Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 15, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:40

Viva & Barnes LIVE! Day 1 of Trump Trial; Trans Madness; WW3 Started? AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm Mierman, aka GoodLogic.
	I am right outside 100 Center Street, the site of the New York County Criminal Courthouse, where former President Donald Trump is currently standing trial.
	I have been denied access to not merely the courtroom, but the viewing room, told that it has been filled to capacity and that no more media is allowed to access that room.
	I have complained to security here, in fact, the head of security who believes to, I believe, Major Allen.
	He informed me that they are not prepared to handle the onslaught of media here, and I expressed to him that that is a violation of the First Amendment rights of freedom of press.
	Now, freedom of press does not merely extend to people who have hollow credentials like a New York City press badge, but that any American who's interested in watching this trial, which is arguably the most critical criminal trial in the history of this country, should be...
	rights.
	Joe's pissed right now.
	He instructed me that I should speak with the court director of communications, a gentleman by the name of Al Baker, and voiced my concerns there.
	So I do intend to follow up on this.
	And if the court cannot provide access to the media or to anyone who wants to watch this, there should be a dispensation wherein the normal New York rule prohibiting cameras in the courtroom must be dispensed with in this case.
	This is a case that the entire country cares about.
	Millions, tens of millions of Americans, if not hundreds, care about this trial, its outcome, and how these proceedings go from...
	from start to finish, from jury selection through verdict.
	Testify.
	The inability of the court to provide access.
	And they don't have to provide access on site.
	They can theoretically provide access.
	Testify.
	They could provide livestream access.
	Just throwing that one out there for the technologically impaired courts.
	There has to be some place that we can actually watch this trial.
	And if the court cannot provide that, then they must stream this trial from inside the courtroom to the entire world, which is arguably what they should have been doing from the get-go.
	So I intend to be following up on this and letting you know how things progress on this front.
	Take care and Godspeed.
	For those who don't know Joe Nierman, I think he's genuinely pissed in that video.
	I think he's actually so angry and so frustrated that he can barely get his words out intact.
	That's Joe Nierman, good logic, L-A-W-G-I-C on YouTube, and the following pro, at the following pro on Twitter.
	Now, hold on.
	People are saying Rumble is not playing, and I'm not going to accuse anyone of trolling.
	Sometimes Rumble...
	Yeah, if it's not playing on Rumble...
	Refresh your screen because it's playing.
	Sometimes it doesn't autoplay.
	Yeah, everyone's saying had to reload the app, skip, and let me skip here and make sure before I go any further with my intro that we are, in fact, live on the interwebs.
	My audio sounds good.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble.
	I'm going back to the intro in a second.
	We are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me refresh here and make sure we're good here.
	See, Gouveia's got a better...
	He's got a smoother intro where he tests across the fruited plains of the intro, however he says it.
	But we're good.
	Back to Joe Nierman.
	Viva cuck.
	What?
	What does that even mean?
	Okay, forget it.
	Back to Joe Nierman.
	So, we're going to talk about it tonight.
	We're going to talk about Joe Nierman, his motion.
	To lift his contestation of the gag order in that case.
	But I wanted to start off with Joe, because Joe's doing some good work and some heavy lifting.
	And making himself a player, not just an observer, in the motion that he made, which we're going to talk about tonight.
	But he went to court.
	Apparently, it's overcapacity.
	They're not broadcasting this trial live.
	Like, we're not going to get it like the Fannie Willis-Nathan Wade trial.
	We're not going to get it like the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
	What it's going to be?
	More like the Sussman trial or the, what's her face, Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
	You know, we're just going to have to take the word of the totally objective journalists who have access to it that what's going on is as they say it's going on.
	And even if that's the case, we totally lose our ability to assess credibility, to see...
	The corruption in real time, like we saw with the Fanny Willis, like we saw with the Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Can you imagine if we hadn't seen...
	Was it Binger or the idiot?
	The other one.
	No, it was Binger, not Klaus.
	Not Klaus.
	Pointing that AR at the jury.
	Like a raging lunatic.
	Can you imagine if someone tries to relay that moment to you?
	I'm sure it won't get lost in translation.
	More like secret Soviet trials.
	Absolutely.
	We're going to talk about this.
	I don't want to get too far ahead because I got a few things for the intro related to the Trump case, but that will not impede or double up with what Barnes and I are going to talk about.
	The trial started today.
	I got a vlog out, a recap of day one, before this stream.
	I tell the kids, the kids, I got to go for a drive.
	I go to my secret spot in the park where I got a little bit of shade.
	There was a little bit of wind today.
	I record it.
	I shot the vlog, edited the vlog, published the vlog before tonight's stream so that people can get a 10-minute rundown of what happened today.
	Good to talk about it with Barnes.
	But I want to play a couple of videos because this is not so much law-related as it is just my prediction as to another bullshit narrative.
	Sorry, started swearing early.
	Another horse plop narrative that is being constructed and run.
	Not tandem, but rather in coordination, seemingly in real time.
	Listen to this.
	Headline, Trump sleeping at his own trial.
	I have to ask, you guys at the Times have been live blogging this event.
	I was told by credible sources that live blogging is not news.
	Bada bing, bada boom, I'm joking.
	And 40 minutes ago, you wrote an observation that I was very surprised.
	Trump appears to be sleeping.
	His head keeps dropping down and his mouth goes slack.
	Tell us about that.
	Tell us.
	By the way, that's Maggie Haberman.
	For those of you who don't know who Maggie Haberman is, that is Maggie Haberman, right?
	It is.
	Okay.
	I believe she's a liar.
	So let's hear what the liar has to say.
	Well, Jake, he appeared to be asleep.
	And, you know, repeatedly his head would fall down.
	There have been other moments.
	Fall down.
	Trials, like the E.G. Carroll trial, which was around the corner in January, where he appeared very still and seemed as if he might be sleeping.
	Why are we talking about the E.G. and Carroll?
	Did she report on that at the time?
	I'm going to have to look that up in a second.
	Oh, I have to do a vlog about this tomorrow now.
	And he would move.
	This time, he didn't pay attention to a note that his lawyer, Todd Blanche, passed him.
	His jaw kept falling on his...
	His head's falling over.
	His jaw's falling on his chest.
	I mean, this sounds like something out of the ring.
	I mean, Maggie, it's not that I think you're a pathological liar making up something that's totally unbelievable even by your own description.
	But I'm thinking it.
	You know, sometimes people do fall asleep during court proceedings, but it's notable.
	Dude, I'm falling asleep listening to her right now.
	Yeah, that's rather surprising.
	I have to ask, you guys at the Times have been live blogging.
	Oh, is that it?
	It replayed already?
	And 40 minutes ago, we wrote an observation that...
	Oh, yeah.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm fairly certain Maggie Haberman, liar.
	Viva Frye tweet, I think.
	Somewhere.
	I know she's a liar.
	It doesn't matter.
	So Maggie Haberman says that Trump is tweeting.
	Trump is sleeping with a very descriptive way of describing it.
	And that she says he also was falling asleep during the E. Jean Carroll trial, which I don't remember anybody saying that at the time.
	And now you go to Twitter.
	It's now the new talking point.
	Like the shithole countries, the Martin Luther King bust being removed from Trump's office.
	It's the new trend.
	I'm predicting.
	It's a lie.
	And it will be proven to be a demonstrable lie.
	Because when they do what they've done in the past, when they were running BS lies, they're running the same play right now.
	That's Maggie Haberman, New York Times.
	Liar.
	A professional liar.
	Now, there was this one.
	Aiken, the man who...
	Single-handedly spread the bloodbath hoax prior.
	Puts out a tweet that says Trump is talking about how he can't go to his son's graduation.
	Let's hear this.
	So I just want to thank you very much that I can't go to my son's graduation or that I can't go to the United States Supreme Court, that I'm not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina campaigning like I should be.
	It's perfect for the radical left Democrats.
	That's exactly what they want.
	This is about election interference.
	A thousand percent.
	So Aiken, the guy from the Midas Touch, puts this tweet out, and I genuinely wonder if he thinks that this makes Trump look bad, or if he doesn't think that there's going to be sufficiently reasonably-minded people out there who are going to understand that what Trump is saying is one thousand percent the truth.
	See, this is election interference.
	Pure and simple.
	It was the conclusion of my vlog today.
	I've been saying it for a while.
	It just so happens, as a matter of irony, it's not only not going to work, it's the exact opposite of effect, and that Trump is going to be on the airwaves now, nationally, while being in that courtroom standing trial, and it's going to be the best campaign promotion that you could possibly have.
	But this is, make no mistake about it, election interference.
	And they're denying him from what he says.
	That he can't go to his son's graduation because he's got to be in trial.
	And that if he doesn't sit there for his trial, he forfeits his right to be present at the trial.
	Can't be campaigning.
	That we know.
	But the world out there, the social media world, the pundits, the commentators like myself, will make sure that this serves as campaign material for Trump.
	This will get exponentially more awareness, more visibility, than had he shown up at a rally in Iowa, Georgia, or wherever.
	He's going to do that eventually at some point as well, but this is scheduled to last six weeks.
	I don't want to get too ahead of ourselves, but that's that.
	There was one more video which I also thought was interesting that I want to play, just so that I don't play videos when Barnes gets here, so that we know what's going on in the social media world.
	And I'm going to talk about something before we go live here.
	I just want to play this one, because this one was his opening statements at court today.
	I don't know if the audio is too low, but...
	Because they're under O. All these questions to the questionnaire.
	And let me note that Donald Trump is now walking in to the courtroom, accompanied with his legal team.
	Oh, he looks so tired.
	Oh, he looks so tired, says the left.
	This man looks like a man who's had enough of this crap.
	Third world country kangaroo court crap.
	I say third world country, and yet this is like North Korea level stuff.
	This is what they say of Putin level stuff.
	We're going to listen in.
	Let's listen in.
	This is an assault.
	He's right.
	Bullshit.
	Who brings their dog to the courthouse?
	There is no case, and they've said it.
	People that don't necessarily follow or like Donald Trump.
	So this is an outrage that this case was brought.
	This is political persecution.
	This is a persecution like never before.
	Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
	And again, it's a case that should have never been brought.
	It's an assault America.
	And that's why I'm very proud to be here.
	This is an assault on our country.
	And it's a country that's failing.
	It's a country that's run by an incompetent man who's very much involved in this case.
	This is really an attack on a political opponent.
	That's all it is.
	So I'm very honored to be here.
	Thank you very much.
	You know what the headline ran?
	Trump says he's honored to be arrested.
	Trump says he's honored to be a felonious criminal.
	He's 1,000% right, by the way.
	And we're going to get into more of that as we get this stream going.
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's the Sunday show on a Monday because I was traveling back from Vegas on the Sunday.
	Got back late last night, or late-ish, like 10 o 'clock, and we were in Vegas for Barnes' 50th birthday anniversary?
	50th birthday.
	And for our meet and greet, which we had, there were over 150 members of the locals community, and it was beautiful.
	And you may notice I've re-tinkered with the backdrop.
	Some say it looks a little crowded or busy, and I say, well, that fits my brain very well, because my brain is both crowded and busy.
	I had to rearrange it because I got a cutting board of all cutting boards right there.
	It's beautiful.
	It's the American flag with the Pledge of Allegiance and underneath the Canadian flag, so I had to put that up there.
	We got the Betsy Ross flag here, which was also a gift.
	We got the clock, which is a new addition, right there.
	And whoever gave me the atomic clock that was up there before, it has a good home upstairs in my kid's room.
	I was getting some commentary that...
	The flashing was also bothering people, so it is still going to serve a very useful purpose, but I had to get that beautiful addition of a gift into the backdrop.
	I was in Vegas for the 50th, for Barnes' 50th, and for our meet-and-greet locals.
	I was in Ottawa on Thursday.
	I went Florida-Montreal, rented a car, drove to Ottawa.
	Did a conference at the Canada Strong and Free Network on Thursday.
	Drove back to Montreal.
	Flew to Vegas on Friday.
	Had the party on Saturday.
	Flew back to Florida on Sunday.
	The longest detour to get from Montreal to Florida.
	And it was wild.
	And it was beautiful.
	Vegas, I'm a little...
	Vegas is a dirty, dirty city.
	But we had a wonderful, wonderful party.
	I went straight back to my hotel.
	Went to bed.
	I was staying at the Circus Circus, which...
	Should have checked out Barnes' list of recommendations of hotels to stay at and not to stay at.
	But it was UFC 300, so I didn't have much chance.
	I didn't have much choice, anyhow.
	So, it was fantastic.
	And now I'm back home and there's no place like home.
	Home is where the family is.
	And I've got the dogs back, and I can take a deep breath.
	Until I read this tweet from Kayla Pollack.
	And you all know Kayla Pollack.
	She was on the channel.
	She's a Canadian woman who was rendered a quadriplegic.
	By the Moderna jab.
	And I had her on the channel.
	She told us her story.
	She explained how after being rendered a quadriplegic while she was at the ER, one doctor had the audacity to suggest it was in her head.
	The other doctor understood exactly what it was and told her what the cause was and said that he had seen it many, many times before.
	In the context of her rehabilitation or treatment, which, you know...
	Canadian socialized healthcare is so good at giving.
	She was actually offered what they call maids in Canada, medical assistance in dying, unsolicited, offered euthanasia by a government that says, look, Kayla, you're not going to get any better, and it's costing us a lot of money to try to give you rehab, which we're not giving you anyhow, so have you thought about offing yourself?
	And it's an enraging, enraging story.
	Kayla has a GoFundMe, which I'll share, that she's raising funds so that she can get a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
	And we've done good on promoting the Give, Send, Go because now she's resorted to crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, so that she can live a life of dignity and not be euthanized by the Canadian government that injured her and then basically said, we can't treat you, so can we kill you?
	She put out a tweet earlier today, and I said, I can't heart these tweets.
	I cannot...
	Heart.
	You can't like this tweet.
	All I can do is retweet it and put it on blast for the world to know.
	Just found out my muscles are wasting away because my therapy isn't covered by OHIP.
	Ontario Health Insurance Plan.
	You might remember that name from some blogs that I just put out over the weekend about a man who's getting to have a neo-vagina installed in his taint while he keeps his penis while he does this at a Texas clinic.
	That's covered by OHIP.
	A court ordered that to be covered by OHIP.
	They offer death to Kayla.
	It's not covered by OHIP, but gender reassignment surgery and counseling is free for them while I have to wait on a list for three weeks of therapy after being paralyzed by the jab.
	I wanted to check something when I did this.
	I wanted to do this.
	Kayla Pollock, give, send, go.
	And it should be service dog and a wheelchair.
	Let me make sure this is the right one.
	This is the right one.
	We're at $106,000.
	Or a goal of 120.
	It would be an episode of South Park if it were funny.
	It would be the sequel to Idiocracy if it were a comedy.
	What this is, is a dystopian nightmare of a reality.
	That's the link.
	Link to Give, Send, Go.
	This is her Give, Send, Go.
	If you can help, please.
	And if you can't help, you can share.
	That's all anybody needs to do.
	There's so many people out there.
	It's IRS tax day and Lord knows that life is not easy for a great many people.
	If you can give, please give.
	If you can't, please share.
	And yes, please tag the scumbag state-sponsored media at the CBC and let them know there's a little story that they've missed out on.
	Outrageous.
	And so for those of you who think I'm exaggerating, I covered the story.
	We're going to talk about it tonight.
	OHIP was ordered by a court to pay for a dude who wants to have a hole installed in his taint that is a neo-vagina while keeping his penis because he wants to engage in what's called a vaginoplasty without a panectomy.
	And nobody in Canada does it.
	So not only is the Ontario health insurance plan required to pay for this, not only did the court say this has to be paid for by taxpayer dollars, he has to do it in Texas.
	So that money goes to a Texas...
	And Kayla has to beg for donations for her life.
	We'll get into it.
	Barnes is in the house.
	What is the standard disclaimers that I'm forgetting?
	No medical advice?
	No legal advice?
	No election?
	No, that's not the one anymore.
	These things called superchats, which you see here.
	Your Barmy says, honorable mention to Mike Johnson, the FISA rat.
	Oh, by the way, well, I'm not going to say what I'm saying because I don't want anyone thinking that the FISA rat was what reminded me of this, so I'll come back to it later.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you want to support the channel, you can do Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20%, typically, but 0% for the rest of the year.
	And the best way to support, $10 a month or $100 for the full year.
	Viva Barnes Law.
	Tons of perks, tons of amazing stuff in our wonderful community.
	What I was about to say, about to say, is, that's right, we start on YouTube, Rumble, VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	We vote with our eyeballs, with our feet, and with our dollars, and we end on YouTube, go over to Rumble, and when the stream is done, we have our Locals After Party exclusive.
	Barnes, the 50-year-old geezer is in the house.
	Half a century.
	If I have a coin that's 50 years old, I treat that like a relic.
	Like, oh my goodness, it's beautiful.
	All right, I'm bringing him in.
	Barnes is in the house.
	Let's get this show on the road.
	Sir, how do you feel?
	Good, good.
	Now, Barnes, while I see if the audio is good, the book behind you is new.
	And what cigar do you have in your mouth or in your hand?
	Oh, it's one of the many gifts.
	A Monte Cristo cigar from all the great folks who came out to Vegas.
	I got to see Elvis is still in the building.
	A lot of folks had a lot of fun.
	That was great.
	A well-put-on event by Renee and members of my family as well came out to help out.
	So that was good.
	Raised money for 1776lawcenter.com.
	Some folks started getting their merchandise this past week.
	They were sending in some cool photos of the merch.
	That's cool, too.
	And we had one of our first big successes this past week in the Amos Miller case.
	So that was good.
	And the book also is a gift.
	It's about one of the key FBI guys who infiltrated the Kremlin back in the Soviet Union days.
	So looking forward to reading that.
	A lot of cool, fun, awesome gifts that people have brought, which was fantastic, very generous.
	And it was a great event.
	It went very, very well.
	Barnes, I'm going to show everybody what you're talking about.
	People may not have seen you.
	Viva Barnes.
	Barnes as Elvis.
	Look at this, guys.
	This is Barnes.
	This is actually Robert Barnes right here.
	If you didn't know who he was, you wouldn't be able to recognize him.
	He's turning 50 tonight.
	That was Barnes in an Elvis outfit.
	Robert, I almost forgot one thing.
	Geez Louise.
	I do this typically before you come on.
	But I'm doing it now.
	You may have noticed.
	I almost forgot to thank our sponsor.
	Our sponsor of the evening is coffee, by the way.
	And very fitting, by the way, that it's 1775 coffee, which goes very well with 1776 Freedom Law Center.
	If you haven't tasted this coffee, it's delicious.
	Are you a sleepy Joe who has zero cognitive performance?
	Are you Donald Trump?
	Maybe.
	According to Maggie Haberman sleeping.
	Have a cup of this.
	Scared of walking upstairs without being worried, you're not going to fall down.
	Do you struggle to muster your focus and brain power?
	And basic things such as eating ice cream or riding a bike.
	Most people don't.
	You need to drink, don't drink woke liberal coffee.
	You need to drink Rumble's very own 1775 coffee.
	Never mind that'll be the best tasting, strong, robust coffee you've ever tasted in your entire life.
	It's ethically sourced.
	You're supporting a company that does good and that partners with good.
	Instead of waking up tomorrow, drinking your mold infested or your Starbucks.
	Big corporation owned woke ideology coffee that's making you sick with pesticides to spray with.
	Try Rumble 1775 coffee.
	Support freedom of speech and build a parallel economy that actually values you.
	Go to 1775coffee.com.
	Pick up your first bag.
	Promo code Viva gets you 10% off your first order.
	I like the strong stuff, but that's just the way I am.
	Short, stocky.
	What is it?
	Short, stout, and strong is how I take my coffee.
	It's delicious coffee, and I do drink this every morning, so it's an easy one because I love it.
	1775.com forward slash Viva.
	And speaking of 1775 coffee, Robert.
	So the fundraiser was for the 1776 Law Center for anybody who might be new.
	I noticed I picked up a few extra subs with the vlog from this afternoon.
	Tell them what the 1776 Law Center does.
	Sure.
	So it's an independent legal organization that supports people in the courts of law and the courts of public opinion, helps raise funds for their cases that otherwise wouldn't have the means to have access to either the courts of law or the courts of public opinion, and helps fundraise for those efforts on issues of food freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, and financial freedom.
	So it's helping pay the cost of the Amos Miller case, the Amish former, the Brooke Jackson case, exposing Pfizer's fraud, helping supplement the cost of challenging vaccine mandates and the right to bodily autonomy, the helping with political freedom cases involving election integrity and citizen representation, and financial freedom in terms of the Federal Reserve.
	at challenging aspects of their activities, as well as supporting folks in the crypto economy as an alternative.
	Supports all those exit ramps from the Bill Gates grid control system that he would like to impose upon us as we got to see a sneak peek of during the pandemic.
	So it's to have a law organization out there.
	Helping to raise funds to support legal advocacy and public advocacy for cases and causes and clients that otherwise couldn't afford it or get access to it.
	Fantastic stuff.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So we got the Trump trial commences.
	A little interesting in terms of its timing, which we can discuss.
	Good logic.
	Other than all the questions and all the topics being good, the other top topic tonight was good logic.
	Takes up the mantle to challenge the Trump gag order with an Article 78 proceeding in New York.
	The Amos Miller, big win in state court in Pennsylvania.
	The Alex Jones versus the CIA, a case that may be coming soon.
	The Supreme Court.
	A big win, not as far as it could have and should have gone, but still a win on takings on a case we previously discussed.
	Silence can be golden in the SEC context, according to the Supreme Court.
	And January 6th goes to oral argument this week before the Supreme Court.
	Arizona made a major decision on abortion, but its interpretation might be a tad bit overstated.
	Prosecutorial conflicts was in the legal news in Arizona, but it might have some bearing on some other cases pending concerning prosecutorial conflicts.
	A sheriff in Colorado is suing the state over not being able to enforce immigration law.
	Tribes join the states and the school systems and the citizens suing social media for all the harm they're doing to our children.
	A big lawsuit in Indiana by the State Attorney General concerning all the nasty chemicals that are causing severe damage, including cancer and developmental disorders in children, brought about by companies like 3M, which again left out the F-E-R-S from its official moniker.
	And then we've got a couple of fun cases, such as a strip club lawsuit in Las Vegas over a South Park name.
	Peppermint Hippo versus Spearmint Rhino.
	We've got the DNC trying to bribe Robert Kennedy's lawyers, challenging the DNC's efforts to take him off of the presidential ballot as an independent candidate.
	And last but not least, a certain famous individual passed away this past week, O.J. Simpson.
	The O.J. case remembered.
	May O.J. have been innocent?
	Robert.
	I'm going to throw it out there because we didn't have it on the list, but we can't not talk about it.
	If we could do maybe five or ten minutes, are we heading to World War III with what's going on between Iran and Israel now?
	I need to pick your brain on it if you have an opinion or you have some insights on this, Robert.
	I think what Alex for the Duran put up was that there's clearly an exit ramp away from escalation into a broader global conflict.
	out of the Israeli conflict, just like there is with the Ukrainian conflict.
	And the question is going to be whether the U.S. takes that exit ramp or gets induced into a broader global war with people that may have nuclear I think Iran mostly did a PR-saving attack.
	It was not of great consequence.
	I think Netanyahu would like to go to war with Iran.
	He's made that clear for a while.
	He sees Iran as a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat to Israel.
	He sees a lot of countries as an existential threat to Israel, like Iraq, like Syria in the past, like Libya in the past, and has often promoted broader conflicts in the region that have often not been to the benefit of Israel or America.
	And so hopefully the Biden administration does not take the bait.
	My guess is because we're on the eve of an election, because he will be going up against not one but two anti-war candidates, and Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy, I expect that they will not escalate the conflict.
	Iran has made the savvy decision of not doing anything that would be easy to escalate in retaliation.
	So I think we're probably going to dodge that bullet for the time being.
	For those who may not know, I mean, at least what started this, I guess it goes back to October 7, Iran supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.
	That's one part of it.
	For whatever the reason, Robert, what is the rationale?
	Well, it really goes to Iran trying to get nuclear weapons.
	There was even a PBS special.
	I mean, this goes to Netanyahu's split with Obama was over Iran.
	And so Netanyahu wanted preemptive attacks on the Iranian regime so that it can't develop nuclear weapons.
	It thinks that Iran, if it develops it, will be an existential threat to Israel.
	And understandably so from a certain perspective, they still chant death to America and death to Israel at regular rallies in Iran or from their legislative assembly even.
	So I understand where the concern is.
	It's been far from clear for a while.
	Why or how it is that going to a war with Iran will solve any problems.
	And so I think, I mean, the war is a solution mechanism that has often been in the recent era, Netanyahu's calling card, it wasn't always, but in the recent era it has been.
	I mean, it hasn't really worked in Gaza, depending on your perspective, but in my view, the court of public opinion is where they've lost, and it's where they needed to prevail.
	And I don't think you can take out Hamas because Hamas is mostly an idea of Palestinian resistance that's not going anywhere.
	Been there for over a century.
	You take out the PLO and you get Hamas.
	If you take out Hamas, you know what you get?
	A more radical version of Hamas.
	This is what Joel Pollack and Ben Shapiro and all the pro-Israel side has yet to explain to me.
	How it is that doing a mass conflict in Gaza...
	Is going to actually, one, take out Hamas, or two, take out the threat.
	Because the threat is likely going to re-emerge as something more dangerous.
	And so, it's far from clear.
	They could expand their buffer zone, if that was the objective.
	Someone says, by annexing Gaza, you can't expand your buffer zone from Iranian moose.
	Are the Palestinians all going to disappear?
	Are they all going to disappear?
	Are all the Palestinians going to vanish?
	So, annex all of Gaza.
	Okay.
	The Palestinians are still going to be somewhere, aren't they?
	And are they going to go away?
	Are they going to quit resisting?
	For over a century, they have opposed the existence of Israel.
	They're going to continue to oppose it, especially as long as they get lots of money for it from the Arab and Muslim and global communities.
	And you know what they rely upon to get that money, to get that support from the Arab, Muslim, and global communities?
	Attacking Gaza.
	I mean, they played right into Hamas' hands.
	And it's been in the Palestinians' cause.
	They put ice on the attempts of what Trump was trying with the Abraham Accords to sever the Arab and Muslim worlds from the Islamist wings, the religious Iranian wing.
	And they had the Shia-Sunni split that they could use, but they were trying to use the fact that the Saudis and others want to be able to embrace tourism.
	Well, nobody's going to go visit Saudi Arabia if you think of it as terrorist heaven.
	So you need to disassociate from the Palestinian cause.
	That's what Trump was working on.
	All of that was immediately frozen the moment they went into Gaza.
	And so, you know, they have never explained what an articulate strategy that makes sense.
	I get it.
	Robert Kennedy's position, Trump's position to a degree, is that Israel is acting in self-defense.
	Okay.
	It's just, is it actually?
	Working, tactically.
	It doesn't seem to me it is.
	More approximately to Iran's retaliatory strikes on Israel was Israel taking out the Iranian embassy in Syria.
	Netanyahu clearly wants to provoke a war with Iran.
	And he knows that his only option is Biden.
	The irony is, even though he's been anti-Biden and was mostly affiliated and associated with Trump, Trump refused to go to war with Iran.
	You know, the deep state tried to sucker him into it multiple times.
	He knows if Trump is in, there's going to be no war with Iran.
	What is the rationale?
	What's the rationale of striking an embassy?
	It does nothing.
	Yeah, it's to provoke Iran.
	It's to force them to save face and hope they did something that justified retaliation.
	Iran is...
	The Persians, whatever you think of them, they've always been smart throughout all of world history.
	And they weren't dumb enough to take the bait on that.
	They did something they could sell well with a bunch of drones and other things flying around.
	They could put on TV that we struck back at the enemy that achieved really very little.
	Honestly, it wasn't even a reciprocal attack on their embassy.
	And Netanyahu was eager to go to war with Iran.
	The war hawks in the Biden administration want to go to war with Iran.
	But the Biden administration doesn't want to war with Iran on the eve of election running against two anti-war candidates.
	So Jake Sullivan, for all of his incompetency, is at least politically savvy enough to know that.
	And so as Alex for the Duran pointed out, Duran gave an easy exit ramp for the U.S. to avoid a global greater conflict, and that's what we're going to get.
	All right, excellent.
	Okay, we're going to do the Trump first, but we're going to do part one of the Trump first, which is going to be Joe Nierman on YouTube.
	And then when we're done with what Nierman is trying to do, we're going to get into the trial itself.
	Robert?
	A while back, you didn't call out Joe.
	It wasn't like a challenge to say, hey, Joe, you're not doing this.
	Do this.
	But it was an open-ended recommendation to anybody.
	Someone should go and petition the court to lift the gag because it's a violation of all of our First Amendment rights.
	Trump not only has the right to speak, we have the right to hear.
	It's an Article 78 under the New York Rules of Procedure.
	I'll explain whatever that is.
	But the bottom line, Joe filed this motion.
	I read through it.
	I did a short vlog on it last week.
	Dude, I like it.
	Towards the end, my only criticism in quotes is that it's clear that he supports Trump.
	It was almost a pleading for Trump's arguments at the end, but it got there with amazing arguments as to what needed to be pleaded in order to make the argument that we're all being deprived of our First Amendment rights to hear Trump speak as members of the press and as citizens.
	Then it turns out, I don't know, there was an issue with service where it needed to be served on Leticia James, the Attorney General.
	He was told this at 3 or 4 o 'clock Friday.
	Leticia James' office closes at 4.30, closed on Monday, so he's going to try to serve it tomorrow.
	What's your take on the pleading?
	If you've read it, then what do you think it's going to go?
	Or is it going to get struck down in 30 seconds by the totally objective Juan Marchand?
	Well, credit to GoodLogic.
	You can follow him on YouTube and Rumble.
	He has a Locals channel.
	He's also on Twitter.
	I think it's called TheFollowingPro is the Twitter handle, the moniker.
	And it's GoodLogic as in L-A-W-G-I-C.
	Good play on words there.
	And credit to him.
	He is Joe Nierman.
	He started off inspired by Viva doing law blogs from his car back in the day.
	So he's a New York licensed counsel, though mostly he doesn't do litigation.
	But he covers the Trump trial from New York.
	He covered many aspects of the Epstein case, particularly Ghislaine Maxwell in New York.
	And he's covered other trials live.
	And he took up the mantle to bring the challenge that on the grounds as an independent commentator, With a substantial audience following this particular trial, that he should be entitled to hear what Trump has to say about the case.
	And then he researched both the legal proceedings, the procedural mechanisms to get his challenge before the court, and the substantive legal basis for it, that a quick crash course in gag orders and First Amendment restraints.
	And New York State constitutional restraints on those gag orders.
	And he brought his community through the process as he researched the law, as he researched the process.
	It was a member of his community that first brought to his attention, here's the Article 78 proceeding you can use, that you can use to basically jump over the trial court and have a higher court immediately review it and supervise it and make a decision.
	And then researched all the law, brought his community into that process, showed them how it was working, what he was finding, how he researched it, how he found it, how he developed it, how he wrote it, what the writing was, what the basis of the writing was.
	So it was a great crash course in public legal education that I think is of independent value, separate from the Trump case itself.
	But constitutionally, the law is crystal clear.
	And as Good Logic did, he quoted the judge himself.
	The judge himself at the beginning of the case said there's no constitutional basis for a gag order.
	He says the Constitution abhors prior restraint, which is what a gag order is.
	If you can't, in the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court of the United States said you cannot even restrain a press from printing secrets about a war that is ongoing.
	That that prior restraint was unconstitutional.
	There is no basis for the judge to be giving prior restraint to protect the judge, to protect the clerks, to protect his family who are cashing in, cha-ching, on this case by this corrupt, brazenly, openly, politically corrupt judge, Judge Marchand in New York.
	And so credit to good logic.
	For taking up the mantle, for bringing his community into it.
	And if the New York courts honor or respect the Constitution at all, then he should absolutely prevail.
	If they fail to rule in his favor, then the New York courts should all resign from office because they violated their constitutional oath.
	He breaks down one of the jurisprudence that was cited by Judge Juan Marchand where the judge says, with his First Amendment considerations, we've got to balance the party's interests.
	And apparently, I didn't read the decision cited by Judge Marchand, but according to Joe, it turns out that decision was weighing the interests against two individuals who both have First Amendment rights.
	And so you have to balance, you know, one's First Amendment rights against the other.
	In this case, the judge is balancing a defendant's First Amendment rights against the interests of the state.
	And this is totally, totally, I mean, unconstitutional is one thing, but...
	Totally not what that decision even said, and so it seems that he's using the case law against the judge himself.
	Who gets to hear this?
	Is this the judge or the court of appeal?
	It's an Article 78 proceeding, so it's an original proceeding, so it's a different court, is my understanding.
	Okay, well then at least he'll get out of the grasp of the totally objective, non-partial Juan Marchand.
	So Joe, Godspeed, and we'll see where it goes.
	What we're going to do now, everybody, link to Rumble.
	Because we are going to vote with our feet, eyeballs, and dollars and come over to Rumble.
	The link is there.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	If anybody wants to come straight to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for the, you know, stick around for the after party.
	Locals here.
	And we're going to end it.
	I'll post the entire stream tomorrow intact.
	But YouTube is going to get the stale leftovers, not the live party.
	So ending on YouTube in three, two, one.
	All right, Robert.
	Well, you know what Joe couldn't do in the trial is be a juror in the Trump trial.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Robert, I read this.
	There might have been some, not misunderstanding, according to the reporting today, it seems that the judge is making accommodations for those who want to keep Passover.
	So we'll get there in a second, but today is jury selection day.
	So he's changed his mind now that there's been public outcry about what he was trying to do.
	Because, you know, like I said, I saw...
	It was definitely from the reporting of Classfield who mentioned it that they're going to accommodate those who need to celebrate or want to celebrate Passover.
	Jury selection day, but before they even got into the jury selection, they had to take care of some odds and ends by way of outstanding motions.
	Trump came in, asked the judge to reconsider his recusal motion.
	They were talking about what evidence they might allow in or not as relates to the grab them by the pussy video, which the judge says, look, you can make reference to it, but you can't play the video.
	I don't know what...
	That's a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned.
	The judge said you can't play the portion of the deposition from the E. Gene Carroll case where Trump explains away that video.
	So it's like, it's almost make reference to it because that's prejudicial.
	Don't listen to the video because everybody already knows what it says.
	And Trump doesn't get to put in evidence that explains it.
	So he's going to either have to testify or that sort of compels him to become a witness or testify in his own defense.
	What else was there?
	Oh, the truth post about...
	Michael Cohen being a sleazebag, that's going to be probably allowed in and redirect.
	There were some other things.
	Oh, the other catch and kill story, they're allowing as evidence, I guess what, to show propensity of character for Trump.
	And the recusal, the judge says, nah, it's still unsubstantiated, yada, yada, yada.
	What happens, practically speaking, when all of these motions are basically dealt with at the beginning part?
	Can they appeal any of these initial decisions or do they have to go straight to trial now?
	Well, only after trial.
	So all these evidentiary rulings, his jury selection rulings, his evidentiary rulings, his jury instruction rulings, all of those can only be dealt with after trial.
	The immunity issue is something that he should have allowed to go up and have the Supreme Court decide the pending immunity case before he even went forward with this trial.
	This is purely a show trial from beginning to end.
	He's been trying to rig the evidence.
	Trying to rig the timing of the trial and trying to rig the jury pool to secure a conviction at all costs.
	The goal has been to convict Trump so that they believe the Trump opponents that this will prevent his election in the fall.
	As long as he's just convicted of something, then that will put an end to the Trump threat to the administrative state and the Democratic Party and the Biden administration.
	This judge should have disqualified himself, shouldn't have presided over this case, should have disqualified the prosecutor's office for conflict of interest since they ran on prosecuting Trump, should have dismissed the case for legal insufficiency on its face, should have dismissed the case because of all the acts concerned, acts while Trump was president, for which he is immune.
	There wasn't even a legal basis to bring this case because the argument that he violated a federal crime is utter nonsense.
	That trying to treat an accounting dispute over how you handle settlement funds as criminal is absurd.
	There's no precedent for it in New York or anywhere else in the country.
	So there's no factual basis for this case.
	The only factual witnesses are potentially are the extortionist lawyer.
	Who actually says the case shouldn't be brought from jail, Michael Avenatti.
	Another criminal, perjurer, Michael Cohen.
	Another extortionist liar by her own admission, Stormy Daniels.
	That's it.
	That's their case.
	It's a preposterous case where the witnesses have contradicted themselves on the very subject matter of the facts alleged in this case.
	Trump, the victim of extortion, is being prosecuted for being the victim of extortion.
	It's utterly nuts.
	And the idea that it was intended to interfere with the campaign is preposterous.
	But when you have a bigoted, corrupt judge trying to make sure that it's a lynching, bigoted jury, and then make sure that the evidence and the instructions on the law misstate the law and the evidence is all skewed against Trump, it is solely a Stassi Soviet-style show trial.
	Like the ones against Alex Jones in the Sandy Hook cases, they're using that as their template to rig the legal system in a way that they think will end Trump's career when what it will really do is end any public confidence in the judicial system and in the criminal justice system especially as being impartial or being anything worth respecting or looking up to, especially in New York, but more broadly across the country.
	Because no higher court has yet stepped in and stopped this nonsense.
	You said something, and I just put two and two together.
	Avenatti, convicted of extorting Nike for a settlement payment, when he did that interview with Ari, whatever his last name is, on MSNBC, he said basically that Stormy, he has strong evidence or strong indications that she was trying to extort.
	What she told him was in fact not reality, that it wasn't Trump who approached her.
	And now I understood that he's trying to basically walk his way back from having done the same extortion scheme for Stormy Daniels that he ended up doing for Nike.
	Now that makes total sense in retrospect.
	The question I have for you, there were a number of people on Twitter on Saturday saying this is a federal election interference offense because it's an excessive in-kind or unreported in-kind contribution.
	A campaign contribution.
	And I had to text you before I made the tweet, you know, double check my memory.
	If it's an in-kind contribution, it's Trump to his own campaign.
	There can't be an excessive in-kind contribution.
	If it's an unlawful in-kind contribution, then it came from Cohen, and he's the one who should be on trial.
	Right, exactly.
	And the problem with it is, of course, all the major amounts are post-election.
	So there's that problem.
	How is it meant to influence an election that had already happened?
	You know, there is an explanation in terms of the allegations are all the accounting entries he's being prosecuted for happened after he was elected president.
	How can that have been to influence an election that already occurred?
	It can't.
	It can't be an illegal campaign contribution because he can give whatever he wants to his own campaign.
	And so, I mean, this is a common way in which settlements are done.
	And to hyper-criminalize it by...
	By elevating accounting questions to the level of a felony, federal felony and state crime, is preposterous.
	And I mean, the last time they tried any version of this was against John Edwards.
	And then most legal scholars said it was a crock of a case.
	Ultimately, they couldn't secure a conviction and they walked away from it.
	And now a lot of those same legal scholars hate Trump so much, they've decided to bastardize their opinions and pretend they didn't say what they said during the Edwards case.
	Which was a cleaner, crisper case.
	That was actually done during an election to influence an election from a third-party payer, from a wealthy donor.
	Unlike this.
	This wasn't done for the election.
	This was to protect Melania from false allegations from an ex-porn star who was trying to extort Trump.
	And this had none to do with the election.
	It had zero impact on the election.
	Nobody cares.
	When people hear that this is about a settlement...
	That they're trying to call a crime?
	People are like, what?
	And the only way he can secure a guilty verdict, he knows, is to rush the trial before Election Day.
	He's ordered that if Trump campaigns at all, talk about election interference, this case is election interference.
	This is the judge interfering in election.
	This judge is committing a federal crime, as is the prosecutors, committing a federal crime by interfering in the election.
	That's why they're doing this case.
	What they're accusing Trump of is what they are guilty of, election interference.
	He said Trump can't miss a single day.
	He has to be there the whole time, no matter if they drag this trial out in months.
	Why?
	Six weeks.
	Yeah, six weeks.
	It could go eight weeks.
	Why?
	So that Trump can't be on the campaign trail for months.
	I mean, that's the goal.
	This is overt, open, partisan election interference.
	All the accusations against Vladimir Putin?
	Vladimir Putin never did this.
	Our Biden administration is doing this.
	Democrats in New York are doing this.
	This is a joke.
	This is an embarrassment to the world.
	This makes America's constitutional democracy and republic look like a crock.
	Our legal system looks like a partisan crock.
	Our criminal justice system looks like a joke.
	And what's sad is that the higher courts haven't yet stepped in.
	I think the only solution is going to be for the Supreme Court of the United States.
	To stop all of this nonsense by giving a broad berth of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution outside of a successfully convicted president through the impeachment process.
	Because otherwise, they're seeing how embarrassing this is.
	And the judges in New York are so corrupt and so live in their own world that they don't understand the world sees them as corrupt partisans who are abusing their power.
	For unconstitutional reasons, to violate all of our rights to an independent and fair election.
	It's scheduled for six weeks.
	The judge says, basically, if you skip any day, then you forfeit your right to be present.
	I don't know what the legal implications is.
	I mean, you don't get a default verdict, but you certainly can't testify if you so choose.
	There was another question about the case.
	Well, the jury selection.
	We'll see where that goes.
	They're not allowed...
	He structured this trial to occur during Passover.
	And the goal being the number one supportive Trump group in the New York jury pool that could be picked for this trial are religiously observant Jews.
	Not the non-religiously observant Jews.
	Most of them hate Trump.
	But the religiously observant Jews love Trump.
	Good Logic showed some videos from an Orthodox wedding where they brought a whole fake Trump thing around, you know, as if he was dancing with them.
	So that, I mean, they passed out Trump signs at the wedding.
	You're talking about religiously observant Jews who grew up being trained on the Talmud from the time they're 10. So if anybody can make disciplined, logical arguments based on law and facts, it's religiously observant Jews.
	That's why the judge scheduled this trial.
	To try to discourage and deter religiously observant Jews from participating.
	There has now been apparently enough public backlash.
	I'd recommend people put out, Judge Marchand hates Jews, to get his attention.
	But there's been enough backlash that now he's reconsidering how he allows religiously observant Jews to partake in the trial.
	But the mere calendaring of the trial is meant to discourage and dissuade them from participating.
	And they're the only jury group amongst otherwise partisan Trump-hating Democrats who could be in the jury that could actually provide some degree of impartiality to this mockery of a trial.
	Well.
	I don't know what more we can add for the time being, except to say I believe that they're suggesting they might go after Trump for the truth social post, calling Michael Cohen a sleazebag for having violated the gag order.
	Trump is still gagged while all of this goes on.
	The immunity case is supposed to be heard...
	On the 25th, correct?
	Yeah, that sounds right.
	And so hypothetically, the trial could be suspended if they come, I don't know when they would be able to come down with a broad interpretation of what immunity would mean.
	But even then, Robert, I mean, wouldn't the state say, well, this had nothing, this is not presidential immunity, however broad it is.
	It's a state crime.
	The problem is it happened while he was president.
	All of the allegations of the New York indictment concern facts about what Trump did while he was president of the United States.
	That's their problem.
	That they didn't even bring in an allegation outside of that.
	So the only case that has any allegations outside of when he was president is not the New York case, not the D.C. case, not the Georgia case.
	It's solely the Florida classified documents case.
	Where the judge has been overtly and openly skeptical of the government's position.
	So that's the problem they have, is the Supreme Court could effectively shut this down.
	Now, this judge may not care and may continue to preside over a crock of a trial despite the Supreme Court's ruling, but sooner or later he'll put an end to it.
	You have to explain this to me.
	Two things.
	They tried to take this case up and even the...
	A prosecutor a couple years back or three or four years ago said, no, we're not doing this.
	It's a totally baseless case.
	Alvin Bright comes in and says, no, I think I can make something work.
	How do they circumvent or how do they get past the fact that this is a state accusation of felony for violating federal election law?
	How do they get past the jurisdictional question on this?
	Yeah, it's a major problem because you're borrowing from other law of another jurisdiction in a criminal prosecution.
	So it raises all these unique issues under constitutional law and under New York and the federal constitutional law that the judge has just ignored.
	I mean, there's so many grounds to dismiss this joke of an indictment.
	You don't need just immunity to get there.
	It's just the only way the Supreme Court is going to stop the judiciary from embarrassing itself on a global stage is by intervening.
	It was what Marchand did doesn't realize.
	If he was savvy, these judges wouldn't have pushed as far as they pushed.
	The Biden administration wouldn't have pushed as far as they pushed.
	These Democratic prosecutors promising to prosecute Trump, who should have had their indictments dismissed for selective prosecution in violation of the First Amendment to begin with.
	This case checks all the selective prosecution boxes.
	Prosecuting someone who you say you're going to go after, show me the man, I'll find you the crime, Berea KGB style.
	But it's also a case that has almost never been prosecuted in history against anyone else.
	And that anybody that's been in a like situation, Hillary Clinton in New York, money laundering funds to push a bogus agenda like she did with Russiagate, an actual crime, if we're going to call this criminal conduct, was not prosecuted, was not even looked at.
	So you have every element of selective prosecution also as grounds to dismiss, aside from both the factual, legal, and constitutional insufficiency of these indictments as a matter of law.
	And then you have him attempting to rig the election by rigging the timing of the trial, rigging President Trump having to be present in the trial, and trying to misuse his gag order authority.
	To prohibit Trump from talking about the trial to counteract the lies being told in court while allowing the lying witnesses to say anything they want out in the court of public opinion.
	It is an embarrassment.
	What some of us have seen for years, for decades, in America's criminal justice system has usually been limited to such outsiders and dissidents that the world paid no attention.
	Much of the world paid no attention when this legal system was being weaponized against Alex Jones.
	And making a mockery of itself.
	Even people like Megyn Kelly were still complimenting what was an embarrassment of a trial.
	You can be on the Sandy Hook parent side and be ashamed at how those trials progressed and proceeded if you care about due process of law, if you care about the impartiality and integrity of the criminal justice process and the civil justice process.
	But what they're doing now is they're educating the whole world because they're doing it to the former president of the United States and the likely next president of the United States.
	They're showing the need for institutional reform.
	We've given too much power to prosecutors, too much power to judges.
	They will misuse and abuse it.
	And what they're doing is they're forcing Roberts and Kavanaugh to step in where they would probably love to play Pontius Pilate and hide under their desks, kind of like they did on the takings case that we'll get to in a second.
	We got a partial victory, but not the full victory that we deserved with Gorsuch's concurrence.
	But they're going to have to step in.
	Not because they care one iota about Trump, but because they do care about the appearance of the justice system not looking like a joke to the entire world.
	I was on with Jenna Ellis today.
	It's going to be on her show tonight at 9 o 'clock.
	And I didn't get to say this.
	It was a short six-minute bit.
	I was going to say, look, this has gotten so bad where even Jenna Ellis, in my view, now is back on, you know, I'm going to vote for Trump and supporting Trump.
	Because even if everybody out there...
	The DeSantis supporters are DeSantis 2028.
	If they win and successfully do this to Trump now, they will do this to DeSantis in 2028 if he's a viable opposition candidate.
	So everyone I think now understands it, even the DeSantis crowd, full support behind Trump because this is not even about Trump anymore.
	It's about the system.
	It's about weaponizing lawfare to violate democracy.
	And the people who were outside of the courthouse this morning, I was watching it.
	I noticed a bunch of Asians out there supporting Trump.
	There were a number of black people out there supporting Trump.
	I think this is pushing people over the edge, even those who are not amenable to vocally supporting Trump have been pushed in that direction now.
	So we'll see.
	I'll be covering it every day.
	I'll follow Klaasfeld.
	I'll see what I can do and maybe do the daily recaps because maybe not daily.
	It's going on for six flipping weeks.
	Meaningful day recaps.
	Robert, before we get into the next subject, before we fall too far behind.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	Stop calling it a prosecution.
	It's a persecution.
	These people are evil and we cannot coexist with such immoral people.
	I call it a persecution a lot also.
	I went to bed early.
	man, nothing good happens after like breakfast in Vegas.
	IHall86, just wondering when you're going to start off the Jews up in Canada, when you're going to start off in Canada.
	I mean, they already go on...
	Oh, okay, look, I'm not reading that anymore.
	Thank you for the Rumble Rep.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	At what point will SCOTUS grow a scrotum to actually have the balls to interject in this persecution of Trump saying this has gone too far?
	Never.
	First of all, the guy's not there.
	He'll never say it.
	And his handlers do not want him to ever say it.
	If he said it, they would turn on him the way they turned on Fetterman.
	Lost core.
	23. We should all go to Joe's channel and give him a few dollars.
	It is tax day and you should view it as the tax for the First Amendment.
	Tempered strength.
	Article 78 court is hit and miss.
	Depends on what judge you get.
	The court tried a lot of NYC New York City mandates.
	Both good and bad decisions from the court.
	SOS for dinner and Viva Barnes to watch.
	What could be better?
	Grand Place.
	IHall86, this sounds like a freaking plot line from the show Billions and T1990, the charges from Bragg the asshole who keeps cutting murders and rapists loose and is trying to criminalize self-defense just a couple of reasons to not take these charges seriously.
	Yeah, it's tax day today, Robert.
	I was needling Mark Cuban.
	He paid $288 or $275 million in taxes.
	I want to know what his net revenue was because if he made $3 billion, that's not a big percentage of his overall revenue.
	Didn't he sell his majority stake in the Mavericks to the Adelson family?
	Sorry, that's what people were saying, which is $3.5 billion, apparently, that he netted, or grossed.
	So he's paying 7% income tax, and he's bragging about it.
	Yeah, I paid 30, and it hurts like an MF-er, I'll tell you what.
	And I want to know what amount, what percentage of the taxes that I just sent to the IRS today go straight to Ukraine, or other foreign aid for that matter.
	It's wild.
	Well, that was the meme that, you know, there's missiles going both ways between Israel and Iran.
	And they're like, somehow my taxpayer dollars paid for both of these.
	Well, absolutely.
	I mean, and people think I'm going to somehow like not give the Israeli aid a hard time.
	I make the comment all the time.
	15 billion for Gazan victims of war.
	It was the other way around.
	Billions for victims in Gaza.
	And then $10-15 billion to Israel for defense.
	I mean, it's wonderful.
	Just take all our money, but it's good for the American economy because it's actually just taxpayer money laundering because it comes back to the military-industrial complex.
	Yeah, I complain about it all around, people.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Speaking of the CIA, we got a potentially interesting plaintiff.
	They might be suing the CIA soon.
	Oh, well, this one I do know a little bit about, Robert.
	I was on with Alex on Friday, and then you were on after me on, Alex.
	So Alex, the whistleblower, not a whistleblower, sorry, it was an undercover camera.
	Robert, I'm going to ask the politically incorrect question.
	The major undercover leak camera stuff that we found in the last year or two, the Pfizer guy, this one for Alex Jones' FBI, there's another one.
	They all seem to be gay men getting honeypotted.
	And I do wonder if it's because...
	Except this guy.
	This was actually a woman.
	Who was on the date with him?
	Yep.
	My entire observation...
	It was more the traditional James O 'Keefe methodology.
	So this is Sound Investigations, new investigation agency, taking up James O 'Keefe's call to arms to say, hey everybody, you two can be an undercover reporter.
	Learn and develop the techniques.
	He's using the...
	OMG group to basically educate people on how you can utilize the undercover techniques.
	He's made expert over the last decade plus, and these people picked it up, and they landed a whale of whales in getting an ex-CIA guy turned, ex-FBI guy, no, ex-CIA now turned FBI, I think is what it is.
	I mean, a true deep state apparatchik, and we've talked about it before, talked about it on the Duran.
	That you could predict that Seymour Hersh would get a scoop on the bombing of the Nord Stream.
	Because these people love to brag!
	And especially if they got some hot thing in front of them.
	Well, I thought maybe the old woman honeypot had gotten old.
	Everyone's gotten wise to it, so they had to find a new avenue.
	It's wild.
	So the undercover...
	Initially, look, for those who didn't see it, it's a guy basically saying, yeah, we were getting involved.
	We were looking, finding parents, nudging them to sue Alex Jones, finding plaintiffs, nudging them to sue Alex Jones, not doing it ourselves, nudging.
	This is like nudging.
	It's the most toxic way, annoying way of saying nudging.
	And the initial questions were, does this guy have the authority to make the admissions he's making?
	Does he have the personal knowledge of it?
	And it turns out...
	That he does have the credentials and the experience.
	And he was speaking from experience, not from theorizing, not from hypothesis.
	The way he was talking about it was also a giveaway.
	You can tell the people that are fake bragging.
	Sometimes you get a mixture of that on these undercover tapes.
	People that are fake bragging because they think the person they're talking to is real partisan and this is their way to get there.
	This is more of an old school guy.
	These are the kind of people who used to brag about killing Kennedy.
	I mean, these people couldn't help themselves.
	The guy who killed Che Guevara is still going around bragging about it.
	He wore Che Guevara's watch to let everybody know about it.
	He also shows up in almost every deep state scandal for the last 50 years, by the way.
	But he is the profile.
	If you read books like I always recommend James Elroy's American tabloid trilogy, Cold 6000, Deaths are Over, or Bloods are Over.
	Along with American Tabloid.
	You get a sense of who these gray space characters are.
	I often feature them in various capacities in our Hush Hush series at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Had a recent one up on maybe an unsuspecting suspect in the Russian terror attack.
	Might be both a little...
	It's a bit differently located, geolocated than some people might think.
	And by the way, I had seen that, had never heard of that place, had to go look it up, and it involves potentially the French, but we won't spoil it.
	Exactly.
	It's a place where ISIS, the French, and Russia meet.
	It's just not the continent of Europe.
	And it involves uranium, gold, and oil.
	So, you know, you got it all.
	But this guy is clearly...
	Not only that, it only made sense.
	I mean, I represented Alex sporadically, giving him outside advice, stepped in occasionally into Sandy Hook cases where necessary, where no one else was available, because I felt constitutionally what they were doing was wrong in those cases.
	But also, it was clearly lawfare.
	It was obvious lawfare.
	Alex Jones had been in business for more than a quarter century.
	He had not been sued a single time in 25 years.
	Trump gets elected.
	And he sued 25 times in 12 different cases involving four different legal theories involving big corporate law firms in many cases or other law firms that don't even specialize in the area of law they're suing him in.
	But the one commonality they had?
	Political ties.
	Political connections.
	Deep state ties in some cases, like the Connecticut law firm.
	Like one of the big firms bringing the Pepe case against it.
	You know, why are law firms spending millions of dollars of pro bono money to go after Alex Jones?
	It's like, come on, people.
	You'd have to be daft not to realize this was a hit job.
	And then we watched in a live time as they were using it as a legal template, both to deplatform him on social media.
	Does anybody think it's a coincidence?
	A court takes an action.
	The same day, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter all took a Jones death.
	The same day.
	Supposedly all on different grounds.
	It's like you have to be an idiot not to see what's happening here.
	It's not like they really hit it.
	It was coordinated by every method it was coordinated.
	And who is Trump's biggest enemy?
	I mean, who's Alex Jones' biggest enemy?
	It's the American deep state.
	It has been for a quarter century.
	They just saw him as a nuisance until Trump got elected.
	Then they saw him as a threat.
	And they saw the model that he provided as a threat.
	You're talking about a guy who presented an independent mechanism of sharing information, news, and commentary completely outside the control of the oligarchic elites.
	No reliance on corporate sugar daddies.
	No reliance on advertisers of any kind.
	It meant he was immune from that form of censorship.
	So they had to engage in a censor and shame campaign against him, using lawfare to do it.
	And they knew their cases were so weak.
	That they couldn't even allow him a trial on the merits in front of biased judges and biased juries.
	Because if the truth had come out in those cases, it was not going to be the caricature and the stereotype people had made up about him.
	And then they were using it as an example to do it to Trump, which they would do in the social media context, and now they're doing it in the legal context.
	You know, it's like this is where I realize I'm like one level, not below, but I'm one level below your analysis where back in the day, I went one step.
	Oh, he pissed off.
	Hillary's pissed off, so the Hillary Clinton machine is going after Alex.
	I didn't piece together the deep state because of his position on 9-11, and that makes...
	All of it.
	Biggest supporter, particularly if you looked at sort of the populist right.
	He is the biggest supporter of Edward Snowden on the right, biggest supporter of Julian Assange on the right, biggest supporter of other NSA and CIA whistleblowers for decades.
	The biggest guy decrying every war we've ever been involved in in the modern era.
	The guy that was calling out Operation Northwoods before even Operation Northwoods was public knowledge.
	And what else have you been worrying about?
	I mean, if you're planning...
	Something like a release of a bioweapon, to change an election, to experiment on a population, to try to force a drug and a so-called vaccine on people, and other methods of experimentation using big pharma, big food, big tech, and big media, monopolistic controls over those areas.
	Your number one threat, the number one person calling it out, the number one person predicting it, the number one person telling you who and what to look at to know what's coming is Alex Jones.
	So the combination of getting Trump elected, which many of the people within the deep state apparatus, the Democratic Party apparatus, Hillary Clinton herself said so, she blamed Alex Jones for it.
	And so the goal was take out Alex Jones.
	Use him as a template to make sure nobody else gets the same idea.
	Hey, you know what?
	I could be an independent commentator, an independent news person, without being dependent.
	On corporate payrolls, without being dependent on corporate advertisers, without being dependent on big donors.
	That's what Alex Jones presented.
	They didn't want anybody out there to replicate and repeat what he was doing.
	So they needed to not only silence him, but they needed to censor his audience, to shame his audience, to prevent other people from coming to Alex Jones out of curiosity.
	Oh, you better not go near him.
	He's dangerous.
	He's scary.
	He says bad things about people, so on and so forth.
	They ran a libel campaign against him using a so-called libel lawsuit to do it.
	And in the process, try to destroy him, to destroy his audience, to destroy his message, to destroy others from trying to replicate it, and then use it as an example to even apply it to the President of the United States.
	The question is that now, I know the answer because I asked you this in Vegas, but I'll ask the question again for the benefit of others.
	The question is, floating the idea, can Jones sue?
	What recourse does he have?
	Now, my initial reaction was to say, okay, well, can he sue for tortious interference?
	Can he sue for something along the lines of Biden v.
	Missouri?
	Like, this is state actor interfering with, coercing, compelling, inciting private actors to do what they couldn't do directly.
	And I was like, I'm skeptical that that's possible.
	But then you raised more administrative recourse, such as FOIA.
	To see the level of involvement that might have gone on between FBI, CIA, intelligence assets, and private citizens, what would be the recourse to go about doing that?
	So there's two methods.
	There's some creative methods I discussed at the Vegas get-together, which will stay privy to the folks that attended the Vegas get-together, because there's a range of people who may be trying to block.
	Jones' efforts to seek legal relief and remedy, and we've talked to Alex about it.
	We believe we have mechanisms around their efforts to obstruct him.
	And it was on his show on Sunday to discuss some of the broader aspects implicating the case.
	The other issue, but one clear issue, is the same methods we're using to sue the Federal Reserve on behalf of George Gammon at Rebel Capitalist Pro.
	He'll be down at his conference in Orlando, Florida at the end of May.
	He still wants to thank Viva Live for his bowling instruction video.
	We're going bowling, by the way, in Orlando.
	That's going to be fun.
	But FOIA Freedom of Information Act is a mechanism that Jones can utilize that he has a right to sue because there's a waiver of immunity when the government wrongfully denies a Freedom of Information Act request.
	You can also do it under the Privacy Act laws that govern the United States and the federal government.
	And so he can utilize that to say, why don't you guys turn over everything you have concerning me, period, concerning Infowars, considering any of it, and see what they produce, and they're likely going to withhold it or hide it.
	And then that entitles him to bring suit against the CIA, against the FBI, against the Pentagon, against other high-ranking political officials in the Biden administration and within the Obama administration, who are probably at various levels culpable and complicit in the coordinated effort to take out Alex Jones.
	When Hillary Clinton decided to name him personally in the summer of 2016, he recognized that that meant he was now a target.
	And he suspected the scale and scope of it, but there wasn't independent evidentiary confirmation beyond a probable cause and reasonable suspicion until this person was caught undercover acknowledging and admitting it straightforwardly.
	It's like you said.
	We all knew that it was not organic.
	It's sort of almost as inorganic.
	Trump had been sued, but not anything like this.
	He'd been in business for 40 years, and all of a sudden, Rajlin...
	Evaluation of properties.
	All of a sudden, they found four criminal charges against Trump, among other things.
	They started with Alex Jones.
	They found the MO.
	It worked, and they're going to do it again.
	Robert, I'm just looking at something.
	NBC News has now published this bullcrap article no less than three times.
	Let me see something here.
	This is the third time they have now published this very same article that there is no evidence that COVID vaccines cause fatal cardiac arrest or other deadly heart problems.
	They published it Thursday, Saturday, and today, and I'm racking my brain as to why.
	I think I know why.
	Yeah.
	I mean, to cover up for the fact that everybody knows that NBC is lying and the CDC is lying.
	I mean, we'll be filing our response this week on behalf of Brooke Jackson against the Biden administration's effort to intervene in her case against Pfizer that exposes the scale and scope of Pfizer's fraud.
	That the contract that President Trump designed required Pfizer deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 at speed and scale prior to Election Day 2020.
	They did none of those.
	They delivered something that was dangerous, ineffective, wasn't even a vaccine, and never prevented COVID-19.
	All they delivered was death, disability, discrimination, and destruction at speed and scale.
	And they deliberately delayed even its publication until after the election because they knew if they did this during the election and it benefited Trump and Trump was still in office, Trump could hold them to account.
	Trump would never mandate it and force it on people.
	And they knew the only way they were guaranteed to line their pockets and keep the billions of dollars they stole from the American people.
	Was if Trump was not in office.
	That's why they deliberately delayed its publication until after the election to harm Trump's efforts at getting reelected, because the only way to line their pockets and keep those ill-gotten gains was to make sure Trump was not in office when they did it.
	And now the Biden administration that is criminally implicated in the vaccine fraud, that is Pfizer, is intervening saying, hey, judge, we're implicated here.
	I mean, the way they put it is, our official government position is that the vaccine is good.
	Hence, no lawsuit can go forward that says the vaccine is bad.
	That there's never been a basis to dismiss a key tam case in American history on the grounds that they're asserting.
	That there's no claim that there could be no proof of fraud.
	There's no claim that they didn't violate the contract.
	None of that.
	They're saying the official government position on the eve of Election Day is this administration that forced this vaccine on a lot of people can't be found to have been guilty.
	of approving a fraudulent vaccine that caused death and disability to millions of people around the world.
	So please, Judge, cover up the criminality of the Biden administration in order to cover up the criminality of Pfizer.
	That's their message to the judge.
	And the only question is, will our judiciary fail again?
	Will it be culpable and complicit itself in this vaccine fraud, as many judges are across the country?
	Many judges mandated these vaccines.
	Forced these vaccines onto people as a condition of basic legal relief or remedy.
	In some cases, as basic access to the court process itself.
	And so do a lot of judges want the world to know?
	They forced a dangerous, ineffective drug on people because it turns out judges are just as bad at being doctors as doctors are when it comes to these fake vaccines that were dangerous, ineffective drugs.
	We'll see.
	We'll be filing our opposition on Wednesday, and we'll be having argument in Beaumont, Texas, on May the 1st on behalf of Brooke Jackson.
	Is that going to be broadcast, televised, or accessible to the public?
	No, of course not.
	Federal court, so they don't allow any of that.
	But I think Texas Lindsay and some other folks will be there in the courtroom and will report on what they...
	I might have to come down for that, Barnes.
	We'll hang out again in Texas.
	Well, while we're on the subject of some files that you're involved in, so that's one we're going to be following that closely.
	What's the latest good news for Amos Miller?
	So, yes, so the state of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and the fake pope, I forget what the, what was the fake pope called years, centuries ago?
	Remember there was a dispute between two different popes claiming to be pope, and one of them, maybe he was called the imposter pope?
	But I'm not the right guy to ask.
	The self-declared food pope of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Redding, Pope Redding, after the judge ordered that the injunction did not apply to sales outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, they went in yelling and screaming and demanding the judge reverse himself immediately.
	And then they went even further.
	They wanted the definition of the word to sell.
	To give you an idea of what this means, if you cook the food at your own home, and assuming your home was not a PDA-permitted licensed food facility, if you delivered food to a potluck dinner, if you delivered food for Thanksgiving, Easter, Christmas, you, according to...
	Pope Redding, who has to bless your food before you can eat it, you're now a criminal.
	If you're transporting, distributing, processing, handling any food product at any time inside Pennsylvania that doesn't come from a Pennsylvania licensed facility, you too are now a criminal, making half the truckers in the state potential criminals.
	That's how insane the power hunger is.
	Of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	So they were basically trying to completely shut down Amos Miller.
	Not only could he not sell food anywhere in the world, because they were requesting to add that provision, but that he couldn't deliver food.
	He couldn't distribute food.
	He couldn't give it away.
	That's how nuts it was.
	He could even bring it to an Amish get-together, an Amish picnic.
	That's how, because they're so obsessed.
	With strangling the last of the independent farmer in the state that helped give birth to independent farmers, that they wanted to utterly crush Amos Miller, who, even though their own witnesses on the stand admitted under penalty of perjury that not one person has ever complained about any aspect of Amos Miller's food, not its packaging, not its product, not its safety, not its hygiene, not anything.
	And the millions of food products delivered to tens of thousands of Americans over decades.
	The best safety record for food anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania, or quite frankly, anywhere in the country on that scale.
	Yet they're obsessed with shutting him down.
	So we explained to the judge why that would violate the plain language of the law.
	The judge said he was only going to follow the law.
	He wasn't going to usurp.
	He wasn't going to usurp the legislature.
	He's not going to pull a judge anger on, am I following the law or am I making the law?
	That's what he said.
	Am I following it or making it?
	Judges must follow and not be activist judges who make the law.
	And that's what he said to me when I was suggesting the law was being broadly interpreted by the state.
	He said, well, if you want to fix it, go to the legislature.
	So my argument was, fine.
	They now want to expand the law, judge.
	It's good for the goose, good for the gander.
	Make them stick to the law.
	And not only that, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, the Constitution of the United States, governs interstate commerce.
	The state has no power to control sales that cross state lines.
	It would be a disaster if each state could now be the global health organization for the world.
	Here you had the PDA trying to restrict what people in North Carolina and Tennessee and Wisconsin and Oklahoma, Florida and Ohio and California could eat.
	It was none of their business.
	And it was a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Right to Travel Clause, First Amendment Political Association, First Amendment Religious Affiliation and Religious Expression, Fourth Amendment Privacy and Bodily Autonomy, Fifth Amendment Due Process, Fifth Amendment Taking a Property Without Just Compensation.
	All of it was being eviscerated, as well as the analogous provisions of the Declaration of Rights under Pennsylvania law, as well as the restraint on police power.
	As one of our good members who came to the biggest 50th birthday party gave me a huge treatise of the old doctrines on police power when our courts used to remember the restraint on the government.
	And to the credit of the judge, he kept his word.
	He said, no, I'm not going to change my opinion.
	I'm not going to use any supposed ambiguity in the law to take away Amos Miller's rights.
	And you, the state, keep saying the feds should be involved.
	Well, fine.
	The feds can show up then.
	But you're not the feds.
	So Amos Miller's right to be able to distribute his products to his own members outside the state of Pennsylvania was protected and preserved.
	Huge win against the state of Pennsylvania.
	The Pennsylvania politicians and the Attorney General's office and the Agriculture Secretary's office has in other cases, or not legal cases, but in other instances, has admitted.
	That they can't govern outside the state of Pennsylvania.
	This is nonsense that they're doing this, but they'll probably try to keep coming after them and keep coming after them because they can't stop because they don't get the message.
	There are Pennsylvania legislators that, thanks to ordinary people in Pennsylvania who now can't get Amos Miller's product, who are now taking affirmative action.
	And they're hearing more and more complaints saying, what the heck is going on?
	Why can't I get food directly from a farmer?
	Why can't I get food from a farmer that has a great safety track record like the Amish community as a whole does?
	Who are you politicians to have these low IQ lord asses at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture dictating my diet to?
	Dictating my kids' diet to?
	I don't think so.
	And so expect to see Pennsylvania pass.
	Hawaii is right now in the process of passing laws that are going to open up the accessibility and availability of raw milk products in their state.
	Almost every state, Colorado is doing this.
	So even half commie states are recognizing the benefit of this product.
	Eating and drinking food we've been doing for centuries the way we've been doing it for centuries.
	I didn't realize the pasteurization rule, or at least the issue, until I went to get freshly squeezed orange juice at Bednar's Farm up on the 441, and I'm filling up the bottle.
	And I noticed on the bottle, there's a sticker that says, this contains unpasteurized orange juice.
	It could contain bacteria or harmful whatever.
	I'm like, it's freshly squeezed orange juice.
	This is why freshly squeezed OJ tastes...
	It's not comparable.
	A million times better.
	I don't drink the regular.
	They call it orange presse.
	At least they do in France.
	Orange presse, you get that fresh.
	It's like, that's how it's supposed to be made.
	Fresh milk, that's how it's supposed to be made.
	Not chemicals and additives and preservatives and all this crap.
	Concentrate.
	Industrialized, mechanized, monopolized food supplies.
	I like that.
	That all rhymed.
	If that's the difference between unpasteurized milk...
	And regular milk?
	I could get into milk.
	We'll see.
	But then I realized...
	It's good.
	And we even got a special fundraiser for Amos Miller, for 1776 Law Center, Preserve America, posted up at pinned at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It's some exceptional maple syrup, homemade the special way from Amos Miller.
	Everything that I've ever had from his...
	Dinner table has been absolutely fantastic.
	And the milk is just extraordinary.
	Whenever I go up there, he gets me some milk.
	I mean, I was talking about maybe I was going to have to open up speakeasies all across America.
	Sneak in through the back door, the side door, the hidden door.
	You know, you go in and you go into a phone booth and it has a hidden connection to someplace like the old speakeasies so you can get some true Amos Miller fresh milk.
	But thankfully, the judge followed the law, followed the Constitution, followed his conscience, followed his own promised commitment, and Amos Miller is still able to make his product available outside the state of Pennsylvania.
	And you remind me, Robert, I've got a family vlog or shipment from Amos Miller that I'm going to publish after this stream.
	I want to bring something up because I've never seen this before.
	Apparently, not apparently, Dr. Drew has raided the stream, and I've never seen this thing before, so now I need to understand what raiding a stream means.
	In Rumble, I will be lying.
	I'm going to get Dr. Drew to try some of Amos Moe's milk.
	He was like, hey, I'm all for people having choice after what I saw in the pandemic.
	But he wasn't sure about drinking the milk himself.
	He's got to try it himself.
	Because then it'll be a revelation.
	I mean, it was for me when people saw me drinking it.
	And they're like, why does Barnes have all this energy?
	And it's like, is Barnes like doing, is there like cocaine in that milk?
	I mean, the state of Pennsylvania wants to treat it as more dangerous than cocaine.
	But the milk, it's just like, bam!
	Your brain just lights up as soon as you have it.
	People were making jokes, Robert, when you were on it, but on the milk.
	Hold on one second.
	IHall86 is, don't the members of his shop who are on a subscription have a tortious interference case?
	I know the answer to this question, Robert, but why don't you answer it for us?
	Oh yeah, I mean, potentially, yes.
	And so there's the...
	We'll see how the case progresses in Pennsylvania as to what kind of...
	Legal claim for relief and remedy.
	We filed an appeal of their order of destruction.
	They want all the food they previously detained.
	They want a bunch of it destroyed.
	Somehow, the court system's software couldn't process our appeal.
	Four different times.
	The software magically broke down when it came to this.
	I was like, hmm, this is kind of a little bit interesting.
	Let me take a look at this down the road.
	But we were still challenging that.
	We may ultimately, I'm sure PDA is going to keep harassing him, so we're going to have to keep battling for him, keep fighting for him.
	We've spent a lot of time and effort for it.
	There's no way to fully compensate, but 1776 Law Center just mitigates the cost so that we're not going broke ourselves while preventing Amos Miller from being bankrupted.
	And the fundraisers for the maple syrup help do that.
	We'll have fundraisers every other month in there.
	And we might even...
	Amos may want to have a special dinner, fundraising dinner, on his own farm, maybe even an Amish-style picnic, maybe sometime this summer.
	He's considering it.
	His wife's an incredible cook.
	And, of course, it's all food right from his gardens, right from his cows, right there from the farm.
	So, you know, we might see if that can work as well.
	But credit to all the people out there that continue to support him, that helped fundraise for him at the Give, Send, Go, that helped the 1776 Law Center, because that allowed us to mount the effort.
	I mean, the state of Pennsylvania came in and said, we demand you reverse judge.
	A lot of power brought to the equation.
	And we were given one week to file a complete response.
	They had to deal with all the statutory issues, all the constitutional issues, the state and federal issues.
	And, you know, if we didn't have an entire team of four different people all working on it, mostly full-time for a week, we couldn't have mounted the level of defense we were able to do.
	And that was only possible because there's enough support from 1776 Law Center supporters that we're able to do it.
	And that's what these cases are for.
	It's the same thing we're putting into with Brooke Jackson with the help of co-councils like Warner Mendenhall.
	To be able to mount the kind of effort that we need to on her behalf.
	So Brooke and her husband made it out to Vegas, which is great to see.
	People wanted photos with her and other things.
	So she's always great.
	And these are the cases that need support that don't get it from the current legal infrastructure that's out there.
	And 1776 Law Center, totally anonymous.
	It's not a charity.
	So it's none of nobody's donation or contribution ever gets disclosed to any government agency.
	It's solely meant to support these efforts of these cases and these causes.
	And this was a big, big win at a critical time because if we didn't get this, the government Mm-hmm.
	Let me get two of these super chats here.
	Alex stealthed in as a conspiracy nut to establish a syndicated network that allowed him to criticize the Clintons.
	He's been on Hillary's naughty list ever since from Jack Black.
	Azana, please interview Roger Sayles about 13th and 14th Amendments.
	We got that there.
	I screen grabbed that.
	Barnes needs to listen to his speaker there.
	I screen grabbed it, so I'll have a look at that.
	Then we go on the subject of the IRS in the immortal words of Homer Simpson.
	Boo.
	Boo is right.
	Okay.
	Robert, let me go to the list of what we have.
	What's next?
	Oh, we got a lot of big SCOTUS cases.
	We got a faking case where they did their typical split the baby routine, this court, sadly.
	But at least it was on the right side overall.
	The silence is golden, sometimes in SEC cases.
	And they're going to be hearing oral argument tomorrow.
	At the Supreme Court on the January 6th obstruction charges.
	Ooh, and that will be broadcast live on the Supreme Court channel.
	Yeah.
	You can't see it, but you can hear it.
	What time is that going to be at?
	Probably 10 a.m.
	Hmm.
	I mean, don't check.
	I don't know for sure, but that's the usual time.
	I might be doing that tomorrow during the day.
	All right.
	You might have to cover for my ignorance on a couple of these and just take it and I'll ask you questions as you go, Robert.
	So will you remember the traffic impact fee takings case?
	Yep.
	Yeah, so the Supreme Court finally issued its decision on it.
	So for those that don't remember, a guy just wanted to make fixing things on his home.
	And as a condition for fixing things on his own home, he was charged a generic traffic impact fee that had nothing to do with how he was using his own home.
	And it was like $23,000, $24,000 automatic.
	You want to fix your home?
	You're going to have to give us a bunch of cash.
	And this sounded like takings without just compensation, which is illegal under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	Gregory Sheets, the laws required him to pay $23,000 for a traffic impact fee study.
	I remember this now.
	While he tried to obtain a permit to build an 1,800 square foot manufactured home.
	He just wanted to put a little trailer home.
	I mean, it was probably going to cost less than the impact fee.
	And so he was like, this is unconstitutional.
	And the excuse of the politicians was, no, no, no.
	This wasn't an administrative action.
	This is a legislative action.
	And because, and magically, according to them, if it's a legislative action, the takings clause doesn't apply anymore.
	This would be a horrifying loophole to the takings clause.
	For those who don't remember, you can't take private property for a public purpose without just compensation, is what the Constitution requires.
	That's imposed on the states through the 14th Amendment, that Fifth Amendment clause.
	So he said, no, you're taking my private property for a public purpose without just compensation.
	And so it goes up to the Supreme.
	The lower courts are like, ah, the legislature do it.
	So that's a big loophole.
	Well, let's just carve it in this big loophole.
	And credit to the Supreme Court, they unanimously said, no, there's no legislative loophole to the takings clause, that that would make no sense.
	The Constitution applies to all branches of the government.
	Those amendments especially apply to all branches of the government.
	If we're talking Article I, Article II, Article III, well, then that's different because then it's specifically addressed to a specific branch.
	But the Constitution's amendments, the Bill of Rights, that were the precondition for the Constitution even getting approved in the first place, it applies to all the government's actions.
	And so luckily, fortunately, the Supreme Court recognized that obviousness and said it applies to everybody, legislative, administrative, judicial.
	Doesn't matter who it is, you can't take private property for a public purpose without just compensation.
	Where they didn't go far enough, Gorsuch said, look, all these impact fees are mostly bogus.
	And Barrett, Kavanaugh, wouldn't go along with that.
	Like, no, no, maybe that's okay.
	As long as there's a reasonable relationship between the impact fee and actual impact of the land use.
	Maybe that's constitutional.
	We'll leave that for another day.
	It smells again more of taxpayer money laundering where they say, come and pay an impact fee.
	Who has the contract for that study or whatever it is that gets the...
	Money goes right in their treasury, too.
	I mean, it had no correlation.
	So now if you get away with it, it at least has to have a correlation.
	Now, it will still be challenged in the lower courts, but it's clear that this court is unwilling...
	To knock down all these scheduled impact fees, as long as there's a reasonable relationship between your permitted land use and the impact that the fee is charging you for, you can get away with it for the time being.
	Gorsuch was right that said, no, you shouldn't be able to get away with that either.
	But at least the ridiculousness of a legislative loophole that allows you, and I'll give the Supreme Court credit here.
	They said, there is a word for what the government was doing there.
	It's called extortion.
	And I was like, that kind of describes everything on tax day, doesn't it here?
	Amazing.
	All right.
	Well, I guess the question is the broader impact of this, what's going to be the impact on administrative procedure?
	I don't know, more locally.
	Well, basically that all these governments that thought they found a loophole by just having the legislative or judicial branch do it now realize there's no such loophole.
	There has to actually be a relationship between the impact fee charged and giving somebody a permit.
	Now, my own view is giving people permits to what they can do on their own land.
	You know, this goes to an old debate I had in property class about zoning law.
	I was like, eh, let's see how zoning, if we really study how zoning works, does it work for the public benefit?
	Or is it just one big fat bribery scheme?
	This is why, like, Joe Rogan years ago, he was debating Dave Rubin, seemed to think that poorer countries have shoddy construction because they don't have all the rules in place.
	And it's like, no, they love rules.
	They usually have more rules in those countries that prohibit even more construction because how else are they going to bribe people and extort people?
	It was like Rogan was completely off base on that.
	Rubin was right.
	Rogan was wrong.
	But that's what this is.
	This is just an extortion scheme.
	The Supreme Court just said you have to be a little more sophisticated with it.
	Okay, that's one of the Supreme Court.
	The other one is the abortion.
	Coming out of...
	Well, we have two different ones.
	With SCOTUS, we got January 6th obstruction and the silence is golden.
	From the Arizona Supreme Court, we have an abortion and prosecutorial conflicts case.
	My apologies, mixing up the Supreme Courts of the Americas.
	Okay, sorry.
	We're sticking with SCOTUS then.
	What's the second one?
	So, securities action.
	There are some statutory provisions.
	There are some provisions of securities laws that make merely omitting a statement actionable.
	As a civil or criminal action.
	But there's another statutory provision that's what's called popularly or colloquially the half-truths provision.
	So if you tell a half-truth, you can be sued, you can be fined, you can be charged with a crime.
	The question is, what if you just don't say anything?
	What if it's never in writing and always in cash?
	What then?
	Well, the Supreme Court unanimously determined that silence is in fact golden in that instance.
	That as long as you're not telling a half-truth, you're not just telling anything at all, then that's not a violation because the half-truth provision only applies to half-truths.
	You only have a duty to disclose when you already disclose something else.
	So it was an interesting, unanimous decision.
	It's probably the correct statutory interpretation, but it was an intriguing one all the less, all the more.
	All right, and now that's number two of three.
	Number three of three coming from SCOTUS.
	Is the January 6th obstruction argument that's going to take place tomorrow.
	This is amazing.
	So this is the one as to whether or not you can read that statute into obstructing any congressional procedure.
	It was something that was designed after Enron for obstructing an actual legal proceeding.
	Through the destruction of evidence was the actual destruction.
	It used examples, altering, tampering, coercing perjury, bribery.
	It gave illustrative examples.
	And somehow that evidence statute was now being applied to a protest-turned-riot.
	By the way, at worst, just so that people don't freak out and think, Robert's gone deep state, he called it a riot.
	The worst scenario in your interpretation of January 6th is it's a protest turned a riot.
	As even Robert Kennedy admitted, you really can't call that an insurrection.
	So what they did is, how did they get misdemeanor crimes and elevate them into 25-year federal felonies that have people serving de facto?
	Life sentences.
	It's because they decided that January 6th was really a magical official proceeding and that this was an effort to obstruct that proceeding by doing what?
	And what it is, is there's a catch-all clause that's meant to capture things like altering, destroying, mutilating, bribing, etc., perjuring, something that prevents the investigative machinery.
	That's applicable, whether it's the courts or the administrative branch or the legislative branch from functioning, to interpret that to mean everything.
	You do anything that we think has the intent to prevent electors from being counted, which is not at all what was happening anyway.
	That's its own lie about the January 6th cases.
	Then now everything's obstruction, which meant, why did they even list anything?
	You didn't need to list anything if everything is obstruction.
	So it's an asinine interpretation.
	But only one judge in all of the District of Corruption had the courage to point that out.
	But the political hacks like Judge Pan, the same one that panned immunity arguments, another liberal Democratic appointee, particularly liberal Democratic women appointees by Biden and Obama, are some of the most obnoxious, least constitutionally conscientious jurists on the planet.
	And no surprise that Judge Pan did this.
	Pan even admitted, well, you know, it's true.
	This has never been interpreted this way in the history of man.
	But we're going to say that that's no grounds to stop it now.
	Ludicrous, partisan interpretation that showed she has no business involved in these cases.
	She, frankly, has no business being on the Court of Appeals.
	An honest Congress would have already subjected Judge Pan to impeachment based on this and other bad rogue conduct in these cases.
	But the Supreme Court took up that case.
	To say, hold on a second.
	And to give an idea, this statute previously had been misinterpreted by the government during the George W. Bush regime.
	And guess how they interpreted it?
	Guess what they...
	This is something close to your own heart, Viva.
	What did they interpret it as deleting and destroying evidence such that it was obstruction of their enforcement powers?
	It's not Hillary Clinton?
	No, no, no.
	It's something really close to your heart.
	What might you do on an everyday basis that they would want to call if it was done in an unpermitted facility or location, for example?
	You were busy destroying the evidence!
	Robert, I feel stupid.
	I can't think right now.
	Fishing!
	They were calling.
	So somebody fished in a place that they're like, you fished and you took that fish out of the water!
	And that's altering and destroying the evidence!
	I'm happy I would have never gotten it.
	I thought you meant either deleting something off my phone or I couldn't even...
	Okay.
	So you're going through your list of what crimes have I committed?
	Oh, okay.
	But here's the thing.
	They're going to hear it.
	Hypothetically, they come down and say the interpretation that's been given to it is too broad.
	It's going to negate one of the key charges against Trump.
	It's also going to negate the lead charge against most of the January 6th defendants.
	Now, those corrupt D.C. courts are already trying to figure out ways to make the sentences stay high, even without this statute, which shows their prejudice, their bigotry, their bias, as that Reagan appointee who talked in front of the Georgetown people also revealed the degree of prejudice and bigotry and bias.
	We've got to get led.
	Credit to Julie Kelly, now on the same mantra.
	We got Mike Davis on when he talked to us.
	Trump's shadow attorney general who drives the liberals nuts because he says, you know, a lot of these people, they belong in jail.
	Not the January 6th defendants, the people who are doing the rogue activities prosecuting and punishing these people in violation of our constitutional rights and remedies.
	There's a reason why it's the first thing Putin points to whenever a Western journalist interviews him.
	He's like, well, you know, it's not like we had somebody Like, say, a couple thousand people have a little protest outside the Kremlin.
	We've had lots of those.
	But you know what I've never done?
	I've never locked them up for 20 years or more.
	I've never denied them a trial for four years ongoing.
	That's something you, the United States government, is doing right now to your political opponents and adversaries.
	And so the expectation is the Supreme Court is going to overturn this application, which means this was rogue application by the prosecutors there in the District of Columbia, but a rogue application by all the judges who couldn't see, because this is probably going to be unanimous.
	Even the liberal democratic judges recognize how insane this is.
	Well, especially the liberals, because they don't want to be applied to the people who are, you know...
	Yeah, but one of the dissenting judges of the D.C. panel said, under this interpretation, all of a sudden, most First Amendment activity can now be criminalized.
	Absolutely.
	Because everybody that ever makes a protest, you could interpret as trying to obstruct the law from being made.
	And now they're all criminals.
	Like, this is insane.
	I just got an email if I look distracted.
	It's actually from the Dr. Drew team.
	Viva Raiding is a Rumble feature in beta.
	In the Rumble chat, you just type in Raid.
	That's so cool.
	I love it.
	I love it.
	I love Rumble.
	Maybe we have to do it to Salty Cracker later.
	Especially the liberal judges want it.
	You don't want Chop Chaz in as much as you might want to think it's obstruction of government proceedings.
	Boom!
	All protest is done.
	All Kavanaugh hearing protest is criminalized.
	Except everybody says, well, they won't apply it evenly.
	They'll apply it partisan-wise.
	But now the question is this.
	People who were convicted on the obstruction charge and others.
	How does that work practically?
	Their sentences are vacated.
	Their convictions are vacated.
	And they remanded.
	They have to either re-sentence them if there's any other charges they were guilty of.
	And they're already attempting to increase those sentences.
	That's likely going to get overturned too.
	But what it really reveals is how partisan and corrupt the District of Corruption is.
	We need, as Julie Kelly recognized, to get rid of the District of Columbia entirely.
	It needs to have no legal system, no judicial system, no prosecutorial system, subjected to Congress's own direct legislation as was previously required under the Constitution.
	It was never meant to be an independent body.
	Our founders didn't intend it that way.
	It's been a disaster and a debacle.
	It was the corrupt D.C. mayor that blocked the National Guard from even being present.
	Now that information's been confirmed, President Trump requested their presence.
	D.C. mayor blocked it along with corrupt members of the Pentagon and the FBI.
	And had they been properly present there, there never would have been any issues on January 6th.
	And that's probably why they weren't present there.
	The goal was to provoke and instigate an activity.
	Because one of the other things that Alex Jones witness admitted was, yeah, we had plenty of people to help instigate January 6th.
	The other thing he was bragging about, that if you know those kind of people, this is exactly how they talk.
	It's like, you know, it's not that hard to get somebody charged with a crime.
	You just gotta nudge a little here and nudge a little there.
	That's exactly how they think.
	When I heard that part of it, I was like, this guy's completely for real.
	Because that's precisely how those people think.
	That's precisely how they talk.
	And the thing with all of them is they can't help but brag.
	You know how much I draw like those Nord Stream people?
	We have to sit there and let these Ukrainian idiots take credit for us.
	Blowing up this thing that was an incredible operation that people said couldn't even be done.
	Get Seymour Hersh on the line!
	Get Seymour!
	We've got to get this out there because they're proud of it that that's who these people are.
	But the District of Corruption hopefully will get slapped back by the Supreme Court in the coming weeks on this January 6th abuse.
	Robert, I'm old enough to remember...
	Overturning Roe v.
	Wade was a conspiracy theory that could never come to fruition.
	You talking about destroying D.C. as an independent, whatever the hell it is, district.
	What would be required to make that happen practically, and how long would it take?
	Oh, it's easy.
	Congress could do it like that.
	And then what happens to D.C.?
	Does it go to Virginia?
	Does it go to Maryland?
	Where does it go?
	You just take it all away.
	In any pending cases, you can have transferred out.
	Okay, hold on.
	So you mean district?
	You mean judicially, not like...
	There's no District of Columbia courthouse.
	There's no federal D.C. There's no District of Court of Appeals.
	There's no D.C. prosecutorial office.
	There's no local state version of the D.C. courts.
	They're all gone.
	Any case out of D.C. has to be that's pending.
	There can be no future cases.
	Any pending case transferred out.
	You know where they should transfer it out?
	Transfer it to the residence of the defendant.
	And if you do that...
	All these cases quickly go out of D.C. They should have been transferred constitutionally from the get-go under the Vicinage Clause.
	Not a question of partitioning up D.C. among Virginia, Maryland?
	Congress can directly legislate and govern things that are truly specific to D.C. That's very cool.
	Constitutionally.
	The whole point was not to be its own government.
	And now the swamp gets to judge the swamp and the critics of the swamp.
	And they wanted exclusive jurisdiction for interpreting the border bill and all things borderliness.
	What could possibly go on?
	It's the District of Corruption.
	That's its only real name.
	That was the question I wanted to ask you.
	I almost forgot.
	I don't know if you saw it.
	I don't expect you to have watched it.
	The interview with Jake Lang, who I didn't realize was going to lead to controversy because I thought Jake Lang was...
	He's another January 6er and there's a lot of infighting when it comes to Jake Lang.
	He's...
	Particularly interested in the outcome of the obstruction charge, correct?
	Yeah.
	And so hypothetically, he has not yet stood trial.
	This could impact the trial that he stands and the potential sentence that he stands to get.
	Oh, yes.
	That was the question.
	Also, what do you think of the controversy around Jake Lang?
	That was my subtle way of getting it.
	I know there's controversy, but I don't know enough about it to have any opinion.
	I spent the better part of the day, I was like, Vita, do you know who you're interviewing?
	I was like, Jake Lang.
	I look into him.
	I look into him.
	Holy crap.
	The dude was open like a phone book to every question I had to ask him.
	I felt bad asking some of the questions, but I asked him nonetheless.
	Robert, that's it for SCOTUS.
	Yeah, now we have the Arizona Supreme Court, which had a couple of interesting decisions this week.
	Robert, are they going too far on the pendulum swinging back to the prohibition on abortion?
	Arizona, from what I understand, not reenacted.
	It's reinvigorated, relegitimized an 1860 law that outlaws abortion from the moment of Yeah, and what it is, it was traditional abortion law in America for really more than a century.
	And what had happened is that law had been challenged in Arizona courts and had been enjoined on the grounds of constitutional grounds.
	And there had been statutes passed in Arizona recognizing the enforcing Roe.
	And so the question was, does this statute enforcing Roe overturn the prior statute?
	So they were just interpreting the statute.
	And they're like, no, that new statute was completely dependent and contingent upon Roe still being the law of the land, and it's not.
	So now the old law is the law.
	And that's all they ruled.
	They said we're remanding the case for whether or not that law, as it would violate the Arizona Constitution in its current form, We're not preventing the legislature or the people from doing their own thing on moderating or modifying abortion policy.
	So all they did was interpret the law as written.
	And the law as written, their interpretation was correct.
	It was only gutsy because it had the practical consequence of momentarily criminalizing abortion in the state.
	At all stages.
	And my guess is that they'll probably come up with some modification.
	Now, your core pro-life community doesn't approve of that modification.
	So I think Carrie Lake is a pro-life person, but doesn't support a complete ban with no exceptions.
	Your hardcore pro-lifer sees murder as murder and no distinction on the grounds.
	I think they should think about the self-defense implications of non-consensual pregnancy.
	And I don't think, you know, I've had this debate many, many years.
	You mean rape or incest?
	Yeah, rape or incest or other ways in which you may become, there's not many, but it's usually some form of assault.
	But you could have in vitro fertilization done in some way that was maybe legally improper that makes it non-consensual.
	Or smoking holes in condoms.
	Right.
	Well, yeah.
	Another example you have is you have...
	I mean, these cases come out where the...
	They thought they were getting the best sperm in the sperm bank, and it turns out it's the doctor because he's obsessed with becoming his own little mini Epstein and replicating himself around the world.
	So that might have certain implications.
	But basically, whenever you have a non-consensual pregnancy, it does give rise to self-defense issues.
	The way we got this in law school would always be two innocent people face off against one another, and the only way for one innocent person to survive is to harm the other innocent person.
	Do they have a legal right to do so?
	Under self-defense, yes, they do.
	Under self-defense law, it's not limited that the other person have bad intent.
	So, you know, unless you want to eviscerate that principle of self-defense, that you have no right to survive, if it means taking the life of another, you're trying to change self-defense law in America.
	Shooting a driver who's had a medical emergency who's driving their car at you, type example.
	Classic example.
	I remember we used to get those all the time.
	And nobody likes them because they're always difficult answers.
	You know, it's like classic one from philosophy class was, you know, the train car is out of control going down the hill, is going to kill X number of people.
	Do you turn the car this way to limit the number of people who die?
	Do you turn it another way because your goal is to preserve all life?
	Or do you blow up the train?
	All the life of the people on the train.
	I mean, who do you have a superior moral obligation to?
	Difficult choice situations.
	But self-defense law, frankly, does cover any non-consensual pregnancy, if you look at most of it in most jurisdictions.
	And then the public consensus supports limited legal abortion in the first term.
	This is true almost around the world.
	Now, your core pro-lifers oppose that.
	My own view is I'm not convinced that a zygote has the same constitutional recognition as a human person.
	That a formed fetus with brain and heart activity do.
	I've also long believed that we should have the same standard for when life starts as when it ends.
	When someone is brain dead, we consider them dead.
	They have human organs.
	They're a human form.
	Not to steel man the rebuttal, because I've had this thought myself.
	The question is going to be, when someone's brain dead, they're never getting better.
	When someone's not yet brain active, they're going to get the brain active.
	That's the potential of life argument.
	But to me, there's a difference between potential of life and actual life.
	Where I disagree is the hardcore pro-choice position that doesn't really recognize life until someone's like two years old and conscious.
	Not even then.
	In Canada, they can euthanize them if the parents consent.
	Not yet, people.
	That was hyperbolic.
	That's not true.
	Don't fact check me on that.
	Oh, practically true.
	But the hardcore pro-life community doesn't accept any conditions or restraints.
	So Carrie Lake is getting political blowback.
	President Trump is getting political blowback because he said, look, it's up to the states now.
	It's not a federal issue.
	Why pro-life people want to federalize this doesn't make sense to me because if they cede federal power, then they're going to lose politically and all of a sudden abortion is going to be legal nationwide.
	So full scale, full stop.
	So, you know, that's a foolish position for them to, in my view, politically, tactically, to pursue.
	How many lives do you want to save?
	Do you want to feel pure and say, I fought to save all life, even though I know I'm taking a tactic that's going to lead to more dead people, more dead babies?
	I'm sorry.
	I don't take that position as a noble position.
	So, I understand where Carrie Lake's coming from.
	I understand where Trump is coming from.
	I understand the core pro-life community strongly disagree.
	You can send the hate mail courtesy of Eva Frye.
	Well, I have the same problem.
	I remember this was the philosophical debate I had with women who were promoting abortion back in 1999.
	And I said, look, at the end of the day, you're taking a life or the potential of a life to minimize what you think is going to be the harm for the person.
	So in a sense, it's killing to maximize happiness.
	And I don't like to admit that at all.
	No, but the bottom line is, from a practical purpose, there has to be a window, period, because the alternative is not realistic.
	And that's what the public consensus is.
	And if you want it, the better way to change that is to change the public consensus.
	Trying to legislate it out of existence has never been a tactically wise strategy.
	Well, I won't get too much into...
	Whatever.
	But in fact, the decision was most overstated.
	The pro-choice community made a huge deal about it.
	They're going to try to probably put something on the ballot in Arizona to help Democrats down ballot.
	And that they're going to use as a political opportunity.
	But point in fact, it's likely that the court is going to put a constitutional limit on that decision at the lower levels because they remanded it to deal with all the constitutional questions because that wasn't actually before them.
	So my guess is it was more They interpreted the law correctly, but the political implications and ramifications were being overstated by the opponents of the law.
	I'm just going to show everybody Winston because he was at the dog kennel and they gave him a haircut.
	It's a reasonable...
	Look at this.
	He's not all shaved off.
	Now he's back to looking like a cute little dog.
	Like a normal Westie.
	Look at this.
	He smells so delicious.
	I'm going to put him on the ground.
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay.
	Robert, what do we have next on the menu?
	The other big decision out of the Arizona Supreme Court is one that has broader implications and people can look to if they want to understand what prosecutorial conflicts really are.
	And it was just intriguing to me how much this decision cited the arguments we talked about related to Fannie Willis.
	And these are universal arguments.
	Because the Arizona Supreme Court pointed out that in a decision about disqualification of an entire prosecutorial office, like an individual prosecutor, the question is a U.S. federal constitutional question under the Due Process Clause.
	What does that mean?
	It means it should have the same standards everywhere throughout the country because it's a federal constitutional provision.
	And they pointed out one critical component, which is, quote, we must preserve both.
	The reality and the appearance of a completely neutral and impartial prosecutorial office.
	And if anybody in that office is implicated without extraordinary screening, the entire office must be disqualified.
	They are dealing with a situation of what happens when the victim of a crime that's being prosecuted works in the prosecutor's office.
	And they're like, most times, you're probably going to need a new prosecutorial office to assign that to.
	No, man.
	Every single time, how could you even contemplate doing it?
	The standard is, is there any public suspicion of impartiality?
	Yes, yes.
	The quick answer is yes.
	Unless there's some overwhelming benefit of continued representation of that particular prosecutor's office that's unique to that case, if there is merely public suspicion...
	That the appearance is partial or prejudicial, you must disqualify.
	Under that constitutional standard, that only leaves the Georgia appeals court one choice in the Fannie Willis case.
	Someone just sent me an email.
	Biden reported adjusted gross income of $620,000 in 2023.
	I guess they figured out...
	Hold on, where is this?
	Stop this!
	Okay, sorry.
	Sorry, Robert.
	I hear audio and I can't hear.
	Okay, well, that's very interesting.
	Now, we are two hours in.
	How many do we have left on the list of things to talk about?
	We have a few fun cases to wrap up the Rumble show and then a few fun cases for the after party at vivobarneslaw.logals.com.
	We got a sheriff!
	Suing the state of Colorado over immigration.
	We got Indian tribes joining the fight against social media contaminating our kids.
	We got a good chemicals lawsuit involving a lot of the dangerous chemicals made by a company called 3M.
	Again, 3M.
	They left the F-E-R-S part off the official statement.
	So we're going to save the porn one, the Vegas strip.
	Yeah, we got the strip club South Park lawsuit for the after party.
	We got the DNC trying to bribe the RFK lawyer for the after party.
	And we got a little remembrance.
	Maybe, well, what if OJ was innocent for the after party?
	All of that is going to be on locals.
	Robert, so start with the three that we have left on Rumble here.
	So it just shows where immigration is going.
	State of Colorado has passed laws prohibiting local sheriffs from enforcing federal immigration law, from even working with ICE when they have an illegal immigrant in their custody.
	And the sheriffs are saying this is making our community's lives miserable.
	We're letting criminals who should have no business being in our communities, who are here in violation of federal law, who are not lawfully even present, committing other crimes in our community, because that's disproportionately, as Trump famous said, who's bringing in the rapist?
	Somebody's bringing in the rapist, as he told Don Lamont.
	But if you're a hardcore criminal...
	Wouldn't you want to cross the border and come into America?
	I was credibly told that illegal immigrants commit less crime than American citizens because they're so afraid of getting arrested and deported.
	Can you debunk that for us?
	Well, that's the people coming here to work.
	The problem is there is a criminal class coming here as well.
	So those that are coming here solely for work don't disproportionately commit crime.
	That statement's true because they're coming here to work to send money back home.
	But they're doing so in violation of our laws that undermine the local labor market that hurt the local community.
	So, I mean, depending on what work they're doing.
	There's some work, illegal immigrants do, that they're not replacing workers here.
	But that's about one out of four, one out of five.
	Most of them are replacing American workers.
	If you don't believe me, look at the jobs chart.
	Since Biden was elected, native-born Americans have net-loss jobs.
	The only reason you see these good jobs reports?
	All of them, all of them went to immigrants, legal and illegal.
	All of them, all of the new jobs created since 2021 have gone to legal or illegal immigrants.
	None to Americans, native-born Americans.
	And that doesn't include Canadians here on Visa.
	So the sheriff is like, this is nuts.
	State of Colorado is prohibiting me from referring illegals to ICE.
	So that we don't have the burden of the criminal subclass wing of illegals, because they're coming into my custody in the first place because they've already committed another crime.
	And I don't want these criminals here, and they don't belong here, so I should be able to send them to ICE since they've committed a federal crime.
	And the state law prohibits them from doing it in Camerado.
	And so he's bringing suit to challenge that.
	Expect more of those in these sanctuary state laws where conservative sheriffs are sick and tired of being burdened with the criminality from the criminal subclass coming in through illegal immigration.
	The Indian tribes, Native Americans, including the Menominee of Wisconsin that I once worked for, are now suing the big social media giants on the same grounds that citizens and states have, saying you have contaminated our kids.
	You've caused them to have record levels of anxiety and depression and self-harm.
	We believe you lied to them.
	You lied to us to get this in front of our kids, to get them addicted.
	And so we're suing you for the harm you've caused.
	So the social media giants face multiple, particularly Google, particularly Meta and Facebook.
	Face real ongoing legal exposure in addition to the antitrust cases, in addition to the consumer class action cases, the consumer privacy action cases.
	Are these cases for the horrid harm they have inflicted on an entire generation of young people?
	They're suing in regular courts and they're not suing on native?
	They're not suing in tribal court, no.
	Do they have any preferential or legislative beneficial standing to file suit or they're just a standard plaintiff?
	They're a standard plaintiff, but they have the same standing that the states have to bring it on behalf of their tribal members.
	And they've suffered disproportionate harm, a lot of Native American communities, from the social media explosion.
	They're a particular susceptible and vulnerable child population.
	And then last but not least, State Attorney General of Indiana has brought a lawsuit against the so-called PFAS chemicals.
	These are chemicals that are called forever chemicals.
	Because they never go away.
	They're in your cookware.
	They're in your clothing.
	They're in your cosmetics.
	They're in your carpets.
	And they're contaminating the environment.
	They're killing people with cancer.
	And they're causing developmental disabilities.
	One of the principal makers of this dangerous set of chemicals is 3M that's been caught committing crimes before.
	3M likes to commit crimes.
	They discriminated against their workers with vaccine mandates, and they're now discriminating and harassing them in lawsuits, demanding to invade their privacy, demanding to do an inquisition of their religious beliefs, demanding their social media accounts, their internet, all of their cell phones be turned over to them.
	And these political partisan judges who are themselves culpable.
	For example, there was a judge, Judge Beatlestone in Pennsylvania.
	His name is Beatlestone.
	Yeah, Beatlestone.
	You know, she's a perfect Obama judge.
	What does that mean?
	Another foreigner on our American bench.
	She wasn't born in America.
	She wasn't raised in America.
	She's even a chancellor of a foreign university.
	She has no business on the American bench deciding American constitutional rights and liberties.
	But it's the kind of judge Barack, foreign, born, probably.
	Foreign raised Obama believed it.
	He believed he wanted foreign ideas governing our country.
	Not American ideas governing our country.
	And Judge Beatlestone is a fine practitioner of that Obama tradition.
	It's the same judge who said employers could not assert a religious objection to forced to being paid for abortions.
	That's how nuts this judge, that's how biased and bigoted.
	This judge is on religious issues.
	So she forced somebody to disclose their whole life, and then with any part of it she decided wasn't fully disclosed, she dismissed the case entirely, wouldn't even allow her to seek relief and remedy for being discriminated against.
	The same judge is culpable herself for supporting vaccine mandates on people.
	There were people she refused to release from prison unless they, on conditional or compassionate release, unless they took the vaccine.
	How many people ended up dead or disabled because of this judge's pen?
	So she has a personal conflict of interest in these cases.
	So we'll be appealing that.
	But it all involves 3M, which hired Ogletree, one of the most corrupt labor law firms in America.
	Long history of being complicit in anti-labor activity.
	And they have waged a personal war on the employees of 3M.
	Demanding another judge, you have to turn over your phone, you have to turn over all your computers, social media access, for them to completely rummage through, to have a third party rummage through, to see if they can find something to make your life hell, because you are the victim of religious discrimination, because these judges are culpable and complicit themselves in these vaccines.
	Many of these judges have blood on their hands.
	Related to the vaccine orders.
	They have no business even being in these cases.
	They're proving incapable of impartiality.
	But the worst, worst employer in the country on vaccine mandate and the way they're handling these cases is 3M.
	And it's not a coincidence.
	3M is a criminal corporation that has been caught committing crimes repeatedly, including harming our people.
	So this PFAS lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of Indiana got my attention.
	Just a reminder of who 3M is up there with Pfizer and Tyson for criminals that belong in prison and belong shut down, not continuing to steal the lives and liberties of the American people.
	I was just going to say that Pfizer paid the second biggest criminal penalty.
	This is the judge.
	The biggest criminal drug dealer in the world is Pfizer.
	The smile is consistent throughout the...
	I don't know what's going on with the attire in these things.
	That's Judge Quindy Beetlejuice.
	He's the Chancellor of Foreign University.
	What are we doing with foreigners on the American bench?
	Can we please have Americans on the American bench?
	If you say Beetle...
	What's her last name?
	Not Beetlejuice.
	It's Beetle...
	What's her last name?
	Beetle Stone.
	Say Beetle Stone three times and something shall appear.
	And you turn into a pumpkin.
	Robert, I had one more question.
	Oh, who makes Teflon?
	Like a permanent...
	Permanent pollution thing would be, Teflon would be one of such examples?
	Or asbestos or some other things, but the, I mean, these forever chemicals have been horrendous.
	This is what the PDAs of the world think is fine, is our carpets being contaminated, our walls being contaminated, our clothes being contaminated, our cookware being contaminated, with these toxic forever chemicals that are causing developmental disabilities in children.
	Why are we having an explosion of developmental?
	Disabilities in our children.
	Because it corrupts criminal companies like 3M.
	It's not vaccines.
	I've been assured that much as well.
	And by the way, I never for a second gave much credence or credibility to the Obama foreign-born theory until they fought against it so hard and tried to cancel people for it.
	Set that aside.
	It's old news.
	Robert, before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, let me make sure it's on here.
	Yes, we are seeing what I'm seeing.
	Put the judge next to judge from Brazil, evil-looking duo, says you're barmy.
	Well, I don't know.
	Everybody does that.
	You skip it after five seconds.
	Don't complain.
	1990.
	The first thing that needs to be done in order to get rid of the district of corruption.
	Is to get the uniparty Republicans out of the House and replace them with MAGA candidates.
	Robert Barnes must be on the Supreme Court someday.
	Robert, that would be hilarious.
	An awesome and fantastic EMX.
	Jamie Lee, 33. I second the idea of having a Uranium One.
	Hush, hush.
	Do you know who the whistleblower Nate Kane is now running for Congress in West Virginia?
	Well, let me see if he's going to come on for an interview.
	We love Viva Barnes, says Ace Jacobson, 005.
	Lost Corps.
	Got any more of that freedom, honey?
	Too good.
	Probably single-handedly killed my diet.
	Didn't the members who shop, don't the members of his shop who are on subscription have a tour?
	Okay, we got that.
	Now, sorry.
	So tomorrow I'll be live.
	I think I might live stream the SCOTUS hearing for the obstruction case.
	Robert?
	What's your week?
	It's Monday.
	We're on the Sunday show.
	But what's your week consisting of this week?
	Oh, yeah.
	A lot of work on the Brooke Jackson case.
	Monitoring anything crazy with the Amos Miller case.
	Monitoring these abusive judges.
	Someone asked in the chat whether these are judges ordering these invasive orders.
	And the answer is yes.
	I mean, that's how nuts it is.
	It's like you have a right to privacy.
	It has no material relevance to the case.
	These 3M discriminate against these people.
	Well, we have them in depositions.
	Admitting they didn't think Christian science was a religion.
	And that's how idiotic these people were.
	They were just out to discriminate against people because they were happy.
	This is somebody who experiments on the population with their products every single day.
	So they were happy to do it to their more vulnerable employees.
	And they're harassing all of them.
	Like, okay, because they thought they were going to have the defense of reasonable accommodation because they could pretend that there was no reasonable accommodation.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't interpret that in that ridiculous way.
	And so now they know they're going to lose if they get an honest jury and an honest trial.
	So they're saying, hey, judges, don't allow these plaintiffs to have honest trials, make their lives living hell, discriminate against them again, and do an inquisition on their personal lives.
	They're demanding their medical records be disclosed, no matter what the context, for more than a decade, even though their medical issues are not an issue in the case.
	That's how nuts these judges are.
	They're showing, and they know that the courts of appeals refuse to get involved in discovery disputes in federal court prior to a trial.
	So they're forcing you, either you give up your entire life.
	Give up all your privacy in order to assert your right to privacy.
	Or you don't assert them.
	Exactly.
	I mean, that's what it is.
	It's harassment.
	But 3M is up there with Tyson and Pfizer on a special list of mine.
	I'll put it that way.
	What we're going to do right now is come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll give everyone the link one more time.
	I'll be live tomorrow.
	I'll be live throughout the week.
	Friday, Jason Palmer, the vice presidential candidate running against...
	Biden, we're going to be live.
	So it's going to be fantastic.
	Stay tuned for that on Friday.
	But I'll be live all throughout the week.
	Other than that, come over to Viva Barnes Law for the rest of the party, people.
	We're ending on Rumble.
	Rumble, thank you very much.
	1775 Coffee.
	1775.com forward slash Viva.
	And 1776 Law Center for the other place.
	Come over to Logan.
	It's going to be fun.
	Ending on Rumble now.
	Peace out, peeps.
	See you all tomorrow.
	Booyah!
	Robert, okay, now.

▲