Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 29, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:10:48

Ep. 195: War on the Amish; ICJ Rules Against Israel; CHD v. FDA; Border Battle AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, what does your lawyer think your chances are tomorrow?
	So, I've read the written submissions myself.
	I like it.
	I put out a call there for some character reference letters.
	From different family members and close friends.
	I've managed to get quite a few actually to submit to the judge.
	Again, I have not breached any of my conditions in the last two years.
	I do not have any previous criminal records or anything like that.
	You know, I feel pretty confident about the house arrest part.
	But then again, you know, watching Chris Carbert's bail hearing get denied, that really struck a nerve there, and I'm not going to lie, I'm nervous about it.
	I'm stressed out.
	Of course you are.
	And, you know, I've met you in person.
	I see you as a very reasonable individual.
	I see you as somebody who's logical and reasonable.
	You're not...
	Out there to hurt anybody, obviously.
	Yeah.
	It just, it blows my mind.
	Our system is so completely fucked.
	It is.
	It is.
	It's been a rough time.
	I'm a single dad of two kids.
	I got a daughter of 16. And I mean, anybody that knows about teenagers, it's a rough time.
	You know, my son is 10 years old.
	So it's been a ride here for the last couple of years.
	Right.
	You know, pretty stressful, you know, and I'd try and explain to them here what's going to happen tomorrow.
	And, you know, it's surreal.
	It's surreal.
	And the government thinks that, you know, laying more punishments, more punishments to these people is going to solve the problem.
	For those of you who don't know the context here.
	This is James Sowery.
	We talk about the Coutts Four oftentimes and ignore that there's like 13 defendants from the Coutts protests.
	James Sowery is one of them.
	I don't remember all of their names.
	And they've all gone through certain trials or are going through certain trials or been locked up in remand for two years without a trial.
	James Sowery is one of the defendants in resulting from the coups in Alberta, the protest.
	I'll back it all the way up just in case anybody has no idea what the hell's going on here.
	This results from the Ottawa protests or the convoy.
	This is Canadian news.
	That man's name is James Sowery.
	During the Ottawa protests, you know, there were a bunch of arrests made in Ottawa when Justin Trudeau, the fascist pig that he is, came down with his militarized police.
	And, you know, beat the ever-loving piss out of veterans, protesters.
	This man is one of the men that was arrested in Coutts, Alberta.
	There was a blockade on the border of, I want to say, Montana and Alberta.
	We know of the Coutts four.
	The four guys, Chris Carbert, Chris Lysak, Tony, and there's a fourth one.
	I forget names, but I'm bad with names.
	Those are the big four that everybody knows about.
	They were arrested on conspiracy to commit homicide against an RCMP officer.
	They've been in remand for 715 days.
	No trial, no bail.
	Pedophiles get bail.
	Pedophiles get their charges dropped, but they don't get a trial within the requisite period of time.
	I forget what the name of the rule.
	The Jordan rule.
	The Jordan rule.
	That Winnipeg dude who ran over four people at the protest, four protesters, he got bail.
	It was a big bail, but he got bail nonetheless.
	These four coots, guys, they've been in remand for 700 and some odd days.
	No trial, no bail.
	This guy, James Sowery.
	I'm going to have Jason Levine on tomorrow, who's an independent journalist in Canada who's been covering the trial from the beginning, to talk about it.
	I refreshed my memory.
	I was listening to that interview.
	Grizzly underscore Patriot on Rumble.
	That man was arrested because they set up a checkpoint, apparently, after he had delivered...
	Firewood to the protesters at Coutts on the border and was driving back.
	And by all accounts, people, some people are going to say he tried to run over a cop with his 18-wheeler big rig bullshit.
	I mean, you could spout lies.
	Anybody who knows or is relatively familiar with the evidence knows it's bullshit.
	The dude was going through a checkpoint and the police officer during trial admitted that he waved.
	Did something that could be construed as waved him through, and this guy who's driving his truck thought he was being waved through, drove through and accidentally clipped a pylon that was set up as the roadblock or on the side of the road, those orange cones, like a big cone, and knocked it over and was swiftly pursued by police and pulled over and was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and dangerous driving and was convicted.
	And he was just sentenced today to 10 months in prison.
	I play that clip because we're talking about a guy who's got a 16-year-old daughter and a 10-year-old kid, no criminal record, no priors, didn't breach any of his bail conditions while he was out for the last, whatever, two years, and is now, by all accounts, going to go to jail for 10 months.
	I mean, he's going to appeal the conviction, and in an ordinary world of remote justice, he would be allowed out.
	Get bail while out pending appeal, because his appeal is going to take more than 10 months to hear, so by the time his appeal is heard, he'll have served his time.
	This is a load of bullshit of the highest order.
	So, inasmuch as we had a couple of white pills last week, you know, a federal court declaring Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act, you know, unlawful.
	That's a good white pill.
	And it seems that, you know, the old expression, when you fight corruption, corruption fights back.
	What do the court system have to do now?
	They've got to come up with some convictions and some nasty sentences real fast to justify the broader context of the invocation of the act.
	So that guy's going to go to jail for 10 months.
	He's been hauled off now.
	From what I understand, he already filed his appeal, so I guess there's paperwork.
	I mean, I'll get the details tomorrow, but I wanted to bring that to everyone's attention.
	There's a fundraiser out there.
	I'll try to find the link.
	For his fundraiser because, you know, Chris Lysak, who's rotten away for the last two years with his two kids on the outside, has to raise $400,000 for a defense.
	You know, the Crown doesn't have to raise anything.
	They just dip into our back pockets, pull out some money.
	Hey, thanks for the salaries.
	We're going to pay ourselves while we prosecute our own citizens, persecute our own citizens.
	So I'm going to try to find that...
	I'm going to try to find the fundraiser to that.
	I'm going to give everybody the link to the tweet because the interview from grizzly underscore patriot is underneath it.
	And that's the way.
	Let's start off our Sunday show on a Monday with a black pill.
	Sorry.
	What a load of crap is 1,000% right?
	KM357.
	It's an absolute injustice.
	These are political prisoners.
	We are witnessing a modern-day lynch mob.
	This is what we're witnessing.
	Politically disfavored.
	Is the new racially disfavored of the old?
	I was going to start the show off by playing The View, those five idiot buffoons, walking out to the song Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, but I don't want to get copyclaimed.
	These five idiots, Whoopi Goldberg, Joey Behart, and the other three jackasses on that show, literally taking a victory lap because a kangaroo court in New York...
	Order Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million to a batshit crazy lunatic.
	And they're coming up, taking the victory lap.
	And the crowd is cheering them on!
	Whoop-de-doo!
	We love the corruption when it's against someone we hate.
	The modern-day lynch mob people.
	Ironic is not the word.
	You know what, while we're on it, we're going to talk about it a little more when Barnes gets on.
	But talk about it.
	It's worth remembering.
	It's worth remembering what these corrupt hack judges had the audacity to say publicly, despite knowing that they were on camera.
	Hey, they've got all the tools under their belt to make shit happen.
	Listen to Judge Engelron.
	He's the judge in Donald Trump's Leticia James fraud case.
	How do you game the system to convict an innocent man?
	It's very easy.
	They've got all the tools they want.
	How do you game the system to convict a racially...
	Disfavored person 50 years ago, I don't know, in a prejudiced state.
	How do you do it?
	Well, the system does it for you.
	Just find someone who's willing to press the charges.
	They will convict, they will lynch a ham sandwich if it's of the wrong political orientation or of the wrong racial orientation.
	Listen to Judge Engelron talking about how he has the tools in his arsenal to carry out basically the desires of his implicit biases.
	Listen to this.
	I have one last thing to say about tools.
	That puckering with his mouth makes me want to vomit.
	These summary judgment motions I mentioned.
	Am I following the law or am I making law?
	I shouldn't have talked over this.
	Listen to it uninterrupted, I promise you.
	I had one last thing to say about tools.
	A lot of what I do involves motions.
	These summary judgment motions I mentioned.
	Am I following the law or am I making law?
	Okay, I'm following law.
	I'm an impartial referee.
	But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
	And I have tools.
	Somebody can say, well, Your Honor, you have to throw out this case because it's just like another case.
	Well, is it just like another case?
	What if the defendant was wearing a red sweater instead of a blue sweater?
	Well, that's an extreme example.
	That wouldn't distinguish most cases, but there are other facts that do.
	Maybe the education of somebody who supposedly entered into a contract would decide whether the contract was binding.
	I have a tool that I'll call a tool called estoppel.
	Somebody makes an argument, and I say, you can't make that argument.
	You made a different argument three months ago in this case, or even in another case.
	I wish you all luck.
	I'll stand here or around.
	Do you understand what he just said?
	Like, I'm having, like, internet fights with bots.
	I'm not having them because I assume that they are actual robots.
	Understand what he just said.
	I'll pause it now as I go through.
	One last thing to say.
	One last thing to say.
	Tools.
	Tools.
	A lot of what I do involves emotions.
	You're a judge.
	It kind of makes sense.
	These summary judge emotions I mentioned.
	And, all right.
	Am I following the law or am I making law?
	That is never a question that a judge should be asking themselves.
	And he's not asking it in the reflective, like, yes, we have to struggle against our own biases in order to follow the law and not be activist judges who make the law.
	He goes the other way on this.
	Listen to this.
	Okay.
	I'm following law.
	I'm an impartial referee.
	In theory.
	In theory.
	But, but...
	But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
	I should be impartial, but it's very hard for me to factor out my own emotions.
	Oh yeah, and I have tools to make sure that my wildest politically biased dreams can come true.
	And I have tools.
	And I have tools.
	Somebody can say, well, Your Honor, you have to throw out this case because it's just like another case.
	Do I?
	No, I don't.
	If I want to carry out my implicit bias, I don't have to throw it out because he's wearing a red sweater.
	Oh, is he making an argument?
	Well, I can prevent him from making that argument.
	You can't make that argument.
	You made a different argument three months ago in this trial or even in another file.
	I've got all the tools I want to gag, to punish, to get to the result that I want to get to because am I making the law or am I following the law?
	Hey, you know who else does it?
	That's Judge Engeron in the New York Leticia James, New York nipple Judge Engeron.
	You know who else has it?
	Apparently that Judge Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll.
	We're going to talk about this in greater detail when Barnes gets here.
	Yeah, I'm just going to pull something up.
	Maybe you guys don't know about this.
	Who knows?
	Last week, this is actually a week old, so this is even before the verdict.
	This is from NPR.
	You can go find the link.
	I show my receipts just in case I make a mistake.
	This is from before the verdict.
	And so the last week is even more before the verdict.
	Last week, Kaplan.
	This is the Judge Kaplan in the E. Gene Carroll.
	Not to be confused with the lawyer Kaplan for E. Jean Carroll, who happened to have been mentored by Judge Kaplan, and apparently now that is just being disclosed or being discovered for the first time.
	Helena Habba made a motion today.
	So Judge Kaplan, who mentored Attorney Kaplan for E. Jean Carroll, who's being financed by Reid Hoffman, changed the legislation, extends statute of limitations, be the first one to file the claim.
	This is what Judge Carroll had to say.
	Last week, Kaplan said, quote, the fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused, indeed raped, Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established.
	Mother effer.
	I know, oh.
	There, end quote, thereby blocking Trump's lawyers from arguing this week that he did not rape Carroll.
	Ahead of the start of the trial, Kaplan underscored that this trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of his June...
	2019 statements.
	Those statements have already been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice.
	You know what's really funny?
	You go to the actual verdict sheet, the verdict form.
	Did Ms. Carroll prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?
	No!
	Now, I know the argument here, by the way, and the argument as to how the judge got there is even more corrupt and more insidious than you can possibly imagine.
	The argument is that the judge said, well, by the dictionary definition, colloquially speaking, Trump can be said to have raped her definitively because sexual assault, sexual abuse can be deemed to be raped, colloquially speaking.
	You know what the problem is?
	This statement says it's been conclusively established, which means legally, not semantically, you goddamn corrupt SOB of a judge.
	This is not saying, you know, colloquially we can say it because sexual abuse can be deemed to be rape under Merriam-Webster.
	No!
	He says conclusively established, which means by trial, by the jury.
	And it hasn't because it's a goddamn lie.
	Oh no, but this judge now comes out and tells the jury from what I understand.
	It's been conclusively established so that the media can now say Trump is a rapist.
	And so that the media, so that Trump can now say I never raped her because this judge says it's been conclusively established.
	It's absolute insanity.
	Corruption of the highest order.
	I'm going to give myself an ulcer.
	Where's my blood pressure machine?
	I'll just ask my wife to bring this here.
	So that's that.
	It's Banana Republic show trial kangaroo courts.
	Not just in the States, not just in Canada.
	The West is falling in its entirety.
	And if you don't understand it, or if you like it because you think that these are your enemies and therefore it's warranted, the revolution devours itself.
	The commie collaborators, they weren't spared.
	They were just the last ones to be put up against the wall.
	Yeah, and I see people saying, he said, skip question four if no answer.
	How did they get to battery if they didn't answer the question about the unwanted touching?
	Okay.
	I've got another intro stuff.
	For those who don't know how this works, good evening.
	Viva Frye, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
	This is our Sunday night show with Viva Barnes Law.
	Dotlocals.com.
	Barnes was in transit yesterday, so we're doing the Sunday show on a Monday.
	Yesterday, Mark Grobert, America's Untold Stories with Eric Connolly, was gracious enough to join me, and we had one heck of a show.
	Notwithstanding, but this is...
	Shit is collapsing, and you cannot tolerate it just because it's...
	In your favor right now.
	When the dice are rigged, it only works until such time as it's rigged against you.
	That's a terrible analogy.
	Oh, so for those who don't know the way we start, I'm using Rumble Studio.
	They're tinkering with it to make it better all the time.
	We're live on Rumble.
	We're live on YouTube.
	We're live on that platform known as X. Let me see what we're up to here.
	I love this.
	We've got a Twitter space and people are going to go see it there.
	But none of these platforms matter because what ends up happening is after a certain period of time, we end on YouTube and Twitter and we go over to Rumble and Locals exclusively.
	So get your butts on over to...
	You know what?
	Actually, you should probably put the link up there.
	Hold on.
	Share.
	Copy.
	Go to YouTube and I'll put the link up in the top.
	And then after we're done on Rumble, we shut it all down.
	We go to...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com support is only for the after party.
	That's the way it's set up now in Rumble Studio.
	So link to Rumble.
	And on the menu tonight, you know, a bunch of shit.
	What can I tell you?
	Now, hold on.
	We got something.
	We're going to lighten up the mood a little bit with a little Nancy Pelosi hypocrisy.
	As if there's anything else out of Nancy Pelosi that we...
	Okay, pinned comment there.
	Let me see.
	I brought it up in the backdrop here.
	Yeah, listen to this.
	This is amazing!
	It's amazing.
	It's phenomenal.
	You couldn't script this stuff in a movie without people saying, that's a cliche, that would never happen that way.
	So apparently some protesters showed up at Nancy Pelosi's house and they're like, I don't know, swarming her near her car, which I guess, you know, I guess security learned nothing from the David DePop break-in entry.
	Like, you know, or at least now people seem to know Nancy Pelosi's house.
	So when the cops showed up, when DePop was there, nobody knew it was Nancy Pelosi's house.
	Security wasn't, cameras weren't working.
	They pulled a little Epstein on the cameras.
	All right.
	We're looking at this now.
	Let's just watch this because it's hilarious.
	Did you hear what you just said?
	Go back to China where your headquarters is.
	I don't know if the person who was protesting was Chinese, Asian, or whatever, but the people who call Extreme MAGA Republicans, racist conspiracy theorists, spout off what ostensibly looks like a racial slur coupled with a conspiracy theory that the people who are protesting Israel or, you know, arguing for genocide or, you know, arguing for a peace...
	Peacefire?
	Ceasefire.
	They're from China, they're communists, and they're funded by the Russians.
	I mean, this is...
	I put out a vlog today.
	You should go check it out.
	It talks about Canadian stuff.
	It is...
	Confession through projection.
	Oh, sorry, Barnes.
	I didn't want to bring you in just yet.
	Oh, come on.
	Hold up.
	I blew it, people.
	It's confession through projection of the highest order.
	They accuse others of being racist conspiracy theorists.
	Go back to China where your headquarters is.
	Anybody who's seen Donnie Darko, there's that scene where the guy says, go back to China, Ichbe, because he was an asshole.
	Robert, sir, sorry to bring you in like that.
	How goes the battle?
	So this is Rumble Studio.
	That is interesting.
	I'm getting used to this.
	How do you like it so far?
	They need to incorporate many of the changes that I've made, you know, sooner than later, yesterday.
	The one that I've realized it might be prohibitive for multi-person streams is when I share the screen like you just saw, only one person can be in the video while you share a screen with a presentation.
	So that would make it impossible to have, like, panels watching streams at the same time.
	So they've got to fix that ASAP.
	And some other things to take.
	It's good, though.
	It's good in that.
	Look at this.
	I can go.
	I can highlight comments from YouTube.
	Here's one from YouTube.
	I can highlight one from Rumble.
	There's Rumble.
	And even locals.
	I just have to see what the thing is.
	Here we go.
	They've incorporated all the comments, which is great.
	I can see the tips when they come in, but they're not highlighted enough, so I've got to make sure I don't miss them.
	Other than that, no, it's good.
	It's good.
	Robert, you had one hell of a week last week.
	That's an understatement.
	Yes, so we got a lot of fun topics tonight.
	But the one that had the most questions on the locals board was about how was Philadelphia.
	You know what?
	It's definitely not always sunny in Philadelphia.
	No doubt about that.
	I ended up spending most of the week in the hospital.
	And they had an unidentified infection.
	They were worried about sepsis, whether it was time to get that life insurance policy in quick before the certificate was written, but did ultimately survive.
	They got out Sunday afternoon and flew back to Vegas late Sunday evening.
	But yes, we ultimately survived it.
	It was interesting.
	The Amish were asking me the night before at a big event of a lot of community members at Amos Miller's, given the assault that he's under that we'll discuss.
	What would happen if something happens to you?
	Well, I'm putting things into motion so that that won't necessarily be the hindrance that it might otherwise be.
	I didn't anticipate.
	Having that risk come to bear so quickly.
	Okay now, survive.
	I always say I'm on God's clock.
	When it's time to check out, there's not much you can do when you're on God's clock.
	Until then, you usually find a way to survive.
	Did you miss any of the hearings as a result of being...
	I missed everything.
	I was out of it for most of that.
	Lots of drugs and lots of time in the hospital for antibiotics and what have you.
	I saw nothing pretty much.
	I won't ask too many medical questions.
	There were some interesting experiences there.
	I'll leave it at that.
	Survived.
	That's the good news.
	I tell you, the only...
	Good hospital is the one that you're not in.
	I mean, the hospitals, when you need emergency help, etc.
	But gosh darn, are they places to avoid at all costs.
	Yeah, you know, I personally wouldn't keep a lawyer too long in a hospital.
	I mean, there were some power issues going on there that, you know, the head doctor wanted to do certain things.
	I wasn't interested in those things.
	And it was an authority kind of personality, like very sharp.
	But once she realized that, oh, you're one of those, you know, dissidents, you know, like the next question she asked had all these medical students because it's a teaching hospital and what have you, which often are good because you get a lot of the younger interns and residents that are really conscientious.
	The nurses were all great.
	The head doctor I didn't always share perspectives with.
	I can see a lot of ordinary people would get easily intimidated into all kinds of medical treatment.
	That shouldn't necessarily happen under a true informed consent.
	They don't always take their informed consent considerations as seriously as they need to.
	But as soon as she realized that, okay, this is someone I'm not going to just be able to push around and felt her authority challenged, a little bit like Cartman, you know, my authority.
	She leaned over and almost whispered, did you take the COVID vaccine?
	And I was like, nope.
	So now you know who I am.
	So let's rock and roll and move on accordingly.
	So we can make sure I stay alive, but we're not doing any kind of drastic, invasive thing.
	They must have asked five times, you want to take the COVID shot?
	You want to take the flu shot?
	You want to take this shot?
	Oh my God.
	And I was like, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
	I think there's pressure somehow from the Biden administration because it felt like some of the people were like checking off a box.
	But from the head doctor, it was more, oh, you're one of those people kind of routine.
	It is what it is.
	It was a learning experience.
	Survived, so that's good.
	I wasn't able to do a Friday hearing that I wanted to do for Amos Miller, so that got moved to February 29th, but that's going to be a...
	Now we get to do it more whole-scale and wholesale, which is better.
	But yeah, interesting experience in Philly.
	The irony there is my grandfather, my father's dad, was in Philly.
	He was a great architect.
	They mistreated him there in the hospitals.
	It was actually something very similar to what they were trying to do with me.
	And he ended up being dead within a year.
	My father was orphaned by his father's death at the age of a year and a half.
	So it was particularly apt.
	And I was like, you're going to try to redo what happened to Grandpa?
	I don't think so.
	We Barnes's do learn our lessons.
	That book is The Door Rebellion referenced last week.
	Turns out even more of my relatives were behind that.
	You know, I got a great-great-grandfather.
	They accused of treason.
	Another great-grandfather they accused of other activities, all because he said that the Constitution should live up to its principles in the state of Rhode Island.
	So that's the tradition of the Barnes tradition.
	It's not deference to established authority or letting little things like risk of death get in your way.
	Well, the good news is you're out and back home.
	It doesn't get better than that.
	So, Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Yeah, we got a bunch.
	We got Amish cases.
	You know, we got the Reuben King sentencing, one of the big white pills of the year.
	Amos Miller, that's both a black pill and a white pill.
	What they're trying to do to him is a black pill.
	What we can do together to maybe fully, this may become the most significant food freedom case in America.
	And we'll be discussing that.
	The Fifth Circuit proved once again how the courts had renamed themselves the Court of Cowards and ran away on the CHD v.
	FDA case.
	Wouldn't even say who wrote the opinion.
	That's how wussy they were.
	The International Criminal Court, or the International Court of Justice, rather than the International Criminal Court, I forget because their neighbors there at The Hague had their ruling concerning Israel.
	And a parallel case in the United States brought on behalf of the Palestinians against the Biden administration, demanding a judge stop all support of Israel immediately.
	The border battle, that was the number one question on our locals board tonight.
	You know, Biden is picking war with Iran, war with Russia, war with China.
	Maybe war with Texas, apparently, is his new idea.
	War in Yemen, apparently.
	They're putting troops on the ground.
	The joke of what's happening with the New York verdict on behalf of Mrs. Loon there that you debriefed on the Alex Jones show.
	The duty to protect.
	How much does that apply to jails or prisons?
	And what's happening now that our people now, our inmates suing.
	Over mistreatment over the trans policies, namely being subjected to sexual assault by trans defendants.
	George Carlin's estate is suing those AI makers.
	Election integrity, its weak links are being exposed in a range of exposés for potential legal action.
	An Oklahoma death penalty case we discussed.
	Supreme Court may in fact, in fact, did.
	Take it, which is good news.
	When can you be sued for what happens at a protest?
	BLM style.
	A tattoo artist, a few ancillary topics.
	Tattoo artist cleared of copyright infringement concerning a case we discussed before the Miles Davis photo put on a tattoo.
	So a lot of fun, interesting cases tonight and whatever else anybody pops up with.
	All right, and we've got Life of Brian $5 says, supporters of this know their servility is bottomless.
	There is no distinction between thinking and obeying for them.
	They will never even object.
	Pastor Moyer says, Nancy Pelosi hypocrisy.
	You beat me to the punch of saying, don't be redundant, Viva.
	But I guess it's obvious.
	So we'll do one topic here and then move on over.
	Do we do the biggest topic, the Texas border?
	Or do we save that?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I think we save that as exclusive to Rumble.
	At least in the live version.
	Maybe we start off with the more politically hot one discussed around the world, the International Court of Justice involving Israel.
	Tomorrow, I'll be live with the Duran at 1 p.m. Eastern Time discussing all the crazy lawfare happening in the States and the various foreign policy ramifications and implications.
	I was receiving texts today from some United States senators, so we'll discuss that maybe a little bit.
	But yeah, maybe the International Court of Justice.
	I see, Jay.
	All right.
	So you saw Grobert was on last night, so he has an interesting take and an interesting perspective, and he's a very smart man, and you can disagree with him and you can hate him for it.
	Can't say it's ill-founded.
	Robert, so I'm reading through the decision, and I'll reiterate what I said last night.
	The definition of genocide under the Convention on Genocide or prevention and punishment of genocide, to me it seems so overly broad it almost no longer means genocide.
	The first question in this was South Africa filed this claim against Israel, and it's one of those cases where I'm not much of a fan of saying standing, standing, standing, standing, standing.
	The first question the court had to deal with and set aside their political biases and whatever was standing.
	What standing does South Africa have to take this claim against Israel?
	Now, I don't know who the signatory states or countries to this convention.
	I presume that insofar as Palestine is not recognized as a state, it's not a signatory.
	And therefore, if the argument is going to be nobody but Palestine can file this complaint, nobody will be able to file the complaint.
	So standing as a first question, how does South Africa even have standing to file this complaint against Israel?
	Well, it's pretty broad under the International Court of Justice.
	So the International Court of Justice is the successor to the entity created in 1920 as part of the League of Nations.
	This one was created after World War II as part of the United Nations.
	And its jurisdiction...
	Is limited by the United Nations itself.
	Now, it has no enforcement powers, which is important to understand.
	Judges are elected for nine-year terms.
	Fifteen different judges sit and they make decisions collectively in an aggregate.
	They get to live in The Hague or live near The Hague and in the Netherlands where they are located.
	They are specifically any state.
	It's allowed to bring a claim against any other state before them.
	However, if a state doesn't like it, they can simply refuse to consent, and that limits any binding impact of the court.
	The court can also issue advisory opinions under certain circumstances.
	But essentially, it's a...
	It depends on the states as to whether or not the court has jurisdiction.
	So the only limitation is that you have to be a state that's a member of the United Nations.
	That's it.
	You don't have any other...
	So, for example, Gaza couldn't bring a claim.
	The Palestinian Authority couldn't bring a claim.
	Hamas could not bring a claim.
	That's why it would have to be a member state.
	But South Africa's member state has the legal standing to bring any claim it wants.
	Against any other member state, not against an individual or anyone else.
	But then the question, as the dissenting judge from Uganda mentioned, is that there's a specific limitation the court is supposed to recognize to not get involved in any quote-unquote political question, that it has to be something that's justiciable.
	And the dissenting judge noted this really smacked of a political case, not a treaty case, as it was being presented.
	But most of the court disagreed and said that it was a justiciable case for them to decide, that it wasn't a political question, that it was solely to deal with compliance with the Genocide Convention, to which Israel is a party.
	In fact, the word genocide itself originated from a Jewish lawyer in Poland in 1942, describing what was taking place as a crime against humanity in the Holocaust.
	So I think, yes, South Africa is standing.
	However, whether or not this is really a political question, I think the arguments made by the Ugandan judge were more persuasive than the arguments made by the majority.
	I mean, I can understand how it's politically motivated, but it seems like there's a pretty clear question of fact or question of law as to whether or not, by the definition of genocide, do you know when that definition of genocide was included in it?
	Is that the original definition of genocide?
	So, yes.
	The original definition, again, crafted by that 1942 by the Jewish lawyer, and it was ultimately implemented in 1948 due to the Holocaust in the Genocide Convention.
	And it's reflected in U.S. law because the Genocide Convention requires that each member state that is a signatory to the convention have domestic criminal law enforcement of it.
	And the domestic criminal law is, let's see, 18 U.S.C.
	1091.
	And it's the same definition.
	And what it requires is you have a specific intent to destroy a group.
	And that group is unique.
	Or a substantial part of that group, which can be a geographically defined aspect.
	As we look into this, there might be some genocidal intentions in the dispute, but let's talk about where and who is doing it.
	Well, that was the point I made yesterday.
	If they're talking about carrying out acts of genocide on a group or in part, which includes acts of physical harm against any of its members, psychological harm, which I couldn't understand that this is the definition of genocide.
	Well, that's where it's two different things.
	The real definition of genocide is a specific intent to get rid of a specific group.
	Based on race or religion, nationality, or ethnicity.
	It's limited to those categories.
	Now, how you implement it is very broad.
	You saw some conflation of implementation of genocide with a definition of genocide.
	That's not really the case.
	What is this?
	Okay, I want to get rid of all the Serbs, for example.
	Or let's say, I'll give a good example, Ukraine.
	I want to get rid of all the Russians.
	In eastern Ukraine, as many as I can, right?
	Now, how I implement that?
	I might implement that just by making language inaccessible.
	You know what I mean?
	I mean, so that's how that's...
	But making language inaccessible is not genocide.
	It's the specific intent to get rid of the group entirely from living in a certain region or living at all that is, in fact, genocide.
	So genocide is the denial of the right to exist.
	Its mechanisms of enforcement can be extraordinarily broad.
	But people are calling something an act of genocide and forgetting that it only is an act of genocide if it is a mechanism to enforce a specific intent to mass murder or mass remove, ethnically cleanse, an entire population from a specific region.
	All right.
	And so the ICJ comes down with this interim injunction, basically enjoining Israel to do that, which I said yesterday, you know, Israel is going to say, we're doing that already.
	We're trying to prevent genocide.
	We're trying to prevent civilian casualties, even if people don't believe it.
	That's what their argument is going to be.
	Again, no enforcement mechanism from this International Court of Justice.
	So even if on the merits they say Israel has committed genocide, there's no enforcement, there's no punitive penalties or whatever.
	Correct.
	And it was all that happens is, and not only that, I mean, there was a famous case, the United States versus Nicaragua or vice versa, depending on how you put in the caption.
	In fact, the U.S. judge who wrote this opinion was the advocate for the U.S. in that case.
	A longtime State Department person who tends to be the kind of people who are on these courts.
	It should raise people's eyebrows.
	That want to claim that Israel is part of the deep state, that being pro-Israel is part of it, that a deep state judge is leading this anti-Israeli effort?
	Maybe it isn't quite...
	Look at which side George Soros is on.
	Hint, it's not the Israeli side.
	So for those that believe in that, this case kind of belies that assumption.
	But all they can do is they can withdraw at any time.
	They can withdraw their consent afterwards.
	And ultimately, it's entirely up to the Security Council of the United Nations.
	And even then, those provisions are not self-enforcing.
	So, like, for example, each of the Security Council members is supposed to have somebody on the judicial bench, but right now there's no Russian.
	They excluded Russians after the Ukraine conflict.
	So, you know, its current constituted organization is not...
	But Russia, for example, withdrew in the allegations against them concerning Ukraine.
	They had no confidence.
	They're like, we're not getting involved in this charade.
	What's interesting is some of my friends on the anti-war left side of the aisle were cheerleading this decision as if this court is a beacon of legal integrity and independence.
	This is the same court every single one of you was making fun of last year when they made false accusations against Russia.
	It's like, have you forgot?
	These are political hacks that are from sort of deep state-aligned apparatus for the most part.
	There's a few exceptions.
	The Ugandan judge, a very independent judge, quite clearly, the Ugandan government was not happy with that judge's ruling, saying, look, this is an obvious political question.
	This is not something that...
	The leading African jurist said South Africa was wrong.
	You've shown no evidence here of specific intent to mass murder.
	What they did is they cut and pasted quotes out of context.
	Statements that are about getting rid of Hamas entirely.
	We're reinterpreted to getting rid of Palestinians entirely.
	Yeah, but I've heard some of the statements.
	They're not statements I would make where they're talking about politicians.
	Oh, I have plenty of criticism of it, but to say that constitutes evidence that the Israeli government intends to mass murder all Palestinians in Gaza.
	That's how they try to interpret it.
	And to play devil's advocate, or just to steal men, or to displace, which...
	Or to ethnically cleanse it, to ethnically cleanse it so there's none left.
	And there just was inadequate evidence of that specific intent.
	It's the same problem with the lawsuit filed in Oakland in federal court against the Biden administration.
	On behalf of Palestinians, brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights.
	What a name of an organization that doesn't seem to spend much time focusing on Americans' constitutional rights.
	And was completely AWOL, by the way, during everything related to both lockdown and COVID.
	A lot of these progressive lefty organizations got exposed for the frauds that they are during that time period.
	But how is this...
	I find it absurd to refer, to go back to your original question, to Israel as being involved in genocide towards Palestinians, for the Arab Muslim population there.
	If that was the case, why is the Arab Muslim population in the last century has constantly and consistently exceeded an actual population growth in size, the Israeli population?
	It's got to be the weirdest form of Holocaust ever.
	But to steal men, what they're going to say, now that the definition of genocide includes displacement, they're saying, well, they're not going to, it's not to kill them, but to displace them out of the occupied, not the occupied territory.
	Denial of the right of existence.
	I found that interesting.
	I was like, okay, so denial of the right of an existence of a specific group to stay within a certain geography.
	From the river to the sea.
	Where have I heard that?
	But that's where I say the hypocrisy is outlandish because if South Africa is going to file a claim against Israel, why doesn't Israel file a claim?
	I guess they can't file a claim against Hamas, but if you're going to talk about acts of genocide being carried out for the purposes of annihilating a people or permanently displacing them, it's in their freaking charter.
	So you've got one entity, the government of Palestine, trying to genocide Israel.
	I mean, so you've got two parties that are trying to genocide each other.
	So maybe if you're going to lose that genocide battle, don't start it, would be one person's logical...
	In fact, there's only been one genocidal side in the history of the Israeli-Gaza dispute, or Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and it's the Palestinians.
	I mean, right now they're chaining from the river to the sea.
	So if removal of a group from the...
	or denial of a right of existence of a group...
	Within a particular specified geography, now constitutes genocide, which I think is a stretch, but that's how they're interpreting it.
	The group that's guilty of it are the Palestinians for more than a century.
	The Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and their political predecessors and ancestors.
	That was the irony.
	It's very much confession through projection.
	It's the Palestinians who want...
	I tuned into Democracy Now!
	because I thought, well, Democracy Now!
	said they had a headline about explaining the legal fallout or consequences for this.
	And there was no analysis of the actual legal analysis or consequences.
	Their headline lied.
	And there was just a couple of lawyers preaching about how much they hate Israel.
	But it's like the only group that actually has denies the right to exist.
	I mean, take, for example, those people that love to say they're against the Zionist cause.
	Well, you know what the definition of Zionism is?
	A right of a specific group to exist within a specific geographic region.
	So if you're anti-Zionist, you're a genocide supporter.
	According to their definition.
	If that's going to be the new definition of genocide, then Jackson Hinkle is guilty of it.
	Which he might want to research the criminal law, by the way.
	The criminal law actually makes it a crime to simply incite this.
	It would be a perilous precedent for us to start to go down this path to go there.
	Now, there's obvious Fifth Amendment limitations, but the criminal statute is so bland, so generic.
	You know who passed the criminal statute helped put it in passage?
	A certain President Joe Biden, when he was senator in 1988.
	But yeah, so legally, there's no fallout.
	Because until the UN Security Council does anything, anything it says and does is inconsequential.
	Number one.
	Number two, all the issue was provisional relief.
	It didn't give the ceasefire demand that South Africa requested anyway.
	Third, Israel can withdraw anytime they want.
	So they can withdraw their consent from anything and it just becomes an advisory opinion.
	So it's mostly, this is entirely in the court of public opinion case.
	But it should educate Israel.
	And educate others in the United States on the political left that getting in bed with wokeism gets you in bed with a bunch of commies.
	And the commies have always sided with the Hamas side ever since Israel chose the U.S. over the Soviet Union in the 1950s.
	And ever since that day...
	Now, Israel rewarded us by deciding to steal the secrets to nuclear weapons to better protect themselves.
	But putting that point aside, this is now the academy, the legal academy reflected in the international...
	I think it shocked Israel that this court is that hostile to them.
	I don't think...
	I think they would have expected this much like they expect every...
	No, because they petitioned the court to dismiss.
	They didn't need to affirm it.
	Putin understood the score of things.
	Putin's like, I know what this is.
	Shove off.
	We're not doing nothing.
	I don't consent to nothing.
	Goodbye.
	And discredited it right out of the gate.
	Israel went and petitioned them affirmatively.
	Do we use a torn to the jurisdiction in that context?
	They can withdraw consent later, but it looks bad for them.
	I think they really thought...
	That they would come in and say, no, this is either a political question, we don't have jurisdiction, or no, these allegations are ridiculous.
	And it shows you both how Israel's politically disconnected from how it's perceived.
	We talked about it from the get-go.
	Going into Gaza will get you this political reaction around the world, especially the Arab Muslim world, but elsewhere, that will undermine any support you got after October 7th.
	But it shows their continued disconnection on that.
	But in particular, they didn't realize the legal academy at the international Western level is entirely corrupted and co-opted by these anti-Western ideas and ideologies.
	And so that they easily embraced some dubious allegations from South Africa, in this case, against Israel.
	Because now, I mean, that...
	The judge who wrote this opinion, who helped the U.S. ignore the consequences of U.S. versus Nicaragua, I mean, she knew what she was doing when she was taking quiz quote out of context, and that quote out of context, and that quote out of context.
	Very deliberate.
	And people should ask, okay, what's ideologically motivating her to do that?
	Because that's why the court Israel thought, oh, surely this longtime George W. Bush State Department appointee couldn't do this.
	Well, the federal judge, to transition to the Gaza case, is a George W. Bush appointee, and he's mostly been a lefty his entire time on the bench.
	You know, he was the one who set aside the Defense of Marriage Act as it being irrational for people to think, for Congress to think they have any right to make any decision about issues relating to marriage.
	It's like, how is that irrational?
	You can disagree with it, but that's who that judge is.
	And that judge presided over a hearing, evidentiary hearing, when there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he has any legal authority to pursue the case to begin with.
	So it should remind these people that George W. Bush is of the world.
	We'll begin that with the immigration battle.
	A lot of these old school establishment institutional Republican judges are just as co-opted by the culture wars as anybody else.
	And Israel and a lot of lefty Jewish supporters.
	Got into bed with crazy woke loons, and now they're seeing it backfire on campuses, backfire in certain parts of the political world, and now it just backfired at the International Court of Justice.
	And it's obvious they don't understand what's happened.
	They unleashed, they're like the losers of the French Revolution during the ones that got their heads cut off by the revolution.
	You didn't realize, maybe you don't unleash something like this.
	Maybe you shouldn't get in bed with these ideas.
	But they did, and now it's all backfiring on them in mass scale.
	I was just going to add, each member of the court receives an annual salary consisting of a base salary, which is $191,000 U.S. dollars, and post-adjustment with special supplementary allowance of $25,000 U.S. for the president.
	That's not bad.
	But with those asking the legal consequences, there are none of the International Court of Justice.
	And it's an interim order that just makes a bunch of recommendations, which Israel is going to say we're doing in any event.
	They're going to have the hearing on the merits as to whether or not Israel has committed acts of genocide.
	I think we can all see the writing on the wall for that.
	And then there'll be no enforcement capabilities once that judgment comes down.
	Hopefully there'll be a resolution to this dispute, to this war.
	Politically, probably a smart move on South Africa's side.
	I mean, again, the real money, for all the anti-Jew conspiracy theorists out there, the real money is in the Arab world.
	So if you're South Africa, you're much better off aligning with the Arab Muslim world than you are aligning with Israel.
	Same is true for most of the world.
	So monetarily, they're going to align in the anti-Israeli.
	And you're seeing that reflected in what's happening at the UN.
	All right.
	Now, with that said, we're going to head on over to Rumble and Locals.
	So this is going to end it on YouTube and X. The link is pinned.
	I'll share it one more time.
	If anybody will, come straight over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It'll be the easier way to do it.
	Hold on.
	I'll go to YouTube.
	There's the link to Locals.
	And the link to Rumble is already pinned up there.
	So what I do now is I just hit a button.
	It ends it on YouTube.
	Rumble and locals.
	Here we come now.
	Well, it's a good transition to the Gaza lawsuit.
	I'm not up to speed on this.
	What's going down?
	So they filed suit against the Biden administration and a federal court in Oakland demanding the federal court order and stop all aid to Israel.
	No military aid.
	No logistical aid.
	No financial aid.
	No involvement.
	And instead, the federal court order the United States to take all actions to stop Israel's Gaza attack, to basically force a ceasefire.
	And I was curious, like, okay, this lawsuit usually would get thrown out right away because that's not a power of the court.
	Now, there's an aspect of the suit I concur with.
	And I'll be very curious to see what the court says about this aspect, because it has impact much beyond that case or the Gaza issue.
	The core problem they have is that's not a power of the United States courts to order to take over American foreign policy.
	It's just, it isn't.
	And so presumably the court will dismiss on those grounds.
	But I was curious, like, what's their even legal basis to sue?
	Be curious what he says about standing aspects of the organizations that sue, because that might have some ramifications down the road in other cases.
	But the big one is, their theory is that any violation of international norms, just Cogan's norms, is part of American federal common law and always enforceable in federal court.
	I think this judge is going to be inclined to say yes and then turn around and say no on I can't intervene, I can't run America's foreign policy.
	That would be impactful because it's the Nuremberg cases I'm trying to litigate right now that federal judges in Arkansas are threatening me for even threatening my firm and the young associate brought that case for even talking about it.
	Because it'd be really interesting if the judge comes in and says, yeah, if you can establish that something is a just Kogan standard, something universal, all civilized nations must obey, then that's actually federal common law and is always enforceable with remedies in federal court.
	There's a few cases out there on that point, but not enough.
	And if he says that, that would establish grounds for Nuremberg claims to be reinstated and go forward concerning the vaccine mandate.
	So that part of the ruling I'm looking forward to seeing.
	But I think it was a little bit striking that they were asking federal American judges to take over foreign policy.
	But it gives you an idea of where some ideological movements are going.
	Well, and you file the lawsuit, the populace, or at least activist groups, let politicians know what's popular and what's on their minds, and then the politicians can act accordingly, or at least go about it the right way.
	I'm just reading an article as you talk about it.
	I'd be more inclined to, setting aside everything, I'd be more inclined to agree with the position of the defense.
	It's not the court's rule to sit in judgment of U.S. foreign policy decisions concerning the conflict.
	Nobody wants to pay taxes if their taxes are going to go fund.
	Abortion, for example.
	But that's been adjudicated, Robert, right?
	You can't refuse to pay taxes.
	Every case has agreed that the federal court doesn't have power to make those decisions.
	Especially if they're not going to allow military members to sue in certain cases concerning the vaccine mandates.
	I mean, they allowed some, but didn't allow a bunch of others.
	Like being able to be commissioned for conflict.
	Because they said that's interfering in the U.S. military too much.
	How in the world could there be basis for the court to get involved here and dictate what military policy and foreign policy would be in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
	I also think it is kind of a non-justiciable political question dedicated to other branches of government.
	That's what non-justiciable political question really means.
	It means...
	This power hasn't been given to us, the judiciary, as competent to govern.
	It's been given either to the legislative or executive branch or both.
	And I do think that's the case in this context.
	Not maybe as much as the Supreme Court did in the Biden versus Texas case.
	All right, well, we can get to it now.
	We're an hour into this, and this is obviously on everybody's mind.
	Before we even get into it, Robert...
	There are people now hypothesizing that Greg Abbott is a WEF stooge.
	He's got a landing page on the WEF.
	He's off gallivanting around India while there's a crisis in his own state.
	What would you say to either confirm or assuage those concerns that this is all a fabricated conflict while they work together to let an illegal so they can give them amnesty and, I don't know, overtake America?
	Well, I mean, Abbott's a mediocre Governor, but not a bad governor.
	So he's not Brian Kemp.
	He's not an establishment.
	He's not that deeply embedded, I should say, as an establishment guy.
	In other words, he comes from the more conventional political wing of Texas politics.
	He's not deeply embedded within the Bush regime.
	He's not deeply embedded within the deep state apparatus.
	He's not deeply like Senator Cornyn is from Texas.
	So he's more conventional.
	He's more like Ted Cruz.
	And he's been reluctant to exercise his authority concerning immigration in this conflict because he recognized...
	I mean, his hurdle, as we discussed last week or the week before, his big hurdle is the Arizona Supreme Court case that says he's not allowed to do anything.
	And Texans were getting so enraged at what was happening.
	He was like, well, fine.
	I'm just going to see what happens and start testing it.
	Because get what the Arizona case said, that basically the feds have carte blanche and states aren't allowed to enforce immigration law.
	They're not allowed to interpret immigration law.
	They're not allowed to enforce their own law if it impacts immigration law.
	That was a very broad decision that the Supreme Court issued in 2012 that eviscerated states' abilities to enforce immigration law.
	And there wasn't enough attention.
	Everybody focused on the Obamacare decision.
	That decision got too little attention.
	And still getting too little attention.
	People are not recognizing.
	No, the Supreme Court already determined more than a decade ago to screw the states on immigration.
	Arizona was trying to deal with this.
	And the Supreme Court said, nah, you're not allowed to.
	And so now there's parts of that decision that make sense, but not the degree to it.
	But it wasn't a surprise to me which judge wussed out this time.
	Let me see.
	Was it Amy Coney or was it...
	Of course.
	Of course.
	I mean, Roberts is always on the wrong side.
	But yeah, Amy Coney Barrett was the deciding judge to say Texas can't even secure...
	It can't even take basic actions to secure its border.
	Didn't affirmatively rule that, just denied Texas the relief and allowed the Biden administration to go forward with undoing what Texas is trying.
	It's another example, too, of the Supreme Court is out of touch.
	Because when you have a guy like Abbott, who's kind of a moderate, if you really dig into his history, in terms of personality, political course of action, he's not going to take the most aggressive action hardly ever.
	If he's desperate, that means there's a severe problem.
	When Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy come out immediately in favor of Governor Abbott in Texas, the Supreme Court should be, oh, hold on a second.
	We're literally risking.
	And remember, the U.S. Supreme Court is why we had a civil war.
	We likely never would have had a civil war, but for the incompetency.
	I know you've mentioned this or explained it a few times, but I love that bug, Robert.
	But explain it again for the schnook who's forgotten.
	It was...
	Fred Scott.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, it was basically eviscerating.
	He had the fugitives.
	In other words, the non-slaveholding states didn't want to be complicit in the slave trade.
	Something that, in fact, was supposed to have been abolished.
	Slavery was anticipated to have gotten rid of.
	Read Lysander Spooner, 1840 publication, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, that gets into some of those details.
	It was supposed to be struck down as unconstitutional.
	There again, the Supreme Court didn't take the action that was anticipated.
	They had a shot at in 1840s, the Amistad case.
	I had relatives connected to that case all the way back because it came out of Rhode Island.
	Born free, always free.
	Should have applied across the board, but they didn't.
	And so in 1851, the Supreme Court comes in and says an ex-slave can never be a U.S. citizen.
	Never have protection.
	Even if they go into another state and the rest.
	And it told all the non-slaveholding states, you will be complicit in slavery because we're going to order it.
	Which, by the way, is anti-constitutional what they were doing.
	By doing so...
	They made it so if you wanted to be outside of slavery, you've got to wage war against the South.
	There was no other choice by the Dred Scott decision.
	The Supreme Court led to the American Civil War.
	And if the Supreme Court doesn't wake up, they're going to get us into the second American Civil War.
	They were complete cowards, ran away during the election conflict that has led half of America or more to believe that our elections are rigged.
	And that their vote doesn't count.
	And now they're allowing massive invasion, often involving criminal organizations, bringing in criminals that is causing massive stress on working-class communities throughout the country, but especially in Texas.
	And their reaction is, hey, Biden, you do whatever you want.
	We're not going to reconsider Arizona.
	Barrett, you know, this is the same Amy Coney Barrett that's like, maybe we shouldn't overturn Chevron because some bureaucrats might get upset.
	When I criticized Barrett, I said she comes from Old Money South and she's been part of the Academy and on the Seventh Circuit she's been a lousy judge and she favorably recited Jacobson.
	She had the entire temperament to be someone who was going to be a Roberts-oriented judge a lot more often Than a Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas Scalia type judge that conservatives were misrepresenting her as.
	So, I mean, it's just, you're in a situation where Biden is literally thinking about whether to nationalize the Texas National Guard and turn them against the people of Texas.
	Where he's talking about sending in the U.S. Marshals or the FBI or border people and go directly have actual conflict.
	With Texas police and National Guardsmen.
	I mean, that's as close...
	That's Civil War.
	That's quite literally that.
	And the Supreme Court's like, ah!
	Can't do anything.
	I don't understand how it is that...
	You can't deport them, I guess.
	Texas can't deport a citizen.
	That much I think I can...
	Well, I mean, there's arguments they should be able to.
	But it's the Arizona case.
	It's the Supreme Court.
	Arizona, the Supreme Court said, carte blanche, executive branch has all the power.
	Now, by the way, the same Supreme Court changed their mind if Trump wanted to keep out people from dangerous parts of the world.
	Then all of a sudden they forgot about the Arizona.
	Arizona, what?
	Roberts, got to get my cocktail.
	Got to make sure my wife, there with Justice Roberts, got to make sure my wife keeps getting rich somehow while I'm on the Supreme Court.
	I wonder how that happens.
	Does anybody wonder how that happens?
	How does...
	Supreme Court justices like Roberts get so richer while on the Supreme Court.
	What's going on there exactly?
	Just like Nancy Pelosi getting so rich when she's in the House and so many of these other corrupt politicians.
	But it's, I mean, the problem I have with it is the Arizona decision.
	And here you just can't sit by in the Supreme Court and do nothing in this kind of conflict.
	These conflicts between the states and the feds, between the states, like the election contest.
	You're there to decide and have to at least do something more than, say, you, the state of Texas, cannot protect yourself.
	We prohibit you from doing so.
	It's only what Biden lets you do that you're allowed to do.
	It just can't be that case when they're experiencing trespass on a massive...
	I mean, we're setting records for the number of illegals coming across the border.
	So they're putting into motion things that are politically very dangerous that will undermine the entire constitutional fabric because they're politically asleep and they care more about their affluent suburban friends and the elite cultures they're a part of than the reality of working class life on the border in Texas.
	Where does this go?
	For the time being now, Texas cannot prevent the feds from dismantling...
	Razor wire from taking control of camps so that they can process illegal immigrants, which they're not doing anyhow.
	Where does this go from here?
	Yeah, it's going to be what it is.
	They'll take their stand in certain places, like certain parks where he sent in the National Guard and other places like that to try to secure the border.
	And at some point it becomes, do you see actual escalation?
	Do you see escalation where you see conflict between U.S. soldiers or U.S. law enforcement?
	And Texas law enforcement.
	Because, I mean, what happens if Abbott says, look, I gotta defend myself.
	We're gonna do whatever we can to continue to do so.
	I mean, I know that, I mean, the Border Patrol, most of the Border Patrol sides with Trump and hates the Biden administration.
	Doesn't like the fact they've been eviscerated.
	So they've already issued statements that they're not gonna get into the middle of this.
	So that has its own animal, right?
	You might have a group of people unwilling to follow.
	The elected president, because the elected president is AWOL on his constitutional obligations and statutory duties.
	So it's by staying out of this, the Supreme Court, or forcing Texas to not do things, the Supreme Court is escalating the conflict, not de-escalating.
	All right.
	Grobert yesterday was talking about times in American history.
	Where you've had actual conflict between federal law enforcement and state law enforcement.
	It's nothing new, but to me, this is wild.
	It's equal.
	In the 1950s, they made a big deal.
	The Fed's making sure people could integrate schools.
	No actual conflict ever took place.
	You didn't have U.S. troops, state troops opposite one another in an armed conflict.
	There's a real risk of that occurring in the state of Texas.
	So I'm kicking my dog.
	Get out of here.
	My dog's going to pull down my computer.
	All right.
	Well, we're going to see where that goes.
	But, Robert, it wasn't on the menu.
	But since we're talking about Arizona, had you been following the Carrie Lake bribery leaked audio scandal?
	Only bits and pieces.
	But, I mean, I'd heard the story from sources back at the time.
	And she vaguely referenced it.
	She said, you know, that basically people are trying to bribe me to not run for things.
	And so, you know, she just outed him.
	I mean, they were coordinating an attack on her in her Senate campaign.
	And she knew why and how.
	Outed him.
	And they've been whining.
	I mean, that's, as I explained with Arizona, the institutional Republican Party is corrupt in Arizona.
	Has been for the old John McCain machinery.
	Was a very corrupt.
	Political machine in Arizona.
	Infamously corrupt, corrupting influence on its state bar and its judiciary, which we've seen the ramifications of.
	And so it didn't surprise me at all.
	There were some theorizing, I don't want to throw anybody under the bus or mention any names, but some theorizing that Trump was behind this when there's made reference to the folks back east.
	I don't know who DeWitt is from a hole in the wall.
	Is there any...
	Potential plausibility to the idea that Trump did not want a candidate running for Senate who would upstage him while he's running for president.
	He likes Carrie Lake and has supported and embraced her campaign and promoted it.
	If Trump doesn't like somebody, he doesn't put them on stage over and over and over again.
	He's probably had Lake at more events than anyone else.
	Probably close second, maybe just J.D. Vance.
	And quietly, Ben Carson.
	But the idea that Trump fears being upstate, that's not really the Trump dynamic.
	That's more people projecting things on him than his actions.
	He likes people that are equally engaging, especially when they're on his side.
	He loves that.
	The idea that she would be a wildly popular candidate for Senate, he would milk that and work synergy for both of their respective campaign runs.
	All right.
	I was flabbergasted by the brazenness of the bribery and what I think were threats also by referencing cartels.
	Well, what it shows you is what's so accustomed to, what the real norms are inside the system, that this is what goes on on a regular basis.
	And unfortunately, it shouldn't surprise people that it's so normalized, somebody felt so comfortable using those terms with someone they didn't even really know that well.
	All right.
	Robert, I guess we're going to get into the lighthearted topic of the evening.
	When you emailed me, you said the joke New York verdict.
	You're talking about E.G. and Cow, right?
	Oh, of course.
	I mean, which one is it, right?
	I mean, we have the AP report, which confirmed what we talked about, and this is why this case should be set.
	The other case, the Orgeron case, should be set aside, selective prosecution.
	The AP does a full study, the Associated Press.
	And they said there's never, they couldn't find a, and this is the Associated Press, notoriously anti-Trump, they couldn't find a single case in New York or anywhere analogous to the Trump case.
	They said they couldn't find a single one where a business that had no identified victims was forced out of business or had a massive fine to shoot against.
	Said never happened in the history of the country.
	So how is that not selective prosecution?
	How is that not a violation of court constitutional rights?
	How is that not an embarrassment to the rule of law in America that this farce is still going on?
	But you've got to give the federal judge credit.
	He managed to at least hog the limelight for judicial farces and embarrassments by this E. Gene Carroll joke of a case.
	I wanted to back it up for one second to...
	Ah, forget it.
	We'll go to E. Jean Cal.
	Enough about anger on...
	The E. Jean Cal, Robert.
	So first of all, the breaking news of the day, and you've seen it, Habba is now claiming that the Judge Kaplan was once the mentor of plaintiff's counsel Kaplan at the same law firm back in the day and never disclosed it.
	I mean, I presume that she knows that that's true and she would not say it if it were questionable.
	That's, I mean, mind-blowing on its face, but set that aside.
	I mean, this is a judge who lied to the jury in the American people about the first verdict.
	Blatantly lied.
	That's about the rape part.
	He made a statement that said Trump was found guilty conclusively of raping her.
	The lefty, Democratic, Trump-hating jury said exactly the opposite.
	They said he didn't rape her.
	That there was some sort of sexual, non-consensual conduct.
	That's a very broad, generic term.
	But they deny the rape allegation.
	And then the judge goes and lies to everybody and says otherwise.
	The federal judge, if Congress will ever do its job, Lord knows when that will happen, they got to start putting judges on the impeachment list.
	And towards the top should be Judge Kaplan.
	And now I started off the show by going through that statement where he said, he, oh, geez, I can't, indeed raped her, is what he said.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a lie.
	The jury concluded exactly the opposite.
	All kinds of grounds.
	The case will be appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Second Circuit is not as politically contaminated as the New York State Courts.
	And if they have any pride in the judiciary, any respect for the rule of law, or want any of the rest of us to have a respect for the rule of law, the Trump verdict...
	Has to be set aside and vacated.
	Now, I've been asking this to a number of people.
	I get different opinions from different lawyers.
	It's a jury verdict.
	They can overturn...
	I mean, I guess, do you dismiss it or do you say retrial because the jury was given bad instructions?
	Do they do a retrial?
	Well, first, it should have been dismissed.
	Secondly, so right there on the legal merits.
	Never should have reached this day, this second insane trial.
	So that's issue one.
	Issue two is everything that happened in terms of the evidentiary rulings at trial, the jury instructions at trial, the instructions to Trump that took place at trial.
	All of that is grounds to set aside the verdict.
	And then there's constitutional due process issues because they made the punitive damages judgment.
	I mean, it was purely political.
	The defense lawyer says the only way to stop Donald Trump is a huge verdict.
	He wasn't talking about Donald Trump in the context of that case.
	Everybody knows what she was talking about.
	And so she was saying, issue a big verdict, and that will stop Donald Trump from being a candidate.
	That will stop Donald Trump from being a president.
	It was open and overt what was being said in the courtroom.
	The case is a crock.
	So if the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court has any pride at all, they're going to have to vacate that verdict.
	And E.G. Carroll will never see a dime.
	But more significantly, there needs to be political fallout for these judges that are lying to people and violating their oath for politically prejudiced reasons.
	Kaplan was appointed by Bill Clinton, so he can be impeached.
	He's been a prick his whole life, by the way.
	Well, I mean, I can't get over the lie.
	Now, I've heard, Ash in America, I like her, and we're not fighting whatsoever, full stop.
	She explains, like, oh, well, this is how the judge got to it.
	He's using the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, colloquially speaking, of rape.
	But I was like, okay, that doesn't matter.
	He said definitively proven.
	He's making a legal reference, so that's not a fair defense of him at all.
	Absolutely.
	He lied to, for a reason, and because that's who he is.
	He's a political hack.
	He's willing.
	And he's done crazy things throughout many cases in New York.
	This is not new with Kaplan.
	And he's never been meaningfully disciplined because our judiciary disciplinary process is a crock.
	And the only way he will ever be disciplined is impeachment proceedings.
	And Congress should start doing it.
	Otherwise, judges are going to keep doing this.
	I mean, people forget the founding of our country, for those that don't remember.
	You know, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, a bunch of Federalist society types, if you will, of their day, but they were on the whiggish side of the political equation, the anti-Thomas Jefferson side, were weaponizing their judicial power to go after political opponents.
	And that's why Congress has said, okay, even though you're Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, we're going to impeach you so that people learn the lesson, that's not your role.
	And all of a sudden, the court's backed off for a good period of time.
	They're back doing it overtly, time they suffer political consequence for their constitutionally rogue behavior.
	Who would be in the position to impeach Judge Kaplan?
	He's a state judge.
	The United States House of Representatives.
	I'm going to be stupid right now.
	Is he federal or state?
	He's federal.
	Order on his state.
	He's federal.
	Okay, well, that changes a little bit then.
	And who needs to hear this message, Robert, to impeach Judge Kaplan?
	Anybody with a brain inside the U.S. House of Representatives.
	So it's going to be up to them to start organizing and doing it.
	And senators should start calling for it, too.
	Credit to Senator Vance, who's already suggested that is to the rogue D.C. judge in that lawfare case.
	I mean, that's because Vance is aware.
	An alert to how damning and damaging this is to the credibility of the American legal system domestically and globally.
	And if they don't wake up, they don't realize the permanent damage.
	The Supreme Court doesn't realize the damage and risk they're running by preventing Texas from defending itself.
	They're doing the exact same.
	International Court of Justice didn't realize how much they are going to awaken certain political groups in America and in the West as to what's happened with this roguish wokeism that's gone crazy.
	The same is true here.
	The political lawfare is so egregious, so over the top, so obvious.
	That it is turning more and more American people against the judicial system and legal system in America and doubting, quite correctly, the integrity, independence, and impartiality of that system.
	Robert, I've got an in-real-time notification from...
	I won't mention names.
	It says, Dear Viva, I got an email.
	I believe Judge Kaplan was the judge on the Sarah Palin New York...
	Oh, it was Judge Rakoff.
	Okay, never mind.
	I presume you know...
	No, but Kaplan, it's so unhinged to say he was definitively, indeed raped, definitively conclusively proven.
	Go ahead, jury, and order a $65 million punitive damage award because he denied...
	When they found him not liable for rape, I shared the jury verdict.
	And when the defense lawyer was simply talking about First Amendment defenses, the judge cut him off and refused to allow him to make an argument to the jury.
	I mean, like I said, the system has done this in the past.
	It just does it against political outsiders so politically marginalized that the rest of the country didn't realize it was happening.
	Now with Trump, Everybody's getting a big, just like we got a big view of how the deep state really operates.
	Trump awoke them just by not being a yes man for them.
	The legal system is now exposing itself to the world as the embarrassment and the mockery of justice.
	It is too often and too long been.
	But so hopefully the courts will salvage it, the higher courts.
	And stop this nonsense from happening to other people by stopping what happened and reversing what happened to Trump.
	But, you know, they've let this go on too long already.
	But it's a ridiculous joke.
	Nobody who listened to her, even Anderson Cooper, believed a thing she said in allegations against Trump.
	Robert, I'll just read one rumble rant because it's a question.
	It's legit.
	Where did it just go?
	It says, Finn Boy Slick, could Trump sue the judge for defamation for lying when the jury denied it?
	No, judicial immunity, of course.
	Okay.
	They always give themselves immunity.
	Second thing.
	What was I just about to say?
	She's fucking crazy.
	There's no way around it.
	And I'd say Anderson Cooper realized how crazy she is.
	That's insane.
	That's her middle name.
	What are you drinking?
	Is that soup?
	No, it's a special vanilla latte.
	Okay.
	It was either that or Field of Greens.
	It looked like it might have been Field of Greens.
	Hey, did you do your promo?
	No, I'm going to do it in another stream.
	I've got to do it where I can bring up the...
	I'm going to do it later this week.
	Put out the code.
	Put out the website name.
	Promo code POSO, people.
	Go to...
	Oh, jeez.
	MyPillow.com.
	Promo code POSO.
	Robert, the 65 million punitive...
	That survives bankruptcy, hypothetically, correct?
	Yes, yes.
	I mean, Trump's never...
	I mean, the reality is none of this could actually bankrupt Trump anyway.
	The other case is designed to do that.
	But all of this ultimately is going to get vacated, is my prediction.
	It's just such embarrassment, such a mockery of the legal system.
	And what needs to happen is reforms put in so it doesn't happen again.
	And I've been having this discussion with people who say, it'll be reduced, and then, you know, they'll say, no, it needs to be vacated, it needs to be reversed, overturned, whatever, in its entirety, and Judge Kaplan needs to be impeached, period.
	The shit that he pulled is unforgivable, judicially, period.
	Alright, and then this week we're also expecting a ruling from Angeron in the state case about the frauds.
	We already know where that's gonna be.
	I don't know, Robert.
	He's got tools.
	You see, am I making the law or am I following the law?
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	All right.
	Moving on.
	Let me just go to our next item on the list.
	Well, speaking of abusive proceedings, we warned that the Alex Jones template was going to be the template for Trump.
	Now we've seen it in live time.
	But what they are trying to do to Amos Miller...
	In Pennsylvania should terrify everybody.
	We've talked about it.
	I think people understand, but for those who don't, Amos Miller is an Amish farmer who was basically attacked by the feds for selling meat without complying with FDA regulations.
	He crossed state lines with meat, not an AK-47, with a tomahawk ribeye.
	And then he was recently raided by the state, Pennsylvania State, for saying that he's selling stuff without having gotten the requisite license.
	They basically seized some assets and you can't sell, you can't eat, you can't use it yourself.
	That was about a few weeks ago, and you are representing him.
	What's the latest, Robert?
	So this past week, they filed suit in state court.
	More lies.
	They are seeking a permanent injunction to prohibit Amos Miller from ever being able to give his meat, his poultry, his dairy to the customers who need it, to his members.
	It's not clear.
	There's aspects of the order that seem to suggest they would like to prohibit him from being able to feed his own family.
	Is what the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture would want.
	Prohibit owners of a farm from feeding themselves, and they have the ongoing right to inspect anybody's fridge anytime they want, under the scale of the order that they're seeking with Amos, to be able to find out all their associates, affiliates, any individuals that have ever wanted his product, in which they have their own independent First Amendment rights.
	And then, unsatisfied with that ludicrous demand, they went in ex parte to the judge and got the judge to immediately stop for a month Amos from producing any raw milk products, including in states that are outside of Pennsylvania that they don't even have the authority over, and prohibiting him from distributing it to anybody, effectively.
	And they did so, once again, because it's what the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture does well, by lying to the state court judge.
	Stop there.
	I know none of the details here.
	I'm going to ask you the obvious question.
	Ex parte means they had to show some urgency to justify not even calling the defendant or the adverse party.
	So they're going to say it's a health emergency if he sells milk to Wyoming.
	He'll poison people and kill them.
	And they need to go ex parte because if they notify him, he's going to go destroy the milk, hypothetically?
	No, he would sell it.
	And that's where they lied.
	Because what happened was they notified me a week ago that they had concerns with one.
	So they seize everything.
	They sample a bunch of stuff.
	And they only come back with a small amount.
	Of Listeria, as far as I can tell, because they don't tell me how much, but I guess if it was a lot, they would have told me.
	Because they lie by omission.
	It's their favorite way to lie to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	And they're clearly so comfortable and at ease lying to judges.
	We're going to find out whether Pennsylvania judges have the backbone to what happens if government officials lie to them.
	Because I know those judges have, you know, judges in general have no problem whacking defense lawyers who...
	Misrepresent things or fail, screw up.
	Hear that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture repeatedly, flagrantly, openly lies by omission and commission because once the state of Pennsylvania said last week or maybe the week before, hey, by the way, we found listeria in one sample.
	What Amos did is he completely shut down his raw milk operation.
	Just shut it down.
	And it wasn't selling anybody.
	They knew that because it was published on a site by Order of Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, not selling raw milk or raw milk products.
	So how do you get a temporary injunction?
	How do you claim, hey, judge, he's still selling it, he's still selling it, when you know he's not?
	And in fact, they don't affirmatively allege he is.
	They just don't tell the judge about that.
	Instead, they say, hey, we told him about this risk.
	And the very next paragraph is, Mr. Barnes says his food products are great.
	Hence, hey, judge, he must be still selling it.
	But that might explain the judge coming to that conclusion on the merits, not an ex parte.
	So even selling, if you go ex parte...
	Because the judge trusted the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, which was his big mistake.
	He trusted a bunch of lying rogues.
	This is the most lying, deceitful agency I've ever dealt with, and I deal with the IRS on a daily basis.
	So that's how bad the Pennsylvania...
	And the lawyers for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture lie repeatedly.
	Heather Kelly and the other ones up there lie repeatedly at the Attorney General's office.
	They've lied to me, and they lie to judges.
	Because they knew he had shut down operations.
	There was no basis whatsoever.
	For any temporary injunction to issue, to seize and stop things that are not even inside their state.
	There's no basis for it.
	They knew there was no basis for it.
	So they lied and tricked the judge.
	And while I was in the hospital, couldn't hold an emergency hearing because of that.
	Only reason why.
	And so what should have happened is...
	A continuance.
	The judges needed to be skeptical, but they're not.
	The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture blows a leaf across their desk and they sign it.
	And it's embarrassing on the Pennsylvania court system.
	Robert.
	And I get why they trust them.
	They just don't realize the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture cannot be trusted in cases involving Amos Miller.
	Hold on.
	I might have missed one portion when I went to let that freaking annoying dog out of my office.
	You're in the hospital, and they proceed ex parte on an urgent basis because...
	They proceeded ex parte before I was in the hospital.
	They did so without notifying me.
	You can have a hearing on Friday, but the Friday I'm in the hospital.
	Okay, so stop.
	Because the ex parte before you're in the hospital is even more egregious because they know that they're represented.
	Ex parte, as far as my legal experience ever went...
	And they made no effort.
	They could have said, hey, here's our concern.
	We're going to request ex parte relief unless you agree to this or you tell us this or you da-da-da.
	Or do you have time to hold the hearing Thursday morning, Friday, etc.?
	They did none of that because they're lying, dishonorable, disreputable, unprofessional frauds at the Attorney General's office in Pennsylvania.
	They refuse to respect basic rules of ethics, basic rules of civil conduct, basic rules of law, basic rules of decorum, basic rules of justice.
	And we're going to find out whether the Pennsylvania courts have the integrity and the courage to do something about it.
	I'm going to be dealing with that on the hearing that is now scheduled for February 29th.
	So the judge didn't have any available time before the last week of February.
	So meanwhile, though, In the interim, he can no longer sell...
	He can't sell any raw milk products at all.
	I mean, he's completely frozen.
	I mean, not only that, he has to dump out all the milk products he has.
	I mean, you're talking about...
	And not only Amos is a...
	And Pennsylvania knew this.
	He was a distributor.
	There's a bunch of Amish farmers that work with him.
	And they know this.
	So it's a hit on the whole Amish community.
	Right?
	All of a sudden, everybody is out of money for a month or more.
	And they're trying to put them all out of business forever.
	I mean, that's what their ultimate objective is.
	They're overt and open about it.
	Permanent injunction prohibiting from ever doing, from selling anything, from giving anything.
	And the order's so broad, it could be misconstrued to mean, oh, that you can't even feed yourself.
	That if you're an owner of a farm...
	You can't even feed yourself.
	You can't even feed your family.
	You can't even give it away.
	That's how nuts the power they're asserting here.
	That's why the Amos Miller case is the future of food freedom in America.
	This case will likely decide that.
	That's how critical and essential this case is.
	I've added people to my legal team that are prioritizing this case.
	That's how significant it is.
	Bringing together experts, fact witnesses.
	I have a forensic investigator that's just working on the facts related to this case.
	Because the other backstory is, they lie, they repeat an old lie, that said listeria in Amos Miller's milk caused...
	I mean, here's the extraordinary thing.
	Amos Miller has served his products.
	Tens of thousands of Americans.
	For decades.
	Yeah, for decades.
	You're talking about millions and millions of products eaten and consumed.
	And you know how many customer complaints any state or federal agency has?
	At the risk of having this taken out of context, zero, Robert.
	Imagine that!
	Imagine you having served tens of thousands of people with millions of food products.
	And food is inherently some people that don't react well to certain kinds of food.
	I mean, normally, the average complaint rate is 3%.
	I was going to say, some people drink too much while they eat and then blame it on the food and not the alcohol.
	I mean, it's crazy.
	Well, a bunch of things can go wrong.
	Amos Miller has zero customer complaints in more than 20 years.
	He has the safest record of food in the history of America.
	He's the best example to make, Robert.
	They'll try to shut him down, and then everyone who has had...
	And then, like, one of the lies they said is that his listeria caused someone to get sick and died back in 2016.
	Here's the problem.
	The relatives, the family, they say that's a lie.
	They say that's not true.
	They say their grandmother who died had severe cancer and she never even drank raw milk anyway.
	So it's completely made up.
	And the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is still repeating that lie because that's what they are, lying frauds who want to steal all of our rights to what goes into our bodies, which belong to us, not the federal government, not the state government.
	It's the wrap-up smear, Robert.
	They're going to report on somebody reporting it and make it fact and then use it as the example to do what they want to do.
	But so meanwhile...
	By the way, we even did the...
	Amos wanted to make sure everything was super safe anyway.
	And I identified where there was any risk coming from any other farmer of any other product that he was out there and addressed it right away.
	So they know that there's nothing in there, nothing that he makes on his own farm that is risk to anybody.
	They know that.
	They claimed other things that caused sickness.
	They weren't able to confirm any of it from any of the evidence they've sent me so far.
	But that's what they want to do.
	And so this case is going to be...
	And we're going to raise every constitutional issue.
	Not only expose all of their lies and their litany of lies, but constitutionally, they have no business telling family farmers what food they can feed.
	The number that if you're an owner of a farm, you have a right to eat your own food without the government telling you whether you can or not.
	Number two, that private members of an association or any other form don't even have to have private members.
	If you are a direct purchaser of of traditional foods such as meat, poultry and dairy.
	Directly from a farmer.
	It should be recognized in law that you have a constitutional right to buy what you want.
	Absolutely.
	To decide what goes into your body.
	That informed consent is about you, not the government.
	It's informed consent, not uninformed control.
	That's what they want.
	They want uninformed control over what goes into your body.
	They want you eating the crap.
	That corporatized, industrialized agriculture has been feeding us and killing us for the last half century with.
	They don't want the higher quality, better, safer Amish lifestyle of food available to the rest of us.
	Even though it's shrunk.
	They went from one out of five food products a century ago to today, small independent farmers like Amos only produce about 2% of all of our food supply.
	I mean, it's dangerous for national security that we're allowing this to happen.
	But these corporate whores at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, who when they leave, guess who they go to work for?
	Most of them have never worked an actual farm in their lives.
	They have no idea how to govern a farm.
	The idea that you have these people in lab coats telling farmers how they need to farm is itself a crock.
	But what they do is they go and work for the same big corporation.
	I mean, I'm going to document that they've had real...
	Outbreaks in Pennsylvania.
	And the PDA is usually covering them up for big corporations and is also usually and has never requested this kind of relief against actual pathogen outbreak causing food supplies from its big corporate pals.
	So we're going to put all of it on trial.
	Your constitutional rights to eat what you want.
	That's a liberty interest.
	Your constitutional property interest as an owner of any Food supply that you get to decide whether it goes into your body or not, not some government bureaucrat.
	Get into the constitutional limitations on the power of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and its various First and Fourth Amendment violations.
	They have no entitlement constitutionally to know anybody who buys his food.
	That's an attempt to violate their First Amendment rights.
	They have no business doing that.
	They have no right to do so, no privilege or prerogative to do so.
	So this constitutionally violating agency needs to be restrained and restricted by a constitutionally honoring court.
	And then we'll get into the factual history.
	We'll get into the economic significance.
	There's people literally emotionally upset that they cannot get his food because they need it for their own kids or family members or themselves with certain conditions that require the food made the way he makes it.
	You know what they don't want?
	They don't want any food that says, PDA approved on it.
	That's the one FDA approved.
	USDA approved.
	Because that means the food sucks.
	That's what that means to a lot of people in America with food knowledge.
	And PDA can't even understand.
	Mr. Barnes is out there saying the Amish food is better than our PDA approved food.
	Well, look at all the fat asses in your office.
	Look at your office.
	Does anybody think the PDA bureaucracy is a beacon of physical health?
	Nobody in their right minds does.
	Look at what's happening in America.
	Look at our life expectancy declining.
	So they're trying to strip us of one of our last areas of sovereignty.
	And I, for one, am not going for it.
	And Amos Miller is willing to take the brunt of all of this.
	While this is going on, the pressure is put on his family and everybody else.
	So there's a give, send, go that's out there where you can find for Amos Miller.
	Continue to support it because the only thing that's going to keep them afloat economically while they try to bankrupt them over the next month.
	And we're doing this on an extremely discounted legal fees.
	We'll have some Free America Law Center fundraisers for it down the road because we're going to be doing, you know, a quarter million of legal work in about a month, given all the scale we're bringing to this.
	But the February 29th hearing in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, will be a case that could shape the future.
	of food freedom for all of us in America.
	Robert, it's the Give, Send, Go.
	I'll show that.
	It's Amos Miller under attack again, correct?
	Yes, that's it.
	Okay, I'm going to show that in a second.
	Right now I'm going to show this because I need to pull this up.
	This is from the Food Safety News.
	I don't know.
	First of all, I wanted to bring this up.
	Do you see this?
	No, you don't.
	Oh, you do.
	Robert, I kicked you.
	I can still hear you.
	So don't do anything embarrassing.
	I brought this up because, first of all, that's very phallic.
	That farm thing right there, that silo, looks like a weenus.
	I'm sorry to say it.
	Okay.
	Miller, Robert, I can still hear you so you can talk.
	Miller further must notify his customers that his products were traced to two recent foodborne illnesses.
	Furthermore, the judge ordered him to notify his customers.
	Which, by the way, is not really accurate.
	So to my knowledge, all the food that they have sampled there didn't tie him in to any foodborne illness anywhere.
	Put it this way.
	If that's true, they haven't produced the evidence and it seems mighty weird that they haven't.
	Okay.
	But again, even if it were so, it's like, okay, you're talking about tens of thousands and you got two incidents?
	Two incidents?
	That happens...
	That happens every hour, probably, with certain Tyson Foods products.
	But hold on, Robert.
	I'll bring in the more incriminating part.
	If we're going to go to pencil.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Miller was the defendant in the federal action in 2016.
	Yada, yada.
	Miller's milk in 2016 was found to be genetically similar.
	I don't even know what the hell this means.
	I'm sorry.
	Miller's milk.
	And that's the fake case.
	And I say it's a fake case because in the death case, That's where her own family said she didn't even drink any raw milk from anybody.
	So how could Miller's raw milk cause that?
	By the way, she had a certain late-stage cancer.
	That's the backstory.
	They test around some of the nonsense they pulled in COVID.
	They've been testing it in some of these cases.
	And what they're doing is they're trying to fear-monger about the small farmer.
	And it's like, hold on a second.
	Look at the food problems created every single day by corporatized, industrialized agriculture.
	I mean, their people are getting sick every single day from it.
	Direct reaction.
	Then that's not even dealing with the long-term sicknesses.
	The massive explosion, as Robert Kennedy talks about, of chronic disease.
	I mean, they're literally killing us.
	I mean, you don't have to be an Alex Jones, so-called Alex Jones, in order to recognize, look at the data.
	They're killing us with this crap food.
	And they're trying to take away one of our only healthy options.
	Is it perfectly healthy?
	No food is.
	But it's a lot more healthy than anything produced by corporatized industrialized agriculture as the fact that he has zero customer complaints from millions of products of tens of thousands of Americans in the last 20 years.
	Robert, I'm just going to make sure that we're on the same one here.
	And yes, this is a humble flex, people.
	I will tell you what I'm humble flexing.
	I'm not in it because I'm not sharing it.
	Here we go.
	This is the fundraiser, correct?
	Yes.
	So I'm just saying, people, right now, I put my money where my mouth is and it's right there in real time.
	Robert, sweet, merciful goodness, I'm going to share the link with everybody so they can do not the same, but whatever they can.
	And I'm going to take this out if I can get back to Rumble Studio.
	Here we go.
	Boom.
	Robert, I'll say Godspeed to you, but I know you.
	So I'll talk to you tomorrow, and I'll find out where this is going.
	What's the next step in Amos Miller's saga?
	So, yeah, there's the big hearing on February 29th, the afternoon in Lancaster County Courthouse, room, I think, 6th, I think is where it will be.
	I'm not sure if that part is set yet.
	The judge is set.
	Judge has a pretty independent background.
	Seems like a straight-up guy.
	I mean, I assume he just accepted the veracity of the claims made.
	Put it this way.
	The signs that the judge is an independent judge is that they had to lie to him in the first place.
	Yep.
	So they could have been honest and said, look, here's what we have.
	We have these facts.
	We haven't informed Mr. Barnes of this request, that yes, Mr. Miller has published statements saying he stopped producing any of this and stopped selling it and so forth.
	Yet they didn't, and they lied for a reason.
	They were worried that an honest and honorable judge would not sign.
	This kind of declaration or emergency injunctive order if they had been truthful.
	And again, this includes misrepresentations by the Attorney General's Office of the State of Pennsylvania itself.
	And I am going to be bringing that to their attention.
	There are other people, including Free America Law Center itself, who has members that have standing, and some others that may be adding to the case.
	Because people's property was seized other than Amos's in violation of the law.
	Again, Pennsylvania was asserting control over things that Amos isn't even in control over outside of the state of Pennsylvania.
	So Amos not in control outside of the state, violating their rights, violating their constitutional rights.
	They're going to look at civil rights actions.
	Individuals who have been denied access to this food in essential ways that impacts their health, they're going to be looking at legal action against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	Some of the individuals who have lied are going to be individually named and sued in the state of Pennsylvania.
	So this is going to be one of the biggest legal battles over food freedom.
	And it's time that we need our courts to respect our rights.
	And we're going to find out whether that happens.
	And then there need to be consequences.
	For rogue agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	And then ultimately, there needs to be legislative reform.
	What most Americans don't know is that until 1967, our laws always included a provision that said none of the inspection, regulatory, bureaucratized regime to govern any aspect of food applied if you were buying your food directly from the farmer.
	That it is as American...
	I'll finish with this.
	A wise man once said, if the government can control your diet, and this is paraphrasing, then you are nothing more than a chattel slave of the state.
	And that is as core right as any.
	And that man was President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence.
	That's what's being put at test in Pennsylvania, and not far from where that liberty bell is cracked still in Philadelphia.
	We're going to find out whether liberty can still be wrung out in Pennsylvania in the case of Amos Miller.
	I only pause so that everyone can clip everything you just said without me making my whatever face I make.
	Robert, I'll bring this up because I need to bring it up.
	Marion Holtzman, who we haven't seen in a while.
	Marion, I remember your name because it's got two N's and it's my wife's name is Marion.
	Two chats.
	It says Robert.
	$100.
	Do you ever get discouraged when you see these judges and agencies abuse the average citizen and our system?
	Please give us a white pill.
	And then the other one is...
	I've got a dog trying to knock down the door.
	Donated to Amos Miller as well.
	Sign up, people.
	Fight, fight, fight.
	And be controversial, says...
	So basically, the Democrat Party wants to officially...
	Are we seeing this?
	I'm such an idiot, Robert.
	Darn it.
	It's right here, people.
	Okay, and then I'll just read the third chat, which was...
	So basically, the Democrat Party wants us to officially sanction up...
	Okay, read it.
	Be controversial.
	Marion Holtzman, first of all, thank you, because it is but for the...
	It's the good fortune of being able to donate to these things and support the ones publicly and not so publicly.
	But Robert, what was Marion's question?
	Hold on a second.
	Oh, about the white pill?
	The white pill.
	Can you give us a white pill?
	Well, that's a good transition.
	So the other Amish person I was representing this past week was Reuben King.
	Reuben King.
	It's crazy.
	Everybody watching understands what's going on.
	Reuben King was charged with selling firearms.
	I shouldn't say firearms.
	I was going to say weapons.
	He was selling firearms without a license.
	Even though he's a farmer, not doing it as his principal occupation, and selling firearms, because you're allowed to sell private-to-private firearms.
	He had 150, give or take, whatever, taken through the ringer.
	And the white pill is he's not going to jail, unlike the white pill or the black pill that we started the show off with, the Canadian guy going to jail for running over a traffic pylon.
	Robert Rubin King, tell us what happened.
	So, yeah, so Rubin was tried and sentenced in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
	I mean, it was tried, and then the sentencing was to be scheduled.
	I didn't represent him in that part of the proceeding.
	Basically, his contention was he didn't realize he needed one.
	The jury concluded that he knew otherwise because of what the ATF had told him.
	To me, it was, if you understood the Amish culture, that was far from clear, and I thought the law was being misapplied.
	So he retained me for sentencing.
	The district court he was assigned to was, by the information I was given, known for punitive sentences, harsh sentences.
	The probation report that provides a sentencing guidelines report was requesting a sentence of around four years, four to five years, in federal prison of a 56-year-old Amish farmer, long married with 10 children.
	Large number of his community depends on him and his farm for employment, for food, for their way of life.
	I went up to his farm the night before.
	It's always tricky because the Amish don't use electricity.
	And so you're thinking it was a little icy, a little snowy out there.
	There's some dogs running around.
	Robert, I got to ask.
	They don't use electricity.
	No streetlights, no nothing.
	Yeah, not really.
	And so they have their own methods of, you know, gas-powered things and some things like that.
	But it's always interesting.
	And then everything's, you know, it's a step back in time.
	But a community of good people and good friends and good family.
	And met up there at his house.
	You know, the old wooden table.
	And you sit on an old wooden seat, if you will.
	His wife was there.
	Some of his family were there.
	And it was clear that the awareness that he might go to prison, that they would miss his presence, that they would have a severe economic hit, and that their community would be severely interrupted.
	And who knows what happens to him in prison.
	The Bureau of Prisons isn't known for defending the Amish.
	Very rare that anybody, they ever try to put an Amish person in a federal prison because it's very rare that they are accused of, even accused of any kind of criminal conduct.
	And they had already forfeited his life's collection of guns, about 600 or so.
	So one of his, not only savings, but one of his great favorite hobbies was gone.
	But the most consequential was, and most people who I talked to said to expect a four to five year sentence.
	And we had spent many months making advocacy to the probation office, advocacy to the court, and advocacy to the prosecutor.
	And credit here belongs in part to the prosecutor.
	In my experience, 9 out of 10 prosecutors, 9 out of 10 government bureaucratic lawyers.
	are not trustworthy people and are not very compassionate, considerate, or empathetic.
	At least half are honest-to-God sociopaths if they were properly diagnosed.
	They're people who enjoy their authority.
	They're people worse than that who enjoy inflicting pain on others.
	And this prosecutor was clearly from the get-go not one of those people.
	Was one of those old-school types.
	Who just wants to put bad people behind bars.
	And that's why he was a prosecutor.
	And so he could tell early on that even though the government, the higher-ups might want a four- to five-year prison sentence to terrify everybody, look at what we did to an Amish farmer.
	Imagine what we'll do to you if you don't do what we tell you when it comes to defending yourself and engaging in other ways of trade, of the means of so doing.
	Without our permission, approval, and authority, and control.
	And I think higher-ups did want a long prison sentence.
	But we spent time with our motion work and paperwork and other things trying to set the basis whereby, come sentencing hearing, maybe he would do something different than everybody expected.
	We made expansive arguments to the court, explained all the constitutional risk if this case were to go up on appeal.
	Constitutional risk that might go away if there was no prison sentence.
	I explained all the reasons why the guidelines...
	We traced the entire history of the guidelines and how it all worked and how it was never meant to apply to people like Rubin and all the rest.
	And then I made oral argument there.
	Large part of the Amish community all came out.
	The courtroom was packed with members of the Amish.
	Many of whom were, like his family on the way up, very tense, very, I mean, something they never imagined possible.
	They're about to lose their dad, their grandfather, an essential person in their family, in their community, in their business.
	And maybe the medical care is terrible in the prison system.
	People just look at what happened to Owen Shroyer as to what they can do to people that are perceived as outsiders.
	Add to that somebody who's Amish.
	And you can imagine the worst, most horrific outcomes.
	You know, it's not just his liberty, his life may be at stake in the case.
	So I went up there in court.
	I found out some things on the way out, which were interesting.
	But on the way in, you know, and I always find these things nerve-wracking.
	There's times that, and also I had barely slept, probably.
	Part of the reason why I ended up in the hospital for about 72 hours because I'd done the red eye.
	I'd done a deposition the day before and I was prepping for this.
	And it's just nerve-wracking.
	I've never been able to disassociate from the concerns of my clients.
	There's an edge to being a clinical lawyer, like a doctor that doesn't really...
	You don't internalize the stress and the suffering of your clients.
	You're a sociopath.
	If you're not a sociopath, you internalize it.
	Correct.
	But it's a huge burden that it can be to bear because you know some of the things that they don't even know about the scale and the severity of the risk that they face and what that might look like.
	So made the best advocacy.
	The judge, you know, had ruled against us on a whole bunch of procedural aspects in terms of the forfeiture, in terms of the trial, but also in terms of the sentencing guidelines.
	So was set up to give a prison sentence.
	And even sounded like at the beginning that he was giving a three-year prison sentence.
	And he asked the prosecutor, goes, well, would you object if I did give probation to a probationary sentence?
	And the prosecutor was kind of trying to avoid saying something efficiently on the record.
	And to his conscientious credit, finally just said, nah, no, I don't object.
	Because down deep.
	He didn't want to see some Amish guy.
	That isn't why he signed up to be a federal prosecutor, put little Amish farmers in prison.
	So it took a while for him to say that on the record because I'm sure there was a lot of other pressure on the guy that's not being the official policy.
	But as soon as that happened, the judge started like, okay, maybe I have leeway here.
	Went back for a good time behind chambers.
	Talked to some other people, I think his clerks and some others.
	One of the clerks had paid a lot of attention to part of my oral argument about the Native American tradition that I've had and how that informs a much better method of justice than what we've done in America and seemed to connect to it.
	And so came back out and said straight probation.
	Three years of probation.
	No time in a federal prison.
	To the great relief of Reuben.
	I remember turning to Reuben after the judge went back in there.
	I started to explain the process.
	He said, Robert, it's just time to pray.
	I appreciated that.
	That's what he and the community were doing during that time period.
	They were in the courthouse.
	They packed the courthouse.
	The Amish filled up the entire hallways.
	They heard the announcement.
	Massive relief.
	His wife had been very stressed the night before.
	She was very relieved that everybody was that this horrific event was not going to have this horrific outcome.
	And on the way out, apparently marshals were cheering for a probationary verdict.
	And there were some people there that were courthouse security marshals who watched the show.
	So that apparently the discussion on the show had got around to other aspects of the courthouse.
	Whereas people saw Rubin, they saw the community around Rubin, they saw the advocacy that we talked about here.
	It was almost unanimous that in that courthouse, amongst everybody else, that was part of the courthouse, that they wanted to see a good outcome for Rubin, too.
	And so you don't often experience that.
	So that was someone whose life was at risk beyond their liberty.
	And a family and a community that could have suffered a very damaging loss didn't.
	And it's a reminder that, you know, no matter the obstacles, you just keep knocking on doors.
	That even if the justice system seems lost, just keep trying and trying and trying and trying.
	Because you never know when you'll get through.
	That's why I love my quote.
	The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he didn't exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing you that you cannot resist.
	I mean, I'm not saying be naive or idealist or anything else.
	I'm not saying that you don't realize you're an underdog in a lot of these cases, and you're going to not get the relief that you are entitled to most of the time, or a lot of the time.
	But I know that the only way the system wins is if we quit.
	So if you don't quit, there's always a chance.
	And Reuben King is, in fact, alive and free today in Lancaster County.
	Not watching the show, because they don't watch TV, but enjoying time with his family, thanks to that refusal to quit.
	I know you see it as a white pill, Robert, and this might be my own pessimism showing, but the number of people who don't get that white pill because they don't have that infrastructure, and you got the one white pill of the sea of thousands of black pills.
	And it's amazing.
	In the vlog that I did, I was going to include a clip from Schindler's List, and I decided not to because I don't want to be accused of minimizing anything.
	But the expression, he who saves one life saves the world.
	And I'm not trying to massage you, Robert.
	You saved a life, period.
	And that matters.
	And I think people have to remember that matters because it will help animate you when you're in very difficult fights like the Amos Miller one.
	When it feels like all the odds are stacked against you.
	You don't stand a chance.
	Remember the time when David Stone hit Goliath's head.
	And maybe that will be this time.
	And you have to believe it to make it possible.
	Because in the end, real human beings are impacted by those choices.
	I'm going to share the screen.
	It's going to kick you out visually, but we'll still hear you.
	I just want to bring this up so I can read Marion Holtzman's latest.
	These dogs are driving me crazy.
	They want out, they want in.
	Karolevsky.
	I've never seen your name before, Karolevsky.
	I think I'd remember it.
	Any chance the next administration actually massively reduces the federal bureaucracy?
	If the next administration is Trump, yes.
	If it's Biden, no.
	Marion Holtzman said there are over 12,000 people listening to this.
	If each of you just gave one or two dollars to give, send, go, Amos Miller would really help.
	I know things are tough, but please help.
	I'm going to bring you back in, Robert.
	Stop picking your nose.
	I'm joking.
	The whole Amish community came out, or a huge part of it came out the next night, got to meet many of them, describe to them what was happening because they were baffled by everything.
	They're like, why is this happening to us?
	They're good, nice, sweet-hearted people who always love to laugh and sing, whose idea of a great time is singing and playing volleyball.
	You know, I mean, they're old America.
	They're the heart of old America.
	And as I told them, the heart of old America is under attack.
	And you just happen to symbolize it and be emblematic of it and be giving people an exit ramp from the big tech, big pharma, big food controlled system in society.
	You're right.
	It's disturbing that people like Ruben King are ever being targeted by agencies like the ATF.
	But what it should also be a reminder of is we need to radically shrink.
	The power of a lot of these agencies.
	Because we've seen what it looks like, and it ain't pretty.
	And not to go toot Vivek Roboswamy's horn since he's backed out of the presidency, but this is what he's talking about.
	He's having an influence on Trump.
	And yeah, it's more laws, less justice, Atelius Cicero.
	There's no better example of it than this crap right here.
	So it's nice.
	I think it's okay.
	I think Trump's people should look at...
	Trump speaking out on Amos Miller's behalf.
	There might be some other presidential candidates doing it soon.
	I think they saw the Amish as a whole, someone like Amos, as an easy lamb to sacrifice on the altar of statism.
	But there's a whole bunch of us in between them and Amos.
	And that's going to be the key.
	Everybody holds the line.
	We can still preserve our freedoms in America.
	Robert, do we do one more before we go over to local supporters exclusively?
	Oh, sure.
	Because we have a range of fun ones we can cover on the George Carlin and Oklahoma death penalty case.
	Let's do the Oklahoma death penalty case only because I'm familiar with that one.
	I did not do my homework on George Carlin.
	What's the guy's name in the Oklahoma case?
	I'm blanking on the...
	The name I thought sounded like the San Francisco 49ers quarterback.
	Oklahoma Death Penalty Scotus.
	Hold on.
	Remember, this was the egregious one where the state of Oklahoma even recognized he was fraudulently prosecuted.
	And yet the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was so horrendous that they were still ordering him to be executed.
	Oh, Richard Glossop.
	I was going to say gossip is how I remembered it.
	Okay, this is the last subject of the evening.
	The dog barks to get out.
	Now he's barking to get back in.
	I'm not letting the dog back in my office.
	Okay.
	This is the last subject of the night before we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Richard Glossop.
	This guy, he worked at the hotel.
	I don't think he owned it.
	I think he was the manager.
	He was not the owner.
	Some tweaked out meth addict, and I'm not saying this to be funny, glib, or demeaning, beats a, was it a patron?
	To death with a baseball bat and gets arrested and basically Rats out this other guy and says, he told me to do it so that the guy who did it, who was tweaked off meth, doesn't get the death penalty.
	The only person to testify against Richard Glossop is the guy who killed the man with an aluminum baseball bat.
	I remember that from the details.
	And Glossop, not Glossop, sorry, the guy who did it gets no death penalty but life in prison.
	But Glossop, because he ordered it, gets the death penalty.
	Convicted and then let go or acquitted on appeal in the first trial, ordered a retrial, gets convicted again, and then the Oklahoma Court of Appeal again, not again, but the second time around, says no, reaffirmed death penalty.
	This guy's been in jail since 97. Justice in this case will not be justice regardless, unless I'm totally wrong and this guy actually ordered the hit on a hotel patron.
	This guy's never had a criminal record in his life.
	Before he was locked away for 30 years.
	He once petitioned the Supreme Court to say that the death penalty by way of three injections was cruel and unusual.
	Supreme Court said no.
	And now it's coming up where even the state of Oklahoma, defense, prosecution, basically everybody involved says...
	The dude's fucking innocent.
	Can we just have a retrial or suspend the death penalty?
	And the SCOTUS has agreed to hear it.
	I might have missed some details, Robert.
	I mean, the only in-between.
	Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ignored the prosecutor saying there was so much corruption by the state prosecutor in the case who did every kind of illicit thing possible to rig the trial that they were like, we have no confidence in the verdict whatsoever and we agree with setting aside the verdict.
	And the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals still ordered him executed.
	That's what a crock the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is.
	But Robert, are they just...
	I mean, I'm not trying to be glib or funny.
	Are they just looking for people to kill?
	That's pretty much the definition of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
	They'd make those corrupt actors in the Osage Nation trying to whack off native tribal members.
	They're cultural cousins, you could say.
	Yeah, but not whack off.
	Whack or off.
	Yeah, yeah, right, right.
	Sorry, sorry.
	But yeah, it's great.
	The Supreme Court took it.
	That means it's going to get set aside.
	So thank God the Supreme Court did the right thing, and an innocent man isn't going to get executed.
	He's not going to get executed.
	What's going to happen?
	Do they let him out, retry it?
	I think they should set aside the trial period, verdict, and that'll be it.
	He won't get re-reprocessed.
	And then say enough times.
	It's three fucking decades, Robert.
	So they'll say enough time has elapsed.
	There can be no fair retrial.
	You go free.
	Correct.
	And reintegrate.
	That is what the ruling should be.
	Corrupt prosecutions need to have severe consequences.
	That's not severe for the people who did the corruption, but, you know...
	At least it's a step in the right direction.
	Sad Wings Raging, Five Bucks says, the Carrie Lake recording, people back east, what do you think of this, Barnes?
	We talked about it earlier, Sad Wings.
	Robert, so now we're going to head over to the Viva Barnes Law.
	.locals.com.
	It's supporters only, so I appreciate that members might be frustrated.
	I'm going to blame it on Rumble Studio because that's the only option they have.
	But bottom line, that's the only option we have.
	So what we're going to do now, Robert, what do you have this week?
	First of all, you look good, you look rested, but you need to rest up.
	Do you have any medical?
	You have to chill for a bit?
	Just tomorrow with the Duran at 1 p.m. Eastern time.
	Breaking down the entire geopolitical global landscape, which continues to get more interesting.
	U.S. troops apparently landing in Yemen.
	Right, because us getting involved in Middle Eastern countries always works out so well.
	That and more.
	If I may.
	So it's going to be two hours of you getting called a Zionist on the terrain.
	There won't be a whole lot of Israel.
	There won't be much of that.
	They want to do the...
	The U.S. legal political landscape primarily.
	And then some updates on what's happening in Ukraine.
	What's the risk of war breaking out elsewhere in the Middle East?
	100% by the looks of it.
	Yeah.
	So it'll be more of that.
	We discussed Israel briefly last time, but that's not the focal point of this one.
	Okay.
	So that's what's coming up for you.
	So make sure everybody remind me, don't go live tomorrow between 1 and 3. I'll go live earlier or after.
	Wednesday, I'm going to be on The Unusual Suspects.
	I might try to squeeze in a live stream.
	Steve Kirsch is coming on, by the way.
	Everyone stay tuned for that.
	Tell him hi for me.
	And of course, we'll have bourbons back up starting Wednesday at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com each day.
	Which is where everyone is coming right now.
	So we're going to end it on Rumble, people.
	And it's going to be supporters only.
	We're going to do this, people.
	And that's it.
	We're done.
	Okay, so I'm going to...
	It's like Cujo is banging at the front door.
	I'm ending it, everybody.
	I will see you all tomorrow.
	Barnes, Duran, 1 o 'clock Eastern.
	And now we are going to Locals Support Us Only.
	Peace out, Rumble.

▲