Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 22, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:21:58

Ep. 183: Trump Gagged! Powell Pleads! And Specia Guest ALEX JONES! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Rolling?
	You're rolling.
	Yeah, I'm looking at the...
	I'm pretty sure pink and red is not the right combination.
	Preserve America Pumpkin Pie Miller's Organic Farm.
	Arrive today.
	I have an orgasmic farm joke going on, but I will not make it yet.
	This is homemade whipped cream.
	I forgot about that joke.
	Homemade whipped cream.
	On.
	Amos Miller's Orgasmic Farm.
	What just...
	Oh, you got...
	Well, that's funny.
	You gotta log in and...
	Oh, well...
	Well, son of a bee sting.
	That actually was not part of the plan.
	But if you want to watch the entire video, you'll have to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com Oh, that's really funny.
	I promise you and I swear to you, I did not do that on purpose.
	What was the joke, says the Real Hydra?
	No, there was no joke.
	It was the most delicious pumpkin pie I've ever tasted in my life.
	I'm reluctant to say because I don't want to poo-poo on Amos Miller's forearms of pumpkin pie.
	I don't want to poo-poo on the pumpkin pie.
	I don't like pumpkin pie.
	I've never liked pumpkin pie.
	I've never liked pumpkin spice lattes.
	I've never liked pumpkin whatever.
	It was the best thing I've ever tasted in my life.
	And I ate more than I was proud of to admit.
	The pie was delicious.
	The ingredients were natural.
	I learned a word in terms of the ingredients for the pumpkin pie.
	We ordered two of them.
	It's a fundraiser, people.
	So they were $100.
	I'm not going to say they were $100 a pie.
	You donated $100 for the Amos Miller fundraiser, you got a pumpkin pie delivered to your house.
	It was the most delicious thing I've ever tasted.
	And yesterday...
	Mark Grobert was here.
	And I want to say we had the second pumpkin pie, but I don't actually think we shared it with Mark Grobert.
	Either way, either way.
	Okay.
	Before I get into the intro, that was supposed to be the intro.
	It was supposed to be another two minutes of the video.
	Me eating pumpkin pie.
	Then me hand-feeding pumpkin pie to my wife.
	My wife.
	You can go watch that on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I forget the...
	It's amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	I forget what the exact website is.
	Anyhow, it's delicious.
	Okay, before I go any further with tonight's intro, I'm going to make sure that we are live on Rumble.
	We are.
	I'm going to make sure that we're live on Locals because I think I got everything done today.
	That's not Locals.
	That's also, again, oh, for goodness sake.
	Let me just go to Locals and see that we're live.
	I want to make sure that we're good, good on Local Locals.
	The Yokel Locals.
	We're good, good.
	On Locals.
	Okay, before the stream, I was briefly in the chat, cramming down some last homework, and I asked the chat on Locals, should I start with Amos Miller's delicious pumpkin pie?
	Or should I start with the wretched face and voice of Justin Trudeau?
	And everyone said, start with something that we like.
	Everybody who's saying, are we good on Rumble and you're having problems, refresh on Rumble.
	It's good for me.
	And I hear the audio.
	So just refresh if you're having problems on Rumble.
	Same thing on locals.
	Every now and again, there's minor glitches.
	Okay.
	I said, start with pumpkin pie.
	Okay, we'll start with pumpkin pie, but we're not, not gonna go to Justin Trudeau because I was just watching this.
	Like I was refreshing my memory when I was responding to, what's his face?
	Anthony Housefather, the dweeb in Canadian Parliament who was explaining to Canadians.
	Why they rushed through vaccine, the jab research, the jab production, because the pharma companies, you know, they had a bigger hand, a bigger stick in the negotiation.
	He was basically explaining to us how he had been experimented on in real time and how they had immunized the pharmaceutical companies because they were rushing this in terms of development and production so quickly, they wouldn't bring it to market without immunity.
	And because Canada was so desperate for a jibby jab, they just gave whatever the hell the pharma companies wanted.
	That's that Anthony Howe's father.
	He was talking about Justin Trudeau.
	No, sorry, he wasn't talking about Justin Trudeau.
	He was talking about what's going on in Canada right now.
	Because for those of you who don't know what's going on in Canada...
	Stop it.
	For those of you who don't know what's going on in Canada right now...
	Hey, look, we have made it...
	Our politicians have made it their business to nationalize, to import and nationalize foreign conflict.
	Why?
	I don't know.
	You know, it's one thing to be involved in foreign conflict politically, militarily.
	It's another thing to deliberately and willfully have campaigns to import foreign conflict into our country.
	Import it and nationalize it.
	Bring it in and spread it across the country.
	When you come in and you come in with your avatars and your flags and your emojis and, you know, putting your...
	Your little syringe emoji in your profile so people know that you're on the side of science.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Slap in your rainbow flag avatar on Twitter so people know that you're on the side of trans rights for kids.
	Slap in your Ukrainian flag because if you don't have that on your car, in your social media, draped on your house, well, we don't know where you stand.
	And silence is violence.
	We spent the last, going on four years now, importing conflict.
	In one form or another.
	And lo and behold, now the, what is it called?
	The powder keg of the Middle East has caught flames once again.
	And geez Louise, look what happens in Canada.
	Protests on both sides.
	Protests, they don't all go the same way.
	But protests in front of Jewish businesses.
	Vandalism.
	Violence.
	Imported and nationalized conflict.
	And so that raging hypocrite, what's his face?
	Anthony Housefather says, geez, we have to understand that words can alienate and words can cause problems.
	I was like, oh, do you remember this?
	Do you remember this guy?
	Speaking about words having impact and meaning and dividing us.
	Listen to this.
	I'm going to play it uninterrupted.
	And we'll see if YouTube has a problem with anything Justin Trudeau said, but this was like two years ago now.
	Listen to this.
	The man who warns us about disinformation, about misinformation, about divisive rhetoric, listen to this.
	I'm not even going to intervene with the commentary.
	You're going to hear my internal thoughts screaming.
	Listen to this foul-mouthed, awful, despicable human.
	Okay, I'll shut my face now.
	So, the folks out there tonight shouting, the anti-vaxxers, they're wrong.
	They are wrong about how we get from this pandemic.
	And more than just being wrong, because someone's entitled to their opinions, they are putting at risk their own kids, and they're putting at risk our kids as well.
	That's why we've been unequivocal.
	If you want to get on a plane or a train in the coming months, you're going to have to be fully vaccinated.
	So families with their kids don't have to worry that someone is going to put them in danger in the seat next to them across the aisle.
	I'm sorry.
	I said I wasn't going to say anything.
	I want to puke.
	And I'm enraged.
	Remember when they told us they never told you it would stop transmission?
	What did he just say?
	When you're going to get on a plane or a train, the person sitting next to you has the right to know that they will not get infected.
	Oh, we never told you it would stop transmission.
	Godforsaken liars.
	And we know that the way to get through this as well is to make sure that people can go into non-essential businesses and feel safe that they're not going to catch COVID from someone next to them.
	That they can go into a non-essential business and feel safe that they're not going to catch COVID from someone next to them because if that person is jabbed, you can't get COVID from them.
	This is from the mouth of the awful man himself.
	That means we're going to work with provinces and territories who want to move forward on vaccination certifications, on vaccination passports, so that everyone can be safe.
	And what's more, the federal government has announced we're going to pay for the development of those privileges that you get once you get vaccinated.
	Of those privileges.
	Has announced we're going to pay for the development of those privileges that you get once you get The federal government is going to pay.
	For those privileges that you get when you get vaccinated.
	Can you imagine what he's saying?
	What he said?
	Forgive it.
	Forgive and forget and move on.
	My goodness.
	Why are Canadians so viciously protesting one another now based on a foreign call?
	I wonder why.
	Leadership leaves signs and lack of leadership leaves signs.
	We're going to pay for the vaccine passport system so that you get those privileges back.
	Oh, I'm sorry, I thought they were charter rights, you jackaninny.
	You get those privileges back after you get jabbed.
	Oh, but nobody coerced you either, by the way.
	Nobody said it would prevent transmission, and nobody coerced you into getting it.
	They just, you know, you'll get back your life privileges if you do it.
	Everyone needs to get vaccinated, and those people are putting us all at risk.
	My goodness, why is Canada so divided?
	Canadians made incredible sacrifices over the past year and a half.
	And Erin O'Toole is siding with them.
	Then?
	Instead of with Canadians who did their part and stepped up.
	Did their part.
	He's talking about personal choice.
	What about my choice to keep my kids safe?
	Oh my God, they're making my kids What about our choices to make sure we're getting through this pandemic as quickly as we can?
	That's the choice we've all made.
	Canadians have shown it in being there for each other.
	And I am not going to back down, no matter how many of them show up to try and shout us down from what I know to be true.
	Oh, you know, science, science.
	What Canadians have told me, which is people are willing to do their part to get through this pandemic.
	And that's what we will do together.
	Yes, shame on you.
	People do it together.
	You need to condemn those people.
	You need to correct them.
	You need to use your voice and actually add it to those of us who understand that vaccinations are the way through this pandemic.
	And listen to the almost 80% of Canadians who know that.
	I, um, hashtag, I hate Trudeau.
	I mean, that's...
	Okay, seen enough, move on.
	No, I want to get that out there for the eternal ether of the internet.
	How is it that Canadians are so divided now?
	You have that rhetoric.
	Then you have the Ukraine-Russian war, imported, nationalized, divided.
	Talked about at school, in front of kids who have no idea what's going on because the adults who are talking to them about it have no idea what's going on.
	And now look at this, the Gaza-Palestinian-Israeli conflict, imported, divided.
	Where did Canadians learn to talk like that to each other?
	Oh, boy.
	Okay.
	Look, my blood pressure might be right up there.
	We've got an amazing show today because we've got a special guest.
	Alex Jones is coming in at 7-ish after his show to talk about some current stuff.
	So Jones is coming in at about, I'd say 7, 7.15.
	If you're having high blood pressure, people, did everyone notice it said this stream contains a paid sponsor?
	Because it does!
	Look, health...
	Is wealth and happiness.
	There's no point having all the money in the world and not being healthy.
	I mean, Steve Jobs' untimely demise, not that it's not related to anything, but like, it just goes through, you could be the richest man on earth.
	You could be the richest woman on earth.
	If you don't have health, you don't have anything.
	And if you don't have health, you certainly don't have happiness.
	It's health, wealth, and happiness is the expression.
	I like to just go with health equals wealth and happiness.
	And what do you need to do if you want to stay healthy?
	Look, it's a little known fact.
	Okay, good.
	The screen is up.
	It's a little-known fact.
	You are supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	I ate an entire container of arugula this afternoon.
	Don't ask.
	I will not give the TMI part of this.
	Most people do not eat their five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	You get your antioxidants.
	You get your fibers.
	You get your nutrients.
	And most people don't do it.
	But even if you do that, there's an easy way to get one to two servings in every day.
	Replace a bad habit with a good habit.
	Life is about addictions, I like to say, so you may as well substitute the bad addictions for the good ones.
	Life is about having good, healthy habits.
	You're gonna drink something in the afternoon to stay awake.
	You may as well make it something healthy.
	If you're not getting your fruits and vegetables, or if you are, one spoonful of field of greens twice a day is one serving of fruits and vegetables per spoon, so that would be two.
	Twice a day.
	You get all the antioxidants.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's not an extract.
	It is what we call a desiccated green.
	Dried, pulverized.
	It's a food, which is why it's USDA organic.
	Made in America.
	It tastes delicious.
	My joke is that it looks like swamp water, but there's a reason for that.
	Swamp water is rich in nutrients.
	It's where life goes to...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	To grow.
	One spoonful twice a day.
	Substitute it.
	A good habit for a bad habit.
	You'll get one to two servings of fruits and vegetables every day.
	The antioxidants, the nutrients that go into that.
	Made in America, USDA Organic.
	Go to V...
	What is it?
	Not Viva.
	That's the promo code.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It brings you to BrickHouse Nutrition.
	It's delicious.
	It's healthy.
	Promo code Viva will get you 15% off your first order.
	Link is in the description.
	Thank you very much for that.
	It's delicious and I use it and I take it with me when I go on...
	road trips and have difficulty finding raw fruits and vegetables okay with that said now barnes is in the house we have about an hour to get through the important stuff before aj comes in robert sir you look dapper and you look ready here we go sir how goes the battle good good i'm sitting there reading my homework and i'm like oh the the case was familiar and then i say oh robert barnes esquire on the front what does the e stand for edward edward Okay, okay.
	Edward is one of my brother's middle names.
	Robert, sir, the book behind you, if I can see it, it says, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
	Have we discussed the book yet?
	It's a book about, it includes a bunch of the great closing arguments made in American courtrooms.
	Right.
	Aunt Debbie says, for a $5 rumble round, I'll probably get to it later, my Amos Miller pumpkin pie arrived, I gave it to my parents, and they said it was great.
	Oh, fantastic.
	That nutmeg and cinnamon just made it perfect.
	Sort of toasty right at the top.
	Very polish.
	There was some form of sugar that I had never heard of, a natural sugar for the crust and lard, and it was...
	Oh, I forgot to say this.
	Greta Thunberg is a product.
	She's packaged, marketed, and branded.
	I think she's mostly selling fear.
	No question about that.
	You all know the rules about Rumble Rants, Super Chats, etc., etc.
	Best place to support us, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So, it's sort of seven matters we'll discuss over the next hour in categorical areas.
	There's some other ones we'll save for next week, given the special guest of Alex Jones.
	Next week, we'll get a Deepwater Horizon case, some reggae copyright lyrics, what might be in your shampoo that might surprise you a little bit, and some other things next week.
	But this week...
	In the pre-Alex Jones segment covering the law, we have Trump's contempt and gag orders.
	We have election 2020, another split at the D.C. Court of Appeals on January 6th cases.
	No bond for Owen Troyer.
	Sidney Powell pleads down in Georgia, as did some other folks.
	And going to jail for making memes.
	And then in Supreme Court cases, Biden versus Missouri lands at the Supreme Court.
	Missouri Sanctuary Second Amendment case lands at the Supreme Court.
	I filed a petition to get cert before the Supreme Court.
	Then we have Lil Wayne as notebook.
	Well, what's going on about that?
	An interesting little case out of Louisiana.
	Major League Baseball, antitrust immunity.
	Also heading to the Supreme Court.
	Most people assume that you have to suffer a physical or financial injury to sue.
	That's often not the case.
	You can sue for reputational, emotional, informational, and relational injury, and how those are being defined by the courts in the context of debt collectors in particular, but more broadly applicable in all kinds of cases.
	The definition of violent felonies that leads to automatic sentencing enhancements continues to get reconsidered by the courts after the Supreme Court revised the constitutionality of that statute.
	And then Alex Jones' bankruptcy protections, we'll discuss that and ask a few questions of Alex when he's on.
	Well, I don't know what you want to start with.
	I have to start with the Owen Shroyer just because it's fresh in my mind now.
	Denied bond means...
	He's off to jail now?
	He's in jail now for the two months, for his 60 days.
	He's serving it in jail notwithstanding, was there an appeal to it or there was no appeal to it?
	No, there is an appeal and the judge denied bail pending appeal, even though normally if you're sentenced to less than a year, you almost automatically get bail pending appeal.
	What happens is the judges get very defensive about the arguments raised in bail-pending appeal.
	I've litigated this extensively for about a quarter century.
	The old law, which was correct by Supreme Court justices back when they actually issued opinions as circuit justices, which they used to do.
	Now they just refer everything to the whole Supreme Court, rarely take meaningful, proactive action.
	Their role as circuit justice, frankly, means next to nothing in the current era.
	People say, oh, so-and-so is the circuit justice.
	So what?
	They're going to refer everything to the SCOTUS, so it doesn't matter.
	They don't exercise that power anymore in any meaningful way.
	But they used to do so in the bail context, and the right for bail pending appeal used to be pretty robust as long as your appeal wasn't frivolous.
	So again, because you may end up serving time that you never deserve to serve at all.
	And what happened is Congress came in and passed the Bail Reform Act of 1984 to restrict it.
	They brought a bogus case before the Supreme Court where the defendant was no longer meaningfully litigating the case.
	So it was one-sided, very split decision.
	And it was mostly the Republican conservative appointees who gutted the Eighth Amendment and said the Bail Reform Act was constitutional, that now you could do minority report-style imprisonment based on danger to the community, something that's never been permissible grounds for denying bail previously.
	Previously, it was all about securing your appearance before the trial and for sentencing, and that's it.
	That was sort of gutted.
	And they basically made it the burden of the defendant to prove that they're likely to win on appeal.
	Now, that was always an improper interpretation.
	Some courts have corrected that over the past decade.
	Many courts have not.
	The biggest hurdle is that district courts hate granting bail-pending appeal because they think it's an admission that they made a mistake.
	And that's the hard part.
	I've had some in the Snipes case.
	We actually had a decent judge.
	He was like, look, me trying to assess whether I made error is ridiculous.
	What I should look at is whether or not there's some credible claims here of any kind, as if I was a defense lawyer.
	And clearly there is, so I'm going to grant bail-penning appeal.
	Snipes made a bunch of movies and money while he was out on bail-penning appeal.
	Here, to me, it's such a short sentence, you should grant bail-penning appeal, if there's any grounds.
	He used the fact that the plea agreement limited his right to appeal.
	So there's that issue.
	And then he mostly was obsessed with saying he didn't make a mistake.
	That he didn't consider any of his statements, really, before or after, but in a very limited way, which I don't quite accept.
	But I think this is the same judge I was in front of that was so dumb, he took his facts from the internet.
	He's a Trump appointee.
	And, I mean, he literally...
	We got some substantive legal declarations in our client's favor, Cassandra Fairbanks' favor, but he literally relied on the internet for his factual determinations.
	I was like, you can't be that dumb.
	He is that dumb.
	Some of the Trump appointees are really dumb.
	It's just reality.
	Unfortunately, the heritage groups and all those folks did a lousy job of, well, they were putting up corporate judges and pro-government judges.
	And that's why you get a lot of these, Trump appointees that are happy to cover for the government, happy to cover for big corporations.
	And so I think the judge's order was a harsh order and an incorrect order.
	But it's unfortunately commonplace in this bail, pending appeal arena where the Eighth Amendment has been eviscerated by mostly conservative, lazy judges.
	Steve Bannon, he was granted bond or whatever it is, pending appeal, bail, pending appeal.
	I mean, this makes an appeal...
	I mean, maybe there's a fringe benefit.
	He doesn't waste money on appeal.
	It makes an appeal absolutely illusory, right?
	He'll be out before...
	I mean, he won't be able to change the sentence.
	He could still establish that the right, that the First Amendment should not be violated in the sentencing process.
	And so he can still establish that predicate.
	So there's still value to the appeal.
	In the middle of all this, he got notice from the IRS.
	That was trying to impose a $300,000 tax on him for income that was not his income.
	And so we'll help him out on that.
	People sometimes get scared.
	They get a notice, one of these computerized notices.
	They don't know it's a computerized notice from the IRS.
	More and more, the notices are just computerized notices.
	Say things that scare people into thinking they have to pay now or they lose their rights.
	It's not the case.
	There's a whole IRS protocol they have to go through before they can assess tax, including a notice of deficiency, a bunch of internal procedural rights to appeal initial audit reviews, especially some computer system sticking out some number that you owe is not worth the paper it's printed on.
	You just contest it.
	And they have to go through the whole NOD process.
	Often they don't.
	Even if they do, that gives you 90 days to go to tax court.
	If you don't like what happens in tax court, you get to go to the Court of Appeals.
	And even then, before they can get to the collection process, they have to issue another additional set of statutory notices before they can.
	And even then, you have a right to a collection due process hearing, a right to an offer in compromise, a right to contest their denial of either.
	Both to the tax court and the Court of Appeals.
	So the people get threatening letters that make them think, I better write a check today or I'm doomed.
	When point in fact, you go through the process and assert your rights, it's five, six years before they collect a penny if it turns out they're right.
	And more often than not, they're wrong.
	So Owen Schroer is in jail now.
	I'm not sure which day.
	I think he reports.
	Okay, sorry.
	Okay, well, and what are the conditions?
	Apparently, he's in a federal FCI.
	A little bit, I thought, you know, in 60 days, the judge could have done, like, home arrest.
	He could have done a lot of other things than actually sending him to jail.
	It was really ludicrous.
	But it tells you a lot of what the D.C. judge mindsets are.
	It doesn't matter who they were appointed by.
	They take January 6th personally.
	That's why not a single one of them should have presided over these cases.
	But he got assigned an actual federal prison in Louisiana.
	And a lot of those places, even if you...
	There's this myth out there that there's Club Fed.
	Club Fed, because Wolf of Wall Street, movies like that, that hasn't existed since the 1980s.
	All of these...
	Read Billy Walter's book, The Gambler.
	I mean, he went to a place that was supposed to be one of the easiest places to go.
	He suffered severe health consequences while he was there.
	It was utter misery.
	So it's nothing any time spent in a federal...
	Prison or jail is very deeply undesirable.
	There is no tennis courts, the golf court, all that garbage.
	That's all hogwash.
	Some conservatives will tell this to me.
	Oh, it's soft time in prison.
	You're an idiot if you think that.
	Why don't you go volunteer and go in?
	Serve a little time.
	Then come back and tell me how soft it is.
	Basically psychological and various forms of torture.
	I agree.
	I mean, you go to a bad summer camp and it's basically, I'm not saying that to be a baby, like you get homesick at the most luxurious summer camps ever.
	These places are always, they're not terribly dangerous at a low security federal level in terms of other prisoners and other inmates, but it is often the case that the healthcare is terrible, it's hyper regimented and controlled, the facilities are substandard and subpar.
	If you're not psychologically prepared for it, it can be very miserable.
	That's terrible.
	More jail for speech.
	I don't want to break the order, Robert.
	You see some of it in why some people pled this week.
	We were supposed to start jury selection on Friday in the first set of Georgia election cases.
	Several of the lawyers, including Sidney Powell, who are accelerating that trial timeline, cut a plea deal.
	And one cut a plea deal for a single felony, Sidney Powell for all misdemeanors.
	And the reason they did it is so they never serve a day in jail.
	It's not clear to me they have any helpful or useful testimony in the proceedings.
	Frankly, Sidney Powell was a marginal participant.
	In the Georgia proceedings, she was out of Trump's camp very quickly after the press conference, so she doesn't have help, information.
	All the left was like, ah, this is the end.
	This is the beginning of the end.
	She cut a deal because she can do no time and is at no risk in front of a left-wing Atlanta jury.
	Now, that being said, it undermines a lot of what she said during the election that she would cut a deal at all, just like it did for the...
	For the lawyer that we've had on before, and then later cut a deal with the state bar, she may cut a similar deal with the state of Georgia.
	I wouldn't do this.
	I understand why.
	You don't want to gamble 20 years in state prison with a Fulton County jury pool, with another Republican-appointed judge who doesn't understand and isn't enforcing the law, is getting basic things wrong at the motion of this misstage.
	And so you don't want to gamble on it.
	But, you know, if you really had confidence in what you did, and you asked a lot of people to give you a lot of money, in the case of Sidney Powell, you asked a lot of people to give you a lot of faith, in the case of Sidney Powell, she was dead wrong.
	Her cracking was crack.
	And I got a lot of heat for being critical of what she was doing at the time.
	But to be honest, this discredits her.
	In the same way it discredited Jenna Ellis.
	You know, don't go out and say you're going to fight everybody and roll over.
	If you're going to roll over, fine.
	Just don't raise money claiming you're going to fight them before this.
	Well, look, I'll be much more forgiving on Jenna Ellis because, on the one hand, it was an ethics thing.
	It's far different what she agreed to.
	I can understand the rationale, but no good deed goes unpunished.
	And even after bearing false witness to herself in the ethics case, she gets indicted in Georgia.
	And Sidney Powell, she did good work for Michael Flynn, and everybody recognized it.
	You and I, I mean, I'll give you, I'll say you not to place the blame, just to give the credit, were much more on point when it came to factual mistakes she was making back in the day about Dominion, the ghost of Hugo Chavez, etc., etc.
	We had called it early that they were making statements that would lead to defamation, etc.
	She promised the Kraken, and what I don't understand, set aside the plea deal.
	Why ask for a speedy trial if you then cut a deal on the eve of the trial?
	Is there any...
	They were doing this deliberately.
	That it's apparent that their goal was to get a sweet deal.
	And the way to get a sweet deal was to force the prosecution to go through a four or five month trial.
	Give a sneak peek to all the other defendants including Trump of what the case looks like.
	Have everything presented that they're not ready to present.
	Have everything challenged that they're not ready to challenge.
	Give a sneak peek to the defendants.
	And they weren't ready for it.
	And so use that to coerce a plea deal.
	Saying, hey, you know, you can avoid all this if you just give me what I want, which is some misdemeanors and no prison time.
	And no jail time.
	And so I get it.
	But what it tells me is that's not the sign of someone who's super confident like she said she was.
	And she led a lot of people down to Primrose Path that backfired.
	If someone's a true believer, I'll give them some grace for their pursuit of something that was not a good idea or a good strategy.
	But convince me you're a true believer when your whole goal appears was just to cut a plea deal so you face no risk.
	It looks more like self-aggrandizement than purpose-driven.
	And so the rationale would have been they ask for a speedy trial knowing the other defendants won't so that you get to the speedy trial when they're the only two defendants, they can cut a deal more easily without coordinating.
	Sidney Powell cuts the best of the sweetheart deal, just a couple of misdemeanors.
	Cheesebro gets a little bit of a harsher plea deal.
	He has to agree to a felony.
	Same outcome.
	Yeah, he has to plea to a felony, but he gets the same outcome in the sense of no jail time of any kind.
	And so meanwhile, now they both go scot-free.
	It's not to undermine that it was in their best interest without a question and if that were the goal from the beginning they played it perfectly.
	They throw everything and everyone under the bus by doing this and I'm not trying to point fingers.
	Now if this ever gets to trial on the other defendants even though Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to I don't know.
	It's not a superseding indictment, but a new grand jury indictment with misdemeanor charges.
	And it had nothing to do with the RICO.
	So she made no admissions as relates to the RICO charges.
	So technically it won't hurt Trump.
	But you get to trial where two of the defendants on anything as relates to the overall scheme of pleaded guilty.
	They're not going to use either one as witnesses because there'd be too much problem with that.
	They're trying to imply that, that that's why they gave him such sweetheart deals.
	But that isn't why.
	It's because they weren't ready.
	And they're still not ready for trial.
	And they didn't want to give a sneak peek to the other defendants.
	But then why not force it?
	Why wouldn't they force it on the case?
	And let them...
	I guess it makes sense.
	They...
	They're totally safe, except I still have a feeling them having borne false witness to themselves will bite them in the ass the same way it did for Jenna.
	Oh, sooner or later, yeah.
	I mean, it was just dodging the biggest bullet.
	And I get it, but it suggests self-interest above everything else.
	This was not the purpose mission-driven that she told people it was that got a lot of people to line up behind her that made her a lot of money.
	I mean, down the road, if this keeps going in a certain direction...
	I mean, she's going to be likely disbarred somewhere and will be sued into oblivion by anybody else who gets harmed by this because she led a lot of people down this path.
	She told them it was the right path.
	And now, as soon as she can, she folds, capitulates, and runs away.
	So I just have a lot less sympathy.
	I was very critical of her strategies.
	Now I'm critical of her because of doing this.
	I get why, but it suggests you were never that purpose-driven to begin with.
	Whatever money she made, Robert, I mean, she's going to lose a lot.
	A lot of money poured into her.
	More money than she'd ever had before.
	That money's not going to be there after the defamation verdict comes down.
	Well, I mean, who knows where it is at now, anyway.
	So we'll see.
	I mean, it undermines her there, too.
	It's just, she was never...
	Now people can see what we predicted all the way back.
	And got a lot of heat for it.
	Oh, you understand, Barnes?
	I was saying, where the hell's the Kraken?
	People were telling me, it's been released, you just haven't noticed it.
	And I was like, well, if that's the case, then that's not one heck of a Kraken.
	Okay, we've been on YouTube for far longer than they deserve.
	That does it on that topic, correct?
	Yeah, they didn't even get two other pieces of news on the election law cases.
	Hold on, we're going to do that on...
	Rumble, people, or if you so choose to come over to Locals, hold on, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let's see the number.
	We're at 2,146 now on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	I'm going to remove it when I see that number go down once.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	What else is going on?
	Okay, no, never mind.
	I'm going to end it on YouTube now.
	Come on over to Rumble, and we're going to finish up with the election stuff.
	Oh, it just went up.
	It went down.
	Okay, come on over to Rumble.
	Done.
	Okay, Robert, so what are the other two?
	Oh, this is a case, you know, I'm always intrigued when somebody reaches out and says, why haven't you talked about this case?
	And it's like, okay, you're telling me you haven't been doing your due diligence and staying up with each of the Sunday shows because we've been discussing the jail for memes case from the very beginning.
	Oh, yeah, I mean, we haven't given it a name.
	I mean, now it's Douglas Mackey Ricky Vaughn, but we've been talking about it from the beginning.
	Robert Thiemann.
	I've been driving myself crazy like it's nobody's business on Twitter because people reply.
	It's like they've met you for the first time and then they say, "Why haven't you said this or that?" It's like, "Dude, have you never seen a show?
	Have you never seen what I said last week?" And I have to stop doing it.
	I have to just take a step back and take a deep breath.
	Ricky Vaughn.
	I was going to say the jailed for speech from Owen Troyer to now jailed for the meme Douglas Mackey.
	He's, what, 29 years old?
	They call him a right-wing troll.
	By calling him a troll, it seems to indicate everybody knows not to take what he says seriously, which is the irony in all of this.
	Yet, they called it an election interference scheme, and it started off with the text.
	Vote from home, save yourself some time.
	Text 70877 to Hillary Clinton.
	Text your vote for Hillary Clinton to whatever.
	And now, this was a joke.
	Everybody don't do it.
	He got A, investigated.
	B, charged.
	C, convicted, and now 4, sentenced to 7 months in jail.
	It's a freaking joke, Robert.
	Tell the world why it is...
	Steel Man, why it's not a joke.
	There really isn't.
	One, it's brought in the Eastern District of New York, which is garbage.
	It had no business in the Eastern District of New York.
	They brought it there because it's an abusive venue, because our courts are refusing to meaningfully enforce.
	The venue and vicinity clauses of the United States Constitution.
	And so that was issue one.
	Issue two was, there was another case of discriminatory, selective prosecution, because other Democrats did literally the exact same thing.
	Promoting a fake number, fake ID, fake way to vote, etc.
	to Republicans.
	None of them are prosecuted at all.
	Punished at all.
	So that constant disparity.
	The rule of law is not a rule of law if it's one rule for one party and another rule for another party.
	The third problem in the case is that this really was protected speech activities that they only managed to claim wasn't by suggesting that it was truly intended to deceive people into voting the wrong way.
	Rather than the trollish activity, it quite manifestly was.
	And with a guy who has a history of memes, their own evidence refuted that anybody actually took the bait on this and didn't vote because of it.
	They had no such evidence.
	The general response to it on social media was that it was an obvious meme and troll.
	So when we're to the point where we're calling memes...
	The basis of putting people in prison for election interference, while people who actually steal votes in elections rarely serve any time at all, including our current President of the United States, his fraudulency, the second, who's currently trying to get us into World War III while sinking the economy into a global depression, then you see how nuts the system is.
	And so there is an appeal.
	Now, I think he will be granted bail-pending appeal.
	Unless the judge is a complete ass.
	Because he went through trial, he didn't waive any rights to appeal, so his sentence is less than the length of time it takes for an appeal to resolve the matter.
	And he's got robust First Amendment and claims to the legality of the statute that's being applied to him, which is very similar.
	All of this might end up going before SCOTUS because the D.C. Circuit split again.
	On what corruptly obstructing means, this is the big statute that's been used to enhance all the sentencing of all the January 6 people.
	How do you convert trespass?
	How do you convert being in the wrong place?
	How do you convert being loud into a felony obstruction of justice?
	A felony obstruction of Congress?
	You say it's corruptly obstructing Congress from doing its duties.
	Even though that was not even their intention.
	You give wrong instructions to the jury.
	And what's happening here, previously in a split decision, the D.C. Circuit recognized corruptly cannot just mean unlawful.
	So to give you an idea, obstructing, well, every person who lobbies obstructs.
	Every person who says something in the court of public opinion obstructs.
	All that can be interpreted as obstruct.
	That's why corruptly is the constitutional saving language limiting the law.
	But of course it couldn't apply here.
	So what did they do?
	They just eviscerated it.
	In fact, the D.C. Circuit, with a straight face this week to a brilliant and brutal dissent, said the word corruptly just means unlawful.
	And the dissent was like, then that means nothing.
	Every single crime then is corruptly.
	Because every crime is by definition unlawful.
	So if you committed an underlying offense, now it's corruptly.
	And it has the impact of impacting at all government action.
	You now have corruptly obstructing the government, and they can convert mere misdemeanor offenses into 20-year federal felonies.
	And so it's a ludicrous interpretation of the law.
	It's going to require the Supreme Court to resolve it.
	The dissent pointed out any law that is so broad, quoted Aristotle, said any law that is so broad it gives the judges lots of leeway is a law that should not be considered a law at all because it gives such leeway.
	And the judge pointed this is the most ridiculous interpretation of corruptly ever made in history.
	So that's the dynamic here that just prevents and prohibits and precludes the application of the statute.
	It would erase.
	The sentences of most of the defendants.
	But most importantly, it would prevent this being used to criminalize dissent all across the country, which is what they're really trying to do here.
	So these cases are critical.
	Owen Schroyer's case is very important.
	The Mackey meme case is very important.
	These January 6th cases are also very important because they shape the ability of the government to lock us up for our opinions in the future.
	I'm going to bring it up just so that...
	People can appreciate this.
	I mean, this is from 9.38 a.m.
	November 8. So this is 2016.
	This is from the day of election.
	And I'm not trying to get Christine Wong in trouble.
	I'm just saying these are the new rules now.
	This is her video.
	Hey, everybody.
	This is Christina Wong.
	And I'm coming out.
	I'm a Trump supporter.
	And I just want to remind all my fellow Chinese Americans for Trump, people of color for Trump, to vote.
	Vote for Trump on Wednesday, November 9th.
	Really important.
	This is in the video itself, I think.
	Oh, does it glitch every time I play this?
	Really important.
	Go vote or on November 9th.
	Right, right.
	Vote on a different day.
	So, I mean, this was actually more intentional than the meme troll was.
	And yet there was absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
	And it's like, I'm thinking, oh...
	It's too late now.
	The damage is done, so they wouldn't prosecute.
	But I don't know what the statute of limitations is on election interference.
	I mean, they could just as easily go after her now, or would it still be?
	And memes and things like this have never been the basis of criminal prosecution under that statute in our history.
	So it's a misapplication of the statute.
	It's a violation of free speech.
	And it's what the January 6th cases are writ large.
	It's what the election cases are writ large.
	It's the government's ability to punish their political opponents and punish speech that they dislike.
	And that's all it is.
	And it's obvious to everybody except the people in the courthouses themselves who are going along with it, who are complicit in it, compromised by it.
	When people said, why am I so critical of the Federalist Society?
	These judges that are screwing up are almost all members of the Federalist Society.
	That's what they share in common.
	Federalist Society has been a poor barometer for good judges because many of these so-called conservative judges don't want to conserve anything other than the power of big institutions.
	And so the only difference between them and liberals is sometimes they favor the church.
	Sometimes they favor big corporations over the government.
	But that's all.
	There's still deferential to institutional power.
	And we're seeing the consequences of it and their failure to act.
	Hopefully they take action.
	But like, you know, the Supreme Court, there's good news, bad news from the Supreme Court this week.
	They took up two critical cases.
	The case of the Missouri, two involving Missouri.
	Missouri has a Second Amendment.
	Well, the good news is the Supreme Court is going to make a ruling on both of them.
	The unfortunate news is that they allowed the injunctions of those laws to stay in force in the case of the Second Amendment law, so those laws are not allowed to be in force.
	They continued that injunction, and then they stayed the injunction on big tech censorship.
	Basically, the government's saying, golly, gee, there might be some emergency, and we can't communicate with big tech, and that would be a disaster.
	So it scared the Amy Coney Barretts, the Kavanaugh's, and the Roberts, unsurprisingly.
	Almost everything I predicted about Barrett has come true.
	I'll sometimes hear from someone say, oh, don't you regret what you said about Barrett?
	Have you not paid attention to Barrett?
	Most of her rulings?
	I said she'd probably be fine on the Second Amendment, probably be fine on religion.
	She'd be bad on almost everything else, and you can get plenty of conservative judges that are good on the Second Amendment religion.
	What you needed was one that was going to be good on elections.
	She was the key judge to prevent those from being reviewed in 2020.
	You need someone who's going to be good.
	On issues of the First Amendment, on the issues of the government's collusion.
	She's been bad on all those issues so far.
	And she's clearly a complete pansy.
	I mean, this is when it comes to challenging institutional corruption.
	So now the Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented.
	And they're like, there's no reason for us to reverse this day.
	This injunction is clearly correct.
	This is clear, ongoing First Amendment violations.
	The Supreme Court's action has just allowed the Biden administration to keep doing it for another six months.
	And they said, like, what would be the, I think it was, what would be the irreparable harm to prevent the government from interfering with or influencing private social media companies?
	So the stay, the injunction of the stay is being kept in force until the Supreme Court rules on it.
	Which will be, what, six months, seven months?
	Yeah, it will be sometime in the spring or summer.
	So the Biden administration can continue to collude with big tech until then.
	The one good part was a concurring opinion, I believe, by Justice Gorsuch on the Second Amendment Missouri case.
	He made clear that courts cannot enjoin private parties.
	He said just in case someone misconstrued that injunction to do so, it can't.
	It can't reach that.
	But that was something the majority of the court failed to make clear.
	He had to make clear in a concurring opinion in response to the continuation of the injunction in that case.
	So you're seeing contradictory actions by the court about when it defers to an injunction, and mostly it appears political cowardice is what's motivating the court.
	But at least they're taking the case, and the question is, will Kavanaugh and Roberts and Barrett, well, two of those three, Go with the liberals and allow censorship to happen.
	Go with the liberals and prohibit states from allowing their local officials to not go along with Second Amendment violating laws or not.
	It's clear where the three conservatives are, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.
	The question is where the three so-called moderates are in Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts.
	Barrett was a mistake by Trump.
	Kavanaugh, he was stuck with because Kennedy said he would only retire if Kavanaugh was picked.
	I just would have used all...
	All these conservatives thought, oh, if we defend Kavanaugh, he'll come to our cause.
	No, he won't.
	No, he won't.
	These cowards, particularly these prep school cowards, they can't wait to go back and placate the same people that just tried to slice and dice.
	That's who they are.
	That's what they are.
	They're cowards by character.
	You're not going to change that.
	So, you know, they wasted their time defending him.
	They should have let him...
	Slide off and put in a real conservative in there.
	So we'll see.
	Now, the Supreme Court Justice Thomas dissented from a case this week saying he still wants to reconsider actual malice as being required for public figures.
	Yeah, this was in, let me think, some oil tycoon or an oil baron.
	Who was allegedly defamed by the media.
	They said he had a felony conviction when he only had a misdemeanor conviction from a mining accident.
	Yeah, big coal mining guy in West Virginia.
	Killed 29 of his miners.
	I mean, okay, that guy got off easy that he maybe should not be complaining about being mislabeled as a felon.
	But the media called him a felon and not a misdemeanor.
	And so he sued for defamation.
	They basically, I mean, the part of the judgment I didn't understand.
	I mean, I'm only reading the...
	Um, dissent in the refusal to hear it.
	Um, geez, uh, Thomas, Clarence Thomas is saying we should revisit the actual malice standard in New York Times versus Sullivan.
	But this case doesn't, um, it doesn't apply in this case because there was some statutory provision as far as I understood that he did.
	I believe it was West Virginia had a statute that, that separately distinguished the issue.
	Now, my view is I do not agree with Thomas on this at all.
	I support entirely the actual malice standard and the colloquium standard that constitutionally you cannot be sued for your speech unless you make a knowingly false statement about a specified individual.
	I think we should maintain that.
	If we take that away, the assumption that's out there is that the New York Times of the world and the Washington Post of the world will suddenly be held responsible and accountable.
	There's no history of that.
	What will happen instead is ordinary people who say things about powerful people will get sued into oblivion.
	Right now, the actual malice standard mostly protects them.
	It doesn't really protect big media.
	They don't need it.
	Courts will protect them anyway, anyhow, on some other grounds.
	Call it an opinion, not a fact.
	Redefine the definition of libel or defamation and all the rest.
	So I disagree with Thomas that we should reconsider actual malice.
	Given he's the only one who dissented, my guess is that he's not getting much mojo from the other members of the court to modify that.
	And despite the rulings I don't quite agree with, though they're temporary intermediate rulings, not final rulings, from the Supreme Court, I am so glad they're taking up some of these cases on the big tech side.
	They're going to have a bunch of big tech cases to decide this term.
	That will go to, can states regulate big tech?
	Is big tech a monopoly?
	Is big tech immune?
	Is big tech able to censor with Biden's collusion?
	All of those are going to be really, along with all the other big cases, deciding their monetary basis, their monopoly power, and their monetization of private information, which, as we've mentioned before, is being challenged in major cases as we speak.
	So it's good they're taking those cases.
	But I always knock on the door of the Supreme Court any time I get a chance.
	I know it's a 101 shot or longer to get the Supreme Court to take your case.
	So I'll even probably review it.
	Any time I file a petition for cert with the Supreme Court, I post it and review it with the members at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in our Barnes Law School sessions.
	To help sort of popularize legal education and improve legal literacy amongst the populace and the people.
	And so I filed one based on the Seventh Circuit case that I had.
	And what I try to teach people that file cert petitions is when you know it's 101 or longer long shot, you need to grab their attention.
	Don't be deferential.
	Don't be unduly limited in your language.
	You don't have to be offensive or anything, but grab their attention so they understand the consequence, the policy significance of the case.
	So this is the case where basically a young man was pulled from his house, beaten and tased, severely injured.
	And they let him off, the Seventh Circuit, three Republican judges, by the way, including one who fancies himself a future Supreme Court justice, said that's just fine because the law is this.
	You can't use excessive force.
	No police officer can.
	And you can't force disproportionate to its purpose and its legitimate lawful purpose.
	And you can't arrest someone inside their home unless you have probable cause of a felony or warrant.
	Here they had none of that.
	In fact, all they were doing was maybe there was a misdemeanor of some sort, but ultimately no case was pursued against them.
	But they had no basis of anything.
	They basically just grabbed, they just wanted to sucker him to walking outside of the house so that they could arrest him on a misdemeanor claim, whatever one they could figure out by getting him to answer something the wrong way.
	And instead, when he wouldn't do so, they grabbed him in the doorway and threw him out.
	Beat him and tased him before they arrested him.
	And the excuse from the Seventh Circuit Federalist Society members was that's okay because the physical force happened outside of his house, even though they grabbed him inside the house.
	So I called it the grab him and throw him out of the house.
	I got the questions presented in the petition for writ of socioria.
	Questions presented.
	Whether there is a quote...
	Grab him and throw him out of the house, end quote, exception to requiring probable cause of a felony for in-home arrests without a warrant.
	Two, whether excessive force is allowed regardless of whether there was a probable cause to arrest in the first place.
	I like it.
	It's all hyphenated.
	Grab him and throw him out of the house.
	It's like, what did Trump call the records in Clinton's George?
	The Clinton socks case.
	The Clinton sucks case.
	The other component is, and this is happening in multiple courts.
	So historically, no state officer of any kind can use force against someone unless they have some legitimate purpose, lawful purpose.
	And in the case of police officers, you have to have probable cause for an arrest.
	And even then, the force you use has to be proportionate to the circumstances.
	Here they had no probable cause for an arrest.
	And here's what's happened.
	The courts have said, well, all the excessive force analysis is in the context of an arrest.
	So if you're not yet arresting them and you don't have probable cause, you can use any force you want!
	It was like the case had in front of the Tenth Circuit.
	What the district court did was grant summary judgment based on the magistrate's ruling, which was they pulled somebody over thinking they might have stolen a car.
	They didn't know that they did.
	They thought maybe.
	They didn't even really have probable cause.
	And they keep shooting at the car.
	And the car moves a little bit, stops.
	They unload again.
	The car moves a little bit, stops.
	I mean, it was clearly like there are people jumping out, trying to get out of the car for being shot all these times.
	So they ram the car into a pole.
	The car can't move.
	And then they unleash a bunch more shots.
	You know, like almost 60 shots by these gung-ho.
	I mean, this is where some people on the conservative side will hear saying, Police officers are good, hardworking.
	Many are.
	Not all are.
	Quit pretending.
	There's no bad cops.
	I mean, like, I get Tucker Carlson kind of belatedly picking up that there were legal evidentiary problems with the George Floyd prosecution.
	And we now know the coroner and the prosecutors on the case didn't even want to bring some of those cases.
	And we said so at the time.
	It was controversial.
	But it doesn't change the fact that Derek Chauvin was a horrible cop.
	I mean, he'd been in 14 different cases.
	That's a bad cop.
	A criminal, tax evader, doing things on the side, all kinds of problems with that guy.
	So you can separate out whether a cop did something bad in a particular case, and you can separate out good cops from the fact there are plenty of bad cops.
	These are bad cops.
	So, you know, it's a long shot, but the reason why I always encourage people to do it is because a petition for cert to the Supreme Court is supposed to be read by every Supreme Court justice and their clerks.
	So you're getting a chance to educate them.
	So even if they do nothing on your case, it will inevitably and inescapably influence other cases they take down the road and influence potentially what decisions they make in that context.
	I've had personal, professional experience with this occurring.
	Had a surp petition rejected, the same session they took another one, and then they issued an opinion that didn't represent that party's surp petition, represented mine.
	That reinstated the power of federal courts to deal with state judicial abuse in that particular context, the misapplication of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
	And so we'll see.
	It's obviously a long shot, but it's a disturbing trend in the courts.
	They're saying you can use whatever force you want as long as you haven't arrested them yet, which is the most insane logic I've ever heard.
	The point of you can't use other courts have recognized, you can't use any force if you don't have probable cause of an arrest.
	You can't use any, by definition.
	You have no purpose, lawful purpose behind that force.
	And instead you have other courts flipping that on its head and saying, oh no, they hadn't arrested him yet.
	Yeah, you can shoot him in the back.
	It's insane.
	Robert, I'm going to read the rants and the chats before we lose, before they get out of hand.
	I see Alex Jones is in the backdrop, but he's still doing his show.
	So I'm going to bring him in when he's ready.
	But let's do this.
	Here we go.
	JT, Justin Trudeau makes me sick to my stomach.
	These American judges do too.
	I guess I'll have to grit my teeth and wait for AJ.
	Yes.
	Winston Schittenhouse says, I am Winston's wang.
	Without me, half the pooches in Florida would...
	All right.
	I don't think Winston has discovered that pleasure of life yet.
	Is there anything in the Constitution preventing a dog from running for Congress?
	At least when Winston expresses an opinion, he always follows through.
	And then I just brought this one up because it was funny.
	It says, Viva going to pull a Biden and just stare at the camera for 30 seconds.
	I was going to.
	Now hold on one second.
	Before we even go any further, there's a bunch here and I'll go through these real quick like.
	Mr. Sunday Night, my Sunday Night Addiction from Mad Max.
	Mandatory Carry says, Ukraine 2022 is Poland 1938, Israel 2023, it's France 1940.
	And now I'm starting to see the dots that you're connecting, Mandatory.
	Thank you for being here.
	My Amos Miller pumpkin arrived.
	I gave it to my parents and they said it was great.
	Aunt Debbie, 0111-0001, and I don't know if that's a swear word in binary.
	Hey guys, please share our broken truth teaser for our new documentary on the hydroxychloroquine scandal called "Epidemic of Fraud".
	Here is the link and everyone can get that link.
	We got "Am I the only one who thinks Greta Thunberg looks like Miss Ball Breaker?" I don't know who that is.
	I don't know what that is.
	Okay, and Alex is taking a five-minute break, so we're good.
	We got Arkansas Crime Attorney says, I haven't been able to catch you guys live in a long time.
	Glad I'm able to catch this one.
	I will stay as long as possible.
	Arkansas Little Rock, good to see you again.
	Crash prone.
	So we know what is a BJ.
	What is an AJ?
	All right.
	Bringing that out now.
	Now!
	I don't know, Robert, what do we do before we get into Alex Jones?
	Did we get into the gag order from Judge...
	Well, we got the gag order from Chutkin, the $5,000 fine from Angeron?
	Yeah, I think we'll wait for that when Jones comes on, because he's had some experience with being wrongfully punished by judges for his out-of-court speech.
	The two areas where federal courts did well, and one case that the Supreme Court looks like it will take up that will be good, the last Supreme Court case is Major League Baseball.
	So Major League Baseball, the court has interpreted it as having an immunity in certain areas from antitrust laws.
	So they can do monopoly-type actions, antitrust, anti-competitive-type actions.
	That's always been problematic.
	There's no evidence that Congress intended that, but what they did is they did a combination of stare decisis and congressional acquiescence to basically keep their bad decision in law.
	Even though they themselves said they probably shouldn't.
	And you read the congressional history, Congress had no intention that they would.
	So stare decisis doesn't have anywhere near the same authority when it's an interpretation of a statute based on congressional acquiescence.
	That's not real strong stare decisis that has reasonable expectations behind it.
	And in 2020, during the pandemic year, Major League Baseball started massively interfering in the minor leagues and requiring only a certain number of teams be affiliated.
	Basically, it gutted the minor leagues.
	I think there were 40 minor league clubs that lost affiliations, lost financial backing, had all kinds of issues.
	They're able to manipulate the minor league labor market in ways they really shouldn't if antitrust law applied.
	So Major League Baseball Players Association has filed an amicus petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, identifying all the policy reasons, legislative reasons, constitutional reasons, why, in fact, no stare decisis should be given that prior decision, and Major League Baseball should no longer be above the law.
	And stare decisis means precedent, basically.
	We've made this decision previously, so we're going to stick with it, even if we think it's wrong.
	At what point do they review it, like revise stare decisis like they did in Dobbs?
	Things have to change sufficiently?
	They go through a certain analysis, but where there's the least...
	Okay.
	particularly where there's been no reliance by anybody other than Major League Baseball profiting from continuing to abuse its power.
	It impacts his local communities, small minor league owners, and minor league players negatively and adversely.
	It only benefits Major League Baseball owners.
	The Two other cases that both are derivatives of recent Supreme Court cases that are good from federal courts.
	One is violent felonies are an automatic sentencing enhancement under various provisions of federal law.
	For too long, they were including things that a person didn't do anything violent at all.
	And finally, the Supreme Court stepped in and said, okay, you can't do that.
	It has to be an indisputable element of the offense.
	And an element of the offense is something that is the If it didn't happen, the offense didn't happen.
	So it's a factual component that must occur for the crime to be committed.
	In many of these state law crimes, they've been expanding them so that things that sound like a violent felony, first-degree assault and battery, your research no longer requires actual any violent direct.
	You kind of saw that in the case of Chauvin.
	You're like, how exactly is this deliberate murder under the facts here?
	It's because they keep liberalizing the law to such a degree that makes a mockery of our criminal law and mens rea requirements of constitutional due process.
	So a court recognized that lower courts are now enforcing that Supreme Court decision and saying, like, there was a case that someone had been convicted in Maryland.
	And really, what's first-degree assault in Maryland?
	You commit an unintentional battery with a gun.
	That's it.
	Well, that's not violent felony of the kind we think of.
	The gun doesn't do anything.
	You just happen to have a gun.
	You unintentionally cause any sort of unwanted public touching, physical touching.
	I mean, that first degree violent felony.
	Is it while in possession or while brandishing the gun?
	While in possession, that's it.
	Just that you have a gun on you.
	That's all.
	So, you know, it's because they hate guns in Maryland.
	So the court recognized that doesn't require as an element the violent felony provision, which is that violence must be a necessary fact to be found.
	And you can find someone guilty in Maryland, first degree assault, without finding they committed any intentional violence at all.
	And so that's a good trend in the case law.
	The other is expanding recognition of injury.
	This is happening in the standing context.
	Which I still disapprove of standing as a doctrine.
	I think it's garbage.
	Try to find standing in the Constitution.
	It doesn't exist.
	It says cases or controversies.
	And they're interpreting that to say, well, that means there's no case or controversy unless somebody meets some complicated doctrine we call standing.
	It's like, that's ridiculous.
	But putting that nonsense aside, it's subject to easy political manipulation.
	The Supreme Court has done a little bit better.
	And now lower courts are following that guidance and recognizing all the different kinds of injury that exist, including it doesn't have to be a physical injury.
	It doesn't have to be a financial injury.
	It can be an injury in reputation.
	It can be an injury in emotion.
	It can be an injury in relationships.
	It can be an injury in information, increasingly in an information age.
	You are legally entitled in many cases to certain information.
	This includes from the government in certain contexts, FOIA and Privacy Act contexts.
	But it also includes from debt collectors, for example.
	And debt collectors, nobody lies more than debt collectors.
	Nobody tries to abuse their power more than them.
	That's why there's a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that governs and limits what they can do.
	Legally entitles people to certain information.
	To give you an idea of how it finally got the Supreme Court's attention.
	The case that finally got the Supreme Court's attention on this was credit reporting agencies were sending out alerts to people about consumers saying, by the way, this consumer is a potential terrorist and on a government watch list, when they weren't.
	They got screwed up information.
	That's the kind of damage they were doing.
	And the lower courts were saying, nah, you can't sue for that.
	No obvious injury, no standing.
	And finally, the Supreme Court said, well, yeah, there's kind of an obvious injury here, obvious reputational injury here, and that's what defamation law is always recognized.
	So yes, if you have the right to bring a claim under state law, you have the standing to bring a claim under constitutional law.
	So they're at least getting back to that limitation on the doctrine of standing.
	A recent decision decided the same thing, said, if you're entitled to accurate information, You get inaccurate information, and it causes some adverse consequence of any kind on you, reputationally or otherwise, physically, financially, any adverse consequence.
	Because of that information, you incur a cost you wouldn't have, whatever it may be, then you're entitled to sue.
	And so that recognition is going to expand the basis of access to federal courts against bad actors with big corporations and the government that hopefully will Stop some of the abuse of standing doctrine that's been taking place in federal courts to protect big corporations and the government.
	All right.
	Now, Robert, Alex Jones is in the backdrop, and he looks ready.
	All right.
	Alex, are you ready?
	We'll bring in five...
	He's fine.
	He's ready.
	Okay, let's bring him in.
	Three, two on everybody.
	Our special guest of the evening.
	Add to stage.
	Hold on.
	We're doing it this way, and I'm going to put...
	You know what, Alex?
	You'll go on the bottom.
	You get the biggest real estate.
	How are you doing?
	I love you guys.
	I watch the show at least once or twice a week.
	And I love Barnes.
	I love you.
	You guys are so smart.
	And man, what a crazy time to be alive.
	Everything is out in the open.
	The mask is coming off.
	So I asked to come on the show and I appreciate you guys having me on.
	Everything's happening at the same time is right.
	There's war.
	In every nook and cranny of the world, there's corruption in every nook and cranny of the world.
	You got Owen Schroer going to jail.
	You've got your news with the court not recognizing the limitations of bankruptcy.
	I mean, we're going to get into it in as much as you can talk about it and Barnes can interpret it.
	Other than that, Mr. Lincoln, how is the show?
	What's going on with you, Alex, these days?
	Well, look, you know, they tell me don't attack the judges.
	And I don't think this federal judge is, you know, in the same league as the Texas and Connecticut judges that found me guilty beforehand.
	But he basically just punted into the future and said, deal with your appeals.
	But I talked to my lawyers and separate big law firms.
	They said they've never seen a ruling like this.
	It gets to the specifics, like in the case of Texas.
	You can't have these two different claims at the same time.
	The Texas law says you can't do that.
	It's kind of like the George Floyd thing, where we now know the coroner said he didn't die from asphyxiation or being choked.
	And they knew he died from fentanyl and cocaine and a bunch of other drugs.
	But they just said, it's out in the lawsuits now, it's public.
	And the transcripts, the government documents, that they just said, well, the public will be mad at us.
	We'll ruin our careers.
	So we've got to go ahead and just send this in as a police officer to prison.
	And we've seen everything that came out of that.
	So it just shows a real cowardice, I think, more than anything of the judiciary.
	Congress is still so scared that the Mitch McConnells are scared of the New York Times.
	They have no power, but they give them power.
	It's like the mouse that roared intimidated the lion.
	And so that's where we are.
	So we'll go on with appeals.
	We'll keep fighting.
	As the tyranny intensifies, Infowars is really a microcosm of Trump.
	He just goes ahead in the polls.
	Unstoppable force.
	And so it's a very, very explosive moment in history.
	And it's a desperate, corrupt elite losing control of the political reins.
	And so what do they always do?
	What's the final refuge of tyrants is wars.
	So Ukraine, and now the Middle East, and now China, and now the borders wide open.
	So at the end of the day, I'm more worried about World War III.
	I'm more worried about nuclear war than I am myself.
	It is spectacular to see the Democrats trying to have Trump be disqualified to run in all these states like Colorado and indicting him for questioning an election when Biden said in December last year we're going to use the Justice Department to stop him from running.
	I mean, this is really a moment of the mask coming off, I think, right now and a historic crossroads for everybody to decide which side they're going to be on.
	It's extraordinary.
	In the case of the Trump contempt order, based on the gag order, the D.C. gag order now stayed pending appeal.
	But in New York, you have a judge that is similar in many respects to the judges you got to experience in Texas and Connecticut.
	A judge that's openly partisan, openly political, prejudging parts of the cases, denying jury trials on substantive merits.
	But he's also trying to silence Trump.
	First, he issues a gag order that's unconstitutional because the only basis to restrain out-of-courtroom speech is impartial jury trial.
	There is no jury trial happening in New York.
	So there was no basis of any gag order, period.
	And this actually arose, I wrote up in the Barnes brief at vibabarns.locals.com this past week, was your right to say things critical of the court and the courthouses and the court staff.
	And this includes Harry Bridges.
	I mean, you may remember aspects of this, Alex.
	You know, Harry Bridges, famous labor leader, famous labor advocate.
	A court said he was going to, the judge was going to enjoin some stuff.
	So the labor leader said, screw him, screw the judge.
	If he does that, we'll just go out on strike.
	So he was directly confronting the court's power.
	The court issued a contempt finding against him.
	The U.S. Supreme Court said, you can't do that.
	So the courts, the trying to limit public speech about courts, they said, would only backfire.
	People would wonder, what is it you're trying to hide?
	Maybe in the New York case, trying to hide the political partisan corruption of his staff.
	This contempt order is patently unconstitutional, flagrantly violates First Amendment rights and remedies.
	And hopefully, I do hope Trump's people appeal it like they did the D.C. case.
	But you experienced this.
	Well, Robert, you just nailed it, and I want to get your take on that.
	Notice what you just said.
	No jury trial for Trump.
	Judge finds him guilty.
	Now judge is having a trial to find out how guilty.
	These are very extraordinary things they use in emergencies when the person being sued or charged runs away.
	This isn't happening.
	So they don't have cases.
	Just like last week, they had a witness up there that had valued the Trump properties.
	And he said, I never met with any Trump officials and ever sent them emails and ever said it was worth this.
	They go...
	Here's all the emails where you said it's worth what we said.
	And the judge's like, shut this down, shut this down.
	I mean, it's just naked, barbarous tyranny masquerading as a court.
	And I don't think the Justice Department and these local courts have gotten how much they've destroyed themselves because, I mean, this is outrageous.
	Alex, let me play this.
	I won't play...
	Well, maybe we'll play the whole thing.
	Listen, this is the judge in New York, and we're going to talk about how this judge is trying to Alex Jones Donald Trump.
	I have one last thing to say about tools.
	A lot of what I do involves motions.
	I love this.
	It's amazing.
	The judge of motions I mentioned.
	All right.
	Am I following the law or am I making law?
	Okay.
	I'm following law.
	I'm an impartial.
	Referee.
	Impartial.
	But...
	But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
	And I have tools.
	Somebody can say, well...
	We don't need to go into the tools.
	How do I remove this so that we go back to the good threesome of the night?
	Robert, I mean, you tell me, at what point there was a case we were going to talk tonight about a judge not recusing themselves?
	At what point does a judge either recuse themselves or what would be the sanction for a state judge?
	I don't know if impeachment is the right sanction.
	Well, you know, this would be a good bridge.
	I was going to ask this of Alex anyway.
	I think what Americans are getting right now is a crash course in the problems of our judicial and legal system.
	The Justice Department, the FBI, state court judges, federal court judges.
	Before you went through all of the insanity of the lawfare, How much did your understanding and perception of judges and the legal system change because of it?
	Because my takeaway early on was that you were someone who really believed in the American legal system, assumed it wouldn't be as crazy as it became in your cases.
	Trump is now experiencing this, and now we're all experiencing it vicariously, first through your cases and now through Trump's cases.
	But what was your transformation?
	How shocked were you at how the legal system really operates compared to what you believed when you went into those cases?
	Well, Robert, you basically got it right.
	I mean, I wasn't naive.
	I knew special courts and special systems were politicized and corrupt, but I had had in Travis County...
	But all the old judges have retired.
	It's literally all women.
	I don't think it's women, but it's all women and all new judges the last four years.
	So they had all the old judges.
	So I had a woman who'd been on the bench 30 years, Judge Naranjo, who'd been a classical Democrat, without me even trying, give me my children in a custody battle, despite the fact I was Alex Jones.
	And I'd seen deep research, deep, really weighing things.
	And I was so impressed by it.
	I was like, wow, this is a great judicial system.
	But once they, in Travis County, well, a few counties in Texas, they can select a judge they want with Judge Guerra Gamble, who literally just got elected like three, four years ago, literally dresses in anti-fagarb, has had blue and purple hair before.
	She literally threw all that out and just did whatever she wanted.
	After the jury found me guilty because she'd already said I was guilty, she then tacked things on that just got overturned the bankruptcy because it was just too flagrant.
	I sat there and I witnessed the most insane behavior.
	He's guilty.
	He's a liar.
	He's a bad man.
	Don't listen to him.
	I saw the same thing in Connecticut.
	Couldn't say I was innocent.
	They gave us a letter saying, say you're innocent.
	Six months in jail.
	So I didn't testify the second day.
	She let the plaintiff's lawyers in Connecticut attack me and savage me and scream at me.
	When I finally talked back, she said, shut up!
	Don't ruin the decorum of our court.
	So they're discrediting themselves out of a desperateness.
	But I wouldn't say I was naive.
	I just didn't realize that, okay, I thought the flame was on 5 and the flame was on 10. So, but it's a weird thing when you know you're being lied about and persecuted because I kind of went into this saying, well, I'm not perfect.
	I mean, I did 10% of what they said.
	But once I saw the organized PR company unification, I sat back and went, wow, our country has cancer.
	Our nation is in deep trouble.
	And I really mourned for our republic.
	But yeah, it was a big, big wake-up call.
	But when I read all the lawsuit document from this prosecutor, the lead prosecutor in the death of George Floyd that's been breaking last week, for viewers that haven't seen it, it's incredible.
	We already had the autopsy that he didn't die from asphyxiation or his neck being hurt.
	There was no damage.
	And then it was all the drugs, over like seven drugs he was on, three or four different opiates and then methamphetamine and some other stuff, enough to kill four horses, they were saying.
	But to now have the prosecutors say, they demoted me when I wouldn't do this because of the fraud, and then three more prosecutors.
	So it took that county with George Floyd, four prosecutors.
	They had to remove until they finally found a Judas that would cover that up and do it.
	And when I sat back and I saw that, it made perfect sense because that's what the district attorney, according to the news, and all of them said in the meetings to the prosecutors, the public will destroy us.
	Let's just put this guy in prison.
	Well, I would resign before I did that.
	I mean, I would respect resigning.
	It's still a coward's way, but I got to resign, as four did, or four were removed.
	Instead, they literally now are suing them, which is good, over telling them, okay, he's innocent.
	We know he's innocent.
	Imagine saying it in a meeting.
	Like, if I was corrupt and evil, I wouldn't say it.
	I'd say, I think he's guilty.
	Get him.
	They're like, we know he's innocent, but the public wants it.
	They're burning stuff down.
	Put the cop in jail for 22 years.
	And when I saw that, that's the cowardice in the judiciary and in enforcement areas that shows us how much...
	Because people...
	Used to have chivalry, not because they were wimps.
	They'd been through a bunch of big wars and they didn't want their wives and children targeted.
	They want certain rules.
	If you're going to start a war, we follow this.
	They've gotten rid of all the rules and they're going to be hoisted on their own petard.
	They're going to be buried in their own pit.
	That's not a threat because smarter people were around before us that actually lived it.
	And they set these rules, not because they were pussies, but because they wanted civilization.
	And the Democratic Party and the deep state and the same thing in the EU, they are flushing due process and all of our protections thinking, well, I'll just use it on this guy.
	But that's not how it works.
	When you burn somebody's rights, you burn your rights.
	And so they don't have empathy, they don't have chivalry, and Pandora's box is open now.
	Now, Alex, I say they've been nationalizing or importing conflict when it comes to, it's basically a form of mob rule.
	And so in Chauvin's case, it's not just that they said, well, we have a problematic case, find someone who's willing to do it.
	Then once it goes on, you get the jury intimidation, you get the expert witness, you know, his former house waking up with a severed pig head in front of it.
	And we're living in a world where it is mob rule in terms of...
	No, you're right.
	You're right.
	It's French Revolution.
	So where does it go from here?
	You guys are the experts.
	You just brought up, Mr. Fry, you just brought up better examples than I could.
	I babbled for five minutes.
	I'm not kissing your ass.
	That's why I love your show.
	You just said it in 15 seconds.
	You're the expert.
	What's going to happen?
	Robert, where do we go from here?
	Well, I mean, hopefully Trump will see the D.C. Court of Appeals takes action.
	Unfortunately, we saw in their January 6th cases split decision.
	One, the dissent was right.
	The majority was wrong in this misapplication.
	I mean, you've been talking about it going back for decades, that the great risk is the government uses its power to punish dissident speech.
	They're doing it with big tech censorship.
	Your case was the template for what they were going to do to everybody else, and then they did it to the President of the United States, and now they're doing it systematically at scale.
	They're weaponizing the criminal justice system to go after people.
	You were talking about how the FBI was rogue decades ago.
	I mean, this was an agency founded by J. Edgar Hoover.
	The probability it would become a constitutional defending agency was never great, but it's really gone completely.
	It's back to 90s level, is how I describe it.
	People forget about Operation Pat Con.
	They forget about creating fake militias.
	Oklahoma City.
	Exactly.
	That they had plants all over the place.
	I mean, people forget our current Attorney General, where he got his name to fame, where he got his first big political boost, wasn't on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
	It was as the lead prosecutor involved in the Oklahoma City case, where he covered up all the problems.
	The Southern Poverty Law Center having informants at Elohim City, Elohim City being connected to various activities of various people alleged to be connected to Oklahoma City.
	Aspects of that forensically that have never been explained.
	Captured counsel, corrupt agents, coward judges.
	That's the combination.
	What I was telling somebody recently was the difference is they're doing it at a whole different scale.
	I was on with the court.
	No, you're right.
	They used to do very little special...
	Unit things, like the Judge Whitmer things, the latest example, where they had three trials, only got one group convicted because they got caught staging at the jury's.
	It was so blaring, saw through it.
	Before, though, it was very small-targeted.
	Now they've upgraded it to full weaponization.
	It's a full rollout.
	Oh, completely.
	I mean, now that President of the United States, they're trying to lock up.
	President of the United States, the leading opponent of the incumbent administration, they're trying to take off the ballot and deny the American people.
	Well, let me give you some info, Robert, that you know, and Mr. Fry, I'm jumping any time, because I don't want to just dominate this.
	I've not told these stories because I've been told, hey, it's best to not do this.
	And I can't specifically get into what's been done in mediations.
	But for three years, it's been point blank.
	Come out against the Second Amendment.
	And do all this, we'll leave you alone.
	Then I had Netflix people come here, and the guy was the main producer that made a documentary about George W. Bush.
	And they said, Bush wants to meet with you in Dallas.
	I'm going to go ahead and just say it all.
	I don't care anymore.
	This is four years ago.
	They said, you will lose these cases.
	It's not just the Democrats you're facing, it's us.
	But if you just come work for us, we'll shut all this down.
	So the same group that went after Ken Paxton, literally, and these are off-the-record meetings, but at a certain point...
	It's becoming criminal what they've done, so I'm going to go ahead and talk about it.
	It's all like, yeah, I'll meet with you secretly.
	I'll go to the steakhouse.
	I'll meet with you in the office.
	And at a certain point, they're literally telling me, by the way, you can come work for us.
	Oh, that really sounds wonderful.
	So I don't think listeners and viewers realize the magnitude of most people aren't a Ken Paxton.
	Most people aren't a Donald Trump.
	Most people aren't.
	And I know that Barnes, they tried to put you in jail, federal prosecutors, for supporting your clients.
	Most people, when they're intimidated, roll over.
	Because they don't have the instinct.
	Just like this George Floyd thing.
	We now have the transcripts, the witnesses, four prosecutors testifying.
	Hey, we all got demoted because he didn't break his neck.
	He didn't hurt him.
	He died of fentanyl.
	We don't want to put an innocent guy in jail.
	And they go, this will destroy your career.
	You will do it.
	I mean, think about how big that is.
	The autopsy came out, you know, a year ago.
	But now, I mean, that is a microcosm for me of the cowardice.
	Well, I'm a coward.
	I'm scared of mob rule that Mr. Fry brought up.
	I'm scared of that.
	And that's what they're turning loose.
	And it's so dangerous.
	So...
	Alex, let me ask you.
	So I don't want to ask you a question that you're not allowed answering, but the Infowars entity bankruptcy protection and the recent order basically says...
	You do not get to discharge yourself, even though you'd otherwise be legally entitled.
	Robert, you can flesh this out if I'm getting something wrong.
	You're not entitled to discharge certain actions that were willful and whatever.
	And so they're going to come after not just Infowars, the corporate entities.
	You, for the rest of your life, for the $1.5 billion, unless the courts somehow come in and intervene.
	First of all, what does that feel like?
	I mean, it's one thing to have energy to keep going, and it's one thing to have a bad day and keep plugging away.
	How do you...
	How do you even continue operating after something like this?
	Well, if any of my crew can pull it up, if we were able to stream it, just show Toto at the end of Wizard of Oz, and he pulls back the curtain.
	I mean, let me tell you something.
	Barnes actually did my taxes once.
	Don't do a current client privilege.
	They did an audit.
	We actually won the audit.
	We've done great.
	His team did a great job.
	But the point is, is that at the most in my life, I've had like $5 million in the bank and a couple houses.
	I've never been into money.
	I'm wearing like an eight, nine-year-old shirt right now and some tennis shoes.
	So by the time I hit these cases in Texas and Connecticut, I had a couple million.
	I spent it all.
	I'm now about a million dollars upside down.
	So when somebody tells you that you've got a billion and a half dollar debt, a billion, five hundred million dollar debt, it's like saying, we don't want a gallon of your blood, which I couldn't survive.
	We want a thousand gallons.
	It becomes comical.
	It just becomes a giant joke.
	But I realize that's not for me.
	That is for the general public to scare the living hell out of them.
	So you notice they actually asked in court for $2.67 trillion.
	And when I told Patrick Ben-David that a few months ago in studio, he didn't believe it.
	He pulled it up in Bloomberg and literally crapped himself.
	They asked for the GDP of India from somebody.
	By the time they did that, I had less than $2 million.
	Now I'm upside down.
	So I've never been about money or things.
	They're actually annoying.
	And so living in a cabin somewhere sounds great.
	And so what's happened is I'm offered over 20 interviews a day.
	Big ones, small ones, you name it.
	But I'm so focused on my crew and trying to raise money for InfoWars, what we're doing, that I get distracted.
	Quite frankly, they'll see it as a victory if they shut down InfoWars.
	But I can do 10, 15 interviews a day.
	I've got a lot of other offers to do my own show.
	But I get the optics of quitting.
	I'm going to make them destroy this place.
	I'm going to make them run on the ground like the Alamo so everybody gets the example of manhood and heroism and never backing down.
	I'm going to be totally true.
	I'm not going to be Machiavelli and shut down and claim they did it.
	I'm going to make them nail me to the wall.
	I'm going to make them take everything I've got because I trust in God.
	And they're literally cutting children's genitals off.
	They're literally starting World War III.
	They're literally engaged in all these massive crimes.
	So the honor, and I'll just say this for effect against you.
	I mean, I mean it.
	The honor of not being a bad guy and knowing that I'm actually a moral good person that's been lied about.
	And I read it by ancestors and all the amazing things.
	Those are like superheroes.
	The chance to stand with them, Mr. And Mr. Barnes, it is so amazing.
	So they want to demoralize me with the fact they own the courts.
	They want to demoralize me.
	I mean, I'm stepping into Trump territory at a lower level in that I'm just all in.
	It's like a game of chicken.
	Or like you're playing poker and you're just like, I don't know what your hand is.
	I'm just down on this.
	I'm not passing here.
	And so I know I'm in history.
	I know the world's changing.
	And I know it's changing for the worse, and I know that it takes good men and women to stand against it.
	And so that's why I'm so incredibly positive.
	I just hope viewers and listeners realize the historic moment we're in.
	But absolutely, I didn't just believe my lawyers, because I don't do that anymore.
	I had two outside groups look at that ruling, and they said, that happened a few days ago, they said, this is the worst ruling we've ever seen.
	And together, they're like 100 years.
	In law, three different groups.
	And they said, no, it's clearly threats.
	It's clearly control.
	But we already knew that.
	So we're in a tyranny.
	Let's stop lying that we're being assaulted by the Wehrmacht.
	Let's admit we're in it.
	And then I believe in humanity.
	We'll come up from this, because it's not that even the judges are, I think, are bad at the end of the day.
	I think in the Texas and Connecticut state cases, they were cheerleaders, made themselves fools.
	But at the end of the day, people have guns to their heads, metaphysically, financially, you name it, to, I mean, they just removed one of the top bankruptcy judges in Texas for being 10 years in a house he bought with the main law firm in cases he decided for, Judge Jones.
	That's why they're doing this.
	That's why they're there because they were put in the system because they're creatures of it.
	And I won't play the dirty baseball of PIs to find out the dirt and then, you know, do the thing.
	I'm going to sit here and be Christ-like and just tell the truth and just go through this knowing an example of my, oh, I guess the word would be stoicness is going to carry the day because all they have is intimidation.
	All they have is lies, and so they're going to go down.
	They're going to be defeated.
	The question is, can they stop World War III and kill us all before we stop them?
	Yeah, I think another category of this who was running as a Democrat, now running as an independent, is Robert Kennedy Jr.
	And it seemed, I mean, whoever it was, that someone that was pretending to be security...
	Attempted to get into one of his speaking events.
	Just like they killed his dad, same trick.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And did it a few blocks away from where his father was killed.
	Notice they love to do it again.
	That'd be like a Mario brother eats a mushroom, double bonus.
	And then it appeared that they had created for this person a sort of almost fake backstory of being a big Trump guy.
	QAnon, and the idea was going to be Trump people go crazy to kill Kennedy.
	As to make sure that any of Kennedy's vote doesn't end up in a Trump vote.
	And that's why I love you because you always get it.
	You make your point on this, I'm going to make mine.
	Because my phones have been loaded with, is Kennedy a traitor?
	It's so obvious, and I hate to even give it away, but listeners need to know this.
	It's so obvious he's turning left to make sure he gets no Trump voters and all Democrat voters because they murdered his father and uncle.
	He's kamikaze-ing for us.
	My problem is I've got to tell the truth.
	I should play along with it and attack him and get all Trump supporters out and support him to make sure he doesn't get any of the votes.
	He's turning hard left with reparations talk and all this to suck everything from the Democrats.
	It is a beautiful kamikaze mission.
	Well, I think it's similar to you and Trump in that the system assumed if we threaten his well-being, don't give him protection.
	He asked for Secret Service protection.
	Everybody who's ever asked for it has got it.
	Secret Service protection came about because of his father's assassination.
	They denied it.
	They're making him spend all kinds of money on his security so he can't spend it on campaigning.
	And then they do what they did in L.A. as...
	Whether it was meant as a threat or to actually...
	As a message.
	Yeah, it was a message.
	Correct.
	But his reaction was, I'm going to double down and go further and deeper in exposing the corruption of the system.
	But that's the question to you, Bob, and to Mr. Fry, to Viva.
	We know all this.
	We're not Machiavellis, but we understand the Machiavellian playbook.
	Machiavelli was not Machiavelli.
	He was exposing the playbook, actually.
	He was mad about it.
	For those that actually read his books, I've read two of them.
	I only wrote three.
	Is that, do we...
	I can't lie to the audience.
	Like, screw Kennedy.
	He's a traitor.
	He's doing it for us.
	So none of the Trump voters vote for him and he gets all the Democrats.
	He's going to turn into this total communist to burn down the people, which he said, the people behind Biden killed my father.
	Don't people believe he has the motive?
	Can't you see it?
	I'm not trying to lionize him, but it's so obvious.
	And then I feel dirty that I'm being honest and actually saying what he's doing.
	And I don't get how some of the audience can't get it.
	And I think there's going to be massive disinformation campaign efforts.
	I mean, there's been a continuous effort to try to get Kennedy and Trump people to attack one another because they fear the combination of that taking down the corrupt Biden administration.
	Now we see the same thing in terms of war.
	The Ukraine war turning badly.
	And suddenly we have this Hamas attack that justifies...
	Completely obvious.
	CIA is on Hamas.
	Okay, so now, when I was on your channel, It was last week or the week before, and you mentioned something about the proximity of helicopters and tanks.
	I was on a list, Alex.
	I don't know if you saw this.
	I was on the Jew list.
	Who was on it?
	Dave Rubin was on it.
	They put Mike Cernovich on it.
	Cernovich, Rutkowski, whatever.
	Occasionally, I'm on it.
	Well, occasionally, I'm told Alex.
	I don't even know if you are Jewish.
	According to the Nazis, I am too.
	Well, because there's the old expression, you don't have to be a Jew to be Jewish.
	But no matter how much you're skeptical, criticized, whatever, no matter how much bacon you eat, you'll never be not a Jew to those who want to see you as a Jew.
	And in as much as I'm...
	I'm sympathetic and understanding to Palestinian plight, and I'm skeptical as to this official narrative, which we'll find out in due time.
	It'll take years to find out what happened.
	When I was on your channel, I said, I still don't understand how it occurred, how it lasted, the duration that it lasted, how it occurred on the scope that it occurred, and I'm not anybody other than someone who just doesn't trust anybody.
	And then you said something along the lines of there were helicopters within 10 minutes, tanks, et cetera.
	What is your understanding subject to being wrong?
	What's your understanding of what you think went wrong or where the weaknesses in security were or what the alternative narrative might be to how this occurred on the scale it did for the Well, number one, the Jewish state of Israel is not monolithic.
	And there's a civil war against Netanyahu with his judicial reforms.
	And it gives me a headache.
	I'm actually politically trying to be informed, but the...
	Trying to study, like, British politics or German or Canadian with all the parties gives me a headache.
	But I know there's a big fight in Israel.
	I know Netanyahu's in trouble.
	And I know they've got some of the best security in the world.
	And I know for seven hours they stood down.
	And you had retired generals driving in their cars from Tel Aviv down to try to save their families.
	So either Israel was in such a great civil war, they were so disheveled and so...
	Badly coordinated.
	And then why did Hamas know that was happening to launch the attack?
	How did Hamas, according to Israeli newspapers that have the video of a surveillance inside the Shin Bet and Mossad bases there in southern Israel, that when the jihadis, the Hamas, went in, they had maps of where the safe houses were, where the hidden rooms were, and went and killed the few people that were there.
	So I think it's overwhelmingly clear the Egyptians warned, the U.S. warned, Israel knew this was coming.
	And Netanyahu, I'm speculating, probably said, well, they're against me.
	I've warned of this.
	So I'll just sit here and drink lemonade while this goes down.
	I can't prove that.
	But Israel has over 200 attack helicopters.
	I've looked at the map.
	From the north of Israel is 30 minutes of the helicopter.
	From major helicopter bases, it's less than 10 minutes away in the south.
	We're talking Apache helicopters, Cobra helicopters.
	Israel has its own helicopters.
	It's augmented.
	Five of those would have taken that stuff out.
	So the fact that they let this Islamist rampage and do all this for all these hours, I think is a very clear thing.
	And I just call it like I see it.
	Separately, clearly, Hamas launched the missiles from the cemetery over the hospital.
	One fell.
	It blew up.
	It leaves a six-inch crater.
	The hospital wasn't hit.
	That's a lie.
	So then the anti-Israel lobby says, I'm working for them.
	My job's easy.
	I just look at the facts, and I cover it.
	Looks like an Israeli stand-down.
	You know, was it fully intentional or because they're in a civil war?
	I don't know.
	Clearly, Israel didn't deny they blew up a couple of mosques in an Orthodox church the last three days.
	They said, "Yeah, our missiles missed." They were shooting missiles from 100 yards away.
	Our bomb missed and blew it up.
	I'm not defending any of that.
	I hate the death.
	I hate the carnage.
	But they're trying to reduce this down to this mindlessness.
	Are you for Israel or for the Muslims?
	While the left is embracing and Harvard and BlackRock is embracing radical Islam, while our borders are open, while AOC says bring a million refugees in, there's different issues here and different things to look at.
	But we know Biden sent $6 billion five weeks ago to Iran, who gave it to Hezbollah, they gave it to Hamas.
	They bragged about it.
	We know they gave $87 million in Afghanistan a year and a half ago.
	So war is the health of the state.
	And so for the big corporations sitting back with dollar realignments and all this, they need big wars to distract from the last field war.
	So the WF has bragged a bunch of their spokespersons.
	We had COVID to grab power.
	That didn't work.
	Now we've got climate change.
	That didn't work.
	Next, we're going to do water and war.
	And I said like a month ago, I said, look for attacks on Israel because they signal it.
	And so there's more powerful.
	Groups above this that know Iran gets more powerful out of this.
	Israel's leadership is more powerful.
	Hezbollah will get more funding.
	All of them do because war is a health of state, and this is a sick situation.
	So, I mean, that's where I'm at, but I'm really concerned about the millions of military-age men in Europe and the hundreds of thousands in Canada and the United States from Hezbollah, from Hamas, that are real and are ready to be activated.
	And then when they blow stuff up and kill people, Biden will use that to suspend the election, or Biden will use that for a major crackdown, and I think that's really the next shoe to drop.
	The interesting thing about a lot of the so-called MAGA list of being on domestic terror list, etc., is it reminds me a lot of...
	The early 1990s.
	And then people forget, you know, after the Cold War collapse, they no longer had that rationale for interference around the world, for massive military-industrial complex budgets.
	And so it was the FBI that came up with Operation Patcon, where we're going to shift our threat to a domestic threat.
	And then it went to a foreign Islamic threat.
	We're going to make those our two next great threats that justify limiting peace and freedom globally, limiting your privacy rights domestically.
	It seems like we're—and Biden was a critical part of that.
	He wanted to do Patriot Act II when he was in the Senate.
	Garland, of course, was right at Oklahoma City.
	We had a lot of the same key personnel, Jake Sullivan, all these people go back to the Clinton administration, early 90s, when the beginnings of be scared of your neighbor, because maybe they're secret militia that want to overthrow the government, and be scared of radical Islam, which exists, but was partially created, curated.
	And benefited and protected it.
	Yeah, I mean, it exists.
	And then you bring it in and incubate it.
	Whatever the big banks want is done on the colleges.
	So all this kill the Jews, blow up America, white people are the devil thing, that's corporate sponsored, just like Anheuser-Busch and Dylan Mulvaney.
	So exactly.
	We're not saying radicalism doesn't exist.
	Why are you bringing it here and transplanting it here?
	Oh, exactly.
	And then, I mean, you see some of the, I mean, some people are surprised at what was going on in Dearborn, Michigan, but if you followed the ideology that has been planted within that community, it is a radical, I mean, the Palestinian cause has unfortunately been dedicated to eradicating the existence of Israel forever, and now it's been extended into Europe.
	We're seeing these, and here in the United States, and people were shocked that our so-called top Harvard law students.
	We're the ones doing it.
	But it was Harvard and Ivy League graduates who were throwing Molotov cocktails in New York City in the police cars.
	They get off soft while people like Owen Schroyer are going to a federal prison in New Zealand.
	No, you're right.
	You're right.
	Black Lives Matter and billions destroyed and dozens killed.
	That was a dress rehearsal.
	And so Islam has been brought in, particularly leftist version of it.
	As a detonator to bring down civilization, I totally agree.
	And the question is, is Biden and his controllers dumb enough to try it?
	Because I think Mr. Fry and Mr. Barnes, I think people are seeing through it.
	Well, I think you're seeing that.
	And the rallying to Trump.
	And you kind of see it.
	In an example, if you were the template for censorship, you were the template for weaponized legal systems that eradicate constitutional rights, to your audience, Both your reaction and your audience's reaction is a template for how Trump's people are responding to how other populist sources of resistance are responding, which is the main thing they've underestimated, is the American people.
	It's like, let them eat cake.
	I keep saying our elites are like the let them eat cake world.
	In other words, people who don't understand.
	Exactly.
	They don't understand the people they're trying to oppress.
	Like, they thought...
	Most people would react, like if someone was in Trump's position, would fold, capitulate, quit running for office, shut their mouth, go home, and then nothing bad happens to them.
	Most people in your situation would say, okay, I'll do whatever you want, I'll shut up, I'll go home, I'll quit, I'll shut down, won't do it.
	You didn't.
	Most audiences would be intimidated.
	By what took place.
	Your audience wasn't Trump.
	The audience is rallying to him.
	The American people are seeing through this at a level that we've never seen since the American Revolution.
	Well, that's right.
	And Viva, you were trying to say something?
	I was just going to say that Barnes, you're a lot more optimistic than me.
	But Alex, I was going to say also earlier, they're not trying to Donald Trump, Alex Jones.
	They're trying to Alex Jones, Donald Trump.
	So you're not the...
	You're the new groundwork for what they're doing to Donald Trump in that they deprived you in the court proceedings of meaningful defenses.
	And anybody can call me an AJ cheerleader.
	I don't care.
	I saw it with my own eyes.
	No, you said on my show earlier this week they're going to move to default him for, quote, violating the gag order.
	They're now saying that tonight.
	I don't know if you saw that.
	They're saying, will Trump be defaulted for violating rules?
	It's a...
	Can I swear on our own show?
	It's a fucking joke.
	I'm sorry.
	It is.
	They give him a $5,000 fine.
	This is Judge Angeron.
	And it says the next step is going to be sanctions.
	And that's going to be...
	The next stepping stool for Judge Chutkin.
	I don't know.
	I'm still sort of confused as to why she suspended her own gag order while at Penn's Appeal, but whatever.
	They're going to try to default him out of it.
	And you are not the lesser of the pawns here.
	You are the predecessor to lay the groundwork for this.
	They're going to default him out of any form of meaningful defense so they can then, convicted by default, and then sentence him by trial.
	So that was just going back to a point from before, but Alex, what we're seeing now in Dearborn, Dearborn is in Michigan, but the most recent incident is out of Samantha Wohl, Detroit.
	Sorry, Detroit is in...
	It's nearby Dearborn, yeah.
	Yeah, so this is a rabbi activist.
	Yeah, she got stabbed to death.
	And now if I can bring it up, let me bring it up.
	They're allegedly saying...
	Trust the news, people.
	That it's no evidence to suggest anti-Semitic hate.
	I'm not interested in the anti-Semitic part of this, because that word does get thrown around.
	The political aspect of the violence.
	Alex, have you talked about this yet on your show, or have you looked into this yet as to whether or not it's politically motivated?
	Well, and the other aspect is, we've talked about this before.
	But how much this is like late 60s, early 70s, right?
	When the left started to align with the Islamic cause, when it started to align with terror, you know, you had all the weather underground in the United States.
	You had the Puerto Rican group that went and shot up the Capitol.
	You had Puerto Rican robbers.
	You had the so-called Black Panthers that became just a criminal drug operation and a money laundering operation that we've now seen with BLM on just an escalated, accelerated scale.
	We're seeing a repetition of history in certain ways.
	And the only thing that has ever been the best answer to that, aside from awareness and alertness, has been the old American revolutionary response, which is to reassert the human conscience.
	There's no better resistance to inhumanity than humanity.
	And you've been a key voice for that.
	But how much are you seeing historical parallels in what we're witnessing in live time?
	Well, I mean, I think you both said it.
	The globalists are making their move, and they're not in full control.
	They can just give orders to their radical groups, have the Justice Department persecute American patriots, try to fund all these violent organizations, and think that enough hysteria makes the public then ask for more control.
	So we should all be asking, because I know that Steve Bannon said this, you've said this, Jack Mosubin said this, Mr. Fry has said this.
	Clearly...
	They know Biden can't go on much longer.
	They want to replace him with somebody.
	They want a big enough war, a big enough collapse, a big enough event where people are so scared we just shut up and let them rearrange the deck chairs and the Titanic.
	But then Biden himself, with his wife, still want to be in power.
	So he's not a total puppet.
	He's been a puppet, but an unknowing puppet.
	So I'm really concerned about what new crises they're going to pull.
	Because we're in the hour of crisis.
	We're in the hour to pull out all the stops.
	I'm worried about big false flags to blame Trump supporters.
	Like you said, killing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a Trump supporter.
	I'm worried about Biden getting assassinated.
	That gets rid of him, makes him a martyr.
	But at the same time...
	Alex, wouldn't they just, not to get too conspiratorial, Biden's 81 years old.
	Every day that he lives is an extra day of his life that he, you know, he's an old man.
	He could just die in his sleep.
	I mean, he looks like a rubber mask.
	A rubber mask with ball sacks on his chin.
	I mean, I don't want to, this is, there's no fear hiding a wish here.
	81, you could go at any time.
	Like, does the CIA not have heart attack guns?
	Well, I think the problem they have is...
	Who replaces him?
	The first person to ever raise the question of Joe Biden's declining health was you, Alex.
	Remember that?
	That's what got you banned from Instagram.
	Well, you pointed out something's wrong here, that if you'd followed Biden over his career...
	Well, that was the second ban in 2018 when he was getting ready to announce it had already been banned, and then Zuckerberg put out a list of people, 12 people, Louis Farrakhan, me, a few others, Gavin McGinnis, Paul Watson.
	But they said, you're allowed to call for violence against these 12 people, and they gave the reasons.
	Jones claims Biden's had another stroke.
	I said, looks like he's had a stroke, because he was still able to talk a month before, suddenly he couldn't talk.
	He had already multiple strokes.
	I said, that's fair to say, looks like he's had another stroke.
	They said, this is a violent, dangerous person, was the name of the group, and you're allowed to organize or call for violence against him.
	And so, yeah, we were the first, at least on the map.
	I think everybody was saying it to say Biden's out of his mind.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And I mean, I think the problem they have is the system is so atrophied that they don't have anybody credible to step in the gap.
	Kamala Harris is more hated.
	Gavin Newsom is more hated.
	They're all more disliked amongst blue-collar middle Americans.
	The Democratic Party has eviscerated any independent...
	Yeah, Bob, let me get your take on that.
	We know with mail-in ballots, they stole the election from Trump, but also keeping stories out of the news and suppressing voters.
	Professor Epstein's exposed that.
	It's all out there.
	But I mean, I used to get every 20th person hated me.
	It's been a year, like three people have yelled at me in the streets, and I see the numbers.
	I mean, I know all these former liberals that are awake now.
	There's been a complete...
	Political realignment.
	It doesn't mean they think the Republicans are the answer either, but Americans are done.
	It's same in Europe, same in Argentina.
	So they indict Javier Milley.
	I mean, this is a major political realignment.
	The fourth turning is going against them.
	And so now they want to start a nuclear war with China and Russia.
	I mean, I just want to take the keys away from the globalists because I don't want to put them in prison.
	I want to give them go to an island like...
	Like Napoleon.
	But somebody needs to take the keys away from Grandma.
	Well, I'd say they can go to an island like Epstein.
	But, Alex, this might be...
	How do they fracture the remaining unification against the globalists, in quote?
	Race war.
	Everybody...
	Say it again?
	George Floyd 2.0.
	Yeah, race war.
	Jew versus Muslim.
	You have to use the answer to your question.
	And I think you identify one of the key ones.
	They want Trump supporters and Kennedy supporters to attack one another.
	That's why I tell people not to take that bait.
	Ultimately, Kennedy's presence is good for the populist cause for a wide range of reasons.
	But he's obviously moving way left to suck votes from Biden.
	Sorry.
	Viva, I interrupt you.
	Go ahead.
	No, no.
	I was going to say, what are they going to do?
	They want to create friction, not amongst RFK voters and Trump.
	That's an easy sell.
	Trump supporters.
	And to me, I've seen what happened since the conflict in the Middle East has broken out.
	It's caused fractions or factions among people who were aligned for the last three or four years.
	And then I question the big players who are involved in what I believe is fomenting this strife.
	And they're making out like bandits while everyone...
	No, I totally agree.
	I totally agree.
	So I want to say to conservatives...
	That are sick of being lectured by the Israel lobby and the leftist Israel lobby who don't like any foreign interference.
	I get it.
	Israel's not perfect.
	But this is a distraction.
	The leftist ally with millions of Muslims they brought in.
	The universities is one of the dominant forces.
	So it's not choose a side.
	It's realized the Democrats are behind this Islamic push.
	And so any distraction that, oh, Trump's pro-Israel, we can't support him, is a joke.
	Oh, completely.
	When you look at what's happening for Trump, it looks like the more Trump runs to the populist side of the equation, the better his numbers get.
	And his willingness to expose the lawfare for what it is, to not be intimidated by it, to stand up to it, to second-guess it, to question it, to advance the anti-war agenda globally, that with Trump we had peace abroad, prosperity at home.
	Biden wore broad poverty at home, and that that's a resonant message to where even in polls that have been biased against him for years are saying he's going to win.
	That even the Democrats' polls show he's going to win.
	Media's polls show he's going to win.
	I mean, Democrat polls, he's 10, 20 points ahead.
	I mean, this is historic leads.
	No question about it.
	And when you look at, I think their only strategy is...
	Just get a fast-track trial, use the legal system to try to shut him up and silence him.
	But when they put him on jumpsuits on MSNBC, it makes people love him more.
	But Alex, also not to be the negative ninny here, the Debbie Downer, Trump is also, what is he, 76 or 78 now?
	I think 77. But he doesn't look...
	He's always had like super ridiculous energy and he just doesn't look that old.
	But this is the doom pill Viva talking.
	He's 77. I mean, Lord knows what happens any given day of the week.
	If Trump is not available for the ballot for one reason or the other, Alex, who replaces him?
	You know, I think as a war game what you say is very honest because...
	They can poison Trump.
	That's why he orders 100 McDonald's and then randomly grabs the bag he wants.
	I was told that like eight years ago, seven years ago, and I've confirmed now, and it's admitted that he's smart.
	Like, oh, he's paranoid.
	They're going to poison him.
	No, they've already tried.
	That's why they'll send like five aides out to get, you know, he goes, oh, this food's all free for you, and he grabs a bag randomly.
	I mean, he really knows what he's doing.
	You know, I mean, I'll be completely honest with you.
	I think that...
	I mean, I think that I've thought about this a lot.
	I don't think anybody can step into Trump's shoes.
	And I don't think anybody would want to.
	I mean, look at Rand Paul.
	He's already been shot at, his ribs broken, attacked.
	He doesn't have the incredible energy and also...
	The stamina.
	Let me load the question.
	Can, hypothetically, I like Ron DeSantis.
	If Trump is out for one reason or the other, hook, crook, or whatever, I can't even say the word.
	Vivek, I know people have criticism against Vivek, and I don't know what your position is on Vivek.
	Could he be the substitute?
	Because we only have Haley DeSantis, Mike Pence, Vivek, Asa Hutchison, who else?
	Robert, what's the matter?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's a great question.
	No one has the charisma of Trump.
	It was the word I was looking for.
	It was driving me crazy.
	I think Vivek Ramaswani, who was just here last week and interviewed me, and it's going to air this week, or next week.
	Well, I guess the week's starting.
	It'll air this week.
	He really knows his stuff.
	He's dynamic.
	I liked DeSantis when he was advising himself before he got advised by Jeb Bush and went down the primrose path.
	So I think DeSantis...
	You know, overall, is a good guy.
	I hate seeing him destroy himself.
	I think he's damaged himself.
	Nikki Haley is an absolute demon, like Hillary Clinton.
	I like RFK Jr., but they're so scared of him they're going to put bullets in him.
	He's not going to get either nomination.
	He knows that now, so he's kamikazzing the Democrats by going hard left.
	People should be smart enough to get that.
	And, you know, attack him and make sure, you know, under-informed Trump voters.
	Not all of them, but a small part.
	We'll go ahead and, I guess, attack Kennedy so they understand don't vote for him.
	But Kennedy's making those moves so that we don't support him.
	I mean, Barnes, who do you think we should support?
	I mean, if they kill Trump or if he has a stroke and is brain dead.
	Well, I think one utility to Kennedy being on the ballot as an independent is it provides some degree of insurance for Trump.
	Because they don't want Trump voters to flock to Kennedy because then Deep State has the same problem that they have with Trump.
	But right now, one of the weaknesses is we're seeing it in the House.
	We're seeing it across the country.
	As you were mentioning earlier, there aren't enough Ken Paxton's.
	That most are Bushite-type Republicans.
	Most of the Democrats are hopeless causes.
	And that we don't have people really...
	We have a few up-and-comers that have potential down the road.
	J.D. Vance, Carrie Lake in Arizona, that they went to great lengths to steal that governor's election from her because they understood the kind of...
	Because she does have that kind of rare charisma you don't see.
	That's right.
	I was kind of babbling when Viva Frye asked me because...
	That really is the big question.
	I mean, obviously, a Tucker Carlson could run.
	He has that rare Trumpian spark.
	The problem is, I know Tucker well, just spent a lot of time with him.
	He'll never do it.
	Why would he do that?
	He literally hates power and hates the establishment and hates Washington with an unbelievable...
	I mean, the guy is literally Fred Flintstone out in the countryside.
	So, yeah, there really is nobody.
	That's ready.
	I mean, Ken Paxson's a great guy, but has no charisma.
	He has a lot of courage, a great guy, supporting for vice president or a senator or, you know, the attorney general of the United States.
	So who is there?
	I mean, really, really, I'll go back to both of you.
	Who is there to replace Trump?
	Because we shouldn't be naive, folks.
	Trump's not God.
	He's not Godzilla.
	He's not invincible.
	So I was kind of stuttering to that question because that's the big horror I have.
	No, well, Trump might be the symptom of the problem and not necessarily the cure to it in and of himself.
	But then the question is, like, who?
	Ron DeSantis?
	He's also got a young family, highly not extortable, but threatable.
	I mean, he could be susceptible to threats.
	And then you got Vivek, and I asked him indirectly, you know, you got two young kids.
	They're not yet of the political age, so they don't know how his father's getting lambasted in the media.
	But he's certainly susceptible to threats and intimidation of a meaningful level.
	And then the flip side is you can't have someone who has no kids because they got no future in this.
	And then they can make whatever decisions they want.
	And it has no impact on them or their family.
	What about Josh Howley?
	He's okay, but he's kind of mid-tier.
	He occasionally gets caught up in the anti-China stuff without it being balanced.
	What about Elon Musk?
	I guess he's not natural born.
	He cannot run, right?
	What do you think of Musk?
	I go back and forth on Musk.
	I think there's a part of Musk that's sincerely free speech oriented.
	Let me give you the inside baseball, Barnes.
	We haven't met in a while privately.
	Come to town.
	I'll buy you both a steak.
	You're welcome next week in studio.
	You want to get a little down?
	I don't know how much time you have.
	Let's keep going, Alex.
	What do you got?
	All right.
	I'm not here to endorse Musk.
	I'm not his apologist.
	I'm not paid by him.
	He still doesn't want me back on Twitter because there's so much demonization against me.
	If he did that, he barely is surviving right now with Tesla and with Twitter.
	They're really trying to shut him down.
	So I get why he hasn't brought me back on.
	It doesn't mean I agree with him, but I've talked to people that know him very closely.
	They say he is flamethrowing angry.
	They're trying to cut his firstborn son's genitals off right now that says he's a girl.
	His brother almost died from the shot.
	A bunch of his crew got sick from it.
	I think legitimately Elon Musk is signaling to the world that he believes in population, he believes in humanity, he believes in human expansion, and he's dog-whistling us very openly, like a fire alarm going off, that he wants us to get behind him.
	I think, you know, Musk overall has really made the right choice, and that's why they're coming after it.
	I mean, there's definitely aspects of it, and you're right.
	One key difference he's always had is he's been a population expansion guy, not a population control guy.
	Obviously, his own personal life has kind of reflected that, but his political and public life has been similarly aligned.
	That's right.
	Almost none of the European Union leaders.
	I think out of like 32 have children.
	He has like eight children.
	You know, yeah.
	You don't have children.
	If you don't have faith.
	And then want to exterminate humanity.
	Right, right, right.
	That makes sense.
	Who else?
	I mean, not just politically.
	I mean, is there anybody else that's a good guy?
	I mean, is there anybody else that are a good woman?
	Well, I think domestically in the U.S., those are yet to appear outside of, you know, I think J.D. Vance has hope.
	I think Carrie Lake offers hope.
	But, Robert, that's in anticipation of getting past 2024.
	It's 2024 at this point in time.
	It's either Trump or Kennedy or nobody at 2024.
	Let me ask you both this in closing, and I'll say as long as you want, if you've got to go, I'll go too.
	And I want to do a plug here, because the enemy's trying to shut us down.
	Plus, we've got great stuff to keep us on air, and people need it.
	Trump is amazing.
	He's got problems.
	He went along with the shot.
	That's all backstory now.
	The fact that he is part of Destiny now and is not backing down has really rattled these prosecutors.
	And as they see his numbers only go up, they thought they'd go down.
	What are they going to do as they come up against this immovable force?
	Robert, you'll get the better part of the answer because you're going to have the better part of the answer.
	Alex, I'm going to say this.
	He has not yet addressed his biggest weakness, which was supporting, promoting the Operation Warp Speed jab.
	He's got easy outs in the sense that it was only supposed to have a limited function for old and vulnerable, yada, yada, yada.
	He can also say, we've had new information now that I've recently been disclosed because it was being hidden from me, much like the number of troops in Syria, and now I want to hold everyone accountable because he has to answer for it.
	Period.
	One way or the other.
	If it's not on Tucker Carlson and if it's not on Megyn Kelly, he's going to have to answer for it.
	He's got an easy out in terms of saying, now I have new information and I've changed my own perspective of my own signature vaccine.
	And he has to.
	Period.
	Because, look, I only took two and I'm done and I'm pissed.
	Nothing happened to me, but I can tell you that I know more people who have died and been injured by the jab than by the Rona.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Hands down.
	Robert, how does he get out of it?
	Well, I mean, I think Trump doing what Alex did is the template.
	And what he's done so far, which is Trump has been unafraid, unmitigated, unwilling to change his course in any direction, no matter how much they attack him, demonize him, try to imprison him, try to bankrupt him.
	And that is rallying.
	The American people to his cause.
	So if he stays on a populist message that is reinforced by that action, then he's best situated to succeed and he's on pace to win in 2024 and make a much bigger difference than he was able to in his first term with a much bigger, broader mandate than honestly.
	By the way, I want to invite you.
	We'll skip the breaks and everything for a couple hours this week.
	You guys pick the day because I want a war game with you.
	I respect your view on What Trump could do once he got in and all these cases and the timing of it.
	But Barnes, I mean, it looks like they're running out of time.
	It looks like it's only going to supercharge him these court cases and make him the centerpiece and that he's going to win the nomination.
	He's got 70% of the field right now in the Republican nomination.
	He's 20 points ahead of Biden.
	I mean, it looks, what are they going to do?
	I think as Tucker Carlson said, the only thing on the left of the continuum is to put a bullet in his ass.
	What do you think?
	I think because of the assassinations of the 60s, they're afraid to go that path.
	They didn't expect the backlash they got in the 70s that led to the MKUltra Committee.
	I mean, the whole Frank Church Committee happened because those assassinations happened.
	And that's how all the bad acts of the CIA got exposed, the FBI got exposed, go and tell pro.
	Exactly.
	It's totally blown up in their face.
	So take Israel.
	I don't like Hamas.
	I don't like the Islamic Jihad.
	I don't like the millions of radical Muslims here, and I'm against that.
	But I'm not an enemy of Israel either.
	But I think Netanyahu and all of them thought, we'll just go in and blow them up.
	But they see the giant pushback, so they've held off their offensive.
	I think we're not in the same game we were already in.
	And so I'll say you brought the bankruptcy.
	We can appeal in federal court for years.
	We're appealing the civil courts.
	They want me to just think they've beaten me with all these false rulings.
	I'm going to make them shut this down, even though I've got escape shuttles ready, fueled, ready, whole other operations.
	I mean, I'm not going to say it on air yet, but if people can imagine the worst-case scenario, it's been offered to me right now against the enemy.
	But I'm loyal to my crew.
	Things aren't quite ready yet, and we know there'll be a whole new world soon.
	But, I mean, can you imagine?
	Just imagine.
	The worst case scenario for Alex Jones against the enemy, that stuff's already there.
	Because they've radicalized.
	Go ahead.
	I was going to say, they would have droned you a few years ago under Hillary.
	Not under Hillary, but under her power.
	But Alex, when you say Trump, he's got the spotlight, he's got the speaker, and that's where I get doom-pilled in that, you know how you take that speaker away?
	I don't want to say it, but World War III.
	I mean, that's how you make Trump's trial.
	No, I agree.
	No, I totally agree.
	World War, which we're already in, but expanded war, is the dish.
	It's the only card they've got left.
	And I hope people in the power structure, like there were a bunch of Nazis who were bad people like Erwin Rommel and the rest of them in 1943.
	They knew Germany would lose within two years.
	If you look at the reports they put out, they said, we believe by this date we'll collapse.
	They actually nailed the date about a week late.
	They said, we think Germany will fall by this date in 1945.
	Those reports came out in the Nuremberg trial.
	They literally predicted when the German army would collapse the next year and a half, when the Russians would come in, what was going to happen.
	And so they tried to kill Hitler.
	So they had one guy they could kill, and it would have stopped World War II and saved tens of millions of lives.
	They were unable to do it.
	We don't have the luxury, and I'm not calling for this, I'm saying hypothetically, wargaming it, of one guy.
	Because Hitler actually ran Germany.
	So you could kill Adolf Hitler, and it would have all stopped.
	We have a bureaucracy of crazy lawyers and bureaucrats and foundations and the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, that are so used to winning and so divorced from reality, they're going all the way starting nuclear war.
	And so that really is the wild card.
	Before they give up their hegemony, will they destroy the world?
	I believe sanity will prevail in the end, but that's why we need shows like this.
	To get the word out.
	You know, there's been an internet saying that's been said a thousand times.
	No one knows who said it.
	If the situation was hopeless, the propaganda would not be necessary.
	We have the ear of the public.
	We have the initiative.
	We have the common sense.
	But we've got to press the attack and viewers have to promote this show and share it like their lives depend on it because it does.
	Alex, Robert, I think we're going to do our after show on Locals After This, but we'll give Alex...
	Before we do it, go for it.
	The lawyers came out and said it in Connecticut.
	They said their goal was to scare your audience into no longer supporting you.
	They said, don't go to Infowarsstore.com, don't buy any of the products, don't continue to patronize them.
	Even if you like the products, even if you want the products, even if they make you healthier, wealthier, and wiser, don't do it!
	Because we're going to take it all in the end.
	And Mars, before you end, let me just do the plug because I'm literally, as you know, we're maxed out.
	If we just have funds, we can keep fighting, which they want to make us give up.
	It's only the audience that can decide whether they're going to shut off InfoWars and they should support you as well.
	So we had the first book, which is number one.
	If people hadn't bought this last year, we'd be off air right now.
	The Great Reset, The War for the World, part two is twice as thick.
	200 extra pages.
	The Great Awakening.
	Defeating the Globalists and launching the next great renaissance.
	It's on Amazon.com.
	The best place to get it, signed or unsigned, is InfoWarshow.com.
	And Barnes and Mr. Fry, we're going to send you both a bottle of this.
	This is the first run.
	I want to show TV viewers this so we can switch the overhead shot.
	Yeah, hold on.
	Let me see.
	I'm going to bring you up like this.
	No, not me.
	There.
	Here you go.
	This right here.
	Overhead shot to the crew.
	Can we go over and shout the crew in there?
	I guess nobody's...
	It's 8-10 on a Sunday night, Alex.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	If you look...
	Greg, punch me up.
	If you look at this bottle, I'll do it here on TV.
	If you look at this bottle here, ladies and gentlemen, it's thus to tyrants...
	It's got all these secret messages on it.
	Just the bottle itself is going to be a major collector's item.
	It's got the conspiracy imperatives.
	You can't get it at infowarsstore.com like the book.
	It's at conspiracybourbon.com and we need the funds to stay on air.
	Plus, it's a delicious Kentucky whiskey, and it keeps the broadcast on air.
	So get this special bottle now, and I want to thank you for keeping us on air.
	It is your funds in this war.
	You know, it was Sam Adams that was one of the main funders of George Washington with whiskey and beer.
	We're doing this.
	It is an amazing whiskey.
	It's got all these secret messages on it under a blacklight.
	So I hope everybody will get their bottle of Conspiracy Bourbon at conspiracybourbon.com.
	And I thank you and salute you both for having me on tonight.
	Alex, thank you for bringing it this way.
	Not this way.
	This way.
	Not this way.
	This way.
	I'm ordering five bottles tonight.
	I got a sneaking suspicion this is going to be a collector's item.
	The only problem is they didn't make enough bottles.
	So yeah, this is how we're funding the revolution right here, folks.
	And I appreciate you.
	Alex, thank you very much.
	Robert and I are going to stay on after this and read some Super Chats and go to locals.
	This is Conspiracy River.
	Dude, I love it.
	And you can't go wrong with alcohol for people who drink alcohol.
	For those who don't, yeah.
	We have to build our own economy.
	Shop with the farmers.
	Shop with the Amish.
	All I'm saying is, this is a war, folks.
	They're using the social credit score, the debanking to shut money down.
	This is a war, and it takes funds to win war, so we're excited about it.
	God bless you.
	All right, Alex, go.
	Enjoy the night.
	Thank you very much.
	Robert, we've made predictions.
	We've made predictions tonight.
	Things are either going to happen or they're not going to happen.
	We'll see.
	We got the Rumble Rants.
	And then on Locals, if you tip at least $5, we'll answer each of those.
	And we've saved one case.
	Exclusive.
	For the Locals audience.
	And that's the Little Wayne.
	Nope.
	Well, I read this one.
	I got questions on this case.
	So hold on.
	I'm going to read through the Rumble rants before we end on Rumble and go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me just do this.
	Let me do this.
	Let me give you the link.
	Go over there.
	In fact, Alex Jones was such a special guest.
	Viva just left off the L. What did I say?
	Did I have a typo?
	I'm living with a typo.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	What did I say?
	Alex David Duke.
	Hey, Alex.
	RFK Jr.
	Reparations' idea for black Americans could take the growing black male vote from Trump opposite of what you believe.
	What's he say, Robert?
	I haven't seen his...
	I'm not worried about that at all.
	I think people are taking the bait on wanting Kennedy and Trump people to attack one another in the hopes that it destabilizes the populist opposition to the current administration.
	And there's no reason to take that bait.
	None whatsoever.
	Another poll.
	Harvard-Harris out this weekend.
	Kennedy included.
	Kennedy's up to 22% in that poll.
	Kennedy included.
	Trump goes up.
	I've been more accurate than anybody else out there in America in the history of predicting elections.
	And I will back up guarantee the net effect of Kennedy's candidacy helps populism and helps Trump.
	Most importantly...
	He provides, as we were talking about with Alex, ballot insurance.
	Right now, what is the deterrent to remove Trump?
	That you're going to have to remove Kennedy or you get President Kennedy.
	So that's their hurdle.
	It's much harder to take out two people than just one person.
	But even if I may, so hold on, we're still on the screen.
	Okay, we are.
	It says RFK, you know, offering reparations might steal some of the black vote.
	How much of the white vote is it going to turn off?
	You're dealing with different proportions.
	Like, I don't think there's many people, even black voters, who support the idea of reparations.
	Well, Kennedy doesn't support actual monetary reparations.
	Well, and that's the other thing, is I say I still don't believe...
	Anything I read in the media, even their characterization of what they say...
	But the fact that the New York Post saying that meant the Murdoch machine wants there to be conflict between Kennedy and Trump people.
	Because that's the Murdoch machine.
	It was a false story.
	It was an old headline, for one thing.
	It was something discussed, like, six months ago.
	And then secondly, in what was discussed, you read it on the campaign website, and it's simply about...
	It's the same thing as data from 1968.
	It's investing in underserved communities.
	By the way, 80% of which will be white.
	It's about Appalachia.
	It's about any place that is stripped of capital, that is stripped of investment, that is stripped of infrastructure.
	He's going to focus those communities that have been harmed the most over the past half century with targeted, focused effort.
	Which, by the way, Trump supports that.
	Trump has the same program.
	But the fact that the Post ran with the headline, this is reparations, means the Post wants Kennedy and Trump people to be hostile to one another because they see that as more destructive to populism than they see Kennedy's candidacy.
	But by the way, if Rupert Murdoch thought Robert Kennedy hurt Donald Trump, then he would be promoting Robert Kennedy, not attacking Robert Kennedy.
	By the way, hold on.
	Let me bring the window out.
	For people in the chat, they're like, RFK's liberal on the environment.
	He absolutely is.
	He's anti-fracking, all of that.
	It's additional reasons why he's not competitive with actual Trump voters.
	He's competitive with...
	If you put Kennedy and Trump together, it destroys Biden, it provides political ballot insurance and life insurance for Trump, and that will be the net effect.
	And the establishment knows it.
	Otherwise, you wouldn't have Rupert Murdoch trying to put Kennedy and Trump people at each other's throat.
	I mean, Alex figures it.
	I was like, however you play this out, Kennedy's going to help Trump.
	Don't take the bait on getting it.
	Alex gets it.
	How is it other people don't get it?
	He's liberal but not oppressive on the environment.
	Now, I just want to show this because I got this somewhere.
	This is a Hawaiian gin.
	And it's delicious.
	Hawaiian organic.
	You know what I have to do?
	I have to order the bourbon.
	And now bourbonwithbarnes at vivabarneslaw.local.com where you could have got a lot of these answers last week.
	You wanted to stay on the inside.
	Get on the inside intel, the inside information, not only the hush-hushes and the rest.
	I'll have to do those with Conspiracy Bourbon.
	I'm ordering as much as I can have shipped to the House tonight.
	S9 Payne says, what about Byron Donalds?
	That's for the House Speaker.
	What do you say?
	I mean, we all like Byron.
	Robert, what's the House Speaker thing?
	Well, Byron Donalds would be great.
	We have such a bunch of corrupt hacks in the Republican establishment that they would rather completely sandbag the House of Representatives and the Republican Party than allow any kind of...
	Semi-populist in a position of power.
	Now, the problem for those establishment hacks is how do they prevent the black populist Republican from getting Speaker?
	So Donald presents problems for them politically that Jim Jordan did not.
	So hopefully Donald becomes the next Speaker.
	But there's a lot of schmucks and a lot of hacks in there.
	Let me see here.
	I don't know where we stopped.
	Okay, so we got Crash Pro and says, so we know what BJ is.
	What's an AJ?
	We got that.
	Barnes, are you familiar with the Duncan versus Bonta?
	And then we've talked about that many times.
	And the Ninth Circuit taking appeal on Bonk so they can kill it.
	Where's that at now?
	That's the judge who had a...
	District Court judge issued another ruling.
	Same great judge issued another ruling striking down even more of California's gun laws.
	So, you know, sooner or later, that probably ends up in front of SCOTUS as well.
	But great ruling by that judge to enforce the Second Amendment against all the crazy rules.
	That are there.
	Didn't he say it was ConspiracyBourbon.com, right?
	That's what I have.
	Yes, ConspiracyBourbon.com.
	I have it in the backdrop.
	I'll show it again in a bit.
	For those people that want to get it.
	I was going to torture people by eating some of the delicious Amos Miller pumpkin pie live, but I'll save it for after the show.
	We got, notwithstanding any such statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the state of the country, these words were lost in 42 U.S.C.
	1985.
	Qualified immunity.
	Nevada says, for my previous Romo rant, would those missing words from 1871 have any meaning in today's cases?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, immunity has been given to way too many people.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney says...
	$50.
	Thank you very much, Little Rock.
	Alex, I have been watching your new shows on Mug Club.
	I am looking forward to more and more over there.
	I always support whom you support.
	Randy Edwards says government did the same thing with the McMartin abuse trial.
	Ruin the defense's lives because upholding the rule of law would be detrimental to government employees' respective careers circa 1983.
	Suicidal demise of the West.
	The sad truth.
	I watched it.
	Gads going through some difficult times in Canada.
	Gadsad, "Unfortunately, he had no solution." Yeah, well, let's give him hell, Alex.
	That's sad wing raging.
	Did you guys see Vivek on the Young Turks show?
	The listing said something like, I'd love to see it.
	Watch it then.
	Halo says the judges drove the getaway cars in the stolen 2020 election.
	What about Byron Donalds, Alex David Duke, Viva, Glenn Cassie is in the chat threatening to put a bullet in Trump's head and those that support him.
	Well then, hold on one second.
	I'll go look for that in a sec.
	Last minute, Leon says both Alex and the Duran keep calling for an independent investigation into the car park explosion, which the U.S. has apparently blocked.
	The investigation is bound to be another Goldstein.
	Well, I don't even know what to believe yet.
	But I'm still not, I'm not believing anything, but I'm also not tweeting out hyperbolic tweets about what I believe in until I know what the truth is.
	All right, Robert, what do we do?
	Hold on, let me just see one thing here.
	I'm going to go see, so hold on, who was it?
	Glenn Cassie.
	Well, we'll have to see if there's any overt threats in the chat.
	We don't put up with that.
	Robert, we're going to do the tips in VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, correct?
	Yes, that and the Lil Wayne case.
	Okay, let's do this.
	So what we're going to do right now, people, while I look through the chat to make sure everything is legal and copacetic, here's the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	My sciatic is acting up again, but I've been stretching it and flossing it.
	It's been working.
	So we're going to go do the tips.
	One more case.
	I'm getting texts from...
	Seems to be some people who are texting me.
	We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com now.
	So everyone, come over there.
	While I end, while we end on Rumble, thank you all for being here.
	Tomorrow, I'm interviewing Dr. Drew Pinsky.
	In person, noon.
	I think it's noon, but noon-ish.
	In the local studio.
	It's going to be amazing.
	And then, Robert, what's your schedule for next week coming up?
	Busy week, but I was on with the quartering last Friday.
	That was a lot of fun.
	So you can find that on Rumble at the quartering's page.
	Otherwise, I'll just be at vivobarneslaw.locals.com live bourbons each night, usually around 9-ish Eastern Time PM that we'll be doing it.
	But that's about it.
	Otherwise, I have a lot of law work.
	You still have the real job.
	I feel bad for you, Robert.
	We're going to figure something out.
	We're going to have bourbon with Jones in Texas.
	We'll make it happen.
	Everyone, get over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the rest of the stream.
	Ending on Rumble in 5. Thank you all for being here.
	4, 3, 2, 1. Have a good weekend.
	Peace out, people.
	Done.
	Now, let me make sure we're still live.
	6 a.m.
	Hawaiian Standard Time.
	Okay, so hold on.
	I'm reading the chat.
	Now, I'm going to refresh.
	On Rumble and make sure that we have ended the stream, which I think we have.
	Yes, we've done.
	We've done it.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	Okay, now hold on.

▲