Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 21, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:07:17

Ep. 194: Alec Baldwin; Fani Willis; Jack Smith; Trump Trials; Woke Canada AND MORE! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Guys like Adam Schiff and Schiff, Pencil Neck.
	Pencil Neck!
	He's a marvel.
	No, he's a structural marvel.
	He has a neck.
	And his head is like a watermelon.
	And how that neck can hold up that big, oversized, ugly head is hard to believe.
	No, it's true.
	It's true.
	Big head.
	It's like your finger on a basketball.
	Some of these guys, they spin it.
	No, no, he's a terrible guy.
	Guys like Adam Schiff and Schiff.
	Pencil neck.
	Pencil neck.
	Guys, I don't make fun of the way people look.
	All I'm doing is just showing evidence that Donald Trump is right.
	Hey, where's the video?
	Here we go.
	It's this video right here.
	Rachel Maddow, people.
	Never forget what they put America through for three years.
	Let's be with you.
	So what is your reaction to this news tonight in which President Trump said he wouldn't call the FBI if he was approached by a foreign country with information he could use on his 2020...
	What is it about these two people that they're actually the most physically nauseating, disgusting people on the planet, tied among others?
	He might accept that information.
	He says FBI Director Chris Wray is wrong if he thinks the correct thing to do there would be to call the FBI.
	He's a marvel, people.
	He's a marvel.
	At first you're shocked, and then, of course, you realize, yes, that's exactly him.
	There is no ethical standard.
	There is no bar below which he will not go.
	Can you can you appreciate the confession through projection these disgusting filthy pathological liars ugly inside and out and the irony is that if they weren't ugly inside they wouldn't be ugly on the outside the inside influences affects the outside and it can turn a beautiful person into an awful demon and it can turn an otherwise physically unattractive person like me into an otherwise more attractive person because they are nice because they are Fun to
	be around.
	Can you imagine hanging out with Adam Schiff or Rachel Maddow?
	Like, what are they like when they're not on the air lying to the American people?
	Do they become trustworthy people to friends and family?
	Oh, I've always wanted to know that.
	So, look, we're going to have to add a subject matter to the menu for tonight, but I've been going back and just pulling out a few videos because they are all the more relevant tonight.
	The big news is Ron DeSantis just...
	I don't know why they say suspended the campaign instead of ended his campaign.
	He has suspended his campaign and wholeheartedly endorsed Donald Trump.
	I'm proud to say, if I can toot my own horn, I've been saying it for a while, but I literally just tweeted out yesterday, Ron DeSantis should end his campaign.
	What did I say?
	He should...
	I forget the word I said.
	I'll pull up the tweet in a second.
	But Trump is going around doing the victory lap.
	This is not from anything to do with DeSantis.
	Who put this out the other day?
	Oh yes, the Republicans against Trump.
	Hold on, watch this video.
	People think this makes Trump look bad.
	I just want to point out he's doing his utmost to actually not make any, any contact with her boobies.
	He's signing a shirt of a very happy adult asking him to sign her shirt.
	I don't even think he's touching it with his palm.
	I don't want to.
	Oh, I'm surprised they didn't go after that.
	I have to get that, Artis.
	Now, let's just see what the Republicans against Trump had to say.
	It's so stupid to create titles like this when everybody knows exactly what this is.
	Can you imagine how the media would react if Biden or any other candidate did this?
	Well, first of all, people.
	It would literally be like that scene out of Happy Gilmore when Shooter McGavin is looking over at Happy, who's actually signing a young and old woman's chest.
	And then Shooter McGavin looks over at his crowd and he's like, nobody here is attractive or asking me to do that.
	They're all like a bunch of nerdlingers asking me to sign pads of paper.
	Can you imagine it?
	A. No, because it's not happening.
	Because Joe Biden can't string together a sentence, let alone campaign, let alone go out past six o 'clock when it's his bedtime.
	A. B, no, I can't imagine it because that woman is clearly too old for Joe Biden.
	He prefers younger girls who can't consent to being sniffed.
	C, there's absolutely nothing wrong with what we just saw.
	People are going, I was like, oh my goodness, Trump just signed a woman's tits.
	I was like, excuse me, you pathological liar.
	I believe he signed her shirt.
	And I'm genuinely thinking about this.
	If it were a man and he signed...
	At the chest level, where you typically have a little pocket, a pad, a logo.
	Would anyone say anything about it?
	In a world of equality, what's he supposed to say?
	I'm sorry, young lady, I can't sign on your chest.
	You have boobies there, and that would be absolutely unethical of me.
	Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.
	It's actually amazing.
	If anybody thinks that they're going to make Trump look bad by him delicately and specifically only putting that pen to her shirt, signing the shirt of an adult who asked him to do it in a respectful manner, I think you just earned Trump a few votes.
	That was a video from yesterday that had nothing to do with the news from today.
	The news from today, and we will certainly talk about it in a few seconds.
	Why did I bring this one up?
	I was going to start with a Nikki Haley.
	Oh, here, here, we're going to play with this one.
	Citizen Free Press.
	This is when you understand that Trump, although he fights hard in battle, when the battle is over, the battle is over.
	In the practice of law, and for those of you who don't necessarily know this, I practiced law.
	2005, I was doing student work.
	2006, I did my stash, my internship.
	2007, I was sworn in.
	You know, the practice was very minimal, especially during COVID when I only kept a few clients.
	I have 13 years of active practice.
	I would be a hard ass in the context of the practice.
	Respectful, but a hard ass.
	Mean, aggressive, demanding.
	And then when the deposition was over, when the lawyers were walking out of the courtroom, I could easily just turn it back off and go back to, all right, man, you got me good in there, or I got you good in there.
	Some lawyers could turn it off, some lawyers couldn't.
	Some lawyers never really forgave me for, You know, destroying them in the heat of the battle.
	Trump can turn it off.
	And now it's time for Team DeSantis to turn it off.
	Team DeSantis.
	DeSantis himself has, you know, put out a very nice endorsement of Trump.
	But hold on.
	So when asked whether or not Trump will be using the DeSanctimonious...
	Hashtag desanctimonious.
	Here's what he said about it.
	Okay.
	He just said, will I be using the name Ron Desanctimonious?
	I said, that name is officially retired.
	I say this knowing that I like Trump.
	How can anyone look at that and not like that?
	Can you just juxtapose that man with Joe Biden?
	No kidding, folks.
	I need money for my campaign.
	It's officially, he could have said, the term de sanctimonious, it's fired.
	That would have gotten the crowd up as well.
	How can you look at that guy and not like him?
	I mean, the problem is like, when you impute and you impose all of your internal hatred, all of your internal anger, resentment, disappointment in life, and you put it on that man, then I can understand how you can't like him.
	And that's exactly what the media has brainwashed people into doing.
	Angry about life?
	Angry about your, about...
	The state of your life, the state of the world, everything that you thought you were entitled to and deserved in life didn't come true?
	It's Trump's fault.
	Oh, wait, we're going to get to a couple more here.
	Oh, no, no, no, no.
	Okay, so that's it for Trump.
	We're going to talk about it because obviously I...
	Do I bring up the tweet where I put it up yesterday?
	Is this the tweet?
	I don't want to...
	Let me see something here.
	Is this the tweet?
	What is this?
	Oh, no, that's just Joe Scarborough.
	We'll get back to that later.
	Maybe I'll come back to that one tomorrow.
	I keep notes for future shows.
	Good evening, everybody.
	I'm going to play you a video after I do the intro and thank our sponsor.
	Holy crap.
	I put out a video summarizing the week of the WEF at Davos.
	They're not sending their brightest.
	It went from...
	Evil geniuses to evil morons.
	And that's who they're sending to Davos, and that's who's representing the world.
	Okay, but hold on.
	Before we get there, good evening.
	For those of you who don't know me, anybody new to the channel, where the hell have you been?
	Viva Frye, former Montreal litigator, as you now know, turned current Florida rumbler.
	You want some merch?
	Go to vivafrye.com.
	Hold on.
	Where's my shot glass?
	No.
	No.
	I know I have it here because I'm going to use it later.
	Whatever.
	Here, hold on.
	There's a couple up here.
	Oh, yeah.
	Wanted for president, people.
	You're getting closer.
	We are getting closer.
	Go to vivafry.com to get a slew of merch.
	But what I was going to say is, I'm a Montreal litigator.
	This is our Sunday show that I do with Robert Barnes.
	We have an amazing community, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
	After about a half an hour, we end on YouTube.
	And we go over to Locals because I'm exclusive there, and we should also support the platforms that support free speech.
	The stream, in its entirety, or clips, goes up to YouTube the next day or throughout the week.
	YouTube gets the stale leftovers.
	You want to watch the live show?
	It's on Rumble, which I believe...
	Yeah, the link is pinned in the chat, and if you want to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com now...
	Hold on one second.
	Why am I not in the chat?
	Should I make sure we're good here?
	We're good here?
	If you want to come over now to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, there it is.
	And for those of you who don't know my real name, it's David Freiheit.
	Freiheit means free.
	Dumb.
	Freedom.
	Freedom.
	In German.
	Freiheit.
	Nomen es omen.
	The name leaves the symbol.
	Okay, so that's it.
	That's what we do.
	We're going to end here soon.
	Barnes comes in.
	We have an amazing show for tonight.
	The thing I was just about to tell you is, oh, that's right.
	As you came into the stream, you may have noticed it said, this stream contains a paid sponsor.
	Because it does!
	Because I've hit the big leagues, people, and not only do I get to have the luxury of the honor of having sponsors, I get to have the luxury and the honor of having sponsors that I love.
	All of them.
	Tonight, fieldofgreens.com.
	It's a little known fact, people.
	You know, I say this, like, as Joe Rogan says, this one's easy.
	It's a little known fact, although I think I remind everybody weekly that you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Today, I had a lot.
	Probably more than I should.
	I'll be feeling it in the morning.
	But most people do not have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	Most people have bad dietary habits.
	Most people have bad sleep habits.
	And it takes its impact on you in life.
	And most people have bad habits, period.
	Afternoon, you go suck down a disgusting chemical-filled Diet Coke or disgusting sugar-filled Red Bull.
	Don't.
	One spoonful of Field of Greens contains one serving of raw fruits and vegetables, or one serving of fruits and vegetables.
	It contains all of the antioxidants, all of the good-for-you nutrients.
	It tastes delicious.
	I jokingly say it looks like swamp water, but swamp water looks that way because it's rich in nutrients.
	It's the sustenance of life.
	You do this once, one spoonful twice a day, you get two servings of fruits and vegetables, all of the antioxidant, wonderful, miraculous stuff of it.
	It's not a supplement and it's not an extract.
	It's a food.
	Hence, can we zoom in on this?
	Yeah, here you go.
	Hence why you can see it is USDA organic because it's a food and not a supplement or an extract.
	And it's delicious and it's great.
	They've got a bunch of flavors.
	If you're traveling, you can't get vegetables.
	Carry around a pack of this.
	Stir it around.
	Drink it down.
	It's a healthy habit.
	It will make you feel good.
	And it will also substitute an unhealthy habit for a healthy one.
	And I like to say life is about substituting the unhealthy habits for the healthy habits.
	You go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It'll bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA.
	You get 15% off your first order.
	All right.
	Thank you, Field of Greens.
	The link is in the description as well.
	And it's delicious, and I have it myself virtually every day.
	Now, I said I was going to show you something.
	We're going to go from healthiness to something that's going to make you want to scratch out your eyeballs.
	And I was going to play for you my highly edited version where I did what I once did to a Justin Trudeau speech and just edited out all of the...
	Verbal diarrhea and just included the uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, because it's insufferable.
	For those of you who don't know who this is, Alex Soros, who is George Soros' son.
	Yeah, it's not his grandson, it's his son.
	Um, is in Davos because, you know, this is the unelected elite who get to dictate policy and influence governments.
	The unelected cabal.
	Who get to penetrate the cabinets and impose their will on elected officials, though unelected themselves, through hook or by crook.
	This man, he's a freaking genius.
	Think what you want of George Soros.
	As evil as he is, he's smart.
	I'm not sure I can say the same for Mr. Alex Soros.
	Listen to these words of pure wisdom.
	But, you know, I don't think that's the fundamental technology.
	I'm going to stop there for a second.
	First of all, that vocal fry is like taking a meat thermometer and smashing it into your ears with a ballpane hammer.
	That's actually from Saturday Night Live.
	I forget which one.
	You know, it's like taking a ballpane hammer.
	This is like nails on a chalkboard.
	It's not just women that have vocal fry people.
	A lot of people are...
	It's a bad habit for my experience.
	Not always a hard and fast rule, but someone who's unintelligent trying to sound intelligent sounds like this.
	And I'm going to start from the beginning, and I'm not going to interrupt it.
	And bear in mind, this is an unedited 2 minute and 14 second clip.
	But, you know, I don't think that that's the fundamental...
	I don't think technology is the fundamental issue in democracy.
	Democracy is messy.
	I mean, you know, democracy is about contestation of ideas.
	It's about plurality.
	It's about people having different truths, actually.
	Now, fundamentally, how society lives together.
	People having different truths?
	That's called subjectivity.
	That's not called truth.
	Go study some freaking philosophy, Soros.
	Civically, in those contestations, is obviously quite tricky.
	But I think that if we play too much on this disinformation card, we're taking responsibility away from ourselves to actually create a narrative that...
	Inspires people to vote and to believe in democracy and democratic.
	Part of me actually feels bad for him.
	He does not have a speech impediment.
	I'm not making fun of a man with a speech impediment.
	This is a man who is absolutely vapid, trying to think in real time to sound intelligent.
	He's like, uh, uh.
	Maybe if I, uh, uh, long enough, I'm going to think of something remotely intelligent to say.
	Oh, yeah.
	What did he just say?
	Truth is subjective?
	No, he didn't say that.
	He said, uh.
	I forget what you said.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's melting all of our respective brains.
	Institutions.
	On the institutional part, I think that we can talk about institutions as these abstract things, but institutions are also about people.
	Institutions are also about people.
	What the hell does that mean?
	This is verbal diarrhea!
	Institutions are also about people.
	Oh, I thought institutions were about robotic dogs.
	Maybe if they build robotic dogs.
	Maybe if it's like that Boston dynamic.
	Maybe that institution is about robotic dogs.
	You know, we just heard this point about untrustworthy people, and we talked about things in the United States, like checks and balances, which aren't written anywhere, but are customs.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	George Soros, Alex Soros, I'm no American constitutionalist yet.
	Checks and balance?
	What did he just say?
	What did he just say?
	Like, um, checks and balances, which aren't written anywhere.
	Oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry.
	Checks and balances are not written anywhere?
	Sort of like in the three branches of governments, the judicial, the executive, and the legislative?
	Oh, no, no, the checks and balances aren't written anywhere, except in the frickin' Constitution, you brain-dead jackass.
	Our customs, and one man, Donald Trump, literally came in and just took that, you know, took that, took that all away.
	Oh, he literally did it?
	Not metaphorically, not metaphysically, not spiritually.
	He literally did it?
	Surely you could show me the video where Donald Trump literally came in and took away those customs of checks and balances.
	You dumbass.
	It was Donald Trump who said don't listen to the Supreme Court.
	It was Donald Trump who said we're not going to listen to the Bruin decision.
	It was Donald Trump who said we're going to find a workaround as to the Supreme Court's ban on the moratorium.
	Oh, it was Donald Trump who said we're going to work around the Supreme Court's tossing of the student loan forgiveness.
	Oh, no.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	No, that wasn't Donald Trump.
	Of course not.
	That was Joe Biden.
	You know, so...
	You know, you know.
	So, you know, but when I see this, you know, when I look at this, you know, more globally regarding democracy, I also...
	This should be like his Prince Andrew moment.
	Who was the one that gave the interview?
	He was like, actually, I could not sweat at the time when Virginia Guthrie accused me of sexually assaulting her.
	Actually, I could not sweat at that one particular moment in time because I was at a pizza house down the street.
	I remember that.
	That was his last interview.
	This should be Alex Soros' last public appearance because quite clearly he's unfit for the role that has been bestowed to him by his evil father.
	When was this great time?
	When was this great time in America?
	Oh my God.
	That everybody got along so well and...
	I'll tell you when.
	When everyone got along, it was pre-Obama.
	I can tell you when it was in Canada.
	It was pre-Justin Trudeau.
	It's amazing how the lefty ideologies come into power and sow discord and division among a population.
	I remember.
	I remember living in a world where race, ethnicity, religion, nobody cared about it in the good way.
	I remember that.
	I'm old enough to remember that.
	When was America ever great?
	You know, because, like, you know?
	You know, things were going so great.
	I mean, I think, you know...
	There's a loop here.
	He breaks down soon.
	You know, I think that we really have to be careful here in, you know, in this nostalgia for a time, you know, for a time past.
	Do you know what this is called?
	This is called demoralizing.
	We have to be careful of the nostalgia for the better time.
	No, we don't.
	We have to aspire to bring it back.
	He gets into a full breakdown of a, you know, like he couldn't get out of it for a second.
	The reactions we're seeing in society are actually reactions to positive things like, you know, like equality for women.
	You know, and, you know, and greater diversity, which come with backlash.
	Everybody, I'm sorry for having melted brain cells for that extensive period of time.
	The only remedy to having brain cells melted like that is to have Barnes' big brain come in here and rehabilitate us.
	Sir, you ready to come in?
	You know, Robert, how you doing, sir?
	You know, sorry.
	It's mind-numbing.
	Do tell us how goes the battle while I go to locals to see if our audio levels are checked out.
	Sounds good.
	Good, good.
	Got to travel tonight on a red-eye to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
	Got some big cases up there of some disturbing things that are happening at the governmental level in the continuous assault on the Amish.
	Also defending people who were wrongfully fired for their religious objection to a vaccine mandate by the company 3M.
	And a range of other work activities up there to take care of, but particularly focused on Amos Miller's matters.
	As they continue to escalate their attack on Amos Miller, defending Reuben King, an Amish farmer who the feds want to put in prison for up to five years.
	And while take forfeiting, as the judge is happy and eager to do and just sign right off on.
	Despite the objections raised of his entire lifetime supply, lifetime collection of a range of old guns and mixed guns, all because he didn't get a permit.
	This is where the world is going.
	If you don't agree to let them super govern your life, waive and forfeit all your rights, get a permit for basic living activities, then they're going to lock you up.
	And they're going to start with the Amish, the least threatening community.
	To safety or health that exists in America by a long amount.
	Imagine Philadelphia, and you're focused on gun issues, isn't the gangs of northern Philadelphia, but is rather Amish farmers living out in the countryside.
	What does that tell you about the Biden administration?
	What does that tell you about our Justice Department?
	What does it tell you about our Pennsylvania state officials?
	So a lot of disturbing trends up there, and we're going to do what we can to fight that.
	Hold on one second.
	I accidentally brought up a video.
	I was going to ask you something.
	We're going to talk about Reuben King, I guess, in greater detail because I got my questions about it.
	So you said you're on a red-eye...
	We have time for the show, right?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's red-eye Vegas time.
	So get in at like 7 a.m., have some meetings, do a deposition.
	Hopefully that doesn't go all day, but the lawyers on the other side are not...
	They're corporate lawyers, put it that way.
	So that usually doesn't always go as well as it could if people were reasonable.
	I have meetings all day, meeting with Ruben to prepare him for the sentencing issues.
	Then Tuesday afternoon is his sentencing issues in Philadelphia.
	But on the White Pills side, those that follow over at sportspicks.locals.com, we want another!
	Big 5% play just a few minutes ago as the Detroit Lions won and covered the spread against the Buffalo Bills.
	I thought you were going to our added topic of the night that people won on the DeSantis.
	I didn't know if there was any gambling on that.
	The board requested two.
	Extra topics.
	One, the evidence that came out in the Dominion trial in Atlanta and the Mark Stein defamation case about Michael Mann that's going forward in Washington, D.C. So we'll cover those as well.
	But yes, right at the top, certain predictions.
	I got a lot of heat for it.
	A couple weeks ago where he said after Iowa, DeSantis won't do well.
	He's going to drop out.
	People say, you're nuts, Barnes.
	And they said they wanted to bet.
	And I said, okay, how much?
	And they're like, well, hold on a second.
	Let me get back to you.
	But, man, poor Dave Rubin.
	I hope he's in recovery mode.
	Some of these folks predicting DeSantis was going to win Iowa.
	DeSantis is going to march on.
	Barnes is crazy.
	And, of course, DeSantis drops out and endorses Donald Trump today.
	Well, it's funny.
	I literally just tweeted it yesterday that he has to courteously bow out and wholeheartedly endorse Trump.
	It was good timing.
	Robert, I lowered your volume a touch, so I'm going to see if it's good here.
	I'll let you play around with it.
	So DeSantis is out.
	Wholehearted endorsement of Trump.
	It's obvious that he minimizes his damage.
	Does he come out of this net positive, or do you think it's still going to be a net loss?
	No, he's in a severely damaged state.
	He's going to need a Nixon-esque recovery.
	To bounce back and be nationally relevant.
	He also deeply antagonized a lot of people in the Trump camp.
	Like, Vivek didn't.
	Vivek was careful about how he handled that.
	And, you know, Trump stepped on him at the end to let him know, big dog, big dog, you little dog.
	But Vivek handled it well.
	And what does he do?
	He drops out.
	And Trump's, you know, bringing him up there on stage and saying nice stuff about him and saying we're going to, you know...
	Vivek played it right.
	DeSantis did not play it right.
	But this is the best movie he's made in his whole campaign.
	Drop out, endorse Trump.
	No, I said, you know, Trump gave him a little bit of a kick, but Vivek, I think, probably could acknowledge he crossed a line with that particular video.
	Maybe he won a little bit.
	Well, he took a gamble and it's worth the gamble.
	I don't think even Trump regrets, you know, Trump respects competition.
	He doesn't disrespect it.
	The way DeSantis went about it is what antagonized Trump.
	He had people in DeSantis' camp, including DeSantis himself, lied directly to Trump's face.
	That's not something he forgets.
	That's why Nikki Haley has no future.
	Nikki Haley lied right to Trump's face.
	There's not a chance.
	There's things you can get away with.
	You just can't lie right to Trump's face.
	What did Nikki lie about?
	About running against him?
	Yeah.
	He said, I will never, ever run against you.
	Ever.
	You're the best.
	DeSantis, by the way, made similar statements.
	I mean, the wife probably is going to need to go to therapy for at least, you know, Governor DeSantis' wife for probably at least three months.
	She's been measuring the carpets, measuring the drapes.
	She's been measuring everything in the White House.
	So that is the big news.
	I was listening to Twitter Space with Patrick Pett, David Sebastian Gorka.
	Robin, what's your opinion of Sebastian Gorka?
	I don't know more.
	Warwhore MI6 plant.
	Warwhore MI6 plant.
	He can rot.
	By the way, he came after me when I exposed him as a warwhore.
	He falsely blamed me for managing the Jones trials, Alex Jones trials.
	I wasn't in those trials.
	We were public commenters on those trials, and we've been vindicated on our public commentary about those trials.
	But that's who Gork is.
	He's anti-Alex Jones.
	He pimps for Zelensky.
	If you go back further, weird history.
	Let's just put it that way.
	Daddy or grandpa, I think, might have some interesting histories there in Central Europe around 1940s.
	Put it that way.
	So that's my view of Gorka.
	Look, he's got a good voice.
	He pretends to be a populist half the time.
	That's his grift.
	You know, I found that out years before he was war whoring and all the rest.
	Dealt with his wife in a back room at Fox.
	And I listened in on a conversation between her and...
	And I was like, oh, okay.
	I know how...
	They're grifters.
	They're DC grifters.
	Looking for the next grift, the next grift, the next grift.
	All right, Robert, why can't I bring up...
	It used to be that I would be able to...
	Son of a beasting.
	That it would hold up the Super Chat so that I could keep them flagged.
	Why can I not star any of the comments?
	Okay, I don't know what's going on.
	Can you all commend a good attorney in Idaho for insurance fraud case paid for four years of coverage only to find they don't cover that area?
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Some of those cases we'll take a look at and sometimes we'll know people who will.
	You can always go to the contact page at barneslaw, LLP as in Peter, dot com.
	Go to the contact page and that's where I get information.
	Now, if you send something and I don't respond, I can't respond to everything.
	The other problem is...
	Ethics rules, sometimes people will interpret any response as, oh, now you're my lawyer.
	So practically speaking, I can't respond to everybody.
	Doesn't mean I didn't read it.
	That didn't mean I don't care about the case.
	It just means I don't have time at this moment to commit to it.
	But that's where, if you want legal information, that's where to go.
	Robert, before we go over to...
	The book is called The Door Rebellion.
	Turns out it was a great democratizing rebellion in Rhode Island.
	And my brother found out we had a bunch of ancestors that helped start the whole thing.
	And I was like, ah, sweet.
	Now, you know, some of them ended up in prison, some of them ended up hung, and some other things.
	But, hey, they were on the right side.
	So I had to book The Dual Rebellion.
	I had no idea a bunch of my grandpappies were involved in it.
	Robert, before we go over to Rumble exclusively, and I've given everyone the links, let's talk about the one that I don't care if we are or are not allowed talking about it, but I think we are because it's a current pending court case.
	This is the case in front of Totenberg.
	What state is it now?
	Georgia.
	It's in Georgia.
	And this is going back to the 2016 election, not the 2020 election.
	2018 election.
	2018, sorry.
	And there were questions about the safetiness, is that, that's not the word, the unhackability of Dominion voting machines.
	And allegedly, I haven't been following it in thorough detail, but allegedly from what I understand in the courtroom, some experts showed how he could basically hack the Dominion voting machines within five minutes, give or take, and which is going to cause Totenberg That's correct.
	So this is a Democratic lawsuit.
	This is the Democrat...
	Democratic candidates suing the Republican Secretary of State, Brad Ratberger, I'm pretty sure that's how you pronounce his last name, who for the 2018 election, including the lieutenant governor candidate who lost, the Democratic candidate, who lost in Totenberg, very liberal Democratic judge, no sympathy whatsoever to the 2020 election challenges by Team Trump, who's presiding over this trial.
	And they represent an older movement within the Democratic Party, more the Democratic left, the Bobby Kennedy populist left, that has never liked machines involved in elections.
	People have forgotten this movement even existed because of everything that happened post-2020.
	But questioning elections and questioning presidential elections and questioning machines...
	Well, it has been a Democratic tradition, not a Republican one.
	Republicans have generally pushed machines, including the Diebold and other machines used in Ohio in 2004, controversially.
	Robert Kennedy suggested after 2004 that Bush stole Ohio in 2004 related to voting machines.
	So it was always interesting that all of a sudden this became a Democratic defense and Republican rallying call.
	So the Democratic lieutenant governor brings suit, and he says Dominion doesn't have a reliable system.
	Because Dominion was new to Georgia, I think, in 2018.
	They got a big, fat contract from the same corrupt hat governor, that Governor Kemp, that is now refusing to remove Fannie Willis, despite the obvious...
	overt controversies of corruption concerning her in her prosecution of team Trump.
	Kemp is Ratburger, his buddy in tow, and they gave a big fat contract to Dominion in which they made a lot of promises to the public that they've never kept, including that they would publish the ballots from every single major election.
	They never have.
	That was one of the key promises they made when they wrote that big multi-seven-figure check to Dominion.
	Well, I was told early on when I was working for Trump in 2020, after the election, figuring out what happened down there, don't ask any questions about Dominion.
	Don't ask any questions about this activity because of deep Republican ties.
	And I was like, well, we're going to go there anyway.
	But I was like, I don't think machines are our key problem.
	It's get the signatures to match.
	And if they don't, we get a new election.
	Unfortunately, everything got sidetracked by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and all that.
	But one of the cases I was following at that time, back then, was the 2018 case.
	Because after 2018, Lieutenant Governor sued and said, I think these, not an election contest, but said these violate my voting rights and other rights because of how these machines operate, that they're hackable.
	That they don't reliably print ballots.
	That they interrupt the chain of custody of ballots because they can print their own ballots.
	And a range of the wrong ballot that you can market for one and the printed ballots show something else.
	And that we basically should get rid of machines.
	No Dominion machines.
	This is a problem.
	And then the other issues involving certain constituencies being underserved by the machines, etc.
	Totenberg is now taking the case all the way through to trial.
	The media won't cover it.
	And what's fascinating is they were covering it back in 2019.
	They won't cover it now because even though it's a Democratic judge with Democratic lawyers and a Democratic plaintiff suing a Republican, an elected official, media won't cover it because it damns the Dominion machines.
	And this week, live, the plaintiff's expert...
	Showed the judge just how hackable Dominion's voting machines still are by hacking them live right in court, disproving any claim otherwise.
	All people say, well, there were 44, 62 cases, and blah, blah, blah.
	Not only do they misconstrue those cases, this case is damning everything they've said in defense of Dominion.
	Also makes you wonder, why did Fox get that sweetheart deal with Dominion?
	$780 million, lest we forget.
	When Democrats are proving how ridiculous the Dominion machines are, how unreliable and untrustworthy they are in live time in federal court before a Democratic judge.
	So yes, it's an interesting case to continue to follow because the evidence will continue to be damning about Dominion.
	Unreliable, untrustworthy.
	We shouldn't have machines.
	We should count just like the way Taiwan just did.
	Paper ballots counted in live time by human beings.
	Robert, I just got to read the way Courthouse News Service, which has to report on Courthouse News the way they're framing it.
	Details of voting equipment breach.
	Details of voting equipment breach emerge in Dominion security trial.
	Is that the biggest hack job in the world to be the headline writer for the mainstream media?
	How do I lie about this?
	How do I fudge this?
	How do I make this sound Orwellian?
	It's like they read Orwell's 1984 as a guidepost.
	Oh, this is how you...
	Oh, we call this newspeak.
	Okay.
	How do I make good newspeak?
	Listen to this.
	While the lawsuit was filed in 2017, events that occurred immediately following the 2020 presidential election took up the court's time on Friday.
	It took up the court's time.
	Listen to this.
	During the fourth day of the Friday...
	During the fourth day of trial, Friday, in the lawsuit over Security Dominion voting machines in Georgia.
	Details surrounding a hack coordinated by co-defendants of former President Donald Trump in the Peach State's election subversion took sentence.
	They hacked the bloody machines in court, but it's taken up some of the court's time.
	They make it sound like, oh, they documented how Trump did something sneaky during the election.
	I mean, this is how deceptive and dishonest the media.
	They just lie about everything.
	It's outrageous.
	The copying of confidential election data from an elections office in rural Kofi County was reportedly arranged by a group of individuals who are now indicted.
	Oh, yeah.
	They showed how they could be hacked.
	This whole story makes it sound like, oh, they proved Trump committed a crime in court.
	That's not at all what happened.
	It's unbelievable.
	In fact, Trump has nothing to do with the trial.
	It's simply to show how hackable the machines are, which goes back to, again, Democrats are bringing these claims.
	These are Democratic lawyers, Democratic plaintiffs, Democratic experts, Democratic judges.
	They're the ones proving Dominion is a joke.
	We are 4,500 strong here.
	Get off YouTube.
	And the link to Rumble is there.
	Let's see the number go down while I just blast through a couple of these super chats.
	Viva Fry, how did Robert's oral argument for Children's Health Defense Fund go before the Fifth Circuit?
	We talked about it last week.
	I posted your audio, Robert, to both Rumble and YouTube, and people...
	Love it.
	So go check it out because it's 30 minutes and it's just a solid screen grab, but it's fantastic to hear this.
	We're going to talk about another hearing today.
	What is the best way to get a bill to Congress such as limiting the government's arms possession to what is legal for the average citizen?
	We'll get there in a bit.
	You need a congressman to sponsor it and support it and back it.
	Rep Seb Gorska, does he really have a handle on DJT's thoughts, re-VP cabinet, etc., or is that all speculation?
	All speculation.
	Theophrastus3.0.
	I haven't seen you in a while, Theophrastus.
	It's been a while since I coughed up some cold, hard cash.
	Love your channel.
	Thank you very much.
	And then we got Gorka is hinting it's going to be a New Yorker.
	So, Zeldin?
	No, he's just pushing Stefanik like Stefanik is pushing her own name.
	I think that's her name.
	I may be mispronouncing her name.
	My bet's still on Ben Carson.
	My bet is as unlikely as it is.
	But my favorite is still Carrie Lake and J.D. Vance.
	J.D. Vance, for example, made a wonderful point this week when he said, You know, the Nikki Haley was in bed, totally in bed, with lobbyists in South Carolina.
	And for those on the inside, they know that's a double entendre.
	Because she was quite literally in bed with lobbyists in South Carolina.
	Oh, well, that news just broke this week, and she keeps phrasing tweets in such a way that it makes that joke very easy to make.
	All right, people.
	Get your butts on over to Rumble.
	If you don't want to go to Rumble for whatever the reason, that would be crazy talk, go to Locals and consider joining as a member, which would be non-paying, or consider supporting our work on Locals.
	10 bucks a month, 100 bucks a year at the discount.
	Robert, it did go up to 10 bucks a month, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's $200 a month, $100 a year.
	You get live Q&As, bourbons with Barnes, live shows with Viva, live shows with me, live special shows, special editions, Barnes briefs, breakfast with Barnes, movie club, live chat weeks.
	You get to ask questions, you get answers.
	You get a lot of fantastic content at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And our topics tonight that you'll get to get over on Rumble are...
	Bonus topic off the top.
	Mark Stein goes to trial against Michael Mann in the famous hockey stick case.
	Alec Baldwin finally indicted on a theory that Viva had from the inception, in part.
	Fannie Willis, as Viva calls her, Big Fannie's in some big trouble.
	Jack Smith has dodged his contemptuous conduct because of the D.C. court's prejudice.
	Trump show trials in New York continue to embarrass the rule of law in America.
	Chevron, oral argument that we talked about last week.
	We just had the oral argument.
	What does it presage for the future of the administrative state?
	Homeless rights.
	We talked about it briefly last week.
	Well, now it's going up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Big Second Amendment win in the Third Circuit.
	A very dangerous Second Amendment impacting case in the case of Amish farmer Reuben King.
	Who is facing five years in federal prison and forfeiture of his life's collection.
	No immunity for false charges by bad prosecutorial behavior.
	That's another white pill moment.
	When do you own your social media and when does somebody else own it?
	It's reaching the federal highest courts as that dispute continues to unravel in a range of contexts and cases.
	Madonna sued because she's always late.
	And Twitter parody.
	Reaches a jury trial in California.
	That's a fun case, everybody.
	I might even just cover that on a separate vlog, depending on the, you know, well, not even depending on anything, whether or not it's interesting enough, but it's amazing, so stay tuned.
	All right, that's it.
	We're leaving.
	Goodbye, YouTube.
	We're down 1,200 people here.
	That's a good sign.
	There's 3,600 left.
	Come on over to Rumble or Locals.
	You have the links.
	Ending transmission on YouTube now.
	Okay, so what do we start with?
	What's first on the list?
	The first bonus one, the Mark Stein-Michael Mann trial.
	Oh, I'm not up to speed on this one, Robert, so you're going to have to field this.
	This has been going on for a dozen years.
	So Michael Mann, the climate science expert, as he himself declares it, over at Penn State, had this sort of hockey stick that became famous in climate change propagandists or those who support the climate change argument.
	That temperature is getting way out of control.
	The critics of Michael Mann have suggested the hockey stick is based on bad math, bad science, bad data, manipulation, etc.
	Mark Stein, who occasionally sat in for Rush Limbaugh, kind of more from the populist side of the conservative angle and social commentary, was writing at National Review and talking at Fox at the time.
	And another person associated with Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has been very critical of the climate change arguments, basically compared Michael Mann to the other big, famous, controversial individual at Penn State at the time, the one and only Sandusky.
	Sandusky got involved in, of course, the alleged and then ultimately convicted for underage sexual assault and abuse and appeared to have been involved in running that.
	And so they said, just as Sandusky molested kids, Michael Mann molested the data.
	That statement did not sit well with Michael Mann, so he said for them to retract, they did not.
	Mark Stein said, sue me, I'll prove your hockey stick is fake in court.
	And so he sued him.
	And then there were a lot of arguments about what does the First Amendment allow or not allow?
	Are these statements First Amendment opinions?
	Or are these statements verifiable, factual claims that a jury could determine were materially false and knowingly false at the time?
	Because Michael Mann is a public figure, they had to prove that this was done intentionally or with reckless disregard of the truth.
	The only hard part for Stein and the rest is they're stuck in the D.C. court system, where they all side with the Democrats traditionally.
	And this case has been going on for 12 years, up and down to the Court of Appeals, up and down to the Court of Appeals.
	Finally, now it has reached a jury trial because the D.C. Court of Appeals determined that these are verifiable factual claims.
	So the allegations here are data manipulation, fraud, academic fraud, and scientific fraud.
	And while the Sandusky comparison might be exaggeration, not subject to libel, the allegation that he misrepresented the data, And he committed fraud on the Academy and on the public.
	That seems to be, whether he did or didn't, and whether they had a factual basis to believe it, a verifiable fact.
	But now it's going before a D.C. jury.
	If I was on Mark Stein or the other side, Stein is defending himself, interestingly enough.
	He has a cool voice.
	He has one of those very authoritative British kind of voices.
	Like Gorka, except just not as big a fat fraud as Gorka is.
	Stein's the real deal, mostly.
	But I don't think you can get an impartial jury in the District of Columbia.
	I think the deeper disturbing side of this is this case is an ongoing effort of lawfare.
	So this case preceded but previewed the Alex Jones cases and then the Trump cases.
	And then the Sidney Powell, Lynn Wood, those people being sued into oblivion.
	We're being threatened to do so.
	And it's because what they're doing is they're going to interpret this case to see critics of climate change, they're the ones that are the frauds, and if you continue to criticize our climate change agenda, we'll sue you into oblivion in the D.C. court system.
	That's the underlying purpose of this case.
	What's interesting is, you know, what he's disclosed to me is damning about Michael Mann.
	He's like, I was making $3.5 million a year pushing this stuff, and now I only make half a million.
	It's like, maybe something is motivating you other than the science and the data?
	Just thinking?
	As people say, they learned how to follow the science.
	You inspect and you just follow the money.
	Or something else is motivating the data.
	And that's the financial incentive to...
	Play with those figures.
	Molest them, for lack of a better word.
	I'm joking.
	I don't want to get sued.
	Hashtag just joking.
	Sorry.
	Carry on, Robert.
	Yeah, so I mean, I don't think you'll get a fair trial.
	I think this case will be misused and abused to set a perilous precedent to try to continue to politically weaponize the courts.
	To say, if you disagree with us, we can sue you into oblivion.
	If you, I mean, the Alex Jones theories that people weren't paying attention to, what they were, again, over $100 million was awarded to somebody.
	Who did not die at Sandy Hook and knew no one who died at Sandy Hook.
	Had no connection whatsoever.
	Over $100 million.
	Put that in your brain.
	Someone who Alex Jones never talked about.
	I mean, that was one of the most ridiculous verdicts of all time.
	Megyn Kelly should feel ashamed that she endorsed that verdict.
	That's a ridiculous verdict.
	For those who don't know.
	And dangerous to everybody.
	On that ground, she could be sued into oblivion unless she wakes up soon.
	For those who don't know, it's the FBI agent who claims to have been harassed.
	He was the one that had a picture of him, and they suggested he was not wearing the uniform properly.
	Something along those lines.
	He was being made fun of before.
	He was never mentioned by name, but never mentioned really by much reference at all.
	The antagonism toward him predated, by his own admission, Alex Jones ever having anything anywhere, anyplace that anyone could track or trace about him, over $100 million.
	I thought it was $80 million.
	If you raise a conspiracy theory, That challenges the official narrative that emotionally upsets somebody, you can be sued into oblivion.
	They're wanting to set a precedent so they can sue dissidents and critics, use the defamation process to sue them into oblivion, which is what led to New York Times versus Sullivan in the first place.
	They were doing it to the civil rights movement in the South, though they had stronger factual claims, by the way, against the New York Times.
	In those cases, they do in these.
	But the Stein case, the Michael Mann case, is going to be used to shut up and silence or threaten or intimidate dissidents from saying anything negative about climate change.
	And just so no one accuses anyone of disinformation, Robert, it wasn't $100 million.
	Hold on.
	Decline.
	It wasn't $100 million.
	It was $90 million.
	Now retired FBI agent awarded $90 million because he claims that he was harassed because Alex Jones made fun of him.
	He was being harassed and identified before Alex Jones even covered the story.
	All right.
	If that's interesting, we've seen the lawfare.
	We're going to talk about it.
	I suspect we're going to talk about the E. Jean Carroll case.
	Oh, it's the same pattern by the Mark Stein.
	All the damages really are, look at these other people that harassed me later.
	It's like, that's not Mark Stein who did that.
	That's not National Review or Competitive Enterprise.
	They put him on blast and they're saying, now you're responsible for anybody who dislikes me later.
	Now you're responsible for anything any crazy person does later.
	This is very dangerous.
	If the Supreme Court doesn't step in to fix this insanity, they should use the Alex Jones cases, frankly, to do it.
	Because that would really send the message.
	Our court systems will be politically weaponized tools to bankrupt.
	People who have the wrong opinions.
	No, I mean, it's already there, Robert.
	They've done it with Alex Jones.
	They've done it with, basically, with Ben, and they did it.
	And then they acquit the politically motivated acquittals with Sussman.
	And, you know, they're not going to bankrupt Trump there.
	They're going to just $20 million to E.G. Carroll for defamation.
	It's already there.
	And, by the way, just a little brief parentheses.
	Politicizing the courts.
	I don't know if you saw it coming out of Canada.
	The new federal court rules where they are now.
	Where you're now, I don't know if you're required to, or it's recommended you give your pronouns in pleadings, that you are, it's your prerogative to give a land recognition to the Indigenous.
	And there was another one.
	Oh, you have to use gender-neutral language when dealing with court staff and court administration.
	The system is already, the system is broken.
	It's just a question.
	So what do you say, it?
	I don't know.
	What is it, they?
	Like, I'm going to refer to this as...
	They, it's probably always going to be they.
	They, they, them.
	I mean, it's...
	That's technically wrong.
	I know, it means more than one person.
	It requires more than one person.
	Robert, it's...
	I did have a federal judge once say someone had gone through a gender transition on the witness.
	Before they got the witness stand, they were subpoenaed as one gender, showed up as another.
	And the judge pulled us aside.
	Old school liberal democratic judge, by the way.
	He goes, how do we refer to it?
	Well, he's cancelled.
	I was like, I don't know if that's politically correct there, judge.
	Oh, man.
	Okay, so that's fascinating.
	I guess this is the other big breaking story of the day.
	I don't know what we'll talk about it.
	Not much news.
	Alec Baldwin seemingly finally indicted again.
	I have to refresh our memories.
	The last time he was indicted, they got one of the enhancement charges dropped because it was an enhancement that didn't apply at the time he committed the offense.
	Correct.
	I forget now what happened.
	There was a question about the gun testing.
	So they dismissed it.
	So they could go back and re-examine all the gun testing evidence and retest the gun evidence again.
	And what they came back with, I mean, maybe Baldwin didn't pay off the right people who knows.
	I mean, you got to be a little, you know, when they drop an indictment and then maybe they bring it back and maybe they don't and they finally do, you got to wonder a little bit.
	You know, Gloria Allred's on the side of trying to shake down Baldwin for as much cash as she can.
	She's now counsel for some of the people suing.
	And again, I've sued her before for being the fraud that she is.
	But once she's involved, then you have a kind of a split on the Democratic side.
	And Baldwin probably lined up with the wrong side.
	He's probably recognizing that now.
	Being on the Democratic side made him vulnerable in ways he thought he was protected, especially in Santa Fe.
	But the grand jury indicted him on involuntary manslaughter.
	My understanding is that there's kind of two different theories of the indictment.
	It could be considered two different charges, but one is negligent use of a firearm resulting in death.
	The other is complete total disregard of human life and your behavior.
	Which is predicated on the idea that he did in fact pull the trigger.
	In both cases, really.
	The negligent use of the firearm, maybe they don't have to prove that, but they decided they were not going to bring the indictment unless they could have independent scientific proof once again after Baldwin's team raised questions about the method of the testing.
	To the conclusion that a lot of gun experts said at the time, we said at the time, you pointed out maybe why he did what he did.
	The core conclusion of the grand jury is that Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.
	And that he had to for the gun to go off.
	And, I mean, he admitted as much in various interviews that he gave at the time.
	He was talking too much.
	He's in big trouble officially now.
	They didn't make the same mistake.
	Now, the sentencing exposure is very low on this.
	So, it's my understanding, because the enhancement doesn't apply, so I think it's like two years max or something like that, if I recall right.
	He doesn't face major prison exposure.
	This will be a big jury selection case, because he will stick with his line of defense that he didn't knowingly pull the trigger, and that he thought there was no bullet in there.
	And it depends on how he picks the jury.
	There is enough jurors that will vote not guilty in the Santa Fe community.
	If he does a good job picking the jury, he will be acquitted.
	If he doesn't, he'll be convicted.
	I'm predicting conviction.
	Gloria Allred's hoping for conviction because she can see those dollars pouring in.
	It's a funny thing.
	If he had just been quiet, there'd be less incriminating statements out there.
	Had he been more remorseful and not arrogant and almost aggressive?
	The X factor there is the intentionality.
	Would make it so that he's personally liable in ways he couldn't even bankrupt out of from his own estate, but would reduce the possibility of insurance coverage.
	So she would probably prefer a conviction on negligent use of the firearm.
	Interesting.
	We'll see.
	My prediction is he's getting convicted, so the sentence will be whatever it is.
	Okay, now, Fannie Willis, Big Fannie.
	By the way, Robert, so I put out a brief analysis of the Fannie Willis...
	Sex scandal.
	Oh my, it's getting so good.
	It's up to 85,000 views on YouTube, which means that people are now learning the truth, which is fantastic.
	But watch it over on Rumble.
	Short 10 minutes.
	Cut to the point.
	We're going to talk about Fannie Willis and her sex scandal with Nathan Wade, Jocelyn Wade, who subpoenaed Fannie Willis to appear in the context of their divorce proceedings.
	It's so bad.
	It's so bad.
	Fannie Willis was subpoenaed, for those of you who don't know.
	Fannie Willis is the prosecutor in the Georgia-RICO case.
	Hired external counsel, three people by the sounds of it, two white and one black, and I only know this because Fannie Willis got up in front of a church and abused of the...
	She hired two white people, one black person.
	Apparently, one of the white people she hired has more Rico experience than the black man who she happens to be knocking boots with.
	And all of this broke that she's been knocking boots with Nathan Wade, that Nathan Wade filed for divorce the day after he entered into this very lucrative contract with Fannie Willis that she...
	That she awarded him in the absence of any transparency under Georgia ethics and Georgia law, which she might have broken the law there.
	There are allegations that she might have been paying him federal COVID funds.
	There are allegations that of the million that he's billed over the last couple of years, or $700,000, $800,000, that he then turns around and takes her on lavish, what do they call those cruises, trips to Australia.
	He's booking tickets in her name on their credit card.
	And so there's a number of...
	Ethical, legal issues that, you know, it might be Fannie and Nathan who are the violators of RICO here, but the wife, Jocelyn Wade, married for a long time, issues a subpoena to compel Fannie Willis to testify, I think on the 23rd, the day after tomorrow.
	I might be wrong on the date.
	Fannie Willis makes a motion to quash the subpoena and says, I'm a politician.
	I'm not a politician.
	I'm a person with a high position of office.
	You can't compel me.
	I've got nothing to add.
	And by the way, Jocelyn had an affair on Nathan in 2017.
	In the response, Jocelyn says, well, obviously she has more information than she purports to know because even though it's defamatory, although litigation privilege, she seems to know a lot.
	And as relates to potentially Nathan hiding some revenue, all this stuff.
	Robert, I mean, that's the factual basis.
	You can all go watch the video on Rumble and YouTube.
	Why the hell is Rattenberger not doing anything with this?
	Or is it just a matter of time now?
	Well, no, he's not.
	And nor is Kemp.
	Kemp is the one that has direct authority to remove Fannie Willis or take remedial action.
	And he refuses to.
	He has refused to from day one because he supports the indictment of Donald Trump.
	He doesn't want anyone to know that, but that's the reality of it.
	And Trump got behind Perdue as a way to challenge Kemp, and that backfired.
	And so Kemp won easily because they have an incumbent designation in Georgia, and a bunch of people who turned out just voted Republican incumbent.
	And that's how he got back in in the first place.
	But people weren't paying attention to just how bad, behind the scenes, Kemp had been.
	Kemp, you know, he let Ratberger take the lead of screwing Trump in 2020.
	But he, from day one, David Collins, other people I was down there with, said, Kemp will do nothing.
	The guy's a complete wuss.
	He's never going to stand up to anybody on anything.
	He never has his entire life.
	They used other more colorful language, to put it bluntly, that we'll save from the children's ears here tonight.
	And it proved true.
	And so the reality is that Kemp, I think he went back over to Davos again.
	I mean, he's back and forth to Davos all the time.
	That's who this guy is.
	Political hack.
	Try to tell people that.
	The problem was Purdue was the wrong horse to back for Trump because the Purdue family had fallen on bad times politically in Georgia.
	Perdue was like Nancy Pelosi, loved to trade stocks while he was in Congress.
	And as Harry Truman once said, show me a politician who got rich in office and I'll show you a corrupt politician.
	So, you know, Sonny Perdue, who literally looks like Boss Hogg, former Secretary of Agriculture, was a similar guy.
	When I was down there, I was like, no wonder this state is in a disarray for Republicans.
	But the, yeah, and I guess...
	I, this part, I wasn't clear from the headline.
	Is it the judge that's presiding over the divorce that's ordering her to produce things?
	Or is it the judge producing a hearing that's presiding over the Trump trial?
	Because I heard both, and I wasn't sure which narrative was, which headline was correct.
	Well, I mean, I couldn't answer that right now.
	Maybe the chat or locals can let us know.
	But to me, it would only make sense that it's the judge presiding over the divorce.
	What jurisdiction?
	Oh, because the issue of the misconduct that's been raised now is that basically they indicted Trump for money.
	That's it.
	In other words, they used the coffers and she laundered the money through separate special counsel payment for herself.
	So she increased her own pay and the pretext was indict Trump.
	And if she didn't indict Trump, people would be like, what did you spend those millions of dollars on?
	So it looks like there's a bad, an additional, I mean, not like you didn't already have enough First Amendment grounds on selective prosecution to bring a challenge, but you have specific grounds that someone's paying themselves and giving themselves a big bonus to indict Trump to cover up for their money laundering and criminal corruption and bribery and stealing money from the state.
	In our chat, people are saying both.
	I thought the only reason it would be the divorce only for the time being, I didn't think that the Trump judge had started adjudicating this.
	I thought it had been raised in front of him as a serious issue of misconduct that raised questions.
	It mostly is damning politically.
	Legally, the biggest problem is that there's selective prosecution in the first place, and this is a novel interpretation of RICO laws, and there's not a factual basis to bring it.
	But putting all of that aside...
	I mean, how bad, by the way, does the Jenna Ellis look, right?
	You know, some of these people that rushed and panicked and pled, and they clearly didn't do their research, did they?
	Because this wasn't that hard to find.
	You know, frankly, Trump's team should have been tracking it from day one.
	It's another sign that he is okay but not great counsel in all these cases because this is public.
	The fact that she had special counsel was public knowledge.
	I didn't know about it until the divorce case stopped public.
	It's like this screams corruption.
	Millions of dollars going out to indict Trump as a separate special piggy, a little special fund, a little piggy bank?
	I mean, that now turned out to be quite literally a piggy bank for the piggy herself.
	But politically is where it's so damning.
	The Georgia system looks like a joke.
	The Georgia justice system looks like a joke.
	The Georgia judges look like a joke.
	The Georgia prosecutors look like a joke.
	That's the problem.
	It's so politically damning how this is working.
	Let me bring this up here because this was the first tweet that I could find on the subject.
	Well, we're kicking off today's culture clash with my favorite topic.
	Newsmax.
	The World Economic Forum in Davos.
	Guess who just flew out there?
	Brian Kemp, of all people, if you have any questions about this guy.
	He just flew there while refusing to open the criminal probe into Fannie Will.
	You've got to be joking.
	Okay, we won't watch the whole thing.
	By the way, it's the second time he's done that.
	That isn't the first time he's done that.
	He loves Davos.
	That's who this guy is.
	He's hanging out with George Soros' idiot kid.
	We could get to the point where the public opinion is just going to be too great for Kemp to ignore it and not.
	Open some sort of formal investigation?
	I know the state legislature is looking at doing their own thing anyway.
	And I think they have the power to impeach her.
	I haven't researched that item, but at least they have the authority to subpoena her.
	And I know Jim Jordan is already doing it.
	So, yeah, the question, especially Kemp was secretly behind DeSantis.
	Now that that has completely blown up in all their faces, embarrassingly, I mean, then we'll see what...
	I mean, basically, that's why Kemp was over to Davos to ask the deep state globalist crowd, what do I do now?
	That's why he ran over there.
	I mean, right in the middle of this.
	So that's who this guy is.
	It's basically like, even if one doesn't want to make that connection, Robert, what in God's name of green earth would he have any business going up to Davos for in general?
	It's like his third visit.
	Maybe he's just wanted to go skiing.
	So the Fannie Willis thing, I mean, everyone's going to continue blowing the story up because it is absolutely massive and people have to appreciate it.
	Whether or not she even had the authority to contract with her boyfriend, who then apparently concealed his revenues, his assets from his wife from whom he's divorcing.
	And then in the response, Fannie has the audacity to say that the wife voluntarily agreed to seal the divorce proceedings.
	I presume that was before she found out that A, he might have been boning another woman, but B, that he was hiding assets from her while depleting her bank accounts as a single mother of 26 years.
	It's wild, and it would be hilarious.
	I mean, it would be hilarious if they end up going down for the RICO, but that will never happen.
	But at least something might happen, so we'll keep putting it on blast.
	Speaking of putting something on blast, Robert, Jack Smith.
	Okay, like, I'm listening to Robert Gouveia break it down, and I'm sitting here saying...
	It's an absolute joke.
	I'll ask you my questions, but we'll lay out the facts.
	The case in front of, what's her face, Chutkin in D.C. was suspended.
	It's paused.
	The great niece of foreign communists.
	Literally, by the way, people, just so you know.
	That case was put on hold pending adjudication on the, it's the Trump immunity, right?
	Yep.
	Okay, and so...
	Nothing can be done in this court file.
	And I've been hearing for the last week, two weeks, three weeks, Jack Smith, in violation of the pause of the proceedings, I forget the word I'm looking for, keeps filing motions unlawfully.
	And part of me saying, big effing deal, the dude wants to file proceedings that are not authorized or given the state of the file, let him spin his wheels.
	But the reality is, and this is what I've been sensitized to, he continues to file motions, file exhibits, disclosures.
	It's not like the Trump team can say, well, we're not looking at them because we don't have to because there's a suspension of the file.
	So it's literally making work for the Trump team when he's not allowed to do it.
	He's been basically, although apparently, according to Chutkin, not specifically enough forbidden from filing additional pleadings, which he's been continuing to do in violation of the state of the file of the court order.
	And so Chutkin is faced with a motion for contempt, a motion to show cause, for why...
	Jack Smith is not in violation of her court order to suspend the file and not make additional pleadings.
	And then she basically says, look, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
	And in any case, he can do this and there's no real prejudice to Trump.
	But I'll be even more clear, Jack Smith, the naughty naughty, you can't do this anymore.
	Maybe you didn't understand it the first time.
	Imagine what would have been the case if the rules had been reversed.
	Part of me says, Robert, like, what is the big deal?
	He's not allowed making filings.
	Let him spin his wheels.
	Well, he's doing this in order to try to accelerate the trial because they're obsessed with getting a conviction and with a show trial in front of a lynching jury before Election Day.
	That's what the backstory is.
	And so he's ignoring the stay so that he can argue that they can still go forward on the trial.
	And she knows that's what he's doing.
	Everybody knows that's what he's doing.
	She knows that he's not supposed to.
	That it's illegal and unethical and unprofessional and in violation of the rules.
	If any of us did that in any kind of case, we'd be sanctioned into oblivion.
	I have judges threatening to sanction me for talking about the Nuremberg Code in a vaccine mandate case.
	And then the Tyson Foods went and filed before the court my prior statements about the case on this show.
	So, you know, that...
	That's what us lawyers out there fighting the system have to face.
	Here is a corrupt prosecutor flagrantly violating the rules, and the judge does nothing about it.
	Further evidence of how corrupt she is, and she has no business presiding over this case.
	She has no business being a federal judge.
	We shouldn't put foreigners that are the great, great, that have a long family legacy of communism on the federal bench.
	She literally said, you know, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
	Mea culpa.
	But also, Robert, is it not also the case strategically by continuing to make these filings, even if they are unlawful?
	Oh yeah, that's the other reason.
	His main reason is to accelerate the trial timeline.
	But secondary reason is to use the filings to embarrass Trump.
	Little bastard.
	All right.
	Oh, the trial.
	Well, speaking of Trump, speaking of show trials, I'm going to pull up some clips, Robert, while we talk about this one.
	But it's so outrageous.
	And I'm not even going to be hesitant to draw these comparisons.
	I was thinking...
	Ordinarily, you say, you know, like, don't make enemies, don't interact with crazy people, crazy malicious people, and, you know, you minimize the risks of exposure.
	It turns out now that you don't even have to have ever met a crazy, malicious, pathological liar.
	I don't remember if Kavanaugh ever admitted meeting Christina Blasey Ford, who fabricated a story 35 years later about, you know, whatever she allegedly did.
	You don't even have to have met crazy in order for crazy to sue you, and if the system is weaponized enough in order for crazy to win in front of a weaponized court.
	It makes me think of these racially motivated accusations where, you know, going back 50 years where, you know, someone will say a group of men did something bad, and you'll get people either killed or jailed, depending on how corrupt the system is.
	It's exactly what we're witnessing now, mutatis mutandis.
	E. Jean Carroll.
	Who Trump says, I've never met this crazy lady.
	This batshit crazy lady whose cat is named Vagina T Fireball.
	By the way, not just vagina.
	I thought it was just vagina.
	Vagina T Fireball.
	So it's basically like a urinary.
	What am I looking for?
	An STD.
	She named her cat after an STD.
	She's crazy.
	Gets on Anderson Cooper.
	Talks about how rape is sexy.
	Trump says, I never met her.
	She fabricates what she probably saw on Law& Order, sexual assault in a Bergdorf changing room, as if it's even, anything's logical about this.
	20 some odd years later.
	Wearing a dress, by the way, that wasn't made until years later.
	Wearing a dress that, I have to look into that, I didn't even realize that.
	But she, after the statute of limitations had been expanded for these types of civil claims, in legislation that she spearheaded and advocated for, She gets a jury in New York to say, yeah, we don't believe that he raped you, but we believe that he sexually abused you, and therefore we're going to award you damages and for defamation when he said he didn't do it and called you crazy.
	After that award, he comes out and says, she's crazy, I never did it, and she sues him for defamation again.
	And we're at the stage now, it's literally like Alex Jones part three, where the judge says, we're not here to discuss innocence, guilt, that's already been found.
	Here it's only for quantum.
	Let's get a jury.
	And let's just find out how much he's going to have to pay.
	Another show trial by a federal judge that's been an embarrassment on a range of cases for a long time, but the higher courts have done too little to discipline or rein him in.
	And he's been ridiculously prejudiced in the Trump cases.
	The state case has been utterly embarrassing to the New York court system.
	This case is now damning to the federal court system.
	Should be a warning sign to the Supreme Court.
	Are you going to allow the American judiciary to become a laughingstock to the world or not?
	Because unless you step in and stop this insanity, that is what is going to happen.
	You are going to end the credibility and integrity of the American legal system.
	No one reasonable will think, no one who's observing this will think we are governed by the rule of law.
	They will think we were governed by the rule of corrupt partisan political judges.
	Let me bring this up just because everybody must see it.
	I think everybody has already seen it, but in the event that you haven't.
	Let me just get it in here.
	Oh, here it is.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Totally not a crazy woman right here.
	You don't feel like a victim.
	I was not thrown on the ground and ravished.
	The word rape carries so many sexual connotations.
	This was not sexual.
	It hurt.
	I think most people think of rape as a violent assault.
	I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
	Let's take a short break.
	Think of the fantasies.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	She's crazy.
	Please cut this off.
	She's crazy.
	You're fascinating to talk bat shit crazy.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Oh, man.
	But, Robert, what is the remedy to this?
	Like, Trump is appealing.
	It's the higher court's doing, because right now, I mean, the other option is legislatures start taking away judicial immunity and allow judges to be sued.
	I mean, it's one of the responses that I think the Trump team can consider when they're up in front of a next oral argument and some judge says, oh, could the president order somebody's execution and not be indicted?
	Say, well, judges do it every day.
	Including their political enemies.
	Maybe it's time to strip judges of immunity.
	What do you think, judges?
	Well, hold on a second.
	Let's not be excessive.
	The judge in the Arkansas case in Tyson Foods, I think, is just about to exceed his jurisdiction and authority.
	But could I sue him if he does something that's patently outside the rules?
	Where do I sue him?
	In front of the same judges who say, we can't have judges being sued.
	But it's impeachment.
	Indictment, immunity, these might be things that need to be reconsidered as it applied to the judiciary, unless the higher courts step in and just put an end to this.
	And they let this get out of hand, and it's getting worse and worse and worse.
	But practically speaking, Trump is appealing the initial jury finding in the same case.
	I mean, right now all he can do is appeal.
	I mean, right now all he can do is have other judges step in to clean it up.
	And so far these judges have shown a lack of ability.
	A lack of wherewithal, lack of self-awareness to do so.
	We have so many politically partisan corrupt judges, corrupt because of their partisan prejudice, that they are unable and unwilling to enforce the rule of law against their own.
	And there have been breaches in the dam all the way along.
	It's just cracking and it's about to bust entirely unless somebody steps in and fixes it.
	Well, fingers crossed on that, because how difficult is it to overturn a jury finding on civil liability?
	Well, it's easy in these cases, because summary judgment should have been granted, evidence should have been allowed in, jury instructions were done incorrectly, jury selection itself was done incorrectly.
	The judge is such a hack.
	A smart judge, knowing how politically prejudiced the jury pool is in New York...
	Would have not made basic evidentiary mistakes, basic jury instruction mistakes, basic pretrial mistakes, basic post-trial mistakes.
	Wouldn't have revealed his prejudice against Trump like he's done repeatedly.
	I think he was threatening to throw Trump out of the courthouse.
	And Trump was like, go ahead.
	I'm sure they're shocked that Trump just doesn't bow to the magistrate and the magic of the courts, the almighty courts, that they're so accustomed to getting deference to.
	They don't deserve that deference.
	They deserve disrespect and derision because they're earning it by their political partisan abuse and misuse of their power.
	And it's something that's happened with the judiciary all the way through our history.
	It's just happening at a scale and happening to an individual at such a scale that the whole world is waking up to it.
	And if the Supreme Court doesn't step in and fix it and salvage it, the court system itself may not exist in the same form a decade from now.
	They will have damned themselves.
	All right, from your mouth to the Supreme Court's ears.
	Before we get into the Supreme Court, because that's on our next subject, I realize I've fallen quite behind on the rumble rants, people.
	And someone's getting a free ad here.
	Four Patriots employees getting a free ad.
	The engaged few.
	I can't see what figure that is.
	Oh, I can't see.
	It's five bucks.
	You're not unattractive.
	I totally do you.
	If only so I could run my fingers through that magnificent man.
	Excuse me.
	I don't make the Fanny Willis, Nathan Wade mistake.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants, get married young, and stay out of trouble, people.
	Finboy Slick.
	Read Davos not sending their brightest.
	The smart ones are the ones you'll never hear about.
	Or they're already in their doomsday...
	Yeah, they're already in their doomsday bunkers.
	Randy Edward.
	That was from Finboy Slick.
	Randy Edward says...
	In Soros' world, Hitler was a hero, whereas the United States is the misguided child.
	Does anyone believe the ISIS views itself negatively?
	Nope.
	Everyone is a hero in their own story, for sure.
	Freddie65.
	Dan Crenshaw ran into some DEI employees at United.
	Not a fan of his, but it is outrageous what United did to his wife.
	I hope he gets some justice.
	I said the woman who he was dealing with was clearly crazy.
	Anybody wearing a mask at this point in time?
	It's going to be an indication that they're crazy or scared or traumatized or whatever.
	And ordinarily, it makes no difference, except when they're in positions of power such as that to harass people with whom they are ideologically in conflict in their own minds.
	Robert, can Biden possibly give that amnesty?
	Yes.
	Sportfish177 says Barnes for Attorney General.
	Viva for Ambassador to Canada.
	Oh, Canada won't have me as an ambassador, but thank you.
	Sad Wings Raging.
	Just got done being jury number 12 on a Murder One trial.
	Wasn't even murder at all.
	Manslaughter.
	Took 12 hours to get the other 11 to see that.
	Hung it for 12 hours.
	Very cool.
	Ian Bridges.
	Can you comment on the anti-far-right protests going on in Germany?
	I find this narrative hard to believe.
	I don't know about it.
	I don't know if you do, Robert.
	Brilliant Trump judo move.
	Read January 6th.
	Nancy running it.
	He's still got it.
	Yeah, because he said...
	Did he say Kamala?
	No, he said Nikki Haley instead of Nancy Pelosi.
	And then he's got everyone to say, oh, he's so senile.
	He mixed up Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley.
	But basically got the media to acknowledge that Nancy Pelosi was the one with the authority to call on the National Guard on January 6th.
	And then we got Jay Pearson.
	Now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the club, good sir.
	All right, Robert, that was the excitement.
	Maria's question in the live chat at vivabondslaw.locals.com.
	Why don't more attorneys speak out?
	It's because 90% of attorneys are in cahoots with this politicized agenda.
	Their professional managerial class prejudice that they share with their fellow jurists and others make them anti-Trump and happy and eager to weaponize the legal system against their political opponents.
	That's why they think they're there on planet Earth.
	And of the 10% who are willing to stand up or don't approve, they're not willing to stand up.
	They know if they do, they face things like what we face in Arkansas.
	Sue Tyson Foods in Arkansas for violating people's religious rights.
	Talk about how the Nuremberg Code was designed to prevent medical testing against informed consent.
	And the federal judge is threatening the young lawyer and me with as many sanctions as he can for even suing.
	That's how corrupt.
	The judicial process is.
	A judge, by the way, who was the former law partner of someone I discovered, my suspicions were correct, the law partner was the former personal conciliary to the Tyson family.
	An honest judge, which this judge is not, would have disqualified himself immediately from these proceedings.
	The depth and degree of his connections to Tyson goes on and on and on.
	So you understand why other lawyers in Fayetteville were scared.
	To sue Tyson Foods in Fayetteville.
	And you wonder why lawyers don't stand up?
	Because they're threatened.
	Threatened with loss of license, threatened with sanctions, threatened with public community reputational damage.
	That's why.
	Our system is so corrupt, it defends and protects its own corruption and will not allow anyone to expose it without consequence to such a degree that it disincentivizes them from doing their professional obligation.
	Well, Robert, we went from excitement.
	I think people will find this exciting.
	I listened to the hearing while I was fishing.
	It was a very boring hearing.
	It's like listening to legal nerdlingers talk about, well, the Chevron decision made deference to, and they name these decisions, and the hearing itself would have been very difficult for anyone without legal knowledge or interest to follow, because it was boring as hell.
	The decision itself, or sorry, the question at law itself is very important.
	Chevron is up.
	The Supreme Court precedent of Chevron is up at the Supreme Court now for reconsideration.
	Chevron, I'll oversimplify it, but you'll elaborate, is basically the deference to agencies to interpret the rules that they make for themselves.
	And the courts, what do they say in this hearing?
	They say they show humility.
	They're supposed to defer to the authority of these expertise, of these administrative tribunals, these people who...
	should interpret the rules that they make for themselves because congress delegated that to them allegedly and so that the chevron deference is that which basically creates an administrative state where the agencies that make the rules interpret the rules and what you have is something run amok to the point where in this particular case it's the east coast fishery and the government requiring fishermen to have government agents on their boat to monitor their fishing habits And whereas,
	you know, they're supposed to be paid two to three percent of the catch, it ended up that they were like charging and expecting these fishermen to pay like 20 percent of the value of their catch to the federal government to monitor their conduct while fishing.
	And the question is whether or not it's an administrative state run amok that they just basically interpret.
	They create their own rules, interpret their own rules, and it ends up breaking the back of the small players or even the bigger players who they govern.
	I listened to the hearing.
	The three women on the bench, you had Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
	So I don't know which one I was listening to, but the three that I heard sounded intransigently in support of Chevron, saying basically, if we overturn Chevron, you're going to overturn however many Supreme Court decisions, 1,700 lower court decisions, it'll wreak havoc.
	To quote, what's his face?
	And I don't think they have a snowball's chance in summer of succeeding in overturning Chevron.
	But I was admittedly like, this is not my wheelhouse of expertise.
	What's your take on it?
	What do you think is going to happen?
	And what did I miss in terms of my summary?
	So what we predicted was accurate, that Democratic judges will continue to defend the administrative state.
	And for the administrative state, people talk about the deep state.
	It's the administrative state with national security and law enforcement and military influence.
	That's all that really means.
	The doctrine of the deep state derives from the doctrine of the dual state, which talked about the rise of the administrative state in the late 19th century by writers and commentators at The Economist, which was a very establishment, pro-imperial UK publication.
	It was saying, how do we have a government that doesn't respond to the people anymore?
	In a so-called elected government.
	It's because they said this dual state, an administrative state, has risen that's immune from what the public want.
	You have a government that's outside of constitutional control, that's outside of the public's veto.
	And the legal doctrine that created this is the Supreme Court's 1984 case, known as Chevron.
	And it said if agencies decide that...
	If agencies write rules interpreting the Congress's authority and then interpret both Congress's authority and interpret their own rules, that we, the courts, can't second-guess it, that we have to defer to it.
	Chevron deference becoming the colloquial term.
	It's been primarily used to aggregate the power of the administrative state and allow the administrative state to usurp the legislative branch, usurp the judicial branch, and ignore the elected head of the executive branch.
	I mean, they are completely beyond political control, and they are way, way outside of control.
	And as Justice Gorsuch noted in the oral argument, this is overwhelmingly targeted at little people.
	Like what's happening with Amos Miller, like what's happening with Reuben King, like what's happening with the Amish generally, is they're using their regulatory, you have to have a permit to do something power, to take away your ability to feed your own family.
	Take away your ability to fish in your own waters.
	Take away your ability to hunt in your own backyard.
	Take away your ability to own your own guns because you didn't have a permit when you did activity A, B, C, D, or E. And it's helping the powerful actors in collusion with them to corrupt our food supply, corrupt our fisheries, corrupt our entire system to where basically you have 80 to 90 percent of food in America controlled by four or five big corporations.
	You have medicine being forced on you that you don't want that turned out to be unsafe and ineffective.
	You have the inability to be able to purchase or sell a gun for your own self-defense or for your own collection because you didn't get the right permit from the government before you did it.
	That's the scary scale that we're getting to.
	Statism has failed over the last century, whether in the form of fascism, communism, or corporatism.
	And the legal doctrine that it's predicated upon for almost 40 years in America is Chevron.
	The Supreme Court at least finally is reconsidering it.
	The good news is, by the nature of the statements and oral argument, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and, critically, Kavanaugh are ready to overturn Chevron.
	The three liberals are going to stick with it because they love the administrative state.
	So much for, we just want to preserve democracy.
	By democracy, they mean they're in power, not you ordinary people.
	That's how democracy means exclude our opponent from the ballot.
	Their definition of democracy ain't everybody else's definition of democracy.
	It ain't actual democracy by any objective truth.
	But these people live in the Orwellian world of their own creation.
	And so it comes down to Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom were on the fence.
	Oh, golly gee, it will overturn so many cases.
	I don't know.
	Can we really do our jobs?
	Can we actually honor the kind?
	I don't know.
	Now, most observers concluded that enough questions from Roberts and Barrett is that they will at least substantially reduce Chevron's power, but they may do so in this case on Administrative Procedures Act grounds rather than constitutional grounds.
	What needs to happen is it's constitutionally done.
	I think there's going to be an aggressive push from Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in particular.
	They will put pressure on Roberts and Barrett to fold and go with, this hasn't worked.
	This doctrine hasn't worked.
	Roberts' excuse was, we really haven't enforced Chevron in a long time at the Supreme Court level.
	And Kavanaugh and Gorsuch came back with, but it's happening every day at the district court level.
	So we got to fix this now.
	I think ultimately, because a lot of big corporations are not big fans of the administrative state, even though it's often served their interest.
	That you'll see Roberts and Barrett, who are the pro-corporatists, if they end up coming down for Chevron, it tells you how corrupt they are and how corrupt our system is.
	That basically big corporations like the administrative state because it enables them to crush their competition and monopolize the market space.
	If they're honest and honor their original oaths and their original promises to people when they got nominated, Chevron is dead.
	Most commentators concluded...
	Chevron probably is about to take a hit.
	And the only question is, will it be fatal or not?
	I hope it will be fatal.
	I think back to the Latin expression.
	Hold on, I want to make sure I don't screw it up.
	Delegatum non potes delegare.
	To whom has been delegated power cannot subsequently delegate it.
	The argument is that Congress empowers these administrative tribunals through Congress to interpret their own rules that they were empowered to enact.
	And so Congress empowered them to do this.
	So who are the courts to come in and say, we're going to limit the power of these institutions to interpret their own laws, which Congress has empowered them to do?
	The problem is Congress cannot delegate its legislative power to anyone else.
	So Congress couldn't say, you know what, we hereby forfeit writing laws and we give all the power to the president to write laws.
	Can't do it under the Constitution.
	It's a non-delegable power.
	Certain powers are inherent only to you for a reason, and you can't give them to anybody else.
	And this is an example of that.
	The executive branch was never meant to have legislative or judicial powers.
	That's problem one.
	Problem two, the administrative state isn't paying attention to the elected head of the executive branch anyway.
	And problem three is we've seen this in practice now for 40 years.
	It's been a disaster.
	It's been a legal disaster.
	It's been a policy disaster.
	It's been a disaster for those of us that want constitutional control of the government.
	It's been a disaster for those who want to see the little guy be able to compete on a meaningfully equal terrain.
	And it's been a great problem for basic individual liberties.
	The ability to farm, ability to fish, ability to eat what you want, put in your body what you want.
	All of that is being taken away by the administrative state.
	And the Amish cases are proof they cannot be trusted with power.
	They will only misuse it and abuse it.
	I don't know if they said this during the hearing.
	First of all, the lawyer in defense of this was very good, very smooth in response to the questions quickly, where they said, well, what happens if we overturn our prior precedent?
	I don't think he said it, but could he not have, or did he in fact say at some point, you just did it with Roe v.
	Wade and it hasn't caused havoc?
	Right.
	Well, and what havoc will it create?
	In other words, the administrative state has to do its job constitutionally.
	How's that havoc?
	That's not havoc.
	That puts the law in better terrain than it is now.
	I mean, I'll give an example.
	The Amos Miller case, out of the blue, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture just sends a letter.
	Their assistant attorney general just sends a letter saying, don't sell any more raw milk.
	We want to do these tests.
	And it's like, what's your legal authority for that?
	Can't find any.
	They don't cite any.
	They don't give any legal authority.
	You look in the statute, it doesn't exist.
	And so I start talking to independent experts about this that are familiar with how regulatory agencies work in this context.
	And they're like, well, it's probably in a regulation somewhere.
	And I'm like, this is the problem.
	This is what Chevron proves is a problem.
	They're making up their rules as they go along, making up their powers as they go along, and then getting to decide how to interpret it, how to enforce it, and how to judge it.
	They shouldn't have this power.
	They've proven unreliable.
	If the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture didn't exist tomorrow, the state of Pennsylvania would be better off.
	That's what any objective review.
	Same with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	The food pyramid is shortening our lives.
	The FDA's recommendations is shortening our lives.
	They haven't made the world better.
	They've made it worse by any objective metric.
	That's why they're scared of any jury trial that ever tests them on any of these matters.
	And that may be coming in ways they don't anticipate.
	So we've got to get rid of the administrative state.
	At a minimum, we've got to deeply weaken it.
	It's unconstitutional.
	It's always been unconstitutional.
	And the only question is whether Roberts and Barrett have the backbone to do their job.
	All right.
	To be determined, what's your bet on this?
	They overturned Chevron and fatally kill it.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm going to put this dog down here.
	On the subject, we're going to switch a bit of the order here because you're talking about the Amish farmers and Amos Miller.
	What's the latest on Amos Miller?
	So in Amos's case, they went and did the illegal seizure, the illegal search, then did the testing.
	There was talk out there that a certain kind of E. coli was supposed to.
	There's no evidence of that at all.
	Most of the test results I have not seen.
	The government has refused to share it.
	They refused to allow anybody to see how they were doing the testing, refused to allow anyone to see how they sampled it, how they got the samples, whether they contaminated the site, whether they didn't do any of that.
	They haven't disclosed timely what the results of the test are.
	They've only selectively disclosed selective information, won't disclose any of the other stuff.
	And during this entire time period, they've detained large amounts of his food.
	That they didn't properly tag, didn't have a legal basis to search, didn't have a legal basis to seize, don't have a legal basis to detain.
	The Secretary of Agriculture's 30-day order appears to directly violate the statute.
	He doesn't give any factual basis whatsoever for why any of this can be detained legally.
	And he's detaining it long enough to where he ruins the food, to where you can't use it, can't sell it, can't give it to people who own it, any of it.
	Can't eat it, can't consume it yourself.
	And then they accelerated and said, also, you can't produce any more raw milk.
	Can't sell any more raw milk.
	Can't do any of that.
	Again, citing no legal authority whatsoever for their claim.
	They're clearly going to try to keep testing over and over and over and over again until they try to find something that they can smear them with.
	That's clearly their objective.
	This is a dishonest organization filled with dishonest people who have already perjured themselves under penalty of perjury to get the search warrant.
	Then executed in a way that directly contradicted known established protocols and procedures for searching and sampling relevant food items.
	Have then seized food items they had no legal basis to seize.
	They didn't distinguish between food they thought was for sale, food that somebody else owned, or food that Amos owned.
	They seized his own food and said you can't eat your own food.
	That's how nuts the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is.
	So the current position is they've economically frozen them.
	And so there's been a good fundraiser out there.
	Give, send, go.
	Just board Amos Miller.
	Original goal was to raise $150,000.
	Some of that for legal fees.
	Some of that, most of it for Amos Miller.
	And so some people had asked about that.
	That's the FYI.
	But still have the Free America Law Center also helping support the legal action.
	Because my firm has had to prioritize this.
	We went from one level of work to a whole new level of work on a very fast basis.
	Because there's almost no precedent for this being challenged in court.
	So if it has happened by regulatory agencies before, nobody's challenged it before.
	Nobody said, hold on a second, what the heck fire are you doing?
	You don't have this power.
	You don't have this authority.
	You never did.
	And they're used to smearing people publicly and threatening them with completely shutting them down, which is what they're currently threatening.
	So they're saying, unless you get our permits and licenses, and we approve you to get our permits and licenses, and then allow us to do all the harassment that a permit and license gives you, you can't feed your own family.
	That's what the state of Pennsylvania is basically saying.
	So I'll be up there.
	We're meeting with legislators.
	We're meeting with others, political actors.
	We'll be demanding answers from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	And there are members whose food was illegally frozen, searched, seized, and detained who want to bring illegal action against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture because the Amish don't sue.
	Part of why they target the Amish.
	But these people are not Amish.
	And they need the food for their own health.
	So, I mean, the whole thing with this is here you have a group of people.
	Who have informed consent, unlike almost every other thing you buy in America for food or medicine.
	Most of the time, food and medicine, you don't get the adequate information about how that food was made, all the chemicals and preservatives and the crap that's in it.
	You don't get that information.
	And the FDA is all for it.
	The USDA is all for it.
	Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is all for it.
	So those scenarios.
	But an Amish makes food the way they've always made it, that people have found to be safer.
	No food is perfectly safe.
	But a lot safer than the crap you get in the grocery store.
	A lot better for you.
	And for some people, they demand or need that food for their own health, Crohn's disease, other issues that they have.
	And here it is, they're prohibiting you from eating your own food.
	Prohibiting farmers from farming their own food.
	Prohibiting an Amish food tradition that is centuries improving its safety, efficacy, and better health outcome.
	And so, because they are enraged that the corporate administrative state doesn't have 100%.
	Monopoly on your food supply.
	Remember, they want to do things like stick vaccines in the corporate food supply and try to deliver that to you in food without your full knowledge.
	That's what they're already doing.
	The USDA, the FDA, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	And they almost never face pushback.
	So they're going to face pushback here.
	But the question will be, will the courts give justice or not?
	Are the courts alert or aware?
	Will they enforce the law?
	Will they respect the law?
	And if not, then we have to figure out what next.
	But, you know, Amos Miller is not going to go gently into that good night.
	He's going to try to fight for the rights of his members to be able to eat the food that not only they want, but they need.
	And the question is whether the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture will let him and whether the courts and the legal system will let him.
	And I'm looking at just one comment in Rumble.
	It says, Beej1721, my several bouts of food poisoning over the years were from government-inspected and controlled foods.
	Yeah, by the way, and the irony is they recall lettuce.
	They recall blueberries if one person gets sick.
	But when it comes to the jab...
	Never mind.
	There's no recall there.
	No refund for you.
	No, instead they continue to propagandize it and try to mandate it and force it on people and justify it and rationalize it when employers are defending themselves for discriminating against the religious in court.
	So it's Amos case, a big case.
	You can continue to support it at the fundraiser that's on the Give, Send, Go.
	The Free America Law Center, which you can just look up online.
	You can still make donations there.
	I helped found it.
	They're providing support for all the legal fees, costs, and expenses.
	Some of the funds raised for Amos go to the legal fees and costs and expenses.
	Most of the funds raised go so he can stay afloat economically while they're freezing him.
	This is it, Robert?
	Amos Miller under attack again?
	Okay, awesome.
	I'm going to share that in our Rumble chat and with our locals.
	Their goal is just to bankrupt him before he can actually do anything.
	Well, speaking of bankrupting an Amish...
	Man, Robert, so Reuben King is the other Amish individual under attack, and I want to steel man the prosecution so that people can be scared by what Reuben King was doing.
	Allegedly, if I go to, I'm looking at the Lancaster, is this, what is this, the Lancaster Patriot, says that Reuben King was selling up to 150 long arms.
	Do they, do they, let me see, long arms marked with price tags.
	So Reuben King is selling.
	Firearms, long arms, rifles.
	He's got 150 of them with price tags.
	He's engaging in the traffic of firearms without a license.
	It sounds scary.
	It sounds intimidating.
	What are the attenuating circumstances that would allow someone to say, oh, 150, I don't know, maybe that's a lot for some, but not that many for others?
	It's not federal.
	Like, what is the steel man retort to?
	Dude selling 150 long arms, putting them up for sale, 150 at, I don't know, a thousand bucks a piece.
	That's a pretty important source of revenue.
	He's not just a farmer.
	He's an arms dealer.
	Yeah, there's several problems with it.
	The first one is, what is the basis to criminalize the purchase or sale of guns in America?
	I mean, the Second Amendment, if we go back throughout its history, There was no laws prohibiting the sale and purchase of guns at the time of the 1791, the time of our Constitution, nor was there in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted against the states.
	And as the Third Circuit recently ruled, under that circumstance, you should still go back to 1791 because that was known as being why and how it was that Second Amendment that was being adopted in 1868 was the Second Amendment of 1791.
	And under the Bruin decision, the question is, is there any historical predicate for this of the federal government requiring that you prohibiting you from selling a gun or buying a gun without a permit, a federal license?
	Indeed, the federal government didn't regulate this at all until the late 20th century.
	So that's problem one, is the Second Amendment doesn't allow this.
	The second thing is what the facts really show.
	The facts really show an older Amish farmer, late 50s, Who is collecting a bunch of interesting guns that he likes.
	He likes a big gun collection.
	Occasionally exchanging them to increase and improve the value of his collection.
	That he's selling guns that are lawfully owned for lawful use purposes.
	There's no allegation that he ever sold them to anyone for criminal purposes.
	Ever.
	So, you look at the laws.
	When Congress passed these criminal laws, they did so on the grounds.
	Even though I think it was still in violation of the Second Amendment, they said this won't touch the hair of a law-abiding person's head.
	Just like they said about the income tax.
	They said this won't tax the hair on a working man's head.
	How did that promise work out?
	But the big reason why that promise wasn't kept was because the courts didn't require it to be kept.
	But the criminal laws were written to deal with the merchant of death, the guy who the Biden administration just traded for a WNBA player to Russia.
	People who are selling massive amounts of weapons, particularly dangerous and explosive devices, to known criminals for a known criminal use.
	In other words, gangs, cartels, warlords, you know, that's who, lord of war type people.
	That's who the law, that's what Congress said the law was about.
	That's what the Sentencing Commission said that law was about.
	In fact, sentencing commission said nobody would ever prosecute someone like a Reuben King.
	That will never happen.
	And if it does, we'll carve it out to make sure they're never sentenced with this little clause that now the government is completely ignoring.
	So the thing that should terrify people is they're saying you can't buy or sell guns.
	Here's the other thing.
	The law says this only applies to people whose business or profession is selling guns.
	That's what the dealer clause says.
	It says it doesn't apply to people who are doing it for collection.
	Doesn't apply to people who are doing it for sporting purposes.
	Doesn't apply to people who are doing it as a hobby.
	But what happened here?
	Ignore all that.
	Their view is, if Amos is, or in this case, if Rubin is putting an advertisement in a newspaper to sell any guns, and there's no evidence he ever marketed 100 guns.
	Basically, they have a gun here, a gun there, a gun here.
	It's like 11 guns total that they have him ever marketing for sale.
	I might have price tags on my fossils, just as a matter of fact.
	I'm not selling them, but if someone comes in, they might have a price tag on them.
	You might keep it for whatever.
	A range of reasons.
	So what happens is the ATF goes out to Rubin.
	And says, we think maybe you need a license.
	And he goes, well, when would I need a license?
	And they said, well, if it's your business or profession.
	He goes, I'm a farmer.
	I farm every day.
	This is not my business.
	My business is my farm.
	It has always been my business is my farm.
	It's what I spend 12 to 14 hours a day working on.
	So he's like, okay, this doesn't apply.
	And then they send a letter to him.
	They say, maybe, maybe you're obligated.
	They don't say for sure he's obligated.
	And then they send in some undercover people.
	Say, will you sell us a gun?
	He's like, sure.
	And bam, he's criminally indicted.
	You will not find an analogous case.
	I couldn't find one anywhere.
	So he goes through a jury trial.
	His lawyers don't use some of the advice that we had provided, unfortunately.
	Get a bad jury.
	They convict him.
	And now he's facing sentencing.
	And what the feds want is four to five years in federal prison.
	The judge has already ordered the forfeit.
	Because what they did is when they went in, they seized every gun he ever had.
	Over 600 guns.
	He's now his entire life collection forfeited.
	And these aren't machine guns.
	These aren't Uzis.
	These aren't grenades.
	These aren't the kind of things you're thinking about.
	It's some old long rifle that you would have used 100 years ago.
	It's that kind of thing.
	And the judge, I mean, we fought a big objection.
	Judge ignored the objection.
	Forfeited everything.
	This judge has a reputation of being harsh and punitive at sentencing.
	So he's facing an unprecedented prosecution, unprecedented sentence.
	They're going to put this 56-year-old farmer, strip him from his family, strip him from his community.
	Put him in federal prison, which has no means whatsoever to honor and recognize his religious beliefs, where he will invariably be harassed by both BOP personnel and other inmates because of his religious beliefs, where he cannot continue to honor and respect his religious beliefs on a daily basis, where he is subject to all kinds of risk because of the violence in federal prisons and the complete joke of medical care in federal prisons for doing what?
	For thinking that he wasn't in the business of dealing firearms.
	Because he wasn't.
	That's the reality of it.
	This is the lesser of the problems, but what's the aggregate value of his firearm collection?
	It's got to be half a million?
	Under the statute, it says you can only fine somebody $5,000 for this.
	And he's being fined the equivalent of half a million dollars.
	Or whatever the amount they stick on.
	I haven't seen the government's valuation yet on the total value of the forfeiture.
	$5,000 per gun.
	$5,000 per offense.
	I'm joking.
	I don't think that's the case.
	And that's why one of our challenges to the forfeiture is they didn't prove that these guns were being used for an unlawful purpose because there's no proof that it was.
	They didn't prove that all these guns were for sale.
	Ever.
	They didn't prove that these guns were involved in interstate commerce.
	Which is a requirement for federal criminal prosecution under this statute.
	And in my view, this kind of forfeiture is an excessive fine because it's way disproportionate to the actual permitted statutory fine.
	While they're wanting to put him in federal prison for five years and badly hurt the Amish community that he's part of.
	That he's a critical, integral part of at a key time in his life, in his family's life, in his community's life.
	And they want to use this as a template.
	So that if you ever do anything without a government permit, a government permit that then waives your rights against a whole bunch of things to allow them to do like the fishermen, literally be on your fishing boat and take 20% to harass you and harangue you, and drive you out of business if you don't accommodate them, then this allows complete government control of your life.
	And it's not a coincidence they're targeting the Amish.
	It's not a coincidence they're targeting the Second Amendment.
	Because they know, just like your right for bodily freedom, for medical autonomy, your right to choose your own food and farm and fish for your own food, the next essential part for survival, independent of state control, is the Second Amendment.
	And they're trying to eviscerate it by the misuse and abuse of this criminal prosecution by a judge that appears to be very insensitive and unconcerned and punitive-oriented as he approaches these kind of cases.
	And so, you know, we'll do what we can at the sentencing hearing on Tuesday afternoon.
	And then we will be filing an appeal because of all the constitutional violations I think have already taken place.
	And if the judge, you know, issues a sentence that I think is completely out of whack, that will also violate certain rules and laws that we will challenge.
	So we'll see.
	The sentencing hearing is on Tuesday.
	Yeah, and the judge at the hearing will decide the sentence.
	He's already forfeited everything.
	He's already forfeited everything.
	But does the judge have a certain period of time to deliberate, issue a written decision, or is he going to issue it?
	They don't usually do that.
	Federal criminal sentencing.
	I put up our sentencing memorandum so people can read it at vivabarneslaw.locals.com going through what some of the legal and evidentiary issues are.
	But they always issue the sentence that day.
	At least, hopefully, he'll allow Ruben to self-report if he issues an incarceration sentence.
	But this judge has a history of immediately remanding you to the marshals right there.
	The judge has a history of being proudly punitive.
	And we'll see how he is on Tuesday.
	This would be an absurd case to be proudly punitive.
	But, you know, that's the nature of some of the judges these days.
	But Ruben is going to find out.
	Whether or not he goes to jail for years on Tuesday.
	Correct.
	The question that I also had after that was...
	No, that was it.
	So he's going to find out Tuesday.
	Is it live or will it be broadcast or not?
	Federal court, so no.
	Okay.
	I want to see if I can bring up the sentencing.
	I'll share the sentencing memorandum link.
	He's going to find out whether or not he's going to jail for one year, five years.
	Would one year, Robert, be like a victory or that still gets challenged?
	Oh, yeah.
	Anything we're going to challenge because I think it violates the Second Amendment that they're using this criminal statute in this way.
	But anything less than five years would be an achievement at this point.
	If we had been involved, he would have gone in for five years.
	So we'll see if the judge will be reasonable and not be vindictive.
	But a lot of federal judges these days are just flatly vindictive.
	Well, especially on firearms stuff.
	It's easy.
	Even though it's an Amish farmer.
	Selling old long rifles.
	I'm gonna bring up something because we got a new member.
	It's EJOST300 is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the clubs, EJOST.
	They.
	I don't want to misgender you.
	He, who, or whatever.
	Thank you for coming.
	I thought administrative law was only enforced with an administrative employee, says Stingray.
	Tropical Rockets says Make Winnie's Hair Great Again.
	MWHGA.
	Then we got...
	NoHandsman81, the judge yelled, not me.
	Oh, sorry.
	We got out a judge for violating the Constitution and yelled, I don't care about the Constitution.
	Are some of these judges blackmailed and want us to get them fired so they can have an out?
	No, they're just politically prejudiced, to be honest.
	We've got Jay Pearson, welcome to the club, sir, ma 'am, whomever.
	Robert, what's next?
	Speaking of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, the laws governing the homeless are now going up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	This was the ordinance that made it illegal to pitch a tent, sleep on a bench in San Francisco?
	There's a bunch of them.
	The Ninth Circuit, about five or six years ago, established the precedent that...
	Punishing someone for involuntary conduct with big fines or with the equivalent of criminal fines or criminal punishment constituted cruel and unusual punishment or an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
	Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable bail, prohibits cruel or unusual punishments, and prohibits excessive fines.
	Or as I say, cruel and unusual punishments.
	And the issue is when you tell somebody that has no place to stay for reasons that are not voluntary because there's no available shelter room available, and you say if you sleep in your own car in some cases, if you sleep on a park bench, if you tent, camp outdoors, we're going to fine you, seize your property, and maybe criminally punish you.
	That does sound an awful lot like punishment for involuntary behavior, which has always been determined to be cruel and unusual punishment, and if a fine is involved, excessive.
	And that's what the Ninth Circuit has determined.
	Now, that has been construed because all of these cities don't provide adequate shelters for the homeless, as the homeless problem continues to rise, not only due to inadequate mental health care, but also due to housing cost issues.
	That the combination of the two has led to a continued surge in homelessness, along with drug issues as well, that they have not resorted to, let's provide more rooms, more shelter.
	Instead, they've come up with more creative laws to try to punish it, criminally and with fines.
	Courts have been striking it down, but some conservative courts don't agree with it.
	They think it's fine, that it's like an old vagrancy law.
	And as such, vagrancy laws have often been upheld.
	And consequently, you can arrest people for being homeless.
	You can imprison someone for being homeless.
	That's their position.
	We'll see what the Supreme Court does.
	I agree, pure constitutionally, punishing someone for involuntary behavior is cruel and unusual and excessive fine, under my view of the Constitution.
	But we'll see what the Supreme Court says.
	The question, though, is...
	It does center around whether or not there are options.
	And if there are options for homelessness, shelters, etc., and people who are, I mean, some people are going to say, like, a mentally ill individual who refuses lodging and then goes to live on the street, it might be involuntary, but it still has to be sanctionable to some extent because you want to resolve the San Francisco crisis.
	Correct.
	So the question is whether or not there's alternative means that the state is providing.
	And in those cases, when it's involuntary for mental illness, the criminal laws provide the remedy.
	That you're not guilty by reason of insanity, for which the usual remedy is mental health treatment.
	The real issue is homelessness continues to rise, and most of our governments have not had an adequate result to it.
	There's frustration amongst many people in these communities that the homeless can be aggressive, that the homeless are...
	Using public streets in ways that you don't want public streets to be used, that it's increased in crime, that it creates a chaotic presence.
	So I understand the social concern, but the answer is to provide meaningful shelter and deal with why is the housing problem a problem for that part of homelessness rather than let's lock people up and let's give the government the power to lock you up.
	For involuntary behavior, because you might think, oh, this is just about the homeless.
	It won't be.
	They'll come at every single other thing that they can.
	Suddenly they'll call protest without a permit a certain kind of vagrancy that now they can lock you up as long as they want.
	Look at what they're doing to January 6th people.
	The prosecutor just said people out on the lawn who saw no sign of anything that they were doing anything wrong, he's now going to threaten with years in federal prison.
	We don't want to give the government this power.
	And while it's inconvenient and annoying to deal with the consequences of this for homelessness, it's a lot more inconvenient and annoying to give the state the power to take away our rights.
	While simultaneously, I forget where I saw the tweet, but it was basically saying, people are exercising their First Amendment rights and blocking traffic.
	And someone said, that's not what...
	Yeah, it's an interplay.
	It's a balance.
	And there's no question about it.
	Robert, hold on.
	There's one purple superchat that I just saw.
	Rumble rant.
	No rant.
	This is the highlight of my weekend.
	Booyah.
	Robert, speaking of highlights of weekends, I don't want to get into football because it was not the subject.
	Who's left in the playoffs?
	When is the Super Bowl?
	So, the Super Bowl is in February.
	Baltimore will host the winner of the Buffalo-Kansas City game next week.
	I think both these games will be on Sunday.
	And San Francisco survived against Green Bay.
	And they will host the Detroit Lions.
	So three of the four are filled.
	San Francisco, Detroit, Baltimore.
	The fourth will be decided by the Buffalo-Kansas City game tonight.
	It's going on right now in Buffalo.
	Well, sweet and merciful goodness.
	What do we got?
	We got nearly 22,000 people watching.
	Not football.
	I don't know who would go to Baltimore for any reason.
	I wouldn't go to Baltimore for the Super Bowl if someone gifted me a ticket.
	But I'm just this fearful little...
	Oh, you know who the Super Bowl is this year?
	Miami?
	Las Vegas!
	Oh, Robert, okay.
	Are you going to go?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	We'll see.
	We'll definitely have on April 13th, Saturday, April 13th, we'll be doing a special fundraiser for Free America Law Center.
	Helping out in the Reuben King case, the Amos Miller case, the Brooke Jackson case.
	Basically helps provide supplemental funding to the entire legal team that's involved in that, covering overhead costs, local counsel, all those things.
	Was involved in supporting the Covington kids and other areas, food freedom, financial freedom.
	Going to help with the George Gammon suit against the Federal Reserve.
	Help defend people that are in the crypto space against government abuse.
	So, you know, one of the more important populist legal centers out there that I helped co-found.
	We're going to do a fundraiser for my 50th birthday party, live in Las Vegas, April 13th.
	We'll be posting the details of how you can order tickets at vivabarneslaw.locals.com this week.
	It's going to be amazing, and I'm going to be there.
	The only question is, am I taking the entire family?
	And I think the answer is leaning towards yes.
	That'd be great.
	That'd be awesome.
	It'll be amazing, Robert.
	Good time of year in Vegas.
	It'll be good.
	Now, so hold on.
	We've got left on the menu.
	I'm looking at this.
	The big Second Amendment win.
	And then we got the immunity for false charges, social media ownership, and then the Madonna and Twitter.
	What do we do?
	Do we do one or two more here and then we go over to...
	We'll do the big Second Amendment win and the no immunity for prosecutors here.
	And then we'll save the last three fun topics along with answering all the $5 tip questions at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in the after party, including who owns your Twitter account or Facebook account.
	Madonna sued for being late.
	Can you sue the next time somebody's late?
	And what happens when a Twitter parody account goes to a jury trial?
	Those three will save for the afterparty at vivabarneslaw.locals.com Okay, Robert, because I don't know what the Second Amendment one is.
	Which one is the Second Amendment win?
	Oh, big, big win out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals!
	By the way, that's where Reuben King and Amos Miller's cases are pending.
	So that might have been why I was researching the Third Circuit Court of Appeals of late.
	And in the Third Circuit, here is the issue.
	Pennsylvania, being the natural communists that too many of them are there, dating back to their Quaker days, passed a law that said, if you're 18 to 20 years old and we declare a state of emergency, you have to leave your gun at home.
	You can't go out and you can't have it ready for you.
	Now, you would think if there's any time when you do need to be carrying...
	It's in the state of an emergency.
	Exactly.
	So the law was challenged, and to the credit of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, they unanimously decided that Pennsylvania state law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And as important was their metrics.
	They said, look, this is a pretty simple analysis.
	Are 18 to 12 or 20-year-olds part of the people protected under the Second Amendment?
	Absolutely.
	So was there a historical habit of, and here's the key part, did you look at 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed, or you look at 1791 when the Second Amendment was passed?
	And they said at the time the 14th Amendment was passed that made the Second Amendment enforceable against the states, they knew they were adopting the principles of the Second Amendment from 1791.
	So they determined what the relevant standard is.
	Is 1791, even in the context of a 14th Amendment challenge?
	Very big, important part.
	That means you need to go back to 1791, say, was there any history of excluding 18 to 20-year-olds, or anyone for that matter, from being able to carry a gun in an emergency?
	I would say quite the opposite.
	Exactly.
	You're often required to carry it.
	Your parents were required to give it to you.
	You're required to join the militia.
	That's how our founders started.
	They wanted you with the power.
	Not bureaucrats with the power.
	Not professional politicians with the power.
	Not soldiers or cops or prosecutors or judges with the power.
	They wanted the ultimate power, the power of self-defense of the country and yourself, to be in your hands.
	And this law stripped them of it.
	Third Circuit said, violates the Second Amendment, struck it down.
	Big win.
	Might have some impact for Reuben King's appeal.
	Fantastic.
	Unless the states basically say like they did with the Bruin decision, tough shit, we're not following this precedent.
	They tried to argue mootness.
	They said, hey, judge, they've shrunk the emergency rules.
	One of the good laws that changed after COVID was the legislature went in and said, okay, no more one-year emergency powers.
	You have emergency powers for like 21 days, and then we have to approve it or it's gone.
	Good rule.
	But they're like, hey, because of that, no worries.
	Court said this is the kind of thing capable of repetition, yet evading review, which exactly doesn't make it moot.
	It means it's capable it'll happen again, but the appeals court won't have time to rule on it by the time it's dealt with because of the shortened duration of emergencies.
	And they pointed out Pennsylvania's got a long history of declaring emergencies all the time.
	Which was a great point.
	They're like, this is a real high capability of repeating.
	They refuse to buy the state's argument, this is limited to COVID.
	They're like, no, this is limited to states of emergency, and you people love your emergency powers.
	So by golly, we've got to strike this down.
	Another key part of the ruling that's beneficial in other cases challenging these kind of laws.
	Compare that to Canada, where the courts basically say, yeah, we've rescinded or suspended the COVID laws that are being challenged, therefore...
	No longer any issue to try, mootness granted.
	It's outrageous.
	Alright, the last one that we do here on Rumble is, let me just see here.
	Prosecutorial immunity!
	Yes, not that I didn't do my homework on this one either, Robert, but just refresh my memory.
	Oh, another Third Circuit case, Pennsylvania.
	Prosecutors were sued.
	A man was convicted of murder.
	Spent 13 years in prison, and then they figured out he was completely innocent, completely vindicated.
	He dug into his case, discovered that the prosecutors themselves had found some jailhouse rats.
	By the way, this sounds already like Zachariah Anderson with his magical jailhouse snitch who said he was sleeping and he's screaming how he did the murder.
	Zachariah Anderson, if anyone hasn't seen it, look it up, but I think we are familiar with it.
	Yeah, a Wisconsin case.
	That's another innocent man that got railroaded.
	And the prosecutor said, hey, we're immune.
	We're immune, judge.
	We're prosecutors.
	Can't sue us.
	The exception has always been that if prosecutors are doing prosecutorial things, they are immune.
	But if they're taking on functions outside of the courthouse that are not traditional prosecutorial tasks, such as becoming the police officers themselves as investigators, then they are not immune for doing that.
	A smart corrupt prosecutor knows to work with a smart corrupt cop.
	And have the smart, corrupt cop do everything so the prosecutor can't ever be sued.
	But these prosecutors were so eager to convict this man, to railroad this innocent man, that they themselves were involved in finding the snitch and getting him to talk a certain way, which is often needed to be the case because snitches don't trust the cops to deliver on the benefits.
	You want me to lie about somebody?
	I want to be talking to the prosecutor.
	No, I'm going to get covered on this.
	And so that's why the prosecutors were involved.
	They were essential to the railroading.
	And credit to the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals, they said, when you did that, you were no longer a lawyer in court.
	You were no longer a lawyer preparing for court.
	You were an investigator.
	And in that capacity, you're not immune, and you can be sued.
	Very good ruling out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
	That's amazing.
	I'm sharing the link with Zachariah Anderson's brother.
	So that everybody should watch that.
	Because it's amazing.
	We're so eager to get a conviction, you'll bend the rules, you'll do whatever.
	And they say, well, we're just doing our jobs.
	Your job was never to falsify evidence.
	Your job was never to frame an innocent person or ignore exculpatory evidence.
	But it gets interpreted, I don't know, restrictively.
	Okay.
	Good.
	I guess it's a small victory for somebody.
	But meanwhile, how many years did he spend in jail, Robert?
	Thirteen.
	Yep, lucky 13. Okay, I'm sure he'll heal from that bullshit.
	Okay, sorry.
	And then the last one is...
	Oh, the next three are for the after party.
	Social media ownership, Madonna, Twitter parody trial, and answering all the $5 questions.
	So here's what we're doing right now, people.
	I'm going to send...
	Let me get the link here.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	I've got to go over to Rumble.
	I've got to give everyone the link.
	Link...
	Two Locals.
	It's all in caps.
	Come on over.
	We're going to end this.
	Robert, what do you have this week for where people can find you and what people can expect?
	I'll be on the road.
	Not going to be anywhere this week.
	I may try to do a bourbon with Barnes, but it probably won't be until Thursday.
	Add VivaBarnesLock.Locals.com because Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, all pretty stacked and packed.
	I will try to make up for your absence on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I'll be live all week.
	I'll be live compulsively, so just stay tuned, people.
	We are ending on Rumble, going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Madonna late for a show, two hours late.
	I have questions.
	And then the other one was, oh yeah, the Twitter parody is kind of on your own social media account.
	Okay, that'll be yours.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and if you're not, enjoy the weekend.
	Trump is live on Rumble.
	You can go back to that.
	Come on over.
	We're ending this now on Rumble.
	See you all, locals, and tomorrow.
	Boom.
	Robert.
	Okay, I'm gonna go through.
	I'm gonna get the...
	Oh gosh, look at all this.
	Gotta go tipped.
	I gotta go back up.
	Scroll up.
	Scroll up.
	Okay, we got Madam Corbyn.
	Five bucks.

▲