Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 3, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:26:20

Ep. 189: Trump Trials! Texas Sues Pfizer! Santos Expelled! Barnes Fighting Hard & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	By lying about his net worth, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization were able to get these loans for much better terms than they should have.
	The banks thought Donald Trump had more money than he did, so they offered him loans at lower interest rates.
	As a result, over the years, the Trump Organization derived unfair financial benefits from banks alone in the amount of $168 million.
	The Trump's main point of contact at the bank told us that she had never looked at the fraudulent statements of financial condition at the center of our case.
	By lying about his net worth, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization were able to get these loans for much better terms than they should have.
	The banks thought Donald Trump had more money than he did, so they offered him loans at lower interest rates.
	I've got to pause it.
	I've got to pause it there.
	Never take an economics course from a filthy communist, okay?
	They thought he had more money than he had, so they charged him less interest than they would have had they known that he had less money than they thought he had.
	But moving on.
	The theory of the case in November.
	He lied to the banks who gave him a preferential rate because they thought he had more money than he had.
	Fast forward a month!
	As a result, over the years, the Trump Organization derived unfair financial benefits from banks alone.
	Unfair.
	Unfair.
	The Trump's main point of contact at the bank told us that she had never looked at the fraudulent statements of financial condition at the center of our case.
	I mean, I feel like I'm living through idiocracy.
	Oh, OK, I don't want to get too far into that.
	Because we're going to talk about that with Barnes.
	For those of you who are following me on Rumble, whoever's still on YouTube, I've gone back to the vlog, the short vlog, because this weekend I had an inordinate amount of time spent waiting.
	And time is never wasted.
	I don't want to tell people this, so long as I have an internet connection or even my phone.
	I can work anywhere, and I can make productive use out of time that other people would say, oh, just sat there waiting.
	Sat there waiting?
	I was waiting for a vehicle yesterday.
	You know, things beyond our control.
	I made a video.
	I researched into Derek Chauvin.
	We'll talk about that tonight as well.
	I made a video yesterday.
	Today, flipping kids want to go to Target.
	I've got two kids this weekend.
	My wife has got another one somewhere else.
	They want to go to Target.
	I'm not going to Target.
	Go into Target.
	I'll park the car right here.
	I'm going to make a video.
	And I did.
	And it was Tishy McTish, the communist over there, and New York nipple judge Engeron, proving that they're stupid beyond, they're not stupid, proving that they are corrupt beyond words.
	We'll get into that.
	What I wanted to start with was an alternative starting.
	I just, I felt guilty because I should give you the advance warning.
	There will be D-bombs, D-I-C-K, D-I-C-K, there will be an F-bomb, and there will be a PP, which...
	It's not really a bomb of anything.
	It's so flipping funny.
	It's so flipping funny that it needs to be shared.
	We need to start off with a good laugh.
	They only need to watch about a minute of it.
	The last 30 seconds is kind of useless.
	But we're talking about the Trump thing in greater detail when Barnes gets here so he can tell me how smart I am.
	For now, we're going to have a good laugh.
	Alrighty, alrighty.
	Follow, watch.
	Oh, that's great.
	You can't see what the memes are?
	Well, that seems kind of silly.
	Hold on, if I make it.
	So if you're ready, let's go for the million.
	If Bob Iger was in the room with you right now, what would you say to him?
	Eat a bag of dicks?
	Suck of my pee-pee?
	Disney Plus is gay?
	Go fuck yourself.
	It's the suck of my pee-pee.
	It's the greatest thing ever.
	I'd like to use one of my lifelines and phone a friend.
	Okay, who would you like to call?
	I'd like to call Bob Iger.
	Lofty pixels.
	Our friends at AT&T will get Bob Iger on the line and we'll see if he can help you.
	Oh, you know what's going to happen?
	You know what's going to happen?
	YouTube is going to claim this because it's using the music from...
	Oh, I'm going to contest the living bejesus out of that.
	Okay, sorry.
	We're just going to go.
	He's talking to Bob Iger.
	for those of you who can't see this because you're listening on podcast, Bob Iger is in a fiery pit of hell.
	Bob?
	Yeah.
	Hi, Regis Philbin here from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
	Hi.
	We've got Elon Musk with us right now.
	He's won a half million dollars.
	Wow.
	And he's going for a million dollars.
	What's so good about this is that it's AI voices, I presume, or someone who does voiceover, and actual clips.
	So it's so genius.
	And he needs your help to get there.
	Okay.
	So, come on the line, read a question, four possible answers.
	One of them is the right answer.
	Elon, you've got 30 seconds.
	It starts right now.
	Hey, Bob.
	Hi.
	I don't really need your help.
	I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to win the million dollars.
	Impeccable.
	Go fuck yourself.
	He's won a million dollars!
	Okay.
	There was a little more there that I cut it preemptively.
	Fantastic.
	Lofty was the quartering Jeremy video editor.
	Now Lofty is G-H-A-Y.
	Why is he?
	That's fantastic.
	I didn't know that.
	I didn't know that about Lofty, and I didn't know that the guy who was in that montage of Dana White, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk saying, go F yourselves.
	I didn't know that that guy, I mean, I knew who he was.
	I'd seen him around, but didn't know he was hilarious.
	They went, yeah.
	All right, so Golden is right.
	Kiki Lofty.
	What does that mean, Kik Lofty?
	I don't want to pull up a chat that's offensive and I don't know why.
	Not that I'll pull it up if it's offensive and I know why.
	I don't want to make a career-ending mistake by having pulled up a comment that I did not know was contextually the most vile, offensive thing imaginable.
	Good evening, everyone.
	Oh, um, what was I going to say?
	Good evening.
	Derek Chauvin, stabbed 22 times in jail by an FBI informant.
	The Trump trial continues.
	The world continues to burn.
	But I don't want to give anybody false white pill hope here.
	I'm optimistic.
	Now, hold on one second.
	This I'm going to deal with.
	Jittery Hobo says, Locals is not working.
	Is Viva aware?
	Hold on one second.
	Why would that be?
	Okay, no, everything is...
	Hold on, hold on.
	So let me...
	For those of you who don't know, if you're new here because you've seen two short videos that I put out over the weekend, we go live on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and people in vivabarnes.locals.com are telling me that it's not working.
	There is no after show...
	Hold on a second, let me just see.
	Is it working?
	Endstream.
	No, no, no.
	So give me one second.
	I'll figure this out.
	It's almost comical, but I've set it up and I've entered.
	No, I see myself right there.
	What are you guys talking about?
	Locals is working.
	Oh, these jittery hobo.
	If this was a troll, I'll tell you one thing.
	I might suspend you for five minutes and never look at one of your comments again.
	No.
	If it's not working, refresh it because locals was having tech issues today.
	They were down for maintenance.
	They seem to be back now, but Instagram is not working because I ain't on Instagram.
	And if anybody's watching and you know me on Facebook and you're still DMing me on Facebook, I haven't been able to access my Facebook since I left Canada.
	And I keep getting emails saying, you got a notification from X, Y, and Z, and they're friends of mine, and I can't reach them because...
	Because I don't have access to my Facebook because the two-step verification keeps sending a text message to a cell number that I no longer use.
	Well done!
	I've reached out and it doesn't work.
	Okay, all that to say, people, good evening.
	So we start on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
	We end on YouTube at about a half an hour in.
	Everyone comes over to Rumble, the free speech platform, where we carry on with the rest of the stream.
	After the stream is over, we end it on Rumble and go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	We take tip questions there, answer questions, dialogue, and we have a few extra subject matters that...
	That we get into there.
	Chris Banks says, Viva, never believe anyone who tells you the stream is down.
	True, but it's happened before that I didn't believe them and the stream was actually down.
	So that's why...
	All right, all right.
	Where is it here?
	Okay.
	All that's safe.
	We've got a good show night.
	Barnes is going to come in.
	Before we do that, I had another video in the backdrop that I was going to bring up.
	And I...
	Well, look, once we're getting copy claimed on YouTube...
	Let's go all in and get copyclaimed, because there's no fair use in YouTube.
	They don't give a sweet bugger all.
	You play 20 seconds, you do what is patently fair use.
	They don't care.
	Copyright trolls come in and say, hey, we'll take the revenue from that video.
	You used our video, and you commentated on it, or you used 30 seconds, 20 seconds, 15 seconds.
	We'll take that hard-earned viewership that you got.
	It doesn't matter.
	Fetterman, it's weird.
	It's very weird.
	Fetterman, to quote Elon Musk, spoke actual truth the other day, on The View, no less.
	It must have blown their itty-bitty, demented brains into like, Fetterman, I thought you were one of us.
	How dare you?
	This is going to relay into a subject that we're going to talk about tonight, Santos being expelled from Congress.
	And you've also been calling to get rid of Menendez, I know.
	But first, before we talk about that, what's your reaction to the expulsion?
	Well, it's like, I'm not surprised.
	But to me, I think the more important picture is that we have a colleague in the Senate that actually did much more sinister and serious kinds of things.
	Senator Menendez.
	He needs to go.
	And if you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow somebody like Menendez to remain in the Senate?
	And, you know, Santos' kind of lies were almost, you know, funny.
	It's an amazing thing.
	You know, the difference between being a liar of a politician, which is all of them, being a liar and a criminal fraudster of a politician, allegedly, you know, like taking campaign funds and paying for personal items.
	I don't know where, you know, is a haircut?
	I know there's, you know, generally accepted accounting principles for all of this.
	Haircut, you know, probably a campaign thing, maybe legitimate.
	Botox?
	Adult websites?
	Maybe not so much.
	Maybe arguably so.
	You know, he's traveling.
	Why not?
	But Menendez selling out, you know, his voice in American politics to Egypt is a bit different.
	And Fetterman is, if this is the real Fetterman, he seems very sharp.
	His delivery is very...
	No, I'm joking.
	I know what I think.
	It doesn't matter what I think.
	It matters what I can prove.
	And it on the moon and that kind of stuff.
	Whereas...
	Whereas, you know, I think, you know, Menendez, I think, is really a senator for Egypt, you know, not New Jersey.
	So I really think he needs to go.
	And especially it's kind of strange that if Santos is not allowed to remain in the House, you know, someone like that.
	Are you, though, uncomfortable with the fact that there hasn't been an adjudication that while he's been charged, there hasn't been a conviction?
	Menendez.
	With Menendez.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	Does that logic not apply?
	Exactly.
	To Santos, massive brain, big brain?
	You know, they say, like, a big brain is useless if it's a smooth brain.
	It's the wrinkles in the brain that create brain connectivity, at least according to...
	Are you afraid that with Menendez, there hasn't been an adjudicator?
	I'm sorry.
	Has Santos been indicted?
	I asked that.
	Actually, I don't know if Santos has been indicted.
	It doesn't matter.
	They don't have standards.
	They have lawlessness.
	And by they, I mean Democrats.
	I am.
	I am.
	And it's like he has the right for his day in court and all that.
	But he doesn't have the right to have those kind of votes and things that that's not a right.
	And I think we need to make that kind of decision to send him out.
	Well, I'll color me shocked.
	Santos indicted.
	Has Santos been indicted yet?
	Oh, so they both seem to have quite similar fact patterns.
	Oh, lordy.
	Okay, until Barnes gets here.
	So the standard disclaimers, no medical advice, no legal advice.
	But we're going to talk about some election stuff tonight.
	All these beautiful things here, these super chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of them.
	Rumble.
	Has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They only take 20% of them.
	When they do for the rest of the year, they're not taking any of the Rumble Rants.
	So you want to support the channel?
	That's the place to do it.
	The best way to do it, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What did Cheryl say here?
	I want to send a super chat about a video we posted that concerns your logo, but they keep telling me to edit it.
	Just put a comment in and I'll look for it and I'll ask everyone else to flag it to me.
	Viva Fry Laser Cutout.
	Looks like Fetterman clone number 14 went rogue.
	Let's say the last part.
	I don't want anyone misconstruing words as violence here.
	I know the rumors.
	Hold on one second.
	We got Big Pete S says, Santos was removed because he votes mega.
	Has Menendez not been removed yet?
	Anyhow, it's amazing.
	Fetterman is actually speaking truth, making sense.
	Whether or not you think that that is actual fed him, he seems to be getting better from whatever illness afflicted him a while back, which is good.
	Let's see here.
	Santos was expelled because he lied during his campaign.
	If that is the standard, all of Congress should be expelled.
	My face is itchy right here.
	No, I think Santos is a little bit different because he's alleged to have misappropriated campaign funds for personal use, but I mean, all right, it doesn't matter.
	What else did I have on the backdrop before we get into...
	I did send Robert the link.
	I know I did.
	Alright, there's one more video that's making the rounds.
	And I'm not convinced that it makes DeSantis look as bad as some might, you know.
	Some might interpret it.
	I understand the critique of the answer to this question.
	I will share my personal opinion of this afterwards, but just a random video of DeSantis not answering a question that was asked to him, and according to many, answering the question wholly unacceptably.
	You bring up former President Trump, so let me ask you about the GOP frontrunner.
	Mr. Trump is campaigning on the idea of retribution.
	He's promising to jail his political enemies if he's re-elected.
	He's also referred to some of his political opponents as vermin, language that people, frankly, across the political spectrum say, harkens back to Nazi Germany.
	Oh, the things I would say to that journalist if I were given the opportunity.
	I would be the best.
	I wouldn't be the best politician.
	I would just be the best debater, the best shutter down of bullshit.
	Oh, he said vermin.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	So is deplorables the better euphemism?
	We don't want to sound just like Nazis, as if no one else has used the word vermin before.
	So let's just call them deplorables.
	Let's just pull a Trudeau and say, should they be tolerated?
	Oh, no, no.
	But he said vermin.
	About politicians, by the way, not about people, doesn't it?
	Do you think that kind of language is presidential?
	Well, I think even beyond that, the issue is, is why are you running?
	Are you running for your personal issues?
	Are you running for the American people's issues?
	All right.
	Now, I don't know if there was a hard edit that I don't know about from the original, because that's one hell of a deflection from the question.
	Well, above and beyond whatever you just said, which I'm not going to address, but tacitly approve.
	Is it presidential?
	I love how people think presidential is saying the terrible things politely.
	As opposed to just saying the truth impolitely.
	Most politicians are beyond vermin because at least vermin have a use and a function in the world, in the ecosystem.
	I mean, I'd call them like, you know, big bags of feces.
	But even feces has a practical use in the ecosystem and that does not result in the destruction of everything around it.
	They're parasites.
	Can we call politicians parasites?
	Or is that hearkening too much of Nazi...
	Do I have to compliment them now?
	How about if every time I compliment them, you know that I'm calling them vermin and parasites?
	Can we agree to that game?
	Okay, doesn't matter.
	And I'm running for the American people's issues.
	And now part of that is this government is out of control.
	We have seen weaponization of agencies like the DOJ and the FBI and the IRS.
	I'm going to end that weaponization.
	But that's not because I'm doing it for me.
	It's because I'm doing it for the people that have been under the thumb of these agencies.
	The number one problem when arguing is presuming intentions.
	You can't prove it.
	It's just a personal attack.
	It's a dumb thing to do.
	DeSantis could make this exact same point without presupposing sinister or selfish underlying motivations for which Trump is running.
	I mean, what's he suggesting here?
	Trump is running for personal reasons now because he's being indicted and he sees it as his only way to get out of this what DeSantis is recognizing as a weaponized DOJ?
	Did Trump run for personal reasons in 2016?
	Is DeSantis running for personal reasons now?
	When anyone makes these types of accusations of intent, it doesn't make me, as a critical thinker, believe the accusation.
	It makes me suspect it of the individual.
	And it doesn't matter.
	But he's right about the weaponized DOJ, except he then says, well, let's just live with that and let Trump be, you know, torn apart by the weaponized dogs of the DOJ.
	Am I allowed to call them dogs or is that also inappropriate?
	And I'm gonna restore the rule of law.
	So I think if Donald Trump is saying...
	His whole thing is retribution for himself.
	Oh, that's what it is.
	Well, what about all the other people that have had issues with that?
	Is that somebody, are those people he's going to be standing up with?
	So I don't think you can say it's about your enemies.
	I think you've got to say it's about the American people's future.
	And the goal is to end weaponization, period, and to have a single standard of justice employed, not to basically do what we don't like is being done now, just in a different direction.
	How hard would it have been to say everything about that without imputing ill intentions to Trump running in 2024?
	As if when he ran in 2016, it was for personal reasons, personal gain, financial gain.
	A man who didn't have to sacrifice eight years of his life at first to slander, demonizing.
	The man who was the love of Hollywood, the most popular guy in television, at least at some point, becomes public enemy number one.
	And as if the first four years wasn't enough, now they're trying to put him in jail for having run and for having done better than demented old Joe who's walking the world towards World War III.
	I don't know what the news was about the warships under attack in the, was it the Red Sea?
	Oh no, but no, now DeSantis has to suggest that Trump is running for personal reasons.
	Even if it were true, the personal reasons would be to stay out of jail because he's being maliciously persecuted by a weaponized DOJ.
	So, we can be harsh with the people that we like, and we should be.
	Governor, as you know, DOJ officials would reject the idea that it has been weaponized.
	But let me ask you about my original question.
	The use of the word vermin.
	Are you comfortable with that term?
	But are you comfortable with that term, Governor?
	Let me just say on the DOJ...
	Well, first of all, I'm responsible for what I say, and I say things differently.
	But on the DOJ and the FBI...
	Are you comfortable with that term?
	Just on my question, though, Governor.
	Excuse me.
	Here's the answer.
	Yes.
	Moving on.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I can't call them vermin.
	Can I call them parasites?
	Bloodsuckers?
	Cronies?
	Or no.
	Oh, can they only call us people deplorables?
	No.
	What I'm not comfortable with is FBI agents going after parents going to school board meetings.
	I'm not comfortable with DOJ-FBI working with tech companies to censor dissent.
	I'm not comfortable with how this power has been exercised.
	And you have an agency that is very political.
	All right, we'll get that.
	We'll get that out of here.
	All right.
	How do I get this out of here?
	Well, until Barnes gets here, let's talk about what did I just do?
	I thought I just shut the whole stream down.
	Barnes will get here in a second.
	Let me just read some of the super chats that came up here.
	Let's talk about globalists exploiting the negligent monoparty are trying to make, quote, competition, end quote, synonymous with, quote, criminal, end quote.
	What's sad is how people cheer it on.
	Well, by the way, snuggle struggle.
	If you're following Canadian politics and Canadian media, apparently the term globalist is a dog whistle for anti-Semites.
	This is according to journalist Dale Smith out of Canada, journo underscore Dale on Twitter.
	The use of the word globalist is a dog whistle for anti-Semites.
	And I said, if that's a dog whistle for anti-Semitism, that presupposes that you believe that Jews are behind globalism.
	I don't think that's the case at all, by the way.
	I think the number one globalist of all time is Klaus Schwab, who, from what I understand, is not Jewish, although there are some rumors, which I think are unsubstantiated and disproven, that his mother was the Rothschild from the Rothschild family.
	But it's incredible.
	They want to destroy anybody.
	It's always been that way, though.
	It's always been that way, but not to the extent that they want to destroy them and put them in jail.
	That was like Eastern European, Soviet-level, Banana Republic-level stuff.
	You know, they'd always try to destroy you, defame you, harass you, you know, shame you into not getting into politics.
	That's why we only end up with psychopaths and narcissists and the worst of all people in politics because it deters good people from participating.
	But that's what it is.
	But they never stooped to this level, trying to put the political opponent in jail literally while crying that if he gets into power, he's going to put us in jail.
	So we better put him in jail first while trying to put their family in jail.
	There's never been anything like this, at least in my lived experience in Canada and the United States.
	Two Dogs Mike D says, How is MSNBC not getting sued for election interference?
	Her and Jen Psaki are flat out lying about Trump saying he'll throw political opposition in prison.
	I don't get it.
	What's your legal opinion?
	It's hyperbolic opinion.
	I don't think anybody really takes it seriously.
	And they're saying it's a fear of what might happen.
	They're saying he's going to go after them.
	I think they'll wiggle out of it on opinion hyperbole.
	No one's taking it seriously, literally, like when Tucker Carlson said the extortion thing.
	But that's it.
	If anyone could be shown to be working against their own personal benefit, it's Trump.
	Maybe DeSantis is too, but that doesn't prove Trump isn't.
	Working against them.
	No, I think some would say that DeSantis' work is, if anyone's going to accuse someone of running for their own personal benefit...
	People are going to accuse DeSantis of that.
	By virtue of running, he sells a book deal.
	By virtue of running, he gets FU money for the rest of his life.
	Although 10 million, that's not Elon Musk FU money.
	That might be comfortable for the rest of your life.
	But some people would accuse DeSantis of running for his own personal gain, knowing that he's got zero chance of winning at this point in time.
	So, you know, confession through projection, when you got one finger pointing at someone else, there are three right pointing back at you and one pointing up at...
	The sky or the...
	Whatever, you know what I'm getting at.
	Okay, Barnes is in the house and he's looking dapper.
	He's making me jealous.
	I should probably wear a suit and tie one day.
	I'm not going to.
	All right, let's bring on the Barnes.
	Stabilize the audio.
	Make sure it's good.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You look younger.
	Did you get a trim?
	Maybe.
	Okay, because whenever I say...
	I don't remember.
	Oh, well, considering the week you had last week, Robert, I can sort of understand what, oh, we're going to get into some stuff tonight.
	Let me just make sure, so you say something, or tell us what book you have behind you.
	I'm going to read the chat to see if the audio levels match up.
	Sure, so the book is Attorney for the Damned, Clarence Darrow's In His Own Words, biography of Clarence Darrow, the famous defense lawyer, civil rights lawyer, back at the beginning of the turn of the century, a man whose advocacy was not generally welcomed.
	By the judiciary of his time.
	Often was targeted.
	They tried to put him in prison a couple of times on bogus contempt charges.
	So they tried to disbar him a couple of times as well.
	So it's just a reminder that people read about the legendary lawyers of the past.
	What they don't know is those lawyers were frequently targeted by the system for individualized...
	Harassment, which might have some application to some topics we're discussing today.
	We'll get into it, Robert.
	Tell us what the menu is, and then we'll get into one or two here, and then move on over to Rumble.
	So first up, we got the expulsion of Congressman Santos.
	Second, we got all the different Trump news.
	The evidence of how fake that trial is in New York was exposed this week.
	The reinstatement of a gag order without explanation for the New York Court of Appeals, while the other gag order awaits a resolution from the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	Multiple decisions on immunity, deciding that Trump somehow uniquely doesn't have immunity from either civil suit or criminal indictment, according to the D.C. Court of Appeals or the District Court.
	Take your pick.
	Selective prosecution.
	When do you get a jail free card?
	It's interesting who it is applied to.
	The man most being selectively prosecuted against, Donald Trump, somehow there is no selective prosecution.
	But if illegal immigrants are being arrested in Texas by Texas state authorities, well, that sounds like selective prosecution, according to Texas courts, and you can't do that.
	Then we have Texas Attorney General Paxson continuing to prove he's the only legitimate attorney general in the entire country as he brings prosecution against Pfizer for its lies about COVID-19 vaccines.
	The Texas border dispute.
	It looks like they will not be able to use buoys to prevent illegal immigration across the river, according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Supreme Court, we got some big cases.
	A case that's about the opioid settlement, the Sackler settlement.
	It's fascinating.
	Much bigger, because it's about the power of bankruptcy courts, and it's a decision that could completely rewrite what bankruptcy courts have been accustomed to doing for decades now.
	Robert Kennedy moves to intervene in the U.S. Supreme Court's Missouri versus Biden decision.
	The Supreme Court chose to relist it.
	They should let him in, because he's got unique interests that only he can properly vindicate.
	The big takings case on rent control laws and a Fourth Amendment case of my own that will be up before the court on Monday.
	It's a long shot to take, but who knows?
	Maybe the Supreme Court will finally find a little bit of justice in them.
	The egg price fixing verdict came in on that.
	We discussed that before.
	Big ruling on Wisconsin absentee ballots out of the Wisconsin trial court that will impact 2024.
	Venezuela says they own Guyana right around the time they found some oil there.
	That may lead to conflict there.
	They're voting today on whether to just go and seize a big part of it.
	Guyana, to be distinguished from Ghana.
	And I was confused while I started reading.
	I was like, wait a minute.
	I'm no geomathematician, but I thought Ghana was in Africa.
	It is.
	Guyana is bordering with Venezuela, so we'll get there.
	Exactly.
	The NIL money, name, image, and likeness money, and other money that goes to benefit college football, the college football playoff was controversially picked today.
	Well, the women athletes are claiming they're taking a card out of the women's soccer team book.
	They're saying that college football men should not be getting all those special benefits.
	Even though it's entirely market-driven.
	And that they have to strip Oregon's football program of all of its perks unless women get the exact same perks.
	The women's volleyball team surely is as important as the men's football team.
	They line up around the corner to watch those women play volleyball.
	Maybe at USC they do.
	I don't know about Oregon.
	The Madison Square Garden's liquor license in jeopardy because of its targeting of lawyers who sue them.
	I think I'm on that list, apparently.
	I don't know if I'm in their biometric system or not, to exclude me from the venue.
	Haven't tried since then.
	And then a federal judge in Arkansas threatening a certain lawyer for filing a Nuremberg claim.
	According to this judge, American courts, you can kill a Nazi.
	But you can't sue a Nazi, and if you claim you can sue a Nazi, you need to be sanctioned, you terrible human being, in between going and picking up his latest pocket change from a certain company maybe in Arkansas.
	We'll be discussing conflicts of interest that sometimes happen on the federal bench.
	Amazing.
	By the way, if I look like I'm creaking to one side, the pain in my sciatic has now moved to the left side of my neck because I think when I'm jogging to compensate for that, I tweaked something, so it hurts, but my sciatic is a little better, so I guess there's blessings.
	Robert Santos.
	The news of the days that he was voted expelled from Congress on Friday.
	It was not even close in terms of a vote.
	I forget how many they needed versus how many they got, but not even close in terms of a vote.
	He's been indicted.
	He hasn't been convicted.
	There was an ethics report that came out that said he had misappropriated funds from his campaign for personal use.
	The examples that they gave were Botox and adult film stuff that I think he might have been renting, I don't know, or a website that he was paying a subscription for.
	And they held a vote to kick him out, which it's very shocking in a sense that I guess it's only happened, what, six times in the history of America, three times since the Civil War.
	What are the other reasons for which they say it's bad strategy?
	He was kicked out of New York.
	He's a Republican, which means that there's going to be one less Republican congressman.
	Well, I don't understand how it means that they have a half one for now, but when they hold the re-election or the emergency, whatever election is to replace him, if it goes Democrat...
	The Republicans lose a seat in the House.
	Republicans, you know, seem to be playing by principle, not strategy.
	And I don't know where Menendez is, and I don't know, you know, they have enough information to yeet Santos from Congress, but apparently they lack sufficient basis to file impeachment proceedings against Joe Biden.
	Make it make sense and also tell people, I mean, is it justified, which I think it is, but tactically incongruent, or is it just double standards?
	It's definitely double standard.
	I think it's also unconstitutional.
	The problem I have with it is what the Constitution allows is two mechanisms by which a member of the House cannot be a member of the House when they've been elected by their constituents to be a member of the House.
	One is exclusion.
	Exclusion is, under the Powell decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, only permitted...
	If the person doesn't constitutionally qualify and they've considered those qualifications as the only qualifications, the ones itemized in the Constitution, which, by the way, is analogous precedent for the Trump ballot access, in my view, that similarly, you can't exclude someone that does it unless they don't meet the explicit qualifications.
	And the insurrection clause is not one of those qualifications.
	So they couldn't exclude him.
	There's no dispute about that.
	The only thing they could do is expel him.
	Their power to expel is only for violation of the rules for disorderly behavior with two-thirds or more concurring vote.
	My problem...
	Disorderly behavior where and when?
	Correct.
	The House has interpreted that very broadly, and I think they've interpreted it too broadly.
	Santos is not likely to contest his challenge through the court system.
	He may.
	He's facing a federal criminal indictment related to a lot of the alleged conduct here.
	But to me, the only allegation that they had that he did anything wrong as a member of the House in violation of the rules was they alleged he submitted a false 2023 financial disclosure.
	That was it.
	To me, that is not, given how routine and regular that kind of violation is, is that disorderly behavior to such a degree that expulsion is warranted?
	I think my problem here is almost 99% of the conduct they complained of concerned conduct prior to him being seated in the House of Representatives.
	And it doesn't say anything in the Constitution about prior behavior.
	It talks about violating the rules for disorderly conduct.
	That should be interpreted as the sole and exclusive basis, just like the qualifications clause has been interpreted as that being the sole and exclusive basis for exclusion.
	So, in my view, it violated the Constitution.
	Now, the Supreme Courts in general are highly unlikely to get involved in this.
	They got involved on the seating issue because they saw that as a cleaner, clearer issue than expulsion.
	But you're correct.
	There's been very little historical precedent.
	The only people that have been previously expelled committed clear disorderly behavior conduct as members of Congress.
	Either they joined the Confederacy in an actual insurrection against the Congress and against the federal government, while members of Congress they did so, or while members of Congress, they used their congressional office.
	To commit crimes of corruption and bribery and had been convicted by a jury.
	All of that happened prior to their expulsion.
	So for them to expel Santos without any criminal trial...
	Without any even official ethics referral for him to be, there was an ethics report, but no referral for him to be prosecuted.
	When the Justice Department requested Congress defer any action on Santos because it put him in a dilemma of either he keeps his seat or he gives up his Fifth Amendment rights in the criminal case because the courts have ruled that it's not double jeopardy to be subject to both prosecutions at the same time, but it raises due process issues and fairness issues.
	But aside from all of that, to me, my biggest problem with it is I didn't see a limited focus on behavior that took place while a member.
	I took the exact same position on Marjorie Taylor Greene, taking the position on Biden related to impeachment, that Biden can only be impeached for things he's done as president, not for things he did before he was president.
	So let me play devil's advocate here, maybe literally.
	You'll say he did the things during the campaign, appropriating the funds, but I presume he had to ratify his campaign finances once he was in Congress.
	So, I mean, maybe it's not...
	Only somewhat.
	I mean, that's where they have the 1-20-23 financial disclosure statement.
	But if they had limited it to that, then maybe there could be an argument, but they didn't.
	They focused almost entirely on things he did before that.
	That was basically a footnote.
	And all of the criminal charges...
	I don't believe any of them relate to any conduct that took place while he was a member of Congress.
	And that was almost the entire basis of the expulsion.
	So they're claiming, Congress is now claiming they can expel people for something they did while they were not a member of Congress.
	And that will correlate later to our immunity discussion with Trump.
	It's, okay, if we're going to start carving out certain things and saying, that wasn't in your official duties.
	Then how do you use your powers to punish people for their violation of their official duties?
	And then you also say, oh, they're not immune because that wasn't in their official duties.
	For example, he has no claim of that.
	He wouldn't anyway if he'd been a member of Congress at the time, but he has no even colorable claim because everything he's alleged to have committed a crime happened before he was seated in the House.
	And I have problems with using conduct that predates the person's...
	Because the biggest problem with this is it's over...
	It's overturning the voters' election.
	And that's why, I mean, Democrat will replace them because the Democrat that will be up there was the one who was going to run for governor who previously had that seat.
	So it's classic Republicans giving away another seat to Democrats.
	But again, historically, they had never done this.
	Historically, they'd always said it's got to be while you're a member of Congress and it's got to be a finding, an undisputed fact or a finding.
	They had neither here.
	And so this is a problematic precedent that they've set.
	They're now weaponizing their power to go after members of Congress they just don't like for things that have nothing to do with their own rules.
	Why have they not also done this with Menendez, which seems to be a much more clear-cut case?
	Other than on The View, and it doesn't seem to have gotten more traction than that, there's no discussion about doing this to Menendez.
	Correct.
	Yeah, because Democrats aren't dumb.
	You have a few who will say it, and they can say it and get away with it, saying he should be expelled because he actually committed crimes while he was a senator.
	But again, he wasn't expelled the first time he was prosecuted, ended up being acquitted, got re-elected, because that's New Jersey, and now he's been prosecuted again.
	And that was Matt Gaetz's point.
	He's like, let Democrats suspend Menendez.
	Yeah, and it is first, before we suspend our own.
	But they don't even think about it.
	And because they're not suicidal with how they exercise political power, like their Republican hierarchy is.
	So the real reason they didn't like Santos is they didn't like his politics.
	If Santos had the politics of Liz Cheney, they would have excused and suddenly said, you know, the principle is you never suspend someone until they've been convicted by a juror.
	They completely abandoned that.
	In this context, because they don't like how he votes, is the real bottom line.
	They didn't like who the voters chose, the Republican establishment.
	So they politically weaponized it against a disfavored, dissident Republican and decided to highlight.
	You dig in the allegations, a lot of them are really overstated.
	It makes it look like, oh, it's systemic fraud, and then it becomes like a timing issue.
	Well, he said he got a loan at this time, and actually the money didn't come in until two months later.
	It's like, okay, who was actually defrauded here?
	And then some of the personal use?
	I mean, look at how Maxine Waters uses her campaign funds.
	I mean, Maxine Waters, by this ground, should have been expelled 20 years ago.
	Look at how AOC does it.
	Look at how all of them do it.
	Look at how Ilhan Omar does it.
	I mean, they divert money directly to their family.
	In a much more egregious, fraudulent manner.
	None of them are being prosecuted.
	None of them are being expelled.
	Many of them are not even being censured.
	So, I mean, it's a joke that they're suddenly, oh, we suddenly care about ethics here in the House.
	You know, come on.
	It's pontificating nonsense to placate the Democratic establishment, and they're willing to violate constitutional precedent in the process.
	And what about Bowman, who actually misbehaved and interrupted?
	Oh!
	If that is a disorderly conduct, that is the classic definition of disorderly conduct.
	In my view, that was originally interpreted to be a very limited remedy.
	Disorderly conduct is you cannot conduct your task as the House, and you have to expel the person because they're precluding your ability to do the public's duty.
	If it doesn't meet that constitutional standard, I think it's in excess of their authority.
	Because otherwise, let the voters decide.
	If they don't like his conduct, they can toss him out.
	They've already said that the congressman's not immune from federal prosecution.
	So given that, you already have the Justice Department going after the guy, facing a long-extended prison sentence risk.
	This was just insult to injury and giving the Democrats an added bonus.
	Okay, well, it's...
	You feel not bad, but you feel dirty defending someone who clearly is a liar.
	Big frickin' deal.
	And then the personal expenses, all right.
	And then, I mean, okay, so you did that.
	90% of that is kind of, you're telling me Nikki Haley isn't using her presidential campaign funds to buy a bunch of dresses and fancy dresses at that?
	Well, and her heels, because those are her self-defense.
	Or like Nancy Pelosi.
	Well, I'm sure DeSantis needed it to get his heels.
	Nancy Pelosi going to get her hair done.
	Who pays for this?
	Oh, that was my money that I got from my salary.
	And why wouldn't it?
	Well, she is the best stocker.
	I mean, this is the irony.
	You have members of Congress, like the Pelosi's, who are worth $100 million while they've only been in office.
	Well, their only job has been, they've gone from less than a million to over $100 million while they've been in Congress.
	Their only job has been in Congress.
	How does that happen?
	Open overt corruption that they allow.
	And they're going after this guy because he used some campaign funds on what you think was a personal expense.
	I mean, that's always debated, right?
	It's just extraordinary.
	And you're saying he did this in his official duty, yet if he claimed immunity in his civil suit, you would say he didn't do this as part of his official duties.
	So it's just contradiction.
	And again, we go to the Constitution.
	How does this fit the definition of...
	Disorderly conduct while a member of the House.
	Almost none of it does.
	All right, testify.
	Let's get the number under 2,000, everybody.
	We're going to go over to Rumble now and end on YouTube.
	And what are we going to start with when we get to YouTube?
	When we get to Rumble, sorry.
	Trump.
	Trump.
	Oh, yeah.
	Speaking of double standards and the gratuitous use of the word duties, Robert.
	All right.
	Get over to Rumble.
	We're ending on YouTube.
	Just the OCD part of me just wants to see the number go down once.
	It went up!
	Too bad.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	And after that, come on over for the after party.
	Ending on YouTube in 5, 4, 3. We're done.
	All right.
	Trump updates, Robert.
	Which one do we start with?
	Can we start with New York Nipple Judge and Tissue McTishle James out of New York?
	It's a freaking joke.
	So I put out a video today.
	Many people may not have yet seen it.
	Letitia James, or Tish as she calls herself, has been putting out, at least for the first 23 days of this trial, which is now on its 10th week, she was putting out daily two-minute videos of hate, summarizing in the most egregious, propagandized ways the evidence that was adduced in court during the day.
	I don't know how it's acceptable for an attorney general to be publicly commenting on an ongoing litigation that she's bringing against one of her own residents.
	She did it.
	I guess it got to be too much because now she's moved to weekly recaps.
	And her weekly recap of last week, there's been a finding of fraud.
	Everybody knows that already.
	New York nipple judge Engeron summarily found a finding of fraud on the Mar-a-Lago evaluation.
	And yet, only last week or the week before did the defense even get to put up its case.
	I don't know what, you know, the defense is presenting its case after the judge already found fraud.
	You know, they've Alex Jones him.
	Trump called up...
	Someone from the Deutsche Bank, who basically said, as far as I understand, if I'm wrong, someone correct me.
	Yeah, sure, he gave us his estimates and his own observations.
	We do our own due diligence, and we, in theory, have what his estimates are.
	He gives us his evaluations.
	We assume it's half of what he says.
	We still would have given him the loan.
	At the beginning part of this trial, Letitia James was saying, Trump defrauded the banks because they gave him preferential loan rates because of the lies.
	Ivanka Trump came up.
	She said, no, they didn't give us preferential rates because of the lies.
	They gave us preferential rates because they were shopping for our business, and that's nothing less than what they confirmed this week.
	And now Letitia James says, it doesn't even matter if the bank admits that they would never have charged more.
	It's still fraud somewhere, somehow, somewhere.
	And it's an amazing evolution, but it's egregious.
	It's egregious, Robert.
	What can happen and what is going to happen?
	Because he's still going to get convicted by anger on.
	Yeah, I mean, it just establishes about the court of public opinion and for his appeal how ludicrous this case is.
	That, you know, the thin read they had for claiming fraud was because merely making a false statement in any document to a court or anybody else is not by itself an illegal act.
	It is only an illegal act if it has a material impact.
	And for fraud to be met.
	This is the materiality requirement of fraud in the civil or criminal context.
	So the question was, even if you thought his statements were incorrect in his financial statement, how did it lead to him acquiring a benefit, a material impact, that he would not have otherwise received?
	Her only grounds was that the terms of the loan were more generous than they would have been had he disclosed a much lower financial self-worth.
	And the bank proved that was completely false.
	And they had contemporaneous correspondence, internal correspondence, that proved that as well.
	They were like, this was one of the greatest coups ever to get Trump.
	He was one of the greatest lending arrangements we ever had.
	A whale.
	He made us ridiculous profits, absurd levels of profits, was being able to land this.
	He paid everything back.
	He always was going to be able to pay everything back.
	And he brought us all kinds of other business.
	So they made clear that his financial statements had absolutely no impact on their loan.
	And if he had given a much lower estimate, the estimate the government thinks he should have given, they would have still made the exact same loan on the exact same terms.
	That means there's no fraud here.
	There's absolutely no fraud here.
	It's now beyond dispute that there's no fraud here.
	And so what you have is a judge who has to rubber stamp a ludicrous ruling.
	That is a joke in the court of public opinion.
	And the only question will be whether the higher courts in New York or the U.S. Supreme Court vacate this embarrassment of a ruling and an embarrassment of a case.
	I want to highlight one other thing that Leticia Tissue-McTish is talking about.
	She says he overvalued his assets for insurance.
	And as if to say that by overvaluing his assets, he didn't get a better insurance rate.
	He paid more for insurance, presumably, and never made a claim.
	So the fraud would come in, in theory, when he says, "Okay, my Mar-a-Lago is worth $10 trillion.
	Insure it at $10 trillion.
	Okay, well, your premium is going to be whatever it is.
	Oh, there's been a claim that's been destroyed.
	Pay me $10 trillion." The bank comes in and says, or the insurance company comes in and says, "No, it's not worth $10 trillion.
	That's a misrepresentation.
	We're denying you coverage." Okay, or if they had paid him out, then it would be fraud.
	But how can Engeron now, like, hypothetically, he's already adjudicated fraud on Mar-a-Lago.
	Can he not come back now and say, well, now that I've seen more evidence after the actual trial, I'm going to undo my summary judgment of fraud?
	Is that even in the realm of possibility?
	Well, legally, of course he can.
	But his bias is such that it's highly improbable.
	And what the evidence is proving is that their theory of the case is without merit.
	And the judge's basis to do anything to Trump is without merit.
	And it's purely political.
	And the New York Court of Appeals reinstated the gag order without meaningful explanation.
	Not without meaningful explanation, Robert.
	None.
	All that they said is, we reviewed it and we're reinstating it.
	Yeah.
	And the reason why they had no written opinion is because it would be a crock for them to even try to justify or rationalize it in a published form.
	So they're just hoping that no higher court steps in and sets them aside.
	But it shows their degree of bias and prejudice.
	The New York court process is a complete joke.
	The D.C. court process is a complete joke.
	And what it's doing is undermining confidence in American courts for people globally.
	I mean, the Biden administration undermined confidence for investing in America due to its Russian sanctions and how broadly it applied those.
	To people of any kind of Russian ancestry.
	That terrified anybody who is not a U.S. citizen.
	Hey, I better not have my money in the United States.
	I better not invest in the United States.
	They'll come and seize it, steal it anytime they want for any cause they seem fit to do.
	But now, the number one reason why the U.S. is one of the favorite places to invest around the world is its perceived legal impartiality.
	That, unlike many court systems around the world, the U.S. court systems are perceived as rule-of-law governed courts that are pretty predictable as a business investor.
	Now they're looking like, well, if they can do this to the President of the United States and one of their most successful real estate investors on completely frivolous grounds, then I'm an idiot.
	To invest in the United States.
	I'm an idiot to keep my assets in the United States.
	And that is deeply dangerous to the long-term economic health of the country because these courts don't care.
	They're so used to misusing and abusing their power.
	And they're so accustomed to not being punished for it by higher courts that they're getting away with highway robbery.
	And that's what they're doing to Trump.
	And it's an embarrassment.
	And it's a crash course in the corruption of the American judicial system writ large for the American people that many people are still finding shocking.
	Some of us that have been in the trenches, I have known this has been the case for a long time.
	It's just they usually limited it to outsiders and dissidents.
	They didn't usually do it to someone as popular, as prominent, as famous.
	I mean, they've done frivolous, bogus garbage cases before, but it's just not at this scale to this kind of person.
	And that's why it's becoming a crash course at just how bad our legal system has become.
	And, you know, we're getting the same education out of the New York courts.
	We're getting out of the D.C. courts.
	Robert, in Quebec, as far as I remember, and I have to double check, but rules of civil procedure require judges to motivate their decisions.
	Is there not a similar provision in New York law, or is this an interim decision so it doesn't need to be motivated?
	They should have published it, but who disciplines them?
	I mean, it's the constant problem, right?
	The only people who discipline the judiciary are other judges.
	I mean, there is a power of impeachment, but it's almost never exercised against institutional establishment political figures.
	It should be.
	I mean, look at the Democrats.
	Democrats are using their Senate power to go after the Supreme Court justices they don't like based solely on substantive rulings on policy, not based on anything against Biden personally, not based on perceived political misuse.
	Because they don't like their rulings on gun control and on abortion and on the power of the administrative state.
	They're personally weaponizing their Senate power to go after them.
	By contrast, Republicans are only doing it to go after their own.
	So as long as these judges know they won't face any consequence, they will continue to abuse their power.
	And that's what you're seeing.
	And the fact that they are so politically obtuse.
	As to not realize that half of the country sees it for what it is, is just revealing as to the degree to which they're a disconnected, entrenched, let-them-eat-cake corrupt elite.
	Not just a corrupt elite, not just an incompetent elite, but like the people that regretted the passing of Henry Kissinger, most of them agree his moral compass was long broken, but agree that his intellectual capacity was always present.
	And you could often rely upon that for practical solutions that didn't escalate unnecessarily into global conflict.
	These people, you can't.
	These people's moral compass is broken, and they never were intellectually capable to begin with.
	And now we're just seeing what partisan corruption does to such an intellectually incapable, morally broken court.
	Yeah, so now the gag order reinstated.
	That's the OK for Chutkin and the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	So eliminate that.
	It's got to go to the Supreme Court, I guess.
	And the trials, it's the biggest sham I've ever seen.
	So, okay.
	And that's compounded by their rulings this week by the D.C. Court of Appeals on civil immunity and the D.C. District Court on criminal immunity.
	Okay, so this is the one where Trump was arguing for presidential immunity because when he made certain statements about the 2020 election, he was doing it in his capacity as president.
	And I forget how the under the ruling went.
	We're at the Court of Appeal.
	They said, No immunity, correct?
	Yes.
	They said if you did it in your campaign capacity, it's not your official capacity.
	And what I love to say highlighted in the lawsuit, even when you filed the filing, you filed it in your personal capacity, not in your capacity as president.
	But to me, I'm saying, how could he have ever done it in his capacity as president?
	He was not president at the time he filed the suit, but he was president at the time he was making those statements.
	Well, the bigger problem I have is it directly contradicts their prior rulings.
	The same D.C. court said a member of Congress is completely immune for his defamatory statements that he made in a purely campaign capacity about his private divorce.
	Was this Bobby Kennedy?
	No, the other one came out of Massachusetts.
	Ted Kennedy at a campaign fundraising event defamed Operation Rescue, and the federal court said he's immune.
	So how is it those statements in a campaign capacity?
	When I sued Senator Warren and Congressman Hallin, now Interior Secretary Hallin, the court said the same thing.
	They said, oh no, everything's in your official capacity.
	Oh, but it's Trump.
	Oh, sorry.
	We never meant any of that.
	Suddenly there's a campaign capacity exception.
	Didn't we forget that every time we let everybody of our political friends off?
	It shows what partisan hacks they all are.
	I mean, and they don't even seem to be aware of this.
	They think they can just BS.
	They're so used to...
	We'll spin whatever story we want.
	We'll ignore the evidence that contradicts us.
	Ignore the precedents that contradict us.
	Pretend the whole world will just accept our version of events as true because our courts are so used to this.
	Back in the old day, courts, and you still find it with deepsters in foreign courts, they actually have to honestly recount both sides of the argument before they issue an opinion.
	So you read an old case like the 1840s, you can't even figure out what the opinion is until the very end because they're recounting both sides.
	They should still be forced to do that because what it does is it prevents them from being so dishonest.
	Look, courts today are routinely dishonest.
	And the way they're dishonest is they set up the set of facts and procedural posture in a way that is not what, in fact, the arguments were because they want to make it seem obvious that their conclusion is the correct one.
	To do that...
	They have to be dishonest about the procedural posture, dishonest about the precedents, dishonest about the arguments actually substantively made to them.
	And so that's what happened here.
	It's like, how is it everybody else until Trump has immunity, whether it's campaigning or not, because it's all considered part of your duties, right?
	They said it was part of your constituent communication.
	In other words, if he was not running for office...
	May he have made the same statements while president?
	Yes.
	So that means immunity applies.
	The presidential immunity applies unless it's something you would never do as president, right?
	So that's why Bill Clinton wasn't immune from suit for something he did before he was president, which was sexually harass someone while governor of Arkansas.
	That was something that actually was not a presidential act because he wasn't even president when he did it.
	And it's much more clear that's not within his presidential capacity.
	These are public statements made while president.
	That is by definition presidential capacity.
	And about an election that's going to determine the president.
	I mean, what kind of president wouldn't...
	Even if it were hypothetical...
	Even if it was Pence's election, he would have been making...
	If it was anyone else's election, would he make the same statements?
	Yes.
	So the fact that it served a campaign purpose has never been an exclusion.
	They've explicitly said no, including this D.C. Circuit.
	They reversed all that.
	They threw all that precedent out because it's Trump.
	And they pretended, whoa, we're just following the law.
	No, they're not.
	They made this up.
	This is a doctrine they've explicitly rejected themselves before.
	So it's because they're anti-Trump.
	They went out of their way to say, look, we're not saying that maybe he can't win on summary judgment.
	We're not saying that he doesn't have a First Amendment defense.
	We're not saying this doesn't apply to the criminal charges.
	Because they knew?
	Why did they go out of their way to say all that?
	Because they know they're ruling something they've never ruled before and contradicts their precedent.
	They just don't want you to know that because they're dishonest.
	And so that's what we're seeing.
	We're seeing the constant evisceration of the rule of law as people see how judges' motivation in cases is almost always partisan.
	Very few judges actually decide on the law and the merits.
	They decide based on what they want to have happen.
	And then they rationalize it afterwards.
	And then they pretend to the world the law compelled their result.
	That's very rarely true, frankly.
	In case people don't remember offhand, two cases in the past history in which statements were made at a campaign rally were deemed to be immune.
	Deborah Holland and Elizabeth Warren, it wasn't during an election, although they said we were speaking on a matter of policy so that it pertains to our official functions.
	They were the ones who defamed Nicholas Salmon.
	I still don't think they take...
	And all the Covington kids.
	All the Covington kids.
	All the Covington kids.
	And the, I mean, the, now one of the law firms defending those congressmen, I mean, most of the congressmen corrected and retracted after I said I was going to sue them all.
	Not Warren, not Holland.
	But even Elon Omar deleted a tweet for the first time ever after I said I was going to sue.
	But they had some legal protection because the group arguing they have immunity for everything is a law firm by the name of Claire Locke.
	Went on Tucker Carlson and attacked me saying, how dare I say we could bring these suits?
	They also confused the class action from class libel.
	Either they're too dumb or they would do it.
	Now, of course...
	They went on and hired, represented Dominion in cashing in on that cash cow of a case.
	And now Rumble hired him.
	So good luck to Rumble's suit.
	Maybe don't hire Dominion's law firm for your law firm if you want certain kinds of public...
	That's not a law firm I would trust or have faith in.
	Let's put it that way.
	Given their political bias.
	But they claim full immunity for everybody.
	But now, of course...
	Suddenly there is not such immunity when it's politically convenient.
	I mean, I don't disagree with the idea that campaign things are not immune.
	I disagree with their selectivity about applying it for Trump and not applying it to others.
	That's my problem with it.
	And this is a context in which, as president, he would be obligated to talk about this anyway.
	So the idea that it's not related to his duties, that would be nuts, right?
	What the Covington kids did was not related to Elizabeth Warren's duties.
	There was no pending legislation concerning it.
	Nor Congresswoman Howland.
	So they shouldn't have been immune.
	But, you know, it shows just the selective bias and partisan prejudice in the court system for how they implement and enforce the law.
	And everybody's just getting a crash course on it.
	That most people who believe...
	Our judges, where these beacons of independence and integrity, are discovering they're just partisan politicians under robes like everybody else.
	Now, the decision had never gone to the Supreme Court, correct, on what's exempt from immunity and what's included in it?
	Correct.
	I took them out, but the Supreme Court didn't take it.
	By the way, it's still up, Robert.
	Not to bring back bad memories.
	Omaha elder and Vietnam veteran, both, well, factually incorrect.
	I think he was found to be a stolen dollar.
	Nathan Phillips injured hateful taunts with dignity and strength, then urged us all to do better.
	Oh.
	Oh, Lordy.
	Okay.
	Still there.
	Still there.
	Because it was her most popular tweet.
	She doesn't want to, you know, get rid of that social credit.
	Social media credit.
	And by the way, she was doing it to elevate her potential presidential campaign.
	I was going to call her a bad name, but I won't.
	Do we have anything more on Trump?
	The last thing is he is also two things.
	So he brought motions to dismiss on immunity grounds to criminal defense prosecution, First Amendment, other grounds.
	Of course, the district court judge denied his motions dismissed because there's no way she's going to be honest or honorable.
	So she has no immunity even for criminal charges for things you did while President of the United States, which was an issue the D.C. Court of Appeals reserved and explicitly said they weren't ruling on yet.
	So now the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, those are issues they can take up on interlocutory appeal because of the consequence of the decision.
	And the Supreme Court, between the New York gag order, between the D.C. gag order, between the D.C. civil immunity ruling, and now these criminal immunity rulings, is going to have multiple opportunities to step in and try to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
	Because that's really what's on trial here.
	Will they keep the American confidence in the independence of the judiciary, in the integrity of the judiciary?
	Because the judiciary is failing that test writ large in ways the whole country is witnessing and coming to believe.
	Ask the FBI how that worked.
	The FBI went from having a 75% to 80% approval amongst conservative Republicans to now being in the low 20s.
	And that happened in a very brief time period.
	And what happens when you lose your public approval?
	You get people calling for you to not exist as an agency anymore.
	You can lose your power overnight.
	What happens when it starts impacting jury verdicts?
	That's when they'll really start paying attention.
	When jurors come in and say, I'm not going to trust anything an FBI agent says.
	Doesn't matter.
	Rather than deferring to them like they usually do, distrust them like they should.
	Make them prove otherwise with independent evidence other than their own testimony.
	So are the judges willing to destroy their own credibility?
	And the credibility of the American judiciary and the credibility of the judicial system.
	I mean, that's what Tucker Carlson said this week.
	He said, you know, I decided I'd be supporting Trump the moment they raided Mar-a-Lago.
	He goes, if we let them get away with that, we don't have a country anymore.
	We don't have a republic anymore.
	It's over.
	It's done.
	We're in a new stage, new era.
	We're in a post-Constitution America.
	And then, you know, all bets are off.
	And so we're going to be up to the Supreme Court of the United States quite clearly to preserve the Constitution.
	D.C. Court of Appeals won't do it.
	New York courts won't do it.
	D.C. District Court won't do it.
	The Georgia court will be given an opportunity to do something.
	He brought a First Amendment challenge before that court as well in the Georgia charges.
	That Georgia prosecutor now suddenly wants to rush the case and have it during the election.
	That's how nuts she is.
	We'll see if that judge, a judge appointed by, I believe appointed by Governor Kemp.
	So he's been unreliable so far.
	Another one of these establishment useless Republicans in the bench.
	People wondered why I was so critical about the Federalist Society and who they would tend to promote as judges.
	Now you're getting to witness it in live time.
	And because many of them are presiding in one way, shape, or form on various Trump cases and failing.
	And the Georgia judge so far is failing his duties.
	To affirm constitutional integrity and the independence of the judiciary against this partisan politicized attack in violation of the Constitution.
	So we'll see.
	All right.
	Now, we're done with the Trump intro topics, right?
	I want to bring up the rumble rants before they get too much out of hand, which they're already close to.
	Blitz through these people.
	Hold on.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	I think Republicans set a bad precedent and will use it to remove MAGA representatives.
	Just choking on my tongue again.
	Lord of the Re says, just paid my taxes.
	Have some of what they didn't steal from me.
	The state is a multinational corporation with a monopoly on force.
	Your friendly neighbor anarchist.
	There's no question about that.
	They steal your money and then they ship it to Ukraine.
	Ours.
	Now that I'm paying taxes in the States.
	Taxes are theft, says Sad Wings Raging.
	Armed robbery, as I like to say on our merch, Viva Frye.
	Lord of the Re, Rhonda...
	I can't read that.
	NoHandsman81 says, I am helping my brother with a massive lawsuit in Missouri.
	He was wrongfully arrested twice so far.
	After we win, I would like to be on your show and tell my fans how we did it.
	I like the optimism.
	I'm screen grabbing.
	Come back and let us know how it turns out.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, I always remember, folks, they first refer to us as maggots.
	My advice to Trump, remember the names, actions, and to never forgive and hold them accountable accordingly to their actions.
	No mercy.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, I pray Barnes becomes Attorney General in 2024.
	I want to ask you.
	As I cannot think of another man with the better discernment and morality to perform those duties.
	Yeah, duties.
	Truly could not be more important than now.
	Robert, is there any possibility that you would, if, Could you be nominated if Trump gets in, and would you accept it if you were ever requested to be the AG?
	Oh, well, I mean, I think people like me will be happy to help out the president.
	And so I think there's a lot of us.
	I mean, I think there's Jeffrey Clark, Mike, who we had on, who apparently was trolling people what he was going to do once he became attorney general and enraged the leftist media into going a little bit crazy.
	So, I mean, there's plenty of good people, and hopefully somehow we survive all of this, and it's President Trump or President Kennedy.
	Who can implement that?
	If they do something to take out Trump, then hopefully Kennedy will be the one.
	And not another post-Constitution American government, because then we're looking at a whole different ballgame.
	But you see the nature of the incredible selectivity in the appeals courts by who they are enforcing selective prosecution on behalf of.
	As we saw in the Texas Court of Appeals this week.
	So this case is, they said it's a migrant or an illegal alien.
	Yeah, so it's non-resident.
	Yeah, the governor launched Operation Lone Star because the Biden administration, as Robert Kennedy has also acknowledged, is completely collapsed on enforcing the border.
	And so what happened is Texas launched Operation Lone Star to at least lock up some of the more egregious illegal immigrants present on criminal trespass grounds.
	They don't have facilities to lock up women.
	So because overwhelmingly it was men, because men posed the greatest risk in terms of other criminal behaviors historically, men committed 90% of crimes, they targeted illegal immigrant men who were criminally trespassing.
	Texas Court of Appeal says, oh, you can't do that because you're not locking up women.
	And Texas is like, we don't have facilities to also lock up the women because of how many men are already coming over and because of the cost of this already.
	The one question I had, I didn't get to this particular detail.
	I couldn't find it.
	What was the nature of the criminal trespass?
	Is it like an innocuous criminal trespass?
	No, it's criminal trespass.
	It's someone who's legally present in a place they're not legally present to be.
	Right to be.
	Okay.
	And it was a sort of multi-level violence.
	It's a way of enforcing immigration law that doesn't run afoul of the federal government's preemption in that capacity.
	Okay.
	And what the lefty lawyers came up with is, well, you better lock up the women, too, or you can't lock up the men.
	And the Texas Court of Appeals agreed.
	Texas said they admitted the selective prosecution on men, not on this individual in particular.
	They admitted it.
	The rationale was we don't have the facilities for locking up women.
	We would have to spend a bunch of money for specialized detention facilities for women.
	And that didn't make sense within our resources when the main threat is coming from collateral consequences from illegal immigrant men who are here to commit additional criminal conduct against the people of Texas.
	That's not a major risk from the women illegal immigrants, who are much fewer by proportion anyway.
	And the Texas court said, no, no, you can't selectively prosecute like that.
	I mean, the same courts that are allowing Trump to get railroaded everywhere, that are completely ignoring obvious selective prosecution, suddenly enforce it when it means you have to let illegal immigrants go free, unless you lock up the women too, which is what Texas will now do.
	So that was my question.
	Can you retroactively remedy the selective prosecution?
	Can't retroactively.
	This individual defendant, everybody arrested at the date, will be freed.
	Oh, my.
	What's mind-blowing, Robert, is the courts prevent Texas from enforcing any meaningful border control, given the dereliction of duty from the federal, and then find ways to annul law enforcement that would have the indirect effect of potentially enforcing immigration control, which I guess is the good segue to the...
	It is, again, the Court of Appeals, oh my goodness, that said that you've got to take out those buoy barriers in the Rio Grande.
	Because, not for any immigration reason, they found another incidental law that it might have broken.
	I don't know what the law is.
	The Navigability of Waters Act.
	And they said that this 1,000, or however long it was, section of buoys with an underwater net tied down by big anchors violates the navigability of the Rio Grande.
	Now, look, I didn't look into the details of this.
	As far as I understood, navigability refers to anything that connects to the ocean.
	You don't have navigability issues on closed lakes or inlets or bodies of water rivers.
	I have to refresh from my memory.
	Where does the Rio Grande end?
	Where does it go out to?
	The Gulf of Mexico?
	Yeah, and maybe the Pacific.
	I haven't looked at how far it goes, to be honest with you.
	But technically here, I think the court decision is correct.
	Now, what's interesting is the dissent would have gone further.
	But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, Is if you block a navigable waterway, that that is governed by federal law under the U.S. Constitution in implementing statutes, and you can only do so if Congress agrees.
	And because Congress hasn't agreed, you can't do it.
	But they said, as long as you're not blocking the waterway, you can actually use the buoys next to the riverfront.
	So you can't actually put some buoys there that can have some deterrent effect on immigration.
	But you just can't block the whole river.
	And the dissenting judge was enraged.
	The dissenting judge said it shouldn't be there at all because the dissenting judge wants free open borders, is the reality of it.
	But one of the judges that was in the majority is an old-school, usually, not always, constitutional conservative judge.
	And the navigable waterway issue was a clear issue.
	Because this is a river that borders a foreign country.
	It does constitutionally fit the classic definition of the kind of navigable waterways Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over.
	And it clearly was interrupting also the navigable aspect of it.
	What's interesting is the Mexican president has no problem with it being used as a deterrent for illegal immigration.
	Said that the buoys were just too far out because it was interfering with actual navigation.
	Said don't have a problem if you pull it back closer to the riverfront.
	So it could still have a potential deterrent on illegal immigration, but not interfere with it now.
	It won't be as effective a deterrent by where it's going to now be located.
	But I think constitutionally, the Fifth Circuit probably made the correct decision.
	When it comes to waters like that, where is the...
	Well, first of all, the Rio Grande seems to start in Colorado.
	It flows out to the Gulf of Mexico.
	Yeah, it's the Gulf of Mexico.
	Where does the border on that lie between Mexico and the United States?
	Is it in the middle of the river or...
	Oh, right.
	Yeah, that's always an issue.
	So where exactly the border is.
	Because I guess Texas couldn't push it back to the Mexican side, so they're saying pull it back to the Texas side, make it closer on the shore.
	So it's great, by the way.
	By the time anyone crossing the river gets there, it might be actually more dangerous for the illegal immigrants.
	They can still use it as a partial deterrent.
	It just won't be as effective.
	And again, the problem that Texas is only facing...
	Because of the completely wayward failure to enforce by the Biden administration.
	All right.
	Well, on the subject of Texas, Robert, segue into Texas suing Pfizer.
	Yeah, that's more the white pill moment.
	Thank goodness for Attorney General Paxton, who exposed the corrupt rhinos that run the state of Texas, survived their bogus impeachment effort.
	And all they were able to do with their...
	Previously, Paxton suggested on Tucker Carlson and elsewhere.
	That he believed that his intention to go after Pfizer is what precipitated their effort to impeach and remove him and at least delay the ability for him to go after Pfizer.
	But all it did was delay it, because once he won the impeachment vote...
	First Attorney General, I mean, Governor DeSantis promised a grand jury into Pfizer.
	Unclear if anything ever happened with that grand jury.
	We know no other action has been taken by the state of Florida.
	So it sure looks like all talk, no walk, all hat, no cattle with DeSantis, quite frankly.
	I hope I'm wrong on that, but that's what it looks like.
	Whereas Paxson's been the real deal all the way through.
	And he filed suit this week against Pfizer.
	Saying Pfizer violated the rights of the Texas consumers and the Texas citizens because they falsified and lied and committed fraud in how they described the effectiveness of the vaccine.
	And then when they knew their fraud was getting exposed, they engaged in illicit systemic efforts to censor the disclosure of their previous fraud, ongoing fraud.
	Just to connect two dots there, actually, you know, Paxton getting impeached as he announced this.
	And what else happened when Pfizer was involved?
	Project Veritas gets sabotaged and shut down.
	Coincidence?
	Maybe.
	But those are two dots that are possibly connected.
	Now, from what I understand, and what I love about this particular lawsuit, actually, first things first, Robert, we just breached 20,000 viewers live.
	So everyone go overflow the chat with comments and thumbs up.
	From what I understand, they are relying on Pfizer's own data to say that they manipulated and falsified the safety and efficacy.
	They say Pfizer said 95% effective, although Albert Bourla, April 1st, 2022, said 100% effective.
	Proud to announce, 100% effective.
	They said it's closer to whatever, like a fraction of a percent effective, based on Pfizer's own data.
	I'm not misunderstanding that, correct?
	Right, exactly.
	And additional data that Pfizer became aware of.
	So that they committed fraud at the get-go, and then it was continuous fraud, and then it was their censorship efforts thereafter.
	The timing is productive because we're filing our opposition to the motion to dismiss by Pfizer in the Brooke Jackson case pending in Beaumont, Texas, based on their defrauding the American people of billions of dollars based on saying they delivered a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 that was not safe, not effective, didn't prevent COVID-19.
	And so that was a fraud on the American people.
	They didn't deliver what they promised.
	So it's useful, helpful to her case to now have this additional Texas Attorney General saying the same thing.
	This was systemic fraud by Pfizer.
	In my view, the biggest public health fraud in world history.
	Could you just imagine, in 10 years, Robert, we're going to read a case that's going to say Pfizer's paying the now greatest criminal civil settlement payment in the history, trumping the one that they did two, ten years ago, whatever it was.
	It's written in the books already.
	We just haven't gotten to the chapter yet.
	And again, every attorney general pretty much has this power.
	So every district attorney, in many cases, has this power.
	So there's really no excuse.
	You know, Paxton has shown the path.
	There's no excuse for other attorney generals, other district attorneys, to look at their law books and protect their citizenry.
	I mean, you've been interviewing people who've had loved ones suffer injuries and even death from this vaccine, so-called vaccine.
	I mean, that itself was a lie.
	I mean, I'm watching ads on during the football games from Pfizer and Moderna still calling it a vaccine.
	Still saying it could help prevent COVID-19 when they know that's just a big, fat lie.
	I mean, it's just they continue in the fraud because they have the political cover of the Biden administration not taking corrective and remedial action.
	But, you know, it's long overdue, but it's great that the states are now taking corrective action, at least with the Texas Attorney General.
	Because they defrauded all the people of all these states.
	And that is not subject to the immunity.
	Some people were confused.
	They were saying, oh, he's got to prove certain kinds of fraud.
	No, he doesn't.
	He doesn't have to prove what you would have to prove to sue Pfizer individually for injury.
	As the state's power to enforce their laws is not covered by this immunity that they're given.
	Individuals can't sue Pfizer outside of extraordinary circumstance.
	However...
	A state can.
	And a state can bring criminal prosecution against them.
	DAs can bring criminal prosecution.
	I mean, there's more than enough evidence out there from the Brooke Jackson case, from the Freedom of Information Act disclosures, from there are more whistleblower disclosures this week out of New Zealand and other places raising questions about excess deaths.
	Iceland is talking about freezing the COVID-19 vaccine because of their spike in excess deaths.
	You're seeing more.
	Edward Dowd has detailed it.
	Dowd has pointed out the number of disabilities and deaths directly tied to the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine in various populaces around the world.
	And you're talking about millions of disabilities and deaths.
	Millions.
	No drug has ever killed people at this scale, at this speed.
	And it happened because they lied.
	And the first person to expose their lies was Brooke Jackson.
	And so, you know, we're going to continue to fight on her behalf in that case.
	And hopefully the court will allow the case to go forward to discovery as the evidence mounts from other state actors, from other courts, that this is from the court of public opinion, from the more information and evidence, that this was what we said it was from the get-go, which was one of the most dangerous drugs ever put out onto the American people.
	That's why they were trying to force it on people.
	That's why employers like Tyson Foods were complicit in this.
	And if they have a judge who's in their back pocket, maybe they can get away with it.
	Not every judge is going to be in their back pocket.
	And so they're not always going to get away with it.
	So I think that all of these people should have faced consequences for forcing the whole world to undergo what Obama called it, one big mass public experiment.
	I'm going to pull that clip up as you tell us what happened to you this week, Robert, because I tweeted out recently, a little while back, I wasn't originally on the Nuremberg 2.0 hashtag, but now I am.
	Because now I know, and now the evidence is coming out.
	It's undeniable.
	If anyone hasn't seen your Bourbon with Barnes, I think it's November 28, if I'm not mistaken, maybe November 29. You're talking about some lawyers facing sanctions from judges, or threats of sanctions, for raising Nuremberg lawsuits.
	I think you're talking about someone we know.
	Can you go ahead and tell the rest of the world, who might not be watching The Bourbon with Barnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, what happened to you last week?
	So yeah, a federal judge is threatening my firm with sanctions for even suing under the Nuremberg Code.
	For even claiming that if American courts have the right to kill Nazis, victims should have the right to sue Nazis.
	He claims that's so frivolous, so preposterous, that I should be sanctioned personally for even bringing suit to the court.
	Now, also this judge dismissed all claims against Tyson Foods, said you couldn't even sue for religious discrimination, made claims about religious discrimination that no court has ever made before.
	Basically saying that things that had already been established by the Biden EEOC, by the Trump EEOC, by the Obama EEOC as religious discrimination, that Tyson Foods admitted was a religious-based objection, suddenly magically now isn't, unless this judge approves of it as chief inquisitor of your religious beliefs.
	Now, this judge's decision, in part, as soon as I was reading through it, where he was attacking my firm repeatedly throughout his order, I wondered, huh?
	This judge is in Arkansas.
	I wonder if he's got any ties to Tyson Foods.
	Tyson Foods was tight with the Biden administration at trying to force this vaccine on everybody through their employment power and other corporations' employment power.
	So they're neck deep in this as a policy matter.
	Tyson Foods is extraordinary.
	For those people who don't know, based in Arkansas, longtime ties to the Democratic Party.
	I sat in with the AFL-CIO during Mike Espy's time as Secretary of Agriculture, seeing him come up with rules that was going to butcher workers' safety because it would benefit Tyson Foods.
	That's how deep Tyson Foods' political power goes.
	This judge, a Democratic judge appointed by Barack Obama, where again, longtime Democratic ties to Tyson Foods.
	So you have that possibility.
	Then I researched the judge's Professional background, and he spent most of his legal life as a partner in a law firm.
	I look up that law firm's current representative clients, and guess who's listed as representative client number one?
	Tyson.
	Exactly.
	You think this judge ever disclosed his potential?
	Did Tyson Foods line his pockets?
	Did Tyson Foods put him on the federal bench?
	We don't know, but my clients can reasonably wonder whether they're getting impartial justice from such a judge given the rulings he's made.
	So, you know, we'll investigate further and see what we can find.
	But yeah, the judge is threatening, in order to show cause, why I shouldn't, my firm shouldn't be sanctioned for even bringing a Nuremberg code claim.
	Stop.
	Order to show cause is basically contempt.
	Yeah, it's a version of contempt, if you will.
	But it's an order to show cause under Rule 11. And the basis is, his claim is, look, you brought this a couple of times before and no court yet has accepted it.
	Which, by the way, has never been grounds to sanction a lawyer before.
	Sanction the lawyer, not the client.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, he couldn't sanction the client because that would be even more preposterous.
	But it's an intimidation tactic, is all it is.
	But listen to the logic.
	The logic, to my view, is insane.
	So for people that don't know where the Nuremberg Code originated from...
	The Nuremberg Code stems from a line of U.S. federal cases in the trying people at Nuremberg.
	Because the question was this.
	What gave a U.S. federal court power to prosecute a German citizen for things they did to other German citizens when, at the time they did it, it was not only legal under German law, it had been lawfully ordered by the German government?
	How does an American court have power to call that a crime retroactively, have jurisdiction over them, prosecute them, try them, imprison them, and execute them?
	What's the legal basis for that?
	Well, the court, it was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jackson, was involved in the prosecution.
	What the U.S. court said in a sequence of decisions is they said certain legal principles are so universal that they apply to everyone, everywhere.
	That was premise number one.
	Premise number two was that they're so universal they can be enforced by anyone, anywhere.
	That is how a U.S. federal court had jurisdiction to order the execution of Germans for things they did that was then legal under German law to other Germans.
	They did, in fact, execute.
	Yes, I mean, they killed them.
	According to this judge in Arkansas, federal judges can kill Nazis.
	You just can't sue them.
	How dare you claim you could sue them, Mr. Barnes?
	You should be sanctioned into oblivion, Mr. Barnes.
	That's according to this judge, who may or may not have undisclosed ties to Tyson Foods, who is the defendant in this case, and whose ruling he is benefiting, whose company he's benefiting in his ruling.
	Second aspect of this is, well, can he claim, this judge claimed, that nobody in federal court ever suggested there could be a private cause of action?
	Well, that's just a flat-out fraud by the court, because this has arisen in America in federal courts, as we said in our complaint, which is the Alien Tort Statutes Act allows foreigners to sue foreign companies or U.S. companies in American federal courts.
	For things that happen in a foreign country.
	Right?
	Normally, the American federal courts would have no jurisdiction in that instance.
	So how do they do?
	Congress passed a special law called the Alien Tort Statutes Act that said certain kinds of torts are so bad that you can be sued here in American courts.
	And what was the paramount one that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said is the kind of thing anybody can sue anybody, anywhere, anytime for?
	The same thing they said federal courts could prosecute.
	Any court could prosecute anytime, anywhere for.
	The Nuremberg Code violation said it was a tort so violative that Pfizer could be sued by Nigerian victims of Pfizer's drug experiments taking place in Africa.
	Just briefly, don't do a hush-hush on this.
	Explain what they sued for and what Pfizer was doing on Nigerian children.
	Because people don't know this.
	This is the same company that experimented on me.
	Well, in fact, I do have a hush-hush on it.
	About the Constant Gardener and its relevance to Pfizer's history that I put out at the time the COVID vaccine was being introduced, primarily by Pfizer.
	I do remember that because you got me to listen to the Constant Gardener on Audible.
	The book was so boring, I didn't even get through it.
	I skipped to the end just to see how it ended.
	But sorry, sorry, okay.
	Yeah, not the happiest ending of Jean Le Carre, but very documentary of what was really happening.
	Basically, African kids are being used as guinea pigs without informed consent for drug experiments.
	And it was for Pfizer that these drug experiments were being done.
	Pfizer is usually a step removed, right?
	So Pfizer themselves didn't commit, like, battery or assault.
	Pfizer was just complicit in drug experimentation happening on people without their informed consent.
	And that's the principle of the Nuremberg Code.
	They said one of the principles that's so universal is that a person cannot undergo bodily invasion from any unwanted medical treatment without their informed consent.
	And they said that that's a universal law that applies to everybody everywhere, regardless of what your domestic law says.
	You're never immune from it, and anybody anywhere can prosecute you or punish you for it.
	So in New York, federal court said you can also sue for it.
	So my theory is pretty darn simple.
	If you can kill a Nazi, you can sue a Nazi.
	And if foreigners can sue Nazis, Americans can sue Nazis.
	But according to this federal judge, not only can you not do it, any lawyer who brings such suit will be sanctioned for even bringing it, for even suggesting the common sense idea that if you can kill a Nazi, you can sue a Nazi, could possibly apply to benefit Americans.
	Right now, the only people who cannot get relief in America are Americans.
	They're the only ones under the Nuremberg Code.
	Foreigners can get relief.
	The government can get criminal relief.
	Foreigners can request criminal relief, but U.S. citizens cannot request any civil relief.
	It doesn't make any sense at all.
	Now, I get the judge doesn't like the comparison.
	He thinks Nuremberg should be limited to Nuremberg.
	That's not what the legal principle is.
	It isn't what the Second Circuit said.
	But even so, that's not his ruling.
	His ruling is that nobody can ever sue.
	For a violation of the Nuremberg Code, and that if you as a lawyer bring such a suit, he will sanction you in his court.
	Now, it's not a surprise.
	It's definitely not a surprise that it's a federal court in Arkansas doing it, given you couldn't have a more politically corrupt state.
	The fact that he's doing this on the backs of long-standing blue-collar employees looking for a little bit of justice tells you where the Democratic Party is.
	They will weaponize the legal system for their corporate pals and screw ordinary workers any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
	And probably thinks, because I'm an out-of-state lawyer, he can take any pot shot he wants at me and get away with.
	But we're going to fight this case all the way through.
	So obviously we'll fight any sanctions order that will be preposterous.
	We'll investigate the degree of what this judge's ties are to Tyson Foods, that he has not been forthcoming about disclosing to the parties, that I think he should have been an honest judge, an honorable judge, I think would have disclosed, hey, by the way, these are what my connections are.
	Maybe it's just a coincidence.
	Maybe his law firm only took on Tyson Foods as a client after he was...
	Maybe he has no pension ties on an ongoing basis to that law firm.
	Maybe Tyson Foods had nothing to do with his political appointment.
	But the nature of his ruling is, in my view, absurd and a ridiculous insult to religious protection in America, to human rights.
	It makes America one of the only courts in the world where you can't sue for Nuremberg rights.
	Human rights have now reached a new low.
	The so-called Democratic Party stands for working people and stands for human rights as making some of the most horrendous rulings against workers and against human rights so they can serve their corporate masters as they typically do.
	It's why they are in such political trouble.
	But it's also a reminder to lawyers out there.
	I mean, in this case, the lawyer who's on file for the case is my young associate, Lexis Anderson.
	I mean, he's going after a young lawyer because they're used to doing this.
	They're used to weaponizing their power, misusing and abusing their power.
	And you come and challenge somebody powerful in their backyard, they try to weaponize their power to crush you for it.
	And you just can't be deterred by the nature of partisan judges, prejudiced judges, possibly corrupt judges.
	You have to march onward for the rights that matter and the law that matters.
	But yeah, it had me irritable for about four days.
	I was listening to Bobby Kennedy talk about the need to, for those that anger you, just pray for them.
	That's what he said.
	He learned that some years ago it was necessary to be the most productive.
	In one's life.
	But it's a sign of the problem with our judges.
	What we're witnessing in the Tyson Foods case is not much different than what's happening in the Trump cases.
	Judges misusing and abusing their power, and until and unless they're held accountable by higher courts or Congress, our system of justice is going to collapse in America, and its credibility collapsed throughout the entire world.
	You omitted a relevant detail.
	Lexi is a young woman who might look easily intimidatable by a corrupt...
	We will never vote or litigate our way out of tyranny, says PrimusFan92.
	I will disagree with that.
	Shofar, shofar.
	The current judicial system reminds me of the Democrats' controlled judges in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s.
	Shame on them.
	NoHandsman81 says going straight to the Nuremberg 2.0 will be impossible.
	I have another lawsuit against the hospital for EMTALA law violations.
	Find out what that is.
	Turning me or others away if they had COVID.
	I really want to talk with you.
	Screen grab.
	Mandatory carry.
	Being necessary to...
	Oh, we've got mandatory carry who's got...
	And then we're getting to the one I wanted to read.
	Pinochet's Helicopter Tour says, "Does Schellenberger's revelations in Congress this week that the FBI/CIA/DHS were suppressing the people through the CETO/CISA EIP affect In a second.
	I will internalize that critique.
	The ones that you feel are true of yourself hurt the most.
	Clown Pill Papa says there is no reason to suppose that the judiciary cares about what it sees as the white trash views.
	They will continue jailing whomever they want, and it's doubtful anyone will resist effectively.
	Clown Pill Papa, there is no reason to suppose...
	Okay, we got that one.
	Hope you didn't mean to do that twice.
	I can't really read...
	PaulRose76 is a new member.
	Welcome to the channel.
	And I'm not your buddy guy.
	Judges like this should have all their cases overturned, disbarred, and be sentenced to prison.
	Term for egregious political bias.
	Okay, fine.
	Robert, thank you all for the support there and those rumble rants.
	Oh, what's next on the menu?
	Well, I mean, you know, speaking of people that have fought against the odds, and I know his campaign is controversial in some circles, but not in mine.
	I think he's a positive contributor to the public dialogue, at minimum, and a critical backup option in case they take out Trump in deterrence to them trying to take out Trump.
	And I think just an exceptional and extraordinary human being, if you get to know him, as I've had the privilege to do in a limited capacity.
	I know you're talking about RFK.
	Indeed, Robert Kennedy!
	We got two updates on Robert Kennedy.
	One is the Supreme Court has relisted his petition to intervene in Missouri versus Biden because he's establishing there's unique arguments he can raise that others are not well situated to raise that will make sure that there's a robust judgment and a more favorable First Amendment friendly judgment in that case.
	Now, I'm going to internalize and use that critique that I've been speaking too fast and slow down.
	Does the recent Schellenberger revelations about the degree...
	I didn't think it added anything new to what we had seen from the Twitter files.
	I saw nothing new in what they were talking about.
	Everyone knew the Election Integrity Project or Partnership, whatever the hell they called it.
	I just started talking fast again.
	They were talking specifically about doing indirectly what the government could not do directly.
	Taibbi got in trouble.
	Mehdi Hassan thought he scored his points by going after Matt Taibbi.
	I thought all that was revealed in the original disclosures.
	Does anything last week bear any relevance to the Missouri v.
	Biden?
	I mean, it helps enhance the case.
	But I think, I mean, that's where I think Robert Kennedy's inclusion is critical.
	Like certain, right now the Biden administration has certain arguments about who has standing to bring certain claims, who can litigate certain claims.
	Kennedy uniquely can because the court found that he was the number one individual target of the Biden administration for censorship was Robert Kennedy.
	And now Robert Kennedy is an independent candidate.
	Challenging Joe Biden for the presidency of the United States.
	You couldn't have someone better situated to show why this is so problematic under the First Amendment to allow the Biden administration to do what they did.
	And that's why he's arguing I should be allowed to intervene at the Supreme Court level.
	And the Supreme Court originally didn't decide it.
	They call it realistic.
	They put it up for conference.
	And they say, well, let's postpone this and decide this later on.
	And they relist it when they're going to decide it later on.
	And I think they recognize that certain standing arguments, certain other arguments, he has compelling grounds to intervene.
	His interests are directly implicated in the case.
	He's directly named in the case.
	He's part of the direct factual findings of the case.
	He has interests that no other party can fully vindicate and represent.
	He guarantees standing for certain parties in the case.
	So he should be number, I mean, because again, he was the number one target of the Biden administration's censorship campaign, was get Robert Kennedy off of Instagram.
	Get Robert Kennedy off of Facebook.
	By name.
	And it's continued.
	They've relied upon that, Google and YouTube and Facebook and Instagram, to continue to discriminate against him, including against his campaign, with Google and YouTube.
	Google delisting for search engines and YouTube delisting and taking down a bunch of videos, including interviews where he interviewed Jordan Peterson, interviews where he's interviewed by Joe Rogan.
	Almost any YouTube interview that goes up with Robert Kennedy gets taken down.
	And so it's a continued effort of an in-kind illegal campaign contribution from Google to the Biden White House that they clearly are doing at the behest of the Biden White House based on what came out in this case.
	So hopefully he is allowed to intervene on Monday.
	They vote.
	I think they voted Friday, actually, and then it gets announced on Monday.
	So that's a big case.
	There's several big cases before the Supreme Court that they're going to be deciding this.
	We'll find out what they decided this Monday.
	Give me the trigger words to refresh my memory from the homework that I did, because I did read virtually everything that you gave me.
	So there's three.
	One is we've discussed before, which is my Fourth Amendment case.
	Do you have a right to throw somebody?
	Is there an exception to arresting someone in their house without a probable cause of a felony by taking them and throwing them out the front door of their house?
	Did they announce that they're going to take that?
	I don't know until Monday.
	It's a long shot.
	I understand it's a long shot.
	I'm still right on the law, and I always use...
	Cert petitions to educate the clerk and the courts because they say they read all of them.
	I know somebody does up there.
	And just to say this is a problem because maybe they won't take this case, but down the road they'll take another one to fix it.
	But I'll find out on Monday whether they'll take that.
	You know, it's amazing.
	We've been together long enough that I remember you saying that in 2020.
	Saying like, this is how you...
	You create, not persuasion, but you sensitize people to the ideas that these arguments will be made.
	And you create the precedent, if only by being rejected, but you inform others.
	And we've seen it in real time.
	I just can't think of one darn concrete example.
	But we've seen it.
	So this is the case.
	Many times it happens by, you know, you'll see somebody raise an issue in a petition for cert.
	And that cert isn't taken, but later on another one is.
	So like, for example, the problems of big tech.
	All those cert petitions that went up for the last five years.
	Got Thomas involved, got Gorsuch involved, got Moore involved.
	And that's why we have all these big, big tech cases up before the Supreme Court this year, in my view.
	If those other cases hadn't come before it, they probably don't get involved in Missouri versus Biden.
	They probably don't get involved in whether Section 230 prevents the Texas or Florida laws.
	The reason why those laws came about is the degree to which there's constant activism, including at the Supreme Court level.
	But the other two big ones are...
	What is politically controversial, the Sackler opioid settlement, but more constitutionally consequential, the power of bankruptcy courts is at issue.
	And then the Takings case out of the New York rent control laws.
	Takings case, I didn't read, so you're going to have to do that one.
	But the Sackler case, it's amazing because, first of all, when you get Rogans of the world talking about it, people realize how corrupt the whole system is.
	Forget the fact that the Sacklers killed...
	Millions at this point in time.
	Through a practice of over-diagnosing, over-prescribing what they knew was an addictive medication, a lethally addictive medication, but they had their people, you know, approve it with the caveat, it's not known to cause addiction because some one jerk at the FDA approved it.
	Whatever.
	They get sued.
	I don't know if it's the biggest criminal settlement.
	I think they agreed to pay $6 billion.
	The family, the Sacklers, not Purdue Pharma, which they own.
	Purdue Pharma's in bankruptcy.
	It will be dissolved and split up among the creditors.
	As part of the settlement agreement for the criminal wrongdoing of Purdue Pharma, which, you know, it's a company, it can only act through its principals who made so much money that they can afford to pay a $6 billion penalty in bankruptcy.
	The settlement dissolves Purdue Pharma and allows for the individual family members to pay $6 billion over 10 years, but precludes any further lawsuit against any of the individual members of the family.
	Basically they escape criminal and further civil liability under the bankruptcy agreement with the company that they controlled that killed millions of Americans through over prescribing a known addictive and recklessly dangerous.
	drug.
	And so the idea here is can the bankruptcy laws absolve non-party potential creditors in the context of a settlement with a litigant creditor?
	Explain why that's so bloody important and how it's been interpreted historically and what the question going forward might So bankruptcy courts, in my view, have become a hodgepodge of questionable federal authority, frequently using that authority to go way beyond the traditional and historical understanding of the bankruptcy process.
	That they say if it's in any way connected, they assert authority.
	And then the other problem is there's such a kind of incestuous relationship between the U.S. trustee, the bankruptcy trustees that get appointed, the bankruptcy judges, how they get appointed, bankruptcy clerks and who they get employed by later on in their post-clerkship, private law practice, and the law practitioners before bankruptcy court, that more than a few people that have gone through it.
	They've said they wish they'd never gone into bankruptcy court.
	Because they thought it was a place of integrity and fairness and impartiality and a place for discharge of debts and a second shot at things.
	And what they discover is that bankruptcy courts appear to be very deferential to banks, very deferential to big corporations, very deferential to the people that are repeat actors before the court system, often look for ways to strip the estates of existing value, to line the pockets of the lawyers that practice all the time in front of bankruptcy courts.
	Because their power over an estate is so broad, a tendency to derail legitimate claims against big corporations or powerful people by calling them creditor claims and then discharging them on bottom dollar terms.
	I know lawyers that saw the system as so corrupt, they left it and became investors in buying up assets out of bankruptcy estates because they realized how they could get rich off this corruption.
	So I'm not a big fan of bankruptcy courts, as anybody who's talked to me knows.
	My experience in it has been very negative.
	I have not had a very positive experience with the bankruptcy court process.
	Find it too insider riddled.
	But this case exposed one of the most problematic.
	Because for those that don't know, one of the principal...
	pharmaceutical companies behind the opioid epidemic, particularly in working-class rural Appalachia and old de-industrialized America, from places like eastern Oklahoma through eastern Tennessee, up through Kentucky and southwestern Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio and large parts of West Virginia and western Virginia, is the Purdue Pharmaceutical.
	And they're owned by the Sackler family.
	And the Sackler family used it Used various opioids that were pushed through a lot of questionable and problematic ways through corrupted doctors.
	As people are discovering now in the COVID-19 context, how corrupt the pharmaceutical provider, medical provider relationship is, and how it corrupts the practice of medicine, and how distorted incentives are even worse in that context than the general pharmaceutical context.
	But CVS and Walgreen have been exposed for their complicity in pushing these opioids.
	I mean, they were drug dealers on mass scale and they use their company, empty the pockets of their company to make it bankrupt and then use the bankruptcy court to say, get us off cheap on the opioid problems and force a release onto all the plaintiffs who haven't even brought suits yet, who aren't even creditors, even though we, the Sackler family are not even debtors.
	And that's what's up.
	Just to explain that, because...
	People might not understand debtors versus litigants.
	Like, the Sacra family in the bankruptcy case, it's the company that has been sued.
	The company has filed for bankruptcy protection laws to have its debts discharged.
	And its debt is the settlement payment to the people that...
	Well, in order for the...
	To agree to any bankruptcy reorganization, they required the owners of the company, who could be separately and independently sued for their complicity, to be released in exchange for a capped payment.
	And one of my favorite petitions, amicus briefs brought in the case, is by an independent professor.
	And this is a reminder to everybody out there, anybody can file potentially an amicus.
	There's certain rights to do so.
	There's certain formalities to request it.
	But I like to see it when ordinary people step up to the gap, where arguments may not be fully vetted by other parties for their own reasons.
	And this professor pointed out there were four core problems with this, and three of the four are constitutional.
	And number one is that the authority for bankruptcy...
	For federal courts to even exist in bankruptcy is one clause of the Constitution that says Congress shall have the power to set uniform laws on bankruptcies.
	From that, they've created bankruptcy courts with a bunch of power and jurisdiction over things normally they don't have power and jurisdiction over.
	So the professor's argument is this has to be narrowly construed by original intent.
	And that originally, the definition of bankruptcy that the Constitution adopted under original intent was that a debtor could be freed from their debts, not anybody else.
	And it can't be used to extend to anybody else.
	Well, but hold on.
	Was that before the concept of corporations existed in bankruptcy law?
	No, because they still, it was generally general partnerships were the most common.
	But originally, as an example...
	At the time of the founding general partnerships, the general partner was liable, and bankruptcy didn't discharge the general partner when another partner got bankruptcy protection.
	So the logic historically applies to what the professor is arguing.
	In my view, bankruptcy courts have long exceeded their authority and gone way past just clearing a debtor's debts to resolve a whole bunch of collateral matters that shouldn't be resolved in these contexts.
	They've usually been get out of jail free card for...
	Criminals and fraudsters and cheats, in my experience.
	And it's been a line-your-pockets-get-rich scheme for the connected incestuous parties of trustees and trustees' lawyers and the rest, and bankruptcy counsel of certain creditors and so forth.
	So gutting this and saying, no, your only duty is to release the debts of debtors.
	You cannot release anybody else's potential debts.
	I think would be a great constitutional ruling that would return bankruptcy courts to their constitutional limits.
	You're prejudicing parties who might have claims against unrelated debtors and bankruptcy.
	All of them unrelated.
	They're not creditors.
	Their claims are claims against the family.
	So they're not creditor claims in the estate.
	They're not debtor claims in the estate.
	And so then that raised the second problem, which he said, okay, if courts are going to have a case or controversy limitation.
	Colloquially called standing, but the constitutional one is case or controversy.
	His point is, Article III courts only have, can resolve cases or controversies.
	When no suit has been brought, there is no case or controversy.
	So he's like, they don't have jurisdiction on those grounds.
	Even if the court were to say bankruptcy estates can release the debts of people beyond the debtors, surely they can't release the debts of claims that haven't been made yet.
	I picture this, like, suing the individuals, you have to pierce the corporate veil.
	And justify going after the individuals.
	Why would you not have a similar provision to absolving the individuals of the debts of the company?
	Like, okay, you want to go after them personally.
	The company could, but all that would do is indemnification.
	Which the company would still have to pay, and if the company didn't have the resources to pay, then the individuals still have to pay.
	And the reason here was the individual's direct complicity, their direct knowledge.
	That's what's unique.
	The Sackler family isn't being targeted because they own Purdue Pharmacy.
	They're being targeted because of their personal knowledge about what they were doing in the opioid epidemic.
	They were using the company to enrich themselves for corrupt actions, according to the allegations and accusations of many.
	But that raises the third issue, which is a due process issue.
	Let's say you're one of the people injured by the Sacklers.
	Your right has just been taken away from you without notice or hearing.
	You're not even allowed to opt out, which is the reason why opt-out rights exist in class actions is due process rights.
	You can't take away my property right.
	I mean, due process is property and liberty protected.
	By due process of law.
	That at least requires notice in a meaningful evidentiary hearing.
	Here they're getting neither.
	And so because it's a non-consensual release of a non-debtor of extraordinary scale and an extraordinary controversy that was really a corrupt deal to cover for the Sacklers, the bottom line, and enrich the pockets of the insiders at the expense of the actual victims and the injured.
	I think on all three grounds, they got compelling arguments that the Sackler settlement is beyond the constitutional authority of the bankruptcy court.
	And without opening a can of worms, they have been given, they've settled their criminal, potential criminal liability, the individual members of the family.
	There's no way of revisiting that, is there?
	Not likely, no.
	Won't swear.
	I won't swear.
	Credit to the Sacklers.
	They still got rich off pushing drugs on vulnerable people.
	Killing people.
	Dangerous drugs.
	And some of the most vulnerable population, people that had already been stripped.
	I mean, my view is the reason why the system was complicit in all this is first the system took away their jobs, their livelihoods, their communities in the process, and the basis and foundation for marital life, family life, and community life being the security, stability, and pride that came with those employments.
	But their way of resolving it was, well, we don't want you to become political rebels, so we'll just stuff drugs down your throat.
	And that's why I think the system was so complicit.
	The CDC and the FDA infamously being complicit in greenlighting these dangerous drugs onto the public without full and fair notice of addictive risk and problematic public health collateral consequences.
	And helped birth the heroin epidemic because opioid was a precursor for many people from getting into one to getting into the other.
	And this is now just the corruption of our bankruptcy court system as the process, particularly the constitutional corruption, because this exceeds their constitutional power.
	And I hope the Supreme Court, so finds, takes the case and resolves it accordingly.
	The other big case they have would impact all the rent control laws going in concerning takings law in America.
	Hold on, before you get there, Robert, because I brought this up and I meant to bring it up before.
	It's just Obama making the admission.
	Come on, hear it.
	Tell us how you were experimenting on this, Obama.
	Take COVID.
	Oh, there you go.
	Okay, sorry.
	The fact that scientists developed safe, effective vaccines in record time is an unbelievable achievement.
	Tell us what happened, Obama.
	Those pauses.
	Despite the fact that we've now essentially clinically tested the vaccine on...
	Billions of people worldwide.
	Around one in five Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk.
	I hate that man almost as much as Justin Trudeau, but not quite as much because I'm not American.
	And he hasn't been as devastating on my life as Justin Trudeau has.
	Oh my god, I thought I didn't hit play because those dramatic pauses just never end.
	Holy crap.
	Clinically tested.
	On billions of people.
	Which, that's called a Nuremberg violation and it's uninformed consent.
	But according to the federal judge in Arkansas, you can't sue for it.
	You can kill Nazis if you're a federal judge, you just can't sue them if you're a citizen of America.
	And you're frivolous if you claim otherwise.
	If you disagree with them, you must be frivolous.
	That arrogance of a judicial system that...
	It's long-term too indifferent to the interests of ordinary individuals and basic human rights in America and around the world.
	I mean, the deep irony of American courts establishing that precedent now turning their back on people, turning their back on Americans bringing those same claims.
	And again, if a court wanted to say, yes, there's a Nuremberg Code claim, but not in this case, okay, fine, I'll litigate that.
	But they're saying no Nuremberg Claim ever for anybody anywhere if you're an American.
	Foreigner, yes.
	Not if you're an American.
	Well, Robert, hold on.
	I'll bring it up just because it's on point.
	Prediction, thanks to Robert and Lexus, Pfizer won't exist in five years.
	From your mouth to God's ear, sir.
	It's nice to see their stocks fall.
	I'm waiting for the stock class action suit that should be coming about Pfizer lying to everybody because...
	Like Obama lied to everybody.
	But admit it, it was mass experimentation.
	And that's what Tyson was ordering.
	Tyson was ordering its employees as a condition of employment.
	I mean, one of the things that Nuremberg wrote said, you can't use fear or duress or any tool of coercion to try to get someone to be involved in a medical experiment without their informed consent.
	That's precisely what Tyson did.
	They said you would lose your job unless you engage.
	And they did it at a time.
	When the drug was an experimental drug, which according to our own federal laws, could only be approved if informed consent was recognized.
	I mean, that's the double love.
	It's like, it says in the federal law, you have to have informed consent.
	But according to the federal judges, unenforceable.
	How dare you suggest that could be enforced?
	Yeah, we can experiment on anybody.
	Don't you know who we are, Mr. Barnes?
	And if you say otherwise, you should be sent into oblivion.
	These Nazi apologists, which is what these judges are, should be ashamed of themselves.
	But they want us to be ashamed for exposing their shame.
	That ain't gonna happen.
	But speaking of problematic constitutional rulings, the New York federal courts have affirmed and approved all the crazy rent control laws that got extended and expanded after COVID and in the buildup to COVID in some cases that basically...
	Take your property without just compensation.
	Well, your property being the landlord's property, not the tenant's property.
	As far as a tenant goes, this is very good news.
	We talked about this at the time.
	This was the moratorium on rent payments.
	That was a version of it.
	This version of it, in New York, they've made it permanent.
	So once you rent out your apartment, it's up to the tenant to decide how long that lease stays.
	You can never...
	Terminate.
	You as a landlord can never terminate.
	Unless it's for cause.
	Otherwise, the tenant gets to lock in that apartment at that rate for as long as they want, for forever, and you can do nothing about it.
	Let's say you need it for a family member.
	Can't take it back.
	Let's say you need it for yourself.
	Can't take it back.
	Your property permanently taken, effectively added to regulatory, and all you get is your rent.
	And you can prevent them from a material breach.
	But that's it.
	And even then, you usually have to leave them in for a year.
	In Quebec, we have something similar.
	It's called the right to retain occupancy.
	So when the lease is up, if I decide to stay, I stay.
	And you can only increase the rent by whatever, 2.5% max if you show proof.
	Same deal in New York.
	Okay, so what's this case and what's the status of it?
	It's up for a cert or it's being accepted?
	It's up for a cert.
	And the reason I think it's a very robust cert, the Supreme Court should clarify this, because it raises two different issues.
	One is a physical taking and the other is a regulatory taking.
	So a physical taking is when the state comes and takes physically your land, legal title to your land, or physically occupies it.
	The second is a regulatory taking that when by the scope of their rules, they so reduce the value of your property that it's equal to physical taking.
	Their argument is your right to control, your right to exclude is the fundamental right of property.
	In fact, when you're taught property law, it's the first thing you're taught.
	What right to property means primarily is your right to exclude others from its use.
	So there's no bigger example of that than your right to choose who you rent your property to.
	So that just because I sign a lease with somebody for a month or six months or a year...
	Doesn't mean that I've permanently rented that to them.
	That's not my commitment.
	My commitment is the term of the lease.
	According to the Second Circuit, oh no!
	Once you made it available to rent, and once you signed any lease, you've forever forfeited your right to control whether you renew that lease or not.
	You've forever given up your right to exclude.
	You've given up your right to occupy it for yourself.
	It's amazing.
	It is actually how to indiscreetly or indirectly nationalize private property.
	It's like, okay, well, why would anyone then get into the real estate of residential renting given these regulations?
	Completely.
	And so their argument is simple.
	It's a physical taking, so they should be justly compensated or the law should be struck down as unconstitutional for the absence of just compensation by the state.
	And secondly, if it's not a physical taking, at a minimum, it's a regulatory taking because it takes away entirely a critical incident of ownership of property, which is the right to exclude.
	And basically, as you described it, taking private housing and making it public housing is really what they're doing.
	They're making it a form of public subsidized public housing, almost indistinguishable from a public housing project.
	And they're like, but we're not getting compensated for it.
	We're suffering the disparate burden.
	Which is what regulatory takings often focuses on.
	When something benefits everybody but only a small group has to pay the price, historically that can be an example of a regulatory taking.
	To me it's both a physical taking and a regulatory taking.
	And the Supreme Court should take it and they should start to reinstate the meaning of takings.
	Because there's a range of other cases before them, too, about, you know, you can't sue under state law, as we mentioned, for takings by one federal court.
	That's going up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Hopefully they take that as well.
	But they should reinforce the Fifth Amendment because the takings clause has been so diluted and so diminished to allow the government to increasingly just indirectly do what everybody admits they can't directly do.
	And we shouldn't allow them to indirectly do what they're directly prohibited from doing by the Fifth Amendment.
	Alright, that's amazing.
	It's so preposterous.
	They want to compel private landowners to basically abandon their property.
	If you can't convert it to commercial, you can't raise it and do something else with it, alright, give it to the state, and then lo and behold, they've taken your property through regulatory distress.
	That's takings.
	Robert, the egg pricing fixing?
	What the hell's going on here?
	I read it.
	I don't know the backdrop, so I don't understand who the players are that are fixing the egg prices, how they go about fixing egg prices, what the hell is the intent and purpose to fix egg prices, but it sent me, like, reading this, the wrong people were getting the money in terms of the settlement, but I don't know what the hell's going on, so flesh it out for us.
	We discussed it previously, but there was finally a resolution in the case.
	But what it really discloses is something broader, which is in the farm context, what people don't know, there was a glimpse of public recognition of it during COVID.
	Like, how did we all of a sudden have a shortage of a whole bunch of food essentials?
	Well, it's because a very small number of companies control overwhelmingly almost all of key food items.
	This includes poultry.
	We have corporatized agriculture that the USDA and the FDA are in bed with.
	To help them.
	Like, why do the Amos Millers of the world, why are they the target of the USDA?
	Here you have an Amish farmer that's been making food the same way his family has made it for generations, going back to the founding of the country practically, in the same part of the country.
	He makes the food the way his customers want him to make his food.
	No one has ever sued him for ever being harmed by his food, ever.
	Or anybody in his entire extended generational family.
	You couldn't have a more impeccable record of food safety than Amos Miller.
	And yet he is the obsessive target of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	And why?
	Because you look at where these guys end up.
	After they work for the USDA or their local state.
	Department of Agriculture.
	They go to work for these big companies that have these monopolies.
	And the way they got these monopolies is by selective enforcement of the law on your local butcher, your local farmer, your local product producer.
	And that's why you're not...
	And then you look at other things.
	Why is it the Amish have one of the lowest rates of cancer in the entire Western world?
	Why is it the Amish have lower rates of all ranges of...
	Of disease than the ones that have exploded across America.
	Robert Kennedy keeps asking this question.
	It's like, why is it we've had this explosion of all these diseases that two generations ago we didn't have hardly at all?
	Now they're dominant.
	Every American has some big disease that their parents and grandparents didn't have.
	Oh, Robert, I'm doing this.
	Maybe it corresponds to our food supply.
	No, Robert.
	And who controls it?
	No!
	You have to go to the articles, Robert.
	Amish longevity may be due to genetic fountain of youth.
	I'm just looking this up as you're talking.
	Well, the fascinating thing is, this Amish longevity wasn't such a longevity generations ago.
	The gap between the Amish and similarly situated populations has dramatically expanded over the last generation.
	And it's because the Amish, they also don't use modern technology.
	They don't use cell phones.
	They don't have a bunch of electrical wires next to their head.
	They don't have microwaves.
	There's a bunch of other things they don't have.
	That's crazy Alex Jones talk, Robert.
	But the big one is, their food is made the way our forefathers made it.
	And it's the way that the USDA doesn't want to allow you to be able to buy from it.
	And instead, and so when we see these little egg price fixing cases...
	They're simply a consequence of how bad the monopoly is.
	The real danger to the monopoly isn't in the prices or food suddenly disappearing during a pandemic because we have too few suppliers.
	The bigger problem is our health.
	Our health is crap because this food is crap.
	They pour chemicals all over it.
	And the best way you can resist is you can go to amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	You can get a range of great...
	Products, homemade, right there on that Amish farm.
	Best food I've ever had is the food I've had at Amos Miller.
	And I've eaten at the best restaurants in the world, quite literally, according to Michelin stars.
	The best I ever had was the meal at Amos Miller's farmhouse.
	Or at his house, right next to his farm.
	But these cases are just a reminder.
	We have a serious food monopoly problem in America.
	Robert, does Amish Miller's farm, does their cantaloupe have salmonella?
	That's the question I want to know.
	No, he hasn't had any problem with any of his food products.
	First of all, just so everybody knows, I know that he didn't.
	That's why I'm bringing this up as almost as a sick joke.
	There's a food recall of big corporate food every other day in America.
	And yet those companies don't get targeted.
	Those companies get protected.
	Because that's where these bureaucrats go to work afterwards.
	The idea that you'd recall cantaloupes for salmonella, I mean, I'm neurotic to begin with.
	No more cantaloupe for me.
	I'll get it from Amos, Amos, if I can get it.
	Oh my goodness.
	We can get apple butter.
	I mean, our members got some of the great apple butter that was done as a fundraiser for Free America Law Center.
	But there's a bunch of meats he has available right now.
	We're able to get the USDA to agree that certain meats could be sold.
	And so those are currently available.
	We're trying to expand that list.
	But, you know, the government's efforts, you know, had the effect of trying to bankrupt them.
	And we got to keep Amos Miller afloat out there because for our own public health.
	Because if we're all dying early, it's going to be hard to protect our rights and liberties in the process.
	AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com?
	Yeah.
	Okay, good.
	Hold on, Robert.
	I'm going to go to the list now.
	We've got the egg prices.
	Okay, fine.
	We can see.
	We'll save three for the after party.
	The MSG liquor case, the Title IX NIL case.
	And the Wisconsin ballot case.
	We'll save that for the Locals audience.
	You can get it at divabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All tips, $5 or more, we'll sit down to answer.
	But the two we'll finish up here with.
	NIL does not mean nil.
	It's name, image, likeness for Title IX, and it's going to be involving women.
	And volleyball.
	So you might want to tune in for that.
	Wisconsin ballot ruling.
	We'll do that here in the Venezuelan-Gayana dispute.
	I'm going to ask you why it's of interest to you.
	But Wisconsin ballot ruling.
	Okay, so you'll tell me if I got this wrong.
	This was a court overturning the ability of whoever handles the mail-in absentee ballots to cancel on request people who say, annul my vote and I want to vote again.
	This is with absentee ballots.
	And it's conservatives filing the lawsuit.
	When I try to understand these things, I have to understand the players to see which way I should interpret this by.
	Bottom line is someone was pushing a law that would allow people who had filed a mail-in ballot to annul it, for whatever the reason, I don't know, and then cast a new ballot.
	Some conservative groups were saying, we can't do this, it's unambiguous in the law, you can't do this.
	I guess, I mean, you'll have to flesh it out, but the bottom line...
	What reasons would anyone want to have or have to have to annul a vote that they already mailed in by mail-in ballots?
	And what's the rationale for allowing it?
	What are the protocols to prevent double voting?
	Because I think that would be the biggest risk.
	And who filed the lawsuit and what's the impact of it for the 2024 upcoming election?
	So what happens typically with an absentee ballot is sometimes you screw it up when you send it in.
	And that's called a spoiled ballot.
	So the clerk gets it, and if there's something wrong with it, maybe the ballot's unreadable, maybe the envelope that came in, something went wrong, and basically they can't count your ballot for some reason.
	And what happens is the clerk then notifies you, hey, by the way, there's something wrong with your ballot.
	And we're going to destroy this and send you a new one, and you've got to do the new one right.
	Well, Democrats came up with another theory, and they got the Wisconsin Election Commission, which they had enough of their pals and allies on, to change the law so that you as a voter could just call in and say, you know what?
	You remember that absentee ballot I sent in?
	Just spoil that one and send me another one.
	How the hell could that possibly ever be expected to work?
	Well, it worked for a good number of ballots within the margin of victory in certain cases.
	Including a presidential election of 2020.
	And the reason why it was working was the Wisconsin Election Commission gave this advice to clerks.
	Many of these clerks' offices have been receiving huge donations from Mark Zuckerberg, so-called Zuckerbucks, to basically help Democrats win the 2020 election, is what it was really about.
	And what people suspect is that it was organized voting efforts.
	In other words, when that new ballot came back, It wasn't the voter always filling it out.
	So I was there like, hey, you know, George screwed up his ballot.
	Send it over here and we'll get it right for George.
	Make sure that...
	This is why, you know, when you buy ballots, you never know when they go in and vote in person, whether they kept their word when you gave them the money to go in and vote a certain way.
	But you could if you controlled the ballot itself.
	But what happened when the dumb son of a gun went and voted already?
	Well, you just call in and spoil the ballot.
	Oh my goodness.
	So, credit to a state court judge.
	State court judge said, that's not what the Wisconsin law says.
	Wisconsin law clearly says, only ballots already spoiled can be returned.
	Not you get to vote again.
	That's not, once you send it in, you're done.
	Doesn't matter why or how or anything else.
	Well, the idea is, I'm just reading, and I'm saying, if you vote the day of, you don't get to cancel it the next day.
	So like, In theory, the same rule should apply to the privilege of mail-in early ballot votes.
	There are other states where they've applied this to even allow people to vote after Election Day.
	Oh my goodness.
	To say, oh, I need to spoil my ballot and get it in.
	And it's clearly by organized efforts of people making sure that ballot was marked the right way.
	Mark Elias.
	No, I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	Biggest money launderer in America.
	No matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.
	Lily Tomlin.
	Okay, so good news on that front for now.
	Does that go to appeal?
	Oh, I'm sure it will, yes.
	Okay.
	All right, and then the other one, which I know that I know about.
	The last one for this part.
	Venezuela?
	Women trying to take apart men's college sports over at vivabarneslaw.logos.com.
	We'll talk about MSG, Madison Square Garden's liquor license, another case involving a similar judge, same judge and the same prosecutor's drug case.
	And Andrew Weissman finally getting sued for being a scuzzbag.
	So we'll discuss all that over at vivabarneslaw.logos.com and any $5 tip question as well.
	But our last to wrap up tonight.
	Venezuela says it owns Guyana and it's voting on a big part of taking over a big part of it today.
	A part that just coincidentally has a lot of oil and gold.
	Before we get there, just going to read one.
	Thalidomide similarities to anyone.
	10,000 to 20,000 kids around the world.
	What are the jab numbers up to?
	The world will turn just as with the thalidomide tragedy once the real truth is exposed.
	When I grew up, my neighbor was a thalidomide child.
	I remember him.
	Why do his arms look like that?
	And they said thalidomide.
	Oh, what was that?
	Oh, women took it so they wouldn't get sick or feel sick when they were pregnant.
	Unbelievable.
	Okay, I'll summarize the Guiana-Venezuela dispute.
	You'll tell me why it's of interest to you because I couldn't figure it out above and beyond, I don't know, maybe other geopolitical analogies.
	Venezuela-Guiana share a border.
	Guiana was formerly a British colony.
	It got its independence in 1966 or 67, give or take.
	And the border between Guiana and Venezuela had been drawn by an 1890-some-odd arbitration award committee, whatever, that said, okay, the border is beyond the river.
	I forget the name of the river, but it's a very...
	Do you know what the name of the river is?
	The river that has the good stuff in it.
	And so they've lived like that for a long time.
	Soon to be discovered that there's oil offshore, gold and minerals and whatever, in or about the region of the river, Venezuela says, well, we want that property back.
	And they say, well, the original declaration or court order that said this is where the borders are drawn, well...
	We should invalidate that because apparently the deciders had some sort of British connection and they were trying to be beneficial to Guyana, a former British colony.
	And so now we want to challenge the borders to say we own or at least we should expand into this area that I think there's 150,000 Guyanans who live there.
	And the UN gets involved and says we're going to...
	Oh, now I'm going to forget the details.
	Bottom line, the United States, the criminal justice...
	of the international community, the ICJ, International Criminal Justice, says, all right, we're going to get involved.
	And Venezuela says, okay, well, we're going to pass a referendum and ask five questions to say whether or not the scope of ICJ, the International Court of Justice, should get involved.
	You'll correct me, Robert, on some of the details.
	Venezuela is going to hold a referendum to say what the scope and extent of any international interest should be in determining our borders.
	The concern is maybe war.
	Whereas if Venezuela votes to say, yeah, we don't want to recognize the authority of the international courts.
	We believe that the 1899 decision that set the borders, not including this mineral and oil rich land, involves us or is applicable to us.
	That's what we want to decide.
	And I think that's about where I'm going to have a brain fart, Robert.
	What did I get wrong?
	What did I miss?
	And why is this case of interest to you?
	Well, it might lead to armed conflict.
	I mean, it's the vestigial history of what law applies in the international law context.
	Because going way back, you had this occupied by various tribes.
	Then you have a Dutch colony.
	Then you have French involvement.
	Then you have it become a British colony.
	Venezuela becomes a Spanish colony.
	Then Venezuela and Britain cut a deal about property controlled by local tribes, but once claimed by either the French or the Dutch internationally.
	They kind of agree to an agreement, but Spain just doesn't dispute certain parts.
	They don't quite formalize making that part of Guyana clearly part of Guyana.
	And so then Venezuela becomes independent, and when Venezuela becomes independent, it doesn't recognize the Spanish agreement with the Brits over this territory.
	Then Guyana becomes independent.
	Guyana wants to claim it.
	Venezuela wants to claim it, and they just kind of reach a detente, don't ever really resolve the border dispute.
	Chavez comes in, and interestingly enough, it's Castro who convinces Chavez to not fight it.
	For various geopolitical reasons.
	So Chavez says, ah, it's theirs, we're done, we're going to move on.
	Maduro comes in, and Maduro is more, like, Chavez was more of a hybrid figure.
	I mean, in America, he's kind of caricatured as a socialist communist.
	He more comes from kind of the left populist realm of Latin politics.
	He called himself socialistic, but he didn't actually socialize as much of the economy in ways that Maduro has done.
	Maduro is more of a real statist than Chavez was.
	Maduro comes in, he's got a hundred problems, mismanaging the currency disastrously, got political turmoil from both the left and the right within Venezuela, from domestically and internationally.
	And all of a sudden, in this old territorially disputed area that goes back to many years of colonist disputes, Venezuela for a period of time was funding rebels in the region against the local government and at various times against various colonial governments to try to usurp and insert power.
	Remember, Venezuela is Simon Bolivar, the heart of Latin America's revolution of Latin independence.
	To a degree, Argentina's...
	Populist right kind of candidate in their new president, Millay, who some describe as libertarian, but my best way of distinguishing it is libertarians are very liberty-oriented or live and let live on personal moral issues.
	Whereas Millay made a presentation on why he opposed certain trans treatment.
	He goes, and he did it in a very old machismo Latin tradition.
	He said, just think about it.
	The only people that are going to chop it off are the ones that have a real small one.
	So that was his explanation, right?
	That's not exactly your libertarian kind of lingo.
	That's more your populist right kind of language and lingo.
	So we can't let him become trans just because it's small.
	That kind of explanation.
	But all of it's about independence.
	Wanting political independence from these colonial empires.
	And mixed into all this, you have a U.S. company.
	Because ExxonMobil...
	It has been on contract to develop the oil in that region.
	So you've got U.S. oil companies.
	You've got old geopolitics.
	You've got colonial politics.
	You've got international dispute.
	You've got Maduro's problems.
	And it could flare up.
	The Venezuelans are apparently building up military operations to try to take over that part of Guyana.
	Really because they found oil and gold there.
	Guiana is more Caribbean.
	Venezuela is more Spanish, if I have to go by demographics.
	If you look at the biggest growth in GDP before the oil discovery, I think Guiana is one of the best growth rates for personal GDP per capita in all of Latin America over the last 40 years, if I recall right.
	But it's a very small country that's very dependent on foreign support.
	So we'll see what flares up.
	I'm just going to bring this one up because it's kind of funny.
	Slava Guyana is going to be.
	It's right here.
	Yeah, replace Ukraine.
	Replace Israel.
	Make it all about a little tiny country in Latin America.
	Unfortunately, you could absolutely see another armed conflict involving the Biden administration in another part of the world.
	Though probably not just because of respect for international law or defending a little guy.
	Probably because the biggest interest in Guyana's oil development is a company called ExxonMobil.
	And look, they said it, so give them their word.
	Venezuela said they would not escalate this to armed conflict.
	They'll wait for the international...
	They're just holding a referendum in their own country about should we seize that other people's stuff.
	Who's going to vote no?
	Who's going to vote no?
	I have a deep, deep concern of human rights and democracy.
	You made me hurt my neck, Robert.
	Okay, that's Venezuela, Guiana.
	Okay, so now we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Hold on.
	Oh, I was going to say one thing before I forgot.
	So I'm on my way to Alabama as of tomorrow, Robert.
	The first stop on the way...
	Is Alison Morrow and her husband, Lynn.
	We're going to stop over there.
	It's going to be me and one kid, no dogs.
	So, that's the first stop.
	Second stop, we're going to drive...
	Make sure you come in advance, because he's probably got, like, sniper nest, you know?
	Make sure you know...
	There might be...
	I'm not promising anything.
	There might be some Viva and son.
	Discover a shooting range.
	I don't know.
	We'll see what happens.
	We've got...
	You may have noticed the new office.
	We had to swap in the Jeep for a new car because the Jeep was unreliable for long-term trips.
	So you might notice a new home office in the coming days.
	But I'm going to stop.
	First stop is Allison Morrow tomorrow night.
	Then I think we're going to drive straight to Tuscaloosa.
	What's it called?
	Yeah, yeah.
	That's Alabama got into the national playoffs, so they're happy about that.
	Over Florida State, who's unhappy up in Tallahassee, as a matter of fact.
	Well, my kid, Ethan, is so damn excited for this trip.
	We're going to drive one stopover straight to Tuscaloosa.
	My plus one for the RNC debate is my kid.
	So that's going to be fun.
	Is the debate at Tuscaloosa?
	Yes, it's the fourth debate.
	Ah, you know who's hosting.
	Oh, Megyn Kelly!
	Yeah, I'm going to...
	I'll meet her in person for the first time.
	I don't know that she knows where I'm going, but we're like this.
	Me and Megyn?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	She'll let her know, yeah.
	It can be commentary.
	Do a little commentary afterwards.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	Judge her performance.
	How did she do?
	Well, she's done better.
	I cannot pretend to be impartial to Megan because I like her.
	I mean, you can ask her which one you think she was wearing higher heels, DeSantis or Nikki Haley?
	God, you made me hurt my neck again, Robert.
	Stop it.
	Okay, so what we're going to do now is we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All of this will be on YouTube tomorrow, who gets the leftovers.
	And there will be no live interaction.
	Let me just make sure I didn't miss any super chats, rumble rants.
	Okay, so what we're doing now.
	Hold on, I gotta get to rumble.
	Gonna end it, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All week I'll be live from the road, so stay tuned, I'll be live.
	vivafry.com for merch, if you want some merch.
	I'm not gonna show pictures, you know where to get it.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party, where we are going in 3, 2, 1, now.
	I gotta figure out what's wrong with my neck, my back, everything.
	It doesn't matter, this too shall pass.
	I did my, like...
	When I complain about this, I still jogged for about 5 miles this morning, and then I did 100 push-ups, and I did 100 curls, but it hurt.
	And I'll push through it, unless doing push-ups with this is going to make it worse.
	All right, Robert, get ready to hold your breath while I read.

▲