Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 2, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

03:00:18

Ep. 213: SHUTTING DOWN ALEX JONES? Biden Regime War in FULL FORCE! Viva & Barnes Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I should apologize.
	So what do you think I should apologize for?
	And then I'll tell you what I think you should apologize for.
	I know what you think I should apologize for.
	Obviously, there was so much talk that they don't want you to take Ivermectin.
	Ivermectin is the way to go take it.
	Joe Rogan got better from Ivermectin.
	And by the way, I don't like what people did to Joe Rogan about Ivermectin.
	You did it!
	No, no.
	You did it!
	Find a clip!
	Dude, find the clips.
	You shamed Joe Rogan.
	Find the clips.
	You said he's taking horse the warmer.
	You and Don Lemon were chuckling at each other about it.
	First of all, you just saw the clips.
	I'm not chuckling.
	I'm listening to Don.
	No, no, no.
	The clip I'm talking about wasn't on there.
	I don't like what happened.
	Things just happened.
	I was a mere observer, much like George Soros as he was assisting the misappropriation of...
	Valuable goods by his Nazi brethren of his Jewish brethren.
	But it just happened.
	I don't like what happened to Joe Rogan.
	I had nothing to do with it.
	Oh, what's that?
	You did?
	It's absolutely there.
	Oh, here, do we have it?
	Hold on.
	Let's play the clip.
	Roll it.
	Injecting drugs for animals and horse.
	And people telling them to.
	Oh, my God.
	What person?
	You know, you talk about, like, you know, cancel culture and who to shame.
	Ivermectin?
	A dewormer?
	Really?
	They are shaming themselves.
	That's what it is.
	They're shaming themselves.
	So you're taking a dewormer right now.
	Chris, you can't apologize for that.
	Watch the wordsmithing.
	It's an amazing thing because look at Patrick Bette-David.
	I have not seen the entire debate, and I'd love to, but I haven't had the time.
	But look at Patrick Bette-David.
	Oh.
	You weren't being clear that it was this, and you know that, dude.
	You're being so dishonest right now, man.
	I'm not being dishonest.
	You were talking about ivermectin, the drug.
	You were not talking about this version of ivermectin.
	Come on, man.
	I was responding to a situation where we knew nothing, and we were being told what to say, and paid a lot to say it, and didn't question, because you don't want to piss off your big pharma ads sponsors.
	We were told that this is what people were searching out to take, and nobody knew what it was like.
	Holy shit.
	Look.
	I'm taking the drug.
	Do you understand that, by the way?
	He quickly pivots from what he said that he knows is not true and that nobody's blind.
	Pivot.
	Now, obviously, I don't think it's all poison.
	I stopped calling it the horse drug when, and you cannot like it, the CNN's chief medical officer, who is Sanjay Gupta, said to me, you shouldn't just call it a horse dewormer.
	There's a whole legitimate aspect of the drug.
	I wouldn't use it for COVID-19, but it's not just a veterinary grade.
	So I stopped calling it that.
	Stop calling it that.
	Any public correction about the statements?
	I don't know.
	Maybe he did at some other point during the debate.
	By the way, I don't know if you guys saw this.
	One of the best moments during the pandemic was when Dr. Gupta, who was just mentioned, went on Joe Rogan's podcast.
	You've got to give Chris Cuomo credit because he is in hostile waters.
	Rightly so because he did what he did and he does not yet seem to be apologizing for it.
	And not, like, apologizing for the sake of appeasing a social media lynch mob or cancel culture.
	He actually wronged people.
	People actually got harmed as a result of the disinformation and misinformation and lies.
	What do you want, Winston?
	That Chris Cuomo was spewing.
	I'll let this play and I'll let Winston out of the room.
	I don't know why he doesn't want to...
	CNN, like, demonizing Joe Rogan.
	They send their top doctor out there onto his show.
	And he goes, uh...
	He goes, why is everyone on your network saying I'm taking horse dewormer?
	Ivermectin's not.
	And Dr. Gupta looked down at his lap and went, yeah, no, they shouldn't have said that.
	Do you remember when I had Dr. Eugene Gu on?
	I mean, I don't want to make fun of him because I don't know if anything bad has happened to him.
	Dr. Eugene Gu, the doctor on Twitter whose profile picture was him.
	He's an Asian man taking a knee, raising his fist for BLM.
	And he came on the channel and we had a very cordial.
	Respectful discussion where, ultimately, this mouthpiece for the propaganda had to say, yeah, I don't know why CNN lied about it.
	Yeah, I don't know why FDA tweeted that.
	I don't know why they said that there were no problems.
	I don't know why.
	And still had some form of reliance on the people who had lied to him for the last two to three years.
	Dr. Eugene Gu, does anybody in the chat know what has happened to him?
	Because I haven't seen...
	I'll just bring him up because I haven't seen him...
	On Twitter in a long time.
	And he doesn't seem to have posted anything on Twitter in a long time.
	Oh, hold on.
	Maybe he did.
	Now the other dog wants to leave the room.
	I think they hear people eating food outside.
	So Dr. Eugene Gu, his profile has reappeared.
	It was blank before.
	This was his...
	Pinned tweet at one point.
	Hasn't posted anything in a long time.
	Is this his...
	Oh, this is Dr. Jen Gunter.
	This is not the right Eugene Gu.
	Hold on.
	Oh my gosh.
	I have a show.
	Get out of here.
	Get out of here.
	Slipping dogs don't respect what I do.
	They've got to do a Sunday show.
	They're just...
	Why?
	So that wasn't it.
	Hold on.
	Where is Eugene Gu Twitter?
	Dr. Eugene Gu.
	His profile has reappeared.
	It was blank before.
	This is interesting.
	I don't know what's going on.
	Okay.
	Don't know what's going on with Dr. Eugene Gu.
	But that was Chris Cuomo having his buttocks handed to him by Dave Smith.
	And it was a glorious thing to watch.
	And it sort of started me on a spiral of anger, rage, resentment, and trauma.
	I'm joking.
	It didn't do any of that.
	But I mean, it caused me to start thinking.
	Of the absolute sheer stupidity, insanity of trust the science that we lived through during COVID.
	And it's a very funny thing because my wife was going through her photo album on her phone.
	I don't know how she still has pictures on her phone from whatever year it was.
	Let me pull these up.
	It was 2020.
	Because I have to back up and clear space on my phone every three to six months.
	She pulled out a couple of gems that I had sort of forgotten about.
	Look at this, people.
	This was back in the day.
	Back in the day of Trust the Science.
	I don't know if you can read this.
	Let's get in here and get real nice and close.
	Alright, it says, for those of you who can't see...
	In keeping with the new Quebec government measures that will be in place between December 25, 2020 and January 10, 2021, these products cannot be sold as they are excluded from the list of essential products.
	We are temporarily discontinuing our, quote, our apologies, end quote, rain check policy.
	I don't remember what that means.
	This was back in the day when Trust the Science, the people who lied to us from day one, including the media, were telling us that Non-essential stores.
	We know you got to get some stuff, people.
	Okay, so we're going to leave essential businesses open.
	Pharmacies, liquor stores in Canada and Montreal, marijuana stores.
	We're going to leave those open and we're going to shut down the non-essential.
	But even within the essential stores, because science, bitches, science, we're going to cordon off the non-essential items because we don't want people showing up for non-essential items in these stores.
	It'll surely, surely increase the spread of the COVID.
	And they actually saran-wrapped off non-essential items.
	These are the cards.
	What I loved at one point, they had actually cordoned off batteries and socks.
	And in case I haven't shared this with anybody...
	No, no, no, sorry.
	In case you're new enough to the channel that you haven't heard me talk about this before.
	I was at Alexis Neon.
	If anybody knows where that is in Montreal.
	Corner of St. Catherine and Atwater.
	It's Alexis Neon, it's a shopping center, and there's a pharmacy in there, Jean Couture.
	And I was there, and there was a homeless person who was clearly not in the best of shape.
	His shoes were falling off at the heel, and he was trying to buy a pair of socks.
	This is one of the things that I regret, where I didn't think fast enough on my feet.
	This was in the time when you could not buy non-essential items from essential stores that were still open.
	And I'm looking at this.
	The guy, I think he was Middle Eastern, disheveled, not healthy looking.
	And I thought for a second, I'm like, is this real?
	He's actually arguing with the counter girl as to whether or not he can buy a pair of socks?
	And I'm looking at it.
	And the reason why I remember him being Middle Eastern looking is because I thought for a second.
	That I was witnessing Borat's Sacha Baron Cohen doing a new Borat episode.
	It looked like Dave Attell doing a shtick about a man dressed up like a homeless person trying to buy a pair of socks to prove a point.
	And I was sitting there and I was like, is this for real?
	Are there cameras around?
	And before I could even just go up and just...
	Steal the effing socks and slap a 20 down on the table.
	The guy walked off.
	And I've regretted not responding the way I should have at the time.
	I don't like Borat anymore.
	I don't like Sachin Baron Cohen anymore either.
	And in fact, I went back and re-watched Borat 1. It's not a funny movie.
	It's actually just mean-spirited.
	But maybe that's what happens when you get old and cranky.
	But I remember witnessing that.
	And this was at a time where they convinced regular people to deny selling a pair of socks in winter.
	To a homeless man because it was non-essential and everyone was just following their orders.
	So I went back because someone in response, Liz Churchill, in response to that, those pictures said, remember the time you went and were escorted through a store because you refused to show your papers?
	And I'm like, do I remember that?
	Now, I'll get ahead of the curve.
	Yes, people, I wore a neoprene face mask with my face imprinted on it.
	Where is it?
	It's somewhere in this house.
	A bunch of crap everywhere.
	A bunch of crap.
	I've got that neoprene mask somewhere.
	I wore the neoprene mask, not because I believed in the science, but call me a sissy, call me whatever you want.
	I wasn't in it to start getting in fights with people at the front of the stores.
	I had to get inside and infiltrate.
	This is at a Walmart on Dakari.
	Right next to a Tim Hortons, right next to the Babies R Us.
	Anybody who's from Montreal knows where this is.
	This is when they implemented the vaccine passport.
	I think this was in 2021.
	And I'm like, I know that they can't deny you from essential stores.
	If you need to go to a pharmacy, watch this.
	Starting January 24, due to government mandate, we will ensure that all customers, 13 and up, are properly vaccinated when entering the store.
	This mask is on, and I'm not showing proof of vaccine.
	Where's the pharmacy?
	I'm not showing any proof of vaccination.
	Where's the pharmacy in here?
	You're not showing it?
	I'm not showing it.
	Is there a pharmacy in here?
	So I'm allowed to go to the pharmacy without showing my vaccine passport.
	I'd like a Tylenol for the headache that this is all giving me.
	Please escort me to the pharmacy.
	Just so everybody knows, anybody who knows me, this is me at my most enraged.
	You get so angry.
	You scream when you care.
	And you just abandon.
	I can hear it.
	This is as enraged as I get.
	Unless it's not AT&T.
	Bell can.
	Okay.
	How do you feel about what you're doing here?
	No comment.
	Did you guys try to fight it or argue with the government or no?
	I just said no comment.
	You're conscious of which minorities this actually affects more than other people, I presume, or no?
	No comment.
	Doesn't matter?
	No comment?
	The one good thing about that mask is you never have to worry about boogers.
	You're looking right up my big nostrils.
	Yeah.
	You know what?
	I'll take rubbing alcohol.
	This is what I'll take today.
	I don't actually have a headache, so I'm not getting Tylenol.
	This is social condition.
	This is how it works.
	Condition people to think that this is normal.
	And then purport that it's scientific.
	I look like Cornelius from Planet of the Apes.
	If anybody's seen the movie, their masks never move properly with their mouths.
	And I look like either that or something from a horror movie.
	We can skip the rest.
	The guy escorts me out like a common petty criminal.
	Holy hell.
	It's a trip down memory lane that I never want to relive, but I will never not willingly relive it to remind me of the absolute insanity.
	And for all the mistakes, Vivo saved 10,000 people by masking that day.
	I wore the mask just so you don't get into fistfights with unhinged people in public spaces.
	None of you...
	Not many people are from Quebec.
	Some people watching this channel who have been here either for a long time or not don't know.
	Quebec, we had curfews for five and a half months in the first year and another month and a half in the second year.
	People were unhinged.
	I'm, I don't know, courageous maybe, but I'm not getting punched in the face because some unhinged lunatic thinks I'm going to kill them by not wearing a neoprene mask.
	Forget the science about the M95.
	That was what you make Those stupid wetsuit, not a dry suit, a wetsuit.
	It was neoprene.
	It was so stupid, so idiotic.
	It had no filtration system.
	It just blew all the air out of the side, but it made people feel good.
	So I wasn't getting into fights with fellow citizens over that, and I certainly wasn't getting my face or teeth knocked in because people would have done it in Quebec.
	They were and continue to be that unhinged.
	But holy crab apples.
	So trip down memory lane.
	I mean, I'll give Chris Cuomo very, very big props for doing that hostile debate.
	I'd like to have an interview with him as well, but not sure that that'll happen.
	But we'll see.
	Who knows?
	But that brought me down memory lane as relates to the people who have lied to us from day one about all of this.
	And now they expect us to trust that they're telling us the truth on that and other things.
	And we're seeing what's coming out with Fauci.
	We're seeing what's coming out with everything.
	Which is a very good segue into the sponsor of today's show, people.
	Booyakasha, the wellness company.
	Oh, yes.
	The WHO's Global Pandemic Treaty has been a topic of conversation.
	We've talked about it on this channel many, many times.
	But if the government has a play in this game, which they always will, it will be to inject as many people as they can with whatever they deem necessary this time around.
	Do you know that they're actually talking about a vaccine?
	This came from one of my insiders.
	He sends me information.
	They're trying to apparently design or research a vaccine to give to animals to prevent them from farting.
	Sounds cool.
	Dr. Peter McCullough, who has been the leading charge in this fight, isn't mincing his words when he comes to say what's heading our way.
	Bird flu is the next disease X, he said in a recent podcast conversation.
	Dr. McCullough elaborated that not only is the bird flu the next planned pandemic, like what we saw with COVID, but it is confirmed to be a human-manipulated gain-of-function strain of the virus.
	I think Fauci's testifying tomorrow, right?
	And to the surprise of absolutely no one.
	The people who've been lying to you from the beginning.
	No, no, no.
	The Gates Foundation is the current director of the USDA Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Georgia, where this manipulated strain originated.
	You can't even make this stuff up, to quote Mark Robert.
	What can we do?
	According to Dr. McCullough...
	And his well-renowned colleagues at the Wellness Company, now is the time to stockpile medications, which is why I am so grateful that we can get it in the States.
	It's not available in Canada.
	The Contagion Emergency Kit from the Wellness Company, it's got a bunch of medications.
	It's prescription, so it's not nothing.
	You've got to fill out a form.
	It's not available in Canada, but it will get you medications that either might be in short supply or entirely cut off.
	Or unavailable for other reasons.
	You know, if a foreign country wants to wage a biological war on a country and happens to have control over manufacturing of a lot of the pharmaceuticals of that company, what could possibly go wrong?
	This contagion kit is the only one of its kind.
	Prescription kit provides you with carefully selected assortment of effective medications for bird flu, COVID-19, and other respiratory illnesses.
	Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, HCQ, Z-Pak, Tamiflu, I always get it wrong, people, but it's budsonide.
	Budesonide, along with a nebulizer so you can rest easily knowing that you have the critical meds if you ever need them.
	Avoid the wait times, avoid the costs, and avoid the potential price gouging or just not having it.
	Get the kit for the cost of a single doctor's visit.
	You go to twc.health forward slash viva.
	Let me make sure that that's it.
	twc.health forward slash viva.
	That is it.
	And you put in the promo code viva.
	You'll get 10% off your order and free shipping at checkout.
	And everybody should have one.
	It's not available in Canada, so that's it.
	The link is in the description.
	Thank you very much, The Wellness Company.
	You guys are doing fantastic work.
	All right.
	Now, also, warning.
	I think I accidentally tweeted out, or I tweeted out thinking it was 6.30 Eastern, and it might have been 6.30 that time over in Texas, which is an hour earlier.
	So Alex Jones might be coming on.
	He might be able to make it on for 6.30 Eastern, but more likely than not, 7.30 Eastern.
	6.30 Eastern.
	Central?
	6.30 Texas time, baby.
	All right.
	Barnes is in the house, people.
	For those of you who don't know how this works, I'm Viva Frye, David Frye, Montreal litigator, current Florida rumbler, former Montreal litigator, current Florida rumbler.
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Are we live on...
	We're live on Rumble.
	Okay, over 12,000 on Rumble.
	I thought we were at 718 because I still have an old video up.
	And we are on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We will end on YouTube at some point.
	Take it on over to Rumble.
	And then when we're done on Rumble, we go over to Viva Barnes Law for the after party.
	And Barnes, who I just saw yesterday at Rebel Capitalist Conference, he saw my kid.
	My kid was wearing a seersucker.
	Barnes, I'm bringing you in here.
	It's called a seersucker?
	Yes.
	Ethan and I were wearing matching old school Southern outfits.
	So he looked more adorable than his.
	Well, it was a well-fitted three-piece suit.
	It's a Sears sucker.
	It's one word, not a Sears sucker.
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	And what does it mean?
	I think I asked you this once before.
	Do you remember?
	I asked what it meant, and I think we had someone from our community tell us what it meant.
	Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	We got an interesting show tonight.
	We got fewer topics because one topic is going to take up a lot of time.
	And that's everything related to the Trump verdict.
	We may have him live a little bit later on in the show.
	7.30, just got confirmation.
	So 7.30 Eastern.
	7.30 Eastern, the back half of the show.
	The one, the only Alex Jones, who it looks like some corrupt bankruptcy officials are trying to shut down.
	Right on the eve of the election.
	I'm sure that's just a coincidence, of course.
	We got the Supreme Court issuing a big, big decision that didn't get a lot of commentary this week because of the Trump case, but it will have impact on the Trump case.
	In fact, I would suggest that the shot across the bow to the Biden administration, to probably what's coming in Missouri v.
	Biden, and what may be coming for the New York...
	Verdict that was discussed.
	It's the NRA versus New York.
	And that decision, by the way, was unanimous.
	Then we got big vaccine mandate win.
	I think we discussed it briefly before, but people are not fully appreciating how huge this is out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We got the Texas abortion law being upheld at the Texas Supreme Court.
	We got Pennsylvania being sued by America First Legal, my co-counsel in the case against Red Hat and IBM.
	In this case, they're suing Pennsylvania because of what they're doing illegally to try to pad the voter rolls up there.
	We got how the insanity defense works.
	Folks, if you're going to steal a car and run over a police officer, make sure to be naked and in Chicago when you do it.
	Because then you might get to walk away on insanity charges.
	And then last but not least, a little response to a lot of things that happened this week.
	A case you could caption.
	Barnes versus LawTube.
	I'm going to be breaking down.
	We may save it just for the after party at Locals, but breaking down all the...
	If the members of LawTube had been going to Barnes Law School, how would they have done on the exam this past week on the constitutional implications of the Nick Ricada case?
	Well, unfortunately, most of them would have failed.
	Now, you could have given a few a gentleman's seat, for example, for giving a gentlemanly effort.
	In the case of good logic.
	But he's, you know, but he learns when he first started doing his challenge on the Trump gag order.
	He thought, ah, this is going to go nowhere.
	This is a waste of time.
	This isn't, you know, legally isn't merit.
	And by the end of it, he's like, I'm going to absolutely win.
	I'm going to crush because he was right as he learned about the law.
	Maybe he could discover the same arch in the case of the constitutional issues involving that.
	But a lot of the others, Nate the lawyer, big fail.
	The uncivil law, big fail.
	Legal mindset, big fail.
	We got a bunch of folks who are just absolutely failing, tempted by the grift.
	They're failing the American people.
	But if they were in Barnes Law School, some of them might have to kick out and never let back in again.
	That's how bad their arguments and logic has been.
	I was doing a test on YouTube, people, with the Super Chat just for a specific reason that was not for anything other than that for anybody to see.
	There's something going on in StreamYard where I can't bring up the Super Chat comments, which is bothering me.
	Now, I see it.
	What the heck is...
	See, it's not giving me...
	They're not saving them.
	And I wonder...
	See, I have to scroll to get them.
	So I might not be able to highlight all of them because it's not keeping the repertoire that it typically keeps.
	Okay, so I might have trouble coming back to all of these.
	Barb Ariane says, Barnes, you have to be one of my favorite humans fighting the good fight.
	Thank you for all that you do.
	You do too, Viva.
	I do it, but definitely not as good as Barnes.
	Somebody put in the VivaBarnesLock.Locals.com live chat.
	Lots of them went full Eagle Eagle.
	Never go full Eagle Eagle.
	I try to avoid it because the infighting I don't care for, but I'm not going to respond to stupid accusations and stupid allegations.
	But then after I get blocked...
	They're busy libeling us.
	They created a fake because they're deliberately choosing to engage and entertain.
	And profit from the Rakita-hating trolls.
	Those people are flooding my chats.
	They went and created a fake Locals page of me.
	There's a bunch of people at vivabarneslaw.locals.com that are following it.
	They don't know it.
	Locals is trying to fix it in order to get fake statements up about me.
	They're creating deep fakes about me.
	They're trying to raid a bunch of, you know, they brigade anybody's chats or comments or anywhere elsewhere.
	It's generally, frankly, you could ask Nick Ricada, it's a bad idea to entertain these people.
	I mean, for example, the Kiwi Farms crowd, they're busy trying to crowdfund so they can get the body cam footage of his kids and broadcast it to the world.
	I mean, that's just sick, disgusting people.
	That's who they're dealing with.
	Well, you know, we'll deal with it with legal mindset.
	If you come after me and libel me repeatedly, as well as flood my chats and the people that are part of our community with what's known as Toxic Twitter, which is what he was doing, then maybe I'll take the time to ask and research why it is you suddenly left the state of Florida and went to Southeast Asia as a single man.
	And maybe when I do, I'll find that you chose the town in Thailand most infamous for one thing.
	You know what that thing it's most infamous for?
	The town legal mindset chose to leave Florida for, to live in Thailand, and to serve, legally provide services to other, let's say, similarly situated individuals, is a town world famous for which documentaries have been made for child prostitution.
	That's where he chose to live.
	I wonder if that's a coincidence.
	What motivated that shift?
	But if these people are going to...
	You know, do this kind of thing.
	Well, you know, all right, all bets are off.
	I wouldn't recommend it personally, just as a matter of professional strategy.
	You know, some others have just, they're making just bad arguments.
	I think most of it's incompetence, but some portion of it is corruption.
	People trying to grift to get, you know, super chats and get all the social media lynch mob people on their side and all of that.
	And they're forgetting.
	You can like, hate, whatever you think about Nick Rakaven.
	The Constitution is not something that you libel.
	The Constitution is not something you give people fake news about.
	I see people in the social media space, the entertainment space that follows a lot of these guys, the Camelots of the world, the Umbrella guys of the world, who now think the Fourth Amendment is one of the lowest standards known to man, thanks to the bad law being given out by this LawTube crowd, who are misinforming.
	And miseducating, they say in parts of Tennessee, folks on this law.
	And I'll go through a little bit later.
	I mean, it took me about half an hour on the plane to find a half dozen quotes from Minnesota Supreme Court cases that completely rebut every single lame, dumb argument that they've made over the last week.
	I mean, they can't even do basic legal research.
	They can't even do basic legal analysis.
	It is sad, it is pitiful, what LawTube has become.
	All because they want a grip for the recated hating trolls.
	But I'll go through some of that to remind people how you do Barnes Law School correctly and how not to fail.
	I mean, Nate, the lawyer is the lawyer who raised money to sue somebody for calling him a fake lawyer.
	The guy called him a fake lawyer, and he lost the lawsuit!
	I mean, that's the most embarrassing.
	You raise money to sue somebody for calling you a fake lawyer, and then you lose?
	I mean, that's just...
	Embarrassing.
	Maybe you shouldn't be laughing about the Constitution then.
	Let me all clarify this because this is not so much a dunk on Nate as it is a dunk on the system that screwed Nate that a lot of people are now effectively, you know, say, hey, if a judge said it must be law, if a prosecutor or cop said it must be fact, well, okay, I guess that must mean you're a fake lawyer then, Nate, because that's what the court said.
	So you can't assume that everything, as we learned, it'll bridge into the Trump case.
	Just because the judge says it, don't make it law.
	Just because the jury says it, doesn't make it truth.
	Just because a cop or prosecutor said it, doesn't make it fact.
	Sometimes those are the biggest lying frauds in the entire legal system.
	So we're going to start with Trump.
	And what we are going to do is, I guess we're going to save Alex for the exclusive Rumble side of this.
	Robert, so we're going to start with the conviction.
	I mean, when did it happen?
	It happened Thursday.
	Well, coincidentally, Trump, Biden had scheduled a press conference to discuss the case a week before on that Thursday.
	Well, I'm sure.
	Well, he is a sign of high integrity in our court system.
	He could not have known what the jury was going to do, but it does seem, and I'm being sarcastic, it does seem that the jury took two days to render their verdict, which is also stunning because they come down unanimous on all counts, although they had to if they came down to one, come on all.
	But the news that really slipped under the radar that day was Biden regime.
	We're quietly or very secretively authorizing Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike Russia within Russia.
	That was a...
	Let's see how close we can get to World War III, everybody.
	That was one of...
	I mean, they've had so many red lines.
	I forget what they were.
	There were tanks that were one of the red lines, a certain type of long-range missile that was one of the red lines, and we're not going to do it.
	We're not going to do it.
	We did it.
	We did it.
	And now they're authorizing.
	Air power support and fighter jets.
	So they did, in fact, do that.
	I mean, I confirmed it.
	I confirmed it as much as the media confirmed it very quietly, but everyone was on fire about the verdict.
	Robert, at the risk of asking the obvious, guilty on all 34 charges, and people take that to mean, oh my goodness, he was...
	First question, explain it for everybody, because I have...
	Not I have trouble, but it's better to hear it from you.
	How do you get to 34 charges from one, even if assuming it is a scheme?
	How do you get to 34 independent charges, felony charges, from one overarching criminal scheme?
	Assuming it was that which it wasn't, but I'll just, for the sake of question.
	By treating every single check and every single bookkeeping entry as a separate crime.
	I mean, it's the kind of scam that our system is too easily susceptible to because we over-criminalize everything.
	A fellow I shared the stage with some years ago wrote a book called Three Felonies a Day.
	And his point was that most Americans commit three federal felonies a day without even knowing they do because of how many insane things they consider criminal behavior and get to label criminal.
	But so that's how they got to 34. They took each time a check was issued to Cohen and each time there was any bookkeeping entry in the books Crime.
	But I guess the obvious question is, is it legal to do that?
	Because it does seem like...
	I mean, I just made it as a joke.
	It's a good thing he didn't pay in like $1,000 checks.
	Otherwise, he'd have 130 felony indictments.
	Is there not a double jeopardy as relates to the charges themselves when they are part and parcel of the alleged overarching scheme?
	You could argue that, but the courts have ignored it.
	The courts allow you to piece and parcel...
	The courts have just basically been deferential.
	They've been stooges for the state.
	They've been deferential to the prosecutorial branch.
	And to such a degree, they've made up law and they've eviscerated and butchered our constitutional protection and limitation on the state.
	And they get neoliberals cheer it because they're liberal authoritarians, but a bunch of conservatives have cheered it over the last 50 years.
	You know, you ought to protect, keep America safe, and be secure, and that means we've got to butcher the Constitution barn.
	That's what they've been sadly cheering for so long, and now they get to reap the whirlwind and see the consequence of what that looks like when you give the state this kind of Soviet-style power over an individual.
	Now, I put out a video, a vlog earlier, the sort of the pre-stream reminder.
	I'll give everyone the link.
	We don't have to go over it entirely.
	But I refreshed my memory after Matt Taibbi's tweet about the Steele dossier.
	They charged and convicted Trump of literally and exactly, except they actually committed the act and the intent of what Hillary Clinton did, where they financed the Steele dossier, which was actual election interference because it wasn't even bona fide opposition research.
	Wrote it down as legal payments to conceal the fact that they subsidized it, reacted to it as though they didn't pay their employee to prepare it, leaked it to the FBI that leaked it to Yahoo News so that they could publish it so that the FBI could report on the publication to go get a warrant to spy on Carter Page.
	And they gave her a mere FEC $8,000 violation for Hillary, $1.15 for the DNC, and everyone went their separate way.
	I'm not misrepresenting.
	They literally did commit the crime that they accused Trump of having committed.
	Oh yeah, it's all examples of confession through projection.
	And they've done that with Trump all the way through.
	Both impeachments were impeachable acts committed by Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
	And the same, I mean, fixing an election in the second impeachment was done by them at different points or attempted to be done by them.
	And the first one, the Ukraine bribery.
	Using family and friends was done by the Biden administration, and done by Biden when he was VP and senator, but especially when he was VP, not by Trump, and yet they accused Trump of it.
	And then here, Hillary was basically illegally funding a foreign agent operation to derail the 2016 election.
	By illicitly getting a FBI criminal investigation based on false claims against her challenger.
	And she actually paid out those amounts at a reportable time period before the election, unlike Trump.
	And she disguised it all as legal fees so that nobody knew she was behind it.
	And it was paid from campaign funds, which Trump's...
	Oh yeah, exactly.
	It was paid from actual campaign funds.
	It was for the purposes of influencing the election in ways she didn't want the world to know about, and was disguised as legal fees when it wasn't legal fees.
	In other words, the money, it didn't go to a lawyer.
	The money went to a lawyer, but not for the lawyer.
	And so what they did is they took Hillary Clinton's crime, which, by the way, she committed in New York, and applied it, pretended Trump did it.
	And what's amazing is, now I have all the...
	The Trump-hating trolls barraging me, of course, in the Twitter feed and elsewhere.
	And they're like, oh, Barnes, you're just making this up, Barnes.
	He wasn't even charged for anything other than influencing the election, so presidential immunity couldn't even apply.
	And it's like, you guys don't even know what he was actually charged with, do you?
	I mean, you don't understand that the core crime is alleged that the jury found guilty was for decisions made by a bookkeeper.
	To call a legal invoice paid to a lawyer, legal services, because that was the option in the drop-down menu.
	For example, they presented no accounting expert witness at all, the government, that said that there was a different accounting gap requirement to describe those payments.
	None.
	I mean, there is no drop-down menu in QuickBooks that says hush money, that says NDA money, that says...
	Ho tried to extort me option.
	There's no such option listed there.
	So, I mean, that by itself was preposterous.
	It literally couldn't be a crime, even if Trump had wanted to commit the crime.
	The bookkeeping, booking legal services as legal services.
	When it comes from a legal invoice, it's the only option on the menu.
	And, of course, the undisputed, uncontroverted testimony was that that bookkeeper made that decision all on her own.
	That she got no advice, no feedback, no direction from Trump on it ever.
	And that it was made solely and wholly by her.
	Nobody changed it after she made it.
	Nor did anyone review it after she made it.
	So the very first aspect of the crime, there was a requirement to issue a directed verdict based on the facts presented at trial.
	Then the second issue of the directed verdict was that this entry was made for the purpose Of committing another crime.
	But this was made for the purpose of defrauding the American people and the people of New York.
	And the fraud crime alleged was that it was all done to steal an election, to impact and influence an election.
	The problem is, it couldn't have been.
	It couldn't have been for the...
	This is why a directed verdict by law had to be issued.
	That because no rational jury, no jury at all...
	Could conclude that Trump had committed the crime based on the evidence presented at the trial.
	Because first, the bookkeeping entry had nothing to do with and was entirely consistent with gap principles.
	The government didn't challenge or contest that at all.
	Secondly, he couldn't have been trying to have made that bookkeeping entry for the purpose of influencing an election because the bookkeeping entry was made after the election was over.
	Let me steal men, Robert, and you'll tell me if it's not a fair steal man.
	They'll say, well, they disguised it as that even though he had already been elected and it could no longer influence the election, it could have influenced his ability to remain as president.
	So they could have impeached him.
	What's the problem with that?
	Shit, I don't know.
	I haven't thought that far ahead.
	I thought it was a smart question.
	It goes exactly to what I started the conversation off with.
	With all these fake lawyers on the internet, on law Twitter.
	Which is about as dumb and incompetent and corrupt as LawTube, saying that there was no applicability of presidential immunity to the charges.
	But you just highlighted exactly how the case goes directly to the issue of presidential immunity.
	Because if it's something he could be impeached for, then it's something he's immune for, under the logic that has been made before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	That's the point.
	Is that his purpose had to have been to stay president, to be president, to avoid impeachment.
	And that would mean that it's something that he did as president, which means it's something subject to an immunity challenge.
	And they don't want it to be the case.
	They want the crime to have been committed before he was president.
	So there's no immunity argument, no Article 2 argument, no impeachment clause argument.
	But they can't because of the timing and when the transaction occurred.
	The other problem is...
	The theory is he made a false bookkeeping entry to hide the fact that he previously made a false election report.
	And he made the false election report in order to influence the 2016 election.
	The last part is important.
	That's the ultimate crime that was charged.
	Some people are getting caught up on the second one.
	They think, oh, it's all they had to prove was false bookkeeping report to disguise a false election report.
	But that is not what the allegation is, because they knew they had a problem with trying to bootstrap a federal crime into the issue.
	This will get into Vivek's argument about a pardon in a minute.
	But they actually skipped that at the state level.
	They knew that there were serious problems with trying to do that.
	Instead, there was a separate state crime in New York for trying to illegally, by unlawful means, influencing an election.
	That's the statute that they chose as the second statute that they said he was covering up a crime for.
	Now, there's issues with what unlawful means they listed, because that gets absolutely insane.
	You listen to some of the theories on that, and it's just utterly ludicrous.
	But the actual crime was that the problem is the election report concerning the Stormy Daniels payment wasn't due until after the election.
	Even if they could show proof that there was a false bookkeeping entry, even if they could show Trump was the one who ordered it, even if they could prove that Trump ordered it for the purpose of covering up how he unlawfully influenced the 2016 election by covering up that he had made a hush money payment, the problem is the hush money payment didn't have to be publicly disclosed until after the election anyway.
	By law, this was a classic directed verdict case.
	No rational jury could conclude that Trump was guilty based on the evidence the government itself chose to present or failed to present at trial.
	Now, the other issue is an NDA doesn't have to be disclosed on an election report as anything other than how he chose to disclose it as the FEC itself concluded.
	And as the FEC expert that the judge prohibited the jury from hearing from would have testified, and this was the former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, to explain that this accounting entry, to give expert testimony about accounting, not expert testimony about the law.
	This is what the judge lied.
	It was about how do you book this item for a campaign finance report purposes.
	That's a campaign finance professional.
	Who's giving campaign finance expert testimony.
	And the judge himself admitted this was a matter of fact because when he came to jury instructions, he falsely told the jury it was factually against Trump.
	So all the excuses they have, oh, he was trying to usurp the judge's role in the law.
	It's just nonsense by the judge's own implicit admission.
	So at the outset, there is no crime that Trump committed.
	The unlawful means to influence the election really gets nuts.
	Because the unlawful means is either a false FEC report, which by definition could not have influenced the election under the timing issues, which the jury was denied knowing about, or it was tax evasion.
	So, hold on a second.
	How could a tax report I don't file until a year and a half after the election possibly impact?
	The election when there was zero testimony at trial that there was anything wrong on his tax returns because, as Trump told people later, they didn't try that strategy because he didn't even take it as a deduction in the first place.
	So, I mean, he literally instructed the jury on a crime Trump could not have committed.
	And he also instructed the jury, Robert, that if you opt for the...
	Second of the three options of the Predicate Act, the tax fraud, it doesn't even have to result in...
	This is what he said to the jury.
	It doesn't need to result in him having paid less in taxes, which I did not...
	I was like, Russell Lee must have made a typo there, but he didn't.
	He said to the jury, as far as the tax fraud goes, he doesn't even have to have paid less than what he owed in taxes for that to be part of the crime.
	I didn't understand that.
	It's because it's not understandable.
	And not only that, then he tells the jury that the unlawful means is actually violating another crime.
	It's actually an element of the offense in this instance.
	But he tells them that they don't have to agree on what crime Trump committed.
	They don't have to agree unanimously on what crime Trump committed.
	They don't have to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump even committed it.
	This is, of course, a complete due process violation and makes the jury instructions invalid under New York law.
	And we'll get into all the different constitutional issues Trump has on appeal and why it's critical he raise those issues on appeal in that manner because he needs to get past the appellate division of the Manhattan Court and the New York Court of Appeals in Albany so that he has robust arguments for the Supreme Court of the United States.
	But just for those folks out there that are confused on the crime, they're confused on the crime because the judge instructed the jury that the unlawful means, which was the core issue in the entire case, in order to commit election fraud, did not have to be decided by the jury unanimously, did not have to be decided by the jury as to even which crime it was, and did not have to be decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
	And they were crimes that...
	As a matter of fact and law, Trump could not have committed.
	It is amazing because now that you explain it like this, and now I understand where he says it's either election interference, as that was one of the three potential charges.
	I forget what the third one was.
	Or it's tax fraud, which occurs after the election, so it doesn't need to be election interference.
	In the election report, the same thing was after the election, so it couldn't have been election interference.
	Unreal.
	Okay.
	So it was utterly absurd.
	I was on with the one and only Tom Woods.
	The Libertarian.
	Fun guy.
	He and Michael Malice do some fun shows like, how do you make a law?
	It's kind of a little bit satirical about how the law is really made.
	But it plays off that stuff you learn in third grade with the public service.
	I don't know if you saw those in Canada.
	Oh yeah, for sure.
	Like how the bill is made and they got the little cartoon.
	The little bill is walking up the steps and you get the little cartoon and all the rest.
	And they've done some like...
	Realistic versions of how the bill is made.
	You put Malice and Woods together and they have fun.
	But I was talking to him on, I did a special podcast for him on Friday, right before I left for Orlando for the Rebel Capitalist live show, which was a lot of fun.
	Got to meet up and chat with some really cool folks, including Viva and little Ethan.
	Was that basically, I said, if you took kind of a combination, Of Soviet show trials and Kafka's book, The Trial, and you put them together for a live Broadway script, you would have the Trump trial in New York.
	Because, I mean, it's like, okay, what would happen?
	What if you gave a jury instruction that said, jury, we've now shown you the man.
	You now must find the crime.
	Well, that's literally what happened.
	He said, there's Trump.
	Take a pick and guess which one it was that he made me committed.
	And if you combine the Kafka's trial of just absurdity upon absurdity upon absurdity, you know, guilty until proven innocent, all the rest of it, that too was on full display.
	The problem is they made the same mistake all the fascists made and all the commies made, which is they believe that the American people...
	Believe in jury verdicts solely because they are a jury verdict.
	What they don't understand is Americans have confidence in an outcome when they have confidence in the process that produced that outcome.
	The reason why they're called no trials is because in the American public consciousness, they're not real trials.
	And here, you can tell, the liberal left, the lawyer left, Is shocked that Americans are responding the way they are.
	Like, they already had the editorials ready to go, including at the neocon, never-Trump publications like Washington Examiner, had them ready to go at the New York Times, had them ready to go with their, you know, pontificating on MSNBC and CNN and all the rest, saying, oh, you know, this election has changed.
	We have to, you know, he's now a convicted felon.
	The jury has spoken.
	This guy even tried to do this with Robert Kennedy.
	It's something that was live because the verdict came down before Kennedy went on.
	But Mr. Kennedy, you recognize a jury made this determination, right?
	The Times of London tried the same with Alan Dershowitz.
	If the jury made this determination, it must be true, right?
	Like the nitwits at LawTube.
	A cop alleged it.
	It must be true, right?
	That routine.
	And as Dershowitz said, as Kennedy said, as anybody with an IQ over 50 said, No.
	If you had 12 Klansmen convict Martin Luther King in 1963, you wouldn't go, oh, the mighty jury has spoken.
	We must now defer.
	No.
	A trial is only as good as the trial is good.
	The outcome of a trial is only something we can have confidence in to the degree the process by which that trial was conducted we can have confidence in.
	Here we have a conflicted prosecutor in violation of Trump's rights, a conflicted judge in violation of Trump's rights, A conflicted jury because they were partisan.
	They were prejudicial.
	They admitted so in their own jury answers.
	They came in wanting to convict the defendant.
	It was kind of like, by the way, the O.J. Simpson civil jury.
	Everybody, oh, the civil jury did find him guilty later on.
	Yeah, they were put on the jury based on whether or not they already had concluded he was guilty before the trial even started because of how the judge handled that case.
	You are constitutionally entitled under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution to overrule and overturn any Kafkaesque trial, any show trial.
	And this Broadway show is not selling with the American people because it shouldn't sell with the American people for the same reason no show trial ever sold with any domestic population because they can't have confidence in the outcome because they can't have confidence in the process.
	And we'll get to all of the ways in which, and for those people that wonder, okay, what protects me from a Kafkaesque trial in America?
	It's the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
	I was going to say nothing, Robert, but it's, well, so they're going to, the next step in this process is it's, what month is he coming back for sentencing?
	July?
	Yeah.
	July 11th, a few days before the Republican National Convention.
	And a week after July 4th.
	I thought they were going to be dumb enough to actually put it on, like, July 5th or something, like, right around July 4th.
	No, they picked the perfect time, a week before the convention in, I think it's in Milwaukee.
	Robert, the judge in theory...
	We might have to go up to Brewtown.
	Well, I believe I got my credentials for that event, and it's just a question of whether or not I can make it down.
	I've lived in Milwaukee for several years, got a bunch of buddies up there.
	There's a real cool cigar bar there.
	Shakers in the south side.
	So, yeah, I might have to make the rounds of Old Brewtown.
	Robert, your appreciation of fear and danger is far different than mine.
	I was talking to the cab driver about Milwaukee, and even the cab driver said it's gotten bad.
	I even got friends on that side of the aisle in Milwaukee, too, so I'll probably be okay.
	Okay, so the judge is going to sentence the week before the RNC convention, give or take.
	In theory, I mean, some people are saying he's going to lock him up, put him under house arrest, whatever.
	In theory, I mean, we're not in the realm of theory anymore.
	We're past Rubicon after Rubicon.
	Any sentence would be suspended pending appeal given the nature of the likelihood of the type of penalty versus the time it would take for the appeal.
	What do you think is going to happen?
	Are they going to order him on house arrest or order him locked up for a day and not suspend notwithstanding appeal?
	I mean, we'll see.
	The judge's options, the maximum sentence he can issue is four years.
	Per felony?
	I think the way it works is four years combined.
	Often what they do in the sentencing provisions is they cap them.
	The one way they limit the due process implications of multiple prosecutions for the same basic offense is they usually cap the sentencing.
	So what I had seen was...
	That four years was the effective cap, but you never know for sure.
	I mean, maybe he could...
	I suspect under New York law, he's not legally entitled to aggregate the offenses.
	I thought...
	I just wanted to make sure, because I said 180 years, and I just wanted to make sure.
	I say it as a joke.
	180 years.
	But I think under New York law, he's not allowed to...
	Oh, not 100.
	Oh, these mother effers, Robert.
	It wasn't Trump that said he faces 180 years.
	It was the media that said it.
	The claim.
	Oh, I'll go back and find it was the media that said it, not Trump.
	Okay, I'm sorry, because I know that they said it.
	As a practical matter, you can pretty much rule that out.
	As a practical matter, the realistic range is probation to four years in prison.
	Now, in most sentencing states these days, they follow some version of the federal guidelines.
	But what I mean by that is they have their own state guidelines.
	And the state guidelines are meant to standardize sentencing risk so that you don't get AWOL sentences.
	You don't get real generous treatment for some, real punitive treatment for others.
	So someone in Trump's category...
	This kind of offense, which fundamentally is a misdemeanor, even though they've now elevated it to a felony, for someone who has no criminal record at all, not part of a gang or any ongoing criminal operation at all, is over 70, that a 95% chance that he would get probation.
	The X factor is, will this judge continue his pattern of prejudice?
	And institute an insane sentence.
	That's possible.
	Now, and will he revoke bail?
	Now, I told people, I discussed it with Mark Robert and others, that I believed that even if there was a guilty verdict, Trump would not be immediately remanded and he would continue to be released.
	That prediction turned out true.
	In fact, when the judge inquired about it, the government made clear he's not even out on bail and they're not requesting any.
	So the prosecution doesn't want a prison sentence that's immediately served at all.
	And because this whole case is about influencing the court of public opinion, and the crazier the case gets, the worse the reaction will be to them in the court of public opinion, not the worse for Trump.
	And so I still think that's the operating motive here.
	And as long as that is, you're extraordinarily unlikely that Trump faces any prison sentence.
	Any prison sentence, the Republic reaction will be even massively more against what they're doing to Trump and even more in Trump's favor.
	The more they martyr Trump, the more the public rallies to Trump.
	And we'll see if they can start to figure that out or not.
	Now, the other thing he can do is, let's say he issues a sentence.
	Then the next question is, staying or suspending the sentence pending appeal.
	You can also issue what's called a suspended sentence that's effectively probation.
	You can say, I sentence you to four years in prison, but I suspend the sentence while you serve probation.
	As long as you serve probation, you'll never have to serve the sentence.
	So people should know that's the difference between a suspended sentence and suspending.
	The sentence pending appeal, separate matters legally.
	But he could also be granted bail pending appeal.
	And let's say the judge orders immediate remand.
	That doesn't normally happen.
	But normally they give you a right to self-report.
	And when the sentence is small in a case like this, normally you get bail pending appeal or you stay or suspend the sentence pending appeal.
	If the judge denies it, Then Trump can immediately take it to the appellate division of that court.
	If they deny it, he can then immediately appeal that to the New York Court of Appeals.
	And if they deny that, New York Court of Appeals is their equivalent of a New York Supreme Court.
	And if he wins that, then he can take it.
	Because of the very unique federal constitutional issues we're about to get into, he can then take it to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So my prediction is Trump doesn't serve any time in jail.
	Trump doesn't serve any sentence pending the election or pending the appeal.
	And for the reasons I'll articulate, even if the appellate division of Manhattan corruptly refuses to overturn this verdict, which will be embarrassing and humiliating for that appellate division.
	It will make them a mockery to the entire world.
	And then if the New York Court of Appeals does the same thing, a New York Court of Appeals that was willing to overturn Harvey Weinstein's verdict, If they refuse to overturn this joke of a verdict, then I believe that the Supreme Court of the United States will take up the case and will overturn the case for all the reasons I'm about to articulate.
	Of course, they may issue a decision in the next 30 days that requires this case be thrown out.
	Robert, before we get there, let me do a couple things.
	There's a great meme from our community, which I have to bring up right now, because it's fantastic.
	This is the Robert rant.
	Smoke coming out of his ears.
	Robert, okay.
	Before you get into it, let me catch up on a lot of Super Chats and Rumble Rants, because if I don't, it'll never happen.
	Testing answer, blowing names.
	Okay, choosy heretic, thank you.
	Pasha Moyer says, how long do you suppose before Lawfare going too far Remembrance Day becomes a national holiday?
	November 5th, babies, that's when it happens.
	Not a banned account says, will MAGA supporters turn violent if Trump is jailed?
	I don't think so, but we don't think he's getting jailed either.
	The only question I'm going to ask you is whether or not you think the judge would impose conditions, travel restrictions, which might impede with his ability.
	We'll get there in a second.
	I know the verdicts will be overturned eventually.
	I'm concerned about how much power Merchant will have over Trump until then.
	Cheryl Gagey.
	Mr. Barnes, if I were a deep state lawfare operative, why would I stop attacking Trump, Jones, et al.?
	Because it's not working?
	Because it's backfiring?
	Or that might make you attack even harder and in worse, more insidious manners?
	The AGs on the right need to prosecute the left, says I'm not your buddy guy.
	Not...
	Nice-looking, nice-looking tarbines.
	Barnes, where can I get one?
	It is a very beautiful tie, and you did it up very well, says MDS.
	Can Herobayashi versus the United States apply to MAGA?
	Barnes, do you know what that is?
	Isn't that a Korematsu-related case?
	I mean, that's been overturned now by the Supreme Court.
	I'll Google that.
	Unless it's a different one.
	Did Stormy Daniels pay taxes on the hush money she received?
	I bet no.
	Need a t-shirt, Viva Fry, Freedom or Die?
	No, the reason I thought of that, the channel used to be called Viva Fry, Live Free or Die, but we don't need to have negative connotations in there.
	So no, but Barnes Army might be a little bit too close to Salty Army, so we want to stay original.
	Why did I bring this on?
	Oop, I don't know why I brought that one up.
	Yeah, the Barnes Brigades maybe, something with alliteration.
	Barnes Brigade is good.
	What is the response time mandated by New York appeals?
	If the judge does jail him immediately or impose his condition, does that let the appeals court sit on their hands through the RNC?
	That's where the quickest way a higher court gets involved is not on the appeal substantively.
	It's on the motion to suspend the sentence, stay the sentence, or grant bail pending appeal.
	That's what they have to resolve very quickly and expeditiously if Mershon goes too far.
	Okay, now I'll get to the rumble rants in the next rumble rant break.
	Robert, what happens now?
	So the potentially big intervening event is what the Supreme Court does on the D.C. case concerning immunity.
	I think this verdict was one of the worst things that could happen for the people hating on Trump.
	Because it's going to further motivate the Supreme Court to issue as broad and expansive an interpretation of immunity as possible.
	Especially, I mean, the three constitutionally conservative jurists, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, had already voiced great skepticism about what was happening here and suggesting an expansive interpretation of Article II power consistent to it, which, by the way, they're consistent on that in other areas.
	So the big questions were Kavanaugh and Roberts and Barrett.
	Barrett was such a wuss that she's unreliable and untrustworthy, unsurprising to some of us.
	Let me pause you there just in case anybody's brand new to the channel.
	Supreme Court is sitting on or preparing to issue the ruling on the immunity question that was brought up in the DC case.
	And we covered it at length.
	There's going to be varying scopes of immunity that they might recognize.
	They might issue something of a...
	A test to determine if something was presumptively presidential or not, in which case you might have to go through some sort of an immunity test before even determining jurisdiction over the case.
	Or they might say, absent impeachment and conviction, there will be no prosecution ever once a president has left office, less likely.
	So Supreme Court is going to issue that in the coming weeks, maybe in the coming week.
	The question is whether or not, as a result of this, some of them might go back and revise the scope and extent of their reasons.
	Exactly.
	Like, they could come down with, you know, one ruling would say there is no presidential immunity and affirm the D.C. courts.
	That would have no impact on the New York case, but I think that's highly unlikely, especially now.
	They're seeing the political fallout in live time.
	They're seeing how embarrassing this legal proceeding is.
	It's no longer a hypothetical.
	What would happen if you had a crazy prosecutor, a crazy judge, and a corrupt jury fix a case against a former president of the United States who's the leading opponent of the incumbent presidential administration?
	It's no longer a hypothetical as to what that looks like.
	We've now seen it.
	And to give people an example, if there is no presidential immunity, every president could not only be indicted by any prosecutor anywhere in America, but by any prosecutor anywhere in the world.
	And if that country had an extradition treaty with the United States, what would be the grounds to prohibit extradition?
	If a country in the Middle East decides that President Obama committed mass murder with his drone bombing campaign, what if they indict him?
	And what if it's one of the countries that has an extradition treaty with the United States?
	How does the United States refuse to send Obama back for the death penalty execution?
	A president standing in front of a death penalty squad.
	Same with George W. Bush.
	Same with William Jefferson Clinton.
	So, I mean, how do you avoid that?
	I mean, now it's no longer hypothetical.
	We've seen in New York what this looks like.
	And so I think it puts massive pressure on the Supreme Court to issue an expansive interpretation and reject the no immunity application.
	Then they've got two options.
	Limited immunity that's very fact-contingent or broad immunity.
	They're right now under massive pressure to get broad immunity because they can see the only way to really preclude this from reoccurring.
	From us being a laughingstock of the entire world, us being the country that now needs bananas to replace stars in our American flag.
	By the way, the Banana Republic comes from the U.S. CIA, the Dulles Brothers, being involved with the United Fruit Company as their corporate counsel, while also being in the U.S. government and holding shares of the United Fruit Company, overthrowing governments.
	And because United Fruit Company was a big banana company, that's where they started referring to countries as, quote, Banana republics.
	It's all deep state coup history.
	That's why it's especially applicable here to the deep state coup effort against President Trump.
	For those that don't know, the lead idea prosecutor behind this, who was standing behind Alvin Bragg right after they announced the guilty verdicts, is one of the top highest ranking officials in the Biden administration.
	He resigned his high-ranking position in the Justice Department to go prosecute this case.
	So have no illusions.
	Shannon Breen may be asleep at the wheel and not know the connection between the Biden administration in this case, but anybody that can actually see or read knows the Biden administration connection to this case.
	So the way they could get rid of all these cases...
	Is very simple determination.
	One that, in my view, has been straightforward from the plain text of the Constitution and the public policy purposes served by that plain text, which is the only place in the Constitution it allows an indictment of a President of the United States is if and when he has been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote or more in the Senate of the United States on those specific charges.
	That's the only time it says you can prosecute and indict.
	A president of the United States.
	So that's what they should say.
	Until he's impeached and convicted, you can't prosecute him, period.
	Otherwise, he's subject to ongoing extortion while president.
	While president, prosecutors could come to him domestically and internationally and say, hey, if you don't give me what I want on this policy, regardless of what the American people want, then I'm going to indict you and put you in prison when you leave office.
	So you can't have that.
	Otherwise, Article 2 power, which says all executive power is vested in the president, doesn't mean anything.
	Same article, different variation of those same Article 2 issues applied in the other cases.
	But let's say they don't go there.
	If they go there, this case is vacated.
	Every single criminal act alleged in the indictment happened while he was president of the United States.
	And for the reasons you just articulated about the only legitimate theory they can have, As to the timing problem they have in the case, namely that these acts are taken after the election and that even the underlying acts he's supposedly covering up were not due until after the election, was to avoid impeachment as president of the United States, making them presidential acts.
	But under a broad Article II and impeachment clause interpretation, all that's moot.
	It's like, look, it doesn't matter.
	You can't charge him with any crime for anything he did while president unless you first convict him by the Senate.
	That would vacate the entire New York verdict.
	And the classic argument to that, and I think they raised it during the immunity argument, is that, well, if you have a corrupt Senate who refuses to convict, then you have a president that's above the law.
	And I'm like, if you have 66 people who are so corrupt that they refuse to convict, well, I'll take my bet on...
	66 corrupt people versus one corrupt DA or Attorney General after the fact who single-handedly can corrupt the entire process.
	All right.
	So you have a Senate.
	66 corrupt Senate.
	You got a problem.
	But I'll wager my bets on 66 people versus one Leticia James or one Alvin Bragg because you only need one corrupt person with limitless power to do it, which is what they're going to give them.
	Okay.
	Exactly.
	So the second option is for them to sort of split the baby.
	And say that, well, a president is immune from criminal prosecution for any presidential act, but for any act taken in his purely private or personal capacity, he's not.
	What that would require is the court to go through an entire indictment and see which acts are personal, which acts are presidential, and strike all the ones that are presidential from the indictment.
	Also, when it comes to evidence, And in terms of instructing the jury, instruct the jury on the difference.
	Of course, none of that happened in the New York case.
	The New York case never applied that.
	And there's a little bit of an issue with Trump's lawyers not easily preserving issues for appeal.
	Now, I believe he still effectively raised this issue because he raised it when he first removed the case to federal court.
	And said presidential immunity gives him grounds to go to federal court.
	And the federal court just summarily denied the immunity claim.
	So in my view, he did preserve it.
	However, it could have been a lot better preserved.
	They should have been hammering it over.
	And this is an argument I make with defense lawyers all the time.
	Don't let the judge intimidate you.
	Make preserve, preserve, preserve.
	Dershowitz has been hammering Trump's lawyers for not preserving.
	He understands this as an appellate lawyer.
	What happens is when you're right in front of the judge, you're discouraged from doing so.
	The judge is like, oh, you already did that.
	Why are you doing this?
	The judge gets annoyed, rules against you on a bunch of things.
	And so as a defense lawyer, you're inclined not to poke the bear over and over again.
	But you have to in a case like this.
	A case like this where you know the jury's rigged, prosecution's rigged, witnesses are rigged, the judge is rigged.
	You've got to preserve every appellate issue over and over and over.
	You can do it diplomatically.
	You can do it courtesily.
	With courtesy, but you still got to do it.
	But I think he still has enough there.
	But even if they make that hybrid ruling, because this judge never even applied that at any level of the case, in my view, it's grounds to immediately go in, overturn the verdict.
	Judge, you've got to do this standard.
	We've got to restart from the beginning all over again.
	And because, again, people haven't looked at this, while they're saying his intent was to cover up a crime, That was intended to in turn cover up something that happened before the presidency.
	All the actual acts that are alleged as crimes, the actus reus, and even the mens rea, is while he was president.
	And that, as you pointed out earlier, the only way you can even get to any criminal intent is to suggest the bridge being him wanting to avoid impeachment, which makes it presidential acts by definition, in my view.
	And so I think either way, I think the likely Supreme Court verdict...
	Completely invalidates this verdict.
	There is no chance the Supreme Court verdict is going to be anything other than, at worst, some acts are purely personal, others are purely presidential, and you need to make the distinction.
	There'll be more immunity than the D.C. Court of Appeals or D.C. Trial Court.
	I think that's a 90-95% chance.
	And that means this verdict is tainted just on those grounds and is the quickest, easiest way for the verdict to get thrown out.
	Now, this corrupt trial court refuses to even recognize the Supreme Court ruling.
	All that does is accelerate the appeal issues where he could get a stay of the sentence pending appeal because of the Supreme Court ruling.
	Now, that's just those issues.
	There's every kind of evidence issue.
	There's every kind of jury instruction issue.
	There's every kind of jury selection issue.
	There's a wide range of issues that are unique, and there's evidentiary issues about directive verdict and evidentiary issues about appellate record review, which are unique in New York.
	Those issues would only be decided by the appellate division in the New York Court of Appeals because they're New York state law specific.
	The long and short of it is they were denied cross-examination of certain witnesses in violation of New York rules.
	They were denied the opportunity to present witnesses on their own behalf in violation of New York rules.
	The expert denial, I mean, I don't even understand it, especially since the judge referenced FEC law in his jury instructions, which makes absolutely no sense.
	So there's that.
	I mean, refusing the admissibility of evidence.
	I thought, at least under civil Quebec law, was immediately appealable because it changes the outcome.
	Allowing prejudicial testimony that was irrelevant, i.e.
	Stormy Daniels, you go on and say, okay, well, you can deal with that afterwards, but if we don't allow them to make evidence, that can't be undone.
	All the Stormy Daniels evidence that was let in that never should have been.
	is itself grounds for reversal under New York rules of evidence.
	The exclusion of the expert witness about how campaign finance disclosure reports functionally work, that exclusion was by itself grounds to reverse the verdict under the rules of evidence under New York law.
	The jury instructions misstating the law were grounds to reverse the jury verdict under New York law.
	The precluding the defense from making certain closing arguments and allowing over objection certain prosecutorial misrepresentations of law and fact in closing arguments is itself reversible error under New York law.
	Aspects of the way the jury was selected, including allowing people on the jury who admitted A preconceived bias on the case and against the defendant is the violation of New York law.
	So you have all of those New York law violations, but those will be specific to, and then you have the directed verdict, as I mentioned at the top of the show, that should have been granted.
	And in New York, uniquely, they don't have to give a certain deference to the jury.
	If they think that the evidence was insufficient or insubstantial to convict, they can overturn regardless.
	It's one of the most Jury skeptical appellate standards that exist anywhere in the country.
	So if the New York Appellate Division cares as conscientious either about justice or the law, or the New York Court of Appeals is, they will, on New York law grounds, salvage their public reputation by overturning this verdict.
	But if they don't, that's where the robust federal constitutional issues that President Trump needs to preserve Throughout this case going up, needs to highlight throughout, because the Supreme Court of the United States does not have jurisdiction over the New York state law violations that occurred in this case.
	They do have jurisdiction over any U.S. constitutional right that was violated in this case, and that's being overlooked by a lot of the legal commentary, because what prohibits a Kafkaesque trial in America is the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
	So that's what precludes the government from convicting you without telling you what crime it is, which is what happened throughout this case.
	That's what prohibits the government from hiding discovery from you or producing that discovery on the eve of trial and the court denying you a continuance.
	It's the due process clause of the Constitution.
	What prohibits illicit evidence from being presented at the trial, like the Stormy Daniels testimony.
	What prohibits the court from excluding you being able to present your own witnesses like the FEC expert, or prohibit the court from trying to intimidate counsel and witnesses like the court did with Mr. Costello, is the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
	What prohibits instructing the jury they can find a person guilty?
	Without even agreeing what crime they committed, without even agreeing beyond a reasonable doubt, without even agreeing unanimously, all three are separate individual violations of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
	And what prohibits the court from prohibiting the defense from fully presenting closing argument and prohibits the government from lying about facts and law in closing argument and subordinate perjury like they did with Michael Cohen, It is, again, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
	So all of those New York legal errors are also U.S. constitutional errors, and as such, as long as Trump's counsel adequately preserves and protects those errors, that gives the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction to both suspend any sentence pending appeal or grant bail pending appeal, and gives them jurisdiction to reverse substantively and overthrow and throw out the verdict, independent of the Article II impeachment clause issues that are uniquely present here as well.
	Last but not least, there's clear First Amendment issues.
	This is a classic case of selective prosecution, of retaliatory prosecution.
	Not only did Hillary Clinton actually commit this crime in New York and was never even investigated in New York for it, least of all indicted or prosecuted for it, this particular subset of charges has never been charged in the history of New York.
	Nobody that's in a private business.
	Has ever been charged with a crime for how they did their internal bookkeeping meant for themselves.
	Defrauded the people, Robert.
	It defrauded the New York people.
	Exactly.
	I want to answer this one.
	Did Trump declare it as a campaign expense or no?
	He did not, as far as I understand, right?
	I don't know what ultimately happened.
	To my knowledge, that's correct.
	He never declared it as a campaign expense.
	And never claimed the deduction.
	Their argument is that he had to declare it as a campaign expense.
	So the...
	The thing was, but it was a campaign expense only post-election, and it wasn't really a campaign expense.
	Or if all of this is a campaign expense, then Hillary Clinton clearly committed the crime at scale.
	And so he has a classic selective prosecution claim, clearly.
	And here he has the best selective prosecution claim maybe ever brought.
	The prosecutor announced during his election, please vote for me and I'll find a way to indict Trump.
	Well, he's got that with Leticia James as well.
	I think he's got that with Fannie Willis as well.
	All three of them.
	Correct.
	And you know what?
	That's a natural bridge to, we get up to next, is the Supreme Court just issued a very big decision, 9-0 unanimous, about abuse of government state power in violation of First Amendment rights.
	And guess which state it concerned?
	The state of New York.
	Well, before we get there, Robert, because I am well behind on the rumble rants and some of the vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me bring these up here because I'm going to blitz through them, people.
	I apologize.
	Swallow, deep breath.
	MDG83.
	Is it ironic that the term trumped-up charges existed before this trial?
	Yes, it is.
	Sweaty Zeus.
	I still think Dave Smith is a punk biatch, I think that means, and got what he deserved last weekend, and honestly, he could have done a way better job.
	He just let him say all the studies and ivermectin doesn't work over and over again.
	The engaged shoe says, God, I wish someone would take Frito fishing again.
	Sweaty Zeus, the freaking government came out and said ivermectin works in a statement a few months ago.
	No medical advice.
	Shofar, Barnes, we appreciate everything you are doing.
	Please don't underestimate how much we listen to you and David.
	Thank you both for all you do for the information you provide us and what you do.
	Thank you.
	Finboy Slick.
	Who's creating deepfakes about Barnes?
	I got exclusive rights on that.
	Finboy Slick is the guy who does the best AI-generated images ever in our local community.
	The Engaged Few says, Hey Barnes, where can I order that magnificent tie?
	Someone does not have the basic rights in the lower courts, says Rustin Hauer.
	Rustin Hauer then says, How much liability does the lower court get?
	How much?
	Maybe deferential.
	Deference.
	Does the lower court get when the appeals process overturns them?
	Oh, how much liability?
	Zero.
	Panther AI or Al.
	I still laugh at the judge's claim that the former head of the FEC wasn't qualified to discuss how the FEC enforces the laws.
	The laws it is in charge of enforcing.
	A joke.
	A sick, disgusting joke.
	King of Biltong says, good afternoon from Anton's Meat Meat.
	Free shipping for your Biltong using code VIVA and BiltongUSA.com.
	AntonUSA.com.
	Biltong is a perfect.
	For your carnivore, keto, high-protein diet.
	I built something.
	I got the other bag in the fridge that I gotta open up soon.
	It's still good.
	It's delicious.
	It's amazing.
	It's like wet beef jerky.
	Philip J. Fry.
	Evening, gents.
	If Mitch McConnell is known as Murder Turtle, may I suggest War Walrus for John Bolton?
	I bit my cheek when I was sleeping, and now it hurts.
	Pinochet's Helicopter Tour says the DOJ, New York, and the Democrats have no choice but to seek immediate...
	I'm not even going to say it out loud because I don't want someone taking it out of context, but I got the joke.
	Freedom Patriot says, are they smart enough to be conducting this kind of lawfare to force SCOTUS to make broad immunity that saves Biden-Obama in the future?
	Interesting theory.
	Bones of Whiskin.
	Hey, Viva, did you ever study the...
	The Tino versus Arnold precedent case.
	Absolutely not.
	My cousin was hit by a car while crossing the road to get ice cream truck in the 70s.
	They sued everybody involved.
	Screen grabbing because I'm curious now.
	Fleet Lord Avatar says, can we watch Alex Jones on Locals without being a sub?
	Yeah, we're not going to leave it.
	We're not going to have it only for supporters.
	So, members.
	That means everybody who just, I think you have to give an email.
	Fix this, guys, says Vijank.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	But what we're going to do right now, we're going to end this on YouTube because we've been here for longer than they deserve.
	And we're going to take this over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and Rumble.
	And AJ is coming on in about nine or eight minutes.
	So how do I do this?
	I'm ending it on Twitter also.
	And I hate it because the view count, which says live viewers in StreamYard, says an aggregate of the views on Twitter.
	So it says 10,000 people watching live.
	Bullcrap, it's not.
	I mean, there's 22,000 on Rumble, but there's only 3,000 on YouTube.
	So get your butts on over to Rumble.
	Viva Frye on Rumble.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	We're going to end on YouTube now.
	I'll post all of Alex Jones' interview tomorrow.
	We're not going to Rumble to circumvent the rules, and we're posting this on YouTube tomorrow so the rest of the world, the unwoke, the unawakened, can know what the hell is going on.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Done.
	And now we're going to go end on Twitter as well.
	Ending now on Twitter.
	Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Good.
	Now I see a proper view count.
	Robert, I forget the segue.
	It was into...
	Oh, the Supreme Court, another NRA decision, 9-0.
	But they split it so some dishonest media types can say dissenting opinions or concurrent opinions so it doesn't look like it's 9-0.
	I'm not up to speed with it.
	I just know that it was 9-0 on an NRA issue.
	I suspect it's the attempt to bankrupt the NRA out of New York, but not quite certain.
	Please tell us what's going on.
	So this is a big, big case, not only because it happens to involve New York, but also because it previews what's going to happen on Missouri versus Biden, social media, and I believe it previews what might be coming down the pipeline on many of these Trump cases.
	So what the Supreme Court held is there's a decision that the Supreme Court really hadn't reinforced in a long time.
	And credit here to Bobby Kennedy and his group of lawyers.
	You're summoning the trolls, Robert.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Of which I'm part that have been arguing now for about a decade that the Bantam Books case prohibits the government from any coercive means of suppressing or punishing speech.
	And been trying to argue it primarily and principally in the social media context, but also any other context, that the weaponization of the government's power, whether it's civil prosecution, criminal prosecution, regulatory action, or any effort to intimidate those that are regulated or licensed or permitted, such as banks, such as insurance institutions, such as institutions that impact everyday economic life in America.
	That any effort to punish or silence speech must be considered a First Amendment violation.
	That's what Bantam Books held.
	But the courts had started to drift away from Bantam Books' principle.
	For those that don't remember, Bantam Books, a government agency, threatened publishers that they better stop publishing certain things or there would be consequences, even though no regulatory action was actually taken and the people who were suppressing speech were private publishers.
	The Supreme Court said that doesn't matter.
	The government cannot, by indirect means, do what the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.
	You cannot use your state power to silence speech, to punish speech, or any other constitutionally protected activity.
	Freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to petition the government for redress of grievance, long forgot by some, including Amy Coney Barrett, who forgot while she was going through a Senate confirmation, just a little point.
	The issue was the NRA, in the state of New York, they went after everybody connected to Second Amendment advocacy.
	And one way they did so is they went after insurance companies that were providing any kind of insurance policies for NRA members.
	And they said, you know what?
	Life would be a lot better for you if you weren't in business with the NRA.
	And so Lloyds of London and others, they got the message, and they stopped doing business with the NRA.
	NRA sued, saying, look, they're weaponizing governmental power to punish us for our speech.
	And they're just getting private actors to do it through the intimidation by regulation.
	Oh, intimidation through regulation.
	I think I'm going to remember that one.
	So they sued.
	The district court said, yeah, this kind of looks like First Amendment violations.
	Second Circuit said, no, no, no, no.
	This is advocacy.
	This is the government, just its own free speech.
	And they can make their own prosecutorial decisions.
	These are private actors doing things, not the government anyway.
	And so it's all fine.
	Supreme Court took it up.
	And they ruled this week 9-0.
	A decision written by Sotomayor.
	The two concurrences would go further.
	Particularly Gorsuch's concurrence would have gone further.
	Jackson just opined separately to talk about the difference between government and private action.
	It looks like Jackson's probably losing out on some of the issues versus Missouri versus Biden, where she wants to limit the scope of it because she loves pandemic policy.
	She's one of those judges.
	And so the court said, look, we reinforce Bantam Books.
	Bantam Books is the law of the land.
	And Bantam Books says you cannot use any coercive means whatsoever.
	If you are weaponizing the power of the state or threatening to weaponize the power of state.
	In any way that a reasonable person would conclude that their actions are now involuntary when they're punishing or suppressing or censoring somebody else's speech or any other First Amendment protected activity, whether it's religion, press, or petitioning the government or assembly, then that's a First Amendment violation.
	The other thing they did is a bunch of courts, because they're doing this, we'll discuss a little bit in the vaccine mandate context later.
	They're trying to splice people's complaints, and they're trying to take them out and no longer read them in context as a whole, and no longer read them with all reasonable inferences in favor of the complaint.
	The legal standard when you're dismissing at the pleading stage is you must first assume every fact alleged by the plaintiff is true.
	Second, you must assume every inference that could be reasoned from those facts.
	Is alleged and true.
	And third, you must infer any discoverable facts would be discovered, would be true, as well.
	Instead, what the appellate courts are doing and district courts are doing is splicing it apart and basically superimposing their own standard as to plausibility, a mistake of the Supreme Court 20 years ago, when what they meant by plausibility is not what the lower courts are doing.
	And superimposing their own moral judgment on these cases and dismissing.
	And they said, you can't do that.
	Quit doing that.
	So they clarified a critical pleading issue that has broad impact as well.
	But then last but not least, is they make clear look at the difference between speech, persuasion, and coercion.
	And the difference is simple.
	Does a person who's the recipient of that speech think that they are being coerced or not?
	Have any reason to believe they're being coerced or not?
	Do they think their action is completely voluntary in response to persuasion?
	Or has there been any allegation that the state has threatened or used any power of the state against that person?
	Because if there's any, you look at who the actor is, you look at what power they have, you look at if they laid out these standards of how you can identify coercion.
	But basically it's made clear, if the state talks about their power at all, Or there's an implicit threat.
	In other words, if it's the old mob visiting the business and saying, golly gee, it'd be terrible if anything happened to you here.
	But by the way, exactly what the Biden administration did in mass censorship campaigns in the Missouri versus Biden case, this is a big preview of what's coming down there.
	The Biden administration is going to get hammered.
	And all the decade-long work of Bobby Kennedy and crew has now finally reached the Supreme Court.
	Kennedy has filed like a half dozen suits himself fighting this issue in all these lower courts.
	They've now said, nope, you're right.
	Coercion is unconstitutional.
	Even the threat of coercion is unconstitutional.
	The person making that statement has to be making it in such a way that you can't even think of it as coercive.
	And if it's the mob coming to your door because of who their power is saying, golly gee, it'd be terrible if anything happened to this business.
	Theft is getting out of hand out here.
	Arson's becoming a big problem these days.
	Then, by golly, because of their power, you can presume that's coercion, not persuasion.
	If it's somebody that's doing, if it's the local mobster doing a big community speech in which he's decided to run for public office talking about how bad crime is, okay, that sounds like persuasion.
	But when they come and visit you personally, then that sounds like coercion.
	So they lay out these standards that now...
	Protect against First Amendment violations.
	This wide opens the door to prohibit the government from censoring and suppressing through private intermediary actors.
	This is a massive, massive win.
	And it signals they're not going to allow these governments to keep prosecuting and punishing people on First Amendment grounds.
	And the number one victim of that in New York hasn't been the National Rifleman Association.
	It's been President Donald John Trump.
	Robert, just a heads up.
	It says Alex is running a few minutes behind, but no worries.
	And he can stay for as long as we need.
	Or want.
	It'll be amazing.
	He's sleeping there at the moment.
	Oh, I see.
	We'll get him when they come.
	But Robert, what's the impact?
	When you describe that, I question what impact that's going to have in Missouri v.
	Biden.
	When you describe it, the FBI...
	They're going to affirm the decision.
	They may slightly...
	Cue the standards, but they're going to affirm Missouri versus Biden.
	That's what's coming.
	Okay, I'm just going to say, let me know when to bring you in.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	And Robert, if I may, before we even get with Alex Jones, because I've not neglected, but I've postponed replying to some of the...
	I don't want to share them.
	I'm just going to read them.
	Let me read some tips from our community because we've got a lot and we're not going to...
	We're going to get to them, but we'll do our best.
	Jarbear1212 says, shouldn't Trump get ahead of the Haley VP push by naming his VP now?
	Full disclosure, I put a bet on Vivek Ramaswamy on Predicted and J.D. Vance.
	So I got my interest in this.
	When are they going to announce the VP, Robert?
	At the convention?
	Yes, normally that's the pattern.
	And with Trump, my guess is he'll keep the drama going until then.
	Okay.
	Well, that's a damn shame for me, but it makes it exciting.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Let me get back to locals.
	Tony the Hat says, $9.
	Pineapple gin and dark Jamaican rum don't cut it anymore.
	I really hope the sanity returns to the U.S. regarding President Trump and Alex Jones, because if the U.S. falls, the world falls with it.
	I live in the U.K., and I am eating my liver at the moment.
	Love you guys.
	Okay.
	Eating your liver, not liver.
	I won't tell you what I'm drinking, because it could be water, but what I will tell you.
	You can get your Wanted for President merch.
	Hold on.
	Where is it, Robert?
	It is at vivafry.com, people.
	You can get the mug.
	You can get your...
	How do I back this up?
	You can get the mug shot.
	I was advertising the shirt on Tom Woods.
	The Wanted for President has become particularly apt.
	I was pointing out what really...
	If you want to troll the left...
	Just compare Trump to Martin Luther King, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams.
	They always start shaking and they start frothing at the mouth and start going crazy.
	Because they cannot historically contextualize it.
	Those were prejudice trials because it was based on race.
	Nelson Mandela.
	These are prejudice.
	The number of political prisoners and outlaws that are heroes are long.
	I mean, going back to Robin Hood.
	So, you know, what the system forgot is that people only have confidence in the outcomes the system produces if they have confidence in the process that it produced.
	When they don't have confidence in the process, then they rally in favor of the person wronged by the result and become skeptics of the system itself.
	And that's what they misunderstood and failed to appreciate.
	But yeah, the SCOTUS ruling is a big ruling.
	It also impacts the vaccine mandate case briefly in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Go for it.
	You don't have to give a dissertation.
	The lower court's doing the same thing the Supreme Court criticized the Second Circuit for.
	In the NRA case, said quit trying to piece through the lawsuit.
	Quit trying to impose your own judgment on the suit.
	Look at all facts comprehensively in favor of the complaint and all inferences and discoverable facts in favor of the complaint.
	Quit playing this game where you can use plausibility standards to deny people their right to pursue the case through discovery.
	And also said that, you know, you can just say my body is my temple and that's enough.
	The Eighth Circuit, by the way, also approved religious objections to vaccines and religious objections to testing, religious objections to masks in certain instances.
	So it was a big, broad ruling by a court, by the way, that historically has been anti-employment discrimination suits.
	So the fact that this court issued this broad of a ruling...
	It means it's going to be much more robust, the protections against religious discrimination in the vaccine mandate context across the country.
	So it's a massive win.
	It's against the Mayo Clinic, but it applies.
	I have a Tyson Foods case about to go before the same 8th Circuit on the exact same issues.
	So Tyson can just get ready to lose.
	Which they should be ready for by now.
	So big winning for religious rights, and it goes back to the same pleading standards the Supreme Court is talking about.
	And I was brought up, everybody knows I'm brought up Jewish, but my father was not a particularly religious man, but we were brought up to think that our bodies are our temples.
	He says, your body's your temple, and that's it, period.
	It'll be great when it's not a litmus test and or negated by the fact that the purported spiritual authorities of that religion condone it or approve it, and then somehow all of the followers of that religion are expected to now just bend over and take it.
	Not literally, but metaphorically, or roll up their sleeve and take it.
	Denise and two on the subject.
	It's not really on the subject.
	Sorry, I never had an employee yell at me for not wearing a mask, but had a few Karen customers do it, and I just smiled and kept on shopping.
	Glad where I live in Missouri never had a jab mandates.
	Elliot says, have you invited Tillman and Blackman for an interview?
	Their scholarship on office and officer was relevant in the Colorado disqualification case.
	It also bears the Smith's appointment.
	And they are amicky in Florida.
	Further, the Manhattan DA may have opened a can of worms with this backup argument, which Merchant did not reach, that even if Trump were correct in that NY17-152 can't reach election to federal office, New York still has jurisdiction because presidential electors hold NY public office.
	Robert, does that make sense to you?
	Yeah, the problem is the law about prohibiting someone from using unlawful means to influence an election.
	It has to constitutionally only apply to state officeholders, is the argument.
	And they're pretending that New York electors are state officeholders when they're not, that they're federal officeholders under the U.S. Constitution.
	And so that's a problem.
	It's one of the many problems of the indictment and the trial of President Trump.
	All right, we've got Mandelichi says, love, love, love that your locals is growing.
	Please never forget us little people here with you in the beginning.
	Nobody will ever forget you, Mandelichi.
	Success can't be spelled without you.
	Never.
	And don't worry about that.
	Red Sox fan 777.
	That's one up from 666.
	Barnes, I'm going through a divorce at the moment.
	What's the best place to go for a vacation after such an occasion once it's all over?
	Hawaii?
	Oh, no.
	Not get them to the Greek.
	Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
	What's the best place for a vacation, Robert?
	You know, it depends on what you like.
	Whether you like history, whether you like travel, whether you like the water, whether you like the mountains.
	The most beautiful place I've ever been to physically is New Zealand.
	Second, it would be Switzerland.
	The most culturally inclined places I've ever been is Italy, Florence, and Venice, especially.
	The most...
	Sort of relaxing vacation type, true old school vacation places I've been to is Bora Bora.
	You rent one of the bungalows over the water.
	And it's just like, that's where I got this engagement tattoo that, you know, post engagement, I just like, I kind of like it.
	And so they kept it.
	But Bora Bora is one of the most relaxing places on the planet.
	If I had one, I'd say the Grand Canyon.
	It's a cliche because you can exercise.
	You can sit there and do nothing.
	You can rent one of the luxury places right by the rim and see deer and caribou and whatever, and it's beautiful.
	You can see the stars.
	You can realize what we are.
	Robert, I want to bring this up because it's from Bill Brown, and it's worth bringing up.
	They get one day, they get a whole month, and that's Bill Brown, who's one of our board members, who's a United States Marine Corps.
	Sends me some funny memes every day.
	Okay, now hold on.
	Let me get back to this here.
	I'm going to get out and scroll.
	Five bucks from...
	I got to close one eye, and it's only because this eye is twitching underneath now.
	Z Kitzman says, move the RNC date to July 4th.
	That would be epic, but something tells me enough planning is in there that they can't do that.
	Local AN says, Robert, could you run through the appeals argument and how you would appeal this judgment?
	Okay, we did that.
	How you would stack up the argument is pretty much an ABC syllogism as you've done with your other...
	So I think we did that.
	We got E-TexSly.
	E-T-E-X Sly.
	Five bucks says, Good Logic has a 2017 article on his Locals page that reminds us that the House maintains its own hush money slush fund.
	Yeah, for sure.
	Thomas Massey mentioned that.
	And credit to Good Logic, he got the appellate division.
	Is allowing the unconstitutional gag order to stay in place against Trump?
	And to give you an idea of how absurdly unconstitutional that now is, it's still in place when there's no trial.
	That was the question.
	Well, it's still in place because he hasn't been...
	Because what?
	I mean, it shows the judge just says, please cover up the fact this was a show trial.
	Please prohibit the person who's the victim of the show trial from exposing the world that it's a show trial, even when there's no jury to be there.
	So it just shows what it's even now on less credible grounds.
	And GoodLogic has now they granted him the standing to challenge it, which was always the case, but took him a while to get there.
	So now in the substance of merit, he should have a chance with the New York Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States to establish important First Amendment protections.
	So credit to GoodLogic for continuing to pursue that.
	Credit to all the people who helped crowdfund, for the lawyer folks helping out with his case.
	Credit on both of those grounds.
	Now, I'll tell everybody, pay attention.
	This eye is twitching right there.
	And I got an ocular, no, an aura, a migraine aura again last week, which is really wild.
	Okay, hold on.
	Now I'm going into Barnes.
	We should get the RNC to move the...
	The conversation.
	I think it means the convention.
	Up a week before sentencing is just to mess with the morons.
	That would be hilarious.
	That's roosting.
	Bill Brown, five bucks, says, We have to realize the left hearts are literally scared for their lies.
	They know history and what always happens to the crooks like them.
	There is no line they won't cross.
	Tim Good.
	What's with Trump saying he is still under a gag order?
	We just got to that.
	He is.
	What's your opinion, Barnes?
	And it's the Democrat.
	I'm just reading the link.
	The Democrats, homelandhouse.gov.news.
	Ranking member Thompson introduces legislation to ensure no secret service protection That's old.
	That's the CARES Act.
	That's from Pam Walker.
	Let me just open it up.
	This is from April.
	Yeah, I talked about the Disgrace Act.
	It's an attempt.
	It's passive assassination.
	It's what they want.
	They're sick in the effing head.
	No question.
	Pam, thank you.
	Then we got Doug Leaf and Viva.
	A great shirt idea would be always bet on Barnes.
	Bada bing, bada boom, stolen.
	And I'm going to go down here.
	Five bucks from Ali Michael.
	Appreciation tip for another great show.
	Going down.
	John Allen.
	Good evening, gentlemen.
	If Trump successfully gets into office, is there anything that he can do to change, overhaul the justice system?
	Such as appoint a required bipartisan non-governmental committee that has power to review partisan judicial attacks on the same.
	Robert, what could Barnes practically do?
	Short of, you know...
	Stripping judicial immunity might not solve the problem.
	What could they do?
	A commission?
	Another war commission?
	I think there needs to be institutional reform.
	But it needs to be two levels.
	First is individual reform.
	Purge all these bad faith actors.
	But how do you do that?
	Cutting off funding or fire them?
	Both.
	Because in some cases you can fire, in some cases you can't.
	The ones you can't fire, you defund.
	That's why defunding is the most critical aspect.
	And here Rivek is putting forward a lot of...
	Positive policy proposals on how to defang the deep state by defunding the deep state.
	And hopefully Trump embraces some of those policies as well.
	But the other is institutional reform.
	Enforcing the venue and vicinity clauses.
	So January 6th cases never should have been in D.C. to begin with.
	Provide a real remedy.
	Get rid of the District of Columbia and the entire judicial system.
	When someone no longer resides in that jurisdiction, should they have a right to be able to transfer their case to a different place?
	Meaningfully enforce impartial juries by prohibiting anybody who has any evidence of bias from being part of the jury pool, period.
	Just strike it.
	It's supposed to be there constitutionally.
	Courts aren't enforcing it, so we need legislative reform to enforce it.
	The judicial immunity, gone.
	Prosecutorial immunity, gone.
	Take it away altogether, civil and criminal, when they violate federal civil rights laws.
	Arguably, that's what Congress intended in 1866 and 1871.
	The Supreme Court has acknowledged that as the criminal liability in the 1876 Civil Rights Act, but have refused to recognize it in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, when both used the exact same language.
	But obviously, we need to add on to that.
	Give more power to people wherever possible.
	Limit the scope of criminal authority.
	Give people the right.
	I mean, we tested it.
	1776lawcenter.com.
	Did a survey with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily.
	Talked about it on his show.
	What are the odds that I do with him?
	And we asked people, do you believe you should have a right to buy food directly from the farmer without any government permission?
	Without that farmer being a government permitted farmer?
	Overwhelmingly, yes.
	And intensely, yes.
	And a voting issue for a majority of the country.
	Same on drug companies.
	Should drug companies be held liable if their vaccines cause any injury, even if it concerns kids vaccines or emergency vaccines?
	Overwhelmingly, the answer is absolutely yes.
	They should not be above the law.
	These are some institutional reforms on areas of particular concern.
	But the Trump cases have exposed the flaws and the fractures in our criminal and civil justice system that show us the need to reinvigorate civil rights laws, remove immunity.
	Empower venue and vicinity grounds so that you get truly impartial juries and empower impartial juries by legislative means so that any juror who there's any evidence has any bias either on the subject matter or the individual defendant cannot sit on that jury trial.
	A peer, jury of your peers, means a jury in American law of impartial people that have no preconceptions or prejudices coming into the case.
	And this judge deliberately chose a prejudiced partisan jury, a lynching jury.
	Well, Robert, speaking of lynching juries, nothing can be more of a segue into the man that we're going to bring in right now, where they didn't even have a lynching jury for the trial on the merits.
	They had a lynching jury for the trial on the quantum.
	I'm going to bring them in.
	They're talking.
	There's Alex Jones and I'm going to mess up his name now.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to bring him in right now.
	Daria, if you're watching, everybody.
	Alex, I'm bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	So much smarter than I stopped making money a couple of years ago and had a hard time.
	This is going to waken up some amazing things in you, Alex.
	I think this is going to be a really good opportunity for us.
	We got Robert Barnes and Viva Frye here.
	This is the crossover the world did not know it needed, but it's going to get right now regardless.
	Look at this.
	Sorry, I went to you late.
	Everything got behind and late.
	Guys, everybody wants to know about what's happening here.
	You're both two great lawyers.
	Barnes, a current lawyer.
	You're, you know, don't want to talk about, but you're really smart, Viva.
	Like you said, you're not just a great talk show host.
	You are not obnoxious.
	You're the most intrepid.
	I love you.
	And you remind me like of a...
	Oh, stop it, Alex.
	You remind me of like a honey badger, you know, killing a goat or something.
	But the point, or killing a lion, the point is, this is the takedown happening.
	Barnes told me years ago, it's all right, they're going to do this, blah, blah, blah.
	And here we are.
	What do you think?
	Their insane attack on us, because you nailed it, Viva, signifies for what's coming in the future.
	Well, Alex, I'm going to stroke Robert's ego for a second, because for those who don't know, let me see.
	Hold on.
	Ah, whatever.
	We're going to live with double Viva.
	Apparently, whoever came down to shut down Infowars out in Texas, Robert was saying a while back, if you stay in Texas, even in Austin, you're not necessarily going to be safe from the lawfare.
	So who came, Alex, to put a padlock on the door?
	Was it the CRO?
	Was it someone from the court?
	Who was it specifically?
	No, it was the CRO.
	I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer like Barnes is, an IRS expert.
	But it's 100% clear cut that in an LLC like InfoWars, I am the sole member.
	I make the decision.
	So you can't shut this down or fire people without me.
	This guy behaved like that.
	So I learned because I saw weird behavior by the security guys.
	It's an outside company that I had for years.
	But now this guy's going around attacking me.
	They were looking at me, and I just picked up, something's going on.
	So I made some calls, and they're like, yeah, we just learned they're shutting it down at 9 p.m. tonight.
	So it was the CRO that was going to close us tonight.
	Even the judge didn't say, do it.
	There's a hearing in two weeks.
	He was going to continue us on.
	So some desperate message came in, and then the same CRO has literally, in my opinion, and it's...
	When I say opinion, that's a little proviso.
	Literally tried to set me up as Barnes warned me they'll try to put you in jail through this.
	They have the Justice Department involved at my depositions, all of it, which they never do.
	Like a one in a thousand show.
	But they couldn't find anything because I'm completely a straight, you know, Barnes.
	He didn't like client privilege being good enough, but Barnes has done lawyer advice for me.
	He looked at our books, had a big law firm do it, said, you overpaid taxes $7 million.
	You should put in a thing for that and get that back.
	It was true.
	The IRS audited us.
	They only gave us $4 million, but they said this is unprecedented.
	So I overpaid taxes.
	I never cheated on anything.
	I had outside accounting firms.
	And Barnes knows secretly, because I told him all the other stuff with the FBI and the Russian offer monies and the You know, all the rest of the stuff that went on, I went and told the FBI about it because they're the ones doing it to say you better stop.
	So it's on record.
	I'm a part of it.
	But this is all part of the same stuff we've seen with Trump.
	This is an epic, total assault, and it has totally exploded in their face right now.
	So you guys just talk about it.
	And I'm listening to you.
	I've got an earpiece, but I've been sitting here for two hours.
	I've got to take a piss.
	So I'm listening to, you know, Viva Frye, Robert Barnes.
	You take it away.
	Just make sure your mic is off before you go to the bathroom, Alex.
	Robert.
	I was on with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramoswani starts pissing.
	I could see it was him and he was sorry.
	And then they said, well, Vivek Ramoswani just dominated this whole discussion.
	Robert, can you explain?
	Some people were positing that the CRO was coming in on behalf of an unpaid creditor.
	And my understanding is, even if that's true, the unpaid creditor still needs to get court-appointed authorization or court authorization.
	Yeah, no, it's not even that.
	And I'm not a lawyer, but my lawyers are like, God, you know more than we do because I'm in it all the time.
	I've learned it.
	My dad's lawyers, because he has a debt owed to him because they haven't paid him for supplements, so that's in front of them.
	They were saying to them in the last three months, "Hey, you better keep it in federal court and not give it to Judge Guerra Gamble in Austin." So shut it down right away.
	I've talked to outside lawyers, the top people.
	I went and consulted.
	I've spent days, you know, in the last week, but even months.
	I mean, I've spent a lot of time.
	They're like, "Yeah, the defaults to do that." So the CRO won't do that.
	He says, "Everything's fine.
	We're going to just go to the hearing on the 14th when the judge said there's not a settlement.
	I'm going to shut it down." But I'll give it back to Alex Jones.
	So instead, he just keeps talking about everything's fine.
	We're fine.
	We're fine.
	And then they got panicked in the last few days and tried to padlock the company at 9 p.m.
	I just found out about it and shut it down.
	So I don't know all the moving parts.
	It's hard to figure out.
	But something happened after the Trump conviction.
	We're in full war, 150-something days from the election.
	And so I can't explain that.
	All I know is...
	I was in bankruptcy when Infowars was.
	That was two years ago.
	And then six months in, I declared bankruptcy.
	I'm out of money.
	And I had some sponsors that were paying me directly.
	Most of the sponsorship were there.
	So they killed the $12 million of sponsorship as soon as the CRO got in.
	And then they said, oh, you just keep that money.
	I went to my lawyers and I said, I'm not going to keep this money.
	Am I allowed to do that?
	They go, no, this is crazy.
	So they're in meetings and recording it.
	And they're like, no, you just keep that money.
	We can't keep the money.
	So that all goes through.
	And then he goes and follows the court that we were stealing money last year.
	And we're like, we already filed the court, you dumb bastard, that we have this money.
	We're trying to get you to take it.
	And we have these witnesses and my lawyers.
	We're in, like, I had three lawyers, which were plenty of witnesses, in the meeting.
	They go, don't meet with that guy.
	You're being set up, blah, blah, blah.
	We've never seen this before.
	But this is the standard deal.
	And then he, in a secret filing, does it in March.
	And I learn about it.
	And I call him.
	And he calls me back.
	And I recorded that.
	And he says, I didn't file that.
	It's fake.
	The next week, he testified in court that I was incompetent and should be fired.
	So, this guy thinks I'm like a moron that can't read court filings.
	He doesn't have counsel.
	So, this is...
	What was crazy is the ham-fistedness of it.
	So...
	And we have Harmon as a witness as well, where Harmon has been there 22 years.
	He's the sales manager.
	We're like, he's the sales manager.
	Bring him over.
	Either increase his salary or give him a percentage.
	That's how sales works.
	And they go, no, we're not going to pay ad agencies 10%, which is 30% for most people.
	I don't know how to really get them down.
	I'm kind of good at that.
	Like, no, we're not doing your deal.
	You get 10%.
	Standard's 30. This guy, you're incompetent.
	We don't pay them anything.
	And I'm like, okay, what do you know?
	You used to like put into bankruptcy Mexican food restaurants.
	And so I'm sitting there knowing I'm being set up.
	So I'm checking everything with lawyers.
	They go, let's go into the meeting.
	Let's get it on record.
	Boom.
	This guy's trying to set you up.
	So I go in, I'm sitting here and he's doing this.
	And then he goes back and files it again and says, I want to take over free speech systems.
	I want to fire Alex Jones.
	This is three months ago.
	Let me ask you, Alex, just this guy is whom...
	Not by name, but by function.
	His name is Pat McGill.
	Patrick McGill.
	So you only have a pool of bankruptcy accountants you can use.
	He's a CPA.
	And so no one would take the job and they go, oh, here's the guy.
	And I'm like, well, America's not that corrupt.
	This guy's not an operative.
	And then in my opinion, that's exactly what happened.
	So the point is, is my lawyers who are top shelf, but they know I'll say stuff.
	So they don't even tell me.
	They go, do not ever be in a room alone with him.
	Watch your ass.
	Watch your shit.
	This is like when he came on, they go, oh, my God.
	I said to my lawyers, we're not going to say anything.
	Just trust us.
	Do never be in a room alone with him.
	They were like fucking panicked.
	They're like, oh my god.
	I was like, what have I done?
	I put Darth Vader in, okay?
	And I'm like, I'm sorry.
	I didn't know.
	I was like, okay, just don't ever meet with him alone.
	And then he runs around trying to say that I'm stealing money.
	And he's so lazy.
	We filed in the court that, hey, because John Harmon's great.
	But the main sponsor is just coming with money.
	And then I do the work.
	I produce the ad.
	I actually do everything.
	I shoot the ad.
	But Harmon is there for anybody that has a talk show.
	I've never made it a secret.
	Maybe one out of 20 guests has a book.
	We're already going to do it.
	They go, "Hey, we love you.
	If you plug it next to you hard, we'll sign a contract, give you 5%.
	So Harmon's willing for like $5,000 or whatever the little book makes or whatever it is.
	He's been here 22 years.
	Board op, producer, phone screener.
	He's done it all.
	Great fucking amazing guy.
	I would give him the crumbs because he would do the work and give him like 5%.
	So he's been here decades doing this.
	So I'm like, hey, this guy's got 200 grand over here in the last couple of months, which sounds like a lot to fund this as nothing.
	The main sponsor was 12 million a year when he killed it all the year before he came in.
	He kills 12 million in advertising.
	It was actually more than that they were ready to do.
	20, 40 million.
	So he kills that and then says, but don't worry, I've killed all your major advertising that's direct paid into us by major companies.
	But...
	You and Harmon can just keep that money.
	And Harmon goes, hey, can I have my 5% now?
	And I go, no, John.
	My lawyers say we've got to go get a deal because we can't do that.
	It's in bankruptcy.
	We've got to give the money to free speech.
	Now, he should sign you on as a sales manager and pay your 5%.
	And so we're in meeting after meeting with my lawyers, and my lawyers go, something's not right.
	We're gonna follow the court.
	Two months, three months has gone on.
	He won't take the money.
	We think it's a setup.
	And then that's exactly what it was.
	And then he goes to the court and says, I caught him with money, even though I'm with three lawyers and a CPA with him, and he was too dumb to know we followed two months before he did it in the report.
	Then he does it again.
	In March, six months later, and tells the court, I got to fire Alex Jones to take over.
	He's incompetent.
	I call him stealing money.
	Alex, if I may ask you...
	So I'm going to stop.
	I got a piss I'm listening to.
	You want to ask a question?
	Go ahead.
	Well, the question is going to be when you come back, what was the rationale, the justification for killing the $12 million in advertising revenue?
	But before you go, go do your business.
	Barnes is going to chime in right now on...
	Yeah, I'm listening, by the way.
	I'm not ignoring.
	I'm listening.
	Don't worry, don't worry.
	Go for it, go for it.
	And I'll see which screen...
	We're commercial-free, so I gotta...
	Robert, Robert, rationalize, break down what Alex just said to the general public.
	Are we supposed to go to the hour's end?
	Cut the break.
	This is the problem in the risks of the bankruptcy process.
	Like, the bankruptcy under the U.S. Constitution, the power to regulate bankruptcy is given...
	to Congress to pass certain laws.
	Congress has passed those laws to provide for bankruptcy being an option to resolve when your debts exceed your income stream over a certain time frame, whether you're an individual or a business.
	And what's supposed to happen once Alex Jones and Infowars filed for bankruptcy protection, then the obligation of the bankruptcy court, the obligation in this case of the creditors, The obligation of the other officials associated or affiliated with the bankruptcy court or appointed by power of the bankruptcy court.
	All of those people have an ethical and professional and legal obligation, one could even argue constitutional obligation, because of the origins of bankruptcy laws, to maximize the value of the estate.
	And what, in the case of Alex Jones and Infowars, is maximizing the value of the state?
	It's improving and increasing the reach of Infowars.
	It's improving and increasing the reach of Alex Jones.
	And it is, in particular, protecting the biggest and best asset for either Alex Jones or Infowars, which is Alex Jones.
	Alex Jones is their asset.
	You know, separate assessments had been made in prior legal proceedings that showed the economic value of Infowars was entirely Alex Jones and that Alex Jones' value could be quite substantial.
	My name doesn't even come up.
	Yeah, yes, exactly.
	Could be quite substantial.
	And so that's what they're supposed to be doing.
	And now the problem is the principal unsecured creditors, the plaintiff's lawyers, have never, in my opinion, They cared about their own clients.
	But it's not your opinion.
	It's not your opinion.
	They said on the courthouse steps in Texas and Connecticut, we don't want money.
	We want to shut them down.
	Because the law says they've actually got to try to get money.
	They act like they do, but that's it.
	There's no settlement.
	That's their fiduciary obligation.
	That's their professional obligation to their client, is to maximize recovery for their client.
	But they've admitted in multiple public proceedings and public statements that that's not their goal.
	Their goal is to use these lawsuits.
	To shut down Alex Jones, to shut down Infowars, to shut down the most important dissident opinion on the right concerning issues of the war and the surveillance state and the deep state.
	That's always been their objective.
	And they just use the families as cover, as a fig leaf for that politically motivated objective.
	The bankruptcy laws expose that because we got to witness over the last two years, would they fight to maximize value, which meant...
	Maximize the value of Alex Jones.
	Maximize the value of Infowars.
	Or would they instead use the bankruptcy proceedings to try to do what they were always about, shutting down and silencing Alex Jones and Infowars?
	And because they couldn't find a crime, now they're just going to try to deep-six it, and they thought they'd sneak in and just shut it down Friday.
	Why would they do this now, Robert?
	They seem really panicked.
	The timing is quite obvious.
	For those that don't understand the protocol, what happens is you basically have someone who controls the money, controls the bank accounts, that is a hybrid.
	They're someone that may be recommended by the debtor, but they have to be approved of effectively by the bankruptcy court and to some degree by the creditors.
	And so you have somebody who controls the money.
	And if his goal was to maximize the monetary value of InfoWars and Alex Jones, he would have done things radically different over the last two years than what he's actually done.
	Oh, he cut everything off.
	I mean, we go on the road, we make tons of money.
	Everything was cut off.
	He just said, no, no to 12 million.
	Ad agencies are a fraud.
	And I said, ad agencies, these are accredited companies.
	These are billion dollars.
	No, we're not.
	It's all over.
	He just cut everything off.
	And he's using and weaponizing his access and control of the bank account to tell the security team whose funds he controls, whose paychecks he controls.
	You're going to lock up and padlock Infowars, and you're going to do it at my order because I control whether or not you get paid or not, even though there's no court order that justifies it, even though it's directly contrary.
	So I was right to say you better check with the court, and then they actually checked with lawyers and said no.
	What he's doing violates his ethical and professional and legal obligations.
	Fiduciary obligations to the creditors.
	He's going to shut down the moneymaker for them, admitting the whole thing.
	Did you say he's going to get rewarded on the backside, you presume?
	I mean, you find out, like, this is how corruption works in this system.
	That what happens is they don't get their money up front, they get their money on the backside.
	In bankruptcy, sadly, I've dealt with it in multiple contexts.
	You'll have a trustee.
	Or someone put into a fiduciary role like this individual who will then undermine the estate and then six months a year later is employed by certain creditors or connected parties who were enriched by that.
	Since that legal team is suing everybody and bringing them to bankruptcy, they could place him as a CRO.
	It could almost be like a little chain.
	Who knows?
	I mean, all I know is he's literally, I'm in meetings with my lawyers saying, we got this money, he won't take it, then turns around and says, I stole it.
	I mean, the laziness, though, because my lawyers read all the filings by everybody.
	He didn't even know we'd filed in court and told the court about this money.
	The judge flipped out on him at that point.
	Did they get away with it so routinely and regularly?
	That they don't think anyone will expose them, and then they think they'll get away with it even when they get exposed.
	But the timing is clearly connected.
	In part, it's connected to the upcoming dates that his ability to control things might be removed, that you may be restored.
	No, that's it.
	The judge said two weeks ago, I'm removing you and giving it back to Jones on the 14th, so then he just tries to shut it.
	Correct.
	Paid off by somebody you presume, is what I would presume.
	Well, it's very interesting because, Alex, did you not say that this guy's getting paid $50,000 a month?
	Or someone said it?
	Yeah, he's paid $50,000 a month.
	He's here like once a week, every two weeks.
	What did you say about every couple of weeks he's here?
	I mean, in my opinion.
	Well, beyond that, you don't take like major known sponsors that are like four sponsors, $12 million a year.
	It was like, because that's pure money.
	Because with the supplements, we only make like 30-40% because we discount it, and it's high quality.
	Water filters, we have such a good deal, we have like 35%.
	So 10% off, we're making like 25%.
	He literally, I'm like, why are you cutting off all our sponsors?
	He freaking went...
	But you should get into online gambling.
	Well, the other...
	No, he pinched me on online gambling.
	Yeah, well, it's probably pretty easy to launder money if you're operating gambling.
	I don't know what he was doing, but I said, I'm not pitching gambling.
	Here, hold on.
	I think I can add Chase by way of...
	No, that's the wrong way.
	That's my ugly face here.
	Viva, you've been trying to talk, and Barnes is knocking out of the park.
	I'm just telling you, we've been here.
	We've seen this.
	Barnes crawled through my books.
	All my lawyers that have been here, he represented me for years, have seen this, and they're so pissed that I'm a Boy Scout.
	Because, quite frankly, guys, I ain't sitting there watching my bank account.
	I got CPAs.
	I got companies that handle that.
	I think you might have answered my question, because I'm sitting here yesterday.
	I'm in Orlando with Barnes.
	I go to a pool with my kid, and I'm like, $50,000 a month, why would the guy try to torpedo his own, what is it called, his own golden goose?
	If it turns out that as of the 14th, he risks not getting his 50 Gs a month, if that's what I've understood, then it might explain why...
	He's prepared to torpedo this in the absence of a lawful order.
	Yeah, because he's about to lose control.
	No, the judge said two weeks ago, I'm giving the company back to Alex Jones.
	The creditors are not acting in good faith.
	He said this.
	It was a huge announcement.
	The creditors are not acting in good faith.
	Yeah, they don't want money.
	And so then they flip out and say, shut the son of a bitch down.
	Well, that's always been their goal.
	I mean, the fact that they've, in my view, the...
	Plaintiff's lawyers have violated their fiduciary obligations and committed legal malpractice towards their clients.
	By the way, you saying this a year ago caused a whole firestorm I wanted to learn within them.
	Robert has said this at least over a year and a half ago because I remember the day he said it.
	They tried to weaponize the bankruptcy process to come after me.
	So that's how nuts these people are.
	Because their goal is political.
	Their goal is to use their clients for the...
	By the way, that's off record.
	So if you want me to say it, I'll say it, Barnes.
	Part of their settlement was me, was to let them sue you for malpractice.
	And of course, I said, fuck you.
	I mean...
	Yeah.
	Well, and they've been obsessed.
	The goal has been to weaponize this process, to go after the people they consider political adversaries and effective political adversaries.
	And they think I'm like them.
	Like, I've been friends with you for...
	Six years.
	I think you're a great guy.
	I don't throw my friends away.
	They're like, hey, we'll settle if you just throw.
	They really don't.
	They want Barnes.
	Yeah, they got to get into a little bit of a long line for that.
	There's a lot of some other people that are in the front.
	But that's the nature of what's taking place here.
	And I think the timing, the second aspect of the timing is not coincidental.
	I mean, I think he's been escalating this plan, this accelerating this plan for the purpose of taking off info was right on the eve of the election.
	I mean, it's right after Trump gets bogus indicted and bogus convicted.
	And by the way, the whole public gets that.
	And I think the earlier guest said that, Steve, both Jack Posobiec and Steve Quayle, I don't think they tried to use the cover of Trump indictment to do this.
	I think it's desperation.
	And so they're just like, they've been given fools.
	They need people to believe the fake news that that verdict is an honest verdict of an honest jury of an honest trial.
	Because their whole goal has been to use that case to destroy him in the court.
	I just can't believe I discovered it.
	And literally thought, why is the security guy acting creepy?
	I've known for a year and like looking conflicted.
	And it just came to me.
	They're shutting it down tonight.
	And then I bluff him and say, so they're shutting it down.
	He goes, yeah, they're bringing in more people.
	I don't know.
	What do you know?
	I've only been told, yeah, we may change the locks tonight.
	And then I made calls and found out.
	And they were like, how do you know this?
	They think I'm the CIA.
	No, man.
	I've got the Holy Spirit.
	But this literally happened Friday night.
	I slept here.
	I slept here last night.
	Yeah.
	And it's the nature of what, I mean, the system keeps escalating.
	And the question is where they go next if this doesn't work.
	Well, I'm scared to ask you.
	What are they going to do next?
	I mean, we obviously have to pay attention to their efforts to escalate global conflict in terms of trying to provoke Russia into attacking Europe so they can create World War III.
	We have to worry about this bird flu nonsense that they're trying to use to not only retake over our last aspects of organic original food supply.
	I mean, how is it that the bird flu suddenly shows up and supposedly only travels through raw milk?
	I mean, that's just...
	I want to speak to that, but everybody wants to know what's happening to us, and I'm a little selfish here, and I really respect you and Viva.
	So Viva has a talk to you, but Barnes and then Viva.
	What is your advice to me?
	Because I only have people on that are right.
	So I have a lot of guests on a few times, and if they're right 80% of the time, they're on like once a year.
	If they're right 100% of the time, they're on every day.
	And I've been begging you to come on.
	So you've been right about 100% of the time.
	So please tell me what's going to happen next, Barnes.
	I mean, hopefully it doesn't...
	I mean, what's going to happen next in part?
	No, give me the bad news.
	I can take it.
	Well, I think they always misread you, and so all efforts to shut you down are not going to work.
	So even if they physically lock certain doors of certain buildings, it's not going to lock up your voice.
	And you were never driven by money.
	You were never driven by...
	Favorable impressions of somebody.
	Never driven by power.
	They never understood that.
	That homeland caricature proved they didn't understand that.
	Which they admitted.
	The CIA was so upset to destroy the populist archetype, they admittedly produced all these shows and movies about me to hurt me as if they got me, they got everybody.
	It's ridiculous.
	Well, it was like the show trials.
	They really thought the show trials...
	That they tested out.
	The ones that just got used against Trump were tested out against you.
	And they thought it would work against you in the court of public opinion and it backfired against them like it's going to backfire against them.
	By the way, all choreographed by HBO with the same scripts, powder puffs.
	It was a movie set.
	Yeah.
	I tell you what, the one good thing about that documentary that wasn't made by the same guy who made the anti-Michael Jackson.
	I haven't watched it.
	I can't handle it.
	Well, it makes me think Michael Jackson's probably innocent because the one about you was definitely off the mark.
	Alex?
	Well, they did stuff like deposed my dad eight times.
	My dad has nothing to do with this company.
	He used to do FDA stuff.
	He's a doctor.
	I had him make sure all we had the approvals and the supplements were highest quality.
	My dad has nothing to do with this.
	And they literally have my dad in HBO.
	I haven't seen it, but I've seen a short club.
	My mother is upset about it.
	He knows what's going on.
	It's just pure horseshit.
	Sorry, go ahead, guys.
	Well, in fact, that's the reason why they had to rig your trial.
	I mean, it was literally a show trial.
	They got upset that I talked about it at the time on Infowars, which was that, in other words, in order for them to get away with libel, they need to make sure that you couldn't present a defense in the courtroom because then they could say, oh, we're just broadcasting what happened in the courtroom.
	And for those that don't know, there are literally HBO movie cameras all around the courtroom.
	I mean, some staring at us.
	No, no, I was there by both judges, and I looked, and I was like, I didn't know until Connecticut.
	There was a second trial.
	I went, wait a minute, I've seen that exact font, that exact...
	Holy shit, there's a script on her desk.
	And that's the nature of it.
	But in order for that to work, they can excuse not covering your side of the equation if your side is not allowed to be- Well, people ask why I got so freaked out at one point and had this really crazy look.
	I have a good memory.
	It used to be photographic.
	It's not now, but it's still really good.
	And I'm looking over at Barbara Bellis.
	And you got Judge Guerra Gamble in Texas, but I'd seen it like a month before.
	And I'm looking while she's babbling for like talking to lawyers.
	She's right here and I'm going, wait a minute.
	Those talking points, that's the exact list.
	I was like, oh my God.
	I was like, wow.
	Barbara Bellis, for those who don't know, is the Connecticut judge.
	But Alex, what are they going to do next?
	So the one level or the 2D level chess is they're going to use your case as an excuse to go after.
	Rumble and other platforms.
	You issued the false flag warning a little while ago.
	And I said, okay, they might try to go after Trump because what's the next Rubicon after everything they've done?
	I think the flip side is if they do something bad or violent to Trump, it will garner public support, sympathy, and outrage.
	And so, Alex, you said it.
	I'm listening to your book, The Great Awakening, while I'm jogging.
	They're going to try to weaponize that, but not in a way that profits their adversaries.
	How do you get rage, sympathy, and how do you get that for your own candidate?
	My fear is that they'll use all of this as a pretext.
	We went after Alex Jones.
	We went after Trump.
	And now something bad happened to Biden.
	And in so doing, they get to eliminate a number of issues.
	Well, that's what Biden said.
	He said Trump questioning his conviction is terrorism, and Google is censoring all Trump donation pages.
	That's pure election meddling.
	Well, no, but not just that, but everybody knows that Biden is a liability, not an asset for the Democrats and for the next election.
	But you can't just ask him to leave.
	You can't just remove him without political blowback.
	If you were to remove or eliminate Trump...
	There would be political blowback, and you'd also have a viable candidate in his son, Don Jr., and not to pick one over the other, but you'd have a viable replacement, outrage, sympathy, and political madness.
	What they're going to try to do is not stage an act of violence.
	I think they're genuinely going to try to eliminate Biden and then frame it as a response to the Trump verdict and this attack on you.
	And they'll say, I think it'll be...
	Deep state-ish.
	And they'll say, look what happened.
	We enact justice on Trump.
	We enact justice on Jones.
	And then these animals come after Biden.
	And then whoever replaces Biden gets the sympathy vote, gets the outrage vote, and they eliminate the liability, put in someone who would otherwise be unelectable due to unpopularity, and say, this is what we have to do now because they are such rabid animals.
	The bottom line, though, Alex, is don't do anything stupid, but...
	Take it to court and see what happens.
	I don't know what's going to happen on June 14th.
	What's the hearing that's scheduled for the 14th intended to resolve?
	The judge said that they're not settling and he's excoriated them.
	And he said, this guy has never made this much money or asking for it.
	You guys need to go to mediation.
	He ordered it.
	And he's been a fair judge.
	And so he's going to either kick it back.
	He said, I will dismiss it and give it to Jones on the 14th.
	And then the state courts flood into attack us.
	But for a while, I'll be back in charge.
	And we can fight that for a while.
	And so because that happened, then the next move was, okay, just use the CRO, shut it down.
	Okay, but so give it back to Jones on the 14th means no longer trustee tutorship or curatorship, whatever.
	No, Alex Jones is the sole member of the LLC, Free Speech Systems, is in charge.
	And so I'm not a lawyer, but I told my crew, I told my lawyers, I said, they want to shut this down.
	I think this guy's an operative.
	And I say that, you know.
	I believe it's my opinion.
	Colloquially.
	And they're like, yeah, you're right.
	They're all blown away.
	I keep predicting it all.
	It's an obvious move.
	The judge says, I'm not destroying him for worse.
	You do it in the state courts.
	He kind of passes the ball.
	Hands it back to us and then now they just go we'll just close the doors.
	That's what happened.
	So I need to be better because I get into all the little factoids and I'm obnoxious about it because that's how my brain works.
	My brain's thinking about it so I just say what I'm thinking and I'm not totally sure but it's very simple.
	The Judge Lopez, who's known as a very fair scholarly judge, said, I'm not shutting it down.
	You don't have a real plan to McGill.
	You're not going to continue on.
	I'm giving it back to Alex Jones on the 14th.
	And then a week later, week and a half later, he says, I'm shutting the doors.
	It's very obvious that.
	Yeah, well, as in shutting, I'm not shutting it down.
	We're going to give the company operation back to Alex Jones because he is the company behind it.
	They'll make the money and you'll exact your $1.5 billion judgment.
	If and when, whatever happens on appeal.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The judge said, hey, I'm done.
	You're not in good faith.
	Jones gets it back.
	You deal with him.
	And then this happens.
	Barnes, that's wild.
	I mean, now I'm understanding it.
	It's even more wild than I thought it was.
	Yeah, well, sadly, what Alex and I discussed all the way back to the beginning of this.
	Yeah, five years ago, he said, you can fight this.
	You can do whatever you want.
	It's attorney-client privilege.
	Can I say what you told me about?
	Oh, yeah, go ahead.
	Barnes said, best move is you just leave the country now.
	It's all rigged.
	Nothing you do is going to stop anything.
	All you can hope is the Supreme Court and just be straight on the merits.
	You got a 10% chance they're going to take it on that.
	And this is a deep state operation.
	You should just leave.
	May I interject?
	And then they said to you, Alex, and we'll let you off more softly if you allow us to go prosecute your attorney for malpractice.
	I never knew that.
	And when I said, holy fuck, over on Rumble, it's because I never knew that.
	That's what happened?
	I was following you, but I missed the point.
	Go ahead.
	They said at some point it will be easier on you if you throw your attorney Barnes under the bus for malpractice and you said, go fuck yourselves.
	And I never knew any of this.
	Yeah, no, the plaintiffs repeatedly were like, we want Barnes.
	He did all this.
	He's the reason you're in trouble.
	And I'm like, no, you did this.
	It was all rigged.
	And then it was repeatedly brought up in the negotiations that The first thing was, well, the first thing was come out against the Second Amendment, and I said to my lawyer, this is a list of stuff they want me to be under control.
	I said, go ahead and ask.
	And it was like, well, we want to meet with you then.
	And I was like, no, doing none of it.
	And the next thing was, we want you to say, Robert Barnes, we want to sue Robert Barnes.
	We want you to give us the contract on him and say that you agree for us in your stead to sue Robert Barnes.
	And the whole nature has been to first silence Alex Jones at Infowars.
	And then scare any lawyer that represents somebody properly.
	Exactly.
	Just like the jailing of Trump lawyers.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We kept saying at the time, everything vis-a-vis big tech censorship, everything vis-a-vis lawfare was going to be tested out on Alex Jones first.
	And if they got away with it with you, they were then going to use it on Trump.
	Like they've used it on Trump throughout the civil and criminal cases.
	Like they've used it on Trump's lawyers.
	I mean, we have a professor, one of the most well-regarded, well-respected constitutional law professors in America, like Eastman, who they are trying to disbar and trying to imprison.
	Literally imprison.
	With bogus cases in Georgia and Arizona.
	Or look at Dershowitz.
	Dershowitz said he's become persona non grata.
	There's people that quit talking to his wife, quit talking to his kid.
	They've been lifelong friends and family.
	They use social shaming and censorship and bogus cases to go after him.
	And he's one of the most...
	Listen, I was out in the hallway in the Texas case, and I'm walking in with the security guys, and the other lawyers start laughing, and they're like, you and Barnes.
	We're going to get that Barnes.
	They really don't like you.
	Why is that, Robert?
	Yeah, well, that's why I got the Bobby nickname.
	Well, they don't want any effective advocates, period.
	Yeah, they go, we're going to get Bobby B. I told you.
	They go, you and your little buddy, we're going to get Bobby B. Tell Bobby B we said hi.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And I was like, holy shit.
	Robert, am I in trouble?
	Because I just want to avoid some trouble, people.
	I'm just going to go back out into the corner.
	Yeah, yeah.
	There was a lot of confession through projection.
	What was fascinating is what Alex and I talked about in the very beginning, that they had this caricature of him.
	That they didn't understand.
	Just like with Trump.
	They had this caricature of Trump that most people would fold and capitulate in Alex's position under the pressure he's been under.
	Most people in politics would fold and capitulate under the pressure.
	They're trying to imprison Trump.
	Well, to be clear, I don't know how to fold.
	It's like, it's not that I don't fold.
	I don't know how.
	It's because they don't understand.
	They don't understand you.
	They don't understand Alex Jones.
	They don't understand Donald Trump.
	And they don't understand the American people.
	They don't understand the backbone of the American people, the common sense of the American people.
	They thought if they went after all this lawfare that Alex Jones and InfoWars shut down on its own accord.
	I mean, what they called for at the end of the Connecticut verdict was, hey, InfoWars audience, quit supporting Alex Jones, quit supporting InfoWars, abandon him, and then everything might be okay.
	And it didn't happen.
	And the same with Trump.
	They keep expecting, hey, we'll do this lawfare and that lawfare and this other lawfare.
	We'll try to bankrupt them.
	We'll falsely accuse them of sexual assault.
	Well, here's the thing about a fight.
	When you're just sitting there for no reason and somebody comes and punches you in the head, at least if you're me or people I've been around, like, you're not dealing with any thought now.
	You're in a war.
	And they don't get, like, the more they punch me, the meaner I get.
	It's like, you know.
	Well, I think somebody compared it to your situation and Trump's situation to the old Godzilla.
	The more you nuke them, the stronger they get.
	And that's going to continue to be the case.
	And that's what they don't understand.
	The great saving grace of the American people and the American Constitutional Republic is the American people.
	Is that they are seeing through this lawfare against Alex Jones and Infowars, seeing through this lawfare against President Trump, seeing through this lawfare against Julian Assange and Ed Snowden and the January 6th defendants.
	And it's the legal system that must come.
	And that's what scares me, because lawyers are good when you need them, and there's some great lawyers, but 90% of us are either dumb or evil.
	And it's just, you know, it's like this infestation.
	You've got to have one to counter it, so it's this paradox.
	All the mainline military analysts at the Pentagon, even though a bunch of leaders are bad, they're like, you got to stop, it's nuclear war.
	But it's now a bunch of weird lawyers like Obama and inbred Rothschilds are like, no, a nuclear war, let's have one.
	Like, that is crazy that lawyers now think they know about nuclear war.
	Well, in fairness, an article in the Huffington Post said a small nuclear war could be good for the environment.
	Sean Penn said that.
	Well, we've talked about this.
	It's very much pre-World War I. So, I mean, that's probably the script to pay attention to.
	You know, the banking elites were making horrific decisions.
	The political elites were making horrific decisions.
	And World War I birthed the Great Depression and brought fascism, communism, and then World War II.
	But we have people that have the moral broken compass of Kissinger with the IQ.
	With the competence and capability of some of the worst leaders.
	Exactly.
	He had probably 170 IQ and was a sociopath.
	They have a 90 IQ and are a sociopath in control of nuclear weapons.
	They're the biggest danger to themselves.
	That's what I described.
	I mean, Joe Biden, he's LBJ, but retarded.
	And if you combine those two, you really get a predictable.
	So you have these ethically compromised.
	And by the way, people project all this power on the government.
	It's not come out.
	They had 60-minute shows about it.
	They were so mad.
	I was sending memos to Trump saying, hey, Fiona Hill and this guy and this guy are all Soros on the board.
	And he'd fire them.
	And they'd flip out into 60 minutes about, I don't know George Soros.
	I love everybody.
	I'm a right-winger.
	You know, it was like, I realized the political class is so dumb.
	Like, none of the Trump people were, like, Googling who was in the White House.
	So we want to say Trump's that strong.
	He's got an impetus to rebuild and turn on energy and bring jobs back and make better deals.
	So I want to say Trump's dumb.
	He's very smart in ways, but he's very blind because all he's been doing for 78 years is business, and he didn't even know how to go look at who was in there.
	But Flynn knew, so they got rid of him because he did know.
	Well, and they waited, actually, for Flynn to list all the white hats before they got rid of them.
	I know because I represented some of those white hats.
	And Mueller went after every single one.
	Mueller used the guys.
	That's right.
	So Flynn creates a list of who's good and who's bad, and then the enemy uses it as a targeting list.
	That's exactly right.
	And that's what they did.
	And we're going to continue to see escalation between now and Election Day, because this is probably one of the most consequential elections in American history.
	Does lawfare get rewarded?
	Does the deep state get protected?
	Or do we finally, you know, restore the American Constitutional Republic by electing people who can make a meaningful institutional change?
	No, I totally agree.
	So let me shift to Viva and you and Chase Sheppan at any time.
	Let's talk about the conviction.
	Obviously, the poll numbers show what we predicted.
	It ain't hard.
	I don't need a computer to tell me.
	Trump's gone up even again.
	Panic is setting in.
	Disagree if you do, but I don't think you're going to disagree with that.
	We're watching the same sunrise right here.
	What's going to happen now?
	Because they are in full shit britches mode right now.
	Robert, you want to do it first?
	Well, I mean, I think the risk, we're going to continue to see escalation, and the question is where we see that escalation.
	I think what you put out earlier today is important, reminding people don't take the bait.
	On any J6-type action or the action that they could call a J6-type action.
	You know, don't raid any place.
	Yeah, false flag's their only hope.
	Violence is their only hope.
	And I keep getting these messages, Viva, you're not going to vote your way out of tyranny.
	You're not going to mock your way out of this.
	And I was like, well, I won't call them feds because I don't want to call them feds, but I get the sneaking suspicion.
	They're not even feds.
	They get, you'll give me $1,000 for every post to say Alex Jones isn't being shut down and people are pussies for nonviolence.
	No, I don't need, I have the human AI guy gave me.
	When I see X flooded with Alex Jones isn't being shut down and we should kill all the feds and it's time for war and everybody, they're being told to do it.
	So mark those accounts, folks.
	They're getting money to do it.
	Go ahead, Viva.
	Sorry.
	My only, it's not a fear hiding a wish, it's a fear hiding a nightmare, is that the easiest thing for them to do is to stage something of a false flag against Biden and say these extreme MAGA Republicans can't be trusted.
	Look what they've done.
	Biden can't run anymore.
	I think they may assassinate him and blame Trump.
	I think that's the move.
	And then replace him with...
	Kamala or Gavin and say, though detestable, this is your moral vote against extreme mega republicanism.
	That's my biggest concern.
	And you resolve a number of issues at the same time.
	One, Biden is corrupt and unelectable.
	Two, Kamala and Gavin are unelectable, except if you have the sympathy vote and the protest vote, which is what happens if you actually...
	My mother is super smart.
	She never tells me what's going on.
	She never gives me her opinion, but she's smart.
	She told me for two years, they're going to kill Biden, blame Trump.
	That's going to be their secret in 2024.
	And that would be, if I was them, and I'm not evil, but they would kill Biden, blame a Trump supporter, make him a victim, and then bring in a sympathy vote, Big Mike.
	Exactly.
	And the third prong of that?
	Restrict voting access.
	It's too dangerous to do it in person right now.
	We need to do it by mail-in.
	And then restrict this video that's going to have 5 million views that'll get 100 million when they kill him.
	Look, I felt dirty for having the thought, but Alex, I'm listening to the Great Awakening.
	I'm like, think like the most evil person you could.
	What would you do?
	That's how I write the Jean Le Carré book.
	Robert, what do you say?
	No, that's how we beat them.
	Because as good people, we're like, I'm going to go home and have dinner with my wife and kids.
	I'm going to get in the pool.
	I'm going to go see my neighbors.
	I'm going to go to church.
	Go fishing.
	If you're an evil person, it's all scheming constantly.
	How do I fuck this person?
	How do I get more power?
	You've got to get in their minds.
	And once you do it, we're smarter than them so that we're better than them once we start thinking evil.
	We don't implement the evil, but we think evil.
	Does that make sense?
	Any top general will tell you, getting in the mind of the enemy is paramount.
	Yes.
	Well, and I think, I hope Trump, I think Trump can provide some insurance for himself with his VP choice.
	That he needs to pick someone who's life insurance, not risk.
	Oh yeah, what do you think of Rubio or, I mean, who do you think we should get his VP?
	Well, I mean, definitely not Tim Scott, definitely not Marco Rubio, definitely not anybody, not Nikki Haley.
	Not anybody who the deep state would feel very comfortable with.
	Who's the best?
	Would you go with Devin Nunes?
	Would you go with Rand Paul?
	I think either one of those is good.
	I think J.D. Vance is good.
	I think Ben Carson is good.
	I think Tulsi Gabbard.
	All those people are life insurance that the deep state would not trust to run the show outside of Trump.
	And that should be his number one...
	Yeah, Trump needs a legate that he can trust that will implement his plan.
	Exactly.
	And someone the deep state is more scared of than him.
	Or as scared of as they are with him.
	Because otherwise, the moment Nixon let Agnew be taken out and decided between Rockefeller and Ford, either one, that was the day he was DOA.
	People forget Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commission.
	I mean, this guy was back aligned with the deep state from day one.
	And so it's important that he take the tactically savvy decision.
	Continue to expose these bogus criminal trials for what they are.
	Continue to push a populist reformist agenda.
	No, I agree.
	So let me ask Viva this question, too.
	But you finish up, Barnes.
	How panicked is the deep state?
	Because we see New York Post articles, and then the White House Press Secretary will respond.
	No, they are in full chicken-with-the-head cutoff moment.
	And I don't take that as like, oh, yeah, we're winning.
	That makes them even more dangerous.
	I'll start half of this answer.
	Yeah, there's nothing they wouldn't...
	In my view, there's nothing they wouldn't do given what they've already done.
	And we're talking about assassinating JFK, assassinating Bobby Kennedy.
	And that's what they did 50 years ago.
	And maybe they decide now it's not as easy to do that given internet, phones, everything, aggregate knowledge of the internet, 4chan, and you can't get away with it.
	But they'll do...
	They've done everything.
	I mean, they've done everything from 2020, which was, I believe, whether or not COVID was real, I believe it was quasi-real, lie about death, lie about tragedy, exaggerate it, brainwash a population into voting by mail-in, change the rules.
	They're going to just find another way to do this because this is what they did in 2020 and what they did in 2016, but they failed at it in 2016.
	Interference, censorship, change the rules.
	How are they going to do it this time around?
	They might try a disease X, but that's too cliched.
	It might have to be more cataclysmic.
	A World War III with a nuclear weapon going off in Europe, which some people are positing, false flagging, whatever, that might be a little too much.
	Biden is 81. He's unelectable.
	He's an easy lamb to sacrifice.
	And I have my sinister cryptic thoughts, which I will not allow to absorb me, but that's where I went.
	Yeah, I know.
	If we're them, they kill Biden and blame Trump supporters.
	So that's the next move.
	Obviously...
	Us exposing it may stop it.
	Literally, that's why they hate the show.
	Barnes, if I was the establishment, I would back off and think, I'll win in 20 years, I'll go away.
	But they're not doing it because they're so threatened by China, who's also corrupt and evil, and other groups.
	They want total control.
	But this is really a big moment here right now.
	They're watching as they attack Trump and everything backfires.
	You're really good at wargaming.
	If you're in the councils of government, which you've been with Trump, what do you think the bad guys are thinking right now?
	Because we need to get next year's news, next month's news today.
	Really, put on the thinking cap.
	Tell us what you think.
	And Viva Frye and also, these guys are smart.
	What's the enemy going to do?
	If you're the enemy, what do they do?
	Well, a smart, sophisticated, Kissinger-esque deep state approach would be to try to cut a deal with Trump.
	Well, it would be to say, look, we'll make sure you never serve any time in jail.
	We'll make sure you're not actually bankrupted.
	We'll make sure that these cases get overturned.
	We'll make sure that nothing bad happens to you personally or your family.
	And you agree to moderate your deep state opposition policies.
	Don't defund us.
	Don't purge the personnel.
	And let me just say, this is a genius answer.
	I think he did that six years ago or seven years ago.
	I think he now knows they betrayed him.
	And so now Trump knows they're not honest dealers.
	Correct.
	And I think we'll know whether or not he's even...
	We're contemplating that by his VP choice.
	Like if a smart deep state would say, we want insurance, that you're going to abide by our principles in exchange for what we're going to provide.
	We want Tim Scott or Marco Rubio or Nikki Haley, someone like that as VP.
	If he doesn't choose any of those people, then that means no deal has been cut and he's not even contemplating it.
	So then the next step is what they would do.
	Still a smart, sophisticated deep state would be to try to plant people around him.
	People like, you know, there's certain campaign people that are already infiltrated his camp that have that background.
	And to try to moderate, well, make sure his personnel choices are more our choices than his people.
	Make sure some of his policies and information that he's given about, I mean, this is while he's president.
	So a rerun of last time.
	Exactly.
	That would be a sophisticated attempt.
	The great risk we have is we have a lot of unsophisticated people involved.
	What happens when you have LBJ but retarded in the White House is you have World War III.
	And they go on MSNBC with 100,000 viewers, and they think that's the whole world.
	They think they're winning.
	They're not.
	Exactly.
	I mean, they're very much in bubbled universe.
	You can see that in live time in social media.
	They really thought this verdict would totally change the election outcome and trajectory.
	And instead, Trump's going up.
	But it does seem it's dawning on them.
	So what are they going to do now?
	Yeah, that's the question.
	What happens when they fully realize that this strategy doesn't work?
	It'll probably take them a couple of months for them to really realize that.
	That's when the fall gets really scary.
	We might have one of the worst October surprises ever.
	May I, Robert, the fall was almost a pun.
	The fall.
	I mean, I remember hearing it, and I remember what I thought.
	And, Robert, you said it, and as I pulled it up, Ivana Trump, ex-wife, former President Trump, died from fall.
	Is there anybody who plausibly or has reasonable cause to suggest think that that's...
	An indication?
	A sign?
	Or do we just...
	No, she's been a big defender of Trump and she gets thrown down the stairs.
	I don't know what your angle is, but I want to hear it.
	My only query at the time is whether or not...
	I'm thinking cynically and almost conspiratorially, Alex, but I know that that's turned out to be more accurate over time than not.
	And no matter how cynically you get, it's hard to keep up.
	Lily Tomlin...
	His ex-wife dies by falling down the stairs.
	I've never known anybody in my entire life that has died by falling down the stairs.
	I know a guy died falling down the stairs.
	Was he drunk?
	It's rare, but it happens.
	He was drunk.
	I should say that.
	Let me qualify that.
	Not being drunk and not having an underlying issue.
	I always think maybe they had a stroke from the jab or drunk or on drugs.
	That's fine.
	That happens, and people seem to have forgotten about his ex-wife dying by falling down the stairs.
	I don't know what threats could have, would have, or were issued against the family members.
	I retrospectively reassessed that piece of information.
	Well, I mean, what they've done in some other places is literally try to lock people up, like in Pakistan.
	The assassinate people, like we've seen attempted assassinations of MBS in Saudi Arabia, attempted assassination of the president of Slovakia, attempted assassinations elsewhere.
	They're attempting both coups and assassinations of Putin repeatedly over the last several years.
	So you could see that script being unmasked.
	But the other one is get us into something that...
	It takes everybody off the front page.
	By the way, I think they killed the Iranian president because he made a backroom deal with Israel and Biden for the money and was part of a larger plan, and Iran realized it was a setup.
	That's just my quick gestalt analysis.
	Clearly, the Slovakian prime minister they tried to kill, that was a NATO operation.
	Yeah, we're in the season of false flags and assassinations.
	I just saw this in the chat in Rumble, Robert, and Alex.
	His sister died, Marianne, Trump, Barry.
	Retired judge and Donald Trump's sister dies.
	The thing is, at a given age, people die.
	I can appreciate that.
	I just say, if you're going to try to coerce some sort of compliance out of somebody, it's going to be threats on the younger family, their children, and grandchildren, depending on the circumstances.
	That's where I would go.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Now I'm putting two and two together, and I might be getting six, but it doesn't mean there's not a two that I'm missing in there.
	Robert, what were you saying a moment ago?
	Well, I just think we have to be on alert and to be self-conscious and to continue to fight the good cause.
	That was my next question, though.
	I go back to the question you didn't answer as we interrupted you five times.
	What do you think the deep state's thinking right now, that everything they do turns to shit?
	I'm very curious about that.
	We both study a lot of history, Alex, so my biggest concern is that it looks a lot like the build-up to World War I. That you have the same kind of incompetent, almost colonialist mindset of a lot of these elites that live in a very sort of embubbled universe, that think they can play games with everyone's lives, and in the process, they unleash some of the worst debacle, not only World War I itself, but fascism, communism.
	Which, by the way, the British Empire started, that's on record, but destroyed the British Empire.
	Exactly.
	It's a pyrrhic victory.
	I mean, you had seven centuries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire taken out overnight.
	And the Ottoman Empire taken out overnight.
	The Russian Empire taken out overnight.
	The British Empire diminished to almost nothing overnight.
	To some degree, Bismarck's Germany taken out overnight.
	All because these people made incredibly horrendous decisions.
	And the people around Biden are just that bad.
	And, you know, do they want the Middle East aflame?
	Do they want Europe aflame?
	Would that be a big enough distraction to allow Biden to be a wartime president and sneak into re-election even if he's dead?
	It's like Netanyahu secretly standing down and working with the Iranians for the attack so the Iranians figured out and killed their president.
	They did it, folks.
	I've seen all the evidence.
	It's all about keeping Netanyahu in power.
	It's the same thing here.
	Have World War III so the left stays in power?
	How dumb is this, man?
	I think a lot of it goes back to keeping the dollar as the global reserve currency.
	We know that the intelligence community inherently has a very utilitarian, Machiavellian approach to how it makes decisions and strategies and tactics.
	It's okay to kill 1,000 people if we believe that the estimates are 10,000 people.
	That's the excuse.
	When you do that, those who compromise become compromised.
	We do that over a period of time.
	It actually doesn't work out the way that you thought.
	When you look at these conflicts that we're in, whether it's Ukraine versus Russia, whether it's This tension with China and Iran.
	And now we have random instances of Blinken making comments about human rights issues in Kenya.
	And then you look into it and it's like, oh, there's rumors that Kenya is involved in smuggling uranium to Iran.
	It all seems like we have over sanctioned our competitors, our enemies, our allies.
	The US is definitely over 50 years.
	And so Russia and China and Iran are trying to get something other than the dollar happening over there.
	And we're trying to stop that from happening because our money's fake.
	We have to have.
	The global reserve status.
	Otherwise, our whole entire economy could collapse.
	Trying to bully them makes it weaker.
	I think the intelligence community is always...
	Basically, every war that we've been involved in for the last 50 years has been because the intelligence community...
	Propping up Bretton Woods.
	Yes, exactly.
	We didn't need the oil in Iraq, but we needed the oil in Iraq to be traded in dollars.
	They're like, oh, they didn't take any of the oil.
	It's like, yeah, but it's about how the oil is traded.
	It's an artificial demand for our currency.
	Great point.
	So what do you see on the war front, guys?
	Robert, I'm going to let you answer and think about my answer in the meantime.
	Well, I mean, you have power-mad individuals who are not very bright.
	And so, I mean, like with Biden, you can predict him by thinking of a street-level thug.
	I mean, that's why he couldn't help himself when he's asked the question, well, you know, what about Trump blaming you for his conviction?
	And he smiles and does a little dance.
	Because that's what a street-level thug thinks like.
	Now, a smart, sophisticated criminal would know not to do that, but that's not who Biden is.
	Yeah, Biden would say, this is tragic.
	I'm so sorry this has happened.
	I'm sorry he did that.
	It's just terrible.
	So he's like, yeah, I did it.
	I didn't graduate in the first half of my class, but I did it.
	Exactly.
	I mean, he wanted the credit for it.
	He wanted the attention for it.
	Well, there's a real jealousy for real American presidents who wasn't perfect, like Nixon or Kennedy.
	Because the system wants to make decisions themselves and be that middleman Trump talked about, where he discovered China's getting less money out of running the world's economy and industry for a few dozen middlemen.
	And Trump's like, we're cutting them out.
	It'll be better for China and the U.S. China actually liked that.
	Now we learn that China actually, like what Trump was doing, beating them, but he was going to say, hey, you're not going to dominate my people.
	We're going to give them the bigger piece of money, and you'll get a slice, too.
	I mean, that is just so incredible, Barnes.
	I'm sorry I'm interrupting.
	Go ahead.
	Well, let me bring up that just so everybody sees the beauty.
	For the day after to begin.
	This is Joe Biden.
	Thank you very much.
	Mr. President, can you tell us, sir?
	Donald Trump defends himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly.
	What's your response to that, sir?
	Can you believe this is reality?
	He might be senile, chalk it up to senility.
	He wanted that credit.
	Remember him a few years ago?
	Yeah, this prosecutor was investigating me and my son.
	I gave him an hour to fire him and he got fired.
	Son of a bitch, he fired him.
	He used to go around and tell people, you don't F with the Bidens.
	This is the way he thinks.
	He thinks of street-level criminal activity.
	The question is this, and I'll ask Robert and Alex and Chase.
	Some people are positing that there'll have to be some false flag nuclear potential in Europe.
	I can't even understand what happens if that happens.
	Some people are saying there's going to be fighting within the Islamic community.
	I gut-level feel nuclear war.
	I'm worried about a NATO false flag.
	Yeah, but so...
	That's the greatest risk right there.
	They're trying to provoke Putin into doing it.
	I just say, living on the peninsula of Florida, if an atomic bomb goes off in the Atlantic, a tsunami will wash over all of Florida.
	Will a dinghy or my kayak in the garage save me?
	Robert, Alex, who said that?
	I'm actually an expert on nuclear war.
	I'm not a nuclear silo operator.
	I'm not a Iran corporation.
	A nuclear war specialist.
	I just, for whatever reason, from a young age, thought warfare was very interesting.
	So by 10, I was reading PhD-level books on nuclear war equations.
	And so this is something I talk about.
	I know all about the supers, all about the other systems, the neutron bombs, all of it.
	There is no war game by the Rand Corporation or by the Pentagon or the Chinese or the Russians or the EU or any group where a tactical nuke is used, and in most equations, within a few hours, There is a larger exchange, and within a day, there is a full exchange.
	So this isn't like, this is dominoes falling.
	So 90-plus percent of the equations lead to full nuclear Armageddon, full commitment.
	And that means once it starts, India and Pakistan are going to hit each other.
	China's going to hit India.
	India's going to hit them.
	It's nuclear winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
	90% of us are urban.
	Only 5% are self-sufficient in major Pentagon actuaries.
	The nuclear war will kill a billion people in 40 minutes, and then the collapse will kill 6 billion.
	There might be a billion people left in the southern hemisphere, and there'll be total war and collapse there, but that'll be road warrior down there.
	We'll all be dead here.
	Let me explain something.
	There is no tactical nuke, as General Flynn says.
	There is no.
	The minute nukes are used, everyone goes apeshit and starts hitting each other.
	That's Rand Corporation doctrine.
	I think that's why our intelligence community, as well as the rest of NATO, has been so antagonistic toward Russia as well, because it seems to me that...
	We know that Putin is not a rash leader.
	He's measured.
	You can say he's a villain.
	You can say he's a hero.
	There's arguments for both sides.
	He's probably a combination of both.
	He's certainly cold.
	But once it starts...
	But the next person could be a madman.
	Yeah, getting rid of him will only bring in a hardliner, but that's the point.
	The minute...
	The West, probably the West will dent in a nuke and say Putin did it.
	They already had a missile, you know, last year went into Poland and they said, nuke Russia right now.
	They did it.
	But the polls shot it down and got the TEL number.
	It was a Ukrainian missile.
	It was two missiles.
	So what I'm saying is they're already pre-programming this.
	They're already saying this because they've got bunkers and that will knock all their political opposition out.
	They'll re-emerge as the new government.
	you watched "Dr.
	Strange Love," which was based off information that came out in the early 60s where Curtis LeMay and LL Emetser We're going to go ahead and nuke Russia, they told Eisenhower, and then we'll only get 30-40 million killed, and then Eisenhower said, you're fired.
	Then they came back, and who worked for L.L. Levincer as the Chief of Staff?
	Donald Rumsfeld.
	So these people have running news articles that nuclear war is survivable.
	We'll just have a tactical nuclear war.
	You don't.
	Once a nuke goes off, the Russians or whatever side spray missiles.
	Because you can't wait once that happens.
	The submarines come up, they spray cruise missiles, they spray Tridents, they spray ICBMs, they spray all this, the West sprays it, and then again.
	Pakistan and India, most actuaries are probably the most likely places to start.
	They've got huge arsenals.
	They hate each other.
	The minute nukes go off, they're going to fire missiles.
	China's going to fire missiles.
	It is an apeshit, end-of-the-world scenario.
	Well, and it fits two long-term agendas, which is they're obsessed with population control, you know, Club of Rome, all that jazz, particularly Bill Gates and other people related to him.
	And it's long been cited.
	War and virus are the two main means of population control over time.
	And global power.
	I was going to say, the other thing you just mentioned, people should be asking, why are there so many rich and powerful politically active people who've been building special bunkers over the last decade?
	What are they preparing for that they're spending this much money building bunkers all around the world to live and reside in, strange love style?
	I want to go back.
	Anybody that's ever been in a fight, and I've been in plenty, wish I wasn't, but...
	The point was, crazy days in Dallas.
	You don't sit there and get in a fight with somebody and start halfway hitting them.
	Once the fight starts, it's full power.
	So that's the way nuclear war works.
	Once one goes off, all of us in the West are dead in one hour.
	Okay, so 30 minutes probably.
	So there's nuclear submarines in the Gulf of Mexico.
	They're in the Atlantic.
	They're everywhere.
	And you hear the Pentagon going, "Oh God, we don't have no submarines.
	The Russians and Chinese have more than we have.
	They've got cruise missiles." And again, the torpedoes are important because instead of an airburst, you push some super heavy hydrogen bomb.
	They got a lot worse stuff and so do we.
	Here's the deal.
	It was like 15 years ago in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Pentagon gave a briefing to let the Russians know.
	They said, "We've isolated any matter." And we have an antimatter bomb that in our equations will destroy the solar system.
	We think Pluto might still be there.
	So what?
	So it goes back to our strange love where they have the doomsday bomb that blows up the whole earth.
	That's a metaphor for nuclear war blows it up.
	So it doesn't work.
	The movie is trying to talk to you like you're five years old.
	You start a nuclear war, a doomsday bomb goes up, because that's what it is, is a doomsday bomb.
	You don't fire the weapon.
	I don't walk over to Chase right now.
	I'm friends with Chase.
	I like Chase.
	But if I walked over, Chase is not a pussy, and I just punched him in the nose for no reason, he's going to punch me back.
	And then I'm going to jump on top of him, and we're going to roll around the ground.
	I'm going to die.
	No, no, no.
	I'm serious.
	Who is bigger between the two of you?
	Chase, I have no idea.
	Are you 5 '6", or are you 6 '4"?
	He's taller than me.
	I'm 6 '2".
	Son of a bitch.
	Everybody in America is wildly tall.
	It's amazing.
	I don't have a Napoleonic complex.
	I'm not a tough guy, but I've...
	Literally bash the brains out of six people.
	But let's move on from that.
	Now I have a heart attack.
	I've got to fight.
	Let's move on.
	That's not about that.
	I'm trying to explain.
	This is not me.
	I read nuclear warfare doctrine.
	This is doctrine.
	This is not even debatable.
	All the mainline analysts admit this.
	Let's talk about this.
	How do we stop this, Barnes?
	Hold on.
	Alex, I'm going to take it back only to the practical level.
	We cannot stop nuclear war because there are maniacs out there.
	Bottom line, as far as InfoWars is concerned, is there a hearing tomorrow?
	When is the next court date for whether or not InfoWars gets shut down?
	Yeah, I know everybody's tuned in about us.
	And I'm just saying, we're important because it's an archetype and a microcosm of the full attack.
	So we are important.
	But I mean, I was on his show before he was on.
	Mike Adams is a really good guy.
	And he said, what can we do to support you?
	And I said, I want you to support our videos and our archives and our information.
	That's why they want us off the air.
	Yeah, support me financially, great.
	I'm in bankruptcy.
	I didn't announce we're being taken over.
	I don't get any of the money.
	I said, Free Speech Systems got great products.
	InfoWars has great products.
	You'll get them probably shipped, but if we're going to be shut down, I don't know.
	My dad asked DrJonesNaturals.com.
	It's over there.
	He's got a bunch of great products.
	My dad will back me.
	I could call my dad at 3 a.m.
	I mean, literally, when I was a kid, he would just, my mom was great, but if I had the flu or whatever, he was up with me all night.
	That guy is like, I had the best dad ever.
	He's just, he's incredible.
	And my dad is being sued by them.
	He's lost everything he's had.
	They've sued him for two years.
	The Democratic Party top law firm that Hillary is involved in runs it all, and my dad has Lost everything.
	And he doesn't even care.
	He goes, I love you.
	Whatever.
	He goes, don't submit.
	Don't settle.
	Don't stop.
	I love you.
	But when you support DrJonesNaturals.com, you're supporting my dad, who said he will pledge everything.
	He says, I'll sell my house.
	I'll do anything you want.
	But my dad's a great guy.
	If I asked my dad to kill somebody, he'd do it.
	I mean, the guy is just the best.
	And you support my family, DrJonesNaturals.com, which will be our first sponsor with whatever comes out of this in the future.
	And I just can't let my dad down and my mom down.
	My mom, about six months ago, when they were being harassed, and my dad was being attacked and called a criminal in the nose.
	My mother's a big historian.
	She had a degree in history.
	And I was at her house, and I'm over there on, like, you know, Saturday night.
	We're eating dinner.
	And the kids go away.
	They're in the pool.
	And she comes over to me, and she says, she never says hardly anything, but it's always so smart.
	And she's already been saying they're going to kill Biden for, like, you know, two years.
	And she grabs me on the arm, and she says, You know the Spartans, don't you?
	And I said, yeah, Mom, I know the Spartans.
	She goes, do you know what?
	Come home with your shields or on it.
	And I said, what do you say?
	And she says, I don't want to put up with these people.
	I don't care what they do to us.
	I don't want you to go along with them.
	I don't want you to back off.
	I said, don't worry, I won't.
	She goes, I know you care about them attacking us.
	She said, on your shield.
	Or with your shield.
	She reversed it.
	And for those who don't know, the Spartans, who were incredible and held off, you know, 50,000, 300 is a cheesy movie.
	It's fun, but it's an exaggeration.
	But 300 for like a week until they got betrayed by the spy and all that's true, literally held off hundreds of thousands of Persians at one gap.
	And so the women would say to the men leaving, Because when you're in a war, when men give up, they drop their swords and shields because the enemy can't run as fast with their swords and shields.
	So when you flee, you drop your swords and shields.
	And the women, the Spartans would tell their men, you come home with your shields or on them.
	You come home victorious or dead.
	And my mother, who says, like, one thing here to me that I should do and has always been dialed in, she said, "You come home with your shielder on it.
	You don't back down.
	You don't give in.
	We don't care what happens to us.
	We want you to attack these people." And I saluted my mother.
	I hugged her and I said, "I love you so much, mother." She said, "Exactly.
	You go to prison.
	You get killed.
	You never give up." She looked me right in my eyes.
	And I said, "I will do it, mother." And that's the only order I got.
	It's the only order I need, man.
	My mother knows these people are criminals.
	They know that they're liars.
	And my mother tells me, die for freedom.
	I'm ranting, but go ahead.
	Yeah, I think the ultimate answer to any evil is the goodness and righteousness of ordinary, everyday people.
	And it's what's worked for all of human history, and it's what will continue to work.
	That people continued to rally to Revere's ride.
	Then, you know, your ancestors fought at the, you know, connect all the way back to the tradition of the Alamo.
	They didn't win at the Alamo, but they won ultimately because of how they stood at the Alamo.
	And so that's the American tradition.
	And that's what Chase said earlier.
	These attacks are triggering our epigenetics.
	My mother is a nice person, and she's like ready for full war.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry, Barb.
	Keep going.
	Yeah, yeah.
	One of my great-great-great-granddaddies was the gentleman who said, don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes at Bunker Hill.
	We lost that day at Bunker Hill, but the way in which we fought at Bunker Hill helped win the American Revolution, which unleashed a revolution of freedom and liberty around the globe.
	Well, that's it.
	These people fuck with people.
	They think Americans were intimidated because we were cowards.
	We were asleep.
	Now that they're attacking us, people are not scared.
	They are ready, Barnes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Just continue to stand by the American Constitution.
	Fight for it in every legal means available and achievable and attainable to you.
	And history shows that it is much more likely to prevail than for the wrongdoers or those who wish harm upon the world will prevail.
	That's the example to continue to live by, is the example that will continue to succeed.
	Alex, I'm not kicking you out, and there's no but to that.
	We're going to go to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty.
	We will continue following your story.
	As soon as there's news, and when there's news, you'll let us know.
	I will obviously, whenever, come back on, as will Barnes, and vice versa.
	But I know that you've been live for however long you've been live for the last three days.
	When are you live next?
	And everybody knows where to find you, but what's your next schedule?
	Harrison Smith, 8 a.m.
	I pointed the law out to the security company and everybody else, so we won't be shut down until tomorrow afternoon if the judge orders a shutdown.
	I don't think that's going to happen because, again, I came in here and called the people and got attention to it, and they backed off.
	And then people go, oh, it didn't happen.
	There's nothing wrong.
	No, we stood up.
	There's not just evil in the universe.
	And then I don't know where we're going to be shut down.
	I don't know.
	They tried it Friday, and they tried it Saturday, and we came here and refused to leave.
	I do want to go home and sleep in my bed, sleep on the couch a few days.
	This is, like, really messed me up.
	I'm a wimp.
	And so I'll be on at 11 a.m. Central.
	Owen Schroer will be on the War Room, 3 p.m. Central.
	But the minute Pat McGill, the CRO, the federal appointee, the minute he gets an order from the judge, he will shut this down and fiduciarily shut down the money for the plaintiffs and all of it, which he's already tried to do, which is just insane.
	So that's where we are, and I thank you both for all the time, and it's been amazing.
	Thank you so much, Viva Frye and Robert Barnes.
	God bless you both.
	Anytime and every time.
	We'll see you soon.
	I appreciate your support.
	I've seen it, guys.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Go.
	Have a good night.
	The next hour?
	You're back on, Alex.
	Hold on a second.
	I don't know if he thought he was off air.
	I don't want to get anything that was intended to be off air.
	Thumbs up, Alex.
	I'm thumbing up him from the backdrop.
	Robert?
	Hey, we flip sides.
	What the hell happened here?
	That's not going to happen.
	Son of a beast.
	With your shield or on it.
	That's going to be everywhere tomorrow.
	Yeah, that's a good one.
	We got a couple of topics for the after party at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	The Texas abortion law at the Texas Supreme Court.
	The big Pennsylvania voting lawsuit brought by America First.
	How to get out on an insanity defense if you're in Chicago.
	And answer to LawTube on what the Fourth Amendment actually means.
	We're going to do all of this.
	I don't remember now how to end this on Rumble.
	Oh, I go to Rumble here.
	Hold on.
	We're ending on Rumble, but there's so many super chats.
	Duke Club says, it's really Jim Carrey.
	Alex Davey Duke, who I've met in person now, says, sorry, Trump has no loyalty and is easily fooled.
	He still believes Pfizer's act was safe and effective.
	Think about that.
	Best outcome?
	Trump gets a great VP.
	I will not read the second half of that, and you know, Alex, thank you.
	Alex, it's the lawyers that are dumb and evil we should worry about, Patrick Moyer.
	Haagen-Dazs says Alex pissed off the deep state when he told the world that the deep state was turning the frogs gay.
	The world made fun of Alex, and then the world found out the frogs were turning gay.
	We've got Just sending a little support from Melly1127.
	Alex, Davey Duke, thanks for fighting for the Constitution and giving hope.
	Ready to give up?
	Then Barnes and Truckers, and then the Truckers convoy come.
	All right.
	Now what we're doing is this.
	I'm ending it on Rumble.
	It's going to be vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Come in right now.
	Ending vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Barnes, B-A-R-N-E-S.
	Ending it.
	And we're going to have the rest of the part here.
	I've got screen grabs on end.
	If I don't get to anything, I will get to them tomorrow.
	Good night, Rumble.
	Robert, before we end it, what do you have on for the next week for scheduling?
	It'll mostly be, I think, bourbons.
	So there might be something I've scheduled this week that I'm forgetting.
	But just bourbonwithbarnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we'll be publishing the polling results about food freedom and financial freedom and medical freedom, political freedom, other updates of cases, the Amos Miller case, the illegally imprisoned farmer case, there might be additional farmer cases that are being shut down by the government as we speak across the country, various medical freedom cases and other cases, all the news concerning those cases.
	We'll continue to be at 1776lawcenter.com.
	Booyah!
	And now we are ending at Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com now, and I'll be live throughout the week.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Bam!
	Robert, okay.
	You do the cases.
	I'm going to start filtering through the chat here.
	What do we have left on the menu?
	Yeah, for those who want to tip, any $5 tip or more, we will answer here live.
	For those that are new to the afterparty, at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.

▲