Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 31, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:20:25

Ep. 204: Trump NY Gag Order; Crowder Lawsuit; RFK Ballot; Owen Shroyer AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Everyone's going to be very confused right now.
	Thank you.
	Robert, I'm looking out my window and I'm seeing a lot of fireworks going off in the sky.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Orlando area.
	What the hell is that?
	Maybe Disney?
	Sometimes Disney does fireworks all the time.
	Oh, St. Paddy's Day.
	It's a St. Paddy's Day thing.
	We're a fair distance off.
	I'm just like, oh, we didn't get a balcony.
	I'll be getting some because I live in a Mexican neighborhood and you wouldn't think that connects to St. Paddy's Day.
	If there's any excuse at all, they sit on fireworks.
	All the time.
	That matters.
	Look at this.
	Oh my goodness.
	Where are we?
	Bring it!
	Bring it!
	Booyah!
	I'm going to back into his car.
	really mess everybody up to the occasion.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on a second.
	Let's hear the noise.
	Do it.
	Do it.
	Do the noise.
	Do the thing.
	Say the word.
	Say the word.
	Okay, so the rumor is that llamas spit.
	That's actually a lot of poo.
	That's poo right there.
	You made a lot of poo.
	Okay, we're good.
	That's the lectern guy right there.
	Is it fun, Adam?
	No, no, no.
	Bye, bye.
	Bye.
	Bye.
	you Bye.
	Bye.
	you you Letting everyone trickle in.
	It's Easter Sunday.
	We don't have to start off with things that make us want to gag.
	I can check audio levels while I do this.
	See that everything's good.
	Alright, we're kayaking down a river.
	Am I on mute?
	And there's manatees in this river, apparently.
	The river is a constant 72 degrees.
	It's so clear.
	It's outrageous.
	We're going to see manatees.
	Got behind me the family and...
	In the distance there, the lectern guy, Adam Johnson.
	And this is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
	Hold on, check this out.
	Now we're not going to play the entire video.
	This is the most amazing thing I've ever seen.
	Now that I know that we are live across all platforms.
	Where?
	Are they big?
	Throw in a little cheesy vlog music and you have...
	Oh my goodness.
	Those are carp.
	You don't mind being in a video?
	No, I don't.
	This is going to be a vlog.
	What's this river called?
	Wikiwachi Springs.
	Wikiwachi Springs.
	Many of you have seen this already.
	That's Kikiwaka.
	I should have put some suntan lotion on my disgusting legs.
	Look at those disgusting legs.
	Boom!
	Paddle faster.
	We've had enough of the goodness, people.
	Now let's get into the crap.
	I'm joking.
	Good evening, everyone.
	It is Sunday.
	Easter Sunday.
	Or as many now know it.
	Trans visibility day.
	All right, there's a scandal of brewing.
	I put out a quick vlog before, sort of like the advertising for the evening show.
	I don't know if everybody saw that.
	I was going to start the stream off with that vlog, which was me in my office 40 minutes ago.
	Trans visibility day, as if what's lacking is visibility for the trans community.
	I might have to pull up Justin Trudeau.
	I'm incapable of saying 2SLGBTQIA +, because, you know, it just rolls off the tongue.
	I don't know.
	Do you say happy Easter or do you say have a meaningful Easter?
	It's supposed to be a spiritually important holiday, but not necessarily like, you know, happy Hanukkah.
	You're not spinning dreidels and exchanging gifts.
	You're celebrating a solemn occasion.
	So meaningful Easter to everyone who's celebrating and Jesus Visibility Day.
	That's what is going around.
	And if you're not celebrating it, welcome to the show.
	It's Sunday night, people.
	Let's get the law on.
	Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler with our Sunday night guest.
	My partner in crime, Robert Barnes, will be here shortly.
	Viva Fry, when is Democrats are Demons Day?
	I got a joke there that I probably shouldn't say.
	Look, we started with something nice.
	That was a family vlog of us exploring.
	The West Coast.
	Look at that typo.
	A lot of typos there.
	We went to the Gulf Coast, Wikiwashi River, saw manatees.
	It was beautiful.
	If you want to watch that, the link is there.
	I've got a Viva Family YouTube channel, but a Viva Random Rumble channel.
	And I forgot to put this one to the random channel.
	I put it to the Viva Fry on Rumble.
	That was to cleanse our palates, to remember that there are still beautiful things in this upside-down, Am I a Messianic Jew?
	I don't know what that means, so I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say no.
	I'm going to have to Google that in about two seconds.
	We're going to start with...
	Okay, some fun stuff.
	It's still fun and it's still a good way to start a show.
	Yesterday, they seemed to be picking on Nancy Mace.
	I dare say, if I were thinking along the lines of identity politics, first you got George Strafalopoulos.
	George Stephanopoulos.
	I was going to say George Papadopoulos.
	What's his name?
	Stephanopoulos.
	Is his first name George?
	Stephanopoulos.
	That jackass ass.
	I'm not going to swear yet.
	That jackass jackanity.
	Shaming.
	And yes, he was in fact shaming.
	Nancy Mace, when she was saying, I still support Trump.
	And he says, well, how can you support Trump if he's been convicted of rape?
	And then she's like, he hasn't.
	And now George Stephanopoulos and NBC News are being sued for defamation by Trump.
	They seem to be picking on her.
	And this is another example.
	We'll play this video and then we're going to play my facts, my evidence as to why this is no longer.
	You're seeing since Joe Biden took office, crime skyrocket all around the country.
	And especially in big cities, you see illegal immigrants coming in, beating up our cops and being taken out without bail, let out of jail without bail.
	That man was not...
	Just to pause it there.
	That man...
	It turns out was not one of the illegal immigrants who was beating the police officer.
	He was let go, and that's why he's flipping the bird to his newly, you know, the country where he's seeking asylum from.
	Asylum.
	It's all asylum now, by the way.
	There's no such thing as illegal immigration.
	All you have to say is the magic word, asylum, as if falsely claiming asylum is not itself an additional crime, but whatever.
	So that man was not one of the illegals who actually beat up New York police officers who were let out with minimal to no bail and then given tickets to California, whatever.
	Okay.
	Violence is high.
	Is what she's saying.
	Men and women in blue and in uniform.
	You're seeing crime skyrocket.
	You're seeing fentanyl cases skyrocket.
	True.
	We're literally allowing China to import deadly drugs like fentanyl into this country and it's killing our children and killing our citizens.
	We're allowing Joe Biden to have the cartel sneak drugs into the country, smuggle people into the country.
	She's right.
	It's just okay to do that under Joe Biden.
	It's not okay.
	We're a nation of laws and should follow them.
	Yeah, well, apparently not.
	So that post got community noted.
	You have to understand what she's saying.
	At some point in time, community notes are being used to exploit the monopoly they have to argue with people with whom they disagree.
	Some of these statements, is it intended to be 1,000% factually accurate, an all-time high?
	Does that mean it has to be, at this very moment, the highest ever?
	Under Biden, beginning with the summer of love.
	We'll see.
	So she makes that statement.
	This thing got community noted.
	Let me bring this down and then bring up where I was getting into it.
	It got community noted.
	And I said, and here's where we're going to get the first cuss word of the night.
	This community note is bullshit.
	It plummeted, quote, under...
	The media comes out and says, oh, I didn't screen grab the community note.
	But it said, no, crime has plummeted under Biden.
	And I said it plummeted under Biden after spiking under Biden with the exception of 2020 Summer of Love, which I still attribute to Democrat political forces, without a question.
	And then you look at these stats.
	Like, look at this.
	These are the stats.
	By the way, data is estimated.
	You know what that means?
	Liars figure and figures lie.
	Oh, look at how much it went down in 2023.
	If you just chart that line, it's still...
	At a 20-year virtual high.
	And that's if you believe the stats, which I don't.
	What was the next one?
	Oh, here, homicide.
	Look at this.
	This graph is from 1990.
	Homicide in this current year, 2022, is higher than it has ever been since 1998, give or take.
	And yet they want to fact check her and put a community note and say, no, it's not true.
	It's lower now than it was last year.
	Big effing deal.
	That's if you believe the numbers, which I don't.
	And then what happens?
	You get Aaron Rupar coming out and saying, why is your community note taken down?
	I'll tell you why the community note was taken down.
	Aaron Rupar?
	Oh yeah, by the way, people rightly pointing out a number of things as relates to how you calculate, how you assess the data.
	Astral Doge plays.
	There was a change in how agencies report their stats to the FBI.
	I believe many use software that produce old UCR stats and haven't updated software to newer NIBRS statistics.
	Stats, causing a lot of unintentional misreporting because all had to switch to NIBRS for 2023 stats.
	That's one observation.
	Another observation as to how you know that we're being lied to in real time?
	The FBI demanded cities send in their data in a very specific way, and any city that does not comply does not have their crime statistics put into the national numbers.
	This is from Carl Vincent2023.
	I don't know who these people are, but I interact with the community on Twitter and pick the big brands of our locals community.
	Many big cities, including New York City, are no longer counted in the crime stats, so of course the numbers are down.
	If you think I am wrong, try to locate the FBI data broken down by state.
	Well, I remember once upon a time the FBI stopped breaking down.
	Stop breaking down data by race.
	Because I guess the stats it was yielding were too politically incorrect.
	But then we got Aaron T. Rupar.
	Look at this.
	Look at this guy.
	Does everybody know?
	Everybody has to know by now because I like to make fun of it.
	What Aaron Rupar's Urban Dictionary definition is.
	He's lived such a life.
	He's now literally a term in the Urban Dictionary.
	He says, this tweet yesterday had a community note with the FBI stats debunking Mesa's lie.
	Now it's gone?
	What gives?
	Maybe, maybe, I think community notes are being gamed regardless, and maybe this is the reverse gaming, where big accounts, big bullhorns put a little blast on the bullshit.
	Maybe that's what gives.
	You know what else probably gives?
	It was a bullcrap community note in the first place.
	Weaponized community notes so that they can try to demonize and say, it wasn't a lie, Aaron Rupert.
	Record-level fentanyl deaths.
	Why?
	Because China is importing its fentanyl from an open southern border.
	I was making, not the joke, the other day.
	Concepcion said, yeah, China is importing fentanyl through an open southern border and killing a generation of Americans.
	China is also importing digital fentanyl via TikTok to distort a generation of Americans.
	Make them think that they're boys when they're girls and girls when they're boys and they have to take human puberty blockers and mess up their genitals.
	Physical fentanyl via the southern border and digital fentanyl via TikTok.
	And then I just have to point out, in case anybody didn't know, what Aaron T. Ruppars...
	Oh, look at this.
	They're really going hard on...
	They're really going hard on Nancy Mace.
	It's actually unbelievable to watch it in real time.
	As I just refresh, and I guess Twitter has determined that I'm interacting with tweets that are debunking this.
	Here, Rolling Stone.
	The Rolling Stone liars.
	The liars who lied about the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal.
	Data from the FBI shows that crime decreased significantly in 2023.
	Oh, good!
	Inflation decreased significantly.
	Does that not mean it skyrocketed under Biden?
	Decreased from when?
	2022 under Biden.
	So it's not anything incorrect at all, you pathological liars.
	In fact, when Rolling Stone says it's not true, it is.
	When Rolling Stone says it is true, it's not.
	Which is why when Rolling Stone came out last week and said, what did they say?
	Oh, yes, that the Baltimore Bridge disaster conspiracy theories are afoot.
	Then I'm like, oh, shit.
	Now I'm going to start thinking about the conspiracy theories.
	But Aaron Rupar.
	Rupar Urban Dictionary.
	Does everybody know this?
	I've showed it many times.
	One more time.
	One more time.
	Rupar.
	A lying sack of...
	Who deceives people for a living in the name of his political ideology.
	Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie.
	Aaron Rupar.
	Mazel tov.
	Oh, lordy.
	All right, so good evening, everybody.
	This is the way it works.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me see that we're good.
	We're good on viva barneslaw.locals.com.
	I don't think I did.
	I think I actually pinned vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So now that everyone's had a chance to go to Locals if they so choose, here's the link.
	To Rumble.
	We start on all three platforms.
	Then we end on Commitube.
	Replace the pincom.
	We end on Commitube and we go over to Free Speech Rumble.
	Then when the stream is over, we go over to our VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com community and we answer tipped questions of $5 and more and have our exclusive afterparty there to thank our locals community for the support and allowing us to do what it is that we do.
	Thank you all very much for everything sincere.
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	When you came into the stream, you might have seen something that says, this stream contains a paid promotion.
	Because it does, people.
	Look, at the end of the day, it's very difficult to go wrong with gold.
	And as the central bank digital currency is coming in and can replace your dollars with digital currency, nothing wrong with having a little gold.
	Don't hide it in your cavity, because I'm told that that's the first place they look.
	Central digital bank, digital currency, if it comes in, is going to involve surveillance of our lives, freezing of our assets, and government control over our bank accounts and how we spend our money.
	If you want real life how this works out, look at Canada and Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland and what they did up there.
	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.
	If you want to protect your retirement, I recommend you request your free investment guide.
	from our friends at Preserve Gold today.
	They'll explain the right options for you and help with the process to get either physical, gold, or silver.
	Silver's a lot more fun to own silver because it's a little bit cheaper price point so you can own bigger pieces of it and feel like, you know, a Roman king or something, but, you know.
	It's a fraction of the price.
	You can get physical gold or silver or roll over your IRA 401k into a qualified retirement account.
	It's easy.
	They are BBB accredited, zero consumer complaints, and hundreds of satisfied clients.
	They're also founding members of the Precious Metals Association, so you know you're in good hands.
	And it's an exclusive offer for all of our viewers here.
	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 in an immediate $500 account credit if you request your investor guide today.
	Go to preservegold.com forward slash Viva to get your free gold and silver investment guide and take your first step towards protecting your wealth.
	Again, preservegold.com forward slash Viva.
	Get your free guide.
	And look, oh, the video stopped.
	It's not idolatry when it's an investment.
	And so long as you don't build a golden calf to this gold overlord, it's an investment treated as such.
	Bear in mind that if you ever decide to flee the country and cross the border, I think it's $10,000 limits of gold.
	So that would be like four ounces of gold that you'd be allowed to take legally.
	And I would not recommend swallowing it.
	You get stuck in front of a magnet.
	Well, no, gold is not magnetic, so that wouldn't happen.
	Whatever.
	I'm trying to make a joke.
	But yeah, that's it.
	Preservegold.com forward slash Viva.
	And before we get too far behind, Cheryl Gage.
	Happy Easter Sunday, everyone.
	At home today, watching the grandkids run around.
	It's a beautiful thing.
	We had another long weekend with the kids.
	My goodness.
	Oh, it's long days when you try to keep three kids entertained.
	Dylan Killen, while it's Hanukkah, while it is in Hanukkah.
	Easter is the day that Christ defeated death, proved himself the savior, and gave us our option of salvation.
	It's a happy day.
	Okay, well then, happy Easter to everyone celebrating.
	And last one before we get into Ryan Beaudoin.
	The Fed and state governments manipulated crime data numbers by selecting the wrong ethnicity for perpetrators of crime.
	Black and Hispanics clear as the eye can see marked as white to skew the numbers.
	Well, we've certainly seen it happen a few times.
	And if it's happened once, it's happened more than once.
	All right, now with that said, I will catch up with the rumble rants in a bit.
	I see Barnes and he's looking dapper.
	Robert, incoming.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You're looking good, young, and rested.
	Are you feeling good?
	Relatively, yeah.
	March Madness has been very profitable so far.
	European soccer was brutal today.
	I think Jesus doesn't like it if you bet European soccer on Easter.
	But according to the Biden administration, you know, this is actually not Happy Easter Day.
	This is Happy Trans Recognition Day.
	And I had a solution for all this.
	I thought it was pretty simple.
	We just move Trans Day one day, right?
	And so instead of today, it's tomorrow, which is April 1st.
	Well, so, they declared it on March 31st.
	It's been March 31st since 2009, but it was only this year that Biden came out and declared it formally.
	It should really be April Fool's Day.
	It really should.
	That's just been, you know, surprise, surprise, crying game, you know?
	And now YouTube's going to cut the transmission, Robert.
	We have crossed the line.
	Sir, what's the book behind you and what's the cigar in your hands?
	Unruly Americans, great book about the true founders of the American Constitution, which were ordinary, everyday people that made it happen in the first place, and how it was their ideas, much more so than the ideas of elites that shaped our constitutional liberties that are currently being eviscerated by those same elites today, usually in black robes and with wooden gavels.
	But it's a great book on the constitutional history and a broader understanding of original interpretation.
	The Ben Shapiros of the world would limit and restrict that to just what other elites thought.
	That's not what actually made the Constitution come about in the first place, because the Bill of Rights wasn't included in the original Constitution.
	But a bunch of folks named Barnes in Rhode Island voted against it until it included the Bill of Rights.
	Because ordinary people, unruly Americans, made it happen in the first place.
	And the cigar?
	My father, mi padre.
	And Robert, do you know what the pattern of your tie is?
	I don't know why I know this.
	I don't know.
	It's called paisley.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's a paisley tie.
	Yeah, I knew.
	I thought you were thinking it was like some art drawing I didn't know about.
	I have to Google the origin of the word.
	What does paisley mean?
	It's got to be British.
	I have no idea.
	I'm going to look that up while we talk about it.
	Sounds kind of French.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	And before we get started?
	Yeah, the top two voted matters on the board.
	The number one, of course, always no favorites.
	But the other two were all of the Trump cases and the election cases that came out this week.
	We have up first Trump.
	We have the New York Trial Court.
	There's judicial conflict issues, unconstitutional gag orders now being instituted.
	We have the bond appeal getting partially granted.
	We have the Georgia Appeal now up on the RICO charge.
	We got a January 6th judge who thinks, like the Georgia judge, he should just run around doing interviews with people in the press, but that patently violates ethics.
	But it tells you about the D.C. and our federal court system.
	They think they are above the law.
	They think they are the law.
	Then we have RFK had announced his vice presidential pick, and the Democratic Party is waging a war to keep him off the ballot.
	Which should clue people into what the Democratic Party thinks who he poses the most risk to.
	The FBI has a new red flag center set up using the funds that Speaker Johnson just pushed through foolishly in the House.
	Meet the new speaker, same as the old speaker.
	We got an update on Amos Miller.
	We got Coinbase against the SEC.
	That's an area more people should follow because of the broader impact of what's taking place there.
	Carrie Lake, development in her defamation case.
	Yeah, that's very curious about that.
	The election cases in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
	We got the Supreme Court discussing when you can sue the FDA, which I might have a rooting interest in the outcome of that case, of course.
	Owen Schroyer against the IRS, the white pill of the week.
	And last but not least, we have all of the legal matters around Stephen Crowder.
	It manages to touch, you know, I don't care about the social media drama, though there's been a lot of it, but we've seen a lot of amateur lawyers, including Not Gay Jared.
	Who, when it comes to the law, seems kind of gay.
	That's double whammy bars.
	We're done.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But what's intriguing about the case is a great opportunity to educate the public on the law because the Crowder-related cases concern what is the legality of non-competes?
	What is the legality of non-disclosure agreements?
	What is the legality and constitutionality of discovery?
	When do your privacy interests come into play?
	When do your constitutional interest in speech impact either non-disclosure or non-compete, depending on its terms?
	All of the debate surrounding what's going on in family courts, perceptions that it's biased towards one gender or the other, or biased on behalf of one economic situation or another.
	Is the legal system as a whole, as Lauren Southern...
	Stated, biased in favor of those with means.
	In the whole cultural debate about the nature of whether divorce is facilitating and undermining marriage in America, and in particular, undermining men's interest, as a good number of people believe, but is broadly contested.
	And last but not least, what some people that are connected to Stephen Crowder's ex-wife team and...
	Not gay, Jared.
	Might want to read about is how the definition of extortion law, because it sounds...
	Remember, folks, never in writing, always in cash.
	They apparently have violated that rule and consequently might be running afoul of even criminal laws in Texas.
	Well, you know what?
	Can we just start with that one and then we'll move on to YouTube?
	We'll move out of YouTube afterwards.
	So for those who...
	Haven't seen this.
	I mean, I don't think there's anybody out there who has not heard about this.
	What's fun is, I'm not getting too far into it.
	I don't like what is not juvenile drama.
	There's a lot of family stuff in here.
	Marriages.
	It's gossipy.
	There's a little bit of element of law.
	But I've been listening to Tim Poole assess on this.
	I've been reading through it.
	I went to the other side and went to Anna Kasparian to see how the left reports on this.
	And it's interesting because there's left and right and then there's people who are...
	In the middle.
	Southern on one side, Ariana Jacob on another side.
	So you've got a broad range of disputes.
	And you have people who have different life experience that's influencing them.
	People that have experienced what Crowder's experienced.
	People that have experienced what...
	Jared has experienced as an employee, people who have experienced what Crowder's ex-wife have experienced.
	And you're seeing a lot of those experiences shape a lot of their perception based on their own life experiences.
	Different experience with the law.
	You know, people like Lauren Southern that have seen that if you don't have means, you often don't have means of access to the legal system.
	That shapes one of their perspectives.
	That's part of what?
	1776 Law Center.
	Dotcom is all about trying to equalize access in areas to the law and to the court of public opinion in areas where people often don't have that access, supporting cases like the Covington kids, like Kyle Rittenhouse, like Amos Miller, like Brooke Jackson, and the like.
	1776 Law Center, you can go there and get all the information about a lot of those cases.
	And if you want to support it, you can support it as well.
	There's a bunch of merch up, and there'll be more merch up.
	And maybe I'll start putting up a shirt that definitely both Jared and the ex-wife's legal team could have used, which is never in writing, always in cash, because they violated it.
	So we'll back it up.
	I mean, I don't know all the ins and outs and the details, but not gay?
	Is it not gay or half gay, Jared?
	And I'm not trying to be funny.
	No, it was not gay, Jared.
	No, you're thinking a quarter black...
	Quarter Asian.
	Quarter Asian lawyer.
	Half-Asian lawyer.
	There's half-Asian lawyer, quarter-black man.
	There's a whole bunch of political...
	Not gay Jared.
	Stopped working for Crowder, give or take, I'll say four or five years ago.
	As he left, he signed what he begrudgingly concedes now was a duly signed, but the contents we don't know, NDA.
	He signed a non-compete.
	He apparently signed a non-compete previously as his initial part of his employment and negotiated a modification of that in exchange for giving a full non-disclosure agreement from the get-go too.
	So non-disclosure, non-compete, meaning that when you cease working, if it ever comes to an end, depending on how it comes to an end, if you get fired, they can't avail themselves of a non-compete.
	You can't compete.
	In the same industry, typically geographically limited, temporally limited, I think now two years is give or take the standard.
	By the sounds of it, Robert, it looked like he was globally enjoined from working in the entertainment industry.
	I don't know that we know the details definitively yet.
	And then he alleges that Crowder was using lawfare to silence and abuse him since he left.
	It turns out that maybe, at least based on some...
	Written documents.
	Never in writing, folks.
	Never in writing.
	Don't put your extortion plans in an email or text.
	I'm not going to play devil's advocate.
	I'm going to try to steal men.
	It seems that there's an email saying, look, we know what we're allowed to get under the letter of the law in Texas family law.
	We want more than that, so we're going to put on a public pressure campaign to get...
	Crowder.
	In that line between litigation strategy and extortion.
	And that's the question.
	They really crossed that line a couple of times.
	They were trying to extort Stephen Crowder is what it looks like.
	And it looks like you had the ex-employee colluding with his wife in the context of a divorce.
	One can ask questions there to extort Stephen Crowder.
	That is not the...
	Oh, but if you ask questions, they're like the quartering does, not gay Jared.
	Totally against lawfare.
	We'll start threatening lawsuits against you because apparently in between not understanding non-competes, not understanding non-disclosure agreements, not understanding extortion, he doesn't understand defamation law.
	He was threatening with the quartering.
	If you suggest what you seem to be suggesting, which by the way, he wasn't suggesting.
	I watched the video.
	I had no idea.
	He's suggesting having sex with Stephen Crowder's ex-wife.
	Yeah, and cornering, they did no such thing.
	It's like, man, that does protest too much.
	I initially thought there was zero credibility to that, and then I was like, now you're making me wonder.
	You're drawing more attention to this than other people.
	But, you know, that guy's like a running library of bad legal opinions, bad legal takes.
	Straight to making it public?
	A little gay when it comes to the law.
	Straight to public statements, in writing, raising money for his legal defense.
	Hold on, and we're going to get to the Hillary destroying the evidence.
	A while back, there was that clip that was shared.
	We called it again, by the way.
	Remember when that was first aired?
	I said I was very skeptical of that clip for two reasons.
	One, I've represented more victims of domestic abuse than almost anybody out there.
	So I'm intimately well aware of what that legal landscape and evidentiary landscape looks like.
	And I was like, the only big inflammatory piece you have on Steven Crowder is a clip out of a bad argument?
	Every relationship, if we took all of our relationships across America, I guarantee you, all of us said something stupid at some point along the way.
	That's called human nature.
	Unless you're just not human and you don't really care.
	And I was like, that's your best evidence?
	That means you don't have an abusive relationship at all.
	That's all you could find.
	And the second thing, people go back and find it.
	What I predicted is the context of all the other clips would tell a different story or watch to see if that disappears.
	And what's happened?
	The ex-wife apparently has lost all the other clips, all the other video stuff.
	She was doing the new special computer for extortionists and criminals.
	And one of them, instead of saying delete, it just says Hillary delete.
	Hillary Deleet.
	And she has the same name.
	I was going to say, wonder if she used Bleach Pit.
	I'll bring this up.
	It's a fair point.
	Crowder loves restrictive contracts for his employees, but not for him.
	And we can get into the business side of it, the politics side of it.
	Because there's the law side, which is different than the business and politics.
	And people are conflating the two.
	People are saying, I don't like this idea of a non-compete.
	Or some people are saying they totally embrace non-competes.
	And the law is much more balanced than that.
	It doesn't fully defend non-competes.
	And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if his non-competes are way too broad, which make them high risk, by the way.
	Under American law, it's the same principles under Canadian.
	You don't get to segment out the piece that was overbought.
	And over the last 15 years, non-competes often do not get affirmed in court.
	I've dealt with people in the Hollywood and entertainment industry.
	The short answer is a non-compete.
	The logic from the employer is I'm going to invest a bunch of capital in you.
	I'm going to help create your public image, or I'm going to give you access to our methods, our sources, our training, our intellectual property, all of that.
	But in the entertainment industry, it's I'm giving you access to build your own market, build your own audience.
	And I want to know that I'm investing that for the benefit of me, the employer, not for your benefit to our exclusion.
	And that's the logic of a non-compete.
	Now, from the employee perspective, it's, hey, I just want a job.
	And if this isn't working out, I don't want to be prohibited from doing what my skill is.
	So that's where you get the political gap between the employee-employer perspective.
	But the law has been increasingly hostile.
	The law disfavors, in Texas even more so, they even have constitutional provisions on this that can be applicable.
	And I would argue U.S. constitutional can apply in certain instances.
	But again, that would only apply to a court enforcing it.
	Doesn't imply...
	Not Gay Jared and even Lauren Southern and some others were suggesting somehow this could be unconstitutional, what a private employer does that has nothing to do with the state at all.
	The Constitution doesn't apply there, folks.
	So the Constitution only applies when there's coercion or collusion with the state, like in the social media censorship context.
	It doesn't apply to just a private employer.
	So it's politically, rhetorically effective to say this is a free speech battle.
	Sorry, no, it's not.
	It has nothing to do with free speech.
	Not gay, Jared.
	Well, people mean it.
	No, they mean colloquially.
	I'm lowering my volume a little bit because people said you were a little low and I'm not going to bring you up, Robert, so now you guys can turn your volume up.
	But typically, it's what?
	Two years is what's generally accepted and geographically limited, so you don't have a global non-compete.
	And not only that, it often has to be real specific.
	And that was what courts increasingly do because they really disfavor...
	Like, if Crowder's non-competes are really broad, he's at high risk.
	Because what more courts are doing...
	Here's what used to happen.
	If you were a contract lawyer, your incentive was to make it as broad as possible.
	The employee was often less legally sophisticated than the employer, would often go along with it without recognizing what their legal rights were.
	And even if they challenged it or contested it in court, the court would just limit it, would sort of blue pencil it, to give it what its legal permissive scope was.
	And so you had no downside as an employer to a really broad non-compete.
	Courts started realizing that was problematic because all it did is it created the wrong, it distorted incentives.
	So what they often do now is if your non-compete is too broad, they strike the whole thing.
	They don't give you any non-compete.
	So if Crowder's lawyers have written too broad a non-competes, they better reconsider that crafting and drafting.
	We don't know.
	Now, usually these days, it really has to be specific to the capital you invested in the individual.
	So for example, if you're a shoe salesman, It's limited in a particular market.
	They can limit you to two years for selling shoes, but even then it can be limited even further in terms of what's permissive.
	And if it's too broad, they just strike the whole thing.
	So non-competes are, first, they are industry standard practice, particularly here, right?
	Crowder's investing his capital, his asset, his platform in making someone else a star.
	And in that capacity, doesn't want...
	To have spent all of his money for just someone else's profit.
	But there's limits to that.
	And so it should be directly...
	In other words, you can't be the not gay Jared character on another show for two years in this same space.
	Not the entire entertainment industry.
	If it said the entire entertainment industry, that's going to be struck down as elite.
	And then no aspect of the non-compete would be enforceable.
	He says he spoke to a lawyer and...
	It makes me doubt that the non-compete is as broad as some people are trying to imply, because it sounded like when he talked to his lawyer, the conclusion was the non-compete would likely be enforced.
	So unless he got his lawyers from lawyersrus.com, which is possible with this guy, given some of his legal takes, then the non-compete must not be as broad as he's trying to imply that it is, or he got really bad legal advice.
	Now, what Jared got, he's claiming he got some Form 202, which is calling him to provide documents in the context of another litigation.
	Texas petition.
	So there's different ways to do it internationally.
	There's certain letters you can request, for example, for discovery through foreign governments.
	Basically, this allows you not to sue someone, but to seek discovery from them when they have relevant information to another potential legal claim.
	And so, in particular, it looks like their focal point on him wasn't really him.
	It appears the focal point was proving the case against the ex.
	There's two cases involving between Crowder and his ex-wife.
	There's the family court case, divorce case, and a separate lawsuit involving her, her family, and her legal team and others to engage in a conspiracy to extort him using a public smear campaign.
	Apparently, people like Candace Owens are happy to jump on the train.
	Candace apparently doesn't like non-disclosure agreements.
	I wonder if she has any with anybody.
	Leave that for another day, shall we?
	But that's what it appears to me, and it's what I suggested at the time, because the timing of the release of that video, it's what wasn't there.
	That's what we talked about at the time.
	Look at what's not there, not what is there.
	And that screamed, they're planning on an extortion campaign.
	They're planning on a public smear campaign to extort Crowder to give them more money than they're legally entitled to.
	And these nitwits said so in writing!
	They actually said right in writing!
	And so her lawyers, Laura Southern seemed to think her lawyer was some poor schmuck down the street and she could barely afford anything under $25,000 a month.
	Lauren might want to double-check who the ex's lawyers are.
	Just research them a little bit, and you might come to a very different conclusion about their modus operandi.
	She's got lawyers around her that, let's just say, have a kind of Michael Avenatti smell about them.
	And where's Michael Avenatti today?
	Is he in a federal prison for extortion?
	Robert, do I know who her attorney is?
	It's public knowledge.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You can look it up.
	I'll let people look it up on their own.
	It'll be a fun little research project.
	All right.
	Well, with that said, people, that's as much gossip as you're going to get out of this.
	On the non-disclosure agreement aspect, that is commonplace.
	It is commonplace for it to not have a time limitation.
	Unlike a non-compete...
	Almost every non-disclosure I've ever...
	I've been involved in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of non-disclosure agreements.
	They rarely have a time limitation.
	Lauren Sutton seemed to think they...
	I guess hers had a time limitation?
	Most don't.
	That's very rare, especially in the Hollywood industry.
	And the two aspects of a nondisclosure agreement are, what's the employer's perspective?
	The employer's perspective is they don't want the access, giving somebody access to their life and their business to lead to their business being disparaged because of that access that the person previously had.
	But in the celebrity influencer world, it takes on a whole new dynamic.
	Because one way to get money...
	Is to get access to a celebrity of any kind, and Crowder is a celebrity in his own way, and then monetize that access by sharing every secret you possibly know, every embarrassing piece of information you possibly know.
	So in the entertainment industry, it is universal for there to be a nondisclosure agreement, and quite frankly, quite reasonable.
	I had to advise one celebrity client how not to violate an NDA concerning another celebrity client once.
	And finally got them to do it.
	They even had this crazy scheme for how they were going to get it.
	So that is very standard and has nothing to do with free speech.
	It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
	It has to do with, I'm going to give you access to intimate information about my business and life.
	I don't want to have to pay the price for that and you monetizing it against me.
	That's a very reasonable business negotiation.
	Jared's complaints on that are unreasonable.
	Untenable.
	And it's also clear he's been violating it left and right.
	I mean, he's just been ignoring the law entirely on nondisclosure agreements.
	And Crowder, extraordinarily, has not sued him yet.
	So the pitch and portrayal, I think people that have either political disagreements with Crowder, personal antagonism towards Crowder, or negative experiences in the divorce process.
	From a woman's perspective or negative experience with the legal system are projecting that under Crowder's case in a way that just doesn't fit Crowder's case.
	And I've said previously, I have no doubts, Crowder might not be the easiest person to work for.
	But that's entirely different than the reasonableness of an NDA.
	It's an eminently reasonable requirement for someone in his position.
	It sort of goes back a little bit to the Lizzo thing.
	Like, you can't go work for Lizzo and then say, oh my goodness, then we have to go to a sex club in Amsterdam and eat the bananas out of someone's vajayjay.
	Like, Stephen Crowder's got a bit of a set where they're rowdy, immature people making rowdy, immature, but insightful content.
	You can't just say, oh, but your name was...
	Not gay Jared.
	What the hell do you think that work environment was going to be like?
	Not going to be abusive like beating you with sticks, but it's going to be a bit of a saucy work environment.
	If he had any true hostile work environment claims that were separate and distinct from what the nature of that entertainment industry and their particular entertainment product was, then he would have been in a much better negotiating position.
	And it just seems to me like the negotiating position of both Jared and Crowder's ex-wife have been, we have secrets about you that we can share that will embarrass and humiliate you.
	And we will share those unless you give us lots of money.
	There's a word for that.
	It's called extortion.
	Rob, Rob, it's just good negotiation.
	Yeah, you got to walk that line, folks.
	People have been sued for extortion.
	Lawyers have been sued for writing settlement demand letters.
	You have to be real careful.
	Now and then I'll get a client that'll suggest something foolish in that regard.
	I'm like, no, no, no.
	We can say this.
	We can't say that.
	But these people put it in writing, and I just have zero sympathy for that side of the aisle.
	Now, that's separate from...
	I do have sympathy with the discovery issues, which is...
	I'm dealing with this in a bunch of cases across the country, where big corporations...
	Where Lauren Southern is absolutely right.
	Parties with more legal means can beat the daylights out of people without legal means.
	That's definitely a problem.
	I don't know if this is the best example to use for that problem when it appears that you have extortionate criminals who are mad about being exposed as extortionate criminals.
	But at the same time, there is a legitimate grievance about the way our legal system handles discovery.
	In Europe, invasive discovery is not allowed.
	To give an example, in many of my vaccine mandate cases, they're requiring disclosures of all their religious activities, their personal activities, their political activities, every text, email, phone call, public statement they've ever made in their lives, every social media account.
	And if you don't turn over any of it right away, if you object on any basis, they run to the court and scream, sanction, sanction, sanctions, please dismiss the case.
	They make your life living hell after discriminating against you.
	One of the worst abusers is 3M.
	3M is one of the scuzziest, sleaziest companies.
	It's getting up there with Tyson Foods and the kind of attention I'm going to pay to it in the future because it's harassing ordinary working class people that it discriminated against that they just admitted in deposition testimony.
	They had no basis to discriminate against it.
	And in fact, it appears 3M targeted Christians to discriminate against especially.
	They would recognize other religious objections, just not Christian religious objections.
	I'm sure they would recognize trans rights and trans preferences over religious preferences.
	The law firm defending these scuzz bags is also a scuzz bag law firm with a long anti-labor history, but they have a big diversity, equity, and inclusion promise.
	I mean, what a bunch of frauds.
	And I have long argued.
	California is very robust.
	Outside of California, the law is very underdeveloped.
	That yes, you do have privacy rights against discovery.
	Because whereas you have no rights of privacy or other things in terms of private negotiation, the Constitution doesn't apply to your contracts, it does apply when the court is enforcing discovery.
	That's a different animal.
	Or when the court is enforcing a non-compete.
	I mean, that's how a lot of the racially restrictive injunctions got struck down, is because courts couldn't enforce them.
	And so there's differences between the two.
	Every court action is state action.
	That's the important thing to remember.
	This is why defamation law becomes a First Amendment issue, because that's the court making an order.
	That's using state power.
	So in the context of them seeking discovery from him, he was objecting on privacy grounds.
	Well, both under Texas law and under federal law that's applicable to Texas courts, you do have a robust right of privacy that almost nobody is litigating.
	I'm one of the very few lawyers in the country.
	And I'll tell you, you'll run into hostile courts.
	Now, I'll also say, it looks to me like Crowder's discovery requests are all reasonable.
	The issue in privacy is when they're asking for information that is private, that isn't reasonably related to the case.
	If it's reasonably related to the case, the very nature of the underlying case allows it.
	And a 202 petition in Texas is a very broad discovery process.
	It doesn't appear to me they were seeking every communication he's ever had.
	If they were, then that's way too overbroad.
	He can fairly and legally and constitutionally object.
	What they are entitled to is to look at communications concerning Crowder to any of those people, but not if it doesn't concern Crowder.
	They both have the nondisclosure agreement, but also it would be relevant to Crowder's separate civil lawsuit against his ex-wife, lawyer, family, and others who are involved in the alleged conspiracy to extort him.
	And again...
	You know, Crowder's people have produced written proof of what looks to me to be clear evidence of a conspiracy to extort Stephen Crowder involving not gay Jared at some level, or at least trying to get him involved, and the ex-wife.
	And she's seeking money she's not legally entitled to by her own admission!
	I mean, come on, folks!
	Never in writing!
	Come on!
	This is not hard!
	We're going to move over to Rumble now.
	The link is in the pinned comment, but before we go there...
	To read the Rumble rants to everybody, and I'll go through these quickly while everyone makes their way over to Rumble.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Getting this in early so you have a chance to notice.
	Made this for Barnes, maybe for the after party.
	I'm going to screen grab that.
	That is from Finboy Slick.
	I'll see what that is.
	Rivka the Jade Gamer.
	Easter is the resurrection, the sign that his death was sufficient to blot out our sins.
	is christian jew then i'm not maybe i don't know we'll see what i am in 10 years uh denise and to david easter is happy today jesus has risen as he said his prophecy has been fulfilled rejoice in today's promise mickey 82 of all statistics are made up but i've been by the boom bad brisa arian happy easter david to you and your beautiful family thank you very much hairy toe too i thought that said said hairy joe too that's because i got joe biden on the I'm cooking cut-up hot dogs for dinner to celebrate.
	See, that's what I have to read the whole thing before saying it out loud.
	Joanna Pinn, the community make it, the community taketh away.
	Lee Guy says, have you seen Judge DeThomas in Levy County, Florida, who is attacking the Constitution?
	He tried to gag the entire internet.
	Someone mentioned that last week.
	I haven't seen that yet.
	I'll look for it for tomorrow.
	Happy Resurrection Day, everyone, says Agape Novels.
	The rebirth of this nation is upon us.
	I'm excited, so praise the Lord, for he...
	For all he has done and for what is about to happen.
	Barbisa, Ariane, for all the dumb Doomcofs in the chat boosting your nut rumbles.
	Retired geek.
	In Ontario, I know in Ontario many years ago, my employer tried to get us to sign non-compete.
	A bunch of us took it to the labor lawyer and he told us that the law cannot prevent an employee from seeking a job.
	True.
	Panther AI.
	I'm of the opinion that non-competes are not a bad thing provided they pay for the time.
	I can't perform the job I'm trained to do.
	If I can't work for two years, I want to get paid for those years.
	The argument is going to be you made that money up in the job that you had leading up there and now you don't get to capitalize on both ends.
	Nancy Mace is cute and has a body on her.
	Remember when she said she was late to the prayer breakfast because her boyfriend wanted to...
	What the hell is going on?
	Sweaty Zeus.
	You're trying to get me in trouble here.
	Sweaty Zeus says, crime hasn't plummeted.
	They're just counting convictions, which they stopped.
	We have to learn how to refute their lies to win the people.
	Mr. Giggle.
	I'm sure Jared actually has a non-compete because he started a social media management company two months after he left Crowder.
	I think he violated the non-solicitation clause trying to get clients.
	There you have it, people.
	All right, what we're going to do now?
	I'm sure he did.
	To my knowledge, Crowder didn't take any action.
	So it's like there are legitimate criticisms of non-competes, legitimate criticisms of non-disclosure agreements.
	They're just not applicable in the Stephen Crowder case.
	And there's people that are rallying to the side of Jared and the ex and other people who are just making a mistake in doing so.
	They're going to end up on the side of the Michael Avenatti's of the world.
	Bad place to be, folks.
	Well, it's a perceived underdog.
	They see, you know, Crowder's the big guy.
	There's some underdogs that are actual underdogs.
	And then there's the Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti's of the world.
	All right.
	We're ending on YouTube.
	Get your butts over to Rumble if you're watching this tomorrow.
	I'll put up the entire stream.
	VivaBornsLaw.locals.com.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Now we're on the free speech platform.
	Robert, speaking of gag orders and the crap coming out of New York.
	All right.
	So, I mean, where do we start?
	Let's start with the gag order.
	That is in the Judge Juan Marchand.
	Alvin Bragg, prosecution, persecution of the Stormy Daniels Hushbunny bullshit.
	Bullcrap.
	It's bullcrap.
	I mean, you know what the natural transition there was?
	From one extortion to the victim of extortion who's now being prosecuted for being the victim of extortion in the case of President Trump.
	That was the truth.
	I had another one about gagging, but I won't do that one.
	Robert, so the judge issued something of a limited gag order.
	When I'm reading it, any gag order that goes beyond standard criminality already, like extortion, interference with witnesses, intimidation, are already crimes.
	Any gag order that goes above and beyond that has to need some justification.
	In this case, Marchand, who didn't like the Truth Social post where Trump...
	Is it rightly points out that Murchant's kid works for some political think tank?
	Is that a known fact?
	Yeah, it's been published by the New York Post, another publication, that she's deeply embedded within the Democratic Party apparatus.
	Now, to be honest, probably almost every judge in New York is.
	I've represented many people in New York in various kinds of cases over the years.
	Wesley Snipes against a very abusive New York proceeding, totally separate from the Florida criminal case.
	And represented Amy Cooper in New York and got full dismissal with prejudice of all the charges.
	But one reason to do that, as I told people afterwards, if you're in New York, nobody in their right mind wants to go in front of those New York judges.
	I've often said, if it wasn't for the District of Corruption, the D.C. courts, the Southern District of New York is the most corrupt legal system in America, and the state system is actually worse.
	You know, popularly portrayed in Law and Order as this wonderful bastion of integrity and impartiality.
	It hasn't been ever since that famous prosecutor, Robert Morgenthau, stepped down.
	It always had problems, but it's been atrocious since he left.
	I mean, Amy Cooper never should have been prosecuted.
	That was basically a selective social media PR political case.
	But they put their best prosecutor, the Harvey Weinstein prosecutor, on Amy Cooper's case.
	And then they brought in the cops that usually work the cold cases.
	So they literally brought in their three best detectives and the entire New York Police Department, which is really one of the best police departments in the world, with one of their best prosecutors for Amy Cooper.
	Because she didn't like...
	Somebody's trying to take her dog away from her and making threatening statements towards her.
	Who was it?
	Who was the DA?
	The DA on the Amy Cooper case was the lead prosecutor against Harvey Weinstein.
	You're talking about one of the top prosecutors in America.
	That's what we were up against.
	That's why other people were like, you're screwed, Barnes.
	Well, we got dismissal of prejudice, baby, so that worked out.
	But it was because, no way, we were marching forward in front of those New York courts.
	And the insanity of those New York courts is just astounding.
	Anybody who goes through it is often shocked, right?
	They think of judges, this is New York, right?
	The beacon of America.
	You know, the sophisticated cultural capital of America, the economic capital of America.
	Surely its courts are that way.
	No!
	They're like Judge Old Man Perv in like this fraud of a judge.
	I mean, as a bunch of people have been pointing out, anybody that's honest about the law would say this judge should recuse himself just like Fannie Willis should have been disqualified.
	This judge is politically prejudiced.
	He's openly partisan.
	He's rushing and pushing a completely bogus case that could be completely dismissed and made moot by the Supreme Court by June.
	By applying presidential immunity in a broad way like it constitutionally should be and needs to be at the moment to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
	And instead, this rogue judge, this conflicted judge, this partisan judge, is rushing trial on a bogus case that's never been prosecuted like this ever.
	This legal theory they're pursuing, never been used by New York or any court ever.
	Again, they're being used against the former president.
	To interfere with the 2024 election so their buddy Biden can have an easier path to reelection.
	This judge is violating the federal civil rights of President Trump.
	And with an honest DOJ, it's this judge that would be facing criminal charges.
	And when we talk about First Amendment rights and freedom of speech, this would be one of those cases where it's the government imposing...
	Constitutional violation.
	And you don't take my word for it.
	Dershowitz said the same thing.
	Early said the same thing.
	Other First Amendment scholars.
	Where is the American commie-loving union these days?
	The ACLU is nowhere to be found.
	Robert, they're celebrating...
	They're celebrating...
	I don't know if I'd be the right lawyer to bring the case.
	The judge will probably put me in jail as soon as I walk into the courtroom.
	But somebody should bring a challenge because they're denying us access to Trump.
	And you have an independent right as the audience.
	This is a point Robert Kennedy repeatedly makes.
	The audience has a free speech right.
	Not just the speaker.
	The audience has the right to hear it.
	And they're denying that.
	And this is established law.
	And so if somebody, you know, Gateway Pundit, some other people should bring.
	Mike Cernovich helped open up the Epstein files by bringing an independent challenge as an independent member of the media that helped blow that up on social media and get more attention to what the heck they're hiding there.
	Somebody should bring the same challenge here because this is a patently unconstitutional gag order.
	It has nothing to do with protecting the impartiality of the jury.
	Let me read it so that people appreciate what it says in here.
	It says, the grantee gag order to the extent of making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding.
	That sounds like witness tampering, which is already illegal.
	So why put it in there?
	And what does it mean in terms of the phraseology?
	You got B, making or directing others to make public statements about one, counsel.
	Let's talk about part one.
	Part one is the Biden Justice Department has one of the top Biden allies running the case because Alvin Bragg's too stupid to do it and he didn't want to do it because he thought it was a politically dumb case to pursue.
	So the real author, just like what's happening with Fannie Willis, you dig into it, you're going to find big Biden allies placed in high-ranking positions in those offices.
	On these cases.
	And that's what the judge doesn't want anybody to know about.
	This is the judge covering up corruption of the prosecution, which is never a permissible basis of a gag order.
	Just like the way it says, making or directing others to make public statements.
	And how are they going to determine if others have been made to direct public statements?
	Okay, fine.
	It's going to suppress anybody in the Trump world for making a statement by blaming Trump if the statement occurs.
	Members of the court staff and the district attorney staff or the family members.
	I mean, this is like, don't talk about my daughter.
	Don't talk about Bruno or the family members or any council or staff member.
	See, all of these provisions about gag orders only relate to the jury.
	That's it.
	None of this applies to the jury.
	He wants to protect the district attorney from being exposed for his corruption.
	He wants to protect the Biden administration from being exposed from the corruption.
	He wants to protect the judge and his family from being exposed from the corruption.
	That's what he's doing.
	This is abusive judicial power, violation of federal civil rights.
	What the judge is doing is a federal crime.
	And judges like this need to be looked at for criminal prosecution.
	Otherwise, they will keep doing this.
	They will weaponize their power without any limits and we'll get the...
	The French Revolution's council making judgment and decisions here.
	So that's why we've got to put a stop to this before it gets out of hand.
	And we've got the last one.
	Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding in the foreground.
	That's about the Roger Stone case.
	That's about making sure the world doesn't know of potential prejudiced jurors sneaking onto the jury.
	The Derek Chauvin, you get activist jurors who sneak in literally like a runaway jury.
	Because you don't let anybody know that they're on the jury.
	Bottom line is, or seeking it to be on the jury.
	That's public information.
	When you're a juror, I have never agreed with juror anonymity.
	I've never agreed with juror secrecy.
	That information has to be, especially during the jury selection process.
	But even the argument is stronger during that process than once they're on the jury.
	There's legitimate concerns about you can't say something that is likely to intimidate a juror during a trial.
	No, duh.
	I mean, that's already on the books.
	You don't need really a gag order for that.
	That's already prohibited.
	So, you know, this gag order is intended to...
	Have a Star Chamber-like proceeding that covers up the corruption of the judge, that covers up the corruption of the prosecutor, that covers up the corruption of the Biden administration, and covers up the likely complete corruption of the entire jury trial process.
	And it starts off with anger on.
	It goes to Chutkin.
	And then they all feel empowered because other judges have done it.
	Nobody's been judicially spanked when they all deserve to be.
	The mistake they're making is they're putting maximum pressure...
	On the Supreme Court, particularly pragmatic jurists like Robertson Kavanaugh that would much rather be uninvolved in these cases, not be perceived as on Trump's side, they're forcing them to protect the judiciary from itself by stepping in and granting the broad, because the best and cleanest and easiest way for them to save the judiciary from itself is to stop all of these cases.
	And the best way to stop all of these cases is a very broad grant of immunity.
	And they are dramatic.
	All these rogue judges are so reckless, so careless, so heedless that they are pushing the Supreme Court to gut all of their cases.
	And they'll deserve it when it comes down.
	So he's issued the gag order.
	Trial is scheduled to start on August 15. There's going to be jury selection, right?
	Have they started jury selection now?
	They were starting it, and then...
	They discovered thousands and thousands of pages of documents that the DOJ, Biden's DOJ, had been hiding.
	You still think this is going to get started on August 15?
	Not if the Supreme Court rules before then on that Trump has brought immunity.
	And that's what all these rogue judges are doing.
	They're forcing the Supreme Court to take an action.
	They would much rather have the ostrich strategy.
	They'd much rather play Pontius Pilate.
	But they're forcing them.
	Like the election cases.
	They should have waited on those.
	Bring those ballot cases later.
	Don't bring on the Republican primary challenge.
	Don't have some liberal commie judge issue some nutty ruling.
	And that forced even the liberals to join the others.
	And so they're doing the same thing.
	They are so used to their own power and abusing their own power.
	They don't know what it means.
	To be restrained.
	They don't know what it means to get blowback.
	They have no concept of that.
	That's how out of touch our elites are.
	They're not just corrupt.
	They're stupid.
	Well, alright, we're going to see what happens if this trial starts on August 15th.
	My prediction is it's not.
	I don't know what...
	Is it August 15th?
	Someone in the chat said they thought it was April 15th.
	I meant April.
	I meant April.
	I forgot what month we're in because...
	It always feels like summer in Florida.
	It's ridiculous.
	But I mean, the judge is trying to rush a trial to embarrass Trump before the Supreme Court can say the whole trial was illegal to begin with.
	Yeah, I meant April 15th.
	I didn't mean August at all.
	You can't pick an impartial jury.
	I was on Sky News in Australia, and they did the documentary evidence they needed to do that showed it was not possible to get an impartial jury in New York.
	That's a 95% anti-Trump jury that it comes in with a presumption of guilt when the presumption of innocence has to apply.
	And the judge knows that, but he doesn't care because he wants a lynching jury.
	And a lot of this was put into motion, by the way, when too many lawyers on the right, too many legal scholars and commentators, kept their mouths shut when they did lawfare against Alex Jones.
	We said at the time, this is the roadmap.
	They're going to, just like when they did with social media, take out Alex Jones first, take out President Trump next.
	They took out Alex Jones first.
	You know, denying him of a meaningful jury trial on the merits, using ridiculous proceedings to do so, ridiculous restrictions on his speech and punishment for his speech outside of the courtroom, ridiculous jury selection proceedings that led to prejudiced jurors issuing absurd, laughable verdicts.
	Defaulting him from any meaningful defense like Ingeron did to Trump, like Chutkin tried to do.
	I mean, there's no way you can get an impartial jury in New York for Trump.
	Or D.C. It's not possible.
	And these judges are so clueless, so daft, that they're as daft as that January 6th judge who decided to do an interview on the news talking about his cases and talking about Trump.
	That's how ego-ridden these judges are.
	The only thing it's going to do, the federal judges, congressmen should be initiating impeachment proceedings now.
	Not running around finding the latest way to money launder to Ukraine, but figure out impeachment proceedings now.
	Because these judges are way past the pale of any degree of ethical limit, legal limit, constitutional limit.
	They will only respect impeachment and criminal indictments.
	And that's what they need, because that's who they've become.
	And if they want to say nobody has immunity, fine.
	Then judges have no immunity.
	You can get sued into oblivion, too.
	You can go to prison, too.
	You still like that idea, judges?
	You love it when you're taking it away from Trump.
	The problem is, I would like it to be taken away from judges, but would argue that it should not be taken away from Trump.
	But it's an asymmetrical relationship anyhow.
	So that's it.
	We'll see if it starts April 15th.
	At least the New York appeals court partially realized how embarrassing their case was, and they gave him the bond that he said he could post.
	Now, they should have done the right thing and just stayed the case, pending appeal.
	Given how absurd and asinine the case is and how embarrassing it is to the city and state of New York.
	But, I mean, these people are just so clueless.
	They don't understand what they're doing to their own society.
	I mean, everyone knows this because they've probably seen my vlog and my tweet on this, or tweets.
	Angeron, in his ruling, it wasn't just $355 million plus interest.
	Bard Weisselberger, whatever that guy's name is, and there's another one.
	I forget his name now.
	Barred them from being able to do business, you know, be on the board of directors of any company in New York for three years.
	Barred Trump and his kids from being, you know, being on the board or involved in companies for three years.
	Barred Trump from borrowing from banks in New York as he's expected to postpone.
	I mean, it's such an obvious, in your face...
	Transparent, manufactured, bankruptcy, whatever you want to call it, that it's juvenile.
	It's beyond anything you'd expect.
	You can't find a single example of Putin ever doing this to anyone.
	He's been abused of it, but there's no comparable scale.
	There's no case as abusive as this case towards Trump.
	A kangaroo court ruling of $450 million and then a prohibition on borrowing from banks in New York for three years.
	I mean, it was stupid.
	New York courts look like 18th century Australia, 19th century Australia.
	All kangaroos and railroads.
	And that's all you're getting.
	And it's embarrassing.
	We'll see if the Georgia appeals court has any common sense, more so than the New York appeals court did.
	The New York appeals court just, you know, stopped the political affairs by drastically reducing the bond.
	And then, you know, Trump had one of his classic Trump moments.
	Somebody said, how are you going to post that bond, Trump?
	He said, cash.
	It's good to be rich.
	For those who don't know, the bond was reduced to $175 million, which he'll post.
	And by the way, this is election interference.
	This is a conspiracy.
	What they've accused Trump and January 6th defendants of is what they are doing right now and what they did in 2020, just on a different level, different means, different method.
	And that is using the legal system to not only defame and smear Trump in the court of public opinion with these bogus cases, not only to tie him up so he can't campaign by having to be present for these week-long, month-long cases, but also denying him and depriving him access.
	Part of that is my theory as to why they delayed the approval of truth.
	Because now truth, as soon as it got public, what's happening to the moon is the market value.
	People have confidence in Trump.
	But he can't sell it or use it as a basis to borrow money now for six months.
	And now he's denied access from using his New York real estate or even the New York banks, which is every bank, pretty much.
	Every big bank has offices in New York.
	So this whole goal is to keep him from having money to be able to self-fund his campaign.
	We've never seen anything like this in American legal history.
	Every one of these judges belongs behind.
	Bars.
	It is transparent to the point where Kim Jong-un is laughing.
	Yeah.
	Oh, prevent him from borrowing.
	And people were hypothesizing that the amount of the award was roughly how much he had in the conference for the election.
	I think it was much more than that.
	But anyhow, that's the gag order.
	No, so that's not the gag order.
	That's the appeal reducing the staying a portion of the interim judgment.
	So he only has to put up $175 million.
	All of those restrictive covenants as relates to getting involved in business and borrowing stayed.
	Okay.
	Good logic's a New York lawyer, and he does media coverage.
	Maybe he should bring a suit, motion to intervene, and demanding changing of the gag order and various orders trying to seal documents in the case, because he's been covering this case in the media and the press.
	He himself is a lawyer, so he wouldn't need a higher counsel.
	He could represent himself pro se.
	And, you know, good logic.
	Could bring the case saying, I want access to Trump's words because I'm entitled to this and the public is entitled to this about things that are not the permissive scope of a gag order.
	I think that'd be perfect for good logic to do.
	If he ends up in jail, we'll bail you out.
	You might have to flee New York.
	Okay, so that's the gag.
	That's the appeal.
	And then we got the other appeal coming out of Georgia.
	Sato drafted a very wonderful argument brief.
	I mean, it's effectively...
	The outline of what we've all been noticing and assessed from the original reading of McAfee's ruling is that it's contradicted by the terms of its own ruling.
	He got it wrong as a matter of fact.
	There was an actual conflict, not just in appearance, but even if there was only an appearance, it warranted disqualification.
	Williams, that jurisprudence, gave sufficient directives to allow for disqualification.
	What else?
	I mean, they go through it thoroughly.
	They've made the motion to the Georgia Court of Appeal now that McAfee has issued the Certificate of Immediate Review, whatever it's called.
	And it requires one of the three panel to say, yes, we'll take it.
	Robert, add whatever you want to add and make your prediction as to what the Georgia Court of Appeal is going to do with this motion.
	The real question is how much political...
	If you get a conscientious court, and I mean conscientious just about the law...
	Uh, then the, then they easily grant the appeal and kick her off the case and require the case to be started all over again by different counsel because it contaminates the entire grand jury process as well.
	And that's contaminates the indictment.
	No, where'd Barnes go?
	Am I gone or is Barnes gone?
	I feel naked.
	Barnes has been, uh, chat.
	Let me know if you see Barnes or if it's on my side.
	Let me go to, let me go to Viva Barnes law for this.
	Uh, everyone did Barnes.
	Disappear.
	Disappear.
	Barnes said too much about the federal court.
	Let me see here.
	Did Barnes disappear?
	Or is it me?
	Barnes is gone.
	Okay, when Barnes comes back, Barnes is definitely gone because now my screen.
	What Barnes was going to say is if the Georgia Court of Appeals is not a judicially corrupt, compromised entity, they will do what Scott McAfee ought to have done and they will yeet Fannie Willis from the file.
	I should not use the word yeet.
	They'll boot Fannie Willis' Fannie from the file because she ought to have been booted.
	And Sadow's motion is...
	It's fantastic.
	I mean, you want to read it, it's just concise to the point, lays out the facts, lays out the arguments, and lays out where Scott McAfee got it wrong and was a coward for having not come to the decision he had to come to.
	People were hypothesizing that...
	Now I'm getting a little nervous because Barnes hasn't come back.
	Let's see if the feds have come for Barnes.
	You still alive?
	But I know Barnes is going to say that if the Georgia Court of Appeal has any street savvy or political acuity, they will kick Fannie Willis out of the file.
	Some people are saying it's just amazing that despite all of this, she hasn't willingly withdrawn from the file because she's compromised the very office that she purports to protect and represent.
	But of course, people.
	She's a role model for all black women.
	She's the face of the feminist movement, and she compares herself to Jesus.
	Let me see.
	Getting a little nervous here.
	Okay, I texted Barnes.
	We'll see when he gets back to here.
	But while Barnes does that, let me...
	Look, it's a good time as any.
	Holy sweet, merciful goodness.
	Let's catch up on some rumble rants until Barnes gets back.
	The next topic is RFK, so I don't want to get there before he gets there.
	iHall86, oh no, Matrix got Barnes.
	Then we got R.L. Kennerly says, jeez, you know, Barnes isn't back.
	I'll come back in a second.
	I can't open two screens.
	Are y 'all familiar with Leticia James' bullying of non-profit V-Dare?
	Would you consider doing a sidebar with Lydia Brimlow?
	A thousand percent, R.L. Kennerly.
	I'm screen grabbing this now.
	Lydia Brimlow, and I'm going to open up a window and Google that so that I know to do that.
	Sidebar, I'll bring her on for an interview.
	Any day of the week.
	I'm going to leave that window open backwards.
	Barnes is in the back.
	Let me bring him in.
	Robert, sir.
	I'll get through some of the chats while we're doing this.
	Ordered some food from Amos Miller from my family.
	They all agreed to order more if they'd like to support his...
	If they'd like to support his family and his fight in his family.
	That's from some guy with cancer.
	Dude, I hope you...
	Nobody's going to make their name some guy with cancer, so Godspeed and fight hard.
	And let us know how things go, somebody with cancer.
	Randy Edward.
	Napoleon came to power because the French bureaucracy was introduced to the guillotine justice system that is reserved for tyrants.
	Now we know why.
	Randy Edward.
	Jeetan.
	Jeetan.
	I second the notion that you look into Judge Del Thomas.
	It's unbelievable precedent he's trying to set.
	Done.
	King of Biltong!
	30 bucks this week.
	Thank you very much, by the way.
	And I'm going to go pick up the order tomorrow.
	I know it arrived.
	I got an email today.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	Free shipping for your Biltong with code VIVA on Biltong USA and Anton USA.
	Biltong, a perfect pairing of high-protein keto carnivore.
	Little guy says, here is the link to the videos on Judge Domotelius.
	Let me open up a window for that.
	And we got King of Biltong is now a monthly supporter.
	Biltong, Godspeed and thank you.
	Let me just open up another window.
	Put that one in here, and I'm going to watch that afterwards without a doubt.
	Okay, boom.
	Robert.
	Oh, you're still there.
	You are there, Robert, right?
	Okay, you're moving.
	So I saw your frozen face.
	I was like, I predicted that your answer was going to be if the Georgia Court of Appeal has any political IQ above room temperature, they're going to yeet Fannie from the file and restore confidence.
	So I'm going to say they're not going to do it.
	We've seen very little courage or competency from these courts.
	I mean, it's been striking and extraordinary.
	It's revealed the scale of the problem.
	We've often had a problem with courts that are partisan, with courts that are prejudiced.
	Having courts that are politically daft, that are politically clueless, that don't recognize how they are being perceived.
	I mean, when you realize that you're trying to lock up the leading candidate for the presidency of the United States, and that every time there's an indictment, his poll ratings go up, you should step back and realize, oh, maybe we're making a mistake here by letting these partisan, corrupt prosecutions go forward based on novel, unprecedented legal theories.
	But they are so clueless.
	They are so much in their own world that they have no understanding.
	They've become very much like the let-them-eat-cake elites.
	of pre-revolutionary France that didn't understand the scope and scale of the problems that they were going to be facing based on their own actions.
	And if the Georgia appeals court, like the New York appeals court, like the New York trial courts, keeps trying to either split the baby or not take meaningful remedial action, it's just going to maximize pressure on the Supreme Court to just say, okay, enough of this nonsense.
	Let's not embarrass the American legal system.
	To an irreparable degree, at least as to these cases, and proceed.
	But we're going to see in the same capacity, same context, whether the courts will be protective of the public's right to choose who they want for president without legal and election interference by this lawfare system in the Robert Kennedy cases.
	And before we get there, Robert, I want to show you one thing.
	So I listened.
	I don't read anymore.
	I listened to the letters from Birmingham.
	Martin Luther King Jr. in jail.
	I think now I understand what Trump was channeling in his mugshot.
	Am I crazy or do you think he was channeling MLK Jr.?
	Well, I'm sure in a certain way.
	And he definitely did.
	Like, you haven't seen him put that face out before.
	So he clearly had prepared for that, was ready for that, was intending to make it marketable.
	They thought it would be embarrassing, and instead it was a boost.
	The irony with all this is Trump is not that troublesome to a lot of people in power.
	He just doesn't defer and bow to them.
	And that alone offends them so much that it reminds me...
	Some of what this, you know, like what the British did to Ben Franklin.
	I mean, Ben Franklin was a classic Anglophile, and they decided to publicly humiliate him because he didn't make sure that the American government completely bowed to the Brits, the American people, as a colony, didn't completely cower to the Brits every time they demanded.
	And by publicly humiliating him, they converted him from an ally to their lead adversary, and it helped lead the American Revolution.
	And so it just, you know, that's how dumb these people are.
	And the only question is whether they blow up the American legal system, the American political process, and maybe the whole world while they're at it.
	Because they're that dangerous when you have corrupt, stupid elites.
	When you have idiocracy in power, that's when things get a little frightening.
	I forgot what I was going to say because there was a chat in the Rumble side that distracted me, Robert.
	Let me bring it up, because I want to bring this up, people.
	Peter Potter, skull, 67. Mr. Gatorbait Fry is being very stupid.
	As a born and raised Floridian, don't mess with Mother Nature and good advice, but I am told there is something in the water in Canada that makes no retards.
	I, first of all, am no longer even hesitating before saying the word retards.
	You all have to understand.
	The ponds are very small.
	If there's an alligator in there, unless it's a stealth alligator out there to kill that has been hiding for 24 hours, you can see gators and they're not big ponds.
	And we were at Loxahachi today.
	The gators are up, but I am very, very aware of it.
	So all that to say, people, get your Viva Fry.
	You can get Wanted for President, the best mugshot of the best mug ever.
	Robert.
	It is true that Martin Luther King in 1957 was pulled over for going 30 in a 25 zone, right?
	That's not urban legend.
	There's a bunch of different stuff about King.
	I mean, he was targeted for political reasons.
	Zero doubt about that.
	And that's what's happening with Trump, and that's what they're about to do to Robert Kennedy.
	I mean, the fact that they are launching this basically a battle over the ballot, this ballot battle against him, is reminiscent of what I went through representing Ralph Nader.
	And what they did in Nader in 2004.
	So this is in Nevada, right?
	Nevada's just the beginning.
	New York Times, other major publications have published that the Democratic Party and their law firms are focused on keeping Robert Kennedy off the ballot.
	And they're going to use every means possible to do so.
	And what it will do is it will expose how fraudulent our ballot system is.
	And that, in fact, it's supposed to be the people's right to choose.
	The ballot didn't used to be controlled by the government.
	We used to bring our own ballots in to the degree when we had written ballots.
	Before that, people could just publicly go forward and say who they're voting for.
	So the idea was to allow secrecy in the process.
	At least that's how it was pitched.
	In fact, what it was really designed to do was to have the state control the ballot, the state dictate.
	How the ballot is done.
	And then under the pretext of, we want to make sure that we need so much time to print the ballot and we need this and that.
	We got to keep frivolous candidates off, which is always ridiculous because we've never had too many candidates on the ballot.
	Justice Scalia himself said that the idea that the ballot would look like a telephone book is nonsense.
	That's frivolous.
	And even if it were, nobody has a problem with the telephone book and looking through who they're looking for.
	So there's never been any...
	So based on a lie, a complete lie, and they use the lies to justify one another.
	So for example, they'll create a process that says, we need so long to print the ballot, and then in order to challenge, you have to bring a challenge at this date, and thus we need an even earlier date for this, and then another earlier date for this.
	I mean, for example, signatures were designed as a way so you didn't have to pay a fee, and instead it's become a million times more expensive than just paying a filing fee.
	It's become a complete crock.
	It's totally designed, and the courts are complicit in it, totally corrupt in it.
	They've repeatedly approved it, but normally they do so when the candidate's an outsider, total outsider, has limited popular support.
	With Nader, they just waged an incredible lawfare, drained all of his budget in 2004.
	Republicans and Democrats conspired against him, but it was led by Democrats.
	But Republican judges and Republican election officials were some of the worst, trying to keep Nader off the ballot because both parties recognized Nader was a greater threat to either one of them than they were to one another.
	Because of how corrupt our political process is.
	But it's unconstitutional what they're doing to Robert Kennedy.
	And the only question is, will the courts realize how embarrassing it is when they're trying to deny the people in their state the right to vote?
	When there's more candidates to vote for president in Russia and Iran than there is in America.
	It was in Nevada where they tried to argue that he can't get on the ballot because he didn't fill in his vice presidential appointment with the signatures that they were also...
	Giving him a hard time over.
	The same state that didn't check signatures at all for the 2020 election is suddenly checking signatures when it comes to getting on the ballot.
	This was my argument a long time ago as to how you could embarrass the government and embarrass courts.
	They used signature matching to keep people off the ballot.
	Barack Obama got elected by using signature matches to keep people off the ballot for his first legislative office in Illinois.
	So this is a longstanding pattern.
	So use that in the 2020 election.
	Because then you'd make the same judges who said, we have to strictly enforce signature matches, or that's fraud, suddenly go, well, not when it's our candidate.
	They would be exposed for the hypocrisy that they routinely engage in.
	But it's our rights to vote for whom we want.
	And a candidate's right to campaign.
	And it's not the government's right to deny that to us.
	On all these bogus laws.
	And what they really should do is just strike them all down.
	A small filing fee is sufficient to make sure the candidate is a serious candidate so that you don't have a confusing ballot.
	All of which is ridiculous.
	The only confusing ballots have been designed by the government when they do butterfly ballots and stupid things like ballots that you don't know whether there's a hanging chad and other idiotic ways they do ballots.
	Or other ways they taint ballots like giving you the wrong pen to use.
	That's when ballots get tainted.
	Tainted by American people having too many choices.
	No, or they print the wrong size ballot on the paper so that it doesn't get recognized.
	It's always the state.
	The biggest problem is the state's monopoly on the ballot.
	It's been a disaster from day one.
	They lied about why they put it.
	They put it in there to strip working class constituencies, many of whom at the time had lower levels of literacy, preventing them from being able to do it.
	From being able to participate in the election process.
	That's what it was about.
	It was all a scam by the professional managerial class to steal elections by stealing literally the ballot, control over the ballot.
	And now they're using control over the ballot to keep outsider dissident candidates that everybody wants on the ballot off the ballot.
	That's the scam.
	Just like they tried with Trump using a bogus insurrection clause interpretation.
	Now they're going to do with...
	RFK based on hyper-technical interpretation of when this deadline is, when you can start here, when you can do that, who can process that, who can do this, all of that.
	But it tells you that the establishment so fears Robert Kennedy and his campaign that they don't even want people to have the right to vote for him.
	When do we find out the results of all of this?
	Because there's multiple states.
	There'll be litigation all the way through September.
	So the Nader cases are a preview.
	And the Nader cases, they try to drag him through every kind of legal proceeding known to man to keep him off the ballot.
	And they even try to, and they'll accuse him of doing what they're doing.
	They'll accuse him of fraud.
	And their idea of fraud...
	Is that somebody circulated the petition that isn't legally allowed to circulate it?
	That usually is residency requirements, which have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional, but they'll try those.
	They're trying the VP component now, even though that wasn't clearly laid out at all at the beginning.
	Yeah, apparently the election worker had to apologize for having ill-advised them when they said you don't need to list your VP candidate on the form.
	It's amazing how they just keep making these mistakes.
	And then they expect the people to pay for it.
	Okay, so you made a mistake.
	Too bad.
	Put his effing name on the ballot and live with your mistake.
	There's other ways to do it.
	They could have various public opinion polls.
	Are you above 1% in the public opinion polls?
	If you are, you're on the ballot.
	Again, this is all predicated on the idea that too many names on the ballot will prevent people from being able to vote.
	It's an absolutely asinine and complete fraud.
	And every judge who engages in it is engaging in fraud against the American people and election interference.
	But they love to do it because when it comes to these election cases, they're partisan, they're political, and they are fraudulent.
	And they have immunity.
	Again, Justice Scalia himself said in what was later printed in publications and internal notes of other justices after they passed on, admitted at conferences and other justices did it the same.
	This is all bogus.
	They all know it's bogus.
	And, you know, a couple of times in George Wallace, 1968, John Anderson, 1980, the Supreme Court stepped in and said, hold on a second, this is getting ridiculous.
	And the question is, you know, this open, weaponized lawfare with this, it's who you give the power to.
	It's the same reason why I'm opposed to licensure and professional managerial class control over who can practice certain occupations.
	They have proven to be a disaster in power.
	The professional managerial class as a class is a disaster in power.
	And they misuse and abuse and weaponize that power for their own purposes and do so in such a way that it's harming the American people, harming our constitutional republic, harming the future of the sustainability of our constitutional government.
	And we'll see.
	Now, I know Robert Kennedy will put up a very able and capable fight back, and that will be aided by the fact that he's managed to reach in.
	To the big tech elite and steal one of their own for his own vice presidential candidate.
	A lot of people kept focusing on her past.
	They should be looking at her present.
	The fact that he was able to go into the heart of big tech world and get one of their own to join the dissident movement that is Robert Kennedy's is an extraordinary achievement.
	She's probably not going to make a big difference like on the campaign trail.
	She's not a well-known person or anything like that.
	But that's the biggest...
	A wake-up call was that Kennedy can reach people in places that other people can't.
	And then the second aspect, of course, is she can fund as much as needs to be funded of any ballot litigation or any other aspect because she was the ex-wife of a Google founder.
	Robert, all I know is someone's going to clip you just saying ballot ass and that's the end of it.
	Add that to the list.
	Trump going to announce his VP pick.
	I mean, there again, there's an extraordinary discrepancy.
	Major parties, you don't have to announce your VP until September.
	And yet, you know, independents have to announce it in like, in April?
	In March?
	How does that make any sense?
	I mean, these deadlines are a crock.
	I mean, the Supreme Court's already said a deadline before August is probably crap to begin with.
	They designed the early deadlines because a lot of independent challengers through American political history at the presidential level have emerged after the conventions, after the nominations.
	And the two major parties want a monopoly on the ballot.
	So they're like, hey, if you want to challenge us, you have to challenge us before you know who we're going to nominate.
	I mean, it's obvious what it is.
	It's such an embarrassment.
	In a disgrace what our legal system does and what our judges do to cover for this crime, for these frauds on the American people.
	But the litigation will continue probably and run all the way through.
	And we'll see how it unfurls and unfolds.
	But one of the aspects of all this, of course, is probably anybody that goes out and circulates petitions for Robert Kennedy will...
	Or, you know, just like anybody saying good things about Donald Trump on social media, it means your bank information is being immediately sent to the FBI.
	And then up next now, apparently it'll be part of the coordinated red flag security center the FBI has set up.
	Robert, before we get there, I don't know how it happens.
	Like, I scroll through the chat and then I see, I happen to stumble across the same guy again, who's saying...
	PewterSkull67.
	Hey, I don't make this shit up.
	And when Gatorbite Frye sits by the water bank and one of those nasty water moccasins is going to get me now, then Gatorbite Rear, he will be screaming, Oh, Canada, help!
	So, by the way, now he's hedging his best.
	It's going to be either a gator or a water moccasin.
	Water moccasins do not live where the grass is trimmed routinely because they get scared.
	I've thought about all of these things.
	Okay, Robert.
	I don't know anything about what you're about to talk about right now, so please tell us.
	What's going on with the red flag laws and the FBI?
	So, as soon as Speaker Johnson helped push through this latest bad spending bill, the FBI announced that they are creating a center, kind of like their anti-terrorism, terrorism screening center, to coordinate...
	I mean, they had, what was their phraseology?
	National Extreme Risk Protection.
	But Robert, we're going to needle Trump on this.
	Is that going to be in the new building that Trump is going to build for them?
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so, basically, these are red flag laws.
	There's 22 jurisdictions, 21 states plus D.C. that have red flag laws on the books.
	And now the FBI wants to make sure those red flag laws get enforced.
	And the way they're going to do it is use federal funds to do it.
	Hey, you want all this money for extra cop here, extra bureaucrat there?
	Then you need to work with our Red Flag Enforcement Center.
	And let's coordinate social media monitoring for these purposes.
	And there's already talks of statements, various videos being shared online that appear to be FBI agents going to people's doors asking questions about their social media posts.
	This is going to be the new excuse for surveillance, the new excuse for censorship.
	The ultimate objective, take away your gun rights by saying you're at extreme risk.
	We already know they think mothers who protest at school boards are extreme risks.
	That people who simply had the words Trump in some aspects of social media were put on alert notices.
	And now they're trying to do the same to pretty much everybody across the country.
	And it's not just to take away people's self-defense rights.
	It's to have an excuse.
	To engage in surveillance, censorship, and harassment.
	That's what this is.
	And it should be an embarrassment to Speaker Johnson that his bill was used to help fund this.
	I thus far have not gotten a visit from the FBI for social media posts, but I expected I started using the R word recently, so we'll see if that happens sooner than later.
	But also to provoke confrontation, like with Alpha Warrior, show up at your door, you know, knock or...
	Concussive grenades and hope for a confrontation where they can, you know, take you out if you misbehave.
	Robert, I was going to segue into the Carrie Lake stuff from the ballot issue on RFK, but we'll do it now while it's fresh in my memory.
	So Carrie Lake, it sort of faded into the backdrop.
	She got sued for defamation by freaking, I don't know what his first name is, Richer.
	Stephen Richer?
	Yeah.
	The weird-looking dude.
	The weird-looking dude who was on vacation in Florida while he should have been testifying.
	The court recorder or the state recorder, whatever the hell his thing was, this is the guy basically who admitted, or at least it came out during that trial, that they were printing up the ballots on wrong-sized papers.
	They were not being recognized the day of, but lo and behold, there was no election interference.
	And Carrie Lake made statements to that effect.
	He sued her for defamation.
	And she, Robert, as far as I understand, I went on a bit of a deep dive while I was fishing by the croc-infested waters here.
	She basically just acquiesced, conceded to his defamation case.
	And I don't understand the rationale.
	I don't understand the logic.
	I heard her explanation for it.
	He sued her for defamation.
	She didn't acquiesce to these statements of fact like Rudy Giuliani did.
	Like, I made the statements, but I don't agree they're defamatory.
	She conceded...
	Basically all the points, but says your damages are zero.
	She said, okay, fine.
	I made the statements.
	I concede to your claim.
	And now let's just go move to damages, which should be zero.
	But agreeing to the statements of the claim means she made the statements.
	They were false.
	She made them with actual malice because he was a public figure.
	What the hell is going on, Robert?
	What am I missing?
	And how does it make sense?
	I mean, I appreciate her explanation is I'm running for office.
	I don't want to be distracted.
	I don't want to waste money on this.
	But how do you basically acquiesce to guilt?
	Unless I'm misunderstanding what she actually did.
	Or basically acquiesce to liability.
	Said that, I'll admit liability, but I don't think you have any damages.
	So let's proceed to that.
	Yeah, I should have clarified liability because it's civil and not guilt because it's criminal.
	Sorry, but same difference.
	I mean, I don't quite, I mean, I get her statement.
	She didn't want to waste the money on it.
	She most likely didn't want the invasion of privacy.
	But then don't make the statements in the first place.
	I mean, that's not a legitimate explanation.
	I don't want the invasiveness of discovery because you might find bad stuff in my DMs.
	Like, that's crazy.
	And maybe they came to a conclusion that the judge they had in the case was never going to give an impartial trial, so they just wanted to skip ahead.
	I mean, it's kind of like the Alex Jones situation where if you have a rigged judicial system against you, what do you do?
	And some argument would be mitigate your exposure.
	Don't subject yourself to invasive discovery that could harm you politically, that could harm your associates or affiliates or supporters.
	That becomes a pretext to engage in basically a campaign against your Senate bid because the judge is going to screw you anyway.
	Come up with a pretext to default you anyway, like they did Rudy Giuliani, like they did Alex Jones.
	Jones massively participated in discovery.
	It's one of the biggest lies about that case.
	Turned over everything known to man.
	What did they do?
	They used that against him and still got a default judgment.
	So if her legal team said this judge is going to rule against you no matter what, And we can't trust the Arizona Court of Appeals or Supreme Court to do anything, and it will damage your Senate campaign, how the case will be kept in the news, then I get it.
	It wouldn't be my instinct.
	I mean, I didn't think she defamed anybody.
	That guy was beyond defamation, but if that's the rationale, but no, then you can't say I'm going to fight and then acquiesce and give him everything he needs.
	I saw interviews on Midas Touch, this jackass, and saying, Full and complete victory because it is.
	Someone says, oh, Viva, that's why these BS cases are chilling speech.
	Yes, and acquiescing to them is going to chill speech even further.
	I don't know.
	Is there any silver lining, Robert?
	I don't see a silver lining in the decision, and that's why I question it.
	Yeah, I mean, I assume they know things that we don't.
	Because if you were Alex Jones way back, would it have been politically, would it have been savvier to save the money?
	Save the public exposure and say, let's just go to damages.
	Jones never would have because Jones was never going to admit he did something he did not do.
	He didn't act with malice towards anybody.
	He didn't even name hardly any of the people that sued him.
	And his statements were much more nuanced than they tried to present over the years.
	I agree politically.
	I don't understand it.
	I assume they know something I don't.
	She's usually made tactically savvy decisions.
	She also just may be down on the judicial system.
	I mean, she's seen the judicial system completely fail to meaningfully correct any of the election issues, was threatened with sanctions for trying to fix them before the election, was threatened with sanctions after trying to fix them after the election, has had her lawyers be threatened with disbarment.
	Professor Eastman, that fake judge in California, because they're not a constitutionally elected judge.
	They're a state bar judge.
	I don't think they should call these people judges.
	Call them referees.
	Call them something that fits it.
	Soviet administrative tribunal judges.
	That's why I say don't call them judges.
	Judge implies you're an elected official or you're a constitutionally appointed official.
	I've never been comfortable with the idea of labeling anyone else a judge.
	It does damage to the institution that the judicial branch is in the public perception by confusing the two.
	But you look at a guy like Eastman, she's recommending disbarment on multiple grounds.
	You knew that.
	She was a complete political hack who never should have presided over the case.
	This is utterly absurd.
	No citizen has ever filed a complaint that was a client of the lawyer, ever.
	There's been no judicial referral, ever.
	This is unprecedented.
	Having third parties complain about somebody's politics as the grounds to disbar them.
	And the fact that Eastman could even face disbarment, one of the most well-respected constitutional law scholars and professors in the country, is an embarrassment to the bar.
	And it's why I've said you can't give these people this power.
	The state of Washington's not doing the bar exam anymore.
	Good.
	Now get rid of the requirement to have the bar be controlled at all by these people.
	Because they're politically unreliable.
	They're not trustworthy enforcers of any good set of principles.
	And all it really does is create an artificial, arbitrary monopoly on who can practice a trade that a lot of people need more access to than is currently available due to this monopoly.
	But it will be politically weaponized against dissidents and outsiders for purposes that are completely contrary to what they claim to be about.
	So, I mean, it may be...
	People watching the Alex Jones cases, people watching the Trump election cases, people watching what's happening to Professor Eastman, what's happening to Jeffrey Clark in D.C. I can see people like Carrie Lake saying, I want nothing to do with the legal system.
	Let's have this be as limited as possible.
	They're going to railroad me anyway.
	So rather than railroad me and cost me a million dollars and cost me a lot of political embarrassment and let the news people run with it every week for the next six months, I'm out of it.
	See if you can get any money.
	Fine.
	Go at it.
	But that's how, what it really shows when candidates, leading candidates for the United States Senate have no confidence at all in the Arizona judicial system to be impartial.
	It's the Arizona judicial system that should be on trial.
	Yeah, well, it's fair enough.
	And I'm not going to judge her and call her controlled opposition or whatever.
	I just think it's a bad move.
	And when the system is corrupt, you go the Alex Jones route and let it show you how corrupt it is and show the world.
	Donald Trump as well.
	But the dude, the fucking guy is suing you for defamation.
	Don't concede.
	Dial back on your lawyers if you have to.
	And contest it.
	And make him prove his damage.
	Make him prove liability.
	Make him prove actual malice.
	I don't understand it.
	I would ask her the same questions in real time.
	What she's doing is she's drastically limiting discovery.
	Yeah, but by conceding liability, that's an easy way to do it.
	That's the benefit of it.
	You drastically reduce the ability of the other party to inquire into a bunch of issues you don't want them to inquire into.
	Yeah, but the other problem is having seen the way the jury or court system rules in terms of liability, she's not sheltering herself from anything by doing this.
	They'll slap her down with a billion dollars in defamation damages now that she's admitted liability because it almost seems more culpable.
	It's definitely high risk.
	Definitely high risk.
	Give yourself a heart attack, Robert.
	I don't know whether the legal advice she received was good or bad.
	Looking at it externally, it's not the path I would have read.
	I love it.
	You're so polite.
	It cannot be good advice.
	Period.
	I will ask her this in real life if I ever see her again.
	This is terrible and bad.
	There's no silver lining.
	So, nice.
	You saved some money and acquiesced to that.
	I mean, the problem is if the judicial system is that bad, they're going to do it to you anyway.
	Willingly or not.
	And there's a word for that.
	Okay, Robert.
	I've got to get to the email.
	Oh, election cases.
	The other big topic voted on by the board tonight.
	We've got two of them.
	Speaking of election cases, Pennsylvania and Michigan, including...
	Some better news than what Carrie Lake ever got out of the Arizona courts.
	Well, I read those decisions and I didn't understand anything and I got a little distracted and I tuned out afterwards.
	Pennsylvania, it had something to do with signatures.
	I'm not sure if it did.
	Robert, what's the Pennsylvania good news?
	So the Third Circuit finally got around a ruling on a case that really had gone all the way back in part to 2020, which is...
	The biggest impact of the case is it puts a nail in the coffin of many of the strategies the Biden administration was planning on using.
	So the Biden administration was planning on using the federal civil rights laws to invalidate any effort to make sure we had election integrity in 2024.
	And the issue is that under Federal Voting Rights Act, That any law that is immaterial is unnecessary, if you will.
	If somebody makes a screws up in some way and how they do something during the election process in terms of a voter, that their vote still has to be counted as long as the error was immaterial.
	In other words, they were someone who was qualified to vote.
	The history of that law was intended to get rid of...
	Grandfather clauses and poll tax clauses and things about limiting who could vote.
	If you made an inadvertent error in your voter registration application that was immaterial to whether you were qualified to vote, then under federal civil rights law prohibited enforcement of that law to deny you voter registration.
	It is not supposed to be applied to the actual act of voting.
	And so in Pennsylvania, they have two requirements for mail-in ballots.
	Well, three requirements.
	You no longer have to have cause to apply for a mail-in ballot, but you do have to provide your identity, and they have to confirm and verify your identity.
	The second one is when you fill out the ballot, you have to date it.
	The outside envelope that your ballot is in.
	It's a sworn declaration.
	And then third, you have to sign it.
	The NAACP and some others were claiming that these were violations of the Voting Rights Act, that if you were qualified to vote, if you made a mistake on the date, mistake on the signature, like didn't even sign it, or something similar, that those were immaterial to whether you were qualified to vote and thus were illegal under the federal civil rights law from being enforced.
	Third Circuit said no, that's not what materiality means.
	Materiality means who is qualified to vote.
	Not how they're qualified to vote.
	And how they're qualified to cast their vote.
	How they're qualified to cast their vote is not governed by federal civil rights laws, the Third Circuit determined, which is a near-death nail to 90% of the strategy Attorney General Garland announced last month he was going to use to strike down all these laws enforcing election integrity.
	So it's not only a massive win in Pennsylvania, it's a massive win across the country against the Garland strategy.
	And right soon thereafter, the RNC finally took action.
	They should have taken a long time ago.
	Probably credit to Laura Trump, though I do think they still could put together a better legal team at the RNC on election issues.
	They could put together a better data team.
	People like Richard Barris, People's Pundit.
	I hope they do go in those steps.
	But they've moved in the right direction with people like Scott Pressler and others.
	But this is another good step.
	They sued the Secretary of State of Michigan for what she did and what she's continued to do since 2020.
	We talked about it here, that in order to have your mail-in ballot counted, the signature has to be validated and verified against your confidential signature in the voter registration record.
	And so, in other words, it's a vote that someone would have had access to that in order to be able to forge it.
	So make sure it's really you.
	Who sent in that ballot, and really, who spilled out the ballot, hopefully.
	That's supposed to be the case, to avoid the fraud.
	The Secretary of State of Michigan, of course, conspired and colluded with other secretaries of state, as came out last month, and was colluding in anticipation of the 2024 election, and colluded previously with Mark Ellis and Democratic lawyers to change the signature standards in Michigan to where they meant nothing.
	They're like, to say, total election officials, you have to presume the signature is valid, and you have to look for any reason why it might be valid.
	So, for example, if someone usually wrote in nice, long cursive and now wrote a flat line with no signature, still...
	Stroke.
	Stroke.
	They must have had a stroke.
	That's how they signed notes.
	Exactly.
	That was some of the excuses used.
	And remember, people whose mail-in vote is rejected are given the opportunity to correct it and fix it.
	So this really only stops fraud.
	If somebody really did make an accidental mistake or screw up, they could explain it.
	This is intended to catch voter fraud.
	People who filled out the ballot who weren't the person who's voting.
	And so the RNC has filed suit, pointing out this violates the Michigan Constitution, violates Michigan statutes.
	It's an unreasonable interpretation, an unconstitutional application in state court in Michigan.
	And so hopefully that case finally we get meaningful signature enforcement in Michigan.
	And hopefully it's a preview of things to come because finally they're focusing on where they should have always been focused on.
	It'll be great to get rid of the machines, but that's secondary to enforcing the voter signature requirement.
	You enforce the voter signature requirement.
	You're going to get rid of a lot of fraud.
	And there's a lot of machines that don't exist.
	A lot of election counties don't have machines.
	So they can't use machines in those places.
	And that means they can't use machines in the places they're at without it being obvious that there's weird disparities between counties with machines and counties without them.
	So the signature matches has always been, in my view, the most effective place to focus.
	And the RNC is with a good lawsuit in Michigan.
	I just noticed that my hair was in a pattern that looked like actual horns.
	So I have to make sure to bring that down.
	Actually, I've had this flight for a long time.
	Dan's Dirty Work.
	Barnes, can Trump win the swing states?
	What are your thoughts?
	The swing states are Pennsylvania.
	He's already bleeding in them.
	Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada.
	It's not can he win.
	He will win.
	The question is, can he avoid losing in them?
	He can lose them.
	And he can lose them if he continues to, if you put someone like Tim Scott or Kristi Noem on the ticket, he can lose them if he continues to embrace establishment politics on certain key issues.
	He can lose them if he embraces at all anything that happened during the lockdowns, including the vaccines.
	That's where he could lose them.
	He could lose enough votes in those states to lose the election.
	Otherwise...
	Unless they lock him up before Election Day and take him off the ballot, neither of which is likely to occur because the Supreme Court's ruling on the latter and the probable Supreme Court ruling coming on the former, he's in excellent position to prevail.
	All he's got to do is prove that he's going to make more of a change than he was able to do the first term to independent swing voters, particularly younger working class voters.
	So the millennials and the Zoomers have abandoned Joe Biden.
	But they may not vote for Trump.
	They might vote for Kennedy instead if Trump is not on the right side of some big issues.
	Food freedom, another one.
	Amos Miller, food freedom continues to be a key issue for enough voters that it can matter.
	The vaccines are probably the big one.
	If he continues to embrace the vaccines with more and more people being discriminated against because of it or knowing someone who was, disabled because of it or knowing someone who was, dead.
	Knowing someone who died from it, then that's the one-third rail that could derail his campaign.
	But it's up to Trump.
	Trump completely controls his own destiny at this point, politically.
	And if he plays it smart, he'll be back in the Oval Office in January 2025.
	Swing states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Ohio.
	And some people would say Georgia, but Georgia's moving.
	Some people would say Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida, and Texas, but those states are moving really rapidly towards the right.
	And particularly because of the swift change in Hispanic votes in places like Miami.
	And so you aggregate those.
	There's really only four states in play that are going to decide the election.
	I would say five.
	Arizona, Nevada, Southwest.
	Midwest.
	Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
	That's why they've already got good decisions out of Wisconsin.
	They've got to keep litigating those on election integrity.
	Now have a good lawsuit in Michigan.
	Now just got a good win out of Pennsylvania.
	Arizona is still a risk factor, but the laws are not as bad as they were before, but probably some preventative lawsuits need to be filed there.
	1776 Law Center may be part of that process.
	Same with Nevada.
	And you can tell what Democrats think if they thought Robert Kennedy hurt Trump.
	More than Biden, they wouldn't be trying to keep him off the ballot in Nevada.
	So they interpret that long term, a lot of those voters would vote for Trump before Biden if they have certain options.
	But they think if Kennedy's out, that they'll get those millennials and Zoomers that don't trust Trump and don't trust the Republican brand to come back to Biden.
	I think they're wrong on that.
	Now, I know that you don't want me comparing you to Mark Elias on the right-hand version.
	I'm the honest version.
	He's the money launderer.
	Money launderer Mark Ellis versus honest election contest lawyer.
	He's a very skilled election lawyer, though.
	Oh, yeah.
	He's charismatic.
	I listen to him.
	I watch him regularly so I know what the other side has to say so I can...
	Oh, he's good to monitor.
	His democracy docket's good to monitor.
	I mean, what they're up to.
	And one time out of ten, I'll agree with the case they're bringing on legal grounds.
	But nine times out of ten, it's to fix the election in favor of the Democratic Party.
	And the Republicans don't have an equal.
	And the right don't have an equal.
	And the RNC could help develop that.
	There's some really smart lawyers out there developing that.
	But they need the RNC to embrace them and put them on the front burner.
	And then if they put together the right election integrity team and the right data team, people like Richard Barris at People's Pundit and others, then they can be in excellent position for Trump in 2024, in November.
	And if Trump just takes the Brooke Jackson exit ramp by celebrating the Brooke Jackson case, saying, I wrote a beautiful, beautiful contract that required the delivery of a safe, effective vaccine.
	That would prevent COVID-19 before Election Day at speed and scale.
	And what they delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not even a vaccine, didn't prevent the transmission of COVID-19, and they even deliberately delayed it until after Election Day to help Biden get elected.
	And to give an idea of how corrupt the Justice Department is, I'll discuss this more when we file our opposition brief, but the Justice Department's only grounds to intervene and dismiss the Brooke Jackson case.
	on the Pfizer fraud is that it would embarrass the Biden administration.
	They're like, hey, our official position in the Biden administration, these vaccines are great.
	So we can't allow this lawsuit to go forward because then it turns out our entire administration is a bunch of corrupt political acts that cause the death and disability and discrimination of tens of millions of people.
	But that's the issue is the embarrassment translates cordially into liability.
	It's confusing the government with the people.
	That's what's happened.
	Like they're saying, whoever happens to occupy the positions in the Justice Department is the government.
	No, no.
	They're supposed to represent the government, which is the American people, the taxpayers.
	They are not the same as the government or the American people.
	And that's the problem.
	And so that's an easy case for Trump to embrace.
	Amos Miller case, where just last week...
	The state intervened, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, filed another motion demanding the judge disallow Amos Miller from selling any food outside the state.
	After the judge ruled in your favor?
	After the judge ruled in our favor against them, they came in and filed a motion for expedited.
	We ought to rush everything.
	This has to be done tomorrow.
	Won't someone think of the children?
	It's an emergency.
	And their whole thing is, you know, you have to abide by the same rules, which is ludicrous, because nobody in Pennsylvania who's selling food outside of the state enforces those rules.
	The Pennsylvania state rules are the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Laws, are about Pennsylvania consumers, not Pennsylvania producers, not Pennsylvania possessors.
	The state of Pennsylvania, the PDA, Pope Redding, the Secretary of Agriculture there, who he must bless your food before you're allowed to eat it.
	Is a saying that even possessing food with any intent to ever sell it to people outside of the state, within the state's borders, is now a crime in Pennsylvania.
	They transport food every day across the state of Pennsylvania that wasn't produced by a licensed Pennsylvania producer.
	They produce food for distribution out to the whole world that is not ever done by a Pennsylvania permitted producer.
	And yet they're trying to make it illegal.
	A crime for anybody to do either one of those things.
	It's an incredible power grab.
	So you have the Amos Miller case, which Robert Kennedy has spoken out about.
	Thomas Massey has spoken out about.
	There are some other prominent congressmen and senators investigating it.
	State legislators now in Pennsylvania investigating it.
	And the only guy that's AWOL on it is Donald Trump.
	Just like on the vaccines, Brooke Jackson.
	Robert Kennedy has celebrated the case.
	Thomas Massey has talked about the case.
	Other high-ranking congressmen and Senator Johnson from Wisconsin has talked about the case.
	Many high-profile public and political figures have talked about how important the case is.
	It's the only means to hold Pfizer to account, the only means to get any accountability for what happened with the COVID vaccine.
	And once again, the person that's AWOL, unfortunately, is Trump.
	And on Julian Assange and Ed Snowden, the main person...
	Kennedy says, day one, I pardon them.
	Trump?
	Mute.
	Silent.
	AWOL.
	Those are the issues that could get Trump beat, that could convince, because the core vote, like when Kennedy announced his vice president, you got the partisan reaction from both sides.
	Democratic Party said, oh, this proves Kennedy is secretly MAGA.
	And the Republican Party said, oh, this shows Kennedy has always been a commie liberal.
	They don't understand who the audience is.
	The Kennedy voting audience that's thinking about voting Kennedy.
	Could care less about either party.
	Could care less about ideological labels.
	There are people who are looking for someone that will change what's happening in our government so it's actually responsive to the people, not controlling, manipulating, and abusing the people.
	And most of them are millennials and Zoomers who have more Democratic ancestry than Republican, but most of them nonpartisan ancestry.
	80% of his volunteers haven't been involved in another campaign in a decade.
	80% of his donors.
	Haven't been involved in a campaign in more than a decade.
	But the Trump world, Trump camp, thinks attacking Kennedy on environmentalism and gun control is what motivates a millennial populist voter.
	Huh, hint, it doesn't.
	They think that environmentalism motivates them.
	Not in the way they think.
	It isn't a 35-year-old, 40-year-old oil worker that's thinking about voting for Robert Kennedy or a coal miner.
	It is instead...
	A working class kid in a crap job who can't afford rent or a home, now can't even afford a car, can't afford student loan debt, seeing the whole system go AWOL, and seeing their lives controlled and manipulated at extraordinary scale, thinking about Kennedy.
	Trump can win that vote with ease because Trump has the ace.
	He's more electable than Kennedy.
	He's more likely to win than Kennedy.
	All he's got to do is embrace just one or two of those issues.
	An example, Robert Kennedy has sagely, not only on top of food freedom, not only advancing medical freedom with Brooke Jackson, food freedom with Amos Miller, and more broadly in both capacities, taking on big pharma, taking on big food.
	He's now added to, as his vice president, someone who wants to challenge the misuse and abuse of power of big tech she's witnessed firsthand.
	Here again, Trump really hasn't said a lot about this.
	And then last but not least...
	In terms of other key issues of financial freedom, once again, Kennedy's the only one talking about the critical role of Bitcoin and crypto and the debt and the Fed and needing an exit ramp.
	It's obviously not Biden.
	He's the most corrupt guy you could possibly have.
	But even Trump, I mean, where is Trump criticizing the Federal Reserve?
	Where is Trump criticizing where we are in terms of certain levels of out-of-control debt?
	Where is Trump in terms of how Biden is misusing the government budget to try to get himself re-elected in 2024 with the aid of incompetent speakers of the House like Mike Johnson?
	And more importantly, where is Trump on something like crypto?
	I mean, you look at crypto, it is a critical exit ramp from government control and government surveillance.
	Until it gets regulated.
	Exactly.
	And that's where our case this week about that, we've discussed this, but it has broader ramifications, is Coinbase.
	Versus the SEC.
	Okay, but hold on.
	We're not getting there yet, Robert.
	I want to bring up two things first.
	The one is going to be the man who's warning me about getting eaten by alligators.
	PewterSkull67.
	If Trump would just come out and say he was lied to about the death jabs, it would be a slam dunk.
	And I cannot agree with that statement more because I made it.
	Earlier.
	Because they did.
	I mean, they deliberately sandbagged him in 2020 by delaying the release of it until after Election Day to deliberately screw him.
	He owes them nothing but payback.
	And so paying them back with loyalty, with propaganda in their favor, is not a promising indicator.
	And it offends and upsets millions of people who know someone who has been victimized by the COVID vaccine, either through discrimination.
	Disability or actual death.
	And that's why it's a political third rail that is almost as bad as saying you want to change Social Security or take away Medicare from old folks.
	That's the kind of political third rail it's becoming.
	And Trump keeps wanting to touch it rather than stay away from it entirely.
	Or properly embrace it.
	Yeah.
	And the other thing you can embrace, the Biden administration's political lawfare is not just limited to Trump.
	I think Trump sometimes thinks it is.
	The Amos Miller case is the weaponization by the Democratic Party of the legal process to try to crush any dissident or outsider, but also crush anybody that's providing an exit ramp from their control grid, Bill Gates dystopia.
	And Brooke Jackson is exposing it in the case of Big Pharma.
	All of these are great opportunities for him to differentiate himself from the Biden administration.
	But another example is the SEC war on crypto.
	That has escalated under Joe Biden.
	Wait, Robert.
	But one more thing before we get there.
	I also want to show this to people who don't know what alligators in water look like.
	I'm fishing at Loxahachi.
	This is for you, Peter.
	Hold on.
	Here.
	This is a rod we got at Dix.
	The first two rods broke.
	I caught a carp right in that spot.
	But look what...
	You can see them if you're paying attention.
	Because...
	Hold on.
	I'm using a bottle cap for the suntan lotion as a floater.
	Here.
	You don't miss these things.
	We're fishing in dinosaur soup, people.
	This is a big frickin' alligator, by the way, just so you know.
	And yes, they can jump out of the water.
	And yes, it's deep enough to allow for that.
	That's a...
	It's dinosaur soup.
	Okay.
	Robert, that's it.
	I just needed to show that one.
	So you can see the gators when they're coming.
	That was a big one, but you can see the small ones.
	Robert, crypto.
	So Coinbase...
	Let me bring up the notes here.
	I have my notes.
	I have notes somewhere.
	SEC is suing or has gone after Coinbase on the basis that they're offering a security in the traditional sense and throwing out prospective investment portfolios to peoples.
	We've been talking about it for a while, but you gotta...
	Flesh this one out, why it's a big deal, what happened recently with Coinbase.
	So the SEC is going after Coinbase because they want to treat...
	The SEC has been going after a whole bunch of people in the crypto space.
	Their goal is to bring crypto under government control by labeling it a security.
	Their first effort was to label it a certain kind of transaction so the IRS could have control in tech.
	And tax it.
	That was their first round of attack.
	Their second round of attack on crypto has been to call it a security and say you've got to have SEC permission for it.
	Not only that, it means everybody that's ever promoted any kind of crypto could be sued as an unregistered promoter because there's all these special rules that govern securities.
	Securities, in my view, crypto does not fit the legal definition of security.
	And in fact...
	Most lawyers in this space have long concluded that, but that hasn't stopped the government from going after them.
	And now they're going after Coinbase, and their grounds is that Coinbase, everything they're doing is a security transaction, that they're really a securities exchange, securities promoter, securities seller.
	And consequently, they want to impose all these controls on them.
	If they really wanted to, they could completely bankrupt them and imprison its executives.
	And so that's the path.
	They are on.
	Now, along this path, there have been some legally conscientious jurists who have said, hold on a second, this really doesn't apply.
	But there have been plenty of other judges so used to rubber stamping the state that they have not been willing to push back against the SEC.
	And the courts have been particularly bad at watering down the definition of a security.
	Security was really meant for something publicly traded on the stock market, not something done that's not that.
	But the courts have long since abandoned that definition and tried to reach every kind of transaction they possibly could that they didn't like, usually for politically motivated reasons or corrupt fraudulent reasons by regulators and administrators.
	And courts have been eager to go along with them because, again, it's all part of a mindset that says the professional managerial class should rule the world.
	They should govern everything.
	And the best way they have to govern is through the legal system and the bureaucracy.
	That's where they want control.
	They don't want control in elected officials.
	They don't want control with legislators or elected executives of a branch of control.
	They want the bureaucracy, the administrative state, the regulatory state, and their compadres in the judicial branch to be in control.
	Because these are the lawyers, the doctors, the so-called experts.
	The professional managerial class knows what's best for you.
	And if you don't do what they tell you, then, well, it's to the guillotine for you.
	And that's what they're trying to do to crypto.
	And people deep within the crypto world have been paying attention, but a lot of others have not.
	It's the greatest legal existential threat to crypto.
	And crypto is, as Robert Kennedy has noted, a potential exit ramp for financial freedom from corrupt governments and central banks.
	And so that's where it's so important to monitor these cases.
	Now, the judges ruled, denied the motion to dismiss by Coinbase, but did so on a kind of...
	Split the baby grounds said that at least some of what may be promoted on Coinbase might fit the definition of a security.
	So I'm going to let the suit go forward.
	But the judge made statements that were also too broad.
	This broad, expansive definition of a security that really doesn't even cover 90% of crypto.
	10% of crypto was promoting itself as a security, but 90% was not.
	I've never been a fan of the dismissal of a suit before a substantive hearing, so I can't pretend to be in favor of it now.
	But having seen the way it's been weaponized, where some suits get dismissed off the bat, like the Stanman case.
	In its initial phasings.
	The judge says, look, we've got to go to a hearing on the merits.
	You sell what some might consider to be an investment opportunity, and it should be a security and not a crypto.
	I'm still on the fence because I still don't understand what crypto is or how it works.
	Crypto is like buying francs and buying euros rather than buying dollars.
	So it can be a store of value.
	It can be a means of exchange.
	It can be a range of things.
	But very few cryptos are, I'm giving you money to invest in it with the anticipation I make a profit based on something other than the value of the underlying asset.
	The only reason I agree with you on that is because I don't think anybody views cryptos as anything other than legalized gambling.
	But that's what I view stocks as to begin with.
	So I'm buying cryptos, not a security.
	It's just gambling, in a sense.
	And I still don't understand how it works.
	If we broaden, if pulling money together to make a profit constitutes a security, every business transaction in the world suddenly becomes a security.
	And all of a sudden, we can lock people up all over the world.
	And we give the regulatory administrative bureaucracy massive power.
	And so this is about preventing them from having power.
	So in the limited circumstances where someone is truly saying, okay, I'm going to...
	Call this a crypto, but it's not really.
	It's, I want you to invest in this project.
	We're going to pull the resources by pulling resources.
	We believe this enterprise will make a profit on an ongoing basis.
	Something that's truly an investment opportunity.
	Now, I still, my view is I would limit this to publicly traded securities.
	I've always been of that belief.
	Publicly registered securities.
	Yeah, exactly.
	SEC law was for the stock market.
	It was not for mama and papa little business operations somewhere.
	It really wasn't.
	It's a ridiculous expansion of governmental power that has been constantly misused.
	For every example you could find where it could have protected consumers, I can find 10 examples where it hurt consumers and hurt businesses applying the law in this way.
	But putting that aside, 90% of crypto is you think the value of the crypto is going to go up.
	Or you want it for its opportunities to be outside of the banking system, to have a means of transaction and exchange independent of dealing with central banks and central planners and central governments.
	And that's what they want to take away.
	That's what they want to control.
	That's what they want to constrict.
	And that's what these cases are really all about, and that's why they're important to monitor.
	Now, Robert, before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, Hold on one second.
	I'm going to share the link in Rumble.
	What do you have coming up this week?
	So I got another red-eye tonight to Philadelphia to coordinate with Amos Miller on his latest legal onslaught and assault for a guy that just wants to farm.
	And then on Tuesday, we'll be on discussing the Amos Miller case and probably the Brooke Jackson case with Dr. Drew.
	So we'll be on there as well.
	Primarily to discuss the Amos Miller case, the food freedom case.
	And then we'll do the live bourbons.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com starting Tuesday through Thursday as we reach the final four stage of college basketball and March bet.
	I almost want to start betting on this stuff just so I can say I'm on the train.
	And nobody understands how bad red eyes are.
	Do you acclimate?
	I used to, but I can't anymore.
	Now it's a tax, but it's the only way to get done what needs to get done for Amos' case in this particular instance.
	It's difficult to get the filly in general, but I needed to be there Monday morning.
	Do you know if you're flying on a Bombardier?
	Not Bombardier.
	Which one is it?
	Is it Bombardier?
	It's usually Spirit that has the best tickets available.
	Okay, now I'm going to bring this up here.
	Hold on one second.
	Trump can't address absolutely every single issue that you think is important, Barnes.
	This is a fair criticism.
	Oh, sure.
	But the vaccine issue could get him defeated.
	So I'm not talking about any conceivable issue.
	I mean, not talking about Amos Miller, I think is just a political mistake on his part.
	Agreed.
	But not dealing with promoting the vaccine.
	All the people that are saying that are either deep, deep Trump people.
	And I get it.
	And they're loyal to Trump no matter what.
	And I get that.
	What they're missing is the objective analysis.
	Are there people out there who might vote against Trump based solely on that issue?
	The answer is yes.
	And that number is growing.
	And the margins are small in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
	Litmus test issues.
	The vaccine is not like crypto.
	It affects far more people.
	All those other issues are easy issues for him to embrace, smart issues for him to embrace, and in fact, it would make him a transformational president if he embraced him.
	Otherwise, he'll just be another transitional president.
	His second term will be as mediocre as his first term was.
	The deep state had more power when Trump left than when he came in.
	He failed to drain the swamp.
	He increased its depth.
	He tried in certain ways, but he also failed.
	I mean, if you don't want to take my word for it, just listen to Trump describe his own nominees.
	Idiot, terrible, horrible, awful, disloyal, bad, couldn't know what they were doing.
	That's Trump's definitions of the people he put in power.
	So, you know, I don't want him to redo that.
	I don't think anybody who really supports Trump wants him to repeat the worst part of the 2020.
	We want him to repeat the best part.
	You can only do that.
	By speaking out about it, not by being mute about it.
	And I remember you saying from the beginning, the only way you reach Trump is by slapping him in the face.
	And I understand.
	Look at the history of it.
	And I appreciate that's what you're trying to do, judicially, legally, and social media-wise.
	Jason of the Greater Area, happy day of trans visibility, according to Biden.
	Mike has bad knees.
	Man, I wish you the best of your knees.
	Oh, hold on.
	We're just lost this year.
	Have you heard about the FBI possibly targeting the Libertarian Party as foreign agents?
	Hello to my mom, Pauline, who is watching.
	Pauline!
	Rock on.
	Frosty.
	Tough.
	Tough.
	The problem isn't the secret ballot.
	Look.
	Look at an Australian Senate ballot.
	Man, many options.
	It's America.
	This kid's going crazy.
	I hear the kids.
	Oh, no.
	Matrix got Barnes.
	Okay, we got this.
	Do you guys hear that, or does nobody hear that?
	If the kid's happy, it sounds like something...
	I don't even know.
	This is screaming.
	Lil Nick 73 says, the vaccine is a sensitive subject to the left.
	He's trying to pull in.
	I appreciate that.
	They believe the vaccine works.
	He's not going to win any voter that loves the vaccine.
	He's not going to win any voter that fits that category.
	And this is Trump's ego.
	He doesn't want to listen to people say he made a mistake on this.
	To this very day, he is proud.
	Of Operation Warp Speed and people should be celebrating him for it.
	He doesn't realize it backfired.
	That it was always a trap and then he took the bait on it.
	And just as an example to how right you are, when I did the Zero Hedge debate last week and Michael Painter, Richard Painter, Vic Painter...
	As someone pointed out, it was there.
	Yeah, I give credit to Trump for his vaccine, but I'm still never voting for the MFR.
	So don't try to placate the people who are never going to vote for him.
	People are trying to come up with excuses as if this is 4D chess by Trump.
	No, it is dumb ego.
	It is dumb ego.
	Trump has weaknesses like everybody.
	And on this capacity, it's dumb ego that is blinding him on this topic.
	People very, very close to him have tried to point this out.
	And he gets angry when they talk about it.
	And he needs to be smacked in the face on this, or he will lose the election or make his presidency okay, right?
	Could it be better than Biden?
	Absolutely.
	It would be much better than Biden, by any definition.
	Could it be as good as it could be?
	No.
	Not if he continues to fail to recognize the problem is the deep state and writ large, and a big part of that problem is the vaccine, is the expression or manifestation of it for many voters.
	So in order to be the best president, In order to be the best candidate, he needs to say, he needs to embrace that they lied to him about the vaccine.
	And that's what they did.
	So it's just repeating what's true.
	Enigmatic Ronan says he trusted the doctors, the so-called experts.
	Fine, admit that they lied to him.
	In that boat.
	I mean, DeSantis promoted the vaccine initially, but Ronan the heck out of it.
	And then at least came to terms with it a year later.
	And said, no, this is a bad idea, and we were lied to.
	This is the reality of many people.
	Every time Trump says something good about the vaccine, he loses votes.
	That's the reality.
	And some people say, well, if Robert Kennedy ends up costing him the election, it'll be because Trump cost himself the election by not embracing populist positions on some of these key issues, but especially the vaccine-related issues.
	It's just a warning sign.
	I said back in March 2020, Don't lock down.
	He retweeted me and said, don't worry about it, Robert.
	A week later, he went along with it.
	Who was right about if he would have ignored, if he would have stuck with his original instincts and never locked down, he wins easy in 2020.
	Or he gets prosecuted for crimes against humanity, Robert.
	I don't know how it plays out.
	All that I know is that my daughter got a book from her best friend and I made her leave it outside for two days.
	Because I'm an idiot.
	And I don't mind saying it.
	I'm ending this on a rumble right now.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the exclusive after party.
	Hold on.
	Where do I put this?
	I put this here.
	This is the link to locals.
	Boom.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com Plenty of other stuff to watch if you don't want to come on over.
	But it doesn't matter.
	We're there.
	Ending on rumble.
	And I'll see you tomorrow.
	Yeah, we'll discuss.
	The FDA at SCOTUS, Supreme Court, and Owen Schroer.
	Big win over the IRS.
	I tried to find this case, Robert.
	I couldn't find it.
	We're going to get it on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending the live stream on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	And I'll be live tomorrow.
	Oh, shoot.
	I'm going to be live on a podcast for the stay-at-home protest in Canada to not give any tax dollars to Justin Trudeau's carbon tax.
	It's noon, give or take.
	Noon, give or take.
	I'll be live tomorrow, then I'll be live on my channel.
	Okay, so we're ending on Rumble and Locals.
	Here we come.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Robert, let me get this here.
	Transgender Visibility Day is Obama rubbing our nose in his shadow presidency the way a psychopath criminal would taunt police.
	That's from Kenny Diaz.

▲