Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 23, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:24:10

Ep. 216: SCOTUS RULINGS GALORE! Kansas Sues Pfizer! Trump Gag Order! Recusal of Nipple Judge? & MORE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Everybody.
	There will be an intro video, but before I even started with that, I just wanted to make sure that video looks good.
	I need to know if you're seeing me pixelated like a tomato.
	Tomato?
	Like a potato.
	Because I am back behind the Iron Rainbow, people.
	And I wanted to make sure that I'm on the right mic before we start going.
	Is the audio sufficiently good?
	And is the video sufficiently good?
	Microphone.
	We're on the right mic.
	Video.
	Okay, let me see here.
	Potato?
	Damn it.
	Pixelated?
	How is the audio more important than the video?
	Okay, good.
	Pixelated, I've told all of the members of the household, including the house at which I'm a guest, to shut down all devices, swipe up the apps.
	I need all of the bandwidth of the internet for the next two hours.
	Okay, good.
	With that said, let's start with a video that's going to make you flipping angry.
	Here we go.
	This is the intro video.
	I shall bring myself out of the screen.
	Bring myself ooh to the screen, eh?
	How do I do this?
	Gonna go disable camera.
	I know you can still hear me, so I'm not gonna swear if things don't go as planned here.
	Listen to this.
	We're going to play this.
	Rebel News!
	Go!
	Levo!
	In this Rebel News!
	Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey.
	The best Revolute, two.
	Hello, hello, hello.
	Hello, hello.
	Hello.
	Hello, hello.
	Hello, hello.
	Hello.
	We're going to play count the crimes, all right?
	So far, we're up to one.
	Spraying someone with an unknown substance is assault.
	I mean, I don't even know if that was spray paint, WD-40.
	I thought for a second it was pepper spray.
	there's one This is threats.
	I mean, I don't know what exact crime you qualify it as.
	Brave men.
	Very brave men.
	Hey!
	Rebel News!
	They caught it!
	Rebel News!
	They caught it!
	Rebel News!
	They caught it!
	This is...
	By the way, there's two cops.
	There's two police officers right there.
	Let's just back it up again.
	Maybe the cops didn't see, right?
	Someone get assaulted with a liquid unknown that looks like paint.
	I guess Alexa's lucky that it wasn't acid.
	Look at those two flipping idiots right there.
	And you'll see them again.
	and they come back in a bit.
	You hear the person go, Woo!
	La police, il fait rien.
	Police are doing nothing.
	Woo!
	Let's do some more.
	Let's push the limit a little more.
	Fuck you!
	Fuck you!
	Revenu!
	Look at the cops in the corner.
	Keep, keep, bear in mind that there are two armed police officers right behind her.
	I don't know if they are SPVM, SOS, Securité Policière, Ville de Montréal, or Sûreté de Québec.
	So I don't know if it's Valérie Plante's fault.
	or Francois Legault's fault, but let's just say I'll place the blame equally on both of them.
	This was a temporary Attempted robbery and assault and battery.
	Oh, there they are.
	By the way, just look at the guy on the left.
	Look at the cop on the left.
	I swear to you, if I didn't know any better, I'd say he's smiling.
	She says, what do you not understand?
	What are you doing?
	Look at that guy.
	Look at that guy.
	Smile.
	What's you?
	Hey!
	It is WD-40.
	Hold on.
	I actually thought they outlawed WD-40 in Quebec in Canada.
	Is that?
	No, no, no.
	Hold on.
	Is that bug spray?
	What is that?
	Hold on.
	I gotta get my dog.
	I gotta get my dog.
	Can you believe that?
	That's Alexa Lavoie, a journalist at Rebel News.
	The fact that she's a woman doesn't make any of this any worse.
	I'm not saying like, oh my God, how dare a mob of men assault a woman?
	It wouldn't be any better if it were a man that they were assaulting.
	The cops are sitting there.
	They're not just sitting there like idiots.
	They're sitting there like accomplices.
	I just spoke with Alexa before going live.
	We talked about it, and that wasn't at the McGill campus.
	Apparently, there's a new encampment that has sprung up in a place called Victoria Square.
	Square Victoria.
	It's down...
	If I remember correctly, there's a restaurant in the neighborhood.
	It's in that square.
	There's a tuxedo shop.
	They always have maple syrup booths.
	There's a gold and silver place right around the corner.
	They set up a new encampment.
	Alexa goes there.
	And she told me that two other police officers, not those two that we saw in the video doing nothing, two other police officers told her.
	They said to her, and I'm quoting them, or I'm quoting her quoting them to her, we told you we weren't going to protect you.
	And that she told me that as she was fleeing, running away from this group of thugs who were assaulting her.
	That the cops on a bike biked off and a cop in a car drove off.
	And we saw those two shit-eating grins on their face sitting there.
	They saw a man assault Alexa Lavoie by spraying paint on her.
	He had a canister of paint.
	That dude wasn't running anywhere fast.
	And they sat there clearly.
	It would seem, on stand-down orders, and let a woman, a person, a journalist, get assaulted in broad daylight in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in 2024.
	Why?
	Because it's Justin Trudeau's Canada, it's François Legault's Quebec, and it's Valérie Plante's Montreal.
	And if any of you have forgotten who Valérie Plante is, she's the jabbed, the vaxxed-to-the-max woman who...
	Her job is so hard, she just has to collapse every now and again when she's talking in public.
	Direct them to other kinds of services.
	So I would...
	Maybe you need another shot.
	Oh no, I don't feel good.
	It's amazing.
	The mayor was taking questions when she said she wasn't feeling well, and as you saw, she sat down on the floor.
	She was there for about five minutes with her staff around her before she got back on her feet and leaving apparently for her offices.
	The official explanation was fatigue.
	I guess standing around and doing nothing while groups of masked men assault young women.
	It's a very tough job.
	And yeah, that is the woman.
	If you go Google Valérie Plante, you'll get many, many photos and tweets of her getting the jab, promoting the jab, requiring the jab as mandatory for city employees, and then just spontaneously collapsing.
	I forget what the medical condition is, but it's one of the most common side effects of the JV jab.
	Dizzy spells or fainting when you get up too quickly, but not that that's what it was anyhow.
	So that's it.
	Good evening.
	Oh, yeah.
	Get over here.
	Get over here.
	Oh, yeah.
	This good dog sat in a car for 12 hours a day for two days as we drove from Florida to Canada.
	From the free state of Florida to the Maple Gulag to the Iron Curtain to Canada.
	And, you know, it's good to see friends and it's good to see family.
	That dog was good in the car.
	Pudge, for those of you who don't know the paralyzed Puggle, she made it the entire trip without pooing or peeing in the car until she got out of the car on the way out as we arrived.
	I guess she got a little too excited and there was a little bit of a...
	She left a little treasure on the ground.
	Luckily, no one stepped on it too hard.
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's Sunday night.
	It is Viva and Barnes Law Extravaganza.
	You need to make a big freaking stink about that.
	If you don't like Rebel News, good.
	You're free to have your opinion and I'm free to think you're an idiot.
	You can hate Rebel News and you can think they're a propagandist, activist organization and not journalist.
	You can think that.
	If there's any soul out there who thinks that what Alexa Lavoie experienced is deserved, is faffo, is karma.
	You are part of the problem.
	You are a godforsaken idiot, and it's not clear that there's any saving your egregious stupidity or malicious malevolence.
	Fine.
	Period.
	With that said, to everyone else out there who's got half a brain, half a soul, and half an emoticum of decency, I don't even know if that's the right word, who's got half a shred of decency, you need to make hell and make a stink over what we just witnessed.
	That was the most outrageous...
	Act of assault in broad daylight.
	And it's not just Antifa gonna Antifa.
	That's what they are.
	Thugs gonna thug.
	That's what they are.
	When you've got armed police officers sitting there with shit-eating grins on their face while they're watching...
	Alexis, you know, she's wiry.
	She's strong.
	But she's still, nonetheless, you know, she's a healthy, skinny woman.
	When you see a young...
	I don't even care she's a bodybuilding muscle woman.
	When you see a woman getting assaulted by a group of masked men with umbrellas and you sit around and do nothing, as a police officer, you are Hitler's willing executioner.
	You are a secret service to the police.
	You're not police anymore.
	You are armed thugs enabling masked men to commit assault.
	You are, is it the brown coats or the brown shirts?
	You are the commie enablers.
	Here's a link to the tweets.
	Link to tweets.
	Blast it.
	And put Valerie Plante.
	Valerie Plante, her Twitter handle is, I believe it's at Val underscore.
	Yeah, it's at Val underscore Plante.
	Like plant with an E, which is about as useless as a potted plant.
	At V-A-L Victor Alpha Lima underscore Plante.
	Papa Lima Alpha November Tango Echo.
	Tag her.
	Tag Supreme Leader François Legault.
	What's his name, François?
	Legault.
	He is Francois.
	F-R-A-N-C-O-I-S-L-E-G-A-U-L-T.
	Tag Francois Legault.
	Tag the SPVM.
	Tag everybody.
	Tag Tucker Carlson.
	Tag Fox News.
	Tag Russell Brand.
	Tag Joe Rogan.
	And put Montreal on the international map yet again for all the wrong reasons.
	Remember once upon a time they diverted all of the raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River because they had to update the shit.
	Where they filter all the poop out.
	And they diverted raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River.
	And I went down there to record it.
	Condoms everywhere.
	We made CNN for that.
	Montreal deserves to be on CNN again.
	Encampments taking over McGill campus.
	Encampments taking over public parks, public squares, while armed police officers sit by like a bunch of jackasses and witness and I guess they would, I guess, aid and abet the assault of young women.
	Where are the feminists?
	Alright, people.
	Hold on one second.
	I was supposed to do one thing as I was playing that video live because...
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Okay, good.
	I am live.
	Ooh, is that what I look like?
	That's a pixelated potato face.
	Ew.
	Hold on, everybody.
	As we get going here, I got to go to...
	Because I don't ever want to be accused.
	Of lacking ethics.
	There we go, people.
	I've checked the box that says this stream contains a paid promotion because it does.
	First of all, you'll notice I'm using Rumble Studio, so I might want to show the world again how amazing and revolutionary Rack the Rumble Advertising Center is.
	But we've got a stream.
	We've got a sponsor for tonight's stream, and it's our good friends at the Wellness Company.
	When you talk about governments doing nothing...
	While their citizens get assaulted by armed thugs.
	When you talk about governments who, if anybody is still left wondering, thinking whether or not governments are acting in the best interest of the people, you haven't been paying attention for the last four going on five years now because that was the revelatory moment to make it clear to everyone out there.
	Our governments, not only are they a necessary evil, they are the evil of the necessary evils.
	If anybody thinks that they're out...
	Looking out for our best interests, looking out to protect the citizens, looking to be responsible, transparent, accountable.
	If you haven't learned anything over the last five years, you're an idiot.
	Period.
	It's been going on for a lot longer than that, but that was the watershed moment.
	COVID was the watershed moment.
	The jab was the watershed moment.
	Masks, watershed moment.
	Ukraine brainwashing, watershed moment.
	And now the Gaza-Israel conflict.
	These are watershed moments that let you know your governments don't give a sweet bugger all about you.
	They are about importing international conflict, exacerbating crisis, fabricating crisis, manufacturing crises, so they can gain even more control over the population.
	And what's the latest one?
	AstraZeneca recently admitted in court that its COVID-19 vaccine could result in life-threatening blood clots.
	It's amazing.
	Safe and effective, even though they never tested it for effectiveness.
	Even though they had no reason to say it was safe.
	There are two types of lies.
	Saying something you know is not true, and saying something for which you have no basis to say is true.
	Our government's lied to us.
	The admission by AstraZeneca is the first of its kind and won't be the last after the damage we've seen these vaccines cause.
	The question now is, if you got the vaccine, what can you do about it?
	Fortunately, Dr. Peter McCullough and his team at the Wellness Company have been leading experts in treating vaccine injury and long COVID since early on, and their research has shown that Natokanasi, I'm sorry to pronounce it, alongside bromelain, And curcumin, derived from turmeric, has great potential in detoxing side effects.
	I remember over Christmas, the last time I was in Canada, I got a wicked sinus infection.
	Jessica Rose, a good friend who I've never met in real life, but is a good friend.
	Turmeric, she said.
	It's not a turmeric.
	She says, put it in butter and drink it with tea, and it was delicious, and it worked.
	But I was also taking antibiotics at that time.
	Dr. McCullough notes that, quote, out of all of the available therapies I've used in my practice, I believe natokinase and related peptides hold the greatest promise for patients at this time.
	This groundbreaking discovery led to the formulation of the wellness company's spike support formula, which contains natokinase, and Dr. McCullough's published base spike detox protocol combines powerful natokinase, bromelain, and curacumin.
	With incredible results in the patient population.
	To date, tens of thousands of people have followed Dr. McCullough's protocol and taken base spike trio from the wellness company, and the results have been nothing short of miraculous.
	This is it.
	Purchasing each ingredient in spike support will cost you a little bit more.
	You'll save 35% if you get the kit.
	In Dr. McCullough's own words, isn't it interesting?
	Natural substances to combat this man-made disaster.
	And is it interesting?
	A man-made virus.
	And a man-made vaccine, both wreaking havoc on an unassuming population.
	But finally, there's hope.
	Base Spike Detox Trio is the gold standard for combating spike protein, a daily regimen to help you get back to feeling your best.
	Reclaim yours.
	Go to twc.health forward slash viva.
	Use promo code viva, get 10% off and free shipping.
	TWC, the wellness company.
	Tangle, Whiskey, Charlie.
	.health forward slash viva.
	For 10% off and free shipping.
	Link is in the description.
	Thank you very much to the Wellness Company.
	Oh, now let me see here.
	How do I get this out?
	Stop this.
	And until Barnes gets here, we're going to have one heck of a show tonight.
	What happened over the weekend?
	Hold on.
	Let me see something here.
	Oh, sorry.
	Just to let everybody know how things work here.
	We start on YouTube Rumble.
	We're on Twitter and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We, after a certain point in time, vote with our feet, vote with our dollar, vote with our eyeballs.
	We're going to end on YouTube and Twitter and go over to rumble and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And then after that, we end on rumble and we have a nice after party on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Because I'm using Rumble Studio and the way it's set up, the after party exclusive at Locals is going to be only for supporters.
	If you want to support, you can put up these beautiful things called Crumble Rants, Super Chats.
	The best way to support?
	$10 a month or $100 a year if you get the entire year in one shot at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Liam Sturgrass says, Viva, looking forward to meeting you in Toronto in a few weeks at the Rebel News Democracy Funds Journalism Conference.
	It's going to be funny.
	It's going to be fun.
	And it's also going to be funny that I've spent the last how long?
	Five years, like Happy Gilmore-esque denial.
	I'm not a golfer.
	I'm not a golfer.
	Face it, Happy, you're a golfer.
	I'm not a journalist.
	I'm a commentator and a pain in the ass with a lot of energy.
	BruceBruce28 from our Locals community says, Viva!
	Hope this is allowed.
	Hope this is allowed.
	Being strong and resilient is what kept me alive when I was hit by a car in 2019.
	I lost my leg, but I kept my life.
	I want to extend a 20% discount for my online coaching services to this above-average board.
	20% off first two months.
	No long-term contracts.
	If you have your own setup or go to a gym, let me take you to the programming.
	And where's the other half of this?
	Hold on.
	Oh, okay.
	Oh, so I've noticed something.
	Okay, I'm going to bring this up to the team.
	I don't get the entire chat in here, so I'm going to read where I left off, where it's cut off.
	Let me take...
	Over your programming and improve your technique.
	The website is Bruce Trout Barbell Club.
	Is that it, Bruce?
	I'm going to put that in the chat.
	Bruce Trout Barbell Club dot com.
	Instagram is Bruce Trout underscore SSC.
	Thank you and Barnes.
	And let me see what this one does here.
	Yeah, okay.
	So it doesn't let me bring up the whole thing, but hold on, Bruce.
	Let me, because I want to make sure that I get that.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	I'll bring it up.
	I see Barnes is in the backdrop, and I don't know if he's a potato as well.
	Here we go.
	Bruce, welcome to the Barbell Club.
	Bruce Trout, Barbell Club.
	I love the fact that your name is...
	Oh, Barnes, you're in the screen.
	Are you in the screen?
	I think so.
	Damn it, Barnes.
	Okay, see, this is the thing.
	Okay, hold on.
	My computer's making...
	I think I screwed that up, though.
	I think I'm in presentation mode, so it automatically brings you up.
	All right.
	Well, Bruce Trout, thank you very much for the tip.
	And let me see here.
	Look at all these other ones.
	I can pin up here like this.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	What does that say?
	That says, oh, they were both covered up.
	Okay, so hold on.
	I'm going to screen grab a few of these glitches that we need to...
	Fix it over here.
	Pasha Moyer says, Viva, I'm glad you made it through the maple curtain.
	Now be safe, but don't watch what you say and make it back through the same maple curtain to the U.S. All right, I'll bring this out here.
	Robert, how do I do this here?
	Okay, do this.
	End presentation.
	Sir, how are you doing?
	Good.
	It's just somehow Rumble has me looking weird.
	Let me see.
	No, you look good.
	Oh, now you look half covered.
	Oh, I see what they've done.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	They have the wrong camera.
	Ah, hold on.
	Do I?
	It's on your end or on my?
	No, this has to be on your end.
	Okay, wait.
	While you figure that out, let me see how I take you out.
	If I go solo.
	Okay.
	See, there we go.
	Okay, now I can take Barnes out when I do it that way.
	All right, well, while Barnes figures out the camera stuff, let me see.
	Let me see what's going on here.
	Glad you made it.
	What's the tweet from Trump?
	Let me see this here.
	Bruce Trout.
	Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom.
	Repeal the D.C. Home Rule Act.
	Restore original boundaries.
	Eliminate the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
	Repeal the 23rd Amendment.
	That is Trump Lee Massey Lake.
	Who puts that tweet out?
	All right, awesome.
	Well, while Barnes does that, I think I had another couple of tweets in the backdrop here.
	Yeah, I want to bring this one up.
	Just bring this up.
	Who's this guy again?
	Justin Jones.
	I think he made his name for himself by being one of the guys who got censored, kicked out of...
	It was a state legislature.
	Look at this.
	I gotta tell you, nothing says oppression.
	Nothing says oppression and being ignored and being discriminated against like riding a convertible BMW down a street that has been cordoned off for the protest, draped in the 2SLGBTQIA plus flag with the black...
	What does that say there?
	Does that say black lives matter?
	What does that say on the car?
	Hold on, my dog wants to get out of here.
	Get out of here if you're not going to stay in here.
	Go, go, go.
	Get up.
	Nothing says that you are being discriminated against like this.
	We need a month of awareness because apparently they're being mistreated and being discriminated against, being ignored and having their existence denied.
	Barnes is still trying to get up in the backdrop there.
	Let me make sure that we are live across all platforms.
	Forms.
	Shorty 2021.
	Look at this.
	Thank you very much.
	2021 Shorty.
	Looks like a hundred bucks if I could.
	Yeah, my goodness.
	Thank you very much.
	Now I want to make sure that I'm getting all of these.
	I'm going to go to Rumble and just make sure that all the rants are here.
	Okay, good.
	Good.
	They're all...
	So all of the rants are being brought up in local studio.
	And I need to go to rights management here.
	Okay, and do this here.
	Okay, sorry, guys.
	We will get all of these things done at one point.
	Okay, good.
	Let me see if Barnes is in the backdrop.
	He's going to come in in a second.
	Well, actually, so a little brief update on some law stuff coming out of Canada.
	McGill, just going back to the encampments, going back to Alexa Lavois, Rebel News, and the legal side of all of this, political commentary is one thing.
	McGill filed an injunction to break up the encampment.
	Now, you will recall that...
	By the time Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, you know, to come down with an iron fist of fury and beat the ever-loving piss out of veterans and peaceful, freedom-loving Canadians, they had gotten an injunction at the Windsor blockade, which opened up that, not port of entry, but that, well, I guess port of entry is the word, into the States.
	They had gotten an injunction.
	The courts came down and said, yes.
	We are issuing an injunction to free up traffic on that blockade.
	And that ended the Windsor blockade.
	So by the time Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, because existing legislation and existing remedies were insufficient to rectify this, they had already used the court system to get an injunction in joining the breaking up of the protest, the Windsor blockade.
	McGill filed an injunction or applied for an injunction.
	To break up the encampment on McGill property.
	I think they raised some very bad arguments, clearly, because the court said, you raised bad arguments.
	And the reality is, they did raise bad arguments.
	You go with, it's an emergency because of the risk of safety, which, though true, nothing has materialized at all, and I think it's very speculative and hypothetical.
	They raised the argument that it's going to impede on their ability to hold the graduation ceremonies, but they had already told the court.
	They found alternative venues for the graduation ceremonies, so there's no prejudice there.
	Recall that when you file for an injunction, if it's a provisional, it's got to be even more urgent.
	If it's an interlocutory, you've got to show color of right, balance of inconvenience.
	Oh, geez, it's four criteria.
	Color of right, balance of inconvenience, likelihood of success on the merits, and urgency.
	And so the court basically said, you didn't prove any of these things.
	Your own arguments undermined it, so they didn't break up the encampment.
	From what I understand, the encampment on McGill is utterly destroying the actual property of McGill.
	And it's going to be one heck of a disaster.
	So they're so empowered by the fact that the courts didn't break up the encampment on the McGill campus, they've now gone and usurped more public lands.
	Barnes is in the backdrop.
	I see him here.
	And I'm going to go...
	Hey, Barnes, say something and let me see if the mic is picking you up.
	Check, check.
	Okay, now if everybody hears him, that's also very useful to know because he's in the backstage.
	But if he says something embarrassing, not knowing that he's on stage.
	Well, that could be the end of Viva Barnes.
	Barnes doesn't do anything like that because he's always a total gentleman.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Yeah, so it looks like in Rumble Studio, it won't allow me to use the camera on the computer.
	Like, it says so when I check in, and then it won't allow the camera to be enabled unless it's the computer camera.
	Interesting.
	Okay, so I'm going to let them know that.
	Also, just to know, if the presentation mode is opened...
	And you're not on the screen, they can still hear you.
	So that could be embarrassing.
	Okay, well, I'll tell them.
	I'm going to let them know.
	We're going to have bad video on both ends tonight, but at least we've got good audio.
	Robert, first, before we ever forget, it says the brethren behind you.
	What is the book tonight?
	It's a book by Bob Woodward about the Supreme Court of the United States, about how it really operates, since we have a lot of cases tonight.
	The Supreme Court released half of its big decisions.
	Though they skipped most of the actual big decisions.
	The big ones are going to come out this week.
	There have been requests that we at least have a live chat open, but maybe we cover the debate this week, Thursday, between President Trump and President Biden.
	Found a way to honor Biden's request and exclude Robert Kennedy.
	I think it would have been a lot more fun if Kennedy would have been on the stage as well.
	But we'll see how it goes otherwise.
	So yeah, that may be something to do.
	But this is a useful book about how the Supreme Court really operates.
	Okay, I hadn't even thought about this.
	Either both of us, I will definitely be live.
	We'll do something live because the only question is going to be...
	If people are going to complain that there's too much commentating over the debate, they can go watch it.
	But yeah, we're doing that a thousand percent.
	It's going to be a...
	Do you think it's going to happen, Robert?
	The debate?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I think Trump forfeited his leverage.
	He assumed that...
	He believed that just any debate would be good for him.
	He's leading.
	So I don't see the math in that.
	And so he gave up all his leverage, so Biden got to dictate every aspect of the terms.
	The big one was excluding Robert Kennedy from the debates.
	But the other ones included, you know, who the moderator was, cutting the authority for the moderator to cut off Trump's mic, Trump not being able to interrupt or speak over him and the rest.
	So, you know, I mean, I think Trump will do fine.
	He's always done fine in debates.
	I don't think he'll get a big boost out of it.
	Remember in 2020, all the Trump camp thought, well, we just get Biden in the debates and he'll act like an idiot.
	And no, he's prepared for the debates.
	He does just fine in the debates.
	So that's not really going to happen.
	So I think we'll see.
	I think it will be okay.
	I don't think there'll be much big news about it one way or the other, to be honest with you.
	I think if it happens, it's going to be an abject disaster for Joe.
	And I'm still thinking there's got to be a way for Joe to back out.
	Something's going to happen.
	I can't see him.
	He has to have the debate.
	He's the one that's behind.
	I mean, he's not ahead.
	He's behind by four or five points.
	So he needs the game changer.
	So there's almost no risk for him.
	When he's behind by four or five points, he needs Trump to make a screw up.
	Trump to do something.
	If Biden screws up, it makes no difference.
	That's where he's at anyway.
	By contrast, if Trump screws up, it maybe helps Biden get back a little bit more in the race.
	And I think that's the math that Biden's camp is waging.
	And he's got a friendly moderator.
	He's got friendly terms.
	He's got a friendly environment.
	So I think Trump was a little too confident that any debate would be net good for him.
	Remember, the first debate was not net good for Trump in 2020.
	So I think...
	I think he usually manages his leverage very well, but I did not think this was one instance of it.
	Okay, I'm going to go out on another 10 to 1 long shot.
	This is a sabotage for Joe Biden so that Gavin Newsom can get the nomination.
	It's going to go so badly for Joe that they're going to have to pull him, replace him with Gavin.
	I'm looking at my predicted.
	I'm down 50% on my Gavin Newsom prediction so far, but that's only because we're in the pennies.
	Yeah, so the other remaining decisions, the big ones that we thought were coming Thursday, they have to come down this week, right?
	This is the last week for decisions?
	No, sometimes they can come down the week after.
	All right, well, is the barricade still set up in D.C.?
	Apparently not.
	Apparently that was a rumor, and no barricades actually have been set up.
	Well, let's see if they come back this week.
	Robert, okay, so what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	I mean, a bunch of Supreme Court decisions, some good, some bad, and what other fun stuff?
	Yeah, so we got immigration, taxes, jury trial rights, the confrontation clause, expert evidence, the Second Amendment, several Fourth Amendment cases, all from the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Some decent cases and some crap cases mixed in.
	They wussed out on a bunch of stuff.
	Then we have Kansas suing Pfizer.
	We have another Title IX decision out of the Sixth Circuit.
	Big vaccine mandates being overturned by the Sixth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week.
	So some good white pills in all three of those cases.
	I filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on the Amish farmer Reuben King on whether or not the Second Amendment allows the federal government to make it a crime to sell guns to your neighbor without federal permission first.
	And we have Bannon's bail decision and drug testing, which has come up in the news and some other circles.
	It's fascinating.
	People suddenly believe it.
	Anything the government tells you is reliable and trustworthy.
	But I have particular legal experience in the field of drug testing.
	I'll explain to you why there's about a one in five chance if they tested anybody's kids out there that they're going to find in the hair follicles some positive test for some form of illegal drug.
	It's because of how that testing really works.
	Well, okay, look, you did a bourbon with Barnes on it last week.
	I did a stream where I just mentioned...
	Some people, like, you know, they get tempted by the numbers and the traffic, and that's actually a deterrent for me.
	I don't want to even feel that there's a part of me that is incentivized to talk about someone's abject misery.
	And there's no but to that.
	You had an amazing burden with Barnes on this.
	This is relating to those who don't know.
	Rakeda, there was an update.
	Apparently, government came in and took all five of his kids and placed them in...
	They did this because apparently they tested the 9-year-old kid for cocaine.
	Nobody commentating on it has delved into what that means.
	What does that mean?
	Blood test?
	Urine test?
	Are they suggesting that the kid was taking cocaine?
	Bottom line, the headline, the information that was leaked Confidential information leaked from the court.
	And some people are going to say, oh, you like leaks when it helps you, but all of a sudden you don't like leaks.
	Something fishy is going on, and that is my only takeaway from this.
	They leak this private information that the kid, the nine-year-old, tested positive for cocaine.
	And I listened to your bourbon.
	I listened to a couple of other people's streams to see if I could make sense of it.
	It doesn't seem like anybody's even asked the question, what was the test?
	How did it work?
	Was it a urine blood test or whatever?
	And so they just repeat it.
	Tested positive for cocaine, 10 times the limit.
	And they took his five kids away, placed them in stranger foster care.
	I don't know why they couldn't go with the grandparents.
	I don't know why.
	I mean, I guess the sister who ratted them out is not going to take the kids.
	She just wants to, you know, drop bombs and let the dust fall where it falls.
	Tell us, I mean, so in your bourbon with Barnes, you mentioned it was a hair follicle test.
	How do you know?
	And what is the nature of that test?
	Yeah, so it is fascinating that this information, it's supposed to be confidential in the state of Minnesota.
	They took the kids right away, originally just on protective custody grounds, and then they treated the government, they treated the kids as their property, started engaging in medical testing of the children without the consent of their parents.
	And this is what the CPS, Children Protective Services, often does.
	They commit constitutional violations on a regular basis.
	When CPS wakes up in the morning and goes to sleep at night, it's committing a constitutional violation.
	And for those that want to lecture about protecting the kids, I've done more work than every law tuber out there representing victims of abuse in this context, represented hundreds of victims of abuse.
	And the organization I found to be the least reliable, least trustworthy, least likely to be an ally is the Children's Protective Services.
	So it's from personal, professional experience that I speak about Children's Protective Services and the state never being somebody you want in control of anybody's kids.
	But what they did is they said, now, you might ask, all they did is hair follicle testing on each of the children.
	Why didn't they do blood testing?
	Why didn't they do urine testing?
	Why didn't they do saliva testing?
	I can tell you why.
	So about 20 years ago, hair follicle testing became a favorite of certain employers and other people, in part because it's cheap, but also because it creates one of the highest rates of false positives known to man.
	To give you an example, here's why CPS loved it.
	They found that 95% of kids...
	Who have a caregiver that has a drug abuse issue will test positive with the hair follicle test for the drugs.
	It's not because anybody thinks that any of the kids are using drugs.
	They can use that as evidence that the kid is around drugs and thereby say that the parent should be removed from the equation.
	And the government, here always to help you out with that, foster parents.
	Maybe they'll take you down to...
	Jerry Sandusky's little foster care provision.
	That's who the government tends to provide aid for your children for.
	All these people on their moral self-righteousness about, you know, I care about the kids.
	No, you don't.
	You're a bunch of frauds.
	You don't know anything about this if you say that.
	But so 95% of kids tested positive when their parent was a drug user.
	So it isn't because 95% of the kids are using drugs.
	It's because...
	Hair follicle tests pick up drugs in the environment.
	And it's why they use hair follicle tests and not blood tests, saliva tests, or urine tests.
	Because those will come back negative.
	Here's the second other context in which this has arisen.
	Employers.
	Here's a good point of motivated reasoning.
	So you're out there in the law or in politics, and you want to find what's really the best argument for the other side of an issue.
	Or any side of an issue.
	Try to find someone who has the motivation to do it.
	Here's who doesn't have the motivation.
	Children's Protective Services.
	They use this to steal people's kids on a regular basis.
	They have no incentive in telling you why hair follicle tests are unreliable for the purposes they're propounding it for.
	Family court judges who don't care about the Constitution to save their lives.
	The police who love it because they get to use it to incriminate people and put people in a position where you either have to sacrifice your kids or sacrifice your liberty.
	Which is what they're trying to do in the Minnesota case.
	If you want your kids back, you better go to prison for five years and confess you're guilty.
	That's the leverage.
	They actually use people's kids as leverage in a criminal case.
	Welcome to the real criminal justice system.
	But none of those people have any incentive for it.
	Now, here's who did.
	For example, they considered hair follicle testing for truck drivers.
	They considered hair follicle testing for government workers.
	Well, those people did have reason to object.
	They didn't want to lose the truckers and the government workers.
	They're like, uh-uh, you're going to take away my job for nothing.
	So they fully researched it.
	And what did they find?
	Hair follicle testing is notoriously unreliable for determining an individual's own use.
	To give you an example, years ago, they were doing it for other purposes.
	But in Barcelona, they found one out of four kids tested positive for cocaine in the hair follicle testing.
	Now, does anybody think all the kids were like, all the 10-year-olds in Barcelona are running around doing Miami Vice imitations from the 1980s and doing a line of coke before they played football each weekend?
	I don't think so.
	It's because that's how high the rate is for that testing.
	By the way, if you have pot in your system, you like hair follicle testing because it is notoriously inaccurate and gives false negatives 70% of the time, even when you just did some weed.
	So it depends on which one.
	But the employers all figured this out.
	Truck drivers all figured this out.
	They're like, uh-uh.
	If you're going to do hair follicle testing, you have to follow it up immediately with a blood test, saliva test, or a urine test.
	And guess what we've found?
	We've got real data now over a decade plus.
	Over 90% of the people who test positive for illicit substance use in the hair follicle test, turns out they don't have it anywhere in their body when they do a blood, urine, or saliva test.
	In other words, a 90% false positive rate.
	I'll tell you what probably shocked the people in Minnesota.
	Remember that earlier study?
	95% of the kids test positive if they've simply been around drugs.
	And yet, four of the five came back hair follicle tests completely clear of anything.
	That means that the allegations that there were drugs everywhere is clearly not the case.
	I'm sure they didn't expect that.
	They expected all five kids to come back.
	With a hair follicle positive, because it's in the environment.
	And there's a hundred way, if your hair is darker, if you're African American, you're also more screwed.
	I mean, there's all these, there's a reason why a hair follicle test is not the most reliable evidence, but it's exactly why CPS uses it.
	And it's exactly why employers have tried to use it, because if they want to get rid of workers for any convenient cause, they try to use it.
	But credit, the people have done the best legal research on this.
	Truck drivers!
	Because they don't screw around.
	You're not taking away my job for nothing, pal.
	And they've proven how unreliable it is.
	So if you see news stories out there about that, put a real big asterisk beside it.
	Let me ask you this.
	So it was my understanding.
	I'm just pulling up articles that confirm what you're saying in real time, Robert.
	It was only one of the five kids who tested positive.
	It wasn't the other four.
	That is correct.
	It was only one in five.
	And normally, if the kids have even been around drugs at all, all five would test positive.
	That's the norm.
	And understand, CBS does this all the time.
	They use this regularly.
	So the average success rate is 95. The reason is because of the environment.
	So there's a hundred ways you can get in your hair.
	That's why one out of four kids in Barcelona tested positive.
	It's not because they're all doing coke.
	It meant that it was anywhere.
	Also because you can just get fault.
	There's a lot of things.
	They're testing for other things other than the actual drug that they hope is a correlation for the actual drug.
	But there's a hundred ways that things can go wrong.
	The other problem is just with risk of human error.
	For example.
	Every narcotics officer tests positive if you do a hair follicle test for every illegal drug known to man.
	It isn't because all our narcotics officers are doing their own line of coke and some weed and throwing in some meth before they get on the work.
	There might be a few that are, but I'm sure Joe Biden's going to have one of everything before the debate on Thursday.
	Pump them up here, a little here, a little here.
	Come on, Joe, you got to get going.
	Unless they put the AI version up there.
	That's why it has the high...
	It doesn't mean what everybody ran to conclude, admit.
	And it is fascinating.
	Like, when people have asked me, why did all the Democrats in the media really believe that Trump's conviction would derail his entire campaign?
	Just look at the Nick Ricada case.
	Everybody draws the worst possible conclusion from every government allegation and assumes it's absolutely true with zero skepticism whatsoever.
	It's what happened during the pandemic.
	I mean, everybody's okay.
	I mean, I told people it was a live Milgram experiment.
	I was just waiting for Fauci to come out and say the best way to avoid COVID is you need to walk everywhere, but only hop on one foot.
	And if you hop on one foot, you'll avoid the virus.
	And half of America would have been out hopping on one foot everywhere.
	The reason why they do it is because people are gullible.
	They usually believe whatever the government alleges about somebody.
	So you should always express skepticism about that, especially the way this was leaked.
	Everything about it screams.
	This is a motivated effort to smear an individual and destroy his public reputation.
	And by the way, here's why the CPS does this to kids, to parents.
	They know that the typical reaction of, let's say someone does have a serious drug health issue.
	The normal reaction, if you take away their kids and subject them to criminal prosecution, Is they often OD.
	They often go into a depressive cycle.
	And they know this and they do it deliberately.
	It gives you an idea of who the government is and who CPS is.
	They're filled with either lazy people who got there because of some special benefit or political connection or sociopaths and abusive personalities.
	And I say this as someone who has defended and represented more victims of abuse than all the law two people combined.
	I mean, I've dealt with the worst agencies known to man, and CPS is still the worst, still the least reliable, least trustworthy, least honest that's ever been there.
	Barnes, they said, Barnes reaching for a non-existent error on his head really pleases me.
	If people want to test this, I mean, be careful about testing it, but test yourself or your own kids.
	Send it into one of these clinics and see here, somebody might ask, why does CPS, how does CPS get away with it?
	They usually always go after poor and working class parents.
	Who have no political protection, no legal means to defend themselves.
	And often people that do have issues, that are not in the perfect mental health, that are not in the best position, physical health.
	But most particularly, they don't have the financial means.
	And so I think they made a mistake here.
	Because, you know, Ricada does have means and is not showing a self-destructive, implosive reaction to all of this.
	But a lot of normal human beings would completely collapse.
	But Robert, how do they take away all five kids, one of whom is 16 years old, virtually old enough to be, you know, an emancipated minor?
	And then assert complete control over them so they get to do whatever test on them they want.
	And by the way, remember foster care systems, one of the issues we raised for children's health defense against the FDA was in Texas.
	And this included Texas.
	Foster care parents, as soon as they're in foster care coverage, they're getting the vaccine.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom.
	It's about government control.
	It's always been about government control.
	And that's why they, I mean, and it relates to other cases we've been talking about here.
	Like, why do they, you know, we've been talking about people who have been prohibited from adopting.
	Prohibited from operating as foster care parents if they don't have woke ideas, if they don't support any gender, certain gender ideologies, if they have certain conservative religious beliefs.
	We've talked about that in multiple cases that have gone up, some to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	It's part of a broader pattern.
	The state thinks they should own your children, and they will use any mechanism possible to do it.
	And here, they're trying to greenlight their power while running a...
	I mean, somebody's leaking a smear campaign, because the only purpose of that is to smear the individual.
	They're putting out test results that are very misleading, if you know anything about the context, and they're leaking things that are private and confidential.
	I mean, they're willing to embarrass a nine-year-old kid permanently in the public reputation just to gain a slight political advantage.
	And all the people that have jumped on this...
	Nate the lawyer, some other people that have jumped on this should be ashamed of themselves.
	Well, I mean, Nate, we're not talking about the days when you used to frame people in New York and brag about it on TV.
	So unless you want everybody's worst garbage in front of everybody, maybe be a little careful before you celebrate this kind of bad behavior by the government.
	What do you know?
	First of all, I mean, I don't know what you know and what you can talk about.
	Is Nick able to talk to his kids when they're in foster care?
	Often it's extremely, no, only with supervised visitation.
	I mean, imagine that.
	I've told people many times, unless you think the case is an extreme abusive case, don't ever get the government involved.
	The government fails and all these kind of people that have substance abuse problems, it always gets worse.
	Even if you postulate that assumption of a substance abuse problem.
	Don't get the government involved.
	That's why I was on with Mark Robert, who was talking about, you know, get people to meetings.
	Robert Kennedy has a great documentary about it.
	I mean, Robert Kennedy himself dealt with addiction for 10 years in his life, for a decade.
	He's talked about it extensively.
	Has a new documentary about how we handle this in the right way, in the wrong way, in the effective way, in the ineffective way.
	But CPS, the government is always net negative.
	I'm yet to see an experience where the government's net positive involving kids.
	It's just...
	Assume the worst.
	And we should have laws in place that require that any children in any situation like this be placed with the next of kin.
	That should be the law.
	Instead, it's government-permitted, government-licensed, government-approved people.
	Another issue that I have to remind myself of is the chat keeps scrolling, so it makes it hard to pin the comment.
	Pennsylvania CPS ruined my family.
	We sold the family home, wasted $144,000, and lost four of my five children to the system.
	These people have a special place in hell.
	Caseworkers make money off the kids.
	They often are done.
	There's all kinds of subcontracting that occurs with private contractors.
	There's other financial incentives in place.
	So their only incentive is to keep them in the system.
	The longer in the system, the more money they make.
	The more power they get.
	And that's the problem.
	I mean, I can't tell you the rage I experienced dealing with CPS when I was representing, again, actual victims of actual abuse, of real neglect, and seeing firsthand that CPS was the worst of them all.
	Do we know why they weren't able to go with Nick's parents or his wife's parents?
	It's the way the court does it.
	That's why.
	And part of it's the state law.
	Part of it's state law in all these places.
	But it's the court, too.
	Which isn't even making certain constitutional findings that should be required before you take somebody's kids away.
	Are they all in the same place or are the five kids split up?
	You don't know.
	Imagine if they did it to your kids.
	It would be a falling down moment.
	I mean, that would be where that drives people.
	Forget self-harm.
	That drives people to do terrible things.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's the nature of it.
	And they know that.
	By the way, same thing with federal prisons.
	Federal prisons, for example, know that they actually did the study.
	If they put up posters of people with moms and with daughters and fathers with sons in federal prison, the original premise was they would encourage people to behave better because they would want to get out.
	They discovered it had just the opposite effect.
	It led to them being reminded of what they had lost and it being a very negative effect.
	So guess what federal prisons did?
	They doubled the number of such photos.
	That's who these people are.
	They don't understand.
	The government people that control these agencies are pure sociopaths.
	They're the worst human beings on the planet.
	And you never want these people to have power if you actually care about the kids.
	Like I see a lot of these people grandstanding.
	I just care about the children.
	Well, if you actually care about the children, you would never want...
	All right.
	That's a little side rant, a little random side rant.
	No, I know, but it's morbidly depressing.
	You have people like Janeway, and I say this without judgment, Janeway, I'm going to pin it.
	I'm very mad at Nick for doing this to his family, and I have no doubt that his kids, they might understand in the long run, but even if they understand, they're going to still blame...
	Nick and their parents.
	Oh no, they'll blame the guy.
	Trust me.
	No, it's the opposite.
	Everybody who put him there.
	All the people who think they'll get rewarded.
	I've been through this many.
	People can read The Blind Side.
	Michael Orr.
	His mother had a lot of issues.
	He kept trying to get back to his home.
	Kept trying to get back to his home.
	That's what kids want.
	They've studied.
	They took kids away from parents that had drug issues, particularly pregnant mothers, after they gave birth.
	And then some they didn't.
	Guess what they found?
	The kids that they took away always worse off by every single metric 10 years later than the kids that they left with the parents.
	Outside of exceptional circumstances of extraordinary abuse, we should never have the government taking people's kids away.
	We should never have the government controlling people's children.
	Period.
	End of story.
	By the way, if everybody hears that noise, for some reason the charger on my computer is now totally messed up.
	I'll blame the...
	I don't know, something.
	So if you hear a bing...
	It's because the charger keeps going in and out.
	You're up there in Kamido, right?
	Yes, Robert and I. I got over the border.
	Going back into America is less of the risk.
	Being in Canada is the risk.
	They might determine that one of my tweets where I called Jagmeet Singh a motherfucker, they might consider that a hate crime these days.
	There's a good meme in our USA.
	USA Now in Locals says, at this point, your blood is either boiling or it's clotting.
	It could be doing both, in which case you might want to thin your blood out with a little bit of Quebec gin.
	Drinking Nocotier tonight.
	It's a good gin.
	All right, so what we're going to do now, we're going to...
	We'll do one subject because we talked about an unexpected, not on the topic list subject.
	Robert...
	New York nipple judge Angoran.
	This is an easy one to talk about.
	I put out a vlog today so people know the gist of what's going on.
	Trump filed a motion for recusal of New York nipple judge Arthur Angoran in New York, alleging that Angoran had an ex parte, unlawful, unethical...
	Not a collaboration, a consultation with a New York real estate attorney who, as it turns out, has sued Donald Trump five to seven times.
	The lawyer, his name is something Bailey, Adam Bailey, sees the judge in the courthouse.
	Lord knows why Judge Engelron is just walking around to be seen by everybody.
	Says to his clients, I gotta go talk to Judge Engelron about this very pressing case that he's sitting on right now.
	Goes over to him, talks to him about...
	How to issue a proper ruling because he's got to get this right.
	This is three weeks before the judge's ruling.
	The judge issues his ruling.
	The lawyer, Adam Bailey, for whatever the reason, is doing an interview or two interviews on CBS, NBC, CBC, not CBC, but one of the three-letter agency news outlets in America, and brags to them about his ex parte meeting with Judge Engelron, how he just had to meet him, make sure that he gets it right because it's very important to him, yada, yada, yada.
	And then people pay attention.
	Trump's team files a motion for recusal because the judge still has some authority over some elements of the file.
	And apparently the judge is now under investigation as to whether or not he committed ethics violations or whatever violated the rules.
	Tell everybody why this is so bloody egregious.
	This is not a disinterested expert in a case.
	Judge is not asking for expert advice on a complex medical issue where judges are not in the best position to come to determinations of science.
	Doesn't disclose it to any of the parties.
	It becomes disclosed through the haughtiness and arrogance of the parties.
	And now they're asking for an accuser, which they probably won't get.
	But tell us why it's so bad and what do you think is going to happen?
	Well, I mean, what's a little corruption between friends?
	I mean, it's just a joke how bad the justice system has become.
	It should be an example when people that say people are skeptical of...
	The Trump case, embrace everything that happens to other people in the cases.
	It should express the same skepticism no matter who the case is about.
	But what you're seeing with the Trump case is how our criminal justice and civil justice system really operate.
	It's just because he is at a different level of public attention, people are getting a crash course in how it works.
	That normally what our justice system does really well is they only screw over the politically marginalized.
	And only a small percentage of people.
	So some ordinary Joe subject to the system gets to experience Kafka's trial.
	But it's not a majority of the country.
	And it's not people who know a majority of the country.
	And so consequently, a lot of ordinary, the normies, are shocked to see this going on.
	But it's patently unethical, patently illegal, patently beyond any degree of propriety.
	Shouldn't have had any conversation with the guy about a pending case.
	Should have disclosed that there was such a conversation, given the potential for extrajudicial influence and impermissible influence.
	And then, of course, it's only now coming public because the lawyer's dumb enough to go out and talk to people because he's happy about it.
	He's eager to tell the world about it.
	And so it gives you a sense of the scale of what's taking place.
	But it's just one more extraordinary breach.
	I mean, when you got former Governor Cuomo going on Bill Maher and being like, ah, this kind of looks bad.
	And it looks bad because it kind of is bad.
	You have a sense of how bad it is.
	And Bill Maher is like, oh my goodness, this has backfired.
	Trump is raising record sums of money and going up in the polls.
	I mean, it's what we predicted would happen because enough of the American people are awake and alert to what's taking place, at least as to the Trump case, even if not to other cases.
	And what you're seeing and witnessing is the consequences that flow from that.
	All right, before we head over, let's just, I'm going to try to get through a bunch of these, Robert.
	I'll pin these up there.
	Don't sign the effing birth certificate.
	It says fire or freedom from our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Oh, so you can actually pull up the locals.
	That's cool.
	Yes, this is one of the good things, is that it has a separate tab for all donations from all three platforms.
	Ah, yeah.
	Tucker just interviewed J.D. Vance for two hours exhibiting his populist route.
	Bergman would be the ego choice for Trump.
	I got money on J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy.
	J.D. Vance would be the choice.
	J.D. Vance would be the assassination insurance that he definitely...
	Supposedly, his choice he's going to unveil at the VP debate.
	He's bringing him to the VP debate.
	I mean, to the presidential debate.
	He's bringing his VP.
	So I'm assuming...
	It's not going to be like all the candidates.
	Maybe you never know with Trump.
	Maybe it'll be Celebrity Apprentice or whatever.
	Here's eight of them.
	These are the eight I'm considering.
	I don't think it will be that.
	But we'll see.
	I hope it's J.D. Vance.
	Not Tim Scott.
	Not Marco Rubio.
	Not any of those establishment hacks.
	I appreciate they don't want the VP upstaging the P, but that would never even happen with...
	JD, but JD would be assassination insurance against Donald Trump because JD is freaking awesome.
	I'll be working for three days in Toronto.
	I'm considering disabling all of my social media for that week.
	I get it.
	And if I go here, hold on, I can't.
	I've got to go pin on timer here.
	Oh, son of a beast.
	Barnes for SCOTUS or to replace the Federalist Society.
	That works for me.
	And now it seems that I...
	Oh, I can see all donations.
	I have to scroll up.
	Okay, I'll figure this out afterwards.
	We're going to end on YouTube.
	Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Robert, bear with me because I want to try this out as well because I'm going to use Rack right now.
	We are 14,000, 15, 16, we're 17,700 live across all platforms.
	I'm going to run an ad on Rumble Advertising Centre and it's going to be, hold on.
	Okay, I think I've seen, there might be.
	Hold on.
	Let's try this.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay.
	There might be an issue.
	Okay.
	I will be the test trial dude for all of the Rumble stuff.
	Okay.
	I think there might be a glitch in terms of the limits if it's going to...
	Well, okay.
	Let's try this one here.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Not that one.
	Oh, am I just going to go find...
	I'm going to go find True Social again.
	Hold on.
	You know what?
	Let's just do Rumble Store.
	Let's do this.
	Okay.
	Is it...
	Here we go.
	No.
	Okay, fine.
	It's not working.
	So there's a glitch.
	Okay, we'll get to it afterwards.
	What we're going to do right now is we're going to end on YouTube and Twitter.
	And if I go here...
	Rumble and Locals.
	Okay.
	I'm going to update the stream.
	And we're going to see everybody over on Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com and I'll post the entire stream on Viva Clips.
	I will post the audio to Viva Barnes Law for the People on Podbean and it puts it all across the other platforms.
	And that is it.
	Update stream.
	SCOTUS decisions, Robert.
	Okay.
	So here's the thing.
	A lot of people, they're not going to be interested in a lot of the SCOTUS decisions because some of them are, I won't say...
	But small stuff that they've never even heard of.
	Some of them are fun stuff.
	Where do we start?
	Because there's a lot of them.
	The one out of Nevada, the one that I like is they said a 75-year-old grandmother has now successfully contested her malicious prosecution by the state because this woman, I forget exactly her position, but she...
	Got involved in state-level politics, found out that there was some corruption, I think, with some council people, called a meeting and put up a petition to have the councilman removed, and then accidentally took her own petition in her stack of papers after she left the city council meeting.
	I think I might be mashing, destroying some of the facts here.
	After she accidentally took her own petition from the meeting, security came up to her and said, Asked to open up her books and they found her petition.
	They then charged her with, I think they bumped into a felony, destruction or removal of official records and locked her up for a couple of days.
	She says, like, I'm a 75-year-old woman.
	I'm going to jail.
	It's not a place I'm ever used to.
	And then she sued for, it's not a free speech issue.
	It was malicious prosecution or selective prosecution.
	And ultimately she prevailed by showing that it was egregious.
	Political payback for her calling out the corruption.
	It was, even if she even did anything, it would have been a misdemeanor at best, and they bumped it to a felony.
	And I want to try to draw some analogies between this case and where the Supreme Court might be going on other cases.
	I think I mangled some of the facts there, Robert, but take it from there.
	Yeah, I mean, basically, there were two major cases that came up.
	What had happened is lower federal courts were saying you could not sue.
	For either malicious prosecution or retaliatory arrest, unless you establish that there was no probable cause for any crime alleged at all, effectively.
	And even though the Supreme Court had carved out an exception, a First Amendment-rooted exception, if you could show that usually cops don't make an arrest under these circumstances, and so it was still retaliatory, malicious, and violation of the Constitution.
	The courts were basically saying if there was probable cause, they weren't going to do that unless you showed an exact identical situation.
	And, of course, that's almost impossible to show.
	You have analogous situations, but not identical.
	So the Supreme Court had two cases this week issued, and we had previewed both of them back in the fall, and both of them came down the right way.
	These were two of the more white-pilled cases from the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court said if they don't have probable cause for any of the crimes alleged, then you can sue for malicious prosecution.
	If you're able to show that the basis of your detention was from the one that didn't have probable cause, as well as the separate component of the case you just talked about.
	You can sue for retaliatory arrest, a form of malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment.
	And really, as Alito's concurrence pointed out, there's First Amendment implications present.
	If you can show that there are similarly situated people by a general survey that have not been prosecuted, and your example doesn't require anyone else to have ever been...
	had committed the crime, so to speak, and not been prosecuted.
	You could just show the law has been on the books for a long time and nobody's ever been charged with it.
	And probably Probable cause.
	I mean, flesh that out in terms of what probable cause means for the purposes of prosecution.
	So, a probable cause is that it's more probable than not to reasonably believe, as an objective matter, that someone has committed a crime for the purposes of an arrest.
	Or a prosecution.
	So malicious prosecute, and they're rooting this, Thomas disagrees with this, Gorsuch kind of does too, though their disagreement is mostly rooted in where the right is based in.
	I would put it all in the First Amendment myself.
	But in terms of retaliation or malicious prosecution is really a violation of the First Amendment.
	But the court is located in the Fourth Amendment as a form of seizure.
	I mean, for example, take like the Ricada case.
	One of the things the search warrant managed to authorize was seizing him.
	Seizing him.
	It's like, well, on what basis is there to seize the person?
	That's not, you won't find that search warrant issued very often.
	But similar here, when there's an arrest, there's a seizure of you as a person.
	And so what the Supreme Court decided is that's really a Fourth Amendment issue.
	And so thus you have to have probable cause.
	But probable cause by itself isn't sufficient if the real reason for the arrest is a crime for which they didn't have probable cause or if they don't normally prosecute.
	They normally exercise their discretion to not choose to arrest or prosecute.
	And so that, by the way, was bloody apparent in both of these cases that that was the case.
	And so they had good facts to support this good law.
	But that's what clarified...
	And probable cause is more like...
	It's probable that you have reasonable cause that the person committed a crime.
	But you also need...
	That needs to be the basis for the arrest or prosecution, not for something you don't have probable cause of that you falsely allege.
	And it needs to not...
	See similarly situated people...
	Not be so prosecuted or similarly situated circumstances.
	And that can just be what the Supreme Court said this week.
	If there's a law that's on the books and there's very few prosecutions ever for that law, that's objective evidence that you are being targeted for retaliatory purposes.
	There's one case that, well, frankly, could apply to the Minnesota case.
	Try to find examples of...
	Them ordering the arrested seizure rate of a home and five kids taken away based on hearsay.
	Putting that aside, there's one big case that this is glaring about, of course, when they're talking about retaliatory arrest, malicious prosecution, dubious probable cause, similarly situated people being prosecuted without a bait.
	It will relate to another big Supreme Court case.
	All of these, what the specter that is...
	Haunting all of these cases is the Trump cases.
	And that is the specific, I presume you're talking about the Alvin Bragg misclassification of campaign funds, which it wasn't campaign funds in the first place.
	Or the civil fraud case.
	The First Amendment prohibits any form of retaliation by the system, by the government, by any state actor.
	I mean, what were the examples they've ever brought to show that a similar civil fraud case has ever been brought?
	There's no such examples of it.
	So the civil case and the criminal case violate the very principles established by the Supreme Court in these cases in analogous circumstances under the Fourth Amendment.
	Do you think this is the Supreme Court sort of not persuading but getting people ready, those who are not yet ready to hear a strong immunity decision?
	Because that's the first thing and the only thing I was thinking is, all right, the New Yorker, when they talk about the novel legal theory.
	In the New York case.
	Not the anger on, but Alvin Bragg.
	But apply to anger on.
	They're talking about novel interpretations of law.
	And the first and only time they've ever done it is in retaliation to the president of the United States of America, who's running again now and leading.
	So if that is not the prime example, above and beyond the old lady who got locked up for allegedly stealing documents.
	I mean, are they not priming people, getting them ready for what is going to be an unhappy decision for them next week?
	Well, that nicely bridges right into the jury case, the right to a jury trial as it relates to federal sentencing issues.
	I didn't put that one together yet, Robert.
	I just did it now.
	All right.
	Okay.
	That decision is...
	Oh, that had to do with an enhancement.
	Where if you committed three crimes, then you would get an enhancement.
	And this guy was...
	What was he accused of?
	Possessing a firearm as a felon?
	Yes.
	And then they said, well, you committed three crimes.
	And he says, I committed three crimes as part of one crime spree.
	And I wasn't found guilty to have committed three crimes by a jury of my peers.
	So you can't impose the enhancement of 15 years minimum.
	It went from like a max of 10 years to a minimum of 15 years.
	And he said...
	I didn't have a jury trial on those elements to prove that I committed three separate elements because that was all, according to me, a three-day crime spree.
	And he won on that as well.
	And they said, yeah, you need a jury trial to adjudicate on the three separate elements before you can have the enhancement.
	And now that you mention it, it makes very good sense as it bridges to N 'Goron's bypassing the jury trial to take over.
	Well, and it goes right to the heart of the Mershon case, the biggest constitutional question in the case, because they emphasize the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.
	I mean, we talked about it a couple of weeks ago, and they said, what prohibits a Kafkaesque trial where you don't know what you're accused of?
	It's a combination of the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.
	The Fifth Amendment right to due process of law incorporates...
	All of the traditional rights to beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimous jury, 12 jurors, etc.
	The Sixth Amendment is the impartial jury from an impartial venue that's deciding all factual matters that relate to your punishment.
	Well, the Supreme Court basically said, I got some pushback from some people.
	Well, the Supreme Court said that's exactly what the law is this week in precisely those same terms.
	And what they said was, even though this was the context of sentencing enhancement, they said, look, this applies no matter what the circumstance is.
	That the entire point and purpose is, on any aspect of any fact that could be the basis of any punishment, you must have unanimous jury decision on that fact, and it must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
	On that fact.
	And I'm an idiot, Robert.
	That is in the Mershon case where he says, you do not need to unanimously agree on what the underlying predicate act was for the felony.
	Not enhancement, but rather bringing it up to a felony.
	It could either be tax fraud, it could be election fraud, it could be federal election fraud.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	And so in this particular case, they said, no, the judge does not get to apply the enhancement in the absence of a jury conviction, unanimous jury conviction.
	And beyond a reasonable doubt on any fact related to punishment.
	And they quoted the very case that is being quoted by critics of what Mershon did.
	So it's further evidence that that case is, it's only a matter of time before that case is thrown out.
	That conviction is thrown out.
	And so the question is whether they preclude the show trials from continuing to muck up the election in terms of their immunity decision.
	I stick with my prediction that they will overturn the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	The nature of their decision will bring into question every single criminal case, including the New York criminal case against President Trump.
	And at a minimum, they'll require courts to remove Any act that could be a presidential act on grounds that it's immune from criminal prosecution.
	I would go further.
	I would like them to say you're immune until you're impeached and convicted by the Senate once you're president of the United States.
	But assuming they don't go that far.
	I think they'll at least establish that you're immune for any presidential acts from subsequent criminal prosecution without impeachment and conviction.
	And that requires a detailed factual review by the court before it ever reaches a jury, which the New York judge never did.
	And so I think it will invalidate and throw out their potential sentencing coming up soon.
	And if that Mershon continues to ignore the law like every other New York judge has done, then I think you'll see that get quickly overturned or a stay of the sentence or a bail pending appeal be granted.
	Because we're even seeing the Supreme Court consider it.
	I didn't think they would consider it.
	Maybe they won't ultimately.
	But Chief Justice Roberts has issued an order for the government to respond on why he shouldn't grant bail to Steve Bannon.
	Pending the petition for cert to the Supreme Court.
	That is extremely rare.
	In bail decisions, the Supreme Court has been mostly AWOL for about half, more than half, about 70 years.
	At least since 68, 69. Those are the last good Supreme Court decisions on bail.
	They've gone AWOL.
	For him to get involved and say, I want the government to respond, means they're seriously considering that on another constitutional set of issues.
	So I think these...
	These false arrests, these retaliatory arrests, malicious prosecution, I think these cases, along with the jury case, along with what we see in the Bannon case, are signals that the Supreme Court is going to grant a good immunity decision.
	It may not go as far as it should, but it will go far enough to put a complete wrench in all of the lawfare against Trump during the election.
	The immunity is...
	Probably the biggest remaining decision.
	What are the other remaining massive decisions?
	The Chevron case.
	Are they going to eviscerate government deference or not?
	There's some others too, but those are the two biggest ones that a lot of legal observers are watching.
	There was a decision that we're going to talk about now.
	I can't remember it offhand, which led me to believe they're going to overturn a Chevron because of the same sort of persuading everybody or getting everybody ready for what's coming.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	All right, so...
	Okay, it's going to be amazing.
	Next week is going to be amazing.
	The debate and a bunch of Supreme Court decisions.
	And hopefully they'll be better because we'll turn now to some of their crap decisions.
	I don't necessarily disagree with their visa immigration decision.
	Confrontation clause was okay.
	Second Amendment decision I'm not a fan of at all.
	Second Amendment involves a spouse accused of, or at least had a restraining order issued against him.
	The visa issue is a woman who married an MS-13 member, alleged, and he disavowed it.
	All right, let's start with the visa issue, because that's what's concerning me these days.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Robert, so a woman, an American citizen, marries an illegal immigrant, I guess is the way to say it.
	I believe that he admitted he was a member of MS-13.
	The allegation is that he was denied a visa because of suspected affiliation to a foreign gang.
	And he says, I suspect it's MS-13, so I'm going to disavow it.
	And now...
	Grant me citizenship, except it's a little more complicated.
	The wife was arguing that her constitutional rights were violated by his due process being violated and not being granted citizenship so that her right to marriage is being impeded with or interfered with by virtue of him being denied a visa because of his affiliation to MS-13.
	Now, I want to be sensitive to the plight because someone might say at some point, well, Viva Frye is...
	Amenable to Diagilon and therefore should be denied a visa to America.
	But another part of me says if the dude admits he's part of MS-13, and we all agree MS-13 is a violent, murderous, drug-dealing, savage gang, the court ultimately said that her constitutional rights were not violated because there's not a sufficient constitutional right to be married.
	to the person of your choice and grant them citizenship.
	And if there's a due process violation, it's his and not hers.
	And he's not a citizen and therefore has different rights.
	Katanji Brown had a dissenting opinion, which said, you know, America says marriage is the most precious thing on earth.
	And if we don't approve of this and grant him citizenship, or at least recognize a violation of his due process rights, we Robert, that's as far as I can understand in this case.
	What do you think?
	I mean, politically, I think it signals a shift by the Supreme Court.
	Because, I mean, what they were trying to do, the pro-immigration advocates, is use the Trump decision where the Supreme Court opened the door for people to make legal claims against the government based on immigrants.
	And historically, there has never been any basis for anybody to enter the country that's not a citizen.
	And the idea that suddenly somebody had rights to sue the government over who they let in and that they could be forced to let people in constitutionally struck me as absurd.
	But it was the Supreme Court that opened that door with the Trump decision because they're all sensitive about the Trump so-called Muslim ban.
	It was really just a, it don't come from a shithole country filled with terrorist ban.
	The geeky could have just subtitled it better.
	But historically, that's always been, and so I agree with the court when they're like, hey, we always give, there's no role of judicial review.
	There is no right for immigrants to enter the country.
	There is no right for people, even if they are connected, the person bringing the claim is a citizen.
	So what they did is they basically walked back, without doing it explicitly, the Trump case.
	And they said, no, actually, there's no fundamental liberty interest of any kind in a non-citizen's application to come to the country.
	So no due process applies.
	And that's always been the case.
	And that should be the case.
	And so I agree with them on that.
	And I don't think they...
	I disagree with Jackson's dissent that this in any way undermines the fundamental interest in marriage.
	It says the fundamental interest in marriage has never extended to the right to marry a foreigner and bring him into America.
	Or for you to have any rights in their citizenship status in the U.S. when they're not citizens to begin with.
	So I think it was the right decision.
	Well, what they should have done is had the chutzpah to say, by the way, we were wrong in the Trump case.
	We should have said Trump's got carte blanche.
	He's the president of the United States.
	He's the side who comes in and who doesn't.
	And that's it.
	I mean, right now, Nigel Farage is surging, as predicted, by the way, in the UK election polls.
	The one and only Carl Benjamin, Sargon of Akkad.
	I may have mispronounced that.
	Well, I think he's formerly the Sargon of Akkad.
	Oh, he's got his channel back.
	Or he's using it now.
	He's using his Sargon channel too.
	So he's got the Lotus Eaters and he's back doing podcasts on the Sargon of Akkad YouTube channel.
	But it's all about immigration.
	There is no right to come into the country.
	And there's no right for somebody to demand someone come into the country.
	And so they just never should have screwed around with that in the Trump case.
	And I think what it shows, though, is the Supreme Court's cognizant immigration has become a disaster in the United States under the Biden administration.
	And consequently, I mean, this is what Cuomo was saying.
	He was like, even if you like this idea, this isn't working out well, everybody.
	I mean, imagine Cuomo, the voice of reason.
	That's extraordinary where we're at.
	But the right court decision, right policy, they should have had the...
	Guts to admit that the Trump decision was the wrong one.
	Yeah, and it's also, it's like you talk about anchor babies and now you have an anchor spouse where because an illegal immigrant gets married to a legal citizen, one can imagine the abuses that would ensue.
	Forget abuses when it's not...
	All this would have been widely abused.
	I mean, because every other relationship would have come into play.
	Your family, you know, in terms of kids, relatives, etc.
	So it was a smart, savvy attempt by the left.
	To come up with a constitutional right to force us to take illegals from all over the world.
	Disguised as it's about the family.
	It's like the children protective show.
	Just about the children.
	Yeah, I don't think so, pal.
	Kind of like Jeffrey Epstein.
	Joe Biden are all about the children, but that means a little something different.
	But yeah, that was a good decision.
	There was one other good decision and then three crap decisions.
	Well, what was the other good decision before we get to the three crap?
	Now we might disagree on the Second Amendment one.
	I'm very amenable to both sides of this discussion, but what's the other good decision?
	So the other good one is on the Confrontation Clause.
	So the Confrontation Clause has its own explicit express prohibition on hearsay.
	So if you are a defendant in a criminal case, you have the right to confront your accusers.
	What does that mean?
	It means they can't bring in your accusers and not their testimony and not have them present for you to cross.
	It's going to have a Trump impact, is it not?
	To a degree.
	But it's more axiomatic, and they've been figuring out ways around this, lower courts, to help the government screw people.
	So one of the ways they do it, this comes up in drug lab cases, or so-called forensic scientific evidence.
	Experts.
	Yes, experts.
	There was a bad expert ruling, but we'll get to that in a second.
	What's amazing is, you know, for those people that don't know, the Milgram experiment, what happened is they brought a person in and the guy was just, someone was just standing there with a white lab coat.
	That's all.
	And he said, okay, I need you to, we're dealing with this project.
	I need, when this person answers wrongly, I'm going to tell you, you need to shock them and keep turning it up and turning it up and just do, basically just do whatever I tell you.
	And a majority of Americans sat there and shocked the person until the person was dead.
	They didn't know the other person.
	They could see the person, but they didn't know the person was an actor.
	They thought it was a real person.
	And occasionally they'd be like, should I?
	And the person in the white lab coat said, yes, you should.
	And they'd go, okay.
	So that's the nature of the Milgram experiment.
	Well, the government loves experts and love their labs.
	Crime lab, I mean, they're...
	Been books after books after books, whistleblower after whistleblower after whistleblower.
	Don't ever trust anything that comes from a government lab.
	We should have learned this from COVID.
	But people forgot about it in the criminal context.
	Because they get all these TV shows like CSI.
	They're like, oh, that's science.
	I don't understand, but that's a science.
	That's a lab test.
	That's got to be accurate.
	So one of the things they love to do is what happens if the person who did the lab test might not testify well?
	Might come across poorly.
	Maybe the jury won't believe them.
	They submit a report instead.
	Yeah, they submit a report.
	And then they would have another expert, their testifying expert, the one who knows how to, who's taking his classes at Chase Hughes and the body language panel about how to communicate and look good while you're doing it.
	They have that person testify.
	So that person, and they're relying on the other person's.
	Well, that's hearsay.
	That's not allowing you to confront the basis of the report.
	They did this, you know, the Amos Miller case.
	They wanted to introduce the lab test evidence without bringing in the lab person.
	I'm like, I want to talk to the lab person.
	I want to cross-examine the lab person.
	Let's see how good this lab research really is.
	Oh, no, they didn't want any part of that.
	Why?
	Because those people usually have unreliable testimony, is why.
	So the latest scam to get away with it is to just, they have the lab person move on to a different job, and they would bring in the new lab person, and the new lab person would just borrow the old person's lab test results.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that.
	You've got to produce the actual witness.
	And sometimes you even heard this in some of the Trump case, oh, why didn't Trump subpoena somebody?
	As the Supreme Court reiterated, it's not the defense's job to subpoena anyone.
	It's the government's job to put on any witness that doesn't violate the Confrontation Clause.
	And if the government fails to do that, then the government has violated the Confrontation Clause rights and the trial results have to be thrown out.
	So very good ruling on the Confrontation Clause, reinforcing it, not letting all these new tricks the government has to screw people over in these criminal cases.
	All right.
	Those are the white pills.
	And then we're going to get into the black pills, Robert.
	Yeah, well, we can transition first into the lightest of the black pills, the expert evidence rule 704, which is just an interpretation of the federal rules of evidence.
	Gorsuch had a righteous dissent.
	Interesting there again, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
	You're seeing Gorsuch be the independent voice on a lot of stuff.
	Gorsuch or Thomas are the independent voices on a lot of these constitutional rights issues.
	When it implicates a certain politically sensitive subtopic.
	And they're willing to go wherever the Constitution takes them.
	And if that means aligning with the liberal judge, that's who they align with.
	And Gorsuch's dissent was right and righteous.
	And the majority opinion was poor.
	And now Thomas and Alito tend to be bad on criminal cases in general.
	Some criminal rights they're really good on.
	A bunch they're not.
	They have a deference to...
	They just don't like criminals or people accused of being so.
	Which case is this?
	So this was the Rule 704 case where what happened...
	This is the expert.
	Expert.
	One of these cops who testified about what most people think.
	Oh, that's right.
	Okay.
	This is a drug...
	Someone who's accused of importing drugs and says, I didn't know the drugs were in my car.
	She's bringing in a substantial portion of methamphetamines, cocaine, a serious drug.
	Substantial amount in her car says, I didn't know why I was bringing it in.
	The prosecution wants to bring in an expert who says most people who are involved in drug trafficking argue they don't know that they're bringing it in, and they do.
	They, in fact, do.
	The defendant, I say the victim, the defendant objects to the testimony of that expert saying they are basically casting aspersions on my own knowledge of whatever.
	They didn't say unfairly prejudicial, but they're effectively implying it.
	Saying, that testimony is going to harm me more than it's going to elucidate anything.
	And if we have a specific rule in America, no expert's allowed to testify about the mental state of a defendant, ever.
	Sorry, yeah.
	And, you know, it's even more grievous when you simplify it like that.
	The prosecution says, the expert's not testifying on her mental state, just the probability of the generality of the mental states of the aggregate people who've done this alleged crime.
	And they said, yes, you can bring that expert in.
	Expert testifies.
	Most people say they don't know, but they are, in fact, knowing and doing it on purpose.
	She gets convicted and contests it.
	And they say, Robert, yeah, he didn't testify to her knowledge, but just broadly and therefore not impermissible, conviction stands.
	Ridiculous decision, interpreting the federal rules of evidence.
	I mean, Gorsuch was right.
	He's like, what they said is, as long as you say the words most people, Then you're not necessarily testifying about the defendant.
	You're just testifying about most people.
	When the only way that testimony was even relevant, I was curious.
	I was going through the decision.
	I was like, are they even going to talk about...
	What makes this testimony relevant?
	Because they did in the confrontation clause context, when they said, if the truth of the matter asserted is what's being done, then it's hearsay within the meaning of the confrontation clause, which is its own interpretation, separate from the federal rules of evidence.
	And so they went, what's the purpose of that evidence?
	They said, that's critical.
	Here I was like, what was the materiality of the expert saying, most people who think this, do this?
	Its only relevance is if the testimony goes to the defendant's state of mind.
	That's the only relevance.
	Otherwise, the defendant's testimony makes no sense.
	The witness's testimony makes no sense.
	And so they just evade it because they want the government to lock people up.
	And by the way, this is actually a routine problem.
	Years ago, they kept arresting and imprisoning people coming across the border in San Diego who were regular workers.
	So they were part of the...
	If you have a certain kind of permit, you go into a different lane when you're coming from Mexico to the United States if you're a regular worker.
	And they were picking them up and finding a bunch of drugs in their car.
	And the person was like, I had no idea.
	I've never had any association with this.
	Well, these people are just being imprisoned.
	And finally, a federal judge came along and was like, you know, something is off here.
	These people do not fit your common courier personality.
	Like they go to a garage and the garage says, hypothetically, pick a plate, stick some stuff in, they get over the border, and something happens.
	Well, a smart judge put it together.
	It turned out all these cars that he had questionable cases were a certain kind of Mercedes.
	And he was like, what's the odds of that?
	Well, it turned out the drug cartels had gotten in on getting copies.
	Of certain Mercedes ignitions.
	And so when the people they attract who had the special permission, and so they went, people who've had those cars, at night, when those people were asleep inside their house, put drugs inside the car in a place they wouldn't detect, they would go, and then later on, after they would park at their employer, They would go at a certain time and get the drugs out of the car without the person ever knowing anything.
	Say what you will about the cartel and drug dealers.
	That's freaking genius.
	These people have their cars effectively stolen, hijacked, and whatever.
	And they take it out and they don't even know about it.
	And if they get caught at the border, they have no freaking idea.
	The best courier is a courier who doesn't know they're a courier.
	Always been the case.
	And they're being totally dismissive of that as well at the Supreme Court.
	Butchering the rules of evidence in a preposterous, laughable manner.
	Before I lose my genius thought on this, the best courier is the unwitting courier applies to both drugs, misinformation, propaganda, and everything.
	You get people to propagate a message and they don't know why.
	Got the dog coming back in.
	They're the best ones because they do it with sincerity and they do it with conviction.
	And then we get to our two horrendous cases.
	Okay.
	I know I'm going to know them, but I need, what's the word, a prompt.
	What are the two horrendous cases?
	I mean, one is not as horrendous as it could have been because it was mostly a cowardice decision, and that's their income tax decision, but a righteous dissent from Gorsuch and Thomas, and then the awful but still redeemable, well, not completely irredeemable Second Amendment decision.
	The short answer to the Second Amendment decision is the Supreme Court just greenlit red flag laws as constitutional in America.
	So I want to steelman this, Robert, because I'm very amenable to understanding and sympathizing with both sides in this case.
	This is a case where a man, name doesn't make a difference, but I noticed there was a question about Rahimi in the discussion.
	I'll get to it in a second.
	This is a guy who got, he got what, a restraining order from his ex-wife?
	What was the court?
	So the federal law is that if you are subject to a certain kind of restraining order, this was part of the Violence Against Women Act that created what was called orders of protection.
	And these orders of protection were meant to, I did this as a, first thing I did as a young lawyer, as a licensed lawyer, the first legal work I was doing.
	It was order of protection representation, mostly for women and children in Southeast Tennessee, in urban areas, small town areas, suburban areas, rural areas, you name it.
	All kind of courthouses, all kinds of cases, all kinds of clients.
	And they'd given money to legal aid organizations to do these kind of cases.
	In fact, my first email address was stoplawyer because it referenced the stop was the orders of protection laws.
	And it backfired, this provision right here.
	They put in a provision that said, if you are put under one of those orders of protection, or its equivalent, a domestic violence restraining order that makes particular findings, but basically it was meant to parallel their new orders of protection law, then you lose all your gun rights.
	And as long as that order is in effect, you are no longer allowed to have a gun.
	If you do possess a gun during that time frame, You've now committed a federal crime.
	And that's the crime that was challenged.
	By the way, you can guess how this backfired.
	I found out very quickly, particularly in rural areas in Tennessee, no judge would sign an order of protection for this exact reason.
	They're like, I'm not taking away somebody's Second Amendment rights over this kind of dispute.
	And I was like, and that eviscerated this powerful tool that victims needed.
	Because of this ridiculous gun control component tagged onto it.
	But this was the law.
	And the defendant brought a challenge.
	He brought what's called a facial challenge.
	And as applied challenge, which is my challenge in the Ruben King case, it says that the law as applied to me is unconstitutional.
	A facial challenge says this law is unconstitutional as applied to anybody.
	And that's what made it a bigger hurdle for the defendant to crawl.
	But that was this case.
	But what legal threshold is required to get the initial, I might mess up the word, restraining order in the first place?
	Because some people, including myself, might say they went to court, a court issued the ruling because they deemed him to be a threat, and now I try to, not I try to, but I immediately go to the human level.
	You got, presumably, I won't say, I'm not assuming a good faith spouse, but I'm going to assume a spouse who is...
	Feeling threatened by someone that she's divorcing.
	And he's petitioning the court to get his guns back in the context of their obviously acrimonious divorce.
	And from her perspective, I'm like, I can understand this.
	She wants the guy's guns taken away, and this guy wants his guns while he's divorcing her, while he was a sufficient threat, presumably, for some court to issue some sort of ruling.
	So what legal threshold criteria goes into getting the ruling in the first place?
	In order to either justify or undermine why he should be or should not be given his guns back.
	It varies entirely by jurisdiction.
	So by state and federal law.
	And the Supreme Court dodged that question.
	They said those are due process issues, not Second Amendment issues.
	And that they weren't litigated fully in this case, so they weren't ruling on it.
	So they didn't make a...
	All they said was, their ultimate is that if a court finds a credible threat...
	To the physical safety of another, then your gun rights can be taken away.
	As long as it's of limited duration.
	In this case, I think, by the way, that's years.
	But take the credible threat.
	That means that there's been, presumably, a hearing on some sort of merits on the credible threat, not just a judge saying an injunction of a credible threat.
	Yeah, the problem is most of these injunctions are issued on an hour.
	They don't go through what process is required.
	They just said a court finding of credible threat and they leave to another day what due process would be required for that by analogizing it to surety laws and going around armed laws.
	The good part of the order is it reinforced the parts of Bruin.
	I talked about the right of self-defense, the right to the certain means of self-defense.
	There has to be a history and tradition of regulating and restricting gun ownership at the time of the founding for any gun ownership restriction now to be constitutional to the Second Amendment.
	That's the good part.
	And then they walk back as much as they possibly can.
	This is a bunch of justices.
	Who didn't like all the insults they got over last summer after the brewing decision.
	And they don't want people walking around with guns.
	If they say that's a threat, disarm them because they made a tweet that they didn't like.
	Exactly.
	Because here's some of the language they used.
	They went out of their way to say maybe you could by you could have a whole category of people that you could exclude.
	They said we're not ruling on that.
	Yeah, militias, for example.
	I mean, categories, that's the old insane reference that they're trying to use to duel.
	The one good thing is they at least rejected what the Biden administration proposed, which the Biden administration proposed, taking the words reasonable from Heller and saying that if someone isn't a reasonable person, according to the government, They could have their gun taken away.
	And they're like, no, no, we're not approving that at all.
	So that was the only salvaging good part of it.
	Gorsuch wrote a concurrence to emphasize his decision was limited and didn't reach most of the big issues.
	And Thomas dissented because he was like, there is no history of this being the grounds that you could take away someone's Second Amendment rights for years.
	And he's right.
	The surety laws are not that...
	What they said was, when we said historical twin, we didn't mean historical twin.
	We meant historical analog, whatever that means.
	Can you find something that's analogous?
	And if you can find something that's analogous, then now you can take away somebody's Second Amendment rights.
	And they said there just has to be a limit similar to what existed at the time of the founding generation.
	And it's okay to restrict gun use to...
	Check, quote, demonstrated threats of physical violence.
	The problem is how far do you take that?
	And so they're walking back, Bruin, is what's happening.
	And they're not walking it all the way back, but they're walking it back far enough that you're going to start to see it run into a wall.
	We'll see with the Reuben King case, because that's still different than what this case is.
	It needed to be more, what they should have found was what Thomas dissented.
	Thomas was like, is there a history of any laws taking away entirely someone's right to own a gun anywhere, anyplace, anytime, based on an allegation that they may do something in the future, a minority report style?
	And Thomas is like, uh-uh, there's not.
	And the Supreme Court's like, let's just pretend there was.
	But let's just say that surety laws didn't take away somebody's gun forever, nor did going armed laws take away somebody's gun forever, or even take them away for any period of time.
	It said you couldn't own them in certain places.
	You had to give a bond under certain instances.
	That's it.
	Not you can't defend yourself anymore for years, for as long as this order exists.
	And when I said it greenlit red flag laws, they are laying out the exact basis.
	For red flag laws to now be fully constitutional.
	That's why it was one of the worst decisions of this term.
	And I bring up Brett Cormier's comment right here, and I don't take it personally because I appreciate the argument.
	Viva, don't be dense.
	Well, credible.
	I think it means credible or certifiable threat.
	It means anything the judge wants it to mean.
	That's the one issue.
	You have been watching the trials over the past few years.
	Do you think these judges are unbiased?
	Well, the question is this, though.
	Because, Britt, and I say this with respect because I know you, let's just assume someone gets convicted of assault with a firearm.
	Just say, do we then get to take away the...
	Is that then a basis to take away the firearm right?
	Following that rationale, there's corrupt courts and they will convict anybody.
	So there's never a basis.
	I can appreciate the argument because even criminals have the right to have guns, I guess.
	Well, in fact, the surety laws...
	As Gorsuch pointed out in his concurrence, he was saying, look, we really didn't reach these other questions because they weren't necessary to the decision.
	So it was Gorsuch trying to claw back some of the excesses of Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts joining the liberals.
	The liberals still concurred to say we don't like any gun rights existing, but they signed off to the rest.
	By pointing out that, in fact, He goes, whether this applies in self-defense, he says, is really still yet to be determined.
	Because that's the question.
	What if you used a gun in self-defense?
	Are you stripped of that right as well?
	He was suggesting maybe not.
	Maybe it doesn't go that far.
	But because the surety laws had an exception.
	That you still have the right to self-defense.
	So they took the surety laws and expanded them way past what a historical analog would provide for.
	And it's because they didn't like the blowback to the Second Amendment decision.
	And they're wanting to walk it back politically.
	So they're like, yes, we want to protect the Second Amendment, but we also want to make sure judges can use the red flag laws to take away your rights anytime we want.
	No, absolutely.
	Let me...
	Bring this one up here.
	Dread Robert.
	This is in our community, Robert.
	A facial challenge seems right.
	The court-ruled Congress can pass a law limiting the right to bear arms absent a criminal conviction.
	Hold on.
	I also want to bring up...
	Hold on.
	This one right here.
	Dr. Lemme has subscribed.
	Welcome to the channel, sir.
	Now, see what I'm doing here?
	I just can pin and it replaces the pin comment.
	Pangea Medical, $100 tip, says this will happen.
	Three days before the election, an AI recording surfaces of Trump using the N-word.
	By the time they figure out how to prove it's fake, the election is over.
	Hide and watch.
	You know what the problem is?
	They're trying to push that with that film that they're releasing.
	Which one?
	On Celebrity Apprentice Days.
	Because there was allegations of that all the way.
	You can't roll out some sort of surprise on the Evo.
	No, but I think I will not believe it.
	Because if there were a video or a recording of Trump using it...
	It wouldn't matter if we did, to be honest with you.
	I don't think it's going to have any impact.
	Good afternoon.
	This is good evening.
	From Anton's Meat and Eat, 10% off with code VIVATEN for your Biltong.
	www.biltongusa.com Antonusa.com for purchases that qualify for free shipping.
	Otherwise, use code VIVA for free shipping.
	And Bill Tong got me through the long drive from freedom to tyranny.
	Mandatory Carry says, oh, this is Mandatory Carry who's got...
	You see, I can't get the first half now, but mandatory carry has a, had the founding fathers foreseen the future, they would have drafted a second amendment differently, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state, the duty of the people and bear arms shall be enforced.
	Okay, good.
	Robert, what's the other one?
	The black pill.
	The other, there's more of a wuss decision.
	Remember, this was the tax case that we've been talking about.
	Yes, I remember.
	Just remind me.
	A great potential for a constitutional ruling.
	For those that don't remember, the U.S. tax laws are unique.
	There was a great concern over direct taxation at the time of the founding.
	So what they did is, or really indirect taxation too, but both of it, there was the hated head tax.
	That's where you were taxed just for existing, $10 a head.
	So that was disfavored.
	There was concerns in slave states about how taxation would be handled.
	There was concerns that certain regions would tax other regions in punitive ways.
	And so that basically you couldn't impose a direct tax on anybody for their person or their property.
	Person or their property without apportioning it equally amongst the states, which would be politically disastrous.
	They did it deliberately to make it impossible to ever do it.
	Unless it was so necessary, everybody would go along.
	And so the indirect taxes are on activities.
	They don't tax you for existing.
	They don't tax you for being a person.
	They don't tax you for your property.
	They tax you because of some transaction or activity you engage in.
	And indirect taxes have to be uniform.
	In 1864, during the Civil War, one of the abusive powers they tried to seize was an income tax act.
	The income tax was found, should have been found unconstitutional, but before it could be, they got rid of it after the war, so it couldn't be constitutionally challenged.
	They brought it back in the 1890s, and the Supreme Court of the United States said, you're trying to tax people.
	You're trying to tax property.
	You're calling it income, but that isn't what income is, the way you're being taxed.
	It isn't gain severed from the source.
	You're taxing it to such a degree that you're taxing a person's labor, which is taxing them for their existing.
	Because you can't walk around without laboring.
	You can't live without laboring, literally, in some capacity, whether you're being compensated for it or not.
	And so then came the 16th Amendment.
	All the controversy about how that was passed is a whole other story for another day.
	But the Supreme Court, there was a justice who dissented in 1896.
	He said, hey, you know what?
	As long as what you're taxing is gain severed from the source entirely, so you're taxing purely just profit off of really somebody else's labor or property, by the way.
	Putting that part aside.
	Because then that's an indirect tax and doesn't have to be a direct tax.
	And thus doesn't have to be a portion.
	Well, the Supreme Court gets to decide what does the 16th Amendment mean?
	What do the words income tax mean?
	Without regard to source, within the meaning of it.
	And the Congress had a broad interpretation.
	So the first Revenue Act, Revenue Act of 1913.
	If you go back and look, you'll notice that every Revenue Act later on is Revenue Act in lieu of the Revenue Act of 1916.
	Because something happened in 1960.
	In fact, in 1913, they imposed a direct tax on people's labor and wages at the source, withholding tax.
	Withholding the income tax.
	People think their income tax is being withheld.
	It's not.
	It's a withholding tax that's still undefined.
	That had nothing to do with World War I. No, no.
	Well, yes and no.
	No officially.
	Maybe yes unofficially.
	Because it's probably not a coincidence the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act were passed at the same time.
	And there were some folks getting together down in certain islands off the coast of Georgia that were having little discussions about that matter.
	And maybe the income tax wasn't what they sold it at.
	When they passed the 16th Amendment through Congress, they said, further than I go to the states, they said, this tax will never tax the hair on a working man's head.
	And you can see what it's done to my hair since.
	That was the net effect of what they were up to.
	And so the Supreme Court comes in 1916.
	The judge who dissented in 1896 is now the Chief Justice.
	And this is like something out of Woodward's The Brethren.
	He decides, you know, the 16th Amendment's really limited.
	All they did is they just said, I was right back in 1896 that the income tax is really an indirect tax.
	As long as it is only taxing the gain severed from the source.
	You can't be taxing property.
	You can't be taxing people.
	In my view, a tax on labor is taxing people.
	That's another story for another day.
	So then in 2017, Trump passes mandatory repatriation tax that says, if you have an interest in certain foreign corporations, we're going to tax that as income to you, even if it isn't yet income to you.
	And they challenged it and said, no, there has to be some aspect of this.
	It's called the realization rule.
	We've got to actually have the gain severed from the source, like the Supreme Court said in 1916, and the dissenting judge said in 1896 was what the 16th Amendment meant.
	Gorsuch and Thomas make the same point.
	This case gets up to the Supreme Court.
	And what does the Supreme Court do?
	It says, we're not going to rule on whether or not realization is required.
	That we're going to interpret this entire tax law as a rule of, how do they put it, kind of, not a portion, but attribution.
	A rule of attribution.
	That this is just about whether you tax the corporation at the corporate source or whether you tax the corporation at the partner's source.
	And that's just an attribution rule, not a realization rule.
	So we don't have to rule on whether or not realization is required.
	They go out of their way to say, don't worry, we're not yet saying.
	The positive side is they reaffirm all of the history that I talk about, and they reaffirm that the tax on a person or property has to be apportioned.
	And they point out that practically that will never happen, and it has never happened in the history of America because of how politically impossible it is.
	So that's the good part of the ruling.
	The bad part is they evaded the question of...
	Whether realization is required under the 16th Amendment before you can call...
	Can Congress call whatever they want income and thereby tax it?
	They go out of their way to suggest a wealth tax would not be constitutional unless apportioned.
	Can they call the absence of an expense income?
	Exactly.
	Could they call how much labor you do in your own home as income?
	I can tell you what the IRS is going to start doing.
	They're going to go crazy with the attribution rules.
	They're going to say, no, we're not talking about realization.
	We're talking about attribution.
	To give an example, the IRS in the 1930s testified before Congress that people should feel good about the things that they're not being taxed on yet.
	And they gave us an example, gardening outside your own home, cooking your own food, cleaning in your own house.
	Taking care of your own kids.
	Operating your own vehicles.
	Because, hey, that could be attributed to a taxi driver could do that work, right?
	And isn't there a market value to that?
	So we're going to say, we're going to treat it like you made income even when you didn't realize any money from it.
	The good thing is the Supreme Court didn't embrace that at all.
	They implicitly rejected the Ninth Circuit, which said there was no requirement of realization.
	So that's the good part.
	The bad part is they should have embraced what Gorsuch and Thomas said, which is make it clear so that there's no more nonsense going forward, because what Congress wants to do is they want the word income to stay vague so they can keep expanding what they tax in violation of the Constitution.
	That's why we have an income tax that doesn't define what income is.
	People say, oh, Barnes, you understand, gross income is specifically defined.
	Yeah, the word gross is defined.
	They say gross income is all income from all sources derived.
	This is like if I came to you and say, Viva, you owe the widget tax.
	And you'd be like, well, what's the widget?
	Well, it's all the widgets that the widgets come from.
	In all the widgets that you made, you got to pay tax on all the widgets where the widgets come from.
	You're like, you still haven't told me what a widget is.
	That's why Congress doesn't define what income is.
	They don't define what income is because they want to get away with expanding it, expanding it, and expanding it.
	Over time, so they can steal more.
	They want to tax people for existing.
	They want to tax your property directly, and they don't want to do the apportionment clause like the Constitution compels.
	And the Supreme Court should have pushed that on them with clarity, and instead they acted like cowards and issued a wuss decision, which, as Gorsuch and Thomas point out, this attribution rule is one that doesn't really exist in Supreme Court precedent, and it's just a made-up excuse to dodge the big issue.
	What would be the next decision, or what would be the next case that would compel the Supreme Court to clarify?
	It won't happen for years.
	A wealth tax, if a wealth tax actually passes.
	Now, there's another one, the exit tax.
	Somebody sophisticated, I've represented a bunch of people in the exit tax context, and the IRS always settles to avoid the issue going up before the Supreme Court.
	And the exit tax is, in my opinion, I think Roger Ver has an argument, Bitcoin Jesus, has an argument in his criminal case that his criminal prosecution is unconstitutional because the exit tax is an attempt to tax property.
	And it's clear to me it is.
	To give people an idea, the word income at the time the 16th Amendment was passed was something you would read about in British books about aristocracy.
	Oh, my income from the estate.
	It was not thought of as your wages for your own labor at all.
	That's one of the things they got away with, expanding and extending the invasive reach of the government's tax power.
	Power to tax is the power to destroy.
	We'll see how it progresses ultimately.
	In this part right here, the point that Justice Thomas made is that in order...
	For this rule to make any sense, for the 16th Amendment, say, shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived without regard to apportionment, means there must be some separation from the source of the income for it to be income.
	Otherwise, if income is whatever Congress says it is, humpty dumpty, a word is whatever I say it is, then the Constitution is dead.
	Because if they can tax everything you have, And your mere existence, they own you.
	So that's what this case was.
	And they had a great opportunity to put an end to this nonsense.
	And instead, they dodged it.
	What was the split on the decision?
	Gorsuch and Thomas wrote a good decision.
	Alito tends to be real statist on these kind of issues.
	Barrett, of course, was real corporatist.
	They wrote their own concurrence to say, well, if this applied to an American corporation, it might be different.
	That's Barrett.
	Always looking out for those American corporations.
	Not for the American people, but got to protect those corporations, by golly.
	And Alito, unfortunately, has a similar corporatist bias in that regard.
	So it was a 5-2-2 decision, the two concurring decisions, not limiting the majority because the majority was 5. Robert, I'm going to try something again.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm going to see if this has been worked out.
	No, that's not working.
	We might...
	Let me scroll down here.
	We're going to get to a bunch of rumble rants.
	But until such time...
	Okay, scroll that.
	Cancel this.
	I'm trying to figure something out here.
	Let's go with this.
	No?
	Okay, we got a glitch.
	Okay, Robert, I'm going to bring up...
	I think I can bring up the chat in live chat.
	Go to live check.
	Go to donations.
	We're going to bring this up here.
	I'll get to whatever I think we missed in the locals after party.
	Pin.
	Gray 101.
	This is a...
	Where am I?
	Five bucks.
	It says, government's tax.
	What they want to discourage.
	The vice tax reduces vices.
	Gas tax reduces gasoline.
	And income tax discourages income.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And then we got Britt Cormier who says, Britt Cormier, we've seen it before.
	The state taking Reketa's kids, quote, for their own good, end quote, should show all, I'll just say all of you, you need to know about how easily they will take every weapon.
	Weapons are not even a living thing.
	There's no question about that.
	It's straight up abuse.
	And then we got Britt Cormier who's got another $20 tip.
	He says, I never take our talks personally.
	There's a big difference between a crime I have been convicted of and a crime you might commit in the future.
	And what I'm realizing is that in Rumble Studio, I can't scroll back to whatever comes before that right now.
	So that is, everything's off limits.
	Robert, what do we have left before we go to the locals after party?
	We got Steve Bannon.
	We got the, we may have talked about the Trump gag order.
	The couple big vaccine mandate wins.
	Title IX win in Kansas versus Pfizer.
	So figure out which ones you want to cover here and which ones we'll cover at the afterparty at vibobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let's do Bannon at the afterparty because that will get people over there.
	Kansas, we don't really have much news.
	The Kansas Attorney General.
	And yes, people, I know it's attorneys general, not attorney generals, but I don't care.
	I'm saying attorney general because it sounds better.
	Kansas is suing Pfizer.
	Have they filed suit or just made the announcement yet, Robert?
	They filed suit.
	And it's very simple.
	Pfizer lied.
	People died.
	That's a simple truth.
	And it's the benefit of what Brooke Jackson did, taking the lead.
	Children's Health Defense did, taking the lead.
	I remember having these discussions with them very early on about, okay, we face this kind of hostility from the courts, potentially.
	Hostility from...
	Powerful government actors.
	And there were a lot of people saying, okay, why expend such effort on it?
	Why put a lot of resources into it?
	Why put my own personal reputation on it?
	Why do those things if you're facing uphill?
	And I said, look, you can have two major impacts.
	You can use the court of law to impact the court of public opinion and that that can save lives.
	Because through the court of law, people will find out the truth of what's really happening with this so-called vaccine.
	And through influencing the court of public opinion, that can come back and ultimately impact the court of law.
	And thanks to Brooke Jackson taking the lead, exposing the fact that Pfizer contractually agreed to provide a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19, what they delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not a vaccine, and never prevented COVID-19.
	Massive fraud.
	That case still pending before the federal district court in Beaumont, Texas.
	Children's Health Defense sued twice, once in Tennessee, once in Texas.
	The Texas case, we'll find out whether the Supreme Court took on Monday, because there's no standing.
	That's the new cop-out for all the courts.
	But it critically documented that this was a dangerous, ineffective drug that did not vaccinate against anything for anybody and didn't prevent COVID-19.
	But what has happened?
	Well, two things happened.
	First, because of Brooke Jackson, because of Children's Health Defense, people started to get that message.
	Court pleadings and court cases were shared across the court of public opinion with more and more people, and you saw a declining rate of uptake of people taking the vaccine, and especially their children taking the vaccine.
	What did that do?
	As we now know from new excess deaths data that came out this past week, it saved a lot of lives.
	That would have otherwise been disabled or dead because of the vaccine.
	So they first saved lives by what they did.
	The second thing was the court of public opinion started to shift.
	1776 Law Center with Richard Barris, big data poll, People's Pundit Daily, surveyed it and the American, less than half of the country has any confidence in the vaccine.
	Not only that, a third of the country reports That they believe that either they or someone very close to them has suffered a serious injury, disability, discrimination, or death from the vaccine.
	So what's happening?
	After some of us have been urging it now for a couple years, some state attorneys general are finally getting going.
	Texas filed suit.
	Now Kansas filed suit.
	And according to Kansas Attorney General, many other...
	States are coming to file suit against Pfizer soon.
	And they detailed, what are they talking about?
	Pfizer said it was safe when they knew it wasn't.
	Pfizer said it was effective when they knew it wasn't.
	Pfizer said it was a vaccine when they knew it wasn't.
	Pfizer said that it prevented COVID-19 when they knew it didn't.
	Pfizer doctored the data.
	Pfizer hid documents and information.
	Pfizer engaged in systemic censorship against its dissidents.
	Like Robert Kennedy and others, exposing their fraud and bad actions.
	And what were they citing?
	By the way, do you know Pfizer's CEO is a veterinarian?
	I mean, it's like Pennsylvania veterinarians.
	Can you take these?
	No offense to the veterinarians out there, but seriously, why do we have veterinarians, people that think of us like pets, running these things?
	He's not even a dentist.
	The thing I know about Albert Bourla, I'll bring it up in a second, he's not just a dentist.
	It doesn't matter.
	He's a freaking hack.
	But yeah, he's not even a dentist.
	He's a veterinarian.
	They also in there document his insider trading.
	Now, by the way, when they're citing sources, they're citing sources that come from the cases that we brought.
	They're citing, in particular, the British Medical Journal.
	And the British Medical Journal's big expose on this came from Brooke Jackson.
	So they don't specifically cite her.
	They probably should.
	But they're citing her work.
	And they're citing the results of her work.
	So, you know, credit to her.
	Credit to Children's Health Defense.
	But apparently he was engaged in insider trading during some of this.
	Not only this, listen to this.
	Pfizer, biggest criminal drug dealer in the world.
	All the drug cartels can't compare to them.
	They make the biggest drug cartels in the world look like street corner dealers.
	That's Pfizer.
	Biggest criminal drug dealer in the world.
	They've got three existing injunctions against them in Kansas over defrauding people in Kansas.
	So part of the lawsuit is Pfizer just violated all three consent decrees.
	2008, 2012, 2014.
	That's why a big criminal Pfizer is.
	So the talk is ticking and trouble's coming for it.
	Robert, at the risk of being called a self-hating Jew or an anti-Semite, may I swear, Robert?
	Fuck all of you.
	I will just say all of this straight up.
	I knew these things.
	Jewish Nobel awarded to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
	Bring it back here.
	Let's see.
	The committee, Jerusalem, the Genesis...
	Many of you might not have known that he's Jewish, except for the fact that he gets awards for being Jewish.
	Chairman and CEO Pfizer, yada, yada, yada.
	Dr. Bula received the largest number of votes in a recently concluded global campaign, during which 20,000 people in 71 countries vote online.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	The committee also noted Dr. Bula's pride in his Jewish identity and heritage, commitment to Jewish values, and support for the state of Israel.
	The annual $1 million Genesis Prize, dubbed the, quote, Jewish Nobel, end quote, by the Time magazine, honors extraordinary individuals for their outstanding professional achievement, contributions to humanity.
	humanity and commitment to Jewish values.
	Dr. Bula becomes the ninth Genesis prize laureate.
	This is the type of shit, Robert, that I say reflects poorly on all of us.
	Many people probably did not know that Albert Brewer was Jewish, but that he prides it when he gets an award.
	Many people might not have known that Alejandro Mayorkas is Jewish, but that he brings it up when he gets criticized and claims anti-Semitism.
	Many people might not have known that...
	The other one there.
	Merrick Garland is Jewish.
	You wouldn't know it by his name, but that he claims anti-Semitism when he gets criticized.
	Victoria Nuland.
	Obviously, New York nipple judge Angeron.
	E. Jean Carroll.
	Cap...
	I'm sorry, I'm going off on my own diatribe here.
	It's very, very irritating when the chief players in these egregious attacks on institutions, systems, countries, free autonomy...
	Happen to be, it's not in the name of, but they are, and then the second anyone gets called out on it, it's accusations of atheism and a rule for being Jewish.
	It's Jewish culture deferring to so-called scientists within the culture.
	I mean, it's partially a product of having an above-average literary tradition, in other words, written language mattering because religion mattered, and consequently within academia, overachieving in those fields.
	But what that did is it led to this professional...
	I see it as there's just a disproportionate Jewish participation in the professional managerial class.
	But it's not because they're Jewish.
	It's because of the professional managerial class that we have all these problems.
	It's the professional managerial class as a class is governing us in a terrible way.
	Most of whom are moderate Christians or not super religious.
	They're Jake Tappers of the world.
	But what I was startled by...
	Was going through and was like, Pfizer's got caught doing this three times just in Kansas in just the last decade.
	And it's like, but guess what was in the consent decree for those?
	The consent decree authorized the Attorney General to sue Pfizer any time they lie about anything in the future because they had lied so often and caused so much harm to the people of the state of Kansas.
	So, I think Pfizer's on the clock.
	I mean, their days are numbered.
	It's only a matter of when, not a matter of if anymore.
	They are going down, as is Moderna, as is Johnson& Johnson, as is AstraZeneca.
	But Robert, I don't want to put anyone...
	Look, I might get in trouble with friends and family.
	Jake Tapper's Jewish, by the way.
	His parents are Jewish.
	His mother, who was raised Presbyterian, converted to Judaism.
	He was named for Jacob Shen.
	When Tapper was young, he spent summers attending camp.
	Okay, Robert, it doesn't matter.
	You might be right in your explanation, and that might attenuate.
	They're Jewish, and they're not doing it because they're Jewish.
	But I don't expect the rest of society to do that sort of parsing out of this distinction of a very unfortunate reality.
	But yeah, Pfizer goes down.
	They deserve it.
	Moderna deserves it.
	AstraZeneca deserves it.
	Johnson& Johnson deserves it.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Oh, I'm going to get in trouble, Robert.
	I think I'm going to get in trouble.
	I don't know what I did, but I'm going to get in trouble.
	All right.
	I think I know what I did.
	What do we have left?
	We got a couple of big vaccine mandate wins.
	A win against Biden's Title IX policy.
	Steve Bannon's bail decision in a little bit.
	And Trump's gag order and the Reuben King appeal.
	So let's keep the last three for Rumble.
	The first three, now I forgot.
	Quickly, just another Title IX win.
	The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts that, in fact, Biden's attempt to rewrite Title IX to force men into women's sports, men into women's locker rooms, to force teachers to use their pronouns.
	All that nonsense has been enjoined.
	Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said they violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
	Not only that, they exceeded their statutory authority because this is a legislative change, not a substantive interpretation of existing law, as was clear.
	So a good win there against Biden's Title IX policies.
	As suggested, it was purely a political ploy because until it passes Congress, it was getting nowhere.
	The vaccine mandates went out of the Ninth Circuit, and another went out of the Sixth Circuit.
	Second win in just several weeks out of the Ninth Circuit.
	Firefighters in Washington were threatened with termination if they didn't get a vaccine, but they had all these exceptions for people that had secular reasons, but no exceptions for people that had religious objections.
	Well, that violated the First Amendment, but the district court, another one of these Democratic judges that loved...
	The vaccine mandates denied them their claim.
	Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned.
	So that's nonsense.
	That violates the First Amendment.
	And pointed out, look, they're easy, less restrictive terms.
	For strict scrutiny, you have to have a compelling interest, narrowly tailored mechanism.
	Here they said, even if preventing COVID was a compelling interest, It was not a narrowly tailored mechanism that was not religiously discriminatory to impose a vaccine mandate with no religious accommodation when you could do testing in temperatures, for example, as illustrative.
	So that was a big win for the firefighters there.
	So all these vaccine mandates, all these governments passed, are now getting struck down by courts, which is great.
	And then another Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The other place I got my cases against...
	Tyson Foods.
	Remember everybody?
	Tyson.
	Kind of like Pfizer.
	Nazi connected.
	German connected, if you look it up.
	Just saying.
	I mean, Tyson.
	Sounds like the Tyson Foods.
	Tyson company that was a Nazi company.
	Maybe that's a coincidence to what you want with it.
	But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said these lower courts have been coming up with every excuse known to man to deny people the right to sue for religious discrimination related to employer vaccine mandates.
	And the Sixth Circuit said that's nonsense.
	And overturned what the district court did.
	So the district court didn't know what it was doing.
	So it's very simple.
	They said that their body is their temple.
	They prayed about it.
	And God told them not to take it.
	That's a religious objection.
	You have no right as a judge to demand they provide you a religious thesis.
	You have no right as a judge to say that their religious beliefs have to conform to what you think their religious beliefs are.
	That's an objection on religious grounds.
	They were discriminated against.
	Their lawsuit gets to go forward.
	Quit screwing up the legal standards.
	I mean, it was a smack in the face to that lower court that made a horrendous ruling.
	It means those cases are going to march forward and very good law against vaccine mandates and very good law for religious accommodation and against religious discrimination in back-to-back weeks.
	Robert, let me do one thing here so I make sure not to miss anything on Rumble.
	I get these.
	I'll bring them up, but I'm going to bring them up this way.
	A Motley, excellent analysis, sad wings raging.
	The data that the CDC came out with, the study that the dangerous disease called GUNS, everyone should have known exactly.
	Oh, the CDC said that gun violence was a national pandemic along the lines of COVID so they could lock people down.
	The German version of the CDC had to release documents this week that confirmed Pfizer was conspiring to hide its vaccine until after the election just to hurt Trump.
	And they had this information all along.
	So it's another aspect of their criminal conspiracies that they should be held accountable for.
	And we got LOL, not a cat, says, Viva, stop noticing you're going to get labeled an anti-Semite.
	The heavy lawfare aimed at one side terrifies me.
	And not because of the lawfare against the right wing, but the subtle influencing of the right wing to use the same tactic against...
	Tactics that lead us all to tyranny.
	May, Lisa, I agree with you.
	Britt Cormier, we got that.
	Britt, we got that.
	Britt, we got that.
	Pangaea Medical, this will happen three days before we got that.
	The AI will be recording the Trump.
	We didn't get that.
	Okay, we got that.
	King of Biltong, mandatory act carry.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment.
	A well-protected.
	Then we got Pangaea Medical.
	So I think we got everything here.
	Okay, we got all of this.
	Robert.
	What I'm going to do, and it's going to be the first time ever, I'm going to share the screen on Locals.
	Where is Locals?
	Right here.
	I don't want to make a mistake.
	I don't want to show anything.
	We got Cliff Norman, $1.
	Hard to get into vet schools.
	Second stop medical school.
	Failing that, you become a dentist.
	Pfizer CEO was overly educated.
	Ursula G, Viva, can you please have Dr. David Martin on?
	I would never not have anybody on the channel.
	Ithaca376, Cato, when you really want to reach your cat named...
	Okay.
	Shit, I'm in trouble.
	I didn't see what I was looking at, Robert.
	Wait, you mean Joey B and Baraki?
	What do we got here?
	These three men have ruined America.
	Okay, now I'm going to get lumped in with Alex Stein.
	Repealing the 19th Amendment would statistically break up Democrat political control.
	Robert, 19th Amendment, is that the women's right to vote?
	No, I think it's not the Senate.
	I'm blanking.
	I'm forgetting which one.
	No, and I'm trying to be funny, and I think I might have just gotten in trouble.
	Mandelichi isn't taxation on just being born into a system, a form of slavery.
	There has to be an angle to approach this, to clarify this.
	What say you, says Mandelichi?
	Oh, and by the way, some people that asked about, you know, given that Pfizer was doing something dangerous and ineffective, why complain or how is it relevant that they hid that information from the Trump administration?
	Very simple.
	They were doing that to make sure that Trump could not benefit from it because they knew if Biden got in, the chances of them getting exposed were far less.
	They knew that Biden would mandate it and then Biden would cover for them.
	So that's how it was part of the criminal conspiracy.
	Because they knew it was dangerous.
	If they really believed it was safe and effective, then they would want Trump in because Trump would want to take credit for it and everybody would be a big winner.
	But instead, they knew it wasn't safe, they knew it wasn't effective, they knew it wasn't a vaccine, so they needed Trump to not be there, because Trump wouldn't mandate it, and Trump might hold them to account.
	So that's how the two are interrelated, even though it might not seem so instinctively.
	Okay, very interesting.
	I think we got the rest of it.
	Let me just see if I'm missing anything on Viva Born's Law.
	Before we come over to Viva Born's Law, exclusively, a facial challenge seems right.
	The court ruled Congress can pass a law limiting the right to bear arms absent of criminal conviction.
	That was Dred Robert.
	I think we got that.
	Yep.
	And scrolling up, if the government wants to shut down Alex Jones' archives, is there anything being done to protect the archives, asks Jarzy, a new name and a new avatar.
	Robert, what do you say?
	Well, you know, what's interesting there is Alex Jones made the decision many, many years ago.
	To assert no copyright on anything he ever produced.
	Consequently, anybody can share it.
	Anybody can copy it.
	Anybody can download it.
	And in fact, he's encouraged that the whole time he's existed.
	He's never claimed a copyright on anything.
	So his documentary films, he's like, share whatever you want.
	Any of his shows, share whatever you want.
	Any of the images, branding, marketing, he said, share whatever you want.
	He's never asserted any copyright protection on anything.
	And that means that InfoWars can't now, like if somebody else buys InfoWars for the corrupt purpose of closing them down, they can't assert a copyright that has already been publicly waived by Alex Jones.
	Tim Scott said he was going to the debate.
	I don't care.
	Yeah, if it's Tim Scott, that would be very deeply disappointing.
	A really high life insurance policy if he chooses Tim Scott.
	I'm just looking at what I'm up on my bet on J.D. Vance.
	I'm in for the whole thing.
	I'm not going for a cashing out now and making a small bit of money.
	Could we enact laws requiring public servants to report instances by fellow public servants seen doing anything possibly illegal in the course of their work like we have them doing?
	already on citizen civilians and give it some teeth including judges police Robert White Raven asks a question.
	What was the last part of that?
	It's like, the bottom line is, can you have a whistleblowers in public service?
	There should be more protection for whistleblowers.
	There should be laws on the books everywhere that any whistleblower who suffers an adverse reaction because they blow the whistle Should have the right to sue with all the forms of relief and remedy, including attorney's fees and others available.
	And not all states have that.
	And the federal government also doesn't consistently have that.
	And that's an issue.
	And it should be a form of immunity from criminal prosecution if you blow the whistle.
	It was one of the memes on our board this week.
	The judge talking to somebody, he goes, you do realize disclosing all the illegal things the government has done is itself illegal.
	Right.
	I mean, that's part of the problem.
	Here, we'll do this and then we're going to end this and go over to the locals after exclusive party, the locals at exclusive after party.
	The funny thing, after all this time in making fun of the Russian vaccine, it ended up being the safest, probably because it was administered the least because of no...
	Did Russia never had any vaccine mandates, Robert?
	No, but Putin came out and opposed it during part of his presidential re-election campaign.
	That was MadMaxIK.
	And then we got Amot Lee, excellent analysis, gentlemen.
	And then we got the rest of it.
	Okay, so here's what we're doing now.
	We're ending this.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	And we're going to go to locals, supporters only.
	We're going to go into the chat and take a bunch of the questions and deal with the leftover, deal with the address, the left remaining topics.
	Robert, before we...
	Ruben King Appeal, the Amish farmer whose Second Amendment rights could impact everybody.
	Do you have a right to sell your gun to your neighbor without government permission in advance?
	Or is it a federal crime if you do it?
	Steve Bannon, bail.
	What are his chances before the Supreme Court of the United States?
	Or is he heading to jail in a week or so?
	And the Trump gag order, the latest updates on that.
	And now the question is, Ruben King, do you have the right to sell your gun to your neighbor?
	And does your neighbor have the right to buy the gun?
	Because they're going to go from one step of criminalizing to the other.
	Robert, what is your schedule for this week so that people know where to find you?
	I did an interview with The Shepherdess.
	That will be out about the two illegally imprisoned farmers.
	And I think that will be out this week.
	Then otherwise, it'll be live with Bourbon with Barnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And otherwise, working on client matters here in Las Vegas.
	And I think Robert Gouvet is coming out.
	And I'm going to catch up with Robert Gouvet.
	I think he's doing a meetup with his local group.
	And I'm going to stop by and say hi to everybody.
	That's going to be fantastic.
	Oh, they're turning on light.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Now we're going to end this on Rumble and go over to local supporters only.
	Everybody, I'll be live.
	I'm going to either be live with or live with.
	Thursday for the debate, too.
	The debate?
	I'm going to be with Alexa Lavoie on site or close to because I'm a bit of a sissy.
	I'm not getting beaten the shit up for documenting.
	But I'm going to meet with Alexa Lavoie probably on Tuesday.
	I'll be live tomorrow and I'll be on site Tuesday, Wednesday.
	I'm in Canada now, so I'll be documenting communism in real time.
	Ending on Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Locals supporters only.

▲