Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 17, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:25:24

Ep. 202: Fani Willis Ruling; Trump Trial Delayed; Fake News & MORE! Viva & Barnes Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And you're not going to be able to sell those cars.
	If I get elected...
	Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole...
	That's going to be the least of it.
	It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
	That'll be the least of it.
	But they're not going to sell those cars.
	They're building massive factories.
	A friend of mine...
	And you're not going to be able to sell those cars.
	If I get elected...
	Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole...
	That's going to be the least of it.
	It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
	That'll be the least of it.
	But they're not going to sell those cars.
	They're building massive factories.
	A friend of mine...
	This is going to be repetitive.
	If anybody just watched me on Alex Jones.
	But we're doing it here too because we're putting this on blast.
	And I got to be careful about the metaphors that I use.
	If I say that this is going to be the death nail of...
	Legacy Media.
	Is someone going to take that out of context and say that I threatened death against MSM?
	This should be the death nail of a dozen Twitter accounts.
	MSM.
	We're going to go through it.
	We're going to go through it.
	I want to start it from the beginning because this is the clip presented by...
	Who is this?
	I don't know who this person is.
	Aiken.
	Asin.
	AC1.
	Oh.
	Oh, I didn't...
	I'm an idiot.
	I did know that.
	Midas Touch.
	That explains everything.
	Well, I feel much less guilty about destroying this account in the way that it rightly deserves.
	17 seconds, people.
	17 seconds.
	You know you're getting lied to.
	But what's even more insidious is that the first time I heard this, I thought he said gun and not cars at the beginning right here.
	And you're not going to be able to sell those guns.
	You're not going to be able to sell those guns.
	I thought that he said guns, which is why I thought this was even more bizarre.
	When I first heard it, I'm going to play it one last time.
	And you're not going to be able to sell those cars.
	If I get elected...
	Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole...
	That's going to be the least of it.
	It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
	That'll be the least of it.
	But they're not going to sell those cars.
	They're building massive factories.
	And then back to a story about cars.
	Everybody, if you don't know when you're getting lied to yet, it's going to be very difficult to make you understand that.
	Or you're new to the game, in which case, we can help you.
	That was the 17-second clip that went viral.
	It went around the world, as they say, before the truth had time to put its pants on.
	I'm about to go fishing.
	I just want to fish for an hour on a Saturday afternoon.
	I hear this clip, and I'm like, ugh, that sounds bad.
	But I know that the people who are saying that this clip is what it says...
	Have lied to me systematically in the past.
	I say, I'm going to go, as I walk to my favorite pond, I'm going to go find the video and play that and see if it's in context and see if it makes sense.
	I go find the Ohio rally because you'll see here, some people might not have even known there was a rally going on.
	It was a rally in Ohio.
	It's live at the time.
	I go and, oh, okay, fine.
	He's wearing this hat.
	These are the people behind him.
	Okay.
	I start from the beginning, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip until I get to a context where I know that we're going to hear what he said here.
	I get to the context and I'm like, no matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.
	I know that they lied to us.
	I didn't know that they would be so reckless, so malicious in the lie.
	I got the context of the clip.
	You've all seen this by now if you follow me on Twitter because I was a little heavy on it yesterday because I was fed up.
	This is the longer clip, the context.
	Some might even say, to make it make sense.
	China now is building a couple of massive plants where they're going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border.
	Let me tell you something to China.
	If you're listening, President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal.
	He's friends with the Chinese.
	Those big monster...
	Car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans, and you're going to sell the cars to us now, we're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars.
	If I get elected...
	Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole...
	That's going to be the least of it.
	It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
	That'll be the least of it.
	But they're not going to sell those cars.
	They're building massive factories.
	A friend of mine, all he does is build car manufacturing plants.
	He's the biggest in the world.
	I mean, honestly, I joke about it.
	He can't walk across the street.
	I'll stop it here.
	Makes a little more sense.
	I will steal men.
	I will steal men.
	Even this.
	Big monster.
	We're going to put a 100% tariff.
	If I get elected, we'll put a tariff on it.
	If I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath.
	That's going to be the least of it.
	It's going to be a bloodbath.
	Oh, that's going to be the least of it, referring to the automobile industry.
	That's going to be the least of it.
	Surely what he meant by that was actual violence.
	A bloodbath.
	There are people out there, by the way, who are so painfully ignorant, so willfully stupid, they don't know that...
	You know, either car parts or cars are manufactured in China.
	Some people are like, it's so stupid.
	He could have meant the automobile industry because cars aren't made in China.
	Wow.
	You got people who are so stupid, so willfully ignorant, they don't know what bloodbath means.
	What else does that mean other than violence in the streets?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I'm just waiting.
	I'm counting down the hours for Merriam-Webster dictionary to memory hole the definition.
	To Orwellian make it disappear.
	Bloodbath.
	A major economic disaster, a market bloodbath.
	You know why I know what market bloodbath means?
	Because I lived through 2008.
	I've lived long enough to know that it's an actual, well-known, often used economic term.
	There are people out there who are so ignorant, so stupid, they don't know that cars and car parts are made in China.
	They don't know that bloodbath is an actual economic term.
	And they see a 17-second clip.
	And think that Trump has promised violence in the streets, if not elected.
	But not just dumb, and I'm not saying dumb, okay, I'll say dumb, ignorant, ill-informed, low-level, low-information voters, some for legitimate, understandable reasons.
	Everyone's living their lives.
	You can't be on Twitter, as often as I'm on Twitter, can't live on the internet the way I live on the internet.
	So not all of it is of bad faith.
	Some of it is, however.
	And the people pulling the strings?
	The people using you or the ill-informed, the low-information voters out there as violent tools or tools for violence, the ones doing it on purpose deserve to get called out.
	And I was spending the better part of yesterday evening calling them up.
	But there's one in particular.
	There's one in particular that I felt the need to call out because, you know, maybe he didn't know what the tweet was about.
	Mark Elias, people!
	Mark Elias, founder of Democracy Docket, chair at Elias Lodger.
	His dog's name is Bowie.
	He's got a good-looking dog.
	Ordinarily, I tend to think people with dogs are good people, but, you know, I told Jeffrey Dahmer I had a dog also.
	I don't know if he did.
	I'm just joking.
	Mark Elias retweets Aiken.
	By the way, it's not an innocent, I just didn't know any better retweet.
	After a given point in time...
	You get to presume malice and not chalk things up to ignorance.
	Mark Elias tweets, That's Mark Elias, an attorney.
	Either rage retweeting without knowing.
	Or knowing and not caring.
	And I strongly suspect it's the latter.
	And I said, don't ever let Mark Elias forget he participated in the promulgation of a grotesque lie.
	Quite symbolic of his career.
	I was quite happy with that.
	But just as an illustration of how the lie spreads, travels across the world before the truth has the time to put its shoes on.
	I don't want to lose this here.
	I don't know who some of these people are.
	Trump says if he's not elected, it will be a bloodbath for the country.
	FYI, if he is elected, it will also be a bloodbath based on his intentions.
	The choice is clear.
	The choice is clear is as clear as the threat.
	Okay.
	Michael McCain.
	DOJ.
	What the F do you call this?
	Tim Hannon.
	F this traitor.
	You got Mark Elias over there.
	John Seifert disqualifying.
	He's threatening violence.
	Once again, Retta.
	I don't know who these people are.
	And then the headlines.
	The headlines are just outrageous.
	I want to say it's not just at this point in time promulgating a lie, something that you can weaponize for politics.
	This is people who are willing to use other people as a means to their ends, even if it means, and especially if it means, resorting to violence or allowing them to be triggered into violence.
	We talk about the political permission slip very often.
	On this channel.
	With Robert Barnes.
	The politicians plant the seeds out there.
	They issue the political permission slip for violence.
	Remember the Summer of Love, BLM, burning down cities?
	When you have Kamala Harris saying we're going to bail you out of jail, that's a political permission slip.
	When you have the media saying they will literally...
	Do violence to you in the streets if Trump is not elected.
	That's what he means by it.
	Here's the 17-second lie of a clip.
	If something's an existential threat to you, you really are only going to do one thing through whatever means necessary, neutralize that threat.
	And these ringleaders, these puppet masters, these liars, right to Mark Elias, are willing to whip up the general public into a frenzied rage where anything is going to be justified because if they don't do something, There will be a bloodbath in the streets if Trump doesn't get elected.
	As if they had no idea what he actually meant.
	And not what he even meant.
	What he said.
	I don't recall.
	I don't know.
	I was angry last week when Scott McAfee didn't disqualify Fannie Willis.
	When was I?
	I woke up in the middle of the night after the State of the Union address just genuinely dismayed.
	Genuinely discouraged.
	Last night I was repulsed.
	Revolted.
	And you see how it happens.
	And I'm tagging Elon Musk.
	Not only do the community notes not work, they're worse than useless.
	They're destructive.
	When you have a system such as community notes, and you think it is intended to flag lies, disinformation, things that are deliberately, maliciously taken out of context to convey a meaning that is not the original or intended meaning, when you have a system like that, When you see a community note, and it's the one, who is it that had big boobs?
	Someone from the Oscars that said something about her big boobs, and her boobs aren't that big, and then the community note said, yes, they are.
	Ha ha.
	Okay, you know it's being toyed with there.
	When you have the community notes on the liver king saying his secret ingredient is actually not meat, but steroids, you know it's being gained.
	But there are other times when you generally think it's useful.
	There are also other times where when you don't see it, it's because you don't think it's necessary to be there.
	Aiken's tweet, last I checked, A-C-Y-N, let me just see if it's 24 hours old now and still does not have a community note on it, which is going to lead the ignorant to say, I guess it doesn't deserve one.
	Or it's going to lead the willfully blind or the malicious to say, it doesn't have one, so I get to pretend that that's what he meant.
	So that's it.
	It's disgusting and it's wild and it's terrible.
	And Elon Musk should be put on notice.
	It's not just that community notes has been weaponized.
	It doesn't work.
	It's destructive.
	And it's becoming a popularity contest.
	I'm sure Aiken, Midas Touch, has a number of people.
	Vote it down is not helpful so that I don't get the community note.
	Media's run with the headlines.
	The lie has now poisoned the minds of more people that can ever be undone.
	And when the truth comes around, big effing deal.
	If you don't actually see violence from this, my goodness, did we come close.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	For those of you who don't know how things work, if you're new to the channel, Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler.
	I'm on the road, so I'm on my computer with the computer mic.
	I trimmed the beard down a little bit because it looked a little crazy.
	We are live across the interwebs.
	Yes, we are live on Rumble.
	We are live on VivaBarnesLaw.Vocals.com.
	And before I bring Barnes in, you may have noticed, everybody.
	That as you came to the stream, it said that this stream contains a paid promotion.
	Because it does, people.
	Let me see.
	Is this it here?
	I got to play this.
	Here we go.
	Boom.
	Are we seeing a beautiful video?
	Yeah, we are.
	Hold on.
	How do I maximize this?
	Yes.
	Look at gold, people.
	It's not for idolatry purposes.
	It's for investment purposes.
	So the new central digital bank currency is coming and could replace your dollars with digital currency.
	It's not good.
	It's coming if it's not already here.
	Every transaction you make of $600 and more, you've got to report.
	Would it come?
	With it would come surveillance to our lives, freezing of assets, as we've seen in Canada, and government control over our bank accounts and how we spend our money.
	Americans who 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 little Queen Elizabeth.
	If I need to hide it in my cavity, I don't know who's going to take it out, but I'm also told that's the first place they look.
	But whatever.
	Physical gold.
	It's like holding, like, actual physical Bitcoin.
	If you want to help protect your retirement, you should look into gold and call Preserve Gold today.
	They'll explore the right options for you and help you with the process to get either physical gold or to roll your IRA or 401k into gold or gold-related accounts.
	It's easy owning physical gold.
	It might feel like idolatry, and it does a little bit, but it's an investment.
	And it's one that has historically proven to be good and outperforming.
	Pretty much everything else.
	And, you know, a little FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried is not going to just take all your virtual gold and run off with it when you've got it, you know, buried in your backyard.
	Preserve Gold is BBB accredited with zero consumer complaints and hundreds of satisfied customers.
	They're also the founding member of the Precious Metals Associations, so you know you're in good hands.
	As an exclusive offer for Viva Fry, they'll give you up to $10,000 in free gold and silver with a qualifying purchase or retirement account rollover.
	They'll even throw a $500 credit.
	If you request your investor guide today, check it out.
	Go to Preserve Gold.
	The link is in the description.
	Preservegold.com forward slash Viva today.
	Get your free gold and silver investment guide.
	Take the first look to diversify, but gold has been around for 5,000 years.
	When was the golden calf?
	Do not worship gold.
	But it does not hurt if you can to acquire some as an investment.
	Preservegold.com forward slash Viva.
	Get your free gold.
	Get your guide today.
	Preservegold.
	Link is in the description.
	Thank you very much, Preservegold and Booyah.
	Now, with that said, everybody, let me see.
	Let me make sure we're good here.
	Okay.
	I'm not going to keep Barnes waiting in the back.
	I can't do it.
	Barnes, it's like he's ready to roll.
	We got some rage.
	We're going to rage tonight, people.
	Robert, bringing me in.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	People had some funny jokes about the gold reading script that they weren't sure putting it in your cavities was part of the script, maybe.
	It reminded me of the South Park episode where Cartman's like, I know every Jew has a little gold hidden.
	And the kid's like, you're lying.
	And he's like, oh, okay.
	And he gives it to him.
	He goes, oh, no.
	Everybody knows that's the fake one.
	You got another one that's on it.
	I didn't even realize there is a pun that they used to put gold in cavities, and then you should hide your gold in cavities.
	Okay, we have an above-average community, Robert.
	Robert, I was going to say, you're dropping bombs in your law proceedings now, but I don't know if someone's going to say, take the clip.
	Viva said Barnes is dropping bombs, and he's declared war on the U.S. Robert, what's the book that you have over your shoulders tonight?
	It's one, you know, a certain former president, who's running for president, should...
	Probably digest at least the Cliff Notes version of.
	It's a gift of Mark Robert of America's untold stories with he and Eric Hundley about a particular general's role in the assassination of President John Kennedy.
	And given that Trump is currently figuring out which Mike Pence wannabe lookalike to put as his own vice president, currently he's thinking, oh, I'll put a black Mike Pence in.
	What a genius move that would be.
	By putting Tim Scott in, who makes Mike Pence look like a good vice president by comparison.
	So given the bad decisions currently being contemplated at the Trump campaign, just a little reminder of if you put someone like Tim Scott on the ticket, that no sensible life insurance policy would sell you life insurance for the next year.
	So trying to get the warning out to as many...
	People in places in Trump world as possible as he contemplates reverting back to the worst of Trump 2020 currently.
	Well, he did.
	I think he might have gotten the message about the Jibby Jab truth post where he sort of walked it back a little bit and said something.
	People responded to you, your criticism of it, saying, oh, he never said that.
	That's because he deleted it after being embarrassed and humiliated again.
	By his idiotic support of that ridiculous Operation Warp Speed, one of the dumbest names ever come up with.
	You know what you don't want at warp speed?
	A vaccine.
	That's what you don't want.
	A drug.
	And, of course, it's a disaster and a debacle.
	And it's probably his Achilles heel for his 2024 campaign that could leak votes to Robert Kennedy if he keeps going down that path.
	There's a part of Trump that doesn't want to recognize he got hoodwinked.
	You know, Pfizer and the deep state apparatus.
	The same deep state apparatus that was conspiring against his 2020 election.
	Bill Barr at the Justice Department covering up the Biden crimes and covering up the voting fraud.
	The CISA helping to coordinate and organize the voter fraud, as well as censorship on social media platforms.
	These were Trump's own appointees doing this to Trump.
	Just as Deborah Birx has now bragged about how she lied to Trump to get him to do things like go along early on with the lockdowns, to go along with the vaccine rush, to go along with a lot of mandates early on.
	She's bragging about it, and yet Trump hasn't called her out on it.
	You know, Fauci's bragged about how he misled him.
	Trump hasn't called him out on it.
	And by contrast, he has said nothing on the Amos Miller case, even though Pennsylvania is in a razor-thin race.
	He said nothing about the Brooke Jackson case exposing Pfizer vaccine fraud that was, again, committed against him and his administration and the American people.
	He said nothing about Julian Assange or Edward Snowden.
	By contrast, Kennedy has publicly supported Brooke Jackson, publicly supported Amos Miller, publicly called for the pardons of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, publicly called for accountability for Fauci and Birx and everybody that was in the wrong during the pandemic, publicly called for purging the entire deep state apparatus at the FDA, USDA, and the FBI and the CIA.
	Trump's asleep at the wheel at the moment, unfortunately.
	And so it's going to take a lot of people drawing it.
	Tim Scott as a VP would be literally a fateful decision for President Trump for his political prospects in terms of an effective administration and, frankly, for his physical well-being, as this book is a helpful reminder of.
	Because you used the analogy that it would be like putting LB...
	It would be like JFK appointing LBJ to be his VP.
	That's exactly right.
	The moment John Kennedy did that is the moment he signed his death warrant.
	He didn't realize it.
	His choice was go along with the deep state or sign your death warrant.
	He didn't realize that's what the consequences of LBJ were, but it's what it was.
	And that's what the consequences of a Tim Scott VP would be.
	It would be Trump would have to go along with the deep state or he'd be signing his death warrant.
	Robert, I was going to ask you something here.
	Oh, but I just want to let everybody know.
	I'm at a hotel.
	The internet is sort of shoddy, so apparently it's smooth going out, but it gets choppy on my end, so if I look confused for a second, it might have been because you glitched up.
	And if you see me doing this, it's nothing serious.
	I'm sitting on a freaking hotel chair with a pillow on it because I have to get high enough to the camera, and it's not comfortable.
	No, I don't travel.
	Oh, God, it's out.
	The other thing I was just going to ask you, Robert, so chat.
	I'll take some super chats before we get going here, and then we're going to get into the subject of the night.
	Can I bring this one up?
	Here we go.
	We'll see.
	It takes a delay to bring up.
	Why is Putin endorsing Biden and giving jabs towards Trump?
	What's the strategy here?
	I don't get it.
	This is from a long number.
	I haven't seen it.
	What did Putin say about Biden?
	He just wants to troll the U.S. Putin is a very effective troll when he wants to be a troll.
	And I'll bring this one up.
	It says, I trimmed my beard because I was looking a little crazy, Diva.
	What exactly might you be implying here?
	I felt crazy yesterday.
	It's like whack-a-mole.
	I'm just trying to put the video everywhere where everybody's lying about the video.
	Robert, what can be done?
	Because there's certain hoaxes that are just, you know, they're trying to demonize them.
	There's other hoaxes that can lead to immediate violence.
	You know, you're not allowed screaming fire, wrongly screaming fire in a crowded theater because you can...
	You know, cause panic and get people killed in a stampede.
	Wrongly saying, publicly, proudly and loudly, that Trump has called for violence on the general population, if not elected, when it's an outright lie.
	Where is there any potential exposure and what can people do to hold those to account?
	Well, it's always interesting what Trump has sued on and what he hasn't sued on.
	Because this kind of claim, a false headline, because usually buried in the story is the correct context of the quote.
	So it's the false headline more than anything else.
	But the false headlines are considered independently actionable that cannot be saved or salvaged by the content of the story because so many people only read the headline.
	And so this statement stripped of its context implies an assertion of fact that he said something specific that he did not in fact say.
	That's actionable as liable.
	What's interesting is Trump never sues on those grounds.
	He sues on more eclectic grounds.
	And I think some of that is legal advice.
	But some of it may be Trump.
	You never know fully with Trump.
	He does make his own decisions in his own way.
	But yeah, it's a classic case of libel.
	It really is.
	It's not an opinion about what he said.
	That headline right there, is that the New York Times?
	Robert, it's the New York Times.
	The thing is, it would be like Trump to not sue on this for another reason.
	Trump believes that people only remember...
	It's the old rule my brother taught me as a debate high school student.
	He who defines the terms wins the debate.
	Trump generally will not highlight something.
	That keeping it in the news could have a negative underlying affiliation or association.
	So by keeping it in the news, by bringing suit, it would be Trump bloodbath, Trump bloodbath, Trump bloodbath.
	He knows that would be the constant associative memory.
	Like, for example, I suspect Trump deliberately leaked that his wife had borrowed from Michelle Obama's speech.
	Now, in fact, she really quite kind of hadn't, but the media was going to jump on it as a criticism of Trump.
	But what Trump knew was that all of the TV news coverage, which a lot of people only see and remember the visuals, would have her next to Obama's wife.
	And while ordinary people, Republicans might say, why would you want that affiliation?
	She did.
	Melania Trump liked Michelle Obama.
	So it was a favor of Trump to his wife, who didn't really want him to run for president in the first place, to affiliate the two.
	And he got the media to bite on it by suggesting there was some sort of plagiarism there when it really wasn't.
	It was just, how do I get the media to put this image up all across the country?
	So he likes these affiliations.
	So like, you know, Robert Kennedy got into some trouble for comparing what was happening to the pandemic.
	To what happened to various victims of the genocide.
	The Anne Frank comment.
	The Anne Frank comment.
	He walked it back, I think, sincerely.
	I wouldn't have.
	But Trump would have deliberately done something like that to keep it in the news, to keep pandemic policy equals, I'm going to look like Anne Frank.
	Pandemic policy equals, right?
	I mean, that's, so the, that may be why he doesn't.
	Some of these controversies, he doesn't, like the Charlottesville one, he could have kept bringing up how they lied about it.
	He generally doesn't because he doesn't want that affiliate.
	He doesn't want the video image on the local or nightly news to be Charlottesville Trump.
	Charlottesville Trump.
	So that may be why he doesn't sue here for political reasons.
	But legally speaking, he would have a claim.
	I'm going to bring this one up because I actually want to...
	Francis Chartrand.
	Viva time to squeeze Elon about community notes.
	He had to do damage control today versus having the built-in mechanism doing its job.
	How do we squeeze him?
	Here's how you squeeze him.
	Share this...
	He hasn't blocked me yet, nor has he acknowledged...
	I think I was among the first...
	Has he blocked Brett Weinstein for some reason?
	Yeah, he gets a little petulant now and then.
	For a billionaire, he has mostly a thick skin, but now and then can be a little thin.
	First of all, it might have been an accident.
	He might not have known, but now that I guess he knows.
	But the point is that I...
	Yeah, what he did to Don Lemon was wonderful.
	You know what?
	Given it's Don Lemon, you can call that a bitch slap.
	I see.
	I call it, that's a lemon drop.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Everyone, share that.
	I can't think of that in a positive way because I represented the guy that Don Lemon harassed over a lemon, call it lemon drop, and then he went and grabbed certain parts of his body.
	Robert, do advise the people, what is the sexual connotation of a lemon drop?
	It's not just a drink.
	There's a double entente over there?
	Oh, I have no idea.
	I'll look it up while you talk.
	Robert, what do we have?
	Your dictionary question.
	I'll look it up while you tell us what's on the menu for tonight.
	So we did our board poll, and what we'll do is the top topic tonight.
	It was a close contest.
	No favorites was the favorite, as usual.
	But the TikTok ban, we'll cover that off the top.
	Then we got four different subtopics related to Trump.
	We got the big fanny getting spanked, but not removed.
	We got the New York trial case, discovery and delay.
	We got the dismissal, partial dismissal in Georgia.
	We got the dismissal motions partially being heard in Florida.
	Then we got Riley Gaines suing the NCAA over allowing men into women's sports.
	Supreme Court had two rulings this week.
	When can somebody block you on social media when they're a public official?
	And the first interpretation of the first step law.
	Which was a Trump-proposed criminal justice reform.
	We got another parent shooting verdict out of Michigan.
	Boeing whistleblower getting Epstein'd or treated like the octopus murder journalist.
	There's a big case that almost nobody's talking about.
	But our above-average members at the board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Did bring it up.
	And this is the Beneficial Ownership Law, which was draconian surveillance state law, struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court.
	Big ruling on that.
	We'll discuss that.
	Scientology versus Leah Remini.
	The first judicial ruling in that case.
	What part of the case goes forward?
	We got a couple of bonus topics.
	Fox sued over the death of a war reporter in Ukraine.
	We got Amos Miller, we filed his challenge for the order of food destruction this week in court.
	We got a little few comments on Tyson Foods getting caught up in another legal controversy.
	And probably my favorite suit of the week, San Fran being sued for being a shithole.
	So that'll be fun.
	And this reference here is...
	The Law Center site is up and going.
	This is the lead law center.
	It was Free America Law Center.
	Free America Law Center is the organization that owns it.
	We just rebranded the name of the website.
	1776lawcenter.com is now up and going.
	Lead organization supporting Amos Miller.
	Lead organization supporting Brooke Jackson.
	Lead organization supporting a lot of challenges to the vaccine mandates.
	Lead organization helping out on food freedom, financial freedom, political freedom, medical freedom, all of those key critical issues that are underrepresented in the world of law.
	We have court documents linked.
	We have news interviews linked.
	We have interviews with the clients in some cases linked.
	We'll have more content put up there constantly.
	We got merchandise up if you want that at 1776lawcenter.com.
	Now, I said I was going to bring up the Urban Dictionary definition for Lemon Drop, but I know that we have a crowd who would not appreciate it, so I will not bring it up, but the link is in the chat.
	All right, Robert, so we're starting with...
	Are we starting with TikTok?
	Yes.
	All right.
	I'll ask you the question publicly that I asked you, that I texted you last week.
	I read through the TikTok bill.
	My immediate question and my only question is, what does this solve by way of problem that existing legislation is unable to resolve?
	You have the Espionage Act.
	I can't pretend to know how that has been applied.
	I know some examples.
	If the Espionage Act was used to go after Julian Assange, a non-American who never stepped foot on American soil.
	Who committed the crime from wherever.
	If they used the Espionage Act on him, and the concern is that China, through this algorithm, is going to be spying on American citizens, why would the Espionage Act not be the solution in and of itself to deal with the problem that they're identifying, as opposed to paving the way for, say the words, national security threat, and you can find a pretext to shut down a social media site.
	And then I had some creative applications as to how they might apply it to Rumble.
	How they might apply it to Truth Social, if it's deemed to be operating under the direction of an adversarial nation.
	Bottom line of the TikTok ban, for now, it's going after TikTok, whatever parent company owns it.
	And the basis is national security due to spying, espionage, collecting data, etc., etc.
	They've ordered basically either...
	Either the sale of the company or what's one of the other remedies that they're asking for under that bill?
	But bottom line, tell us why it's necessary and what the risks are and what they're not about in left field.
	You know, politically, when you see Rand Paul, Thomas Massey, Robert Kennedy, and Vivek all on the same side against the bill, chances are it's a bad bill.
	When Dan Crenshaw and the Democratic Party and the Biden administration are supporting the bill, it's a bad bill.
	That's pretty much a guarantee.
	Only Benji Shapiro could confuse that with something positive.
	I guess you got to meet him this week.
	People were asking, did you wear some of those DeSantis high-heeled boots?
	He was looking a little taller.
	He's definitely taller than me, and he's in very good shape, so give him credit for that.
	He's physically in good shape.
	I don't know if you remembered.
	He thinks your grandparents should work until they're 85. He was announcing that bit of genius insight.
	Politically, the problem with the bill is that it gives way too much power to President Biden.
	As you pointed out, it didn't limit the bill to just Chinese ownership of a foreign app.
	It included a broad range of defining foreign enemy or adversary, number one.
	So it's not China-specific.
	Number two, it didn't require ownership.
	It didn't require even substantive control.
	It allowed anybody that's considered an agent of a foreign adversary to be subject to the rule.
	So that's problem number two.
	Problem number three is it allows the president basically to decide who that is, which means he could ban truth right in the middle of the election using this TikTok ban law.
	He could ban truth in the middle of the election saying Trump's an agent of the Russian government.
	So he could ban Rumble in the middle of the election, saying that Rumble allows RT, so thereby is an agent of a foreign adversary.
	So this law is a deep state empowerment law.
	It's the Patriot Act 2.0 applied to social media.
	Rand Paul is right.
	Vivek is right.
	Robert Kennedy is right.
	Thomas Massey is right.
	It is a political disaster for anybody who opposes the surveillance state having any more power.
	Because the last aspect of the law politically that's problematic is if you want to do something with China, then just do it with China, number one.
	And number two, do it specifically in a way that the president just has broad discretion to interpret things.
	Don't allow that to happen.
	That's how we're in so many disasters is delegating to the administrative state undiscretionary limitation on what they do.
	But last but not least, why apply it to Americans?
	Large parts of the bill make certain things a crime for Americans to do.
	Don't tell me it's a China ban bill when you're going to lock up Americans over it.
	So Dan Crenshaw is lying like usual.
	The people supporting this bill are just dead wrong.
	There's some prominent, decent conservatives that are on board with this dumb bill, and they shouldn't be.
	But of course, almost all of them are on board the Patriot Act.
	So it's the same disastrous mindset that you just, you know, before it was, you know, dangle anti-communism, you get people to do dumb stuff.
	Dangle anti-terrorism, you get people to do dumb stuff.
	And now it's dangle anti-China, and you get people to do dumb stuff.
	To his credit, Trump saw through this right away, and he recognized the biggest beneficiary will be Zuckerberg.
	This would help Facebook and Instagram, who TikTok is stealing customers from.
	Facebook, who has been in bed with the Biden administration and the leading censorship organization in all of social media for the last five years.
	The same Zuckerberg that helped steal the election for his fraudulency, the second Joe Biden, to put him in power in the first place.
	And so Trump, to his credit, once again, his instincts, dead on, about this bill.
	Now, the legal side of it is this bill doesn't come anywhere close to being constitutional.
	It's highly likely that it's purely for political theater because the probability this law gets enjoined by a federal court is about 85 to 90%.
	And that's because of the Packingham decision issued just about seven years ago.
	And there the Supreme Court said you could not even prohibit perverts from using social media to access young people.
	Talking about...
	People that are convicted pedos.
	And so the Supreme Court, I think it was unanimously, said you can't ban that much speech.
	That's not within your rights.
	Even if your objective is something that's laudable, you can't use a laudable objective to illicitly suppress and censor millions of Americans on every possible subject and topic.
	And, well, really, here are tens of thousands.
	There's only that many that have been convicted.
	Otherwise, you just look for connections to a certain named foundation, as a certain country was in the news.
	As Count Dankula said, just Google Haiti Clinton Foundation.
	You might find out some interesting things.
	I don't encourage you to look up why the gang leader is named Barbecue, though Alex Jones suggested maybe we could come up with a cannibalism-inspired cookbook in honor of Haiti.
	If you couldn't even ban criminal convicts from accessing social media on the grounds that it would allow them to use it to access minors, because it prohibited too much speech, was overbroad, was vague, and First Amendment prohibitive, this TikTok ban gets nowhere near that.
	Because again, it would be one thing if it was saying, we're not going to allow Chinese ownership of something.
	But that's not what they're doing.
	They're saying the President of the United States has the power to prohibit speech, to ban speech of tens of millions of Americans.
	That is not constitutional yesterday, today, or tomorrow.
	But they named the company in particular, and I'm trying to refresh my memory as to what a bill of attainder is, but it seems that this piece of legislation is passed specifically to go after TikTok specifically and the parent corporation.
	How is that legal?
	I mean, that raises its own issues, but if they limited it to foreign ownership, that they're not going to allow a foreign nation to control a social media app with X percentage of ownership.
	And there's a reason why they're limiting it to foreign adversary, because there's issues with foreign ownership.
	Look up the Saudis and look up a lot of people with ownership interest in a lot of different places.
	Is that there would be separate problems with that.
	But if they limited it to...
	The other problem is calling somebody a foreign adversary.
	We have no declaration of war with anyone.
	So if there's no declaration of war with anyone, I have a problem calling anyone a foreign adversary constitutionally.
	But independent of that, the core problem of this is it prohibits speech.
	It's one thing if it prohibited ownership.
	It could require as its remedies divestiture.
	But that's not what they're doing.
	They're instead trying to give the president the power to ban social media apps that they don't like.
	And there's no aspect of that.
	That's banning speech.
	People are like, how does it ban speech?
	If you prohibited the means of speech, then you've prohibited speech.
	You're banning people from communicating using a particular method or mechanism.
	That is often necessary for their communicative speech, associative activities, religiously expressive conduct, all of that.
	Press, I mean, basically it violates every single component of the First Amendment.
	Right of free press, right of free speech, right of free association, right of religious affiliation and expression, and right to petition your government for redress of grievances, because TikTok and other social media is used for all those forms and formats.
	So they've taken a legitimate concern about foreign government data harvesting.
	And rather than write a law about foreign government data harvesting, they've written a law trying to prohibit speech.
	This is deep state control of all social media apps in America.
	That's what this bill should be called.
	Everybody who voted for it is too stupid.
	Robert, Tim Pool.
	Tim Pool had floated the idea, and others were echoing it, that this bill only gained traction.
	In light of trending topics on TikTok being anti-Israeli.
	And I was a little skeptical at first.
	And I was like, now this bill, they were talking about going after TikTok from well before the events of October 7 and what followed afterwards.
	Then I saw this tweet from the Jewish Federation.
	We want all social media networks to catch anti-Semitic and hateful language.
	And when they don't, it's time to say, time's up TikTok.
	And then I began to think that there might be something to this.
	What are your thoughts?
	I mean, is this motivated?
	Glenn Greenwald pointed this out as well.
	TikTok has been one of the primary platforms that anti-Israeli communications have occurred.
	And there's been a proclivity, including by Governor DeSantis in Florida and Governor Noem of South Dakota, to pass these stupid hate speech laws.
	The hate speech laws are stupid, no matter who the target or who the beneficiary is or who the target is.
	It doesn't matter.
	They're stupid laws.
	Now, that's different than, I think, at times, the...
	Anti-Israeli crowd has minimized some of what's happened on college campuses, because there's a difference there.
	There's permissive speech, and then there's impermissible harassment.
	Impermissible, stalking, things like that.
	We'll get into that with the Leah Remini versus Scientology case a little bit later, where a court drew the correct distinction.
	But in these other cases, they're really just trying to ban speech that they don't like.
	They're trying to prohibit platforms they don't like.
	So Trump was originally trying to limit Chinese ownership and data mining through TikTok.
	And he got a lot of correct blowback.
	And he correctly...
	We figured out, okay, actually, banning TikTok makes no sense.
	That if we want to focus on data mining issues, focus on data mining issues.
	You know, you can prohibit a foreign government from doing certain things.
	That's not a problem.
	China is a communist country, so pretty much everything is ultimately owned by the government.
	So, you know, they decided to format it that way.
	But that's not what they're doing here.
	That's the political pretext in order to get a bunch of people to sign on that are too stupid to read the actual bill or don't care because they're really deep state propagandists at heart or been bought off by the deep state.
	It's not a coincidence people like Matt Gaetz realize this bill is problematic.
	Others on the populist side started to wake up.
	I hope more wake up, but we'll see.
	Chances are a bill's going to pass, and then a court's going to declare it unconstitutional.
	They could do so on separate grounds.
	It's vague.
	It's overly broad.
	It vests too much discretion in the executive branch.
	There's other things.
	It may be, to a degree, considered a bill of a danger.
	But the First Amendment's the easiest and clearest grounds that this law is highly unlikely to ever be enforceable in the United States.
	Robert, I want to share this before we...
	Speaking of...
	Deep State, whatever you want to call them.
	Listen to this, by the way.
	Don't trust your lying eyes.
	Trust Dan Crenshaw when he tells you that intelligence is not manipulating media in America.
	That's everything TikTok has, which means data on all Americans.
	And with data and with access to your app that you're addicted to, you can vastly manipulate an entire population, which the Chinese have done.
	Are you worried that our intelligence agencies are doing the same thing domestically?
	Am I worried that...
	Well, I know that they're not.
	They're not manipulating Americans?
	Yes, I know.
	I mean, the brazenness of saying, oh, it's so easy to do, and China's definitely done it, but, oh, no, we've never done it.
	Oh, what?
	What?
	I mean, that's what a fraud that guy is.
	It's incredulous.
	That's the kind of senator.
	Tim Scott is the Dan Crenshaw of the Senate that Trump is currently considering for his vice presidency.
	That's what a fraud that guy is.
	That old part of the Republican Party I had zero interest in and still have zero interest in.
	The Ben Shapiro, Mitt Romney, John McCain wing of the party is not a party I have any interest in whatsoever.
	The fact that these people are overtly and openly lying to you...
	But there's too many cowards and deep state sycophants in the House and the Senate to actually vote it down.
	But this is one place where the courts probably will step in and declare it unconstitutional because the Packingham decision is pretty clear precedent and applicable to the case.
	By the way, the Federalist Society has been going around telling everybody why it's fine and constitutional.
	That's why you cannot trust the leaders at the Federalist Society.
	As we learned...
	In our transition to our first Trump case, big honorary member of the Federalist Society, a certain corrupt state court judge in Georgia.
	Before we get there, everyone, we're going to end it on YouTube now, but I want to read everyone's rumble rants on YouTube and give them the exposure they deserve.
	Carlisle says, see you in Vegas for the birthday bash for Robert Barnes.
	What can I bring to you for you to sign?
	I'm super excited to meet you and Robert.
	Anything.
	Hey, whatever you bring.
	There's still some available tickets left.
	For the 1776 Law Center's inaugural fundraiser, which is the 50th birthday party of yours, truly, in Las Vegas, Saturday, April 13th.
	Coming up in just a few weeks.
	Andy Pearson says, Oh my God, he said bloodbath, hashtag sarcasm.
	JLA Bronco, it is called a prison wallet where you should hide your gold.
	K. Sorensen917Viva, can you please make a standalone comprehensive Amos Miller recap video?
	I want to be able to better share the situation with my dad who drinks raw milk.
	I'll figure something out there.
	Varex, can Trump sue for defamation for the rope allegations when it was never found?
	We talked about that.
	Elon still censors...
	To that person, by the way, we have a bunch of links on Amos Miller's case in the news, interviews, broadcasts, publications, you name it, court documents that you can point people to and they say, okay, what's this Amos Miller case about?
	They can go to 1776lawcenter.com.
	They can see the interviews.
	They can read the stories.
	They come from a wide range of locations and places.
	is they can read the court documents themselves and make up their own mind.
	Can Trump suit for defamation we got there?
	PJ Park and Elon still censors findpeople.org on X. Douglas Mackey did jail time for a meme in 2016 election.
	Here's hoping equal justice is served from Maduding.
	We got Biden just shared the bloodbath clip.
	Oh, no, it's wild.
	Biden shared it.
	HQ put out a press release.
	I'm a paid member on Locals, but can only find the live stream on my phone, not Apple TV.
	What gives?
	I don't know, but we're live on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com right now.
	And now we're only going to be live on Rumble and Locals because we're ending on YouTube.
	So come on over.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	And if you're not coming, why not?
	But 4,323, there should be less than that.
	In five seconds.
	Heading on over to the free speech platform, Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, 1776lawcenter.com.
	Okay, and we're ending on YouTube.
	Bam.
	Robert, look, I don't want to spin it, but I got it more right than wrong.
	I said they weren't going to dismiss the charges.
	The Judge McAfee was not going to dismiss the indictment.
	He had to disqualify both, and he somehow went with a combination that makes absolutely no sense on its face logically, and even less sense if you read the decision, unless he was threatened or whatever, and he said, look, I cannot get rid of Fannie Willis, but I'm going to make it so that she will be gotten rid of through other means.
	I don't need to recap it for anybody who's out there.
	If you don't know what's going on, then my goodness, you're new to the channel tonight.
	Fannie Willis not disqualified from the prosecution of the RICO charges against Trump, Roman et al.
	But she had to make a hard, hard decision, pun intended, to boot Nathan Wade from the file or disqualify herself and her whole office.
	She didn't have to wait long, Nathan Wade, because democracy and justice are their North Star.
	He tendered his resignation within hours.
	Of Scott McAfee's decision in a resignation letter that everyone who saw him testify knows he did not draft himself.
	My only question was, was it Kamala Harris who drafted it or her communications team?
	Sure, that wasn't Kamala Harris.
	Was it Fannie Willis' team?
	Who knows?
	The judge split the baby, and I say in so splitting the baby of justice, he killed the baby of justice.
	It's still a net positive unequivocally for Trump.
	Fannie Willis staying on this case, given what Judge McAfee said about her in the decision, no one's going to take her seriously, but I'm curious to know your thoughts, and yeah, what do you think?
	Basically, Judge McAfee kicked Nathan Wade out of bed with Fannie Willis, and he hopped into bed with her instead.
	And that was, in my view, ill-advised.
	You know, my theory was, at the very beginning, I was skeptical he would do anything, due to my skepticism of the Fulton County Courthouse, who's...
	Notorious political partisan corruption is the only reason this case or anything related to January 6th even ever happened.
	For those who don't remember, the only election contest President Trump brought in court was in Georgia.
	That was the only state.
	None of the other cases or the rest were an election contest case.
	The only one he brought was in Georgia.
	It was detailed with hundreds and hundreds of pages of declarations and sworn testimony and investigative research.
	I didn't bring that particular election contest, but I was part of crafting and drafting the whole thing leading up to it.
	I left the case when it became clear they were going to let some other people run it, and I didn't have confidence in how they would handle it, and given a bunch of them ended up indicted.
	I guess my instincts were okay on that.
	But it was the Fulton County court system that corruptly violated the state law and refused to schedule a hearing, even though state law required a hearing, within five days of it being brought.
	And that's the only reason why Georgia never got fully adjudicated, the reason why Georgia's impact on the rest of the states never got fully adjudicated, the reason why January 6th could even happen in the first place, the only reason that there was any alternative elector program in Georgia at all for even it to occur.
	So it's the corruption of the Fulton County court system that were even here.
	So depending on the same Fulton County court system, to take action when they could see corruption by the prosecutor plainly in view was probably a step, a bridge too far.
	Now, I changed my view two-thirds the way through because the scale and scope of the corruption was compounded.
	By perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering by the prosecutor herself in front of this very judge that the whole world got to witness.
	So in order for the judge to allow her to stay on the case required he not only be without a conscience as to the concerns about the law, to have no constitutional conscience and no character, it also required he be politically inept.
	That he'd be so dumb politically out of it that he not recognize that leaving her on would do irreparable damage to the integrity and the appearance of integrity in the judiciary itself.
	And that's the only place I was wrong.
	I thought his political IQ wasn't that low.
	You know, most people know, don't hop into bed with Fannie Willis.
	But he did.
	And it shows that there's no depth.
	I mean, when I was first in Georgia, on behalf of President Trump, who called me from the White House to go down there in 2020, my first statement to the members on our locals board was that they're the biggest bunch of cowards I'd ever met, the Republican Party hierarchy in Georgia.
	And that's where McAfee comes from.
	He comes from the Purdue-Kemp political operation.
	I mean, Sonny Perdue, who Trump made ag secretary, which is one of his terrible decisions for cabinet.
	I mean, Sonny Perdue, imagine boss hog, but dumber.
	And that's Sonny Perdue.
	I was sitting there looking across from him.
	I'm like, this guy can't be that dumb.
	Usually your corrupt people are smart.
	He's corrupt and stupid.
	And so is his nitwit senator relative.
	I mean, both of them lost because they refused.
	All they needed to do.
	Was, say, they would stop trading in stocks and making a bunch of money on inside information while they're senators.
	And both of them, Loeffler and Perdue, refused.
	That's why they lost.
	Of course, the Republican establishment there in Georgia blamed Trump for that.
	That's how stupid they are.
	But that's who McAfee is.
	Now, I think what the entire judicial system underappreciates...
	Some of us who have been in the weeds, in the trenches of political cases for a quarter century, like I have, have witnessed this all the time.
	The political corruption, the political cowardice of many of our jurists and judges and judicial system, as well as the almost inestimable corruption of our prosecutorial branch of power.
	The ordinary person in America has not.
	90-95% of Americans never experienced the criminal justice system, vicariously or directly.
	The difference is, now this is all being broadcast to the whole world, and everybody's seeing an up-close view of our criminal justice and civil justice systems.
	And they're shocked at what they're witnessing, because these judges who are accustomed to weaponizing their power and punishing the dissident outsider on behalf of corrupt insiders...
	Don't realize that the only reason they've been getting away with it is nobody who cared noticed.
	They weren't doing it to the leading candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.
	And these dimwits don't realize that.
	They've always got away with it in the past.
	This is a disaster for the state of Georgia, disaster for the Fulton County Courthouse, a disaster for the American justice system that looks like a joke.
	Because right now it is one.
	Now, I'll try to steal, man, one thing for Scott McAfee.
	Set aside the question of dignity and reputation, which I think he's shredded his own.
	The argument could be made, what's the benefit of booting Fannie Willis from a file?
	As opposed to excoriating her in the decision and leaving her in.
	You boot it from the file.
	You appoint another DA.
	They'll say it comes from a more red-leaning district.
	That's the problem.
	The issue is no other DA would have taken the case.
	Because the way it would have gone is her whole office would have been disqualified.
	And that's what he skipped over.
	He skipped over.
	He applied the legal standard for line prosecutors having a conflict that wasn't the boss.
	When the boss had, he has to disqualify not just the special prosecutor, the whole office.
	And so once you found the special prosecutor to be disqualified, you had to disqualify the whole office.
	So under these, because it was the boss that put him in charge in the first place, it was her corruption that caused the problem.
	So what would have been the consequences?
	They would have gone to a, I think it's a statewide group, they would have looked at it, they would have asked somebody else to take it, nobody else would have in the whole state.
	And they already knew that.
	So, basically, disqualification, in this case, equaled functional dismissal.
	And I think that's part of what the judge didn't want on the hook.
	But I think he's accustomed.
	He doesn't want full dismissal to occur.
	He ran partial dismissal early in the week.
	And then he was out doing press interviews about the case, which he's never been doing.
	Okay, I thought that was bizarre.
	Somehow, Megyn Kelly knew what his ruling was the day before.
	So, that suggests things are leaking out of his courtroom.
	So, this is a judge who's...
	Politically aware enough to talk to the press, politically aware enough to leak to the press, but not politically aware enough to realize he just made himself a laughingstock in the entire Georgia judicial system, a laughingstock of justice around the world.
	We're not going to be able to lecture anybody anywhere about a justice or legal system.
	Rule of law, what a crock.
	We're not applying it at all.
	This is a prosecutor who went into a courtroom and committed perjury in front of this judge.
	And this judge did nothing of consequence about it.
	Let me ask you this again to steal, Manit.
	There were people who were suggesting, and I don't know if it's true, that if he did disqualify her from this case, it would prejudice other prosecutions that she's working on.
	Do you know?
	Is that the case?
	No, because the conflict applied specifically and solely to this case.
	That's what I was...
	I don't feel comfortable enough with my own answer.
	Sometimes if you have a systemic institutional problem, it applies like the lab is bad or a cop has been framing people.
	My view on that, by the way, is if that's a problem you have, then everybody should get new trials.
	Okay?
	So it's like, I don't consider that a terrible thing.
	It's like, oh, golly gee, other people who got railroaded now get a chance not to be railroaded.
	Why is that a bad thing?
	That's your authoritarians on the right talking.
	People like the dear general there decided to take the law at his own end and help assassinate a president of the United States.
	So those are dangerous people when it comes to power.
	But in that same...
	I mean, we were seeing...
	Sort of comedic version of it was Spies Like Us this weekend was a Saturday movie at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	And they asked the general at one point, would you risk all human life on the planet for this?
	And he said, for the American way of life, I would.
	Right.
	You know, there's an aspect of the absurdity of that that's true with these kind of people.
	But no, it wasn't the case here.
	The only impact of this would mean the case was dead against Trump.
	And the judge clearly likes being in the limelight, doing TV interviews, having his decisions leaked before the decision is officially published.
	These are extraordinary events to occur.
	But he's too politically daft to realize that he just torched his own reputation.
	The problem with all of these cases is they're bringing the judiciary into the corruption.
	They're making the judiciary culpable.
	They're making the judiciary a co-conspirator in interfering with an election.
	That's what I think Roberts and Kavanaugh understand, and is why what this decision did is it increased the probability the Supreme Court shuts it all down by using the immunity process to get there.
	Now, the judge, federal court down in Florida, might have an alternative path to get there.
	I presume that means we're done with the FAMI and we're going to move to the Florida?
	Yes.
	Okay, now explain.
	I was going to go to Alvin Bright.
	We'll get there in a second.
	What's going on in Florida?
	So there were multiple motions to dismiss heard before Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida.
	This is the Trump case concerning the documents case.
	And she decided not to dismiss on the grounds that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional because she thought some aspects of that could be decided by the jury.
	I think the espionage act is clearly unconstitutional, but we'll leave that for another day.
	But comment she made at the hearing strongly suggests, according to the reporting of Julie Kelly, reports at American Greatness and elsewhere, is that she is inclined, she's seriously considering a selective prosecution dismissal, which is long overdue.
	All of these cases are egregious abuses of the First Amendment.
	The Justice Department has no power to exercise its civil or criminal law enforcement authority, nor does any attorney general or prosecutor in the country, for politically motivated purposes, to suppress or censor speech, to punish speech, to censor or punish political association, to censor or punish affiliation or petitioning for your redress of grievances, all of which are implicated in...
	Pretty much all of these cases, but especially the Georgia D.C. cases on petitioning the government, but to a certain degree in Florida as well.
	And what Cannon noted is how arbitrary this all appears.
	That one of the issues brought up in the espionage claim was other people have done the same thing as Trump, who didn't have the legal basis that Trump did with the Presidential Records Act, and none of them ever faced any legal consequence of any kind.
	Are we talking specifically about Biden and Clinton?
	Biden and Hillary Clinton, but every single president has done some version of what Trump has done in terms of taking documents, keeping documents, and labeling them presidential records.
	And so not just what Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State.
	With taking classified information and putting it on an unsecure private server, not just what Joe Biden did, which was monetize his access to classified information, make sure his son and other people had access to it so they could sell it to foreign governments to line their own pockets.
	Everything they've accused Trump of, Biden is guilty of.
	Trump is not, but Biden is.
	It's confession through projection on steroids.
	Right up to the impeachment for the quid pro quo.
	I said, by God, you're going to fire that guy, and if you don't, I'm not going to give you $6 billion in aid.
	And would you know, son of a bitch, six hours later.
	Sorry, I interrupted you.
	Exactly.
	So, but statements she made, Julie Kelly interpreted that the judge, the way she's going to resolve it, rather than dismissing the claim on the Espionage Act, instead is just going to say broadly, no president's ever been prosecuted, period.
	Nobody has ever been prosecuted under the court.
	Circumstances that Trump is being prosecuted for, that they've all committed comparable acts, including the incumbent or worse acts, including the incumbent president of the United States.
	And consequently, it violates the First and Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow this prosecution to continue.
	And that would be a ruling that has application in every single criminal and even civil case being brought against Trump, such as the New York civil case.
	So it will put that into motion as well.
	Now, Julie Kelly was very confident based on Judge Cannon's comments.
	I'm less confident just because judges have mostly eviscerated selective prosecution and run away from it because they know how many prosecutions are truly selective and they want to allow them to happen.
	And so they've failed their constitutional obligation and duty.
	And allowed the prosecution to run roughshod over the First Amendment's prohibition on selective prosecution and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on arbitrary prosecution for decades now.
	But this case might have gone too far.
	Either way, if Cannon doesn't dismiss on these grounds, that will also only increase or enhance the probabilities of the Supreme Court.
	Grants a very broad immunity dismissal in the D.C. case that then has application to the rest.
	Because, again, it's kind of like what we talked about in the Alex Jones cases.
	It's not just Alex Jones on trial.
	It's not just Donald Trump on trial.
	It's the American legal system on trial.
	And right now, the verdict in the American people keeps coming back guilty.
	Of the American legal system.
	That's why Trump is surging.
	He's misinterpreted his success in the polls and his success in the primaries as being just about him rather than this is the American people rejecting lawfare, saying that they will not approve it and they will rebel against it by voting for Trump.
	To punish the government for doing this and trying to deter and discourage it from occurring again and trying to strip them of the profit they were really seeking, which was for Trump to not be re-elected in 2024 or elected anew, as the case may be.
	And smart judges, like I think Kavanaugh and Roberts, based on their ballot decision, I think they recognize that this judicial system is looking horrendous by this.
	And in order to save the judicial system, they're going to need to save Trump, but it's not clear that the district court in Florida will have the same courage, but we will see.
	You're going to get a romantic sunset lighting in my hotel, and the lighting is terrible, so once the sun goes down, I don't know what's going to happen.
	And to address Pitt's chat in the rumble, I'm not drunk, period.
	I am enjoying a Scottish gin.
	The Sassenach.
	It's actually delicious.
	Robert, I was having a discussion with someone, and I said, well, if the Supreme Court takes up the immunity and dismisses or recognizes broad immunity, then it resolves almost all of the cases.
	And then I started talking about the New York state indictment on the Stormy Daniels payment and couldn't make the argument as to how immunity would apply there if those acts predated or proceeded.
	They were seeking delay.
	Oh, because all of the acts were while he was president.
	All the acts of the New York indictment are while he was president.
	The underlying behavior or incident they're complaining about was pre-president.
	Every incident that they're saying was a crime was while he was president.
	So it applies to the entire case.
	The case that you could try to carve a piece out of, Georgia applies to all of it.
	D.C. applies to all of it.
	The case in New York, it applies to all of it.
	In Florida, you could argue a piece of it.
	You could try to carve out the obstruction piece.
	But that's it.
	And that's because people don't know.
	You can be convicted of obstruction of justice even if there was no underlying crime.
	It's ridiculous, but it's a thing the courts have found a ways around.
	But it most likely guts all of it.
	Because it's really hard to separate the two, even in that case, because immunity extends.
	Because every decision he made after he was president relates back, as they've admitted now in the Florida case, to while he was president.
	But the New York case, they sought a delay on grounds of, hey, the Supreme Court's handling this, at least let's get guidance from it.
	But the political hack in charge of the New York case refused and even issued some threatening language to Trump's counsel.
	But in the end, Bragg had to admit, oh, look, I got 10,000 or so documents I forgot to give you.
	Robert, you'll have to make this make sense to a Canadian schnook who's never practiced criminal law.
	I don't remember when he was indicted in New York.
	It's a long time ago.
	Is there not a statute of limitations after which if you don't bring a trial within a reasonable time, you don't get to do it?
	Well, that's a speedy trial provision, but you can waive that.
	And now the second question was, is there not a positive obligation of disclosure of the prosecution to turn over everything?
	And to the extent the answer to that is going to be yes.
	How the hell?
	Alvin Bragg is going to say, I didn't have this documentation.
	It was the Department of Justice that just gave it to me.
	How is this happening and what do we think, suspect, is in the documentation that they just received?
	The Justice Department clearly was trying to sandbag Trump with late disclosure of information and documentation on the eve of trial.
	But Bragg's office is not well equipped enough to handle it, and it's an obvious grounds for a continuance, or it's a clear basis of a mistrial before the Court of Appeals.
	So they've admitted that there needs to be a delay, and the only question is how long.
	And frankly, the judge should delay it long enough for the Supreme Court's decision to come down.
	He was saying, oh, 30 days.
	You can't incorporate 10,000 documents in 30 days.
	No, but they said they're not relevant, Robert.
	They said, here, we'll give them to you.
	They're not relevant, but look them over anyhow.
	Yeah, right.
	I mean, the only way you can know, you can't trust the government's definition of relevance.
	They lie about that all the time, and they're not competent or capable enough to make that assessment, because they can't look at the case through a defense perspective very effectively.
	So if the judge is going to move the case to May, well, why not wait until the immunity judgment comes down, which is going to come down by June?
	He's just a corrupt hack of a judge who wants to secure a conviction to embarrass Trump, hoping that by doing so, I mean, these are basically misdemeanors.
	They're charges that have never been brought against him.
	Not only has no president ever been prosecuted before, no one has ever been prosecuted on these basis, on these charges ever before, on this interpretation of law before.
	So, I mean, that's how preposterous these cases are.
	Well, and just so everybody appreciates, they basically turned one act into 37 or whatever it is.
	Felony indictments because the retainer that was given to Michael Cohen allegedly for these payments was one charge.
	Signing the check, another charge.
	Entering it on the ledgers of the books, another charge.
	And what would otherwise be misdemeanor charges and maybe one for all of this, they broke down month by month over eight or nine months into felony charges.
	It's a preposterous joke, but just in case anybody didn't fully appreciate that.
	And the star witness in this trial is a man who was convicted or pled guilty to...
	And you have someone who's a victim of extortion being prosecuted for being the victim of extortion in the case of Trump.
	Stormy Daniels was trying to extort him on the eve of the election by threatening something that would damage his reputation with his wife.
	It had nothing to do with the election.
	They're lying about that.
	I mean, Trump's reputation was well known.
	Stormy Daniels would have made no difference in the election.
	The only person that would be upset about the Stormy Daniels allegations is Trump's wife, which was independent of and totally separate from this.
	The idea that paying through your lawyer to protect your wife's emotional well-being is now a crime because of how it's labeled in the books is ludicrous.
	This is done all the time.
	Dershowitz has pointed this out.
	What Trump did is commonplace.
	Who's the VP?
	There was a VP back in the day, I forget his name now, who paid to hide a story about his mistress and the baby they had.
	What was his name?
	Well, there was a candidate, Edwards, who did.
	Edwards.
	Yeah, and most lawyers, scholars at the time, thought that was bogus.
	So this is just as bogus.
	It's a preposterous claim at every single level.
	And they're claiming his criminal act occurred in order to motivate...
	Him winning the election, but all the criminal acts occurred after the election.
	It's things that make no sense.
	An honest and honorable judge would have dismissed this case from the get-go.
	But you have another corrupt New York judge, political hack, overt Democratic political hack, who just wants to see Trump convicted in hopes that influences Election Day.
	What none of these judges are realizing is that their actions are leading to a backlash.
	They are helping Trump, not hurting him, because the American people see through this.
	But these people are so let them eat cake out of touch.
	They don't understand that.
	They've been accustomed to abusing their power forever.
	It's like the Biden administration.
	They think the bloodbath misquote is going to get them somewhere.
	They can just rerun the 2020 script and it will work.
	They don't even realize that's not even what worked in 2020.
	They don't realize right now doing that's only going to drive votes to Kennedy.
	It's not going to drive votes to Biden.
	And they don't understand, for the most part, they're just singing to the choir, the liberal professional class that hates Trump.
	That's not who they have voting problems with.
	It's the working class they're getting crushed with, whether the working class is black, Asian, Latino, white, northern, western, southern, eastern, doesn't matter.
	They're getting crushed with that group.
	And a lot of those ordinary people see this system and they say, this is a joke.
	This is a crock.
	This is an embarrassment.
	And these judges just don't know it because they're so out of touch.
	They're so clueless.
	And that's what was recognized there.
	And the Georgia judge, I think, thought he could get some bonus points by dismissing the perfect phone call charges.
	But he did it in such a way that he could try to bring them back.
	But all that was doing was applying the law to the plain set of facts, which was that those charges had to be dismissed anyway.
	I mean, credit to actually following the law, unlike what he did in the disqualification motion.
	But it reveals that all of these charges are absurd charges that an honest judge would have long ago dismissed.
	Every single case.
	An honest judge would have dismissed every single one of these ludicrous charges.
	Okay, well, I think that does it.
	We've got Big Fanny.
	Oh, he had the New York trial.
	But so do we...
	Oh, I thought your transition was going to be a reference to Michelle Obama and Riley Gaines bringing suit against men participating in women's sports.
	I'm not saying there's a relationship there, by the way.
	Now that I know what Mohap means, you have the Mohap made it happen on purpose, and the Mohap made it happen on purpose, and I thought the Mohap was something along those lines.
	No, it's the...
	I saw Michelle Obama dancing on Ellen, and there was an amazing MacGyver sort of splicing it together, enhance, zoom in, what's that?
	It looks like there's a testicle in there.
	I'm not getting into that, but we're going to get into the Riley Gaines and others suing NCAA and a bunch of universities.
	Everybody knows where I stand on this.
	I tweeted it out before the show, and I'll pull up some highlights from the class action lawsuit.
	It used to be...
	That a man showing his genitals to non-consenting women was a crime.
	And now, if you dare object to it, you're the bigot who gets shamed and cancelled.
	Everybody knows Riley Gaines' story.
	If you haven't seen her on Rogan...
	It's another South Park reference, by the way, where they had the great wrestler character compete in women's sports, and all the women had to not say anything as he's throwing them aside.
	I mean, it was such a parody of people like, nothing like that would ever happen.
	Well, now it's standard in college sports.
	That's what blows my mind is that we'll get into the allegations of the lawsuit, but you got a man, Leah Thomas, who at the time was having sexual relations with a woman who's a 6 '4 man who had competed in men's sports.
	All of a sudden, willy-nilly decides he's a woman and he's going to compete in women's sports.
	Fully intact, getting changed with women in the changing room.
	Louis C.K. He got canceled for less than that.
	I don't think you should be whipping your junk out and playing with it, even if a person is consenting because it's very weird.
	He got canceled for less than that.
	If he just said, I'm a woman, I get to diddle myself in front of you, well, then he's stunning and brave.
	So you have to listen to Riley Gaines on Joe Rogan.
	It was a great podcast, a genuinely great podcast, but I don't think she mentioned the lawsuit because I was surprised when I saw it.
	Class Action, her and a bunch of others suing NCAA and a number of other institutions for Title IX violations.
	Robert, is this going to be the case that Ketanji Brown-Jackson is going to have to call in the biologist to determine what is a woman?
	I mean, there's two interesting aspects of the suit.
	One is that they are trying to apply Title IX to the NCAA because all the federally funded institutions subject to Title IX, which require equal opportunity and equal accommodation for both sexes and sport participation.
	On college campuses, has delegated many of its tasks, duties, and authority to the NCAA.
	And so I always liked Brian Bosworth.
	Years ago, when they temporarily suspended him from a game from Oklahoma, who wore one of the great ever T-shirts.
	Maybe I'll put it up at 1776lawcenter.com as a little historical throwback.
	Well, maybe we come up with some cool historical T-shirts.
	That'd be fun.
	And he had the NCAA National Communist.
	Against athletes.
	And that's who they are.
	But, I mean, they've gone full commie by having men participate in women's sports.
	Riley Gaines has spoken out.
	Megyn Kelly has spoken out on these topics in particular within the independent press.
	And others.
	And it's just an embarrassment.
	I mean, everybody can see what's going on.
	And it completely eviscerates the point and purpose of Title IX.
	I mean, Title IX was about making sure women could have equal opportunity, equal accommodations to sports.
	Especially because, let's be honest, most people don't watch women's sports.
	I know it's not always a popular thing to say, but true.
	There's not enough men's sports, lead sports, support themselves.
	Football, basketball, the big programs bring in tons of money.
	Now a lot of people go watch lacrosse and golf and some of these other things.
	But Robert, you say that, but if they continue with this UFC trend and they have...
	Males beating, you know, cracking the skulls of females.
	I think people might tune into that more.
	So that's terrible, but it actually happens.
	It's just come see perverts on display.
	And so that's really what's occurring.
	So they brought suit.
	I mean, to me, it's an obvious Title IX violation.
	I can't see how it's not.
	And so, to be honest with you, I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to sue.
	Just to read paragraph 109.
	The change was made so that Thomas, this is Leah Thomas, a fully grown adult male with full male genitalia would use the same locker rooms to be used by more than 300 female student-athletes.
	For those of you who didn't know what happened here.
	Oh, no.
	You got Leah Thomas exposing his junk to the women in the bathroom.
	Let me see here.
	What's this?
	He's approximately six feet tall at four inches.
	That's a tall man.
	Possessed full male genitalia.
	And he kept losing in male swimming, so he became a woman instead.
	It's obscene.
	Preposterous.
	And the Title IX's definition of sex is biological.
	And so, consequently, I don't see how they get away with it.
	We'll see.
	We'll see if the courts are clued in.
	Now, of course, Congress should have taken corrective action already.
	Now you have one of the other candidates being considered by Trump for VP, Governor Kristi Noem, who, let's say, she has kind of a Nikki Haley relationship pattern there in South Dakota with various, well, political people.
	I'll put it that way.
	But, you know, one of the things she did is when corporate America told her, don't sign South Dakota legislation to prohibit men from participating in women's sports, all the Chamber of Commerce had to do was blow that leaf across her desk for her not to sign it.
	And so, you know, it would be another bad choice for VP.
	Not as horrendous as Tim Scott, but bad nevertheless.
	Also, you can tell she's a little on the slow side of the equation.
	Not Joe Biden slow, because that requires a whole record.
	But I think they should win if Title IX is enforced in the plain language it was written in.
	It's a no-brainer, and I'll say this.
	The problem with this is there are people out there like the Blair Whites who say, Blair White, transsexual.
	What I do with my body doesn't make me a woman.
	It's a work of art, so to speak.
	It's tattooing.
	It's like I'm crafting a body to look like something it wasn't born to look like.
	Buck Angel.
	Transsexual.
	I'm not a man.
	But by the way, if women want to compete against men and they can do it, more power to them.
	This is not about casting aspersions or judging other people's lifestyle.
	Preverts are preverts.
	There's all kinds of preverts.
	But there's a lot of what you would call transsexuals who also think this is an abomination.
	Leah Thomas is not a stunning and brave woman.
	He's a man who's a misogynist.
	What's his name who became a woman?
	The famous one.
	Oh, Caitlyn Jenner.
	Who understands the biological differences and it never becomes...
	Instead, it's ridiculous that you would have men.
	And he was actually a world-famous male athlete.
	So we'll see.
	It's a no-brainer, but maybe you get Katachi Jackson-Brown who brings in the biologist that convinces her.
	No, Title IX was for people who identify as women.
	Speaking of when Justice Jackson was on the right side...
	She and Justice Sotomayor and Justice Gorsuch dissented from a Supreme Court case interpreting the first step law this week.
	The Supreme Court majority, it was a case of the institutionalist against the individualist.
	Gorsuch is consistent across the board.
	I suspect Jackson and Sotomayor will only be consistent when it applies to things like civil rights and criminal defense.
	But they were still, in my view, the right side of the aisle as the institutionalist majority predicted that that's where Kavanaugh and Barrett would end up.
	They would end up on the corporatist institutionalist side of the equation with Roberts on any issue that divided the two.
	And that's exactly where they ended up forming the critical majority to gut Trump's first step act in a way that eviscerated the whole point and purpose of the Robert, I was trying to think of which case you're talking about.
	I don't think it's I haven't triggered it yet.
	So you might have to take this for a second and tell my bells ring.
	Trump passed the criminal justice reform law that was called the First Step Act.
	The goal was to reconsider our incarceration obsessed justice system since the middle of the 1980s.
	And in particular, he wanted to focus on people who were not violent, not gang members, not career criminals.
	He was like, these people get caught up in the system, subject to some mandatory minimum sentence somewhere that some politician thought would sell well, who didn't fit who that mandatory minimum was meant for.
	The goal was, don't...
	Give them a mandatory minimum sentence.
	Give them an individualized sentence that fits their circumstances and their crime.
	And the goal is, but if there's someone that's a career criminal who's committed violence, who has an extensive record, that's not who, gang ties, the like, that's not who we're looking to provide an escape valve or what was called the safety valve law.
	However, the government came in, and even though they admitted under the Biden administration, This is the Biden administration that's for criminal defendant rights, which is a complete crock.
	They've been eviscerating those rights all over the place, all across the country.
	They're trying to expand the criminal power of the state, not shrink it.
	And Trump was actually the one to try to shrink it, contrary to conventional interpretation of the two political parties.
	But basically, they came in and the Biden's Justice Department said, really, these three provisions...
	Are not separate provisions.
	What it is, is they are provisions that, okay, if you're someone that's not a career criminal, you don't have these big criminal points, you've never been convicted of a crime of violence, or you fit another category, then you're someone who can use the safety valve.
	Instead of using, interpreting that as or, in other words, you can, if you fit one of these three, then you can get the safety valve.
	The Justice Department came in and said, you got to be all.
	Three, or you don't get the safety valve, which dramatically shrank the benefit of the First Step Act to a very small percentage of criminal defendants.
	Well, what do you think the Supreme Court did?
	Even though the law is clearly intended to expand the safety valve, not shrink it, to shrink the imprisonment incarceration rate, not expand it, the institutionalists sided with the Biden Justice Department.
	And here's where, on criminal justice issues, both Thomas and Scalia, I mean, well, Scalia too, but Thomas and Alito have not been good.
	And they joined in with Kavanaugh and Barrett, who joined in with Roberts and Kagan, who's the institutionalist on the left.
	And they decided that basically the first step back, they were going to eviscerate it.
	That's what they did.
	That you had to have all of these clauses apply to you or you couldn't benefit from it.
	And I think Gorsuch explained.
	That violates the common sense interpretation of the law.
	That violates what the Justice Department itself originally said the law meant.
	That violates what the actual preface, preamble, and the entire policy purpose behind the law is.
	And it violates a good constitutional common sense in general in terms of how we interpret and apply the law.
	And to her credit, as I earlier predicted, on criminal defense cases, Jackson will probably be on the individual right side.
	And she was.
	We'll see what happens with the January 6th case of the obstruction.
	We'll see where she is on that.
	Yeah, that would be one of those cases where the rubber hits the road.
	Will you have an expansive interpretation of criminal law there?
	I mean, she was good on the ballot case, so we'll see.
	I think it'll be more conventional criminal defense cases where she's better.
	Anything political, I wouldn't trust her on.
	But it was a promising sign that that was there.
	It was disappointing.
	Robert, did it start going downhill?
	I'm just looking.
	There's a conflicting answer on this, but 1983, Corrections Corporation of America was officially founded and began operating private prisons.
	Did all of this start going downhill when prisons became privatized in America?
	Well, that kind of relates to a hush-hush.
	That is currently up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	An inside view of Netflix documentary The Octopus Murders about what they don't talk about.
	And one of those things that the Wackenhut company that is the subject of that hush-hush helped brainstorm and engineer was private prisons that they monetized for their self-enrichment.
	And often what happens is Wackenhut was very creative in doing it too, by the way.
	One person complained in the comments they didn't know who Omar Mateen is.
	The goal, some of the hush-hushes, is to give you a little link and let you research for yourself what that connection might be.
	Omar Mateen, he was the pulse shooter, or the father of the pulse shooter.
	That I think I remember.
	No, he was the pulse shooter.
	And he was a trained security guard under the psychological treatment and guidance of the Wackenhut Corporation.
	The Wackenhut, Robert, I'm looking this up.
	Wackenhut Corrections.
	It's called Whackenhut.
	That's the dude's actual name.
	I thought I came up with something.
	That's the dude's actual name.
	But you can watch the rest of the Hush Hush.
	But one of the things they came up with, incidents tended to happen that somehow justified or necessitated them getting a big fat government contract.
	And there's no question that the correlation between a bunch of privatized prisons and a massive increase in imprisonment is probably not a coincidence.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	Let me bring back...
	Which reminds me, Poe, just briefly, a little case.
	I'm suing the Silverdale Jail down in Chattanooga, Tennessee, my hometown, Hamilton County.
	And we filed our opposition to summary judgment on behalf of several people who were brutalized inside that jail.
	And by the way, my lead client was innocent.
	He was acquitted by the jury.
	But he got treated like he was...
	Well, here's what the county commission said.
	The county commission said, we didn't have any policy.
	The lawyers were like, you have to dismiss this case, Judge.
	So I just quoted the county commissioners.
	And what did they say?
	The Hamilton County commissioners?
	They said, it isn't the Silverdale...
	The Silverdale jail isn't the Silverdale hotel.
	It's Silverdale hell.
	Well, now there's going to be hell to pay for saying that statement in the first place and deciding to treat people like they were subhuman.
	Which is what happened to so many people in so many of these prisons and jails.
	Silverdale was one of those places that went back and forth between being a private prison and a public facility as well.
	That's where one of the prisoners died and they had the video where Rats, cockroaches, all the other things in his cell?
	All kinds of horrific things.
	One of their favorite things to do was to take people who were suspected of being informants and putting them into the same jail cell with the people that believed that they had been informed on.
	Or taking people that were part of or affiliated or associated with one gang and sticking them into a cell with a bunch of other gang members.
	Or, in my client's case, taking a guy who was completely innocent and throwing him into the jail cell where their favorite thing to do was to beat people.
	They beat him within an inch of his life.
	They would sit there and watch it for a couple of minutes, like gladiator-style enjoyment, before they would pull him out.
	And now they're saying they should have no liability or responsibility or accountability for it.
	Hamilton County, I mean, you know, DA Womp and some other people down there need to get on the ball and fix this issue.
	But we'll see.
	But yeah, wherever private money got involved, the jail system and prison systems got worse, not better.
	We're gonna lighten things up right now with this, Robert.
	It's 50 seconds of pure gold.
	Okay.
	Now let's get a good look at you.
	Robert, it keeps getting better.
	You think it's gotten as good as it's gonna get.
	I want to know what all these movies are, but...
	I recognize like most of them.
	Look how good this is.
	One of them looked like CSI.
	Oh, MacGyver's in there.
	MacGyver CSI.
	That's zooming right here on this spot.
	I can't see detail.
	Lock on and enlarge the CX's.
	I don't know what...
	Can you clear that up, Benny?
	That's MacGyver.
	I don't know what that is.
	This.
	I need to know what that means.
	Should be standing up.
	So that's that.
	So that's a good light to lighten us up from the previous subject matter.
	Well, speaking of people blocking people from things they don't want to see, social media blocking got clarity from the Supreme Court this week as well.
	I'll try to summarize the fact pattern.
	This is someone who got...
	Got into politics.
	Didn't start off in politics.
	Had a private Facebook account.
	Eventually got into...
	I forget what the position was.
	It doesn't really matter.
	Eventually started confounding, confusing their...
	What was prior to that private, personal Facebook...
	Not private, but personal Facebook page.
	Infusing it with politics.
	Had some people who were not in love with their politics.
	Posting comments on their otherwise personal, but now fused with politics Facebook page.
	It was one of these...
	Politicians are one of these lockdown lovers.
	During the pandemic, using his personal Facebook page to broadcast the importance of following this policy as the officialdom, a few folks shared their opinions of his ideas, and his response was to block them entirely from all posts, not just delete their posts, but block them from being able to even see his Facebook page.
	And the catch here, which they sort of tried to figure out the problem, it was his personal Facebook page before.
	He gets elected into public office.
	I forget what his position is.
	Changes the description to explain that he's now private citizen and public official.
	And posts a mixture of stuff on it.
	Blocks the guy who is making comments criticizing his lockdown stuff.
	And the guy sues.
	And it gets dismissed.
	Or at least the blocking gets upheld.
	In the lower and second court case level, the Supreme Court says, no, you can't confuse when you're acting in your personal capacity versus professional capacity, political capacity.
	We don't know what that marriage is, but you don't get to basically confound those rules.
	Send it back and say, determine what posts he was blocked for or banned from and whether or not someone is using it for personal, public, Or personal and public use of what was otherwise a personal account.
	So they sent it back down.
	What's going to happen?
	I mean, you've got a lower court ruling where you know what they're thinking already.
	What are they going to do the second time around?
	In another case, too, it was a unanimous decision.
	And what they really did is finally clarify, does blocking on social media, can that be a civil rights violation or violation of federal?
	And they said yes.
	So that was the big one, because there were some people saying no.
	And so they clarified that yes, blocking can constitute a state action and can violate the constitutional rights of the individual to participate in a public forum.
	They said to determine whether or not a particular statement or page is a public forum, look to two things.
	Does the person have actual authority of the state?
	And secondly, do they state they're doing and making a particular statement or any statement in the name of the state?
	And they pointed out something significant here.
	They said if the person is blocked entirely and that page is ever used as a public forum, then the blocking violates the Constitution.
	So, for example, a particular statement, That you delete somebody's comment from might be okay because that statement might not be within your actual authority as a state official.
	The page might not be a state-sanctioned page, and you might not have made the statement in the name of the state or your authority for the state.
	But blocking them entirely from your page is pretty much probably going to always be a constitutional violation unless you never use the page as a public forum.
	That was the last sentence of the opinion that there was very little commentary on.
	I was like, that's the big one.
	What they said, they kind of threw it in at the end.
	I was like, okay, this means you're going to win every single one of these cases.
	So it means even if you were blocked in response to something that wasn't state action, if you're blocked from a page that's ever used as state action, then you got a claim.
	And so, I mean, that guy's going to lose, the defendant, he's going to lose on remand.
	Based on that key statement.
	Someone had asked in Rumble, do you have to be a constituent?
	And that's a question I've been asked because I'm no longer a Canadian resident.
	Oh no, it's anyone.
	I've been blocked by so many Canadian politicians.
	It isn't protecting you, it's prohibiting them.
	So the state action is, did the official take state action?
	It doesn't matter whether you are American or where you are.
	If they are taking state action, then you can sue.
	That's fantastic.
	I mean, it's a good thing.
	You want to have a personal Facebook account.
	Don't mix politics with your personal Facebook.
	It's not hard.
	And then they get out of actually having a political, a professional account.
	And everybody out there, I mean, the federal ones, you don't get attorney's fees typically, but you can get an injunction, declaratory relief.
	Elizabeth Warren has banned a bunch of people.
	There's a bunch of politicians that have banned people.
	Everybody that's banned is pretty much going to win their suit now.
	Because almost all of them have used that page for public statements at one time or another.
	And so, I mean, Senator Warren...
	Well, I mean, she got away with libeling the Covington kids because they pretended that was state action.
	Okay, fine.
	And that that was within her duties as a senator, which is really...
	Immunity.
	Yeah.
	I mean, somehow, Trump talking about an election, oh, that's not within his duties as president.
	In the same courts, Elizabeth Warren talking about some kids in Covington, Kentucky, oh, that's definitely within her senatorial duties.
	Shows you what they're full of it, nine times out of ten.
	But this was a good decision, an animus decision, provided clarity.
	Reinforce constitutional remedy.
	And if you're a state official out there, you can either never block or never use a particular social media account for any state action, or you will be successfully sued.
	Fantastic.
	Robert, before I get too far behind, let me just see the window here is here.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay, let's just read these real quick.
	Karen Todd says, had a great time last night with Grobert and Hundley.
	Last night.
	Who grilled me over Canada would do again.
	Ombudsman, Liberty Sentinel, send your neighbor to prison for wrong speak.
	Get $2,000 for taxpayer dollars in Washington.
	All right, I'll check that up afterwards.
	Washington State, send your neighbor to prison for wrong speak.
	Get $2,000.
	Okay, we did that.
	Fredericker59, I hope Barnes has the ear of one of the Trump's advisors.
	We know that some people are watching this Sunday evening.
	But everybody should reach out completely, continuously, because it's just a message that has to be hammered for it to be heard.
	Tag them on Twitter.
	Message them on Facebook, whatever it is.
	Don't harass them and don't, you know, be respectful.
	Catch 22 in 123.
	What did you think of the Democrat operative attorney Norm Eisen bragging on X that Judge McAfee took our recommendation?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, I didn't see that.
	Let me just go ahead and judge.
	Norm Eisen is a deep state advocate, long-standing deep state advocate, and it makes McAfee look like a crock.
	I mean, as you pointed out.
	He had to contradict himself throughout his entire opinion.
	It was very irritating to read.
	I'm not trying to save my own predictions.
	She committed perjury, but maybe not.
	Legally improper, but no consequences.
	Her speech was legally improper.
	Yeah, we got that.
	Didn't Fannie perjure?
	Yes, we did.
	Snuggle struggle.
	She lied under oath at the least.
	She purposely misled the court, and he admonished her for this.
	That's the whole thing.
	Committing perjury.
	Well, I'll pretend it wasn't really like perjury, perjury.
	Then we got, if Trump, my eyes are so bad.
	If Trump doesn't pick Jesse Ventura for VP, I'm voting for RFK.
	Just Vivek.
	Vivek.
	That's all he has to pick.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney, Little Rock, how you doing?
	Viva, did you get the Boss Hog reference?
	No.
	I'm going to scream.
	Oh, you don't know what the Boss Hog means?
	Oh, the Dukes of Hazzard.
	The great Dukes of Hazzard.
	Well, I grew up on the Dukes of Hazzard, but...
	Remember Boss Hogg?
	He's the mayor.
	He's the head guy in charge.
	Little Boss Hogg.
	All the white suits all the time.
	Roscoe is the cop.
	Yes, of course, Robert.
	I know exactly.
	I'm going to have to go refresh my memory.
	What does Barnes think the point of Hochul deploying National Guard in the New York City subway is?
	Robert?
	Damage control?
	He's trying to look like he's doing something, though it's not working.
	The judge was clearly won over by Adam Abate's clothing argument.
	Yeah, right.
	Only if he had earplugs in.
	Okay, we got that.
	Oh, jeez.
	Boss hog.
	He's probably in the office celebrating his genius.
	Do you know what that's like to go up against that level of lawyer?
	They win because of the corruption in the system, and they think they're geniuses.
	It was the old Poppy Bush joke, born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
	I used to say he was born on third base, ended up on second base, and he thought he hit a double.
	That's how slow the guy is.
	But yeah, the nature of the animal sometimes.
	But I think what the judiciary doesn't understand is how they're embarrassing themselves.
	I'm still hopeful that Roberts and Kavanaugh do recognize how this is embarrassing the judicial system.
	Robert, let me close this down here.
	I've got too many windows open.
	Let's do the whistleblower.
	This is wild because I...
	You've got Epstein'd.
	I've watched the octopus murder mystery.
	Somebody in our live chat at vivabarneslock.locals.com has a picture of the good boss hog.
	Oh, hold on, hold on.
	I can do this.
	I can do this real, real quick.
	Hold on.
	I've realized I've got to go back and watch.
	Oh my goodness.
	He's always scheming and scamming.
	Now imagine him having a really dumb little brother and that was Sonny Perdue.
	I want to go re-watch The Dukes of Hazzard.
	Robert.
	Epstein.
	The dude who got Epstein.
	The octopus murder or the octopus conspiracy.
	Go watch it, people.
	How someone can slash their own risk.
	They screwed up the documentary.
	There's little gems throughout.
	They couldn't tell the documentary in an honest way.
	So you have to just take the gems and find your own leads because they didn't have the cojones to tell the truth about what took place.
	But remember, there's three eternal truths.
	Number one, Epstein didn't kill himself.
	And that's applicable to this Boeing whistleblower.
	Well, hold on.
	I need you to spoil the octopus.
	The other gems, I watched it.
	Oh, there's many little gems scattered throughout, but they didn't have the cojones to really say what was...
	Instead, by the end of it, they're like, man, conspiracy theories are kind of dangerous, and maybe he just went crazy.
	They wussed out at the end, because there's no way Netflix was going to broadcast that if they went full frog.
	If they went full Grobert, there's no way it was going to make it to Netflix.
	He went full crazy and managed to slit his tendons and then used that hand to slit the other hand.
	Amazing science.
	I've seen the fact check say it's possible.
	It's possible.
	So the Boeing whistleblower, we've seen a number of Boeing issues.
	You had the Alaskan Airlines, which was a Boeing plane, where the door blew off mid-flight.
	You got the other recent one where there's apparently, I say allegedly because it'll get fact-checked otherwise, Engine fuel spilling out of the plane has to turn around and land.
	There was another more recent one, but the bottom line is there's an employee of Boeing who's worked there for 30 plus years, retired now, comes out and blows the whistle.
	I don't know what the context of the lawsuit is in which he was doing the deposition.
	In the context of which he was suicided, this guy comes out and says everything about...
	He left the deposition and then he like...
	Commit quote-unquote suicide in the parking lot?
	Robert, nothing!
	The first thing I thought was, who did they hire as their count?
	Boeing.
	Is their counsel Hillary Clinton?
	I mean, it's like, wow.
	It was like the Clinton death curse series that I have multiple versions of at Hush Hush.
	I use the Haitian voodoo for a reason.
	Go look up where the Clintons love the honeymoon.
	But, I mean, as soon as this story came out, I mean, to his credit, Robert Kennedy spoke out about it right away.
	And Robert Kennedy's like, hmm, hmm, kind of interesting.
	And I was too.
	The institutional media doesn't want to cover it, but it's already coming out that there's this guy, big whistleblower, testifying against them, goes out, suddenly found dead.
	They claim suicide.
	Suicide.
	And there's more and more police report issues, family issues, frenzy, saying, he said if I end up dead, I didn't kill myself.
	That he was at risk.
	And there's already issues about the crime scene, apparently.
	All of this sounds very, very suspicious.
	If I may ask, Trump is not coming out on a number of issues preemptively.
	Pennsylvania.
	Yeah, instead of grabbing pussies, he's become one.
	Just to be blunt about it.
	I'm getting irritable, and more and more people are getting irritable.
	But now, Robert, is the risk that he's not able to pay attention to this because he's distracted by the litigation?
	No, I mean, he's made aware of the Amos Miller case.
	He's made aware of the Brooke Jackson case.
	He's made aware of many of these cases.
	Take Boeing.
	You know who Boeing implicates?
	The person he's right now considering for vice president.
	Scott is neck deep in Boeing.
	The whole South Carolina political hierarchy, Nikki Haley, Lindsey Graham, they're all neck deep in Boeing.
	And Tim Scott especially.
	Tim Scott has written special legislation just for Boeing.
	So my guess is that's why Trump is keeping his mouth.
	Trump right now seems scared.
	Scared to say things about the FBI, about the CIA, about the NSA, about the U.S. Agriculture Department, about the FDA, about the CDC.
	About any of these people.
	I mean, it's glaring when every other day you can see Robert Kennedy talking about it and Trump not.
	Day after day after day after day.
	And so it gets frustrating to some of us who want to see the best of Trump.
	Not the worst of Trump 2020.
	The best of Trump.
	And that's a problem.
	But yeah, I mean, my guess is there's a clear conflict of interest.
	I mean, you're considering a guy who's a clear Boeing-backed candidate for vice president, so you're probably not going to say anything about all these Boeing scandals that are blowing up all over the place.
	I want people to understand this because I read the chat right now and people are saying, I'm getting fed up with Barnes endorsing Kennedy.
	I won't protect you, but I'll protect you.
	People can be as critical as they want to be.
	The reality is not letting Trump know he's making a mistake.
	With someone like Tim Scott, by not speaking out on things like the Boeing issue, by not speaking out on Amos Miller's case, by not speaking out on Brooke Jackson's case, by not speaking out about Julian Assange or Ed Snowden, by not speaking out about how he's going to change these institutions that have weaponized the government against him specifically, by doing so, it guarantees he's going to have a weak presidency if he's even able to make it.
	Through the presidency, if you put someone like Tim Scott on the ticket.
	And I got a lot of this criticism when I criticized Amy Coney Barrett.
	And now we see Barrett make a key vote on a bunch of cases that hurt the populist and individual rights constitutional cause.
	You know, the cases she was right on were cases any of the justices that he could have nominated would have been right on.
	She was a decisive vote to not take up the 2020 election.
	Some of us were critical of Bill Barr.
	Some of us were critical of him picking Mike Pence.
	Some of us were critical of him picking Mike Pompeo.
	You know, you don't have to take my word for Trump appointing some of the worst people ever.
	Just listen to Trump.
	He talks about how terrible all these nominees were.
	Who nominated them?
	He did.
	And so unless people get his attention...
	He will repeat these mistakes.
	It's clearly not a strong point.
	And right now he's repeating a bunch of them.
	But it doesn't look good.
	The only risk for Trump is that a bunch of his voters vote for Robert Kennedy instead.
	That's in Trump's control.
	Trump decides that.
	Trump can decide to keep those voters by endorsing the issues that is leading them to support Robert Kennedy.
	That's the simple math.
	It's the simplest electoral math in the history of politics.
	The fact he's not doing it is on Trump.
	Not on me for pointing it out.
	And Cocteau, I'll say it, says not speaking out about January 6th prisoners.
	You don't only criticize people you hate.
	Sometimes you criticize people you love because you want to make them better.
	And I'm not saying that to be melodramatic.
	Exactly.
	My face looks horrible, Robert.
	I turned up the...
	Because I have no lighting anymore.
	I've turned up the light on my computer.
	Whatever, you're going to live with this ugly mug.
	The dude didn't kill himself.
	I'll say that right up front.
	He doesn't work for the company for 30 some odd years.
	He was retired.
	He's living off a pension.
	Maybe he thinks they're going to cut the pension.
	You don't live to tell your story.
	Start telling your story and then take your own life.
	You just don't do it.
	So this is a whack and it looks exactly like what it looks like.
	Boeing, Robert.
	You got, what's her face?
	Nikki Haley.
	Tim Scott, and their stuff is not doing well.
	Why is their stuff not doing well?
	There's been a lot of issues.
	And people like Matt Stoller, some other people have pointed out a lot of the issues with Boeing over the years.
	I mean, a lot of people that are in the know.
	I mean, Richard Barris, other people have pointed out problems with Boeing for a while now, been covered up by a corrupt...
	Government regulators and administrators and now being exposed because their problems, their planes not taking off, planes having to land suddenly.
	Blowing their freaking doors off mid-flight, but you get a good view of the ocean.
	Problem after problem after problem after problem.
	And the thing is, there's key high-ranking members.
	Boeing is an integral element of the American deep state.
	I mean, people should not underestimate that at all.
	An essential component of the American deep state.
	And they have embedded themselves within high-ranking aspects of both the Republican and the Democratic Party.
	And this whistleblower was part of exposing that.
	He ends up dead in a parking lot after they get wind of what he's going to testify to.
	I'm sorry, that's not a coincidence.
	The chances are he got Epstein.
	Well, let me just distract one more time.
	We'll go with the Bill Tong.
	King of Biltong.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meet and Eat.
	Free shipping using code VIVA on BiltongUSA.com.
	AntonUSA.com.
	It's wet.
	It's beautiful wet beef jerky.
	It's amazing.
	It's there.
	VIVA didn't Village Crazy Lady...
	Didn't Village Crazy Lady talk about Tim Scott?
	I'm fairly certain she did.
	I'd have to go back and watch it.
	I digest a lot of information on a daily basis.
	How cat...
	Let me see if I can get this.
	How Cat Cock...
	No, okay.
	Please, at Barnes, provide us the text of an actual letter we can write and mail to President Ocean, Palm, and Marla.
	Okay.
	Well, it's up in the Barnes brief about the problems with Tim Scott, the long history of problems with Tim Scott, why he's a very problematic nominee for Trump, not so much from an electoral perspective, but from the success of a Trump second term.
	And quite frankly, Trump's physical well-being.
	He needs to pick a vice president that the people that oppose him are as afraid of as they are afraid of him.
	If he picks anyone else, they'll do more damage than Pence did because he'll be at risk of what that book about President John Kennedy is about.
	All right, Robert.
	What do we move on to now?
	On the white pill side of the equation, we got a great ruling this week about the law concerning disclosure of beneficial interest.
	You were joking earlier about the law requiring you to tell the government every time you give somebody $600?
	There might be implications even for that law, but definitely, I mean, this law was a pernicious law with massive surveillance capabilities that a conscientious federal court struck down as unconstitutional.
	You're going to have to do it.
	What happened, Robert?
	Most people didn't even know this law existed.
	You sent me my homework, and I think I missed this entirely.
	So this was buried in the Defense Department bill.
	Kind of not surprising it was inside the Defense Department bill.
	The Corporate Transparency Act, which they should call it the Government Surveillance Act.
	Because what it required is that if you are part of any kind of business entity of any kind that's recognized by any form of government, This is trust.
	This is non-profit.
	This is profit.
	This is small business, big business.
	Doesn't matter.
	You have to disclose to FinCEN, the criminal enforcement wing of the Department of Treasury, with the Infernal Revenue Service, along with them.
	But FinCEN is supposedly about money laundering and whatnot.
	That isn't where that law has been applied, typically.
	If it was actually applied under FinCEN, Biden and his whole family would have been in prison 20 years ago.
	But they were requiring everybody, frankly, in the world, if you read the statute to a degree, to disclose who all of your shareholders are, who all your investors are, who all your beneficial interests are.
	You got to trust that you want to give something to this family member or that family member?
	Got to disclose it now to the FinCEN.
	I mean, it was incredible invasive.
	Basically, you wouldn't be able to form any business that provided any kind of legal protection or licensed operation without disclosing all the most intimate details of that business's organizational and investment and financial beneficial structure, disclosing all of that to the governmental agency that has the power to wreck your life and wreck your business.
	And so the National Small Business Union brought suit against Secretary Yellen, the main enforcer of this, as Secretary of Treasury.
	And they pointed out that there's no constitutional provision for this.
	This is the federal government getting way out over its skis.
	The law itself, unlike some past laws, doesn't say anything about tying it to foreign transactions, doesn't say anything about tying it to...
	Taxable activities.
	Doesn't say anything about tying it to interstate commerce.
	And usually that's how they get away with it.
	They pretend it's about national security.
	They pretend it's about interstate commerce.
	They pretend it's about making sure we can tax appropriately.
	And the court pointed this out.
	The Constitution is a constitution of enumerated powers.
	Not expanded powers.
	Enumerated powers.
	It means you only have the powers you're expressly and explicitly given.
	And if they aren't given to you, they are reserved either to the states or to the people.
	That last part often be forgot by courts included, as well as scholars and politicians these days.
	And the court said...
	There's nothing about this that's national security or foreign affairs.
	So just because it could maybe possibly someday impact national security or foreign affairs doesn't allow you to regulate every single thing in the world.
	And there's nothing in here that requires any of these entities have anything to do with interstate commerce.
	What triggers the law is that you have registered a entity of any kind with any government anywhere in the world.
	That's it.
	You don't have to engage in any commerce for the law's criminal enforcement to apply to you unless you rat out everybody that could financially benefit or has invested in your business.
	I mean, imagine the intel they would get.
	Oh, this is who's forming this business.
	Oh, that's who's forming this group.
	Oh, that's who's doing this.
	Oh, that's who's economically involved.
	It's a mass surveillance operation with the potential confiscatory and punitive power of the state behind it.
	And point out, there's nothing to do, like maybe somewhere along the way there's a taxable transaction, but nothing in the law concerns taxable transactions.
	So to this district court's credit, say this is patently unconstitutional.
	So not only does it strike down a horrendous law, but also reinforces and reinvigorates the importance of the enumerated limitation on federal governmental authority, which also, by the way, should apply to states under their own state constitutions as well.
	They're kind of forgetting that up at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, where Secretary Redding has declared himself the Pope of Food for the entire country.
	Also, not authority enumerated by the Pennsylvania Constitution, which equally reserves its rights to the people.
	This is true in many of the state constitutions, so it may have analogous provisions applicable in multiple contexts.
	So it's an extraordinary case, great decision, striking down a terrible law that reinvigorates a constitutional doctrine that hopefully gets affirmed and upheld on appeal that gives additional grounds to challenge bad laws across the board.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up.
	It might irritate you, but I'm doing it anyhow.
	And I'm going to read it out loud, and I'm going to say what I think, and then you're going to say what you think.
	Barnes is praying for a Tim Scott VP so he can...
	So he convinced people to vote for RFK Jr.
	Paul Rose, 76. Paul, I think I've seen your name before, so I want to pick on you.
	We're both blocked by Scott Adams, that little coward pussy.
	It doesn't matter.
	He blocked us.
	He doesn't remember.
	Mind reading is the number one trait of loser thinking.
	You know exactly what Barnes is thinking.
	Hold on, I'm going to do it.
	If anybody out there thinks Barnes is going for RFK Jr., As a presidential winner, you might be the first time watching this show.
	Barnes is on record saying he's got no chance of winning.
	He's there to keep Trump in check.
	So there's that.
	I know that you like RFK as a person.
	You represent him as a client.
	That's fine.
	So mind reading and bad mind reading at that.
	And the thing is, you can second guess my motive is all you want.
	That doesn't change the objective accuracy of the analysis.
	I mean, all of this was thrown at...
	When we questioned Lin Wood, got those accusations.
	Questioned what Sidney Powell was doing on the elections, got those accusations.
	Questioned what Trump was doing on the lockdown when he supported it early on.
	Questioned what Trump was doing with Amy Coney Barrett.
	Questioned what Trump was doing on pushing the vaccine.
	Got a lot of those same criticisms.
	So on all of those categories, I understand that.
	Now, I would...
	If you want to question motivations, I've been one of Trump's biggest defenders going back seven, eight years, even when it was unpopular to do so.
	But question the motive is all you want.
	Emma, is the objective analysis right?
	Is Tim Scott a good or bad decision?
	Does Tim Scott increase or reduce the risk that he gets Kennedy-ed, that he gets Epstein-ed?
	Just do that analysis.
	You can say, oh, I hate Barnes, don't like Barnes, don't trust Barnes.
	Fine, do all that.
	Look at the objective accuracy of the analysis.
	Is it a good or bad idea for Trump to put Tim Scott on the ticket?
	I assert that there's very few people that can look at that objectively and say it's a good idea.
	I love you, Barnes.
	And I love that I don't have to feel nervous about bringing up stuff that takes a poke at you.
	Boeing has also intensified the push for DEI garbage.
	And there's that.
	All right.
	There was one other thing I wanted to bring out, Robert.
	I can't remember what it was yet.
	Doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	What do we have left?
	And we need to go over to locals.
	So we've got the...
	A couple of cases.
	We've got the Scientology versus Lee Remini.
	We've got Fox being sued over the war reporter death.
	We've got San Fran being sued for being a shithole.
	We got a little bit of update on Tyson Foods and Amos Miller as well.
	Some of those we can save for the after party at vibobarnslaw.locals.com.
	We got to do the one where we have the biggest crowd.
	So either Scientology or San Fran shithole?
	No!
	We're doing Amos Miller, Robert.
	So you filed your appellate brief.
	For the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Pennsylvania, PDA, that's right.
	You are appealing the injunction that ratified the seizure and destruction of Amos Miller's farm goods, produced materials not just for customers, but for his own consumption, and not just for his own consumption, for the otherwise wasting it for the animals to eat.
	You've challenged all of this, and I see you've been dropping bombs, and it's an amazing thing.
	Give the 30-second update for those who don't know what's going on with Amos Miller.
	Yeah, so we filed our notice of appeal and challenge and our motion to modify the injunction that was issued against him that currently prohibits him from marketing and selling raw milk.
	There's a bunch of other products available, including discounts on meat and other things that are available at amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	For those that want to share information or learn information about the case, the 1776lawcenter.com has the court documents, the basic story, links to interviews, and public reports about the case as well.
	We also filed the Pope Redding there, the Secretary of Agriculture in Pennsylvania, has ordered the complete destruction of a bunch of his food that they unlawfully detained after they illegally searched.
	And we have filed a petition in court challenging that order of destruction and pointed out that the order of destruction just patently and plainly violates Pennsylvania's own state law.
	The limitations on the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the cases established under the Pennsylvania Constitution by the Pennsylvania courts, as well as the constitutional rights of Amos Miller and his members.
	And so we have challenged that order of destruction as well.
	Because what they did is, the law says you can only order food destroyed if three preconditions are met in Pennsylvania.
	The food is unfit for human consumption and cannot be made amenable for human consumption.
	Second, it has no potential animal use.
	And third, it has no other potential beneficial use.
	And of note, this only applies in the first place to food that's for commercial sale.
	It can never apply to personal or familial use.
	Yet the order of destruction orders food destroyed, There's nothing in the order of destruction that says the food is unfit for human consumption.
	Nothing.
	Nothing that says it couldn't be made amenable for food for human consumption.
	And the reason for that is their own test came back and cleared almost all the food.
	Only a small portion of the food had any questions with it.
	And they proved, and we proved at the hearing, there was no issues with that either.
	But even food their own testing said was completely safe, they've ordered destroyed.
	Not only that...
	They've ordered that it not be made available to his own animals.
	Not only that, they've ordered that it not be made available to his own family or himself.
	A farmer cannot feed his own family his own food, according to Pope Reading of the Secretary of Agriculture.
	So we have challenged that order with the Pennsylvania courts as well.
	Next up is a major federal civil rights claim that we're coordinating with food freedom lawyers all across the country to bring, and that's going to be the next day.
	So we have multiple pronged approach.
	There's going to be additional fundraisers for Amos Miller to keep him economically afloat while this state assault continues against him unabated.
	People may think how much it works.
	The Pennsylvania legislature is asleep at the wheel.
	A lot of politicians, Doug Mastriano is another wuss, wouldn't even take a phone call to discuss the case.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm done wasting my time defending that guy.
	But a smart Pennsylvania politician would realize that this issue is an issue that a lot of people in Pennsylvania are concerned about and start doing something with.
	But however doubt you may have about your ability to influence the court of public opinion, note that Politico, of all places, wrote an article that was mostly for raw milk in referencing the Amos Miller case, that the state of Pennsylvania is trying to effectively prohibit it by putting it under limited regulations that restrict 95% of raw milk products from ever being marketed or sold.
	So we are starting to make gains in the court of public opinion.
	It helped that Robert Kennedy voiced support for the case very loud.
	As soon as he did, all of a sudden, the institutional media in Pennsylvania started asking for interviews, started wanting to see the other side.
	There's going to be some very prominent people that are going to be covering this story very soon.
	So everybody out there is making a positive difference by sharing the link, sharing the story, support at 1776 Law Center, support at Amos Miller Organic Farm, support in the Court of Public Opinion.
	This was a case they thought they could get away with, stripping us of all of our rights to food, freedom, and bodily autonomy.
	Note what the Riley Gaines talk...
	The case talks about the bodily privacy and bodily autonomy.
	By the way, that has constitutional ramifications for all these cases, if that right is recognized in that case.
	But this impacts everybody, and everybody's making a difference.
	So we appreciate what everybody's doing out there.
	Amos Miller's still in good spirits.
	I mean, what he's most worried about is all the other Amish farmers who worked with him.
	For their products to be distributed that are now under major economic stress.
	And that shows you who he is.
	That's still his priority.
	He just wants to farm and get food safely to people.
	That need it.
	And be able to have his family continue the farming tradition that he is a fifth generation Amish farmer in Lancaster County.
	So it's an important issue for everybody.
	It's especially important for him and the Amish.
	There's a local mayor political figure that's speaking out for Amos Miller that's registering voters along with Scott Pressler.
	Over what?
	He's seeing record level of interest from the Amish and the Amish community.
	Because of the Amos Miller case, as he himself is independently validated and verified.
	So this is making a real difference.
	And I do hope that for all those upset at me for questioning aspects of what President Trump's decision making, that he get involved in this case.
	Pennsylvania is a close state.
	This is a no-brainer.
	Side with the Amish.
	Side with Amos Miller.
	Side with food freedom.
	Side with America.
	It's good for him.
	It's good for everybody.
	Robert, if the risk in Europe...
	Is that a number of the issues relate to personal use, animal use, etc.
	And then the two big ones, which are the two big ones, is selling it and operating without PDA approval.
	Is the risk not that they can give you the majority of what you're asking for, but not the two most important elements of what you're asking for?
	Well, but the main thing we're asking for is to be able to sell it out of state.
	So they decide that you have to have a permission from the government.
	Before you can sell something, even when that permission is mostly a prohibition on 95% of what you sell.
	And by the way, they lied, as I expected and suspected they did, that we've been going through the process of requesting various permit forms and other forms in a more indirect manner, not so they don't know it's Amos Miller.
	And a lot of the information that's in there contradicts what the lawyer for the Attorney General's office and the Pennsylvania Department officials.
	Officially told the court, by the way.
	Oh, no, this won't prohibit this.
	Oh, no, this won't restrict that.
	Oh, no, you don't waive any rights by doing this.
	They were lying as usual.
	If the PDA is saying something in public or in court, they're usually lying.
	That's the only thing you can rely upon when it comes to the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office or the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	And there's more evidence of it.
	But the main thing we're seeking in the modification of the injunction is to allow him to distribute it outside of the state of Pennsylvania.
	That's where 90-95% of his customers are.
	And I've got a new idea.
	You know, there's the Underground Railroad.
	There was the Prohibition bars.
	You know, the speakeasies.
	I think I'm going to open up speakeasies all across America.
	Where the speakeasies were.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to sell Amos Miller's milk.
	You know, you'll sneak in through a phone booth.
	You know, sneak in the back.
	And there'll be a couple of Amish there when you get in.
	You'll be like, oh, wow, I finally get to get the real good stuff.
	Because that's what's becoming.
	Imagine you have to smuggle Amish milk in Biden's America.
	Well, all that I know that you've made me want to try...
	Unpasteurized, whatever they call it, unpasteurized milk.
	I've never had it in my life.
	It's the best ever.
	It's the best.
	I represented the founders of the Altadena Dairy Operation.
	They got wiped out by California years ago over this issue.
	Now California is the leader, by the way, in this production because there was such public outrage in the state that required it, and now everybody loves it.
	Once you drink it, you know...
	You'll understand its real benefits.
	They're treating it like cocaine.
	And it's like when I drink it, people are like, Barnes has so much energy.
	What is he using on cocaine?
	It's like, no, it's Amos Miller's milk.
	But it's so refreshing and invigorating.
	It's extraordinary.
	It'll do a lot more for you than a glass of whiskey during the Prohibition, that's for sure.
	All right, we're going to move over to local stout, but I want to read one last chat.
	Someone said they're losing faith in Vivek as well.
	Vivek and Trump, if you're listening, you better be listening.
	Losing faith in...
	Correctly spoke out about them going after the beef maker in New York based on bogus climate change issues.
	Amos Miller is a simpler case, an easier case, and it's in a swing state that is this close to determining right now in terms of the election.
	It is a no-brainer.
	It is a no-brainer.
	I mean, you're siding with the Amish.
	I mean, I've been astounded by how...
	I mean, the only people that have less courage and less competence than the Georgia political hierarchy is the Pennsylvania Republican political hierarchy.
	No, but Robert, I think it's because nobody really thinks anybody cares about it.
	That's the issue.
	They don't understand how significant this is.
	Millions of Americans care about this issue.
	There's millions of Americans that will vote solely on this issue.
	Like all the people that are critical...
	Of me for pointing out that Trump is missing big opportunities and pointing out that Kennedy may be the one to profit from that, don't understand that the issue is in Trump's control.
	To give an example, so that's food freedom.
	Millions of Americans care only about this issue.
	This can be the decisive margin in a closed state.
	Just by itself.
	Particularly in Pennsylvania, where almost half of dairy farmers have been wiped out by the PDA under this so-called Secretary of Agriculture, the Pope of Food of Pennsylvania.
	He is crushing small, independent dairy farmers in that state with the way he governs and regulates and restricts.
	He is wiping them out.
	And if what they're doing to Amos goes through, the Amish themselves will be at extraordinary risk.
	one of the greatest communities and traditions of independent food making in the history of this country.
	But to give an example, take the vaccine issue that people don't understand the consequence of.
	The number of Americans who know somebody who's either been discriminated against because of the vaccine, been disabled or suffered an injury because of the vaccine.
	Or died because of the vaccine.
	The number of people who know someone in those categories has gone from low single digits in the past to it's getting close to half of the country.
	And so when Trump says, go vaccine, look at me, I did it.
	People don't understand how enraged that group of voters gets.
	I hear from them because I represent many of them.
	I hear from them because I'm connected to that community.
	So you can think whatever you want to think about Bobby Kennedy.
	You can think whatever you want to think about me.
	Do you understand that constantly attacking or supporting the vaccine is attacking the people who have suffered from it.
	It's like attacking Social Security.
	You may think you're right in principle.
	You can say bye-bye to your electoral future.
	And the same is true in food freedom.
	People don't want corporatized food, industrialized food, monopolized food, and they do want access to the food created by the independent small farmer, no better version of it than Amos Miller's.
	This is a no-brainer to embrace it, no-brainer to support it, and it just shows how out of touch and clueless our political class is.
	It's the same political class that thought supporting money for Ukraine, billions of dollars, was going to be popular.
	That's how out of touch these people are.
	It's like Ben Shapiro saying everybody who's 80 should be required to work.
	It's a degree of disconnect that you can't even imagine.
	And some of the people in the name of supporting Trump are hurting Trump by not listening on these issues and not encouraging him to reconsider his stance.
	I mean, remember, Trump was an original vaccine skeptic.
	Trump in 2016 was going to put Robert Kennedy on a commission to investigate vaccines.
	And then Bill Gates bragged about how he rolled Trump.
	Trump should pay Bill Gates back what he deserves and pay Pfizer back, which deliberately withheld the vaccine until after the election, just to hurt Trump.
	That's who he's protecting.
	People have spent all this time screwing him.
	So that's why these issues matter.
	But, you know, hopefully somebody in Pennsylvania will wake up and realize that they have one of the great issues right in their backyard that the people of the state will rally around them to support.
	People want their own choice.
	I think it was Texas.
	They put it on the kind of referendum, public referendum.
	Do you think you should decide what goes into your body or do you think the government or your employer?
	What do you think the answer was?
	It was 90-10.
	I decide.
	Not some low-IQ lard ass at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	This is a no-brainer.
	Get on it, everybody.
	Join the food freedom movement because it's the American movement.
	So what you're saying is that...
	That Trump should threaten a bloodbath on Pfizer.
	Sorry, that's too loud.
	I wrote to my mayor in Nebraska about Amos Miller, and he refused to bring this up.
	I told him I would no longer vote for him.
	Outdoor Noble says, Viva, still have your shirt.
	VP, Alex Jones for self-preservation.
	Mark Elias is an affront to any judicial system.
	I missed any talk on Lord Magistrate Judge Willis, but expects suits for this department.
	Oh, they got those.
	Okay, so here's what we're doing now.
	Getting text messages.
	It's our time.
	Okay.
	Let me do this and stop screen.
	Bring it up here.
	We're taking the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm turning my phone off now.
	It's getting annoying.
	We're turning the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Come on over to locals.
	Typos in there.
	We've done something good, Robert.
	What are you doing this week?
	So this week is, well, I'm actually going to be meeting with some lawyers about the election issue.
	There may be some progress on that.
	One thing 1776 Law Center is going to support this spring and summer is election cases to make sure we actually have a free and fair election in 2024, unlike 2020.
	I think, you know, two of the best reasons to support Trump are that 2020 was stolen from him.
	And to give him the election he was entitled to then, and to send a message to this lawfare, that lawfare must be punished, and there's probably no better way to punish it than a vote for Trump.
	But some of the election issues I'll be discussing.
	But otherwise...
	This is March Madness.
	This is the greatest week of sports betting and sports.
	I had no idea.
	I've been doing this since I was knee-high to a grasshopper.
	I'll be picking brackets.
	I'll be sharing that with people at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and at SportsPix.locals.com.
	We'll probably do a bracket everybody can enter and the free one will get a lifetime membership to SportsPix and some other things.
	But I usually always try to take off this Thursday through Sunday.
	In order to enjoy March Madness.
	It's one of my favorite times of year.
	A lot of hardcore sports fans really enjoy it.
	You know, you're screaming with every game.
	You got like four games on.
	You're screaming to shoot, not shoot, hit it, make it.
	You know, even if the score's like, if you have a little bit of money in the game, then you care if, even if the margin's 26 points, you're screaming, shoot, don't shoot, shoot, don't shoot, because maybe the total is, or the line is 25 and a half.
	So it's a lot of fun.
	The madness is true mayhem.
	Little Cinderella's come out of nowhere to hit big shots to go take a run.
	You know, little nuns like Loyola Chicago get to go all the way to the Final Four when they're 88 years old for their program to first make it there.
	So I've always enjoyed March Madness.
	My favorite time, one of my favorite times of year.
	And I always try to take off during it.
	There's a few years that hasn't worked.
	But I'm hoping that's what I'll be absorbed doing Thursday through Sunday.
	Well, up until our Sunday show.
	And I'll share this.
	This is Lectern Guy who posted this on Twitter and says, my seedy hotel nightstand setup is the same as my setup at Four Seasons.
	And it's beautiful.
	And I may or may not be, and I say that I'm hanging out with Lectern Guy tomorrow.
	So this is part and parcel of the trip today.
	You might see some fun times with Viva and Lectern Guy.
	Tomorrow.
	I won't spoil it, but locals, you're going to get the sneak peek at some behind-the-scenes footage of Viva.
	Viva shoots a bazooka.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	I don't know what's going to happen.
	Might be more tame than that.
	All right.
	What we are doing right now, people, I'm giving everybody the link.
	I'll be live throughout the week.
	Obviously, I'm on the road.
	It's going to be this crappy setup, but whatever.
	Substance over form.
	Link to locals for the after party.
	Typo included.
	And now I understand why people are saying, Viva, why are you drinking Scottish gin on St. Paddy's Day weekend?
	Oh, yeah.
	Happy St. Paddy's Day, everybody.
	Yeah, happy St. Paddy's Day.
	Here we got a green.
	Using your best raw serving pressure.
	Imagine if you had a 6-3 Democrat appointed SCOTUS.
	Where would we be?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, all those people that said no to Trump.
	I mean, the best thing that Trump has that he can recreate, as long as he doesn't pick the wrong vice president, is peace abroad, prosperity at home.
	Joe Biden gave you poverty at home and war abroad.
	He's got a simple thing.
	But my only argument is don't lose or leak votes that you don't need to lose or leak by not...
	Exposing what Pfizer did.
	He did a beautiful contract, said deliver a safe vaccine.
	And he got fucking lied to.
	Period.
	For the prevention of COVID-19, what Pfizer delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not even a vaccine, and didn't prevent COVID-19.
	And right now, the Biden Justice Department is intervening in the Brooke Jackson case, demanding dismissal of the case.
	To kill it.
	There's sole grounds.
	They didn't have any new evidence, any new facts.
	Any new policy.
	They said the Biden administration is publicly committed to this vaccine, so consequently we cannot allow any lawsuit that exposes how ineffective it is, exposes how dangerous it is, exposes how it is not a vaccine, exposes how they lie to President Trump and stole billions of dollars from the American people, precisely...
	Because the Biden administration wants the world to believe in this vaccine.
	An unprecedented argument for the grounds to dismiss a KETAM action.
	And they're just hoping the judge doesn't have the courage to stand up to the rogue, conflict of interest impacted Justice Department under this president.
	And I think it's a great issue.
	Bobby Kennedy spoke out about it.
	It's a great issue for President Trump to speak out about it.
	This is about the Biden administration not honoring the contract he drafted on behalf of his corrupt alignment with the Pfizer Corporation.
	Embrace Brooke Jackson.
	Embrace the American people.
	Expose this fraud and do it now.
	All right.
	I had a thought.
	I forgot it now.
	It doesn't matter.
	Get on over to Locals, people.
	We're ending on a rumble and we're going to have our after party.
	And stay tuned.
	It'll be awesome.
	All right.
	Thank you all.
	Happy St. Paddy's Day.
	I didn't even know when it was.
	I don't know what month it is anymore, Robert.
	Everything feels the same in Florida.
	Twelve months of summer a year.
	It gets disorienting.
	We'll have a few bonus cases.
	We'll have the Scientology case with Leah Remini.
	We got the suit against San Fran for being a shithole.
	We got Fox being sued for setting up a war reporter to get killed in Ukraine.
	And we got a little update on...
	Tyson Foods!
	Yeah, they were trending!
	Sounds a lot like the Tyson that was a Nazi corporation in Germany.
	They were trending on Twitter, Robert.
	Okay, we are ending on Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me see, have we...
	Yes, okay, we picked up 19 new viewers there.
	Ending on Rumble.
	I'll be live all week.
	Stay tuned.
	Done and done.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Enjoy the weekend.
	Locals, here we comes.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	All right.
	Let me see what we got here.
	We're going to go through the $5 or more tips.
	Let me go get them.
	And we'll do this and then we're going to...
	And then you'll do our topics.
	My goodness, my eyes are getting terrible.

▲