Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 12, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:50:23

Ep. 210: Stormy Gags on Lies! Hunter Not Immune! AstraZeneca Pulled & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Miscuzzi for being late.
	Hold on.
	Although you're going to wish that I was even later so you don't have to watch this 17 seconds of retching diarrhea coming out of Chrystia Freeland's mouth.
	Happy Mother's Day, people.
	Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers, grandmothers, and maternal figures across Canada.
	I am so happy to be celebrating at home with my kids.
	I hope you have a chance to celebrate your mothers today and every day.
	Happy Mother's Day!
	Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers...
	I've got to pause this for a second.
	I've got to start from the beginning.
	See if you can make out the noise in the background or what is being said because it's clearly a voice.
	Hold on.
	Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers, grandmothers, and maternal figures across Canada.
	I am so happy to be celebrating at home with my kids.
	I hope you have a chance to celebrate your mothers today and every day.
	Happy Mother's Day!
	I will admit I am biased because I absolutely loathe Chrystia Friens.
	I don't know if I would hate her as a person, if I ever met her in person, or if we had a lengthy conversation.
	Asymmetrical today.
	I don't know if I would hate her as much as I think I would hate her in real life.
	I think I would.
	I...
	I loathe the fact that this is a woman, a person, gender or sex is not relevant, but she's a woman who has single-handedly destroyed Canadian families through policy, through action and inaction.
	She's a woman who has enacted policies through her partner in crime, Justin Trudeau.
	I didn't see if he posted a video today.
	They've literally destroyed families.
	They've literally...
	They've literally, through their policy, led to the death of Canadians.
	There are people out there who, on this Mother's Day, are incapable, unable to celebrate Mother's Day, because of policy that these two people implemented in Canada.
	And they come out there, they parade their children, so that if they get negative comments, they can then say, look at these people, they can't even leave me and my family alone, as I torment them and their families.
	Knowing that it's going to happen.
	Do you remember when Justin Trudeau was getting divorced from his wife?
	And he asked for his privacy and that of his family during the time of his divorce.
	And then a week later, puts out a tweet of him and his son at the Barbie movie, hashtag Team Barbie.
	He put out a picture of him and his son, knowing there were a great many people out there who would not know that that was his son.
	His son looked effeminate in the picture.
	It doesn't mean anything except for the fact that it contributed to people's misunderstanding of it.
	He put out a tweet picture of him and his son without identifying that it was his son so that people would make the obvious jokes of Trudeau got divorced and now he's out on the night with another man.
	People not realizing it was his son.
	A week later, he then puts out a picture of him and his kid at Oppenheimer.
	His daughter at Oppenheimer.
	His daughter wearing...
	Clothing, which would lead assholes on the internet to say asshole things on the internet.
	And congratulations, Slopinski, if you remember what he said, said something asshole-y.
	But he parades his children out there as political tools while asking for privacy for his children so that he can then politically exploit and weaponize the predictable responses to using your children as political props.
	Chrystia Freeland is out there doing the same thing.
	While they destroy the lives of Canadians, destroy Canadian families, you know that it's one in five or one in four Canadian children that is living in poverty, that is living hungry, as they ship off billions of dollars to Chrystia Freeland's homeland of Ukraine?
	You know that?
	I bet you some of you know that.
	And they sit there and they rub their political good fortune in your face.
	While Justin Trudeau's grocery bills of, what was it, $55,000, $60,000 a year are fronted by Canadian taxpayer dollars, they come out and just rub their good fortune in the face of struggling and hurting Canadians.
	I'm just saying, also, she should get cancelled because she, you know, for the crowd that says trans women are women, and she did not wish men.
	Happy Mother's Day if they identify as a maternal figure, mother figure.
	Do you remember the movie Uncle Buck and the daughter, Taya?
	And it's telling Macaulay Culkin, well, while mother figure is not around, mother figure, I don't know what it means, except it's typically used by people who want to deny the mother status of an actual mother.
	Mother figure, is that their washing of their hands?
	It's ambiguous enough.
	Mother figure could apply to men who identify as mothers.
	Something's going to drive me crazy if I don't fix it.
	There you go.
	Don't go back.
	It's going back.
	Is it moving?
	No.
	So that's it.
	I have to start with that because it turns my stomach.
	Happy Mother's Day.
	While we destroy your country, while we destroy the very fabric of a civil society that we thought we lived in, happy Mother's Day.
	And here are my kids and don't say anything mean about me or my family.
	Otherwise, I get to play victim again.
	Okay, but we're not done yet.
	Railing against Canadian politicians.
	As some of you may know, I didn't want to start a video with me because that could have been accused of being narcissistic.
	So I don't want to start the video with me.
	But if you didn't know that I was recently in Canada...
	Yesterday.
	Holy cow, what day is it today?
	Yeah, I was in Canada yesterday, the day before, at the Rumble Fight for Free Speech conference that Rumble put on, that Rebel News hosted.
	If you don't know, I posted my entire segment.
	It was live the entire day and yesterday as well, and they had great, great speakers.
	I'll play a little clip because you need to get a flavor of the extremism and anti-Semitism that was at this conference that prompted...
	Ya 'arav, whatever her name is.
	I'll play this real quickly.
	That prompted this outrageous comment that I'm going to.
	Why is government good and private corporation bad?
	Well, private corporations seeking profit.
	They have very selfish interests.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You don't think government has equally selfish, corrupt interests?
	I mean, if you don't trust humans in private enterprise, why the hell would you trust those same humans in government enterprise?
	People think you go into law.
	And you're going to see dignified people, because after all, law is a dignified profession.
	Law is run by humans.
	I love this edit.
	And some humans are bad, and some humans who are bad are attracted to positions of power for bad reasons.
	The idea that the government is some sort of benevolent good, and that it should be as big as possible.
	A, we've seen how it works to absolutely coerce submission from a population.
	The more the people are dependent on the government, either for your $2,000 a month because they shut your business down, or because you're employed by the government and you can't bite the hand that feeds you, you, the more government control, the more control of a society, the more they can make Hitler's willing executioners because nobody can say no because it means their family and not someone else's family.
	Testify.
	That was the conference, fighting for free speech, opposing that ridiculous online harms act, Bill C-63.
	What's her name?
	I forget her name now.
	The most disgusting, vile people on Earth who are members of government come out and want to...
	Where is it, dude?
	I haven't here.
	Fannie Willis.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	I said I was going to start the show with her because I want to highlight this tweet.
	And I can't remember her name now.
	It has an A in it.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	Here it is right here.
	Here we go.
	No, that's not the right one, but we're going to get there.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	For goodness sake.
	I'm going to have to pull it up over here because...
	Oh, okay, fine.
	I'll bring this up.
	Sorry, it's not going to be the original tweet, but we're going to bring it up because we have to.
	These people need to be put on blast.
	And these people, I mean, politicians of the most decrepit order.
	Here, hold on.
	Is that it?
	No, it's right here.
	Ya 'ada, what's her last name?
	Ya 'ada Sachs put out a tweet.
	She says, oh, I've got to post my comment to this conference that I've heard.
	Sadly, I've learned that Rebel News will be bringing its hateful and extremist views to York Centre.
	This is a Canadian MP talking about that event put on by Rumble, hosted by Ezra Levant.
	It gets beyond stupid.
	While I am a strong supporter of the right to free speech, let me be clear that the vile views espoused by Rebel News are not welcome in York Center.
	Where do they accuse him of anti-Semitism?
	Rebel News, its commentators, staff, and associates have espoused everything from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia.
	Whoa, that's an amazing spectrum of isms right there.
	Ezra Levant, who happens to be Jewish?
	I don't talk about it very often, but everybody knows.
	Viva Frye, who was one of the speakers there, that itch bay, Yara Sachs, comes out and says, I have to issue my statement as to the violent anti-Semitic and Islamophobic statements coming from Rebel News, Ezra Levant, Viva Frye, who's up there railing against the government the way they deserve to get railed against.
	Scum.
	All right, now I see Barnes is in the backdrop, and I'm going to bring him in in exactly 30 seconds, but before we even get there, while we have to deal with...
	Oh, government corruption and all of the ugliness that is the world based on the terrible policies of these people.
	Is disease X coming around the corner where they're going to try to finish the job that they didn't get away with during the COVID pandemic?
	I'm not yet saying planned because I'm not sure if it was planned or co-opted.
	It doesn't really matter.
	First, it was Disease X in January, where the globalists hosted a panel featuring big pharma leadership in Davos, and the foreshadowing is real because recall what they did with the pandemic in 2019.
	Now the CDC and mainstream media are stoking fears around the H5N1 bird flu, claiming that not only have tens of millions of livestock been infected, but also the virus is making the leap to humans through milk, through steak, through salad dressings, you name it.
	And by the way, I spoke with very smart people, smarter than myself, who believe that if it makes the leap and it goes from human to human...
	Something is afoot.
	Maybe the same thing that's not happening, but it's good that it's happening.
	Genetically modified.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Oh, well, I'll get it in a second.
	Gain of function.
	That was the word I'm looking for.
	The gain of function research.
	Avian flu at the same time news headlines are being littered with outbreak scares.
	If we've learned anything through this awakening, it's that there's no such thing as a coincidence.
	The Atlantic reported on April 30th that the U.S. is somehow over and under reacting to the bird flu.
	Whatever that means, being prepared always.
	Is the way to go.
	And I learned this during the first one, when you're like, you can't get your medications because half of them are made in India and China, and lo and behold, there's a shortage.
	Good luck to you.
	Luckily, the chief medical board at the Wellness Company has been closely watching the avian flu outbreak over the last few weeks, and they've got your back.
	The one-of-a-kind prescription contagion emergency kit, it's only available in America, people, provides you with a carefully selected assortment of effective medications for bird flu, COVID-19, other respiratory illnesses, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, Tamiflu, Buddha's...
	Boo!
	I always get this one.
	Budesonide, along with the nebulizer, so you can rest easy knowing that you have the emergency meds on hand alongside with a guidebook for safe use.
	Every American should have at least one of these kits.
	Avoid the wait times, the price gouging, and other concerns with something that will cost you basically one visit to a doctor.
	TWC forward slash Viva.
	TWC dot health forward slash Viva.
	Get your emergency kit now.
	Contagion kit.
	It's a prescription, so you gotta fill out some stuff.
	It's not available in Canada, unfortunately, but if you go to twc.health /viva, use the promo code VIVA, 10% off and free shipping.
	Kits are only available in the USA, and it's something that you wanna have.
	It's like a medical kit, like an emergency kit, except with stuff that you'll need.
	That they said was bad and wrong, and now they're saying it's not so bad and not so wrong, and we're going to be talking about it a little bit more tonight.
	All right, and I see Barnes...
	Oh, by the way, the link is in the description, and we've got another sponsor in a bit, but the link is in the description.
	Thank you, guys.
	Fine Folk at TWC just did a podcast with Drew, in-house with Kelly Victory, and they're doing amazing stuff there.
	Barnes, I'm bringing you in.
	Where is Barnes?
	He looks like he's either...
	He's not captive.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	How's the sound?
	Everything good?
	Well, I'm going to go to Rumble.
	I'll go to Locals and see if it's equalized.
	But I don't know.
	Are you allowed disclosing your location?
	Oh, yeah.
	In New Orleans.
	Booyah.
	Now, may I ask?
	I should know why you're there.
	But are you there?
	Buddy, mine's wedding.
	Very cool.
	I'm just going to ask, how is audio here?
	So there's no book in the backdrop, Robert.
	I'm going to bring you back in here.
	But you're pulling the...
	If anybody doesn't know who Peter McKenna...
	Peter McKenna.
	He's the Canadian photographer.
	He always says, you want to get good lighting, get as close as you can.
	To the window.
	Barnes, it's Mother's Day.
	Do you have a party tonight or no?
	No, the wedding was yesterday, and the reception was the night before that.
	So everybody's heading back, and then I head up to Philadelphia tomorrow for some more Philadelphia cases.
	Well, I mean, look, I don't know what's on our menu.
	You'll tell us what's on the menu, but let's just actually start with the updates there.
	Are you going back to Pennsylvania for...
	Amos Miller, the farmer?
	Or are you going back for the two men that are still...
	All of the above.
	And there's some more harassment the government's doing over some more people connected to Amish countries.
	So that it never stops.
	So we'll see how all that progresses.
	Robert, do you want to go through the menu or roughly what we have on the menu for tonight?
	And by the way, it's Mother's Day, so we might not be able to do a marathon until...
	8.39 o 'clock.
	We might cut it a little.
	Well, we might just go two hours.
	We'll see how it goes.
	Yeah, happy Mother's Day, everybody out there.
	Our topics tonight, the two other, well, no favorites was the number one, but the next top two were election-related cases and whether illegals are voting.
	And we have election-related legal news out of Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and New York, as well as the illegals question and illegal suing states like Iowa over whether or not...
	That state can enforce immigration law itself.
	We got, of course, Trump with his New York trial and continuous misconduct issues, government misconduct issues in his Florida proceedings as well.
	And, of course, Judge Ingeron caught up in another scandal.
	Then we got Steve Bannon, D.C. Court of Appeals, denied his appeal.
	So he's going to go up to the Supreme Court or he goes to prison for four months.
	We have the diversity, equity, and inclusion has led to a lawsuit against Red Hat and IBM by my firm, 1776 Law Center, and Stephen Miller and America First Legal.
	That suit was brought this week, this past Wednesday, about racial, gender, and religious discrimination in high-ranking companies.
	We've got vaccine-related cases on multiple fronts.
	I was before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota, on religious harassment.
	We have federal courts engaging in religious inquisitions of people objecting to the vaccine mandates on religious grounds.
	We have a federal appeals court, I believe federal, maybe state, out of Colorado.
	Thomas More Society won a big case against universities trying to impose selective religiously discriminatory mandates.
	We have a Supreme Court, two major cases they came down, one on copyright law, but the other big one was on forfeiture law, where two justices, Gorsuch and Thomas, wrote a concurrence about where that law might be going.
	The decision itself, I found kind of a weak decision by the majority.
	Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined Roberts, and in this case, Alito.
	To allow and authorize all kinds of government stealing your property and your money without any limitation.
	But Gorsuch and Thomas wrote a key concurrence.
	The three liberals dissented.
	The three liberals were right, in my opinion, by the way.
	But Gorsuch and Thomas wrote a concurring opinion making it clear they were not greenlighting all the insanity that's going on in civil forfeiture context.
	That might have broader context, broader application.
	It might apply to cases like...
	Amos Miller is in Pennsylvania.
	What happens when the government steals your stuff without even giving you a hearing?
	Then we've got the students bringing suit in multiple contexts, some challenging these student fees that are charged to help politically motivated organizations and sort of coerced speech is what's taking place in many of those cases.
	That's being challenged, as well as various challenges arising from the Anti-Israeli protests on college campuses, some proposals for crazy new control laws, speech laws, hate speech laws.
	It's just coming from, in some cases, the right, the conservative side of the aisle in this case.
	So that's about the dozen or so cases we have for tonight's discussion.
	All right, amazing.
	I don't know what we're going to start with.
	It might be out of order, but I think we should start with this one because it's important and we should know what the heck is going on with Steve Bannon and the appeals dismissing his challenges to the conviction for contempt of Congress that he got.
	And I read through this.
	It's just the most frustrating thing on earth because it's motivated reasoning where that's how you would draft it if you want to arrive at the conclusion that you dismiss all of Bannon's challenges to his conviction.
	For those of you who don't recall, He got a subpoena from that January 6th committee to bring some documents, some of which related to his potential interactions with Trump and others which allegedly didn't.
	He didn't comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons, one of which was invoking what he was led to believe or what I believe was executive privilege that was being asserted.
	That was one basis.
	Another basis is that he said this subpoena is invalid because people seem to have forgotten.
	That this January 6th committee, it's not just a talking point in the media, it was unlawfully formed or invalid in that it didn't meet the quorum, it didn't meet the legal requirements for its formation, such that any subpoena they could issue would be fundamentally not defective but non-existent because it doesn't exist in virtue of a lawfully formed committee.
	And the way they, in the decision, from what I understand, Robert, they said...
	You would have had to gone before the committee to challenge the legitimacy of the subpoena on the basis that the committee was invalid in order to get the committee, which is invalid under your argument, to acknowledge the subpoena is invalid because the committee is invalid.
	It's effing backwards.
	Can you make it make sense?
	And does this go to the Supreme Court before Bannon is summoned to jail?
	I think it would be tough for him to get the Supreme Court to take the case.
	Just because they generally don't take a lot of these kind of cases, they refuse to get involved in Peter Navarro's case.
	We filed a petition for cert on behalf of Owen Troyer that is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So we'll see if some version of these they take up, but I suspect it'll be difficult for him to get it taken up.
	And in all likelihood, Bayton's going to be doing four months in a federal prison.
	The only question is when.
	It might be peak election time.
	He may be serving time right when he could be advocating for the election in the fall.
	Let's say he has 90 days to file his petition with the Supreme Court.
	So I presume he'll take all the time available to him for that.
	And that his bail, pending appeal stays out while he goes up to the Supreme Court.
	And so hopefully at least he'll be available through the election season.
	And then, who knows, maybe there's a pardon coming down the road.
	Before he ever actually has to do any actual time, depending on how things ultimately get scheduled.
	But there's two aspects to it.
	One is, you know, Bannon probably could have, his counsel could have done a more thorough job in how they handled the subpoena from the get-go.
	So I think they could have got a more affirmative and clear statement from Trump's team.
	Can I stop you on that?
	Because the Court of Appeals seems to be suggesting that he did not get a, I don't know, clear and unequivocal or even a confirmation that Trump was, in fact, exercising executive privilege.
	I don't know how to even go back to verify that in real time.
	I thought he did.
	Was there any ambiguity as to whether or not Trump was exercising executive privilege or invoking it for him?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, there was.
	And there are ways to get better clarity on that.
	That's one part.
	A second part was...
	It would have been useful.
	I mean, I find it ridiculous that you have to exhaust remedies by challenging the very organization that's violating your rights.
	But the courts rely on this nonsense all the time.
	We'll discuss it.
	You know, there are potshots at Abe Hamada and his Arizona election contest.
	The Arizona Court of Appeals is like, why didn't you bring every kind of emergency relief known to man?
	Of course, those that did so, Carrie Lake did sue before the election with Alan Dershowitz and others, and the court sanctioned her for doing so.
	So this is the part the courts don't deal with.
	They don't deal with their hypocrisy and duplicity on election law cases.
	But the same thing here, that if you're going to challenge a congressional subpoena, you've got to check all the boxes and challenge it by every means attainable to you.
	You're then still better off going in and asserting your objections live.
	And that he, for whatever reason, I never understood why Bannon never chose not to do that.
	To a degree, Navarro chose that path, too.
	I thought that was bad.
	Alex Jones didn't.
	Alex Jones went in and objected.
	And even though he was asserting his Fifth Amendment, because he's Alex, he sporadically said, by the way, you're a fraud, you're a fraud, and you're a fraud.
	That was another question, is that this all, in theory, could have been avoided if Bannon just showed up and pleaded the Fifth.
	Yeah.
	And otherwise asserted all the other objections he had available to him.
	So I never understood the approach that was taken.
	It appears that it was the advice of his counsel.
	Some of us have been telling Bannon now for about five years that he doesn't have the best counsel.
	But God bless him, he doesn't listen.
	He wasn't, and he tried to invoke advice of counsel, and the Court of Appeals says you don't even get to bring that in as a defense.
	Yeah, no, I think that there's a robust issue there constitutionally.
	So they ultimately said he waived and forfeited a bunch of stuff, both the executive privilege defense, that it wasn't re-raised again at the trial as a separate line of defense, that his variations of authority defense should have been brought in a different manner than they were brought.
	I think they're trying to find excuses to weasel out of legal accountability, the Court of Appeals, but there's no question that things could have been more thoroughly I always try to tell people that you have to...
	We're seeing it now with Trump in live time in New York.
	There are ways to preserve an objection.
	And the trial court is trapping the Trump team into not making objections they should be making.
	Yes, they make the objection beforehand.
	Yes, it's already really been ruled on.
	Yes, it's really preserved.
	Yes, it's trying to make them be embarrassing in front of the jury.
	But there's ways to still get around that.
	And you say, hey, judge, I just want to be able to preserve it.
	For those folks out there that are in the practice of law, you can tell you no set of objections is coming.
	The court has already screwed you on.
	Say, judge, I anticipate certain questions being asked and answers being given that raise to those issues.
	May I have a continuing objection to that, or do I need to interrupt the court and counsel throughout?
	I don't want to interrupt if I can avoid it.
	I don't want to, you know, cause any unnecessary...
	Issues, Your Honor.
	Is it okay if I can just have a continuing objection?
	When do I need to re-raise it in your mind for me to preserve it?
	And then judges, because they want to trap you into that, but they don't actually want everything interrupted, they'll usually give you the continuing objection without you having to say it every six seconds.
	So there was a bunch of things that Bannon could have done before the committee, could have done at the trial level.
	And now the Court of Appeals is holding that over him and denying him on technical grounds, substantive remedy.
	Now, the big issue still is willfulness, historically, when the feds use the word willfulness, when Congress uses the word willfulness, it has a very particular meaning.
	If they want to say you have to act with knowing intent, they say knowing intent.
	If they say willful, they mean something additional, above and beyond that.
	The courts have...
	Never like that because they like to convict people and help the prosecution whenever they can.
	That's what judges really do.
	It's not their job, but it's how they perceive their job because it's how they got their job by either being prosecutors or protecting prosecutors.
	And this is particularly pernicious on the right, but it's just as pernicious these days on the left.
	The neoliberal authoritarians come from the left on the bench.
	That unless you have a sob story, They don't want to give you any defense.
	So if you commit rape, they're real sympathetic.
	If you're a pedo, they're real sympathetic.
	If you offend the almighty authority of the great state, then you must be punished interminably.
	And that's what we see, because willfulness should include an advice of counsel defense and a good faith defense.
	Well, I mean, I just brought up, I don't know how much of a legal definition it is, but under, I don't know, Department of Justice, I don't know what provision of law, but...
	If done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, I don't know how broad that is.
	They like limiting that because it's so confusing.
	The historical definition was bad purpose, evil purpose, criminal intent.
	You know you're violating the law and you didn't rely upon the advice of any professional for what you did.
	It is applied that way in the tax context, though even there they try to undermine it, the lower court, ignore the Supreme Court precedent.
	Here the D.C. court has a prior precedent.
	Saying that they're not going to require willfulness under that definition in the context of congressional subpoenas.
	So he'll go up first to the en banc panel.
	Then he'll go up to the Supreme Court.
	And the Supreme Court should reevaluate the definition of willfulness in this context.
	Because they're also piggybacking off of the lack of a reliance of counsel defense to exclude all the evidence they excluded.
	He tried to subpoena everybody.
	The district court did not.
	In part on the misapplication of the speech and debate clause, but also, which the D.C. Court of Appeals notably avoided even publicly discussing, said we're going to skip that because we don't have to, because we found a procedural loophole so that we can hide instead.
	But the issues of whether that committee was properly formed could be a part of a reliance of counsel's offense, that the counsel advised it wasn't properly formed.
	And so that's where all of that evidence could potentially come back in if they reinstate a full reliance defense.
	In reality, if they reverse the conviction, they're not going to re-prosecute.
	And in all likelihood, they won't even be in power by the time that decision would come around.
	So we'll see.
	But I think Bannon faces a serious risk, unfortunately, of imprisonment, in part because of the corruption of the Biden administration and Congress.
	And some people get confused.
	Congress doesn't hold people in contempt.
	They can say they did, but only courts have the power of criminal contempt prosecution.
	So I see these people saying, why hasn't Congress held so-and-so in contempt?
	Because Congress doesn't have that power.
	They send it over to the Justice Department.
	The executive branch has that power.
	And until and unless the executive branch exercises it, it doesn't matter.
	That's why nobody that Biden doesn't want prosecuted will ever get prosecuted, no matter how many times.
	They're in contempt of Congress.
	And the Trump administration chose not to pursue people that were in contempt of Congress under Barack Obama.
	You can debate that, but that's what Trump chose to do.
	The Biden administration has not returned the favor.
	But at the same time, there were things that Bannon could have done to better preserve and protect his legal remedies through the legal process that his counsel failed to do.
	I was going to say that, you know, Bannon going to jail within the months leading up to November might be the best promotion for the Trump campaign possible, so maybe it's strategic all along.
	Meanwhile, Peter Navarro is in jail now.
	Yeah, he's in jail, and the president refused to allow Congressman Matt Gaetz to interview him.
	So what's interesting, these days, apparently in federal prison, you have social media access now.
	Well, Avenatti's tweeting out some stuff which we're going to talk about.
	I was like, how is this?
	He's in prison.
	I had no idea.
	So apparently state and federal prisons are making social media accessible to prisoners.
	Well, I mean, I did an interview with Jake Lang, one of the Jan Sixers, who's up, I think, in New York State.
	I think he was taken into solitary and might still be there after that interview, but he was seemingly able to.
	I don't know why they pulled him into solitary, but Avenatti's doing interviews, tweeting.
	So Matt Gaetz.
	Denied access.
	Yeah, denied.
	Well, he wanted to interview Peter Navarro, who was, again, only in there on, I think, a misdemeanor for a very brief sentence.
	The sentence that never should have been imposed in the first place.
	And the federal prison system, Bureau of Prisons, won't allow the interview.
	Again, they've been particularly punitive towards January 6th defendants.
	They put Owen Troyer in solitary for most of his very short sentence to make it as miserable and torturous as possible.
	So this is who the Bureau of Prisons is.
	And it shows the need for reform at many, many levels.
	Robert, before I get into some of the super chats, if I may bring up the second...
	I had a beautiful segue, but wait until you see this, people.
	Hold on.
	I'm not going to play the entire video, but Roundhouse here, check this out.
	Morning kick, people.
	The joke was I was going to try to say Bannon's going to go into jail and come up looking like...
	Chuck Norris.
	That was the segue into the sponsor.
	Didn't get there, but bottom line, this is the other sponsor of our night.
	Morning Kick, by the way.
	Has anybody seen what Chuck Norris looks like these days?
	He's 84 years old and I had no idea.
	I don't know what he's doing, but I think I know what he's doing.
	Have you ever wondered what happened to Chuck Norris?
	So I see this video.
	I knew what Chuck Norris looked like because I'm a Chuck Norris fan.
	What's even more shocking, he's stronger, works out longer, and has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
	He did this by just making just one change.
	He says it feels like he's in his 50s again.
	His wife even started doing it, and she says she's feeling better.
	She says she feels 10 years younger.
	He's 84 years old, by the way, people.
	I'm not playing the video because you've got to go watch the video.
	Chuck made a special video that explains everything.
	Make sure you watch it by going to chuckdefense.com forward slash Viva.
	Do I tease it out a little bit?
	I'll tease it out a little bit.
	Your door, but inside your own body.
	AP joints, digestive issues.
	I wanted to start with Chuck Norris.
	You'll have to go watch it because it's actually magnificent and there's nothing wrong with being healthy people.
	Chuck, it is chuckdefense.com forward slash Viva.
	Click the link in the video.
	It'll change the way you think about your health once again.
	ChuckDefense with an S, not a C because we're in America.com forward slash Viva.
	Click the link.
	Just a reminder, the legendary Chuck Norris is a whopping...
	He's 84 years old now.
	I'm going to maybe fact check myself there.
	He's 84 years old.
	He's discovered he could create dynamic changes in his health simply by focusing on three things that sabotage our body as we age.
	Watch the method.
	ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
	And as I say that...
	I know they say to give up one thing, and I see some chat discussing what's gonna be in the glass later.
	It's a rose gin, Robert, so it goes with your tie.
	Although the chat is discussing whether or not your tie is salmon or...
	Salmon or rose.
	But hold on, there was a funny...
	You have to be 100% badass to wear a pink tie.
	Or gay, that's it.
	Robert, you're the badass.
	It's a happy Mother's Day.
	It's even apropos color for Happy Mama's Day.
	By the way, the link is in the description, so check it out.
	But I'll bring up a few of these before we get going to Rumble because we're ending on YouTube.
	Vote with our dollar and support the Free Speech platform.
	Good job up there at the Free Speech Conference.
	I hope it helps.
	Cheryl, thank you very much.
	Except for my brain fart where I said Trump instead of Trudeau.
	I wanted that as the clip.
	Robert, I said Trump instead of Trudeau and I didn't even notice it until after the speech.
	Had I noticed it during, I would have stopped it and made a joke about it.
	It ruined my...
	It ruined just that one section.
	But it was fantastic.
	Hunley, please join us and Viva Frye in the West Palm Beach in Florida.
	Americasuntoldstories.com forward slash events.
	Hunley, I know it's next week.
	I hope it's next week.
	They're giving you an award, right?
	I think so.
	The cranky old Canadian award.
	Shittenhouse Enterprises now recruiting like-minded people for customers facing role.
	Applicants should post their samples official at Viva's residence.
	Thank you very much.
	Robert, have you visited St. George yet?
	That's in New Orleans.
	Maybe.
	If it's St. George Episcopal Church, that's where the wedding was yesterday.
	That's beautiful.
	We got Robert, try to avoid the culture shock going from NOLA, that is New Orleans, to Amish country.
	And we got the new undocumented migrants.
	We're going to talk about this.
	Migrant ID card's legal.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Rumble sucks.
	Let me mute chat trolls.
	I will mention that to them.
	By the way, we've been getting an influx of trolls.
	I noticed some of the trolls that are standard on YouTube have migrated over to Rumble.
	So, Pawlowski, we're bringing over traffic, baby.
	All right, we're going to bring over the traffic right now.
	So, thank you to the sponsors.
	The links are in the description.
	Let me just mention them one more time because I want to...
	Hold on a second.
	Details.
	I got to go to here and then read this.
	Morningkickchuckdefense.com forward slash Viva Contagion Kit.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	10% off and free shipping.
	And now what we are doing is voting with our feet, our dollars, our eyes, our minds.
	And we're going to go to Rumble.
	I'll post the entire stream tomorrow on YouTube.
	You can come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com right now where we have...
	I can't see that.
	That's 1,300 people at last check.
	I got to update that.
	The link is there.
	And we're going to talk about the Trump trial.
	And a bunch of other stuff.
	Okay, ending on YouTube now.
	Robert, let's start with the trial.
	We've got to start with the trial.
	Is my assessment accurate?
	Everybody is having fun with the double entendres.
	Oh, God, no, but Gouveia has taken it.
	Robert Gouveia watching the watchers.
	Yeah, to a whole new level.
	He's having real fun with it.
	He said, Stormy gets pounded in cross-examination.
	She's gagging on some stuff that the prosecution goes limp.
	Stormy blew the entire trial.
	Robert, okay, so I think my assessment is right, but I don't mind having you agree with me.
	Stormy Daniels has absolutely no reason to be testifying other than to publicly humiliate Trump because she has no evidence to adduce that could be relevant to how the alleged payments to her were classified.
	Am I wrong in that?
	That was the objection of Trump's team.
	But, you know, she does see dead people, so maybe that was her relevant area of testimony.
	I mean, I've done a couple of long summaries.
	Gouvet has been going hard on Stormy every night.
	I'll stop now, people.
	It's childish to make such jokes.
	So this is what I don't understand, because they objected in advance to her testimony, which in theory should mean the entire testimony is under objection.
	They object as things go along, but then stop.
	And by the way, so...
	Inner City Press, if you're not following him, he's doing the Lord's work in terms of covering this in real time.
	He put out a tweet.
	And Andrew Giuliani, too.
	Oh, Andrew Giuliani.
	I thought you were going to say Klausfeld.
	I've given up on Klausfeld because I think it's a little too...
	Editorialized for my liking.
	Oh, of course.
	He's a political hack.
	He's a disgrace.
	I didn't know at first and then like, this seems a little editorialized.
	And then I see the chat like, all right, off to inner city press for good.
	So he put out a tweet that basically said, I thought there would be more objections.
	And I read it as him referring to what the judge had said because he has done very little inserting his own thought.
	And then some people say, no, Viva, you misread that.
	That was Inner City Press's assessment.
	And it wasn't because I DM'd him and we confirmed.
	Because I said, if I got it wrong, I want to correct that tweet because it kind of got a lot of traction.
	He said, reported that Judge Marchand said, you guys didn't object during this testimony.
	Now it's too late.
	I thought you would have objected more.
	I even had to object sua sponte.
	It's absolute setup by the judge.
	I mean, there's no other way to see it.
	Yeah, they all do that.
	So that's a typical behavior of a judge who wants a particular outcome in a case.
	They try to sucker you into waving objections.
	And to be honest with you, Trump's people should have been on top of it.
	They're okay for the most part.
	They preserve the objection.
	They made the objection beforehand.
	You don't have to repeat it over and over again.
	You just have to put the court on notice of the issue.
	But you're better off making double, triple sure by...
	Preserving the objection, making offers of proof, making proffers as to what would have happened but for this person's testimony or lack thereof.
	So there's ways to do it to protect your interest that they didn't fully embrace.
	But mostly the judge was being full of it.
	I mean, he knew they objected to all the testimony.
	They had objected to it before trial.
	They objected to it during trial, before testimony.
	They weren't at any illusion about that.
	And he just was playing on that as his way to get around the legal error of allowing her testimony.
	Her testimony had no relevance.
	The relevant standard is when it's going to be highly prejudicial like her testimony would be, unfairly prejudicial.
	In other words, it would harm your case without being relevant to your case.
	It has to be particularly probative.
	Its probative value has to substantially outweigh It's prejudicial value, and it wasn't probative at all.
	People don't appreciate that distinction.
	You couldn't have said it any clearer because people say, well, condemning testimony is necessarily prejudicial, but it has to be prejudicial as it relates to the accusation.
	That's what makes it fairly prejudicial.
	It's only unfairly prejudicial evidence that's excludable.
	Unfairly is defined by evidence that doesn't go to the probative value, doesn't go to the factual merits of the case.
	Because, again, correct me if I've misunderstood, I don't think I have.
	There's no question that she was paid $130,000.
	So it's absolutely irrelevant whether they did or did not have sex.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	The only thing that's relevant is whether or not they misclassified it when it was going by way of $35,000 a month to the retainer for Michael Cohen.
	So her getting up there, testifying how Trump said he didn't even sleep in the same room as Melania, that they had unprotected sex.
	What the hell?
	He had like six different interpretations.
	Like her new interpretation is that she blacked out.
	So that, you know, this is, she's had, you know, more stories about what happened vis-a-vis Trump than is imaginable or conceivable.
	And even the, you know, went from no sex to sex to no sex to sex to no sex to sex to now, I don't know, really.
	She felt drugged, Robert, at one point.
	Yeah, and she's pretty sure she blacked out.
	And he was standing over her, which is a totally different story than the other ones she told, which is different than the other ones she's told.
	I mean, she's been telling different versions of the same story that contradict one another in order to line her pockets now for more than a decade.
	And it's clear this was always about her shakedowns.
	If lying about it makes money, I do that.
	If telling the truth, then I do that.
	If it's in between, I do that.
	If I can get Trump to pay me money so that I don't tell the story, I do that.
	If I can get media to pay me money to tell the story, then I do that.
	If they want me to tell story A, I tell story A. If they want me to tell story B, I tell story B. I mean, she actually bragged that she wrote her book for her daughter.
	Can you imagine writing a book saying, look, honey, mommy was a real top-notch hoe.
	Mommy was a top-notch hoe.
	And she could even be an extortionist hoe.
	You, when you grow up, honey, you can be an extortionist hoe like mommy.
	That's what she's bragging about in her book.
	Well, Robert, she's looking up to such women as Fanny Willis, who's a role model for, you know, African-American, Blacks and women.
	Robert, hold on.
	I actually want to bring one up because in retrospect, I went back to watch some of her interviews and it is wild watching these things in retrospect.
	I won't play the whole thing because it's long and unnecessary, but the deceit fascinates me.
	Your original statement, the signature on the original statement.
	Does not match the signature on this statement.
	And I went through my library of photographs of you to compare it to headshots that you have signed.
	And these seem to match the original statement.
	Am I getting at anything?
	Did you sign this letter that was released today?
	I don't know.
	Did I?
	Wait a minute.
	That you can say, right?
	That does not look like my signature.
	Robert, it's so...
	I mean, it's amazing to see that it was deceit on both ends.
	Oh, yeah.
	She's alive all the time.
	She also has the felon's claw in her signature.
	So for those people who don't know what a felon's claw is, it's a particular way of handwriting that shows up at a person's signature.
	And the reason why it's called a felon's claw is because it is so common amongst felons.
	Hold on.
	It's a sign of deception.
	And what it is, is you're writing and you do a claw shape going backwards.
	Hold on.
	She has it in multiple places.
	She has it in the bottom of Daniel's.
	She has it at the very top.
	See that where that loops up?
	This?
	Yep.
	Yeah, that's a felon's claw.
	So this.
	She's going up and then back.
	And what it really represents is anger at the past.
	Like they're just...
	And, you know, it's a common psychological pattern of criminals.
	Robert, you see the cursor, right?
	The little hand?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	This is the felon's call right there.
	And would this qualify as one?
	It looks like it does because of how it's shaped.
	Does it go back like this or does it go forward?
	And it looks like she has a habit of going back over and over again, which means that in her own name...
	She has anger, rage, and criminality.
	Well, darn it.
	Now I got to go check my own signature.
	I'll send you my signature.
	Let me know.
	I stopped doing that for random people.
	I used to do it like parties and events.
	And once I was describing, I was like, okay, well, this actually usually means the person has kind of a sexual pervert.
	And she said...
	That's my husband's signature.
	I was like, oh, well, never mind.
	It could mean other things.
	I don't know.
	I'm trying to escape.
	This one means you're a serial killer.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, Robert, the lying on both ends to make money on this and going to what I think is among the biggest...
	I think it's a bombshell, speaking of giving interviews from prison, that relates to Stormy Daniels.
	Avenatti came out with a post earlier this week.
	By the way, substantiating what we had said from the get-go.
	Yes!
	He was the extortionist.
	She's not the victim.
	She's the criminal.
	So he put out a tweet.
	I just put out the vlog before this show to actually, you know, what's the word?
	Promote the show.
	I mean, I'm going to try to do these every Sunday, like just a talkie vlog beforehand, let everyone know the show's coming up.
	And he says, my statement on Stormy Daniels, because he's watching the testimony, I guess, from court, or he's listening to this tweeting.
	And he says that he got a call from either the producer or someone involved in the Netflix documentary saying...
	Do you want to participate in this?
	And he says, I want to know if Stormy Daniels is being paid for this because if she is, I know it's not going to be a documentary.
	You can take him for his word or not because he's a convicted liar and extortionist, but whatever.
	He's not dumb.
	And he says the woman told him that Stormy is being paid for this and they had to find a way to pay her where it wouldn't be her own money that could be then seized because she owes Trump.
	And he says, I can't believe this woman is telling me this because we're on a recorded line in prison.
	Nothing's confidential.
	And she's basically confirming to me that Stormy Daniels is engaging in the very same fraudulent scheme that they're accusing Trump of, except she's actually doing it.
	To get paid in a manner to circumvent your lawful creditors, Robert, is fraudulent, correct?
	Yeah, it's called fraudulent concealment.
	And I'm sure she's also committed and is committing tax crimes in all likelihood.
	So this question is, because of how badly her testimony went, does she start getting investigated by the people who are using her as a political tool against Trump?
	No, I mean, my guess is she's still on the right side of their political equation, so she'll be left alone.
	All right, amazing.
	There was one thing I was going to do.
	So for Trump's trial, that's the latest of it.
	It continues next week.
	I don't think there's anything more that really matters.
	I mean, there were a couple of other witnesses who were supposed to be hostile to Trump who testified very favorably for Trump.
	The only thing I would say is I see everybody saying the case is over, and I'm like, with an impartial jury it would be.
	But, you know, the chances are Trump still is going to get convicted in New York.
	This is a hanging, lynching jury.
	Apparently they put lawyers on the jury.
	I never would have put New York lawyers on a Trump jury.
	Well, I thought in Canada, at least in Quebec, lawyers can't serve as jury members.
	You can in America.
	You can in America, but you're generally disfavored.
	So there won't be any directed verdict, Robert, from Judge Juan Marchand at the end of this?
	No reasonable jury?
	Well, he can't.
	He can't in a criminal case.
	Okay.
	Oh, okay.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that resolves my stupid question.
	Yeah, people think it's over.
	I still think he's getting convicted.
	I mean, it doesn't matter.
	I have no confidence in that, Jerry.
	None whatsoever.
	All right.
	Well, to be continued, Robert, what do we segue into now?
	Well, speaking of questionable voting habits, we've got, you know, the Tucker Carlson raised the fact that illegals could vote if they didn't know it was illegal for them to vote.
	That's a good law.
	We shouldn't put people in prison for things that they don't know are criminal.
	But what it shows is that that is not an adequate check on illegals voting.
	You need more institutional remedies available to people than criminal prosecution of individuals.
	You need to have something that will flag whether this person is constitutionally qualified to vote to begin with.
	And that's where the problem occurs, especially as they expand forms of identity for illegals.
	They're allowing illegals to get ID, Social Security numbers and ID cards and TIN numbers by the Biden administration and by various sanctuary states.
	And so that creates risk that even where there's ID required, an illegal may be voting.
	And how does the ordinary person know whether someone's illegal or not?
	That's a problem in our current legal system.
	There's no easy mechanism to figure out whether someone is or isn't a citizen who voted.
	And so you can have inferential evidence.
	I published in the Barnes Brief this week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com the competing theories out there from the Cato Institute and other organizations like FAIR and others as to what degree of a problem it is.
	Some surveys suggest there's a lot of illegal voting.
	Others say there isn't.
	And when I researched this in the past, I figured out that actually it's very difficult to get adequate evidence because there's no check in place systematically, institutionally, to make sure only citizens are voting and that ordinary people can figure out whether only citizens are voting.
	I've got a social security number, I've got a social security card, and that could be confusing for people.
	If someone tells you you can vote and your English is lacking, I can understand what you're saying in terms of someone thinking it might not be illegal or not knowing.
	And who the hell knows?
	You come in with that card.
	It looks legit.
	Like, why wouldn't you be able to?
	Right.
	Exactly.
	So it's definitely a problem that requires probably legislative remedy.
	And speaking of which, there was some laws that did pass this past week.
	That are going to improve election integrity in some states.
	There are some good court decisions on election integrity, and there are some bad court decisions.
	On election integrity.
	So we had a mixture of both this past week.
	Okay, before we get there, I have a question for you, Robert.
	I tried to look up the answer myself.
	I was replying to Mark Elias, who says, it's already illegal for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election.
	This is a smokescreen to hide the fact that Republicans are in court trying to make it harder to vote and easier to cheat.
	Well, talk about confession through projection.
	But Robert, I asked him, I'll never get an answer from him, and I think I know the answer.
	Do non-citizens' illegal immigrants have an impact on the number of congressional seats allotted to a state?
	Robert, I think the answer is yes, right?
	That's one of the things that Thomas Massey and others are trying to lead the change on.
	They're trying to change the law so that only citizens count for apportionment purposes for both electoral votes and members of Congress.
	Okay, so explain how that works to the idiot Canuck.
	So they do a census.
	It counts citizens.
	It counts everybody.
	It counts all population.
	What happens if there's an increase in population in given areas?
	They get more seats and they get more electoral votes.
	They get more seats, more electoral votes.
	So that's where, without illegals ever voting, illegal immigration can change who has political power.
	Because it'll say, like, it'll give California more electoral votes.
	And that gives them more electoral votes.
	Because electoral votes are shaped mostly by the number of house seats you have.
	And so now, if I'm thinking as to where the illegals are going, typically, well, now they're in New York, now they're in certain states that are not necessarily red states or purple states.
	How does anybody then ever, at any point in time, sincerely or legally tenably say that illegal immigrants do not have an impact on federal elections, even if they don't vote?
	That's not an accurate statement, and so they're just lying to you.
	Holy hell.
	Okay, well, that makes more sense.
	All right, so now the cases that were coming out, let me think of one of the good ones.
	Well, one of the bad ones.
	Let's start with New York.
	New York now has basically mass mail-in voting.
	All you have to do is ask for it, and you get it because they want to facilitate under the law.
	This is for federal elections?
	All elections.
	So New York constitutionally has always, they've interpreted their article, I think it's Article 2, to prohibit.
	They tried to change the Constitution in 2021, and New Yorkers voted it down.
	New Yorkers didn't want mass mail-in voting that circumvented the absentee rules.
	So the legislature just said, screw it, we're going to pretend that the law changed even though they rejected the constitutional amendment, and we're going to do mass mail-in voting.
	So Republicans and conservatives sued, and the New York courts have said, yeah, that's fine.
	We're going to reinterpret the New York Constitution directly contrary to how it's been interpreted for more than a century and say that, in fact, you can do mass mail-in voting with what's called no excuses, no reasons whatsoever required, no witnesses required, etc.
	So now New York is a mass mail-in voting state.
	And because it wasn't in 2022 is probably why Republicans picked up seats in the House in New York that led to them winning the House in general.
	Now that may be back at risk because That they're going to get to flood the ballot box with questionable ballots, with universal mail-in voting, thanks to the New York courts.
	What's the rule on ballot harvesting in New York State, if you know?
	I mean, everywhere it's illegal at some level.
	But the question is, in New York, are they going to enforce any of that?
	Probably not, given who has control of the prosecutorial power.
	So New York is the court trying to bankrupt Trump.
	New York is the court trying to imprison Trump.
	New York is the court system trying to make sure that...
	They can basically steal any election they want, anytime they want, through mass mail-in voting, despite New York's constitutional prohibition of precisely that.
	And what are going to be the rules for the signature verification of those mail-in ballots?
	We'll see.
	In the past, they've strictly enforced that when it came to outsider candidates.
	They have not strictly enforced it when it came to general favoring Democratic Party politicians.
	And so, I mean, look, people are going to get a little doom-pilled on this.
	What should Republicans do in New York?
	Do they just play the mail-in voting game hard, or do they try to contest it?
	And, or do they continue to try to contest it?
	I don't know where it could go from there.
	There may be a higher New York court yet to make a decision.
	I thought this was the final one, but I'm not certain of that.
	They're basically screwed in New York.
	That's the short answer.
	Or just mobilize the mail-in ballot.
	Don't cheat, but just really go hard on the...
	I don't know how you do it.
	Go to old persons' homes and make sure they vote?
	Well, you can try to reciprocate.
	You can try to do your own vote organization effort.
	It's just you're not going to match it in New York.
	That's what Democrats are doing.
	There was one that was a good decision.
	I forget which one it was now.
	Oh, that's Wisconsin.
	Wisconsin?
	That's where Mark Ellis got slapped around.
	No, but hold on.
	I'm totally...
	Yeah, Mark Elias.
	So Wisconsin was...
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Absentee voting.
	Oh, the witness.
	I don't like forgetting my thoughts.
	So in Wisconsin, there was a requirement that you have to have a U.S. citizen be the witness if you want to mail in a ballot.
	And four, I don't know who financed the litigation or spearheaded it, but you had four plaintiffs saying, this unduly prejudices my ability to mail and vote because I can't always necessarily find a U.S. citizen.
	They were making some other arguments that it...
	Oh, it violates the Voting Rights Act, and it violates the Civil Rights Act to have this undue imposition on our fraud efforts, Your Honor.
	And so, bottom line, they said, look, having a witness, it would...
	They were arguing that they had to verify or do any sort of certification.
	Whether they're constitutionally qualified or not.
	But that, in fact, has never been.
	The witness requirement is that they saw you fill out that ballot.
	They know it was you who filled out that ballot.
	And all the way up until the whole chain of custody.
	So it's to make sure you actually fill out the ballot and someone else doesn't.
	It's basically a form of signature.
	It is why Wisconsin doesn't need signature matches.
	It's because of it.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so it replaces, it's sort of another method of a signature verification.
	The guy saw the hand go to the person doing it at the time of, and there's no concern about it.
	So they said, no, having the witness as a U.S. citizen is not a problem if you're overseas, whatever the reason.
	Even an Obama judge said that.
	It's ludicrous to suggest a law that's been on the books for 60 years that was put in at the time of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act somehow now magically violates the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.
	So that just doesn't make logical sense.
	So credit to the judge.
	Who stuck to the logic and the law rather than his political bias.
	I think Elias thought they had something in the bag so that they could fix the elections in Wisconsin again.
	Mark Money Launderer Elias, as I was locally known.
	He lost.
	He lost.
	And on his little democracy docket where they track all the cases and like to mock all the other side and love to promote their own conspiracy theories, they had to print that.
	They had to print that case bashing them, which was kind of funny.
	Okay, so that's good out of Wisconsin, bad out of New York, and I guess it's sort of good because Wisconsin is more at play than New York.
	Much more.
	Well, not for Congress, but yes, for the White House.
	Okay.
	All right, what was the other one?
	I know Hamadeh's in there.
	Oh, we got two more.
	So we got Arizona and Georgia.
	Georgia passed new laws.
	The generally useless governor there can't at least sign the new laws that put more restrictions on mail-in voting, drop boxes.
	You know, putting, imposing voter ID requirements.
	So Georgia is not going to be able to repeat 2020 as easily as the Democrats would like them to.
	So those laws, and so far, every challenge has been turned down by the courts, and those laws are continually upheld and affirmed.
	In addition, the Georgia Election Commission showed what we were raising all the way back in 2020 about Georgia, Ratburger, that one of the issues I kept demanding was print the ballots.
	You guys said when you wrote those fact checks to Dominion, you were going to print all the ballots.
	I said, print them.
	We're going to get around to that.
	Not only did they never print them, now they lost a bunch of them.
	Just not sure where they went.
	Where did those digital copies go?
	And then there were other ballots that weren't ever traced.
	In other words, there's no chain of custody for how the heck that ballot even ever got counted.
	But of course, the Georgia Election Commission is not going to do anything with it.
	They just have the findings and then move on.
	But at least there's good election law reform coming out of the state of Georgia.
	Okay, excellent.
	And last one?
	Is Arizona and all the potshots they took at Abe Hamada in the Court of Appeals.
	And Abe, to his credit, was like, well, I'll come back and find another way to challenge these illegal election rules.
	And so he filed his own new petition to fight it.
	So credit to Abe on that.
	Abe's running for Congress, for those that don't know.
	Yeah, this was not a challenge of the 2020.
	This was 2022.
	Yeah, he should be the Attorney General.
	The current commie Attorney General just indicted a bunch of Trump supporters over 2020, stole the 2022 election.
	He did challenge it in real time.
	I just, like, I hadn't followed it from the beginning, so I don't know where the court is just being overtly disingenuous.
	Oh, it's because he didn't raise every emergency motion he possibly could at every single time.
	Right?
	They admit he went through the process, went through the trial, went through an appeal.
	And they're like, well, why didn't you file, like, emergency motions?
	Challenging everything at every single stage.
	I mean, you've got to be kidding.
	So if you file, this is what I always say about election law challenges.
	You sue in spring.
	It's not right.
	They throw you out and they sanction you for suing too soon.
	Sue in summer.
	Ah, it's moot.
	Why don't you sue in spring?
	Sanction you, you lousy election lawyer.
	Then you sue in the fall or you sue after the election when the actual injury occurs.
	Which normally that's the only time you can sue.
	That's what they tell you you do when you try to sue before the fall, before the election.
	They say latches.
	That's the most unequitable thing I've ever seen.
	Get out of here, lawyer.
	Sanctions.
	So these corrupt courts use every excuse in the book to not enforce our election laws.
	And that's what they did with Abe Hamada.
	The Court of Appeal said maybe he even has good grounds to challenge things, but he didn't challenge it the way he should have.
	And they're talking about things that nobody does.
	File emergency motion here, emergency motion there.
	I mean, you know, that they sanction you for when you do do it.
	Let me bring it up because I was trying to refresh my memory as to what portion really drove me crazy.
	This is the early part.
	Hamada had not asked Maricopa County for its CVR, which was, I forget, it's the digital...
	The digital rule, I think, something along those lines.
	He didn't ask for the CVR in the initial discovery motion.
	And although he did ask for it in the motion for the list of Maricopa County voters whose provisional ballots were rejected, he did not also ask the county to give the reasons for rejecting the ballots.
	I mean, it's like he had to have done everything all at once, all at the right time, not prematurely.
	And there's never a right time.
	If you do it before the election, you sue too soon because you haven't been injured yet.
	If you do it after the election, why didn't you sue before the election?
	It's too late now.
	It's gamesmanship by corrupt courts.
	That's what it is.
	It's what it's always been.
	And Abe Hamada's Arizona Court of Appeals is further proof of this.
	So he's never going to get the position that he's entitled to?
	Yeah, that he was voted for and constitutionally entitled to.
	So what remedy is he going to have other than, I don't know, insurance?
	He's trying to change the election rules to force the courts to fix it.
	1776 Law Center is going to be looking at bringing sue in Arizona throughout the summer.
	And we're going to be quoting these cases.
	Saying, hey judges, you said to sue now.
	So we're suing now.
	So don't be saying no standing.
	Don't be running and hiding.
	Don't be cowards.
	Because you got called out.
	You called everybody out that are on the election side saying, you better sue early.
	Well, we're suing early.
	So you better give remedy now.
	Don't go hiding behind any of your BS doctrine and expose yourself as the corrupt partisan hack that you really are.
	I may not put it that way, but...
	You'll have to tone it down.
	It's cast vote record.
	It's cast vote record from Chadwick Redman.
	Yeah, again, there were a bunch of provisional ballots that weren't properly counted that show he won.
	It was just one of the many ways in which Abe Hamada won the Attorney General's race of Arizona.
	But the lazy, corrupt courts of Arizona failed to fix it.
	Is the Attorney General election every two years or every four years in Georgia?
	Four years.
	It's an awful year.
	That's it.
	Screwed.
	Thoroughly screwed and see what happens in 2026.
	He's still going to try to find one of the remedies he can find to fix the system long term.
	And he's running for Congress and would be a good member of Congress.
	So hopefully he'll pursue that.
	Speaking of elections, AIPAC has decided to go after Thomas Massey.
	One of the dumbest people they could possibly go after.
	Just so nobody takes that out of context, one of the strategically worst people they can go after.
	Not that he's dumb.
	Thomas Massey's a great guy.
	Thomas Massey's a leader on food freedom in Congress, the leader.
	A leader on financial freedom in Congress.
	A leader on political freedom in Congress.
	A leader on medical freedom in Congress.
	A leader against the deep state corruption.
	A leader against dumb money for dumb wars overseas.
	There's a few issues I don't share with him, but on all those big, big issues, he's dead right and he's a leader.
	And here you have two people going after him.
	AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, which would be better off shutting down.
	They would be better off shutting down.
	They do more stupid stuff than smart stuff.
	They do not help the Israeli cause at all.
	They hurt the Israeli cause.
	Constantly and continuously by dumb tactical decisions like this one.
	And then the second aspect is Laura Loomer's going after her.
	People wondered why I said Laura Loomer's an idiot and I don't trust her, don't rely on her, don't cite her, don't support her, don't patronize her, don't promote her.
	It's because she's really stupid.
	I mean, just dumb.
	She's going after Thomas Massey and Rand Paul because they're not sufficiently Trump loyalists, according to her.
	It's like, I mean, look, she's just a grifter, going from one grift to the next grift to the next grift, trying to figure out what the next grift is going to be.
	Hangs out with, let's just say she shouldn't be going around preaching to people about moral values.
	That's just word of the wise.
	She was trying to spread a libel about Robert Kennedy over the weekend because some people, oh, guess what?
	We were subject to libel this past weekend on One American News Network.
	Me and you?
	Yes.
	Did they name him by name?
	Yeah.
	Alex Brukowitz, or however you pronounce his name, he's one of these sort of Trump partisans online.
	You know, a bit grifter-ish in the way he approaches things.
	So, you know, a group of them decided that anybody saying nice things about Robert Kennedy has to be attacked and demonized.
	So they went after a bunch of populist accounts.
	Chief Nerd, a bunch of other people who really do great populist accounts.
	Which was dumb, by the way.
	It's tactically dumb.
	You can think whatever you want about Bobby Kennedy or Donald Trump.
	It's just tactically dumb.
	But put that aside, he decided to go on Dan Ball, One America News Network, and accuse you and I of getting paid money to promote Robert Kennedy.
	In fact, we were two of the only people he identified.
	Viva Fray?
	Viva something?
	We couldn't even pronounce your acronym right.
	And Robert Barnes.
	The secretly getting paid by the Kennedy campaign to promote Kennedy.
	Not because I have been a Robert Kennedy fan since before I was a Donald Trump fan.
	Yeah, of course, that doesn't matter.
	Or the fact that Robert Kennedy is voicing critical positions on issues.
	I happen to agree with him.
	And Donald Trump is busy AWOL on those issues.
	That can't possibly be what's going on.
	It must be people are secretly getting paid to say nice things about Robert Kennedy.
	But yes, he targeted us as two people who are getting paid.
	I need the soundbite for that.
	And I'll put that on more blast that he put that on.
	Oh, wow.
	And some of these other people doing the same thing.
	It's just dumb stuff.
	Thomas Massey is awesome.
	You don't have to agree with him on everything.
	He's a leader on freedom and independence and integrity in the House of Representatives, and you have to be daft and dumb to think otherwise.
	And if you're so busy promoting Trump in your own world that you have to hate and bash everybody who's ever had a disagreement with Trump, then you're just a cultist.
	You're not really a populist.
	You're not really a conservative.
	You're not really a liberty-promoting person or freedom-promoting person.
	You're just a cultist.
	It's fine to be a cultist, but that's who and what you are.
	You're not someone to take seriously.
	You're not someone who's going to impact the world in a positive direction.
	And AIPAC should learn their message.
	I want to say, Laura Loomer, I know that she's popular.
	I don't really want to say bad things about her, and there's no but to that.
	I do.
	She's an idiot in a sleeve bag.
	Well, the problem is she's her own worst enemy.
	And so when she went after Riley Gaines, it was the dirtiest, stupid stuff on earth.
	And this is why I am very reluctant to retweet Laura Loomer, not because I'm trying to shame or whatever, but I remember when that car exploded at the border of Canada and...
	Everyone was screaming terrorism.
	And then she wrote, this is the FBI suspected of the car bomb explosion terrorist attack at the Rainbow Bridge in the U.S. border in Niagara Falls could have been heading directly to Macy's Thanksgiving parade in New York City.
	FBI, this was like when news was just coming out.
	I remember seeing her tweet this.
	I'm like, I heard that it was going to Canada, not from Canada.
	She's her own worst enemy.
	Sometimes she does good stuff, and then sometimes she discredits herself to degrees that are very, very difficult to come back from.
	She's not reliable, not trustworthy, basically a grifter, someone that shouldn't be considered a source on anything.
	I know there's people that like her because she sometimes aligns with the populist cause, whether that's on Trump, whether that's on the Vegas shooting, and things like that.
	But you can't overlook all of this idiocy, all of this dumb promotion, all of this defamation and libel she routinely does.
	She just comes across as a sleazebag because that's what she is.
	But what do you have to say about the fact that the Trump campaign puts her out as sort of a big...
	It shows you where Trump is some days.
	The people he chooses to promote often makes no sense.
	Trump loves loyalty.
	I understand that.
	Now he didn't reward it in his first term.
	Don Jr. put out a statement.
	Some other people put out a statement suggesting anybody says anything positive about Kennedy, you're going to be persona non grata in the Trump world.
	It's like, well, one, that's probably not a smart tactical strategy to take because some people aren't going to respond as well as you might like to that.
	But secondly, Trump's proven the opposite.
	If you smack Trump in the face, he rewards you.
	If you are deeply loyal to him, you likely will never get a job.
	He likely will never come to your defense.
	That's just, you know, unfortunate.
	That's just reality.
	That's what everybody learned who followed politics closely in his first term, was that being loyal to him was not rewarded.
	That people that were disloyal to him got rewarded constantly, continuously.
	You know, he's seriously thinking about putting a person on his as his VP who challenged him in the 2020 election, 24th election in the primary state.
	Right.
	Tim Scott, who's, you know, as a deep state as you get, as tied to Boeing as you get.
	So it's just the reality of this.
	Robert, I'm reading the chat in Rumble, and a lot of people are talking about full-term abortion and RFK, and I hadn't heard this, but I was a little busy last week.
	Yeah, for those people that are curious, if you're really pro-life, and that's an issue that really motivates you.
	I don't think that many...
	You're going to be voting for Kennedy.
	Same on the environment.
	But so what Kennedy said is he doesn't believe the government should be involved.
	That was his position.
	It's not a position I share with him to the degree he had it.
	And then he came out and changed his position.
	He said a bunch of people gave me information that had led me to reexamine my own assumptions.
	And I now believe that late-term abortion should be banned because of why people do it.
	So he's done this on multiple issues.
	He's done this on the environment.
	He's done this on guns.
	He did it on trans treatment.
	His initial instinct was he didn't want the state involved at dictating what parents and children did with their own medical care.
	But then people sent him a bunch of information.
	He researched it and said, no, we don't let kids drink.
	We don't let kids get tattoos.
	It's clear that the science doesn't support what's happening here to these kids, and it's very dangerous.
	And they're not getting full informed consent.
	Now, of course, all the Trump supporters that want to bash Kennedy, they just pretend he never changed his mind.
	So they quote him from two years ago, four years ago, eight years ago, ten years ago, which is fine.
	Look, I get it.
	Politics.
	The attacks on Kennedy right now remind me of the attacks on Trump in 2016.
	Right?
	Say, hey, how in the world can you vote for Trump?
	He's been a Democrat.
	He's backed Democrats.
	He's pro-choice.
	He bragged about being pro-choice, pro-gay rights.
	He was for government health care.
	These are all things that Trump had voiced support for before 2016.
	And my position was this is not going to matter to the Trump voter because they care about what Trump thinks right now, not what Trump thought two years ago, four years ago, ten years ago.
	Same is true of the person voting for Kennedy.
	The Kennedy voter...
	Is not motivated by gender issues, abortion issues, environment issues.
	That's not who the Kennedy voter is.
	They're a voter that cares about other issues.
	There's two things to that.
	The ability to change one's mind is a good thing, unless it happens too much, in which case it indicates being wrong too often.
	I'm for people changing their mind when they're wrong.
	Don't change your mind if you're right.
	Well, no, but if you're wrong too often and you have to change your mind because you're wrong too often, it's an indication.
	But I think it means you have undeveloped views.
	In other words, you have a lot of, you know, though I share Kennedy's skepticism on some of these things.
	In other words, when do we have the government?
	I don't believe, I don't support trans treatment, all these gender mutilations, but I'm not a big fan of the government taking over that.
	And I've said this all the way through.
	So I share his instinctual doubt on a lot of these things.
	Yes.
	We don't like something.
	Let's have the government control it now.
	How well has that worked out for us?
	Well, I agree with you there, but I'm going to have to go and listen to what he said because I'm reluctant just to even rely on a transcript.
	If someone cannot categorically...
	That they will be against late-term abortions.
	He was clear.
	He says he believes a fully formed fetus has a right to life and a legitimate claim, but he doesn't trust the government to be involved at any level.
	And what the critics did is they took the last part and they cut out all the content.
	But Trump is so stupid right now.
	He's out there saying Robert Kennedy doesn't really oppose the COVID vaccine.
	I mean, that's just a lie.
	And it's a stupid lie by a guy who got dog walked by Big Pharma and Anthony Fauci on the vaccine.
	Okay, I get it.
	It's humiliating Trump.
	You got dog walked and smacked around and you were treated like you were their little B-I-E-I-T-A-C-H.
	I get it.
	But don't pretend.
	There's plenty of things you can criticize Kennedy over.
	This is not one of them.
	But, you know, we'll see.
	We'll see.
	I'm going to go listen to the podcast because there are a lot of people out there who just want to rag on RFK.
	And I doubt...
	I mean, if anybody cannot say that late-term abortions...
	I mean, I can't even think of a reason that they might be warranted except in the case of the life of the woman.
	Well, that's what he said.
	And what he said in his public statement later was...
	He had been given evidence that people were doing late-term abortions for reasons other than the mother's life.
	But his other general reasoning was, should we allow the government to control your medical care?
	And that's something my conservative friends don't like to answer.
	Well, no, but that's true.
	But then the bottom line just becomes, when do you recognize a fetus as a life that warrants protection either under the Constitution or under the law?
	But that's still a government question, right?
	It's still a government intervention question.
	In other words, what power do you...
	Like, you could say morally...
	This abortion is always wrong.
	Without, I'm going to give the government the power to put people in prison who don't do the kind of medical care I demand.
	But then, Robert, the flip side is you can say, well, murder is always wrong, but I don't want to give the government the power to put people in prison for murdering people.
	A true hardcore libertarian does take that.
	That's why they're crazy, by the way.
	It's the Michael Malice anarchistic view.
	Which is, what power do you give to the state?
	And where do you extend that?
	Where do you not extend that?
	Where do you apply that?
	Where do you not apply that?
	The extreme side of what you're arguing is you don't want to give the government the power to determine health care because it might then say abortion is illegal, but then they might say, well, mentally challenged people don't qualify as humans, so you get to...
	Put them to death because it's not murder.
	Who wants the government getting involved in that?
	It's the same on the trans things because you can apply it in other contexts.
	And I get it.
	I just think that that issue of government control is something that is too easily conceded when we don't like the particular form of healthcare taking place.
	And same with euthanasia.
	Same with sterilization.
	There's a bunch of stuff.
	And I always tell people, ask yourself not what you're deciding, but who you're giving the power to.
	And I always think every question has to have both answers applied to it.
	And I don't think either side politically does a good job of consistency on that.
	Now, it's an amazing thing.
	There's 18,000 people live in Rumble, and I spotted one chat that says, read my chat from Sweaty Zeus, and I realized I haven't gotten to the Rumble rants yet.
	And I'm going to read it top to bottom because one of them is right on the issue that we're talking about.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Sweaty Zeus.
	It's a gross concept.
	It says, six months ago, Kennedy said on the last question on News Nation Town, Hull, he would sign an assault weapon ban, liked him until then.
	I think he's definitively walked back or at least clarified his Second Amendment position.
	But if you care about guns, Kennedy's not your guy.
	If you really care about abortion on pro-life, Kennedy is not your guy.
	If you really care about energy and environmental issues, Kennedy is not your guy.
	But from a tactical perspective...
	If you're part of the Trump campaign and you're assessing who is voting or may vote for Kennedy, 1776 Law Center is going to have Richard Barris, People's Pundit, do a big, massive poll on a lot of these topics.
	Then that's not who's voting for Kennedy.
	It's like the people on our board.
	The same people are pretending, oh, I really kind of thought about Kennedy, but now I have to bash him every day on the board.
	No, you didn't.
	I can go back and look at your post over the last year.
	So, you know, for the most part, that's not the case.
	So Kennedy is not getting votes from traditional conservatives.
	And people who want to lock Kennedy in and say, I'm going to decide that's...
	Kennedy's only view.
	That's fine.
	There's people who did the same with Trump.
	Say that's Trump's only view.
	Trump promoted the heck out of the vaccine initially.
	Took credit for it.
	Ran a national TV ad on it.
	Do you want that to be the sole voice of Trump on the vaccine?
	Do you want that to be the sole?
	Some of this gamesmanship politically, I get it.
	It's why people want to be critical of Kennedy.
	It's why some people sincerely don't like Kennedy.
	My point is, as a political strategy, it's not going to work.
	In fact, it's going to likely backfire in many cases.
	Most of Kennedy's voters, and this is something that many of my conservative friends have never recognized in general, on the issue of abortion, the majority position is the same one it was on the board, which was late-term abortions banned, early-term abortions should be allowed.
	That's even on our board that is a 50-50 position, even on our own board.
	And we represent a much more pro-life share of the community globally.
	In the U.S., millennials and Zoomers are pro-choice.
	That's just reality.
	I know my pro-life friends want to pretend it's not, but it is.
	The people who are voting for Kennedy are instinctively pro-choice.
	The people who are voting for Kennedy are very pro-environment and don't care that much about the energy industry.
	They ain't working in the oil field.
	They ain't working in the coal mine.
	The people who are voting for Kennedy don't really care about trans issues.
	It's not a big issue with them.
	They don't like wokeism.
	So I give Kennedy credit for on issues that it doesn't matter what his position is, given his voters are.
	He's taking time to assess all the criticism and then gives a more informed reaction after he researches it.
	I would like Trump to do the same, God bless his soul, that upon occasion.
	There would be no shame in it, Donald, to say, you know what, I got lied to on the vaccine.
	That I required a vaccine that was safe, effective, a vaccination for the prevention of COVID-19.
	And it turns out they not only sandbagged my campaign by delaying its release until after Election Day in order to make sure I lost, but it turns out they lied to me and the American people and stole our money, and I want them to be held accountable.
	If you're going to destroy the deep state, like you said, in New Jersey in front of 100,000 people, you've got to start with big pharma.
	As one of them.
	So I want to encourage more people to replicate what Kennedy's doing.
	He gets criticism.
	He researches it.
	He adjusts his opinion.
	Now, sometimes he doesn't.
	He still believes in stuff on climate change.
	I don't agree with him at all on it.
	But despite all the criticism, despite, you know, he goes, he looks at it, comes back with the same position.
	Vaccine mandates comes back with the same position.
	Vaccines and the degree to which they're safe or not comes back with the same position.
	So on 80% of his positions, he doesn't change, despite the criticism.
	On the 20% that he has, I'm glad because I happen to have disagreed with his original position on those issues myself.
	But I would like more politicians to do this.
	They seem to think it's a sign of character.
	To stick with a stupid position that was formed on shallow, superficial information.
	Or it's a sign of weakness to apologize, which I think most people do.
	That's what they think.
	It's the Chuck Norris joke.
	They said Chuck Norris' tears could cure cancer.
	Unfortunately, he never cries.
	Those kind of positions, I think, are not real strength.
	I've never taken that idea that you can't change your mind, you can't second-guess.
	It's one of the reasons why I promote Sports betting and political betting is it always constantly challenges you because you get it back with money either in your wallet or out of your wallet.
	You can't sit there and, well, I'm going to stick with my position, whatever it is, come hell or high water, if I keep losing.
	When it's a tactical one.
	I'm not talking about one of the moral principles.
	But when it's based on empirical assumptions, Kennedy had empirical assumptions about gun control that were wrong.
	Empirical assumptions about abortion that were wrong.
	Empirical assumptions about trans treatment that were wrong.
	When he has been challenged on it, he has had the willingness to research it and realize his empirical assumptions were wrong.
	Good.
	Change your mind.
	Like most of the members of the Republican House on Ukraine, we started out with five Republicans objecting.
	Now we have a majority of Republicans objecting to Ukrainian aid.
	I don't want them to sit there and say, well, you know, I voted for it initially, so out of matter of principle, I got it.
	There is no principle in staying stupid.
	That's my point.
	Robert, I'm going to read some of the, I'm going to read, not some, but all of the chats.
	The Rumble Rants, real quick, except for one that I'm going to focus on in particular.
	Conor Tomlinson, this is from T1990.
	Conor Tomlinson of the Lotus Unit says he has heard that Marco Rubio is the one Trump is seriously considering for VP.
	He said he's heard it from some reliable people he knows.
	Take that with a grain of salt.
	That would be a terrible choice.
	This is a guy who likes to dress up in high heels, you know, and do his little, and dance to the deep state.
	That's who Marco Rubio is.
	All that I know, I'm following Predicted now because I have an interest in who the VP is and I hope that...
	I still want Vivek.
	You're cheering for Vivek?
	I'm still going for Vivek.
	I didn't put all my money on Vivek, but I put some of it on Vivek.
	Now let me get through here and get back to my...
	J.D. Vance would make an awesome vice president.
	Well, I got some...
	I put some down on J.D. Vance as well.
	Doug Burgum seems to be working his way up the frickin' thing.
	He's up four cents today?
	Doug Burgum is up four cents today.
	Unpredicted.
	I didn't put any money on Doug.
	Okay, so we got here.
	Hello, this is DD225.
	Would a second Trump Trump have the authority to tear down Biden taxpayer-funded wall built around his Delaware home?
	It was built in 2023 and cost about $500,000.
	Probably not.
	Panther AI or Panther Al.
	In Missouri, the auditor investigating the AG's office says there are issues and that Kim Gardner has gone missing and they can't find her to ask her questions.
	Is something hinky going on?
	Dude, something hinky was going on with Kim Gardner a long time ago.
	I'm going to go check, see if there's any follow-ups on there.
	Be job secure.
	Illegals can already vote and get IDs in California.
	The California DMV, the District of Motor Vehicles, automatically registered them to vote at the counter to get their IDs.
	Unbelievable.
	King of Biltong.
	I got another bag in the fridge that I got to eat.
	King of Biltong.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	Free shipping on your Biltong using code Viva on www.biltongusa.com and www.antonusa.com.
	Biltong is perfect for your carnivore, keto, or high-protein diet.
	It's a company I like so much.
	Anton, I might have to call you up and ask what it would take to get involved in the company.
	L.T. Siver says, FYI, Viva, you're on the computer, Mike.
	Not your stand, Mike.
	We can hear you while you type.
	I am going to be so freaking irritated.
	Oh, yeah, that's true.
	I was wondering why that was like, why can't I hear Viva type?
	Maybe it's because of these headphones or something.
	You know, you know, you know, because I'm the biggest effing idiot on the face of the planet.
	Here, here.
	Hey, who the fuck?
	Oh my god!
	This has been useless the entire night!
	Hey, there could have been other things, worse things that I've been doing.
	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 cannot change that I've been on the wrong mic the entire time.
	Holy hell!
	This is what I get for...
	I read the chat late.
	Oh, Robert, okay, I'm angry, but it doesn't matter.
	There's nothing...
	I'll fix the audio in post for the podcast.
	Thank you, by the way, Lieutenant Siver.
	Lucy the dog says the judge kept shutting down Trump's attorney when she objected over and over again.
	Oh, our judge is hopelessly biased and playing every game known to the book.
	But use it as an opportunity if you're a young lawyer out there to see that and say, okay, how would I handle this?
	How would I do that?
	How would I get around this?
	The way I learned a lot of the tricks of the trade in dealing with these partisan and corrupt judges in cases was studying transcripts of past cases.
	And so you learn, ah, that's how they did it.
	Oh, that's what they did.
	Okay, how do you circumvent this?
	How do you get around that?
	You got a corrupt judge trying to fix a trial.
	But when you're losing commentators at CNN and MSNBC, that tells you how bad of a trial that has turned out to be for the prosecutor.
	As Trump called him yesterday, Fat Albert ain't getting nowhere.
	To all of the haters and the Viva trolls out there, you can snip and clip this part with beautiful audio.
	Can you hear me, Robert?
	Yes, now it's back to the professional.
	I am an idiot.
	There we go.
	Damn it!
	Okay.
	All right, Robert, where are we at on our list of topics?
	So briefly on the Florida case concerning Trump.
	Oh, so this is what I have not been following enough, and it drives me a little nuts because some serious stuff is going on.
	Julie Kelly is covering it thoroughly.
	Gouveia is covering, you know, he does a segment on it, but God, I got to get Julie Kelly back on.
	There's been some...
	Did they admit what I believe I said at the time?
	Not only was it a setup with the FBI posting that picture of the classified docs, they falsified evidence by writing the labels classified and putting it on these bullshit documents that were never classified in the first place?
	Not only that, as we suspected and talked about from the get-go, more evidence is coming out in the unsealed filings.
	That there was a coordinated effort to basically violate all of Trump's rights.
	Attorney-client privilege was routinely being misused and invaded and then used to justify more violations of attorney-client privilege.
	Some of his attorneys were offering to secretly work against him undercover, according to the things that have been published so far.
	And then you had lies to everybody.
	Lies to everybody.
	Mislocated documents, lies to magistrates to get search warrants, lies to breach attorney-client privilege, lies to get information that led to more lies that led to more lies.
	So basically, the entire case is one big example of government misconduct.
	And it's only a matter of time, in my view, before the Florida federal court has the guts to dismiss the case with prejudice.
	There was a lot of other constitutional reasons she could, but I think she's going to choose government misconduct as the ground.
	Can we have a sua sponte decision to indict or investigate Jack Smith?
	All a judge can do is make a referral to the same Biden Justice Department.
	So the short answer is no.
	Okay.
	And I got to get Julie Kelly back on whenever she can, because it's so thorough.
	It's so corrupted.
	It's so, not complicated, but detailed that, A, MSM is never going to cover it, even if they could understand it.
	But they're freaking, it's an outright, it's an outright.
	Russian, North Korean-level framing of your political adversary.
	Nothing shy of that, Robert.
	Agreed.
	Agreed.
	Okay, that's out of Florida.
	What else?
	So we have some vaccine cases.
	We got the big diversity, equity, inclusion lawsuit.
	A couple of big cases from the Supreme Court.
	And we got the illegal immigrants suing the state of Iowa and student speech issues in the courtrooms, both on fee mandates and on the anti-Israeli protests.
	Now, because we have to end at a reasonable hour tonight, because it's Mother's Day, let's do...
	Okay, so first of all, actually, if I may ask, because you're going to go back to Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Ethan Wentworth and Rusty Hare, are they still in jail or did they get out?
	They're supposed to be getting out, but not thanks to the courts.
	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained their delay this week.
	They said they needed an original signature.
	You've got to be kidding me, right?
	You've been holding up this case because you don't want a digital signature?
	You want my original signature?
	That's the mindset of court clerks.
	Not, oh, someone's illegally imprisoned.
	Let's take immediate action.
	No, no.
	Oh, this paperwork, we really need a footnote here, and this citation here, and this thing here.
	It shows you how out of touch they are.
	No, it shows you that they're Hitler's willing executioners.
	They will gleefully keep people in unlawful detention because of a technicality.
	This is the administrative state and how it takes over good common sense and turns people into animals.
	We're going to have to, I guess, sue the judge.
	Ultimately, if Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn't fix it, we're probably going to have to go to a federal court and sue under civil rights grounds or another state court that might at least enforce the law in Pennsylvania.
	And because this was unconstitutional behavior.
	He did not have personal jurisdiction.
	In my view, he didn't really have subject matter jurisdiction.
	The hard part is this.
	You're always begging other judges to enforce the law against other judges.
	And judges don't like to enforce the law against themselves.
	And that's the hurdle.
	We're going to find out, can the judicial branch do the right thing at some point or not?
	And then we're going to be objecting on a lot of other grounds.
	They're trying to re-subpoena them, trying to shut down their business still, still trying to misapply the veterinary medical board laws.
	Probably going to have to look at suing the medical board, sue some private associations and organizations that are conspiring and colluding to effectively monopolize and cartelize the...
	Agricultural economy there in Pennsylvania, misusing the access to the Attorney General's office, the State Department, and other agencies to do it.
	And then there's other cases like that that keep popping up.
	So they're just waging complete war on the Amish.
	Because they're outside the big pharma, big food, big tech, dystopian control grid of Bill Gates' invention and the like.
	And we're going to have to be fighting for their rights in every aspect and every component of the courthouse all across the state and potentially in federal courts, even though there are some really questionable federal judges.
	I was up before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a vaccine religious harassment case.
	And it was a reminder of what has been happening in two different federal district courts in Pennsylvania, where if you file a suit on religious discrimination grounds, they are subjecting you to a judicially authorized corporate inquisition of your religious beliefs.
	And requiring that you disclose all of your personal medical records, all of your private counseling records, all of your sexual history, all of your political affiliations and associations, every political statement you've ever made to anyone, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
	Turn over your entire social media accounts.
	Turn over all of your cell phones for them to ransack and rummage through.
	So that they can claim that somehow you don't have a sincere religious belief when they all know you have a sincere religious belief because you risked your job for it.
	And it's happening by corrupt partisan courts that are allowing corporations like 3M.
	Again, they left off the full name.
	It's 3MFers is the real name of 3M.
	Very corrupt company, constantly caught doing corrupt and illegal things.
	And what they did is they engaged in a harassment campaign of people who had a religious objection to the vaccine and the mass coercive, the biggest mass coercion campaign in vaccine history in the United States of America, the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Those that had sincere, conscientious, religious objections to it are now being subject to individual personal harassment, or their lawsuit will get dismissed unless they subject themselves to this inquisition, which is the courts themselves violating the constitutional rights of individuals.
	Whenever courts order discovery, it's no longer private discovery.
	Now it's a government action, a state actor.
	The judge, the court, this is how defamation law, private between two parties, gets elevated to a First Amendment issue when it gets to the courtroom.
	Same is true of discovery.
	You have First Amendment rights that can't be violated by the nature of that discovery.
	You have Fourth and Fifth and Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights, which incorporate, fundamentally, right to privacy, right to bodily autonomy, right to anonymous speech, right to keep certain things secret.
	Now, these same courts, when it comes to a big corporation's trade secrets, oh, by golly, we've got to go out of our way to protect that.
	We've got to hide that.
	We've got to make sure that's never disclosed.
	That's very important.
	There's privacy rights of these big corporations, even though they're not citizens under our Constitution or shouldn't be treated as such.
	But when it comes to an individual's right to have their entire life put under religious inquisition, oh, yeah, yeah, do that right away.
	How dare these people challenge a vaccine mandate?
	And it includes, sadly, conservative judges going along with it.
	The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case against 3M was subject to constant continuous harassment.
	But the chief judge, who was a clerk for Ludig, the main judge on the panel.
	For those who don't know, Ludig is the guy with Lawrence Tribe who floated the idea that removal of Trump from the ballot was a solid legal theory.
	To give you an idea of how loony Ludig was, he was the one who said the President of the United States can interminably imprison an American citizen on American soil just by calling him an enemy combatant without any due process of law applying of any kind.
	And that's who the Federalist Society wanted to put on the Supreme Court of the United States, Ludig, who's now running around saying keep Trump off the ballot and please criminally prosecute him and lock him up and bankrupt him.
	That's who these corrupt corporate hacks are.
	Corporate whores is what they really are.
	And the head judge on the panel said, well, Mr. Barnes, you're saying your client was denied an exemption.
	That's not the case, is it?
	And I was like, I think it is.
	We're at the pleading stage, Judge.
	Reasonable inference.
	Well, no.
	Technically, he just wasn't granted one yet.
	Oh, I'm sorry, Judge.
	They didn't close the door.
	They held the door and refused to open it.
	What sort of nonsense is that?
	What sort of horse's ass did that court make the entire Eighth Circuit look like with such a stupid statement?
	But that's the kind of nonsense you're dealing with with these good constitutional conservatives that are nothing more than corporate whores, which a lot of these judges are, sadly.
	And it's a reflection of what's happening on the right.
	That's the problem on the right.
	The problem on the left is they don't care about evangelicals and Christians making religious objections.
	And they don't like those kind of religious discrimination claims.
	And they love the vaccine.
	They just love, love the vaccine.
	They broke back mountain love that vaccine.
	And so consequently, they don't like people bringing cases and they're misusing and abusing their judicial power against honest, ordinary people trying to contest it.
	But that's not going to stop them or stop us from contesting it.
	On the good white pill side, Thomas More Society, which has been doing a lot of great work out there, had challenged a university in the state of Colorado.
	This was brought to my attention by one of the great members of our board at vibobarneslaw.locals.com, that their denial of religious exemptions, particularly to Christians, violated the First Amendment because they're a state university.
	And credit to the Court of Appeals saying, yes, that is a violation.
	So it's really, we are in this difficult battle, still finding some positive headway and important precedent that will protect people in future generations.
	In my interview with Chris Martinson last week, he said, you know, people have turned to God, not because God has revealed himself, but because evil has revealed itself.
	And it's reminiscent.
	Robert, I want to actually just read one chat.
	I'm not going to bring it up.
	I'm just going to read it.
	MichaelNY777 says, Julie Kelly is a hero, and I'd love to see her get more credit.
	She is a warrior on this case.
	She is indeed.
	We covered her very early on, and I think I was one of her very first public promoters.
	I mean, it's just amazing.
	Like, in the weeds, in the thick of it.
	And yes, doesn't get the credit that she deserves.
	I'm going to bring this up here.
	There's a funny joke in there that I'm going to get to in a second.
	You missed my last comment.
	Someone else rant while fixing your mic.
	Karentov.
	Damn it!
	I haven't...
	I have not been...
	I have not been looking at the chat.
	Not Lea Viva.
	Voicho text sucks major balls.
	Voiceto.
	Okay.
	Just got into the chat.
	Lea did...
	Lea.
	Oh, okay.
	I get it now.
	Did you hear that Tucker Carlson interview with Justin Trudeau's half-brother?
	It was super crazy how much he resembled you, and he's totally based.
	Hold on.
	I've had...
	You interviewed him, right?
	Robert, let me bring this up.
	It's going to blow your freaking minds.
	I look at him, and I say, holy crap.
	By the way, I didn't splice this together.
	This is the interview.
	Look at this!
	We're the same people.
	Except he's six inches tall of me, and he may even be more than that.
	And his father, unlike Trudeau, is not Fidel.
	I mean, it's so amazing.
	Kyle Kemper is a great, great guy.
	He's working on the RFK campaign, and I might be out on the Gulf Coast, the West Coast, at some point in the near future.
	Kyle's a great guy.
	I haven't watched the interview yet.
	I'm going to, but...
	Yeah, I can see the resemblance because when he was on the screen behind the stage before we went live, I'm like, are we the same person?
	Do we have the same father?
	Dad, Mortimer, what have you been doing?
	Okay, Robert.
	Oh, we got a big, big lawsuit this week filed with America First Legal, Stephen Miller's group, against Red Hat and IBM.
	Oh, you're involved in this case.
	That is my case.
	I brought America First in.
	You're tangentially related to this case.
	Yeah, I know.
	We've been talking about this for a while.
	The first time you said redhead on this channel, I thought you meant commies.
	And then I made the joke, and he's like, yeah, well, it's fitting because they're behaving like commies.
	This is another case of just woke DEI employment and continued employment policies where they are saying, we've got to hire quotas.
	We're not implementing disciplinary measures or whatever on...
	Black people, whatever, people of color.
	And we're going to fire the white dude who complains about this.
	So who's your client and what's he doing and what's the status of the file?
	So we just filed suit in federal district court in Idaho against Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.
	This is who was exposed earlier this year by James O 'Keefe.
	I've been on this case for about a year.
	We tried to reach an amicable resolution with Red Hat.
	They were not amicable in achieving such a resolution, so no resolution was reached.
	My client, good, hardworking guy, about a decade or so, all the way back to Singapore, to Idaho, doing fantastic work.
	Literally not a single negative review in his entire career.
	Just laudatory, positive reviews all the way through.
	Fantastic.
	On the rise in a meritocratic company.
	To being one of the chief executives of that company.
	But the company decided in 2020, 2021, they were going to go woke.
	And they were going to start hiring people based on race and gender and religion.
	They were going to start discriminating against people based on race and gender and religion.
	And against their whistleblowing activities.
	If anybody voiced dissent.
	They started doing these mandatory workshops about how you're going to learn to be woke.
	You're going to learn to say negative things about your white employees, negative things about your male employees, negative things about your conservative employees, negative things about your Christian employees, and positive things about your minority employees, your female employees, your outside the religious mainstream employees, and your vaccine-loving employees.
	He was someone who had a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate.
	I represented a bunch of people at Red Hat during that process, and Red Hat at that point capitulated and granted a religious exemption because originally they were trying to not do so, even though many of these employees were remote workers.
	So it made absolutely no sense to be imposing the vaccine that day.
	But it was part and parcel of their woke revolution at Red Hat as soon as they became a subsidiary of International Business Machines, IBM.
	And so we filed suit in discrimination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, as well as analogous state law provisions.
	And to add insult to injury, during this process, they're firing him and wrongfully terminating him.
	He had previously requested family and medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy for his wife.
	They originally granted it.
	Then when they decided they wanted to, he was someone who spoke out against racial discrimination, spoke out against...
	Religious discrimination, spoke out against gender discrimination, spoke out against illicit vaccine mandates.
	Because he did, he was on the ultimate target list.
	He checked all the wrong boxes.
	White, wrong box.
	Male, wrong box.
	Kristen, wrong box.
	Outspoken on issues related to our discriminatory behavior, wrong box.
	And on that basis, they fired him.
	And they fired at the same time 20 of his colleagues by...
	By miraculous coincidence, basically every single one of them, all but one, is a white male conservative, religious conservative at some level.
	And so they were trying to purge the company of their so-called heretics.
	But in doing so, violated federal law.
	They violated the medical leave act.
	They took away his medical leave and took away his health insurance.
	To make sure his wife could have a safe pregnancy.
	And that's how vindictive and punitive and nasty Red Hat and IBM were.
	So we filed suit on retaliation grounds, racial and gender discrimination grounds, Family Medical Leave Act discrimination grounds, state and federal law claims brought as appropriate in federal district court, pleased to be co-counsel with Stephen Miller's America First Legal.
	And we'll be marching forward in that suit that a lot of people are paying attention to because the goal is to stop racial and gender and religious discrimination in the corporate workplace.
	It's going to happen sooner than later because it's over the top and it's in your face.
	And at some point, Robert, we had on...
	Oh, sweet.
	Carl.
	Jeremy Carl.
	At some point, it's not...
	Yeah, I had him on just last Wednesday.
	He told everybody...
	Barnes has been a crazy populist since he was the United Grasshopper.
	At some point, it will be just as good to say black pride, brown pride, Jew pride, Asian pride, white pride.
	I know it's got a terrible connotation to it.
	At some point, he's going to say it's okay to be white, and it's not going to be a controversial statement.
	And those are anti-American.
	That's what these people are.
	And that's what Jeremy's doing a great job of communicating with.
	Fundamentally, these people just don't like America.
	They want to change America.
	They want to make America different.
	They want to make America not American.
	And that's why we want to make America again, where you're judged based on being an American.
	You're not judged based on race, religion, gender, politics, your belief in medical autonomy.
	You're speaking out against what's wrong.
	Those are things that are supposed to be protected in America when you blow the whistle, not punished in America.
	And yet Red Hat and IBM were punishing it.
	Robert, do we take this party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com right now?
	Sure.
	We got a couple of Supreme Court cases, a big civil forfeiture case, a copyright case.
	We got illegal immigrants suing the state of Iowa over enforcing immigration law.
	And a few brief cases concerning the right of speech on student campuses, the right not to pay mandatory fees to organizations, politics are against you.
	And whether some of the folks on the right are getting a little woke.
	When it comes to anti-Israeli protests on campus.
	Let me bring up one because I want to highlight this.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com But I do want to highlight this one because it's an interesting thing.
	Hold on.
	How do I share this?
	This is one of the tips.
	Okay, we got Marble Hess.
	I'll do the top one there.
	JonathanG94.
	This is it.
	Trump wholeheartedly supported this disastrous campaign in Gaza.
	Is more evidence of Susan Weil's negative influence or at the very least, it bled over from other areas.
	It is possible to get...
	Douglas McGregor and Tucker Carlson involved in the Trump campaign.
	But this is the one for my own self-interested and egotistical purposes.
	I want to bring it up.
	Met Viva.
	Marble Hayes.
	Met Viva at the Rumble event this weekend.
	FYI, everyone.
	He was just as honest and genuine in person.
	Traits sorely underappreciated today.
	Keep doing your best, Viva.
	I have...
	First of all, I know who I think I am.
	And my biggest fear is that someone's going to catch me on a day when I'm having a bad day because we have bad days.
	Kids drive you effing crazy.
	I cleaned up dog shit, piss, and barfed.
	The only one I'm missing is sperm.
	We all have bad days.
	Note to self, more reason not to have an animal.
	Robert, I literally poo.
	Pee, blood, and barf.
	Today, from these dogs.
	Why?
	Who the hell knows?
	It was dried up in the corner.
	My concern is getting caught on a day where I'm irritated or whatever, and then someone says, I met you.
	It's not like you're going to go completely Christy Gnome on the poor dog.
	Dude, if I would have done that, I would have done that seven years ago.
	Seven years I've had that freaking dog.
	And I met so many people.
	I met someone in the airport, and it was a father and mother with a kid who was like, and they come up and was like, are you David?
	I was like, I'm eating breakfast.
	And then I just, look, I would feel terrible if I was not the same person, because it would mean I'm not the same person.
	I am neurotic, self-conscious, and other than that, I will admit when I'm wrong.
	So thank you for that comment, because I love it.
	It makes you feel good.
	But apparently taller than Chris Pawlowski and Don Jr.
	Are you crazy?
	I saw the photo!
	The only person that I'm taller than in real life, Tamara Leach.
	I'm taller than Tamara.
	The event was fantastic.
	We might have to turn it into a North American tour because I think it would have massive, massive appeal.
	So we'll see.
	See the meme?
	Have you seen the meme?
	Somebody's got a combined meme.
	Hold on.
	In the comments or tip section?
	In the comments section.
	Oh, she just pooped on me.
	Hold on.
	Bring it in, people.
	Now, that's a crazy band right there.
	Look at this.
	Who would listen to this?
	I need to grow the beard back.
	I'm growing the beard back.
	All right, so what we're going to do right now, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Please come.
	Everything will be published tomorrow to the dirty commie tube, YouTube.
	And then we're going to get all of the chats there.
	Hold on.
	Where am I looking to post this?
	Right here.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	That's the link to Locals.
	Come on over now.
	Any thoughts on Nancy Pelosi at Oxford Union Debate speaking against populism?
	Yeah, I thought that populist speaker did a great job of defending populism against Nancy Pelosi.
	So I think it's Winston Marshall is who it was.
	I'm going to go watch that too.
	There's too much stuff I would say.
	In transit and I don't get internet.
	I was, oh God.
	WestJet.
	WestJet was not terrible.
	Thus far, the worst.
	I forget what it was.
	It wasn't actually Spirit.
	It wasn't Spirit.
	It wasn't Spirit.
	It was someone else I said at the time.
	It's where it used to be, right?
	It used to be Air Trans.
	And they kept crashing.
	So they just changed their name to Spirit.
	Stop it.
	Were they Boeing?
	What planes were crashing?
	Probably so.
	Probably so.
	Probably Nikki Haley specials out of South Carolina.
	So everybody, we're going to have the leftover party.
	The after party.
	The after party at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Tomorrow, I almost forgot to announce it.
	So Jessica Rose is coming on tomorrow at 3. And at two is Eloise, who has the successful class action in Quebec against YouTube and Google at two o 'clock.
	So tomorrow I've got a full day.
	I'm also going to be on Megyn Kelly with Phil Holloway at noon.
	Busy day tomorrow.
	Oh, and then at seven o 'clock, the Redhead Libertarian.
	We're going to do a Twitter space at seven o 'clock.
	So tomorrow is going to be packed.
	The rest of the week is going to be packed.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
	So, yeah, I got to be in Pennsylvania all week, but we'll be back in Vegas probably on Thursday, so we'll probably have a bourbon on Thursday.
	But Monday in transit, Tuesday and Wednesday in Pennsylvania, a bunch of legal matters, and then back to Vegas.
	Okay, so amazing.
	That's what's coming up, so stay tuned.
	It's going to be a busy week, and it's going to be fantastic.
	Now, what I'm going to do is end the live stream on Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, in the beautiful mic.
	And we're going to do the chat, the tips, and some remaining questions.
	So, Dunn, thank you all for being here.
	And booyah.
	Peace out, peeps.
	Locals!
	Let's do this.
	No, I'm seeing my gif of she just pooped on me.
	She did poop on me, by the way.
	It was a disgusting piece of poop.
	Let's go to tipped.
	Robert, I'll do these.
	I'm going to read them fast.
	We're going to get to these.
	Trump wholeheartedly got that.
	Maybe PM blackface sniffs his kids like Biden did, just saying.
	That was a $1.
	I'm reading it in here because I already read it.
	I love the ideas of illegals suing states.
	Let's us know exactly where and when the deportation team can pick them up.

▲