All Episodes
Feb. 25, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
02:20:11
Julian Assange, Fani Wade, Letitia James, RussiaGate 2.0, Amos Miller & MORE! Ep. 199 Viva & Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Free speech is free speech.
Okay.
So I'm kind of curious how you square that with the letter that you sent this morning to V-Sphere, claiming that, you know, you were going to try to sue her for slander.
You know, if free speech is free speech, then why are you threatening your critics with lawsuits?
Well, defamation is different.
So would you call misidentifying a shooter's sexuality defamation?
No, I wouldn't.
Like I said, there's already a community note on it, so I'm glad that people now...
And you admit that it's wrong, right?
Yeah, and I wasn't the creator of that image.
Sure, but you can imagine if somebody amplified wrong information.
You know, the media, like Washington Post and other places, they lie all the time.
They're never held accountable.
They never remove it.
They lie and lie and lie.
So if you want to hold me to that level, then I get to hold you to that level as well, and all the other media.
So I just don't think, you know, it's not accurate to compare it.
Was the Uvalde shooter trans?
The evaluator wasn't trans.
Got it.
And so, I guess knowing that you've posted wrong information, you're saying it should stay up and everybody else should be allowed to keep whatever they have up as well.
Is that sort of your stance?
Am I accurately understanding it?
Is there a law against lying?
No, not asking a law.
I'm just asking your personal sort of opinion.
I'm just kind of curious because it seems like you...
Have come after other people, such as vSphere and other critics, saying, you posted wrong information about me, take it down.
I totally get that.
That's your prerogative.
It's different with defaming a journalist like that.
They're defaming me.
And you don't think that calling a shooter trans when they weren't trans is defaming anyone?
No.
You know what?
I just actually had a secondary thought about that as we're live here.
Calling someone trans...
Is defamatory?
I mean, the initial things that I pulled out of that were that someone who just, you know, murdered a mass amount of people is what we call libel-proof, you know, typically speaking.
They don't have a reputation to be harmed unless...
What's her face?
Taylor Lorenz was suggesting that...
It was defamatory for the trans community at large, in which case I said, you know, I would invite her to read Kentucky Fried Chicken of Bowling Green.
But now I'm thinking, like, I just realized, oh, the ultimate irony that just even calling someone trans is defamatory because there's some inherent insult about being called trans.
That's a very interesting reflex that Taylor Lorenz would have there.
And by the way, people.
I think I'm going to do a Locals exclusive, just walk through that interview and give my commentary analysis.
Taylor Lorenz, for those of you who don't know, is a, I mean, I guess she calls herself a journalist.
At one point in that interview with Shia Rachik, the Libs of TikTok creator, she says, she confirms, this is Taylor Lorenz, that she doesn't monetize any of her content online because she...
I guess is paid by the Washington Post.
It was a 56-minute interview.
And if any of you had any doubts as to how genuinely ill-informed, ignorant, and I didn't want to use the word stupid because maybe one day I'll interview Taylor Lorenzen.
I don't want to insult her intelligence.
Wildly ignorant for a journalist on the one hand, but it was the most bizarre interview I've ever seen.
Sitting outside, wearing a face mask in...
What year are we?
2024!
And I made the joke to Taylor, who blocked me.
Am I still blocked?
I think I'm still blocked by Taylor Lorenz on Twitter.
I made the joke to Taylor Lorenz.
You're wearing a mask outside.
You just gave an interview on MSNBC indoors barely four months ago, five months ago, and you weren't wearing a mask?
I mean, what is she suggesting?
I wanted to make the identity politics joke.
Like, is she making a jab at Jews?
Like, she thinks Jews are vectors of disease so that she has to wear a face mask when being interviewed or interviewing Shia Rachik, but she doesn't wear one when being interviewed by the person Ruhle.
R-U-H-L-E.
I don't know who she is on MSNBC.
Is she suggesting that Shia Rachik is a dirty person?
Wearing a mask outdoors while interviewing...
Shia Rachic.
So I could have gone with that, you know, ethnic identity politics joke and I didn't really like it because it's not my style.
So I just went with like a vector of disease.
Does she think Shia Rachic is dirty?
She's wearing a mask outdoors in 2024 where she was not wearing a mask indoors four months ago when doing an indoor interview with, what's her name, something rural of MSNBC, some terrible thing.
Set that aside.
Maybe she's wearing a mask outdoors because she doesn't want to be seen with Shia Raychick.
She's afraid of what might happen if people see that she's having a coffee with Shia Raychick.
Whoever said Rumble's not working, refresh, it's working.
I see my ugly punim there.
The interview was terrible.
Terrible because it's what happens when someone has a list of questions and doesn't actually listen to the bloody answers.
Suggesting that someone who committed mass murder has a reputation susceptible of defamation, stupidity beyond words.
To suggest, if that wasn't what the suggestion was, that by calling him trans, wrongly saying that he was trans, but there have been many other people committing murder in the headlines recently who were, that that's defamatory potentially on the trans community.
You have to be able to identify...
Sufficiently identified or identifiable individuals for there to be the potential for defamation.
In that Kentucky Fried Chicken case of defamation, I think they were saying that one of the branches, one of the franchises was dirty and they weren't, I think there's something along those lines.
And they said they didn't specify which franchise.
They didn't specify any group of individuals susceptible of defamation.
And then just overt ignorance.
Overt, ill-informed journalism where Taylor Lorenz, in responding to some of Shia Raychick's questions, oh, have you seen some of this sexually explicit material that they're giving to kids?
And she said, no, I haven't seen it.
I haven't seen that graphic novel depicting a BJ.
It's like, oh, I'm sorry, weren't you putting Shia Raychick on blast, accusing her of wrongly, shining the spotlight on the arguable but not arguable pornography that they're teaching kids at school?
Weren't you the one complaining that she was doing that?
And you haven't looked at the actual, Books that Shia Rechik was putting on blast?
I mean, it's irresponsible journalism.
It's not just proud ignorance.
It's not just overt stupidity.
It's irresponsible journalism.
Whoever says Rumble is definitely not working.
Let me just show you here.
Refresh.
Live.
Let me get the volume up.
Here, hold on.
We're going to do some Viva Inception right now.
Here.
Rumble is definitely working.
I'm showing you.
Now we're going to see me talking to you.
Hey Viva, how's it going?
Here, hold on.
We're going to do some Viva Inception.
It's working.
Right now.
Okay, this might be trolling.
Rumble is definitely working.
Okay, done.
We're done.
That's it.
It's working.
So there's the evidence.
YouTube is buffering today.
It might be because I just put out a little pre-stream vlog about Leticia James.
And it got copy claimed, people!
Look, I used 58 seconds of Leticia James explaining how Trump is an illegitimate president and he needs to be a...
What was the word she said?
Jeez Louise, what's the word?
Not indicted.
Yeah, brought up on charges of obstruction of justice.
I'm cutting that part of the video because I'm not making money for whoever the hell this right now who wants to claim that bunch of copyright trolls who don't understand fair use in commentary but can't fight them.
Can't fight him, people, so I'll just have to show you that later on.
I put out a pre-stream talkie vlog about Leticia James.
We're going to talk about it.
There's just too much to talk about.
Fannie Willis, Leticia James, Donald Trump, everything.
Julian Assange.
Holy cows, did I get to take a trip down memory lane.
All right, but before we do any of that, people, I got a little more on the intro stuff until Bobby Barnes gets here.
Good evening.
How goes the battle, people?
It's been a wild couple of weeks.
For those of you who are new to the channel, yeah, my shirt's not all that clean.
My name is Viva Frey on the internet, but it's actually David Freyhead in real life.
David means beloved, actually in Hebraic, and Freyheit, for those of you who don't know, means freedom in German.
Beloved freedom.
It's great.
Former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler, and a lot of you might have discovered this channel during the Leticia James trial, which continues.
On Friday, March 1st, it's going to be the most glorious day ever.
What we do on the Sunday night shows, for those of you who are new, we have an amazing, kick-ass, monstrous Sunday night show.
It's the best part of Sunday nights.
It's like, this replaces, once upon a time, 60 minutes.
For education, information, and...
Learning about the world around you.
We start on YouTube Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and I'll check that we're live there.
We are live there.
One, Dune1 says, Hello Viva!
We got some memes in there.
Now for the ad, Viva, says Sophia Agape.
Yes!
We start on YouTube Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and then at some point we vote with our feet, we vote with our eyes and we vote with our dollar and we move over to Rumble exclusively.
When we're done on Rumble, when we're done on Rumble, We then go over to the after party on vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we answer tip questions of five bucks and more and have our chat there.
Rumble is working, people.
I just showed it as evidence.
I'm going to stop entertaining this.
Refresh it if it's not working.
People in the chat, assuming that this is of good faith and not a troll, just let them know.
Refresh it.
It's working.
Now, let me make sure, because I'm neurotic.
Some of you may or may not know.
Wildly neurotic.
I won't say debilitatingly neurotic, but...
It certainly makes me check door handles and pots and pans.
Not pots and pans.
Stoves.
And make sure the car is locked.
Although I don't really care about that.
But make sure that I clicked off that little signal that says this stream contains a paid promotion.
Because it does, people.
And it's not just that.
I go...
Who's calling me?
Oh, we got an Amber Alert in the Palm Beach County.
Okay.
This stream does contain a paid promotion.
And it is one which...
Everyone.
And I'm saying this is not financial advice.
This is just common sense, people.
Gold is like real Bitcoin that you can actually hold in your hand.
And we're heading towards a place in the world.
I don't know.
If the poo-poo hits the fan...
What good is gold going to do?
I don't know, but I think it's going to be better than having your bank accounts frozen by a corrupt government.
Because we are heading to the era of what they call CDBC, Central Digital Bank Currency.
And it is something that can, and if Justin Trudeau and other tyrants have their way, will replace actual currency.
With it...
Comes surveilling our lives, freezing our assets, shutting down our bank accounts, telling us what we can and cannot buy, or if we can buy if we've been good citizens.
Americans who want to protect their liberty and privacy need to prepare themselves for what's to come.
That's why Americans are turning to physical gold and silver to diversify their wealth.
Now, I've got a bunch of old silver coins that my grandmother left me, although she might not have left them to me.
When she passed away, I ended up with her little bag of old, you know, they're not really worth anything, silver dollars.
Nobody else of my family asked for them.
But holding physical gold, you know, you can buy a stock and a stock is worth nothing at the end of the day.
Physical gold people.
And if you want to protect your retirement, I recommend you ask for the free investment guide coming from Preserve Gold today by texting VIVA to 50505.
And I don't know how they knew that.
My favorite number is five.
Text VIVA to 5055.
50505.
They'll explain the proper options to you.
They'll help you discuss rolling it over into an IRA or a 401k.
I have no idea what that's all about.
Don't yet have one of those in the States.
And they make it easy.
Preserve Gold, BBB, the Bureau of Better Business, is accredited with zero consumer complaints and hundreds of satisfied clients.
They are also founding members of the Precious Metals Association, so you know you're in good hands.
And as an exclusive offer to all of my viewers, they'll give you up to $10,000 in free gold and silver with a qualifying purchase or retirement account rollover.
They will even throw in an immediate $500 account credit if you request your investor guide today.
Preservegold.com /viva.
It's in the description in the link.
To get your free gold and silver investment guide, take the first step towards protecting your wealth or text VIVA to 50505.
It's a palindrome.
50505.
Oh, it's also SOS.
If you want to go by the SOSOS, if you want to go by, like, the letter 5 means S as well.
Preservegold.
Preservegold.com forward slash Viva.
Text Viva to 5055.
By the way, I just want to take this out of here.
Because, like, look, I've never done it before.
But, I did it.
This one, I ordered one.
And now I'm pulling a little Fanny Willius here.
I got the, as an ode to Canada.
I got the $50.
The $50.
Queen Elizabeth.
Gold coin.
So if the poo-poo hits the fan, if it hits the fanny, and I need to run, I can stick this where the sun don't shine like the guy out of Pulp Fiction.
And I'm also pulling a little Fanny Willis because I realize, like, you know, who the hell keeps cash in the house?
I didn't realize I was being an irresponsible woman.
Sorry.
I can't help it.
But that's, you know, you're holding an actual Bitcoin.
And gold has been particularly good.
Silver is good as well.
And some might say undervalued.
No financial advice.
But I don't really think you can go wrong by at least having one or two that you can stick up your butt if the poo-poo hits the fan.
Hit the road.
Viva.
Text it to 50505.
Preservegold.com forward slash Viva.
The link is in the description.
Okay.
Boom!
Now what do we talk about?
Do we want to talk about what's going on in Canada?
Freezing...
Oh, God, depending on where you hide it, you might be digging.
Six months of cash, people!
That's six months of cash per person, so it's absurd.
But anyhow, you know, one little gold coin.
It's like idolatry, except it's actually worth something.
So, you know, you shave a little off and buy an apple if things go way south.
All right, people, I had another video in the backdrop that I wanted to bring up tonight because it's amazing.
Something that may or may not appreciate with value, but I saw one in the wild.
And it's a thing of beauty.
We saw a Tesla truck as we were driving.
Hold on, we've got to wave, we've got to wave, we've got to wave, we've got to wave.
Oh, look at that.
That's so cool.
That is so cool.
Dude, I don't know who's in it, but it's amazing.
Amazing, amazing.
Oh, beautiful.
Magnificent.
You can see fingerprints on the side of it.
So you can see the fingerprints.
Shh, don't ever poo-poo.
It's not bulletproof doors.
Do I roll down the window and say, I'm going down the window.
I'm doing it.
I'm doing it.
It's amazing.
It's a beautiful thing.
I love it.
They're not...
They don't want it.
They don't want to hedge into us.
Is that a solar panel in the back?
I believe that is a solar panel in the back.
Or just the water all over me.
And then the front.
Now we've got to get the Cybertruck from...
Shh!
How rare?
Well, have you ever seen one before?
That's the front of the Cybertruck.
Now, I'm taking some flack.
You can only get it to the side of your mirror.
Oh, it's beautiful.
It's a thing of beauty.
Okay, we've seen one in the wild.
Our lives are complete.
Or at least the day.
Now, I'm taking some flack on the Twitterverse because some people are saying it's not beautiful.
One does not know how it's going to age.
So in 50 years, is that going to look like the 70s bell-bottoms in the year 2020?
I don't know.
But it's beautiful.
I mean, it basically looks like a vehicular unidentified flying object.
It looks like a vehicular UFO.
And then the question is this.
This is ugly.
Would never buy one.
They weigh 6,600 pounds.
They are tanks.
They accelerate from, I don't know, what, 60 to 100 in three seconds.
I prefer the looks of the Bronco, but it was still a thing of beauty to see in the wild.
It seems we might have our first victim of TDS tonight.
Convict Trump.
Yeah, don't worry about it if Leticia James has her way.
It's an amazing thing.
A man who makes it through his entire life.
Without having run-ins with the law, all of a sudden, becomes the number one criminal.
Only being persecuted and prosecuted by the criminals themselves.
I'll bring that up in a second at this time.
Okay, before Barnes gets here, let me do a number of these.
Super Chats, people.
Oh, I'm sorry, I almost forgot one thing that I absolutely must do.
Google.
Give, send, go, Kayla Pollack.
I'm talking about this because we're talking about it tonight, so I'll get it in a second.
But before I get there, Everybody, let me go through some of these Super Chats.
YouTube takes 30% of these Super Chats.
If you want to support the channel, one great way to do it is by going to Rumble and giving a Rumble rant.
Rumble takes 0% of those.
Or go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and sign up $10 a month, $100 a year if you want to have a ton of exclusive perks as a supporter.
Robert will know this.
Why didn't Trump pardon Assange four years ago?
We're definitely talking about it.
I just want to say, actually, before we even get into these things, if you're so inclined, people, I interviewed a woman named Kayla Pollack who was paralyzed, became a quadriplegic from a booster of the Moderna jab.
She's suing Moderna in Canada for tens of millions of dollars.
I'm not optimistic on the lawsuit, but I'll certainly cross my fingers, but there's no amount of money that can possibly compensate.
Her or other vax-injured people for what they've gone through.
She's got a give-send-go going.
The Canadian government has abandoned her to the point of actually unsolicited offering her maids, medical assistance and dying.
I won't talk about it again because I talked about it at length.
If you are so inclined, and I ask, it's obviously, you know, don't give to me and give to her if you can.
The link to the give-send-go is here.
We're over $51,000 now, which is great because it was at $30,000 the day of the interview.
That's the link there.
And we're going to talk about her lawsuit against Moderna tonight.
And I believe that we might also be on...
Dr. Drew, Thursday night talking about it.
Okay, now I'm going to get back to the Super Chats here.
Seize the day says, but the path of the just is like the shining sun that shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.
Proverbs 4.18, honk honk, dance, dance, Trump.
That sees the day we met in person in Ottawa.
Pastor Moyer says, wouldn't it be fun someday to have a few...
To have so few pressing and horrible issues happening in the world that it makes it hard to find enough topics to discuss.
Yes, I could get back to fishing when that happens.
Quantum Strange Quark says if Leticia James and the corrupt New York courts devalue the Trump properties to ridiculously low amounts, Trump should immediately sue for years of overpaid taxes on those properties.
What good is it suing in a communist regime?
Oh, yeah.
And Otto Warmbier's family should sue Kim Jong-un for wrongful death.
We're not dealing with justice anymore.
Rumble is not working.
Refresh it.
It is.
Cash is fungible.
Kevin O'Donnell.
Gold is too.
You just got to find a place to buy it.
We got Breaking Area 51 goes on high alert after Winston's flatulet.
Emanations found to be broadcasting on known alien frequency, say experts.
Viva, I never catch a lie, so I just want to say I love you.
You're the best.
You make us laugh, and you're food for my soul.
Viva la viva.
Lucy Gibbs, thank you very much.
Rumble is working, and I just confirmed.
Now, just to show you that Rumble is, in fact, working.
I see some Rumble rants there, and until Barnes gets in the house, we've got time to do these.
Eh, do these.
Okay, we got...
Britt Cormier says, let me see here.
Hush your hippie mouth and bring on Barnes.
Just kidding.
Beauty is subjective.
I do not care about looks.
I just cannot bring myself to buy an electric vehicle.
That's the reality.
250 miles on a full tank.
Oh, but the thing is, it's kind of cool.
Tesla truck is the AMC pacer of the present day.
I don't know what that means.
King of Biltong, Aaron.
I just saw the email that you sent me, so I'll get you an address to send it to.
But it says, good afternoon from Anton's in Roanoke, Texas.
Free shipping for your Biltong with code VIVA on www.biltongusa.com and antonusa.com.
Biltong, it's like beef jerky from what I understand.
Wet beef jerky.
High protein.
Link to the future says, at this point I'm convinced that Taylor Lorenz has a crush on Shia.
She used all her resources to find out who Libs of TikTok was, visited Shia and her family's home, and now she's taking Shia out for coffee.
Viva's first reflex, when the poo-poo hits the fan, stick things up his butt.
We got Momo F. Kyler says, South Carolina here, proud to say we did our part of the group project yesterday and we did it well.
I love people spinning that they think.
It's a defeat for Trump, what happened yesterday.
Let me just make sure that Barnes has the link.
I'm sure he's got it.
Link?
Bongey boy.
Let's see where he is.
You've got the link, comma, right?
Question mark?
Oh, lordy.
So that's it.
I think he does have the link.
It's going to be one heck of a...
So now, what do we do?
Let me see.
Are we good on Rumble?
We are.
We're at 12,000 and some odd.
Okay, good.
And then we got Honk Honk with the Diagon on.
Kenzie67.
Yeah, I'm downplaying and watching Viva just fine.
Downloading and watching Viva just fine.
Yeah, everyone says it's fine.
Okay.
Well, hold on.
You know what?
Until Barnes gets here, I'll do the Canadian one.
Let me pull up this lawsuit.
Let me just see.
I had it in the backdrop.
It is right here.
So Kayla, the woman that I had on earlier this week, or yeah, well, I don't know what date it is anymore.
It's Sunday.
She mentioned that she's suing Pfizer to me, and I got a copy of the lawsuit.
It's public, so I'm not really showing anything confidential.
I'm going to go present, screen, window, and here it is.
So this is out of Canada.
The question is going to be how anyone is going to circumvent the immunity that was granted to these pharma companies.
This is Kayla Pollack, plaintiff versus Moderna Therapeutics.
Okay, we're going to go.
This is the notice to appear.
The claim here, plaintiff Kayla Pollack, non-pecuniary damage, pain and suffering, emotional, psychological impacts, $5 million.
Compensatory damages for loss to future earnings, $2.5 million.
Compensatory damages for future cost of care, $10 million.
People are under the impression that there's any amount of money that can be...
Compensatory for what she's going through.
She needs a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
It costs $100,000 Canadian.
$2 million.
I mean, look, aggravated punitive damages.
I mean, I say good luck with that in Canada because we don't get $25 million rewards.
And it goes through how, basically, Moderna made claims which they had no business making.
Safe and effective.
Didn't warn people of side effects, potential adverse events that they knew about.
And people not in full awareness of fact and law went ahead and did it and suffered irreversible, irremediable consequences.
And the government immunized these manufacturers, these pharma companies, while simultaneously admitting that they cut corners everywhere, including in manufacturing.
Barnes is in the backdrop, people.
He's just come in and we'll bring him in.
Robert, how goes the battle, sir?
Good, good.
Okay, you're back to a tie now.
I'm not saying that I don't like the bow tie.
I prefer the tie, and that is a good one.
Sir, what's the book?
You have David Mammoth, The Secret Knowledge, behind you.
What's the book about?
Yeah, it's about his sort of political awakening.
He was a sort of a conventional, traditional liberal that became much more of a conservative in response to the Cultural Revolution, in part.
The insanity and inanity of wokeness.
He's one of our great screenplay writers, one of our great playwrights.
The Glengarry Glen Ross is David Mamet as just one illustrative example.
He had a good interview recently describing in very simplified form both the insanity of the woke religion and its infection of Hollywood as well as the reason why Trump, in his view, was going to win.
I mean, put it simple.
Under Trump, good economy, no war.
Under Biden, lots of war, crap economy.
The math is simple.
But brilliant storyteller.
One of my favorite books of his is Three Uses of the Knife, about a blues song and how it explains the neurological need of the human species for narrative.
And it was brilliant and revolutionary and revolutionary in my own perspective on understanding the psychology of persuasion and storytelling.
So great, great author, great person.
Some people said, you know, could we have him on sidebar?
Love to have him on sidebar.
If somebody knows a way to reach him, you know, absolutely.
David Mamet also is the author of one of my favorite expressions, Every Fear Hides a Wish, which I use very often because it's a telling thing.
Robert, but we'll finish off with what I started talking about, the Moderna lawsuit, and we'll talk about what else we had because this wasn't on the list.
What is going to be the best legal strategy to bypass the immunity that the government gave the pharma companies?
My thought is that, on the one hand, how do you verify what the product administered was compound-wise to what product was approved?
And if it turns out that the product that they were selling...
Sorry, selling.
Injecting was substantially materially different than the product that was approved.
Would the argument then be, well, they weren't immunized for that particular product?
Would the argument be that they didn't provide what they were required to by law, so therefore immunity doesn't apply?
And or subsidiarily fraud vitiates everything and they made statements and representations that they had no business making, therefore any immunity that they were bestowed shouldn't exist.
Is this a Canadian suit or an American suit?
This one's a Canadian suit.
It's going to vary by jurisdiction.
Because in the United States, you have to get around the PrEP Act.
So in most places, the government provided certain immunity before Pfizer or Moderna allowed their product to be distributed.
And so it will depend on the specifics of that governing jurisdiction.
In the U.S., it's complicated because it goes beyond the immunity extended by the Defense Department.
It goes to the PREP Act's immunity, and that's the most problematic area to get around.
Now, there is an issue that if you receive something different than what was identified as a PREP Act countermeasure, then there's an argument you can pursue litigation, even here in the States.
And there's a range of lawyers that are looking at whether that option provides an alternative.
But it's probably easier to sue in Canada, frankly, than it is in the U.S. because of the scope of the PREP Act in the U.S. And I do wonder if that statement made by a government official to the effect that, you know, they were rushing R&D.
It usually takes many years and they bypass that.
They were rushing production.
There were a number of recalls.
If a number of that, it can serve as any sort of evidence as to who the hell knows what was given to people.
And who the hell knows why they made certain warranties and representations when they had no business making them.
So to be followed, by the way, I'll do a separate breakdown of that lawsuit.
It's very similar to one that I had already covered in the past.
And I'll be on with Dr. Drew, I believe, and Kayla on Thursday.
So stay tuned for that.
Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
We got Trump brought a big motion to dismiss the classified documents case on multiple grounds.
We have...
Big Fanny Perjury, which was the co-favorite along with the Assange extradition hearing on our board for the top topic of the night.
Russiagate 2.0, the insanity of a particular judge getting a hold of that case.
The NCAA suffers a major loss about its attempts to control the NIL marketplace.
Trump appealing the New York verdict and the efforts there to...
preclude having to pay a huge amount as a condition of being able to effectively appeal.
Both that and the other federal case, both with insane verdicts, that he's facing both where they're trying to bankrupt him before he can use any of those funds for his campaign.
The CBS reporter fired and record seized.
That was an investigative reporter exposing Joe Biden.
The Disney loses a major vaccine mandate motion in California courts.
The New York court recognizing that non-citizen voting is still illegal under New York law.
Sad that you had to have a court even say that.
Rumble has their big Second Circuit argument they had last week, but also got a big win with the SEC this week.
Jeffrey Epstein disclosures of the Florida State Grand Jury.
Sex ed for kids is pending before the federal courts.
Hotels involved in price fixing.
And last but not least, an Amos Miller update.
We filed our brief on that this past week.
And the hearing is this upcoming Thursday, Thursday afternoon in Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
Well, you know what?
If you don't mind, let's do Amos Miller now while we have the audiences on both platforms and then get to the first topic.
So what is the status of Amos Miller now?
He's been having more and more problems.
So what they've done is they've, first they detained a bunch of food in his freezer and refrigerator.
Then they ordered its destruction.
And not only ordered its destruction, they told him that he couldn't feed his own family with a bunch of it, that he couldn't even feed his own pigs with it.
This came after their own testing confirmed that almost all of the food was completely safe and had nothing at issue with it at all.
They ordered food they knew to be safe destroyed and not allowed for anyone to consume it.
Then they started telling him what could be used for personal use and what couldn't.
They were dictating a farmer, what a farmer from his own freezer could feed his own family and what could feed his own pigs.
Told him you can't use this, you can't use that, you can't even feed your own pigs with it.
This was food again that they had tested and came back clear.
They'd been hiding the testing results for more than a month.
They just released them on Friday after multiple demands by my office.
And the testing results showed what I suspected all along, that they had claimed that there was certain E. coli in Amos Miller's food based on an unconfirmed report out of New York.
Their own testing showed there was no E. coli in his food.
None of that strain existed.
And also they tested for salmonella.
Didn't exist.
They tested for listeria.
Listeria didn't exist in almost any of the samples.
Only a small percentage of samples had listeria.
We had independently tested that.
It came from a third-party farmer providing some milk, and he just cut that off and got rid of it.
It means his food has now been tested, his environment has now been tested, his water samples have been tested, come back clean.
And yet, there's still an injunction in place prohibiting him from making, distributing any...
Raw milk-related product.
They are seeking a complete shutdown of the farm.
The hearing on Thursday is whether the raw milk-related injunction will stay in place.
This is a power they legally don't have.
That, in fact, we've found no precedent in the history of Pennsylvania where any court has stopped a farmer from farming.
Just doesn't exist.
In fact, haven't found an example anywhere in the country where this authority has been given.
Pennsylvania law is quite clear that the only power that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has given as it relates to the destruction of food is that it be proven that it's unfit for human consumption.
The Secretary Redding's destruction order doesn't make that claim at all.
Doesn't say any of it is unsafe for human consumption.
Instead, in fact, doesn't claim it's adulterated.
Instead, the only claim is...
That it didn't have a label on the package saying PDA approved, even though it's not PDA approved, and that's the way the people want it.
They want it the Amish way, not the PDA way.
And that's Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture approved.
Does it need to be under any piece of legislation?
It's preposterous in multiple levels.
The law in Pennsylvania, according to the Attorney General's own opinions, dating from the inception of these laws, said that state inspection power...
Only begins at, quote, the retail shelf.
This food was taken from his own freezer.
It wasn't on a retail shelf.
The definition of packaging only applies once it's on the retail shelf.
None of this needed to be packaged.
None of it was packaged.
So their claim that, oh, it wasn't branded the way we want it branded, has no application.
Once it is packaged, it lists the source, it lists the ingredients.
But it wasn't being packaged.
They're claiming that goods have to be packaged when they're sitting in your own freezer as a farmer.
There's no basis for that.
It's directly contrary to Pennsylvania law.
So the brief is being shared.
There was also hundreds of declarations filed from all across the country.
Almost 400 sworn declarations of people testifying under penalty of perjury that they want and need Amos Miller's products as members of his organic farm in order for their own health.
In some cases for religious reasons, some cases for politically expressive reasons, but in some cases necessary to their children's health.
And right now they're being denied it and their children's health is being put in danger.
The state of Pennsylvania continues to lie and say this is about safety and about consumer choice.
They know it's not.
That we have sworn testimony that the only allegation from almost a decade ago that said that any raw milk product of Amos Miller caused any harm, the caretaker has testified now under penalty of perjury that the grandmother they identified as being sickened by raw milk actually never even drank raw milk and she had fourth stage cancer.
So the state of Pennsylvania has known this and they lied about it.
So what they've done is they've just lied repeatedly because they assume the Pennsylvania courts will be rubber stamps for their misuse and abuse of power.
And the Pennsylvania legislature is asleep because they've been listening to the mainstream media just regurgitate like stenographers.
That's what most of them are.
They're not journalists in Pennsylvania.
They're just stenographers.
Whatever the state tells them, they just write and repeat these lies about Amos Miller.
Literally millions of food products over a quarter century.
If you go back to his father and his grandfather, his great-grandfather, all of them farmers right there in Lancaster County, have produced all kinds of food products.
And you won't find Amos Miller ever listed on a recall anywhere by the state of Pennsylvania in that entire history.
In fact, they have produced not one single piece of evidence of one single member of Amos Miller's organic farm that has ever complained about Amos Miller's food product.
To the opposite, they want and need and demand his product.
The state of Pennsylvania is claiming the authority that if it's not PDA approved, you're not allowed to have it in your refrigerator.
You're not allowed to feed your own family with it anymore.
You're not even allowed to feed your own pigs with it anymore.
This is an extraordinary power grab built on extraordinary lies, and they depend entirely on the culpability and complicity of the Pennsylvania courts not doing their job and holding the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to account.
My guess is the Agriculture Secretary, Redding, who has signed off on these illicit and unauthorized detention orders, these illicit and unauthorized food destruction orders, explicitly beyond his statutory authority and in violation of what Pennsylvania courts have said is their constitutional constraint on their authority.
Now, you watch.
He won't be there on Thursday afternoon.
My prediction is Secretary Redding will be hiding in Harrisburg rather than show up and defend his lawless actions because he can't defend it.
What we're going to find out is whether the Pennsylvania courts will enforce the law when it comes to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture or not.
We'll find out on Thursday afternoon.
But this started with the federal government.
It actually all really started with the Pennsylvania state of Pennsylvania.
So there's a lawyer at Penn State that has been demanding, that's part of a center, agricultural center, by the way, that is funded by big corporate agriculture.
That has been trying to wipe out small family farmer competition from the inception have misused and abused these regulations and the regulatory state to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the small family farmer.
We went from one out of five food products being created and produced by the small family farmer to less than 2% of all food today in America.
98% of food is controlled by corporatized, industrialized farmers.
These regulations are designed to bankrupt small farmers.
You cannot compete if you're under their regulatory restrictions.
And the other deep irony in all this is that they claim it's for food safety and consumer choice when what they're trying to do is take away consumer choice.
And we now know from a half century is that they are horrible at, say, food safety.
Raw milk doesn't produce the most listeria outbreaks.
Pasteurized milk does, even though the FDA and the PDA have been claiming for years, falsely, that pasteurization gets rid of all the bad bacteria.
Now, one problem is it also definitely gets rid of a lot of the good bacteria, but it turns out they're wrong.
Corporatized industrialized food is the main, in fact, it's about 99.9%.
Of all food outbreaks, all pathogen outbreaks, all food recalls come from the corporatized, industrialized food made the PDA way.
That's why ordinary people don't want it that way anymore.
And all you can do is take a Photoshop of all the unhealthy lardasses at the PDA and realize people don't want to eat their way.
More and more people.
This is about a tiny little share of the food market getting to choose what goes into their own body.
And about a tiny little share of the food market.
Being able to be family farmers and sustainable.
And they don't want them to be.
They know that the moment they have a regulatory restraint on the back of these small family farmers, they wipe them out.
They also demand that the farmer add chemicals, add additives, add preservatives to food that people don't want.
We know it doesn't work.
We have, as Robert Kennedy keeps talking about, a chronic health epidemic in the Indianapolis.
A chronic disease epidemic in the United States.
And it's directly related to our food supply, becoming corporatized and industrialized.
People who've done their own individual research look at the Amish, and they see that the Amish lifestyle produces healthier, happier people that live longer lives with fewer and less disease.
So some people want to benefit from that.
The state of Pennsylvania doesn't want to let you benefit from that.
It wants to prohibit you from benefiting from that.
It also exposes how their regulatory system is a scam.
It doesn't produce safe food.
It produces unsafe food.
The most dangerous food in the state of Pennsylvania is food that's been PDA-approved, PDA-permitted, PDA-licensed.
Like 99.9% of food recalls come from PDA-permitted facilities because they don't know what they're doing.
They're all bureaucrats.
Almost none of them have ever farmed a day in their lives.
And you know where they go to work after they work for the government?
Basically, they get bribed while they're in the government because then they go and work for the same big corporations they were supposedly regulating while they were in office.
So it's one big fat fraud.
And the case against Amos Miller is a case meant to destroy food freedom and small farmers in America.
And if it succeeds, it will set a perilous precedent for everybody everywhere.
And that's why the case is so consequential.
There's going to be a rally before around 1130 or so late morning that Thursday in Lancaster County in support of Amos Miller.
It does appear the court will not allow the case to be broadcast, will not allow the case to be.
You won't be able to have video access or any access unless you're physically inside the courtroom, which has limited space available to it.
So you got to get there early to get to be able to get space, it would appear.
I'll find out on Monday if the court will change its mind on that, but that's my understanding at the moment.
There are some witnesses that will be allowed to testify remotely, which is good, because there's people who really want to testify, but for health reasons cannot physically get themselves to Lancaster County.
But it's deeply disturbing what the state is up to.
This is an extraordinary power grab, and I am starting to hear from more Pennsylvania legislators who are shocked.
They thought this was just about making sure the food was safe.
They didn't realize it has nothing to do with the food safety.
Both the detention order and the destruction order says nothing about the food being dangerous at all.
Nothing about the food being unfit for human consumption.
And that's the legal predicate to destroy any food under the laws in Pennsylvania.
But they're just ignoring it.
They're saying, we can now go in and take your property and destroy your food and destroy your opportunity to purchase food solely because it isn't a PDA-approved facility in the first place.
But as a pure matter of fact, much of the food has already been destroyed, wasted, spoiled.
Yeah, yes.
A lot of it already has been.
And their goal is to destroy the rest of it and even prohibit him from feeding his own pigs with it, even prohibiting him from feeding his own family with it.
Again, power that they do not have by law, that the Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly ruled it would be unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and we're challenging it on the grounds of the U.S. Constitution as well.
The liberty interest of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution should, at a minimum, protect the longest traditional liberty in American history, which is the ability to buy food directly from its producer.
Particularly traditional foods such as dairy, meat, and poultry.
But you know what PDA says?
PDA says the only healthy poultry is if you stick a bunch of chickens in a tiny little factory farm where they eat each other's dung, and then that's a healthy food.
Not the kind made on a free range and by an organic farmer doing it the way they've done it for centuries.
That couldn't possibly be safe.
The only thing that could be safe is when your animals are eating each other's dung.
And I was going to say, even with the labeling that they put on some of these bigger brand things to make it seem like they're free-range and open air, it's so often mislabeling that it's effectively false advertising.
I just wanted to bring this up, Robert.
It's amazing.
Listeria outbreaks.
This is on the CDC.
Grocery cheese and deli meat.
And supposedly that can't happen.
And again, they're putting this microscope on an unidentified amount of listeria being in a very small amount of his food supply that the source was identified and taken care of.
It's now completely clear.
And it's on a farmer that has had the fewest, lowest rate of food safety incidents of any farmer in the state of Pennsylvania.
I mean, given the amount of food he's produced over a quarter century, to have zero complaints from consumers of safety issues, and that's the guy you're trying to take out?
While every day in Pennsylvania somebody has to issue a food recall from these big, corporatized, industrialized, commercialized food producers and processors?
None of whom are ever raided?
None of whom ever have food detained?
None of whom ever have food destroyed?
None of whom ever have an injunction issued against them?
And Redding keeps going around lying to people saying, oh, we've been trying to work with Amos Miller.
Complete fraud.
Complete lie.
I've been his counsel now for many years.
PDA didn't reach out one single time.
Because in their internal emails, they joked about what they wanted to have happen to Amos Miller.
And you know what it was?
They kept showing pictures of Amish in handcuffs.
They wanted him in handcuffs.
That's who they are.
They're liars and frauds.
And the only question is whether the Pennsylvania court...
We'll uphold the law or defer and cower to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
That's the only question.
And all the legislators asleep at the wheel in Pennsylvania better wake up because this power is going to be used and misused and abused to wipe out small family farmers and organic farmers in the state.
They're not coming after Amos Miller to stop at Amos Miller.
They're coming after Amos Miller to get the rest of us.
Amos Miller will be the agricultural equivalent of Alex Jones.
I'm just going to bring this up because it's funny.
Just because I have an old lady crush on Mr. Sexy Viva Guy.
I know it's not your name, but oh well.
My mom came from Nova Scotia.
She'd puke about Canada, if alive.
Well, you know, I was going to say that I was going to make a...
I'm not even going to make the joke about what they want to do with the Amish farmer, Amos Miller.
I was going to analogize it to Julian Assange to segue into that.
I'm just going to say, you know, speaking of corrupt government action, Robert, we'll do Julian Assange and then we're going to end on...
I've messaged the team at Rumble, so they're looking into it.
And for those who are having issues, hopefully it'll be resolved.
We're going to do the two big...
We'll get some spotlight on these two decisions, and then we're going to go over to Rumble after this.
Julian Assange, Robert.
I went back and put together a montage of you and I back now four years, three years, talking about Julian Assange.
Going back to the beginning, we don't need to go back to the beginning, but what a coincidence it was that they came after him for rape right after the WikiLeaks, where they were just trying to find a way to arrest him and extradite him.
He was in a holdup at Ecuadorian embassy.
They kicked him out following arguably some external influence.
UK police arrested him right away, sentenced him to 50 weeks for breach of bail conditions, which he posted prior to going into hiding.
Yeah, give or take.
And then, you know, there was a superseding indictment under Trump, espionage charges.
I don't know why he's not facing the death penalty or the prospect of.
You'll answer that one for me.
And he was initially, basically, all of his grounds to contest the extradition were dismissed, except one, which was that he's suicidal, so we're not going to send him back.
We'll just lock him up in the shittiest prison in the UK.
And then we get assurances that he'll be treated properly by the very same government that was plotting to kill him.
Extradition will be allowed and now he's had a two-day hearing to ask to contest the other grounds opposing his extradition that were dismissed at the time.
First question first.
People want to blame Trump for the superseding indictment.
I know that I'm inclined to want to forgive Trump or not blame Trump because this did occur under his administration.
What would be the strongest argument for why Trump would not be responsible for the superseding indictment to bring back Assange on espionage charges?
Trump is partially responsible, no doubt.
He should have pardoned Julian Assange.
He should have pardoned Edward Snowden.
It was under consideration at the end.
And my understanding is the reason he did not is because Mitch McConnell told him that if he pardoned either one of them, he would be convicted in the Senate on his impeachment charge.
And towards the end there, Trump let people intimidate him based on how they were construing January 6th.
And that's why I say partially.
Partially because he could have done something to correct it and he didn't.
Partially because it happened under his administration.
Partially because you had Pompeo conspiring to not only illegally spy on Assange, but try to have Assange assassinated.
Mike Pence, his vice president, helped coordinate the effort to extradite Assange and remove him from the Ecuadorian embassy.
Pence was neck deep in that.
And so Trump's partially responsible because he put people in positions of power who put this into motion.
And he also could have done something to stop it when he had the chance and didn't.
I say only partially because there's no evidence that Trump himself directed any of this, that this was any direct effort of Trump.
Trump expressed no particular obsession with Assange and said positive and supportive things about him during the 2016 campaign.
And there's no evidence that Trump directed any of this towards him in a way that Biden seems to have done so, and Hillary Clinton clearly wanted him drone-bombed.
That came from Hillary herself.
But the question would be, he would float the idea of a pardon.
Why would he have ever floated the idea of a pardon if it was his idea to indict in the first place?
Correct.
It was definitely not his idea to indict.
To my understanding...
I mean, Richard Grinnell has given inadequate explanations on this.
That's one reason why I'm skeptical of Richard Grinnell.
Grinnell appeared to be complicit in the effort to remove Assange from the embassy, from the Ecuadorian embassy, so that he would be arrested and imprisoned for potential extradition.
So that's why I put an asterisk by him.
A lot of people on the right like him because of what he did when he was briefly at the DNI to declassify information concerning Russiagate.
But he has given an inadequate, and some of his key allies were putting pressure on people like Cassandra Fairbanks, I think she's now Cassandra McDonald, to not defend Assange and other things.
So I think he's got some culpability on his hands that he's yet to explain and explicate.
But there's no evidence that Trump ordered it or that even Trump was kept in the loop.
At the top as to what was happening, as to what Pence was doing, as to what his own Justice Department under Bill Barr was doing.
It's now clear that Bill Barr was working to sabotage Trump most of the time.
He came in under the pretext, hey, I'll get rid of Mueller, because he thought Mueller was backfiring publicly and politically.
And he did do that, but then he used the grace he was given because of that to undermine Trump.
Undermine Trump and not investigating the election fraud of 2020.
He undermined Trump in covering up the Biden complicity and criminality that had been documented and demonstrated to his Justice Department for multiple years.
Bill Barr was the Attorney General while not only Julian Assange got indicted but also while Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself but ended up dead in a prison under his watch.
His father had ties, of course, to Jeffrey Epstein going all the way back.
To his original appointment at the Dalton School.
And we now know from Bill Barr's constant advocacy against Trump that he was always working.
He was a Bushite.
He was working to sabotage Trump all along.
So the fact that the key participants, Pompeo and Barr, were behind the Assange extradition and indictment efforts, and that these two men were constantly sabotaging Trump behind his back, tells you that this was not a Trump-coordinated policy.
Trump can be held responsible for putting him into positions of power, a clear mistake that he himself has now acknowledged.
But clearly the effort to get Assange was not a Trump effort.
But if you're Assange's counsel, you might as well throw Trump in the mix because you're arguing to judges who are likely anti-Trump in the UK.
So that's why there was no political benefit to them defending Trump.
In dealing with Assange, they were going to make it personal to Trump as much as they could because it gave them what shot they have with the UK high courts.
But a lot of the attacks on Trump are, I don't think, well-deserved.
Well, Assange had his two days hearing to oppose the extradition and he's raising, the argument is just to have a rehearing or an appeal on the other grounds.
Yeah, he wasn't initially allowed an appeal on all of his good grounds, which is that he is a political prisoner who exposed state crimes and is being persecuted for that and is at risk of inhuman treatment back in the United States, pre-trial imprisonment, a supermax later, and a death penalty punishment.
And the U.S. government does what they always do in extradition proceedings.
They lie to courts.
The only thing I would have said more is if I had been on Assange's team, what I would have identified all the times the U.S. government has lied to get people extradited.
They do it all the time.
They have done it repeatedly.
And the reason is U.S. courts don't enforce those promises with any degree of consistency.
And so that's what they should have been really hammering home to the U.K. courts.
Now, whether this U.K. high court is really independent is an open question.
Apparently, one of the judges making the decision has long, deep ties to the intelligence services of Britain, who are the ones pursuing Julian Assange.
Assange is an example, as Amos Miller is an example of food freedom.
Julian Assange is an example of whistleblowers exposing deep state criminality.
And that is why they are obsessed with making an example out of him.
That's why they're obsessed with him dying in an American prison.
But in order to get around it, they're saying, don't worry, we'll transfer him to Australia.
Don't worry, we'll never send him to Supermax.
Don't worry, we won't detain him under conditions that led to the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, it's not credible statements.
It's not credible assurances.
You know, Alexander McCorris of the Duran, who has connections historically to the high court, said the fact they didn't make an immediate ruling against Assange gives some chance that they'll do the right thing and at least allow the appeal.
This wouldn't be ruling in his favor.
This would just be allowing the appeal on these issues.
Delay it so he could spend more time in that horrible prison in the UK.
Back in the day, though, he wasn't initially charged with Espionage Act violations.
As far as I understood, Espionage Act violations carry the death penalty for some of them.
Yes, they absolutely do.
The U.S. government said, we would never seek it.
Don't worry.
We'll never seek it.
They lie all the time.
And they get away with it because they're never held to account by foreign courts.
What's your prediction?
I mean, the prediction is only that he should have a substantive hearing on his contestation.
Has it garnered enough public attention, international attention, that they do this even as a matter of pseudo-feigned transparency?
I would say one in three, Chance.
Because it's kind of like the Atlanta case with Big Fanny.
You're banking on the judge being one of either two things.
Conscientious about the law.
And on the law grounds, Assange has robust arguments that are unique to him that have previously been the grounds to deny extradition in the UK and in other jurisdictions that share the UK's approach to extradition.
So that if you're conscientious, you absolutely give him that right to appeal before sending him off to his death in the United States.
On the other hand, the...
By the way, there was QAnon people that said it was all part of an inside thing to get Assange released.
I hope those people realize how wrong they were all along, that they were being led down a primrose path to rationalize something that was unjust from its inception.
But putting that aside, the other thing you hope for is a judge that's politically aware enough to realize that denying Assange merely the right to appeal It makes the UK court system look like it is nothing more than the token and tool of the intelligence apparatus and the deep state in Britain, at the same time that Britain is being exposed for spying on President Trump back in 2016 and other illicit behavior.
Now, note, Assange still has potential remedy to the EU courts.
Because the UK is a signatory to certain human rights courts that have already expressed an interest in the case if the UK does not grant him his right to appeal.
So the other factor with being politically sage and granting him the right to appeal would be avoiding the embarrassing outcome of a European court saying that the UK courts couldn't apply basic law of their own procedure.
So if the court is conscientious or the court is politically smart, Assange will get his appeal.
It is an open question whether either is true of the high courts of the United Kingdom.
All right, everybody.
With that said, that's the link to Rumble.
I'm going to give everybody the link one more time to Kayla's Give, Send, Go.
I'm going to give everybody the link one more time.
It's in the pinned comment to preservegold.com forward slash viva.
Get some gold.
And I'm just going to hold it.
It's idolatry, Robert, except it's the Queen.
She's still on the damn money of Canada.
If anybody wants the Queen, they have the American ones as well, but this was an ode to the Queen.
And we're not done talking about judicial corruption yet.
We've only gotten started, people.
Holy sweet, merciful crab apples.
You got all the links.
We're going to end on...
YouTube.
If Rumble is glitching, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Stay for the after party, where we're going to have tons of chats to read.
Ending on YouTube.
Come on over.
Locals or Rumble.
Boom.
No, I didn't do it yet.
Now it's a boom.
Boom.
Robert.
Which one do we start with?
Let's start with Letizia James.
I don't even know if it was on our menu, but I got it.
How outrageously inappropriate is it for her to be tweeting the amount of the N 'Garon award and then the next day tweeting the interest on that award?
Is there not an ethics body that can sanction her for doing this?
But why would they?
They're all controlled by people that align with her politically.
Just because it's over the top.
I mean, they got murderers in jail in New York.
It's Leticia James saying...
They don't care.
It's clear that the partisan left will weaponize every power they have to go after the other side.
They don't care about ethics.
They don't care about law.
They've made that crystal clear.
The fact that Fannie Willis is even a district attorney is an example of that.
The fact that Letitia James...
The multiple courts had the opportunity, including federal courts in New York and Florida, to stop this sham proceeding from even occurring in New York when you had the most overt...
Select prosecution that has ever occurred in the history of the country.
Our First Amendment prohibits targeting someone for political purposes.
It always has.
Now, our courts have done a lousy job enforcing that, but that's always been the law.
Here you had someone who ran for office promising to get Trump.
Not based on anything he'd done, based on just who he was politically.
And saying that she would find something.
The old Berea principle.
Show me the man.
And I'll find you the crime, the notorious head of the Secret Service of the Soviet Union.
And that's what she did.
And then a proceeding that was such an embarrassment to the rule of law and so precarious to business that you got people like Kevin O 'Leary.
Going ballistic on it.
And I think Mark Cuban was the latest one to go ballistic as well, if I'm not mistaken.
Because anybody that has any sense can see, okay, if you're saying the state can take out anybody it politically likes, regardless of anything they did under the law that was wrong, then why on God's green earth would I invest in your state?
You'd have to be insane.
It would be arguably a dereliction of your duty to your investors if it's a corporation.
To actually do business in New York.
Or to do business in Illinois.
Or to do business in California.
Or to keep incorporated in Delaware.
They've all made very clear they will politically weaponize their courts to go after people regardless of the law.
The credibility and confidence in the American legal system is collapsing around the world.
Just as it's collapsed in American financial and political power because of the sanctions issued against Russia.
That led to a global flight.
of a lot of capital, and it's going to continue to lead to global flight of a lot of capital, but especially and particularly from these states.
So much of the governor is trying to go around saying, don't worry, we just targeted Trump.
We wouldn't target you.
That doesn't make, that doesn't appease anybody.
They're like, so what?
So you're saying if the attorney general doesn't like me for some reason, I'm the same DOA.
I mean, it was such a ridiculous and disproportionate fine.
Credit to President Trump.
He started talking about this being an excessive fine.
The day after we talked about it on the show.
Because we had discussed what would be his constitutional rights at the state level.
Is it the Eighth Amendment, Robert?
Yes.
And that's the Supreme Court of the United States issue.
And so he shared it.
It's good that he's raising those issues.
Now, there's some confusion out there because of the phraseology.
You don't have to post bond in order to appeal.
You can always appeal.
They can't deny you that.
What they can do is they can collect on the judgment while the appeal is pending.
Now, if they collect on the judgment and they lose on appeal, they then have to pay Trump not only the value of whatever they collected, but also interest on it.
The interest at 9%.
Correct.
That is why frequently you don't try to collect on a judgment pending appeal because you don't want to be on the hook.
For the interest, if it's a big judgment.
Just to simplify this, if other people are not necessarily following, the whole issue is everyone was under the impression if he appeals, he's got to post either the full 450 million plus interest in a court file or a bond where he's got to get a bond company to post up the rest and he puts up 10%.
You're saying, Robert, if he doesn't do it, he has the right to appeal, they can start to execute, but they might say, well, we're not necessarily even going to do that.
If he appeals without posting it.
Leticia James came out and said she would.
Said she would go out and try to immediately collect.
Seize the properties and do whatever they wanted with them.
Which could have massively negative impact.
Let's say they seize a property and they try to discount its value and sell it to an insider or something else.
They could end up on the hook for a lot more money than they get back.
She's gambling.
With the state of New York.
And this is happening because Trump hatred consumes the professional class, legal class left that's so delusional and so conspiratorial that they are willing to breach every standard of legal care, every ethical duty and obligation, every sensible economic interest in order to just get Trump.
They're willing to cross every river, every Rubicon, burn every bridge.
It shows how dangerous it was to put people with this kind of ideology that is more of an idolatry in power.
And they're just revealing it to the world.
And what they did to Alex Jones in the Connecticut and Texas cases, which was a complete embarrassment to the rule of law and any sense of impartial justice.
Which the American legal system has been globally known for, was a sign of what was to come.
And now they're just doing it to Trump, and it still shocks people to see it at this scale.
That they never proved any fraud.
That the people who were supposedly defrauded said they weren't defrauded.
And said, in fact, it was a great deal and they would do it again and wish they could do it again.
It's similar to Amos Miller's case, right?
In the name of protecting the banks.
That said they liked the deal.
You have to bankrupt Trump.
In the name of protecting Amos Miller's consumers, you have to take away their right to buy his food when they're demanding the right to buy his food.
I mean, it's perverse.
It's Soviet mindset.
And it's not a surprise.
The professional class was the true fountain and foundation of the communist movement and much of the fascistic movement.
And so there are people that are dangerous in power and they're revealing it to the whole world.
Let me show you this, Robert.
It's the end of the vlog, but here is this.
Average of 50 a year?
No, here.
Where was it?
Here we go.
Listen to this.
I believe that this president is incompetent.
I believe that this president is ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land.
And I believe that he is an embarrassment to all that we stand for.
He should be charged with obstructing justice.
I believe that the president of these United States can be indicted for criminal offenses.
And we would join with law enforcement and other attorneys general across this nation in removing this president from office.
In addition to that, the office of attorney general will continue to follow the money because we believe that he's engaged in a patent and practice of money laundering, laundering the money from foreign governments here in New York state and particularly related to his real estate holdings.
It's important.
I hate her so much.
The days of Donald Trump are coming to an end.
The days of Donald Trump are coming to an end.
Obstruction of justice.
What?
Obstruction of justice.
Well, and that's the extraordinary thing of how innocent Trump really is.
She did a microscopic, microscopic review of everything Trump has ever done in New York, and she could come up with nothing.
Come up with absolutely nothing.
All she could come up with is she didn't agree with his statements of how wealthy he can be that had no impact on any financial or banking transaction.
Now, one interesting tidbit is what the court will do if a surety, an independent surety, comes in and posts bond.
And says they're going to post bond because the real value of Mar-a-Lago is closer to half a billion, not 18 million.
Are they going to try to challenge the surety then and try to prohibit the surety from posting that bond because they don't agree with it?
The surety has independent authority, and traditionally their power is not challenged and their decision is not challenged.
And so it's likely he can post bond.
He has the same issue in the federal court case with a federal judge that's trying to railroad him in those ridiculous E. Gene Carroll proceedings.
I mean, it's extraordinary is to go after Trump.
They found the most incredulous methods to do so because the guy is so clean.
I mean, they couldn't imagine he's as clean as he is, that they kept projecting the crimes of the Clintons and the crimes of the Bidens onto him.
When he's never done those things.
They literally had to change the law in New York State to allow E. Jean Carroll to sue on her hallucination, and then they granted her the $85 million.
They literally had to change the law.
It's an absurd verdict that she joked about going on a shopping spree with Rachel Madcow on.
She's going to go to the Bergdorf.
What's extraordinary is that they don't recognize the backlash here.
You shouldn't lose the Kevin O 'Leary's of the world.
Kevin O 'Leary's not some big Trump supporter.
I mean, Mark Cuban has TDS.
I mean, when you have these kind of people saying, hold on a second, you should realize you've gone way too far.
When he continues to surge in the polls, utterly crushed Nikki Haley despite a bunch of left-winning Democrats who identified as independents.
Michael Tracy misinterpreted the poll data.
It's like, well, only 5% were Democrats.
Those are the people who admitted being Democrats.
Almost all the independents that voted in South Carolina primary admitted they voted for Joe Biden.
In 2020, all right?
Those are Democrats.
They might call themselves independent.
They're Democrats.
Despite all those Democrats, she still lost by 20 points in her own home state, despite outspending him 20 to 1, and despite having the media in her back pocket.
So, I mean, the country is rebelling against all of this.
But it's going to be up to the Supreme Court to fix this, because this is an embarrassment to the rule of law.
What happened to Musk in Delaware is an embarrassment to the rule of law.
What's happening to Trump in New York and in D.C. and in the documents case are all embarrassment to the rule of law.
And we'll see if the judge in the Florida case steps up because she has multiple grounds to completely dismiss those indictments.
And just to correct myself, I don't think it was Mark Cuban.
I think it was Shark Tank, Kevin O 'Leary, and I have to find out who the other person was.
And we'll see where it's going.
Can they use these tweets from Leticia James as evidence and appeal of malice or anything?
Oh, sure.
I mean, because he had the most robust selective prosecution case ever.
And the First Amendment's supposed to prohibit politically motivated prosecutions.
And this is the most overt, open, politically motivated prosecution in history.
Especially with Leticia James.
It's the most egregious.
And so for her not to be, for this case not to have been long ago dismissed and joined by the federal courts.
Is an embarrassment to the rule of law.
And it shows how empty our First Amendment protection is.
I mean, now every country in the world will cite this as an example.
Putin's already laughing about it.
Everybody on Earth should be laughing about it.
And I guess only Justin Trudeau is saying justice at last.
Okay, so that's New York.
And then we're going to go over to Florida.
In Florida, this is the classified documents case that was brought by Jack Smith out of D.C., but it had to be moved jurisdictionally to Florida.
And it's Judge Eileen Cannon who's dealing with this, who's a Trump...
They're so angry that she's delaying the trial, that she's actually considering these substantive defenses and grounds here.
Trump has moved for dismissal on presidential immunity.
On four different grounds.
Okay, so what are the other three?
And, I mean, well, what are the other three?
So the other three are that Jack Smith has no authority.
And this is also pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.
This was the amicus that the interveners filed in the Supreme Court.
And now there have been more amicus, including amicus by people who have a public record of hating Trump, who have said that this cannot happen.
You cannot have the entire prosecutorial power of the United States government handed over to a private citizen who's never been...
or even nominated by the president, least of all confirmed by the Senate, that you're No one can have that degree of power.
The way I used to put this issue when it would come up in some context and I was seeking a dismissal or some other legal remedy, they said, why is it that the janitor who's employed by the federal courthouse doesn't have the power to walk into a grand jury and indict people?
It's because we have strict limits on delegations of authority.
And that original initial authority has to come from a person nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
All the other prior special counsels have been special counsel either appointed directly by a congressional statute through an independent court system, or they were appointed as U.S. attorneys.
In other words, they had already been approved of by both the president and the Senate for the prosecutorial power of the federal government as a United States attorney.
And all that changed is what jurisdiction they were given, as opposed to jurisdiction limited by geography that was extended to a particular subject matter.
Jack Smith was not a United States attorney.
He was a deep state hack working over in the international courts, covering up corruption over there on behalf of various deep state actors and often complicit in the corruption himself, according to various whistleblowers.
He was chosen because they needed someone that they knew would prosecute Trump.
Biden believed his own U.S. attorney appointees would not prosecute Trump, which is very revelatory.
That means that none of them were willing to jeopardize their professional futures on a rogue prosecution.
That crossed every Rubicon and burned every bridge to due process of law in America.
And so the first issue is whether or not he had the authority to seek a grand jury indictment in the first place.
And if he didn't, then the indictment has to be dismissed.
And so they're challenging that on the same grounds as is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States on the Mies and other amicus briefs.
And that is he's a principal officer because he has the power of a principal officer.
And as such, he had to be confirmed by the Senate.
He wasn't.
There's also issues about whether his funding was properly done.
It appeared to have been done in direct breach of congressional limitation, which would create a separate and independent grounds to dismiss the indictment.
The second grounds to dismiss the indictment is the Presidential Records Act on the grounds we talked about from the very inception.
That have now become part of the common arguments.
They weren't the arguments originally raised by Trump's team.
They are now.
And that is that the president has complete non-reviewable discretion.
While he is president, in determining whether a record is a presidential record that has to be preserved in a particular manner, or is a personal record that's his to do with as he fits.
That determination is non-reviewable, as the courts have ruled previously.
But now, this was one of the things they made fun of him about, where he says, I can just think it and it becomes declassified.
There is, and I thought there was a formal process.
There is no formal process for declassification.
There never has been.
Here, exactly, the very act.
Of him removing it from the White House, not sending it to the archives, and sending it to Mar-a-Lago was a determination of personal records.
I mean, Bill Clinton never made an official determination that the tapes in his socks drawer were personal records.
There was no written documentation of that.
There was no written determination of that.
He claimed it.
He said, it's in my sock drawer, so by definition it has to be a personal record.
That that act constituted the decision.
And because he did that original act...
While president, that meant it was non-reviewable.
And the federal courts agreed.
Same federal courts, by the way, eager to lock up people on January 6th and hate Trump now and trying to change the law to screw Trump.
Back when it was Clinton on the hook, said clearly he has complete discretion.
And that's the historical record.
The historical record is presidents can keep their own records.
That goes all the way back to George Washington.
And what's interesting is they cite the Hur report.
In the motion to dismiss.
They say the Hur report makes this precise point.
When they're trying to let Biden off the hook for things he did while vice president, for things he did while senator, when he did not have the same presidential power as the president does under the Presidential Records Act, it went out of the way to talk about how common this was done by presidents without legal consequence, including by Obama, including by the Bushes, including by every president since George Washington.
And they're citing her report saying this is additional grounds that requires and compels dismissal under the Presidential Records Act.
While he was president, he made a non-reviewable decision that cannot now be challenged and questioned by prosecution.
In addition, they point out one of the things we pointed out from the get-go that I'm glad to see is now part of their retinue.
We partay.
Which is, there is no criminal remedy in the Presidential Records Act statute.
For a reason, if they wanted criminal punishment to be an available remedy, it would be there.
This is analogous in many cases to the Amos Miller case, where the remedy, if you're not licensed or permitted to be a retail food facility, for example, in Pennsylvania, he doesn't meet the definition of a retail food facility, but even putting that aside, is a summary fine of $100.
That's what he was previously told, by the way, by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
They didn't say, we can come and seize all your food.
We can come and destroy all your food.
We can come and shut down your farm.
Because that's not what the law said.
So they just decided to usurp it.
Much as here.
There's no criminal remedy in the PRA.
The archives has previously taken a contrary position to the one they're taking now.
And this is analogous to the Ethics Act or the Conflict of Interest Act out of Canada, is that it provided remedies, none of which were criminal, in sanction.
Everyone's like, well, it's got no teeth.
No, the whole idea was, if you get found to have been in violation of it, the consequences would be political and not criminal.
And it sounds rather analogous.
Okay, sorry.
And number four.
And so three is, four is immunity, and third is vagueness.
Their point is that if the law can be interpreted, the Espionage Act, can be interpreted to apply to a former president who took his own records home, then clearly, as applied to him, the law is void for vagueness.
The reality is the Espionage Law had been struck down by an honest court a century ago when they first passed him during World War I. They were misused and abused then for politicized purposes.
I have opposed the law from the inception.
And the problem, and the courts have gone to great lengths to try to salvage and save the statute.
But the fact they've saved it and salvaged it in other cases where it was much more of an analogous fact pattern that the law was trying to reach, clearly, it applies to the former president?
Taking his own records home while he was president?
That's now espionage?
Espionage?
It's absurd!
On the face of it.
And so the point is that if the law can be interpreted that broadly, then it's void for vagueness.
Because when a law is so broad that it's subject to the whim of a judge or prosecutor as to what it means and who it applies to, then it is so vague that it lacks limits on the discretion of the executive branch.
And under the rule of lenity, has to be found as void for vagueness.
You have to be put on specific particular notice that if you do A, B, or C, that you can be criminally prosecuted under that statute.
No one could have been in Trump's position under such notice.
Well, unauthorized?
What does that even mean?
Relating to national defense?
What does that even mean?
Right to retain it?
What does that even mean?
It's preposterously broad, and it was deliberately that way, so it could be politically used to target dissidents.
And long ago, an honest court would have struck it down, and this court now has afforded a compelling opportunity to strike it down in the case of President Trump.
Espionage, Robert.
And that is all before you get to immunity.
Well, the espionage.
What foreign government?
They presumably have evidence that he was providing this to some foreign government, or was it with the intent of it?
Their interpretation of the Espionage Act is that that's not required.
All that's required is you have it and you aren't authorized to have it.
And it relates to national defense, which is extraordinarily broad.
And that's the problem, right?
The law was always too broad.
It was always...
But they usually used it...
Of someone who took photos at a sub and shared it with people they weren't supposed to, etc.
But they were always trying to push the limits.
I mean, they used the Espionage Act to put Eugene V. Debs in prison for a speech against the draft.
That's how asinine that statute was.
And a corrupt Supreme Court approved it.
So the Espionage Act has always been to target dissidents.
It's never really been intended to target actual illicit spying, actual treasonous or seditious behavior.
There are other statutes that actually cover that much better.
But it's the same thing they're trying to do to Julian Assange, using part of the espionage to go after him.
Because, you know, it's unauthorized documents related to national defense.
I mean, it's preposterous in its breadth.
And so, consequently, this is as compelling an opportunity as any to find it unconstitutional as applied at least here.
If not just unconstitutional from the get-go, it's always been too void for vagueness.
So what's the timeline on pleadings, decision, and then obviously it goes to appeal?
Well, then the last ground they brought is the immunity grounds, and that corresponds to what the Supreme Court is dealing with.
And I got some pushback when I originally said the Supreme Court ruling on immunity could end almost all the nonsense.
But in fact, it would.
Because if the Supreme Court says the president has immunity from criminal prosecution for anything he did while president, at a minimum, unless he is successfully impeached and convicted for that action, then that requires dismissal of the D.C. case, dismissal of the Florida case, dismissal of the Georgia case.
Dismissal of the New York criminal case.
And I would argue the logic of it would apply to the civil proceedings because of both concerns acts as president, both New York civil cases, at least the E. Gene Carroll case.
And so they could kick out all the nonsense by just saying, no, you can't indict a president without going through an impeachment and conviction process, at least for anything he did.
While president.
You mean the Stormy Daniels?
Yeah, correct.
Stormy Daniels, New York case.
Because, including here, they admit that the entire, Jack Smith, the prosecutor, admits the illicitly authorized prosecutor, the illegally funded prosecutor, the deep state hack prosecutor, that he, who misused and already violated attorney-client privilege, already violated due process, already violated venue rules, which we'll get to in a second.
I assume they're going to use discovery to bring a motion to dismiss on governmental misconduct grounds based on attorney-client privilege breaches, based on breaches of Fifth Amendment rights, based on venue abuse with the grand jury.
That happened because he kept going to a D.C. grand jury to develop evidence for a Florida case, based on the fact that he continued to use the grand jury as a discovery tool after indictment, which is also unauthorized.
So, I mean, every ethics rule and legal principle you could violate as a prosecutor, Jack Smith has, is achieving a record that even Andrew Weissman would have to be shot by.
One of the most corrupt prosecutors in American history, currently on MSNBC, and one of the key people as part of the corrupt Mueller team.
But the immunity grounds, because Jack Smith admits the centerpiece of the case is President Trump's initial decision while president to make the documents personal documents and to remove them from the White House.
They're saying that act is the predicate for all the charges.
Because it's the predicate for all the charges, if he's immune from that...
The entire indictment must be dismissed.
So immunity could solve all the problems.
But otherwise, the government has a time frame to respond.
Then they get a chance to reply.
There may be additional motions based on additional discovery.
Smith is trying to hide a bunch of discovery that the court is saying should be released and publicly disclosed.
Clearly, there's more embarrassing information in there about conspiracy between the Biden administration, the National Archives, and the FBI and the Justice Department to try to entrap Trump.
Related to all of this.
So all of that combined will be additional grounds.
Most likely this would be heard sometime in April in terms of a hearing date.
Given the legal density and complexity of these issues, what I said from the get-go is it would be shocking for any case to reach trial before Election Day if it was done on a normal track.
So you're going to have to ignore the normal track to rush it.
I don't see the Florida federal judge doing that.
The D.C. courts are trying to do it.
But the Supreme Court can put a halt to that by taking the immunity case.
And the New York case is going to be...
That's still going to be held trial in March on this ridiculous Stormy Daniels case.
But if the Supreme Court were to take immunity and grant immunity, then the New York court would have little choice but to dismiss that case.
There is a distinction, just to play devil's advocate, between immunity for clearly presidential acts and then immunity for non-presidential acts.
Insurrection would not be a presidential act.
If you're doing it in the capacity while you're president, I think there's no doubt it's a presidential act.
I think calling it anything else a non-presidential act.
Just to take the straw man argument, murdering the chef because you don't like the dinner is not a presidential act.
If it's done while you're president, typically...
Because the problem is, once you start drawing that line, that's a very hard line to draw.
True.
Because anything you do as president is going to impact your presidency.
It's going to impact whether it's...
So if we're going to have consistent law on immunity...
All this would apply to the president, without doubt.
But here, you don't even have to go there, because all of these things are clearly within his official duties.
I mean, the D.C. court had to go through all these, well, it's ministerial versus all this ridiculous nonsense to try to pretend that commenting on your own election to the White House as president of the United States over the most consequential election...
That is under your jurisdiction is somehow not within your duties to talk about.
That's just ludicrous.
We don't really have a situation or scenario where you can say it's truly personal.
But in almost every context, they've said that this is within immunity.
So they would have to eviscerate their own immunity doctrines to suddenly remove it from Trump.
Robert, I found it.
And I turned the volume on.
I can give him a pool.
Alright, now kids, I don't want anyone swimming in this pool unless there's a lifeguard on duty.
Duty.
I've got to save this because I can't find it.
Okay, get that out of here.
Because the gratuitous use of the word duty, Robert, has caused me to find that.
Okay.
Here's a simple example.
No court has the power to enjoin the president for any reason.
They cannot issue an injunction against the president.
How then can they indict the president?
How then can they criminally prosecute and punish the president?
That makes no sense.
In the absence of an impeachment and conviction.
Right.
Correct.
That's the real determination as to whether something was presidential or not.
Is whether or not, if it wasn't, then you'll be impeached for it.
And you'll be convicted for it through the political processes that the whole country has a say in.
The goal is to avoid a private citizen like Jack Smith having the power to imprison a president or any other local prosecutor like a Letitia James, like a Big Fanny.
We're seeing why this power has to be used in the way it is used.
That much is a perfect segue and a perfect explanation as to how the rules were in place and why they were in place.
I would just say, look, To steal men, yes, you're right, murdering your chef because you don't like the dinner is not a presidential act, as most would say, but there's a process for it, and if that's the case, then you go through the process.
You don't get acquitted by the Senate for murdering your chef because you don't like the food under normal circumstances.
If you do, you've got bigger problems.
And then the problem is...
They're just, they're not impeaching, but they're indicting and they're convicting at a state level, at a federal level, in the absence of and even in the face of an acquittal on impeachment.
And we're seeing what's happening.
Do we go to the Big Fannie now?
Yeah, yeah.
The Big Fannie is really corrupt.
It's all these prosecutors that are corrupt.
Jack Smith, hopelessly corrupt.
Letitia James, hopelessly corrupt.
The Alvin Bragg, hopelessly corrupt.
The Fannie Willis.
Hopelessly corrupt.
And now the only question is whether the Georgia court is either so politically blind or so completely without a legal conscience as to permit this embarrassment to continue.
These are two lawyers who went in, the special prosecutor and the lead prosecutor, who went in and just committed perjury, obvious perjury to the court.
And there's now no serious person.
I'm going to steal a minute, Robert.
And I'll play devil's advocate.
They committed perjury.
Does that create the appearance of a conflict of interest in the case of the prosecution?
I don't know, without question.
The problem is how can you allow a prosecution to proceed based on basically perjury claims, false documentation, fraudulent documentation claims, by prosecutors who are committing perjury to continue to be allowed to prosecute the case?
I mean, why did they commit the perjury?
Because if they had told the truth, it would have been considered grounds for disqualification.
And so they lied in order to continue to be in control of the case.
That's why they lied.
So if you're going to punish the lie, you have to disqualify them from being able to proceed any further.
I mean, it was clear at the trial, at the hearing, that they were lying just by their course of testimony.
Then you had two independent witnesses who have long alliances and allegiances to them.
Had, had.
Had, yes, but still to them, saying without question they were lying.
It's like, I mean, what's the likelihood that two independent lawyers are going to get up there and also perjure themselves just to get back at their former longtime friends and allies and partners?
Robert, one of them was a section.
One of them was a sexual assaulter, so we can't believe anything he has to say.
Which, of course, opened the door to the attorney-client privilege problem.
That it was quite clear.
Good Logic did a good breakdown on this.
And Nate, the lawyer, pointed out the obvious contradictions between the witness's testimony.
And that it was quite hard to believe the prosecutor, given the competing testimony.
But now we don't have to worry about that.
Because we additionally have two new pieces of evidence.
There's clearly evidence that was being disguised as privileged conversation within an attorney-client relationship that self-evidently was not privileged communication, which would, by the nature of the lawyer's response and Wade's response and great fear of it being disclosed, proves that he was committing perjury on the stand.
And then, on top of that, you have now the cell phone records.
Which further show that they were clearly lying, which has led them to now challenge cell phone evidence that they themselves have used to convict and lock up people in the state of Georgia.
Robert, I'll just bring up one thing immediately because it's absolutely hilarious from our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
Luce Willis lie hard, and that's gross and also mildly attractive because I like Bruce Willis, but I don't like anything that's going on there.
That's wild.
Robert, where do we bring this back?
The judge.
We'll go back to a bourbon with Barnes from Thursday evening.
The judge donated to Fannie Willis back in 2020, worked under Fannie Willis when they were, I don't know what it was, state prosecutor, whatever, judge.
Do you put much stock in that conflict?
Potentially.
The fact that he previously worked for, not necessarily a big deal, because that's relatively common, unfortunately, is that...
The weight of the bench is to work for the government, and then you get to preside over government cases.
We'll get to a real conflict with the rogue judge in L.A. presiding over the Russiagate 2.0 case.
I've had personal experience in front of that guy and his history of corruption.
But in the context of the more problematic aspect is donating to her campaign.
That raises some eyebrows.
And I think at this point, the evidence is so building.
Everybody knows, and I have no doubt that judge knows, these two people had an ongoing conflict of interest at the time in which he was appointed to be special prosecutor.
They had a personal pecuniary gain in pursuing the prosecution, which violates all the Georgia rules, which compels disqualification.
And in order to cover that up, they committed open perjury in front of the court.
And the question is, is the court going to embarrass itself by being complicit?
Is the court going to be culpable itself in being complicit in their unethical and illegal and criminal behavior?
And the question then is whether the court is either conscientious enough about the law or politically sage enough about the court of public opinion to recognize his only practicable choice is to disqualify them.
But the question is, I mean, the Fulton County Courthouse has proven itself completely capable of corruption without regard to basic common sense.
We're only here, there was only ever an issue in Georgia, there was only ever a January 6th, because the Fulton County Courthouse openly and brazenly refused to follow the law, which required they hold a timely hearing on Trump's detailed Factually backed up.
Affidavit backed up.
Declaration backed up.
Penalty of perjury sworn testimony supported.
Election contest.
The only one he filed in the country was in Georgia.
And it was the Fulton County Courthouse that failed to do its job.
And they got away with it.
So we know the Fulton County Courthouse is untrustworthy when it comes to upholding the law.
In addition, this judge has ties to the governor, who's an open anti-Trumper, who's always back and forth to Davos whenever he can get the chance.
Governor Kemp, another corrupt Republican who got elected on promises he didn't keep, who wrote the big check to Dominion promising they would publish the ballots and then never did, took money from Dominion-connected people while he was governor, and has done nothing about the open, overt, brazen corruption of Fannie Willis.
I mean, this is an embarrassing prosecution pursuing RICO against an election challenge, which is utterly unheard of in the history of the country.
To pursue the RICO-based charges on these grounds.
So it was a legally absurd set of prosecutions from the inception.
A person in Fannie Willis who had already raised money for her campaign based on going after Trump, which is another embarrassment to the rule of law in Georgia.
And yet the governor has been busy stalling any effort to investigate her, any effort to uncover her, any effort to dispose of this case.
So the governor is deeply culpable and you have a judge who may be in the governor's pocket.
And so the bottom line is this.
If this judge has an iota of political integrity or legal integrity, then he will do.
And Nathaniel Wade.
If he doesn't...
He's as corrupt as the rest of them.
Well, no, no.
If he doesn't, the world has seen it in real time.
I just think he's going to.
The only question is, and I'm saying this from a self-interested perspective, do we get to a hearing on Friday?
Or what's Fannie Willis' out at this point?
Like, what is their outs are to...
Oh, just to keep lying and assume the system will cover for her.
I mean, it's obvious.
She could, in theory, just withdraw from the case now and then give it...
Could she hand it to somebody else?
I mean, they could withdraw.
Yes, she could withdraw and Wade could withdraw.
But it wouldn't change their original power to bring the indictment in the first place.
Because the additional grounds to dismiss are like the Jack Smith grounds.
Similar to Jack Smith, Wade was not properly appointed with the approval of the commission that was required to approve his appointment.
And the money that was used was laundered from COVID-19.
The same issue with Jack Smith is present in Georgia.
And it's because no ethical person would bring that case.
Because it's ludicrous and absurd.
Only a rogue, corrupt prosecutor, the daughter of a communist, would think to do it.
That thinks their power is their power, they can do what they want, and they can hide behind race and gender for their corruption and incompetency.
Because it works in the woke world.
But, you know, it's only ever able to happen because of the corruption of Governor Kemp, because of the corruption of Ratberger, the Secretary of State there, Secretary, you know, head of elections there in Georgia, because of the Attorney General, who's been completely AWOL during this entire proceeding.
But what it is, is it keeps showing that when you put these rogue operatives in charge, it's going to come back and blow back on you.
And that's what happens when you have not only corrupt, but incompetent people running the show.
That's what happens when you have a street-level thug like Joe Biden as your president.
You get not only corruption, you get idiocy.
And we're seeing it in spades.
Robert, I keep making the idiocracy analogy.
It's not only not getting old, it's just becoming more and more patently apparent.
Okay, so Fannie Willis, the hearing continues on Friday, March 1st.
If it gets there, I'll be live streaming it.
It's atrocious and everybody knows it.
Okay, the segue now into corrupt judges and Joe Biden.
I don't know who the judge is in Russiagate 2.0.
All that I know is that we have now entered the realm where I've seen the spin in real time.
They're talking about a witness who allegedly lied.
Or, oh God, he's being indicted for having provided false statements to the FBI.
The guy's name is Smirnov, Alexander Smirnov, for allegedly having met with Russians and then come back and lied about Joe Biden's Zelensky meetings and who he was playing with in Ukraine.
I don't trust anybody anymore for anything.
I do trust that they're lying.
So when they say anything, if I think they're lying, I'm going to go for the opposite and say it's true.
This guy, Alexander Smirnoff, I have to now formulate my thoughts.
He's accused of having lied about when Joe Biden or Hunter Biden met with Ukrainian officials to...
Basically, launder money through Hunter for the purposes of influencing Joe Biden.
I've read the indictment.
It reads like a Joe Biden defense that Joe Biden wasn't in office when this happened, so he wouldn't have been able to influence anything because he was just a private citizen after being VP, soon to become the P. This guy allegedly lied about...
I can't even figure out what he lied about because it doesn't sound like he lied about anything.
It's all evidentiary and already up there.
I also don't know who he met with in Russia.
This guy was a CIA asset.
He was being used as a CIA confidential human source for 15, 14 years, since 2010.
So you're going to have to take it from here and try to make sense of it.
The guy is Alexander Smirnoff.
Apparently, one of the reasons why they need to lock him up is because he might go to Israel and get a second passport.
He allegedly lied about dates when certain meetings took place.
Meetings would show that Joe Biden used his political pressure to get somebody fired.
Shokin fired the independent prosecutor out of Ukraine investigating Burisma because his son was on the board of directors.
Put there, allegedly, to protect the company from investigation.
And they said, no, none of this is true because by the time this allegedly happened in 2017, Shokin was already fired by Biden or under his duress withholding a billion dollars of foreign aid from Ukraine.
Shokin, okay.
And then by that time, Biden's a private citizen.
He's no longer able to influence anything.
I can't understand how anybody buys this crap.
And I also want to know which Russian officials...
This guy Alexander Smirnoff was working with because he was a confidential human source knowingly working with Russian assets from the beginning.
It smells like a Carter Page type setup again.
So who's the judge?
But also what am I getting wrong?
Why am I thick for not understanding why this is total bullshit and everyone doesn't see it as total bullshit?
Well, any illusion that Prosecutor Weiss was an independent prosecutor can now be put to rest.
This is the prosecutor went to great lengths to derail any indictment of Hunter Biden concerning his tax crimes, then tried to do a sweetheart plea deal with Hunter Biden, which got ratted out and exposed, and then brought a convenient prosecution that keeps Hunter Biden from talking until the election is over, while covering all the way through for Joe Biden's corruption and criminality.
And now that he's brought a prosecution against a government confidential human source trying to claim that any allegations against Joe Biden related to Ukraine corruption that everybody can see is obvious, somehow can't possibly be true and is part of a Russian intelligence conspiracy.
We're in Russiagate number 25. Everything in the Hunter Biden laptop, Russiagate.
Trump's election, Russiagate.
I mean, one hoax after another, after another, after another, after another concerning Russia, used as the convenient escape for any criminality or corruption of the U.S. government or its officials, or attack on any of its critics or dissidents.
And so there's no reason to believe this prosecution is credible at all.
It appears to be the continued corruption of David Weiss.
He's someone who was a career prosecutor who Trump was convinced to make prosecutor in Delaware another mistake.
Federalist Society recommended him.
They recommended a bunch of these corrupt hacks to positions of power.
You know what qualifies you to be appointed United States attorney?
That you've never been a U.S. attorney ever.
If you've ever been a U.S. attorney, you should be viewed with skepticism because they have been proving over and over again to be untrustworthy as human beings, more often than not.
It doesn't mean there aren't good federal prosecutors out there.
It just means assume otherwise until proven.
That assume guilty until innocent with these people because they've proven themselves guilty so often and so frequently.
But they bring the case.
They try to jail him while he arrest him in Las Vegas.
The magistrate that reviews the detention says there's very little risk that this guy actually successfully flees the country.
That's the legal standard.
You have to prove not only that they have the motivation to flee, not only that they will flee, but that they will flee successfully.
They will flee in such a way that you cannot get them back.
If you detain their passport, how are they going to travel?
You can put a bracelet on them and that's it.
You know where they're at at all times.
The number of people, and it's supposed to be more likely than not.
The number of people who they could never prove it in almost any case today in America because of the people that have actually successfully fled while under electronic monitoring is like one out of 10,000.
So is that more likely than not?
Nope.
Not by any definition I know.
So that's what happens.
He's meeting in his lawyer's office when all of a sudden the U.S. Marshals show up and arrest him.
Again.
Again.
And he doesn't get a chance to go back in front of that magistrate.
Instead, he's put on a bus sent to L.A. Why?
Because we have one of the most corrupt judges in America.
This is Judge Otis Wright.
This is an incompetent judge who was appointed for affirmative action reasons by the Bush regime.
The Bushes loved to appoint people just because of their race and gender.
Affirmative action was much more popular under the Bushes than it was under Barack Obama.
And they appointed some of the dumbest human beings on the planet.
But there's few as dumb and corrupt as Judge Otis Wright is in California.
And you don't have to take my word for it.
You can go to Robing Room, where lawyers are allowed to comment on judges, and he is consistently one of the 10 worst-rated judges in all of America.
By everybody.
And there's a reason for that.
So this guy had no qualifications to be a judge.
He met, you know, Feinstein and Boxer liked the fact he was black.
The Bushes liked the fact that he was black.
So they put him on the bench, even though he's an idiot.
Complete idiot.
And corrupt as all get out.
To give you an example of how corrupt this guy is, he was presiding over criminal cases involving the IRS while he had undisclosed personal problems with the IRS.
And he was giving favorable rulings to the IRS, sometimes ludicrous rulings.
In the hopes of procuring benefit to himself.
Absolutely!
And he was never held to account for it by our useless judicial ethics boards.
So, I mean, I can just go to some of the statements on Robing Room about this guy.
Disappointing and embarrassing to have judges like this in federal courts.
Otis wrote throughout my federal case with no testimony and stated he didn't care what any other court had decided.
The judge verbally attacked me my first day in court for merely asking a question.
The judge could be the reason we have such a crisis in our country.
Utterly incompetent judge with the worst judicial temperament I have ever seen.
These are lawyers saying this, correct?
Correct.
Identified.
The worst rated.
They're allowed to comment anonymously.
That's the only reason why Robing Room works.
I've commented on it before and got an email from the judge.
The judge didn't know it was me, but Robing Room gave him an email he could respond to without him knowing who he was responding to.
But I also want to say it's Otis Wright and not Otis Knight, which is from Matt, not Matt House, it's from...
Oh, geez, Louise.
Animal House.
Oh, the great singer.
Yeah, yeah.
No, Otis Wright, he was a former sheriff as part of the corrupt L.A. Sheriff's Office, which is notorious for its corruption.
So he's a nasty, vindictive, mean, corrupt hack who has no business on the federal bench who you can thank Bushite Republicans for and affirmative action for.
It's a classic example of what's wrong with affirmative action is that idiots, mean idiots like this, get on the bench.
He has not been held to count when he's been caught in corruption like his IRS problem, IRS cases.
I had personal experience in front of this judge.
I refused to appear before him ever afterwards.
There's cases I declined simply because he was the judge.
I represented a client who they were trying to, quite frankly, wrongfully detain pending trial.
And I raised a bunch of arguments on bail.
And the judge just...
He attacked me left and right for raising constitutional arguments.
He pretended he would look around like he was pretending to read stuff.
He didn't have a clue what he was talking about intellectually.
It was obvious.
But when you expose him for being an idiot, he gets enraged.
And he threatened me with imprisonment if I continue to defend my client.
Right there in the federal courthouse.
He said, Mr. Barnes, you say another word, you're going inside with him.
And so I literally...
I was like, he's like, one word.
You say one more word in defense of your client, you're going to prison today.
That's who this judge is.
So there's no chance that this defendant has any chance in front of this judge.
The Central District of California has three of the worst 10-rated judges in the entire country.
By the way, pretty much all of them have been appointed by George W. Bush or Poppy Bush.
They're ill-tempered ignoramuses.
Who are dangerous to the rule of law in America and make an embarrassment to it.
And again, you can go to a robing room and see the average judge gets no negative comments in America.
It's only when you are so enraged by what you experience that you're willing to say something about a judge, a federal judge, if you're a lawyer, because of how often they can try to use that against you, how often they can come after you because of their power.
This judge is an embarrassment, and he'll continue to be an embarrassment.
As the defense lawyer has already said, Judge, you've already prejudged this case.
You've already accused us as lawyers as being corruptly involved in trying to help our client out of the country without any facts or hearing.
And as such, you really shouldn't be involved in any further part of these proceedings.
So at least they recognize how corrupt he is, but he's so blindly corrupt, he won't change his corruption.
Biden couldn't have got a better judge.
It's interesting how these random assignments keep happening in these political cases.
In D.C., the random assignments keep magically showing up on the same group of judges on the judicial panel on the D.C. circuit.
So how is that?
Why is that?
And how does this judge, probably the worst judge for a criminal defendant in the country, Get assigned to this case of all cases.
I love it.
This is the room, right?
It's therobingroom.com.
Yeah, this is it right here.
This is my kind of judge.
He's on the ball and goes out of his way to be fair and he watches out for the little guy.
You see those?
Those are like the fake reviews, Adam.
That's his law clerk.
His law clerk going in there and trying to cover for him and trying to write nice stuff about him.
And you'll see it.
They'll usually be short statements without much detail.
That read like fake reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
Look at all the other.
One star, one star.
Excellent judge.
Not afraid of a difficult decision.
Yeah, exactly.
Holy shit, Robert.
You won't find somebody who has 10 or more negative comments on him in the country.
But like Wright does.
I mean, he's horrible.
He's a disgrace.
And it shows how bad our judicial, you know, Justice Breyer and the Supreme Court wants to control how judges get disciplined.
But they have proven incapable of disciplining these corrupt judges.
There's another famous judge in California in Central District.
Also, I think he's finally maybe off the bench now.
But a defense lawyer got so enraged at him, he flipped him off once.
And then he was able to disqualify him from all future cases because of the judge's bad behavior.
And that's how the Ninth Circuit tried to remedy that one.
But you get these rogue judges that our federal system is utterly ill-equipped and refuses.
Because the reason is, if Wright was a corrupt judge in favor of criminal defendants, he'd have already been impeached and indicted by now.
Because he does it on behalf of the government, they cover for him and have proven themselves incapable of maintaining impartial judiciary.
So Alexander Smirnoff, the guy who allegedly now has been indicted for lying to the FBI purportedly about dates that he got wrong.
What did Otis Wright order in terms of his detention?
He made an ex parte finding without a hearing, ordering him to be immediately arrested, to be removed from Las Vegas custody, so that magistrate couldn't issue a counter-ruling, to be transported immediately to L.A. It was an inadequate factual finding, by the way.
He's an idiot, so unless his clerks protect him, he has no idea what he's writing.
He just loves the power.
He just loves the raw power.
He's exactly the wrong person to ever be on the bench.
Another example of how the Bushes were the worst thing that happened to American presidencies.
You have the worst presidents in America, the bottom two have to be Bushes.
Even Obama wasn't as bad as these guys.
But as the defense lawyers pointed out, he had basically made a factual finding.
That his defense lawyers were conspiring with him to get him to help him flee the country illegally.
Finding he had no factual basis for whatsoever.
He doesn't care.
I mean, they're going to be shocked in dealing with him.
He doesn't care at all.
It's like one of those comments that had already won in the California courts that this was supposed to be binding.
And Wright was like, I don't care what California court.
I'm Otis Ratt.
I mean, the guy's an absolute embarrassment to the federal bench.
And if we had a Senate that was worth a darn, he would be one of the people first impeached.
Along with that corrupt commie judge in D.C., some of these others.
But until they, like Judge Ingeron, like the judge that's presiding and conspiring against President Trump in New York right now.
And this is embarrassment.
But these judges are so used to never being held to account.
Never being held.
Immunity?
You know who's got the biggest immunity?
Judges.
Judges give themselves more immunity than anybody else.
They want all the immunity in the world.
They don't want to give the President of the United States immunity when he constitutionally is entitled to it, but they give themselves immunity they've never been constitutionally entitled to because they get to decide their own immunity.
Isn't that nice?
This judge is an example of an embarrassment in our federal judicial system.
Robert, I don't want to put the juju out in the universe.
What are the chances this guy dies in jail?
Very high.
MDC is controlled by MS-13 and other related gangs.
That's how I knew the gang landscape was changing, was who was taking over MDC.
I've had multiple clients there, Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown LA.
And if they want somebody whacked, they'll be whacked.
It's that simple.
And this guy is a former confidential human source for the FBI for 14 years.
And they've now ratted him out as someone who was spying on the Russians.
Oh, my God.
You know what?
I was looking at my byline on Twitter.
No matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.
Lily Tomlin, yeah, they're trying to kill this guy.
And if it happens, people are going to play this clip in a month from now saying, oh, Alexander Spirinoff died and no one's going to know who he was.
Yep.
That's MDC, the Metropolitan Detention Center.
But, you know, the right is used to doing this because he mostly doesn't have high-profile cases.
So the question is whether the limelight will shine on everybody.
Whoa, this is what American justice looks like?
No, but Robert, that's never going to happen again.
They literally killed Jeffrey Epstein when everyone was saying they're going to kill Jeffrey Epstein.
They did it, and they called you conspiracy theorists for having noted it before they did it.
Yep, and they managed to get...
Navalny whacked, though apparently the story out of Ukraine is that he had a blood clot, and I was like, ah, that's how they whacked him.
They gave him the COVID vaccine.
Oh, Robert, I mean, I'll just go with Joe Biden milking it, meeting his wife.
Well, think about the timing of this, right?
His book comes out right before this.
It's right while they're trying to pass more money for Ukraine.
It's right when they're trying to counter Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson.
It's right when his wife is coming to San Francisco.
I mean, it sure looks like it's coordinated and it doesn't look like it was coordinated by the Russians.
I was in a bookshop today and I see a book of Navalny.
I see a book of the other guy there, Zelensky.
I see a book of Liz Cheney, the daughter of the war criminal.
Dick Cheney.
And it's like, oh shit, when did Navalny put that book out?
It was a biography based on the news.
It wasn't an autobiography.
October!
It's amazing.
Put the book out.
It's a bestseller.
And then kill him.
And now you've got Joe Biden whoring around with his wife and saying we've got to support the $60 billion border bill now turned into a foreign aid package.
No matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up, Robert.
What do we have next?
No doubt.
But on the white pill side, the New York courts at least had the conscientious recognition that whatever the immigration plot of the president is to flood our country with illegals, that New York City's attempt to make them eligible to vote in city elections...
Still violates the New York Constitution.
Well, so you gotta feel this one for us, because everybody says, well, what they do at the state level, at the municipal level, is different from federal, so even if they do grant them the ability, and them being illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, whatever you want to call them.
People are non-citizens.
They do not get to vote even at the municipal level.
There was disagreement about that, so what happened here?
So the advantage is the New York state constitution, like many state constitutions, only authorizes citizens to vote.
And the city of New York was saying, oh, that's just a floor.
That's at least citizens get to vote.
But we can add to it.
They even tried to cite the Dred Scott case as an example.
They said, hey, we allowed black citizens, ex-slaves, to vote in New York even when they were not considered U.S. citizens under the Supreme Court law.
But that's because New York never recognized that Supreme Court decision and said, yes, they are citizens under the United States.
So the city of New York was trying to pass laws, like the city of San Francisco, like some of these other liberal cities, to allow illegal immigrants to vote in city elections.
And it's part of the ongoing democratic conspiracy that basically it's we're going to import these illegal immigrants.
And we're going to give them money and give them funds, and we're going to buy ourselves votes.
That now we can win in our city election, even if we antagonize the people who are supposed to be serving because we've imported a bunch of new voters.
I mean, this is always, it's been obvious that's the Democratic side.
The corporate side is they want free labor.
And the professional managerial class wants cheap labor, wants to lower the wages of the working class in the country.
Who are the most, getting the most negatively impacted by this in the urban centers?
That's why polling is out this weekend from independent third-party public opinion surveys that show Trump doing better amongst black voters than any Republican in modern history.
It's because, as Trump was articulating in South Carolina, there's nobody that's been hurt worse by the crime epidemic, by the illegal immigrant influx, by the economic policies, by the risky war policies.
than black working class Americans.
They've been as impacted, if not worse, than anybody.
And that's what Eric Adams, the black mayor of New York, is busy facilitating this.
But the New York court recognized, it says in the New York Constitution repeatedly, citizens can vote.
Citizens voting.
Citizens have the power.
Citizens control.
And said that's got to mean it's limited to citizens.
And it can't be non-citizens.
And the city was claiming otherwise, but the New York Court of Appeals agreed and said it's pretty darn obvious.
This was always intended to only refer to citizens, only authorize citizens, only allow citizens, only permit citizens to control their own government.
Non-citizens can't be part of that equation, or the entire basis of the New York State Constitution falls apart.
The entire foundation of their democratic governance collapses.
So that was a good white pill ruling.
Even from the New York courts that haven't been a bastion of liberty supporting in their last decade or so.
All right.
Does the state appeal it or is it going to be a...
This was the New York Court of Appeals that affirmed it.
Yeah, let's go.
So I don't see the New York Supreme Court coming in.
I forget.
They're named different things in New York.
New York has the weirdest court system.
The Supreme Court is the trial court.
The Supreme Court is called the Court of Appeals or something.
But this was the last court that had to take the case.
I don't see any higher court reversing.
All right.
Good.
Now, Robert, we're two hours into this.
What do we have left?
So we got some cases that are quick and fun and some others that are longer.
So we got probably the biggest one to cover here.
The last one here might be the Alabama embryo ruling.
Oh, yeah, okay.
It will cover at locals.
We got hotel price fixing.
We got Disney losing a vaccine mandate motion.
We got a rumble win.
We got Epstein disclosure.
We got hotel price fixing.
We got sex ed for kids.
We got the NCAA losing a big NIL case.
Those will be quicker.
That we'll cover at the afterparty at vibabarnslaw.locals.com.
Plus, any $5 tips or more, we'll answer there in the afterparty.
But the last one we got here is, are embryos humans under the law of Alabama?
So this is it.
Who did I talk to about this case?
Oh, it was on Friday with Eric Hunley and the law panel on, I'll say, Laidback Friday.
I don't remember what it is now, but Eric Hunley.
And it was fantastic.
Danny Ahn, lawyer on YouTube, talking about it.
Robert, the idea here is that this was a case of a destroyed embryo.
Like some employee dropped a fertilized embryo.
And the owners, I guess, of the embryo were looking for legal recourse.
And they said, we don't have legal recourse because, I don't know, destruction of property, whatever.
And they went under the Death of a Child Act.
To try to seek legal recourse for the destruction of a fertilized embryo in a petri dish.
Now, the court said, basically, this is the death of a child, even if it's outside of the womb, outside of the uterus.
They called it an extra...
What was the word they used?
Outside of the uterus.
Extra uterine.
Extra uterine.
Death of a child.
My question is whether or not you can even...
Talk about the idea of a child outside of the uterus given today's technology and I think my answer is you can't but whatever we'll get there in a second.
So the the idea was to seek compensation for an employee destroying an embryo and they found compensation or the the righting of a wrong under this law on the basis that by destroying this fertilized embryo it was the death of a child under whatever legislation it was.
The wrongful death of a minor child.
And so that's how they got there.
How does it sustain appeal?
What's the steel man for the idea, and then how does it sustain appeal?
Well, this is the Alabama Supreme Court, so it's the final court to address it.
And they did not reach the 14th Amendment issues that were implicated in the claim.
They decided to make it purely a statutory interpretation of the text of an Alabama state law.
So there's really no basis for the Supreme Court of the United States to get involved.
So it's really a final decision.
Now, Alabama's legislature could go in, because they made it an interpretation of Alabama state law, the Alabama legislature could go in and clarify what that is.
Trump has called on them to clarify it because of the impact on in vitro fertilization that some were concerned about.
Now, I think some of that concern is overstated.
Because if you look at what the defense was trying to claim, they were trying to claim that an extra uterine child is never a child.
In other words, if you applied it literally, they would have made partial birth abortion legal again in Alabama when it's been illegal.
That was part of the problems with the scope of what they were claiming a child was.
They wanted to be so limited that you could engage in mass genocide.
For a long time, the Planned Parenthood crowd believes that a human being should not be recognized until consciousness is formed and words and capability are present.
They would authorize mass genocide of babies.
You don't have to dig far to find out.
And there was an aspect of the defense here that was clearly going that direction.
And I think that's part of what horrified the Alabama Supreme Court, saying, whoa, hold on a second.
And see, well, you know, we can just interpret the statute.
The statute under the Alabama's Constitution, it says, all life, including unborn life, at any stage, regardless of viability, is a human being under our state laws.
So the Supreme Court's decision was clearly correct on Alabama state law.
Then the question is, well, how should the law be amended to protect in vitro fertilization?
Apparently the argument is that Often, they create fertilized eggs that they donate or destroy, that they create more than are necessary for the actual successful in vitro fertilization.
More than are, they're more than necessary if the originals don't get taken.
So they're more, a buffer, a buffer.
And then they destroy them, the donating wouldn't be important.
Or they donate them to other facilities.
And, I mean, it's different in the fact pattern here because, The fact pattern here was someone who wanted the protection of that in vitro fertilization of their created eggs, fertilized eggs, and that they were promised that and an employee screwed up and killed them.
And so the different kind of fact pattern than what happens if the donor wants it to be donated.
So the question is, should there be...
Does in vitro fertilization rely upon creating...
Fertilized eggs that will be destroyed or donated for scientific research, which, in other words, means destruction, experimentation on them for destruction purposes.
I'm concerned that if they don't carefully rewrite those laws, this will be used for much more nefarious purposes.
I'm much more concerned about the misuse of the power.
By labeling them not human beings than I am by the inability of in vitro fertilization to be economically viable on the other hand.
I think there's a way to accommodate those interests without creating an open window that says babies are okay to experiment on.
They're developing the technology so that you can have entirely a child born that's never in a womb.
That's the current scientific goal and objective.
So do we want to create a society where those people are never recognized as human beings?
I don't think so.
So I think we need to be very careful how we go about it.
I understand the concern of making sure IVF is economically viable for families that are trying to have children.
And I think there's ways to do that without going so far as to create a whole bunch of...
Test tube babies that become the subject of human experimentation and government manipulation.
The legislature is going to redefine or at least create an exemption for IVF?
I mean, how's that going to look?
We'll see.
It's Alabama.
So the pro-life community is very, very strong there.
And so I think if they're reasonable, they'll come up with a balanced approach and find out exactly how much do they need that.
Or is IVF really being funded so they can experiment on fertilized cells?
I mean, I was concerned with a lot of people saying, oh, this will be disastrous for IVF.
I was like, hmm, I didn't know that you always had to have these.
This sounds to me like what's really funding IVF is not helping women get pregnant, helping a couple get pregnant, but rather is helping experimentation occur.
I'm not overly comfortable with that because of where it can go.
Unlike others, I was not uber sympathetic to the IVF position initially.
I would have to see more evidence as to how this is absolutely essential and critical for IVF to ever occur, that at some level they not be recognized as human beings.
But I'm not overly...
That they'd just be seen as property.
But I've never liked that path.
So I would be one of those people that would be difficult to persuade of changing the law.
Now, Robert, I'm going to do this before we go over there.
Share screen.
And I'm going to get to the Rumble Rants on Rumble before we end this and go over to Locals.
113 Green is a new name.
I've never seen it.
My screen just goes black while watching on my TV streaming Rumble comes back again and goes black.
Watching on the Rumble app on my phone, no problem.
They're looking into it and they'll fix it.
Tyson Hockley.
Dude, I know who you are.
Tyson is the Canadian kid.
I am a 16-year-old Canadian speaking out against Justin Trudeau and woke...
Crap being pushed on us all.
Please follow me here on Rumble to support my fight.
Dude, I'm going to go find your channel before this is over and get to everybody.
Tyson Hockley.
Dude, I'm going crazy.
He was on.
I know that I talked to him.
113 Green.
I've been having issues with watching you live on Rumble.
Have you heard of this before?
A lot of people have been talking about it tonight, and I've asked the team, and they're looking into it.
Trump took documents for Crossfire Hurricane, and that's the reason for the raid.
Why is Trump not releasing them?
Robert?
That question answers itself, if you think about it.
Viva, try green pumpkin eight worms inch to catch bass if you really want to catch him.
Okay, I'll try that.
I thought that was going to be my pimple.
Let the red worm sink to the bottom.
And it glows.
Dude, I don't want to get them stuck in the bottom.
That's astrosexual.
That's weird.
And we've got freedom of speech as before.
Fleet Lord Avatar, in case you missed it, those who hear this, it's tax season.
Some getting refunds.
A little bit goes a long way by donating to Free America Law Center, Ellen Doudrill, ellen.dodrill at barneslawllp.com.
But Robert, it's not tax deductible, correct?
Correct.
Okay, I want to make sure everybody knows that.
For Trump's appeal, does he get a different judge next time?
Which appeal, Farrell Tom?
Look at this.
This is all...
Generally, in most states, you don't.
Fraser McBurney says, in the 50s, when I was a child living in Rodden, Quebec, that's a very bad part of Quebec right now, WW bought our veggies from the local farmers.
Mr. Rebel.
In the summer, he would chip off a piece of ice for us.
Dude, Fraser, you've got to be old.
My grandmother used to tell me stories about getting ice blocks from the St. Lawrence River.
He was the ice man.
Why hasn't Ken Paxson charged Cuban?
Sersos.
Because at the end of the day, the government can only ensure a monopoly they can't eat and won't prevent one.
And we've got Barnes.
That's the regulator state in a nutshell across the board.
It's about big corporations paying off people in the government in order to crush any competition.
Matt Rides.
Hey Viva, I sent you a DM on X this week.
Let me see this here.
Do you have any thoughts on Bill?
Oh, is this the religious one?
I think I might have seen this, but I don't remember.
I'm going to look into it.
To me, it looks like an attempt to remove religion as an opinion, as a defense to hate speech.
I'll get to it.
I'm not going to get to it right now.
Sally68 says, You should check out the Crazy Levy County Florida judge with YouTuber Jeremy Hales.
What the Hales?
First Amendment issues, at least it can happen to anyone.
The Bronx 183.
One of my favorite shows.
Love, Ewan Barnes.
Thank you.
Do we get this?
In Pennsylvania, they have the protection for kosher food, but not Amish.
That's the power of the lobby.
As a Texas attorney and member, can I help or draft an affidavit I got first order from them?
Maybe I've fallen behind, but what's the status of the Trump ballot case before the Supreme Court?
I thought it was going to be resolved much sooner.
That's the Colorado case.
So, Robert, we're not too far behind the schedule.
I assume we're going to get a decision pretty soon.
Okay, we got the rest.
Now, what we're doing right now, by the way, is we're going to end it.
Because I've got to eat dinner and put beds...
Kids to bed or beds to kid.
It depends how you want to look at it.
What we're going to do, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we have 2,281 people.
Hold on.
It's link here.
That's locals.
And we're going to deal with the tips and the remaining subject matter of the day.
So, Robert, what do you have on for the week?
I'll be going to Pennsylvania to prepare for and make argument in the Amos Miller hearing.
The rally is around 11 a.m., 11.30 a.m., I believe, is scheduled by other people who have scheduled that.
I think probably somewhere around wherever the courthouse is or wherever else it's a meet-up in Lancaster County.
And then the hearing is scheduled for 1.30 p.m., Lancaster County, Court of Common Pleas.
I believe it's going to be courtroom 6. That will be the hearing for Thursday afternoon that will decide whether Amos Miller can stay in business and whether people who need his food can get it or not.
All right.
And for me, tomorrow, I'm going to be on Benny Johnson at 1145, going live afterwards.
On Tuesday, Luther coming on the channel.
On Thursday, Dr. Drew.
So it's a big week next week.
So stay tuned.
What we're going to do now, vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the rest of the party.
Rumble, enjoy the night.
We out.
Peace.
And now, Robert, we go over to Rumble.
And I've got to go all the way up to the top of the tipped.
I hear my wife getting into arguments with the child.
Okay, nobody can hear it.
I hope not.
Export Selection