Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 14, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:47

Ep. 193: Fani Willis UNDER INVESTIGATION? Trump v. Vivek BETRAYAL? AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	How many boosters are you all up to?
	You're deflecting away from the point.
	You're deflecting.
	How many shots have you had?
	Debunk.
	Debunk.
	Can you post a meme?
	How many boosters?
	I prefer it in meme form.
	It's funny.
	I would just prefer an answer.
	How many have you had the real truther?
	How many have you had?
	I would prefer if you...
	Oh, you've had zero.
	You've had zero, the real truth.
	Your Honor, I would like the defendant to stay on the question.
	Here, dude, I'm not the defendant.
	So if Dr. Malone can systematically be wrong on several topics...
	You do know what a straw man is saying.
	How do you actually parse what is wrong?
	Okay, debunk.
	Thank you for...
	Presupposing in your question, loading it with Malone being systematically wrong, we disagree on that.
	How many shots are you up to?
	Okay, let's go through his specific claims.
	We're not doing that right now.
	You can have him on and you can talk to him about that.
	How many shots have you had?
	Is this a science show or is this a show where people ask...
	Is this a science show?
	It's a science show.
	Are you an anti-vaxxer?
	I want to know how many shots he's had.
	Why would you answer the question?
	We already talked about that.
	Anti-vaccine has nothing to do with how many shots you got.
	It has to do with what information you spread.
	Look, you guys are the prime example of insulting and accusing others of doing what you're doing.
	Dodging questions, gist-gallping.
	Debunk.
	How many boosters have you had?
	Simple question.
	How many boosters do you have?
	Because I want to know if you guys talk a big talk.
	If it's so safe, I want to know if you're up here.
	David, let me answer.
	Yeah, please.
	Please, Debunk, go.
	If I had a dollar for every time an anti-vaxxer asked me how many boosters I had, I would have as much money as you think I have if I was the shill you think I have.
	I didn't call you a shill.
	I didn't call you a shill.
	I don't give a shit what other people ask you.
	Debunk, that's not an answer.
	Let me finish.
	Let me finish.
	I don't answer that question because it is useless, and I think it's entertaining when people deflect from the conversation and keep asking me that.
	I know, it's an amazing thing.
	When people deflect from the conversation, I'm going to deflect from the question.
	All right, Debunk, you're a brave man.
	You're a brave man.
	You want to tell people what to do with their bodies?
	David.
	Debunk.
	Debunk.
	Did I tell you what to do with their bodies?
	Oh, yeah.
	You just called me an anti-vaxxer.
	...information when multiple people can get things wrong.
	Public health officials can be wrong.
	Dr. Malone has been systematically wrong.
	Systematically wrong.
	All right, Debunk.
	We've reached the end of this.
	You're a very brave man.
	Thank you for answering.
	You don't want to answer.
	Oh, people, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, like, I'm not gonna say it was my proudest moment of the week, because I did just pull out a kid's tooth with a, something called a FOBO.
	It was right up there.
	These MFers, and by the way, I'm saying MFers to do the more polite acronym for what I really think of them.
	I'm implying the word Samuel Jackson uses freely, but I'm saying MFers to be polite.
	Oh!
	That was one highlight from my Twitter space with scientists and experts.
	I mean, in as much as I might have, you know, lost my Twitter poll as to whether or not I won that debate, if I didn't expose these people for the demons that they are, scientists might know more and more about less and less.
	Experts, as Mark Twain once said, are people who know more and more about less and less.
	I like to think they weren't.
	Ready for someone who can actually take them down on their own premises?
	Listen to this one.
	By the way, taking them down on their own premises.
	These idiots, by the way, these bona fide, arrogant, pompous demons.
	You never submitted any links to your studies.
	No!
	Because you idiots don't understand that what I did was presuppose the statistics of your studies.
	These experts.
	Submitted studies showing that the risk of myocarditis for the age bracket, I think it was 12 to 18 or whatever it was, you know, the young men, was 1 in 10,000.
	Good!
	I mean, I disagree with you.
	I think you are, in fact, bona fide liars, but I will agree with your number.
	1 in 10,000.
	What's an acceptable rate of risk?
	Simple question.
	So far, we actually agree.
	Okay, okay.
	He lied or got it wrong.
	The media lied or got it wrong.
	They agreed on that.
	I don't know what he's laughing about.
	Between hospitalized with versus hospitalized from COVID.
	The jab causes myocarditis at extremely high rates among a certain age demographic.
	No, they're not extremely high.
	They're not extremely high rates.
	Okay, this is what we did.
	What would be extremely high for you?
	What frequency of adverse event would be extremely high for you?
	Do you understand?
	Because there's two claims here.
	One, there's an objective part of the claim.
	Don't leave it to scientists to understand language.
	That it causes something.
	And then there's the subjective part as to at extremely high rates.
	And I can agree.
	They don't want to say it's at extremely high rates.
	Fine.
	Let me know when the rates in your professional medical scientific opinion become extremely high.
	Is 1 in 10,000 not extremely high for this type of situation?
	Very simple question.
	What is extremely high in your opinion?
	I mean, you're telling me 1 in 10,000 like it's a good thing.
	That's your number.
	Is that not an unreasonably high rate?
	For adverse events?
	Just a simple question.
	Where's your science that shows it's causing myocarditis at extremely high rates?
	Well, you disagreed on the high rate.
	I'm asking you, what would be a high rate for you?
	I mean, I'm not a scientist, but I'm not going to like...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Do you want me to show you this study?
	Oh, this guy's not a scientist?
	I remember one of these people saying to me, he's going to pull the whole I'm not a scientist during this debate, and now the real truther is pulling the I'm not a scientist, and yet I'm hosting spaces telling people what to do with their own bodies when I've had zero.
	Boosters or shots were still ambiguous as to what he was talking about.
	Are we going to go through every study right now?
	Do you not appreciate your inability or unwillingness to answer pretty straightforward questions?
	I can tell you with 100% assurity that it does not cause myocarditis at high rates, okay?
	You haven't defined what a high rate is yet.
	That was the question.
	You're the one that said you made the claim.
	You have to back it up.
	You said it caused that high rate.
	You're right.
	I made the statement.
	You disagreed.
	And now I'm asking you, what would be a high rate rate?
	I'm asking you to back up your claim.
	That's what you have to do.
	I consider 1 in 5,000 to be exceedingly high.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	I want to wind down, me and you, because it sounds like we're not getting, like, to the place.
	Simple question.
	Simple question.
	Wind it down, wind it down.
	Don't answer the straightforward question.
	What is a high rate of adverse events for you?
	Okay, let me...
	Can we just...
	You can't answer it.
	You can't answer it.
	The vaccine does not cause myocarditis at a high rate.
	You can't answer a simple, bloody question, the real truth.
	How do you dare call yourself the real truth?
	I will take the criticism.
	That I need to calm down.
	I'll take it because if you think it's the first time in my life I've ever heard that, welcome to the channel.
	Welcome to the party, pals.
	I can't calm down when I get excited.
	It's almost a truism.
	I don't want to calm down when I'm enraged.
	Enraged in battle.
	Maybe it would be useful for me to calm down.
	Maybe if I'm polite and I just say, Talk like this and repeat their names over and over again.
	Maybe I'll get my message across.
	Horse crap.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm excited.
	I'm angry.
	And telling me to calm down is just going to make me more excited.
	And it's not going to work.
	It's in my DNA for good or for bad.
	I'm excited.
	I'm at, I don't know, whatever, the seventh gear all the time.
	Those people are putting us on.
	The most insufferable group of people I've ever heard in my life.
	Go listen to the Twitter space.
	Yeah, I was excited.
	Yeah, I was excited because I'm dealing with experts who don't understand English, who refuse to answer questions, who try to force a debate style, a debate strategy that they will necessarily win.
	Where's your study?
	Oh, you're going to slap down studies during a discussion when no one's going to possibly read them?
	Oh, and then you give them a study.
	Oh, well, this one's crap.
	Your authorities are crap.
	So we disregard that.
	And don't answer questions.
	You know how you beat someone?
	On their own premises.
	You defeat them on their own premises.
	Oh, okay.
	You say that the risk of myocarditis for a specific age bracket is 1 in 10,000?
	I'll concede it.
	I disagree.
	That's your number.
	That's as good as it's going to get for you.
	Is that not exceedingly high?
	Oh, by the way, to the question as to how many jabs those experts have had, the real truther said zero.
	It was in response to the question, how many shots have you had?
	He says he's had two shots, zero boosters.
	That was his explanation the day after.
	Okay.
	Fine.
	I'll believe it.
	He's had two shots, zero boosters.
	You know how many boosters you're supposed to be up at now if they're so safe and effective, real truther?
	Eight.
	He's had two shots, zero boosters.
	Oh, and what was his excuse?
	He got COVID a natural booster.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought I heard Fauci say that natural infection wasn't any good.
	You still have to go get a jab, even after being naturally infected.
	Oh, I thought I heard someone say that.
	Anti-vaxxer, real truther.
	The other dude?
	Forget his name now?
	What did he say?
	I don't answer that question.
	You're damn right.
	There's a good reason why you don't answer that question.
	And I suspect it's because you're a pathological liar.
	Good for thee, but not for me.
	And then he comes up the next day on Twitter and says, Okay, I'll bite.
	I've had four shots.
	Good for you.
	You're a lie.
	I don't believe you now.
	It's nice that you had some time to, you know, think about your lie and you can answer on Twitter.
	Via tweet, but you couldn't answer viva voce where I could assess the sincerity of your answer.
	You've only had four shots?
	Anti-vaxxer.
	You're supposed to be up to eight.
	You know what the other amazing thing is?
	One of the other so-called doctors, so-called experts in that panel replies on Twitter afterwards that he got myocarditis from his first shot.
	And that he went to do a stress test afterwards.
	After his bout of myocarditis.
	And he reached 180 beats per minute.
	In his stress test with normal ejection, I forget what the exact term was.
	You're not supposed to reach 180 beats per minute.
	That is 100% of your beats per minute capacity at the age of 40, give or take.
	You take 220 minus your age.
	That's supposed to be the maximum your heart can reach.
	Not what you're supposed to reach during a stress test, even if you're 20. Doing a stress test.
	They work your heart from 50 to 85%.
	If you reach 100% during a stress test, that's not a good thing.
	So one dude, real truther, anti-vaxxer, has only had two shots while he pushes it on everybody else.
	The other one refused to answer.
	I can only assume because he's a liar.
	And the other doctor admits to having gotten myocarditis.
	Okay.
	Safe and effective.
	One in 10,000.
	For one specific demographic.
	For one specific adverse event.
	Wow.
	And they think that they won because I got too excited.
	Kiss my behind.
	Scientists.
	Speaking of health, by the way.
	Speaking of health.
	I want to thank the sponsor of the evening.
	You may have noticed as you came in here, it said, this stream contains a paid promotion.
	And it does!
	I like sponsors.
	And I like my sponsors.
	All of them.
	Field of Greens.
	Dot com, people.
	You want to adopt healthy lifestyle habits?
	Don't suck back on one of those disgusting chemical-filled, sucralose-filled soft drinks, diet soft drinks, energy drinks.
	Field of greens.
	It's a little-known fact, although I think I say it quite frequently on the show, that you're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	It's a well-known fact.
	Most people do not do that.
	Bad habits, fast food.
	Oh, you know, I don't know, not processed greens, just processed food and no greens.
	Field of Greens is desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	Not an extract, not a supplement.
	It's like pulverized vegetable jerky.
	In a spoonful, you stick it in a glass, you stir it around, it tastes delicious.
	One spoonful has one serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the antioxidant powers.
	Healthy habit, healthy for you, tastes delicious.
	It's USDA organic, made in America.
	The benefits...
	As close as you can get to the raw fruits and vegetables in a drinkable format, you can carry it on with you when you go traveling and you can't find raw fruits and vegetables.
	One time I went traveling, I ended up like, what's his name?
	Like Dave Chappelle, the drug addict.
	I was like a Subway.
	It's like, y 'all got any of them raw fruits and vegetables?
	I'm like, yeah, we got it.
	It's like, put them in a dish, please.
	No sandwich, no bread.
	Just give me some of them vegetables.
	So when you're traveling, it's a wonderful, wonderful alternative.
	To resolve the difficulty of healthy habits.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It takes you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	15% off your first order, and I'm fairly certain free rush shipping, but double check that.
	And that's it.
	Now, before we get going, I see Barnes is in the backdrop.
	UG Quatics is the car you record in an Audi.
	Black leather and red stitching.
	I'm almost ashamed to say we retired the four-seater, two-door Jeep Wrangler and upgraded to a Ford Bronco.
	Made in America, baby!
	Made in, what was it, Dearborn, Michigan?
	It's the coolest car on the face of the planet.
	I don't like cars and I don't like having nice things that you have to worry about getting dirty and scratched, but we needed a five-seater.
	The four-seater, two-door Jeep was magnificent.
	Hit 58,000 miles, started having some problems, and we bit the bullet and upgraded.
	Viva, glad you got the logo.
	It was a unique project.
	Yeah, right there behind me.
	This one.
	It's right here.
	For everyone involved, also, the plexiglass was an afterthought.
	Don't feel obligated to display it that way.
	Oh, well, I'm going to hang it up on the wall one of these days, but it's right there.
	That beautiful piece of metal right where my finger is.
	Okay, now we got here.
	Thank you very much.
	Ian, hey, Viva, did you see the new study showing the jab causes...
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	If it happens with this one, what about the others?
	Zero hedge.
	Oh, that's not a study.
	Go submit that.
	That's not a study.
	Show me your source data.
	Because you can trust the source data, right?
	Like the Pfizer trial source data, where they just conveniently expel the Maddie DeGarries of the trials.
	Oh, these mother MFers.
	Oh, that was from Ian.
	Thank you very much.
	Why has former President Trump announced he will not pursue retribution on charges against the deep state?
	Was this his plan all along?
	Not a banned account?
	We're going to get into it.
	Exactly.
	Speak your mind.
	Free speech.
	And then we got about high rates towards vaccine injury.
	One in 10,000.
	Is that not double the chance of injury when compared to being hospitalized due to the coup?
	Dude, for that demographic?
	Exponentially disproportionate to the risks of that against which you're allegedly protecting.
	Viva, I'm glad I didn't have to endure that insane spitter twice, but I'm now sure you should have.
	I'm not sure you should have either.
	They were seditiously not listening.
	I don't care, dude.
	I don't care that they weren't listening to me.
	You know who was listening to me?
	The 1,200 retweets of that segment on my Twitter feed.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop, everybody.
	We're talking good stuff tonight.
	No, I have to take that out of the backdrop.
	Robert, sir, I'm bringing you in.
	Ask locals to tell me if the audio is adjusted so that people don't complain, but let me just bring him in.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, so hold on.
	You tell us what book you have behind you and what cigar you might have in your hands, and I'm going to go to locals and see what they say about the audio levels.
	All right.
	That's by David Moranis.
	Great biography as we enter NFL playoff season when pride still mattered of the great Vince Lombardi as the Green Bay Packers put the smackdown on the Dallas Cowboys and end the coaching career of Mike McCarthy.
	My prediction is that that will lead to an upgrade for the Cowboys.
	The Dallas Cowboys, if they're smart, will probably hire Bill Belichick.
	He recently resigned from the New England Patriots.
	And he will get another Super Bowl with another franchise at the Dallas Cowboys.
	That will be my prediction and forecast for the NFL weekend.
	And this cigar is titled Hiram and Solomon.
	It's known as the Master Mason Cigar.
	Might be some ancestral tradition I'm recognizing in that cigar.
	That's a big cigar with dark-looking tobacco and a beautiful label on it.
	The audio apparently is good, good, Robert.
	And we're up to almost 10,000 already on Rumble.
	And the link to go over to Rumble is in the pinned comment.
	For those of you who don't know, we start on YouTube, Rumble, and our community, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And on YouTube, go over exclusively to Rumble.
	And then we have an after-party after-show on Locals, so you can come there afterwards.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for the evening?
	We have the top topic chosen by the board was all of the above.
	They loved them all.
	All good, good.
	The Trump immunity that was debated before the D.C. Circuit with some disingenuous questioning and media coverage from the court.
	A big, big vaccine win in the Freedom of Information Act context.
	I posted it as part of the Barnes Law School series at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll debrief the Fifth Circuit oral argument I had in New Orleans this past week on behalf of Children's Health Defense suing FDA over that same COVID-19 vaccine.
	We got three big cases up before the Supreme Court.
	One they heard oral argument on last week, or two of them, and one they're about to hear this week on Wednesday.
	The future of the administrative state is before the Supreme Court on the Chevron Doctrine.
	The takings clause and the due process clause, does it matter anymore?
	Will it be enforced once again against local and state governments?
	Trying to control through permitting process what you can do with your own property.
	The confrontation clause, the right to cross-examine before the Supreme Court of the United States, particularly in the context of forensic science.
	Boeing.
	We got a Boeing class action over their little airline, Alaska Airlines.
	That minor little piece of the plane getting sucked off in real time.
	Oh yeah, you're sitting in the exit row, you're thinking, hey, this is great, a little extra leg room, and then boom, there goes the door.
	The Harvard suit over anti-Semitism allegations.
	The sad, tragic, and horrifying death of Gonzalo Lyra in Ukrainian prison.
	We'll have an update on Amos Miller.
	COVID insurance coverage, what's happening with that in the courts.
	A couple of bonus cases.
	We got Fannie Willis up to some no good.
	You know, preaching from the pulpit today, trying to explain that black women should have an exception, apparently, to the rules of ethics that govern the rest of us.
	The rights of the homeless before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Big Second Amendment win against the Biden administration about your right to carry weapons on federal property, including the post office.
	When are websites property, according to the Ninth Circuit?
	And the top question on the board...
	To today's topic list, what about the WHO treaty and its application in the United States without congressional approval?
	So we'll get to most of those live, and we'll get to the rest on Locals at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	For those asking about the Iowa caucus, I got betting predictions and recommendations up at Sports Picks.
	.locals.com where we just won a big 5% play on the College Football National Championship.
	Won another big 5% play on the NFL wildcard just yesterday.
	So if you want that inside information about where you can make a little money on political betting and predictions, you can go to SportsPix.
	But we can have some broader discussion of the Vivek aspect and the rest as we start off here on YouTube before we proceed to Rumble.
	Well, let's start with the drama of the day because it's going to lead into the other...
	We're going to do the Vivek Donald Trump...
	What's the word?
	Not scandal.
	It's not a scandal.
	It's not a fight.
	It's politics.
	It's dirty.
	It's disgusting.
	Yesterday, Donald Trump on Truth Social puts out a truth post saying Vivek is...
	What did he call him?
	Deceitful, sly...
	Don't vote for him because, you know, he started off as a good campaign and now he's just sneakily trying to get votes from Trump.
	I didn't understand or didn't think it was necessarily the most appropriate criticism attack because all I had known at the time was the picture that, you know, he took a picture with a bunch of people that said, save Trump, vote Vivek.
	Okay, I can understand it.
	I still think it shouldn't have been done.
	There's allegedly, not allegedly, I mean, we've seen the video.
	I don't know who caught the video.
	I don't think Vivek is saying anything on his campaign that he doesn't expect to make it to social media.
	Like, he's not whispering sweet nothings to one individual.
	I think Vivek might have just not explained himself properly or gotten a little carried away in the moment.
	There's a video of him saying, if you vote for Trump, you're basically voting for his demise.
	I want to save Trump.
	Vote for me, because if you vote for him, you're actually going to hurt him.
	I need your support in Iowa.
	Go to it.
	Okay.
	Everybody knows that Vivek is running.
	He says he's running for president, and so it would be absolutely idiotic for him to say, don't vote for me.
	I don't want your support in Iowa.
	The question is whether or not it crosses an ethical loyalty line by saying, if you vote for him, you're actually voting for his own demise.
	Bring it over to my side.
	I can understand that argument.
	I still like Vivek, and I think he might even acknowledge his own mistake.
	Trump comes out with the attack.
	Vivek responds respectfully and almost subserviently, in my view, which leads to my bet.
	He's going to be the VP pick.
	I don't know what the odds are on that.
	And that's the drama.
	Tomorrow is the caucus in Iowa.
	A, Robert, before I get your take on it, I've never seen a caucus.
	What happens at these caucuses?
	How does it work to get the votes?
	What does it physically look like?
	How long does it take?
	When are we going to know the results?
	What happens at a caucus in Iowa?
	It depends on the rules.
	So different years, they've had different rules about the caucusing process.
	Some years, you've had to wait for a period of time before you could cast your vote, but everybody gets to make a presentation in favor of their candidate.
	There was vote swapping you could do in the past.
	There were thresholds you had to reach, and if you didn't reach those thresholds, then there would be another round of voting.
	My understanding is this year they've preserved that you go in and you don't just cast a ballot.
	There are some caucuses that are indistinguishable now from a primary, that they're just done to be outside of the control of the state process.
	I mean, one distinct thing with caucuses universally is they're not controlled by the state government at all.
	In other words, you go to a primary, it's the local government that is controlling the ballot process, the ballot counting process, everything about it.
	Making sure you're registered to vote and so on and so forth, depending on which jurisdiction you're in.
	If you're in Taiwan, you do paper ballots, no mail-in ballots, you vote in person, you prove your identity, and then they count them in public and show the ballots to everybody, and they get it done within hours.
	Taiwan went with the anti-China candidate by a thin margin in a widely watched election.
	Weird how that's held up as a beacon of democracy, and yet somehow that would be totally anathema to democracy, according to Democrats here in America.
	But in the caucus process, your vote's usually public.
	It's not private and anonymous.
	Now, again, some caucuses are indistinguishable from primaries and don't go that process.
	But in Iowa, typically, you have to publicize your vote.
	That you go in, people organize, they get together, people make pitches for their individual candidates, then they do the first round of voting, you're publicly voting.
	My understanding is that in this Iowa caucus, this cycle, there's no minimum threshold to have to reach to meet, and that there won't be a second or third or fourth round of voting.
	That'll just be one round of voting.
	Now, I don't think they'll have Pete Booty Booty Gage's special electronic system that managed to muck up Bernie Sanders' chance to win Iowa in 2020.
	Or Hillary Clinton's magical coin flipping, where there were ties and caucuses, and so she would win in any precinct where the coin flip was in her direction.
	And apparently people really had a strong sense of preservation of life, and she managed to win six for six and go perfect in a coin flip opportunity that the odds would say are something like 10,000 to one against that occurring normally.
	So that's how the process works.
	Now, it's supposed to be bad weather in Iowa.
	There was supposed to be an NFL game today in Buffalo, and they moved it probably to the benefit of my profitable bets, but not to everybody.
	A lot of people were whining about it who already placed bets on certain things happening because it was such a snowstorm there in Buffalo.
	So if that continues, turnout will be a major factor.
	Now, I don't know...
	My understanding is I don't think you have to have registered as a Republican to get there until you show up at the caucus.
	Traditionally, you don't.
	I don't know if they've changed that rule or not.
	And that's what Nikki Haley is depending on.
	She's depending on Democrats.
	The Democrats don't have any meaningful competition, and Biden has suppressed all efforts to meaningfully compete with him.
	So you have no real Iowa Democratic caucuses, which means you could have Democrats, Democratic-leaning voters vote in the Republican caucuses.
	And it looks like up to a third of the total people attending the caucuses are not Republicans.
	Some are independents, but a good number are Democrats, outright Democrats.
	So, you know, there's all kinds of shenanigans going on at the end.
	Hold on, you gotta explain that.
	Do they not have to be registered Republicans to vote in the caucus?
	I don't think so.
	Typically, no.
	Historically, no.
	I've attended Nevada caucuses on the Democratic side, and you only registered when you showed up, whether you wanted to self-declare.
	So traditionally, I don't know if...
	I know in New Hampshire, I think they changed...
	New Hampshire should be totally open, but I think they changed the rules so you have to register a little bit earlier than normal, because that's the same strategy of Nikki Haley in New Hampshire, is that because there's no competitive Democratic primary, Biden's not even on the ballot.
	On the Democratic side of New Hampshire because he rejected it because the Democrats didn't want Bobby Kennedy to win there.
	So that's why Bobby Kennedy ended up running as an independent instead.
	It was clear the rules were rigged on the Democratic side.
	The whole goal for Nikki Haley to do well is to get a bunch of people who are Democrats show up at these caucuses.
	So that may happen.
	The other place where you get a lot of shenanigans, some of the shenanigans happened the weekend before.
	Some happened the night of.
	I mean, Ted Cruz did some shenanigans to steal some votes from Ben Carson in 2016.
	They accidentally misreported the results in 2012 that suggested Romney won when actually he lost to Santorum.
	So there's a history of this, of interesting things happening once the caucuses commence.
	And then, of course, we've already heard stories that people associated with various campaigns have been calling up and saying, oh, who do you back?
	And the person will say Trump.
	And they'll say, oh, do you know, by the way, that the weather's really bad?
	You should probably stay home.
	You know, that routine.
	There's going to be a lot of that going on.
	So there's some in the DeSantis camp that truly think he's going to actually win tomorrow night.
	I publicly put out on Twitter.
	If you're that dumb, you need to be separated from your money, just as a matter of moral principle.
	It might happen if they're betting on it anyhow, but it's obviously Trump, Haley, DeSantis, Vivek in that order?
	Yeah, I think there's one minor candidate left that's on the ballot.
	Christie has dropped out now, of course.
	Mike Pence has dropped out.
	Tim Scott dropped out.
	Pretty much all those people that were hangers-on in the debates that we saw in California earlier in the year are gone.
	Rubio endorsed Trump today.
	The other people have been coming out and endorsing Trump over the last weekend or so.
	So it's kind of a last stand for DeSantis.
	Needs to be competitive.
	Needs to keep the margin between he and Trump down.
	And needs to get a very solid second place.
	He has, according to people on the ground there, the best political organization.
	And again, historically, political organization has mattered.
	The polling has often been wrong in the Republican caucuses in Iowa because it underestimates the performance and participation of evangelicals, particularly church-going evangelicals.
	Trump notoriously had a lead and then lost in 2016, the Iowa caucuses.
	So Nikki Haley, there's been a lot of money spent attacking Nikki Haley after she surged.
	I mean, her whole campaign was based on New Hampshire and South Carolina.
	Late surge in Iowa, so she started to compete aggressively there.
	DeSantis, and then Vivek, was surging in some public opinion polling.
	Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, showed him surging last week.
	Patrick Basham, the UK Daily Express, also has Vivek surging.
	It was a simple political move on Trump and Vivek's part.
	Vivek saw he had a chance to finish anywhere in the second or third or close fourth so that the second would be kind of mucked up.
	You have a bunch of people in the low teens, mid-teens, and that And so he just verbalized that more dramatically.
	And the question for Vivek's people was...
	Does Trump care more about a big win, or does he care more about mucking up DeSantis and Haley in Iowa by letting Vivek eat into their votes?
	Well, that question got answered.
	Trump wants the big win.
	So that's why he came out and criticized Vivek.
	He was like, yeah, nice try, pal, but I want all the votes.
	All gotta come to Papa Trump.
	I want 50%.
	I want 55%.
	I'd love 60%.
	What I love is, still, in politics, it's dirty, but people should not say things that cannot be unsaid when this is all over.
	Trump's attack was very, very mild, deceitful.
	I think Vivek might say, yeah, I shouldn't have said it the way I said it.
	Well, I think it was a smart gamble on his part.
	In other words, you're looking at it, and maybe Trump won't mind, because maybe he cares more about mucking up second place.
	What you have is you have three voting constituencies in Iowa.
	You have the Trump voters.
	You have what I call the non-Trump voters.
	These are people who have a favorable opinion of Trump, but are willing to consider someone other than Trump for a wide range of reasons.
	And then you have the anti-Trump voter group, that third group, many of whom are Democrats and independents who lean Democrat.
	Nikki Haley has Chris Christie campaigned toward this group.
	DeSantis was trying to benefit from them without being critical of Trump.
	He wasn't able to manage that well.
	And so Nikki Haley surged amongst that group.
	She became the favorite of Rupert Murdoch and his crowd at Fox News and the Murdoch Media Empire.
	Big media people behind her.
	Big Democrats behind her.
	The LinkedIn guys.
	Other people like that helping to fund her campaign along with the Koch brothers.
	And so once the anti-Trump vote consolidated behind Nikki Haley to such a degree that Rand Paul came out this past week and said there's one person he'll never endorse for president and that's Nikki Haley.
	Because of that rise.
	That put DeSantis in a difficult...
	So what you have left is the non-Trump vote.
	And the never-Trump, anti-Trump, about a quarter of the possible electorate in Iowa, maybe more, depending on what happens with turnout.
	Because they're overwhelmingly upscale voters, they tend to turn out more no matter what.
	So even though they're low-propensity voters within a caucus process overall, they're high-propensity in a low-turnout environment because of their socioeconomic background.
	Then you have the non-Trump vote, more middle class folks, your Steve Daces of the world, which are a mix of people that used to be never Trump, then came on Trump, and now just don't think Trump can win.
	Your Will Chamberlain types are in this category of people that have favorable opinions of Trump, but don't think Trump is the right candidate.
	Did you catch any of the interview with him on Friday?
	Yes.
	I met Will early in 2017, I believe, at a Mike Cernovich event up in New York.
	So the debated Chamberlain on the pandemic, he liked the Jacobson decision.
	That's a sign that some of his decision-making is not the best.
	Well, he's very eloquent, he's very intelligent, and he presents the arguments very well.
	Yeah, he's all those things, and I've never doubted his good faith.
	I've doubted his judgment upon occasion.
	But when he says he was a Trump supporter, he actually was.
	He was a true Trump supporter in 2016.
	And is on the anti-war side of the equation.
	He worked for a period of time for DeSantis, and then the campaign kind of ran out of money on that side of the aisle.
	But, you know, the comes from inherited money, was editor of Human Events for a little while.
	But, yeah, very smart guy, very sharp guy.
	Just, you know, judgment, not always ideal.
	A little bit too much of that, what do they call it, proper breeding?
	At the very least, he was honest enough to say that he would.
	If it's Trump, he'll vote Trump, unlike many others on the team or the DeSantis campaign.
	I don't know what the purpose of saying it is.
	If it's not Trump, I'm not going to vote for the Republicans.
	Well, DeSantis kind of ran into trouble because...
	And that's who Vivek is competing for.
	Vivek and DeSantis are competing for the non-Trump vote.
	And Vivek would like to get a few extra Trump voters.
	And Trump knows this.
	And Trump doesn't care about Vivek mucking up DeSantis and Haley.
	He cares about maximizing his margin.
	And so that's...
	Vivek took a calculated gamble.
	It was probably worth it because it was the only way he was going to break into the mid-teens.
	And it didn't work.
	But, you know, that's the nature of calculated gamble.
	Probability is not certainty.
	I think he does it all...
	If he had to do it all over again, he would do it all over again because it's the only way he was going to get into that.
	Possible second place finish.
	And there was reason to believe that Trump might not care because to date he hadn't cared.
	You know, he said nice things about the bank.
	But now that it's counting, ballot counting time, Trump wants all the votes to come.
	My theory also, it's a little bit of...
	Big dog showing the little dog who's in charge.
	Be subservient.
	And not in a demeaning way.
	It's just like, look, I've been through the ringer.
	We can do this.
	I really think they're going to go VP with Vivek.
	I do have a bet out there and pick out there as to who he's going to pick.
	It won't be any of the candidates.
	It won't be anybody who ran against him.
	This time around.
	The question I was going to ask you, though, is it going to be someone in politics or someone outside of politics?
	Someone, kind of both, that has been quietly really storming Iowa on his behalf and other places.
	And he fits a whole, checks off a bunch of lists.
	I think the decision's already been made, just my read on the situation.
	But you can get this person as 10 to 1 odds, 20 to 1 odds, 50 to 1 odds.
	I mean, really, people just aren't paying attention because he...
	Doesn't operate in the same place as the mainstream establishment said.
	Kyle Rittenhouse, I was going to make a joke, he's going to pick Laura Loomer.
	Is it Ben Carson, Robert?
	Yeah, Ben Carson.
	That's my pick.
	It would have been DeSantis had he not been insane and gone on this kamikaze campaign.
	I think everything predicted about that has come absolutely true.
	And I think I put out the forecast on X. I don't want to deadname Twitter.
	I hear that's politically incorrect.
	I'm dead naming it.
	Until the cows come home, I do not like the word X for Twitter.
	I don't like it.
	I understand.
	That's an old favorite of Elon's, dating back to his banking app ideas, before he was at Tesla even.
	I think even before he was at PayPal, actually.
	But it is that DeSantis may drop out before New Hampshire.
	If he does not finish a strong second tomorrow night in Iowa...
	DeSantis will drop out.
	He's not going to experience humiliating defeats in Florida in his own home state.
	He's not going to just sit around to get third and fourth and be beat up in New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada.
	It's not going to happen.
	He put everything in Iowa.
	If it's a real low turnout and the Democratic-oriented voters don't turn out, DeSantis can get a good, strong second.
	But if that doesn't happen, he's in real trouble.
	And, you know, I put out certain bets, recommendations at SportsPix as to how you can cash in on Iowa.
	And we'll see how it progresses.
	But I think Nikki Haley will be around probably for a good while.
	But she's not ever going to be the nominee, president or vice president.
	And Trump was, you know, calling her a globalist and things like that this past weekend in Iowa.
	He's buying pizzas for firemen in Iowa.
	He still has the best marketing instinct.
	I think Vivek has a future on the national stage no matter what.
	He's established that and achieved that by his campaign.
	People are saying that Trump already said he wouldn't pick anyone that ran in this primary.
	That was then and things changed.
	A lot of people have been warming up to Vivek recently.
	He's been the most audacious, I think having the most integrity of the other candidates in terms of...
	You know, unabashed condemnation of the persecutions, January 6th, the indictments.
	Whereas I think, you know, I would have expected...
	But if you're Vivek, you may not want to be vice presidential nominee.
	That you might want a different cabinet position with more authority, responsibility.
	If you look at how Trump wanted Pence to be, you wanted him to be non-existent outside of limited circumstances and then be very loyal.
	And it may benefit Vivek more in a different position if I was on his team.
	The one guy who has...
	Utterly killed his political future is DeSantis.
	If he doesn't finish a very strong second tomorrow night, and I mean 30%, 25% to 30% within 20% of Trump, he committed kamikaze.
	What do they call it?
	Harry Carey.
	Yeah, he committed Harry Carey.
	I hope the Murdoch money was worth it, Ron.
	All right, and I had one last question before we head over to Rumble.
	Was Vivek's, was the video caught on camera, was that an egregious transgression for you?
	No, not really, because that's been the whole mantra of his campaign.
	I mean, his campaign has been to appeal to the non-Trump voter and a few Trump voters as vote for me because they're going to take Trump out anyway.
	That's his reason for running.
	Well, I think his main reason is to boost his profile.
	And I think he's achieved that in spades.
	So I think the main goal he's achieved, the secondary goal he was never going to get, that just wasn't going to happen.
	Maybe he convinced himself at different times that maybe, and this kind of chance, that was very unrealistic.
	Trump voters were going to rally to Trump under these circumstances.
	All right.
	Before we head on over to Rumble, people.
	Excuse me.
	One last...
	Seppuku.
	Maybe that's what it's also called.
	Seppuku is also that.
	But I think Harikiri, excuse me, is the same thing as Seppuku.
	Seppuku.
	I'll have to Google that.
	Yeah.
	Field of Greens.
	One last one.
	I just got a DM on another platform that says, Viva, you're very skeptical of what the scientists say about the jab, but not so much about what they say about Field of Greens.
	I'm not skeptical about the science.
	We'll be talking about what the science really says.
	We're going to get there.
	All that to say is...
	Fruits and vegetables have been around for a lot longer than the jab, people.
	And we've seen the results in real time.
	Field of Greens, promo code VIVA.
	Well, you know how you know Field of Greens is safe?
	The FDA doesn't promote it.
	Well, it is USDA approved.
	Organic.
	Okay.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	Thank you very much to our sponsor of the evening.
	All right, we are now ending on YouTube.
	Wait, no, before I do that, hold on one second.
	Shame on me for not doing this.
	Link to locals.
	And before I put my own poison in something, hold on.
	See, I'm going to fill this little wanted for president up with a little bit of Uncle Val's wonderful gin.
	You can go to Viva Frye if you want to get some merch.
	This is, you know.
	Obviously the coolest we've ever had.
	So, go to VivaFry.com if you want some merch.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com or VivaFry on Rumble right now because we are ending on Commitube.
	I mean YouTube.
	Ending in 3, 2, 1. Boom.
	Alright, Robert, what do we move on to next for our, I don't know what number we're on, but what's next on the menu?
	We could, you know, start with a range of topics, but I think a good one is let's go right into the vaccine cases.
	The FOIA, Children's Health Defense, and the Attorney General Paxton suit.
	Well, let's start with the Children's Health Defense.
	Actually, Robert, I meant to ask you this privately before asking you publicly.
	You shared the link of your oral hearing with the, it was the Court of Appeal, right?
	Yeah, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Fifth Circuit.
	You don't mind if I rip that video and publish it?
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, no, absolutely.
	Okay, excellent, because I love listening to you.
	One of those judges, I asked you, I made the comment, it was the one about halfway through, seemed very partial to the FDA, saying, you know, they were questioning what interest, what injury you've had.
	Tell people what's going on with that.
	You're representing Children's Health Defense, and you're going after the FDA for their...
	Basically approval, which results in this being pushed on children.
	Tell people what you're up to, what stage you're at, and what it's like being in front of the Court of Appeals and having to talk to judges, who clearly some of which have their heads made up already, minds made up.
	Yeah, I mean, all we're asking for is to get to discovery and trial.
	That's it.
	The district court did not allow us to on the grounds that nobody has a right to sue the FDA but the drug companies themselves.
	And that's a very dangerous ruling for the future of ordinary people who these agencies are supposed to be serving and protecting.
	So we took it up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, three judges.
	Judge Haynes comes from George W. Bush appointee, daughter of immigrants, one from the Dutch, from Holland, from the Netherlands, another one from Egypt, extremely intelligent background.
	Both of them were scientists.
	Her parents met in an international school for the study of various scientific and mathematical aspects.
	Other family members became professors.
	Father became a professor.
	I think she graduated very young from college at Florida Tech, went to law school in Texas.
	It was the Bush political machine.
	Promoted her to state court bench.
	I think she lost an election at the state court bench after she served a term, if I recall right, and then she was elevated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Has been there since 2008.
	Seen as a Roberts-style judge.
	Though, to be frank about it, a lot smarter than Roberts, in my opinion.
	Then Judge Jones is one of the most well-respected, one of the first women lawyers in the state of Texas, was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Reagan, has been there for almost 40 years, is often talked about as a potential Supreme Court nominee over the years.
	She was on the panel, former chief judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And then a new Biden appointee who had been a federal magistrate.
	Who comes from law enforcement in New Orleans.
	African-American woman could be part of Biden's commitment to putting African-American women in particular on the bench.
	She was elevated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And so that was our panel.
	And the key question I wondered about was, so the issue is legally standing.
	I've made my opinion on standing quite clear.
	It drove uncivil law so crazy he did a rant about it once.
	Your theory on standing in this, what are you suing the FDA for specifically?
	So we're suing the Food and Drug Administration for mislabeling and mismarketing the childhood vaccine by misusing and abusing its emergency powers as safe, effective, necessary as even a vaccine.
	We're challenging the fact they've changed the definition of the word vaccine.
	We're challenging the fact...
	That they said emergency authority even gave them this authority.
	We're challenging the fact that they said there was no alternative therapies or treatments or tools available.
	All of those facts, along with the fact that they used Big Bird, used Elmo to tell little children and tell parents and caregivers and custodians, including foster children, for example, in Texas, that was part of the group we were suing for, that this was safe.
	Effective vaccine that inoculated against COVID-19, both infection and transmission, and that it was medically necessary for them to get it because these children faced an emergency that they claim still exists to this very day from COVID-19.
	And basically every single one of those statements was a lie.
	And they knew it was a lie.
	They had no scientific basis to say any of it.
	That also in the process, we also sued them because we attempted to file a citizen's petition challenging this as the rules allow under the Administrative Procedures Act, and they refused to allow any citizen's petition as it related to children.
	So we filed a general one as it related to everyone, including children, and there they filed a response that was more dismissive than substantive.
	And Children's Health Defense was denied the opportunity to even notice and comment.
	It's any notice or an opportunity to comment on everything they were doing here.
	They're making multiple decisions that they have never made before in the history of the Food and Drug Administration.
	So extraordinary, exigent emergency powers used.
	So we're challenging their use of emergency powers under these circumstances.
	We're challenging their denial of notice and comment, their denial of citizens' petitions, as well as their substantive rulings.
	All of that, we were told, nobody can sue on.
	The only party that's quote-unquote injured, according to the district court, is the drug companies if they were denied.
	Emergency permission.
	And that was one of the questions I forget.
	I don't know which judge it was asking.
	He's like, what's your injury?
	And you say, well, we have to divert funds to divert our attention.
	Traditional, yeah, organizational standing.
	Now, in my view, you have statutory remedies under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the injury is denial of your rights.
	Rights for a citizen's petition, rights for notice, rights to comment, rights to have that process dealt with meaningfully.
	And in my view, that provision of the APA enforces...
	The first amendment to the United States Constitution, the part that Justice Barrett forgot existed in the First Amendment during her colloquy before the U.S. Senate, which is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, a foundational and fundamental right, and the first one discussed in the Declaration of Independence itself as being the one most misused and abused by the then king to justify the creation of the American government from its inception.
	But putting that aside, the other injury is the organizational injury, which is a massive diversion of resource and a drain on resource.
	But has that been recognized as standing?
	Because anybody can make it their organization.
	For more than 50 years.
	All of this is ridiculous in terms of what standing means.
	Standing is an interpretation of Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution that says the judicial power shall, not can, not may, I mean, clearly this is a case or controversy within it.
	It doesn't even case and controversy.
	It's a case or controversy.
	But beginning about a century ago, the Supreme Court invented out of plain cloth...
	This idea that, oh, you know what?
	We can just refuse to hear a case, claim we don't have any judicial authority over it because it's not really a case or controversy under this new doctrine we're going to call standing to sue.
	Legal scholars have noted how historically antithetical this is to actual American legal history, but many of the most conservative courts have embraced it because they want to prevent liberal organizations from sue it.
	So standing has been two things, a Pontius Pilate-style political pretext to avoid making a judgment on the merits.
	And saying, golly gee, we wish we could say something or do something about this fraudulent election or this rogue government action, but we don't have the standing to do so.
	The second, so it helps them avoid cases precisely because of their controversial character by pretending it's not a controversy under the Constitution in the first instance.
	The second thing that's happened has been politically motivated.
	Liberal group, liberal judges don't want conservative groups to sue.
	Conservative judges don't want liberal groups to sue.
	And this is why you constantly see conflicting and contradictory rulings about standing.
	Often by the same courts and even the same judges on those courts.
	If they like your case, suddenly you have standing.
	If they don't like your case, suddenly you don't.
	Now, credit to Judge Jones.
	She was like, we need to have one principled standard for standing.
	And as she pointed out at the oral argument, we actually cited the supplemental authority that she requested we cite to her the next day.
	Which details that, in fact, the Fifth Circuit just recently said an organization doesn't have to be the directed target of agency action, but if they spent any money because of the government's action, and they wouldn't have otherwise spent that money, that's it.
	And that's here, without doubt.
	Does that include spending money to sue them?
	No, not the money to sue them, but any other money that led to the basis to sue them.
	So here...
	Children's Health Defense had to expend extraordinary resources, divert its entire organizational purpose to this, because of how significant and substantial it was, and because the FDA turned from, at least in principle, ally to adversary.
	It's all about what's Children's Health Defense about?
	Protecting kids' health.
	What's the best way to protect kids' health?
	Informed consent.
	Contrary to what one of the judges tried to say, the goal was not to keep children from having access to medicines.
	It was to assure their informed consent about those medicines.
	And so Judge Jones was on top of it and asked a lot of sincere and basic and straight...
	We had researched all three judges before I got up there.
	And Judge Douglas generally doesn't ask many questions or all arguments.
	But several of the decisions that I cite that tend to be pro-liberal organizations, but they were cases that she was part of.
	In other words, if she's going to take away Children's Health Defense standing to sue, she's going to be undermining voting rights organizations' authority to sue, discrimination rights organizations to sue.
	Does she really want to do that?
	Is there really a principled basis to do that?
	For Judge Jones, if we're going to have a consistent standard, Then CHD clearly has a more compelling case to standing than other ones that the Fifth Circuit has already granted standing to, as she herself acknowledged.
	And then with Judge Haynes, at least she was honest.
	She got right to the bottom of it, which was, she likes the, I mean, in my interpretation, many people's interpretation of her arguments, she likes the vaccine.
	And she was bothered by the idea that if we were successful, the vaccine might not be available for kids.
	Of course, that's only true if a federal court...
	Determined it wasn't safe, wasn't effective, and shouldn't be available for kids.
	So, as the point I pointed out, it's like, you really think the federal courts are going to do that unless it's absolutely the case that the kids shouldn't get it?
	Well, because that was the part where she says that to you, and you say, well, that would only be after we get to a hearing on the merits, whereas right now I'm even being denied that right to get to the point where the finding might be that it's, okay.
	So, you know, and I think that's your Roberts kind of...
	Jurisprudence is a deference to a lot of agencies in general.
	She's not as deferential as Roberts is, but it reflects a lot of your professional managerial class types as a class of people, lawyers, doctors, etc.
	Your post-college, master's degree type people were the most enthusiastic about this vaccine.
	Despite the mounting evidence that says otherwise.
	So we'll see what the court does.
	If we do not get a satisfactory ruling, we will be petitioning the Supreme Court because that would, in my view, create a conflict between the circuits on a critical issue of public policy concerning when an organization has standing.
	And as important, maybe more important, as I reminded the court, this is about extraordinary use of emergency powers and the position of the FDA.
	Is that if all they have to do is say, we use this in the name of our emergency powers, and under their position, nobody can ever review them, ever, for anything.
	And it's like, is that what we want to be at?
	We're four years into this so-called emergency for kids that never faced one from COVID to begin with.
	That's what you said.
	It's like, when does the emergency end?
	And what is the evidence of the existence of an emergency requiring this for six months and up?
	How long do they have to render a decision?
	It varies.
	So anywhere from you could get a decision as quickly as a month, it could take up to a year.
	So it depends on what's happened behind the process.
	But what was interesting is the same week, another federal judge in the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo issued a major decision that supported, substantially supported our position, which is about how this was a coercion campaign by the government to try to force this vaccine on people.
	That the CDC and subdivision of the FDA was supposed to be gathering through a program called V-safe mandated by Congress, just like VAERS.
	They asked people to send in text to give them details.
	So the v-safe program is much more, not what's the word, it's not much more extensive.
	It's much more thorough, much more detailed because they do like daily testing or you texting your symptoms or how you're feeling, good or bad, daily and then weekly and then over the course of months.
	They took your text number, they would send you notifications, and this was intended to follow to track people's responses to the jibby jab.
	So it's a little different than VAERS, which is VAERS is only reported in the event of an adverse event.
	This was just tracking 7.8 million people, right?
	Give or take.
	Yeah, 7.8 million texts.
	And what was extraordinary, for example, that had already come out in the Informed Consent Action Network's lawsuit brought by Del Bigtree and Aaron Seary concerning the VAERS data.
	Was that a bunch of that VAERS data had been improperly...
	What was happening, CDC is getting all this information, and they're selectively giving pieces of it to their preferred scholars who are printing bogus studies based on it.
	And they don't want the whole world to see the actual data.
	Because when they got a sneak peek at the VAERS data, what was being published was it was less than 1% adverse events.
	In fact, the adverse events was over 25% of people were reporting adverse events.
	Adverse events to the degree that they were saying they were disabled from work for a period of time, for example.
	That's the kind of thing that qualifies as adverse events.
	Not just, my arm is sore, I feel a little sick today.
	It's, I couldn't function for a week.
	So the, well, apparently the texts are much more damning.
	Because if they were favorable, they would have made these easily accessible.
	So they...
	It's a government program, and then a petitioner, I don't know, it's an activist organization.
	It's doctors that are concerned about how safe and effective the vaccine actually is.
	And they just want the data that they've been collecting through whatever this mandated V-safe system is.
	And they say no.
	They just stonewall them all along the way.
	And ultimately...
	They got, they succeeded on their motion to compel documents.
	But Robert, it's funny, you mentioned it, like, you know, VAERS or the CDC, whoever, they released data piecemeal and most favorable data.
	Under this decision, if I just bring up, it's going to take a year regardless.
	Hold on, window.
	I think it's this one right here.
	It's going to take them a year to release all of the text messages here, 780,000 per month.
	They basically have to start doing it in pieces starting next month.
	Originally, by the way, this is FOIA.
	This is a great case for understanding the whole FOIA process using a Freedom of Information Act.
	Here, they can't claim you don't have standing.
	It's one of the great tools of FOIA.
	The courts haven't tried to intervene because Congress has made clear you absolutely have the right to sue for this information.
	This is your statutory rights.
	But the key here is that they said, you know what, there's some private information in there, so we're not going to give you any of it.
	Even though they admit...
	Over 90% of the text has no private information in it.
	And the judge is like, why aren't you disclosing that?
	And they're like, oh, it's so time-consuming.
	It's like, that's not that time-consuming.
	You just turn it over.
	They got 13 employees working with them.
	But, Robert, you jokingly or, I guess, cynically observed how they released the favorable data.
	They're going to release these month over month, and within a year, they'll get them all.
	Is there a risk that they just release the non-incriminating, non-damning text messages?
	We'll see.
	The way it's supposed to be done is almost kind of random.
	We'll see if they try to algorithmically manipulate.
	But I don't know how much it would help them because within a year they have to turn everything over anyway.
	And what's going to come out of this is there have been far more reports of far more injuries than anybody knows to the CDC.
	That the CDC has been hiding the same kind of things that Pfizer hit and the FDA hit.
	And it's the main reason they don't want Children's Health Defense to get to discovery.
	Because Children's Health Defense would be entitled to all of this same information, but more pertinent as to children.
	And my guess is what we will find is that, I mean, the level, the expected level of complaints and adverse events was one one hundredth of what we already know.
	My guess is it's even worse than we even could anticipate.
	Brett Weinstein was on with Tucker Carlson saying that he has reason to believe there's as many as 17 million deaths globally from the vaccine, not even reaching disabilities, not even reaching long-term deaths that are yet to happen, but because of myocarditis.
	As Dr. Peter McCullough has talked about and discussed in multiple public hearings, is skyrocketing at a rate we've never seen.
	Excess deaths, as Edward Dowd, who we interviewed, still not explained in any of the available data.
	And there's a correlation between those excess deaths and those deaths more than expected, and when the vaccine was rolled out.
	And then on top of all of that, you have these medical conditions where the death's going to show up 5 years, 10 years, 15 years from now.
	I have a client whose father in Canada apparently got Guillain-Barre syndrome from the vaccine.
	And then the hospital, by the way, apparently it's a hospital that serves a lot of Jewish people.
	I guess it's a Jewish hospital, so to speak, in Montreal, has apparently been trying to cover this up and give people secret payments so that they don't go public with how disastrous the vaccine rollout has been in Canada.
	So there's this massive, and that's what I finished my CHD presentation with, the CHD versus FDA before the Fifth Circuit, was to remember that, you know, go back to the 1970s when we had a public health disaster.
	Do we want to be here five years, ten years from now and saying, golly gee, I wish we would have done something a little sooner?
	That's what's being revealed.
	More and more data is showing the vaccine is not safe, not effective.
	It's not even a vaccine.
	It doesn't immunize or inoculate.
	One of our CHD claims against FDA was the illegal redefinition of that word without notice and comment opportunity and without any scientific foundation or basis to mislead the American people who think it inoculates, who think it immunizes when it doesn't.
	As Pfizer admitted, they didn't even really test for it effectively.
	That's what Brooke Jackson's case is all about, pending before the Eastern District of Texas currently, is the lies that Pfizer told to get that vaccine.
	I think what we're going to find is more and more damning evidence of the greatest public health scandal in the history of this country.
	And the only question is, will our courts allow us to have a meaningful hearing or trial on it or not?
	I'm going to pull up that OpenVerse again.
	OpenVerse is, from what I understand, it's a website that basically automatically tabulates the claims that have been made through Verse because Verse is unusable to somebody who doesn't know how to use it.
	And I think this is up to date.
	I'm just going to see it.
	Through November 3rd, 2023, you had adverse events reported, 2.5 million, nearly 37,000 reported deaths.
	They are not confirmed.
	How they could even investigate 37,000 claims of death?
	And we have evidence, you know, my colleague Warner Mendenhall in the Brooke Jackson case is bringing cases on behalf of hospital whistleblowers where they were told not to do the VAERS reporting.
	So we have reason to believe there's been systematic underreporting of VAERS data, not overreporting, and that historically would match.
	On average, VAERS only reports 10% or less of the deaths or disabilities that occurs when they've done studies about comparable circumstances.
	So you're probably looking at closer to 370 to 400,000 people who died in a vaccine just in the United States just in the last two years.
	And there's going to be many more.
	And again, look at Edward Dowd's disability data that he continues to track from insurance companies that shows that the disability rate is rising in a rate that can't be explained by anything more compellingly or persuasively than the vaccine is the cause of it.
	And so this happened because we didn't hold public health agencies to account, because our courts ran and hit.
	Credit to organizations like Children's Health Defense, who took the lead.
	Taking on difficult cases, taking on novel circumstances, taking on a lot of political opposition.
	And as I pointed out in the FDA case, the FDA directly censored Children's Health Defense when they tried to tell people the truth.
	They removed them from Instagram.
	They removed them from Facebook.
	They suppressed their reach to their own members.
	They tried to cut off their ability to raise funds.
	And then they ran libel campaigns against the founder of Children's Health Defense, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	So, you know, this was coordinated in an effort to cover up the greatest public health scandal maybe in the history of public health agencies ever.
	It's amazing because last I recall, I think 600 million, give or take, doses were administered in the U.S. You just divide that based on the number of claims and you get one for every 250 doses, give or take.
	You have a death, assuming that...
	Not correlated, hasn't been proven.
	I don't know how you can investigate 37,000 deaths.
	One per 17,500 deaths reported based on the numbers.
	It's absolutely abhorrent.
	People like Richard Barris, a people's pundit daily, he'll have a Monday live show, I believe, during the Iowa caucuses.
	His polling data was reporting this very early, that one out of 20 people were reporting disabling injuries, severe adverse events.
	From the vaccine within six months of its rollout.
	And all of us know people in our personal world.
	Just think about your personal world.
	How many people do you know within six degrees of separation that have suffered disability or death from the COVID?
	Versus disability or death from the vaccine.
	Everybody knows more people that have suffered disability or death from the vaccine than COVID.
	One of the six doctors I was debating with got myocarditis from his first shot according to his own admission, which was a very, very big one to make.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	Okay, there will be a judgment day of sorts, but...
	We'll see where it comes.
	When they start...
	Self-defense for continuing to fight the good fight, and credit to all the people out there who continue to do so.
	And the one in five of you out there who are above average, like the members of the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com board, who never got vaccinated, you're feeling pretty good about that decision, despite all the crap you had to go through in the interim.
	All right, Robert, what do we move on to now?
	Oh, just briefly, Attorney General Paxton brought suit against Pfizer for its misleading information, misinformation to the people of the state of Texas.
	And immediately, Pfizer removed the case to federal court and are claiming they have special immunity from the federal government.
	But they didn't transfer to the Eastern District of Texas, where a case is currently pending concerning them.
	I wonder why.
	Maybe they didn't want to see that combination in front of the same federal court.
	So the federal court would have to confront what they're really up to.
	By the way, we're over 20,000 on Rumble.
	21,000, I missed the 20,000 marker.
	Drop a comment and hit the thumbs up.
	Not that it makes much of a difference.
	The question I was going to ask you, Robert, why hasn't there been a class action lawsuit against Pfizer for false representations to artificially inflate the value of the stock?
	Oh, I think that may be coming.
	So there have been some of us that have been, you know, anybody out there that feels that they were lost value in the stock.
	Because of Pfizer's material misrepresentations, or the same with Moderna, I believe have a class action basis to sue under the SEC laws.
	I think that will at some point happen.
	And we're all looking at ways to bring claims for relief or remedy through either the judicial process or legislative process for those that have been injured by this.
	I mean, Brooke Jackson has said that if we are successful in her case, That the amount of damages awarded on behalf of the taxpayers that go to her, whatever portion that is, she's going to put aside entirely for the victims of the injured.
	Look at this.
	But it's terrifying that that remedy isn't easily available right now.
	I'm just looking at this now.
	Say February, March was when he said 100% effective.
	And then within a year, bam!
	You go from, what are we at, 35 to...
	50, nearly 60, and where are we at today?
	Oh, 28. Maybe because you made false representations as to the efficacy and effectiveness of your major and only product at the time, and now people are left holding a bag of shit.
	It's a credit to all the people in the court of public opinion.
	I sometimes get pushed back on that and say, you know, the doomers tell me that it doesn't matter, that it doesn't impact things.
	That's wrong.
	Is Brooke Jackson's case uphill?
	Sure.
	Is Children's Health Defense case uphill?
	Sure.
	Some of our vaccine mandate lawsuits on religious harassment grounds, are we running into hurdles or Nuremberg grounds?
	Yes.
	Do we have judicial hostility we have to overcome?
	Yes.
	But the net effect of all of these claims and the public discussion of these claims and the public discussion in general of the issues revealed in those has led to a dramatic decline in the uptake and use of the COVID vaccine, particularly amongst young children.
	And in my view, the actions of people like Brooke Jackson, no matter what the judges, whether they do their job or they don't do their job, whichever is the case, the court of public opinion has reached enough people to save millions and millions of lives.
	And the fact that Pfizer's stock has dropped in half is just an added bonus.
	And I hope they get sued for it and they get bankrupted because they're the biggest criminal drug dealer in the world.
	And their executives belong behind bars.
	Clawback from the veterinarian who, for the first time ever, they say MRNA.
	I'm very skeptical, but they're very convincing.
	And I'm a vet, and trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
	I feel like Adam Sandler actually doing the goat.
	Okay.
	Is that it?
	That's it on the vaccine stuff?
	That is.
	Now we've got the big cases that, you know, we talked about some of these cases might reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
	We got some big additional cases now before the Supreme Court that are going to shape the future of your rights to defend yourself, your rights against the administrative state, and your rights to keep your property from various scams and schemes local governments get to try to steal it from you.
	Well, before we even do that, I'm using the shot glass, but look at this, people.
	Did anyone see this?
	This is on, it made it onto the Florida Man website on Facebook.
	How it started, that's me in Quebec.
	How it's going, that's me in Florida.
	All right, let's do, I guess we could do, let's do the Second Amendment case.
	This is a, he was a post office employee, correct?
	Exactly, he was a worker.
	A worker carrying a gun at his place of business, arrested, apparently resisted arrest, so he's got two charges, one of which, One of which he succeeded on.
	I don't know what they're going to do with the resisting arrest, but basically told he can't bring a gun into the post office.
	I guess resisted arrest, was arrested, and yet I took it up to the...
	That was a Supreme Court decision?
	No, that was a federal district court decision.
	Okay, sorry.
	But it's one that, along with all these other Second Amendment cases, probably they're going to have to hear another one because of all the split decisions by various judges trying to find ways to escape the reach of Bruin.
	And then those judges properly applying it, enraging governments who probably will appeal their rulings to it.
	And so we've talked about Bruin, and then we've talked about how the states are going to do whatever the hell they want.
	You know, Joe Biden saying, we're just not going to follow the decision, because why would we?
	Separation of powers.
	The rationale, the reasoning in this was to overturn the charge on...
	The possessing a gun in a post office.
	He's being criminally prosecuted, trying to put him in prison for this.
	And they go through the historical analysis, and they say, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, this would not have been a location where one would be expected not to bring a firearm.
	And they basically overturned that charge, but I think they've left the resisting arrest charge for adjudication.
	I've asked you this before, but...
	Enlighten the Canadian schnook.
	Why would a post office not be a protected area but a school would be?
	How did that work back in the day?
	Historically, the only protected areas were school playgrounds at various times, but not always.
	It used to bring your gun to school pretty commonly until the 1950s, 1960s.
	There's only three areas where there were any state laws.
	Limit at the time of the founding or at the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, which applies these laws to the states, that limited gun possession.
	That was courthouses, legislatures, and the polling places.
	That was it.
	And the concern was in those contexts, worry about intimidation.
	So that was it.
	And those are the only places.
	And by the way, that was not the majority of laws.
	Most states had no such legal restrictions.
	And several states required you to bring a gun to the courthouse, required you to bring a gun to the polling place, required you to bring a gun to public places as a means of enshrining safety.
	Because they recognized, just look at our school shooting epidemics.
	That when we had guns in schools, when people brought guns to schools, we didn't have school shooting epidemics.
	It's when there's not there.
	Wherever there's a gun-free zone is where typically there's a mass shooting.
	Not in the places where they know folks are carrying, because they'll be dead before anybody else is.
	So the jokers of the world, they go to the places where there is nobody else carrying.
	What was extraordinary is what the Biden administration was attempting to do.
	And this goes to an old concern of what people would call the truth and taxation movement, their critics would call tax protesters, have long complained about, which is that the federal government is trying to claim that wherever they have jurisdiction, particularly territorial jurisdiction, such as on federal property, that almost magically the whole Constitution disappears.
	And the Biden administration took that position.
	They said you have no Second Amendment rights on any federal property anywhere.
	So all the federal government has to do is declare something their property and boom, Second Amendment gone, according to them.
	This court said that's not consistent to the Second Amendment.
	There's no exception for federal property in the Second Amendment.
	And in fact, these laws governing about not being able to take it on federal property, they didn't exist until 1964.
	They weren't passed in any regulatory form until 1972.
	There were no such restrictions until then.
	And again, as I noted, it used to be required that you carry a gun in those places as a means of enhancing security, individualizing law enforcement, if you will.
	Much of the Second Amendment was intended to strip the power of the state from a concentrated standing army or police force and give it instead to the ordinary individual.
	So this is a great ruling, not only because of the post office and the rest, but it's a great ruling because it blocks the Biden administration's attempt to carve out a huge exemption and exception to all of our constitutional liberties just by calling something federal property.
	But what's going to happen with his resisting arrest?
	I mean, if you break the law when you're being unlawfully persecuted, I guess...
	Historically, you can still be prosecuted for that.
	Isn't that something?
	He might still see jail time.
	Although, don't resist arrest.
	Look at that.
	It would have been a total victory.
	Get arrested, take it to court.
	Would have been 100% victory.
	But, Robert, what is the issue?
	Like, how much clear did it have to get after Bruin?
	And what are you going to do when the authorities come in?
	You've got courts in Illinois saying that it doesn't apply to machine guns, doesn't apply to assault weapons, doesn't apply to any public setting.
	I mean, the court's just utterly ignoring.
	The Bruin decision.
	So you have cases extending it logically and correctly, but to the outrage of liberals and anti-Second Amendment people.
	So they're going to be appealing those cases.
	And then you have liberal judges eviscerating it, ignoring it, repudiating it functionally.
	And the gun advocate, Second Amendment advocate folks are going to take that up to the Supreme Court.
	They're going to have to make a second ruling to hammer home that this is in fact, they meant what they said they meant.
	Before we get into Chevron, I realize I haven't done this all night yet.
	I accidentally refreshed, so I think I lost every Rumble rant before these four, and I'm sorry about that for whoever did it.
	Fleetlord Avatar says, for freak's sake, stop using an anti-American Google-manipulated deep state search.
	No, Fleetlord, if the deep state manipulated Google gives me favorable search results, well, then I know it's got to be even more true.
	But I do check from everywhere.
	But yes, Google is unfortunately the reflex.
	James Gartner says Vivek said he'd pardon or commute Ross Ulbricht.
	So that gets my vote.
	It's not just that he might do it.
	He said he would do it.
	And he's putting issues, ideas, causes out there that are good.
	That I think are contributing to the court of public opinion.
	He says, not that I trust any of them, government, yeah, but he's saying it, which is already risky enough.
	Imagine saying you're going to pardon the January 6th.
	DeSantis will contemplate it.
	Good for him.
	It's the right thing to contemplate.
	Vivek will do it.
	Or he says he'll do it, but saying it is still big.
	Ian Bridges.
	Hey, it's me again.
	Find out how many jabs they apply to each person for small blocks.
	It's less than two.
	Hey, you know what?
	It's funny.
	Even with my tetanus shot, it's one every ten years.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Third eternal truth.
	Winston did not shit himself.
	He didn't.
	No, there's no poop here.
	Touch wood.
	We got a clean office studio.
	All right.
	Chevron, Robert.
	So Chevron, it's funny.
	This is one of the decisions that I remember discovering through the vlog, which I'm bringing back, people.
	I do the car vlogs.
	They may not be as elaborately edited as before, but I shoot them off my iPhone, I edit them when I'm with the kids, and it's productive time.
	Chevron was the original deference to the administrative state.
	These administrative bodies that are federally created, they get to make their own rules, they get to interpret their own rules, and they get to apply their own rules, and everyone else is just left eating Proverbial government SHIT.
	And the case that's bringing this one to...
	This is the one that's going to the Supreme Court?
	Yes.
	Oh, yeah.
	The Supreme Court will have hearings on Wednesday on two major cases concerning the Chevron doctrine.
	One of which...
	I'm going to forget the other one, but one of which, because I find it particularly obnoxious, is this fisherman...
	The seas...
	They want to make sure that fishermen are fishing properly.
	And so they require by law that they have government officials on their boats while they're conducting their fishing operations to make sure that it's legit.
	And they're abiding by the law, yada, yada.
	The question is, who has to front those costs?
	Well, the federal government said the fishermen do.
	So we make our rules.
	We decide how we apply them.
	We interpret them.
	And we've just arbitrarily said, you're going to pay for us to regulate your industry.
	And the question is going to be, are they finally going to overturn Chevron?
	I don't know what the count is.
	I just know that Clarence Thomas, he's going to be my go-to for favorite Supreme Court justices.
	Not that I know all of them.
	But he gets it right on the big stuff, says it's time to overdo it.
	It's time to put away with the Chevron deference.
	It has resulted in excessive government overreach.
	What's the other case?
	What's the likelihood of this Chevron actually being struck down?
	Because it is a prior precedent.
	Yeah, it's what they should have done from the get-go.
	Helped remove the power of Chevron as it related to major questions in the EPA versus West Virginia case last year or the year before.
	But on everyday concerns of everyday people, they're still enforcing Chevron.
	And for those people who don't know, a 1984 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court said that agencies get to interpret the law and we, the courts, have to defer to them.
	And what that did...
	It allowed agencies to effectively supplant the legislative branch because they really started writing laws that the legislature never did, just interpreting its delegated authority to do so.
	And then they were acting as the judicial branch.
	This is the executive branch acting as the legislative and judicial branch by interpreting its application and enforcing it.
	And it's always been a disaster, but it unleashed the administrative state.
	And it's full, ugly panoply of powers that it currently employs to harass everybody from ordinary fishermen to any businessman trying to do anything to homeowners just trying to build on their own property.
	And it raises issues under the separation of powers.
	It raises issues under Article 3 and Article 1. And raises due process issues as well.
	So because what's happening is they're getting to a judge and legislate and enforce.
	They are jury, judge, and executioner, but they're also the legal writer at the same time.
	So the way they act, because they have these administrative proceedings, that is the other case pending before the Supreme Court about the SEC judges going AWOL.
	So this is about we need to gut the administrative state, and it's the one place Mitch McConnell's appointees had promise.
	A lot of other places they didn't, but gutting the administrative state because it happens to also align with serving the interest of corporate America, for the most part, not entirely.
	There's a bunch of companies that have filed amicus briefs in support of Chevron because they like the way it helps them screw the little fella.
	But as a whole, if you could gut their agency's ability to do anything other than what they are specifically and undisputably given the power to do, you gut the power of the administrative state or 70-75% of it.
	The rest of the way you take by taking away their paychecks.
	And, you know, just not paying them, period.
	Don't give them the money, then they don't have anything to do.
	Because if they're not getting paid, they tend not to do nothing.
	So it's critical.
	We'll hear what the oral arguments are.
	I think it's very promising.
	Professor John Eastman, the same one they're trying to disbar in California for simply raising constitutional defenses as to the president for an honest election, wrote a great brief on behalf of the Claremont Institute, educating on this precise issue, as well as on the takings issue.
	And so I think there's enough, there's a lot of, there's been building demand.
	Many of the, a majority of the justices have expressed skepticism about it.
	I have no doubts that Scalia, I'm not sorry, Scalia, Scalia, if he was on the bench, Alito, little Scalia, as he's sometimes called, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are forgetting it.
	And I think Kavanaugh will be too.
	The only question is, what happens with Roberts?
	What happens with Barrett?
	Those are the only two question marks on the court concerning Chevron.
	And we may get some cue or clue on that at the Wednesday oral arguments.
	Very cool.
	And what was the other one?
	It's even better, by the way, that it's for fishermen that might gut it.
	So God bless the fishermen.
	Jesus was one, as they said.
	Speaking of the other two big ones...
	Are the takings clause and the confrontation clause?
	Let me see the confrontation clause.
	I'm jogging my memory.
	I was doing all of this this afternoon.
	Confrontation clause.
	Okay.
	It was admitting an expert report in the context of a case where the expert who was testifying was testifying on the expertise or, I don't know, was testifying on the expert report of another expert who was not testifying and who would not testify in this trial.
	I'm forgetting the context.
	I'm not sure.
	It's a criminal case.
	It was a criminal case, but hold on.
	Oh, it was about whether or not it was marijuana or methamphetamine.
	Okay, I love it.
	The wheels sometimes get a little rusty.
	So this guy gets arrested for drug possession, charged that he's possessing marijuana and methamphetamine.
	The issue is whether or not he possessed marijuana and methamphetamine.
	And so during the trial, you'll correct me, Robert, if I get it wrong a little bit, there's one expert testifying on a report that...
	is being produced by another expert who's not testifying, which basically is the foregone conclusion it was methamphetamine, it was marijuana, and therefore the guy's guilty.
	And the guy says, look, you can't admit an expert from someone who doesn't testify on their own report.
	What you basically have is presupposing the conclusions instead of proving them.
	And I forget how it ended.
	How did it end in this case?
	So they just did the oral argument last week.
	And the justices were sympathetic to the position of the defendant, which is correct.
	So under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, one of the critical rights that prohibits us from recreating the Star Chamber is your right to confront your accusers.
	That is where the confrontation clause comes from.
	That right, which some lawyers sometimes forget, trumps the hearsay rule.
	So people might say, oh, that's such and such as an exception to hearsay.
	It's not an exception to the confrontation clause.
	So you have a right to confront your accuser.
	So if you're going to admit somebody else's statement in court, in a criminal case, that frankly, in my opinion, should never happen under the confrontation clause.
	Period.
	And so if it's being used against a criminal defendant.
	And there's been effectively a forensic analyst exception to the confrontation clause by the lower courts.
	And the reason for this is quite simple.
	The original analyst often is not an effective witness and also may have made major areas of bias or made major screw-ups.
	The jurors think, I'll never forget, like O.J. Casey said, look at all the blood evidence.
	As if the words blood and evidence magically, miraculously make it reliable and trustworthy.
	Was this the blood that they put on OJ's sock?
	Exactly.
	But people get so caught.
	Jurors of law, a professional scientist said 99.8% certain it was so-and-so.
	One out of all four criminal convictions set aside in the United States on behalf of people later proven to be innocent were convicted based solely on forensic expert evidence.
	That's how bad that evidence is.
	It's been notorious.
	These labs are corrupt.
	These labs are filled with incompetent people.
	And consequently all kinds of innocent people have been railroaded under the guise of science.
	And it needs to be confronted.
	The National Academy of Criminal Defense lawyers and others filed very effective amicus briefs documenting all the problems and all the cross-examination that should happen that would expose those problems.
	And as the Supreme Court said, cross-examination has been one of the most critical means of ascertaining truth that we've ever had.
	So I think they will correctly rule that...
	The other reason here is sometimes the witness is just not effective.
	So a lot of your government agencies...
	They have professional witnesses.
	So the IRS all the time, in my cases, they bring in somebody who's likable, approachable, and easy to communicate with.
	99% of IRS employees don't fit any of those three categories.
	So the government hires professional witnesses to be their custodian of records and basically narrate their case, but in a nice, likable, persuadable way.
	I've used that against the government on occasion, and they start to reverse their approach.
	Famously in the Snipes case, made the guy introduce all of my favorable evidence through his testimony using Rule 106, the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule of Completeness.
	But putting that aside, so this is a scam that prosecutors run all the time, and it looks like finally the Supreme Court's going to put an end to it.
	If you're the one who analyzed it, you're the one who's got to testify.
	End of story.
	I thought, like, that's a rule of civil procedure in Quebec where, you know, you don't get to admit an expert report without the expert testifying on their own report, cross-examined on their own report, which I thought was the procedural, you know, question in this, maybe the hiccup.
	No, it's just they created an exception because they wanted to railroad criminal defendants.
	It's that simple.
	All right.
	Unbelievable.
	Okay, so that was the confrontation.
	And the last one is, speaking of taking away, and when they're not busy taking away your liberties, they're busy trying to take away your property.
	This had to do with...
	Oh, it was a tax fee for building a property and they charge you for diverting traffic.
	It wasn't a tax fee.
	It was a traffic fee.
	Robert, it is just amazing.
	I can't read all the decisions or the pleadings.
	This is a dude who's doing construction on his own property and they assess him a levy for the disruption to traffic as per the construction that he wants to do.
	They make him pay $23...
	There was absolutely no connection to traffic.
	The guy's just building on his property.
	And they just want to steal some money from the guy.
	So they call it a traffic impact fee.
	A traffic impact fee of $23,000, which he pays.
	$23,000!
	$23,000!
	You're building something on your own home!
	No impact.
	No impact on traffic.
	Is that an accepted fact that it has no impact on traffic?
	In this case, it is, yes.
	Every now and again, they build Tim Hortons in Canada.
	Some of them get so popular that they create backlog, and if you do it near a highway, it can obviously be dangerous.
	So you have to build back roads so that the overflow for the drive-thru doesn't get in the way of traffic.
	Not the case in this particular case.
	They levy a $23,000...
	What do they call it?
	It's not a tax.
	It's a...
	What is it?
	An imposition.
	And he says this is bullcrap.
	I know there's a broader import of this decision.
	What is the broader import?
	So what happened is the Supreme Court, when they got intimidated by Roosevelt in the 1930s, decided to eviscerate all a lot of their contract clause and takings clause jurisprudence and tax law jurisprudence and capitulate to the administrative state.
	And basically, what the law says, you can't take away somebody's property or liberty without due process of law.
	And it says you can't take away somebody's property without just compensation.
	That's the takings clause, for example.
	Demanding $23,000 from somebody is not just compensation to you.
	And it's taking your property without due process of law when it has no tie or connection to anything other than just they want to take your money from you.
	And the problem is the courts have used these broad language to say that if it's for the public good, that you don't really have a property interest unless it's a reasonable investment-backed expectation that is balanced against that public good.
	And it was the court spent basically about a half a century ratifying and rationalizing the deep state and only having judges step in when they didn't in the administrative state when the judges did.
	Dislike the direction of that particular policy rather than the problem of the administrative state itself.
	And so, again, Eastman filed a good meekish brief on the subject.
	Others did.
	Property is essential to liberty.
	You don't have liberty if you don't have property.
	If you don't have the means to protect your property, what liberty do you really have?
	It's like saying, oh, you have free speech.
	You just can't use a megaphone.
	You can't speak at a platform.
	You can't talk to this audience.
	You can't reach this, you know, so on and so forth.
	Sooner or later, you're just talking to yourself.
	That's not what right to free speech means.
	It also means the right to listen, for example.
	The same with the right to petition.
	What does the right to petition mean if the government doesn't have to answer it or respond to it or meaningfully deal with it?
	I mean, according to our founders, that was the great offense that led to the Declaration of Independence.
	Just read it.
	In the words, it was written in.
	What happened is the local and state governments saw a huge loophole.
	We'll just call it traffic impact.
	We'll call it permitting.
	So they did this with a lot of zoning laws, where all of a sudden, to do things on your own property, you have to get their permission.
	We kind of realized it's Amos Miller's case.
	He was making food on his own farm, and somehow the government says he can't keep that food, use that food.
	Eat that food or do anything with that food until he gets our permission.
	This is the dangers of where this goes.
	The IRS famously in the 1930s before Congress said they wanted to tax people for cooking their own food because you have to exercise human labor to do things.
	They wanted to call that a taxable event.
	That's how nuts these people are if you give them this power.
	So this goes to the core of misusing and abusing licensure powers, permission powers, permit powers, impact fees, and all this garbage that has been eviscerating people's rights to their property and their liberty.
	And there's also something called the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.
	So even if the government doesn't have to give you something, if they say we'll only give it to you if you forego another constitutional right, that is itself a constitutional violation.
	And so here, I think, here their point was, at a minimum, when there's no proportionality, in other words, here, the public good is supposedly traffic impact that has nothing to do with the fee that's being charged as a condition of the permit.
	Second, that's an unconstitutional condition to waive your right to use the property as you see fit, and particularly to have property taken from you without just compensation.
	Connected to this.
	If you want your permit, you have to forfeit your other constitutional rights.
	But more fundamentally, as Eastman points out, we need to reinvigorate the entire right to property.
	We need to return it to its roots and origin and limit the state.
	The state can't just go take whatever they want without just compensation.
	They can't take what they want without due process of law.
	And these exactions and permit fees and disguise taxes and misuse and abuse of this power for so long by the government needs to stop.
	And it sounded like from the Supreme Court that they are inclined to do something about stopping it.
	All of these decisions have to be in by June of this year, so it's going to be five months of awesomeness.
	Oh, yes.
	All right.
	Do we move on to...
	Okay, we're going to do...
	Well, speaking of a case that's heading to the Supreme Court, Texas versus Biden immigration.
	Texas?
	Now, which one is this?
	Is this the one where the Biden administration is preventing Texas from enforcing, expelling illegal immigrants?
	From passing their own laws, enforcing federal law.
	Now, I understand.
	First of all, when the hell did immigration or illegal immigration or enforcing laws as it relates to illegal immigrants, when was it given to the federal government?
	Well, it depends on who you choose to define that.
	So in the Constitution, the federal government has the power to control relations with foreign nations and commerce with foreign nations, the Foreign Commerce Clause.
	It also has the right to determine and is supposed to, by obligation, establish a rule for naturalization for those people who are not born in the United States when they can become citizens of the United States and be legally admitted to it.
	It wasn't until 2012 that that was interpreted to mean that no local or state government can enforce immigration law.
	that in fact they have to suffer invasions into perpetuity of illegals into their nation.
	What Texas is doing is they're clearly setting up a legal case for the Supreme Court to re-evaluate, under the current conditions, their precedent in Arizona versus the United States.
	Because the five judges that signed on to that...
	Only two of them of the five are still there, Sotomayor and Roberts.
	Shock, shock that Roberts was the key judge to let that nonsense go through.
	What they said in Arizona versus the United States was that Arizona had no right to enforce federal immigration law.
	They couldn't pass their own laws making it a crime.
	They couldn't have their own people enforce the law.
	They couldn't come up with new alternative ways to support it.
	That the argument was that the Foreign Commerce Clause and Foreign Relations Clause and Naturalization Clause preempted all state law, even state law that's actually in conformity with rather than in contradiction to federal law on the topic.
	Because again, these were not new immigration laws.
	These were state laws enforcing federal law.
	But Kennedy was key to that.
	Breyer was key to that.
	Ginsburg was key to that.
	All three are gone.
	Thomas dissented.
	Alito partially dissented.
	He should have fully dissented.
	Of course, Scalia dissented, but Scalia's no longer present.
	So the thought process is, if you could add now Gorsuch to Thomas and get Alito to reconsider the wisdom of that decision, part of how he split his verdict in that case, and then maybe Barrett, maybe Kavanaugh will go a different direction.
	On the grounds that now we're seeing the political fallout for not allowing local government and state governments from protecting their own borders from a lawless federal government that is by systematic policy, according to Stephen Miller, the American First Legal Organization, is, according to FOIA and other information they're getting, is actually deliberate policy by this administration.
	To completely ignore and not enforce immigration laws and the aims that it will help them politically and help them demographically and help their allies with access to cheap labor as well.
	And so the state of Texas is being invaded.
	The state of Arizona is being invaded.
	The United States is being invaded with a massive wave of illegal immigrants coming through human smuggling by cartels, not knowing who's there, not knowing...
	Who may have bad motivations or incentives to be there.
	You don't have to watch Sicario film, Sicario 2, to recognize the risk of all this.
	That sooner or later, terrorism is going to come across that border.
	Not just your ordinary litany of criminals that come across that border.
	But right now, because of Arizona's decision, Texas has no chance to win before the District Court or the Fifth Circuit.
	A lot of people that have talked to me about immigration are like, why does a state do this or that?
	And I'm like, Arizona tried.
	The Supreme Court ended that.
	That's why no state has been able to enforce federal immigration laws because of the Supreme Court of the United States.
	But this case is clearly set up.
	Get off the internet!
	This case is clearly established in order to get the Supreme Court to reconsider given now what we're facing.
	I don't know.
	I seem to be glitching out because I think too many people in this house are on the interwebs right now.
	I don't know what's going on.
	But Robert.
	Okay, so deportation, I understand, might be a federal issue.
	What would preclude a state from locking up illegal immigrants who have violated the law?
	They consider all of it.
	They consider removal proceedings to be federally governed.
	They consider employment decisions to be federally governed.
	Arrest decisions to be federally.
	What they determined was that if it concerns illegal immigration, you can't do anything at the state level.
	It's unbelievable.
	I don't use the word sedition or treasonous.
	But when does this become an impeachable offense for a president?
	Well, it's definitely already an impeachable offense if the evidence Stephen Miller's gathering is accurate that this is deliberate, informed policy of the government to allow mass illegal invasion.
	It's the kind of thing there shouldn't be presidential immunity for.
	But we should go through the impeachment clause, and that's a good bridge to the case that was before the D.C. Court of Appeals this week, presidential immunity in the context of President Trump.
	And the irony is the question that the media misrepresented to the world as destroying the Trump case actually damns the Biden administration.
	That damns Barack Hussein Obama.
	Dams Bill Clinton.
	Because those are people that have actually ordered their political rivals killed or imprisoned, as Biden is trying to currently do.
	Well, we're going to get to Gonzalo Lira in a second.
	The immunity case, Robert, hold on.
	I thought I covered this last week, and I think I did.
	It's the Trump immunity as to whether the scope and extent of presidential immunity for acts of alleged crimes while committed in office.
	We know your theory.
	Sorry, but so what happened last week?
	So this week was the appellate argument before the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	Okay.
	And in the oral argument, the judge said, if President Trump ordered Seal 6 to assassinate his political rival, are you saying he still has immunity?
	And that was the headline.
	His lawyers say he could shoot someone and still have immunity.
	Which, in fact, is not what his lawyers said.
	What his lawyers said is they made my precise argument.
	That's what impeachment is for.
	He can be impeached.
	He can be convicted.
	Then he can be prosecuted.
	In those circumstances, the question is about power.
	And Trump's lawyer refused to take the bait of the judge.
	I might have gone further.
	And said, does the court believe that under that logic, President Biden should be locked up now because he's using his Justice Department right now to imprison and potentially kill his political opponent?
	Now, hold on.
	You did say Obama did it.
	I know that Obama had the...
	Obama drone-bombed his political opponent overseas.
	And the 16-year-old kid, right?
	Joe Biden helped assassinate the Gonzalo Lyra in Ukraine.
	Who's a notable political opponent of the Biden administration.
	If Judge Pan thinks there shouldn't be immunity for ordering the imprisonment or execution of your political enemy, most judges then are not immune, are they?
	Because what do they do every single day in America but lock up people that they're politically opposed to?
	Or the death penalty of those they're politically opposed to.
	I just want to make sure on the Obama.
	Now, we all know that he drone strike killed a 16-year-old American citizen.
	American citizen who was, wouldn't you call him, political opponent?
	She didn't say the guy running against him because that would be mostly analogous to what Biden is trying to do to Trump.
	So it was a ludicrous argument celebrated by the media.
	Credit to the Trump team.
	Now, it's a biased panel.
	You're not going to get any...
	Justice from the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	So I think it's bound for the Supreme Court.
	I think the Supreme Court will ultimately take it because of its consequence.
	And once they do, that's going to delay the trial until after the election in D.C. anyway.
	But I think you'll see just how bad our courts are by their very selective rendition of immunity of who they give it to and who they don't.
	Because, again, if you're doing it in the capacity as president, that ends the story.
	And if doing something illegal removed it from immunity, then you don't have immunity.
	And unlike a lot of immunity, there's good grounds for presidential immunity.
	It's to prevent a person from being subject to random criminal prosecutions of the criminal prosecutorial power of any random schmuck anywhere in the country.
	Like we're seeing right now with Big Fanny Willis coming out of Georgia.
	By the way, perfect segue.
	We can segue?
	Yeah.
	Big Fannie Willis.
	Robert, I need to know the law.
	I mean, okay, so I read and I try to understand and I listen to other good legal minds like Robert Gouveia.
	So Big Fannie Willis, coming out of Georgia, who's indicted Trump.
	I got to get clear on the, this is the RICO charges.
	She apparently hired external independent counsel to prosecute the case.
	A dude named Nathan Wade.
	Who she happens to be boning or he happens to be boning her.
	I don't know which way it goes.
	It's so gross.
	I just had a very, very bad vision.
	They happen to be having an affair together.
	Nathan Wade gets divorced from his wife or files papers.
	That's not a good vision to begin with.
	You didn't need to add to it.
	So, Nathan Wade happens to be allegedly, allegedly boning Fanny Willis.
	They...
	He divorces from his wife the day after he signs the contract or enters into the contract with Fannie Willis, who hires him as independent counsel.
	Pays him upwards of a million dollars in a year.
	The dude bills out $250 an hour.
	No competence to be prosecuting this case.
	Billing 24 hours in a day sometimes, based on the evidence.
	And I'll steel man it.
	Yeah, I'm sure he's going to say, oh, that was 24 hours over the course of three days, even though I didn't indicate it.
	Whatever.
	There's ethics and rules of external counsel, how you allocate state funds to hire external counsel.
	Apparently, Fannie Willis bypassed all of it, hired her boyfriend or the dude that she's having an affair with, pays him upwards of a million dollars.
	Wasn't he married at the time as well?
	He was married at the time.
	And apparently, you know, he gets paid upwards of a million bucks in the year, billing 250 bucks an hour for however many hours, billing to meet with the White House to coordinate or whatever.
	Takes her on vacation and said, there's so many things here.
	Ethics, Georgia.
	Whether or not she violated the law to prosecute, persecute a political rival.
	The validity, the ethics of meeting and coordinating with White House counsel when they said they never met with any of these state prosecutors.
	Robert, make it make sense.
	You see how that game worked?
	It was a Clinton-esque answer.
	It turned out she hired an independent counsel to have prosecutorial power who's not himself a state employee to coordinate the attack on Trump so he could meet with the Biden administration and the Biden administration could have plausible deniability that they never met with a state official.
	Now, of course, because these people always do it in writing and never in cash when it's supposed to be the other way around, he billed for it.
	I think he billed the state, not only 24 hours in a day, I think he billed the state for banging her.
	Maybe he's entitled to that.
	Maybe that was really some of the most burdensome, difficult tasks that he had.
	Well, first of all, if he lasts eight hours, good for him.
	I mean, I don't know how that works.
	It doesn't matter.
	Yeah, he billed the state for meeting with the White House counsel twice.
	I think it was $6,000 or $8,000, whatever.
	The 24 hours in a day.
	I've heard some people...
	This is fraudulent billing.
	This is defraud on the state.
	This is fraud on the courts.
	This is fraud on the people of Georgia.
	All coming out because his wife's not happy and she's outing this.
	Robert, some of the media, the MSM is trying to spin it as, how much credibility do you give to a disgruntled wife?
	Dude, I've seen the freaking invoices.
	It doesn't make sense.
	It's the billing records.
	It's writing, writing.
	The dude didn't hide it.
	And she's up in front of a...
	Black church preaching about how black women should just get an exception.
	I mean, it's the worst of diversity, equity, inclusion.
	The only thing that's worse is when you have diversity, equity, and inclusion building your plane for you.
	Then you're really screwed.
	What can happen?
	They're arguing that she's RICOing in the very same sense that she's pursuing this.
	What happens?
	So they find an ethics violation maybe.
	Because this has nothing to do with Trump.
	This is Georgia ethics laws about hiring external counsels.
	Well, how bad does that dimwit governor in Georgia look like?
	Who has stood aside and done nothing about this case, done nothing to interfere with it or impair it, or say this case is a completely lawless rogue action by a state employee.
	Instead, he kind of winked at it, supported it, imagined himself as a future governor, a future president.
	You could tell this was a corrupt political hack.
	These are people that do not look good as the light.
	It's like watching a monkey climb a tree.
	It doesn't get prettier as you see these folks up close and personal.
	And that's what you're seeing here.
	The New York prosecutor, hopelessly corrupt.
	D.C. judge and a disgrace.
	The judge in the civil case in New York, complete embarrassment.
	The prosecutor, Jack Smith, rogue, lawless actor.
	We have a corrupt prosecutor in Atlanta, and you could tell she was corrupt.
	Everything about her screamed corruption.
	I just wanted to highlight, it's Jack Smith.
	We've entered the matrix so much that we have Agent Smith prosecuting the proverbial Neo.
	It's fantastic.
	We'll follow it, because first of all, Gouveia does live streams every night, going over it in detail.
	These court filings.
	He's amazing.
	And he makes it entertaining to read the most boring bullshit you can possibly imagine.
	I'll be following it.
	I'll do the car vlogs on it.
	But this is absolute insanity.
	The collusion, the corruption, the election interference, the RICO, everyone conspiring to break the law.
	It's becoming ever more apparent.
	And if you don't see it, you're probably a demented old...
	Leon fucking Cotter.
	What's happening is, as we said from the beginning, the justice system is going to be on trial here, and it's increasingly proven to be guilty and not up to its constitutional obligation and being exposed to the world as a bunch of corrupt political partisan hacks that, honestly, they've often always been.
	They just usually take it out on the little fellow.
	They don't take it out on someone like Trump.
	But, you know, speaking of how wokeism has fallen off its rails, You see, example, the FAA is running around and Boeing is running around talking about how diverse their hires are going to be.
	Not going to hire on competence anymore.
	Going to hire on whether you check a box right.
	And that's how you hop on an Alaska Airlines plane and the shore just flies off halfway in.
	So, Robert, it's a class action lawsuit for the victims of this.
	It's a disaster.
	God...
	But for the grace of God, nobody died, right?
	The people had injuries.
	If that door had gone off, had blown off a little bit higher up, probably dead.
	And we'd probably be in the middle of a cover-up because we wouldn't know exactly what happened.
	They would have suppressed everything.
	I don't know if it'd be like Ron Brown where they never discovered the black box.
	Just can't find it.
	Golly gee.
	I mean, all you had to know was Bill Clinton sent Ron Brown in the middle of a grand jury investigation to do a commerce trip to a war-torn region.
	Speaking of no immunity for guys that get their political opponents executed, the Clintons would be at the top of that list.
	Hold on.
	We're opening parentheses here.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Ron Brown, Bill Clinton?
	Forgive me for being an idiot.
	The Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown, got caught up with his mistress in a major criminal grand jury, went to talk to Billy Boy.
	Ron Brown was the bag man for the Democratic Party.
	His father ran a famous Harlem Hotel and had been a bag man and sort of a fixer, Mr. Fixer guy for a bunch of prominent people for decades before that.
	So Ron was born into it.
	And Clinton rewarded him with the Commerce Secretary Division.
	And his son got implicated.
	His mistress got implicated.
	He was going to have to rat out Billy Boy.
	Had apparently an animated argument in the kitchen in the White House.
	And right around that time, Clinton said, hey, you know what?
	I think you should take a commerce trip to the Balkans.
	Yeah, it's a war-torn region, but why would you take a commerce trip to a war zone?
	But old Billy Boy's like, I think you need to do this.
	Maybe your son won't be prosecuted.
	Maybe some other things won't happen if you get on that plane.
	He got on that plane.
	That plane went down.
	Never found the black box.
	His body was found in a weird way.
	It's one of the hush-hushes on the Clinton death curse.
	Jesus, Robert.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't mean to use other people's laws.
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	I'm leaving that window open.
	I'm going to read that when we're done here tonight.
	I mean, I would have been tempted if I had been up for that D.C. Court of Appeals when Judge brought it up.
	To say, Your Honor, I don't think Bill Clinton is being discussed at this point.
	Because that judge is a longtime Clinton ally.
	Holy shit.
	They wouldn't have necessarily liked that.
	But it's just another...
	Apparently the subcontractor for Boeing has been sued repeatedly for the same case.
	This is about a construction defect.
	So it suggests that they've been hiding something because the FAA once again, rather than doing their job...
	Our transportation secretary, Pete Booty Booty Gigi, is busy running around making sure we got diversity, we got equity, and we got inclusion.
	Not if you can keep your water and air safe in East Palestine, Ohio.
	Not whether or not you can get on a plane without the doors flying off.
	And it's a sign of the incompetence of the Biden administration, incompetence of the administrative state, and the direct dangers of choosing diversity, equity, and inclusion, or as one of our chat members mentioned, maybe call it diversity, inclusion, and equity, because then it will correctly spell die, that we experienced the folks on the Alaska Airlines.
	It's amazing.
	See, I read it and I only go to the procedural aspect.
	Why would they go for a class action and not a joiner of suits?
	Because you know how many people there are on the class.
	It's only the plane.
	But then, as I'm reading through this...
	So there were multiple signals prior to...
	I don't know if it's on that plane or in general.
	It's a construction defect case, and their point is the Boeing has had a history of it with a subcontractor.
	Holy shit.
	And just so everybody knows...
	You dig a little deeper and you find out the subcontractor and Boeing have been promoting diversity at the expense of competency.
	And so everybody understands the door or a portion of the plane blows off of the plane.
	Yeah, you're sitting next to the exit door and boom!
	It's gone!
	I guarantee you.
	Whoever sat there is like, I'm never doing the exit row again.
	It's not worth the extra legs.
	They're never flying again.
	This is a case of that movie with Jeff Bridges.
	It's like Twilight Zone, right?
	You keep seeing the thing on the plane and then, you know...
	Apparently, the pressure changed so quickly, people's eardrums were bleeding, the oxygen masks weren't working properly, and the fact that they survived, holy shit, like, you must be the chosen ones on that plane.
	And credit to Senator J.D. Vance, who, unlike a lot of his Republican compadres who are too deferential to corporate power, said, we need to take a deep look at what Boeing's doing here.
	Because a lot of these, you know, people wonder, why is Nikki Haley kind of on the diversity, equity, inclusion side?
	Like, isn't she a traditional Republican?
	Your traditional W. Bushite Republican is a corporate whore.
	And consequently, they're like, oh, we don't want to question Boeing, even when they're doing it for leftist ideological purposes.
	But, speaking of woke...
	No, no, no, no.
	Let's save the woke one for locals afterwards.
	We have to end.
	I'll feel guilty if we don't end on what I think is one of the biggest stories of the night, Gonzalo Lira.
	Now, we'll end with that here.
	I'm going to give everyone the link to locals.
	We're going to talk about Harvard.
	We've got a few other ones going on.
	We'll talk about Harvard.
	We'll talk about Amos Miller.
	We'll talk about COVID insurance coverage, the WEF treaty, homeless rights, and websites as property at locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com For now, we're going to...
	Robert, I'm waiting.
	I don't know what more confirmation I'm waiting for that Gonzalo Lira is dead.
	For those who don't know...
	It's been confirmed in multiple places now.
	I don't know what I'm waiting for because it's like the irrational...
	I was not friends with Gonzalo Lira, but I was in communication with him.
	And we brought people's attention to it very early on.
	Yeah.
	I think the public outcry...
	Thanks to members of the community, helped lay to his release.
	The first time.
	And when he tried to escape the Ukraine, they arrested him, detained him, and now he was killed in prison.
	And I say, like, before I go wild on Twitter, because I've been known to go wild, and then what I thought was a fact turns out not to be a fact, and then I have to apologize, and I hate apologizing, but I'll do it every time if I make a mistake.
	So...
	He was once detained, and I did a bunch of videos, and we talked about it.
	And people were saying, oh, he's a, what's the word?
	He's a fraud.
	He was never detained.
	It was a promotional stunt.
	Allegedly, he's dead.
	And I don't know how much more confirmation you can get than his father coming out and saying, I can confirm my son is dead.
	Maybe they're lying to him like Hamas did, pretending some of the hostages were alive.
	Maybe, I don't know, it's torture.
	They're going to say he's dead, but he's not.
	I don't know.
	But I don't know what I'm waiting for before I go crazy on Twitter because I'm going to.
	He was going to be on the channel.
	We had some discussions.
	I had been in touch with him.
	And if it turns out that he's dead because he got detained in a Ukrainian prison and whether or not he was murdered or denied life-saving treatment for disease because they're going to say, yeah, he died of disease.
	Sorry.
	Well, the fact they didn't immediately come out with saying something like that means he was murdered.
	Murdered by inmates?
	Murdered by security guards?
	Murdered by Ukraine prison guards.
	I don't have much to...
	And here, you know, I have my disagreements on some issues with Scott Ritter, but Ritter called this out early on and said the first time around, he said they're going to try to kill him.
	And then they did.
	When they got him the second time, they did.
	When there wasn't enough outrage from Americans about his second detention.
	I mean, there was enough that the State Department had to answer questions about it, but they refused to lift a finger for him.
	And that told the Ukrainian government, which is devolving as it collapses, as its war effort...
	I mean, this past week, data came out that showed for the first time in a long time, Russia's economy is bigger than Germany's.
	Russia is winning and will win that war.
	And Gonzalo Lira, for those that don't know, American-Chilean citizen, dual citizen, grew up in the United States.
	Went over to Ukraine, started speaking out against the Ukrainian war, exposing Ukrainian corruption, and that is why he was arrested, and that is why he's dead.
	He used to be Coach Red Pill, but whether or not you call him a grifter, whatever the fuck you want to call him.
	He was a human.
	He was an American citizen.
	He was in Ukraine.
	He spoke out vocally against the Ukrainian government.
	He was detained, and everyone said, oh, it's hogwash.
	He was released, and then everyone said, look, that's confirmation it was hogwash.
	Detained a second time.
	Allegedly dead.
	I don't know what I'm waiting for in terms of confirmation before I unleash.
	I will unleash.
	When I get the confirmation that I think it's sufficient for me to unleash, there's still a hope for hope.
	Ukraine didn't deport him.
	It was an American deep state operative that is a tranny from Las Vegas that previously tried to infiltrate the Republican Party here in Las Vegas, in Nevada, that went over there, that was working with various of the neo-Nazi-aligned groups in Ukraine that when he was first arrested was bragging about murdering him.
	And when they got the backlash, they decided not to go through with it at that time.
	Now they have.
	Because that's who it is.
	That's who is running the show in Ukraine.
	More published reports that billions of dollars have disappeared.
	Billions of dollars of weapons have disappeared.
	That it's one massive money laundering criminal operation, that it is using the young men and now older men and even women of Ukraine as sacrificial lambs for the neocon, Nikki, war Karen, war whores of the world in the Biden administration that has achieved nothing.
	And, you know, I was called Putin apologist and everything else, as was Gonzalo Lira.
	The reality was this was a dumb war fought for dumb reasons that has caused the deaths of many people, now an American citizen, and our Biden administration is complicit in his death.
	It should be a part of the impeachable offenses against him.
	Contrast it with how he treated Brittany Griner, who he traded one of the arm lord, the merchant of death.
	That's the guy's name, merchant of death.
	We traded him just to get back a WNBA lesbian wokester while we abandoned, encouraged, incentivized and appear to be complicit in the murder of an American citizen for exposing the corruption of the Ukraine.
	Robert, I don't ask this to be hyperbolic.
	What's the distinction between this and the, I want to say the Iranian government, and the murder of Sarshoji?
	When the Saudis whacked him, that guy wasn't a real American citizen.
	He wasn't an American citizen, period.
	No, but he was a Saudi citizen.
	He was an anti-Saudi propagandist the Washington Post put on its payroll with deep state ties who decided to walk into the Saudi embassy and the Saudi embassy decided to export him in a unique manner.
	But he was not the...
	No, I'm not a fan of what the Saudis did.
	But there we were.
	Massive outrage from the entire media.
	Not here.
	Here, the U.S. government is complicit in the murder of an American citizen in Ukraine, an American reporter and journalist in Ukraine, because he was a political opponent of the Biden administration and because he exposed the Ukrainian government.
	I don't know what I'm waiting for by way of confirmation that he's actually dead.
	But when I get what I think I need morally and spiritually, I'm going to unleash what I think on the interwebs.
	People will take it for what it's worth.
	All right, Robert, do we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com now for Harvard?
	And a bunch of other fun stuff.
	And the tips.
	We're going to read all the tips.
	Yeah, if you tip $5 or more, we'll answer any of those tips.
	Dear goodness.
	Okay, we're going to do it right now.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Robert, what do you have coming up for the week?
	Public appearances or law stuff?
	Because you're still a practicing attorney.
	I'm going to be traveling to Pennsylvania.
	I've got two criminal cases up there.
	They're trying to lock up the Amish farmer, Mr. King, Reuben King, just because he didn't get a permit for selling guns.
	They're looking at five years that they're trying to get and forfeit over 600 of his guns, basically take his entire gun collection.
	So that's probably going to be fought out on appeal because there's limited things.
	There's not much you can do at the district court level, unfortunately, unless you get an unusually conscientious court.
	Amos Miller, we'll discuss that a little bit more over at Viva Barnes.
	I'll be up in Philly about that case.
	There's another criminal case I'm up on appeal on.
	There's several cases of COVID vaccine depositions that are going to be taken in the Philly area.
	So, going to be up there for the next week or so.
	May hop on with Richard Barris tomorrow to discuss the Iowa caucus results.
	And I do have picks up at sportspicks.locals.com on what, if you want to make a little money and try to cash in on the Iowa caucus results, what I think are the most profitable investments you might be able to make.
	Now I'm going to read just three more before we go.
	We got Yay Viva Vlogs are coming back.
	I listened.
	I started listening to you in the vlog era.
	20 bucks from Effetz.
	Roosevelt Media News with a Z. What are the chances of Mayorkas doing jail time if impeached?
	Robert?
	None.
	Mandatory carry.
	I know how this is going to read.
	I'm going to read it in two parts.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment.
	A well-protected public.
	Being necessary to the security of the Free State, the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be enforced.
	In fact, it was enforced that way at the time of the Republic.
	Like I said, there was often an obligation to carry publicly.
	Oh, I just had 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 up on the live streams.
	Come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Now, people, we're going to end it on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I'll be live tomorrow with John Burke.
	Some of you didn't like him from last week.
	Doesn't matter.
	I'm going to be on his channel, so I'll share the link out, and it'll be fun.
	I won't scream quite as much.
	I'm joking, but I'll be on his channel tomorrow.
	We're going to talk about, like, whatever's going on in Iowa.
	And I'll be live all week, so, you know, stay tuned.
	Ending?
	VivaFry.com for merch.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for locals.
	VivaFry on Twitter.
	No, VivaFry on Rumble.
	VivaFry on Twitter.
	Barnes, you're Barnes underscore law.
	On Twitter.
	And now we're ending.
	Transmission on Rumble.
	The true free speech platform, people.
	Enjoy the rest of the night.
	Happy weekend.
	Peace out.
	Now, Robert, we seem to be on...
	If I'm going up to the tip, people, I'm going up to the tip.
	We're going to do these.
	I'm going to read them as fast as I can.

▲