Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 10, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:43

Ep. 201: Big Fani! Brooke Jackson! Amos Miller! Letitia James! AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	For a long time.
	We disagree with the President's decision to cut back on our previous commitment to protect against drugs coming across the border.
	To cut the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Border Patrol.
	By the way, do you notice how bad his stutter is?
	I mean, it's just terrible.
	He's always had a stutter.
	I can barely understand what he's saying.
	We think we should do more to stem the flow of drugs across our borders, and we think we should go one step further.
	Let's go after the drug lords where they live with an international strike force.
	There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists.
	None.
	And they must know it.
	And we don't have to promise a world without worry or fear.
	We're not asking for that much.
	All we have to do together is to keep our promises and stay together.
	Thank you.
	That's part one.
	In this act of the Overton window shifting in real time.
	Let's go to part two, shall we?
	Part two, where is he?
	Inciting the erection.
	Chuck Schumer.
	Where is Chuck Schumer?
	I have it in the back here somewhere.
	No, no, no.
	Oh.
	Thank you.
	What the heck?
	I had Chuck Schumer in the back.
	This one right here.
	This is here.
	Part two in this play.
	We must create a system that converts the current flow of primarily low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States into a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy.
	Interesting.
	Let me elaborate.
	Please do.
	The first of these seven principles is that illegal immigration is wrong.
	Oh, whoa, whoa.
	And simple.
	What did you just say?
	Is that illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.
	Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress on dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now and on rationalizing our system of legal immigration.
	It's plain and simple and unavoidable.
	What happened?
	This was 2009?
	Well, 13 years, 14 years ago.
	Wait a minute.
	15 years ago.
	It's amazing how the world can change.
	Use phrases like undocumented workers.
	We convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.
	Testify.
	Which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.
	Indeed they do.
	I'm so nervous that this is actually just AI-generated fake video.
	It's impossible that barely 15 years ago, this is what Joe Biden might have been a little earlier than that, but Chuck Schumer, inciting the erection dude, said these things.
	I'm watching this and I say, someone's going to tell me that I just fell for an AI-generated video and Chuck Schumer never said the exact opposite of what the American government is saying and doing today.
	Think it's illegal?
	You're not going to say it.
	I think it is illegal and wrong.
	And we have to change it.
	Above all else, the American people want their government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law, and creating a rational system of legal immigration that will proactively fit our needs rather than reactively responding to future waves of illegal immigration.
	Don't you see, you bastard.
	They're not illegal immigrants anymore.
	Now they're all asylum seekers.
	You know, coming from Venezuela.
	South America.
	They're all asylum seekers.
	There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant anymore.
	So therefore the term shall be put into retirement.
	People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the U.S. legally.
	To the advocates for strong, fair, effective, comprehensive immigration reform, and I'm certainly one.
	Until you became open border, invade the country so long as we could secure their vote in the future.
	That the American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe that their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.
	And any successful comprehensive immigration reform bill must recognize this fact.
	Can you understand?
	It's not dereliction of duty anymore.
	It is causing a catastrophe to cause your country to be destroyed.
	Period.
	And it gets worse.
	I'm putting this together.
	We're watching the Overton window not shift in real time.
	We're watching it disintegrate in real time.
	We don't need to hear him not saying Lake and Riley's game again.
	Where's the one that I wanted to bring up here?
	Listen to this one.
	Listen to this.
	This is beautiful.
	He looks a little different here, but he really looks like Beavis and Butthead here.
	Can you scare an employer in this country, whether he's an agricultural worker or a housewife, into not hiring an illegal because the punishment's so high that if you get caught, it's a huge embarrassment to your family, and you may just get hit with a fine that'll kill you.
	Absolutely, you can.
	And that's what we should do.
	Well, I think we should do that.
	Because you can't catch everybody.
	No, no, no, you can't.
	And the last part of this is that the Democratic position also recognizes you've got 11 million illegal aliens here.
	They have to have a way to earn their way into the deal.
	This isn't amnesty.
	They're required to take 11 years worth.
	They pay a fine.
	They got to learn to speak English.
	They got to pass.
	I like the English part.
	Yeah.
	I like the English part.
	If we want the problems of Canada right now, keep encouraging people to keep their foreign language.
	English is going to unite this country, potentially.
	It always has in the past.
	I can't think of a country that has...
	Two languages as their accepted languages that is doing all that well, including Switzerland and or Canada.
	It divides us.
	I can tell you that I disagree with him on Canada, but that's only because they're idiots and they don't actually understand the linguistic dynamic in Canada.
	But set that aside.
	That was illegal aliens.
	There was no undocumented rubbish.
	Is this the one?
	There's just one more.
	Just imagine what we just saw there.
	Fines.
	Serious, comprehensive immigration.
	You can't have illegal immigrants coming here.
	You can't treat them the same as those who followed the rules to get here.
	You can't trust a government that's not hard on enforcing the borders of its country.
	And where are we today?
	Where are we today?
	First of all, look at this demented...
	He's a demon.
	He's a demented demon's face.
	Look at this guy's face.
	After he...
	Doesn't even pronounce, doesn't say Lakin Riley's name properly.
	And I'm going to get into the Associated Press article after that.
	Listen to this demonic man now.
	I noticed the look of surprise on your face when you walked into the chamber and you saw Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	It was priceless.
	You fainted shocked at seeing her.
	But during your response to her heckling of you, you used the word illegal when talking about the man who allegedly killed Lincoln Riley.
	An undocumented person.
	And I shouldn't have used it illegal.
	It's undocumented.
	And look, when I spoke about the difference between Trump and me, one of the things I talked about on the border was the way he talks about vermin, the way he talks about these people colluding the blood.
	Look at this guy's eyes.
	Just look at these eyes.
	I talked about what I'm not going to do, what I won't do.
	I'm not going to treat any of these people with disrespect.
	Look, they built a country.
	The reason our economy is growing.
	We have to control the border and more orderly flow, but I don't share his view at all.
	So you regret using that word?
	Yes.
	I noticed the look of surprise on your face when you...
	What can you possibly say?
	I don't want to show them any disrespect.
	God forbid!
	You should show an alleged murderer disrespect.
	And I'm sorry, what is the disrespectful part in calling someone who crossed the border into a foreign country illegally an illegal immigrant, an illegal alien?
	What's the disrespect in that?
	Don't disrespect me and call me a speeding speeder just because I got a ticket for going above the speed limit.
	Don't disrespect me and say I broke the law just for breaking the law.
	You went from hard on...
	Illegal immigration, enforcing the laws, making sure our parents are safe so you can call them up and wish them a happy night instead of checking to see how they're doing, to I don't want to disrespect the illegal immigrant alien who allegedly murdered an American citizen.
	I don't want to disrespect them.
	Thank you.
	Holy cows.
	And then getting into the, I know that many of you have already heard this, getting into the SCOTUS.
	Debacle, which should be screamed from the rooftops, dereliction of duty, impeachable offenses, and just overall inhumane immorality.
	Political win.
	He viewed it as a political win to me.
	It's not about him.
	It's not about me.
	I'd be a winner, not really.
	Say it.
	Ooh, ooh, ooh.
	I got something here.
	Lincoln.
	Lincoln Riley.
	Twice.
	Lincoln Riley.
	A young woman who was killed by an illegal.
	He came out and apologized for having said killed by an illegal.
	Can you imagine what that must feel like to be Lincoln Riley's family?
	And by the way, the button that he's holding up, he doesn't say that Marjorie Taylor Greene gave him that button.
	He makes it look like he came with that button out of an act of thoughtfulness.
	Lincoln Riley.
	Say your name.
	Lincoln Riley.
	Killed by an illegal.
	I'm so sorry I called her alleged murderer an illegal.
	I don't want to be disrespectful to illegal alien alleged murderers.
	Please don't cancel me, you tyrannical lynch mobs of the left.
	Oh, but don't worry.
	Don't worry, by the way, because he's got the backing.
	He's got the backing of the mainstream, sorry, not mainstream, legacy media.
	Associated Press came out and wrote an article.
	And they wrote in the article, he got heckled by Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	They said, say her name.
	He held up the white button and said, Lakin Riley.
	And I nailed them.
	And I roasted them.
	And I took to Twitter and said, you guys are the scum of the earth liars.
	He didn't say Lakin.
	You put it in quotes.
	He said Lincoln Riley.
	And then after I put them on blast on Twitter, they deleted the article.
	They deleted their tweet, updated the article, and added this paragraph of fiction.
	But he mispronounced her first name, so it sounded more like Lincoln to some.
	And the GOP critics instantly pounce.
	It's our fault for noticing that the demented old demon didn't even get her name right, and then we didn't know that this was going to happen the day of, but we could have predicted it a day and a half later.
	Apologizes to the alleged murderer, illegal alien.
	They added...
	A paragraph of pure fiction to the article because the original didn't say that and they deleted this tweet.
	Scum of the earth.
	Don't call them names.
	You've got to be polite with them.
	You've got to rationalize with them.
	You've got to explain to them why they are doing what they know is fundamentally immoral and unconscionable.
	The Associated Press makes a lie and publishes it.
	Gets called out on it, deletes it, and then adds a Paragraph of pure fiction to spin the naked emperor to make it look like he's wearing clothing.
	Oh, no, you see, what you were seeing, that was not his shriveled-up ding-dong.
	That was, he was wearing a tapestry that looks just like a shriveled-up ding-dong.
	He's not naked, moron.
	What you see as him being naked, it's a beautiful tapestry.
	Only the kings of kings get it.
	Holy hell.
	Where's my blood pressure machine?
	Good evening, everybody.
	It is Sunday night, so it's time for Sunday night with Viva and Barnes.
	You've just witnessed the Overton window shifting in real time.
	We're living through absolute insanity where good is bad, bad is good, up is down, down is up, left is right, and right is left.
	Don't dare apply the law to illegal immigrants who cross the border illegally.
	They're undocumented.
	Undocumented what exactly?
	It's a serious question.
	And I'm not even comparing this to myself like, oh, it's so hard for me, it's so expensive for me.
	No, it's a privilege to be allowed into a foreign country.
	Undocumented what?
	Undocumented citizen?
	Undocumented voter?
	So is that to say like, oh, these people who broke the law, crossed into a country illegally, are given more benefits than people who were born here.
	They're undocumented what exactly?
	I think we all know the answer to that question.
	Not breathe.
	Breathe.
	Breathe.
	All right.
	Good evening.
	So now, for those of you who are new to the channel, because there's a lot of you, I'm telling you, now I understand YouTube is using the Fanny Willis debacle, as interesting as it is.
	And...
	YouTube is using it as a distraction.
	I can see it.
	They don't want people talking about Lake and Riley.
	They don't want people talking about direct the traffic, direct the algorithm to promote the debacle of Fannie Wills, which is good in and of itself because it means she's going down.
	But I see it.
	Mic is fine and always fix your own gear.
	Mic is fine and always fine.
	Fix your own gear.
	No, no, I know my mic is fine because I actually was listening to it as we were going live.
	So for those of you who are new to the channel, Viva Fry, live free.
	David Fryhead is my real name.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Barnes comes and joins.
	LA late, as we say, but he lets me do the intro rant, the sponsors of the evening, because we have two tonight.
	I'll get to them in a second.
	And then we end on YouTube, and we take our feet, our eyes, and our dollars over to the free speech platform, Rumble.
	When the stream is over, because we get to an end of the stream, we go over to our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	And we answer some chats.
	Five bucks and up.
	And we have our wonderful after party because the locals community is magnificent and fantastic.
	Biden's newcomers equals great replacement.
	Oh no, but that's a racist theory.
	It's a racist theory if you assume that all immigrants are of a specific race or of a minority race.
	It is not a conspiracy theory.
	It's politics in action.
	And we're seeing it in real time.
	Not just in America either.
	In Canada as well.
	You want to double the population within 80 years.
	That's called replacement.
	Replacement through dilution.
	It's a political replacement, not a racial one.
	So anybody says, you're racist, Viva, for promoting that racist theory?
	Kiss my bottom.
	It's not a racial theory.
	It's not even a nationalistic theory.
	It's a political theory, and it's being implemented in real time.
	Let in tens of millions of illegal immigrants.
	Impact the census the way you count seats.
	And then fast-track them to citizenships and then see what happens.
	You don't have to convince people to vote for you anymore.
	You could actually just say, boo to you.
	I'm going to import new votes.
	And before you know it, they're going to have kids.
	They're going to impact censuses, sensees, sensei.
	And I don't need your vote because I've diluted your vote through a political replacement.
	Bada bing.
	All right.
	So, tonight we've got a good show.
	Let me see here.
	We're live across the webs.
	I didn't even check.
	We're at 11,000 on Rumble already.
	Magnificent.
	On Rumble, not on Rumble, on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, we're at 1,241.
	Link to Locals.
	Come over to Locals.
	It's fantastic.
	It's 10 bucks.
	I'm going to get to the super chats, these things right here in a bit after I do the sponsors, but if you want to support the channel, the most cost-effective fun way to do it, 10 bucks a month, or you get an entire year at 100 bucks.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We've got merch at VivaFry, and we've got Rumble Rants on Rumble, Super Chats on YouTube.
	Bear in mind, 30% of this goes to YouTube.
	Go to Rumble, 100% of it goes to the creator.
	And if you go to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, you get a wonderful community.
	Tons of exclusive stuff, and then tons of stuff that's open for everybody.
	Okay.
	Before we even get into that...
	Ah, yeah.
	Hold on one second.
	We've got to go here.
	We're going here.
	We have two sponsors for tonight, and both are good.
	Good, good.
	Everybody, look at this.
	I used to say, like, there's a form of idolatry to gold, but the bottom line is also, if you don't idolize gold, it's an investment that has not thus far over the long run not yielded beneficial results.
	Bitcoin, I know people are onto Bitcoin.
	I still don't trust anything that I can't hold in my hand or hide in my butt.
	Gold can be hidden in your butt, although I'm told that's the first place they look for it, so you've got to be more creative.
	But bottom line, central digital bank currency is coming and could replace your dollars with digital currency.
	With it comes surveillance of our lives, freezing of assets, and government control over bank accounts and how we spend our own money.
	Anybody has any doubts about that, I invite you to Canada.
	Look north of the border, people.
	Americans want to protect their liberty and privacy need to prepare themselves for what's to come.
	That's why many Americans are turning to physical gold and silver to diversify their wealth.
	I got one.
	I got one.
	I'll start small.
	Hold on.
	I'll show it to you afterwards.
	I got one beautiful coin.
	I got the Queen Elizabeth.
	Just so you know.
	Homage to the Queen.
	You gotta call...
	Call.
	Get over two.
	Hold on one second.
	Preservegold.com.
	I lost my train of thought there getting distracted thinking about getting it.
	Preservegold.com.
	You can get solid gold, solid silver, which is the more cost-effective, but gold, for whatever the reason, seems to go not lose value and gain value better than silver, but whatever.
	Preservegold.com forward slash Viva.
	They'll explore the right options for you to help with the process, to have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door.
	They can roll over your 401k IRA into qualified retirement accounts.
	It's easy.
	It's also nice just to hold a little gold coin.
	A triple B accredited with zero consumer complaints and hundreds of satisfied customers.
	They're also a founding member of the Precious Metals Association, so you know you're in good hands.
	And as an exclusive offer for Viva Frye.
	They'll give you up to $10,000 in three gold and silver with a qualifying...
	Oh, I got one.
	Treasure.
	The queen.
	Right there.
	Preserve gold, people.
	It's like, well, I would say, if you get a kilo of gold, it's like holding a Bitcoin.
	But who the hell can do that?
	Oh, gosh.
	All the links are in the pinned comment as well.
	Now, second sponsor of the evening.
	And this one's close to home.
	It's Rumble, people.
	Don't get parlored.
	The bottom line.
	Don't get parlored.
	I gotta figure out how...
	Things work here.
	Hold on one second.
	Figure out how my flipping computer works.
	Cancel that.
	Here we go.
	Gotta go to that thing.
	Share screen.
	Share screen.
	And I'm looking for this.
	Don't get parlored, people.
	I don't even know that people know.
	Chris has been tweeting out, Chris Pobloski, the CEO of Rumble, that Rumble is offering cloud services.
	So you don't have to rely on Amazon web services.
	You don't have to rely on, you know, politically motivated hacks.
	Who might, from one day to the next, shut you down.
	It's in the early stages.
	It's getting started.
	And there's an exclusive offer for Rumble friends.
	If you're tired of the cloud services you see every month, from where do you get them?
	iCloud, whatever.
	Our friends at Rumble have done it again.
	The new Rumble cloud services are coming this spring.
	It's going to be amazing, by the way, because Rumble is not just going to be a video hosting platform.
	It's going to be...
	Something that allows people to create a parallel economy and get away from the Amazon Web Service dependence reliance on our enemy.
	People who effectively are acting against our best interests.
	Rumble has built the cloud for parallel economy.
	Disruptive Rumble Cloud pricing model will blow away the big tech clouds with big savings and more predictable budgeting.
	And like Rumble Video, you don't have to worry about cancellation on Rumble Cloud.
	Remember what happened to Parler.
	Don't get parlor, people.
	Exclusive for Friends of Rumble.
	Sign up today at friends.rumble.cloud.
	Receive 30% off for your first three months of your cloud computing subscription, which will be available for purchase later this quarter.
	It's going to be amazing.
	It's going to be amazing.
	So I'll give everybody the link there.
	Rumble.
	What did I say the link was called?
	Rumble.
	Friends.rumble.cloud.
	It's in the pinned comment anyhow because my memory is not what it used to be and I blame the kids.
	Link to cloud.
	So that's it.
	Thank you to the two sponsors.
	And now let's get Link to Cloud.
	There.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	And Barnes is popping in the back, going to fix up his lighting.
	I'm going to read some super chats.
	It looks like you and I were wrong about Biden being sidelined by the DNC in favor of someone else.
	Looks like he's going all the way to a big, fat, loose.
	Cheryl Gage, it's not over yet.
	I want to say it because every fear hides a wish, and I don't also want to wish ill on people.
	I'm sticking to my original prediction.
	I've noticed that a number of people in the legacy media hackery of the media are now saying, oh, we would love it if Kamala Harris took over.
	When the media starts telling you something, that that's what people are saying, it's not what people are saying.
	It's what they want people to say.
	So pay attention now that you're going to notice legacy lying media saying, oh, we would be so happy if Kamala Harris would take over.
	That's because they want...
	Americans to think that.
	Not only do they get free housing and food stamps, more than Americans, but now I hear that they get unlimited free air travel within the US on Delta Airlines.
	Where do I sign up to being illegal?
	That was from KC985.
	I wonder if Biden or Pelosi showed any, quote, respect, end quote, towards the animal who bludgeoned Paul Pelosi with a hammer.
	Viva!
	My cousin Jacob Pratt is currently in surgery.
	He is the lone survivor of the National Guard helicopter crash on the Texas border.
	NG from Albany, New York.
	Pray for him, please.
	I will.
	Bordeaux drinks Bordeaux.
	Okay.
	It feels like we're close to a tipping point where people who are buying into these lies just can't take it anymore.
	But how close do you think?
	Bongino's been asking the question.
	Hey, Dave, can you please explain the linguistic dynamic in Canada and how it doesn't contribute to division?
	It does in Quebec, but not throughout Canada.
	I'll do it tomorrow during a separate stream.
	Vivo, what do you say?
	It's true.
	Search UN replacement migration.
	It's official UN document about migration replacing population, literally.
	Literally, literally.
	Not Rachel.
	How can Bragg connect federal into state charges?
	Don't make sense of it.
	Does Rumble Cloud support Kubernetes Lombadas?
	Dude, you know what?
	I think that's a joke, but because I don't get it, I'm just going to screen grab it and send it over to Chris afterwards.
	Okay, Barnes is in the house.
	Let's bring him in.
	Let's make sure the audio is...
	I made sure the audio is level, but Barnes is going to come in either hot...
	But he always comes in hot.
	Hot with knowledge.
	Barnes, three, two, one.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	How goes it?
	Good.
	You look good.
	I don't know why you...
	You look good.
	My original lighting is all kind of gone at the moment.
	So I noticed something.
	But Barnes, you got one too.
	Yes, it's one of our board members, I believe.
	The book on masks, people.
	Your comprehensive guide to the manipulative psychology, malformed philosophy, and misrepresented science that supercharged a global hysteria by Philip Buckler.
	By the way, my wife actually started reading it.
	I want everybody to know I get a lot of books.
	I cannot read them, so I get my wife if she wants to.
	She reads them and then gives me the Cole's Notes version.
	She said it's amazing, by the way.
	Phil Buckler, DDS.
	Yeah, fantastic.
	I think we may make some cameos in the book, if I recall, if I got that right.
	But yeah, cool gift from a member, so that was cool.
	And a huge book, too.
	If you're going to do a big book, you might as well make it physically a big book.
	So I like that, too.
	What was the other one that you had to that further side of it?
	Was there another one in there?
	No, no, that's it for tonight.
	And Cigar Barnes, what do you got?
	You know, I don't know.
	I was out with...
	I had an interesting weekend.
	Here on Friday, there was a conference, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, sponsored by Steve Kirsch.
	I was there making a presentation, being part of a panel.
	Then was at a fundraising dinner for Robert Kennedy.
	There are multiple members of our board, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	There at the fundraiser as well.
	So that was cool.
	Met with a fascinating crowd of people.
	Bobby Kennedy was gracious, as always.
	And his wife has a great reputation in Hollywood, which is rare in Hollywood.
	And I see why.
	She spends all the time finding something to compliment in other people.
	I honestly have never been around somebody prominent, famous, wealthy, celebrity.
	Who spends all their time figuring out something nice to say about everyone else in the room.
	I was struck by that.
	Bobby's always great.
	The fascinating crowd, fascinating audience, fascinating everything.
	Met up with Warner Mendenhall and Brooke Jackson, who are in town.
	And then later on, had cigars with Dr. Steve Turley, who has a big YouTube channel and Rumble channel and social media presence.
	Did an interview with him last week on Amos Miller.
	We were discussing different aspects.
	One thing we're going to do is change the branding of Free America Law Center, which nobody could remember the name of for the last three years.
	And we'd be like, what's the name of that again?
	So it will stay Free America, the organizational entity and all that.
	But we're going to rebrand it to 1776 Law.
	And I'm like, that...
	That's got to be more memorable.
	No one will forget that.
	It's also easier to brand the merchandise people.
	That's a lot of words you got on there.
	1776, Law Center.
	Nice eagle.
	There you go.
	We're going to be starting the Patrick Henry Society for anybody who's interested, but particularly for students, law students, undergrad students, anyone else, to kind of be the...
	Populist version of the Federalist Society.
	So, going to be starting that.
	Got a lot of merch going out to people, and it's going to be going out to people in support of Amos Miller's case.
	You hear 1776 law, and you kind of know what it's about.
	It's going to be real freedom in America.
	Financial freedom, food freedom, political freedom, health freedom, you name it.
	Real freedom, old school freedom.
	Politico.
	I mean, we're really breaking through, thanks to all the different independent media, thanks to the members of our board, you know, the people tagging Vivek every day.
	Hey, what about Amos Miller?
	It'd be great if you talked about Amos Miller.
	The Politico, of all places, the establishment publication, wrote a big piece this weekend on how the politics of raw milk is changing.
	I mean, that's the level we're getting through.
	There's a certain presidential candidate who's still asleep at the wheel, and his name is Donald John Trump.
	And Bobby Kennedy gets it.
	Trump instead is busy telling everybody how great it is he did the COVID vaccine during the State of the Union speech.
	He was so embarrassed by everybody on the truth board telling him, what the heck are you doing, that he deleted his own truth statement.
	His own tweet.
	But a lot of people around him are still incompetent.
	And he's AWOL on Amos Miller.
	He's AWOL on Julian Assange.
	He's AWOL on Edward Snowden.
	We'll talk about the Brooke Jackson case.
	He's AWOL on that.
	And this is the statement he made.
	And let's be honest.
	Sometimes you've got to give Trump constructive criticism.
	And right now...
	He needs a little bit of constructive criticism.
	Look, I think I did it respectfully and in a way that...
	It's a long tweet, but the bottom line, I said to him, I'll share with everybody else.
	See, first of all, you can't ignore this.
	You can't...
	And as much as you love him and you want him to get...
	The vaccine was a disaster.
	I get you.
	They lied to you for it.
	You made a beautiful contract, the Defense Department contract, required delivery of a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
	They delivered something that was dangerous, ineffective, not a vaccine, and didn't prevent COVID-19.
	In fact, they deliberately, in Pfizer and Moderna, sabotaged your 2020 presidential campaign by delaying the release of it until after Election Day.
	So you owe them nothing.
	And I get your ego got attacked because they suckered you.
	They rolled you by saying, only you could get this vaccine done so fast, Mr. President.
	But these are the same people, like Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci, who are now writing books bragging about how they rolled you.
	Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, writing books bragging about how they rolled you.
	This is not something to be proud of, Mr. President.
	So he needs to wake up.
	Or there's going to be more people supporting Bobby Kennedy, and deservedly so.
	As I've told people who are worried about Bobby Kennedy's effect on Trump, that's all up to Trump.
	If Trump runs a crap campaign, He will deserve to lose.
	It will be up to Trump.
	Trump can embrace these issues.
	Trump can embrace Julian Assange and Ed Snowden and Amos Miller and Brooke Jackson and correctly critique Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx and Mike Pompeo and Bill Barr.
	It's up to Trump to do so.
	So far, he's failing to do so.
	And the only way he'll correct that is if his own supporters say, hold on a second.
	And just to point that out, it's not hard.
	I guess it's a steel man why he's doing it.
	He sees Biden saying, we're going to use this technology and cure cancer, which is what he said in 2020.
	This vaccine are causing, by the way.
	Yeah, well, that's the sick and twisted irony.
	They're going to use mRNA technology to cure cancer that some people think is being caused by this.
	He goes, the reason why Big Pharma likes making products that don't work is because it demands you get more products that don't work.
	Or potentially do work.
	They create their own demand.
	The best way for Donald Trump to compete with Bobby Kennedy is not to attack him on grounds that very few Kennedy voters care about.
	His environmentalism, his position on democratic traditional policies.
	Rather embrace the issues they do care about.
	There's no reason why Trump can't be on the board of re-examining vaccine immunity.
	Credit to Congressman Chip Roy, who introduced legislation this week in Congress saying it's time to remove immunity from all these COVID vaccine makers.
	Credit to Congressman Thomas Massey, who right now they're trying to stick vaccines through our food supply, through our plant supply.
	Why do they want to run control of the Amos Millers of the world?
	So they can stick.
	All kinds of crap in our food, including electronic surveillance that they're trying to push through with the cattle bill right now under the guise of omnibus legislation, that our wuss legislator who gives a bad name to the state of Louisiana, Speaker Mike Johnson, is getting rolled just like Trump got rolled by Paul Ryan and the like.
	And it's time to call these folks out where they need to be called out so they can get on a corrective path so they can be better and do better.
	And people that push back, like some people pushing back against us, saying, how dare you question Trump?
	Not questioning Trump got us the lockdowns.
	Not questioning Trump got us the vaccines.
	Not questioning Trump got us the Bill Bars and Mike Pompeo's.
	Not questioning Trump got us the disaster of the 2020 election.
	Not questioning Trump got us January 6th.
	So you don't help Trump by not questioning Trump.
	There's ways to do it constructively, like your tweet did.
	Like Brett Weinstein, some of his points are.
	But by being silent, you hurt Trump.
	I was going to say that the blueprint is there.
	I understand he wants to take credit for what is promised as the technology of mRNA, but the blueprint is there.
	They lied to him.
	They lied to us.
	They falsified the data.
	And it should be investigations into them not touting this, which nobody likes it at this point, even the left.
	I don't know what the uptake of the booster is.
	It's single digits and low single digits.
	Low single digits.
	I mean, that tells you what people really think about it.
	If they thought this drug was the greatest drug known to man that was going to cure back...
	That was going to cure disease.
	That was going to help save their kids.
	Then, unless you're Keith Olbermann, unless you're one of those people, you don't have 20 booster shots.
	95% of America has no interest in this.
	98% of the world has no interest in this.
	The only people who are interested in this, transitioning to our first case of the night, are the vaccine injured and the people that lost their jobs, lost their...
	A wide range of educational and employment opportunities because of the discrimination related to the vaccine.
	People have been disabled because of the vaccine.
	People know people who have died because of the vaccine.
	And the lead advocate for them is Brooke Jackson.
	The lead case that could recover monies for them is her whistleblower case, False Claims Act case against Pfizer.
	And we got some news on that this week.
	Okay, so give us the menu first, then we're going to do that.
	But what do we have on the menu more broadly?
	All right, we got an update on the Amos Miller case.
	We got the Rust, first Rust verdict is in.
	We got, as you've been updating throughout the week, the big fanny, the news that just doesn't go away.
	And shock, shock, more corruption scandals keep coming out every which direction.
	We got the omnibus clause leading to a reversal.
	We got a border wall construction case.
	By the way, both of those cases led by Attorney General Paxton from Texas, who also had big, big wins on election law by replacing the criminal court judges in Texas.
	Paxton is showing what Trump should be doing, how to organize a full populist movement to change the Texas legislature, to change the Texas judiciary.
	He's winning.
	He's showing what Trump should be doing, but is failing to do.
	But he can use that as an example.
	I'm a Baptist, so I believe in deathbed conversions.
	There's still time for El Jefe.
	The age verification win against porn sites, also by Attorney General Paxton.
	Big win for Trump that we might have been predicting on the Supreme Court ballot case.
	Another big win in the Supreme Court taking up.
	Presidential immunity.
	We have an interesting little Supreme Court case that someone who's following my advice about we need a lot more constitutional challenges to these Supreme Courts and state bars and the way they run the state bar as a Supreme Court petition filed on that issue.
	And a little under-told case, undercovered story of a Honduran president who is convicted.
	It might have some...
	Hush-hush implications.
	Just like I had planned on getting out a hush-hush last week about the Octopus Netflix film and one of the subcomponents of that.
	It got a little delayed because a range of topics came up this weekend.
	A little bit unexpected, but that will be up.
	But there'll be some connected to this Honduran presidential candidate or actual former president as well.
	So fascinating and a little extra Binance case.
	Concerning extraterrestrial jurisdiction, cryptos and securities, that has a wide range of interest subtopics in that as well.
	So the funny thing is, Robert, if you go to YouTube, and I won't show the screen, you put in Brooke Jackson, whistleblower, whatever, you get some of our stuff, you don't see anything that's more recent than 11 months.
	We're going to do this on YouTube, but YouTube quite clearly does not...
	It's not to say that the results are tailored, but the results are tailored.
	And so you go and you put in Brooke Jackson, whistleblower, Pfizer case.
	You see nothing that's less than 11 months old.
	What's the status down?
	I mean, we could give the brief rundown, but what's the status or what are the latest developments?
	So for people that don't know the full backstory, Brooke Jackson for decades had worked in the clinical trial pharmaceutical arena.
	And what she did was make sure clinical trials were run correctly.
	But to be clear, she was a big supporter.
	of the potential benefit of vaccines and medicines.
	She doesn't come, like some people have lied about her, from the anti-vax community or anything like that.
	She was assigned to monitor the clinical trials on behalf of Ventavia, on behalf of Pfizer, concerning the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials in the late summer and fall of 2020.
	What she witnessed shocked her.
	She'd never seen anything like it in her professional life.
	She'd never heard of anything like this occurring in her professional life.
	The COVID vaccine trials were so bad that you could walk in on a random day and see needles sticking out of trash bags.
	People's private medical information tattooed and plastered on the kitchen walls.
	Oh, look, so-and-so has an STD!
	You know, that kind of thing.
	People rolling around in the hallways who aren't being monitored.
	People, they weren't properly doing temperature testing on the vaccine vials.
	They weren't accurately reporting anything.
	If somebody suffered an adverse event, they were hiding it.
	They weren't blinding anything separate from the placebos so you could contaminate the trial results.
	People were not randomly being picked.
	People were being paid under the table to show up.
	At these proceedings.
	It was a joke.
	It was a disgrace.
	There was no way you could produce accurate information from it that could validate the safety or efficacy or even the immunization capacity of the so-called COVID vaccine.
	So she reported it to her superiors.
	She thought, surely they'll step in.
	They realize it's a mistake.
	They're promising they're sure something's going to happen.
	Then she got word back that they're like, well, we really can't do anything because this is happening at all the clinical trial testing sites.
	They're like, this is about speed, speed, speed.
	Trump was dumb enough for them to call the vaccine Operation Warp Speed.
	The one thing you should probably never do is vaccine testing at Operation Warp Speed.
	But Trump got suckered and railroaded into it and rolled right into it.
	But that's what the message was.
	We don't care about accuracy.
	We don't care about safety.
	If you've got to doctor the data, doctor the data, get it through, get it done.
	There's a lot of money to be made.
	And just some of the concrete details that I don't think come out of Brooke Jackson's whistleblower complaint, but that I've come across interviewing Maddie DeGarry's parents, they would literally...
	Not marked down as an adverse event.
	Someone who suffered an adverse event.
	They would exclude them from the trials after the adverse event.
	Repeatedly.
	And so it's basically selecting the result that you want.
	But what Brooke Jackson had access to was far more direct.
	And then she went public with it.
	And then immediately gets sank.
	Well, not yet public.
	So she discovers this.
	Reports it to the bosses.
	The bosses come back and say, well, we've got kind of a problem.
	This is everywhere.
	This is at all the clinical trials around the world.
	Remember, there were trials going on in Argentina, other countries in the world, not just the United States.
	So she's like, but look, if they come in, they're going to shut it down anyway, so we've got to fix this.
	We've got to care about these people.
	We've got to care about the impact of whether this is even going to work as a drug.
	And they're like, okay, we'll get back to you.
	Suddenly, she's summarily fired.
	She reaches out and blows the whistle to the FDA anonymously, confidentially.
	That same afternoon, she gets a call from Pfizer's counsel on a phone number that only the FDA's confidential, secure whistleblower line knew, which kind of startles her.
	So she goes out to find what's called a KETAM lawyer, False Claims Act lawyer.
	This is the way you can seek remedy or relief if you see massive fraud going on, particularly if taxpayer dollars are involved.
	A New York firm gets involved.
	They file suit, but they file it under seal.
	The federal government Justice Department under Bill Barr now knows about the scandal involving the COVID-19 vaccine.
	This is before it's been authorized, before it's been approved.
	Before it's been paid for and before it's going to be mandated.
	So all of it could have been stopped from the inception.
	But Attorney General Bill Barr keeps it a secret from President Trump.
	Keeps it a secret from Republicans in the House and the Senate.
	Keeps it a secret from the American people.
	Instead, the Justice Department tells Brooke Jackson...
	Hey, we're seriously investigating.
	We're going to probably prosecute.
	We're going to shut this down.
	Her own law firm and experts are telling her this.
	But then the months keep going on.
	The government says, we're seriously investigating the case.
	It's going to take us a lot of time.
	They tell the judge, the federal judge, hey, we're seriously investigating this.
	We've got to extend the seal, extend the seal.
	They keep extending it to keep it all secret for more than a year.
	What year is this?
	She files in September of 2020.
	Fall of 2020.
	And they keep it secret and sealed until 2022.
	So then she sees they're rolling it out for little kids.
	And she's watching all of this in shock and horror, wanting this vaccine to be stopped, given she knows how dangerous it is, that it's not a safe, effective drug.
	Knowing the data is doctored, knowing they all lied, knowing that that was systematic and systemic and being promised, hey, just keep it sealed for a little bit longer because we're right about to break the case, says the government.
	So she starts worrying about what's going on.
	She reaches out to a range of people, including people that are connected to Bobby Kennedy.
	And Bobby Kennedy and people connected to him say, okay, you need a lawyer that's willing to expose this in full.
	That's willing to be confrontational when necessary with the government.
	Not someone who's complicit.
	Because what's not known is a lot of key TM False Claims Act lawyers are fraud.
	Frauds, in my opinion.
	What they're doing is they're really running an extortion scheme.
	Where they shake down money from the government and then often keep secret the fraud that took place on the American people.
	And in addition, they never want to upset the government because they want the government to take their cases.
	Because if the government doesn't take their cases, their odds of winning are less than 30 to 1, 40 to 1. And Bobby Kennedy and his people had a name for her.
	And that name was me.
	So she contacted me and I said, I suspect.
	They have no intention of ever joining the case.
	No intention of ever prosecuting the case.
	I suspect they've been deliberately sabotaging your story and delaying it as long as possible before you could do it, before your information could be used to stop what they're doing.
	So she retains me.
	We file to move to unseal it.
	We get it unsealed.
	And we get the information public.
	The British Medical Journal, one of the most well-respected publications in the country, does an independent investigation of her allegations and concludes they're absolutely accurate and raises serious, because she had evidentiary proof in a wide range of contexts.
	And this was before we knew a lot of things we've known over the last two years about how dangerous this fake vaccine is.
	Because that's what it is, a fake vaccine.
	It's not even a vaccine.
	It doesn't inoculate or immunize against anything.
	And the FDA can keep changing the definition of vaccine, Orwellian-like Humpty Dumpty, a word is what I say it is, as long as they want.
	And it won't change it in a vaccine.
	Not by any traditional, medical, or common, or colloquial understanding of it.
	Or legal understanding of it, or contractual understanding of it.
	So, another good conscientious lawyer, founder of Freedom Council, Warner Mendenhall, comes from the old labor democratic left, by the way.
	But he was big during COVID, challenging lockdowns, challenging mandates, challenging the discrimination against the vaccine folks, people who chose not to take the vaccine, trying to find ways to sue for those who have been injured by the vaccine, expose all the frauds.
	Great guy.
	And he joins the case.
	Pfizer comes in, demands delays in discovery, demands nothing occur until a motion to dismiss is heard.
	The judge goes along with him.
	I was critical of the judge's decision.
	Judge wasn't happy about some of my public criticism, but I think it was conscientious criticism.
	And then the judge ultimately dismissed the case, first time around.
	We're like, well, judge, there's some key legal issues here that you might want to reconsider.
	And the judge, to his credit, I mean, first to his credit, he gave a real full oral argument hearing.
	Didn't have to do that.
	He did.
	And then he considered the reconsideration, and he said, you know what?
	You're right.
	I think whether or not this whole thing is fraud and the inducement is something that we should reopen.
	And he said, let's reopen that.
	And so then the government came and allowed us to amend the complaint.
	Pfizer came in and moved to dismiss.
	And while that was happening, the Justice Department said, oh, he would like to talk to Brooke Jackson.
	Like, they were real serious.
	They wanted to independently investigate.
	Join the case.
	I said at the time, I thought that was hogwash and they were full of it.
	We sent the good cop nice guys to that meeting.
	So it was Warner Mendenhall and some other people.
	I couldn't go anyway because of my foot injury at the time, but I might have said some less kind things to the government at the meeting.
	So probably we're going to see whether they're on the up and up.
	Give them a chance.
	The government doesn't file any notice, any way, shape, or form.
	And so we file our opposition to the motion to dismiss.
	And this past week, the...
	A court scheduled for April a hearing.
	The day after that court order comes in for a hearing, we hear from the United States Department of Justice.
	The United States Department sends a one-sentence email.
	We are going to be intervening in the case and moving to dismiss it entirely.
	What are your thoughts on a conference?
	Now, Warner, he's a nice fellow.
	He was busy at the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation.
	Just to stop you there, they're going to intervene, mean, take it over and move to dismiss the case, drop the case that they have intervened in, which was Brooke Jackson's whistleblower case to begin with.
	And prevent anyone from being able to ever get remedy relief against Pfizer for fraud.
	And not to, like, I asked you this cynically a while back, like, what's to prevent them from intervening, if only to kill it?
	And that's what they're going to try to do now.
	Yep.
	So Warner was busy at the conference, and he's more of a nice guy.
	He hadn't seen the email yet.
	So I thought, eh, maybe I'll respond and share my initial thoughts.
	And my response was, I believe this is the product of corruption in your office and with the Justice Department and the Biden administration.
	When do you think we can schedule some discovery on that?
	They're not interested in that, of course.
	And I posted the very peculiar history of this Justice Department attorney.
	Who got assigned this case?
	So she wasn't the U.S. attorney always assigned the case.
	She was at a different agency a few years before.
	And before that, was working for big law for a rather interesting industry.
	It appears her husband's connected to the same industry.
	So it turns out this new Justice Department attorney that's taken over the Brooke Jackson case, that's moving to cover it all up forever.
	And prevent and prohibit recovery from ever occurring on behalf of the American people.
	And derailing a case that could allow injured individuals to separately sue because of the fraud that could have been detailed and demonstrated.
	And could have been used to change legislation in the country as well to get relief and remedy for the injured.
	And create a fund that Brooke Jackson was going to set aside for the vaccine injured.
	All of that now could be taken away by this one Justice Department attorney.
	And I was like, I wonder who this ringer is.
	And your researcher.
	And guess what agency she was at between 2019 and 2021?
	CDC?
	The Food and Drug Administration.
	They're in the Enforcement Council.
	She was part of the original corruption that her intervention is now, the Justice Department's intervention now helps cover up.
	If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.
	But the conflict of interest goes deeper.
	Her and other people close to her.
	She even worked for a company that claims an economic interest in the Pfizer vaccine.
	So you're talking about someone who can enrich herself by her involvement in this case.
	So I just pointed out a few of these facts on social media, and all I did was link her LinkedIn profile.
	Well, within five minutes, people were curious.
	Ah, is Barnes right?
	We'll take a look at this.
	And they could see it right there in the LinkedIn profile.
	What I was saying was right there.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom.
	All of a sudden, her LinkedIn profile vanished within five minutes.
	That had to be a record government deletion.
	Did you archive it or had it been archived?
	Well, of course I did.
	So the government is doing...
	Now, I can tell you, because of the Supreme Court's ruling a year ago, it's going to be extremely difficult to overcome what the government is doing.
	However, there is some legal standards that are novel precedent in this context.
	I'm just looking up here, Robert.
	I pulled up.
	Members of Congress invested in Pfizer, Inc., and we got left and right.
	It's not just that Pfizer invest in them.
	They invest in Pfizer.
	Look at those conflict, conflict, conflict, conflict, conflict, conflict.
	One dude's got between 1 and 5 million.
	Who the heck is Jim Sensenbrenner?
	Okay, I just wanted to bring that up.
	He's a corrupt hack from Wisconsin.
	So a conservative from Wisconsin.
	Another one of those.
	But if you look at the legal standard, in order to move to intervene, Particularly in a Ketam case, you have to do so in good faith and have good cause.
	To me, that opens the door to all the corruption and conflict of interest that exist here.
	Because traditionally, when the government intervenes belatedly, they do so because there's been a radical change of facts that make it highly unlikely there will be any positive recovery.
	And a much more likelihood that they'll bear an undue expense.
	And I had asked you this at the time.
	I think the answer was they could intervene whenever.
	But there's no limitation on when they can intervene.
	They can intervene a day before the judge issues a judgment.
	Thanks to the Supreme Court's 2022 decision.
	There was a good argument that they had 60 days and then they were out.
	And the Supreme Court came in and said, no, no, no, no.
	Can't do that.
	You know, that sort of thing.
	But the Supreme Court did have a couple of carve-outs.
	Which was, one, they still have to prove good faith before they can intervene.
	Not only that, they're not allowed to move to dismiss until they are granted their right to intervene.
	So that's threshold number one.
	Threshold number two is they still have to present a reasonable argument as to why it is dismissal is in the interest of judicial...
	Of justice itself.
	Under Rule 41A of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
	We got a lot of trolls in the chat, Barnes, who are impugning intentions, which is always the sign of a troll.
	Over probably Trump-Kennedy, I guess.
	Well, it's in general, but it doesn't matter.
	There's a lot of people who...
	It's a good sign, Robert.
	It means we're reaching new audiences.
	Okay, sorry.
	That's really fun.
	And people are always going to...
	You know, people got their backs up when I said, and we talked about Lin Wood as Lin Sanity.
	They got their backs up when he said Sidney Powell's gone off the res on the election issues.
	They got their backs up when he said Trump was wrong on the lockdowns.
	They got their backs up when he said the vaccine was a bad idea and that Trump was wrong on it.
	They got their backs up when I said Trump could lose thanks to the lockdowns and everything that was happening with the election issues due to mail-in voting.
	They got their backs up during a lot of times.
	They got their backs up.
	Remember how we were Putin apologists?
	When are you getting your rusty hat?
	When we said the Ukraine war is not going to go so well, tell us who's been right.
	If anybody out there wants to bet against me, have at it.
	I just don't recommend it.
	People are, but people should look back at that track record before they second-guess the wisdom or the intentions of the course of conduct here.
	But in this context, we have grounds to object to the motion to intervene, grounds to object to the dismissal.
	That there isn't a reasonable argument to be made.
	And in particular, when they delay their dismissal request, they're supposed to show new evidence and facts.
	And of course, all the new evidence and facts favor our position.
	There's no question of the dangers of the vaccine.
	There's no doubts about the deception and fraud that Pfizer engaged in on the American people.
	We have attorney generals bringing suit on these grounds.
	We got state grand juries open on these grounds in Florida and in Texas.
	We got congressmen seeking removing immunity on these grounds, like Chip Roy in the House of Representatives.
	We have people resisting the attempts to inject this into food through cattle and plants, like Congressman Massey and farmers like Amos Miller, in part, on these grounds.
	So, it's not like they can come in and be honest and say, hey, judge, we thought you would dismiss the case, but now we're scared Brooke Jackson's going to win.
	And we're so terrified, we can't even let you rule on the motion to dismiss that's pending.
	We can't risk that any discovery ever gets ordered in this case, because it would expose the individual Department of Justice attorney bringing the motion in the name of the people.
	It would expose the Justice Department engaging in fraud throughout this case.
	It would expose the Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration's complicity and culpability with Big Pharma in general, but also especially as to this case.
	It would expose the Biden administration in the heart of an election.
	They can't say that.
	So we're going to say they don't have a reasonable argument because they don't.
	And the new evidence supports us.
	But that's not it.
	Procedurally, they are required to provide notice and a hearing.
	It's never been fully figured out.
	What does that mean?
	Well, my view is it's an evidentiary hearing.
	We should be entitled to subpoena the records of the Biden White House.
	We should be entitled to subpoena the records of the Justice Department.
	We should be entitled to subpoena the records of the Food and Drug Administration.
	We should be entitled to subpoena the records of Pfizer.
	We should be entitled to subpoena the records of everything that could prove collusion and corruption and complicity by the Biden administration, the Justice Department and the FDA in the illicit, fraudulent nature of this vaccine.
	Just because they're enriching themselves off defrauding the American people does not entitle them to deny the American people's right to remedy.
	And then last but not least...
	Put in a footnote in that Supreme Court opinion, listed in the dissent of Justice Thomas.
	There are constitutional issues implicated here.
	The government has, there's due process rights that are being implicated here.
	There's equal protection rights that are implicated here.
	There's First Amendment issues implicated here.
	So we're going to litigate, this will be the most litigated motion to intervene in the history of key TAM cases.
	And maybe the judge will allow it, maybe he won't.
	Maybe we have to go up on appeal.
	Maybe we have to fight it out a hundred different ways.
	But however it's done, the lessons of Dylan Thomas are still true, which is do not go gently into that good night rage, rage against the dying of the light.
	Just like one of the eternal truths of VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com is never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
	And Brooke Jackson is eager to do so, and we are eager to do so on her behalf.
	Now, before we head over to Rumble, when is the hearing on the government's intervention or motion to intervene?
	Not yet scheduled.
	Because the judge has scheduled the hearing on Pfizer's motion to dismiss, which it's now apparent.
	Like, the politically smart, astute thing for the government is to wait to see what the judge rules.
	Because if the judge dismisses it, they never have to show their hand.
	They now have to expose, like, for example, they told the court for a year, the Justice Department, that they were doing such serious, they said this under penalty of purge, as statements of oath to the, as officers to the court.
	They said that they were seriously investigating the case and needed more time.
	I want to see what did they do in that year.
	How much do you want to bet they did no investigation?
	Well, no, I think they might have done even more than no investigation.
	They might have been covering their tracks and telling people not to talk.
	Railing the investigation.
	Detouring the investigation.
	Making sure no other whistleblowers got the courage to speak up and speak out.
	So, I mean, during this time period, weird things were happening.
	Brooke Jackson would open her mail related to this topic, and the mail had already been opened before she did.
	She got to it.
	So, what else was involved?
	So, were they as culpable and complicit as our next topic?
	Big Fanny Willis!
	Oh, that'll be the alluring...
	Everyone, come on over to Rumble if you want to talk Big Fanny.
	Holy shiot.
	Rumble, did you know the Oscars are on tonight?
	Yeah, I'll put out some free bets on it at sportspicks.logs.com It's so irrelevant.
	I used to watch it religiously, print out the sheets, have a party.
	I didn't even know.
	Okay, link to...
	Rumble.
	And everyone's got the link to Locals.
	Come on over there.
	Oh, there was...
	Hold on.
	There was a big chat here.
	Rumble rant.
	Robert Barnes is speaking the truth.
	Listen to what he's saying regarding vaccinations and COVID.
	Terrifying Michael registered nurse.
	Why do I...
	Winston Shittenhouse, why are you going to try to get me in trouble here?
	And I've been told, yeah, can't verify.
	Cubernazis at Lombada Nerd Talk.
	Not jokes.
	Okay.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Coming over to Rumble.
	Then we're going to go over to Locals afterwards.
	If you're not coming, I'll see you tomorrow.
	You guys get the leftovers.
	Someone had asked why I'm not posting the entire stream all the time on YouTube the next day.
	When we go an hour, I don't want to post an hour of what everyone's already seen, so I post clips.
	So it's not for any other reason.
	Nothing sinister.
	It's just if there's been a lot there, I don't want to post the entire thing again.
	All right.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Come on over.
	Rumble.
	And we need to get to 30,000 tonight.
	Okay.
	We'll see.
	Boom.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	We're done.
	Robert Fanny Willis.
	Okay, so...
	Some of the...
	Phil Holloway, by the way, who was on a week ago from Friday, started a YouTube channel.
	He picked up 12,000 subs in 24 hours.
	His first live stream...
	I mean, I just hope he's not...
	It's not all going to be this easy.
	And it's not all going to be these numbers.
	But he's got a quarter of a million views on a 38-minute stream.
	He's fantastic.
	He's funny.
	He's smart.
	He knows his stuff.
	But we've been going back and forth all week.
	There have been people now challenging.
	Fannie Willis in her re-election for district attorney.
	Scott McAfee in his re-election or his election for judge for a four-year term.
	Who's the guy?
	Jesse Jackson activist running against Scott McAfee.
	Question is whether or not that's going to be helpful or prejudicial to him rendering a disqualification.
	I'll stop there.
	Robert, do you think a Jesse Jackson activist who worked with whatever the Rainbow Coalition...
	Running against Scott McAfee is going to make it more likely or less likely he issues a disqualification ruling.
	I think they made a mistake with the timing because now if the goal was we're putting in this challenger but if you rule the way we want you for Fannie in favor of Fannie that challenger will belatedly withdraw or not campaign then he looks to be as crooked as Fannie Willis.
	So, as Big Fannie.
	So, that's the problem.
	They didn't play this right, but because they're such nitwit crooks, they're just like Joe Biden himself.
	You know, I always say he's Lyndon Baines Johnson, mentally slower little brother.
	Some other phrases I use, but I'm told they're politically incorrect.
	But that's who Fannie is.
	And I have no doubt that that's the quid pro quo they're trying to put out there.
	But if you're the judge, you have to know that.
	And you have no guarantee that they actually step down anyway.
	And maybe they defeat you anyway because they're those kind of people.
	They'll betray anybody.
	So it's lose-lose if you go with them.
	Whereas by contrast, if you rule against her now, it looks like it's entirely a legal decision, not a political decision.
	Because by so doing, you know you've guaranteed aggressive opposition that's now on the ballot.
	So all they did is force him into a situation where either he can look like a crook for no gain, or he can look like a courageous, conscientious person for at least some gain.
	And so I think they misplayed the politics because they think so short-term.
	People say criminals are stupid.
	Look at the IQ and the intellectual test of criminals.
	I'm like, yeah, convicted criminals.
	The ones that are not convicted, not in prison, you aren't testing them.
	But if you study the reason that is, is convicted criminals are one-step thinkers.
	They look there and say, I'd like to steal that purse.
	They don't think, oh, how do I get away with it?
	You know, the second step isn't there.
	And it's clear Fannie is a one-step criminal.
	She's thinking, okay, how do I intimidate him?
	Oh, here's how.
	Not, what's the second step of how that all works?
	And so I think it will, Megyn Kelly was concerned.
	I disagree.
	I was glad Megyn Kelly said what she said because it's putting the judge on notice.
	By the way, this is how this will be interpreted if, in fact, you rule in favor of Fannie Willis now.
	But it's precisely because of that that I think now he's got no choice but to do his job!
	Hold up all his oath!
	The facts in the law are clear.
	Big Fannie is guilty, guilty, guilty.
	You know what?
	I feel smarter whenever I think of something or say something and then you affirm it when I didn't know that that's what you were going to do.
	And it's a good point.
	If he does not disqualify her now, there's no benefit because if they're going to vote based on race and politics, they're voting for that guy anyhow.
	I forget his name.
	And it's like you say, do the right thing for political risk.
	Makes him look virtuous and courageous.
	All right.
	Well, we're going to see apparently he's issuing the decision by next week.
	Jeff Clark put out one hell of a beautiful argument brief in response to the state's argument brief.
	No one's going to take it from a former Canadian litigator, Schnuck.
	When they come out and say, it's not the appearance of conflict that's the legal question.
	It's an actual conflict of interest that's pecuniary in nature, resulting from a conviction of the prosecution.
	I sit there as a former Quebec attorney and say, you have to be an idiot to think this makes any sense.
	It's as idiotic as I think it is, correct?
	Absolutely, because the law is the same in that regard in the U.S. and in Canada and the U.K. It's confidence in the judicial system.
	The judicial system exists to get people to settle their disputes rather than doing it the old East Tennessee way, gouging out your eye and remembering to kill your kid when they grow up.
	You know, vengeance.
	My kid's going to kill your kid.
	Then my grandkid's going to kill your grandkid.
	And so forth.
	That didn't always work out so well.
	I'd say sometimes it works just fine.
	But it officially doesn't work out that well.
	So consequently, we have a judicial system.
	But that only works if people have confidence in it.
	They only have confidence in it if it has their belief in its impartiality.
	What's that about?
	The appearance of impartiality.
	And you cannot have the appearance of pecuniary gain.
	You cannot have the appearance of partiality creating prejudice.
	And you sure can't have at least the appearance of people committing routine, regular criminal perjury and obstruction of justice presiding over a case concerning alleged obstruction of election proceedings and fraud.
	You can't have fraudsters prosecuting people in the name of fraud.
	So, factually, legally, constitutionally, professionally, politically, the only choice is to disqualify them.
	The question is whether this guy is as dumb and corrupt as Big Fanny is.
	I don't think he is.
	I'm sticking to it.
	That's the latest, I believe, there.
	And of course, more facts keep coming out.
	You lied about this, lied about that.
	Somebody else heard of her trying to intimidate this person.
	Oh, that's right.
	It was brought out in Jeff Clark's reply.
	I had forgotten about, you know, you're interfering with a criminal prosecution, her threats against Nathan Wade's wife in the context of the divorce.
	To say, don't subpoena me, don't bother me.
	This is, what does it say?
	Obstruction, interference with a criminal prosecution, threatening her with criminality.
	I mean, it's wild.
	Jeff Clark obviously has some attorneys who are as well-prepared and intelligent as him.
	The judge says he's going to come up.
	I never should have indicted him.
	What an idiot.
	I mean, one of the key guys whose lawyers brought this motion, someone pointed out to me, it was Julie Kelly, he's an opposition researcher.
	That's his professional job.
	It's like, how dumb do you have to be to sue an opposition researcher when you have skeletons in your closet?
	And what was it?
	Ashley Merchant had mentioned this, but Michael Roman wasn't even one of the defendants that the special purpose grand jury recommended to indict.
	They throw him in there.
	He's a senior, what do they call them, campaign advisor.
	I mean, they were doing it to send a message like, don't work with Trump, and then this is what it produces.
	That's exactly right.
	Wild.
	So Big Fanny's in big trouble.
	And if we're going to have any confidence in our judicial system, that judge will disqualify them.
	Just like if we have any confidence in our judicial system or are going to, the Supreme Court will grant the president immunity.
	And we probably got a preview of that in the majority of the election decision.
	Actually, and I'll just say one thing first.
	I got a DM in Twitter saying there's a bombshell about the Trump Raffensperger call that was recorded that served as the basis.
	Now people are questioning whether or not that call was illegally taped by Fenn.
	Oh yes, it was illegally taped.
	It's coming back.
	We talked about that at the time.
	Oh my goodness.
	It's settlement conversations, so it's never supposed to be taped or publicly released in the first place.
	Holy cow.
	Breach after breach, illegality after illegality.
	And of course, it also came out that Mrs. I've never, as you have explained on Twitter, I've now called X, to quote my friend John Murray over at the Westgate Sportsbook, she said emphatically she rarely ever goes to Washington, D.C. Hadn't been anywhere near anybody at the White House or the White House.
	And it turns out, oh, she just happened to hang out with Kamala Harris at the White House.
	Robert, and I've been having arguments to see whether or not I'm defensive as to whether or not my assessment, was that a lie?
	I didn't go to the White House, but I went to the vice president's residence.
	If it looks like perjury, talks like perjury, walks like perjury, it's perjury.
	It might just be perjury.
	So now the person who sent me that message, I don't know if they're watching right now, I'm an idiot.
	I remember we talked about that illegal recording of settlement conference discussions and then leaking it to get him in trouble.
	Okay, I'll do an update on that tomorrow.
	Robert, you know, before we get too far behind on the...
	Oh, I'm too far behind already.
	Let me see how many I can cram in as quickly as possible.
	The judge should tell Fannie, either let us see your text messages or voluntarily resign, says Karolewski.
	He doesn't even need to see anything more.
	Don't even give her that opportunity.
	Done, done.
	Fungle Fannie says, so encouraging to have smart legal minds with integrity on the side of truth.
	So encouraging.
	Thank you, gentlemen, for not withdrawing from the fight.
	Got no choice.
	We're too far into it now, at least.
	At least I am.
	Pence admitted keeping info from Trump in his book, Try Reading It, Dianning1234.
	Diva and Barnes, men for all seasons, says Sean Joe.
	And I've defended Trump on many of those things.
	But for a month, he went along with Fauci, and he went along with all of them on the vaccine stuff and gave Fauci an award on the vaccine stuff at the end.
	So chances are I'm better informed than anybody out there that's trying to criticize me on these topics because I got a track record to prove it.
	And not just that, it's not a sign of loyalty to not criticize somebody, to not tell them when they're doing something wrong.
	It's a sign of love to do it.
	If you've got somebody you're loyal to is about to walk off a bridge, walk off a cliff, you don't sit there, boy, I better not say anything.
	They might interpret it as a criticism.
	Is there any chance that the taxpayers are getting a refund on Wade's cost?
	No.
	No legal advice.
	This is my prediction.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	Barnes Brook case reminds me.
	It's tax season.
	Some get a refund.
	...to 1776 law will go a long way in defending...
	It's not tax...
	It won't be tax-deductible, Robert, right?
	No, it would still be a private association, and the reason why it'll be a private association is to keep anybody who helps out, donates, and the rest private and confident.
	The engaged few says, Man, I'm tired of listening to competent, intelligent, and passionate attorney persuasively arguing his points.
	I need to find a mealy-mouthed diaphanous little bitch to show her the state.
	I think he's talking about Adam Abate, but I've got to go see what diaphanous means.
	Barnes, what do you think of the chances of the Supreme Court freeing the January Sixers?
	We'll get there in a second, actually.
	No, let's do that.
	Robert, they're taking up the obstruction case.
	You're going to overturn the obstruction case, so two-thirds of the sentences of a majority of the defendants will be overturned.
	Not every case, not every person, but a lot of them will get a lot of reduction.
	Okay, we got WeLexton, whatever that, 3721.
	Man, they are taking a page right out of Fanny's playbook.
	LOL, blatant and unregretful malice of intent.
	Terpits, RB, so intelligent, however believes in Noah's Ark.
	Kitty, Barr needs to go to prison.
	Jim Satala, nice to see you again, Jim.
	I hope Barnes and or Ron Coleman Harmeet Dillon are going to step in to help these New York firefighters who are being hunted down by Hochul for booing.
	I was going to do a vlog on this today, but I'm sure is Sugar doing one tomorrow.
	Because it's outrageous.
	Sorry, I didn't finish it.
	For booing Tish James, forced communist reaging.
	They should all resign.
	Leave New York without police, leave them without firefighters, leave them without taxpayers.
	Enjoy your cesspool.
	You reap what you sow.
	C.M. Meadows, or C. Meadows, do you think getting the vax out quickly saved lives?
	Not because of the vax, but because people will still be locked down.
	I've heard that argument.
	No, it's not, because the lockdown had stopped long before then.
	And it wouldn't have lasted.
	It would not have lasted five years like some people are trying to make that argument.
	I get trained to defend Trump on those grounds, and that was part of the pitch made to Trump.
	But it was no longer the case at the time and frame.
	Remember, these vaccines were mass-introduced in the summer of 2021.
	Nobody was locked down in the summer of 2021.
	Okay, so I got that.
	I love you guys.
	Thanks for all you do, LilNicky73.
	Prayers for the family of our National Guard soldiers who died and are injured in the helicopter crash.
	I've said one, Freddy65.
	PaulRose76, take the challenge.
	Do a shot of liquor every time his Barnes mentions RFK drink.
	T199 says, thoughts on the passing of Akira Toriyama, the creator of Dragon Ball.
	I hadn't heard that, nor do I know what Dragon Ball is.
	I know what it is.
	Here in the UK, they are forcing homeowners out of their home.
	For illegals to have homes while those born here are sleeping in the streets, they're also kowtowing to terrorist organizations.
	That's from V6 Neon.
	C Meadows, in the Say Her Name video, after saying houses didn't burn because of the roof, did he have said, I have to change that before stopping himself?
	I don't know, man.
	But he said they didn't burn because there's a biltong.
	I'm going to get it tomorrow if it's there.
	Good afternoon from Anton's in Roanoke, Texas.
	Free shipping for your biltong with code VIVA.
	On BillTongUSA, B-I-L-T-O-N-G, USA.com, and AntonUSA.com, BillTong, a perfect pairing for high-protein keto and carnivore diets.
	Bill Dozer, my latest rumble video, is almost at 1,000 views in three and a half days.
	Heck yeah.
	Check out my channel, BillDozer74.
	I've got a decent laptop now, so my content quality will increase dramatically.
	BillDozer74.
	What do you say about the trucker protest against the James verdict?
	Jeez Louise, I didn't see that.
	I have to go get that now.
	We got Riboviva.
	That Schumer video is back when Democrats cared about working class people and understood immigration.
	Hurt that demographic.
	Now Dem Party is managerial class benefiting from the illegal labor.
	More craziness from the voting machines in Michigan, says Iron Wolf.
	Graymare Radix Virum, I don't know what that says, is facing preemptive censorship on her documentary on the Whitmer kidnapping plot.
	Let me get, I want to screen grab that and escape.
	And then we go, I'm sorry, guys, for the rants the other night.
	Yeah, I don't know what that was, TP.
	I was not offended, so you should not feel sensitive.
	All right, done.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Robert, the immunity case.
	No, hold on a second.
	Colorado.
	When did the Colorado...
	Oh my goodness!
	The Colorado ruling came down the day after our stream?
	Holy shit!
	Apparently Keith Oldman is urinating on his face.
	I don't know if you know what happened there.
	Someone said he's still crying, Keith.
	And he says, it's not tears, it's urine.
	And you love being bad.
	I don't even know.
	The guy's a freaking lunatic.
	He's a freak.
	He's clearly a freak.
	That was a confession through projection.
	So Keith is pissing on his face.
	And Keith, if you're watching...
	Would I love to have him on?
	I think I'd like to have him on.
	A psychopath.
	But I forgot the ruling came down Monday after our hearing.
	9-0.
	Humiliating.
	The only dissenting opinions came from the three women who Keith Oldman implied were whores by calling them political whores and naming them by name.
	Sotomayor Kagan and Jackson.
	Who issued their own minor decision that said...
	Look, we didn't need to rule on anything more than what we needed to.
	And you guys talking about how there's only one way for the Congress to act through the Fifth Amendment or the Fifth Paragraph.
	You shouldn't have said that because we want to leave the door open for other ways of getting rid.
	The decision was obvious.
	What do you make of their argument that the majority or the per curiam did not need to go beyond the question asked?
	And what do you make of them saying, you didn't need to go beyond the question asked, so we're going to go beyond the question asked to say what we think should be left open by way of recourse?
	They're correct.
	They didn't have to go beyond it.
	And that's why I've told people that the majority decision is a strong indicator of what's going to happen in the immunity decision.
	And there's another area where I got a lot of criticism for criticizing a Trump appointee proposal.
	I suggested that Amy Coney Barrett would not defend Trump or populist causes on a range of important topics.
	She would not help out in the election, that she would not be a reliable vote on vaccine and related issues.
	And I was accused of being a traitor.
	I was accused of having secret agendas.
	All that nonsense.
	And guess who the fourth vote that was not there to take up the election cases, even the ones after the January 6th issues to at least correct the next election?
	Who was that fourth vote that was not there?
	missing?
	Amy Coney Barrett.
	Who was it that has refused to rule positively on any major vaccine issue for the most part?
	Amy Coney Who is the one that did not join the majority on the election decision?
	Amy Coney Barrett.
	So all of those people out there now wanting to second guess and question my intentions of either praising Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, or criticizing Trump need to remember they've usually been on the wrong side and I've usually been on the right side.
	If we have a track record, I got a lot of wins.
	Y 'all got a lot of L's.
	And your predictions are memorialized on the interwebs via our streams.
	But the three of them, and even Amy Coney Barrett said the same thing.
	We should be unified and we shouldn't say more than we have to.
	Robin, I understand the argument.
	It's obiter or you don't need to go beyond the question being asked.
	My question was, and I don't have the expertise to provide an answer, did they go beyond the question by saying it's not self-executing.
	It requires an act of Congress and that's done through the fifth article.
	I don't know what it was.
	They went further than they had to go.
	They did not go further than the question asked at all.
	Because the question...
	If I had been the jurist on the Supreme Court...
	Then I would have explained why the 14th Amendment didn't apply in this context because it didn't apply to the President of the United States.
	I would have gone into more detail in the historical context and says it doesn't apply today, period, anyway.
	I would have said at a minimum it requires conviction under the criminal statute that's still on the books, which no one has ever been charged with, that is being kicked off or excluded from the ballot or considered to be excluded from the ballot in this context.
	And that statute only applies to officers.
	It doesn't apply to elected officials anyway.
	And I would not have given the states the power to enforce it either at the state level to state-level officials.
	But the majority did go further than they had to go because they don't want this nonsense to reoccur.
	So that's what even Roberts and Kavanaugh understood.
	For Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, it's simply common-sense constitutional analysis.
	Roberts and Kavanaugh, two of the weakest-spined jurists in America, who can't wait for that next Hamptons party for everybody to pat them on the back, why are they in the majority?
	And why does that scare and terrify all of the lawfare left?
	Why did they say, we're going to actually not only prohibit states from keeping Trump off the ballot now, We're going to prohibit Congress from taking him off the ballot after the election because you, Congress, are going to have to pass implementing legislation before the election.
	We're not going to let you pass it after the election.
	Why did they go there?
	Now, constitutionally, they should go there to provide direction and guidance, and it was part of the subject matter of the dispute.
	I think, again, they should have gone further.
	But, and constitutionally, it's the correct interpretation, and that's what they're being asked to interpret.
	So yes, they should go there.
	But practically and politically, why are Kavanaugh and Roberts there?
	They're there because they're saying, we don't want, this was part of my argument to the whole Trump team, continue to take everything you can up to SCOTUS.
	Why?
	Roberts does not want the courts to be perceived as manipulating elections.
	By the Biden administration weaponizing the legal system and thereby the judicial system to interfere in the 2024 election, drags the judicial branch into it.
	Roberts wants to drag the judicial branch out of it.
	The same reason why he didn't want to get involved in 2020, aside from some not-so-quiet hostility towards Trump, is the same reason he wants to drag the courts out of it now.
	He doesn't want the judicial branch impugned around the world as nothing more than a political tool for opposing political parties to use to bankrupt or imprison or strike from the ballot their opponents.
	That's why Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the decision.
	The fact that it's per curiam means Roberts' fingerprints are all over this.
	And he is saying, we've got to get the courts out of the business of trying to keep people off the ballot, trying to put political opponents in prison, and the rest.
	And that's why that majority is likely going to be the majority to say the president has immunity without impeachment or conviction.
	Without impeachment and conviction.
	Now, don't be surprised if Amy Coney Barrett writes another...
	Concurring decision.
	Her half-assed decision, like her planter aristocracy history, would tell you not to trust or rely upon.
	Going back to her whole family ancestry.
	There's a reason why she cited Jacobson as a circuit court judge.
	And for those folks out there still wondering why you keep criticizing on some of these issues, President Trump's number one candidate right now for vice president is Senator Tim Scott.
	A corrupt war whore that gives him no life insurance of any kind.
	That's how out of it and clueless Trump is right now.
	Trump sees the same signs and he thinks, I don't have to talk about these issues anymore.
	Now I can just attack Biden and go back and work with the same Republican establishment folks and I'll win in 2024 and I'll do the same thing I did my first term.
	That's the logic, unfortunately, that this Supreme Court success Is planting in his head, unfortunately.
	But I do believe his interpretation is probably correct.
	That that majority is a sign the Supreme Court will also rule in favor of presidential immunity.
	And remember, that dismisses every case.
	And while we're at it, on the same vein, by the way, the district court down in Florida is willing to take up arguments other judges have been trying to hide from.
	And is likely going to rule on both.
	He's requested amicus briefs and welcomed amicus briefs on the issue of whether Jack Smith ever had the power to bring that prosecution in the first place, which will unravel a whole bunch of things and get into government misconduct issues.
	Now, of course, Trump has to go through the ridiculous show trial in New York City at the end of the month.
	But I think that all that does is tell the Supreme Court.
	We've got to get involved and put an end to this before it becomes a disaster for us, the judicial system.
	So the fact that it's 9-0 and what the procurium said, the procurium is not the majority, correct?
	By virtue of the fact that three of the justices...
	No, that's the majority.
	That's a five-judge majority.
	No one's willing to sign their name to it.
	And usually that's because that means Roberts.
	Roberts wanted it written.
	Didn't necessarily want his name to be attached, but Roberts was orchestrating that decision.
	And the fact that Roberts was doing it is a sign that he understands, because given we know it, his motivation ain't the Constitution, and it sure ain't to help Trump.
	His motivation is what we've been talking about now for ever since this all started.
	This is the judicial system on trial in America.
	And the Judge Engrons, the Judge Marchens, the commie judge from D.C., this is embarrassing the judicial system.
	They think they're embarrassing Trump.
	Trump's used it to rally support.
	That's why he dominated on Super Tuesday.
	That's why he is the nominee.
	Why the nomination race is over, as, by the way, some of us predicted a year ago as well, against criticism then.
	The reason for it is this lawfare.
	But the people who are being most damaged by the lawfare is the integrity and impartiality and the appearance of the judiciary.
	And that's something that Roberts does get.
	Kavanaugh does get.
	And he's obsessed with.
	And there's no way he's going to let...
	I don't think.
	Once he made that per curiam decision happen with a majority of judges, hence that's the binding precedent of the court.
	It's not a situation we have four judges here, four here, one there, anything like that.
	There is a five-judge majority that signed on to that per courier.
	That is a strong indicator of where he's going on immunity.
	The question that I had was, people are up in arms over the prospect of Tim Scott.
	I don't think I know enough about him, but I know you've talked about it.
	Why is he such a bad state ally on everything?
	There's not an issue he's been good on.
	On anything that matters.
	Imagine Mike Pence, but black and dumber.
	That's Tim Scott.
	People were saying, oh no, not another Mike Pence, and I can't pretend to know these candidates.
	Yeah, he's a black Mike Pence, except he's not as politically skilled, frankly, as Mike Pence.
	You have your wish list, Robert.
	You get to pick vice president.
	Who do you pick?
	Oh, I pick J.D. Vance or Carrie Lake or somebody like that.
	You know, I pick a populist ally who the deep state is as scared of as they are of me.
	Ben Carson would be okay in that regard because he's, you know, he's sort of a compromise, if you will, but he's more on that side of the aisle.
	Tim Christie known would be a bad choice.
	Tim Scott would be a horrendous choice.
	Tim Scott is a black Nikki Haley.
	I mean, there's almost no difference.
	They're both in South Carolina, but from Lindsay, I mean, both ran for the president against Trump.
	You know, I mean, they're no different than Lindsey Graham.
	I mean, name the issue that Tim Scott's different.
	I get some Republicans are like, oh, look, we got a black one.
	You know, you got that token effect going on.
	Ben Carson can communicate effectively in the black community.
	Tim Scott never has.
	He's never gone anywhere in South Carolina with a black voter at all.
	Trump has got more black votes than Tim Scott has got.
	You know, the idea that they just look at color just ignores the reality.
	He talks like the caricature, the stereotype of a black Republican in the modern age.
	So he adds nothing to the ticket.
	And he removes life insurance for Trump because Deep State would love to have Tim Scott.
	To see a Tim Scott.
	It's amazing because when I saw Tim Scott in the Alabama RNC, I think it was the fourth one.
	And when he said, you know, like, oh, the Ukrainian blood is worth the sacrifice to fight our proxy war against Russia.
	I find that shocking.
	I found that shocking then.
	But I didn't know enough, you know, I didn't know more depth than that.
	That's all you really need to know about.
	But try to find anything good on COVID at the time.
	Anything good on the lockdowns.
	Anything good challenging the vaccines.
	Anything good challenging food freedom.
	Anything good on financial freedom.
	Anything good on election integrity.
	You won't find it.
	I mean, he's been the corrupt insiders convinced Trump to make him the lead keynote speaker at the Zoom convention of 2020.
	I mean, so as soon as I found this out, that told me, oh, the corrupt insiders are back in control of Trump and Trump's campaign.
	And the amazing thing is these same people that told me this predicted...
	Watch him say something dumb on COVID or the vaccine.
	And that was two days before he did exactly that.
	And that's when I was like, wow.
	And what people don't understand is keeping your mouth shut about this, not talking about it everywhere, every place, every time you can guarantees that bad things are going to happen.
	And President Trump retweeted me in 2020 saying he wasn't going to lock down.
	And then a week later, he wussed out and locked down.
	So you got to hammer him on these things or the mistakes will repeat and reoccur.
	And he will be at risk.
	It was like the people telling John Kennedy, don't put LBJ on the ticket, including his brother Robert.
	And look what happened.
	Some of us told Trump and Trump's people in 2016, don't pick Mike Pence.
	What happened on January 6th?
	So, you know, there's a reason we're saying this.
	It ain't because I don't like Trump.
	He's been my client.
	I think he's a great guy.
	I always liked him.
	When I was 11, 12 years old.
	Not long after my father passed away.
	I had two favorite books.
	Two people I really looked up to.
	I carried around everywhere.
	One of them was Robert Kennedy Sr.'s To Seek a Newer World.
	The other one was Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal.
	So I can still quote from that book.
	Plan for the best and expect the best.
	Plan for the worst.
	Do both.
	You have to have the right mindset for the good to happen.
	You have to be prepared in case it goes another direction.
	It's like, ah, it's genius.
	It's helped me my whole life, whole career.
	So, love Trump.
	But we don't help Trump by letting the corrupt insiders corrupt his campaign.
	What about, I called it, I predicted, I'm still sticking with it.
	Vivek would be life insurance against Trump, correct?
	For the most part, yes.
	Though there again with Vivek, and I like Vivek's, I would like to see Trump talking about Vivek's good ideas to defang and defund the administrative state.
	I would like to see Vivek talk about the Amos Miller case.
	I would like to see him talk about the Brooke Jackson case.
	I mean, what an easy case to talk about.
	The corrupt Biden Justice Department is shutting down a major fraud scheme that could give the American people billions of dollars and fix their horrendous injuries that have occurred with the vaccine.
	That's a no-brainer.
	Amos Miller, food freedom.
	No-brainer.
	Political freedom.
	Julian Assange and Ed Snowden.
	No-brainer.
	Why is Trump AWOL on these?
	Why is Vivek AWOL on these?
	Come on, use some common sense.
	J.D. Vance, you got Amish in your state, J.D. Every Republican congressman or senator should be talking about it.
	Dear Doug Mastriano, if you're out there, quit listening to Pope Redding, the corrupt Secretary of Agriculture of Pennsylvania, and listen to people who actually know something about what's happening in Pennsylvania farming.
	So, you know, it's frustrating.
	Seeing people who should know better, who can get political capital out of pursuing these issues, let corrupt insiders derail them.
	Robert, this wasn't on the menu.
	I just want to highlight it before I forget, because I saw a comment come up in Rumble.
	Tommy Robinson has been arrested again, and we haven't had an update on his arrest in two days since it occurred.
	Now, the wild thing is, no, this is not the right account.
	Damn it.
	I had the other account up.
	Tommy Robinson, I don't know why he's been re-arrested.
	His official account, which we were, you know, I was going to have Tommy Robinson on at some point, but he's been arrested again.
	Don't know why, don't know how.
	Apparently, it might have to do with potentially violating a publication, Ben.
	So, I'll try to get information on Tommy Robinson's arrest.
	I know that Rebel News, Ezra Levant, just put out a piece on him, but I just wanted to draw some attention to that, and I'm going to reach out to them and see if we can get some information.
	Robert, what is next on the menu?
	We got some great wins from Attorney General Paxton of the great state of Texas.
	Not only did he win a bunch of elections, but he supported people to finally fix the corrupt Texas legislature being run by these corrupt, fake Republicans.
	Dean Phelan's going to face a runoff.
	That's great to see.
	Hopefully he loses in that runoff, the fake Republican Speaker of the House.
	I don't know why Mike Johnson's trying to imitate people like him.
	Should be word of the wise, Mike.
	As Tucker Carlson pointed out, why is Mike Johnson going like this every time Biden talked about sending more money to Ukraine for something we have no interest in?
	But on that same accord, he has brought multiple cases, Attorney General Paxton, including one against Pfizer concerning lying about the vaccine.
	That may be one of the last cases standing.
	If the federal government gets their way and shuts down the Brooke Jackson case, at least for the time being.
	In the States.
	We got two in Canada.
	One against Moderna, one against Pfizer.
	We don't have the same ways to sue everywhere, every place, by every means possible.
	Anybody who thinks we're going away is living in la-la land.
	You could put me six feet under and my ghost will come back and sue.
	Robert, don't say silly things.
	There's certain cases that...
	That are never going away.
	That Sue and Tyson Foods, that's going to happen for forever.
	And the going after Pfizer is not something they're going to quit doing at all.
	And especially when you have very conscientious people and courageous people like Brooke Jackson, you don't have a choice but to march onward.
	And that should be the case of any half-decent lawyer.
	But speaking of smart, politically smart, constitutionally smart, Attorney General Paxton has now brought multiple cases, but he challenged what, to his great credit, Congressman Thomas Massey challenged, which, by the way, got President Trump to personally bash him.
	This is why Massey isn't a big Trump fan, because Trump was an idiot, went along with Nancy Pelosi's massive spending bill of 2020 and her plan to have proxy voting.
	And Congressman Massey said, the quorum clause of the Constitution doesn't allow proxy voting, and that's a real dangerous precedent to set, and we all shouldn't be scared, running around afraid and terrified of COVID anyway.
	And we're overreacting by the government.
	And that's what led Trump to personally criticize, by the way.
	Well, putting that aside, Massey was right, Trump was wrong.
	Massey tried to sue.
	But the D.C. courts, those wonderful, the District of Corruption, the District of Communism courts, said, ah, no standing.
	You know, dispute between members of Congress and other men, ah, no standing.
	So Attorney General Paxton didn't let that stop him.
	He said, you know, this omnibus bill that was passed in 2022, so remember that proxy voting was supposedly just for the COVID issue?
	Massey was right.
	They would keep using it, and they did.
	And imagine the benefit of proxy voting, right?
	You can tell a certain congressman, you don't have to worry about voting on this issue.
	Just give your proxy to George over here.
	He'll make sure the vote's the right vote.
	You know, that kind of routine.
	It invites corruption.
	And so Attorney General Paxson filed suit and said, you know, this omnibus bill imposes direct financial harm on the state of Texas.
	And that should give us standing.
	Under the Administrative Procedures Act to sue, not Congress, but to sue the enforcement agencies trying to enforce this legislation that passed in violation of the quorum clause.
	And what's the quorum clause?
	Article 1, Section 5 makes clear that Congress can only do business if a majority is present.
	And you know it means physically present because it then says...
	Congress is here by giving the power to compel the attendance of such members to make a majority.
	So we know what the Constitution means by a quorum.
	And that means you've got to physically be there.
	Well, all these bills were passed without a majority of quorum present.
	And so Paxton's like, ah, we shouldn't have to pay the cost of this unconstitutional legislation.
	So it goes to the court and they raise every defense known to man.
	They say, oh, this is a political question.
	You can't interfere with Congress.
	Oh, this is an enrolled bill.
	Now, the enrolled bill doctrine basically is when the courts want to run and hide.
	When they say, by the way, somebody sues and says, you know what?
	This actually isn't the law that passed.
	Somebody changed it along the way.
	Or if somebody says, by the way, this law was passed because so-and-so was bribed to get the bill through.
	Congress doesn't want to look at any of that.
	So they have the enrolled bill doctrine.
	If the bill's been enrolled, that's it.
	No more questions about how it got passed.
	However, they've never said that that means you can't question the quorum clause.
	And then the political question doctrine is about questions committed to Congress can't be decided by the courts.
	But the constitutional question of the quorum clause is not something committed to Congress.
	It's actually committed to the courts, as the district court correctly ruled.
	And so the district court said, on these issues, the only question is whether there's a quorum, and also agreed that the political question doctrine and the enrolled bill doctrine prohibits him from questioning what Congress writes.
	So if Congress says a quorum was present, that can't be challenged.
	He said, but here, we don't have to question it.
	Congress said a majority is not here.
	The rest of it is a majority is voting by proxy.
	He said, that's not what the quorum clause provides for.
	It says no business can be done if that's the case.
	And there's a lot of compelling reasons why the founders said so.
	So this bill is unconstitutional.
	So he only stopped one part of it, the part that impacts taxes, on one aspect.
	But this means most of the legislation passed in the last three years is unconstitutional.
	This is a dramatic ruling.
	So that anybody who is standing to sue should be looking at challenging on the quorum clause.
	But I mean, he's not talking about it at all.
	Who's going to have standing, Robert?
	I see the way they deny standing to everybody and everybody.
	Anybody directly negatively impacted certain legislation, for example, that led to regulation could be subject to it.
	You challenge the agency enforcing it under the APA, and you'll be one of the people subject to its enforcement.
	There's all kinds of fun stuff you can challenge now.
	All right.
	And now that relates to the other big win.
	He had a bunch of big wins this week, Attorney General Faxon.
	The other one is he sued because Biden came in and said, Bobby Kennedy was talking about this at the fundraiser.
	He's like, what happened was Joe Biden didn't like the border wall.
	And didn't dispense the funds properly.
	Yeah, exactly.
	He went down there and stopped it.
	And he laid it out better than Trump has at times.
	He was like, not only that, they went down there and said, well, you can build it.
	But not with the stuff that Trump was going to build it with.
	You have to use different concrete, different, you know, all that kind of nonsense.
	So Paxton sued, said this is causing illegal immigration, direct harm on the state of Texas, and under the Constitution, and again using the Administrative Procedures Act as the remedy, as the mechanism to sue, saying, look, the Constitution is clear.
	An executive agency has to spend money the way Congress directs it.
	But back it up, because people might not know this.
	So they apportion a certain amount to building a wall.
	This is Joe Biden.
	What year was this?
	No, Trump, you mean originally.
	Well, no, but Biden's admin says we're going to apportion a certain amount.
	Congress said this amount's got to go to the border wall.
	Biden administration comes in and says, we don't like the way you're doing it.
	Okay, and then says, we don't like the way you're doing it.
	We're going to spend it somewhere else.
	Paxton says, no, you promised it for this purpose, and it must be...
	Dispense for this purpose.
	And which level court was it in this case?
	District court.
	Right now it's the district.
	And the district court said, yep, that's right.
	The Constitution's pretty darn clear how you have to enforce these, that Congress can only spend, that the executive branch can only spend the money that Congress authorized them to spend, and only on the subject and topic that Congress authorized to spend.
	So money meant for border wall.
	Is it supposed to be going to build ports to Hamas in Gaza like Genius Joe is trying to do to recover those Arab votes in Detroit that voted against him?
	Whoa.
	Am I still there?
	Yeah, you're still there.
	Something else came up, popped up, made me look like...
	I was like, geez, I mentioned Hamas.
	It was a border wall.
	What did I do wrong?
	I was looking on Twitter to see...
	We're so close, Robert, to 30,000 because I put out a poll.
	That says, are we going to reach 30,000 tonight?
	We are 1,800.
	Chris Pabloski was busy hanging out with Trump at the UFC in Miami.
	Can you believe this?
	You got Bongino, Pabloski, and Vinny.
	Pabloski's a big star.
	He's hanging out with Trump.
	He's hanging out with Tom Brady.
	He probably doesn't have time for the rest of his humble folk.
	I don't know how the dude sleeps, but they're at the UFC 299 yesterday.
	Bongino, Pabloski, Vinny, Oceana from The Unusual Suspects.
	Oh, Patrick Bette David.
	Oh, Trump's there.
	He walks in and gets a thunderous applause and Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden.
	Have I frozen?
	No, no, you're there.
	Oh, dude.
	Well, everything on my computer is frozen.
	I'm not touching anything until it comes back.
	I can't see anything.
	Can I change?
	I can't change anything.
	Robert, I can hear you.
	Can you hear me?
	Oh, yeah.
	You look normal.
	Totally normal.
	Okay, fine.
	It's all frozen.
	I'm not going to touch anything until it comes back.
	Robert, what's the next subject on our list?
	So another, Attorney General Paxton went.
	He was a winner, winner, winner this week.
	Shows be smart politically, be aggressive legally.
	He's showing a path that these other folks can pursue.
	They may even be helping out soon on some other prominent cases.
	We'll see.
	But he also, remember we brought it up, he was seeking to enforce.
	Yes, on pornography.
	Exactly.
	Particularly minors' access to pornography.
	They also had a health warning on there that I thought was constitutionally questionable because it looked like coerced, compelled speech.
	Well, the district court said, it's all unconstitutional.
	You can't enforce it.
	Fifth Circuit just came in and said, nah, hold on a second.
	You can't coerce or compel speech.
	You can't stick warnings on there.
	You can't force people to disclose certain information.
	But what you can do...
	Is pass age verification provisions because that's subject to the rational basis standard, not a strict scrutiny standard, because the Supreme Court said all the way back in 1968...
	That if it involves minor access to obscene materials, that the law only has to be rational basis.
	It doesn't have to have a compelling interest that's narrowly tailored.
	So another win for Attorney General Paxton.
	Well, it also seemed like a no-brainer.
	It was not a question of, I don't know, what's the...
	What's the prejudice to requiring age verification for that which is already in print format subject to age verification?
	I couldn't even steelman the opposite argument.
	What was the opposite argument?
	Oh, that the First Amendment prohibits the states from imposing any age limitations of any kind to any content.
	And then their second argument was that the Section 230 gave them immunity.
	And there the nice thing is the Fifth Circuit said something.
	I don't know if I'm the only one.
	I assume Beam will be back here in a second.
	Let me know in the locals chat if you can see me and hear me to make sure I'm still alive.
	Assuming I am, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled and held that the Section 230 does not prevent or prohibit...
	Age verification legislation.
	More importantly, they went further with Section 230 and said Section 230 means that you actually only preempts legislation concerning third-party content.
	That is extraordinary.
	That's going down the path of finally eliminating Section 230's special immunities.
	That have been applied so consistently to prohibit meaningful legislation against them and hopefully previews maybe where the Supreme Court will go on those big Section 230 cases against big tech pending before the Supreme Court currently, including Florida and Texas legislation.
	Up next is the Binance case.
	Until Viva comes back and finds us and opts back into his own system.
	Maybe Viva was the controversial one all this time.
	But so Binance is a major crypto company that claims to be organized out of Malta.
	But it does match much of its solicitation, provides much of its access, utilizes most of the servers essential to what it sells as a product in the United States.
	And so they were promoting IPOs, or not IPOs, ICOs that were like IPOs.
	Now, these are unique tokens.
	So unlike the tokens the SEC is trying to misdefine as a security, which triggers a wide range of unique regulations and unique laws, these are the kind of things that really do look like securities.
	Because these are things that there's no utility to it.
	You're not buying a token that makes it easier for you to transact business.
	It doesn't provide a store of value.
	It doesn't do anything to say Bitcoin does.
	Instead, it's solely to invest in an ongoing venture, and you have an expectation of a return related to the success of that venture, and that's the more traditional definition of security.
	So it's more applicable, and in this context, Binance did not even dispute that application.
	So Binance just said, hey, we're not in the United States.
	They can't sue us.
	And the law didn't say anything about applying outside the United States.
	In fact, to the opposite, it has been already interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States dating back to 2010.
	Viva has returned.
	They're discussing the Binance case about finance and foreign crypto and when you can sue Binance in America.
	And I was reading this decision.
	I'm trying to figure out...
	Who is this?
	It's in the Southern District of New York that initially dismissed the case because it was not on U.S. territory.
	And it was, oh yeah, no standing.
	But I'm trying to think of who are they trying to protect?
	And I don't know who they're trying to protect.
	It's sent corrupt.
	It's a mixed deal because you have the SEC trying to misapply the definition of securities to every form of crypto so they can run them and regulate them and run them out of business.
	And then on the other hand, you have some shady crypto operators.
	Because remember, Binance's founder was back and forth with FTX.
	And there's a lot of accusations and allegations floating around.
	So you have these two different instincts kind of pulling at each other.
	And this case, I thought, had a reasonable balance.
	It said this is a unique form of crypto token that was being sold that most mirrors a security, and we don't even have to address whether it really is a security because Binance has not objected to it being a security.
	But Binance thought, this was interesting, Binance's defense was, we've never registered as a security in the United States.
	Hence, no jurisdiction from security laws in the United States.
	An interesting application of the extraterritorial doctrine.
	But because they weren't disputing what they were selling was a security, that defense was not a complete defense.
	And the court correctly identified that when you solicit in the United States, when your servers are in the United States and your servers are essential to what you do, this is not just, hey, the backup of my business uses servers in some country.
	These servers are the basis by which the crypto transaction occurs.
	And you tell people in your terms of service, That where you send the money from is when it's an irrevocable transaction, which triggers the irrevocable liability section for domestic territorial jurisdiction in the United States for a security allegation.
	Bingo!
	You're subject to United States courts.
	Big ruling because Binance has a lot of liability risk in the United States.
	Robert, let me bring this up here.
	We're so darn close.
	It's not going to happen tonight.
	Regardless, share the link, people.
	Make us get to...
	Oh, we're going to...
	We're not going to get to 30,000 tonight.
	It's good enough.
	DianeMag1234 says, What's up with Caesars Place going up in New York City?
	Could they use the same crypto?
	I don't know.
	I don't know anything about that.
	Jim Sitala, a friend who works with a server...
	Robert, we see this, right?
	I've screwed everything up and I'm glad I got it all back.
	Okay, I got it.
	A friend who works as a server at Mar-a-Lago claims they overheard Trump officer Tulsi Gabbard...
	Trump offer Tulsi Gabbard the VP slot when she was there.
	Then the very next day, she officially left the DNC.
	I can see...
	There's people who want that, but to my knowledge, that's very unlikely to...
	Right now, that's not where Trump's mind's at.
	That's what I can tell you.
	Need help with my sports pick subscription, Robert.
	Card got hacked.
	Had to get a new one.
	Locals wants to charge me the new price rather than the $100.
	You'll take care of that.
	Go to the contact page at barneslawllpp.com Email through there and that reaches me and all of my people.
	I'll get it to the team there at Locals.
	No problem.
	Trump would have this election wrapped up.
	If he could choose RFK as his running mate, Robert S9 Payne, what do you say?
	I agree.
	Both Trump and Kennedy have ruled that out.
	Damn it.
	For now.
	For now.
	Damn it.
	Damn it.
	Amy Coney Barrett is a Catholic who, like Joe Biden, Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas Sotomayor, Roberts, only answers to the Pope.
	The Pope has been very wrong on things.
	I don't want to make anybody angry.
	You know the Ukraine war is going south when even the Pope now, who's been a propagandist for the war, is like...
	Oh, now that I think about it, I think peace would be a good idea.
	I've got nobody to pee in my pants here, Robert.
	What do you think of LA Congressman Clay Higgins?
	I don't know who that is, Robert.
	I don't know enough about him.
	Vivek's too young, especially now that we've seen...
	Yeah, I think he'd be a good cabinet person, but I would love to see Trump start to talk about his substantive ideas for defunding the deep state, taking apart the administrative state.
	We need to start seeing...
	Some meat on the bones.
	Now that Trump's through the primary stage, Trump looks like he's through the legal challenges to ballot access, maybe through all the civil and criminal cases.
	Now's when we got to get the best version of Trump.
	The rally behind Trump has happened for a year.
	I have been one of the leaders of that rally behind efforts.
	Now we need the best version of Trump, not the one that made a lot of mistakes in 2020.
	General Flynn for VP.
	I think I can field why that's a bad idea.
	That wouldn't get anybody new.
	That might please a certain degree of the base, but I can see that not being a good idea.
	Life Insurance, Ron Paul VP.
	Yeah, I love Ron Paul.
	Ron Paul should be a new majority leader.
	Instead, he'll probably get one of the schmucks.
	Alright, we've got Tom Scott.
	Okay, fine.
	Now, I want to make sure I don't want to accidentally kick myself from the stream again.
	I didn't kick myself before my computer froze, and then I knew shit's going down when the computer froze.
	We've got one more case here, and then we'll save some of the rest for the after-party.
	That'd be at BarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We'll discuss the Amos Miller update there.
	We'll discuss the California Bar and other bars, how they should be challenged with these, in my view, unconstitutional limitations on the practice of profession of law.
	We have the Honduran presidential candidate conviction and the hush-hush implications.
	Those we'll discuss over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Last up tonight, the Rust guilty verdict.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to add one, Robert.
	It'll be five seconds.
	Because I want to make a video tomorrow and I want to make sure to pick the brains of the big brains.
	Not Fannie Willis, the other corrupt DA.
	Leticia James.
	And I don't know who's saying, come forward people at that meeting who booed Leticia James from the firefighter division.
	We don't want to punish you.
	We're not going to hunt you down.
	But you should turn yourselves in so we don't have to hunt you down.
	What could the employees of the Firefighters Union, whatever the hell you want to call it, what sanctions could they face for their improper conduct by booing the shit out of that horrible woman, Leticia James?
	Nothing legal that I'm aware of.
	Now, it's been a mixed bag, but they've won several of the cases challenging the vaccine mandates.
	There's been some courts that don't let them sue in certain ways, but have allowed them to sue in other ways.
	This is the New York Fire Department, one of the greatest fire departments in the country.
	I've met a good number of their workers right after all the COVID vaccine mandate stuff was going on.
	And these are stand-up guys and stand-up ladies.
	They were people from all across the political spectrum.
	But what they all had in common is the kind of people you'd like to be...
	If you're stuck in a trench, you're happy to be with any New York fireman.
	So it would be ill-advised.
	For Letitia James to make them a full-scale wholesale political and legal adversary.
	Well, we saw what they did with January 6th, so we'll see about that.
	Everybody stay tuned.
	I'll put up a video about this tomorrow.
	Now I actually forgot the topic, what we were just talking about.
	Oh, so our last case of...
	Here on Rumble before we go over to vivabarneslock.locals.com for the after party.
	We'll answer all the $5 tip questions.
	Remember, if you want to troll, you just got to pay the toll.
	Pay the toll.
	So you can tell me I'm wrong right there.
	At least make it $5 and make it worthwhile.
	Don't look stupid when you do it.
	That's embarrassing to you and your friends.
	But over there, we'll discuss Amos Miller, the Honduras.
	Presidential candidate, the State Bar, California, getting challenged.
	The DEI rules at California State Bar getting challenged.
	Here, our last case of the night, the guilty verdict in the Russ trial.
	Oh, yeah.
	Look, this is another thing.
	Now we've lived through enough trials where, unless I watch the entire trial, I'm not going to trust my own opinion on what I think was right or just.
	What's her face?
	Hannah Guterres-Reed.
	By the way, anybody who wants the full lowdown, you go to America's Untold Stories, Eric Hundley.
	Yeah, and apparently that's where the Gorilla Grip reference came from.
	Oh, yes.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Thank you.
	Yes, the Gorilla Grip, the Gorilla P-U-S-S-Y grip, was not Fanny Willis out of Georgia.
	It was Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.
	Apparently that's what she actually named her own phone, which leads me to believe it's not that much of a Gorilla Grip.
	But bottom line, correction there, everybody knows.
	Not Fanny Willis.
	Don't say somebody tweeted it and some people retweeted it.
	It was Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, her cell phone.
	She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter or negligent manslaughter?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think it's a mistitled law.
	We don't put people in prison for felonies for negligence in America, and so we shouldn't have any law that's titled negligent anything.
	Everything requires a willful criminal purpose and either criminal recklessness, which is a certain level of criminal intent, but always intent.
	Not, hey, I just screwed up and should have known otherwise.
	That's not the basis of a crime.
	But the court appeared to give instructions that kind of sounded like that.
	I watched the closing arguments for both sides.
	I didn't agree with Andrew Branca's take on it.
	Now I know he covered the whole trial.
	He covered a lot more than I did.
	But at least from the closing...
	I watch a closing argument.
	I should be able to watch a closing argument without watching the trial.
	If the closing argument is competent at all.
	The prosecutor's closing argument was not competent at all.
	I couldn't even understand what piece of evidence, how it related.
	And I'm a lawyer.
	And I'm like, the ordinary person would be like, what the heck is she talking about?
	Whereas the defense really did.
	So whatever, a lot of people were critical of the defense.
	You know, I didn't watch the whole trial, so I don't know.
	But the closing argument, he did a much better job.
	And even had a good pitch, how they were trying to make her a scapegoat.
	Because the hard part of the case is...
	She provided the gun that was loaded A loaded gun was used to kill somebody.
	And she loaded it.
	One of the bullets didn't fit in?
	She loaded the gun.
	She gave the gun to him.
	She said the gun was cold rather than hot.
	She said it wasn't loaded with a bullet that could kill someone, and it was.
	No, but that's the thing.
	I think she gave it to...
	This is where COVID protocols came in.
	I think she gave it to the assistant director, David Hall, who he's the one who said cold gun.
	And so everyone's like, all right, who loaded the gun?
	It came back to...
	Hannah Guterres-Reed.
	She loaded the gun.
	One wouldn't fit in.
	She shaved it down.
	I don't know what the hell you're doing there.
	Put it in.
	Didn't check to see if it was a live or dummy round.
	And then Hall is the one who said the cold gun and gave it in because he was relying on her assurances.
	Baldwin pulled the trigger saying, I'm relying on Hall's assurances.
	So it's a stepladder.
	So from that sense, I could see why a jury would be inclined to convict.
	On the flip side, there's no evidence at all that she had any intention for any gun to ever be loaded.
	There's none.
	And willful criminal intent means you do something knowing there's a high likelihood that death is going to occur or serious bodily harm.
	There was no evidence of that that I saw, presented at least in the closing argument by the prosecution.
	So I had a serious problem with the case from that perspective.
	I did not see how it met.
	The constitutionally required legal elements.
	Now, the defense lawyer added a narrative saying, look, this is about Alec Baldwin and the big producers looking around after this incident happened, saying, who can we blame as our scapegoat?
	The OSHA, the Office of Safety and Health Inspectors came in, administration, came in and said it was the producer's fault.
	It was the big money guy's fault.
	It was Alec Baldwin's fault.
	And instead, Baldwin and his buddies were looking around saying, let's blame someone else.
	Oh, let's blame the little kid who we gave, who was very young, who we gave two jobs to, that there was no way she could competently or capably perform.
	They knew that this kind of thing could happen because it was an impossible position.
	And that she was not able to go into the church scene on the day of because of COVID protocols.
	So there's like a chain of...
	Or there's like a broken telephone with this prop, which is a real gun.
	Yeah, throw her under the bus.
	So the...
	And one of the dumbest parts of the prosecution was the defense pointed out that it required foreseeability.
	In other words, you know you're doing something that has this...
	It's very foreseeable.
	It's probable, in essence.
	Or there's at least a high chance.
	That what you're doing is going to lead to somebody's death.
	That's what involuntary manslaughter is supposed to really be, right?
	So you know you're drinking and you get in a car and you're too drunk to operate the car.
	That's almost like your classic definition of involuntary homicide.
	Though sometimes there are special DUI statutes more and more by most states.
	But that's an example.
	You're engaging in known dangerous conduct.
	That can have this consequence.
	Even if you don't intend that particular consequence, you're acting with sufficient criminal intent to know that consequence has a very high chance to occur because of your conduct.
	There was no evidence of that against her.
	And he was like, if you vote guilty, you're allowing Alec Baldwin and the rich guys to blame the low end of the totem pole, to blame the equivalent of the janitor at the scene of an industrial accident.
	And I thought that was persuasive.
	And he said one of the key things he pointed out...
	Is that Alec Baldwin was always going off script.
	That Alec Baldwin, there was no reason for her to know that him having the gun had any consequence in this scene because he wasn't supposed to aim it, wasn't supposed to fire it at all in the scene.
	This was just about the gun being in his holster.
	That's all.
	So there was no reason to believe there was any risk.
	And the prosecution got up and said, he's Alec Baldwin.
	He always goes off script.
	That's foreseeable.
	One of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
	And Branca seemed to think it was a smart argument.
	I was like, God bless Branca, but I'm not with him on that.
	Unless I misinterpreted his coverage.
	So I was utterly unpersuaded by the prosecutor.
	Also, she comes across as your typical authoritarian personality and something that rhymes with rich.
	So in terms of who and what she is.
	So if I'm Alec Baldwin's lawyers, I'm looking at that case, and I'm saying I got a nasty, mean, vindictive, authoritarian, petty prosecutor who I can easily bait into making stupid arguments.
	Like, classic rule, my brother taught me in debate in high school.
	He who defines the terms wins the debate.
	Trump, by the way, is a genius at understanding this.
	You always define the terms.
	If the other guy comes up with terms, you don't use their terms.
	Because if you're using their terms, you're on their terrain, they're already winning.
	So the defense comes up with a nice argument.
	It can't be foreseeable that Alec Baldwin would go off script.
	Yes, he had a habit of going off script.
	We know that, but there's no reason to assume he's going to always do it or it be foreseeable.
	The other stupid argument by the prosecutor, why isn't she going around shutting everything down?
	Why doesn't she act like a bureaucratic tyrant?
	Because she's on the lowest end of the totem pole.
	That's why.
	I mean, it was a ludicrous argument.
	It's dumb as a doorknob.
	And people tell me, whoa, a smart prosecutor.
	No, no, no, sorry.
	I've seen smart prosecutors.
	She ain't one.
	If I'm Alec Baldwin's people, I'm loving this.
	People say, oh, Baldwin must be scared now after this verdict.
	No, I just saw an idiot nitwit prosecutor that you could easily bait into making your arguments on your terrain by just telling her that she's dumb or arrogant or has corrupt motives, and she'll take whatever bait you want.
	She'll go wherever you want on whatever issue or argument you want.
	Can't even be coherent in a closing argument against a low-income defendant without much resources, be able to mount a meaningful defense with an idiot.
	Gun safety expert who kept pointing the gun at the jury and then the judge and then himself.
	I mean, that was kind of some of their experts they were using.
	If I'm Alec Baldwin, then otherwise I'd pick a good jury.
	Now, that's where you've got to be tricky because Baldwin's favorite...
	Demographic is liberal Democrats, but liberal Democrats here, oh, they're so scary, and otherwise, and a lot of them are authoritarians.
	Your classic liberal Democrat these days is your true authority.
	I love to take, when the state says, oh, you can go and beat up that person, they get all excited.
	That's who they are.
	So if you're Baldwin's people, you really need like populist independent types who can overlook the fact that you're a contemptible ass who probably shot somebody on purpose.
	I stand by my analysis.
	I think he pulled the trigger on purpose to scare the trigger.
	He definitely did.
	Well, now we know it's fully off script.
	He wasn't supposed...
	So what was his thing?
	She was supposedly telling him do this and this and this with the gun?
	I'd like to see actual evidence of that because...
	The script, he was, well, one, he was told repeatedly, never point the gun at anyone, period, ever, for any reason.
	That even if, because the way you film, you can make it look like someone's pointing a gun at someone when they're not.
	So he was supposed to never point a gun at anyone, ever.
	And he was not supposed to pull the trigger or use the gun in that scene, according to the script writer, testified under penalty of perjury.
	So, and obviously he lied, because they now know he had to...
	Single action, whatever they call it.
	You have to pull the trigger.
	You have to do that repeatedly.
	Now, the other flip side, those cops are idiots.
	That was Keystone Cop Operation.
	They're waiting to get proper...
	Baldwin's people are allowed to destroy the slugs.
	They're able to destroy a lot of the weapons, a lot of the bullets.
	They got rid of them after the murder!
	Because of the incompetent rubes.
	Who are the law enforcement people?
	Like that lady cop?
	She seemed as dumb as a doorknob.
	So I get why Seth Kinney is confident he could walk.
	He's like, look at how dumb this chick is.
	I want to play her like a violin.
	People are like he was romantically inclined.
	No, no, he wanted to convince her he was romantically inclined.
	Take another look at her.
	Ain't nobody romantically inclined at her.
	I mean, just to be honest, you know, you got to be real.
	I mean, she looked almost as bad as somebody who works for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	The low IQ lardasses is my favorite definition.
	I think Baldwin's actually in much better shape than a lot of people thought because I was underwhelmed by the prosecution, underwhelmed by the police presence.
	It's the same prosecution who goes after Baldwin.
	Same prosecution, same cops.
	Baldwin's got serious issues, but if he hires the right, smart, savvy lawyer who picks the right, smart jury...
	Baldwin will walk.
	The question is whether he does those two things because his ego is as big as six continents.
	I think Baldwin's going down because they're going to sink him on his out-of-court statements, which will be admissible somehow, Robert, but I think Baldwin's going down.
	That's my prediction.
	No doubt.
	I can understand that take.
	The issue is that those cops are not impressive.
	They're doing...
	The prosecutor admitted to ethical unprofessional conduct in their closing argument.
	She said that they took the argument about Seth Kinney that they thought was speculative and kind of ludicrous and used it to get a search warrant.
	It's like, so when you filed your probable cause affidavit of a crime, you were committing perjury?
	And your officer was committing murder?
	They believed it at the time, Robert.
	Come on now.
	She was saying at the time, they thought it was speculatively ludicrous nonsense.
	How dumb of a prosecutor do you have to be?
	And I was not impressed by the cop.
	Look, if you think her defense lawyer was really bad, well, even a really bad defense lawyer embarrassed their police.
	So, you know, that's a major issue.
	Now, my political problem with aspects of this case, going beyond Baldwin.
	Because I think it should have been solely, wholly focused on Baldwin, is they're trying to make guns so inherently scary and dangerous that if anything ever bad happens, just like the Michigan case, you're going to jail for a long time.
	Correct.
	And that I'm not comfortable with at all.
	And a lot of people are asleep at the wheel because they hate Alec Baldwin.
	They're wanting all these prosecutions to be successful, and they're not paying attention to the underlying policy being made by the prosecutions.
	Yeah, well, I'll say, like, I'm paying more attention to it.
	I draw a distinction between the Michigan parents and Alec Baldwin.
	I think Baldwin should go.
	You can't with Baldwin.
	It's just, with her?
	No, no.
	Was she competent to do her job?
	No.
	Was she kind of an arrogant kid who was probably doing drugs?
	Quite apparent.
	Is that a reason to go to prison?
	Because you're working for people that don't give you the skills and the tools to do it, and just because you're arrogant enough to think you can, I'm not comfortable with that at all.
	No, but that's it.
	They hired her.
	They hired someone, and her social media platform footprint was visible for all.
	So I'd say the buck goes up.
	It doesn't stop with her, but we'll see if it stops with her and does not go up.
	Robert, on that note, here's what we're going to do.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm going to go into...
	I don't want to crash my computer again.
	Over to locals.
	If Alec Baldwin does no jail time, then no one should.
	It says, you get soupy gal.
	Don't kill people Alec Baldwin does.
	Baldwin can never get movie insurance for life, says Loveness.
	Hold on a second.
	We've got two more.
	I'm going to bring this back in.
	Just two more.
	I can finish this up here.
	Fraser McBurney, my neighbor visited her husband in the hospital and was given the deadly shot.
	She came to visit me and she was swollen.
	Unfortunately, she died two weeks later.
	People that are trying to defend Trump on all this stuff don't realize how many people out there they're insulting.
	That's the problem.
	You think by ignoring it, you're going to win people over?
	No.
	Or attacking people who say, please don't praise the vaccine.
	You're insulting them.
	Don't make the same stupid mistake Trump made in 2020.
	I'm going to be meeting Gruber and Hundley next week.
	Paid for the VIP.
	Looking forward to meeting people there.
	Karen, you're going to have a good time.
	They're doing something in Youngstown, Ohio, I believe, right?
	I think so.
	I'm not sure, but Dianag1234.
	Great movie last night at Barnes.
	I still think Soros, Gates, and Schwab are real-life jackals.
	ThinboySlick, if everyone opens locals, we're not hitting 30 tonight.
	We came very close.
	It was good.
	Now what we're going to do is we're going to go over to Locals and we're going to have the after party there.
	I think I've given everyone the link.
	Hold on a second.
	I'm going to do it one more time.
	And then, good night, everybody.
	Link to Locals.
	I'm going to end this now on Rumble.
	And tomorrow I'll be live.
	And whatever.
	Stay tuned.
	Robert, do you have any upcoming events this week for the live social medias?
	We'll probably have a range of interviews, but I'm not sure which ones and what time.
	And Bourbon with Barnes are going to be on this week?
	Oh yeah, bourbonwithbarnes at viobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Usually 9-ish p.m. Eastern each night.
	Ending on Rumble, and now let's go over to Locals.
	Boom!
	Sorry, that was too loud.
	Actually, I know that was too loud because I scared the dog.
	You're disgusting.
	You smell terrible.
	Your beard is disgusting.
	Looks normal, though, without the weird haircut.
	Yeah, well, you know what?
	The problem is I've got to show his teeth.
	He's going to have to go to the vet because his teeth...
	So everyone says if they eat food, their beard gets yellow or pink, whatever that is.
	All right.
	Robert, I'll get to the tips on Viva Barnes Law.
	Well, we're all here now.
	We know where we are.
	Okay.

▲