Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 19, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:24:43

Ep. 211: Trump Trial, Jack Smith, Tyson Loses, Ukraine, Russia V. Google & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm in the screen.
	As we head into the May long weekend, here's something that we should all reflect on.
	Two weeks ago, Mr. Polyev said the quiet part out loud.
	In speaking with the Canadian Police Association, he casually mentioned that he was going to make his own laws and use the notwithstanding clause to make them charter compliant.
	He basically said that he was going to start taking away the rights of Canadians.
	But he intimated, don't worry, not your rights, the rights of others.
	Now, when someone tells you that they're going to start taking away the rights of Canadians, alarm bells should go up.
	Because it might not be your rights today, but it could very well be your rights tomorrow.
	And let's not forget, Mr. Polyev has done this before.
	When he was Minister of Democratic Reform, He was the first Canadian minister, to my knowledge, to take away the democratic rights of Canadians.
	He made it harder for 500,000, half a million Canadians to vote federally.
	And alarm bells went up at the time.
	Whether it was elections experts, observers, academics, the media, Canadians writ large were concerned that he was making Canada less democratic.
	And if you...
	Are worried and watching what's happening in the United States with horror when it comes to reproductive rights?
	Just remember, his anti-women's rights conservative MPs and the anti-choice movement here in Canada are already thinking about how they can apply those same laws and make it harder for Canadian women to access abortion and healthcare here in Canada.
	Now, when I was Minister of Democratic Institutions, I reversed his anti-democratic laws and made it easier for hundreds of thousands of Canadians to vote.
	Because at the end of the day, I believe in people's rights to vote, and I believe in their right to democracy.
	And our government is committed to making sure that we uphold the rights of Canadians, whether it's their right to access abortion, their right to health care, or their right to participate in democracy.
	We are going to do that.
	So this long weekend, I challenge you.
	To figure out how you are going to continue to protect our rights and freedoms.
	And I'll give you a hint.
	It starts by telling Mr. Polyev to keep his hands off of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
	I could literally vomit if I watched that over and over on a loop.
	It would be the torture that could get An insane person to admit to anything.
	That is, for those of you who don't know what you just witnessed right there, that is liberal.
	I don't know what her position is.
	Liberal MP.
	Let me just double check.
	Karina Gould.
	And I made the joke that the gaslighting is so strong.
	She needs to change her name from Karina Gould to Karina Gould because that's what she is.
	MP for Burlington.
	Leader of the government in the House of Commons.
	She, her, l.
	I swear it upsets my stomach.
	And I'm telling you this and it's not a source of pride.
	I have a vitriolic detestation for that woman.
	That's Karina Gould of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, accusing Pierre Poilier of coming after the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
	That's the woman.
	Who's of the party of the blackface-wearing, woman-groping, two-times-ethics-breaching scoundrel who for the last four years has turned our charter rights into used toilet paper.
	That's the same woman who works for the scoundrel Justin Trudeau who imposed vaccine mandate requirements for domestic travel on plane and train.
	That's the woman who works for that scoundrel Justin Trudeau who...
	Offered to finance vaccine passport systems at the provincial level up to a billion dollars.
	She's getting out.
	I swear to you I'm going to vomit.
	She's getting out and now accusing Pierre Poilievre of going after the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
	There you go.
	Now you can hear me rage in the good mic with some ASMR.
	She has come out and said Pierre Poilier is going after the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
	Oh, by the way, Karina Gould, you may remember her from such Nazi-loving photos as Karina Gould, Nazi.
	It's amazing.
	When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
	Here we go.
	Hey, looky, looky, looky.
	What do we got here?
	Karina Gould posing lovingly with Jaroslav Hunka.
	Nazi.
	Karina Gould, the party of the destroyer of Canada, locking up Canadians for non-violent mischief charges, freezing of bank accounts with no due process, lecturing us about rights and freedoms that they allege Pierre Polyevich...
	I swear to you, they do this because they're trying to provoke something of an unlawful response from Canadian citizens who are just snapping under this gaslighting.
	Hold on one second.
	Come on in.
	Let's go.
	They are trying to provoke A stupid response from people.
	I don't know.
	Let's just say the parents of someone who might have died because of the mandates that were required from that federal government.
	Or maybe someone who didn't get to a funeral or a wedding because they couldn't travel because they weren't vaccinated.
	They're trying to provoke a response from somebody so they can then say, look at how out of control these barbarians are.
	We need to govern them harder with even more laws.
	They're trying to provoke a reaction because that level of gaslighting, it can't be accidental.
	It can't be unintentional.
	And it can't be lacking self-reflection.
	It's impossible.
	Oh, and that scoundrel, Karina Ghul.
	What does she do, by the way, on that video?
	Where she goes and...
	She is no better than an abusive spouse who is rubbing the wounds of the victim spouse in her face.
	She's no better.
	What does she do to that grotesque video tweet?
	She speaks so nicely walking through the woods.
	She delivers her speech nicely.
	She delivers her verbal abuse nicely.
	What does she do?
	Restricts replies.
	While talking about Pierre Pauliev going after the rights and freedoms of Canadians, the abuser that Karina Gould is, she's an abuser, and she should know that.
	The abuser that is Karina Gould disables comments so that we can't let her know what we think.
	I let her know what I think.
	Karina Gould.
	It should trend.
	And then you get your other partner in crime, scoundrel of the highest order, Anita Anand.
	Look at these godforsaken lost souls.
	Hold on a second here.
	You got Anita Anand.
	Well said, Karina Gould.
	The rights and freedoms of Canadians that are enshrined in the charter are non-negotiable.
	I'm sorry, I am filled with hatred.
	I'm not saying this to be proud of it.
	It's a bad feeling.
	It's impossible not to hate a godforsaken demon that would actually come out and unironically assure Canadians, well said, Karina Gould, the rights and freedoms of Canadians that are enshrined in the Charter are non-negotiable.
	These mother effers literally, literally discriminated based on medical status and told Canadians that your right to mobility guaranteed in the Charter, you awful scoundrel, Anita.
	Well, you don't get to travel.
	You don't get to go on a plane or a train in one of the top, what is it, the second largest country by landmass?
	Oh, you don't get to travel.
	You will miss weddings.
	You will miss graduations.
	You will miss funerals.
	Oh, you don't get to go into a hospital unless you show your Vax passport.
	You will not get to be there when your loved ones die.
	These mother effers actually come out and say, what did she say?
	I can't even believe it.
	Well said, Karina Gould, you Nazi lover posing with Nazis.
	Desecrating the Charter.
	The rights and freedoms of Canadians that are enshrined in the Charter are non-negotiable, except for the rights of travel.
	Interprovincial travel, where I had to show papers to go from Quebec to New Brunswick.
	Oh, but that was provincial stuff.
	The vaccine passport in Quebec.
	But that's provincial.
	Financed by that scoundrel Justin Trudeau.
	Oh, the rights to property?
	The rights to freedom of association?
	Lock you up?
	Freeze your bank accounts?
	Holy hell!
	And disable comments so that people can't let you know what we think of you.
	Oh my, it's atrocious.
	And it's deliberate.
	It's to provoke.
	I hate these people.
	In the truest and sinful sense, I hate them.
	I don't wish ill on them.
	I actually wish that they live to 95 years old and so they can see what demons they are viewed as by the rest of the world.
	I hope they live...
	A long, healthy life and hear nothing but the echoes of the pain that they've caused other people swirling around in their heads forever.
	I've said this before, I'll say it again.
	Heaven and hell, I believe, are the same thing.
	It's an eternity of hearing what people have to say about you in your absence.
	Listening to Rogan with some guy who's really blowing my mind in terms of simulation, I hope that they spend an eternity hearing what everyday, good, peace-loving, charter-loving Canadians have to say about them.
	They know it.
	They know they are the most awful people on earth.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	With that said, before Viva...
	If Viva blows a gasket, well, what better...
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	I had the perfect segue, but because I'm more neurotic than any of you might even know, despite my constant talk about my neuroses.
	Before I blow a gasket, I should be sure to have...
	The medical necessities that I need in my house, should they not become available or should they become unavailable as a result of things that go awry?
	The wellness company, people.
	We don't have a healthcare system in this country.
	We have a sick care system.
	I was just looking at Vinny.
	Vinny Oceana posting a tweet from Whole Foods talking about all the genetically modified food that they're selling there.
	He's like, what is this?
	Genetically modified food?
	That's not what got my attention.
	It was the price on the items.
	Like, $10 for beets?
	Seven bucks US.
	Eight dollars US for beans.
	Okay, set that aside.
	We don't have a healthcare system in this country.
	We have a sick care system.
	Pharmaceutical companies make billions.
	That's billions with a B every single year off sick Americans, which means big pharma needs you to be sick to be reliant on.
	Abso-frickin-lutely.
	And just like big pharma, big government wants you to feel powerless, like they're in control of you, and you need them, not vice versa.
	Oh, lordy.
	Not today.
	Speaking of Satan, oh my goodness.
	Can we have had a better intro for this sponsor of this show?
	Because it's fantastic.
	What can we do?
	How can we push back?
	Become self-reliant.
	Take control of our health.
	The Wellness Company's medical emergency kits are the way to do it.
	Designed by elite doctors, including McCullough.
	Drew Pinsky, who you know very well from my channel and me from his.
	These prescription kits have emerged as a keystone of many Americans' families' emergencies preparedness plans.
	Save thousands of dollars in unplanned hospital visits.
	And make sure that you have the medications for when they shut down the world because they love your rights and freedoms so much.
	They shut your businesses down.
	They shut your kids out of daycare.
	They shut schools down.
	They shut down non-essential businesses.
	They ruined your life.
	And then they give you a stipend of $2,000 a month.
	And then they go out and tweet about how they are there to defend the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
	Holy hell.
	Be ready for the next thing, because it might be coming.
	With the Wellness Company's medical emergency kit containing eight life-saving medications, including ivermectin, amoxicillin, and Z-Pak, plus a guidebook to aid the safe use of the life-saving medication.
	The kit is prescription only.
	You can't find anything like it in a store or a pharmacy.
	Every American should have at least one of these in their home.
	Ordering yours takes minutes.
	You go online, you fill out a form.
	Because it's a prescription, you've got to give some information.
	It's not available in Canada, people.
	So I don't know how you get it there, but don't break the law to do it because they're waiting for you to do something stupid.
	But bottom line, go to twc.health forward slash viva.
	You'll get...
	30 bucks off and free shipping.
	Whether it's bird flu.
	Do you remember they tried to float monkeypox again as like the next contagion?
	COVID, cyber attacks, or drugstore shortages.
	You'll have what you need no matter what.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	Got my beautiful avatar there.
	Look at that.
	30 bucks off and free shipping.
	The link is in the description.
	And thank you to them.
	I am...
	Now the heart rate's low.
	I'm going to say the serenity prayer, by the way.
	Because this is one of those...
	I'm not going to change evil.
	They're not stupid.
	They're not incompetent.
	Karina Gould, who goes up...
	When someone tells you who they are, believe them, yeah?
	And you pose with gleefully like a grin, shitty grin that you had, hugging a Nazi.
	Oh yeah, I'll listen.
	But Pierre Poilievre is the one who wants to take it right its way.
	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'm not yet there, people.
	Good evening.
	Now, for anybody who's new to the channel, Viva Fry, David Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida crumbling.
	I have been solo parenting for the last little while.
	And I'll tell you one thing.
	We had a day of fishing.
	Holy crab apples.
	We went to Loxahatchee.
	I caught a great many fish.
	Hold on.
	My kid caught a peacock for the first time.
	But check that out.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Look at that.
	Beautiful fish.
	And I caught an alligator gar and it inhaled the hook.
	And so I couldn't...
	There was no chance of getting it out.
	So I just cut the line and dropped the fish into the water.
	The gator!
	Holy hell!
	I mean, if you fall into the water, you're dead.
	I made the joke to the guy who recorded this.
	Like, if I want to, you know, get rid of Pudge, I know where to do it.
	I wouldn't do that.
	I've had that dog for eight and a half years so that she can have a happy life despite being paralyzed.
	Pudge is the paralyzed one in Winnie.
	Where is he?
	Come here.
	Yeah.
	Oi!
	Oi!
	Boyle!
	Behold, Winston.
	What do you say?
	What do you say?
	That's it.
	Bite my chin.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh, that's good.
	That's a good one.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	I'm going to put you...
	Well, this is Winston.
	Say hi.
	This is a blind one.
	If you look at his eyes, right there.
	There you go.
	See that?
	That's one eye that's blind.
	Show him the other one.
	That one's blind too.
	And...
	Birth defect, inoperable, best dog we've ever had, except for the fact that he pisses on the carpet upstairs when I take him out of the bed, and I think that's because he's nervous and trying to mark his territory, and I can't bring myself to discipline him because he's a blind dog, so I just keep him on bed the whole night.
	All right!
	With that said, I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	Oh, sorry, long story short, Super Chats.
	If you want to support the channel, Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of this, but I love this Super Chat because it's the greatest compliment.
	Viva, you are the very personification of ancient Greek virtue ethics.
	Also, you and Kant have the same hair.
	I hate those people.
	I don't like the fact that I hate them, but there is no other human emotion that is appropriate for those people.
	But thank you very much, Cheryl Gage.
	And on Rumble, we've got Rumble France.
	Rumble takes 0% of that.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	And we've got a couple over there.
	Joden, Judge Anjan Napolitano has a great show covering liberty and foreign policy issues.
	Would be great to see you guys on his show or see him on yours.
	I'll screen grab that.
	I like Judge Knapp.
	And then we got Karina makes me wish for the system that Robert...
	I'm not sure what that is, and I don't want to read the rest of that and have anyone accuse me of indirectly reading.
	I don't know if that's...
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	What are the implications of that?
	I have to go back and watch Starship Troopers.
	All right.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	How did yesterday's meetup go?
	Inquiring minds want to know.
	It was fantastic, Pasha Moyer.
	It was fantastic.
	We end on Rumble.
	Sorry, we end on YouTube.
	Go to Rumble exclusively with vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Then we end on Rumble.
	We have our afterparty at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we take all of the, I think it's five bucks and up, tipped questions, and we have a beautiful afterparty.
	Barnes!
	I'm bringing you in.
	Sir, look at that beautiful shirt.
	I love it.
	How goes the battle, sir?
	In fact, Good Logic was quoting this this week.
	When I got stuck in Philly a little bit longer than anticipated, I tuned into his show and asked him to debrief me, but also his audience, about the update on his attempt to un-gag President Trump.
	And he referenced confession through rejection.
	Apparently he thinks only you said it, so I'm wearing the t-shirt for mine.
	I've got to have said it, but it's great the idea is getting saturated out there.
	Robert, when I said on a video last week that my operating theory is that Michael Cohen is participating on the extortion scheme, and someone in the chat said, I think you mean Barnes' operating theory.
	We've been around long enough to know who originally proposed it.
	I'm fairly certain you proposed confession through projection as well, but the old expression, accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, is, you know, it's an iteration of confession through projection.
	You're back home now, it looks like?
	Oh, yeah.
	All right, and how was last week?
	Busy, busy.
	All right, we're going to get started because, Robert, I'm still angry about that woman.
	She comes out and says, like, the Liberal government is about rights and freedoms.
	I'll have to get over that because we need to get into the show.
	What do we have on the order tonight that I'm going to probably disrupt within the first question?
	What's on the menu for tonight?
	You know, she was probably being honest.
	She meant the government's liberties taking away your freedoms.
	You know, just a different twist on the phraseology there in the Orwellian environment, where democracy means not democracy.
	No better example of that than Ukraine, where Blinken was visiting a restaurant that's famous for celebrating Nazis.
	But apparently they took down as much of the Nazi propaganda as they could.
	Speaking of which, I'll be discussing Nazis.
	I'll be on Tuesday at 1 p.m. Eastern with the Duran.
	Back live to discuss that.
	The recent death assassination of the Iranian president.
	Famous last words.
	He said he had information on Hillary Clinton.
	But we'll see what all that means.
	Hold on a second.
	Is that a meme or did he actually say that?
	That's a meme.
	The meme that's when they get in the chat and say someone died and then they said Betty White died and like ha ha with that meme because they always say someone died.
	Okay, so he didn't have anything.
	He didn't say that.
	Robert, well, actually, speaking of the assassination of the Iranian president, the Slovakian president, Fiskel...
	There was an attempt a week or two ago on the leader of Saudi Arabia.
	So we got a lot of...
	And then we got Putin and Xi, big meeting in China.
	Even Trump took time from this trial this week to comment on that being a very significant and underreported event.
	So we'll have a bunch of stuff to talk about with the Duran.
	That will be a lot of fun.
	What's happening with Malay in Argentina?
	What's happening in El Salvador with the great populist leader there?
	What's happening in Pakistan where they tried to arrest and imprison the populist leader there?
	All the wildness that's taking place on the international front.
	But yeah, we have tonight, we got the Trump trial.
	Michael Cohen testified.
	And even James Carville was saying, please, God, don't tell me they prosecuted this case based on that guy's testimony.
	Surely they have documentary evidence, right?
	Guess again, Jimbo.
	And we got the GoodLogic download on his attempt to fight the gag order and the interesting way they handled things there in the New York courts.
	Tyson loses.
	Some people in the live chat at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're saying which Tyson?
	If they lose, lost, and we're celebrating it, that's only one Tyson.
	It ain't Mike Tyson.
	It's Tyson Foods lost in court this week.
	We have a, you know, when is your name protected from the Fourth Amendment?
	We have a big Second Amendment win out of the Ninth Circuit, no less.
	We got Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, NDAs, wines, and the divorce that just won't end.
	We got the law of deepfakes trying to regulate and restrict that in Arizona, but are they going to encroach on the First Amendment?
	They want to force local libraries to carry and make sure your kids at your school library have access to pervert books, because that's their new obsession.
	They're literally saying there's a First Amendment demand that libraries can't prohibit it, and that they can prohibit you from even knowing your kids are being...
	Force-fed this material.
	Then we've got what happens when your kids are from Ukraine, end up in the United States, the other parents in Paris, and there's a dispute where they're trying to enforce a Ukrainian court order in the United States.
	We had a case that decided that this week in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We got Rumble versus Google, the part two of the sequel.
	We got the Karen Reed trial.
	Thanks to members of the board who suggested I take a look at whether this is a Copland-style conspiracy like the film Copland.
	Robert Kennedy is going back after Facebook, suing them for censoring his political advertisement.
	And he may be suing CNN over the debate issues.
	And he has additional lawsuits coming down potentially on ballot access issues.
	And then we have the Biden family and the Biden administrations.
	Ongoing conspiracy against farmers with an update as well on Amos Miller and the illegally imprisoned farmers in Pennsylvania who I was up meeting this past week.
	So we got a full load tonight.
	Well, let's...
	I was going to make a segue into the Stormy Daniels testimony, but I won't because that would be crass.
	I already did it.
	Well, let's start with the Trump trial.
	We'll start with that.
	Flesh it out.
	Talk about Joe Nierman.
	Then we'll head over to Rumble.
	So yeah, as if the Stormy Daniels testimony didn't go bad enough, Michael Cohen testified last week.
	And I posted a clip from MSNBC because...
	It's so idiotic, it's beyond words, where their legal experts are saying, yeah, you know, his testimony in chief was quite good, but it really started to come apart in cross-examination.
	I'm like, oh, so when he knows the questions and the answers and has been prepped by a friendly prosecutor, it goes well, and then the second he's not, it goes badly.
	The theory of the case that they have to prove in order to bring the felony 34 charges against Trump are that he directed the overt concealment of this...
	Payment for something other than what it was, unlawfully to influence an election.
	That's even assuming that if he did what they're accusing him of, it'd be legal in the first place.
	But that's what they need to prove.
	And the only problem now is that he signed off the checks and he signed off the entries and wrote it down as legal expenses because in his mind, that's what he thought it was.
	And now you've got to...
	So Michael Cohen comes in and says, no.
	When he wrote that down as legal expenses or retainer, he knew...
	It was to pay for the Stormy Daniels, to cover it up, to influence an election, and it was his strategy to do it.
	The only problem is that Michael Cohen literally said the exact opposite, under oath repeatedly for years, and now they bring him back here, he's what they need, barring some document or email or text of Trump saying, yeah, hide that payment, because I don't want people knowing for the election, not even for my own wife, hide that payment.
	And if they don't have a piece of evidence that actually says that Trump, you know, did that, knew that, whatever, they've got to rely on Michael Cohen, who's now recanting on his prior statements that it wasn't legal services.
	He didn't issue invoices or he did, but he didn't do any work, he now claims.
	And so when they paid him his legal invoices, it was actually to hide the payment.
	And it was all Trump's idea with his knowledge, with his direction, except it's only Cohen's word that says that.
	I mean, it's a disaster beyond words, Robert, but what is your take of Michael Cohen, who's still under oath right now because they're going to finish up with a cross-examination on Monday?
	You know, I put out there that Stormy Daniels and Cohen were so inviting to cross-examine.
	That is the kind of people I would cross-examine for free, just for the joy, professional joy of it.
	My first cross-examination question to Stormy Daniels would have been...
	Is there anything you won't do for money?
	Let's go through the things you have done for money.
	Because that involves a lot of things a lot of people wouldn't do for money.
	And then with Michael Cohen, it would have been two questions.
	Exactly how many crimes have you committed, given how many crimes he's confessed to at various times and then later said he didn't commit?
	And the second question would be, how many times have you lied under oath and committed perjury?
	Because by his own admission, He's done it about a dozen times, at least, maybe 25 times, maybe 40. You can't keep track of how many times this guy has lied under oath.
	And that's the problem.
	Their entire case depends upon the credibility and trustworthiness and reliability of the testimony of Michael Cohen.
	They have no other testimony, no other documents that incriminate Donald Trump.
	None.
	Zero.
	Zilts.
	Zunka.
	Nada.
	So that's why James Carville was shaking his head, saying, please, God, tell me that isn't what they built their whole case on.
	Yep, Jimbo, that's exactly what they built their whole case on.
	That's why Alvin Bragg passed initially.
	That's why even the Biden Justice Department didn't pursue this case.
	That's why the FEC said there was no case.
	Of course, there's...
	Inherent contradictions in this case, as I talked about one of the last times I was on with the Duran, which is the crime takes place after the election, but supposedly it was done to influence the election, which it could have only done if it was done before the election.
	So because there is no crime in just an NDA, the only crime is to falsify accounting records later, but that was done after the election.
	So you couldn't have falsified the bookkeeping records in order to influence the election.
	You just couldn't have.
	So their theory is that there was a crime of an illegal donation that's being covered up after the fact to influence an election that had already happened.
	I mean, it's always been an absurd and asinine legal theory.
	Also, of course, almost nobody's ever prosecuted for this.
	But the other problem they have is, it turns out, according to the bookkeeper, Trump isn't the one who instructed that.
	It turns out, according to the lawyer and the CFO and everybody else, Trump had nothing to do with the payment, the determination of the payment, the accounting for the payment, the bookkeeping of the payment, the reporting of the payment.
	That's a little bit of a problem.
	That was the documentary proof Carville was fantasizing that they surely must have.
	All the documentary proof proves Trump is innocent.
	There's no criminal intent of any kind.
	Even if you could somehow...
	Managed to make this into a crime in the first place.
	As always, as we've been predicting from the get-go, this is a case of confession through projection.
	Every crime Biden committed, he accused Trump of doing.
	It's Biden who's exchanging favors around the world with secret classified information to line his and his family's pockets.
	And it's the crimes that Cohen committed.
	And that's what's become more clear, by the way, throughout this trial.
	It's obvious by the nature of Cohen's testimony, if you understand this industry, Cohen was part of the extortion effort with Stormy Daniels, with the National Enquirer.
	They were figuring out ways they could shake Trump down for money on a constant basis.
	And for Cohen, it was either to prove his worth to Trump or it was to line his own pockets.
	And then there's all the other alternative theories that are out there.
	Like, why did Cohen go to great lengths to hide this from his wife?
	That suggests something else might be afoot other than what is being suggested.
	And then, of course, you have literally the most biased witnesses of all time.
	Let me ask you, Robert.
	What other reason?
	I'm trying to think creatively.
	Is it to hide the income from his wife?
	It could be a bunch of reasons.
	It could be because he's involved in criminal extortion behavior himself.
	Doesn't want his wife knowledgeable about that.
	It's because he could have been one of the many, many, many people.
	Who took a little stop at the Stormy Daniels truck stop.
	Can't rule that out.
	Well, just so that neither of us get into trouble, OAN, who reported the alleged Stormy Daniels affair with Michael Cohen, had to retract their story and apologize, and Michael Cohen was running around doing his victory dance because OAN allegedly made a mistake.
	Assuming, Mike, your reputation is so bad, you don't have a reputation that can be defamed.
	There's actually a legal rule for that.
	That when your reputation is so bad, there's no way you could damage it any further.
	Michael Cohen has destroyed his own reputation.
	Try to pretend that the reason why he was unethically, unprofessionally recording his own clients' conversations and communication was like, well, crime fraud exception.
	That isn't why you as an attorney are recording the conversation.
	I would have followed up.
	Who was committing the crime there, Mike?
	Wasn't it you committing the crime?
	There's no crime fraud exception from not recording your clients when you're the one committing the crime, Mike.
	Well, not only that, his original answer was, oh, I was recording it to prove to David Pecker that he was serious about repaying him.
	He didn't even argue of crime fraud exception when he did that.
	Of course not.
	And then he got caught lying on the stand multiple times.
	And then it turns out this whole, the only real evidence he has tying Trump in is a supposed phone call.
	That he had with Trump to confirm certain payments of the Stormy Daniels.
	And it turns out the timing of the phone call doesn't add up at all because it turned out that's when he was trying to sick the Secret Service on a 14-year-old kid who was having fun pranking him.
	And so, I mean, this guy is a complete...
	And of course, every day he's bashing Trump, making millions of dollars, making up stories against Trump.
	His own lawyer testified before Congress that, in fact, he...
	The lawyer he had released from attorney-client privilege, something Trump never did with him.
	He's just breached attorney-client privilege all the way through, Cohen.
	Like they've done repeatedly.
	The same thing has happened in the D.C. and classified documents cases.
	Constant, continuous intrusion and invasion of the attorney-client privilege.
	That topic even pops up in the Karen Reif case.
	We'll get to it later.
	The case is a joke.
	It's a legal joke.
	It's always been a legal joke.
	And now it's a factual joke.
	And everybody got to see it, that what really happened was Trump was the victim of people who were constantly, continuously extorting him, trying to use their access to him to shake him down, set him up, and line their own pockets in the process.
	And Michael Cohen was integral to that process.
	So the only person who committed crimes is Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, not Donald Trump.
	Now, a lot of people were cheering and saying, well, this ends the case.
	It's a New York Democratic jury.
	No Democratic jury has cared about the facts yet.
	They knew that he didn't assault that lunatic.
	They even said he didn't rape her, but then they just said yes to assault, which made absolutely no sense at all.
	It was because of their prejudice.
	And then you have a judge who is interrupting every time.
	Great coverage, by the way.
	By Gouveia.
	Yeah, Robert Covea, by far.
	Because he's able to read a transcript like you're there in the courtroom.
	And he's able to add a little commentary and give you a sense of how the witness is responding in live time.
	He's able to dramatize it with exceptional success.
	So he can take inner-city presses in-courtroom reporting and translate it to like you're right there in the courtroom.
	Gave a great sense of who...
	Cohen really is.
	Gave a good sense of the cross-examination.
	And made it clear how the judge was constantly, let's have a break!
	Every single time, Cohen was getting embarrassed and nailed with another lie.
	I mean, one of the biggest lies he told, this is what got Anderson Cooper like, oh man, this is not good.
	This is not turning out good.
	What did you think was going to happen?
	Even Carville understood that this was a disaster if you're dependent on Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.
	So I've been trying to figure out a criminal nickname for Cohen that rhymes with ho.
	Because, you know, the case is the ho and the...
	I mean, he was his own kind of ho.
	He's kind of a co-ho.
	He holds the truth.
	You got Cohen is close enough to co-ho, so you can call him the ho and the co-ho.
	Robert...
	People were telling me that, you know, floating the idea that he was in on the extortion on both ends.
	Some people are saying that there is evidence that he was taking a cut from the recipient end of the payouts.
	I think I've missed that.
	Because, I mean, the utility to that is, you know, because he was controlling the entire money train, you don't know what got actually paid.
	You don't know what got paid to who, when, where, and how, because he's controlling the money.
	So he could inflate also what he paid.
	He could say it was $150,000, maybe put $150,000 into an account, but maybe only $120,000 went out, or maybe some portion went out and some portion came back.
	I mean, the guy was involved in all kinds of criminal scams, involving his taxi business, involved a bunch of stuff.
	Imagine, he also said on the stand there was a couple of legal commentary little points, other than him making up that crime fraud exception nonsense, which that is not an exception in the way they are portraying to allow you to record in real time your own client.
	That's not.
	So you can record your client if your client is trying to extort you, right?
	Something like that.
	There's even states that prohibit.
	One-party recording, one-party consent recording, but if you're doing it to document extortion, it can be okay.
	But there was no basis for that.
	The other part was he claimed he didn't know whether he got acceptance of responsibility in his criminal sentencing for his tax crimes.
	And that's just a complete lie.
	He knows whether he got credit for it or not because that's what the sentence is based on.
	The judge said so.
	So that was just a complete lie.
	I mean, the guy just, he would be evasive and lie about anything.
	People like, you know, that Klasfeld crook figure, that, you know, fraudulent reporter, he's not a real reporter, who was just making up a fantasy version of what was taking place in cross-examination.
	It's crazy.
	I've even stopped, I've stopped reading it and I've also just stopped mentioning it because it's not worth listening to, but...
	I love it when Cohen says, when they're asking Cohen, like, you're making a lot of money off your TikTok video, right?
	And he goes, money is made.
	I can hear that.
	Money is made.
	Oh, it just happens.
	I just go out there and I sell the shirt with Trump behind bars.
	I hate him.
	I want it to be Attorney General.
	It was so upsetting.
	My daughter was upset about it.
	But I, anyhow.
	Robert, I still think he's going to get convicted.
	I mean, that's because of how bad the jury is.
	I mean, it will require an extraordinarily bad jury with what an utter disgrace this trial has and has become.
	But with a corrupt judge trying to rig the trial, with a prejudiced jury pool that was filled with Trump haters, and we've seen this in the other D.C. and New York cases, they are not capable.
	Of impartial justice.
	They are incapable of it.
	That's why a trial never should have been held there.
	And so the venue was prejudiced from the inception.
	It was seeping with prejudice.
	Now, it will be an indictment of the entire New York system if they...
	It's too late for that, Robert.
	I mean, they indicted themselves with the Angeron case and with the E. Jean Carroll case.
	Or look at the games they're putting good logic through just to avoid a substantive ruling on the merits before the trial's over.
	So what's the latest with...
	Well, hold on a second.
	One last question with Michael Cohen.
	Oh, I predicted it in my summary vlog of Friday, but the narrative is going to change rapidly and it's going to go from star witnesses, Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen to we never needed them in the first place because all you need to know is the payment was made.
	That's what's going to happen.
	So what is the latest, for those who don't know, Joe Nierman, good logic, LAWGSE, good logic, out of New York, petitioned with the Rule 78 or Rule 72, whatever the state rule is, to un-gag Trump because of all of our respective First Amendment rights.
	He's accredited media.
	He's an accredited journalist.
	It's kind of amazing, actually, because he's a lawyer by trade as well, and he's got a good channel.
	And so he petitioned it.
	They gave him the runaround, said we're dismissed right off the bat, and I don't know what the latest is in terms of his progress.
	So the article 78 petition to un-gag Trump documented constitutionally why the gag order was a complete abuse of the very cases that they were citing.
	In Gentile v.
	State Bar of Nevada, for example, they said that lawyers are held to a different standard and have less free speech than the defendant.
	The courts are interpreting that the other way around now.
	They're saying if we can restrain the lawyer, then we can definitely restrain the defendant.
	It's just the opposite.
	I mean, they're just completely flipping these cases over and over on their head.
	In Gentile v.
	State Department of Nevada, the Supreme Court said you can't even punish a lawyer for going out there and attacking the entire case just, I think, months in advance or weeks in advance of the actual jury trial.
	And that's a lawyer who has less speech rights in a courtroom.
	Or outside a courtroom concerning a court proceeding they're part of than an individual.
	And so if a lawyer can say that, by golly, the individual can.
	And so it's clear he's so right that the first court that handled it couldn't give him any substantive response, didn't question him at oral argument meaningfully, and then issued a very short order.
	So now he took it up to the appellate court.
	And the appellate court keeps delaying the proceeding.
	As he pointed out, somebody asked him on his live stream, does live streams each night, or almost each night, depending on certain holidays and whatnot.
	He's a religious Orthodox Jew.
	About, hey, did he think the clerk might be playing some games?
	Because it sure looked like the clerk was playing some games.
	And he said, as a lawyer, I couldn't say if I thought the clerk was...
	I'm sure if I believe that, I definitely couldn't say if I believe it.
	Which I took it as sounded to me like the court clerk is playing games there in New York, trying to find every trick and shenanigan in the books like we had a deal with in Pennsylvania where court clerks are playing games, trying to hide documents, hide information, not file things, not process things correctly.
	And the same with the Court of Appeals.
	Apparently, they're finally going to schedule a hearing date, but the hearing date, I believe, is this week.
	They're probably praying.
	The trial is over by the time that they have to hear the case so they can pretend it's then moot.
	Which it wouldn't be moot because it's capable of repetition yet evading review.
	An exception to mootness.
	So I think sooner or later his case will be heard and I think sooner or later he'll win an established critical precedent beneficial to everybody.
	They announced six weeks of trial and now it sounds like it's coming to an end.
	The summation arguments on Tuesday.
	The assumption is Trump won't testify.
	They have an FEC witness, but the judge gutted the FEC witness's testimony.
	And it sounds like they're not going to call...
	A lot of people thought, why not call Cohen's lawyer?
	That said that, by the way, he told me that he had no negative information about...
	Because Cohen released this lawyer from any privilege and then said he wasn't his lawyer.
	And it's like, okay, that's even worse for you, Cohen.
	So you're telling a random stranger, by the way, I know nothing whatsoever about Trump?
	That's interesting.
	Clearly the guy was his lawyer for that purpose.
	He just didn't fully ever retain him afterwards.
	I mean, Cohen wasn't even playing games with...
	He was like, oh, I didn't request a pardon.
	And they're like, you asked your lawyer to ask for a pardon.
	But I didn't.
	It was even worse because he suggested that they were floating the pardon to buy his loyalty or to buy his testimony.
	And then it comes out that he actually asked for the pardon.
	But then he says, I didn't do it.
	I did it through Costello.
	And I didn't do it myself.
	He was evasive on the stand.
	But if you want to see how a biased juror might handle this, you can go through someone like Klassfeld's little Twitter feed.
	Because they'll spin everything in their own mind in lunatic ways.
	But no honest jury of any kind could convict Trump.
	Professor Turley pointed out an honest judge would dismiss this case at the end of the government close of evidence, which will come on Monday.
	Don't expect this corrupt judge to do that.
	It's, you know, once again, a disgrace to the rule of law in the United States of America, what's taking place in the New York civil and criminal courts.
	Further evidence that when an actual trial takes place, now people can see why they never allowed a trial in the merits in the Alex Jones cases, right?
	I mean, there were some people, you could tell, like Carville, Anderson Cooper, other people, who had convinced themselves there was a real case here.
	And now they see the evidence, they're like, oh, actually, there never was a case here.
	This was just made-up nonsense.
	And you have to just hate the guy and railroad him in order to convict him.
	And when even they're realizing it, you realize just what a disgrace and a joke and a mockery of justice this entire proceedings against Trump have been.
	Robert, one last thing.
	I mean, one last subject that's sort of Trump-related before we head on over to Rumble.
	Julie Kelly reported this.
	It's a couple weeks old now, but I want to...
	Talk about it just briefly because the Florida case is going to hell in a handbasket.
	Where it's beyond not having a case, it's doctored evidence.
	It's actual doctored evidence.
	Are we looking at the same thing here?
	We are.
	Julie Kelly.
	No, thanks.
	I'll get that in a second.
	This was the infamous photo that was put in filings so that the media could run with it and post it everywhere.
	And we saw the box that was taken from Mar-a-Lago with these...
	Headers on it.
	Top secret SCI.
	Top secret SCI.
	And now it turns out that the prosecution or Jack Smith and his team had to effectively admit that those cover sheets weren't at Trump's place, didn't denote any classified documents.
	They printed them up and they brought them and they laid this out and put those cover sheets that they printed and brought to the quote-unquote crime scene.
	And they doctored evidence and only were revealed to have done so.
	I don't know how it got revealed, but they had to admit that, yeah, the order might have been changed.
	Oh, yeah, and we put the cover sheets on it ourselves.
	I mean, it's all fine and well that Trump should get acquitted in New York and the case should be tossed in Florida.
	But when does Alvin Bragg, Judge Marchand, Jack Smith, when do they experience any form of judicial justice?
	Unfortunately, right now, they won't.
	I mean, unless somebody holds them to account.
	That's why, in my view, it's time to reinvigorate impeachment proceedings.
	It's time to reinvigorate federal civil rights laws and criminal prosecution of rogue judges.
	And it's time to reinvigorate taking away judicial immunity in more cases.
	Judges made up judicial immunity.
	It's not something ever passed by the American people.
	It's something they just invented for themselves.
	Isn't that convenient?
	Upon reflection, I think we have to be immune.
	And from some outrageous cases, by the way, including a case where a judge had a young woman sterilized without her knowledge at the behest of her insane father.
	I mean, even though he had no authority of any kind to do that.
	And the Supreme Court said, oh, that was what it is, jurisdiction to do, blah, blah, blah.
	And, you know, you see it in the case that we're dealing with the illegally imprisoned farmers in Pennsylvania.
	Seeing it in the cases where they're trying to lock up a lady in another case that I'm handling over recording her own proceedings and documenting fraud in the courtroom.
	So there needs to be reconsideration by the legislative branches to end or at least drastically limit judicial immunity.
	When we're seeing the weaponization of the legal system in a way that would make even a banana republic look better by comparison in terms of the justice system.
	No doubt this Russian justice system is a lot better than the US one right now as it's treating President Trump.
	So, you know, it's disgraceful and it just shows a continuous pattern.
	Of deeply pernicious and problematic behavior.
	And like President Trump keeps saying, it's election interference.
	It's a deliberate effort to interfere in the presidential elections.
	Not just framing a case for the court of public consumption, public opinion, in order to create a false narrative and false story based on false facts, perjured witnesses.
	I mean, what they did is they doctored the file, created a fake photo based on documents they had mishandled.
	Prosecuting someone else for allegedly mishandling them.
	He was the only one who had a right to handle them.
	They did not.
	And now they got caught their hand in the cookie jar.
	And the question is, is anybody, and this is someone who's not even constitutionally qualified to be getting search warrants and grand jury indictments in the first place in the case of Jack Smith.
	So, I mean, this is just embarrassment after embarrassment after embarrassment.
	We predicted that's how these trials would go when the world got to see the truth.
	That is what even the James Carvilles and Anderson Coopers of the world are now seeing and witnessing.
	And the question is, how long will this joke proceed onward until the Supreme Court puts an end to it with a broad immunity ruling, hopefully.
	And then the legislative branch needs to go back in and start taking away judicial immunity in some of these cases.
	Needs to start impeachment proceedings where applicable.
	And there needs to be, in the next administration, federal civil rights investigations and criminal prosecution of these criminal judges.
	Robert, before we head on over to Rumble for the rest of this stream, I want to bring up the Rumble rants while we have the crowd on both channels, because...
	Stefanog, with a lot of Gs, says, I met Viva in Toronto at the Rumble event.
	What a great guy.
	Completely authentic.
	A man's man, as they say.
	Well, thank you.
	Stop it.
	Keep fighting the good fight.
	Thank you.
	Stefanog, thank you very much.
	I was thinking, like, if anybody ever met me in person, they say, and I was mean, totally different.
	I would feel ashamed.
	Thank you very much.
	That's actually very wonderful words.
	For me, it would depend on who I met.
	Well, no, I see.
	Okay, it's a phobia.
	It's a phobia, an irrational fear.
	King of Biltong, good afternoon from Anton's.
	Free shipping on your Biltong using code Viva or go to Biltong USA, Anton USA.
	We need to build our own store in 2024.
	Booyah, help us buy more Biltong.
	It's delicious, everybody.
	Jane Catherine Berry 1. Americans have been arrested in the Congo in connection with Saturday's night attempted presidential assassination and coup.
	I saw the video.
	I have no idea what the hell's going on.
	President of Iran...
	An American-based Congolese guy who was orchestrating the coup attempt.
	It's hard to believe that wasn't with some greenlit approval.
	Remember, that region of Africa is hotly contested currently between Russia and France and the West.
	So there's a lot of bad...
	I suspect that some three-letter American agencies were involved in that.
	Barnes, if I may sell one of your hush-hushes, is this the same area-ish that you mentioned in one of your hush-hushes about the terror attack in Russia?
	Yes.
	Himoros TV says the president of Iran and other Iranian leaders are currently missing in a helicopter crash.
	And then we got Desperado 98. What a great movie that was, Desperado.
	Hey, Viva and Barnes, glad to catch you live once again.
	Gave a call to 7076 Law about the issue I mentioned on YouTube to you and Viva, Jared Tobe.
	Question for Barnes.
	The name Reiki Bowman sound familiar at the risk of disclosing private stuff.
	I don't know, Robert.
	I screen grabbed it.
	I'll send that to you afterwards.
	Okay.
	What we're doing now is we are ending on YouTube and we are going over to Free Speech Rumble for the rest of this show.
	So I'll post the entire thing tomorrow and some clips and snips, which I should really be posting to Viva Clips.
	It's also on podcasts, so it's Viva Barnes Law for the People on all the places.
	This is good from our live chat.
	CIA invented pigeons.
	You can tell by the way they love a good coup.
	All right.
	Who did that come from, Robert?
	If I had to guess.
	This one's from...
	EO delicious.
	Yeah, right.
	That's good.
	EO's got the old dad humor.
	Okay.
	We're ending it on YouTube now.
	YouTube's had enough of our good graces.
	We are done on YouTube.
	Rumble or vivavarnslaw.locals.com.
	Boom.
	Done.
	Robert, what is next?
	Well, we got a range of topics.
	We got the Karen Reed trial, second, first, fourth amendment.
	We got religion.
	We got schools.
	Start with the Karen Reed.
	Ed Jolie and Brad Pitt and wineries.
	We got deep fakes.
	We got Ukraine.
	We got treaties with Indians, treaties with foreign countries.
	So, you know, take your pick.
	Let's go with Karen Reed because I know nothing about it.
	What's going on?
	So I didn't know anything about it either.
	And there are members of our board.
	They're like, you got to pay attention to this.
	A lot of LawTube is covering this case.
	Emily Baker, a friend of the channel and others.
	Uncivil Law is covering it.
	And some other folks.
	And so I was like, alright, I'll take a look at this.
	And I'll take a look at some news coverage of it.
	And I thought the other thing I would take a look at, I always like to take a look at the opening statements.
	And there's a cop channel, ex-cop channel I follow, listen to his take.
	And his take was...
	That the indictment's just fine and that she's guilty and so forth.
	I'll pause you there.
	I didn't know it was Karen Reed, but this is the woman who's accused of killing her cop boyfriend and there's some discussion as to whether or not it was actually the other cops who killed him and are now framing the girlfriend for this.
	Okay, fine.
	I'm not following the trial, but I didn't know her name was Karen Reed.
	But yeah, I've heard some of the breakdown.
	I've got my questions, at least a reasonable doubt from what I've heard, but okay, sorry, go ahead.
	And so they went and watched the opening statements.
	Defense lawyer really did a fantastic job.
	It's a very good example of it.
	There's only a few tweaks I would have made to it if I was writing it myself or rewriting it myself.
	But I always encourage people to look at the crime scene, independent of anything else you know, and say, okay, what forensic evidence should I find if this particular narrative is true versus that particular?
	In terms of understanding what happened.
	I recommend people do that in the O.J. Simpson case.
	They might come to an alternative conclusion than the popular one.
	But the story, as soon as I heard it, I was like, okay, there should be clear evidence of this.
	Because the official government indictment is that she's arguing with her boyfriend and that she runs him over, I guess a couple of times, and then abandons him.
	In the front yard of a house that's like a decent distance from the street somehow, takes off, and that's how he dies, get out in the freezing, freezing in the cold.
	And they, several of the cop witnesses, this guy that runs this cop channel, I won't call him out by name, he did good coverage on the Rittenhouse case, but he just took for face value the testimony of this other...
	Of people related to it without even investigating it.
	And it's like, that was a very poor version of it.
	So as soon as I heard that, I was like, okay, well, what's the forensic evidence that that happened?
	And it turns out there's basically none.
	It's the way in which, if you were a cop, especially, say, a mid-tier cop, you would try to frame somebody.
	Like maybe the O.J. Simpson case, for example.
	That you do it in such a half-assed way, it's easy to take apart.
	So all they found was little pieces of the back of her taillight located around the scene, and they didn't find it at the time.
	They conveniently found it much later.
	Well, let me ask the obvious question.
	Did they find any substantial damage to the front of her car?
	No, none.
	The theory is that somehow she ran over the back of the car.
	Even though there's no damage to the back of the car other than a broken taillight, that, by the way, there's evidence of where that came from.
	It had come from that morning in a panic.
	She pulled out and hit something right there out of her own front, or out of where she was living with her boyfriend at their house.
	They ended up doctoring a bunch of stuff, which I'll get to.
	But I was like, okay, if you can run over by a vehicle...
	First of all, it's not the easiest thing to do.
	How in the world did that happen in the first place?
	Assuming it even happened, you're going to have proof of it on the body.
	If you get run over, your torso is going to show the signs that a 600-pound SUV ran over you.
	I think the argument here is that he suffered head injuries and he had a swollen cheekbone or something along those lines.
	How did it only hit his head?
	Somehow the SUV only hit his head?
	And it only hits it at the corner somehow?
	I mean, it was like, knowing that, where are the tracks?
	Where's the undercarriage?
	You know, there's a bunch of things you should find either with the vehicle, with the body, and at the scene, consistent with somebody running over somebody in that manner.
	Instead, there's nothing but little pieces of the back of her taillight not found at the time.
	People were all over the scene.
	Nobody finds it until like a month later.
	So right away, I was like, okay, she's innocent.
	I have no doubt about that.
	The only question is what really happened.
	And what it was is, so this is a cop who's found dead in the front yard of another cop whose entire family and friends are deeply embedded in the law enforcement community throughout the state.
	So a lot of my cop friends and others, Don't like, you know, the honest cops will always admit, or the ones that are aware that there are corrupt cops, and that it's not hard to be a corrupt cop, and so forth, and that they spoil it for everybody else.
	You got about 5-10% of cops that are just bad cops.
	And by the way, they are the Derek Chauvins of the world.
	So, I mean, that's what we pointed out from day one, that while it looked like the evidence was not convincing beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause any death of George Floyd, you could separate that from the fact that the guy had one of the most corrupt histories of any police officer on the force.
	Right.
	There's this tendency to sort of glamorize police officers on the right to such a degree that they all of a sudden all become saints, and you can't second-guess them.
	In my experience, the number one profession that lies on the stand and commits perjury...
	Our police officers, law enforcement, government agents.
	Now, most of those are federal agents and bureaucrats, but it's true of a lot of cops, too.
	It's just the reality of it.
	I think it's a blind spot on the right.
	The local town outside Boston so distrust their own police force, they ordered an audit of the police force.
	So obviously something's up there.
	And apparently there's a federal criminal investigation.
	Apparently the FBI has done a full reconstruction and said there's no way she ran over him.
	There's no way he died by being hit by a vehicle.
	Just couldn't happen, didn't happen.
	There was also all kinds of other problems because people left that night.
	This was an after party at the cop's house.
	Walked right by where he was.
	And never saw him.
	So it's like, hold on a second.
	She ran over him.
	Nobody sees it.
	And nobody sees the body for hours when they're walking right through there?
	Walking right by there?
	It turned out there was a guy that was doing the snow plow.
	He went by there.
	And there was no body there.
	Which, by the way, they tried to lie about, cover up, and so forth.
	So it's basically cops covering for their own.
	And this happens with a...
	I call it Copland.
	Because that's what it reminded me of.
	The movie, Sylvester Stallone, is fantastic in the film, called Copland, about a corrupt group of New York cops who take over a little town in New Jersey and run that town.
	And they cover up and are willing to kill another cop to cover up for a death.
	And so everything pointed to that being a more likely explanation.
	And that there was a coordination of stories, of coach testimony.
	In order to get this done, and because they had control inside the law enforcement at both the local and state level, that they were willing to frame this lady just to cover up their own criminal conduct and criminal behavior.
	That something went wrong that night.
	Don't know yet still what it was.
	That in all likelihood, he didn't die at the location he died in.
	He died elsewhere, and his body was moved there.
	Which would explain lack of other evidence around him at the time and so forth.
	They tried to claim that his body was buried under a bunch of snow.
	The problem was the snow didn't happen until later on after he supposedly, until much later on.
	People were walking by when there wasn't a lot of snow and didn't see him and so forth.
	But one of the extraordinary things in the case, and they did a good job of building this in the opening statement, is at one point one of the key witnesses That's related by family and friends to these other cop families that could be implicated in the case.
	Because again, the cop died on their front lawn.
	This cop's front lawn.
	Was a search that was done.
	A Google search that was done.
	Which was, how long does it take someone to die in the cold?
	They were claiming that the defendant, Karen Reed, asked this question.
	And that's why they searched it at like 6, 6.30 in the morning.
	Problem was, they got Google forensics.
	And discovered that search wasn't done at 6.30 in the morning.
	It was done around 2.30 in the morning by the witness.
	That's pointing the finger now at Karen Reed.
	And so it looks like a complete frame-up.
	I mean, the cop, never in writing, always in cash.
	These guys don't learn the lesson.
	Apparently they never thought their text would ever get...
	The defense attorney has done a heck of a job.
	I don't know how he raised the funds for this because he's got leading forensic experts.
	He's got a bunch of people's cell phone records, other things.
	One of the lead cops in the case soon afterwards was texting that he basically stole her phone without a search warrant and was searching for it.
	This was after she was already with a lawyer.
	So you're looking at attorney, client information, etc.
	This cop told other cops that were involved in the case, and other people connected to this cop family, that he hoped that Karen Reed committed suicide.
	But it goes beyond that.
	He stole her phone and said he was searching it, and he was disappointed because he was looking for nude photos of it.
	I mean, this is the kind of cop, they took this case to trial.
	I mean, it's almost Alvin Braggish to take a case this bad, this embarrassing.
	This humiliating to a trial.
	And the witnesses have been pretty bad from the reviews that I have seen.
	The one cop was on the stands, Uncivil Law, broke down.
	And he's up there, and they're asking him, Huh, were you ever coaching anybody on what story to tell?
	Oh, no, no, I never did that.
	Okay, let's take a look at the text.
	Does this text, are you telling everybody in the group chat, make sure to tell them he never came into the house.
	Because their storyline was they never saw him.
	They didn't know anything.
	They found his body early at 6 a.m. in the morning when his ex-girlfriend came over.
	That was key to the narrative, was that he never came into the house for time reasons.
	And also probably because he did come into the house, and that's what they had to cover up and hide.
	By the way, the cops never searched that house.
	Never searched the actual premises where the dead bodies found.
	Isn't that amazing?
	The cop who lives there?
	There's a dead body on his front lawn.
	He never comes out.
	He just sleeps through, apparently, according to the official story.
	Though he, too, was busy texting and calling buddies at 2.30 in the morning.
	At the same time, his friend was searching, how long does it take for a body to die in the cold?
	So, it looks like a complete frame job, outland style, in the Karen Reed case.
	Okay, very interesting.
	I mean, yeah, that's...
	I knew more of that than I thought I did.
	So, geez.
	How did I just forget her first name?
	Baker, for goodness sake.
	Emily Baker.
	I'm thinking of Karen Baker now for some reason.
	Emily Baker's covering it.
	Uncivil Law's covering it for those who are interested.
	And it's televised so people can see it in real time.
	Or it is live.
	It's available online.
	There's a bunch of social media commentary on it.
	There was huge attention to it.
	At first I was like, wow.
	I was like, oh, this is a...
	True.
	Cover-up.
	She just happens to be an outsider who happened to be in a relationship.
	And what is it?
	They had an on-and-off relationship.
	They would get into arguments.
	They knew all this about her.
	She had got really drunk the night before.
	Couldn't remember things.
	Had panicked that maybe she had run over him and hit him or something.
	I think that's where they got the idea this is how we can shift the blame.
	Was because she was panicking early in the morning when she was trying to find him.
	Because she woke up and he wasn't home.
	But the problem is when you're trying to frame people, it's hard to recreate that story.
	It's what they teach you.
	It's one of the reasons why I like sports betting at sportspicks.locals.com.
	We're wrapping up the English Premier League finish today.
	A lot of other soccer leagues finish today.
	But one of the lessons they teach you in poker is that the way you can tell a bluff is not facial demeanor and all the rest.
	It's more the course of their bets.
	And the reason is, it's very hard to tell a lie consistently.
	So if you bet a certain way early, and then you're trying to pretend you have something at the end that your early bets tell you is a lie, that's how you catch somebody in a bluff.
	This is true of evidence as well.
	When you have a murder, the forensic evidence will add up in a certain way if that narrative is true.
	When it doesn't...
	Then you've got an issue.
	By the way, it turns out one of the elite cops had seized her vehicle, but claimed he had only seized it hours later.
	The reason being, it was critical to how evidence disappeared and showed up at the house scene suddenly.
	They seized her car, got some of the backlight damage, went over to the house and sprinkled it.
	They thought they were an honorary Mark Furman from the O.J. Simpson case, where O.J. Simpson's blood magically disappeared.
	They get a blood sample and then a portion of it's gone when it shows up at the lab and there's a multiple hour gap in between.
	The way those cops are so stupid is the problem is when you're walking, right?
	You're walking quickly, your blood drops in a certain way.
	It leads a certain kind of distinct trail.
	But when you're trying to plant evidence, you tend to stop.
	Drop a little and then stop.
	So you're no longer walking like an actual person would.
	This is one of the giveaways in the OJ case that the blood evidence was planted.
	One of many, by the way.
	Is that if he had been caught in walking the blood, that's what the leading forensic pathologist in the country is.
	It would have like a leading trajectory.
	It would sort of be more linear than just...
	Instead, they just drop straight down.
	Some cops are like, okay, yeah, we'll get the blood right there.
	Okay, they'll drop here, they'll drop here, they'll drop here.
	But see, when you're framing people, it's hard to tell that lie consistently.
	And it looks like Copland, Karen Reed trial, is a Copland-style criminal conspiracy by the government against the defendant.
	Robert, totally unrelated, but now that you mentioned the sports betting, when is Trump going to announce his VP, and who do you think it's going to be?
	Well, the New York Post is reporting something that if you were at vivabarnes.law.locals.com, you would have known I was reporting two months ago, which is that the lead candidate to be Donald Trump's vice president is one Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.
	The New York Post confirmed that this past weekend publicly.
	Trump said things similar to campaign donors in Florida a couple of weeks ago.
	And so if anybody wonders what my opinion of Tim Scott is as vice presidential candidate, you can just go to my Twitter feed.
	I have about 655 tweets up that are not Scott, not Scott, not Scott.
	And why?
	Basically, he's a deep state ho that, you know, don't ask him any questions about Boeing and the whistleblowers disappearing because he's one of Boeing's biggest backers and protectors.
	He's basically backed every dumb war you can imagine.
	Various times he supported various kinds of amnesty for illegals, depending on the circumstance and situation, as opposed to Trump's trade policy all the way through, even though it was critical to rebounding South Carolina's manufacturing economy for Trump to pursue that path.
	He's critical of Trump on a personal basis, was quick and eager to certify the 2020 election, praised Mike Pence in the Republican presidential debates of this cycle for what he did on January 6th.
	And he's a war whore.
	He's a Ukraine war whore.
	He loves Anthony Fauci.
	He has vouched for and cheered the vaccine at every single stage, kept demanding people take it, call it, quote, safe and effective.
	So if Tim Scott is the vice president, either Trump has cut a deal with the deep state or Trump is setting himself up for being...
	And taken out a la LBJJFK.
	I don't want to quote whoever it was that told me this.
	Someone's got a great meme with Mr. and Mrs. Tim Scott.
	Yeah, this is it.
	For those that haven't seen the photo of he and his partner, he and his spouse, he and his loved one.
	Let me bring it up.
	I know the person probably would not mind if I mentioned their name, but a member of our community is thoroughly convinced that if Trump picks Tim Scott...
	Like you said, Robert, it's signing his own death warrant and it'll be an LBJJFK situation.
	Is this a meet Mr. and Mrs. Tim Scott?
	That's exactly right.
	I'm going to steal that one.
	The other one I loved is people created the meme that's now gone out viral of quoting Trump's snake poem.
	You knew I was a snake when you let me in with a photo of Tim Scott.
	The only other thing is it would be insurance.
	So if you're Trump and the deep state wants a deal, They would want a vice president that would make sure Trump didn't go too far in dealing with them in any adverse manner.
	And they would say, look, as long as Tim Scott's there, we know you're not going to muck around too much or we'll JFK you.
	So if you don't want to JFK, you can do a little bit.
	You can hem in our excesses, but you can't come in and transform us.
	You can't come in and destroy us.
	So, you know, that's how I would interpret if he puts Scott on the ticket.
	On the other hand, if he puts J.D. Vance on the ticket, it means game on.
	Well, and hold on.
	Full disclosure, I actually am betting this year.
	Look, I'm betting the way I want it to go.
	I put a little money on Vivek Ramaswamy, and I put the rest of it on J.D. Vance.
	J.D. Vance would be awesome.
	Pure bread.
	Well, I have to say this so that nobody accuses me of hiding the fact that, yeah, it's a very small bet, but I'm betting on J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy.
	I don't understand why Doug Burgum is rising in the predictive polls.
	Like, as far as I'm concerned, if you like Burgum, then you like J.D. Vance because he's a younger, more robust version.
	And Burgum seems like a nice guy.
	And Burgum is just kind of a conventional guy, a tech guy.
	He's rich, but he's not that rich.
	Like, he's worth $100 million.
	I mean, in a case where they're going to spend a billion is...
	You know, $10 million, $20 million, is that really a big deal?
	Probably not.
	So I'm not sure he's really serious about Bergam.
	He might be trying to get Bergam to stick in a bunch of money on the idea that maybe he'll take him and then he doesn't.
	I think Tulsi Gabbard would be a great pick.
	I don't think he has any seriousness in considering it.
	I think it's one of three candidates.
	Somebody that's a good loyalist like Ben Carson.
	Someone that's a double down on populism with J.D. Vance, or cut a deal with the deep state with Tim Scott.
	Now, there's other versions of Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik, same way.
	Credit to Darren Beatty of the Revolver.
	He's on the same page as me, so people think I'm just out of the blue.
	He's saying Tim Scott would be the worst, Marco Rubio would be the second worst, and Stefanik would be the third worst.
	The way he said J.D. Vance would be the best.
	Ben Carson would also be very, very good.
	In my opinion.
	Because he's a loyalist and he has populist instincts and he's someone the deep state doesn't trust.
	So that they wouldn't be willing to remove Trump to put Carson in.
	Whereas they would be eager to do so with Tim Scott.
	Tell me how it works.
	Because on Predict It, it looks like you can buy...
	If you do not think it's going to be...
	Yeah, you can vote no.
	You can bet no.
	So that basically they're saying about a 25% chance that Tim Scott is there.
	So if you want to vote no, you're putting 75 to win 25. If you want to bet yes, you're betting 25 to win 75. So even though he's the favorite, it's still 3-1 that he isn't the pick.
	But if you add up him, Stefanik, and Marco Rubio, I think they're close to half now.
	And there's still some people thinking that dog killer Christy Noem is going to be on the list.
	She's not even on the list.
	Tulsi Gabbard is at 7 cents.
	Vivek is at the bottom.
	This is why I...
	I feel like Krusty the Clown where, you know, they're saying, gambling is the best thing you can do if you make money at it.
	I bet with what I want to happen, not with what I believe will happen.
	It's my week.
	Well, the goal is to put some karma out in the world and see if it comes back positive.
	Vivek or JD?
	Those are the two.
	JD, okay, okay.
	All right, now, Robert, what was I going to segue into?
	Oh, yes, Tyson.
	Look, I know you've been waiting all week.
	I was going to do, today I did sort of the summary of a case out of Canada.
	McGill lost its injunction to order the dismantling of the pro-Palestinian encampments on campus.
	Nobody seems to care about it, but at least now they know where to go to not care about it.
	Viva Frye on Rumble and Viva Barnslau.com.
	I knew you must be gloriously ecstatic that the scumbags that you're suing had their motion to dismiss dismissed.
	Now, hold on.
	Let me get that.
	So, I mean, they've only won one of these.
	So they sought to dismiss it in Tennessee.
	They lost.
	Sought to dismiss it in Kentucky.
	They lost.
	Sought to dismiss it in Oklahoma.
	They lost.
	And now they sought to dismiss it in Ohio.
	And they lost.
	The only place they won was the hometown of Tyson Foods, where the federal judge, they'll probably share this with the judge again, but I don't care, because the federal judge didn't disclose that his prior law firm had a relationship.
	With Tyson Foods.
	Robert, what's that relationship, if you want to remind the crowd again?
	Basically, one of the key lawyers at that firm is the personal conciliary of the head of the Tyson family, Don Tyson, who had a lot of interesting habits with Bill Clinton back in the day.
	So he and Zelensky, you could say, share certain hobbies.
	But yeah, so Tyson Foods sought dismissal, and it's this new pattern of...
	Saying you've got to present a religious thief.
	There's two.
	Warner Mendenhall was our local counsel.
	He filed it.
	Something happened in the court processing, and they only got the top of the service sheet in the complaint.
	And they said, oh, okay, see, now it's out of time.
	The judge's like, no, no, it's clear what's happened and what happened.
	But the main one was their argument that, oh, this wasn't plausible religious discrimination.
	She didn't give a complete thesis about her reasons.
	Let me read it, because it's laughably...
	Stupid.
	I mean, I can't even think of a better word.
	Here, they make a motion to dismiss because, one, her claim is untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after she received her right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?
	Council?
	Whatever the C is.
	Two, she has failed to plausibly state a claim for religious discrimination because A, her religious objections to the vaccine are not sincere, or at least not the real reason she...
	Can you imagine the balls it takes to accuse someone of that?
	It's not the real reason she objects to the vaccine.
	And B, she suffered no adverse employment action?
	Yeah, because we just didn't pay her.
	We didn't officially fire her.
	We just didn't pay her.
	Oh my goodness.
	All right, so without going through the tedious...
	The judge is like, you don't have to present a religious thesis.
	This is one of the good Trump appointees, by the way.
	Also identified good distinctions about certain Catholic beliefs and other belief structures, which only a Trump appointee would have the detailed knowledge and be sympathetic to religious traditions in that way.
	But said, you don't have to present at the pleading stage a religious thesis.
	And he said, second, if you wanted one, she really provided one.
	She provided extensive detail, far more than she had to legally.
	And you're really not entitled to second-guess her reasoning.
	And because all of this is part of their converting religious discrimination cases into courts discriminating against the people who are bringing the cases.
	Saying, we're going to do a religious inquisition into you to see whether you're a good believer.
	Not whether your belief is a sincere belief that's sincerely religious, but whether or not you are sincere in holding it, because we're going to say you're not a good Christian or good practitioner of a religious belief.
	This is not at all what the law was ever intended to do, and it violates their First Amendment rights, what the courts themselves are doing.
	The courts are now violating people's rights.
	This court refused to do that and recognized...
	That the belief is clearly a sincerely religious belief.
	It's fully detailed.
	You don't have to present a dissertation on it, like some other courts have tried to pretend.
	And that, yes, when you don't pay somebody, that's called adverse employment action.
	It's called constructive dismissal is what it is.
	All right, we're just not paying you.
	You don't have to work, and we may or may not preserve your job for when you get back.
	And this just reminds everybody, Tyson Foods, which sounds a lot like the Nazi company, Tyson.
	Maybe not a coincidence.
	Tyson Foods hates Jesus.
	That's it.
	Tyson Foods hates Jesus.
	I hear their food.
	I hear people eat it and they start getting stumbed.
	I just hear this.
	They start gagging.
	You don't know what's going to happen when you eat Tyson Foods.
	But the other factor is they hate Jesus, everybody.
	Tyson Foods hates Jesus.
	Proved it in their opposition in this case.
	What was the deal about the 90 days from the letter?
	He filed suit on the 90th day.
	The court electronic process, only Warner Mendenhall is my local Ohio counsel, he's my co-counsel, the Brooke Jackson case, didn't process the whole complaint.
	You always have weird issues.
	It's always interesting which issues that suddenly something pops up electronically have had this pop up weirdly in the Amos Miller case.
	Good logic's finding, you know, weirdly popping up in the New York effort to un-gag President Trump.
	It's always interesting.
	It happened, remember, in the Brooke Jackson case?
	Yep.
	You know, clerks weirdly weren't processing things.
	It's always interesting how that works.
	But it was clear that we had filed it and that the only part of it got electronically processed.
	And we detailed the judges like, yeah, yeah, of course.
	No problem.
	Let me bring something up, Robert, just so that nobody accuses you of...
	This is the AI overview, which I don't trust, but we'll get to the USDA one.
	In November 2023, Tyson Foods voluntarily recalled 30,000 pounds of its frozen, fully cooked fun nuggets.
	Holy shit.
	Sounds real fun.
	Due to possible metal contamination...
	Yeah, it's fun nuggets.
	You're playing Russian roulette with their nuggets.
	Okay, yada, yada.
	And then from the USDA...
	Which actually, Tyson Food recalls chicken patty product due to possible foreign matter contamination.
	The fully cooked Fun Nuggets breaded shaped chicken patties.
	Holy shit, they had shards of metal in them.
	Okay, that's good.
	Well, sometimes they have people's fingers in those foods.
	Well, at least you get protein from that, Robert.
	You know how I was introduced to Tyson Foods when I was a young intern at the AFL-CIO?
	The American Federation of Labor and...
	Wow, I forget what the CIO stands for.
	Industrial Organizations.
	But basically, the big union.
	In D.C. in 1993, summer of 1993, first term of President William Jefferson Clinton.
	And he only took after Jefferson really in one way.
	Not any of the good ways.
	Was meeting with Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture.
	And here's the pro-labor president.
	And we were trying to get, what the union was trying to get, was to slow down the speed of aspects of the chicken processing because people's fingers were getting cut off.
	And I realized sitting in the meeting, they brought me along to educate me on the real nature of the Clinton administration.
	These are some old school, hardcore labor guys.
	And I realized that he wasn't going to do anything.
	And I was like...
	It was a crash course in politics in D.C. because I'd been a Clinton backer.
	I thought I was going to be a Democratic populist and all that.
	I learned quickly.
	That answer was no.
	But I didn't know of the depth of the Tyson Foods-Bill Clinton connection, personal between Don Tyson and Bill Clinton.
	They like to party together.
	They like to dance to the Colombian marching band, you might say.
	Is his name actually Don Tyson?
	Yes.
	I kid you not.
	And then they did nothing at all.
	I was like, can't you just slow down the thing a little bit so people's fingers don't end up in people's chin?
	It's one thing for someone to lose a finger.
	It's another thing for it to end up in a finished product.
	If someone loses a finger, shut it down and pull the finger out.
	That's what Upton Sinclair wrote when he wrote The Jungle.
	He said, I tried to hit people's hearts and I only hit their stomach.
	Because what people were upset about was not people's body parts.
	Being chopped off at workplaces, but those body parts are ending up maybe in their meat.
	And so that's the nature of Tyson Foods, one of the nastiest companies in America.
	All right, Robert, before we segue into the next subject matter, let me just bring up a number of the rumble rants that we have here on...
	Hold on, I seem to have skipped over a few here.
	Oh, somebody pointed out it gives new meaning to chicken fingers.
	Pun intended.
	We're going to get Inception right now on the Rumble Rants read.
	What is happening in Arizona?
	Why is Trump way up and lake down?
	Can this really just be about Biden?
	I feel the Dems should be tied to Biden easily.
	That poll is an outlier poll on that.
	Okay, and we got Omar Gonzalez says, anybody selling tickets for this controlled demolition of the entire American legal system?
	They know the tickets are free, dude.
	They're just giving them out.
	We got some guy with cancer says, the feds gave the defense the phone information.
	The state didn't bother to look into it and the judge wouldn't order it.
	I guess that's with Karen Reed.
	Look at the inception, Robert.
	This is crazy.
	It's going to keep getting deeper and deeper.
	Salty Scotch says, one, I purchased some more great food, milk, and food.
	From Amos Miller.
	Thank you.
	Britt Cormier says, Robert, I think you missed an important point about the cop in the house.
	While having sex with his wife, he butt-dialed his friend and answered a call from his friend.
	Did not notice.
	Okay.
	Well, at least he's having sex with his wife, so I guess that's good for him.
	Quellam.
	It's not Tim Scott.
	It's Marco Rubio per Benny Johnson and Tim Poole.
	It's Vivek or Tim?
	Not Tim.
	Tim.
	Or freaking...
	JD Vance, okay.
	Desperado, judicial and cleric misconduct, the bane of the reputation and legitimacy of the judiciary.
	Barnes, how often have you had to deal with judges who are part of the club?
	I'll go ahead and answer that for you, Barnes, and say, all the time?
	Barbs loves Alaska.
	Viva, YouTube has been holding back Joe's account on YouTube at 96.5 for a great long time.
	Can you share Joe's YouTube channel so we can get Joe past 100,000?
	It would be awesome, and he deserves it.
	Three and a half thousand.
	And how many do we have watching tonight?
	We've got 20,000.
	I'm going to do it right now.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to take out the suspension.
	It's good logic like LAWGIC.
	That's the name of the channel, right?
	And I'll tell everybody.
	Everyone's like, wait, wait, wait.
	Would you want to succeed on YouTube?
	Succeeding on YouTube.
	He's also on Rumble, too.
	Yeah, but he is.
	But it's the middle finger to YouTube.
	Link to...
	No, that's not linked to Joe.
	That's linked to me.
	Let me get Joe's channel.
	And we're going to get...
	We'll get him over $100,000 tonight if we have any say of the matter.
	I'll get that link in a second.
	Robert, what next?
	We got First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, treaties.
	We got Ukraine kids.
	We got Rumble Google.
	We got Kennedy versus Facebook.
	We got Farmers versus Biden.
	Well, let's actually...
	Let's do Rumble versus Google.
	This is part two.
	This is not...
	Jeez, the part one...
	The part one is about suppression.
	Part two now is about driving up ad costs.
	It's the monopoly part.
	The first part was YouTube, Google deliberately suppressing rumble videos on its Google search.
	This is about derivative of a lot of the cases that have already been brought against Google about antitrust and how antitrust has caused rumble the most damage of anybody.
	So now, I've shared the link to Joe's channel on YouTube.
	Do it and get him over 100k on YouTube because it'll be a middle finger to YouTube.
	You're not helping them.
	So do it and then jump him up on Rumble.
	Robert, let me bring up the problem with the lawsuit.
	I say the problem.
	It's a very, very complex, detailed 88-page claim.
	The bottom line is it's Sherman Act anti-monopoly or monopoly.
	Any trust lawsuits.
	And what I found to be the most interesting is the allegations or are the allegations as to how they drive up auction costs on the advertising on Google.
	This is stuff that's been detailed by the state attorney generals and the U.S. Department of Justice have also sued Google.
	Now, I want to also highlight something.
	Somebody on Twitter says, Viva, you don't get to...
	You should be against monopoly laws because it's anti-free speech.
	You don't get to support laws that you like and then the ones that you don't.
	And I'm like, I want it to apply.
	And you don't get to defend big tech when you want to, but not when you don't want to, or big, big corporations.
	I'm not...
	I do believe that some of you- This has nothing to do with speech.
	This has to do with stealing ad revenue.
	But artificially driving up the ad revenue by artificial exclusion.
	Monopoly is anti-free market.
	It's the definition of anti-free market, that it's a monopoly.
	Now, the question I had, I'm going to bring up my tweet in a second with some highlights from the decision, but I bring it back to Microsoft, and I don't really fully understand the history of Microsoft.
	I know they got sued for anti-monopolistic abuse.
	I knew that before it was going to happen, thanks to some meeting with some Defense Department people in San Francisco in the mid-1990s.
	They lost, I mean, Microsoft lost at the trial level, and then the appellate court overturned a portion of it.
	They lost when Bill Gates decided to sell monopolistic software to the Defense Department and built a backdoor in so he could sneak peek what the Defense Department was looking at.
	That's when they decided to sue him and go after him.
	Because, I mean, he was the most antitrust abuser of anybody in that whole space.
	And he created mediocre products.
	It wasn't due to superior-oriented products.
	And pretty much on everything, Microsoft was second best.
	But they would just steal other...
	Remember, he tried to dominate the Internet.
	And now he's in big tech, big food, big pharma, guy that keeps showing up.
	Who?
	Bill Gates.
	He is the mastermind of the control grid.
	He is the new author of our new matrix.
	But the antitrust history there, the only reason why he doesn't control the internet through his attempt to take out Netscape was because of that antitrust case.
	But they've let things get out of hand and they've allowed Google in particular.
	To massively commit antitrust violations, anti-free competition violations, anti-free market violations.
	And Rumble intelligently has been tracking these other suits, as well as their other discovery in their existing case against Google and YouTube.
	And they've got a legitimate billion-dollar claim against Google, which for those that are investing in Rumble...
	May take that into consideration when there's all these efforts to short-sell rumble, all these efforts to defame rumble in the investment markets.
	Remember, they have another source of revenue.
	There are now two lawsuits that have a very strong factual and legal basis against Google in the billions of dollars.
	Aaron, I'll just read this real quick.
	This is the summary.
	In each of the relevant product markets, Google's exclusionary conduct has...
	This is an allegation.
	People, it's not a proven fact yet.
	Harm to innovation.
	It's true.
	Google's a criminal.
	No, there's no question about it.
	Google was going to be dopey, evil, and they just dropped the dope part.
	For many years, Google's publisher and ad server depressed publishers' inventory yields by blocking real-time competition from non-Google exchanges.
	When publishers found a way to work around the restrictions imposed by Google's ad server using header bidding, publishers' yields jumped by 30-plus percent, sometimes over 100%.
	It was not until 2018, eight years after the invention of the real-time bidding, that Google's ad server finally permitted publishers to route their inventory to multiple exchanges in real time.
	In other words, the lack of competition caused by Google's foreclosure of competition and entry permitted Google's ad servers Google's response to the header bidding has further harmed innovation in the exchange and publisher of server markets.
	Google has used its market power in the publisher ad service market, server market and exchange to kill header bidding rather than competing on the merits header bidding, help publishers make more money by enhancing exchange access to and competition for publishers impressions by crippling the interoperability with this new and beneficial invention invention.
	Google stifles rather than promotes beneficial innovation innovation.
	My understanding, by the way, the lawyers backing this are paid by independent...
	Separate law funding investors.
	So Google's not going to pay out of pocket for this, is my guess, based on the past suits.
	And that tells you that people who independently assess these cases just for the possibility and probability of victory are so confident that Rumble's going to win that they're backing it.
	So that gives you an idea for, if you've been tracking this space, we've been talking about it now for two years, that there's all this vulnerability, but the biggest vulnerability of big tech...
	Is in the monopoly world.
	Well, I mean, they've basically admitted as much with the Google YouTube monopoly.
	You've got the largest search engine and the largest video hosting platform inter-referencing each other and excluding search results that would drive traffic to rumble.
	I mean, that's the other claim, but it's not a question.
	That reminds me of me.
	Keep mentioning Tyson Foods.
	They'll be dumb enough to advertise on this on YouTube.
	Well, I would not eat Tyson Foods knowingly.
	The only problem is I don't know what they own that I probably do end up eating.
	Well, I was going to say Kraft is a joke.
	So it's a very, very promising suit.
	Robert, how does it work?
	Do they get one judge assigned to the entire case?
	And the judge is not going to be a New York nipple judge.
	It's going to be a judge with commercial experience?
	Yeah, I mean, usually the hard part is you have to sue them in the Bay Area.
	But they have a currently, my guess is the current judge, they'll file it.
	I think they did and they filed it in the same jurisdiction.
	It'll likely be related, considered a related case.
	So they'll get the same judge.
	And that judge has already denied motions to dismiss brought by Google.
	And it looks like it's going to go to trial in April of next year on the first case.
	So this case just adds to it.
	And if they expedite it quickly enough, you could have both go to trial within a year.
	Let me bring it up because I think I've got it here in the backdrop.
	We got Share Screen, Windows, Windows.
	This is the lawsuit right here.
	Dick, I don't want to give anybody that.
	Yeah, same court.
	Northern District of California.
	Good.
	Yeah, that's the one that dismissed Google's motion.
	They got a good judge.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They got a good judge to sign the first one.
	It's a related case, so they should probably get the same judge.
	Okay, very cool.
	Yeah, in Quebec, it's...
	At least, if it hasn't changed, it was like, you just get whatever judge they get you on any given day, and you don't have one judge assigned to a case from beginning to end, and it's totally screwing.
	Oh, really?
	So, yeah, there are state courts that operate that way.
	Yeah, like, every time you go in with a motion, you've got to apprise a new judge of the status of the file.
	They have no idea what's going on.
	It's totally inefficient, and also totally incongruous, because you get, like, different decisions within the given case.
	Okay, so Google...
	Sorry, Rumble versus Google.
	Very good.
	It is the year, or at least the era, of the takedown of internet monopolies.
	It's going to happen.
	Robert, what do we move on to that?
	Speaking of big tech, another suit filed in the Northern District of Florida.
	Sort of round two, Robert Kennedy versus Facebook.
	They are censoring his documentary.
	Or at least the autobiography, not an autobiography, the biography documentary, who is Robert Kennedy?
	Who is Robert Kennedy?
	We know they do it.
	It's not a question.
	They censored...
	Stossel, the journalist.
	I forget what happened with that.
	I have to look that up, actually, while you talk.
	And now they are suppressing the exposure of RFK Jr.'s documentary.
	And at the risk of becoming a meme, or at least the target of some hit pieces, I believe Trump needs to be the president to all you bums out there.
	You stupid jackasses on the internet.
	I had to go through and block some people this week.
	Anybody who libels me...
	I'm going to block.
	Apparently the conservative treehouse decided to libel me, the last refuge guy.
	And so many people are so in the Trump world, like he does some good work on investigative aspects, Mueller and other aspects, but he sees the world so much through the Trump filter that as soon as Trump was critical of Kennedy, all of a sudden he became convinced that...
	Kennedy's a CIA plant.
	And it's like, you have to be really stupid to believe that.
	But then he decided to like tweets that libeled me.
	So I was like, okay.
	Block, block, block, done.
	But credit to Chief Nerd.
	He thanked us for calling out that.
	There's a lot of great accounts.
	Vigilant Fox.
	There's a lot of these great populist accounts that like Robert Kennedy.
	I've made clear why I like Robert Kennedy.
	He's great on food freedom.
	He's great on medical freedom.
	He's great on financial freedom.
	He's great on political freedom concerning big tech.
	Big tech, big pharma, big food, the deep state, he's the best candidate.
	Period.
	End of story.
	That if Donald Trump wants to embrace those issues, I'm all for him embracing those issues.
	And I like Donald Trump.
	I've said so many times.
	I haven't changed my opinion on Trump in that regard whatsoever.
	But I'm not going to quit sharing favorable statements about Robert Kennedy when he's right on key issues that Trump is snoozing on.
	Hold on.
	There was something about RFK.
	Damn it, I just forgot the idea.
	Oh, Robert, hold on.
	You do represent children's health defense.
	Absolutely.
	And I've represented Robert Kennedy.
	I've represented Donald Trump.
	I've represented everybody across the entire political spectrum.
	I think Robert, I have great respect for Robert Kennedy.
	Extraordinary person, extraordinary human being.
	I know people that disagree with him on abortion, disagree with him on health control, disagree with him on the environment, disagree with him on the budget.
	And that's fine.
	Disagree with his liberal democratic interests.
	That's absolutely fine.
	You can do that all you want.
	But people spreading dumb lies and libels, attacking me, attacking you, attacking these other accounts because they like the populist side of Robert Kennedy.
	At least be honest.
	Don't spread libels.
	And Trump, for the love of God.
	Quit pretending Robert Kennedy's for vaccines.
	That's the dumbest for the COVID vaccine.
	Because he said he's not anti-vax doesn't mean he's for the COVID vaccine.
	It's a dumb line of attack.
	It's a lie.
	And it's a dumb lie.
	There's plenty of places if he wants to be critical, he can be critical.
	I don't think that's tactically his best strategy, but hey, that's up to him.
	But all this efforts to intimidate people by saying, you know, we're going to libel you.
	We're going to attack you.
	Oh, you're never going to get a place in wherever.
	I could care less.
	Working for whomever, I could care less.
	I care more about these issues than I care about my personal professional attainment.
	Robert Kennedy is a great human being.
	I'm never going to say a negative word about him.
	I've known him for years.
	That's the bottom line.
	I believe Donald Trump.
	I don't know Trump as well as I know Kennedy, but from what I know of Trump...
	Also a great human being.
	Took time out to make sure he went to his son's graduation.
	That's the kind of thing that values him.
	You can see it in his family.
	So you can like both of them, despite some people's attempt to say you can't.
	I'll say this.
	Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s response on the late-term abortion.
	It's a wildly stupid initial response.
	I know he walked it back and was like, well, why would anyone want it?
	What is it?
	He had every conventional liberal democratic view known to man.
	Hold on.
	It's been fascinating watching him change as he's confronted with facts and arguments different than his assumptions.
	That's fine.
	Changing is fine unless your initial position was just...
	His new meme t-shirt is pretty good.
	He has trouble to call him Junior.
	Because he's Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	Okay.
	So they put out a new shirt saying, yeah, Kennedy's like, you're right.
	I understand you still believe in the COVID vaccine.
	We have a new T-shirt for you.
	Trump Fauci 2024.
	Just give us one more shot.
	So that's a nice counter troll.
	And hopefully it educates Trump that maybe it's time to reconsider continuing to embrace the vaccine.
	They lied to you.
	Are you going to let them continue to dog walk you or not?
	So we'll see.
	But I like both of them.
	Haven't changed my mind of either one of them.
	I think Trump has a much better chance to win.
	That's a practical reality.
	Much better.
	I don't think Kennedy has a chance.
	I think a long shot.
	My issue with Kennedy, it's one thing to walk back positions because you've learned.
	But it's another thing.
	the abortion thing is one where I think it's an inexcusable mistake or an inexcusable oversimplification.
	Why would anyone want to terminate a baby in late-term abortion in order I mean, it's been fascinating because I've had these arguments with my liberal democratic friends and family members for years, and the difference between them and Kennedy is Kennedy is actually willing to...
	Challenge his own opinions.
	Even if he's held in for like 30 years.
	I'll say this.
	But I get people being shocked that someone believes.
	But that's why they often don't understand people both ways.
	Liberal Democrats don't understand why conservatives believe what they do on things like gun control and other issues.
	And conservatives mostly don't understand what liberal Democrats believe and why.
	And people are locked.
	I want people to second guess.
	I'll give an example.
	Kennedy on abortion, Trump on vaccines.
	I want more politicians to be more like Kennedy has been on abortion, being willing to second-guess his own 30-year whole-held assumptions and publicly admit he was wrong in a short time frame than Trump, who feels his ego will be insulted if he admits he ever got any...
	if he got dog-walked on the vaccine.
	I want somebody who's willing...
	There's times when I want Trump's stubbornness, and there's other times where I want...
	Kennedy's flexibility.
	But on these two issues, I'm glad.
	I mean, I want Kennedy to be more on a balanced perspective that he's now embraced on the abortion issue because it also means that whole voting group out there that is from the left populist roots that Kennedy is mostly appealing to, most of whom, as the recent polls showed, abortion amendments are going to pass overwhelmingly in Florida, overwhelmingly in Arizona.
	And that's because the pro-life community is losing the debate in the court of public opinion.
	You know what will help you win the debate?
	When you get people like Kennedy say, hold on a second, we should re-examine our assumptions.
	Someone that's been pro-choice his whole life saying, you know what?
	Things I believe were wrong.
	I was mistaken.
	We need to have a different approach.
	What does that do?
	That opens the door to his constituency of pro-choice people and moves the needle.
	In the pro-life direction.
	So I get people that are obsessed with Trump versus Kennedy, and so they only want to filter it through that perspective.
	I would look at Kennedy's campaign on the impact on policies and constituencies more so than the impact on the presidential list.
	Well, my only insight or input to that would be, it's nice to admit you were wrong, but at some point, if you're wrong too often or wrong for very, very bad reasons, like on why would anyone want a late-term abortion or they don't happen, at some point, your judgment becomes questionable.
	Set that aside.
	It has to be Trump.
	And bottom line, Trump needs to wake the F up on the vaccine and stop touting that as a success.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Now, but Robert, so RFP is...
	Another place where Kennedy is great is the suit against Facebook.
	So this is another utility to his campaign.
	So what is the status of it?
	I mean, he's suing on the basis that Facebook is suppressing his biography, who is RFK Jr.
	And they certainly, I mean, if I take a guess, they undoubtedly are.
	But what's the status of it?
	So, yeah, so what's the, and this is credit to a lot of the theories that were adopted in Missouri versus Biden, originated by Kennedy's lawsuit against Facebook the first time around.
	Brought by a Yale law professor and another lawyer, comes from the left side of the political community.
	I've worked with him in other cases, trying to brainstorm ways we can deal with big tech censorship.
	And his newest theory, that I think is really robust, is borrowing from the evidence developed by the House, developed by the District Court in Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Missouri v.
	Biden, which documented, detailed, and demonstrated as...
	Supreme Court Justice Alito opined in dissenting from the Supreme Court's denial of Robert Kennedy's attempt to intervene in that case at the Supreme Court level, that Robert Kennedy was the number one target of the Biden administration in the censorship campaign.
	Well, what they're pointing out is now that Kennedy is a presidential candidate, this triggers a different federal civil rights law, 1985 and 1986.
	And this is using, the Biden administration has used this law.
	To go after Trump and Trump supporters.
	So it's long overdue that we start flipping that script and say, okay, if these are the new sets of rules that the courts are going to recognize, then they apply to the Biden administration too.
	They apply to Facebook too.
	They apply to Big Tech, Big Pharma, everybody else too, when they deprive us of our civil rights.
	So what the law says is you can't, by force, intimidation, threat, do anything.
	To harm someone, even if you're a private actor, because of who they plan on voting for or anything to do with the presidential election.
	In addition, you can't injure them in person or property because of their support.
	This all arose as part of the Klan Acts 1871 because the South was systematically suppressing people's ability to vote, people's ability to participate at any level in their own government.
	And in particular, the people doing it the worst were judges.
	This is where judicial immunity is going to come into play down the road.
	And sheriffs and law enforcement.
	But most of the people doing it were private actors with occasional support and collusion of the state.
	So they said, we're going to pass laws preventing private actors from doing this.
	So they said, look, let's look at what Facebook did here.
	Facebook lied to its own users.
	It told its users it gave misinformation.
	Remember the meme case?
	They want to say that, you know, somehow that's a crime?
	Well, then Facebook just committed a crime just on a lot bigger scale.
	They should ask themselves whether they really want to pursue that theory long term because of who else could be prosecuted under this case.
	Zuckerberg could be personally prosecuted just for what he's doing vis-a-vis Robert Kennedy because what were the lies told?
	They were told that his video was spammed so you couldn't share it.
	They were told that the video had sexual content in it.
	They were told the video had violent content in it.
	So these are outright lies, total fabrications, total falsehoods.
	You've had to deal with this in the YouTube context, where they lie about what the content of the video is as a way to defame the individual and as a way to suppress sharing the information.
	And then they followed it up and they told users, if you share this, we will take away your account.
	That's called a threat, an injury to person or property under the federal civil rights law.
	And what is it concerned?
	Robert Kennedy running for president.
	That triggers 1985 and 1986.
	So they're suing Facebook under the federal civil rights laws, as well as their collusion with the Biden administration to violate his First Amendment right.
	I have nothing against that lawsuit because Facebook is terrible.
	Yeah, they did that with me and Alex Jones back in 2018, violated the terms of service for hate speech.
	And that's all that anybody saw until they saw what a cringey video it was in the first place.
	But none of this gets adjudicated before the election anyhow.
	I mean, this is going to be years in the making, correct?
	No, I mean, they'll be seeking an injunction immediately.
	So we'll see what happens.
	I mean, if he can get an honest judge, which is the hard part of the Northern District of California on these cases, Rumble got one.
	But a lot of other people haven't got one.
	We'll see if he does get one.
	But I think the legal theory is completely robust and really opens the door to going after all these efforts to corrupt our elections by private actors when it concerns the presidential election because they're injuring people in person and property with threats and misinformation and lies, which, according to the government itself now, is a crime.
	So what's good for the goose is good for the big fat gander.
	And so a great suit by Robert Kennedy against Facebook, another utility and benefit of his campaign.
	In addition, he might have a lawsuit against CNN.
	Okay, so they're hosting the debate.
	I don't think it's happening, and I don't want to predict why because it's not going to happen.
	Joe Biden puts out a demented, senile, threatening, unhinged...
	It's not like the one where they got the AI version of Biden.
	Have you seen that?
	His eyes never move.
	His eyes are like silver dollars.
	Today he's speaking at Morehouse.
	He looks like the angry puppet from the Jeff Dunham show.
	He's the angry old man puppet.
	That is exactly who he is.
	I'm surprised someone has a point with a meme version of that and just Biden doing that.
	People have made that joke already.
	I'll pull it up in a second.
	He puts out a 15 second.
	Hey, I hear you're free on Wednesdays.
	Because I'm trying to put you in jail.
	Isn't that funny?
	That's how Joe Biden thinks.
	Street level thug criminal.
	That's Joe Biden.
	LBJ, but retarded.
	And I was going to go to the other politically incorrect thing, which was some gangster who just shot himself in the head on a TikTok video with a gun.
	Set that aside.
	Yeah, this is, it's, Robert, like LBJ, but retarded.
	I mean, stick it on a bumper sticker, people.
	All right, so now they've agreed and they've agreed to the modalities.
	And some people are saying Trump is stupid for agreeing to go on CNN.
	Others are saying it's a 4D chest thing.
	And I'm just saying, it's not...
	Trump knows, he believes, any debate, he benefits.
	But absolutely.
	I'm just saying, it's not going to happen.
	Biden is behind.
	So Biden has come out from his basement.
	But he wanted ABC and CNN.
	He rejected the presidential election commission, debate commission.
	He has controlled this for 30 years.
	Because he didn't want...
	Robert Kennedy in there.
	And I think this has got Trump thinking a little bit more.
	Okay, people have convinced Trump that Robert Kennedy is a threat to him.
	And he's got to be wondering, why is Joe Biden obsessed with Robert Kennedy not being on the debate stage if Robert Kennedy is more of a threat to Trump than Biden?
	He kind of verbalized this in part at the NRA.
	He's starting to read.
	Starting to figure out what I've been saying for a while about the dynamics of the Kennedy campaign.
	Maybe we'll start progressing more in that direction.
	We'll see.
	Trump came out and said he's happy to have Robert Kennedy on the debate stage.
	No problem whatsoever.
	And so the problem is Biden thought he had a deal locked in because he skipped the debate commission that Robert Kennedy would not be in this debate.
	Problem is CNN put out an official...
	They wanted to look like an independent, impartial news organization, which they're not, but they wanted to pretend they are.
	And so they said, if you're 15% or more in four or five independent polls, and you're on enough ballots, then you're going to be included.
	Well, actually, Robert Kennedy has six polls by independent organizations that have him over 15%.
	And he's on all the ballots.
	He's going to be.
	I mean, he's on more ballots than Trump and Biden are on.
	Because they're not going to be on ballots until later in the year when the nomination process is done after the debate is over.
	So he's already on more ballots than they are.
	So now CNN is in trouble because that's considered in other contexts a contractual promise and guidance.
	And for them to maintain their appearance of neutrality, they need to really put them on.
	And Trump is starting to figure out Biden is more terrified of Kennedy on the debate stage than Trump on the debate stage.
	And maybe it's because the effect of Kennedy would be to soften a lot of Biden supporters in ways more so than Trump.
	I think it would also motivate Trump to reconsider his position on some issues, but that's a separate component.
	But Robert Kennedy's got a robust suit against CNN if they don't include him.
	And if they do include him in the debate, then we've got a fun election season coming up that will be dictated by populist issues, not establishment issues, in my opinion.
	Robert, I'm just going to go text our merch guy and say we need to do...
	Biden is like LBJ but retarded.
	You can just do a picture of a little bit of Biden and say LBJ but retarded.
	We've got to specify it's Biden.
	But Robert, hold on because I'm going to show something I have not seen in this video yet.
	All that I'm thinking is...
	He looks like my grandmother when my grandmother was 101 and totally demented and senile.
	You start a college just as George Floyd was murdered.
	The face is exactly Jeff Dunham's puppet.
	Robert, Robert, Robert.
	Do you think this is posted by someone?
	This is, oh my gosh, people, this is how satire meets life.
	Is this posted by someone making fun of Biden?
	Or is this posted by someone who's trying to praise Biden?
	Serious question.
	You have no idea.
	You started college just as George Floyd was murdered.
	Yeah, bro.
	And there was a reckoning on race.
	Is this pro?
	It's natural to wonder.
	Or making fun of him.
	Democracy you hear about actually works for you.
	What is democracy?
	What is democracy?
	Tell us, Joe.
	Black men are being killed in the street.
	What is democracy?
	The trail of broken promises still lead back.
	Black community is behind.
	What is democracy?
	Robert, hold on.
	Here's the question.
	Do you think this is posted by someone making fun of Biden or someone praising Biden?
	I honestly don't know.
	Ten times better than anyone else to get a fair shot.
	I cannot watch this.
	This is posted by Biden.
	This was posted by Joe Biden himself.
	Oh my good God.
	I don't even mean to use the Lord's name.
	Oh my God, Robert.
	Okay.
	That's not even funny because it's sad.
	Lastly, Kennedy may have suits if they try to challenge his ballot petitions in states like New York and Texas.
	It turned out he's got two different possible suits.
	One is if they try to challenge, one of their favorite ways to kick independent candidates off the ballot is to challenge their signatures.
	On grounds that signatures don't match.
	That's not possible, Robert, because signature verification is 1,000%.
	It's got a 0.1% margin of error.
	That's their problem.
	They created all those rules in 2020.
	Good luck trying to change those rules in 2024 and say, oh, you know what?
	All those signature match rules we said shouldn't be there in 2020.
	Now we're going to impose even stricter rules just to get on the ballot rather than get elected to the president.
	Courts and executive bodies are screwed.
	Because of their own effort to allow liberalized mail-in ballots, their favorite mechanism, Barack Obama used it to get elected to the state senate by kicking all of his opponents off by challenging their signatures.
	And there's always been constitutional problems with the signature match checks they use at the ballot process because they're super strict and super vague.
	And there's no opportunity to notice and cure like there is if your ballot gets rejected, which creates its own due process issues.
	So he's got robust issues there to make sure they don't play games there.
	Turned out the Democratic National Committee, I predicted this to some of his people, to be on the lookout for this.
	But some people still slip through because it's the nature of the process.
	So when you're trying to get on the ballot, you do a massive organization to get signatures.
	The signatures are way excessive.
	They're solely designed to be cost prohibitive.
	They were originally allowed by the Supreme Court as an alternative to paying a small filing fee.
	And they've been converted into charging you a filing fee that's 10,000 times bigger than what was permitted under the Supreme Court's rules.
	So it's all about keeping out competitors, keeping the two-party duopoly system in check so the corrupt speakers like Mike Johnson can run the show.
	People kept telling me Trump was right on that.
	He's the only thing stopping Democrats from putting in their own speaker.
	Democrats are the ones that kept Mike Johnson in power, everybody.
	So either Trump got rolled or...
	Whatever happened.
	But that line of attack had no credibility.
	And so there's robust reasons there.
	But the Democratic National Committee connected a Democratic vendor, pretended to be an independent signature match gathering entity for Robert Kennedy in New York, and was going around doing fraudulent activities to try to invalidate the signatures and lead to a media defamation campaign by the New York Times against...
	Robert Kennedy's campaign.
	But by being the source of that fake news story, that smear story, they include in the Robert Kennedy campaign what they're up to.
	So now that independent vendor can get sued into oblivion for massive fraud, which, by the way, this happens all the time.
	They try to infiltrate signature petition campaigns of populist efforts, whether it's a candidate, third party.
	Or it's some referendum, something to get on the ballot.
	Maybe it's a recall effort.
	They do this all the time to deliberately sabotage it.
	So Robert Kennedy said his campaign is going to explore all legal options.
	This is the problem with them playing the same tricks, the Democratic Party, that they've succeeded against, you know, the Bernie Sanders and other people, rigging primaries, rigging elections, is that, one, Robert Kennedy is a lawyer, and two, Robert Kennedy will...
	And always has fought back.
	So this is why the deep state hates the Kennedy family more than anybody else.
	So I think they're going to get exposed again about all the different ways our system is fraudulent, whether it's the Facebook suit, the signature match suit, the signature petition gathering suit.
	All these are efforts that through the campaign, the legal system will expose some cracks in our electoral system.
	Robert?
	The internet works fast.
	LBJ, but retarded.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	I was trying not to laugh while you were talking.
	But this is glorious.
	This is what the internet is about.
	The free dissemination of information in real time.
	And we got some of the greatest meme makers on the board.
	Alright, what do we have left?
	Oh, so let's get to...
	Let's segue into...
	Let me just go to our list of the night, Robert.
	Well, I mean, so it's Biden, so we got two easy transitions.
	Either his coordinated effort with state governments and others to go after farmers, or them trying to stick pervert books in front of kids.
	Well, let's go with the farmers first, because that you know more about, and then the pervert books in front of kids, which I can entertain the conversation of.
	Robert, what's going on with...
	What's going on in Pennsylvania?
	It's multiple efforts.
	So we have the Biden administration exposed by a writ of mandamus brought by a Tennessee lawyer and farmer concerning what's happening with the farm credit.
	And I'm seeing this in other cases, other clients that I have, where basically the Biden administration's failure to appoint key regulatory officials is leading to the farm credit folks that monitor all the...
	There's various...
	There's associations that are meant to provide easy access to credit for farmers with limitations on what banks can do.
	But what's happening is that they're not following the rules in the law.
	And because the courts have made up a reason why you can't sue, there's no private cause of action, even though the Congress said there was supposed to be one when they passed the law.
	The courts have just eviscerated that.
	They're left with the regulators, and the regulators are not enforcing the law.
	So there's that issue.
	There's what's happening with the bird flu coordination.
	And other efforts like it, the recent story of bees in, I think it was New Zealand, where you had to destroy a bunch of bees because they were ordering that to be done on scary virus.
	In Italy, a bunch of small farmers ordered to destroy their entire pig stock on the grounds of scary virus.
	And in Michigan, as we talked about before, but now it's spreading.
	In fact, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is using it as a pretext to go after Amos Miller again.
	Oh, there's a bird flu that somehow magically goes into cattle, that somehow is particularly raw milk, that somehow particularly is going to get into everybody else, that requires a mass surveillance state, including electronically tagged animals, that you have to surveil everybody that has any contact and give that surveillance to the government.
	I mean, Bill Gates was complaining about it recently, but the goal has always been to use these pandemics as an effort to put everybody into his little control grid.
	And Gates was complaining, man, a lot of people kind of figured this out, in essence, what he was complaining about.
	And so you look at that, and of course it's now been confirmed that we in fact funded the Wuhan virus, came through Fauci-funded money illicitly through the U.S. government, as has been conceded by recent testimony before Congress.
	That led Elon Musk to talk about time to lock up Mr. Fauci.
	And that'd be a good place for Trump to join in.
	Robert Kennedy's on board.
	Why don't you be on board, Donald?
	So be El Jefe, if you're going to be El Jefe.
	The people on the board are like, oh, the deep state's really scared of Trump.
	Well, then double down Trump.
	It's a time to say you're going to deliver.
	But so you have that happening.
	And then at the same time, you have the illegally imprisoned farmers and the effort of the PDA to go after Amos Miller.
	So you've got multiple fronts where they're coming after farmers, where they're trying to destroy independent farmers, small farmers, and our rights to access their food.
	It's systemic.
	It's systematic.
	It's not only by state, it's by nation, it's international.
	And you saw the WHO trying to push through their loony treaty that would give them control under these circumstances.
	They want to control the food supply.
	Henry Kissinger, control food.
	Robert, I was trying to think.
	I'm still sort of flabbergasted by the LBJ, but retarded.
	Ukraine.
	I was thinking of treaties that are interesting.
	The Ukraine kids' case was an interesting one.
	So this is a case where I think I understand the fact pattern, but the bottom line is a family fled Ukraine.
	Took their kids to Paris or France.
	And I forget how it happens that the kids end up with the father, but the kids get split up and one parent gets the custody of the kids.
	I forget now the facts.
	Basically, you have a husband and wife in Ukraine.
	They get divorced in Ukraine.
	They come to an agreement.
	That later gets modified as to how custody is going to work.
	Basically...
	That he gets time with the kids, the husband.
	Then he leaves.
	He moves out of Ukraine.
	And she travels a good bit, so the kids often stay with her mother in Ukraine.
	Then war breaks out.
	As soon as that happens, the custody rules require the kids to be under the custody rulings of the court in Ukraine.
	She asks him permission to remove the kids from Ukraine because of the war.
	He says, fine, bring him to me in Dubai, where he is at the time.
	Then, I am curious about where some of these people are traveling as to what their other activities may be, but we'll put that aside in a moment.
	But she decides she's not taking the kids to Dubai.
	She takes the kids to Poland and then to the U.S. He then moves from Dubai to France.
	He says, bring the kids to me in France.
	But under the Ukrainian court order where the kids had to be with him wherever he was.
	So he's in France and says...
	Actually, in Ukraine.
	So that was another complexity.
	So the Hague Convention on Child Custody Matters has...
	A bunch of countries have signed a treaty.
	That Congress has passed implementing legislation of.
	It's important to remember that when you hear about the WHO treaty.
	It's not implemented until Congress passes it.
	And what the law says is that courts have to respect any court in the world that's part of the treaty has to respect the original court's jurisdiction and has to respect their orders.
	So if the child is either removed or retained in violation of a court order, Any court in the world has to enforce that.
	So it wasn't the issue that they were denied custody from the father, but it was the father in Ukraine.
	So it's the issue that the kids are no longer in Ukraine with the father.
	They're not in Ukraine, and he doesn't have access to them.
	So he sues in the United States, and she makes various...
	Like, one of the defenses is, if the kids have been settled for more than a year in the new location, then you can argue they shouldn't go back to the old location.
	But she didn't timely raise that complaint, according to the court of appeals, so she didn't get a chance to preserve that.
	The other one is you don't have to send them back to their original ordered location if there's a grave risk of harm to the kids.
	Because it's Ukraine, it's quite obvious there's grave risk of harm.
	By the way, it was grave risk of harm to the kids from Ukraine before the war in Russia for other reasons.
	You know, there's a reason why both the Bidens and the Clintons really like Ukraine.
	Maybe George Soros, too.
	The number one...
	The number one product of Ukraine was human trafficking.
	I'll get that as you talk, Robert, just to substantiate it.
	So the court's trying to figure out, okay, is this enforceable in the U.S. courts?
	Is there an exception?
	And what the courts concluded was, we have to respect the original Ukrainian court order, but because there is a grave risk of harm to the kids if they go back to Ukraine, we can instead modify that so that the kids go back.
	To where he is now located, which is France, which is consistent with the original court custody order and also consistent with not sending them back to a place where there's a grave risk of harm.
	So it was how the Hague Convention, interpreting a Ukraine court order with these people all over the world, ends up litigated and adjudicated in American court.
	Ukraine has been a source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking since the early 1990s.
	Men, women, and children are trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and begging and sexual and other forms of exploitation.
	That's from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
	What Blinken calls a beacon of democracy.
	So Biden was trying to find democracy for Morehouse.
	Their favorite definition of democracy is Ukraine, where right now you have no religious freedom, no political freedom, where bio labs and human experimentation happen routinely and regularly and have for decades, where human trafficking is their number one import and export, and where currently...
	No elections.
	Not only that, you're being dragged off the street.
	I don't know how Ukrainian fans are going to show up to the European Championships this summer because there's a chance they'll be dragged out of the stadium and thrown into the mincemeat war that is Ukraine.
	They recently, of course, had no fortifications around Kharkiv that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars for because it turned out they meant fortifications in the Cayman Islands for their bank accounts, not fortifications around Kharkiv.
	But Robert, how does the U.S. court get jurisdiction to issue any order as relates to the enforceability in Ukraine, and who has to listen to it?
	Through two mechanisms.
	Mostly by the Congress implementing legislation that gave courts the authority to enforce this treaty that Congress had approved.
	But secondarily, the treaty itself provided that empowerment.
	And so they didn't have to reach the second question of when can a treaty give us...
	Jurisdiction over a case because Congress had given them jurisdiction.
	Robert, let me do one thing here.
	I want to bring this up real quick, Lat.
	Let me see here.
	Alex Davey Duke is in the house.
	He says, Great to see you in Toronto at the Rumble Rebel event.
	As always, welcome back.
	Barb Loves Alaska says...
	We got that one already, right?
	YouTube has been holding back Joe's account.
	Judicial clerk misconduct.
	Okay, I got all this except for Alex Davey Duke.
	But, hold on.
	There was one here.
	It had to do with...
	Apparently, Donald Trump is the Jew choice for president.
	Here we go.
	Trump is the con approved by Chabad from Hobby Jogger.
	I'm not trying to put anybody on blast.
	I'm just saying that's...
	I can appreciate the sentiment, and I will respectfully disagree with it, Hog Jogger, or whatever that was.
	All right, Robert.
	So that's Ukraine.
	Well, speaking of the other Biden connection, it was confirmed, of course, once again this week, that the Biden...
	That his daughter's diary, reporting Biden's perverted activities with his daughter, where it was, in fact, the diary.
	This is one of the other things they said was fake news by the media.
	And I said from day one, if they're trying to barge into James O 'Keefe's home to look for it, that means it's real.
	Well, if they're accusing someone of theft, it's because it's real.
	The woman who exposed it is the one who's going to jail, rather than the President of the United States, whose criminal behavior was described in detail in her diary.
	But speaking of perversion and Democrats, their latest form of perversion is to try to force this on kids through schools.
	They have one lawsuit saying there's a First Amendment right for kids to read perverted materials and that schools have to buy, libraries have to buy the materials.
	They can't remove it.
	They have to go out and affirmatively buy perverted materials.
	But in another case, in Maryland...
	They said that libraries don't even have to notify parents so they can opt out of this perversion.
	But Robert, I'm going to steel man the argument because they did in the lawsuits concede it has to be behind the beaded sort of door frame things.
	The beads that you go through at a porn shop.
	I'm joking.
	I screwed up my joke.
	Robert, so the bottom line, they're trying to compel public libraries to carry whether or not we want to call...
	Perverted materials.
	Perversion.
	Well, they want to say in some parts.
	Let's not load it with definitions, but say LGBT.
	Sexually explicit materials.
	That is.
	Gender identity and that preach a gender identity ideology and that talk about explicit sexual behaviors and conduct that many Americans would consider perversion unless you're the president of the United States.
	Well, in which case it's just a regular Saturday night, but this is at public libraries, correct?
	Or school libraries?
	Yes, yes.
	Both.
	Public libraries and school libraries.
	And my joke, which I screwed up, is it's not like going into the movie store back in the early 90s when the porn section was behind the beaded things.
	Like, if you wanted to go into it, everybody saw you, they heard the little...
	Oh, there's a pervert going in there.
	This is a public library and a school library.
	And they're saying, it's not a question of banning them.
	This is the idiocy behind this.
	Want to buy them?
	Buy them online.
	Read them to your kid at night.
	Or if you're Joe Biden, read it to her in the shower.
	They want it at public libraries and school libraries.
	But there's been varying decisions from the courts as to whether or not preliminary injunctions prohibiting the distribution get granted or not.
	A lot of this is coming out of Alabama, right?
	Two of these were out of Alabama?
	Yeah, and then the other one's out of Maryland.
	The Maryland one is when parents found out about this, they weren't being told about it.
	Their kids were being forced into it as part of a school project.
	They were supposed to be given notice and an opportunity to opt out when it offends their religious beliefs.
	And the federal court in Maryland said, nah, we don't know if this offends any religious beliefs or not.
	And they're reinterpreting the First Amendment to require affirmative coercion.
	It's the judicial attack on religion that we're seeing in vaccine mandate cases.
	We're also now seeing in the school book context and in the other issues relating to sexual behavior.
	They want your five-year-old to be taught stuff by their pervert teacher about their personal lifestyle, debauched lifestyle.
	This kind of behavior, they called it the don't say gay bill.
	That's not at all what they're saying in Florida.
	And so in Maryland, they said parents can't even require that they get a chance to get notice that this is happening so that they can opt out.
	And in Alabama, they're suing the school system, saying not only can you not remove books, they're saying you have to go out and buy these perverted books if we want them, which is, to my knowledge, never been required before.
	There was an old Supreme Court case where four justices said a school could not remove books.
	For political motivations.
	So it was about removing a school library or any other public library.
	Couldn't remove books for political reasons.
	They never said you couldn't remove books that were vulgar.
	They never said what they're trying to say is that you can only refuse to purchase books if those books are legally obscene.
	That has never been the constitutional requirement on libraries.
	But that's what the liberal Democrats are trying to force through.
	The various and these other perverted associations are trying to force through.
	I mean, it's grooming through the school system.
	It's grooming through the library.
	It's grooming through Hollywood.
	That's what it is.
	It's Joe Biden's dream world.
	But it's always been this way.
	I'm just pulling this up here.
	California pushing back on school book bans.
	In 2020, Burbank Unified in Los Angeles County banned To Kill a Mockingbird of Mice and Men, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and two other books after parents complained that the books are racist.
	It's an amazing thing where they forget.
	I don't generally approve of banning books, certainly not for offensive content.
	I agree with the plurality decision that said the state cannot remove books or censor books for political reasons.
	They can absolutely remove books because they're vulgar, particularly as it relates to children.
	And there's this material that children do not have to read.
	And shouldn't be forced to read, which is what they're trying to do.
	They're trying to make drag queen story time a requirement of public education.
	That's the net effect of it.
	And we need fewer perverts, not more in our schools.
	Yeah, well, that's not the trend, Robert.
	So we have to go with the trend and say, yeah, you got to ban the books that use the N-word in historically relevant contexts.
	But allow the ones that show graphic novels of how to give a BJ.
	It's the way of the era, Robert.
	All right.
	How much do we have left?
	And we should move on over to locals.
	Yeah, so let's see.
	What we got left is...
	Let's see here.
	So we got the Fourth Amendment, when your name is protected.
	Religion, tribe, and riches, about Indian treaties.
	The Second Amendment and gun crimes.
	And then two other little fun topics, the law of...
	Deepfakes and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie right over NDAs.
	Let's end on Rumble with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and the NDA because I had never heard of the allegation that Brad Pitt choked out one of Angelina Jolie's six kids on an airplane.
	A tumultuous air ride.
	We'll end on that.
	I'm going to give everybody the link to locals as we talk about this.
	So, Robert, the bottom line, Angelina Jolie...
	Brad Pitt involved in an acrimonious divorce.
	And one of the assets that's at issue here is this winery that they have.
	I forget what it's called, but it starts with M and it's got six letters in it.
	It doesn't matter.
	Angelina Jolie apparently was supposed to sell her half to Brad Pitt as per whatever settlement.
	She reneged on that or didn't follow through on that and then offers it out to a third party for whatever the reason.
	Okay, fine.
	They're trying to resolve their dispute, their marriage, and all this other crap.
	And it's Brad Pitt who's trying to require Angelina Jolie to sign an NDA that would preclude her from discussing things that occurred during the marriage.
	This is where it's tearing open a pillow and the feathers spread everywhere when it comes to rumors.
	I had never heard that Brad Pitt was accused of choking one of their children on a tumultuous, I'll put that in quotes, tumultuous flight overseas.
	Apparently it happened.
	And apparently Brad Pitt is trying to compel Angelina Jolie to sign an NDA as part of their settlement agreement.
	She says no.
	And then he wants to compel her to produce all NDAs and evidence and drafts of whatever NDA she's ever signed in her life.
	Robert, did Brad Pitt choke out one of their kids on an airplane?
	I suspect that story is not true by Jolie.
	But she's still bitter that Brad Pitt dumped her, even though she stole him.
	From his first relationship on the set of the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
	Who was his first?
	Who was Brad Pitt's first?
	What's her name from Friends?
	Jennifer.
	Jennifer.
	Not Lopez.
	I'm always blanking her last name.
	You got Cox.
	Courtney Cox and Jennifer Hansen.
	What the?
	Robert, are we two old men here?
	Somebody will remember in the chat.
	Jennifer Hansen.
	Damn it!
	Okay, sorry.
	I'm not on the right window.
	Okay, so Brad Pitt is not a homosexual, and he was dating women.
	There were a lot of rumors about how he progressed in Hollywood, but you hear everything when you're out there involving Brad Pitt.
	He's a very beautiful specimen of a human, and I still and always will remember him from Fight Club.
	So that's my memory of Brad Pitt.
	You saw him first in Fight Club.
	There's a great story about him and Mike Tyson.
	Mike Tyson's going to fight Logan Paul.
	There's these great memes out there.
	Logan Paul's like the government, and Mike Tyson is the purebloods that's just staying totally cool as Logan Paul's trying to do his thing.
	But there was once Brad Pitt was messing around with one of Mike Tyson's, I think Robin Gibbons.
	And let's just say Brad Pitt was not fight club oriented.
	He was going the other direction.
	He wasn't ready to wrestle with Mike.
	But basically...
	Fall out from the divorce.
	She's clearly still pissed that he dumped her.
	So she was trying to sort of blackmail him into how I read it by threatening to say things about him publicly.
	He loves this vineyard he has in France.
	A lot of people get hooked on their French vineyards.
	They cost a lot of money, folks.
	The truth about wine is they say the greater the pain, the better the wine.
	Because the more the vines have to dig deeper and deeper, the better the richness of the taste takes.
	But it's the pain that gets there.
	But it can cause a lot of financial pain and other things.
	But he loves this little vineyard he's got there.
	They got married, I guess, on the vineyard.
	She knew that, so she was kind of using that as leverage.
	He was like, let's just settle this.
	You give me your half.
	And agreed to an NDA.
	She was really leveraging, I'm going to continue to say bad things about you in public until you give me what I want.
	It's not clear what, I think what she really wanted was him to reverse course.
	He wasn't reversing course.
	There are, I've heard so many stories about Brad Pitt.
	There's some famous ones about him at the bar at the Beverly Hills Hotel, but that's not for children consumption because we're not a liberal democratic channel.
	Basically, so she demands...
	She's like, I can't.
	I can't sign an NDA.
	That's horrible.
	That's shocking that you would force...
	And he's like, okay, fine.
	Why don't you produce all the NDAs you've signed and demanded other people sign for the last 20 years to show that she's kind of being a fraud.
	In the middle of all this, she decided to spike him by selling half of the vineyard to the Stoli family, to the Ruskies.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Like, you got all the clickbait terms.
	Oh, Stoli vodka.
	Angelina Jolie sold...
	To the Stoli family, half of Brad Pitt's vineyard to make his life live in hell.
	So that's why you got Ruskies, you got Brad Pitt, you got Angelina Jolie.
	You can have all kinds of clickbait on the clip art on the top of this video to push out there.
	But he'll likely win on requiring her to disclose the NDAs that show she's probably been engaged in bad faith, breach of contract, and what she's been up to.
	Okay, well that's very good.
	When you marry the wrong one, divorce tends to be miserable for a long time.
	Robert, keep your schmeckle in your pants, marry young, and don't get divorced, to quote my former mentor.
	And I just had to look this up as you were talking.
	As of writing, this is from Rolling Stone, take it for what it's worth.
	Jake Paul is a negative 170 favorite over Mike Tyson, who's at the plus one.
	Because he's so much younger, and Tyson is older, and Tyson's boxing style.
	If you ever want to...
	Hear the best of Mike Tyson.
	There's his podcast and everything else, which is cool.
	He had one with Robert Kennedy a few years ago.
	That was fun.
	That was censored as well.
	Yes, it was.
	One of the many times he censored Kennedy.
	But he's secretly a deep state person, according to Conservative Treehouse.
	Pal, you're all the way up the tree when you're thinking that.
	But his analysis of boxing fights, there's a couple of old ESPN videos where he would break down the boxing matches.
	Brilliant.
	He's a boxing historian.
	Brilliant analysis.
	The thing was his style depended on quickness.
	So when he lost his quickness, he couldn't be effective.
	So the assumption is he still couldn't.
	It's Logan Paul.
	I'm still not totally sold.
	The guy's a legit boxer.
	The key is Tyson's got to get close enough.
	Tyson gets close enough, anything can happen.
	But it's amazing that Tyson at his age is even able to go out there and do anything at this point.
	But he relied so much on quickness.
	That the reach of Paul is probably going to be a problem.
	I saw the video where he was fat-shaming Logan Paul.
	He's fat!
	He's supposed to be lean and mean.
	He's fat and funky.
	It was so good from a soundbite perspective.
	He's supposed to be lean and mean.
	Eddie Murphy and Mike Tyson were at, I think it was Oscars or one of those events.
	And Eddie imitated Dyson.
	Only Eddie Murphy could get away with him imitating Dyson.
	There's also a good old Saturday Live skit where Adam Sandler does this whole routine.
	Where he's like, where he has all of his enemies say nasty stuff about Mike Tyson.
	He's like, Mike, did you hear what this guy said this?
	And he made fun of your list, but he did.
	That's a great routine, too.
	But yeah, Tyson, by the way, reputation Vegas, real sweetheart of a guy.
	Oh, okay, here we go.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I found it.
	I got to bring it up before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I won't play the whole thing, just the beginning part.
	Classic.
	I love Mike Tyson.
	I don't know if he's in his prime.
	He's fat.
	He should have been lean and mean.
	He's fat and funky.
	I saw him with his shirt off the other day.
	He's fat.
	Did you start training already?
	Buster Douglas was fat.
	Am I right?
	I know, but you're no Buster Douglas.
	He's not going to win.
	I know JFK, or was it I know JFK and you are no JFK?
	I forget who said that.
	Loophole Lloyd Benson.
	One of the most corrupt senators in the history of the Senate.
	Hold on.
	Just give me one second.
	Robert, tell us what's coming on the other play.
	So we got the Fourth Amendment.
	When it applies to protect your name and when people don't have reasonable suspicion like cops try to misuse and abuse too often.
	What happens when you mix religious rights, Native American tribes, treaties, and a big fat vein of rich copper?
	The Second Amendment.
	When are these various gun crimes like felon in possession and the like?
	Violating the Second Amendment.
	I have a Third Circuit Court of Appeals brief that might go to the Supreme Court on behalf of an Amish farmer named Reuben King that's going to be raising some of the same issues.
	And then what is the law concerning deepfakes?
	And is Arizona's attempts to regulate it constitutional?
	Yep.
	Or even a good idea.
	Whether or not it's constitutional.
	Hold on.
	It was before the deepfake.
	I forget what it was.
	Everybody, get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to end on Rumble live stream.
	I'm going to end it now.
	Robert, you are on with the Durand on Tuesday at 1 o 'clock?
	Yeah, Tuesday at 1 o 'clock Eastern Time, breaking down the entire geopolitical world as we know it, as it currently exists.
	We'll be going through the craziness that's happening in the U.S. legal system, some forecasting of what's going to happen in the U.S. political system.
	And take a little tour around the globe with the boys at the Grand.
	Oh, yeah.
	Let's see.
	Is she going to poop or pee on me is going to be the question.
	Oh, gosh.
	I just ended it on...
	Well, I ended it on Rubble.

▲