Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 21, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:36:06

Trump Trial; Legislative Assassination; Pennsylvania MADNESS; Dexter Taylor; Trevor Bauer & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh crap.
	More gators, brain-eating viruses.
	Oh, no.
	Okay, good.
	That's beautiful.
	This one's a good one.
	The aluminum wall thingy thing.
	Good job.
	Sorry, man.
	Just like stairs.
	Another peak and it looks like another water obstacle.
	No gator threat but just a brain-eating virus, flesh-eating bacteria.
	How much urine is in there?
	Gross.
	Oh dear goodness.
	We're supposed to go under with our head?
	This is disgusting.
	It's a foot and a half underneath.
	Three, two, absolutely disgusting.
	sweep the dirt away Do not inhale.
	Do not drink.
	Do not swallow.
	Do not get it in any orifice of your body.
	They get you nice and dirty and wet.
	Before making you do the monkey bars.
	So the trick is, try to have a dry spot, but I don't.
	You can dry on the ground.
	I did nothing.
	What?
	Come on.
	What are you doing?
	You got a job.
	I'm gonna go.
	That fourth one is the hardest.
	We've gotten the highest.
	Which is the hardest?
	One year on right now.
	That one's got the highest.
	What?
	Yes, sir!
	I think I pulled a muscle on my shoulder.
	Alright, we can stop it here.
	Anyone want to see my butt?
	Where's my butt?
	And this is a thin rope.
	Not easy.
	Not like one of those big hemp ropes.
	Okay, we can stop it there.
	Good evening, everybody.
	That's what I did yesterday.
	This was my first one.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm going to take this off.
	Oh, gosh.
	Oh.
	Look, everybody, I used to be a regular on the Spartan scene.
	This is the medal from yesterday.
	A sprint.
	An easy three-mile, five-kilometer stroll through the park.
	Just like basically a day at the playground with the kids.
	You want to see something cool?
	Those of you who have been around the channel for long enough will know this.
	Let me see this one here.
	This one.
	The Spartan...
	Ultra Beast.
	Look at this.
	They don't give these away.
	The Ultra Beast.
	This one was 2013 at...
	What's that mountain?
	Killington in Vermont.
	And it took me 11 hours and 46 minutes to complete.
	And I think two-thirds didn't complete.
	Then in 2014, the Ultra Beast again.
	Oh, look at that.
	Does that say it there?
	Yeah, it says it right there.
	Ultra.
	And then in 2015...
	The Ultra Beast again.
	48 kilometers of obstacle course racing madness.
	So that's what I did yesterday.
	The kid did the short one kilometer, the one mile today, and it was beautiful.
	Stop with the hair fluffing, please.
	Well, now that you mention it, you've made me self-conscious.
	It's going to make me do it even more now.
	Why would you say something like that, JB?
	That's what I did yesterday.
	And I was late because I was going to start with a disgusting Hillary Clinton video.
	And someone said, show us that big, shiny medal.
	Hold up the medal from the Spartan Race.
	Awesome job for the oldest guy out there.
	45 years old in May.
	Still got it.
	Finished in 42 minutes.
	And I was taking it easy.
	I wasn't sprinting.
	I wasn't running.
	And it was fun.
	I'm a little sore today.
	I'm a little tired.
	But that doesn't matter.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Welcome to the show.
	More fluffy.
	All right, all right, we'll stop.
	We'll stop.
	The joke's over.
	Welcome to the show.
	Viva Frye, former Montreal litigator, current Florida rumbler.
	This is the Sunday Night Law Extravaganza with Viva and Barnes, Robert Barnes.
	If anybody doesn't know, we have a very wonderful vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	It's amazing.
	It's above average.
	There's 120,000 members.
	Like, that's just people who have given an email address and get a ton of stuff.
	That's only available on Locals via vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If you want to be a supporter, that's $10 a month, or you can go like one month by month and whatever, but $10 a month, $100 a year, I dare say it would be the best $100 anybody's ever spent for endless entertainment, bourbon with Barnes's, sneak peeks at vlogs, a wonderful exclusive community, and it's fantastic.
	But all that to say, this is our Sunday night show.
	It kicks ass, if I do say so myself.
	We are live on YouTube, Rumble, And vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And it reminds me, I should probably make sure that we have no technical issues on any of those platforms.
	And we do not.
	But now I've got to wait for this lighter ad to stop so I can put it on pause.
	Give me one second.
	We're live on all three platforms.
	The way it works is we vote with our dollar, our feet, and our eyeballs.
	And so after we are on YouTube and Rumble and Locals, we end on YouTube.
	And we take our eyeballs.
	We take our...
	And we go over to the free speech platform, Rumble.
	After the stream is done, we head over for our after party at Locals where we answer tipped questions and have our wonderful after party.
	It's fantastic.
	Now, it's a warning I haven't been giving in a little while because I thought it went without saying, but these beautiful things called Rumble Rants Super Chats, you'll see them.
	Thank you for supporting the channel.
	If I don't get to read your Rumble Rants Super Chat or questions, tipped questions, and you're going to be upset and miffed, Do not give the super chat, the rumble rant, or the tip.
	I don't want anyone coming away feeling miffed, grifted, shilled, whatever the heck word it is.
	Sometimes it's a, you know, it's a fortunate problem.
	You can't get to all of them.
	And sometimes I'm just not reading the comments either.
	So that's a warning.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, although we're going to talk about some interesting stuff tonight.
	I wanted to start with something that was going to make you sick, but instead I...
	Might have started with something that could have made you sick.
	That is to say, consuming the brain-eating amoeba.
	It didn't happen, people.
	And the truth of the matter is that that big lake where they did this, it was actually relatively cool temperature, so it's not like those disgusting retaining ponds that are warmer than a bathtub and you can see the parasites in them.
	The water was beautiful.
	I did not see an alligator there.
	I saw one there last year when I did a 5K run.
	I forget what the name of the fun run is.
	It's a 5K run.
	There was a massive alligator in the water.
	So I was going to start with something that was going to make all of us sick.
	So I think we'll just get to it right now.
	Oh, this is amazing.
	It is the proverbial, the magnificent confession through projection.
	I'm making the joke, but it's not really a joke.
	They're trying to have certain individuals killed.
	They're trying to do everything they can to expose certain individuals, a certain individual to as much exposure as humanly possible to either cause death via stress, cause death via...
	Deranged political permission slip unhinged lunatics.
	Listen to what Hillary Clinton has to say.
	And they say, oh, you know, Joe Biden's old.
	I always say, look, you're right.
	Joe Biden is old.
	He's not just old.
	He's also effective.
	He's compassionate.
	He cares about people.
	He wants to maintain our democracy.
	He wants to maintain our democracy by jailing his political rivals, by siccing every aspect of the government against their political rivals.
	Yeah, he wants to maintain democracy by locking up.
	His political rivals.
	Yeah, of course, of course.
	He will abide by the results of a fair and free election.
	When he wins.
	Donald Trump is old, and he has 91 felony criminal indictments against him.
	Oh, 91. By the way, understand everybody, 91 felony, a lying sack of rubbish is what Hillary Clinton is.
	The New York Alvin Bragg case, they're misdemeanor bookkeeping entry issues.
	Morphed it into 37 felony counts by alleging that the bookkeeping was to feloniously conceal violation of federal election laws.
	How do you do that?
	You get a Soros-funded windbag of a DA Alvin Bragg.
	Oh, a windbag.
	Okay, that's how you do it.
	But now they get their freaking talking points and they are milking it like you milk a Holstein.
	It's not just rhetoric.
	You've got to step up and prove evidence.
	That's one of the reasons you win so many cases, Mark, because the other side is in there just carrying on, making claims they can't prove.
	And you actually step up and you've got facts and you've got evidence.
	How novel.
	And you win because you have a better case.
	This man has been indicted 91 times.
	That's the second time she said it in one minute.
	And do we really expect him to...
	Govern in a stable, appropriate rule.
	Is it me or is she beginning to look more and more like George Soros, the older she gets?
	I mean, I guess at some point in time, old people all end up looking the same.
	Men end up looking like women.
	But she really, really is channeling George Soros in energy, spirit, and...
	Fulls-based, respectful way?
	Of course not.
	And if you're somebody who thinks, well, yeah, but he's entertaining and politics is boring and I don't know what they do anyway, you cannot think like that in this election.
	No matter what issue you care about, I don't care what it is, you will find that the next president will have some influence on that.
	And you want somebody...
	At the very least, who will try to find what the facts are and make decisions that are evidence-based.
	Make decisions that are...
	Let me hear this.
	We haven't talked much about the international arena, but his bromance with Putin, and it was actually called that, I think, by the former prime minister of Australia, who said he saw Trump with Putin, and Trump was like...
	Can you believe this?
	You know, just gaga over Putin.
	Oh, gaga, gaga.
	Because Putin does what he would like to do.
	Kill his opposition.
	Imprison his opposition.
	Drive, you know, journalists and others into exile.
	Oh, you mean like the way the Ukrainian regime killed Gonzalo Lira, journalist?
	The American-funded Ukrainian regime killed Gonzalo Lira?
	Oh, what did she say?
	Trying to kill their political opponents?
	Trying to jail their political opponents?
	You mean exactly like what they're doing to Trump right now?
	The Department of Justice?
	Federally?
	The RICO crap?
	State-wise, the Alvin Bragg crap.
	State-wise, the...
	What's the other one?
	Merchant.
	No, Merchant is Alvin Bragg.
	Engeron is Leticia James.
	Oh, and you're trying to kill their political opponents?
	Oh, you mean like proposing a bill that would strip convicted felons of Secret Service protection?
	These MFers are literally telling you what they're trying to do and what they're in the midst of trying to do right now by accusing their adversaries of...
	Potentially one day gonna be doing it.
	So we better stop him now with extreme prejudice.
	Holy hell.
	But Hillary's just remembering when the Republicans tried to jail her, lock her up, right?
	Oh yeah, they said it.
	It's insanity and doesn't make sense is the understatement of the year.
	It's actually...
	It's a little depressing because they're whipping themselves up more and more and more.
	For anybody who's ever seen someone absolutely lose their temper, become an unhinged, and I mean literally raging.
	They will kill somebody.
	They get so enraged, and the madder they get, the madder they get.
	It's like the cataclysmic reaction, a chemical reaction of a sun collapsing on itself or going supernova.
	It happens in humans.
	And when you see it...
	You know what you're witnessing.
	Nothing is going to calm this person down.
	Everything is going to make this person angrier, including themselves and their own reaction.
	What the Democrats are doing now, the progressives, the leftists, the rhinos, they whip themselves up more and then they have to respond even more to the way they've already whipped themselves up.
	He's an existential threat.
	And we've never had times like this, but now we've got to pass legislation to strip convicted felon politicians of their secret service so that when we, so that secret service won't be an impediment to jailing Trump when we convict him on the 91 felon.
	I mean, where are they going to stop this?
	And it's depressing and it's dark because I don't know where.
	They're not letting up.
	They're just doubling down.
	And when you double down on a double down, that's a quadruple down.
	This is exponential madness.
	And they're liars.
	And they're liars of the highest order.
	Listen to this.
	This is the one I put together.
	Listen to this.
	They lie on open air to demonize the person that they are painting as an existential threat to their very existence while simultaneously seeking to strip them of Secret Service protection.
	Listen to this.
	Dana Bash, liar.
	I just want to push on this question of...
	What actually happened?
	Because Donald Trump himself acknowledged in 2018 that he authorized payments to Stormy Daniels and reimbursed Michael Cohen.
	We actually have the reimbursement checks to Cohen signed by Donald Trump.
	So those are the facts.
	Because Donald Trump himself...
	I'm going to pause it there.
	I didn't want to interrupt this time because I want you to hear this.
	I want you to hear it a second time.
	I just want to push on this question of...
	What actually happened?
	Because Donald Trump himself acknowledged in 2018 that he authorized payments to Stormy Daniels and reimbursed Michael Cohen.
	We actually have the reimbursement checks to Cohen signed by Donald Trump.
	Did you all catch that very subtle infusing the question with a lie?
	Donald Trump acknowledged payments to Stormy Daniels and he acknowledges reimbursing them.
	Here's the reimbursement to...
	Michael Cohen.
	Maybe I'm wrong, but I tried to double check, or I did double check, and from what I could surmise, Trump acknowledged the payments to Michael Cohen, but denied knowing what Michael Cohen was doing with that, what Michael Cohen was doing.
	That's my understanding of what happened.
	Just had to go double-check.
	It's Donald Trump.
	Trump's lawyers have said in court papers in 2017 that his 2017 payments to Cohen were, in fact, monthly legal retainers.
	They also said accounts of extramural affairs could have harmed the reputation of Trump and his family, regardless of his candidacy, meaning that Daniel's payment was not a campaign contribution.
	It's almost like...
	What Dana Bash is saying is not entirely accurate, but infuses the culpability in the question that she asked to Kristi Noem.
	And her answer wasn't all that good.
	I'm not going to defend Kristi Noem's answer.
	It was a word salad.
	But that's one.
	In 2018 that he authorized payments to Stormy Daniels and reimbursed Michael Cohen.
	Quote, I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense.
	End quote.
	Trump told reporters on Tuesday outside the courtroom.
	That's exactly what it was.
	And you get indicted over that.
	The fact that he paid Cohen is an undisputable fact.
	The fact that what she says were the proof of the payments that he authorized to Stormy Daniels was the reimbursement to Cohen is a bold-faced lie.
	And that check doesn't prove what she says it proves.
	In fact, all that that check proves, I can't zoom in, is that Trump was paying...
	We got the check number there, check dates, check dates.
	Looks like March and August.
	Looks like March and August, if I can read that properly.
	What you have there is evidence that Trump was paying monthly amounts to Michael Cohen.
	Not that he authorized the payment to Stormy Daniels, although he might.
	Michael Cohen says, look, a business expense?
	Don't ask.
	Let me just take care of it, because Michael Cohen is apparently a fixer.
	We're going to talk about it tonight when Barnes is here, and I see Barnes just popped into the backdrop.
	And give me one second, Robert, because I'm going to do this beautiful sponsor.
	You may have noticed, and it's going to be particularly relevant to tonight's discussion.
	You may have noticed when you came to this stream, it says this stream contains a paid promotion.
	And it does.
	And it's from the good folks at the wellness company.
	Let me just...
	Okay, you can see the window there.
	That's good.
	Listen to this.
	Did you get vaccinated?
	Either because you were coerced to keep your job or because you thought you were doing the right thing at the time?
	Are you nervous about the many health implications that are now documented as being associated with this jibby jab?
	You're not alone.
	In fact, there's a lot of us out there.
	Fortunately, there has helped Dr. Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Chief Medical Board at the Wellness Company have formulated an unmatched supplement that may help with all of these issues.
	You guys have heard talk about the Wellness Company.
	Their energy, their emergency kit, by the way, this is something that have emergency water, have a super hyped up first aid kit.
	This product is the one that...
	People should be taken daily, according to the doctors.
	Revolutionary over-the-counter spike support formula is the gold standard for combating spike protein, the substance that is at the root of almost all of the related issues that have been documented.
	But it's a small risk, people.
	It's 1 in 5,000 for young men.
	Small risk for adults, you know.
	Holy crap.
	If they don't exist, then they exist, and they're infinitesimally small, but that number keeps going down and down and down.
	The wellness company doctors...
	The wellness company doctors...
	I'm having an issue here.
	The Wellness Company doctors hear from people like you every day, saying they've never felt the same since the Jimmy Jab.
	What can you do to get back to what you're used to?
	The Wellness Company's formula has got you protected.
	Go to the Wellness Company, promo code VIVA, get 10% off at checkout and free shipping.
	Now I'm realizing, the Wellness Company doctors hear from people.
	See, I was reading the word here in two different ways.
	But the wellness company, the fine folks there, go to twc.com forward slash Vivo.
	They've got the emergency kit.
	They've got the spike protein kit.
	And it's going to fit very well into the discussion that we're going to have tonight about Brooke Jackson's...
	The link is in the description, by the way.
	Brooke Jackson's Key Tam lawsuit.
	And some other stuff we're going to talk about.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	Bringing in the Barnes.
	Hold on.
	Stop.
	Barnes is looking dapper tonight.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right, now, Robert, before we get going, let me broaden this just to see what you got in the back.
	Okay, you got something new in the back, Robert.
	What is that, if I may ask, while I check our audio levels?
	Oh, gifts that people brought to the Vegas 50th birthday party.
	That was a lot of fun.
	So some food, some whiskey, some bourbon, some book, a bunch of stuff.
	So that's some of that.
	This particular book is about the restraint on the police power of the state and all the cases that you used to recognize that the government doesn't have the kind of power they like to see these days.
	Robert, there is an issue with your audio here.
	It sounds like it's doubling.
	Yeah, okay, so fine.
	It's not just me.
	Can you possibly refresh or just hit refresh on the screen?
	Refresh?
	What do you mean on the screen?
	Okay, log out and log back in because, yeah, I don't know if you're being hacked.
	It says no buffering.
	At the very least, for the first time, it's not my fault.
	And it's not on my end.
	I can't see him either.
	Echo whoop-dee-doo cushion.
	Okay, let's see if it's going to be better now.
	Bring him in.
	Okay, Robert, mic check one, two.
	One, two, one, two.
	No, there is something going on with your internet.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, let's hear another sentence.
	Say, she sells seashells by the seashore.
	She sells seashells by the seashore?
	No, okay, you might have to reboot your computer.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, it's actually...
	It's not the audio this time.
	It's definitely not on my end.
	If you can, Robert, reboot your computer, and I will play another video as we do that.
	Okay, bring that down there.
	Do I kick him out from the studio?
	I'm going to kick him from the studio.
	Kick guest.
	Okay, I'm not going to ban him.
	Yeah, that's something going on on the internet wrong.
	The internet wrong.
	Okay, so I see nothing wrong.
	And then robot is good.
	Reboot is good.
	Get her done.
	Viva it is.
	Okay.
	Could be internet or could be two audio inputs.
	We'll let Barnes reboot and bring it back in because I still have some more.
	Some more stuff in the backdrop here.
	Hold on.
	Do you want to play the...
	Okay, you know what?
	While we have a few seconds, we're going to not play Dana Bash's question.
	We're going to play Christine Noem.
	I just want to...
	It is coming from a man who is the truth.
	Michael Cohen worked for President Trump.
	President Trump paid his legal fees.
	He paid his Michael Cohen legal fees and bills, and that's what this trial will bring forward, hopefully, is the truth.
	What a ridiculous case that this is, and that it's based on the narrative...
	Just look at Dana Bash's face right now, Mike!
	...today that is coming from a man who has proven to be a liar.
	She's hearing something in her ear?
	Someone's talking to her.
	I think these jurors can come in and be unbiased, and we'll let this case go forward in a swift manner that allows President Trump to get back on the campaign trail.
	Americans deserve to hear from their candidates, and the Democrats and the activists are using this trial to derail him, to keep him in court, Dana Bash can't wait to get her question.
	And their real concerns are their everyday lives.
	They need a leader in the White House who gets up every day and puts them...
	There's a lot of...
	The problem with these segments are you have three minutes to say everything.
	So she answered the question.
	Michael Cohen was his lawyer.
	He was getting paid to be his lawyer.
	End of story.
	And then slamming as many talking points as you can.
	It's irritating.
	It's the nature of these short format...
	What do they call them?
	blasts that you do on these awful, antiquated legacy media outlets.
	First and doesn't raise their taxes, doesn't overregulate them, take away their freedoms and give all our money to other countries.
	I just want to say for the record, there's absolutely no evidence that President Biden is involved in this.
	This is a case that is being brought in the state of New York by the Manhattan CIA.
	Absolutely no evidence that Biden has a hand in this.
	I mean, first of all...
	How stupid a statement is that?
	This is how corruption works.
	They know what needs to be done.
	But how was it that the DOJ was withholding tens of thousands of pages of documents from the case in New York?
	If I'm not getting mixed up between the cases, then I don't think I am.
	He's got no hand in it, except that they were withholding documents that they then dumped on Alvin Bragg at the last minute.
	I hope that is the right case.
	Oh, but he's not directly involved in it.
	It's just his administration.
	Oh, but not in New York because that's a state case.
	Oh, yeah, of course.
	That's what I think is remarkable, is that if you look at President Biden and what he's done and what his son has done and the fact that they are not being prosecuted for some of their crimes.
	That has nothing to do with it.
	Can you imagine inviting someone on your channel?
	In your show for a segment and then just continually interrupting them like this.
	It's like a Lloyd Christmas sticking your fingers in your la la la la la.
	Oh, it has nothing to do with this.
	Yeah, because they haven't been charged with anything despite flagrant criminality.
	You think they're going to deny...
	Does Hunter Biden get Secret Service protection?
	I think he does.
	Completely different.
	We have a judicial system right now that's being used against certain members of certain parties.
	My other point that I want to make up is...
	You mentioned that he was paying his legal fees to Michael Cohen.
	One of the things that they are going to talk about in this trial is the fact that it wasn't just a retainer.
	It was actually a payment to Michael Cohen because Michael Cohen put the money out for Stormy Daniels on his own.
	But kind of big picture, Governor, if Donald Trump is convicted in this trial, will you still support him in November?
	You're damn right.
	Support them twice as much is what everybody with half a brain should be doing.
	Because if they succeed now, they're going to do this same lawfare tactic against anybody and everybody.
	I've been saying this to the DeSantis folks with respect, with the greatest of respects.
	I was on with Jenna Ellis a little while ago.
	One thing I didn't get to say at the end of the show, you damn well better support them because they're going to do this to everybody.
	To go retroactively, take a bookkeeping issue.
	A misdemeanor at best under normal circumstances and then magically transform it into a 37-count felony count indictment is absolute rubbish.
	On the basis that, by the way, everyone's going to look real stupid if it actually turns out that Stormy Daniels was the one attempting to extort Donald Trump, AL, as Michael Avenatti, her attorney at the time, has intimated in his prison interview with MSNBC, I think.
	People would look real stupid if that's what comes out.
	The only problem is it won't change anything because these hacks are so emotionally, intellectually invested in the lie that they are promoting.
	They won't even care.
	It comes out that there are emails between Stormy and whomever.
	Give me money.
	And it's not, in fact, a hush money scheme, hush money, that they've transformed into a felony, but rather an extortion scheme.
	From Stormy Daniels, people are going to look real stupid, but nobody's going to care.
	If it turns out, as some journalists have suggested, that Michael Cohen actually had an affair or had some sort of relationship with Stormy Daniels, apparently dating back potentially in 2006, this is not me reporting it.
	This is other reporters who have already reported this.
	If it turns out that there was a relationship and then Stormy says, you better get me my money.
	And Michael Cohen's like, well, don't worry about it.
	What's $130,000 to Donald Trump?
	He won't even know it.
	I'll just ask for another retainer of $35,000 a month over the course of six months.
	People are going to look real stupid.
	People are going to feel real stupid, but the problem is stupid does not know it's stupid.
	It just keeps doubling down.
	The one thing that just blows my mind, by the way, Dana Bash was cutting off Kristi Noem when she was talking about it.
	Having a president that you know is working for you, not working against you.
	Not chanting Slava Ukraini in government, in the House of Congress, while passing another $60 billion to fund a foreign conflict proxy war against your rival, Russia.
	Let me just bring this up here.
	They passed another $60 billion in aid to Ukraine.
	And you had the Rep Swalwells of the world taking to Twitter.
	Chanting Slava Ukraini, glory to Ukraine.
	American congressmen in Congress, waving the flag of a foreign country, chanting glory to a foreign country.
	I don't care if it's Ukraine, I don't care if it's...
	If there was someone in Congress in America saying glory to Israel, I think people would have a big problem with that, and understandably so.
	Someone in there saying glory to France?
	Vive la France!
	In Congress, I think people would, and rightly so, have a very big problem with that.
	But you got, as Kristi Noem is saying, you got a president who seems to be working harder for the 10% for the big guy than working on problems in America.
	Who did I have on?
	Oh, when I had on Jason Palmer.
	And we're talking about the problems in America that could be solved.
	Overnight, for the amount of money that is being lost, unaccounted for, in this money laundering scheme through Ukraine.
	With the money lost, you could rebuild Lahaina.
	You could resolve the water crisis in Michigan.
	With the money that is not accounted for, you could resolve or at least put a serious dent in school gun violence.
	I mean, people don't even know this.
	I put it out yesterday.
	And you have to adjust for inflation because the article is from 2012.
	It wouldn't be that expensive.
	Listen to this.
	This was back in 2012 when, you know, people were being reasonable.
	At least some.
	Studies have shown that armed guards may make students feel less safe at school.
	That's not the issue.
	The question is whether or not they make them more safe.
	It wouldn't be that expensive.
	Here's some simple math.
	The median salary for a police officer is $55,000 and change.
	Probably more now with Bidenflation or as he likes to call it Putinflation.
	And there are about 99,000 public schools in the country.
	And of those, about a third already have armed guards.
	Putting police in the remaining schools would work out to an annual cost of about $3.6 billion, which really is more like $4 billion or so when you factor in the benefits.
	Maybe.
	Let's just say it doubles every seven years.
	Let's say it's $8 billion now.
	Do you know how much they've lost and can't account for in terms of the taxpayer money laundering that's been going on to Ukraine?
	More than that.
	More than that.
	Eric Swalwell, I just read it here, from Bang Bang's fame.
	Look at this.
	Let me pull this one up.
	Barnes is still rebooting the computer, and sometimes that takes longer than people would like.
	Let me bring you this one up.
	You won't believe it that this is what U.S. congressmen are doing, saying.
	In Canada, you've got Chrystia Freeland, who's wearing a Ukrainian flag and not a Canadian flag.
	And even if she's wearing both, you want to represent both countries, get the hell out of the Canadian government, and go work for the Ukrainian government.
	But to sit there in the government of the country that you were elected to represent, hold on, I can't bring this up here, and then chant, tweet, Flava Ukraini.
	Listen to this.
	This is from Bang Bang Swalwell.
	LOL, you will never do anything about it.
	He's railing against Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	You've been rolled more times than a bowling ball.
	Flava Ukraini.
	I want to highlight one thing first and foremost in this.
	We are now witnessing...
	How saying glory to Ukraine.
	Slava Ukraine.
	They're not even saying it because they like it.
	They're not even saying it because they believe in it.
	They're saying it because they think it's an own of the Republicans.
	Ha ha, shitheads.
	We got our 60 billion.
	Slava Ukraine.
	It's almost like a taunt.
	A slur.
	Not because Swalwell has any sincere desire for the well-being of Ukrainians.
	If he did...
	They might have talked diplomacy before tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people were killed or injured.
	He couldn't care less.
	For him, it's a political tool now.
	For him, much like for Tim Scott, much like for David Cameron, the blood of Ukrainian men and women is the lubricant for the war machine in their proxy war against Russia.
	He comes out and says, Slava Ukraini, to which I had to say, forget the fact that you're banging a Chinese spy talking about traitorous behavior.
	Apparently she was banging him.
	I don't know if people are...
	Telling me things that I'm not sure.
	Oh, I know.
	There's an alleged affair.
	I don't know who was doing it which way.
	You're a U.S. congressman chanting glory to Ukraine.
	Glory to another country, one that you were not elected to represent.
	You should be kicked out of Congress.
	You might also want to research the Nazi history to what you are chanting, unless, of course, that's part of the reason you're chanting at Swallow.
	This is from Wikipedia, and so you know if it's in Wikipedia...
	It's got to be exponentially worse.
	I've seen a number of breakdowns, history lessons.
	Yeah, sure, they did it back in the 40s under Stepan Bandera, but things have changed.
	Things have changed.
	Now when you say it, they stopped raising their right hand when they did it, or their left hand, whichever one.
	In April 1941 in German-occupied Krakow.
	The younger part of the OUN seceded and formed its own organization called the OUNB after its leader, Stepan Bandera.
	The group adopted fascist-style salute, along with calling glory to Ukraine and responding with glory to the heroes.
	During the failed attempt to build a Ukrainian state on lands occupied by Germany after its invasion of the Soviet in 1941, triumphal arches with glory to Ukraine, along with other slogans, were erected in numerous Ukrainian cities.
	According to historian Gregor Rosolinski-Liebe, an observer recalled many ordinary Ukrainians abandoning customary Christian greeting, glory to Jesus Christ, Slava Isus Christu, in favor of the new OUN greeting.
	For this reason, Greek Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop Andrei Shepitsky criticized the OUN for the greeting created in the second half of 1942 by the OUN.
	The Ukrainian insurgent army dropped raising of the right arm above the head.
	Thank you.
	People don't know this.
	They said it's just the newest...
	Trend of the day.
	We should say glory to Ukraine.
	That's what's getting the virtue signaling points.
	Make sure everything's okay with Barnes and that he didn't actually get hacked by the FBI.
	You okay, question mark?
	Oy, so that's what's going on there.
	Let's see here.
	Nice job in the Spartan race, J-Mill.
	Thank you very much.
	Beautiful, beautiful Birktrud.
	I think that's a Birktrud.
	And while we wait for Barnes to reboot and come back in...
	Let me bring something up here.
	Let me see here.
	Yeah, bada bing, bada bing.
	Okay, look, we'll do the rumble rants before, until Barnes gets here.
	Here, check this out.
	Do I see here?
	All right, I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, just watched the Civil War movie, and I believe, spoilers!
	The ending where they drag the president from behind the Oval Office desk to shoot him in the head is a wet dream of the left, unfortunately.
	Oh, dude, did I just ruin that?
	I'm sorry, I hope I didn't ruin that if anybody really cared about...
	Watching it.
	In response to that New York candidate who said, die, MAGA, die.
	I say die, Uniparty.
	I say don't wish death on anybody in general, but especially on social media.
	And if you do, I mean, look, I'll bring that tweet up in a second.
	And obviously, F. Hillary and her corrupt weaponizing, womanizing piece of SHIT of her husband, they should both be in prison.
	Says T1990.
	Sage of four wins.
	Never forget, Hillary tried to blame Columbine on Mario and Virginia Tech on football.
	On Mario and Virginia Tech on football.
	There is no limit to how far they will go.
	Cup of Sooth says, by Leticia James calling the certi an extraordinarily large undertaking, isn't that a tacit admission?
	It is an excessive bond.
	We're going to talk about that.
	There's so many things that are wrong in that filing in general.
	Brian Brown.
	22 says, how can they claim the payment was for the campaign if Trump paid Cohen in 2017?
	Because he made the payment in 2016, or Cohen made the payment in 2016, and the repayment was made over six months in 2017 when Trump was president, when arguably presidential immunity would apply to acts of a president in the context of their presidency.
	You want to talk about the political permission slip?
	That this type of outrageous rhetoric gives people...
	Hold on.
	I'm going to open this up here.
	In incognito.
	It whips people into a frenzy where they say things...
	I mean, unless his account has been hacked.
	Unless the account was hacked.
	And in which case, I won't apologize because there's been no indication his account was hacked.
	No statements.
	This guy writes, Slava Ukraine, and then die, MAGA, die, you lose.
	U.S. congressional candidate for an NY26.
	Healthcare as a human right.
	Ban assault weapons, whatever he thinks that is.
	Fight MAGA, peacefully, of course, until you tell them to die, MAGA, die.
	The tweet's still up.
	I don't understand this.
	If that were...
	Douglas Mackey got jailed for a tweet that said, text in your vote to whatever the number was to vote for Hillary.
	He got jail time for that.
	Convicted, charged, convicted, and we'll see if he serves time.
	This guy comes out and says, the statement with the history, but maybe he wasn't raising his right hand because they knew not to do that anymore.
	That was a little too offensive.
	Says, Slava Ukraini, die, MAGA die.
	You lose.
	I mean, maybe he meant it like Sideshow Bob.
	The MAGA.
	The.
	Oh, I wasn't saying die, boss, die.
	I was saying the boss.
	The.
	100 Republicans voted for it, sir.
	You're right.
	MRAM.
	There's a lot of rhinos out there in the swamp.
	Oh, lordy, lordy.
	Okay, so now hold on a second.
	I hope Barnes is okay.
	Here we got one more here.
	My computer restarts in two minutes and it's a bit old.
	Where's Barnes?
	David, wouldn't that be breaking the foreign agent act, Shofar?
	Yeah, I'm going to see where Barnes is.
	Hold on, I texted him.
	I hope he's okay.
	The crowd is getting antsy!
	And afraid you've been captured, period.
	All good?
	Okay, let me stop the screen here.
	I might have to get into some of the subject matter before Barnes gets here.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	have my bookmarks up here.
	Give me one second.
	And.
	Hold on.
	Okay, this is it.
	We'll start with one.
	Justin Trudeau's...
	We'll start with something Canadian.
	You gotta appreciate this, people.
	Just a little dose of Canada.
	And I haven't seen the...
	Oh, Lordy.
	Hold on one second.
	What's going on here?
	This?
	This?
	Okay, hold on.
	Vinny, I'm just going to open this window and we're going to listen to some good advice from Vinny before I talk on the first story.
	This short period of time, this short period, school, school, school, school, you're going to be done.
	You're going to be done before you know what high school, college is done.
	In this time, you figure out what you love to do.
	When you wake up in the morning, what is the thing that you want to go to work that's not work?
	Something that you love to do.
	So like what we do, I make people laugh when I entertain people.
	I'm getting paid for this.
	You know what I mean?
	They're giving me money to do exactly what I wanted.
	That's why some people that have a job are like, oh, I can't wait to go home.
	That's not the way to live your life.
	Some people were joking that the kid didn't understand the advice.
	He understood the advice.
	He woke up the next day and said, what am I going to do?
	What do I be when I get to be an adult?
	And I say, dude, your job might not even exist yet.
	Worry about that in 20 years.
	For now, absorb information and grow as a person.
	All right, everybody, the latest news out of Canada.
	Justin Trudeau is finally going to make good on his 2015 campaign promise in 2024 by 2031.
	Listen to this.
	This is not a parody account.
	This is not the Babylon Bee.
	This is father, Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau.
	He says, if you think Canada's housing plan is ambitious, that's because it is.
	We're going to build almost 4 million new homes by 2031.
	We're going to change the way homes are built in Canada.
	And we're going to create a new generation of homeowners.
	Let's get going.
	Can everybody do the math on 4 million houses?
	Everybody do the time frame on 4 million houses?
	How many people it would take to build 4 million houses in 6 years?
	7 years?
	It was 2015 Justin Trudeau announced that they were going to solve Canada's housing crisis, make houses affordable.
	The only way that this is going to be happening...
	Is if Justin Trudeau is going to do like the prefab houses that they sell on Amazon.
	I think it was one of those annoying kids from the interwebs who had a channel and they bought one of those houses.
	I forget what his name is.
	The only way that that is going to work is if people start living out of shipping containers that they convert into tiny condos.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	But it's going to be a little bit more of the 2030, you will own nothing and be happy.
	You'll get your prefab house and we're going to solve the housing crisis by building encampments that are utterly unlivable.
	Because your house, after we change the way homes are built, is going to be a shipping container converted into a condo, stacked one upon the other.
	It's going to create a new generation of homeowners because the home is going to consist of a shipping container that's been converted into a condo and build 4 million homes by 2031 when in 2015 he announced he was going to resolve the housing crisis and in 2024 he's saying in another 7 years.
	And by the way, how are they going to finance it?
	How are they going to finance it?
	I talked about this in the vlog on Friday, not sure if anybody saw it because it's Canadian crap and nobody really likes it.
	They're going to start taxing people more.
	Surprise, surprise.
	The announcement coming out of Canada is they're going to start taxing capital gains taxes at a rate of 66.6%.
	A lot of people found that to be quite amusing.
	66.6%.
	Because right now, for those of you who don't know, you get taxed on 50% of your capital gains in Canada, and you get taxed at a rate of whatever bracket you fit into.
	Justin Trudeau put out a video, and I broke it down on the Friday blog, that it's not fair that a teacher should get taxed on 100% of their salary, but a billionaire only gets taxed on 50% of his passive income coming from capital gains and that type of income.
	A, that's a bait and switch, because if a teacher has passive income through whatever the source would be, Capital gains through whatever the source would be.
	They're going to get taxed on 50% of that as well, but at the tax rate that applies to them.
	Justin Trudeau comes out and says, don't worry.
	We're going to impose new taxes.
	It's only going to be on people who have a passive income from capital gains and whatever of $250,000 or more.
	All right, sounds good.
	Because right now, according to Justin Trudeau, it's only going to apply to 0.13% of Canadians.
	Yeah, I'm going to do another wellness check.
	It's only going to apply to 0.13% of Canadians, which means that there is only 0.13% of Canadians who have a passive income of $250,000 or more.
	There's only 0.13% of the Canadians that are going to be the subject of this tax for now.
	But they're going to tax you now not just on 50% of your capital gains, 66.6% of your capital gains, but only if you make more than $250,000 in passive income for now.
	Do you know where that ends?
	It ends exactly where it ended when they said it was going to be 50% of your capital gains.
	So they're going to tax people even more.
	Push out whatever investment was going to come from the people who drive innovation, drive investments, drive them out of the country to where they're going to go to countries that have more favorable taxes.
	It's going to harm investments in Canada and in the long run cost Canadians more.
	In both respects of driving the intellectual capital and the financial capital out of Canada, and the passing down of the cost, which they don't seem to understand, the more you tax the Amazons of the world, the more charges they impose on their users, the more they increase the price of their products.
	And so, 66.6 is scary.
	So the more you tax, it's a double whammy on Canadians.
	That, and by the way, why would anyone risk their money for no reward?
	No, you're risking their money.
	Your money, so you can reward the government.
	Growing up, my father always said the government is your unwanted 50% partner.
	Now they're your 66% partner in the capital gains that you make off risky investments, and we know it's going to happen.
	But don't worry.
	Trudeau didn't resolve the housing crisis in the first eight years of his presidency, his presidency, his prime ministership.
	He'll do it in the next seven years.
	Hmm.
	Now I'm getting a little concerned for Barnes.
	Should I call him?
	Gene Schibler says, this is what these people do.
	Steal from you and make themselves richer and they hate you.
	Yep.
	Well, you know that Justin Trudeau, when they were designing that unconstitutional, human rights-violating Arrive Can app, the one that tracked where you went, the one that told me that I had to quarantine my 12-year-old daughter at the time, that that app was supposed to cost $80,000 because it's a freaking garbage app in the first place.
	It ended up costing $55,000 or $60,000, maybe even more.
	A budget of $80,000 to $55 to $60 million for a freaking app.
	But don't worry, they'll tax you up the wazoo and they'll steal your money and they'll know exactly how to spend it, squander it, and, you know, line the pockets of their brethren.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm getting a little...
	I mean, now the whole thing is the more concerned I get, the more concerned everybody else out there gets.
	Let me go to locals and just see something here.
	Call.
	Okay, guys, give me one second.
	Okay.
	It's ringing.
	If someone with a Russian accent picks up, I'll let everybody know.
	Maybe they might have a total internet outage.
	Please read your message.
	Well, everybody, don't get nervous.
	Don't get nervous, but we're going to get started on some...
	Oh, he's back, people.
	I was just about to go absolutely hog wild on Benny Thomas, but I guess I'll save that for when Barnes gets in here.
	At least we know the Pravda hasn't come to get him.
	All right, although, why is he bleeding on the head?
	I'm joking, I'm joking.
	Robert.
	Let's see if this is working better.
	Everything okay?
	How is it?
	Check, check.
	So much better.
	Okay, good.
	People were thinking that you got hacked and then got whisked off to a secret police station, Robert.
	Okay.
	It always takes forever for this computer to reload.
	Well, now people are questioning how old your bloody computer is.
	Robert, what do you have behind you?
	Because I want to say Pappy's only because I can't see it, and I assume that's what it might be.
	Oh, no, it's a bunch of gifts that different people gave.
	So different kinds of whiskeys, rums, bourbons, books.
	That's a book on the police power of the state and the cases that used to remind the government of the limitations on the police power of the state.
	So all of that.
	Okay, now what we're going to do, we've been on for 50 minutes.
	We're moving straight to Rumble right now.
	So everybody, let me give everybody the link to the Rumbles and the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we're going to talk about...
	So, Robert, actually, before we do that, tell everybody as I do that, what's on the menu for tonight?
	Because we've got a lot of good stuff.
	Yeah, we've got a lot of cases.
	We've got some crazy cases.
	I mean, the most...
	The one that won the...
	No favorites was number one, but right behind it was all the Trump-related cases, including the immunity argument, which will be heard at the Supreme Court this week.
	Then all the craziness with the Trump trial, of course.
	And good logic trying to get through the...
	Challenge to the unconstitutional gag order that the New York courts are doing everything possible to hide from handling.
	Then we have Brooke Jackson.
	We filed our opposition to the government's attempts to intervene and dismiss in that case.
	We'll go through that.
	Filed a Supreme Court petition this week as well on behalf of Children's Health Defense against the Food and Drug Administration, asking the question, if they can't sue the FDA, then who can?
	Challenging the standing doctrine in general.
	We got crazy cases out of Pennsylvania.
	Not only an update on the Amos Miller case, we got people who are today imprisoned in jail in Pennsylvania, though they have never been charged with a crime, and though they have never been made parties to a case.
	And yet, courts, at some level, complicit with a rogue state agency, has ordered their imprisonment with no set determination, according to the order of commitment.
	By a court that doesn't even have criminal jurisdiction that's signed off on this.
	A court that's going to handle the appeal in the Amos Miller case.
	So you've got to wonder what's going on there.
	We have another case where a woman has been charged with a crime for recording her own court proceedings.
	So we've got that going on.
	We have the Supreme Court heard January 6th hearings, of course, this past week that you covered.
	Also, we have the Supreme Court issuing decisions in a confusing interpretation of a case that involves takings clause in Texas.
	The homeless rights issue is going to go before the Supreme Court either tomorrow or on Tuesday.
	This is the last oral argument session for the Supreme Court.
	Now we'll just be waiting for decisions after this week of oral arguments.
	They also made a good decision on Title VII.
	We got Biden issuing new policies on Title IX.
	It appears to apply to things that, by its plain language, it's not supposed to apply to.
	And a few other interesting fun cases that might percolate up.
	Robert, there's a warrant in that Pennsylvania case.
	Is that a public document?
	Kind of.
	I mean, so it's been given to other people, namely sheriffs, and it was sent by the proto-notary of the court.
	I mean, all of it's just completely wacky.
	We'll get to it.
	It has an address in it, and I didn't want to bring it up, or I don't know if it's public.
	Whatever.
	We'll get there with the Pennsylvania case.
	People, I talked about it last week after you did the bourbon with Barnes.
	It's effing nuts.
	But we're going to get there.
	We are now going to end on YouTube, everybody.
	Sorry for the glitch and the intro, but now you know a little bit about the Canadian stuff.
	How Canada's going to turn into Venezuela in five to ten years if Justin Trudeau manages to stay in power.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble or Locals.
	The link is pinned for Rumble and I shared the Locals link.
	And that's it.
	We're going to start with Trump because it's just...
	Robert, I'm saying it out loud now.
	They are trying to facilitate someone killing him.
	They're trying to do it.
	We're going to get there.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Okay, Robert.
	So we'll start with the jury impanelment.
	In the New York Alvin Bryant case.
	First things first, I'm trying to describe it.
	The charges against Trump in the ordinary circumstances would only be a misdemeanor.
	The only way they managed to trump them up to a felony case was to argue that it was violating federal election law as relates to election interference.
	That's accurate?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And people are saying, well, this payment was made before he was a president, allegedly by Michael Cohen.
	And was reimbursed when he was a president.
	And so then that is the answer to the argument that although the action was done in his quest for the presidency, the impugned acts were carried out when he was a president and therefore should fall within a broad ambit of immunity interpretation.
	There's no question that every single allegation in the New York case that alleges a criminal act by President Trump is that he did that while he was president.
	Okay.
	And, okay, that's fine.
	I just don't understand how they've managed to exaggerate this up to a felony case.
	I understand it because I say the words and I understand the mechanism, but I don't understand how they are alleging a violation of federal law at the state level to take a state misdemeanor and convert it into a felony.
	I guess appeals will have to deal with that because they're not allowed or they're not going to argue that before the jury.
	Jury impanelment.
	You heard the story of the man who set himself on fire in front of the court?
	Yeah.
	I was just waiting for people.
	Whether or not people say he was a hero or mentally ill depends on what cause he was claiming to support when he did it.
	And people were not calling this guy a hero, whereas they were calling the other guy who did it for a free Palestine a hero.
	They impaneled the jury.
	Have you ever seen anything like this?
	The woman who gets out and immediately starts doing the rounds of interviews, and basically, did she admit that she lied under oath or lied in court documents on the jury questionnaire form?
	She had to have.
	That's a reasonable inference.
	Is it a lie under penalty of perjury what they fill out on those jury questionnaire forms?
	Often, yes.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Do you know the details of the panel that they've impaneled or the 12 plus the alternates?
	I do not.
	Is there a snowball's chance in hell that he gets a fair trial in New York?
	I can't imagine that he would.
	And this judge, the way he calendared the trial to overlap with the...
	Jewish holiday, the way he structured the jury selection part of the process, the kind of people he considered acceptable.
	I mean, you had a jury pool that overwhelmingly wants to see Trump convicted, that have a preconceived understanding of him and of the case.
	As such, it was impossible to get an impartial jury out of New York unless you went through extraordinary rigorous jury screening.
	And he clearly did not.
	So, given that, I don't see any chance that Trump has to get an impartial jury.
	The only question is, can even a corrupt jury see through the insanity of this case?
	Potentially.
	I mean, the corrupt jury that presided over the rape case said that Trump was not guilty of rape, even though the judge kept saying otherwise afterwards.
	Give you an idea of that judge's bias.
	So, I mean, it's a show trial.
	And what's interesting is, a lot of people...
	On the left, the legal left in the Democratic Party, really thought if they did a show trial that people would think it's not a show trial.
	That they would think, oh, this is a sincere trial, honest, ordinary, everyday Americans, as Adam Schiff described the jury pool.
	I wonder if Adam Schiff would feel that way if we decided to try and say in rural Texas or small town Alabama.
	It's a crock.
	You could tell a lot of them were agitated.
	That they thought, well, if Trump was gagged, then people will falsely believe this is a legitimate trial.
	It was like what they did in the Alex Jones cases.
	They thought that people would buy into these verdicts being legitimate, independent, honest, objective verdicts.
	They're not.
	They're a crock.
	Everybody knows what they are.
	When you have Stephen A. Smith of the world, ESPN guys, saying this is a crock, you've lost the script.
	You've lost the narrative.
	They assume people wouldn't see through this obvious insanity.
	It's like trying Martin Luther King before an all-white Southern jury.
	You're not going to get anywhere with that within the civil rights community.
	And so they've convinced themselves of their own fake news, if you will, and they've already lost what their goal was.
	Their goal was to have people believe this was an independent, honest jury that is going to make an independent, honest decision about a legitimate criminal prosecution.
	Nobody believes this is an independent, honest jury.
	Nobody believes this is an independent, honest judge.
	And nobody believes this is an independent, honest prosecution.
	So as such, they've already lost.
	I mean, what their real goal was here, to damage Trump in the court of public opinion, they've already lost.
	And you could see them whining throughout all social media and everywhere else.
	Hillary Clinton doing the rounds and repeating the talking point.
	91 felony indictment charges.
	They just needed the talking point.
	But the problem is you need people to believe in it.
	You need people to believe that the investigation created an independent inquiry, which created an independent indictment, which is independently true and justified.
	Saying somebody's been indicted 91 times means nothing if they think that's actually a sign of a problem with the system, the political weaponization of the system.
	They see the indictments as damning of the system, not damning of Trump.
	And they're just slowly starting to figure that out.
	Now, it's scheduled to last for six weeks.
	There was something that happened.
	I forget what happened.
	They're done with jury selection.
	Opening arguments start this week or this coming week?
	I believe so, as far as I know.
	In state court...
	A lot of state courts do four-day trials because they save another day for all their motion practice and everything else.
	That's not true in federal court.
	But in state court, that's common.
	So I forget.
	I think it's Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, something like that.
	I think he excludes Wednesdays.
	Well, he's going to have to exclude.
	I don't know what day of the week it falls on.
	They're going to have to exclude April 24th because that's the day that Trump is brought up on contempt charges for his Truth Social Post.
	Robert, I try not to get...
	I'm despaired.
	But I get despaired.
	I forget which hack it was.
	It was the guy with the gray hair, an old guy with gray hair, I forget his name, saying how Trump reposted Jesse Waters, a quote from Jesse Waters from Fox News.
	And this guy, people are going to know it because the video went viral on Twitter.
	He says, Trump reposted or re-truthed a quote from Jesse Waters and in so doing made it his own statement, attacking the jury.
	Impugning the jury, accusing them of being activists on the bench.
	I'm like, holy shit, they are actually using this gag order to say that Trump cannot quote mainstream news.
	And I'm like, how does anybody put up with that?
	But that's not one of the truth posts, as far as I understand, that he's being brought up on content for.
	One of the posts is him referring to Michael Cohen as a sleazebag.
	The other one is a guy named Mike Palmer.
	I forget his last name.
	Doesn't matter.
	Another one is talking about Stormy Daniels' letter that she said, I didn't have an affair with him.
	I said it in 2006, 2008, 2011.
	Five times.
	I said I didn't have it, not because I was paid to say that, but because we didn't have an affair.
	He tweets that out and says, I wonder if the fake news is going to report on this.
	That's one of the elements of the contempt charges that are being brought against him.
	What do you think happens on the 24th?
	I mean, is it a foregone conclusion that they're going to slap him with a fine and then say, next time you do it, it's jail time?
	I'm sure, but all that does is set up more constitutional issues.
	I mean, it shows why the gag order is unconstitutional, because they're trying to prohibit Trump from exposing the fraudulent nature of this proceeding.
	And they don't want fraudulent witnesses, fraudulent prosecutors, fraudulent judges, fraudulently selected jury in violation of all of Trump's constitutional rights.
	I mean, the jury's not supposed to be reading anything about their case.
	So how can a Trump public statement impact the jury when the jury has sworn under penalty of perjury they're not reading anything?
	That's a ludicrous claim, that that's somehow jury intimidation.
	It has nothing to do with the jury.
	The jury's not supposed to be reading anything, unless the judge is admitting, hey, we're all in on a big fraud, that we know that the jury's actually reading everything that's going on illegally, violating their oath, committing perjury right in front of the court.
	Unless that's going to be the claim.
	Any statement about the jury cannot be intended for the jury.
	It's intended for the court of public opinion about how this is a fraudulent trial.
	And that's precisely...
	And they're misusing and abusing gag order authority to do so.
	And it's pitiful.
	I mean, good logic brought a good challenge.
	And that court refused to issue a meaningful ruling.
	Just denied it.
	Four words.
	Four words, he said.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So now he's got to take it up through the whole...
	This is indicting the entire New York court system.
	We'll get into how the Pennsylvania court system is embarrassing itself, and the Pennsylvania regulatory agency is embarrassing themselves.
	But this is what happens when you give these people power.
	They abuse the power.
	And what they're really, I mean, they really thought, we're going to rush through this trial, we're going to get a verdict, the people will believe it.
	They'll believe our big lie.
	We'll just say it over and over again, and people will believe that Donald Trump is really guilty of something significant.
	And they're starting to get irritated as they see nobody.
	Believes their nonsense.
	Not even Democrats believe their nonsense.
	I mean, everybody can see this for what it is.
	This is like the Klan putting Martin Luther King on trial and pretending the world would think it's an independent judgment.
	It's a looter.
	Harry Litman should be embarrassed that he ever could claim that this was going to be a legitimate legal proceeding.
	It is a joke.
	It is an embarrassment.
	It is a crock.
	And the fact that New York courts are not stepping in to correct it at the appellate level...
	Is damning of the New York justice system writ large?
	This is telling everybody, stay out of New York.
	They have a justice system that would make banana republics look good by comparison.
	That's how bad and embarrassing this is.
	I pulled up a great meme yesterday.
	Well, it wasn't even a meme.
	It was a short video of Putin clinging glasses with Kim Jong-un.
	And I said, like, they're making both of these guys look like Democrat leaders.
	But Robert...
	By far.
	I found it.
	Listen to this.
	He appears to have violated the judge's gag order on mentions and attacks of jurors in his case.
	Listen to this.
	It's not a joke.
	He said this.
	Donald Trump's social media website tonight.
	Donald Trump reposted something posted by the 8:00 PM host of...
	On Fox.
	I thought at this point he was going to say it's outrageous that he should be charged with contempt for this.
	Listen to where he goes.
	Jesse Waters.
	Jesse Waters says they are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury.
	And there's Donald Trump himself posting that on social media tonight, posting it for the jurors in his case to see.
	Calling them.
	See, now that's the part that's a lie.
	The jurors have said they will not be reading, watching, reviewing any media.
	Definitely they're not going to Donald Trump's social media feed.
	Well, they might.
	They are.
	What he's saying is, hey, we're all in on it.
	It's all a fix.
	The jurors are perjurers.
	The judge is a liar.
	The entire legal system is a fraud.
	So let's punish Trump for exposing the fact that it's a fraud.
	Oh, it gets better, Robert.
	Liars.
	Donald Trump.
	Calling his jurors, who have already been seated, liars.
	Because what Jesse Waters is referring to there are the jurors, the seven, who have already been officially seated on that jury.
	So now he's admitting that seven people lied to get on the jury.
	And he's mad that it's being exposed to the world.
	And this is why courts do not have the constitutional authority to gag anybody.
	And it's sad and pitiful.
	Outside of extraordinarily limited, restrained circumstances.
	This is a justice system that is so committed to the illusion of justice that it will go to great lengths to deny justice in the process.
	Because it wants people to think its system is fair and impartial when it's not.
	This is a crock.
	This is an embarrassment to the rule of law.
	This will go down as one of the most disgraceful sets of cases in the history of American law.
	And what everybody defending it...
	Defending any aspect of it should be embarrassed because they're people whose credibility you could never listen to again because they're people who are saying they're happy and eager to weaponize the legal system in violation of all of our legal principles to go after their political opponents and adversaries.
	Listen to the last 20 seconds of this.
	And he's saying that they have lied their way onto the jury.
	Donald Trump is endorsing that.
	Those words are the same as Donald Trump writing them himself.
	That's news, by the way.
	That's news.
	There's an MSNBC anchor saying, those words are his words by virtue of him saying someone else.
	Robert, it's ridiculous.
	We are witnessing in real time.
	Who would have been happy to be a part of the lynch mob in a different era?
	And I guess I'm proud to say I wouldn't have been based on the present.
	So the gag order is ridiculous.
	He's going to be brought before the court for contempt charges on April 24th.
	I'll be following that.
	Joe Neerman made an Article 78 motion to try to un-gag Trump.
	Swiftly denied as soon as he was able to get in front of a judge, a young judge who said, you know, thank you.
	I've heard both sides.
	Your motion is denied.
	He's going to get to go before a three-panel, three-judge panel in, I don't know when, in a couple of weeks.
	He wants to get Dershowitz or Turley or a reputable, not that Joe Nierman is not reputable, but someone with a big name that it doesn't look like it's, you know, someone like off the street.
	Someone like me just wanted to say, hey, un-gag him.
	Someone with reputation.
	Do you see a three-panel court doing anything different, Robert?
	The law is crystal clear that this is an unconstitutional gag order.
	I mean, there's just really no doubt about it.
	And so the question is, how long will the New York courts allow this illegal unconstitutional behavior to go on by New York courts?
	I mean, that's really it.
	And it's been embarrassing that the New York courts, appellate courts, and higher courts have let this nonsense happen.
	And I think it's just because it reflects the political prejudice within the judicial branch in the state of New York to refuse to enforce the law and to refuse to enforce the Constitution.
	They're showing how unreliable and untrustworthy they are as an institution.
	And they don't seem to be getting that.
	Now, I think the irony with all this is doing all of this insanity, showing that they'll go to any lengths to rig a case.
	It's only going to put more pressure on the Supreme Court.
	We'll see how much it shows up this week in the questions they ask.
	Put more pressure on them to grant broad immunity.
	Because right now, the Supreme Court is the only court that can save the judiciary from itself.
	This isn't just about rogue prosecutors.
	It's about rogue judges.
	It's the judicial system that looks to be a joke right now for the entire world to watch and witness.
	And as this New York case develops, it gets worse and worse and worse and worse.
	And so they see the jury's getting rigged.
	They see the trial getting rigged.
	They see Trump not being allowed to discuss the fact that it's getting rigged, that he's ordered to be there so that he can't campaign for the next six weeks.
	I mean, it's a crock.
	I mean, to be honest with you, other governments, banana republics have never gone this far.
	I mean, find me another example of anywhere else in the world where they've done this.
	You can't find one outside of assassinating people.
	We've done that too.
	And as you brought up, now you have Democrats wanting to revoke Secret Service protection.
	So you have the Biden administration wanting to kick its opponents off the ballot, both Trump and Robert Kennedy.
	Put them in jail.
	Trying to jail Donald Trump and trying to get both of them killed.
	Deny Secret Service protection to Robert Kennedy.
	And now they want to take it away from Donald Trump.
	And Robert, I'm not being hyperbolic.
	It's nothing short of...
	Trying to get them so exposed that they can be killed.
	Absolutely.
	They call it the disgraced former protectees act or denying infinite security.
	Infinite.
	I mean, life is finite, so it's not infinite.
	And government resources allocated toward convicted and extremely dishonorable former protectees.
	I made the joke in yesterday's vlog.
	They may as well just call it the Epstein Act.
	They want...
	And some effing jackass says, oh, you really think they'd put Trump in a dangerous prison?
	I'm like...
	You can't be that stupid.
	You can only be an absolute bot, like an AI bot, or just a malicious scoundrel.
	And it might be more the latter than the former.
	They want him to get killed, and they want to put him in a position where he can get killed.
	It's the same thing doing Robert Kennedy.
	Denied him Secret Service protection six times.
	So, I mean, it's obvious what they're doing.
	I mean, America's just now reaching full-blown Banana Republic stage.
	And, I mean, we have a bunch of members of the House of Representatives spending a bunch of money for the borders of Ukraine, while they won't spend any money on the U.S., where our Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has proven to capitulate to the intelligence community as soon as they smack them around a little.
	And they're waving foreign flags on the House floor.
	I mean, as some people said, if you want to talk about insurrection, that's insurrection.
	That's insurrectionary ideas and attitude, waving a foreign government's flag on our floor and spending American taxpayer dollars to help the money laundering continue in Ukraine for a foreign government.
	And they seem to be clueless that they are losing the American public, and their reaction is just punish them more.
	Lock them up more.
	Threaten them with death more.
	They just know power.
	They don't know principle.
	They only know power.
	And so the only question is whether a Supreme Court that values the integrity of the independence of the judicial branch will save it from itself.
	By giving Trump broad immunity.
	And the way it could do that, I mean, I wouldn't imagine the Supreme Court is going to come out and say if Trump is dealing cocaine as president, that that should fall within presidential immunity, though I understand the argument for why some might believe that, but they'll say...
	Well, it depends.
	If you're Poppy Bush or George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, you institutionally doubt it.
	I realize that's a bad example because that's exactly what the CIA or the CIA was doing in LA.
	A bad example, but give me an example that's totally, totally...
	Unrelated to any act as president, they'll say immunity shouldn't apply to that, but anything even remotely...
	What's called purely private acts, it's what Trump's own argument is based on the constitutional history, that purely private acts that have nothing to do with you being president are things that then those things are not subject to immunity because you didn't take them as presidential acts.
	I mean, they've done this in legislative and judicial immunity context.
	So, for example, if you are doing a legislative act...
	You're immune from criminal prosecution from that legislative act as well.
	Same with judges.
	There's some mistaken theories out there that immunity doesn't apply to criminal cases.
	That's not the case.
	They've said if you're doing a judicial act, immunity applies.
	If you're doing a legislative act, it applies.
	If it's not a judicial act, not a legislative act, or in the president's case, not an executive act, then that's when it doesn't apply.
	The big difference is the executive vesting clause of the Constitution.
	Judicial power comes with certain limits.
	Legislative power comes with certain limits.
	Not executive power.
	All the power of the executive was vested in one man, the elected president of the United States of America.
	And what that means is it attaches to every single thing he did while president unless it had absolutely nothing to do with the presidency.
	And here, like the New York case, their theory is that he did it to maintain his position and to get elected and to stay elected.
	So, they made it connected to the presidency in order to tag on that federal felony nonsense.
	The federal crime to make the state crime elevate to a felony.
	So, same in the Florida case, that almost all the allegations concern whether his acts as president were correct or not when he left and took the documents with him in the first place.
	The Georgia case, all concerned acts he took while president.
	D.C. case, all concerned acts he took while president.
	That's why they can...
	Get rid of almost all of these charges, really all of them in my view, by saying presidential immunity applies and that the only...
	You're granted immunity with one exception, which is if you're impeached and convicted.
	If you're impeached and convicted, then your immunity is taken away.
	But unless you're impeached and convicted, pursuant to the constitutional process, you have complete immunity for anything you did while president.
	And because if it's any other way...
	Then, as is well articulated in the reply brief on behalf of President Trump that was filed just this past week, then you're in a position where the president is at the whim, at the extortionate whim of any prosecutor anywhere in the country during or after his presidency.
	It's what drives me crazy is that the people are spouting off the line that nobody's above the law.
	There's a law that applies specifically to the president.
	Courts are not above the law.
	It means the prosecutors are not above the law.
	And the law here is the president is immune unless the Senate convicts him.
	And here he's been acquitted.
	That's the whole issue.
	Nobody's above the law.
	And there's a very specific law that applies only to the president.
	So, Robert, going back to the Disgrace Act or the Epstein Act.
	I mean, it's never going to pass, correct?
	What happens with it after they put forward this proposal, the proposed bill?
	Oh, it won't.
	Yeah, it won't pass, no.
	Okay, good.
	Not that it matters.
	It's just the near act of doing it, and then you incite these lunatics to say, die, MAGA, die, because now we've gotten our political permission slip to wish death on our political rivals.
	Okay, so there's...
	And what the Supreme Court said all the way back to Marbury v.
	Madison is the acts of a president are, quote, never...
	Never be examinable by the courts.
	Never can be examined by the courts.
	Never is never, isn't it?
	And examined is examined.
	So the only question is whether it's a presidential act.
	But I think the Supreme Court has almost no...
	And by the way, credit to the reply brief.
	There were certain analogies I wanted all of them making.
	Remind everybody up there that was appointed by different presidents how if there's no immunity, every single person who appointed them can be subject to prison.
	And they did a really good job of hammering that.
	In particular, I said, hammer home, especially after that D.C. appeals court judge made the big deal about SEAL Team 6. I always thought it was a ludicrous comparison because it's like, Barack Obama did do that!
	He did order people to murder his political opponents.
	He called them terrorists.
	So what?
	He ordered the murder of an American citizen without any due process of law.
	So that would have been the right answer then.
	They've now come back to that.
	They come back to, over and over again, they cite, if there's no presidential immunity, then Barack Obama can be criminally prosecuted for ordering the murder of people.
	So do you really want that to happen, liberal democratic judges and justices?
	Do you think you'll always have the power?
	Do you want your side to be subject to these rules?
	Because if you don't, you better step in now and put an end to it.
	And then they pointed out other good examples.
	George W. Bush lying to get us into the Iraqi war, the various allegations of drugs and other activities of past presidents.
	Let me stop you there.
	Not mistaken to get us into war, lying to get us into war, because apparently by all the retrospective evidence, they knew there were not the weapons of mass destruction that they were claiming there were when they claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction to get us involved in a war.
	A lie, not a mistake.
	Yeah, I think the court...
	Is going to rule because of the insanity that the Democrats have shown.
	Not because they care one iota about Trump.
	Very few of those justices care an iota about Trump.
	What they do care about is the integrity of the judicial process and how the judicial process looks to the world.
	And they're seeing that this is just like when we predicted 9-0 on the ballot decision.
	And some people were surprised by that.
	It's the same logic.
	They have no choice.
	Now, I don't think this will be 9-0, but it wouldn't surprise me if some Democrats drop off and join a majority.
	Because this is just, this is embarrassing.
	This is humiliating.
	Well, it's scary.
	It's actually scary because...
	Well, it's terrifying for ordinary people.
	But it's humiliating of the entire judicial system.
	I mean, the judicial system's confidence comes entirely from the American people's belief in it.
	The moment they no longer believe in it, it has no power.
	So that's its problem.
	Its power is predicated on belief.
	And the Supreme Court can see this sideshow taking place.
	This embarrassing...
	This makes the New York civil justice system look terrible.
	Criminal justice system look terrible.
	They've just been through all the insanity with the Georgia case involving the obvious conflicts of interest there.
	And it's one embarrassment after another, after another, after another.
	And they've got to stop it.
	Stop the bleeding.
	By saving the courts from themselves, by stepping in and saying the president has brought immunity, it's also the right constitutional interpretation.
	And there's a lot of good public policy behind it.
	Because otherwise, the president's subject to the whim of a politically motivated prosecutor.
	That that's not a tolerance.
	And they couldn't give.
	The only pitch of Jack Smith was, don't worry, we'll only do this to Trump.
	This is like the New York governor.
	Don't worry, we'll only do this to Trump.
	Well, nobody believes you, first of all.
	But secondly, that's not persuasive to a Supreme Court.
	It's like, that's your argument?
	Well, but also, that's an admission of selective prosecution.
	Now, speaking of selective prosecution, Robert, and unfairness, the other issue coming out of New York this week is Leticia James challenging the surity in the anger on New York nipple judge alleged fraud scheme.
	Where Trump got some...
	It's not a Cayman Island insurance company, but he got a bond company that's outside of the state of New York to post his certi, $175 million.
	Leticia James filed an opposition or contestation claiming that the certi was not certi enough.
	It was not guaranteed enough.
	A, because the asset or the collateral of that bond is a bank account held by the Trump irrevocable trust, which is still under the control of Trump so he can spend, take money out of it.
	And if it's not replenished to $175 million within two days, then there'll be an issue.
	Second issue was this company apparently engages...
	I can't really pretend to understand what shadow insurance means, but apparently they collateralize their...
	That's very common.
	Okay.
	I'll ask you to elaborate.
	People have multiple levels of insurance of risk.
	She's challenging the certi, and it's tomorrow, the hearing on whether or not Trump is going to be required to post another bond within seven days.
	Highlight the absurdity that Angeron tried to enjoin Trump and the businesses from borrowing money from banks in New York for three years.
	Now Leticia James is saying, your certi company is not registered in New York, and therefore it's not secure enough.
	What's the worst case scenario that Trump has to go?
	What bonding companies post or guarantee $175 million in bonds?
	Well, it's very limited.
	But I mean, for her, it shows how obsessed they are with bankrupting Trump, locking Trump up, denying him access to campaign funds, denying him means of campaigning, attacking him in the court of public opinion.
	That's what the legal process is for.
	And what this really does, it will put more pressure on the appeals court if Engeron goes and does another crazy thing for them to step in and reverse it.
	I mean, they really should have not required any bond under the absurd cases of this case.
	But what's happening, the New York appeals court, like if they don't take up good logic and reverse what the trial court has done, now they look like a joke.
	They look like partisan frauds.
	They look like hacks.
	They're damning the entire New York judicial system.
	I don't think they care.
	I mean, you're insane if you continue to do business in New York, if you can avoid it.
	That's the message they're sending to the entire world.
	With respect to this, hypothetically, Angeron grants Leticia James' motion.
	And says, okay, you have to post another bomb within seven days.
	There is a constitutional challenge to this, right?
	Excessive fines.
	Okay, so Supreme Court could get involved even in New York on the state-level case.
	It's wild.
	Okay.
	I think that...
	They don't have any sense of self-restraint.
	It's extraordinary watching it.
	No sense of political wisdom.
	I mean, it's incredible.
	And it's like the Georgia Court of Appeals.
	Are they going to allow a corrupt, partisan, perjured prosecutor to continue to handle that case?
	If they do, then the Georgia Court of Appeals looks like a joke.
	I mean, it tells you how bad the professional managerial class, as a class, is out of touch with the real world, that they aren't immediately stepping in.
	I mean, even Bill Barr is saying, by the way, this all goes too far.
	When you lose Bill Barr, who hates Trump, Who sabotaged Trump's entire presidency from the time he got in, particularly in the last year, on election issues, on Epstein, on the Biden corruption, all of it.
	When he's out there screaming, this is crazy, it's the sensible part of the deep state saying, by the way, we're losing this.
	This court of public opinion battle, we're losing.
	We're going to be the ones that end up on the stake.
	When will courts wake up?
	When will they realize this has gone too far?
	But I think, I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will put a kibosh on at least 80%, 90% of it.
	There's nothing more coming out of New York, right?
	We've covered it.
	Or Trump.
	Robert, let me bring up some, sorry, bring up some crumble rants before we get too far behind and then get into our next subject.
	If Justin and the Uniparty are here in the U.S., understood economics, they wouldn't be in government.
	King of Biltong says, good afternoon from Anton's meat.
	And eat.
	Free shipping on your Biltong using code VIVA.
	It's delicious stuff, by the way.
	Biltong USA.
	Anton USA.
	Gift on all Biltong orders placed today through Tuesday.
	Happy Sunday.
	Robert, upgrade your machine, bro.
	Vacuum tubes are so 1950s.
	That was from Ice Knee 2103.
	Why is it that New York is allowed to enforce federal election law, but Texas is not allowed to enforce federal immigration law?
	Good question.
	Stefan Og, with a lot of G's in there, says, any update on the Rumble versus Google antitrust and the USA versus Google antitrust trials?
	Robert, has there been...
	I haven't heard any news.
	No update, no.
	These games are still ongoing.
	What happens if there's a hung jury, another six-week trial around July or August, says Scumbag 50-50.
	Karolevsky, let's invite New York City, LA, San Francisco to become independent city-states.
	They can pay a fee each year for the US military to protect them.
	Tony in Carmel, isn't immunity necessary for peaceful transition to power?
	And Jane Catherine Berry, reaction to Rep.
	Omar Raskin and Stansbury push for Supreme Court accountability with new legislation.
	Robert, I haven't heard about that.
	Have you heard about that?
	Well, there's some of that that makes sense, some of that that doesn't.
	It's their attempt to govern the Supreme Court.
	And there's efforts afoot, of course, to still stack the court.
	They're just not getting anywhere at the moment.
	That's just who they are.
	It just shows that all they care about is power.
	There's no sense of principle with these people whatsoever.
	That's what makes it very difficult to negotiate with them.
	I don't know if you saw my interview with Jason Palmer on Friday.
	It's a very interesting thing.
	I'm predicting, by the way, Jason Palmer is going to be voting Republican in four years.
	He might be running for president in 2028.
	It'll be independent or for the GOP.
	We'll see.
	Okay, Robert, what do we move on to now?
	Well, I mean, speaking of out of control, well, we could go transition two places.
	We're dealing with corruption in the justice system by the Biden Justice Department.
	We have their effort to dismiss and intervene in the Brooke Jackson case against Pfizer.
	We filed our opposition this week to that.
	And then we've got all the craziness taking place in Pennsylvania by out-of-control regulatory agencies that have just lost the script.
	Let's do Pennsylvania, because nobody's going to believe what's going on in Pennsylvania.
	If I may ask, and I don't know the answer to the question, are you formally engaged in the matter?
	Yeah, so they have retained my services, and we're trying to do whatever we can.
	There's a crowdfunding out there for them.
	They're a couple of blue-collar guys.
	They don't have a lot of resources.
	So it's something that 1776 Law Center is supporting.
	Because of how crazy it is.
	Is it Livestock?
	No, that's the Lancaster article.
	I'll pull up the Give, Send, Go.
	Is it Noble Solutions LLC Give, Send, Go?
	Okay, I'll bring this up in a second.
	Robert, so you do a bourbon with Barnes on this.
	It was Wednesday night, and I catch up on your bourbon with Barnes when I go for my jog in the morning, and I'm listening to this, and I'm saying, it's impossible.
	It's impossible.
	Two individuals, are they Amish, or they're not Amish?
	No, they just...
	Principally work for the Amish.
	They work with Amish farmers in Pennsylvania.
	They're not vets.
	From what I understand, they are in the reproductive business.
	They're basically getting more cattle from cattle.
	Breeding.
	They help with breeding.
	They perform ultrasounds to determine if a cow has taken.
	These two guys are whisked off, unbeknownst to anybody, whisked off to jail based on a warrant.
	Okay.
	They're jailed with no bail for 30 days based on this warrant, which accuses them ultimately.
	It didn't accuse them of anything.
	They're in violation of a court order from a prior proceeding.
	Nobody knows what it is.
	Jailed without bail for 30 days.
	It turns out it's for not paying a fine in an administrative proceeding.
	Supposedly, it turns out that may not be the case either.
	Allegedly, from what I understood, based on the Lancaster Press as well, they didn't pay a fine in some administrative proceeding where they were allegedly fined for performing acts of veterinarianism, if you call it that, by performing ultrasounds on cows.
	And they say, this is not veterinary medicine.
	We've been told, don't pay the fine, whatever.
	Jailed.
	Based on a warrant that looks like it's printed off of some high school presentation saying the BPOA, the Bureau of Pennsylvania, I forget what it was, it was like a professional administration saying, sheriff, arrest them for being in violation of, and they give a bunch of docket numbers.
	These two guys were actually jailed, and still in jail now?
	Yes, one's in Lancaster County Jail, one's in York County Jail.
	Again, never criminally charged, we're never even parties.
	Named parties to any case ever.
	On the basis, allegedly, of having not paid a fine for practicing veterinary medicine without a license, but that consisted of ultrasounds.
	On the Lancaster Agricultural website, whatever it was, they ran a poll, Robert, and it said, do you think they should be jailed for having performed ultrasounds?
	And the majority of people said yes, from what I remember.
	So I have no faith in it.
	Who's on that particular site?
	So they're in jail now, no bailout for 30 days for not paying a fine, allegedly at worst case scenario.
	What's going on?
	Fill in the rest for those who may not know.
	It appears it has no relationship to a fine because that would raise other issues of imprisonment for debt, which would have its own violation.
	And the way any kind of fine process is supposed to go through the local court process, local courts have no record of either one of these guys.
	When we searched the court records, we couldn't find anything.
	It turns out the Commonwealth Court has a sealed secret file concerning the case.
	It's like, why is there a sealed secret file that's resulting in people being arrested without charge of a crime?
	Dig in a little bit further, we find there's an order of commitment that they got some judge to sign out of the Commonwealth Court.
	The Commonwealth Court doesn't have criminal jurisdiction.
	They don't do orders of commitment.
	Maybe that's why it looks like it was printed off some 1890s sheet somewhere.
	If you could, though, what is the Commonwealth Court versus Civil Court versus Supreme Court versus Criminal Court?
	What is the Commonwealth Court?
	Yeah, they're all different in Pennsylvania.
	So you got the Court of Common Pleas, which is what your typical state trial court is across the country.
	They have civil and criminal jurisdiction.
	There's traffic courts and magisterial courts that have lesser jurisdiction and authority.
	Then you have the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and then you have superior courts that have appellate jurisdiction in some cases.
	The Commonwealth Court is very limited.
	All it does is handle cases involving the state government, but not criminal cases, only civil cases.
	So it handles certain appeals.
	So the Amos Miller appeal, the government is appealing, goes to this Commonwealth Court.
	They're separately elected statewide, and what they're supposed to be doing...
	Is monitoring and supervising the state agencies.
	They're not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the state agencies.
	So it's still not crystal clear what's happened here.
	Because all efforts to get the file have been denied to date.
	While they're still in jail.
	While they're still in jail.
	How long do you have to wait?
	For a habeas corpus motion to be presented.
	We're going to have to file it.
	We're going to file it next week.
	The Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania has original jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus.
	Other courts do too, but it also is the only appellate court for the Commonwealth Court, is the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
	So the Commonwealth Court doesn't even have habeas authority.
	That gives you an idea, but how they got roped into this is not clear.
	It appears that the Pennsylvania Board of Veterinary Medicine is colluding with people in private business in Pennsylvania who want a monopoly on the Amish market.
	In other words, they want Amish farmers to have to go to licensed veterinarians, licensed vets, for things that don't have anything to do.
	With veterinary medicine.
	Veterinary medicine is limited to medicating the animal, things of that nature.
	Not this.
	Ultrasounds are not anywhere in the vet statute.
	In fact, I talked to legislators who helped draft the statute.
	They're like, that's deliberate.
	In fact, nothing related to farming is supposed to be part of the vet board.
	That is solely for people who are providing medical care to people's private animals.
	That's what that was supposed to be there for.
	Not to deal with farming at any level.
	But what is it?
	Some people who want access to that Amish market and want to be able to surcharge in that Amish market are trying to use licensure authority to do so.
	They filed a bogus complaint with the Board of Veterinary Medicine.
	The Board of Veterinary Medicine never even checked whether, hold on a second, do we even have authority here?
	Because their authority is supposed to be limited to actual licensed vets.
	But of course, this is what happens when you give any bureaucracy authority.
	They will abuse it.
	You give them power, they'll abuse it.
	That's what they have proven time and again.
	That's why I'm against licensures altogether.
	So you're giving a small group of people power to govern the rest of us.
	It doesn't make us safer.
	It makes us less safe.
	So the Board of Veterinary Medicine goes after an entity.
	But it doesn't appear to me ever named these individuals at all.
	And was doing the large parts of the proceeding with all of it, well, all of it in secret.
	So they didn't even know what was going on.
	So you have a boy, imagine if somebody said, took you away to jail tomorrow, Viva, and they said later on, well, it has to do with, you're not a vet.
	You're like, well, of course I'm not a vet.
	I mean, it's that level of insanity.
	They're reaching into a place they have no legal authority to reach into, first of all.
	Then secondly, apparently, it's not even necessarily relates to a fine.
	Supposedly, it's a contempt order about complying with a subpoena that was an unlawful subpoena in the first place.
	So there's those issues.
	So then you get a little bit further, and it appears that the state specifically requested an unlawful order of imprisonment.
	This is what happens when these bureaucracies go crazy.
	And courts don't exercise their supervisory obligations.
	So it appears that, like, here's how contempt works.
	Punitive contempt is a criminal case.
	It requires you to have right to counsel, you be individually named, all the rest.
	Civil contempt has to give you the keys to your own prison cell.
	So it can say, we'll issue you this fine, but you won't have to pay it if you do something that's within your control.
	So in the subpoena case, it's until you produce the documents, you will owe X amount of money.
	All right?
	But that's it.
	But that's not what these orders are.
	These orders are criminal contempt.
	They're not given any means to the keys to their own jail system.
	But even if it's criminal contempt, there's a hearing before a criminal court.
	Supposed to be, but not here.
	No hearing, no notice, no being named a party to the case.
	None of it.
	These were secret orders of a secret court ordering people in prison who were never even notified, never even made a formal party to the case.
	So we kept looking and we kept looking by their name, couldn't find it because there's no court case involving them.
	So I was like, this is insane.
	And what it is is either, I don't know what happened, either a judge was just rubber stamping things he had no legal authority to do and did so deliberately, which means there's a real problem with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
	They're supposed to be supervising people, not engaged in illegal behavior on behalf of state agencies themselves?
	Because here's the other issue.
	So there's all the constitutional requirements that come with criminal contempt.
	There's also Pennsylvania rules, which Pennsylvania law makes clear that Commonwealth Court doesn't have this power.
	They don't give them that.
	In fact, they don't give any court the power to issue contempt of people in prison for more than 15 days.
	And if it's based on a fine or a subpoena, all you can do is give a fine.
	You can't ever lock them up.
	So this is something that even a first-year law student would know they have no authority to do.
	And yet you have the proto-notary, that's like their version of a court clerk, complicit in this, ordering a sheriff to have people arrested and imprisoned that the proto-notary has no power to do.
	A judge signing an order of imprisonment from the Commonwealth Court who has no power to do it.
	A state agency requesting it that has no power to do it.
	And what apparently they don't realize is if you're the judge and you do something that's clearly outside your jurisdiction, you no longer have immunity from civil suit.
	So the same is true of a prosecutor.
	You request something that you know is illegal.
	It's outside the judge's authority.
	No immunity for that.
	That's not a legitimate prosecutorial act.
	If you're a court clerk and you do something, like send a letter demanding someone be arrested, which you should know you have no such power to do, no immunity, you can be individually liable.
	So it appears, you know, we gave the state the chance to fix this.
	Said, look, this is insane.
	Fix it now.
	This violates Pennsylvania law, federal law, constitutional law, you name it, it violates it.
	So fix it now and help limit the scope of your own damages.
	They refused to.
	In fact, they said, no, you have to make an appearance in the case.
	But an appearance?
	An appearance where?
	That was my response.
	So I'm supposed to appear for people who are not made parties in a case that doesn't appear to exist on the docket.
	And so the, I mean, that's, they're hiding behind, this is what happens when you give regulatory agencies this level of power, and when you get courts that see their job as protecting the government.
	Rather than protecting the citizen.
	And then they end up becoming complicit and culpable in these issues.
	And several of them have subjected themselves to potential civil suit.
	Clearly they're not exercising any independent authority.
	They're just acting as a rubber stamp for corrupt actions of the state.
	And so we'll have to file the original writ of habeas corpus with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
	Hope the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acts expeditiously and releases them immediately.
	And then we have to look at federal civil rights suits because they have no authority where they're...
	Anytime you give any licensing board authority, one of the first things they like to do is go regulate people that don't have licenses, that are not supposed to be before them.
	And they sucker state legislatures into saying, well, you got to watch out for the people that we've...
	You know, we've disciplined.
	We've taken away their license.
	We need to have authority over them.
	Like, oh, okay.
	And by doing so, they give them the green light to just decide that they're going to do whatever they want to whomever they want because they're going to decide that you should be licensed, even though there's no legal basis for that whatsoever in this case.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up.
	I'll show the give, send, go again.
	I brought that up here.
	Look at this, Robert.
	From Lancaster Farming.
	Should Rusty Hare and Ethan Wentworth face consequences for using ultrasound equipment on dairy cattle without a veterinary license?
	When there's no requirement by law to have a veterinary license to do old school to use ultrasound on cattle.
	Never has been.
	But this should be depressing for every human.
	You've got 60% of the people who have a strong opinion probably not knowing.
	The people that are part of that...
	Reading that are part of the conspiracy to monopolize access to the Amish and use licensures to do so.
	And it's not just what they're going after with Amos Miller.
	It's a broader pattern of the state of Pennsylvania weaponizing all of their bureaucracy to try to use licensures and permits to monopolize and control the entire population.
	Has anyone been in touch with them?
	Yeah, I mean, people on our team have it.
	Okay, good.
	How are they doing, like, on a human level?
	Well, some stuff was improving.
	I mean, for a while, one of them had no phone access and a bunch of issues.
	But it's starting to get better as the case, as more people started realizing, well, the York County Sheriff's Office and Lancaster County Sheriff's Office admitted that actually they'd never seen anything like this in their lives.
	Now, in my view, They still have a risk of liability because some court sends you something and you just enforce it.
	You need to know whether that court has that authority to do that.
	And the proto-notary of the Commonwealth Court has no such power.
	The Commonwealth Court has no such power.
	And yet it's just exercising it out of the blue.
	Locking people up because an agency asked them to.
	I mean, that's literally what happened.
	And it's insane.
	But it violates all kinds of...
	But it's a major scandal in Pennsylvania because the Commonwealth Court is one of the most powerful courts in the state.
	And if you have some of their judges implicated in this, it is very embarrassing for what's going on in Pennsylvania.
	They're just following orders, Robert.
	Okay, so a writ for habeas corpus.
	They have to look at federal civil rights claims once we find out exactly all the backstory of all this.
	Because there's no basis whatsoever for what they wanted the subpoena for.
	Tell us all your clients.
	It's all intended to get a monopoly.
	It has nothing to do with veterinary medicine.
	If they don't know that, they should know that.
	And by law, there's a whole bunch of exceptions and exclusions that make clear that this is not...
	This is not where veterinary medicine applies.
	I get that some corrupt people connected to the vet community in Pennsylvania want to do it that way.
	And this is what the complaint has been about licensure from day one.
	It creates an antitrust monopoly using state power to artificially increase cost, expense, and access by saying you have to be licensed to do things you didn't used to have to be licensed to do.
	But either way here, there's no licensure basis for the ultrasound claim whatsoever.
	None.
	What they're doing doesn't require they be vets.
	Doesn't require anybody be vets.
	And so the whole thing is based on a fraud.
	And then they're trying to get into people's private records that also violates Pennsylvania law, the way in which they were trying to go about getting the subpoena.
	They didn't make them in proper parties.
	They didn't make the case publicly accessible so anybody could know what the heck was going on.
	But I mean, this is the ultimate power of the state to lock you up.
	And that's what you see how these agencies think.
	You don't do what we say, we'll lock you up.
	They have just no legal power to do so.
	And you have individual attorneys who might become individual defendants who might not have immunity coverage.
	And it might even include judicial officials.
	It's an extraordinary...
	I haven't seen any case quite like this in a long time.
	I love it.
	Extraordinary scandal.
	I love it when you make judicial threats and only people in the industry know just how serious what you're suggesting is.
	The judge is doing something that's not a judicial act.
	They're not immune.
	And there needs to be, the judiciary is losing its way in some of these cases.
	So it relates to another case that we're getting involved in.
	A lady's being criminally prosecuted, facing up to two years in state prison because she tape-recorded, the allegation is, She tape recorded her own court proceeding.
	I'm not familiar with that.
	I could steel man the argument, but what is this case about?
	I just found out about it this weekend.
	A woman who was going through a divorce didn't trust how things were going in the court, wanted a separate court reporter on top of the official court reporter because her husband had a lot of political power in the local community.
	According to the statements that have been made in court filings, so I don't know whether this is necessarily the case or not, but this is what is alleged against her.
	What is alleged is that she recorded the proceeding that was involving her own divorce because what she found was the official court reporter was not accurately reporting the proceeding.
	So her concerns came out to be true.
	And when she exposed this, how do you think the Pennsylvania legal system handled it?
	They decided to charge her with a crime for recording her own court proceeding.
	I can understand this one in theory only because of how strict the court is about recording that which you're not allowed to record.
	I understand the rationale.
	The only question is like, what is the practical solution to this type of problem where you're precluded from recording the corrupt proceeding?
	You have both the right to open access to court proceedings and the right to First Amendment rights.
	I think this law is unconstitutional.
	It's very rarely been challenged, and the problem you have is who do you have to ask to declare it unconstitutional?
	The same judges who are imposing the rule in the first place.
	It's an inherent conflict in that regard.
	It's why they shouldn't be doing these proceedings, in my view.
	They should never have legislative and executive power.
	But putting that aside, all this does is invite skepticism of the legal system.
	So like in the Amos Miller case, the sheriffs and bailiffs told journalists that they couldn't even take notes.
	That's how it's being interpreted.
	So only the state-approved media would allow any...
	These are supposed to be open proceedings.
	Our trials didn't used to be in courtrooms.
	They used to be out open in the public.
	So how is it okay to prohibit recording something, especially when you're a party to the case?
	You just want a really accurate record and you don't trust the court reporter to do the record.
	I mean, to me, there's major constitutional problems with...
	Treating this as a crime.
	We'll be bringing First Amendment and other challenges.
	Just to steal, man, though, the argument's going to be if you want to get the official hearing, you can order the audio and then have it transcribed by a stenographer.
	In many cases, there's no audio available.
	There's just a court reporter just doing their version.
	And in some cases, there's no court reporter.
	That happens frequently, where there's no court reporter.
	But under this law, you're not allowed to record it, even if there's no court reporter.
	So, to me, this is a violation of people's right to open access to the courts and a violation of First Amendment rights of the press and of speech and association concerning legal matters.
	And all this does is hurt courts.
	Nobody gets more confidence in the court when the courts say, hey, you can't take notes.
	You can't record things.
	That makes people skeptical of the court.
	This is what the Supreme Court said a long time ago about abuse of contempt power as well.
	Said, you know, said you can't prohibit public criticism of judges.
	All that's going to do, aside from fighting the Constitution, is make people more skeptical of judges.
	So if you believe in the court system, then you don't want these rules to exist.
	And so I want to challenge this.
	But, you know, the judge stuck to his word, and in the Amos Miller case, denied the government's request.
	So the government is now appealing it.
	To the same Commonwealth Court that's implicated in this other scandal.
	Even though, by the way, people in the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture have publicly admitted to people that they know they have no legal right to control Amos Miller selling his food outside of the state.
	And yet they're telling the courts just the opposite.
	Because that's how power mad these people are.
	So thanks to everybody who stood up for Amos Miller.
	The judge stood up with...
	What he said he was going to do was he was going to follow the law and ruled in Amos Miller's favor.
	And so that's why that's being appealed.
	But you can get, if you live outside the state of Pennsylvania, then now is the time, if you want to get at Amos Miller Organic Farm, to get some of Amos's great products that are out there.
	And just so everybody knows, I don't know if we're sold out of the maple syrup, but there still might be some maple syrup fundraisers still available, too.
	And so everybody knows, I'm only steelmanning the argument.
	I wholeheartedly agree with Robert.
	The idea that you can't record court proceedings, they should be public with the utmost of exceptions.
	They should be publicly broadcast, too.
	This law, by the way, is the reason why courts are not even allowed, even if a judge wants to broadcast a case.
	The judge is not allowed to under this rule.
	And I think that's deeply problematic.
	The court system does not benefit from secrecy.
	That was the whole point of the Star Chamber system.
	Doesn't benefit from official stenographers.
	That doesn't help us whatsoever in the court of public opinion, getting people to have confidence and faith in the independence and integrity of our judicial process.
	Robert, before we get into the next subject, let me just do one thing here.
	The problem is that you have boomers like my father who believe the regulation is good and there to protect people, which is not T1990.
	I was in that boat for a very long time.
	I felt better eating FDA approved.
	I was in there.
	Sammy says, what were the ultrasounds for?
	Were they for confirming positive pregnancy or were they using ultrasound to assist in procedure like...
	Artificial insemination.
	Embryo transfer.
	Iceni.
	Viva my screen name reference to Budisha's tribe.
	Pronounced T like pronoun.
	Che like sensor.
	Say like sensor.
	Ni like the knights.
	Iceni.
	Fleetload avatar.
	We got the give, send, go for Noble.
	We got that and I've shared that.
	Have you two heard of the decoy voice?
	He might be someone you might want to...
	Be interested in doing a video with.
	I'm going to screen grab that.
	Boom.
	Jane Catherine Barry.
	Reaction to Rep.
	Omar Raskin stands where he pushed for Supreme Court accountability.
	Okay, we got that one too.
	Is an immunity necessary for the people?
	Okay, we got that.
	Okay, we're done.
	So, Robert, what was the other power gone crazy?
	It had to do with Biden and Title IX?
	Oh yeah, reading stuff into the law.
	Well, there's Title IX, but there's also the corruption is the...
	Brooke Jackson case.
	The most brazen, most corrupt effort to stop a False Claims Act case in American legal history.
	Oh, son of a gun.
	I screen grabbed what you sent me earlier.
	I'm going to get that in a second.
	What's the status of this?
	So, Brooke Jackson went after Pfizer in a Ketam claim.
	Now the government is coming and says, we talked about it a long time ago.
	We're going to take it over and kill it because we don't want you investigating our...
	The rationale was what exactly, Robert?
	The official public policy of the Biden administration is the COVID vaccines are good, so no case can be allowed to go forward that would suggest that public policy is wrong.
	All right.
	Now, if I may bring this up, may I bring this up?
	Wendon Hall's affidavit?
	Okay.
	How do I do something like this?
	We submitted an extensive memorandum in opposition to the government's motion to intervene and the government's motion to dismiss.
	And as part of that, submitted extensive declarations under penalty of perjury of multiple medical experts, as well as many of the studies and the other documents and data and information that's come out from the crowdsourced information from the FOIA request of the Pfizer records that revealed just how much Pfizer lied.
	Pfizer lied and people died.
	That's the core of this case, but the Biden administration doesn't want anybody to know that, so they would like the judge to participate in hush-hushing it all up.
	I, Warner Mendenhall, declare and state it.
	It's very short, guys.
	It's three pages, but two of them are not full.
	I am one of Brooke Jackson's attorneys in this matter and make this statement in support of her motion.
	The declaration is based on my personal knowledge.
	Okay, fine.
	If I called as witness, I would say this.
	I just want to make sure there's no addresses in here.
	Brooke Jackson with counsel met with the Department of Justice on November 16, 2023.
	We informed the DOJ of additional witnesses, deaths, and injuries at other trial sites unreported by Pfizer.
	This is a lawyer.
	Got something to lose for this.
	At the meeting, the DOJ never advised Ms. Jackson of any perceived deficiencies or burdens on the United States caused by her actions.
	Okay, so she's bringing it up and saying, doesn't hurt us.
	We clarified we would proceed with the litigation and bear the burdens of discovery because it comes at a cost.
	We discussed the remarkable worldwide private sector science and crowdsourced document review and data analysis bolstering this case and exposing DNA contamination, which has now been admitted.
	The only question is whether or not it has consequences, vaccine ingredients, genetic effects, and other adverse events, which are now widely accepted as fact.
	It's just a question of whether or not...
	It's a meaningful number.
	Before the filing of the motion, yada, yada, we had LR7 phone call.
	Robert, what is it?
	Okay.
	We tried to determine unsuccessfully the basis for the motion to intervene.
	There was no coherent explanation about why exposing fraud in the clinical trials would be contrary to United States public health policy and attached to a bunch of documents.
	So, Robert, their excuse...
	I'll share this with...
	Have we shared this on Locals?
	I'll do it right now.
	Let me save that.
	Robert, their excuse for exposing the fraud or, sorry, intervening to prevent the exposure of alleged potential fraud was what?
	That the Biden administration thinks COVID vaccines are good and so nothing that could expose the COVID vaccines as bad can happen.
	I mean, that is one of the weakest, lamest, And really, they're arguing for power.
	They're saying, hey, judge, this is the United States government.
	You better do what we tell you to do, because that's the end of it.
	And the law is that they have to have good cause to intervene, and their basis to dismiss has to be a reasoned basis related to the litigation.
	They have no evidence about the litigation whatsoever.
	Nobody's willing to put...
	Now, one of the DOJ prosecutors involved used to work at the FDA.
	And may herself be implicated or compromised by what may come out of discovery.
	So here's where the confusion is between the government and who represents the government.
	The government is the American taxpayer.
	Brooke Jackson is representing the American taxpayer.
	She is representing the constitutional exercise of governmental power.
	These corrupt actors in the Justice Department and with the Biden administration...
	Are themselves culpable for the illegality of what took place here.
	So they don't want to be on the hook.
	The Biden administration doesn't want anybody to know that they tried to force this vaccine on a bunch of people when they knew or should have known that it wasn't, at least at some point along the way, that it wasn't in fact a vaccine, that it wasn't safe, it wasn't effective.
	So that even if the government didn't know, they don't want to be blamed for their bad choices in trusting Pfizer.
	Because that becomes the question.
	Why was this mandated?
	Why was this publicly broadcast?
	Why did the Biden administration continue to spend money on this product that they knew was dangerous and counterproductive?
	Because it served their political interests?
	Because key people at Pfizer are high up in the U.S. government, the Justice Department?
	I mean, basically they're saying, look, don't expose the corruption of high-ranking government officials by allowing this case against Pfizer to go forward.
	That's what they're saying.
	That's the only logical inference from their nonsensical opposition.
	And so we use it as an opportunity to present all the evidence that's now been gathered in the court of public opinion in a range of high-ranking scientists and doctors.
	We filed sworn statements under penalty of perjury in this case in support of Brooke Jackson.
	We included all the different studies, surveys, and other findings by independent groups that show there's no doubt.
	For those people who don't remember, the agreement that Pfizer made with the Trump Defense Department was that they would deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
	Stop!
	Safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of transmission.
	Not that it would be a therapeutic, by the way.
	That was separate.
	Not that it would be a diagnostic tool.
	That it would be an inoculation tool.
	That it would inoculate.
	That it would prevent infection.
	That it would prevent transmission.
	And what they delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not even a vaccine, didn't inoculate against anything, and didn't prevent COVID-19.
	So they violated, they committed fraud at the very foundational level.
	And just as we were about to get to the discovery stage of this case, the government realized court is likely to rule our way and require discovery.
	And that discovery would implicate high-ranking members of the Justice Department, high-ranking members of the Food and Drug Administration, high-ranking members of the Biden Administration.
	And so they're saying, hey, judge.
	So they're weaponizing their current control of...
	Of the government bureaucracy to cover up a crime that they themselves are complicit in.
	A crime that, let's remember, has led to the deaths and disabilities of tens of thousands, if not millions of people around the world, based on the data and information.
	So the question is whether the court will exercise its critical gatekeeping role to make sure that the American people continue to be represented.
	In this case of United States versus Pfizer, when its so-called representatives, its bureaucratic apparatchiks, are the ones working against the American people because they themselves would be implicated if discovery goes forward.
	This is a catch and kill that they accused Trump of of the highest pharmaceutical order.
	We're going to capture this case and we're going to kill it so that nobody investigates our own culpable wrongdoing in...
	Either fraudulently participating in this or negligently participating in this.
	Of note, no one on the government side would sign under penalty of perjury that this was safe, effective, a vaccine, prevented COVID-19.
	No one is willing to say under penalty of perjury that Pfizer didn't commit massive fraud.
	So that tells you what's really going on.
	This is, hey, judge, we right now have the tools of government.
	When we're the ones implicated, cover up for us.
	And don't exercise your independent gatekeeping role.
	Don't allow any discovery to occur.
	Don't allow a full evidentiary hearing to occur.
	Don't allow any of that to occur because we have right now the weapons of government, of the government bureaucracy.
	Even though they're doing so directly opposed to the interest of the American people.
	And that's what a False Claims Act and KETAM claim represents.
	There's a reason why Congress did not give exclusive power to the U.S. government for prosecuting False Claims Act.
	They gave it to ordinary people.
	Why?
	Because there would be times when the only people that would adequately and competently and effectively represent the American people would be an individual.
	Like, as in this case, Brooke Jackson represents the American people.
	The Biden administration is in collusion with a corrupt company that, remember, is the most criminally fine corporate drug company in the world, makes drug dealers look like small, makes the biggest drug cartels look like street corner dealers by comparison.
	That's who and what Pfizer is.
	And now that there's really no doubt that Pfizer is guilty, the Biden administration is begging a court, please cover it up.
	We got an election coming up.
	Robert, I'm just going to fact check you in real time.
	We will not let disinformation go unnoticed on this channel.
	They are the second most...
	Sorry.
	This is funny because it's not much of a difference.
	I think inflation-adjusted dollars are still number one.
	I was being absolutely glib, tongue-in-cheek.
	Pfizer, number two, 2.3 billion.
	GlaxoSmithKline, 3 billion.
	They're a criminal organization of the highest order, and they're not even under the guidance of a doctor.
	Albert Bourla is a frickin' veterinarian, if that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, this is the biggest health scandal maybe in world history.
	Absolutely ever.
	And they're saying, hey, judge, this implicates high-ranking members of our administration.
	Please let it go away.
	Please just...
	Hush it all up for us, if you don't mind.
	And this is going to be another case where the judiciary itself is tested.
	Does the judiciary have the courage to stand up to one of the most corrupt, powerful corporations in the world, Pfizer, and to a corrupt Biden administration?
	And again, we're not asking that the judge rule in our favor.
	We're asking just that we be allowed to do the discovery and prosecute the case on behalf of the American people, because the only honorable and honest person Who can vindicate the American people's cause in this case for the United States of America is Brooke Jackson.
	It's not the Biden Justice Department.
	Robert, someone in the chat said, ah, but Viva.
	He said of all time.
	And so I just pulled up the largest settlements.
	I can't.
	You might actually still be right.
	They have the second largest settlement ever.
	They might be the largest fine.
	Aggregate.
	I'll have to add it up, but I was being tongue-in-cheek anyhow just to illustrate the company that we are...
	The hearing will be the afternoon of May the 1st in Beaumont, Texas.
	Is it open to the public?
	Yeah, it is.
	Now, it's federal court, so nothing's broadcast.
	So you'd have to get into the courtroom to hear the argument.
	Beaumont, Texas, Robert.
	Shall we share an Airbnb again?
	There's actually a very nice Airbnb near Beaumont, because I've had to be there a couple of times for this.
	But yeah, so we'll see.
	I mean, it's another test of our federal judicial branch.
	When they need to exercise a critical gatekeeping role, but it means standing up to powerful government actors, will they be able to do so?
	Because, unfortunately, the answer has been inconsistent in our recent past.
	Robert, I think I just talked myself into flying into Beaumont for this, so we might be hanging.
	We'll see if we hang on May 1st.
	May the first be with us.
	Okay, what do we go to now?
	We got a bunch of other cases at SCOTUS.
	If we want to talk about crazy corrupt policies, we could talk about the Biden's administration.
	New interpretation of gender under Title IX.
	So I read it, and I don't understand what I'm reading.
	They're trying to interpret Title IX, which was to create basically a safe space for women.
	Biological women.
	Is it XX or XY?
	It's XX.
	The law says sex.
	Biological sex.
	That's what the law says it's supposed to be about protecting.
	It was to protect women so they didn't have to compete against men, period.
	So they had women's spaces, etc.
	And women's sports.
	They're throwing in gender identity.
	I just noticed it left, right, and center into that directive.
	Whatever the hell that is.
	What did you send me?
	What was that?
	Well, it's like 15,000 pages.
	Welcome to the federal government's new regulations.
	But buried in there...
	They're doing two things.
	They are redefining Title IX to require anybody who receives those funds.
	That's every educational institution in the country.
	And by the way, they interpret the rules to apply to people who aren't even enrolled students.
	This is weaponizing, using federal funds to control public educational institutions, not only towards students, but towards anybody they interact with in the public.
	And what they're requiring is they must adopt the woke language and woke ideas by treating sexual orientation and gender identity as the same as the word sex.
	No discrimination based on sex now means no discrimination based on your sexual habits, based on your gender identity, which will basically force all educational institutions in the country.
	To treat men as women if they say they are.
	And treat certain...
	I mean, sexual orientation can go broad.
	We know where they already interpret it these days.
	As Joe Rogan is pointing out, it goes beyond gay.
	They're interpreting it a whole lot of other ways.
	And it's just insanity.
	And basically forcing this on the entire country using federal control of educational funds to do so.
	And you will then be subject to Title IX prosecution if you don't endorse the woke agenda.
	If you don't make your bathrooms and locker rooms available to men, as long as they describe themselves as women.
	If you don't allow your teams or your sports to.
	If you don't refer to them as ma 'am.
	You know, what Jordan Peterson warned about 10 years ago is now going to be required of every school in the country.
	Lock me up, Robert.
	That'll be my line in the sand at a broader scale.
	Holy hell.
	But this is all in direct violation of women's rights, what Title IX was intended to protect in the first place.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	It inverts it on its head.
	I mean, the law says sex, period.
	It doesn't say sexual orientation.
	It doesn't say sexual preference.
	It doesn't say sexual identity.
	It says biological sex, period.
	End of story.
	So they are now going to basically destroy women's sports in the name of wokeism.
	I mean, the great defenders of feminism are destroying feminism and some of its broadest and biggest achievements.
	And so it's an embarrassment.
	We'll see what litigation it may result in.
	I'm sure there'll be some people that push back and try to find ways to.
	But as of August, they're like, hey, we know this is complicated, so we'll give you some time to absorb our 15,000 pages.
	We'll give you a few months.
	That's all I do.
	The next school year is when all this nonsense has to be enforced.
	Holy hell, Robert.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me bring this up.
	If you noticed me looking to the side, the dogs needed to get the heck out of this room.
	They were making some noise.
	Alex Davey Dukes says, Great to see you both on Robert's 50th.
	The Pfizer case is the single most important FCA in...
	U.S. history.
	I totally agree.
	So regulators can pen only ensure...
	So again, a regulator pen can only ensure a monopoly.
	It can't and never has been able to prevent one.
	Okay, we got IHall86.
	They just want to prove that can make better women.
	I mean, look at the last couple of years.
	It's ridiculous.
	We've got Memory Hole says, I'm a veterinarian in Ontario.
	Pregnancy checks are a major part of dairy practice.
	Here, the men would have been fined, but not jailed.
	Can't speak to Pennsylvania.
	T1990, I can't read all those, but I'm going to read them when Barnes is talking.
	So that's the book.
	Hold on.
	What were you on there?
	Oh, no, that was the Title IX.
	It is going to get implemented as of August for the next 2024 year.
	Anybody who wants to litigate, you have six months to read, process, digest, litigate, and hope that it gets heard and adjudicated before it gets implemented.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Impossible.
	It's a disaster, is what it is.
	It's a complete disaster on schools across the country.
	What it's going to take is...
	In our broader culture.
	Yeah, well, what it's going to take is girls and women to just stop competing.
	Period.
	It'll hurt for a year or two.
	Stop competing against men or boys.
	Period.
	Let them compete alone.
	There was a video of a shot put team not shooting the stone to protest.
	That's it.
	It'll be what it'll have to be.
	A year or two, maybe three of suffering for women's sports, girls' sports.
	That's it.
	I sure as hell will be vocal.
	My kids are not.
	They're competitive.
	But if I see a boy competing in gymnastics that's for girls, I will be the a-hole that makes a scene.
	Not a scene scene, but rather protests.
	Right.
	It's the insanity of it.
	And then, I mean, there was a good decision this week by the Supreme Court in Title VII that they continue to expand and enforce that, which is good to see, that if you're transferred, that you don't have to show a substantial harm.
	Like some courts were saying.
	So sometimes the way they would discriminate against you is they would transfer you.
	And as long as they didn't change your economic wages, they were allowed to get away with discriminating against you by transferring it.
	But transferring often is exactly the one thing people don't want to have happen to them employment-wise, and that's discrimination because it changes the terms and conditions of employment.
	And the Supreme Court correctly came in and said, yes, it does, and you don't have to show any other substantial harm.
	That was good, and there was a takings case in Texas that got some confusion.
	So that's the one that we talked about multiple times, where they were charging some sort of fee, excessive fee, if there was a redirection of water as they were building a highway or something along those lines?
	Yeah, and what it was is people wanted to sue Texas under both state and a federal constitutional law claim.
	Texas said, you can bring your takings claim, but you can only bring it under the state law.
	The Supreme Court originally took the case, planning on ruling whether or not you have a direct cause of action.
	How do you sue on takings law if there's no specific remedy provided for you?
	They ultimately didn't decide that because they said actually the Texas state law provides an adequate way of meeting your constitutional objection, provides an effective private cause of action for it.
	And so it basically skipped the big issue.
	What happens if there isn't such an option available?
	How can you sue?
	They left that for another day by saying the Texas state law claim suffices.
	So there was a lot of confusion about that case because of what was anticipated versus what came out of it.
	And both sides declared themselves winners, which just compounded the confusion.
	But speaking of the Supreme Court, we have a case that we filed a petition for cert on.
	I'll publish it at vivabarneslaw.locals.com and at 1776lawcenter.com.
	The Children's Health Defense is bringing a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States saying, if we can't sue the FDA for them lying about the COVID vaccine for kids and trying to force it on kids, then that means the FDA is above the law.
	And so under the traditional definition, Of case or controversy under the common interpretation of the ordinary person of that language in the Constitution.
	This clearly is a case or controversy involving one where the United States is a party.
	And that's what the judicial power has been vested to handle and resolve.
	And they skipped it by saying, well, we're really saying nobody can sue the FDA except the drug companies.
	Because that's the only people who are impacted.
	They're saying risk of future harm doesn't count.
	Children's health defense substantial expenses doesn't count.
	And we're challenging that because there's contradictions of that in prior courts.
	So we've talked about it in the past, and I'll just steel man the opposition, because Children's Health Defense has a specific objective, and they sued the FDA for this jibby jab.
	They said it's neither safe nor effective, you know, hurts children.
	They were denied.
	The FDA is lying to vulnerable populations.
	Including caregivers and custodians of foster children, people in juvenile facilities, and the like, who are relying upon the FDA's representations for whether this is safe and necessary.
	And they used Sesame Street, they used a bunch of mechanisms to lie about this, just like they got caught lying about ivermectin.
	And so Justice Alito recently asked in another case, he goes, it can't be the case that no one can sue the FDA.
	Is that really the government's position?
	Yes, it is.
	And this case presents that on all fours for the Supreme Court.
	Make clear who can, that the FDA is not above the law, and there needs to be accountability concerning this COVID vaccine being made, put in a position where kids are effectively forced to take it against their own best interest.
	Robert, let me bring this up, because people might have forgotten or they, I don't want to shut this down, oh gosh, they might have forgotten or they might never have known.
	Let me bring this screen up in the backdrop.
	Clay Travis, here they go.
	I thought it was a joke when I first saw it.
	You were super duper today.
	It's real.
	There was a little pinch, but it was okay.
	Elmo was really glad to have Daddy and Baby David there with you.
	Baby David, where are you?
	I'll stop it there because I actually want to puke.
	This was an actual Sesame Street And so Children's Health Defense sues the FDA.
	They're in the information business.
	They're providing access to information for parents and caregivers and custodians about children's health.
	And they're having to fight the FDA because the FDA is the one lying about this.
	And saying, no, this isn't safe.
	This isn't effective.
	You didn't even test it.
	In the ways that you're implying you did.
	In fact, we now know it's dangerous.
	It doesn't prevent.
	It never met risk-safety benefit for little kids.
	But they're putting this on six-month-olds.
	And it shouldn't have happened.
	And we were not allowed any trial on the merits because they're like, nobody can sue the FDA when the FDA lies.
	The most vulnerable population in the world.
	That clarifies it.
	It's not the excessive burden that the Children's Health Defense has incurred to litigate.
	Well, it's that too.
	Not to litigate.
	It's to counter the lies of the court's public opinion.
	Okay.
	And so they were initially denied standing and that's what they're taking up with their writ to the Supreme Court.
	Yep.
	When do you know if the Supreme Court accepts that writ?
	Not until next year, probably.
	Oh, so this will be 2025.
	Yeah, or late, fall 2024.
	They might decide sometime by June, July, whether to take it, but probably not.
	Probably not until next year.
	I'm going to share that link with everybody.
	Hold on one second.
	Okay, it's wild.
	So that's one good thing.
	The Supreme Court, what else is there currently pending before the Supreme Court?
	The other big Supreme Court case pending this week is a case that we've discussed in the past.
	That is the rights of the homeless.
	Okay, hold on.
	Before we get there, I went to a thrift shop today.
	I can never be allowed back into a thrift shop.
	Look what I got.
	What does it say?
	It says...
	If you met my family...
	You would understand.
	You would understand.
	Get out of here is what I'm going to say.
	I went through it.
	Can you bring in the watch?
	But I went to a thrift shop, Robert.
	I may have gotten into thrifting now.
	Sorry.
	So what did you just say?
	What were you saying?
	Oh, so the big case they're going to decide Supreme Court this week that has broader consequences than the policy debate that's in front of them, but it's a real hot policy debate.
	I think there are like 50 amicus briefs filed in the case.
	And this is about the rights of the homeless.
	Oh, you're on mute.
	I'm an idiot.
	That's the one challenging an ordinance that says you can't, you know, station yourself in public property overnight or...
	You can't have a blanket, etc.
	Basically, they mean it a crime to be homeless.
	And so then there were two homeless petitioners who say this criminalizes the fact that we are involuntarily homeless.
	Because it was undisputed.
	There was no available shelter for them.
	And, I mean, so I'm amenable to the idea of the legislation.
	I'm also very sensitive to the challenge.
	What happens with this?
	Was this at the...
	This is at the writ for certiorari?
	No, the argument on the merits is, I think, tomorrow or maybe Tuesday.
	And you have the policy debate about everything going on with homelessness issue, but you have broader constitutional implications.
	What the city is trying to say is that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments never applies to cities and states in almost all instances.
	So they're using the homeless public policy debate to try to have a massive power grab to be able to deny people, to criminalize whatever they want, whenever they want.
	And they're saying due process doesn't apply either.
	So the one argument is that the Fifth Amendment due process clause is more applicable than the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause.
	I don't agree.
	The cruel and unusual punishment is not limited to methods.
	It's always been the proportionality of punishment for the alleged crime.
	For example, cruel and unusual punishment can be the death penalty if it's considered disproportionate to the crime alleged.
	If we started doing the death penalty for jaywalking, that would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
	But we could also at the same time say...
	The death penalty for murder, the death penalty for rape, the death penalty for other things, is not disproportionate.
	Unless you did it by way of ripping one finger off at a time, then it would be cruel and unusual punishment, even for where the death penalty is.
	See, they want to radically limit the 8th Amendment to be only about the method of the death penalty, not whether the death penalty could be appropriate for a particular crime.
	And that's deeply problematic.
	And there's some conservatives who are aligned on that side of the aisle, very dangerously.
	A lot of the conservative...
	What's fascinating is, I was curious in all the amicus briefs, would anybody stand up for the constitutional liberties here, including a lot of so-called constitutional liberty think tanks and foundations?
	Every single one of them is opposing constitutional liberty in this case.
	National Criminal Justice Foundation.
	They're not for actual criminal defendants, but more importantly, they're not for constitutional liberties either.
	Pacific Justice Foundation, some other big ones that are known on the libertarian side are coming in anti-libertarian because of the economic interests that get implicated by homelessness, real estate, a lot of other issues.
	And so they're so caught up in the homelessness debate that they're ignoring the constitutional doctrine they're now espousing, which is to gutter, utterly gut the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	So that cruel and unusual punishment no longer means cruel and unusual punishment outside of methods of punishment rather than proportionality of punishment to the underlying crime.
	It's been called the conduct requirement as well as the intent requirement.
	Historically, punishing somebody for something that is involuntary, that is not within their control, has since our founding generation been considered a cruel and unusual punishment.
	They want to get rid of that too.
	They want there to be no substantive limitation from the Eighth Amendment and only be a Fifth Amendment due process limitation.
	And the problem there is that law has been very inconsistent and chaotic.
	And a lot of conservatives that don't like substantive due process, so they don't even want it to exist.
	So if they were to take away the Eighth Amendment's protection, they're greenlighting the state, getting to call you a criminal, even if for just your status.
	For nothing that is within your control.
	There's a certain arbitrariness also to saying you could be on the bench at four in the afternoon but not at four in the morning type thing.
	Okay, and so the arguments are going to be this week.
	This case has big...
	Decide for homeless.
	The complaint, what's fascinating, is all the homeless advocates want the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit and say the Eighth Amendment doesn't apply.
	Why?
	Because it shows you how your social worker bureaucrats work.
	They're complaining that they no longer get to control the homeless anymore.
	And I was like, I thought you were here to help the homeless, right?
	Isn't that what the shelter's for and all that?
	You're there to help them.
	No, you're there to control them.
	Because they're like, oh, now that they can't be arrested for sleeping on a park bench, they don't come and submit themselves to our authority.
	So you have like, LA Human Rights Organization, Homeless Organization, Mission Center, da-da-da-da.
	Hey, please reinstate the old law, judge, because that gave us social workers the power, which is what they really care about.
	They don't care about the homeless.
	They care about having power over people, for which homelessness is their pretext for it.
	But there was a couple of independent law professors in one independent organization.
	That spoke out for the homeless and pointed out the basic problems, constitutional problems, with doing anything other than affirming the Ninth Circuit.
	Now, what they may do is they may say, yes, the Eighth Amendment applies.
	Yes, the Eighth Amendment prohibits involuntary punishment.
	Yes, the Eighth Amendment applies to proportionality.
	It requires a conduct and intent requirement under the law.
	But the court should have done an individualized analysis.
	This is what the Biden administration is pitching, rather than a class-based analysis.
	What that would do is effectively make it brutally hard to bring the suits and thereby let the governments go back to doing their illegal behavior and just gambling the one or two times they get caught with the person who is homeless but somehow has access to a lawyer.
	But it's a big case because the conservatives are so caught up.
	And we want homeless people off the streets and quit harassing us and creating all these problems, that they're willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties to get there.
	And that's a mistake.
	We'll do the January 6th oral arguments.
	I can't believe it was only last week.
	I thought it was like three weeks ago by now.
	And then we'll head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Yep, sounds good.
	Okay, January 6th, Robert.
	What did your take away?
	Because I saw conflicting.
	Some people thought, oh, they're definitely going to overturn.
	Other people thought, oh, no, no, they're definitely going to affirm.
	I saw completely conflicting interpretations of people who heard the same argument.
	I'm not going to judge anybody who disagrees because I listened to Tim Kast's interpretation and all this afterwards.
	I started off thinking, of course they're going to overturn it and say this is not what it was intended to govern.
	But then I heard some of the questions and the only one who asked the good questions was Alito, right?
	It was Alito and Clarence Thomas.
	Amy Coney Barrett?
	No!
	They were entertaining the idea that it wasn't so absurd.
	It wasn't an absurd interpretation that sections C1 and C2 have to be read independently.
	And if C2 is independent and not in the same paragraph, what does it refer to then other than...
	Everything else that's not covered in C1.
	It's an absurd way of interpreting.
	Maybe I'm overly cynical, or maybe I know that I predict badly, so I'm predicting badly, hoping that I'm wrong again.
	But I don't think they're going to...
	I think it's going to be a bad ruling.
	That's what I think, personally.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, but I've been wrong, and maybe I'll be wrong again, and maybe that's why I hope so.
	I think they have to say it doesn't apply just due to the history of the obstruction jurisprudence.
	So the Supreme Court has almost always invalidated trying to extend obstruction laws, that historically they don't like it.
	And that long line of precedence is such that even if you have issues with Barrett, also, by the way, it's a place where there may be division within the left.
	So you may see Jackson join Alito.
	But then even Jackson, where she asked the question, I forget what it was, but basically they're like, well, what about, would this apply to peaceful protests?
	Well, no, it requires corrupt intent.
	But they admit it applied to peaceful protests.
	Peaceful protests could be, they could subject you to criminal prosecution.
	The facts he even asked that told me that, I mean, your old criminal defense oriented jurists don't like these laws in general.
	So, while I'm sure politically she has no problem with January 6th people being locked up, I think the way this obstruction statute is interpreted is something that traditionally judges with her background don't like extending.
	And then I think the other thing is not only the historical precedent of where the Supreme Court tends to rule on these cases, but the better argument.
	I think that's why Turley came away saying they're going to throw it out.
	Because who had the better policy arguments?
	Who had the better precedent arguments?
	And that was more from Alito.
	That Barrett was trying to come up with excuses and was trying to find ways out.
	And some of the others were trying to find ways out.
	But they weren't persuasive at all.
	They weren't rooted in precedent.
	They weren't sound policy.
	And when you're up there and you admit mere peaceful protest can be the grounds.
	To send you to prison for 20 years?
	If we don't like your intent, then you're telling the Supreme Court they have to step in.
	I hope you're right, but I swear to you, I didn't get that feeling.
	Where they said, well, it has to be corrupt intent and it has to be more than an incidental, more than an insignificant interference.
	That's every level of...
	That's the logical argument.
	Remember Gorsuch's comparisons.
	Gorsuch was saying, would this be one?
	Would this be one?
	And he was listening to a bunch of liberal democratic activities in the last three years.
	Jamal Bowman pulling the fire alarm.
	Was that Gorsuch or was that Alito?
	That was Gorsuch.
	Gorsuch was like, bam, bam, bam, bam.
	So the problem is if you have the intellectual heavyweights, Gorsuch, Alito, on this kind of issue, clearly are going to say it's invalid.
	They got precedent and good public rhetorical policy behind them.
	I don't see Barrett Trying to lead an effort against them.
	That's the way I'd put it.
	She might not like to rule in their favor, but she's the kind of weak intellectual.
	She's not very smart.
	That she, in an area, outside her area of expertise, I don't see her trying to fight them on this.
	If she had a liberal in her pocket that gave good arguments, good policy, good precedent, but she's not going to because even Jackson is going to be conflicted on this.
	It's more likely to vote with Gorsuch than she is.
	With Kagan.
	Let me bring it up because it's refreshing.
	Also, Sotomayor was even bothered by this, by some of the questions.
	I mean, that's...
	The problem is they don't...
	They need Breyer.
	Like, Breyer's an old neoliberal authoritarian of the left.
	They don't...
	Kagan does that a little bit, but not nearly the same degree as Breyer.
	They don't have anybody wanting to fight for these January 6th cases on the court.
	Where they asked, they said, whoever...
	This is what the statute says.
	Alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, a record document, or other yada yada yada.
	What's that first word?
	Alters?
	Otherwise.
	But then they get into otherwise.
	How does otherwise not reference the first part of the statute?
	But at one point, one of them asked, basically saying, like, if this, it's a separate provision, so clearly it's intended to be distinct, otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes.
	Well, what is that?
	If that only applied to documents, they would have put it in the same provision.
	That doesn't make sense.
	I mean, the way these laws are written, that's just the coding deciding to separate them out.
	That the laws are often written combined, where all the words are combined.
	I hope I'm wrong.
	But here's the other issue, the rule of lenity, right?
	In other words, if there's any doubt about the interpretation of the law, they have to rule in favor of the defendant.
	So clearly there's going to be doubt.
	If you have justices who don't agree, then how do you say someone who's on fair notice that this could apply?
	Also, the other thing is the long history here.
	The government has pretty much never won on trying to expand the obstruction statutes.
	They've lost about a dozen times.
	Even in cases where people thought, no way the Supreme Court's going to overturn.
	They did.
	Enron.
	No way they'll do that.
	In cases impacted by Enron.
	That's why I think...
	I didn't hear anything.
	I only heard parts of the argument.
	If the pro-January 6th side had a good argument...
	It would have been repeated over and over again in the legal press.
	The fact that I didn't hear any told me they didn't have a persuasive one.
	So that what people were unsettled by was that everybody wasn't on board with overthrowing this right away.
	But that reflects the current court.
	The only courts that are really committed, Jackson is conflicted because she doesn't like these kind of criminal laws, but she likes January 6th people being prosecuted.
	You have Gorsuch and Alito who are clear where they're coming from, and likely Thomas is on that side.
	But Roberts doesn't care about criminal defendants' rights.
	Barrett doesn't care about criminal defendants' rights.
	They're statists.
	They're institutionalists.
	Though I thought Kavanaugh asked something that sounded skeptical of the statute as well.
	Oh, no.
	Robert just started freezing again.
	Oh, no, you froze.
	Okay, sorry.
	You thought Kavanaugh?
	I thought Kavanaugh said something skeptical of the J6 cases.
	I have to refresh my memory.
	All that I'm going to say is I'm going to reaffirm my prediction and hope that I get to be made fun of for being wrong.
	I'm not optimistic of the ruling.
	So I'm just going to say that.
	Robert, before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I want to share the other thing that I got at this thrift shop.
	Okay, look.
	I think I've discovered something amazing.
	This was $80.
	It's a working pocket watch called...
	Elgin National Watch Company.
	And check this out in the back.
	I may have just...
	Look at that.
	It works.
	And I love this.
	I'm going to look this up.
	I looked it up and they're not worth $10,000, but I might have made a $20 net profit off this if I sell it, which I'm not.
	I'm going to use it as a pocket watch.
	So I don't think I can go thrifting ever again because I buy crap that I'm...
	Not crap!
	I just buy stuff.
	I don't...
	I love this.
	Elgin National Watch Company.
	Apparently, it's made in 1886 based on the serial number.
	So, phenomenal.
	We're going to take this party over to vivabornslaw.locals.com.
	For those who are not coming, Robert, what does your schedule hold for this upcoming week?
	Oh, busy, busy.
	So, I hope we will do some stuff, but, like, one case is actually scheduled for trial on Tuesday.
	It should get continued, but it might, you know, you never 100% know.
	So, I might have to travel and whatnot.
	So, we'll see how all that unfolds.
	Okay, excellent.
	Actually, let me just do one thing and we're going to get to the tip questions in locals in a second.
	It was here at this.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Robert, how do you think the Supreme Court will rule on January 6th?
	Okay, we got that.
	Hail to you gents for raising alarms and hail to Jordan B. Peterson for putting his career and personal life in jeopardy for being early, not the first, and effective in exposing authoritarian madness.
	And then we got to the rest.
	Great to see both of us.
	Okay, so we got that.
	Now what we're going to do...
	We're going over to vivavarnslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	It's going to be phenomenal.
	If you're not coming, enjoy the rest of the evening.
	If you are coming, locals right here.
	Before you leave, make sure you're subscribed and make sure you hit the thumbs up.
	Let me refresh here.
	We got 1,870 thumbs up, but we're at 21,000 people watching.
	So just hit the thing before you go and subscribe.
	And if you're so inclined, come over to the locals.
	One last time, and then I'm going to end this on...
	Rumble.
	And I'll be live maybe not tomorrow.
	We'll see.
	But definitely this week with some good guests.
	So stay tuned.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Party.
	On VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Robert, now what I'm going to do is I'm going to go here.
	People in Locals are already telling me it's a good watch.
	Get it lubed.
	But it's not going to make you...
	You're not going to be able to retire.

▲