.
	I'll get the tweet in a second.
	Freak out.
	Some righteously, some not so righteously say, if you do this, it's the end of it, I'm leaving.
	Even conservatives with big accounts say, the block button is very useful in preventing brigades, in stopping targeted harassment.
	Basically, the idea was widely admonished, I think would be the right word, condemned, criticized.
	It was ratioed, as we say in the industry.
	There was a fact check.
	That says you can't even remove the block function on an app if it's going to be available on, I think it's Apple, whatever the App Store is, or Google Play.
	You can't remove the block feature for safety reasons.
	So maybe, I don't know if that's true.
	I think it is true.
	And maybe Elon didn't know and he got embarrassed.
	Who knows?
	Okay.
	So everybody gets a little angry.
	Now make sure that I get the right one.
	Here we go.
	Then James Woods.
	You may remember James Woods as the greatest cameo voice in all of animated television history.
	Started with The Simpsons.
	Best character of all time on The Simpsons.
	Then he did the voice cameo on Family Guy.
	Ooh, piece of candy.
	Ooh, piece of candy.
	He's fantastic.
	He's also a very outspoken conservative actor in Hollywood.
	Or former, I guess, because Hollywood chases the people out once they come out with their...
	You can be a potato file.
	You can be a groper.
	You can be a sexual deviant in Hollywood.
	That's fine.
	That might even get you an Oscar.
	Come out as a conservative, you're going to be unemployed.
	Chuck Woolery, Jon Voight, James Woods.
	So James Woods is a damn cool guy.
	And as much as you can think you know someone who you've never met before who comes out of Hollywood, he comes out in response to Elon Musk and says, thank you.
	If Elon Musk removes the ability to block concerted harassment by trolls or organized political enemies, how will, quote, X be any different from Jack Dorsey's horrid Twitter?
	Musk, whom I once championed, is only doing this to protect his advertisers anyway.
	This is an interesting theory, which I had not thought about until I saw this tweet.
	Users of X are mere pawns to turn the site into an electronic shopping mall.
	The man who I thought was a defender of free speech is just another greedy capitalist.
	Disappointing, but not surprising.
	I hadn't thought about this because I know that some people systematically block ads.
	And if you systematically block ads, it's not necessarily good for advertiser revenue.
	I mute ads.
	I, to this day, have not blocked one person on Twitter.
	I mute them.
	If I think that their tweet violates the rules, I report the tweet.
	And if Twitter comes back and says it doesn't violate the rules, okay, well, then they get to speak.
	Even on my feed, I don't have to see their crap.
	The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to compel me to hear stupidity.
	But other people can bask in their collective stupidity.
	But some people, you don't feel the need to block.
	And it's understandable.
	James is actually also quite funny when he blocks, for those of you who don't know.
	All right.
	So that's what he did.
	He tags Elon Musk.
	Oh, I'm not going to get the bloody things because it doesn't...
	Give me one second.
	When you use Twitter on incognito, it doesn't allow you to...
	So then, okay.
	So then Elon Musk says, replies to...
	Oh, can we do this here?
	I think we can do it like that.
	So then Elon Musk replies to James Woods.
	And then says, then delete your account.
	Which is a very...
	I don't know, man.
	You know, like sometimes you have to think that it's meant tongue-in-cheek.
	Then delete your account.
	Haha, like you'd say to him in real life.
	Well, why don't you delete your account then?
	And it comes off just much ruder, much more sassy on Twitter.
	And that's the problem with Twitter.
	Some might say by design.
	I...
	Happened to have thought that that reply from Elon Musk to James Woods, and I like James Woods, and he gets the benefit of the doubt.
	I thought that was a little bit too sassy.
	To which I say, telling James Woods to delete his account for his valid criticism of your proposed policy is a pretty good way to burn lots of goodwill for no good reason.
	I think there's an extra hyphen in there for goodwill that I don't need.
	It's actually very un-Elon in as much as I think I can know Elon on the internet.
	But I won't go so far as to suggest that Linda Yaccarino, the new CEO of Twitter, or not the CEO, I'm sorry.
	What is she?
	Is she the CEO or CFO?
	Doesn't say what it is there.
	Whatever.
	I won't say that she's, you know, replying on his behalf.
	I might think it, but I won't say it yet.
	Hardy, har, har.
	All right.
	Well, that's all fun and games.
	You know what ends up happening?
	Elon then goes on to block.
	James Woods.
	Where is it?
	Where is it?
	Get it?
	Elon Musk, real James Woods.
	How am I so stupid that I can't find the bloody thing?
	He blocks him.
	And then James Woods shares the tweet and says he's blocked.
	Some people out there are hypothesizing that it's a 4D level chess move.
	Elon, knowing that he's going to...
	Do without the block feature on Twitter, which I don't know how he's going to do if indeed it is a requirement for Apple and Google App Store, then blocks James Woods.
	Some people say he's just proving how useless it is as a feature.
	And then in a few days from now, he's going to remove it and yada, yada, yada.
	I don't think so.
	And it's a very...
	I don't understand what's going on in the world right now where it's ringing of co-intel pro type...
	Creating division within sides that should not be unified in allyship, if that's not a word, but sides that should be ideologically aligned for a greater battle right now.
	Where within, you know, the GOP primaries, you have massive, serious infighting between various camps.
	Ugly, dirty infighting, to the point that when a lawyer of one of the Trump's former team gets indicted, but because that lawyer happens to be supporting the DeSantis side, and maybe being a little sassy with the Trump side, well then people say, you're on your own, fend for yourself, tough noogies, tough crap.
	Now you've got Elon Musk fighting with James Woods on Twitter, and people say, yeah, a lot of people who should not be fighting among each other are fighting among each other.
	It almost seems by design, it almost seems very convenient.
	Well, that's all I have to say about that.
	I like James Woods.
	I would love, I would love to have a sidebar, an interview, a lunch with James Woods.
	James, if you're watching, if you're in Florida, we have nice studios at Locals.
	Alright, so that's the gossip.
	That's what's going on with Twitter.
	But something is up with Elon.
	He puts out a tweet yesterday saying...
	I called it a persuasion tweet.
	Like, oh, you know, it's a shame that social media companies, you know, tend to, you know, fail.
	We'll do our best here.
	As if he's priming us for failure.
	Then starts an absolutely unnecessary war with a man who does not deserve it.
	This is not like going after, oh, Jake Tapper.
	That might not be the best example right now.
	It's not like going after George Takei.
	He's going after James Woods for no good reason.
	Elon acting like a jackass.
	Viva having trouble getting wood.
	No, no.
	Okay.
	Damn it, I'm an idiot.
	Where is Barnes?
	Hold on one second.
	I know Barnes has the link.
	I sent it to him, but let me send it to him by email again.
	But not before.
	Not before we do one thing I'm going to send.
	Oh, Barnes is right in the backdrop.
	Barnes, give me...
	Okay, not before I do it.
	I have two things in the backdrop.
	Gotta do it.
	George Takei.
	Go after George Takei.
	What the hell is wrong with these people?
	I don't understand what's going on.
	I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
	George Takei literally, yesterday, or was it yesterday?
	No, it was today.
	What day is it today?
	Unacceptable.
	Post a link to this GOP lawmaker, Sue's newspaper.
	He posted the same thing, literally.
	Yesterday.
	Unacceptable.
	He posted literally the same thing five days ago.
	And I don't know if they're robots.
	I don't know if people on Twitter are robots.
	And it's not just her.
	It's not just him.
	Who do we got here?
	Nina Turner.
	I don't know who Nina Turner is, although I follow her now.
	Every week should be a four-day week-week.
	Okay, that was yesterday.
	Good morning.
	Every week should be a four-day 32-hour workweek.
	That was August 14th.
	That was two weeks ago.
	No, that was a week ago.
	The four-day, 32-hour workweek is possible.
	That was 18 days ago.
	I wonder if we've just ended up in a world now where we think we're engaging with real people on Twitter, but they're bots.
	Or they're just managed accounts out there purely for political messaging.
	Gonna ask Robert what he thinks.
	Robert, bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Oh my goodness, Robert.
	I don't know if you're following the internet drama.
	What do you think of...
	We haven't planned...
	I didn't even tell you about this.
	What do you think of Elon Musk blocking...
	What's his name?
	Jeez, James Woods.
	Is there truth to the argument that Elon cannot remove the block feature on an app that is available on the App Store?
	Well, according to his own community notes, yes.
	He posted that on his tweet.
	But the...
	I mean, I think what Musk's goal has been all along is to convert, he's been public about this, to convert Twitter into the version of WeChat in China.
	That's why verification is going to require, you have to give your government ID, you have to give a selfie.
	That's coming to Twitter as well.
	X is whatever it's now called.
	And X was his original name for a one-stop shop personal financial services back before PayPal.
	This is late 90s before he hit it big the first time around.
	And so before Tesla.
	So given all of that, it suggests that he's going to ultimately move more in that direction.
	And of course, there was the controversy with the CEO he brought in.
	I was hopeful that maybe she would support Free speech, given some of her like history.
	She hasn't cracked down on it, but she's made public statements about de-amplifying disliked voices.
	And now Musk is talking about not only getting rid of the block feature, but he's also talking about adding an election disinformation person to the thing.
	So we'll see how all this translates.
	I've long said that Musk is an ally right now.
	Is he a reliable ally over time?
	There's not enough evidence to support that.
	So he might stay an ally, might not.
	That's where we've encouraged people to go to Rumble, because there we know the CEO helped craft the rules that they are in the process of putting into place, and they have kept their word.
	They don't want to be Gab.
	So they're not trying to be the place where you can go to find all the kooks and haters.
	But the conversation is otherwise as free as it gets anywhere on the internet on Rumble in terms of someplace that's a substantial platform that's a likable and enjoyable platform.
	I mean, if you're a hater, go to Gab.
	They love it over there.
	But otherwise, the Rumble is...
	Alex Jones has been promoted, not hindered on Rumble.
	You know, the range of...
	RT.
	Even though the Florida senator threatened Rumble with potential retaliatory action, they refused to...
	They lost access to the French market rather than kick RT off the platform.
	So they've proven that they are committed to having as free a speech as is both desirable and achievable in the modern social media world in ways that...
	I mean, Elon Musk still hasn't allowed Alex Jones back on.
	So there was always going to be limits to how far he would really go to free speech.
	He's not in the money-losing business.
	And so we'll see.
	The stupidest thing is that Elon's justification for not bringing back or allowing back on Alex Jones is totally fallacious.
	Jones, he says...
	Elon said, I'm not going to bring anybody who uses children as political whatever back on the platform.
	But Jones wasn't even banned for that.
	He was banned for, what was it?
	It was something that he did off-platform.
	Oh, it was a complete deliberate misinterpretation that Twitter got called out for at the time by Tim Pool on Joe Rogan's show with Jack Dorsey there.
	Their explanation was a lie.
	Yeah, I mean, that's where I think you just put an asterisk by Musk.
	He still will see how much he sticks to his promise of a free and open platform.
	It made sense from a marketing perspective that he would promote it that way.
	And it makes sense given his long-term objective is to convert it into a one-stop shop, financial payment provider, email provider, everything and a social media platform.
	For him, I think from a marketing perspective, but it comes with certain limits and he wants those advertising dollars back too.
	Subscription services, I think, only went so far at raising revenue.
	And I don't think he'll constantly bleed cash in order to make it a fully free speech public forum.
	Do you think that there is a legitimacy to the argument that this was done to prevent people from blocking ads?
	Because now that I realize, like, a lot of people in the chat...
	Oh, I think that's all that...
	Yes, I agree with Woods.
	That's exactly what that's about.
	Sometimes I'm just stupid.
	Like, I don't think the next level is like, oh, you know, conceptually, good, don't block people.
	You're hindering public discourse when you prevent people's messages from being seen by your indoctrinated followers.
	And then I was like, oh, yeah, people block ads.
	I only mute the ads.
	I don't block the ads even.
	All right, Robert.
	So what do we have on the menu before we cover a few things on both YouTube and Rumble before going over to the free speech platform?
	Rumble, what do we have on the menu tonight?
	All right, yeah, our topics tonight, the top topic everybody voted on will be our fifth topic as usual, which is the Trump-Georgia indictment.
	But a bonus off the top will be Michael Orr, the blindsiding that took place this week, the Hawaii fires, the Maui fires, the lawsuit concerning gun store closures, which actually is a much bigger lawsuit than people realize.
	Craziness in D.C. this week, which includes Hunter Biden, information from Politico and New York Times this weekend, selective enforcement before the D.C. Court of Appeals, and a January 6th sentencing case that got reversed by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	Right to counsel is at issue in the Florida Trump case.
	Then the Trump-Georgia indictment, which has many components to it.
	Does AI have any copyright capability?
	That's been now adjudicated, not only by the Copyright Office, but by federal courts.
	What happens when your mural is considered offensive because the politics have changed like they did at Vermont Law School?
	Can they cover it up despite the right to protect artists' public display issues?
	If you defame and libel someone, can you get away with it because you can say it's part of your church?
	Winter zoos, a public nuisance.
	Disney.
	Sued over fraud.
	A different set of fraud this time.
	COVID lockdowns concerning schools went to federal court.
	And then we got a couple of bonus cases we'll likely cover over at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com in the after-party part of the show.
	The New York Times caught scamming subscribers.
	A couple of election law cases in Georgia and Texas.
	And if the rumors are true that Biden administration wants to reinstate lockdowns coming the fall, what are some of the legal remedies that can be sought at that time?
	Yeah, we're going to talk about that.
	Alex Jones has made a bold prediction, and it's a big one.
	And apparently it's based on good information to Alex.
	We'll talk about that because I got my questions.
	All right, so I'm going to say, just so everybody knows, this is the link to locals.
	Link to locals.
	Here.
	I'll give the link to Rumble when we end there.
	If you tip $5 or more, we will answer every single one of those on Locals.
	And it's quite the fun afterparty.
	Alright, now, the blind side, Robert.
	I haven't seen the movie.
	I know roughly what it's about.
	It's hilarious that they're asking Sandra Bullock to return her Oscar.
	Okay, so apparently...
	Michael Orr is a football player who, in the movie or in real life, was purported to have been adopted by the family.
	Nice, wonderful, feel-good story.
	He's recently claimed that he was actually not ever adopted, but was placed under a long-term conservatorship, or what's the word I'm looking for?
	Conservatorship.
	Yeah.
	Okay, what's going on there?
	I'm not much more familiar with it than that.
	Never seen the movie, although I...
	Once upon a time, loved Sandra Bullock.
	What's the difference?
	What's going on?
	What's the status of this recent drama?
	So, the movie is based on the book by Michael Lewis, which was really about left tackles, protecting your blind side, in which the Michael Orr story was only a subplot.
	And when they decided to make it into a movie, they decided to make the subplot the whole movie.
	Mike Lohr was a left tackle for the University of Mississippi who got drafted in the NFL draft.
	Played, I think, for about eight years in the NFL.
	Made pretty good money while he was there.
	The book and the movie both talk about him being in a conservatorship, not being adopted.
	He himself in his own book referred to it as a conservatorship, not an adoption.
	It was when he was over 18 and it was to do with issues.
	Concerning getting admission to the University of Mississippi.
	There's a range of controversies there.
	The NCAA tried to accuse them of cheating and a bunch of other things.
	I followed Michael Orr's recruitment all the way back because he was a top target of Tennessee's coach Phil Fulmer at the time, who...
	Came close to getting him, but for the proximity of Ole Miss.
	Now, the family that let him stay at his house, let him sleep on the couch, and then gave him a room and all that jazz for, I think, at least his senior year, maybe part of his junior year as well, was the Toohey family.
	They are featured in the film, and the film is a feel-good movie.
	That's about Michael Orr and about the family and about him becoming part of the family and all in his upbringing and what he had to overcome and all of that.
	Orr never voiced any concern or complaint at any time.
	You dig into the evidence in the record.
	The family has never asserted any control over any contract he's ever signed.
	In fact, he often rejected their advice for agents, rejected their advice for NFL contracts, to his detriment by his own admission, by the way.
	Jason Whitlock on Blaze TV does a good breakdown of this.
	I knew a lot of the backstory, so as soon as I saw the suit, I knew the story.
	The suit was garbage.
	Michael Lower is just a flat-out liar.
	He's a fraud.
	It's that simple.
	The reason why he's doing this is twofold.
	He's out trying to sell a book right now.
	He must have clearly blown a lot of the money he made while he was in the league, because that was millions.
	And the other component is that the Tuohys, a few months ago, I went public not long ago, that they sold their restaurant business for about $200 million.
	So the idea that the Tuohys needed money or used him for money is just ludicrous.
	The reality is Michael Orrza came from a deeply broken background.
	But in his re-narration of events, he was a super genius kid who did everything on his own, who just crashed on some people's couch for a little while, and they're taking credit when he was already going to be a star.
	And he knew he was going to be a star because when he was seven years old, he saw Michael Jordan play.
	It's literally the dumbest self-creation story of all time.
	He just wants all the credit, and he wants all the money.
	Now, the problem with the money, he claims that the Toohey's made millions of dollars.
	Michael Lewis came out and said that's completely false.
	That the amount of royalties was very small they ever got paid.
	Royalties from the movie The Blind Side.
	Yeah.
	And the reality is that anybody, we'll get into this later on with a Disney suit, it's very rare anybody but the studios pocket those royalties.
	It's been, Hollywood accounting has been an ongoing, they have the most creative ways to screw people, no demand.
	I mean, they do it, again, to wealthy, powerful individuals.
	So you can imagine they'll do it to some ordinary people.
	So there was no millions made, number one.
	Number two, he said he received no money.
	Problem with that is he took any cash checks that they shared.
	So he's just lying about that.
	What he didn't know, he claims, I thought I was adopted.
	Based on what?
	He signed conservatorship papers.
	According to him, he's a genius.
	He didn't understand the difference.
	His mom was there during the whole part of the process.
	The movie talks about it being conservatorship.
	The book talks about it being conservatorship.
	His own book, 10 years ago, called it a conservatorship.
	But he didn't know it was a conservatorship?
	It's just a complete fraud.
	It's a complete lie.
	Number one.
	Number two, they didn't take any money from him.
	As part of their conservative.
	They never asserted any such control.
	So that's a complete lie.
	He filed a suit knowing that if you want to get rid of a conservatorship, the court will be happy to get rid of a conservatorship.
	That will be no problem.
	He knows he can get that legal remedy without all these other facts.
	What got outed is that he tried to shake down the twoies when he found out they made $200 million.
	He's like, oh, you know, because here's the reason why O 'er was never going to challenge the old...
	The movie and the book made him a ton of money.
	Separately from, directly from royalties.
	Because he became a hero celebrity.
	He became Michael Orr.
	That's how, that's why, otherwise, who's going to buy his book?
	He was a mediocre offensive lineman in the NFL for eight years.
	I mean, who's going to buy, I mean, nobody's going to buy his book.
	They buy his book because he's the guy from the blind side.
	So that's why, that's the other thing he's high.
	He's made millions off of being the guy that Michael Lewis featured in the book and the movie decided to make a hero out of.
	But he knows that the media would love to run with the story of poor black athlete taken advantage of by these mean, rich, white Southerners and Hollywood just lied about all of it.
	And the number of people buying it is just pitiful.
	All you gotta do is a little bit of research or just apply common sense.
	I mean, like, even the local journalists were like...
	He didn't know it was a conservatorship for 20 years?
	So I don't know the story.
	I haven't seen the movie.
	But how old was he when the family took him over for conservatorship?
	Was he a major?
	18. He was already an adult.
	This was solely to get him into Ole Miss.
	His mother was there for him.
	There was no formalized adoption proceeding.
	There was no change of names.
	None of that.
	Nor, by the way, if you understood the story, knowing that he didn't want that.
	He never wanted that.
	He was happy to say he was part of the...
	After the blind side is when he was saying, oh, I'm part of this family because of the monetization opportunities it provided.
	But the idea...
	Throughout the whole story of the book and the movies, I kept running away from foster homes trying to fight his mom.
	For those that don't know, his mom had like 15 kids with a bunch of different dads.
	She was a crack addict.
	And so the kids would often come home and the door would be locked.
	There would be no place for them to go.
	They'd have to find some random place to go.
	He was never attending school regularly until he was with the two.
	He's contrary to what he's saying now.
	Records speak for themselves.
	He's admitted other contacts.
	He was a classic case of a very talented offensive lineman.
	He thought he was going to be a basketball star, by the way.
	So, I mean, he wasn't in realistic range until late.
	But it was really thanks to him getting with that family.
	That he got stabilized, got into school enough to be able to get into Ole Miss, and got the reputation within the recruiting rankings, this kid can make it.
	But for that, the chances are he would be another guy with a broken dream story at some local bar.
	But he's pretending that never would have happened because at seven years old, he knew he was the next Michael Jordan.
	I mean, people are feeding his delusional garbage because they love the racial re-narration of the story.
	And it's just a complete lie, and they're attacking a family that did the right thing.
	And that's what you get for doing the right thing.
	Because you got somebody that's got mental and psychological issues, they'll turn on you in five seconds if it will line their pockets.
	No good deed goes unpunished, so goes the old maxim.
	But why would you adopt a major person anyhow?
	You wouldn't.
	I mean, the only reason to do the conservatorship was to deal with certain issues that were coming up with Ole Miss.
	And his mother was their part of it.
	I mean, that's why it's ridiculous for him to claim, oh, I thought I'd been legally adopted.
	At 18, and then they were, I presume, not contracting on his behalf, but managing his affairs to avoid catastrophe.
	Yeah, yeah, that's it.
	It was to make sure he got into Ole Miss.
	That was my recollection from the movie, from the book, and again, I followed this in live time.
	Because I was interested in the story.
	I mean, I was following him originally for recruiting purposes.
	I won't pretend I cared about Mike Galore.
	I cared about him being a left tackle at the University of Tennessee, which he didn't do.
	He went down to Ole Miss.
	And I think he's a good player and otherwise has led a pretty good life as far as I know otherwise.
	But this was a shakedown.
	This was an old-school shakedown.
	It didn't work, so he went with the attack route.
	The Tui's don't need the money.
	They never did need the money.
	And I think they're bothered by it, but you can only do so much with that kind of situation.
	But people should not be encouraging his lies.
	No media person's going to challenge him because, oh, I mean, God forbid they challenge the black guy from Memphis and take the side of white people.
	I mean, it's just racialized garbage.
	And again, if people want to get into further detail, they can go watch.
	Jason Whitlock has multiple videos on this at Blaze, which is, I think, still available on YouTube, even though they've now blocked Glenn Beck on Apple.
	Unbelievable.
	Well, Robert, speaking of a lying media, and we'll cover this story on YouTube because it's also going to be relevant tomorrow's stream.
	Two special guests.
	One I'll keep a little bit until I can confirm the time.
	But Jessica Rose, who was one of the doctors during COVID, testified during the NCI.
	She's got a very close connection to Hawaii.
	And she knows a lot of what's going on there in more detail than most journalists.
	But, you know, maybe not the ones who are actually down there now reporting.
	So tomorrow, 1 o 'clock, Jessica Rose.
	1 o 'clock Eastern?
	1 o 'clock Eastern, yes.
	I'll be on with the Duran at 1 o 'clock Eastern.
	But you can always catch the other show later.
	Watch the Duran live and watch mine afterwards.
	Either way, either way.
	Jessica's going to come on and talk about what's going on in Hawaii because she's got a good connection there.
	Oh, and then you've got a big event up on Wednesday.
	I mean, I won't be there, but you'll be up there.
	Oh, Robert.
	It's going to be good.
	It's going to be very, very fun.
	But speaking of lies from the media, Robert, Hawaii.
	It blows the mind.
	And I was giving Nina Turner again a hard time on Twitter because a lot of people are just spewing the lies.
	This is climate change jumping on the climate activism bandwagon.
	This is like overt criminal negligence, possibly at all levels.
	Apparently, from video surveillance footage right now, it looks like the fire started from downed power lines from the Hawaii Electric Company.
	Two of the biggest shareholders at like 8% and 11% respectively are Vanguard and BlackRock.
	So that's how the fire gets started because apparently the power lines are all decrepit, antiquated, and they fell, started a fire.
	The government, the local government...
	Does not sound the alarms, their argument being, well, it's going to drive everybody up into the mountains because they think it's a tsunami, and they're going to be running right into the fires.
	They're a bunch of idiots like lemmings.
	They're going to run to their death.
	So they delayed sounding the alarm such that children who were home from school because of high winds, it looks like ended up burning alive in their homes.
	They then delayed releasing the water also for political, I don't know, geological, ecological considerations, and thus denied people the ability to even Defend their property with water.
	And it's turned into an unmitigated catastrophe, which has spawned a number of column conspiracy theories.
	They might just turn out to be true.
	Who's going to come in to grab up this land?
	Is it going to be declared toxic by the government?
	They're going to have to expropriate it.
	BlackRock, Vanguard, also happen to be shareholders in other companies that might have an interest in the waste.
	What's the question I'm going to ask to you on this?
	The first question.
	People are like, Why would they lie?
	Why would the government lie?
	Why would the media lie to protect a corporation which has its two biggest shareholders in this company?
	I'm not connecting dots that don't exist.
	Preserving shareholder value might mean minimizing liability, responsibility from the company they own for having caused these fires.
	That's not a stretch.
	Oh yeah, no doubt about that.
	It took a sequence of people.
	Not doing their job for this to be the degree of disaster that it was.
	The power line people, both in creating risky power lines and then not shutting the power off.
	The people not sounding the sirens.
	If they thought, did they think that no fires could ever happen in Hawaii?
	I mean, otherwise, why weren't the sirens?
	You have one siren for a tsunami, a different siren for fire alarm.
	I mean, how hard is that to have in that community?
	And then you have Mr. Equity running the water issues.
	A guy that's all about...
	Now, you dig in, his equity tends to favor people with big pockets.
	But he said that his role in how water gets allocated was going to be shaped by who fit the right demographic qualities on the intersectional pyramid.
	And so you have a lot of government people.
	Corporate people implemented or incriminated by all of this.
	And so it's no surprise that the politicians engaged in a blackout of media coverage that's still going on to some degree to this day in terms of direct access to the facilities.
	Deliberate misrepresentations about the number of deaths and injuries right out of the gate.
	I mean, people are having to...
	In my view, at least from the severity of the situation in terms of negligence and dereliction of the government...
	It's worse than New Orleans.
	I mean, Biden's reaction is worse than Bush's reaction to New Orleans.
	Yet the media went absolutely berserk about New Orleans.
	Remember, they attacked Trump about Puerto Rico.
	Who was it?
	Was it Kanye West who came out and said Bush doesn't care about black people?
	Yeah, that was to raise money for New Orleans.
	I mean, they made movies and documentaries about New Orleans.
	And yet now the media is totally mute.
	I mean, they've just become a complete crock.
	I mean, they're just partisan hacks now.
	They don't care about the First Amendment, and they cover up for the Democrats.
	They attack Republicans.
	That's it.
	They lie for Democrats, and they lie against Republicans.
	I mean, they're just a partisan part of the machine now.
	They're indistinguishable from state propaganda.
	Except the only difference is most people knew the state propaganda was garbage in those countries.
	There's still many people that don't know that about America's media.
	But yeah, there's clearly a lot of people that can be sued.
	And whether there's other nefarious routes, I mean, Robert Malone is there, Brett Weinstein is going to be there.
	And, you know, they're talking to people that are talking about the nature of the arson appearing to look deliberate, not accidental.
	What some of the motivations of that might have been.
	I mean, remember we had that big, you know, all those climate change fires, a bunch of them in California.
	They figured out it was a guy who lit them.
	Had nothing to do with climate change.
	And what were they blaming right away in Hawaii?
	Climate crisis.
	Nina Turner was still spouting that lie.
	As of last week.
	I mean, then they have the climate crisis in Yellowknife, where I believe there's a couple of suspected arson.
	Then you had suspected arson in Quebec with those wildfires.
	It's a crazy thing where the catastrophe becomes the catalyst for expanding government power.
	And so it's not only they have no incentive to tell the truth when they are actually negligently responsible for it, when they can weaponize it for policy to enhance their own powers, it's a double whammy.
	Oh, completely.
	So it will definitely not be the last we've heard in the law about what happened in Maui.
	And as far as you're hearing, I'm hearing that the death toll is closer to 1,000 than 111.
	There are people on our board that live there that were telling us that right away, that that's more likely the real count.
	And that was back when the media and the government was saying 80 or 90. Well, that's it.
	Take your pick tomorrow between Barnes and I. We're going to be live at the same time, but that's the...
	Okay, Robert, let's head on over to Rumble as I pull the...
	Yeah, because we got gun store closures, Hunter Biden, Trump indictment, deprivation of counsel, AI copyrights, trans and girl sports, offensive murals, zoos as nuisances, Disney suit.
	So a lot of topics that YouTube discourages and disfavors.
	And it'll be on YouTube anyhow tomorrow, just not live.
	So you'll get it there, people.
	I was going to say something.
	Can't wait to talk about the Hunter Biden, Trump, Georgia stuff.
	It's over the top.
	Everyone, get all your butts over there.
	3,300 going down, coming over to Rumble, ending on YouTube in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Boom.
	Shakalaka.
	We're done.
	Now let's go see that we're still good on Rumble.
	We are.
	And we're still good on Locals.
	We are.
	All right, Robert.
	Very honest.
	I didn't read all of the lawsuits.
	Now, the gun store closures.
	Which ones are we talking about now?
	Is this out west?
	Yeah, this is the federal suit filed in Montana.
	Okay.
	And this is...
	You're going to have to go for this one.
	I'm going to ask you my questions as they come along.
	Sure.
	So, what the Biden administration is doing is using their control over federal firearms licenses, FFLs.
	To effectively run an attack on what some would call the Second Amendment supply chain.
	And they're doing it in the criminal case I'm going to be handling on the sentencing side and maybe on the appeal side.
	Reuben King, the Amish farmer who is facing five years in federal prison because they said he should have had an FFL when he didn't.
	And that it was criminally willful that he didn't.
	And they got a jury conviction before I was retained as counsel at all.
	So we're just trying to help out on that side of the aisle.
	But more systemically, they are going after a bunch of...
	What it is, is they went from a certain level of inspection and a certain level of converting those inspections at the ATF into recommended suspensions of licensure.
	At about a 4-5% rate.
	In other words, about 5% of those they inspected, they would recommend taking away their license.
	That rate is, in some places, up to 50%.
	And the violations listed are often very minor, very technical, in what has become an incredibly bureaucratized and super regulatory environment.
	It's a problem with the federal government, state government as well.
	These bureaucracies just become paper-taking nightmares out of the movie Brazil.
	And then the other problem is, in some cases, they appear to be targeting specific ones that if they're associated or affiliated with someone that has brought legal action against them or has been public or political, in their view, against their position.
	So what they're doing is basically, and I'll give you the Ruben King case a little bit shocking.
	The federal judge said there's no right, no Second Amendment right to sell guns.
	Well, that means you could completely eliminate gun ownership in America by just prohibiting anyone from selling them.
	Well, they're trying to do that by prohibiting anyone from manufacturing them by suing them into bankruptcy.
	So you can own it as many as you want.
	You just can't buy them or manufacture them.
	Exactly.
	So they brought suit on behalf of both the seller and the buyer.
	This is the Gun Owners of America.
	Very good, well-thought-out suit.
	Brought in Montana.
	On behalf of a gun, a license holder, who is being targeted by the ATF out of the blue, trying to suspend his license for the most minor and technical of regulatory details.
	And the grounds to sue are that he does have a right to manufacture, that he does have a right to sell, and that that right is protected by the Second Amendment.
	And it's being abridged here because at the time of the, whether you talk about...
	Vis-a-vis state law, but this case is about federal law.
	So we're looking at the time of our founding.
	At the time of our founding, there was no licensure requirements for selling a gun.
	Period.
	Nowhere.
	There is no long history, well-established history, of that ever being the case.
	So, the reason, like, well, this case goes right at the Biden, you know, violating the Administrative Procedures Act by arbitrary and capricious action and ignoring relevant and pertinent data and redefining certain words to such a degree that they're basically almost kind of meaningless, particularly the word willfully, in other words, that they have grounds to sue on those grounds, but they're going beyond that.
	And they're suing on First and Fifth Amendment grounds on the grounds they're being targeted illicitly for retaliatory prosecution and selective prosecution and all that.
	But what was really big here is the Second Amendment challenge because they're trying to establish two things.
	First, if the Second Amendment doesn't limit itself to the right to own or possess a gun, but includes the right to make it and the right to sell it.
	And because if they can cut off the first two, your Second Amendment rights are nearly dead in America.
	And then the second part is that as part of that, once that right is if they agree, if the Supreme Court agrees, or a court agrees along the way, but ideally this is a Supreme Court case, then federal licensing laws shouldn't exist, period, when it relates to guns.
	Because any federal licensing requirement...
	Is itself an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment because there's no history of requiring it.
	There just isn't any.
	There's also an issue here that how is it that federal firearms license laws are entirely based on the interstate commerce clause to limit interstate crime, by the way.
	Very limited category.
	And yet 99.9% of people to sell a gun need a federal firearms license, even though over 90% of gun sales are intrastate, within a state, not outside of it.
	That's another issue present.
	But this case goes right at not only the Biden administration's abuse of ATF power to try to shut down gun stores, but establish a critical, essential, fundamental right to make and sell guns as well that could ideally end this entirely bogus licensure regimen that we now see what would happen with licensing regimens is what always happens.
	They misuse and abuse their power for political purposes.
	Robert, I've never even thought of this until you were talking right now, but it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	Has the American jurisprudence ever distinguished between keep and bear?
	What is the distinction of those two terms in that amendment?
	I mean, to me, oh, bear, in other words.
	To brandish.
	Display, yeah.
	Okay.
	So to keep to own and to bear to use.
	And obviously, if you can take away a buyer's means to buy by restricting sale and manufacture, then you are restricting Second Amendment rights.
	Makes no sense to claim otherwise like some courts have.
	And the removal of the immunity of the gun manufacturers, was that ever challenged on a Second Amendment basis?
	That's still ongoing.
	I mean, the main immunity that's present is by federal law, but they ignored it in the Remington case in Connecticut.
	So it all depends.
	But they enforced it when Mexico sued.
	It's pending before the First Circuit.
	So, you know, we'll see.
	It depends on which.
	But, you know, that law should be enforced, but it's not consistently enforced.
	Okay, very interesting.
	And this also reeks a little bit more of Tea Party-esque type targeting through the administrative bodies of ideologically, politically adversarial entities.
	Well, speaking of selective prosecution, not only was that itself a big issue, but the Hunter Biden case is an ongoing living example of just how partisan and preferential our justice system has become.
	So where do we even start?
	On this.
	I mean, we're going to get into the Trump indictments later on.
	The latest on the Biden, the Hunter Biden scandal.
	Robert, I mean, I'm trying to think of where it's at now.
	One of you saw the New York Times and the Politico pieces.
	Is that the one highlighting now the infighting between Hunter's attorneys and the prosecution?
	Who was it?
	I forget Hunter's attorney, but he was on some morning show talking about how the deal fell through with the prosecution, where he said there were three alternatives, and he's basically accusing the prosecution of acting in bad faith in that they were trying to hide from the defense that they were not giving immunity from prosecution for everything.
	And so I forget the three options that Hunter's attorneys gave, but they basically said, what kind of defense attorney would say, you know, we're going to enter into an agreement now, but you can still prosecute me on other stuff, you know, in a week from now.
	Whereas the fourth option is that they were both crooked.
	They were both trying to keep it secret so that nobody would ask any questions and so that they could squeak through this immunity from prosecution that they could have never otherwise have gotten in.
	Legally speaking, and the judge just happened to ask the questions and they had no good answers for it.
	But what's the latest, legally speaking, above and beyond that?
	I mean, basically confirms what we've been talking about, which was that the entire Hunter Biden deal all along was a cover-up plan.
	It's kind of like Russiagate was a plan to cover up Spygate, not meaningfully prosecute anybody because there was no Russiagate crime.
	Hunter Biden's investigation is all about covering up Joe Biden's criminality.
	And that what the New York Times discloses is that the original intention was to give him a complete sweetheart deal with no charges at all.
	And just have a secret immunity deal that nobody in the world ever even know about.
	And that that was going to be the plan until the IRS whistleblowers blew the whistle.
	And so then they felt in order to cover their rears publicly, That they needed to secure some sort of public conviction in order to make it look like they weren't doing what the whistleblowers disclosed.
	But it all blew up when the judge exposed what was going on.
	That they had put the immunity deal in the diversion agreement that referenced things outside of the diversion agreement.
	Or referenced charges that had nothing to do with the substance of the charges of the diversion agreement.
	Now, according to Hunter Biden's lawyers, their position is that contract is still enforceable, so that Hunter Biden still actually has complete immunity from prosecution.
	The government has not admitted to that.
	So once the judge exposed that this is crazy and unheard of and unprecedented, it was one of the many unheard of and unprecedented actions taken in that case.
	Not charging the top count, charging in Delaware.
	Now they say they never should have charged in Delaware and so forth.
	But once the judge called them on it, they decided rather than have the world publicly know all of that, the government chose to dismiss the charges in Delaware instead.
	In addition, it's quite clear this new Jack Smith type special counsel power given by the Garland of David Weiss.
	is intended for him to continue to use the investigation as a way to hide the truth about Joe Biden's criminality from Congress and the public by not making Hunter Biden available by having the investigation just constantly ongoing so they don't have to disclose documents or information and Hunter can assert Fifth Amendment privilege even though his own lawyers say that the immunity deal he has would cover all of that that they say is still enforceable.
	So Congress should test them on that.
	But it's all been one big scam.
	And then probably the most startling thing for some people, I mean, it wasn't startling for anybody that follows VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com than saying this was the scam from day one and got other conventional conservatives and others pretending that it somehow was normal.
	They're not even trying to do that now after everything that's come out.
	But Biden's team was demanding the Justice Department indict the IRS whistleblowers and send them to prison for years.
	This gives you a sense of how insane all of this is.
	And Biden's Justice Department was considering doing it.
	So there's just a complete lack of restraint, any kind at all, amongst Democratic officeholders at the moment that have any kind of control over the criminal or civil justice system.
	And people should appreciate also, like, there's the thought that this was, you know, Joe Biden helping his son get rich.
	The latest batch of documents here.
	House Republicans last week put out the latest batch of bank documents alleging that Hunter Biden and others he worked with made over $20 million from foreign business deals after his father was first elected vice president in 2008.
	Yeah, I mean, this was always Joe Biden's corruption scheme for which his son was a useful tool.
	And those that still don't know that are just missing the boat.
	But it was just one of the selective prosecution problems is there was another selective prosecution case in D.C. heard at the Court of Appeals this week.
	Hold on.
	Okay, fine.
	Which one, Robert?
	The selective prosecution?
	Is this Mark Meadows or is this...
	Oh, no, no.
	This was a...
	This arises from Black Lives Matter.
	So during the Black Lives Matter protest in D.C., the George Floyd protest, There was some pro-life groups that are black pro-life groups, in particular the Frederick Douglass Center and some others, that held a protest that they actually had a permit for, where they wrote in chalk, black pre-born lives matter.
	Guess what DC did?
	They arrested them.
	They did absolutely nothing to any of the obvious crimes, not to mention defacement.
	That Black Lives Matter.
	They, in fact, celebrated the public defacement of Black Lives Matter all over the entire town.
	And yet, somebody writes Black pre-lives matter, baby lives matter, and all of a sudden, oh, we've got to lock them up.
	So they brought a selective prosecution claim under the First Amendment.
	And the big part of this was, for a while, selective prosecution claims have been misunderstood by federal courts because they were originally brought in the context of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment rather than as First Amendment claims on their own.
	So there's this case law out there that courts get confused and they apply the 14th Amendment standard to a First Amendment issue.
	And here's where it matters.
	The government was out to discriminate against you because of your status.
	Not just that it had the impact of doing so.
	In the First Amendment, that's never been required.
	The First Amendment, all that's been required is that you have been denied core First Amendment rights.
	It doesn't matter even if that was their intention.
	All that matters is you were denied First Amendment rights.
	And to show that, you just have to show similarly situated people were not prosecuted.
	And the effect of the prosecution is to punish, deter, or discourage your speech.
	That's it.
	But courts have been getting this wrong for a while.
	The D.C. Court of Appeals, to their credit, got it right.
	In fact, their words were, quote, discriminatory motive is not an element of a First Amendment free speech selective enforcement claim.
	All you have to do is show similarly situated but treated differently.
	That also infringed a constitutional right.
	And that's obvious here, because why were they arrested no one else was?
	Because of the content of their speech.
	Because they were talking about abortion.
	Well, Robert, just so people understand this here, the federal court's appeal sided with the anti-abortion purchases on First Amendment grounds, ruling that the District of Columbia likely discriminated by arresting them for using chalk on a sidewalk, but not Black Lives Matter.
	Chalk on a sidewalk, it's not like painting a pride flag.
	It was not that they deliberately used light chalk that would wipe off and rain.
	Unlike all the Black Lives Matter stuff, where nobody got arrested, where they were doing it over streets and neighborhoods and signs and everywhere.
	But it's a useful reminder because you're going to see people, as Trump's people bring up selective prosecution claims in these various cases.
	You'll see people misquote the selective prosecution doctrine.
	And it's significant that this was the D.C. Circuit because it's January 6th, selective prosecution case is going to go right before them sometime soon, relatively.
	And so all you have to do for selective prosecution is show similarly situated, treated differently, number one.
	And number two, it impacted your First Amendment rights adversely.
	That's it.
	And it's the correct understanding of selective prosecution and an encouraging ruling that might have much broader impacts than just those pro-life pros.
	But it's also a good case because the court, if anybody disputes this in the future, this is the very liberal D.C. Court of Appeals acknowledging factually how horrendous the government's reaction was to those riots.
	How nobody suffered any consequence despite how insane it was.
	Robert, there's no legal defense to selective prosecution that they eked out a conviction?
	This was a civil suit, so you could try to claim immunity against monetary damages, qualified immunity, if you didn't know it was a First Amendment violation at the time you engaged in it.
	But that's a separate legal question.
	That's the only defense to it.
	Okay.
	In biodegradable, easily removable chalk on the sidewalk.
	But spray paint and broken windows is...
	And we got another good case, surprisingly, out of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week.
	A January 6th sentence was overturned.
	Now, hold on one second.
	Let me pull that up.
	Which one was that, Robert?
	Because I...
	Little.
	His name is Little.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me get this here.
	I can't.
	I'm not finding it.
	Selective enforcement.
	I mean, the core basic facts are that what was happening is the prosecutors were abusing sentencing power.
	So if you're found guilty of what's called a petty offense of minor misdemeanors, usually determined by being sentenced, sentence exposure of six months or less, then a court is given an alternative.
	They can either send you to prison for six months or give you five years probation.
	Now, in the federal system, there's something called supervised release.
	To ordinary people, that sounds a lot like probation.
	But the federal court system, they're always coming up with some way to screw people.
	So you get to add supervised release up to three years, typically, add on to a sentence.
	But not in the case of petty offenses.
	Petty offenses, judge, you got two choices.
	Sentence to six months or probation for five years.
	But they didn't like that.
	Prosecutors in these cases.
	So they were getting judges to go along with just reinterpreting the law to say, now you can still give them up to six months in prison and give them probation as if supervised release was there when it's legally not there for years on afterwards.
	And to credit the D.C. Court of Appeals, they said the law is clear.
	You can't do that.
	You've got to pick one or the other.
	You can't double punish these individuals when federal law denies you that privilege.
	Hold on, but it wasn't a victory, Robert, because they sent it back down for sentencing or re-sentencing, which I have a question on in a second.
	They're giving him a choice.
	He can do the sentence.
	I don't see him coming back and federal judges going longer than the two months in prison.
	That's very rare that they do that.
	Because then it's obviously punitive and it raises a separate set of issues.
	Well, no.
	They're going to say they would have given him more time had they known they couldn't have given him probation in conjunction.
	Yeah, he could try to do that.
	They have to prove that they didn't do it in retaliation for him asserting his right to appeal.
	That's why it's very rare.
	This often comes up where defendants are worried that appealing could lead to a worse sentence.
	And I emphasize that that's very, very rare that you get a worse sentence from them.
	Because they don't want to look like they're a vindictive, punitive person.
	I think we're well beyond the point of that.
	They look like they're vindictive, politically motivated, etc.
	They don't want to look that way to the Court of Appeals.
	That's the audience they care about in that context.
	But I'm trying to find the decision because there was nonetheless, there was a dissenting judge in that, right?
	Yeah, the Obama judge said, nah, whack him twice!
	Oh my goodness.
	Pro-criminal defense, Obama.
	A lot of Obama's appointees, I'll predict this now, it'll surprise some people, Biden appointees will be better on criminal defense rights than Obama appointees were.
	Obama appointees were neoliberals who have no problem whatsoever weaponizing the judicial system to punish political dissidents.
	Biden people will still be in that direction, just not as egregious or as often.
	Obama's people were horrendous.
	Like before, we'll get into this in a little bit, but why I think Bobby Kennedy's appointees would be better than your average...
	If he was president, his judicial appointees would be better than your average Republican's appointees.
	Because historically, Democratic appointees have been much better on a lot of constitutional rights and liberties.
	Obama's people really reversed that.
	Clinton's people were hit or miss.
	Obama's people were horrendous, mostly.
	About 80-90% of them could...
	They saw their job as pure neoliberal assertion of power and authority.
	And they love the state.
	They have no problem whatsoever with the state.
	They welcome prosecutorial abuse.
	You know, it may surprise people.
	They're completely comfortable with police abuse.
	There's a lot of stuff they're completely fine with that Biden appointees will probably...
	Be bad, but not quite as bad as his appointees were.
	Why did...
	It was Judge Wilkins.
	I'm trying to remember what other case we've seen.
	Flint.
	Flint.
	He was really bad in Flint.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Okay, well, it all makes sense.
	All right.
	So, now...
	Okay, it's a victory in the sense that you can't double whack the guy who...
	On a petty offense...
	There's a bunch of cases they've been doing that, too.
	So, there's, like, hundreds of sentences that either have happened or are going to happen that now...
	They can't be doubly punished.
	So they won't be under the...
	What's going to happen is those judges will stick with their sentences in terms of their custodial sentences.
	It'll get rid of the probation.
	So a bunch of people that are going to be under the government's thumb for years no longer will be.
	Well, now that I'm thinking about cases that we already know, Brandon Strzok I don't think served jail time.
	I think it was just probation.
	And I'm thinking of Andrew Johnson, the lectern guy.
	I have to refresh my memory on that.
	But he's free and clear now of everything.
	Okay, well, that's interesting.
	I didn't see the silver lining because I thought they're going to go send it back for resentencing.
	Oh, we should have given you four months, but no probation.
	Well done, sir.
	There's a fair number of defendants that would pick the four months over being under the D.C. probation office's thumb for five years.
	All right, Robert, before we get into the next topic, if I may just, not address, but rather just read off some of the rumble rants here, people.
	There's a few of them.
	Where did we leave off?
	We let off at Tedsco.
	Why didn't Rico...
	Oh, Barnes, why didn't you get indicted in Georgia?
	Not wishing anything.
	Were you not Council of Record in Georgia?
	We'll cross that.
	Okay, fine.
	Hold on.
	Not that anyone wishes it.
	Maybe it would have been...
	You know, okay.
	The Mock says, Viva, I grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
	Places to go.
	Leon's Ice Cream Shop.
	Let me just screen grab this.
	Cops Custard.
	The Safe House.
	Mars Cheese Castle, if you have the time.
	Polish Moon, get the beer.
	WTF LOL What says, Why can't I find Verified Barnes Channel on Rumble?
	I'm banned in Twitter, YouTube, everything else since I don't mince words about certain recent history things.
	W says, And Twitter is not an option where I am banned.
	Twitter is not an option when I am banned for simply stating the prescribed punishment in America for treason is death.
	Yeah, it was in the email that the tweet doing so was the reason for permanent suspension.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, I keep seeing more and more articles here in Canada warning about the new COVID strain.
	I literally said to my friend, oh, there must be another American election coming up.
	Bill Dozer, Bill Dozer, sounds like Michael enjoys biting the hand that feeds him.
	Great breakdown, Barnes.
	AWOL for, hey Barnes, Torba says gab is inevitable.
	Randy Edward, so in other words, corporate media and their DNC handlers are in violation of RICO statutes.
	Obama was first to tie federal contacts to fidelity, to DNC policies, exec controls, who gets fed monies.
	Avi33, Barnes, question about the individual liberties and individual constitutionally allowed.
	Are individuals constitutionally allowed to cause self-harm, i.e.
	self-delete?
	I see what you mean, suicide.
	And how many degrees away from a behavior must a malignant effect be?
	Xerax says, I get calling it Biden's DOJ.
	However, why can't we lay the actions of this DOJ at the feet of the Uniparty, showcasing that both parties are complicit in events, whether they do something or don't?
	Chris Christie, I've never...
	Chris Christie, to say that he's running for the GOP primaries is an effing joke.
	The engaged few.
	Am I the only one who thinks Greta Thunberg looks like she just saw Tommy Turner's tallywhacker poke out of a hole in a wall at the girls' shower room at Angel Beach?
	Hi, I have no idea what you just said there, but it doesn't sound good.
	I think it's a reference to a movie.
	All right, we got Cousin Eddie.
	Cousin Eddie says, Robert and David, first-time Rumble Rants, long-time subscriber.
	Please cover Oliver Anthony.
	His song Rich Men, North of Richmond, will be the anthem for populace.
	He is scaring the DC crowd and music.
	I love that there were people on Twitter calling him a fraud, suggesting he's a fraud.
	The man is authentic to a flaw because it's one thing to turn down millions and millions of dollars out of principle.
	I just hope he is ensuring his financial security.
	I shared the video on Locals, just a breakdown of his recent post.
	Until proof to the contrary, the man is troubled.
	He's a human, a real human.
	Sincere, authentic, probably to a financial flaw.
	But he's great.
	I mean, Robert, do you have any better take on this than me?
	Because the area that he's from, what he's singing about, I've got no experience with.
	But quite clearly, he's got direct personal experience with.
	Yeah, and I think I've seen some Trump advertising on these topics.
	I mean, I think as a preview for the debate on Wednesday, it is Wednesday, right?
	The debate?
	It's Wednesday.
	And by the way, I'm live at noon tomorrow, so I might start at 11 and then be done by one, so I won't overlap.
	Ah, there you go.
	There you go.
	And I guess you'll be up in Milwaukee, what, Tuesday, Wednesday?
	Tuesday.
	I'll be there Tuesday.
	I'll get there Tuesday night, spend all day Wednesday, come back Thursday.
	I don't like it.
	And you'll be broadcasting from the debate?
	One o 'clock at the Rumble live studio that they're going to have there, and then the event itself, I mean, it's like press credentials you've got to get.
	I don't know if I'm going to be able to live stream while attending, but we'll see.
	I also don't want to be the pain in the ass, like, you know, real world live streamer going around and pissing everybody off while I'm there, but it'll be amazing.
	Just remember, whenever Mike Pence talks, boo!
	I don't know who I despise more now between Pence and Chris Christie.
	Chris Christie's, the tweet, the clip that he shared of him on Jake Tapper.
	Do we really want someone who's been indicted now?
	When Trump shows up, it's going to be indicted in four states.
	I was like, awesome.
	That's a Democrat deep state argument, Chris Christie.
	Good for you.
	I don't know which side you belong to now.
	Yep.
	On the topic.
	I was never a Christie fan.
	But yeah, speaking of crazy indictments, in the Florida case...
	In their latest attempt to eviscerate attorney-client relationships that we see in the Georgia case as well, they are trying to prevent one of Trump's co-defendants, this is a low-level security guy, from having his counsel of choice.
	And they're trying to, on the grounds that there's going to be witnesses that might say something hurtful to his client, and he at one point...
	Briefly represented those witnesses in the whole matter.
	So it's what's called a Garcia hearing, and it's two different competing rights.
	You have a right to your choice of counsel, if you can afford it, private counsel, but you also have a right to effective counsel.
	Now, that effective counsel is a bunch of garbage because the federal courts have so eviscerated that.
	I mean, remember, the U.S. Supreme Court said you had effective counsel if, in a death penalty case, he slept through half the trial.
	So, I don't know what that even means.
	But it's basically a pretext.
	I get dealt with this crap all the time.
	All it is, they're trying to dictate who can be your lawyer.
	Because the prosecutors don't like aggressive, effective lawyers.
	They never seek conflict checks.
	They don't worry about conflicts over idiot lawyers.
	It's successful lawyers are like, well, judge, we're not trying to interfere, but we think there might be a conflict.
	So they're trying to get rid of the lawyer on those grounds.
	And he pointed out two things.
	Generally, there has to be a non-waivable conflict, and it has to be an actual conflict.
	It can't be a potential conflict.
	It has to be an actual conflict.
	It's usually when you're representing multiple defendants.
	And those multiple defendants, strategically and tactically, there's no scenario in which their interests could be aligned.
	So I'll give an example.
	I represent frequently husbands and wives in tax cases when both are indicted.
	Their interest is aligned.
	The government would love for them to have different lawyers so it costs them more money to make sure one of the lawyers is not that skilled.
	And also, ideally, try to get them to point fingers at one another because that's the guarantee that both get convicted.
	I mean, if your husband or wife are pointing fingers at each other, jury's going to convict both parties no matter what.
	And so, as he pointed out, there's no actual conflict here.
	There is no co-defendant here.
	They're talking about a witness.
	It's a completely waivable component.
	And this is nothing more than the attempt by the prosecutor to continue to evade and eviscerate the right of attorney-client choice under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And last but not least, he pointed, he also raised in his motion the grand jury abuse.
	He said some of this evidence that they're developing is what the federal judge already pointed out down there in Judge Cannon in the Florida case.
	He said, Judge, they're using the D.C. jury.
	So not only is it out of district, which is inappropriate, they brought the indictment and they're still using it to enhance their evidence, which is directly prohibited and is independent grounds for both evidence exclusion and dismissal of the indictment.
	Robert, and it does look like what they're trying to do is get somebody to be in a very vulnerable person, to be in a vulnerable position, where that person will then flip and can be used against the others.
	To make up stories.
	Hey, make up a story.
	They don't say it that way.
	They say, if you testify this way, then...
	I mean, if you want to learn how to fake witness testimony, go work for a prosecutor.
	Because nobody knows how to suborn perjury better than anybody in the world, than prosecutors.
	And the way they convinced them, I mean, I learned from a personal injury lawyer how to prepare your witness.
	And I was like, okay, this is my first upcoming depositions.
	Came in there, and he said, just watch, Robert.
	I was like, okay.
	And he explained the whole case to the witness.
	He said, isn't this what happened?
	And then, isn't this what happened?
	And by the way, this part here, that didn't happen, right?
	And if that was happening, that was probably your explanation.
	They're like, yeah, yeah.
	I don't know whether they had thought of any of that before that preparation is an open question.
	But they abuse it much worse with prosecutors because they can lock you up.
	So isn't this what happened?
	You're going to tell me this, isn't it?
	We're not subpoening perjury.
	They're just pre-confirming our...
	No, and it's not corruption because they're not compelling the person.
	They're just saying, look, if this were the case, it would go very well for you, and otherwise, you're looking at a lot of time in jail.
	Don't go down with him.
	They're not compelling him other than the threat of 20 years in federal prison.
	It's going to get me to my next question, but everyone's asking before I even get there.
	First of all, Uncle Val's Botanical Gin, if you've never heard of it, I think everyone has.
	It was on The Biker Show, and it's a small glass, and it's dirty, and it's got a bunch of olives in it.
	But shouldn't you be promoting your brother-in-law's?
	Well, yeah, I can't get that.
	I can't get that in the States anyhow.
	Oh, you could promote your wife's book, though.
	She wanted me to put it up in the back.
	If she's watching, she'll bring it up in a bit.
	Five times August, I'll have to cover your vinyl.
	It's a brain coloring book, a brain drawing book.
	Yeah, that did look cool.
	That looked cool.
	It's very cool.
	What was really cool is when we caught that fish, she picks up the fish's brain and shows me all the parts of the fish's brain.
	But, Robert, I think I might have a guest on sooner than later to talk about the 18 who are indicted with Trump in Georgia.
	People on the internet discussing whether or not it's a problem that Trump ought to be assuming the defense of all 18 other lawyers, his own counsel in these cases, who have gotten indicted.
	And while I, again, initially think, yeah, he should, there's a part of this is like, how can you fund the defense of someone who either might have...
	Totally adverse interests to you, who might turn on you, would they not then say that if he funds their legal defenses of the other attorneys who are indicted, that he's buying their loyalty, that it's somehow corruption, bastardizing the process?
	Is there any realm of the universe in which Trump could assume the defense of the other 18 indicted counsel without it being strategically impossible, potentially incriminating, or, I don't know, counterproductive if they decide to flip on him?
	I mean, it's better off if you're paying for everybody's defense lawyer because you have better influence over the circumstance and situation.
	You can make sure they have certain aligned counsel.
	And it doesn't violate any rules for that to occur.
	You have to be careful about disclosing the sourcing of payments and making sure everybody knows you're independent as legal counsel and so forth.
	But generally, that's a pretty common thing in these kind of cases that there's a single source of payment for everybody because you don't want somebody, Making up stories just because they can't afford a lawyer.
	Now, I think as a practical reality, Trump won't be funding everybody else's.
	Now, what's also true here is this prosecutor would indisputably call that an additional obstructive act in aid of the conspiracy.
	Because this prosecutor is nuts.
	I mean, just pure batshit insane.
	I mean, this is, you know, if the way I put it is that if...
	If the first case against Trump was Caesar crossing the Rubicon, the Georgia case is Caligula crossing the Rubicon.
	That's the depth of the depravity and depredation of this case.
	I mean, first of all, RICO has no application here whatsoever.
	It's an utterly patently absurd prosecution.
	Second, what the prosecutor is claiming is now a crime.
	Tweets are now a crime.
	Texts are now a crime.
	Setting up a phone call is now a crime.
	Sending messages is now a crime.
	Sending letters is now a crime.
	Asking people to watch the news is now a crime.
	And not only that, providing legal advice is now a crime.
	Asking for legal advice is now a crime.
	And giving legal advice is now a crime.
	Well, Robert, let me steelman it for you.
	I'll pull a legal eagle here.
	None of that's a crime, Robert, unless you do all of that in furtherance of a crime.
	That's the bastardization of 2 plus 2 equals 5. They weren't giving legal advice, Robert.
	They were aiding and abetting and committing a crime.
	But the aiding and abetting was the illegal advice.
	Was the meeting.
	Was the text.
	Was the giving people.
	People can go out there and look.
	Well, you can have innocent acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.
	You will find no example where the only act in furtherance of the conspiracy is itself entirely legal.
	There usually will be mixtures, right?
	This act, like, let's say I created an entity to hide money, right?
	So the creation of the entity is a legal act, an act in furtherance of a conspiracy, but it was used to hide money, right?
	What's unique here is that she's saying these acts are in furtherance of a conspiracy without any additional act as criminal.
	She's just saying the thought.
	Oh, you thought something and you weren't allowed to think that.
	That's all fraud.
	That's all mail fraud, wire fraud, RICO fraud, racketeering, enterprise, all that ridiculousness.
	Solicitation for someone to violate their oath.
	I mean, for example, she actually calls it a crime that Mark Meadows asked to see the signature match check.
	She says that itself by itself is a separate solicitation criminal act.
	This has never been charged in the history of America.
	There's no analogous case in the history of the country.
	Let's just bring this one up.
	I mean, I think we...
	Did we talk about it last week?
	I'm not sure.
	Honor about the 70th day of 2021.
	Whatever.
	John Trump.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	He committed a felony crime by just asking...
	Yeah, go ahead.
	...to engage in conduct constituting the felony offense of violation of oath by public officer.
	By unlawfully, quote, decertifying the election or whatever the correct legal remedy is.
	He literally asked, whatever the correct legal remedy is, that that is now a crime.
	That's why I say there's nothing like this.
	I mean, it's unheard of.
	It's unprecedented.
	It's unparalleled.
	It's not just that it's...
	It's not just that it's going after attorney-client relationships.
	It's not just that it's going after federal employees for doing their job.
	It's not just because it's going after the leading presidential opponent of the existing administration or that it's going after a former president.
	It's that it's claiming things are crimes that have never been crimes in the history of America.
	And that's why it's so dangerous.
	It is by far the most dangerous indictment brought for constitutional rights.
	I mean, New York was bad.
	The Florida case was worse.
	The January 6th D.C. case was even worse.
	And this case is the craziest by far.
	But to take it back, there's legal defenses, constitutional defenses, procedural defenses, a whole bunch of things available.
	But I think it's useful to remind people what apparently Elon Musk's community notes folks at Twitter don't know.
	What a lot of Republicans don't know, what almost every Democrat doesn't know, which is what the Trump election contest actually presented.
	And if you read the indictment, you might not know that election contest even existed.
	Like most Democrats, like many Republicans, like many in the media.
	And the reason why I'm not in that indictment, the reason why Cleta Mitchell's not in that indictment...
	The reason why Patrick Witt is not in that indictment, the reason why some others are not in that indictment, is because they don't want the world to know about the election contest.
	So for those that don't know, Trump only brought one election contest anywhere.
	People say, oh, there's 60 suits that were addressed by the court.
	None of those were Trump's election contest.
	Trump only brought one, and he brought it in Georgia.
	Number two, that election contest was never heard.
	So, like, community notes got confused with other cases brought by other parties, not by Trump, in Georgia.
	So the Lin Wood case was just Lin Wood.
	Sidney Powell case was just Sidney Powell.
	Other electors brought other electors' challenges.
	Trump only brought one election contest in Georgia himself.
	Let me stop you.
	Let me stop you, just so that people don't accuse me of not asking the question everyone's asking.
	What were the other 60 lawsuits?
	The talking point is Trump brought...
	And team brought over 60 lawsuits.
	All of them were dismissed.
	How many of them got to the merits?
	But what were the other 59-some-odd lawsuits?
	Well, there are different kinds at different times and different places.
	So some were pre-election, some were during the election, some were after the election.
	So it depends on the circumstances.
	But in all the other cases, it was either electors or local individuals bringing suit, not Trump bringing suit.
	And so Trump was rarely a party to any of those claims, and those were usually limited procedural claims.
	There was only two major cases that Trump supported.
	The election contest in Georgia, and he supported the U.S. Supreme Court case that was brought with all the attorney generals and members of Congress.
	Those are the only cases that really mattered.
	The rest were ancillary efforts by ancillary parties to get to the issue.
	Many of them brought by Sidney Powell, which got nowhere, unsurprisingly.
	Some brought by others that were aligned in that sector.
	Linwood, etc.
	What is true is that the Kraken got nowhere.
	But what is not true is that Trump's allegations got nowhere.
	What happened in Georgia, Georgia law is that when you file an election contest, court has to be assigned, the right court has to be assigned, and within five days set a hearing, and in ten days hold that hearing from the moment it's filed.
	Georgia never did.
	Georgia didn't schedule it until after January 6th.
	It was moot by after January 6th, so it was dismissed at that point.
	That's what happened.
	And Trump appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court saying, look, Fulton County Superior Court won't do their job under the law.
	And the Georgia Supreme Court dodged it by saying, well, see if the Court of Appeals would do something first.
	And the Court of Appeals never did.
	So, I mean, they just played a game and they only got away with it because the Court of Public Opinion Was distracted by the Kraken and Dominion and all of that red herring stuff.
	But let's go to what they detail.
	The allegations in that complaint, none of which are meaningfully contested in the indictment, yet they pretend that Trump had no basis for his claims about Georgia, include were there only constitutionally qualified people who voted?
	Were there only constitutionally qualified ballots that were cast correctly?
	And were the ballots counted and canvassed in a constitutionally qualified manner?
	For presidential election, that's what rules the state legislature sets for who can vote in the presidential election, how they can vote in the presidential election, and then how those ballots are canvassed and counted in a presidential election.
	What we proved beyond, and so I was there during the early stages of the case, 90% of what's in that election contest came from work that I did, along with Patrick Witt and Cleta Mitchell and a bunch of great others.
	And in that, so I know it very, very well, over 400 pages of sworn affidavits and testimony in support of that electoral contest.
	It was backed up by detailed data, documents, and review and study.
	Anybody who tells you the 2020 election was on the up and up in Georgia has never read that election contest.
	Or they're liars.
	They're like Mike Pence.
	They're like Judge Michael Ludig.
	Frauds.
	I'll get into Ludig here in a little bit.
	So the details in there, who were the constitutionally unqualified people to vote?
	Well, to be constitutionally qualified to vote in Georgia, you needed to be 18 years of age at the time of the election.
	You needed to be registered at your habitation.
	It's important.
	You need to vote in the same place that you are registered.
	You need to have not voted or be a resident of any other state.
	And you need to not be dead.
	That's it.
	Unfortunately for the state of Georgia, they couldn't manage that.
	There were thousands and thousands of people.
	Who either were not 18 when they voted, were dead, over 10,000 were dead when they voted.
	I mean, again, we had the obituary, not only the sworn testimony, the obituary of the person who died three days, five days, a week, two weeks before their ballot was sent in.
	I mean, this was irrefutable evidence.
	This is why they would never hear it.
	Most people out there say, oh, you know, the Secretary of State looked at it and the governor looked at it.
	The Georgia Bureau of Investigation looked at it, and they all said it was fine.
	Well, if it was all fine, then why were they all so scared to allow that case to go to a trial and a hearing?
	If it was all so fine, why were they scared to do what they promised to do, which was publish the ballots?
	If it was all so fine, why were they scared to allow anybody as a third-party observer or a party observer to see the signatures actually matched?
	Instead, Mark Meadows for merely requesting that is now indicted as a criminal, as a felon, as a racketeer, as if he's a mobster.
	So there are people that were dead who voted.
	There are people who were under 18 who voted.
	There are people who voted who voted in other states.
	There are people who voted who weren't registered within the same county.
	And my favorite, there are people who said they lived inside of a little post office box who voted, which is illegal in Georgia.
	You couldn't vote in the presidential election unless that was your home, and you can't live inside a post office box.
	Robert, in fairness, I could probably live inside a P.O. box.
	No, but the question is this.
	Where is this evidence for anybody who wants to see it?
	And why did a judge or, I don't know, someone in the system of justice never see it?
	Oh, it's solely because the Fulton County Superior Court refused to assign a hearing to it against the law.
	And the Georgia Court of Appeals and Georgia Supreme Court refused to enforce that law.
	That was it.
	I mean, that's all that happened.
	And they just ignored it.
	And they got away with it because the court of public opinion was not paying enough attention to that case because they were all distracted by the red herring of Sidney Powell and the Kraken and Dominion and German servers and Iranian ballots and Chinese paper ballots and Venezuelan software and all that garbage.
	That's why that red herring was there.
	It was to make sure you didn't pay attention to that election contest.
	But in further details...
	Now, the same evidentiary issues were raised before the U.S. Supreme Court, too.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court, again, played Pontius Pilate, did what they're really good at, which is running, hiding, and cowering like cowards, under their desk and didn't take the case.
	So that's the only reason we're really here at all.
	They would have taken the case, even if they would have ruled against Trump, people would have been okay, much better or more okay than what happened.
	But that's only the first category of constitutionally unqualified aspect of the Georgia election.
	Second aspect is how the ballots were cast.
	So in order for you to be able to send in a ballot to vote in the presidential election by mail, your signature had to match.
	And the way in which that was done, we'll get into the counting and canvassing, but that had to do.
	Well, the signatures didn't match.
	They didn't match in enough signatures that it was way outside the margin of victory.
	But that's only the second problem.
	Third problem is what's called canvassing, which is different than counting.
	Canvassing happens before the counting.
	So if somebody comes in with a ballot and it's a mail-in ballot, it's a ballot application.
	First, you make sure that person's qualified to vote.
	Second, you match the signature against their voter registration card on the file.
	And when you match it, you have a party observers allowed to be there to make sure you're right or they can dispute it before you open up the envelope and put the ballot in the ballot chain.
	And then later with the counting of the ballots...
	Party observers also have to be present to make sure the counting of the ballots is done correctly.
	Let me just stop and ask you the obvious question.
	I mean, we're like now, what year is it?
	2023?
	We're near three years later.
	How is any of this supposed to happen at the scale at which it was happening in 2020?
	This is a process that takes time.
	Oh, normally.
	I mean, we spent extraordinary...
	People like Patrick Witt, a bunch of others who volunteered their time, took time off from the White House.
	To work this, you know, 18-hour, 20-hour days for weeks on end to gather this evidence because there was so many claims coming from so many places.
	So you had to separate out the wheat from the chaff.
	But let's go to the county.
	So first of all, Fulton County decided that they weren't going to count them at their precincts, which was problem number one.
	I mean, that's where the Republican Party in Georgia, Ronald McDaniel, Romney.
	You know, her typical nature.
	She was asleep at the wheel.
	They ran the entire, they had control.
	Contrary to what, like, Pedro Gonzalez, when he's not busy hating on Jews and figuring out new race war strategies, is currently saying about how, why didn't Trump make sure that the money raised for the election contest went to the election contest?
	Because Trump was never in control of that money.
	The Republican National Committee was.
	And the Republican National Committee chose to not give it.
	To the people who needed it.
	Let me stop.
	I know you've had your choice words for Jenna Ellis, and I have had my choice.
	You added her to the indictment.
	So, Jenna Ellis.
	You know, Jeff Clark is in there, too.
	Yeah, I said Jeff Clark.
	Well, Mark Meadows we haven't had on, but Jenna Ellis.
	People were ragging on Jenna Ellis for being a hypocrite in that she was complaining about the crowdfunding for Trump's defense.
	And now she's got to do it for herself.
	And I said, look, I don't remember that that's what she was complaining about.
	I brought up our highlight that I remember having posted.
	Oh, she used to be complaining that the money wasn't spent the way it was supposed to be spent.
	Before she became a dissimp and all that, and before she made the dumb decision to cop a plea with Colorado, which is now going to hurt her in this case.
	That's what I think as well.
	Before she went and made those dumb decisions, her complaint was a legitimate one.
	I made from the very beginning, which was the Republican National Committee was raising money for election contests that they weren't using for election contests.
	But that was not on Trump.
	Trump went in his own pocket for some of that.
	So that never should have happened because there was plenty of money for it.
	But on the counting, so they decide they're going to count all the ballots in Fulton County, one centralized location.
	That's a disaster because all of a sudden you lose chain of custody of the ballot.
	And this is the real problem with the machines, by the way.
	The fact that machines are hackable is always an issue, but that's a lower risk because that's easier to track and trace from an evidentiary perspective by voter disparities than a lot of these other ways of fraud is.
	The bigger problem is when you interfere with ballots, when you print a ballot, you can just keep printing ballots and you can keep printing replacement ballots.
	You no longer have clean ballot chain of custody.
	The ballot should be treated like a dollar bill.
	Right?
	So normally they would come in, they would be specifically serialized and numbered.
	You only had so many of them.
	You couldn't print new ones.
	You had just enough for enough people to vote.
	You couldn't just print constantly and then you can sub them out, right?
	Because then you have a rogue actor.
	Let's say they got 500 ballots here.
	They're going to deliver it from this location to this location.
	They take those, throw them out, they put in their 500.
	So that's why we always wanted the ballots printed.
	We wanted to see weird anomalies with any aspect of the ballot, not only the physical form of it.
	And by the way, Ratberger promised to do that when he gave his big fat check to his buddies at Dominion in 2018.
	He said, don't worry, we're going to publish all the ballots for the world to see.
	He hasn't published even one yet.
	He's been dodging that for years.
	So, but, uh, the, why?
	If there's nothing to hide, why does Ratburger and Kemp and Georgia keep hiding everything critical?
	The signatures and the ballots.
	That's what all the election was fine.
	The election just can't explain to me yet.
	They haven't been able to explain it for three years.
	But that wasn't all.
	So they have a centralized location.
	This is when the magic water pipe broke.
	The joke by Zero Hedge is that the indictment leaked from a water pipe in Atlanta.
	To remind people that what was supposed to happen is during the counting of the ballots, somebody's supposed to be there to make sure nothing's going on that's wrong.
	All of a sudden, Fulton County told all the party observers, go home.
	Oh, we got to stop.
	We got a water leak.
	We'll start back up in the morning.
	And as soon as within an hour, the party observers being gone...
	That's when they grabbed those big buckets out at Steven Crowder.
	They fact-checked Steven Crowder because they said, you defined the buckets in the wrong way.
	They weren't cardboard boxes.
	They were pelican.
	No, Robert, pelican briefcases, I think, is the way we have to.
	There's those huge, massive, from underneath tables.
	What are they doing underneath the table to begin with?
	They fact-checked it, Robert.
	They put them under the table because that's where they were going.
	They've been there the whole time.
	But, Robert, it's obligatory now.
	Because we keep going.
	But wait!
	There's more!
	There is!
	So people are gone.
	They don't see how the ballots...
	I was getting contacted right away from people who were at the Fulton County facility who were enraged when they found out Ballot County.
	And for those that forget, also, go back to the New York Times.
	Go back to these liberal publications.
	On election night, they were reporting the margin was too...
	There was too few available votes left.
	You can find Nate Cohn saying that.
	You can find a bunch of Democrats saying that.
	What happened was that 1% left to be reported just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger.
	And that's when it was occurring and that's where it was occurring.
	So when I was down there, one of the things we cross-checked to look at the data, not only got all the dead people voting, two young people voting, people out of state voting, people who moved voting, people in post office boxes voting, signatures that didn't match, canvas that didn't.
	There was no canvassing in the whole state, fundamentally, that complied with the requirement of meaningful signature match requests.
	And in much of the state, there was no counting of the ballots, egregiously in Fulton County, but also other counties.
	Because it was the suburban counties where some of the worst abuses were taking place.
	And I mean, people like Jeff Clark at the Justice Department was like, we've got to look at all these allegations.
	Isn't it our job as the U.S. government to make sure that this election is on the up and up?
	Because one of the things we did to get evidence up to the Justice Department and other places...
	That Bill Barr hid and covered up like he did the Michigan case of criminality that he deliberately covered up the criminality and the fraud with and now wants Trump indicted so he never faces consequence himself if Trump wins election in 2024.
	And maybe Ludwig.
	If Ludwig thinks these, ex-judge Ludwig thinks these kind of theories are fine, well maybe we can indict Ludwig now under his own approved theory because this guy is so dim he can't do that math even further.
	But what the additional component of what took place in Georgia, in terms of the counting of the ballots, is that they not only counted more than supposedly were even present, they counted them without the presence of party observers, and they counted them without it being properly canvassed in the first instance.
	So you had collectively hundreds of thousands of ballots.
	My estimate was close to 250.
	100,000 ballots could not be constitutionally counted.
	And that was about 20 times more than the margin of victory necessary for the election contest.
	But Robert, if all things being equal, it would have impacted both parties equally.
	Why would it have benefited Biden and harmed Trump?
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	Under the election contest rules, all you have to show, like Jimmy Carter did in an early election to get him elected to the state legislature, like Barack Obama did to get himself in the state legislature in Illinois, both of them using signature match checks in different ways or other methods of election contests to get into power, is all you have to show is there's enough constitutionally questionable ballots than the margin of victory.
	You'd never have to prove which way they actually voted.
	And the reason for that should be obvious to everybody.
	It's why we have prophylactic rules about the counting and canvassing of ballots.
	If we incentivize somebody to do it in that way, then they say, well, yeah, I destroyed a bunch of ballots, but you can't prove which way they went.
	Then we won't deter that bad conduct.
	That's why these are strict enforcement rules.
	That's why it was such an obvious slam-dunk winner that that's why the media pretended the Georgia election contest didn't exist.
	That's why the state, Florida, the same Fulton County, Corrupt courthouse that's ruling over this indictment pretended it didn't exist and didn't assign it properly.
	Georgia Court of Appeals pretended it didn't exist.
	The Georgia Supreme Court pretended it didn't exist.
	The governor to this day is lying and pretending it doesn't exist.
	And they're even pretending it doesn't exist in the indictment.
	And that's just the...
	And on a factual basis, an honest trial and in a Georgia state proceeding would be televised.
	An honest trial would prove that not only did every single defendant believe what they were doing was subjectively true.
	They believed in it.
	So you can't prove they can't prove intentional fraud on just that aspect.
	That's what Dershowitz focused on.
	He said, if I was handling the case, I would hammer that issue because it's quite obvious that everybody, at least Trump, believed what they were doing, what they thought the election was stolen.
	But secondly, as an objective matter of truth, which is put at issue by this indictment, And they're putting every state, by the way, at issue.
	They're putting Pennsylvania at issue.
	They're putting Arizona at issue.
	Okay, let's have at it then.
	Let's show what happened in these elections.
	So that if they got a full honest trial, only a completely prejudiced, bigoted jury could convict.
	Because it would prove that, in fact, 2020 was stolen.
	Robert, let me go back to the original question.
	Why weren't you included in the indictment?
	Was it because you didn't give that type of legal advice or you think they don't want...
	First of all, whether or not you would revel in being indicted, I think you would not go silently into the night.
	Was it because you didn't give specific type of advice or because you think that they don't even want to have you speaking out?
	It's two different components.
	One is they want to stay away from the election contest because that makes them look like idiots and asses to the entire world.
	They don't want the world to know about the election contest, the factual.
	And that was my role as part of the proceeding.
	The second is kind of coincidental.
	I probably would have been around and in the room for some of these conversations, but for about midway through...
	Mark Meadows had recommended me to the Republican National Committee to be retained.
	Cleta Mitchell had recommended me to be retained.
	Others close in the White House had brought me in in the first place.
	They didn't trust the other lawyers.
	And the other alternative was, at the time, Sidney Powell, who then got linked up with Rudy Giuliani.
	And Rudy wanted his own people and all the rest, which was fine.
	But basically, the Republican National Committee went with Rudy and kind of Sidney for a brief period of time, and then Sidney was jettisoned.
	But the Republican National Committee didn't want me in from day one.
	And, I mean, the lawyers close to the White House, they were giving bad advice.
	Close to the campaign, they were giving bad advice.
	I exposed them lying about Georgia for the first time I got down there.
	Now, Rudy Giuliani, I didn't know until later, actually took credit for that.
	He said he came up with the idea.
	And I realized where they were going.
	I knew Dominion was a red herring from day one because of how the Georgia officials were acting about it.
	So I was not going to hang around for that.
	I knew it was going to be a shit show, and I was like, I'm out of here.
	And so...
	Coincidentally, because I was like, it would be easy for ego reasons or money reasons to hang around.
	I wasn't going to hang around something that I thought was going to be counterproductive, which is what it became.
	Counterproductive, sadly.
	Because nobody remembers the election contest.
	Everybody forgot about signatures matching, the glaring vulnerability of the entire stolen election.
	And they all ran away with...
	I mean, I was trying to explain to people that, you know, I mean, the QAnon stuff was insane by that point, people in that community.
	Remember, people were saying we had to explain to people why it's a bad idea to be talking about a military coup.
	Not only do I remember, but anybody who doubts the accuracy or historical revisionist nature of what you're seeing, everything we've done since 20...
	20 is online now.
	We don't take it down.
	And everybody can see, you were calling out the QAnon as a red herring distraction from the beginning.
	The German service, and taking Flackford at the time.
	I didn't know what QAnon was at the time.
	Linwood, Sidney Powell, people tell me, oh, you'll be apologizing, Barnes, when they prove it all.
	When the Kraken comes out.
	Every great crime needs a great patsy, and Dominion was the great patsy.
	And again, for all those out there, I hate machines being involved in elections.
	I'm for paper ballots.
	I'm for voting only on election day.
	I'm for voter ID, just to be clear.
	But Richard Barris and I had researched this right away, and we knew it wasn't the machines because the vote deviation didn't correspond to the machines.
	In Georgia, now here's what we did figure out.
	A Democrat, by the way, sued.
	This is the other irony in this.
	A Democratic lieutenant governor's candidate sued after 2018.
	Contesting the election.
	It's actually cited in Mark Meadows' motion to dismiss before the federal court on this indictment.
	But apparently, I mean, Stacey Abrams was pretending she was governor for like three years afterwards.
	And yet somehow, I mean, that this isn't Georgia is what makes this even more insane.
	Robert, she never did anything in furtherance of the conspiracy.
	She just said it out loud.
	It was stolen.
	Oh, yeah, she did.
	She tried to steal it.
	Because what we did is, Lieutenant Governor Democratic can't expose this.
	He also exposed, by the way, a problem with Dominion machines.
	All this sworn testimony about problems with Dominion machines come from the Democratic Party suing, by the way, in Georgia, in terms of prior to all this.
	But if you go into, look at it, the lieutenant governor claimed after 2018 that there are unusual undervotes for him, when in reality there was unusual overvotes for Stacey Abrams.
	For those who don't mean, that means people who only showed up somehow to vote for Stacey Abrams and literally voted for no other office.
	Well, the same thing happened in 2020, where a bunch of people literally just showed up to vote for Joe Biden and magically didn't vote for any other office.
	They're like, eh, we're not buying that that was on the up and up.
	And my view was, it was another indirect method of proof.
	I said, let's take a look.
	And credit to Patrick Witt, because he spent hours and hours doing all the data deep dive.
	And his data team and some other.
	And Richard Barris was helping out by the scenes and other people too.
	I said, take a look if the precinct overvotes magically matches where Stacey Abrams got so many overvotes.
	And voila!
	Yes, it did.
	I'll give you an example.
	There were nursing homes in the same neighborhood where one of them had 95% turnout, which, by the way, is always unheard of, and the other one had normal 60-65% turnout.
	In the same neighborhood, you'd have apartment complexes.
	With the same demographics, whether it's age, race, economics, whatever, within the same area, and one of them has 85% turnout, one of them has 50% turnout.
	Why those locations?
	Because they're centralized places where somebody could take a bunch of other people's ballots and cast it for them.
	Most of 2,000 mules comes from video footage from Georgia.
	So that's not a coincidence.
	That was another method by which they did the illegal actions, by which they stole votes in Georgia.
	That's why it's so insane.
	This is like the gaslighting indictment of gaslighting indictments.
	It's now a crime to point out their crimes.
	And I was going to say, as a joke, could you have foreseen this indictment back in the day that they would go after the lawyers?
	Back in the day...
	Well, I mean, I was not for the elector challenge.
	I was not for...
	I thought those strategies, one, wouldn't work.
	Two, wouldn't be persuasive in the court of public opinion.
	I wouldn't have recommended Trump get on the phone with Ratberger.
	Can you remind everyone about that meeting?
	That was a meeting among counsel.
	Yeah, it was a settlement conference, which should remain secret.
	I mean, it's illegal that it's ever been publicly disclosed.
	And Trump was fine on the call.
	It was just, you have to know these are scumbags who are looking to ambush him.
	And he had focused on, hey, Trump for about 24 hours was completely on board.
	He was like, yeah, let's just focus on signature matches.
	I was like, look, rally to one issue.
	You need the cleanest issue.
	You need the neatest issue.
	You need the most visual issue.
	And you need the issue you're going to win on because otherwise you're going to get distracted by so many things.
	Nobody's going to know what...
	They can't get the story straight between day one and day two.
	But hold on, hold on.
	It was a settlement conference among council that was surreptitiously recorded and then illegally leaked.
	Exactly.
	In violation of the confidentiality provisions.
	Which, by the way, was...
	Loosely part of the election contest filing that they're pretending didn't exist.
	So that's where that settlement conference arose from.
	So I think there were tactical mistakes made, but absolutely no crimes.
	It's utterly absurd.
	Now let's talk about the procedural mechanisms whereby some of these defendants can get remedied.
	All right.
	Well, hold on.
	Before we do that, just to cover your tushy here.
	For those who say that Barnes...
	Oh, I don't know.
	It wasn't critical back then.
	Even back then, Robert, we said, and we, I'll say, you led me down this path.
	Giuliani's going to get sued for defamation for what he's saying.
	You said it.
	Repeating stuff.
	Sidney Powell, Lin Wood.
	So it wasn't a question of not foreseeing potential prosecution.
	I don't say persecution with these players.
	Well, none of them had ever done election contests.
	Even John Eastman, who I really like, I think he's a great constitutional law professor.
	He had never done an election contest.
	So the problem was, the only people that were familiar with election law, other than me and my team, was otherwise either corrupt insiders working, like Trump's own so-called election lawyers in Georgia, when I got down there, were also lawyers for Ratbarger.
	I mean, this was a conflict that was, it just, that was a real conflict of interest.
	And so, and that was true almost all across the country.
	And a lot of them were corporate law firm types that didn't want to get involved in this election contest anyway, if they didn't have conflicts.
	So then you have the outsider types, Rudy Giuliani, no history with election contests.
	Sidney Powell, no history with, you know, she's a criminal lawyer, defense lawyer, criminal appeals lawyer mostly.
	She's not, has zero experience in election contests.
	Mike Flynn, God bless him, national security, zero experience in election contests.
	Steve Bannon, God bless him, good strategist, zero experience in election contests.
	So they were out of their depth from day one.
	And those of us that did have the experience were like, there's a path here.
	We know what the most likely successful path is, and we know what to stay away from.
	And I understand.
	I mean, Trump thought Rudy was still the Rudy that took down the mob.
	So, you know, I understand why.
	That was the only lawyer he knew in the room.
	Every other lawyer was new to him, relatively.
	But people can go back and look.
	Everything we predicted at the time came true, unfortunately.
	Yeah, a thousand percent.
	And I'd just say, like, it wasn't a question of not even being cynical enough or naive enough to think they wouldn't go after the lawyers.
	We were saying Giuliani's getting in trouble for what he's saying, what he's saying, because it's demonstrably false.
	Lin Wood?
	Sidney Powell.
	I mean, it was a deep state operation.
	I mean, there are people that were connected to that.
	QAnon, I think, was an algorithm developed by deep state to see whether they could create a fake movement in the country, and it worked tremendously.
	And Sidney Powell was approached, my understanding is, by, you know, if the guy's Cuban and says he's connected to intelligence, don't take the call.
	Just FYI.
	And I knew about those people because they had approached me.
	Through the Flynn world a year before, trying to get to Alex Jones and trying to get to me.
	And I vetted him and was like, these people are all full of crap.
	It's a clear disinformation operation.
	And so, but, you know, I mean, again, if anybody has doubts about this, Time magazine, they bragged about it a few weeks later, how they stole it.
	I mean, they called it fortification.
	I'd call it fornication.
	But it was either way the same.
	But there's plenty of legal remedies available for Trump and all the defendants in the crazy Georgia case.
	Okay, so now do that now so that we can clip this and it will be a highlight.
	One hour, 53 minutes in, Robert.
	The legal remedies.
	Then we're going to get into Mark Meadows because he's got a separate legal defense.
	What are the legal remedies if it's not already clear to everyone else out there?
	Sure.
	So, I mean, there's some that are unique to Trump.
	There's some that are unique to Trump, Meadows, and Jeffrey Clark.
	And there's some that are unique to the lawyers.
	And then there's the defenses that are in common.
	So for Trump, he can argue that the impeachment clause bars the indictment, both under the interpretation I previously argued, which is that the president can't be indicted except by conviction in the Senate.
	And here...
	This was basically the exact...
	It's like the D.C. case.
	It's the same thing he's already been acquitted of in the Senate.
	And the interpretation is based on the plain language of the Constitution itself, which only refers to someone being able to be indicted, tried, or punished if they've been convicted.
	And by the way, at the time, other state constitutions said convicted or acquitted.
	So our founders chose to limit it to convicted.
	Now, there's other people that try to argue otherwise because it's never been adjudicated before.
	But here he has a unique argument because on top of that, here he was acquitted in the Senate.
	Well, that's the question.
	Is the acquittal in the Senate, was it a quasi-criminal acquittal or a civil acquittal?
	The reason why it was always considered to be equal to a criminal acquittal is because historically the parliament in England could impose criminal punishments as part of impeachment.
	That's why that provision is there.
	It's saying that they were going to take away the power of criminal punishment from the Senate for impeachments and instead give it only to the separate executive branch.
	Bless you.
	But as part of that process, they limited it to only those convicted.
	And so that's part one.
	Part two, so he's got two different impeachment clause grounds to dismiss.
	The second argument is the supremacy clause.
	Now, this applies to Trump.
	It applies to Meadows.
	It applies to Clark.
	And Meadows is raising it now in a motion to dismiss filed, I don't know, Friday or Thursday, the supremacy clause.
	And I swear to you, it's not a joke.
	Whenever I see the word supremacy, I read into it white.
	So I'm reading the white supremacy clause, but I'm sorry.
	What is the supremacy clause, Robert?
	Although I know what it is, let everyone else know.
	And how can Trump raise it as Mark Meadows has already raised it?
	What it says in the Constitution is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
	From that, a state government cannot use its criminal or civil laws to either restrict or punish a federal employee doing their job under federal law.
	So this is how, in some cases, people like the man who shot Randy Weaver's wife, that's why he never went to trial.
	He asserted he was doing it within the course of his duties as an agent.
	Randy Reeves was the Ruby Ridge, the sniper who killed a woman holding a baby in her arms in the house that set off the whole thing.
	Okay.
	If someone is immune from murder charges because of the supremacy clause, how in the world could they not be immune from election-based charges?
	So the allegations against Trump all concern things he did while president.
	The allegations against Mark Meadows all concern things he did while chief of staff to the president.
	And all the claims against Jeffrey Clark concern the things he did as an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice.
	As such, all you have to show is that there's any kind of nexus between what you're doing and the job.
	And here again, go back to my Covington kid suits.
	If tweeting about...
	People you don't know in another state that doesn't concern public legislation is immune, like they said Elizabeth Warren and Deborah Howland were for their libels about the Covington kids.
	How in the world is this immunity not to be granted?
	So effectively, it's immunity under the Supremacy Clause.
	So that's grounds to dismiss independent and separate from the Impeachment Clause and available...
	To both Trump and Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows.
	And Meadows, as you know, has already raised it.
	Let me stop you there.
	Just because I'm going to reshare Jeffrey Clark's give, send, go.
	In the link right now.
	Jeff Clark.
	He's the guy that, you know, was the only conscientious actor in the entire Department of Justice during the elections trying to do his duty and his job.
	And he wasn't trying to overturn it for Trump.
	He was trying to figure out what happened in the Justice Department.
	Actually investigate whether crimes took place.
	Like what their job is supposed to be.
	And for it, he's been blacklisted by corporate law firms.
	The D.C. Bar is trying to disbar him.
	And now the Georgia prosecutor wants to put him in prison for 20 years.
	Yeah, I'm just going to say, please share, donate if you can.
	Here is the link.
	Yeah, because we had Jeff on a while back.
	I mean, we'll blast this out as much.
	The only problem, Robert, is too many people who need help now because of this weaponized system.
	But his case is a lot more compelling than general analysis.
	Let's put it that way.
	True.
	If you're going to support it, give, send, go.
	Support Jeffrey Clark.
	I'm not saying don't support Janet Ellis for everybody out there, but I'm just saying that his claim is much more constitutionally consequential.
	His actions were much more important and significant.
	The impact of his prosecution matters far more.
	Imagine if you can now be indicted for doing your job as a federal prosecutor.
	And Mark Meadows as well.
	It's not to hierarchize, whatever.
	It's not to make a hierarchy.
	There will be a hierarchy.
	In terms of legal impact and importance, but they're all equally egregious on a constitutional front.
	Now, what Clark Meadows and Trump can also do is remove the case.
	Meadows already has.
	And by the way, what is somewhat misunderstood out there, that actually removes the entire case concerning all defendants.
	So hold on, but he didn't move it yet.
	He got a hearing on the removal, right?
	Technically, it's removed.
	And whether it stays removed is the hearing on August 28th.
	So that's very interesting.
	So the hearing on the removal is heard by which court's jurisdiction?
	So right now the state court, like they're supposed to all appear this week in Georgia.
	The problem with that is the state court no longer has jurisdiction over this case.
	Jurisdiction is now within the Northern District of Georgia at the federal court level.
	So what happens is when a federal judge gets this, A federal removal, because the allegation is there's either a federal defense or a federal employee has been alleged to commit an indictment concerning a federal defense, is that the whole case is removed, all charges, all defendants.
	And the first thing the judge can do is issue what's called summary remand.
	This judge, an Obama appointee, so I'm not overly optimistic about the outcome of the hearing, but even he admitted, this appears to be pretty obvious removal stuff.
	So I deny summary remand, and let's schedule a quick hearing where evidence can be presented, and he scheduled it for next Monday, August 28th, in Northern District of Georgia.
	Now, what the judge can do at that point is he can either remand it, or he can remand part of it.
	He can sever it and say, anybody that's not a federal employee is remanded back to Georgia.
	But if he determines that he's going to keep the removal for Meadows, that means he's going to keep it for Clark and keep it for Trump.
	And that means they're no longer subject to the Fulton County jury pool, and they're no longer subject to the Fulton County Superior Court, and they no longer have to depend on the Georgia Court of Appeals or Georgia Supreme Court.
	They now have the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court more directly.
	They have the U.S. Supreme Court even with a state case, but it's a little easier if it's through the federal system.
	A honest judge who's not too political would recognize this should be removed.
	It's an Obama appointee, so you've got to put an asterisk there.
	I look crazy here.
	I look at my hair.
	Robert, it's a no-brainer for the removal.
	The only question is, would it not apply to everybody?
	He would probably sever.
	The federal judge would probably sever, and he would keep Trump, Meadows, and Clark and remand the rest.
	Is most likely what the judge would do.
	But it doesn't have to do that.
	And then after that, even sort of at different times, you have motions to dismiss.
	And you also, they should be bringing these motions in other cases.
	They haven't yet.
	Motions to stay.
	My view is to protect the First Amendment rights of press, assembly, speech, and petitioning the government.
	As well as protecting the integrity.
	They should not have an indictment trial going forward during an election season.
	Stay every case until the public gets to vote on the verdict on Election Day.
	And if the cases are so compelling, you can pursue them afterwards.
	But at least then the federal and state judicial systems are not interfering with an election.
	Conspiring effectively, being complicit effectively, and denying people their right to vote.
	But at a minimum, it would bring those motions because it's something the U.S. Supreme Court could do that would stop all the cases and allow things to develop naturally through the election season and then deal with it afterwards.
	It's the kind of remedy the Supreme Court might like, right?
	Okay, we can put a halt to this, but we don't have to make the ultimate decision.
	We can just limit the harm here.
	So that the world isn't laughing at us about trying to lock up the leading opponent of the presidential campaign.
	But we don't have to get into the substantive merits because maybe the public helps simplify it for us.
	Well, it might be too late for that, but also to allow the candidate to campaign freely.
	Correct.
	Exactly.
	Don't interfere in the election.
	And don't let the judicial system become complicit in interfering with an election.
	Now, without getting into my tweet of yesterday, Robert.
	The idea that Trump would skip the debate on Wednesday, people are trying to fault him for it.
	Am I too black-pilled to say if he were to participate in that debate, he'd be accused of witness intimidation the day after?
	It's always that risk.
	I mean, I think the reason why he's not doing it, I mean, two reasons, when he's got a massive lead, but it's mainly to pay back Fox.
	That's the reason why he's doing an interview with Tucker Carlson on the same night.
	It's purely payback to Robert Murdoch.
	It's like, okay, Rupert, you decided to take shots at me the last three years.
	See how well your ratings are when I don't show up.
	And remember, he did this before January 2016, that he was like, ah, Fox is not being nice.
	I'm going to skip a debate.
	And Fox panicked.
	Their ratings dropped, or their positive favorabilities dropped 30 points in a week.
	So Trump wants to remind them, and it's not a coincidence he's teaming up with Tucker.
	Both to stick it to Fox.
	So I think that's what that's about.
	But you're right.
	I mean, he was going to make a presentation on Monday about what happened in Georgia, and apparently his lawyers said don't do it.
	I think they're making a mistake.
	At least somebody should be doing it on Trump's behalf.
	Use the Georgia case to remind people.
	Look at all the evidence.
	It was stolen.
	Don't get hoodwinked, bamboozled by the press.
	But anybody who does it on Trump's behalf now, the deep state, the administrative state, they'll get arrested, indict you.
	So you can't even do that.
	Can we even talk about it here on Sunday night without getting indicted?
	That's how insane it all is.
	Now that gets to, so you have motions, procedural options of removal and stay.
	You have motions to dismiss on the impeachment clause and supremacy clause grounds.
	But you also have motions to dismiss on First Amendment right of speech.
	First Amendment right to petition, First Amendment right of assembly, Fourth Amendment right of privacy, Fifth Amendment right of due process, First Amendment right against selective prosecution, First Amendment right against retaliatory prosecution, Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
	All of those are also implicated by the indictment in ways that are extraordinary.
	Now, Meadows has already brought motions to dismiss in the federal court on grounds of the Supremacy Clause and on grounds of the First Amendment.
	Freedom of speech and freedom of the petition.
	It could have been a little more robust, but they were filing it pretty quick and pretty early.
	But here, they're making as Turley recognized, as Dershowitz recognized, as others recognized.
	They said almost the entire indictment.
	Dershowitz said under the theory here, he and Tribe and Al Gore could have all been indicted in 2000.
	So this is all speech.
	This is all assembly.
	This is all petitioning the government.
	2,000.
	He could be indicted now for his defense of Trump in his first impeachment.
	Indict him now!
	Where they try to go get dirt.
	So it violates the right to petition the government most specifically.
	The indictment actually says Trump asked what the legal remedy was from the state official.
	And that's the crime.
	You couldn't have a clear example.
	You can't call petitioning the government solicitation of violation of an oath.
	Period.
	And again, this goes all the way back 400 years.
	In the 1600s, they tried to allege seditious criminal libel against several people for their action of petitioning the parliament, and they said that could not be seditious libel, even if they lied, because that's petitioning the government and that's completely protected.
	And our right is much more robust than the English one was.
	And it was critical to the Constitution.
	And obviously, when you're criminalizing speech like it does throughout the entire indictment, like tweets, like saying recommending press, like look at the statement that he made.
	In other words, take out.
	It's worse than the D.C. indictment, where Turley said, take out the speech and you have a haiku.
	You have nothing left in the Georgia indictment.
	You have almost no actions of any kind.
	It's almost all speech.
	When it's an action, it's petitioning or assembly.
	It's Mark Meadows setting up a meeting to speak.
	It's Mark Meadows conferencing with someone to speak.
	It's Mark Meadows asking to look at something, such as the transparency of the election, which is his right, like any American.
	They have Fourth Amendment issues because I'm sure they violated things in the grand jury process on right to privacy and attorney-client privilege.
	They couldn't have some of the communications they have without doing so.
	Fifth Amendment due process rights that are also implicated through the 14th Amendment that go back to the First Amendment and that there's two kinds of selective prosecution here.
	It's retaliatory prosecution for his prior assertion of First Amendment rights.
	You couldn't have a cleaner case than his ear.
	You asserted your right to petition, so we're going to try to put you in prison for it.
	You exposed our election fraud, so we're going to try to put you in prison for it.
	You gave legal advice to someone trying to seek legal remedy over a fraudulent election, so we're going to try to put you in prison for it.
	But also you have selective prosecution relating back to the case we talked about earlier, and that it's disparate.
	Here you had Hillary Clinton denying elections.
	Democrats have denied every single election they've ever lost.
	According to the indictment...
	You know, John Adams was a criminal.
	Thomas Jefferson was a criminal.
	Alexander Hamilton was a criminal.
	Pretty much everybody in 1876 was a criminal.
	Both John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 were criminals.
	Al Gore and Alan Dershowitz were criminals in 2000.
	Jamie Raskin and every single Democrat in the House or the Senate that's been there has been a criminal in 2000, 2004, 2016.
	All three where they denied Trump won the election.
	And everybody, including the media that was advertising, I mean, what's the difference?
	You couldn't have a clear, cleaner case of being similarly situated and being treated differently with consequences to your First Amendment rights than the Georgia indictment.
	If this isn't selective prosecution, no case is selective prosecution.
	So there's two different levels there.
	That's the 14th and 5th Amendment rights that are implicated through the First Amendment.
	That enforce it because it's selective prosecution because of its disparate treatment and it's selective prosecution because it's retaliatory.
	And in my view, I would add a third component.
	I think the First Amendment should be interpreted to prohibit one administration indicting their opposing administration during an election.
	At a minimum, the remedy should be a stay.
	In my view, the remedy should be dismissal to discourage and deter such behavior.
	Otherwise, we don't have the First Amendment.
	The First Amendment is dead in America.
	Snip and clip, people.
	Two hours and ten minutes in.
	Robert, let me read a few rumble rants.
	Because they've been coming in.
	Hold on one second.
	Bring it back here.
	Alright, here we go.
	And, okay.
	Robert, David, R. So we got here.
	Ignotum.
	With Robert L. Peters' revelations, will Hobbes bring the next distraction?
	Indictment for Trump.
	He'll need a fighter pilot jacket to go with his ace status.
	Robert, what's the...
	That's Arizona.
	They're figuring that because Joe Biden went by the name...
	Robert L. Peter.
	Robert L. Peter.
	Using a pseudonym to hide his conversations.
	It's another version of the Hillary email scandal.
	Bless it.
	He didn't want that information available to the public.
	He didn't want it subject to FOIA.
	He didn't want the Obama administration to know why he's using burner phones and anonymous emails.
	Which should be a reminder to everybody out there, there's utility to burner phones and anonymous emails and signal accounts.
	When Joe Biden's using it, Hunter Biden's using it, there's probably a reason why.
	It may be a useful tool to protect your privacy.
	Also, maybe just don't text about how you're going to do it because it defeats the purpose.
	You didn't know a doubt about that.
	And then Hobbs is a reference to whether the Arizona governor will tag on the indictments.
	Will Arizona jump in?
	Will Michigan jump in?
	The Wisconsin governor is demanding that his Department of Justice indict people.
	So they're all excited.
	Oh, look at this criminal power.
	We can just use it without any limits.
	Now, getting to the one last aspect of all of this, that corrupt hack judge looting.
	For those that don't know Ludig, Ludig was a guy that a bunch of the Federalist Society types on the right wanted to put on the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And what he is was basically a sifficant and an ass-kisser his entire life.
	That's how he got his job.
	He was a mid-level law graduate from the University of Virginia.
	He hustled that into becoming an administrative assistant to Supreme Court Justice Berger, which he then hustled into getting a clerkship with Scalia and then got a clerkship when the clerk...
	When Scalia was at the appellate level, and then he got a clerkship with Berger after that, became part of the whole Bush Republican political camp.
	When people complained about Trump's personnel, almost all of Reagan's personnel were picked by Poppy Bush.
	There are almost no populist conservatives that Reagan picked.
	So Reagan had the same mistake.
	And then he became part of the Bill Barr regime at the Justice Department under Poppy Bush when Poppy Bush was president.
	Parr laid all of that into a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals place, where while he was there on behalf of George W. Bush, he issued one of the most morally, legally, constitutionally offensive and horrendous decisions in American history, when he said that all the president has to do is call you an enemy combatant, and he can arrest you, even if you're an American citizen, he can arrest you on American soil for only doing something in America that's not a conflict zone.
	And he can never give you counsel.
	He can never give you a hearing.
	He can never give you a trial.
	He can imprison you and even torture you, as John Yu helped advise them to do, a buddy of Michael Ludig.
	And there's no consequence.
	That's an exception to all your constitutional rights and remedies.
	The man who wrote that opinion?
	Judge Ludig.
	And I had conservatives tell me, what a great constitutional judge.
	So Ludig...
	Who was a never-Trumper, if anybody knew behind the scenes, was the guy that Mike Pence relied upon for saying it's utterly insane to suggest that the vice president has any role at all in elector certification.
	Even though the Electors Count Act, reflecting the Constitution and the history of it, explicitly and expressly seem to say so because they changed the law after the 2020 election to rewrite it to say the vice president no longer has power that the first law admitted he did that.
	Can we specify that it was to remedy and ambiguity in the 1867 law?
	The 1876 statute.
	And the thing with this is the statute is subject to the Constitution.
	It's only as good as it enforces the Constitution.
	The power of the vice president to decide electoral contest comes from the Constitution.
	That's where it comes.
	The Electoral Count Act can't change that.
	So I don't think the new Electoral Count Act can change that.
	I think it's unconstitutional to the degree it tries to take that away.
	And who exercised that power?
	I've yet to hear anybody on that side ever address this.
	Ludwig sure doesn't, because he's a fake phony and fraud like so many corporate whores that are federal society folks.
	John Adams said that power existed, and he exercised it.
	Thomas Jefferson said that power existed, and he exercised it.
	Alexander Hamilton said that power existed, and he argued for its exercise at the time of the founding of our country.
	Yet according to Michael Ludig, there's no history whatsoever to support this.
	It's all false and fake and fraudulent, etc.
	And he's out there right now with Lawrence Tribe trying to claim that they weakened.
	We can just interfere in the election wholesale.
	Don't let the American people vote.
	Take Trump off the ballot by saying he's not qualified under the 14th Amendment.
	So that's how all the Federalist Societies, the shipwreck crew crowd, all those people out there that have been apologizing for these corporate whores, for these prosecutorial, subservient, corrupt, statist, apologists, Federalist Society frauds who don't care one iota about the Constitution and never did, they just tricked and suckered conservatives into thinking they did, can just start issuing their apologies for ever defending Ludwig, because now Ludwig's proven that...
	And his advice to Mike Pence was always bogus.
	It was part of an ongoing conspiracy to deny President Trump a fair and honest count in the election.
	And by Ludig's own definition, they should put Ludig in federal prison because apparently he thinks those strategies are now criminal.
	And what Ludig did was fraud, and he knew it was fraud.
	And for him to go out there and make a preposterous, legally ludicrous claim that the 14th Amendment could keep Trump off the ballot is absurd.
	By the way, the reason why he looted, once he realized he wasn't going to get on the Supreme Court, being the corporate whore he naturally was, he cashed in and went to Boeing and ended up getting paid millions of dollars.
	Because that's who these people are.
	He got to his position by being a sycophant, a butt-kisser from administrative assistant.
	Then he became a gatekeeper for clerks, where if you wanted a position, With a conservative corporate firm or on the court, you had to go clerk for Ludig.
	And then Ludig leveraged that power when he couldn't get it on the U.S. Supreme Court because even ordinary conservatives were like, maybe that decision saying you can call someone an enemy combatant and thereby eviscerate all their constitutional rights is a little excessive.
	That was a decision that couldn't get him on there.
	He cashed in like the corporate whore he is.
	Then he lied.
	To Mike Pence, lied to the world on behalf of Mike Pence, conspired with Mike Pence to deprive and deny Trump Act the fair and honest election.
	And now he's going around trying to do it again in 2024, working with Lawrence Tribe in order to justify and rationalize the deep state coup that is part of the same deep state apparatus he's always been a part of.
	But when people ask me why I think Robert Kennedy is better than a generic Republican in appointing judges, No better example than Michael Ludig is one of your so-called Federalist Society heroes.
	This guy is a disgrace to the bench and a disgrace to the rule of law.
	I've never heard of Ludig until you mention it.
	Is there any hush-hush behind the murder of his father?
	No, only that some people speculate it...
	He became very harsh and vindictive even more so on certain criminal defendants' rights.
	But he's very close with Roberts.
	That gives you an idea of who he is.
	Looting, I'm sure, was key to working behind the scenes to making sure the Supreme Court did not take the election contest case.
	And it's not a coincidence.
	He's out there advising right now, keep Trump off the ballot.
	He said the MAGA movement is a clear and present danger to the United States.
	Remember, this is a guy who used the same logic to say you could be locked up interminably with no right to a hearing or trial or counsel on similar grounds.
	That gives you an idea for how dangerous he is.
	All right.
	I don't remember which rumble rant spawned us into that.
	Hold on one second.
	We've got M.A. Cognitive.
	Okay.
	Oliver Anthony listening to his talk.
	How far back do I have to go here?
	It was this one right here.
	Will Hobbs hold the next distraction?
	Okay, fine.
	WTF LOL what?
	Oliver Anthony listening to his music might be a guy with addiction or directly in his family.
	No shade, I'm an alcoholic.
	Not even hard to imagine as he is from Appalachia like my fam.
	Powerful music.
	My real name.
	I'm going to start an M.A. I'm looking for reading different things into the MA.
	Barnes, you are spot on about the Georgia election.
	Thank you.
	That's from A. Holfer.
	Griff Downs says, thanks for the overview and etc.
	Great show.
	Karen Todd, as a Canadian poll watcher, I've had friends who have had slept in the room with the ballots.
	If Elections Canada tried to tell me to leave and go home mid-count, I would rightly tell them to go to hell.
	You meant heck, but hell.
	Okay, and we've got Pidochet Helicopter Tours.
	Then they turned January 6th into the Reissag fire.
	No question there.
	Trowakachaka says, "Barnes, can you go over how Arizona screwed up their ballot size?
	We here in Arizona could not vote because our ballots would not scan into the voting machines.
	We covered that in the live hearings of Carrie Lake's trial." Stefanog, with a lot of G's, $100, says, "Can we win 2024?
	Can we beat the rigging, the fortification this time?" Robert, can it happen?
	I mean, yeah, we just have to be proactive.
	And they're not trying to indict Trump in all these cases unless he's the only person they're afraid of winning in an honest ballot.
	So this is their new dishonest method of trying to influence the 2024 election, is these bogus indictments.
	And briefly, on the 14th Amendment issue, as to how Ludwig's argument is absurd, is ludicrous, ludicrous Ludwig, is, first of all, the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to the president, if you read the plain terms of it, in terms of that aspect concerning disqualification issues over insurrection.
	Secondly, it doesn't relate to ballot access.
	It relates to holding office.
	So it'd be subject to that remedy, not a remedy of excluding him from the ballot in the first place.
	Third, it's Congress who has the remedial enforcement power, and the courts have gone back and forth on whether they have it.
	They don't.
	There's a reason why Congress was given the exclusive means of enforcing it.
	And you want no better historical example of this, which Ludig ignores and Tribe ignores?
	Eugene V. Debs was actually charged with federal sedition, actually convicted of federal sedition, actually in prison for federal sedition.
	And he was on every ballot he sought to be for president in 1920.
	People say he didn't win, Robert.
	So what consolation?
	He didn't win, but he had the right to be on the ballot.
	What Ludig is saying is Trump should be stripped off the ballot.
	Don't allow people to vote for him.
	That's what Ludig is out there saying right now.
	And remember, folks, this is who the Federalist Society and the Bush camp wanted to put on the Supreme Court of the United States.
	All right.
	Oh, no, I don't want to bring it on.
	I want to bring it back in, Robert, because there were a couple more in there that we have to get.
	Okay.
	I'm going to go top-down.
	Stefan Egg, $50, says, Breaking news.
	Fox News reports California Governor Gavin Newsom is the first governor to say Donald Trump is not eligible for future presidential candidate elections and has asked the California State Assembly to pass.
	Tricky, tricky.
	Five dollars.
	And that will get struck down by the courts.
	And it's just dumb, politically, to try to keep Trump off the bat and say, I'm not going to let you, the voters, vote for whom you want.
	That's going to backfire.
	And hopefully, it undermines all the other stupid ballot access restrictions that are out there.
	Tricky Q. Trump should just use climate change as a defense.
	Pinochet's helicopter.
	Is the Georgia indictment a subtle hint that questioning 2024 will not be tolerated?
	Yes, Robert.
	It's not subtle.
	It's in your face.
	Am I wrong?
	No, that's exactly right.
	Mark Canical.
	MSNBC says Trump may be removed from ballots if Noah Bookbinder or others sue to keep off.
	Mr. Reagan's YouTube channel has been saying this is the Democrats' endgame.
	Can it happen?
	Okay, I think we got that.
	All right, Robert.
	Yeah, now we got some more fun cases to get through, mostly.
	But we can chase through them before we do the after-party.
	Do it.
	Go fast.
	We got AI copyrights and offensive murals and trans and girls sports and church excuses for defaming and zoos as nuisances and Disney in trouble again.
	COVID lockdown schools.
	New York Times caught scamming people.
	Election law cases.
	You know, is there a risk?
	What do we do if COVID lockdowns come back?
	So the first one, yeah, is if AI cannot claim any copyright on anything.
	Well, and not just AI, but the programmers.
	So someone programs AI, they let it loose, and they say, okay, well, can't claim copyright, Robert, but can they get sued for defamation?
	No, they can't.
	And this goes back to the Cerrone case where this was actually originally, basically in order to be an author under the Constitution of the Copyright Act, you have to be a human person.
	So it has to be the creation of a human person.
	Now this actually was first litigated in the photography context, right up your alley.
	And the dispute was, somebody said, hey, that's not a copyright.
	It was a camera that created that photo.
	And the person said, no, no, the camera was the tool, like a brush for painting, but that photo was because of my eye, my mind to capture it, my artistic rendering of it later, and so forth, in terms of how you use the light and all that.
	You would know a lot more about that than I do.
	And the Supreme Court said that's correct.
	It's the human part that's copyrightable.
	And whatever is human in creating something, even if it's AI-related, can still be copyrightable, but you have to show the human part of it.
	Just writing the code doesn't count.
	Just giving, just prompting them doesn't count.
	But that means you can steal from whatever AI creates.
	You can take and use for your own copyright.
	There is no copyright now.
	I mean, there's no copyright, period.
	So you get AI to create something for you.
	Hey, claim it.
	You know, use how you want.
	It's beautiful because I was sort of like, the idea of using AI-generated images for books, it might put people out of work, but it's going to be cheap and, I say cheap, free.
	And to the extent that you can't get sued for copyright, you can claim copyright, and you can't get sued for defamation.
	Whatever.
	I wouldn't want to be an AI generator.
	But yeah, that'll be good.
	All right, Robert, what's the next one?
	Offensive murals.
	So years ago, Vermont Law School hired someone to do some murals, and he did murals about Vermont's role in the Underground Railroad.
	And there's a certain federal law that protects artists from having their art destroyed or damaged or anything else.
	Once you've paid someone to put the art up, you can't damage that art or do something that could make it look like you painted something you didn't.
	Protect your authorship, your originality, and not say, look at what that person printed if it's not what he actually made.
	So Vermont Law School, all of a sudden the wokesters started complaining.
	Imagine complaining about supporting the Underground Railroad because they thought the images of the white people involved in slaving wasn't white enough.
	And the image of the slaves was too African.
	No, they needed it blocked.
	So first they were going to take it down and then they realized, okay, no, that violates federal law.
	So they just blocked it.
	And the federal court said, and he's the artist's suit, and they're like, well, technically, whoever purchases the art can take the art down.
	They can block it from public view.
	They just can't destroy it.
	And they can't change it in such a way that it's deceptive as to what you did.
	But they can completely block it if they want.
	And so that's what happened.
	But imagine Vermont Law School, Underground Railroad isn't woke enough.
	Well, but it's wrong on both ends.
	So the black part of the slavery was not black enough?
	Or it was too black?
	Too black.
	It's idiotic.
	Yeah, completely.
	By the way, they should look at famous black art if they're going to start complaining about that.
	Doing things in an exaggerated style is a long African art tradition.
	That's a respect of African art tradition, not disrespect.
	I studied this in Sejap, and it was Dolomite.
	I think it was called Dolomite.
	Oh my goodness, I have to go find it now.
	It was like Snipes played in a movie that...
	It's called something Dolomite.
	Oh my goodness.
	I'm going to have to remember this now because it was the greatest song that I'd heard at the time.
	I was like, oh my, this blows my mind.
	And we were studying it and it was an exaggeration of the history to make it more impactful.
	Exactly.
	That's the goal.
	Up next, we got Idaho tried to stop trans from being in girls sports and the Ninth Circuit struck down the whole law.
	This is what happens.
	You know, people forget we didn't have licensing at the beginning of all this.
	It's just like we didn't have licensing for the Second Amendment.
	We didn't have licensing for lawyers.
	We've allowed the professional managerial class to take over every level of government and take over every level of influence on the government.
	They dominate the executive branch and all the bureaucracies.
	They, by definition, control the judicial branch.
	And they dominate now most of the legislative branches at every level of government.
	And then they dominate the press that reports, exposes, talks about, or discusses them, or propagandizes message.
	They dominate the PR and marketing departments and hiring and human resource departments of major corporations.
	By definition, they dominate the universities, the academies, and the schools.
	And what we're seeing is they have a different prejudice about cultural issues than the ordinary American.
	And so they wrote, I was like, how in the world is it?
	Somehow trans are now protected under the 14th Amendment.
	I still think that's ridiculous.
	But you want to know how they got there?
	They said, biological gender is really complex.
	Really, really complex.
	It can't be limited to men.
	So, literally, the question that we have famously asked to the Supreme Court Justice.
	What is a woman?
	We're going to need a biologist.
	We don't know.
	We don't know, because even the Ninth Circuit has prior precedent that should have been binding on this panel that said prohibiting boys from competing in girls' sports was constitutional.
	They said that 30 years ago.
	Now this panel reverses that decision illicitly because a panel can't reverse a prior panel because they're claiming that somehow gender is now too complicated and they can't know what the difference between a man and a woman is.
	Robert, it's idiocracy-level stuff.
	Did you hear about the chess ban?
	On transgender chess competitors.
	It's an amazing thing.
	They're banning trans competitors in female chess.
	It's very interesting.
	Why would a male brain be any better at chess than a female brain?
	And especially if the goal was to compensate for decades or centuries of preference of men in chess.
	Whereas that would explain why women don't compete as well in chess.
	Well, they wanted to allow transgender chess participants to participate, and they said no.
	And now they're going to see what happens with that.
	It was an interesting article.
	According to the courts, nobody can ban it.
	So, I mean, hopefully the Supreme Court clarifies that, because that's probably what's going to be required.
	Another religious abuse of ecclesiastical power.
	I tuned out of this one as I started reading it, Robert.
	It's like the Texas case where the church gets allowed to commit fraud in fundraising because they said, oh, a non-intervention in church internal affairs is supposed to be about doctrine.
	That's it.
	It's not supposed to be about letting a church lie to people publicly, letting a church fire someone wrongfully, letting a church defraud people publicly.
	That's not what, that doesn't require a ecclesiastical.
	Ecclesiastical.
	I should remember because it's Ecclesiastes from the Bible.
	But now, so what happened is a dispute between different parts of the Baptist conventions.
	You know, one's in Maryland, one's the national one.
	There's another one that's a missionary board.
	And so they don't like this one guy who disagreed with this other one.
	And so they lie about him so that he'll get fired.
	I'm sorry, that doesn't require you figuring out what the Baptist doctrine is.
	Did they lie or did they not?
	No, but Robert, they fired them.
	They don't want to get involved in hiring and firing in the Ecclesiastes.
	If it was public policy, wrongful termination, different issue.
	But when you publicly lie to get somebody fired at another job, that doesn't require religious doctrine to figure out.
	So it's a misapplication of this, and they're just avoiding things to allow people in the name of the church to get away with fraud and defamation that you should not be getting away with.
	That is unrequired for religious doctrine.
	But up next, one of your things, yeah, if you like to go to the zoos, well, maybe they're a public nuisance.
	Well, so I think I'm going to talk about this one later on in the week where the orca here, Lolita, died at the Miami Seaquarium.
	Phil Damaris has been talking about this for months.
	But in this particular lawsuit, the nuisance that was being requested was, what was it?
	It was housing animals, which are protected animals.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Basically, it was a really cool public zoo, like a special game and that kind of thing.
	And their argument was that it violated little animal shelter laws.
	And that anything that violated an animal shelter law, according to this group, that apparently they got away with this suit in other states.
	Is a public nuisance.
	And this is about, we've been talking about this misuse of public nuisance laws in the tobacco context, in the climate change context, that, you know, real public nuisance is what happened in COVID lockdowns.
	But luckily, the Washington courts, state courts, recognize that, no, in order for it to be a public nuisance, it has to be what all public nuisances have to be, which is interfering with the use and enjoyment of property.
	We're causing severe injury to the public health and safety.
	And there was no allegation that that was even occurring here.
	They just didn't like how the zoo was operating.
	And it was one of these, it reminded me of PETA from South Park.
	They're like, oh, you really love the animals.
	It's that kind of organization.
	But luckily the zoo is going to get to continue to operate.
	I'm not even a huge zoo guy, but this was like a creative game type people.
	That was different and separate from that.
	But luckily, the public nuisance laws were limited from too much abuse, even in a liberal state like Washington.
	All right.
	What else do we have before we go exclusive to Locals, Robert?
	We got two cases before we hop over to Locals.
	Disney sued over fraud, COVID lockdown concerning schools.
	And then over at Locals, we'll talk about the New York Times getting caught, committing fraud, election law case updates.
	And what might be coming down the pipeline for COVID lockdowns in the fall?
	All right.
	Oh, okay.
	Fine, fine.
	So that's good enough.
	Okay.
	So let's see.
	Hold on a second.
	What's Disney?
	I'm not up to speed on this.
	Ah, so Disney basically took over Fox Studios, bought Fox Studios out.
	Fox Studios had an agreement with TSG.
	A lot of the way Hollywood finances its deals, they have third-party investors come in.
	And TSD was smarter.
	This is one of the smarter Hollywood investors.
	They know how Hollywood accounting works.
	To give you an idea of how Hollywood accounting works, they once reported in the studios that Forrest Gump lost money.
	Right.
	By definition, that couldn't be true.
	But they're really good at hiding profit sources, exaggerating, relocating expense items, things that don't maximize.
	They do things when everybody else does it.
	It's called tax crimes and you go to prison.
	Tax fraud, tax evasion, etc.
	Hollywood does.
	It's just ordinary course of business.
	I had to deal with this for Wesley Snipes years ago because they were always screwing him on the back end.
	The royalty deals are always getting stiff.
	The Michael Ower case we talked about at the beginning, him pretending that there's these millions of dollars.
	No, the people up front always get stiff.
	Only the studios walk away with any cash.
	Well, Disney takes over and Disney started...
	So Fox apparently had been playing games with the money.
	And so what it is, is part of investing, they had certain...
	Ways to guarantee they got their investment back with some profit.
	So they had locked in about what expenses could be expensed, what income had to be included as ink, what qualified pictures were, their right to repurchase at key times.
	Fox then sells to Disney.
	Disney makes it worse because they want to inflate the subscriber base for Disney+.
	So they want to stick a bunch of content on there.
	That wasn't supposed to go there, that was supposed to be publicly released in films to the box office that these people had invested in.
	And so they exaggerate the things that Fox was already doing, stealing from these people with bogus expenses and under-reporting income streams and relocating the profit from here to there, all those games they can play, doing preferred deals with self-dealing with their own entities.
	What is it?
	Inflate this expense, decrease this profit share there.
	You know, it's like when you use, you can use transfer pricing intellectual property to do this all the time to limit your taxes.
	That's how Hewlett Packard and Apple and everybody doesn't pay taxes.
	Call them the double Dutch or the double Irish.
	You use tax treaties to do all this stuff, transfer pricing, etc.
	But basically they were doing the same thing here, but doing it for the purpose of defrauding the people who had originally invested in the films.
	And then Disney made it worse by trying to pad the roles of Disney+.
	And then the other interesting thing about this indictment is it says Disney is so bad at managing its brand that it's diminishing the quality or the audience reaction to films that would have better responses if Disney wasn't handling it.
	Example, Disney through Fox had the right to Sound of Freedom.
	Sold it back for pennies on the dollar of the production cost and now gets no money on it.
	Well, there's a bunch of other movie deals that similar things happen to, so they're being sued for breach of contract, tortious interference, and various forms of basically common law fraud.
	That's very interesting.
	All right.
	Who's doing the new Snow White?
	That is Disney, correct?
	I believe so, yeah.
	I mean, Disney, I think, has lost over a billion dollars this year in films.
	Couldn't happen to a better company if we had to ask for it ourselves.
	All right, and then hold on one second.
	We got Disney.
	Oh, the COVID lockdown schools.
	This was special needs schools suing over rights violations for having locked down schools or ended in-person schooling during COVID.
	Saying that they were being specifically targeted or disparately impacted because of the special needs nature of the kids didn't go the way it was supposed to go, Robert.
	You want to flesh that out?
	Yeah, unfortunately they're stuck in Massachusetts in the First Circuit.
	So these are special needs kids who had a particular plan laid out for which the federal government was giving special funds to Massachusetts schools to implement that plan that the schools then completely eviscerated.
	By forcing them all to do remote learning in ways that was, and they just got rid of all the plans.
	And these are people with special communications needs.
	Some of them are autistic.
	They're people that you couldn't just treat them like any other student, even if remote learning wasn't a bad idea, and it is.
	Doing it for some of these special needs students was a direct violation of their federal agreement.
	To take those funds under the IDEA laws, I-D-E-A laws, individuals with disabilities and educational access.
	But it particularly stripped them of their ability to perform the agreed plan.
	And what does the First Circuit say?
	Well, it's not happening now, so we're going to pretend it could never happen again, and so we're going to call it all moot, no standing.
	And next time you have to exhaust every possible conceivable administrative remedy that's out there, even if the administrative remedy has no application to the complaint that you have.
	And otherwise, go Massachusetts schools, way to steal all that money.
	It's the exhausting your remedies and then declaring it moot because it is no longer in effect.
	And then meanwhile, as we're going to talk about on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, they might be bringing back these measures in September, October.
	And then everyone who had their lawsuits dismissed for mootness because they would have retracted their measures.
	Do it again and we'll rinse, repeat and go on and forward.
	Robert, does that end?
	That ends it now, I think.
	We'll try to get to all the $5 tips that are on there.
	We will.
	I will read fast.
	Cotton fraud and class action lawyers trying to scam their own clients.
	And election law cases about the 2024 election in Texas, in Georgia, some other places.
	And is there a risk that COVID lockdowns are coming back in the fall?
	All that exclusively at The After Party at babybarneslaw.locals.com.
	Starting in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Done.
	Robert, before we even get into any of it, we should be live here.

▲