Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 17, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:23:56

Ep. 191: Hunter Gives the Finger! Trump & Jan. 6 to SCOTUS? Biden Impeachment! IBM Racist & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	After 11 weeks in court, we arrested our case against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and other defendants.
	We brought this case after our four-year investigation revealed that Donald Trump committed repeated and persistent fraud and unjustly enriched himself, his family, and his business.
	Before this trial even began, the judge ruled in our favor and found that Donald Trump did engage in years of significant financial fraud we uncovered.
	Throughout this trial, we revealed the full extent of that fraud.
	We introduced extensive evidence and questioned more than two dozen witnesses.
	We heard from Donald Trump and his family, his co-defendants, his current and former employees at the Trump Organization, his accountants and associates at a financial institution, loan underwriters, real estate professionals, and experts.
	Their testimony illustrated years of fraud and baseless valuations to inflate Donald Trump's net worth.
	And we showed that Donald Trump's financial statements were used to get better loan terms, tax breaks, and a host of other economic benefits.
	Next month, we will return to court to present our closing argument.
	I'm confident in our case and that justice will prevail.
	No matter how powerful you think you are or how much money you think you have, everyone is equal under the law, even Donald Trump.
	Okay, look, the reality is I was in a very, very bad mood.
	I'll tell you why after I show you the next video clip, intro video clip, because it relates to the vlog that I just put out today.
	Oh my goodness, I was in a bad mood and I wanted to cry.
	In fact, I may have shed a tear or two today, but for purely superficial reasons.
	And that video is enough to make you laugh and realize...
	Holy shit.
	Now, I played it on Friday.
	Was it Friday or Thursday?
	Played it last week.
	My go-to movie to feel happy is Happy Gilmore.
	My go-to YouTube clip, if it's not a dog video, it's going to be that video from now on.
	Locals and Rumble not working.
	Let's just make sure before we get any further that we're not dealing with someone who's trying to distract me.
	We're working on...
	We're working.
	And we are working it on Locals.
	Not Locals, VivaBarnes, Rumble.
	What the hell's my problem?
	Still a little distracted from I'll tell you why, people.
	It's so bloody irritating.
	My head is just in too many places at one time.
	Alright, we're on VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	People, if you haven't noticed, I am making a concerted effort to put out more of the original old school car vlogs.
	Partly because I want to amortize the new vehicle that we have.
	People have been asking, we miss the old vlogs, and I'm thinking, A, I need to get one of them overseas video editors so that I could have someone do this instead of me doing it on my iPhone, which is driving me a little crazy, making me be in too many places at one time.
	But I'm going to put out...
	More vlogs and I'm gonna make an effort to do so it will not come at the expense of the live streams I'm trying to figure out how to tinker with it because when you put out live streams on YouTube and then shorter videos it messes up the output I don't even really care about the algorithm anymore so you might have noticed that I've been trying to do my best and Have been successfully accomplishing that goal of putting out more vlogs this weekend.
	For example, I put out two car vlogs one of which Dealt with that particular video clip.
	I put that one out yesterday.
	Where people were saying, Viva, you misunderstood.
	When she said the judge, before this trial even began, Judge Angeron ruled in our favor and declared that Trump committed years of financial fraud we uncovered.
	Oh, I understood that, people.
	But I put out a video of a vlog explaining why that's hardly any defense to anything.
	And when she says, before this trial even began.
	She's telling you, people.
	So that was the vlog from yesterday.
	The vlog from today, because I read an article from Black Locks, at least a portion of it, because I'm not behind their paywall yet, and I don't want to give it away for free to everybody.
	I read an article on Friday that I say is shocking, but not shocking, but shocking, but not shocking, but shocking.
	And it is this one, right?
	How do I not know where this is?
	I had it.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to play it.
	I wanted to play the video and just...
	It's an article from Black Locks.
	I mean, we knew all this stuff, that the government was paying social media influencers to push COVID propaganda.
	We knew it.
	We knew it because they budgeted for it.
	Remember that $153 million in COVID advertising?
	And then we would see that they had influencers.
	I got the vlog right here.
	Let's just do this.
	Tell me if you hear that music.
	I hear music.
	And it's coming from that computer.
	Oh, I'm going to get that in a second.
	Damn.
	Damn kids are playing Roblox on that computer.
	All right.
	We're going to get to that in a second.
	And then we're going to get to the intro stuff.
	We're going to get to the disclaimers.
	But for now, let me just show you.
	Shocking.
	Here it is.
	Back to the Clark vlog.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Look at that crazy guy.
	One man's influencer is another person's outright government paid propaganda.
	So, this is Olga Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler, and my wife asked me to go get some bagels, and I'm like, yeah, sure, honey, I'll go get some bagels, and sneak in a car vlog while I'm doing it.
	You might hear some noise, for some reason, ouch, these, um, what do they call it, a murder of crows has decided to install themselves in the tree above me.
	Alright, an amazing story coming out of Canada.
	We'll get to the story.
	The story is from Black Locks about social media influencers being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government.
	And then failing to disclose that they were paid for COVID propaganda posts.
	Hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	$682,000 to various social media influencers.
	I broke down, I started looking into it, as did the internet.
	You know, they put up the list of the names of these social media influencers that the government has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to.
	And the internet being what it is, we start looking into it.
	And a lot of the accounts, at least on Twitter, are dead accounts.
	Many of them have zero, and I say, not zero, virtually no following, which doesn't make them influencers.
	It actually makes them bot propaganda accounts that the government is hijacking and then using as outlets to push government propaganda.
	In the vlog, I go through how the government military saw COVID, you know, the article that...
	The military saw COVID as an opportunity to test propaganda on unsuspecting Canadians.
	The Canadian government tracking 33 million cell phone mobile devices to see where people were going during COVID.
	Were they respecting the lockdown?
	And if they weren't respecting the lockdown, you remember green zone, yellow zone, red zones?
	I don't know if they had this where everyone else who's watching was, but in our country, in Canada, and in Quebec, they broke things down into zones.
	Based on the number of COVID cases.
	Green being, you're good to go out of your houses and go to stores.
	Yellow being risky.
	And red zones where they had too many COVID cases.
	The red zones couldn't travel into the yellow or green zones.
	This is not science fiction, Handmaid's Tale, whatever that, Zone 9. What's that?
	What's that?
	There's a science fiction movie.
	I forget what it's called.
	They were tracking cell phone data, cell phone mobile devices, to see if Canadians were respecting these lockdown zone restrictions.
	And I guess if they weren't, well then they were going to siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars to influencers to go to Twitter and say, respect your zone.
	If you're in a red zone, don't go into a yellow zone and save lives.
	So some of these accounts had no following whatsoever, which makes them not influencer accounts, but government propaganda, BOT.
	Others...
	Had a few thousand followers.
	That's still not influencers as far as I'm concerned.
	They did not disclose to the public that they were being paid for these COVID posts.
	District 9, thank you very much.
	They didn't disclose that they were being paid for the posts.
	One of them, one of the accounts was a, I believe, a drag queen.
	A drag, I don't know which way it goes if it's drag, but was a drag, someone who participated in Canadian Drag Race Season 3. Put out a tweet saying, I'm involved in my first scandal.
	Yeah, I got paid by the government to talk about my specific COVID experience and why I chose to get the jab.
	And I asked that person a number of questions.
	Did you tell people that?
	I mean, it's like, it's fine that you did it, I guess, if you told people it was a paid post.
	Did you tell them?
	I have yet to get an answer.
	Let me pull up that tweet and we can see that account.
	So a number of these accounts I noticed were indigenous.
	A number of these accounts were related to the trans drag community.
	And a number of these accounts were like mommy accounts.
	There were ethnic minority accounts.
	And the government is basically siphoning Canadian taxpayer dollars without disclosing it because according to the Black Locks report, to disclose it obviously would have been very embarrassing.
	This was one of the accounts.
	Put this account on blast out of malice to the account.
	You know, in Canada, I don't believe that we yet have mandatory lawful requirements to disclose a paid sponsorship.
	I think in the States it's a little different.
	There are ethics.
	There's basic ethics to things.
	You know, if you're getting paid to push a message, you damn well let your followers know that because otherwise, I mean, I don't know how you, you know, it's not the end of the world, but it's unethical.
	There's unethical in terms of the creator or the influencer.
	Influencer.
	And then there's criminal from the level of the government.
	Fraud.
	Testing propaganda on citizens, I believe, should be, you know, probably declared illegal.
	Chellezon Leroux.
	Canada's Drag Race Season 3, Indigenous and Thriving.
	A few of them were Indigenous.
	Bookings, Media, whatever.
	So I asked this account.
	These are the lower-level participants in this scheme.
	The scheme is government corruption.
	And I would have DM'd them if I could, if I DM'd this person, I don't know who it is, if I could have.
	I said, I'm not able to DM you.
	I've just got a few questions.
	And if anybody thinks that there's any malicious intent in here, go ahead, impute whatever intent you want to be.
	These are pretty standard, pretty obvious questions that any independent journalist, media, any honest person will want answered, especially the ones who might...
	I wasn't influenced by this person's post.
	I was more influenced by other familial pressure.
	Guilt, so to speak.
	But anyone who might have actually been duped following their influencers who were telling them a message that was paid for by the government without telling them, these are pretty standard questions.
	Who approached you at the time?
	Very interesting.
	Who in the government went to these influencers and said, hey, you want some money?
	Hey, little boy, you want some money to spread some government propaganda?
	I got lots of money.
	I got endless money.
	I got taxpayers.
	Who approached you?
	Who was your point of contact?
	Name.
	Was it that bumbling idiot, former Minister of Heritage?
	What's his name?
	Oh, for goodness sake, I'm going to forget his name.
	The guy with the beard who climbed the CN Tower.
	Was it that bumbling, corrupt idiot?
	Or do they have agents within the government to contact?
	Have your agent contact my agent.
	Did you approach the government?
	Do these people say, hey guys, you got any of that sweet, sweet taxpayer dollars to spread government propaganda?
	Or do they contact your agent?
	Did you disclose at the time you were being paid for the post?
	Because we'll get to the long story short.
	That fact is astutely missing.
	And how much were you paid?
	The influencers are the pawns in this.
	This is the, I don't know, like the...
	The post explanation.
	Long story short, I was paid by Health Canada to talk about my COVID experience and why I chose to take the vaccine, not to force anybody else.
	This is no different than people getting paid to promote any other government program, education, healthcare, economics.
	And you'd do it for a bag.
	What does that mean?
	Is that a bag of weed?
	Like, I'm not joking.
	I'm not trying to be glib, facetious.
	A bag of chips?
	Is this an expression that the children use these days, the youth, to talk about drugs?
	Like a dime bag?
	I want to know who did it.
	I want to know who was approached, who was in charge of it.
	Did they go through the agents?
	Is this an actual government program where they have their agents who then go to other agents?
	I know so much that I don't tell people because I'm a bloody vault.
	And there are people who I've communicated with.
	The world will never know it.
	And it would be great for clout.
	It would be great for drama.
	But it's not who I am.
	And it's why people feel very comfortable talking to me privately.
	I know!
	Of talent who have been approached and offered thousands of dollars to pitch propaganda.
	And from what I understand, they go through the agents.
	These talents, these influencers, they have agents.
	And the government approaches their agents and said, I know this for a fact.
	Would they be game to do it?
	And any talent with a lick of ethics and a lick of self-decency would say, go F yourself, Mr. Government.
	I don't need the money that, no one needs money that badly.
	Oh, is it a bag of cash?
	Maybe.
	I thought it was funny where my mind goes.
	I thought it might have been a dime bag of marijuana, like as if to say you do it for a little dime bag of marijuana or a bag of chips.
	The first thought was bag of chips.
	Barnes, where are you?
	He's coming.
	Don't worry about it.
	So that's the vlog I put out today.
	Now, here, this is the rules in Canada coming from a law firm.
	Smart and bigger people.
	It's funny.
	This was the law firm I wanted to get a job at when I was coming out of law school.
	And they talk about the golden rules in Canada.
	Disclose any material connections and no misleading marketing.
	Yeah, it's pretty cool.
	Disclose your financial connections.
	Yeah, the government is paying me to talk about my COVID experience and why I, as a young individual, chose to get a jab.
	And I would ask this person.
	They're as much a victim as everybody else.
	They just happen to have profited a little bit from it.
	When you got the jab, Season, race, three person.
	Did they tell you the risks?
	Did you know that the government knew that they were mass-producing shit faster than they could produce with quality and jabbing it into your arms?
	Did you know that?
	Did you actually do it?
	Is the other question.
	Did you get a real shot?
	The level of propaganda being pushed by AI is off the charts.
	There's also...
	AI or bots?
	Let's just...
	Sorry, I didn't mean to bring that one up.
	So that was the news of the weekend.
	And I'm going to try to get a reporter from Blacklocks on.
	And then I'll just get to what the heartbreaking part of the day.
	It's material objects.
	It doesn't matter.
	I put the top down on my new office just to protect myself from the bird shit, which actually still got in.
	And then I started driving and forgot that I hadn't latched it down.
	And it popped up at relatively high speed while I was driving.
	And I've done damage.
	No one got hurt.
	You know, it could have been worse, but it's the type of thing where, when I was growing up, we grew up with this story, story time, and then I'll get to the standard disclaimers, story time.
	My dad got a motorcycle when he was having his midlife crisis and he's driving it back from the motorcycle dealership, whatever, on a trailer hitch, down some country roads, and the hitch dislodged and the bike crashed into the ditch.
	Not just once, but twice on the same drive home.
	And I remember my mom saying, well, your dad was just despondent for the rest of the day.
	Sitting there crying.
	Sitting there crying and, you know, like, he never got to ride the motorcycle.
	And it might very well have saved his life because motorcycles are notoriously dangerous.
	Oh, yeah.
	Any video of it?
	No, it would not have been a YouTube hit.
	Nobody wants to see Viva cry.
	Nobody got hurt.
	It's not like, you know, it'll just be minor damage and may probably replace the entire soft top.
	But I think I might have a claim against Ford because there's no warning to let you know that the latches are...
	How hard would it be?
	There was no beep, beep, beep.
	Did you check the latches, Viva, you dumbass?
	Because you're spending too much time distracted about the state of the world.
	Just, why'd you do it?
	Just take the bird crap.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's just a soft top.
	It can be replaced.
	Hold on.
	What does he say?
	Storytime is not what it used to be.
	Tales are now scattered everywhere.
	Okay, that's a joke.
	That's a joke.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	What I was going to say, you all know the ritual, the routine here.
	If you don't know who I am, welcome to the channel.
	I'm going to bring back the vlogs, the car vlogs.
	If anybody has a good, affordable, time-sensitive video editor.
	I might be in the market.
	The other question was, we're going to end on YouTube and go over to Rumble, the free speech platform.
	I'll post the stream either in its entirety or clips in the coming days.
	Everybody should also attend the vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty because we go to the party there after Rumble, answer all of the $5 tips and more.
	So, you know, it's a wonderful community to be a part of.
	Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year, but it's going up in January 1st, so you might want to get in now and get locked in, people.
	Get locked in, get grandfathered in, because it is going to go up to 10 bucks a month, 100 bucks a year as of January 1st.
	And that is all for the intros.
	No legal advice, no election fornication advice, no medical advice.
	Actually, before I bring Barnes in, Barnes sends me an email that says, I got a graph that we need to put on a shirt.
	And I'm like, let's see it.
	And it is damn good good.
	Look at this!
	People, I spend time...
	I don't spend enough time focusing on our merchandise.
	You go to vivafry.com.
	Look at this!
	If you can't see, it's Barnes of Santa Claus.
	Have you been good good?
	And I think the answer to that question is we have all been very good good here.
	And we're going to have a good one tonight.
	Okay, I'm bringing in the Barnes.
	3, 2, 1. Boom shakalaka.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	It is good, good.
	For those that, you know, we got the shirts, we got the mugs, we got the hoodies.
	We'll have some more.
	We got, you know, lady fit shirts and all that jazz and additional stuff as it goes along.
	What are tumbles?
	You want a last second Christmas gift?
	You can give that or you can gift a subscription to yourself or others at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Those that get the $7 membership.
	Which is less than $6 a month if you get the annual subscription.
	You're grandfathered in when you use your credit or debit card so that you always get that rate.
	Even if inflation goes to the moon, you still get the discounted rate.
	There's people on our platform that have the $5 a month, which is like less than $4 a month annual rate that got grandfathered in early.
	So if you need a last-second Christmas gift, not a bad place to go.
	Now, the audio, it came in a little hot, but I think it's good now.
	So everyone says audio is loud, loud.
	Barnes is coming in hot.
	Barnes is louder than Viva.
	Okay, so I'm going to tinker with it just a bit, just so we get this all edit mic settings, and I'll bring Barnes down to a 115.
	Okay, there we go.
	That should be good.
	Yeah, hold on.
	Let's see this here.
	Barnes?
	As economy tanks, we may need legal guidance for living out of our cars.
	Any references for each state?
	How would you recommend states address...
	Oh, it's...
	It's...
	Bidenomics, people.
	It's working great, and if you think it isn't...
	Robert, we've got so much to talk about.
	Oh!
	And this is the last Sunday show of the year, because next Sunday is Christmas Eve.
	The Sunday after that, I think, is New Year's Eve.
	So our next Sunday show will be three weeks from now, and it will be in 2024.
	Just so everyone doesn't go into total freakout, I think it's a sacrilege to do one on Christmas Eve, so maybe I'll still be going live, people, but we will not have the Viva Barnes Sunday night show for the next two consecutive Sundays.
	Unless we do something special for New Year's Day.
	Monday will be the last What Are the Odds show of the year with Richard Barris, the People's Pundit, on Rumble and YouTube and on Locals.
	And that will be tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
	And then I'll still be doing some bourbons at vivobarnslaw.locals.com.
	But that will be it otherwise for the rest of the year.
	I hope everybody has happy holidays, safe travels.
	All that jazz.
	Now, people gave us these cool gifts before, but I have no idea how I use them.
	These are like Hanukkah things or something, right?
	Yeah, flip it over here.
	Let me see this.
	It goes, You get the And so you spin it.
	This is actually just like a very, very old form of gambling.
	Well, no.
	If you could spin it on the top, Robert, that's a skill that a lot of people don't have.
	So you spin it, and then it ends on one of the letters, and you gamble on which of the four letters it's going to be.
	Oh, I like that.
	That's an even better gift.
	What are the odds?
	One and four.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Perfect.
	This is an interesting tidbit for those who probably know this already.
	It says, which means a great miracle happened there for all dreidels outside of Israel.
	And the ones in Israel have and they have a different letter because the miracle happened here, not there.
	Yeah, I was briefly arguing with Russians with Attitude, who's a classic Russian, very Russian perspective.
	Fascinating, a lot of great history, a lot of that information.
	He was trying to make the point that somehow Israel wasn't a real country historically.
	And I was like, who, like, think of all the countries in the world and their population's historic relationship to the land they currently govern.
	And tell me which country in the world has a stronger historic tie than Jews to where Israel is.
	I was like, Russians, have they always been in all parts of Russia that currently exist?
	Many parts of Russia they only had for a few centuries by comparison.
	That's why I get a kick out of these people that pretend that somehow Israel is the colonizer when returning to their old historic land that used to be run by other colonizers.
	Unless you're the Palestinians and then you're so delusional, you think you're related to the Greek Sea Peoples, the Philistines.
	I mean, they believe the nuttiest stuff.
	Even Scott Ritter is busy discrediting himself these days, sadly.
	With his latest, let's get rid of Israel and have the Jews governed by Hamas.
	There are certain issues where people...
	Lose their mind.
	Scott Horton loses his mind on this.
	Scott Ritter loses his mind on this.
	Mearsheimer at times loses his mind on Israel.
	But what I'm finding is that people are losing their mind over...
	The DeSantis camp are losing their minds over Trump, over Giuliani.
	We're going to get to it tonight.
	Yeah, over January 6th.
	I mean, Steve Dace.
	I like Steve.
	He made a bad gamble.
	He's a betting man.
	He made a bad choice when he bet on the DeSantis.
	And rather than just admit that and acknowledge that, still in delusional land, but don't go so far as to start pretending.
	That Giuliani was getting a fair trial.
	I mean, if you're that illiterate as to what's happening legally, watch the Sunday show, Steve, and you wouldn't end up making really foolish comments on public forums.
	Well, you know what?
	I guess this will be...
	We're going to change the story for the top of the hour because we're in it right now.
	Do we talk about Giuliani right now and then you'll give us a list?
	Oh, sure.
	We even have a bonus one to talk about.
	The Owen Schroyer may have a libel claim against the Washington Post.
	But yeah, we got the Supreme Court.
	We got January 6th.
	We got Trump.
	We got New York.
	We got another win for Trump on the ballot issues.
	We got Biden impeached.
	We got Prince Harry wins a phone hacking case.
	Might Piers Morgan be implicated?
	Google!
	Loses a big antitrust trial.
	IBM and Red Hat exposed.
	I represent one of the whistleblowers.
	So I can give you a little bit of insight on that.
	Boston Mayor.
	No whites allowed.
	That's apparently the new, you know, no Irish allowed in Boston.
	Now it's no whites allowed in Boston.
	We got Giuliani getting Alex Jones, which we'll get to in just a second.
	We got all those food apps trying to hide from liability under an arbitration clause.
	We got Airbnb.
	Bans being upheld by federal courts.
	Meadows removal that's up before the 11th Circuit.
	He got a bad draw.
	Judges, unfortunately, but that may be impacted by SCOTUS, too.
	And Owen Schroyer may be able to sue the Washington Post on the same grounds the Covington kids did.
	We're going to start with Giuliani, and then we're going to end on YouTube and go over to Rumble.
	Okay, Robert.
	Giuliani, this is the defamation lawsuit filed by the two, I want to say Georgia, I keep forgetting the state.
	Is it the Georgia workers?
	Yes.
	Oh, briefly, that's David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge, to those asking in the chat.
	David Mamet, great playwright, great screenwriter, great author.
	Three Uses of the Knife, one of my favorite books.
	This is one of his more recent books, taking apart why he left liberalism, about the craziness of wokeism.
	And the on that aspect.
	Yes, this is Georgia plaintiffs suing a New York defendant about statements made in Georgia in a D.C. federal court.
	Well, OK, so we'll get to the you'll make sense of the jurisdiction.
	It's forum shopping in its purest form.
	These are the two Georgia workers who Giuliani made reference to having pulled out briefcases from under the table in the middle of the in the middle of the count.
	I have to refresh my memory as to what was actually potentially even false versus actually true about all this.
	Gets sued for defamation and gets Alex Jones exactly like Alex Jones got Alex Jones.
	He got more Alex Jones actually than Trump did because Trump had a summary judgment.
	Giuliani was default verdict for liability because allegedly he failed to produce electronically stored ESI, electronically stored information.
	And his argument was that I can't produce it anymore because the FBI took my phone and wiped it and I no longer have access to it.
	And I don't know the details.
	I would love to have Giuliani on to explain the details as to whether or not how it happened, whether or not it's a pretext, whatever.
	The bottom line is he's accused of...
	Failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce electronically stored information that the judge is thoroughly convinced is in his possession.
	The judge, an Obama appointee, I forget his name, but I suspect you'll know.
	It's her.
	It's the chief judge that's caused all the other problems and issued all the other crazy rulings, including the Twitter case, including stealing Trump's attorney-client privilege information.
	I mean, the one that...
	Govern the grand jury in the Trump case.
	I mean, it's the most partisan.
	It's the one that Congresswoman Stefanik recently filed an ethics complaint about because of her public statements cheering on these cases outside of the courtroom.
	So she's one of the most corrupt partisan judges in America.
	An honest Congress would impeach her.
	And this is, her name is Beryl.
	I just knew Beryl Howley or whatever.
	Former chief judge.
	Yeah, she was just accepting an award at some American white collar worker event where she's basically making public statements about the January 6th cases, the facts, and how basically they're all a bunch of insurrectionists, even the ones that haven't been adjudicated on yet, which is as unethical as anything can get for a judge in the exercise of their duties.
	So she's the judge.
	She defaults Giuliani and says, you're not complying with discovery.
	It's so egregious.
	That even though apparently Giuliani was prepared to concede, the statements that he made were false.
	I don't want to misphrase it.
	I thought he was prepared to concede that the statements were false while preserving his First Amendment rights to have said them.
	She says, no, no, you've defaulted and it's a liability verdict by default.
	Plaintiffs don't even have to present evidence to make their case.
	Boom, guilty.
	Now let's get into the damages.
	And I awarded, what, a hundred and some odd million dollars to all these people.
	There are people out there, Robert, who say, well, all he has to do is comply with Discovery.
	Let's just operate on the basis that Giuliani, in fact, did not comply with Discovery.
	He had the information and refuses to produce it.
	Can you not explain to people why, especially in the case of a defamation case, where all of the lawsuit is based on the statements being publicly made, that's how someone gets defamed, that maybe foreclosed from pleading, preventing from presenting a defense might be the most egregious sanction, but...
	Bypassing the plaintiffs even having to prove their case?
	How does it happen?
	Well, first of all, the case had no business in the District of Columbia.
	It is an utter joke that this case was ever allowed to be brought in the District of Columbia.
	Because the statements were not made in the District of Columbia.
	The plaintiffs do not reside in the District of Columbia.
	The defendant does not reside in the District of Columbia.
	The statements weren't intended to impact.
	The reputation of the plaintiffs in the District of Columbia.
	So the constitutional standard, I'm litigating this currently on behalf of Robert Kennedy in his defamation claim that we brought in New Hampshire.
	There, the reason it was brought in New Hampshire is because it's quite clear, in our view, that the defendant targeted New Hampshire to impact the reputation of Robert Kennedy to try to hurt and impair his presidential primary campaign at the time in which the statements were made.
	And reiterated and republished and rebroadcast.
	And so what the U.S. Supreme Court has said is you can sue and libel under the Constitution.
	It conforms a due process to allow a state to have jurisdiction over a defendant, even if the plaintiff doesn't reside there and the defendant doesn't reside there, if the intent was to impact the reputation of the plaintiff in that venue.
	Here there's no evidence of that.
	And so the D.C. court had no business.
	presiding over the case.
	But it's so corrupt and so partisan, it dishonored its own venue requirements and constitutional due process principles to even be involved.
	They handpicked, cherry-picked the District of Columbia because they know how prejudiced its judicial pool is.
	They know how prejudiced its court of appeal is.
	They know how prejudiced its jury pool is.
	And this case, of course, proves it.
	Now, the second aspect is...
	This is what's colloquially called the death penalty sanction.
	My view is courts should never be given this power ever, period.
	You have a right to trial by jury.
	Courts are not at their liberty to eviscerate that.
	I've long opposed the doctrine of summary judgment.
	I've long opposed definitely all default judgments, so-called default judgments.
	Those should be reserved default judgments to where the party never appears, doesn't participate in the proceeding at all, Knowingly and deliberately.
	It should never apply to someone who's participating in the proceedings.
	Ever.
	End of story.
	I'll give an example.
	We'll be talking later about the Google case.
	In Google, they not only didn't produce evidence that was requested, they destroyed it.
	They deleted it.
	Incriminating chats.
	Did Google get defaulted?
	Of course not.
	So this is much stronger than what happened to Alex Jones, much stronger than what happened with Rudy Giuliani in terms of neither one of them were even accused of destroying or deleting known evidence.
	Google was proven to have done so.
	What is the evidentiary sanction the process calls for that?
	It's an evidentiary inference.
	The judge gets to tell the jury.
	They destroyed this evidence.
	you can assume that evidence would be really bad against them and the worst possible inference you can make.
	That's it.
	The judges and the courts are weaponizing their power to strip juries of their rights.
	Now, you have to ask a bigger question, which is, just like in the Alex Jones case, here they had partisan judges in Connecticut and in Texas presiding over Alex Jones' cases.
	Since this has come back up in the news with Alex Jones being reinstated on Twitter, To a lot of fanfare by a lot of his supporters, but his critics are screaming about Sandy Hook all over again.
	And lying about what happened in those cases in the process.
	When you have partisan judges and juries in your pocket, why would the lawyers or litigants in those cases against Alex Jones, why would they demand no trial on the merits?
	Maybe it's because they know the trial on the merits would prove their claims are false and bogus, which is what the claims against Alex Jones have always been.
	Most of the things people think Alex Jones said and did, he didn't say and do.
	And what it is, is here you have judges that are so paranoid, so terrified, that even jurors that are in their pocket from a partisan perspective against the defendant.
	They're scared if the world sees the evidence that their whole case will fall apart.
	So it's the same with Giuliani.
	Why, if it was so clear that what Giuliani said had no basis in fact and no constitutionally protected opinion behind it, why were both the plaintiffs and the judges so terrified of actually an honest jury pool?
	One not in D.C., an honest judiciary, which is also not in D.C. on these cases.
	But why were they so scared that even those judges and juries, hearing evidence, this is a federal case, so there wouldn't even be a public video broadcast trial?
	They were scared of anybody finding out the truth about this election because they know their cases are false.
	They know their cases are bogus.
	They know their cases are factually meritless.
	Because otherwise you don't have to do these shenanigans.
	Now what it does, goes to show, is what we warned about.
	And a lot of other people were mute about.
	Which is, just like when they used Jones as the template for big tech censorship and deplatforming, we said what they're doing to Alex Jones, they're going to start due to everyone else.
	They're going to start stripping you of your right to procedural defenses.
	They're going to start stripping you of your right to speech outside the courtroom.
	And they're going to start stripping you of your right to a trial on the merits by a jury of your, by a jury of the, impartial jury of the community.
	Used to be jury of your peers.
	That's the Magna Carta, unfortunately.
	That part's not reflected in the Constitution.
	But a jury, impartial jury of your community is.
	And this was not Rudy Giuliani's community, the District of Columbia.
	It wasn't the plaintiff's community either.
	So they want to strip them of these rights, and they're going to use Alex Jones' templates to get away with it.
	And until and unless this stops, until a higher court says, this is garbage and no more, it's going to continue and it's going to get a lot worse.
	That's why Alex Jones has been the canary in the coal mine, not only about things he himself has warned about, which even people like Jimmy Dore had to acknowledge he has an unusual success track record with.
	But the example of what's been done to him is now they're trying to do it to Giuliani, and now they're trying to do it to Donald Trump, the President of the United States.
	What's amazing is that people were watching the Alex Jones trial on the damages, and they were saying, how is he even guilty?
	Or how is he going to even be found guilty?
	And then it was like, well, he's already guilty.
	And people are like, I'm watching the evidence on the damages, and it's basically exonerating him on the merits, but too late, you're past the merits.
	Donald Trump trial, after the summary judgment, they didn't default verdict Donald Trump.
	Summary judgment, people are looking at that and saying...
	How is he even liable on the merits when his bank is saying we didn't rely on the statements?
	We would have given them all regardless.
	We were fighting for his business.
	And I was like, how is he guilty?
	Too late.
	He is.
	And I guess this...
	And people are going to retrospectively think they saw a trial on the merits when in fact they didn't because they bypassed it altogether and they're doing it to Giuliani.
	And to give you the procedural trick, court's pull, to give summary adjudication, let's call that what it is.
	Denial of your right to a trial on the merits.
	And a denial, more importantly, to a jury trial.
	That's what it is.
	There was an argument in the New York case about whether he would have ever been entitled to a jury trial anyway.
	Putting that aside, it's at minimum a right to a trial in the merits.
	The way judges get around this is they pretend there are no facts in dispute.
	Quite clearly, anybody who's watched the Trump case know there are facts in dispute.
	So that is a bogus application of summary judgment.
	It is a weaponization of judicial power for partisan purposes, being imposed and utilized in a prejudicial manner to justice, which, by the way, historically, that kind of action has been an impeachable action, whether it's a judge or anyone else.
	The wrongful abuse of police, prosecutorial, or judicial power was, dating back to the English days, considered a high crime and misdemeanor.
	First person impeached in America was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for his political partisan weaponization of the judiciary to go after his adversaries.
	And only after he was impeached did the courts get the message, oh, hold on a second.
	It wasn't removed.
	He barely survived.
	But all the courts learned, maybe we've got to be careful with our power.
	If Congress is serious, they need to start talking about...
	Bringing impeachment proceedings over any of these individuals, including judges.
	By the way, the original Federal Civil Rights Act laws, you know who their principal target was?
	It wasn't the Klan.
	It was corrupt partisan state judges and law enforcement.
	That's who their target was.
	The federal civil rights laws should be re-examined to go after corrupt partisan judges misusing and abusing their power for partisan and prejudicial reasons.
	They themselves are green-lighting these cases against Trump on January 6th.
	Okay, you get to be the recipient of that same method of justice now because you got to establish the precedent for it.
	But at a minimum, until that happens, these corrupt partisan judges will continue.
	But what happened to Rudy Giuliani is a joke.
	That wasn't a trial.
	It wasn't even a show trial.
	It was a scam on American justice.
	Look at this.
	Someone replied to my tweet saying, oh, but Giuliani admitted liability is what I believe they said.
	Let me just make sure.
	It doesn't even matter what they said.
	They said he admitted liability, so there's nothing to try anymore.
	This is the last paragraph of the judge's order.
	As discussed above, Giuliani has not engaged in any conduct that constitutes spoiliation.
	Oh, that's kind of relevant.
	He didn't destroy evidence.
	However, out of an abundance of caution to avoid any potential discovery, controversy, sorry.
	Giuliani has agreed to stipulate the factual aspects of liability as to plaintiff's claim.
	Accept damages.
	The factual elements of the liability?
	That he said the words that they accused him of saying that were defamatory.
	And this is highlighted by the person who's trying to convince me Giuliani admitted liability.
	While Giuliani does not admit to plaintiff's allegations, he, for the purposes of this litigation only, does not contest the factual allegations, i.e., I said the words.
	Set aside the legal defenses as to whether or not they're public figures or, you know, single-purpose, what do they call them?
	Single-purpose public figures that they have to prove.
	In the context, his intent would go to all the issues with the election.
	This judge was terrified of the world seeing the truth.
	So this is where Steve Dace made this dumb comment.
	Why didn't Rudy dispute things?
	And Justin Hart cheered in.
	These dissimps are destroying their own credibility.
	Why didn't he provide the evidence?
	Why didn't he provide the evidence to the judge?
	Because the judge said you're not allowed to present the evidence.
	It's like gagging somebody and then saying, why aren't you speaking?
	I mean, come on.
	Dace is not paying attention.
	Justin Hart is not paying attention.
	To me, these conservatives are not paying attention because they don't happen to like some of these people or they're not on their side to the political partisan weaponization of the justice system in ways that destroy the credibility of the integrity of American civil justice system, makes a mockery of it and endangers all of our liberties in the process.
	And I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.
	Justin Hart comes.
	Oh, no, it was Stephen Dace who said, come on my show and provide the evidence.
	And if the judge won't let you do it there.
	I'm just wondering, like, the statements that he, I guess, wants him to come back and say are the ones that he's being sued for for defamation.
	I don't know how smart it would be to go on another platform while you're being sued for defamation to make the same statements again.
	But I don't know what evidence they want from Giuliani.
	Like, they say, other than the laptop from hell, what else has he shown?
	Well, he showed the laptop from hell.
	He made some statements about these two particular poll agents pulling a bag out from under a table, counting those strikes, whatever.
	We all saw the video.
	I don't know what more evidence they want him to present as if to suggest that he voluntarily refused to provide it to the judge.
	And there's no better evidence than the fact that the judge wouldn't allow him to present it.
	If, in fact, this evidence would impeach him, if this evidence was insufficient, the judge doesn't need to go through the procedural shenanigan of denying him the opportunity to present it.
	A judge only does this when the judge doesn't want the world to know the truth.
	If the truth was on the judge's side, the judge doesn't need to prohibit evidence of the truth from coming into the courtroom, does she?
	He obviously appeals this.
	It's a no-brainer with the award of $100.
	Another part of these absurd verdicts.
	Absurd verdicts.
	Which started with the Alex Jones case.
	Billions of dollars.
	Are you kidding me?
	That was ludicrous.
	Ludicrous.
	People like Megyn Kelly should be ashamed of cheering on some of those absurd verdicts.
	I get she's sensitive on Sandy Hook issues because of her controversy from NBC, but that's no excuse, no pardon, for cheering on preposterous verdicts that make a mockery of the justice system.
	People who suffered no deaths, who know no one who died, were given over $100 million!
	That is ridiculous.
	And for things that Alex Jones didn't even see, they were getting, that FBI agent was being called names before Jones had anything to say about it.
	Exactly.
	Jones never even mentioned him.
	So somebody that Jones never mentioned that was being attacked for reasons that had nothing to do with Jones, before Jones had anything to do with Sandy Hook, gets over $100 million?
	These are absurd verdicts that make a mockery of our justice system.
	Complete mockery of the justice system.
	So they've got to start doing something about this and stopping this overt political partisan weaponization of the entire legal system, civil and criminal.
	And just as those cases, the Trump New York case has been a classic example of that.
	But so have all the other Trump cases.
	So have most of the January 6th cases.
	And now both are up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And we will get to that.
	In a minute, on Rumble exclusively after we end on YouTube.
	But before we end on YouTube, I just thank all of the super chats and get through these quickly.
	Cheryl Gage says, rocks are nice.
	I paid in hugs and kisses when babysitting the grandkids.
	You'll get there someday.
	The amount of people who didn't get my joke, this is on Viva Random on Rumble, that I got a gift from my wife for babysitting our own kids.
	The amount of hottie...
	Oh, these people...
	You don't babysit your own kids.
	It's called parenting.
	Get a sense of humor.
	Anybody who said that to me.
	U.S. government paid an Instagram influencer known as Benito Skinner to do a pro jab skit with Jen Psaki.
	That was from John S. Then we got John S. I knew all about this back when it was happening.
	Used to habitually leave my phone at home.
	Not sure.
	I have to refresh my memory what that's about.
	Hey, Viva, just got a few shirts.
	Loving the merch.
	Argyle Antiques.
	Thank you very much.
	VivaFry.com with the E before the I. Frei.
	It means freedom in German.
	Freiheit.
	China Uncensored and Serpent ZA have exposed that Chinese agents also pay influencers to make the CCP look good.
	How is it?
	Anytime you say anything in German, it just doesn't sound nice.
	It sounds mean and scary.
	It's the hard art.
	Freiheit.
	That's it, yeah.
	En français, it's like a...
	Freiheit is much better than...
	Yeah, the French sounds beautiful, wonderful.
	It's like the Russians.
	You ever hear Russians talking in Russian?
	You think they're wanting to shoot each other, and actually, they're being nice to one another.
	Barnes, as he...
	Oh, yeah, I got this one.
	I got the legal guidance.
	B-Man, Rudy has to pay $148 million to two plaintiffs went to D.C. instead of Georgia.
	I wonder why...
	And Beryl Howell was the judge.
	It's just corruption.
	You should all go watch.
	I'm going to do a breakdown of that speech that Beryl Howell gave at that event.
	It's just amazing.
	Barnes, since you mentioned Scott Ritter a while back, I've been meaning to ask, what was he wrong about considering the Iraq War?
	Yeah, he thought the Iraqi army would win.
	That's what he was wrong about.
	That's a problem.
	Well, in a way, you could say they did win since they won the War of Attrition in the U.S., I guess.
	But not the Iraqi army.
	The Iraqi army disbanded.
	That was the error.
	There was many he made in that content.
	But I'll do a whole breakdown of Scott Ritter on tomorrow's Berman with Barnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com And we got one last one from Shofar, which you all know what that means.
	Why did Speaker Johnson meet with Paul Ryan, or did he?
	He did.
	He did his photos of it.
	I mean, you know, because Paul Ryan has a lot of power still in Washington.
	Sets on the board at Fox.
	Okay.
	And now what we're going to do, people.
	I'll give everybody the link.
	The guy that Tucker Carlson is implicitly bashing in one of his recent interviews when he's talking about, oh, Megyn Kelly, about people at Fox that won't say, will say one thing to your face and backstab you behind you.
	My guess is he's talking about Paul Ryan.
	Okay.
	Link to locals, link to Rumble are there, and now we are going to end on Rumble.
	Move on over to the free speech platform, people, and talk January 6th in Trump cases that are going to SCOTUS.
	Booyah.
	Three, two, one.
	We're done.
	All right.
	Robert, yeah.
	Speaking of bullshit, well, we'll deal with the New York case very briefly because I've been obsessing over it, Robert.
	I can't believe what Leticia James said.
	And it's not like she said it by accident.
	It was drafted.
	It was scripted.
	And then after they shot the video, they transcribed it and put it to the video before this trial even began.
	And I'm thinking, like, did I just have a brain fart?
	Because even if you want to say, well, before the portion on damages, there was the summary judgment, that's in the same file.
	And so to say before this trial even began, the judge established fraud.
	Is that material for an appeal?
	And or, subsidiary question, is that material for an impeachment?
	And who can make a request for impeachment of Leticia James?
	Well, the problem in New York is it requires New York legislators to take it.
	And they're all Democrats and they're all corrupt.
	So they're not going to do anything.
	That's why I think for these rogue state officials, we should re-examine federal civil rights laws and have the Justice Department look into state officials.
	Flagrantly violating the constitutional rights and liberties of individuals like Donald Trump, like Rudy Giuliani, like Alex Jones, including reexamining the role of judges in this capacity.
	Judges have made clear they're going to politically weaponize everything in their control.
	Okay, well, two people can play that game, judge.
	Attorney generals can play that game.
	Justice Department can play that game.
	Other people can play that game.
	And you may not like it when you're on the receiving end of what you're trying to do.
	Dish out.
	And I think, Frank, historically, that's the only thing that has worked.
	Judges are only disciplined when either the legislative or executive branch pushes back when they go too far.
	Otherwise, they don't pay any attention.
	And they go on unabated because they live in bubbles within a bubble.
	That's the nature of being a judge.
	Can you not get an attorney general from, say, I don't know, Texas or Florida to go after an attorney general from another state for election interference?
	I mean, once we have such a broad interpretation of RICO charges, it would seem to me...
	I mean, I think the Florida attorney general, with a Florida citizen being targeted by New York to bankrupt the Florida business, which is what Donald Trump's situation is, probably would have such authority.
	There has to be limits to this.
	People have to start looking at all the tools of power that are within their toolbox to counteract this because it's the only thing that's going to stop it, unfortunately.
	The New York judge is way out of control.
	His clerk is way out of control.
	It's the only way they're going to wake up.
	Otherwise, they're just going to keep marching on unabated.
	Even if they get overturned on appeal, they're going to keep doing it, keep doing it, keep doing it.
	It's why the Supreme Court stepped in to the To the famous Baptist church group, the group that went around protesting, saying AIDS was God's punishment at people's funerals, things like that.
	It was called the West Baptist.
	By the way, for anybody who doesn't get...
	Westboro Baptist, I want to say.
	Westboro Baptist.
	But the U.S. Supreme Court took the case because the courts weaponized the process, had the jury issue a ridiculous verdict.
	Supreme Court said, no, no, no, you can't do that.
	We got to step in.
	You can't.
	Way back when they did...
	The first, Solon v.
	New York Times, which I'm a full supporter of.
	I disagree with conservatives who want to change that law.
	They did it because Southern courts were politically weaponizing their court process against people they didn't like and coming up with crazy verdicts and crazy processes.
	If the court is not going to clean up its own act with the Supreme Court and higher courts involved...
	Then other actors are going to have to step in because these judges are showing no sense of self-restraint.
	And by the way, as we'll get to later with Biden, unlike presidential impeachment, judges can be impeached for failure of good behavior during their tenure.
	Judges only keep their life tenure during good behavior.
	Much broader category than high crimes and misdemeanors, by the way.
	So that might include showing your nipples to teenage alumni.
	Bada-bing, bada-boom.
	And for anybody who didn't get that Florida reference, the Florida resident that Barnes was referring to, Donald Trump.
	So snip and clip and see who takes what.
	Get out of New York.
	Get out of California.
	Get out of D.C. Don't live in these places.
	The legal system will not protect you.
	And it's nothing to do with partisan politics.
	It's nothing to do with political politics.
	If you live in Texas, move out of Austin for the love of God.
	Joe Rogan, I think.
	Rogan and Alex.
	All right.
	And I was saying it has nothing to do with specific politics.
	Corruption is corruption.
	If they don't like who you are, they can shut you down and liquidate your business.
	And the New York nipple judge anger on will summary judgment you because there's no disputed facts at issue, except for the fact that both parties made motions for summary judgment, which means there's disputed facts at issue.
	OK, the Jan 6th, I guess it relates a little bit to Trump as well.
	And then you get the Trump.
	The question that, I'm not mistaken, it is being taken up by the Supreme Court, is the interpretation of the obstruction of Congress provision that so many of the Jan Sixers have been convicted on.
	They've agreed to take it up, correct?
	Yes, they've agreed to take it up, and it's two of the four charges against Trump as well.
	So, that is that obstruction of official proceedings charge that they got, I don't know how many, hundreds of January 6th was on, and lengthy charges at that, or lengthy sentences at that.
	They're going to take it up and interpret the constitutionality of the provision?
	Like, what is the scope of what they're going to interpret?
	It's what we discussed at the very beginning.
	This was a bogus application of the law.
	One D.C. judge recognized it.
	The rest were a bunch of cowards that refused to recognize it, or just simply...
	Corrupt in their partisanship and not recognizing it.
	And what I mean by the corruption is not quid pro quo corruption, but they're so prejudiced on partisan purposes they can't apply and enforce the law in an impartial manner, as a judge constitutionally has an oath to do.
	So this is ridiculous.
	The obstruction laws are very limited.
	Let me give you an example.
	Supreme Court overturned a conviction of a judge.
	It was actually a judge who was prosecuted.
	Who lied to FBI agents during a criminal investigation about bribery.
	Why wasn't that obstruction?
	Because he didn't know it would impact the grand jury.
	And the allegation was, so obstruction laws are you do something that corrupts a particular government process.
	You do so intentionally, knowingly, and by some corrupt means.
	Because if influencing a proceeding is obstruction, Then every act of public activism, public speaking, is obstructing a proceeding.
	It must be corrupt, unlawful means by which you intend to prevent a proceeding from going forward.
	So what is that?
	So this is my problem with obstruction of Congress, obstruction of these other laws that they've misapplied, obstruction of Justice Department investigations.
	It can't just be anything that makes your job more difficult.
	That's what the Supreme Court in the Ninth Circuit and other federal circuits have made clear over and over again.
	This happens in the tax context, where the IRS claims, if you didn't make my job easier, I'm going to call it corruptly impairing and impeding the Internal Revenue Service.
	Courts have made clear, no, that isn't.
	The IRS tried to criminalize people who disagreed with them as corruptly impairing and impeding the IRS.
	They're like, no, no, that doesn't work that way.
	And so what is examples of that?
	False testimony.
	Right to that body.
	Right to Congress.
	Right to the grand jury.
	Right to the IRS.
	Right to the SEC.
	Intimidating witnesses.
	Coercion in some unlawful manner.
	Those kind of things are obstruction.
	Simply having a riot cannot be obstruction.
	If it is, every single riot is obstruction.
	Not only that, if you go further...
	They were interpreting this so broadly that even protests they considered criminal obstruction.
	Every single protest at a Kavanaugh hearing, at a Clarence Thomas hearing, at a gun legislation or a firearm law would all be obstruction of crime.
	The right to protest would be obstruction.
	This is a 15 to 20 year federal sentence that is attached to this law.
	So it's the foundation of all the long sentences.
	It's the foundation of imprisoning everybody without trial for years is the threat of this sentence.
	It never applied.
	There's no evidence it was ever intended to apply.
	This is the first time it's ever been applied in this context.
	And given the Supreme Court's long history of overturning obstruction verdicts, remember Arthur Anderson.
	Arthur Anderson had figured out Enron's in trouble.
	So they did what any Big Five accounting firm would do.
	This was back when there was Big Five.
	Now it's only Big Four.
	Shred it.
	Exactly.
	Find all the books and shred, shred, shred, shred, shred.
	But they had not received an SEC subpoena.
	They were indicted, convicted by partisan courts that were anti-anything Enron.
	And the Supreme Court unanimously determined, you can't prosecute for that.
	Because how did they obstruct an SEC proceeding that didn't even exist yet?
	How did they obstruct an SEC proceeding when they had received no SEC subpoena?
	You don't have an ongoing job to be an agent of the government, to help the government, make it easier for the government.
	Here, they couldn't prove these people were corruptly trying to impair the certification process.
	Why?
	Because it was just the opposite.
	These are people who wanted the certification process to go forward because they believed the certification process would prove the election was not done honestly.
	They were seeking support for the challenge in the contest.
	They were trying to end that debate.
	They wanted more of that debate.
	Nor did they do anything to corruptly impair it or impede it.
	So that's why this law has been misapplied all the way through.
	It's being misapplied right now to Trump.
	The Supreme Court taking it, my view is, it means they're going to overturn it.
	And that's going to throw out a whole bunch of verdicts, throw out a whole bunch of sentences.
	Gut.
	The heart of the January 6th cases and gut the case against President Trump in D.C. What's the time frame on them hearing and issuing a ruling?
	By the end of the year.
	By the end of this year?
	The Supreme Court year ends in June.
	Okay, so six months and we'll know.
	Oh, it'll be before the election at least.
	That'll be interesting.
	Just like the other case they've just taken up.
	Which one is that?
	Now, refresh my memory.
	The Trump state.
	The Trump stay.
	Oh, that's right.
	So Judge Chutkin, who refused to, who was insisting on that deadline forever, the question about the Trump immunity, Jack Smith decides to fast track to the Supreme Court and still think that that trial is somehow going to go on.
	So you're a bourbon with Barnes.
	Everybody who's seen it would already know the answer in advance.
	You are all but convinced with certainty.
	The March trial is not proceeding on the Monday before the Super Tuesday talk about election interference.
	The question is to Trump immunity, whether or not he benefits from immunity for, I mean, the scope extent, whether or not he benefits from presidential immunity or executive immunity for what he was doing at the time.
	Tell us what the question is and what you think is going to happen.
	So this is the same thing I've been calling for since the beginning of these cases, which was file a motion to stay.
	Those trial proceedings because of the unique constitutional issues implicated in the indictment.
	First Amendment issues of selective prosecution.
	First Amendment issues for trying to criminalize speech and political association and petitioning the government for the redress of grievances.
	Constitutional issues on due process, attorney-client privilege, right to confront witnesses.
	All of those being violated in various ways.
	And because he's the President of the United States, The New York indictment is all for things he did while he was president.
	The Georgia indictment is all for things he did while he was president.
	The D.C. indictment is all for things he did while he was president.
	So the key question is, can you criminalize the acts of the presidency?
	Can you criminalize them without going through the impeachment process?
	So can you criminalize them when the impeachment process has already cleared him and he has not been convicted?
	So these are all unique constitutional issues involving the impeachment, involving everything related to Article 2 executive power.
	And not only that, can a state prosecute a president?
	Because of a state, if a random county prosecutor can indict a president, then all of a sudden the president is at the whim and can be extorted or blackmailed at any time by any local small government prosecutor against the will of the people.
	And that is setting aside the other more fundamental question is, can even a state prosecutor do that once the president had already been acquitted for the basic facts that would serve as the state indictment?
	Correct.
	Does the impeachment clause act as a kind of double jeopardy clause?
	And so the presidential immunity really is about the conflict between executive power and judicial power in this context, and between state and federal powers to the state cases.
	He has brought immunity challenges in the Georgia and New York proceedings, but didn't bring a motion to stay, to my knowledge, in those proceedings.
	So I assume they can at any point.
	While I think they were a little bit slow to the uptake, they finally got around to seeking a stay.
	And the federal prosecutor, Jack Smith, who there's detailed whistleblower allegations, was involved in Biden-esque bribery while he was assigned to the International Criminal Court, according to the allegations of a whistleblower.
	You can watch the movie The Whistleblower to understand what was happening in the Balkans, and that's part of what Jack Smith is tied to, is prosecutions in the Balkans.
	Good movie, Rachel Weisz is a great actress.
	She's in it, just like she's in The Constant Gardener.
	Another great film.
	Not the most uplifting film, but educational, informative.
	So all of these issues are just core to the Constitution.
	Also, in my view...
	Can one president indict his leading opponent in such a way as to prevent a free affair and election from taking place?
	So all these are unparalleled, unprecedented issues of great constitutional consequence, which the Supreme Court should weigh in on before any trial in the criminal cases or context proceeds.
	But, you know, whether it was 3D chess or just good fortune, the once Jack Smith figured out...
	That a stay is the proper remedy whenever the issue of presidential immunity has been raised.
	Because the D.C. court system is very solicitous to the interest of the government, generally, just not to Trump.
	But because of that, they have repeatedly stated that when the issue of immunity is raised of an executive official in a criminal case, it should be stayed until all the higher courts have addressed it.
	The reason for that...
	It's because the act of having to go through a criminal case is itself the oppressive burden that violates your executive duty's rights.
	That's the theory behind it.
	It's to balance the power between the judiciary and the presidency and say, in order to avoid the judiciary hijacking the presidency through civil or criminal proceedings, you get to raise the issue of immunity and you don't get abused by the process itself.
	while unless and until the highest court has had the opportunity to address whether you should even have to go through it.
	Jack Smith finally figured out a stay was likely to be granted, so he rushed it up to the Supreme Court.
	The problem for him is that's the court that's the most likely to be hostile.
	The other problem to his position, the other problem for him is it dramatically increased the probability the Supreme Court would take it.
	By him being the one petitioning rather than Trump.
	And so all he did was basically guarantee the Supreme Court was going to take it, guarantee a stay.
	And I think unless it's like super secret 3D chess for him to get out of his own problem by having the Supreme Court dismiss the case, they can say, hey, look, everybody, I tried.
	Which he can't completely rule out, but there's nothing in this guy's history that says he's brilliant.
	He's basically Joe Biden as a prosecutor.
	A corrupt partisan hack of mediocre intelligence and below that morality.
	And so the Supreme Court getting involved now, highly likely they're going to continue to stay while they adjudicate.
	Highly likely that they do not rush their decision on presidential immunity.
	Most likely not heard until June.
	This impacts every other case.
	And the probability of them being able to just, let's say they deny immunity, the lower courts being able to pick up those cases and have a trial even before Election Day in that instance is very low.
	So that's why it was always the stay path and the SCOTUS path was always the path to derail these criminal cases' intent to what a CNN analyst admitted.
	The whole goal is to try to convict Trump before the election in order to...
	Influence the election.
	So it is the idea of bypassing the Court of Appeal, because Jack Smith says, look, the Supreme Court's going to get to it anyhow, instead of wasting time with the Court of Appeal that might deny immunity, but it still goes to the Supreme Court.
	He thought he'd get there faster and hope for a trial before next year?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, he realized the stay was inevitable.
	And once he realized the stay was inevitable, then the question became...
	Is there a way he could short-circuit the length of the stay prior to the election?
	And in his...
	The thing is, if I was in his shoes, I would have gambled that the D.C. Circuit would have issued a...
	Uh-oh.
	Where'd Barnes go?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Is that me or is that him?
	Barnes has disappeared.
	Chat.
	Who disappeared here?
	Oh, geez.
	Had to move to Vermont because locals died.
	Rumble via site is fine.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	Locals stream is down.
	DDoS is underway.
	Let me see here.
	Is the chat...
	Is the stream down?
	Is the stream down?
	No, Barnes is out.
	It's just Barnes.
	Oh, he's back.
	He's back.
	It disappeared.
	You said something that pissed off the powers.
	What was I saying about Jack Smith?
	Great guy, Jack Smith.
	Hillary Clinton, wonderful, wonderful human being.
	The sweetheart.
	I don't know anything about the Clinton death curse.
	I don't know anything about me in Arkansas.
	That's my twin brother, Paul.
	I am not suicidal, Robert.
	I forget what you were even saying before I panted and thought we had...
	I had to check what CIA rules I violated.
	Oh, man.
	So, yeah.
	OK, so bottom line and the immunity argument, you've been describing it from the very beginning.
	I love the idea that because it's Jack Smith who brought it on an expedited basis, they're going to have to take it.
	It's his request.
	And they are likely the only ones, hopefully, that can put an end to any of this crap.
	And they have to issue the order by June 2024, but if they're asked to deal with it on an expedited basis, there was a delay for Trump to respond.
	I don't know exactly what that was.
	That was, I think, next Wednesday?
	He responded by Tuesday to it being expedited before the Supreme Court of the U.S. And they're already taking the position.
	Now that they know they got the stay and that the SCOTUS is going to get involved.
	They would rather this go a little longer, of course.
	So just as a tactical means.
	But the biggest thing was always get a stay, get it before SCOTUS.
	You achieve those two things, which they now have achieved, you're in your best position.
	And now we don't have to ask whether SCOTUS will get involved.
	We now know they will.
	The only question now is, will SCOTUS clean this up?
	At a minimum, if they're smart, they step in and put an end to all of this.
	And it's easy.
	They can do it just on presidential immunity.
	They can say for any acts while he is president, they could say the impeachment clause is at a minimum precondition for any prosecution of the criminal prosecution of the president.
	Or they can say that on something he's been impeached in, you can't bring another prosecution.
	Or they could just simply say presidential immunity attaches.
	Or they could say...
	Wait until the election results.
	We can't have a criminal case derail and interfere and impair an election.
	Otherwise, you give an incentive to people to do that to their opponents, to weaponize their criminal justice power against their opponent.
	There's a lot of ways they can get there, but I think they are likely to, at a minimum, push any trial past June.
	If they're smart and savvy and recognize the scale and scope of what's happening in the country, and they're not immune from the court of public opinion at all, then I think you're going to see them step in and get rid of all this.
	And that would salvage and save large aspects.
	And maybe there's a hidden agenda by Joe Biden.
	Maybe he wants a ruling that's favorable to Trump so that he can use it himself.
	Gosh, Dan, you want to talk about 4D chess, Robert?
	Your brain works at the 4D level.
	He thinks like a criminal.
	He's an idiot in general, but he's smart as a street criminal.
	Think like a street criminal, and you can understand Joe Biden, and he's very predictable.
	Hey, look at Hunter Biden.
	Look at, I mean, to transition to that topic, is there any better, were we right or were we right?
	Talked about it last week, said that the Hunter Biden indictment looks like an extortion threat by Papa Joe for Hunter to keep his mouth shut before Congress.
	What does he do?
	He immediately goes up to Congress, ignores, swallows well there, where's my next Chinese spy I can bang guy, conspires with him to ignore the subpoena.
	I thought, according to the Democrats, you can't do that.
	Look at Peter Navarro.
	Look at Steve Bannon.
	But not only that, he gets out there and he looks like a hostage up there talking.
	He's like, I promise, my dad had nothing.
	Everybody knows his dad had everything to do with it.
	Dad orchestrated it.
	But he's in there, hey, please, please don't let me go to prison yet, Dad.
	I'll be good.
	I'll shut my mouth.
	I won't talk to Congress.
	I'll go out there and lie for you again.
	You had nothing to do with it, Daddy.
	Is there any better explanation for what that indictment is really about than that press conference?
	It was amazing.
	I did a real-time breakdown of it on Friday.
	And there was two moments where he had to thank his father for being loving.
	He literally...
	Has a body reflex where he can't bring himself to say it uninterrupted.
	It looked like a hostage video.
	And maybe given the allegations of Ashley Biden saying that your dad loved you too much or your dad really loved you, probably not the best way to go about it.
	But this is the thing.
	After this, I'm going to read some rumble rants.
	And everybody who says locals is not working, refresh it.
	It's working now.
	He gets up there and says, here I am.
	I'm here.
	But he's at the wrong building and doesn't comply with the subpoena.
	I don't understand how anybody thinks the general population is so stupid or forgiving to say...
	Well, his lawyer is Abby Lowell.
	And I think Abby knows what the scam is.
	So I think that the scam was prove to Papa Joe you're going to be a good boy.
	And Papa Joe, in the end, will make sure you never go to prison with his pardon power.
	So just, you know, that's what the indictment was.
	A shot across the bow.
	They tried to get him a sweetheart deal that would shut him up.
	That blew up because of whistleblowers.
	So now it's let indict him so he keeps his mouth shut.
	And Abby's a PR guy.
	Abby's not a trial lawyer.
	You don't hire Abby to win in trial.
	You hire Abby to learn the politics of the situation and play the court of public opinion accordingly.
	That press conference had an audience of one.
	And he's El Presidente in the White House.
	His Fraudulency II, by the way, his proper name.
	That was Abby Lowell.
	It's not Abby Lowell, although I think a good meme is Abby LOL.
	Yeah, it was undoubtedly...
	I will shut my mouth.
	I will literally read the script and give it the inflection of old Papa Joe.
	Robert, let me just see if we have yet.
	Are we there?
	19,917 live on Rumble.
	What I'm going to do, and then when we crack 20,000...
	I realize we haven't done any of the rumble rants to thank the community there.
	And for anybody saying, we go to locals afterwards.
	We've got an exclusive locals after party.
	So I don't focus on the chat on rumble because it's preference.
	It's only because it's going to disappear when we go over to the after party on locals.
	Ginger Ninja, 1776, who made this chessboard behind me.
	Read New York trial.
	Since the liability has already been found, is it perjury when witnesses' testimony goes against the judicial fact that has already been determined?
	Bunch of hogwash.
	Jay DeCorey, 2012.
	If you are ever in Dallas, hit me up and I can hook you up on your back pain.
	Hope you're doing good, good, and happy Hanukkah to you.
	Thank you.
	I'm not doing the ring dinger.
	There's a guy who does the ring dinger.
	They lock your hips up in these things and then pull your neck and decompress your spine.
	I asked Dr. Drew when I was on his show Thursday beforehand.
	He says, don't do it.
	It can cause all sorts of problems, not the least of which is massive bleeding and stroke because it can tear very small arteries in your neck.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	Right side broadcast.
	Muted me from the channel for posting the link in live chat.
	No warning.
	First offense.
	America Fest Day 2. They talked about live.
	F them and their horses that their moms rode in on.
	Green Thumb Nursing.
	Viva.
	Please have John Porter on to talk about barter rates.
	Okay.
	A person-to-person barter system to beat inflation.
	Very interesting.
	CBCD.
	Central Digital Bank.
	Government control.
	He's from Ontario.
	Okay.
	Screen grabbed.
	Jay DeCorey, 2012.
	So, anyone can file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court.
	Which lawyer on YouTube person that is LawTube do you think would write the best amicus brief on Trump case to the Supreme Court?
	You have to ask requests for the Supreme Court to allow you to actually have your amicus brief filed.
	Okay.
	And hold on, we're at Arkansas Crime Attorney.
	I just spat on my computer.
	I have posted $50 worth of $10 tips on locals.
	None have posted that I can see, but been charged 500 coins.
	I sent a message to local support after two, but not sure how this will turn out.
	I will let them know immediately firsthand to look into it.
	Glad to catch you guys live against his Arkansas crime attorney in the second one.
	Thank you very much for that very generous rumble rant.
	Daveyboy103.
	Jack Smith wants to use SCOTUS to end the DC case and get him off the hook.
	Interesting theory.
	Nike7.
	Still waiting for an objective consideration of why Hamas is not controlled by Mossad.
	Being called crazy is not convincing.
	I've never called you crazy.
	Bay of Token 9-11.
	WMD's Maidan.
	It fits just fine.
	Alex is pro-Zionism now.
	1, 2, 3, 4. Ace.
	Shout out to my friend.
	Rips, who is watching the stream.
	Viva and Barnes, you guys are awesome, as always.
	Inflation is killing us, and I heard it's just going to get worse.
	Thanks, O-Biden.
	Bidenomics, people, and Trudonomics.
	USM, that's the United States Marine Corps boroughs.
	Keep up the good work, gentlemen.
	Thank you very much.
	Arkansas crime attorney.
	Paul Ryan met with the new speaker just before they started the impeachment proceedings against Trump.
	That's going to be our next subject.
	That is why I say the RNC is behind this to get Joe out and Newsom in.
	Interesting.
	Grampa's Place.
	I've become a Marxist.
	I started reading Groucho's writing, and he is right.
	J. DeCorey, 2012.
	Wait, we need to bring back 1983 claim and Bivens claims against these corrupt people.
	Ginger Ninja, 1776.
	Does this fearlessness by judges stem from the ideas of undergirding Marbury versus Madison, Robert?
	Yeah, I mean, the arrogance of the court system to say only they can interpret and enforce the Constitution.
	Daveyboy103.
	Is Smith using SCOTUS as an excuse for his failed case?
	Probably.
	Or maybe.
	Randy Edward.
	But what would have Barnes done if he were a jack-off Smith?
	Randy Edward.
	What of Saki stating they knew what Hunter was going to say before he said it?
	If anyone's got that video, post it in our locals community so I can have that.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney, what about the argument that the diversion agreement was signed by all necessary parties and must be enforced?
	Oh yeah, he'll be arguing for dismissal of those grounds.
	Yeah, we talked about that.
	Sad Wings Raging, book behind Barnes.
	You mentioned it at the beginning.
	Jay DeCorey, the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional.
	Is it taking the place?
	It is taking of Trump's property without compensation.
	It is a taking's pure and simple.
	And that's how this case impacts.
	Because that case also has all these constitutional implications, how they rule in this case can impact that case as well.
	And Sad Wings Raging, Merry Christmas, Viva Barnes and all of our family here.
	Sad Wings Raging, Merry Christmas to you as well.
	And by the way, we just hit 20,000 people live while we're watching this.
	Hit the thumbs up and I don't want to say anything that's going to be...
	Explode the chat with a comment.
	Just drop a comment in the chat.
	20,052 watching live now.
	Robert, what did I say we were going to get to right after?
	Well, yeah, I mean, now that we've covered the Trump topic, he did have another ballot win as the courts are recognizing them getting involved in that as a bad idea of trying to keep Trump off the ballot.
	So he keeps accumulating wins in that capacity as forecast and predicted here.
	But up next we have, speaking of Biden family corruption.
	Oh, there you go.
	The Biden impeachment.
	So it's an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment, correct?
	Yeah, and it's too limited.
	So I don't get the reference about Ryan meeting with McCarthy, or who was it?
	Johnson.
	Sorry, Ryan meeting with Johnson, and then they come out with the announcement of a relatively limited impeachment inquiry.
	Understanding what that...
	Was it Sad Wings Raging?
	That the idea might be...
	Why would the Republicans want Gavin Newsom instead of Biden on the ticket?
	Well, Newsom is less popular than Biden.
	But the way politicians think, I doubt they actually think that.
	It's actually true, but they're not likely to be tuned in in that regard.
	Because in their minds, as professional politicians, Newsom is smoother and more sophisticated and a better presenter than Biden is.
	That's because they don't understand the people who vote for them to even get into office in the first place.
	But I think what Ryan was there for was to make sure that this was the flaw in the Clinton impeachment, the last Democratic president to get impeached.
	And it was a simple one.
	How do you impeach and expose the corruption of Bill Clinton Without also exposing the deep state.
	Now, if I may stop you there, actually, some people were saying, why would the Republicans be insisting on closed-door depositions of Hunter Biden?
	This might fit into that.
	So, have an impeachment inquiry that's limited to expose Biden, but not uniparty corruption.
	Correct.
	And the deep state, complicity.
	Which Hunter is deeply tied to, Joe Biden is deeply tied to, because, I mean, this constitutional, and in the process, I wrote about it in the Barnes brief at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which is still pinned up there, will be until tomorrow, which is constitutionally the proper way for impeachment is if the person's a current president.
	I think there's a different definition of this principle if the person's an ex-president.
	But if they're a current president and you're wanting to override an election, then the words, you know, it's treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.
	The founders deliberately excluded maladministration, neglect, other language like that.
	The good behavior language that's there for judges.
	Not there is to presidents.
	So, consequently...
	The question is, now, and treason is constitutionally defined.
	There has to be a congressional declaration of war, and you have to have aided and abetted that group, and there has to be certain kinds of evidentiary proof, because treason is so commonly misapplied historically.
	So there is no allegation of treason here.
	There can't be.
	There's no declaration of war.
	So that only leaves two, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.
	Now, in my view, the definition of this should have different definitions.
	Depending upon whether the person's a current president you're trying to remove now or an ex-president you're simply trying to remove a bar on criminal prosecution.
	Because my theory is that impeachment is the exclusive means, is a precondition for criminal indictments of presidents or ex-presidents.
	Now, I don't favor using impeachment to go out of a current president because it would override the people's will and effectively reduce the presidency.
	To a parliamentary veto.
	To a parliamentary system that elects its prime minister.
	The whole point was the president was directly elected by the people.
	Could only be removed for very limited subsets of actions.
	And I think that requires, if he's a current president, high crimes and misdemeanors while he is president.
	If he is an ex-president and the sole objective is either disqualification of future office or...
	Criminal indictment.
	Then that can be a much broader category of the words high crimes and misdemeanors because the constitutional policy weighting changes.
	But whether you accept that or not, they're going the path of saying anything you've ever done can be the grounds of impeachment as long as you did it in your official duties.
	So right now the impeachment inquiry is limited to what he did as vice president.
	Which I don't agree with limiting in that way.
	And then even there, the subset of what's limited is there's general talk about favors to domestic and foreign policy, but it's not getting into anything that could implicate deep state actors.
	Because when you look at high crimes and misdemeanors, the exact phraseology comes from the Brits.
	The Brits invented that phrase that we borrowed from deliberately.
	So in deliberately borrowing from it, we borrowed their precedents that interpreted it.
	And when you look at the interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors, guess what it includes?
	And guess what it focuses on?
	The corrupt misuse and abuse of police and prosecutorial power to do things like imprison your opponents, bankrupt your opponents, or censor your opponents, particularly if prohibiting or preventing them.
	From petitioning for redress of grievances.
	But the argument, the obvious retort to that, I mean, I understand and think you're right, but the retort to that is going to be, well, look, I've got the courts that convicted a lot of these people, so it couldn't have been abuse of any sort of prosecutorial process.
	That has never been a limitation on the impeachment power.
	So even if you...
	All that is is evidence of abuse.
	Whether or not...
	Unlike civil immunity law...
	Which says you're immune as long as there's an intermediary intervening actor like a grand jury or court or in the case of a prosecutor or policeman, malicious prosecution claim, for example, or probable cause question.
	It's not in the case of impeachment.
	People have been impeached where the judges were in cahoots with them, where other actors were in cahoots with them.
	You look at what the impeachment should be about.
	It should be about the Biden crime family.
	That once he was in office, weaponizing his office to target his political opponents.
	Because here, the Senate's never going to convict anyway.
	So this impeachment is all about court of public opinion and impacting the 2024 election to expose who Biden really is.
	And ideally, try to deter some of his worst abuses while he is president.
	Because what makes impeachment appropriate in this case...
	And the reason why we can't wait for an election to resolve it, because I think otherwise that's what we should do with an existing president, is his ongoing weaponization of the Justice Department for political partisan objectives, his weaponization of the entire federal government for the purposes of censoring his political opponents,
	and his complicity in trying to both imprison and bankrupt his leading political opponent Donald Trump, Censor and deprive safety and protection to his other opponent, Robert Francis Kennedy.
	Include what's happening to Kennedy in this because it makes it more persuasive to the independent voters in the court of public opinion.
	The reason why the Clinton impeachment fell apart is because they couldn't touch Mena, Arkansas.
	They couldn't touch the Bush family.
	Clinton bragged about this, as Roger Morris reported in his book Partners in Power, about Bill and Hillary.
	He bragged to other police officers in Arkansas, said they can never come after me without going after themselves.
	Because he got himself involved in the same corruption as the Bush family and the same corruption as deep state actors.
	That's why he was so eager to invite Barry Seals into me to Arkansas.
	He was like, this is going to help me.
	His buddy Don Tyson?
	Not to say, maybe a corruption connection there?
	Maybe a little partying there going on?
	I don't know.
	Oh, who is Don Tyson?
	Oh yeah, Tyson Foods!
	Their corruption runs deep in the state of Arkansas and elsewhere.
	So you look at what's going on, and that's to expose...
	Then you could implicate his war in Ukraine as a payoff to the people who previously bribed him.
	Then you could implicate...
	Him bombing Nord Stream, a horrific, violent, terroristic act, one of the worst committed against civil infrastructure anywhere in the world in the last half century.
	Then you could include all the things he's been doing favorably or unfavorably to certain people in China.
	Then you could include all of his foreign policy, war abroad, to the domestic economy issues with various aspects of his corruption and how it impacts trade with China, how it impacts...
	Other financial development policies.
	Then you bring it home to the American voter because you include not what he's just doing to Trump, but also what he's doing to Robert Kennedy.
	So you have a broader appeal to independent voters.
	Why does the economy suck right now?
	Because Joe Biden cared about enriching himself rather than enriching Americans.
	Why is the world aflame?
	Because Joe Biden's too busy paying off the people who bribed him than keeping the country and the world safe.
	You tie these things together and you have a persuasive case to the court of public opinion and a case that's more constitutionally well-rooted because censorship to suppress the right to petition redress of grievances was already considered a high crime and misdemeanor at the time those words were put into the Constitution.
	Political partisan weaponization of the police and prosecutorial process to abuse that power and misuse that discretion to target your opponents?
	Already labeled a high crime and misdemeanor at the time that those words were put in the Constitution.
	That's where they should be going.
	I'm glad they're at least doing something, but they're too scared of the deep state to expose the true corruption of the Biden family.
	What is, I feel stupid asking the question, but what's the difference between the impeachment inquiry versus the impeachment itself?
	They are now going to investigate to see whether or not there's enough, they gather enough evidence to actually go for an impeachment.
	It gives them subpoena power, it gives the committee jurisdiction and authority.
	To issue subpoenas to gather evidence and information.
	But that subject matter is intended to cabin where they go.
	Okay, so I was going to say, can they expand it if they discover things through the inquiry to amend the initial...
	The House can't.
	They need the whole House to vote on that to authorize further investigation.
	Okay.
	My guess is they will limit it to look at how corrupt the whole Biden family is.
	While magically staying away from...
	It's kind of like the Hunter Biden indictment that magically stays away from Joe being the real culprit and the real criminal and the godfather of that criminal family.
	They're doing the same with the impeachment.
	Business partner three, which happens to be apparently Joe Biden's brother, Jim or James, whatever the heck his name is.
	Anyone that's sophisticated?
	There are suspicious activity reports everywhere from banks all around the entire country.
	About various Biden shell operations, shell companies, and financial transfers, and cash in and out.
	I mean, the things meant to catch criminals in our banking and financial system?
	Red flags were going off every other week involving the Biden family corruption.
	It took extraordinary efforts to cover it all up.
	But is it a coincidence?
	Hunter Biden's in Ukraine?
	Is it a coincidence Hunter Biden had connection to bio labs in Ukraine?
	Bill Maher might still not know about those bio labs, but everybody else does.
	I'm going to give Bill Maher the benefit of the doubt and think he was just being glib or facetious when he said, I don't know who WEF or Klaus Schwab is, because nobody's that dumb, especially Bill Maher.
	So Bill Maher, if you're watching, you're not, but I don't think you're that dumb.
	But it's almost a joke.
	Like, Hunter, he's talking in his speech.
	What's it called?
	Burisma.
	I'm on Ukrainian Burisma.
	I got my Chinese partners in China while I'm a dysfunctional meth addict.
	I mean, it's such a transparent joke.
	It's beyond words.
	So they sign this impeachment inquiry.
	What's the time frame for the inquiry?
	When do we expect impeachment proceedings?
	I think what they'll do is they'll be able to produce a lot of evidence of exposing how the Biden family worked internally.
	In terms of their corruption.
	They'll get the bank records.
	They'll get the other records from other places that will expose and document this beyond any doubt for any objective observer.
	Democrats won't care.
	But for any objective observer, they'll realize this is inevitable.
	And it will do some damage to Biden in the court of public opinion.
	And the House will likely vote to impeach him.
	And then the Senate will have to hold a trial on these things.
	And then they'll acquit him.
	Because there aren't enough Democrats to convict him in the Senate.
	But what it will do is it will take up probably the next six to eight months, and so it will negatively impair his reputation in the court of public opinion, but nowhere near as much as it could and should if we followed the constitutional path, because what the Biden family corruption really exposes is the deep state's corruption of American constitutional government.
	And if he loses the election, he'll pardon himself and all of his family.
	Maybe pardon, I don't know, others.
	He'll throw in Trump.
	Because he wouldn't do it just for his family, of course.
	He would do it to end the criminal...
	He's shocked, really, to discover gambling is going on.
	The famous phrase, there's been too much political weaponization.
	We need to come together.
	And pardon Biden family, Clinton family, Trump family.
	And I've said that from day one, that that's his long-term plan.
	Because again, think like a good street criminal.
	Not super bright.
	You're not getting into Harvard.
	But think like a good, but the Harvard of street crime?
	He'd be an honors graduate, Joe Bud.
	Fantastic and fascinating.
	Now, Robert, do we move on?
	Speaking of criminal behavior, let's talk about Piers Morgan.
	Oh, so hold on.
	This is Prince Harry.
	Yeah, okay, fine.
	I need my trigger words.
	Not my trigger words, my buzzwords.
	Hold on, though.
	There was one other thing I wanted to do.
	Oh, no, never mind.
	If you want to trigger Piers Morgan, just say, Alex Jones, we will not give up our Second Amendment.
	Oh, no, no.
	Piers Morgan can exploit tragedy all he wants and benefit from it, but, you know...
	Somebody being critical of Sandy Hook, I couldn't possibly...
	No, no, and Kyle Rittenhouse writing a book about his own life.
	Are you not making money off your tragedy?
	Do you not think that's gross?
	Oh, no, but I'll stand on the grave.
	I know, here's the word of all people.
	So the scandal coming out of Prince Harry, it's very interesting.
	He won an intrusion of privacy lawsuit-ish, you'll correct my phrasing of it, against a bunch of media companies in the UK for...
	Look, I wasn't...
	I was not politically alive back in 2011, and I did not know of this scandal, apparently, of police media colluding to, what is it called?
	Hack cell phones, access data they weren't allowed to have so they could publish it.
	And this included some stuff about Prince Harry and a number of other plaintiffs.
	Harry just won.
	I don't know what the data was.
	What was it?
	Images?
	Photographs?
	Voicemails.
	Voicemails.
	So he just won, and it's not a monumental amount of money.
	It's £150,000.
	But he's one of hundreds of people.
	One of hundreds.
	And the question is not to put Piers Morgan on blast.
	You know, Piers Morgan doesn't understand First Amendment rights until he wants to, you know, potentially participate in the unlawful gathering of information.
	I don't know what his role was.
	He was working with the media company, whichever one it was at the time.
	He was an editor of one of the key publications complicit in all this.
	Apparently it was a big scandal that I was totally unaware of because I was too busy being a lawyer back in 2017.
	Well, there's a reason for that, too.
	The American media and the British media only focused on the Murdochs.
	So the Murdochs were part of it, but it was the entire British media.
	And they tried to just scapegoat the Murdochs and pretend the rest of the media, like Piers Morgan, wasn't involved.
	When the evidence developed, Piers Morgan clearly was involved.
	All of these people, basically the British metabolite press as an entire group.
	Was complicit with payoffs to law enforcement and other officials and other people, telecom companies, etc.
	to steal people's private information on a regular basis.
	And by the way, who was a famous British publisher who would have had ties to intelligence and law enforcement doing this kind of blackmail and extortion back in the day?
	Robert Maxwell.
	Yeah, I would have never thought of him.
	Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Who helped recruit whom to this operation?
	Jeffrey Epstein.
	Eternal truth, number one.
	I think we have an eternal truth t-shirt up.
	We'll get one up at vivafry.com.
	Three eternal truths.
	Eternal truth, number one.
	Epstein didn't kill himself.
	As Patrick Bet-David recently talked about in his interview on Vlad TV, it's probable that John McAfee didn't kill himself either.
	Who got Epstein'd in the same way.
	But basically, this was systematic and systemic to the entire British media culture.
	They got away with it by scapegoating the Murdochs in the court of public opinion.
	But Prince Harry and a bunch of victims have refused to let them off the hook for it.
	And now they're going to be facing potential bankrupting damages, all of the British media, because there's a bunch of people who want recovery.
	For what happened.
	And the evidentiary record out of the Prince Harry case shows this was deliberate, shows it was intentional, shows it was systematic, and shows Piers Morgan likely knew all about it.
	You just sort of blew my mind a little bit with Robert Maxwell.
	What's his first name?
	Robert Maxwell, yeah.
	The information and blackmail material that he could have gotten from this unlawful scheme.
	Escape from what country to get to Britain in the first place?
	Oh, I want to say...
	Russia?
	Country in the news.
	Oh, Israel.
	Ukraine.
	Damn it!
	Idiot, Robert.
	Okay, it's...
	Like all corruption somehow comes back to those borderlands.
	Unbelievable.
	Okay, well, so there's a lot more to the story than just Prince Harry with a favorable 140,000, not quid, but pound judgment.
	Holy crap, I want to go down that rabbit hole now.
	It really is a template for the systemic corruption and symbiotic relationship between institutional media and deep state actors.
	That's what it really reveals at heart.
	Before we get to the next subject, because it's totally...
	Well, it's not totally different, but it's a little different.
	Well, let's talk about another corrupt company in Google.
	Well, hold on.
	Before we get there, before we get there, let me just not fall too far behind on Rumble Rants.
	RNC does not want Trump.
	They control the reins of power.
	Therefore, get rid of Biden and maybe Trump won't win.
	Arkansas crime attorney.
	Interesting.
	Jay DeCorey, 2012.
	No, it's the torture device, Viva.
	Also, insurrectionist is also defined as well.
	No, it's not torture device.
	Okay, that might have been the back thing.
	Homeless man with spinal injuries just laid off from Walmart, offering $100 for info that leads to new job.
	Licensed insurance agent.
	Open to anything.
	Contact info at gives and go.
	Shad Budge.
	I'm going to screen grab that.
	How can someone, to get what Barnes said about the high crimes, how can someone, I guess maybe not get what Barnes is saying about high crimes and misdemeanors, oh, how can they get it to the right people?
	Don't worry, Texas Lady Jane, it's getting to the right people.
	Check out the Clinton Christmas tree on our locals chat.
	Hold on, let me go over here and just see this.
	I got a lot.
	Hold on.
	I think I can share this one.
	I can share this one.
	Screen grab.
	Not screen grab.
	Share.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	If I can't see too good, Bill, is that...
	Are those a bunch of Jeffrey Epstein's hanging from a tree?
	Oh, that's...
	That's sad.
	Not sad.
	It's dark humor, but it's quite...
	It's apropos.
	It's quite funny nonetheless.
	Google, Robert.
	So Google...
	This is Epic versus Google, correct?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay.
	Epic has...
	We've covered this multiple times.
	Epic was suing Google for antitrust violations, exercising its monopoly power to lock in, tie in apps so that they could then charge this exorbitant 30% fee to go through the app for in-app purchases, and you basically had no way of getting around it.
	Some people who are tech-savvy, not me, could figure out how to download Fortnite app without going through the App Store, but most people don't do it.
	They had 70-80% of the Android market.
	I don't know, 70-80% of the iPhone market, whatever.
	Epic, which owns Fortnite, was suing for antitrust violations, abuse of monopoly power, so they could coerce payments and artificially jack up prices because if the company has to pay 30% to Google, they're going to charge more to the end-of-the-line consumers.
	And they won.
	Epic won.
	Epic itself, which is not, you know, totally cleans hands, has been, you know, concealing their refund button for people who might buy stuff with those skins in the in-app game of Fortnite.
	I don't even know what it is.
	I don't know how it works, but we covered that one as well.
	Have you ever played Fortnite?
	I played Fortnite, like, years ago in Canada, and I was never able to actually manipulate the keyboard to kill people, so the only way I could survive was by not getting killed.
	Anyhow, it was a cool game.
	It's fun.
	My kids play it, I know.
	But Epic is not exactly the most honest or clean-handed company on Earth.
	But set aside their foibles as it relates to allowing people to easily buy stuff with coins and then not get their money back, they sued Google and a jury found Google liable for, on all counts of this lawsuit which we covered, abuse of monopoly power, antitrust violations, etc.
	My question to you is...
	You'll flesh out more details as whatever you think I missed.
	Epic had sued Apple or IBM, I forget which, on a similar basis but had had that lawsuit tossed or lost.
	And my question is, how do you come to two diametrically opposed results based on very similar, if not identical, fact pattern?
	And what impact does it have on appeal?
	Where does it go?
	and explain to us how they come to this conclusion via the jury trial in their lawsuit versus Google where they got tossed in a judge trial against Yeah, I think it's showing the shift in the court of public opinion.
	So this is a San Francisco judge that has typically been very deferential to Big Tech in the Northern District of California.
	And what's happening is you're seeing, I think you had 42 attorney generals sue Big Tech recently in another recent case.
	So what's happening, and you've seen Democrats join Republicans in many of these cases.
	You've seen both the Trump and Biden antitrust division at the Justice Department pursue cases.
	You've seen D.C. Attorney General, Texas Attorney General, both be bringing comparable cases.
	It's because the court of public opinion has shifted about big tech.
	For many on the right, it's about abuse of monopoly power.
	It's about censorship.
	It's about political manipulation.
	For many on the left, it's about abuse of economic power in the antitrust monopoly context.
	And it helped that this was a democratically aligned company, an epic, or at least public perception is, and another tech company bringing the claim.
	But what's significant about it is that this goes to the entire model.
	Matt Stoller and others have talked about this.
	The entire model of big tech is not just monopolies, as Peter Thiel and others acknowledge, but not natural monopolies.
	Artificially created monopolies where they abuse that monopoly power to maximize the profit from that monopoly.
	Which is what our antitrust laws and our pro-free enterprise laws have long made illegal for more than a century.
	Arguably forever, but at least for more than a century in the case of federal law.
	The Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, it goes back to Teddy Roosevelt, we're going to bust up the big trust, etc.
	So this case is a major breach in the dam for Google.
	Because while this case doesn't involve most of their revenues, I mean, extraordinary, and for people who don't know what they're doing, if you were an app developer, you basically had to give in to whatever Google demanded, including often giving them 20-30% extortionate fees for nowhere near that value because of the way in which Google used their ownership of Android to prohibit access from most phone users to your app.
	Unless you gave them the kickback.
	It was like the mob knocking at the door.
	I was literally going to say that's the evidence of the monopoly.
	It's like, hey, if you want to make money, you're going to give us 30% because if you don't, you get nothing.
	And when you tried to compete like Fortnite did, when you tried to compete like others did, they made sure you couldn't using unlawful access and control of their monopoly power.
	And that's what made it illegal.
	And so their profits were extraordinary.
	I don't know if you saw that report.
	70% profit rate is what they were making off of their app fees.
	Because they're providing little value.
	No, it's already built in.
	It's the infrastructure.
	Now it's just providing you access to their already constructed infrastructure.
	Although some would argue the infrastructure is what they've invested in.
	It's sort of like R&D.
	And they tried to make that argument, but it wasn't very persuasive as to how much that really cost.
	It was clear this was just they're making a lot of money off criminal extortion, effectively.
	You know, did you see what they called it?
	Project Hug.
	Project Hug.
	Two G's or one G?
	I just want.
	So you can see why they deleted a bunch of incriminatory chats and tweets.
	Who knows what they're really saying bluntly behind the scenes.
	But unlike Rudy Giuliani, unlike Alex Jones, unlike Donald Trump, they were given a jury trial despite that.
	Well, sorry, you're suggesting when they called it Project Hug, they might have actually had a Project Get F'd, basically.
	That's what Project Hug was.
	We're going to hug you in ways you can't unhug.
	A biblical hug.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, yeah, proper fucht, to use the old English phrase.
	But here's their problem.
	The logic of this is equally applicable to...
	The case against them for what they do in the ad space, for what they do with their search engine, and for what they do on YouTube.
	They're facing the first two from a bunch of people, private companies, justice departments, state attorney generals, and they're facing the third from Rumble because Rumble has a big antitrust case against Google related to their manipulation of their search engine concerning YouTube to promote YouTube at the expense of Rumble.
	So this verdict presages potentially the end of Google, which could be enhanced by big Supreme Court cases that are also pending before the Supreme Court that have direct impact on Google's future.
	That's, I mean, Robert, it drives me nuts that I don't make these connections until you say them, but that's an amazing thing.
	Rumble is suing Google.
	For them manipulating search results to divert traffic from what would otherwise be organic Rumble search results back to YouTube.
	And why?
	Because Alphabet owns Google and YouTube.
	So Google abusing of its monopoly power to literally redirect away from the original source to its own wholly owned video hosting platform.
	And Rumble has been suing them and got to Discovery.
	I know nothing internally of that.
	I would love to know what the Discovery revealed, but I don't.
	This is a very bad indication of where that can go now because they're up to no good over their abusive monopoly power for the in-store apps.
	And they're obviously up to no good when they...
	The rumble evidence has been amazing in terms of...
	The rumble evidence is much stronger than evidence.
	Like, it's amazing.
	They redirect to YouTube videos that have actually nothing to do with the original video or all other YouTube versions.
	Platforming of the video.
	They completely vary Rumble.
	It's the main reason why there has been a lack of the expected growth to this day with Rumble is because they don't show up at all in Google searches.
	Even when they're the number one related video on the subject matter or topic.
	So that's very cool.
	That's amazing.
	Okay, so we'll see.
	Now they appeal it, Robert.
	How hard is it to appeal a jury verdict?
	Which people should assess, by the way, when they're looking at Rumble stock.
	What I can tell you is that there are some very sophisticated actors that have invested in making sure the best lawyers are involved in that Rumble suit, such that I think publicly known, Rumble's not having to pay for the legal fees on that case, which means people who have assessed it think there's a very high probability of a very high recovery, and that's going to impact the stock value.
	So I know people who specialize in just looking at lawsuits for stock value, and I mean...
	I early on talked to people connected who are going to short Pfizer, and they paid me as part of a private consultation, so I can't disclose any of the sub...
	There's firms out there that all they do is hire people to give them inside information as part of private consultation.
	It's not inside the sense of you're not part of the company, but in terms of people who are experts in a subfield to give them a sense of where it's going to happen.
	And it was those Wall Street insiders who told me...
	By the way, the insurance date is, this was very early on in the COVID vaccine context.
	They said the insurance date is far worse than anybody knows.
	They'd already seen it.
	And they wanted to know what I thought about, because they knew I was involved in the Brooke Jackson case and other cases against the COVID vaccines.
	And I laid out why, I was like, these things are bogus.
	There's massive evidence of fraud, so on and so forth.
	This was all public knowledge at the time I talked to them, but I just gave them insight as to what it was all about.
	They made tons of money.
	Shorting Pfizer and Moderna.
	Because they're down dramatically from that point.
	But sophisticated actors are saying Rumble's got an exceptional claim against Google.
	And you look at what just happened with Epic.
	The amount of money is in the many billions of dollars that Google will owe Rumble.
	And we now know that they have incriminating evidence.
	Because of what happened in the Epic case.
	Unless they deleted all of that, too.
	Unless they were just busy on a shredding delete.
	Unless they called up Hillary and said, can you send us some of that bleach bit that you used on the phones?
	I was going to say, they have incriminating evidence and a propensity to delete it.
	It's amazing.
	You mean like wipe it with a rag?
	Yep.
	I just looked at Rumble Stock.
	I don't want to say anything that can be misconstrued as financial advice.
	Yeah, I'm just letting you know, as a lawyer, there's a very good chance, based on this epic verdict, that Rumble has an exceptional opportunity to win that case, which would have two different effects.
	One is the billions of dollars that Google would owe Rumble in a damages part of the claim.
	The second would be injunctive relief that would require them to have honest search engine results.
	And by the way, Google is on pace to be broken up.
	And at this point, I don't think Google will even own YouTube five years from now.
	I believe they will be forced to sell off YouTube.
	Not only that, they may not even have control over their search engine anymore.
	That's where these cases are going.
	I would not be banking on Google.
	There are people out there right now making investment decisions as if none of these cases will ever come back and get them.
	And they don't understand.
	I've been talking about it now for years about the legal risk they face and said all that needed to happen was the court of public opinion needed to catch up enough to influence the judiciary to do their job.
	We're now seeing that in many different jurisdictions.
	So all of these big tech places are in big, big trouble in ways that people have not caught on.
	The consumer class actions for stealing money in bogus fees.
	The business class actions for these companies claiming that they had a certain reach that they never had.
	This doesn't even, it goes right to their entire model of consumption.
	This doesn't go to denying them the right to monetize people's private information, which is the entire financial basis of their economic activity.
	See, Rumble hasn't done any of these things.
	Rumble hasn't built itself that way.
	So at the end of the day, when this is done, Rumble's going to be the only one left standing with a legally protected model that's actually publicly desirable.
	So take that into consideration when you're making investment decisions.
	Not that it's investment advice, because the SEC says they govern everything everybody says, no matter what.
	But what the SEC should be inquiring into, what the Justice Department should be inquiring into, is to IBM and Red Hat.
	Oh, Robert.
	Now, I put two and two together very late.
	I never understood what Red Hat was.
	I still don't know what they do, but I now know that IBM bought them out, so it's been incorporated into the IBM corporate entity.
	Subsidiar.
	Subsidiar.
	I remember you talking about them.
	And now, James O 'Keefe, OMG Media.
	It stands for O 'Keefe Media Group.
	Great name.
	uh they have a you know a whistleblower video of the CEO of Red Hat who's now been incorporated into IBM talking about it's an Indian guy not that it uh not that it changes anything but it changes something a little bit because you have an Indian guy an India Indian guy saying We're basically going to hire minorities.
	There's over-representation of certain demographics and under-representation of others.
	So we're going to make points and hire the under-represented demographics.
	Asians?
	Not under-represented.
	You're not going to get hired.
	Whites?
	No.
	And if you don't meet these quotas, well, you're going to get fired.
	And basically boasting about the fact that they terminated, kicked out white men who didn't meet quota requirements or who didn't, I don't know, achieve their objectives for DEI.
	Saying it loud and proud on internal Zoom meetings, whatever the hell it is.
	James O 'Keefe got the video, broke the story, is now getting also leaked internal Slack groups about how much they're hated for exposing the story.
	Why is this not objective, unlawful discrimination that warrants not just civil cases but potentially criminal cases?
	Well, I represent one of the whistleblowers.
	I think he's gone public at some level with O 'Keefe.
	America First Legal is also going to be involved.
	I first started representing Red Hat people during the vaccine mandate era and helped them navigate Red Hat's attempt to threaten to fire people based on their religious objections to the vaccine, or in some cases, medical objections to the vaccine.
	And we were successful in that regard.
	But what they followed up with was targeting people for termination based on race, gender, age, religious belief, and anybody who voiced objection to their woke ideology concerning racial discrimination, religious discrimination, gender discrimination.
	Every form of discrimination you can do, Red Hat and IBM did, and they did it to my client.
	I mean, they did all of it.
	I mean, he was someone who had spoken out against racial discrimination at the company, spoken out against gender discrimination at the company, spoken out against religious discrimination at the company.
	And he is a white male whose religious beliefs they don't like.
	So guess you think, even though he had some of the highest internal graded employee stats and results, without any question beyond any controversy, who do you think is at the top of the list to suddenly get fired when they want to fight?
	Oh, the guy who complained about racial discrimination at the company.
	The guy who complained about gender discrimination at the company.
	The guy who complained about religious discrimination at the company.
	And the guy whose own race, gender, and religion is the kind they don't want at the company.
	They don't want religious conservatives.
	Christians involved in the company?
	They don't want white guys in the company.
	And so, wrong race, wrong gender, wrong religion, too outspoken, you're gone.
	And so, we'll be filing suit on his behalf, and I'll be working with America First Legal in this regard.
	Now, O 'Keefe got wind of the story independently of my client, in case people are trying to put one and two together.
	But this was about to be public within a couple of months anyway because, you know, we have to go to the EEOC process and you have to get a right-to-sue letter and all that jazz because we have a ridiculous administrative procedural process that's a trap for employees, in my view.
	They should revise the laws in that regard.
	Tennessee's got it right.
	Tennessee, you can go to the Tennessee version of the EEOC or you can file suit independently.
	Take your pick.
	That's the right way to do it.
	We don't get everything right in Tennessee, but we get that right in Tennessee.
	Tyson Foods is going to figure that out on appeal in a couple of cases, by the way.
	I can vouch.
	I have seen the evidence.
	I've been involved in this for many, many months now.
	A better part of half a year.
	The irony about this is, at least in my client's case, he just wanted to move on with his life.
	He's not some political cause guy.
	But not only that...
	They discriminated him on all those grounds, and they threw in discriminating against him on the Family Medical Leave Act, screwing him out of that, and denied him his health care coverage when his wife is pregnant in a high-risk pregnancy.
	That's how sleazy Red Hat and IBM is.
	What did they think was going to happen?
	But they were in a position they could have resolved the matter.
	They chose to just say, screw you, because they're so arrogant about it.
	And so now there's going to be some comeuppance.
	So, you know, my client's going to be seeking remedy.
	But not only that, America First Legal is building an entire class action to do this.
	And there may be SEC class action potential, depending on what happens in the stock market once people discover IBM and Red Hat have been lying to them about what they've really been doing internally.
	They are engaged in systemic and systematic...
	Racial, religious, and discrimination.
	And people should know, when you complain, even if you're not with any of those protected groups, they cannot retaliate against you.
	That's an independent legal grounds to sue.
	He's got every grounds to sue, plus Fair Medical Leave Act, plus violations of public policy.
	There's additional grounds to bring.
	And we're going to bring them all.
	Credit to James O 'Keefe.
	Great work.
	Continuing to do great work at O 'Keefe Media Group while Project Veritas is disappearing along with its DeSimps supporters and patrons.
	Hey, Jenna Ellis, Allah is like nada.
	There's no statutes of Allah, by the way.
	Just a little FYI.
	Speaking of DeSimps that keep destroying their credibility.
	It's funny you mentioned it.
	I mean, I was just looking, refreshing Twitter.
	And I'm seeing this.
	This is Jen Ellis commenting on somebody who called DeSantis' wife a B-I-T-C-H.
	All right.
	I'm going to go look at that afterwards.
	But Renhat...
	I feel bad for her.
	She's been measuring those curtains in the White House since she was seven years old.
	And now she can see the dream just disappearing right in front of her.
	That's why she's telling people, come to the Iowa caucuses and do what Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama of doing.
	Just come in and vote.
	Just come in and persuade people.
	The whole Republican Party in every state is having to say, by the way, that's illegal.
	You can't do that.
	But credit to James O 'Keefe on this.
	Front of the line, once again.
	Stand-up guy, once again.
	Unafraid when the companies are coming after him.
	Unafraid when people sue him.
	Unafraid when the Biden Justice Department tries to put him in prison.
	That should be another example for impeachment, is what they did to James O 'Keefe in going after Project Veritas and James O 'Keefe.
	The collective memory of society is so short, they don't remember that.
	They tried to go after James O 'Keefe for stealing a diary, for allegedly...
	You're exposing corruption in Joe Biden, that he liked to take showers with his underage daughter.
	I mean, you know, I mean, some of the...
	I mean, in between beating his dog and bribing foreign governments to give away America's secrets and protection.
	You have...
	Street-level criminal.
	It was, um, it was, they went from both angles that the diary was fake so that he was attempting to purchase something unlawfully and then that he stole something real.
	It's just, it's just amazing.
	But Robert, Red Hat, all they do is storage.
	I'm just looking.
	Red Hat provides storage, operating system, platforms, middleware, application.
	I don't know why IBM- That guy was one of their best guys at delivering that service technologically.
	That helped them provide.
	He was one of their top, top people.
	And they screwed him because of race.
	Gender, religion, and speaking out about it.
	Why are they called Red Hat?
	That I don't know.
	Sounds a little commie, doesn't it?
	Sounds a little commie.
	I was thinking of White Hat, but they're not the White Hats in this.
	It's not a Santa Red Hat.
	They wear the commie Red Hat.
	Alright, Robert, I have a meme in the background that I've been waiting to bring up.
	Speaking of discrimination, the Boston mayor took it to a whole new level.
	Alrighty, Robert.
	So the Boston mayor...
	If you haven't seen this story, go check out the news.
	She's Asian, for what it's worth.
	It doesn't matter.
	I think she's married to a white guy.
	I was going to go get myself cancelled by saying something.
	She's Asian, throwing a Christmas party, and basically not inviting white employees, but accidentally sent all the invites out to all the employees, including the whites, and then said, we sent out the invitation to the whites by accident.
	You're not welcome.
	And took some flax.
	As if to say, Robert, I've had this in the backdrop the entire show.
	As if to say, you're all welcome, except the whites.
	And it reminded me of this.
	So we're all clear on the rules then.
	No Jews and no blacks.
	It's one of the best lines from the family guy ever.
	It's like everyone tolerates racism when it's against whites.
	But if they said, so we're all clear on the rules and no Jews and no blacks, terrible.
	Racist and you should all be like mocked into oblivion.
	Unless it's against whites, then she didn't even apologize for it, Robert.
	She just said, I'm sorry you guys got the invitation and the disinvite, but I stand by it.
	How is it legal?
	How is it legal for a government official?
	It's not.
	It's like all these company policies.
	I mean, Red Hat's just an extreme example of it.
	They thought they could get away with this.
	I mean, they fired a bunch of people based on race, gender, religion, and speaking out about discrimination against people based on race, gender, and religion, and thought they weren't going to get caught.
	And when they do get caught, they just pretend like it will have no consequence.
	And then they try to add on to it.
	They assume some of these people are in such a vulnerable economic position that they can't push back.
	And that's where they badly misread the tea leaves.
	But it's the same dynamic present here.
	I mean, you have a Boston mayor that's so clueless, she doesn't recognize that...
	I mean, Boston was a town that did it various times, have signs that say, no Irish allowed.
	No Irish need apply.
	I mean, the old WASP Protestant elite.
	People don't realize the American deep state was founded by the old WASP elite from the elite Ivy Leagues and the academies.
	And the Kennedy upstarts were the peak of Irish Catholic power.
	And there was an underlying cultural conflict.
	Between the Dolez boys and other folks that went back to their childhood.
	But she's just reinvigorating this discriminatory mindset and thinks it's now politically correct because it's the kind of thing Harvard would do.
	They're in the backyard of Boston.
	No, but Robert, the thing is, Harvard would discriminate against the Asians, so I don't understand how an Asian woman thinks it's acceptable.
	Oh, it's like self-flagellating lefty Asians.
	It's like the Indian guy at Red Hat.
	You know, we're going to discriminate against other Asians.
	I guess just not him.
	I guess he's going to keep his job, right?
	But they're keeping him in line.
	They're the house slave.
	I mean, they're Samuel Jackson's character from Django.
	Oh, it was...
	I watched that again, and I realized how amazing that character was.
	It's like, your friends want you to succeed, but not more than yourself.
	And the character was amazing.
	Everybody should watch it.
	I'm trying to pull up...
	What was I trying to pull up here?
	I'm trying to pull up the CEO of Red Hat, but it's not coming up fast enough.
	So the Asian mayor...
	Who herself has, her group has been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says no whites and no Irish.
	It was the Irish, Robert.
	It was the Irish.
	Well, it's probably partially her intention of how she's going to protect the Asians is to pretend it's all about protecting people of color and reclassify herself rather than as an elite group, as an oppressed group.
	It's kind of like the Palestinians.
	How do you become, how do you be Arab Muslims and be some of the biggest imperialists colonizing religions in the history of the world?
	And pretend to be the victim of genocide while your population is dramatically expanding more than anybody else's in the world?
	You say, oh, we're part of the oppressed minority, my friend.
	Well, no, you redefine what genocide is and it involves displacement.
	So though the Palestinians have tripled...
	Unless we did it.
	It's not displacement because, of course, they displaced all the Jews in the entire Arab Muslim world.
	So it's a selective.
	But it's the same kind of logic.
	It's extraordinary.
	And the fact that she thought she could get away with it.
	And if we had an independent Justice Department, this would be dealt with immediately.
	I mean, imagine if some Republican conservative mayor put out a sign and said, no blacks allowed, no Hispanics allowed, no Asians allowed, no Jews allowed.
	I mean, Donald Trump got attacked in Palm Beach because he was one of the first most inclusive clubs in Palm Beach.
	It always reminds me of Muhammad Ali's story or Billy Crystal's story about how he got to play at a big club that he never got to play in.
	Muhammad Ali was a member.
	And Muhammad Ali says, let's go play at this club, Beverly Hills.
	And Billy Crystal's like, you do know they have a no Jew rule, right?
	And he goes like, yeah, I'm sure they have a no black and no Muslim rule, but I'm in, so you're in.
	And got to go over there and play.
	This is just absurd.
	Overt, open discrimination.
	It's like all the Ivy Leagues that didn't realize That, you know, when the wokesters turn anti-Jew, that that might backfire on them politically.
	They're like, oh, really?
	And then you have all these liberal Jewish Democrats that are just waking up to why you don't, you know, as Samuel Adams said, be careful when you ride the tiger that the tiger doesn't eat you.
	That's what wokeness is.
	That's what Elon Musk was over in Italy warning everybody about.
	Though I do enjoy Elon Musk waging a personal war on Bob Iger at Disney.
	That's the lie.
	I mean, he's like tweeting out every harsh meme on Bob Iger and taking random shots at Iger.
	He's showing, you know, that a lot of these people don't realize who they're battling with.
	Like, they thought there would be backlash to Alex Jones being reinstated on Twitter.
	Engagement has gone up.
	Likeability of Elon Musk has gone up.
	Interest in Twitter has gone up.
	They're shocked by that.
	Well, because it's combined with him appearing with Tucker Carlson and Tucker Voucher, something that, by the way, Tucker could have never done when he was at Fox, because Alex Jones is blacklisted at Fox.
	And he's stayed away from discussing that publicly, but he never had Alex Jones on at Fox.
	As soon as he's setting up the Tucker Carlson network, one of his first guests is who?
	Alex Jones.
	And Jones was having fun.
	I mean, he was going through boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, you know, reeling it off.
	He was out fishing with him and all the rest.
	So the irony is their efforts to eliminate these people has actually increased their accessibility, popularity, and credibility and means of reaching out to people in ways they couldn't do before.
	So this is a mayor that doesn't understand the way the world is, just like these woke judges.
	These political partisan judges don't.
	Just like these woke college administrators don't.
	Just like the Democratic Party and its hierarchy doesn't.
	Just like the people in the White House who thought, hey, let's do a speech against tyranny and let's make it look like the tyrannical characters from Beef or Vendetta.
	And, you know, let's have Zelensky come in and raise money where we must always be at war by making it look like Orwell's 1984.
	So how do they decide to do Christmas?
	Convince everybody the economy is great.
	By imitating the Hunger Games.
	The Hunger Games.
	It's called the Hunger Games.
	But these are all, like the Boston mayor, these people don't understand the real world.
	They are variations of Marie Antoinette's let them eat cake.
	It's just a different version of what let them eat cake means.
	You're so disconnected that you don't know the real world.
	It's like the State Department.
	People thought they were going to win in Ukraine.
	And, you know, been predicting that Russia's falling apart 90%.
	Now they're saying Russia's so strong we have to send money.
	I mean, it's preposterous.
	So it's one level after other of incompetence.
	The only question is whether they blow up the world before we get there.
	You say let them eat cake, and all I thought was let them eat...
	Something that rhymes with cake that involves the Senate hearing room.
	And Robert, I'm not bringing it up.
	By the way, David Mamet, he predicted all of this in his book, The Secret Knowledge.
	Because he's talking about how he went from being a general liberal to being a sort of ideological, or at least intellectual, philosophical conservative.
	Part of it is because he was never as liberal as he thinks he was.
	But part of it is it was wokeness that woke him up to all of that.
	He was like, this is insane.
	This is a semi-religious nutty belief structure.
	These people are going wacky.
	He predicted Me Too long before Me Too in the great play Oleana that they made into a film.
	And if you want to read a great book to understand the nature of narrative, the importance of persuasion, there's no better book than a small little text, Three Uses of the Knife by David Mamet.
	Highly recommend it.
	Want to give people a late Christmas gift to yourself or to somebody else.
	It's second only to a...
	Gift subscription at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Three uses of the knife where he takes a bluesong and brilliantly captures the neurological need for narrative.
	But he captured all this, and we're just seeing it now in live time.
	Robert, my favorite quote, because it's the only one I know from David Mamet, every fear hides a wish, which is...
	Oh, yeah.
	One of many...
	Man, it was brilliant.
	But Oleana forecast how college campuses would get crazy and how Me Too would go nuts.
	I mean, he's been on top of this over and over and over and over again.
	And so it's, you know, this is Glengarry Glen Ross, Spartan, you know, many great movies by David Mamet.
	Dialogue is wonderful.
	But we're just seeing the blowback consequences of the insanity of wokeness.
	We're re-experiencing the early 1970s, where the left got so crazy, it led to blowback.
	All the way across the country, culturally, politically, and economically.
	And we're just witnessing in the live time.
	They ended up better in the long run, but for those who had to be sacrificed for it to get better.
	Robert, let me bring this up here real quick.
	Texas Lady Jane, I think we've got that.
	Pinay Shows Helicopter Tour says, your thoughts on the Russia binder hype?
	Skeptical of another...
	That's what we said from the beginning.
	What we say, we said they're going after him because he has documents they don't want him to have.
	It wasn't about...
	Classified and all that garbage.
	It was he kept documents that incriminate them.
	They want to get them.
	They got to the safe.
	And there was nothing in there.
	And so now they're complaining, where the heck is the binder?
	The binder that implicates them.
	The binder that incriminates them.
	That proves how bogus that criminal case really is against Trump.
	I'm going to screen grab the Arkansas crime attorney one there.
	T-1990, book recommendations for you to the myth of the robber's baron.
	T119.
	I'm aware of that book.
	And Viva, some entertainment recommendations for you.
	Reacher, Bosch, and the Terminal List of the Invisible.
	Both of those are good shows.
	And Reacher's got a second season up.
	Though Farskate, recommended by the board after Firefly, Babylon 5, and Stargate SG-1, which were all fantastic, is also fantastic.
	If you want the best recommendations, the best place to always go is the board at Viva Martin's Law.
	.locals.com.
	I can't read the red on the black.
	It says Game On Podcast is now a monthly supporter.
	Thank you, Game.
	And we got Aunt Debbie.
	Oh yeah, Game On, he does with cricket.
	That's connected to cricket works with me at sportspicks.locals.com where we made money again today on Good Picks.
	And there's some discounted memberships people can still get with it.
	Discount code CHRISTMAS.
	But he works with Game On.
	They're on the Rumble editor's picks often.
	They do a Sunday morning show, Espresso Shot, that reviews the sporting news of the day.
	And Debbie, well, good, because the stock performance has been pretty pitiful.
	I look forward to the big uptick.
	Well, the stock market is about to go...
	Probably take about 18 months before it to do so, but the economy is about to go down, down, down, not up, up, up.
	It's about to get worse than it's ever been.
	At the worst possible time for the inhabited in the White House.
	I am way up on Rumble.
	I bought when it was below 4 and sold when above 10. Then I repurchased at around 4. Viva.
	Stop it.
	That's a smart man.
	Yes, but he's lying about my giving advice.
	I have never owned a stock in Rumble.
	Oh, no, no.
	I don't own money in the stock.
	I don't have anything in the stock.
	People think I have no economic ties whatsoever to Rumble.
	They paid us to help design some rules a year ago or so.
	That's it.
	Flat, you know, which was a...
	Frankly, a discounted flat fee.
	Pavlovsky got a sweet deal.
	But that's it.
	I have no other ties to Rumble, Locals, any of it beyond I love our board at Locals.com.
	And I've got my exclusivity on Rumble, but U.S. Marine Corps Borough says, with all our money seemingly going to Ukraine, can we write that money on our taxes?
	No, you don't get deductions for funding foreign companies.
	That's about $100 million plus or however...
	No, $100 billion.
	Whatever's left over there.
	That's just one more money laundering machine.
	I mean, that's just one big disaster debacle.
	But we'll save...
	We'll have one more case for here and then the after party.
	We'll be answering all tips of $5 or more as the last Sunday show of 2023.
	Robert, what the hell's happened?
	It's 2025.
	I remember Y2K.
	What the hell has happened to my life?
	Hold on.
	Where am I?
	I lost the email that has all of our gosh darn it inbox.
	VivaFry.com?
	No, no, no.
	I just want to get the list of our items for tonight.
	Oh, yeah.
	So the other topics left we have is we have the food arbitration.
	They're trying to get out of things with arbitration.
	Meadows, removal up at the 11th Circuit.
	Airbnb ban.
	And, bonus topic, Owen Shroyer, does he have a libel claim against the Washington Post?
	Let's do the Owen Shroyer here, because I know the people who are going to follow us are going to follow us regardless.
	Over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, what did the Washington Post say about...
	Owen Schroer.
	That could lead to defamation.
	So after Owen gets locked up for bogus reasons.
	Solitary.
	Yes.
	And I think he's recently done a video about how horrific his entire experience was inside just for, you know, almost 60 days.
	But the Washington Post printed a article.
	Darren McBreen, a very cool guy that works at Infowars.
	Very smart guy.
	Very great with technology.
	If you ever want a good technology guy, that's a good technology guy.
	I don't know what his availability is these days, but he's a real sharp guy.
	Fun guy to hang out with whenever I'm in Austin.
	Him and Rob Dew and some others.
	But basically, he pointed out to Owen, Washington Post pulled another Covington kids case.
	They just did it against Owen Schreuer.
	They printed a photo of a guy who's bloody, looks like he's been through a huge fight, at January 6th.
	And guess who they put?
	Who they said it was?
	They said it was Owen Schroer.
	It wasn't Owen Schroer.
	You can look at him and be like, that's not Owen Schroer.
	It looks a little bit like him.
	Shut up.
	But nobody honest could confuse.
	Well, one, Owen's got a very unique beard.
	I mean, they run videos at InfoWars.
	Owen is...
	Having fun with how unique his beard is.
	Owen is Brad Pitt reen...
	Oh, hold on one second.
	I can't get it.
	So I'm going to do this.
	I'm going to go to archive.
	Hold on.
	And then I'll go here, and then boom, and then we'll do this.
	Yeah, I learned that from members of our board.
	Oh, yeah.
	One hour ago.
	Here we go.
	Ooh, they changed the picture.
	Have they changed it already?
	I'll show you what I saw.
	Hold on.
	Let me just make sure that we're looking at the right thing.
	I think they have changed it already.
	See, if I go back all the way, Owen Schroer.
	No, that's not it.
	Oh.
	But Owen talks about it on Twitter, on his reinstated Twitter account.
	We had to sue.
	To help cause that happening.
	But it was good to see him get reinstated.
	There it is.
	That's Owen Schroer.
	Look at that.
	And by the way, it's the Washington Post.
	It's not me.
	And I click on it.
	And then what happens when you click on it?
	Oh, it's beautiful, Owen Schroer.
	Not fake.
	Oh, you don't see that right now because it opened a new window.
	Hold on.
	See, the guy looks just enough like Owen that it could have misled everybody.
	And this is the new pick right there.
	Beautiful Owen Schwerer.
	They replaced him with his trial testimony.
	See what I mean?
	He's got a unique beard.
	The Washington Post, they knew that was a fake photo.
	He's a beautiful human, Roberts.
	And they knew he was locked up, so he didn't even know about it.
	Remember, he was cut off from communication while he was locked up.
	So the only now is finance.
	So he absolutely has a libel claim.
	Because the photo is not a photo of him, so it's a false fact.
	Secondly, the photo implies defamatory information, that he's angry, that he's violent, that he has blood, that it's connected to him being angry and violent January 6th.
	That never happened.
	He was never accused of that.
	That couldn't have happened.
	Alex Jones was outside telling people to get out and get away from the Capitol.
	So, I mean, he was prosecuted solely on the grounds that he couldn't be there based on a prior plea deal, diversion agreement, that was misapplied in the first place.
	And was selectively prosecuted.
	I mean, there's another case.
	Like, in Biden's impeachment, the mistreatment and wrongful prosecution and wrongful punishment of what took place to Owen Schroer should be part of that impeachment effort.
	But yeah, Owen Schroer absolutely has a libel claim.
	Now, under Texas law, there are certain procedures you have to go through.
	You have to send a certain kind of notice.
	Gives them an opportunity to respond.
	Depending on how they respond, then that can shape what remedies you have available to you later.
	But because the Washington Post distributed nationally, he could probably sue anywhere in the country, depending on where he thinks the Washington Post was trying to most negatively influence his reputation.
	And probably that's nationally almost because of his national reach.
	But yeah, I mean, deliberate, defamatory information that still shows up in the Google searches.
	So people are still going to think years from now that he was convicted of some sort of violent crime because they say, I saw the photo of it from the Washington Post where democracy dies in darkness.
	Robert, so we're going to go over to locals right now.
	I'm going to give everybody the link to that in the chat on Rumble.
	What are you doing next week?
	So Monday, tomorrow, 2 p.m. Eastern time.
	In the last show of the year for What Are The Odds with the People's Pundit, Richard Barris, on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
	And then otherwise, I will only be available until the end of the year at vivobarneslaw.locals.com because the Sunday show doesn't, and I'm not doing any other show other than What Are The Odds tomorrow, other than at Locals until the new year.
	Merry Christmas.
	Happy Holidays.
	Go to VivaFry.com.
	Pick up some fun.
	Give your Trump-hating relative or friend for Christmas a nice wanted t-shirt.
	They might look at it and say, oh, this is great.
	They won't see the wanted for president part at the bottom.
	Hold on, Robert.
	Let me just bring it up.
	Populism fixes everything.
	Politics ruins everything.
	Look at this.
	It's the best thing ever.
	Robert, I still didn't buy the 49 Trump digital trading cards.
	I don't know if it's still available to get this seat.
	My wife said, you can't do that, Viva.
	And now that I've destroyed...
	Did I just kick myself out of the stream?
	I still see you.
	Okay, good.
	And now that I've...
	Oh, I'm still there.
	Okay.
	Now that I've destroyed the roof of our new car, I don't think I can get the digital cards, but I might still do it.
	I can't do it.
	I might...
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	So, Robert, we will be in touch.
	But everyone else who's watching right now, right now in real time, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And, oh, hold on one second.
	Here, link there.
	I'll just read these because I can't bring them up.
	It says, Boston radio host Howie Carr has coined the phrase Wu Klux Klan to describe Mayor Wu's chosen ones.
	That's fantastic.
	Some anime recommendations.
	Rurouni?
	Kinshin 2023.
	Yu Yu Hokusho Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood.
	And that's it, Robert.
	Okay, so we're going to do this.
	Hold on a second.
	I'm going to bring this out.
	No.
	Stop screen.
	And we're going to end it on Rumble right now.
	Going to the live stream.
	We're going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending the live stream.
	Everybody, we'll be in touch before.
	This is the end of the week, not the end of the year.
	See you all soon.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.
	Oh, I did it too early.
	Robert, there's a lot to go over here.
	I'm going to go to tipped.
	I'm going to scroll to the top.
	Somebody asked me briefly in the live chat earlier about who are some of the people in the deep state.
	Name names.

▲