"Border Bill" is RUBBISH! D.C. Court of Appeal REJECTS Immunity! Biden LIES & More! Viva Frei Live!
|
Time
Text
Mayor, what's his name?
Oh, Tabarnouche, the new mayor of New York.
Johnson?
I'll get his name.
What's his name?
I'll get it in a second.
He's obviously taking flack, I guess, for not having gone to the border?
It doesn't really matter.
What the hell did this guy just say here?
First of all, oh, is it fun when the revolution devours its own?
He's quite clearly having a bad day.
He's getting some flack from his constituents, it would seem.
I have children who attend schools who have soccer games, y 'all.
Y 'all, he's got kids who have soccer games, y 'all.
He can't, like, you know, just do everything you expect him to do as a mayor.
He's not Superman.
You know, you all are asking me as if I'm not a parent in this city.
I get it.
I'm mayor.
I get it.
But you're asking me to give you a date, and I have to court.
Do you understand that you have not had a mayor like me?
I get that.
Stop.
Do you understand that you have not had a mayor like me?
I get that.
What the hell does that mean?
In conjunction with, I've got a black wife and three black kids, what the hell is he even trying to suggest here?
Is he suggesting that he's a responsible father and that Chicago has not had a mayor that's a responsible father?
Is this like a jab at former Mayor Lightfoot, who was a lesbian?
I don't understand.
What that even is supposed to mean?
Do you understand that you have not had a mayor like me?
I get that.
Ooh, plus he's flashing the...
Ooh, look what he's doing with his hands.
You have not had a mayor like me?
I get that.
Ooh.
I was told...
I was told that this means something bad, people.
You have not had a mayor like me?
I get that.
And then listen to what he says.
I have a wife.
I have children.
They have schedules.
Has every previous mayor of Chicago been a single man?
I think Lori Lightfoot, she's a lesbian, I think she has kids.
And plus, we still have public safety that we have to address.
We still have the unhoused that we have to address.
The unhoused.
I also love how they changed the word from homeless to the unhoused.
To make it sound like it's not a terrible thing that they have an unhoused crisis.
I still have a budget that I have to address and I'm doing all of that with a black wife raising three black children on the west side of the city of Chicago.
I am going to the border as soon as possible.
I'm doing all that with a black wife and three black children Do tell me what the hell you were implying right there.
Is it somehow harder?
I mean, like, would it be easier if you had a white wife and three white children?
Can you imagine a white guy who might be married to a black woman and then saying, I'm married to a black woman and I have three black kids?
My goodness, that dude would be arrested for racism.
Holy shiat, people.
So all that to say, yeah.
First of all, getting into politics with kids is not an easy thing.
It's not something I would wish on my worst enemy.
But once you get into that position and you run around, I guess it's just the reflex of crying racism all the time.
He, for a second, thought he could weaponize the race of his wife and children.
Or, you know, he's just so used to only seeing people by race, when he looks at his kids, he's like, those are black children.
I mean, genetically it makes sense because, you know, if he's black and his wife is black, it would be weird to refer to his children as anything else.
Unless, you know, he adopted children and they happen to be white.
But then even then, people calling Amy Coney Barrett racist for adopting a black child.
I mean, it's so wild.
And there's so many jokes as to what he might have been suggesting that I will not get into.
All that to say, the revolution devours its own.
What time is it?
It's 1.05?
Good afternoon, East Coast.
Good morning, West Coast.
Good evening, England.
And what does the future look like, Australia, where it's tomorrow morning?
All right, so I start with a little lighthearted stuff, and we're going to move into some much more serious stuff, and we're going to save the good stuff for Rumble, where I'm having something of a discussion with Canada RV.
Who has made a statement of fact that BlackRock is the third largest shareholder in Rumble.
Let's just see this.
We're going to do this in real time.
Major shareholders.
Let me see here.
Oh, here we go.
This is interesting.
There's in the chat where I said, someone said, Canada RV.
We're supporting Rumble.
They are owned by BlackRock, and BlackRock is their third largest shareholder.
Let me bring up a screen here.
And I said, I thought BlackRock owned like 2%.
You can't stop companies from buying up shares on the open market.
Top institutional holders of common shares on the open market, Cantor Fitzgerald, 8%.
I think the, what is the legal requirement?
10%, maybe 9% before...
There's certain legal restrictions as to how much you can buy up on the open market.
Vanguard owns 5%.
And BlackRock owns 1.58%.
All right.
What do you think that that proves?
All below legal thresholds, all owned on the open market.
You know what that shows?
Hey, at least these stupid tyrannical companies know a good investment when they see one.
The, as far as I understand, controlling shareholding of Rumble is in Chris Pawlowski.
There are still risks.
You know, Chris might not be interested in this life for the rest of his life.
He might not be interested in the company.
Things happen.
Whatever.
But no, Canada RV.
So you want to have fears and you want to spread rumors.
Third largest is they own 1.58%.
Dude, if I had the money, I could buy 1.58% on the open market and nobody could stop me.
That is my response.
And not only is it my response, if I go up here.
I'm fairly certain it's what I told you was the case right here.
So you're wrong.
BlackRock owns a small percent.
Two percent, I believe.
Majority is with Chris, so you should reassess.
All right.
Well, that's as much fun as I want to have fighting with someone who I don't think is going to be persuaded.
There's an expression, a fanatic is someone who never changes their mind and never changes the conversation.
It's a great, great expression.
All right.
For those of you who don't know who I am...
Where the hell have you been?
I should have checked on all the platforms to make sure that we're live.
Viva Frei.
Some people think that using my name is an act of aggression.
I'm David Freiheit.
Nomen S. Omen.
Someone told me earlier this week, who was it?
It was last week, that David in Hebraic means beloved.
And my last name, Freiheit, means freedom in German.
That much I've known my entire life.
So beloved freedom.
It's very nice.
Dan Bongino owns some Rumble as well.
Absolutely.
It goes quite a bit as far as I understand.
And I think those institutional investors are on the open market, so it doesn't matter.
We start on Rumble, YouTube, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And at a given point, I end on YouTube because YouTube has been giving me some grief lately because it's commie censorship to.
A load of shiot is what YouTube has by way of implementing rules.
We end on YouTube.
We go over to Rumble and Locals, and then afterwards we have our Locals After Party where I take questions and mingle with our Locals community, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And that's it.
I think that's it for the introductions.
The link to Rumble is there, and I should have made sure that we're live cross-platform.
Yeah, Bongino owns...
I mean, there's so many of these free speech supporting, ass-kicking...
Internet people who own shares in Rumble, I do not own one share, and it's not for lack of want.
I would love to own shares in Rumble.
I don't want anyone accusing me of doing, accusing me of anything, and I also look like, right, but now that you see how they fabricate crimes out of whole cloth, if I talk about Rumble and I own shares, then someone's going to accuse me of something.
Which is why I felt the need to disclose that I do own some Tesla stock, which I bought back at $100 a share when I was doing the assessment of that absolute bogus decision coming out of Delaware.
Oh, and then just to explain the absolute horse crap chicanery that YouTube has been giving me.
YouTube pulled one of my videos last week, didn't give me a strike.
After having monetized the video, after having approved after manual review for monetization, they pulled it.
And won't give me a reason.
And, you know, I lose on all the appeals.
That's fine.
Since then, I've noticed some YouTube, like, just going in there, it's like, eh, we're gonna go ahead and demonetize that video as well.
Which one was it?
The Elon Musk tweet video, where I explained that Elon's Musk tweet, which ruffled some feathers over the weekend, you know, talking about immigration, you know, it might have made the stuck pigs squeal because it might have been a little bit too on point or over the target.
They took, oh no, they age-restricted that video.
Why, you might ask?
Well, I included a clip of an interview of Josh Miller on CNN talking about the migrants who, you know, beat up the police officer and then were released without bail, seen flipping the bird as they get out of prison or get out of jail.
I included that clip from a CNN interview, which they deemed was, um, oh, what did they say?
Age-restricted worthy.
And I'm like, okay, I don't know how you can possibly do that.
Maybe it's because it contained the surveillance footage of the migrants beating up the police officer.
Although, you know, every other MSM outlet that reports on that fully monetized to the Hill.
Well, actually, kind of funny.
Some of them actually had Tesla ads running on their ads, but that might have to do with my search engine.
So then I say, I'll just do a re-edit and I'll make a joke.
Censored for Commitube.
And put a little text in there.
Edit out the clip entirely.
Monetized.
Good to go.
Two days later, they demonetized that version.
Absolutely nothing in the video, except for me talking about Elon Musk's tweet.
No potentially offensive video, no infringing video of the CNN interview, still.
So, quite clearly, YouTube wants to control the narrative, control the conversation through soft censorship on certain issues.
Some of which might be border issues, immigration issues.
They might not like Elon Musk, and they might want to ensure that anyone talking about Elon Musk, his tweets, his theories, does it in a way that YouTube approves of, monetizes, and therefore promotes.
Oh.
Oh.
So that's it.
Okay, so I started off with that good joke of the mayor of Chicago getting eaten by his own.
I was going to start off with a longer clip.
And I'm going to do that one now, but before, just to let you know what the menu of the day.
So we're going to do this analysis of an amazing teacher really taking his time to force a student to come to no other conclusion than the student has to change their mind of their own preconceived notions.
We're going to cover another story on YouTube before we head over to Rumble.
Apparently, Ukraine has started targeting oil refineries in Russia.
I've got...
Not very much to say about that, but we're going to talk about it.
It's the latest developments in that war.
And then we're going to go over to Rumble.
We're going to talk about the bullcrap border bill, the three B's, bullcrap border bill.
We're going to talk about that D.C. Court of Appeal decision that just dropped this morning, right?
Reading through this 60-page decision, and it's mental gymnastics.
What it is is motivated reasoning.
Motivation is the master of reason.
They want to get to a conclusion, they're going to get to the conclusion and we're going to walk through it and then some other crap.
Okay.
Now let me just go see here.
Let me just go see here.
I got it here.
There's so many footnotes.
Where is it?
And I'm going to try to be better at breaking up sections of the streams so that I can snip and clip and put them into shorter versions.
Alrighty, people.
Look, there are good teachers out there, there are bad teachers out there, and there are good teachers who want to be good teachers but are not necessarily as skilled at what they do.
And then you have this guy who is a, I'll call him a grandmaster.
Patient, persuasive, and methodical.
I like to think that I'm, you know, when I want to be like this, I could be like this, but I do appreciate that I'm not short-tempered, but I'm impatient.
You know, when you're talking with someone, and I know people say it's a symptom of ADHD or whatever the hell, and you know what they're going to say, it becomes a little difficult to wait and let them take their time to get there.
You're like, no, no, I know what you're going to say, and then people say it's rude.
I know my own weaknesses like I know my own strengths.
Listen to this teacher basically convert a student from being a brain-dead narrative-repeating Non-critical thinking student into someone who just swallowed as much of the softest of shelled red pills that he's ever going to get in his life.
It's four minutes long.
We'll walk through it.
It's fun.
And this teacher deserves a raise.
Let's define bigoted opinions.
What opinions are bigoted?
Hold on, sorry.
So these guys want to talk about JK Rowling?
So what's going on with that?
What do you want to know?
Uh, she's had a pretty controversial past.
I just want to know, like, what are your thoughts on it?
Look at his eyes, by the way.
He's patient and he's loving.
So let's get specific though.
Let's define bigoted opinions.
What opinions are bigoted?
Look, I'd like to say that I've been saying that for a long time.
why i say study philosophy become a lawyer but do not stay a lawyer uh for too long because it will crush your spirit and destroy your soul like they say live in new york long enough to build character but not enough to destroy it this guy well i don't even know what he studied i suspect he might have studied philosophy or law but i'll find out one day maybe so when you say big you you're starting with the conclusion that given her bigoted opinions And stop right there.
And this goes back to, you know, it's going to go to the D.C. appeals decision.
There's a difference between arguing from a conclusion versus arguing towards a conclusion.
One, you start with the conclusion as a premise as opposed to premises that lead to that conclusion.
Given her bigoted opinions, carry on.
I'm sorry, that's a conclusion, not a premise.
Let's build up to the conclusion.
Are her opinions bigoted?
And this teacher does it.
When you say big of your opinion...
She has had a history of being extremely transphobic, I've heard.
And you've heard, so can you give me an example?
First of all, it almost seems scripted because it's just, it's layups.
History.
You have a history of.
Listen to what the media says, by the way.
They always say it.
History of controversial statements.
All right, show me the controversial statements.
If you look at her Twitter, I think you can see a few things.
If you want, I could try and find something.
Yeah, if you can, do it.
Do it.
So, one of these tweets that she came up with in 2019, she said, Dress however you please, call yourself whatever you like, sleep with any consent, Seems very tolerant to me.
So you find that bigoted?
What do you find about it?
No, that's not the best example.
So let me, look, the kid at least didn't try to make the argument.
All right, that's not the best example.
Let me go find another one.
But this is like, this is when you have a discussion and I say I like to do it as a thought experiment.
Give me your one to three, no more.
Don't like throw shit at a wall and hope something sticks.
Your best example to evidence what you're saying.
Just the best one so that we can stick to one and not have to run around chasing windmills.
It was deemed transphobic.
It was deemed transphobic.
Do you find that transphobic yourself?
See, this is where I would not be quite as patient as the teacher.
But good for him.
Good for him.
The world needs people that don't have short attention spans.
I don't really have an opinion on it, but I'm just going with what a lot of other people have said.
So let's pause it.
Let's not go with what other people are saying.
Let's try and learn how to critically think.
So let's analyze the tweet ourselves.
So that statement, do you see anything problematic disregarding other people's opinions?
Think for yourself.
She did try and pin some things on a specific group of people.
Where does she do that?
Can you read that?
I mean, I could not be this patient.
I don't care if your jobs for stating that sex is real.
So when I hear that, I'm interpreting that as meaning If a woman says that, you know, saying that there's a difference between men and female and then being attacked as transphobic, I think that's what she's saying by attacking someone for stating that sex is real.
Yeah, you know, like when Riley Gaines says that biological males should not be competing with biological females.
Men should not compete with biological females, regardless of how they fit.
Live your best life.
Bone who you want to bone, but you don't get to box who you want to box.
That is exactly what she's saying.
Is that transphobic to you?
So...
To me...
This kid's seeing his life flash before his eyes right now because if he says that's not transphobic, well, congratulations, the mob's gonna come after you, young man.
No, stating that sex is real is not transphobic.
It's just a fact of life that exists.
So is there anything you disagree with in that tweet?
No, not that one.
Let me go find another one.
In that tweet, I can't really see anything that I myself disagree with, but...
I can see why some people would think, oh, this is offensive.
We can't have that here or something.
That's the strongest argument the kid made.
It's like, okay, fine.
I can understand how other sensitive people or people who are looking for fights, they could say, well, we can't have that here.
So you said that we can't have it here.
Does that make it right?
Or does that make it wrong?
There's an apology tweet.
Let's read that.
What did she say there?
I haven't read that.
If this turns out to be staged I respect every trans person's right to live Any way that feels authentic And comfortable to them I'd march with you if you were discriminating Sounds pretty good.
I never realized that I actually like J.K. Rowling.
I might get into Harry Potter.
This is like when Anna Kasparian came out and said, I'm a woman, I'm going to listen to some men tell me what I can say as a woman?
This is when people get their red pills.
I mean, Anna Kasparian still has her, you know, deep and rooted, like, narrative problems, but yeah, when a bunch of men who identify as female come out and tell you what you can and cannot say, when men who identify as men come out and say what women can and cannot say, who they have to get beaten up by in the octagon, who they have to lose to in the swimming pool or on the bike track, well, then women start having a problem, start stating the obvious, and start getting cancelled for it.
The revolution devours its own people.
She's apologizing, so no.
Is that an apology?
If I could read it again.
It sounds like a very similar statement as what she was just saying.
See, if I were the kid, I would find this patronizing.
Nothing against someone being trans.
Exactly.
But you just don't get to impose on my...
You can live how you want, I can live how I want.
We've got to get to the end because the end punchline is the best.
So I guess now that we're looking at it like, oh, there's not much difference between me or her, do you think it's fair that she's being attacked by a large group of people and people are calling her like, I don't think it's a large group of people, it's just a very vocal, rabidly vocal minority.
I love it.
This guy realized he just opened a universe.
Now, retroactively looking at that statement, do you think that that was the best way to phrase it?
No, I feel like an idiot now.
That's okay, though, but this is why we do this, to learn how to think.
It's beautiful.
Now, there's two things.
I hope that doesn't turn out to be just a totally staged thought experiment, but even if it does, the points are there.
And B, I hope that that guy doesn't get totally attacked by the mob.
When they call him a transphobe for having convinced a kid that, yeah, there's nothing transphobic about stating the obvious.
So that was beautiful.
Let me see something here, what's going on in the chats.
The link to the tweet is there for those who want it.
Alright, one last story before we head on over to the free speech platform, Rumble.
Oh my goodness, have I not checked to see that we were live on Locals.
We are there.
Okay, good.
Locals.
I haven't forgotten you.
I knew that I set it up.
I'll give everybody the link to locals.
If you want to come over there and jump over Rumble, come for the after party.
Oh, stop it, Viva.
Stop it, Black Betty.
That's a hearth.
Okay, my eyes are really, really going.
And then Viva says, please give us 60 seconds of the video.
Just 60 seconds.
All I ask.
Too late.
I just saw this now.
Plus, sometimes you have to see.
You have to work through the process.
Sometimes 60 seconds isn't enough.
The last bit.
If I start with the last bit and say, well, I kind of feel like a jerk right now.
You didn't see the evolution of the mind, people.
Okay.
Next story is this.
I pulled up the tweet.
Twitter being what it is when you engage with people for the good and the wrong reasons, it promotes more of that stuff to you.
So I interacted with a guy who's named Jay Nkiv.
Some people, I mean, I didn't know who he was and I don't like saying I don't know who the person is because sometimes they seem to have big followings and maybe I should know who the person is.
An American Nkiv seems to be a journalist.
I question partiality of this journalist.
More like a commentator and a biased one at that.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Just make sure you got the good arguments.
Jane Keeve tweets out there are only 32 large refineries in Russia processing the majority of their petroleum products.
Ukraine has begun blowing them up.
TikTok.
TikTok to what?
I'm not quite certain.
And then we got a video.
I don't understand what that audio is driving me nuts.
So that was the tweet.
So I see this.
I'm like, oh, I seem to recall earlier in this war when there were questions about Russians targeting civilian infrastructure.
I recall people suggesting that that...
Oh, I seem to be blocked by the individual now.
How'd that happen so quickly?
Oh, darn it.
Well, I seem to be blocked by Jay and Keith, so maybe I'm not going to get any more responses from that.
But I do remember, once upon a time, when there were discussions about Russia targeting...
Civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.
Also, when there was talk about, you know, the U.S. potentially targeting civilian infrastructure in Germany via the Nord Stream pipeline, there was talk about that qualifying constituting domestic terrorism.
Not domestic terrorism, I'm sorry, terrorism.
I recalled that.
So I'm blocked, doesn't matter.
And then I just, you know, Googled to refresh my memory.
Pulled up the U.S. Department of Defense.
This was from October 31st, 2022.
Russia continues attacks on Ukraine civilian targets.
And I highlighted it just, you know, to refresh my memory and that of the world.
Russia is continuing its campaign of terror attacks on Ukraine as it targets civilian infrastructure, said senior defense officials.
Ukraine military has been able to defend some of the Russian attacks, but air defense remains a priority.
Damage to the electric grid and water supply are serious concerns directly harming the civilians.
Now, I'm not an idiot.
And I'm not saying that it's right when Russia does it and wrong when Ukraine does it.
I'm not a hypocrite in saying it's right when Ukraine does it, but wrong when Russia does it.
I'm a logically consistent person.
And I don't even have to take a position on it to say, if it's wrong when one does it, it's wrong when the other does it.
And if it's not wrong when one does it, it's not wrong when the other does it.
I've always found the idea.
Of rules of war to be kind of counterintuitive.
You know, the whole idea, you can't shoot a parachuting trooper out of the sky.
You have to wait for them to land on the ground before you can kill them.
I think that's a rule of war.
It's not to say I don't, I believe in lawless war.
I mean, war is hell.
But the idea, like, okay, once upon a time, they said, yeah, when Russia does it and blows up bridges and blows up, you know, electrical grids, whatever, it's terrorism.
Alright, if that's the case, are we now celebrating terrorism just because it's our ideological political ally that's doing it?
And by the way, some might even say that, you know, parties need to resort to terrorism in asymmetrical warfare.
When you can't win the war, this is the Hamas argument, when you can't win the war because you're waging it against a military superpower that will defeat you in any conventional war, you're forced to resort to terrorist-type activities.
Alright.
Can we call it that, then?
It's terrorism for both, or it's terrorism for neither.
And I can also steel man the arguments.
They're going to claim, all right, well, these are state-owned refineries.
Yeah, things are typically state-owned when they've been nationalized.
Does that make any state-owned element, any state-owned asset, fair military target?
In Quebec, hydro dams are state-owned.
If, I don't know, if there was a war with New Brunswick...
Or the rest of Canada, and they started blowing up hydro dams.
The fact that they're state-owned would not, in my mind, minimize anyone's argument that this is terroristic targeting of civilian infrastructure.
So, I mean, it highlights the motivated reasoning, the ideological double standards, the MSM narrative control.
Well, shit, now we're going to celebrate it, whereas if the adversary does it, we're going to demonize it.
If you have no ethics, if you have no standards, you have no intellectual consistency, bada bing, bada boom.
It's actually kind of amazing that I just got blocked by the individual who clearly does not want his or her followers seeing the truth.
We want to celebrate terrorism when we like it, and we want to condemn things as terrorism when we don't like it.
You know what ends up happening?
You end up living in a world where people look at...
What Hamas did in Israel and don't want to call it terrorism.
It's not terrorism.
It's just asymmetrical warfare waged by a weaker party against the military stronger party.
It's just resistance.
All right.
The revolution devours its own people.
With that said, have I missed anything?
There we go.
Bada bing, bada boom.
No.
What we're going to do right now, I'm going to give you the link one more time.
We're going to go over to The rumbles.
And carry on the party there, breaking down the latest bullshit of the day.
Such a potty mouth.
And I haven't even started, I haven't even had a drink, right?
I had a carbonate, it's a, what is this?
Caffeinated carbonated water.
I've discovered another mildly caffeinated carbonated water.
It's actually delicious.
Practice the critical thinking you preach.
I can't tell if this is intended to be an insult.
Oh, okay, so I'm sorry.
The Russians attacked Ukraine homes.
Ukraine has never attacked Russian ones.
You're making a false equivalency.
Well, no, you're actually here.
Let's have a little game of intellectual critical thought right now.
I never spoke of attacking Ukrainian homes.
That would be a separate issue.
What I did speak of was attacking civilian infrastructure.
And they were not talking about homes at that time.
Whether or not Russia deliberately targeted homes of no...
military importance, that might be a debatable fact.
Whether or not they collaterally killed civilians is an indisputable fact.
If attacking the Ukraine homes or killing civilians in the context of war makes Russia terrorists, then every military conflict Both sides are going to be terrorists, in which case, congratulations, you no longer have words that mean anything.
You will notice that we were talking about civilian infrastructure, not civilian homes, so you are the one now swapping words in to strawman an argument so that you can strawman a conclusion that no one argued.
Congratulations.
I'm not as patient as that teacher, but I hope you understand the sleight of intellectual hand, or the intellectual sleight of hand that you just tried to pull, and it might work on someone who doesn't understand the meaning of words.
Let's see this.
Okay, Theophrastus, and I know that you're not a troll.
Refineries and fuel depots are not just civilian infrastructure.
That much is true.
That will be the steelman argument.
They are...
What's the word?
When there's two things at once, they have two aspects.
One is definitely civilian, but the other is definitely military.
That same argument applies to everything.
Electrical grids, water supplies.
That is the strongest argument you can make.
Well, they're using it...
For their military machine.
True.
What is the word that I'm looking for when something has a dual use?
That might have been the word.
Certainly has a dual use.
That argument can be made for everything that civilians rely on by way of infrastructure.
Bridges?
Definitely dual use.
Civilians use them and the military.
Bridges?
Yeah.
Water supplies.
Electrical grids.
So that argument goes both ways as well.
All that to say, war is hell.
And if you were dealing with people who wanted to end this war, it would have been ended 300,000 Ukrainians ago.
But you're not.
You're dealing with a bunch of military-industrial complex, greed-driven animals who have no problem fighting to the last Ukrainian to further their ideological proxy war from which they benefit handsomely.
That's it.
Okay.
Let us go on over to Rumble, people.
That is Rumble.
And we're going to talk more about the border bill.
It's not an odd coincidence that the border bill, the $118 so-called border bill, only has $20 billion for the so-called border and has $60 billion for Ukraine aid.
That's great.
A lot of people are making a lot of money off other people's misery.
Don't negotiate.
Big Brother will come help you.
Don't negotiate.
Expel ambassadors.
It's an amazing thing.
Expel ambassadors.
Demonize them.
Frame it so that discussion would be nothing more, nothing less than appeasing Hitler, as if that even makes any sense.
Expel diplomats.
Walk away from the negotiation table.
Convince the world that there's only one outcome that can be achieved, that needs to be achieved, that will be achieved, when it's all a big fat lie, to further a proxy war, ideologically driven proxy war against Russia.
Is that to say that Russia's innocent?
Hell no.
Is that to say that in war, between two corrupt governments, you have war between two corrupt governments and the only people who suffer are the innocent civilians that are used as fodder?
Yes.
Okay.
Or maybe I'm just totally wrong.
Alright!
Move on over to Rumble, people.
YouTube.
Hasta mañana.
I will see those on YouTube who don't want to come over later.
You can get the clips and you'll get the replays later.
But the live party is going to be on Rumble and then on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
YouTube, end transmission.
All right.
Let's see what's going on in the chat in Rumble.
5,000 illegal and alien in a day in that bill was amnesty.
Then mass amnesty.
That's coming from Crash Bandit.
All right.
The border bill.
Bullcrap.
I mean, it's so beautiful that the alliteration makes itself.
The border bill is bullcrap.
So yesterday I put out a vlog, you know, breaking down, in as much as you can digest of a bill within, you know, like 24 hours of it being released, you've got to fish through 190 pages.
You've got the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs.
Everyone's dissecting this bill.
Looking for points of interest.
And then once you start picking the brains of the Bonginos of the world, of the Jimmy Doors of the world, of the Tim Pools of the world, the people who, within all of us, we have a network of smart, if not smarter people who follow, who DM, who message.
And it was like, hey, dude, did you see section 212?
Did you see the section here where they're saying, oh, this only applies to aliens coming from contiguous land masses, thereby excluding of the 5,000!
That they're gonna let in in the day.
Someone's like, did you?
The whole bill is a load of shit.
All right, so starting with the bottom line premise that the border bill is nothing but, they call it a pork thing or like a, they call it like a fat pig thing.
I forget what the word is.
A pork bill.
Border bill contains 20 billion for the border, of which, from what I understand, only 650 million went to actually reinforcing the border.
And then it contains 60 billion.
For aid to Ukraine.
And I just went through yesterday some of those provisions.
Like $4 billion for missile defense.
$2 billion for...
And they give these mildly accurate numbers.
Like $4 billion, $272 million, $580,000.
And then they don't meet their audits.
Then they fail their audits.
Where'd that money go?
We have no freaking idea.
Absolute travesty.
A travesty in terms of the sums of money being sent abroad.
$60 billion to Ukraine, $15 billion to Israel, $10 billion to Gaza and other victims of conflict.
Do you understand this also?
You got them funding both ends of conflict.
Here's $15 billion for aid to Israel.
Now Israel's going to turn around, buy some military machines from America, from military contractors, that are going to be used to cause Death and despair.
You know, depending on if you say it, as a direct intended consequence or as a collateral consequence.
And then we're going to go fund that.
Here's another $10 billion to the collateral consequence of the $15 billion we just funded on the left-hand side of the war.
There you go.
Here, left wing of the bird.
$15 billion to wreak havoc on the right wing of the bird.
Here's $10 billion to the right wing.
And look at this.
We're financing a problem of our own creation, or at least of our own aid.
It's wild.
So set aside the astronomical figures in there.
Bongino yesterday rightly pointed out that there's already a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212F, which seems to grant the power at the sole discretion of the president to shut the border, to prevent the entry of any aliens if it's deemed in the best interest, the security interest of the country.
Seems to already have that power.
But you remember that video?
Of Joe Biden, will I be able to pull it up?
Give me the power!
I just need the power!
Joe Biden, give me the power.
I just need the power.
Once you understand this, people, this was not intended to give Joe Biden powers that he didn't already have to secure the border.
This was intended to give Joe Biden powers that he didn't already have.
Of a much more sinister extrajudicial sense, and we'll get to that in a second.
listen to this here.
Thank you.
I've done all I can do.
Give me the power.
I've asked for the very day I let it off.
Give me the border patrol.
Give me the people to judge.
Give me the people who can stop this and make it work less.
First of all, can we appreciate this walking?
I don't know where the hell I am.
That scowl of senility.
Give me the power.
He already had the power to do whatever he thought necessary to secure that border.
You know what he didn't have the power to do?
Usurp state rights in terms of challenging the constitutionality of measures taken at the border.
Oh, aggregate knowledge of the internets.
Let me bring up the provision of law.
It's going to blow your freaking mind.
There you go.
These are things where everybody's going to go through this piece of legislation.
Well, it's going to be DOA, as they say.
And they're going to find things that they find shocking.
Let me just see something here.
It was...
I want to do...
It was...
Washington, D.C. was the word I was looking for.
Here we go.
This is it.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
Now, I just want to show you one thing.
You go like this.
You go Control-F.
And you put in District Court, District of Columbia.
It appears exactly two times.
Interesting.
Let me see.
I thought the first one was on page 150.
Let me see.
Yeah, so let's start with the first one.
Here, so you're under a section.
Let's see what section this is.
Gotta scroll up.
They make it impossible to understand.
Even for a lawyer.
There's a reason why they draft laws so that they're impossible for laypeople to understand.
It's so that lawyers can continue to hold on to their monopoly of the practice of law.
Either way, judicial review.
Listen to this.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, judicial review of any decision or action in this section, What the heck?
Let me start this again.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, judicial review of any decision or action in this section shall be governed only by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which shall have the sole and original jurisdiction to hear challenges,
whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity of this section, whichever section this happens to be, Or any written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure, or the implementation thereof issued by or under the authority of the secretary to implement this section.
What does this mean?
Subject to whatever the scope of the section is?
Oh, when Joe Biden came out and says, give me the power!
I didn't have the power.
First of all, you had the power.
You didn't have this power.
And if this bill were to ever pass, it would grant you a power that you never had before.
Sole and exclusive jurisdiction of arguably the most corrupt judicial district in America may be a close second to the Southern District of New York.
Can you understand this?
And just, hey, how many pages?
370 pages.
Pass it.
Bipartisan.
Pass it.
Don't read it.
Read it afterwards to pull a Nancy.
Let's go to section the second time that this comes up.
Here you've got another section.
Let's go to 150.
Hold on.
150.
Now, let's scroll down here.
Reports of asylum officer grant rates.
Okay.
Scroll down.
We know it's at page 173, so we'll just see if we can catch whatever section.
That one.
Okay.
Protection merits removal proceedings.
Not sure if this jurisdiction clause is going to apply specifically to that.
Just make it impossible to read, impossible to understand.
But one thing that is easy to understand.
Go to the second time we see this.
Judicial review.
Notwithstanding any provision of this act, judicial review of any decision or action in this section shall be governed only by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
It's cut and paste.
Basically, what are they doing here?
Whatever disputes arise out of the application of those sections, directly or indirectly, taken away from the states, taken away from the federal state courts, right up to D.C. You'll get a fair hearing there, right?
So the jurisdictional powers, which were not vested with D.C., had this bill been passed by the House, look at that!
Hey, give me the power!
I've got more power than I already had to resolve this, because now the sole court that can adjudicate on application of specific sections is D.C. Nothing corrupt about that at all.
Who were the Republicans, the Republican senators, who allowed this bill to be called bipartisan?
I made the joke that once you understand that bipartisan actually just means uni-party, I mean, call bipartisan the military-industrial, call it the deep state.
Once you understand that this is a deep state-approved bill, holy crap, does it all make a lot more sense.
So there's that.
There was that element of it.
Just give sole and exclusive jurisdiction to D.C. But wait, there's more.
Add back to screen.
I could have zoomed in a little bit.
Sorry about that.
There was a question about contiguous, I believe was the word.
Contiguous.
There was an issue about the 5,000 border reforms, special rules for contiguous continental land borders.
In general, an alien described in section 235 or 235 who arrives by land from a contiguous continental land border, whether...
Absent unusual circumstances shall be promptly subjected to the mandatory provisions of such sections.
There's going to be the question as to whether or not this means, even if they're, say, Chinese military-aged soldier-type people, whether or not they are from China but arriving through the border.
Hold on just one second so that I don't make a mistake in real time because now that I read that, contiguous might mean everybody crossing on that border crossing.
Who was it?
I believe it was Tim Pool who said, here we go.
Okay, let's just see what section they're talking about.
Aliens described in subsection A to C from non-contiguous countries shall not be included in the calculation of the sum of aliens.
Ah, there we go.
That was it.
So when they're counting, if you have an average of 5,000, if you average over 5,000 for seven consecutive days, we talked about this yesterday, then the secretary, then the government shall...
Implement some measures, you know, to stem the flow.
Under 5,000 a day, doesn't matter, they're going to get processed.
Under 5,000 a day.
What is 4,999?
I think that's 1.8 million.
Let me just see something here.
That's just assuming.
4,999 times 365.
1.824 million.
That's, that's the, the, it's granting the president more powers than he had before because now you can't stop 1.8 million illegal immigrants from entering the country.
This is wild.
Aliens described in some...
Subject to being wrong.
I mean, you don't know how these things are interpreted.
Maybe it's ambiguous wording.
Aliens described in some section 2A to C from non-contiguous countries shall not be included in the calculation of the sum of aliens encountered.
Okay, that's amazing.
I'm trying to even understand the legislative purpose for such an exclusion.
I can't even understand what would be the reason to incorporate such an exclusion there.
Let me give you all that tweet and just refresh here and see what's going on.
So there's the contiguous issue.
There's the mathematics as to what, you know, an average of 5,000 over seven days to trigger government action.
And under that, you're dealing with basically now legalized 1.824 million a year that you can't stop.
And so that if Biden is no longer in power and this bipartisan bill, bipartisan, were to have passed, well, then you cannot even stop that flow of illegal immigration.
Now, when I said that, you know, the argument here, by the way, is that they're all asylum seekers.
So there's no power of the president to suspend asylum seekers from seeking asylum.
Touch grass, you're protected.
My understanding is that might be a little more complicated than that.
First of all, let's just assume that the asylum claims are not being illegally abused, illegally claimed.
Let's set that aside for now.
That there is the idea that it's the first country the asylum seeker enters, and not the one of their preference.
And so everyone who's made it through seven different countries in the convoy, from South America or wherever they landed, referring to these Chinese military-aged men, who clearly arrived from somewhere other than Mexico, That it's the first country and not the one that they just want.
And so you land on the borders of, I don't know, Brazil.
Well, you don't get to then go through several countries to claim asylum in America.
That's not how asylum works.
Set that aside.
And then just set aside the obvious fact that asylum has become the weaponized, bastardized, diluted term to mean any immigrant, any illegal immigrant, say the magic word.
You get it.
This is from Drew Hernandez.
I'm not going to play the entire thing because you have to go watch it and I don't want to show you enough that you don't have to see the work that Drew Hernandez is doing because the dude is flipping insane.
He's going down.
This is in California.
Let me just make sure I got this here.
Yeah, here you go.
Must watch.
Military-aged male illegals encampment in SoCal.
I traveled to Jacumba, California over the weekend for Infowars and uncovered multiple illegal encampments.
You've got to be nuts to do this, Drew.
So, congrats, but don't push that envelope.
And they're talking about fighting-aged Chinese men, which is very weird.
And I asked the question, like, where are they coming from?
Let me just see if this is the right section.
Am I going to get to play this?
The wheel is spinning, but it's not getting anywhere.
Hold on.
I'll give everybody the link to this video.
I'll start from the beginning.
They have an entire illegal encampment.
We just showed up.
They have their campfires going on.
And I think they think we're here to pick them up.
While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next.
Visit Infowars.com forward slash show and share the link today.
Drew Hernandez here for Infowars.
We are here in Chacumba, California, southern border.
This is another encampment of illegals.
There's at least 100 here.
They got like campfires going on up here behind the rocks.
They say asylum seekers, and there's the old maxim, you know, when you flee war, you take your wife and kids, and when you run to fight a war, you leave the wife and kids at home.
You want to see how many whites and kids you see here?
Can you look campfires over here behind those rocks?
They have more tents that are all being put up.
And obviously this is one of the locations where this is just right here.
This is San Diego County.
And so there's a lot more military aged males here in this specific illegal in case.
I think I saw all of three females in that particular camp, but we've seen the images.
Don't look up.
And Drew observed that the Chinese asylum seekers don't want to show their faces, which is very weird, wearing masks.
I mean, it is cold.
It's 30-some-odd degrees there, so maybe they're wearing it to stay warm.
The bill does absolutely nothing other than actually legalize illegal immigration.
While giving exclusive jurisdiction ostensibly...
To D.C. while, you know, diverting $60 billion of taxpayer dollars to fund the military-industrial complex in Ukraine.
I don't think we have anything more for that.
Let me see here.
Okay, the next thing here, I got the bookmarks for the decision.
Oh, hold on one second.
We got end wokeness.
What was this one about?
Yeah, okay, so we got...
End wokeness also understood the jurisdictional argument and its importance, so I'm just going to get rid of that.
There was a video that I actually wanted to start the show off with that I forgot to start off with.
Let me go to the chat and just get involved.
Oh, we got a crash band.
It has a rant.
It says, stop it and make it work right.
WTF to make the southern border a legal port of entry.
Oh, my goodness.
It's wild.
Let me just scroll down here.
Please list the names of the rhinos.
Who voted for this bipartisan bill?
I got some questions.
I'd love to know.
I don't have the resources to do this.
I'd love to know who has an interest in any of these government contracts.
Pass the bill.
Demonize everybody who doesn't support it.
The catchword of the day is Republicans are interfering with the bipartisan bill.
And the only people saying it are the biggest Democrat liar scumbags of the Twitterverse.
Coder 182 says the USA is silently invaded.
I mean, can you imagine it's now 10 times worse than it ever was previously under Trump.
10 times worse.
Upwards of 3 million in one year alone.
It's unfreaking believable.
Ginger Ninja in the house says someone told me.
I never even thought of that.
Is that the song from The Killer?
Somebody told me that she had a boyfriend who looked like a girl.
Okay, whatever.
Excellent press conference by Matt Gaetz and Elise Stefanik today.
And then you got Dan Crenshaw.
Dan Crenshaw's rightly taking flack for this.
It's obscene.
It was obscene from beginning to end.
And my goodness, you know, I was listening to Bourbon with Barnes on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
His last night bourbon while I'm jogging this morning.
And he said the white pill is...
That there is an intellectual web out there, like a real intellectual web, not like the Sam Harris intellectual web, of people who, everybody has their expertise, everybody has their communities, dissecting this in real time within 24 hours.
The world, or anybody with half a brain or eyes mildly open, knew that that bill was a load of bull.
And it looks like it's been defeated, and those who supported it are going to be rightly mocked and politically humiliated, as they should be.
All right.
What I wanted to start off with was a video of this.
Let me see if I can do this.
You know, you see these videos.
Hold on.
Don't listen to it.
Don't listen to it, people.
Ted Lieu.
Let's just play the rabbit hole game here.
Don't listen to it.
Ted Lieu.
We're going to go to the original clip.
Now, am I stupid for having expected anything more from Biden- Harris HQ.
Trump says America is, quote, pathetic, end quote.
The country is just so pathetic.
Oh, okay.
Let's see what he says.
That's what he says.
The country is just, it's so pathetic.
And you know, other countries are watching this.
The country is just, it's so pathetic.
And you know, other countries are watching this.
You know it's always the dead giveaway?
That it's going to be a load of propaganda dishonest bullshit?
A six second clip!
I'm sorry, what?
You couldn't give a at least four second buffer on both ends?
Now being a linguist, or as a lawyer, or as some people say a liar, I could dissect this pretty quickly.
The country is just...
The country is just...
It's so pathetic.
It's so pathetic.
Anybody...
Oh, God, I feel stupid.
You're all going to be intellectually insulted.
What is the it to which you're referring?
Do I have to pull a frickin' Seymour Skinner out of The Simpsons?
What is the it to which you're referring?
Is it the country?
Or is it something else that is so pathetic?
Like...
The law enforcement's ability to deal with migrants beating the ever-loving piss out of law enforcement.
I don't know.
I don't know.
So I go down the rabbit hole because I saw this from Ted Lieu.
Unlike Donald Trump, President Joe Biden believes in America.
POTUS believes in the American people, believes in bipartisanship.
Oh my God.
Can I, can I, can I, if I, like I'm going to vomit Skittles and rainbows.
This is so corny.
Believes in bipartisanship and unlike Trump will never call our country pathetic.
Ted Lieu, you're a goddamn liar.
Just so you know that.
If you're watching, getting smarter, you're a godforsaken liar.
Not stupid.
Not mistaken.
You're a liar.
We are the greatest country in the world.
We will not Trump tear us down.
Oh, oh, okay.
I have to go find the interview.
Just to see.
What is the it to which he's referring?
Everybody, I'm going to give you a bit of a buffer on both ends because I don't want to be accused of taking things out of context.
These are rough guys and you see them just pounding our police who are laying on the ground.
And they don't even get bail.
And then they get out and they give everybody the finger.
They give you the finger and cursing at everybody like, you know.
We're so pathetic as a country in terms of law and order.
We have the greatest police in the world, but they're not allowed to do their jobs.
Let's just play that again.
So pathetic as a country in terms of law and order.
We have the greatest police in the world, but they're not allowed to do their jobs.
I'll play the game.
Spot the lie.
Anybody who finds anything either a lie or inaccurate in what Trump is saying, please let me know.
200 usually young people walk into a department store and totally strip it of everything.
Walk out with television sets.
And the police, you know, are dying to do their work.
Just like Border Patrol.
They're dying to do their work.
But they're not allowed to do their work.
Rob, they're not allowed to do it.
They're not allowed to do anything.
They have to stand there, and they're told if you do anything, you're fired, and you lose your pension, you lose your family, you lose your house, you lose everything.
The police want to do the job, and they're not doing it, Rob.
They're not allowed to do it.
I want to ask you...
The country is just...
It's so pathetic.
And you know, other countries are watching this.
I'll tell you what.
I got to know Putin very well.
I got to know Xi very well.
I got along with everybody, you know, etc., etc.
But they knew it was no games.
I was talking to Putin.
Oh, so now we know that the it is so pathetic is the ability to enforce the law.
Yeah, I think that's probably right.
These people, they really are the scum of the earth.
And then, by the way, appreciate what Ted Lieu just said there.
We're not going to let Trump tear us apart.
So what does Ted Lieu do?
He takes something out of context to make it believe...
That Trump was criticizing America, thus tearing it down.
So he lies to tear people down and then accuses Trump of doing it.
It's amazing.
I'll give everybody the link to that video so they can go share it and blast anyone who posts that as if to suggest that Trump was calling America pathetic.
What he might have been doing is calling those godforsaken politicians who criminalize the practice of law enforcement pathetic.
Because they are.
They're not just pathetic.
They're traitorous.
Link to tweet in the chat.
Enjoy it.
Here, locals.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Oh, lordy lordy.
It's like an endless effort to keep up with the lies.
And then you have to say, well, which lie am I going to pick on today to try to debunk?
What aspect of the insanity am I going to focus on today?
Because it doesn't end, it doesn't slow down, and it's only accelerating at an exponential rate.
Democrat shitholes are pathetic, says Leg Day Reps.
Well, at least you didn't forget your leg days.
Duck Fat says...
Duck Fat says...
And I read that as a spoonerism, as in F that.
Okay, Viva.
They don't take everything, but they do take everything they can.
Semantics, but you asked.
They don't take everything.
Oh, I don't know.
Getting banned from shithole...
Okay, fine.
I'm not going to read that.
And then I think that's...
Okay, that's good.
So that's the fun breakdown.
Ted Lieu's a liar.
And in case you had any doubts, Biden dash...
What is it called?
Biden dash Harris HQ, liars.
But I think everybody could probably tell that from a six-second clip that purports to say things.
DC ruling, people.
You knew it was going to happen.
I mean, you knew the DC Court of Appeal was going to rule this way before they did.
SCOTUS says we're not hearing the expedited...
Direct to the Supreme Court adjudication of Trump's presidential immunity claim in the D.C. Are we calling it the insurrection case?
We'll call it the insurrection case.
You'll recall that Jack Smith, who really saw his March 5th, March 4th deadline for a trial, disappearing into thin air, says, well, shit, okay, we...
We now know that the case has been suspended in D.C. pending an adjudication on Trump's claim for presidential immunity.
Judge Chutkin can't do anything about it until they rule on that.
So Jack Smith then says, expedite this to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, of these United States of America, so they can adjudicate on it, hopefully send a ruling back so that we can hopefully stick to our March 4th, March 5th deadline, whatever it is, the Monday before the Super Tuesday.
Not going to happen.
Not going to happen.
But Supreme Court says, no, no, we're not doing that.
Go through the regular course.
We can benefit from the reasoning.
And I'll put reasoning in quotes of the Court of Appeal.
And they sent it back to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal just came down with their decision this morning.
And in case any of you are going to be unpleasantly surprised, it's a steaming pile of judicial horse manure.
The only question now, I'm not sure what happens now if it goes potentially to an en banc review, or en banc, if you want to pronounce it properly, a bench review of more than three judges from the...
D.C. Court of Appeal.
I don't know if that happens before the Supreme Court has to take it up.
Supreme Court, I suspect, is going to take it up.
And they damn well better overturn this steaming pile of judicial dog manure of a judicial decision.
What I've done to facilitate things for everybody, I've done the hard work, I guess, or the tedious work so that you don't have to.
I just need to make sure I get my tweets in chronological order.
I screen grabbed 12 screen grabs from this decision, just to highlight, you know, what I think are the important parts.
Starting at the beginning, these are in order.
I just should have kept the pages to the extent I could have.
This is from the ruling, where it says, and I'll read it, This is why I highlighted this.
They summarize the three grounds that they're going to have to get around to deny him presidential immunity.
So, talking about motivated reasoning, you're going to see here, They set out what they have to overturn before they overturn it and then you can just argue backwards.
He advances three grounds for establishing this expansive immunity for former presidents.
One, Article III courts lack the power to review the president's official acts under the separation of powers doctrine.
Separation of powers.
He was acting within his presidential authority when he was trying to ensure the integrity of elections.
Or, if you ask Jack Smith and others, when he tried to overturn the president's election through insurrection.
Two, so Article III separation of powers.
Okay.
How are they going to get around that?
Two, functional policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers require immunity to avoid intruding on executive branch functions.
Okay.
And three, the impeachment judgment clause does not permit the criminal prosecution of a former president in the absence of Congress impeaching and convicting him.
I thought the third one was certainly the strongest.
Okay.
These are the hurdles they have to overcome.
You get into the separation of powers doctrine.
And they summarize it so that you can know what to say.
And they go on for pages and pages.
The President of the United States, quote, occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme.
Okay.
Settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.
Okay, fine.
We therefore conclude Article...
So they go through their whole thing.
Okay.
They got to get to the conclusion.
Article 3 doesn't bar them from prosecuting.
Persecuting.
They have power.
To interfere with presidential executive authority.
Whatever.
We conclude that Article 3 courts may hear the charges...
We therefore conclude that the Article 3 courts may hear the charges alleged in the indictment under the separation of powers doctrine, as explained by Marbury and his progeny in the applied and analogous context of legislative and judicial ununity.
The indictment charges that former President Trump violated criminal laws of general applicability.
Acting against laws enacted by the Congress, he exercised power that was at its, quote, lowest ebb.
Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law, and he is answerable in court for his Congress.
Okay, fine.
Agree with it or disagree with it?
I mean, you've heard the argument here.
If you break the law, no one is above the law.
And when he's out of office, he can't just say, I was acting as president when I pulled out, you know, a gun and killed the chef because I didn't like the chowder.
Okay.
One would think that you'd still need to be impeached before that.
Otherwise, what's going to stop rogue prosecutors from, after the fact, harassing former presidents where they weren't impeached while they were president?
What's going to stop that?
Nothing.
And I'll make that point later on.
Then we got...
This is item four of our first set of notes.
We note that at the outset of our analysis is specific to the case before us in which former president has been indicted on federal criminal charges arising from his alleged conspiracy to overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his presidential term.
Oh yeah.
Because he did that after all, right?
We do not address the policy considerations.
Okay, forget that.
We consider the policy concerns at issue in this case in two respects.
First, we assess possible intrusions on the authority and functions of the executive branch and the countervailing interest to be served as those concerns apply to former President Trump's claim that former presidents are categorically immune from federal prosecution.
That was the art.
I could kill someone.
And if I did, presumably I'd be impeached for it.
Unless you're Obama and you extrajudicially assassinate an American citizen.
Don't worry about it, Big B, you'll be fine.
Big O, you'll be fine.
No, Barack, Big B. Big B, Big O, whatever.
That you can do.
Kill an American citizen through a drone strike in a foreign country with no judicial process.
Bada bing, bada boom, you're fine.
Illegally smuggle guns to cartels in South America and then result in the death of a border agent.
You're fine.
We conclude that the interests in criminal accountability held by both the public and the executive branch outweighs the potential risks of chilling presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.
Of course you do now, because you're never going to do this to a Democrat.
We're not worried about, you know, chilling actions and vexatious proceedings, because we're never going to do that to one of our own unless there's a good reason to.
You know, Joe Biden might be next on the chopping block.
We examine the...
Okay, second.
I think that's it.
All right.
So that's one set of tweets.
One set of screen grabs.
Let me send that to Hugh here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
And to our locals community, bada bing, bada boom.
And Mr. Mike, Mr. Mike says, I think Tucker, not to divert traffic away from me, I think Tucker is going live with Putin.
InfoWars is streaming it right now.
Wow, if he does it live, that would be amazing.
Okay, now, number two under this decision.
And this is one of my favorites.
Let me see this.
Number two, number three.
Hold on one second.
Two, three.
That should be three of three.
Oh, there might be another one here.
Viva Fry.
This one.
Okay, here we go.
This is it.
This was my reply to my other tweet.
This was the part that I loved, and this is the one to highlight for everybody.
There is also a profound Article II interest in the enforcement of federal criminal laws.
We all agree this.
Nobody's above the law, right?
This is all subject to how they get around the double jeopardy impeachment, because all of this could be true.
Yes, we need to enforce the laws.
Nobody's above the law.
But if you were not impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, what authority do we have?
Or not just that, if you were actually acquitted, what authority do we have to then come after you again for ostensibly the same charges?
Oh, they're different.
We'll get there.
There's also a profound Article 2 interest in the enforcement of federal criminal laws.
The president has a constitutionally mandated duty.
Duty.
To take care of the laws.
To take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
And my point with this was, holy crap apples, is this funny?
In the context of Joe Biden not enforcing immigration laws.
Holy crap, is it funny.
They'll never come after him unless they want to because he's a demented old fool and they need a useful tool instead.
The federal prosecution of a former president fits the case, quote, when judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests, end quote, in order to, quote, vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution.
Listen to this.
The risks of chilling presidential action or permitting meritless harassing prosecutions are unlikely, unsupported by history, and, quote, too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.
Holy shiat.
What delusional universe are you living in, D.C. Court of Appeal?
It's, it's, I'm sorry, what did I say?
Unsupported by history?
It's supported by the president, by the present.
Indictments in Georgia, indictments in New York, indictments in D.C., indictments in Florida.
Nothing but judicial harassment.
Oh, it's unsupported by history.
And it's too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.
It's in your face right now.
And by the way, surprise, surprise, you're a part of it.
Oh, it's never been done before.
Yeah, because you guys have never been rabid animals before.
Now it's happening all the time.
The president, of course, also has a duty under the take care clause to faithfully enforce the laws.
I just love that.
I said sarcastically, well, this will never come back to bite them in the ass.
And it won't because they will never use it to bite them in the ass unless they really want to.
They'll come after Mayor Eric Adams, no one's above the law, when there's a politically good reason for them to do it.
They'll come after Cuomo when there's a good political reason to do it.
Now, this one I brought for a specific reason.
Oh, this is the Impeachment and Judgment Clause.
Okay.
Oh, really?
They're inferring intent as to what they did not intend to be following from an acquittal.
On impeachment charges.
Let's just see how they get there.
And then it was...
See that...
Okay, well, I guess that might do it for that one.
All right.
Now we're going to end and we're going to get to the last one, which is the impeachment.
How do they get around the impeachment?
How do they get around the double jeopardy?
They get around the impeachment to say, well, yeah, the framers never intended to require a conviction.
On impeachment in order to facilitate, permit, authorize subsequent criminal charges.
They never intended that.
And even if they did, well, he's not being charged for the same thing for which he was already acquitted in impeachment.
It's the mental gymnastics of scoundrels.
All of this leads us to conclude that under the best reading of the impeachment judgment clause, a former president may be criminal prosecuted in federal court without any requirement that he first be impeached and convicted for the same conduct.
But don't worry, by the way, even if you're not convinced by that, even if you're not convinced by that, even if we assume that an impeachment trial is a criminal, Is criminal under the double jeopardy clause, the crimes alleged in the indictment differ from the offense for which Trump was impeached and acquitted.
There's nothing you can do!
There's absolutely nothing you could do to get around this court coming to the conclusion to which they want it to come.
In determining whether two charges are the same for double jeopardy purposes, the same elements test, known as the block burger.
It's an unfortunate name.
If each offense contains an element not contained in the other, the offenses are different.
Okay, and then we get it.
Bottom line?
Mental gymnastics.
They get there.
Former president does not dispute this analysis and instead contends that rather than applying the block Ah, no, no, no, no.
Too bad.
Too bad.
But the argument is foreclosed by case law.
The, quote, same conduct rule is wholly inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedent and with the clear common law understanding of double jeopardy.
Thus, well-established law interpreting the double jeopardy clause undermines rather than supports former President Trump's argument that he may not be prosecuted.
Perhaps recognizing that normal double jeopardy rules disfavor his position, he claims that the impeachment judgment clause incorporates, quote, double jeopardy principles that are distinct from double jeopardy clause.
But if the double jeopardy principles he invokes are unmoored from the double jeopardy clause, we are unable to discern what the principles are or how.
He thus fails to establish that his Senate acquittal bars criminal prosecution.
Of course he does.
Thus, in conclusion, we have balanced the former President Trump's asserted interest in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed.
We conclude that, quote, In this case.
We have also considered his contention that he's entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly, quote, official, end quote, action that he took as president, a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history, or the text and structure of the Constitution.
Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by the double jeopardy principles, end quote.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.
You got it, people.
You ever, you ever, uh...
You ever see what it's like to argue with a wall?
The link and the link.
This court was a judicial wall.
It was a judicial brick wall.
Like that meme, the guy talking to a wall, trying to convince it.
They had their conclusion.
That could have been drafted before any proceedings.
And I think from what I, you know, it was a pre-drafted decision.
There you have it.
All claims denied.
Nothing to see here.
Go on.
Supreme Court.
Oh, yeah.
Tammy Howard Jackson says, resolution to impeach Mayorkas passes in real time.
Hold on one second.
Let me see.
Oh, there's two things.
Okay, well, I'll do the Mayorkas, and then I'm going to do...
Let me see here.
Google Mayorkas vote.
Let's just see here.
Let's get that one.
House Republicans are ready to impeach 35 minutes ago.
Vote will be close.
Hold on one second.
What?
Can I get an update here?
Where am I?
Okay, well, forget it.
The other update, and I just saw it now on the news, is the mother guaranteed convicted.
Crumbly's mother, let's just see here.
Michigan finds school shooter's mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Well, there you go.
That was an easy prediction.
All right.
Well, let's...
It's a world of lawfare and political prosecutions, persecutions.
So Crumbly's mother, convicted.
Mayorkas, let's just see here.
I'm going to go put this in Mayorkas.
Twitter is the first place that you get the news from, but I don't see any news.
It's two hours old, 16 hours.
Okay, whatever.
locals.
What happened?
Okay, I can't see what happened there.
People, there's a couple more things that we're going to talk about here before we go to the Locals Exclusive Party.
We got a Mitch...
Oh, this is a Mitt Romney video.
Okay, I'll get to that.
Okay, hold on one second.
I'm just going to clear up some stuff on the backdrop.
Okay, the D.C. Court of Appeals.
This was my tweet, but that we already covered.
I think we've covered it all on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Oh, well, there's a tweet from Julie Kelly who's doing a great job covering this.
She's highlighting the...
I think we covered this one.
Yeah, the risks of chilling presidential...
Okay, that was...
She and I picked up on the same absurdity.
Yes, yes.
There's no history of the chilling effects of harassing prosecutions except for everything we've been living through for the last two years.
But yes, no evidence whatsoever.
All right, we're going to end on this, people.
Then we're going to go on over to locals for our after party.
Mitt Romney, proving that he's a Democrat.
at Donald Trump and the fact that he would communicate that flying scoundrel size and senators and Congress people that he doesn't want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is really a Appalling.
a crisis at the border.
The American people are suffering as a result of what's happening at the border.
And it's Trump's fault.
And someone running for president ought to try and get the problem solved as opposed to saying, hey, save that problem.
Don't solve it.
Let me take credit for solving it later.
He doesn't.
He If I'm looking at his eyes, he doesn't even believe the bullshit that he's saying.
If I might be projecting my own sincerity into his eyes, he doesn't look like he believes what he's saying.
Certainly in the second part.
The reality is that we have a crisis at the border.
The American people are suffering as a result of what's happening at the border.
And imagine him not outright blaming Biden for this, and imagine him not outright understanding that that bill not only wouldn't solve the problem, would actually only legally legitimize.
I mean, I guess if you legalize it, it stops being a problem, right?
Someone running for president ought to try and get the problem solved.
Mitt Romney, thank you for confirming that you are indeed the scoundrel, the two-faced liar, and the Democrat-in-disguise hypocrite that so many people have been saying you were for so long, and I just now thoroughly was convinced.
Alrighty, people.
I see Steve Britton is saying something about locals, but okay.
Now, what we're going to do here, people, we're going to go over to locals in two seconds, but I don't want to be unfair to the locals' tips, because there's a few in there.
Come on over to locals for the after party, and I'm going to read the tip questions and see if there's any, and then invite some more as we get in there.
We got MJ Wienke.
Let me see if I can share this.
Here.
I think I can do this.
Oh, here we go.
It's South Park.
I don't know what the context is, but it looks like a good meme.
Let me go see what the context was to that.
Mr. Mayor, what color is your wife?
Okay.
We got YL Dreamin sent a $10 tip.
Please look at the exceptions on the border bill.
I posted on the board about it.
It's bad.
I think we got to the exceptions.
I think the exceptions being non-contiguous aliens.
I'll go to the local board and see if there were others.
MJ Wynick says the teacher is Warren Smith.
Well, I'm going to go make friends with him.
I don't want to even feel like I'm doxing the teacher.
I'm going to see if I can find him on Twitter.
Teacher deserves a raise, and the teacher, I want to follow this teacher.
Hold on, I think it's...
Dude, I don't know if that's...
The guy's got 383 followers on Twitter?
Let me see if there's a picture.
That doesn't look like the teacher.
Before, I don't want to risk identifying a person who's not.
Let me see if this is the right one here.
Oh, I'm at a wrong Smith.
I got the wrong...
Okay.
Let me just see before I get...
Because there's a number of these accounts with...
Oh.
There we go.
Look at this.
That looks more like him.
Following.
Bam!
Dude's a good-looking guy.
WTSmith17 is the Twitter account.
Okay.
Thank you.
Who gave that to us?
I'm following him.
I'm going to DM him because I'd love to have him on.
We got S underscore Ren says, Viva Fry, we deem the we have the power because we interpret the law.
Just accept it because we are smarter than you.
Finboy Slick, Barnes, Reynolds, and Viva De Luce from Cannonball Run.
Hopefully you're not too young to know this one.
I've seen Cannonball Run, but I haven't seen it in a long time.
Everybody, when I say that at vivabarneslaw.locals.com we have a community that is above average, their sense of humor is also amazing.
This is what I would look like if I got fat, at least.
I mean, there's nothing wrong.
You don't want to be...
Proper weight, healthy, not have any issues.
If I were to get fat, I know exactly what I would look like.
Still not bad.
No, not terrible looking.
That's hilarious.
God, I'm going to screen grab that.
Thank you for that.
That's actually a fantastic, a fantastic image.
Oh, God.
Give me my glasses, though.
I need my glasses.
Barn's looking good.
What do we got here?
We got...
And then we got S.Laird, 56, says, Viva, ever heard of...
Or is that Jay Johnson talk about Border Crosser during Obama?
He said, I believe everything over 4K was catastrophic.
Clip from YouTube.
I'll go get it right now, S. Laird.
Thank you very much.
All right, people, this is what we're going to do.
We're going to come over here and get some Q&A at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
And that is it.
Locals.
What do I have on for the week?
Tomorrow I might be testifying.
In a criminal trial.
So I don't know if I can schedule a stream until I know when I'm going to testify.
If I know that I'm not going to testify, then I might just schedule the stream.
So I'm not sure about tomorrow.
If I can't do a stream because I'm on call to testify in a criminal trial, I will at least try to get a car vlog out.
Thursday, Eva Chepiak is coming on.
I don't know exactly what time to talk about a class action lawsuit out of Alberta.
And we'll have some other fun stuff.
So Thursday's going to be a good interview.
And Friday, who knows?
Maybe I'll get this Texas teacher to come on and have a good interview.
So that's what's in store for the rest of the week.
Everyone on Rumble, if you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, enjoy the day.
Get out there.
Sunlight.
Exercise.
Although some of you are living in a side of the hemisphere that doesn't have much sunlight these days.
And we got, let's see here.
Well, I'm just reading some of the chat.
But no, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We're going to end on Rumble now.
And I'll try to throw together either a car vlog or a highlight for the decision because people should understand what's in that decision.