Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 16, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:40

FATHER'S DAY SPECIAL! Young Thug! Hunter Biden! 2nd Amendment! SCOTUS & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I think we can all agree.
	You know, I'm not going to say it, but like, you know, it seems like our country is being held hostage by Israel.
	Okay, I'm going to get in so much trouble for that.
	I don't even care.
	It's because we are seeing people that are having their entire livelihoods destroyed for critiquing a foreign nation.
	That is an absurdity.
	You know, if it's an absurdity, think about this.
	In 2020, the United States government announced that it was considering banning the Chinese social media platform TikTok.
	That was upon a request from then-President Donald Trump.
	He viewed TikTok as a national security threat.
	So he signed an executive order that same year banning TikTok in just 45 days if it was not sold.
	And guess what happened?
	That executive order got blocked.
	The app survived until the app got on the wrong side of Israel.
	You guys remember this, after October 7th, things on TikTok weren't trending in the pro-Israel way.
	In fact, it was very much trending in the pro-Palestinian way.
	And the ADL's John Greenblatt said, yeah, no, this is a problem and we have to deal with it.
	Let me jog your memory.
	Here's what he said.
	We really have a TikTok problem.
	Seems like a really nice guy.
	Boy, did he move fast.
	Yeah, the anti-Semitism bill, which is horrific, made its way through the House and it got...
	Passed somehow.
	Yeah, forget your First Amendment, guys.
	If you've got something to say about Israel, yeah, you're going to be in big trouble.
	Forget your First Amendment.
	If you even accuse someone who is Jewish of having more allegiance to Israel than they do to America, you are going to be in trouble.
	Thomas Massey, my favorite congressman in the entire world, because he seems to be the only one that will stand up to AIPAC.
	Recently went on Tucker Carlson, and he had this to say.
	Take a listen.
	Everybody but me has an AIPAC person.
	What does that mean, an AIPAC person?
	It's like your babysitter, your AIPAC babysitter, who is always talking to you for AIPAC.
	They're probably a constituent in your district, but they are, you know, firmly embedded in AIPAC.
	They spelled it wrong.
	It's AIPAC.
	Every member has something like this?
	I don't know how it works on the Democrat side.
	But that's how it works on the Republican side.
	And when they come to D.C., you go have lunch with them.
	And they've got your cell number.
	And you have conversations with them.
	So I've had, like...
	That's absolutely crazy.
	I've had four members of Congress say, I'll talk to my APAC person.
	It's literally what we call them, my APAC guy.
	I don't think we need to watch the rest of this.
	I figured, why not kick open Father's Day?
	By getting myself in trouble.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	So this came from a tweet, which I respectfully took umbrage with or disagreed with.
	Quote, our country is being held hostage by Israel.
	End quote.
	Karandis Owens manages 3.5 straight minutes of anti-Semitic tropes.
	I'll say the first thing is, it wasn't 3.5 minutes straight because that, as you can tell, is edited.
	Anti-Semitic tropes, call me old school.
	Hold on a second, let me call me.
	Fixing my camera here.
	Call me old school.
	But I consider anti-Semitic tropes to be something specific.
	I don't think I can say any of the things which I would regard as a stereotypical anti-Semitic trope because people just clip it out of context and then say, look what Viva said.
	The tropes.
	We know what the tropes are.
	Just watch Spaceballs or just watch Hebrew Hammer.
	What's his name?
	The guy who directed Spaceballs.
	Oh my goodness!
	Blazing Saddles?
	What's his name?
	I'm losing...
	Okay, this is a bad sign for tonight's show.
	I need the chat to tell me what his name is.
	What's the guy's name?
	The guy who directed Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs...
	It has a B in it?
	Mel Brooks, thank you.
	Thank you very much, baby Jen.
	Damn it.
	You want to know what the anti-Semitic tropes are or, you know, stereotypical jokes?
	I'll give you a classic.
	It's a good-natured one.
	How was copper wire invented?
	A Jew and a Scotsman fighting over a penny.
	Now, I love that joke because there's something very visual about the idea of two grown adults fighting over a penny to the point where they both pull so hard it turns into copper wire.
	That's one reason.
	B, I never understood that there was a stereotype about Scots people, Scottish people, Scotsmen, about them being cheap.
	That's one of the tropes.
	The third thing about that is, what race, religion, creed, ethnicity is there out there in the world that likes wasting money?
	I don't think there is one.
	You know, they say the Scots are cheap.
	They say the Jews, as the trope goes, are cheap.
	I think the Irish.
	I think the Germans.
	It's a funny joke.
	So when I first saw that, I was like, okay, three minutes of anti-Semitic tropes.
	Let me go see what's going on here.
	The Jews are held hostage by Israel.
	While we're going to get in trouble with YouTube, let's go whole hog.
	I take issue with that being the summary of what Candace Owens said.
	And I drafted a very lengthy reply.
	And I know that I noticed some people tagging Gad Saad because I guess he took a different position.
	I said, first of all...
	If you replace the word Israel with any other nation and replace it with one who I think many people might widely agree has taken America hostage, or at least turned America into its subservient little brother or sugar daddy, Ukraine.
	Ukraine has held or has taken America hostage.
	A lot of the same people who might otherwise accuse Candace Owens of being anti-Semitic for saying Israel's taken America hostage would probably agree with that.
	Imagine Ukraine.
	Has been the big eye-opener for a great many people who didn't truly understand how military aid, foreign aid packages work.
	It's nothing but taxpayer money laundering.
	And I learned this a while back.
	You know, back when everybody says, oh, we're giving billions of dollars to Israel for aid.
	And I'm like, okay, well, you know, back in the day, you have to do it.
	They're your number one ally in the Middle East.
	Okay, fine.
	I'm not going to get into the political arguments.
	But then you realize what that means.
	And what it basically means is we're giving billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars to Israel, so they can turn around and buy military weapons, weaponry, defense weaponry, whatever, back from the military-industrial complex in America.
	They said this out loud literally, or I'll say literally.
	They said this out loud literally when it came to arguing for why another $100 billion in foreign aid, military aid to Ukraine was good for the American economy.
	They literally said because they're going to buy the weapons from America so it employs Americans in the arms industry in America.
	Yeah, they said that recently after, you know, that was verboten.
	It was a conspiracy theory to suggest that foreign aid, military aid is nothing but taxpayer money laundering.
	So once you understand that and you understand it with the Ukraine, and no one would dare call you anti- maybe some people would call you anti-Ukrainian for saying something like that, but most people wouldn't.
	Most people would agree with you at this point in time.
	The aid to Ukraine has gotten to the point where it's Ukraine first, Americans maybe fifth.
	You got Ukraine, you got Israel, you got, I mean, oddly enough...
	Supporting Gaza, human aid, human relief, human aid relief.
	Who else?
	Pretty sure you have every other country on Earth before Americans coming first.
	But that's what woke people up to this.
	And if you say, okay, fine, saying Ukraine is holding American taxpayers hostage or America hostage, nobody would take umbrage with.
	That's the second time I'm using that word tonight.
	If you were to say China has taken America hostage, no one would call that anti-Chinese, or at least nobody with half a brain.
	Maybe Nancy Pelosi would, but maybe not so much anymore.
	They might have taken America hostage for other reasons or through other means, but saying that China owns America or China has infiltrated Canadian politics and is holding Canadians hostage, no one will call you racist for it.
	So saying that Israel is holding America foreign policy hostage is not anti-Semitic.
	And the problem is many people who never held that position before are certainly asking the question now because Past is prologue, and once you realize they've been lying to you about something in the present, you can go back and retroactively assume that they were lying to you in the past in other circumstances.
	So that three and a half minutes of anti-Semitic tropes, I didn't hear any anti-Semitic tropes.
	I am curious as to why there would be such a strong lobby through the AIPAC.
	The AIPAC is the American Israeli, what is it called?
	American Israeli, what does it stand for?
	Public Affairs Committee, or Commission, whatever the AIPAC.
	People say pharma companies have infiltrated politics and have too much sway and have too much influence and have too much lobbying power.
	Nobody's going to call you an anti-pharmaceutical.
	Maybe they might.
	But that's a legitimate political criticism.
	Pharma has too much influence in politics.
	It has too much lobbying power in politics.
	I would dare say when it comes to Canadian politics, China does as well.
	Some people might say the media has too much influence.
	Writing all of this off without having to address the substance of it is a cop-out, and that's as much as I said.
	I said, I don't agree with Candace Owens on the TikTok timing.
	I think right now they might have found other good reasons for TikTok.
	I've heard the argument.
	I don't think Greenspan or Green, whoever the hell Green guy is at the ADL, I don't think they have that much power over policy.
	I think the political tide had turned on TikTok.
	Such that the ban was more amenable now than it was back when Trump supported it.
	Primarily because it's no longer Trump supporting it.
	It's the current administration.
	Much like when Trump supported the border wall, that was a racist, terrible thing.
	And now all of a sudden you've got the Gavin Newsom's of the world saying, we need a border wall.
	We need to allocate funds here.
	We need to allocate resources.
	But the Republicans are the ones standing in the way.
	So politics change over time depending on the necessity.
	And by the way, I still don't necessarily support the TikTok ban.
	Because I think it's a disguised way of going after Trump, and I think that might be one of the ulterior reasons for which those who said it was racist when Trump wanted to put it into effect are now supporting it, because it's one step off of being able to go after Truth Social.
	It's one step off of being able to go after Rumble.
	But to call it...
	So I don't believe...
	I don't agree with Candace Owens on that, but I don't think that's motivated by anti-Semitism.
	And I had somebody else tell me on Twitter...
	And I'm not trying to put them on blast.
	I want them to understand this.
	Someone said, Viva, you're defending someone who would stab you in the back in the future with no qualms.
	Okay.
	So what?
	I will not testify or I will not make any testaments to Candace Owens' personality as an individual.
	I don't know her from a hole in the wall.
	I know what people say about her.
	I know what people who know her say about her.
	But even if that's true, let's just hypothetically say, you know.
	Nick Fuentes happens to be in the right on some issue right now.
	Not the politics, but let's just say he's getting mistreated, getting debanked, whatever.
	And I say, you can't debank Nick Fuentes.
	You can't debank people, even if they are the most vile people on earth.
	He can't do it.
	Oh, why are you defending Nick Fuentes?
	He'll stab you.
	I don't care if he's...
	I'm not defending someone for future favor, and I'm not going to shut up now for fear of future reprisal.
	She's not...
	As far as I can tell, she's not anti-Semitic.
	I don't believe Christ is King is anti-Semitic, though I know how some people use it.
	And it's not using the words or the message.
	It's just doing the thing that they think people will interpret.
	It becomes something like an internet meme.
	So I don't think anything she said was anti-Semitic.
	And I dare say a lot of it a lot of people are feeling these days.
	Because once you realize the way Ukraine has fleeced America and American taxpayer dollars, it's not because you happen to like the other ally who might be doing the same fleecing that it becomes...
	It's verboten for you to ask the question.
	I now know more today than I did five years ago, and now I want to go back and, with the knowledge I've acquired today, reassess what we were told five years ago.
	How can Viva be talking at 1.5 when it's 11?
	Dude, I thought I was actually taking it down a notch.
	So that's it.
	That's a long-winded rant of an intro.
	Good evening.
	It's Father's Day.
	It's Father's Day.
	I went to a shopping center with my two girls.
	I have not yet fully recovered.
	I hate shopping centers.
	I hate everything about them.
	The sound, the smells, the echo, the people who are like the crowds, not the people.
	And you all, if you hadn't seen the earlier vlog today, you should have seen it because I go there and I'm like, holy crap, I haven't been there in a long time and I didn't realize it's Pride Month.
	So I go to a store, they got he him pins, she her pins, they them pins.
	And you realize how utterly...
	How insanely narcissistic it is to say, I'm going to put a pin on me here to tell you how you should refer to me when talking about me to other people.
	Because there's no universe in which, when I'm having a one-on-one with someone, I'm going to need to know how they identify as he, him, she, her, they.
	I'm not going to ever talk to someone who's wearing that pin and say, he.
	I'm right here.
	Why are you calling me he?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You're right here.
	Why are you telling me that your pronouns are he, her, whatever the hell?
	I hate shopping centers.
	I don't want to go back if I can avoid it.
	Okay.
	Now, before I'm going to do...
	First of all, sorry.
	I got a little ahead of myself.
	Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
	This is the wonderful Viva Barnes Sunday Night Law Extravaganza.
	It's Father's Day, a Father's Day special, so happy Father's Day to all of you out there.
	Today is the day where we say on at least one occasion...
	My penis functioned properly.
	Damn it, I blew the joke.
	Today is the day we celebrate.
	On at least one occasion in my life, my phallus functioned functionally.
	Or for adoptive parents who may not have had a baby the natural way, happy Father's Day to everyone out there who has played a father role in somebody's life.
	And that is that.
	Now, speaking of other things that I hate.
	And speaking of the fleecing of the American taxpayers, I've come to America and I'm paying taxes in America.
	And I want to know, just percentage-wise, what percentage of the taxes that I just paid to the federal government directly went to Ukraine?
	I have since grown very amenable to the argument that I don't want to pay taxes if it's going to fund policy that I have moral objections to.
	And the argument that why would I pay for things if they're going to support abortion?
	I can understand this for some people.
	If my taxpayer dollars are going to go to something that I'm radically morally opposed to, that's not just theft, but that's a very malicious form of theft.
	And I understand that.
	And so for people paying their taxes, it's a very painful thing.
	And nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to.
	Which brings us to our sponsor of the evening, sir.
	Hello!
	Thanks for visiting our website.
	Is there anything I can assist you with?
	Not tonight, Billy, but that's actually kind of interesting how these things work.
	Do you owe back taxes?
	Pandemic relief is now over.
	By the way, people didn't realize this in Canada.
	You got taxed on your $2,000 a month that the government gave you after they ruined your lives, but set that aside.
	Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay-up letters to those who have unfiled...
	Tax returns or balance is owed.
	Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own.
	They are not your friends if you needed any reminder.
	Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has now served over $1 billion in back taxes, has now saved over $1 billion in back taxes for their clients, and they can help you secure the best deal possible, whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million.
	If you owe $10 million, you might end up like McAfee, so stay safe and go to a country that doesn't have an extradition policy.
	Don't do that!
	Pay your taxes.
	Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help you.
	Whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or you're on fixed income, they can help finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all.
	Call 1-800-245-6000 for a private free consultation or visit TNUSA.
	Tango.
	November.
	Uniform.
	Sierra Alpha.
	1-800-245-6000 or TNUSA.com forward slash Viva.
	The link is in the description.
	And yeah, they're vicious, the tax agents.
	Oh, there's a good tax joke.
	There's a tax joke and it has to do with...
	Oh.
	Oh, it has to do with snipping foreskin.
	And what do you do with the foreskin?
	Well, they send it to the tax authority and they send us back a dick like you.
	That's the joke.
	All right, now Barnes just popped in the back.
	Let me just do a bunch of these super chats before we go.
	So when the gator eats the knife fish you hooked, he, the gator, may swallow your hook as well.
	That seems like a bad idea.
	Cheryl Gage, I answered you by text, but I want to make sure everybody knows this.
	It's not...
	It's not...
	Thank you.
	I'm back.
	It's a circle hook.
	Why is the internet so bad?
	It's a circle hook that's about the size of my finger.
	It's embedded in the fish.
	It's not ideal.
	But to the extent it gets hooked in the mouth, it'll rust out.
	If it goes through the stomach, I'm sure it gets dissolved.
	And it's packed up with all that fish.
	And gators swallow bones, sharp objects, glass all the time.
	The more important thing is that little bastard gator ate my fish.
	Speaking of fishing, heart tackle.
	Heart tackle.
	Happy Father's Day.
	Before...
	You get hot and heavy on the stream.
	What is the new Florida PO?
	I have a bunch of lures to head your way.
	I posted it in the link.
	It's in the About section of the YouTube channel.
	Thank you very much, Hard Tackle.
	Happy Father's Day.
	The road goes on forever and the taint never ends, says Douche Elias.
	Did you see Lindsey Graham finally admit the war in Ukraine is being waged because of the resources in Ukraine?
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	I didn't, but I had no doubt.
	Mark Giudetti.
	Viva, stop being ashamed of being Jewish and stop making excuses for Jew haters.
	It's very pathetic.
	You see, this is the mentality where...
	You can't criticize.
	You can't self-assess without being called a Jew hater.
	What I love is getting called a Nazi and a Zionist in the same day.
	That's how I know I've done something right.
	CBS Tom Selleck show Blue Bloods is Deep States.
	That's KM.
	Viva simping for Jew haters for clicks is pathetic.
	Mark Giudetti.
	That's interesting.
	You're entitled to your opinion, by the way.
	And if you think I'm simping for Jew haters...
	May I suggest you are going after the intentions of the person and not the arguments?
	And in which case, you'll always win because you can never prove or disprove intentions.
	I don't know, Candace, almost from a hole in the wall, but I know when someone is an anti-Semite, and I think the word does get thrown around too loosely and to discredit people instead of addressing ideas.
	Winston may be a psychopathic homicidical bar steward, but when he holds me in his paws, I feel safe.
	Crash from.
	Hard tackle.
	Happy Father's Day.
	Sorry for the off topic.
	What is the...
	Okay, sorry.
	I got that one too.
	And...
	Candace abandoned Christ and now worships the Pope and prays to saints.
	She is an idolator, all to please her rich English husband.
	All right, maybe.
	Is she wrong on whether or not there is an unquestioning loyalty and potential questions to be asked as relates to what America is funding overseas and abroad?
	And it's not necessarily limited to Israel either.
	You go fund Israel's military defense while also siphoning billions of dollars to human aid.
	That results from the weaponry that you've just financed.
	Maybe just less foreign interference in foreign conflict at large would be a good rule.
	Alright, Barnes is in the house.
	Sir, come on in.
	Robert, you're looking dapper as hell tonight.
	How goes the battle?
	Happy Father's Day.
	Thank you, thank you.
	The girls I told the girls if they want to try something funny, make a video.
	About them trying to do a barbecue.
	When we've done the stream, I'll come out and see what part of the house hasn't burnt down.
	But yes, it's Father's Day.
	I had sexual intercourse with my wife at least three times.
	And it worked.
	Robert, sorry to get crass immediately.
	Your tie is particularly beautiful.
	Where is it from?
	I don't know.
	Robert, where are you now?
	What's in the background?
	What's the cigar?
	And what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Back in Vegas after a trip to Philadelphia last week in Pennsylvania, mostly up in Amish country.
	The book is a very influential book.
	I don't agree with all of its hypotheses, but very influential in the scholastic opinion in particular.
	Freud and others took a lot from it about the psychology of crowds.
	Chase Hughes was saying you don't need to dress up to act a certain way, but...
	It helps create the certain public demeanor and disposition.
	So I'm following Chase Hughes, for those that don't know, one of the great behavior panel, mindset guys that's out there.
	And I'm not sure where the cigar is from either.
	But happy Father's Day to everybody out there.
	We got some great topics tonight.
	We got the Supreme Court.
	They made a decision on injunctions.
	It might have relevance to the Amos Miller.
	Filing that we made this week against the government's latest attempt to shut him down.
	The Trump trademark case, a case that was about your Second Amendment rights, but it wasn't about the Second Amendment specifically, as well as a federal district court that several good district court decisions on the Second Amendment and a horrendous decision on standing to sue the government, in this case, the FDA.
	And because it's the abortion pill, the liberals went along with it.
	We'll get to that.
	It's mind-blowing, Robert.
	I understand now your vitriolic hatred for the standing doctrine, because it makes absolutely no sense, but we'll get to it.
	We got cases about when your claim is precluded in court, hate speech in schools, Title IX, changes by the Biden administration shot down, the issues of abuse and discrimination in hospitals, always in the name of the children they tend to do it in, due process takings, cases that are coming through, when does certain eviction laws go too far, the Hunter Biden verdict, and then...
	A couple of our most favored topics on the board poll.
	The crazy young thugs case.
	It's so good, Robert.
	The attorney contempt.
	Maybe people can understand the dangers of contempt power that I've been talking about in the Pennsylvania case of the illegally imprisoned farmers that I was rallying support for in the Amish community this past week in Pennsylvania, in part.
	An update on the Amos Miller case in that same capacity.
	And then the Alex Jones case, which was a top topic for tonight in the board poll.
	And a couple of bonus topics as we get to them.
	Maybe in the after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Put in a $5 tip or more and we'll answer the question.
	Again, if you want to troll, you can.
	You just got to pay the toll.
	And the fun topics.
	Amanda Milius, the famed director of Plot Against the President, the best movie that's been put out by the right on a documentary style in some time.
	Daughter of the great John Milius, director of Red Dawn, screenwriter Dirty Harry, and many other great movies.
	She's a big Lakers fan, and some people believe she made a bet that if the Celtics win the NBA playoffs like they might Monday night win the NBA title, That she would wear a green sundress in honor of it.
	Is that now an enforceable gamble or bet or contract there in the state of Texas?
	And there is a peace proposal in Ukraine, but it's not coming from the so-called peace conference that the European leaders were doing.
	I can briefly cover that and how it fits what we've been discussing about that topic for some years.
	Okay, we have to do Young Thug first, and we'll do the Alex Jones on Rumble, and not because we're circumventing the rules.
	I'll post the entire stream to Viva Clips afterwards, and the audio to Viva and Barnes Law for the People on Podbean.
	We're going to do the Young Thug, and then maybe the Ukraine thing, and then we'll move over to Rumble.
	Oh, random question.
	Somebody in the chat was saying that YouTube is now running ads during a live stream?
	No, they've always been doing that.
	Well, I didn't know that.
	That's because, yeah, I don't have the...
	I actually subscribe.
	Whatever it is, YouTube, so I can skip the ads.
	So they do ads during the live stream.
	So what happens?
	So the live stream, does it start back up right where it was before?
	You know, I don't know.
	I don't think so.
	I think you have to basically skip it as quickly as possible and you'll miss five seconds.
	I don't know.
	I've never seen it happen.
	I mean, I know I've seen it on Gouveia.
	It's enabled on all channels.
	I think you could probably disable it.
	But I say, let those ads run, baby.
	Okay, no, that's not nice.
	Robert, hold on a second.
	Okay, we'll get you in a second.
	The Young Thug Robert.
	Okay, so everybody knows what is going on because it was the news of the week last week.
	And you talked about it on...
	You brought it up on Sunday, and it hadn't hit the full peak madness that it hit throughout the week.
	One of the witnesses...
	The prosecution's lead witness.
	I don't know what his name is.
	It doesn't really matter.
	He was going to come out and testify about how Young Thug, as part of this RICO prosecution, nine charges, nine felony charges, the evidence of his RICO corruption, participation, racketeering, and influence is that when they rented this car that they used to kill somebody, Young Thug knew about it, and therefore that's the evidence of the RICO.
	The witness was supposed to testify to that effect.
	The witness was given immunity at the state level for gun charges.
	By the prosecution, but not at the federal level.
	The witness then gets on the stand and very aggressively pleads the fifth and acts like a total jackass, but I find it kind of funny.
	Basically, it becomes very defiant and uncooperative.
	They ended up meeting with the judge, but I don't remember if it was...
	It was after the witness was sworn in, which is why it's even more contemptuous, I think.
	But then the counsel for Young Thug becomes aware of the fact that this witness had a meeting with the prosecution, the judge, Ex parte in the judge's chamber with the lawyer for the witness, where they were talking about the ability to jail this guy until the trial is over for all of the defendants, which could be years, if he doesn't start testifying the way the state wants him to testify effectively.
	And how the defense young thug's lawyer became aware of this, nobody knows, but one can presume from the reaction of the judge, it was not from the prosecution, and it was not from the judge, so it could only be from the witness or the witness's lawyer.
	And when the lawyer brings this up to the judge, the judge, instead of getting, I don't know, defensive, apologetic about his own corrupt, unethical misconduct, says, tell me who told you that, or I'm going to hold you in contempt.
	And sentenced the guy, like, on the spot to 20 days contempt, ordered him to serve it on the weekends, two days a week for 10 weeks.
	And it got, what's the word, not vacated, I don't know what the word is, but overturned or rescinded by whoever...
	Whatever the next level of appellate review is there in the context.
	Robert, I mean, look, we talked about it a bit last week.
	What is your take on the absolute insanity?
	Well, you know, I was told when we were discussing the Arcata case that the government never lies and judges never do anything corrupt.
	And that's just crazy conspiracy thinking talk.
	Wasn't that the mantra?
	Now do we kind of see the important role.
	Of skepticism towards the government, skepticism towards the judiciary, and comparably the necessity of cameras in the courtroom.
	I'm defending a person in Pennsylvania who they're trying to lock up because she recorded her own court proceeding that exposed corruption in the courtroom, and that same courtroom was part of prosecuting her and trying to put her in prison for it.
	This is why we should all have public access to the courtroom.
	Because what happened, because that was being broadcast to the world, the judge wasn't able to control the public narrative.
	By the way, there was also issues with what the court reporter was doing in that proceeding, which is a whole other story.
	So everything that was happening, what the prosecutor was doing, was knowingly illegal, unethical violation of constitutional rights.
	What the judge was doing was knowing illegal, unethical, unprofessional, unjudicial, impeachable, and a violation of constitutional rights.
	The court reporter and the court staff all know it.
	And yet none of them did anything to stop it.
	And yet instead, when a defense lawyer got wind of it and simply raised it with the court, the court's reaction was to try to jail the lawyer.
	Because what is this?
	It's another topic that we've been discussing.
	Another case that I have involving the illegally imprisoned farmers in Pennsylvania, abuse of contempt power.
	This is why we cannot defer to the state.
	This is why we cannot trust everything a judge says.
	This is why we cannot let them have this degree of power and influence.
	And it's why we have to have institutional reform.
	And one of those institutional reforms is cameras in the courtroom for public access.
	Another thing we need in terms of reform is...
	To substantially take away content power.
	It's just too easily misused and abused by courts.
	And this comes out the same week, by the way, that the Connecticut State Bar that was facilitating the targeting of other prominent defense lawyers, such as Alex Jones' defense lawyer there in the state of Connecticut, came out and warned every lawyer that if they continue to talk about corruption in the courtroom...
	As it related to Trump cases particularly, but more broadly just that topic, that they could be subject to punishment by the licensing boards, as those licensing boards have abused power in the Sidney Powell context, despite being called out twice by two different Texas courts, saying their allegations against Sidney Powell were baseless.
	Why do they have such power?
	What is the Texas Supreme Court?
	Seven Republican conservatives up there.
	Why is the state bar totally out of control in the state of Texas?
	What is the governor doing?
	But these are institutional problems that we just saw flare up in one particular high-profile case that we only know about because a defense lawyer had the courage to expose it publicly and because it was being publicly broadcast.
	The Georgia Supreme Court...
	Most likely because of all the public attention brought to the case, quickly reversed what the judge did, stayed his contempt order immediately, and shows that, in fact, it is highly likely to be reversed and overturned, and that judge should be subject to impeachment proceedings in Georgia.
	What he did was illegal.
	What he did was violate the civil rights of the defendant and his counsel.
	It's just flagrant violence.
	And you have to ask yourself, What does it tell you about this judge that he was so comfortable resorting to this?
	That he's probably done it before?
	That they probably do it often in the Georgia courthouses?
	They probably do it often in courthouses across the country?
	It screams for the necessity of institutional reform.
	And we need more lawyers speaking out about the corruption in our courtroom, not less.
	And we need fewer lawyers who reflexively and in a knee-jerk way...
	Defend whatever the government accuses somebody of without any degree of criticism or skepticism.
	The argument was, or to steal men, whatever could be steal men from that judge, is that they were meeting with the witness to discuss civil contempt so that the defense need not be present during such a meeting.
	I mean, it's laughably stupid on its face for any lawyer, but explain why that explanation is laughably stupid to non-lawyers.
	Well, it's simple.
	They're rigging the case.
	I mean, that's the best way to understand it.
	They're rigging the case.
	They're intimidating a witness.
	If a defense lawyer did it, the defense lawyer would be in jail for serious crimes, for obstruction of justice, etc., etc.
	So, I mean, remember, they gagged Trump from even talking about witnesses.
	And here you have the government and the prosecutor coordinating and conspiring to force a witness to testify in a certain way to secure a conviction.
	It's just patently illegal.
	And of course, his contempt, everything about how he handled the contempt proceeding was on its own face illegal.
	So that even if what he previously had done was not illegal, how he handled contempt clearly was.
	And the fact he was like, you know, you tell me right now who your source is.
	I mean, it's like the reporter, I believe in Tennessee, who's being targeted because he won't disclose the source that allowed them to print.
	The manifesto of that trans shooter that showed that when the manifesto fits a certain political cause, the media is happy and eager to broadcast it.
	This one they tried to keep a lid on because it was against their narrative.
	Now, my view on these kind of mass shootings is always the same.
	They're lunatics looking for an excuse.
	They're like sociopaths who, in the name of Islamic fundamentalism or whatever belief structure they claim, They commit the horrible crimes because they're sociopaths.
	It's not because of the political permission slip they're given by some religious or political movement.
	The trans shooter was a sociopath.
	That's the reality.
	But why is the journalist being targeted for being imprisoned?
	Because he published politically undesirable information from the establishment perspective that they were trying to hide and cover up.
	It shows systemic problems.
	In our legal system that this could happen.
	But what it reveals, like the Trump cases have revealed, is that these are cases that when given full sunlight, people realize how the scale and scope and severity of some of the problems in our legal system.
	Our legal system is actually putting itself on trial, just as it did in the Alex Jones cases we'll be talking about.
	And what came up was not that...
	Alex Jones was so bad.
	It was that the justice system is so bad.
	And that's what this has revealed and reflected.
	Let me bring up the part where it really looks like...
	I don't know if it's the defense attorney.
	Someone looks like they're giving a hand gesture to the court reporter to stop recording.
	This guy...
	No, that's not a guy.
	The person right here.
	Watch their hands.
	He says, Mr. Corky made a statement suit that he admitted to killing...
	Yeah.
	I don't know what's going on there, but this is when he says you got five minutes.
	How did you find out?
	Oh!
	Mic drop.
	Look at this person right here.
	Continue.
	This is what I was told.
	Mr. Copeland made statements...
	Oh, so that's why she's saying stop recording because we're in recess, so it's off the record.
	The problem is that's the judge sort of trying to unilaterally...
	So the court reporter is reporting everything and recording, and the judge wants to limit what the record can reflect.
	He's trying to corrupt the record.
	This is why in Pennsylvania, under the pretext of protecting witnesses and jurors, they prohibit public broadcasting of any court proceeding and recording of any court proceeding to the degree that they even dictate What press are allowed to take notes during the court proceedings, as I witnessed in the Amos Miller case?
	And this is the courthouse covering up corruption in the courthouse.
	It's not promoting honesty and accuracy.
	They want to make sure that it's their transcript that's reflected on the record.
	And anybody that has any familiarity with that process knows that transcripts, one, they get things wrong just because people make mistakes because they're human.
	But also, sometimes it's deliberate and corrupt.
	And there was a case of a federal judge in Wisconsin who wanted to decide how he was going to handle a certain matter.
	And he looked to his court reporter and he went...
	And he then asked, what's the politics of the parties involved?
	Guess what?
	That question wasn't on the court record because the court reporter got the message.
	So this is why we need...
	We need the right to record any court proceeding by any party that's participant in it.
	And we need the right to publicly broadcast court proceedings outside of exceptional circumstances.
	There are certain standards that are met for sealing court records.
	Unless the standard is met for sealing a court record, it should be a public court proceeding.
	At all instances, you should be allowed to record your own proceedings.
	But in addition to that, you should be allowed...
	To have public broadcasting of anything that's not a sealed proceeding.
	And what we're witnessing is why we need that remedy.
	Because without that present, who knows what would have happened, right?
	There would have been some of the law tube types who would have been happy.
	Well, let's say there was nothing publicly recorded.
	Who would have been happy to just regurgitate.
	Whatever the official court record was, whatever the judge said happened, whatever the prosecutor said happened, rather than we got to witness in live time exactly what was happening.
	And everybody could see this is corruption.
	And it's extraordinary.
	And is it any coincidence it's happening in Fannie Willis' prosecutorial office?
	Do we move on over to Rumble to talk about the Alex Jones one?
	Well, it's going to be tangentially related.
	Let's do it, everybody.
	Hold on.
	Oh, actually, before I do that, Robert, if I may...
	I think I might have accidentally banned somebody because I was trying to put a spammer on timeout, and I think I might have banned someone who was not a spammer.
	So I'm going to double-check that after the show.
	My apologies if I did.
	Let me do this.
	Love your work.
	You are a fast talker.
	Keep fighting, says James Riley.
	Barnes for president, 2028.
	I'm not joking.
	We'll take AG for 2024.
	There is a 77-year-old man around jail in California because he shot a home invader.
	He has not been charged with any crime yet.
	John S. Read the case about the student who wore the shirt.
	There are two genders.
	He lost the case because the left-wing academics and judges are trying to create a hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
	We're going to get there in a second.
	Seize the day.
	Happy Daddy's Day, Viva.
	And truckers, honk.
	Only amount of time before honk is no longer allowed.
	Candace.
	Okay, we got this before.
	All right.
	We'll do the Rumble Rants over there afterwards.
	We're going to end on YouTube and end on Twitter.
	And come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to have the after party there.
	And the entire stream will be on Viva Clips later tonight, first thing tomorrow.
	And podcast.
	So ending on YouTube.
	Goodbye, YouTube.
	And we're going to go end on Twitter as well.
	Remove from Twitter.
	All right, Robert.
	The Alex Jones hearing on...
	Friday, in the bankruptcy court, the personal request of Alex Jones as of right to transform, transfer his Chapter 11 reorganization into a Chapter 7 liquidation.
	I listened to that hearing.
	Holy sweet, merciful goodness.
	It was boring as all hell.
	It was boring, and there's a lot of parties in bankruptcy.
	It's very confusing who represents who, what the interests are.
	It smells like there's infighting between the Texas...
	Plaintiffs and the Connecticut plaintiffs, if I'm understanding things right.
	The bottom line, the summary of this entire thing is that Alex Jones, for whatever the reason, and you'll maybe explain it, requested that the Chapter 11 restructuring for his personal bankruptcy be transformed into a liquidation because he says, we're not getting anywhere by way of the settlement, so liquidate my stuff and try to salvage whatever you can from my life earnings later on, assuming this doesn't get overturned on appeal.
	The plaintiffs or the claimants, the Texas plaintiffs, the Connecticut plaintiffs support that.
	They want to get some money.
	And that's it.
	The corporate request was not turned into liquidation yet.
	The question is going to be, flesh it out for non-lawyers.
	Explain what the strategy or the idea is here.
	And bottom line, to answer the question everybody's going to ask, regardless of what happens now, this can all be undone if the ridiculous judgment or amount is overturned on appeal.
	Someone had asked me, though, what happens to whatever they're able to collect in the interim?
	Does that go back to the Alex Jones or Infowars free speech systems?
	One question at a time, Robert.
	Strategy, what the hell is going on here?
	So, what this has exposed is that the Sandy Hook plaintiffs' lawyers, especially those in Connecticut, were pursuing this suit not for monetary recovery.
	Not to discern the truth in an honest and open adversarial process, but rather to silence and censor Alex Jones.
	And that they intended, as part of their collection effort, as came out this week, that they wanted the corporate reorganization, what is sometimes called Chapter 11 or Chapter 13, depending on which one you're utilizing, under the bankruptcy laws of the United States.
	That they wanted Alex Jones' public persona through his social media accounts to be called assets of the estate that they could then own and control.
	And this has been an idea that has percolated around certain legal pro-creditor areas.
	In fact, if you research a lot of the law governing the right of publicity, law governing certain aspects of bankruptcy, you'll discover that a lot of the...
	Scholars, so-called scholars, promoting it have been people who are advocating not for the individual, but for people who buy the right of publicity from others or have controlled it.
	For example, the right of publicity as originally established was originally being preached by Hollywood and their council so they could monetize their control over certain actors' images, even against the actor's own interest.
	What only a single bankruptcy court has ever established is that a corporate social media account formed and created solely for the corporation can be considered an asset of the corporate estate.
	That has nothing to do with someone's individual account.
	No bankruptcy court, to my knowledge, has ever found that that can be considered an asset of the estate.
	Such that the creditors could own it and control it.
	And this relates to the right of publicity writ large, and it's because of a misconception of it that originated by Hollywood lawyers writing as legal scholars in law review publications to treat the right of publicity as an alienable property right rather than a right of privacy and individual autonomy.
	Because it's the latter that it should be constitutionally rooted in, and in the common law tort context as well.
	And so the idea that these people have been preaching is that they can control your public image entirely.
	This relates to what Apple is doing, coordinating with AI to own the content of anything anybody uses in Apple technology, like an Apple iPhone, to do.
	This is what Adobe was trying to get away with, saying if you ever use Adobe, we actually own any content you create on it so that we can utilize it through AI for any purposes whatsoever and that you agree to this with our little email update of what the Adobe contract was.
	The goal is it's literally to own you.
	They thought they could use the case not to recover money, not to determine truth in an open adversarial process.
	But rather, because they refused either, but rather to completely control the public image of Alex Jones, to silence and censor him forever.
	Oh, you're on mute.
	Just one question there.
	If they take over an account, a corporate account, and you start messaging something that's totally diametrically opposed to the original messaging, that they have the right to do, or in theory can be done.
	That's what they're claiming, absolutely.
	So they could use it to shut down the account.
	They could use it to attack the person whose account it is.
	They could take over a real Alex Jones account and use it to attack Alex Jones every day.
	That's what they want.
	They want to destroy him.
	They want to destroy his impact.
	They want not only silence and censorship of Alex Jones, but to be able to libel him into perpetuity, either by associating him with ideas and thoughts he doesn't have.
	Or using his own accounts to reach his own followers to attack him.
	And I mean, it just all got unmasked.
	This is what I believed had been the case from the very inception.
	And Jones, when he was on our show, discussed that he had figured out that everything I'd told him at the very beginning had come true.
	That it ended up being very prescient.
	And it's because it was, quite frankly, apparent from a wide range of...
	Put together certain things and figure them out.
	That this is what the real objective was.
	I mean, people like Megyn Kelly and others have gone along with this sham of a trial to their embarrassment.
	I mean, this is not a case that any self-respecting rule of law lawyer should ever endorse or any aspect of this.
	But they're so scared and intimidated by the tragedy and trauma of the Sandy Hook victims.
	That they ignored the fact that they were fig leaves for a politically motivated agenda in violation of constitutional rights and liberties.
	But it shows the degree they didn't just want to shut down Infowars.
	They wanted to take over Alex Jones' public image and all methods and mechanisms of his public communication so that they could broadcast false ideas in the name of Alex Jones, so that they could attack him in his own name, in his own image.
	Using his own voice.
	I mean, they could do it with modern AI.
	You can do that.
	And they would have the legal right to as the creditors of his right of publicity if that's treated as an alienable property right.
	And now there's issues.
	One is I don't think it's an alienable property right to begin with.
	People may forget, you know, the Declaration of Independence, other of our political scripture of American law, talks about inalienable rights.
	For a reason.
	What does that mean?
	It means you can't sell them.
	You can't sell yourself into slavery under this principle and precept.
	That's part of Lysander Spooner's argument and Frederick Douglass' argument for the unconstitutionality of slavery.
	A text we've reviewed at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	But there's also arguments that it's an exempt tool of the trade under the bankruptcy laws because it's dependent on personal goodwill.
	That it's not something that can be alienable or practically or pragmatically alienable under the circumstances.
	And so the other issue is they know they can't monetize Alex Jones without Alex Jones.
	But they don't care.
	I mean, the Connecticut lawyers basically said that in the court proceeding.
	We're not here for the money.
	We're here to shut him down.
	But if you look at it, this came up in only a few scattered cases across the country.
	People may forget who else tried this, and they used another notorious case to do it.
	Maybe someone wrongly accused, by the way.
	The O.J. Simpson case.
	When Goldman's father sued O.J. Simpson in a charade of a trial where the jury was picked based on presuming O.J. guilty in order for them to sit on the jury, guess what they tried to collect on?
	His right of publicity.
	They tried to control his public image into perpetuity.
	Tried to profit from it, but also abuse it if they wanted to.
	Imagine someone owning your voice.
	The Sandy Hook lawyers wanted to own Alex Jones' voice for life.
	It was not only censorship, it was usurpation.
	It was permanent libel into perpetuity.
	And what the court in California correctly ruled is that...
	That didn't make any sense.
	That that sounded a lot like involuntary servitude, which was the other ulterior agenda here.
	That we want to control Infowars, but we dictate to Alex Jones what he says.
	And he has to say whatever we tell him to say as part of the agreement of the estate.
	And Jones is like, uh-uh, not playing that game either.
	So now this dispute has come up in social media account disputes.
	Tommy Lauren had this dispute.
	Candace Owens had this dispute.
	Who owns and controls their social media when they leave a particular employer that might have helped build up that social media account?
	It's come up in music industry and in Hollywood where they've often abused that so-called right of publicity for their self-enrichment at the expense of an individual.
	For example, they would have somebody promoting a good that they didn't support.
	And they would say, well, we owned your right of publicity.
	It came up in the baseball player context, where they tried to say you could only endorse this gum rather than the other gum because you gave the right of publicity to this particular playing card company.
	So it's come up in divorce contexts and other contexts.
	And the courts have mostly been very good at saying, same way as we don't enforce personal contracts.
	That sounds like...
	Basically getting into some form of peonage, involuntary servitude.
	Another way to put it is these are just inalienable rights.
	You can't sell them.
	You can't monetize them in that way.
	You can do a contract and say, I'm going to agree to speak on your behalf, but it has to be volitional and voluntary.
	It can't be coerced through the judicial system, which is what they're trying to require and impose.
	So it's as fundamental as speech, assembly, religion, press, expression, etc.
	So that's the real backstory about all of this.
	And Jones smoked it out.
	And so Jones went to the court and said, they're not serious about negotiation.
	So convert my private personal individual, Chapter 11, into a Chapter 7, and treat the corporate reorganization.
	Just dismiss it and give me back control.
	And by transferring the personal one to a liquidation, It precludes the Texas lawyers from going into court and collecting because a trustee is currently trying to sell the assets of Infowars.
	And so that would interfere with the bankruptcy court for them to try to collect on it through rogue Texas judges.
	While at the same time, by ending and dismissing the business reorganization, he no longer has a rogue CRO.
	Trying to shut down Infowars or undermine Infowars by other mechanisms and means.
	And so their efforts to control and own his voice have, so far, failed.
	And Jones' goal is to keep Infowars on the air through the election.
	It appears that he will be able to achieve that objective.
	Also to expose what these lawyers were really about, this weaponized legal system.
	And again...
	You know, James O 'Keefe and other, it was another organization, actually, that mirrors James O 'Keefe, you know, got CIA, FBI officials to admit their complicity and involvement in this, and it was a former high-ranking FBI person who admitted he was the lead of the Sandy Hook plaintiffs, who, by the way, had his own $100 million-plus award that had no connection to Sandy Hook except showing up at the scene.
	He had no family that died there or anything like that.
	Somehow that his...
	His role never gets mentioned by the press and some other people.
	But so credit to Jones, who figured out what the scam was and has done everything possible to maintain the independence and authenticity of his voice, to maintain the accessibility of Infowars throughout through the election, and to expose the weaponization of the legal system for impermissible unconstitutional purposes, which is what this has always been and now indubitably is exposed as being.
	I had a question.
	Okay, the first question, and then I'll get to the complicated one.
	Assuming it gets overturned in appeal, or at least the quantum, Alex Jones is going to have been bankrupted.
	He's going to sell off or have his share in Infowars liquidated.
	Assuming it gets overturned, any amount that they've recovered, they have to give back to Alex Jones, I presume?
	Yeah, I mean, they still have to overcome the other issues.
	Which is that there are creditors that are secured that have higher priority than them.
	They're disputing that on the grounds that because the people involved are family members, that somehow that doesn't make it a legitimate contract, when quite clearly it is, and it tracks and traces the history of it, for which he has independent evidentiary documentation and foundation long before this litigation ever arose.
	His father was the one who came up with the supplements idea.
	That's no big secret.
	More than 20 years ago.
	You know, before the events at Sandy Hook ever happened.
	I saw that war whore, Sebastian Gorka, if you don't know, has ties to British intelligence going all the way back.
	Another foreigner.
	It likes to influence our elections.
	Out there bashing Alex Jones again.
	Just in case you didn't know what a fake phony and fraud that guy is.
	He and his wife go around trying to shake out money out of the swamp in Washington, D.C. Crocodiles disguised as herons of truth.
	But it's more like harem rather than heron.
	But when you get to who and what all of this case is about, it's been exposed for what it is.
	And some other bad actors have been exposed in the process.
	Just as some good actors have been revealed unmasked in the process.
	Credit to Russell Brand.
	Credit to...
	Jimmy Dore, who went on.
	He had prior disputes with Alex Jones, but he went on with Alex.
	And big credit to Tucker Carlson, who spoke out on behalf of Alex Jones, went on Infowars this week to say why he was speaking out, what was significant about Alex's voice.
	And this is just one of the most creative weaponizations of the legal system to ever occur to try to completely silence and censor.
	One of the most important populist voices in America.
	Whether you like or dislike him, he's an important voice that a lot of people want to hear from.
	And he has often been a clarion call to warnings of risk that are forthcoming, as we saw during the entire pandemic era.
	So I think that ultimately, Alex Jones will survive.
	That he's not somebody that will go gently into that good night.
	And the unrighteous nature of his adversaries, We'll continue to expose who they are, and hopefully a court will correct it, because if any money does get transferred to them, they owe it back to him with interest if they lose on appeal.
	And again, their goal isn't the money.
	Their goal is to try to silence him for as long as they can, censor him as long as they can, and libel him as long as they can.
	But the damages that come from wrongful liquidation of assets, they don't owe him anything because it was overturned in appeal.
	They were just operating under the realm of the law.
	It shows why Texas should adopt a law like is present in Connecticut and in other states, like I think should also be in criminal cases.
	No judgment should be enforceable until all appellate remedies have been exhausted.
	Because it's so wild.
	It's like forcing you to sell stock and then, well, if you're selling it at a loss and it goes back up in value, well, tough noogies, we liquidated it in order to satisfy a judgment that was subsequently overturned.
	And lo and behold, had you just held, you would have made more.
	The other question I had was, listening to this hearing, the plaintiffs or the plaintiff's counsel or the committee, they made it abundantly clear.
	They want to continue litigation against Jones afterwards, and they want to continue litigation against others.
	I presume they're going to try to go after, I think they would call it not arm's length transactions or preferential payments.
	They're going to try to claw back.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, of course.
	The problem they have is one of timing.
	So preferential payments are payments made on the eve of bankruptcy.
	None of these were.
	As has been documented and has been independently substantiated and verified.
	And I believe if he gets an honest Chapter 7 trustee over his individual liquidation, would also authenticate because it goes back to his divorce proceedings.
	So, I mean, it's all there.
	And Jones has given me the liberty to speak about it.
	I've seen it myself.
	The paperwork goes back decades.
	So that his dad, there's no dispute.
	His dad was the one who introduced him to the supplements idea.
	There's no dispute that the agreement that the company would owe his dad money.
	On a percentage of revenue over years that would be secured against Infowars was done a decade before Sandy Hook even happened.
	So it had nothing to do with the bankruptcy, had nothing to do with anything connected to Sandy Hook or Sandy Hook plaintiffs.
	So it was entirely independent.
	And then his relationship, the agreements with his wife are pretty typically done.
	As prenups, you often put...
	Certain provisions in there to provide protection to each spouse.
	And again, that happened before any Sandy Hook litigation ever, was even on the eve of possibly happening, least of all of bankruptcy occurring.
	So you look at that, none of them meet the definition of preferential payments.
	None of them meet the definition of monies that you could claw back.
	Basically, they're saying, well, because you have agreements with your family, somehow those don't count.
	That's not how bankruptcy law works.
	What is the status of the appeals out of Texas?
	Someone had asked me, and I know they're appealing it, but I don't know what stage.
	They pleaded something recently in February, as far as I remember.
	Yeah, so, I mean, I'm sure it's still pending before the Texas Court of Appeals and probably the Connecticut Court of Appeals.
	The issue is that the Connecticut Court of Appeals has been kind of a joke.
	Connecticut Supreme Court has been mostly a joke.
	The Texas Court of Appeals, the way that works is you have different appellate courts.
	You don't have one.
	So the Texas Court of Appeals has its own Austin division.
	And they're useless.
	They're the ones who decided to rewrite libel law in ways that's never been written before in order to allow this case to go forward in the first place.
	And where he's got potential relief on appeal is two courts.
	In Texas, it's the Supreme Court.
	When I was handling the appeal part of the case very early on, the motion to dismiss stage, We got two of the Texas Supreme Court justices say they wanted to take it.
	The only reason to take it would have been to reverse.
	We just needed one more.
	So if he gets one more vote, then Texas Supreme Court will overturn and that whole verdict will get thrown out.
	And in my view, not only did the verdict get thrown out, the whole trial get thrown out.
	Not only for everything that happened in the trial, but it violated the First Amendment and violated Texas law, that entire lawsuit.
	And it's the same and true in Connecticut, but in Connecticut, probably his only hope is the Supreme Court of the United States.
	But he's got very unique, compelling First Amendment issues.
	And the cases, as it's getting unmasked, just how political this was, just how dangerous weaponization of the legal system.
	I mean, they tried to convert Alex Jones into the slave of the...
	Of these establishment interests.
	And that's what they did.
	It wasn't the legal system to do so.
	It was classic involuntary servitude.
	And again, I'm quoting a court case.
	The O.J. Simpson case said our courts are not here to put people in an involuntary servitude.
	Owning someone's right of publicity like their social media account, individual personal social media accounts, is precisely that.
	And so that's what they try to do.
	They try to make Alex Jones their involuntary servant.
	He has refused to go along, and the law says that he is right.
	Robert, what do we segue?
	Oh, sorry, hold on.
	Before we segue, let me read a bunch of the rants, because I don't want to get too far behind, because I already am.
	Scroll down, I'm going to go fast here.
	Matt G. Hammond, welcome back.
	Today is the 40th anniversary of the greatest act of love from a father to his son that has ever been caught on camera.
	Happy Father's Day, posthumously, Gary Plush.
	If everybody doesn't know what that is, go Google it.
	Oh, I thought it was going to be a Joe Biden reference.
	No, this was the guy who shot the guy who raped his son, waited at a phone booth, and as the guy came by, caught on camera.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Well, we have a word for that in Tennessee.
	It's called justice.
	But speaking of the person who was so giving that he was willing to give his only begotten son.
	For the sake of the country and the rule of law.
	That would be, you know, President Joe Biden, of course.
	That's how he would like the world to interpret the Hunter Biden verdict.
	Oh, we're going to get there in a second, Robert.
	Although, when was it?
	No, that was last week.
	Okay.
	We got a six-foot midget.
	Happy Father's Day.
	We have our second son due in October.
	God bless the six-foot midget.
	Hey, Viva, I have a merch idea I want to run by you.
	I don't have a Twitter.
	How do we do that, Wizard AG?
	Let me see what I can do with this.
	Denisan2, Catholics only worship Jesus for those who know nothing about Catholicism.
	I'm so sick of people hating on Catholics.
	Stefan Aug says, Hi guys, terrific show.
	When can we expect decisions on the Google antitrust, Rumble versus Google lawsuits?
	I think they're in discovery right now, so it's going to be a while, Robert.
	They haven't got to trial.
	Probably a year away from trial.
	They're in Discovery, then they've got to get everything ready for trial.
	Pinochet's Helicopter Tours.
	I'm definitely skeptical of government and twice as skeptical of hypocrites.
	Well, then you're three times as skeptical as the government.
	Add BOA95.
	We need cameras in every courtroom.
	How do we get this accomplished?
	Absolutely.
	Little Woody's Testimony is Comedic Gold or Comedy Gold.
	It was fantastic.
	That was from W.L. French.
	I was Viva's plus one in Miami.
	He is so handsome and probably...
	A great dad.
	I have my moments.
	Dapper Dave 2021.
	As in being a good dad.
	It was a self-deprecating joke.
	Never mind.
	Young Thug and Case.
	I like the fact that there were a team of lawyers at the ready to defend steel.
	Every state should have that super team of lawyers at the ready in all states, especially blue states.
	Rena.
	How can they make Alex liquidate everything before all appellates have been exhausted?
	We got that.
	AJDS.
	Alex Jones derangement syndrome.
	Robert.
	Other podcasters have said that AJ has been trying to sell Infowars since March, and he is a CIA asset.
	What are your thoughts?
	It's so ridiculous.
	It's so ridiculous.
	Not to make fun of the person.
	No, but making fun of the idea.
	It's ridiculous.
	It's like, you don't understand.
	He's Bo Bridges.
	They took out Alex Jones 25 years ago.
	He's been an actor recording about here.
	Bo Bridges.
	At least go with Jeff Bridges, not Bo.
	King of Biltong is in the house.
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Meat.
	10% off with code VIVATEN for your Biltong on landofbiltong.com, antonusa.com.
	Purchases qualified for free shipping.
	Else use the code VIVA for shipping.
	And Biltong is a great midday snack.
	I love it.
	Well, I'm getting ready for a long road trip, so the Biltong is going to keep me awake and...
	Filled with protein, people.
	Let the jokes roll in.
	Let's go to the shirt one.
	I want to go to the shirt one.
	Talking of hate speech and trying to control speech.
	This is Liam Morrison, who's got probably the coolest name ever, because Liam...
	Is the name of Liam Gallagher.
	One of the two greatest members of a band of all time.
	Liam Morrison's that 12-year-old kid who wore the shirt to school that said, there are only two genders.
	He gets hauled into the office.
	They say, take the shirt off or go home.
	Take the shirt away.
	It's against school policy.
	His dad comes, picks him up, supportive, etc.
	Comes back a little while later and has a shirt that says, this, there are only...
	And I don't remember what part is black.
	It said censored.
	It said that one of them was, there are only two and the genders was censored or there are only...
	And they still said, no go.
	This is bad.
	He sued.
	And lost.
	He sued for First Amendment violation, saying it's free speech.
	I'm at school.
	I can express myself politically.
	The kid is wise beyond his years, and I hope he doesn't waste.
	He should still have a childhood.
	So don't lose your childhood, Liam.
	But they sue.
	They had some organization representing him.
	Lost at the lower level.
	Lost at the appellate level.
	Appellate level had different reasons for ratifying the school's prohibition of the shirt.
	They went to this Tinker decision, which goes back to 1969.
	School students were wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War, and the school said that's okay because it's not a substantial intrusion on school policy, school environment.
	And I can sort of understand the idea that, you know, you have free speech rights, but you don't go to your workplace and protest there because, you know, the whole reason why Colin...
	Kaepernick should not necessarily have been allowed to take the knee and protest at a football game because it's employment.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	The lower court level, I believe, went from the hate speech angle.
	And unless I'm mistaken, the appellate court went at the substantial intrusion, which is not necessarily based on hate speech, but based on protest political speech that causes a disturbance at school.
	Bottom line, it was unanimous, right?
	They said this shirt is prohibited.
	The school was ratified in doing it.
	It's freaking wild.
	Liam, if you're watching, first of all, I'd love to have you or your parents on, but also just make a shirt that says there are only two sexes and nobody can take issue with that.
	But Robert, what's your take?
	What have I gotten wrong?
	And what should people take away from this?
	So it'll relate to the white pill of the night, the Title IX case.
	This is more of the black pill.
	The Massachusetts school system basically had a rule that said any sign, shirt, clothing, etc.
	that was unacceptable to community standards was prohibited and that you could be punished as a student for exhibiting it.
	I was curious how in the world they were going to say that's constitutional.
	And guess how they got out of that one?
	Standing.
	Somehow this kid, who was punished, didn't have standing to sue because the school system didn't cite that as their basis for the interpretation.
	It's because they couldn't even affirm and uphold that nonsense, but they wanted to escape accountability for it and let the school continue to violate people's rights predicated upon it.
	What happened is, way back, the Supreme Court said, you can't restrain Vietnam War protests.
	But then a kid wore a jacket that said, F the draft.
	And as Hugo Black later admitted in his private papers, he betrayed the First Amendment because his wife didn't like the F word.
	I mean, he even admitted it was pitiful.
	So at least I'll give him credit for admitting his role in allowing that degree of censorship was pitiful.
	But the only excuse they said is they said the state is the state.
	The school, when it's a public school, is the state.
	The same First Amendment applies to them like it does everyone else.
	However, what can be permitted as restrictive varies in terms of compelling state interest and what's narrowly tailored for it is it's a compelling interest to protect against disruption in the school.
	Now, they were referencing, by the way, violent protest.
	That's what they were referencing because that was happening in the schools.
	They were not referencing pure speech.
	That didn't even target a specific individual.
	And again, stalking and harassment is already prohibited.
	So, you know, your right to free speech isn't a right to stalk, isn't a right to harass.
	So you can have limitations in there.
	They admitted that his shirt wasn't targeted at anybody.
	School never claimed it was targeted at anybody.
	They just said some people might feel offended.
	And they admit that goes into the heckler's veto issue, which is there is no heckler's veto.
	Under the First Amendment, you don't get to say you offended somebody.
	It's out.
	That's never been a constitutionally permissible standard.
	And they've adjudicated this in the governmental employment context, where you have the least amount of First Amendment protection from government censorship and suppression of speech, as we've discussed in prior cases, a Tennessee case in one instance.
	So the way they're getting around it is they realize they couldn't use the hate speech broad permissibility provision.
	So instead they went to, well, we're going to pretend this is...
	Disruptive of the school environment.
	It's like, how is it disruptive of the school environment?
	How is it that it's just embracing the heckler's veto?
	Well, if the speech could offend someone and have a negative psychological impact on them, and they fit within a category that's protected somewhere, someplace from discrimination in that same category, and this somehow is there.
	What's interesting is they don't identify...
	Who is being discriminated against by the statement that there are two genders?
	Well, it's the people who are confused about their gender.
	That they might think that that statement is about them because apparently they think they're a third gender.
	I mean, to my knowledge, there still are only two genders.
	Even the men pretending to be women are claiming to be women.
	They're not claiming to be hybrids.
	So it's the ambiguity of the term gender, but I appreciate people use it interchangeably with sex, but that's where the semantics gets in.
	But Robert, not only was nobody upset about it, apparently a lot of the schoolmates were actively in support of it.
	So he got some accommodations.
	The Massachusetts school system, that's who it offended.
	Who are a bunch of commies.
	And that's why they wanted the unacceptable community standards language to be there.
	They've taken our school systems and converted them from practical education.
	Arguably, they never really were about practical education.
	It's always been acculturation, not education.
	But putting that aside, it's now open indoctrination.
	That's all it is.
	It's ideological indoctrination into ideas that their parents usually don't agree with.
	And your children are being subject to it in ways that when I was up in Amish country...
	They don't experience, and they find really weird when I tell them these stories.
	Say, I mean, thank God your kid doesn't go to the local Philadelphia public schools.
	They'd be coming home and telling you they're no longer a boy, they're really a girl.
	Or they'd be learning about, you know, your six-year-old would be coming home learning about their teacher's sex life.
	And they're like, what?
	What are you even talking?
	They think, you know, Barnes has fallen, hit a rock or something.
	Because it means, why?
	Because their schools are Amish schools.
	They don't go to any of those schools.
	But that's what's happening.
	They're turning these into methods of indoctrination, which, in my opinion, is its own First Amendment violation.
	But they're doing so with another First Amendment violation with these speech codes.
	Well, I don't know what they raised by way of argument because I hadn't followed the pleadings that thoroughly, but that's what the family said in response to the judgment.
	They said, my kid goes to school.
	They got pride flags everywhere.
	They're talking about pronouns.
	They're talking about pride month, pride season, all this stuff.
	And they're basically...
	Imposing their politics on my kid, but my kid can't exercise his First Amendment rights to not even rebut it, just express himself.
	It's an amazing double standard or a one-way road on free speech.
	Completely.
	And it's unmanageable and unsustainable.
	Because, for example, for some religious beliefs, promoting three genders, promoting various...
	Sexual behaviors, the LGBTQ +, whatever it is now, behaviors, is offensive.
	So are they going to get protected or not?
	So it reveals that the courts are coming up with every mechanism imaginable to permit the propagation of idolatrous ideologies to our children.
	And it's disturbing.
	Good side, at least the Biden administration's attempt to force-feed everybody on this on Title IX, failed this weekend.
	Well, temporarily, one last question, because in this particular decision, they did talk about another case coming out of another district, but I think it was the same circuit, where a kid wore a shirt to school that said, be happy, not gay.
	Which, if I'm a snowflake, that's much more offensive to me than there are only two genders.
	They were trying to explain why that was somehow okay, but this new one, their two genders was not.
	They had to go through great logical leaps rather than just say, we want indoctrination, we want to get away with it.
	We want to let the school system get away with it.
	So we're going to make up the law so they can get away with it.
	But this, was Tinker a Supreme Court decision?
	Yeah, Tinker was a United States Supreme Court.
	So does this have to go back to the Supreme Court for further clarification?
	Yeah, because this is the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
	So there's only one higher court at this point, and that's the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Because it seems like there needs to be some clarity when don't be happy, oh sorry, be happy not gay is okay, but there are only two genders is not okay.
	Something needs to happen to...
	Elucidate a consistent principle that can be understood by all.
	And you think, I mean, under these rules, could somebody wear white people, white's all right?
	You know, it's okay to be white t-shirt?
	No, no, but you're giving me an idea for a shirt, Robert.
	We can have our next Viva Barnes say it's okay.
	I'll test it.
	Well, I'm not going to.
	If my kid happens to test it out on their own, on his or her own, depending on which kid does it.
	I'll deal with it then and then.
	All right.
	So this, in theory, we could expect this to obviously be petitioned to the Supreme Court whether or not they hear it.
	It sounds like they should because there's a little bit of inconsistency even within the same appellate level.
	All right.
	That's the black pill.
	It's not such a federal black pill.
	I think it's a white pill because it's going to wake people up to the insanity and indoctrination of the school system.
	And there might be social and political blowback, as there should be.
	But the lowest level, this is just federal court.
	Texas challenging Biden's reinterpretation of Title IX.
	They're sort of like the ATF.
	They just go back and revisit some of their guidelines and say, yeah, once upon a time we thought bump stock was clearly not a machine gun.
	Now we say it is.
	We're going to outlaw it.
	Once upon a time, Robert, Title IX said women.
	It was enacted to protect women, the sex of women.
	Fair play in sports because they should not be competing against men.
	And that's what Title IX was, protecting women's rights.
	And then they come in and say, yeah, we're going to reinterpret that now.
	That machine gun now includes a bump stock.
	That women's rights now includes men.
	Identify with whatever the hell you want.
	It includes men.
	And the Texas federal court, first instance, said, I mean, they had some choice words for this interpretation of Title IX.
	It's totally, what do they say?
	It's inoperable with the basic tenets of democracy or something along those lines?
	Yeah, I mean, what they did, the court didn't have to reach all of the constitutional questions raised, though ultimately did discuss several of them, because they didn't conform to the APA.
	And fortunately here, we'll discuss it later, they're allowing the governments to sue agencies that probably an individual wouldn't have been allowed to sue.
	So it's good that there's some attorney generals enforcing the law and seeking remedy by bringing suit in this context.
	But for those that don't remember, this was an attempt to say that if you receive federal funds as an educational institution under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, you now have to preach indoctrination in order to get your federal funds.
	And since pretty much every public educational institution is dependent on federal funds, many private, other than Hillsdale College.
	That's why Hillsdale takes no federal funds, directly or indirectly.
	Almost every private university takes federal funds.
	So they would have all been subject to this imposition, where they were going to have to indoctrinate people in support of gender ideology, and not only indoctrinate them in presentations like pronoun protection and all that jazz, and probably variations of this speech code from Massachusetts.
	But in practice, by allowing men to go into women's bathrooms, women's locker rooms, participate in women's sports, if they simply identified as a woman.
	And so the first issue was whether they even complied with the notice and comment process.
	And this is supposed to be the democratic aspect of the Administrative Procedures Act that says if an executive agency is going to issue a rule...
	That they have to provide and give notice to everybody that could be impacted and influenced by that rule to afford them to have comment, which is basically enforcing the right to petition clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
	And then they're supposed to meaningfully respond to those comments.
	Here they didn't do that.
	So their argument was that violated their procedural due process rights.
	In addition, they recognized that there's a certain expense the schools...
	And that the administrative process would not be a sufficient adjudicatory remedy.
	So they afforded standing, thankfully.
	Then they talked about, in terms of interpreting whether what they did was even legal in the first place, there were certain constitutional interpretations of the spending clause and the major questions doctrine.
	And the non-delegation doctrine, which is all separation of powers, it's that the executive branch can't make up the rules under the guise of the control of the spending clause or under the guise that they're interpreting rules, the law, rather than creating law.
	That's what these administrative agencies have been doing for forever.
	Hopefully, we'll get a very good Supreme Court decision in the next two weeks on the Chevron doctrine that really eviscerates.
	These agencies' abilities to just make up the rules.
	Are we not getting a bit of an inkling now?
	We've seen what they did in the bump stock ban being overturned.
	Are we getting an inkling that they're really going to eviscerate the Chevron administrative deference doctrine?
	Yeah, I think that's why Sotomayor was crying a couple of weeks ago.
	So that the heart of the professional managerial class power in America is the administrative state.
	Their second source of power is the judiciary.
	But their primary source of power is the bureaucracy.
	I'm sorry, I didn't realize that she actually cried, Robert.
	What the hell is it?
	Justice Sotomayor describes crying after some Supreme Court decisions.
	I don't want to see her crying.
	I didn't hear about that.
	I'm sorry, I just had to fact check you in real time.
	I remember when Joe Rogan was doing that with Alex Jones, and it was just all like...
	Fact check, true.
	Robert, my wife did it with Alex Jones when he was taught, what's it called?
	The Shimeric?
	The mix between human and animal.
	What was the...
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Animal-human hybrids.
	They've been doing it for years.
	No, I remember we were in our house in Westmount, in Montreal, and she's watching upstairs, and she's like, yeah, I checked out the 5G towers, I checked out the gay frogs, I checked out the human thing.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, I didn't hear Sotomayor was crying.
	Yes.
	Those are signs that signal things to come.
	He should have been crying over the FDA decision she co-signed.
	But yeah, I think it's an indicator.
	But great.
	Title IX is dead.
	It's also enjoined by the very good Trump appointee, Terry Doty, out of the Louisiana federal court judge who issued great decisions on masks, great decisions on vaccines, great decision on the...
	On the Biden administration, Missouri v.
	Biden's collusion to censor speech.
	That's another decision that's going to be coming down the next couple of weeks.
	Trump immunity coming down the next couple of weeks.
	The obstruction statute's applicability of January 6th coming down the next couple of weeks.
	So hopefully we'll have some very good decisions coming down.
	We had a couple of good ones and one lousy one this week from the Supreme Court.
	I just want to, before we leave this topic...
	Title IX was intended to protect women, and you have the Biden administration saying men now get to share spaces, compete with, and usurp that essence of what was intended to protect women.
	You cannot get more misogynistic than that, period.
	Terry Doty.
	I think it's consistent with Joe Biden giving his behavior.
	I was going to make some...
	I won't share the...
	There was some really unfortunate memes going around.
	Well, Robert, I don't want to be too negative on Father's Day and shit on other...
	People's fathering.
	And you never know how...
	Life is what it is.
	You can't blame a father for having a kid that turns out a certain way for good and for bad.
	Well, I mean, you got one kid that's, Ma, ma, where's my grandpa?
	Gone to the White House.
	Ha, ha, ha.
	I mean, a grandkid he refuses to even acknowledge.
	That you can blame.
	That you can certainly...
	That's fair game, but I don't want to get too negative on Father's Day.
	He has a functioning genitalia as well.
	Good for Joe Biden.
	Good for Hunter.
	He's got one also.
	Robert, the judge was Terry Doty?
	Yeah.
	The Louisiana one.
	This one was the Texas case.
	The Louisiana judge followed up with a similar injunction.
	How do you spell Doty?
	I think it's D-O-U-G-H-T-Y.
	Okay, fine.
	That's fine.
	I was wondering if it was Terry Doty.
	I was going to make a joke.
	I won't make the joke.
	All right.
	Sorry.
	So, what do we segue?
	I cut you off and now I forgot where we were going.
	Oh, the Supreme Court.
	Oh, well, are we going to do bump stock?
	Well, we got them all.
	We got bump stock.
	We got injunction decision, Trump trademark decision, and the horrendous FDA decision.
	Well, let's leave.
	Okay, let's start with the FDA decision so that we can leave on a happy note.
	The FDA, it's so freaking ridiculous.
	I can only read these decisions and hear you saying, standing is a made-up doctrine that has no basis in constitutional law.
	This is a bunch of doctors and some, I don't know who the other plaintiffs were, but you'll add it, who were suing to...
	They lift the FDA's approval of mefiprazone, which is the abortion drug that is used up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, prescribed without a meaning, without, I don't know, whatever protocol goes into it, because they determined it was effective for abortions.
	I was going to do schmortions as a joke, but they determined it was effective up to a certain point, and it became so effective, they basically bypassed whatever the protocol would have been.
	To do the standard FDA approval process to use this drug for...
	I guess it was an off-label at the point.
	I might be making mistakes here.
	But the bottom line, a bunch of doctors and other people sued to eliminate, revoke, rescind the FDA's approval of mefiprosone for abortion.
	Pills, up to 10 weeks.
	And the court said they lacked standing.
	But what I found just amazing about it was they said, it's not because no one would have standing that we're going to give somebody standing.
	The Supreme Court has already addressed that, the argument that, well, if we don't have standing, nobody does, and therefore it can never get challenged.
	It's not because nobody has a claim that we're going to give standing to someone who doesn't have standing.
	What the hell does that mean?
	How can nobody have standing and they acknowledge there's a justiciable claim?
	I don't understand it.
	I don't even understand how they got around standing in this case because it's...
	Who would have standing?
	Who would have standing?
	Here's who has standing to sue the government when the government does something wrong, according to the Supreme Court, unanimous of the Supreme Court of the United States.
	If you're a big corporation, you have standing.
	If you are a rich property owner, you have standing.
	If you're a yuppie park user, you have standing.
	If you're a state government, you have standing.
	Everyone else, you're screwed.
	That's the simple message from the Supreme Court.
	And the liberals are so results-oriented, so consequentialist, rather than constitutionalist in approach, that they signed off on this decision.
	Because they're like, woohoo!
	Oh, now we get the abortion bill to everybody.
	And now realizing they just eviscerated every liberal organization's ability to sue.
	Because they have a, oh, what?
	I mean, because that's how slow and dense they are up there.
	And then the conservatives who are so eager to sign on to this has been part of a conservative movement for a quarter century that loves the standing doctrine to eviscerate judicial power in places they don't want it.
	And the problem with it is this is a made-up doctrine.
	It has no constitutional history.
	Find the word standing in the Constitution, Justice Thomas.
	It ain't there.
	It ain't never been there.
	I'll steel man the argument, Robert.
	So let's just say you and I have a contract and we have a dispute.
	Well, Nate Brody doesn't get to come in and say, Viva and Barnes have a dispute and so I have standing.
	Unless he is a third party that has standing for a wide range of reasons.
	True.
	Where he's been to some degree of injury.
	And what's extraordinary here is they're drastically limiting.
	What they're considering constitutionally cognizable injury.
	If the government is out there lying about the safety of a drug...
	Everybody has standing.
	Exactly.
	If they're lying about the efficacy of a drug, if they're marketing something and promoting something in a way that endangers people's lives, that facilitates mass murder, then it seems to me...
	All the people that could be impacted by that includes anybody who's impacted by that, including informational injury, which has been recognized in a wide range of contexts, and until this decision, organizational injury.
	So here you have an organization whose primary and principal dedication is educating the public, particularly doctors' patients, about what is safe and effective and what isn't.
	for a wide range of medical diagnoses.
	And the FDA, for those people that don't know, whatever you feel about the abortion pill, they short-circuited the entire process.
	They ignored the citizen petitions filed.
	They didn't comply with notice and comment.
	They didn't comply with the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act.
	They violated people's procedural rights and their constitutional rights to petition to the government under the First Amendment.
	And the Supreme Court had the gall to say, well, if you have a problem...
	Well, take it up with the executive branch.
	They try.
	The executive branch is the one violating the law.
	Say, well, take it up with the legislative branch.
	In many cases, the legislature wrote the law that said this was illegal.
	So this is up for the courts.
	It's the only branch that can actually adjudicate the law.
	And they're abdicating their constitutional obligation.
	It says that they shall take every case in controversy.
	Not might.
	They shall take every case in controversy.
	This is clearly a case and a controversy.
	And remember, for those folks who don't know, the word standing didn't even exist in a single court case for more than a century after the Constitution was founded.
	So don't tell me all these Supreme Court are originalists.
	They aren't originalists at all when it comes to this doctrine.
	And this is a sad, pitiful excuse by the conservative legal academy who think they have a big political win, who just eviscerated and undermined the Constitution in the way they went about it, and gutted ordinary people's rights to get relief and remedy when their own government is the one violating those rights.
	I'll ask the stupid question.
	What's the cornerstone decision in the United States from SCOTUS on standing?
	Say it again.
	What's the cornerstone decision on standing from SCOTUS?
	Oh, it was during the beginning of this century when they wanted to play Pontius Pilate and get out of cases and controversies and decided they wanted to abdicate their judicial obligation, particularly when somebody's substantively right on the case, right?
	They don't have to do this in cases where the government's in the right.
	They have to do this when everybody knows the government is in the wrong.
	And so, I mean, what they've done is it's now impossible to sue the government unless you are...
	Here's the irony.
	They're treating the FDA as only impacting drug companies.
	So that if you give drug companies what they want, if you help drug companies, nobody can sue.
	Because they're not injured, according to the Supreme Court.
	The only people that could be injured is the big drug company who's wrongly denied their ability to sell and market bad and dangerous drugs to people.
	I mean, the Supreme Court is made of a bunch of corporate whores.
	I mean, that's what they are.
	Even the liberal justices, corporate whores.
	The originalist conservative judges.
	Corporate whores.
	That's what happens when you let the Federalist Society filter everybody through.
	And their originalism ends as soon as favoring big corporations begins.
	But it's basically saying you would have to take Mephibrosome, get injured by Mephibrosome, and then argue that your injury resulted from a lack of, well, not due process, but a lack of proper certification.
	I mean, why?
	Because you can't sue the government under sovereign immunity.
	So you can't sue for monetary damages.
	You can't sue for a past injury.
	You can only sue for the risk of future injury.
	So again, no one can sue but the drug company themselves.
	The drug company that isn't able to, in the future, market a drug can sue.
	That's what they've done.
	So the regulated big corporations, if they're negatively impacted by the government, they can sue.
	That's it.
	Nobody else can sue.
	Now, sometimes a rich property owner, they also made an exception.
	Because a lot of environmental suits are probably these little yuppie public park users.
	They're like, oh, those suits are okay.
	Because we've got to protect our yuppie park users.
	But, you know, God forbid we protect ordinary people injured when the government lies to them.
	I'm trying not to get blackpilled on this, but like...
	Well, here's the white pill.
	I got one presidential candidate aboard, and hopefully we can get a second.
	Robert Kennedy.
	He's going to support legislation to give people a right explicitly and expressly by congressional statute that they can sue any time the government denies their petition to the government under a citizen petition.
	So if you file a citizen petition, which there's many protocols and procedures to do when a government agency announces some policy that could impact you in any way, and they deny it, he's going to support legislation to give an automatic right of judicial review and the right to sue.
	And a right to fee recovery if you're successful to make sure there's private attorney generals to enforce it.
	And I hope Trump does the same thing.
	If Trump is serious about draining the swamp and not letting the swamp drain him like it did in his first term, then this is the kind of legislation he should embrace as well.
	And hopefully Senator Vance and Congressman Massey and some other people will soon be on board this as well.
	Because that is at this point the only remedy.
	The courts are now closed unless Congress...
	I mean, there's no more consequential injury that has occurred by the government in the last century than their false marketing.
	They're lying to the American people about the COVID-19 vaccine being safe, effective, and a vaccine that prevented COVID-19 when it was dangerous, ineffective, not a vaccine, and never prevented COVID-19.
	But they have just eviscerated the ability for anybody.
	To sue at all.
	And by the same government agency, I may, and this idea just came to me, we may find some supplemental authority with the court in the Brooke Jackson case, because guess what the FDA's excuse was for intervening and demanding dismissal of the Brooke Jackson case?
	Oh, you could sue the FDA?
	See, a total lie.
	I told the court that's a total lie.
	See, I was like, I know it's a total lie because I've sued him and the courts told me I can't sue him.
	But now there's no doubt about it.
	Supreme Court shut that door entirely.
	They made it clear nobody can ever sue the government, and when it's the most consequential is when the government causes the most harm to ordinary people.
	I'll state the obvious.
	If it's a freaking law, anybody in the country should be able to sue, period.
	But the other question is this.
	This is on mefiprosome and not on Pfizer, for example.
	I'm trying to think of how this applies mutatus mutandus to anybody who wants to sue for all of...
	I have a petition right before the Supreme Court right now about suing the FDA on this issue.
	So, I mean, they said organizations can't sue unless it impacts your core activities.
	What the heck does that even mean?
	That means they went in and eviscerated a court case that previously said if you had to incur the diversion of resources, you could sue as an organization when your members' interests were being impacted.
	This provided some remedial access for ordinary people.
	They've now just eviscerated that.
	So, there's no way under this case, they even admitted.
	They try to say, well, we don't know that no one can sue the FDA.
	Okay, well then tell us who.
	Oh, we can't.
	Kavanaugh couldn't get around to that.
	Too busy at his latest binge party.
	I mean, the judge that Trump should have jettisoned as soon as he got into political trouble and he was no longer bound by the promise he made to Kennedy.
	Justice Kennedy, for those that are confused.
	And so, I mean, this is just, this is a horrendous decision.
	The standing doctrine has been an abhorrent, A doctrine that is oppositional to the founding of this country.
	And it is not an originalist principle.
	It is not a textual principle.
	It's a made-up principle by Pontius Pilate justices who have wanted to convert the courtroom into a place that only the privileged have access to.
	And that's what this case does.
	And it's just a terrible, terrible decision.
	But now the only remedy is for Congress to pass law that explicitly, by law, Gives them access back to the courtroom.
	All right, I guess the question is how to make Trump appreciate that on an issue broader than the abortion pill or the methiproxone.
	The liberals will figure this out next time around, but it's too late now.
	They signed off.
	I'll give the credit to the conservative part of the court that has always wanted to eviscerate people's ability to sue because they think, oh, this will stop liberal organizations from suing.
	It will hurt liberal organizations' ability to sue, but its biggest impact will be on ordinary people, not on liberal organizations.
	They'll find a way to circumvent it.
	A lot of local liberal judges will, absolutely.
	It shows how consequentialist they are and why it's always dangerous to be consequentialist.
	Unless you are a deontological consequentialist, like my thesis from philosophy school.
	Maximize deontology, nothing else.
	Okay.
	Robert, so let's go to the black pill to the white pill.
	Well, I guess, I don't know, the ATF might not be the white pill, but it's a darn good decision.
	This was the Supreme Court saying that the ATF did not have the right to willy-nilly, unilaterally re-review its prior guidelines and determine that a bump stock converted a regular semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun and that it's unconstitutional and that they basically changed the law by their own interpretation.
	I now know how a bump stock works.
	What's amazing, I still think, if the speed of fire, bullets per second, is the issue, I think you can get some gamers.
	Like, when I play Contra, I think I can get nine clicks per second.
	If you get someone with a very fast finger on a semi-automatic gun, rifle, whatever, they can fire bullets very, very quickly.
	And the idea here was that, well, with a bump stock, it could allow someone who knows how to use it to fire a gun up to 90 bullets for every 10 seconds or something like that.
	Although apparently, from what I've now been informed, accuracy greatly decreases because you're basically just like bumping and bullets come out.
	But the bottom line, they said this was overreached by the ATF.
	Unconstitutional.
	Congress has the power to do it, not the ATF.
	And send it back.
	Good indication for what's coming on Chevron.
	Who knows?
	Robert, what's your take?
	It was the correct decision.
	I mean, we discussed it when it first went before them.
	For those that don't remember, this was Trump's dumb idea.
	So I get there's some in Trump camp that think you should never, ever be critical of Trump, never say anything positive or favorable of anybody, Robert Kennedy or anybody else who's running against Trump or opposed to Trump.
	But I believe in the law.
	I like Trump, support Trump, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend every decision he ever made was perfect or that his first term came close to being what he himself promised it to be.
	It wasn't.
	One of the failures was his panic in response to the Las Vegas shooting, saying, okay, we better go along with some sort of gun control measure.
	For those that don't remember, he was also talking about red flag, promoting red flag laws at the time.
	That would eviscerate due process rights.
	That is a favorite of one-eyed McCain down there in Texas.
	So this was a bad decision of the Trump administration, one of the worst concerning the Second Amendment, which he was otherwise very good on.
	And the Supreme Court correctly ruled neither he nor the ATF had any right to rewrite the law, that their job is to enforce the law as the executive branch.
	Not to write the law.
	That's the legislative branch's job.
	And it was long determined that the words machine gun did not apply in this instance by its plain language, by what Congress wrote, as the ATF admitted, all the way back at the beginning through its interpretation of the whole history of this statute.
	In fact, it's something I'm going to be citing in the Amos Miller briefs, because what the PDA wants, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, wants is to rewrite the law rather than not have the judge simply...
	Interpret and apply the law.
	Here, what was happening was they were simply changing the law by executive fiat because they couldn't get legislative change through.
	And their right, there was absolutely no right to do so from the beginning.
	And credit to the court and so doing.
	And you see the same liberal justices are just so consequential driven, so ideologically results oriented.
	At the ends, justify the means, makes for someone with no principles.
	It's okay to rewrite the law when it favors our side.
	It's not okay to rewrite the law when it opposes our side.
	They've completely abandoned any rule of law principles, the liberal judiciary.
	But this was the right decision, and hopefully it is, as you discussed, a signal of things to come.
	On the Chevron decision and excessive administrative agency and bureaucracy power, and the poll done by 1776lawcenter.com, the people considered as bad as big corporations, as bad as other aspects of big pharma, as certain corporate concentrated power, was bureaucrats.
	Bureaucrats are pretty much hated across the country by every demographic.
	And the key to bureaucratic power, the dual state that becomes a deep state when you give it the power of law enforcement, intelligence, and military surveillance, and that's where the doctrine originated from, is predicated upon the administrative state's ability to write the law and adjudicate the law, not just enforce the law.
	And this is an excellent opportunity to eviscerate that abuse of constitutional power.
	That misuse of power the Constitution prohibits and prescribes for a reason that basically unbalances the separation of powers.
	And so it's very promising.
	And we saw indicia of it in two federal court decisions that struck down the pistol brace rule that also struck down, as we predicted, in fact, I'm writing a brief as we speak, going to be filing it tomorrow night in the First Circuit Court of Appeals for Amish farmer Reuben King.
	On another issue that, again, the great Attorney General of the state of Texas, hopefully he may be a future Attorney General of the United States.
	That would be a very good pick for Trump.
	Just like J.D. Vance would be a great VP pick.
	I'd be fine with Ben Carson, Vivek, Tulsi Gabbard, some others.
	Not Tim Scott.
	Not Scott ever.
	Not Marco Rubio.
	Marco Highfield Rubio.
	Robert, say it.
	Not Doug Burgum, because Doug Burgum...
	Overtook JD Vance in the markets today, and it drives me nuts.
	I've got money on JD Vance and Vivek.
	That dude's got Dunn tattooed on his forehead.
	Doug the dud Burgum.
	That might be his appeal, though, to Trump.
	That is not, I don't want to say the word, that is not replacement insurance.
	That is actually the inverse.
	It's not assassination insurance either.
	That's what I meant.
	I don't want to put that juju out in the universe.
	J.D. Vance, I've got money on him and Vivek, and I also got money on Gavin Newsom actually being the Democrat nominee, but set that aside.
	J.D. Vance, not Bergam.
	Bergam reminds me of Michael Dukakis.
	He's a good man.
	He's succeeded.
	Not insurance from replacement.
	Exactly.
	But what the district court ruled is what the Reuben King appeal before the Third Circuit that I'm drafting deals with is the ATF came in and tried to use the Reuben King case as a precedent for everybody.
	They came in and said, you can't sell or trade any gun ever without a federal firearms license.
	It would make everybody subject to multiple years in federal prison overnight.
	And fortunately, federal district court said no.
	You're making up the law.
	In fact, you're not just making up the law.
	Another case of creating law rather than simply creating rules that enforce the law.
	You're creating new law.
	And not only that, in that case, they were conflicting and contradicting with the law.
	And so we're seeing some of these ideas be reflected in the lower court decisions.
	Hopefully that results in a successful appeal for Reuben King as well, because again, he's criminally prosecuted as an Amish farmer.
	What they're doing is they're saying they rewrote the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
	That's what it's called, Firearm Owners Protection Act, which specifically was designed.
	To prohibit this from happening.
	And they said federal firearms licenses are only required for the people who are only doing it for the purposes of money, and they're doing it as their ordinary everyday business.
	They're not doing it for personal collection.
	They're not doing it as a hobby.
	They're not doing it as some sort of side thing.
	With Ruben King, he's an Amish farmer.
	By definition, it was a hobby for his personal collection.
	He fit both exceptions.
	And the court didn't recognize that.
	The ATF didn't recognize that because they wanted to use his case.
	To establish a precedent against everybody.
	And they did.
	They created a rule right after his case.
	He said, hey, guess what, everybody?
	Everybody can now get prosecuted like Reuben King.
	If we could put an Amish farmer in prison, by golly, we can put you in prison.
	And now you couldn't simply buy or sell any gun effectively because of the way they were defining a trade of a gun without being considered.
	You couldn't even advertise for it.
	Without now being a criminal, unless you had a federal firearms license.
	Well, I say this as a schnook Canadian who is not brought up with the Second Amendment, but I appreciate it now.
	I can understand everybody saying, if you want to buy or sell a gun, even your own personal gun, you need to be licensed, period.
	From the government's perspective, I can understand that.
	But I don't know what the law is.
	Well, that's what I was going to say.
	I understand that's not the law, and so the threshold then becomes...
	The law is defined for people who said, you're a repeat buyer and seller.
	The only reason you're buying a gun is to sell it.
	That's the only reason, and you're doing it repeatedly, and it is your business to do so.
	And just so nobody, I don't care if anybody clips that out of context, but yes, I understand that would be my response, and I understand the law says, yes, a repeat buyer, you do it as a business, it's much different than, I own a bike, and I use my bike, and I sell my bike, and I don't want to be a retailer for the purposes of taxation, whatever.
	The dog is going to pull over the light, and she's pooping right now.
	Robert, okay.
	Even the dog disapproves of the ATF.
	I'm looking at her.
	She's looking at me while she...
	It doesn't matter.
	Firearms policy group that does a lot of good work that was part of this litigation, Gun Owners of America and others, they were suggesting that for the sake of dogs, we should take over all ATF buildings and make them dog parks.
	Do it for the dogs.
	I think maybe that's what the dog is signaling there.
	I made a joke with my parents.
	We might be visiting them.
	And they said, you have to bring your dog, board her.
	And I said, maybe I'll board her with Christy Noem.
	Okay, that's too soon.
	Robert, the other...
	It is Christy Noem, her name, right?
	Yeah, it is.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The other good decision coming out of...
	Christy, no more VP.
	Well, I didn't put any money on her, but after the dog story, holy crab apples.
	There was another good decision.
	Oh, the Trump decision.
	No.
	Okay.
	I'm not on the fence.
	I think I agree with this decision more than I don't.
	Somebody tried to trademark or copyright.
	It was trademark.
	Sorry, it was the Latin Mac.
	Tried to trademark Trump so small or Trump too small?
	Trump too small.
	It got rejected by the trademark.
	As Trump pointed out, he had big, beautiful hands.
	So that meant everything else was funny.
	What I can tell you on my hands is I can do this.
	I don't know if everybody can do this.
	Have your thumb and your pinky.
	Because when you played piano as a kid, you had to stretch for octave.
	So I could reach like eight notes.
	See, it's like a straight line.
	It was rejected.
	It was rejected on the basis that it was a personal name.
	And he claimed, I believe he claimed First Amendment violations, as if to say...
	This is limiting my speech in terms of what I can get trademarked.
	And they said, no, it's a proper name exception, which has a very understandable legislative purpose.
	And they confirmed that it did.
	Trump, too small, was too close to a real name from a real person that everyone would identify and was not like John Smith loves water type thing.
	I think I'm inclined to agree with it because nobody would not know exactly who the guy was referencing, any sort of usurping.
	Appropriating Trump's name for the purposes of commercial marketing, not for anything else.
	He can tweet whatever he wants.
	Commercial marketing and exclusivity on that name.
	And I think I agree with the decision, but tell me if I'm wrong.
	Now, does it relate to another topic we discussed tonight?
	Tonight?
	Who does this case actually further support?
	Gosh darn it, Robert.
	I can't think fast enough.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Now I've entered panic mode.
	I'm not going to get it.
	Well, I'll get into some of the legal principles that might trigger.
	So, I mean, this was content-based restriction by the government.
	The government was saying certain things could not be trademarked by language.
	And that made it a content-based view.
	And usually that's subject to the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny.
	But here they said there's an exception to the First Amendment under this unique context because there's been a long established history.
	Of a superior right of an individual owning their own name and controlling their own name and controlling the public image of their own name.
	Ah, yes, Alex.
	See, I was going Liam Morrison, but that was too superficial.
	And I'll tell you, the dog calmed me down so I don't make decisions based out of rationality.
	You smell terrible.
	Okay, yes, I understand it.
	So an Alex Jones type reference.
	So this further supports his position.
	Because it basically says that your right to own your own name trumps even someone else's ability to trademark it to a degree that the government can limit it consistent to the First Amendment.
	Now, the court couldn't agree on how or why.
	They're all over the place.
	There was three concurrences or something like that.
	So there was disagreement as to the how or why.
	But what they did agree on is that they respected the right to own your own identity.
	Including the use of your name, such that the government can prohibit somebody else from usurping it within the First Amendment.
	And in my view, that's recognizing a form of privacy, identity, bodily autonomy, the rights that are correlated to it in terms of speech, assembly, expression, politics, religion, press, petition, that are incorporated in that right of identity and the right to control that identity.
	So I think that the trademark decision of Trump too small can't be trademarked by someone other than Trump is indicia of what, in fact, benefits Alex Jones, that he has the right to own his own name, and it can't be taken away from him and usurped by anybody else using the power of the state to do so.
	Okay.
	Dog was whining and had to leave the room.
	Not Winston, but Pudge.
	Okay.
	All right.
	It's fair enough.
	I'm still trying to think of a way to work it in with the Liam Morrison one, but it doesn't matter.
	We'll get there.
	Robert, the last one I know that I did not read, the injunction lawsuit.
	Yeah, so this was Starbucks National Labor Relations Board.
	I did read this one.
	Boring is what this was.
	Tell us why it should be interesting.
	Well, mostly the National Labor Relations Board has been abusing its power to take away the traditional standards of injunctions and equitable relief by...
	By interpreting the law as somehow allowing them to short-circuit it.
	And if it's the NLRB making a request, we don't have to meet the same standards.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, you have to meet the same standards.
	And those are the four factors.
	And those are that you're likely to prevail on the merits, that you will suffer irreparable injury if you were not granted the injunction, that the balance of equities favors you and the public interest favors you.
	And it all ends to be the equitable power of American courts historically originates from the chancellor's power in the old English system.
	There's still some chancery courts in the United States.
	Not many.
	It varies by state, but they have them in Tennessee, for example.
	And that was when you could call on the king's conscience to do justice.
	And that's where equitable power comes from.
	That's where the right to issue injunctions comes from within the judicial power afforded the Constitution.
	Which incorporated those principles and precepts at the time of the creation of judicial power in the Constitution.
	And so what I liked about that was restoring that, showing there's no administrative shortcuts, no special government agency shortcuts, none of that.
	And it happened to be applicable to the Amos Miller case, we'll discuss later, because the government always likes to get around us and say, we're the government.
	We don't have to meet the same standards as everybody else.
	And this was the Supreme Court saying, uh-uh, no, no, you have to meet the same standards as everybody else.
	You have to show that unless you're granted the injunction, you're likely to prevail on the merits once it's fully adjudicated.
	Because remember, an injunction is done in lieu of an actual trial.
	And so you're short-circuiting that process.
	And in order to prevent that from happening, it has to be, you meet a very high threshold.
	You have to make a strong showing or a clear showing, depending on what language is used.
	The Supreme Court here used the word clear showing that you're likely to prevail on the merits, that you will suffer irreparable injury if the stay isn't granted.
	In other words, an injury that cannot be remediated later, that the balance of equities favors you.
	So if I grant the injunction, who's harmed by granting it versus who's harmed by not granting it?
	And you've got to balance it in the court, and the public interest has to favor you.
	The party's seeking the injunction.
	And it's a good reminder that those principles apply across the board, government or not, making the request.
	All right.
	Robert, hold on.
	Let me catch up on some rumble rants, because some of them are apropos, and then I'll read some of the Twitter, not Twitter, VivaBron's Law Tips.
	Hairy Toe 2. I'll admit I fell for Dan Crenshaw after the SNL stuff.
	Crenshaw rhymes with cringe show.
	Be Job Secure.
	Vess Res has the idea to clip Robert's discussion on standing so it can be taken then sent to representatives.
	Dude, clip and snip whatever you want from these shows.
	Absolutely.
	Always.
	Eric, 4x4.
	I wonder if he's into off-roading.
	If you want to see speed and accuracy, look at the world record holder Jeremy Mikulek emptied a six-shot revolver in under one second with hits on each round.
	That's very...
	Bob!
	But they're going to say, well, that only has six shots, so we need to limit capacity magazine.
	Magazine capacity.
	I can think like a schedule if I want to.
	Jane Catherine Barry one.
	Since selective service still exempts women from the draft, will we see an increase in males who identify as female?
	Will that hold up legally?
	Robert, that's a fantastic question, actually.
	Trans patriarchy, says the six-foot midget.
	If causing a disturbance is the criteria for limiting speech, then school will make itself and its students a system in which speech they dislike causes disturbance.
	Paradiddle McFlam.
	Are we free to celebrate shame month in June?
	That's Randy Edward.
	I sent you 200 bucks for Winston.
	Muffin halo search to Boca.
	Certified mail you never received.
	I'm going to go to the post office and see if there's...
	Not that I'm...
	I just don't want it to go to waste.
	I'll check that.
	M...
	No, that is not Stephen Even.
	I screen grabbed.
	For Barnes, my sister and brother-in-law are in eastern Tennessee right now looking for a place to move from Illinois.
	Where is the best place I might move there from South Bay Area?
	Robert, what's the best place?
	It depends on what you're looking for.
	So the countryside is really the best place.
	And there's plenty of beautiful countryside.
	So if you like mountains, that's more Upper East Tennessee.
	If you like more valleys and plateaus, that's more Southeast Tennessee and Middle Tennessee.
	Chattanooga and Knoxville, the cities themselves, have a lot of lefties that are moving in.
	But outside the cities are better, in my opinion.
	The cities are okay.
	The heart of Tennessee is in the country.
	Hopefully the lefties don't move in and import the terrible policy that they fled from.
	Well, I might run for mayor on my platform.
	Purge the commies!
	I like that, Robert.
	It's a wild...
	It's wild that a term as nebulous as hate speech be used as the foundation to create laws which supersede the First Amendment.
	Only at the institutional level.
	Don't worry, but it's not going to ever creep up elsewhere.
	Sunbeam Valley, Robert and Viva, can you look into the Robert Epstein claims Google bias?
	Yeah, we've covered that multiple times.
	He's done very good work.
	And he might be on sooner than later.
	I'm just trying to organize.
	You know, his wife died in a very unusual accident.
	I'm going to have to Google that as you talk about the next one.
	He himself has suggested it was unusual.
	Robert, how much do we have left for the evening?
	We have the one and only Hunter Biden verdict.
	How Joe Biden thinks of himself now as pretty equal to God based on how he's trying to represent it.
	We got a hospital engaging in discriminatory treatment in the name of protect the children.
	We've got due process takings.
	This is a follow-up on a case we discussed a couple of weeks ago, but we had a federal court interpret it in the context of Maryland-Baltimore eviction law.
	A brief case on claim preclusion.
	Update on Amos Miller.
	Brief discussion of peace in Ukraine.
	And last but not least...
	Does Amanda Milius have to wear the green sundress in honor of the Boston Celtics' impending victory and championship number?
	I can't even remember how many, but I know it's a lot more than the Lakers got.
	I'm going to predict on that, yes, but we're going to get to that at vivabornslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to end on Rumble.
	Hunter Biden?
	With the Hunter Biden conviction.
	When was the conviction?
	I forecast it was correct that it was going to be guilty.
	It does not mean what everybody thinks it means.
	Oh, shitballs.
	We said that last week, and I said, clip it, because I said he's going to get acquitted, and I was wrong, and I don't care, because I went for the 10-to-1 long shot, and I lost my money, but I didn't put any money on that.
	Robert, you were right.
	Always bet on Barnes.
	Gosh darn it!
	All right, Robert, what do you think it means?
	Well, okay, hold on.
	I'll float the ideas.
	What does it mean?
	He's not going to necessarily pardon his son, but maybe commute the sentence.
	It legitimizes the prosecution against Trump, because now all court systems are created equal.
	They convicted my guilty-ass, crack-ridden, sex-trafficking son.
	Therefore, it was right that they convict Trump.
	That's my superficial level reading of it.
	I was wrong, but I took a long shot, and I still think I would have bet my mind on that.
	Robert, what's the broader picture, according to you?
	I think you're absolutely right that that's why it's being done.
	And how Biden is going to spin it, because the various establishment spokespersons were spinning that exact thing on MSNBC and elsewhere.
	You know, Joe Biden so loved the rule of law that he gave his only begotten, alive son for the rule of law.
	And that it legitimates the January 6th cases.
	It legitimates the Donald Trump cases, because it's just about the rule of law being applied equally, no matter who it impacts.
	Now, of course, the reality of it is that it's highly unlikely Hunter Biden is likely to do any time, no matter what the judge sentences him to.
	I had predicted this was going to be the case, but it was basically confirmed.
	So after the conviction, Papa Joe goes and meets with Hunter, and then the next day the White House releases a statement saying they're not going to pardon him, but they might commute the sentence.
	Which probably was, hey, don't worry, son.
	Son's probably a little nervous.
	Daddy wants to keep him on a leash for the rest of the campaign.
	He's now got a criminal conviction hanging over his head.
	Needs daddy to issue a pardon for him not to go to federal prison for many years.
	So he now gets to make sure Hunter keeps his mouth shut and doesn't go leaving laptops at local stores that show the family secrets.
	Doesn't, like his daughter, leave the diary exposing other family secrets at the local AA clinic.
	Make sure Joe's a good boy.
	Make sure that that painting doesn't end up painting when I helped illegally fund bioweapons in Ukraine so that my dad and uncle and aunt could get rich off of it.
	He stays a good boy because he's got the perfect leash on him because he's the real person who controls whether he goes to federal prison for a long time or not.
	So he gets to sell it as one thing.
	Well, it actually serves an entirely ulterior agenda and all along keeps a lid on the real role of Hunter Biden, which was to be the facilitator of Biden family corruption for the last 15 years while Biden was in the Senate and vice presidency and while running for office in the presidency, that he weaponized access to the office to line the family's pockets.
	He was the servant and subservient to...
	His dad's criminal activity and criminal crime family.
	And has been trying to kind of indirectly complain and protest about it by leaving his laptop with all the embarrassing and criminatory information to be broadcast and published to the entire world.
	So, you know, once that happened, it meant we got to keep Hunter on a leash.
	First, we were going to give him a plea deal that was going to keep him on a, you know, a softer leash.
	That blew up when the judge exposed it.
	So now it's a little bit of a harder leash.
	But that's all that's going on here.
	I love it because it fits perfectly into my sitcom.
	No matter how hard the son tries to sabotage his dad along with the daughter, service, the system foils their attempt to say, yeah, all right, you want to go to jail for 10 years?
	Keep talking.
	If you don't, we'll commute your sentence.
	Oh my goodness.
	If he were to spill the beans on his father.
	And then Trump wins.
	Trump could pardon him outright.
	You know, that's what Trump probably should publicly say.
	Yes!
	Trump should come out and say, I'm telling Hunter right now, tell the truth, confess the crimes of the family, I win, I pardon you.
	The problem Hunter has is he has to gamble that Trump will definitely win.
	Because otherwise, he's hung.
	Because they're going to hang the tax case on him next.
	Now, the gun charges are still...
	Constitutionally bogus.
	I haven't changed my opinion on that at all.
	I think that gun charges will be thrown out ultimately on appeal because of how bogus they are and how they were misapplied in this context, and I hope they are.
	It's the same reason, by the way, the Nick Ricada gun charges are bogus.
	I don't know how people couldn't process that information, but that's the same issue.
	You can't have someone...
	I mean, there were people who didn't understand the Second Amendment argument that I heard on law shows this week.
	Describing the same argument is applied to Hunter Biden.
	It's like, how did you not put one and one together to equal two?
	Your status as a drug user does not make it illegal for you to have self-defense or Second Amendment rights.
	That's just not there.
	Hasn't been there.
	Not just that.
	The people who are addicted to drugs might need the most self-defense.
	And if you're buying and whatnot, yeah, absolutely.
	So I think this should all get overturned.
	But that's why Biden's got the backup of the tax evasion charges in California, which are coming up for trial, meant to boost Biden in the polling.
	See, I'm willing to sacrifice my own son for the rule of law, while really being an even tighter leash in case the gun charges get thrown out, without he am ever getting prosecuted for his actual crime, his real crime, whether it's the human trafficking aspect, but that would touch on Ukraine too.
	Where, by the way, they just passed a law in that great democratic country of Ukraine, as we were told by war whore Sebastian Gorka is usually pipping for Zelensky.
	One of their new laws in Ukraine is that they can now trade in organs without your informed consent.
	So just another, you know, while they're busy dragging 50-year-olds and throwing them in the front lines to die and being just, you know, in useless, fruitless conflict, now they can take your organs too.
	As part of that.
	But they couldn't get into the human trafficking.
	Hunter was involved in the United States without getting into the human trafficking.
	He was complicit in Ukraine.
	Without getting into the bioweapon labs he was helping facilitate in Ukraine.
	All the bribery for the Biden crime family, which also would implicate the deep state.
	Same reason why the George W. Bush regime could never go after Bill Clinton's actual corruption in Arkansas, as Clinton bragged about.
	To Arkansas police officers back in the day, as reported in Roger Morris' book, Partners in Power, about Bill and Hillary Clinton, which is that he made sure all of his corruption, his real corruption, was tied to Bush family corruption so that they could never go after the real corruption.
	That's why they had to talk about Monica Lewinsky.
	They couldn't touch on the real scandals because the real scandals implicated them too.
	And so they can't touch on...
	So they're going to do a tax evasion trial.
	That's not going to talk about why he was doing the tax evasion, to hide the criminal bribery underneath it, to hide the illegal deep state operations that were enriching his father and family all along.
	But it also keeps him online.
	It keeps him in line.
	It makes sure that in case the gun charges get tossed or the sentence is low, that he has an even tighter leash on the son who's not going to gamble on a Trump election to open his mouth.
	Robert, we're going to end on something here because now that you mention it, hold on.
	I have to get this, but I have to get it on the incognito.
	Not they have no self-awareness.
	I'm going to bring up...
	You know what?
	No, no, no.
	I was going to bring up Joe Biden.
	We're not going to bring up that.
	Oh, it doesn't matter, Robert.
	I was going to bring up a video of Joe Biden freezing up and Obama pulling him off stage and David Hogg saying it didn't happen.
	No lie with Brian Taylor Cohn saying it didn't happen.
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's actually wild.
	It fits even more specifically and accurately into the storyline that no matter how hard the kid tries to sabotage his father, Ashley Biden, no matter how hard she tries to sabotage her arguably abusive father, they can't do it because the system is so damn corrupt it throws them under the bus.
	And because Biden was smart, his criminality implicates the deep state.
	It wasn't a coincidence.
	That Ukraine was a hot spot for their corruption.
	That was deliberate and intentional.
	Make sure that your corruption can't be exposed without the deep state's corruption being exposed.
	So now they just need Hunter to play ball, and that's why that tax case will magically and miraculously never discuss the reason for the tax evasion.
	You can pretty much guarantee it now in advance.
	And they prosecuted, remember, in democratic jurisdictions.
	Delaware?
	What the Biden family practically owns.
	And California.
	And so it was to make sure that nobody went AWOL on this.
	Now, they got a little bit unlucky with getting a Republican jurist, Trump-appointed jurist, that set aside the plea deal.
	But they were easily able to go to Plan B, and Plan B works just as well for Papa Joe as Plan A. Robert, I will end on this.
	Before we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, this one.
	Where Justin Trudeau says close to 20,000 Ukrainian children have been taken from their homes, their families, by Russia as a father.
	Whenever everyone throws in as a whatever the hell, be suspicious.
	I can't imagine their parents' pain.
	We will bring them home.
	To which I said, human trafficking in Ukraine has been a problem since the 90s.
	You didn't care about it until you could blame it on Putin.
	Why is that?
	And you can go look this up.
	This is USAID.
	Prior to Russia's invasion in February 2022, the International Organization for Migration, IOM Mission in Ukraine, estimated that more than 300,000 Ukrainians had suffered from human trafficking since 1991.
	An estimated 46,000 were being trafficked during 2019 to 2021.
	Before, 29,000 abroad and 17,000 in Ukraine.
	Why didn't anybody care about it?
	Yeah.
	Well, the thing, the one he's talking about now is Russian kids escaping the war zone.
	Because Russia said, if you need to escape here, you can.
	That's not human trafficking.
	Now, on this Father's Day, Justin Trudeau, you got to feel for him.
	Papa Fidel isn't around, so that he doesn't get to quite celebrate.
	But Papa Fidel knew how to do his own form of human trafficking.
	Robert, you might have to do a hush-hush on that.
	Which I will watch.
	I was going to bring up the picture of Justin Trudeau with his dad going down.
	I have to do it.
	I have to do it.
	Hold on.
	It's Justin Trudeau.
	Give me his dad in quotes.
	Well, you know what?
	I don't know whether or not it's his dad.
	He definitely looks...
	He looks a lot more like Fidel than...
	Mama, let's just say, got around.
	Everybody knows that about Mama.
	Everybody knows that.
	Here, this picture right here.
	Listen to this.
	Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there.
	My dad was my hero, and he still is.
	And to Xavier, his kids, whatever.
	No matter how exciting or fulfilling this job is, go fuck yourself, Trudeau.
	Nothing beats being your dad.
	I love you.
	Look at this.
	What I love here...
	Hold on.
	How do I bring this in?
	So I presume that's Justin Trudeau, who looks like Fidel Castro and his father.
	What I love is this is a metaphor for Canada.
	This is Justin Trudeau, dad, and this is Justin Trudeau taking the boat over the waterfalls.
	There's no self-reflection as to how that...
	We'll be misinterpreted or humorously interpreted by the interwebs.
	Robert, we got good stuff coming up on vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to give everyone the link one more time before you come.
	If you are not coming, I don't know why you're not coming, but enjoy the party that you're not going to be a part of.
	Link is in the chat.
	What I will do before we run one more time, hold on, because there was a couple, and then we're going to get into the chat, the tips, and everything on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Snuggle, struggle.
	We were ahead of our time.
	We noticed all these diversity groups traveling across the country on school trips, so we made an Irish group for the same.
	Faculty were outraged, and we were suspended.
	Harry Toe.
	I'll admit it, I fell for Dan Crenshaw.
	Oh, we got the rest of this.
	Okay, good.
	We got the rest.
	Now what we're going to do is this.
	Stop screen.
	And we're going to go for maybe a half an hour.
	My kids are, I think they're making a barbecue.
	I smell something burning, so I hope it's a barbecue.
	If it's not...
	Your son's reaction to see you cover, when he realized those were gnats, was great.
	Oh my...
	No, I'm out of here.
	Couldn't process it.
	Like, why?
	Why?
	Come to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, what's your schedule for this week?
	I got a big brief for Reuben King on Monday for First Circuit Court of Appeals, which will impact the Second Amendment rights of everybody.
	Then there's something going on in farm country, something going on with farm credit.
	There's a Tennessee farmer that's talking about it.
	We mentioned he sued the Biden administration.
	I represent some farm families in California, the banks behaving contrary to the interest of their own charter to their own members, to their own legal statute, and trying to, in my view, steal their farm.
	Might have to get into litigation concerning that, and it's on an accelerated scale.
	They're taking advantage of them because they don't have resources available to them to secure legal counsel.
	I've represented them on and off for years, and I'm going to help them out regardless.
	So we'll see if that turned out to be a good decision by the bank.
	So I got to deal with that.
	But we'll be doing some...
	Live bourbons throughout the week.
	We got Euro competitions going on.
	World Global Football in Europe going on right now.
	Got some coming up here in the United States.
	Copa America.
	So that'll be a little fun distraction along the way as well.
	And then we'll be doing bourbons with Barnes at vivabarnslaw.locals.com throughout the week.
	You're still on mute, by the way.
	I will be on Fish and Fret.
	Fish and Fret.
	That's what I do.
	I fish and fret.
	And I think I'm going to do a segment on Redacted, so stay tuned for that.
	And then standard stuff.
	I might be on the road as of Thursday.
	The dog knocked over a sign.
	It's fine.
	We're going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com right now.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Happy Father's Day, everybody.
	Godspeed.
	God bless.
	And see you next week.
	Boom.
	The dog knocked over.
	Hold on.
	Hold on a second.

▲