Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 18, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:12:12

Fani Willis DEBACLE; Engoron's OUTRAGEOUS Trump Ruling; Navalny & MORE! Viva & Barnes Ep. 198

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Putin is trying to court the MAGA GOP in the United States.
	In fact, one of the leaders of the MAGA GOP is in Moscow tonight.
	It's the man you see here with the MAGA leader Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson.
	Possibly there in Moscow to interview Putin.
	Definitely there as a Putin-supporting celebrity.
	As a human being, so many people look up to you.
	They rely on you.
	No one can imagine how hard that is.
	Do you?
	Do you do anything for yourself?
	Are you ever able to take a minute to read or to listen to music or something to sort of give yourself that moment?
	I have such moments, it's important to be in silence, to be alone.
	How can I be alone?
	Alone I can be with music, through, or with a book.
	And early, early in the morning when there are no sounds in.
	No air raid sirens.
	I'll be coming back to these people.
	I mean, just listen to how Russian state media is breathlessly celebrating his visit.
	People, people, our stuff.
	I mean, no, nobody is in my cabinet.
	Nobody.
	I can just read, think, think.
	What music do you like?
	Oh, I like AC /DC.
	And Ukrainian music.
	Of course, I like Ukrainian music a lot because Ukrainian, that's native language.
	That's why you understand not only music, you understand the words and etc.
	ACDC, I don't understand all the words because of...
	You like the music.
	Look at them talking about him like a celebrity.
	Everything he does on camera, breathlessly repeated.
	I like energy of ACDC, like Eric Clapton.
	A lot of guns and roses.
	Maybe it's...
	It's too old music for...
	I understand.
	We're the same.
	We're the same.
	I love it.
	No, no.
	It's important to have sometimes at six, seven in the morning, some trainings.
	Workout.
	Yes, workouts.
	Or to do something with music, with such music, which gives you energy for all the day.
	Now I'm in the screen.
	Alright.
	Good evening, people.
	I think we found a new vomitous intro.
	A new vomitous character, although we'll never play as much Aaron Burnett as we play of Justin Trudeau.
	Vomit.
	Pure, unadulterated.
	Retchy vomit.
	If things get any cheesier, it's going to be like toe cheese.
	It's going to be gargonzola.
	Oh my gosh.
	I want to play that again and just...
	Highlight a few key lip licking.
	Lip licking.
	Sequences in that.
	I'm doing a bit of a longer intro video as people trickle in because I think I may be starting the show too early.
	Good evening, everybody.
	We've got a show and a half tonight.
	It might actually be two shows in one.
	It's amazing.
	I was just on Alex Jones since 5.30 because when I get the call...
	On a Sunday, can you pop on and talk about Big Fanny Willis and Nipple Judge Angeron?
	I'm like, I'm in the car, I'll be back in 15 minutes in front of my computer.
	Oh, as everybody trickles in to watch another evening of Sunday Night Law with Viva and Barnes, let's go back to this wonderful work of monstrosity.
	Why are we playing this one?
	I've got a bunch of videos to play as the intro, depending on how I feel.
	We're going to talk about some...
	Russia-Ukraine stuff tonight, particularly the death of Navalny in a Russian prison in the Arctic or something.
	I don't know where it was, but I had to bring this up because I saw this clip of an interview with Aaron Burnett and Volodymyr Zelensky.
	I swear to you, I thought it was CGI.
	I thought it was a fake video, so before I reacted and went over the top with my reaction, I had to go find the source video.
	And watch it.
	These are the propagandist hacks who are accusing Tucker Carlson of having given...
	It's Vladimir Putin.
	Everybody's Vladimir here.
	Putin a softball interview.
	This was her interviewing Zelensky.
	No, it is unclear if an interview between Putin and Carlson will take place.
	But if it's Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, possibly there in Moscow to interview Putin.
	Definitely there as a Putin-supporting celebrity.
	Putin-supporting celebrity.
	So many people look up to you.
	First of all, what the hell is she doing with her hands?
	No one can imagine how hard that is.
	People look up to you.
	Do you do anything to yourself?
	Are you ever able to take a minute to...
	Do you need a back massage?
	To read or to listen to music or something to sort of give yourself that moment.
	I have such moments.
	It's important to be in silence.
	Look at her.
	Pay attention only to Erin Burnett.
	Oh, Mr. Zelensky, you're making my CNN propagandist heart melt.
	Let me just get to the lip smacking.
	MAGA, the MAGA Republicans thing is just never going to get old with these hacks repeating it over and over again.
	Oh, there's one, there's one.
	Look at this, look at this.
	Native language, that's why you understand not only music, you understand the words and etc.
	ACDC, I don't understand all the words because of...
	You like the music.
	Look at them talking about him like a celebrity.
	Everything he does on camera.
	It's confession through projection.
	Breathlessly repeated.
	I like the energy of ACDC, like Eric Clapton, a lot of, lots of Guns N' Roses.
	Maybe it's...
	It's too old music for...
	I understand.
	We're the same.
	We're the same.
	Hey, I got Eric Clapton and ACDC back at the hotel.
	It's funny you should mention it.
	You want to come and we'll put on an old 8-track and maybe sip some...
	Oh my goodness.
	Nauseating.
	Repulsive and nauseating.
	But the biggest takeaway from all of that, and we're going to come to this theme over and over again tonight and in the future as we have in the past, confession through projection.
	Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	These propagandist MSM hacks are accusing Tucker Carlson of giving softball-fawning celebrity-type interviews to Vladimir Putin?
	What kind of music do you like?
	People look up to you.
	This is her hard-hitting question.
	Life is hard.
	People look up to you.
	What do you like to do to unwind?
	Oh, okay.
	We're done.
	We're done.
	That was the fun intro.
	Now, for those of you who are new to the channel, last week was a hell of a week.
	So I think there might be a few people new to the channel.
	We hit 400,000 subs on Rumble.
	For those of you who are new to the channel, Viva Frey.
	That's not my real name.
	My name is not Viva.
	It's David Freiheit.
	Freiheit means freedom in German.
	David biblically means...
	Oh, shoot.
	What does it mean?
	Beloved.
	Beloved is what it means in Hebrew.
	Or Aramaic, or whatever the original language was.
	So Beloved Freedom.
	It's a fortunate last name.
	I've always liked my last name.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And then we go to Rumble, and we end on what I call CommieTube these days.
	Rumble stream is not up.
	That's not true.
	I'm watching it right now.
	Hold on.
	I see it on Rumble.
	Refresh your screen if it's not up on Rumble.
	Unless you're trolling.
	I don't think you're trolling the good doctor.
	Doctors.
	If you're a good doctor, you're not trolling.
	I'm joking, but refresh it.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Let me see here.
	We are.
	We're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So we start on YouTube Rumble.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	About half an hour in, we end on censorship, commie, narrative, controlling tube, YouTube.
	Head over to Rumble.
	And then we end on Rumble and we go to the afterparty at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we answer tipped questions of five bucks or more.
	Okay, now, a little housekeeping, as we say in the industry.
	You may have noticed that this stream says contains paid promotion because it does.
	And it is our beloved sponsor, fieldofgreens.com.
	How many vegetables did I eat today?
	You don't want to know.
	I have an obsessive compulsive disorder.
	I want to eat things, but I don't want the calories of eating.
	So arugula is very low in calorie, high in fiber, high in nutrients.
	I ate an entire container of arugula today.
	You're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	And suffice to say, most people don't.
	Most people have terrible, bad, unhealthy habits, sucking down those disgusting chemical-filled low-cal drinks, diet drinks, or the sugar-filled energy drinks.
	Take a spoonful of this twice a day.
	One spoonful of desiccated greens.
	It's a food.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's not an extract.
	You stir it in water.
	It looks like swamp water, as I say, which is the containing of the nutrients of life.
	It tastes great.
	One spoonful is one serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the antioxidants, all the good stuff.
	You do that twice a day.
	You replace a bad habit with a healthy habit, and you get two servings of vegetables a day, fruits and vegetables, just from that.
	I would advise in general, exercise and eat healthy.
	But if you can't, if you're traveling, whatever, fieldofgreens.com, desiccated raw fruits, or desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	It's delicious.
	It's healthy.
	Go to the website.
	It will take you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Fieldofgreens.com, if you put in promo code VIVA, you get 15% off your first order and free rush handling.
	Oh, yes, look at this.
	Would you look at that, people?
	It's on my desk.
	Because...
	I actually love the way it smells.
	And that's it.
	Thank you.
	The link...
	Hold on.
	I have to have put the link in the description.
	I did.
	Okay.
	Got nervous for a second.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	15% off your first order.
	Get healthy, stay healthy, and be healthy.
	Physically and psychologically.
	Now, until Barnes gets in here, I've got more video on the backdrop.
	Oh my goodness.
	I cannot get over the week we had last week.
	I'll play the good stuff.
	Which one do we want to do?
	The moment...
	Oh, we're going to play this one.
	Because I don't want to play it when Barnes gets here.
	I know everybody watching tonight has seen it.
	And I was going to play my Dear Sister remix, but I don't want this entire stream getting copyclaimed by copyright pirates on YouTube.
	So I'm going to play my unedited version.
	We're going to talk about the Fanny Willis-Nathan Wade evidentiary hearing.
	But I'm just going to show you the moment a man realizes he is about to get stabbed in the back, metaphorically speaking, repeatedly.
	Then in the front.
	Then disemboweled for the world to see.
	This man, for those of you who don't know who he is, Terrence Bradley.
	Former business partner of Nathan Wade, who's boning Fannie Willis.
	Former family lawyer of...
	Nathan Wade, although I think it was in name only.
	I think Nathan Wade was drafting the proceedings and using Terence Bradley's letterhead to make it look like he was, you know, effectively being represented by a counsel.
	This man invoked privilege to protect Nathan Wade for the better part of two days.
	And then Anna Cross, Fannie Willis' counsel in cross-examination, says, yep, you've served your purpose.
	Now it's time for a public...
	Judicial execution.
	Listen to this.
	And while you did socialize together frequently, you considered yourself a friend of Mr. Wave at that time?
	Yes, we were friends at that time, yes.
	All right.
	You are no longer business partners?
	That is correct.
	You are no longer friends?
	Whatcha say?
	Dear sister, this is the moment the shots rang out.
	And when I made my dear sister edit, I deliberately chose not to include the sound of a gunshot because I don't want anyone...
	Misconstruing deliberately or accidentally anything of violence, but this is the moment.
	They reached into his chest and ripped his heart out.
	Look at that face.
	You're no longer his business partner, no longer his friend, and look at his face.
	Friends at the time, yes.
	All right.
	You are no longer business partners.
	You are no longer friends.
	What the?
	What are you doing, man?
	What are you doing, Anna?
	You hear his heart breaking.
	I mean, if he's saying that we're not friends, then yeah.
	I want to know what you think, Mr. Bradley.
	Do you consider yourself a friend of Mr. Wade?
	I hear his heart breaking.
	I would consider...
	It goes to potential bias.
	Would I consider myself a friend of Mr. Wade?
	I would.
	I thought I did.
	And while you did socialize together...
	Oh, and by the way, for those of you who missed the trial, right after that point, they went ahead and destroyed Terrence Bradley's life by bringing up the circumstances under which he left the partnership with Nathan Wade and his other partner, Campbell, because of alleged improper sexual conduct that they called assault.
	We're going to go over the trial when Barnes gets here, so that we don't have to watch the videos.
	We'll watch them now.
	I got another one.
	Which one is this?
	Oh, this was when Fanny Willis took the stand.
	Oh my goodness.
	Look at this.
	Crazy woman.
	First of all, I mean, just look at her face right now.
	And I'm not projecting.
	Is that me right there?
	That's me right there.
	I'm not projecting.
	I'm just going to point it out.
	She's got bags under the eyes like she's been sobbing.
	Like she hasn't slept in days.
	There were rumors that her dress was on backwards.
	It doesn't look like it was.
	It just looks like it wasn't fitting properly because it was hastily thrown on so that she can barge down to the court like a rabid animal to get on the stand.
	She gets on the stand and this comes out.
	So your office objected to us getting Delta records for flights that you may have taken.
	Well, no, no, no.
	Look, I object to you getting records.
	You've been in.
	Intrusive into people's personal lives.
	Intrusive into people's personal lives.
	You think I'm on trial.
	These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020.
	I'm not.
	These people?
	What do you mean, these people?
	No matter how hard you try to put me on trial.
	Oh my goodness.
	Look at that.
	Oh, is she a psychopath?
	Keep going, Fanny.
	Look at the way she's sitting in front of a judge.
	This is the most disastrous thing I've ever seen.
	And I've seen a bird get stepped on.
	Literally, by the way.
	For anybody who's wondering...
	I was at Strawberry Girls in Florida, and they have a little display with a bunch of parakeets inside, and you go through these flapping doors, and the birds come, and they eat out of your hand.
	And I saw a woman, just not looking where she was walking, back up and step on a little yellow parakeet.
	And then it starts wobbling around.
	I don't want to depress people.
	Then I pick it up, and it dies in my hand.
	I saw that!
	This was more disastrous than that.
	Oh my goodness.
	So that was another one of the highlights.
	And just to get to one of the other trials that we're going to be talking about tonight so I don't have to play the clip.
	Do you all remember who Michael Cohen is?
	Perjurer.
	Overall scumbag.
	He gave a 15-minute or 12-minute interview.
	It was MSNBC.
	Because, you know, there's only one news outlet out there.
	News?
	Propagandist hack of an outlet that is out there towing the line for these outrageous, outlandish court rulings.
	Political persecutions.
	MSNBC is the last one.
	MSNBC, you know, remember?
	The one that pursued Russiagate for three years.
	MSNBC, the one that told you, get the jab, and it stops the virus.
	You're protected.
	You can't get it.
	Lie, lie, lies, and lies.
	Well, they've got their star witness now who's reveling in the New York atrocity of judicial abuse.
	And after 10 minutes, you read the comments in the comment section, you think you're taking crazy pills, is what you think.
	People are like, oh, Michael Cohen really has turned his life around.
	Oh, he's the hero that we didn't know that we needed.
	People are now singing the praises of Michael Cohen, this grubby criminal of a lawyer.
	Although that might be redundant.
	He's a hero now.
	And he gives a 10 minutes of interview.
	Oh, this trial.
	I was telling the truth all along.
	Trump is a criminal.
	Listen to what he says of Donald Trump at the end of this interview.
	You have Donald Trump, I'm not sure if you saw, already texting his supporters fundraising off of this.
	It is a message we have heard before that he is being victimized.
	That is not particularly surprising.
	I guess my question to you is, what do you say to the folks who are still sending in their five or ten bucks to those text message appeals?
	It's time to wake up, stupid.
	This isn't a joke.
	This is a man who has himself come forward and stated that he intends to rewrite the Constitution.
	Excuse me.
	Excuse me.
	Footnote, please.
	Video clip.
	Where was that, you lying scumbag of a filthy lawyer?
	Where was that?
	Where did he say he's going to really rewrite the Constitution?
	But wait!
	There's more.
	That he wants to destroy our tripartite system of justice.
	That he wants to destroy our tripartite system of justice.
	You mean like what Joe Biden is doing right now in real time?
	Please, Michael Cohen, with your infinite wisdom and good judgment, go on and tell us what else he wants to do.
	He wants to get rid of the judiciary and the legislature.
	Oh, he wants to get rid of the judiciary and the legislature.
	Oh, please, go on.
	Does he want to kill anybody?
	He wants to confer all power to himself, to the executive branch, that he's going to use the military SEAL Team 6 to go after critics.
	He wants to execute General Mark Milley.
	He wants to execute General Mark Milley.
	May I get the footnote on that one, Michael Cohen?
	Chief of Staff, is this who you want to support?
	You have nothing better to do with your money?
	Give it to...
	Give it to me.
	Give it to me.
	I need some money.
	I'm down on my luck.
	Give it to charity.
	But this, he's a billionaire.
	He doesn't need your charity.
	He's a billionaire.
	In the earlier part of the interview, he says how Trump is going to go bankrupt because of this, because of these decisions.
	He's got real problems.
	He's not worth all of that money.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Trump lied about his assets.
	He's not worth the billions.
	This is going to bankrupt him.
	But don't give him money.
	He's a billionaire.
	Because he wants to rewrite the Constitution bullshit.
	Because he wants to assassinate General Milley.
	I'm not sure if you saw.
	I want to refresh my memory.
	What was I about to say about that?
	Already texting his supporters.
	I'm going to play this again for a reason.
	Fundraising off of this.
	It is a message we have heard before that he is being victimized.
	That is not particularly surprising.
	I guess my question to you is.
	Oh, the projection.
	That's what I want to say.
	What do you say to the folks who are still.
	Sending in their five or ten bucks.
	Can you imagine being so intimidated you got to get on MSNBC and try to convince people not to give their five or ten bucks because you want to bankrupt in all respects your political adversary?
	We're time to wake up, stupid!
	To those text messages.
	He's been waiting for this moment his entire life.
	It's time to wake up, stupid.
	Did you just call me stupid?
	You son of a...
	This isn't a joke.
	This is a man who has himself come forward and stated that he intends to rewrite the Constitution.
	That he wants to destroy our tripartite system of justice.
	Destroy the tripartite system of justice.
	Who might be guilty of doing that now?
	Out of curiosity.
	He wants to get rid of the judiciary and the legislature.
	Who is it now that basically is not listening to the decisions of the Supreme Court?
	He wants to confer all power to himself.
	He wants to confer all power to himself.
	To the executive branch that he's going to use the military SEAL Team 6 to go after critics.
	He wants to execute.
	I can't deal with that crap anymore.
	On the same day, by the way, that we're discovering that, you know, yeah, Obama was spying on Trump.
	Everything they accuse their adversaries of doing is that which they are doing themselves.
	All right, now hold on.
	Let me just make sure that Barnes...
	I know I sent Barnes the link until he gets here.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	We got...
	Oh, okay, good.
	I got the rants open here.
	Let's do some rants before Barnes gets in the house.
	We'll do some super chats and some rants.
	Cheryl Gage says, loved your reaction when you realized that Fannie just walked in and was going to take the stand.
	Dude, she did it in defiance of legal advice.
	They were arguing to quash her subpoena as she comes in, frazzled, unhinged, and says, I'm taking the stand.
	Give me these documents.
	You give me this.
	Give me this.
	Sit down in a chair in front of a judge.
	You can approach.
	Oh, it was wild.
	It was wild.
	Does Amos Miller offer a desiccated vegetable powder?
	How does Field of Greens feel about it?
	Does he?
	I don't know if he does.
	Tony Savage?
	All that I would know is we're going to support Amos Miller and the war on the Amish in general.
	We're going to battle it as well.
	Piano Dean says, if, quote, in Wade's mind, end quote, his marriage was over, could they get his tax returns to see if he checked married, filed jointly in subsequent years?
	It's the sucking and blowing of political hypocrisy.
	Yeah, for the purposes of boning people, he was divorced in his mind.
	The marriage was irretrievably, irreparably broken.
	For the purposes of taxes, of course, he's going to get all those benefits.
	For the purposes of income, he's going to hide his assets from his wife because it's irretrievably broken.
	She's not entitled to the fruits of my hard labor.
	But for the purposes of marriage, I'm going to let Jocelyn Wade raise the children.
	We'll get to it.
	Then we got Oliver Ruff.
	I hope you didn't mean to put in a comment there, but thank you very much for that.
	And let's get to that.
	We got some...
	Let's see what I can do here.
	Look at this.
	Boom shakalaka.
	On Rumble, where we're over 13,000 live right now.
	That's Tyler Perry.
	Medea goes to court.
	I don't know who that is.
	That's from PrimusFan92.
	We lax in 3721 says, Trump was found liable by 40-year-old allegations made by one woman.
	Fannie sure as hell should be throttled by the testimony of one woman five years ago.
	Well, I mean, I wouldn't tolerate an injustice just because it's against my political adversary.
	The Trump, 40 years old, I think he might have been more like 30 years old.
	And E. Jean Carroll is batshit crazy.
	No question about it.
	All right, we've got a couple more here, and then we're going to pull in the Barnes.
	Viva, a question for you in Barnes.
	J.P. Morgan, State Street, and BlackRock pulling $9 trillion of funds from Climate Action 100.
	Uncovered under the radar.
	We'll actually talk about that.
	Let me see if I can screen grab that.
	Simple Mana says, Hey, Viva, any chance you can shout out my GoFundMe to help my mother?
	Any help is appreciated.
	Look, I'm very neurotic about...
	There's a lot of scammery out there, and I'm not saying this is or is not.
	I do not endorse anything until I know that I can endorse it.
	I'm reading the Super Chat, Simply Matter.
	Everybody donate.
	Do your due diligence before you donate.
	Knowing nothing about the GoFundMe.
	I only promote a GoFundMe once I'm confident that it's legit, and typically after I've donated it to myself, so that nobody can accuse me of whatever.
	And then we got, please, everyone must watch and share.
	With every loved one, the Tucker Mike Benz interview.
	Mike, make every Democrat see it, understand they're being programmed.
	That's from Crawley RN, and then we got T1990.
	Did you guys see the most recent reporting on the Russian hoax by Matt Taibbi and Mike Schellenberger?
	No, I didn't.
	All right, people.
	Barnes is in the house.
	Let's bring him on.
	He's wearing a bow tie.
	He's wearing a bow tie.
	I don't know why.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	May I ask?
	What's up with the bow tie?
	I was watching The Young Sheldon today, and I think he wears a bow tie in that show.
	Yeah, he does often.
	Yeah, I've only seen little bits of that.
	Same with the...
	What was the title of the original show?
	Wonder Years is what I thought it made me think of.
	Is that what they're playing on?
	No, no.
	Young Sheldon is that...
	The older one is that nerd show that was real popular.
	Oh, Malcolm in the Middle?
	Nope.
	Nope?
	I don't know what I'm talking about.
	I thought it was The Big Something.
	Maybe somebody in the chat will know.
	Not the Big Bang Theory?
	Yeah, maybe that's it.
	Oh, that makes sense.
	That makes sense, actually.
	Yeah, Big Bang Theory, that's it.
	I was just looking at that show.
	That show was very much reminiscent of The Wonder Years, but just nowhere near as good.
	Everybody should watch The Wonder Years.
	Barnes, how goes the battle?
	Yeah, good, good.
	Oh, that reminds me.
	I need to look something up, but go ahead.
	Okay, now I was going to say, what's the book behind you?
	Because that one is not one that I've ever seen before.
	I can make it out.
	It's John Le Carre's The Tailor of Panama, which is apropos, particularly in the context of some of the Spygate stories that broke this week.
	Yeah, Robert, we're living through, it's either the end of times or the beginning of times.
	Alex Jones is optimistic, so that causes me to be optimistic, but man, what a week we had.
	I'll do the menu.
	I'll just tell everybody what's coming up.
	I've never done it before, actually.
	And I don't think I'm going to do it as good as you, Robert, but I'll try.
	We've got Big Fanny.
	Then the New York verdict with Judge Engeron.
	RFK censorship win, which I realize I have not done my homework on.
	Navalny death.
	We're going to talk about this one for a while.
	SCOTUS sovereign immunity.
	Whistleblower protections when convenient and not when not.
	Amos Miller objections.
	You're going to talk about the latest with Amos Miller and what the status is of everything there.
	Social media crisis.
	Crazy French law.
	Oh, on speech about the vaccines.
	We'll get to that.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	2020 election study.
	Illegal search.
	That was a funny one also.
	And then Ancestry sold the DNA results.
	This is why I don't do the Ancestry stuff.
	I don't trust them.
	And if they tell me that I'm susceptible of certain diseases, I'm convinced that it's going to have an impact on disclosure to insurance companies, and it will cost me in the long run.
	What do we start with, Robert?
	You know, the most popular one was either the Trump New York verdict or Big Fanny.
	Then otherwise, the board was interested in SCOTUS and the Amos Miller objections.
	And then they raised a few of their own questions about the Spygate.
	The news information that came out this week, as well as the Tucker's interview of Ben's and the 2020 election study by the Heartland Institute that was put out this past week.
	And then also the George Soros' prosecutor winning in the 11th Circuit against DeSantis.
	So those will be a couple of added topics.
	Plus, in the after party, we'll be answering all the $5 tips or more at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And proceed accordingly.
	But yeah, the top topic was the one that you covered much of the week.
	Big Fanny!
	Well, okay, before we get there, let's do one on YouTube and then we're going to kick YouTube.
	Navalny.
	I don't know what the level of interest in that was, but I'm particularly interested in it because I know what I can piece together from my, I don't know, cursory internet searches.
	I don't know who to believe in this.
	All that I know, and I put out a vlog before today, Navalny...
	He dies in jail.
	I mean, apparently he was in some Arctic detention center, like he disappeared from the Russian prison center and was pulled up to the Arctic.
	Died?
	Was it a clot or was it a heart attack?
	We don't know the details as yet.
	I mean, it had already been reported that his health was in poor shape over the past six months or so.
	So he's arrested, he's detained, he's put in jail on embezzlement, bribery, extremism charges.
	The bottom line is I need you to tell us who Navalny is because I don't know who he is from a hole in the wall.
	I don't trust any government out there anywhere, period.
	Not Putin, not Zelensky, not Trudeau, not Biden.
	So I don't know if Navalny is a bad dude, a bad player, a CIA asset like many people say he is.
	All that I know is I know that Biden is bad.
	And so when Biden is coming out, milking this for political profit, I say, where were you, A, when Gonzalo Lira suffered a very similar fate?
	And B, dude, Did the CIA do this so that you can then use it as a pretext to force through the House that border bill turned a foreign aid bill that other than the bipartisan rhinos in the Senate, nobody likes?
	It's very convenient.
	There could be a hush-hush here.
	But are you able to summarize who Navalny is?
	Is he a good guy, a bad guy, or are they all bad guys in this?
	So Navalny is kind of a, he was the son of a factory operator from sort of the Belarus, Ukraine, Russian region, who grew up as a, you know, became a lawyer in the late 90s.
	So he came into Russian economics and politics at the peak of when everybody was using the new Russian system to rip off the Russian people.
	So a lot of these guys were engaged in legally questionable behavior.
	If you grew up during that sort of chaotic time period when Russia's almost entire economy collapsed, culture collapsed, crime exploded, its military was busy selling nuclear submarines to Colombian drug cartels.
	I mean, you had multiple wars and conflicts in Chechnya and other parts of the country.
	So you had basically the entire country kind of collapse.
	And if you were a young professional during that time frame, you saw politics as a money-making opportunity.
	And so it appears, and a lot of them engaged in what was called entrepreneurial behavior that often was what would be called by most people tax evasion, embezzlement, bribery, you know, thievery.
	Of all kinds.
	But it was kind of ordinary course at the time.
	If you were in the 90s, that's how you made your money.
	That's how a certain Constantine Kissin's father apparently made a lot of money himself.
	I think he now denies that he was the mini-oligarch and one of the first people to really capitalize on that version of Russia, but that at least was the story at the time.
	So that was the world that Navalny was introduced into.
	Politics is a tool.
	To get rich, to be a full-scale, wholesale-approved grifter.
	Often connected to the new oligarchs, connected to Russian-organized crime, connected to corrupt government actors, connected to Western think tanks, all kind of complicit.
	From there, in the early 2000s, Putin begins to stabilize the country.
	that's the real source of his popularity.
	It's not, you know, dictatorship or anything we like to pretend in the West.
	He's legitimately the most popular leader over the last quarter century.
	Because of what the outcomes occurred under his governance.
	Radical reduction in poverty, radical reduction in crime, radical improvement in self-confidence in the military being stabilized and their security being stabilized and getting peace deals so they're not under constant threat of terrorism or global conflict in Chechnya and elsewhere.
	And so that leads to the next stage.
	How do you now make money in politics if you weren't going to be part of the Putin regime?
	And Navalny first flirted with both sides of the extremes that were the most popular alternatives to Putin.
	Those were the ultra-nationalists in Russia, often would be labeled far-right, very anti-immigrant frequently, opposed to various forms of immigration, very often more radical on issues of Chechnya, often blended into sort of anti-Islamic belief structures.
	They often had racial undertones or sometimes overt.
	And then on the other side of the lead opposition to Putin was the communists.
	I mean, there was a resurgence of the Communist Party's popularity, especially in the late 90s, because of the collapse.
	You had 40 percent of seniors in poverty.
	You had homelessness.
	You had crime.
	You had alcoholism.
	I mean, you had problems that many ordinary Russians had not experienced at that scale.
	And so, you know, whatever, there are a lot of criticisms of the communist regime, but one of them wasn't that crime was rampant.
	For example, crime, it was hard to commit crime because everybody knew if you did it because everybody was equally broke and so forth.
	The criminals were the bureaucrats, the actual government employees.
	Those are the criminals.
	But that changed in the 90s.
	And he flirted with them too, Navalny.
	Then, you know, the internet came to age and Ivaldi tapped that and became one of the first online bloggers and used YouTube channels and ran for the mayor of Moscow.
	Got a little bit of support and popularity.
	But basically, he was kind of like a Lyndon LaRouche type figure, except not politically consistent.
	Very Russian.
	During this time frame.
	And that their politics changed depending on the week, the month, the day, or the year.
	But he was all over the place until after he has a little bit of surprise success as a blogger turned Moscow mayoral candidate.
	And Moscow has its own Moscow mafia, as it's called.
	Not really organized crime as it is a political machine that's actually independent of and separate from Putin.
	These people were connected to Hunter Biden and other people, for example.
	They have their own corrupt regime there.
	He all of a sudden gets an invite to a new institute set up at Yale University, the Yale World Fellows Program.
	The Yale World Fellows Program was being run by the wife of Strobe Talbot.
	This was, in fact, it was based entirely on the Clintons.
	World Fellows Program that they had established while they were in the White House.
	And they use Yale to establish it, and they invite a lot of people, supposedly, to promote global peace and prosperity and what have you.
	They would tend to show up with deep state-aligned groups all around the world, whether Venezuela, Colombia, Africa, Asia.
	And the big one they picked from Russia was Navalny, of all people.
	And from that point forward, all of a sudden his politics changed.
	He went from being uber right-wing and ultra-nationalist, and it was time to take back Belarus and Ukraine and everything else in the Russian Empire, to being opposed to any conflict in Ukraine.
	He went from being ultra...
	Right-wing on his cultural viewpoint to saying we needed to support gay marriage, and he was personally a big supporter of BLM, which I can tell you does not have huge support in Russia.
	And he became kind of the fake candidate of the West.
	The West pretended he was the big pot.
	The reason why I have Taylor of Panama behind me is it's like the silent opposition portrayed in Taylor of Panama or the secret organization in Our Man in Havana by Graham Greene, both a book and a film.
	It was completely fake by the West.
	No, Navalny never had more than 2% support at his peak in Russia.
	There was no mass support for Navalny.
	He was not a mass leader.
	Nobody cared about him in Russia.
	Putin didn't care about him until he...
	What's going on here?
	What are they trying to use this fellow for?
	What's he up to?
	His campaign manager was caught on tape trying to pitch the West.
	Hey, give us $20 million and we'll overthrow the government for you.
	Now, what happened is he'd always been...
	Involved in embezzlement schemes.
	He is brother other people.
	But most of those schemes were not criminally prosecuted very aggressively.
	But after he shows up as a Yale fellow, all of a sudden the Russian government has a little more interest in him.
	And they do prosecute him for those old embezzlement schemes.
	I mean, he had like a half dozen ones.
	Every time he turned around, he was involved in some new embezzlement scheme.
	But that's how you made money in Russia during that time frame.
	The grifting was a way of life.
	It was a professional occupational path.
	Navalny called it just good entrepreneurial work.
	That's how they defined it there in Russia.
	It's kind of like what the Africans learned from colonial government, that bribery was just a way of, that's what good government equaled, because they witnessed it in a lifetime.
	But he was put on probation, suspended sentences, but he kept getting into trouble over and over again.
	Now, the other thing he did is he used his new YouTube channel.
	So he was one of the first people in Russia to be an online blogger.
	Also one of the first people to use YouTube in a particularly effective manner.
	Apparently, he had 6 million followers at one point on his channel.
	Oh, exactly.
	He boosted big.
	Now, part of that was because he was a Western-backed guy.
	The West was backing him to support him with this idea that he would be the next president.
	They really convinced themselves.
	I think some were so...
	The smart ones knew they were lying.
	They're Kissingers of the world.
	Knew this guy was an unpopular version of Lyndon LaRouche.
	But the delusional ones convinced themselves that, you know, it's like in Taylor of Panama, where the general says, gentlemen, there's a star missing from our flag.
	Talking about, you know, waging war on Panama to add flag star number 51. There are some people like that in the West that really convinced your Condoleezza Rice's of the world, convinced themselves he was this deeply popular leader.
	He never had any popularity ever in Russia.
	But he had global...
	A lot of the six million weren't Russians.
	But what he did a good job of was, in his grifter space, he became a guy who you could pay him to rat out your enemies.
	So if you had an enemy within the government or an enemy within the Russian economic structure, you would go to Navalny, feed him a bunch of dirt about your opponent, and rat him out.
	Now, he got into trouble for this because he did no due diligence on any investigation he reported.
	So he got successfully sued for defamation, for libel, for other conspiracies because he couldn't back up what he claimed.
	But he developed this sort of gadfly, ne 'er-do-well protest outsider challenger within particularly the younger...
	The population within Russia that was big in social media kind of liked him, but that was the extent of it.
	He had no popular appeal beyond it.
	And then once he was doing pro-BLM stuff, pro-gay marriage stuff, pro-Ukraine stuff, he lost all appeal entirely.
	But the West convinced themselves that they could stage a coup, that they would overthrow Putin, and they would put Navalny in.
	And so he goes through this very peculiar thing where he's on a plane and supposedly he's poisoned, and so he has to go to Germany to get treatment.
	Poisoned with, like, they said Soviet-era radioactive material?
	He keeps saying it's this incredibly powerful poison that manages to never kill anyone.
	Right.
	So it's like, if Putin wanted you dead, you'd be dead.
	We saw it with Poroshenko.
	I mean, it'll happen if Putin wants it.
	Oh, yeah, of course.
	So Putin only cared about this guy to the degree he was a nuisance tied to the West that the West wanted to utilize him for.
	Beyond that, he was very insignificant in Putin's world, and the ordinary Russian could care less about him.
	So he uses this to generate lots of coverage in the West.
	He goes to Germany.
	Oh my God, Putin tried to kill him.
	He's the next great leader.
	And remember, this is when all the West media was saying, Putin's about to be overthrown.
	Putin has health problems.
	Ukraine is a disaster.
	So they really had convinced themselves.
	Some people in the West, like Taylor of Panama, really convinced themselves.
	Navalny was the next president of Russia.
	There was zero chance of that ever occurring.
	Zero.
	So he stages his little event.
	They claim that Putin poisoned him.
	But they won't allow an independent...
	Russia's like, let's do an independent investigation.
	Let's have multiple countries involved and see what happens.
	Oh, no, no.
	We can't do that, Germany.
	It's all fake.
	So the dude goes back to Russia.
	Now, of course, because he fled to Germany and staged this whole nonsense...
	Violated turns of parole or something.
	Yeah.
	Again, this guy was given like three suspended sentences.
	I mean, he got convicted again and again and again and again for multiple crimes.
	And the Western excuse was always, oh, this is politically motivated, etc.
	They couldn't factually disprove any of the claims.
	It was quite clear the guy did commit the bribery and embezzlement.
	Again, his defense is, hey, everybody was doing it in Russia.
	That's how you made your money.
	But so he goes back, and now because they were clearly Putin sees they're trying to use Navalny to stage a coup, he's like, okay, maybe it's time that our Russian justice system apply a little bit of old school justice.
	And so they sentence him to prison.
	So let me stop you there.
	Why does he go back?
	Does he go back thinking that he actually stands a political chance of...
	Oh, yeah.
	He's convinced every...
	Well, one, he's doing his job.
	This is whose new line of money is.
	He was already in trouble because he had already grifted a bunch of money from his parties in Russia that apparently stole a lot of money from his donors and contributors.
	Again, that's what the guy did.
	That's what he was.
	He was a grifter on steroids.
	Not a half bad one, but...
	But the new deal with the West was he needed to go back so they could stage a coup.
	I don't know whether he ever really believed.
	He might have been delusional enough to think he was the next president of Russia.
	You know, you got the CIA behind you.
	You got the MI6 behind you.
	You got German intelligence behind you.
	They're telling you you're going to be a hero.
	CNN's saying you're going to be the next thing.
	So maybe he really believed it.
	And that's where, you know, Putin was just a reminder to everybody.
	Well, you know, maybe it's time for a little Russian justice.
	See how you like those winners in Siberia.
	Next time you think the CIA is going to run our country.
	And so that's what happened.
	While he was in jail, he got his health deteriorated.
	Now, I find the timing of his death doesn't benefit Russia.
	The timing of his death benefits the West.
	That's what a lot of people are like.
	There was one person who said, you know, I didn't think the CIA took him out.
	Until Biden made a big deal about it.
	Robert, I was watching Biden's presser and the thought hadn't entered my head and I felt stupid.
	But then he's like, now's the time.
	Literally, people, history is watching.
	And now let me milk it.
	Well, they can't get a vote.
	They can't get Ukrainian money passed.
	They can't get the Patriot Act restored.
	And first they can say, Putin's got space nukes.
	He's going to put nukes up in space.
	You know, that was their first line of excuse.
	And now the new one is, oh, look, he killed the great Navalny, the great Silver.
	This is literally our man in Havana, Taylor of Panama, written to life.
	And the number of people who buy it is extraordinary.
	Amos the International got in trouble last year when they were promoting him.
	And people were like, well, let me give you some of Navalny's quotes over the years.
	You know, it's him referring to certain groups as cockroaches who need to be stepped on.
	And Amos was like, oh, we missed that part of the memorandum.
	The guy's a complete fake.
	He makes us look like such a joke to the Russian audience.
	It's like, we never liked...
	This would literally be like saying Lyndon LaRouche was the most popular man in America and had been stolen his ability to be president.
	And Americans would be like, what the heck are you talking about?
	I don't know how many Americans would know who...
	I googled who Lyndon LaRouche was in the meantime, but I'll say analogously might be Kamala Harris.
	Told she's going to be the president and has it stolen from her.
	So not off the table in terms of thought experiments that intelligence said he's more useful dead than alive at this point.
	Oh, yes.
	Yes.
	Good.
	Robert, I actually came up with that thought before talking to you, so I feel smarter as a result.
	And the political exploitation of his death is just, it's over the top.
	They're parading Biden out again for a press conference where he again looks like a demented, senile buffoon.
	And can you imagine this administration and the people who are wanting more money to go to Ukraine, which actually did kill someone for pure speech grounds?
	And not only that, an American citizen.
	Navalny was never an American citizen.
	Gonzalo Lira was.
	Gonzalo Lira, there was no allegations of corruption involving Gonzalo Lira, ever.
	Gonzalez was accused of being pro-Russia.
	That's it, of his speech and his investigative work, and was basically summarily executed by the Ukrainian military and police.
	And yet, we're going to send more money to them in the name of Navalny?
	I mean, while at the same time Ben Shapiro...
	I mean, just go to Israel or someplace.
	You're not a real American.
	You're not loyal to America.
	Quit pretending you are.
	Him out there saying that Navalny's case is much worse than anything in America.
	No American has been denied bail.
	Well, where have you been living the last three years?
	People who have committed suicide are dead.
	January 6th defendants because they were denied bail.
	But in solitary confinement for 300 plus days.
	Navarro is going to jail right now because he was being denied bail.
	Ben Shapiro is asleep at the wheel because he cares more about foreign countries than he does about America.
	Don't call it the daily wire.
	Call it the Israeli wire.
	Call it the deep state wire.
	Don't call it the daily American wire because you're not really American and you don't care about America.
	And, you know, fakes and phonies and frauds like this guy and these other people defending and excusing and saying, look at how horrendous the Navalny case is, aside from what a fraud that is.
	Are the same people who have ignored what's happening to Trump, ignored what's happening in January 6th, ignored what happened to Gonzalo Lear.
	Yep.
	Someone in the chat, I was going to read, says, why do I care about Navalny?
	We've got January 6ers here and we've got the weaponization of the political judiciary system here.
	And I made the point in the vlog earlier today, which I'll post the link to in a bit.
	That's fantastic, Robert.
	I mean, that's like absorbing knowledge, and I'm going to go re-watch this, and everybody can now have a better understanding of what's going on to confirm their suspicions or at least awaken to what's going on.
	The real political abuse is what we're seeing to Trump in New York, what we're seeing in Atlanta, what we're seeing with Jack Smith.
	What we continue to see with January 6th cases, that's the only comparable example in the contemporary era is what they've done to the leader in Pakistan who just won an election even though they put him in jail, who was completely targeted for political reasons and totally bogus.
	But it's sad that Russia isn't the country that's been the most egregiously abusing people's civil rights and civil liberties in the last half decade.
	It's the United States of America.
	Now, I'm going to say this.
	Everybody, come over to Locals.
	The link to Rumble is there.
	I'll give you the link to Locals as well.
	And let's see that we're at 7,200 people live on YouTube.
	Let's get them all over to Rumble.
	What are we at on Rumble?
	We're at 20,500.
	So let's make that number go down on YouTube.
	And while it goes down, before I lose them all, I'll just read the remaining Super Chats.
	Off topic, but will Derek Chauvin get a mistrial?
	No, right, Robert?
	I mean, the Minnesota Supreme Court should set aside the verdict because they can do so without consequence, given his federal plea deal anyway.
	And it's the right thing based on the arguments we articulated, but I don't know if they have the political courage to do it.
	We got Navalny might indeed have believed he would be the next president of Russia.
	After all, look at Zelensky.
	He likes to listen to ACDC.
	Did everyone buy the new golden Trump sneakers?
	400 bucks a pair.
	Dude, I'm...
	I might want to.
	I can justify that as a business expense.
	Remember, Wade sent a message to Bradley.
	They were thinking about reminding him about privilege.
	My guess, it was the woman named.
	No question about that.
	All right, we'll get to that in a second.
	Okay, and that's it.
	So now we are under 7,000.
	So come on over, people, when you watch this.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	We're ending on YouTube because Rumble deserves our feet, eyes, and dollars.
	Done.
	So, Robert, we're going to start with New York because what the...
	Can I swear?
	I haven't had the gin yet.
	No, I'm not going to swear, but I'm going to have gin soon.
	What the fudge, Robert?
	Okay, so the question I texted you beforehand, because I wanted to make sure I could get clear on it before going on Alex Jones, the initial order from Angeron to dissolve the businesses was stayed pending appeal.
	In this particular order, Angeron...
	Abandoned the dissolution of the business certificate and just went with certain executives can't be on the board for three years or whatever.
	They can't act as executives for three years, depending on who it is.
	And a disgorgement.
	Just a cool $355 million.
	That was pre-interest.
	That's what I was going to get to.
	I don't think people know this.
	There's $98 million in pre-judgment interest, interest at 9%.
	So when the government can't generate its own wealth, it's going to seize the assets of private citizens and then impose 9% interest for the court, for justice.
	It's just over the top.
	Some people out there are saying that this was something of a judgment on the merits because the summary judgment was only on the fraud as relates to Mar-a-Lago.
	I think that's wrong, Robert.
	Is that not wrong?
	It's partially wrong.
	In other words, there were aspects of the case that were left for bench trial, but the summary judgment still presides over large parts of the case.
	So that was like half the case had already been pre-decided.
	Another half was decided at this level.
	But it was more the remedy, honestly, than anything else because he had eviscerated most of the defense, both by denying a jury trial and by denying a lot of evidence to be admitted and by making a summary adjudication in the first place.
	I mean, it wasn't a surprise if you had been watching this judge, but you could tell a lot of Americans were shocked by it.
	I mean, because most Americans had only barely tuned in at all, anything going on.
	And I think a lot of business people were bothered by it.
	You saw people who are not pro-Trump come out and say, this is one of the most outrageous verdicts ever.
	And what we had been warning about now for years about this case, all of a sudden they started to realize, oh!
	Oh, this is what the government can do.
	This is what corrupt courts can do.
	It's a little late to wake up, but yes, the fact this case was ever being pursued in the first place was completely groundless and baseless.
	There was no fraud claim.
	This is a misuse and abuse of state power.
	The nature of the verdict violates not only a lot of New York law, but in my view, violates both the due process and excessive fine clauses of the Constitution.
	Because it's disproportionate.
	For example, a jury is not allowed to do punitive damages, you know, bigger than a thumb ratio, to quote Justice Breyer, which I thought was preposterous standard.
	But basically, you're about five to six to one.
	You're not allowed to have punitive damages five to six times more than the real damages, or it's considered a due process violation.
	The excessive fines is somewhat similar.
	It has to be proportionate to the underlying injury, or it's considered an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And that's clearly what is here, because here there's zero real damages.
	Zero!
	Zero!
	And so to say, well, I'm just going to fine you, effectively, half a billion dollars is unconstitutional.
	It's as absurd and asinine as you can get.
	It shows the misuse and abuse of this law, which means this law needs to be invalidated constitutionally.
	Never should have existed.
	The state should not have this power.
	It should always be premised and predicated upon.
	This statute's never been applied outside of an actual fraud victim case.
	Ever.
	This is the first time ever.
	This is similar to what they're doing with Amos Miller.
	You know, Amos Miller, none of his customers are complaining or have ever complained.
	No one who's ever received food from him has ever complained about him, even though he's distributed millions of food items over a quarter century to tens of thousands of people.
	And yet the government's demanding he be shut down.
	It's like, what?
	Who are you protecting?
	You're not protecting anybody that you're supposed to be protecting.
	Here's the same thing.
	But people were shocked that it was even possible that you could have somebody make their own, that they could just say, we don't like how you do business.
	Even though it caused no harm to anyone and no monetary harm to anybody, we're going to bankrupt and destroy your business.
	And people are shocked.
	This is what this case has always been.
	And just to add, it's not that nobody was harmed.
	Only benefited.
	The banks got repaid in full.
	Testifying in his favor.
	It's like the Amos Miller case.
	The only so-called victims, the actual customers or recipients or other side of the bargain, testifying in favor of Trump.
	I mean, it's unheard of.
	You're saying there was a fraud when the people you claim were defrauded are testifying in favor of the defendant.
	And testifying in favor of the defendant, but after the summary judgment so that it wasn't even as though it was going to have an impact on the finding of liability already.
	And the judge called it disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
	To say that he didn't pay enough in interest because he...
	I mean, he didn't pay enough in interest because he overvalued his assets.
	So the banks, the Deutsche Bank, gave him preferential interest rates on loans.
	He knows it's a lie.
	I mean, the judge is lying.
	I mean, that's why if these judges want to start taking away immunity from President Trump, then there needs to be a response by the legislatures to take away immunity from judges.
	Because this is a judge who, under traditional civil rights law, should be criminally prosecuted.
	Trump should have the right to civilly sue him, and the government should have the right to criminally prosecute Judge Egeron, because he's a criminal.
	That's what he is.
	He lied in his order.
	He's a fraud.
	He's a fake.
	He's a phony.
	He doesn't obey his oath.
	He doesn't abide the law.
	And he lied in his order.
	I mean, there is no basis whatsoever to say in an honest transaction more interest would have been charged.
	Every bank said no.
	Every bank said they would not have done anything differently.
	They would do it exactly the same again.
	And they never relied upon any of Trump's claims for why he thought he was going to be able to pay it back.
	They relied on their own independent appraisers.
	This is why people in the real estate industry and the finance world went berserk.
	People who don't care about Trump at all were like, this is one of the most dangerous verdicts ever issued in the history of the country.
	Because you're basically criminalizing everyday business.
	You're criminalizing how every business operates.
	Every business puts together a business plan which has their most optimistic version of what's going to happen when they're trying to get money from people.
	That's simple.
	And it's on the party lending.
	These are the most sophisticated creditors in the entire world.
	Some of the biggest international banks in the entire world.
	They don't rely upon the person's claims.
	That tells them why that person thinks they're going to pay back the debt.
	And they like to have that information.
	But that's not why they give them money.
	They give them money based on their own independent assessment of worst-case scenario.
	That's what they do.
	And that loan made the bank tons of money.
	Not only in the interest rates, but the fact they were Trump's bank got them other business, as they themselves testified to.
	Said so at the time.
	Testified to under oath.
	When there was every motivation to otherwise.
	That's why people are shocked that you can bankrupt a business that's never caused any harm.
	You can bankrupt a business that's committed no crime.
	You can bankrupt a business that committed no fraud.
	And everybody knows why.
	Because you don't like his politics.
	This is worse than anything ever done or even claimed to have been done to Navalny in Russia that supposedly is grounds to go to war with a country.
	Our government is doing it right now.
	Our country is doing it right now.
	Worse, more egregious.
	Trump has rights to appeal.
	Presumably, the New York Court of Appeals will not stay a slumber and will wake up and do the right thing, but you can't bank on that.
	This is a lazy New York Court of Appeals that approved ridiculous gag orders in this case.
	After initially recognizing how absurd they were, then they backed off because they're just as political, just as partisan as the trial courts are.
	So there needs to be so much outrage from so many places that the courts realize, oh, maybe we've gone too far.
	And what really needs to happen is members of Congress Need to start proposing legislation, modify and clarify what should have always been there under Section 1983 of Title 42 involving state judges, and remove judicial immunity.
	Say there is no more immunity for judges.
	Watch judges all of a sudden be like, oh, hold on.
	We didn't mean to go that far.
	That's the only thing that's going to wake them up.
	They need to be smacked in the face with political reality or they will continue to misuse and abuse their power.
	And then on the federal court systems, they need to start impeachment proceedings on these rogue judges.
	But with the state courts, New York State legislature is never going to do anything about these corrupt judges because they're aligned with them.
	But the federal government could, Congress could, put it clear.
	The 1983 laws were intended to remove judicial immunity.
	The courts invented it.
	Supreme Court conveniently invented it.
	It's always great when you can invent your own immunity, isn't it?
	When you can ignore your own statutes.
	But put it in plain language.
	So that they can't ignore it.
	And you watch these courts suddenly wake up.
	Suddenly, all of a sudden, realize there's limits to what they do and start stopping the extraordinary misuse and abuse of what Stephen Miller and others called modern-day fascism is what we have in New York courts right now and in the federal courts when it comes to Donald Trump.
	Explain.
	I mean, I think I've asked this question a few times and I have trouble grasping the answer.
	It's a state decision, so it's going to go to the state court of appeal.
	How does the Supreme Court get involved?
	He has federal cases pending because he brought multiple federal civil rights cases, both in New York and Florida, before the Court of Appeals about this abusing his federal civil rights.
	So there is an opportunity for the federal courts to get involved as well.
	And it could go up to the Supreme Court of the United States because there are federal constitutional implications to what took place here.
	Okay, excellent.
	And there's also apparently a boycott of truckers who are saying, we're not going to bring stuff to New York if this is the way business is going to be there.
	I've been saying for more than a decade, advised clients, get out of California.
	Get out of New York.
	Get out of Illinois.
	And they hated doing it.
	A lot of them grew up there.
	A lot of them really loved it.
	Told Alex Jones for many years, get out of Austin.
	He loved Austin.
	Didn't want to move from Austin.
	Okay.
	Now he realizes why that was not the best decision in the world.
	This should be a screaming wake-up call.
	Look at what Musk did.
	Musk realized as soon as Delaware went crazy, he's like, okay, I've got to remove every business from Delaware and tell every other business, get out of Delaware.
	And that's the only thing that's going to wake up Delaware courts.
	Delaware courts only have the business they have and the power they have because they were perceived as politically impartial courts that would not be impacted, that would respect the business deference rule and the business judgment rule.
	Once they didn't do that as to Elon Musk, and Elon understands it.
	I mean, he's also said the reason why he bought Twitter is he recognized they were politically coming after him, and they continue to politically come after him because he's promoting free speech.
	But he realized you have to fight back.
	You have to fight back.
	And one of the ways, everybody should be getting out of New York.
	Get out of New York.
	It's an untrustworthy...
	If you're delusional enough to think it won't happen to you, you are acting in a state of delusion.
	I had a client who believed that.
	And then they started coming after him full-scale in California.
	And luckily, he put enough things in motion that they weren't able to do him much harm.
	Now, he, by the way, left the United States entirely and put almost every business he has that he can outside of the United States.
	Because in truth, there are plenty of foreign countries that are better right now for doing business than the United States of America.
	But definitely not New York.
	Definitely not California.
	Definitely not Illinois.
	Definitely not Delaware.
	Don't be near these.
	And if you can get out of democratic cities, like Atlanta, like Austin, get out of those too.
	Okay, so they've announced the appeal.
	Does he have to put up anything by way of bond in order to appeal?
	I assume the state's not going to attempt to collect while the case is pending appeal.
	I wouldn't make that assumption, Robert.
	You never know.
	All right, well, that's the level of corruption coming out of New York, but let's go from one corrupt state to another corrupt state that's a little bit to the south, Georgia.
	Robert, I mean, you're still a practicing lawyer, so you can't spend all day watching some nincompoop react to the most outrageous evidentiary hearing ever.
	I don't know how much of it you saw, but I presume you got the overview summaries.
	How effing wild was that two days of hearing?
	Well, what's your take?
	I mean, I know you had your 22-minute summary.
	Still too long.
	But what was your takeaway?
	Were you surprised by it?
	Were you shocked by it?
	I was flabbergasted.
	I mean, flabbergasted at the level, it's like gangster-level corruption.
	At the district attorney level office.
	I mean, everything about it.
	I was flabbergasted at the corruption.
	I was flabbergasted at the incompetence.
	I was flabbergasted at the fundamental, you know, the incompetence entitlement of these buffoons.
	Like, Nathan Wade, I was juxtaposing Fannie Willis' testimony, which was frazzled, unhinged, insanely idiotic, to her composed speech in front of the church.
	I hired a superstar.
	Nathan Wade, the superstar?
	That man, I don't know if you saw the mashup where they ask him, like, have you ever been to a cabin with Fanny Willis?
	And he's like, a cabin?
	And he's thinking, it was a solid 30 seconds.
	Someone looped in Marvin Gaye's Let's Get It On with a little cloud bubble of Fanny Willis, like, in lingerie.
	They're incompetent buffoons at the base level.
	All of them.
	Nathan Wade?
	Incompetent.
	Terrence Bradley, incompetent.
	I met Fannie Willis' father for the first time.
	It's like, that's what blew my mind.
	Then you get into their attorneys, Anna Cross, the other guy.
	Incompetence.
	It's incompetence from the bottom up, but these are the people in charge of the most important elements of society.
	I was blown away that Fannie Willis runs down to testify.
	It was already going badly with Terrence Bradley invoking solicitor-client privilege.
	They debate over that.
	Who was I also...
	Oh, then the Governor Barnes.
	I don't know if you...
	I never knew that guy, but he says, I turned it down because I got mouths to feed and I wasn't interested in the threats.
	The dude turned it down because he's in the golden years of his life and has no interest in this rubbish, but those who need it and those who want to get some free money will jump at it.
	But I like the judge, and I don't know if I'm being too optimistic.
	What's his name?
	Scott McAfee.
	People are saying he's up for re-election in May or up for election for a four-year term in May.
	How will that sway him?
	I got the impression that even the MSM is getting fed up with this incompetence, corruption, stupidity, immorality, and that when they say it's 50-50 that they get disqualified, the public is ready for a reckoning.
	So that's where I think it's going to go.
	But you'll tell me now, Robert, the last day.
	After Terrence Bradley had his heart ripped out and they say you were let go because of sexual assault, you paid the victim $20,000 through your escrow account, the judge then said, well, if he thought that was solicitor-client privilege, now I'm questioning everything he thought was solicitor-client privilege.
	Is the judge going to allow that evidence?
	Are they going to call back Terrence Bradley?
	And I don't know what you think the judge is going to do, what's plausible in this, but that's my assessment.
	Yeah, I mean, well, you have...
	The context of this is that there have been multiple motions to disqualify her.
	The way in which the grand juries were formed were questioned.
	She raised money, did campaign fundraising based on going after Trump.
	That raised serious ethical issues.
	And the prior courts dodged the question by saying that can be dealt with post-indictment.
	And so now you already had these prior issues that were part of the basis to disqualify her and to dismiss the indictment.
	You also had the fact that Wade was never specifically approved of for this role by the Fulton County Commission.
	She never even sought its approval.
	And there's legal history in Georgia that that means he didn't legally have the power of special counsel or the state.
	Which means anything that was produced from him, including the indictment itself, has to be dismissed.
	So that's the...
	In addition, he apparently didn't timely take his oath.
	That might be an issue in some other states, by the way, but we'll see.
	So you've got...
	That's the context in which it came out that this was a big, massive money laundering operation.
	That she was enriched...
	And at multiple levels.
	Because the commission never approved...
	This money for this purpose.
	This was a bunch of special project money she got to hire new prosecutors due to the backlog that built up from the COVID lockdowns.
	And she was like, look, we got a bunch of criminal cases.
	We need prosecuted or guilty people are going to walk.
	And it's kind of, okay, well, we'll give you millions of dollars more.
	She then took it for a different purpose than the money was given.
	And spend it on prosecuting Trump.
	She wasn't given approval for that.
	So he didn't get approval for this special counsel.
	He never timely took his oath.
	She was raising money based on campaigning against Trump.
	Now she's diverted COVID funds, effectively what were COVID funds, to prosecuting Trump.
	And then it turns out, the reason for all of that, the reason why he was picked, the reason why the money was diverted...
	The reason why Trump was even pursued for prosecution is she was laundering the money for her own personal benefit by going on luxury vacations that were being paid for by the state through monies paid to him when it turns out he's not even qualified to handle the position.
	He's never done, far from being a superstar, he'd never done a RICO case in his life.
	And he's bringing a creative, novel RICO prosecution that the other little secret here is...
	The reason why Barnes, he wouldn't admit this.
	Because he would never take it.
	Yeah, it's because the case is garbage.
	That's why.
	He's not going to take a preposterous case pursuing a preposterous theory that's going to end his political career and ultimately bankrupt him just for a little bit of upfront cash.
	The amazing thing, by the way, from Barnes' testimony also, the whole object of his testimony was that he was Fannie's number one pick, and Wade was the second thought.
	Barnes testified that Nathan Wade was at the meeting where Fannie Willis approached him.
	She had already picked Nathan Wade.
	She wanted some old, respected individual to give credence to her bullshit legal field.
	To be the cover guy.
	To be the face in front of the operation.
	Wade was always getting the cash, and the cash was going to her.
	And her excuse is that somehow it wasn't really going to her, and that led to a Talex, the great Talex meme on our board, where she was saying, you know, never in writing, always in cash, and that was clearly Barnes' fault, my fault, for giving her the inspiration.
	So what's clear to me is, from a political perspective, it's an embarrassment.
	The legal standard...
	The Georgia prosecutorial ethics rule requires that you have no appearance of a conflict.
	And it's considered a conflict if anything could impact your impartiality or the appearance of impartiality.
	And in particular, you're supposed to have no personal, pecuniary, or financial interest in the prosecution.
	Here, clearly she did.
	And so that's the problem she faces, is that she violated clear ethics rules for which the remedy can be disbarment, and at a minimum disqualification.
	The political problem the court has, I mean, the court was appointed by Kemp.
	Kemp is a political hack, deep state guy.
	Who covered up the 2020 election fraud, facilitated it, let Ratberger take the rap for it, but he was the guy refusing to take corrective action.
	He was the one who Dominion lined his pockets to help give him the sweetheart deal and then not keep Dominion to their word afterwards.
	He's the one who was coordinating with DeSantis to get DeSantis to run to challenge Trump.
	He's the one who's refused to do an independent inquiry or investigation or support impeachment of Fannie Willis.
	So that's who this judge is loyal to.
	So the question is, do you have a judge that's also corrupted by the process?
	Because I think the problem for the judge now is it's reached so much public attention, so much embarrassment, so obvious what corrupt, you know, like you said, anybody watching this came away with an impression that these were incompetent rogues and rubes who had no business with the power that they had.
	That judge has to know that.
	The case's national global profile.
	So I think he's under, I think the smart political decision for him to make is to disqualify her.
	And appointed a DA from another county, let them decide if they pursue the charges.
	And he still has to address the issue of whether dismissal should occur because the special counsel is never properly appointed in the first place.
	And so, I mean, the smart thing for him to do would be to dismiss it, say, hey, if it's such a credible case, somebody else will bring another indictment, you know, if it's clean.
	But let's start from scratch.
	Let's have someone totally independent of this process.
	Let's get rid of the vestigial legacy of these cases.
	Jenna Ellis can feel like an idiot for pleading guilty to a crime that ultimately was going to be dismissed.
	But that wouldn't be the first time she felt like an idiot.
	That's pretty much the definition of her legal career and her political career.
	But that's the politically correct, smart thing to do.
	But I don't have confidence that this judge does.
	And this goes to an issue I've been talking about that I think all of the defense lawyers should start emphasizing.
	The reason why we're even here is because the Fulton County courts failed to do their job.
	They failed to honor and obey their oath.
	They were complicit in the election cover-up of 2020 because President Trump filed his challenge to the electoral contest in a timely manner.
	They were supposed to have a hearing within 10 days.
	They never did.
	They never held the hearing until after January 6th occurred.
	And then it was moot by that point.
	The Fulton County Courthouse corruption is the only reason the election contest issues weren't properly adjudicated and may have prevented January 6th from ever happening in the first place.
	And they need to be reminded that their corruption, their complicity, their culpability...
	Is why we're here.
	So they don't keep repeating it.
	Because so far, Fulton County courthouses and judges have failed to show that they have the ethical backbone to honor their oath and do their job and enforce the law.
	And we're going to see whether this judge is a corrupt nitwit like the governor that appointed him or is going to honor and obey his oath because if he does, disqualification is the only action he can take that is legally and constitutionally correct.
	I think he's going to do it, but I've been accused of being too optimistic.
	But Robert, if you haven't seen this...
	If he doesn't, he looks like a total nitwit frog.
	No, that's a problem.
	He does, because there's too many eyeballs on this now to, you know...
	You can't put the shit back in the horse, to quote Emily Baker.
	But Robert, if you haven't seen this, just bear in mind, there was no editing in Nathan Wade's response.
	This is how long he paused before answering the question, and this is going to get copy claimed on YouTube later, but I'll mute out the music.
	Look at this.
	Did you go to a cabin with Miss Willis ever?
	Ever?
	Ever.
	I've been really trying.
	This is gold, Jerry.
	It's gold.
	This is actually...
	Robert, this is what he did.
	He's blinking.
	You can see his eyes blinking.
	No.
	No.
	Gold.
	That is absolute meme gold.
	I don't know who did it.
	I'm going to share it with...
	Oh, dude, Robert, we're going to hit 30,000 people live.
	There's the link, everybody.
	Share that around.
	If money laundering to engage in illicit affairs by promoting an improperly approved special counsel who was unqualified for the position for a politically motivated prosecution in violation of the First Amendment based on a novel RICO theory by a Fulton County courthouse that failed to do its job in the electoral contest isn't grounds for disqualification, then nothing is.
	And so the only question is, does this judge, one in the Fulton County Courthouse, and Governor Kemp, do they want to be dragged down by Big Fannie?
	And if not, then, you know, this daughter of a communist that got into positions of power that is not only incompetent, but corrupt, and incorrigibly so, incorrigibly incompetent, incorrigibly corrupt, then the entire judicial system will look as bad in Georgia as it does right now in the state of New York.
	The chat in Rumble is going wild over that meme.
	It was the greatest thing ever.
	It drives me crazy that I didn't think about it and that I didn't do it.
	Robert, before we...
	So, predictions are in.
	I say he will disqualify them.
	He has a political IQ or survival instinct over 20, yes.
	Okay.
	Before we get into the next stuff...
	Let me go over to Rumble, where we have just reached and breached 30,000 live viewers.
	To read some of the rants, real quick, like, before we get into the rest of the stuff.
	Mega Mobace.
	Mega Mobace.
	What's the benefit to getting Fannie DQ'd?
	Will the Georgia AG not be a bigger pain in the ass than Fannie?
	I almost wonder if Fannie's incompetence would be more beneficial.
	To Trump than a Georgia AG.
	It wouldn't be the Georgia AG, right?
	No one would legitimately bring this prosecution.
	I mean, that's the reality of it.
	There's no legal basis for it.
	There's no constitutional basis for it.
	It's clear First Amendment selective prosecution in the first instance.
	It's a ludicrous interpretation of the RICO statute.
	I mean, Turley and Dershowitz, both Democrat lawyer professors, have said the same thing.
	I mean, both of them condemn the New York case because they said it makes business unsafe to do in New York and in America.
	Or even be involved in politics.
	And the selective prosecution is so obvious.
	And the RICO application is preposterous.
	Challenging an election is not a crime.
	challenging election is what americans have done since we had our very first presidential election uh robert dershowitz and turley are not democrats they are extreme mega republicans they just haven't admitted yet all right no they just don't know you cars uh Cars10W says, Happy 30,000 live.
	Everyone, drop a comment and subscribe if you're so inclined.
	Why are you yelling at me, Viva?
	That was from the trial from Rockahora.
	As a woman, I didn't buy the former governor's story.
	My guess is he wanted nothing to do with the case.
	As a farce, washed his hands.
	Absolutely.
	Barbisa Ariane says, For your gold sneakers.
	I'm getting them.
	I'm getting them.
	New York was the only colony to abstain on the vote for independence.
	New York was where the loyalists called home during the revolution, and I fear, to this day, the state holds allegiance to the king, says Pinochet's helicopter tourism.
	Yeah, guess which families were two of the loyalist families.
	The Roosevelt family and the family of, tied to one Mr. Mueller.
	I was going to say something else that would have gotten me in trouble as a joke, and I'm glad I didn't say it.
	Randy Edwards says, as originally defined, those who agree with the king are on power's right wing, whereas those who disagree with the king are said to be sitting on the left.
	Democrats are currently the right wing.
	Sad Wings Raging says, I have a complaint.
	I got my package from Amos with my bread and spicy nuts, but no honey.
	I don't know if that's a joke or whatever.
	I'm sure if you email the fine folks at Amos Mill, they'll take care of it.
	They were in touch with me.
	It was delicious.
	The Engaged Fuse says, what's the point of killing people with all of these exotic trans-uranium isotopes when lead has done the job just fine for close to 800 years?
	What do you think of Nate Kane running for West Virginia congressional seat?
	I met him the other day.
	I was optimistic we could have some good guys in office.
	I don't know who that is, Robert.
	Do you know who that is?
	I don't think so.
	Have to see the Tucker-Mike Benz interview.
	I haven't seen it yet.
	Navalny didn't Epstein himself.
	I laughed my ass off the other night.
	Then I showed my mother and we both laughed at the nonchalant way you just said you'd seen a bird stepped on.
	I'm still traumatized, man.
	I laugh about it.
	But I held a little chicken parakeet as it died in my hands.
	I felt bad for the woman who stepped on it because she had no idea.
	That's Tyler.
	That's Tyler Perry.
	I don't know who that is.
	Media goes to court.
	Primus fan.
	Trump was found live.
	Okay, we got that.
	All right, and then there was one more that just came in.
	To all who hear this, tax season, many getting refund, little bit goes a long way donating to Free America Law Center.
	It's not tax deductible though, right, Robert?
	No, it's not.
	It's also not reported.
	The Free America Law Center is an independent LLC, so nobody who contributes to help out Amos Miller's case, cases like the Covington kids' cases, cases like Kyle Rittenhouse's case, cases like cases against the Federal Reserve, cases like Brooke Jackson's case.
	None of it has to be reported or disclosed because we're not a 501c3 or 501c4.
	The Free American Law Center is just an independent organization that helps pay for the legal expenses of people who can't otherwise afford it on big constitutional cases.
	We are doing a raffle fundraiser for Amos Miller, correct?
	Yeah, there'll be a bunch.
	The website itself is being redesigned.
	It will be launched later this week or next week.
	Going to have a range of merchandise for people that will be fun for ways to support Free America Law Center, other ways to get involved.
	Going to be adding tons of content to the site, teach people how to do FOIA requests, how to do Open Records Act requests, Sunshine Law requests, because some of what exposed Big Fanny...
	was creative use of the sunshine laws.
	It's when they researched that that they found out that Willis had never been properly appointed by the commission, that the source of the funds was supposed to be COVID backlog funds, not Trump prosecution money laundering so I can go on a trip to the Caribbean funds.
	And you meant Wade, not Willis, had not been properly appointed.
	Yes, yes.
	I'm thinking of the meme now.
	What are you thinking about?
	Robert, someone asked this.
	Okay, I missed this when she said it.
	Panther AI or Panther L Al says, did Fannie admit to a felony on the stand when she said she used her campaign funds to help pay for the trips for personal use?
	Yeah, I mean, she said, I mean, she's like, you don't understand.
	I got cash.
	I got cash.
	I repaid that cash.
	And now you know where I got that cash?
	I took my campaign.
	I don't know.
	I mean, just one crime.
	No, you see, you thought I committed this crime.
	No, I committed this other crime over here.
	Holy shit.
	I mean, I missed it in real time because I think I would have blown a gasket had I seen it.
	Okay, that's the latest there.
	Nothing's happening tomorrow.
	The judge is going to look at the reschedule for summation hearings or closing arguments.
	We'll see what he says about the privileged stuff.
	So, to be continued, and we will be continuing it.
	Robert, the RFK censorship win.
	I don't know what's going on.
	Really, Biden v.
	Missouri, now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, on how the Biden administration weaponized governmental power to get big tech to censor its critics, the case that was favorably decided at both the district court and Fifth Circuit level and is now pending Supreme Court review, the entire legal theory for that case was pursued first by Robert Kennedy.
	Robert Kennedy brought suit against Facebook in a case pending before the Ninth Circuit, making the identical arguments.
	And the lawyer that I've worked with before that brought the case on behalf of Children's Health Defense and Robert Kennedy, that became the basis by which the attorney generals pursued Missouri v.
	Biden.
	And the Kennedy himself had joined that case.
	Originally filed in Texas, the case got...
	He transferred and ultimately he joined the Louisiana case and asked to join the Supreme Court case.
	And the justices denied his intervention, but Justice Alito said he should have been allowed to join because it's clear he's the number one target of the Biden administration's censorship efforts has always been Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	And so he brought the suit in Louisiana, and once he was denied his right to intervene at the Supreme Court level, went back to the district court judge, the good Judge Doty, who also made excellent decisions in the COVID context on both masks and vaccine mandates, and was the one who originated the Missouri v.
	Biden decision, pending in Louisiana because Louisiana joined the decision.
	That attorney general is now governor of Louisiana.
	Probably in part because he was wise enough to pursue that litigation.
	And so the court decided, well, now the Supreme Court didn't let you intervene.
	I can address separately whether an injunction should be issued on your behalf.
	And one of the critical components was the court's recognition that any censorship effort, guess who has standing to sue?
	Any person who didn't get to listen to the person censored.
	And I've been arguing this for a long time.
	Credit to Bobby Kennedy, who's been advancing this for a long time.
	But courts had not been listening themselves to that argument.
	Now they are.
	And this judge recognized not only was Bobby Kennedy censored, but other people have standing to sue who brought claims in the case because they were denied the opportunity to listen.
	And given that Mr. Kennedy is one of the most critical critics of pandemic-related policy, and given that that can easily reoccur and repeat at any time, He's at ongoing risk of being continually censored, and in fact has been continually censored by the urging of the government since he brought the case.
	So the court extended the injunction and said his civil rights and First Amendment rights are being violated.
	Children's health defense First Amendment rights are being violated.
	The people who want to listen to Bobby Kennedy and children's health defense rights are being violated.
	He determined that much of the censorship of Kennedy...
	Ann Schoen's health defense had no basis in the rules of the social media organization themselves, that it would not have occurred but for the Biden administration asking, ordering, and demanding it to occur.
	So consequently, there was no independent private actor.
	This was a state-corrupted, state-colluded action that only happened because of the corrosive influence of the Biden administration.
	Because the conduct of Bobby Kennedy and Children's Health Defense never violated the terms or rules of either Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, or any of the others.
	And so it's another ruling extending the doctrine of Biden v.
	Missouri, but in this case to Bobby Kennedy, and how Bobby Kennedy was the origin of all of this censorship.
	And it's particularly just because his legal theory is the reason why any of us are here in the first place.
	And when he started pursuing this case, Like some of the cases I pursued on his behalf, we were told there's no chance.
	They're never going to say that big tax actions are the actions of the government, no matter how much coercion or collusion is occurring from the government.
	And because he kept pursuing it, because he kept hammering it away, finally found a court to listen.
	And once they did, we're seeing real remedy be applied.
	And so now the injunction has stayed pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Biden v.
	Missouri, which we're going to get at some point in the next four months.
	We're waiting on the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado ballot case.
	Whether they're going to take immunity.
	Whether obstruction applies, which is one of the prime charges against Trump as well as the other January 6th defendants.
	Whether the states can regulate big tech.
	There's a lot of whether Chevron deference and administrative state empowerment will still apply.
	So we got big.
	Big cases.
	This will be maybe one of the most consequential terms in Supreme Court history.
	All decisions have to be in by what?
	End of May?
	End of June.
	End of June.
	Well, usually it's end of May.
	Okay, amazing.
	And incidentally, Robert, Nikki Haley reportedly getting Secret Service protection while RFK Jr. is still being denied?
	And credit to Tom Fitt in the Judicial Watch.
	He researched why it happened, and it turned out it was the decision to deny Robert Kennedy Secret Service protection was made at the very top.
	That it came right down from the Biden administration and the top people.
	And they should add that as additional reasons.
	I mean, they've already impeached him.
	We now are going to have a trial.
	In the Senate, the Senate's going to try to evade a trial of Secretary Mayorkas by granting a motion to dismiss because they think they have a majority.
	They think all the Democrats will just rubber stamp Mayorkas and not allow a full trial to take place, which is maybe what happened.
	But they should go back and impeach him again based on additional information that is developed now, including this information, that you have him deliberately denying Secret Service protection.
	To a man who is the son of the man who's the reason Secret Service protection exists for candidates was because it wasn't available for Robert Kennedy Sr. and then Robert Kennedy Sr. was assassinated.
	And here you have the Biden administration preventing their opponent from having Secret Service protection while trying to lock up their other opponent and bankrupt them as well.
	It is the most overt, open political weaponization, misuse and abuse of executive power arguably in the history of the entire country.
	And Mayorkas is neck deep in it.
	And so they impeached him on the immigration issue.
	They should come back and impeach him for the political weaponization of his office against Robert Kennedy and other people, because that's additional separate independent grounds to impeach him.
	They should keep impeaching him and make the Senate keep dismissing it and let the Senate be on record of its embarrassing cover-up and complicity in the Biden administration corruption.
	You're adding, I noticed now I have another wrinkle right here, Robert.
	I got a grimace wrinkle here and another one developing because of what you're saying.
	Who are the Republican senators that basically were the source of May, of course, getting off the hook?
	Oh, well, we don't know.
	I mean, right now the Democrats have a majority, so they don't need any Republicans to vote with them to dismiss the impeachment.
	The question is, what does Manchin do?
	He's no longer running for president.
	He's probably not running for re-election in West Virginia for the Senate.
	And so, you know, it's whether one or – it's the same with Sinema from Arizona.
	Does a Democrat or two not want to be saddled with defending Mayorkas?
	And that's the – there's definitely – they're never going to get the votes to convict for removal.
	The question is, do they have enough votes to get to a trial, which will be further embarrassing for Mayorkas, given the degree of immigration malfeasance and misfeasance he's engaged in when he is supposed to be in charge of protecting the country?
	He's enabled an invasion of the country.
	Pah.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's an invitation for RFK Jr.
	And they know damn well what they're doing.
	Oh yeah, no doubt about it.
	All right, what are we moving on to now, Robert?
	Ah, speaking of SCOTUS, they did issue two rulings this week, one on sovereign immunity and one on SEC whistleblower status.
	Now, I know the SEC whistleblower status is a UBS employee who whistleblow on what they believed was impropriety, alleged illegal influence, to affect the outcome of audits, if I'm not mistaken.
	And the individual gets fired and then says, I'm suing because this is reprisals.
	They say, well, you didn't establish enough of a basis that the termination was in retaliation to your whistleblowing.
	Okay, so what's the broader import of this particular decision?
	It's a good protection on retaliation discrimination, which can exist in multiple contexts, not just SEC whistleblower contexts.
	Brooke Jackson, for example, has a whistleblower claim under the False Claims Act that if you blow the whistle that you can't be fired.
	She was fired for blowing the whistle.
	And often what they try to say is that you have to prove the only reason we fired you is because we were motivated by a personal prejudice over your whistleblowing.
	That's never been the point of the law.
	The law has been that you cannot consider someone's whistleblowing to take any adverse employment action against them, period.
	Just that it needs to be a contributing factor.
	It need not be the motivating factor.
	It need not be the sole factor.
	It may not be the dispositive factor.
	It only needs to be a contributing factor.
	And whether the individual boss who fired you did so on that basis is also not itself dispositive.
	And the UBS was trying to argue, you have to prove that we didn't fire him in a way that we can get away with it.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, you don't get to get away with it.
	All it needs to be is a contributing factor that benefits anybody in the retaliatory discharge context, which can also apply in the EEOC context.
	We're bringing suit on behalf of a Red Hat IBM employee.
	I'm sure their defense is going to be, well, it was not the primary or sole motivating reason.
	But all we should have to prove is it was a contributing factor because the same line of logic should apply to those retaliatory discharge cases.
	So it's a good ruling protecting whistleblowers across the board.
	Because of analogous legal doctrine and analogous statute should be applicable in those same contexts.
	And basically, it didn't reverse, but it created a presumption.
	Once there's retaliatory action, if you prove preponderance of the evidence, then it's incumbent on that who terminated to justify that it was not as a result of retaliatory.
	And it would have happened anyway.
	Which, before we get to the next Supreme Court case, that is a quick transition into one of the top topics that people asked.
	We talked about it on the board.
	Which was the DeSantis prosecutor who was fired, winning his case before the 11th Circuit and getting a chance to be reinstated.
	To refresh everybody's memory, this was the one where DeSantis took great pride in announcing that he terminated this person's employment.
	Public statements issued as to why, and now it's been reversed.
	We're seeing the push and pull of politics, but I'm not up to speed on the details.
	So what the 11th Circuit ruled is that an elected official is First Amendment protected.
	So even though they're a government official subject to supervision, and usually a government official subject to supervision has less speech rights than a private citizen does, they argued that because they're an elected official, they have the same rights, and that the only thing they can be punished for is their actions as an employee.
	Not their speech as a citizen.
	And if they would have made the same speech-protected conduct, even if they were not employed, then they are outside of First Amendment protection.
	Now, I think there's a part of it, for example, what the 11th Circuit concluded is that only Official policies and actual actions as an employee are subject to supervision.
	That even saying you're going to have an official policy in a certain way is not subject to supervision.
	That strikes me as a lie.
	It's not clear to me how easily they're drawing that line.
	In other words, traditionally if what you're saying relates to your duties then it's not speech.
	That's conduct.
	That's subject to supervision by the government.
	By contrast, if what you're saying you're saying as a citizen, so for example, let's say you're a government employee, but you go to the school board and you protest some school board policy, and it has nothing to do with your employment.
	The fact you're a government employee doesn't allow them to punish you for that speech.
	That's citizen-based speech you would have made regardless of whether you were employed by the state.
	By contrast here, they're claiming him saying his official policy, Would be to not prosecute people who commit illegal abortions in the state of Florida was somehow speech, not policy.
	And it's like, what?
	So unless I put some magic words and call it official policy inside a memorandum pursuant to internal rules, it's not really official policy?
	It's just speech as if I'm a citizen?
	That part I didn't quite agree with.
	The district court had suggested that that behavior...
	That was conduct, not speech, and thus unprotected.
	But so what the court said is that DeSantis could fire him or suspend him for his formally filed official policies, but that the district court failed to determine whether that decision, whether those policies alone would have been the basis of the decision without regard to any of the speech conduct.
	It's called the same decision defense.
	It's a variation of the retaliation argument.
	We would have made the same decision even if none of this other speech had ever occurred or we were ever aware of it.
	So we'll go back to the district court for those reasons.
	DeSantis, because he was so eager to politically take advantage of this, made some counterproductive public statements.
	He said, because you said this, because you're affiliated with this, because you're associated with that.
	Well, that, like...
	Just saying he's a Soros prosecutor is not by itself the grounds.
	What should have been done is you have said you support these policies.
	These are the policies you are going to administer.
	These policies violate state law, and you could use as evidence of that support of George Soros because Soros supports those policies.
	But just saying, oh, you're a Soros prosecutor, so I want to punish you, that sounds like First Amendment activity.
	So DeSantis was a little careless because he cared more about the political gain from this than actually achieving the policy outcome.
	A bit ironic because all the DeSantis people are always highlighting how he was so much better at delivering policy outcomes regardless of political rhetoric.
	Not so much if you dig in.
	That grand jury on COVID still has done very little but issued an initial report.
	And the feds have just said, screw you, and they haven't tried to challenge or contest that.
	Meaningfully.
	But, you know, a lot of hat no cattle, kind of all hat no cattle kind of situation.
	And this is another example of that in part.
	But also in part because I think the 11th Circuit's playing a little loose with what is and isn't an official policy.
	And it may go up to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court has never clarified whether an elected official is covered by the supervised employee speech constraint doctrine and things like that.
	But some of what the court did, I'm not buying.
	If I say my official policy is X, that's not speech.
	That's a policy when I'm the head official.
	And pretending it's just speech and not a policy, it shows the bias of the court that probably they favor not prosecuting those transgender illegal or abortion policies that that prosecutor...
	Because what he said, he said, I'm not going to enforce state law.
	That's what he said.
	That's what I understood as the rationale at the time.
	Robert, it seems you're bringing back the bow tie.
	Sefer Dean Squibb says, you know what?
	I'm getting me a bow tie.
	I've not worn one in the past because of the gay association.
	What the heck does that mean?
	Okay, Robert, whatever.
	I've always liked him and I want to be able to...
	Okay, well, we've converted somebody.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm just going to bring up...
	So nobody thinks I made that up.
	That's in the side right over here if you see my cursor.
	Stuart Hill says, is Peter Zahan deep state?
	Who's Peter Zahan?
	No, but I think a lot of his opinions don't hold up.
	I think sometimes he has insights that are useful.
	Sometimes I think he's way wrong.
	He tends to oversimplify.
	And his analysis on Russia has been mostly wrong.
	He's an American author.
	I didn't know who that person was, and I feel kind of stupid now.
	Ribo94 says, has there been any update on the groundbreaking tax case before the Supreme Court with the Moors, I believe?
	No, still pending.
	The oral argument's already been heard, but we'll see whether the Supreme Court does the right thing and invalidates it.
	I'm going to censor this one as I read it.
	Can we expect some sort of comeuppance out of New York?
	We'll see.
	Leave Fannie alone says, astrosexual.
	John Sarrion says, Georgia needs to find their next generation, Zell Miller, who will roll up the sleeves and take it outside when politics gets absurd.
	Does Trump have any remorse for unlawful...
	Does Trump have any recourse, sorry, for unlawful prosecution in these cases?
	He tried to under federal law and so far the federal courts have not allowed him to.
	Now, someone said something about the fanny.
	That's what I brought this up here.
	Oh, sorry.
	It's here.
	Roosevelt Media News.
	Fanny said she drew cash out of the bank for campaign and kept some of it, not campaign funds.
	So maybe she kept it as cash at home in case she ever had her credit card turned refused because she's, you know, her father said she's...
	It didn't come across that way when I saw her answer.
	It sounded like campaign funds were the source of her...
	What she was claiming, I didn't.
	It's the old, I saved up defense.
	So sometimes you're accused of your lifestyle exceeding what your reported income is.
	Yeah, I've saved up a lot of money over the years.
	And so I don't have unreported income.
	That was just savings.
	That's where she was going, and she seemed eager to brag about it.
	But the way it came across was, oh, I stole my campaign funds for that, you idiot.
	I didn't steal taxpayer funds for that.
	I stole campaign funds.
	I'm going to have to go back and snip and clip that part.
	Were you surprised?
	I wasn't surprised at her tone of demeanor because I've been trying to tell everybody our leaders are incompetent, and their arrogance far exceeds their intelligence.
	But I think a lot of people were shocked that they're used to...
	Professional demeanor and disposition.
	I was shocked because I had seen her in front of the church and it was cool, calm, collected, but she was reading unchallenged.
	But my goodness, the meltdown.
	I was going to do a juxtaposition and just go, here's from the church, here's from court.
	But I haven't had the time to do that yet.
	I want to put together a highlight of her two-hour testimony.
	I haven't had the time to do that.
	Well, speaking of sovereign immunity, that was the other decision, though it didn't go nearly as far as some people hoped it did this week from SCOTUS.
	The facts, it's...
	Hold on, I took notes somewhere.
	But bottom line, a government agency is falsely reporting being late on repayments to credit checkers and...
	Robert, what happened in this case?
	So the Fair Credit Reporting Act was designed because one way creditors would put pressure on debtors would be they would report that they were late in payment or something else to a credit reporting agency and thereby damage their ability to get credit or even in some cases get access to basic services.
	Things like being able to rent an apartment or rent a house often was dependent on your credit score.
	Being able to buy a car at all could be dependent on your credit score, not just your business operations and opportunities.
	Being able to get a credit card in the first place could be dependent on your credit score.
	So in order to stop this, Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which created a private cause of action for your right to sue anybody who misreported your credit to a credit agency.
	Even the government.
	Yes.
	And that's what was key here.
	They defined a person that could be sued as any government agency, as well as any corporation, any entity, any individual, etc.
	What I love is just the sheer absurdity that you only get to sue the government when the government specifically authorizes you to sue them.
	I mean, how the hell does that work?
	Because sovereign immunity is an invented doctrine by our corrupt courts.
	I mean, it doesn't exist in our Constitution.
	Our Constitution finds it offensive.
	Our founders found it offensive.
	Our founding generation found it offensive.
	You can find language and rhetoric to that precise effect at the Constitutional Convention, during the various conventions debating adoption of the Constitution and the like, from the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during their public debate about it through the various anonymous writings that were sent in to various publications at the time.
	And because the idea is that the king is an agent of God, and as an agent of God, he can do no wrong because he is God.
	How can God violate God?
	And that's where the sovereign immunity comes from, that the king can do no wrong.
	So the courts decided that any government has that.
	Just by being a government, it magically has sovereign immunity.
	It was an invented doctrine that is directly foreign and offensive to our Constitution.
	And it shows that even the so-called conservative jurists aren't really conservative.
	Because if they were constitutionalist in the originalist sense, they would recognize sovereign immunity as a crock.
	By the way, the only people who've been critical of sovereign immunity throughout our entire history have been liberal judges.
	It hasn't been conservative judges, sadly.
	It's been judges like Brennan and others who've been willing to raise questions about sovereign immunity.
	So the doctrine to me is a crock.
	But as you note, Congress can waive it.
	And what the government's position was is that Congress has to specifically go in...
	To say we hereby waive sovereign immunity.
	And if that isn't explicitly and expressly said in those exact terms, they can never be sued.
	That was the crux.
	It's not just that they have to waive it.
	They have to specifically, clearly, and unequivocally authorize it.
	Is there no catchphrase that they should include in all laws?
	That was their claim.
	Their claim was that the catchphrase needed to be there.
	And credit to the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court said no.
	That if you define a government agency as the party that can be sued, that's a waiver.
	You don't have to add some magic words to the equation.
	So they said the U.S. Department of Agriculture here gave a loan to a farmer, then lied about that farmer for whatever reason to leave it.
	No shock, the USDA doing something like that.
	Again, we have a bunch of government bureaucrats.
	Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	What do they have in common?
	Ain't none of them farmers.
	They have no idea about farming.
	And yet they're governing farm.
	Preposterous.
	And then they go and whore themselves for big corporations when they're done and get their little retirement package that most of us would call disguised bribery.
	But they said, yes, you farmer, you can sue the USDA for lying about you to the credit reporting agencies because the Fair Credit Reporting Act includes a government agency, and that is sufficient for a waiver.
	No further waiver was needed.
	It does not go as far as some people thought.
	Some people were writing saying, hey, does this help get rid of sovereign immunity in general?
	No, unfortunately, it's still very under the same limitations and restraints.
	You just don't have to have the magic words anymore to claim that Congress waived the immunity.
	Slowly but surely, they'll chip away.
	The sovereign immunity, it's an offensive concept because the idea is that, correct me if I'm wrong, Robert, if elected officials, people doing public service can get sued personally, they won't want to do it.
	You'll have a deterrent effect.
	And so give them immunity.
	Well, what they won't want to do is do illegal behavior.
	I mean, at our founding, you could raise as your defense that you were doing your conduct, that everything you did, you did pursuant to your governmental duties and obligations.
	And it was a complete defense, if you could prove it, for your individual liability.
	It wasn't a governmental defense, but it was you as an individual defense.
	That sufficed.
	We didn't need to create some bogus immunity doctrine that made it so that incentivized people to do illegal things that profit the government.
	That's the scenario now.
	Right now, you get punished if you do your job.
	You get rewarded if you violate your oath.
	That's perverse.
	Now, Robert, I was going to say that we would save the Amos Miller objections for the Viva Barnes locals after party, but we should do it while we have the most massive audience watching it.
	What's the latest on what's going on with Amos?
	For those who don't know, Amos Miller, Pennsylvania Amish farmer being persecuted for allegedly, I mean, I don't even know what they're saying anymore, that some of the meat he was selling was risky meat, might have been contaminated.
	He's operating without requisite government oversight.
	What is the latest on what Amos Miller is going through?
	So the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture went in and shut down his entire business in terms of any raw dairy products.
	So he's still able to sell things other than raw dairy, but they also went into his freezers and refrigerators and detained a whole bunch of items in there.
	They were inconsistent and contradictory as to which items were being detained.
	By law, they were supposed to tag each individual item.
	There were some they tagged, some they didn't, but they contradictorily claimed everything was seized, even if they had not properly tagged it.
	Then they ordered the destruction of all the food they had previously detained, even though they made no finding that any of it was unsafe for human consumption.
	Did they destroy it?
	Yeah, they ordered it destroyed.
	Half a million dollars worth of food products destroyed and wiped out.
	They told him he couldn't even feed his own pigs with it.
	They also began to dictate what he could feed himself with.
	They said, we'll let you have this much to feed your family, but not that much.
	So they're literally now dictating what he can feed his own family from his own farm, from his own food, not just what he can produce for others.
	They did massive testing on a whole bunch of products.
	They have been hiding those testing results to this very day.
	They only produced one test result that showed one item had an unidentified amount of listeria in it.
	We followed up and discovered that was not an Amos Miller item.
	That was an item from a different farmer that was simply being stored at Amos Miller's.
	We did a complete review, complete testing of all of his products.
	No contamination in any of it.
	I just need to stop you on the destruction of the foods.
	How does that happen?
	What does that look like?
	Do they take it?
	What the law does is what the state of Pennsylvania just did.
	What the law says is you can only detain it for five days and you can only order its destruction if you find it's unfit for human consumption.
	And there's nothing the farmer can do or the food producer or the food store can do or the food establishment can do that could make it fit for human consumption.
	That's the standard.
	They never met that standard.
	Instead, their new claim is, if we haven't given you a permit, we can come in and detain your food and destroy your food.
	Just because we haven't given you a permit.
	That's it.
	The law doesn't give them that.
	Pennsylvania state law has these very specifically categorized structured remedies.
	They're ignoring all of it.
	They also said that they could call it mislabeled because it doesn't have a Pennsylvania permit on the label, even though proper labeling is that it doesn't have a Pennsylvania permit.
	So it's a complete misapplication of the mislabeling law, complete misapplication of the adulteration law, complete misapplication of the detention law, complete misapplication of the destruction law.
	And it is based first on an illegal search that they obtained by lying to the court.
	And then they came in and did a second search, unannounced.
	So they know that he's represented by me.
	They just show up at his house, show up at his farm.
	Go in and give him these destruction orders, demand he do things, and they try to interrogate him outside the presence of counsel while a case is pending.
	That's who they are.
	So this week we filed our preliminary objections.
	We'll also be filing an appeal of the destruction order.
	I mean, everything's going to be ruined by the time the destruction order is heard, so the ship has already sailed in part, but we're going to be challenging the legal basis for this going forward.
	And demanding the state of Pennsylvania reimburse him for illegally destroying this material.
	And members of Free America Law Center, who are also members of Amos Miller's Organic Farm, are going to be bringing a separate civil rights suit because some of their property was destroyed.
	Their liberty interest is being invaded.
	But we filed our preliminary objections on Tuesday because there was an interpretation that maybe they served the complaint.
	On a date that would mean the earliest possible response date would be this Tuesday.
	Of note, what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to file something called a precipice, or precipice, however they pronounce it.
	But basically, it's something that says, hey, we gave them notice on this day that they needed to respond within 20 days.
	Of note, the state of Pennsylvania never filed that.
	So we filed our preliminary objections on Tuesday, thinking that maybe they could interpret...
	This is somehow that being the deadline.
	The very next day, the state of Pennsylvania got around to filing that precipice notice.
	They were sitting on it, hoping to sandbag Amos Miller and me into not filing our preliminary objections in a timely manner.
	That's how unethical, unprofessional, and dishonest and dishonorable this Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General's office has been doing this case.
	While they're saying, you know, we want to resolve this, I think they're just flat out lying.
	They keep saying they're going to produce answers and then they go do surprise raids and surprise inquisitions and interrogations.
	They say they want to get to the bottom of the safety but refuse to produce the test results.
	They say, oh, get around to that.
	Oh, I'm working on that for you.
	I'm going to get that to you.
	Still don't have it.
	But the destruction, what do they do?
	Do they take it, confiscate it, and incinerate it?
	So if he does anything with it, they can charge him with contempt or crime.
	Yeah.
	So it's stuck where it's at.
	And it's going to spoil.
	It already is.
	And so I was saying, look, before this spoils, let's let some of that at least get fed to the pigs.
	And they said, we'll get back to you.
	And the next day they went and did a secret raid and a secret Inquisition interrogation.
	They think they can just lie to me repeatedly.
	It's clear they think this judge is a rubber stamp for government corruption.
	We're going to find out whether he is or he isn't.
	But clearly they have no respect for the court.
	Because they don't believe the court will ever enforce the law or hold them to account.
	Again, I researched it.
	This is the first time this has ever happened in the history of the state of Pennsylvania.
	I had lawyers research cases all across the country.
	Nobody can find an analogous case ever where anything of this scale has occurred.
	We're saying, look, because you don't have a permit, we're going to say we can seize all of your food, destroy all of your food.
	To bankrupt your farm and prohibit you from eating your own food or feeding your own food to your own pigs.
	I mean, that's to the point that they're at.
	They're claiming authority that has never been claimed in the history of America.
	And unfortunately, there's some people out there that pretend to be on the raw milk side or that pretend to be on the fresh food side that are out there glorifying the PDA, that are out there critiquing Amos Miller because they're dupes, rubes, or frauds.
	You know, the raw milk mamas of the world who are just fakes and liars going out there lying about Amos Miller rather than dealing with what's happening here.
	If the farmer doesn't realize this is a threat to them, they are asleep at the wheel.
	They are leading to their own demise because the state is claiming the authority to decide what we can put in our own refrigerators for our own personal consumption of food, even if we farmed the food ourselves.
	They want to use Amos' case to establish that precedent.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	I'm almost reluctant to ask the question because I don't want to seem like I'm equating homeless or hungry to pigs.
	There is a homeless problem.
	There's people who need food.
	There's a food shortage problem.
	And by the way, all this food they ordered destroyed, they didn't find anything wrong with it.
	They didn't identify any of it as being adulterated.
	They didn't identify any of it as being truly mislabeled that would deceive anybody.
	They didn't identify any of it as having any...
	They tested all of it.
	And they didn't come back with any of this food they ordered destroyed.
	They didn't identify anything wrong with it at all.
	And again...
	There's been no complaint by any customer of Amos Miller ever to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	Ever.
	Ever.
	He's produced and distributed millions of food products over a quarter of a century to tens of thousands of Americans.
	And not one single customer has ever, one single member, one single person it was distributed to has ever filed a complaint ever against him.
	Well, right now...
	You have Costco.
	You have Walmart.
	You have these big companies with massive recalls over dangerous food that they distributed.
	And the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture didn't sue any of them.
	The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture didn't detain any of their food.
	The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture didn't demand any of their food be destroyed because the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is in the pockets.
	They want to shut down small farming.
	They want to shut down alternative organic farming.
	They want to shut down raw milk and dairy milk.
	And they want to claim the authority to decide what you can feed your own family.
	Not only what access you have to get the food you want and need, and we have literally hundreds of sworn declarations from members of Amos Miller, whose health is in jeopardy today because they cannot access this food.
	They need this food for their medical basis.
	For others, it's deeply religious, deeply philosophical, deeply political.
	So this impacts the First Amendment rights to Fifth Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights, Fourteenth Amendment rights, a wide range of constitutional implications by what is proceeding and transpiring here in Amos Miller's case.
	So we filed objections on the grounds that violated the First Amendment, violated the Fifth Amendment.
	Violated substance of due process property rights.
	Violated substance of due process liberty rights.
	Violated the Pennsylvania statutes.
	Exceeded any authority the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture ever had or could have.
	Doesn't meet the injunction standards.
	And we'll be filing legal briefs in support of those preliminary objections this week.
	And the hearing again scheduled for February 29th in Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas at 1.30 p.m. in the afternoon.
	I kind of want to drive up there, Robert, but I'm not sure I can make that drive.
	Before we get to the next subject, let me just bring up some of the rumble rants.
	Did you guys see the story about American First Legal suing Disney over their DEI practices?
	Yes, credit to them.
	So Disney now faces suits from Gina Carano, faces suits from America First Legal over their discriminatory policies, faces potential shareholder suits because of their...
	Woke policies and the economic damage they've done to their market share.
	They lost their claim against DeSantis in Florida, their effort to sue the state of Florida.
	Was it Legal Vices?
	Is that name?
	That is Andrew.
	I think it's Legal Vices.
	I thought it was legal.
	Vice is legal and legal.
	Let me look it up right now.
	The guy that does all the Disney work, as he predicted, in fact, Disney lost that.
	So Disney faces, while Disney's getting hammered in the stock market, and Elon Musk has made clear he's going to seek all remedy against Disney for their effort to demonetize X, or what used to be known as Twitter.
	So Disney faces all kinds of legal and financial and political risk at the moment.
	Due to their embrace of woke policies.
	It's not legal vices.
	Darn it.
	I'll find out what it is in a second.
	Oh, legal mindset.
	Legal mindset.
	Yeah, yeah.
	LawTube has blossomed into an amazing community.
	That's what's better about Viva Frye, right?
	Everything else, it's hard to remember.
	I can remember Robert Gouvet, who does good work.
	Watching the Watchers.
	I can recognize, because that's a good name.
	That was a smart name.
	But all the legal vices, legal vice, legal mind.
	It's like, come on.
	You got legal in there.
	I'm never going to remember which one it is.
	At least it's not legal shmeagol.
	I haven't watched him in a long time.
	I want to see what he's up to these days.
	Did you guys see the video of Chris Ruford leaked of Bob Iger and the exact moment he decided to take the Walt Disney Company political commentary?
	Political.
	Apparently he decided to do it because of January 6th.
	Iger is the asshole.
	Barnes kicks ass.
	Incredible show, says MillerBiz.
	Thank you very much.
	Oh, thank you for Barnes.
	What are some good books on the professional managerial class?
	And did you guys see the story about the representative who was fired, I guess, filed the disbarment complaint against the New York...
	I think we've seen that.
	There's several good ones on the professional managerial class.
	The first two-thirds of this one is good.
	Skip the last thirds where he's talking about bring back a king.
	But the managerial class on trial is a pretty good book.
	About the problem of the professional managerial class having too much power, which we're witnessing in live time as we speak.
	It's wild.
	We got Mad Maxik says, what do you think of Soros buying 250 radio stations in 45 seats?
	Well, you know why?
	He's doing it on the eve of the election.
	Yeah, he says election interference was...
	Well, let me bring it back up there just so you can see it.
	Election interference, question mark.
	Yeah.
	No, it's election fortification, people.
	Don't be crazy and don't be conspiratorial.
	Speaking of which, briefly, I recommend the Heartland Institute did a big study of the 2020 election.
	If anybody ever tells you, there's no evidence that the 2020 election is problematic.
	They did a deep dive and confirmed the same thing we talked about at the time, which was the number of mail-in ballots cast in favor of Biden that were illegally cast or counted.
	But exceeded the margin of victory in a majority of the Electoral College.
	Unconstitutionally cast or counted.
	But Robert, for what reasons?
	Signatures not matching the...
	Because there's three categories.
	The Constitution dictates that the presidential election be conducted in a manner established by the state legislature, which means the rules of the state legislature govern.
	Can't be...
	It can't be court made up rules.
	It can't be executive branch made up rules.
	It can't be federal rules.
	It has to be the rules established by the legislature of each state.
	And so those are constitutional rules, not just statutory rules, because of the Constitution's delegation to the state legislature of the power of presidential elections and governing the manner and method in which they are conducted.
	And that is that the votes must be cast by only those people who are constitutionally qualified by the state legislature to vote in the presidential election.
	They must be, so the people who cast the ballot, the method by which they cast that ballot must be a constitutionally qualified method.
	And then the vote must be counted and canvassed in a manner established by the state legislature to count.
	Again, that's a constitutional qualification.
	Voters, people voted who are not constitutionally qualified by the rules of the state legislature to vote using the mail-in balloting process.
	The manner in which the mail-in ballot was either cast or delivered was done in a manner that contradicted the rules of the state legislature, thus making them constitutionally unqualified ballots to even be considered.
	And then the manner in which they were counted and canvassed, in particular the failure to conduct an independently confirmed party observer signature match check, That many of these ballots were counted in a constitutionally unqualified manner.
	So you had constitutionally unqualified ballots cast in a manner that was constitutionally unqualified, then canvassed and counted in a manner that was constitutionally unqualified, and you'd only need one of the three to cast out the ballots.
	The Heartland Institute's conclusion was, I want to show what I'm looking at right now because it'll actually be the perfect segue into our next, possibly our last on Rumble.
	Robert, let me bring this up.
	I'm not going to...
	I'm going to have to snip and clip this part out for...
	Look at this.
	So I don't want to make any...
	Sorry, sorry.
	I should say spoiler alert.
	Not spoiler alert.
	Trigger alert.
	So apparently this is a clot that Richard Hirschman, an embalmer, is pulling out of a...
	Carotid artery.
	I saw that in the backdrop as I'm making sure I'm keeping up to speed with everything, and I'll maybe share that separately later.
	But it might be the segue to the last...
	Hold on a second.
	What the heck am I talking about here?
	Robert, we don't have any...
	Yeah, we have the French vaccine mandate law.
	I forgot halfway through the segue.
	And we'll cover it in the after party, Spygate.
	Tucker's interview with Mike Benz, social media being sued for causing kids so much harm, and the Ancestry DNA privacy lawsuit, and an illegal search case.
	So those five extra topics we'll handle over at the after party after the French mandate laws, the last one we cover here.
	By the way, Retired Geek says, if Trump wins in 2024, will they suddenly claim he actually won in 2020 and can't serve a third term?
	That's funny.
	Write the onion for that, or the B. Yeah, so that, Claude, I'm going to have to look at that video afterwards.
	I haven't seen it, but it was sent to me.
	Robert, so apparently the French...
	Have passed a law.
	I looked at it.
	I'm not sure that it says exactly what the headlines say it says.
	It's not as bad as it was originally proposed.
	And it's not a question of criticizing.
	It's still bad.
	It's just not as atrocious.
	So field it.
	It's criticizing or undermining mRNA-ish or spreading disinformation.
	But tell us how it pans out.
	Effectively, they were originally trying to pass a law to make it a crime.
	To question mRNA vaccines of any kind.
	That was so excessive that even the French legislature took a step back when there was public blowback.
	So that now it's been reduced to effectively a medical misinformation by medical professionals.
	The target of the law is they're going to use professional licensure to silence and shut up critics.
	And it said this was the problem with licensure laws.
	You're giving the state the power to control access to law, access to medicine.
	They want to professionalize every occupation known to man and then use their professional licensure ethics rules to effectively prohibit speech that they could never get away with regularly or normally.
	Now, the French don't have anywhere near the robust rights of man that the French Revolution promised to deliver.
	Or that the American Constitution does indeed deliver.
	And that's part of the problem.
	But effectively, it's still a problem, but it's basically its target audience is going to be to try to prohibit.
	It was prominent French doctors who were some of the first people, including the French physician who helped figure out AIDS, to point out there were serious problems with COVID.
	And serious issue in terms of the analysis being given.
	And with COVID vaccines.
	And the French don't want to allow any French doctor to do that.
	So now if you're a French doctor who second guesses mRNA vaccines, you can lose your license and go to prison.
	And they're going to continue to...
	This is the same law California passed that fortunately the federal courts set aside because it clearly violated our constitutional liberties.
	But it shows you have no such liberties in Europe.
	Rumble is not on France because they demanded that nobody that broadcast RT be allowed to broadcast in their country.
	So it just shows you that Europe continues to take a path we don't want to be part of.
	It's another reason to get out of NATO and everything else.
	Europe is not our ally.
	Historically, Europe has been our adversary.
	If you go back to the founding of America, we were founded in opposition to European values, European royalty, European religious control, European speech limitations, European abuse of the criminal justice process, European deprivation of property.
	So we should have never looked to Europe as an example to follow, mimic, mirror, or ally with.
	They're our adversary and always will be.
	They drag us into stupid, dumb wars every other day.
	Half century or so.
	And this is just more reaffirmation to not follow the European example.
	But the French law is, as Brett Weinstein pointed out, a disturbing law of a disturbing trend to weaponize the professions, to prohibit dissident speech in matters where it is most critically and essentially needed.
	Because as you pointed out, more studies keep showing a correlation between excess deaths amongst young people and the introduction of a vaccine in any particular region or nation.
	It was Luc Montagnier, who was the discoverer of HIV.
	Allegedly had his info, his research stolen or misapproved.
	I forget, there's some scandal there.
	I remember it from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s The Real Anthony Fauci, for which RFK Jr. has still not been sued for defamation, which is a good indication the damning information in that book was relatively accurate.
	All right, one last one, Robert, before we head on over to...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I seem to have closed the window here.
	Can Barnes explain why Trump's lawyer got all excited and thought Bradley's testimony squashed Trump's lawyer?
	Oh, I forget his name.
	The state attorney all of a sudden said no more questions and sat down.
	Oh, dude, Robin, I don't know if you saw that, but it was Bradley's lawyer who says, if you ask these questions, aren't you opening up to privilege?
	And the judge is like, Yeah, I think you've opened up a can of worms.
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	We'll see.
	We'll see what happens with it.
	It doesn't matter.
	But yeah, I think everybody understands they opened up something of a Pandora's box can of worms.
	All right, so here's what's going to happen.
	I'm going to give everyone the link to locals for the after party.
	There's...
	Bring it there.
	Come on over, people.
	We're going to do some...
	The five remaining subjects, or four or five, answer the...
	Questions in vivabarneslaw.locals.com and there's tons of them and it's going to be amazing.
	So what I'm going to do now, Robert, what's your schedule for this week, by the way, before we end here?
	Just other than the bourbons, I have a lot of work due.
	So then the Amos Miller case and several other client matters.
	So that's it.
	But we'll be doing the bourbons at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Other than the actual work of a practicing attorney, I might be watching whatever trials happen.
	We'll see what's going on this week.
	There should be no updates in the Fannie Willis this week, but we'll see.
	This week being starting tomorrow.
	It's Family Day in Canada, and there's a holiday in America tomorrow.
	But everyone, we're going to end it on a rumble.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for an awesome afterparty.
	It's going to be great.
	We're going to take some questions and talk about the remaining subjects.
	If you're not coming...
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	There is three hours and 49 minutes left.
	Go, but come to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending transmission on Rumble now.
	I think I did it.
	I did it, Robert.
	Okay.
	Let me go here.
	Let me go here.
	No, it's over here.
	It is here.
	I'm going to have to scroll all the way to the top for the tipped questions.
	We'll start with that, and then you'll load more messages.
	Okay, hold on.
	There we go.
	We've got Spacer49, $10.

▲