Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 10, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:51

Ep. 177: Elon Sues California; Impeachment; Disbarment; Special Grand Juries AND MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Can you believe that someone actually had the audacity of other names?
	Look, unironically, listen to what he said and then wait until you hear the punchline.
	It's never not a good time to thank black women in America for their services to the republic, for stepping up again and again to save American democracy through their sacrifices, their strength, their activism, their votes.
	But this month in particular, we should thank black women for doing what a bunch of white guys have failed to do for years.
	It's never not a good time, according to Mehdi Hassan.
	It's never not a good time to thank black women.
	According to Mehdi Hassan, you should look at people and just immediately determine what is the color of their skin and then thank them.
	Of course, that's Mehdi Hassan's position.
	When they agree with Mehdi Hassan and when they do what Mehdi Hassan wants him to do.
	Oh my goodness.
	Hold on, hold on.
	What did Mehdi Hassan say yesterday?
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	He got into a fight with a black woman on Twitter.
	He wasn't thanking her for her service.
	He wasn't thanking her for her devotion to the Republic.
	He was trying to humiliate her and fight with her and demean her and degrade her on Twitter.
	Brianna Joy Gray.
	I don't know who she is.
	Some people are saying that, you know, she's a shill and a...
	I don't know.
	Just throw these words out there.
	I know that she seems to have worked for the Bernie Sanders campaign.
	But Mehdi Hassan was not thanking her for her dedication to the republic.
	Yesterday on Twitter, he was trying to mock her and scorn her in front of the entire world.
	He said...
	In response to her first tweet, don't vote shame me.
	Second tweet, let me vote shame you.
	That was one of the interactions that he had instead of thanking her for her sacrifice.
	What was the other one that he had here?
	Don't get to the tweet.
	There was another one.
	Nobody is lowering the bar for Biden.
	Silly woman.
	How dare you be so daft?
	Thousands of organizers and activists on immigration, labor rights, criminal justice reform are all pushing Biden to do better.
	Almost none of them think a second Trump term would be same or better than or a second Biden term.
	That's just you.
	Silly, silly woman.
	I'm not thanking you today because you're not going after Trump.
	You said something I disagree with.
	Well, apparently this was...
	Where is it?
	This was the straw that broke...
	Mehdi Hassan's back.
	I said Mehdi Hassan shaming a woman and person of color.
	What a racist, misogynist piece of garbage Mehdi Hassan is.
	Plus, she's a Bernie supporter.
	I do love watching the revolution devour its own.
	And then, hallelujah, testify, people.
	Mehdi Hassan has finally blocked me on Twitter.
	Look, I'm not saying I was trying to do it.
	No but.
	I am just surprised it took this long for Mehdi Hassan to finally block me on Twitter.
	Because I have been...
	There are a number of blue checkmark MSM legacy media propagandists who I find particularly noxious.
	Particularly noxious.
	Jake Tapper, yes, but there's other ones.
	No lie with Brian something Cohen, BTC.
	I find him particularly noxious.
	There's a guy, Bruce Arthur, coming out of Canada, particularly noxious.
	One who is a notch above all the others in terms of noxious toxicity, arrogance, pomposity, hypocrisy, dishonesty, disingenuous, malicious, malicious disingenuousness is Mehdi R. Hassan.
	He comes out with that patronizing in your face.
	We should thank black women for doing what a bunch of white men are not doing.
	Going after Trump.
	Oh!
	And then when they say something he doesn't disagree with, well, he has no...
	By the way, if according to media...
	Did I take down that video?
	You got to go watch that whole four-minute clip where he says Trump is a proven racist.
	And he's particularly racist when he insults black women.
	Whenever he insults them, it's racism.
	Because he calls them words.
	And when he says, what did he say?
	He used the term disrespectful when Trump referred to Ketanji Brown Jackson as disrespectful.
	Mehdi Hassan viewed that as racism.
	There he goes with that word again, disrespectful.
	What a racist thing to say.
	If, according to Mehdi R. Hassan, when Trump attacks a black woman, it's racism, that must mean that when Mehdi Hassan does it, in his own mind, it has to be racism as well.
	I'm like, I have not read the book Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, but I know the rules.
	Hold the enemy to their standards.
	You want to make that stupid-ass rule up Mehdi R. Hassan?
	When Trump calls a black woman disrespectful, it has to be racism.
	All right.
	Then when you make fun of someone, when you try to poke someone on the interwebs, it also has to be racism by your own standards in your own mind when you did that.
	Blocked.
	I tell you, hallelujah.
	It was like a train wreck.
	It was like a roadkill on a highway, I like to say, or an accident on the highway.
	Like, you can't help but read Mehdi Hassan's Twitter feed.
	And you want to comment on all of it.
	You want to avoid it.
	You want to look away.
	You want to not smell the foul odor that is that dead skunk on the highway.
	But you drive by it and you say, don't smell.
	It's going to smell terrible.
	And you have to.
	And you have to look over and you have to see the train wreck.
	The absolute in-your-face propaganda, disingenuous dishonesty.
	His interview with Matt Taibbi.
	You have to watch it.
	And it has to enrage you because if it doesn't enrage you, you don't have a soul.
	Okay.
	I've gone this far and I haven't checked to see that we are live on all platforms, across all platforms.
	Are we?
	We're live on Rumble People, Viva Fright.
	I just noticed I'm at 372,000 subscribers.
	On Rumble.
	Booyah.
	We're live on Rumble.
	We should be live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com where Rustang says Viva is obsessed with Hassan.
	I am obsessed with those who I believe are contributing to the downfall of society.
	That picture of the dude giving Trump the middle finger.
	Oh, that was no lie with Brian Taylor Cohen.
	Whatever the hell his name is.
	No lie with BTC.
	Spoiler alert!
	It's all lies!
	I gotta show you this.
	I gotta show you this.
	This is like...
	There's a propaganda piece where they show you like the picture according to the propagandists and reality.
	It's reality.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Oh my goodness.
	The wrath of the Iowans at that Iowa Buckeye versus Iowa State universe.
	Look at these people.
	Everyone was flipping the bird to Donald.
	You see this picture, by the way?
	You Google this picture.
	You're going to find this snip and clip picture across media because they want to paint a narrative that the crowd was booing at Donald Trump.
	And that they were all giving him the bird.
	This is the propaganda picture, by the way.
	I was like, Jesus, I have to go.
	This is the actual picture.
	These yellow dashes through the people there was so that I could highlight the fact that there were easily, in this frame, 40 people.
	I think I counted 35 yellow strips just so that I could, you know, make sure I got them all.
	But I'm sure there are some tucked in there that we can't see.
	There's one right here that I know I missed right there.
	Easily 35 to 40 people.
	How many people giving him the burtel?
	Well, they're giving him two fingers.
	One, two, three.
	Three people giving Donald Trump the middle finger.
	Apparently.
	There are some people who rightly observed, if you look up here in the picture, everybody, you see that guy right up here pointing down?
	He's wearing the Iowa, whatever that other...
	Opponent jersey is.
	He's pointing down at the people who seem to be giving him the bird.
	On top up here, I had to look up the jerseys, is the rival team jersey.
	Now, I'm not saying that's the explanation.
	I heard some boos when I listened to the video, and I saw people seemingly giving the bird, flipping the bird to Donald Trump.
	I mean, it wouldn't shock me.
	40 people, three of them, 10% are going to give the bird?
	That doesn't, that doesn't shock me.
	But the media wants to portray this as the reality?
	And then you get Brian No Lie with Brian BTC, whatever the heck his name is.
	It's like, it's a joke.
	We're living in a world where people are profiting off of purveying disinformation.
	And I say this in full awareness that the people, the trolls that I have on Twitter are going to say, Viva, you're doing the same thing.
	I openly call for an audit of everything that I've ever said.
	If I have ever made a mistake that I have not corrected, I invite people to call me out on it.
	I do an audit of my own accuracy because I don't want to be in a position where I've ever said something that wasn't true, that I did not correct myself.
	It's happened.
	I've made mistakes.
	If you came for perfection, I'm flattered.
	You're going to stay for the humanity.
	But I have particular disdain for the people who try to shape Fake narratives so they can actually contribute to the downfall division of society through misinformation and disinformation.
	If society is divided over factually correct information, that's the price of living in society.
	So I do have particular disdain and particular scorn for Mehdi Hassan.
	But I also have a lot of disdain and a lot of scorn for a lot of other journalists out there.
	So, anyway, all that to say, we're done.
	Good evening, everybody.
	This is going to be one hell of a show.
	The world...
	I'm not going to lie.
	I wake up and my wife has been saying that I've been doing this a lot.
	Just like, randomly.
	She's like, what are you sighing about?
	I just had another thought that's irritating me.
	You wake up and you say, have we reached the bottom of this madness yet?
	And no, we haven't.
	No, we haven't.
	Lawsuits coming out of Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot.
	It's an endless race to the bottom.
	I don't know where it ends.
	I don't know how it gets better.
	And I don't know if it's actually pushing people to the despair of apathy.
	They say the opposite of love is hate.
	It isn't.
	Hate is as much a passion as love is.
	The opposite of love is apathy.
	Shit, I think I screwed up.
	The opposite of love is...
	No, apathy.
	It's indifference.
	I'm sorry.
	The opposite of love is indifference.
	I have a very bad feeling that this endless tyrant, this endless torrent, not tyrant, this endless torrent of misinformation, disinformation, gaslighting, Legal abuse, spiritual fatigue is going to push people not to hatred but to indifference.
	Just leave me live.
	Give me a moment of quiet.
	Just let me be like that amazing scene from Network.
	Just leave me alone for one second of the day.
	It will not.
	They will not.
	They want total...
	It is a torrent of tyrants.
	Hello, Stewie.
	How's it going?
	There doesn't seem to be a bottom to the barrel.
	We're not yet there.
	All right.
	But we're going to explore the bottom of that barrel tonight.
	And my goodness, we're going to have some fun with the governor of New Mexico.
	Holy crab apples.
	Before we get there...
	Son of a beasting.
	I did put on...
	Hold on.
	Because I'm so neurotic.
	Because I'm so intent on holding myself.
	I did.
	I did check the box that says contain a paid promotion because it does.
	Thank our sponsor tonight.
	If you might be going a little crazy, you might be having a few too many thoughts of impending doom in your brain.
	What you can do to bring yourself back down to earth and to be a little bit healthy and be good to your body.
	You can have your greens, child.
	Most people don't know you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	I do this pretty much every day.
	Sometimes I eat so much roughage, you don't want to know the end of that sentence.
	But most people do not eat their five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	And they should.
	Instead, they suck back a disgusting, chemical-filled Diet Coke, or worse yet, a Red Bull.
	Desiccated greens.
	Powdered greens, people.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	You get the powdered greens.
	It's a food.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's not an extract.
	You mix it together.
	It looks like swamp water because it's rich in nutrients.
	One spoonful has one serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the antioxidants, nutrients that you need.
	If you can't get your raw fruits and vegetables, you can do this as a healthy alternative.
	One spoonful twice a day.
	It tastes delicious.
	And that's it.
	Made in America, USDA organic.
	It's fantastic.
	Tastes delicious.
	It's a healthy habit.
	And if nothing else, it will also force you to focus on being good to the one temple that you have, your body.
	That's right.
	Promo code VIVA.
	Go to Viva...
	Viva Greens.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	It brings you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA for 15% off your first order.
	All right.
	Now, standard disclaimers.
	These beautiful things that you see here, these highlighted comments.
	They're called Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	They're called Super Chats on YouTube.
	YouTube takes 30% of that beautiful $10 Super Chat right there.
	So if you want to support the channel without also supporting YouTube, you can go to Rumble and do it there.
	Rumble ordinarily takes 20%, but for the rest of the year, they're taking 0%.
	2024, they'll go back to taking their 20%.
	Best way to support?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Seven bucks a month, $70 a year if you get the 12 month.
	Some people actually willingly contribute more because they like what we do.
	That's it.
	No medical advice, no election fornication advice, though we're talking some serious, serious election stuff tonight.
	All right, what did it say?
	Unvetted non-taxpayer.
	What struck me in that clip was the woman who says we need to be taken care of first.
	That big brother mindset is the problem in these dem-run cities.
	Cheryl Gage.
	So for those who are not...
	In our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	Although I think I shared it on Twitter as well.
	It's that very famous montage now of, I think, I guess it's New York.
	I'm not exactly sure where it was, but it doesn't really matter.
	The principle is you have a bunch of people within a community saying they're bringing in, they don't say the word illegal immigrants.
	One of the guys literally said, What was the term he said?
	Unvetted non-taxpayer.
	What in the name of sweet holy hell is that?
	When you are complaining about the fact that your government is not taking care of you, a taxpaying citizen.
	Because they are prioritizing, or at the very least, neglecting you because of illegal immigrants crossing the border illegally, coming into the country illegally, and then taking the resources that you as a taxpaying citizen have paid into the system, and yet you still insist on using the Orwellian Newspeak term, unvetted non-taxpayer instead of illegal immigrant?
	I dare say that mindset might very well be part of the problem.
	Unvetted non-taxpayer.
	Okay, it's crazy.
	Now, let me see here if we got any...
	Well, we got a bunch of rumble rants, and we're live in the locals, vivabanslaw.locals.com.
	Let me bring...
	Let me do one thing.
	I see Barnes is in the backdrop, and I'm going to bring this up because I...
	Robert, I sent Robert the link right before the stream because someone sent me an interesting article.
	Apparently...
	Some legal scholars are saying that Trump can get sued for selling his unadulterated mugshot to raise money.
	Oh, I mean, it's an unannounced topic.
	I'm going to get Barnes to field this one for me because it smells and sounds like a load of horse crap.
	Robert, are you ready, sir?
	Five minutes.
	Okay, two seconds.
	While on the subject, however, because we have made modified creative changes, First of all, the mugshot is public domain.
	Last I checked, though some legal scholars are thinking, oh, the mugshot might belong to the Fulton County Police Station, and you're not allowed reproducing it without their permission.
	I'll pull up the article.
	It was in the New York Post.
	You might want to get some of the best damn merchandise anyone has ever designed.
	You'll notice the creative...
	What is the word I'm looking for?
	Transformation of the image to an old Western style wanted.
	Wanted for president.
	The wanted for president mugshot shot glass.
	It's amazing.
	The wanted for president mugshot coffee mug.
	It's a play on words here.
	Or the mugshot wanted for president shirt.
	VivaFry.com and there's a ton of other stuff there which you can get the above average.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, Barnes looks like he's ready.
	You ready?
	Sir, come on in.
	How goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You look younger, by the way.
	Did you get a hair trim and a beard trim?
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's amazing.
	You look like 10 years old.
	You look almost like a baby with a goatee.
	That's funny.
	Robert, look, my brother, one of my brothers sent me the article, or said, did you hear about this?
	And I googled it.
	Have you heard about this?
	That some legal scholars are suggesting Trump can get sued civilly by the Fulton County Police Station for selling the unadulterated mugshot?
	Have you heard that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I commented on it at the time.
	I think we dealt with this issue back a ways when someone was trying to litigate.
	The issue of whether there's a right of privacy and a mugshot.
	Because there's a bunch of publications that all they do is publish mugshots.
	They're now subject to a range of state laws that say that if someone requests it, you have to withdraw it under certain circumstances.
	Also, some of these publications were...
	Borderline extortion.
	They're like, yeah, maybe we can take your photo down if you send us a little money.
	That kind of thing.
	But there's no question on the federal side.
	Federal government cannot claim a copyright.
	That's by law.
	So the only question is, could the state government claim a copyright?
	Number one, in general.
	And then two, could the state government claim a copyright in an identification photo, such as a so-called mugshot?
	Historically, the answer is, I know of no case.
	There was actually someone arguing with Eric Hundley on this, saying that Eric was an idiot and everybody else was an idiot for not knowing that, of course, it's copyrightable.
	And it was one of these law Twitter people.
	And so I was like, well, cite me the case.
	Cite me a single case from anywhere in American history where any government employee or agency has claimed a copyright in an identification mechanism.
	Whether that's fingerprints, photograph, DNA, you name it.
	Of course, he couldn't, and then he blocked me because people were starting to rag him about not being able to give an answer when he was so arrogant and condescending like your typical law Twitter person is.
	I know of none.
	Nobody in Fulton County has made this claim.
	It was just some law professor who was eager to get her name in the news, and the Post circulated the story without any second-guessing and without getting another side of that story.
	I pointed out that, as you pointed out, generally speaking, mugshots are considered in public domain, and generally speaking, things in the public domain are not subject to copyright law.
	The second problem is whether a state government can claim it in general.
	The third is whether anybody can claim it for identification purposes other than the individual themselves.
	And that's problematic for a wide range of reasons.
	This photograph wasn't taken for artistic purposes.
	It wasn't taken voluntarily.
	So imagine they compel someone to submit for the mugshot and then say, I own the copyright in your face that I compelled you by law to submit to.
	It's inconceivable.
	And you have a right to court public.
	You have a right under various FOIA and freedom of information laws and sunshine laws and transparency laws to the public to have access to this.
	The purpose of the photograph is for public distribution.
	It's designed for one person.
	It's effectively used to shame.
	It's legal purpose is to make sure that if a person flees, people know who it is so they can identify them for preventing that person from successfully fleeing.
	That's the predicate behind all identification taking information by the criminal justice process.
	In that capacity, it's intended to be publicly distributed as widely and broadly as possible, not to have someone claim authorship.
	And a monopoly on any use of it.
	Again, no one has ever, to my knowledge, even claimed this in American history.
	And it's not like it's something new.
	I mean, mugshot magazines and publications have been around for the better part of a century.
	So the idea that this is a completely novel claim that I don't think has any legal merit whatsoever.
	Its least credibility would be against Trump, but I don't think there's credibility against it, period.
	There's always a fair use argument.
	The one we're using, one for president, is clearly a fair use anyway.
	But it strikes me as, yeah, you better go to vivafry.com and buy it now because maybe they'll come and shut us down tomorrow.
	Oh, no, it's a novel legal theory.
	And that seems to be exactly all that they're using to go after Trump these days, civilly and criminally.
	That sums up all the cases against Trump.
	Robert, we got some stuff tonight.
	Do you want to go over the menu very briefly and we'll do our two subjects here and then move over to Rumble exclusively?
	Yeah, so we have 12 topics.
	We'll do two here, 10 on Rumble, and then three or four bonus topics exclusively to the after party where we answer all $5-tipped questions and more at vibobarnslaw.locals.com.
	The top topic is the nutty New Mexico governor.
	It was the most popular topic on the board poll today, trying to ban guns in the name of emergency powers and showing that wherever you get your constitutional law, Don't get it from Ben Shapiro, because apparently Michael Knowles at Daily Wire thinks that such emergency power exists as an exception to the Constitution.
	We've got to re-educate him.
	Jordan Peterson doesn't need the re-education camp, but Michael Knowles does.
	We'll talk about the Second Amendment win against California before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We'll talk about Musk.
	Elon Musk in X is suing California.
	What's the progress and possibility of that suit in light of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' big winning banning the Biden administration from continuing to engage in social media censorship?
	The Eastman disbarment trial exposed a lot of issues about the 2020 election that many Americans still don't even know about.
	The Texas Attorney General Paxson trial continues to expose what a complete crock.
	Most of the Republican leadership in Texas is that the ludicrous character of those accusations got fully unmasked this week in the trial in the Senate.
	Peter Navarro got to go through a show trial in the District of Columbia that now faces appeal after the rubber stamp conviction by the D.C. jury.
	The Obama judge doesn't think doing things as a chief of staff for the White House really has anything to do with federal employment.
	Denied a removal under very unusual arguments that got made there.
	More Jack Smith misconduct unearthed by the defense lawyer for one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case that may have broad ramifications for the entire case.
	New York's vaccine mandate on teachers got overruled and teachers were ordered to be reinstated this week.
	The abortion pill case, big decision out of the Fifth Circuit, and right away...
	The abortion lobby ran up to the U.S. Supreme Court and is begging the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved.
	We'll discuss it, and we'll see if they do.
	Biden immigration, another one of the popular topics, because the Biden administration wants to prevent the Texas governor from stopping illegal immigration across the border by using buoys in the river, and he wants to force the state of Texas to keep all the immigrants and not allow them to send them up to Chicago and New York City.
	Then the bonus topics.
	We'll have a bar alternative being discussed in the state of Oregon.
	A civil rights case against government conspiracies before the Fifth Circuit.
	The Owen Schroyer case.
	He's facing prison time.
	They claim not because of his press or his speech, but if you read the sentencing memorandum, it's all about his press and his speech.
	And they lie about what Alex Jones did that day, by the way, on January 6th.
	And last but not least, what about Whataburger?
	Claiming that the anti-slap statute prevents people from suing him for premises liability.
	So those will be a couple of the bonus cases we'll get to at the afterparty at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, we're going to start with this because it's the type of absurdity that you would expect out of a movie like Idiocracy.
	This is the highlighted clip here.
	Listen to this.
	The value of the order is that it gives me three things.
	One.
	It says it's a statewide issue and it's a message to everyone to start leveraging resources and arresting people.
	I can't arrest everyone.
	There are literally too many people to arrest.
	Maybe they should be.
	If there's an emergency, and I've declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers.
	No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.
	Do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun?
	Do you really think that criminals are going to hear this message and not carry a gun?
	Look at her.
	Look at her arms.
	For 30 days.
	So, Robert, I can't say that I've ever heard of her before this.
	She strikes me as being the biggest intellectual midwit.
	Unimaginable.
	Power-hungry tyrant.
	I love the way she's sitting there with her arms crossed, like, no, of course it's not going to do it, but I'm going to do it anyhow.
	And the use of the words I and my, it gives me power.
	I've declared the emergency.
	And she said no constitutional right, and my oath is absolute, which I guess is her saying, well, I know I said I would uphold the Constitution, but that wasn't an absolute statement.
	We'll get into the Knowles thing, because I'll steal Man Knowles' argument, but Robert, this is absolute madness.
	Well, I mean, I think it's why Knowles' argument is so dangerous, too.
	There's a natural temptation to want power so that you can serve whatever cause you believe in.
	And in the context of the emergency power grabs used during the COVID pandemic, we're always going to be used as a predicate to do it again.
	The old parable that if you allow emergencies to be the pretext to break the law, politicians will create emergencies so they can break the law.
	And that's what's happened here.
	And you have people like Michael Knowles who look at it and think, wow, conservatives could use that too.
	I was like, yeah, that's the problem.
	That's why, unlike the Weimar Constitution that led to the undoing of the German Weimar Republic and invited and in fact legitimized the rise of the Nazi fascist party that led to the rise of Hitler, who, by the way, was rejected by two-thirds of Germans at every single, at least two-thirds of Germans in every single public poll that ever happened, actual legitimate election that ever happened in Germany.
	Commonly misunderstood to say that he was popular.
	No, he wasn't.
	Otherwise, he would have had an honest election.
	He didn't, like all tyrants, like all autocrats.
	So the problem is, what she said is commonly believed, I mean, she's a lawyer herself, is commonly believed by the political class that the words emergency are magical, mojo words that eviscerate.
	All oaths, all obligations, all constitutional protections.
	It doesn't.
	Our founding generation was intimately aware of the possibility of various kinds of emergencies, including insurrections, including, we'll talk about it later, invasions, including the possibilities of declaration of war, issues concerning debt, issues concerning pandemics.
	They were intimately aware of all of it.
	And yet you will not find in a single place, in a single part of the Constitution, a single exception for emergencies.
	Unlike the Weimar Constitution that did provide for that.
	And that big whole loophole is what gutted it.
	And that's why any constitutional scholar who didn't go to Ben Shapiro's School of How Not to Learn Constitutional Law at the Daily Wire knows how dangerous it is to even be contemplating.
	Such power.
	Well, let me steal, man, Knowles and what other people's perceptions are.
	I think people tend to use the term emergency and time of war.
	They use the term emergency very broadly.
	You have martial law where it says we're in a time of war.
	We can violate your civil rights.
	You have convictions under the courts of law, which not an emergency, but there are circumstances in which the violation of constitutional rights is lawful, so to speak.
	I have people that say there's a tsunami.
	You're going to lock people down.
	There's a war going on or whatever.
	But I guess the argument would be that martial law is specifically provided for in the law and is not as broad and vague as an emergency.
	Well, there's no provision for martial law either in the Constitution.
	Basically, in fact, there's just no emergency exception, period.
	What there is is if an invasion happens, there are certain things you can do.
	If there's an insurrection that happens, certain things you can do.
	If you've stated declared war, certain things you can do.
	But all clearly laid out in the Constitution.
	So it anticipated what is colloquially called the worst form of an emergency and said, here's how you can declare that.
	Here's who can do it.
	Here's what they can do.
	Very careful and deliberate.
	No emergency exception at all.
	They knew how dangerous that would be.
	It would eviscerate all constitutional...
	You don't have a constitution if you have an emergency exception.
	Well, and you look at Canada, we don't even have an emergency exception.
	We just have a standard of a free and democratic society.
	These are your God-given rights, except in as much as can be limited in a free and democratic society.
	And we've seen how that worked out, although it was only marginally worse than what we saw in California and New York.
	But Robert, let me bring up...
	I say, you know...
	Oh, where is it?
	You know, when David Hogg, Parkland shooting survivor, disagrees with you, you've gone too far.
	He says, I support gun safety, but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.
	And, you know, you go into his timeline after that, and you got a bunch of people who don't frequent his timeline saying, has hell frozen over?
	I agree with David Hogg versus the Michael Knowles.
	Yeah, and the same, you know, Congressman Ted Lieu, a Democratic liberal congressman, said the same thing.
	It will be, and there's talk already in New Mexico of seeking to impeach her based on her statements.
	Several law enforcement officials have said they will not enforce it.
	Quite frankly, they can't.
	Any law enforcement official who enforces this, this is a facially unconstitutional action.
	In other words, on the face of it, you know there's not legal authority for it.
	She made that clear.
	She said, I'm not abiding the Constitution.
	She said, so what does that mean?
	It means law enforcement can't enforce that.
	They can't say, well, the governor told me.
	Doesn't matter.
	Now you're suable.
	You could lose your badge.
	Arguably, you're engaging in criminal behavior, frankly, depriving people of their civil rights.
	So every law enforcement official in New Mexico...
	Better follow the advice of those district attorneys and sheriffs who've said there's no chance in the world they're going to enforce this because that's their legal obligation is to not enforce an unconstitutional order.
	Then the legislators, I don't think there's enough Republicans in the New Mexico state legislature to impeach her.
	But they're right to at least initiate the process because this is action that can't reoccur or be repeated.
	And she's already been sued, and a federal court is highly likely to stop her action very quickly.
	Well, I mean, they might not need Republicans to impeach her at this point if you have the likes of David Hogg and Ted Lieu saying, yeah, she's gone too far this time.
	This was her reply to Ted Lieu, who said, I support gun safety laws.
	However, the governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution.
	She went from then, she pivoted from...
	I'm not violating the U.S. Constitution because conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over.
	If you're really interested in helping, whatever.
	Robert, first of all...
	Can you imagine thinking that this isn't about state jurisdiction?
	But that's the quality of liberal lawyers.
	Nobody's saying that the state of New Mexico has no authority over its population.
	They're saying that that power is limited.
	In certain instances, including in this instance, the Second Amendment rights.
	And she admitted she's violating Second Amendment rights.
	She can prohibit one form.
	What the Bruin decision said is that any limitation has to be predicated upon what existed.
	We'll talk about a good transition into actually the second case, California case.
	Because in California, there's criminal laws prohibiting the open carry of handguns.
	The Ninth Circuit, a district court refused to enjoin it.
	Despite the Bruin decision, by applying a balance of harms analysis that ignored how likely they were to succeed on the merits, which was insane.
	But it's what a court really thinks they're doing when they do that balance of harms analysis.
	That's supposed to be an equitable analysis about not, hey, do I think society will be better off or not and get to play Platonic king as judge?
	By which is good or bad.
	That's not what that's supposed to mean.
	That's an injunction analysis that says, if I give you what you want, what's the likelihood that leads to a worse or better outcome if I turn out to be wrong?
	That's all that is.
	That's what that's supposed to mean.
	Not about is society better off or not.
	But, of course, you let judges have this kind of power, they completely misappropriated old equitable jurisdiction for their personal politics.
	And that's what the district court did, and the district court decided not to even look at the likelihood of success on the merits.
	So the Ninth Circuit, fortunately, was forced to reverse and say, well, no, you always, in a constitutional case, have to look at likelihood of success on the merits because the balance of the harms always weighs in favor of a constitutional issue and a constitutional right.
	And what California was doing is what the New Mexico governor just declared by decree to do, which is they passed a law that said made it a crime to open carry a handgun under certain circumstances.
	That got challenged after Bruin because California's restrictions were not in place, nor do they have a historical analog to the time of the founding of the country or at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1860 after the Civil War.
	And consequently, that's why the judge decided not to talk about success of the merits, because he knew that they would win on success of the merits.
	Court of Appeals said, no, you have to talk about success of the merits.
	And for the time being, stop that criminal law from being enforced in the state of California.
	So a big win in California.
	The same grounds is why that governor is going to lose very fast.
	I think Gun Owners of America or the Firearms Policy Coalition, one of them has already filed suit.
	It will be in court this week.
	Governor will lose, just like the Californians lost.
	And that will continue to be the way it should be.
	I just say, if there's anything that's ever been impeachable, it's that.
	And the logic, which is, I can't arrest all the criminals.
	That's how bad things are.
	They're not going to abide by this.
	And she admitted, oh yeah, this isn't going to stop her.
	I'll give credit to that journalist asking a real question that's almost never asked in the gun control context.
	Do you really think this gun control law is going to deter?
	Criminals from getting guns or using guns.
	No.
	Nope.
	I don't care, but I'm here to take away your gun-owning rights anyway.
	Nothing you can do about it.
	Emergency.
	Emergency.
	The rationale is now the cops can really focus on the real criminals because they're not going to focus on the non-criminals.
	Preposterous.
	Robert, before we go over to Rumble, everyone, come on over to Rumble.
	Let me just pull up a few Rumble rants here.
	From McAllen, Texas, I work two blocks from two large motels that asylum seekers stay at for 24 hours.
	Every day, six 100-person buses.
	Pick them up and either take them to the airport after midnight.
	Just FYI.
	And we got 514.
	Pasha, how long is it going to take to someone to challenge this crazy New Mexico governor?
	So we covered that.
	She's nuts and she's nuts.
	And then we got, why doesn't anyone like those two sycophants next to her arrest politicians that pulled this bullshit under 18 U.S.C.
	section 242?
	We have laws on the books that are not being enforced by either party.
	And then we got this last one.
	Can Abbott in Texas claim an emergency that gives him the power to enforce the U.S. immigration law and force the Biden administration to go after the New Mexico governor?
	All right, so that's it.
	Now we're coming over to Rumble, people.
	The link is in the pinned comment, but just in the unlikely event that I forgot, I've given you the link to Locals as well, where we have the after party.
	Come on over.
	We're ending on YouTube in 5...
	2,942...
	4...
	3...
	Two, one.
	And we're on Rumble exclusively.
	All right.
	Now let me get back to the list.
	We'll do the Rumble rants in a bit.
	What's next on the list?
	Are we doing the Georgia?
	Oh, no.
	The medals.
	We're going medals removed.
	Elon Musk.
	Okay.
	Oh, oh.
	I have these sections up there.
	So Elon Musk is suing California.
	They passed this law.
	This law is now not in the debate stage.
	This is at the, we say, royal assent stage.
	It has become law in California.
	Okay.
	And this is something that's going to govern social media companies by compelling them to basically not just answer to the government, but open their books in a way that's unfathomable.
	I brought up the document here.
	Provide terms of service and report to the government.
	This is, the law is AB 587, requires social media companies to submit biannual terms of service reports on April and October to the Attorney General Bonta, who will then make them publicly available.
	The report must include, this is where it's just, it's amazing.
	Some aspect of this legislation we've discussed before in terms of like, show us your algorithms so we can decide if you're censoring based on political viewpoints.
	This goes a little bit...
	Further in the opposite direction.
	A statement of whether, and if so, how the platform's terms of service define hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, all very easy to define terms.
	The current version of the terms of service and a, quote, complete and detailed description of any changes to the terms of service.
	A, quote, detailed description, end quote, of the platform's, quote, content moderation policies.
	This is one I don't think I necessarily have a disagreement with, but including any existing policies intended to address the categories of content described.
	And I guess that's hate, extremism, whatever.
	How automated content moderation systems enforce the platform's terms of service when these systems involve human review.
	And it goes on.
	Information regarding content that was flagged by the social...
	This is...
	When I read this, Robert, to me it reads like...
	Nationalizing social media platforms, but in disguise.
	Disguised nationalization.
	Although, like we've discussed, you know, knowing how they're censoring, deplatforming, sanctioning is useful.
	But this seems to go a little bit further.
	Elon Musk is suing, what is it, First Amendment violations for compelled speech.
	A number of other things.
	Robert, what's your take on the lawsuit?
	And does it succeed in commie California?
	Yeah, filed in Federal District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
	I presume they filed there because that's where the Attorney General is, also probably to avoid the San Francisco District, which is a little more problematic and has been very big tech friendly.
	Though they use a lot of the Ninth Circuits and Northern District of California's big tech friendly cases against them in this context.
	So their fundamental claim is that the reason the state of California is compelling this speech.
	Saying, produce a report, provide these terms, is that they're trying to force social media to identify their own opinions.
	Tell us what you think misinformation is.
	Tell us what you think disinformation is.
	Tell us what you think hatred is.
	Tell us what you think racism is.
	So on and so forth.
	So it's beyond just, hey, put out this disclaimer.
	It's, tell us what you think.
	Give us your opinions.
	And give us your opinions in the form of a report about how you enforce those opinions on your staff.
	So it's not just requiring them to do something they're already doing, because that'd be a different dynamic.
	The Texas law, for example, that was challenged, that was meant to protect free speech, simply asked them to tell people what they were up to, be transparent.
	That isn't what this is.
	This is asking them to do something they're not already doing.
	Demanding they do it instead, and demanding they tell them what their opinion is, the process.
	And because they use the public statements surrounding the bill to point out that it's an intent to intimidate them into adopting speech codes while pretending it's not.
	And compelled speech involves the First Amendment as a right to speak, a right to listen, and a right to refrain or restrain from speaking.
	A right not to speak.
	And so when the government compels speech or coerces speech, that has to meet First Amendment standards because it naturally violates your First Amendment freedoms unless they can show that it's a compelling means to meet a narrowly tested, a narrowly defined means to meet a compelling interest.
	And so in this capacity, they point out that first it's compelled speech because it's forcing them to speak.
	When they otherwise would not.
	And they had no intention.
	They don't do this normally.
	So they're asking them to disclose something they don't do.
	They don't define misinformation or disinformation.
	They don't define racism.
	They don't define hate speech.
	They're not doing any of those things.
	So they don't want to be forced to do those things.
	The second, they note the intent to intimidate.
	And a third, they noted it would have a chilling effect on both speakers and listeners.
	Because if people knew they would become part of this reporting process, part of this publishing of any disciplinary action taken against them, it would likely lead to people being less honest and transparent themselves in their public statements.
	So it would have a chilling effect on everybody else's speech.
	So it's not just compelled speech on them, it's a chilling effect on other people's speech.
	And then last but not least, it says it invades their right of editorial privilege.
	Here they made a very good analog.
	They said, imagine the same law, but it's applied to the editor of the New York Times and what that would be.
	Could you tell the editor of the New York Times, hey, tell us when you publish letters to the editor.
	Tell us when you don't.
	Tell us why you do.
	Tell us why you don't.
	Tell us what standards you have.
	Disclose some of those underlying letters to the editor you chose not to publish.
	That most courts would go nuts and a range of cases that have made statements along those lines, including U.S. Supreme Court cases.
	And they very wisely use the Ninth Circuit and put them on their own petard.
	And the Ninth Circuit has been so eager to excuse big tech censorship.
	That they've gone on and on about how big tech has a right to speak, and big tech is like a newspaper editor, and big tech, you can't invade or intervene in big tech's censorship decisions because that's their censorial right and editorial privilege and First Amendment protected right.
	Well, what happens when the state's invading it because they want to censor speech?
	We'll see if those courts have any consistency or not, but if they do, Elon Musk and X should prevail in the case.
	So here, this is the introductory paragraph that summarizes it, but it says it violates First Amendment of the United States, Article 1, Section 2, yada, yada, because it compels companies like X to engage in speech against their will, impermissibly interferes with constitutionally protected editorial judgments of companies such as X. But Robert, I'm reading this, and I was thinking, is that not a double-edged sword of an argument?
	Because if they're invoking so-called editorial freedom, are they not, in effect...
	No, because the court has ruled that that's what Section 230 gives them, is editorial immunity.
	I mean, I get that a lot of criticism of Section 230 was that it wasn't intended to be that, that it was intended to remove that, but courts have interpreted exactly the opposite.
	They've interpreted Section 230 as protecting editorial freedom.
	All right, that's interesting.
	And flip side, if this is upheld, in the event that this is upheld, are we going to see a meta Google in Canada version in California where Elon's going to say, good, I'm blocking Twitter in California and it will not be offered in California?
	Yeah, that's always a possibility.
	This applies to all the social media platforms.
	So anybody concerned with it can sue.
	I assume Rumble is probably going to be...
	Rumble already won a comparable suit in New York on comparable issues.
	So, I mean, he, Musk, could really win.
	They were too blunt.
	They were acquiring things they didn't already produce.
	Those are the two biggest mistakes.
	If all they were acquiring was something they already had, then you could argue it's just transparency, not compelled speech.
	But it's not something they already have.
	And they can't help themselves because that transitions into our next case.
	Because the Biden administration couldn't help itself.
	The CDC couldn't help itself.
	The FDA couldn't help itself.
	The FBI couldn't help themselves.
	A federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the biggest injunction against government collusion and coercion of big tech censorship that has occurred in American history.
	As the court itself noted, a huge, huge win for free speech in the big tech space.
	This was the appeal of the Missouri v.
	Biden decision.
	Yep.
	Missouri and Louisiana versus Biden.
	And the court affirmed the critical components.
	The only components it didn't affirm were things that went beyond what a court normally could go beyond, what the factual record supported, and what legally could be precluded.
	And that was just smart on the court's basis.
	But it precluded all the problematic behavior from the most problematic actors.
	This is just procedurally getting us back into, what is it called?
	Procedural posture or procedural context.
	This was the appeal.
	They had the injunction.
	The injunction said, stop interfering.
	You are enjoined from interfering.
	That was overturned or that was paused at one point.
	It was just paused.
	And this is ratifying in the good sense.
	This is reaffirming that injunction, which is an injunction pending final adjudication of Missouri's claim, well, broadly speaking.
	And the injunction is enforced immediately.
	So effectively what it said is that the Biden administration, the Biden White House, the CDC, and the FBI, to quote from him, quote, We are rarely faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.
	It's an extraordinary finding.
	If Congress had any courage whatsoever, still an open question of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, they would just take this case!
	As the grounds, here's a federal court judicially found after discovery, after a full evidentiary record was permitted and allowed for, after both sides were allowed to present their side of the story, and concluded extraordinary, frankly, criminal behavior, violating the constitutional rights and liberties of tens and millions, hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people around the world, but tens of millions of Americans that deprived them, that again, orchestrated.
	Coordinated, campaigned, jeopardized, fundamental aspect of American life.
	Christopher Wray should be indicted tomorrow.
	The FBI officers involved should be impeached.
	We should have impeachment of Attorney General Garland.
	We should have impeachment of the heads of the people at the CDC.
	And, of course, impeachment of President Biden.
	Because this was coordinated at the top by the White House.
	And that was their point.
	They emphasize, when does the action of a private entity become a state action?
	And I remember a lot of the so-called big tech apologists and so-called libertarians who were saying, none of this could ever be actionable.
	You can never prevail.
	Credit to Robert Kennedy.
	Credit to Jed Rubenfeld.
	I always get his name mispronounced.
	But the Yale professor.
	Several of these people have been brainstorming and pushing these ideas for a decade.
	And they were very aggressively dismissed by the smart people in the room, the technological legal blogger experts, all that crowd, the law Twitter crowd.
	And they turned out to be as dead wrong as they usually are on matters of law.
	Because the key was, was there substantial encouragement or coercion by the state?
	Once that happens, it's no longer a private actor.
	If the private actor did it because of the state...
	To where you could say it's indistinguishable from the government doing it, then it's still a state action, even though it's a private person who supposedly made the decision.
	Because the decision was coerced or created or really authored by the state.
	And the state can't use a private actor to do what the state can't do.
	And thus, this insubstantial encouragement is about the degree of entanglement in the decision-making process to where it's indistinguishable.
	The core thing you come to is, if there had been no state action of any kind, would this private party have done the same thing?
	And here, the problem they had, which the evidentiary record was very well detailed, I mean, very well litigated, very well presented by the judge by allowing this discovery to occur in the first instance, and well documented by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is that They said, look, if you look at these decisions, one, they weren't making these decisions before the state started to get involved.
	Second, they made decisions that directly contradicted their own rules and procedures.
	Third, these decisions that after the state asked for a decision is the chronology about when the decision happens.
	It was clear they said the platforms completely complied and they used language like completely capitulated.
	They just did.
	These clearly were not acting independently.
	These were state actors.
	And it wasn't just degree of entanglement such that it met the substantial encouragement prong.
	It also met the independent separate coercion prong.
	Because they kept saying, if you don't do it, we're going to do bad things to you.
	And they were open about this.
	The Biden administration couldn't keep their mouth shut about this.
	And some of the other agencies that are not listed included in the injunctions because those agencies weren't directing them on a daily basis and never threatened them.
	That's why the other agencies were smart enough to realize they could piggyback off of these other corrupt actors without doing it themselves and thus getting themselves in less trouble.
	But it precludes...
	The nature of...
	The findings are extraordinary.
	And the injunction is that the entire Biden White House, the entire CDC, and the entire FBI can, quote, take no action, even if that action is indirect, even if that action is informal, that in any way...
	Coerces or encourages social media to remove, delete, suppress, reduce any set of content.
	Their censorship effort is dead.
	And if they're smart, they won't try to appeal this to the Supreme Court because then they'll just get doubly smacked down.
	So the Biden White House got caught.
	The CDC got caught.
	The FBI got caught.
	This is a great legal precedent for other comparable cases, but it's a massive, massive victory against state censorship.
	Interlocutory injunction until the permanent, they're going to hear this on the merits.
	It's conceivable on the merits.
	I don't know, a judge comes to a wildly different conclusion and says...
	It's the same judge who issued a broader injunction in the first place.
	Okay, that's...
	What was the other question I had about this?
	No, I was going to...
	Elaborate or add to the, you know, capitulating would be one thing, but it was beyond capitulation.
	It was overt infiltration above and beyond the coercion.
	It was like...
	They were changing their rules, directing them to take action, complaining if they didn't take action, and threatening them when they didn't take action.
	Backdoor channels.
	In more than half the time, they did whatever was requested.
	Backdoor channels.
	Jen Psaki said it at the time during the press conferences.
	You know, we go in back and flag some stuff.
	Buttigieg knows a lot about that kind of thing.
	Robert, I'm going to go read the chats and just...
	We're going to skip that joke.
	Okay, here, hold on.
	Let me bring up some Rumble Red.
	Okay.
	Antoine Tuchulescu says, You sound like Stewie.
	Britt Cormier says, Viva, I'm not saying I was trying to do it.
	However, Viva was not trying to get blocked.
	Oh, hold on.
	Put on pause here.
	It's Sunday.
	Be balanced in light while being serious.
	You can have humor within awfulness, aka dark humor.
	Sunshine and rainbows do still exist despite the swamp.
	That's Kenzie 67. I to the C to the E. Look at this guy flipping off Trump.
	In other news, Let's Go Brandon literally means cheering for Brandon.
	Dapper Dave 2021.
	I agree with Mike Davis.
	Governor Grisham's order was a dry run by the deep state to see how the majority of Americans would conform to public safety decrees.
	They showed the way they were going to do that during COVID.
	This was just like over-the-top stupid.
	Inavi says...
	Biden going to Alaska on September 11th.
	Why isn't he going to New York?
	We're going to get into New York in a bit.
	Have you seen the fresh hell the UK government is putting through Parliament?
	Look up Energy Bill, HL, which will allow police to enter homes, fit smart meters and devices they can control remotely or prison.
	That's from V6neon.
	G. Jobin, just because I like you both, from a fellow Quebecer.
	That's a Jobin.
	Thank you very much.
	Oskiwiwi hands off our kids' number one million march for children.
	Jack Flack, I consider the 2A private security for the poor and working class.
	Did the New Mexico governor give up her armed private security in this decree?
	Guaranteed not.
	Pinochet Helicopter Tour says, how soon before we get our own Reichstag fire decree, effectively abolishing the Constitution, the definition of war, absence of law, Randy Edwards, 491.
	Does Barnes still think Dan Bongino is a deep state actor?
	Deep question.
	Deep state actor.
	I never said that.
	No.
	I think we all love Bongino.
	I won't speak for Barnes.
	I love Bongino and I think Barnes does as well and respects him.
	Leverett Sr.
	I live in Albuquerque and I carry almost always openly whenever I go further than my mailbox.
	I will not comply.
	Lord Dog, need a Trump Spaghetti Western mugshot with guns and want it for president.
	Dapper Dave, interesting that media is not filing a joiner to be part of Elon's lawsuit.
	That's actually an interesting point.
	Robert, I forgot to ask you, the book behind you.
	Oh yeah, so that's Carrie Lake's biography, and that's Win Your Case by Jerry Spence, a great practical guide from one of the great American trial lawyers about how to argue in any context.
	Now, I know that my list that I have is not the list that we're going on, so what's next on our menu?
	Ah, so speaking of California, we just can't get away from it, the disbarment trial of Professor John Eastman continued this week.
	Okay, so I've been keeping up with this because I've been seeing, like, tweets that John Eastman is destroying the...
	I don't know what exactly.
	This is like an administrative tribunal or is this in front of a judge?
	Okay, yeah.
	Real clarity.
	Fake judge.
	Fake judge.
	She's not a real judge.
	I have always had problems with this.
	These so-called hearing examiners, these administrative, legislatively appointed people who are not constitutionally appointed judges, calling themselves judge, being demanded to be called judge, being labeled that in the press, just confuses ordinary people.
	This corporate, neoliberal, left-wing, democratic hack who's presiding over these proceedings as a judge...
	Is really a hearing examiner who, because I've had problems with, I don't agree with licensure, period.
	But California has its own horrendous mechanisms of state bars.
	The same state bar that corruptly protected Tom Girardi, that corruptly protected Michael Avenatti, that corruptly protected other lawyers that my clients have disclosed extraordinary illegal actions by.
	While at the same time, going after Professor John Eastman, who no client has ever complained about, who no court has ever criticized in American legal history.
	And the person presiding over it is this political partisan hack, a former corporate whore lawyer, who is a left-wing political partisan hack appointed by the Speaker of the House, I believe.
	It's like, how does this happen?
	How do we get these hearing examiners that don't go through any process, they're just appointed by some political hack?
	That's unbelievable.
	And she's been a complete joke.
	So these disbarment trials, they should be held in front of a jury, in my view, because they involve property and liberty with due process of law.
	But the courts, of course, ignore that because they like having monopolized control over it so they can cover up for their own corruption and cowardice, which is what took place in the 2020 election.
	This joke of a so-called judge that's a hearing examiner.
	Has been so one-sided that everybody watching it can't understand how in the world that this is what America's legal process looks like, like this?
	Stassi's show trials had more honor and more balance than this nut job in the California bar proceedings, pretending and feigning to be judge so-and-so.
	So that's my comment on that aspect of the matter.
	And John Eastman, for those who don't know, I mean, I'm reading, I'm trying to catch up, but I'm not watching this live, although it's being broadcast live.
	This is like a, what, is this a four or six week hearing?
	Yeah, it keeps going on and on and on.
	They keep extending it and dragging it out.
	Won't let him present his side.
	Let's the state present arguments that have nothing to do with him.
	Cases that have nothing to do with him.
	Factual issues that have nothing to do with him.
	I mean, misinterpret the law repeatedly.
	And it was all the things they accused him of doing, the state bar prosecutors and this so-called judge are themselves doing.
	If this was actually a standard for disbarment, this judge should be disbarred and the California state bar prosecutors should be disbarred.
	And we shouldn't even have a state bar in California.
	The Supreme Court of California has done a horrendous job putting in these political hacks, compromising with the Speaker of the House to further partisan make up this case.
	If you're a Democrat, you can be as corrupt as Tom Girardi or as corrupt as Michael Avenatti, and the state bar will cover up for you.
	If you're someone who raises questions they don't like, then they can actually try to disbar you, even though there's been no finding of unethical behavior by anybody, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, as is the case.
	What is the basis of the motion for disbarment against John Eastman?
	It's legal advice?
	It's solely that he supported the president's election challenge.
	That's it.
	Supposedly that he was the president's counsel.
	I mean, it's utterly inane and insane.
	So Rachel Alexander, who we interviewed, who's the Arizona lawyer who went through all the craziness in Arizona when she was a state prosecutor trying to do the right thing, has been following this case in detail.
	Mike Cernovich has followed the case as well.
	And Cernovich noted that he went from being someone who thought the 2020 election was probably mostly on the up and up.
	To now saying it was purely stolen based on the testimony that's come out in the Eastman case.
	Now this is like you're having trials within trials.
	They're trying to disbar Eastman based on the fact that he supported the idea that chicanery was afoot.
	I'm going to bring up one aspect.
	This is the Wisconsin part.
	Let me zoom in a little bit so we can read this.
	Miller asked Gableman.
	This is one of the witnesses.
	Remember, Gableman is a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice.
	Who was the appointed investigator by the state legislature in Wisconsin.
	And he went and talked and did a thorough, complete, comprehensive investigation.
	And the state legislature, the political hacks at the hierarchy in Wisconsin who are connected to Paul Ryan, were shocked that they thought, hey, we'll appoint this judge.
	He's got an impeccable reputation.
	He'll see that there was nothing wrong in the election.
	He'll shut up all these lame Trumpers.
	Telling us that we had a bad election in 2020.
	Instead, he comes back and says, oh, you know what?
	It's ten times worse than everybody thought.
	They're like, oh, wait, put that report down.
	Never mind, let's not go any further.
	So they've tried to pretend he doesn't exist ever since.
	But this is one of the most well-respected former...
	Supreme Court Justices of Wisconsin.
	That's who Gabelman is.
	And what he said, I was trying to highlight the easy-to-digest ones.
	Wisconsin elections ignored law requiring bipartisan observers when collecting votes from nursing homes and other assisted living facilities, and so the sheriff referred the election officials for criminal charges.
	Gabelman said those officials said during a meeting that was videotaped that they knew they were breaking the law by telling the clerks to disregard the law and just mail the ballots to nurses.
	Then they discussed Zuck Bucks.
	This one's a little more complicated, but this was Zuckerberg financing election supervision, but it was highly partisan election supervision and employees who had...
	Let me see here.
	Zuckerberg's organization provided five of Wisconsin's largest cities ostensibly to deal with voting during COVID-19.
	8.8 million dollars to the cities, which Gabeland said he refused to refer as grants because he believed they were really employment contracts.
	Zuckerberg, who, you know, was very open about his partisan leanings.
	And what was the other part here that I thought was also relevant?
	In both Pennsylvania and Georgia, he said bipartisan teams of observers were prohibited from going into nursing homes, which led to massive turnout from those nursing homes and fraud found there.
	Robert, I mean...
	Sorry, I don't even know where to ask my question here, but where's the one?
	It was in Georgia where they did not hear the case within the useful time and they deferred it until January 7th.
	Just remind everybody what happened there.
	Yeah, and to his credit, Eastman is fully aware of all these things.
	So he's been explaining all the history, all the legal differences, all the different scholarly analysis, all the different factual issues.
	He knew about Interim County, Michigan, and the issues there of the flipping machines.
	And he's like, yeah, maybe they fixed it, like Garrett Archer from Arizona claimed.
	But he goes, maybe they didn't.
	We weren't allowed to audit the machine, so we never found out.
	He goes, in all these processes, we weren't allowed to follow up with the evidentiary mechanisms you need to figure out what really happened rather than just take the government's word for it.
	And I put in the weekend Barnes brief the detail of how the election, the 2020 election, was not a constitutionally conforming election.
	And these were the core allegations in the Georgia election contest that the courts ran and hid from.
	And what's interesting is...
	It's quite clear by the response of the California State Bar and really the California State Bar employee, the so-called impartial judge, who's really just a hack for the State Bar, is that they're actually shocked by a lot of this.
	So they start trying to exclude evidence.
	They try to claim that a Supreme Court justice who did investigations is not an expert.
	While they bring in a fake expert who knew nothing about election law to testify, wasn't even properly licensed in California, while giving legal advice in California?
	This is a state bar.
	Can you imagine the state bar that prosecutes people for unauthorized practice of law has as one of its lead experts someone who's unauthorized to practice law?
	I mean, it's unbelievable.
	But the issue that I laid out in written format, for those that are interested in the Barnes brief, I'll put in verbal format now.
	Three questions.
	Were there only constitutionally qualified people who voted?
	Were there only constitutionally qualified ballots that were cast?
	And it was their only constitutionally qualified counting and canvassing of those ballots that ended up in the certification of who actually is the proper elector before the Congress on January 6th, 2023.
	And the points that Eastman makes is the same points I made, the same points that are in that Georgia election contest.
	In Category 1 in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, those five states.
	All you need is three of those five states.
	To be in doubt for the Electoral College majority to then be in doubt.
	And then it's supposed to go to Congress to vote in the House by state delegation.
	So each state gets its own vote.
	They didn't want that to happen because they knew they would lose, because Trump had an edge there.
	Republicans in the House didn't want it to happen because they didn't want to screw Trump publicly in ways that would end their political career by putting his fraudulency, the second Joe Biden, in the White House.
	So they went to great lengths to hide from this.
	Supreme Court went to great lengths to avoid it.
	Every other federal court, as Eastman has been testifying to, evaded any merits finding.
	You know, despite what some people have said, there have been very few cases that had any merits findings, and none of them on these issues.
	First category, did only constitutionally qualified people cast ballots?
	Dead people can't vote.
	Certain felons in certain states can't vote.
	Certain people under the age of 18 can't vote.
	People in Georgia, for example, who had moved from their residence of registration can't vote.
	People who voted in another state can't vote.
	That category by itself, all you needed was enough to be more questionable people who cast ballots than the margin of victory.
	The standard is not fraud.
	The standard is not widespread fraud like the media tried to pretend.
	The standard is, are there more votes in doubt that were included in the certification in terms of the Constitution than was the margin of victory in that state?
	And what defines the constitutional rules is the Constitution gives that power to the legislature of each state exclusively.
	So you look at what rules were passed by the legislature.
	There is a limited role.
	For the executive and the court branch that to the degree the legislature's rules violate other constitutional provisions, the First Amendment to the 14th Amendment, then you can limit what the legislature's rules can be.
	That's what the Supreme Court effectively concluded last year in deciding the North Carolina case.
	That was not decided at the time of 2020.
	There was a good argument that only the state's election legislation's rules apply, which ironically, if you listen, we'll get into the Meadows case in a bit.
	You'd think somehow that was still the case.
	And from a liberal Obama judge talking about states' rights is deeply ironic at multiple levels, but especially as it will be relevant later on in the immigration cases.
	But so just that category, whether certain people were constitutionally qualified to vote, there were more people that were not constitutionally qualified to vote whose ballots were counted than the margin of victory in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, including, as just Georgia's example, Dead people.
	Thousands of dead people voted.
	How do we know we proved it with obituaries before their vote was sent back in?
	Now, if we move to the second category, where the ballots cast in a constitutionally qualified manner, there the key is, how did they get the ballot?
	Was it printed according to the state legislature's rules?
	Was it sent to them or given to them according to the rules?
	Was it returned to them according to the rules?
	Was it verified and validated with identification according to the rules?
	At each of the states, that didn't happen in all these states, but particularly as an example in Georgia, but what the former Supreme Court justice was pointing out didn't happen in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania either.
	So you had circumstances where what's supposed to happen is like nursing home residents in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
	They're supposed to say, I'm indefinitely confined.
	I can't make it to the polling booth.
	Please send me a ballot.
	But they have to request it.
	They have to validate, verify that it's them.
	And they have to do something in identification, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, by signatures that match the voter signature on your registration card.
	As an Arizona court just ruled this week, that means only that signature, not any other signature.
	Just on the Georgia dead people, because I remember seeing the fact checks to claim alleged dead Georgia voters found alive and well after the 2020 election.
	Robert, I know people say that it's not true.
	Only four dead, well, they say four here.
	Where can I find the confirmation?
	Where is the confirmation?
	So the key is that we put in the names of all of those people in the Georgia election contest.
	Before the names went in there, We had reviewed them with, got independent confirmation, and asked the Georgia election official to refute it.
	They couldn't.
	So what would happen is, you know, a month or two later, they would cherry-pick two or three cases and say, oh, look, we found where this person actually does match up to another, like in Michigan, for example.
	They said, oh, really, it was the son who was accidentally listed as voting in the father.
	So there, again, no question that they listed a dead person as voting.
	They just claimed they misidentified the person who voted, which by itself, by the way, raises questions about the validity of that vote.
	And so that was just category one.
	Category two was that the ballots were not printed in a way that maintained chain of custody.
	Number two, the ballots were sent to people in ways that people didn't even request them.
	Or the party observers were not present at the time of their request.
	The ballots were filled out and sent back.
	In the case of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, party observers are supposed to be present to make sure it's all kosher.
	Didn't happen.
	And people who were actually not indefinitely confined were listed as it illegally and illicitly in Wisconsin, as again the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself would acknowledge a few years after 2020.
	And that was because they listed as it confined everybody because of COVID, which that wasn't the legal criteria, and therefore all of those ballots are constitutionally questionable.
	Exactly.
	And then in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, they're supposed to verify that that's the person who filled out the ballot by matching the signature, like in Arizona, against the voter signature on the registration card.
	In Arizona, they admitted in their own manual they weren't doing that.
	And the Arizona court just ruled last week.
	That's illegal.
	The law requires you match it against the signature from the registration card.
	You can't hear what they're doing.
	They're saying if you fake the signature the first time when you requested the ballot and they use the same fake signature, we can compare those two and you're good to go.
	That's how they're letting systemic fraud take place.
	And again, nursing homes, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court justice testified to under oath in the California John Eastman proceedings, is that there was unusual turnout in these nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
	And I saw that independently myself when we looked at it in Georgia.
	Meaning that people were filling out ballots for other people and sending it back.
	And there was no bipartisan review.
	And lo and behold, from these institutions or facilities where there was no bipartisan review, massive turn up.
	And overwhelmingly unusual Democratic voting behavior, particularly for Joe Biden.
	Then the last part of the whole process is to make sure the canvassing and the counting take place.
	Again, these are internationally recognized election standards, recognized by the Election Standards Commission here in the United States, formed by Congress, recognized by OECD.
	And these include that when the canvassing takes place, third-party observers have to be there to make sure that ballot envelope has that signature match, that you do the signature match before you remove the ballot from the ballot envelope, and that when you then count the ballots, you don't have anybody substituting ballots, right?
	You don't have any miscounting going on.
	You have somebody there to overlook it.
	This is what famously happened in Georgia, where a pipe leak sent everybody home, and then all of a sudden ballots were being secretly counted without anybody knowing.
	And this happened systematically when there was unusual stopping of ballots and an unusual number of ballots showing up beyond what everybody, including the Biden administration and the media observers, thought was going to take place, usually with big mail drops and so forth.
	You want to avoid all that, make sure it's all the up and up so that you see every part of that chain of custody of that ballot with independent party observers so nobody can substitute in, right?
	They can't take 50 ballots over here, take out 50 ballots, put them there, right?
	And one way that might show up is the transparency that's supposed to be required that the state of Georgia Secretary of State Ratberger and that fraud of a governor, Kemp, Promised the whole world when they were doing that sweetheart deal with Dominion, which, by the way, some of their people lined their pockets with, as I was told, in Georgia by Doug Collins and others at the time in 2020.
	He said that's why the governor's so nervous about it.
	That's why the Secretary of State's so nervous about it, is that they were going to publish those ballots to the whole world so everybody could see them.
	When we did the recount, they wouldn't allow people within a close proximity to look at the ballots.
	The few people who were able to get anywhere near noticed unusual natures of those ballots, the kind of ballots that looked like somebody subbed them out for real ballots.
	And those ballots that are perfectly crisp, some ballots that only had Biden marked on it, ballots that looked like they weren't marked with a real pen but by a computer.
	That's the nature of things aside from...
	All the issues that are raised in the 2000 and Mules film that Dinesh D'Souza is showing live the rest of the day for free on Twitter.
	At Dinesh D'Souza's Twitter account, you can review that film for those aspects.
	But those were the three aspects of the election that were not conforming to the Constitution because they violated the rules set by the legislature of each state.
	And raised constitutional questions about whether we had a constitutionally conforming election in the states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Nevada in excess of the margin of victory in each of those states.
	And it should have gone to the House.
	They should have voted by state delegation.
	They didn't because they ran and hid and cowered as cowards do.
	Like, unfortunately, the Supreme Court did, like most courts did, like the Fulton County Superior Court did, like the Georgia Court of Appeals did, like the Georgia Supreme Court did, etc.
	And that's what Professor John Eastman has ably and adequately displayed throughout the proceedings in his joke of a disbarment trial.
	But, Robert, here's what's going to happen, and I'll be able to look smart.
	If and when this ever comes to fruition, the administrative tribunal judge, whoever she is, whoever he is, is going to say, look, I'm not...
	Oh, she'll rule against him all across the board.
	She'll lie throughout the proceedings.
	Well, she's going to say, I'm not here to re-litigate what is widely known as...
	Oh, she will, though.
	She will, though.
	She wants a ruling that says Eastman should be in prison.
	Eastman was terrible.
	Eastman was awful.
	All of this was election fraud.
	She'll ignore everything he said.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	She's going to say everything that Eastman has said.
	By the way, he sounds something like an idiot savant based on the way he's apparently able to recall information in real time to the point where he can cross-examine the cross-examiner.
	But the administrative tribunal judge is going to say, I'm not hearing election challenges.
	The courts had those.
	They were all done away with.
	Therefore, what you're saying now is all disproven, misinformation, questioning democracy, undermining democracy, and she's going to disbar him.
	And the smartest he is.
	Then I'll go up to the California Supreme Court and then I'll have constitutional challenges after that.
	This is another example where the system is on trial and the system will fail again.
	And hopefully more and more people will recognize why we should not give the authority to the state to license people in the first place.
	That your profession or occupation should be free.
	And your right to pursue it, up to you.
	And the only limitation should be the public's willingness to use it.
	We shouldn't have monopolies through licensing in the first place, and we shouldn't give anybody power over your ability to do your occupation and profession, upon which other people rely for access to legal representation.
	I think you're right to petition the government in particular.
	The problem is the people that would be most concerned with it are the same corrupt political professional managerial class that governs all the decision-making authority branches, including the legislature, the executive bureaucracy, and the judiciary.
	So they have no interest in saying that there shouldn't be special rules for them, special rules that enrich them, special rules that empower them.
	It's a flaw in our system of governance, sadly.
	That has been badly exploited and has now been exposed for the world to witness.
	But it's only one of them because we had two other embarrassing to the rule of law trials this week.
	And the other one was the Ken Paxton, or one of the other ones, was the Attorney General in Texas.
	So Attorney General in Texas, Ken Paxton being impeached.
	Being impeached, I still don't really fully understand what the allegations of the impeachment are.
	I understand in broad strokes he's accused of having taken bribes from a well-connected millionaire for the political purposes in 2020.
	Then when some of his employees were looking into it and said we should go after Paxton criminally or whatever, he then fires, I think that's it, he fires the whistleblowers and then they end up settling their lawsuit.
	For a payment of three-point-some-odd million dollars, which already looks bad for Paxton, and you're going to have to tell me why this doesn't look as bad as it looks.
	And then Paxton says, the taxpayers should pay that.
	And they say, no, if the taxpayers pay that, that's some sort of fraud, and it should be you.
	But I'm not sure that I understand what he's being impeached for, and if I've misunderstood something of that timeline, Robert.
	And why this is only coming out, I don't know, what are we, 2023, when this is alleged to have occurred in 2020?
	Well, large portions of it have already come out before, and the voters knew about it and re-elected Paxton in 2022.
	So, I mean, the short answer is there was no bribery.
	Paxton has been a target of the Bush Republican establishment in Texas going way back.
	The Bush political establishment is very strong in Texas, despite the fact there's no Bush elected anymore in Texas.
	Poppy Bush pretended to be a Texan when he moved from Connecticut.
	You know, he partially got away with it.
	Kevin Phillips made fun of him, called him Poppy the Populist.
	It's talking about how absurd that was.
	With his, you know, middle America experience and just traveling across America.
	He wasn't the pedigree.
	He wasn't the scion of some wealthy, rich, powerful, old-money, warmongering, war-whoring family from the Northeast.
	No, of course not.
	He was just an oil catter from Texas.
	A wild catter from Texas.
	And then W really, you know, aced it by growing up in Texas and pretending to be like a Texas Ranger and a good old boy.
	And he could wear a cowboy hat.
	He wouldn't know an oil cat to save his...
	He couldn't be a wild...
	Catter to save his life.
	I mean, he did try a little bit at the oil business, but the legitimate part, he failed at, like everything else at Bush does.
	But their friends and allies fill the Texas Supreme Court, fill the Texas appeals courts, fill the higher ranks of Texas bureaucracy, still fill large parts of the Texas legislature.
	And they're used to running the state lock, stock, and barrel.
	And along comes Ken Paxton.
	Gets elected Attorney General of the State, becomes a strong populist advocate, allies himself with Trump.
	He took the lead in the 2020 election, challenging what took place up to the United States Supreme Court, took the lead on a range of censorship and social media issues, took the lead on trans treatment and other issues, took the lead on immigration issues, took the lead on Obamacare issues.
	These were issues the Bushites in Texas were deeply dissatisfied with, but couldn't tell anybody in Texas they were.
	Not to mention all the way they're deeply embedded within old oil money in Texas.
	Old oil money goes all the way back to, you might say, the assassination of a Kennedy.
	That's who these people are.
	And so they've been coming after Paxton in waves.
	First they try to set him up on bogus federal.
	And all related to, there's a buddy of his.
	There was a donor and a supporter, but it's more significant that it was a friend of his.
	A friend of his gets targeted by the feds.
	He goes to Paxton and says, these federal agents are just, they're making stuff up.
	They're lying in affidavits.
	They're expanding it illicitly.
	They would never do that.
	They're post-changing it.
	He goes, they file one affidavit and then they change it later and they make it pretend they did a different affidavit later, earlier than they really did, just so they could do a bogus execution of a warrant.
	He goes, I mean, aren't you the Attorney General of Texas?
	Are you going to investigate this violation of law in Texas or not?
	So Paxton says, okay, I'll take a look at it.
	He assigns a Texas Ranger to it, assigns other attorneys to investigate.
	The Texas Ranger is a good old boy.
	He knows how to get up there and BS with a bunch of them.
	He's like a lot of your Texas Rangers, fakes, phonies, and frauds in my experience.
	I'm not a big fan of the Texas Rangers I've met in my life.
	I'm sure there's plenty of good, decent ones.
	I'm sure a few are watching.
	But most of my experience with Texas Rangers has been negative.
	They tend to be what they were born to be, which was a lot.
	You go dig into the history of what Texas Rangers were really about from their founding days.
	But this guy fits right into that tradition.
	He pretends he's helping investigate to Paxton while secretly undermining the case.
	He's like, I'm not going to help this guy.
	The good FBI is investigating.
	This dimwit.
	Testifies he couldn't imagine anything being wrong with the good FBI, just like he couldn't imagine anything being wrong with the good Texas Rangers.
	And so he has no grounds to it.
	He just speculates there must be something wrong as to why we're investigating the mighty, holy FBI.
	And the two other attorneys are the same way.
	They accuse the Attorney General of taking a bribe.
	He never took a bribe.
	There's no evidence of it all.
	All you have is a guy openly, publicly, and transparently investigating alleged illegal behavior by the federal government on a Texan.
	Period.
	End of story.
	The guy happened to be a friend, so he got access to the Attorney General, but there's no illegal nature of that.
	And so these two guys try to stage a coup, and he's like, screw that.
	You're gone.
	I'm going to hire somebody else.
	They get free legal representation for years.
	From, oh, shock, shock, key Bush family allies.
	What a total shock that is.
	And these frauds of so-called fake whistleblowers file suit in Austin, where we know from the Alex Jones case how much justice you can get in Austin.
	So Ken Pax's lawyers tell him, just settle, pay it off, move on down the road.
	And Pax is like, this is ridiculous.
	The whole thing is ludicrous.
	But the state of Texas should have to pay for this nonsense because the key Texas state participants, including the lieutenant governor, are neck deep in all this nonsense.
	Dan Patrick should be ashamed of himself.
	So should Governor Abbott for not doing better action before now.
	And letting us get way out of hand by the incompetent drunks that usually run the Texas legislature, which sadly is bipartisan.
	When it comes to drunkery and debauchery in the Texas legislature, that is a bipartisan tradition.
	But, Robert, it's not like Paxton would have $3.1 million to pay off as a settlement of his own personal funds?
	I mean, is he that working?
	No, I mean, there's probably insurance proceeds available, but he probably assumed that he was being really sued in his state official duty.
	So, frankly, it should be covered by state insurance.
	And the state of Texas didn't want it because it was all part of a setup.
	So they run to the Texas House.
	They do a 48-hour impeachment.
	They don't investigate anything.
	A bunch of political hacks.
	I mean, every person who voted for this impeachment should be thrown out.
	They get away with it because the ordinary person doesn't have time to focus on these kind of things, and the people that do are on the wrong side.
	The Texas Senate should clearly acquit him after the embarrassing record in the testimony.
	Like, everybody that was anti-Paxton thought they were going to hear smoking gun testimony.
	They were going to hear secret meetings and bribes and threats.
	None of that!
	None of it.
	They had no grounds for what they claimed from the beginning.
	They had no idea.
	They just made it up.
	Paxton is completely innocent.
	And here they're trying to railroad its Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, Republican Lieutenant Governor, trying to railroad the Republican Attorney General because he actually keeps his word to his voters, not unlike a certain presidential candidate.
	I was listening to some of the analysis.
	Again, I paid attention.
	It's too much for me to even know where to begin in terms of understanding this.
	So he's been removed from office right now during this trial, correct?
	Yes.
	Conveniently, right after he announced he was going to investigate Pfizer.
	Remember DeSantis who promised to open up a grand jury in Florida?
	Where is that?
	I guess he's too busy going to Iowa State games and nobody knowing who the hell he is.
	I haven't heard boo from that grand jury in Florida.
	But Paxton announced his own office was going to open up one.
	And a week later, they're rushing through this action.
	Because most of the Republicans in the Texas legislature are corrupt.
	They should be impeached and removed themselves.
	I think the speaker, one of the lead ones, is so drunk.
	It's like a common thing.
	You want to crack up and watch some humor.
	You tune in and watch the Texas House operating, and he'll be, about one or two chance, he'll be drunk talking from the thing.
	I mean, this is embarrassing to say to Texas.
	But instead, they're trying to derail the only populace that's done anything worth the darn in Texas.
	Because the two senators, including Cruz, have been mostly useless.
	Cruz occasionally does something useful, and then he'll disappear for a long period of time.
	And then the other senator, who follows me on Twitter, has been mostly a lame-o.
	So, Senator John Corbyn, I think.
	But the Governor Abbott occasionally does something useful.
	But this is ridiculous.
	This is the guy getting impeached?
	While Kevin McCarthy can't figure out whether he can impeach Joe Biden or Merrick Garland or Lisa Monaco or the FBI Director Wray?
	What an embarrassment to the Republican Party.
	What a disgrace.
	Just like their inability to come to the rallying in the defense of Peter Navarro.
	Well, hold on.
	I had one clip before we get there.
	I think this is the speaker who is accused of...
	Yeah, he was drunk all the time.
	To not be able to handle your liquor is the bigger sin.
	Yeah, you're right.
	I mean, Texas, how drunk do you have to be to be...
	The speaker, I'll move adoption.
	Here we go.
	This is the guy.
	I think this is what I'm...
	Mr. Campbell, the amendment is acceptable to the author.
	Is there objection to the opposite amendment?
	It's so bad, Robert.
	You would think the man is mentally challenged.
	And this is the guy orchestrating the impeachment of Attorney General Pat.
	The amendment is acceptable to the author.
	Is there objection to the opposite amendment?
	I don't think I've ever been that drunk.
	Maybe once I've been that drunk, but I like to think that even when I'm absolutely hammered, I may not know that I'm speaking properly, but I am.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	Yeah, but it's how embarrassing it is.
	It's going along because that's what the Bush Republican Party looks like, folks.
	That's what it looks like.
	The Texas speaker drunk off his ass just like old George W. liked to get right down there.
	And it's the problem with the Republican Party.
	It's why Peter Navarro was left out to dry in that crazy...
	Another Bannon-like contempt trial, where this is somebody who's only on trial because he asserted executive privilege, which was his right.
	The court refused to recognize the executive privilege.
	The Biden Justice Department corruptly refused to enforce it.
	And it was all because of the January 6th committee, which was busy destroying evidence that could relate to his acquittals.
	And he was in front of a D.C. grand jury, then a D.C. jury, which meant guaranteed conviction.
	Emerson Poll approved that.
	92%.
	92% of DC people could not commit to the presumption of innocence.
	92% in any Trump connected case.
	And the conviction of him was purely for a show trial purpose that now he has to appeal.
	Well, and so, I mean, this is the same thing as Bannon.
	He gets the subpoena from Congress, says, I have executive privilege, and they say, no.
	Are we dealing with the same type of him having been stripped of his defenses, his affirmative defenses before the trial buys?
	Yeah, the judge ruled that he couldn't defend himself on a reliance defense.
	He couldn't say they relied on counsel.
	He couldn't say he relied on executive privilege.
	And he couldn't rely on those as objective defenses as to whether executive privilege applied or not.
	Which, by the way, was the point and purpose of these contempt statutes.
	Was that you could test the contempt with executive privilege or any other privilege you asserted.
	And these courts in D.C. are eviscerating that because he's an enemy of the political apparatus, enemy of the Uniparty, just like Ken Paxton, just like Donald Trump, just like Steve Bannon.
	And that's why they're railroading him in things that make our criminal proceedings.
	Again, our criminal justice process is making the Stasi and the Soviet system look like beacons of integrity and transparency.
	And Robert, it's the same penalty as Bannon for contempt.
	It's like a year in jail and a quarter of a million dollars per infraction.
	Yeah, it's something along those lines.
	I presume he'll get bail pending appeal.
	I assume the judge won't be that bankrupt of moral virtue to go any further.
	You never know with DC these days.
	Because, just ask Mark Meadows.
	You would have thought if you had been indicted while for doing things as part of your duty as chief of staff, that that constitutes...
	A federal removal, grounds for federal removal.
	But according to the Obama appointee, he was like, what?
	Chief of Staff, what?
	You're going to have to flesh out the rationale because my brain turned off as I was reading it.
	But Meadows moved.
	He made a motion to move from state court to federal court saying it's federal law that applies.
	I was acting as a federal employee when I was giving legally, I don't know what he was giving advice as chief of staff.
	And the judge says, no, we moved it, but now we're moving it back.
	So back to state court.
	Good luck there.
	Robert, make sense of the rationale if there is any way to make sense of the logic.
	There isn't any.
	And this same judge, if this was an Obama official, he would make the opposite ruling.
	I have zero doubt about that.
	That's how partisan and political these judges are.
	It's a classic case of motivated reasoning.
	He wanted to find an excuse, despite all the evidence, despite all the law.
	To send this case back to state court rather than have it in federal court.
	And his grounds to do so was that anything involving elections for the presidency is by the Constitution the federal executive branch has no authority, no role, no power whatsoever.
	That's an illogical statement.
	And it contradicts its own judge's statements in prior cases, by the way, for reasons that belabor the obvious.
	We'll see if he makes the same mistake again.
	At least Jeffrey Clark got a preview of where the judge is wrong and can anticipate it accordingly and argue against it accordingly.
	Now, Meadows, the reason why everybody knew, you know, Schaefer and some other people have also brought removal grounds.
	They knew when they got the lottery and they got the Obama judge appointed that it was unlikely they would get released.
	The lottery, Robert.
	Do we believe that this was random or do we think that...
	Who knows?
	Some of these cases seem to magically end up in certain courts.
	No doubt about that.
	But they did it so they could get it up to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and they could get it up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And this issue is an appealable issue to each of those courts.
	So that was why they're pursuing it, because they have substantive defenses that are also relevant that the court could analyze in this context if it so chose.
	Here the court concluded anything that involves an election is because of the Constitution that that's a state duty.
	And the executive branch has nothing to do with it.
	So it could not possibly part of it be his executive duty because the presidency of the United States has absolutely no power whatsoever.
	Then he said later...
	By the way, he didn't say it that bluntly because that would show what an idiot he was.
	And that's why your Obama appointees are always really good at BSing their stupidity.
	They disguise it and mask it and indirect and this comment and you gotta go over here and you gotta go over there.
	It's like, just quit lying.
	Everybody knows you're lying when you start doing that nonsense.
	But his other claim was the Hatch Act says you can't be political.
	So that means that, by definition, nothing you do could, in fact, be part of your duties.
	Which, by the way, here's the problem.
	Political concerns, a campaign, not what happens after an election on investigating whether or not a presidential election in the United States was stolen.
	I mean, by that definition, Barack Obama and everybody could be indicted for their sanctioning Russia because they did so in the name of the election issues of 2016.
	I mean, this judge hasn't thought through all the...
	He just assumes we control the system, so it will never be applied against us.
	He doesn't assume.
	They do, and they do, and it won't.
	So, I mean, that's the reality, not an assumption.
	But, Robert, let's assume it's a biased judge who has it in.
	Why send it back to the state court?
	Why not give yourself jurisdiction so that you can then dismiss it at the federal level?
	Well, I mean, at the federal level...
	He would get to control the proceedings from an evidentiary perspective, but the jury pool would be a much more diverse jury pool.
	So that's why the Democrats...
	For example, if the district attorney...
	Thought having a Democratic federal judge was better than a Republican state judge with a Fulton County jury pool, then she would have not objected to the removal.
	She quickly did, because she understands it's more consequential that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is going to get involved, because that's who would review a federal decision out of the federal district court, and the jury pool goes much bigger.
	And you can do a whole jury pool, you'll get an impartial jury out of that if you do your job.
	Whereas Fulton County, very unlikely you'll get an impartial jury.
	As we could see by the fact that the special grand jury wanted to indict everybody.
	As Trump put it, if you breathe within six feet of Donald Trump, they wanted to indict you.
	Well, so for those who don't know, you'll have to explain the difference between the special grand jury and a grand jury.
	But the special grand jury, who was it?
	Lindsey Graham and a number of other politicians?
	Perdue, Loeffler, a whole bunch.
	Interesting that Kemp wasn't in there, right?
	Makes you wonder whether Kemp was part of this process, doesn't it?
	They had voted to indict them.
	And Fannie Willis, in all of her judicial discretion, didn't.
	Now, Robert, some people are going to say, look, this just shows you how objective Fannie Willis is.
	She got an overreaching grand jury recommendation and said, no, no, no, no, no.
	I'm going to put a tamp on this and only indict those that I think are criminally responsible.
	Other people are going to say, This is all the Wild West of political corruption.
	I'm going to say that this is almost by design where Fannie Willis now gets to hang her hat on.
	I didn't go batshit crazy because they wanted more.
	I was reasonable.
	As if to rely on that abuse to legitimize her abuse.
	Remember this was that wacko witch looking lady that went on news that ran this?
	I mean a special grand jury is a civil investigative proceeding.
	That's another reason.
	What should have been subject to federal removal.
	Arguably, Trump's lawyers should have removed it when it was at that stage earlier on, during the subpoena stage and other stage.
	But, you know, that ship has sailed now.
	But it's part of the Jeff Clark's arguments as to why the proceedings should now be removed, because this is the first time Clark had ever been notified that even it existed.
	I mean, they had Cleta Mitchell on that list.
	I mean, they wanted to go after everybody they possibly could.
	I mean, this shows you how bad it is.
	This shows what a joke the grand jury process is.
	Most Americans are getting a crash course in how bad American criminal justice system has been for a long time.
	They haven't known it.
	They just assumed, oh, it's an independent process of independent people.
	No, it's not.
	Anybody that's participated in it, the prosecutor runs it, and a federal judge admitted 40 years ago it would literally indict a ham sandwich if it was asked to.
	But what is the difference between a special grand jury and a grand jury?
	Oh, it's a special proceeding only in Georgia, which is the special grand jury has broader investigative powers, but it's purely civil rather than criminal.
	It can indict.
	It can only recommend indictments, whereas a regular grand jury can indict.
	And now if anyone had forgotten how batshit crazy this woman was, are we looking at the same thing?
	We are.
	Listen to this.
	That really, really, when it came down to it, we were just people looking into something.
	And that's worth it.
	Did you personally want to hear from the former president?
	I wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in.
	And so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump of me looking at him and being like, do you solemnly swear?
	And me getting to swear him in, I just, I kind of just thought that would be an awesome moment.
	I'm not going to be judgmental.
	I'm just going to say that.
	She's nuts.
	She's nuts.
	You don't have to be judgmental.
	She belongs in an asylum.
	There's special places for people like that.
	They're called mental hospitals.
	She eats people's faces and she wears their skin on her face.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Holy crap.
	I mean, that goes on, by the way, so I can link that.
	She could have played Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs.
	Oh my God.
	She's like a Julie Delpy, but crazy.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's exactly like a serial killer version.
	But speaking of craziness, more misconduct was exposed by Jack Smith by a very excellent deal.
	I see why they were obsessed with getting this lawyer off.
	So Trump hired lawyers to defend various of his employees.
	Most insurance agreements require that, typically.
	And one of these lawyers was so effective that Jack Smith went through every means possible.
	To invade that attorney-client relationship and remove various employees from his legal representation.
	But, of course, the way he did it was illegal.
	So what he did, he didn't want to go in front of the Florida federal court system.
	Even though the case was a Florida case, as has now been indicted as the classified documents case.
	Even though the witness was a Florida witness.
	Even though the lawyer was a Florida lawyer.
	He went...
	To the D.C. grand jury controlled by that criminal political hack who should have been impeached yesterday running the D.C. federal court system who has been criminally conspiring to interfere and invade Donald Trump's rights and the American people's rights.
	This was the judge who came in and said, I'm going to appoint a public defender to represent you, Mr. Employee, to make sure you're getting the right advice.
	The employee didn't recant, as the media said.
	That's not what happened.
	What happened is the employee said the exact same things the employee had said before.
	So then the prosecutor go, Jack Smith says, well, we're going to indict you and accuse you of a bunch of crimes.
	Hey, federal public defender, you better get him to cut a deal and change their testimony in exchange for immunity or this landscaper basically is going to go to prison for maybe for life.
	And this was only facilitated by the corrupt judge to picking the lawyer for the employee.
	Now, people forget, the Star Chamber didn't invade you having a lawyer.
	What made it so offensive, the Star Chamber, that led to our right to counsel, is they picked your lawyer for you.
	That's what was so offensive.
	I've had judges go nuts because every time the government ever tries to do one of these conflict tests, in any of my cases, I say, Judge, I want you to be the Star Chamber.
	Are you going to be the Star Chamber, yes or no?
	Well, Mr. Barnes, that's excessive.
	Let's not compare it to the Star Chamber.
	It's exactly what it is, Judge.
	That's why we got this right.
	You know, tune up on the Constitution.
	Don't go to the Ben Shapiro school.
	Go to the Barnes Law School.
	I mean, BarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	But what this guy exposed, but it wasn't just that.
	Because they went to D.C. after the indictment was brought in Florida.
	So they were using the D.C. grand jury to invade attorney-client privilege about a person subject to that indictment concerning another person subject to that indictment.
	Robert, why is this allowed to stand?
	It's not.
	It's patently illegal.
	This is what the judge in Florida had already asked for briefing on, that Trump's lawyers kind of skipped the boat on.
	This guy didn't.
	He said this is a clear, direct, flagrant violation of the grand jury procedures.
	He goes, not only is it Sixth Amendment issues with how they invaded the right to counsel, but this is a patent Fifth Amendment grand jury violation.
	And that for it, there's only one realistic remedy.
	Dismissal of the indictment period that was produced by it.
	At a minimum, the lawyer says, exclude the profits of this.
	Exclude all testimony and all evidence that they got by illicitly using the D.C. grand jury to then illicitly flip a witness by illicitly invading their attorney-client privilege and making illicit threats of prosecution against them.
	And so it's a very robust, very sound, and not enough people are commenting on it because it was a very well done brief.
	And again, this judge already opened the door to this possibility.
	So it'd be great to see that.
	I think dismissal is appropriate, but at a minimum.
	Exclusion of any witness and exclusion of any evidence that was produced or procured in violation of constitutional rights and liberties.
	Dismissal and sanctions, Robert.
	I've got this grimace wrinkle here, but now I'm noticing a scowl here.
	I'm turning into a bulldog in my face.
	Okay, hold on.
	That's amazing.
	And what is the next step as to where that goes?
	It'll be up to the judge.
	Wow.
	But this is the judge in Florida.
	Judge Cannon, who's already expressed concern on this precise topic.
	But it's the right path to continue to document in detail how many extraordinary constitutional violations have occurred in these Trump cases.
	And this is just one more evidence of more.
	And the so-called liberal media, the so-called liberal defense bar, is nowhere to be found.
	Not even talking about this egregious abuse.
	They don't understand it.
	Even to the point of asking questions.
	I don't understand it, but I think I understand it enough to ask the right questions.
	Well, the defense bar knows exactly what's happening.
	And they're just keeping their mouths shut because they don't like Donald Trump.
	And it's embarrassing to them.
	Disgraceful to them.
	All right, now let me do this here because we've fallen well behind.
	Let me just see how fast I can do these.
	Needs Trump.
	Okay, we got that.
	Interesting that Meta is not filing.
	We got that one.
	Trans judges are real judges.
	Barnes, you transphobe.
	That's from Cod Tongues.
	Ignotum says Trump Republicans win in a massive landslide with a fair election.
	How do we force the RNC to focus efforts and money on fair elections?
	Robert, am I going crazy or does the RNC not want...
	I mean, they don't want Trump to win.
	No, no, of course not.
	Hail the founders for seeing the future.
	Oh, had the founders for seeing the future.
	Mandatory carry, thank you.
	It's the same message every week.
	Mandatory carry, thank you very much.
	Retired geek.
	I started the stream late, so I apologize if you've already covered this, Viva.
	I was hoping you would talk about the current Ottawa trial on the Sunday livestream.
	I'll do that in a bit, actually.
	We'll do that when there's a low.
	Entry required said, I have been hammered, but I have never been hammered in public like Tip O 'Neill or Teddy Kennedy.
	I seriously doubt David and Robert that you've ever been that drunk in public.
	A, no, because it's an absolute risk for your own personal safety, and B, no, because you don't feel good the next day.
	Everybody needs to get up early and exercise.
	Oh, no, but also you lose your faculties and you are a sitting duck for criminal.
	Okay, I think I know where you're going with that one.
	Robert, okay, I'll do a quick summary on what's going on in Canada.
	Tamara Leach, Chris Barber have started their four-week mischief trial, Robert.
	It's nuts.
	I mean, this is like the January 6th of Canada.
	It's more polite, and it doesn't carry 22 years in jail.
	It carries 10 years in jail.
	Tamara Leach, the Metis woman from Alberta, Chris Barber on trial for mischief, incitement of mischief, and a load of other bullshit charges.
	I had on Robert Krejcik Thursday?
	Last week, who's attending every day.
	And it's a load of crap.
	I mean, there's no other way to put it.
	It's a load of crap.
	They're in...
	It's a jury trial.
	Sorry, it's not a jury trial.
	It's a judge trial.
	So no jury.
	The judge looks like they're being even-handed, yada, yada.
	There's nothing to summarize about it other than that it's a load of crap, and I don't think it's going to end well because everyone's been primed to accept the injustice beforehand, much like with Navarro's content convictions, much like with all these trials.
	The corruption and the injustice is already baked into the result, and people have already been primed to accept it, and that's part of my black pill of the weekend.
	So I'll be following it.
	It's a bullshit trial.
	And it will go on to be a bullshit trial regardless.
	Okay.
	Robert, what do we go on to right now?
	Well, a little bit of white pill news.
	The New York vaccine mandate that has been successfully attacked by lawyers connected to Children's Health Defense and others won another verdict this past week when 10 teachers were ordered to be reinstated, found that the New York City school system's refusal to accommodate them religiously based on their objection to the COVID-19 vaccine was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
	Pointed out that many of the students were not vaccinated, so it didn't even make sense.
	Didn't even have a rational purpose to it.
	And they were ordered to not only be reinstated, but all back pay paid to them that they have missed in the interim.
	So that was a good ruling on that side of the aisle.
	There are some aspects of the ruling that could have gone further, and that part they're going to take up on appeal to try to get even more relief and more remedy for more people.
	Two questions.
	That includes interest on back pay, correct?
	Yeah, that's the way a back way typically works.
	All the pay you would have been paid plus interest from the time of payment window is due.
	They appeal it?
	Do they run the risk of losing the gains?
	The appeal is on the other...
	There was a seeking class certification and that's where the appeal will take place.
	They wanted this to be extended to everybody.
	Now, Grimace, Wrinkle, and Scowl, this is a white pill, but not.
	They've been put through hell so they can get what they were entitled to.
	I guess that's a white pill.
	But they're willing to fight and ultimately won.
	And the early prediction was, and all these cases are critical because they're going to be pressing in the future.
	It will preclude them from doing this in the future.
	And the assumption was in New York that you wouldn't win because it's so overwhelmingly Democratic.
	Its judges are Democratic.
	Politicians are Democratic.
	And they were so pro-vaccine mandates that the assumption was you won't prevail.
	In fact, for firemen, for policemen, for teachers now, they've actually succeeded because they continue to fight despite the odds.
	Well, it's just in time for them pushing out the new updated vaccine.
	Yeah, the new booster you got to take.
	But this one's supposedly going to work, right?
	Now, speaking of things that don't quite work as they expect.
	Big Fifth Circuit ruling on the abortion pill that we discussed previously, and the other side is trying to take it up to the Supreme Court because they were shocked at the ruling.
	Sorry, I'm not up to speed on this one, Robert.
	I'll know what to ask you because I'm familiar enough of what happened.
	So yeah, this was the case we discussed, the main abortion pill, Mifeprex, I think it's done, Mifepstone or whatever.
	I can't pronounce it right.
	But this is the one that they got approved.
	By the way, French manufacturer made it.
	Gave it for free to the Population Council.
	That should tell people a lot about what these big pharma companies are in bed with.
	Take a look at who the Population Council is.
	Look at their connection to a certain American family known as the Rockefellers.
	Look at who the Rockefellers were cited as the ideal example by a certain name called Bill Gates.
	And you can find out what these people are really up to.
	But this was the pill, the abortion pill, that was used that was the basis of Sort of liberalizing abortion access.
	But the problem was, this abortion pill doesn't work about one out of five times.
	In half of those instances, it just doesn't work, period.
	In the other half of those instances...
	It messes up the fetus.
	Very bad.
	Not only that, it messes you up.
	Women have to get emergency surgery.
	The bleeding is that bad to where they have a risk of dying and have a long-term side effect.
	So these side effects...
	Scared even the FDA back in 2000.
	And there was something passed in 2007 called REMS, which basically requires risk management and mitigation strategies to be done by the FDA concerning any drug.
	Look at the benefit of any drug.
	Look at the downside.
	How much does the benefit exceed the downside?
	What steps can you do to maximize the benefit and minimize the risk?
	And so they put in all these limits on the abortion pill.
	You need to go see a doctor.
	They wanted to make sure you had informed consent.
	They knew that a lot of these women are younger.
	A lot of them are vulnerable.
	A lot of them are from disadvantaged communities.
	A lot of them don't come from politically protected constituencies.
	And because of that, they were worried what's going to happen.
	Yeah, risk evaluation and mitigation strategies.
	They were like, these people are going to do this without informed consent.
	They're not going to realize one out of ten times or so.
	It's not going to work at all.
	One out of ten times or so, you're going to be bleeding so bad, you have permanent disability or you die.
	This is beyond the morning after pill.
	This is an abortion pill.
	It tricks the body into rejecting whatever's going on there by bleeding or rejection.
	Holy shit.
	And that's why the risk of it is extremely negative, aside from whatever anybody thinks about abortion.
	It also originally limited the timetable to very early on and not to later.
	Well, come along 2016, they start to expand it, because they see Trump's about to get elected, so they immediately go in and chain-liberalize the rules.
	All of a sudden, you don't need to have a doctor prescribe it.
	All the informed consent provisions, they eviscerate.
	In 2021, under the guise of the pandemic, as soon as they get back into power with the Biden administration, they want this mass mailed.
	They want this available.
	You can get it ordered remote over the phone.
	They want to make this the most accessible drug in the world, even though it's one of the most dangerous drugs in the world.
	Again, putting aside the question of abortion, they dramatically expand the length of time you can take it from or recommend it for.
	That was now what used to be very early in the pregnancy, now can be much later in the pregnancy.
	And it's a neurotic, I just presume it's because early on in the pregnancy...
	Taking it, causing the rejection, there's much less to reject, and later on it's just more complicated.
	Yeah, the risk goes up and up and up and up.
	And the FDA approved this without any studies on the topic.
	Like, they're making all these aggregate changes, and they cited studies that didn't talk about these aggregate changes at all.
	So it was completely, and they rushed it through, they called it an expedited process, circumvented it, ignored all petitions in protest of it.
	Did they invoke public health emergency?
	Initially they did, but then they passed it so late that they could no longer even use that as an excuse.
	They tried to argue that excuse in court, but the court was like, you even internally recognize that by the time you signed off on this, because they had to wait until after the Biden administration to get into power and all of his people to be there so no Trump people could block it.
	So consequently, it was done over a year after the pandemic.
	When there was no real, there was still an emergency on paper, but no real emergency.
	Plus, they didn't want to limit it to the time period of the pandemic.
	That's why they had to say it wasn't emergency-based, because then it would be lost, taken away from them, once the emergency was no longer a state of emergency, which Biden did earlier this year.
	Yeah, or just declare unwanted pregnancies a public health emergency.
	If we don't do this, they're going to go and do all sorts of terrible things to end the pregnancies.
	Alright, so this sounds like an absolutely horrific medication.
	Well, even worse, if you're a doctor, let's say you're a pro-life doctor, you often get stuck treating these people.
	And you often have to do an abortion to save their lives.
	And these are doctors that don't want to do the abortion because they oppose the abortion.
	They don't want to kill one life to save another life.
	They don't want to do that.
	They want to be put in that position.
	Plus, they have to deal with all the other fallout and consequences.
	So they sue.
	The district court realizes there's some problems here, unique problems.
	This goes up to the Fifth Circuit.
	The Fifth Circuit initially thinks about agreeing to the injunction.
	Then the Supreme Court steps in and says, no, we don't want an emergency injunction.
	We want this to keep going.
	So it went back to the Fifth Circuit for final hearing.
	And the Fifth Circuit just goes through all the details and says, oh, actually, the injunction has to issue.
	Because it says, look, to have this be easily available remotely by the mail with no informed consent provisions put in there when there's major safety risk.
	The FDA has to do reasonable things.
	It has to consider all the evidence.
	It has to consider all the issues.
	And it can't do something in direct contradiction of the evidence.
	It did all three.
	It completely ignored certain issues.
	It cited studies that actually contradicted and rebutted it.
	Not just rebutted it, but contradicted it.
	The only evidence it had was evidence that said the exact opposite of what it was claiming.
	There was no evidence at all that this could be done safely, effectively, the way the FDA was saying.
	None.
	Zero.
	Zilch.
	Zuka.
	Nada.
	All the evidence implied just the opposite.
	And so they just ignored it, pretended it didn't exist, or cited it for the exact opposite proposition of what it stood for.
	That made it arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
	So the Fifth Circuit came in, set it all aside, said, no, you can't have this remotely done.
	You can't have this through mail.
	the 2016 and 2021 amendments that were done to the original authorization violate the law and fda's obligations to at least be reasonable which they were not and this puts at imminent risk all kinds of very vulnerable women across the country i don't want to think cynically but given the objective of you And Bill Gates doesn't mind that problem.
	Bill Gates is all in favor of that problem.
	Robert, that's not...
	Well, I guess...
	Sorry, that was not the white pill, but where does it stand as far as the judgment goes?
	So now all the abortionists and eugenicists are going nuts and running up to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping the Supreme Court steps in again.
	Because they can't get the abortion pill, whatever, metheprosone.
	Easily accessible, easily available through the mail.
	So anybody can just...
	They know that they want to kill people.
	It's that simple.
	And they want to make it as easy as possible.
	This might be a little TMI, but it's not TMI because I don't want anyone thinking there's anything more to the story than this.
	One of my more traumatizing discoveries on the interwebs back in the day, it wasn't even the internet, it was a photograph in a book, was in support of why you should support reasonable abortion exceptions, was that if you don't do it...
	People go to hotels.
	They use a hanger.
	And then there was a photograph of a woman who had died on all fours because someone used a hanger and it bled out.
	And I don't even know if these things are true anymore based on the way things have gone.
	But can you imagine selling this crap over the internet so that somebody who just takes it at home and has no idea what the heck they're getting into and then bleeds out because that's what this procedure resulted.
	It's actually...
	At the same time, you know, but there's useful parts of this decision from a standing perspective, from an APA perspective that's helpful in dealing with the FDA in general.
	It's good to see federal courts finally start to stop the excesses of the FDA.
	And that's, by the way, the petition the Supreme Court's all about by the people who are on the side of this pill.
	They're like, hey, you're supposed to defer to the FDA.
	They're the experts.
	You're not supposed to be giving your own opinion on anything.
	And that's...
	The Supreme Court does take it.
	Hopefully they affirm the Fifth Circuit because the FDA has been deferred to too long and it's led to the harm and danger.
	Just look at the opioid epidemic.
	FDA approved the opioid epidemic.
	Obamacare helped subsidize it.
	Why do you think excess deaths and longevity and life expectancy...
	Started to decline in direct proportion to where Obamacare was instituted in the United States.
	Let's look at the timeline, folks.
	Wherever Obamacare went full scale, particularly its Medicaid expansion program, that was mass, and it created all these incentives to just dump opioids on poor working class people, particularly poor working class people that didn't vote for it.
	Obama, quite frankly, if you look at where the overlap is, where the worst epidemics took place.
	But all of a sudden, life expectancy, they've been going up, up, up, up, starts to flatline and turn negative.
	That's who these people are.
	The only lives they care about are illegals that are coming in the country.
	And that's our Biden immigration transition.
	Well, I'll just say one thing.
	I have not yet seen the Netflix special Painkiller, but anybody wants to talk about what promotes negative sentiments about swaths of people because of bad examples of individuals?
	The Sackler family and the opioid crisis.
	That's enough to cause people to think bad things.
	The parts that's still under-examined is the FDA's complicity, the CDC's complicity, and the Obamacare's complicity, and Obama administration's complicity.
	They were neck deep involved with that.
	And I'm going to watch that, although expecting what I expect from a Netflix special.
	Robert, do I pull up the soundbite of Eric Adams saying how...
	He called them migrants.
	He still calls them migrants.
	Unvetted non-taxpayers are going to ruin New York.
	What is the latest on the...
	It's a massive fucking problem.
	People don't understand this.
	Or they do and they don't care.
	What's the latest on the border crisis?
	So the issue is that Texas, people are coming across the river, so they put in some buoys.
	With razor wire, and it looks very bad.
	It's meant to almost be a deterrent from them even trying.
	It's not really trying to kill people swimming across the border.
	It's so that they don't try to swim across the river.
	And at the risk of positing the very offensive thought process here...
	Has anyone ever seen what's on the outside of maximum security prisons?
	It's not buttercups and rose petals.
	It's frickin' razor wire that will slice you up and kill you if you try to do it because you're not supposed to leave the prison.
	Admittedly, we're not talking prisons here, but you're not supposed to cross a border illegally into someone else's country.
	And so you do...
	The buoys look bad, and especially when they said it was submerged underwater, which I think might mean that at some point it stopped floating and so that you couldn't...
	Might have been some natural reasons for which it was not visible, not intended to be a trap.
	But Robert, I mean, there's razor wire around everything.
	Junkyards, prisons, and nobody complains.
	On the border, people complained.
	So what happened?
	So the Biden administration sued on the grounds that immigration law is for them to govern and navigable rivers is for them to govern.
	And that consequently, Texas had no legal authority to try these buoys to restrict immigration.
	That it was interrupting a navigable river under the federal law.
	And it was trying to usurp immigration authority, which the Biden administration has.
	Texas argued they were just trying to enforce immigration law, and Texas argued that there's an invasion and that they can use any martial or military means when there's an invasion under the Constitution.
	This is, in effect, an attempt to challenge the Arizona versus the United States, the first Obama administration decision that was critical in this space.
	Arizona had passed laws to try to limit the amount of illegal immigrants in Arizona, limit their access to employment in Arizona, and limit their reasons for coming to Arizona.
	The famous Sheriff Joe and all that from Arizona.
	The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Arizona had no legal authority to enforce immigration law.
	said that federal law preempts it, said that the supremacy clause and the naturalization clause trump it.
	It's a political question that's left to Congress exclusively, which doesn't make sense, honestly, but I'll get to that in a second.
	so they said because of you know it says Congress has the right to naturalize Congress under the article 1 Congress controls and the executive branch controls relations with foreign borders and that You combine that with a supremacy clause, any issue of immigration is controlled exclusively by the federal government.
	Now, the decision was 5-3, and Kennedy kind of split the baby on some stuff.
	Roberts and Kennedy joined the three liberals.
	Alito and Thomas, along with Scalia, dissented.
	You can assume that Gorsuch would probably join the dissenters, but that's not clear for sure.
	And it would come down to Kavanaugh and Barrett.
	I would have no confidence in Kavanaugh or Barrett reexamining the Arizona decision.
	But the Texas case is intended to help bring that about.
	And they want to challenge it on alternative grounds, that the Invasion Clause preempts or changes the constitutional authorization.
	What the Invasion Clause says is that an individual state of the United States cannot declare war or engage in war.
	Unless there's been such an invasion that it creates a real emergency scenario, if you will.
	Why can't Texas invoke public nuisance laws?
	Because federal preemption.
	All of this is federal preemption.
	And what Scalia noted in his dissent is he said historically this made no sense, the idea that immigration was preempted by the federal government.
	You go back, it was the states enforcing immigration law up until the late part of the 19th century.
	So the idea, he said, it's inherent in the power of sovereignty that a state has the right to determine who's within its borders.
	And now he goes through the history of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Right to Travel Clause, and that was limited to citizens of each state, how the principle of naturalization was intended to get around states having two liberal interpretations of their own state laws for citizenship purposes.
	And his historical argument is much better than the majority opinion, which doesn't even try to address it.
	But Kennedy and Roberts are always very...
	This is what happens when you get corporate types as the Republican representatives.
	Remember, the corporate types love illegal immigration.
	The Reason magazine loves illegal immigration.
	The Koch brothers.
	Now, we'll get to ask a libertarian about where he may disagree with that on Tuesday.
	Well, not I didn't double book, but I back-to-back booked.
	So I might have – I think I have Tarek Johnson, who's a January 6 cop, on at 7 o 'clock.
	Then we've got Dave Smith on at 9 o 'clock.
	It's going to be a big – 9 o 'clock Eastern, Dave Smith, the comedian, the libertarian candidate.
	Oh, yes.
	The friends with Michael Malice.
	So we have to ask him some of these questions about where he might disagree with the libertarian establishment, if you will, the big libertarian donor class, et cetera.
	So the issue is, do they want to go back and re-examine it, agree with Scalia and Alito and Thomas, and say, hold on a second, as we see this flesh out, or maybe use the invasion clause as their way to get there?
	There is a legitimate concern that if you say that a state can...
	What's the limits on it?
	If a state can just declare an invasion and thereby circumvent the ability to wage war, do we really want that?
	Because you can imagine how states might abuse that power.
	Can they say they're going to wage war with a foreign government, foreign country?
	What are the restraints there?
	People feel they're being invaded, and so the point of that provision was to provide immediate security.
	The better remedy would be to go with what Scalia laid out, that constitutionally there was always a role for the states to control their own borders.
	And that there should be some recognition of that and that no state has to be burdened by another state's actions or the federal government's actions in this respect.
	But it's not an easy question.
	It has lots of policy issues.
	But what we're seeing is that the Supreme Court's 2010 decision didn't work because the other states are creating problems for...
	And the federal government's doing the same.
	And this goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation, which was much more liberal about immigration rights than the Constitution was, which was meant to preclude one state burdening another state unfairly or injudiciously.
	And then you have the other component.
	Apparently, the Biden administration is going to try to prevent them from leaving Texas.
	And the way it's going to do it is it's going to release the illegal immigrants.
	With some sort of GPS or something else, apparently.
	Now, they could have always done the GPS.
	We'll see if they're serious about that, because a lot of people don't come back.
	But what is it?
	They're trying to solve the problem for the New York mayor and the Chicago mayor.
	And what they want to do is say, well, as an immigrant, you can get your work fee, even though you came here illegally, you can get certain work parole, if you will, something like that, as long as you stay in Texas.
	And then the question is, what can Texas do about that?
	Because in most of these cases where people, in fact, to my knowledge, in all of the cases where people are going between states, the states haven't arrested them.
	The states have just said, hey, would you like to go see the New York City?
	Would you like to go to a beautiful sanctuary city in Martha's Vineyard?
	Would you like to see the great city of Chicago?
	Here's a free bus ticket and a little bit of cash.
	And so they're saying yes.
	What happens if they all say no now because the Biden administration is putting limits on them?
	All of this is coming to a head because the immigration is way out of control.
	Illegal immigration is way out of control.
	And the Biden administration, Democrats, are just facilitating and promoting it.
	And the question is whether the Supreme Court made the right decision all the way back when they said there was no role at all for the states.
	All right, that's not a white pill, Robert.
	Hold on.
	So we're two hours and 15 minutes in.
	How many do we have left on the list?
	Oh, just bonuses left.
	So just for those that put in at least a $5 tip question or more, we'll get to it at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	So here's what we're going to do.
	And we got the Oregon Bar Alternative.
	We got Owen Schroyer's case.
	We got a civil rights case against government conspiracies.
	And Whataburger claiming the anti-slap statute prevents you from suing them.
	Before we go to locals, you all have the link there.
	I'm going to bring up two more.
	There were two more rumble rants.
	True story.
	This is terrible.
	Family member died due to tetanus from coat hanger abortion in 1060 California.
	Father confronted.
	Boyfriend blew his legs off.
	Deemed justifiable in court.
	I cannot vet to any of that.
	But a lot of that is upsetting.
	Orange County in California is banning mandatory mask and vaccine mandates.
	At least red areas or Orange County are in California fighting back.
	Do you guys think the governor can override that?
	Robert, can a governor override that?
	Potentially.
	It depends on the state.
	It depends on what he does.
	All right.
	Now what we are doing, people.
	We are ending.
	I saw.
	Hold on.
	Just so everybody knows what's going on in the backdrop here.
	I know Salty Cracker is live.
	I did not know that this video of this woman flashing the bath-o-may symbols was new.
	I don't know who that woman is.
	But I saw it.
	Salty Cracker is live.
	But come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and you can catch up on Salty afterwards.
	The link is there.
	I've missed nothing, so we're going to end it on a rumble right now.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com after getting your merch at Viva Frye, Wanted for President, and if the Fulton County wants to come after us, me, oh, that'll be fun.

▲