Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 3, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:31:30

Viva & Barnes 200th Episode! Fani Willis, Amos Miller, Jan. 6, Trump, Blaze Reporter & MORE! BOOYA!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I've heard a lot from defense counsel as to what the issues are for you to, I guess, determine.
	And here would be the state's contention is that you must find that there's an actual conflict.
	No appearance.
	Appearance conflict.
	That guy right there is very smart.
	You should listen to him.
	Ms. Willis at the district attorney's office.
	Hey, Viva, how you doing?
	And looking at...
	Sorry, I can't hold in all the bullshit that I'm spewing.
	It's McGlynn v.
	State.
	N-C-G-L-Y-N-N v.
	State.
	This guy knows that the case is lost.
	It's a 2017 case.
	In that case, it talks about the standard of proof that the defense or the burden...
	That the defense must show and go to show an actual conflict.
	They say it's a high standard of proof, which is definitely not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower burden for any party who's trying to meet that standard of preponderance.
	But it's very clear that what the standard is is a high standard of proof.
	You have to be stupid not to see it.
	Whether there's an actual conflict and whether there's forensic misconduct.
	This guy's confusing everything here.
	Hold on, I've got to take a note.
	Take the note, Viva.
	You've got to put highlights behind this.
	This is confusing even for me to look out like everybody.
	Viva section.
	Okay, I'll stop.
	Because I need to do a highlight collection reels.
	It needs to be synthesized.
	You can't expect people to look at that rubbish for an hour and a quarter.
	I need to synthesize.
	I feel like I took the day off yesterday because it was dreadful.
	By the way, I have it on Good Information.
	It's Phil Holloway, who I had on on the Friday show.
	Winston.
	There's nothing left on the plate.
	He replied to one of my tweets.
	I said humorously, has anyone heard from Fanny Willis' lawyer, Adam Abate, since closing arguments?
	Because if nobody's heard from him, you might want to go pay him a wellness check.
	Phil Holloway says, I'm told by reliable sources that she ripped him a new one.
	After court on Friday, she was reportedly mad as a wet hen.
	Now, being a Canuck, I have no idea how mad a wet hen is.
	Although I think some Canadians probably have seen wet hens before.
	It was the biggest debacle you could imagine by way of closing arguments.
	And as I jokingly said in my summary video from the night of, it was not just as though he hadn't prepared.
	Even someone who hadn't prepared but had witnessed the trial would have been better.
	It was as though he didn't watch the trial!
	Hold on, this dog's driving me crazy.
	One second.
	You get to play out of it.
	The dog's like licking non-existent food off a plate.
	So it was wild.
	I said we're going to start with something that's going to make you gag or something that's going to make you double gag.
	If you thought we were going to get out of it, we're doing both.
	I just wanted to give everyone a little bit of a taste of the mystery.
	And by the way, Adam Abate, I mean, I talked about this again during the vlog.
	You go to those things called court decisions that are published online, and there seems to be one court decision in which Adam Abate is alleged to have...
	What's the word?
	Suborn perjury from a witness threatening that witness with jail time unless that witness testifies the way the state wants that witness to testify in the context of a murder case.
	Oh, so it was grotesque.
	Anyhow, we're going to talk about it tonight.
	It's going to be an amazing show.
	It's our 200th, at the least, because I know that I've missed a couple of labeling the numbers, so when I go back to last week to see what number we're on, it's at least our 200th Sunday show.
	Now, I'm no mathemagician.
	I'm pretty good, though.
	We don't take time off on this channel, but we occasionally miss a Sunday, but then we make up for it on the Monday.
	That's four years of episodes, give or take.
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	We have left our indelible...
	I'll stop talking about it.
	We have left our mark on the interwebs and in society as a whole by expanding the legal horizons.
	And making sense of the absolute insane world in which we live.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Let me make sure I'm on the good mic.
	I think I...
	I'm not on the good mic.
	Ooh, good.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Now I'm on the good mic.
	Damn it.
	That mic is better, right?
	You can all hear me?
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	At least I only did it for the intro.
	We are live across the interwebs.
	Let me go see if we are on Rumble.
	Someone says, no Rumble.
	No, no, it looks like we're on Rumble.
	Hold on.
	If you don't get it, refresh.
	Yeah, we're live on Rumble.
	Just hit 5,000 viewers on Rumble.
	We are live on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where W.P. Slattery says, happy anniversary, you lovebirds.
	That is talking about me and Robert.
	And M.P. Schaefer says, let's not planning on retiring Viva.
	Viva's not retired.
	I was thinking about it today.
	It's probably not a healthy thing, but I'm sitting around thinking, if I'm not learning, I feel like I'm wasting time.
	And I actually came up with a line, and it's going to be a very, very fitting line for the sponsor of tonight's show.
	If a day without learning is not a day lived, a day without exercise is not a day lived.
	And by the way, everyone remind me, I got a new pair of running shoes yesterday and took them out today.
	My mic sucks.
	Are you guys joking?
	That mic makes you sound like Glenn Beck.
	That's because it's a good mic.
	Hold on.
	Not that I don't trust the chat on YouTube, but I don't.
	Let me go to Locals.
	Locals, the mic is good, right?
	This is the mic we're used to.
	Your mix has too much gain in the mic.
	Oh, I'm going to destroy a child who was playing with that.
	Okay, hold on.
	Is that better?
	I don't even think I can blame it on a child.
	It's distorting.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me bring the mic down a little bit.
	Mic check, one, two.
	We're on the second one.
	Okay, boom, boom.
	Pop, pop.
	Not usual sound.
	Your mic does suck.
	Gain is too high.
	Way better.
	Worse, still bad.
	Okay, hold on.
	There might be a problem with the mic.
	Okay, this hasn't happened in a while, so let me just go live and listen to myself.
	Here.
	Okay, so...
	Mic check 1-2.
	We're going to bring it like this.
	Mic check 1-2.
	Mic check 1-2.
	Bringing it in.
	Now it's going to catch up with me on Rumble, and I'm going to see.
	The mic doesn't sound terrible.
	No.
	No, the mic is good, people.
	Okay, it's a little low.
	Bring that back up.
	Gain, mix.
	I don't even know what these buttons are here.
	Okay, we're done.
	Well, son of a beast thing, I've just ruined my segue into the sponsor of the evening.
	Too low, everybody sing.
	Too low, everybody sing.
	Okay, now I hear it high on...
	No, it's good now.
	It's good now.
	Forget it.
	We're done.
	We're good.
	It's good.
	Everyone says better.
	Local says better.
	Good mix now.
	Too low.
	Good, good, good, good.
	Better now.
	Good low.
	Okay, turn up your volume.
	I don't know whose fault it is.
	Still low.
	I'm sweating.
	Now I'm sweating like a pig here.
	Settings, audio.
	How about I just do automatically adjust mic volume?
	I'm going to go to StreamYards and hit automatically adjust mic volume.
	Now let me see what I've done.
	200 episodes, people.
	Oh, now I hear.
	That was a little high, actually.
	Thank you.
	Okay, there we go.
	It's better.
	No, that's perfect.
	Okay, we're good.
	We're good now.
	I was going to put out...
	I'm still reading the chat.
	I have to stop.
	I'm going to up the volume a little bit there, and now we're done.
	I was thinking yesterday that I'd rather be doing a vlog, and it's maybe an unhealthy thing, but a day without learning.
	Is a wasted day, as is a day without exercise.
	Then I asked you to remind me.
	I asked you to remind me.
	Okay, I'm going to stop sweating now because the audio is fine.
	I just listened to myself.
	Let's try this again.
	Remind me that I got new shoes yesterday because I had been going a long time with my old shoes.
	And I got something called QC.
	They seem very good.
	Stands for I don't know, whatever.
	Okay.
	A day without learning is a day wasted.
	And I'd like to thank our sponsor of the evening tonight.
	Here we go.
	Hillsdale.edu.
	We're going to get there, people.
	It is amazing, but I'm not joking.
	Like, if you're not learning...
	You're not making the most of your time.
	And what better way to learn than to learn for free?
	And people, I'm not saying that one day I'm going to, like, apply for citizenship in the U.S., but I say that if ever I do, I've taken an online quizzical to see whether or not I would pass the, you know, the...
	What is it called?
	The citizenship test?
	I'm not happy with the grade that I got.
	I'm going to do a few more of these tests.
	But I passed on my first try.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Time is our most precious commodity.
	And I've learned that so many listeners that we have, you don't have time to learn, but you do.
	So you listen to Viva Frye or Viva Barnes for three hours on a Sunday night.
	But if you want to learn about history, economics, the great works of literature, the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, which depending on who you ask, means everything or nothing.
	If you didn't study these things in school, the easiest way to do it, Online with Hillsdale EDU.
	I brought up the landing page here.
	Let me just see which one we got here.
	Yes, the Constitution, which is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the most important things that every American should be learning these days.
	Constitution 101 is one of their classes.
	The meaning and history of the U.S. Constitution.
	It's a 12-lecture course.
	You'll explore the design and purpose of the Constitution.
	It was to predict the future and to predict the tyrants like the ones we're seeing today.
	The challenges it faced during the Civil War and how it has been undermined by more than a century of progressivism and liberalism.
	It's actually, we're witnessing this in real time.
	The course, self-paced, you can start when you want, end when you want, enroll now, Constitution 101.
	Our country needs more Americans who understand the Constitution and maybe a few Canadians who do as well.
	So they can defend the freedom of the American people against the encroachments of an increasingly large and unaccountable government.
	Go to hillsdale.edu/viva to enroll.
	No cost, easy to get started.
	hillsdale.edu, that stands for education, slash viva to register.
	And it's amazing.
	You go and you learn for free.
	And not only will you not regret it, knowledge is one of those gifts that can never be taken back.
	It's one of those things that can be shared and you can never ask for it back.
	And it's one of those things that there are people out there giving it away for free.
	Hillsdale.edu is a program.
	It's fantastic.
	Okay, well, now I'm still sweating from the audio.
	And so, what else?
	We're going to talk about the Constitution tonight.
	We're going to talk about an increasingly encroaching federal government.
	It's an amazing thing, by the way.
	As far as I understand it now, you have the United States, these United States of America.
	That was supposed to respect the sovereignty of the states.
	The constitutional republic.
	States coming together to say we will form a republic.
	State sovereignty should be respected.
	And the federal government should be no bigger than necessary because we just broke away from that tyrannical British government.
	Fast forward 1770.
	Oh, the Constitution was not signed in 1776.
	It was signed several years later.
	I forget whatever the year was.
	Fast forward 1718, 19...
	220 some odd years, you now have the biggest federal government with the most power and usurping individual citizens' rights like never before.
	It's almost like people don't understand the Constitution.
	It's almost like those nincompoops up in that corrupt statehood thing there, the D.C., the district, it's not a state, don't understand the Constitution that they pledged to uphold.
	Or maybe they do.
	And they understand how to...
	They bastardize the Constitution so that they can literally never relinquish the power that they've seized while simultaneously accusing other people of seeking to gain the presidency and never relinquish the power.
	Here's a good one that I was going to start with.
	What was this guy saying the other day?
	Listen to this.
	So here's what I would say to Mr. Trump.
	Instead of playing policy with the issue, instead of telling Let me just start that again, because you might not have understood the slop coming out of his mouth.
	First of all, that is the stare of senility.
	It's the stare of dementia.
	So here's what I would say to Mr. Trump.
	Instead of playing politics with an issue...
	Let's try it one more time.
	So here's what I would say to Mr. Trump.
	Instead of playing policy with the issue instead of telling members of Congress to block this legislation Join me or I'll join you in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill It's it's all together You know and I know it's the toughest most efficient most effective border security bill this country has ever seen So instead of playing politics with the issue, why don't we just get together and get it?
	Can you believe the verbal diarrhea?
	It's an orgy of lies.
	It's a volcano of bullshit.
	The strongest, how did he call it?
	Instead of playing politics with the issue.
	Can you imagine somebody who for the last three years has led in what now?
	What do they say it's at?
	Like seven, eight million illegal immigrants?
	Open the border, kill the executive orders, demonize the border ages.
	Remember, we're all forgetting about all this stuff in real time.
	How they alleged that border guards were whipping illegal immigrants.
	Remember that?
	That story about the illegal immigrants who died in the waters and they blamed it on Texas, alleging that they let them die on the shore.
	They died in Mexico.
	They couldn't have done anything about it.
	The strongest, most comprehensive border policy?
	We've looked at it now.
	I mean, again, the other day I called...
	I called Joe Biden a POS and I felt bad.
	I said, I can't even call this guy a POS in good conscience anymore.
	He doesn't know what the hell is going on.
	He is a tool and a pawn like everyone else in that particular photograph that I was referencing.
	This guy has no idea what's in that border bill.
	We looked through that border bill.
	I was flabbergasted.
	It was a border bill that was more dedicated to foreign aid to Ukraine than to reinforcing the border.
	It wasn't a border bill.
	It was a disguised foreign aid package.
	And when it didn't get through passed as a border bill, well, then it magically transformed into the foreign aid bill.
	And so it's wild.
	And the most comprehensive, the only thing that that border bill did in terms of giving power to the federal that they didn't actually have is designate the D.C. courts, the courts of the District of Columbia.
	Exclusive jurisdiction to hear any and all state challenges to the application of that law and the border issue at large.
	Remember when he said, give me the power.
	You have all the power.
	That law was in fact giving you powers that you didn't have.
	And that was exclusive jurisdiction to a corrupt court system that we've seen play out in real time.
	It's an amazing thing, by the way.
	You say, I'm listening to myself on Locals.
	And the volume is not low.
	It is weird.
	I wonder if it has to do with people's microphones.
	People's computers.
	So that was one gaggy diarrhea thing that I was going to suggest that we open with.
	The other one that I really wanted to start with, and I'm going to play it anyhow, because it's on the backdrop.
	I mean, you can't not play it.
	It is the gaggery of all gaggery.
	I think now it might, at least in terms of my personal opinion, Have overtaken Justin Trudeau.
	Leticia James, I believe, has now become the most audibly toxic, insufferable human being to listen to on earth.
	Listen to this.
	The scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering.
	And so too is his ego.
	And his belief that the rules do not apply to him.
	Today, we are holding Donald Trump accountable.
	We're holding him accountable for lying, cheating, and lack of contrition.
	And for flouting the rules that all of us must play by.
	Because there cannot be different rules for different people in this country.
	And former presidents are no exception.
	This decision is a massive victory for every American who believes in that simple but fundamental pillar of our democracy.
	That the rule of law applies to all of us.
	Equally.
	Fairly.
	Fairly.
	And justly.
	Who is more repulsive?
	Justin Trudeau or Leticia James?
	Serious question.
	Thank you.
	Who is more repulsive?
	I'm going to do a poll in YouTube because they allow them.
	We can do that here.
	Hold on.
	Let's see here.
	Add.
	Start a poll.
	Who is more repulsive?
	And then we're going to go with Trudeau or Leticia.
	Start poll.
	We'll see.
	I think it's going to be a close one because Leticia is going to be fresher in the memories of everybody.
	And then there was one more.
	Do I have the one more?
	If you want something done.
	Someone once told me.
	If you want something done.
	Give it to a woman.
	I don't have that one in the backdrop.
	It doesn't matter.
	Oh, all right.
	Standard rules for the evening until Barnes gets here.
	Let me make sure that he's got the link.
	He does have the link.
	What did we say here?
	See, I got a text and it says, the audio was good for me from the start.
	Don't know what people are effing with you, but it's good, good for me.
	Touch low now.
	I'll put it up a little bit.
	Until Barnes gets in the house, people.
	The standard rules of the evening.
	These wonderful things that are a way for people to support the channel if you so choose.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Superchats.
	Rumble has Rumble Rants.
	And they don't take any portion of that.
	It goes straight to the creator.
	All of it.
	For 2024, at least as far as I recall.
	Ukraine 2021 is Poland 1938.
	Israel 2022 is France 1941.
	Will it take New York 2024 for you to accept the truth?
	And Iran created the coronavirus.
	That is...
	Dustlove, nice to see you again, by the way.
	Congrats on 200 episodes.
	You and Robert have become part of my Sunday evening.
	I look forward to your insight.
	Cheryl Gage, thank you very much.
	Congrats on hitting 200.
	It's been a fun...
	It's been one hell of a ride, J-Mill.
	I'll never forget your beautiful brown trout in your avatar.
	A day without learning is not a day lived.
	Viva, a day without sunshine is like night.
	Fireside theater, I think.
	I'll try to read lips because your volume is no lie.
	But I'm listening to it.
	Pick a single mod you trust to tell you about your audio and video and save yourself some grief.
	That's not a bad idea, virtual loner.
	Methane proliferation set to destroy all life on Earth.
	Say experts, how do we find Winston and stop him?
	Biden 2024, no malarkey, protect democracy, hashtag LGBTQ.
	That's not a banned account who I believe is semi-parody.
	In application for your podcast, Viva and Barnes.
	In appreciation, sorry.
	And while we're waiting, Barnes...
	I meant to text Barnes before I got distracted.
	Locals isn't streaming.
	Locals looks like it is here.
	Let me refresh here.
	If there was a time to have...
	Okay, no, it looks like we're good on Locals.
	If there's time to have a glitchy episode, it's episode 200.
	I'm just going to have Barnes come in and save me for...
	Robert, I'm going to bring you in.
	Then I'm going to go listen to the audio and see if it's matching up.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	And before you answer, let me go see in Locals.
	Go.
	How goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Hopefully, is all the audio good?
	Let me see.
	It's coming in.
	Let me see.
	I'm listening on Locals.
	I think it's good.
	I'm going to see what everyone says here.
	Okay, Robert.
	Yeah, what's up?
	What's the book behind you?
	The Realignment of Pennsylvania Politics, though it needs an update given what has transpired during the Trump years.
	So yeah, but it was pertinent to where I spent most of this last week.
	Okay, good.
	Well, now we're going to have to get into that, but you want to tell us what's on the menu and then we're going to, do we start with your heartbreak or do we leave that for rumble?
	The, well, yeah, we got, you know, a range of cases.
	We got black pill cases.
	We got red pill cases.
	We got white pill cases.
	We got all three going this week.
	The Trump, the ones that were the vote at the top was a relatively close tie.
	Though no favorites was the winner once again.
	The Amos Miller case.
	I can get the details of the trial, the hearing, what is going to happen next.
	The Trump-related cases was a close tie for that, including SCOTUS deciding Trump's immunity.
	And the bump stock ban that was an oral argument this past week at the Supreme Court.
	Then we have Trump's Illinois ballot access by basically a traffic judge, showing where the status of that is while we all wait on the Supreme Court for that decision.
	Then we got the Fannie Willis scandal that you covered throughout the week.
	We got January 6th appeals ruling about the illicit sentences that have been imposed.
	We have the...
	Reporters getting jailed or threatened with jail, including a Blaze TV reporter and a Catherine Herridge, one of the best investigative journalists out there who was fired summarily by CBS because of her exposing of the Biden administration and now has been put in contempt of court by a judge who wants her to rat out who...
	Put in information about what appeared to be a Chinese spy in the U.S. government.
	We also have the Australian vaccine mandate being overturned.
	Clive Palmer down there has been funding the litigation to help expose the problems with the vaccine mandate.
	We have Elon Musk suing the folks who started OpenAI.
	We got a big Arizona elections case about the Arizona voting laws.
	When masking witnesses violates the confrontation clause, we have a big Second Amendment win out of California.
	We have...
	Let's see.
	Those are the main cases.
	There are a few other smaller cases mixed in.
	Now, do we want to start with Amos Miller, what's going on in Pennsylvania?
	It's a week and a half that you had up there, but you had an amazing week that didn't end with an amazing ruling from the Pennsylvania Court of Appeal.
	Let everybody know what happened there.
	This one was the trial court.
	The Court of Common Pleas, as it's called there in Pennsylvania.
	They got a lot of weird names for courts up there.
	They got like a Commonwealth Court.
	They got a Superior Court.
	That's the appeals court.
	They got, you know, traditional Supreme Court.
	That's actually their Supreme Court, unlike New York, where the Supreme Court is the trial court.
	They got magisterial courts.
	They got, you know, all kinds of courts up there.
	So, you know, they can't get enough of them, apparently.
	But yeah, we can start with Amos Miller.
	Okay, let's do it.
	I thought it was the appeal because I thought you were reviewing the injunction that the state had gotten.
	It was with the same judge.
	They don't have temporary restraining orders in Pennsylvania.
	They just have preliminary injunctions.
	And so he had issued a preliminary injunction back in January, which was a complete prohibition on the production, the possession, the distribution.
	Purchase, sale of anything raw milk related.
	And they were initially seeking an injunction on all of his food to prohibit him from being to do any farming of any kind at all.
	From being able to distribute any food, sell any food, make any food, possess any food.
	And the way they had been enforcing that is they had been rationing food to himself.
	They came in and said, here's your rations for your own family today.
	That you can eat this much, and you can feed your children this much, but no more.
	And telling him what he could feed his own animals, including his own pigs.
	So they had gone full commie there at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	The initial issue was that he was allegedly selling milk products without Pennsylvania certification, authorization.
	Well, it was several different claims that they made.
	The lawsuit claims that he has to have all these permits or he can't sell food at all.
	There's arguments about that.
	But their initial predicate to the public and to the court was that the food, and this is actually what the law is supposed to require, which is that the only food that can be destroyed is food that is unfit for human consumption and can't be made amenable.
	For human consumption.
	And that there is no other beneficial or animal use of that food.
	That's the legal standard under Pennsylvania law.
	So they initially obtained the injunction by saying that they were worried that his food was somehow unsafe.
	If I can stop you there, the injunction is like a provisional, like an emergency injunction until a hearing on the interlocutory.
	They have to go in with some...
	I mean, it's damn compelling evidence.
	And this was ex parte?
	Yeah, they did it ex parte initially.
	You know, they knew I was present in the state.
	They went and got it ex parte.
	And for those people who don't know what that is, that means you don't even know it exists that the injunction is issued without you getting a chance to present your side of the case.
	So the hearing was scheduled to see whether or not, so that we could present our side.
	And at the time they were doing this, they used the same trick they've done for years, and the gullible press and limited politicians in Pennsylvania have always bought this up, that they just eat it and swallow whole.
	Basically, most of the press in Pennsylvania are stenographers for the state.
	I don't even know why they call themselves journalists.
	All they do is write out whatever the state tells them to.
	And most of the dim-witted politicians in the state, including most of the so-called Republican conservatives in the state, eat it up as well.
	That's why Pennsylvania is in such shoddy condition politically at the moment.
	That's what made that book kind of apt and appropriate for tonight's discussion.
	And the past storyline with Amos had always been a combination of somehow his food was dangerous and somebody somehow somewhere got sick from it.
	And that he just won't abide any rules and that that's the reason why there's any kind of problem and that the government just wants to help him.
	The government's here and they just want to help you.
	But I've got to highlight, the ex parte, it doesn't just mean not represented by counsel.
	It means it's such an emergency they can't notify the defendant because he might destroy evidence, he might try to abscond, he might try to fire sale all of it off.
	I don't even understand how they get to that threshold in this case.
	Correct.
	And so what the hearing was, as the judge himself said, if the case was solely about having a permit, he goes, we don't need a hearing.
	That's a separate matter.
	Why are we holding a long, extensive hearing, multi-hour, part of a whole day and scheduled for another day if necessary, if that was just the issue?
	Of course, that wasn't just the issue.
	The issue that they were supposed to have to prove.
	The problem they had is at the hearing, none of that went their way.
	So what came out at the hearing was that no one has ever complained to the state of Pennsylvania in the 20-year history of Amos Miller operating a farm and distributing his products all across the country, tens of millions of products to tens of thousands of Americans over 20 years.
	No one has ever complained to any government ever, anywhere, about Amos Miller's food.
	That they were deceived by it, that they got sick by it, never.
	And that none of his food had ever been ordered recalled, ever, after an investigation.
	That is one of the best safety records for food of any farmer or any farm processor or food processor of any kind, any restaurant, you name it.
	Anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania, or quite frankly, the entire country.
	I mean, everybody, one out of five Americans get sick every year from food.
	The probability that your food is so safe that nobody ever has ever complained a single time is extraordinary.
	Not only that, the sworn testimony came in that the person they had previously claimed some years ago, and you still see these false statements made in social media and the press.
	That he had caused someone to get sick and even die from listeria and raw milk.
	Well, the person who was the caretaker filed a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury in the Pennsylvania court saying that that was completely false.
	That the person who died was someone she was taking care of.
	That that person never drank raw milk.
	And she said she had fourth stage cancer.
	Went in and their cancer treatment didn't work and she died from cancer in the hospital.
	Well, we've not only found that out, we were able to find out a semi-secret mechanism by which they are coordinating against farms across the country where they like to sample food and they put in the data into this big database shared throughout the nation with doctors and health people are doing the same thing.
	There's really some questions about...
	The privacy issue is implicated.
	Some other legal issues implicated.
	But they've tried to keep this secret.
	So when they were going in and doing the sampling of all of his products over all these years, what they've been doing is sending it to this database that anytime anybody gets sick, the specimen is being entered in this database.
	And so they're trying to match it.
	Now, of course, if you spend a lot of time matching it, 99.99% of all food illnesses come from the big corporate, big ag food companies.
	That's why they keep this secret.
	They don't talk about this database.
	We were able to find the database that showed that this woman had listeria.
	It turned out she had listeria almost a year before.
	It had nothing to do.
	It had no tie at all to any product.
	They're originally claiming it was, oh, she went to her caretaker, and her caretaker was an Amos Miller customer, and that's how she got Listeria.
	It turned out they knew that was a lie all along because she had got Listeria in another state months before that had absolutely nothing to do with Amos Miller's product.
	So now you have the sworn testimony of the caretaker.
	Their own database evidence proved they'd been lying.
	This entire time.
	I just want to ask you how the judge comes down the way.
	Does the judge not get angry?
	I'll get to that.
	People are asking, this is wild, but par for the course.
	What's the explanation for this rebuttal in front of the judge?
	They didn't have one.
	So the next claim they had made was that two people had gotten sick from E. coli's stack.
	And that these people had access to Amos Miller products.
	Now, I was suspicious of this since this fits a pattern of their false claims in the past, and they were never producing the test results.
	Well, it turned out they went in and did a search warrant on January 4th.
	They got the test results back on the E. coli on January 6th.
	The E. coli results came back negative.
	That none of Amos Miller's products had any E. coli stack in them at all.
	So it couldn't have been Amos Miller's farm that caused the illness.
	But they hid that until right before the hearing.
	So they'd been lying to the judge, they'd been lying to the media, they'd been lying to the public that entire time, and they knew they had.
	So their new claim...
	Was that they had found in just a small sample, they had found an unidentified amount of listeria in certain samples.
	It turned out those samples came from a third-party farm.
	It didn't come from Amos Miller's farm.
	We did our own independent testing to prove that was the case.
	And that the amount of listeria, the reason why they didn't identify it is because it was too low to actually cause anybody to get sick.
	And they tried to tie it to somebody in Texas, and the people in Texas denied that there was any connection.
	So they had no evidence that any product of Amos Miller has ever made anyone sick.
	And that, in fact, the evidence was the opposite.
	Because of how many customers, how much food he's delivered, that not one of them has ever complained in the history of Amos Miller's farm.
	Proving him to be one of the, if not the safest farmer in the country, definitely in the state of Pennsylvania, how could they claim his food was unfit for human consumption?
	Their own tests showed there was absolutely nothing wrong with any of the food from Amos Miller's own farm.
	That the only listeria they had found was from a third-party farmer of food that was being stored at Amos Miller's, and it wasn't even enough to cause anybody to get sick.
	So they had no basis, basically, whatsoever for...
	The original basis of the injunction.
	Not only that, over 350 people testified under penalty of perjury, knowing that this could make them targets of the state, that they needed Amos Miller's product, that it was critical to their medical and physical well-being, that it was critical to their religious beliefs and political associations.
	That they believed it was constitutionally protected activity they were engaged in.
	That they had been using his products for many years.
	Had known others had been using it for many years.
	And it was the best food they'd ever had.
	And in fact, when they had tried to find substitutes for it, for medical purposes in particular, they'd been unable to.
	Four people testified live.
	We were limited in how many people we were allowed to use.
	We're allowed to use four people as exemplars of all those sworn testimony filed into the court.
	And they testified how their children had benefited medically from Amos Miller's product.
	People that had severe forms of autism.
	That the nature of Amos Miller's products was that the worst consequences of that autism went away.
	People who had severe various autoimmune and other disorders.
	That their lives had literally been saved by Amos Miller's products.
	People who testified that if they didn't have access to it, their lives would be in jeopardy, not just their physical health.
	Or the lives of their loved ones would be in jeopardy, not just their physical well-being.
	And basically they begged the judge, please have this food accessible to us.
	We need it to survive.
	And so that got to the judge, psychologically and emotionally.
	I'll get to how he tried to weasel his way out of it.
	But then the government put up their witnesses first, and it was basically liar, liar, liar.
	And the first liar, and the thing about these liars is they lied so bad and so dumb that the prosecutor had to keep correcting their lies during their direct examination.
	Before I even got up there.
	So, no, no.
	Not supposed to tell that lie.
	Not supposed to tell this lie.
	Not supposed to lie over here.
	He's supposed to lie over there.
	You know, they would lie about dates.
	They would lie about times.
	They would lie about places.
	They would lie about Amos however they could.
	20 plus years these people have been working up there.
	And if you look at them, they are a walking, talking symbol why you should not eat food the government way and you should eat food the Amos way.
	The PDA way of eating food leads to low IQ lardasses.
	I mean, every one of them.
	Low IQ, lardass.
	Living physical proof of why you don't want to eat.
	You know, the PDA, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, wants you to eat plain food the rest of your life.
	And you're going to end up looking like them, thinking like them, acting like them.
	You know, being a depressed wine mom with 40 cats when you're 45 years old.
	So I'd get up and cross-examine.
	And ask some basic questions.
	Has anybody throughout the entire history of the state, or has the PDA learned from anybody in any other state, that has ever complained, has any state agency filed a complaint?
	Has anybody filed a complaint about Amos Miller's food?
	And they would try to weasel out of it right away.
	They're like, well, I don't even really know.
	I only looked at this part.
	I didn't know about that part.
	And when they're lying right away, weaseling, trying to weasel, then it just highlights that they know his food is safe.
	And so that was proven with each one of them.
	And then the person who had lied in her affidavit about what had happened, and she admitted that she knew things that she had hidden from the affidavit that led to the search warrant.
	That's called perjury, where I'm from.
	It's called material omission of material facts relevant to the judge to make a decision on a search warrant.
	And then she admitted...
	That what power she believed she had at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	That she had the power to stop anybody.
	That if you didn't have her permission, the government's permission, you didn't have any right to have any food in your fridge.
	That you couldn't eat food, possess food, make food, do anything else without that.
	The Attorney General had to try to, you know, the prosecutor had to try to fix that on redirect.
	You don't really mean that, do you?
	No, no, no.
	And she's like, yeah, yeah, I do.
	It's like, no, no, no, no.
	You're not supposed to say that out loud in court.
	And then they came up with Larnass, low IQ number three, one of these public health experts who was so, you know, like that we all got to experience during the pandemic.
	And there's no big, one, it's politically a hard left pro-government group, but we now know that they just lie all the time.
	I mean...
	The leading ones that were advising the president have now written books admitting that they lied, that they made stuff up, that they exaggerated, that they doctored the data, that some stuff just came out of nowhere.
	And that's who their expert was.
	She didn't even understand the basic databases she was looking at.
	She was trying to say things were correlated or had a causative relationship that didn't.
	So she didn't help a lot.
	And she even pretended not to have a bias against raw milk when she made ridiculous claims.
	She said all the science agrees that unpasteurized milk is much more dangerous than pasteurized milk when the FDA's own studies proved the opposite of that.
	She was unaware.
	She wasn't a member of any of the key societies that do risk analysis.
	She wasn't certified in any of this.
	She hadn't read any scholarly piece on the subject in 30 years.
	She just knew what the government propaganda had regurgitated over the years.
	And then we presented both Sally from the Weston Price Foundation, Sally Murrell.
	She came up and testified.
	The judge tried to cut off parts of her testimony.
	But she is probably the premier person that knows about raw milk and all the studies and everything ever done on raw milk, is herself a raw milk dairy farmer in Maryland.
	And was explaining all of the data.
	The judge didn't like some of her studies.
	Apparently, the judge doesn't like raw milk.
	He probably never drank it in his life.
	Doesn't know what the benefit of it is because he was making little sarcastic comments along the way.
	And he really didn't like her pointing out a study that they had done, a global study, that showed that pasteurized milk not only creates all these other health issues that raw milk does not, but that makes you dumber.
	The judge really didn't like that.
	If he wants an example of it, he can go home and look in the mirror.
	The net effect of drinking just pasteurized milk.
	And then we finished with one of the leading experts in the country on this topic.
	Has testified before legislative hearings.
	Worked at the USDA itself on these issues for more than a decade.
	And she opined, she had reviewed all the lab testing data.
	Had reviewed all of the data and information that the state had.
	As well as our testing data concerning Amos Miller.
	And she concluded that Amos Miller's products presented no real risk of any kind to his customers.
	That not only was the product not unfit for human consumption, it was particularly fit for human consumption, and she herself would be happy to consume it tomorrow to prove it.
	And their only cross-examination was to say, well, the government doesn't agree with you, though.
	In fact, this was their official claim.
	It's not an expert unless the government agrees with the expert.
	Okay, whatever.
	That gives you an idea of the mindset mentality of these people.
	They had tried to make up claims when they did the raid about where things were stored or located as to the sanitary conditions, though they didn't find a single unsanitary condition, nor did the feds, every time they did a raid.
	And she was able to rebut that over and over again, write live, say that doesn't mean that, that doesn't mean this, this means that, this means this other thing.
	Like I said, if you saw the truck didn't have a PDA-licensed facility that the milk was going into it, you still drink it?
	I can tell you a lot of Americans would say that's exactly the kind of milk they drink, the one that ain't in the government truck.
	You know, government cheese has a certain inference to it, if you have any familiarity with it, and it ain't the desirability kind.
	It ain't French cheese.
	So by the end of it, they effectively conceded, and the court's order effectively reflects, that there is no safety problem at all with Amos Miller's food.
	It's some of the safest food in the world.
	So it's the safety issues that warranted the provisional injunctions, not the issue, but the law is the law, and if you want to change the law, take it up with the legislature.
	So the judge's excuse became, and the government's only argument, became the permit argument.
	And their argument was that you cannot sell raw milk or any raw milk product without a permit.
	And the judge had come for what he thought was a rhetorical question, but he didn't know the law on raw milk.
	He said, well, why doesn't Amos Miller just get a permit?
	He said, well, here's the problem.
	The state of Pennsylvania, the Department of Agriculture, interprets the permit.
	As taking away products you can make.
	Not giving you a license to products you can make.
	Taking away products you can make.
	Be like getting a driver's license that said you can't operate a car.
	So that's what it was.
	And the judge had a hard time grasping this.
	We had to keep going over and over and over and over again.
	So flesh it out.
	So you get an authorization from the state and that authorization presumably says, okay, you can sell pasteurized milk and whatever.
	Implying, suggesting, or outright forbidding selling anything.
	It comes with the express prohibition.
	When you apply for the raw milk permit, you agree you will never make almost all raw milk products.
	You will only make fluid raw milk and certain limited hard cheeses.
	That's it.
	You can't make all the raw milk butter, all the raw milk cream.
	All the other key raw milk products that are 80-90% of what Amos Miller's members need.
	But is that to say the outcome then in Pennsylvania is you're not going to be able to get raw milk products because you can't do it without the permit, and by getting the permit, it precludes you from selling a number of raw milk products.
	Exactly.
	Pretty much everything that people want.
	So other than fluid, raw milk itself, that's it.
	Everything else is banned.
	And I was like, Judge, I've never seen a permit that's all about prohibition.
	And now, you can look up the law and it's not there.
	So the judge was in a bind.
	They failed to prove their entire case.
	We did prove our case.
	That if you evaluated medical, physical need of people, if you valued who was going to be harmed, where the weight of the injuries were, they were all for dissolving the injunction, not continuing the injunction.
	But I knew where the judge was likely going to go.
	Because whenever you get one of these judges that starts off telling you, I'm just here to follow the law.
	I'm just here to follow the law, not to follow politics.
	Well, it ain't the law that we learn in law school.
	They don't mean the law in the statute books.
	They don't mean the law in the Constitution.
	They don't mean the common law of judicial precedence.
	They mean the same law John Cougar Mellencamp sings about when he says he fought the law and the law won.
	They mean power.
	They mean the power is against you.
	I can't rule for you.
	Power is against you.
	They call it the law because they get it confused.
	Because if you're a trial state court judge, like the one we'll be discussing in Atlanta, Georgia, usually you get in with minimal opposition, and usually you have no opposition for your re-election.
	How do you, if you're an elected judge?
	Similar somewhat for appointed judges.
	And the only way you lose power is if you offend the law, if you offend powerful people and powerful institutions such as the government, repeat actors before you.
	So you start to confuse the law that's on the books, the law that's in our constitutions, the law that's in our court cases.
	You start to think that that's not the law.
	The law that keeps you employed, the law that got you employed, the law that writes your checks is power, is government institutions.
	Because the law in Pennsylvania only talks about being allowed to destroy food that's a menace to public society.
	And why would you have any different standard for enjoining food than destroying food?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Second problem is the injunction on milk talking about sale.
	It says that that can only occur for sales within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
	The permit is only required for sales within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
	95% of Amos Miller's raw milk distribution is outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
	The state's only response to this was, well, Judge, the FDA is not enforcing it.
	I'll give you the backstory there.
	It's not the PDA's job to replace the FDA.
	The PDA now claims it's the Department of Agriculture for Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, the entire world.
	That's how power mad this agency is.
	So a correct ruling, even if the court was going to interpret that it had the power to enjoin sale, was to sale within the Commonwealth.
	The other argument I made was, The only thing that should be prohibited, if the court was even inclined to do so, is what can be permitted in the first place.
	How do you prohibit things that a permit can't solve?
	How do you prohibit 80-90% of the milk products from being made?
	And by the way, you won't find that anywhere in the statute.
	And they admit they couldn't point anywhere in the statute to their interpretation of their power to permit raw milk to prohibit 90% of raw milk products from being available to anyone now in the world.
	According to their global interpretation of their power.
	But you have a sense of what the courtroom was like in how Pennsylvania courts institutionally operate in that they prefer Star Chamber secrecy type proceedings to publicly viewed proceedings.
	And anybody who had the opportunity to watch the hearing, they came out telling me that, well, you're obviously going to win.
	I mean, it was a no contest, right?
	Someone cheering for the state would have been throwing in the white flag about halfway through the hearing.
	But I knew a little bit otherwise.
	Because not only did the Pennsylvania courts not allow you to broadcast, live stream, or even record by video or audio means trials and proceedings, they interpret their power.
	To threaten you with jail if you try to take notes.
	If you were one of the few people who were lucky enough to get into the courtroom, probably close to 500, 600, maybe 1,000, however many people were there.
	The whole courthouse and everything around the courthouse was lined up with hours in advance.
	People were out there.
	I met a lot of great folks out there, and credit to them for coming out.
	There was a huge crowd right outside the courtroom trying to listen in, trying to hear in.
	Well, there was a live stream running.
	I'm sure you know anyone who does it.
	There was a live stream running where there were people coming out with a bullhorn explaining their situation and what they needed, why they needed it, and why they supported Amos Farm.
	Yes.
	So it was all over the place.
	So some people got in, and a few people that got in were told by bailiffs with guns that if they kept notes and took notes and took them with them, they could go to jail.
	By the way, this too is nowhere in the Pennsylvania rules.
	And the same judge that had been lied to now repeatedly by the state of Pennsylvania, by their officials right there in front of them in the courtroom, was more concerned with whether or not people were taking notes and scolding the audience repeatedly.
	You better not do anything or you'll be going behind here.
	Robert, that's to say...
	He had an authoritarian streak.
	To him, but he was a misdirected authoritarian strip.
	If you wanted respect for the court, then hold the people, the government agents, lying to you accountable, which he completely failed to do, rather than lecturing Amish people and people there in the courtroom, the very few people allowed to get in, because your courthouse, the Pennsylvania courts, have these backwards Star Chamber-like views.
	And I see why they want to keep proceeding secret in Pennsylvania.
	If the whole world had seen this proceeding, they would have said this is absolutely ridiculous that there's any injunction issued against Amos Miller, that ordinary people are being prohibited from eating the food that they choose from a farmer who has one of the best safety records for food anywhere in the nation, for food they medically needed.
	You had mothers begging for the food for their children, for their children's safety, because they were unable to find a replacement product that they'd been trying for months.
	That was one of my questions.
	Do you think the judge, like, I'm an open-minded individual, and now I know a lot better than I did a little while ago, but a judge who's going to hear these testimonials might just be inclined to write them off as, call them like anti-government extremists.
	Well, that's why we had four examples of ordinary people in there.
	These were smart people.
	These were people that were clearly telling the truth, unlike all the state's witnesses.
	They were honest and sincere.
	And the judge was impacted by him because he was kind of complaining by their impact.
	Well, you know, it's not up to me to do anything.
	Well, actually, that's what judicial discretion called equitable discretion is, judge.
	So there's a thing called the Constitution.
	When he took an oath, it wasn't to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	It was to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
	We had asserted many constitutional violations by their interpretation.
	And they were adding to those with their new claim that they could enforce this across the country.
	Now you had supremacy clause violations, commerce clause violations, privileges and immunities clause violations, the right to travel clause violations.
	Because, by the way, that's why the FDA doesn't enforce the raw milk provisions.
	You see, some years ago, the FDA came up with their nonsense about raw milk based on an unscientific perspective.
	It was about as scientific as all their COVID lockdown orders.
	And so they were sued by a bunch of ordinary folks who said, one, you know, you violated the APA in coming up with this rule.
	But not only that, you're violating our constitutional rights, our right to travel, our privileges and immunities clause protection, and our right, our substantive due process right to traditional foods purchased directly from the farmer, which is one of the oldest traditions in all of American history, and one that Thomas Jefferson said needed to be constitutionally protected.
	He said, if the government's picking your diet, Then it'll do as much damage to your soul as any tyranny ever could.
	And so in that instance, what did the FDA do?
	The FDA realized they might lose in front of the judge.
	So they made a statement.
	They said, Judge, we're never going to enforce this rule.
	So you can dismiss it on standing ground.
	There's no injury left, Judge.
	So please, please don't rule against us.
	And the PDA, unhappy with that, is trying to now replace the FDA.
	In terms of what they're trying to do, because they're now going to use this to say if milk goes anywhere through the state of Pennsylvania, they can now prohibit it under threat of criminal punishment.
	Well, I mean, that is another question that I had.
	Just before I forget, journalists were allowed in, but they were not allowed to, let alone live tweet, they weren't allowed taking notes?
	I heard the bailiff myself tell them, no taking notes.
	If you do take any notes, you can't take any notes with you, and you can go to jail if you do.
	There were several people that were there that later wrote to me saying that seemed to be a violation of their constitutional rights, and I agree with them.
	We're going to challenge these rules in Pennsylvania.
	It's only been challenged once before, and a federal court ruled that these rules violate constitutional rights to open access to the courts and freedom of the press and the like.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But it's clear Pennsylvania is used to doing things in the dark, used to doing things in a way that's not the lawful way.
	It's ironic because Pennsylvania is a state that really birthed a lot of American liberty.
	The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights is broader and more robust than our own Bill of Rights.
	And a lot of our own Bill of Rights derives from that.
	In particular, it's ironic for the Amish because the reason why the Amish settled in Pennsylvania...
	The Quaker founders of the state promised them protection for their religious lifestyle, which critically includes food and farming as part of that lifestyle.
	It's not just political expression, it's religious expression.
	So what the judge did is the judge pulled back on about 90%.
	So the judge didn't enjoy anything but raw milk.
	The judge didn't enjoy making raw milk, producing raw milk, or distributing raw milk.
	He only enjoined selling raw milk.
	He also made clear didn't apply to non-commercial use or personal use.
	He exempted that.
	And then he went out of his way, which you rarely see in an order, and it tells you the net effect of the hearing, to say that he said nothing in this order should be interpreted as in any way second-guessing the sincerity.
	The good faith, sincerity of all the people who have said that Amos Miller's products are critical for their health.
	So he clearly was moved by that testimony.
	He just decided that's a legislative issue rather than a judicial issue.
	The problem is there's nothing in the law that gives them this power in the first place.
	So get the likes of...
	Well, I don't know if Massey, what he has to do with Pennsylvania, but get the state legislature to clarify what it doesn't include.
	The legislature is asleep at the wheel.
	My view is they kind of already have.
	You can look up the raw milk statute.
	It says if you want to sell within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
	Even in the injunction statute, it says you may seek an injunction for the sale of raw milk products.
	Within the state of Pennsylvania.
	And there's obvious reasons for that.
	Supremacy clause.
	There's obvious preemption by all the FDA rules.
	This is not their prerogative.
	Imagine if each state started trying to govern what other people's residents were doing just because something once traveled through their state.
	That would be a disaster of food policy management in the country.
	So there's no consistent Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and that doesn't even get into the rights and immunities and the right to travel, nor does it get into all of the issues that we raised, none of which the court addressed.
	The court didn't address our statutory interpretation arguments, didn't address the injunction.
	For example, he's actually required to do this in Pennsylvania.
	He's required to go through and say why this injunction won't substantially harm anyone.
	Well, there's a reason he didn't go through that, because the only people who would be harmed are the people that would be harmed by the injunction, not harmed by the denial of the injunction.
	And so you're not supposed to issue an injunction in Pennsylvania if that's the case, if there's substantial harm to other interested parties.
	You're not supposed to issue an injunction if the balance of the public interest isn't in favor of it.
	But this is a judge who just didn't want to take on the state of Pennsylvania.
	I mean, he even held them afterwards, kicked everybody out of the courtroom and tried to get them to come to a different position.
	He's like, can't you come up to something else that allows these people to get what they need, some sort of balanced solution?
	And I kept telling him, Judge, they're not going to do diddly unless you revoke and dissolve that injunction.
	And that's exactly what they said.
	No, he must bow.
	He must bow.
	He must bow.
	We are the PDA.
	We are all authority.
	Pope Redding, the Secretary of Agriculture there, and the reason why I call him the Pope is not, some people thought I was being anti-Catholic or something.
	It's like nothing anti-Catholic at all.
	This guy's a pretender Pope.
	That you are not allowed to eat food until Pope Redding gives it as his blessing.
	Until he gives you the blessing, then you're not allowed to eat it in Pennsylvania.
	So, you know, there's a guy apparently has connections to dairy farms himself.
	So is he able to use the PDA to go after his competition?
	It sure kind of seems that way.
	I mean, it's obvious that Pennsylvania is one big cesspool of corruption.
	And so we will be filing a challenge.
	We're glad the judge recognized there's no public health risk of Amos Miller's products.
	We're glad he recognized the sincerity of the best testimony before him was that not only is Amos Miller's products not dangerous, they're necessary.
	They are great health and benefit to people.
	We're glad he recognized that he tried to get the state to back off its position.
	So, you know, I don't have anything against the judge.
	I disagree with the ruling because I don't believe the statutes give him that authority.
	I don't believe that even if it tried, it could constitutionally confer such authority upon them.
	And this violates people's First Amendment, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights, including, in certain contexts, James Miller, Eighth Amendment Against Excessive Fines rights.
	To be able to choose what goes into their own body.
	If you can't buy food directly from a farmer that you trust, that food you have every reason to trust, that you medically need, that is part of your religious belief structure, that is part of your political associative and expressive activities, then your core constitutional rights are being taken away from you at its very foundation.
	Because if the government controls your whole food supply, they control you.
	Once they own your body, they own you.
	What does political speech matter if you can't feed your family?
	What does religious affiliation and expression matter if you can't feed your family?
	All those other rights are derivative of the first.
	And so we're going to be challenging that.
	We'll be filing a motion to stay the part of the order that affects people outside the state of Pennsylvania.
	We'll focus on that initially.
	We'll be appealing the entire order.
	We're also filing a challenge to the unlawful destruction order.
	That ordered a bunch of food destroyed.
	I mean, get this.
	80% of the food they ordered destroyed, their own test proved had no problems whatsoever, was completely safe.
	What in the world are they doing?
	They're ordering food destroyed they didn't even properly tag and didn't have authority to search in the first place.
	And the destruction orders and law is crystal clear.
	It says you can only do it if you find it is unfit for human consumption, can't be made fit for human consumption, and has no animal or beneficial use.
	They didn't even try to meet any of those four standards.
	Their new interpretation was, we're going to call it misbranded if you have food in your possession that we haven't given you permission for.
	That's absurd.
	There's no legal basis for that.
	So we're going to be filing that in a court of common pleas.
	We're also going to be filing a civil rights class action on behalf of the members of Amos Miller's Organic Farm, some of whom had food that was already theirs, that was sitting there, that's now being ordered destroyed.
	But also people who are now denied and deprived all of their constitutional rights under both the Pennsylvania and federal constitution.
	By the actions of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Constitution both governs their behavior.
	So that civil rights complaint is coming to establish food freedom as a civil right and civil liberty in America.
	The Amos Miller is able to give stuff away.
	So it's raw milk related.
	Non-commercial use is fine.
	But he has a lot of other food available other than raw milk products.
	So that hopefully will keep him afloat.
	There are people that are continuing to donate to his defense fund that almost all that money goes directly to him.
	And I've established and we've beefed up Free America Law Center.
	We'll be a one-stop shop location for everything about the Amos Miller case.
	All the legal pleadings, all the information, public information, other information about his case, so that if you have anybody and somebody who asks about it, you can point him there.
	On top of that, what we're going to be doing is we're going to have a special merch just to fundraise at Free America Law Center to cover the legal fees side of this.
	Because obviously it's going to be a very expensive case that we're already doing on an extremely discounted basis.
	And it will continue to do whether we get the money or we don't, to be honest.
	But obviously it helps the more resources we have to be able to mount the best defense for him.
	So I had a great dinner at Amos Miller's.
	I guess PDA might call it an illegal dinner.
	But again, the best food I've ever had, I got from Amos Miller.
	And I've eaten at the greatest restaurants in the world.
	I mean, quite literally.
	The three Michelin-starred restaurants all around the world.
	The Fat Duck, Joe Rubichon, Guy Savoy.
	I've had the ninth-ranked Kobe Steak in Tokyo.
	I've had the privileges of that part of my life.
	And the best food I've ever eaten is at Amos Miller's table.
	And all the efforts to, you know, what they've really done is they've made life hard and difficult for some of his members for a certain time period.
	And hopefully we'll be able to find other places that they can get that.
	Other people will, you know, help them in that regard.
	But some of them, their health will be just put in jeopardy by this judge's action.
	And I guess he better hope no great sad consequence comes about from his unwillingness.
	To take on the state.
	But it's typical of a lot of judges.
	They won't take on, they won't confront the government.
	They won't hold the government to account.
	You know, I don't think he was a corrupt judge or anything like that.
	I think that just wasn't willing to hold the state to account.
	And he kept on with the laws.
	Like, the law's on my side, Judge.
	The law doesn't give them this power that they're claiming.
	The law requires a different standard than the one they're seeking.
	And equitable jurisdiction is very broad.
	And one of the issues on appeal is going to be did the court misunderstand its own power?
	The court's equitable jurisdiction is broad.
	The idea that you have to do whatever the state demands you do is not what the law of equitable jurisdiction has ever been.
	So thanks to all the experts that came in, thanks to Sally from the Weston A. Price Foundation that came in.
	They assumed that we had been paying all these people, all these 300-plus people that volunteered to testify, four of whom testified, two of whom testified live in the courtroom, two of whom, for health reasons, testified remotely.
	They quit asking it after the first witness.
	They're like, how did you get here?
	Who paid you to get here?
	I paid to get here.
	It's that important to me and my family.
	So the prosecutor, everybody was like, man, she kind of looks like a little demon up there.
	Well, little wouldn't be the right word.
	But the kind of weird golem-like personality.
	But that's the government in general.
	I mean, they had like a dozen people there.
	I mean, the judge commented on it.
	He's like, do you need all of these people?
	I mean, they're all stacked in there just to try to crush little Amos Miller.
	But Amos ain't going anywhere.
	I think that people will be able to keep him afloat.
	There's a lot of great products he still has that you can buy.
	There's some other people who are going to help sell their products through him, like health products, soap, things like that, in the Amish community.
	So you can get those products through him that will help him.
	And you can continue to support him at the Give, Send, Go that's set up for him.
	Most of that money goes to him.
	And then you can stay on top of it at the Free America Law Center.
	We're going to have, we got Miller's Milk with me with a little milk mustache.
	We got all kinds of t-shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies.
	We got some cigar stuff and some bourbon stuff that will be promoted.
	All of that's going to go solely to help fund Amos Miller's case and related cases.
	Right now, just will be going to Amos Miller's case.
	I mean, to really do, the government's going to spend a million plus coming after him.
	The legal defenses that we will mount will be over a million.
	We'll likely recover 10 cents on the dollar, 20 cents on the dollar.
	But that helps me not be broke myself while all this is going on.
	So appreciate that.
	And of course, the people that are coming out to the Vegas dinner in April, and we might be doing something special come summer up there in Lancaster County that we'll be announcing as a special dinner fundraiser event too.
	But we'll find ways to keep Amos afloat.
	He was of good spirits.
	He's like, yeah, you just got to be patient.
	He's always shocked at how people lie.
	The Amish are just that way.
	They act honestly.
	They expect others to act honestly.
	They don't understand people who lie.
	They not only don't anticipate it, they almost can't process it.
	And he was watching one witness after the other lie about him and lie about him and lie about him right on the stand.
	He's like, how do these people do this?
	You know, it just literally baffles him.
	And it's frustrating.
	The most frustrating thing for him is that he can't get food.
	He's just a farmer.
	He doesn't want to be a lawyer.
	He doesn't want to be in court.
	He doesn't want to be on the news.
	He's just a farmer who loves to farm.
	His father farmed.
	His grandfather farmed.
	His great-grandfather farmed.
	That's all he wants to do.
	His wife loves to cook.
	She loves when people get the chance to enjoy his farmed food and her exceptional cooking.
	The little kids are all great.
	They're all running around.
	Sweethearts.
	Adorable people.
	So, you know, this is just the beginning.
	And all I will leave people with is this.
	There's no country song that goes.
	You know, Jesus may love you, but I don't.
	And Jesus may forgive you, but I won't.
	Well, the Amish do forgive.
	And the Amish will turn the other cheek.
	But I don't, and I won't.
	And there will be consequences for all that has happened here.
	Robert, I need to go Google that song right now, but I'm going to leave it at that because that is the best way to end it.
	I'm going to give everyone the link to locals, to Rumble, because we're going over there.
	Apparently some people are eager to get into the fanny.
	I have so many jokes.
	They want to get to the fanny.
	If you want to know what the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture prosecutor was like, imagine a white Fanny Willis and you got the image.
	Okay, I've got it.
	All right, we are leaving the sphere of the YouTubes, and we're going over to the Rumbles, people.
	We did hit 20, what are we at now on Rumble?
	24,000 now on Rumble.
	So, everybody, come on over to Rumble.
	Vote with your feet, vote with your dollar, and we're going to get into the fanny.
	It sounds grosser than it is, and we're going to get into Trump immunity and a bunch of other stuff.
	And if you want to stay up to date on the Amos Miller case, we'll also be doing the Brooke Jackson case, other things that Free America Law Center is supporting.
	That's FreeAmericaLawCenter.com.
	So it's pretty easy to remember.
	FreeAmericaLawCenter.com.
	And now let's get into the fanny.
	Oh, God, I'm done.
	Okay, ending on YouTube.
	See you on Rumble right now.
	Did I just do this?
	I think I did it.
	I hope I didn't screw everything up.
	Oh, Robert.
	Okay.
	First of all, that's amazing.
	And it's amazing.
	It's discouraging, but whatever.
	We'll get into some white pills.
	We're not going to get into it.
	Let's get into the fanny right now.
	Robert, you were working all week, as was I, but my work consisted of listening to Adam Abate give a high school presentation debate of a closing argument for Fannie Willis and the state.
	Actually, I get mixed up.
	I think he's for the state and not for Fannie Willis personally.
	But if anybody didn't watch this or observe what happened, Fannie Willis comes into the court during closing arguments.
	And they were passing notes to Adam Abate while he was giving...
	It's a meltdown.
	It's a meltdown.
	The guy is giving case law to the judge, arguing that...
	Did she use her gorilla something other?
	The gorilla grip, I don't know what...
	I didn't see it.
	I saw people talking about it.
	I don't know what they're talking about.
	Apparently that's her ID on some sort of texting app or one of the things.
	That's what she goes by.
	Hold on, but I'm going to have to go to Urban Dictionary.
	Gorilla Grip.
	So, I mean, Gorilla Grip is a certain kind of product, but she added it to a different part of the body.
	I don't think we can get into that right now.
	No, we definitely did not.
	So I didn't notice that.
	That just gives you a sense of the mindset of these people.
	They're so power-hungry.
	They're so used to abusing their power.
	They're so used to using it for personal self-enrichment.
	And they're so used to lying their way out of it.
	What people saw in Fannie Willis is what the people who were in that courtroom got to see with Amos Miller.
	The government just lies about everything.
	They make stuff up.
	They abuse their power whenever they want to.
	And the question is, will courts ever hold them to account?
	And we'll see what the Atlanta judge does.
	But, I mean, I think a lot of people that are unfamiliar with the ugly underbelly of the American legal system, particularly when it involves prosecutors in the state, whether it's the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, the Department of Agriculture of Pennsylvania, or the Fulton County DA, or the so-called Special Counsel Jack Smith, or Merrick Garland of the Justice Department, who's out telling people how he's going to try to make sure they can steal 2024 at a church on Sunday.
	He was talking about just this today.
	What you saw, what you're seeing is the real truth of who...
	And you can see, imagine if those Georgia proceedings...
	Had not been video broadcast.
	Nobody would be able to understand it or appreciate it.
	By the way, I've looked at it.
	And the institutional media's spin could have dominated the storyline like the Pennsylvania courts like to do.
	They're in bed with the institutional media so they can spin it a certain way.
	I had some very prominent political people in Pennsylvania reach out to me afterwards and say, Barnes, that's an institutional problem in the state.
	What the courts are doing.
	And by the way, we are going to bring First Amendment suits for some people on that too.
	It's like they're going to regret the day they decide to try to make Amos Miller an example because by the time we're done, we're going to work to fix a lot of things in that state.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	I'm now reading all of the various definitions of guerrilla grip in Urban Dictionary.
	I had no idea.
	I swear I thought I was one level beyond that.
	I just thought it had to do with hands.
	Oh, alright, so I didn't notice that, and now I did, and I wish I hadn't.
	The closing arguments were, it was a train wreck.
	They were passing notes to Adam Abate.
	He was flubbing, misrepresenting the law, misrepresenting the legal standard, misrepresenting the case law to the judge, where the judge's like, where in the case law does it say that?
	And he says, about to faint.
	I don't know where.
	And he's like, oh, it's a footnote.
	The judge was helping him.
	And this guy puts people in prison.
	I mean, you dug up that case where he had previously...
	Basically, suborned perjured testimony by improperly intimidating witnesses.
	To get a conviction.
	Goes up to a woman who he knows was on her third or fourth shoplifting, which becomes a felony at that point, and says, you don't want to go to jail, do you?
	This is according to the judge in the case.
	I'm not making this up.
	And says, you give us the answers the state wants, according to the witness, and you don't go to jail.
	You're a woman.
	And it was in there.
	It was in there.
	So, dumb.
	Incompetent and corrupt.
	And that's a very, very bad combination.
	That's a typical government prosecutor.
	You just described the qualifications of a typical government lawyer in America.
	And it's so true that if nobody had seen it live with commentary, with memorial...
	You wouldn't even believe it, right?
	You wouldn't believe it.
	And the other thing is, you might believe CNN when they say, Ashley Merchant made accusations that...
	The relationship started before they said they did with no other evidence.
	Oh, you mean like not the other witness in the case, Yurti?
	So, bottom line...
	Closing arguments came.
	I don't know if you saw much of it, but...
	I saw bits of it, but it was obvious what we talked about from the get-go.
	The relationship started beforehand.
	They were lying and committing perjury about it.
	They basically were engaged in an ongoing money laundering operation whereby prosecuting Trump was used as the pretext to get her a bunch of free trips by having the funds go to her unqualified boyfriend.
	Adulterous boyfriend.
	These luxury vacations.
	I mean, it turns out, by the way, Letitia James has been using campaign funds to achieve the same thing.
	In New York, by the way, where they kicked out George Santos from Congress and are federally prosecuting him for far less.
	Allegations of misconduct concerning campaign funds.
	The Attorney General of the state of New York is doing it institutionally.
	As a matter of the same person trying to bankrupt President Trump and not be able to allow his campaign funds.
	For once again, like the Amos Miller case, no victim.
	No victim of any kind.
	Not just no victim.
	Everyone involved in the transaction was happy and made a lot of money.
	That's exactly like Amos Miller.
	Everybody's like, please let me have his food.
	Please let me eat his food.
	I mean, it's insanity what we're seeing these Stassi Soviet-style legal systems exposed.
	And the only question is, does this judge have enough common sense to see what everybody else could see?
	Because those proceedings, unlike the Pennsylvania proceedings, were not in secret.
	Everybody can see it.
	I think the judge will make the right decision and we'll see.
	Hold on, I had one question for you.
	Do you think he'll do it after the deadline to challenge him in the election?
	Phil Holloway came on and I'm now friends with him and I like the guy.
	The chat was giving him a hard time because he supported What's-Her-Face.
	Oh, what's her name?
	Fannie Willis.
	He supported her.
	He said he had a lawn sign on.
	And he said he supported her knowing that she was, you know, running with the Get Trump campaign.
	I see.
	Dude, that's the guy now that you want to make friends with, not alienate.
	He seemingly supported Fannie Willis when she was campaigning on that.
	And now he is firmly on board with she went too far and he's probably going to vote Trump.
	So you want to alienate a guy that's now on your side because he's seen the corruption?
	No, don't be stupid.
	But...
	Is he going to wait?
	He's going to wait.
	There's no question.
	The decision would take too long.
	When is the deadline for challenging?
	Phil said give or take mid to...
	End of March.
	So we're there.
	Yeah, so he'll issue an order in April.
	April!
	No skin off anybody's back.
	Issue an order that disqualifies Fannie.
	He'll get some activist nincompoop running in the race.
	He might get one now anyhow, and that might piss him off even more.
	I think everyone has seen it's politically popular now to kick Fannie off the case, to kick Nathan Wade off the case, and to bring down the hammer on these nincompoops.
	I thought the best argument, closing argument was...
	The state is right now a laughingstock.
	I don't know which lawyer that was.
	I think that was Giuliani's lawyer, but I forget.
	Yeah, he's like, it's a laughingstock, period.
	Everybody knows it.
	I'm making the jokes, and they're getting a lot of laughter on the internet.
	So I think the judge is going to get it right sooner than later, maybe later than sooner, but we'll see.
	But yeah, bring it back to Fannie, not Fannie Willis, Leticia James.
	Robert, first of all, I try not to make these observations.
	I mean, it's Alvin Bragg, Leticia James, Fannie Willis, being subsidized by a man who has decided he can make more of an impact at the state level than at the federal level, George Soros.
	I mean, this is a well-designed plan that people are now catching on to, so it doesn't have much life left in it.
	But the news of the...
	I need to give credit to the person who did it.
	I'll get that in a second.
	The news of this breakdown from an independent journalist is that Leticia James has been using her campaign donations like a slush fund, whatever the hell she wants to call it, to go out for dinner, Dunkin' Donuts, hotels, flying around.
	Some of the stuff I can be forgiving.
	You know, the same thing Swalwell does.
	He's not busy banging Chinese spies.
	He's using campaign and congressional funds to take luxury vacations.
	Well, it's still not clear.
	I apparently paid in cash for some Super Bowl tickets, and people are like, where did that come from?
	So, you know, that's just the officials.
	That's the unofficial story at the moment.
	But yeah, what you're seeing is how these systems really operate.
	They're power-mad systems of corrupt, sociopathic people who, when caught, are used to getting away with it by just lying, right?
	In other words, they didn't start lying now.
	They lied when they're prosecutors, when they want to set up somebody, when they want to railroad somebody, when they want to get back at a political adversary.
	I mean, this is who they are.
	Now, obviously, like somebody asked in the chat, was pointing out they were a prosecutor in Texas, and that doesn't describe every prosecutor.
	I'm not saying it describes every prosecutor.
	I'm saying it describes too many of your typical powerful prosecutors.
	And I would say of the prosecutors I've met, it describes more than half, unfortunately.
	Someone asked me, what do you look for in a judge?
	And I said, either a conscience or an IQ.
	And I don't need both.
	Unfortunately, it's rare I get either.
	That's just reality of the system.
	They're political actors.
	And they got to power not by the right reason and not by the right means.
	And there's no question.
	Someone had asked the...
	To me, the legal standard has always been appearance of conflict.
	It's the same as with a judge.
	Yeah, the guy Adam Abate is like, no, it has to be an actual conflict and only in the outcome, in the results of the outcome of the case.
	What the hell is that?
	That makes no sense at all.
	That would make the justice system a joke.
	You have to have the...
	Because it's all about protecting the image of the judicial system.
	It's about people believing in it and having confidence.
	The moment people realize it's a sham is the moment their power disappears.
	This is V for Vendetta.
	This is actually what the Einstein Institute used to tell people that helped create revolutions around the world.
	You know, you had the four pillars of power, and underneath it was the fifth pillar of power.
	We were teaching this for the people leading the color revolutions in parts of Europe and then the Arab Spring Revolt.
	And what it was we were teaching them is that the perception of power is actually the key to all the other power, because they still need compliance.
	They can't kill everybody.
	And as long as they can't kill everybody, they need mental compliance here.
	If they don't get mental compliance, they're out of business.
	I had this conversation with a prosecutor in Maine years ago about tax cases.
	And he was like, look, if we get to 20% of the people who challenge whether this is legal, we're going to lose our entire tax basis.
	And I was like, well, you shouldn't prosecute my client because I'll make sure every lobster man in Maine believes that by the time I'm done with the case, whether you get a conviction or not.
	And then he came up with a good resolution in that case.
	But it's because the perception of power is critical.
	So all of the ethical standards governing both judges and prosecutors is about that perception of power, and that's why it's the appearance that matters.
	It doesn't matter whether there's an actual conflict or not.
	Is there an appearance of a conflict?
	Because then if people have doubts about whether the prosecutor is impartial, then they have doubts about the justice system writ large, and then the whole thing, their whole house of cards, collapses.
	That's why his argument was an absurd argument.
	But it wasn't even substantiated by the case law that he gave to the judge.
	The judge knew the case law better than him.
	He got the version of ChatGPT that at least brings up proper case law.
	But Robert, just so I can give credit where credit's due.
	V-I-L-L-G-E crazy lady.
	So village crazy lady.
	Mel.
	Got a beautiful pit bull mix in there.
	Southern woman, love my family and my country, American flag, joined June.
	This is her expose.
	And it goes into Leticia James' expenditures or expenses from...
	Credit to Mel, but also that should be an embarrassment on every journalist in New York.
	Yep.
	How is no journalist in New York, the media capital of the world, at the New York Post, Rupert Murdoch?
	I get he didn't like Trump, didn't want Trump to run, didn't want Trump to win, etc.
	But why does it require Mel to expose this?
	Just like why does it require Julie Kelly and Darren Beatty at Revolver to expose January 6th rather than all the journalists in Washington, D.C.?
	I mean, why is it independent journalists are the lead on Amos Miller's case?
	I mean, Philadelphia's got a robust media.
	Slovenia's robust media.
	No, it's captured.
	They're captured and serving.
	They're just stenographers.
	Just call yourself a stenographer of the state.
	Why not?
	This should be exposed.
	But this is systemic fraud and corruption.
	And I have no idea.
	I mean, they committed perjury right in front of him as a judge in the case.
	How in the world do you let her stay on the case?
	Because, Robert, it had nothing to do with the actual allegation.
	They're just lying about when they started having sexy time.
	It's totally normal.
	I mean, you cannot have a perjuring prosecutor in a perjuring about her own disqualification not disqualified.
	But the biggest thing about the Leticia James case, I'm just bringing up another tweet here, speaking of stenographers for the state, captured media.
	Lying journalists.
	John Harwood, I remember when he was an actual journalist.
	I remember his face.
	He was always fake.
	He was the one who tried to lie to Trump in 2016 when CNBC sponsored a debate.
	And Trump was like, uh-uh, you're lying.
	Well, that's fine.
	I'm young.
	I thought he was once upon a time decent.
	Journalist, public speaker, whatever.
	I never was.
	Okay, listen to this.
	We have crime.
	We have migrants.
	Some migrants commit crimes.
	Crime rates are falling.
	That's the lie right there, by the way.
	We do not have a growing...
	That's the second lie.
	That's just something demagogic politicians seeking votes like this.
	Is he a journalist?
	Or is he...
	He'd be a better press secretary than Karine Jean-Pierre.
	Hey, John, go.
	You might get a pay upgrade.
	That's what they all really are.
	They're press secretaries for the state.
	The issue with Leticia James' disclosures, and it's the big one that Mel gave, and I put her link out in Rumble.
	It's the ghost donors.
	How the hell are they getting so many out-of-state donations at small amounts that are...
	Well, James O 'Keefe has been uncovering this.
	And other groups have been uncovering this.
	That people are giving money that didn't know they gave money.
	So I think they're using bots and AI and their control over the...
	I mean, the political control over systems like PayPal, which are owned by ideological adversaries of the conservative cause and by the ideological allies of Letitia James, that something has happened and that they are somehow getting donations from people who, when people like James O 'Keefe follow up with him when he's not busy asking Judge Engram how he's doing there at the gym.
	I guess they got James permanently banned from that gym facility for forever.
	It turns out, of course, the judge is a perv.
	That doesn't not surprise you at all, right?
	Any 75-year-old guy that tries to show off his body and you're like, what?
	Buddy, that's nothing to show off anyway.
	That's like Fanny's little phraseology.
	I mean, you do kind of feel bad for Nathan Wade, man.
	I mean, he must have worked.
	Well, Trump is now going there.
	Trump's like, he was good at something.
	It just didn't have anything to do with the law.
	He's a superstar, Robert.
	But this is a joke.
	The Georgia justice system looks like a joke.
	They have to disqualify or there's no other choice.
	Under the facts, under the law, under the politics of the situation.
	And I agree, the judge will wait until after the deadline to challenge him.
	Before he issues that opinion.
	It's happening.
	But the other question is this.
	Given what Mel Village crazy lady disclosed on Leticia James, do other people delve into it?
	Are there going to be...
	Oh, I'm sure somebody somewhere is going to have to at some point.
	Now, to be honest, I mean, well, Trump has a mixture of lawyers.
	But Trump, like, for example, this great self of Fannie Willis is because she was stupid enough to prosecute too many people.
	Trump's people probably wouldn't have uncovered this.
	God bless them, but it didn't get uncovered by Trump's people.
	It got uncovered by other defendants' lawyers.
	Yes.
	Because when you go after that many people, then there's going to be somebody on that list.
	If you have an IQ over 50, you don't go after Jeffrey Clark.
	You're going to go after a great lawyer who's going to hire a great lawyer?
	How dumb do you have to be?
	You have to be dumb enough to be Fannie Willis who thinks you could lie on the stand and get away with it.
	They have my cell phone records?
	What?
	I thought that was...
	What?
	The same thing I've been putting people in prison for?
	Oh, and he stopped by at 12.35 and left at 4.30 in the morning?
	What was that for?
	A special emergency legal conference?
	I don't think I've ever had a special emergency legal conference where...
	Somebody, I had to go over to somebody's house from 12:30 in the morning to 4:30 in the morning.
	You know, I'll tell you one thing about it.
	Even if you did, if you're a married person, you don't go there anyhow.
	But no, he went for the gorilla grip, apparently.
	That's exactly right.
	You got Ashley Merchant, who blew this thing wide open.
	And it's funny, we watched the closing arguments.
	Ashley Merchant's husband gave the first intro of the closing arguments.
	He was good.
	Yeah, it was the call of booty.
	But then Sadow pleads.
	He pleads better than most.
	I know Sato.
	He's old school.
	He's an old school criminal defense lawyer.
	So he's going to be good at that.
	And not so much the investigative side.
	He's going to be good at the pleading side and talk in front of a jury.
	He defended all the Gold Club people.
	He has some stories.
	I can't share those here.
	Maybe I'll share them at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Maybe with a bourbon or something.
	We shared some stories back in the day.
	We had some mutual clients.
	I was just reading some of the chat in Rumble.
	To be honest, if Trump had put more of the right people on, they should have added that about Letitia James already.
	But credit to all the independent journalists out there, like Meg and others, uncovering it for us.
	But some people are going to go with the 4D, 5D chess.
	Let the conviction come down so that you can then embarrass Letitia James more.
	It should have been brought out earlier.
	Oh, right away.
	Absolutely.
	And this was great work exposing Fannie.
	I mean, that was it.
	But again, that's because they went after way too many people.
	That this was going to be fought on every direction.
	That case is blowing up.
	The Florida case with Judge Cannon is already blowing up.
	And now the Supreme Court has taken the Trump immunity case.
	They were all squealing and crying and MSNBC.
	You would have thought the world ended.
	Well, now I'm getting mistaken on weeks.
	This happened last week, right?
	We didn't talk about this last Sunday where I was saying a stuck pig squeal.
	Yeah, this just happened this past week.
	It's so wild to me that you can have a bunch of people who call themselves journalists, lawyers, judges.
	Oh, Judge Looney coming out and saying no reason in the world for the Supreme Court.
	Remember, this is Judge Looney.
	This is the judge who said it's okay for America to kill other Americans on American soil without any due process of any kind.
	You could just summarily execute him.
	No problem.
	We'll call that on the battlefield.
	That's how nuts this guy was.
	Federalist Society wanted to put him on the Supreme Court, this lunatic.
	So, Robert, two funny things.
	First of all, I didn't know that about Ludwig, and now it explains a few things.
	I had someone who I...
	Like and respect, say...
	Ludwig was the one who told Mike Pence to sabotage Trump and gave him the legal cover to do so in 2020.
	That mother...
	Same guy.
	I don't swear.
	He's been one of the key conspirators against Trump all along.
	And he's the reason people like him are why I do not trust the Federalist Society.
	I had someone who I like and respect say, hey, Viva, you should go submit, apply to the Federalist Society.
	And it's like, oh, you don't watch our show very often.
	This is to say there aren't great people at the Federalist Society.
	There aren't plenty of good people over there.
	But too many people at the top have been corrupted by institutional power and they promote people like Ludic.
	It was wild.
	So I'm listening to him.
	It was on MSNBC, I think.
	So that should have been the biggest red flag.
	He's like, no reason in the world.
	Because the D.C. Court of Appeal...
	Robert Ludic is the one who, with Tribe, came up with the idea to keep Trump off the belt.
	Yeah, well, that's when I first discovered him.
	I just thought he was dumb.
	I didn't think he was corrupt.
	Oh, he's completely corrupt.
	As deep state as you get.
	Well, he says no reason in the world why the Supreme Court should take up this decision to the immunity challenge.
	Which is ludicrous.
	But that was a sign that he knew that if they did, he was screwed and his cause was screwed and the anti-Trump cause was screwed.
	But Robert, he's got three...
	Court of Appeal judges from the corrupt state of D.C. who issued a masterful, that was his word, masterful decision.
	So bottom line, Supreme Court says we're taking it up.
	The lefty, and I don't like using snowflakes or libtard expressions, so I won't, but I just did.
	They all are up in arms that this is dilatory tactics.
	No reason to do this.
	They're slow walking, I think is the expression, the immunity claim.
	Even though I had to correct a number of people, they're literally expediting it so that they can hear it quicker.
	The thing is this, you have to be not stupid, you have to expect everyone around you to be stupid to say the Supreme Court should not take up the most monumental case involving Presidential immunity ever.
	And this impacts, I mean, if the New York judge was honest or ethical at all, he would put off that trial until the Supreme Court ruled because the immunity case impacts every case.
	It impacts the Florida case.
	It impacts the Georgia case.
	It impacts the New York case, not just the D.C. case.
	And, by the way, I'm going to take three seconds to say it.
	30,268 live viewers on Rumble right now.
	That doesn't include locals where we have 2,000.
	They're announcing a whole bunch of new cool stuff at Rumble.
	It's amazing.
	Thank you all, by the way.
	But now I want to get back to Rachel Madcow.
	I'm going to say it, Madcow.
	Rachel Madcow.
	She comes out and says, it's an indisputable question of law because Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, which necessarily meant that you could have post-presidential prosecution for accusations of crimes of all presidents.
	No, it didn't.
	Sorry, I just spat on my computer.
	By definition, it did not.
	I mean, all the pardon did.
	Was prohibit the issue from being litigated as to whether or not there was going to be a presidential immunity applied.
	The other component of the pardon was to preclude the impeachment proceeding from going further and convicting him and then setting up the impeachment as grounds to indict.
	So it was both of those.
	It was not at all a legal precedent that says you can indict a president after he has been president for things he did while president without an impeachment and conviction.
	And that's what I wanted to flesh out.
	I'm going to get to the subset of this fleshing out, but it was to prevent potential...
	Post-presidential impeachment of Nixon.
	Correct.
	The goal was to end it.
	And everything related to Nixon.
	No more criminal cases, no more civil cases, no more impeachment cases, nothing.
	I'm going to give him a full pardon and end the story.
	Everybody move on.
	Now, so she says, well, Gerald Ford, who was the worst president by and by?
	I thought it was, was it Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford was right up there?
	I mean, the Bushes are the worst.
	Anybody connected to the Bushes are the worst.
	In my book.
	There's an old Louis Black routine about how you can actually, the Bushes are tied to one of the other worst presidents back in like the 1850s.
	Was it Pierce?
	It's one of those people.
	It turns out there's family connections.
	Like, man, they really did inbreed incompetence.
	Nobody did it like the Bushes.
	I mean, Carter left.
	The most unpopular, if the goal is lowest approval rating while president, that's still a tie between George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.
	They were the ones that at one point were in the 20s while they were still president in terms of job approval.
	But I would note with Nixon, that was only at the peak of Watergate.
	He was otherwise a very popular president.
	Whereas W. was very controversial and by 2000 and...
	Five, he was a dead man walking.
	He was underwater the rest of his term.
	But now Biden is getting close to replacing all those numbers.
	In any honest media, he had been there a long time ago, but there's no honest media because they still list Trump as the worst president ever.
	I thought it was Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, a close second, but bottom line...
	Jimmy Carter was never that unpopular.
	He was usually in the 40s.
	I mean, he just had some things happen while he was president that he was perceived as a good guy who was incompetent.
	That was the broad...
	Because he was unable to get people released.
	The Iranian hostages.
	The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan under his watch.
	The Panama Canal switched power under his watch from U.S. to Panama or was going to be under the treaty.
	And then we had stagflation.
	And, you know, Dan Aykroyd made all these great SNL skits that made fun of him.
	Chevy Chase was the one who made fun of Gerald Ford by falling down all the time.
	Because Ford fell down three times on the stairs.
	That's why Trump is paranoid of the stairs.
	Biden is still the only one to fall up the stairs.
	That was a new one.
	He's filled with so much hot air, he actually falls up.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	I made that up.
	I started watching The Octopus.
	It's the Inslaw.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm going to have a hush-hush on it this week.
	I knew as soon as it was on Netflix, I was like, I can tell you the ending in advance.
	The ending is going to be, oh, nothing really to see here.
	Don't go down conspiracy paths because you'll lose your mind.
	Because that's the only Netflix was going to air that.
	90% of what they're covering underneath it is actually all true scandal.
	Well, I remember this particular...
	That journalist was killed.
	Absolutely.
	I remember this.
	I started watching it.
	I was like, I know this already.
	This is a guy who couldn't possibly have slit his own wrist because he slit the tendons and your hands don't work after that.
	Somebody remembers the Dan Aykroyd making fun of Jimmy Carter.
	Inflation is your friend.
	Inflation is your friend.
	I'm doing a little bit of half Carter, half Clinton.
	But that was back when SNL was real.
	Now it's Italian TV.
	Making fun of Joe Biden.
	And finally, SNL is catching on.
	But the Italian TV did a great job of it.
	I mean, Trump is starting to incorporate this into his stump speech.
	When you're the end of a joke all the time, you're done.
	And that's where Joe Biden has reached.
	He's the end of everybody's joke.
	I actually almost think I forgot what we were talking about right now, Robert.
	The immunity.
	Trump clearly does have immunity.
	The Supreme Court's going to rule he has immunity, and all these cases are going to be dead.
	And they know it.
	And they knew it as soon as the Supreme Court...
	Oh, no, no, hold on.
	That was it.
	I saw you brought it back.
	Yes, the immunity, but it was the Rachel Madcow and her bringing out that Gerald Ford to say, oh, it's settled law.
	And I'm like, first of all, it might even assume your argument, it would only be settled law on someone who is not...
	Trump was impeached and acquitted.
	And so the other thing is, whether or not it's settled law, Trump was impeached and acquitted.
	Can you then go and indict him?
	Does he benefit from immunity for that for which he was already acquitted by the Senate?
	So no, Rachel, it hasn't been settled at all.
	And you're a lying pro.
	She gets paid $25 million a year.
	I don't want that.
	In large part by Pfizer, in terms of advertising dollars that go to MSNBC.
	And remember, she's the one who lied to people about the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine.
	Okay, so that's fantastic.
	So they're going to take up the immunity.
	Is it going to be 9-0?
	We're still waiting on the call it out.
	No, no, no.
	Probably not on immunity.
	You probably won't get the three liberal judges to go along.
	Unlike the ballot, you probably won't get the liberal judges to go along on the immunity.
	And the ones you've got to worry about are the wusses like Roberts.
	And Amy Coney.
	The compromised people like the Amy Coney Barrett.
	The Federalist Society.
	Well, we saw a little glimpse of that in the bump stock hearings that took place this week.
	Yes, I'm going to ask you what you think of that because I have no idea what happened, Robert.
	Well, hopefully the Supreme Court will get around to the election ruling that will make that Illinois ruling.
	Literally, a traffic judge issued a ruling that Trump can't be on the ballot in Illinois.
	Everyone always says the cream rises to the top.
	So does the waft of the feces.
	Like, this is where now...
	Low-level idiots feel empowered because another court did it.
	So don't blame me.
	I'm just following their precedent while the Supreme Court is going to take it up.
	So hold on.
	We're still waiting on the Colorado ballot.
	We expect it to be 9-0 or 8-1.
	And immunity, they're going to take it up.
	It's going to be a couple of months, and it's going to be glorious.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I think so.
	I think ultimately, because of the practical policy problems and the quagmire the judicial system has currently been brought into by all of these cases, they can get rid of the Jack Smith cases by just saying he didn't have the authority.
	But the better way to end this being used in the future as an extortion tactic...
	Which is what it would become.
	It would become an extortionate risk to every president.
	Hey, I'm a local prosecutor somewhere.
	If you don't do what I say is a policy thing, I'll invite you when you're out of office.
	We can't have that.
	The same reason there actually makes sense for presidential immunity.
	I don't agree with most forms of governmental immunity.
	The one place that actually makes sense is the President of the United States.
	But it's not even immunity, Robert, because if he gets impeached and convicted, it's not immunity.
	That's just the way the process goes.
	Unless you're impeached and convicted, you don't get to be sought after.
	It too has the power.
	We leave it in, we require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, a majority vote in the House, before we allow criminal charges to be brought against the President.
	So it's got to reach a level of political consensus across the country sufficient to warrant the case.
	We don't trust it being left in the hands of a future political adversary in control of the Justice Department or some local prosecutor anywhere in the country.
	And it'll put an end to all of the Trump's cases.
	And then it'll just be election on.
	But Robert, they don't get their conviction before November.
	They all know that they're DOA.
	Now, latest polls saying what I've been saying for a while, that you can ignore these polls.
	What if Trump was convicted of a felony?
	I was like, well, once it plays out, it's not going to impact people.
	Just like they used to have the polls say, if Trump was arrested, would you still vote for him?
	And I was like, you can ignore that.
	Wait till it actually occurs and you're going to see that nobody's going to buy it.
	And that's the latest polls do.
	They said if Trump was convicted, who would you vote for?
	They still voted for Trump over Biden.
	Yeah, they're like, we've seen this train and now we're not hopping along.
	So I think that's where it's going.
	Let me just just to make you look smarter in real time, but you don't need to look smarter.
	Just make you just to confirm your intelligence.
	This is Biden's wins.
	If you don't follow this shit.
	Twitter handle.
	Go follow it.
	It's a load of crap.
	Keeping score of Biden's wins, they say polls don't matter.
	By the way, it's breaking.
	Polls don't matter.
	President Biden consistently overperforms and Donald Trump consistently overperforms.
	The polls are even showing Biden is going to eat.
	He will not be on the ballot.
	He won't be on the ballot.
	My prediction now, and I'm almost half serious, Nikki Haley is going to be on the Democrat ballot.
	I mean, I want to do give a shout out to Robert Kennedy and Thomas Massey.
	For Amos Miller.
	Yes.
	They all came to Jeffrey Tucker.
	Good piece in Epoch Times.
	Talked to the editor of the Epoch Times earlier.
	They all came out for Amos Miller.
	Elevated, highlighted the significance and importance of his case.
	Rebutted the false claims and accusations that have been out there.
	But a special credit to Robert Kennedy.
	Who looked into it and said absolutely and used a Twitter account that reaches a lot of people.
	Not only that, the people in his world, Children's Health Defense, the High Wire, Del Bigtree, others all came soon thereafter.
	Dennis Kucinich, independent running for Congress, used to be a Democrat, wants to get involved.
	So the...
	And then credit, of course, to Congressman Thomas Massey, who also came to Amos Miller's defense.
	The...
	Donald Trump Jr. also did.
	Credit out there to Scott Pressler, who also did.
	I think it's only a matter of time before President Trump, and everybody should reach out to President Trump.
	He should speak out on behalf of Amos Miller.
	The Amish are registering at record levels to vote.
	And it happened right in direct response to the state's attacks on Amos Miller.
	I've done many major meetings with many Amish up there, and they're all deeply concerned by what they're seeing.
	These are people that have survived every attack known to man by the state and others going back from their very founding.
	And they're not going to buckle.
	They never have.
	They never will.
	But it would be good for President Trump to also explicitly come out for it.
	And then between Trump and Kennedy, you're going to have people who get more than 60% of the vote come Election Day, and that should send a message to the politicians in Pennsylvania, the bureaucrats in Pennsylvania, and the politicians across the country of how important and essential this issue is for all of us to be able to choose what goes in our own bodies.
	I was going to say something, and I've forgotten what it was.
	Damn it, Robert.
	Oh, no, it was, if you want to get to Trump, the way to do that might be to also ping Vivek Ramaswamy, who seems to have...
	Oh, yeah, he did.
	Yeah, we should definitely continue.
	And Vivek should be talking about it.
	He's talking about how they're, like, for example, trying to tell people that once they go down this path, like, people go, oh, just get a permit.
	I was like, first of all...
	That wouldn't solve any of the problems because the permit takes away all the ability to make all the foods that people need.
	But putting that aside, anytime you get to the point where you think your rights have to get a permit from the state for you to exercise, you've already lost your rights.
	Those rights are now gone.
	And Vivek rightly pointed out that the now Letitia James is going after meat producers on the grounds that meat producers are causing climate change problems.
	Get out of New York, people.
	Exactly.
	And will try to bankrupt.
	Those people.
	They're going to use the same kind of precedent they're trying to set.
	Once they establish that the state controls what food you can eat, rather than you, then they will use that and abuse that power more and more and more to require everybody to be politically aligned with them and their cause, or they will put them out of business.
	Just like they're doing to Donald Trump.
	Just like they're now doing to beef people.
	And people should tag Vivek.
	Vivek should have already spoken out about Amos Miller.
	That Amos Miller is the key test case.
	The beef case is not the test case.
	The beef case is an extension and continuation of the Amos Miller case.
	The Amos Miller case is the test case.
	So absolutely, the more people who understand the significance of this, the consequence of this, the more we can put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.
	And that is the underlying point.
	It's not a question of putting people on blast.
	Yeah, no, no.
	They need to know how key this case is and how important this is and that their voice can matter at a real, tangible level.
	Robert Kennedy understood right away.
	Thomas Massey understood right away.
	Jeffrey Tucker understood right away.
	It's amazing.
	I would imagine it's for different reasons.
	RFK has been involved in...
	But they understand the overlap.
	Massey has understood this, what's happening in the food, for a while.
	Robert Kennedy understands what's been happening in food and pharmaceuticals.
	It's been happening in multiple levels of government for quite a while.
	Jeffrey Tucker saw it.
	I mean, he himself said he got radicalized by COVID.
	He recognized that a lot of assumptions he had were wrong.
	He used to see the alternative health movement as, you know, kind of lefty cookies.
	And he's like, now he realized they are the most fundamental part of the leader of freedom and liberty in the country.
	It is food freedom, bodily freedom, medical freedom.
	They're all essentially intertwined.
	And if we don't protect that right, then we're not going to have any rights at the end of the day.
	If the state controls what you eat, the state controls you.
	And that's what Vivek is right about, calling attention to the Letitia James and the Beef case.
	But call attention to this case because it's even more foundational and fundamental to all of it.
	Robert.
	I want to bring up this here.
	This is an old comment from YouTube.
	You talk Jan 6 yet.
	We haven't.
	Ah, yes.
	We got two updates on January 6th.
	One, the reporter getting arrested, and the other, the appeals court recognizing they've been misapplying ridiculously our sentencing guidelines.
	Let's start with the court.
	Even Democratic judges on the court that all love, on the D.C. court, the District of Communism court.
	Even that court had to admit.
	That the sentencing guidelines were being applied in an asinine and absurd way to jack up the sentences of January 6th defendants.
	This isn't a case where people were convicted about obstructing official government proceedings.
	Which is all by itself ridiculous, and the Supreme Court's going to set that aside.
	Two-thirds of the years that people are facing in prison are going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court by June because that obstruction statute was preposterous.
	What bothers me, though, about this particular decision, which is being...
	It's a success because it has an...
	Oh, it is because they were adding to it, pretending that they obstruct justice in a proceeding.
	They also obstructed the administration of justice, which is a sentencing enhancement.
	It increases how much you're supposed to be sentenced to.
	That has never been applied outside of the investigative judicial process.
	Now, the statute really was already a reach.
	But the sentencing guidelines was a ridiculous reach.
	It says so explicitly in the guidelines.
	This is only for investigative and judicial actions.
	Trying to make sure that I have the...
	Oh, the enhancement is otherwise obstructs...
	I think the underlying charge was otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceedings or attempts to do so shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years.
	I remember why I screen grabbed that.
	That's the statute.
	That's the statute.
	The guidelines is even more limited.
	I mean, they're already misapplying the statute because this was not obstructing a proceeding.
	But the judge confirmed that it was.
	He says, yeah, you were obstructing Congress.
	But the administration of justice enhancement is only for when you prevent the investigation, when you contaminate the investigation of the judicial proceeding with, like, perjury, bribery, intimidating a witness, etc.
	Now, they're trying to pretend that there's this magical difference between the obstruction of justice statute and the administration of justice sentencing enhancement.
	There really isn't.
	That's why they're wrong.
	That's why they're going to lose on the obstruction of justice statute.
	But this was also an effort by the D.C. court to try to salvage the obstruction of justice charges.
	That's why there's a footnote in the opinion saying the statute charges, this is what's pending before the Supreme Court, whether the statute even applies.
	The other reason they did this wasn't just because it was legally obvious.
	They did it because they're trying to salvage the obstruction of justice statute and give an argument to the liberal judges hoping to persuade some moderate judges up there.
	See, we're willing to separate the two.
	We're willing to recognize this as enhancement, but it's broader as a statute.
	Please don't tell us that all the people we put in prison, we did so based on a preposterous interpretation of the law.
	Robert, I don't know if I screenshotted that part of the judgment.
	They're going to send it back for the remanded for sentencing.
	The original infraction was punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
	So they say, all right, we'll take out the enhancements, and now we're just going to increase your original sentence.
	What prevents him from doing that?
	What's supposed to happen is when you have the enhancement struck down, it's considered inherently suspect if you give the same sentence.
	Or if you give the worst sentence.
	So generally, about 99% of the time, some percentage of the time it's the same sentence, but almost never.
	They'll always go.
	By the way, I hope I didn't ask a very stupid question.
	I'm just thinking of how...
	No, no, no.
	But I mean, courts are cognizant of how that looks.
	So because of it, they always go down.
	They don't pretend the enhancement didn't matter.
	Well, so forget your enhancement.
	Forget that, but we'll just increase your base conviction.
	Because that looks like a punitive reaction to an appellate's success.
	It's what it is.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so that's why they don't do it.
	Okay.
	So then January 6th, minor success in the interim, they all run in jail, right?
	There's a lot of people who get reduced time, but the reality is, by summer...
	That obstruction statute is going to be thrown out, and two-thirds of the years that people are facing are going to be gone, and a bunch of people are going to have to be released from prison immediately.
	Wow.
	Amazing.
	We didn't talk about the blade.
	Oh, but the other thing with SCOTUS is the bump stocks.
	Oh, so you'll have to feel this, because I know what's going on with the bump stock, but nothing about the Supreme Court decision.
	What's going on?
	So they had the oral arguments this week.
	And this is about, you know, this was Trump who, you know, panicked in response to Vegas shooting.
	And so he banned bump stocks.
	If I may, hold on.
	I'm going to pause you there.
	You had an amazing hush-hush on the Vegas shooting.
	Oh, yes.
	And several other, we combined it into one big hush-hush event with two other hush-hushes famous from Vegas.
	There's some really odd ties involving that Vegas shooting and the Vegas shooter.
	Or the alleged video shoot.
	But Trump kind of wussed out and went along with a bump stock ban and pretended bump stocks are machine guns.
	Machine guns were specifically defined by law.
	And they're defined as something that you pull the trigger and then it automatically goes and it doesn't require any physical action by you for it to go on.
	So it doesn't apply to the bump stocks.
	And in fact, that's what the ATF had acknowledged for decades.
	Then, you know, Vegas happens.
	Trump tells them, hey, change the rules.
	And they do change the rules.
	And they pretend suddenly it's a machine gun.
	And so the Fifth Circuit recognizes it's not.
	And the biggest problem is there's criminal penalties of you having a machine gun illegally.
	So hundreds of thousands of people have bump stocks.
	All of a sudden, they're criminals overnight, many of them not even knowing it.
	So the rule of lenity would require that that not be interpreted in that way, aside from the plain text and the entire history of how that text had been interpreted for decades.
	So the conservatives on the court were mostly good at pointing out that the rule of lenity would suggest we shouldn't be locking people up for this radical revolutionary change of an interpretation of a statute that contradicts its plain text.
	The liberals were like, but oh, it's so scary.
	Doesn't it have like 800 bullets in like a minute or something?
	You know, I mean, guns are so embarrassing with liberal judges because they show you how they know absolutely nothing at all.
	Despite all the briefing and all the amicus and the big long record, they still get basic things wrong.
	And the reason is because their clerks are idiots too.
	Their clerks have no knowledge about guns.
	You know, I kind of knew we were going to have a little uphill with the Pennsylvania court that, you know, when clerks introduce themselves and tell me their pronouns, then I'm like...
	Stop, stop.
	Did that happen?
	Yeah, it's in their emails.
	She, her.
	And I'm like, did I really need to know that?
	I'm not a huge fan of this pronoun announcement stuff.
	Now, I get some people do it because they think it's protocol these days.
	I'll be less forgiving.
	It's absurd.
	And I'm not saying this to be funny.
	Unless you are of a Pat-type androgynous...
	Yeah, I had a witness like that.
	And it was the federal judge, the liberal democratic judge that said, hey, can we have a sidebar calls up?
	He goes, what do we call it?
	The judge said it.
	I was like, I don't think that's politically correct to call them it.
	I'm pretty sure that's not necessarily the right one.
	Is it a mister?
	Is it a missus?
	What is this?
	Except in those circumstances, I don't need a bearded guy saying he is.
	But now they do Air Force training where the trannies are talking to you, and they're wondering why they have a military recruitment problem.
	Aside from trying to mandate sticking dangerous drugs into people, which was one of their key problems, and the politicization of it, if you want to join the Air Force, do you want to go see a tranny present?
	That's not the person I want leading.
	I definitely don't want to be in a trench with them.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	I forgot what I was saying.
	Were we on the bump stocks?
	Okay, where were we, Robert?
	I think the court, because of the rule of lenity, will in fact rule that the bumps will agree with the Fifth Circuit.
	I think that otherwise they're like, well, the common sense interpretation is to get rid of these scary guns because they can fire so quickly.
	But not when you can put people in prison for an interpretation that's directly contrary to the law.
	If that's what Congress wants to do, Congress can go back and pass that law.
	That's what needs to happen.
	Not the judges rewrite it because Trump wussed out in response to a public incident.
	I think the Supreme Court will ultimately go because of the criminal implications.
	We're going to lock up hundreds of thousands of Americans for long periods of time because we relabeled what they had, a machine gun, when it wasn't ever considered a machine gun, and legally it isn't.
	But the other thing is, I never understood what the bump stock does, but you still have to pull the trigger for each shot.
	It just allows you to facilitate loading the bullet into it.
	I understand it.
	It doesn't seem to break the law.
	Robert, you know what I've realized I haven't done the entire night?
	I haven't read a Rumble rant the entire night, and I panicked because I reset everything on Rumble.
	But I gotta read these.
	Hold on.
	And I think I actually...
	Okay, we got the avatar.
	Robert, let me do this.
	I'm gonna do it quickly.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	Info tweet about Stalin communists.
	From Stefan Molyneux.
	He's on Twitter.
	I remember Stefan.
	Viva.
	He's using the Biden defense mumble mumble random words winning.
	Mike is very quiet.
	Need more cowbell, says Pinochet Helicopters.
	We got Pajabuz, whatever that says.
	Still waiting for my Reagan wall.
	Please shut up.
	Mahan Day 3. Can you and Barnes look into and try to go over the lawsuit involving Florida State University, FSU, and the Atlanta Coast Conference?
	I'm curious about...
	To know how to think about...
	I don't know about that.
	I'll give you the short answer.
	The Florida State will negotiate a lower buyout fee so that it can join the Big Ten.
	That will probably happen sometime over the next six months.
	We've got Blanc Givre, who I know, says, Live, a storage...
	Well, I don't know what this is, but let me just go ahead and copy that, and I'll see you later.
	Volume started off fuzzy.
	Then you fixed the game, so your volume dropped low.
	Without the fuzz, we won't...
	No, how good, bad, until Barnes comes on.
	Okay, I think we got there.
	Real Patriot Party says, Fanny, it's horrible that Donald DJT genuinely cares about the fate of America.
	What disregard for humanity this cretin dares to show up and care about the Americans.
	The arrogance.
	Terrible.
	Real Patriot.
	Okay, Zoe Grant, congratulations on 200 episodes.
	It was fantastic.
	Mr. Barnes, thank you for doing the Lord's work by fighting to protect our right to grow our own food and trade it with those that want that food.
	Cheers to you from Adrian Burzins.
	The engaged few, what are your thoughts on Jeremy from The Quartering planning to sue Rebel News and Ezra for the pedophile?
	I don't want to get involved in that drama.
	Well, it's Ian Chung.
	People have been complaining about him for years, that he steals people's stories and steals the credit for them.
	And apparently, you know, Jeremy from the Quartering has always called him out on it.
	And so he instead...
	He called him a fat pedophile.
	That's a problem.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now, he lives in Malaysia.
	Now, I get Rebel news.
	A lot of people have hired Ian over the years.
	I think Ezra would be better off cutting ties with Ian.
	Ian just causes trouble everywhere.
	He was a co-editor at Human Events.
	He's been to other places that everybody had to get rid of him sooner or later.
	Because there's a trollish aspect to his behavior.
	But what really agitates people is he steals their stories and claims the credit for them.
	And if he would just quit doing that, he wouldn't have a lot of this trouble.
	But he does.
	And trying to personalize going after Jeremy for the quartering is just kind of politically dumb, to be honest with you.
	But that's been his nature.
	He's been a favorite of Elon in certain respects, and he's used that and parlayed that.
	He should have used that to just...
	Quit doing the bad stuff, but apparently can't help himself.
	I mean, if he doesn't completely retract those statements, there's an easy defamation libel suit against him.
	And I guess he's hoping he can hide out in Malaysia.
	He might want to double-check Malaysian laws about that.
	Well, and also, he was...
	I still, you know, Ezra is not perfect and makes mistakes, but...
	He's carrying their name.
	Ian went for me early on during the COVID stuff because he doesn't like anybody to know because he's deleted a lot of the tweets, but he was one of the COVID panic people, one of the lockdown apologists.
	I remember, though, Ian.
	Well, and also, so he called Jeremy a fat pedophile who was advising people on how to clean their computers of CP.
	Yeah, completely false.
	It's a bit of a problem.
	Bit of a problem.
	Yeah, you can't just libel people and not expect consequence.
	Ginger Ninja, the man who made this chessboard.
	Ginger, I hope this is not a typo.
	Oh, we got Chris in the rubble!
	See, this is why I should...
	I have 6.57.
	We're two hours late.
	Chris, I'm sorry.
	Ginger Ninja says, unable to watch live, what an amazing milestone.
	I remember the first livestream with Barnes, and everyone in the chat was like, you have to have this guy back.
	I remember that, Barnes.
	Long live Viva and Barnes.
	God bless.
	Thank you very much.
	I, uh...
	I won't say with whom.
	I've been having a discussion.
	And I'm realizing the belief in God is like a chemical change of the spirit.
	And when it starts happening...
	Robert Kennedy.
	He says that he came back to believe in God because it was essential to his own personal reformation and dealing with addiction.
	I swear to you, I didn't know that, actually.
	He actually discussed that with...
	What's his name?
	Who's the guy that has the podcast that's kind of eclectic Ukrainian dude?
	But real popular podcast.
	Oh, Trigonometry.
	No, not trigonometry.
	Not the commie.
	That's just a joke if he's out there.
	I'm sure he's whining right now.
	He's still whining about Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin.
	Sorry your dad was a plutocrat and got called out.
	Sorry about that.
	I don't know who you're talking about.
	No, the dude that wears the black jacket and he's real popular.
	Oh, Lex Friedman.
	Yeah, it's that one with Robert Kennedy.
	It was a very interesting discussion about how he came back to religion.
	I might have to go watch that.
	I like Lex Friedman.
	I understand some of the criticism.
	Yeah, I like him too.
	For some reason, Darren Beatty doesn't like him, but I like him.
	I don't always agree with everything, but he does interesting interviews and interviews interesting people.
	He's clearly a mathematician in his personality, but does fascinating long-form interviews.
	Some people might get jealous as to how he lands those interviews, and that might be a problem.
	He and Michael Malice are funny when they're both on.
	They're both formerly from Ukraine, I think.
	Isn't that interesting?
	And both Jewish.
	Not that that changes anything, but I knew that...
	That's probably why they got out of Ukraine.
	Robert, you're going to get us in trouble.
	Yeah, by the way, Zelensky gave a standing ovation to a Nazi in Canadian Parliament.
	So don't forget that, people.
	Andy Pearson says Grant 777 should shut up a full satchel of Richards.
	Do you know what that means?
	Chris Rumble.
	And I believe that's Chris Pavlovsky from Rumble.
	Congrats on the 200th episode.
	I say I'll congratulate us for 30,000 people live now, Robert, for a good hour.
	It's magnificent.
	It might be less than an hour for the fact-checkers out there.
	Chris, thank you, and thank you.
	For everything, by the way.
	Yeah, for everything.
	They got a whole bunch of stuff up and going.
	They're really starting to integrate everything, trying to peak in 2024.
	So, you know, Rumble's in good set.
	They're going to win that case against Google, too, by the way.
	Google?
	They're fighting the beast.
	Google, the SEC accusations.
	It's just endless.
	Brazil, France.
	I say rumble.
	Not rumble.
	Twitter, Elon, should be taking the rumble approach in France and Brazil.
	Fuck you.
	Elon says go fuck yourself.
	You can do it.
	Leave Brazil.
	Let the people of Brazil know why they're not getting Twitter in Brazil anymore.
	Oh, you got stupid laws in your stupid country from your stupid government?
	Not your stupid country.
	We're out.
	And figure it out.
	And elect better people next time.
	That can happen.
	As Javier Malay in Argentina has proven.
	Allgoodguy says, Robert, congratulations on Amos.
	It's a tough one.
	Hold on.
	Stop it.
	Curious to know if Joshua Prime is in Pennsylvania.
	He's been shaking the trees of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania.
	Sean487.
	Love that you care, Burns.
	Love your passion.
	Wish you were there where more of the legal system like you.
	Yeah, wish there were more of the legal system like you.
	Tarkina53.
	Would love a processing fee.
	My eyes are getting bad.
	That could add on an order to help fund the free milk.
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	A prosthesis to me.
	Who medically need it?
	I would gladly pay to offset that cost.
	Kitty, awesome Fanny work this week.
	Viva, thank you very much.
	It's work that's fun.
	Panther AI or AL.
	So I was right.
	Fanny did admit using campaign funds to pay off people for personal use.
	Thought that was what I heard, but couldn't believe it.
	Has anyone moved on?
	No one's moved on yet.
	Campaign cash out in our house.
	Harry McDougal for Clark, I think.
	Let me screen grab.
	Shitballs.
	What did I just do?
	I lost the screen.
	Are you still seeing the screen?
	You are.
	I still see it, yeah.
	Jeez, I panic.
	Okay.
	Harvey, I'll get it later.
	There is zero check between the donor name and the address and the credit card address from Dalmar.
	Freed Awakening says the gorilla grip...
	Pussy pal.
	Was the Bluetooth ID for the rust armor in the Alec Baldwin case and not Fanny?
	Just FYI.
	I think Eric...
	Eric might have texted me.
	Eric Hundley might have texted me that as well.
	Yep.
	Eric Hundley texted.
	Eric Hundley, America's Untold Stories.
	So the pussy grip.
	We might have gotten mistaken.
	Whatever.
	That's kind of funny anyhow.
	Will Ed Meese's amicus brief ever get...
	Well, they said that they're only focused on the presidential immunity issue, not any of the other issues on appeal.
	Yeah, or Chattanooga whiskey.
	The absolute worst president ever was Wilson.
	Not even close, and not just for his actions, for all the damage he did to the country.
	For cleaning up afterwards.
	Grandpa's place.
	In rivers and bad government, the lightest things flow to the top, Ben Franklin.
	That means poo-poo.
	Mamo Fickler says, Epic Epoch is reporting a ruling from the Supreme Court regarding the ballot case will be posted Eastern Time 10 tomorrow.
	Why doesn't Trump's impeachment acquittal nullify all of this?
	That's part of the immunity argument.
	Reach out to see Ben and Doris.
	Steve and his team know me and they have all of our contacts.
	The Spang27.
	Don't be surprised if Fetterman takes up the Miller case.
	He seems to have come out of his brain fog.
	No joke.
	Why are you not using Rumble Studio?
	Last time I checked, the reason is there's a couple things I need to fix before I can do a guess and share a screen.
	So, not a big deal, but they're working on it.
	They're working on it.
	P. Nelson says, Every analysis I have heard predicting Trump loss at the Supreme Court regarding the immunity case, including Megyn Kelly and others.
	Scary thought.
	What's Robert's predictions?
	Trouble winning the immunity argument.
	Golda was from Ukraine and Jewish.
	Golda Meir.
	Pepperidge Barnes remembers, says Don Viches.
	Jim Sitala.
	Why?
	What would be Barnes' priority if he was Trump's attorney general?
	God, Barnes, that would be so cool if you could ever get there.
	It can happen.
	We should.
	Barnes, would you take it if it came?
	Fire everybody.
	That's what should happen to the government generally.
	Everybody who goes into any government agency, fire everybody.
	And then start hiring anew and hire a lot fewer people.
	Like watching these PDA people talk that have been up there 20 plus years.
	It's like, these people should not be getting taxpayer funds.
	This has not worked.
	We've tried the government experiment.
	It has failed.
	Time to fire at least half of them, probably two-thirds.
	Can you fire, or do you have to defund the entity?
	The best way to fire is to have no money available for the job.
	If I ran an agency, I would submit a budget that was one-third of whatever last year's budget was.
	So I'd be like, sorry, your job is gone.
	And this is not going to be written off as some sort of disguised racial discrimination or whatever.
	No, no.
	Most of them are white liberals.
	I'm going link to locals.
	Wow, I can't even get it in there.
	Locals, boom, shakalaka.
	Robert, what do we have left for the evening?
	Oh, we got journalists under attack.
	Blaze reporter arrested for January 6th.
	Catherine Herridge held in contempt for not disclosing who ratted out a Chinese spy.
	Alleged, alleged spy.
	I don't want to get sued for that.
	I mean, she says she wasn't a spy, and she wants to know who accused her of being a spy.
	That's something a spy would do.
	That's only something a spy would do.
	But I'm still a little curious.
	But the Australia vaccine mandate, thanks to the good work of Clive Palmer helping that litigation, ruled illegal.
	Finally, Australia is starting to wake up to some of this.
	Elon Musk sues OpenAI.
	Arizona elections case that upheld most of the voting laws, thank God.
	Finally, a court woke up to the fact that having witnesses have masks.
	Uh, was a violation of the confrontation clause.
	All these other courts had been covering up for that because they were all cowardice courts during COVID.
	Uh, but finally had a court say, no, that clearly does violate confrontation clause.
	Uh, we got a second amendment win in California.
	Uh, and that's it.
	Okay.
	Well, let's, let's do, we'll do a few more, uh, on rumble before we go over to locals exclusively.
	Let's do Catherine Herridge because it's important.
	Everybody should know this.
	Catherine Herridge.
	Yeah, well, these two, they're going to intertwine because I put on a vlog before the stream.
	It was like an advertisement for the upcoming stream.
	What's his name?
	Oh, geez.
	The Blaze reporter.
	He's a reporter at Blaze TV, but I keep forgetting his name.
	Yeah, Steve.
	Oh, for the love of me.
	Somebody will remember in the chat.
	No, but I just put on a video not even that long ago.
	It was Steve.
	They're going to get it before I get it, but I'm going to get it here anyhow.
	Steve...
	I'm not an FBI...
	Steve Baker.
	Yeah, I put a typo in there.
	You know how you can remember that?
	Baker Street, like Sherlock Holmes.
	That's not how I'm going to remember, Robert.
	I have a typo.
	I have a very unique memory recall system.
	So Steve Baker.
	He was an independent journalist like Stephen Horn.
	That's how I'll remember it.
	Stephen Baker and Stephen Horn.
	On January 6th.
	Documenting.
	They go into the Capitol.
	Into the Capitol.
	Ray Epps.
	Ray Epps did...
	Sorry.
	Ray Epps did not get charged.
	Little tidbit.
	Somebody showed up at the Amos Miller proceeding that was a Ray Epps type.
	Was trying to cause trouble.
	Was trying to instigate problems.
	Was trying to...
	And apparently they're connected.
	To this used-to-be raw milk advocate, who now apparently is a rat informant for the government, calls herself Raw Milk Mama, that she's gone from advocate to informant and rat.
	She's been attacking Amos Miller and everything else.
	People don't know that she's been ratting out people to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, ratting out people to other government agencies, trying to take out competition for the people that she markets for.
	She's become a sellout.
	But someone apparently connected to her was trying to instigate trouble.
	And credit to the Amos Miller crowd, you know, above average.
	You know, a lot of them were Amish.
	So, you know, they're not always, you know, they're not following things on Twitter.
	They don't do technology.
	But there was plenty of non-Amish there as well in support of Amos Miller.
	And as soon as this guy was trying to stir up trouble, they started saying, Ray Epps, Ray Epps, Ray Epps.
	So, you know, credit to them for calling him out and stopping him from trying to do anything wrong.
	But Raw Milk Mama should get off the train of libeling Amos Miller and other people and quit sending people out to do this kind of nonsense.
	Or she's going to be on a whole different level of attention than she's accustomed to getting.
	But yeah, I mean, here's a guy who's actually exposing...
	Corruption and fraud, including corruption and fraud in the trials, including perjury that took place.
	Independent journalist who simply was there in a media capacity filming what took place.
	And this is the second journalist they've gone after that I know.
	There might be another one, but I know they went after Owen Troyer.
	Well, they went after Owen Troyer.
	They went after Stephen Horn, independent.
	Right, Stephen Horn and now Steve Bakes.
	So three journalists, but this guy they only decide to target.
	After he did reporting on the trials, pointing out these government agents were committing perjury, and apparently the Justice Department was enraged at his exposing their fraud that they went back and decided to criminally prosecute him for things that aren't crimes in the first place and that are First Amendment protected.
	And they're doing this the same week.
	I mean, they even put him in leg chains, which is ludicrous.
	There's no need to put anybody in leg chains, least of all a guy who's self-reporting for the facility, self-surrendering.
	For the first arraignment.
	That shows you just how punitive they are.
	But also, honestly, that's on the marshals.
	The marshals can't be just taking direction from corrupt FBI and corrupt Justice Department officials, and courts should quit being complicit in this corruption.
	This is an absurd prosecution, and it's comparable the same week they're holding Katherine Harris in contempt for asserting her journalistic privilege rights that should be fully litigated before any contempt finding is made.
	But let's get to that, the leg cuffs.
	I mean, I forgot to mention that in today's vlog when I summarized it.
	First of all, they arrest this guy three...
	And a half years later, what are the rules of when it becomes too late to criminally prosecute for having not brought the charges in a reasonable time?
	Well, it raises a reasonable inference that this is another selective prosecution in violation of the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.
	It's a due process violation because it's a retaliatory prosecution for his press.
	So it's a First Amendment violation because it's a retaliatory prosecution for his speech and his press.
	And it's a due process violation because it's particularly tempting to cover up the corruption of the Justice Department by prosecuting a reporter who...
	I mean, this is because the courts have not enforced the First Amendment in too long.
	They've let prosecutors have too much discretion.
	It's time to enforce selective prosecution rules.
	A court in California did, and then the appeals court overturned it, when he was like, all you're doing is, when there's a fight between Antifa and anti-Antifa, you're only arresting the anti-Antifa people, when the Antifa people were doing worse, because this is an obvious First Amendment violation.
	But the California appellate courts don't care because they have refused to enforce the retaliatory prosecution provision.
	And the Supreme Court needs to step in and start making that more robust.
	And in the interim, the legislative branches need to start putting that even more clearly in the law because clearly the courts don't get it.
	That you cannot...
	No basis of any prosecution can be political or retaliatory motivation for constitutional speech, or it has to be dismissed as a matter of law.
	This is an obvious retaliatory prosecution for exercising free press, just like CBS did a retaliatory termination for Catherine Herridge outing corruption in the Biden administration, likely did so at the specific request of the Biden administration, who's currently trying to intimidate Fox News from any kind of adverse coverage of the Biden administration.
	And now a judge holding her in contempt because she's protecting sources, which is privileged in many contexts in federal court, and shouldn't be issuing contempt findings without at least providing for an appellate remedy.
	But he's wrong on the law, and he's only doing it because of politics, because this is the same judge that has a history of making politically motivated rulings in favor of the people he likes politically and against the people he dislikes politically.
	One thing about the leg shackles.
	Well, by the way, they're trying to extradite Julian Assange and could lead to his death.
	So this is an all-out war on the media by the Biden administration.
	Piece by piece.
	The guy, Stephen...
	And now I forgot his last name.
	Baker.
	Baker.
	Baker Street, Sherlock Holmes.
	But they put him in leg cuffs.
	How does that even happen?
	There was absolutely no need for that whatsoever.
	You only do that...
	In rare instances that the person is very disruptive or you think they're physically going to run around or they're going to do what that guy in Vegas did when he was like, you're going to do what, Judge?
	Well, let me show you how I won the high jump competition in high school.
	He cleared the top of the bench.
	I was like, that's an impressive physical skill.
	And now he's saying he was insane.
	That's his new defense to the charges above him assaulting the judge.
	I'm not guilty by reason of insanity.
	Hey, what else can he do?
	They got him on tape.
	He got confused.
	He thought the judge was not a judge or something.
	I don't know.
	But there's no basis for that.
	Self-surrender, you should be able to walk in and walk out.
	Also, it shows marshals are not doing their job.
	But they say self-surrender, and they say...
	Show up in shorts and flip-flops because it'll make it easier to process you.
	Now, this is still in D.C. from what I understand, and it's still winter in D.C. What sense does any of that make?
	I thought he was arrested in Texas.
	Usually the arraignment is held where you physically reside, not where the oil case is ultimately going to preside.
	Let me double-check that because I thought the idea of telling him to show up in shorts and flip-flops in winter...
	Okay, I'll double-check that while you talk about the Catherine Hetheridge.
	There was no reason for any kind of shankles to be put on them.
	And for that to be done requires the corruption of both the prosecutor, corruption of the marshals, and the failure of the court to do its job.
	Catherine Herridge, she got fired, her stuff seized by, was it NBC or CBS?
	CBS.
	CBS.
	They only returned her notes.
	After the union, the lefty SAG union, said, what in the heck are you doing seizing a journalist's notes?
	And then they were guilted and exposed by Jonathan Turley and others into returning those notes.
	But if this is happening at the same time, they're trying to hold her in contempt for exposing various forms of corruption and fraud in the Biden administration, including in this instance, whether it was a Chinese spy and not being investigated adequately by the Justice Department.
	I'm going to ask the chat.
	Where was Baker arrested?
	I'm getting two mixed answers.
	I thought he was arrested in tech.
	Usually you make your initial appearance in where you're located.
	That would explain shorts and flip-flops.
	Minor details, but the shackles are the biggest ones.
	Hetheridge gets fired.
	They seize her crap.
	They give it back to her after public outrage.
	and then lo and behold, simultaneously held in contempt in a civil trial from a Chinese national become American citizen, And being fined as much a day, more than she makes, so that it would effectively bankrupt her and ultimately going to escalate probably to jail time while she's trying to appeal.
	What the judge should do is at least stay the order pending the appeal, but he won't, is my guess, because he has a reputation as being a very political judge.
	If this was a liberal Democratic reporter and it was the Trump administration, it'd be front-page news.
	It'd be top of the CNN and MSNBC every other hour.
	ABC, CBS, and NBC would have put it on the front of their nightly news sessions.
	It would be discussed in every talking head group.
	And this same judge would refuse the contempt and be lecturing the Trump administration because he's so overtly, openly political.
	And again, it's not a surprise.
	What courthouse is it?
	The District of Columbia.
	I mean, when are the congressmen and the senators going to wake up on the conservative side and start immediately doing what Mike Davis agreed with us on Sidebar, call for the abolition of the District of Columbia as a court system, both federal and state.
	It has its own state court system, which is a local court system, which is also ludicrous.
	But, you know, these judges are so political.
	They defend the swamp and they help the swamp go after its critics.
	They have proven themselves incapable.
	Of being impartial jurists.
	Incapable of being impartial grand juries.
	Incapable of being impartial juries.
	Trial juries.
	You have to get rid of it.
	And if you don't wake up to that, you're asleep at the wheel.
	It's like in all these conservative states where they still let liberal cities direct things.
	Like in Georgia and Atlanta.
	Like in Texas and Austin.
	You've got to get rid of this.
	You've got to stop this now.
	Because the left weaponizes everything.
	It doesn't care about principle.
	So you need to recognize that and adjust the power accordingly.
	It was Texas, so that makes the flip-flops and shorts seem less unreasonable, but the shackles still not explained.
	And Robert, I'm going to bring these up and then we're going to head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	They put Navarro in shackles and handcuffs at the airport, says the Spang 27. Freddy65 says the shorts and flip-flops was so they could put him in the orange suit.
	Guess they changed their minds.
	Momo Fickler says, FYI, it's mom of Kyler.
	Thank you for all you do.
	I've been sharing with everyone I know.
	I live in South Carolina, but I taught my family in Pennsylvania about Amos Miller.
	Thank you.
	As a former Fed, I agree 100% with Barnes.
	Fire everyone, says Mits Snave.
	I was talking to one of the people at the Amos Miller rally was a long-standing, high-ranking FBI guy.
	And he was talking about how the agency has become a complete disgrace.
	And that we'd be better off just getting rid of most of it, if not all of it.
	Some of these things need to be burned down and start all over again.
	And in some cases, we don't really need to start all over again.
	Do we really need departments of agriculture?
	Do we really need a federal department of education?
	Do we really need all these bureaucrats?
	I mean, the federal government and our state governments combined carry a bigger share of GDP than so-called communist Venezuela.
	I mean, come on.
	Enough's enough.
	But over at VivaBarnesLaw and the afterparty.locals.com we'll discuss the Australian vaccine mandate being ruled illegal thanks to the good work of Clive Palmer supporting that litigation.
	Elon Musk suing Open Eye because they got a new solution in big tech.
	They're going to relabel their startups non-profit charities and then betray the purpose of the people who funded the charity so they can It get rich.
	You know, I wonder if Bill Gates Foundation has any ties to things like that.
	And Arizona elections case, masking witnesses, violating the Constitution, and a little white pill Second Amendment case addict.
	California.
	I'm not convinced on Elon Musk's case against OpenAI, but we'll see.
	You'll convince me.
	The other one there, the mask case is hilarious.
	It's hilarious.
	In the underlying facts is a comedy that you would not expect to turn into a courtroom drama.
	What we're going to do now, people, Robert, first of all, before we leave on Rumble, what do you have coming up this week?
	We'll be talking, making the rounds on Monday with a range of different press outlets to discuss Amos Miller and make sure more and more people are awake and alert to that.
	And then the bourbons.
	Return this week.
	Gone last week because I was in trial or in the hearing and preparing for it.
	Everything related to it.
	That'll be back at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And a little hush-hush on that octopus conspiracy.
	The conspiracy they're not talking about.
	That is true from the Netflix show that you won't get much value of.
	You'll get a little bit of value.
	Watch the first couple episodes.
	Ignore the rest for the most part.
	Ignore its conclusion.
	But there was actually a lot of truth buried in there that, in particular, a particular unusual agency and how certain gray space operators operate and how it actually relates.
	They talk about a particular security company.
	What they don't mention is that that security company also was controversial because of things like...
	Certain lone shooters that showed up in Florida some years ago.
	They happen to be security workers at that same company.
	You know how the deep state operates.
	The documentary hints at it and then runs away from covering the truth of it.
	I'll discuss it in a hush-hush this week.
	And I'm not laughing at it.
	It's just at the substance, but the...
	Same play over and over again, to quote Alex Jones.
	So what we're doing right now, we are crafting that lawsuit, naming all those PDA officials by individual name to add them as individual defendants.
	So we'll be working on that this week, too.
	So we're ending on Rumble right now, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	For those who are going to come over, Salty Cracker is live.
	He will give you a good laugh and some good education.
	So if you're not coming to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, Rumble has got what's left for the rest of the evening.
	And I will be live.
	Maybe not tomorrow.
	We'll see.
	But, you know, bouncing in and out for the rest of the week.
	It'll be amazing.
	Ending on Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Ending our 200th episode ever, Robert.
	It's been more than that, but we're ending this right now on Rumble.
	Come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and see you all tomorrow.
	They'll find you.
	They will know where to find you.
	Bum, bada-bing, bada-boom.
	Bum, bada-bing.
	Are we done?
	I think I've been singing bums the whole time.
	Robert.

▲