Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 6, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:08

Ep. 185: Trump Gag Order; Colorado Ballot; SBF Verdict; 2nd Amendment & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Did not get the vote by voting.
	It is time for deeds and not words.
	It is time to just stop oil.
	Politics is failing us.
	Politics failed women in 1914.
	If millions will die due to new oil and gas licensing.
	Millions!
	If we love history.
	If we love art.
	And if we love our families.
	We must just stop oil!
	This is insanity, by the way, people.
	Institutionalized insanity.
	Just stop oil.
	They don't care about us.
	They don't care about our patrons.
	How dare you!
	I will have a man every year out of politics, a million dollar of money, a suffragette slash this very picture!
	I will have a man every year out of politics, a million dollar of money, a suffragette slash this very picture!
	I support jail time for this.
	We're going to let this finish, by the way.
	Notice they had special tools to break what I presume is protective glass over that, what was it, $125 million or was it $625 million painting?
	These people belong in jail.
	And then they can talk about reducing that time if they seek the appropriate therapy.
	This exhibit is closed.
	By the way, did you notice those things on the ground?
	Look here.
	Hold on one second.
	Look, I'm not much of a sleuth, but I googled orange handle hammer.
	These things are called life hammer.
	You see that little slit right there?
	That's for cutting a seatbelt.
	This hammer is designed to break through windshields so that you can get out of a car.
	And the handle...
	You guessed where I'm going with this.
	The handle's made out of polypropylene?
	Not polyurethane.
	Polypropylene?
	The handle's made out of a derivative of oil.
	These idiots, because they are idiots, and I will dare say...
	Idiots in the clinical sense.
	Who's that?
	Idiots in the clinical sense.
	Protesting oil by smashing the glass of an oil painting while professing if you love art, you'll stop oil.
	Well, at least it was made in the Netherlands.
	I mean, they seem to be made in the Netherlands.
	While using a life hammer, the handle of which is made out of oil-based products.
	Plastics.
	Plastics, Jerry!
	Plastics!
	Oh my goodness, that I made it here only a few seconds late is...
	I mean, that's something of a feat on its own.
	For those of you who don't follow me on Twitter and for those of you who are not part of the vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, that's little Winston who just cost me...
	Oh, get over here.
	He's a little tired now.
	Just cost me a cool $300.
	I swear to you, though, if you get...
	It's actually $275.
	If you get in and out of the vet for under $300, you're having a good day.
	This dog had the nastiest yeast infection.
	Oh, you little bastard.
	The nastiest yeast infection in his ear.
	I don't know where he got it from and how...
	And I'm not good at rubbing his ears out.
	He doesn't let me touch them and I don't like it.
	And I can't stand watching them do it, so I had to take him to the vet.
	They scrubbed his ears out, gave him a needle in that, whatever, and some antibiotics and some antifungal.
	Oh, man.
	And so just like that, I'm $275.
	U.S. dollars.
	That's another problem.
	I'm still converting everything into Canadian in my head.
	We love Winston.
	Yes, we do.
	We love Winston.
	Holy crabapple.
	So we're having our Sunday show on a Monday, and...
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	You know, I didn't miss a day.
	We're streaming on a Monday night and the news doesn't stop.
	Crowder, I'm sure everybody will see what happens with this discussion on YouTube.
	I think everybody on the internet knows about it now because Crowder had 170,000 people watching live as he went over three pages of the leaked manifesto.
	Of the trans shooter in Nashville.
	The manifesto, which has not been disclosed to the public for reasons which might now seem a little bit more obvious.
	And somehow he got a copy of a few pages.
	I don't know if he has the whole thing.
	This is where we're going right now.
	He got a copy of a few of the pages.
	I don't know how he vets that it's accurate.
	He's got sources.
	He apparently did a very thorough due diligence to make sure that it was authentic, legit, what he was reporting on.
	I mean, I've come to the point now where I don't even trust things when I see them with my own eyes, is the level of lacking faith in the accuracy of information online.
	But he ran with the story.
	He got the leak.
	He went over the three pages of the manifesto.
	Yeah, everyone's saying it's legit.
	I mean, I'm not denying it.
	I'm so neurotic that even if I did all, you know, you check the front door five times and then you still worry that it's unlocked when you leave.
	It makes sense why they didn't want to release that manifesto.
	What's amazing is the weaponization of information, the weaponization of the legal system, the justice system, the prosecutorial system, law enforcement.
	When it's...
	Of a certain demographic released the manifesto.
	They released the intentions and call it a hate crime before the investigation is even commenced.
	In this case, my goodness, they refused to release the manifesto.
	Somehow Crowder got it.
	By the way, somehow Crowder might be in a world of trouble right now.
	Let me just see what Post Millennial was just reporting earlier today.
	Where is it?
	Post Millennial right here.
	That, you know, we've seen the weaponization of everything.
	We've seen how FBI will go after Project Veritas for having been given a diary and accused them of theft.
	Apparently, though, they were reporting that they were going to potentially investigate the leak and If I'm Crowder, I mean, he's doing the journalism work that journalists are not doing.
	If I'm Crowder, I might be nervous that the full weaponization of they're going to investigate the leak, demand that he reveal his source, you know, threatened to or jail for not releasing the source during the live stream this morning.
	Crowder was saying, we will protect our sources.
	We will go to jail for our sources.
	To which, I don't know who the AG of Tennessee is or Nashville.
	He says, all right, hold my beer.
	This is from The Post Millennial, and I think it really just came out November 6th.
	Yeah, I mean, I think this was just published moments ago.
	Flashback.
	Trans activists claim trans school shooter Audrey Hale was a victim of transphobia, but manifesto revealed she was fueled by anti-white hate.
	Those crackers going to fancy private schools with those fancy khakis and sports backpacks with their daddy's Mustangs and convertibles.
	So let's just see this.
	On Monday morning, pages from the transgender national school shooter Audrey Hale's manifesto was leaked revealing anti-white hatred and plans to kill those kids.
	Among the three pages released by Stephen Crowder, Hale wrote those crackers.
	Going to fancy schools, we got that.
	Want to kill you little crackers, bunch of little F. words with your white privilege f u f words that's the six letter f word not the four letter f word uh now the question was however whether or not um The crowd is going to get investigated by the Nashville AG.
	Now, I'm looking at the tweet from Jack Posobiec, which says, well, that's not the right tweet.
	Where was the one where he suggested whether or not they would be breaking?
	And, you know, it's breaking news.
	What do I think of the manifesto?
	It's a question as to whether or not you release these manifestos ever.
	And if you release them ever, then you release them always.
	The selective releasing of manifestos is the weaponization of crime.
	When it suits the purpose, you'll release the manifesto, weaponize it politically for all sorts of political ends, political pursuits.
	And when it runs contrary to a narrative that people want to believe, then you don't release the manifesto.
	And you bank on the silence.
	And weaponize the refusal to release it so that nobody can actually know that there's hate crimes going on.
	In as much as all crime is motivated by hate, in as much as we designate some crimes hate crimes, then you have to apply that same litmus test to all crimes that fit the same pattern.
	If you go after someone for their skin color because they're black and you call that a hate crime, well then you have to call something a hate crime when they go after the skin color if it's white.
	This is a question of good for the goose, good for the gander.
	If it's a hate crime to go after someone for their skin color, it's always a hate crime to go after someone for their skin color, even if that's skin color.
	I don't know if you know how you qualify it as the majority when it's not the majority, depending on where you measure it from.
	But you always apply the same standard, or you don't ever apply the standard, but if you apply the standard sometimes here and not other times there, that's called weaponizing everything.
	And that is the lawfare, the political...
	Weaponization of crimes for political purposes and ignoring the hate motivation of certain crimes when it's inconvenient.
	But the idea that this seems to have been a deliberate attack target of white people and Christians and the media covers it up?
	I mean, I hate playing this game because I don't play this game.
	Had it been an attack on a black individual, a black institution, It would have been called a hate crime, and it would have been weaponized by one side of the political aisle for any number of the reasons, and you can make your own checklist, which we've all grown very accustomed to.
	But because it is, in fact, a hate crime, targeting the people who are being vilified for everything, because you remember now, it's Christian extremism that's the biggest threat in America.
	It's white Christian men, biggest threat to America.
	When that's the narrative, and then you have...
	The fact that this person was transgender doesn't make anything easier for the narrative.
	A transgender individual who's going through all sorts of clearly delusional thoughts, have psychological issues.
	Boy, howdy.
	Targeting white Christian children, no less.
	And then it's covered up.
	And now instead of investing, I thought that when I read the headline that they were going to be investigating how it wasn't released, how the manifesto was covered up and suppressed.
	No, they'll go after the truth tellers.
	They'll go after the Crowder for leaking it.
	How'd you get it, Crowder?
	Well, you don't need to have stolen it in order for the FBI to come up to you and say, we think you're in possession of stolen materials.
	They did it to James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas, and they'll do it to anybody who publishes anything that runs contrary to the narrative.
	So that's where we're at with that.
	That was the breaking news of the day.
	Now, hold on one second.
	I gave Barnes the link for sure.
	I was going to start with something that was not...
	Unpleasant.
	Just to share what I did today.
	But let me see if I can...
	Oh, this is what I want to say.
	Well, I was going to start with this just because, you know, a slight change of pace, everybody.
	There's this place in Florida called the Loxahatchee, the Arthur A. Marshall Nature Reserve.
	There's always alligators there.
	So I go to check out the alligators, dangle a GoPro in the water, see what I can capture.
	Look at this.
	It's a bunch of kids in canoe kayaks.
	Sitting there.
	Looking at the children menacingly.
	I don't know.
	Like, I'm not a judgmental person.
	This doesn't seem safe to me.
	Oh, and it disappears under the water.
	I mean, the problem about this place, everyone should go there.
	It's beautiful.
	There's a nature reserve.
	There's a walk.
	The problem with it, it's clear that people who fish there feed the alligators because not only are the alligators not scared of humans, they approach.
	I suspect in the hopes of catching a free meal from any of the people there.
	And so, you know, this thing, it sees movement in the water.
	The alligators approach the humans, and it's terrible.
	There's a sign that says a fed gator is a dead gator.
	But what's quite clear is that people are feeding these gators.
	Okay, so, while Barnes is getting here, let me share the link with Rumble.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble.
	I should have checked that to make sure.
	Oh, have we got a show and a half tonight?
	Here's the link to Rumble.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	We're going to start on YouTube, Rumble, and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Are we live here?
	We're good here, too.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Oh, my God.
	The Trump stuff.
	We've got a lot of stuff on the menu tonight.
	Let me just make sure that Barnes got the link.
	You have the link?
	You have the link.
	And we're going to get with this show.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice.
	No election fornication advice.
	No legal advice.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that and you want to support the channel, you know how the best way to support the channel is?
	And I'll show you.
	I got one myself.
	The best merch on the planet is at vivafry.com.
	There are some issues that I'm noticing sometimes.
	If you order different products, they ship from different locations, and so it's separate shipping for all of them.
	I'm trying to work on it with our guys, so hold tight.
	But if you order the same units, they come from the same place, you don't pay too much for shipping.
	The wanted for president, because Trump testified today in the New York Leticia James persecution.
	Wild.
	I mean, I'm following the guy Klasfeld on Twitter.
	We'll go through some of his tweets.
	It's wild.
	Gonna be wild, as he said about the thing.
	If you go to Viva Fry and you get some merch, and I'll show you, it looks just as good in person as it does on the interwebs.
	Rumble Rants.
	They have the Rumble Rants there.
	I read those as often as I can.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for tons of exclusive stuff.
	Some stuff that is strictly for supporters.
	We love all of our members and community members, but there's some stuff that is exclusive for supporters, but you don't have to support to get a ton of other stuff.
	You can just become a member.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Now, do you give advice on erectile dysfunction?
	Bamboo!
	I haven't seen you in a long time, sir.
	How are you doing?
	Do I give it?
	Hell no!
	I mean, premature, whatever, I can maybe, we can talk about that, but not erectile dysfunction.
	Although that might be a form of, but no, real Bambunga, for those of you, we haven't seen, I haven't seen you around for a long time.
	The real Bambunga always had witty, witty remarks and witty jokes.
	You know what, until Barnes gets here, we're going to, I'm going to start with one thing here.
	We're going to go through the class field.
	Adam Klasfeld.
	Now, Twitter is being a pain in the neck.
	It's not letting me open up an incognito, so I just have to make sure not to reveal my messages, my DMs, my very, very private DMs.
	Klasfeld is live-tweeting the Trump New York Leticia James trial, persecution, kangaroo court show trial, whatever you want to call it.
	It's wild what's going on.
	We're going to get to Leticia James, her tweet of the day, because, you know, Leticia James never misses an opportunity to post her video summarizing what happened during the day.
	Trump testifies today, and they're trying to get Trump, you know, to hold his feet to the fire that he overvalued his assets.
	When I'm tweeting out all of these examples of Klasfeld saying, All of these defenses are not valid defenses.
	It's already been ruled Trump can't raise a number of defenses that he would have otherwise raised to counter the idea that he either fraudulently inflated the value of his assets or that some of the provisions in his agreements explain away how...
	Everybody knew to take these things with a grain of salt type thing.
	When you evaluate your assets, the bank comes in and does their own and you have some boilerplate provisions in there that you can take with more or less seriousness.
	You can add more or less weight to the provisions.
	Okay.
	I want to see every time they say, Trump already said...
	The judge already ruled that he can't raise that defense.
	Let me see here.
	Let's see this here.
	If I go like this...
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Let's start up from the beginning.
	It doesn't seem that the judge likes Trump, doesn't like what he's been saying.
	He seems to be rambling and the judge is like, you can keep talking, I'm just going to draw negative inferences.
	From whatever you're talking about.
	Hold on, let me bring this out here.
	I'm not finding it fast enough.
	I know that I tweeted a couple of them, so let's just bring a couple of them up.
	Here.
	Oh man, add to stage.
	Okay, this is me.
	That's me talking right here.
	Here we go.
	Kai says, oh my goodness.
	So after, there's some fighting with the judge.
	The judge says, no, you can't talk about the worthless provision clause.
	You can't talk about this defense, that defense.
	I've already ruled you don't have grounds for those defenses.
	They're talking about filing a motion to revise the terms of the gag order because now you'll recall that the lawyers have been gagged as well.
	Trump's attorneys make post-trial arguments on motions they may intend to make, such as mistrial motions because they believe that the judge has displayed such bias that there should be a mistrial.
	Or challenging the expansion of the gag order to the lawyers.
	Because the judge says, not only can Trump not say anything targeting my staff, neither can the lawyers.
	The judge Abba came out and delivered a great statement after court today.
	The latter barred Trump's lawyers from making statements about his confidential communications with staff.
	Engron says, I'm 1000% convinced and you don't have any right or reason to complain about my confidential communication.
	Because apparently what's going on...
	Is that the judge is communicating more than he should be or more than is appropriate with his special clerk, the one who took a picture with Chuck Schumer.
	And they're like, they tell him, this is not normal, Your Honor, that you should be going back and forth so much with your clerk.
	We might want to make a motion.
	We'll get to it because I need to ask Robert's opinion on this.
	The judge says, you can't make a motion like that.
	And they say, well, we think we can make a motion like that to revise the gag orders and a motion for mistrial.
	Okay, we're going to get into all this.
	Barnes is in the house.
	Let me just see one thing right here before we bring this in.
	I would pay my left testicle to listen to Barnes and Thomas Sowell just chat while drinking bourbon and smoking cigars.
	You don't have to go quite that extreme.
	We can see if we can make this happen.
	Okay, we got Barnes in the house.
	Let's bring him in.
	Three, two, one.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good.
	Look, I started a little bit with the anger on, but we're going to have to get into this because I've got so many questions.
	Robert, first of all, what's the book you have behind you?
	The Strange Lows of Old England.
	Laws.
	Laws, yes, yes.
	The Strange Laws of Old England.
	It's a good little book about some of the peculiar legal history of our Anglo-American legal tradition.
	And Robert, you look like you're back home.
	How was the travels?
	First of all, how did you like Mar-a-Lago?
	Ah, beautiful place.
	Beautiful place.
	The ballroom was beautiful.
	The whole facility is obviously a gorgeous place.
	Really done it well.
	You go back and look at the history.
	In current dollars, just the cost to build it was over $100 million.
	Less than those dollars in that day.
	But that gives you an idea.
	It has some of the...
	Unique marble, unique roofs, unique materials that went into the building and the design.
	So the idea that it's worth 18 million a day is rather absurd.
	But it's a gorgeous place, gorgeous facility.
	A good event there by Dinesh D'Souza.
	It was good to talk with Devin Nunes, Jeffrey Clark about the...
	I mean, I was handling certain things in jest.
	I was like, you know, it's a great opportunity, all the cases he has to deal with.
	You know, they're trying to disbar him.
	They've already blacklisted him from law firms.
	They're trying to put him in prison now.
	All for writing a memo as a Justice Department official, which is just absurd.
	It sounds like the fundraising has gone pretty decent, has gone well enough.
	People can continue to support Jeffrey Clark at the Give, Send, Go for him.
	Because he's one of the lead lawyers in the Georgia case, and he's having to battle the disbarment.
	He's having to go through some of the things that Professor Eastman is going through in California.
	I thought Police State, highly recommend it.
	You can see it on Rumble or on Locals or order the DVD.
	Got to talk to the director and some other folks while we were there, which was enjoyable.
	Well done, well put together, and credit to D'Souza.
	For his willingness to say, you know, a lot of this goes back, the worst politicization goes back to the, at least the W administration.
	And as he pointed out, you know, he at the time excused the Patriot Act and now he realizes that the critics like Senator Paul, like Ron Paul and others were correct.
	So, you know, credit to him for that, you know, very moving closing to the film.
	So it's worth your time to...
	To see the film, if you get a chance, really some insightful interviews that I have not seen anywhere else, as well as putting it into a coherent narrative framework of understanding how we got here to the degree that we see the insanity we're witnessing in New York.
	Florida Dad actually has a question here.
	Robert, did you catch the November 3rd article, Salon article, about Trump rejecting further input from the Federalist Society?
	Did someone finally listen to you?
	Yeah, well, I mean, I think he's witnessed it.
	You know, he's seen that a lot of the people that have promoted, that, you know, they pushed a lot of judges on him, and he went along with their advice, them and the Heritage Foundation, and a lot of those judges didn't turn out to be what he was promised they would be, because the Federalist Society has good components to it, no doubt, but has compromised components.
	There's people at the top at the Federalist Society.
	Who are aligned with the state, aligned with the Bushites, aligned with the...
	I mean, the Federalist Society pushed Christopher Wray.
	I mean, Wray is probably his number one area where he second guesses the advice that they gave him.
	But I think some judges that they promoted that stood down during the election contest that are not intervening as yet in these insane cases.
	I mean, to such a degree that people like Senator Vance...
	has been calling for the impeachment of the D.C. judge.
	Now he's saying he's going to hold up Justice Department officials being nominated by the Senate until and unless the nonsense of the attacks on Trump stop.
	And so we'll see.
	But a lot of the Federalist Society nominees came from the Bushite corporate statist wing, not from the populist or libertarian wing.
	And that just shown up in decisions that had particular negative consequences for Trump himself.
	So I'm sure that, you know, it's one of the things he's learned as to who he can trust and who he can't is that he tried to work with that group while he was in the White House.
	And it has not worked out to his benefit then or now.
	And we're going to get to this one in a bit.
	There's one other question we're going to get to tonight, which I had to add to the list.
	Did you happen to watch the new Laura Logan exposure of Ray Epps, a new footage and audio saying, I'm here for the insurrection?
	Well, we're going to get there.
	Robert, what's on the menu for the evening?
	And then topics four through eight are all about the Second Amendment.
	In one case, Second Amendment and the First Amendment.
	Which involves the NRA and the First Amendment in New York.
	The Supreme Court's taken that case, and it might have ramifications for the current Trump New York case, amongst others.
	The protective orders, these orders of protection that get issued.
	That's going to be up before the Supreme Court as well, about how Second Amendment rights have been stripped from people.
	Can Congress just unilaterally rule you out of the people that have Second Amendment rights?
	That's the issue.
	It's massive.
	Bumstock case is going to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Open carry is pending before the California courts.
	Public nuisance laws, attacks on gun manufacturers is up before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Then we have a verdict.
	In the SBF case, and who's really responsible for exposing SBF?
	What limits are there on workers' comp?
	When are you stuck with workers' comp for an injury?
	Does it include things like assaults and batteries?
	We have a particular case, which is a very unique case, a six-year-old shooting.
	Does workman's comp involve a teacher getting shot by a six-year-old kid?
	Another example could be, does it cover assault and battery cases related to vaccine injuries?
	That case may have some ramification for that.
	The sports rights monopoly, the National Communist Against Athletes, has been sued again for its attempts to monopolize amateur athletics.
	A big realty fraud case that hasn't really got as much media attention as it could because it could potentially reshape the entire real estate market.
	It's about the commissions that buyers or sellers have to pay for the buyer's agent.
	A verdict that may get up to $5 billion just came out of Kansas City, and that just covers a small portion of the potential damages in those cases and the potential ramifications for the entire economy.
	Berkshire Hathaway was one of the defendants in that case.
	A couple of bonus cases.
	The Connecticut caught with election fraud.
	A rather unique defamation case involving some competing...
	Funeral home morgue operators about whether an ex-employee really did something improper with a sex doll or not, and some other things.
	That's a little fun case.
	And the Connecticut election case gets into all the issues and all the same legal principles that were 2020.
	It just involves a recent application of it in the Bridgeport mayor's context.
	All right, let's start on...
	YouTube before we end on YouTube with just at least one of the Trump cases.
	Hold on, which one do we want to start with?
	We'll start with the guy.
	Let's start with New York, Robert.
	All right, so first of all, this is a civil suit for alleged fraud defrauding the citizens of New York.
	They've compelled, I don't know what lengths they went to to try to quash the subpoenas, but last week you had Eric Dawn Jr.
	Ivanka is going to testify on Wednesday.
	Compulsion of the kids to testify.
	First of all, I don't understand how they can compel them and not quash the subpoenas, at least for Ivanka, who was dropped as a defendant.
	Is it a perjury trap?
	They've compelled Donald Trump to testify today.
	And he did.
	And he says, yeah, my stuff was great.
	I had cash.
	I think the properties were worth a lot more than they were, you know, than you do.
	The restrictive covenant on Mar-a-Lago says intend to.
	I could have used it for something else.
	So it's obviously worth more than the $18 to $27 million valuation.
	The judge gag order.
	One fine, $5,000.
	Another one, $10,000.
	Gagging the lawyers.
	I mean...
	Make sense of it.
	How can the judge get away with doing what he's doing?
	It's because the higher courts and federal courts didn't intervene when they should have.
	I mean, this has been a politically motivated, frivolous, baseless case from the day one.
	There are no victims.
	It's what stands out about all the Trump cases.
	Name the victim.
	There isn't one.
	There isn't one in Georgia.
	There isn't one in Florida.
	There isn't one in D.C. There isn't one in New York in the criminal case or the civil case.
	I mean, who's the victims?
	There are none.
	So it's preposterous on its face.
	And with a court that should have been signed to the Commercial Division in New York, this judge refused to do so, and the higher courts didn't force him to do so.
	And the federal courts, who had multiple out in New York and in Florida an opportunity to intervene to stop this insanity, have refused to.
	They've allowed the judiciary to expose its ugly, partisan, prejudicial side of its persona to the world.
	And the question is, how long do they let this ludicrous sideshow, this ludicrous show trial, continue to the damage and detriment of the judiciary's integrity and its appearance of integrity to the entire world?
	Now, I've dealt with judges like this many times, but the difference is, my case is the person that's being targeted doesn't have the support of a majority of the country to be the next president of the United States.
	That's how they get away with it in those cases.
	They get away with it in those cases because they target the politically marginal.
	And historically, we've had lots of corrupt judges from day one.
	The difference is they usually don't target someone that is the next president of the United States and a past president of the United States.
	They also don't usually do it on such utterly baseless grounds as this judge.
	They don't violate all the procedural rules.
	You have an attorney general who got elected saying, I'm going to harass Trump.
	That by itself should have thrown out any claim that that attorney general brought.
	Yet it didn't.
	Yeah, but Robert, and if I may, the judge already dismissed or ruled that Trump could not invoke the political motivation argument.
	I mean, I got the tweets one after the other.
	How does a judge say that you cannot raise as a defense political motivation of the woman persecuting you?
	Well, how do you hold a trial after you've already ruled him guilty?
	How do you hold a trial when you're presiding and you've denied a jury trial in the case?
	I mean, when it's clear what he's going to do.
	So he just exposed more today what fraudulent intent he has with his statement that he didn't care what Trump had to say.
	He wasn't here to hear what Trump had to say.
	Well, then why are you compelling his testimony?
	I mean, he's making an utter mockery.
	So what's going on in particular is this clerk appears to be writing a lot of his rulings or making his decisions for him.
	And this is the clerk he demanded Trump not talk about.
	This is the clerk that he demanded Trump's lawyers not talk about.
	This is the clerk that he demanded Trump's campaign not talk about.
	This is the clerk that he has fined people for talking about.
	This is a public official that's having a very unusual influence on these proceedings.
	And she appears to be writing rulings and making decisions for him in live time.
	And the lawyers said, look, we want to make a record about this.
	And he said, I'm telling you, you can't even file a motion to make a record about it.
	And the rationale here.
	Trump says New York Attorney General, I think...
	Oh, no, that's the political hack one.
	Nothing abnormal about this.
	Here.
	Keese says he wants to make a motion.
	To mention information potentially barred by the gag order on the lawyers in their mistrial motion.
	There's no way to file that motion without referencing the subject matter.
	Engron says, don't file that motion.
	Yes, I'm directing you not to make that motion, which I presume would reference the information that the judge said they can't talk about.
	I'm going to protect my staff.
	This is precisely why I said the gag order was wrong from day one.
	You are a public official.
	You have no right to silence anybody about making comments about that public official, least of all within a court proceeding, but definitely outside the court proceeding as well.
	So this is a judge trying to cover up the partisan corruption of his court and how he's handling proceedings by covering up the political prejudice of his clerk.
	Who's having an injudicious influence on the court's own proceedings in this very trial.
	Now, apparently last week he said there have been other cases where the clerks have assisted the judge a lot and there's been a lot of communication, so this is not abnormal.
	This level of it is absolutely abnormal.
	I mean, this judge is so incompetent.
	He needs the clerk to make decisions for him.
	In essence, I mean, we have judges for a reason.
	Clerks are there to help.
	They're not there to be the judge.
	And it appears the clerk is the judge frequently in this case.
	And thus, the clerk's prejudice is absolutely relevant.
	For example, if you can move to disqualify a judge for prejudice, well, if the clerk's the one making the actual decisions, then the clerk's subject to disqualification.
	For example, in the Brooke Jackson case, I inquired into the judge, wasn't happy about this either, but that judge in that case...
	But I think it's important to look at clerks because clerks have a lot of influence on judges.
	And I wanted to know, here's a problem, for example.
	What if you have a clerk presiding?
	If a judge has Pfizer stock, the judge should be disqualified.
	This has already come up in New York, by the way.
	Children's Health Defense exposed that a judge presiding over a Pfizer-impacted case in the vaccine context had stock in Pfizer.
	And that was inappropriate.
	Well, what if the clerk does, right?
	So what if the clerk has already taken a law job after their clerkship with a law firm that represents Pfizer?
	Can you imagine if you had a law clerk that's going to be one of your future lawyers, already on contract to be your future lawyer, working for the judge in a case that impacted you?
	I mean, this is a problem.
	And for a long time, people have been unwilling to expose the problem with clerks, with bailiffs, sometimes with marshals.
	I've had to bring it up in multiple cases.
	Bailiffs can have huge influence.
	They're often the only ones that have access to the jury.
	They often know things that are going on with the jury that nobody else does.
	I've experienced it firsthand.
	Clerks and bailiffs have known about juror misconduct that they've hidden from the litigants and the proceeding inappropriately.
	So, you know, there are plenty of good bailiffs and clerks out there, but they're also rogue ones.
	And here you have a clerk that appears to be really making the decisions where her political prejudice should be fully exposed to the world, and that's why he doesn't want anyone to even talk about.
	So that's why the gag order was patently unconstitutional.
	This is a judge abusing every aspect of his power, and he's agitated that he doesn't get to manipulate the narrative.
	He says, am I making the law?
	I want to bring up another one here.
	I just got to bring up a few of them.
	Are you aware of any valuations of the statements of financial condition from 2017 to 2021?
	Trump, I'm worth billions of dollars more than the financial statements and anything off would be non-material.
	The judge rejected materiality arguments before the trial.
	How very convenient.
	Which by the way is insane.
	I mean, historically, you can't bring a fraud claim unless it's material.
	So, for example, let's say I'm selling you this book, Strange Laws of Old England.
	And I tell you the inside book cover is green rather than yellow.
	And it turns out it's yellow.
	But that had nothing to do with whether you're going to buy the book.
	You can't bring a civil fraud case.
	You can't bring a criminal fraud case anywhere in America in that instance.
	Materiality is a required element.
	And yet he decided materiality didn't matter here.
	He had to because it was immaterial.
	The other thing that was fascinating today in Trump's testimony, well, two things were striking.
	I'm not that surprised, but it was still impressive how knowledgeable Trump is of all the intricate aspects of his assets.
	There's a lot of, you know, there's other business developers out there that don't often know every little tiny tidbit of their business.
	Trump does, you know, and Trump understood the valuation from multiple perspectives.
	But the second aspect, and he revealed his detail, that's what agitated the judge.
	It was just exposing what a ludicrous case it was.
	Because Trump, more than anybody, can explain exactly why.
	He was like, this property is between Tiffany's and IBM.
	I'm not selling it for less than this.
	And the reason why is because it's between Tiffany's and IBM, which means they have an interest in understanding that property.
	That's how he got Mar-a-Lago way back.
	When he first wanted to buy it, they wouldn't sell it to him.
	So he bought the beach side that was in front of Mar-a-Lago and said, I'm going to build a high-rise right here so you guys don't have a beach view anymore.
	Then they sold it to him for half the price he originally offered because he understood all the ways that real estate plays a role.
	The fascinating thing today was the degree to which their whole theory is that there's somehow an absolute valuation.
	And that doesn't exist in real estate, to be frank.
	So particularly there's what's called as-is.
	And as developed.
	So like, for example, the government, when they steal your property, they always try to say, you can't bring an as developed claim.
	So they might steal your property that's worth 10 million, but as is, it's worth a million, right?
	They do this all the time.
	And it becomes very different.
	I've litigated real estate in a wide range of contexts.
	Legal malpractice, real estate malpractice, valuations, takings cases, zoning cases, you name it.
	And what you realize is the as-developed value is how developers look at the property.
	So when Trump is assessing it, he's looking at how can I use this property?
	Can I use it for this?
	Like, for example, when he bought that beachfront property next to Mar-a-Lago, his goal was to use it to leverage to buy Mar-a-Lago.
	That gave it a different valuation than maybe it did by itself, right?
	He got it cheaper because he understood it's better value than what the seller did.
	Here, they don't seem to understand that.
	Like, they're saying, well, they're acting like it can only have X value.
	It couldn't have, you know, as-developed value also widely varies because it depends on the creativity of the developer.
	Like, they were going on about the golf course in Scotland, and they were like, well, you know, this talked about the possibility of building on it, but you hadn't built on it yet.
	That's not how you do as-developed property.
	I'll give an example.
	I was looking at property in Tennessee, buy a lake.
	It's for sale for 550 grand.
	It's just land.
	There's no home on it.
	If you looked at that, if the government came and took it, they would say it's worth 50 grand.
	Why?
	Because right now there's nothing on there.
	Now you have access to a whole bunch of infrastructure and you have zoning legal rights to build there, which is what a developer would value the land on and why it's being sold for more than half a million dollars.
	But if you looked at it as, say, agrarian value, the lowest pasturing value, then maybe it's 50 grand.
	Maybe it's less than that.
	Maybe it's 10 grand.
	If you put it out randomly someplace, it's probably 10 grand.
	The government's trying to argue that the as-is value is the only value it can ever have, not the as-developed value.
	And that's a ludicrous interpretation of how they do real estate.
	And that's what the whole case basically is.
	You know, we're going to end on YouTube now.
	Everyone, come on over to Rumble.
	We're going to continue this discussion there.
	Ending.
	3, 2, 1, Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment of the chat.
	Going exclusive to Rumble, people.
	Let's get ready to Rumble.
	Okay, done.
	Robert, I want to bring this one up as well.
	It was one defense after another.
	Trump says, I think she's a political hack, he says the New York Attorney General used this case to try to become governor and to successfully remove Attorney General.
	Trump lost political motivation arguments before trial.
	So he can't refer to the, what do they call it, not the meaningless clause, but the irrelevancy clause?
	Immateriality, but there was another one.
	To the essence of what fraud is.
	He's not supposed to talk about as-developed value versus as-is-value.
	He's not supposed to talk about the political prejudice in the proceedings by the judge or by the prosecutor.
	I mean, it's ludicrous.
	It's what we pointed out back when a lot of conservatives were silent and mute.
	God bless her, but Megyn Kelly was one of those people that was a little mute about the Alex Jones trials.
	And we said that, you know, just like what happened with social media, they were going to use the example of the Alex Jones trial and replicate it and repeat it.
	And what did they do in Alex Jones cases?
	First, they prohibited him from presenting most of his defense at trial.
	They held a complete show trial with movie companies in Texas filming it live.
	That's how absurd it was.
	Then, second, he wasn't allowed to say certain things from the stand.
	He wasn't allowed to say he was innocent.
	He wasn't allowed to explain what took place.
	He wasn't even allowed to mitigate damages.
	He wasn't allowed to rebut the absurd and ludicrous valuations put on by the defense.
	I mean, by the plaintiffs in that case.
	He couldn't say that he had already apologized to the victims.
	Correct.
	Couldn't do anything.
	And now we're just seeing it replicated.
	The system saw they got away with it in the Joneses' cases in Connecticut and Texas.
	And many conservatives...
	We're quiet and mute about it.
	And so just like they were quiet and mute when Alex Jones got banned from everywhere on social media, and what did that escalate to?
	Removing Trump from social media.
	And now they're using it against Trump.
	And what people are shocked by is that people who are still somehow true believers in every aspect of our legal system...
	We're shocked at just how horrendous it is in politically motivated and partisan cases.
	And we're seeing it in all of these cases.
	I mean, the D.C. judge reimposes her gag order and the D.C. Court of Appeals, even liberal Democratic judges who keep magically reappearing on some of these election politically related cases out of the D.C. circuit, even they...
	step in and stop the gag order in D.C. until they have full briefing.
	Because even the ACLU, which has been very political in the Trump era, came in and said, okay, this is way too far.
	There's no way you can do it.
	I mean, the New York Times survey of swing states that historically, the same polling, Siena University polling service, Has understated Trump's performance in these swing states by an average of seven points.
	Has Trump up in all but Wisconsin?
	Which means his elite is massive in those states, given the historical bias of those polling institutions.
	So that's why they continue to escalate.
	And Trump refuses to play ball.
	And credit to his counsel for refusing to capitulate to the corrupt judge in New York.
	By challenging him before the court and then challenging him afterwards.
	On cue, Robert, let me play this because this is the clip I wanted to show.
	You have a right to hire a lawyer who can stand up and say something when they see something wrong.
	But I was told to sit down today.
	I was yelled at and I've had a judge who is unhinged slamming a table.
	Let me be very clear.
	I don't tolerate that in my life.
	I'm not going to tolerate it here.
	And you know what?
	You shouldn't either.
	How do I stop this?
	There we go.
	Amazing.
	Yeah, and credit to them for doing that.
	We'll see what even the liberal Democratic judges do in the D.C. Circuit.
	I think what they write, I mean, they're expediting potential Supreme Court review.
	But then we had another show trial this past week in Colorado.
	Robert, this one is unbelievable.
	I've been following this closely.
	We're trying to block people, by the way, from rebroadcasting the trial.
	Well, I'm sure you saw I had Ash Epp.
	She was one of the guests on Infowars when I hosted on Friday talking about she was the one identified by the court as allegedly unlawfully broadcasting or streaming the trial, which is being broadcast, streamed on CNN.
	C-SPAN is where I thought once it's on C-SPAN, you can't prevent people from not rebroadcasting it.
	Well, again, you have a public right.
	These are public trials to which the public has a right to participate.
	In the old day, these were actually held outdoors, going way back to give people an idea.
	The whole community got to participate.
	So the grounds by which to exclude the public from watching these trials is an Jack Smith doesn't want anyone to see that trial either.
	That's a question before I forget.
	I think we've talked about, I think I've asked you before.
	State courts can broadcast their trials.
	Federal courts can't.
	I mean, they can.
	Federal courts have an internal rule that prohibits it.
	So they have the discretion then to lift that ban to broadcast trials if they so choose?
	Potentially.
	I don't think it's ever been done, actually, with federal court.
	But they're reconsidering the rules at the judicial conference level.
	And it's always been problematic.
	In my view, because again, every public trial should be public, which means we have the capacity to broadcast them to the world.
	We should broadcast them to the world.
	Period.
	Nobody should be in the dark about what's happening inside our courtrooms.
	The right to a public trial, the right to all judicial proceedings being public, is there for a reason.
	And so it's astounding that this has happened as long as it has happened.
	But it tells you a lot about who they are, that the Colorado judge only wants the...
	Proper people to distribute the...
	Extended media.
	The authorized media.
	judge who forgot her obvious political prejudice when she'd given money to cause you know causes related to the case before i forget what it's called act blue or something i forget exactly
	I mean, you're going to preside over something related to January 6th when you've made political donations to one.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	There shouldn't even be a trial.
	There's no right for the courts to exclude a candidate from the ballot.
	They don't have that right.
	They never have had that right.
	And generally, they've done a decent job of recognizing that.
	But this judge refuses.
	I mean, it's why when I was talking about why the Trump camp should welcome a Robert Kennedy campaign.
	Is that the only deterrence to them removing Trump from the ballot in a majority of the states is that Robert Kennedy could be the beneficiary rather than Joe Biden, and that Bobby Kennedy scares them more, frankly, than Trump does.
	But because we're seeing, they're weaponizing everything.
	They're weaponizing everything.
	Robert, it's crazy.
	It's crazy where I remember seeing in real time...
	They won't go there.
	They went there.
	And then that just becomes the next starting point.
	They see a Rubicon and they just can't wait to pass it.
	I mean, that's it.
	They see it like, oh, let's cross this one.
	Oh, let's cross this one.
	And as I like to say, take a nice steaming aqua dump in the river as they cross it.
	In Colorado, it's not just that the judge made a $100 donation when she knew that she was going to become a judge.
	She was appointed by Jared Polis.
	And apparently George Soros got heavily involved in making sure that Jared Polis got elected governor of Colorado.
	This case is predicated on the idea that Trump insurrected and therefore should be removed from the ballot, not included on the ballot of both the primaries and the general because insurrection, Article 14, subparagraph 3. This is the question, Robert.
	He hasn't been charged, let alone convicted.
	Sorry, let me rephrase that.
	He hasn't been convicted, let alone charged.
	How are they applying a civil burden of proof, a civil standard, to insurrection, which in theory is a criminal offense, and they bypass the beyond a reasonable doubt conviction of insurrection to then get to a preponderance of the evidence?
	There's no evidence, no grounds, that the judiciary has any role in this whatsoever, number one.
	Number two, the clause at issue doesn't apply to the president.
	It specifically excludes the president.
	There are some people out there that think officers applies to the president.
	The courts have specifically ruled that that officer language in the Constitution does not apply to the president.
	And so that's problem number two.
	Problem number three, the only enforcement mechanism is Congress that's listed in the amendment.
	Problem four is that insurrection, to the degree it can exist, It would require a factual finding by Congress that would be inapplicable here anyway because it contradicts other clauses of the Constitution and you have to read them in conformity.
	And then, of course, fifth, I mean, this was really just a civil war clause, as Dershowitz has pointed out, that they pardoned everybody ultimately anyway related to.
	So it's ludicrous to even try to apply this to Trump.
	It's not within the cognizance.
	It's a political question that is not within their power to adjudicate anyway.
	And of course, the clause at issue doesn't apply to him, and the substance doesn't apply to him.
	So it's just absurdity built on absurdity built on absurdity.
	And what it's all about is election interference.
	It's another Democratic hack judge trying to prohibit the American people from electing who they want to elect president, who are trying to stage a constitutional coup.
	Against the American people and making a mockery of the judiciary as an institution of independence or integrity in the process.
	And then there's the joke that they're saying it's sort of a passive insurrection in that he didn't call in the troops and therefore that's how he facilitated the insurrection.
	I mean, I've gone over it.
	By definition, there's a reason why the president's not in that clause.
	How could the president engage in insurrection?
	I mean, against himself?
	I mean, to do the logic here.
	There's a reason why the president's not listed in the 14th Amendment, folks.
	That doesn't even make sense, the idea that it could apply.
	It makes no sense at all.
	So it's just ludicrous at every legal, constitutional, and factual level.
	And just for those who are not watching it, I talked about it at length last week.
	They had an expert come in on...
	Violent extremism talk about how everything Trump does is intended to incite insurrection from far-right extremists.
	Maybe it was one of the same fraudulent experts that testified in the Alex Bones cases.
	Remember, they had some of those fake experts out.
	I think it's the expert who wrote up Twitter's justification for banning Trump on January 8th.
	Then they had an expert come in on the 14th Amendment and say, this is how he insurrected.
	It's a ridiculous, ridiculous trial for anybody who's watching it.
	You cannot describe the degree to which it's a joke of a trial where the opening statements and a line of questioning was when Trump said peaceful.
	It was a dog whistle call to violence.
	It was evidence of how violent his rhetoric was, because if his rhetoric weren't insurrectionist, he wouldn't have had to say, keep it peaceful.
	They were ignoring the tweets where he said, stay peaceful, we're on the side of law and order.
	Because he was booted from the platform two days later, nobody could even see that anymore.
	It's a joke.
	But when does it end?
	We'll see.
	Okay, what's the other one?
	I mean, basically the constitutional future of the country is at stake in the next nine months.
	And the question is whether somebody at some level is going to do something to stop this insanity before it gets passed.
	Before they cross a Rubicon, they can't uncross it.
	Are we not there, Robert?
	I mean, that's the problem.
	They're on the path to it.
	There's no doubt about it.
	You know, Caesar's on the march.
	And whether the republic will last is we'll find out in the next year.
	Next 12 months, we're going to find out.
	What does it look like if the republic doesn't last?
	Do the states break off and become their own countries and you have a balkanization of America?
	Chaos is not something anyone should eagerly welcome because it tends to produce more problems than goods, at least in the short order.
	I'm still hopeful that at some level, at some point, somebody steps in and says, wait, hold on a second.
	I mean, when you have Eric Holder making the round saying, You know, jailing Trump over a speech, probably a bad idea.
	Probably don't want to jail him over a gag.
	Think about that, right?
	That's Obama's people saying, hold on, this is looking really, really bad.
	But these people have lost all sense of perspective.
	They have so long been in bubbled in their own political world, and they have faced so little consequence for their bad actions for so many years.
	That they don't understand the ramifications of what they're doing.
	And that's how civilizations fall, is not just corrupt elites, it's incompetent elites, is where civilizations and governments and societies just collapse, often quicker rather than slower.
	My concern is that there's going to be, in as much as there's 80 million people who don't think 2020 was legit, there's going to be 70 million people who think that Trump should be in jail.
	And if he gets elected again, they won't accept it.
	But when they don't accept things, it's mostly peaceful but slightly fiery protests.
	What's the news out of Florida?
	Judge Cannon postponing the trial?
	It looks like it's going to because of all the gamesmanship that Jack Smith has been playing.
	And Cannon is less and less sympathetic to the games that the government's been playing.
	Trying to manipulate who can be defense counsel for various defendants.
	They failed on that effort.
	Trying to hide certain discovery.
	They failed on that effort.
	Trying to misuse and abuse the grand jury to discover evidence.
	They failed on that effort.
	Now they're hiding other documents and discovery and records.
	And she can see exactly what they did.
	When they realized that they drew her...
	They thought, oh, well, we're not going to get what we want.
	We're not going to get the show trial we want from her, quick conviction pre-election from her.
	So they ran to D.C., got an indictment in D.C., got the judge they wanted, you know, the granddaughter and great-niece of radical foreign communists who was happy to do their bidding at any eager ease, as prejudicial as the New York judge.
	And once they saw that, they said, hey, let's schedule a quicker trial there.
	And the problem is, that trial conflicts with the trial date in Florida.
	And Judge Cannon was like, what are you doing?
	I mean, you're scheduling something where he's going to have to be in two trials at the same time.
	Like, I mean, this is insane.
	And they were pretending that isn't what they were doing, but it's obvious what they were doing.
	So it's likely that case is going to get pushed down the road.
	And what I've said from day one is once they drew the D.C. judge, they'll put all their eggs in that basket.
	That they won't rush the Georgia case.
	They won't rush the Florida case.
	They won't rush the New York case.
	They'll put it all...
	They got a judge in a jury pool.
	They got a lynching jury pool and a lynching judge.
	And once they got that, that would be where they put all...
	And that's where it is.
	And Cannon's just calling them on it.
	Well, and D.C. is the only one that's remotely related to insurrection.
	So if they get their D.C. conviction, that strengthens their call around it.
	Now it's obvious they try to use that to sucker courts into keeping the American people from voting for who they want for president.
	Which, again, their only restraint on that is that, I mean, maybe Barris or somebody else will test it.
	If Trump was off the ballot, where do those votes go?
	My guess is it's not going to go to Joe Biden in those states.
	And are they really willing to accept a President Kennedy or a split electoral college that goes to the House of Representatives, which is likely to be a Republican majority the way they vote by state delegation?
	So, you know, I don't think they've thought all of this all the way through.
	Kennedy threw a wrench into all that because they thought they would just rig the Democratic primary and he would just go along with it.
	And when he didn't...
	The next stage will be they'll try to keep Kennedy off the ballot.
	That there'll be a lot of efforts to keep him from making the ballot with a lot of crazy rules and laws that exist about...
	Who can circulate petitions?
	Who can sign petitions?
	When they can circulate petitions?
	When they can sign petitions?
	But aren't they raising the argument that Trump, that Kennedy can't run as an independent third party when he's already announced loyalty or allegiance to the Democrats?
	That's the sore loser laws.
	Most of those have been struck down and don't exist anymore.
	And he wasn't listed on the ballot in the very few states that are there.
	So that one, they won't make much of hay.
	The way they keep independence off the ballot is they create all these Byzantine bureaucratic rules about when you can circulate petitions to get somebody on the ballot, who can circulate those petitions, when the person can sign the petition, who it is that can sign the petition, how many signatures you get signed, what the paperwork looks like in format.
	I mean, I think Kennedy estimates it may cost as much as $15 million just to get him on ballot.
	Right.
	That's what these rules are there.
	Now, I've had success getting a lot of these rules struck down, including the Nader v.
	Brewer case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The deadlines are too early.
	The signature requirements are usually too high.
	The circulated requirements are too restrictive.
	That's core political speech.
	So there's ways to fight it legally, and I'm sure he probably will where he needs to fight legally as well.
	But it's all part and parcel of the same process.
	In the interim, they'll figure out whether we go to World War III in between.
	I have other concerns for RFK Jr. that I will not say out loud, but everybody has the same ones.
	Mr. Barnes, the problem is that the World News do not tell his side of the Trump story to tell everything about the fake negative story about Trump.
	Well, that's why they're issuing gag orders.
	That's why they're trying to prohibit who can broadcast the case.
	That they're attempting to control the narrative.
	But you can see in the polling results, it's not changing public opinion the way they thought it would.
	Now, I think they think as long as they get a conviction, that they'll either get court complicity in keeping Trump off the ballot, or they'll get a public reaction that sinks Trump.
	That's their current obvious course of action.
	But they've got to somehow do it without Robert Kennedy inheriting the votes.
	Because then they're back into the same boat.
	So that's where Kennedy is a wrench in everything that they had planned on doing.
	Unless the GOP field says, well, if he's been convicted, then we will not allow him.
	That would kill the Republican Party.
	That would just end the Republican Party as a party.
	If you say that, would that be a problem?
	That would be good for the Uniparty, for the Republicans that don't care.
	Or the rhinos, as they're called.
	I mean, that would be good for the Uniparty, wouldn't it?
	That's how third parties emerge that completely replace the old party.
	So Republican congressmen don't want that.
	Republican senators, Republican governors, Republican state legislators.
	Everybody that's on the ballot in 2024 doesn't want an end to their party that puts them in power.
	So that's why you'll never see the Republican Party go that far.
	DeSantis is hoping in the back of his mind that that's what happens.
	It ain't gonna happen.
	All right, now before we go on any further, I think that covers the Trump...
	Okay, so let me just read the rumble rants.
	And by the way, there's over 10,000 people watching.
	Drop a comment and hit the thumbs up, but we should have 10,000 thumbs up.
	I'm joking.
	That's not possible.
	Touch the riot.
	Viva Fry.
	Winston is worth every dime of Ed Care.
	$5 worth of extra treats for the lad.
	He is, and thank you very much.
	Sad Wings Raging.
	Campaign donation for Robert Barnes running for mayor, was it?
	Campaign slogan was, quote, a helicopter in every yard, was it not?
	Based.
	Dapper Dave says, based on this corrupt judge's actions, in my opinion, can all of this judge's past cases be reviewed for other biases?
	If possible, who could make that request?
	Robert, I think the answer to that is no, but let me read this one first before you answer that.
	Her says, why do they continue to threaten journalists with jail for not revealing sources?
	Isn't this long established that sources don't have to be revealed?
	It depends on the state.
	There's no federal privilege, journalist privilege.
	There is a, in some states, they've passed a journalist privilege law, but it all varies as to when it applies.
	And it's limited, is the short answer.
	In many states, it's very limited.
	There's not much of a privilege at all.
	And then Dapper Dave's question, can they go and review this civil court, this civil trial lawyer judges all of his prior decisions?
	I mean, the answer to that is obviously no.
	Well, on appeal, yes.
	No, all the other prior, oh.
	Anyone pending appeal?
	Anything that has attained the status of, is it res judica?
	Yeah, I mean, once there's a final judgment, every ruling he's made is subject to appellate review.
	Okay, within whatever delays.
	And the other question, Robin, before I forget, actually, it came from our Locals community.
	Someone wanted us to flesh out the Trump Organization fraud.
	This was Weisselberger.
	Weisselberger?
	Oh, yeah.
	This guy had nothing to do with the organization.
	They call it the Trump Organization fraud.
	It was the accountant who was found guilty of fraud because he was unknowing to the organization, using monies to pay for personal expenses, not declaring it as such, private school, etc., etc.
	So they call it the Trump Org fraud.
	The Trump Organization was the victim.
	Okay, good.
	So I didn't misunderstand that.
	Trump did have a great line when they were asking, you know, like, you don't have houses on that Scottish property.
	He's like, well, I got a castle.
	So, I mean, he has managed to handle all of this very, very well and effectively.
	Now, the constitutional case that might have consequence for this is the case the Supreme Court has taken up involving New York, involving selective prosecution, Involving state officials, which is the NRA First Amendment case,
	before we get there, to show you how abusive the system is getting, it appears that they are going to try to put Owen Troyer, by that Federalist Society recommended judge out of D.C., who issued a 60-day sentence and then wouldn't even give him bail pending appeal, which is highly unusual in general.
	He didn't like anybody second-guessing anything he did, which means he doesn't understand why bail-penny appeal should be automatic, frankly, because of that exact judicial bias.
	But it appears that Owen may end up serving the entire sentence or a large part of it in solitary confinement, which is insane.
	This is a misdemeanor case, 60 days.
	I've seen no identification that he's violated any Bureau of Prison policy or rule.
	And that they're going to lock him.
	He'd already put him up, I think, for a week or so in solitary.
	And now they're talking about putting up for most of the rest of his sentence in solitary, where often there's light.
	You can't sleep.
	You can't eat.
	The food quality is bad.
	They know it causes, for more than five days, mental health problems.
	And so they're basically just torturing the guy.
	For saying 1776 on the Capitol steps.
	Well, beyond that, I mean, they put him in a week of solitary for COVID.
	Okay, that was the protocol.
	It's bullshit, but they did it.
	Then he puts out that tweet.
	Apparently, I mean...
	He didn't put it out.
	Someone else put out the tweet.
	He just talked to somebody on the phone.
	Well, no, actually, I should be very clear about that because that account, Owen Shroyer, 1776, is being managed by others while he's on the inside.
	He has no social media access.
	They published a phone call that he gave or a message from jail.
	And we talked about this in Mar-a-Lago.
	You're looking in to see what rules he broke, but the idea is...
	I reviewed the BOP policies and reviewed the local jail protocols that are published, and there's no policy he violated.
	It just appears that you have a politically motivated warden who has a history, by the way, of causing the death of inmates there at that facility in recent years due to his mismanagement, the warden's mismanagement of that facility, appearing to just abuse his power because he's been given a political permission slip.
	He thinks it would appear.
	It appears to me.
	Most people don't care about inmates.
	And so consequently, a lot of rights get abused on a regular basis of that.
	But we're looking into whether there's some sort of legal action that can be taken.
	The hard part is, by the time you get a court to hear it, he's already out.
	So they can torture him for a period of time without consequence because there's not enough immediate judicial relief often available to people.
	But it's just absurd.
	It's just absurd.
	It just shows how nuts the system is.
	What they did to some of the January 6th defendants, when they were just waiting trial, they appear to be redoing to Owen Troyer.
	They're on a misdemeanor case.
	The rules of habeas corpus, you're going to go get an emergency injunction or something, but who oversees the decision of the prison?
	The Bureau of Prisons themselves.
	That's the problem.
	Usually they say, if you go to court, you have to exhaust your administrator remedies first.
	So, I mean, the problem is that isn't a remedy in this instance.
	So, you know, we're going to look into whether or not there's something else that can short-circuit the process.
	But you'd have to get the right, you'd have to get lucky with a judge who actually cares.
	But it's clear violation, and it makes an embarrassment of that judge in D.C. That, you know, this is what, you know, the, I'm sure those judges assumed that it was not, you know, 60 days wouldn't be a big deal.
	Didn't know that, you know, he was going to be subject to effectively what has been described by International Human Rights Organization, the conditions of solitary confinement for longer than two days in the United States, has been described under those terms as torture, legally as torture in violation of international law.
	And that's the class action suit we talked about recently in Wisconsin.
	The problem is too many people on the right have not cared about inmates.
	They forget.
	I mean, our founders cared about them because many of them went through it.
	In Tennessee, after the Civil War, is when they really created some robust rights in the Tennessee Constitution.
	Why?
	Because many of the state legislators had dealt with the consequences of abuse of authority.
	And everybody's just getting a crash course in it.
	It's unfortunate that Owen has to be the example for all of it.
	But it shows how absurd it is when it's Owen Troyer.
	That's somebody people know.
	Young kid.
	Infowars host.
	Not a violent guy at all.
	No meaningful criminal history of any consequence.
	No, but Robert, he said something bad and suggested a crisis actor in Sandy Hook at one point in time, repeating...
	But he didn't.
	He was reporting on a Zero Hedge story.
	That's all he did.
	That's why they dropped him from the suit.
	They originally included him, but of course they had to drop it because all he did was, here's what Zero Hedge is reporting.
	And he gave his analysis of what Zero Hedge was reporting, that the that the politicization of the case has led to these kind of claims.
	He didn't support it or say he was for it at all.
	That's why they had to drop the claim against him.
	So, I mean, but basically it's just because he's seen as a political opponent.
	And so they're going to torture him when they get the chance.
	Any news on the demand of Twitter to reinstate him and take down the impersonating account?
	Elon is asleep at the wheel.
	On these critical issues.
	Because George Gammon, who pays money to Twitter for his account, has had it hacked, and somebody else has control of it.
	Mark Moss, same thing.
	Owen Troyer has never had his account reinstated, so someone else pretended to be him and stole his account.
	So there's a subpoena out to Twitter demanding to find his...
	The federal judge agreed with us that we're entitled to find out.
	Who this person is because he's violating the law.
	And I won't pull it up.
	It's a verified account.
	So the Owen Schroer impersonating account is verified, correct?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's a blue checkmark.
	And that's why people think it's that person.
	And he can mislead.
	He can lie.
	He can defame.
	He can invade privacy.
	He can steal money.
	He's stealing property rights, name, image, and likeness.
	So all of that is at issue.
	And here, Elon's out there trying to pitch to everybody.
	Wouldn't it be great if Twitter was your bank account when he can't even fix hacked accounts of paying subscribers?
	When he can't even stop people from stealing accounts?
	So, Elon, before you worry about Twitter being a bank account, how about you fix that?
	That should be a basic thing to fix.
	Restore George Gammon's account.
	Restore Mark Moss's account.
	Restore Owen Schroyer's account.
	Take down the fake account.
	At least prove you can do that, or nobody's going to want to put their money with you.
	When they...
	The blue checkmark certification for seven bucks a month, I said at the time, it's not a question of clout.
	It's only a question of impersonation and the problems it can get into.
	But Robert, have you seen this?
	This is the...
	You look at this and tell me you think you know offhand that it's an impersonation account.
	Or, sorry, it's a parody account.
	This is new.
	I haven't...
	This is new definitely since the last time I looked at it.
	Delete me.
	The joke worked.
	Time to move on to S next joke.
	But even that...
	I mean, if he put in there, this is a parody account, this is not actually Owen Short, he still refuses to do that.
	You know, he's now being sued.
	He's going to be outed.
	He's going to have to pay damages, when all he had to do was to take down the account, or at least make clear this is a parody account, fake account, this is not Owen Short.
	He refused to do it.
	And Twitter lets him get away with it.
	And Twitter's litigation response to people whose accounts get hacked has been, Go back through the process by which you got hacked.
	That's unbelievable.
	You're like, don't you understand?
	That's what got hacked.
	Like, Twitter keeps saying, do the two-factor authentication.
	Don't!
	Because if you do, that's how your account gets hacked, and you can never get it back.
	MooseTree87 said, any update on the Eastman case?
	Now, we saw Eastman...
	No, hold on.
	Eastman is not...
	We saw Jeffrey Clark.
	At Mar-a-Lago.
	Some of these people, I know that I know them, but I have never met them in person.
	And when we meet in person, everybody looks a little bit different in real life than they do on the internet.
	Hey, Devin Nunez is a big fan.
	I was going to talk to him and I was like, you know, I was like, hey, how you doing, Devin?
	He's like, oh, yeah, yeah.
	I'm a real big fan of Viva.
	I talked to him a little bit longer and he said, man, I'm a real big fan of this guy.
	I have...
	I have no ego, but it's nice when you could see it in someone's eyes when they're sincere.
	And it was nice.
	I met Nunes.
	I'm a big fan of Nunes.
	And we met in person.
	It's fantastic.
	Although we met, I forget where we met the first time.
	Any update on the Eastman case, though?
	Rachel Alexander is the person to follow.
	We interviewed her.
	She's the Arizona lawyer.
	Went through also all kinds of insanity from the Arizona judicial corruption that's there.
	And the bar corruption that's there.
	And she has been following in detail the John Eastman case and posting both on X slash Twitter, whatever you want to call it, and on other sites.
	Giving people detailed updates.
	Eastman has handled himself exceptionally well.
	It's another corrupt hack, fake judge.
	This is one of those administrators they call judges that I'm not a big fan of.
	They shouldn't be called judges.
	If you're not constitutionally appointed or elected, you're not a judge.
	You're an administrator or hearing examiner.
	Use the proper language.
	Don't call them your honor.
	You're not a your honor.
	Though I'll tell you, that was one thing I learned from the tribal court.
	When they were trying to imitate Western cases, I was there as the clerk for a summer to help them integrate their tribal traditions with Western American traditions because a lot of people before their court would be disputes between tribal members and non-tribal members.
	But what's interesting is tribal members' reactions.
	Like one was, like most courts, you have an elevated judge, right?
	The judge is physically placed above the litigants.
	Tribal members were like, what is that?
	What are you doing up there?
	You should be down here equal with us.
	You don't need to be up there.
	And I was like, man, there's a lot of truth to that.
	The other was, Your Honor?
	What do you mean, Your Honor?
	We know each other.
	Why am I calling you Your Honor?
	What is that nonsense about?
	Elders don't say, Your Honor.
	And there was a lot of insights in that process.
	But these administrative judges, they should be called hearing examiners.
	Something else, they're not constitutionally appointed judges.
	It's like ex-judges who become arbitrators and mediators.
	By ethical rule, you're not supposed to call them judges.
	But try not calling them judges.
	They get agitated quick.
	And it's like, you're not.
	And what it does, it misleads ordinary people.
	Because you'll have pro se people in the middle of this.
	Ordinary everyday people.
	How are they supposed to know this person's not a constitutionally appointed judge?
	When their own lawyer or the judge person themselves calls themselves judge.
	No, now you're Mr. and Mrs. or Miss.
	You're no longer judge.
	But it's just part of the pattern.
	But the Eastman trial, the hearing examiner is a crock and an embarrassment, a partisan hack who's tried to influence the entire proceeding.
	It's an utterly frivolous case being brought against him.
	It's an embarrassment to the State Bar of California.
	The same State Bar that covered up...
	For a long time, the corruption and criminality and fraud of Michael Avenatti, that covered up the criminality and fraud of Tom Girardi, that covered up the criminal...
	I know personal cases where they refused to get involved with people who were found guilty by juries, and yet they still refused to take action.
	And here you have Eastman, who no client has ever complained against ever, who no court has sanctioned ever, being subject to a disbarment proceeding.
	Merely because he gave advice on the constitutionality of an election.
	Look, this might be the segue.
	It's not in the order, Robert, but we'll go here anyhow.
	I was going to play the Fannie Willis daily update, but I'll save that for tomorrow.
	This was in, where is this?
	Connecticut.
	Judge orders the new Bridgeport mayoral primary after surveillance video shows possible ballot stuffing.
	Possible.
	What they've showed in this case is nothing less...
	Nothing more than what Dinesh D'Souza revealed in 2000 Mules.
	And the way they describe it, a state judge has taken the unusual step of ordering a new Democratic mayoral primary in Connecticut's largest city to be held on November 7th.
	The decision comes after surveillance video showed a woman stuffing what appeared to be absentee ballots into an outdoor ballot box days before the original primary.
	Robert, am I mistaken?
	Everybody can read it a little more if they want to.
	Am I mistaken, or is that not exactly what Dinesh D'Souza's 2,000 mules revealed of 2020?
	It's exactly the same.
	So, I mean, I may put up the ruling.
	I wasn't able to highlight it because of the way the ruling was published, but still put it up at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com board as part of the Barnes Law School series because it goes through all the things that we talked about back in 2020.
	This was a judge that just applied the standard I talked about back then.
	Which was, there's chain of custody requirements for ballots in terms of who sends them, how it's certified that they were sent, who requests its receipt, how that was done.
	Then there's requirements about the chain of custody of the return of that ballot, how the ballot is signed, and whose presence it is signed, who signs the ballot, how it is delivered back to the officer, who delivers it back to the election officer.
	And what happened in 2020 is those protocols and procedures were routinely and regularly violated in all of the key swing states and other states as well.
	And what happened here is that, like, for example, there was no allegation that these votes were themselves fraud.
	And what did the judge make clear throughout the hearing?
	What I talked about throughout 2020, which was you don't have to prove fraud.
	If we have doubts about who actually voted for who, and if the election rules are violated in a substantial manner, we presume that those ballots don't count, and if the number of those ballots exceeds the margin of victory, the appropriate remedy is always a new election.
	Now, you have an argument in the presidential context that maybe it should have gone to the House of Representatives because of the unique issues related to the presidency, but putting that part aside...
	The rest is exactly what, and the judge articulates every single thing by law and fact that I talked about in 2020, and he just did what every judge should have done in 2020 but refused to do, which was, again, you don't cite whether there's fraud.
	It's only, was the ballot sent in the proper manner?
	Was the ballot received by the proper person?
	Was it signed by the proper person?
	Was it signed without other people being present in such a way that could lead to questions of blackmail or coercion or anything else?
	And was it delivered back in the proper manner?
	And what you had was problems at every single stage, most egregiously substantiated by the fact that in Connecticut, a person who's not within a limited category could not deliver ballots to the drop boxes.
	And what you had were mules, including city employees doing it.
	And these city employees, by the way, took the Fifth Amendment rather than testify specifically at Trump.
	I'll just read this for the podcast later.
	This is from the article in NBC, so you know it's got to be true.
	The quote, the video evidence exhibits and testimony prove election fraud on a scale not seen in Connecticut or anywhere else in the country in recent history.
	Not only does the record prove election tampering, it was caught on video Gomez's lawyer had written in a legal brief.
	They noted Gomez identified "multiple violations of absentee ballot violations, including "hundreds of absentee ballots cast by party operatives, which showed the reliability of the primary results to be seriously in doubt." And then it goes on.
	It's almost like Parkinson's Law of Mundanity.
	It says that, like, you know, the people at an office can talk about where to put the water cooler for 20 minutes, but how to maximize shareholder value five minutes because one is a easy problem that everyone can have an opinion on.
	The other one's complicated.
	Nobody wants to say anything, so they just pass over it.
	It's almost like, okay, well, a presidential election, it's such a big, flipping deal when you have these problems.
	You can't address it without undermining the entire system.
	But whatever, a lowly mayoral thing in Connecticut, there you can address it.
	And there you can say, even though these are identical circumstances, by and large, can't address it at the presidential.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	All right.
	It shows what the remedy should have been or that some remedy should have been given.
	Black pill right there, Robert.
	Yeah, well, I mean, when you have a low-key mayor's race, they're willing to follow the law.
	When it was the president of the United States, they weren't.
	Do we do these Second Amendments now?
	Well, I think a bridge to the Second Amendment cases is one that overlaps with the Trump cases and these other politically oriented cases, which is the First Amendment NRA case that concerns speech about You might have to say what you're talking about there because I'm not sure I can do this one.
	So the Supreme Court has taken the case, and this is the NRA had sued the state officials in New York for attempting to effectively bankrupt the NRA, led later to NRA bankruptcy proceedings.
	But the part of what happened was the New York commissioners involved decided that their authority over repudiation.
	Reputational risk, which is kind of nonsense to begin with.
	What happened was New York officials got elected promising to take out the NRA.
	When they got there, they started threatening banks and insurance companies.
	You better do no business with the NRA.
	You better cut off all business with the NRA.
	Because if you continue to do business with the NRA, you have a reputational risk that our regulatory authority says is endangering the security of the deposits.
	Or your customers and clients.
	So the NRA sued, said this is selective prosecution.
	This is First Amendment violation.
	This is coercion and politically motivated.
	There's no doubt that it was politically motivated, frankly.
	And the district court recognized that parts of it were clearly politically motivated and allowed that case to progress.
	But the Second Circuit stepped in and said, no, no, the Second Circuit, it hates.
	The NRA in gun issues, gun rights claims, said that, no, this was just persuasive but not coercive speech.
	This is where the government has the right to make its own speech, but it's not to threaten coercion at any level.
	This is the Biden administration's defense in the social media cases.
	We weren't coercing anybody.
	We were just speaking our own mind.
	That isn't what happened here.
	They were threatening, and in fact, in certain cases, Stopped collateral investigations about other issues into certain companies as long as they punished the NRA.
	So, I mean, they said they would weaponize the state power if they didn't do what they wanted to punish their political opponents.
	And in fact, in certain instances, they did in fact do so.
	And so the Supreme Court has taken up the case and it relates to everything New York has been doing because if they couldn't go after the NRA the way they did, they sure as heck couldn't go after Trump the way they did.
	So this is a case that has potential consequences for that New York case and maybe broader cases because they could establish, and maybe the Biden social media case, that they've got to stop these weaponization of this political lawfare, as Trump called it, by these state actors looking to use their state weapons to punish and penalize the speech they don't like, disguised as...
	Regulatory guidance about reputational risk.
	It's unbelievable.
	And then once you see the way that they've weaponized, once they give the warning and they've gone after violators, oh, okay, fine.
	You didn't listen to us.
	Well, now you get audited.
	Now you're going to have any number of other government intrusions, a la what, you know, Elon Musk might be experiencing in terms of what he's doing on Twitter might be leading to other company government intrusion.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	So they take it up.
	What's the Supreme Court's season now?
	All these decisions will be made by June.
	By June 2024.
	So before the election.
	Okay.
	I take it as a good sign they took it because I don't think they're going to affirm the Second Circuit.
	And it would be...
	Take a big step in the right direction towards limiting this abuse of regulatory power that's taking place.
	Many people filed, including gun owners of America and others, amicus, exposing the absurdity of what was taking place here and how this never should have been judicially approved or apologized for in the first instance.
	All right, so that leads us into the First Amendment cases.
	The one I'm more familiar with is in California on the concealed carry permits.
	In terms of making it...
	Exceedingly difficult or regulating the ability to conceal carry.
	You've got to get into the historical interpretation argument, which is that which was set out in Bruin.
	And I think that's the confusing part for laypeople or Canadians like myself.
	They want you to interpret it based on the culture at the time, for lack of a better word.
	What was the tendency then?
	Was it intended that you have the right to open carry?
	I assume that at the time, everyone everywhere had the right to open carry.
	So how do you even get into any sort of restrictions on open carry?
	Well, yeah, I mean, what's happened in California is that even in counties that don't prohibit open carry, they never give anybody a license.
	And this was the case where the district court ignored whether they were likely to succeed on the merits and still denied the injunction.
	And the Ninth Circuit said, no, you can't do that.
	You have to always value the likelihood of the merits.
	Because there's an Obama judge that doesn't want to give any relief.
	So she's now rehearing, okay, what's the likelihood on the merits?
	And the argument, the evidence is overwhelmingly post-Bruin in favor of the plaintiffs.
	That this complete ban and never licensing people, even in counties where they could otherwise do so.
	Most of the counties you can't.
	California.
	Is not something that has any historical analog.
	That there never was, just like the Bruin decision about licensing regime in New York, that there was no law mass prohibiting people from being able to carry their weapon in public.
	They might have said you could do concealed or open.
	You don't have to do both.
	But the idea that you could just effectively, completely prohibit it, which is effectively what California does.
	It doesn't meet the Bruin standards.
	So it's just the latest case to challenge California's crazy laws on guns that will require adjudication.
	Now, a case that will have ramifications for that is the case that the Supreme Court has taken up on the Second Amendment.
	Is that the bump stock one?
	Well, two of them.
	There's bump stock, but that's going to be the ATF rule and federal law.
	The bigger one is the Rahimi one, the domestic violence one.
	Okay, Robert, if you may, elaborate on that one.
	So they passed in the mid-90s the Violence Against Women Act, and within it, they made it a federal crime if you are the recipient of an order of protection to have a gun.
	It was always a bad idea.
	It was gun nuts sticking in something that was otherwise a very effective remedy.
	For people in emergency situations involved with domestic violence.
	So I did a lot.
	I was one of the first lawyers to implement that in early 2001, 2002, 2003, called orders of protection, sometimes called other things in other states, to protect victims of abuse or violence, to be able to get out of that situation.
	I ran into a problem in rural counties in Tennessee.
	Where judges were refusing to do them en masse because of the Second Amendment implications.
	I was unaware of it until I started doing the cases and then found out that it magically converted you into a criminal, federal criminal, 15 years in federal prison if you kept a gun after you received an order of protection.
	So, an order of protection can be broad.
	You don't have to find violence, for example.
	You can have stalking.
	You can have harassment.
	There's a lot of things that constitute domestic abuse.
	It can be broad within the family context of what that does.
	And so, what was a very effective remedy was getting negated by this Second Amendment violating provision within it.
	But they've continued to use it.
	And the Biden administration has escalated the number of prosecutions of anybody subject to an order of protection.
	Loses all their Second Amendment rights.
	And this case came out of the Western District of Texas very well.
	This brief I have highlighted and will be putting up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com because what it impacts, it's the Federal Public Defender's Office, to their credit, including the one there in Austin, really did a good job, robust Second Amendment defense, which you don't normally see from the Public Defender's Office, to be honest.
	Very good because, again, it does the historical analog.
	This is what the Biden administration is claiming.
	They're claiming Congress can unilaterally remove from the definition of the people portion of the Second Amendment who is included.
	And you know what cases they cite for that?
	Their historical analogs?
	Well, look at all the times different governments across America have discriminated against politically disfavored groups.
	So they said, look here.
	They excluded blacks from having it.
	They excluded slaves from having it.
	They excluded immigrants from having it.
	They excluded Catholics from having it.
	So they're actually saying, look at this wonderful history of bigotry.
	And let's say that constitutionally changed the Second Amendment to say that whenever somebody is part of a politically disfavored minority, the Congress can unilaterally strip them of all Second Amendment rights.
	Because this guy's facing federal prison up to 15 years.
	Because he had a gun in his own home.
	And on the order of protection, he'd agree to it, by the way.
	You often get people to agree to him because it's a way to resolve the dispute and move on, not knowing they're forfeiting their Second Amendment rights in the process.
	The argument, though, will be that the correlation between religion and race and the prohibition versus restraining orders in marriage, there is a logical connection between the potential for violence.
	In the one on the latter, but not on the former.
	So they could draw some rational connection.
	Oh, but that's not the historic.
	That's the problem they have, right?
	In other words, they're saying there's a historical analog that they can declare certain people unprotected.
	But all of their examples were not based on potential violence.
	All of their examples were based on politically disfavored groups just being stripped of their rights.
	And as the public defender made clear, that if you really dig into it...
	It's people who are not considered part of the people because they weren't citizens.
	So they were immigrants or they were slaves or ex-slave that for whatever reason they did not have citizenship rights at the time.
	And that to the degree they had ones that did apply to citizens, those were always unconstitutional provisions.
	Because they don't have any example anywhere in the relevant time period where because some legislative body, Thought you were potentially dangerous.
	They could stake away all your Second Amendment rights.
	Because, in fact, that would be the exact opposite of how the Second Amendment came about, which was the king wanting to disarm the people wanting to do the rebellion and the revolution.
	So that's who it was the Second Amendment protected, was to make sure the state could never disarm the potential revolutionaries and rebels.
	So it would make no sense.
	That there's a potentially dangerous exception to the Second Amendment or that Congress has any business or any power or any prerogative to so declare.
	So that unless someone has been convicted of a crime, and even there, courts are second-guessing whether that federal law about being a felon in possession is itself constitutional, that's going to be subject to its own restrictions, its own challenges, and multiple courts have already ruled it's not constitutional.
	In many contexts.
	There's one place where Barrett has been good.
	She suggested that when she was on the Seventh Circuit.
	So the Supreme Court's taking up the case, and what the gun nuts are banking on is the label domestic violence.
	Oh, hey, this is, you know, you unarmed people who have been found guilty of domestic violence.
	That, of course, is not true.
	Someone who has agreed to an order of protection...
	Doesn't have to have had even a hearing.
	Doesn't even have to have had any judicial finding that they did anything violent or that they had any threat or danger of violence.
	Again, domestic abuse is a much broader category.
	It may be people who never committed.
	People have been convicted and sent to prison for owning a gun where it was admitted the order of protection either was based on inaccurate.
	Allegations or nothing of violence at all occurred according to the claimant in those cases.
	So the idea that this even is limited to dangerousness is not true.
	But even if it were, Congress has no business saying we're going to declare these groups of people potentially dangerous and thereby strip them of their Second Amendment rights any more than they can say they're potentially dangerous and strip them of their First Amendment rights.
	And he put that analog through all the way through and it really, really well crafted.
	Brief for the Supreme Court.
	And the consequence of this, by the way, for folks out there is, if the Supreme Court rules the way it should, that'll be the open question.
	Will the political nature of domestic abuse allegations make them go blind when it comes to the Second Amendment?
	But if it doesn't, this also would probably constitutionally invalidate all red flag laws in America.
	That's a more complicated question.
	I want to find out the bump stock, how bump stock works.
	I'm trying to find a video so that we can play this.
	Okay, so the Supreme Court's going to hear this as to whether or not, I don't want to say a restraining order, but whether or not that can serve as the basis for it.
	Whether this federal crime is constitutional.
	And it's not.
	It violates the Second Amendment on its face.
	And if they say otherwise, there's now a massive gaping hole in Second Amendment protection.
	The historical context, like I'm just, if we're getting back to the California licensing for open carry, like back in the Wild West, bars could say or taverns could say no guns allowed.
	That's a private, private, private incident.
	Like, how did they get to the point where schools and certain venues can say legally?
	Because I don't think that's an issue.
	What the Supreme Court said is in certain sensitive places, you can have.
	Restrictions on gun presence in those places, but that there are limits to that.
	Like they pointed out in New York, New York was trying to call the whole state a sensitive place.
	So how they abused that law.
	The whole wall of New York City was somehow a sensitive place.
	So that's not...
	They've said that has historical analog, that there were limitations on where you could carry a gun in very limited settings, but not something universal, not something beyond something that was distinct to that place or location.
	And that's where they can go.
	But yeah, the other case they took up is the...
	It was a mistake by Trump.
	He capitulated to the gun folks in response to Vegas.
	A regular firearm into a machine gun.
	Well, and this is, I mean, you could argue about whether Congress ever had the authority to ban machine guns in the first place, but putting that aside, the machine gun has always had the same congressional definition, and until they reversed themselves on bump stocks, had the same ATF definition, which was that with a single pulling of the trigger, it automatically fires multiple shots.
	It's not what a bump stock does.
	It requires continuous human interaction for the shots to continue.
	So it accelerates the speed at which that can take place, but it does not change the fact there has to be constant, continuous human intervention for more than one bullet to come out of the gun.
	So because of that, they'd recognized for a long time...
	There was a first version, somebody invented something that became later, the bump stock became a version of, that actually had a mechanical tool that actually allowed it to be automatic.
	That, they said, was a machine gun.
	So they removed that from future bump stocks, and so it was no longer automatic, and you had to do something continuously to cause it to continue to fire.
	And in fact, there's ways to do bump firing without a bump stock.
	It just requires certain kinds of training and whatnot.
	So it was, you know...
	Trump's capitulation was unconstitutional from day one, in my view, but also it was inconsistent to the statute.
	The statute only banned machine guns, which are automatic fire upon a single, and machine guns made after a certain time frame, after 1986.
	So what this also did, you have over a half a million bump stocks out there.
	Maybe that's even on an annualized basis, I forget, but you're talking about tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
	And people are now all of a sudden it's a crime for them to have.
	So their property is being stripped from them and it's now criminal for them to have property that they bought before this rule even came into place.
	And a bunch of businesses are also being pushed out of business.
	So problem one is it simply isn't a machine gun under the statute.
	Problem two is the ATF had no business passing this law in the first place.
	They're not in the legislation business.
	This is part of the Chevron deference administrative state octopus that has consumed our constitutional republic or democracy.
	Take your pick.
	But whatever it is, it's neither republican nor democratic in the old traditional meaning of those words, the nonpartisan meaning of those words, for this to happen.
	And so the ATF by itself had recognized this for almost 20 years.
	And so they don't have the authority to do what they claim to do.
	So the Court of Appeals recognized that on Bach and overwhelmingly ruled that this couldn't be a machine gun.
	They said if it could be considered a machine gun, then the law is clearly vague and ambiguous.
	And if it's vague and ambiguous, the rule of lenity comes in because, again, it's a crime to have this.
	And so the rule of lenity says that in any criminal case, you have to interpret the law in case of ambiguity against the government and in favor of the individual.
	And so they said, okay, even if you could somehow take the statute to mean it applies in ways that it doesn't apply to us, if it's that vague, that ambiguous, the rule of lenity says you can't interpret it that way.
	And that's what overwhelmingly the Fifth Circuit said.
	The Supreme Court has taken the case.
	You're always worried a little bit because there's a lot of wusses up there.
	But to me, it's quite clear that ATF didn't have this authority in the first place.
	But they're going to say the argument is going to be this doesn't impact the Second Amendment except as much as relates to accessories.
	Well, and they're not focused on the Second Amendment aspect.
	They're focused on the statutory interpretation and on regulatory agency authority.
	Okay.
	And the court doesn't need to reach.
	The constitutional component here is the Fifth Amendment, due process, and rule of lenity.
	But it's against the backdrop of the Second Amendment.
	I don't think Congress had the authority to ban machine guns.
	And what's the hush-hush explanation for why the ATF flip-flopped on this?
	Oh, Trump ordered him to.
	That's it.
	Trump just politically wanted to push down the attacks on him concerning the Vegas incident, and so he adopted this because bump stocks were allegedly used by the shooter in Vegas.
	I like the word allegedly, Robert.
	All right.
	We still don't know what really happened.
	And we never will.
	The case has been closed.
	It's done.
	All right.
	What are we moving on to here?
	The other, the last Second Amendment case, pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is the attempt of New York to recreate public nuisance laws to effectively sue gun manufacturers into oblivion, despite federal law that prohibits them from doing precisely that.
	The PLCAA has a preemption clause.
	It was passed.
	The state of New York, in particular, was trying to sue gun manufacturers into oblivion.
	So Congress, based on novel application of law, not traditional application of law.
	So Congress said, no, you can't do that.
	And said that any gun in interstate commerce, many manufacturer, distributor, cannot be sued for what a third party does with that gun outside of limited...
	Exemptions or circumstances.
	One of the exemptions was pre-existing law.
	For example, if there was a record-keeping requirement law and a manufacturer-distributor knowingly violated that law and that knowing violation of the law then caused the injury, then you could still sue for that.
	That was all.
	The state of New York came in and pretended that exemption allowed them to pass a new law.
	That made public nuisance law now applicable specifically to gun manufacturers and distributors.
	And they're so obvious in what they did, they limited their law to the same language used in the federal law.
	So it doesn't even apply to guns made and distributed solely in New York.
	It applies only to guns distributed and made in interstate commerce.
	And it holds the gun manufacturer liable if they don't have reasonable...
	They don't even define what the heck that even means.
	So the challenges on Second Amendment grounds, the challenges on due process grounds, the challenges on Commerce Clause grounds, because the law violates all of them in what they're trying to do in New York.
	But the new public nuisance laws presumably originally were intended to deal with punctual issues that arose from...
	Specific acts, not long-term policy decisions.
	I mean, how has public nuisance laws been exploited to the point where now it's used to go after the long-term political consequences of decisions?
	Well, it's probably not a coincidence that a lot of these cases are going up to the court food chain from either New York or California.
	It's them weaponizing everything, everything available to them and using them in ways that have never been used before.
	And just relying upon judicial complicity to get away with it.
	Like, the district court somehow pretended that any state could just gut the federal law any time they wanted by just passing a new law.
	It's like, that makes no sense at all.
	Well, why did Congress pass the law?
	But the fact that they were kind of so, whether sloppy or deliberately, targeting interstate commerce means that they're only burdening interstate commerce.
	They're also...
	Criminally punishing and civilly punishing things that don't even happen within their state, which has been outside their jurisdiction for forever.
	So you have multiple due process and commerce clause issues along with federal preemption issues present in this particular case.
	Does this segue into the teacher that got shot by a six-year-old kid, Robert?
	Yeah, I suppose so.
	I mean, the question was whether workers' comp covered the case.
	The reason why that's consequential is workers' comp dramatically limits your available recovery.
	Well, I'll bring it up to show the three conditions that need to be met in order for a teacher to be barred from suing or claiming damages for this.
	The fact pattern of this case is mind-blowing.
	It's a six-year-old kid displaying such radical behavioral disorders in class that that should be enough of a red flag, you know, pun intended for everybody.
	The kid hates this teacher, apparently comes into class with the gun from his mother and shoots the teacher through the hand into the chest, collapsing a lung.
	And then the teacher sues the school for damages and they say that her claim is limited to workman's comp.
	Hold on one second.
	That's not the right case.
	That's not the right case.
	Here we go.
	The Virginia teacher.
	I want to bring this part up right here.
	Virginia's Workman Compensation Act borrowed Zwerdner's personal injury claim.
	This is the argument.
	The act states that for a claim to be borrowed by the provision depends on whether the injury was an injury by accident, an injury within the course of an employment, or an injury that arises out of the injured person's employment.
	Got to satisfy all three.
	And the judge said, It's not reasonably to be expected from a teacher for six-year-olds that you get shot at school.
	This is not a 7-Eleven clerk.
	And they said the motion to dismiss, I guess, fails.
	The claim proceeds.
	It's wild, but what's your take on it?
	So this goes way back to our workers' comp laws, which were passed and have been upheld as constitutional.
	I've always had some doubts about it, but...
	What was happening initially is workers would be injured on the job as industrialization and railroads took over large parts of the American economy, and employers were asserting a wide range of defenses to these cases, including assumption of risk and things like that, so that employees could get hurt and get no remedy at all.
	And then in some cases, courts were finding remedies, and there the employers didn't like the remedies being issued.
	So the compromise was workers' comp.
	Which says that fault isn't an issue.
	Doesn't matter if you're at fault or anyone else.
	It's no fault.
	But it limits how much you can recover, number one.
	And two, you lose your right to sue.
	So you can no longer bring a tort claim if you're part of the workers' comp universe.
	The question has always been, if an injury happens at work, is it by definition covered by workers' comp?
	Certain kinds of intentional injuries by the employer have not been included within workers' comp.
	And then the other one is, but here you have, it happened to her while she was at work, so it was during her scope of employment, but was it within, was the risk, the kind of risk workers' comp is meant to cover?
	And workers' comp is only meant to cover those accidents that occur.
	At work, here it could be considered an accident because the employer didn't do it.
	If the employer did it, then it could be considered intentional.
	And you may have independent separate remedies from workers' comp.
	But you may also be able to use workers' comp depending on the circumstances.
	But on the other side of the eye, that's how it can, in the vaccine injury context, you may be able to have a workers' comp claim and you may be able to go outside of workers' comp because of the intentionality of the employer.
	But when it's a third party that caused it in the course and scope of employment, then you get a lot of cases that go both ways on this about scope and course of employment.
	And frequently they've found assault and abuse cases outside of the scope of employment when they want to help employers dodge liability.
	Here you had the plaintiff wanting to say it's outside it because it would increase her recovery.
	And what I think they ruled correctly was the risk.
	That the accident has to be within the anticipated course of employment.
	In other words, they're borrowing a little bit of old assumption of risk principles, which is that only a risk that you assumed as an employee would be a risk that workers' comp exclusively compensates for.
	And they said being shot on the job.
	As a teacher...
	Of six-year-olds.
	Not high school.
	I mean, maybe it would have been different.
	There are other places where assaults have been covered, but they said there were incidents that more than that, you know, someone take transporting money, you know, getting robbed.
	Yeah, a prison guard.
	I mean, that would be...
	A prison guard.
	You can see a police officer maybe get shot in the course of duty.
	That might be within the risk.
	But a teacher being shot by a six-year-old is most likely not within that risk, and the court correctly ruled that.
	I was just blown away by the fact pattern.
	The six-year-old did it on purpose, calculated.
	I think the kid was taken away from the mother for child neglect and lived with the great-grandfather, which is another amazing fact pattern to the story.
	All right, well, at least there might be justice for this teacher who suffered a collapsed lung and I imagine some severe trauma.
	Robert, I found the tweet.
	Hold on.
	I found the tweet from...
	This is what people were running with on the internet.
	They don't understand anything.
	Elon Musk's genius once again exposed, quote, no investigation into SBF, end quote, said Elon Musk in 2022, except that SBF was actually investigated and found guilty of fraud on all charges after a criminal trial.
	I now see why Elon Musk is...
	I don't want to pick on this guy, Sakatek.
	There's a number of people who are tweeting this out thinking it's an own.
	And they're not understanding that they are the ones getting owned.
	Yeah.
	Oh, he got convicted.
	There was no investigation.
	And we don't know jack squat about the actual material part of this trial.
	So, Robert.
	Well, and in fact, what Musk pointed out, what several others pointed out on social media, is that the government had been covering for SBF.
	The media had been covering for SBF.
	The politicians had been covering for SBF.
	This was probably, arguably, The principal person responsible for the election of Joe Biden, the biggest or the second biggest direct or indirect contributor to the Democratic Party.
	And all of them, you know, buddies with the SEC commissioner, buddies with the members of Congress that they made major donations to, buddies with the Biden administration, buddies with large members of the press that apologized for him, buddies with large members of the financial press that covered for him and endorsed him.
	It was crypto Twitter that exposed him.
	That was Elon Musk's point.
	There was no official investing.
	It was the crypto Twitter crowd that started to point out this guy looks like a fraud and prove the elements of it that forced the action of the feds to come in and prosecute him.
	But even then, they structured it so that the political nature of his activities would ultimately never see the public light of day.
	And he was found guilty this past week in New York on all conspiracy and fraud charges.
	Not unsurprisingly, his defense was...
	Oops, my first day.
	I was unprepared.
	And he had too many people testified against him.
	There was too much use of other people's money.
	And that combination doomed him from...
	Probably from day one.
	And only defense was, well, I thought the vague rules let me do it, but I never actually asked a lawyer for direct permission to do it.
	Well, just if I may get a prediction, how many years does he go to jail for?
	Oh, it's going to be a lot because the amount's big.
	The rest of his life?
	There still may be appeal issues present.
	I mean, I don't like the fact that he was incarcerated pending trial.
	I thought his bail was wrongly denied.
	I think that always adversely impacts your ability to prepare for your defense.
	You don't know if the government disclosed all pertinent material records, so there may be exculpatory evidence that was hidden.
	There may have been other court rulings.
	The court seemed a little overtly hostile to them.
	So I think there are aspects of it that weren't the cleanest proceeding that might be subject to appellate review, but we won't know the full scale of those until the appeal is filed and the memorandum.
	You file the notice of appeal early, but the actual briefing is done months later.
	But I don't think, based on the facts, there was any doubt he was guilty.
	But the only reason he was ever exposed was crypto Twitter, not our government.
	Well, and not to fail to mention, I want to bring this one up.
	This is from January 6, 2020.
	Inside the secret of Silicon Valley group that has funneled over $20 million to Democrats.
	Mind the gap.
	I think Freed...
	This is his mother's.
	Let me see if...
	Get this out of here.
	What am I doing?
	SBF.
	Oh, he's not in here.
	Sam?
	This is his mother.
	Oh, whatever.
	This is his mother's...
	Yeah, his mother was helping Ron and the big get-out-the-vote operation, including a lot of the male voting that took place.
	So he was involved not only in direct contributions, but indirectly impacting and influencing the 2020 election outcome.
	And that part of his donation abuse and criminal misconduct...
	It's forever hidden because of the way in which the government rushed the case so that it would be limited to that part never seeing the light of day.
	Rushed as in brought him over on the extradition charge.
	Extradited him on limited charges and thus couldn't bring the other charges.
	And they knew that by the way they structured the extradition.
	Absolutely.
	And they tried to add charges afterwards that they knew they couldn't bring.
	They got dismissed so that he only got investigated on a small portion.
	He'll go to jail and see what happens after that.
	What's the next one, Robert?
	Speaking of communists, the National Communist Against Athletics, as Brian Bosworth famously called the NCAA, has been sued again for its monopolistic practices.
	The Supreme Court's already determined the NCAA violated antitrust laws.
	This involves the name, image, and likeness of individual players.
	They should be legally entitled to the monetary profit from that themselves.
	But the NCAA tries to prohibit them from profiting from it.
	And they try to use their amateurism as the excuse when really they just want to line their pockets with other people's labor.
	We talked about this a while back.
	This was using...
	What's this one?
	Hold on.
	So this is a new suit because the NCAA is now punishing players that have used NIL benefits even in states where NIL was legal.
	And so they're prohibiting players from being eligible to play.
	And so another class action has been filed against them based on their attempts to revitalize their antitrust behavior.
	Let me see this here.
	Hold on.
	I'll bring up one brief article on this.
	Opponents say it's about money.
	Will the NCAA get antitrust exemption on what it can mean if it does?
	If the mission is to protect athletes, but that is not how the NCAA behaves.
	They're protecting their own monetary interests of the institutions and the media and everyone else that rips off the players.
	You know, it's the players' labor that produces the value.
	And these are artificial wage caps that are imposed by these folks to try to, you know, the amateurist, all that stuff has always been garbage.
	I think we're the only country in the world that forces kids to participate at an amateur level before they can play professionally, as is the case in, you know, Particularly with college football, you have to play so many years before you're eligible for the draft.
	But also in basketball and other supports.
	And it's just the kids are making the money.
	Nobody's watching the coach.
	Nobody's watching the school.
	Nobody's watching the brand.
	They're watching the players.
	They produce all this profit that they don't get to share in.
	They get a tiny piece of the...
	Oh, they get a scholarship.
	That's not worth anywhere near the value they contribute.
	Particularly these big-time players.
	I mean, really, the other factor, it's also a big...
	It's wealth redistribution.
	It's a billion dollars, the market for the NCAA.
	Yeah, well, they take the money from this, and then they give it to sports nobody cares about.
	So they give it for women's sports, and they give it for rich kids' sports.
	So those sports get state funding paid for by these athletes who get underpaid.
	And so the NCAA, because the Supreme Court's case, was forced to allow NIL name, image, and likeness payments by universities set up in a certain way, but they've been playing games with it, and they escalated to this point where they're not allowing these kids to even be eligible to play at Chicago State because of their prior NIL profits.
	And they're going to ultimately lose.
	I mean, the NCAA is just an ongoing antitrust violation and shouldn't be allowed to do any of this activity.
	It's an artificial wage cap.
	That's what it is.
	It's monopolistic antitrust violations, the Sherman Act, and hopefully the NCAA will be stopped with this case and forced to concede.
	They have to go along with what the Supreme Court told them to do some years ago.
	Robert, there's one super rumble rant here that I think we should read.
	Let me just pull it up.
	Okay, here it is.
	This is GEATN.
	I'm a contractor in Virginia.
	I was sprayed with sulfuric acid, almost died, and was left a shell of who I am, yet lawyer told me I couldn't sue because of workman's comp.
	I guess that depends on what type of work GEAT had.
	But there's a lot of confusion out there.
	A lot of lawyers assume if you got injured on the job, workers' comp is the only remedy.
	And that's often not the case.
	All right.
	Are we heading over to locals now, Robert?
	We've got two other cases to talk about.
	One is the...
	Well, three, really.
	One is the morgue defamation case, which is kind of funny.
	The realtor commission case, well, that could have some big consequences in the real estate economy.
	And I have an update on what's happening in the vaccine mandate cases across the country.
	So we'll do that here and then we head over to Locals?
	Or do we do it at Locals?
	Oh, we can do that over at Locals.
	All right.
	So what we're going to do now, let me see this here, 802.
	I'm going to give everyone the link to Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm looking over here to make sure that there's not a typo in some of the tips that we're going to get to in a second.
	I'm going to give this to everybody here.
	I haven't heard that much screaming, but I've heard some screaming that has been distracting me somewhat.
	Come over to Locals, and we're going to finish the night up there, take the tips, cover the last three subjects.
	Great fun this evening.
	Thanks, says Sefra Dean Squibb.
	Duran Duran.
	Robert, are you going back on the Duran soon, or were you just on the Duran recently?
	No, it's whenever they want to do a chat.
	All right, that was from Zandra.
	Zandar86.
	Okay, so we're going to go over to Locals, people.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Robert, this week, what do you have coming up?
	I think, other than, I've got a bunch of briefs that are due this week.
	Including a Tyson Foods brief.
	Several, it turns out.
	I don't think I'm appearing on anything this week that I know of.
	There is...
	Round three of the RNC debate is in Miami, so I'm going to be down there on Wednesday.
	It'll be fun.
	It'll be phenomenally, fantastically interesting.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and everyone come over there.
	So tomorrow I'm going to be on with Luke Rutkowski and Clint Russell, so that's going to be on their channel, 6 o 'clock, 7 o 'clock, give or take.
	This is going to be some stuff.
	Wednesday night is going to be the debates.
	We're going to carry this on over.
	In a week, not this Wednesday, but a week from Wednesday, we'll have history legends on to discuss a whole bunch of things.
	He has that great YouTube channel that breaks down all the different war conflicts on an ongoing basis and a bunch of historical stuff that's cool.
	He's from Montreal.
	I know he's from Montreal, but Robert, we're going to end on this because now the past has come to reality.
	They're calling for negotiations of a peace in Ukraine and Russia.
	How many hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died in this war?
	They're starting to acknowledge what we talked about very early on, which was that the Ukrainian side was lying about the death count.
	But it's just devastating.
	There's just cemetery after cemetery there.
	It was a waste of life.
	What was referred to as Putin apologism a year or two years ago is now reality.
	Just settle it, move on, because we've got another war to bilk, and that's in the Middle East.
	All right.
	We're going to end this on...
	How do I end this?
	Livestream.
	Ending it on Rumble.
	Come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	This will be on podcast tomorrow.
	Clips are going to be on Rumble.
	And that's it.
	Everybody, see you tomorrow if you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Okay.
	Robert, I think we're good on...
	Hold on.
	What am I looking at here?
	I'm looking at something that's not in the backdrop.
	I'm going to go to the tips.

▲