Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 28, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:15

Ep. 208: Trump Trial; Immunity; Pennsylvania Farmers & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I apologize for this in advance, but everybody watching should prepare to get about two minutes dumber.
	I want to thank you for doing this today.
	I want to thank you for your compassion.
	You know, the reason I'm so excited to talk to you was because I wanted to understand the tragedy in your life and how you dealt with it.
	And you're the kind of leader I love because we're lucky to have you in the Oval Office and serving as the father of the country because if you're a good father to your family, which you are.
	I know you'd be a good father to the country, and I want to thank you for providing a calming influence.
	I'm going to pause it there for one second.
	I know I should let this play and then double-check that I'm live on all platforms.
	You're a good father, and I know that you're a good father.
	What did he say there?
	And you're the kind of leader I love because we're lucky to have you in the Oval Office and serving as the father of the country because if you're a good father to your family, which you are...
	If you're a good father to your family...
	Which you are.
	I'll throw in the conclusion there.
	Not that I could pretend to know what type of father Joe Biden is or has been.
	I know what his kid says about him.
	That she thinks she might have been molested by him when he took showers with her at an inappropriate age.
	I know what happened to Hunter Biden as a human.
	And I don't say, you know, the apple doesn't fall from the tree.
	But I would have questions as to what kind of father Joe Biden was.
	I've seen the videos of him sniffing children, and I have a question as to what type of father he is now.
	I'm going to let this play so you can all barf in your mouths, swallow the barf, barf it back up again, and then it makes you barf even more because you're swallowing your own barf.
	Disgusting.
	This is vomitous.
	I haven't listened to Adam Sandler, to frickin' Howard Stern since before the pandemic.
	We had that Ford Explorer, and it came with Siri.
	Holy cows!
	It's like one idiot.
	Old man interviewing a senile old man.
	I didn't watch the entire interview, and I'm not going to.
	Enjoy this.
	I know you'd be a good father to the country, and I want to thank you for providing a calming influence, an organized administration post-COVID, getting that vaccine out.
	I remember what the world was like at that point, getting NATO, getting us to feel comfortable, standing up to Putin, the incredible large growth in the jobs, unemployment rate down.
	I'll give you your greatest hits.
	The lowest uninsured rate in history.
	Four out of five Americans are covered for less than $10 a month.
	Knocking off a few ISIS leaders.
	Cutting the emissions in half.
	I mean, you've always been an environmentalist.
	Even the marijuana reform laws.
	Enough sitting there and fighting that battle.
	Respect for Marriage Act.
	What the hell is with people with this gay stuff?
	Who cares if someone's gay?
	A very few people, Howard.
	Did he just give Joe Biden credit?
	For the jab?
	I mean, this is like turning into a contentious point on both ends.
	You got one guy, Trump, who wants to take credit for Operation Warp Speed and the production of that garbage in, garbage out jibby jab.
	And then they're giving this schnook credit for the garbage in, garbage out jibby jab because they can't bring themselves to give it to the person who they should give it to if they think it was a success.
	Holy hell.
	I mean, it's like Trump derangement syndrome.
	Literally rots the brain.
	It rots it into a disgusting, moldy, brown avocado.
	His brain, it's not a little pink foldy thing anymore.
	It's a brown, shriveled, rotten avocado.
	Let's let this play.
	How is it affecting anybody?
	People in love, it's good, right?
	Love is good.
	My dad said we saw two men kissing one another in Rodney Square.
	First, I didn't understand a word he just said.
	I mean, look, I know you got to get your sentences started sometimes and the first sentence might be an um or a but or a so.
	I didn't understand a word he just said.
	I was going to get a license.
	I looked at him.
	He said, Joey, it's simple.
	They love each other.
	That's how I look at it.
	You know who deserves credit?
	This is like someone slowed it down.
	Let me rephrase.
	This is like two drunk idiots and you recorded the conversation and then you slowed it down to.75 to make it even more preposterous.
	Howard stirred how the mighty have fallen.
	Holy hell.
	You thought COVID got to him.
	And now you know what he's trying to do right now because he credits himself or blames himself for having gotten Trump elected.
	Am I wrong on this?
	No, I think he faults himself for having gotten Trump elected because he did a podcast with Trump.
	And everyone said, well, he looked very personable and some people credited...
	I'm going to double check that while I let this play.
	And now he's trying to do the same thing with Biden.
	American people are stepping up.
	Who are they going for?
	They just never give up.
	We're the most unique country in the world.
	We really are.
	We are, but I don't want to lose it.
	We're not going to lose it, God willing.
	Thank you for doing this.
	Thanks for having me.
	Mr. President, look at me sitting with the president.
	Look at me sitting with Howard Stern.
	Wow, I mean, you can tell people this is the most important event in your lifetime.
	I'll tell them that.
	By the way, Biden posted that as a win.
	An unhinged, demented, TDS-afflicted COVID fool.
	Howard Stern, and then two minutes of incomprehensible jibber-jabber from Biden.
	Trat, please tell me that I'm not going crazy.
	Howard Stern interviewed Donald Trump, and it was people...
	I feel like I might be misremembering something there.
	Did I say Alex Stern?
	I mean, Alex Stein?
	Howard Stern, not Alex Stern.
	But I need to go and make sure.
	We're live across the interwebs, people.
	I'm just going to go to locals.
	Locals, didn't Howard interview Trump?
	And I'm going to see this here.
	Oh, it's so wild.
	And you're like, oh, everything about it is wrong.
	There's another one.
	No, it's not from the Howard Stern interview.
	This is from the...
	Whatever they call it, the correspondence dinner?
	It's...
	Beyond what is otherwise...
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	I did have a second highlight from this one.
	Listen to this.
	This is Howard Stern.
	This goes to show you the strength of his reasoning, his mental acuity, his political IQ.
	Listen to this.
	He's got the solution, people.
	Can I tell you what fantasy I had?
	I don't know if you're going to debate your opponent.
	Can't say his name?
	Can't say his name, Howard?
	This is how I would handle it.
	Tell me if I'm nuts.
	You're not nuts.
	You're stupid.
	Tell me if this is accurate.
	Let's see.
	I would stand there on stage with Trump and I would repeat over and over again, excuse me, please find me 11,000 votes so that I can win the election.
	I would just repeat that over and over again.
	And then I'd say to the audience, what are we debating?
	A man picked up the phone and wanted to say, fake the election, give me 11,000.
	Look at this face right here.
	You tell me this guy knows what the hell's going on?
	This is elder abuse.
	This is dementia abuse.
	And he's taking advice from the biggest jackass on the radio now?
	Holy cows!
	What makes me feel sick is that I remember when Howard Stern came to Quebec and he said it was in 1996 or 1997.
	I remember I was on my way to Sejaf at the time.
	And he used to be a champion for free speech.
	He used to be over-the-top edgy.
	And then he became the machine.
	And look at him interviewing this walking...
	This walking man who can barely string a sentence together.
	I don't know how any American who loves this country...
	That's the end of the debate.
	You don't get to run if you're going to fix an election.
	You don't get to run if you're going to fix an election.
	They were storming the Capitol.
	And a police officer died.
	A police officer died.
	Brian Sicknick, who they said was murdered by a mob of pro-Trump supporters, smashed in the head with a fire extinguisher, apparently had a stroke and died from what even the D.C. coroner medical expert determined was natural causes.
	I have my questions as to what might have contributed to his stroke, but set that aside.
	Liars!
	Just idiot liars!
	Say nothing.
	He was sitting in that office off the Oval Office for three hours and said nothing.
	I was supposed to make a speech on the economy that day.
	Instead, I made a speech from Delaware.
	I was in Delaware on that issue because I was elected president, but I wasn't sworn in yet.
	It was derelict.
	It was almost criminal.
	He said nothing.
	He just sat there and watched what was happening.
	Yeah, no, he didn't say patriotically, peacefully.
	He didn't put up two videos, said, oh no, that was two hours into it.
	Liars!
	And I don't know who listens to Howard Stern anymore.
	I think that might be the saving grace.
	I think maybe our Sunday show gets more viewers than Howard Stern.
	And I'm not saying that because we're a massive show.
	I don't know who watches Howard Stern anymore.
	He once was the biggest draw for Siri.
	If he is now, holy crap apples, a lot of people are getting lied to in real time.
	And now he wants to call, he calls them patriots and victims.
	I mean, it says he's going to pardon them all.
	They are victims.
	Many of them are patriots.
	And they all should be pardoned.
	And I would, once upon a time, said even the violent ones, even the ones who committed bona fide acts of violence, at this point, should be pardoned.
	Because the punishment undoubtedly did not fit their crimes.
	Holy crabapples.
	Howard Stern has jumped the shark, without a doubt.
	Good evening, everybody.
	Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
	This is our Sunday show with Robert Barnes.
	We are live across the interwebs, as we should be.
	We are on Rumble.
	We are at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Where Suez Canal says, I can't take this muting it until this part is over.
	My apologies.
	And then there's a picture of Joe Biden sniffing a little girl who doesn't seem very happy about it.
	Rogan is greater than Stern, says Dickton.
	1000%.
	Spewing lies about January 6th.
	Lies!
	They were violent animals.
	A police officer died.
	Yeah, a police officer died.
	When you get a lot of people together, people sometimes die from natural causes after you lied about what they died from.
	You know who didn't die from natural causes?
	Ashley Babbitt.
	You know who didn't die from natural causes?
	Roseanne Boyland.
	Didn't die from natural causes.
	They died from one got summarily executed by a police officer, shot point blank.
	And then they claimed he's the hero.
	And the other one allegedly got beaten and stompled, stomped, stomped, trampled to death.
	And they tried to pass her death off as a methamphetamine overdose, not being able to distinguish between amphetamine, methamphetamine.
	And then there's a prescription drug that she was on because there was an article that came out in the Epoch Times that said, yeah, she was on...
	One of those ADHD medications, and it has something that ends in amphetamine.
	It's not a methamphetamine, but they can easily be confused, to pass her death off at the hands of police officers as a drug overdose, medical emergency.
	Oh, and people believe these lies.
	I'm not going to rail on someone any harder than I did today on Twitter.
	I think lessons have been learned.
	I am, however, going to put on blast the degree to which we have been lied to.
	Hold on.
	I wanted to start with this, but it's a silent video.
	And so it wouldn't have made much sense if I didn't explain what was going on.
	This is, from what I understand, relatively newly released footage.
	I know that I've never seen it.
	As relates to January 6th.
	Remember that insurrection?
	The insurrection where they stayed within the velvet rope in most places.
	There was some violence there, but there's a big difference between a protest turned a little violent, less violence than some hockey riots that I've been to.
	There's a difference between a protest that gets violent and an insurrection.
	I'll show you what an insurrection does not look like.
	And for those who are listening on podcast format tomorrow at, what is it?
	Viva Barnes Law for the People on Podbean.
	It's all at Viva Fry, Viva Barnes Law.
	I'll tell you what we're looking at right now.
	Here's a screen grab that says lectern theft suspect faces charges.
	And we're watching a video.
	Of the alleged lectern theft.
	Now, if you're watching the video, look in the back.
	There's a guy walking in carrying a lectern.
	Turns around with a lectern.
	Puts it down on the ground.
	I guess maybe it was a little...
	Oh, no.
	He's taking pictures now.
	People are taking pictures of him as he carries a lectern from the entrance of the rotunda.
	I think that's what this is.
	And he walks into the center of the rotunda.
	Now he's talking to somebody.
	That's the lectern guy, by the way.
	That's Adam Johnson right there.
	This is the theft.
	And he places the lectern.
	Directly...
	Ooh, he might have overshot the Santa a little bit.
	That annoys my OCD.
	But he places the lectern in the middle of the rotunda.
	Poses for a photograph.
	American flag's behind him.
	This is an insurrection, by the way.
	There's a guy carrying a Trump flag, staying within the velvet rope.
	Nobody's throwing anything at the paintings.
	Nobody's desecrating, defecating, denigrating.
	Nobody's doing anything.
	Oh!
	Lectern guy takes a picture.
	Turns around.
	Does something with his phone.
	Takes some more pictures.
	Talks to a dude.
	People are walking through with flags on weapons, as some people would say, because as I discovered in my interview with Jason Palmer, some people are under the impression that when they refer to weapons, and I'm putting it in quotes, on January 6th, they were including flagpoles.
	There was a pocket knife that was found there in a medical emergency kit.
	They were including as the weapons to commit insurrection.
	And these are all in quotes, people listening.
	Pepper spray.
	Whoever had a baseball bat, who was it?
	It was Jake Lang who, you know, a baseball bat appeared.
	But yeah, the baseball bat, that's an insurrectionary weapon right there.
	Then we have the guy, Adam Johnson, lectern guy, takes a few pictures and he's walking off and he leaves the lectern in the middle of the rotunda.
	That's it, people.
	And then there's some people who don't believe that he was charged with theft.
	That has been swiftly righted.
	It was in the charging documents.
	Theft of government property.
	There were people who believed he was violent.
	And then, by the way, this is the rest of the instruction.
	I just fast-forwarded it all the way so we can see a bunch of ants running around.
	Oh, they may have knocked over the velvet rope, and then there was a little smoke, which I presume was from when the cops got in.
	But yeah, there are people who believe that Adam Johnson got violent.
	And they could see the evidence and still not come to a different conclusion.
	And by the way, that evidence wasn't publicly available at the time.
	When they were telling us that this guy stole a lectern, they who charged him knew what they had in their hands.
	They knew that they had rotunda CCTV footage.
	They knew it was a lie.
	Overcharge, coerce, extort a plea on lesser charges, and then you could say, we got him.
	He admitted to it.
	He's guilty of theft because he took a lectern and moved it 20 feet and then did a funny little posey pose of a speech in the middle of the rotunda.
	Oh, lordy.
	He was saying from day one that he moved it just a few feet.
	I believe it was 20 feet.
	I believe the statute might say that there's a certain distance after which it becomes theft.
	20, 30 feet, whatever it is, or maybe 10, 15 meters.
	They had that footage.
	They had that evidence.
	They still overcharged him.
	They still put him in solitary for, I think it was 70 some odd days.
	He was in jail with a substantial amount in solitary.
	They still ran with the lie.
	The media says he stole, stole elected.
	And then people still refuse to believe that they were lied to.
	They have false memory syndrome.
	And they don't want to admit that they were gullible enough to have been duped by the lies of mainstream media, of the government that's there to protect them.
	And then you got Howard Stern out there repeating the bullshit lie that a police officer died, suggesting it was a result of what happened on January 6th.
	And you get Joe Biden calling them insurrectionists, suggesting that Trump did nothing.
	They deplatformed him.
	They took down those two videos on Twitter that he put up, telling them to go home.
	We are the party of law and order.
	He said it in his speech beforehand, and then you have a bunch of agitators, arguably feds, and not so arguably feds, the re-epsis of the world, directing people into the Capitol.
	That's where our problems lie.
	Oh my goodness gracious.
	God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
	I don't feel any better.
	I don't expect anybody else to feel any better.
	But you might feel better if you haven't been feeling too good.
	If our sponsor of The Evening People, the good folks at The Wellness Company, hold on, I'm going to share the screen so we can see it.
	And you all know The Wellness Company.
	They have the contagion kit, I think they call it.
	You know, the emergency kit.
	The thing that you need to have when the poo-poo hits the fan and the government that you think is there to take care of you starts locking you down and giving you all the worst advice on earth.
	Can you believe?
	That back in the day, they said, go get this jibby jab, and you get a free burger.
	There's a lottery for it.
	If you go get it, you run the chance of winning a million dollars.
	Oddly enough, your chances might have been greater of winning another lottery.
	Did you get vaccinated?
	I'm not even calling it.
	Did you get the jab?
	Either because you were coerced to keep your job, or you thought you were doing the right thing, or you had, you know, nagging people.
	Who were also misled and duped, saying, do it, what's the big deal?
	Or you were perhaps naive and ignorant like me, and you said, what's the worst that can happen?
	Now you know.
	Are you nervous about the many health problems that have now been documented, despite the online Twitter army of people telling you safe and effective, even though they've stopped taking it, and even though two of the five of them suffered one of those small myocarditis thingies?
	If you're worried, you're not alone.
	Fortunately, there's help.
	Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Chief Medical Board of the Wellness Company, have formulated an unmatched supplement that may help with all of these issues.
	You guys heard me talk about it.
	The Wellness Company is the emergency kit.
	It's got the stuff that you might not be able to get during a time of crisis.
	They also have something called the Spike Support Formula.
	You'll hear smarter people than me.
	Say that it's the gold standard in combating spike protein.
	The toxic substance found at the root of almost all the problems related to the jibby jab.
	The wellness company doctors hear from people like you every day saying they've never felt the same since getting the certain unnamed medical procedure.
	So what can you do to get back to feeling like you used to?
	The wellness company's spike support formula.
	You've got daily support, daily supplement to help you get back to feeling your best.
	Reclaim your health.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	Promo code VIVA, 10% off, and you get free shipping.
	And they are the good folks doing the good work.
	Standard disclaimers, actually, which I didn't say.
	No medical advice.
	No election fornification advice.
	No legal advice.
	These things here, these wonderful things that you call super chats and rumble called Rumble Rants.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't want to support tyranny, if you want to support the channel and have it be maximum value added to myself and Robert, Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 0%.
	So that's a more effective way of doing it.
	Support a free speech platform, and more goes to the creator.
	For the rest of the year, 100% goes to the creator.
	You want to support us?
	Really?
	The most effective way is go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	$10 a month, $100 a year if you buy the entire year, a ton of exclusive stuff for supporters, a ton of open stuff for all members.
	It's a wonderful, above-average community.
	Now, also, by the way, I almost forgot to make the big announcement.
	I will be going back behind the Iron Rainbow on May 10th for a free speech protest rally event that's being held by Rumble.
	I'll bring up the thing when Barnes comes in, but we're going to have an event in Toronto where we're going to be sounding the alarm, raising the red flag as to the global encroachments on freedom of speech.
	On this panel, if you want to call it that, it's not a panel, I'm doing my live stream.
	From Toronto, where we will be vehemently protesting the benefits of our God-given right of free speech.
	Kimberly Guilfoyle, Don Jr., me, Ezra Levant, David Menzies.
	I don't want to forget her name.
	I want to feel bad if I forget it.
	I better pull up the thing because I forgot a couple of other people.
	It's going to be amazing, so stay tuned for that.
	Now, while I pull that up, I'm going to bring up Barnes because I see him in the backdrop.
	Oh, have we got so much to talk about tonight.
	Barnes, bringing you in.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Sound okay?
	Sounds good.
	I'm going to go double check while I do two things.
	But as you do that, Robert, and as I check, Titanic or Olympic, do I ask what the book is about?
	Are we going down like that Titanic or are we succeeding like Mount Olympic?
	I don't know what that is, but let me see what the audio is going on.
	Go for it, Robert.
	It's it.
	The book is a gift, a birthday gift from one of our board members that came out to the Vegas 50th birthday bash fundraiser for 1776 Law Center.
	I haven't had a chance to read it yet, so I don't know.
	Maybe it's a hush-hush style book.
	Not sure yet.
	See, it was a very nice, one of the many generous gifts, and so I look forward to taking it in.
	Robert here, I'm going to bring this up just so that I can make sure that I missed people here.
	This is from the Rebel News.
	Okay, so you got Don Jr.
	Ezra Levant, Sheila Gunn-Reed, David Menzies, Chris Pawlowski, CEO of Rumble, the Kimberly Guilfoyle, that's me back there, and Glenn Greenwald.
	So it's going to be amazing, and from what I understand, we're all basically doing our shows live from Toronto, behind the Iron Curtain.
	Robert, it's been one hell of a week.
	You're telling me!
	I listened to your Bourbon with Bars last night while I'm jogging, and it made my exercise twice as hard.
	I mean, look, I guess...
	Tell us what's on the menu.
	We'll start on the top one here before we go over to Rumble.
	But what's on the menu for this week?
	We got the trial in Pennsylvania that I just actually did at last minute notice.
	But it's about bigger issues than just that particular trial.
	It goes to the right to open access to courtrooms, courtrooms attempting to criminalize, recording open court proceedings in order to, quite frankly, cover up corruption in the legal system.
	We got farmers in prison in Pennsylvania, a couple of workers who work with the farmers, and they have a hearing now scheduled for Monday afternoon.
	We'll be getting into what the latest is on that case.
	The Supreme Court, Trump immunity was argued this week, the homeless issue, and whether or not you can be put in prison for involuntary behavior, and the federal preemption over state abortion law.
	Was all the oral arguments this week before the Supreme Court.
	We got President Trump was in trial in New York and his bail issue went before the court and GoodLogic continues to fight Joe Nierman to end the unconstitutional Trump gag order.
	Let me stop you there so that people don't confound a dangling modifier.
	GoodLogic is Joe Nierman.
	He's not.
	GoodLogic continues to fight.
	That's Joe Nierman.
	Okay, sorry.
	Just being clear.
	Exactly.
	GoodLogic like L-A-W-G-I-C.
	Very New York pronunciation of the word law.
	Harvey Weinstein has his case reversed, his conviction reversed by the New York appellate courts.
	The folks involved in the Back Pages case have a bunch of judicial acquittals issued.
	In that case, Arizona is busy...
	Following up on Georgia and Michigan and indicting people for contesting elections.
	We have Hunter Biden claims immunity, and he might be right.
	And we have pure butter ain't really butter.
	And, of course, the case that I'll be attending to this week, Wednesday, in Beaumont, Texas, in federal district court.
	Brooke Jackson against Pfizer goes to oral argument on the government's motion to dismiss on the issue that apparently President Trump thinks is a big winner for him.
	He thinks that him championing the COVID vaccine is going to be the big issue that gets him to win over Robert Kennedy.
	According to his campaign manager, it should be his number one issue.
	He's busy talking about it now repeatedly.
	We'll discuss whether or not that's the soundest legal and political strategy you've ever heard.
	In a very informal poll that I'm conducting on Twitter, it's only got 10,000 votes or 9,600.
	Do you think Trump is right for continuing to tout his perceived success of the COVID jab?
	73.8% say no.
	So I'm going to share that with everybody so they can go let us know what they think.
	Holy hell, Robert.
	No, let me do...
	Three things first.
	I just want to read these three because I brought them up.
	With all the lawfare going on, insane college protesters and tornadoes, I need a serenity prayer more than ever.
	Cheryl, we got it, but I'm not sure that it was the way we wanted it.
	No, Biden said Alex Stern, LOL, and they put it out.
	I'm convinced Biden wins, that Twitter handle is trying to make Biden look terrible, not good.
	And the psychological desperation needed to ham up January 6th as an insurrection is only possible because of a repressed knowledge of summer 2020.
	How many hundreds of people got murdered during the summer of love?
	That's a good point, by the way, Ian Mingster.
	Robert, what I was going to say was this.
	It wasn't on the menu, and I don't know if it's going to bump the whatever was going to be our first one.
	If Kristi Noem was intended to be a sabotage on Trump...
	What would she be doing differently?
	All prefaces.
	Apparently, she's taking the same kind of advice that Trump has currently taken from his campaign manager, longtime corporate lobbyist, Pfizer ties, Susie Wiley.
	Think of her as Wiley Coyote.
	No, hold on.
	I think it was Susan Wiles, not Wiley, right?
	Which one?
	It was one of the others.
	Whichever one it is.
	But she's basically running the campaign now.
	And she's a long-time corporate lobbyist going way back.
	Pfizer ties, big food ties, big defense industry ties.
	Basically, the swamp is running President Trump's current presidential campaign.
	And she's been the one promoting Tim Scott.
	For example, her lobbying company has tight ties to Boeing.
	They got a lot of money from Boeing over the years, as it does Tim Scott, as did Nikki Haley.
	But ideas like Kristi Noem are the ones being floated by a range of those kind of people, and it's as politically daft as some of the other advice that's circling President Trump at the moment.
	I'm not partaking in that nonsense of post a picture of your dog if you haven't shot it.
	Growing up, we had a bull mastiff.
	We got him from a farm.
	We know that the farmer, when the dad of our dog got too old, he was a 240-pound dog, he took him over to a hole and he shot him and put him in the hole because the dog was too big and too heavy to move.
	I wouldn't do it like that, and I won't judge a farmer who does it like that.
	That being said, I doubt that that person would have taken to Twitter or written in a book as a mark of character.
	We also had a dog.
	Most people don't go around bragging.
	When farmers or others have to put a dog down, it's not something they go around and brag about in a book.
	And brag about it on social media.
	But she's that politically dense.
	And everybody knows we had a bullmastiff who attacked, viciously attacked two people.
	And it was after my parents got sued.
	He attacked a second kid.
	Then he attacked a neighbor.
	And we were like, we had to put the dog down.
	We didn't shoot him.
	We all sobbed like babies, brought him over to the vet, and splurged the $100 to do it in a non-violent...
	Peaceful manner.
	I can appreciate not everybody has maybe the financial luxury of doing that.
	But again, you don't brag about having shot a 14-month-old dog.
	It's not a puppy and it's old enough.
	You'll know if it has a problem, but you can try to find a new home.
	I always said that that dog that attacked people, he would have been the best dog fight dog.
	Dog fight dog.
	Or he would have been like a great cartel dog.
	Because the dog got turned on by the sound of like crying and predatorial noises.
	He was...
	Something was wrong with him, but it's a traumatizing event.
	They're all wolves in disguise, right?
	That's what the dogs are, and the cats are secretly tigers in disguise.
	Yeah, but you know what the thing is?
	Even a wolf would stop when it hears a kid crying.
	That dog that we had was a liability, and but for the grace of God, nothing terrible.
	I can imagine.
	It's devastating.
	You have to at some point, and sometimes it's not economically affordable, but it's politically daft to be going around and bragging about it.
	I mean, it's just, it shows the disconnect.
	I mean, she was never a good VP choice.
	We did a poll this weekend at vivabarneslaw.locals.com of who the board members liked, and I think their opinions represent a large part of the populist base of Trump's voter base.
	And their three favorites are J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and Ben Carson.
	And right now, J.D. Vance is in the lead.
	We interviewed J.D. He would brag about his grandma owning a big gun, but not because they went and killed some little dog.
	That's the difference between politically clued in and politically clueless.
	Tim Scott would be a horrendous choice.
	Kristi Noem would have been a terrible choice, but I assume her candidacy is DOA at this point.
	But you never know.
	Apparently Trump is talking to DeSantis as well.
	We'll see if that's anything anywhere.
	But what Trump should take is the populist direction.
	Now, of course, people like J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard and Ben Carson would tell him not to run on the vaccine, to in fact run on the Brooke Jackson case about how Pfizer lied to him and lied to the administration and lied to the American people and caused a lot of deaths.
	Right now, unfortunately, Trump is going in the other direction at the moment.
	And it's not like, look, I put out a tweet yesterday.
	Someone's got to grab him by the shoulders and shake him or, metaphorically speaking, slap some sense into him.
	It's so stupid.
	He thinks he's going to get in the good graces of the Howard Stearns, who, if they think the jab was good, is still going to give credit to Joe Biden, even though he had nothing to do with that awful Operation Warp Speed.
	It's so stupid and it's so terrible.
	I don't know.
	It's like someone's sabotaging him.
	Yeah, well, his campaign manager really believes in it.
	I mean, his campaign manager was trying to shame and guilt people for not taking the vaccine and was blaming any COVID increase on people not being vaccinated.
	That's who she is.
	I mean, she's bragging in Politico about how she's running his campaign.
	That, you know, anybody in Trump's world could say, you know, Trump, turns out you didn't beat DeSantis.
	She did.
	Politico told me.
	Just let him know now and then.
	But he's chosen the swamp to run his campaign.
	She was the one that said he should stand by Mike Johnson when he's betraying the Republican base.
	She's the one who convinced him that he should, instead of continuing to oppose Ukrainian aid, recharacterize it as a loan and support it.
	I mean, these are horrendous decisions.
	And it reminds me so much of this exact time frame in 2020.
	March, April, May 2020.
	And, you know, we and a few of us were the only ones out there saying, don't get involved in the lockdown.
	Don't listen to Fauci.
	Don't listen to Birx.
	Don't shut down the economy.
	And I had a bunch of Trump supporters tell me, Barnes, you don't understand.
	This is 4D chess.
	This is going to be super genius.
	Everybody's going to celebrate him for it.
	He's going to get a bunch of votes for saving lives.
	I was like, no.
	He'll get all the criticism for anything that goes wrong, and he'll get none of the credit.
	And all they did was sink the economy and open up mass mail-in voting.
	And now he's considering repeating the exact same mistakes all over again.
	Robert, if you saw me make a face like, it's because I just pulled up the Politico article to see what her name was.
	It is Wiles.
	Did they put that picture up there thinking that...
	Are they trying to insult her, or did they think that makes her look like...
	Dark random woman version.
	The goal of this is a message to everybody in Trump world that she runs the campaign and that she gatekeeps for Trump.
	Tom Renz has been talking about this with Alex Jones.
	Other people have known this for a while.
	It's just when you see a piece like this, this is a way of broadcasting to the world.
	I run the show now.
	And because Trump generally doesn't like it when people...
	Make these kind of claims.
	So for her to make this kind of claim means that's the degree of control she has.
	And this has been ongoing.
	If you are at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com I've been talking about it now for over a month.
	Really for months.
	That there's been behind the scenes struggle concerning which direction Trump would take.
	And Wiles has been pushing him to go the establishment route.
	Try to make amends with different aspects of the deep state apparatus, with corporate America, with big donors, and highlighting that he should run on how great it was that he did the vaccine.
	And there are others telling him this is a bad idea, that the vaccine did not turn out good, that you shouldn't take the blame for what happened with the vaccine given that Pfizer lied and betrayed and violated their contracts.
	She's won out for the time being.
	And it's showing up in the VP choice as well.
	She's the one pushing Tim Scott, for example.
	She's the one pushing out any kind of populist alternative.
	And we'll see when the VP choice actually made how much control she completely has.
	But it's also not a coincidence you suddenly saw Newsweek write a piece that said, why isn't Trump taking credit for his greatest ever achievement, the COVID vaccine?
	With these bogus quotes from these people saying, oh, the moderate voter.
	Really love it if Trump came out and celebrated the vaccine.
	That's planted by her and her people because she knows how Trump digests media.
	And he's like, oh, see, independent confirmation.
	I should be running on Operation Warp Speed.
	I should be running on the COVID vaccine.
	And that's why he's highlighting that issue and contrasting himself with Robert Kennedy.
	Saying, you know, look at the difference between me and Kennedy on vaccines.
	Look at the difference between me and Kennedy on the vaccine issue.
	I mean, you don't talk about house.
	You don't talk about rope in a house where there's been a hanging.
	It's an old cracker phrase, southern phrase.
	And Trump, talking about the vaccine as it relates to RFK, helps RFK, doesn't help Trump.
	But he really believes it helps him.
	He believes it's a key winning issue.
	And he's planning on promoting it even more.
	It's a funny thing.
	You say that that expression is an old Southern expression.
	There's literally...
	I mean, it's cross-culture.
	There's an old Yiddish one.
	It says, in the house of a hung man, don't ask where you hang the fish.
	Okay.
	I just...
	Now I've drawn the connection and I don't think I'm...
	Robert, you'll tell...
	Am I crazy?
	I'm telling you, this is...
	They're telling you that they are in control of Trump's campaign because the similarity here...
	Is not accidental.
	That is time versus political.
	Telling you who the most feared, least known political operative in America is.
	Well, she's in control of Trump's camp and by the sounds of it, making him say stupid things that can possibly cost him the presidency if he keeps it up because nobody likes that stupid jab and to keep touting it as a success and not just Operation Warp Speed to play devil's advocate or to steal men.
	It's not just Operation Warp Speed.
	He thinks that that was a success.
	A great success.
	His greatest achievement.
	And when people in his family, people in his political camp have told him that's not the case, told him to look at the Brooke Jackson case, he's refused.
	In fact, he gets angry at them.
	And I know that Trump people don't want me to talk about this.
	There are people in Trump's camp who want you to know that Trump is Jesus.
	He's perfect, and he's never made any mistakes.
	And if you ever say he has, you're evil and you're a traitor and you're Judas.
	How did that help Trump when those kind of people were telling him to lock down the country in March and April and May of 2020?
	Did that help Trump?
	It didn't help the country.
	Did it help Trump?
	Or did it guarantee his risk of losing?
	Without that, he doesn't lose.
	There's no chance he loses.
	But there's some people who think they helped Trump by letting him jump off a cliff.
	I don't think that's a smart tactical strategy.
	They say Barnes is a secret source for Robert Kennedy.
	I like Robert Kennedy.
	I make no bones about it.
	He's a great human being.
	But if I wanted to help Robert Kennedy, I'd be saying, hey, Trump, keep making the vaccine your big issue.
	Keep comparing yourself to Robert Kennedy on the vaccine.
	Keep comparing yourself to Robert Kennedy on the lockdown.
	In fact, don't debate him on the vaccines in the lockdown.
	That's going to be a big winner for you, Trump.
	That's what somebody who wants to sabotage Trump would be saying.
	Okay, we're going to get back to Trump.
	Or do we start with Trump and get to Pennsylvania?
	I kind of want to do the Pennsylvania one while we're on Rumble and then we'll end on, while we're on YouTube.
	Then we end on YouTube and we'll do the Trump on the other one.
	Oh yeah, we got insanity everywhere this past week.
	You got two insane trials coming out of Pennsylvania, right?
	The woman who recorded the court proceedings.
	We were three.
	I mean, now three.
	So you got Amos Miller.
	You got the two farmers, Rusty Hair and Ethan.
	Wentworth.
	Wentworth.
	And then this woman who is now, I don't know if she got convicted, but she was standing trial for having recorded a court proceeding in her divorce.
	Let's start with the really, well, I think what is really, really crazy.
	Ethan Wentworth and Rusty Hair 2. They're not farmers.
	They are technicians operating a company called Noble Solutions, LLC, that offers ultrasound services to cows and or pregnant cows to see if they're pregnant.
	And otherwise, they just help make sure that your animal breeding is working.
	Now, they were hauled off two and a half weeks ago, literally picked up by...
	I don't know, Cook County Sheriff or whichever sheriff.
	It was Lancaster County and York County Sheriff.
	Lancaster and York County Sheriff.
	Hauled off to prison.
	Literally to prison.
	And on the basis of some warrant, I'll pull it up just so people can see how patently absurd it is, that was issued by the Bureau of Professional...
	What was it?
	What's the BPOA?
	I keep forgetting.
	Well, Pennsylvania has its own state department because it's that kind of state.
	You know, they have to have their own department of state.
	and underneath it is the bureau that, uh, lights that controls licensing for occupations.
	And underneath it is the vet, uh, the veterinary, uh, veterinary medicine board.
	And that was, These two guys have never been charged with a crime, never been prosecuted for criminal behavior, nothing like that, and yet they're in prison.
	In fact, they were not even named parties in the case, and yet that's how we're here.
	That's the insanity of it.
	And so they were hauled off for 30 days for alleged contempt, uncured contempt, because they allegedly didn't pay a fine in a prior 2021, whatever professional investigation it was, for allegedly practicing veterinary medicine without a license by providing ultrasound services.
	I'll play devil's advocate and steel man, Robert.
	I looked up videos of cow ultrasounds.
	It wasn't what I thought it was going to be.
	It wasn't on the belly like with a human.
	They're sticking their arm up a cow's vajayjay.
	With the sonar thing.
	I don't know if there's other ways to do it, but the ones I saw, I didn't even include in the video because I think people would say it's gross.
	But they're going up the butt with an arm and a prod.
	It's for identifying if they're pregnant.
	It's an ultrasound machine.
	They are, from what I understand, there's vets that don't even know how to use the machines because it requires a technician capability, not a veterinary license.
	But that's the allegation.
	They get hauled off because of this warrant that says, bring me the person, imprison them for 30 days for contempt.
	And you haven't been able to get in front of a judge yet.
	That's not an accusatory you.
	You get involved in the file because one of the wives calls you.
	I presume it's from the Amish connection, but I don't really know.
	It doesn't really matter.
	You're getting in front of the judge tomorrow afternoon.
	Are you going to Pennsylvania for tomorrow afternoon?
	It's by Zoom.
	So the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania took expeditious action upon our filing.
	It took forever to find out where and what the file was because the file was in secret.
	The file was sealed by the government.
	And so that's why I was like, how are they even in prison?
	Nobody understood this.
	Nobody understood how, why, what.
	And finally, we were able to figure out that there was a secret case.
	The Commonwealth Court is a specialized court that handles civil claims concerning the government.
	They do not have criminal jurisdiction.
	They do not do criminal cases.
	So it's like, how in the world are people being arrested and imprisoned from the Commonwealth Court?
	And it appears the state misled the court.
	into believing this was some form of civil contempt.
	In fact, they're still lying about that to the court.
	They're pretending there's a civil contempt order.
	Well, there's two problems with that.
	First is the plain language of the order.
	Civil contempt, the way it's described is it's called coercive or contingent contempt.
	And what it does is it allows you to have the keys to your own jail cell is the language.
	Now, when it's a corporate entity, Jailing imprisonment is not an option anyway.
	That you issue fines, but you say the fine will not be owed if you produce or do X activity.
	And X activity, whatever it is, has to be within your volitional control.
	What they did was they got an order of commitment, like you would get from a criminal case that sentences someone to imprisonment for a period of time with no contingencies whatsoever.
	That, by law, Is criminal contempt.
	When contempt becomes punitive, then it is no longer civil contempt.
	No longer within the jurisdiction of courts who only have civil authority.
	That's criminal contempt, and it has to go through all the same due process rights and substantive limitations as any other criminal prosecution does.
	And none of it happened here.
	And Pennsylvania is clear about all the preconditions.
	It gives you your right to...
	Trial, your right to counsel, your right to notice, your right to a hearing, your right to bail, all of which was denied them.
	And the way it happened was because the state tricked the judge into thinking they were signing something different than they were actually signing.
	And so the, the, it shows you how corrupt the state regulatory officials are and how, unfortunately, the courts have been too deferential to them too often in Pennsylvania, rather than carefully scrutinizing what they're up to.
	And so the, the specialization.
	We filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which has original jurisdiction over habeas petitions under the Constitution of the state.
	And that is, I call it an emergency, but that is a show-me-the-body when you believe someone is being unlawfully held and it should be dealt with on an expedited, quasi-urgent basis.
	And then what we did is we filed a motion for immediate release with the Commonwealth Court, and all we did is attach the petition for writ of habeas corpus that was being filed at the same time concurrently with the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania.
	The Commonwealth Court, as soon as they got it, issued an order demanding that the state respond on Friday.
	And the state's excuse was to continue to lie.
	This is just continuous civil contempt.
	Complete lie.
	Just lying to a court.
	Even still, Robert, it was for an alleged $3,000 fine that wasn't paid?
	Well, no, that's not it.
	Apparently, it's still unclear what the continuous contempt is for.
	It appears to be a subpoena for documents where other people would have constitutional rights involved.
	That have never even been fully litigated or properly addressed or adjudicated.
	That's what the contempt is supposedly for.
	But again, if it's civil contempt, what has to happen is it says you will go to jail or A, B, or C. Now, there's problems with doing any kind of jail term.
	The normal is you say you owe $100 unless you produce this document and information.
	But that is not what this is.
	I mean, this is criminal contempt, pure and simple.
	They didn't follow the process.
	It didn't meet the substantive standards.
	The court doesn't have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
	They have to be immediately released by law, period.
	This was an illegal imprisonment.
	End of story.
	And the state officials were involved in federal civil rights violations of these two individuals, and they have seen horrific things when they've been inside.
	And they've had over a week to take remedial action, and instead they decided to keep lying to keep these people illegally imprisoned.
	And it's because the state agencies are captured and controlled by a corrupt group of veterinarian doctors.
	There's a corrupt group of veterinarian doctors who are using, and I say corrupt groups, it's not all of them, because I have heard from vets in Pennsylvania that say this is not supposed to be happening.
	This shouldn't be happening.
	What is it?
	You've got this corrupt group of vets who are weaponizing their access through licensure of the state.
	To go after their economic competitors, even when their economic competitors are not doing activity that's even subject to the license.
	Because they want to monopolize certain aspects of economic activity in Pennsylvania, using the licensure as their ticket to do so.
	Problem is, the legislature didn't agree with them.
	In fact, my team has talked to the people who are involved in writing these laws.
	And they said, we specifically chose not to include ultrasound as covered by this for this reason.
	We specifically said farming is not covered by this for this reason.
	So they knew it.
	And what it is, they just have a corrupt group of lawyers in the state agency who are willing to corruptly use their licensure power to go after people that have nothing to do with the license at all because by law they don't and corruptly use their access to the courts.
	To mislead the courts into doing something that violates core constitutional liberties.
	And that shows you how out of control the state of Pennsylvania is.
	So you get a sheriff that locks them in prison.
	What does the prison condition look like in Pennsylvania?
	Have you been able to meet...
	These are two county prisons, so it's the York County Prison and the Lancaster County Prison.
	But I mean, I won't get into details at this point, but they have seen horrific things.
	Horrific things on a daily basis.
	So, I mean, it's psychological torture.
	It's being kidnapped and being kidnapped in very undesirable conditions and put into even more undesirable conditions.
	Anyone who knows, I've brought many suits against jails across the country.
	I have many pending against my hometown over the Silverdale Jail, where the local politicians bragged that it wasn't Silverdale Hotel, it was Silverdale Hell.
	These are people who were innocent, by the way, who have simply been indicted, not convicted, and many of my clients ultimately acquitted.
	But they deliberately do it this way.
	There's some politicians who think jail should be a place to torture people.
	And this is the power of the state at its most dangerous.
	The ability to take away all your liberties, kidnap you, and put you in horrific conditions.
	And that's what the state of Pennsylvania has done to these two men.
	Now, hypothetically, it goes well tomorrow.
	Do they get immediately released and they can adjudicate on the rest of the claims in due time?
	Yes, yes.
	Hopefully, the court acts expeditiously.
	They're immediately released.
	And then there'll be two separate sets of issues.
	One will be figuring out whatever this nonsense is with a vet board trying to...
	Pretend that they're supposed to be licensed when they're not supposed to pretend.
	They're not supposed to be licensed by law.
	Misuse and abuse of power.
	But the other is clearly going to require civil rights lawsuits.
	I mean, the lawyers involved knew what they were doing was lawless.
	I don't think they're immune for what they did.
	And it's the same with the regulatory officials.
	The same with the vet board people who are involved in this behind the scenes.
	The same with the private actors who are colluding to car...
	Cartelize, if you will, cartel section, the part of the economy.
	In this case, in particular, they want control over farming and they want control over Amish farming.
	And they want to say, you can't do basic Amish farming unless you have a vet license.
	That's their goal.
	And they know the Amish don't pursue higher education, so they know that means the Amish would have to depend on these outside people.
	And these outside people would then be able to...
	Dictate things maybe different than the Amish traditionally do.
	And they'd be able to line their own pockets at the expense of the Amish and put good blue-collar people like these folks out of business.
	That's what the goal is.
	It's patently illegal, patently unconstitutional, classic abuse of power.
	And the only question is going to be, will the courts be able to remedy this situation or not?
	Okay, we're going to go over to Rumble right now, but I wanted to just read...
	Let's say three tips over at Locals.
	We got Rusty Gus says, Viva on Stern giving Biden credit for the vax.
	Please let him.
	Jeez, as soon as Trump wins, they'll be turning it on Trump as a pejorative and they'll have to get the facts correct for their own fact checkers.
	Idaho Tater99 says, Thanks for assisting GoodLogic with his First Amendment fight, Robert.
	That's what you're doing.
	And then, Robert, have you ever heard of Vin Jiang, an international keynote speaker, who talks and teaches about communications, how valuable are communication skills in any profession?
	We'll get to that answer after the show.
	What we're going to do now, we're going to head over to Rumble, end it on YouTube, go on to the other Pennsylvania madness case.
	I'll catch up with some Rumble rants in a bit, and the remainder of the Super Chats over there.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and Rumble, the pinned comment is up on the top.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Over to Rumble now.
	So that's one crazy case coming out of Pennsylvania.
	The other one is a little...
	I thought it was a little less crazy until I heard the details on your bourbon with Barnes last night.
	It's a woman who was held in contempt for secretly recording a court hearing in her divorce case because she was getting the impression...
	It wasn't contempt.
	It was a separate criminal prosecution.
	What was the charge for the criminal prosecution?
	Unlawful recording of a court proceeding.
	Okay, fine.
	So, she records a court proceeding that itself is being recorded, that itself is being transcribed, because she doesn't think the transcription is being faithful to what's going on during the hearing.
	And she's confirmed accurate when the transcription is not accurate to what she has on a recording.
	And she challenges the accuracy of the transcript.
	And they say, no, it's accurate.
	She says, no, it's not.
	And I guess divulges her recording and then gets faced with criminal charges.
	And she had a trial last week, right?
	And they wouldn't postpone it.
	You asked for a continuance because she mandated you on the Saturday before the trial.
	My one question to you is this.
	It was being recorded.
	It was being recorded itself.
	Did she try to ask for the audio recording of the court and they said no?
	Or do they pretend that they're not recording it and only transcribe it?
	They pretend they're not recording it.
	In fact, the judge took the stand.
	The judge involved in that case was a witness in this case.
	To give you an idea how insane all of that was.
	And pretended that recordings were very rare.
	Like, there's two cameras looking at me while I'm saying.
	Well, I'm asking him these questions in the courtroom.
	I mean, it's clear to me that the judge was conspiring with the court staff and the detective's office to cover up the criminality and the corruption of a powerful, politically connected law firm in Pennsylvania.
	Because the divorce was a very amicable divorce.
	I got to meet her husband, sweetheart of a guy.
	They get along great.
	They had an agreement about how to work things out.
	There was no problem whatsoever.
	They still...
	Hang out together and so forth.
	But the law firm that was representing him was the one that was up to some nonsense.
	And so she realized they were up to some nonsense.
	She was from Estonia.
	She was born behind the red curtain and escaped there to America.
	So she knew not to trust people in authority just because they were people in authority.
	And she realized these lawyers are up to no good.
	And consequently...
	You know, brought her own court reporter to the court proceeding, saying, Judge, you know, I have issues.
	I would like to have my own court reporter here, not just have the official court reporter.
	Judge is like, no, no, no, you can't do that.
	You can't do that.
	You're not allowed to.
	We have a monopoly on truth here in Chester County Courthouse, and it's only our court reporter that's allowed to record.
	And claimed that there was no recording of it, just the court reporting it.
	Even though I even asked him, I said, the rules talk about...
	There's something called a court recorder.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	I mean, that kind of routine on the stand.
	Most of the questions he wouldn't answer because it was all deliberative privilege, judicial immunity, deliberative privilege, judicial immunity, deliberative privilege, almost as if he had something to hide.
	So she exposes this, the corruption.
	This will tell you all you need to know about this trial.
	There were two objections that were the most strenuously made by the prosecution and that the judge was eager to affirm in both cases.
	The first one was, I asked the detective on the stand, like you heard on the recording, that my client was raising the issue in the courtroom before the judge of whether or not the lawyers in that case were involved in illegal, even maybe criminal, Behavior.
	Did you investigate it?
	Objection, objection, objection.
	No, you can't talk about that.
	Can't talk about that.
	Then when the judge gets on the stamp, I ask him, I'm trying to establish what the rules of court are because that's an exception under the recording rules, and just to establish the Constitution is clearly a rule of court, right?
	Judge wouldn't answer that question straightforwardly.
	So I was like, well, judge, when you got sworn in...
	After you got elected, you took an oath, right?
	And was that oath to the Constitution of the United States and the state of Pennsylvania?
	Objection!
	How can they possibly object to that question?
	Was the objection sustained?
	Yes.
	But on what basis?
	That's a question of law?
	Well, in this case, so I make my appearance on Monday.
	Ask for a continuance.
	Ask for a two-month continuance.
	This is my first time I've been involved in this case at any level.
	Ask for a two-month continuance.
	This is a second-degree misdemeanor.
	It's only been on the books for like eight months, nine months, something like that.
	Ask for a two-month continuance.
	Denied.
	Come back and say, well, what about a two-week continuance?
	Denied.
	Well, what about like any time you allow at all, even if it's two hours?
	Denied.
	You have to be here.
	Tuesday morning at 9.30 a.m. to start the trial.
	So the prosecution refuses to share the discovery with me, saying, well, you haven't been admitted in yet.
	And they try to object to me being admitted into the case as well when I get there.
	I've had no sleep because I had to take the red eye to get there.
	I didn't have much sleep all week because of the trial.
	I get there, and the judge explains to me at one point, he goes, you know, by the way, I've made some pretrial rulings on what can come in.
	And I go through that, and it's all the judge saying, deny, deny.
	Every witness she requested, deny, deny, deny, deny.
	Every subject of matter that she wants to approach, deny, deny, deny, deny.
	Every area of cross-examination that she wants to use, deny, deny, deny, deny.
	Basically, all of her evidence was prohibited.
	I mean, I was like, all right, there's show trials, but come on.
	I mean, the Trump show trial is an embarrassment enough, but this is taking it to a whole new level.
	So I was given very little, tiny little space in which I was allowed to ask questions, allowed to present evidence, allowed to present argument.
	We asked for some basic jury instructions, denied, denied.
	The justification defense, denied.
	The defense on whether or not intent applied to all of the elements of the statute denied.
	I've been through these kind of cases before, so it didn't upset me or bother me or anything else.
	And my client could have taken a sweetheart deal to have it all go away, but she's like, then this will never get vindicated.
	People will be able to be subject.
	To what I was subject to, that if you expose corruption, they try to put you in prison for doing it.
	And she's risking two years in prison because she thinks this is important for everybody to know what is our constitutional rights.
	Do we have a constitutional right to record our own court proceeding or not?
	Or does the court get to declare a monopoly on truth of what happens in a courtroom?
	Does a court get to limit and prohibit what gets broadcasted from what is supposed to be open court proceedings?
	To give an idea, I was only able to find three prior examples where anyone has ever been charged with this.
	In all three, the government got rid of it and dismissed it once independent legal organizations got involved and said, by the way, this law patently violates people's constitutional rights.
	The judge presiding over this case thought that there was a warning on all the courtroom doors prohibiting recording.
	The warning says no such thing.
	It talks about not having your camera on so that you don't have flash issues, distraction issues.
	The judge admitted on the stand he never found her in contempt, never told her that she couldn't record, had never cited her in any way, shape, or form.
	What I think happened is the official narrative that they wanted to spin was that the court clerk's office decided to enforce this rule and ran over to a detective and said, you know, get her prosecuted.
	I suspect...
	The judge is the one that's behind it because they were going to great lengths to prohibit what I could ask him questions of.
	And this narrative didn't really make sense to me.
	And the judge is playing a little bit of evasive games on the stand.
	And what I think you have is a corrupt courthouse in Chester County.
	And I bet there's a...
	This was a law that was passed in 2018 that was solely meant...
	To prohibit people from trying to take photos of witnesses and then attack them in the public sphere in order to intimidate them.
	The law originates from not recording jurors so that juror secrecy is protected.
	It has nothing to do with open access to the court of recording your own proceeding when it's already being recorded by a court reporter.
	For example, they wanted to introduce the transcript.
	Without bringing in the court reporter.
	I was like, bring in the court reporter.
	Might just have a few questions.
	Say, you know, how did you get this one wrong?
	How did you get all the key facts wrong that covered up the corruption of the law firm?
	Just curious.
	Do you ever get any business from that law firm?
	I mean, court reporters are dependent on big corporate law firms and courts for their business.
	And I know many great court reporters, so any great court reporters out there, it's not an insult on your profession.
	This is a recognition of the reality that an ordinary court reporter...
	Is not going to be inclined to report things in such a way that means they will never get paid again or have a job.
	And that's why we should allow, and the Constitution, in my view, requires the right, under the petition for redress of grievances, the right to open access to courts, freedom of speech, expression, association, and press, to be able to record and broadcast court proceedings.
	And remember, this came up briefly in the Amos Miller case, where the local Lancaster court...
	This wasn't the order of the judge.
	He was just saying this is how the law is interpreted in Lancaster County, that even media couldn't take notes without advanced permission.
	This is about a rule that was intended to deal with juror and witness intimidation is now allowing courts to have monopoly.
	On the truth of what happened in a court proceeding under threat of criminal prosecution, if you expose it's not really the truth that's being reported.
	Well, the fundamental thing that doesn't make any sense is if the court is recording it already, then it makes no sense that an individual could not also procure the same type of recording that the court is recording.
	Video, yes, photographs, there's a number of reasons why.
	But the idea is like the all-party consent rule.
	If it says this is a recorded call, you don't need to ask them for permission to record it, and you step into court.
	I can understand in some way, and I thought maybe she overplayed her hand before saying that she recorded it, asking for the official recording of the court, but if they didn't have one, then she's left with zero options in terms of disproving the accuracy.
	In a justification defense, which we'll get into a variation of that called the necessity defense that came up in the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the homelessness issue.
	Is that if you're facing two evils and you choose the lesser of the two evils as your course of conduct, and in particular in Pennsylvania, it's a statutory defense, so it's right in the statutes, that if what you're doing actually better serves the purpose of the statute than doing the opposite, then you are completely innocent and can't be criminally convicted.
	And that's what she did, right?
	The point of court reporting is to make sure the record is accurate.
	She was not, like, what they don't want is people using a court reporting, like having it out in such a way to try to intimidate somebody, harass somebody.
	She did none of that.
	They all admitted they didn't even know she was recording.
	So there's no intimidation of any kind.
	Couldn't be of any kind.
	That instead, it was to promote accuracy and transparency.
	Better promoting the statute.
	Then criminally prosecuting her would.
	It's the classic definition of a justification defense.
	But we were prohibited from making that defense at trial.
	Prohibited from the jury even knowing that justification law exists.
	But credit to her because she's gone up against a system that has done everything possible to crush her for simply asserting her constitutional rights to the degree that they're willing to lock her up for years.
	And she's been willing to stand by and stand up to it all the way through and is willing to take the only way to get full vindication is to take this up to the Court of Appeals, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, then the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and potentially in federal civil rights cases, because she has tried to bring all kinds of legal action.
	She's tried to sue the judges in a whole bunch of different settings, saying, this is illegal.
	Please stop it.
	And they've all said, no, no, no, you got to go through your criminal case first.
	And they use abstention and comedy and all these things that aren't supposed to apply.
	Abstention is somebody's screwing me over.
	I go to state court and then I decide to go to federal court.
	And they're like, hey, the state court's already going to decide it.
	So out of respect for the state court, we're going to let you.
	It's not there for when the state court is the one violating your rights.
	And federal courts know this, but they love to protect other judges.
	They don't like to get involved with anything bad with other judges.
	They tend to stick their head in the sand.
	And it's an institutional weakness we have to beg judges not to be...
	Imagine a court saying, okay, so you're saying this person's violating your rights?
	We would love to hear your case, but you've got to go back to the person violating your rights and ask them.
	I mean, come on!
	This is a crop.
	The original federal civil rights laws, number one target?
	Corrupt judges and rogue judges and rogue sheriffs.
	That's who it was.
	Nuremberg Code Violations?
	Will you watch the movie Nuremberg Trial?
	Who's on trial?
	Judges.
	And that's deliberately so.
	And I know how tempting it is when judges have the power to weaponize that power to protect their fellow judges.
	That's exactly when they can't do it.
	And so we'll see.
	We'll be taking it up on appeal.
	We have robust issues on appeal.
	Not only the big constitutional ones, but we have about 20 other ones because of all the witness evidence excluded.
	Apparently, so I do an offer of proof.
	I always recommend this to young lawyers out there.
	If you get evidence shut down, Make sure to make an offer of proof that says, here's what I would have been able to prove if you hadn't stopped that cross-examination, if you had allowed me to call this witness, if you had allowed me to present these documents or exhibits.
	And sometimes that's the physical copies of the documents exhibits to be put in the record.
	But in the case of verbal testimony, you just say, here's what the testimony would have been.
	Here's how I believe it would have been material and relevant.
	Here's how I would have used it in a closing argument.
	Judges are often shocked by this.
	Prosecutors are, too, because almost nobody ever does it.
	And I went through, but I don't think the judge was happy about it.
	But I was like, yeah, judge, I just have a little offer of proof, you know, for the record.
	This was not in front of a jury, right?
	This was a judge trial, a bench trial?
	No, this was a jury trial.
	Okay, so when you do this offer of proof, do they kick the jury out so they don't hear?
	Okay, fine.
	And so, and I just went through, you know, first.
	All the witnesses that could have produced evidence that, in fact, she was exposing corruption, and thus it fit the justification defense that was present here that were all excluded, and that she was never told in any way, shape, or form that it was illegal to record, so she couldn't have had the intent, criminal intent, the criminal mens rea under these circumstances anyway.
	I mean, if she thought she was committing a crime, she wouldn't have told everybody that she did it.
	She thought this was within her legal rights, or constitutional rights.
	Which every witness admitted on the stand, ultimately, anyway.
	But there were other witnesses that could have complimented and supplemented that and provided some rule, including, I mean, other than the judge, all the other witnesses to that court hearing that day, somehow they didn't call for trial.
	It's like, who is the victim here?
	The victim is corrupt lawyers who can't even take the stand because they don't want to be cross-examined on their corruption?
	I mean, so that's the secret backstory to all this.
	And by the way, this is a law firm that's connected to the Biden family.
	Just to give you an idea of the scale and scope of who they are.
	The second area he shut down is all the cross-examination on all these witnesses because they either now, currently now, or do face risk of lawsuit for violating people's federal civil rights, including the court clerk, the detective, and the judge himself, including potentially not having immunity because some of these acts are not really judicial acts.
	Right?
	You know, judicial act is you're adjudicating something.
	A rule about how your courtroom is governed isn't really a judicial act, is it?
	So they're all sweating bullets.
	I wasn't allowed to ask any questions about that.
	Like, isn't it the case that you would profit from a conviction in this case?
	Right?
	Couldn't ask that one question.
	It was ironic when the judge was giving, remember, to the jury, remember, jury, take into consideration whether there was any source of bias for any of the witnesses.
	That's the one thing we couldn't ask about.
	But documenting it all.
	So we got good offers of proof.
	We got jury instruction issues.
	We got evidence exclusion issues.
	We got Fifth Amendment issues because she would have been able to testify if I had more time to be able to prepare.
	So we got continuance and due process components there.
	And so we have a very robust...
	And then we have the jury instruction on the intent element and on the justification defense and on the theory of defense.
	And then, of course, we have the big...
	This is all unconstitutional, what's taking place.
	And the only question is, are Pennsylvania courts going to continue to turn a blind eye when the people doing the illegal behavior are the courts themselves?
	A thousand percent.
	I'll answer that question for you in advance, Robert.
	Good luck pounding against that wall or carrying that rock up the hill, Sisyphus.
	Robert.
	We're going to go into the other court corruption in a second.
	Let me do a few things here.
	My ancestors are from Lancaster County and my wife and I were going to visit there sometime soon.
	Should we be afraid to enter the county or state?
	Kafkaesque says Basil Beshkov.
	Oh, that was Pasha Moyer.
	Chad Smith, if Trump is some political genius, in quotes, we cannot keep giving him passes on the vaccine.
	Is he, quote, the man, end quote, or not?
	It is stupid and we'll lose some votes.
	Agreed.
	Viva, you should interview.
	Or do a sidebar with Barnes with Danielle DiMartino Booth.
	Hold on, I'm going to just screen grab this.
	The Federal Reserve Worker, her book is amazing.
	Screen grab it, and let's do it.
	Oh, by the way, tomorrow, Robert Petillo's coming on.
	The man that I was on Jenna Ellis with, and he's a Democrat who actually believes the Democrat things.
	Tuesday, Tommy Robinson is coming on.
	That should be like 1 or 2 o 'clock.
	Wednesday, there's going to be someone else.
	It's going to be a big, jam-packed week.
	Robert?
	I was going to say one thing first.
	I would jam back.
	What are you doing?
	I know what you're doing, but tell the world.
	Monday will be the oral argument via Zoom with the Commonwealth Court.
	They've been very expeditious, so I'm really hopeful they correct this and fix this and don't try to double down on an illegal order of imprisonment.
	We'll see.
	I am hopeful.
	Then I go fly Friday, Monday.
	Right after that, I fly down to Beaumont, Texas, prepare on Tuesday with my colleague Alexis Anderson and Warner Mendenhall and Jeremy Friedman on behalf of another great conscientious individual who stood up for a lot of people at great risk to herself in Brooke Jackson, because Wednesday afternoon in federal district court in Beaumont, Texas, will be the government's attempt to completely suppress.
	All information and all fraud complaints against Pfizer once and for all.
	Brooke Jackson's case is the touchstone case and is the case that will decide whether Pfizer can be held accountable for the fraud of the COVID-19 vaccine and all the harms it has caused.
	So we'll be there.
	It's been a busy time period.
	Then I'll probably meet up with a client on Thursday and then back home.
	So they may hang out with a buddy of mine in Austin, Texas, who, by the way, has been complaining about the same thing concerning Trump of late.
	But in Brooke's case, we filed our opposition.
	You can go to imbrookjackson.com.
	It has all the court proceedings and pleadings and documents.
	Their argument, in my view, Pfizer's argument and the government's argument, is patently frivolous, in my opinion.
	This is about can, when the Biden administration is corruptly implicated in the fraud itself, then the question becomes, is that grounds to deny the American people the right to get justice and vindication in the court through a Key Tam and False Claims Act?
	And it is, to a degree, a novel question.
	It has never been presented in this manner before in legal history.
	Now, I know that other people will say, well, Barnes, no judge has ever been willing to stand up to the Justice Department when the Justice Department has demanded a dismissal in a KETAM action in American legal history.
	But it's never been as overtly and openly corrupt as this dismissal request is.
	And so we'll see what the court does.
	But, you know, it'll be a privilege, and it has been a privilege, and it will remain a privilege to represent Brooke Jackson.
	And no matter what happens in the district court, if we are, for whatever reason, shut down, it will take it up to the Court of Appeals.
	We'll take it up to the Supreme Court of the United States, just as I've done on behalf of Robert Kennedy and Children's Health Defense on the COVID vaccine being authorized for children.
	For whatever reason, somebody got in Trump's head that he should just accuse Kennedy of lying about vaccines.
	I'll be honest.
	That's a patent, ridiculous lie by Trump.
	It's a stupid one, too.
	Anyone that knows Robert Kennedy, you can disagree with Robert Kennedy all you want.
	You can say you love Trump more than Kennedy.
	Absolutely.
	There's a hundred reasons why somebody can believe that.
	Plenty of energy workers that definitely feel that way.
	But that's different than just going out and lying about him patently and just saying how much your audience is willing to buy lies.
	Because Robert Kennedy has opposed the COVID vaccine from the very beginning.
	He was the person who led the petition against the COVID vaccine's authorization.
	He was the person who led the first lawsuit that I filed on his behalf in Children's Health Defense against the authorization of the vaccine when they started out with the military.
	Then we filed it right away, challenging the authorization of the COVID vaccine for children.
	That right now is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	We filed our petition for cert this Monday, posted it at vivabarneslaw.locals.com after I got back from the trial so people can read about it there.
	So we'll see.
	You know, the question is, will the courts allow the corruption of the Justice Department prevent the public from ever getting any accountability or responsibility from either the governmental agencies or the government?
	I just want to live long enough to actually be able to live through the history where they recognize that, admit that, and this becomes sort of the The bird flu debacle of the 70s.
	Robert, just before I forget, actually, share screen.
	Dexter Taylor, the man that I interviewed about a week and a half ago, was convicted of assembling firearms in his New York apartment with lawfully procured kits from the internet, delivered to his address, ordered through his name, and there's a petition to remove the judge.
	Speaking of the idea, there's no constitution in this courtroom.
	Well, apparently, Judge Abina Darke...
	In this case said, don't bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom.
	The Second Amendment has no place here.
	This is New York.
	And I know, look, I'm not a fan of petitions.
	Let's be honest.
	That's a very honest statement about New York courts at the moment.
	At least you said the quiet part out loud.
	And there's a petition to remove her from the bench.
	But this is a judge who, in no uncertain terms, said, we understand that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it has no place in the courts of New York.
	And I'm feeling that...
	People are thinking the same thing for Pennsylvania.
	So I'll give everyone the link to that, if anyone's interested.
	Link here before we get into the Trump stuff.
	And I flashback to what you said about the corrupt judge, Chutkin, out of New York.
	Her father's from D.C. Her father happens to be from Ghana.
	And the idea, you know, and I was saying this, it's not a racial thing.
	It's not a...
	There's nothing about it that's prejudiced.
	I prefer Americans judging America.
	And I understand that's a little bit of a parochial prejudice, but I want people that grew up in America, who have multiple generations of growing up in America, who have a certain commitment to America.
	I'm not saying exclude anyone who isn't.
	I'm just saying what we're seeing is judges that don't grow up that way, not all of them, but a disproportionate number of them.
	I mean, I'm sure people in any other country in the world wouldn't want an American coming over and judging them.
	You know what I mean?
	So it's the same principle.
	You want people who respect and know and who grew up in and were nurtured in multiple generations of the traditions you believe in.
	Certainly not a Texan.
	They wouldn't want an Alabaman coming into their country with their Second Amendment gun-toting, whatever.
	And it's not racial.
	It's nothing other than cultural in that you get a Canadian schnook who doesn't respect the Second Amendment, who's grown up thinking you don't need more than five rounds for duck hunting, and you don't need a gun for anything but hunting, and then coming in here and saying, well, I'm going to impose my Canadian view on firearms into your legal system when it doesn't reflect your...
	300-year-old constitutional appreciation for the very reason that was there.
	So I appreciate it.
	It's very interesting.
	If anyone wants to sign the petition, go for it.
	Dexter Taylor, last I was in touch with him, is in Rikers awaiting hearing on whether or not he gets bail or bond pending appeal.
	And he was convicted and swiftly whisked off to Rikers Island for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm in New York State.
	Robert.
	We're getting into Trump right now, but I wanted to do one thing first.
	Yeah, let me do one thing first so we don't fall too far behind, and we want to thank everyone for all of the support, and there's no but to that.
	Let me bring this up and see how fast I can get through this.
	Okay.
	Viva, how dare you put on the sexual acts on Rumble?
	I cannot believe you showed Howard Stern giving Sleepy Joe a tongue bow.
	You got the engaged few.
	If a tree falls on the Stern show, does it make a sound since nobody was tuned in to hear it?
	Sean47, Trump should pardon January 6th on day one.
	He should make that announcement loud and proud now.
	Also offer settlement of three mil each for the government overreach and actions day one.
	Nibush, here you go viva.
	I think the three brackets means I'm Jewish on the interwebs.
	Hello, would a legit second Trump term have a legal authority to tear down the taxpayer-funded wall of Beijing Biden from his Delaware home and rebuild it around Mar-a-Lago, DD-2225?
	Freddie, white pill has got to be the Arizona rancher mistrial waiting on the next move.
	Good job defending O 'Keefe.
	We're getting there, people.
	We're getting there, Sean and Joe.
	We're talking O 'Keefe in a few minutes.
	P.R. Dezener, O2.
	Tulsi Gabbard is a great choice.
	I hope she picks the...
	It's Vivek for me.
	She's smart.
	She loves the country more than the rhinos.
	I agree with that.
	Sportfish.
	Robert Viva, have you reviewed the unredacted search warrant that Judge Cannon released?
	I haven't...
	Julie Kelly's covering it.
	It's amazing.
	Fart whiff.
	Stream is down for the whole bunch of people.
	I hope it's back up now.
	How do we get Trump's current campaign manager removed from her position?
	Just dig deeper, says T1990.
	King of Biltong.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	Free shipping with code VIVA for your Biltong or BiltongUSA.com, AntonUSA.com, Biltong High Protein Snacks, Quilst.
	Listening to informative podcasts.
	Thank you very much.
	Then we got to T1990.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm going to skip those because we've got to get back to the show.
	Let's actually, just before we get into Trump, let's talk James O 'Keefe, Robert.
	Look, I will never...
	A certain coordinated effort is afoot.
	And I just want to be on the record.
	I'm sure it is a complete coincidence that they're targeting James O 'Keefe on the eve of James O 'Keefe disclosing even more...
	I do not disclose private messages that I have with people unless I'm authorized or unless they call me a liar.
	It hasn't happened yet.
	Or unless someone tries to fuck with me and say that I didn't say something that they said.
	Okay.
	With that said, in public stuff that you can see, you can see a rift within the conservative community.
	You can see people picking funds.
	It's a lot of the same people that have, let's just say, a sketchy history in general.
	Well, look, I'm not saying anything that's not public.
	Kyle Serafin's Twitter handle says recovering FBI agents.
	And I said it in the video.
	It's kind of funny.
	Some people are like, well, once an FBI agent or once intelligence, always intelligence.
	I was like, okay, if he's recovering, some people might say he's back on the wagon or off the wagon, whatever it is.
	The scandal, I'm not playing the video because I don't think it was fair to publish this video, is James O'Keefe is at a party and allegedly some woman who seems to be very inebriated, and I say seems to be because I'm not convinced this wasn't a honeypot from the beginning, a very inebriated woman who has a French accent.
	I don't know that she's from France, but I think that she is because I can tell accents.
	Talking about her boobs are implants from Venice and her lips are implants from Croatia.
	Her whole body is imported in one way or another.
	James O 'Keefe understands that this woman works for Chuck Schumer because she said she did.
	He comes over with his camera.
	There's some other guy in there bragging about the size of his penis who seems equally drunk.
	It's disgusting.
	It's dirty.
	It's crass.
	It's not my scene.
	James O 'Keefe reminds me of Ralph Nader.
	Most people, some chick that's drunk that's approaching and is talking in a certain way.
	From France.
	There's a certain way you'd go there.
	Where does James O 'Keefe go?
	Oh, I wonder what undercover information this provides.
	That's where his brain goes.
	It's just locked in.
	It's like when Ralph Nader exposed all the fraud with the car companies because a buddy of his died when he was in Harvard Law School.
	That's why he hitchhiked across the country to find out why things were not as safe as they should be on our roads.
	And he wrote unsafe at any speed.
	So GM targeted him.
	And GM kept trying to do honeypots.
	Problem is they didn't understand Ralph Nader.
	So, you know, he wouldn't respond.
	To the traditional honeypot the way anyone else would.
	So, I mean, here's James O 'Keefe.
	Somebody's coming up clearly like a potential at least honeypot or trouble in some other ways.
	And his first thing is, I wonder how we can get independent undercover information of the public.
	That's where his brain goes.
	Every single time.
	These people are bombarding him with texts and emails and DMs on Instagram.
	And, you know, a lot of honeypots all over the place on Instagram.
	And all O 'Keefe is doing is like...
	Which one of these can become our next undercover reporter?
	That's just where his brain goes.
	It's like me to some extent where I go look at a beautiful dog or a bike and then don't notice if there was an attractive woman behind the bike or the dog.
	So this woman seems to be sloppy drunk.
	She says she works for Schumer.
	She's in a bar.
	And he starts recording.
	There's another guy.
	He's like, this is not my scene, but this is the scene.
	Drunk idiots doing drunk things, hooking up and having sex.
	That's what it is.
	And so Kyle Serafin publishes the video with a very cryptic sort of, the woman was half his age.
	She needed an ambulance by the end of the night.
	And this is what you do when you compromise your morals to get the story.
	And I read that caption.
	I'm like...
	Fuck, did he ply her?
	That's the word, like, get her really drunk to the point of danger?
	Did he assault her?
	And I watched this 14-minute video of James, in my mind, pretending to be drunk when he's not because James is not an idiot and can't let himself slip up in public knowing that everybody wants him, you know, honey-potted at best and, you know, flower-potted at worst.
	And he's recording this video, and it's nothing except this one guy bragging about the size of his penis.
	This girl's coming on to the guy, kissed me, touched my boobies, and...
	He doesn't publish a video.
	And then apparently, from what Kyle Serafin said, this is what a lot of you employees at OMG have been apologizing for, which I doubt is the case.
	And then he publishes the video.
	And he blurs out the face, or the face is blurred out.
	But if she's a French woman in her 20s working for Chuck Schumer, who gets drunk and stupid drunk at bars and sleeps around, everybody's going to know who she is from that video.
	But the video, bottom line, showed absolutely nothing in terms of improper conduct from James O 'Keefe.
	Certainly nothing that was warranted.
	Really strikingly so.
	I mean, most young men in that position wouldn't have that much exculpatory information.
	The mere fact that O 'Keefe was saying, hey, go through my DMs on the Instagram, see if it was anybody helpful, tells you that he was not up to anything inappropriate or improper.
	The fact that tons of women were targeting him all the time, welcome to that world.
	Complaining to him about the fact that...
	There's women that do that.
	I mean, that's not his fault.
	His whole focus was, who could we use as an undercover reporter to get more truth out there?
	That's who James O 'Keefe has been now for 20 years.
	He's not going to change.
	And everybody that ever gets on a campaign to lie and smear him only lies and only defames themselves in the process.
	What was it called?
	The unsuspectable?
	I just noticed a few people.
	There were three or four people in tandem doing it.
	Attacking James.
	It's very bizarre.
	If you went back, I raised the issue when similar coordination was going on during the Project Veritas time period.
	Similar coordination.
	They lined up with other aspects of some other campaigns at the time.
	All they're doing is proving themselves as untrustworthy.
	Even if they're being completely sincere.
	They're too dumb to trust.
	I always say either the person's corrupt or dumb in these kind of circumstances.
	Either way, that's a no-go for trusting them in the future.
	I don't care whether the reason why you're not telling the truth is because you're too stupid to know what it is or because you're deliberately doing it.
	I can't trust you in the future as a narrator on anything.
	One of them accused made allegations of...
	Sexual abuse or like, you know, criminal misconduct.
	And I said, what criminal misconduct?
	I kept waiting for the, like, you know, what's this big scandal involving D.O.P.?
	And it's like, oh, it turns out he's so obsessed with his job that he'll ignore hot chicks, you know, trying to do something else.
	And he's just like, please, please, can you help me undercover?
	No, but Robert, the biggest accusation, he offered to buy her a drink.
	We didn't actually see that happen.
	She was underage.
	I was like...
	You can even see the stories.
	You can see, they'll probably get some undercover tape of James O 'Keefe in a hotel room with some hot model.
	And all they'll be doing is spending all of his time trying to convince her to become an undercover reporter.
	Anyhow, so it's bullshit.
	It's obviously, I mean, it obviously has to be.
	At this point, they should just quit.
	Everybody's figured out the game.
	So just quit.
	And, you know, don't discredit yourself in the process, these people that are doing this.
	That's all you're doing.
	And apparently, James O 'Keefe is coming out with the biggest story, he says, of his career as relates to information that the CIA was withholding from Trump, and it's next week, and then this happens this week.
	Okay.
	And Steve Baker, I like him, and I don't think I have reason to dislike him.
	Oh, yeah, Baker's a good guy, but I get why he's trying to support some of these people.
	He's done good work, really good work, on the January 6th cases, but those people are wrong.
	So it'd be...
	It's not the hell to die on, Steve.
	Steve Baker said, is chivalry dead?
	I was like, oh, okay.
	Is the worst accusation against James O 'Keefe is that he wasn't chivalrous?
	Because that makes investigative journalism a little hard if you have to be chivalry with the people that you're...
	His form of chivalry is risking his life to do undercover reporting that exposes major corruption in our big institutions.
	That, to me, is real chivalry.
	Perfect.
	Now, Robert, let's get to the Trump...
	Immune the argument before the Supreme Court.
	I don't know if you listened to it.
	I listened to it.
	And again, I'm not as optimistic as many people out there.
	There were some judges asking the proper questions.
	There were some judges making the proper analogies.
	And then the lawyer, I was going to say Sig Sauer.
	His name is not Sig Sauer.
	I don't know what his last name is.
	What his first name is.
	It's Sauer.
	S-A-U-E-R.
	S-A-U-E-R.
	Trump's lawyer, when he was pressed on whether or not certain allegations in the indictment were presidential acts, private acts, and then the question becomes whether or not they're presidential warranting immunity.
	But the lawyer conceded that certain accusations in the indictment were private or purely private acts performed by Trump.
	And I didn't understand it.
	It seemed to me like a massive judicial admission that's going to come back to bite him in the ass because even if they say you got presidential immunity for presidential acts, you don't have presidential immunity for personal acts.
	And he conceded that there were personal private acts alleged in the indictment as relates to the attempt to...
	I forget which one it was now.
	It doesn't matter.
	But flesh that out for me and flesh it all out because I was not as optimistic as many people were, but I think I might just be getting too pessimistic over time.
	Well, I mean, most of the questions confirmed how I came in.
	Now, I agree with you that the oral argument could have been much better.
	I thought the reply brief was very good, and I thought we would get more of that at the oral argument.
	Now, I didn't hear all of it, but from some clips, as you mentioned, I thought they didn't best prepare for certain of those answers.
	And understanding sort of the political dynamic this is in.
	And so I've had the same complaint about Trump's defense in all of these cases, that they were late to the party on a range of arguments that they could use, and that they've often allowed the other side to win the rhetorical argument when there were easy pushbacks.
	On the military thing, the military code prevents and prohibits someone from doing an illegal military order of assassination anyway.
	But there was an easy answer to that question.
	Both of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
	And they actually reference it in the reply brief.
	They say, well, Sotomayor wanted to repeat Judge Pan's routine of, can he order the assassination of someone?
	And you have to be aggressive there.
	Say, well, Your Honor, the president who appointed you did precisely that.
	Barack Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen by the United States military without any due process of law who was, by any definition, his opponent.
	In a political and any other sense.
	Indeed, all war, as described by many of our great military scholars, is politics by other means.
	What is it?
	It's ordering the murder and death of other people.
	So, I mean, this is nonsense.
	Well, can he do this?
	No.
	Now, you may be right that President Biden may be trying to do that to both Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy as we speak.
	But you have to push back hard.
	You can't let that nonsense hang out there.
	But they would have said in response to that, well, killing a suspected terrorist is in the best interest of the country.
	It precisely opens the door.
	And you go right back to the key issue.
	Who has the power to decide?
	If we give the power to decide to individual prosecutors, they can determine they think what Barack Obama did was a crime.
	They get to prosecute.
	Or is it that that decision can only be made By Congress through the impeachment process.
	Because the question is not what is to be decided.
	It is who to decide.
	Because the who is what this constitutional question is all about.
	And that was what was missing from the oral argument.
	It was presenting that one person may see what Trump did was election fraud.
	Others may see it as doing his constitutional duty.
	Some people may see what Barack Obama did as protecting us and doing his job under the Article 2 as commander in chief.
	Others might see it as murdering and assassinating his political opponent.
	So some people may see what Bill Clinton did as foreign diplomacy.
	Others may see it as covering up for his personal scandal with Monica Lewinsky by bombing a bunch of people in a foreign country at the time he was under major investigation.
	A president who was involved in politically supporting many of the justices on this bench.
	So that either the...
	Is it private?
	Is it political?
	Who decides?
	Only Congress can decide.
	That was always the answer.
	Only Congress can decide, because otherwise you're giving that power to weaponize the legal process as a means of extorting every single president.
	For example, what if Iran requested the extradition of Barack Obama?
	And what basis would a U.S. court have to refuse to do so?
	Assuming there was an extradition treaty and so forth, putting that argument aside for the moment, it would be that he did it while he was president, and whether it was personal or political, a decision can only be made by Congress.
	Whether it's impeachable is subject to Congress.
	Until he's convicted by Congress, that is the political protection.
	For what our founders said, any allegation against the president is inherently and necessarily political.
	And that should have been the answer on all of it.
	Sadly, it was missing from the oral argument.
	You're a very smart man, Robert, because it's the exact...
	I mean, the idea would be then to say, yes, he would have no presidential immunity for purely private actions.
	He would have presumptive presidential immunity for presidential actions.
	But who gets to decide what is what?
	And it's not up to DAs.
	What I love is that...
	Infused in their question, they did bake in, he assassinated his corrupt political rival.
	Nobody picked up on that.
	They did infuse into that question, he's not just killing, I was going to use a real name, it doesn't matter, but not just a good political rival, but a potentially corrupt one.
	And nobody picked up on that, nobody talked about that.
	I've been sort of, I'm feeling stupid because am I oversimplifying this by saying...
	Everything should be presumptively presidential, and unless he's impeached and convicted, nobody can do anything.
	And then everyone's like, well...
	It has to be that.
	And the way to think of it is who decides.
	Everything's about who decides in the end.
	Because anybody can second-guess somebody's intent, somebody's action, the rest.
	That's why we say who decides matters most.
	And what we've always said in the courts is that the courts never get to decide.
	The courts never get to second-guess the action of the President of the United States.
	That's what Marbury v.
	Madison says.
	In plain language and plain text, going on more than two centuries in the very founding of our constitutional law in this country.
	And that would have been the better answer.
	I unfortunately don't think that will end up, even in the opinion, even though it was the legally correct path to take.
	However, I do think they will give a massive...
	They will say any presidential act is immune.
	Yes, but Robert, I don't want to get too...
	I don't want to get too cynical or conspiratorial.
	They're going to say that.
	But Sauer said on the record, I acknowledge some allegations in that indictment are purely personal.
	He's opened the door to remand, more evidentiary hearings, more issues.
	The lower courts get to make another ruling.
	What was personal?
	What was political?
	What was private?
	What was presidential?
	And then that will go all the way back up to the appellate food chain.
	And maybe the process of that will be so confusing, chaotic, and contradictory.
	That the Supreme Court will then recognize what I proposed was always the solution.
	To say, you know what?
	We're not really good at this.
	We should leave this to Congress.
	Only Congress gets to decide whether it's presidential or not.
	I mean, this is why in the Presidential Records Act context, they said that's a non-reviewable decision of the president.
	The president gets to unilaterally decide what's presidential and what's personal in the context of keeping records.
	And we don't get to second-guess it.
	Same standard, same analysis should apply in the impeachment context of the president and indictment context of the president.
	Now, I think there are some people that came away thinking they weren't going to limit, they weren't going to give much criminal immunity at all.
	I think what I've been predicting, you saw in those questions.
	Who are the justices to pay attention?
	My prediction months ago was that Barrett would be unreliable.
	All the people that still want to yell at me for saying Barrett would be unreliable, watch her become unreliable again.
	The three liberals will be unreliable.
	They'll be tempted to take in some form of immunity because they know this can bounce back around to their side sooner or later.
	But the key ones to watch, the three conservatives, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, all of them ask questions that suggest they don't like where these cases are going.
	And for Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch, it's just a matter of common constitutional sense in how to interpret and apply the law.
	Ian Gorsuch had some great rhetorical questions in that regard.
	So the key to people to watch were Kavanaugh and Roberts.
	And I was going, and my prediction was, that Kavanaugh and Roberts are so disturbed by how all this looks for the judiciary.
	Care less about Trump.
	They care about the impression of the judiciary.
	That they would ask politically inclined questions about, does this really practically work?
	What you guys are doing?
	What we're unleashing?
	And by the way, that's precisely where they went in their questions.
	So that's why I think they will say the president is immune for presidential acts from any criminal prosecution, if not successfully impeached and convicted for those acts.
	And then the question will become what's private and what's presidential, and we'll go through a whole other round of these.
	But that's kind of a precondition.
	I don't know how the New York case goes through with a trial, and the Supreme Court comes through.
	With this decision, then it basically negates and requires a mistrial in that New York criminal trial because that judge has never done that assessment.
	He assumed the president is never immune for anything, presidential or otherwise.
	And so they're going to have to start from scratch.
	And the point Mike Davis meant is that means they're going to have to start from scratch in all these cases and that their determination is probably going to be subject to another round of appeals.
	In other words...
	We're not going to get any criminal trial that can be upheld before Election Day.
	I think it's a quasi-original thought because I hadn't heard anybody think of it before, but in the oral arguments, I forget who said it, but they said, look, all that you have to do is have a Senate.
	Prepared to acquit a president on impeachment and you've got a president who's above the law.
	No, that's a president that is respecting the law because that is the law.
	It's above a law that's being enforced.
	My thought was even different.
	Your concern is that you're going to have 66 or more corrupt senators who are going to acquit a president who murdered the chef.
	If you have a tyrant as president...
	Who the Senate is covering for?
	You have bigger problems in your country.
	But it's actually even more basic than that.
	Okay, so your concern is 66 or more corrupt senators to acquit a president for murder, and you're not concerned about one corrupt DA or AG who's going to go after the president?
	Oh, bingo.
	Yes, exactly.
	I'll hedge my bets on 66, 67 or more corrupt people.
	That just steals the power question very easily.
	One corrupt DA, really anywhere in the world, because one of the things I would have added...
	That presidents would be subject to extradition under this interpretation.
	And we have extradition treaties with all kinds of countries.
	So are we saying that we would have to honor an extradition request?
	I mean, there's a bunch of countries that would like to put George W. Bush in prison, Bill Clinton in prison, Barack Obama in prison, Joe Biden next in prison.
	I mean, have any of us thought about how are we going to turn down that extradition request?
	How are we going to do that unless the president is immune and can only be extradited or criminally indicted if he is successfully impeached and convicted by the Senate as the Constitution calls for?
	I'm going to bring this one up because I just want to...
	Bring some shame on to Sean Patrick, New Hampshire.
	Not that girl.
	I put up with Viva to hear Barnes.
	Sir, if I didn't just warrant your continued appreciation of my intellectual input, nothing will warrant it in the future.
	In between people saying, oh, Viva has Barnes on you.
	He just hates Trump and he suffers from TDS.
	Eight years defending Trump in the court of public opinion, defending him on election cases, defending him on all these...
	When we reach 20,000 people in real time, there's going to be people on both ends who hate both of us.
	Yes, exactly.
	Split it down and say 5, 4, 6, 3, but the question is going to be, what's going to be the scope of the immunity?
	It'll be all presidential acts.
	Unless you're successfully impeached or convicted.
	That's my prediction.
	From your mouth to God's ears, I hope, Robert.
	I want to bring this one up now before we go forward.
	This is not ragging on me.
	This is James O 'Keefe.
	Are you saying that James O is totally clean and moral, says blessing beyond measure, blessing beyond measure, then follows it up with you.
	You're missing all of the other dirty James O stuff.
	Who cares?
	I'm the poorest guy who risked prison, death, bankruptcy.
	To expose corruption and fraud in our system.
	If he wanted to be corrupt, folks, he would have already cashed in and be gone by now.
	I've been following James since 2018.
	The bird dog woman.
	I've been following him since he got arrested in Louisiana when some friends of his wanted me to come down and help him out.
	He ended up going a different route.
	I've watched him ever since.
	He has some of the most admirable character that exists, just like Robert Kennedy does.
	I'm not going to change my opinion because politics or somebody else wants me to.
	What are you suggesting that James O 'Keefe did that's so dirty and so immoral that I would have to second-guess my belief in who he is?
	You have to make stuff up.
	It was like allegations against Trump.
	I have disagreements with Trump over the vaccine, some other issues.
	Trump's always been a stand-up guy, though.
	His great virtue is his backbone.
	Sometimes he puts it in the wrong place, but his great virtue is his backbone.
	And remember all the allegations against him?
	I mean, all these allegations of assault and all this other stuff, that was all nonsense.
	If you understood Trump at all, you knew that was nonsense.
	So people shouldn't take the bait on the latest smear campaign against some individual.
	Actually, let's get into it very briefly.
	The New York hush money, I say it in quotes because I believe it's all bullshit.
	When he was the victim of extortion.
	The Stormy Daniels extortion plot that Trump was a victim of that he's currently being criminally prosecuted for.
	And it also seems like Michael Cohen might have been involved not in a pay-to-play, but rather a fabricate-to-get-paid scheme where he would find scandals.
	Because he was a career criminal.
	That's who Michael Cohen is.
	I think he objected to you or someone else calling him a convicted perjurer.
	That was still...
	No, no.
	Convicted fraudster.
	No, no, no.
	It was Phil Holloway called him a convicted perjurer, relying on one of my tweets.
	And then I guess Michael Cohen didn't go after me because I don't have a bar license for him to threaten.
	He threatens Phil Holloway's bar license.
	And I'm like, hey, Michael Cohen, you dumbass.
	Arthur Angeron, in his ruling, called you a convicted perjurer once and said you were convicted of perjury once.
	Jim Jordan.
	Called you a convicted perjurer.
	You are a convicted perjurer.
	You're a liar, a scumbag, a dirty, dirty individual who reflects poorly on all the others.
	And by the way, I still told Trump not to rely on Cohen and to get rid of him sooner than he did.
	But I got criticized for that too at the time.
	You know who Michael Cohen tried to hire?
	Michael Avenatti.
	I'm going to just guess that.
	No, wrong guess.
	Oh, shut the front door.
	I was like, I don't think so.
	That's bringing back a memory as to who else Michael Cohen might have tried to hire.
	Oh, I think Dershowitz had a similar anecdote.
	I'll have to remember.
	Michael Cohen is the man who gives other people bad reputations.
	And lawyers...
	Every kind of crime known to man.
	And he hustled Trump because he was cheap.
	Trump took the bait on that.
	And pretended to be a fixer.
	So here's the problem with fixers.
	They often have to create problems that they say they fixed for you, that often are not problems for you.
	Well, Trump, I'll quote Trump.
	The Stormy Daniels accusation as Trump, have you looked at her?
	I don't think so.
	And if you know Trump, that's sincere.
	She's not Trump's type.
	I would think that...
	A man who...
	I have no basis of comparison.
	I have a germophobia.
	And a man of Trump's stature who says...
	Trump has extreme germophobia.
	He's going to get over it to shake people's hands.
	He's going to worry about shaking people's hands and he's going to date a porn star?
	No.
	No.
	If you look at the people that Trump has dated over his lifetime, they're models.
	But they're high-end, respectable models.
	They're not porn stars.
	They don't look like strip club dancers.
	And the thing is this.
	I'll say this.
	I once went to...
	For the record, I'm not saying anything negative about strip club dancers.
	I don't want to come off as a whole other than that.
	I'm not a prude.
	That's not his type.
	There's no way.
	It's like the lunatic.
	No way.
	I think Trump put this in one of the depositions.
	We're one of the lawyers.
	He's like, not my type.
	He's like, look at you.
	He's talking to the lawyers.
	Definitely not my type.
	I'm not against you.
	I'm just saying.
	And I went to a strip club.
	I like to say twice.
	The first and the last time.
	It was for a bachelor party.
	I found it very sad.
	I saw bruises on the woman's leg.
	It was in Montreal on St. Catharines Street.
	I hated it.
	I just went for the sake of it to see Stormy.
	Stormy Daniels, we see pictures of her.
	You see her giving interviews.
	You go watch her movies.
	She's just another one of the A million people doing porn.
	It's dirty.
	It's disgusting.
	It's cheap, low-class.
	But nobody ever goes to watch what she actually does.
	She just comes off as the holier-than-thou victim of a pay-to-play scheme.
	You know who's probably going to be a witness for Trump in this case.
	Don't say it just yet.
	Who could possibly be a witness that would be interesting, controversial, surprising?
	Michael Avenatti.
	Yes.
	Okay, fine.
	I feel I would have been stupid if I missed that.
	Do you think Michael Avenatti and or Michael Cohen have had relations with Stormy Daniels?
	Cohen, definitely.
	That's Cohen's type.
	That's Cohen's type, right?
	He's the low-end strip club kind of personality.
	That's everything about the guy.
	He's a stormy mid-tier criminal.
	Not Avenatti.
	Avenatti is a sophisticated criminal with more limited taste.
	However, she decided to screw him over.
	And if you know Michael Avenatti, he tends to reward you in kind.
	And he's getting all the dirt.
	And he knows what was going on.
	Because he was part of it.
	He knows that this was all an extortion scheme by Stormy Daniels.
	When he came out on that Ari, whatever the guy's last name is on MSNBC.
	That poor guy, Ari Melrose.
	He thought he had an easy hammer drop call from jail.
	And I was like, hold on a second, what?
	When Avenatti comes out and says, it might turn out that I learned things in my representation that she was lying to me when I said she was a victim.
	Yeah.
	He's a smart, sophisticated guy.
	I've never said he wasn't smart and sophisticated.
	I said he's going to end up disbarred in prison because of the nonsense he was doing.
	But he is a smart, sophisticated guy.
	He goes all the way back to that Coca-Cola.
	What was it?
	It was some ad that promised an airplane, a military plane.
	He's actually connected to that, which is fascinating in this documentary.
	So he goes way back.
	I knew Avenatti before he blew up on this stuff.
	Not personally, but knew him reputationally because we overlapped in the same legal circles in LA.
	That was actually a very skilled trial lawyer.
	I mean, he was a great...
	He just saw his ticket out of jail and his cash quick ticket being anti-Trump because he saw how much the media were suckers.
	But he's going to know all the fraud behind the Stormy Daniels case.
	And so that's going to be a major problem.
	And now he's in prison for forever?
	He has no incentive to hold back.
	No, but some people are going to argue that he has an incentive to lie because if Trump gets elected, he can pardon him because he was convicted on federal fraud charges.
	And they can try to bring that up.
	Don't you want President Trump to get elected so he can pardon you?
	But this is the same guy they cited as a perfectly reliable person just three years ago.
	Remember, Brian Stelter, future president.
	But it's not just that.
	They can make that accusation against Avenatti.
	Pepsi wears my jet, by the way.
	Somebody in the chat.
	Pepsi wears my...
	There's a Michael Avenatti appearance in that documentary.
	Oh, that's funny because I remember that story.
	But they can accuse him of bias.
	Like, oh, he wants Trump to get elected so that he can get a pardon.
	He's going to have written receipts between him and Stormy Daniels about how she lied to him.
	He has a very good memory in that regard.
	That's probably why Stormy Daniels doesn't want to be a witness in the case.
	She just wanted to shake down people for some cash.
	She didn't want this to happen.
	So they're going to have some issues.
	People in the chat on Rumble are saying Michael Avenatti didn't kill himself.
	Don't put that juju in the universe.
	We need him to testify.
	But Robert, the other thing is people are watching or listening, live tweeting, reading the inner city press, Michael Russell Lee, and they're saying, what the F is he even charged with here?
	They're basically turning tabloid.
	First of all, One thing that I've learned from this trial, National Enquirer is not reliable news.
	Holy hell, thank you for the news.
	They're trying to make it look like David Pecker, who was the CEO or owner of AMI-owned National Enquirer.
	By the way, he was really involved in his own extortion-type scheme.
	That's really what he kind of admitted to on the stand.
	He pretended that he was doing this great public service or some nonsense.
	The scam was, go and buy up stories.
	That could embarrass someone and then get them to pay you.
	He pretends it's always the other way around.
	Let's just assume it wasn't always the other way around.
	And he got ticked.
	He bought up some stories that Trump was like, nah, I'm not going to.
	He bought up false stories.
	And the question was, why did you buy up the false story of the doorman?
	Why would you buy it up if you knew it was false?
	Well, we didn't want other people to get it.
	Bullshit!
	You actually bought it up to try to just get paid for it.
	Otherwise, you run it even though you know it's false.
	You're engaged in a thinly disguised extortion scheme.
	That's what that was.
	And that's why he's spinning that story.
	He's spinning it on the stand.
	Well, and not just that.
	That explains why he signed the non-prosecution agreement back in 2018.
	Of course.
	Holy shit!
	This has been a barely hidden secret.
	Maybe Grobert, Eric Hunley and Mark Grobert will do on their Freeform Fridays or America's Untold Stories.
	Because he worked for one that didn't do this as much.
	A major tabloid.
	So like Elephant Boy and crazy stuff like that they wrote about.
	But I think he's familiar with this world.
	That this is commonplace.
	That this is one way you sophisticated...
	In Hollywood, there's a whole bunch of people that all they do is extortion.
	That's how I knew Stormy Daniel's story was extortion right away.
	The first people she was talking to in L.A. were people that I was aware of in the extortion industry.
	I mean, so it's like, okay, I know where this is going.
	For example, a bunch of trainees in L.A., all they do is they make all their money by extortion.
	That's all they do.
	They try to get someone in a compromising position, and then they extort them.
	And for the record, I didn't say Eddie Murphy by name.
	But they've been victimized by this.
	But there's a whole suburb.
	I mean, I've had so many crazy cases.
	I've ended up discovering all these crazy things.
	And one of them was, oh, this is how the scam works.
	The way you do it is you get a newspaper or someone else to buy the story.
	And then you go to them and say, okay, hey, I have this story.
	What do you think we should do with it?
	You don't say, give me 50 grand or I'm going to publish it, because that's criminal extortion.
	You say, well, what should we do with it?
	Could I help you in some way in making sure these lies don't get told about you in public?
	And you get a check written.
	That was the scam.
	And sometimes he's working for these people to bury stories.
	Nine times out of ten, it's the other way around.
	Holy hell, I'm sending out a tweet when I can get time to finish it.
	I was sitting there thinking, A, why did Pecker sign a non-prosecution agreement with the state or the government?
	I first thought it was only because he was making a contribution in kind to the campaign by running favorable stories.
	But it might have been because he was running an extortion campaign.
	And they would never call that that part.
	Legal campaign contribution because of everyone it would implicate, right?
	Then you have every media company that is committing crime.
	Then you have every big tech company committing.
	They're not willing to go that far when it comes to their ridiculous interpretation of campaign finance laws.
	The backstory is they know.
	That's the whole thing with this case, is Trump is the victim of an extortion scheme involving Stormy Daniels, involving a convicted lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and involving the National Enquirer.
	Who are all complicit in a scheme to extort Trump.
	But they're blaming Trump for being the victim of the crime.
	I want to bring this one up, Robert, not because it's annoying, but it really does highlight some...
	Let me see here.
	Where did I lose it?
	Oh, well, someone said Michael Cohen was Jewish.
	And you know who else is Jewish?
	By the way, let's point him out.
	Michael Avenatti's Jewish.
	I'm Jewish.
	If you want to draw those connections, there is definitely statistical over-representation that you cannot blame people for noticing.
	Oh yeah, David Pecker's Jewish.
	I mean, yeah, okay, you're in the world of...
	That's an unfortunate last name, isn't it?
	Between Pecker, Wiener, and all of them, and what the hell they get themselves into, there is statistical over-representation in politics, media, and law.
	So, deal with it, but it's also on the other side.
	The people calling it out, putting them on blast.
	I don't rely on...
	I don't invoke my Jewishness because I think it would be sacrilegious to do it because I'm quite sacrilegious.
	But whatever.
	Yeah.
	If that leads you to new conclusions, enjoy it.
	So that's wild, actually.
	That's wild.
	I think even if this show trial results in some sort of guilty verdict, the Supreme Court comes in and says any version of what I'm talking about, they have to throw out the whole case because they failed to do that proper presidential private comparison prior to presenting it to the jury.
	And if any evidence of things that he had presidential immunity for were presented to the jury, then the jury is irrevocably tainted in such a way you have to throw out the verdict.
	It's all done.
	The judge just wants a conviction, so he thinks it will hurt Trump in the general election.
	That's it.
	Oh, Grobert said worked for Weekly World News on AMI Pecker property.
	Oh, I'd like to...
	Oh, really?
	You gotta start sharing the dirt there, Grobert.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	I'll spill the beans.
	I'll get Grobert on at some point this week.
	We'll talk news.
	But people have said, like, what the hell is even the crime here?
	Like, all right, so he paid for favorable coverage.
	He paid for attack, you know, or he tolerated attack opposition.
	And there was someone eyes and ears on the ground.
	Oh my goodness.
	Now everything makes sense.
	It was solely they were there to extort him.
	And they were mostly unsuccessful in the extortion, which tells you that the allegations were preposterous.
	And that Trump wasn't going to pay money to all these nonsensical things.
	Holy hell.
	Karen McDougal, did he do anything with her?
	Or is this just he paid her to...
	Well, now she might fit a different type.
	That's all I'll say.
	All right.
	Well, end of the story.
	Everyone all of a sudden starts pretending.
	Infidelity.
	I think so.
	I don't care.
	I wouldn't judge someone mortally for that.
	I wouldn't do it.
	I would expect to get murdered by my wife, and rightfully so.
	I'm afraid of germs and disease and all bacteria.
	But my goodness.
	Okay, so it makes...
	Makes more sense.
	The trial continues next week.
	Inner City Press, Matthew Russell Lee, to check out.
	He's doing great work.
	Dude, he's a machine.
	Good Logic, a.k.a.
	Joe Nierman, as he tries to get the court to release, to end the gag order.
	Ungag the Trump.
	I reached out personally to Professor Dershowitz and Professor Turley to try to get them involved.
	Some people ask me about my involvement.
	What Joe was told was that he needed basically a high-ranking liberal democratic professor type, like Dershowitz, or that they didn't think the courts would get involved.
	So that's why he's reaching out to those people.
	But everybody should support this.
	I mean, I'm hoping Steve Bannon gets involved.
	I mean, there's people who could join the petition who say, I support the petition.
	I want Charlie Kirk, other people in the media.
	You could say, hey, Breitbart, Daily Wire.
	They could all say, hey, we want this gag order ended for our purposes.
	They could join and support it.
	There's lots of ways to support it.
	But Joe's done Lyon's work trying to support everybody's First Amendment rights and what he's been doing.
	Robert, I'm editing my tweet about, holy hell, you just blew my mind about Pecker extorting Trump.
	Okay, and then we got the bond.
	Turns out Pecker was really a pecker.
	Pecker was really a dick.
	Ed Weiner was really a frickin' pedophile.
	Okay.
	The Bond case, what's going on with the Bond?
	There's nothing really new going on with the...
	Basically, the judge backed down on not going so far as trying to say the Bond was illegitimate.
	And as I forecast, despite Ingeron being Ingeron, he wasn't going to go that far to embarrass the Court of Appeals.
	So the Bond is fine.
	So the attempts by the Attorney General to revoke the Bond failed.
	I didn't actually hear that.
	When did that happen?
	This week.
	I just saw the headline and the basic story.
	Okay, cool.
	Okay, so that's Trump.
	That's everything Trump, I think.
	Oh, by the way, how long does the Supreme Court have to render issue a judgment on the immunity argument?
	So they usually issue all of their decisions by June.
	Oh, shit balls.
	That's a long time.
	What month is it?
	It's April?
	May?
	We have two months.
	Sometime over the next two months a decision will issue.
	They get a lot of big decisions coming down.
	Also, tell me this.
	Am I wrong in thinking that they basically already had their decisions written and they were asking their questions just to fine-tune it?
	That's really always the case.
	Not with the Supreme Court, it won't be fully written.
	What they'll have is their opinions.
	This is true for every court I've ever been in front of.
	They already have an opinion about 80-85% of the time.
	They already have an opinion and their questions are leading questions to bolster their opinions.
	And that's why oral argument is often just for show.
	And when you do it, you often have to be prepared in case they're against you to try to find out what could I do to get them to reconsider and not take any trap questions.
	But that's always the case.
	But with the Supreme Court, there's no actual opinion because each of the justices has their own opinion, but then they've got to come up with a majority opinion.
	So after oral argument, usually there's an assignment.
	There's a vote.
	And then based on the vote, Chief Justice Roberts assigns who's going to write the opinion.
	My guess is Roberts will write this opinion himself.
	Okay.
	Very cool.
	So that's Trump.
	The other thing's up before the Supreme Court this week, the big one.
	There's briefly one about abortion, about whether federal law can preempt it.
	And one of the good questions Thomas asked is, you know, how do you preempt Andolito?
	How do you have a federal law preempt state criminal law?
	But they may skip it all by calling the case moot.
	So it may not end up being a big decision.
	But the homeless rights issue could be.
	Well, hold on a second.
	To the answer to the question as to how the Supreme Court can preempt a state law, how about if they just acknowledge that an unborn child has constitutional rights as of viability?
	How about if they just resolve it like that?
	Yeah, they could.
	And their point was...
	Somehow the Biden administration is interpreting this law.
	This is how licensure is being used.
	Now funding is being used this way.
	Saying you see it with all the trans stuff in Title IX.
	If you take our paycheck at any level, you take any money from us, we now get to control you.
	So you're an educational institution.
	You've got to teach people trans.
	You've got to adopt trans ideology.
	Or it's illegal.
	And you can be sued into oblivion.
	Now they're using it with hospitals.
	Okay, Medicare, Medicaid.
	And by the way, I remember all my friends on the left who love government health care told me this was never going to happen.
	And I'm not necessarily a big fan of my friends on the right who think we should let big corporations run all our health care either, just for the record.
	But the people on the left were, you know, the right complaint on the right was if you give government control over health care, they're going to abuse that power.
	And they're like, oh, no, no, that would never happen.
	It's just here to make sure people get their health care that can't otherwise afford it, et cetera, et cetera.
	Well, this is exactly what they're doing.
	The Biden administration is taking a 1980s law and saying, because we give you funds, you doctors are forced to give abortions, even if it's against the criminal law of your own state, as it is here in Idaho.
	And one of the questions the justices was like, how is a Reagan statute that says nothing about abortion now being interpreted to mandate abortion?
	That's how broad they're willing to stretch the power.
	That they're getting under federal funding laws.
	So there could be some good limitations on the ability to use federal funding to control everybody, but they also may say the decision is moot because the Idaho Supreme Court came in and restricted the Idaho criminal law in such a way that there's really no conflict anymore between the federal law and the state law.
	But it could have big constitutional consequence, just like the homelessness case.
	Okay, it's interesting.
	The funny thing is, I've been having debates on Twitter, and it seems that everybody agrees viability is the cutoff point, even if they don't want to say it publicly.
	Jason Palmer, another person, an Ontario teacher who I have discussions with, just constitutionally recognized as of viability, whatever scientifically that means, it's a human under the protection of the law and the Constitution, and you resolve a lot of issues.
	Then you have a separate subset of issues, which you can...
	Go for it.
	Okay, interesting.
	Robert, I'm looking at the list.
	Our next big one is the homelessness one for the Supreme Court.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	And then we got some ones we can cover in the after party at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	The other big potential one with ramifications based on the oral argument this week.
	We discussed it last week.
	But it's the update from what happened at oral argument.
	And we'll go from the pecker to the wiener to the Weinstein in the after party.
	But I did not listen to the...
	The homelessness one was whether or not the ordinance that prohibited or criminalized being on a park bench with nowhere to go at a certain hour of night was a crime.
	Whether or not you could effectively criminalize homelessness.
	I did not listen to those oral arguments.
	Which means you could criminalize someone based on involuntary conduct.
	You could criminalize someone based on situation rather than something they intentionally created.
	And the question is, does the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments prohibit that?
	Prohibit punishment for involuntary behavior?
	Prohibit criminal punishment for just your situation or status in life?
	And in the same way, or does the Fifth Amendment due process clause prohibit it?
	And that's why now the three liberals...
	Like the 5th, the 8th Amendment in this context.
	But they were afraid of where the other justices were going.
	So they were hoping to just remand and say it's all moot because Oregon's passed law to address certain subject matter.
	So they may like, in this case, they may try to do that escape valve.
	But to his credit, Kavanaugh and some others were like, there's some issues here.
	Do we want to constitute?
	Now here's where some of the old school conservatives like Alito and Thomas.
	Have often not really been very good.
	They haven't been good at 5th and 8th Amendment interpretation of not criminalizing status.
	They haven't been consistent advocates, unfortunately, on that side of the aisle.
	And then, of course, you have Amy Coney Barrett, whose first question you could predict would be, oh, but these homeless people are so smelly.
	I mean, can't we just really put them in prison for how they smell?
	That was the nature of her question.
	That's what you get when you get a corporate snob on the bench.
	It's like, uh-huh, let's not worry about the Constitution.
	I just don't like the look of them, was the nature of her argument.
	So she's not going to be any able advocate.
	But hopefully they do not undermine Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights in the name of punishing homeless people or dealing with the homelessness problem.
	Our Constitution does indeed prohibit.
	Now, Gorsuch had a carve-out.
	Gorsuch's carve-out was, couldn't we constitutionally recognize the necessity defense?
	To say that the necessity defense is constitutionally embedded.
	And the necessity defense is a version of the justification defense I talked about in the Pennsylvania case.
	Basically, it says, look, I had a lesser of two evils that I chose to do, and it was the only thing I could do.
	It was necessary for me to behave in this manner.
	And in that context, I would be okay with that, too, as long as he constitutionalizes it.
	Just saying it exists doesn't protect it because the courts could just take it away in the future.
	So how they decide this, the politics of the homelessness case is clouding the very big constitutional issues lurking in that case.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Robert, hold on a second.
	I've got to get back here to the list of stuff.
	Oh!
	The Arizona.
	Maybe we want to save that for the after party.
	Pure butter.
	Backpack.
	What is that?
	Back pages verdict.
	I don't know what that is.
	Hunter.
	Okay, let's actually end this because it'll tie it all off in a nice bow.
	Started off with immunity, or at least we got to immunity halfway through.
	We'll end with the immunity.
	Hunter Biden claiming immunity.
	For those of us who don't know what you're talking about or what Hunter Biden is claiming immunity for, I'm amenable to thinking about it.
	What is he claiming?
	Is it for the gun charges?
	Is it for...
	All of it.
	It's for the gun charges and the tax charges.
	But the basis is what we talked about at the time.
	That once the government signed a plea deal, that's a binding plea deal.
	And I agree with the legal position of Hunter Biden's lawyers.
	Well, not that you agree with it.
	You predicted it before they even raised it.
	And I legally think it's correct.
	I disagreed with them giving him that deal, but I definitely disagree with the court saying, well, the government can just sign a plea deal with somebody and then ignore it and then violate it.
	I don't care whether it's Hunter Biden, Donald Trump, or anyone else.
	Michael Avenatti, you name it.
	The government, under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, is not only contractually obligated to keep their word, they're constitutionally obligated to keep their word.
	And they induced Hunter Biden to make statements against his interest in the name of that deal.
	And so just because it's Hunter Biden is no excuse at all to eviscerate the constitutional and contractual obligation of the United States government to keep its word.
	And so his motion to dismiss the gun charges and the tax charges should in fact be granted.
	They're making a ludicrous claim.
	That the probation office had to sign off.
	That's never been the case as a matter of custom and practice, number one.
	And number two, it's not in the agreement.
	Nothing in the agreement says the probation office has to sign off or this is not valid until they do.
	Because Hunter Biden wouldn't have signed it if that was the case.
	So Hunter Biden is constitutionally correct.
	But they'll probably sit on that being the correct decision until after election day.
	Okay.
	And that...
	By the way, that's why they signed it in Delaware, because Delaware contract law governs.
	And it's more favorable to Hunter Biden.
	Okay, before we head over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com, let me see how many rumblehants we are behind schedule on.
	T1990, I say deregulation needs to take place so people can start competing companies to corporations.
	Like Pfizer to Microsoft, it obviously requires getting government out of the way.
	Deregulation, I don't think most people would object to unless you are a Democrat or a liberal.
	The engaged few.
	You need to tell me that the people whose religious traditions are based on a set of laws are heavily represented in the legal profession?
	Fetch my fainting couch and smelling.
	I've never thought about it that way, the engaged few.
	That's interesting.
	And I feel stupid now.
	I actually have never even thought about that.
	Rusty Hollow.
	Although, what would explain the over-representation in an industry like film and porn?
	That is not based on traditions or laws.
	Maybe it is.
	I don't know.
	I haven't thought about that long enough.
	Rusty Hollow.
	Grobert said at work for The Weekly we got that.
	Barb loves Alaska.
	Need to put a shock collar on Viva so every time he tries to interrupt Barnes we can shock him.
	Just kidding, Viva.
	Hart.
	Don't worry, I didn't take that personally.
	Is there a place for fixers?
	W.L. French.
	Razorfish said it best when it comes to Arizona, the corrupt people there will not give up the drug money and the California cash without a fight.
	It's interesting.
	Robert, do we take the rest of this party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	Yeah, we got the Arizona criminal indictment for just contesting an election.
	We got Harvey Weinstein having his New York conviction thrown out.
	Part of it, part of it, part of it.
	We got back pages having a bunch of judicial acquittals concerning whether or not they were involved in human trafficking.
	And then we got when butter ain't butter, but they pretend it is butter, like most corporate food, and it has a bunch of chemical crap in it instead.
	Robert, there was one thing that just came in that I want to get.
	I'm not getting into any Jew discussion.
	I don't know why that is such a...
	It's such an unpleasant conversation to have on the internet.
	Ribo says, what is Barnes' take on rumors of Doug Burgum, ND North Dakota?
	Yeah, he's one of the people being considered.
	Burgum's okay, but not great, not terrible.
	I mean, J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Ben Carson, those would all be great choices.
	Those are the top three choices at bebabarneslaw.logals.com.
	Tim Scott would be a horrendous choice.
	Kristi Noem would be a poor choice.
	Doug Bergen would be a meh.
	Why is everyone ignoring my Vivek Ramaswamy?
	I like him, Robert.
	Or, I mean, Tulsi Gabbard I like as well.
	I think Vivek would be a fun, interesting choice.
	And not to play the identity politics game.
	He would be, you know, check off the box so that you can say, well, it's not going to be a white male.
	Like J.D. Vance, they'll just say, oh, two white dudes running for the president.
	It'll be a very easy point of attack.
	I don't think like that.
	I hate it.
	I like J.D. Vance.
	He's amazing.
	Proving himself above and beyond just words, but action.
	And Lake would, of course, be great.
	But she's running for the Senate.
	I think that there's already a decision made that she is not going to be for VP consideration, is my understanding.
	I like Kara Lake as well.
	We are ending on Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I'll share the link one more time.
	We've still got 20,000 people live here.
	If we can get all 20,000...
	By the way, before you leave, hit thumbs up and subscribe.
	Just make sure for that.
	Send the Locals link.
	It's in the chat.
	Boom.
	Here, I'll do it one more time.
	Oh, I see.
	Now I've gotten a message.
	It says, you sent too many messages on Rumble.
	I'm just making sure we got everything.
	So come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to cover the tip questions there, the after party, and it's going to be fun.
	If you're not coming, thank you for coming to Rumble.
	Stay tuned.
	Oh, I can't wait to go back to the Iron Rainbow and try to make people realize.
	What Ronald Reagan said...
	Can he have said it, Robert?
	You're never more than one generation away from extinction when it comes to freedom.
	I really blew his expression, but I can't believe he actually made that.
	Vivek is a snake in the grass.
	Too much unknown.
	I disagree.
	Vivek has foreign loyalties.
	I disagree.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	We are all entitled to our opinions.
	I like mine better.
	What we're going to do now, everybody, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending it on Rumble.
	Thank you for being here.
	And that's it.
	Done.
	Three, two, one.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	We are in the locals after party, people.
	I'm going to go all the way back up to the top.
	Rusty Gus, we got that one.
	Idaho, there we got.
	Taylor, we got that.
	Atar, Robert, have you heard of Van Jang?
	Doug the Leaf.
	Okay, I'll read it just because I started, but we're going to do five bucks and more so we don't get bogged down.
	Viva is the only way to meet you when you come back to Canada in the breakfast ticket.

▲