Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 7, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:20:03

Ep. 205: Trump MADNESS from NY to Florida! DEI Dead? Jan. 6; Douglass Mackey & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ethan, fish on.
	Fish on right now.
	Fish on right now.
	Reel it in and set the hook.
	There you go.
	Keep it off the dock.
	It's good.
	Oh my goodness, that's a big fish.
	No, there's no chance.
	There's no chance.
	There's no chance.
	Oh my goodness.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	You could literally hear the moment.
	His heart breaks in half.
	I've only got a 10-pound test on here.
	Okay, Ethan, take this for a second.
	Can I stop a corner?
	Just gonna make sure we're live everywhere.
	As we all enjoy a moment of sadness followed by much happiness.
	It's a tiny circle hook.
	It won't do any damage.
	It was like a half.
	That was a big flipping fish, however.
	That was a big flipping fish.
	It was a snakehead, by the way.
	Let me just make sure.
	I think we're live.
	There was no chance.
	You couldn't haul that thing over.
	There's a metaphor in there.
	The alligator is the government.
	You could have done nothing except what you did.
	And it takes your hard-earned work and breaks your heart.
	Look at the fat part of its neck right now, by the way.
	What's the problem?
	Do you have a picture of the fish?
	I think I got the better part of the video, I think, but that was huge.
	That was wild.
	Look at this.
	Oh, you can see the fish going down its neck.
	I'm done.
	Bubbles out of my teeth.
	That's a burp.
	That was a gator burp.
	That's a personal best.
	We will estimate the size of that fish based on the video recording.
	Oh, he's a monster.
	Oh, yep.
	That's a first.
	One of the gators came close the other day.
	This little bastard got it because we hooked a giant snakehead.
	Snakehead, for those of you who don't know, they're like long, eel-like looking fish.
	They got like wide mouths.
	They kind of look like basses that started getting sucked into a black hole and then managed to escape.
	Can we see it again?
	Well, I thought you'd never ask.
	Hold on just one second.
	Someone in the chat asked if we can see this again.
	How can I say no?
	Well, I can say no if I can't find the flipping video again.
	This was at a place called Loxahachi, and there's gators there all the time.
	And they sit there like a bunch of poachers, just waiting for someone to get something big.
	If you have heavy enough line, you know, you can just rip the fish in, haul it in.
	We did not have heavy enough line.
	Look at this.
	Hold on.
	And you can see the fish thrashing.
	Like, it's a little circle hook.
	Gets in there, hooked it in.
	You can fish on.
	Fish on right now.
	Fish on right now.
	Reel it in and set the hook.
	Look at tug in.
	Boom.
	Look at that rod.
	Keep it off the dock.
	And look at the splash.
	Oh my goodness, that's a big fish.
	You hear the crowd like, ooh.
	No, there's no chance.
	And incoming.
	There's no chance.
	Bastard!
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh, and then you hear everyone in the crowd.
	Oh, the moment the child's heart breaks.
	The kid's very happy because that's a once-in-a-lifetime memory.
	Link to tweet.
	Here.
	People, oh my goodness, it's another Sunday night.
	I will be as honest with the entire world as I have been with our locals community.
	I was texting this with somebody this morning.
	I have been feeling increasingly despaired.
	And I'll try to smile about it.
	We're living through insanity.
	It doesn't feel like it's getting better.
	And it sometimes does feel like it's getting better.
	But then it goes and gets one step worse.
	And I understand Twitter is not the real world by any means.
	The forces at play in the social media Twitterverse, the battle for information, the battle for minds, and the battle to promote disinformation, and the battle to cause despair, and to cause, what is it called?
	Demoralization, is stronger than ever.
	How bad does it have to get before people say it's bad enough now and I'm waking up?
	We're going to talk about the Trump stuff.
	We're going to talk about...
	Everything that's going on in America.
	Twitter is upside down.
	Okay, I'll start with this.
	I was going to start with The Rock.
	Because we're seeing what happens when people start to think for themselves.
	You had a little too much to think.
	And let me make sure I get the right video.
	And The Rock came out.
	And is he going to learn?
	Is he going to learn or is he going to pull a little...
	I'm trying to think of who else goes back and tries to placate the mob.
	Not J.K. Rowling, that would be fair.
	The Rock, A, went on Fox News.
	That's already what an apothate does.
	He went on Fox News and he said this.
	I think this is three days ago.
	The ripples and the tsunami is still washing over the interwebs.
	You made that endorsement in 2020.
	Are you happy with the state of America?
	Am I happy with the state of America right now?
	Well, that answer is no.
	Do I believe we're going to get better?
	I believe in that.
	I'm an optimistic guy, and I believe we can get better.
	The endorsement that I made years ago with Biden was one I thought was the best decision for me at that time.
	And I thought back then, when we talk about, hey, I'm in this position where I have some influence, and it's my job then.
	I felt like that then.
	It's my job now to exercise my influence and share with this is who I'm going to endorse.
	Am I going to do that again this year?
	That answer is no.
	And with that rather attenuated, rather innocuous statement, The Rock just...
	I don't want to use any hyperbolic comparisons or rhetoric.
	The Rock might have had too much to think.
	And The Rock might now be realizing that the tolerant, loving left Are about as tolerant and loving, peace-loving left as a Democrat is the People's Democracy of China.
	I can't think of a good example.
	I gotta get a good example.
	The Chinese Communist Party, the People's Republic of China, or something like that.
	The tolerant left has frothingly unleashed on the rock for that statement.
	The statement was...
	Pretty innocuous.
	He said, look, at that point in time, it was the right endorsement for me.
	Some people might disagree with the fact that because you have influence doesn't mean you have to say things.
	Because if you don't know what you're talking about, having a platform to influence people is sort of a double-edged sword if you don't have the information, the baseline knowledge to properly influence people.
	And so just because you have a platform doesn't mean you have to use it.
	Just because you have a crowbar in the garage doesn't mean you have to smash a window with it.
	But other than that, a pretty innocuous statement, you would think, one would think.
	They have unleashed on him.
	What's this one?
	Dwayne The Rock Johnson is about to go through some things.
	This isn't going to work out the way he thinks it will.
	What the hell does that mean?
	I'm not picking on random people.
	47,000 followers.
	It might not even be a real person.
	It might just be a bot on Twitter.
	I might be getting frustrated at bots on Twitter.
	I know there's a ton of them on my own feed.
	Just like robo-responses.
	Anti-Trump, mega, whatever the heck.
	It might just be a robot responding.
	But the engagement...
	Oh, I can't do that.
	You go look at it.
	Dwayne The Rock says he wanted...
	Sorry, that's not right.
	He's going to go through some things.
	What the hell does that mean?
	This isn't going to work out the way he thinks?
	Oh, I know that's a nifty little double entendre.
	Oh, no, that's not a threat.
	I'm just saying, you know, if Trump gets elected, he's not going to...
	Now, this is...
	Somebody is thinking for themselves.
	An ethnic minority is thinking for themselves.
	And I don't want to say they're all exclusively Caucasian white women.
	But there's a certain trend.
	I mean, it probably is reflecting the demographics of the states at large.
	There's a certain trend going on here.
	Let's see what this one's doing here.
	He doesn't care about black folks.
	How ironic.
	Am I dealing with a real person?
	Who the hell knows?
	Just bots coming out now.
	Now, the bot machine is against The Rock.
	Or real people are coming out and saying, you were an ally, The Rock.
	How dare you come out and say...
	Is America in a better place now than it was four years ago?
	Oh, I don't know.
	You know, war in the Middle East, war in Russia, record numbers of young Americans dying from fentanyl overdose, and an open border.
	Oh, I don't like the word open border because it's actually a checkpoint.
	Piss off.
	An open border south of the border that's let in, how many?
	10 million people in the last four years?
	Oh yeah, but they caught a few people on the terror watch list.
	That's a great indication.
	Oh, America is not better now than it was four years ago.
	Am I sharing Dwayne's optimism?
	I hope so.
	I wouldn't have placed the best that I'm placing with my feet and, you know, feet and livelihood.
	So we can remain optimistic, you know, hope for the best plan for the worst.
	But is America better now than it was four years ago?
	The only people saying it is are the Keith Olbermanns of the world, are the blue checkmark Hollywood types of the world, are the TDS-inflicted...
	Nincompoops of the world who would do anything but admit that things are worse now than they were before.
	On the brink of World War III, on the brink of bankruptcy, I don't know how many trillions of dollars in debt.
	And then the guy comes out and says the obvious, and the frothing, unhinged lunatics of the left turn on the rock the way that alligator turned on that fish, although they were never aligned.
	Oh, people.
	So that's that.
	That was the intro.
	I got another thing that I wanted to talk about.
	I want to talk about Tommy Robinson because it's all sort of looping together.
	Look at what's going on in Europe when you have rampant, unregulated immigration.
	Forget open borders invasion where you don't even know who the hell is coming in.
	I had Tommy Robinson.
	Tell me, tell me, tell me, oy, oy, oy.
	And for all you jackasses who think it's a gotcha, that it's not his real name, shut the hell up.
	You guys are morons.
	You are low-level trolls, low-information-level trolls, thinking that your stupid talking points that are about a decade old work on anybody except people who are as dumb as yourself.
	I had Tommy Robinson on on Friday.
	We had a two-hour, mind-blowing interview.
	And I thought Tommy's shit had hit the fan back in the day when he was jailed for contempt, sentenced to 13 months in jail after a two-hour hearing, after being arrested the day of for doing journalism on the street and recording some criminal defendants going in for the grooming gang.
	And I thought that's as bad as it got for him.
	And boy, have I missed the last two years of Tommy's life.
	So Tommy told me to go watch the...
	There's a leaked documentary.
	It's on Rumble.
	I shared the link with everybody before we got started here.
	I'll share it again.
	Because Tommy's like, you go watch this documentary, Silenced.
	There's the link, everybody.
	It'll blow your mind, Viva.
	You thought it was bad with the grooming gangs and getting sentenced to 13 months in jail after a two-hour hearing for contempt.
	When that happened, people, understand.
	That's the UK.
	That's not North Korea.
	That's not NK.
	That's the UK.
	Tommy Robinson picked up off the street, live streaming.
	I don't care who he was live streaming, and I don't care what court order he allegedly violated, because he didn't violate any, swept up off the street, brought before a magistrate, within two hours, sentenced to 13 months in jail, and he went straight to jail and took six weeks for him to get his first meeting with his counsel.
	UK, not NK.
	Tommy said, you think that's bad?
	Go watch Silenced.
	Silenced is a documentary that he made to deal with the latest scandal that has been impacting him, which is, back in the day, In the UK, this is relatively recently, they had an incident that is akin, it's analogous to the Nicholas Salmon Covington Catholic Kids scandal, disinformation silo that we had eight years ago now.
	If you don't know about this, there was a story coming out of the UK of a Syrian refugee boy who was allegedly, what's the word, bullied by a couple of white boys who pinned him down and poured a bottle of water over his face.
	The 10-second video went viral exactly the same way the Covington Catholic Nicholas Salmon 10-second clip went viral.
	I think it was actually just a screen photograph.
	Except there were no breaks on the scandal out of the UK.
	There was no right-wing media.
	There were no independent journalists writing that wrong, correcting the story, calling it out on social media.
	In the UK, this kid, I don't remember his name.
	It doesn't really make a difference.
	A Syrian refugee...
	Ten-second video clip of two white kids pouring water on his face.
	The video clip goes viral.
	It's called Two Racist Boys Waterboarding a Syrian Refugee.
	The media runs with it.
	Piers Morgan of the world runs with it.
	Piers Morgan calls the 12-year-old white kid vermin, who needs to face repercussions for this.
	The journalists, the politicians, the entire machine runs with this.
	And Tommy Robinson comes out and says, This is, I'm getting information that this is not the whole story.
	And he goes and gets a little more information and then says, oh yeah, this kid who's claiming to be the victim of being waterboarded and the media is running this off as a racist, anti-immigrant, far-right attack.
	Turns out the kid is allegedly a little bit of a problem child.
	Allegedly, a little bit of a misogynist.
	Allegedly assaulted one of his classmates by hitting her over the back with a hockey stick.
	Allegedly was threatening to sexually assault a number of students.
	And allegedly, the younger sister of the boy who was pouring water on his face, where if you listen to that clip, you can hear him say, you don't have much to say now.
	What do you have to say now?
	And so Tommy Robinson comes out and says, this is the true story, not what the media is telling you.
	And then Tommy Robinson gets sued for defamation.
	And then he...
	He's preparing his court case and puts together this documentary called Silence because the people who initially gave him the information as to what actually happened, what this kid was actually like, that this was all an orchestrated ploy to manufacture a race-baiting controversy, none of them want to talk to him all of a sudden when it comes time to go to court.
	And so he makes this documentary where he puts in an undercover camera.
	And I try to steal, man, how this documentary is propaganda.
	I try to steal, like, how is he...
	How is he crafting the story now?
	How is he manipulating?
	Just because I'll scrutinize it that way as well.
	I can't really find a good way that he's manipulating or being dishonest in the documentary.
	He puts together this documentary and then attempts to, from what I understand, present it to the court and gets an injunction enjoining him from publishing the documentary.
	The documentary which has undercover footage of school staff saying this kid was a bad seed.
	Other people saying they got paid to be quiet.
	The girls who said that they were assaulted by this kid, harassed by him, they had to take down their social media posts because they were getting threatened.
	They had to go into hiding.
	And so I watched this documentary, and you realize that this is what happens when the system goes batshit crazy, when there are no checks and balances on the dishonesty.
	I don't know if Piers Morgan has ever apologized for that.
	This is the link.
	And so, I don't know how the documentary got leaked.
	It is currently on Rumble, and it's wild.
	Silence.
	The documentary Silence has been silenced.
	Link to Doc on Rumble.
	And, you know, Nicholas Sandman, but for the countervailing forces, or the pushback, this is what it would have been.
	A story where people went crazy, where people were wrong, where people said stupid things because of identity politics, who...
	Would not have been forced to correct themselves if the entire apparatus was set up to protect them.
	In the UK, can you imagine these politicians?
	I think Theresa May was one of them, but I don't want to make mistakes on names.
	Politicians got up on the international scale, the international scene, and said this is intolerable, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, anti-Islamic behavior.
	It has no place in Western society.
	The white kid is the demon in all of this.
	And there were no checks and balances to rein in the actual, apparent, allegedly true story, which was this kid, by the school's account, by the parent's account, by other classmates' account, by his own school records account, was the aggressor and not the victim.
	But by the time the politicians had put their foot in their mouths, they would sooner eat their entire leg than take it out and say they made a mistake.
	And they brought the entire force of judicial, legal process against Tommy Robinson, silenced him literally, And now he's preparing to go back to court on this a little after the summer to see what his fate's going to be.
	They bankrupted him over this with a ruling because he was unable to basically pressure enough people not to testify.
	It'll be impossible to defend yourself when you are the enemy and the machine has turned on you.
	And in a meaningful way, like we're seeing with Trump, there's very little you can do to protect yourself.
	There's very little you can do to actually defeat that machine.
	Which is why...
	Freedom is not about waking the sheep.
	It's about mobilizing the lions.
	I keep screwing that expression up.
	Who knows?
	All right.
	With that said, by the way, and that's it.
	So I might do a short review of that movie, but that might have been the review of the movie.
	Go check it out.
	I've got to watch the other one where he takes down the BBC.
	Before I get into the sponsor of the evening, let me just say hi to Little Rock Viva.
	I sent an email to Robert.
	It could be a potential sponsor, and I'm interested in buying it.
	However, I want you guys to look.
	Little Rock, I'll go have a look on Rumble, Locals after this.
	The kid gonna have a happy Gilmore moment and find out that Gator stuff didn't...
	No, he will not, Ian.
	Cheryl Gagey, I'm waiting.
	I'm getting worried about the New York madness.
	Could they really jail Trump?
	They'll try.
	They'll try to take his assets first.
	We're gonna talk about what the latest is on the bond.
	Eclipse Day tomorrow is WEF and DOA.
	WEF and DOA Awareness Day.
	WEFDOA.com.
	You'll have to check that.
	And we've got Arrow Guy, $10 in the house.
	Thank you very much.
	People, you may have noticed before you came in here that it said this stream contains a paid promotion.
	And it does because we've got a sponsor of the evening and that sponsor is TWC.
	It's kind of amazing that not everybody's talking about this because I sort of...
	Not raise the alarm myself, but I had the aha moment when the pandemic hit and we got kids who had certain medications.
	Like, holy crap.
	What happens if I can't get these medications?
	Now, this is not for everything, but it's for certain things.
	The fact that on Thursday, March 21st, the court ruled that the FDA must delete every social media post addressing the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
	It's been determined that the FDA lied.
	I'm needling the FDA because that tweet was still up there last I checked.
	They lied in their demonizing of ivermectin.
	And other effective drugs for the last four years, vindicating doctors like Peter McCullough, who pioneered the McCullough Protocol and stood strong despite every cancellation campaign.
	Speaking of cancellation.
	But the question is, the question so many people are still asking, how do I get ivermectin, HCQ, since most doctors are still not even prescribing it?
	This is not medical advice either, by the way.
	One thing is for certain.
	The FDA lost because they lied.
	Coming out and saying, you're not a horse, you're not a cow, stop it, y 'all.
	Who's the idiot now, FDA?
	The damage they've done, whatever.
	How do you get this stuff?
	Keep listening.
	Americans are waking up and understanding that now more than ever, we need to have life-saving medications on hand.
	They aren't just remedies.
	They are lifelines for the next time because there will be a next time.
	And the wellness company's contagion emergency kit, complete with the McCullough protocol, has he covered.
	The one-of-a-kind, this prescription kit provides you with carefully assorted, effective medications.
	Because stuff happens.
	Antibiotics, all this other stuff.
	COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses.
	Ivermectin, HCQ, Z-Pak, Budesonide, along with the Nebulizer and a guidebook for safe use.
	Backed by research and endorsed by world-renowned experts, the wellness company's Contagion Emergency Kit is a must-have.
	You know what the amazing thing is?
	The media is going to try to demonize this Contagion Emergency Kit.
	Not understanding that...
	This is basically just a...
	I would say on steroids, although it's quite enough.
	This is just a souped up...
	Emergency kit.
	What do they call those things?
	Are they called emergency kits?
	I haven't used one in a long time.
	You know, the thing that had Band-Aids, polysporin, those stupid, stretchy things.
	As if that has ever done anything.
	Anyhow, this is a souped-up emergency kit.
	Avoid the chaos wait times and the price of a hospital and have exactly what you need for as low as the cost of a singles doctor.
	Visit www.twc.
	For those listening, I have a bit of a list.
	TWC is Tango Whiskey Charlie dot health forward slash Viva.
	Grab your contagion emergency kit right now.
	That is once again, TWC Tango Whiskey Charlie.
	TangoWhiskeyCharlie.help The Viva code saves you $30 at checkout.
	Kits are only available in the U.S. of A. These United States of America.
	People, we got a show tonight.
	As always, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	For those of you who are new to the channel, I am Viva Frye.
	David Fryehy, for anybody who thinks using my name is somehow like you're revealing my identity to the world.
	I ran for office in Canada, people.
	My name, just as a little piece of info, David Fryehy.
	You rearrange all those letters.
	It spells, did it have fire or it did have fire.
	Kind of amazing.
	All the letters are in there.
	We start on YouTube Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where we are currently live.
	Yeah, I'm looking at my ugly face right there.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	And we end on YouTube, go over to the free speech platform Rumble for the rest of the stream.
	We then end on Rumble and we go over to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community for an after party.
	Here's the link.
	And that's how it works.
	If you don't know who Robert Barnes is because this is your first episode, is there anybody watching right now who this is their first time watching Viva Frye, Viva Barnes?
	I need to know.
	And be honest.
	Nobody's going to be honest.
	Forget that.
	It's a ridiculous question.
	Okay, Barnes is looking dapper.
	Bringing him in.
	Here comes the Barnes peeps.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	We had a big 5% play up at Sports Picks on the Final Four on Saturday, and it, like last year's 5% pick on the National Championship game, like the first round pick this year, like the second round pick this year, it was...
	Cha-ching!
	And we got another 5% play on Monday night's national championship game up at sportspicks.locals.com.
	One of the few subscriptions that pays for itself almost within the same week.
	So having some fun with all the folks over there.
	And some of them are going to be coming out for the big bash this Saturday.
	Viva and Barnes.
	Barnes' 50th birthday bash live in Las Vegas.
	So everybody's got the tickets.
	Get ready.
	The event will start at 5pm.
	Go to about 10-ish.
	So somewhere in that neighborhood.
	Have dinner.
	Have entertainment.
	Maybe Viva.
	We'll even sing a Viva Barnes Law version of Viva Las Vegas.
	We'll see.
	Get those piano chops going.
	I saw the little fella got his fish stolen from him by...
	Alligator, crocodile, that was something to witness.
	It was amazing.
	It was amazing.
	And alligator, not yet the crocs.
	Those I think I would be a little more scared of.
	Robert, what does a 5% play mean?
	We recommend you do certain percentages of your bankroll.
	You take a certain amount of money, put it aside, and that's your investment fund.
	But it's money you can afford to lose.
	So it's not money that you can't afford to lose.
	And then you bet a certain percentage of that on each individual recommended bet.
	So usually that's 2%.
	Sometimes it's 1%.
	But when I have a lot of confidence in an outcome, when I think that we'll win it about two-thirds of the time, rather than 52, you have to break even about 52, 53% of the time.
	But when I feel 65% confident, then I put out a 5% play.
	And we've been hitting those at...
	Higher than 70% since we've been putting them out.
	So we'll see if we get to cha-ching.
	Though SportsPix subscribers, if they want to, are guaranteed a profit in the championship game because we gave out UConn to win it all before the tournament at more than 2-1.
	And now you could bet Purdue at more than 2-1.
	And no matter who won, you'd make money.
	That's the beauty of it.
	One last thing, actually.
	You remind me.
	So Kamala Harris made the news because she's infinitely stupid.
	Talking about brackets.
	I always said, Kamala Harris, dumbest lawyer I have ever dealt with in court.
	I've been saying that since she was before she was a senator, when she was attorney general, before she was vice president.
	Yes, indeed, women's college brackets weren't just created two years ago.
	In fact, the Women's National Championship was just played today.
	I didn't see who won.
	It looked like South Carolina won it.
	South Carolina wants, women's coach wants men to be able to compete in women's sports.
	Oh, Robert.
	Which, you know what?
	Saw some of the South Carolina players.
	You know, just saying.
	Robert, here.
	Listen to this.
	I zoomed in on her face because we've got to see how...
	Do you know?
	Okay, a bit of a history lesson.
	Do you know that women's teams were not allowed to have brackets until 2022?
	Think about that.
	And what...
	That talk about progress, you know, not like the never, but progress.
	And what that has done, because of course when...
	I can't do the whole thing, Robert.
	First of all, what are brackets?
	Like, I'm not even sure I understand.
	I know that what she said is actually wrong.
	I just don't know what brackets are.
	You have a tournament, and it's a round of 64, 68 teams technically now.
	And the brackets are, you have the 1 seed versus 16 seed.
	It's how a team can meet up in the end.
	And so a lot of people like to fill those out.
	There's somebody who's going to win a...
	Free lifetime subscription to SportsPix, depending on what happens in the national title, because hundreds of people filled out our brackets at SportsPix, and that's what that is.
	But the brackets have, as long as there's been a tournament, there have been brackets.
	So it was an utterly inane statement, but it's typical.
	I mean, she's not really an American.
	You know, father's Jamaican, mother's Indian.
	She grew up in Camida.
	She grew up in Camida, like the Camida reference.
	She grew up up the street from me.
	She went to Westbound High School, which was where I used to walk my dog.
	I grew up in Westbound.
	First of all, her whole demeanor is painfully stupid.
	Ty Fisher had a great joke.
	Oh, hold on.
	One more thing, Robert.
	One more thing.
	This is Ty the Fish Fisher, a fantastic stand-up comic, and this was the original joke.
	I can't say these things because I'm not a stand-up comic, but he can.
	Not doing great, man.
	If he wins, Kamala Harris will be the president.
	Don't worry, I don't do an impression of Kamala Harris.
	Obviously, it's not okay for a white guy to do an impression of a retarded hyena.
	It's fantastic.
	I didn't say it, but that's the type of humor that I like.
	Okay, so now I understand the stupidity.
	Robert, what's the book you have behind you?
	A new book out by an old buddy of mine from Yale.
	Jeremy Carl.
	We'll probably have him on at Sidebar at some point.
	He used to get into big arguments with him about populism versus elitism and so on and so forth.
	But he's now more on the populist side of the equation than he used to be.
	But he's written a new book called The Unprotected Class about basically the effort to politically depopulate a large group of the population simply because their pigmentation is of a lighter variety.
	And so it's...
	He sent it to me, which was a nice, it's kind of a no whites allowed policy, kind of like Wisconsin State Bar just got caught doing.
	We'll be discussing that in other cases.
	So yeah, I haven't read the book yet.
	He just sent it to me in the mail, so I'll take a look at it.
	But yeah, very smart guy, very sharp guy, was one of the more true Trumpers that got into the administration late and would have been more influenced in a second administration.
	Kind of like what that alligator did to your son's fish.
	If Joe Biden hadn't stolen that election, then Jeremy Crow probably would be in the White House as we speak.
	All right.
	Give us the menu topics or the topic menus.
	Give us what's on the menu tonight, and then we'll see which one we start with.
	All right.
	We got a lot of Trump news.
	Trump's ready to be Nelson Mandela.
	It says, hey, judge, put me in jail.
	I'm not going to obey your unconstitutional gag order.
	And GoodLogic has been studying the ability to go into court and challenge that gag order as an independent member of the New York commentator community that should have access to Trump's speech.
	We'll discuss that.
	We'll discuss dismissal motions being denied at this stage.
	What does that mean in the different cases?
	We've got the attempts to...
	Take the bond on appeal down or challenge the people that are doing the bond themselves.
	That's how the weaponized lawfare continues.
	We got judicial scandals in both New York and an attempt by Jack Smith and his allies, his lackeys in the media, legal press, to go after Judge Cannon for not bowing and cowering to every demand he makes.
	And we got a sign that Trump had some really terrible lawyers in his first term.
	One of Trump's own top lawyers is out there, Ty Cobb, who's always been a hack.
	He's a guy who should be disbarred, unlike John Eastman, unlike Jeffrey Clark.
	This is a lawyer who represented the president and then shared attorney-client privilege information with a journalist, Bob Woodward.
	And he's out there telling everybody he's a legal expert.
	Guy's a total fraud.
	Legal expert, that judge is going to be recused and disqualified down there in Florida for not cowering to Jack Smith.
	What a fraud this guy is.
	So many people have told me, oh, what a great defense lawyer is.
	He doesn't want a case worth anything.
	Guys are phony.
	But we'll be discussing that.
	State bars, getting caught discriminating.
	If you're white, you're not supposed to apply in Wisconsin.
	Got caught by America First Legal for certain internship programs.
	The disbarment proceedings, the sham disbarment proceedings against Professor Eastman and Jeffrey Clark continue in D.C. and California.
	The abortion pill before SCOTUS.
	Why the right's obsession with expanding the standing doctrine to get rid of suits is going to hurt themselves in the end and cover up for the state.
	If you got a mugshot with having to take off your hijab, you're entitled to $17 million-plus worth of damages.
	They recognize that as a religious right, but not if you don't want to force your kid to be vaccinated in New York.
	Election law reform.
	Zuck bucks.
	Fails in Wisconsin.
	What the implications of that may be as the lawsuits begin to proliferate against election law reforms by a certain money launderer that works for the Democratic Party.
	The juvenile court, social workers, they like to steal people's kids.
	They've been getting away with it.
	Claim they had both judicial and prosecutorial immunity.
	Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit finally did the right thing and made clear they don't.
	And then we got a few bonus cases, the double level of discrimination that's taking place in religious cases.
	We have the Amos Miller update on a brief that I filed and submitted, and you can get it at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, posted it there, freely available for everyone.
	Representative Goldman, the CIA's favorite congressman, getting sued by the Biden whistleblower.
	The Douglas Mackey case pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And January 6th.
	Defendants talking about bringing a class action against the corruption of the Capitol Police.
	I should mention this to everybody, actually, now that I forgot to.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me save this.
	Tomorrow night, 6 o 'clock, Jake Lang is coming on.
	Is he the lead plaintiff on the class action?
	As far as I know.
	So Jake Lang, he's going to come on at 6 o 'clock tomorrow night, so everybody stay tuned.
	Link is going to come up after this.
	Robert, do we do the Trump stuff that we should probably keep in a block?
	And do that on Rumble.
	Can we do, can we start with, it'll be a little bit out of order, Douglas Mackey?
	Oh, sure.
	I think this is, Douglas Mackey, for those of you who don't know, Ricky Vaughn, literally arrested, convicted, and is he currently in jail now?
	No, remember the Second Circuit granted a bail pending appeal.
	Okay, good.
	So he's not in jail, at least.
	This was the guy convicted for the meme.
	The meme was, text your vote from home and save some time in line.
	Vote your text to Hillary at whatever, blah, blah, blah.
	He did exactly what another comedian did.
	Her tweet is still up there, last I checked, where she said, you know, election day is the day after actual election day.
	She became a MAGA and everyone should go vote on November 10th, I think it was.
	Her tweet's still up, no prosecution, whatever.
	Douglas Mackey, a young dude with a Twitter feed that everybody knew was a troll account, put out this meme.
	He got charged in Southern District of New York.
	That's correct.
	No, the Eastern District of New York.
	Any better?
	No.
	Not as corrupt as the prosecutor's department, but they chose that because the jury pool, they believe, would be more hostile to Mackey.
	So they arrested him, charged him, and he got convicted of, what was it, not election interference, but it was disenfranchising people of their right to vote.
	The Klan conspiracy statute.
	That's what it historically has been called.
	All the commies in our legal profession don't want to use that reference.
	This is the statute that was put on the books to stop the Klan from ballot stuffing.
	Beating people up, burning crosses in their front lawn, burning their houses down, lynching.
	That was the voter interference they were worried about.
	Not memes.
	But, you know, like the commies at Yale Law School and elsewhere filed amicus briefs defending this.
	I mean, the terrifying thing about Mackey's case, and we often called it the meme case because not a lot of people knew Mackey's name and then people thought we hadn't been talking about the case.
	We've been talking about this from the time it was brought.
	Brought many...
	We probably have about a half dozen shows on it, at least.
	But they're trying to criminalize political disagreement about elections.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	And they're just assuming they'll always have the power.
	They're assuming nobody opposed to the left will ever have the power.
	So consequently, they don't have to worry about these laws being used against them.
	And the, even though they've done actual election interference, they've actually interfered with elections.
	They've actually stolen elections many times in many places.
	What's her face?
	The woman out of Jenna Griswold.
	I mean, removing someone from the ballot is the very type of, suing someone into, you know, attempting to sue them.
	Issuing gag orders like the judges have been issuing.
	That's a crime.
	That's election interference.
	That's criminal conduct that was intended to be covered by this criminal statute.
	Not political disagreement.
	Not internet memes.
	Not jokes.
	It's asinine.
	They chose one of the most ludicrous cases they could bring to prove to everybody how far the law could go.
	We can put you in prison for a meme we don't like.
	And the fact that Yale Law School, one of its key groups, has filed an amicus in support of this suit, pretending that it somehow doesn't violate the First Amendment, just shows you how far gone.
	The legal academy is.
	There'll be a common theme here.
	We need to get rid of licensure.
	We need to get rid of state bars.
	We need to get rid of the professional class's power.
	The lawyers are the...
	In Shakespeare, the reference is meant to say that they'll get rid of the good advocates.
	By saying, first, we get rid of all the lawyers.
	But now, we need to get rid of all the lawyers.
	At least the degree requirement.
	As a condition of power.
	These people are dangerous.
	But you know it's never going to happen.
	They're never going to remove licensure for things of the professional class.
	Not unless we take mass action.
	Not unless a broad movement builds.
	That's the only way it's going to happen.
	The only way it's going to radically change is radical action taken in the court of public opinion to be able to change these things, to continue to expose the danger of these things.
	As long as they I mean, trying to do it to Trump, that they've lost their complete, they've lost the script.
	And they're building a blowback that is growing at exponential rates.
	If you would have said pre-COVID, you would have half the country skeptical of vaccines.
	People would have laughed you out of the room.
	They would have told you that's never going to happen.
	For the vaccines had become indoctrinated into the American belief system.
	Even conservatives would mouth pro-vaccine rhetoric.
	Oh, I'm not part of that Alex Jones kind of thing.
	Oh, no, no.
	Today, 95% of Americans refuse to take the COVID vaccine for their kids.
	Something has radically shifted.
	So what's happening is we're seeing the problem of a weaponized legal system.
	And the problem isn't weaponization.
	The problem is the legal system having too much power in the first place.
	Too much power to lawyers.
	Too much power to judges.
	Too much power to a professional managerial class.
	Because this case is an embarrassment to the rule of law.
	An embarrassment to constitutional democracy.
	I listened to the...
	It was a court of appeal...
	Oral argument at the Second Circuit.
	How many judges were there?
	One of them was extremely hostile where they're asking questions as to...
	It was a foregone conclusion.
	How is this not election interference?
	He put out a tweet with the intention of disenfranchising people of their right to vote.
	It's not to be critical.
	It didn't seem like the lawyer was getting anywhere with any form of argumentation.
	Were all three judges pretty much equally hostile in this hearing?
	We don't know.
	I mean, there's a lot of bad judges at the Second Circuit.
	But this case has a high likelihood of getting up to the Supreme Court.
	If the government loses, they won't take it up to the Supreme Court because they know they'll lose there.
	But if Mackey loses, he will.
	And there's very good grounds to the Supreme Court.
	People that are pro this application of this law have recognized there's problems with how far this goes.
	And supposedly they're going to limit it to just, okay, if you have false speech about the mechanisms of an election with the intent to prevent someone from voting, then it's criminal.
	The problem is, as we see here, if they can put somebody in prison for a meme, there's too much power in the hands of prosecutors and judges to decide what is false speech concerning the mechanisms of an election with the intent to impact their vote.
	I mean, everything happens in an election and tends to impact somebody voting.
	Everything does.
	So, I mean, you could say the Willie Horton ad or any ad is meant to suppress the vote.
	By discouraging, dissuading people to vote.
	And then it concerns the mechanics of an election.
	That's the other two issues that are being challenged.
	This was clear venue abuse.
	And it was also clear vagueness problem.
	There's no way he could be unnoticed that this was a crime.
	I mean, that's patently absurd.
	So that's on top of the First Amendment problem.
	But that's where you have to go into these proceedings, oral arguments, ready to be confrontational.
	Because you get up there and you get a rogue judge, and you've got to expose it for what it is.
	Say, these are you political hacks making an asinine and absurd interpretation of law so that you can interfere in an election, judge.
	Because maybe next year there's somebody different to the Attorney General, and they decide your statement right now, judge, was election interference, and they put you in prison.
	You like that idea, judge?
	Then you better think twice about this asinine, absurd application of the law.
	They have bastardized it beyond all recognition.
	And it's going to be a common theme tonight.
	It's judicial abuse, judicial abuse, judicial abuse, judicial abuse, lawyer abuse, lawyer abuse, lawyer abuse, lawyer abuse.
	And the only lawyers that conscientiously stood up for the rule of law, they're trying to disbar.
	Because we allow a state bar to give them a monopoly on licensure in the first place.
	Andrew Jackson said it was a bad idea.
	He was right.
	We should return back to those roots.
	And anything less than institutional change, what Trump doesn't get, is this isn't just about him.
	This is about the dangers of this system given this degree of power, period.
	You have to take it away from them.
	You don't solve the problem of show trials by just prohibiting show trials against you.
	You do it by taking away the power of show trials to exist ever.
	Let me bring this up.
	I've been looking for the tweet because I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention for a second.
	I thought it was not there anymore.
	Listen to this.
	This is fine.
	This is still up.
	No prosecution.
	No jail time.
	No nothing.
	It's still up.
	Hey, everybody.
	This is Christina Wong.
	And I'm coming out.
	I'm a Trump supporter.
	And I just want to remind all my fellow Chinese Americans for Trump, people of color for Trump, to vote.
	Vote for Trump.
	We're going to show this country who's boss.
	And that's our man, Donald Trump.
	So don't forget to vote Donald Trump on November 9th.
	That's because the election was on November 8th, Robert.
	There was a little glitch in there.
	And that's still up there.
	And it was almost like a back-and-forth joke among trolls on the Twitterverse.
	But no prosecution for you, Kristen Wong, but jail time for you, Douglas Mackey.
	And there's no connection between he and the Eastern District of New York.
	It is ridiculous venue abuse.
	What they're forcing people to do is people on the right need to indict Barack Obama in a small conservative county in Alabama and Texas.
	Then all of a sudden the courts will be like, whoa, hold on, venue abuse.
	But these hypocritical frauds, and that's what you're going to have to do if you're in front of that old argument.
	Say, hey, judge, you okay with that?
	You okay with us indicting Barack Obama, who helped put you on the bench?
	Down in a small county in Texas?
	Because you just green-lighted it.
	You green-light this case, you green-light that case.
	You ready for that?
	You've got to put it to them.
	Because they're so used to be, they're so corrupt in their partisan prejudice.
	And they're so accustomed to abuse of power.
	They're like the same Supreme Court that arrogantly, condescendingly approved Buck v.
	Bell for sterilizations in America.
	That court is an embarrassment.
	To every Supreme Court ever since.
	And many of those justices are justices that a lot of law professors want to quote and cite.
	I can't forgive them that case.
	If you were part of that case, you are one of the most morally horrendous individuals to ever walk the planet Earth.
	Period.
	And I don't care if you're Brandeis, I don't care who you are.
	But why did they do that?
	Because they assumed they would just get cheers from the galleys.
	Because they were so accustomed to not being challenged directly, confronted directly with who they are.
	They don't like it.
	They might attack you as the lawyer.
	They might threaten your own licensure as a lawyer.
	But ignore that.
	A mirror needs to be held up to these people because they have forgot who they are and what they're there for.
	So, Douglas Mackey, they had their oral arguments.
	I don't think it sounded like this court was going to overturn the conviction.
	What do you think is going to happen, and what's the timeframe for this?
	I think it goes up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	I think the Supreme Court takes it because of the dangerous applications of the statute.
	And it has additional issues of vagueness and voidness, vagueness and venue.
	And so you've got three robust constitutional issues, and they need to step in and start.
	Part of this is the courts themselves, including conservative courts that wanted to ignore law enforcement abuse.
	Because the same courts that were very concerned if the EPA was exceeding its power...
	Turned a blind eye when it was the FBI abusing its power.
	When it was the Pentagon abusing its power.
	When it was a U.S. Attorney, the Department of Justice abusing their power.
	And that was a problem.
	And now we're reaping the whirlwind for it in such a way that the entire legal system is an embarrassment to anybody with any degree of legal or moral conscience.
	That's why you see Pete constantly.
	I mean, Pete, my barometer on this is people like Turley.
	And Dershowitz, they come from democratic circles.
	They're aligned with the democratic side.
	They tend to be Trump skeptical or critics.
	Didn't vote for Trump in either of the last two elections.
	They have been condemning this over and over again because they believe in the rule of law.
	They believe in a robust constitutional protection.
	They believe in the impartiality and independence of our legal system.
	And they're seeing it completely eviscerated for politicized partisan purposes.
	And that's why they're calling it out again and again and again.
	But they're not getting anywhere with the courts.
	Now, hopefully this culminates in some good Supreme Court rulings this cycle, but it shows where we're at.
	That's a good transition into Trump.
	Everything that's happening to Trump is a reflection of this disease, is a manifestation, is a symptom, is an expression of this virus of partisan prejudice that is infected.
	Our entire legal system.
	And we're going to get to Trump in a second, but one question, Robert, even if this gets to the Supreme Court, it's not going to be this cycle.
	It'll be in 2025.
	And then the last question I had was, nothing on Douglas Mackey, so we'll see where it goes.
	My prediction is in, people.
	Oh, a little component.
	Yale Law School now says you have a right to bring a suit for an intentional tort against anyone that interferes with your right to vote.
	That's interesting.
	If the court greenlights that because they're so obsessed with whacking the right, some of us are going to be using it to sue people like Mark Ellis and other people like that.
	If the legal system is now open for everybody to play, well, everybody's going to play.
	And we'll start suing in small counties in rural Middle Tennessee that vote 90-10 Trump.
	And let's see if they then suddenly discover venue is a concern.
	They then suddenly discover limitations on the law.
	If this is the new set of rules, it's time to start suing the other side in our favorable venues.
	Because that's probably the only thing that's going to stop it.
	Or they'll just find a way to do the mental gymnastics and say, yeah, but that was good there and it's not good here.
	They probably don't get to decide that there, right?
	You've got to get an elected judge in rural Tennessee to rule your way.
	Good luck with that.
	So, I mean, if that's what they're going to greenlight, then we have to reciprocate in kind.
	That's the only option.
	Christina Wong stopped me from voting in 2016.
	I wanted to, before we head over to Rumble, because we're going to go there now, I just wanted to read some of the chats that we had there.
	The Rock is a ride about money.
	That's from Freddie.
	Outdoor Nobles.
	Keith Oldman was slamming The Rock so liberal white women still hold true.
	Karolewski, stick with the alligators rather than Twitter.
	Gators have more scruples.
	Pete Gujat says, Viva, never underestimate the UK politicians' self-loathing.
	It's what led to Brexit.
	As Brit, who moved to Canada, I'm glad I no longer live there.
	Canada is not as bad as the UK.
	It's been great to me.
	Graymare, is there an alternative to services like Westlaw for case law research without having to pay thousands of dollars for subscriptions?
	Robert, what is it?
	There's things like Lexis and the rest, but almost all those databases cost a lot.
	Now, these days, AI and other aspects make it easier.
	There's like case text, there's justicia, there's a bunch of online that you can search that you'll often get about 70 to 75% of the cases you'd find with legal research databases.
	I don't know how, as this information becomes publicly available, because it's always been interesting, Westlaw and Lexis' source material.
	It's not something they have a copyright over.
	The only thing they have is the algorithmic mean.
	They've taken the time to digitize these records and find ways to search them relatively easily.
	To the degree that AI and other algorithmic technology can supplant that.
	I don't know how long there's a business for Westlaw and Lexus.
	We already have reasonably good alternatives up in Canada with Candly, but Google's still, or search engines are still pretty good, but not perfect.
	There's places like Justia, Case Text, there's a bunch that are out there that you can actually get a fair amount, and you get a much lower price for, for their subscription part of their service.
	And a lot of it's publicly available these days.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney says, What a moron.
	Who thinks she has two brain cells to rub together?
	YouTube would not let me send.
	Game on podcast.
	$100 rant.
	Thank you very much.
	Remember, it's better to bet with Barnes than against.
	Great weekend for sports picks followers.
	Made LLP.
	Dear trolls, head over to locals to buy merch, then troll.
	Thank you.
	Chicago Fawcett.
	May God protect you so you are fighting a good fight.
	The good fight.
	And you aren't even American.
	You are doing all the heavy lifting.
	The rest of us either aren't able to do or aren't willing to do.
	It helps not to have a boss.
	Does anyone follow Judge Joe in Memphis on Twitter?
	Viva Fry.
	He needs to be interviewed.
	Screen grab.
	Our core system is getting to the trash.
	The Supreme needs to step in, set some rights and the wrongs.
	King of Biltong!
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	Free shipping on your order of Biltong with code VIVA.
	The V-I-V-A, not W-I-V-A.
	And BiltongUSA.com.
	AntonUSA.
	It's delicious stuff.
	I've been eating it daily, actually.
	Biltong, a perfect pairing of high protein, keto, and carnivore diets.
	I'm willing to do the same in Arkansas, so Robert, just email me.
	I'm willing to help in Tennessee, too.
	Okay, done.
	What we're going to do now...
	Hold on.
	There was something I was supposed to do.
	Get on over to Rumble, people.
	Let's do this.
	That's it.
	I forgot what I was going to say.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'm going to...
	We're going to end this on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	And thank you for the blessing, sir.
	I will take it.
	Ending on YouTube.
	The entire stream, I'll post it intact tomorrow on YouTube.
	But for now, YouTube tomorrow is going to get the leftovers.
	Tonight, the party's at Rumble.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Boom.
	Oh, Christine Wong has been up there the entire time?
	I'll get out of here.
	Okay.
	Robert, let's do the Trump, people.
	Talking about getting despaired, I don't know how bad it has to get, and I don't know how bad it's going to get.
	Explain to the world what is going on with the bond issue.
	Trump secured the bond in the Angeron case.
	New York nipple judge anger on Leticia James.
	Not going to go over all of the corruption there except to say they're both corrupt.
	Leticia James campaigned off prosecuting Trump.
	We all know that.
	New York nipple judge showing his titties to his, what is it called, alumni group, sending out his articles about how badly he's nailing Eric Trump.
	They issue the order $355 million, $450 with interest.
	The Court of Appeal reduces the bond to $175 million.
	Trump is able to secure the bond.
	Using a bonding agency.
	I don't know how these things work.
	Never done it.
	I'm trying to piece it together.
	Now Leticia James is arguing that the security, the bonding company, is not adequate for reasons which I don't fully understand.
	And what are they asking for now?
	They're demanding an investigation into the bond company.
	And now harassment of the bond company.
	So, I mean, this is what happens when you give a legal system this much power.
	When you give lawyers this much power, when you give the professional managerial class this much power, they will abuse it.
	It's just inevitable.
	It is the inescapable lesson of life that the best argument for the Michael Malice-style anarchist of the world is the experience of government.
	The experience of government is the best counterpoint to any argument against the libertarians and the anarchists, is seeing what happens when you give a small group of people power.
	They abuse it without fail.
	There's no contrary historical alternative over time.
	There might be for a short period of time, but not over an extended time period.
	And that's what the Letitia James, who, as you noted, campaigned in one office promising to weaponize the legal system of New York against Trump.
	Did so.
	Did so fraudulently with the help of a partisan hack judge.
	Who legally, procedurally wasn't supposed to preside over the case because it should have gone to a different branch of the New York courts, who ignored any appellate ruling that overturned any aspect of his case, that made sure Trump never got a trial by jury, even in very anti-Trump New York, because he knew that he couldn't rely on a jury to rule his way, even if it was all Democrats on the jury, because of what a crock his case was.
	Then in order to try to interfere in the election, James was trying to steal Trump's assets while he appealed, knowing that if the court has a conscience or political IQ over 50, this verdict will be completely reversed, or New York is going to become the place you never want to go do business with.
	New York is going to be known as that banana republic that no businessman wants to get near.
	With their assets or investment, as Kevin O 'Leary and others have been very publicly stated.
	And then the Court of Appeals split the baby, reduced the amount of the bond to an amount that Trump's counsel had said they already could post.
	He posted, and now they thought they had intimidated all the bond companies into not providing a bond for Trump.
	Then they go and lie about it at the Attorney General's office to the New York Court of Appeals.
	They get threatened with sanctions, but not actually sanctioned for filing things impermissibly at the New York Court of Appeals and making false statements up there.
	And now we know, in fact, all along, that was their goal, because as soon as the bond company posts bond, they're threatening the bond company and demanding the same political hack judge somehow revoke that bond.
	And so, I mean, these are people who don't get the message.
	That's why people like Ingram, you got to lock them up and put them behind bars.
	You got to criminally prosecute them.
	You know, you've got to impeach them if you're at the congressional level.
	Impeachment's not a viable option in New York because the whole state is gone.
	The state's politics are just insane.
	And the court system is complicit in that corruption.
	And they've made it very clear how complicit they are in that corruption.
	Now, it's come to the shock of a lot of people who've made the mistake of investing their lives and their fortunes in New York.
	People like Kevin O 'Leary, who does have major investments in New York, now wishes he didn't, because they weren't paying attention.
	The system was good at its corruption because it limited the number of people it targeted.
	You know, forever, we were taught as lawyers, you go through law school, judges are governed by impartiality, not prejudice.
	They're governed by reason.
	That they're these Platonic philosopher kings in the Socratic tradition that they're taught in, who simply study what the law is and divine the law from these holy documents, and they apply them to the facts with their incredible means of discernment, of judgment, and that's what we get.
	That was always a fraud.
	Judges are human beings.
	Human beings are motivated, are motivated reason thinkers.
	In other words, motivation is the master of reason.
	Reason has never been the master of motivation.
	That's a lie we tell ourselves to help perpetuate our own survival psychologically.
	It's the elephant in the brain, as the book so reads, that discusses the science behind this.
	So that's never been true.
	I argued with it when I was first semester, first year in law class, law school.
	And the professor was like, well, we want to be governed by law, not by men, Mr. Barnes.
	I'm like, who do you think writes the laws?
	Who do you think interprets the laws?
	Who do you think implies the laws?
	Who do you think enforces the laws?
	The invisible man of the law?
	No, it's men.
	And we have to deal with the reality of that.
	But this corruption, most people didn't know.
	Because 90% of Americans never interact with the legal system in great detail.
	Their interaction is limited to maybe traffic court.
	Which is not usually a boost of confidence when they're in there.
	But they assume it's just traffic court.
	They don't realize traffic court is actually one of our better legal systems compared to most of our civil and criminal justice systems.
	But because 90% of Americans haven't seen it, and everybody's getting a crash course.
	Ten years ago, when I would use the phrase deep state, people would look at me like I'd just come out of the nut house.
	Now they're like, oh, I know exactly what you're talking about.
	The legal system.
	And they're educating the world by trying to weaponize it against Trump.
	Richard Painter does not believe there's a deep state, but he did, of course.
	He is the deep state.
	He is a personification of the deep state.
	But, I mean, what does this investigate the bond company's liquidity?
	It's an out-of-state bond company.
	I don't understand what would have to happen in order for there to be a crisis as relates to the bond.
	What has to happen?
	What has to happen for that $175 million bond to be immediately exigible and liquid?
	The, well, I mean, the, well, ultimately, Ultimately, it's already been posted.
	So the idea that it's not secure is nuts.
	But it's simple.
	It's harassment.
	If you side with Trump, we're going to harass you.
	That's the message.
	We've got a corrupt, compliant, complicit court system that will eagerly enable you to harass.
	And we've got the prosecutors in our pocket.
	We got the lead powerful political decision makers in the Pentagon and in the police in our pocket.
	And I'm not talking about the ordinary soldier or the ordinary cop.
	This is what action films could have...
	If you followed action films for the last 40 years in America, you could understand what's happening in the Pentagon.
	You could understand what's happening in the police force.
	Because every film is about the ordinary honest cop or the ordinary honest soldier trying to do the right thing in some corrupt political weak-kneed hack messing around at the top.
	And those movies do a great job, by the way, of satirizing the WWE movies and a lot of them.
	Brilliant job of satirizing culturally the professional managerial class for their weak-kneed nature, for their lack of a backbone.
	They're not the people you would ever get into a cockpit with.
	They're not the people you would ever get if you had to go to war with.
	They're at the very bottom of the list, the very last of the line.
	And yet they're the ones governing us.
	And that's what this is.
	And you see it in these judges making insane and inane gag orders.
	Now, credit to Trump.
	I mean, the beauty of Trump.
	He doesn't give an F. You cannot bully him.
	That's what I, when I went to the first Trump rally in Nevada, Las Vegas, early 2016, I realized how everybody had got everything wrong in the media.
	At the time, I was just studying whether to bet on Trump.
	I wasn't studying whether to vote for him.
	I hadn't voted since the primaries of 96. Politics was Tweedledum, Tweedledum-er, Tweedledum-ist.
	You know, I'll skip this.
	But I made a lot of money betting on it.
	That I was fine with.
	But I went there and I realized Trump isn't the bully.
	Trump is the guy who punches the bully in the mouth.
	Trump is the guy that fights back against the bully.
	And the media kept calling Trump the bully.
	He's not the bully.
	Media, you're the bully.
	And his audience were made of people that had been bullied their whole lives.
	They weren't people that were bullies.
	You could see how nice and kind they were to individuals in the line and in public discussion.
	These are people that were tired of getting spit on and beat up.
	And that's what they love about Trump.
	And what I love about this aspect of Trump is exposing how corrupt...
	I mean, I've been complaining about the corruption of our political system and our legal system for a quarter century.
	And I've stayed in the practice of law because sometimes you can win against the odds.
	You might as well fight.
	The only way you're guaranteed to lose is if you quit.
	And I've just never found that to be an appropriate approach, quitting in that context.
	But what they don't realize is how bad they look to the world.
	The judge's reaction in New York to being exposed that his family is making money off this rogue criminal prosecution, just like Fannie Willis, the judge in New York family is pocketing money off of the prosecution of Trump.
	That is not just partisan corruption, not just moral corruption, that is literal corruption.
	And what is the judge's reaction?
	Not, hey, maybe I should disqualify myself?
	No.
	It's Trump.
	You better shut up and not tell anybody about it, or I'm going to put you in prison even before we go through trial.
	And thankfully, Trump is like, fine.
	I've had enough of it.
	You want to put me in?
	I'll be the next Nelson Mandela.
	I love Nelson Mandela.
	Put me in.
	See what that looks like for you.
	Because I'm not going to quit talking about you being a corrupt fraud on the American people.
	And so credit to Trump for being willing to stand up to the...
	These rogue judges, these rogue prosecutors, the exposing, the weaponized, politicized nature of this process.
	I just hope he appreciates it's beyond him.
	It's been happening to ordinary people now for a long time.
	It's got worse over the last 10 years, but the problem is the system itself.
	We need to take away this power from these people.
	They're untrustworthy and unreliable with it.
	Trump in his first term thought he could reform the CIA, reform the Pentagon, reform the NSA, reform the deep state.
	No.
	When you dance with the devil, it ain't the devil that changes.
	The devil changes you.
	The only way you can do is to conquer the devil and expel him to the places where he belongs.
	And that's where all these judges, the D.C. judge, both New York judges.
	They should be under criminal prosecution because they're the ones interfering in an election.
	They're the ones violating constitutional rights and liberties, not Trump.
	Robert, I'm just taking a note.
	I love that when you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change.
	And I want to remind everybody, refresh everybody's memory of the details of what's going on.
	The judge's daughter, that's Judge Juan Marchant, that's his daughter.
	She works at a think tank, whatever they call these things, a marketing firm, PR firm that represents the likes of Adam Schiff.
	And some Democrat super PACs.
	She worked with Kamala Harris on her campaign in 2020.
	They are making money hands over fist.
	Schiff has raised, I think it's 20 plus million dollars using this prosecution.
	The one that her father is spearheading right now.
	And Trump brought it up by linking to that New York Post article and then gets accused of threatening the family and bringing the daughter of the judge into this as though the daughter is an innocent civilian.
	That calling exposing corruption threats, interference.
	I mean, it's absurd.
	But it's like if that's what constitutes a crime, okay, judge, you're committing a crime.
	Let's see how well you like it when you're on the other side of that dock.
	And I mean, that's almost the only thing that's going to get their attention.
	That's why they go nuts when Mike Davis talks about, if I'm Attorney General, we're going to start with a list.
	You know, they went nuts when they heard Kash Patel's on the Attorney General list for Trump.
	Because these are people that are actually going to uphold the Constitution and aren't afraid to utilize their powers.
	I mean, as it's now turned out, as we talked about, as I talked about in November of 2020.
	Bill Barr knew about election fraud and was busy covering it up.
	Nobody wanted to listen to me because they bought into all the nonsense about Barr.
	Barr goes, I got a hush-hush on Bill Barr.
	That's how bad Bill Barr is.
	But great credit to transition.
	Well, before we transition into the absurd political weaponization of the prosecutions over two extraordinary...
	Highly ethical, highly professional, highly talented lawyers, Jeffrey Clark and Professor Eastman, who no client has ever complained about ever in their history, who actually honored their oaths, who obeyed their oaths, and standing up for election integrity in the election.
	And now they're trying to defrock and disbar both of them in California and the District of Communism, known as the District of Columbia and false label.
	We have these judicial recusals.
	There's one judge who should have recused himself, the judge in New York, who has a personal profit interest in pursuing the prosecution of Trump, aside from his partisan prejudice.
	But then we have the absurd calls for Judge Cannon.
	to be this qualified, which are legally ludicrous and factually baseless.
	Now, Robert, I tweeted this out as we were live, and I meant to do it when I was jogging this afternoon because I had the thought.
	The Democrats, forget recusal, they're going to try to impeach Judge Cannon.
	She's a federal judge, so the fact that she's a Florida federal judge wouldn't give her any protection.
	It relies on Senate and House control, correct?
	They're going to try to impeach her.
	Their first goal has been to public...
	Jack Smith has attacked her and attacked her judicial chambers.
	If I, as a defense lawyer, did that, they'd kick me out of the case at a minimum.
	Threaten me with disbarment references or contempt findings or jail.
	Prosecutors do this and judges are like, oh, I'm so sorry.
	I'm so sorry.
	Did I say something that offended the Department of Justice?
	It's ridiculous.
	The media was saying that Jack Smith had threatened Aileen Cannon, the judge.
	It was, how dare you challenge me?
	And I'm going to have to appeal you.
	So what?
	Appeal away.
	I mean, none of these judges have real courage.
	They have dismissed this nonsense right out of the gate.
	But they're enraged that Cannon is pushing back at all.
	Just a little bit.
	That's all she's doing.
	Pushing back a little bit.
	Not doing her job, in my opinion.
	She's pushing back a little bit.
	And they're enraged.
	And then you have corrupt lawyers like Ty Cobb.
	This guy.
	He has all the worst attributes of the real Ty Cobb and none of the best attributes.
	This is a guy who represented the president.
	President Trump was convinced to hire this schmuck.
	And this schmuck went and talked to Bob Woodward and disclosed some of the most private, confidential information that his client had disclosed to him in an attorney-client relationship so Bob Woodward could put it in a book.
	And the press could write nice, favorable things about Ty Cobb so he could get the next sucker to write him a huge check.
	That's who Ty Cobb is.
	I don't know of him winning in any major trial.
	It's always amazing.
	Someone says, so-and-so's a great trial lawyer.
	It's like, okay, have they ever actually won one?
	It's like nine times out of ten they haven't.
	Look at this hat with his little fake mustache trying to pretend he's some big badass.
	This guy is a joke.
	He's a fraud.
	He should be disbarred if we're going to disbar anybody.
	But he was out there talking to MSNBC, saying, oh, yeah, the 11th Circuit's definitely going to disqualify him.
	It is impossible to disqualify a federal judge.
	I think it should be easier, but it is impossible.
	The probability she is taking off the case is about 10,000 to 1. So the fact that he's out there lying to fraudulent misinformation about the legal system, that's what Ty Cobb is doing.
	That's what these legal schmucks are doing.
	This is purely a public intimidation campaign against the judge.
	Hey, if you don't play ball, we'll get you removed.
	Really?
	I mean, it's preposterous.
	Ew.
	What's the ethical basis?
	In the New York case, you have a guy lining his family's pockets with the prosecution.
	If they had something like that on canon, I would say, by golly, she should absolutely disqualify.
	They're just objecting to her legal rulings.
	It's ridiculous.
	And her legal rulings just push back a little bit.
	Against this absurd prosecution.
	They clearly named that guy Ty Cobb after the baseball player, right?
	The baseball player is like an late 1800s.
	He probably had a loser.
	Loser parents, too.
	Because he's that kind of loser.
	They couldn't even come up with an inventive name.
	The accusations of bias and calls for recusal, that I'm fine with.
	But, Robert, they're going to impeach him.
	They're going to try to impeach him.
	Well, they may try, but it'll go nowhere.
	There's no basis for it.
	None.
	The probability is low they even try, because there they've had no success in the past.
	The only people they've ever been to, they need a personal scandal to get Congress to rally to it.
	Otherwise, they never get it.
	So the impeachment power, and do Democrats really want to wake up Republicans about impeaching their rogue judges?
	Yeah, well, I think we're going to be on the Democratic side than on the Republican side that need to be impeached.
	That depends if the Republicans ever grow the political cojones to do it, because I don't know what would be required to impeach, what's his face, New York nipple Judge Engelron, but that's a state judge in the state of New York, so it'll never happen.
	The state proceedings, different rules in the state proceedings and the federal proceedings.
	Now, I think both of them, I think all of them, including the federal judge, all these judges that are interfering in the election are violating federal civil rights laws.
	And they were, in fact, the number one target, even more so than the Klan.
	The number one target were rogue judges and rogue sheriffs.
	And if you know any of the legal history, 1865 to 1875, when a lot of this legislation went through at the federal level, the biggest, most problematic participants were judges and prosecutors and police and sheriffs.
	They were the ones in bed with the Klan, enabling the Klan to do what they were doing.
	But it was Klan-style intimidation that was the focal point.
	Not any of this, we disagree with your speech.
	It's my big problem, they say false speech isn't protected.
	Who gets to decide what's false?
	Because that's a power that is too dangerous for anybody to have.
	And you're seeing what happens when you give it to them.
	False speech should be protected, not just because of what's false, but rather that's the speech that requires the most protection.
	Robert, okay, so hold on.
	So we got the bond in New York.
	They're just harassing the company, but thus far nothing.
	Correct.
	And we'll see if the judge tries to up the ante and jail Trump in New York.
	The judge is that nuts.
	What that will do, of course, is just escalate attention on the case.
	And make the Supreme Court probably have to get involved earlier rather than later.
	Where would they jail?
	He would have to be jailed with his Secret Service.
	So what do they do?
	Segregate a building for him?
	That's totally unclear.
	They haven't thought that through at all.
	And the New York Police Department all loved Trump.
	So it's not like D.C., where you've got a lot of corrupt people in the D.C. police force.
	And the Capitol Police and the FBI.
	New York, they all love Trump.
	So you're not going to get the kind of treatment you want to get.
	But the fact that we're even here, and in the same week that this is happening, from coast to coast, they're trying to disbar Professor Eastman and Jeffrey Clark.
	Just for supporting Trump.
	Well, for providing legal theories, which at least in, it's Jeff Clark's case.
	It wasn't even circular.
	They wrote a letter!
	He wrote a letter that was never even sent!
	It circulated an internal email!
	That's now this horrible offense, and in California to try to go after Professor Eastman for his constitutional advice, the same corrupt California state bar, and I understand I run risk talking about him because I'm licensed in California, but so what?
	They're corrupt.
	They have covered up for corrupt lawyers repeatedly.
	Covered up for Avenatti.
	Covered up for Girardi.
	Covered up in a case I exposed the lawyer, had a judge rule against the lawyer, they still covered up for that lawyer.
	They did nothing about the Buckhalters of the world, a law firm involved in a RICO conspiracy against ordinary everyday, against their own clients.
	And none of them get hit at all until very late, if ever.
	And Professor Eastman, who's never had a client complaint ever, Who, similar to Jeffrey Clark, even the liberal media said, legal press said, well, you know, they were kind of vague at what rules he violated.
	Maybe because he didn't violate any.
	And that fake judge, the Supreme Court of California, decided to conspire with the legislature and the governor to create their own little judicial system outside our California constitutional regular process.
	So they got these state bar judges who are a disgrace.
	They're political hacks chosen for partisan reasons.
	Going after Eastman, after the documentary record completely disproved any factual claim against him.
	Basically, I mean, imagine prosecuting Eastman.
	This is how Soviet shows trial this nonsense is.
	Prosecuting Eastman for not upholding the Constitution when the reason he's being prosecuted is because he upheld the Constitution!
	It's an embarrassment.
	Now, there's been misleading press saying that...
	Clark has been disbarred.
	Eastman has been disbarred.
	No.
	These are recommendations.
	The final decision has to be made by the courts in each one of those jurisdictions, and they have made no such determination.
	So that is still a work in process.
	But what people got to witness in the D.C. case and witness in the Eastman case was, wow, we have a really corrupt legal system.
	Wow, our state bars are a joke.
	Our Supreme Court ethics bodies are a joke.
	I mean, I've been arguing with them for 20 years in a range of cases about a range of legal issues.
	And the only people they target are politically, as Jerry Spence said, the gentlemen of the bar only care about the gentlemen of the bar.
	And what he meant was it's class prejudice, political prejudice.
	They only go after the outsiders.
	They only go after the dissidents.
	They don't go after the corrupt.
	The corrupt are what fuel the system.
	The corrupt are who run this system.
	They go after the most innocent who expose the corrupt.
	And that's what we're seeing in the Clark case.
	That's what we're seeing in the Eastman case.
	But it's just at a whole different scale because a whole different legal profession and broader part of the populace is being educated at how dangerous this is.
	And again, the real solution?
	Don't allow these people to have this power in the first place.
	At a minute, if we're not going to take away licensure monopolies, All they do is you give power to a small group of political hacks who hate you to ruin your life if you do something they don't like politically.
	That's why we shouldn't give them that power to begin with.
	I've been opposed to it from day one.
	You give a small group of people power over someone's occupation, profession, particularly one that impacts constitutional advocacy, you are endangering constitutional liberty.
	You're not protecting.
	But putting that aside, at least limit when they can take action.
	At least limit who decides these cases.
	Because at least do something.
	Give a right to a jury trial right.
	Make sure there's always a public trial proceeding.
	Don't have these vague rules that they can just selectively determine whatever it means, whatever they want it to mean.
	And so, I mean, like Wisconsin State Bar had a rule against discrimination, but it turned out its legal intern program was overt discrimination.
	So, I mean, you can't trust these people.
	These people are unreliable with power.
	The people who ran fascism were the professional managerial class just within the top ranks of the police and the military.
	Doctors and lawyers loved voting for the Nazis.
	And the same professional managerial class ran every communist government that's ever existed.
	Does anybody want to repeat Stalin?
	Does anybody want to repeat Mao?
	Does anybody want to repeat the Khmer Rouge?
	That's what giving them power in Western democracies has done.
	The European Union is just a professional managerial class writ large.
	What we're seeing is give them the power of the legal system, control over who can be a lawyer, control over who gets prosecuted, control over who gets sued, and we're seeing what happens.
	They will misuse and abuse it to take away our constitutional liberties and interfere in an election.
	So start reducing their power institutionally is the only way to deal with this problem long term.
	These are bar complaints, basically, for Eastman and Clark.
	No client has ever filed.
	Who's the complainant?
	Dismissed as soon as it's done.
	Adversaries.
	Political adversaries are the only people that no court has ever complained about Eastman.
	No court has ever complained about Clark.
	No lawyer that was part of a proceeding has complained about either one of them.
	No client has ever complained about them.
	No witness has ever complained about them.
	No juror has ever complained about them.
	The only people that have complained about them are their political adversaries.
	And Mark Elias, this is all orchestrated by Elias.
	If you don't doubt that Elias is behind this, just follow his democracy docket and look at how every day they celebrate and cheer when something bad happens to Eastman or something bad happens to Clark.
	Then again, Mark Elias is a criminal.
	He's a money launderer.
	If you think I'm lying about you, Mark, sue me and I'll prove it in court.
	You're a money laundering criminal.
	I'll sue you in what you are.
	He came after me, by the way.
	He tried to sick his whole audience into filing bogus ethics complaints against me for exposing the criminal that he is.
	So, you know, been there, done that.
	Good luck.
	Next time.
	Get in line.
	Find all the three-letter agencies that would like to see me check out early.
	Not going to happen.
	But this is an embarrassment of the legal system.
	This is an embarrassment to the rule of law.
	This is an embarrassment to the United States of America.
	Credit in this respect to Robert Kennedy.
	So Robert Kennedy, to be honest, had been kind of a wuss for a little while on January 6th.
	And I get it.
	You know, it's not his political side of the aisle.
	And he hadn't stood up and said anything about it.
	But the beauty of Robert Kennedy is if you challenge him on something and give him the research, he'll actually research it and change his mind.
	You almost never see that about any politician these days.
	I've personally experienced it in representing him and working with him and working for him, all of the above.
	And he came out this week saying we need to look into what's happening on January 6th.
	This looks like political weaponization of the legal system.
	The special counsel needs to be assigned to investigate everything that happened here.
	Credit to him on that.
	Donald Trump might be able to learn that lesson occasionally too.
	But our legal system is deeply fraudulent, and it's being exposed as deeply fraudulent, and we need to start looking at institutional remedy and relief because these philosopher kings have become nitwit tyrants and complicit in the other behavior of other nitwit tyrants, and we're witnessing the horror of it a live time.
	Procedural questions on Eastman and Clark.
	It was Clark who had the court, I don't know what it is, the tribunal, basically say he should be disbarred, but he's not for the time being.
	So the state bar judge is simply in an advisory role, not a decision-making role in California.
	The state bar disciplinary council or committee is also in D.C., Jeffrey Clark, only in an advisory role.
	They don't make decisions.
	So this is the part where they give due process.
	They allow them to present all their evidence in a full process.
	Then they make a recommendation.
	But in California, it then goes up to the appeals portion of the state bar court.
	Their determination just decides whether the California Supreme Court even deals with it.
	If they say we recommend disbarment or any other penalty, it still has to go to the Supreme Court.
	Only the Supreme...
	There's this myth out there.
	Every now and then I'll get somebody to say, Barnes, why don't you admit you're part of the British Accreditation Registry?
	Isn't that what the bar means, Barnes?
	No, it isn't.
	The bar is simply an organization, or what is commonly called the bar, is really the court of each state.
	That's who license lawyers.
	Court of each state.
	And in a federal case, it's the local federal district court.
	They license you.
	It's always the judges that license you.
	Now, those judges often delegate prosecutorial power and kind of adjudicative, but not final adjudicative power, to these other bodies, sometimes called a state bar.
	Sometimes a state bar has power in a state.
	Sometimes there's no power in a state.
	Depends on the state.
	And sometimes it's a board of professional responsibility or something called something like that in different states, and the state bar is a whole different entity, has nothing to do with licensing lawyers.
	And that gets the public confused.
	And quite frankly, I think it's because courts don't want people honestly fully aware that they are controlling who can appear before those courts.
	I have long opposed it.
	It makes no sense whatsoever for the courts to have this power.
	Even if we're not going to strip them of their power, even if we're not going to have institutional reform about how they make these kind of decisions in terms of clarity of rules and clarity of proceedings and different decision makers at both the prosecutorial and adjudicative side.
	At a minimum, they should not have this power to begin with.
	Why does the judicial branch get to write the rules, in other words, be the legislative branch, enforce the rules, in other words, be the executive branch, and then get to adjudicate whether their rules and their interpretation of the rules and their enforcement of the rules is constitutional?
	And not only that, think about who this is going to apply to.
	When judges control who can appear before their courts and advocate on behalf of people and exercise their professional and occupational obligations and duties, do you think a lawyer is going to be inspired to say the judges are corrupt, to say the judges are political hacks, to say the judges should be impeached or imprisoned?
	Very few.
	Because when you are, I mean, when I've been critical of judges, I've had the opposing counsel want the judges to threaten me for it.
	Repeatedly happened in the Pfizer case for Brooke Jackson.
	They repeatedly wanted the judge to threaten me for anything I said critical of how the legal system was operated.
	And that's a corruption in our system.
	Judges should not have the power to be the legislature, be the executive, be the judiciary, and they definitely should not have the power to decide who gets the opportunity to expose them.
	That is a dangerous power to have in their hands.
	Aside from the breach of separation of powers.
	What is the time frame for Clark and Eastman?
	When are they going to have a definitive...
	They'll go probably at least another 12 to 18 months.
	Mother effort.
	And I just shared the give, send, go.
	Yeah, there's a give, send, go for Jeffrey Clark.
	I think Eastman has raised money in his own way.
	But I've constantly and continuously boosted...
	Fundraising for Clark, because these guys are not your...
	They're not Candace Owens, who's going to make up a political controversy and then beg for money.
	God bless Candace.
	But it's like, here, if somebody wants me to take the Candace Owens of the world seriously, let me see her promote the Jeffrey Clarks of the world.
	She could use her platform to promote causes that actually need money, that aren't multimillionaires like she is.
	That's why I take a lot of what she says and does with a grain of salt.
	Now, some people are being critical of her and then favoring Ben Shapiro.
	And I'm like, I'm supposed to favor a guy who calls for a war every six seconds?
	I don't think so.
	But at the same time, you know, Jeffrey Clark, the cause of Jeffrey Clark is a real cause with real consequence for a good, who is the only official in the entire Justice Department to try to stand up for election integrity and do his job and uphold his oath.
	And that's what they're prosecuting him for.
	That's what they've already effectively barred him from employment for.
	That's what they've already defamed him and destroyed his reputation for.
	That's what they subjected him to rogue criminal prosecution for in multiple jurisdictions.
	And now they're doing the same thing to Eastman.
	Those are cases we should be supporting and engaged in.
	I try to be very selective at which cases I promote so that it's only the most compelling cases that are out there, whether it's Amos Miller or Brooke Jackson.
	Or vaccine mandates or cases like that.
	Or election integrity cases that are underfunded.
	Candace is just fine.
	She doesn't need another check.
	God bless her.
	But Jeffrey Clark, you can still find his give, send, go.
	Still important to contribute because they're waging war on him so that no Justice Department official ever does their job again in an election contest.
	That they go along with the corrupt acts like Bill Barr, who belonged in prison from the time he's been a lawyer.
	I mean, that man has been committing crimes as soon as he got his little certificate of licensure.
	Just go back to what he was doing as a CIA lawyer for Poppy Bush in the mid-70s.
	And see, was that around the time the MK Ultrafiles disappeared?
	That just luckily some idiot kept copies in the wrong place.
	That's the only reason why we have any MK Ultrafiles.
	Because Barr thought they were all destroyed.
	I gotta find Barr saying, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and he said it one week into the allegations.
	He put it all on trial.
	He's like, alright, so you people are going to try to do this show trial against me on bogus grounds because I did my job.
	I'm going to let evidence come out to the world that has been hidden until now about how Bill Barr was corrupt.
	About how Bill Barr was covering up election fraud.
	How Bill Barr was ordering people, ordering prosecutors on the phone, you will shut down that investigation.
	After evidence came to them proving election fraud, he was demanding you better shut it down and shut it down now.
	And Jeffrey Clark was one of the few people to expose it, and that's why he's being targeted.
	That's why the whole system is weaponized against him.
	And I do hope to see a little more of Trump supporting their cases.
	Because it's not just Trump being targeted, though Trump sometimes thinks so.
	It's the power this is that's so pernicious that if you simply challenge deep state authority or corruption anywhere in our government, they try to crush you, especially if you're an effective advocate for those people.
	So, I mean, then you always get targeted.
	I've lived it for a quarter century.
	So we've got to rally to the Jeffrey Clarks of the world so this nonsense doesn't happen again.
	And then next, we need institutional reform so these people don't have this power.
	You can't give it to them.
	They will misuse it.
	They will abuse it.
	They've proven it to the world.
	Well, Robert, people need a white pill or they're going to get thoroughly blackpilled.
	I'll share the link again.
	I sent out Jeff Clark's Give Sand Goat, so we're going to share that around.
	What is next?
	This segwayed perfectly into something, but I forgot where I was going with it.
	Well, we've got juvenile court immunity, some political hacks that finally were exposed.
	On the white pill side, we got the absurdity of what's happening in the Amos Miller case.
	We got the whistleblower suing CIA Congressman Goldman.
	He says he's from New York, but it should say D. Langley behind his name.
	That's who he represents.
	Langley, Virginia.
	We got what's happening to victims of discrimination in vaccine mandate cases by judicial abuse.
	We got election law reforms.
	This is a white pill.
	We got plenty of white pills.
	All the people coming together to fight back for Amos Miller is translating into the best legal defense for food freedom that's been raised in our modern American history.
	We got a good ruling on...
	Holding the corruption of our juvenile court and family court system accountable.
	We got a great win on behalf of the people of Wisconsin Badgerland against Zuck Bucks.
	Well, before we get to the white pills, Robert, let's stick with some of the black pills.
	Dude, you want us to be the honorary alligator coming up to steal the biggest fish he's ever caught.
	No, no.
	Get it up all to the top.
	Let's get all the bad news out of the way before we get to the good news.
	Robert, the New York $17.5 million settlement for religious discrimination because Muslim women wearing the religious garbs were forced to take it off for mugshots.
	I tried to find this before we got live tonight.
	I couldn't find the details.
	I would like to know why the women were being arrested.
	Not that it would change how I think they should be treated.
	I'm just curious.
	I was trying to figure out or find in any articles if they were forced to remove head scarves or kneecaps.
	And the difference being, I could understand an exemption or an accommodation for one but not for the other.
	So, first of all, do you know why they were being arrested?
	It doesn't make a difference.
	The story didn't get into that aspect.
	Okay, and I fished around.
	I could only find two articles that actually use the word kneecaps to describe some of the examples.
	Kneecaps is the ones where all you see is the eye.
	Look, it's not my cup of tea for whatever I would tolerate by way of religious garb.
	I know I was in a real Iraqi restaurant because they were eating underneath it.
	And they had everything.
	And the weirdest thing in London was all the people that were dressed up like this going in for shopping for clothes.
	And I was like, well, is that only for at home or looking in the mirror?
	I'm not sure I get the logic.
	I knew it.
	I was like, okay, I'm getting real Iraqi food and everybody looks like that, of course.
	The second thought that comes to your mind is, okay, I better get out of here in case somebody comes in, tick, tick, tick, tock.
	Or they don't like the fact that maybe, I don't know who you're with, but not necessarily.
	Not myself, thankfully.
	I could have been in some trouble.
	I thought I was tied to the Crusades.
	The Crusades might have been justified, by the way, but that's another story.
	That's a hush-hush.
	When you say, I took for granted certain historical facts, and then you understand the history of the Crusades.
	That was one of my, you know, going back and reassessing, something that I took for granted as a matter of fact, that might have been 180 degrees inversed.
	So it's a $17.5 million settlement because Muslim women were forced to remove their headgarbs for mugshops.
	Yeah, and they said it was religious.
	I agree with this suit in that unless it's necessary for police identification, and their point was the degree to which they were requiring removal of these clothing did not.
	That they could do it enough to get identification, but not to the degree they were doing it.
	And so it also recognized Sikh with beards, Jewish caps, a range of other religious headwear that people have.
	But what I found ironic is it's the same New York City that refuses to recognize religious exceptions to vaccine mandates.
	And it's like the same logic here.
	It's somehow privacy and religious expression only matter.
	When you want an abortion, we'll be getting to that case in a second, or when you're a Muslim or a religious minority.
	But it doesn't apply if you don't want a vaccine mandate.
	I need to highlight what I believe to be the absurdity.
	Because, Robert, I had the same thought process you had.
	If they say, hey Jew, take off your skull cap, it's a kippah.
	Take off your kippah for a mugshot.
	I was like, okay, how's that relevant?
	A kippah?
	A kippah.
	A kippah or as my LCC high school teacher?
	That's my favorite memes.
	It's the one that has Nick Fuentes dressed up as a crazy Muslim and me dressed up as an Orthodox Jew.
	That's pretty good.
	That's pretty good.
	Take off a kippah for a mugshot.
	I was like, okay, take off a scarf where your whole face is exposed.
	Fine.
	It actually was...
	Oh, no, it was not the kneecap.
	It was the hijab.
	The hijab does not cover the face.
	The kneecap does, but apparently it involved the kneecap as well.
	That's where you only have the eye slump.
	Religious beliefs aside, this debate happened up in Canada, where they said, when you become a citizen, take off your headscarf, your religious garb, and say whatever it is that you have to say when you become a citizen.
	And it was a litmus test between conservatives and liberals.
	As a policy question, I know what I believe.
	As a safety issue, you need to know who you're arresting.
	Taking off a kippah is different than taking off anything that blocks a meaningful portion of your face.
	And from what I understand, this included that.
	But they settled for $17.5 million.
	Robert, my issue with this, this sounds a little bit more like the Fox News Dominion money laundering.
	You have a partisan, ideologically motivated judicial system in New York.
	You've got a partisan, ideologically motivated plaintiff.
	And they're just basically saying, here's $17 million.
	We'll take it from tax dollars.
	How is this not taxpayer money laundering for political purposes?
	Yeah, there's a ton of that.
	Because they're in on it.
	In other words, when they're not really defending the cases, that they're eager to settle the cases, to write checks for their favorite political causes, and you sue me, and we pretend we're fighting each other, and actually we just take the public's money and give it back to one another.
	The Obama administration mastered this, mastered this, bringing bogus cases that were solely designed to redistribute money from leftists.
	From public taxpayers controlled by leftist governments to other leftist NGOs.
	It was just redistribution disguised by lawsuits.
	I mean, that's how they did the 2020 election.
	This wasn't money.
	It was power that shifted.
	Okay, I'll sue you.
	We'll pretend we're adverse and we'll rewrite the election rules in violation of the Constitution and make sure that Trump loses.
	I mean, that's what's coming out.
	Trump obviously hasn't put all this together yet, but what's coming out from the various FOIA reports and other places is that the people orchestrating the pandemic in his own administration were using it as a pretext to do mass mail-in voting before the pandemic was even announced as a pandemic.
	They were planning it in January and early February.
	That was a conspiracy.
	The plot against the election really began all the way in 2016.
	Started to take off and take a new life in 2020 using the pandemic as the guys.
	And they always use something as a disguise to shift power around.
	And that's what's going on here.
	All right.
	Well, I think it's total bullshit.
	And it does smell like money laundering to me.
	But what do I know?
	I'm just deeply cynical.
	Nobody was better at Barack Obama.
	And I got to go back and reassess what I took for granted as fact 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago.
	And it never ends.
	I guess we're going to start getting into the white pills.
	DEI might have D-I-E'd.
	We'll see.
	Robert, Wisconsin Bar no longer limit diversity internship to racial minorities.
	LGBT applicants as part of legal settlement.
	That these things need to be taken to court.
	To quote Adam Sandler out of They're All Gonna Laugh at You, it blows my freaking mind.
	They were offering scholarships based on Diversity that was all immutable political bullshit.
	LGBTQ2IA +, whatever the hell.
	Black, Latino, minority?
	Fine.
	Every diversity except for ideological or intellectual diversity.
	And it had to get sued.
	They're offering scholarships basically saying white boys need not apply.
	Especially if you're straight.
	Straight white Christian men.
	I'll say it.
	Yeah, I'm about to bring a suit.
	Against Red Hat and IBM for a guy who checked all the boxes.
	It was just the wrong boxes.
	Oh, he's white.
	Oh, he's a man.
	Oh, he's religious.
	Oh, man.
	He's straight.
	He's married.
	And they not only discriminated against him, they discriminated against him in a way that was meant to cause him maximum harm.
	I mean, denied him.
	And I'm going to be co-counsel in that case with America First Legal, Stephen Miller.
	Stephen Miller is the one who helped bring this case.
	They're doing great work.
	Just like Judicial Watch, America First Legal, another organization doing really good work, along with 1776 Law Center that I helped start.
	And the goal is to make sure we get attention.
	Miller's brought a bunch of these cases and keeps winning.
	And the State Bar takes money from me.
	Wisconsin.
	State Bar, Wisconsin takes money from me.
	And they were helping to fund this nonsense.
	They weren't telling everybody they were doing this nonsense either.
	Where you can have an internship as long as you were not somebody that looked like or sounded like or believed like our founding fathers.
	Probably why they hate the Amish so much.
	I mean, they check all the wrong boxes for the diversity, equity, inclusion crowd.
	I'm just trying to look for the part of the suit where it says, we're going to change the definition of diversity.
	We don't know how yet.
	Robert, it's such bullshit.
	When I was a lawyer in Quebec, they asked, you know, anything that you can attach to your ethnicity minority.
	Did they ask if you were a two-spirit?
	That was my favorite one.
	California now has 87 different boxes you can check.
	87 different boxes.
	It's like Bernstein.
	You know, he's at 57 channels and nothing on.
	Now we've got like 6,000 channels and nothing on.
	But we've got 87 boxes.
	And then there's like Two Spirit Indian or something?
	I was like, I don't even know what the heck that is.
	Well, Two Spirit is the native version of Bi, I guess.
	They fell both ways.
	Something tells me the old Comanches weren't running around as Two Spirits.
	It depends how much...
	They're devouring their opposition quite literally.
	I don't think they were worried about that.
	I would say it depends on how much ayahuasca you might have had, because you could discover a lot of things about yourself.
	Bottom line, though, it's a load of shit.
	They're going to redefine diversity, or they're going to redefine it in a legally acceptable manner.
	How about just ideological?
	I mean, is it intellectual diversity?
	Diversity of thought, not diversity of anything else.
	So, good news coming out of Wisconsin.
	That's a bit of a white pill.
	I don't know, white pill might be racist soon later.
	Finally, Zuck Bucks ended in Wisconsin.
	So what happened here?
	I know nothing of this.
	So the reference to Zuck Bucks is Mark Zuckerberg, founder and owner, lead owner, lead shareholder of Facebook, now called Meta, whatever the heck that is.
	I think anybody who doesn't know who Zuckerberg is is living in a freaking cave.
	There's the great meme of that lady who freaked out on a plane.
	What's going on back there?
	Something's wrong.
	That mother effer ain't real.
	The popular meme is always, it's a picture of Mark Zuckerberg that she was looking at.
	That dude looks like an alien.
	I mean, proof of alien life.
	Or robots being real.
	But he basically helped steal the 2020 election.
	The election fornication that took place.
	A lot of it.
	I mean, it was an orgy.
	Look at that guy.
	But I don't know if this picture's real.
	I don't have to go look at that.
	No, it is, man.
	You see that guy?
	That dude is a freak.
	That total freak.
	But so he spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying off election offices all across the country to make sure they did the Democratic Party and Biden's bidding with laundering and littering the countryside.
	With mail-in ballots that were going to flood the system in ways that would make sure that they magically cast their ballots for Biden.
	And a big part of it was money.
	This is how the feds buy off the local police, for example.
	They threaten them with lawsuits on civil rights grounds if they don't do their business, or in a criminal investigation into corruption, quote-unquote.
	Keep it in quotes, because that's where it belongs.
	But the other thing you do, that's the stick.
	The carrot is they say, hey, we have this money, like we talked about last week, the red flag system that they were going to use, and they're making local sheriff's offices complicit in it.
	You want some money for Officer George?
	You better do our bidding, our business.
	Well, it's the same dynamic Zuckerberg did.
	He said, hey, little election officer, you want some money to have an extra staff member on to be able to cover some overtime?
	Okay.
	Just implement my rules, not the legislature's rules, for the election in violation of the Constitution.
	So many states have banned it.
	In Wisconsin, they made sure to get it on the ballot to ban it permanently.
	And they did.
	They're like, no, our election commission, no more taking money from anybody other than out of the taxpayer drawer so that you're doing our bidding, not somebody's private bidding.
	So Zuckbox is pretty much dead in all the key swing states across the country.
	And Wisconsin just helped put another nail in that coffin for 2024.
	But there's no retroactive consequences to any of this.
	No, of course not.
	I mean, if someone could in 2025, they took office because some of the statute of limitations don't go until for six years.
	Circling back to the Douglas Mackey disenfranchising people of their right to vote, it sounds like this could be in that ballpark.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, it was illegal campaign contributions.
	It violated a bunch of laws that Zuckerberg was doing.
	All right, I'm trying to pull up the email with the list in it, Robert.
	I shut it down for goodness sake.
	We've got multiple other white pills, but before we get to those, you know, in connection to the hijab case, what else is religious?
	It turns out the same Indiana courts that have a hard time recognizing religious right to object to a vaccine mandate...
	Say, you do have a religious right to have an abortion.
	Oh, it's called Mepheprazone.
	That's the next one.
	This is the Indiana State case.
	I don't want to ask an obvious question.
	What religion are they a party of that would have it as a requirement?
	Is it Satanism or is it bastardizing Christianity?
	Yeah, they call it Jews for abortion.
	Oh, shitballs.
	Something like that.
	That was one of the groups, and then there was other religious groups.
	They were trying to make it sound like this group, that somehow pro-life laws are anti-Semitic, and it's like, oh, whoa, I don't think so.
	But I agree with part of the court's logic.
	They said your right to a medical procedure, your right not to do a medical procedure, can be part of your religious tradition.
	I agree.
	And under the state's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that can limit the government.
	What I disagree with is they said the state can have no cognizable interest in human life prior to birth.
	This was the Indiana Court of Appeals that said this.
	The Indiana Supreme Court has already ruled there is a compelling state interest.
	In life from the moment of conception.
	And they just decide they're just going to disobey the Indiana Supreme Court.
	Because that's how, out of, what is this?
	This is the professional managerial class enraged at allowing ordinary people to have a say on anything.
	Anything.
	And they control, the biggest power they have is in the bureaucracy of government and in the judicial branch.
	And the legal and medical professions in general.
	And what they do is they are enraged that the Supreme Court allowed ordinary people to make up their own mind through their own legislative processes what laws on abortion they wanted.
	They're like, no, no, no.
	We, the professional managerial class, should decide.
	So the same people that have said you somehow can't have...
	The same court said, well, other courts have said you can have a religious objection to a vaccine mandate.
	Yeah, but you Indiana courts said you couldn't back when this issue was being challenged at the time in 2020.
	Some of us remember you bunch of frauds.
	So I agree with the, you can have absolutely a religious objection to a medical procedure and even a right to a medical procedure.
	That aspect is less than clear.
	There's a big difference between the right to refuse a medical procedure and the right to a medical procedure.
	They ignore that distinction.
	But the biggest one they do is they say, absolutely no state compelling interest of any kind in any human life.
	Prior to birth.
	That I don't agree with at all.
	Robert, I have to pull this up just because it's funny in a very sick way that it's Hoosier Jews.
	Hoosier Jews of choice.
	Hoosier Jews for choice.
	Robert, the articles, they're framing it as the restrictions if the health of the pregnant woman is compromised.
	That's under the law.
	So the law in Indiana passed.
	And here's what, they used that against Indiana.
	They said, so you passed a law saying you can still get an abortion if the woman's life is in danger, if it was the product of rape or incest, so on and so forth.
	Because you did that, we're going to say that that means any limitation on the law is not narrowly tailored.
	Okay.
	And that's where it's like, there were some places they could go that I would agree with legally.
	But I was like, how are they going to deal with the difference between the right to refuse something and the right to something?
	They just pretend that difference doesn't exist.
	And I was like, how are they going to deal with the state's interest in this that the Indiana Supreme Court that they're governed by has already ruled on 50 years ago?
	Well, they just pretend that ruling doesn't matter.
	Like, ah, times have changed.
	We're going to ignore that precedent.
	And it's like, ah, okay.
	But it also shows the selectivity.
	One minute they're finding robust religious freedom rights, if it means a hijab at a mug shot, or if it means an abortion, but somebody that wants to not have to force vaccinate their child doesn't have any religious objection in many of these same states, like New York, when it comes to a vaccine mandate.
	It just shows how partisan all this is.
	They're looking at the end result, wanting it, and they're reverse-engineering it, even if it means contradicting themselves and other rulings.
	And not to...
	I'll get cancelled not to point it out.
	Judge Leanna Wiseman, author of the 70-page finding, finding the plaintiff's head standing to pursue the case.
	These are the same judges that will find no standing when...
	You sue on a vaccine mandate grounds.
	Oh, lordy.
	The Hoosiers, the Hoosier Jews for abortion.
	Yeah, you would have thought that was started by an anti-Semitic troll group.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's a real organization.
	Robert, that's one of the cases.
	Now, the other one, bringing it back to the methiprozone, I forget what state of court we're up to on this one.
	Is this Supreme or is it?
	It's the Supreme Court.
	They just held oral argument.
	Okay, fine.
	So now this is whether or not They can ban...
	Oh, and this is one where I think it's not going to go anywhere good.
	It sounded like all the judges were hostile to overriding the FDA's approval.
	Alito was great.
	But many of the others were on the wrong side.
	We've been talking about this for a long time, and I can put it all together in retrospect when you talked about it.
	This is a question of whether or not the FDA basically bypassed rules, regulations, a procedure to approve methiprozone.
	This is called the abortion pill, or am I mixing up two things?
	Yeah, that's correct.
	And so you take this pill, and it causes you to have an abortion.
	And then the question is, it was at the one point off-label use, if I'm not mistaken.
	Isn't that amazing?
	The ivermectin, you couldn't use, couldn't prescribe.
	Safest drug on earth.
	If you did prescribe for COVID, it would be smeared and shamed if you talked about.
	But abortion pills?
	Woo!
	That's great for you.
	So it was the off-label.
	There's a bunch of $1 super chats that came out.
	I'll get that in a second.
	So it was off-label use of this drug.
	And they say, oh, look, it's a pill you take, and it causes you to abort a fetus.
	And they say, off-label, we want to approve it, and we're going to surveil this.
	FDA looks at the data for four years and says, safe and effective, 0.3% hospitalization rate.
	You know how good that label is whenever they say safe and effective.
	But now I'm looking back.
	I have never had experience with this.
	Methiprazone and the morning-after pill, are those the same thing?
	No.
	Okay.
	So I don't know enough about these things, but bottom line, you know, this relates to like RU486 and all of that stuff.
	And so this is, it was determined to be effective.
	I don't know if I'll say it.
	When in fact the data contradicted them.
	And so we've talked about this a number of times, how the FDA bypassed a number of...
	Look at the Pfizer!
	The Pfizer, the COVID pill!
	Remember the pill that treated it?
	Their vaccine, supposed to give you immunity, wasn't safe, wasn't effective, wasn't a vaccine, didn't prevent COVID-19.
	And then they had a pill to help treat your COVID-19.
	Once you got the COVID-19, after you got the vaccine, they're supposed to prevent you from getting it from Pfizer.
	Turned out it was completely ineffective and they knew it.
	They stole hundreds of billions of dollars more from the American people and people around the world.
	And that's another one the FDA was like, woohoo, green light.
	The FDA greenlights it.
	I understand the arguments here because the plaintiff or the plaintiffs are not doctors.
	They're not injured people.
	They're basically saying FDA bypassed, circumvented the rules, the requirements to approve a drug.
	It should not have been approved and it should be outlawed.
	This is setting aside all of my beliefs on abortion, which would probably piss off both the left and the right.
	My issue with this is Setting all that aside, if everybody knows about whether or not it's dangerous, not dangerous, effective, what it can do to you, and decides to take it, I do question who has the right to say, no, this should not be available to people.
	I disagree with FDA being able to control anything.
	So the one aspect I agree with challenging is whether the FDA can label something safe and effective when it's not safe or neither safe nor effective.
	And that to me was the part of the suit that had the strongest roots.
	That the district court recognized, okay, you did this in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
	You did so in violation of your own rules.
	You did so in contravention of this direct information.
	And the argument that's been used by the FDA is nobody can sue us.
	The same argument they've used against us, Children's Health Defense, in our case, challenging their ability to force this on soldiers and then to force this on children.
	Both cases.
	The court said, no, you can't sue because the FDA said nobody can sue us.
	So here's where conservatives have been so badly mistaken on standing.
	And this is where Thomas is wrong.
	This is where Kavanaugh is wrong.
	This is where Gorsuch might end up wrong.
	All the conservatives have convinced themselves that if they just drastically expanded standing to drastically reduce access to the courtroom...
	That all the liberal cases will go away.
	But of course, what happens is liberal courts ignore that.
	So all they're actually doing is helping liberal courts get rid of conservative cases because they can't think two steps ahead based on a doctrine that, by the way, is invented in the first place.
	Sorry, Justice Thomas, you're not being an originalist.
	If I'm ever in front of the Supreme Court on this, I'm going to say it, by golly.
	I kept trying to find the word standing in the Constitution.
	It doesn't seem to be there.
	Seems to be some judges stuck it in there.
	In fact, they didn't stick it in there until the 1920s.
	It didn't exist for over a century and a half of American legal history.
	But they're going to use standing to allow the abortion pill to continue to be distributed falsely as safe and effective in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
	That's my problem with it.
	Kavanaugh's going to capitulate.
	Barrett's going to capitulate.
	Even Thomas and Gorsuch in misguided efforts to hurt liberals are only going to hurt themselves and cover up state corruption.
	Alito, to his credit, pointed out, he goes, if you're right, that means nobody can sue the FDA.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Right question, right path.
	We'll see if the Supreme Court has the right answer.
	They probably won't.
	But an injured person has standing.
	Theoretically.
	But they're saying these people aren't injured.
	So here you had doctors forced to do procedures.
	They're only forced to do because this pill is labeled as safe and effective.
	They're like, oh, that's not good enough.
	And then what about the organizations that had to spend money to correct the misinformation the FDA put out there?
	Oh, not good enough.
	Because the conservatives are secretly cheering.
	They're saying, wow, we're going to stop the liberals from being able to sue.
	No, you're just going to stop yourselves, you morons, while doing so on no constitutional basis.
	That's what they're doing.
	They think they're so smart.
	I mean, we have so many clerks, conservative law clerks, that are your classic disconnected political nerds that think they know, oh, yeah, where can I really get them this time?
	You nitwits.
	You're gutting yourself.
	That's what you're doing.
	My only, not pushback, my only observation would be, in theory, there should be some actual victims.
	Deaths and severe adverse events after the use of mefiprosome as an...
	What the fuck?
	The problem is, if you're an actual victim, you have no grounds to sue the government because there's immunity.
	So you have to be at imminent risk of injury under their interpretation.
	So you can't sue if you've already suffered the injury, but until you suffer the injury, you can't sue either.
	Ha ha ha!
	Aren't we smart?
	What does the Constitution say?
	Article 3. It says cases or controversies.
	How is this not a case?
	How is this not a controversy?
	Let's let Article 3 read in the plain words.
	Justice Thomas is putting words in there that ain't in there.
	Justice Thomas is putting words in there that ain't in there.
	I totally agree with you on all of that.
	And there's no but.
	I'm just wondering why someone who has not actually died or been injured...
	Because you've already suffered injury.
	And there's monetary immunity.
	You can only sue for injunctive or declaratory relief.
	And if you've already suffered the injury...
	Then there's nothing to prevent.
	See?
	You can only sue to prevent an injury under their interpretation.
	But by that definition, you can't sue until you're injured.
	But because you can only sue to prevent injury, you can never sue.
	Well, I'm just going to share that out there.
	And if I'm misreading that, because I'm going to keep that window open and see those numbers seem astronomical.
	All right.
	What do we got next, Robert?
	No, we still got some insane cases.
	We got the, you know, speaking of FDA, USDA, we got the PDA, the mini-me of the FDA, with some extraordinary announcements in their effort to try to take away Amos Miller's right top.
	Oh, PDA's Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	Let's do it.
	Go for it.
	Sounds like pedo, but that's just coincidental.
	I was thinking animals, but I was thinking pedo.
	All right, Robert.
	Sorry, what's the latest on Amos Miller?
	I really love animals if you watch the South Park episode.
	Hey, you know what?
	Wasn't that about P. Diddy?
	I think that South Park episode was about P. Diddy.
	I think South Park is going to become like The Simpsons.
	Well, The Simpsons predicted a lot of stuff, but thus far, on a more, what is statistically less probable, South Park has been very good.
	What's the PDA doing to Amos Miller, Robert?
	So the court ruled in our favor, saying that, in fact, There is no basis to prevent him from doing things outside the state of Pennsylvania.
	Limited the injunction to within the state.
	The state went nuts.
	They filed emergency motions with the court demanding that the court change its mind and reverse itself.
	And said, this is just horrendous.
	Amos Miller can now sell food outside the state.
	People can now get Amos Miller's food as long as they live outside the state.
	This can't happen, judge.
	You have to prohibit this.
	And what's extraordinary is they let out of the bag what I've been saying their goal was all along.
	They want the judge to legally reinterpret the law to now say it prohibits sales anywhere if you merely possess or produce food that ever crosses into Pennsylvania.
	Even if it's not for the Pennsylvania consumer market, doesn't matter.
	If you ever cross into Pennsylvania with food intended for sale anywhere, or you make any aspect of a food item anywhere in Pennsylvania, you are now a criminal unless you get a permit from the state of Pennsylvania.
	Unless Pope Redding, the Secretary of Agriculture, blesses your food, you can't eat it.
	It goes even further.
	They want to redefine the word sell.
	To include not selling.
	They want to include the word sell.
	Barter.
	Yeah.
	Delivery.
	No, no.
	Beyond barter.
	Delivery.
	If you have food with the intent to deliver it to any other person, regardless of whether there's intent to sell.
	What does that mean?
	Potlucks are now a crime in the state of Pennsylvania.
	Unless that was a...
	If it came from your kitchen and not a PDA-permitted food facility...
	You've now just committed a crime.
	You take food over for Thanksgiving or you're preparing it for Thanksgiving and you did it in your own kitchen, not from a PDA facility.
	You just committed a crime in Pennsylvania, according to the PDA.
	You want Easter brunch?
	Crime.
	Thanksgiving lunch?
	Crime.
	All of it a crime now in the state of Pennsylvania because they want the word to sell to include not selling, to include delivery.
	End of story.
	Just delivery of food.
	Or the intent to deliver food.
	That's all.
	So all charitable actions now banned.
	You cannot deliver food from one person to another without that food coming from a PDA-permitted facility.
	And I've been telling people this was about the state wanting a complete monopoly on all food.
	They want to be able to go into your fridge, your freezer, and say you can't have this food.
	They want to be able to search it, detain it, and destroy it like they did to Amos Miller at will.
	I mean, they did this to Amos.
	They came into his food from his kitchen, made on his farm, and said, we're going to ration to you what food you can feed your own family and your own pigs.
	That's how nuts the PDA is.
	And there are a bunch of politicians in Pennsylvania, oh, it's not that bad.
	Now they put it in writing.
	It can't be disputed anymore.
	So we'll see.
	They're trying to intimidate the court.
	Kind of like they're trying to intimidate Judge Cannon.
	Saying, you better do this or we're going to appeal.
	The judge promised everybody publicly he would follow the law and he wasn't going to write the law.
	He lectured me saying, Mr. Barnes, I'm not here to amend the law.
	I'm not here to usurp the legislative function.
	Well, that's now what the PDA is asking him to do.
	They're saying, add this word, add this word, add this phrase, add this.
	The words, no matter where the customer resides, doesn't exist in the law, but they want that to be in the injunction.
	The words, from the Commonwealth, don't exist in the law, but they want that added to the injunction.
	The words, to deliver food, don't exist in the law, but they want to add that to the injunction.
	So the judge keeps his word to everybody in that courtroom.
	And simply follows the law, doesn't try to rewrite the law, then Amos Miller should absolutely prevail.
	No matter what happens, there probably will be an appeal.
	But this proves what I've been trying to scream at people now for over a year.
	This is a coordinated campaign of the government to monopolize the food supply.
	What did Kissinger say?
	Control food, control countries.
	People remember him saying about control money, control the world, control fuel, control continents.
	They forget the very first thing he said.
	Control food, control countries.
	They control your body, they control you.
	If you don't own your body and what goes into it, they own you.
	They own your body.
	And PDA is out to do that in the state of Pennsylvania.
	And because so many lazy Republicans in that state are asleep at the wheel.
	It's the only reason why they can abuse this power so badly.
	But they should be watching the clock because there's, not only has Robert Kennedy denounced this prosecution, Thomas Massey, big agriculture congressman, denounced this prosecution.
	Brownstone Institute and leading independent organizations and think tanks and foundations denounced this prosecution of Amos Miller.
	You can soon expect United States senators and a certain former president.
	To be denouncing this prosecution.
	So they're going to get a lot more than they bargained for because they're obsessed with putting little Amos Miller out of business, trying to crush him by every means they have.
	But thanks to ordinary everyday people out there, 1776lawcenter.com is where you can get all the info.
	If anybody says what it's about, go to 1776 Law Center.
	We're putting up the complaints, the legal documents, the transcripts, the court proceedings, the public proceedings, interviews.
	All the information right there you can get and share with people.
	This case is about our rights to decide what goes into our bodies and not have the government and Bill Gates have a complete monopoly on our food supply.
	As I was talking about with Dr. Drew.
	Dr. Drew didn't even know a lot of this.
	Dr. Drew needs to drink some fresh milk.
	Milk right from the cow.
	He was a little nervous about it.
	The moment you drink it, you'll never be nervous about it again.
	You ask yourself, According to the government, it's better than cocaine, and that's why they've got to ban it, because it's like cocaine, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	That's how nuts these people are.
	These low-IQ lordasses that want to run our lives.
	These people who are walking, talking, physical examples of why you don't want their food pyramid, as Dr. Drew pointed out.
	So we filed our opposition this week.
	We'll see what the judge does.
	If the judge does what he promised to do...
	Then it'll be up to the government to appeal.
	If the judge goes back on that, then we'll have to appeal and we'll bring a federal civil rights action.
	This violates the Supremacy Clause.
	It violates the Commerce Clause.
	It violates the Right to Travel Clause.
	It violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
	It violates First Amendment rights concerning political association and religious expression.
	It violates Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh and Eighth Amendment rights that concern bodily autonomy and privacy and due process of law and property without it being taken from you without just compensation.
	Our core constitutional liberties, the touchstone of it, is food freedom, as Thomas Jefferson himself said.
	Robert, I was going to say something, and I just totally lost the thought.
	It doesn't matter what I was going to say.
	It's wild, and we'll see where that goes.
	I was going to get into the Bobulinski versus Goldman suit before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I wanted to say something.
	We've got foreigners claiming they have a right to work, which is interesting.
	I mean, that's obvious.
	That's if you look at our jobs report.
	All the jobs under Biden have only been going to foreigners.
	Americans have been losing jobs for four straight years.
	It's all going to foreigners.
	The federal judge that allowed or said illegals have the right to carry.
	I was trying to make sense of that.
	Do you know what's going on with that?
	Now, there's part of that that is true.
	I agree with him.
	I wouldn't mind having a gun.
	It's a part of the foreign workers' rights suit that is correct.
	Whether they're right about the discriminatory animus and the preemption issues are, I think, still subject to debate.
	But the issue is the Constitution is mostly a restraint on the government.
	That is, it didn't create, but recognizes the rights of the people.
	By definition, those rights can't come.
	Like, sometimes I'll get this from conservatives who forget.
	They'll say, oh, you have to be a citizen to have these rights.
	Citizenship comes, derives from your relationship to the government.
	It's not something you already have.
	You don't have citizenship natively without a state's existence.
	It's dependent on the state.
	By contrast, the Bill of Rights wasn't about rights being given to us.
	It was rights we already have.
	And that was our rights as people.
	That means it's not dependent on citizenship.
	So that's why I've always told people, don't look at who's suing.
	Look at what the government, who is being sued.
	Is the government doing something they're prohibited from doing?
	And in that context, absolutely, in my view, people, regardless of citizenship status, are protected under the Second Amendment.
	They're also protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects due process of law and equal protection, because it says the people.
	It's not limited to citizens.
	There's only a few provisions in our Constitution that are conditioned upon citizenship.
	No argument that the people was intended to be citizens.
	No, no, not at all.
	The reason is because all humans have these rights.
	All humans.
	The rights weren't given to the government.
	The people already had them, and this was just a recognition of, by the way, government, you can't infringe on these, because these are human rights, universal rights, and they apply wherever the government is up to something.
	So it doesn't matter who it is, the government can't say, you're no longer a citizen, we now get to take away your rights.
	Not unless you're that lunatic Judge Ludig who said you could just call him an enemy combatant and take away all his rights.
	That's why we want the people to be wide and robust.
	Not only is it principally important as a matter of principle because it recognizes the Constitution's recognizing rights, not granting them, not creating them, simply recognizing their prior existence, but also because otherwise the government will start relabeling us and taking away and doing illegal things.
	Call you domestic terrorists and take away your guns.
	I understand.
	The people suing saying they're right under the Constitution.
	Florida passed a law saying we don't want people from China having jobs in the universities and schools and a few other countries.
	Now, to be honest with you, it was grandstanding by some of the people in Florida, like they're going to really change the world in this regard, but okay.
	But some of them sued saying this is really, you know, the Constitution limits the state of Florida to the 14th Amendment, applies to all the people, whether you're a citizen or not, green card holder or not.
	And so the issue is, is it a supremacy clause violation because the executive branch has the exclusive prerogative over immigration and national security?
	Is it an equal protection violation because they're saying you are presumed and unqualified if you have this ancestry?
	And is it a procedural due process violation in the way they go about this?
	The challenge has good constitutional grounds.
	There's some balance to be brought here.
	Because is it going to be the case that, to me, foreign individuals is different than foreign governments.
	It's my issue with TikTok.
	Foreign government control, I think you're fair game limiting access to the U.S. markets.
	Foreign individual control, and then when it starts getting subjective and you think someone works for a foreign adversary, what does that mean?
	Just using ancestry as a proxy?
	Okay, so you're from China, you're from Cuba, you're from Venezuela.
	We're going to presume you can't be worse?
	I think the law went too far, is the short answer.
	I think the lawsuit is probably going to prevail.
	And you're consistent with the...
	Oh, jeez, Robert, what's the Japanese case from World War II?
	Yeah, Korematsu.
	Oh, your grandparents are Japanese.
	You don't have a right to religion anymore.
	This is why we want all the people to be included.
	No right of religion.
	No right of political expression.
	No right of association.
	No right to even your business.
	No right to your home.
	No right to your family.
	No right of self-defense.
	No right of privacy.
	No right against unlawful searches.
	No right to just compensation for your takings.
	I mean, it's all the people.
	It's about what the government can't do.
	It's not about what we, the people, can or can't do.
	It's about what the government can't do.
	The government can't do this to anybody, and we want to keep it that way.
	Foreign governments is different than people.
	That's why I've always drawn that distinction.
	And that should be the proper target of concern is foreign governments.
	But anybody who thinks Dan Crenshaw is really there to help defend you from China should probably, you know, take a look, you know, is looking at things a little one-eyed, you might say.
	Okay, now, Robert, we're going to head over to locals in two seconds.
	I want to read a few of the chats here.
	I think somebody's figured out the hack here.
	Give $1 chats and pay exorbitant attention to them.
	The Engaged View says, the first time I heard the Dancing with the Devil sing, it was Joaquin Phoenix in the movie 8mm.
	I've never seen that movie because I've seen enough actual 8mm.
	Remember, when you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change, the devil changes you.
	It's a great expression.
	I have never seen that movie because I've seen enough shit.
	It almost makes 7 look like a heart-uplifting film.
	Mm-mm, good.
	I don't recommend that film, by the way.
	I always spoil horrible films.
	Seven horrible films.
	They kill her at the end.
	They chop her head off.
	Horrible film.
	Don't watch it.
	What's in the box?
	What's in the box?
	I remember that.
	It's white.
	It's white.
	That's who's in the box.
	Don't watch it.
	It's a nihilistic film.
	It's a disgusting movie, and it reminded me a lot of the artwork of Joel Peter Witkin.
	And if anybody doesn't know who he is, he's a New York photographer.
	He used to make still art out of cadavers that he would get from Mexican morgues, because you couldn't get the cadaver parts in America.
	Joel Peter Witkin, if you're into that crap, in France I discovered it, of all places.
	A pewter skull 67. Mm-mm, good.
	Gators love little dogs and Canadian midgets.
	I'm not technically a midget, but I'm quite short.
	A pill of the honey.
	Question for Barnes.
	Your thoughts on circumventing the swamp by calling an Article 5 convention to the states?
	We've talked about this many times.
	And getting 38 states to amend the Constitution.
	Robert, what do you say?
	30-second answer?
	There's risk to it.
	The devil will be in the details.
	Don't answer the details.
	Cannon could let go to trial with favorable jury instructions.
	Unapealable.
	Burns shared court time with other bogus cases.
	Oh, yeah, Burns.
	Okay, fine.
	And lets Trump claim victory with the judge for the jury before election.
	Yo, Barnes, as a fellow lawyer, you are a savage for calling up the judges.
	Right there with you.
	Major respect.
	Rumble on, Aviva.
	Let's fucking go.
	LFG.
	Now I'm going to read these real quick.
	Hence, one pack.
	Any settlement involving government funds should require a judge full evidence to sign off.
	Just identify all boxes when asked.
	Oh, as all boxes.
	The right to medical procedure for religious whatever will lead to...
	Okay.
	Mm-mm, good.
	Oh, we got this guy before.
	Oh, so there might be a bot here.
	Anyways, either way, thank you for all the tip, the rumble rants.
	Now what we're going to do is finish up this stream on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we've got juvenile court immunity.
	We've got CIA Congressman Representative Goldman sued for libel by the Biden whistleblower.
	Bobulinski.
	And we've got the insanity that's happening to victims of vaccine mandates by courts allowing corrupt corporate defendants like 3M.
	I found out 3M, they left off the rest of their slogan.
	Their name is supposed to be 3MFers.
	I didn't realize that.
	It explains them a lot better.
	But they're harassing.
	They discriminate against you for religious reasons.
	And 3M people, we now have them on deposition, admitting their discrimination, admitting they targeted Christians for discrimination in particular.
	Admitting that they didn't think Christian science was actually a religious belief.
	That's the insanity we're dealing with.
	Wear a hijab.
	There are preferred religions.
	Wear a kippah.
	There are preferred religions.
	And there are disfavored religions.
	It's so amazing that Islam is a favored religion.
	These people are like a different level of insanity.
	You're going to favor the least tolerant religion that as soon as you're there, they're going to throw you off the top of the building.
	LBGTQ for Palestine.
	Hey, go set up a shop there.
	See how long that works there in Gaza for you.
	Good luck!
	Okay.
	I'm going to not say anything right now.
	What I was going to say, though, get on over to Locals.
	We're going to carry on with this party.
	All the chats are going to be read there.
	Robert, what do you have on for this week?
	That's a good question.
	I think there's probably somebody.
	I mean, we have the...
	Opposition to the motion to intervene and motion to dismiss in the Brooke Jackson case due a week from Monday.
	So that's going to take up a lot of time.
	Then I got multiple other legal client matters that take up a lot of time.
	So I don't know how many.
	I don't know if I'll do any.
	I'll probably do one interview maybe this week.
	But I'll be back with Bourbon with Barnes throughout this week at Viva Barnes Law.
	And I'll tell you this, Robert, I've got a special birthday gift for you for your 50th.
	Oh, yeah, we got a Saturday party?
	That's right.
	Yeah, 7th.
	50th birthday party.
	I got to go to Ottawa.
	I don't want to go back to Canada.
	I've been signing some stuff.
	We got some little gift packets for people.
	We're going to have a silent auction.
	We'll have some live entertainment, some great food, old school place.
	And it's just great to catch up with everybody.
	And it's a great fundraiser to support the Amos Miller and other cases at 76. 1776lawcenter.com And I've got a nice 50th birthday present coming to you.
	It's straight up gangster.
	Unique, one of a kind.
	I'm getting old.
	We're not getting any younger, but we will never be any younger.
	Ending on Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Come over now and stay tuned.
	Next week is going to be great.
	Bye-bye, Rumble.
	Locals, here he comes.
	Okay, we should be good on Locals.
	We're still good.

▲