All Episodes
Previous Next
March 13, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
01:22:31
Live with Trump Co-Defendant Jeff Clark's Attorney - Fani Willis, Georgia & BEYOND! Viva Frei
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.
Tremendous bad management of entitlements.
There's tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do.
Yeah, we could put you in jail.
For all of your...
For all of your...
You know, Social Security is not an entitlement.
We paid for that.
Skip the rest of that crap.
Everybody, when that news piece, that headline, that narrative was running around Monday, Trump is going to cut Social Security and Medicare.
And I'm like, there has to be a little bit more to that because when all the blue checkmark Democrats, legacy media start running.
A narrative in tandem.
Chances are there's something more to that.
And there are.
He just outright didn't say it.
He said, possibly, you know, open to the idea of maybe cutting some.
Reducing some.
You know, at some point, you do have to make budgets balanced, despite what Justin Trudeau thinks.
At some point, whoopee.
At some point, who's the other one?
Corey Bush.
You want all these things to pay for themselves.
Maybe don't send $200 billion for foreign money laundering to finance proxy wars against Russia.
Maybe, if you want to not be faced with the hard reality of economics, I mean, we're no economists here, maybe don't squander hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to fund foreign proxy wars where a significant portion of that money gets misappropriated.
And also, I wanted to play that highlight because it shows you.
Yeah, put him in jail.
Put him in jail, Trump.
Oh, what's that?
A president enacts policy that we don't like?
Well, we'll put you in jail when you're out of office because that's basically what we're seeing right now.
Highlighting the fact that prosecuting a president for crimes, alleged crimes committed while in office as a matter of constitutional procedure requires an impeachment and a conviction failing which you will get activist nincompoops like Whoopi Goldberg saying You did something we didn't like while you were in office, so we're going to criminally harass you now that you're out of office.
All right, good afternoon, everybody.
We don't have very much time with Harry McDougald, attorney for Jeff Clark in the Trump Rico case.
I'll give like a minute and a half for everybody to tune in.
This is going to be amazing.
Chat, if I ask too many questions or if I ask like the wrong question, like, did your clients do it?
Just someone ping me, text me someone and say, Viva, shut your big mouth.
I'm joking.
We're going to get into this.
This is amazing.
You may not know Harry McDougall by name.
I think we might recognize him by voice.
He is Jeff Clark's attorney.
Jeff Clark has been on the channel for a sidebar a long time ago.
And, you know, the idea is now that there's a current criminal pending lawsuit, current criminal charges pending.
And I think there's gag orders against all of these people.
I forget exactly.
Probably better to have a discussion with his attorney, not with a current pending...
Albeit horse crap of a prosecution criminal accused.
So, with that said, everybody, we're going to start with Harry, and then however long we go when we're done with Harry, we're going to come on over to Rumble and talk about some other stuff.
I've seen the news, people.
I can't keep up with the news.
All right.
Let's do this.
Harry, I'm bringing you in.
Three, two, one.
Sir, how goes the battle?
It's very, very busy.
Let's put it that way.
You do sound familiar, but I couldn't make out all the faces in the wonderful judicial saga of the Fannie Willis disqualification.
You were pleading there, right?
You were one of the lawyers pleading?
Yes, I argued at the hearing on March the 1st, I think it was.
They kind of run together these days.
But yeah, I was up there, and I look a little different because I had a haircut.
And my hair is a little bit unruly, like yours, and so it grows out instead of down, so my head shrinks a lot when I get a haircut.
You know, I can tell voices clearly, but even when we're watching on little screens, it's tough to see.
Let me ask you this, a question right off the bat before we get into some details.
The judge came down with a separate ruling today, or at least a dismissal of some of the indictments in the RICO case.
That, to me, is a very good indication that he's going to disqualify Fannie and Nathan.
What's your prediction for what Scott McAfee is going to do?
Well, I'm not in the prediction business when it's in front of the judge.
That's a hazardous undertaking.
It can have an unfortunate rebound effect.
There are a lot of people reading tea leaves that it means one way or the other.
I don't really buy that.
Judge McAfee is a very orderly guy.
And so he had this motion in front of him.
It was argued for the first time.
The oral argument was December the 1st.
And there's been a bunch of post hearing briefings.
This one's been on his plate for quite a long time.
And he granted it as to six counts, a special procedure, a special procedural vehicle for criminal cases in Georgia Mm-hmm.
Yeah, it's great.
A special demur, and he said it in his decision, it's a lot like what we call a motion for particulars up in Quebec, motion for specificity in civil matters.
Demur, meaning in criminal law, not even sufficient allegations to know that against which you need to defend.
Yeah.
So, broad question.
How did you get involved in this?
Have you ever had any dealings with Fannie Willis in general before this particular hearing?
Never.
I supported her.
I voted for her in her election last time around because a previous DA needed to go.
And so she was the viable opposition candidate and drew support, a lot of support for that reason.
But I got involved because I was representing Jeff in connection with subpoenas from the January 6th committee.
That work began in late October of '21.
That turned into representing him with the DC bar, which began investigating him at the end of '21.
And then that matured into charges filed against him in July of '22.
And so that case has been ongoing in DC since that time.
And so when this case came along...
I had familiarity with all the underlying stuff, and I happened to be in Atlanta, so it was convenient.
And where do you practice typically?
You're in Atlanta full-time.
Yeah, I'm in Atlanta full-time.
I grew up here, so I'm an Atlanta native, and I'm in that court on a regular basis.
The question is this.
People say that Atlanta, or Georgia, and Fulton County in particular, is notoriously corrupt.
I've asked a few people who are Intimately involved in that area.
Is it known to have a problem like this?
We're all being exposed to what I think anybody with half a brain deems to be rampant corruption.
Is this the way the system works at large, or is this something unique to certain areas, and Fulton in particular?
Well, corruption is a pretty strong term.
There have been a lot of local government officials sent off to federal prison.
Over the years.
I went back and looked, as a matter of fact, and most of them have been City of Atlanta officials.
And earlier in my career, I represented a number of whistleblowers against the City of Atlanta.
And so I got a pretty good education on how the City of Atlanta government is run by corrupt officials.
Fulton County has not had as many convictions, although there have been a few.
People from both parties.
But anybody that lives in the area, if you ask them, well, have you had any extensive dealings with county government?
And how did that go for you?
Their eyes roll and they shrug.
And so I would say it's more administrative incompetence or...
Clown show than it is outright corruption.
And I'm not sensitive enough to the fact that you're still a practicing attorney who might not have the liberty of qualifying things the way I would.
And it depends on which particular office you're dealing with.
I mean, some of the people that work for county government are absolutely outstanding and they do their absolute level best under very difficult circumstances.
And the judges are notable in that respect, but they struggle.
Against the constraints that are imposed on them from a funding standpoint by the county commission and all of that.
So it's a and I was actually on the Fulton County Election Board for eight years.
And as I told one of the judges in this case, it was eight miserable years.
And at the end of that, I was very glad to leave.
And I began telling people that if you really hate somebody.
You should try to get them put onto the Fulton County Election Board.
Now, there's a question in here from GoodLogic, who's another lawyer who's been covering this thoroughly as well.
And it's one of the questions I was going to get to.
We saw after they had their closing arguments, which I'll bring this back up in a second, was an abject disaster from Adam Abate's perspective.
At least that's my assessment of his closing arguments, not to get personal.
I think it's what happens when you have a garbage case and you have to raise garbage arguments that are just untenable on their face.
But after the closing arguments, there were submissions of evidence and briefs, which were submitted, and yours was phenomenal.
It was a response to Adam Abate's supplemental argument brief.
Is it common as a standard practice?
For there to be multiple applications from both sides to submit evidence briefs after a hearing concludes, do judges tend to grant those applications?
So that's all kind of ad hoc.
There's no specific rule that prohibits it or permits it, and it's according to what the judge will allow.
The judge has not said one way or the other whether he will accept any of this proffered post-hearing evidence, although at the end of the hearing he indicated he was not inclined to receive any additional evidence.
But if the lawyer feels like it's important and they want the judge to know it, They ought to go ahead and put it up and see if he considers it.
And then as far as post-hearing briefs, that's been pretty common in this particular case.
And in my experience, state court judges will receive post-hearing briefs.
Federal court judges a little more reluctant to do that unless you get specific permission.
I couldn't go through Adam Abate's post-supplemental argument brief, because it was just, it seemed like it was just rectifying the disaster of his pleading, and it was just the same verbal diarrhea over and over again.
Yours was amazing, in that it's, you know, keep it simple and straightforward.
You have to explain that, well, actually, before we even get there, proffers.
I know what it means, but tell people out there, what does a proffer mean?
When the judge is considering it, is it public information?
Is it in the court record?
Or is it sort of not necessarily under seal?
Is it not public information that could be disseminated as though it has already been adjuiced as evidence?
So a proffer is basically a 50 cent word for offer.
And you're saying to the court, if you let me put this in, this is what I'm going to put in.
So you describe what the testimony would be and ask them to receive it.
And in cases where evidence is excluded.
You make a proffer so you can get into the record what that evidence would be so you can argue on appeal that it should have been admitted.
So the proffer is just a way for the lawyers to say, hey, we think we've got evidence you ought to consider and here's what it would be.
And so you proffer to a judge.
I presume that this is a safeguard for when there's a jury so that the judge would hear and say, we're not going to present it to a jury.
But once you've proffered it to a judge who's like, okay, I've heard what you're going to say.
I'm not going to allow it, but I've heard it and it's in my brain.
Is that not sort of a fictional, not dichotomy, but a fictional distinction that you've done the damage merely by the proffer?
So with a jury, the old saying is you can't unring the bell.
With a judge, presumably due to their metaphysical qualities, they can unring the bell.
But yeah, I mean, your point is for a normal person, they would have heard it.
But a judge, I think, being disciplined.
Through, you know, basically intellectual rigor could say, okay, well, this is the stack I'm considering and I don't see anything in here that shows that you ran the red light and I'm not going to consider this videotape that proves that you did.
Therefore, there's no evidence that you ran the red light.
So that would be something a judge could do.
And so the evidence that has been proffered but not yet admitted, cell records, correct?
That is not yet accepted evidence in the court.
That's right.
Okay.
The voicemail from the waiter who said he served Nathan Wade, Terrence Bradley, is that even proffered yet?
That has been proffered, and it's in the form of characterizing what his testimony would be as opposed to his voicemail.
Okay.
So that's been proffered, as has the affidavit of the...
A guy that worked at the winery in Napa Valley.
Yeah, she paid him $400 cash once.
There's your evidence that the entire cash reimbursement story pans out.
There was something else that was proffered, I thought.
Well, there was the assistant DA.
She's got a higher title than assistant DA, but it's a lady who's pretty high up in the Cobb County DA's office.
That she heard Terrence Bradley on the phone with Nathan Wade.
No, sorry, on the phone with...
Fannie Willis.
Correct.
Saying, they're coming after us, don't talk to them.
That's right.
So many questions.
Oh, it's this case.
Can the argument not be made that that's witness tampering?
Have none of the defendants raised that argument yet, or at least gone after some sort of sanction for that potential misconduct?
That argument has been made.
Okay, and there's no separate ethical recourse.
Now we saw...
We saw recently that the two ethics complaints against Fannie Willis were not dismissed, but they were not going to be heard because the county doesn't have jurisdiction over constitutional officers.
That was their conclusion.
So we have multiple bodies that have some sort of jurisdiction to enforce ethics requirements, and one of them is the Fulton County Ethics Board.
There's a state ethics board.
That's the body with which you file your campaign disclosure reports.
And then for lawyers, of course, there's the state bar.
And so now that Fannie's off the hook on at least one of these, where can someone go ethically to deal with this conduct, set aside sanctioning her in the context of the prosecution?
So those other two bodies, certainly the state bar would have jurisdiction over any breach of the rules of professional conduct.
The state ethics board doesn't have, you know, plenary jurisdiction, but they would have jurisdiction over matters of campaign finance primarily.
Now, I'm going to bring this one up.
This one's for you, Harry.
Just wanted to say your closing was awesome, succinct, passionate, and logical.
I felt it.
And the walk-off after finishing was totally gangster.
And the walk-off, the finish was, this office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct.
Harry, it was beautiful.
Well, thank you very much.
As far as the walk-off, that wasn't intentionally staged or anything like that.
I was finished, and I needed to get out of the way to save time for rebuttal.
Now, obviously, if the judge had asked me questions, I would have stayed.
No, it was the judicial mic drop.
And here's another question, which I was going to get to as well.
Recent news that the recording that leaked, you know, the find me the votes, was illegally recorded.
Barnes and I, Robert Barnes is the lawyer that, he's a practicing American lawyer.
We do this every Sunday night.
We've been talking about that from the beginning.
That it was settlement discussions and therefore privileged.
And I don't know what Georgia state, I'll have to check if it's a one party or, you know, it's an all party.
Georgia is a one party state.
Florida is a two party.
Florida is a two party state.
Or all party state.
It's not illegal because of that, but it's potentially unlawful because it was recording settlement discussions which are privileged and confidential.
People will say you're biased.
You're necessarily representing one of the defendants.
Tell us, is it not an unlawful recording that was used to initiate this in the first place?
From what has been publicly reported, the call was recorded in Florida.
Florida is a two-party state.
Or an all-party state.
So that leads to certain questions and conclusions, which I will not indulge in here today, but people are talking about that, and depending on what happens in the future in the case, I expect that will be raised at some point, but I don't know exactly at what stage, in what form, or by whom.
Okay, very interesting.
Yeah, the people need to be sensitive to the all-party consent versus one-party consent.
Set aside the exceptions for doing it, I thought, is there also an angle to it having been either settlement discussions or privileged communications above and beyond two-party consent issues?
I don't know the rule on that.
It was set up as a settlement discussion.
Lawyers for both sides were on the call.
And there were efforts, if you read the transcript, to resolve one or more of issues.
I mean, there was a pending election contest in which Trump was suing Raffensperger in Fulton County Superior Court under the Georgia election contest statute.
So there was a pending lawsuit.
There was, therefore, a basis for having a settlement discussion.
They talked about the issues in the case.
They did not come to any kind of an agreement, but they did talk about that.
I don't know whether that would preclude using the recording or the discussion in a criminal prosecution.
Just as an example, Michael Avenatti was convicted of attempting to extort, I think, Nike.
It was Nike, yep.
Yeah, based on a settlement conference demand that he made at Boys Shiller in New York City.
I don't think it necessarily precludes.
It depends on what's said.
Okay, you're going to get a lot of flattery here, but you're in the right crowd, and it's well-deserved.
Tell the smart man how genius his closing was.
Fanny and Wade's behavior trying to threaten Wade's wife, both their witness stand behavior, non-ratified perjury, is the conflict of interest.
The threatening of Jocelyn Wade's wife.
I forget the details, and if you could, if you know the details.
I do.
So she basically intimated or said outright, this is interference with an ongoing criminal prosecution.
Did she say it in legal pleadings or in court proceedings?
And she was saying it in response to what?
Having been subpoenaed to testify?
Right.
So the procedural setup for that is that Nathan Wade's wife served a subpoena on finding Willis to testify at a hearing for what's called temporary support, which is...
You need to support me while this divorce is pending, which is provided for by Georgia law.
So District Attorney Willis engages private counsel, files a motion for protective order with respect to that subpoena, which was to bring her to court to testify to hearing.
And in that motion for protective order invoked something that in the U.S. is called the Apex Doctrine, which is if you're the head of a big organization, you can't be made to sit for deposition.
Or testify in a hearing unless the party seeking your testimony meets certain thresholds, which is they can't get the information from anybody else.
And that's to protect big shots from having to spend time.
I mean, you can argue about whether that's a good rule, but that's the statute now in Georgia.
So she invoked that statute and said, I'm the DA.
I'm the DA.
You can't bring me in here.
And also said that the subpoena is intended to harass and annoy the DA and interfere and obstruct an ongoing criminal prosecution, which she referred to in the case, in her motion as the election prosecution.
So she invoked her status as DA.
She accused the wife of obstructing and interfering with criminal prosecution.
And that's just unmistakable what that implies.
I mean, it's just absolutely unmistakable.
So that really struck me as...
Grotesque.
I mean, it's legally grotesque.
In this case.
Okay.
Now, today's hearing that dismisses six of the 41 indictments or the charges, from what I understand, I haven't cross-compared it.
Does it impact Jeffrey or does it impact Jeffrey?
It does not.
It does not.
Jeff is not.
So there are six counts that were dismissed.
He's not a defendant on any of those counts.
All right.
And in that particular ruling, I'm going to get back to it later on with you, not with you on air.
It dismissed six of the indictments, but did not dismiss six of the overt acts.
I mean, look, I'm a Quebec or was a Quebec lawyer, civil, and I never really did criminal law.
It sounded like they were asking that allegations of fact be struck from the indictment.
How does that work?
So the six counts of the indictment have corresponding, Okay.
acts and then the rest of the counts against various defendants that kind of tic-tac-toe through the other defendants.
They have separate counts, but it's generally referring to the same conduct.
So what the order is saying is that, well, they can't survive as a freestanding count of a criminal indictment under the special demur standard, but they can stand as overt acts in a RICO conspiracy, and that's because the pleading standard for an overt act in a RICO conspiracy charge is much lower than it is for an independent freestanding count.
Okay, it's interesting.
I was just looking at the overt Act 156, where Trump is alleged to have said, find me whatever the legal process is, or whatever the...
I think it's whatever the legal process was.
I'll pull it up afterwards.
And I was like, why would they even want to have that allegation struck?
To me, I'd want to have that in there to show the RICO criminality is saying, find me the legal remedy to do this.
Well, I'm sure they'll argue that at trial.
I mean, ever since the call came out of the news...
My view of it has been, okay, the Secretary of State is the chief enforcement officer for election law in Georgia.
It's his job to investigate frauds and irregularities in elections.
So think of him as the election police.
Donald Trump is a candidate who thinks the election was subject to fraud or irregularity.
So he calls the election police and says, hey, I think I got And I want you to look at A, B, C, and D. I don't think that's a felony.
It's not just that.
I mean, there's a lot of people out there who are thoroughly convinced chicanery was afoot and Kemp did nothing to look into it because your understanding Kemp doesn't like Trump any more than some of the Democrats like Trump?
Well, they've had some harsh words.
Let's put it that way.
I feel I get to ask all these nitty gritty questions.
It feels like gossip, but I'm asking.
The divorce case settled overnight, right?
That case is done in Jocelyn and Nathan?
In part.
What they settled was the temporary support part of it, which obviated the need for the hearing that was set for, I think, January the 28th or something like that, January the 31st, somewhere back in there.
So they didn't have to have the hearing.
And that was, you know, that was a smart thing for Mr. Way to have done.
And he's got a very good lawyer up in Marietta representing him on that matter.
Not Terrence Bradley.
His name is Scott Kimbrough, and he's a very good lawyer.
I have a sneaking suspicion Jocelyn Wade's stock went up substantially after the news broke, which facilitated a settlement, or at least a temporary one.
So they have to turn that temporary...
So the temporary order is designed to support the dependent spouse during the pendency of the divorce.
And so it provides for monthly support payments and maybe payment of attorney fees and things of that nature until they either go to trial or reach a final settlement.
Did you watch Ashley Merchant's testimony before the Senate investigation?
I was not able to take it in because I was too busy working on Jeff's case.
She had mentioned something like, this is where, you know, set aside all the corruption and the lack of ethics and the immorality.
It's an undisputed fact that Nathan Wade was concealing assets from Jocelyn Wade, correct?
It certainly appears that way from the divorce file.
Ashley, and you'll tell me if you know anything about this, but she testified about the IOLTA, the interest, what is the interest only attorney accounts?
It's interest on lawyers trust accounts is what that stands for.
Okay, now, and do you have any knowledge of this that allegedly Nathan Wade was using it to park funds in so that he could, you know, not release, but take those funds out later at tax advantageous rates?
Not firsthand.
I've not studied the documents on that, but I'm aware of that.
All right.
Has there been any meaningful political blowback from all of this being exposed in Fulton County, in Georgia, in general?
Well, I'm no expert on that.
But you've got to believe that it has had some political impact just because of the intensity of the news coverage.
I mean, the case has got everything that news people want in a story.
Every hot-button issue in America right now practically is present in this case right now.
So it's catnip for reporters.
Scott McAfee's facing a challenger, what has been described as a Jesse Jackson political activist with the Rainbow Push Fund.
I don't know what that is.
Rainbow Push Coalition is what they're called.
Do you know what that is?
That was an activist organization that Jesse Jackson founded probably back in the 80s.
Maybe even before that.
And, you know, he's no longer active in that.
And so folks like this fellow, Mr. Petillo, who I don't know, I don't know anything about him, are carrying on with that type of work.
Well, I mean, without predicting the judgment, do you have any predictions on the election now that Scott McAfee is facing a contender?
No idea.
All right.
And let me see.
Another question.
We're awaiting judgment one way or the other.
Oh, well, this is a question everybody's asking.
If the judge is either going to do one of, I guess, three things, either nothing, disqualification or disqualification, and dismissal of indictment.
Those are the three options and any variation of the three?
Yeah.
So, Georgia, we have the rule now that if the DA is disqualified, then the entire office is disqualified because the authority of any subordinate of the DA If the DA has a personal interest at the time of indictment.
My theory has been, or at least my understanding, is if they DQ both families...
It doesn't matter if they disqualify one and not the other.
If they disqualify both of them but do not dismiss the charges, they've got to get another DA's office in.
Now that there's six less charges, they might even be saying this whole thing is deficient.
The real prospect is that if the office is disqualified, they've got to find some other DA who's willing to continue the prosecution here.
That's right.
So there's a couple of things there.
One is that the...
There's a body created by statute called the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia.
And by statute, if a DA's office is disqualified, it goes to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia to figure out what to do with the case.
And they'll either assign one or more of their lawyers to the case, or they will try to engage another DA's office to prosecute the case.
So back in the summer of '22, When the special purpose grand jury was up and running, the DA's office was disqualified with respect to one particular target, who's the current lieutenant governor named Burt Jones.
And that was based on a political conflict because the DA, DA Willis, held a fundraiser for a Democrat candidate for lieutenant governor, so therefore directly contrary to the political interests of Burt Jones.
A different judge, Judge McBurney, said, okay, you're out.
You're out of this case as to Burt Jones.
You can't investigate him.
You can't prosecute him.
You can't indict him.
You're out.
So that case has gone over to the prosecuting attorney's counsel.
And in July, it will be two years since that happened.
And there has been nothing, nothing from that office pertaining to Burt Jones since then.
Is there not an automatic stay just by virtue of passage of time?
What's that delay in the States?
I don't actually know what happens to statutes of limitations during this period of disqualification.
I think that's a pretty good question, but I don't know the answer to it.
I can only give you tummy rumbles about what that ought to be.
All right.
And we got here, Wade lied on his financials.
Is that a crime?
A broader question.
Who would bring charges against Fannie Willis or Nathan Wade?
I mean, she's the DA.
It's almost like who's going to...
What was it from The Simpsons?
Who's going to police the police?
And Homer Simpson says the Coast Guard.
Who could conceivably charge the DA?
And what would it take for something like that to happen?
So that's a pretty good question.
So let's just kind of take them stepwise.
If a prosecutor believes that there was false swearing, lying under oath, or false writing in the divorce case, the venue for that would be Cobb County, Georgia.
That would be the Cobb County DA.
If there were crimes committed in Fulton, the first venue would be the Fulton County DA's office.
They're obviously conflicted.
They can't prosecute themselves.
That would go to the Prosecuting Attorney's Council.
But, you know, it'd be extremely rare for a DA to be indicted in Georgia.
That almost never happens.
Now, anything is possible.
And then there's always the federal government if there's a hook, a jurisdictional hook for federal jurisdiction.
But, you know, the chances of the Joe Biden Justice Department indicting Fannie Willis are...
Extremely the most.
Maybe they'll invite them over for another meeting at the vice president's residence.
Maybe indict themselves.
And the IRS, I mean, they're looking for money.
Is there any whispering as to whether or not the IRS has perked their ears up seeing what's going on?
I have not heard a single thing about that, nor would I. I've got no pipelines into those guys.
I know nothing about that.
There's no IRS tip line that people can say, hey, I think tax fraud may have occurred here.
The smoke signals, the drum signals from IRS, they don't reach my office.
I can't ask you what's next for Jeff, but what's next in the file?
You're waiting on this decision.
We have briefing.
We filed a bunch of motions as well.
Trying to kick the case out altogether and then separate motions to kick out different bits and pieces of it.
And those will be progressing through the litigation process.
We have reply briefs that we need to work on.
And then in D.C., we are set for trial on the Barr case beginning March 26th.
So that's coming right up.
So that's one reason I'm so busy.
And I will not keep you a minute longer.
You promised 30 minutes.
So you've got to go to D.C. for...
Hypothetically, that trial goes down.
How long do you have to be in D.C. for?
Well, until it's finished, we think the case will take 12 to 14 days.
But, you know, it's very hard to predict how long trials will take.
Incredible.
All right.
I will not keep you longer than this.
I want to see if I missed anything on a program.
McAfee said he had the outline of his ruling prepared before he knew there was a challenger to his seat.
Whether or not we believe that...
When I heard that Scott McAfee was actually doing interviews, I thought that was...
I won't say inappropriate.
I just thought it was weird that any judge would be giving any public interviews.
I would have reached out if I had known that.
Is that unheard of?
No.
Judge McBurney, who had the special purpose grand jury supervision, he gave some interviews.
But typically you don't see judges giving interviews.
But Judge McAfee is, you know, he's a candidate for public office, so he's allowed to talk to the media.
And he stays away from anything that would be remotely improper.
I mean, he's a very careful guy, as I'm sure you've noticed.
Very, very...
Decorum seems to be a preeminent concern for him in the courtroom, and I'm sure that carries through with everything that he does.
He reminds me of my second oldest brother, so I like him even though I don't.
Is that right?
Yeah, it's wild.
I won't share a picture of my old brother unless he wants me to, but demeanor-wise, intellectually, I have him pegged for being a very strict, sincere person.
Yeah, if you read the orders, that's very clear.
So, you know, before I get off, I would be remiss if I did not invite your viewers who are so inclined to look up Jeff Clark's Give, Send, Go page, and if they are able to make a donation.
I'm going on his cases flat out all the time, and he needs help.
I'm going to share it right now.
Actually, I've shared it.
Give, stand, go.
Jeffrey Clark.
Yeah, I'll get this right here.
Thank you so much.
It's my pleasure.
I'll show it and you'll confirm that it's not a knockoff because...
Got to keep the lights on here.
This is it.
Jeff Clark.
Yes.
That's it.
Thank you so much.
It's my pleasure.
I'm going to share this with everybody and we're going to see undoubtedly a bit of an uptick right now.
Hold on.
I'm going to put it here.
Link.
And are you on social media?
I am on Twitter at Harry McD.
Okay.
I'm not following you.
Of course I'm following you.
Keep up the amazing work.
Thank you very much for the time.
Your commentary about the case where I've been able to take it in has been very astute, and your legal background really shows in your analysis.
I think people like yourself who are lawyers who offer commentary on...
Cases that the public is interested in are really doing a public service to helping people understand what's going on because it gets a little convoluted at times.
It gets convoluted and most people wouldn't believe it if someone just, you know, someone said this is what happened.
If they hadn't seen it or they weren't able to see it with their own eyes, nobody would believe the level of corruption and immorality in this particular case.
Well, let me just offer one last thing.
In the case of Jeff Clark, all of this relates to a draft letter.
That was within the Justice Department and the president that never left the building.
Confidential letter.
It was not approved.
It was never sent.
So imagine if you're a lawyer and you draft a document that your team or your client decides not to send.
And then you find yourself charged with two felonies.
And the Bar Association trying to disbar you.
That's where Jeff Clark is.
It's atrocious and it's particularly ironic given Terrence Bradley arguing solicitor-client privilege while they've indicted someone for what was solicitor-client advice.
Yeah, I mean, it's executive privilege, law enforcement privilege, deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege.
And, you know, once the letter, once they decided the letter wasn't going to go, that was the end of it.
You'll have a very good afternoon.
McDougald, most impactful close of the entire proceedings.
It's been a group effort, but yeah.
From their lips to Judge McAfee's ears.
The Barr complaint against Jeff, he successfully contested that, correct?
That one is done, or is that still on the ground?
Oh no, that's what's going to trial March 26th.
Oh, I'm an idiot.
Where did I just – I'm forgetting.
I'm mixing it up.
He just had a success.
We did.
We did.
So there was a subpoena for documents in the Barr case, and we challenged – we objected to the subpoena based on the Fifth Amendment.
And the highest court in the District of Columbia government system, which is called the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, ruled in our favor on that on – The 26th of February, which was the first business day after argument.
My co-counsel argued that case to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Charles Burnham did an absolutely sensational job and they ruled in our favor on that the next business day.
Okay, I got confused.
I just got confused.
Amazing.
Unfortunately, that did not dispose of the whole case.
Okay.
All right.
Well, if you have time afterwards, you'll please come back and we'll do the post-mortem.
All right.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Have a great day, and I'll make sure to blast the link around.
Okay.
Thanks.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
That's amazing.
Holy crab apples.
There were a few there that I didn't want to ask him because I knew that he would not answer or that we had already touched on.
Hold on.
Nathan Wade should be disbarred for hiding his money, earnings, and escrow accounts.
I don't think there's going to be many people who would disagree with that.
Ashley mentioned a lawsuit in the hearing that was pending.
What is that lawsuit for?
Cripe.
I'll find out afterwards.
This was the question.
David, please ask Harry if he's encouraged by the disqualification ruling based upon McAfee not wanting to hear the other stuff he in and argued.
Harry was sure to mention that he doesn't want to...
Don't make predictions.
He doesn't want to make predictions.
My prediction is, yeah, it means the judge knows where he's going.
My prediction is, given the judge's ruling today, it's a small victory for the defendants.
They dismissed six of the 41 indictments.
He's setting up the groundwork.
He's not on board with how this was drafted, let alone how it was conducted after it was drafted.
Let's see what we've got going on.
Okay, so here's what we're going to do, by the way.
We're going to go over to Rumble now.
I'm going to give everybody the link, and we're going to carry on with this party.
There's some news coming out of Canada about a Supreme Court decision where they describe a person as, what do they call it?
I haven't highlighted here.
Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly.
I think, I won't say there's context to this.
I haven't read the whole decision.
I think there might be something more to this than a judge who refuses to define a woman.
And I think it has to do with the details of this case.
We're going to get to that.
We'll get to a few other things.
Fun stuff.
Over on Rumble, and then we're going to go over to Locals afterwards.
I want to share the link.
That's what I want to do.
It's in the pinned comment.
But come and get ye butts over to the free speech platform link to Rumble.
That was fantastic.
I think I got all the questions that I could reasonably ask a lawyer who's involved in pending litigation.
Viva!
The awesome channel, Dear World Christian, would love to have you on.
Let me screen grab this.
As everyone migrates to the free speech platform.
Thanks, Viva.
My pleasure, Diagalon.
I know what that means now.
Hit the like button, please, before you go.
Thank you for your coverage.
Thank you.
Subscribe on all platforms, but especially on Rumble.
But especially on Rumble.
And I'm going to see what that number is going up to on the Give, Send, Go.
Let's see how much we can actually move the needle.
Forcing people.
Forcing people to crowdfund their law defenses from lawfare that is initiated by a corrupt state who does it on your tax dollars.
We were at $77,965 the last time we refreshed.
We're at over $78,000.
We're moving the needle, people.
I'm going to give some after this stream is over as well.
All right.
Come on over.
We're going to carry this party on over at Rumble.
And I might play a little noodling video.
All right.
Ending on...
Oh, and if everybody wants to come to Locals.
Viva, do we have to wait for the Republican governor to stop refusing to take action, says Furby Slayer.
I think everybody does not have nice things to say about Kemp, but for people who live and operate in that jurisdiction, they have to weigh their words in ways that I don't.
Here's the link.
Link to locals for those who are so inclined.
Bada bing, but not.
Endstream.
Alright, did I get everything here?
Let me just make sure I'm nervous.
We got good logic.
Everyone follow good logic.
He's been covering this left, right, and center as well.
We got to that one.
Ask if he is aware of Millie Hemingway article about Fani using the taped phone call.
Yeah, we talked about that.
Gary Wilson, thank you very much.
This office.
Okay, we got that.
That was beautiful.
And I think we got everything after that.
Viva.
What about the recent news recording the call that was leaked?
We got to that.
Just wanted to say your call.
Okay, we got to the rest.
All right, people.
And now we have radically dropped the viewing number on YouTube.
Bring it on over.
Rumble.
Viva Frye on Rumble or Locals.
vivabarneslaw.locals.com ending on Commitube now.
All right, people.
I want to bring up a couple of things that are fantastic.
So I did an episode with the unusual suspects today.
My topic was Fonnie Willis, obviously, but it's going to be a banger of an episode because there's so much news happening.
Things happen that I don't even know that they happen.
Yeah, this was in the studio.
I still smell like Vinny.
Vinny wears a very good cologne.
And he's a hugger.
And we hugged.
And my clothes smell like Vinny.
All right, people.
I'm at Valuetainment about to do a podcast with the unusual suspects.
Hold on.
And my topic is Fanny World's update.
And there's been breaking news.
Scott McAfee tossed six of the charges alleging that there was not sufficient allegations of the underlying crime.
To justify, substantiate the charges.
I called it, people.
I'm trying to find my tweets from back in August.
I know I called the crappiness of that indictment.
All right.
See you soon.
How do you end these things?
Perfect.
I forgot.
I didn't just call it crappiness.
I called it judicial dog poop.
So, Ian, graphing daddy.
That's funny you should say that, corn macabre.
Yeah, Ian is...
Ian's heavy into the graphing as a subject matter.
Let me pull up the tweet because it's an amazing...
He who can identify fecal matter can identify anything.
Google judicial dog poop viva fry.
Let me bring this tweet up here.
Oh, I can't find it.
It's right here.
Here we go.
Steaming pile.
Of judicial...
It's very interesting why Twitter does not give me a tweet when I want it.
Tweets.
The indictment is judicial dog poop.
Here.
For those who haven't read it.
It's fun to go back when you watch these things in real time.
Your impressions, your analysis lives on forever.
And I'm not ashamed of my analyses.
Here we are.
This is me.
Share it for those who haven't read it.
Bada bing, bada boom, right here.
Let's just go over this.
So this act was not dismissed from the indictment.
And I'm like, why would they even have wanted this act to be dismissed from the indictment?
I'll flesh out a little bit in greater detail now, and then I'll do a short vlog this afternoon.
Six of the indictments have been dismissed because they said that they were felonious inducements to violate one's oath of office.
And then the judge is like, there are, you know, we know that they're talking about the oath of office being the United States Constitution and the Georgia State Constitution.
We know which oath they're referring to, but we have no idea what provision of those multitude of clauses, amendments, articles in those oaths to which they took that they're referring to.
Act 156, they actually put this in there and it stays for now.
On or about the 17th day of September 2021.
Donald John Trump committed the felony offense of solicitation of violation of oath by public officer.
So this is the act, as Harry was explaining, that accompanied the charge.
The felony offense soliciting a violation of oath by a public officer in violation of whatever.
By unlawfully soliciting, requesting, and importuning Georgia Secretary of State Brad Ratfaceberger, a public officer, to engage in conduct constituting the felony, which provision of their oaths?
A violating of oath by public officer.
By unlawfully.
It's so amazing.
Just say whatever the hell you want, people.
By unlawfully.
And they're quoting, "de-certifying the election or whatever the correct legal remedy is, and announce the true winner," end quote, "in willful and intentional violation of the term Which one?
I don't know.
First Amendment?
Second Amendment?
Third Amendment?
And the judge, Scott McAfee, is like, there are countless provisions of these respective oaths, each of which any scholar can dedicate their life of study to.
So, struck.
It's defective.
There's some remedy that you can choose to do if you so want to do it.
But I've got to read this again afterwards.
Oh, that sounds about as unlawful as unlawful conduct gets.
Won't someone please think of the children?
So, do we need to go over...
No, we won't go over the judgment.
Stay tuned for the...
Short vlog, which I'll put out later today.
Share screen so we can get to crumble hands.
Good interview.
Harry seems like a smart lawyer.
Absolutely.
Smart.
Oh, yeah.
No, Winston.
No peace.
Hello, Dougie.
Your breath smells truly terrible.
That's right.
That's from Verax1.
Pasha Moyer says, I joined late.
Is this the interview worth watching?
Dude, yeah.
For sure.
I think I know the answer, but the answer is yes.
Contribution to the Viva Mullet Fund, says Finboy Slick.
All right, and we can end with that now.
So, let me see if I can get the judgment.
Oh, no, that was the issue.
When I wanted to send the judgment, the PDF to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, I was on my phone, and because I'm a boomer geriatric, I could not figure out how to...
Save the PDF on my phone and share it as a PDF in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
But let me save it on my computer.
Save attachments.
And we'll go McAfee.
And we're going to open this up right now.
It's here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Very nice.
And I'll bring this up.
We'll just walk through it real quick.
And then we will analyze it later.
Bada bing.
I got another dog now.
This dog's sitting here looking at me.
Pudge is looking at me like I owe her something.
It's 4 o 'clock on daylight savings.
It's 3 o 'clock and she still wants food.
Okay, so I go to window and I can bring it up right here.
Is this it?
Look at this, people.
I figured it out.
If you were part of our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community, you would have seen this six hours ago.
The special demurs.
So they challenge...
Basically, I would like to cross-compare to the indictment to see what the charges are.
Bottom line, we've seen it.
Demur, lacking specificity to even allow the defendants to prepare an intelligible defense.
Yeah, you allege that we violated, that we feloniously tried to incite...
What was the word they used?
Importune someone to violate their oath of office.
But please explain to me which provisions, which specific provisions of your oaths, which is the oath to the U.S. Constitution or the oath to the state constitution.
And then they discussed the threshold, the criteria.
Appellate courts provided a well-used standard for evaluating a special demur.
The test is not whether the indictment could have been made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendants of what he must be prepared to meet.
And in case any other proceedings are taken against him for similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction.
It's the Sufficient specificity to allow the defendants to prepare a coherent logical defense.
There was one example in here where they talk about...
Being accused of a felony with a gun.
And they didn't say whether or not they used it to shoot or to beat.
And I was like, well, you know it's one or the other, so that's not lacking sufficient specificity to defend yourself.
But in this particular case, what provision?
The six counts are similarly structured and can be summarized as follows.
Two counts allege that multiple defendants solicited elected members of Georgia Senate to violate their oaths.
By requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors.
Just, they throw in the word unlawful.
There is a legal constitutional mechanism that has been used in the past.
Now they just call it unlawful and RICO.
RICO law!
Count five alleges that Trump solicited the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives to violate their oath.
Count six, violate your oath.
This one, Giuliani.
Count 23, solicited the members of Georgia to violate their oath by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint just...
Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste.
Cut and paste while Fannie and Nathan are knocking booties.
Defendants first argue the indictment is defective because the charging language does not cite the oath.
It didn't specify which one.
It says it violates their oath.
The judge says we know that they only have one oath each, or it could only be one oath.
But the bottom line here...
All three statutory oaths contain, with some linguistic variation, a provision that the oath-taker will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Georgia.
The indictment, when detailing the manner and means of the criminal enterprise alleged in Count 1, describes the defendants to violate their oaths of Georgia, yada yada.
So, we know what oaths.
Let me see here.
Where does he get to the good stuff?
Oh, here we go.
This is it.
While the advertisements do contain...
do contain...
A reference to the terms of the violated oath.
The court finds that the incorporation of the United States and Georgia Constitution is so generic as to compel this court to grant the special demurs.
On its own, the Constitution contains hundreds of clauses, any one of which can be the subject of a lifetime's study.
Academics and litigators devote their entire careers to specialization of a single amendment.
To further complicate the matter, the Georgia Constitution is not a mere shadow.
Georgia Constitution is...
Separate and not identical.
And so, bottom line, dismisses the charges because they don't specify which provision of the oaths they are alleged to have violated.
I love the fact that he says, you know, constitutional scholars have dedicated their entire lives to any one provision of the United States Constitution.
Like one Lawrence tribe who came out and floated the idea that a disqualification, not a disqualification, sorry, self-executing disqualification for having participated in insurrection was so clear cut that it was a sound legal theory that he was out parading and championing to fake news media like CNN and MSNBC only to get spanked by all nine justices of the Supreme Court.
It's so complicated that constitutional scholars can dedicate their entire lives to it and still get it monumentally wrong.
Thank you.
So that's it.
Anyhow, it's all good news thus far.
Okay, soft screen share.
That's the latest there.
And that's it.
Now, I wanted to show you one thing.
Let me see.
I got a couple things in the back.
Here, people.
Here.
Who does not know what noodling is?
Hunley said something that's very interesting.
We're going to watch noodling.
Noodling, for those of you who don't know, is when you stick your hands in underwater crevasses and underwater holes where catfish are nesting.
And you basically use your hand or your finger as a lure, and you get the catfish to bite your arm so that you can then haul it out of the water.
That's what noodling is.
Risks of noodling?
Sticking your hand in a snake hole.
Sticking your hand in an alligator snapping turtle's mouth.
And this woman has gone super viral the other day because some idiot troll account said that her accent is not feminine and that American women are not feminine.
I don't even want to engage with these.
It's engagement farming and whoever did it got farmed.
But meanwhile, this lady is now going super viral on the Twitterverse.
Everybody asks if we hurt these fish when we catch them.
Well, for one, we put that zip tie in there.
I don't know.
We've been doing it for years.
This is probably one from this year.
But obviously the fish is fine.
The way I grab them is when they come up and bite me, I grab them with this hand.
That's why I always get chewed up up here.
And then I run this arm between their gill and their gill plate.
When they're this big, you can run it between without hurting the gills.
Because see, it's between the gills and the gill plate.
Crazy.
The arm goes through.
Gills are not messed up.
Hold on a second.
I'm going to show you something in a second.
The fish is fine.
We'll turn her loose.
Sorry, Mr. Mark, I know you want to eat some, but this is a big female.
We got to turn her loose.
I hear you, baby.
And then maybe catch her again someday like we've caught her before.
We'll probably even put another zip tie in her so we know we caught her twice.
Appreciate y 'all.
Okay, so first of all, let me go here.
I don't think most people appreciate this when it comes to, not just catfish, but fish in general.
Look at that.
Okay, look right there.
Look there.
Do you see my cursor when we do this?
Hold on one second.
Yeah, you see my cursor.
Good.
Never have to ask that question again.
Do you see these spikes right here on the inside gill plate?
Does everybody know why the gills of a fish are red?
That is all of the blood that goes to the gills, that absorbs the oxygen, and that goes and feeds the fish.
If you ever hook a fish in the gill, it'll bleed out in a matter of seconds, pretty much definitively.
But they've got...
I think it's for, like, parasites, these spikes on the inside.
And catfish, in particular, have...
Let's see here if we see this.
They've got amazingly sharp barbs on their dorsal fin and side fins.
Can't really see it here.
Anyhow, that's what noodling is.
And then Eric Hundley, who had the great idea, said, take Viva noodling.
And...
I could be game for some noodling.
I said I wouldn't do it.
It's so dangerous because you can also catch fish that's so big it'll just hold you underwater.
And any sport that involves sticking body appendages into dark holes and having people make sure that you don't get sucked down to the water, it's dangerous.
But that's a damn big fish, says Honor234.
And I'll say this.
Right above it says, accent is adorable and she's a beautiful girl, Eric Brain.
That part of my brain has shut off, but I'll tell you this.
Anybody who says they don't like the southern accent, they're lying.
Period.
It's a beautiful, hospitable accent.
Now, let's not say, like, other accents are bad.
The French from France accent is good.
It's nice.
The French-Canadian accent, it's nice also.
I mean, it's endearing, and it's representative of a culture.
I'm trying to think of any accent that's just, like, not a good accent.
Can't really think of one.
So there's that.
We'll see if we see viva noodling.
I'm not sure if it's going to happen.
Okay.
All right, all right, all right.
Hold on a second.
Let me see what's going on here.
So now, the other thing is, so the news of the day, by the way, I'll pull up the news.
This is coming out of Canada.
I see it, and I say it's a little too absurd for it to be true.
It has to be false, or it has to be fake, or there has to be a misunderstanding here.
This is being reported in the National Post.
Yes, the National Post.
Get rid of this.
The headline, first reading, Supreme Court decision opts for, quote, person with a vagina over, quote, woman, end quote.
All right, get this over here.
All right, if it's, I mean, look, and I'm not looking to forgive any SCOTUSes who refuse to use the word woman.
I think there's context here.
A decision in a sexual assault case implied that the complainant should be properly known as a person with a vagina.
Okay, first reading is a daily newsletter, yadda yadda.
Okay, top story.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a recent sexual assault case that it was problematic for a lower court judge to refer to the alleged victim as a woman, implying that there is a more appropriate term should have been a person with a vagina.
In the decision published Friday, I've got it, and we're going to go to it in a second.
Justice Sheila Martin.
Who's now going to be among the most Googled names.
Sheila Martin, a person with a vagina.
It's so disgustingly crass, but I think there's more to it.
A person with a vagina.
But what is a vagina?
It's going to have to be like, what is a person?
A quadrupedal being with a vaginal crevasse.
No, that vaginal crevasse is already repetitive.
What is a vagina?
It is a...
A front hole, I believe also some people call it.
Bipedal entity with frontal cavity, Justice Sheila Martin, woman, wrote that the trial judge's use of the word woman may have been an unfortunate and engendered confusion.
Martin does not specify why the word woman is confusing, but the next passage in her decision refers to the complainant as a person with a vagina.
Notably, not one person in the entire case is identified as transgender, and the complaint is referred to as a she.
Okay, so that's the news.
That's what the news is telling.
Mr. Crook found a complainant intoxicated, lost, distressed one night in downtown Vancouver, reads the background to the case, decided to take her to his house, and connected with the complainant's parents by phone.
It's then that the accounts diverged.
Complainant testified that she woke up to find her pants were off, that Crook was vaginally penetrating her.
Crook testified that the complainant's pants were off because she'd removed them herself after spilling water on them earlier in the night and that what she assumed was rape was actually just Crook startling her awake.
In the trial, the judge rejected Crook's defense in part on the grounds that the complainant was not likely to be mistaken about the sensation of vaginal penetration.
That's where I think this word was being used.
She said she felt his penis inside her and that she knew what she was feeling.
In short, her tactile sense was engaged.
It is extremely unlikely that a woman would be mistaken about that feeling, read the initial decision.
It was this line that drew Martin's approbation and the seeming implication that the passage should be more appropriately have been, it is extremely unlikely that a person with a vagina would be mistaken about the feeling.
That's what I think the...
They're not highlighting that there's confusion about what a woman is, but that someone who has a vagina would know what...
Vaginal penetration feels like.
Hence, a woman with a vagina.
Okay.
Where a person with a vagina...
Hold on, no.
See, they're not even giving you enough.
Hold on one second.
They're not even giving you enough of the decision right here.
Here it is.
To go find what it was.
Here.
So, get rid of this.
Paragraph 108.
The Court of Appeal also considered that the trial judge's conclusion about the complainant's perception of penile vaginal penetration was not the proper subject of judicial notice.
That the woman is saying, I know what it feels like because I have a vagina and he's going to say, well, okay, I have to take judicial notice of what vaginal penetration means.
As it engaged questions of, quote, neurology.
Let me read this again.
The Court of Appeal also considered that the trial judge's conclusion about the complainant's perception of penile vaginal penetration was not the proper subject of judicial notice as it engendered questions, engaged questions of, quote, neurology, the operation of a body's sensorial system.
physiology the impact of alcohol and perception memory and the body's sensory system and psychiatry the impact of alcohol and or trauma on a perception and memory okay With respect, the court's analysis on this point illustrates the potentially absurd consequences of the rule against ungrounded common sense.
It belies belief.
That questions of neurology, physiology, or psychiatry would be engaged by testimony that an intoxicated witness was certain they were physically assaulted in some other way, such as a punch to the face or a kick to the shins, such that expert evidence would be required to support that testimony.
Yet this is exactly the type of evidence that the court implied was necessary for the trial judge to reach the conclusion he did.
In the context of penile vaginal penetration, even putting aside the impracticalities associated with finding experts willing and able to testify on such issues, such testimony is simply not necessary to establish what the trial judge determined to be what happened, having heard the complainant's testimony and considering it in light of all the other evidence.
Where a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty that, well, she says they now and not she, Felt penile vaginal penetration, a judge must be entitled to conclude that they are unlikely to be mistaken.
While the choice of the trial judge to use the words, quote, a woman may have been unfortunate and engendered confusion, in context, it is clear that the judge was reasoning that it was extremely unlikely that the complainant would be mistaken about the feeling of penile vaginal penetration because people generally, even if intoxicated, are not mistaken about that sensation.
Not sure I even agree with the logic here, but in other words, the judge's conclusion was grounded in his assessment of the complainant's testimony.
The Court of Appeal erred in finding otherwise.
My impression here, I haven't read the decision in its entirety, my impression is that they're saying person with a vagina to illustrate that the sensation of vaginal penetration is the sensation that only a person with a vagina could feel.
Not that it was a gender issue and not referring to a woman as not a woman anymore but a person with a vagina.
So that's my limited assessment of what it means under the circumstances.
But I would disagree that you can take judicial notice that because a woman or anybody says I was penetrated that there would be no other evidence other than that because then it would seem that any and all accusations of rape or sexual violence or whatever.
If someone says he punched me in the face...
It would be a normal thing to say, do you have any bruises?
Did you go to the doctor afterwards?
Et cetera, et cetera.
Can we see the evidence that you were, in fact, kicked in the shin, punched in the face, penetrated in any orifice of one's body?
So I think the headline might be making more of the assertion than the assertion means itself.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Person with a noodling hole says Space Jason.
No!
All right.
I heard the snack time says I've heard the term vagina too many times in the last week.
All right, and that's it.
Let me see what else we got here before we head on over to Viva Barnes Law.
Oh, that was the thing that I wanted to...
Did I talk about it?
The Joe Rogan Sheldon Johnson case?
People, I'm going senile.
We did talk about this the other day, right?
I think we did because I remember one of our local community members saying how this is going to set back.
Uh, criminal justice reform substantially.
Uh, tell me people.
I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm going, I'm going, nope, says dog digger.
Let me see if nobody, if, if, if anybody else has, we didn't, maybe we only covered it in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
Um, nobody is signing up.
No, that's not the right one.
What is a vagina?
Says TM Queen.
Gorilla vagina says anything.
Bucklebrush Jones says no.
Okay.
I feel senile.
I feel like I shared it in our locals community.
All right, people.
Hold on.
Let me bring this up.
So there's a guy, Sheldon Dubin, I believe is his name.
Sheldon Dubin.
And I've reached out to him to try to get him on for an interview because, look, I've never been this sensitive to criminal justice reform or criminal justice abuse as now that I've seen what happened with the January Sixers.
And so I heard this guy on with Rogan twice.
Josh Dubin, not Sheldon Dubin.
Sheldon Johnson was the first one.
Is Sheldon Johnson the one who got accused here?
Hold on.
Let me add this back to the stage.
So Josh Dubin has been on with Rogan repeatedly promoting...
It is Sheldon Johnson.
It's amazing.
I DMed him on February 13th after listening to this episode.
All right, so the guy Josh Dubin works for criminal justice reform.
I never would have thought about any of these things until January 6th happened, and now you realize...
They did it with the January Sixers.
They've been doing it with people a lot.
Once you see what they do in Georgia, the district attorney abusing of their power to go after people who have big bullhorns and deep pockets, you understand they've been doing this to people who don't have big bullhorns and don't have deep pockets whatsoever.
And so I've heard this guy, Josh Dubin, come on with two people on Rogan.
One was Sheldon Johnson.
That's going to be the subject of this discussion.
And the other one was Bruce Bryan, who was wrongly convicted.
And spent decades in jail.
Sheldon Johnson was not wrongly convicted, but was arguably wrongly sentenced.
Got involved in an altercation, assaulted someone.
I believe someone got assaulted with a gun.
And he went to jail.
The judge basically sent him away for 50 years as a young man.
And he got out after, I think it's 25 years.
And I'm listening to him on Rogan.
With Josh Dubin, you know, they're presenting their case for judicial, you know, criminal justice reform, presenting the case for, you know, remedial stuff and not punitive stuff.
Remedial sanctions or remedial programs and not punitive sanctions.
Yeah, no, this is a Quickfoot says, yep, DOJ raping January Sixers' rights and freedoms.
That's when I got sensitive.
It was like...
Even if they're innocent, it's all the more egregious.
But even if they're guilty, crime has to fit the punishment.
And you don't just get to lock away a criminal and then allow them to literally get eaten to death by bedbugs, cockroaches, and rats in a disgusting prison.
You don't get to do that.
And so Josh Dubin had this guy on, and his name was Sheldon Johnson.
And this guy was locked away for 25 years, comes out, talks about how at some point in jail, in prison, he decided you either...
This one was from Bruce Bryant.
He says, you either get better or let the situation get the better of you or you let the situation make you better.
Something along those lines.
He said it more eloquently.
I reached out to Josh Dubin to have him on with any one of the people that he's represented.
And so this other guy, Sheldon Johnson, was on.
And he was locked away for 25 years for a crime that he admits to having committed as a young kid who came from...
A family of criminality.
Father was in jail.
Grandfather was in jail.
Was hauled off to youth protection facilities, or whatever they call them, you know, for children.
Drugged up.
Abused.
All this shit.
He goes to jail for 25 years.
Comes out sounding like a well-versed individual who managed to make a positive out of 25 years incarcerated.
And then I reached out to Josh Dubin again and said, hey man, again, I heard you with Bruce Bryan, heard you with Sheldon Johnson.
Then I read this article!
Criminal justice reform advocate charged with murder after body parts found in New York City apartments.
I hate the layout on this article.
This is from ABC News.
A 48-year-old man has been arrested after police say body parts were found inside New York City apartment on Tuesday night.
This is from March 8th, a week ago.
Sheldon Johnson is charged with murder, manslaughter, and criminal possession of a weapon.
He's accused of killing and dismembering a man.
Police say Johnson is an ex-convict who works as a criminal justice reform advocate.
And then they say the gruesome thing they arrived at this apartment, 825, a wellness check on the occupant of apartment 6G.
Orlando Medina, the building superintendent, says a tenant called him around 1 a.m.
Someone was pleading for his life.
She said she heard two gunshots.
Someone said, please don't kill me.
I got a family, something like that.
Two more gunshots pretty quickly, Medina said.
Torso and arms were found inside the apartment.
Detectives obtained a search warrant for Johnson's Harlem apartment on Fifth Avenue.
In the interview with Rogan, he's saying, you know, they let you out of jail after 25 years, give you a bus ticket and say, be on your way.
And I'm thinking, how is anyone supposed to reintegrate into society?
And this is what happens.
There's no excuses being made here.
Everyone's innocent until proven guilty.
From what it sounds like, at the very least, he's guilty of desecrating a dead body.
If he didn't kill the person, maybe he's trying to help a friend.
I don't know.
Play devil's advocate.
They obtained a search warrant for his apartment.
Found the victim's legs and head in a freezer.
The victim, later identified as Colin Small, had been shot once in the head.
Medical examiner's office told detectives bullet fragments were found in the victim's head, leading to the murder charge.
Concrete was found in the suspect's car, and investigators also recovered a Tyvek suit.
That's one of those blue suits.
Johnson had previously served 25 years behind bars for attempted murder and other charges.
He appeared on Rogan's podcast last month, where he talked about how he turned his life around.
It was at that moment that I really said, I have to change my life.
I have to change my life.
I just can't do this, Johnson said on the podcast.
Quote, I had a wife.
I had a kid.
His kid apparently also was involved in a fatal fight where either the person he was fighting with got shoved into the street and got hit by a car.
My son was growing up.
He was hearing the stories of my so-called notoriety.
I just didn't want to be that dad.
Johnson went to talk about being a former gang member, released from prison, says he'll choose to walk away from that life.
At Johnson's arraignment on Thursday night, his supporters filled the courtroom.
One supporter wore a jacket reading, specializing in wrongful conviction arrests.
The executive director of his employer, the Queen's director, was also at court.
They all declined to comment.
That's the executive director of his employer.
The judge remanded Johnson and he's due back in court on Monday.
That's the news.
It's one way or the other.
If he did do it...
And it'll show you like 25 years will break anybody.
I don't know how he could not have done it.
Maybe someone else did and he was helping a friend cover up.
It's just a wild turn of events because I listened to that podcast.
I reached out to the man, Josh Dubin, who runs a program to fight, advocate for criminal justice reform.
Like one of the members of our locals community who, from what I understand, was also served time.
So this is going to set everybody back decades because this is the exact story of why people say lock them up and throw away the key.
Broken mind.
Better to stay inside, says Dan Sundin.
So yes.
And then we got here, we got AFS.
No, hold on one second.
I thought I heard something in here.
So that was it.
It's a depressing story.
It's sad because like...
I don't know how anybody can have two and a half decades of their one and only life stolen from them and then not be resentful, to put it mildly.
There was that other case of the guy who was wrongly convicted or got like $800,000 in a settlement and then got killed as he was assaulting and trying to murder a police officer.
Forget his name.
There's no way not to come out of that broken, which is why you look at what's being done to the January Sixers.
You look at what's being done to the Coutts Four up in Canada.
There's no way to come out of that.
Not broken.
And there's no amount of money on earth that can right that wrong.
And also, there's no amount of rehabilitation that can rehabilitate someone who's irreparably broken from punishment.
When that article said he was charged with attempted murder on the Rogan podcast, if you hadn't seen it or heard it, he said he got 25 years for two and a half stitches.
And I'm listening, and I'm a reasonably skeptical, cynical person.
I know that that's going to be the spin way of describing what happened.
There was an armed robbery.
Someone got hit on the head with a gun.
I'm not sure who did it.
But, you know, to try to oversimplify and say 25 years for two and a half stitches, there's plenty of ways you can get a two-inch stitch in lethal circumstances.
A grazed bullet, by a beautiful way of example.
Whether or not it was attempted murder is another way, you know, unclear.
But bottom line.
Dude, that's not what you want to see for criminal justice reform.
That's the worst possible outcome.
For the group that Josh Dubin is running, it's the worst possible outcome.
And it was just an overall sad story on its face.
So that's it.
All right, people.
That's fun.
Oh, tomorrow.
What day is it tomorrow?
Tomorrow's Thursday.
I've got an event tomorrow night, but I'll go live tomorrow during the day.
And that's it.
Dan Sundin says, Seth Rich, MS-13 contract murder killing.
I don't know that we've seen details of that nature.
Karen SL1 says, Viva, do you know if those charged, convicted in January 6th insurrection have lost their Second Amendment rights and any, all guns they own confiscated by feds?
In my personal opinion, Jan 6th is about confiscation of guns.
Karen, I'd say January 6th is about criminalizing political protest.
Did they have their guns taken?
I know that...
Lectern guy, Adam Johnson, I know he got his rights back, but I don't think he was convicted of a felony.
I don't know how that works.
But we'll see what happens if the Supreme Court declares a void for vagueness or nullifies the obstruction provision of law under which so many people were convicted.
Oh, we got Mel Gibson's live on television right now.
What are they doing here?
What was I going to say something about insurrection?
Thank you.
Insurrection.
Oh, Seth Rich.
Sorry, that's what I was thinking about.
That's why I got my thought process back.
Unusual Suspects.
It's going to...
They premiere it, or they premiere the live at 6 o 'clock.
Have you guys heard this story?
All right, we'll finish.
We'll finish.
No, no, we're going to save this for vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It involves alleged...
It's so freaking wild.
I didn't hear about this.
I'm going to leave it with this.
I'm going to give everybody the link to Locals.
Come on over to Locals.
And then we'll see what we talk about there.
Macron might be married to a transgender individual.
A transsexual.
Transvest.
I don't know.
A tranny.
Macron.
There's a...
It's not even a rumor.
Apparently, there's like a revolt that Macron...
That his 25-plus-year-old spouse, which is already gross and weird.
Only because they met when he was 15. Like, my best friend's parents were 20 years apart, but they met when they were adults.
Gross and weird that she might be a he.
And that might explain Keith Olbermann's unhinged tweets today.
So, that's the teaser, people.
Come on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where we've got tips to take, questions to answer, and community with which to engage.
Here, link again.
Boom shakalaka, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Did I miss any super chats, rumble rants?
I did not.
Okay, we're good.
Mohap.
Now that I know what that means, Michelle Obama has a penis.
This is going to be the ultimate irony, is if it's not Mohap, it's, what's her name, Brigitte?
Bohap.
No, her name is Brigitte Macron.
But Mohap, BMHap.
Macron's wife was also his teacher at school, vfreak99.
To be continued, over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Thank you all for being here.
It's been glorious and wonderful as well.
Snip, clip, and share away that interview, please, with as many people as possible.
Harry McDougald.
I like him.
Plus, I had a friend back in Canada whose name was Dougald.
McDougald!
I love that last name.
Go!
If you're not coming to Locals.
But if you're coming to Locals, I'll see you there.
Ending on Rumble right now.
Thank you all for being here.
I'll see you tomorrow.
And peace out, everybody.
Great hanging around with you.
Thank you.
Awkward!
Locals, are we live?
I got a piece so badly, but I'm going to hold it in.
Have a grand evening.
Okay, so we've got pictures of gunners here.
Is this Bill Brown?
Me flying to USS Nassau, not Iraq.
Look at that.
What is that?
▲
Export Selection