Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 12, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:01:44

Canada, Trump, Hawaii, Podesta, Tucker & Putin AND MORE! Ep. 197 - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, Rishi Sunak.
	I've got so much to say, but such little time.
	My name is John Watt, and I'm one of the COVID vaccine-injured in this country.
	I want you to look into my eyes, Rishi Sunak, and I want you to look at the pain, the trauma, and the regret I have in my eyes.
	We have been left with no help at all.
	Not only am I in here that's vaccine-injured, there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that COVID-19 vaccine.
	I know people who have lost legs, amputations.
	I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak.
	Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people who have been affected by that COVID-19 vaccine?
	Why are the people who are in charge, who told us all to do the right thing, have left us all to rot and left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot?
	Rishi Sunak, look me in the eye.
	When are you going to start to do the right thing?
	The vaccine damage payment scheme is not fit for purpose.
	In Scotland right now, according to the yellow card system, there are over 30,000 people who have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine.
	Okay.
	John, thank you very much indeed for your question.
	Thank you for you to start doing the right thing.
	Cut the mic.
	Cut the mic.
	Look at that guy's face.
	You've made a really strong point, John.
	Prime Minister.
	Look at him, look at him.
	Very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances and you said someone over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing.
	Look at him working the crowd.
	I don't know about the individual situation that you're in.
	I don't know.
	We are the most stylish people in this country.
	The silence in the press because my story in the press had to go to the government for comment and they made me take all this stuff out.
	Forgive me.
	Forgive me both.
	Cut the mics.
	No one is saying you are.
	I've lost my house.
	My wife has a successful career.
	And, sir, you've raised some very valid points, I'm sure.
	What I've got to say is...
	And, sir, you've raised some points.
	We're moving on.
	Thank you.
	Let's let Rashi Sunak try to...
	Do you see the way he drinks?
	From the water bottle in the beginning, I'll get to it.
	I'm a filthy, grubby politician, is what he is.
	We haven't got you on microphone, and as you know, we've got to get through this.
	I'm sure we can raise your points with the Prime Minister at a later date, but in the meantime, Prime Minister, if you cover the issue...
	I'm very happy to.
	There is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place.
	A vaccine compensation scheme might be the accurate way of describing it, Rashi.
	We've got it in Canada too.
	Very happy to go look at your cases.
	Rashi, you might want to use a different phraseology there.
	You'll get them to the team here.
	I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody.
	That is surprising to me.
	So please do get your details to Stephen and the team.
	By the way, for everyone who's been suppressed and censored on social media, all you have to do is get involved, is get invited or get into a town hall and speak directly to the, with an effing guy's position as Premier or whatever, Prime Minister, Rashi Sunak.
	All you have to do, people, after you've been, you know...
	Suppressed and silenced on social media after you've had your vaccine injury claims rejected or whatever, or you get, you know, piddly squat from a...
	All you have to do then is speak directly to him and then get your digits to his personnel.
	Then they'll look at you.
	That's all you have to do.
	Take that away.
	Of course you should be able to speak about your experience, what's happened to you.
	And as I said, we have a compensation...
	I'm sorry, this guy's famous.
	Are you unaware of the Twitter files?
	Were they suppressing individual stories for fear that it might promote vaccine hesitancy?
	You didn't know about that?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	And what's your position again?
	...scheme in place for that, and I'll make sure that we're working through that.
	Obviously, I think you'll appreciate it's hard for me to comment on your specific circumstances, just not knowing them and those things that...
	Our viewers and listeners won't be able to...
	I think the last thing I'd say is, you know, we went through a pandemic.
	Like everyone else.
	No, like everyone else.
	At the points when it came to the vaccine, those decisions were always taken on the basis of medical advice from our medical experts.
	We were just following orders, you see.
	We don't say it with a German accent anymore.
	Times have changed.
	We now say it with a British accent.
	We were just following orders from the medical experts.
	To tell us, as politicians, who are obviously not doctors, about how best to roll out the vaccine, what was in the public health interest, the priority order, how that should be done, who should be eligible.
	That was something that the doctors recommended on, and that's something that we followed.
	Now, obviously...
	He literally just said it.
	It's an amazing thing, by the way.
	Viva just following orders!
	Yeah, oh, no, no, you can't say that.
	Don't compare anything to that blip.
	of a historical anomaly known as World War II.
	We were just following orders!
	Oh no, it's much more different, you see.
	The history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	And so now you have Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of England.
	Oh, well they told us what to do, you see, and then we did it.
	So when they told us that the Jews were vermin and disease carriers and we had to quarantine them, you see, we were just following orders.
	Oh my goodness!
	I mean, what's an amazing thing is I didn't actually think it could get much more damning.
	After the guy asked this question.
	And then Rishi Sunak opened his beautiful mouth.
	It's just amazing if you say it with a British accent.
	It's very sympathetic.
	It's almost like you did not just commit atrocities.
	What's that?
	We were listening to the experts who we immunized?
	The experts that were paying us?
	We listened to them as we told you what to do.
	And threatened cutting off your livelihood and locking you in your home if you didn't.
	We listened to what they told us to do after we immunized them, and now we know that they lied to us.
	But sorry, so sorry, sir.
	Please give us your numbers and we'll go and check out your heart later on.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	A lot of chat that I want to bring up here.
	Hey, Viva, hey, potato.
	No, I wanted to bring this one up.
	Liberalism is a mental illness.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I've seen people...
	Become lefty, liberal as they get older.
	And I don't know how to qualify it as anything else other than maybe not a mental illness, but diagnostic, determinative traits that are very common, if not ubiquitous.
	Is that not the right word?
	Common thread through all.
	They begin to take themselves very seriously, you see, and they think that they're smarter than everyone for merely following the people who they have deemed to be smarter than everyone.
	They lose their sense of humor, they lose their introspection, they lose their self-reflection and insight, and they become absolute bloody tyrants, I tell you!
	Oh my goodness!
	We were all going through a pandemic, you see, and so what you do in a pandemic is you experiment on humans.
	I mean, that was the lesson that we learned from...
	From Nazi Germany, right?
	That was the lesson from the Nuremberg Code.
	Well, when you're in a time of crisis, made or man-made, you experiment on humans.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You see, I was just doing what Dr. Mengele told me.
	Oh, you're not supposed to do vivisections on live pregnant women?
	Oh, I'm so sorry.
	I was just doing what the Emperor of Japan was telling me to do.
	This is real stuff, by the way.
	Oh, what's that?
	You're not supposed to kill all of your test subjects while administering drugs to them, as Bayer did with Holocaust women?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We were just doing what the experts told us to do.
	Don't blame me.
	Blame them.
	All right, so we're doing this Sunday show on a Monday, people.
	If I look tired, I'm looking at myself.
	This bag under my eye here might be the harsh lighting.
	If I look tired, it's because I'm tired.
	My wife has not left me forever, but she's left me.
	She went back to Montreal for a week, and she's coming back very shortly.
	Parenting, I've said it before, I'll say it every time she leaves.
	Parenting is a two-person job.
	I don't know how single parents manage.
	Career, kids, all of that stuff, pets, and sanity.
	And it's like, I'm a professional chauffeur.
	I drive people around all day long.
	Yesterday I had to wake up at 5.30 in the morning, drive one kid somewhere, come back, drive another kid somewhere, but then you can't leave one kid alone, so you've got to take the kids with you.
	Then you've got to go to Target, buy a bunch of Nerf dart guns, and they're amazing, by the way.
	And it's wild.
	And then you've got to try to be productive, and then if you can't be productive, then you feel bad that you're not being productive.
	If you don't get your exercise in, then you start feeling bad about yourself physically.
	It's a wild thing.
	Parenting is a two-person job.
	Can't say a two-man job.
	So all that to say, if I look stressed and tired, I probably am.
	But yesterday, I can't show the video here because my own content will get copy claimed by the video licensing agency that's licensing the video.
	I went fishing yesterday and I tried to get the kid to come fishing.
	I say, come fishing with me.
	My boy, you want to go fishing?
	Who doesn't?
	If I wish I had a father who invited me fishing when I was a kid.
	No, we don't catch anything.
	I'm going to sit here.
	Okay, fine.
	I go fishing at a pond on another area.
	I cast once into the water.
	I catch a tilapia.
	I cast a second time into the water.
	I catch a big bass.
	I cast a third time into the water.
	And then I start recording.
	It's like, geez, I'm two for two.
	I'm going to start recording.
	What the heck is my problem?
	Fate is what it is, because had anything in the day been different, I wouldn't have been there at that moment with my hook, at that spot, at that moment, when I decided to record the third fish.
	And I hook into something.
	And I reel it in.
	And I caught a fishing rod.
	I swear to you people, I'm not joking.
	I'll send you all the links.
	I caught a flipping fishing rod.
	Okay, okay.
	So, and like, it's an amazing thing.
	Had the kid come with me, it wouldn't have happened.
	Had I not driven everyone at that specific point, it wouldn't have happened.
	I caught a fishing rod.
	I'll give everybody the link.
	Actually, no one's going to believe me if I don't get the link right now.
	Hold on.
	Rumble.
	You're all going to want to go watch that.
	The most mind-blowing thing ever.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	Boom shakalaka, people.
	And the tilapia was good.
	I mean, it was one of those disgusting retaining ponds.
	I mean, I'm not eating that crap in a million years unless the zombie apocalypse comes.
	If the shit hits the fan in the world, I'll be able to hunt iguana.
	I'll be able to hunt and fish and get all the stuff.
	I'll be able to survive.
	Yeah, but I caught a fishing rod.
	All right.
	So until Barnes gets here, by the way, we're having an amazing show tonight.
	There's so much to keep up with.
	Oh, by the way, all that, you know, I'm so busy because my wife is out of town.
	Feel sorry for me.
	It's only because I didn't do all of my homework.
	So it was sort of like the dog ate my homework, except it's my wife is gone.
	I couldn't do all my reading, Robert.
	I think I did everything, though, so we'll see.
	I was about to say something.
	Let me see.
	Just because I'm painfully, cripplingly neurotic.
	This stream contains a paid promotion because it does and by the way, it's a new sponsor and it's a it's Okay, I'll show you what the grains look like and then I'm gonna get into the spiel look at this the it's it is Everything about it is magnificent the smell The branding, the packaging, but above all else, the taste.
	Hold on one second.
	I've got to share the screen.
	1775, by the way.
	They've gotten around, you know, the...
	If you say 1776, like Vivek was doing during his run, you know, that...
	Hey, Owen Schreuer went to jail for saying 1776.
	I'm joking.
	But this is the year before 1776, and it's coffee, and it's damn good.
	On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you hate shitty coffee?
	They let me swear.
	They let me swear for this one.
	I hate shitty coffee.
	I mean, like with such a passion, when I drove my kid summer yesterday, I had to drink Starbucks coffee.
	I hate it.
	This morning, I ground up the coffee and I made $17.75.
	And it's like, I'm like before $17.76.
	It's like, I see into the future.
	I hate it.
	And this is why I'm excited to introduce you guys to a company revolting against shitty coffee.
	$17.75 company.
	By the way, I'll show you.
	It says exclusive partnership with Rumble.
	In 1775, the world has awakened to a new era.
	And now 1775 Coffee is bringing you a coffee that embodies the revolutionary spirit.
	Crafted with passion and precision, our beans are ethically and exclusively sourced from the finest farms in Bolivia.
	Yeah.
	Geographically, I'm going to see if I can drive to Bolivia.
	I think I can, 7075, it's a farm to cup journey.
	It's the highest quality, authenticity, sustainability from start to finish with each sip you're, It's strong coffee, by the way.
	It's not like that.
	It's not tea water.
	It's strong, bold, robust.
	Much like me.
	1775 takes pride in offering customers truly exceptional coffee experience, premium coffee collection, but their dedication to this revolution extends beyond the realm of taste.
	Safeguarding freedom of speech is a critical right now, which is why they've joined specifically with Rumble in defense of one of our most fundamental rights.
	We're going to get to the other one, Second Amendment, which is under attack in Hawaii.
	Freedom of speech.
	Coffee that's sure to awaken all senses, including the sense of freedom.
	Go to 1776.com forward slash Viva.
	Mmm.
	Promo code VIVA for 10% off your first order at checkout.
	It's delicious, period.
	That's it.
	Like, hands down.
	And there was something else I was going to show you about it.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	Okay, that's it.
	Thank my sponsor.
	The link is in the pinned comment, so go check it out.
	And the things...
	Look, everybody hates shitty coffee.
	Period.
	I hate shitty coffee so much, I remember to this day, if I ask my wife, she'll remember it.
	The worst cup of coffee we ever had.
	I can't call her right now.
	She's busy.
	It was in Newfoundland.
	It was like someone put out a cigarette in a cup of warm tea water.
	This stuff, this will put hair on your chest, which I don't have.
	Okay.
	Pinned comment in the chat is the Rumble link.
	You all know the rules.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which I should have made sure we're good on.
	Oh, we good.
	We're good on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We're good on Rumble.
	These things here that you see called Super Chats or Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	The best way to support what Robert and I do, if you want to, is VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	$10 a month or $100 a year.
	And you get a ton of exclusive stuff.
	We're going to talk about Barnes' hush-hush on Taylor Swift.
	Because if he bet according to his hush-hush, he would have made some money on the Super Bowl.
	We'll see what happened.
	I don't know how it went.
	I caught...
	Dude, I'm...
	What is that?
	Come on, Jake!
	Jeremiah, get out of here!
	I took your med...
	Okay, look.
	These are both jokes.
	I never give medical advice.
	I don't...
	I'm not...
	You can't catch chlamydia from a fish.
	All that to say, thank you for those two wonderfully hilarious comments.
	And while we're on the topic of streams...
	I don't...
	I'm not...
	Hold on.
	Putting me on pause here.
	King of the...
	Bill Tong says, I am the Bill Tong guy from the quartering.
	Mind if I drop a rant for Bill Tong on your channel?
	I don't want to infringe on your channel if you have an issue.
	Dude, first of all, I can't control who super chats.
	Bill Tong, do it.
	And by the way, I'm going to taste that.
	I had Bill Tong bring it on with the Bill Tong.
	That rhymes.
	Occupant 42, I know.
	Okay, let me see.
	You wouldn't believe the size of the fishing rod that got away.
	It was this big.
	And then we go, that's from Occupant 42. And Mac Grendel.
	David, you and Robert and many others in the alternative media world are doing heroic work, bringing important information forward that inconveniences the powerful has risk.
	Oh, bringing forth information forward that inconveniences the powerful has risk.
	A small token of thanks.
	Thank you very much.
	And speaking of which, before I bring in the bar, and speaking of like, it's just information that they don't want you to hear.
	Hold on.
	Where's today's vlog?
	I don't care that I'm being clearly Throttled on YouTube.
	So go watch it on Rumble.
	Just to give you a little...
	Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't want John Podesta to be compelled to be submitted to Senate confirmation hearings.
	That's me.
	I know that guy.
	I had dinner with him last night.
	He's amazing.
	And I just want to get to the one part...
	We're going to talk about this tonight, but I want to just get to the one part.
	And it's right about here.
	Here.
	Just this part right here that I'm going to bring in the Barnes.
	And we're going to bring on the party.
	Right.
	Jeez Louise, how long is that clip?
	Here we go.
	Listen to this, people.
	The lawmakers either ignored or declined to comment when contacted by Fox News Digital.
	Now, in his mind, I didn't know what they had.
	I knew that they had.
	Come on!
	One email in particular.
	One email.
	All righty, people.
	You all remember this thing called Pizzagate.
	It was a hoax.
	Total hoax.
	It was a totally fake thing.
	Don't talk about it.
	I must say, YouTube, if you're watching, Pizzagate was a hoax.
	I do not believe it.
	I do not think that there was any sort of clandestine basement operation child trafficking ring out of Comet Pizza.
	I do have one question, however.
	What the hell is this email about, John Podesta?
	This is an actual email to John Podesta with a response from him from the Sandler Foundation.
	This is the email.
	This was his response.
	And you asked me, I don't know what they were talking about in there, but what the hell were they talking about in that email?
	Hi, John.
	The realtor found a handkerchief.
	In brackets, I think it has a map that seems pizza related.
	Is it yours?
	They can send it if you want.
	I know you're busy, so feel free not to respond if it's not yours or you don't want it.
	To which John Podesta responded, it's mine, but not worth worrying about.
	What in the name of sweet holy hell is going on in that email?
	I'm sure they're just talking about a handkerchief with a map on it.
	That seems to be pizza-related.
	It makes total sense, everybody.
	And if you ask a question, you're an idiot.
	All right, Barnes is in the house.
	I think I've done all the...
	I've done everything.
	There were some other clips that I was going to intro with.
	I'll do them tomorrow.
	Let us get this show on the road, shall we?
	Barnes, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	I'm going to ask the question.
	I'm going to go check the audio as you answer it.
	Are you pissed off about last night?
	Well, you know, if people are wondering whether the NFL is rigged or scripted, there's a lot of evidence that the answer is yes.
	I mean, pretty much there are people who are pushing this conspiracy theory from the beginning of the year as soon as Taylor Swift showed up.
	They said, here's what's going to happen.
	Kansas City will go on a magical run to the Super Bowl, will magically win the Super Bowl.
	The Taylor Swift will be featured in all the big games.
	The ratings will skyrocket.
	Pfizer will get its person, Travis Kelsey, boosted.
	Joe Biden will get his campaign boosted.
	And they're going to use a sport that's popular in Middle America with a team that's popular in Middle America to infiltrate their ulterior agenda.
	Taylor Swift had people in her box that were flashing satanic signs.
	It kept getting crazier and crazier and crazier.
	And then in the fourth quarter of the game, Kansas City just basically held the entire game, especially the entire fourth quarter.
	They were getting killed, their offensive line.
	Magically, no penalties called on them.
	On the other hand, the only holding calls in the entire game on any offense are called on San Francisco.
	At key junctures in the fourth quarter.
	Now, they had a lot of other luck going for them as well.
	I don't know whether they did a deal with the devil in Vegas or not, but the lady luck was surely on their side.
	But, yeah, I mean, for those people that went in saying, hey, it's going to be rigged, the refs are going to rule and, you know, you're going to find key calls at key times, disproportionately favor Kansas City again for the third straight time in the playoffs.
	And then at the end, you have the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, chatting it up with Taylor Swift.
	So, you know, it does look like the NBA has had this problem for a while where the league started manipulating games during the Michael Jordan era and continuing to favor certain celebrities in order to boost its ratings in middle America and with the normies.
	And a lot of your purists, your old school fans, quit watching basketball because it became not only a later politicized sport, but a rigged sport.
	So much so that an NBA official got run out of the league and criminally prosecuted simply because he tipped off gamblers about how rigged the game was.
	It wasn't being rigged by him.
	It was being rigged by the league.
	So it's, yeah, it is sad to see.
	I mean, I still like the American football sport.
	I know it's not everybody's cup of tea.
	The Super Bowl is a great American tradition historically and one of the greatest sporting events watched annually around the world.
	And while it was a great game from a dramatic perspective, entertainment perspective, It was Team Jesus against Team Soros, and Team Soros won, and it didn't seem like everything was on the up-and-up in terms of the league.
	I'll bring this up because Robert Thompson asked.
	I don't believe it could be rigged and there be no leaks.
	Well, they were kind of blatant about it.
	I explained in my hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com put up last week.
	About the Taylor Swift theory.
	I mean, the NFL put referees in that had a history of favoring Kansas City, and they kept doing it.
	I mean, even the Super Bowl officials, how is it?
	Because the last time Kansas City beat San Francisco in the Super Bowl, about four or five years ago, they also, the refs, missed a bunch of holding calls by the Kansas City offensive line.
	And then they do it again?
	And then, but it's not like they weren't willing to call holding because they called it on San Francisco!
	So it's like, ah!
	I mean, people can watch the tape for themselves.
	I mean, they were tackling people.
	I mean, their offensive line was just tackling players.
	And the refs were like, what?
	We don't see anything, huh?
	And people have to appreciate, like, the rigging, it's not like WEF setting it up.
	It's that you're dealing with two teams which, by and large, all things being equal, are going to be competitive every single time.
	And it's these small things that can help sway it in one direction or the other.
	And throughout the year, put it this way, when Kansas City was not being nationally televised, because of this personnel problem they had and their style of play, they got four more penalties called on them than their opponent.
	Suddenly, when they get on national TV in the playoffs, they never get more penalties called on them.
	There is a predictive way you can measure rigging, and it's generally officiating.
	That's how it usually works.
	It's officiating.
	And the officiating favored Kansas City now.
	Three games in a row.
	And I'll bring this up.
	Barnes, do you think you vastly underplayed your hush-hush based on last night's performance?
	I may have.
	I mean, the people that bet took Kansas City based on my hush-hush.
	San Francisco was the much better team.
	They had to be really unlucky to lose.
	They were, even with the penalties.
	If it wasn't for fumble luck and special teams luck and injury luck, I mean, literally everything that could go against them luck-wise did.
	That's why I said, somebody did a deal with the devil over there.
	Maybe that's why that Travers, you know, Kelsey's girlfriend there, Taylor Swift's people were flashing satanic signs up there.
	It was some sort of deal, but I don't think it was the one up there.
	I saw that.
	That's hilarious.
	I mean, I don't even know what the hell they're doing.
	And I got a lot of friends that are Kansas City fans.
	I understand that.
	It's a great middle American team.
	But the way this was promoted by the NFL doesn't quite feel right.
	It was, I didn't watch it after the first half.
	I watched it with my parents and I had to take some kids a bunch of places.
	But as I'm going to pick up another kid, I'm just keep refreshing at the last like 38 seconds.
	It's like, oh, they're up by three, up by three.
	Oh, boom, field goal, overtime.
	It was an exciting game from what I could see, refreshing my phone.
	Robert, look at this.
	King of Biltong.
	Good afternoon from Anton's in Roanoke, Texas.
	I was there, I think.
	Ronoke.
	I think.
	I'm gonna check that on the map.
	Free shipping for your Biltong with code VIVA on www.landofbiltong.com Anton's USA.
	A-N-T like tango.
	O-N-S like Sierra.
	U-S-A dot com.
	Looking for a healthier snack alternative?
	Get you some Biltong.
	And I'm doing it.
	I'm doing it.
	Because I want to find something that's as good as beef jerky, but not quite as salty.
	What do we have on the menu tonight, Robert?
	A lot of good stuff.
	Yeah, yeah, we do.
	We got Amos Miller update.
	You got the big case.
	You may have already talked about it.
	The big case in Canada.
	The Trump on the ballot at SCOTUS.
	Trump immunity at the D.C. Circuit now going up to SCOTUS.
	You know, big Fannie Willis in a little bit of trouble in Georgia.
	The immigration bill that they tried to sneak in this past week.
	Tucker goes to Russia and talks to Vladimir Putin.
	Which produced some of the greatest memes in interview history.
	Biden gets covered up for all of his actual crimes that he accused Trump of committing.
	Hawaii says, Second Amendment?
	What's Second Amendment?
	Aloha, Second Amendment.
	The goodbye version of Aloha, not the hello.
	As you predicted, the shooter mom convicted.
	What are her appellate chances?
	We've got cops beating a guy up and claiming immunity.
	They didn't know there was anything illegal about that.
	Over a bar tab, by the way.
	We got Gina Carano suing Disney.
	That suit has a lot more legs than some people originally gave it credence for, or assumed.
	We got the Michael Mann getting a $1 million DC verdict, proving once again the District of Columbia is a complete crock.
	And if our Congress is ever serious, they need to get rid of the District of Columbia as an independent jurisdiction.
	So those are some of the big leading cases of the night.
	Got a few others we might get to if time avails.
	All right.
	Let's start with the Canadian one because I've been talking about it, but don't mind putting it on as much blast as possible.
	This is like Canada's January 6th political prisoners, except our January 6th actually had only bouncy castles and hot tubs and no actual violence, regardless of who instigated it.
	These four men, I'm going to mess up their names, is Jerry Morin, Jerry Morin and Chris Lysak, who just got out.
	But four men accused of conspiring to murder an RCMP police officer.
	It was the linchpin of declaring the Emergencies Act.
	It was the linchpin of the judges, the Commissioner Rouleau, who ratified Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	And look how violent it was.
	People were plotting to kill RCMP officers.
	They've been in remand for two plus years now.
	The evidence is scant from what I understand.
	Two of the four just struck a deal where one pleaded guilty to some totally innocuous firearm charge because apparently he had a gun that he had a license for in an area where he was not allowed to have it.
	And the other one pleaded guilty to trafficking firearms.
	And so the two get out.
	I said this is a total capitulation of the government basically admitting they had no case to begin with for conspiracy to commit murder.
	Then a little bit of a hiccup comes out where the agreed stipulation of fact or the agreed statement of fact of one of the two defendants who pleaded, he pleaded guilty to trafficking.
	And the trafficking was for a criminal purpose to X and Y, who are presumably the other two defendants.
	And so the only question now is, did this one guy just buckle and give the Crown the fodder they need to pursue the other two on conspiracy to commit murder?
	By saying, yeah, I was trafficking them the firearms.
	I had no idea what they were going to do with it, but those two were going to...
	To me, everything is falling apart in real time.
	I don't think the Crown wants to go to trial with it, but they might stubbornly go to trial and just hope they eek something out.
	But, Robert, you've got a lot more criminal prosecution.
	I guess you've got more criminal knowledge than I do.
	The dude who signs the statement of fact that says I was trafficking firearms for a criminal purpose, I mean, I don't know.
	Is your impression that he might have just thrown the other two remaining defendants under the bus?
	I mean, if they're giving sweetheart deals to people, that tells me their case is crap, is what it sounds like to me.
	And something generic like criminal purpose, that can mean anything.
	That was my white pill.
	It could just mean possessing it in an area where they're not allowed.
	They forfeited all his guns.
	And the unlawful purpose was that he didn't have a permit.
	There was no other unlawful purpose.
	That was admitted and conceded by the government.
	It would be one of the issues on appeal for the Ruben King case.
	So yeah, if they had specifics, they would put in specifics.
	And I mean, the way it happened, the trial scheduled for...
	Springtime.
	And I don't think they want to go to trial.
	I think the trial is going to reveal more corruption than criminality.
	Although it'll reveal criminality just from the government.
	So I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
	My prediction is the other two are going to get a deal.
	And they're going to say, yeah, they were trafficking for a criminal purpose.
	And they're going to leave it ambiguous so that they can say, it might have been conspiracy to commit murder.
	But we pleaded down and they, you know, they agreed to time served.
	Well, while we're on the subject and before we head over to Rumble, do you want to give the update on Amos Miller while we're on the...
	Ruben King?
	Oh, we'll save that for a little bit later.
	Okay.
	Well, we're still going to go over to Rumble now.
	Anyhow, people, to start with the show.
	So hold on.
	The link is here.
	I'm going to give everybody the link one more time.
	Sorry, on YouTube.
	Let's see.
	The number just went down.
	Okay, good.
	Come on over to Rumble for the rest of the show.
	Then we'll go over to Locals afterwards where we will...
	It's $10, Robert, or $5.
	We get to all the tips pretty much anyhow.
	So come on over there.
	$85 tip or more, we'll answer.
	Putin 2024, President of Russia and America.
	That joke will soon be illegal, both in Canada and America.
	Alright, we are ending on YouTube.
	Go check out today's vlog after this stream is over, and go check out me catching a fishing rod on Rumble.
	Rumble, here we come.
	Boom.
	Robert, what's first on the menu?
	Now.
	Oh, to the question of the chat, that book is American Statesman, about Thomas Jefferson, written in 1893.
	Back when you had biographies written, you see how Americans used to read and write.
	The quality of the writing is so much better than anything you pick up today, these days, really.
	So I like it as much for its well-crafted language as the details it has about Jefferson's life and background.
	And it gives you a snapshot in time of American perception about a century after...
	But more than a century ago from today.
	But yeah, we got almost as predicted.
	I mean, it said from the very beginning there was a real risk that rogue judges and prosecutors and lawyers would try to exclude Trump from the ballot.
	That risk was clearly escalating and accelerating over the past six months.
	But at the same time, identified that there was no legal basis for it.
	And that my view was the Supreme Court would put all that nonsense to end.
	And that you might even get some liberal judges to buck it as well.
	An oral argument went exactly that direction as predicted.
	Despite all these legal experts saying it was such a serious argument.
	But what's his face?
	Lawrence Tribe?
	I mean, do these people eat crow fast enough with this crap?
	Now I've had a chance to listen to the oral arguments.
	I was listening to it while I was fishing.
	Even Ketanji...
	KBJ or KJB?
	Ketanji Brown Jackson.
	I mean, they were really grilling that lawyer.
	And I guess he was doing as well as he could, but it was shit.
	I mean, it was such a preposterous theory.
	He had a ludicrous theory that couldn't withstand any meaningful intellectual scrutiny.
	And that was the problem.
	I mean, the biggest problem was the one I did.
	And when we talked about it early on, when I identified it, I got a lot of blowback from even people so-called the conservative side.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	Yeah, clearly it applies to the president.
	No, it clearly doesn't apply to the president.
	It explicitly excludes him.
	The officers of the United States has never met president.
	You have to be an idiot.
	You have to be illiterate.
	A functional, constitutional illiterate to think that.
	Yet, so-called lawyers were on the right, were parading it around as if it was evident.
	And you have people, no less...
	I mean, Gorsuch made it clear.
	He goes, an officer...
	It's someone appointed by and commissioned by the president.
	So by definition, he doesn't appoint and commission himself.
	So consequently, he can't really be an officer now, can he?
	I mean, even Jackson was like, why would they hide the word president inside officer?
	They put electors but not president.
	Yeah, she's like, it's kind of obvious what's going on here, isn't it?
	I mean, they all know.
	That's why, I mean, again, even half of Democratic judges who looked at this said this is a preposterous argument.
	It was the Ivy League crowd on the Colorado Supreme Court that bought and pushed this gibberish.
	And really, they made a mistake.
	They would have been better off pushing it until later to challenge things.
	But they couldn't help themselves.
	They were so eager.
	To use this as the premise and predicate to remove him from the ballot and deny Americans their opportunity and their choice, that they pushed the Supreme Court to make an early ruling.
	And I predict it's going to be a very favorable ruling for Trump, hopefully on broad constitutional grounds that stops this from happening to anyone else in the future.
	And I think it's representative of where these cases are going in general.
	I just pulled up one article just by way of example.
	No easy exit ramp for SCOTUS after Colorado High Court disqualifies former president from primary ballot, Scholar says.
	Let's go down here.
	For months, conservative and liberal constitutional legal scholars around the country, including Michael J. Ludig.
	I don't know who he is.
	He's the lunatic, Federalist Society-loving judge who said an American president can assassinate an American on American soil with no constitutional rights or liberties.
	Who a bunch of the Federalist Society types wanted.
	He's batshit insane and a complete fraud.
	He's the phony who gave bad advice to Pence as cover for not doing his job during the election contest.
	I'm going to go archive that, just so they can't pretend they never said it afterwards.
	Lawrence Tribe, legal scholars.
	I've been critical of Ludwig for 30 years.
	So that's not new to me.
	It's just new to some people on the right that were asleep at the wheel.
	We're not recognizing how dangerous this idiot was.
	But that's who he is.
	But yes, all the legal media, legal press, legal academy, legal scholars, law Twitter, we're a Twitter.
	With all these pronouncements and proclamations and predictions, and now they look like utter idiots.
	You could see them bumbling on CNBC, CNN, MSNBC.
	MSNBC is like watching an alternate universe.
	At least on CNN and other places, they were angry, but they understood.
	MSNBC, it's alternate reality.
	It's alternate physical reality and alternate intellectual reality.
	Is it taking longer than it should to render the decision or not at all?
	My guess is Roberts wants to have a unanimous decision.
	So the key is the basis upon which they decide.
	So it needs to be broad and robust.
	I think it will be.
	It probably won't be as broad as it could be because Roberts will try to make sure there's a 9-0 decision and whittle it down some in terms of the legal principle it could establish.
	But I think it will put an end to the nonsense as to Trump.
	But are they not going to do, or at least if I'm predicting the liberal judges, are going to try to do the same thing as the Colorado court, and they'll issue their own decision and say in law, but his behavior is terrible.
	Kagan was like, this goes nowhere.
	Jackson was like, this is really rather ludicrous.
	No, I mean, they're going to just try to find a way to condemn how reprehensible Trump's behavior was for political gain.
	I don't know.
	My guess is they'll want to put an end to it, so they'll just join a 9-0 decision in all likelihood.
	Okay.
	Cool.
	I can't wait for it.
	I listened to it and I hate lawyers.
	I hate 99% of lawyers and that guy pleading.
	He's a paid mercenary.
	He's a hired mercenary.
	He's doing the best that he can.
	It was listening to needles on the eardrum.
	It's not stopping Democrats, by the way.
	They're currently trying to coordinate with the Federal Elections Commission to keep Robert Kennedy off the ballot by falsely accusing him of coordinating with his super PAC.
	Kennedy is so not coordinating with his Super PAC that his Super PAC ran an ad he didn't know they were running on the Super Bowl, which was the old, early 1960s Kennedy for President ad, 1960 Kennedy for President ad, and he just substituted Bobby Kennedy.
	And some of his family complained about it, and Bobby Kennedy was generous in saying, oh, I'm sorry if you feel bad about it or anything, didn't mean to insult you.
	But the allegation that he's coordinating with his super PAC is just utter garbage.
	But it's their latest excuse to try to keep him off the ballot.
	So they're going to continue to wage this lawfare until the Supreme Court puts a stop to it.
	And that's why the broader and stronger the ruling, the better.
	And there need to be more of it because we saw the nonsense on Trump immunity.
	I mean, you make your predictions on that, but this is the immunity claim where Trump was arguing that he can't be prosecuted for these, I'll say, alleged crimes, if that, because it would violate the double jeopardy clause, because it would violate the separation of powers.
	And I'm reading the decision, a unanimous 3-0 decision from the...
	D.C. Court of Appeal.
	Another court that shouldn't exist.
	My one question is, does it go to an en banc review?
	But it's mental gymnastics.
	They tried to deny that by forcing him to appeal to SCOTUS right away.
	Did he not do that?
	Trump did do that, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	He filed it with the Supreme Court.
	But their goal was to preclude him from having a stay of his case while just requesting en banc.
	And that's where they gave themselves away.
	If you were trying to, oh, this is a serious, intellectual, thoughtful, public debate and dialogue, da-da-da-da, then you don't try to rush the trial.
	You don't try to deny him his en banc review rights.
	You don't try to deny him his right to a stay pending a Supreme Court petition under a regular time frame.
	The fact they tried to do so showed that they're a fraudulent court.
	That is engaged in political hackery and quackery in the name of the law in order to get rid of their lead political opponent.
	And the fact that a Poppy Bush appointee was one of the three is no surprise at all.
	I mean, now, parts of the ruling are just ludicrous.
	They try to create this difference between ministerial acts and discretionary acts, which make no sense.
	As Dershowitz himself pointed out, The Supreme Court has said judges have immunity, even when what they do is way beyond their legal authorities and powers, and it's something that's ministerial rather than discretionary.
	What happened, for example, was a father didn't like who his daughter was dating, went to his buddy the judge.
	The judge issued a secret forced sterilization order.
	She was taken to the hospital believing she had an appendix problem.
	Went in, tied her tubes she didn't know until years later when she's married and can't have kids.
	Discovers it, sues the judge, and the Supreme Court of the United States said, absolutely you have immunity in that instance.
	Prosecutors have falsified testimony, fabricated evidence, lied to judges and juries.
	They all have immunity, civilly and criminally.
	And to specify, they lied and committed crimes in a way that defied their obligations, their duties, whereas Trump arguably...
	Had the authority to do exactly what he was purporting to do.
	Problem one is, how in the world do you give judges and prosecutors and cops and CIA agents and all these other people immunity in the executive branch, but not the President of the United States, who has the best constitutional argument for immunity, namely that he would otherwise be, as Trump is now better articulating in the court of public opinion?
	He's like, look, if you don't give me immunity, every president's going to be hijacked by any random prosecutor anywhere in the country.
	That you will never be able to do your job as a president.
	You can be blackmailed or extorted any time during your presidency.
	This is why it has to be interpreted in the plain language of the words the way I have been arguing from the inception.
	But the second problem, as Dershowitz also said, is...
	It's suggesting the president of the United States has no constitutional role whatsoever concerning the election to the presidency of the United States.
	I mean, that has got to be one of the most asinine, absurd claims ever.
	Remember, these are the same courts that said that Elizabeth Warren was acting within her job duties as a senator to go out and libel kids from Covington, Kentucky.
	The same courts that said that Interior Secretary Howland was doing her discretionary duties and obligations when, as a congresswoman, she lied about kids from Covington, Kentucky.
	They have immunity?
	That's within their job duties?
	But the president, talking about an election to the presidency, can't ever be within his duties?
	This is a lying, fraudulent, fake, phony court.
	Every one of them should be impeached.
	They have violated their oath.
	And if our Congress ever gets off his rear and does its job, this is the ultimate proof.
	Get rid of the D.C. court because it's the District of Corruption, not the District of Columbia.
	What I found particularly gloriously outrageous was the distinction also for the double jeopardy, where they said Trump was already impeached but acquitted on these very acts.
	Therefore, double jeopardy has attached.
	How do we get around that?
	The acts that he's accused of having committed in the indictment were substantially different than the acts for which he was impeached but acquitted?
	I mean, explain that to me as an idiot.
	That analysis would never work if it was a criminal case.
	So, I mean, because it was the same core issues, like, for example, sometimes they allege conspiracy to defraud the government, a tax case, or something like that.
	And what they can't do is come back and say, well, we've got some new facts we're alleging as part of the conspiracy.
	Nope.
	If they're acquitted, end of story.
	You can't come in and say, oh, it's got to be a completely different, distinct criminal allegation.
	So their claim there, and that's why they don't cite any double jeopardy cases for the analogy.
	Again, this was a court with a preordained conclusion.
	I mean, it was bait.
	You knew it from the time of oral argument where the judge asked one of the most asinine questions that all the legal analysts on the left have loved and all the Trump haters love, which is, could the president order SEAL Team 6 to execute his political opponent?
	What do you think war is?
	War is sending people to kill your political opponent.
	What do you think Barack Obama did when he sent the drone bombing of an American citizen who was, guess what, his political opponent?
	Biden has ordered the execution of people that are his political opponent.
	In fact, he's been trying to do it to people that are January 6th defendants as we speak.
	He's trying to do it to Donald Trump as we speak.
	So just using the legal system to accomplish that illicit objective.
	So that also was a ludicrous argument and claim.
	And the Supreme Court absolutely has to take this case and put an end to this.
	And what they should do is do a robust version of immunity that prevents this from ever reoccurring again.
	This is becoming a disgrace and an embarrassment.
	You have the joke of multiple ridiculous cases out of New York.
	The Florida case continues to get exposed with Jack Smith begging the judge not to disclose all the bad things he's been doing and not to unseal a bunch of things that will expose the degree to which there was a coordinated campaign to basically try to entrap President Trump involving the National Archives, involving the FBI, involving Biden's Justice Department.
	And that's all coming out piece by piece by piece in the Florida case.
	Then you've got the Georgia case, where Big Fannie is now a judge today, said we need an evidentiary hearing because this clearly constitutes conflicts of interest that warrant her disqualification if these allegations are true.
	And we all know the allegations are true.
	It turns out confession through projection works again.
	Where did Fannie get the idea?
	Where did Big Fannie get the idea of Rico?
	It's because she was busy making Rico crimes on a daily basis.
	It's even better than that.
	You saw the clip that recirculated of her talking about people in her office are not going to be having relationships with their underlings because taxpayers ain't going to pay for that.
	Nobody's going to be having affairs with people beneath them.
	And she literally did it.
	She literally engaged in the RICO.
	She got a judge now that comes out and says, you might very well be removed or disqualified.
	But the question is this.
	Maybe it's the same as with Jack Smith.
	If he gets disqualified, these charges are never going to get brought up again.
	But what good will it do?
	If they disqualify her, the charges are still going to stand.
	The process is still going to be where it's at.
	Well, the question is whether another prosecutor is willing to push these ludicrous charges.
	And an ethical prosecutor doesn't pursue these cases.
	That's why they found unethical ones.
	That's why they, even the Justice Department had to go way outside the Justice Department to find a Jack Smith, a deep state guy at The Hague, to come in and bring these ridiculous charges and be involved in such open over corruption.
	It's the very corrupt New York DA that's bringing that case, and it's the very corrupt Georgia prosecutors bringing that case.
	Other politically corrupt prosecutors looked at but decided this was so risky to pursue.
	They looked at Arizona, looked at Nevada, looked at it in Michigan, looked at it in Pennsylvania.
	They were like, I'm going to look like a laughingstock if I pursue this case.
	I'm pursuing legal theories that are ridiculous.
	And so there was enough wisdom, even in those politically rogue prosecutors, to realize this would be a bridge too far.
	That's why he needed the most corrupt actors to do it.
	And Governor Kemp in Georgia continues to be embarrassed by his association and affiliation and his cover-up of this rogue prosecution.
	This is another guy that's going to have a political dead man walking career.
	He can take all the little trips to Davos with the WEF crowd he wants.
	From now, he and Nikki Haley can go on a little who cares tour.
	But has no more political future because of their complicity in this corruption.
	And what's being exposed is the scale of it, the severity of it, the seriousness of it.
	Raffensperger is still the Secretary of State of Georgia, right?
	Yeah, Raffensperger.
	So is there any chance that enough political pressure or it becomes politically expedient or popular enough for him to actually do something?
	What would his authority or powers be as Secretary of State?
	It's more the governor that has the authority to do something.
	Any attorney general who's a joke in Georgia?
	It's getting wild.
	And Robert, I don't know why it's getting so hard to find this clip because I meant to play it a long time ago.
	Duty.
	Absolutely.
	We were talking about the duties before.
	So Georgia, it's going to hit the fan, right?
	Her subpoena is this coming week, isn't it?
	Yeah, and the evidence you're hearing is going to be held.
	And this is not something that withstands any scrutiny.
	And so what they would be better off doing is, if she was smart, she'd get rid of all these cases.
	Just dump them.
	Just realize the gig is up.
	Time to move on.
	Come up with some political cover story.
	She won't do that.
	No, no.
	I mean, she's someone who's accustomed to abusing power.
	This is like your Kamala Harris type.
	We have another daughter of a communist, because that's her background, communist background.
	They got into power, thanks to George Soros.
	He helped put a bunch of these people in prosecutorial positions all across the nation in major cities.
	And someone that lacks any kind of ethical barometer is used to committing whatever open, brazen crimes they want to commit with no consequence as long as they're on the deep state side on key issues such as Trump.
	And they assume the system will cover for them.
	They're unaccustomed to consequence.
	The Baltimore prosecutor recently convicted because her crimes were so blatant and bold that even her, she couldn't completely finally get off forever.
	But that's the nature of who these people are.
	And they go forward and they say, I'm a black woman.
	You can't second guess me.
	I get to do whatever I want.
	This is what identity politics breeds.
	Lack of accountability.
	Lack of responsibility.
	You know, it breeds idiocracy in real time.
	And by the way, she can't get off forever.
	Well, she was getting off for a long time with Nathan.
	I think that getting off is over.
	What I really loathe at all of this is that it plays into a couple of very damaging stereotypes that you've got these rogue DAs in New York, Georgia.
	Where else am I thinking?
	I mean, to some extent out of Colorado.
	And they're funded by Soros.
	And it's going to really confirm a lot of people's...
	Prejudicial stereotypes.
	You look at what's happened in LA.
	You look what happened in San Francisco.
	You look at, I mean, the people are just being rotated out.
	You know, the dangerous criminals walk while ordinary people are facing, you know, like January 6th defendants multiple years in federal prison or state jail, as the case may be, or complete financial ruin, like all the defendants in the D.C. cases and the Georgia cases and anyone anywhere, you know, within an earshot of Trump.
	But yeah, these cases are, as Professor Jonathan Turley pointed out this week, increasingly falling apart.
	They're always legally weak.
	They're always factually fabricated.
	But now we're discovering the scale of the political corruption that produced them in the first instance.
	And the question is, does the judiciary have enough self-respect and concern for the appearance of integrity of the judiciary to stop it from becoming an embarrassment?
	Of the judicial branch itself.
	Robert, I'm going to do two things here.
	One is to say thank you to the two chats that I see.
	They're the rumble rants.
	We got Cheryl Gage says it was an exciting game.
	And Arkansas Crime Attorney saying...
	My favorite part was the, this is going back to the Colorado, the Supreme Court oral arguments.
	The Colorado, the attorney for Colorado arguing, we are actually protecting the democratic process and the voters by removing Trump from the ballot.
	I actually laughed out loud.
	It's nothing but 1984, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
	I got the order wrong.
	It's nothing shy of bastardizing language to that degree.
	But what I was going to ask here is a separate thing.
	I think we've been at 399,300 subs on Rumble for a little while now.
	I don't care about numbers.
	I just like nice round ones.
	There are 10,000 people watching right now.
	Go hit that thumbs up thing.
	There's only 651 thumbs up.
	Subscribe.
	I just want to see that number just round up, and then I'll not mention it for another 100,000 subs.
	Oh, you know, Chris Pevlosky, CEO of Rumble, was out here in Vegas for the Super Bowl.
	And I was like, hey, yeah, let's catch up.
	And he was like, yeah, I'm hanging out with Tom Brady.
	He's too big for us.
	We're in consequence, so he's partying with the big players now.
	They're very busy.
	They're growing.
	They opened up a new office in D.C., a studio in D.C., which...
	It looks beautiful, except for the fact that it's in freaking D.C. You've got to get to that studio and go through the cesspool that is D.C. There was a power slap competition over the weekend.
	Man, I don't know how he does it, but he's doing it, and God bless him for doing it, because it's something that we all need right now.
	Is there anything else?
	There's another Trump case, isn't there?
	No, that covers the big Trump case.
	Engeron, though.
	Why is it taking Engeron?
	Why was there a delay in him?
	Oh, he's looking for more bogus things to attack people with.
	He's not having a second thought about this.
	Oh, no, no.
	That guy doesn't have that.
	Amazing.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	Let me just get to my list of the subject matter of the evening, Robert.
	Oh!
	Okay, do we do the immigration bill?
	Let's do the immigration bill, then Tucker Carlson.
	I don't know anything about the immigration bill, so you'll have to field that.
	Oh, they tried to sneak it in this week, and it died within 24 hours, thanks to the court of public opinion and the activism of people like Senator J.D. Vance, Senator Mike Lee.
	But basically, they were trying to push through a sweetheart deal that would grant mass amnesty by Congress.
	To millions of illegals to help register them for the voting booth, maybe even by November.
	If I may stop you there.
	And to give most of its money to Ukraine.
	Okay, so that's the border.
	This is the border bill.
	Yeah, it just turned out it's Ukraine's border.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm very familiar with that.
	I put out a couple of videos about that.
	It was the voting, yeah, the $118 billion border bill, over $60 billion of which goes to Ukraine.
	I just love the fact that they financed the conflict.
	In Israel.
	And then they finance the devastation of the conflict.
	Here's $15 billion to Israel.
	Go defend your borders.
	And here's $10 billion for the victims in Gaza from the devastation.
	As Joe Biden pointed out, you know, the president of Mexico is right there on that Gaza border.
	So, you know, apparently that's why he thought the money was well spent sending to Israel, because that's dealing with the Mexican border, according to our incompetent in chief.
	The question is this.
	The fast-tracking through amnesty for citizenship, would it fast-track for federal voting?
	I mean, potentially, yes.
	Not only that, it shifted all power to D.C. courts.
	It was going to limit hamstring what Trump could do in the future.
	It was as bad an immigration bill as has ever been crafted in American history.
	And they tried to sneak it through at midnight.
	And luckily, fortunately, enough people rallied quickly against it that they ran for cover and cowered, and even the corrupt senators abandoned it.
	It was wild because, first of all, it was a total brain fart because I've been referring to it as the border bill.
	I thought they passed another bill about immigration.
	The threshold through which the government can invoke the emergencies dealing, you have to have an average of over 5,000 illegal immigrants per day over the course of seven days.
	And then you get other people pointing out, oh, that only counts immigrants from contiguous lands.
	So I guess it wouldn't include Chinese immigrants or Middle Eastern illegal immigrants.
	And it had to be an average of over seven days.
	So technically, there's a way to have it so that you're basically letting in 5,000 a day.
	I believe it turned into...
	A shit ton of people over a year.
	And that was what was going to be basically ratified.
	And then the jurisdiction of the...
	That's over one and a half million.
	I mean, that's five times the immigration rate, illegal immigration rate we were dealing with under Trump.
	And currently, and that was only seen as an improvement because right now the illegal immigration is ten times higher than it was under Trump.
	Ten times.
	There's about three million people a year.
	I mean, this is utterly unsustainable.
	Robert Kennedy keeps making this point.
	It's like, this is not a sustainable path.
	There's no scenario in which you can do this and keep a country.
	And it's, you know, tying into George Soros as part of open borders policy.
	But it's also like, I mean, one of our corrupt congressmen who got elected saying he was going to reform Congress, then he voted to save Mayorkas this week from impeachment.
	And then he announces, oh, I'm actually going to retire and cash in.
	I got a sweetheart gig.
	Apparently he was basically being bribed by Mayorkas and other deep state actors in a corrupt secret deal.
	I mean, talk about real criminality in Congress.
	And this nitwit writes, oh, you know, I did this as a matter of principle.
	And it's like aiding and abetting illegal, what Brett Weinstein's report that he put on with Tucker Carlson documented.
	Was the U.S. government's direct knowing complicity in the illegal immigration into the country, not only for border non-enforcement, not only for threatening states who try to enforce border laws, but for complicity in creating the immigration in the first place through U.N. and U.S.-backed non-governmental organizations with U.S. taxpayer dollars enabling governments as far away as China.
	To smuggle people into the United States.
	They're paying for it to occur.
	So they're actually, they are the smugglers.
	That is a high crime and misdemeanor.
	Aiding and abetting illegal immigration and invasion into the country at this scale is a classic version of a high crime and misdemeanor.
	And that is indeed impeachable because you can't wait for the election to remedy it.
	And it would not qualify as treason, though it would qualify as treasonous.
	It's not sedition.
	It's aiding and abetting illegal invasion into the country in violation of the presidential oath, in violation of federal criminal law, and is endangering the security and safety of the American people and the republic itself, which is why the invasion clause exists.
	It's like, if this isn't a high crime and misdemeanor, I don't know what is.
	This is a classic.
	If it was just arguing about interpreting policy, different deal.
	But once Brett Weinstein came back with the report that U.S. and U.N.-funded organizations with U.S. taxpayer dollars are the ones doing the smuggling, that puts an end to it.
	This required impeachment of Mayorkas and then impeachment of Biden.
	But of course, the other thing that requires impeachment of Biden is what the special counsel confirmed.
	Another case of confession through projection, Biden was the one guilty of all the crimes he was accusing Trump of.
	Hold on.
	One last question before we get there.
	The jurisdiction clause in that border bill was as offensive as everyone thought it was, right?
	It shows you how corrupt the D.C. courts are, the District of Corruption, that the most corrupt members of Congress wanted all immigration cases to have to only be decided by that District of Corruption.
	That should give ultimate proof to Congress to get rid of all D.C. courts.
	It was dead in the water.
	There was another element of it.
	It doesn't matter.
	When Joe Biden came out and said, give me the power, give me the power, that law gave him powers that he didn't have, and that was usurping the state's rights to contest the constitutionality of the measures and bring it to D.C. for a fair hearing.
	No more Fifth Circuit rulings that have caused them so many headaches.
	Oh boy.
	Now, shifting it.
	I guess we'll get into this and then it's going to lead to Tucker.
	The guy, Herr, what's his name?
	Is his name Benjamin Herr?
	Yep.
	So he came out with his report after having met and sat down with Biden.
	One thing I really wanted to mention in the video that I did break it down and I forgot to.
	He's so proud.
	I sat down for five hours over two days to talk with him.
	Why the hell couldn't you sit down for five hours in one day?
	I think that means that's a problem in and of itself.
	This is Joe Biden's mishandling of classified information that he had no business, no authority to declassify or even have in his possession because he was VP at the time.
	All over the place, willy-nilly.
	And while he was senator.
	That's what his report confirmed, that Biden was secretly taking highly classified documents home with him.
	Keeping them for years while he was both senator and vice president, sharing information related to those documents, not securing them by any means at all with any degree of confidence.
	No, Robert, Robert, the cabinets were able to be locked.
	Oh, in the box that the FBI had to, like, rewrap?
	That was sitting there next to the Corvette in the garage?
	All the things they accused Trump of.
	Biden was guilty of.
	So he's withholding, mishandling classified documents.
	Lord knows how many of Hunter's hookers and crack dealers had access to this when they were going through there.
	I mean, that's the point.
	Why would the files be insecure?
	You have the files be insecure so people like Hunter can stumble on them as necessary.
	So the other thing is what the real allegation was underlying against Trump.
	Was that somehow he was trying to use that classified information in some illicit manner.
	To sell it out to foreign nations.
	That's what Joe Biden has been doing for 30 years.
	He did it while he was in the Senate, and then he did it while he was vice president, and he did it after he was no longer a vice president.
	He monetized his office on a regular basis.
	That's why his classified document crimes are meaningful.
	Same reason Hillary did it.
	Hillary wanted off-the-record classified document conversations and communications so the Clinton Foundation could monetize her access as Secretary of State.
	And that's why they weren't being kept in regular form.
	The Trump was just trying to keep proof that the deep state tried to screw him, and that's it.
	So Trump was—and he was president.
	He had the right to declassify whatever the heck he wanted anytime he wanted, which Joe Biden did not have as vice president, did not have as senator, and Hillary Clinton did not have as secretary of state.
	What was amazing was Joe Biden giving that— Disaster of a press conference after Putin and basically saying they were in my garage.
	They were either in locked drawers or able to be locked.
	It's like able to be locked.
	Everything on earth is able to be locked.
	That stuff was willy-nilly everywhere.
	Herr comes in, meets with Joe Biden.
	His observations are Joe can't remember when he was vice president.
	This is back in, well, this was in October.
	Joe can't remember when he was vice president.
	He can't remember when his son died.
	He can't remember basic dates.
	But he seems like a nice, well-intentioned doddler of an old buffoon, and so no one's going to convict him.
	I can't understand that conclusion.
	I know Nate Brody at one point said, in order to indict, you have to make the argument that you would be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
	I can't understand how they make those observations and then come to the conclusion that no reasonable jury would convict because they'd look for an excuse to acquit.
	I can't understand it.
	You knew there was going to be a cover-up by who was chosen.
	Just as you knew there was going to be a prosecution of President Trump when Jack Smith was chosen, you knew there was going to be both a cover-up and selective prosecution when Robert Mueller and Weinstein and others were chosen.
	You knew that when they picked her, just like you knew if you knew the inside story when they picked Durham, that there was going to be no prosecutions because that's why they were picked.
	And you have a prosecutor trying to do CYA to cover for himself like Comey, doing his Pontius Pilate routine, saying, okay, yeah, this was all really bad, but I'm not a cover-up artist.
	He's too senile.
	So don't blame me for being a corrupt hack.
	He's too senile.
	He's too old!
	And everybody's like, if he's too senile...
	To be competent to stand trial, which is, by the way, incompetency to stand trial is an extremely difficult standard.
	Remember that Minnesota case?
	With that guy that was certifiably a loon?
	No, Wisconsin case.
	That dude was certifiably a loon?
	I mean, that guy, we talk about incompetent.
	There's a guy that's incompetent.
	Does anybody listen to that guy and think, this guy knows that it's Wednesday?
	Knows that we're on planet Earth?
	But if you're so incompetent you can't stand trial, there's no way you're competent to be President of the United States!
	I actually have a thought here.
	Can his competency, if he gets 25th, can he still legitimately pardon everybody?
	Or is his ability to pardon...
	No, once you're removed as incapacitated, until he's restored, he has no presidential power.
	And can they call into question...
	Any, say, hypothetical pardons that he issued before being 25th?
	No.
	No.
	Okay.
	That's done as soon as it's done.
	So, bottom line, her...
	I love the shit that he was getting from the left.
	We're like, how dare he say these things?
	Yes.
	No, how dare he question...
	I remember exactly when my son was died.
	I'm wearing his rosary.
	It's a complete whitewash.
	They bought their own bogus language.
	I mean, everybody that knows Joe Biden knows that he's been doing this for 30 years.
	Like I said, when he was vice president...
	If you were a criminal defense lawyer, he made it clear for a ripe donation he could make your criminal case go away.
	I mean, all his people were bragging about this everywhere you went.
	So it's been open.
	I mean, his family gets rich while he's a senator with no apparent skills.
	Sister gets rich.
	Son gets rich.
	Brother gets rich.
	I mean, it was obvious.
	I mean, so everybody knew what the score was.
	And they just cover it up for him because he was a good deep state puppet.
	And that's why he's still in the White House.
	And the only thing he's got going for him is that older, blue-collar Democratic voters in the Midwest like him more than they like any other alternative.
	And so they're stuck with him.
	It's going to be weakened by Biden through Election Day.
	Robert, news of the day, though, is that Kamala says she's ready.
	Oh, I'm sure she is ready.
	She'd be happy to knife him six ways this Sunday.
	The problem is...
	No, everybody hates her.
	Her own staff hates her.
	That's what James O 'Keefe confirmed.
	All the things I've been saying that Michelle Obama will never run hates people, basically.
	Hates politics because she hates all the plebs.
	Yeah, she loves her life.
	All you common people out there.
	Not the common people.
	You know, she didn't work that hard.
	Both Obamas didn't hold themselves that hard to not cash in after the presidency.
	They ain't going back to the Poe House.
	They're going to the mansions, one in Hawaii, one in the Hamptons, one outside Chicago, going on tours with people celebrating him, get to hang out with Richard Branson at his island, get to have all the fun as they define it.
	Barack Obama has a wide range of that.
	So maybe Michelle Obama does too.
	But the, no wait, she was running.
	And everybody hates Kamala.
	But the plan was for Kamala to replace Biden.
	He confirmed all this.
	I mean, you gotta be a little slow when you think James O 'Keefe is the gay guy on, what's the gay app called, Grindr?
	But no, his makeup was such a crappy makeup job.
	Like, admittedly, I know him.
	I mean, that's the meme going around.
	You know, James O 'Keefe, willing to be gay to save America.
	You know, so, you know, credit to him.
	But, you know, he confirmed it all.
	But, yeah, absolutely Kamala would love to knife old Joe.
	But the whole, everybody hates her, and the whole country hates her.
	And, you know, she runs four to five points behind Biden.
	That's why they're stuck.
	There's only one person who could successfully knife everybody and get in there.
	But it was never Michelle Obama.
	Hold on.
	Don't say who it is.
	It's an obvious name.
	Hillary Clinton?
	Of course.
	That's the only one who has enough deep state backing to show up at the convention and replace poor old Joe.
	She could knife both Booty Booty Gay Gay and knife Kamala at the same time.
	She's one of the only people who could pull that off.
	I think if she were to run again, it would be over.
	She'd get nothing.
	Oh yeah, I don't think she's, she doesn't stand any better chance than Biden does.
	Biden stands a better chance.
	The reason why he's still there is because there's older blue-collar voters that think, oh, he's just like my corrupt Uncle Joe.
	He means, well, you know, yeah, he likes to do things that are wrong, but, you know, it's that old-school blue-collar Democrat and used to locally corrupt politicians who they don't personally dislike.
	Whereas Hillary, they're like, eh, nobody likes her.
	Kamala, nobody likes her.
	Booty-booty-gay-gay, nobody likes him.
	Newsom looks stiff and fake 100 miles away.
	So, I mean, the Democrats' problem is they have no base.
	They have no bench.
	And, you know, without a bench, they're in trouble.
	And they're only going to keep getting into trouble.
	I mean, Robert Kennedy's interest in him surged when they ran that Super Bowl ad.
	So, he's going to be on all the ballots despite their corrupt efforts to keep him off.
	And, you know, the young voter group that doesn't like Trump has an alternative to Biden, and it'll be Bobby Kennedy.
	And so they're in deep trouble.
	They need the Supreme Court to go AWOL, railroad Trump in a D.C. case, and hope and pray that derails enough votes to steal the election.
	In lieu of that, I mean, again, Epoch Times.
	For all those people, oh, there's no evidence that the election fraud stole the election.
	Epoch Times.
	Trump confirmed what another independent institute did, a detailed deep dive, one of the leading institutes out of D.C., that in fact, because of the number of illegal mail-in ballots, decided the election that had those illegal mail-in ballots been properly screened out, Trump won 2020.
	So it's another independent, broad, the biggest empirical inquiry into the election that's been done.
	By an independent foundation coming to that same conclusion.
	So they're in trouble.
	And you know it when they're panicking just because Tucker Carlson's going to introduce people to what an autistic president sounds like in Vladimir Putin.
	Hold on.
	Let me explain to you the Russian history.
	Oh, how are the Ukrainian?
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	813, okay?
	And 813.
	I mean, the memes are awesome about this.
	He's like, no, no, there were two walls during Rome, Tucker.
	Two walls.
	There was one here, and there was one over here.
	Did you look at my maps?
	I sent you my maps.
	It was classic Putin.
	Hold on.
	But you don't get the sense of a tyrannical dictator, Saddam Hussein type.
	That's why they were so terrified to not let people watch Putin.
	Because you watch Putin, you're like, oh, okay, I get where this guy's coming from.
	May not agree with him, but this is no tyrannical dictator guy.
	This is no Hamas, you know, can't hold his, get rid of the Jews, river to the sea.
	You know, it's none of those guys.
	It's a very reasonable, very intelligent, crazy well-informed, maybe a little autistic foreign leader.
	Hold on.
	Before we get there, because I'm going to have my questions and comments, we got the engaged fuses.
	What do you think of Dan Bongino's theory that her was used by Obama to take out Biden?
	And I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says the same thing.
	Dan Bongino laid it out that this was an Obama hit job on Biden.
	But remove him and replace him with whom?
	He can always remove Biden by just going to him and saying, here's what's going to happen to your kids unless you step down.
	The reason why they haven't done it.
	It's because everybody around him is more unpopular.
	And again, here's where I may give Biden credit.
	I was baffled by his decision on Kamala Harris.
	Historically, Biden doesn't reward people who knife him in the back.
	Kamala Harris, remember, knifed him in the back in the first debate.
	You're a racist.
	Normally, he would never reward that.
	And when he did, I was like, man, that's shocking.
	Oh, it's because everybody hates her.
	Everybody hates her more than he does.
	And he's like, ha ha ha, I got my own Spiro Agnew.
	You're not taking me out.
	I don't care what Barack wants.
	I don't care what Hillary wants.
	I got the craziest, looniest, most hated person in America.
	Because he remembers Agnew.
	He was senator back then.
	So he's like, he knew that if Nixon kept Agnew, ain't nobody impeaching Richard Milhouse.
	Ain't no one let Spiro near the White House.
	So, you know, credit to him.
	Like he said, he's a street criminal.
	You know, thug level.
	But in that level, he's intelligent.
	At a broader level, nobody's going to confuse him with Einstein.
	Despite what his mommy told him when he was eight.
	Everybody was picking on him because he was stupid.
	It's because he was.
	But he's a street-level smart.
	He's street smart.
	You don't survive that long in politics without being street smart.
	And that's why he's got immunity.
	I've been saying it for a year.
	And that's what the insider confirmed to James O 'Keefe.
	Let me just...
	I went and googled...
	Kamala Harris dumb and then I got this one video.
	It's short.
	I just want to hear what she's saying here.
	Let's just see this.
	You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?
	You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.
	Oh, okay.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	There's nothing she's going to say that's going to make sense.
	Speaking of making sense, however, now, Robert, and we'll get into the Putin interview.
	Because I got questions about Tucker Carlson's legal exposure.
	Ian Corzine, another great content creator, lawyer, raised some issues with the Espionage Act.
	And then when Putin gave him those documents at the end of the interview, I'm like, oh shit, Putin's setting him up to get whatever in America.
	He did this interview.
	It was the craziest interview ever.
	Because it started with 40 minutes of the history of Russia going back to...
	The 8th century.
	The 8th century.
	When he started, I was like, okay, where's he going to start?
	Is he going to start with the Eastern Slavs, approximately 5th century BC, when we moved into...
	No, but at least he started, at least it was the 8th century.
	I thought he was going to start with when that meteorite collided with the Earth and then created the Moon and Mars.
	I mean, that's a bunch of the memes out there.
	But then, remember, he threw in Roman history, older history.
	I mean, it was like, it was all over the place.
	Well, so here's the question.
	What was the purpose?
	It's how his brain actually works.
	It's how he would explain to somebody, here's where this conflict comes from.
	Let's start with context.
	For that, we need the entire historical approach.
	And then we need the contemporary geopolitical approach.
	And then we need the economic and other ramifications and cultural import.
	And so that's how, if you understood Putin, all of that, you could see that coming.
	It was just funny for people who were first introduced to it, because even Tucker was like, holy, where are we?
	And that's where you get all the memes now of, you know, the, no, you don't understand there were three walls at this part in Rome, or now they're doing the Lord of the Rings one.
	Oh, you didn't read the predecessor to the Lord of the Rings?
	No, you see, if you read this, you understand where the elf comes from that connects to the door, because he's like, he's a little bit of an autist when it comes to that side of it.
	He's obsessed with history.
	And its context.
	And it's been constantly misconstrued.
	Nothing better represented the Tucker interview than the bogus media stories later that said, in a Tucker interview, Putin threatens nuclear war against the world.
	It's totally false.
	Anybody who watched the interview was like, it was just the opposite.
	But, you know, the other reason for Putin to do the interview, other than to introduce his perspective to the West, was like, why are Americans obsessed with our border rather than your border?
	And he goes, don't you have better things to do, better things to spend money on?
	He's like, I'm not going into Europe.
	I'm not going into Poland.
	Why in the world would I do any of these things?
	You've got to be kidding me.
	The defending Russians in a historical part of Russia that happens to be part of Ukraine.
	Because Ukraine refused to recognize the Minsk Agreement is a radically different equation.
	It's like Americans defending Americans in Texas from Mexico when it happened to be part of Mexico.
	That's the most historical analog for Americans to contextualize.
	And it was clear that to see Russia as a threat is ludicrous and that this war is a waste of money and time anyway.
	And he presented those arguments in a persuasive way.
	And for all those Americans that have a caricatured view of Putin, it's hard to watch the whole interview and stick with that caricatured view.
	Confession through projection.
	This is just like, I'm watching the first 30 minutes and I don't know Putin.
	This is the first time I've actually heard him speak for this long.
	And I'm saying, it's either one, a flex.
	Like, Tucker, you're here.
	You're going to listen to me meander the way I want.
	And I will, and you're going to do nothing about it.
	Or, it's the litmus, not the litmus test, sorry, the sports test.
	We used to go rock climbing.
	The cliffs that were further away had fewer people.
	It's just the nature of the beast.
	You have to walk longer, hike harder.
	You're not going to go there.
	Those are the ones you wanted to get to because...
	It showed that you were really interested in hiking.
	And this was to tune out idiots and to test Tucker to say, look, are you actually here for a meaningful conversation?
	And it was to persuade him, because remember, he references that Tucker has a history background, studied history, interested in history.
	Yeah, but dude, I have a minor's degree in Eastern European history.
	I had no idea.
	I'm Googling what he's saying at the time.
	But to Putin, Putin thinks, oh, this guy likes history.
	That's how I can communicate with him.
	That's how I can connect to him.
	So I've watched Putin in wide-ranging contexts.
	So some are saying it was a filibuster.
	Even Tucker himself said he first thought it was a filibuster.
	There was no time limit.
	He thought about it.
	He changed his mind that it wasn't a filibuster.
	But I've seen Putin in a whole bunch of contexts.
	He'll answer questions quick.
	He'll answer questions long.
	He doesn't filibuster as a routine basis.
	He'll answer any question for anybody, and he'll change his method of operation depending on the audience he's dealing with.
	And he's very effective.
	The reason why the West quit interviewing him is because he would cross-examine him.
	NBC was there and saying, look, you have your political opponents in prison.
	He goes, well, I can tell you what I haven't done.
	I haven't locked up 400 people that came into the Capitol in political protest.
	I'll tell you what I haven't done.
	I haven't sit there and summarily executed an unarmed political protester.
	That's what your country did on January 6th.
	One of the more savvy, sharp...
	I mean, he needled Tucker about, man, you applied to that CIA job.
	It's good you didn't get it, I guess.
	But he's extremely well-informed, knows exactly who and what Tucker is when he sits down for that kind of interview.
	But he clearly likes Tucker because of the close proximity.
	If Putin doesn't like you, there's a lot of memes out there.
	He likes those big tables where he forces people to settle the way he'd like to go.
	It's like some old ancient Europe table or whatever that thing is.
	With Tucker, it was like four feet away.
	So he didn't dislike him or distrust him.
	He was going to be aggressive and push back.
	But it was...
	I'm going to give you my explanation.
	You can hear my perspective.
	Think of it whatever you want.
	But his CIA joke was great.
	Tucker was like, who blew up North Street?
	He goes, you did.
	Tucker's like, no, I'm innocent.
	He goes, well, CIA doesn't have an alibi.
	You may.
	But he goes, why would I blow up my own pipe street?
	There was a great meme version that had if Putin's translator was Australian.
	That was great.
	That was just great.
	They went through that whole thing.
	That was excellent.
	So credit to Tucker having the cojones to do it.
	And he wasn't just over there for Putin.
	He was over there to talk to Tara Reid.
	Who had to flee the United States because of the Biden administration harassing her over her allegations of sexual misconduct against Biden.
	And Edward Snowden, who's over there because during the Biden vice presidency, he and Obama targeted him for revealing America's illegal surveillance activities.
	He was there to talk to both of them as well.
	So, Tucker getting fired from Fox freed him from the restraint.
	That's why I said it was a dumb decision by Murdoch.
	It's like, it tells you how Paul Ryan is so short-sighted.
	You want to keep a guy like Tucker Carlson in.
	It's the old joke.
	You want him inside the tent pissing out.
	You don't want him outside the tent pissing in.
	Now they got him pissing in.
	Well, geez, you know what?
	I never heard that expression.
	It's a good one.
	But now I understand you keep your friends close and your enemies closer in terms of Tucker Carlson.
	Robert, what do you think?
	Do we know what documents Putin gave Tucker at the end of the interview?
	No, there's tons of meme jokes about it.
	You know, he goes, you didn't read the Lord of the Rings preview that I put in the book?
	I mean, you didn't see the maps from the Roman conflict of 324 that I put in the thing?
	You know, so there's got 100 memes.
	But my guess is it's basic stuff.
	It'll probably be like Minsk Accords, things like that.
	The only other thing it may be is it may have been the peace deal that he talked about.
	That he was like, we got a whole peace deal done, and then Boris Johnson came and blew it up.
	That Ukraine conflict would have been wrapped up early.
	Quickly.
	It confirms my original take that he was not looking to have an escalated, long, extended conflict.
	That he really didn't want to go into Kiev, that all that was a feint in order to get their attention.
	Hey, just sign the deal.
	Honor the Minsk Accords.
	We go home.
	Just quit barraging the people of the Donetsk region that don't want to be even part of Ukraine and never have really been.
	For most of their history.
	The speak Russian, talk Russian, are Russian.
	And it's like Americans in Texas during when Texas was part of Mexico.
	Same principle.
	And they have their own version of, remember, the Alamo in Russia concerning Donetsk.
	And so it's dating back to the Maidan coup.
	Might have been additional evidence concerning the Maidan coup.
	But it would be Russian evidence and Russian documents and Russian information.
	There would be nothing illegal in obtaining it or receiving it or distributing it.
	So, hypothetically, not that anyone has to even commit a crime to be charged with one under these hyper-political systems.
	What could a very malicious DOJ charge Tucker with when he comes back?
	Nothing.
	There's nothing.
	There's absolutely nothing.
	And on that note...
	And credit to Tucker for challenging Putin to release the Wall Street Journal reporter who, he says, look, whatever he was, even if he was some sort of spy, he's not a super spy.
	Why don't you release him?
	And Putin was like, we've been nice in the past.
	We'll be nice when it's reciprocated.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's his way of saying, I got a chip.
	Last time I got a WNBA player and I got the Lord of War back.
	So, you know, I got the Merchant of Death back.
	The Merchant of Death.
	So now I got a Wall Street Journal reporter.
	Who knows what Biden will give me?
	What's left after the merchant of death?
	Let's just play this buffoon right here for about five seconds.
	Around the world, people are watching that ludicrous interview with Vladimir Putin conducted by Tucker Carlson.
	Maybe it's because I hate him now.
	I've never realized how ugly Boris Johnson was before this video, but Oh, he's a do.
	I've got to say one thing.
	I never realized he was so ugly.
	I never realized he was so stupid.
	Who the hell makes a video like that on the beach?
	I don't know where the hell he was.
	Who makes a video like that?
	Today it was windy outside.
	I made my car vlog in my office.
	Basically, Bojo got exposed because he was the one who personally told Zelensky he couldn't sign the peace deal.
	I mean, Zelensky is just a puppet of the Western deep state controlled by the last vestiges of empire instincts from the MI6 boys in Britain and the neocons and neoliberals in D.C. And Tucker's just exposing them piece by piece by piece by piece.
	And the Tucker Carlson network continues to deepen and expand its reach to levels that he never had anywhere near at Fox.
	Not only in terms of broadcast reach, but in terms of who he's able to interview.
	He couldn't interview Putin at Fox.
	Couldn't interview Alex Jones at Fox.
	Couldn't interview a wide range of people that, you know, some of the January 6th people that they ordered him fired because he was talking to.
	Now he can do freely.
	Now he can do easily without restriction or restraint.
	And we're seeing what unfettered independent news looks like.
	And a lot of people around the world are flocking to it.
	And it's increasing the populist persuasive argument in the American court of public opinion.
	The chat has really picked up on the fact that I feel stupid now for not having pieced it together.
	And Robert, like you say, that's a personal response from Boris Johnson because he was personally called out as being the one who sabotaged the peace deals.
	He's got blood on his hands and the dude is so freaking panicked he's making a vlog, a video on a windy beach.
	Go buy the trees!
	What happens when you let prep school buffoons?
	Into positions of power.
	And people like Boris Johnson are all over the deep state of the entire EU apparatus, the UK apparatus, and the US apparatus.
	And that's why we have so many nitwits, midwits in positions of power.
	And only a stuck pig squeals, and all the pigs were squealing last week.
	Oh my goodness.
	That was my conclusion from a minute.
	I love the expression, Robert.
	I'll never forget it again.
	I was about to say something, but I'll wait for it.
	All right, on the next subject.
	Speaking of people just ignoring basic principle and precept and common sense, the state of Hawaii said, Aloha to the Second Amendment.
	What's Second Amendment?
	There's no Second Amendment.
	Robert, I'm going to give you credit.
	I'm sitting there trying to find a way to segue in, but you found it.
	We're talking about the Second Amendment decision coming out of Hawaii that basically takes...
	You know, a steaming dump on the Bruin decision in such an extravagant, in-your-face way when they were, you know, accusing Biden of saying, oh, no, Biden's accusing Trump of defying Supreme Court precedent.
	Bruin came down, and I do have a legit question about this decision.
	This is a case coming out of Hawaii where a man who purchased a firearm legally in Florida, correct?
	I know.
	Well, that may be right, but he was in Hawaii.
	He was in Hawaii.
	He was in Hawaii with a firearm.
	It's either Florida or Texas, but a lawfully procured firearm in Florida.
	In Hawaii.
	Going for a hike, whatever the reason.
	It's a concealed carry.
	It's a small arm.
	It's not a revolver.
	He's got his pants.
	He's going hiking.
	Nothing wrong.
	Nothing wrong.
	Gets stopped for trespassing.
	They never proved that he actually did the trespassing.
	Either way, he gets stopped for whatever reason.
	It turns out he's got a gun.
	He says, I've lawfully procured this in my state.
	It's Florida.
	The chat's going to correct me.
	And no, this Hawaii court comes down and says...
	The Hawaii Supreme Court.
	That's the highest court of the state of Hawaii.
	Yeah, unanimously.
	They got all commies up there, apparently.
	And it says, notwithstanding the Bruin decision, our spirit of aloha, literally.
	I was trying to look up the violent...
	I am the king.
	Back when Hawaii was won by a tyrannical dictator.
	That's what I was trying to...
	And their historical president.
	So they say, you can't carry a firearm.
	I don't care if it's legal in your state.
	I don't care about Bruin.
	You can't carry any dangerous weapon, apparently.
	You can't carry a knife with you in Hawaii.
	What happens, Robert?
	The question is this.
	I guess the broader question is, this is going to get back up to the Supreme Court, presumably.
	How do they come down and say there will be sanctions for states that do this?
	So, well, here's the key, how they weaseled out of the consequences of their decision.
	They are interpreting the state constitution as to one part of the challenge.
	And on that part, they're going to have some leeway.
	Now, it's ludicrous, their argument.
	Basically, when Hawaii became a state, it adopted the Second Amendment as part of Hawaii, which means Hawaii was now saying we're no longer going to be run by a tyrannical dictator king.
	We're going to embrace all of American values in Hawaii.
	By the way, the Republicans were the ones who demanded Hawaii's addition.
	Democrats, Alaska.
	Because Democrats thought Alaska would be Democrat, and Republicans thought Hawaii would be Republican.
	This gives you an idea for the inaccuracy of political forecasting and prognosticating by these folks.
	But they say, no, you know, even though the state of Hawaii is taking the Second Amendment, saying we're going to be like America now, not like Hawaii has been, they only cite Hawaii's history, not America's history, for what gun control is allowed or not allowed.
	Again, citing the tyrannical king as their historical example.
	It would be like if Germany, after World War II, put in a Second Amendment and the court said, no, it can't mean that because the Nazis didn't allow it.
	Anyone's designed to prevent and reverse what happened before.
	So the state constitution interpretation, that's not necessarily an issue for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	How do they get out of the federal constitutional challenge?
	Well, what doctrine do you think they used to say that he couldn't challenge whether the Second Amendment prohibited the law?
	Sorry, I'm taking care of a family.
	Nothing bad, just I found out where my kid is.
	But so, I mean, that's...
	Yeah, so there's a doctrine they use to say the Second Amendment's not at issue in the case.
	How did they do that?
	Take a wild guess what doctrine they cited.
	I want to be an idiot and say latches or no standing, but I know that's not the case.
	Bingo!
	Standing!
	Damn it!
	You know what?
	Because they're like, so maybe our...
	See, Hawaii has a bogus permitting process whereby you basically could never get a permit until Bruin.
	And so this is a guy traveling around, you know, self-defense.
	He's like, I have a right to carry this for self-defense purposes.
	And Hawaii doesn't allow that.
	But the Hawaii Supreme Court, knowing that they would get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court if they said the Second Amendment didn't apply itself, because they're bound by Bruin like everybody else, despite all their bashing of it.
	They said the Second Amendment issue isn't before them because he had never applied for the permit.
	So somehow the fact that he never could get a permit is irrelevant.
	By the way, this is exactly what they did in the Reuben King case.
	They're like, oh, you don't get to challenge the permitting process because you never applied for the permit.
	So they're using that as their new opt-out.
	And again, standing is a Pontius Pilate pretext for bad law, for cowardly law, for constitutionalist law.
	And that's how Hawaii really dodged.
	The Second Amendment analysis, though they're begging the Supreme Court to take the case given their over-the-top attacks on the Supreme Court Second Amendment decision.
	But the question I did have is maybe I'm being a naive Canadian thinking that the states can regulate firearms in public areas on a state level.
	Florida's a constitutional carry.
	Texas is a constitutional carry.
	Other states are not.
	And so, fine, you have the right to do it in Florida or Texas, but you don't have the right to do it in Hawaii.
	Oh, but the Second Amendment is the right to self-defense, which includes the right to self-defense in public places.
	But then the idea would be like, okay, fine, so Texas, Florida, go constitutional carry.
	You don't need to apply for a permit.
	You can carry it publicly, get it, whatever.
	And then that transposes into other states that haven't adopted the same principle.
	Correct, yeah.
	Unless those states show...
	That there is an extended history of states regulating that preventive...
	And here's the key part.
	While they are states of the United States, not while they were run by dictator kings, Hawaii Supreme Court.
	So what happens now with this decision?
	They'll try the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The U.S. Supreme Court may dodge the issue because of the standing interpretation.
	Maybe the insults of the Supreme Court will get their attention and they'll reverse on the issue of standing and thereby say the Second Amendment was in fact violated.
	Or if we're going to play the judicial activism game, what would it take to find someone withstanding to try the very same question?
	Oh, well, there's other cases pending before the federal courts.
	Because Hawaii finally went and changed their concealed carry law, so it's much easier to get a concealed carry.
	They just redefine sensitive places as pretty much everywhere.
	And the Supreme Court said, don't go there because we will be striking those down.
	Within the next three years, the Supreme Court will take one or two of these cases and hammer the states that are trying to get around the law.
	Okay, very cool.
	Speaking of guns, speaking of an anti-gun case, it's really about setting, it's not just blaming moms for kids' bad acts.
	It's about attacking people for giving guns to teenage boys.
	It's an anti-gun case.
	That's what it's about.
	That's why as soon as the conviction came down, people were saying, go prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse's mom.
	That's the first thing they said.
	And that's where they're going.
	Rural America, middle America, you introduce your kid to guns.
	You could be criminally prosecuted if anything ever goes wrong with that guy.
	Well, I don't know who the hell the screenplay writer was for Mrs. Doubtfire, was one of the idiots saying that.
	And I said, you idiot, he got acquitted.
	Had he got convicted, maybe you'd have a stronger argument.
	Had he got convicted as an adult that might dispense the parents of that type of criminal liability, maybe your argument's weaker.
	But the question is this.
	Well, that's what happened, by the way, at Michigan.
	Well, but that's my question about Michigan.
	He got convicted or pleaded as an adult.
	How do they go after the parents?
	But set that aside.
	Had Rittenhouse been convicted, that argument would make sense.
	As it is, anybody making that argument is an idiot.
	They don't understand material differences.
	The problem is this, though.
	I can understand the idea that this is meant to criminalize parents giving their teen...
	Boys or girls, whomever, transgender shooters like you had in Joel Austin's church, don't give them guns.
	And if you give them access to guns, you'll have criminal exposure if they, what's the word, predictably or reasonably foreseeably do something criminal with the guns.
	That's the only question in this particular case.
	I mean, the second aspect is scapegoating school shooting by blaming guns and parents, not blaming mental health.
	Failure to take meaningful mental health care for people.
	Or the schools themselves having basic safety protocols.
	I mean, here's the irony.
	For almost all of American history, kids went to school with guns.
	That's America's history, right?
	You go to almost any school, little schoolhouse, anywhere in America, from 1776 to about 1966, and the average school...
	A underage student has a gun.
	Because he used to carry it with him with their pickup truck and everything else.
	It wasn't an AR-15.
	There weren't a lot of school shootings back then.
	Maybe because they figure, look at where school shootings happen.
	Like the Hawaii Supreme Court was like, dangerous weapons.
	You have a liberty interest to be walking free of dangerous weapons.
	Because the criminals don't follow.
	The criminals don't obey the law.
	The school shooters don't obey the law.
	The public mass shooters don't obey the law.
	So you not being with the gun means you are not at liberty.
	You are in danger.
	And when we had kids taking, when guns used to be part of public school training back in the day, learning how to use it because being part of your duty and obligation.
	We didn't have mass school shootings.
	Almost all the school public shootings take place in gun-free zones.
	It's not a coincidence.
	By, and not to channel Alex Jones, by people who are being, by and large, medicated with very specific types of SSRI.
	Dangerous pharmaceuticals.
	And look, this is to say, I don't agree with the conviction.
	I'm sympathetic to it, because if your kid is having mental issues, maybe the thing you don't get him is a gun.
	But, that to say...
	To go from there to say that it was so foreseeable that they get convicted, or the husband's getting convicted as well, it's a foregone conclusion, convicted of involuntary manslaughter, as if to say, she's a participant in this.
	And I can understand...
	It really is.
	It's almost a strict liability gun issue.
	If you introduce guns anywhere to anybody that could be dangerous, you're responsible for anything that happens with them.
	Now, as people in the chat asked, they're not going to apply this to...
	Gangbangers moms, right?
	Or the tranny Christian school shooting.
	No, I mean, we'll see.
	And maybe they will.
	There'll be no prosecution of parents in those cases.
	Well, the problem is there might be.
	So let's just assume that there will be.
	Then what do you do with that argument?
	It's still wrong.
	It is still wrong.
	None of these parents are conspiring with their kids to kill people.
	It's ludicrous.
	It's a ludicrous fight.
	I agree with Dershowitz.
	It's so outrageous in its policy consequence.
	Dershowitz predicted it will be over.
	And Dershowitz is an anti-gun guy, by the way.
	The one part of the Constitution he's weak on is the Second Amendment.
	Because he didn't grow up the way some of us did.
	Understanding the proper place and role of guns in protection and security and safety and in meaningful liberty.
	You know, he grew up in New York City, so not the same thing.
	But he said this is so policy dangerous that he predicted the Michigan Court of Appeals will overturn.
	The problem is the Michigan Court of Appeals has approved a bunch of crazy cases concerning guns.
	So the chances are this woman will be a scapegoat, will serve multiple years in prison, and it will be a predicate for more dumb, dangerous cases to come.
	She'll be the Derek Chauvin of Michigan.
	It's the way it's going to go.
	And then I say the reductio.
	I like that we can say this.
	Yes, you should not go after the transgender Christian school shooter's parents.
	They're going to say, well, we didn't get her the gun.
	Or him.
	I don't remember where that person was biologically.
	It doesn't matter.
	Where does it stop?
	Did you get them a gun?
	No.
	I didn't get him the gun.
	I gave him a credit card.
	They used that credit card to get a gun.
	Alright, so now you're supposed to verify the credit card statement to the kid.
	The reductio goes to a place of absurdity where it is intended really, I don't know, as a last-ditch effort to compel indirectly what they can't do directly in terms of parents, lock up your guns even though it's not legally required.
	If something happens, you will be criminally convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
	But some people are going to say, yeah, that's the way it should be and we like it.
	And that's the question as to whether or not it's a violation of Second Amendment rights to basically indirectly compel parents to lock up, hide, not allow moderately young adults to have access to guns.
	It might be a policy decision.
	Michigan will live with it.
	Yeah, well, Dershowitz's point was, if you want to make that a crime, make it a crime.
	Don't make up a current crime.
	Ask it to the legislature and say, here's the consequences that are going to happen if you do A, B, C, or D. Don't try to claim it's involuntary manslaughter when that doesn't fit.
	Could they not have gone with criminal negligence or something along those lines?
	They don't have a specific law that has this level of penalty.
	And so they just wanted to apply in a novel way an existing law.
	And that's what's so problematic about it.
	But it shows that a jury will convict...
	If they just don't like you or your case.
	Juries don't follow facts and law with consistency.
	They have their own moral narrative.
	And juries are like all human beings.
	Some are good.
	Some are bad.
	And this was a bad jury.
	And quite frankly, the big mistake of the defense lawyer was not filtering out.
	Some of these jurors were manifestly bad and never should have been on the jury to begin with.
	That's why I always remind people jury selection is nine-tenths of winning a case.
	There were some ugly facts and some unlikable defendants, and I'm sure the husband's going to be as unlikable as the mother, so it makes it easier to do.
	Oh yeah, sure, it's railroading.
	But if you have an honest jury who understands the public policy consequences, you don't get that verdict.
	Even people who didn't like her, didn't like the facts of the case, didn't like guns, many of them that followed the trial were like, eh.
	Meg Fox was like, this case makes no sense.
	That the precarious...
	Anybody that's a parent...
	It knows the limitations of your ability to control your kid's conduct.
	And the idea that suddenly you're going to be second-guessed on every single thing you ever did or do.
	I mean, in car context, this could apply in a broad range.
	It could apply to knives.
	You get your kid a camping knife.
	It could apply to any risky activity of any kind.
	I mean, anything involving a vehicle is risky.
	I mean, imagine what you're dealing with now there.
	Access to alcohol, same issue.
	Is everything locked up?
	Is everything super secure?
	It's problematic where it's trying to go.
	Civil liability might have been a different dynamic, but criminal liability is preposterous in my view.
	But you get a sense of where these verdicts are going when you get a bad jury in the Michael Mann case that we talked about.
	It's what I predicted, as if he could not get a fair jury in D.C. I didn't know why anyone thought he could.
	Now, I have not been following this.
	I'm very mildly familiar with the facts.
	Someone was suing, one of the, Michael Mann, someone was suing one for defamation for saying that his research was falsified, fabricated about climate change.
	I forget the names.
	He's the hockey stick guy.
	Yep.
	Yeah, Mark Stein was one of the big people.
	Occasionally a sub for Rush Limbaugh back in the day.
	Very independent kind of guy.
	Him and then some other conservatives who had been hypercritical of Michael Mann's very questionable science.
	Which they proved at trial, they had every good faith basis to say, jury didn't care.
	It's the District of Columbia.
	They gave him a million bucks.
	A million bucks.
	The Michael Mann I'm thinking about directed Heat, and that's a damn good movie.
	That's a cool Michael Mann.
	He did Collateral.
	He did The Insider.
	He's a classic.
	He's one of the all-time greats.
	That's Michael Mann, not so much.
	He's a guy who gets...
	He's a grifter.
	He gets paid lots of money to propagate climate alarmism.
	So who sued who in this case?
	Michael Mann sued them in D.C. It took about a decade before it got to trial, because really it never should have got to trial.
	If it was anybody else, if politics were reversed, it would have been dismissed.
	But of course, because it's in D.C., they allowed the case to go forward, and the jury didn't care what the evidence was.
	They were always going to rule politics this side.
	That's it.
	Who's on the Trump side?
	Who's on the anti-Trump side?
	We rule in favor of the Trump side.
	This is why the D.C. court system must...
	Be abolished.
	You cannot have the swamp judge the swamp and the critics of the swamp, too.
	It is the District of Corruption, not the District of Columbia.
	All right.
	Let's see.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to go back to the list.
	Speaking of corruption, we got some corrupt cops that thought they should be immune that thankfully the federal court recognized.
	That immunity at least has some limits.
	Robert, I'm not saying I didn't do my homework on this one, but I didn't.
	Would you please go do this so that I don't look stupid as I do right now?
	This is a case of a guy who had a bar tab.
	Got arrested for a bar tab.
	Thrown into jail over like a $200 bar tab.
	And then they removed him, took him into a separate room, six officers, there was no video camera.
	Beat the hell out of him for a couple of hours.
	And then he comes back out in different clothes, blood everywhere, all the rest, thrown back into jail.
	He sues, saying this was not legal.
	If you are a pretrial detainee, you have a right under the 14th Amendment to due process of law.
	Your liberty interest, because you're not a convicted prisoner, your liberty interest is stronger than the 8th Amendment.
	Which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.
	Obviously you have that protection, but you have more protection.
	And if an objectively reasonable officer would know you couldn't do this, then you're not immune.
	Yet these officers argued, oh, we didn't know we couldn't take somebody in a private separate room and rubber hose them for two hours.
	That's a legal judge?
	Really?
	It was just coercive interrogation, Robert.
	It's like waterboarding.
	They do it all the time in Guantanamo.
	Exactly.
	So luckily the federal judge was like, uh, okay, nah, uh, you know, that's probably a little excessive.
	And their other, this is one of their other favorite claims is like, well, they didn't, he didn't identify which one of them, which one of us was beating him.
	And we can't be responsible if it was somebody else beating him.
	So it was, you know, it was Joe.
	No, it was Jack.
	No, it was John.
	That defense.
	They love to pull that defense.
	And the judge was like, no, in a circumstance where you don't know, you can allege everybody did it.
	So, fortunately, good decision having some limits on governmental immunity when it really is being misused.
	And this is, again, the 1983 context, which, as other federal courts and scholars have noted, there should be no immunity ever in the 1983 context for state officials that violate the law.
	Robert, let me bring up, hold on a second, the chat in Rumble before we decide to head over to Locals.
	I've given everyone the link.
	Yeah, we have the big Gina Carano case and a big update on Amos Miller.
	We're doing that on Locals.
	I'm going to end with Podesta because I can't not end with Podesta and his satanic hands.
	Okay, so hold on a second.
	I'm going to...
	Okay, Arkansas crime attorney, starting from the bottom.
	My theory, at some point, probably two to three days before...
	January 20th, 2025.
	Biden will be 25th if Trump wins and Kamala will come into pardon him.
	Hold on.
	If Trump wins.
	Oh, okay, sorry.
	So this is before.
	If Trump wins, Kamala comes into pardon everybody and Biden gets 25th.
	Okay, fine.
	Bongino, I got that one before.
	Occupant 42, I got that one before.
	Nifranziel, serious question.
	And this is a serious question.
	It's a legit parsing of words.
	Heard's report says Biden presents himself as, not that he is.
	I think there's a question of duplicity here.
	Elsewhere says that he's sharp.
	Is Biden pretending to be a dawdling old fool, basically?
	Is he trying to tell us something?
	He really is a doddling old fool.
	I think his senility is legit.
	Like Ron Jeremy, people.
	Oh my goodness.
	Look it up.
	I'd met him years before in Hollywood.
	I was like, this guy's crazy.
	This guy's clearly not all there.
	Before he got arrested for everything.
	Why did you meet...
	By accident?
	How did you meet him?
	I was at a very normal party.
	But he showed up.
	I had the most interesting man in the world at one of my Malibu parties.
	The actual guy from the meet.
	I went to somebody else's party and Ron Jeremy showed up.
	And I was like, who?
	I was like, this dude is weird.
	Like, well, that's the famous Ron Jury.
	Like, this dude is nuts.
	You realize this guy's nuts?
	And then they're like, oh, he's not that.
	No, I was like, yeah, he's nuts.
	Ron Jeremy is nuts, disgusting, ugly, and he got, in this earth, he got what he deserved for whatever he did.
	Okay, hold on.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Serious question?
	Okay, so we got, I'm not your buddy guy says, I love how people have also started to say, it will take me 30 seconds and others will respond, wait, is that a Putin 30 seconds?
	Nevasa, viva!
	There's a case in Massachusetts where a New Hampshire dude has a concealed carry weapon in New Hampshire, but not in Massachusetts, that got a victory in Massachusetts for the CCW reciprocity.
	That's amazing.
	Okay.
	The Hawaii 2A Dookie decision is another heap in the pile Dookie.
	And we got Grandpa's Place.
	Gross.
	Unless it's not supposed to be gross.
	When they taught shooting at schools, the jocks did not bully the geeks because the geeks were the ones that got the long-range shooting.
	And Arkansas Crime Attorney says, it was my argument for the way Biden pardons himself.
	Very nice.
	Okay.
	Robert.
	This will be the last one before we go over to Locals and I'll bring the link over so you can come over to the after party.
	It's Podesta.
	What the hell's going on with Podesta?
	Holy crap apples.
	Robert, how are they bypassing confirmation hearings?
	This is where I don't understand American politics, American dynamics, the subtleties.
	You have confirmation hearings.
	What purpose do they serve?
	What are the legal requirements for confirmation hearings?
	How the hell do you get arguably...
	Pedophiles.
	Sorry, a pedophilic tendency.
	How do you bypass confirmation hearings?
	I mean, only if you're part of an office that doesn't require confirmation.
	What office?
	If you get confirmed to one office, then the president can kind of move you around.
	Okay.
	And then you could have temporary people subject to confirmation, but ultimately a range of positions require Senate confirmation, and those positions require hearings and confirmation.
	So, John Podesta, has he already been confirmed for another function under Clinton, Obama, or whatever?
	Oh, no, it has to be under this administration.
	So, to my knowledge, no.
	Robert, I almost shut down the stream.
	What the hell did that email mean?
	There's a handkerchief with a map on it that seems to be pizza-related.
	That was the genius of the Pizzagate media coverage.
	Was to caricature just one little aspect about one little store in D.C. as if that's what Pizzagate was about?
	When Pizzagate was all about when WikiLeaks released the emails, people were like, there's really weird language in these emails.
	And then they Googled what these words frequently are substitute for.
	And from the FBI's own information, they are commonly used by pedophiles to reference pedophile behavior.
	And that's how Pizzagate started.
	And the media never covered that fact.
	Instead, different people took it in 100 directions, and they said Pizzagate was whether one particular store in D.C. had a secret underground activity going on.
	And it's like, that's not what Pizzagate was.
	Pizzagate was, why is there weird language in the emails that happens to me or a language that the FBI says is most commonly used as code for pedophilia and sex trafficking?
	The media never covered it honestly.
	I'm trying to even find the FBI's list of child pornography related words.
	There's testimony to that effect.
	They've convicted people for this kind of thing.
	They've never explained.
	Nor did the Podesta family's weird interest in art.
	Let's take a look at some of that art.
	What in the world?
	It's fucking nuts.
	And I went down a deep dive of Maria Abramovich.
	Her artwork and the other one there, Marshall.
	It's all, you know, you're connecting dots because there's no video evidence of John Podesta or his brother Tony Podesta doing, you know, whatever.
	But holy hell.
	Isn't D.C. still the per capita capital of missing children in America?
	Is that really a coincidence?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	D.C. missing children leader.
	I'll pull that up in a second.
	I'm going to filter through.
	Stuff that's going to get you on the FBI watch list.
	You're already on the FBI watch list.
	Remember, the FBI was flagged.
	The Biden administration and the FBI was flagging people's personal bank accounts for whether words like Trump or MAGA showed up.
	Massive illegal surveillance.
	Started really a little bit with the Clinton administration.
	Accelerated under both Bush and Obama.
	And Biden has turned on the spigots full scale.
	And it's constant, continuous illegality by the rogue, his fraudulency, the second in the White House.
	Well, Robert, I'll say this.
	If the FBI is watching, you might want to go to VivaFry.com and get the best shot glass ever wanted for president.
	Oh, yeah.
	And they're still up.
	The Hold the Line Honey fundraiser for Amos Miller.
	You can go to amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	You can still get some of that honey to support him.
	We'll go into it in the after party at vivobarneslaw.logos.com.
	The latest egregious actions against Amos Miller.
	But it'd be a great way to cheer up Amos this week.
	He's been through a real tough month.
	Get some of that honey.
	It's fantastic.
	I mean, it's got the little honeycomb in there and the whole nine yards.
	I got multiple bottles coming to me.
	So get it while you still can.
	And give Amos a good greeting for the week.
	Robert, we've got your 50th birthday anniversary and a meet-up in...
	Oh, party, yeah.
	Anniversary of my birth.
	Sorry.
	I haven't been married to somebody that long.
	It's French.
	I'm saying anniversaire.
	We're supposed to do a sort of an auction raffle.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	There's going to be one that's coming with the Free America Law Center site.
	We're going to have an online auction.
	We're going to have a separate raffle at the party.
	We're going to have a separate raffle in the lead-up to the party.
	So people have been, you know, sending in great ideas that, you know, people that are going to send children's books, art, sculpture, music.
	People are going to offer their own services that they do.
	So we're going to put up all kinds of things to raise money.
	For Free America Law Center to support the Amos Miller case, support the Brooke Jackson case, support the various vaccine mandate cases, and all the other cases that we're dealing with.
	Election transparency cases that are coming this spring and early summer.
	But yeah, there's still available tickets for the 50th birthday party in Las Vegas on April 13th.
	Yeah, I think I said the wrong date last time.
	No, I think you said Saturday night.
	April 13th in Las Vegas.
	I'm taking a red-eye to get up there, people.
	I'll read this.
	Rocco Horror has a good argument as to, you know, the...
	The burden of proof here.
	Going back to Crumbly.
	Viva, how many mothers have you ever met that believe their child is capable of mass murder?
	They'll choose denial over having raised a truly evil...
	I don't think he was evil.
	I think he's mentally unwell.
	It's like you're not raising evil.
	You have a broken brain, but it doesn't matter.
	Having believed it, likely.
	Hard sell in my opinion.
	Arkansas crime attorney says we need to auction some things off to support my law firm.
	LOL.
	I got my megalodon tooth, people.
	It's right here.
	Okay, now what we're doing right now, we're ending this here because I got a kid who's coming here saying, why am I eating crap?
	My sister made me burnt the broccoli.
	It hasn't happened.
	We're going over to locals, people.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	Barnes, do you have any appearances this week?
	I don't think so.
	Okay.
	And I will be live.
	It's Monday.
	It's not Sunday.
	Whatever.
	I'll be live tomorrow and throughout the week.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	Get the coffee, people.
	1775.
	I can't wait for tomorrow morning when I get to drink.
	Credit to Rumble.
	That's a very smart parallel economy structure.
	Absolutely.
	But it's just...
	It smells...
	It smells so good.
	It smells so good and it tastes delicious.
	Okay, we're going to end this on Rumble.
	Let me just get my windows toggled up here.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or don't and I'll see you tomorrow when I go live at some point because I will be going live.
	The wife is back on Wednesday.
	It's been a tough week.
	It'll be tough.
	Okay, we're ending and we'll see everybody on vivabarneslaw.locals.com ending on Rumble now.

▲