Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 4, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:59:03

Musk Compensation DENIED! Trump Ruling DELAYED! Fani Willis DEMISE! Viva & Barnes LIVE Ep. 196!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	When Justin Trudeau takes to the stupid Zoom meetings, I think it was, I don't remember where it was, and says, hey mom, I'd like to talk to your kids.
	That's stranger danger.
	And by the way, it's a form of grooming as well.
	I made the mean joke.
	Before I call you a groomer, are you talking to kids and telling them you love them?
	Trans and queer kids?
	I know your parents don't understand you, but I do.
	Come talk to me.
	I mean, I just want to make sure before I call you a groomer.
	Is that what you're doing?
	You know, there's different types of grooming.
	You can have sexual grooming.
	You can have political grooming.
	You can have medical grooming.
	And Justin Trudeau coming out, asking the moms in the room to leave, I'd like to talk to your kids so he can push the jab on them, is medical grooming.
	Holy hell!
	Is it awful?
	And trying to squeeze out a fake crocodile tear from that face.
	We're with you.
	Oh, oh.
	To the queer and trans youth, come talk to me privately.
	It's wildly inappropriate.
	Politically exploitive.
	And absolutely disgusting.
	You keep our kids out of your mouths.
	That sounds even worse.
	Oh my goodness.
	So that's Janice Irwin for the NDP, I think, out of Alberta or Edmonton.
	I was swiftly blocked, but I can understand why.
	That's a member of the New Democrat Party of Canada that...
	Party led by the equally disgusting Jagmeet Singh.
	And then there's another video of Jagmeet Singh.
	You want to talk about using kids as political tools?
	As political props, Where is it?
	Oh, come on.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Hold on.
	There we go, here we go.
	As political props, the joke here, people are saying, this is Jagmeet Singh using his baby as a prop.
	And I'm like, dude, he's not using his baby as a prop.
	He's using his baby as a shield.
	Taken to an aggressive, heated meeting where they're talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
	And he's there with his frickin' six-month-old.
	Like an actual physical shield.
	Look at this!
	NDP!
	When they're not grooming children, they're using them as shields.
	Literally.
	History did not start on October 7th.
	Literally.
	Who the hell would bring a kid to this, let alone one that's like sucking his teeth?
	I thought it was a doll.
	I think you might want to find a bloody babysitter, Jagmeet.
	Can you imagine bringing not just a vulnerable child, not just a child, a newborn to a heated political debate that could easily get mildly violent?
	What in the name of sweet holy hell world am I living in?
	I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
	I just watched that movie yesterday.
	fantastic.
	This is a great place to take it, Kim.
	This is exactly where you would want to take a very vulnerable pay.
	Like that scene from...
	Okay, you get the picture.
	Like that scene from The Dead Zone.
	Was it Martin Sheen?
	Christopher Walken?
	If you've never seen The Dead Zone, it's terrifying.
	It's tragic.
	And it's one of the...
	It remains...
	I don't know if you'd call it a horror movie.
	Christopher Walken gets in a car accident.
	He can touch people and see into the future.
	And it's the end scene.
	Oh.
	Do I spoil it, people?
	Spoiler alert.
	Do I spoil it?
	No, I'm not going to spoil it.
	Good evening, everybody.
	I had so many things lined up to bring in as the intro, but I'm going to bring one up, actually, before we get into our sponsor.
	First of all, Mr. Entry acquired.
	You know who you are, and you know what you did.
	I got a gift from a member of our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	It's a box of these things.
	Let me just back up so you can see what this is.
	You know what's amazing when you have three kids and they get a hold of these?
	Holy crab apples!
	I think the neighbors were calling the cops.
	Anyways, Mr. Entry required.
	They're actually kind of amazing.
	So we'll take them when we go to a sports game next.
	But the neighbors haven't called the cops yet.
	Alright, before I play the video that I wanted to use as the intro, I'm going to just make sure that we are live across all of the interwebs.
	We are live on the Rumbles.
	Let me just get past the ads here.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Okay, now there's a commercial of somebody pouring Crown Royal into their gas tank.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble.
	Beautiful.
	Let me make sure that we are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we are.
	Now, I wanted to start with this video.
	But I wanted to rant and rave first.
	So I'm going to play this video, and then I'm going to thank our sponsor of the evening, Field of Greens.
	Okay, so I went to see Andrew Dice Clay Friday night.
	Look, getting out of the house, especially it's the first time I've gone to like...
	I was at the football game.
	I don't get out of the house very often.
	I get to the RNC debates and those types of things.
	So the missus and I got like a three-hour play date.
	Date.
	It's a date.
	It's not a play date.
	And we went to see...
	Andrew Dice Clay.
	And it was great.
	It was great.
	It's an interesting thing seeing Andrew Dice Clay at this age make jokes about the things that he's making jokes about.
	And then, you know, at the end, everyone's like, say the line, Bart.
	Do your hickory dickory duck or we're going to be an angry crowd.
	And then you get that vibe a little bit like, oy, this guy got defined too early by this one bit and it's followed him for 30 years.
	Either way, it was a fun evening.
	And I'm not comparing.
	All that I'm saying...
	Is that I was thinking of how bloody funny Ty Fisher is.
	And Ty Fisher, Ty the Fish, I've had him on, we had an amazing interview on the channel.
	He's so bloody talented.
	And he's so diverse that he doesn't get pigeonholed and he won't get pigeonholed for any like, any one say the line part.
	Now, and I want to start the show with that so that I don't think, I don't know, you know, I'm not, no, this is not it.
	I'm not.
	He's fluent enough in the world of stand-up comedy to know if Ty Fisher is getting the recognition that he deserves.
	But he deserves...
	I don't think he's been on Joe Rogan.
	He deserves to go on Joe Rogan.
	He deserves to be performing at the Mothership.
	The guy is a freaking genius.
	He's not just funny.
	He's not just insightful.
	He's not just ballsy.
	He is creative and he's a good actor.
	His impersonation, well, you're going to see it here.
	This is what I wanted to start the show with.
	I'm going to play this through.
	No commentary.
	I'm going to give everybody the link everywhere.
	So you can go follow Ty Fisher.
	You can put out tweets.
	Get him on Rogan.
	If he hasn't already been on Rogan.
	I'll feel stupid if he's been on Rogan.
	But either way, get him on Rogan again because I listen to Rogan pretty much every day and I haven't heard him on Rogan yet.
	Listen to this.
	It's fantastic.
	Thank you to Elon Musk.
	I'm about to get my Neuralink chip implanted into my brain, lost use of the entire left side of my body, and have trouble speaking.
	Good actor.
	It's good acting.
	Okay, everyone.
	So, I've been up from my surgery for about 15 minutes now.
	This is freaking genius.
	Let that sink in.
	So, you know, I'm a little drowsy, but, you know, I can move my hand for the first time in my life.
	So, Disney, if you're watching.
	That's for you.
	That's pretty cool.
	You know, so I've been up for a little while, 15 minutes.
	I've already updated starting.
	So it should be working about five times as fast.
	So that's pretty good.
	I also just drew up a new design for SpaceX rocket that can fly to Mars in about five days.
	So that's pretty good progress, actually.
	And when I woke up, I realized the world is actually not overpopulated.
	It's underpopulated.
	I've already impregnated six of my nurses.
	Okay, seven.
	That's pretty cool.
	Anyway, highly recommend the chip.
	Highly recommend it.
	I think it's working really well.
	And Disney, go f*** yourself!
	Go f*** yourself!
	Okay, I'm hallucinating.
	I don't know where that came from.
	I thought he didn't censor it in the one I saw.
	It's amazing.
	Ty Fisher.
	Brooklyn, a dude living on the road like that has got to be wild.
	Go check him out.
	Okay, so that's what I wanted to start with because that is genuine, creative, funny, awesome.
	He's a stand-up.
	He's amazing.
	Can't rave about him enough and a smart guy.
	All right.
	Now as everyone trickles in, and you may have noticed, I get so neurotic as to whether or not I've checked off that box in YouTube because I want to, I don't want...
	Did I?
	I know I did it.
	I know I saved it.
	I had saved it enough.
	I don't want to get, you know, accused of breaking the rules of YouTube, people.
	They review videos, and then they approve them, and then they disapprove them, then they demonetize them, and by the time they get around to monetizing them, the news is no longer in the news.
	It doesn't matter.
	So I checked off that box where it says, this stream contains a paid promotion.
	Because it does, people.
	Booyakasha, it is Field of Greens.
	I feel like I'm going to steal from Joe Rogan.
	This one's easy for me, people, because everybody should eat healthy, be healthy, cut out the bad habits.
	Cut out that crappy, disgusting, sucralose-ish, I don't know what the aspartame is the word I'm looking for.
	Diet Coke, cut out the, you know how many grams of sugar are in a small can of Red Bull?
	54, I think.
	54?
	I think it's 54 or 45, one or the other.
	You are supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Most people do not have it.
	And if you can't have it, do it.
	But even if you do, do it.
	Have a one spoonful of field of greens twice a day, once in the morning, once in the evening.
	That's one spoonful is a full serving of fruits and vegetables.
	It's desiccated greens.
	Not defecated, although everything comes out at some point in time.
	Desiccated, like pulverized.
	It's a food.
	It's not an extract and it's not a supplement.
	You take one spoonful, they have...
	Sweetened one, mild sweetened with stevia, I think.
	I don't want to make a mistake about that.
	And then they have the unsweetened.
	You stir it around one spoonful.
	It looks like swamp water because swamp water is where life originates.
	Not literally or only scientifically.
	I'm going to get fact-checked for that.
	Swamp water is rich in nutrients, rich in oxygen.
	When you put this in a glass, it is rich in all the good stuff that fruits and vegetables give you when you're traveling.
	And it's a little tough to get some, you know...
	Raw fruits and vegetables, a spoonful twice a day.
	Delicious, goes down easy, and it's a healthy habit.
	Oh yeah, then you want to go to the website, fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order with free rush shipping.
	So, that's that.
	The link is in the comment, people.
	Be healthy, cut out the bad habits.
	I have a theory about life.
	Life is about addictions, and it's about substituting the unhealthy addictions for the healthy addictions, or habits for that matter.
	So, swap out the crap.
	Swap it in with something good for you, that makes you feel good about yourself, that has the antioxidants, the nutrients of fruits and vegetables, and you are already one step better towards leading a healthier life.
	Fieldofgreens.com, promo code, VIVA.
	It brings you to Brickhouse Nutrition, but that's the product.
	All right, now, I think we've got a few more things here.
	So, for those who don't know, if you're new to the channel, welcome.
	I am Viva Frye, David Fryeheit.
	I now know that David means beloved, Dovid.
	From an interview with GingerNinja during our locals chat, member chat, supporter chat.
	And Freiheit, for those of you who don't know, means freedom.
	In the German, yeah.
	Viva Frei.
	So what we do here, we start on YouTube, Commitube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We then...
	Get off of YouTube at some point in time so that we grace the free speech platform with our presence, with our traffic, with our eyes, with our dollars, and with our feet.
	And then when the stream is over, we have an after-party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, what was I going to say here?
	Oh yeah, and these things here, Rumble Rant Super Chats.
	Oh, I knew I forgot something.
	I did not click an existing sidebar.
	I didn't click the rant button, so I don't know if I missed any on...
	Rumble.
	The Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of them.
	The best way to do it, go over to Rumble.
	Rumble takes 0% of Rumble rants.
	Winston Shittenhouse, who I know that looks like my dog, but it's not quite him.
	Do you wear slippers?
	If so, where are they?
	I don't.
	What I wear, because I've made it on the interwebs, people.
	What I wear?
	Custom shoes that Murph...
	Murph's Kicks on Instagram.
	These are a very old pair.
	I wear these when I go fishing because now they smell horrible, and I don't care if they get dirty, and I've got...
	Well, I got newer ones.
	Murph's Kicks.
	Murph's underscore kicks at Instagram.
	Sends me these every now and again, and it does amazing stuff.
	All right.
	My one-year-old daughter just really appreciated the Horn Viva.
	It really delighted her.
	Yeah, it's awesome.
	The dogs especially love it.
	My daughter's name is Adeline, just in case you wanted to give her a shout-out.
	No, I can't do that, because that would make me a total hypocrite, although with the permission of the parents is a different thing.
	No, I can't do it.
	Someone's going to clip it, snip it, and then say viva after an intro in which he rages and raves against filthy politicians addressing children directly.
	Steve Johnson, your daughter has a beautiful name, by the way.
	And what do we got here?
	We got MDA says, for some reason, people from Quebec have a terrible sense of humor.
	Now, let me just make sure that I actually got the link to Barnes.
	I know that I did.
	Let me just make sure.
	We've got one heck of a show tonight.
	I got some other stuff in the backdrop that we're going to play a good video.
	You got the link, comma, right?
	You got the link, comma, right?
	And I'm showing the case that another member of our locals community gave me, who also a forensic psychologist.
	We did a locals chat, and then she sent me not one, but two.
	Oh, the dog.
	Hold on a second.
	All right.
	Oh, gosh.
	I can hear my wife listening to the stream in the other room.
	Booyah!
	Okay, and I'll get Winston here.
	So, what was I going to say?
	That's it.
	I'll give everybody the link.
	Oh, I didn't pin the link.
	This is the link to locals, people, if you want to go watch the stream over there.
	And this is the link to Rumble before I get into the rest of this.
	Copy.
	Okay, good, good.
	And then the link to Rumble.
	And I'm going to pin the comment.
	That's what I forgot to do.
	Okay, then I'm going to play one more fun video.
	Link to Rumble.
	Boom shakalaka.
	How do I get back to the bottom here?
	Oh, the chat's moving so fast I can barely...
	I didn't put slow-mo on the chat.
	It doesn't matter.
	Okay, you got the link, people.
	I can't even see my own comment now.
	All right.
	Oh, here it is.
	Here, let me just pin that up here.
	All right, now, while we wait for the man of the hour barns, let me bring up one more.
	Yes.
	Yeah, let's bring up Hakeem Jeffries.
	Speaking of idiot politicians, I just...
	You may know Hakeem Jeffries from such films as I'm always conducting an orchestra with my hands.
	I'm not maybe the best person to criticize for that, although I like to think that my hand gestures are mildly correlated to what I'm saying.
	The two worst offenders of the always conducting an orchestra in their minds, Gavin Newsom...
	And Hakeem Jeffries.
	Let's hear what Hakeem Jeffries has to say.
	I was going to do an entire video on this, but then I said that would just be too juvenile.
	You know, we need more common sense in Washington, D.C., less conflict and less chaos.
	Less conflict and less chaos.
	That means we should be trying to find bipartisan common ground.
	House Democrats have made that clear.
	On any issue, we'll work with our Republican counterparts.
	When it makes sense...
	We'll work with our Republican counterparts when it makes sense.
	...in terms of delivering real results for the American people.
	How can a bill be dead on arrival?
	And extreme mega Republicans in the House haven't even seen the text.
	They don't even know what solutions are being proposed in terms of addressing the challenges at the border.
	House Republicans, at this point, are wholly owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump.
	But I'll work with them.
	working to find real solutions for the American people.
	They are following orders.
	Look at his hands.
	What they dislike are actually what they call pork bills, where you just jam in a load of shit unrelated to the bill.
	I'll work with them when they agree with me, and when they don't agree with me, they are extreme MAGA Republicans and everybody hates them.
	What an absolute scumbag.
	Can't stand Hakeem Jeffries.
	I don't know why I still follow him on Twitter.
	I don't think I follow him, but I know Elon knows that I interact with him out of frustration.
	I'll work with them.
	But they're extreme MAGA Republicans who are a threat to democracy.
	But we're open to working with them when they agree with us.
	And when they don't, then we go back to demonizing them and all of their followers.
	To hell, Hakeem.
	Okay, now we got Barnes in the backdrop.
	And before I bring him in, Field of Greens.
	Promo code.
	Viva!
	Barnes is drinking something, and I don't know if it's Field of Greens.
	We're going to see.
	I'm joking.
	Alright, Barnes, I'm bringing you in.
	Let me see this here.
	I'm going to go to Locals and make sure that our audio levels are synced up.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Tell us about...
	Hold on, let me broaden this so we can see what's on your shoulder.
	There is no book this week, Robert.
	Yeah, yeah, no.
	Not this week.
	Okay, and let me just go to Locals and see if they're going to say that you're too low.
	Barnes has a...
	Barnes has the lake.
	EMR is great.
	Okay, what's going on here?
	Come on.
	Audio.
	Good question mark.
	Let's see if the audio is good.
	It's Amos Mills.
	Now the dog barks to get in.
	He's going to bark to get out.
	Robert, before we get into it, what do we have on the menu tonight?
	We got the International Court of Justice made a ruling last week about Israel, this week about Ukraine.
	We have a when is graffiti fit within the First Amendment.
	The big school shooter parent on trial.
	The big Second Amendment win about your right to buy ammo.
	The when is it okay to raid the wrong house?
	Always.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And qualified immunity might not have ever been rooted in the law.
	The Musk compensation plan rejection by a judge overriding the board.
	Trump's ballot case will be heard on Thursday before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	We got when is mens rea required for criminal law?
	Are they locking people up who they haven't proven committed or intended to commit any crime?
	The Oregon Supreme Court's exclusion of GOP state senators based on a law that was passed by the people of Oregon last term.
	Can Biden legally issue mass amnesty to illegal immigrants or anybody else?
	The classified documents Trump case continues to be taken apart by what is being exposed in the discovery part of the process.
	the Vault 7 whistleblower sentenced and they found other things on his computer it's always interesting who they find certain things on the computer of We have a report, you know, bonus topic of Florida.
	The Florida grand jury that was convened to investigate the COVID vaccines has issued its initial preliminary report.
	Amazing.
	What was the result of our locals poll as to what was the most popular and what do we start with?
	I wouldn't mind starting with Musk on YouTube and Twitter and Rumble.
	I think the most popular one is Biden's amnesty power concerning illegal immigration.
	Brett Weinstein had a very interesting interview with Tucker Carlson this week over what he witnessed down in Panama-Columbia border region and that there was clear evidence of an intentional invasion taking place amongst other things.
	That was the number one voted topic.
	Well, no favorite got number one.
	But right beneath that was the immigration amnesty question.
	And then the Trump cases had a lot of interest.
	And then the Second Amendment case was third, I think.
	Okay, perfect.
	So you know what we'll do?
	We'll start with the Elon Musk.
	And that one's going to segue into the most popular, which we will do on Rumble.
	Okay, so I mean, I don't know that people are not particularly interested in the story.
	I mean, it made the headlines, what was it, Friday afternoon?
	This, for those who don't know, was a minority shareholder.
	I don't know how many shares he had, but it doesn't really matter.
	It was $1,700 worth.
	It was, like, very few.
	So the question is whether or not he was an activist minority shareholder from the beginning who files a suit basically challenging Elon Musk's compensation plan that was negotiated through the board of directors, approved by the shareholders, back in, I forget when, but...
	2018, I believe.
	2018.
	Or maybe even before then.
	Because there were iterations of it.
	There was like the iteration one and they changed it.
	And the bottom line of the compensation package was basically he was at 21% shareholding of the company.
	If they met milestones of like increasing market cap by 50 billion, he would get another 1% of share of the stock.
	Basically, it would have amounted to had he reached, which he did, because apparently they met...
	All 12 of their market milestones and all 11 of the 12 economic or financial milestones.
	When he reached $600 billion in market cap, he would effectively be compensated by way of $55 billion in the shares that he would get in tranches for every milestone that he made.
	They once hit a trillion dollar market cap.
	It since came down.
	He goes to say, okay, I want my compensation package.
	This guy goes to a Delaware court.
	I don't know if you'll tell us how...
	Business-friendly Delaware courts are.
	I know it's the number one state for incorporating.
	And this judge, by all accounts, because I'm reading left and right, by all accounts, created new law by saying we are basically rescinding this offer.
	We don't care that the board of directors approved it.
	We don't care that the shareholders approved it.
	The board of directors, according to this judge, as a matter of fact, were related to such that basically Elon controlled the company through de facto relationships with the board of directors.
	The shareholders, even though, from what I understand, you'll tell me if I'm wrong, legally did not have to approve the deal, nonetheless approved it, but the judge said, well, they were misled because the...
	The relationship that I just found between the directors and Elon Musk was never disclosed to them, so they voted basically in ignorance of law and fact.
	And so rescind it.
	You're not getting it.
	I don't know exactly what he is going to get by way of package, what he's doing now.
	He's threatened to go to Texas, and apparently Delaware's making it hard to unincorporate or leave Delaware to go elsewhere.
	How much have I gotten wrong?
	Is this basically an unprecedented move by the judge?
	Yeah, I mean, the Delaware courts are very friendly to business historically, and that's why they are the favored state of incorporation for companies around the world, not only in the United States.
	And it's generally called the business deference rule that is strictly enforced by the chancery courts there in Delaware.
	So that basically if they defer to the decision of the board in any context where there's business discretion to be made.
	That's why people incorporate.
	They know that their decisions will be reliably enforced.
	What this judge did is she scrapped it, said she wasn't going to apply the business deference rule, and instead she was going to consider it like a conflicted controller situation where there's people with conflicts in control of the company and subject it to a general rule of fairness.
	Whatever that means.
	This is what happens when social studies majors take over running businesses.
	People want to know why communism and socialism and fascism all failed.
	It's judges like this thinking that they know better than the corporate executives, than the board, than the shareholders, than the customers, than the Wall Street, than everybody else.
	About what was the best compensation to give the best value to Tesla's stock.
	Because the thing most people looking at the case thought the case had no credibility in, aside from the business deference rule that's supposed to be applied in this instance, is that the shareholders made tons of money on this deal.
	They didn't lose.
	What are the damages?
	There are none.
	There are none.
	Their stock went sky high because of this deal.
	It's one of the things, by the way, she completely ignores.
	This deal really wasn't so much to incentivize Elon as it was to convince shareholders that Elon was going to be focused on Tesla.
	And it worked.
	It worked tremendously.
	He hit every single metric.
	And because people believed he was incentivized to hit those metrics...
	They invested in Tesla, driving up Tesla's stock.
	So it became one of those self-fulfilling phenomenon.
	She totally ignores that, that this was one of the most successful CEO compensation deals ever done, entirely incentive-driven, in which Elon didn't make money unless the shareholders made lots and lots and lots of money.
	So it's preposterous.
	To subject this to a fairness rule, and the fairness interpretation was absurd and asinine.
	What this really reveals is what Musk has been figuring out, the political weaponization of our entire legal system.
	He's right.
	If you're in Delaware, get out.
	Axios was busy trying to cover.
	Say, oh, this is only about Moscow.
	We talked to important corporate lawyers and they all agreed you can stay in Delaware.
	They're lying to you.
	Axios is lying to you.
	Those corporate whores are lying to you.
	They're willing to sell out their own client to serve their own political interests.
	This is a lefty, Biden-connected judge.
	She never should have been on the Chancery Court to begin with.
	Has no business there.
	Has no understanding of business.
	You know, when you start out, when you're making little sarcastic comments through your opinion, you're a business judge in a Chantry court?
	She was like, she made it sound like she was describing a Star Wars episode, like writing that, you know, there was a lot of hyperbolic, judgmental rhetoric.
	Look at how rich he is.
	Oh my God.
	What are you doing on the Chancery Court of Delaware?
	You have no business being there.
	You're a disgrace.
	You're a disgrace.
	This opinion was a disgrace.
	And it was a damning opinion, but what it is is Musk figured it out.
	Don't incorporate in Delaware.
	Don't trust Delaware.
	The Delaware courts have now been Bidenized, which is kind of like being sodomized when it comes to integrity.
	And a very undesirable experience.
	And so that's the reality of it.
	Now, Tesla will appeal it.
	Who knows what the Delaware High Supreme Court will do?
	Because, I mean, this should be shocking.
	This should be horrifying.
	This should be terrifying to the state that profits so much from all the incorporating in their state.
	But who knows whether they'll figure that out.
	I mean, it was like the Biden administration and the EU that thought, oh, we'll sanction Russia.
	Nobody around the world will think twice about investing in the West.
	And the first thing they did was try to figure out a new currency system that wasn't connected to the dollar all around the globe.
	It was like that backfired terribly.
	But that's how clueless these people are.
	They live in their own little parochial provincial worlds.
	And she would have never issued this opinion but for the fact that...
	Elon is adverse to her pal, Joe Biden.
	And that's what we're getting, you know, people who now want to govern companies, govern schools, govern everything.
	This is the professional managerial class wanting to govern all of our lives at every level, whether it's the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture that wants to tell you, tell Amos Miller how to farm and tell us how to eat, or it's this judge telling Tesla how to run its business.
	Because it's not like they're the most...
	Successful business in the last 20 years, right?
	It's not like they're one of the top 10 most capitalized companies to the shock of a bunch of people who've been short-selling them for a decade, right?
	I mean, it's a ludicrous ruling.
	Ludicrous.
	And it makes a mockery of the Delaware courts that are now political partisan hack courts.
	It shows why social studies majors type should never be on a business bench.
	And it shows the degree to which the Biden administration will target and harass its political opponents.
	One of the most shocking things in my mind of the decision is he owned 22%.
	So he was effectively, through his connections to the board, a controlling shelter.
	And I'm like, whether he owns 1% or 70%, the benefit that he brought to the other shareholders.
	Indisputable.
	People have got fabulously rich betting on Elon Musk.
	And this deal helped make sure that happened.
	Well, and in fairness to the, I'll say in fairness to the judge, to Steelman what she said, she's like, well, was it really necessary?
	Was the deal really necessary?
	It could have been anybody.
	It could have been Joe Schmoe.
	It could have been Viva Frye as CEO.
	It didn't need to be Elon.
	He didn't talk about how much time he was going to have to put into the company.
	This is how people starve to death under socialist regimes.
	You get idiot judges who have no idea what they're doing and they run businesses into the ground with terrible consequences.
	That's exactly what it is.
	It's a terrifying sign.
	It's just like what they're trying to do to Trump in New York.
	It's the courts trying to run businesses, take over businesses.
	They want complete State control.
	State control at every single level.
	Just like they want to control what Amos Miller is allowed to put in his own fridge.
	What you're allowed to put in your own fridge.
	I mean, it's the same logic.
	It's about complete, absolute, total state control with no option.
	And if you're a dissident from the regime, it doesn't matter if you're a billionaire.
	It doesn't matter if you're the richest man in the world.
	It doesn't matter if you're the former president of the United States.
	They're going to come after you.
	Well, this will segue into the second of the Elon Musk, which is going to get to our most popular case.
	Everybody, get your heinies on over to either Rumble, or if you want to cut, come straight over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I mean, Rumble owns it.
	They've joined, so it's like you're supporting the same company.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The link is there, because we're now going to talk about Elon Musk's tweet that set the pigs a squealing, Robert, on the interwebs.
	So I'm going to end it on YouTube now.
	I'll be posting the clips throughout the week because I've got...
	We're upgrading.
	We've got people now who are going to edit the clips together.
	None of the...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	The gimmicky stuff, but it'll be the clips that do not make it onto YouTube.
	And you can enjoy those throughout the week.
	Come on over right now to Rumble Viva Frye.
	Okay, remove YouTube.
	Now.
	I get so nervous whenever I do this.
	Okay, Robert.
	Sorry.
	I have a canker.
	I wasn't going to share the information, but I have a canker if it looks like I'm in pain.
	It's because I've been in excruciating pain for the last seven days.
	I have stress or whatever.
	I might have been eating too many of those mango strips.
	Elon Musk puts up salt and pour it right on it.
	I've been doing that and then I went to the beach yesterday and then I was just gargling with the ocean water and then I'm thinking oh my goodness I just put bacteria in it I'm gonna get a brain infection I mean people my life living in my brain is a terrible thing.
	Elon Musk puts out a tweet over the weekend.
	Basically summarizing Biden's immigration plan.
	It says, import as many illegal immigrants as you can, grant them amnesty, and you've basically secured the next generation of votes, a one-party system, rule for life.
	And my goodness, Robert, the stuck pigs were squealing all over the internet.
	This is a vile racist conspiracy theory.
	How dare he?
	The people screaming and crying really confirmed how accurate and on point it was.
	And so it leads to some questions.
	I put out my analysis, which was piecing together some articles from the past, videos from the present, and seeing what the hell's going on.
	We had talked about it a while ago.
	I think we talked about it a few times, where the question is, can the president grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?
	Back in Obama's day, at one point, they said, no, the president can't grant amnesty.
	And then two years later, there's another fact check that basically says, yes, they can.
	Can they, Robert?
	What would be the consequences of granting amnesty?
	Can he grant amnesty for all illegal immigrants, known and unknown, which would be in the order of like 40 million?
	Would that grant them citizenship?
	And what impact would that have on their ability to vote in federal elections?
	He can't grant them citizenship.
	That's exclusively within the province of Congress to legally authorize in the first place.
	What he can do...
	Is he can grant mass amnesty.
	He could grant a pardon.
	So he could say, I hereby pardon everybody who may have entered the country illegally between X time period and X time period, and they are hereby given a full, unconditional pardon.
	The most recent illustration of this is not the Reagan amnesty, because that was a congressionally passed amnesty.
	It is rather the Jimmy Carter amnesty that he signed almost as soon as he took office for people who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War draft in particular.
	It applied, I think, from 63 to 75, something like that.
	And it says, anybody who's in this category is hereby pardoned.
	With only two caveats.
	So that power has been exercised before.
	You know, George Washington exercised it at the beginning of our country to part a bunch of people connected to the whiskey tax rebellion due to Alexander Hamilton's idiotic whiskey tax.
	They should have hung him for that, but that's another story.
	So yeah, he can.
	He illegally, constitutionally does have that power.
	He doesn't have the power to grant him citizenship, doesn't have the power to give him the right to vote, doesn't have the power to do any of that.
	DACA was never constitutional, what Obama did.
	But he can grant mass amnesty.
	That would be to where you couldn't criminally prosecute them.
	And whether or not you could deport them would be an open question.
	Because it's whether deportation is a civil or a criminal remedy, depending on the circumstance.
	So that power is legit and that risk is real.
	And the risk of amnesty for all illegals.
	And not just the 11 million that they were talking about.
	Yeah, he could do it to any category he wanted to.
	That he has the power to do.
	And then that gets into the state law questions, right?
	That's where there's state laws that have been violated.
	But the Supreme Court has said the states can't enforce those laws if it impacts federal immigration.
	So if they could enforce those laws, then they could separately, independently prosecute.
	But right now, they can't.
	I was on Turkish television this week, the station funded by, well, it's called Erdogan's station, but the debating about whether it was an invasion or not that created its own constitutional remedies that has yet to be fully litigated in the courts and is separate from...
	The Arizona case.
	And aside from the fact that the ratio is tenfold higher, we've gone from 300,000 illegal entries to over 3 million.
	This is unprecedented in American history in the last century.
	But then you have what Brett Weinstein found that he reported to Tucker Carlson, which is when he went down to see the gap there, that big jungle region between Panama and Colombia that over half a million people have crossed in just the last year.
	Went there with Michael Young and others.
	He found a Chinese camp that appeared to be run by the Chinese government, that they were using the economic migrants as cover for infiltration of soldier-age Chinese citizens.
	And there's a video circulating that appears to be connected to the Chinese government, showing people how they're going to do it.
	So this might be, you know, if China thinks Biden is crazy and is going to escalate, they might be planting sleeper cells right here in the United States using this.
	And then you have the broader issue that the economic migrants are coming in being illegally described as political asylum candidates when they're not.
	But it's being funded by the U.S. government.
	The U.S. government is funding various non-governmental organizations, many of which have ties to Soros.
	Globalist-type people like that.
	And the United Nations is funding this.
	They're organizing this.
	This is not random people doing it.
	It's the drug cartels in bed with the United Nations and the U.S. government NGOs facilitating and enabling this.
	And it's now even to the point where the Chinese government and maybe other governments, I mean, there's now arms dealers that have come across, people that are on known terror lists that have come across.
	I mean, this is a complete disaster to such a degree that people like Elon Musk is saying it, that Robert Kennedy is saying it, that Bret Weinstein is saying it.
	This is what blows my mind, is how could this not be facilitating an invasion?
	How could it not be an impeachable offense?
	Now that we know, I guess this might come back to bite them in the ass if the impeachable offense doesn't have to be a crime.
	Could this not be an impeachable offense?
	And the idea of being able to exercise...
	Well, it's mass facilitation of a crime, because he's aiding and abetting the illegal entry into the United States.
	And an invasion.
	He's also aiding and abetting an invasion, which is a violation of his constitutional duties and obligations.
	But that is a high crime and misdemeanor, in my view.
	But he could ratify all of it with a blanket amnesty.
	But that act can also be impeachable.
	That refusing to enforce the criminal laws in that manner and granting pardons can itself be impeachable.
	That's why you can't pardon yourself from impeachment.
	So I think that they should have already impeached him.
	It's ridiculous that it's got to this point.
	Instead, they want to use it as cover to send more money to Ukraine, which is just nuts.
	Even though the more published reports this week of what we said from day one...
	And what the Duran and other people have said from day one, that, you know, the CIA had to go over there to tell Zelensky, please stop stealing everything.
	Can you steal just a little bit less?
	Can you show some discretion?
	That, you know, they're just stealing in mass, and we're going to send them more under the guise that we're going to finally...
	We'll get around to finally enforcing those immigration rules.
	How about defund the NGOs and the United Nations until they stop funding these big caravans of illegal immigration?
	How about start there, for one?
	But they should have impeached Mayorkas already, and they should have impeached Biden already.
	But it's a bunch of lazy, half-wit, nitwit, midwits in the Congress on the Republican side of the aisle, many of whom are all for this illegal immigration.
	They don't want to admit that.
	They don't want to tell anybody that.
	But their corporate pals love it.
	You dig in deep, you're going to find Tyson Foods.
	You're going to find big companies that profit from this illegal immigration.
	Well, I played a clip of...
	Oh, in my analysis of the Elon Musk, there was some guy on CNN.
	Saying, you know, like, oh, we come across these migrants every day.
	They work in the car washes.
	They, you know, clean up, pick up garbage.
	Why is it that every Democrat views immigrants as the people to do your shitty jobs?
	As if that's not a modern-day form of slavery, mutatis mutatis.
	Like, how are they not ashamed of saying it?
	Not Lee Osborne.
	What's her name?
	One of the Osborne women on The View.
	Donald Trump, who's going to clean your toilets?
	They're not even ashamed to say it.
	They just say it out loud.
	This is our solution to crappy jobs.
	Let in economic migrants so we can exploit them.
	But I want to share this, Robert, if you haven't seen this.
	It's Hawley and Mayorkas pulling...
	Performance is despicable.
	And I think the fact that you are not willing to provide answers to this committee is absolutely atrocious.
	Listen to this.
	This is Mayorkas.
	Chairman, may I?
	Mike, if you'd like to have a minute to respond, you were welcome.
	I would, and I'm not sure I'll limit it to 60 seconds.
	Well, cut his mic.
	Number one, what I found despicable is the implication that this language, tremendously odious, actually could be emblematic of the sentiments of the 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security.
	Number one.
	Number two.
	Senator Hawley takes an adversarial approach to me in this question.
	Robert, let me just pause it here.
	He's Homeland Security Secretary.
	What's his position in life?
	We shouldn't even have a Homeland Security Department.
	I mean, they created it after 9-11, by the way.
	You know, Fatherland Securitas.
	It's like, okay, let's go back to the Nazis for examples of governmental organization.
	That's always worked out well.
	But he is responsible for immigration enforcement in the United States.
	Interesting comparison, Robert.
	Wait until you see where Mayorkas goes.
	If any of you didn't know that he was Jewish, you're going to find out now.
	Perhaps he doesn't know my own background.
	Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a Holocaust survivor.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	Perhaps he does not know that my mother lost almost all her family.
	At the hands of the Nazis.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	I mean, if anything, that says he has a motivation to favor open migration, right?
	I mean, if there had been open migration, maybe the people could have escaped the Holocaust.
	I mean, it doesn't help his argument that he's trying to really restrict open migration.
	Clearly he's not, and he hasn't done it the whole time.
	Now, I don't pin it on him.
	Because it's the Biden administration policy.
	Biden said it was going to be his policy.
	And so Mayorkas should be impeached, but Biden should be the target of all this.
	I'll finish this.
	And so I find his adversarial tone to be entirely misplaced.
	I find it to be disrespectful of me and my heritage.
	And I do not expect an apology.
	But I did want to say what I just articulated.
	Well, top effing S, Mayorkas.
	Do your job.
	Do your freaking job.
	And it's true, Robert.
	He's but the fall guy, the messenger for Biden.
	But people don't think Biden's in charge either.
	They think that Obama's still pulling the strings behind Obama, which might make a little more sense in terms of going back and reassessing the argument as to national loyalty.
	Things might make more sense in reverse.
	Okay, so he can do it.
	He can destroy.
	Hypothetically, they grant amnesty.
	That would prevent deportation, potentially, criminal deportation, based on the act of having entered unlawfully.
	But it doesn't create citizenship.
	Doesn't create or vest voting rights.
	I mean, there's a separate issue there because, you know, in Arizona, you have the Secretary of State, if I recall correctly, that's issuing, you know, guidance about allowing illegals to vote in the federal elections on the grounds that the Biden administration is interpreting federal law to prohibit you from confirming someone's citizenship as a condition of federal voting or it's a...
	Voting Rights Act violation.
	That's how insane things are.
	So we're facing the political weaponization of everything and an attack at every level.
	And it's going to be up to the people, up to legislators, up to the conscientious courts to correct it.
	And we'll find out whether that's going to happen.
	Robert?
	We're going to hit 20,000 in a matter of seconds, so everybody drop a comment and hit the thumbs up when we hit 20,000 and drop a comment in there.
	But hold on, I've fallen way behind on the rumble rants.
	Let me pull these up so I can read these.
	I'll go through them real quick.
	ThinboySlick says, How many horn solos can Viva do before Barnes gets annoyed?
	One.
	But Barnes, I've never seen Barnes get annoyed unless he's talking about Pennsylvania and the food company, Tyson.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney says, "My wife has returned Rumble Rantability now that a new month has come." Thank you very much, Arkansas.
	This is from the Gateway Pundit.
	Robert, is this on our list?
	I'll screen grab this and we'll talk about this maybe.
	David, are you not using Rumble Studio?
	Not right now, because I can't.
	They've got to work on one thing that is critical, where I can't share the screen without kicking out my guest.
	So for solo streams, it might work, but they need to fix that, at least for the type of streaming that I do.
	Okay, there we go.
	STFU, shut the F up for FSA.
	It says, Bidenized like sodomized, but with 100% less logic and no lube.
	All right, we've got Randy Edwards.
	Musk ruling is pure Marxism.
	As initiated under the Obama regime, only companies who walk in lockstep with the deep state will be tolerated looking at you Randy Edwards says, I think Soros is a psychopath and has been since he was a kid, but he grew up at the perfect time during the time when psychology was still frowned upon.
	That's T1990.
	Jack Flack says, We'll allow non-citizens to vote in Arizona.
	Interesting, Texas picked up this year to close their border, making Arizona the largest open border state.
	It's the Uniparty from T1190.
	In action, Barnes, Pelosi and Mitch will take swipes at each other in front of the camera, but behind the scenes, they're all friends.
	They're all partying together, T1190.
	With some exceptions like RFK Jr. and Rand Paul.
	The rest of the establishment are all in bed together.
	CJDAG82, Laura Loomer just released the Senate Appropriations Bill.
	It's worse than you could possibly imagine.
	America is a collapsed republic with no amount of voting.
	And no amount of voting is going to save it.
	I hope that you're wrong, CJDAG82, because I like it here.
	And Arkansas Crime Attorney says, please go into the Gateway article.
	It's insane.
	The Gateway Pundit.
	Okay.
	Yeah, the Gateway article was about what I talked about way back in the beginning, when I talked to Trump administration officials back in early 2021, which was that Bill Barr knew from Michigan that they had caught a bunch of people involved in illegal voting behavior.
	And Bill Barr covered it up.
	And he facilitated the coverup to help one of the U.S. attorneys involved in the coverup become a federal district court judge.
	And some of the Trumpers got their revenge by at least preventing that person from becoming a federal district court judge.
	But it was an open secret in Washington in December of 2020 that Bill Barr had covered up proven evidence of election fraud from Michigan that was reported in multiple ways.
	We're to the point where you have people like the Russian President Vladimir Putin has a better understanding of American elections than most of the American media does.
	He's like, oh, here's how they stole it.
	They did this and this and this, and that's how they stole it.
	Just like that.
	He understands how they did it.
	The only people who's still in denial is the Washington, D.C. crowd and the media crowd.
	But yeah, it's just further confirmation and substantiation of what I talked about way back in January of 2021.
	I'll do maybe a separate breakdown of this for tomorrow.
	Robert, what's next on our menu?
	Well, speaking of Ruskies, the Ukraine-Russia case went up before the International Court of Justice.
	That's the UN's court, if you want to call it that.
	It's there at The Hague.
	That's where they got a lot of commie courts, in my opinion.
	But they made an interesting ruling.
	I thought the dissent was particularly good, just like I thought the dissent was good on the Israel case.
	About the limitations of the court process and where they're actually going to go is a little bit different than where Ukraine wanted them to go.
	So, I mean, look, I tried to catch up on it because it's not something I had ever known about until you sent me the link, or you sent me the subject.
	Ukraine filed a claim at the ICJ accusing basically Russia of terrorism.
	They haven't done genocide yet.
	Violating the genocide convention.
	Okay, so terrorism and genocide.
	By arguing that Russia, by providing arms and training to militia groups, is partaking in terrorism as per whatever the law is at the International Court of Justice for funding terrorism.
	And as far as I understood, the court basically came back and said, no, it only includes financing terrorism, not training and arms, which I thought was curious, if that's where they wanted to go.
	As the dissenting judge noted, he noted he wouldn't have accepted any part of the case.
	Ukraine also wanted a preemptive ruling that it had not been committing genocide in the eastern part of Ukraine, in the Donbass and elsewhere, to prohibit Russia from later claiming that they did, as kind of a Ray Judicata collateral estoppel basis, and then claim that Russia was guilty of genocide, but their argument was because they were accusing Ukraine of genocide.
	Under the context, the genocide was the accusation that they are stopping teaching the Ukrainian language in the Donbass region?
	Yeah, that amongst other...
	They had very little evidence.
	They had a few references to the genocidal approach of Ukraine towards Russian culture.
	That was the reference.
	Russia actually had not yet accused Ukraine of violating the Geneva or the Genocide Convention.
	So they had accused him of violating the various Minsk Accords, which they flagrantly did, ever since they had been signed, frankly.
	And as the German president ultimately admitted, they never intended to honor those agreements.
	It was just to buy time so they could build up support to take out Russia when they thought the time was right.
	But the dissenting judge, I thought, got it correct.
	When he pointed out that Russia's invasion is not within the jurisdiction, is not a genocidal allegation, is not within the jurisdiction of the court, that it's a consent-driven process unless a treaty makes it binding.
	And the only treaty that would have made it binding is the Genocide Convention, and there was no sufficient allegation of genocide occurring by Russia against Ukraine.
	And he said he would have stayed out of making a preemptive ruling about whether Ukraine has committed genocide.
	When he says Russia hasn't made that formal accusation, we need two parties to a dispute to get involved.
	And he's like, this court is becoming politicized.
	Now, truth is, it's always been politicized.
	It's just getting as bad as the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
	Which has been overtly weaponized for political partisan purposes from its inception and its origin.
	Here, I mean, just go through all the ridiculousness they did in the Serbian Balkan War cases that a lot of people have been critical of.
	Jack Smith came from that court to tell you who he is and what that court is.
	So it's the International Court of Justice, which had for the most part avoided getting trapped in political cases.
	United States versus Nicaragua was probably a pretty reasoned ruling.
	Some other cases, but as a whole, they had been less likely to let their body be used for overt political purposes.
	They fancy themselves the successors to the Nuremberg tradition, but now they're losing that.
	I mean, at least they didn't take the nonsense, the absurd claims, but they still took claims that they shouldn't have taken.
	They'll now investigate whether or not Ukraine has committed genocide in eastern Ukraine when no one is right now accusing them of that.
	And so it makes it a one-sided advisory ruling that they specifically don't have the authority to give outside of specific advisory opinions which are subject to separate jurisdictions.
	Actually, now that you mention it, I am a little required clarification.
	International Court of Justice versus the International Criminal Court.
	Two separate entities.
	So when they deal with things like war crimes, that goes to the ICC, not the ICJ.
	Oh, no, it varies.
	I mean, what is the International Court of Justice authorities through the United Nations and signatories?
	Usually it's consent-driven.
	Sometimes it's because they agreed in advance that any violation of a particular treaty would be dealt with by that court.
	Whereas the International Criminal Court is its own animal.
	And it's outside the UN, and it does whatever it kind of wants to do.
	It has a roaming, roving jurisdiction as it sees it.
	But it's always been political.
	The International Court of Justice has tried to stay out of these political cases for the most part.
	Now they partially stayed out of this, but not as fully as they should have, as the vice president of the court noted in his dissent.
	Robert, do you have any...
	I'm reading a $5 rumble rant from Fraser McBurney.
	He says, it is reported that Tucker Carlson is traveling to Moscow to interview Putin.
	He's there, yeah.
	He was at the Bolshoi in the same suite that I've been in before.
	It's the old royal suite that stands right center up on top.
	And he was watching the same ballet that I watched at the Bolshoi, which is Spartacus.
	The Russians take ballet to an entirely different level.
	It's not like any American ballet I've ever seen.
	The interesting thing is it induces sleep.
	Not because it's boring.
	It's mesmerizing.
	It's so mesmerizing your brain just goes...
	So yeah, he's there.
	They have photos of him at the Bolshoi.
	And I gotta bring up Bill Kristol.
	I felt bad for making fun of him because for a second I thought he wasn't actually a Democrat when I called him a tyrannical lefty.
	Perhaps we need a total and complete shutdown of Tucker Carlson re-entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on.
	You know what time it is?
	It's time to deport Bill Kristol.
	I mean, the thing is, I looked him up and was like, oh, he's been a Republican for what?
	Oh, he's the biggest warmonger of all.
	He'll orchestrate 9-11.
	He's officially, though, a Democrat now since 2020.
	It's like, what is it about going left and becoming a fascist?
	His father was a neocon.
	Before that, he was a Trotskyite Marxist.
	So he comes from that school of former Marxist-turned-neocon that are still empire builders.
	They just changed their transition.
	They just transitioned to a new form of statism.
	Neocon, because I noticed Wikipedia refers to him as that.
	Is that not an insult?
	I can only hear that as an insult.
	They didn't consider themselves, they didn't consider it an insult, no.
	Probably not even until this day.
	The neoconservatives as to weaponize American power abroad, especially after the end of the Cold War, they really wanted to be the global control.
	So he was part of the Project for a New American Century, which basically predicted, you know, it would be great if we had a 9-11 type event, because then we could use it to go to all these wars we want.
	And then voila, 9-11 happens, and all those same guys are in power, like Wolfowitz and Crystal and others.
	And then they start launching all their pet projects.
	I mean, where they got discredited is they're so bad geopolitically.
	Like, with Kissinger, nobody trusts the guy.
	But everybody thinks he's...
	He's smart and pretty well sees things pretty clearly.
	You could make some arguments how well he did, but for the most part, that's his public perception.
	Not Crystal.
	And Crystal, the neocons are seen as not only morally degenerate reprobates, but they're intellectually incompetent.
	What they predicted would happen has been wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
	That's why nobody really takes them seriously anymore.
	In the court of public opinion, outside of the neocon, war-caron, Nikki Haley's of the world.
	But now, I thought the ruling left open the window for a future claim from Ukraine for genocide.
	Yeah, it did.
	Okay.
	Okay, well, anyhow.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	Oh, we've got a bunch of different cases that we can track or trace.
	That's a good question.
	Well, maybe the classified documents case and how it's falling apart against Trump.
	Oh, okay.
	So, classified documents is the one in Florida, brought out of D.C., in front of Judge Cannon.
	What's the latest?
	I'm not up to speed on that one.
	Multiple things.
	So, one is being documented in the motion practice before the court.
	It turned out that what some of us said at the time is being confirmed, that the Biden administration, with the National Archives, with the deep state apparatus, was conspiring and coordinating an effort to try to come up with grounds to criminally prosecute Trump from the beginning, before any subpoena was issued, before any search was issued, before any request for records was issued.
	They were secretly conspiring in violation of the law, by the way.
	The National Archives had no right to do what they were doing.
	Conspiring in advance to entrap Trump.
	And it's there in their correspondence, communications, and internal documentation.
	So the public representations of the Trump case were completely false by the Biden administration, just like we now know from Atlanta and Big Fannie Willis.
	And the trouble she's in, how she and her lover were meeting at the White House.
	We now know that this was all coordinated at the Biden administration.
	The classified documents case is a bogus case.
	This is even further compounded by the discoveries of America First legal of an Obama memorandum that basically gave the president carte blanche to declare certain records, presidential records, in such a way that they were already so declared that also negates.
	The entire indictment against President Trump.
	So you've got multiple prongs of the classified documents case just falling apart in live time.
	And this comes on the immunity issue still being heard in D.C. So that March 4th trial date's already been vacated.
	I anticipate that will go back up to the Supreme Court.
	But increasingly unlikely any of these criminal cases reach trial prior to Election Day.
	The Georgia case, also now a complete disaster because Big Fannie Willis admitting that what she was involved in and what she's really admitting, whether she wants to fully acknowledge its consequences, is money laundering and drumming up a bogus political case committing fraud against the state of Georgia.
	Sometimes he paid, sometimes she paid.
	But who knows?
	But they're both paying with the same money.
	Bill Crystal's coming up twice in one evening to highlight his stupidity.
	Crazy that a junior Trump appointed and Trump friendly judge can delay the trial in an open and shut case against him on the classified documents.
	Yet another instance where the guardrails can be shoved around enough that they don't reliably guard the rule of law or democracy.
	Bill Crystal is on a roll for being an absolute...
	He's funnier than Billy Crystal.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Yeah, I mean, the big thing with him is that...
	The amount of death and mayhem he's caused around the world.
	Maybe it was Dave Smith or some other people.
	Maybe it was Alex Jones.
	It was Alex Jones.
	Alex Jones is having a lot of fun on his Twitter account these days.
	Alex said, I think we should try you for war crimes.
	What do you think, Bill?
	And that's absolutely the case.
	If anybody should be tried for crimes connected to war policy, it's Bill Kristol as much as anybody else.
	But yeah, so those cases are really increasingly falling apart, and we'll see this week if this scheme to keep Trump off the ballot will also finally get killed because the Supreme Court holds oral arguments, I believe, on Thursday.
	On the Colorado ballot exclusion case concerning Trump.
	That's going to be live, right?
	That's going to be on the Supreme Court's YouTube channel?
	Yeah.
	Well, I'll be commentating on that.
	It's somewhere on the Supreme Court you can listen in.
	Okay.
	That's the best I think they do, obviously.
	They won't allow cameras in there.
	The holy Supreme Court can't afford cameras.
	But at least you can usually listen in.
	Sometimes you get assigned by what questions they ask.
	It's not always absolutely predictive, but it can be if all you get are hostile questions to one side or the other, then that is usually indicative of where the court's going to go.
	Fannie Willis is now subpoenaed to testify in Michael Roman's civil case against her for allegedly withholding relevant evidence.
	She's not getting out of that subpoena, right?
	I mean, she might try.
	No, I don't think so.
	And I think there's going to be so much more public scrutiny on this.
	I think it's just a matter of time before these cases all get dismissed and she gets kicked out of office.
	I think she's just on the clock.
	I mean, this is so egregious example of money laundering as you could possibly imagine, misusing and abusing state power for political, partisan, and self-enrichment purposes.
	If Georgia has any self-respect, they will get rid of these charges and they will get rid of She fired the whistleblower that exposed it.
	I mean, there's multiple layers of illegal criminal behavior by her.
	And by the way, this is a good bridge.
	She should be subject to civil and criminal prosecution under the federal civil rights laws because there should be no qualified immunity for what she's doing.
	If you actually read the whole history of our civil rights laws.
	Well, okay, this I presume is going to the...
	The wrong house case.
	The police officers and SWAT who go to the wrong house because they didn't see the address.
	So I tried to get caught up on this case.
	This is a case where they're trying to raid a drug house, apparently.
	They have an address.
	SWAT versus law enforcement are coordinating to do this.
	They have an address.
	The law enforcement is unable to even see the address of the house that they're going to raid.
	And they end up, bottom line, raiding the house two houses down from the...
	What do they call it?
	It's not a stash house.
	Yeah, stash house.
	From the stash house.
	So they end up...
	They pull an Alpha Warrior X type raid.
	Concussive grenades or stun grenades, whatever they are.
	Yeah, no knock.
	A family with two little girls in the house.
	A married couple with two girls who happen to live down the street for one house over from a stash house.
	They busted in, realized they've got the wrong house.
	Swat's saying, you got the wrong house, you got the wrong house.
	They end up go, they finish their raid at the stash house, and then come back.
	I forget what they did.
	They clean up, they sweep up the glass, and that's it.
	Yeah, they broke windows, broke through doors.
	It did, you know, terrify the family the whole nine yards.
	It's, I mean, and they ordered the mother down, the husband down.
	They say you got the wrong house as they're doing it.
	The family sues for civil rights violations.
	And the cops tried to raise qualified immunity, which was denied, correct?
	At the district court level, but the Fifth Circuit came in and saved those poor police officers over a good, robust dissent.
	But the two leading judges decided that it's okay to raid the wrong house in America and terrify a family because, golly gee, what cop couldn't even possibly know that might violate the Constitution?
	Who would know that, according to the honest judges at the Fifth Circuit?
	Well, the dissenting judge seemed to have a more compelling argument because even the two majority judges say, yeah, it was basically negligence.
	He couldn't even say how he...
	Determine the address.
	He said he couldn't see it because there was a light.
	And he had just raid the wrong house.
	And being told that it's the wrong house.
	How is that not...
	In a SWAT no-knock raid, no less.
	I mean, this isn't your run-of-the-mill raid.
	This is a SWAT team no-knock raid that they were doing.
	You would think you would be really precautious before you would exercise that kind of raid.
	But he didn't even double...
	He first tried to raid the first wrong house.
	Realize, okay, no, this is the wrong house.
	Let's raid this one next door.
	And he raided another wrong house.
	And even the police department's internal review was that it was extraordinary breaches of their protocol.
	But the Fifth Circuit, in this constant misapplication of the clearly established law doctrine, said, well, there wasn't a case right on point that was published out of the Fifth Circuit.
	So you can get away with it.
	That's not what that clearly established law is supposed to mean, but it's how courts are using it to cover up for prosecutorial corruption, police corruption, and politician corruption.
	Yeah, but this is where, like, you read the majority, you read the dissenting opinion, and the dissenting judge says, no, there is clearly established law.
	Supreme Court said so.
	An unpublished decision.
	Another 11 other federal circuits that said so.
	It's the principle that you buy.
	They know you can't read the wrong house and you have to take adequate precautions to make sure you have the right house.
	Here, as the dissenting judge noted, he didn't even check where the address would have been listed on the outside of the house.
	He had an excuse about he couldn't quite see it.
	He's like, well, just double check it, for crying out loud.
	This didn't require brain surgery.
	You should really never raid the wrong house, frankly, unless there's been an investigative error.
	But I've litigated these cases, and generally courts, if your house is raided and you're just the wrong house, courts usually let the cops off more often than not, which is preposterous based on qualified immunity.
	Is there a question here that the Supreme Court should have to take up to clarify, or do you think it gets there?
	Well, you've got to split between the circuits, but the other big thing is the dissenting judge raised the same question another judge on the Fifth Circuit has already raised that members of our board had also been asking about.
	And that is a law review article published last year, which said he dug into the entire legislative history.
	And what he found was...
	That everybody's been getting it wrong.
	So the Supreme Court said, almost a century, by the way, after the Civil Rights Act were passed is when they invented this qualified immunity doctrine.
	It didn't exist for the first century of civil rights laws.
	They said that, well, you know, the law is silent on whether it's abrogating state common law defenses, so we're going to assume that the Congress intended...
	Those state common law defenses, including qualified immunity, were present.
	Except that's not actually what the law said.
	What happened was you have these things called the statutes at large.
	I learned this, by the way, from tax protesters.
	You know, those tax protesters, they always come up with something.
	Sometimes their theories were totally off the wall.
	But sometimes it would be sound eclectic, and then you'd dig in and they'd be absolutely right.
	They said, you know, what you read in the United States Code is not the actual law.
	It's prima facie evidence of the law, but it's not necessarily the law.
	The law is the statutes at large.
	That these codifiers have later, revisers, have come in and they gather all these different laws that have been passed and put them in one codified section, hence the United States Code, and as evidence of what the law is, but it's actually not determinative.
	Well, it turns out that for reasons totally unexplained, it's almost hush-hush-worthy, which reminds me I've got to get around to the Taylor Swift hush-hush this week.
	We'll have it at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	On the Super Bowl and everything else connected to it.
	But is that the revisor in 1874 left out critical language.
	They put in the language saying you shall be liable if you're a state actor, notwithstanding any immunity or other state law that applies.
	You don't get those defenses.
	You shall be liable.
	So what the Supreme Court said did not exist in the law, actually always existed in the law.
	The Supreme Court got it wrong.
	Their clerks didn't do their research fully.
	They cited the wrong basis of what the law is.
	And why that's significant is at the time of the debates, they made it clear their goal was to make sure judges were not immune and prosecutors were not immune and police were not immune because they were the ones violating everybody's civil rights.
	It was with their complicity.
	So that issue may go up to the Supreme Court as to whether qualified immunity should have ever existed in the civil rights context.
	And the impact would be things like the bogus Trump cases going on right now.
	That if they go back in and say, you know what, there's no qualified immunity for anybody, then Trump has grounds to sue some of these rogue state prosecutors, rogue state police, and rogue state judges.
	All right, that's phenomenal.
	Yeah.
	I got nothing to add to that, Robert.
	Other than to say the dissenting judge clearly understood it better, and we'll see if it gets to the Supreme Court.
	Which happens, you have these conventional conservatives and liberal, conservative authoritarians versus conservative libertarians or conservative populists.
	The conservative authoritarians are like they're liberal authoritarians.
	They love to cover for cops.
	They love to cover for police, prosecutors, politicians, all of them.
	In fact, they said at the time, in the congressional debates, They found immunity a horrendous notion.
	They said, that's the idea the king can do no wrong.
	This is America.
	That's totally foreign to who we are as a country.
	And yet our courts have invented it out of whole cloth to protect themselves and their political allies in the executive branch.
	All right, there's no smooth segue into this one.
	We're just going to do it.
	It's not the state or the city of Tucson versus Seattle.
	It's a man whose name is Tucson versus Seattle challenging the city's ordinance.
	Prohibiting graffiti or temporary writing if done without the express consent of the landowner.
	It was the people that liked to put chalk on public sidewalks as part of protest.
	The petitioners or the plaintiffs were writing political messages in chalk.
	What was it?
	Charcoal, Robert?
	Something that washes away.
	It washes away with the rain.
	It wasn't spray paint.
	It wasn't whatever.
	Political messages.
	And the city came out with an ordinance that basically said, you can't write without permission on public-private property without the express consent.
	And they challenged it.
	Now, I'm thinking of where they modified the wording of the legislation.
	But the bottom line, as far as I recall, Robert, is they said...
	Well, the legislation has drafted with the caveat that without the permission, in the elements of the crime itself were sufficient to make it reasonable, but there is obviously a broader import of this particular decision that you want to highlight.
	Yes, so I mean, essentially it's the difference between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge.
	So a facial challenge says this law is so bad, you can't enforce it against anybody.
	And in the First Amendment context, what you have to prove is that it burdens more protected speech than it serves legitimate public policy purposes.
	And the same with vagueness.
	Vagueness is more you're not on notice of what could be illegal.
	And what happened here is they focused correctly on the constitutional aspect in terms of...
	Being able to put public protests with chalk on sidewalks, there can be grounds where that may be protected speech.
	But the problem the district court did is it invalidated the entire graffiti law.
	Anti-graffiti law.
	And those two didn't connect.
	You have no First Amendment right to mark up somebody else's property, even if it's for associational or expressive purposes.
	That's somebody else's property.
	When it's public is when it gets a little tricky because then it's a public forum like a public sidewalk.
	But the judge took that issue and invalidated the entire anti-graffiti law so you could just go around and mark up whatever you want on anybody's business, anybody's home, anybody's property, invading their constitutionally protected rights.
	So the Ninth Circuit, I think, correctly came in and said, whoa, whoa, this is not a legitimate facial challenge.
	There are completely legitimate grounds to prohibit graffiti, protect people's own individual constitutional rights in their own property, including their expressive and associational.
	Like a lot of these BLM protesters were trying to do, using this loophole in the law to try to do so.
	And they said, but if there's an issue with public sidewalks and selective enforcement...
	That's an as-applied challenge.
	So you can go back to the lower court and say, as applied to these people, this law shouldn't apply, but that is not grounds to invalidate the entire law.
	But they did amend the law, right?
	At one point, it was the affirmative defense was if you had the permission of the landowner, and then they built the without permission into the infraction itself so that the prosecutors would have to prove that as an element so they would think twice about issuing tickets willy-nilly.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Makes sense.
	I thought it was logical.
	Robert, have you been following the Crumbly trial?
	Only bits and pieces.
	I mean, I thought from the inception, I don't like this prosecution, period.
	I still don't like it.
	And I've heard nothing at trial that's convinced me this prosecution should have ever been brought.
	And I have not been following it to the length and scope as Joe Nierman, the following pro on Twitter, GoodLogic.
	I've seen enough.
	I'm very much torn in this because some of the evidence, as far as I understand, that has been adjuiced seems like negligence.
	But to go from negligence to involuntary manslaughter seems like one heck of a leap.
	And for those of you who don't know, and I sort of totally blacked out or blocked out the role that COVID might not have played, but this is really...
	In the COVID era when kids were suffering from distress, listening to the counselor testify of the school.
	For those of you who don't know, the kid crumbly, clearly out of his gourd, mentally unwell, writing messages, crying for help in a way that was obvious.
	All of it neglected, not noticed by parents, not noticed by school.
	Kills four of his classmates with a gun that the parents got for him, knowing that he was going through some stuff.
	They thought it might be therapeutic.
	I don't know.
	They're going after the mother criminally for involuntary manslaughter for her negligence in procuring a firearm for her kid, not keeping it stored, locked up safely, such that her kid, who was clearly going through some mental...
	I'm not saying this to undermine what he did.
	The kid's obviously not well.
	Whether or not it's criminal intent, he's fucking crazy.
	Period.
	Writing, drawing pictures, these thoughts won't stop.
	Asking his mother if the house is haunted.
	They're going after the mother.
	And the evidence, the most damning evidence that we've seen thus far is that, you know, text messages from beforehand show that the kid was having problems.
	Asking his mother if the house was haunted.
	The mother seemed to be more interested in horseback riding lessons than parenting.
	There's a lot of parent shaming in this.
	But the bottom line is the day of the shooting.
	The kid is in school.
	Gets called into the counselor's office, the principal's office, with a drawing that had a gun, bullets, people, you know, a person laying in blood.
	It says these thoughts won't stop.
	Was seen looking at a video of a shooting event, maybe out of a movie.
	Was looking up bullets online.
	Gets called into the counselor's office or the principal's office.
	The mother gets called in.
	They say, do you want to take him home?
	And they say, no, we got to get back to work.
	School sends him back to class.
	Nobody checks his backpack.
	Nobody does anything.
	And then he does it.
	The issue being here that the mother clearly was onto something, thought something might potentially happen, knew that she had gotten him the gun earlier in proximity to the events, didn't tell the school, had the school known they would have done something different, and that's it.
	She had her trial.
	They had closing arguments.
	I did not follow the whole thing, but I caught up enough today, and the closing arguments are just nauseating.
	The emotional...
	Above the legal stuff.
	I understand it's a tactic that you have to do, but it's displeasing.
	Or it's very off-putting, I should say.
	But the bottom line.
	The mother's going to get convicted.
	My prediction is she will get convicted.
	But Robert, hypothetically, the mother knows her kid's mentally unwell, gets him a gun, doesn't lock it up, doesn't tell the school once they're called into the office, seems to have done some guilty stuff afterwards, like deleting text messages.
	Only being interested in how her life is going to be over because of this.
	And they go after her for involuntary manslaughter.
	I mean, explain the law above and beyond the emotion.
	Yeah, so to convict someone of involuntary manslaughter, and I know of no case like this ever being brought.
	And I don't like the precedent that's being sought out here.
	So you caused the death through gross negligence, which means you knew of the danger that ordinary care could have prevented...
	And that you knew the danger was going to be apparent, likely serious injury.
	And I don't know how you can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she thought he was going to shoot up the school.
	Because that's what you're supposed to find in order to convict her.
	Now I agree with you that the jury is not likely to make that delineation like they should.
	It's why these prosecutions shouldn't happen, in my view.
	Because this is an attempt to prosecute, to shift blame from the school to the parents.
	The school would have a lot more potential culpability.
	Why isn't the principal being indicted?
	Why isn't the counselor being indicted?
	Because all of them determined it was better for him to go back into class than for him to go home.
	She was supposed to override them?
	I mean, it's rather ludicrous.
	So, I mean, her position was she saw...
	Him as sarcastic, that he was going through some issues but she didn't think it was severe, that he was always joking about whether the house was haunted.
	So you get a sense of a parent that's disconnected from the kid who's perceiving the kid in an incorrect way.
	But I didn't get the vibe that it was a parent who wanted the kid to go shoot up a school or thought that could even happen and thought, most importantly, the legal standard is...
	Apparently likely to happen.
	So unless they conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she thought it was likely he was going to shoot up the school, she should be acquitted.
	Which means this prosecution should have never been brought.
	I thought they were going to have something far more damaged.
	Because there were stories early on about him saying he was going to do it to her and there were these rumors.
	They didn't prove any of that.
	Deleting text messages doesn't matter.
	They can get those right from the phone provider.
	Phone service provider.
	It's after the fact.
	First of all, I'll just read a few chats because apparently this is what happens when people who spent all week watching it don't like the summary.
	Janeway1 says, Viva lacks facts.
	We got Magoose, who's pulling the shame on you, Viva.
	That was the worst summary of the trial and evidence.
	It was a summary summary.
	Okay, and then let's see here.
	We got, let me see here.
	Horseback riding, right?
	I bet she was, okay, that's not right.
	Okay.
	Well, she was also having an affair.
	The kid's mental disturbance tells me they're not good parents.
	But that's very different from causing mass death.
	And I didn't like this.
	There have been other cases where they brought general parental neglect claims.
	You could maybe do that here.
	But the other concern I have is they're trying to use this.
	To punish people for allowing gun access to their kids.
	That's the subtext of this case, too.
	The subtext is, any responsible parent would never allow their kid to ever have a gun.
	No matter what.
	Or otherwise, you're really probably complicit in wanting mass murder.
	That's the other subtext here.
	And it's a gun-controlled message.
	And then, last but not least, it's shifting blame.
	They want people like Sandy Hook.
	They didn't want anybody looking at the school officials and the politicians.
	They're the principal people usually responsible on this.
	Here they had specific awareness of his specific risk and they didn't send him home and they didn't search his bed.
	I'm sorry, that's just basic, basic violations.
	In the name of protecting schools, we have these invasive searches they do all the time of kids.
	And then when they actually need to do it, they don't exercise it.
	They just screwed up.
	You have a lazy school system, screwed up, and they're looking to blame everybody, the gun, the parents, rather than themselves for their complicity and culpability.
	The issue that, I mean, listening to the counselor testify, the issue I had is, okay, fine.
	Hypothetically, they find the mother guilty.
	What of the counselor and the principal or whoever they met with and said, we're going to send him back to class now?
	Kid was watching videos on his phone, drawing pictures.
	These thoughts won't stop.
	And we send him back to class and they try to fault the mother for saying, I have to go back to work?
	To be frank, the school is in a much better position, those trained personnel, than the mother is.
	The school has been trained for 20 years, 30 years, how to identify risk, how to address the risk, how to deal with the risk.
	Your average parent doesn't have that training.
	I mean, it's clear that these parents were not great parents or the kid wouldn't have had the issues he had, quite frankly.
	But the idea that the parents were deliberately culpable or complicit in it, I thought we were going to hear evidence of abuse.
	I thought we were going to hear evidence of something that, you know, made these people real morally culpable.
	Instead, it was just the parent has to be the front line of defense.
	The parent has to be proactive.
	The parent can't ever let their kids do anything bad or it's their fault.
	And let's morally shame the parent.
	They shame her because she likes horses.
	Shame her because she didn't pay as much attention as she should have.
	Shame her because she was having an affair.
	And let's blame shift and scapegoat rather than deal with the real issue, which is also the utter inadequacy of our mental health care facilities in America.
	Well, and the blaming her for the after-the-fact deleting text messages and responding to a tragedy, a horror that I don't know how anybody...
	I don't know what a normal response is to that.
	And so a lot of the evidence, as far as I saw, was after-the-fact accusations of hiding guilt.
	They knew they had done something wrong, and that's why she reacted that way.
	All that she was concerned about was whether or not she's going to lose her job.
	The question I had is this, and Joe...
	Neerman raised the question.
	It's a legit question.
	The kid was convicted as an adult.
	He pled guilty.
	He pled guilty.
	How do they go after the parents then as though they should be responsible for the acts of a child when he pleaded or pled as an adult?
	Knowing that, there's an additional question.
	Even though he has an appeal issue about a life sentence, it wasn't clear to me how he had Fifth Amendment rights.
	He's already pled guilty.
	And the court did not allow him to testify because of Fifth Amendment rights.
	And it's like, what Fifth Amendment rights?
	He's already pled guilty.
	There's nothing for him to be worried about incriminating himself because he's already done so.
	I found that a little peculiar.
	And it was interesting to me that it was the defense that wanted him to testify.
	And as that tells me, you dig into this case, you had a disturbed kid with parents who didn't pick things up.
	But not parents deliberately causing his disturbance, nor really aware of his disturbance.
	Their problem was they were disconnected.
	Their problem wasn't that they were seeing all these warning signs and just saying, screw it, like the media originally pitched.
	It's also just like predictable parental denial.
	Nobody ever looks at their kids and says, my kid's got a problem.
	They look at, oh, he's just a kid, yada, yada.
	And people should also appreciate, this is not a civil liability case for the acts of a minor child.
	This is criminal.
	It's just saying that they're responsible for the murder.
	That they knew that was likely to occur.
	And didn't take ordinary steps to preclude it.
	I just can't.
	That's just not present in the facts I saw develop beyond reason.
	You think she gets convicted?
	It all depends on the jury.
	And I don't know how the jury selection went.
	So I think that it would be a disturbing sign if she's convicted, in my view.
	It's a disturbing prosecution.
	It would be an even more disturbing conviction because of the patterns it's setting.
	And it's ultimately going to be used as an anti-gun case down the road.
	You're going to find judges changing custody of kids based on whether one parent allowed them to have access to guns or not.
	That's where this is coming.
	They'll cite this case as their example.
	As to why it's so dangerous and so reckless, and how dare you allow your 16-year-old, 17-year-old to have a scary, scary gun?
	That's where this is heading, and that's what they're intending to do.
	They're going to re-sandyhook guns all over again.
	I'm predicting this is neither a want nor any intent here.
	I predict she's going to get convicted.
	And then the husband also stands trial in March.
	She can get convicted before the husband even stands trial, and as if that's going to be a fair trial.
	Robert, what was I?
	Oh, no, I was also going to say, the incompetence of the school.
	Set aside whatever you want to blame on whom?
	Ever.
	The incompetence of the school, that they were the ones who had the first-hand knowledge, by all evidence that I've seen, of the events on the day of.
	And that they take him, and they don't say, take your kid, go to a hospital, go to check him in somewhere.
	Go see a doctor right now.
	No, go back to class.
	And it was an option.
	Even by the evidence that I saw, it was an option for the parents.
	It wasn't an order.
	Take him home and figure it out.
	Because we're not letting him go back to class.
	Absolute apathy, left, right, and center.
	Well, and especially when they're given such extraordinary power.
	Power to search.
	They have the power to detain him.
	They have the power to put him under a 48-hour, depending on the state, hold at a mental institution.
	They use this power all the time.
	They misuse it all the time.
	And in the case where they actually should use it, they don't.
	And they don't want to be held any, no accountability for it, no responsibility for it.
	That's the real underlying dynamic.
	And they definitely don't want mental health failure to be, they don't want school failure or mental health failure to be the highlighted stories.
	It's parental failure and how guns are scary, scary.
	That's the narrative, and they're pursuing bogus prosecutions, in my view, in order to perpetuate that false narrative.
	Well, on the subject of Second Amendments, there's this prosecution and then there's a Second Amendment win, which is...
	Robert, this is funny.
	I'm reading this case.
	I'm like, it's literally the Chris Rock joke.
	It was like, you want to stop crime?
	Don't ban guns.
	Just charge $50,000 a bullet.
	You're like, I'm going to come back here next.
	I'm going to go put that bullet on layaway.
	I'm going to come back here after I pay it up.
	I'm going to shoot you.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	It's a hilarious joke.
	This was California, right?
	Oh yes, the great Judge Benitez.
	So you got Commie Canada and you got Commie Fornia.
	This is coming out of California, where I guess they said, well, regulating the guns is not working because you got a robust right to Second Amendment rights.
	So we're going to regulate the bullets.
	And if you want to go get bullets, ammunition.
	You're going to have to...
	Was it get a permit for ammunition?
	You have to get a permit and background checks every single time you wanted to get it.
	Background checks for every purchase.
	And those were often delayed, sometimes wrongfully denied.
	It was a huge bureaucratic and procedural headache.
	And the state of California was trying to say, your Second Amendment rights doesn't include the right for ammunition.
	So you have a right to a gun, you just can't load it.
	That's not violent of the Second Amendment because we're not banning the guns.
	We're just, you know, highly regulating the ammunition.
	I mean, I thought about it as I'm reading the case.
	What impact would that have had for people who, what is it called, fill their own bullets?
	Like, what would that have done for people who make their own rounds?
	Well, some of that it wouldn't have applied to, but, like, one of the other problems was the anti-importation ban.
	If you happen to buy bullets from outside the state of California, you couldn't import them.
	Well, without all these special permissions and approvals in advance as well.
	So the it was it's, you know, California has 100 different ways to try to prohibit you from being able to defend yourself.
	And it's not like its laws have worked great at prohibiting actual violent crime in the state.
	But this is Judge Benitez has already struck down several other California gun laws.
	And he presided over the trial.
	And he's like, well, it's pretty simple.
	Ammunition is clearly part of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
	That bare arms means nothing if you can't have ammunition for it.
	So then the only question is, is there a history of states at the time of our founding, or at a minimum at the time of the 14th Amendment's passage, because this is applying it to the states?
	Of limiting ammunition purchases by background checks, by permits, or anything else.
	And he's like, they can't find a single one.
	The state of California couldn't find any examples.
	That historically, there was no such limitation, no such restriction, no such restraint.
	And it's analogous to the Amos Miller situation.
	It's an obsession of trying to permit everything.
	By permitting it, they're trying to take what is your otherwise right, convert it into a state privilege, so they can take it away anytime they want.
	And that's what they were doing here, too, just in the Second Amendment context.
	They came to the right decision, however.
	Benitez did, yes.
	Okay, and so now, do they change the legislation so that it...
	Because Benitez, you basically said, look, it was the background check with every purchase that might have been a problem.
	They seem to have modified that in another version.
	If and when that gets to court, we'll make a decision on that at that time?
	Yeah, I mean, basically, he's been gutting.
	90% of California's restrictions.
	So there's only going to be a few left at the end that are going to be constitutional.
	And California is hoping that the Ninth Circuit sets it aside.
	And if they don't win at the Ninth Circuit, their gun laws are DOA.
	Similar to a lot of New York and Illinois and other places.
	But some of these will probably go up to the Supreme Court of the United States because some courts have ignored Bruin.
	Not all have.
	Benitez follows it and shows how it should be applied.
	But it's also a reminder of the danger of permitting.
	Once you start requiring permits for things, you eviscerate rights, inevitably and inescapably.
	That's when you say, oh yeah, you can make the same milk you used to make, but you have to get a permit first.
	You can slaughter the food at your farm for meat or poultry or get some eggs, but you've got to get a permit first.
	So, oh yeah, you can defend yourself under the Second Amendment, but you've got to get a permit first.
	That's the danger to constitutional liberties is all these bogus permitting processes that need to be stripped from state and federal law.
	Do they appeal it or do they just go back and redraft the legislation?
	Oh yeah, they're appealing everything.
	Simultaneously while redrafting it so that if the appeal fails, they'll go back and then re-litigate the revised legislation.
	Yeah.
	It's fantastic.
	It's great when you're working with other people's tax dollars.
	In real time, Robert, I will not...
	I will not mention a name.
	I got an email from one of our members of the locals.
	It says, Viva, a few brief points on Crumbly.
	Michigan has a parental responsibility statute for some time.
	Michigan's mental health system sucks.
	Very few beds for adults, and it's even worse for minors.
	Justice of the State Supreme Court Richard Bernstein left Michigan for mental health treatment.
	We got Crumbly committed the murders as a minor, age 15, but has been sentenced to life without parole.
	Which violates the Supreme Court precedent, Kennedy v.
	Nebraska.
	This is why we have an above-average community.
	As well as state Supreme Court kids that held that 18-year-olds cannot be sentenced to life without parole.
	More importantly, there is more than enough blame to go around.
	When you can't fix the blame, you don't fix the problem.
	How can you not search the backpack is beyond me.
	He was asking.
	To be intervened with.
	He was begging for it.
	And again, the people best equipped for that is going to be the school.
	Right?
	I mean, the parent that's already neglectful to have a kid in that situation to begin with often, the parent doesn't have a psych background.
	So the parent doesn't know how to interpret these things.
	You can tell the parent interpreted all this as him being sarcastic, him being this.
	Didn't take it as serious.
	And the parent, like, they used a lot of what was in his, I'm not sure quite how a lot of this was admissible.
	They used a lot of his diary in his journal.
	She never saw it.
	So how is that relevant?
	If she didn't see it, she's on trial, not him.
	How is what he put in his private diary that she never saw?
	Relevant to her state of mind.
	Well, to quote the MSM, there's no evidence that she saw it.
	So they leave open the window that she might have seen it.
	Yeah, but if you don't have that established, none of that evidence should have come in.
	That's not relevant.
	That's out of court hearsay.
	Used to try to infer a statement about her knowledge that they didn't show the link to.
	They love to do that game.
	So, I mean, there may have been some serious evidentiary errors in the court proceeding that might get overturned on appeal, but...
	It's a dangerous precedent, whereas the Second Amendment precedent out of California by the federal court there by Judge Benitez is a promising precedent for enforcing our rights.
	One is a warning, one is a positive action that's reflective of the warning that we should see in these permitting processes.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	Well, speaking of permitting processes, the control over the drug administration and the various opioid cases where they've been very selective.
	You know, the McKinsey and company, they write a big check, but none of their executives get criminally prosecuted, though they were the principal and primary pushers of opioids on vulnerable, susceptible populations in the country.
	The big pharmacies, the big drug company, none of them are facing criminal prosecution.
	Instead, they tended to target the local pain management doctor.
	Often guys that have like eclectic combinations, maybe sometimes they were just, you know, basically drug pushers, but maybe some of the other time they were just sympathetic with their patients and thought this is the only way their patients could survive.
	I mean, all their patients were, well, this one doctor is prosecuted, and the problem is they were convicting doctors for violating the law without finding they had any intent to violate the law, without finding they had any criminal intent at all.
	It was, if what you did was outside the bounds of medical care, according to some expert testimony, then you could be sent to prison for life.
	This guy was facing 40 years in federal prison for prescribing pain meds to patients.
	Just to steal, man, the accusation was prescribing pain meds to patients without properly meeting them, despite, I don't know, indications that they might have been abusing of it or, I don't know, selling it.
	I do know, I'm just saying.
	Selling it, whatever.
	And then I can only think of the analogy, like, when I needed antibiotics for a sinus infection, I was very happy to get a doctor who's like, describe your symptoms over the phone.
	We don't need to meet in person.
	But this is antibiotics and not narcotic painkillers or whatever it is.
	So, I'm sympathetic, but they...
	That's usually even more true, though, in your painkilling context.
	And what you really have here is...
	Working class and poor patients.
	Some of whom may have been addicted to the painkillers.
	And that may have been a problem.
	Separate problem.
	But a lot of them may have just needed the pain meds.
	And you got a doctor willing to do it.
	And it's like, why is that doctor the target of our criminal prosecution?
	40 years in federal prison?
	But what was more disturbing is they were convicting him without finding he had any knowledge what he was doing was illegally improper at all.
	And finally, the Supreme Court last year stepped in and said, you can't do that.
	The person has to have subjective criminal intent, mens rea, or you can't convict them.
	You can't convict them under an objective standard, which basically just becomes, if the state doesn't like what you're doing, you go to prison.
	That's what was becoming the law.
	They're using the epidemic of opioid abuse.
	To scapegoat a few doctors and then use those few doctors to establish a template that they could go after all the rest of us for simply not doing what the state thinks should have been done.
	And that's what's terrifying about where this was going legally.
	40 years in prison without any finding that the person subjectively had any criminal intent whatsoever.
	And finally the Fourth Circuit stepped in and set it aside and said no based on the...
	Because all the appellate courts have been getting this wrong.
	They said, look, the Supreme Court said we were wrong.
	So that means the jury instruction was wrong, which means the whole case has to be thrown out.
	And they got to go back from scratch if they want to prosecute him again.
	Because you do, in fact, have to prove subjective criminal mens rea before you can put someone in prison.
	So it's a big, important ruling for limiting the abusive power of the state.
	Robert, I've fallen behind on a crumble rants yet again.
	Matt Rice says, Yes, I did.
	All right, we've got Fraser McBurney.
	I'm joking, by the way.
	My aunt always writes in caps, not because she's screaming.
	Because it's easier to see the text.
	I got to that one.
	CJDAGS82.
	The new Senate bill that just dropped will allow 1.8 million illegals per and sets up mass amnesty.
	Hold on.
	Let me just screen grab that.
	I'm going to keep that for tomorrow.
	And we've got CJDAGS.
	If you are too incompetent to do an investigation and get the right address, then you are too incompetent to carry...
	A tax-funded gun and drive a tax-funded vehicle.
	STFU FFS says, Authoritarians never met a state action whose motivation they couldn't rationalize.
	I'm a cop and you will respect my authority.
	Senator Langford has to be compromised by the cartels to even dream up the, quote, immigration, end quote, Senate bill that just dropped.
	They have to have dirt on him.
	And then CDJ82 or DAGS82, the government is...
	Prosecuting the mom to cover up the failure of the government, school, and teachers unions who funnel money for Democrats.
	We talked about this with Sandy Hook as well.
	And we've got Fleet Lord Avatar.
	I hope that's not a typo.
	Thank you for this.
	Those who hear this, tweet Elon Musk.
	Let me see this here.
	Elon Musk.
	And ask him to fund Barnes Free America Law Center.
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	You know what I'm going to do?
	I'm going to do this right now.
	I don't do these humble flexes.
	And like show that Elon liked my video of my analysis of his tweet.
	So maybe I'll tweet.
	Maybe he's following me on a bookmark, but he doesn't want to follow me in real life because I'm too extremist.
	We will have a Free America Law Center fundraiser.
	There's one ongoing.
	The 50th birthday party in Vegas.
	You can get directions at the board.
	Just email Ellen Dodrell and she'll get you your tickets.
	But also this week we'll have some Amos Miller.
	There's some product that they did not seize, which includes some great honey made from some of his bees.
	So we got some great honey that's going to be a fundraiser this week to help support him as he goes through the efforts to bankrupt him and take away food freedom in America, which is what his case signifies.
	So that will be up for Free America Law Center this week as well.
	Okay, hold on a second, Robert.
	I'm tweeting this as we talk.
	Here we go.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Retweet.
	If this gets one million retweets, I am told that Elon would have to fund, oh, let's say, donate to Barnes Law Free American Law Center.
	Bam!
	And I'm going to share this tweet.
	We've got 21,000 people watching right now.
	It should get at least 21,000 retweets.
	It's a joke, people, but let's just go do it here anyhow.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Done.
	Robert, what do we have left before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	Just a couple of cases.
	One is the briefly on the Vault 7 sentence that, you know, they claim they found child pornography on the guy's computer.
	It's like, what's the likelihood that the Vault 7 whistleblower, the guy who exposed some of the CIA's worst crimes, including the ability to kill people by doing things to their cars automatically, Had that on his computer.
	Can you back it up?
	Because not everybody knows what Vault 7 or Vault 15?
	Vault 7. What the hell did I just double it for?
	Can you tell everybody what that is?
	I mean, Alex Jones has been talking about it for...
	Did he break it?
	Did Alex Jones break it?
	It was a WikiLeaks.
	It was a Julian Assange disclosure that basically Vault 7 disclosed a bunch of illegal CIA activities.
	And it was a whistleblower who blew the whistle on it.
	The whistleblower was sentenced this week to 40 years in federal prison, in part based on, you know, again, doing his job and disclosing the whistleblowing activities.
	And then they claim they found child pornography photos on his computer.
	Which you've got to be suspect of, given the timing and given the individual.
	That just doesn't sound...
	So let me get this right.
	A child porn guy was willing to risk everything by writing out the CIA?
	I don't think so.
	And not to that, they never got it on him before this happened.
	When I say Alex Jones broken, Alex Jones, I believe, has been talking about...
	It confirmed a bunch of things he'd been saying for a decade.
	Including their ability to use your own car to kill you.
	Yeah, and especially like your digitally remote-controlled car, which is connected to the internet.
	Holy crap.
	Stay on Star, because you never know when you might break down somewhere, and that satellite might need to get a hold of you.
	There's some other people that are getting a hold of you, and all of a sudden, oh, look, it's so-and-so.
	Just had an accident.
	What a coincidence.
	80 miles an hour into a tree.
	And by the way, Cheryl Atkinson reported allegedly that the FBI was contemplating dropping child pornography on her husband's computer.
	Correct.
	There's a long pattern of them being involved in this.
	And everything about that screams this in this case.
	But meanwhile, he was convicted.
	Of course.
	He didn't have much of a chance for those.
	Federal court in New York.
	And they love to sentence these kind of people.
	You know, 40 years in prison.
	How dare you expose the government's secrets?
	That's the true great crime against the state.
	Those are the crimes that really they get agitated about.
	And that's how you get the Oregon Supreme Court.
	Speaking of ballot exclusion, Oregon passed a law that said if you had more than 10 absences as a state house or state senator, then you could not run for re-election to your position.
	The back story that many Oregon voters probably didn't fully appreciate was that this was the only way that Republicans in rural Oregon could stop the commies in Portland from making their lives miserable, was to walk out so there wouldn't be a quorum.
	The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed it, which that is what the law is currently.
	So the law is itself being challenged in federal court.
	And the federal courts did not enjoin it.
	But it's not going to really stop a lot of those folks from doing that.
	They'll run for another position and do something else.
	But it's interesting what they're willing to...
	The Democrats use this tactic more than anyone across the country.
	So it's just because they have a control of the majority in Oregon that they're able to prohibit this tactic from being used against them.
	When they themselves use it all the time and claim a constitutional right to do it in other places.
	All right.
	Now, Robert, I'm just looking at the tweet.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me see what we got here.
	The tweet is now only, it's not a 21,000 retweet set.
	It's at 104.
	That's actually damn good for my Twitter presence.
	All right.
	It's going to happen.
	It's going to happen.
	What else do we have before we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party?
	Yeah, so the last update is on the Amos Miller case.
	The hearing will be held in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, outside Philadelphia.
	It's about an hour and a half or so outside Philly.
	On February the 29th at 1.30 in the afternoon, a bunch of different people are organizing.
	Meetings outside of the courthouse that day to make their voices heard.
	Lots of folks are coming to the hearing so that they can see what's taking place and transpiring in live time.
	We've been able to gather the evidence that there was nothing dangerous at all in Amos Miller's food, that the allegations that the state had they have mostly not been able to substantiate at all.
	That the only item of risk was dealt with and there's no problems from.
	We'll have expert witnesses, journalistic witnesses, fact witnesses, people who desperately need the product.
	And we will be raising in that case, but also in likely a separate federal civil rights case that's forthcoming on behalf of the members.
	It looks like the members that are going to bring the suit are located in the western district of Pennsylvania.
	In the federal court process, because we will be raising the issue as to whether or not you have a constitutional right, if you're a part owner of a farm, to eat your own food.
	The second aspect is, do you have a constitutional right under the liberty interest of the 5th and 14th Amendments to be able to purchase food directly from the farmer when it is a traditional food item, such as dairy, meat, and poultry?
	That has been recognized from America's founding.
	Thomas Jefferson, I mentioned in the Barnes brief this past week, Thomas Jefferson talked about it.
	Sometimes he's paraphrased, and you'll get these fact checks that say, well, he didn't say it exactly that way.
	His point was obvious.
	His point in correspondence was, our souls under tyranny are in great danger, and we'll be in just as much danger if the state dictates our diets to us.
	And he talks about when the French once banned the potato.
	So this was known to our founding generation.
	The small farmer was the heart of America at the time and protecting and promoting him the future of America and the right to buy food directly from him, critical and essential to it for more than a century and a half.
	From 1906 to 1967, during the entire beginning periods of federal regulation over food supply in America, it said it did not apply.
	None of the federal regulations, rules, or restrictions.
	Those restrictions did not apply if you bought it directly from the farm.
	And so that should be an established liberty interest protected under the 14th Amendment as substantive due process because you have procedural due process, which is your right to a certain process before a decision is made, and then a substantive right in terms of the actual outcome and its impact.
	And these laws cannot meet strict scrutiny.
	And there's legislators in Pennsylvania and other states that say they're concerned with where this is going.
	Less than 2% of the food already is directly bought from a farmer.
	It used to be 90% of our food supply.
	It was 20% at the beginning of the century.
	It was 15% just in the 1960s.
	Now it's 2%.
	You know, we have these big corporate ag, big ag monopolies that are trying to crush their competition by misuse and abuse of power.
	Now, we'll see what the judge does in the state court proceeding.
	Someone who ran as a Republican, but according to people that know him, said he was actually a Democrat and misled people about being a Republican.
	So I don't know if we'll get a fair hearing from that judge.
	He rubber-stamped what the government has done so far, even though they lied to him.
	We'll see if lies are okay in Pennsylvania courts.
	Is it okay to lie to you as a judge as long as you're the government doing?
	Or are the courts actually going to have some backbone, some integrity?
	So that case is marching forward, but we're bringing everything to bear on the case, a broad, wide range of resources to assert these constitutional rights that are going to be litigated.
	It'll be one of the defining cases for food freedom in America, will be the Amos Miller case.
	So all the support people provide and provide Free America Law Center, very appreciated because it makes it financially feasible to be able to mount this level of defense.
	Now, not to plug your other locals.
	Channel, Robert.
	But I will by doing this.
	Hold on.
	Lee Harris.
	No, it's not that.
	Here we go.
	Team Nikki.
	Robert, what's the over-under for Team Nikki surviving the next primary?
	Hold on.
	That's terrible.
	All right.
	She offered free alcohol and she got a bunch of people.
	This is thousands of Team Haley supporters are in Daniel Island, South Carolina for tonight's rally.
	Robert, what are the chances?
	It would be one of the islands.
	The old money crowd down there in South Carolina.
	See, I don't know anything about this.
	There's islands in South Carolina?
	I thought it was a landlocked city.
	It's not far from those islands.
	You just go down a little bit further to the Georgia islands off the Georgia coast, and that's where you get Jekyll Island, where they started the Federal Reserve.
	So a lot of interesting things have happened in some of those islands off those coasts over the years.
	Various nefarious deeds of various kinds, depending on the time.
	But I don't think she stands much.
	She's just going to keep getting crushed.
	But as long as she's draining money and draining resources, she's asking all the Democrats in South Carolina to try to come over and vote in the Republican primary.
	That's what she's depending on, because Trump's just going to keep crushing her.
	And she'll see how many votes she can steal from Democrats pretending to be Republicans to get to vote.
	But she stands no chance whatsoever, and her future's done politically.
	But she'll make lots of money from the deep state crowd.
	When does she withdraw from the race?
	When the deep state people say she can.
	Oh my goodness!
	That is so much more sinister than what I thought, Robert.
	Okay.
	What we're going to do now, people, let me just get the link.
	I'm going to snip, clip, and I'm going to share in...
	Rumble.
	Get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, what do you have on the menu, the schedule for this week?
	So we'll have the last week was on Turkish television and on with the Duran.
	This week, just doing the bourbons and catch up on work.
	I'm supposed to be resting and whatnot.
	We'll get around to that.
	And then in for everybody.
	Our show next week will not be Sunday, because that's Super Bowl Sunday.
	It will be the Monday following Super Bowl Sunday will be the next Law for the People show.
	I already have a big bet on that Super Bowl, and so we'll see how it...
	Hopefully it's a profitable Sunday.
	Well, hold on.
	First of all, I might still go live, but it will not be a law show.
	It might just be me not watching the Super Bowl.
	But Robert, what is your bet?
	What is your bet for the Super Bowl?
	You have to go to sportspicks.locals.com where people get exclusive, profitable access to political, economic, and sports predictions.
	We are now ending on Rumble, people.
	Get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to end it, and I'm going to read through a lot of those tips and questions, and it's going to be a party.
	Hardy.
	Hold on one second.
	Oh, yeah.
	I got 40 seconds.
	I'm not going to end it on two hours on the nose, but I'm just going to end it on Rumble.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I will be live all week.
	I'm going to try to get Vinny Oceana in studio at Locals.
	We'll see if I'm on the unusual suspects again, but it's, you know, periodic.
	Regardless, you know what to do.
	Everybody, we're done on Rumble.
	Peace out and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	Booyah!
	Robert, let me go up here now.
	I got to refresh.
	Okay, but I'm not gonna share screen yet.
	I'm not gonna share screen.
	Hobstigger, 10 bucks, says, Viva, I do so appreciate your return to the car rents.
	Yeah, until the effing YouTube, just demon, I don't care about it, but it is irritating.

▲