Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 17, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:17

Ep. 178: Russell Brand, Trump, Paxton, Biden, O'Keefe AND SO MUCH MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We have an intro video.
	It's not just my ugly mug.
	Speaking of mugs, I'll get to that one in a second.
	I'm calling it Boobergate or Boobertgate.
	Enjoy today's interview.
	Thank you.
	Julian is a mermaid found in DODEA elementary school libraries, describes a boy who wants to become a mermaid.
	During the book, the boy repeatedly strips down to his underwear.
	Later, he puts on lipstick and dons a headdress.
	Inappropriate for children.
	I think most people can agree with that.
	They're contrasting it to the...
	Infrared video from within this theater playing Beetlejuice.
	Why does a theater have infrared night vision goggles?
	I don't know.
	I'm not asking questions, but they think they've got the gotcha on the hypocrisy.
	But let's just play this out.
	He is then given a costume jewelry before being seen, before being taken to the NYC Mermaid Parade, where he can freely express himself.
	For those who are listening on podcast at Viva Barnes Law for the People on Podbean, whoever is going out with Lauren Boebert is touching her boobie by the look of it in a movie theater, a crowded movie theater.
	In the dark of the crowded movie theater, her date, I don't know if it's her husband, I don't think it's her husband, is touching her boobie.
	Won't someone think of the children and they think they've got the gotcha of hypocrisy?
	The left can't meme.
	The left can't humor.
	Because they lack insight and they lack introspection.
	They think this is the biggest gotcha ever.
	I'm going to explain to them why they are fools.
	But let's just let this play out.
	I just have to narrate it for the podcast.
	Here's the bottom line.
	Let's stop grooming our children.
	Apparently, the dude's touching her boob again, for those who are listening.
	Stop grooming our children.
	They think it's a big gotcha that someone on a date had her date touch her boob in a dark movie theater.
	Including our military kids.
	Touch her boob?
	That's assault, brother.
	That's Billy Madison.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm gonna let this finish here.
	It's gross.
	It is wrong.
	I am here to take a stand against it.
	And I urge my colleagues to pass my amendment to protect our military children from obscene content they should not.
	Be exposed to.
	For those who are listening, the dude's really massaging it.
	Maybe.
	I don't know.
	I don't want to be so judgmental.
	Maybe he's looking, you know, he's doing a breast exam.
	He's looking for lumps.
	I've got to tell you, people, anybody who thinks that that's a gotcha and that Lauren Boebert has somehow disqualified herself from her positions on...
	What many people perceive to be, and I'll say rightly so, the grooming of children.
	Anybody who thinks that that is a gotcha, you're idiots.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	That might be inappropriate.
	It might be a little bit lewd, lascivious, maybe.
	It is two grown adults on a date, and though she was apparently touching his legs, but maybe she's looking for lumps in his upper thigh.
	I have no idea.
	It's two adults, consenting adults, in a relationship.
	What I believe is probably a monogamous relationship.
	Catch and feels in a dark movie theater.
	I gotta tell you something.
	Like when I was a 14-year-old kid on a date and you try to like reach over and like, you know, put your arm around your date in a movie theater.
	In a dark movie theater, it is not lewd and lascivious.
	Why they have night vision goggles, I don't know.
	Either.
	But they're in public.
	They don't really have an expectation of privacy.
	People think that this is a gotcha.
	You have some idiot lefty liars on the interwebs saying that they were in a crowded theater full of children doing this in front of children.
	It was, from what I can tell, by the way, a 7.30 showing of Beetlejuice in Denver.
	7.30.
	The show is two and a half hours long, which means 7.30, 8.30, 9.30, 10. That show would be ending at 10 o 'clock on a Sunday night, a school night for parents out there.
	That wasn't a kid's show.
	They weren't at a library, a public library in front of kids, twerking and asking kids to stick dollar bills down there.
	They were at an evening show, not in a theater of children.
	And by the way, for those of you who don't know, the showing of Beetlejuice, where was it?
	I had to go get the, just to show you the homework that I do, just to make sure.
	That I know what I'm talking about.
	Denver Center Performing Arts.
	By the way, if this is not the right theater and they're not the right show, please someone tell me.
	Learn more.
	Type of Broadway?
	Type.
	Broadway musical.
	I'm down on the right-hand side here, people.
	Intermission?
	Yes.
	A very long evening show that is not for children.
	Advisory!
	Contains strong language, mature references, and a lot of the crazy, inappropriate stuff you would expect from a deranged demon.
	Strobe lights, pyrotechnics, effects, fire, theatrical smoke, haze, electronic cigarettes, oh, and electronic cigarettes are used during the performance.
	I just want to make sure we're looking at the right thing here.
	This was not a kid's show of Beetlejuice.
	This was not...
	What's that guy who did all the animated series things?
	I don't want to rely on the chat to get the information for me.
	It has the word Norton?
	Borton?
	What's the guy's name?
	Chat, I need your help.
	He did all of the animation thing.
	He did Big Fish.
	Oh.
	This is gonna drive me crazy until the chat refreshes and gives me his name.
	It has Orton in it, right?
	The name has...
	Well, until we get the name in the chat.
	This is at an evening show of a show that is not for kids.
	Tim Burton, thank you very much.
	Oh, gosh, there we go.
	Orton, Erton, yeah.
	It's...
	I say it's a nothing burger.
	It's inappropriate.
	She shouldn't have been vaping, although it's very interesting that she gets faulted for vaping in the crowd while the show itself has vaping in it.
	Oh my goodness.
	I've got to pull this one up.
	I wasn't sure that I was going to bring this one up, but I'm going to bring it up right now.
	Do you remember the guy that I got mad at last week?
	Tristan Snell, who said 9-11 was a terrorist attack.
	January 6th was a terrorist attack.
	And I...
	Called him an effing idiot and a wild piece of shizzle to the tizzle.
	I've got to find his tweet on this.
	Vaping.
	He said, vaping can cause miscarriages and can kill a child.
	I've got to find this because it will blow your mind.
	The guy who compared...
	Here it is.
	Here it is.
	The guy who compared 9-11 to January 6th in all his callous...
	Immoral, inhumane stupidity.
	Had this to say about Lauren Boebert's reckless disregard for the allegedly pregnant woman behind her.
	Is this it?
	Here we go.
	Lauren Boebert vaped next to a pregnant woman and refused to stop.
	First of all, she took one puff, and that's the last we saw of the vaping.
	Vaped in front of...
	First of all, she was in front of her, if it changes anything, Tristan Snell.
	God, I don't even know who this person is.
	She refused to stop.
	That's part of the reason why she was kicked out of the movie theater.
	Vaping around a pregnant woman can cause the death of the fetus or cause them to be stillborn.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, no, I'm sure, Tristan, the same jackass buffoon.
	Who compared 9 /11 to January 6th thinks that a puff of vape in an open theater, if that were the case, well, first of all, you've got to have a problem with a couple of other things there, Tristan Snell.
	Who is he?
	Who is he?
	Tristan Snell is a lawyer, fighter for democracy, advocate and investor, prosecuted Trump University at New York, attorney general, commentator, MSNBC.
	Now I know what a NAFO is, by the way.
	That's North American Fellow Organization.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, no, no.
	He said vaping around a child can cause a death of the stillborn.
	And I know there's a bunch of hypocrisy jokes that people are going to make for a political party that wants to talk about late-term shmushmortions.
	And I was also going to bring that one up, X off the grid.
	Is it the best?
	I hate using the word the best.
	Look, it's obviously juvenile.
	She should not be vaping, catching feels.
	Have I ever grabbed my wife's booty in public?
	You're damn right I have.
	Has she ever touched my groin?
	No.
	I don't want people knowing how small it is.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Yeah, I've grabbed my wife's butt in public.
	Has it embarrassed her?
	Yeah, probably.
	And I do it not necessarily...
	I have done it.
	Not necessarily in the darkness of a movie theater because I hate plays and I hate musicals.
	This is a nothing burger.
	And I dare say this.
	Lauren Boebert is up for re-election.
	This is going to help her in the same way that that idiotic video of AOC dancing on the roof.
	Helped her in as much as it did.
	It's gonna humanize her.
	I think it makes her look a little childish, a little immature, but big freaking deal.
	When you compare that to the alternatives of what's going on out there in DC, that is not only the lesser of the evils, that might even be a plus.
	Have a little immaturity, a little irreverence, have a little youthful, touchy-feely.
	In D.C. as opposed to the old stagnant repulsive corruption that has infiltrated D.C. Okay, that was my intro.
	Hashtag Boobert Gates.
	Viva, she did grab his groin and continued fondling him.
	Okay, big freaking deal.
	I know that you're...
	I see, look.
	I was gonna analogize it to, you know, it's lewd behavior, and just because it's behind the darkness of a movie theater, you know, like Pee Wee Herman, can't use that as a defense when he got busted for a hubba hubba, oh, you kids, in a movie theater.
	That was a porno theater, and that is still next level, lewd and lascivious.
	It's mildly inappropriate.
	Would I clutch my pearls and cry and say, won't somebody think of the children who might have...
	Oh, inhaled a little vape.
	Hey, Tristan Snell, if vape can cause that to an unborn fetus, you better write in to Beetlejuice.
	Cancel the vaping in the show.
	You don't want whatever.
	And for the people clutching their parole saying it was, oh, in front of, it was an evening show of a show that is not for kids in the first place.
	So you're all, not you, designation five, all the liberal, Democrat, blue, they don't even believe in their own outrage.
	It's just theatrical.
	It's just performative political bullshit.
	Okay.
	I feel better.
	Do you feel better?
	All right.
	The show.
	We've got one hell of a show tonight.
	And I've got some more stuff in the backdrop until Barnes gets here.
	But standard rules, standard disclaimers.
	For those of you...
	I should have checked to make sure that we're live everywhere.
	Are we currently live on Rumble?
	We are.
	Are we currently live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	We are.
	Standard disclaimers: no medical advice, no election fortification, no legal advice.
	Let me just make sure that I did in fact check off the "This video contains a paid promotion" so that I can make sure that I'm...
	I'm sure I did.
	I'm sure I did.
	Because this does contain the paid promotion.
	If it doesn't, I'm going to show it right now.
	Live.
	Go into here.
	Let me make sure that I checked off that box in the show more contains paid promotion I checked it off there you go so you might have seen that little box because it contains a paid promotion it's going to contain one paid promotion and my own self-promotion shameless as it is uh let's start with the paid promotion and it's not just a paid promotion it's a product that I actually use and that I actually like field of greens powdered greens everybody I have been eating far too many fruits, not vegetables.
	And I'll explain why that's a problem later, because I'm totally neurotic.
	Possibly unhealthily obsessed with caloric intake.
	You are supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	Why?
	Because it's got your roughage.
	It's got fibers.
	It's got stuff that keeps you clean, regular.
	It contains antioxidants, super nutrients, all that jazz.
	Most people do not have between five and seven servings of fruits.
	Most people, I don't think, have one serving of fruits and vegetables unless you consider that shriveled up nasty lettuce that they get on their disgusting McDonald's burgers.
	When I travel, it's especially difficult.
	Field of Greens is not a supplement and it's not an extract.
	It is a desiccated, pulverized green.
	It's food, which is why it's USDA organic.
	Made in America.
	One spoonful twice a day.
	Each spoonful contains one serving of fruits and vegetables.
	And it tastes good.
	Looks like swamp water, but it tastes good.
	And the reason why it looks like swamp water?
	Swamp water is rich in nutrients.
	That's where the life...
	Fish go to spawn, frogs go to get born, and when you consume one spoonful of this twice a day, you're getting one serving of fruits and vegetables twice a day.
	It's better than not getting it, and most people do not get enough, and it's also better than the unhealthy habits that most people have.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It brings you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA for 15% off your first order.
	The shameless self-promotion, and I shall be using them later this evening.
	It came in the mail.
	My Wanted for President mugshot shot glass.
	And my Wanted for President mugshot coffee mug.
	You can procure your own at vivafry.com, where we have that merch and politically neutral merch, if you want to go there.
	All right, now, we have some time.
	Speaking of, you know, Lauren Boebert can bring a little youthful reverence to DC.
	What's the opposite of youthful irreverence?
	Nancy Pelosi.
	I feel like I'm turning into a bit of an asshole.
	I make the joke that I've taken the red pill and once upon a time, I didn't want to share my opinions because I didn't want to upset people because I know that there's going to be some people out there who are not going to agree with me.
	Why make enemies by sharing an opinion that you know is not going to convince the people who don't agree with you?
	Then I realized you made enemies by not sharing your opinion.
	So if I'm going to make enemies, I may as well make them for the right reason.
	Then I said, I'm not going to swear because I'm not into that dirty humor type stuff.
	Salty Cracker is more edgy in terms of humor than me.
	But I'm slowly broaching that line.
	The opposite of youthful irreverence is Nancy Pelosi.
	And people have also made the joke that there's one heck of an intertwining boober gate or boob gate in there, but I'm not going there.
	Oh, shut up.
	Well, she was on MSNBC.
	Meet the press.
	Meet the fake press is what they should call this.
	No, it's not.
	It's not.
	It's MSNBC.
	It's Sunday night show.
	The Sunday show with Jonathan Capehart.
	Listen to this hard-hitting investigative journalism, people.
	Listen to this.
	And by the way, listen to this.
	This is like super liminal, next-level, fourth-dimensional confession through projection.
	Listen one-on-one with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
	Speaker Emirata.
	Emirata.
	They give themselves such nice, fancy Latin names.
	Listen to the confession through projection rubbish coming out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth.
	President of the United States, Donald Trump, on Meet the Press, says this, and I'm quoting you directly, him directly, Nancy Pelosi is responsible for January 6th.
	He is blaming you for the attack on the Capitol that he instigated.
	You're responsible.
	What a, what a, what a, does everybody see that?
	Does everybody see what a, what a, calm down, let me just say this.
	Jonathan Capehart, they should call you Jonathan's scapegoat heart.
	He's blaming you, Nancy Pelosi, for the insurrection that he caused.
	I mean, can you believe?
	This is journalism.
	When you are a propagandist, Pravda mouthpiece for the government.
	Jonathan Capehart, you suck.
	Period.
	For the attack on the Capitol that he instigated.
	Your response.
	Well, what's your response?
	Now that I've laid that out for you, now that I've set out half of your answer, Nancy Pelosi, now that I've told you where to go with this question, he started.
	Him.
	He did it.
	What's your response to him?
	To that accusation.
	And by the way, go back and watch my interview with Tarek Johnson, former lieutenant for the Capitol Police.
	I now agree with...
	A lot of people are saying Tarek Johnson was blaming Yogananda Pittman, who was the head of the Capitol Police, and he said it's all her fault.
	And a lot of people are rightly saying, if anybody thinks that Yogananda Pittman doesn't answer to Nancy Pelosi...
	But who am I to disagree with Tarek Johnson, who has 23 years experience on the Capitol Police Force?
	I know what I think, even if it's not exactly Tarek Johnson's position.
	I think the buck does actually kind of more stop with Nancy than Yogananda Pittman, but it's one of their faults.
	It sure as hell ain't Trump's fault, but he started it.
	So what do you have to say to that, Nancy?
	The former occupant of the White House has always been about projection.
	The former occupant of the White House.
	My goodness, if I were the swearing type, I would say, what the F are you talking about, you crazy old B?
	You can't call him by his name?
	I mean, that's psychotic.
	It's psychotic.
	I'd say it's juvenile, but you're 80-plus years old and you know better.
	Like, she's in her second childhood now, I guess.
	I want to call her juvenile.
	She's entered her second childhood.
	For those of you who don't know the expression...
	Look it up.
	It's a good one.
	You're young and you're pissing, you crap your pants and you're spitting food all over the place and you're walking around like an idiot.
	And then you get to the prime of your life and then you get to your second childhood where you're pissing and crapping in your pants, spitting all over the place and walking around like an idiot.
	The former occupant of the White House.
	It's juvenile beyond second childhoods.
	He knows he's responsible for that, so he projects it onto others.
	His instigation of an insurrection...
	She's choking on her own bullshit, is what's going on right here.
	Okay, so I'll let it go.
	An assault on our Constitution, the day we're supposed to approve the...
	Well, and we did.
	Oh, you did?
	I thought it was insurrection.
	Can you imagine that?
	The insurrection delayed the certification by six hours.
	The unarmed, mostly peaceful, but slightly violent, unarmed insurrection to overthrow the government delayed the certification by six hours.
	The result of the Electoral College, the assault on the Capitol building, the assault on the Constitution, the assault on our democracy.
	Shame on him.
	However, he always projects.
	After projecting for about a minute, he's the one who projects.
	He assaulted the Constitution.
	Not Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the government when they impeached him twice.
	He assaulted the Constitution.
	Not that sham of a January 6th committee that spent two years promoting the most egregious propaganda lie ever.
	He's the one who assaulted the Constitution.
	Not the D.C. courts that have locked up people for two-plus years in pretrial detention, then given them absolutely inhumane, unconstitutional sentences.
	He's the one who assaulted the Constitution.
	I begged him, Chuck Schumer and I begged him to send the troops again and again.
	His secretary of the army, McCarthy, another McCarthy, and acting secretary of defense, just made it, oh, there are too many obstacles, it's bureaucratic, it's this, we can't do it.
	They know their exposure, so they project.
	And so he says also in that...
	They know their exposure, so they project.
	As far as I understand from Tarek Johnson, former lieutenant who I interviewed on...
	Yeah, Tuesday.
	I believe Nancy Pelosi had the authority to call in the National Guard, considering that they controlled D.C. But at the very least, Yogananda Pittman, the former chief, had that authority.
	But no, no, no.
	He understands his exposure, so he projects.
	Hashtag projection.
	That interview, Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 soldiers.
	Yeah, well, these are...
	Trumpites were attacking the Capitol, fighting the police, threatening my life and the life of the vice president.
	We're turning down the troops.
	I mean, there's a sickness here.
	There has to be an intervention, and that intervention has to be the election, which we have to win.
	And that's one of the reasons I'm running again, to fight for our democracy, which is at stake if he's on the ballot.
	The democracy is at stake if he is on the ballot.
	These are communists.
	I was late to get to the Nuremberg 2.0 trials because I said, look, I'll need to see a lot more evidence before I can jump onto that bandwagon.
	I'm there.
	People always said, liberalism is a mental disorder.
	I remember hearing that growing up.
	I remember hearing more recently, Democrats are communists.
	His name on the ballot is a threat to democracy, so we need to keep his name off the ballot to preserve democracy.
	Sorry, I just got distracted by this.
	Viva, too quiet.
	Nancy Pelosi, too loud.
	Okay, well, we're done with Pelosi.
	I think that's the equalization of...
	Yeah, because I turned off the volume equalization.
	They're communists.
	They act like communists or fascists.
	Whatever you want, like communism and fascism, they're iterations of the same tyrannical mental disorder, which is we like the power, we want to keep the power, and we will do whatever the hell we can, not even within the limits of the law, to obtain and retain that power.
	His name on the ballot is a threat to democracy.
	Okay.
	Superchats, everybody.
	YouTube takes...
	30% of these things.
	I don't even know why I'm hesitating.
	If you want to support the channel, this is one way to do it.
	You can do Rumble Rants on Rumble, where Rumble ordinarily takes only 20% of the chats and is taking 0% for the rest of this year.
	They're going to go back to doing that in 2024.
	So better for the creator on Rumble.
	Best way?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	$7 a month or $70 a year lump payment.
	And some people actually support with more than that.
	It's a wonderful community.
	Everyone's above average.
	I'm sorry, Viva, but I have lost hope for Canada.
	I have about lost hope for Canada.
	And I think invasion, I don't think invasion is practical.
	Now what?
	What Barnes says, hope for the best, plan for the worst.
	What do we got here?
	We got that.
	Hold on, let me just do this here.
	Change my mind.
	All thoughts lead to Rome.
	As well, Donald Trump is the Julius Caesar of our modern time, especially as the Senate tried to arrest him.
	Let's be honest here.
	She does have a nice pair of eyes.
	Yes, she does.
	And you can see them glowing in the infrared.
	Ian, thank you.
	Passion Boyer, thanks for doing the promo before Barnes arrives.
	Who was running that infrared camera and how did it...
	Become aimed at Boebert, Inquiring Minds.
	I think it had the whole theater and then they just zoomed in on that, which is why it lost a lot of the grain.
	Working now, but keep fighting.
	Thank you very much.
	What do we got here?
	How much CO2 does a tree take in a year?
	35 to 48 kilos a year.
	How many trees does Canada have?
	Over a billion trees.
	We can sell carbon credits.
	All right, and we got I'm Not Your Buddy Guy.
	Said it herself.
	She's cold-blooded.
	Just a liar.
	Okay, Barnes is in the house.
	We're gonna do one or two topics on YouTube and Rumble, then we head over to Rumble, and then we end on Rumble at the end, and we have our exclusive after-party on Local.
	So bringing in the Barnes.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You might have to adjust your camera to satisfy my neuroses, and then I'm gonna see if the audio...
	Everyone in the chat, let me know if Barnes is way blown out and I'll fix the audio, but it sounds good to me.
	Robert, okay, we've seen the book over your shoulder.
	You're looking dapper.
	How is everything?
	Good.
	I got to fly out tonight to, in fact, I leave right after the show.
	Got to go up to Denver for a pellet court case.
	But yes, I've been a little preoccupied, but otherwise good.
	Well, you know what you should do in Denver while you're there?
	Go see Beetlejuice.
	Okay.
	What time do you need to be out?
	Oh, right at the end of the show is when I leave.
	Perfect.
	Okay, so Robert, what do we have on the menu?
	Okay, tell us what we have on the menu and we'll get started on YouTube and then we'll go over to Rumble.
	So yeah, we got a couple of bonus issues right off the top for YouTube.
	Missouri versus Biden at SCOTUS.
	There's been some misunderstanding about what's happening in that case.
	That's the big tech censorship.
	Biden administration censorship case.
	The New Mexico governor, as predicted, what happened with that gun order.
	Then, our top 12 topics.
	Russell Brand, me too.
	James O 'Keefe suing Maui.
	Paxton reaches verdict in the impeachment trials in Texas.
	The Wittner kidnapping, last of the kidnapping trials, reaches its verdict this past week.
	Multiple cases.
	Our top topic tonight will be topic number five on the agenda of the numbered topics.
	Once we're over on Rumble, which is all things related to Trump, the severance in Georgia, the November trial date in Georgia, the motion to recuse, and a published decision concerning the D.C. judge's attempts to seize a congressman's cell phone.
	Hunter, indicted.
	Talking about people that are still being jailed for resisting COVID policies, school pronoun policies enjoined, kids' rights to perverted books at libraries, sex offenders' right to anonymity, Dollar General gets sued, the right to fish related to tribal rights and other things, and a few bonus topics, most likely exclusive at vibobarnslaw.locals.com.
	When are you entitled to your engagement ring back?
	When are you entitled to keep an engagement ring if no marriage takes place?
	Axie went to court in Massachusetts.
	And Logan Paul's getting sued again.
	Robert, let me make sure.
	I'm going to talk now.
	I've hit the adjust volume on the mic, so it should be.
	Let's do mic check, Robert, and you talk now, and let's just see if it's good.
	Check, check.
	I guess let people out.
	I have no idea, obviously.
	It sounds fine to me.
	People say, listen to your...
	I have it in...
	Okay.
	When I listen to it, it always sounds fine when I watch it on other rebroadcasts.
	So I think it's somebody, some people's home systems react differently to however it's getting broadcast.
	It could be me.
	I know that I was clicking.
	It says turn up my mic.
	I demand it.
	Okay, I'm going to turn up the mic.
	I know that I was clicking on Friday.
	Hold on a second.
	Now I go take off the audio.
	I'm going to bring it up to 150 people.
	Here, I'm up.
	I'm up at 150 now.
	Okay, Viva is low.
	Now I should be better.
	Robert, what do we start with?
	We're going to do two subjects here and then go over to YouTube.
	Missouri vs.
	Biden at SCOTUS.
	The Supreme Court didn't take the case.
	The Supreme Court didn't rule on the case.
	But they did stay it until September 22nd while they decide if they're going to take it?
	Correct.
	What they issued is called an administrative stay.
	Alito issued that to allow the rest of the court...
	To decide whether the court will even take the case.
	So the Supreme Court hasn't yet taken the case.
	There's been no ruling on the merits.
	The administrative stay is not on the merits.
	Remember the same Fifth Circuit that granted and approved the injunction initially granted an administrative stay throughout the whole pendency of the appeal.
	So whenever the government comes begging to courts to stop something from happening, they do it all the time.
	So a lot of people were reading into it.
	Supreme Court's going to take it.
	Oh, the Supreme Court's going to overturn it.
	That's overreacting to what is basically a procedural action.
	And the only thing right now is in deciding whether or not to take it, they're going to give the court time to brief themselves on it.
	Administrative stay to September 22nd, which means they're going to have a decision as to whether or not they take it by September 22nd and under what modalities they might leave the injunction in force while they take it.
	Exactly.
	Okay, good.
	New Mexico, we predicted that that crazy New Mexico governor's emergency order trying to ban guns or being able to carry them in certain ways was going to go nowhere in New Mexico.
	It was kind of a trial balloon.
	Ordinary people refused to do it.
	They went out in public protest carrying their guns.
	The sheriffs refused to enforce it.
	DAs refused to enforce it.
	Even the lefty attorney general.
	Said, I'm not going to enforce this.
	And then the federal court came in, thanks to gun owners of America, bringing suit and said, no, obviously this is unenforceable.
	So that lasted all of about one week.
	But can they not, I mean, can she not or should she not get impeached for this?
	Is that not warranting of impeachment to basically say, I unilaterally decide to disregard my oath in the Constitution itself because I think there's an emergency?
	I don't know what New Mexico's standards are for impeachment, but I know that there are people contemplating bringing it.
	Now, Democrats control, to my knowledge, both parts of the state legislature in New Mexico, so it's probably not going to get anywhere.
	But you never know.
	I mean, in Texas, Republicans were busy impeaching Republicans on no grounds.
	So surely Democrats could impeach a Democrat on good grounds, but time will tell.
	Okay, Robert, it's not that I think there might be trolls.
	Is my mic low?
	Yes.
	Okay, so everybody in locals is saying it's low.
	I'm going to keep talking.
	Oh, sweet mercy.
	Everyone's making me sweat here.
	I don't know what happened.
	I didn't change anything.
	I'm going to go here, and I'm going to blast it up.
	Anybody who knows, do I go and turn up the gain on my thing here?
	You know what, Mike?
	Okay, I'm just going to go like this.
	Here.
	I don't know what I'm doing, and I'm going to blame the kids.
	Someone touched the settings.
	Yeah, you are much louder now.
	Mike is...
	Okay, good.
	Okay, there we go.
	Now look what you made me do.
	You made me sweat in my Viva Barnes Law University merch.
	Okay, do we talk about Russell Brand here?
	Or do we do it...
	I think that we hop over to...
	Okay, fine.
	There was a fun little meme showing a parent that's had kids versus a parent that hasn't had kids.
	And the meme is that you see this middle-aged person walk by, see an alligator, freak out, run away.
	That's the person who's not had kids.
	And then you see the middle-aged person that come up that has kids, sees the alligator, goes over, knocks the alligator, tells it to go back into the water.
	So yeah, I'm sure the kids were snaking around, messing around with the sound.
	Okay, I'm going to do it.
	Get your butts over to Rumble and let's talk Russell Brand there.
	Holy crab apples.
	For those of you who don't know, come on over.
	Okay, ending on YouTube in three, 2,396 people migrate to the land of the free speech, Rumble.
	I'm actually going to coin that.
	Okay, ending on YouTube now.
	Alright, Robert, so for those who don't know, who have not been glued to the interwebs and their cell phone for the better part of the weekend, Friday night, Russell Brandt comes out with a, it's an impromptu video, or I guess it's an unscheduled video, saying, this is happening, was the title.
	And then gets into the fact that he had been contacted by journalists at thetimes.uk, which apparently is Rupert Murdoch-owned, Channel 4, which I don't even know what it is, but everybody says don't take it seriously, whatever.
	Gets contacted by journalists saying, we're coming out with, it's either an expose, if you believe it, or an absolute hit piece, if you don't, tomorrow, and it's going to allege serious, serious crimes of a sexual nature.
	I don't know if they asked him for comment and he didn't say whatever, but they notify him, "This is coming out tomorrow.
	Buckle yourself up." So he comes up with a video saying, "This video is coming out tomorrow.
	It's going to make a bunch of serious criminal accusations of a sexual nature.
	And just rest assured, everything that I've ever done in my life has been consensual.
	It's all lies, et cetera, et cetera." For those who haven't listened or read his book, I listened to it.
	It's called The Recovery.
	And he goes through the 12 steps of recovery because Russell Brand isn't admitted.
	Very open.
	um recovering drug addict and recovering sex addict and we'll say just a recovering addict or he's an addict he'll be an addict for the rest of his life and he has to deal with it in the way that he does he goes through the 12-step program in his book where he details at one point he was into drugs at another point he was into sex where he acted callously impulsively degenerately uh explo exploitively in the sense you know treated women like like like objects to the point where they were hurt they felt terrible etc etc You leave that type of wake
	in your history, it's very easy to exploit it, to go and pick people's memories and maybe twist memories and whatever.
	So that's the backdrop.
	This story comes out in The Times.
	Four women have now made accusations of rape, exploitation, psychological abuse, all of it, but the most serious of which is actual rape, for which there's no statute of limitations in England to the extent that whatever occurred in England.
	Statute of limitations, I think it's 10 or 20 years in America, depending on where.
	And there's text messages which may or may not confirm the, you know, support the rape accusations.
	Russell Brand is the latest in a long line of prominent populist, if not, you know, right-wing, for lack of a better word, speakers.
	You had Tucker Carlson.
	They came after him for being racist.
	Elon Musk, anti-Semitic, sexual harassment.
	Trump, Kavanaugh.
	I mean, I made a list on Twitter.
	They've come for him now.
	And now the question is...
	How much deep doo-doo is he in?
	Robert, what's your take on the expose, the evidence that has been adjuiced thus far in that article, and the overall MO here?
	Yeah, I mean, it relates to another Me Too case this week.
	Coach Mel Tucker at Michigan State University, the football coach, was indefinitely suspended on allegations of sexual harassment.
	That allegation I find utterly ludicrous.
	The bottom line is Michigan State is conspiring to deprive Mel Tucker of the $70 million plus he is due if they fire him early as a football coach because they gave him a $95 million contract to lock him in.
	When he was looking great, he hasn't looked great since then.
	Now they want out of the deal.
	And so what do they do?
	Was it Disclosure?
	Is that the Michael Crichton book turned into a movie with Demi Moore?
	They Me Too him.
	And you hear the Me Too allegations.
	It's not brought by an actual employee.
	It's not concerning any actual employment.
	It's not concerning any actual in-person conduct.
	It's a phone sex call.
	Where she was so bothered and so offended that she sat there and just listened for 26 minutes.
	Right?
	Come on.
	By the way, this is someone who claims, to my knowledge, never been able to prove that they were the victim of sexual assault.
	And I've often explained to people, and I represent many victims of abuse, why would anyone lie about it?
	It's the same reason people would do it.
	Sexual abuse is mostly about power.
	And the people who lie, lie because the lie is power.
	And I think Mel Tucker is clearly the victim of a conspiracy.
	Wouldn't be the first conspiracy at Michigan State involving sexual abuse issues.
	It's just this time falsely accusing Mel Tucker of it.
	And this, the allegations, my problem with the allegations against Russell Brand is they sound just like Julian Assange.
	That it's not, I consider it demeaning and dehumanizing to the word rape or assault.
	To use whether you use proper birth control rape.
	Those two things are not the same.
	They shouldn't be used in the same sentence, same paragraph, same anything.
	Here's the second issue.
	When it comes to whether or not the Me Too era has basically escalated everything into rape.
	Everything's right.
	You regret it the next day.
	Right.
	You regret it a week later.
	Right.
	You regret it a year later.
	Right.
	This demeans the meaning of rape, which is one of the most horrific crimes that anyone that's ever represented a victim or been a victim or knows a victim knows it is.
	And to so demean it by analogizing it to, well, you didn't use the birth control I wanted you to.
	You didn't use the I'm worried about whether you gave me STDs because of the method in which we engaged in sexual relations.
	The other big problem with that I'm not sure if that'd be such a great feminist argument.
	In the history of relationships, who do you think more likely lies about who's on birth control and who ain't?
	It ain't the men.
	It's usually the women.
	A lot of baby daddies, NBA baby daddies, NFL baby daddies, a lot of rich, famous people baby daddies running around because she said she was on the pill.
	Is that now right?
	Are we going to lock them all up?
	Heck, my mom tricked my dad so she could have my little sister.
	Let's go back and lock them all up.
	And then the other same category, same as true, honestly, of STDs in terms of where there's as many women that give men STDs as the other way around.
	So to reduce rape allegations to every form of fill out a 62-page consent form and comply precisely.
	It demeans the nature of rape allegations.
	These are people who got into relationships with Russell Brand, some of whom regretted it at the time, some of whom regretted it later.
	So what?
	None of it, as far as I can tell, is a crime.
	It is as one of the texts themselves that some people are saying, oh, this text is damning.
	She says in the text, bad decision that she made.
	When you dig into the whole text, she's saying, oh, I guess this decision.
	And it's a bad one, and she talks about her making it.
	Not him making it, her making it.
	This was one of the allegations of, in the article, they say rape.
	I get so neurotic that I don't want to make my own.
	Nadia alleges that she told...
	This is Nadia.
	It's a fake name.
	He carried on.
	I'm stuck underneath the painting.
	He's pushing up against me.
	He's a lot taller than me, and he has that glazed look at his eyes.
	And I can't move.
	Get off, she claims.
	He pushed her away.
	This is one of the ones where she claims rape.
	The supporting message is that...
	The message rebuts her claim of sexual assault.
	People are dissecting it because it goes from fuzzy to clear and there's no time stamp on the reply where there is on the...
	Set that all aside.
	Let's assume it's even accurate.
	It says here, you scared the shit out of me.
	You're right.
	I am a lovely person.
	And it goes on.
	You have a problem.
	You need help.
	It's dangerous that you think you can get your way all of the time.
	Being very persuasive.
	I didn't want to wear a condom this time.
	I don't know.
	I'm just...
	I play it out of my head.
	But she says, you don't have the best reputation.
	I pride myself on being safe and trying to make the right decisions.
	Obviously, this was a bad one.
	A bad decision.
	I'm so disappointed.
	Her recognizing she made a decision, she made a bad one.
	Now regrets it.
	Regret it apparently at the time.
	Now, so I don't think any of this establishes grounds for civil assault or criminal assault based on what I've seen to date.
	The other component is clearly some of these people went for it at the time.
	The authorities thought the exact same thing.
	So why now?
	Why now is the same reason why now is to Mel Tucker.
	Well, hold on, Robert.
	Let me say why now.
	I want everyone to understand the why now.
	They all said they felt ready to speak only after being approached by reporters.
	My goodness.
	Well, they've now had the time to be approached by reporters.
	Which reporters?
	Murdoch-owned Times in the UK.
	Channel 4, which I don't know what it is apparently.
	I think it's BBC-owned.
	The entire institutional British media that now...
	That Russell Brand has gone with Rumble, that Russell Brand has become sort of the populist left, that Russell Brand is supporting Robert Kennedy Jr. now is subject to a smear campaign.
	The timing of this further discredits the accusations, in my view.
	But putting that aside, you can just read the accusations and see.
	This is not a strong civil or criminal case here.
	It's not what they're trying to make it out to be.
	There's really no credible allegation of a sexual assault at all.
	It's only was the birth control done right?
	Did the person feel pressured?
	I mean, my goodness.
	Problems with calling that a crime or a tort just go on and on and on.
	Everybody would end up dragged into court.
	You know, how many men say, well, I really felt pressured.
	She really...
	I can even very much understand how some of the women felt absolutely exploited when he is going through an out-of-control sexual addiction where it's like, oh...
	And it's...
	I can understand that.
	And I can understand feeling very angry that the experience wasn't what the woman wanted, but it was, you know, pretty much what Russell was after in the throes of...
	An addiction which materializes in sex.
	But Robert, one of the accusations which everyone is going on about is that one of the girls was 16 and Russell was 30-ish.
	I think either 30 or 31. And in the article it says, I don't feel that a 16-year-old should be able to consent except that's the freaking law in England.
	The age of consent is 16. It's quite young.
	I mean, it strikes me as being young.
	Okay, an 18-year-old is going out with a 30-year-old.
	The article itself, according to the women who only felt comfortable to come forward after being approached by journalists, are complaining about the state of the law to try to impugn Russell Brand for having done what some people might think is a little edgy.
	Some people might have a very big problem, especially if you're the 16-year-old's dad.
	But legal under UK law or English law.
	I'll say that he was an easy target because of what he's openly admitted to.
	I mean, it's an obvious hit piece.
	The timing of it is obvious.
	It's a smear piece, top to bottom.
	It'd be one thing if he had pretended that this wasn't his life in the past.
	He's been, as you note, very open that this has been and how self-destructive it was.
	And even including in the text, he's not a jerk to any of these people.
	He's often apologizing.
	He's trying to deal with a composure.
	I didn't read this and come across as this is some predatorial guy.
	I got this as a desperate guy.
	And this is a reflection of modern culture.
	The current culture is that half of women chase 10% of men.
	And then they're basically in a de facto harem.
	When they figure that out, they get real bitter about it.
	Ah, well, don't chase 10% of men.
	I'm sorry.
	I mean, I have very little sympathy.
	For the bad choices made of an entire culture and generation of people.
	Obviously, he made bad choices, but he has admitted that.
	He's never said otherwise.
	What's too often excused is the bad behavior of the women involved.
	Why are you busy sleeping with people you just met?
	Why are you busy sleeping with random men?
	Look in the mirror before you point the finger.
	That's the other cultural phenomenon I think is at issue here.
	And also, I keep checking because I don't want to make a mistake.
	Nadia, the one who alleged that in that text message, the rape, had admitted to having consensual sex with him before.
	Can you read that text?
	She's nervous that he didn't use a condom.
	As she should be.
	And it said, you don't have the best reputation in the text.
	I mean, for goodness sake.
	Don't take the guy in the first place.
	Don't see the guy in the first place.
	Quit denying yourself autonomy.
	That's the other problem I have with all this.
	It denies people their own power.
	And it treats as indistinguishable someone who's truly the victim of sexual assault and rape and someone who has regrets.
	Someone who makes bad choices like she did.
	And there's this whole attempt, because the whole point is feminism, third wave feminism, preached this mantra that, hey, you can be just like men, which biologically is just not true.
	And I mean biologically not true in terms of sexual relations.
	Women attach, men don't.
	It's just part of the biochemical different reaction, aside from the risk of pregnancy and the like.
	Being distinct, obviously, for women, not for men, for everybody outside the New York Times.
	But the other dynamic is...
	That's taking place through this whole transformation of culture is a lack of accountability, lack of responsibility, which is also lack of empowerment.
	You treat people like victims.
	You strip them of their autonomy.
	You strip them of their power.
	You disempower them over time.
	It's what sort of welfare programs are designed to do.
	They're not designed to help people.
	They're designed to make them dependent and incapable of being able to help themselves.
	And if they try, they get punished for it economically.
	They get punished for it in terms of relationship.
	Bring the father back to the home.
	Okay, now you're out of...
	Now you're out of food benefits.
	Now you're out of basic health care.
	Now you're out of...
	It's insanity.
	But because third-wave feminism said, hey, you can be just like men, sleep with them whenever you want, it created a distorted culture where 80% of women chase 10% of men and leaves all these people unhappy and creating distortions in all large parts of our society.
	The whole rise of incels, the equivalent of that in Japan.
	These people would never leave their room.
	There's variations of this.
	And it's never ended well, by the way.
	The reason why polygamous societies failed is because it excluded too many men.
	And the men got pissed off, caused a lot of problems.
	And they decided, well, let's go with monogamy instead.
	At least that way, we'll be able to keep our heads.
	The royal families and elites.
	But they taught them that they could, and now that it's not true, and of course women are discovering it's not true, and they're bitter and they're unhappy.
	So what are the media who is still defending this?
	Oh, it's because you're a victim again of men.
	You're just being victimized.
	It's not you've been a victim of their bad ideology, their bad ideas of third-wave feminism.
	That couldn't possibly be the source of it.
	Well, and I'd say I don't know everything about female physiology, but I would dare say the percentage of men who can climax and have full satisfaction in 30 seconds is greatly disproportionately more than the amount of women that can do that.
	And so for someone who's into...
	Whatever Russell was in, a 30-second, it's good for me, might leave the woman feeling somewhat exploited, and you can very easily exploit those bad feelings 15-plus years later.
	The other thing is, the lapse of time, like I explained in the sub-stack type thing on Locals, the lapse of time is fundamentally unfair.
	I understand all the arguments for it, but waiting 16, 17 years when you can never disprove the allegations, well, you've done the damage by the allegations alone.
	Alright, well that's it.
	Everyone else, we'll see where it goes because my goodness, it's just the beginning.
	He's been subject to multiple false accusations.
	False accusations by his own foundation.
	False accusations in terms of employee relations.
	False accusations in women.
	False accusations by the government.
	And he's had to disprove them as false again and again and again and again.
	And as soon as he saw the Russell Brand story, he said, welcome to the brotherhood.
	It's somebody who's busy suing Hawaii.
	And that's James O 'Keefe and the O 'Keefe Group.
	This is interesting.
	First of all, how did Josh Green, born in Pennsylvania, become the governor of Hawaii?
	How does that happen?
	I heard the name Josh Green.
	I'm like, that doesn't sound like a typical Hawaiian name.
	I look him up.
	Born in Pennsylvania.
	I don't know what cultural connection he can have to Hawaii.
	I don't know what historical connection.
	Maybe he married a Hawaiian woman.
	I'm saying that not to be facetious.
	How the hell did Josh Green become governor of Hawaii?
	Enjoy who you vote for.
	Let me pull up just the article.
	James O 'Keefe.
	I just want to read the text of what...
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	Where is it?
	I can't find it now.
	So James O 'Keefe, through his lawyer, is suing, obviously, Hawaii because of alleged First Amendment violations for this emergency protocol that Josh Green enacted, which...
	Okay, I'm just going to read it here.
	It says, according to the suit, this is from the Post Millennial, MCSD officials informed John Doe...
	Oh, they were telling...
	James O 'Keefe, you can't record, you can't take pictures.
	He has a video of it undercover from a pen.
	And then it says, And then it goes into the emergency order.
	Emergency period infractions, violations.
	They've declared, you know, they've invoked the emergencies provision to apparently prevent, prohibit journalists from taking pictures and photographs.
	Robert, I mean, make it make sense, but it can't make sense except for the fact that they've now discovered this proverbial ring in these emergency orders.
	Yeah.
	I mean, basically, what we talked about all the way back in the pandemic is that the emergency powers were going to be addictive.
	To governance.
	And we're going to see more and more.
	So last week we saw the New Mexico governor saying, oh yeah, emergency power, no more guns.
	And the Hawaii governor's like, yeah, emergency power, no more press.
	And that's what they did.
	And there's a Hawaiian statute that talks about suspending electronic transmissions.
	But there's really no full statutory authority for what's happened here.
	He said that you cannot, nobody can take, I mean, they're acting weird.
	There's nothing weird about Maui.
	Why are they acting so weird?
	They're not letting people go back to their own homes for long periods of time.
	Won't disclose how many people are missing.
	Won't disclose how many kids are missing.
	It sounds fishy.
	It just happens to be territory that was highly sought after by a bunch of big, wealthy developers.
	Come on.
	But so James O 'Keefe, another journalist who's been in communication with me, but I think he won't stay anonymous because he's John Doe in the complaint.
	But credit to James O 'Keefe for going out there and being proactive about it, taking the initiative.
	He was like, look, we can't get up there.
	And O 'Keefe was like, sure, I'll go out there.
	Let's find out.
	And so O 'Keefe goes right out there.
	He starts doing undercover investigations throughout Maui.
	And he finds out that it's true that even if you're on public land, taking photos of public land, Concerning a matter of public concern, a reporter was threatened with criminal—two different reporters, including James O 'Keefe, were threatened with criminal prosecution.
	And that's a patent First Amendment violation.
	I'm not going to play the whole thing.
	It's a 14-minute video, but the first 30 seconds.
	Because of the fire?
	Okay.
	They're just making sure that this bypass is in harm.
	Nobody's parking along it.
	Nobody's taking photos.
	It's not like they're trying to hide anything, but it's actually an emergency thing down there.
	It's not that we're trying to hide anything.
	Don't take photos.
	It's an emergency thing.
	It's an emergency thing down there.
	We're a month out of the, how many, three weeks out now.
	So he's suing.
	I'll give everybody the link to that.
	Yeah, so the suit brought and includes a First Amendment claim.
	Suppression of press, suppression of speech, but also a vagueness claim.
	In other words, the fact that they couldn't point to a specific law that even allowed this, even in the emergency decree, it was sort of by inference.
	Everything was by inference.
	And they're criminally prosecuting people for it.
	That's your classic void for vagueness because it vests excess discretion in a lower official and doesn't give fair notice to an individual as to what they can go to prison for.
	Because people were shocked like...
	The journalists were like, what do you mean I could get arrested for this?
	I'm taking a photo on a photo place of a public space.
	So credit to James O 'Keefe.
	Good suit.
	Hopefully it will prevail.
	They also brought claims under the Hawaiian Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution.
	I still don't understand how Josh Green became governor of Hawaii, but okay, let's set that aside.
	Well, it's like, you know, the sons of Nazis becoming the governor of California.
	Schwarzenegger comes to mind.
	At least he was loved.
	I mean, I don't know.
	How did Hawaii grow to love Josh Green?
	I could love Schwarzenegger before he said the stupid thing.
	Yeah, but he apologized for it.
	So, you know, good for him.
	Do you want to do the DACA before we do the...
	Well, I would say that, I mean, in terms of no evidence, we have two major trial verdicts.
	One in the Texas State Senate, the other one before a Michigan jury.
	This week that were a couple of white pills of their own accord.
	Appropriate because we watched at vivabarneslaw.locals.com movie of the week was The Matrix, including for some who had never seen it before.
	So they're introduced to the blue pill and the red pill.
	Okay, so let's start with the Gretchen Whitmer.
	I say the white pill.
	That's where it all began.
	That's where the HWA began.
	The Whitmer is the white pill of sorts, Robert.
	I'm going to have to say make it make sense because you have five of the 14 defendants got acquitted over the three separate trials that occurred over a period of time.
	Nine were convicted or accepted plea deals.
	The last three were acquitted on charges of providing terroristic support.
	Two of them, if not three, I think only two of the three defendants testified in their own defense.
	I watched some of the trial.
	Again, I'm wrong in my prediction because I was trying to overcompensate for my optimism.
	I said they're dead to rights because the evidence is coming out, but that was only in the prosecution's presentation.
	They were acquitted.
	And I tweeted what I think is insightful.
	For everyone who gets acquitted on entrapment as a defense, which...
	It was basically the defense to some extent.
	Someone needs to go to jail for entrapment.
	People were saying entrapment is not a crime in America, but Robert, entrapment is a crime in America, correct?
	It's technically a defense.
	Whether it's a crime is whether it violates certain civil rights laws of various states and federal government.
	Okay, so two of them were twin brothers.
	They were accused of providing terroristic support.
	I guess the evidence that came out didn't make them look quite as guilty as they were not, by all accounts.
	I have it on good information, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot.
	I was asking, how did they get to Whitmer's cottage?
	Like, the big piece of evidence that they were kept on replaying.
	Slow motion video of them doing a drive-by of the cottage.
	And I was like, how'd they get there?
	My understanding is that it was the FBI informants who drove them there.
	They didn't know where the cottage was.
	They were driven there by the FBI informants.
	And they got the money shot for their crime.
	Anyways, so they were acquitted.
	I guess it's a white pill, Robert, but how do you have five acquittals where the defensive entrapment was successful, nine convictions and pleas?
	So, I mean, how do you make it make sense?
	What's extraordinary, I mean, the judge didn't allow him to do entrapment, present entrapment, talk about entrapment.
	So you have these judges rigging these trials, and even when they rig the trials, if you get a jury pool that's not completely nuts, they see through it and vote acquittals because of the second set of acquittals in these related cases.
	And so it shows what a complete crock the prosecution was.
	And the only reason why anybody faced any prosecution or punishment is the corruption of the federal and state courts, covering up for the corruption of their friends and allies in law enforcement.
	And that's the only reason why it got anywhere.
	In fact, I think we may have been one of the only people discussing it as soon as the news story broke.
	That this screamed entrapment.
	Now, if you followed, here's where conservatives were on the wrong side for a long time.
	It was the post-9-11 FBI that created this template.
	Now, there's other versions of it in the past, but in terms of the most modern contemporary version of pure setups of these entrapped prosecutions, of these made-up prosecutions, of these federal government-created prosecutions, like Marion Barry, same similar dynamic.
	Was the post-9-11 cases, where they got these low-level people to pretend that they were going to blow up something big in exchange for money or whatever desperate status they were in.
	And then they busted up a major terrorism ring and stopped terrorism from happening in America.
	Aren't you happy you gave up your rights and liberties, America?
	And plenty of conservatives clap like seals at these ridiculous cases.
	And now that they see these cases come back against them, they're like, hold on a second.
	So a little late, but better late than never.
	Now, of course, the left that complained about the 9-11 stuff cheerleads now.
	So, you know, you're seeing the inverse, the classic motivated reasoning, sadly.
	Well, here, I'll show you some motivated reasoning, Robert.
	In the article, there was someone they cited at the end.
	Is this it?
	Oh, this might not.
	Oh, no.
	Oh, here we go.
	This is it.
	This is, quote, this is a legal analyst.
	This is yet another instance of questionable jury verdicts in the Whitmer kidnapping plots following the first federal trial, which saw the bizarre hung jury verdicts of Harris.
	It's like they start with guilt, and then if there's an acquittal, they say it's bizarre because they were guilty.
	Lewis is the analyst.
	It's like foregone conclusions.
	These analysts are always left-wing hacks.
	Disguising their political prejudice as legal expertise when it's not.
	Anybody who looked at these cases could see they were crap cases.
	The only people who believed they had any legitimacy were people who for political and partisan reasons wanted to or who were in on it in the first place.
	And again, the lead FBI people involved with the entrapment cases in Michigan against Whitmer went on to lead key aspects of the January 6th cases.
	It's amazing.
	I remember when it happened, and we started talking about it right away, and we're like, oh, right before an election, makes Whitmer look like a victim.
	The guys look like people who haven't left their basement in 10 years.
	And they tried to get a similar type insurrection when there was a protest at the Capitol before this kidnapping plot.
	This was the question I had, Robert.
	At what point does the FBI have to stop the investigation Oh, that's the question they're supposed to right away.
	They're not supposed to do this to begin with, and as soon as they find wind of it, they're supposed to put an end to it.
	But under Christopher Wray, there are no ethics at the FBI.
	Like, I'm just sitting there like, oh, they let it go to a kidnapping plot.
	They let it go to terrorism.
	Why not let them actually do it so that you can then charge them for actually, you know, like, I was thinking, like, when do they have to stop the plot and just say, we've got enough for something.
	We're not going to let you go further.
	Oh, well, there's that part, too.
	But they're not supposed to start the entrapment to begin with.
	They're not supposed to instigate it.
	They're supposed to simply...
	You know, monitor and arrest when they think someone is going to do something, not create the whole thing and script it from beginning to end.
	And I think two of the defendants that were acquitted were in jail for two years, pre-trial detention, before finally being acquitted.
	It was on their birthday, I think.
	Okay, so that's one white pill, the Gretchen Whitmer.
	That saga is over now, and in as much as we'll ever see justice, there will be no reprimands for anybody in the FBI, Robert, correct?
	No, of course not.
	Nor for or from the corrupt judges.
	All right, and now the second white pill, Ken Paxton, acquittal on his impeachment hearings.
	Oh, I need to pull up this.
	I don't think people have read the impeachment, the articles of impeachment themselves.
	A big load of crap, but Robert, this was the scattershot legal proceedings.
	Throw out so many convoluted articles of impeachment in a highly politicized, and now I understand the dynamic of the Bush Republicans against the Ken Paxton, say more populist conservatives, throw out a slew of impeachment articles that are ill-drafted, ill-founded in fact and law, and they said it so many times, they only need one to stick.
	To remove him from office.
	None of them stuck.
	I listened to the closing arguments of the lawyer.
	His name was Busby?
	I don't know if that was his real name.
	Very, very good.
	I listened to it for like 10 minutes at regular speed just to get a feel for his cadence and then I jacked it up to 2x.
	Amazing closing arguments.
	But I mean, look, it's too complicated for me to even try to catch up on.
	Tell us what you think.
	I mean, it was bullshit from day one and it finally had a good outcome and now is he stronger than ever or are they more divided than ever?
	Well, he's definitely stronger than ever.
	This was their big shot.
	So, I mean, Ken Paxton is the Trump of Texas, a very idiosyncratic, populist-oriented Republican who has used the Attorney General's office in the way that the voters wanted him to use it and that he promised he would, which is as a populist tool.
	So, even if it meant challenging a corrupt election in 2020...
	Even if it meant challenging Pfizer and Moderna about the vaccine, which is what he said he was going to do right before this impeachment derailed him from office for a period of time, whether it meant going after the Biden administration on immigration or censorship or guns or any other issue, he has been the lead lawyer on almost every single case of consequence concerning any state attorney general in the country.
	Going on for his entire tenure.
	And because of it, he has been despised by the old Republican establishment and the more corrupt aspects of the Democratic Party in the state of Texas.
	They're used to running things their own way in Austin.
	And they go back and hoodwink the crowd back home.
	And they go back and do whatever they always do in Austin.
	As we noted...
	Even getting drunk on the floor and being the Speaker of the House and slurring so bad on recorded video for the world to witness that they just don't care.
	They're used to getting away with whatever they want, whenever they want and suckering voters, mostly Republican voters, into sending them back every couple of years.
	This is why Alex Jones didn't have political protection in his home state of Texas.
	These people are aligned with Democrats on a lot of key issues, and they're also aligned with the Bush machine.
	They're very tied to big oil, so you don't have to watch America's untold stories with Mark Robert and Eric Hunley to know that when you start talking about Texas oil...
	And some older rich guys hanging out in big clubs that your trouble is probably soon brewing behind it.
	And the old Bush corrupt regime, which combined the old big oil program with defense contractors, which was the latter Bush family going back to Mama and Papa Bush multiple generations.
	That's what Poppy Bush did down there in Texas, united the two.
	There he used to run an estate.
	They're not used to anybody challenging them outside the occasional Democratic populist.
	Your Yarboroughs, your Hightowers, those kind of guys in the Dennis Kucinich, Robert Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr. mold.
	And so all of a sudden, Paxton gets in, and they're kind of shocked.
	And his own staff, the high-ranking Texas Rangers, who like to pretend they're some noble breed when really they're...
	One of the most un-noble sources of law enforcement hierarchy in the country.
	Not saying there's nobody that's a good Texas Ranger.
	Just saying there's too many at the top that ain't.
	But they think of themselves, oh man, I'm just like Chuck Norris.
	Came right out of the TV show.
	I was just about to say that.
	I mean, you saw that guy testify.
	I used to say this to people.
	Oh, Bart, you're just insulting these great, proud Rangers.
	Then they got to see that Ranger testify in the impeachment proceedings.
	And they saw exactly what I've been talking about all along.
	If you knew who these people really were, some of the most corrupt law enforcement in the country, FBI could learn from those Texas Rangers in many respects.
	Not all respects, again, but in many respects.
	Too many respects.
	And so his staff hated him.
	The lawyers, they were either Bushites or Democrats.
	We're going to use our Attorney General's office for good?
	You know, we're not going to use it for our special causes.
	So they, of course, turned on him.
	The Biden administration hated him.
	The local Justice Department never liked him.
	The U.S. Attorney's offices are neck deep in a lot of the federal judges down there.
	Also neck deep, a lot of the state judges down there, neck deep in the Bush regime, in that old, corrupt, big oil political powerhouse that's used to running things their own way, keeping Texas people shut up and silenced and in line.
	And in comes Paxton, and whoop!
	What happened was that old populist Yarborough Hightower instinct had crossed the partisan lines, had joined the Republican Party en masse, saw it as a more viable means of getting power, and they put Paxton in there.
	George P. Bush challenged Paxton, and Paxton beat the living snot out of him.
	He did to him what Trump did to Jeb Bush.
	So they were shocked.
	And one of the things that happened was a guy under massive federal state investigation.
	Reached out that was friends with, had been a donor of, supporter of Paxton.
	Said, look, you know, whatever you think of what's happening here, they're doing illegal stuff.
	They're doing illegal raids.
	They're doing illegal warrants.
	They're backdating war.
	All this corruption.
	And what is this?
	Any other state attorney general would have turned his back on his friend and his ally.
	And, oh, you're accusing the mighty FBI?
	That can't be true.
	I'm a Texas Ranger.
	That kind of crowd.
	But not Paxton.
	Paxton said, let's look into this.
	And he asked his staff, is there something going on here?
	I mean, is he the victim of a political prosecution?
	Are they lying?
	Are they using and abusing our court proceedings?
	Are they committing perjury?
	Are they committing Texas crimes?
	Those are all within our jurisdiction.
	And they were outraged.
	How dare you do this?
	How dare you accuse the mighty FBI, the great Texas Ranger said.
	And along with his corrupt lawyer pals, and this is the problem with every attorney general's office in the country.
	You point to me, a Republican attorney general, I guarantee you half his staff are Democrats or hate his boss.
	Two-thirds of them will hate Trump, at least, usually 90% or more.
	Paxson just refused to back down.
	And so what they did is they went to their buddies at the U.S. Attorney's Office, went to their buddies elsewhere, and they said, we think there must be a corrupt bribe here because he's standing up against corruption, so that must mean he is corrupt.
	A lot of confession through projection.
	They came up with every doctored fake story in the world.
	He'd taken monetary bribe.
	He'd had his kitchen repaired by this guy because he's a contractor and they put one and one together and must have thought, oh, that equals two.
	And what they did is they really put two to seven together and called it 15. One of the ones was a $25,000 campaign contribution two years prior, which they then said was a bribe for an act that occurred two years later, allegedly.
	Yeah.
	So they looked at any donations he'd made, any get-togethers he'd ever had, any construction work he might have done, and they just tried to doctor a case.
	Now, they had no evidence.
	They never actually vetted this case to see whether they had any evidence.
	As Alex Jones pointed out last week when I was on the show with him.
	And, by the way, this week, Thursday afternoon, we, Vivian Barnes, will be hosting the Alex Jones Show in a special edition.
	It's going to be a big first, Robert.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	I'm already excited.
	So it'll be good.
	But if Biden's Justice Department had nothing on the guy, and they're willing to prosecute people when they have nothing, that told you how little or nothing they had.
	And yet despite that, the Speaker of the House, who's corrupt in Texas, he's the drunk, wanted him out.
	And the whole political apparatus in Austin, Austin is like the mini-DC of Texas.
	We despise Paxson's independent presence as the lead law enforcement official in the state.
	Then he starts talking about going after Pfizer, which has deep ties in Texas, going after Moderna and everybody else in the big pharmaceutical industry.
	And you don't have to dig long or listen to a Corbett report to know that there's deep ties between Big Pharma and Big Oil that go way back.
	You might say one originates from the other in many respects.
	So, consequently, they had to take him out.
	And they got a bunch of nitwit, halfwit, midwit Texas Republican state representatives to vote yes without any investigation of any kind in a very questionable proceeding.
	And so the Texas State Senate got saddled with listening to weeks and weeks of complete garbage.
	They're like, there's no evidence here.
	And these witnesses would admit it.
	Do you have any evidence?
	No.
	Did you have any evidence at the time?
	No.
	Who did you hear this from?
	I can't give you any names.
	I just heard it from five or six people, but I can't give you any names.
	No.
	I mean, they just made it up.
	They just cooked up a bogus case.
	And what's sad and pitiful is the Texas Republicans in the statehouse went along with it.
	That Speaker of the House should be thrown out.
	Now, here's where, representative, where government succeeded was there was public outrage concerning Paxton.
	Trump spoke out for Paxton.
	A bunch of other people in the political community spoke out for Paxton.
	Charlie Kerr, The Blaze, Steve Bannon, etc.
	Of note, a certain governor of Florida didn't say boo about it.
	Just a little FYI.
	Keep aligning with the wrong people, son.
	You're not going to have a future.
	Some of us have been warning them that for a while.
	So the state senate was on high alert.
	And when they heard how bad the evidence was, they tossed it quickly.
	They had two corrupt Republican state senators joining.
	I was going to ask you, let me pull up the articles and the way the votes went.
	Alright, so hold on this here.
	Okay, key breakdown.
	You're going to notice two Republicans each time.
	Article 1. I couldn't even make sense of that if you tried.
	Apparently the evidence was that he has no obligation to protect a charitable organization, but in any event, directing employees to intervene in a lawsuit.
	I don't know how that's not protecting anybody.
	Paxton...
	We'll stop after the second one.
	Paxton misused his official powers to issue written legal opinions to help Paul avoid foreclosure sales of properties owned by Paul and his businesses.
	And apparently, there was officially bona fide...
	No legal opinion drafted.
	There was no legal opinion.
	I mean, it was wrong at every single level.
	It wouldn't have prevented foreclosure.
	There was no official opinion.
	There was a separate opinion about what was going on that wasn't governing or binding or having the effect.
	I mean, at every level, they just lied.
	It was just lie after lie after lie.
	So 14 Democrats...
	It's a sad state of affair for...
	The same Democrats are saying, how dare they bring impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden?
	Just rubber-stamped and voted to convict when there was zero evidence in support of it.
	Democrats have no credit, but they can't go.
	It's amazing to hear them say, maybe we shouldn't abuse impeachment proceedings.
	Maybe you shouldn't have abused proceedings.
	You already did.
	That ship has sailed.
	That bridge has been crossed.
	That Rubicon has long passed.
	Well, that was like when Fetterman feigned his, like, who, who?
	Yeah, they know it means jack shit because they now turned it into a piece of toilet paper.
	But what I love here, so it was basically 14 to 16 the entire time.
	They got all 12 Democrats and two Republicans.
	I don't know who they were.
	Except one.
	Disregard of official duty.
	Paxton misused his...
	His power to administer public information laws to obtain previously undisclosed information held by his office for the purpose of providing the information to the...
	This was apparently flat out wrong.
	The information was already public, from what I understand.
	You still have two completely corrupt Democrats that are willing to make up complete cases.
	Oh, gosh.
	Credit to Attorney General Paxton.
	More importantly, he's back in charge because the impeachment post suspended him from power, unlike other impeachments.
	This impeachment in Texas removed him from control of his own office.
	Now he's back in control of his own office.
	And he's going to be on Tucker Carlson this week in an exclusive.
	That's going to be amazing.
	Now, one of the charges, maybe I didn't bring it up, but one of them was the reprisals against the whistleblowers.
	And apparently, any employee working for Paxton works at the, what do they call it?
	At the, not at the privilege, at the leisure?
	Yeah, at will, yeah.
	At will.
	The fact that he can fire anybody he wants, correct?
	And is he going to clean house now and get back in and say enough with these insurrectionists?
	Fire them all.
	In particular, I'm curious.
	To me, the timing of it was to preclude him from meaningfully doing the investigation that DeSantis promised in Florida but that never has come about, which is let's have a state attorney general meaningfully investigate.
	Pfizer and Moderna concerning the COVID-19 vaccine and whether they lied to the people of Texas.
	And, I mean, the big whistleblower case for Brooke Jackson, Brooke Jackson is a resident of Texas.
	The federal case is in Texas.
	The underlying incidents that are at issue are in Texas.
	There are state laws that are applicable that were also violated there.
	So he makes the most sense.
	So I hope that, you know, as always said, the greatest revenge is a well-lived life.
	Here, the greatest revenge is a properly used Attorney General's office.
	And that would be holding Pfizer and Moderna and anyone else accountable for the various crimes that were committed concerning the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Now, Robert, before I take another sip out of my beautiful Wanted for President mug.
	Which you can get at.
	Viva Fry, which I filled up with one shot of from the mugshot.
	You have a shot glass with a mugshot on it.
	The most famous mugshot in the history of the world.
	A shot glass with a mugshot, a coffee mug with a mugshot, and a shirt with a mugshot.
	Robert, before we go to the next subject, I've fallen behind.
	We're almost at 20,000.
	Oh no, now I hear myself again.
	A coffee mug with a mugshot and a shirt with a mugshot.
	Stop it.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	Let me just read some of these.
	I'll read all of them if there's not that many.
	Maria Patel.
	Canada Anti-Hate Network, our favorite anti-hate group.
	Union Zoom meeting plans to disrupt Millions March for Children this Wednesday.
	And there's a link to a Rumble video.
	Britt Cormier says, I have spent too much time watching you.
	I am outside smoking a cigar, and I think my neighbor are wondering why I said Nancy Pelosi just before you did.
	Hello.
	Nibubch.
	I had to see you again, Nibubch.
	Was going to point out the equalization, but see you in Miami.
	If you're going, that might be at the Tim Pool thing.
	I'll see if I can get down for that.
	Boya says, "Is it true that Viva will appear at the Whiskey Capitalist Podcast?" Hold on.
	I think that is true.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me just look in my Whiskey Capitalist Podcast.
	Yes.
	What's the date?
	September 20th.
	8 p.m.
	Yes, it's true.
	Okay, it's in the agenda, but I'm going to keep that email open and make sure I don't forget.
	And we got Pelosi looking to flatten her bank account.
	That's why she's running again.
	T1990.
	Pamela R. Walker.
	Viva too quiet.
	Barnes louder.
	And Barnes is out of sync.
	Sound is lagging behind.
	Okay, I think we've solved all of that.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	I don't believe the accusation against Russell Brand.
	The media has proven time and time again that they are liars and smear merchants.
	No question.
	But it's very easy to get someone to retroactively reassess change of memory.
	From I felt used to I felt abused.
	Randy Edward.
	Ask yourself, what would I do if I were complicit in rigging elections?
	Then you'll understand why Democrats are doing what they are doing.
	Dan Halo.
	What are the chances that Jack Smith and Andrew Weissman...
	We'll face justice under a new Trump administration.
	I'll go ahead and say zero, Robert.
	It's always a chance.
	T-Bone 316.
	Two extraordinary gentlemen.
	Bravo, standing O. Thank you very much.
	Shofar.
	That's interesting.
	Shofar.
	Paxton for U.S. Attorney General.
	Stingray.
	I wonder if they told Paxton they would not impeach him if he would back off.
	Only time will tell.
	Maybe he will.
	Nike7.
	Viva, you see the labor union vid as a strategy for the September 20 march.
	Okay, I'm going to look at that afterwards.
	Robert Barnes, The Flexner Report, Oil Beget Pharma.
	And then we have a Potency70.com, How to Join Rockefeller, Influence Modern Medicine.
	Okay, Robert, I think we might be venturing into the subject matter where I have not necessarily done all of my homework.
	Now, hold on.
	I've got to remember to look up the whiskey.
	Now, let me just go back to the list for tonight.
	And Wednesday night, sidebar, Owen Schroer, speaking of wanted criminals.
	Okay, so, Whitmer Kidemi, we are at the...
	Oh, all things Trump now.
	I guess it's a good segue.
	Yeah.
	What's up with Trump, Robert?
	What's the latest?
	So, yeah, I mean, Owen, of course, subject to 60 days in federal prison based purely on press and speech.
	Is that suspended while he appeals or is he going to jail for two months?
	I think they've given him bail pending appeal, which of course they should.
	It's 60 days, so it could easily be reversed.
	And it may go up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	It was the most explicit example of using press and speech to punish someone, arguably in American federal criminal history, at least in recent history that I'm aware of.
	The entire memorandum was, look at what he said, please increase his punishment.
	Look at what he said, please increase his punishment.
	But not to steelman this, because I don't know which way this plays.
	Some people are saying, well, he shouldn't have mouthed off like that because he was on a, what was he on?
	Not a suspended sentence, but a plea deal from a 2019 sentence.
	Oh, sure, but at no point did they say his press and speech were restrained, nor could they.
	So, I mean, it was locate.
	You can't do anything disorderly on the campus.
	But that's not the focus on the Capitol ground.
	But that's not the focus of the sentencing memorandum.
	Nor could it be, because he and Alex Jones were there trying to get people away.
	They weren't behaving disorderly.
	They were trying to preclude the disorderly behavior.
	So instead, it's all about, guess what he said on InfoWars on this day, Judge?
	Guess what he said on InfoWars on that day, Judge?
	That has nothing at all to do with the criminal case.
	That's purely let's punish him because of his speech and press activities.
	Something, again, to my knowledge, never happened before he's the first case.
	Well, they won't recognize him as press, Robert.
	They're going to recognize him as an insurrectionist.
	Well, they've already recognized him.
	Legally, they have to.
	So they may not like it, but it fits the definition of press under the First Amendment.
	Okay, so we got Owen Schroer sidebar Wednesday.
	Sorry, okay, awesome.
	And then the rest of the Trump stuff.
	So yeah, I mean, it gives you an idea where D.C. is.
	So, well, better late, I mean, I'm glad it was filed.
	I think filed a little belated.
	But this week, they did finally get around to seeking the disqualification of the judge in D.C. On the ground, I would have cited more grounds than they did, both factually and legally, but...
	They were pretty competent and capable, just not as thorough and as extensive as they could have been.
	So there's really three grounds to seek disqualification of a federal judge.
	You can seek it by the Constitution, because you have a right to an impartial jurist under the Constitution.
	This came up in a West Virginia case, West Virginia Supreme Court recusal issue, actually, some years ago before the Supreme Court of the United States, and they reiterated, you're constitutionally entitled.
	To an impartial judge.
	The second is the ethics rules.
	There's rules of judicial conduct that govern every judge as well as their oath.
	Now the remedy in that case is often actions by other members, by the judiciary's internal hierarchy or by the House of Representatives in the Senate in the form of an impeachment.
	But it can be cited as additional grounds in a court proceeding.
	And then there's the federal statute.
	So Congress was unsatisfied.
	With how well federal courts were disqualifying when they should.
	That even though the courts have admitted the whole point and purpose of all the disqualification provisions is that the four pillars of judicial power sit on a fifth pillar of power underneath it.
	And that fifth pillar of power is the perception of power, the legitimacy of power, and the credibility of power in the broader public.
	The court of public opinion is what holds up the entire court system.
	The moment nobody believes in the courts anymore, The moment is the moment the courts...
	It's kind of like the Matrix.
	The moment you realize you can kill the agent is when you can kill the agent.
	And so the same is true of the court system.
	The moment you realize you don't have to obey them, you actually functionally don't have to obey them over time in terms of how that works.
	Knowledgeable actors in the court system understand this in the judicial branch.
	And so they go to great lengths.
	But individual judges generally don't.
	They love that power.
	And so Congress was like, you guys are doing a bad job of even defending your own authority.
	So we're going to pass a statute and say you have to disqualify yourself whenever any reasonable average person might conclude that you might not be completely impartial.
	So this is a low threshold.
	This isn't your prejudice.
	This isn't your incurably prejudice.
	This test, by the way, sometimes for a jury.
	This is just some, and it's not a majority of people.
	It's not every person.
	It's just anybody.
	Could anybody who's reasonable, on any reasonable basis, have any reason to might conclude that you might be incompletely impartial?
	So, as Trump notes, his team notes, this court fails that test by multiple thresholds, by her own public statements in January 6th sentencings where she couldn't help but yip, which they have all done, by the way.
	In D.C., their bias and prejudice and bigotry has just come...
	It's because it's virtue.
	It's not bias.
	It's virtue, and they're showing how righteous they are in the sentencing and the things they've said.
	In addition, if the judge has any doubt about what any reasonable observer would think, they have to recuse.
	Here's the statements that the judge accused Trump of previously for the proceedings.
	Trying to violently overthrow the government.
	She knew who was really responsible because, quote, she could see the hats that day.
	So this is somebody that's obsessively an anti-MAGA hat person.
	Complained that Trump was free to this day.
	Complained that Trump had not been indicted.
	Complained that Trump hadn't been convicted.
	Considered, referred to him as, quote, the architect of this horrible event.
	That he was the mastermind of lying about election results, which, get this, were clear cut.
	Well, I mean, if I was there, I would have brought...
	It's like, Judge, you're a liar and a fraud.
	You're not just the granddaughter and grandniece of foreign communists and have no business on a federal bench with any authority anywhere.
	You wouldn't know the Constitution if it came and fell on your head.
	But election results in 2020 were clear-cut?
	What fantasy land are you living in?
	This isn't your commie elections in Jamaica.
	In America, those elections were anything but clear-cut.
	They don't go that far.
	They instead just say, look, here's what you said, judge.
	A reasonable person could reasonably conclude that you might not be completely impartial and so you should disqualify yourself.
	Of course, the nature of a truly prejudiced judge is that she won't recuse herself.
	But the reason you bring it is it gives you the right to bring an appeal, which is going to be on the focal point because the corrupt prosecutor, Jack Smith, He knows that this is a corrupt judge.
	And so before he loses this judge or has any risk of it, he's demanding a complete gag order that prevents Trump from talking about anything related to the case concerning the upcoming election.
	But Robert, Robert, Special Agent Jack Smith, his name is actually Jack Smith.
	I totally forgot.
	I didn't even put that together.
	He's a Smith.
	I mean, he's named right after the Matrix.
	was born in some sort of sick place, probably like it.
	There is no valid basis under the relevant law and facts for the Honorable Tanya S. Chutkin, United States District of Yada Yada, to disqualify herself in the proceedings, he wrote.
	Because I love it.
	It's arguing from the conclusion to the conclusion.
	Because it fails, it fails.
	So it should fail because it's going to fail.
	Because the defendant's motion fails to establish any bias by the court.
	Bullshit, Jack Smith.
	Much less a deep-seated antagonism required for recusal, the court has a duty.
	To continue to oversee the proceedings.
	I love it, Robert.
	It's baseless, so carry on.
	Forget anything she said.
	And by the way, please gag him.
	And we'll call it a narrow order.
	But just don't let him talk about anything that...
	Get this.
	On the grounds that could prejudice the jury, not only that, the Smith now wants an order prohibiting any surveys of the jury like the kind that Emerson just did, showing that 92% of D.C. jurors presume Trump guilty.
	Well, he doesn't want that happening, so he's like, Judge, don't allow them to do any surveying without your approval and authority, which is absurd.
	That has never been done in the history of American law.
	And by the way, the claims he's making that Trump is about contaminating the jury pool in D.C., it's already contaminated.
	He's trying to uncontaminate it.
	But this goes right to Gentile v.
	State Bar of Nevada.
	What's amazing is the government will often cite these cases, and it's like, you obviously have never read it.
	You're too stupid to have actually ever read it.
	Because if you had read it, you would never have quoted it, if you're the government.
	In Gentile versus the State Bar of Nevada, a defense counsel, who's subject to more limitations than a defendant is, by the way, Defense counsel came out and said the police were corrupt.
	The prosecutor was corrupt.
	The opposing witnesses were corrupt.
	It was all a big conspiracy.
	They lied to the grand jury.
	I mean, extraordinary allegations.
	And the Supreme Court said you could not limit his speech.
	The only thing that's prohibited is you have to prove that the jury pool will hear everything you say, and it's the actual jury pool, not just a group within the jury pool.
	Look at...
	The U.S. Supreme Court said the Enron case said Houston jury pool was not biased after all the hit pieces run against them.
	So it is a ludicrous, frivolous claim that Jack Smith is making to try to...
	But this judge is so corrupt and so crazy, she might try to prohibit...
	She's not only trying to intervene in the election by prohibiting Trump from campaigning by scheduling the trial during the peak election season, And then trying to lock him up before Election Day and try to secure a corrupt conviction before Election Day to try to prevent his election on Election Day.
	But I'm sure she'll try to gag him, too, because she's that crazy and that corrupt.
	No, Robert, she's that objective and she's that impartial that she's going to gag Trump.
	Oh, Robert, there is no chance.
	This is the D.C. case.
	It's federal.
	There's no chance that that...
	No, no.
	It can't be under the federal rules unless they suddenly change the federal rules, which I don't think they practically can.
	But I think this judge, if she continues...
	See, this is where Jack Smith is stupid.
	He's not just corrupt, he's dumb.
	You have a federal judge in your pocket.
	You have your dream judge if you're a Democrat.
	Like I said, the granddaughter and great-great-niece of famous foreign communists that were so crazy, even the Jamaican socialists kicked him out.
	And so the...
	And that really requires a whole new level of nuts.
	When you've got a judge like that that's already said clearly in other cases that you know about hates Trump, that's trying to railroad Trump with the most ludicrous trial date in the history of any case, why push the envelope?
	By pushing the envelope of having this judge now try to gag him, you guarantee you run the increased risk that a higher Supreme Court gets involved.
	Sets aside the case and pushes her out of the case, and there is no trial before Election Day.
	But Smith is too dumb.
	He's so power-hungry and so used to getting away with it that he doesn't know when to exercise even self-restraint.
	It reminds me of the, what did he say?
	Dave Smith didn't call it the Giuliani moment.
	He called it the Ron Paul moment.
	Where he's like a Giuliani, sort of drunk on the response.
	And he's like, yeah, I'm going to go a little bit further.
	It's not enough to get the zinger.
	I'm going to say, apologize.
	Now let's go for a gag order because I'm getting praised and lauded by all of my brethren.
	Okay, so hold on a second.
	You said three things.
	Are we on number two of the points?
	Yeah, well, because related to it, I mean, to give an example, the D.C. chief judge, and there's two different ones at different times that have presided, but they have been notoriously corrupt, very partisan.
	One of them sat in to watch Trump get arrested, couldn't wait for that to happen.
	I mean, people who shouldn't be judges, who should be subject to impeachment proceedings as we speak in the House of Representatives.
	But the House is so weak, and so they're like the Texas state legislature.
	It's the problem of representative government writ large.
	For example, all those people who voted incompetently for Paxson's impeachment on the Republican side, they should all be thrown out.
	But many of them won't be, because who has the time?
	It's the people with political capital, the corrupt actors, who have the time to find a candidate, recruit a candidate, poll for a candidate, raise money for a candidate, plant media stories for a candidate.
	The ordinary Joe doesn't, and it's another place where I think representatives...
	Give me direct democracy over representative government any day.
	I don't care what any of the old-school people say.
	We've tried representative government.
	It fails a lot more often than it succeeds.
	But an example of the abuse of power was the congressman's phone that was seized by Jack Smith.
	How he got a warrant is just insane for a congressman's phone for all of his messages.
	That was challenged.
	The district court judge denied him any defense on speech and privilege immunity grounds.
	We found out the D.C. Court of Appeals had actually reversed that earlier this year.
	They just now published the decision.
	But they said, in fact, that much of what the district court said was baseless.
	The key is the speech and debate clause.
	We discussed this during the Covington kids' cases.
	It's interesting how they have applied different standards of immunity in these cases.
	But they said that at least they recognized in the criminal context, which is when it should be the most expansive, it should be the most limited in other contexts.
	In the criminal context, the speech and debate clause, which reads, you cannot be questioned for any speech you make as a representative or senator, means protecting the legislative branch in general, the parliamentary privilege, as it is called in the United Kingdom, whose precedents we often look to and borrow from for our interpretation of our own clause because it derives therefrom.
	And clearly, the district court had basically forced me to turn everything over.
	And the Court of Appeals was like, well, no.
	No communication he made with any member of the House can be turned over.
	No communication about election certification can be turned over.
	No communication about other 2020 election issues can be turned over.
	No communication that concerned fact-finding into it could be turned over.
	So basically gutted that warrant.
	Interestingly enough, that fact that was disclosed or ruled on by the court in February never made it out to the press somehow.
	Robert, was that warrant obtained in the jurisdiction of D.C.?
	Oh yes, as usual.
	That's why it was fully litigated in part in D.C. So it originated from Jack Smith's special counsel branch.
	But it was another just egregious abuse of power, at least here that even the D.C. Court of Appeals, which leans very left and anti-Trump, said, well, hold on a second.
	No, this goes past what...
	The Speech and Immunities Clause allows.
	The Speech and Immunities Clause was meant to allow the legislative branch to not live in fear of the executive or judicial branch.
	But what happens when you have a corrupt executive and a corrupt judicial branch that pretends to not recognize that privilege?
	That's what started to happen here.
	And at least here, somebody smart in the judicial branch stepped in before it got bad.
	All right.
	Is that it on the updates?
	Oh, we have two more Trump updates.
	Go for it, Robert.
	I don't know which one we're on yet.
	Actually, yeah, this is Georgia.
	So what happened is several defendants are seeking a speedy trial and refusing to waive it.
	That's Attorney's Cheesebro and I can't believe it's pronounced Cheesebro, but apparently it is.
	And Attorney Powell, Sidney Powell.
	And then...
	The other defendants, and then four defendants, including Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows, had moved to stay the case until their appeals are heard in the 11th Circuit, and the federal district court fully answers all of their claims for removal.
	And many defendants, including Trump's team, had waived the Speedy trial and supported severing from anyone who didn't.
	What I predicted is that this judge would make a decision that was the best for his schedule, which tells you a little bit about this judge.
	He's a younger Republican appointee of Governor Kemp, who comes from an equal-to-Bushite corrupt political establishment in the state of Georgia.
	In all of these states, there's a corrupt establishment of varying degrees of power that actually runs the state party, runs the state hierarchy, controls the donors and the lobbyists and the key positions in the legislature and the executive branch and the judicial appointees.
	And some are just more powerful than others, but it's often a shock to the actual Republican voters in these states who really run their state on the Republican side.
	But I predicted that he would make a decision that was best for his schedule.
	And this is good advice out there.
	Whenever you're trying to get a court to do something, try to make it as easy as possible for the court to do it.
	In terms of procedural...
	Procedure and in terms of substance that creates the least risk of political blowback, the least risk of appellate reversal, and the most effective, efficient schedule and best suits that particular judge's policy proclivities.
	We'll talk about another case where they failed to do that.
	So the wacky prosecutor down there in Fulton County was demanding everybody go to trial October 23rd.
	Even crazier date than anything else.
	And the judge was like, we don't even have a courthouse big enough for all the defendants and all the lawyers and all the prosecutors and all the public observers.
	He goes, we have no idea how we're going to do this with security.
	And he goes, how the heck are we supposed to do this?
	Are we supposed to stop every other case on our docket?
	Is every other judge supposed to just quit handling cases?
	It's not like Fulton County lacks criminal cases.
	So they're in Atlanta.
	So, that was an unpersuasive argument to the judge.
	So, because of that, the impracticality, which is what I always said would be the reason he would grant the severance, he granted the severance and said, anybody who wants a speedy trial, you're on a whole different track, who waves it.
	If you want the speedy trial, you're going to trial November 3rd, and you'll go to trial together.
	So we're actually going to have a trial as early as November 3rd on the election issues as it currently stands.
	This is a state case, correct?
	This is the big Georgia case.
	The one that allows you to bring up every election issue in every state in the country from an evidentiary perspective.
	But more importantly, it's a state case in Georgia, which means it can be broadcast or it will be broadcast?
	Oh yes, yes, yes.
	All video broadcast.
	I mean, it's not like the California fake judge presiding over the Eastman disbarment proceeding who tried to intimidate people this week into saying you couldn't rebroadcast.
	She was like that loony Austin judge who presided over Alex Jones' cases that invited movie crews to come in and film people up close.
	You know, like the jurors are looking at the movie cameras like this.
	Complete embarrassment to the rule of law in America is what those Alex Jones cases were.
	I don't know if you heard that the Eastman hearing examiner, fake judge, pretend judge, not a constitutionally appointed judge, was trying to stop people from rebroadcasting the disbarment proceedings because of how embarrassing it's turning out.
	She never said boo about it.
	Now then she's like, maybe this is our copyright.
	Maybe this is our exclusive car.
	You can't rebroadcast without my permission.
	Just like that whack job at Austin judge.
	Remember, she was like, oh, only the people I pick can rebroadcast this.
	You can't put it on Infowars.
	Oh, no, never.
	You know, if you're right, what are you so scared of it getting broadcast for?
	But, in fact, the judge's exact words were, quote, it would be a Herculean task to try to do it.
	Now, he pointed out the obvious, that there's no way in the world defendants can prepare for this massive amount of a trial.
	A trial that, by the way, he said will start November 3rd on those that...
	Don't waive speedy trial in Georgia.
	And we'll keep going on according to the prosecution through at least January and into February.
	It's going to be like a four-month trial.
	This judge is going to be tied up in these cases for the next 10 years unless somebody steps in and stops it all.
	It would not be four months continuous, right?
	So it'll be like, we'll go two weeks, we'll break.
	No, it'll be four months continuous.
	It's the same jury sitting there the whole time.
	Shit.
	Balls to your...
	I totally forgot about the jury aspect.
	But strategically, Robert, it'll be Sidney Powell and Cheesebro.
	Now, I don't know who Cheesebro is, but...
	I hope they do well.
	I hope they step up to the plate.
	I hope they step up to the plate.
	Now, of course, they may change their mind and then waive the speedy trial.
	Now that they realize it's going to be split in a certain way.
	But the...
	I mean, it's a great opportunity to present a robust defense.
	And I hope they do.
	I'm just not sure they're going to yet.
	The shit show that that would be to broadcast that day in and day out.
	But this is the issue.
	I don't know offhand which allegations overlap between Sidney Powell, Cheesebro, and let's say the bigger players.
	Oh, it's all the Rico.
	It's all pretty much the same allegations.
	That they desire to lie about the election to put fraudulent electors in the positions of power.
	But some of the specific charges were unique to Sidney Powell.
	Oh yeah, there are specific facts that accuse each one of each.
	And what their spoke role on the wheel was.
	That's right.
	Prosecutors admitted that their evidence will be identical in every case.
	So, I mean, Sidney Powell is going to be an easy target to convict.
	Is it strategically beneficial?
	Hypothetically, you get a conviction on Sidney Powell before the big guy, not the bad big guy, but the good big guy.
	I mean, at least she's one of the few people familiar with the criminal justice process in terms of an actual defendant.
	So on paper, she should know how to really robustly defend herself.
	So there's the reputation in those issues, but that's separate from being able to present the quality of a defense you could present.
	I mean, and he's talking about the jury being picked by November 3rd.
	In order to pick a fair jury in this case, he's going to need to start picking that jury next week.
	It's September 17th!
	But Robert, strategically, if there is a conviction in Sidney Powell...
	The prosecutor wanted to start trial against Trump next month.
	That's how insane that was.
	It was a stupid ask in the first place.
	But if Sidney Powell gets convicted, or if any of the...
	Cheesebro, Sidney Powell, if they get convicted, how badly does that reflect, if at all, on the other defendants?
	I don't think it has much impact on anyone else, because it's an Atlanta jury pool.
	So it's an 80% Democrat.
	It's not as bad as D.C., but it's still 80% Democrats.
	But does it...
	Does it facilitate a conviction in the eyes of a subsequent jury to be called for the other defendants?
	I would put it this way.
	They need to get all convictions until Election Day.
	It's any acquittal that would be devastating.
	Okay, that's totally cool.
	So in theory, we could start seeing jury, I forget the word, but jury selection.
	Yeah, you could start covering the trial.
	I don't know what they will do in the jury selection.
	That could be a couple of weeks before, but maybe they'll do that in private.
	But the trial itself is intended to commence on November 3rd.
	So you could start covering that live then.
	I don't know that I can do...
	I don't know.
	What is that?
	I can't do four months.
	My wife would kill me.
	And the dogs.
	We could cover the highlights, opening statements, closing arguments, some key witnesses, some key evidence, when the defense presents, that kind of thing.
	Depending on the circumstance.
	Clearly, plenty of material for forever.
	But that will depend heavily on the quality of the presentation by these individuals.
	I think Cheese Bros is an attorney too.
	So I'll be curious.
	They should put on a robust defense.
	That would be my view.
	And prosecution starts first, so we might have literally like two months of prosecution.
	And the problem with prosecution, they may lose some witnesses' credibility in any one of these cases before the next one.
	That's why they wanted them all at the same time.
	They don't want the world to get it.
	They don't want the defendants to get a sneak peek at all their cases.
	That's an interesting strategic reason why it might be beneficial for the others to have someone go first.
	It definitely benefits the others for somebody to go first.
	Excellent.
	Okay, what else?
	Ah, but that is a wrap on Trump.
	And our other political indictment of the week that looks like an indictment, but is more of a cover-up.
	Oh, yes.
	Well, we talked about this earlier.
	Hunter's being indicted.
	Robert, I haven't been totally following it, but I have to refresh my memory.
	He's being indicted on the...
	Is it the tax or the gun charges?
	Just the gun charges.
	Okay.
	And so what happens next?
	So they indict him on the gun charges.
	And what now?
	There was this news cycle, oh, how tough it is on poor Joe Biden and Hunter's been.
	This is a scam.
	So this is the diversion agreement deal they did, where they said, you agree to plead guilty to this aspect, but you won't even have to plead.
	You just agree you did it, and we agree, as long as you stay good, we will divert prosecution and never indict you on this, and never indict you on anything else, pretty much.
	As part of the deal.
	So, the statute of limitation was going to run on this.
	So, if they were going to bring it, they had to bring it by the end of September.
	That's why they brought it, in part.
	The other reason, though, and here will be the giveaway, track when they take this case to trial.
	See if there's all of a sudden a speedy trial demand, or suddenly they don't...
	Here's a case as simple as it gets.
	You know, did he lie or not at the time he filled out his gun application?
	Yeah, well, Sussman's case was as simple as it gets as well, and despite that, he got acquitted.
	Oh, of course.
	But I mean, from a speedy trial perspective, it doesn't take any defense team very long to prepare for this.
	This isn't one million documents, 2,000 interviews, you know, 10 years of document and evidentiary review, complicated motion practice of novel, unprecedented scale.
	All the things, all the Trump cases are, is what Hunter Biden's case is not.
	You could try this in November.
	But watch there be no rush to try this case, which will be part of the giveaway.
	The goal here is a simple one.
	The goal is to prevent the Republicans in the House from being able to subpoena Hunter Biden and ask him questions that he could not assert the Fifth Amendment to because the diversion agreement gave him immunity.
	And by indicting him, they preclude him having to testify from happening.
	That's all this is.
	It's not meant to have a consequence.
	The other advantage is they could say, geez, we didn't give him diversion.
	But we couldn't because the court just interpreted this way.
	Holy shit, Robert.
	You're right again.
	So now he can plead the Fifth Amendment?
	He'll never do any jail time.
	It's not going to happen.
	They're just trying to run out the clock so he doesn't have to testify to the House and the Senate.
	Robert, I know you saw, but did you see what we did to our dog?
	Yeah, it looks totally different.
	This is Winston.
	This was Winston.
	The groomer went very hard on the clipper, and he looks good.
	He looks like a mini Staffordshire Terrier now, but my goodness.
	Looks like a very different dog.
	Totally different.
	But for the eyes, I wouldn't even know it's the same dog.
	Okay.
	Go down on the ground.
	All right.
	Okay.
	What are we on now, Robert?
	Let me go back to our list here.
	Oh, briefly.
	Hold on.
	The bottom line conclusion, the Hunter Biden indictment is a scam and it's a sham and it's to protect Hunter and the alleged Biden crime family and not to go after them.
	But they get to say, look, we indicted him too.
	We're strong and hard and nobody's above the law.
	And it allows him to assert Fifth Amendment.
	Oh, look, I got this indictment.
	I can't talk to anybody until this case is resolved.
	And it allows him to go forward and say, his lawyers go forward to actually the agreement gives him straight immunity, but it's the court that rules he has immunity rather than the Biden administration that actually gave it to him.
	Wow.
	All right.
	Gosh darn it.
	It's so obvious when you say that's what's going to happen.
	Okay.
	What's next on the list here?
	I've got to go back to...
	Oh, you can still get jailed for not obeying COVID rules.
	Oh, so hold on.
	So this is one where...
	Hold on one second.
	Well, okay, Robert, they...
	Yeah, St. Witt is not happy here and there.
	I know.
	I don't know.
	He's walking into a partially open door.
	They fired...
	Did they fire an employee because the employee complained about some COVID protocol?
	I don't think...
	They might have ultimately, but mostly it was the original complaint, as my understanding, was demanding they comply with the protocols.
	And because they wouldn't comply with the protocols, something happened, lost his employment, I think.
	And then he got reinstated.
	But what most people don't know is the agency that's behind all this.
	This is the Labor Board.
	Yes.
	So the National Labor Relations Board.
	National Labor Relations Board.
	This is a mom and pa operation running a salon and spa who the 7th Circuit this past week issued writs of body attachment to have them imprisoned until they obey the orders of some bureaucrat at the National Labor Relations Board.
	From a whiny employee demanding more mandates and more limitations from COVID.
	I'm laughing because it's the only alternative to crying.
	They were ordered to pay $30,000 in aggregate fines.
	They refused to.
	And now the Court of Appeals says arrest...
	Oh, I'm even getting...
	Robert, I'm getting an ad.
	The ad is for a light bulb.
	Okay, skip it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Some other people said their rumble was fine, so somebody's rumble went down.
	It just wasn't collectively.
	So they issued this labor board.
	It's not so foreign a concept to me, because in Canada, we have these...
	Oh, yeah, of course.
	You got a lot of commies up there.
	And they issue orders and sanctions, and everybody says, you don't go to jail for not paying a fine.
	You do, and this is exactly how it happens.
	So they issued a writ of mandamus for the body.
	Bring them to jail, and you'll sit in jail on contempt.
	They don't get you on the merits.
	They get you on the process.
	And they were never individually named defendants, by the way.
	This is what they wanted to do to Amos Miller's wife.
	The government likes to skip a step.
	They hold some business responsible, and then all of a sudden you're getting arrested as an individual.
	Well, you should have had the same opportunity to go through all of due process before that happens to you.
	But they try to do this because it's a powerful tool.
	I mean, the bottom line is this.
	If this business made any money, then they should just issue writs of attachment on the business's revenue stream.
	Clearly, the businesses must not be making much money.
	And so instead, they just want to say, you disobeyed the COVID rules that we think were necessary for safe employees.
	And consequently, I mean, the same National Labor Relations Board that has done nothing for the people that were victimized by vaccine mandates.
	It has gone to great lengths to force employers to adopt incredible punitive COVID restrictions on their employees at the demand of the rogue employee.
	It just shows a disparity.
	And for those people that may not know about this, most people don't know the National Labor Relations Board likely regulates them.
	In America, when they hear National Labor Relations Board, they think union matters.
	Because that's what the popular perception of it, because that's how it was passed, by the way.
	Oh, hence, labor relations.
	Not a federal bureaucracy governing all of your local employment.
	But here's their claim to jurisdiction now.
	If you are a retail business and have merely half a million in revenue, given the average retail business makes 10% or less, that's basically every retail business in the country.
	Or...
	You simply have ever received or sent $50,000 out of state in a single year.
	Combined.
	I mean, that's basically everybody.
	That's how this little mon-pa salon and spa ends up subject to the National Labor Relations Board and locked up in federal prison until they impose the COVID rules they demand.
	Robert, it's absolutely...
	This was not on our menu, but I'm going to bring it up because it's totally...
	Totally on point.
	Let me just bring it up in an incognito so I don't accidentally disclose anybody's cell number in private DMs.
	Speaking of labor unions, on Friday, I had Karima Saad, who is the author of this expose, which has been now hashtag trending in Canada, hashtag hategate.
	Robert, the red pill happens slowly than all at once.
	Kareem Assad is by no means a right-wing conservative.
	I think she's definitely more left-leaning than anything.
	Who's been doing some pretty decent expose journalism.
	Exposed the Canadian's version of the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League in America.
	We've got something called the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.
	And they are a government-funded organization that tackles online extremism.
	And they basically demonized, were spying on Canadian citizens, fabricating propaganda on which the government would then rely in order to justify invoking the Emergencies Act because of online extremism, yada, yada, yada.
	She did this amazing thing.
	Report with another reporter named Elisa Hadigan, where they confirmed basically that the government of Canada relied on reports from this Canadian anti-hate network, bullshit, like fabricated stuff using random internet trolls as evidence to substantiate accusations of extremism.
	They produce articles that the media then relies on as the expert evidence of online extremism.
	So the government says, Jeremy McKenzie, Diagilon, all of these entities are extremist organizations.
	We need to invoke the Emergencies Act during the Ottawa protests.
	I hope that's not too much information in one second.
	She's now reaping the benefits of...
	Discovering the truth.
	The British Columbia Federation of Labor has blocked her.
	And I just thought that was totally funny.
	I'm about to tell Kareem Assad that the BC Fed hasn't even blocked me.
	So she knows that she's double bad.
	But Kareem Assad is a lawyer by trade, journalist, and is now discovering the left eventually eats its own when they...
	I took Barnes out?
	I took Barnes out?
	How did I do that?
	Robert, I took you out by accident.
	I can still see it, no problem.
	Okay, so this journalist lawyer is now discovering when you call out the truth, even if it happens to be truth, but anti-left, they will block you and you will become public enemy number one.
	Just very funny that the British Columbia Labor Union has now blocked someone who is arguably, but not arguably...
	A very leftist-leaning lawyer, but who called out some crap that is now getting her in trouble.
	So the red pill happens slowly than all at once.
	What's fascinating is what you can ban and what you can't ban.
	A small little library in Arkansas was trying to make sure certain kinds of books were not in the kids' section.
	And all kinds of lawsuits are happening demanding that they put those books back in the kids' section.
	First of all, Robert, I'm sorry.
	I don't even know how I took you out of the stream, but all that I could see was the article.
	Okay, so they're pushing for the books.
	This is going like full circle back to the beginning of the stream with Boobergate and Lauren Boebert rightly condemning the types of books that are available to children.
	What's the situation with this?
	It shows you the disparity between what the ordinary...
	An ordinary person's going to struggle to put together the time and wherewithal to take out these corrupt hacks that impeached...
	In the House, Attorney General Paxton, but the deep state has so much time on its hands, it can monitor Congresswomen that are critical of it at their private music concerts on dates and then spread it around the world.
	It shows you the disparity of power and influence in these cases.
	Or in the case of Russell Brand, look up 15-year-old allegations from text messages.
	But in the scale of what's available, what's not, A federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed in Arkansas because what happened is the local library has put in all of these books that many people consider grooming books in kids' sections.
	Overtly sexual books, books about sexual preferences, books that are meant to say, hey, it's okay, five-year-old.
	You're probably not your gender.
	You're probably attracted to someone of the same gender.
	It's quite obvious what they're really up to.
	And parents found out and objected.
	And so the schools didn't remove the books.
	They just relocated the books.
	So they're not in the kids section anymore.
	They got that little beaded section now.
	For those who don't know.
	They didn't even put like adult only or anything like that.
	They put social information on it.
	So the parents that don't want that kind of information could know, oh, it's that kind of thing.
	But a couple of parents, what would be perverted parents, that want their kids to have access to perverted books, and other kids to have access to perverted books, filed suit saying it was violating their First Amendment rights.
	Now, some of the First Amendment rights I agree with as a matter of principle, which includes the right to receive information as part of an audience, the right to read it, the right to review it, so on and so forth, the First Amendment.
	Right to speech and right to petition and right to press and right to expression has as its necessary and inherent corollary the right to receive that information from the church, from the press, from the speaker, and so forth.
	And that part's true, and viewpoint-based discrimination is limited, but this is about books in a library being labeled correctly, quite frankly.
	And yet it's being treated as a major civil rights suit, that somehow there's a constitutional right for them to groom your kid using public resources and public libraries by mislabeling, that there's a constitutional right to mislabeling your books.
	Now, the court said that the requested relief was too broad and would too interfere impractically with the local library.
	But otherwise seemed amenable to the case.
	Thought somehow because people are religiously motivated by this, that makes it establishment of religion, which has been rejected by courts over.
	How a federal court is still getting that wrong 20 years later is incredible.
	But these cases shouldn't even be tolerated.
	But it shows you the disparity.
	The extraordinary concern for First Amendment when it's the right to groom somebody else's kids using public resources.
	But no concern for the First Amendment when it's the Biden administration trying to censor you off of big tech.
	And some people in the chat are saying, can't they just buy the books for themselves if they want them so badly?
	Get them, read them.
	This is all about not.
	And that's amazing ground of standing.
	He's like, well, they could feel stigmatized by looking at the book.
	And I was like, OK, so that's.
	I agree with stigma is standing.
	I don't believe in standing limitations, period.
	But the same courts will say just the opposite when you're injured by a vaccine.
	Oh, you don't have standing.
	But especially here, who are they really suing for?
	They're suing to make sure not their kids, but somebody else's kid unwittingly and unknowingly gets exposed to it.
	That's what it's about.
	Everybody knows that's what it's about.
	It's called grooming, and it's time to stop being shy about using the word.
	You want to expose other people's kids to stuff which is age-inappropriate so they get sensitized to looking at it.
	Oh, you feel uncomfortable having a drag queen ask you your age and if you think they're good-looking?
	It's called grooming, period.
	That's the definition of grooming.
	They want a First Amendment right to force grooming onto your kids.
	It's that simple.
	Now, what's the other decision, Robert?
	Similar topic, the teachers who were suing about not being, the prohibition to allow them...
	Because people were getting fired, and I believe a court ruled with them that they cannot, under compelled speech doctrines, like the Elon Musk suit against the state of California, be forced to use, goes all the way back to the Jordan Peterson thing that made Jordan Peterson publicly famous.
	He was always scholastically famous for his research, but publicly famous was he's like, I'm not going to refer to someone by their chosen pronoun.
	And it's forcing a teacher to do so.
	There's been a conflict of cases.
	Some federal courts have said it's just fine to fire some people for doing that.
	Other federal courts in this sense have said no.
	Probably going to have to require a resolution by the Supreme Court ultimately, which is just nuts.
	That we're even here.
	That, you know, you're forced to use the preferred pronoun of whatever the person is.
	You know, it reverses the dynamic of teacher and student.
	Who's the teacher at that point?
	It's the same thing with the kids and the parents.
	Like, the kid is telling the parent, I feel like this, and reaffirm it.
	The kid is now officially the parent, and you're going to end up with a generation of kids when they get to be adults saying, what the hell did you let me make these decisions for?
	You had no business doing it.
	All right, what do we have left?
	Four more quick cases, and then we'll answer the questions over at VivaBarnes, if they're $5 tips or bigger, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in the after party as we wrap up here.
	If you're a sex offender, should you be able to keep your digital identity secret?
	A federal court's really concerned about that one, too.
	It's always interesting what they're concerned with and what they're not these days.
	I'm going to say, Robert, I don't know the case.
	I'm going to say they said, yes, you should be able to keep your identity private on the Internet.
	Well, we'll get to it.
	Then we got the Dollar General getting sued for doing something that sounds a lot like what Walmart got caught doing.
	The right to fish involving Indian treaty rights and a bunch of stuff.
	And when is an engagement ring your engagement ring when there's no engagement left?
	And that will be our four cases to wrap up for tonight.
	Alright, so we're going to do that here or do we do that at Locals?
	Either way.
	Let's do it at Locals because we're going to have a lot of questions there.
	Everybody, hold on a second.
	Oh my goodness.
	This was one...
	Okay, before we do that, Robert, the schedule for next week.
	We've got Owen Schroyer Wednesday.
	Appearing on Alex Jones Show.
	We are hosting Alex Jones Show Thursday afternoon.
	What time is that going to be at?
	Let's see.
	At 1 Eastern.
	1 to 3 Eastern.
	We're hosting the last two.
	It's hour number two and hour number three of the Alex Jones Show.
	Do we have carte blanche or do we have to submit an agenda?
	They'll be figuring out all the technology of how they broadcast us through them.
	Oh, this is going to be good.
	You know, and Troyer, Wednesday night, asking what's it like to be a criminal for your speech, for your press.
	What's it like to deal with the D.C. justice system?
	What's it like to deal with the D.C. Capitol Police system?
	And we'll get into the necessary biographical stuff.
	Okay, now I'm going to say this here.
	Everybody who is watching on Rumble, I'm going to say, get your butts to locals.
	There's a typo there that I'm going to leave.
	And we're going to carry on the party there.
	Otherwise, I'll be live tomorrow and throughout the week.
	There will be guests this week, so stay tuned on the regular random daytime stuff.
	And I'm reading some of the chat and I'm not going to read that.
	So get your butts on over to Locals right now.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com Oh, Robert, I'm sorry.
	Before we do that, let me just finish with the rumble rants that have come in that I have not read.
	And I have to go here, go here, and go here.
	Okay, we got...
	T1990 says leftists don't have a choice but to go after other people's kids because they are either not having kids or not having enough kids to keep their beliefs going.
	It's an interesting theory.
	It's an interesting theory as to why leftist teachers, there might be some stats in there that might support that theory.
	I popped into a local betting shop, UK, and inquired about USA 2024 presidential elections.
	No option for cancel due to war, so I asked about Trump winning.
	Two to one odds.
	Pay 10, get 30. That doesn't seem like enough, but I would take that anyhow.
	The gun charge isn't intertwined with Joe.
	The taxes are.
	Okay, I think I understand that.
	But they haven't indicted him on the tax charges, so any...
	Okay, it would be limited to the gun charge anyhow.
	Talk to Bill says, Barnes, you need to pull a rush and make a line of neckties.
	I get a free set.
	Jay Stein, why is Trump's legal team so apparently slow and less than aggressive?
	Robert, you may...
	Okay, what do you think?
	What do you say?
	that's your classic institutional lawyer.
	V6 neon.
	Speaking of Fetterman, have you noticed the matter of the, Oh, have you noticed the matter of tattoos prior to office?
	Oh, that was somewhat misleading.
	That accurate video shows the same tattoos.
	Robert, I'm going to show you a picture that's not misleading.
	A comparison in a second.
	Okay, so we got that.
	Okay, hold on.
	I don't want to accidentally kick anybody from the stream.
	I put together...
	Oh, forget it.
	I'll show it later.
	Four pictures of Fetterman.
	He might have lost weight.
	He shaved the goatee and grew a mustache.
	It might make someone look totally different.
	He looks totally different.
	I'm not saying it's a body devil because that would be crazy.
	I'm just saying he doesn't look the same.
	Okay, now with that said, we are going to end this on Rumble.
	Come over to Locals.
	You have the link.
	And thank you all for being here.
	Thank you for another amazing night.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com I still have something left in my glass, so there it is.
	Boom shakalaka, people.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Come on over to Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com now.
	All right, Robert.

▲