Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 30, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:09

Ep. 217: Biden Debate Debacle; SCOTUS Jan. 6; SCOTUS Chevron; Trump AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I believe in always being prepared for the unexpected.
	That could mean a natural disaster or even a threat to your loved ones.
	But what if the unexpected danger wasn't something outside your door, but inside your own body?
	Achy joints, digestive issues, weight gain, and fatigue.
	We're told these are normal signs of aging, but in my experience, it could mean something much worse.
	I call them the three internal enemies.
	We're going to pause it there.
	At the three internal enemies to make it rhyme with the three eternal truths.
	And we're going to thank our first sponsor of the night, by the way.
	We're starting off with it, which is Chuck Norris, by the way.
	I was going to start off with some Joe Biden stuff, but I want to have a smooth segue for when we start playing the highlights of that debacle of the debate.
	Chuck Norris.
	Have you ever wondered what happened to the legendary Chuck Norris?
	I recently saw the video.
	I'm not playing the entire video.
	You're going to have to see it yourselves.
	Dude's 81 years old.
	And still looks amazing.
	What's even more shocking is that he's stronger, can work out longer, and has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
	How did he do this?
	By making one change.
	He says he still feels like he's in his 50s.
	His wife started doing it.
	She feels better, healthier than ever.
	10 years younger, and her body looks leaner, and she has energy all the day.
	Why do I feel a little dirty talking about Chuck Norris' lean body?
	Chuck made a special video that explains everything.
	Make sure you watch it by going to chuckdefense.com forward slash viva.
	The link's in the description and I'll cut and paste it one more time.
	Chuck Defense with an S-E dot com forward slash viva or click the link in the description.
	It will change the way you think about your health.
	Once again, chuckdefense.com forward slash viva and click the link in the description to watch the entire video.
	Now you won't believe how simple it is.
	Just a reminder.
	Legendary Chuck Norris is a whopping 81 years young and has more energy than he ever had before.
	He discovered he could create dramatic changes to his health simply by focusing on three things that sabotage our body as we age.
	Watch his method by clicking on the link in the description.
	ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
	Now let me get back here.
	I'm going to give everybody the link.
	ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
	I'm going to take it out.
	Take it out, eh?
	Here's the link.
	Thank you, Chuck.
	By the way, link to Chuck.
	Oh boy.
	The kids are not understanding that I'm live right now.
	Lala, out and close the door, please.
	Thank you.
	So the link is in the description, people.
	As you can tell, I'm in a cottage with people who don't respect personal space.
	I'm in the corner of a room.
	I can't get into any more of a corner than I am right now.
	People have put baby in a corner.
	Now, before we get too far into the stream, let me just make sure that we are live everywhere.
	Let me see here.
	Hello.
	Don't make me read that.
	Let me make sure that we're live across all platforms.
	We should be live on Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Let me just refresh here.
	It looks like we're all good over there.
	All right.
	hold on, we're good there.
	Viva Barn Are we good there?
	Am I coming in hot?
	Tell me if I'm too loud, actually.
	We'll see when Barnes gets in here.
	Because I had to tinker with my...
	Not claustrophobic.
	That's a big room.
	I'm just in the corner.
	And what's driving me crazy is the floodlight is right there.
	So if I look at you like this, I am a robot.
	In fact, I kind of feel like I have a chip in my brain.
	Viva Vrive from the outhouse.
	It is now day five in Kami, Canada.
	And I have yet to be arrested.
	Okay, people.
	Have we got a show tonight?
	We've got the one big question that everybody's asking and that I'm wondering because I have money riding on it now.
	Oh my goodness.
	It's not often I get to say I called it, but like on an unlikely call that now everyone is saying was totally obvious and everyone saw it coming a mile away.
	The same people...
	Who started off the week saying Biden is going to mop the floor with Trump are now saying one bad debate night doesn't mean that you're a demented, senile, old fool.
	Oh, it doesn't, but it certainly increases the odds of it being the case.
	But we all knew that Joe Biden has...
	You do the side-by-side comparisons from 2019 when he was already in a state of decline to 2024.
	It's not funny.
	It's sad and a testament.
	To how stupid the powers that be think the electorate is.
	That they've been jamming through this narrative.
	Biden is fine.
	Biden is sharper than ever.
	The best, the best, I might actually have to play it, was Joe Scarborough talking about how Joe Biden is cogent.
	And he's better than he's ever been.
	And if it weren't true, he wouldn't be saying it.
	He's not lying.
	Everybody, so we got a bunch of SCOTUS decisions, which we're going to talk about when Barnes gets here.
	And we had the debate of all debates, which I'm going to show some highlights before Barnes gets here so that we don't have to play video highlights when Barnes is here.
	And we're going to talk about it, the consequences, the impact, and the legality, the logistics of how would it work if, and I'm going to say when, Biden is kicked from the ticket, assuming it's not for natural causes.
	I'm not saying that to be funny or cynical, but natural causes, I presume, it's a no-brainer.
	How can they...
	I don't politely allow him to leave the ticket or nudge him out of the ticket.
	But before we even get started with any of that, if anybody doesn't know who I am, what the heck are you doing here and how did you find your way?
	Viva Frye, former Montreal litigator, current Florida rumbler, although I am back behind the Iron Rainbow.
	I mean, quite literally the Iron Rainbow, where you've got marches of people in the street walking around naked, dangling their junk in front of the faces of children.
	And by junk, I mean genitalia.
	We're living through, I would say Sodom and Gomorrah, but I don't actually know that story from the Bible except for the name.
	We're living through insanity and times of not just institutionalized mental illness, but normalized and glamorized mental illness.
	You watch the video of the Pride Month, Pride Season, Pride Year, Pride Decade, and you're seeing what are nothing but nothing other.
	Then mentally ill adults who have seen their political permission slip to walk around flapping their ding-dongs in the faces of children.
	And in the name of liberation, in the name of you can't get angry at that because that would make you a homophobic bigot, my ass.
	I mean, do they have an ism or an obia for pedophiles?
	Like, are you a pedophile obia if you are vehemently opposed to pedophilia?
	Adults running around naked, flashing their junk in front of children is nothing but pedophilic voyeurism.
	Pedophilic exhibitionism.
	Sorry, voyeurism is when you're looking.
	Exhibitionism is when people are like, hey, look at me.
	So I've come back behind the Iron Rainbow.
	I've got an event with Rebel News out in Toronto, sooner than later.
	Then we've got the RNC convention, which, my goodness, I'm checking my predicted compulsively.
	But it's crazy.
	You all know how I feel about having stepped back behind the Iron Rainbow.
	It's like entering a mental institution or an insane asylum where the patients have taken over the asylum.
	It used to be home and it used to feel like home and now it doesn't feel like home and I gotta tell you, it doesn't look like home either.
	So that's why I'm on the road and I'm in corners of rooms of cottages.
	Subscribe.
	Make sure you subscribe.
	Make sure you turn your notifications on.
	But let me just bring up some of these things here because we get these things called Super Chats, Rumble Rants, and if you want to support us, the best way to do it is vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll read a few of these and then we're going to get into the show tonight.
	Dostalov Act Mandatory Carry.
	Good to see you again.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment.
	Quote, a well-protected public.
	Being necessary to the security of a free state, the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced.
	We've got some decisions from SCOTUS tonight that we're going to talk about.
	Cheryl Gagey says, Viva with the hair of Samson and the shoulders of a Greek god, Dionysus.
	You should have just picked up that tree.
	Oh, look at that.
	And move it out of the road.
	For those of you who are not following us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, we drove the Bronco 2,200 kilometers.
	I don't know, whatever it is from Florida to Quebec.
	And as I got here, someone was looking at the car and they're saying, oh, you got the winch on the front.
	That's just for show.
	I haven't used it yet.
	And that was the day before yesterday.
	Yesterday, I went off-roading with my kid.
	It was sort of like a dirt road.
	And lo and behold, there was a tree that had just fallen fresh across the path.
	And we were on an adventure.
	So we hooked up the winch to the tree and we hauled it off the road.
	And then we drove up to a quarry.
	Where we proceeded to climb to the top of the quarry and push big rocks off the quarry.
	It's actually quite fun.
	So, yeah, I could have probably pulled it with my hands, but...
	The kids would leave you alone if they knew this is how Dad makes the money to buy them everything they want.
	Oh, kids are...
	They don't even...
	They don't get no respect.
	Don't get no respect.
	All right, let's see what's going on on Rumble, and then we're going to start playing some highlights here.
	Look at this.
	We got Rumble.
	It says, being reported, the Biden family has met and are encouraging him to continue this race.
	It's not LOL.
	What's crying softly internally?
	CSI.
	We're going to call it CSI.
	Crying softly internally.
	Eurythmic, thank you very much.
	And then we've got T1990.
	How do we get liberal boomers like my father to realize that most of our establishment figures are corrupt and that Trump isn't a psycho who is going to be a dictator?
	It's the Mark Twain thing.
	People cannot admit that they were duped on Trump.
	The people might have been duped on Trump in that some people thought he was going to be a savior who was going to drain the swamp and do all sorts of miraculous things.
	Nobody was duped on that, but he did not accomplish everything that he set out to accomplish.
	That I think we can all agree.
	How do you get people to realize that they were duped into thinking that he is Hitler incarnate?
	You can't, because they are too emotionally invested in that belief.
	On the one hand, they might have done and said things.
	Along with that idea that they cannot admit they were wrong about because it would make them feel stupid, mean, angry, etc.
	Flip side, also, you can't get them to acknowledge it because it would mean that they were stupid enough to have fallen for it in the first place.
	That's the thing about the ego.
	To admit that you were wrong means that you have to acknowledge that you were gullible enough to have been duped in the first place.
	And it's not easy for people to say that to themselves.
	They better start real soon.
	The amazing thing is here, there's some people who can't admit that they were wrong, and then there's others who they're not dishonest because they're being paid to spew the nonsense.
	I made a joke about Daniel Goldman, or at least my reply to this tweet.
	I said Daniel Goldman's livelihood depends on being invested in this lie, and he's getting paid to be a shill, yada, yada.
	I think I forgot that Daniel Goldman Is incredibly wealthy.
	Let me see here.
	Daniel Goldman, United States Representative.
	Let's go with net worth.
	I forgot why he has...
	Goldman is among the wealthiest members of Congress with an estimated personal net worth of up to $253 million, according to financial disclosure forms.
	So Daniel Goldman, a man who has no problem continuing to peddle the lie.
	Because he's worth $250 million.
	I mean, I don't know how you lose that, but I imagine you could lose half of it.
	If it's paper money and it's in the market and the stuff crashes, he'll lose half of his net worth.
	I can imagine if he's got it in gold and you have to flee the country and sell at a loss and liquidation prices.
	You're worth $253 million.
	But unless you're sitting on cash, and even if you're sitting on cash, because that cash is going to be worth much less than $253 million with the rates of inflation and the cost of goods going up, bottom line, the dude is filthy rich beyond anybody's wildest comprehension.
	So he won't have to suffer any of the consequences of continuing to peddle the lie that Joe Biden is a viable candidate who will make America better.
	Listen to this.
	This is...
	Daniel Goldman, we all have bad nights, but no one is defined by their worst or best night.
	Joe Biden's record of leadership and progress contrasts with Trump's disastrous presidency, extremism, and nonstop lying.
	Isn't it funny?
	The guy's accusing Trump of nonstop lying.
	Everything he's said up to now has been a lie.
	Americans know these two men, and they know President Biden is the right choice.
	He wrote this after the debate.
	Let's hear what good old lying Goldman has to say.
	Look, I think everyone needs to calm down a little bit.
	It was a bad night.
	It was a poor performance.
	But one night does not make a campaign.
	And it does not erase three and a half years of stellar leadership that has brought our country back to the forefront on a global stage, has protected democracy around the world.
	It's brought it back to the forefront on a global stage, you know, by bringing the world to the brink of World War III.
	Yeah.
	By laundering hundreds of billions of dollars through Ukraine for the purposes of fighting a proxy war while laundering taxpayer dollars and after all of the blood has been shed and the Ukrainian men and women sent to the slaughter two years later you now have people talking about that negotiated settlement that they were told to walk away from at the beginning of the conflict because Joe Biden has to get the 10% for the big guy in all of this conflict here.
	And here at home, and has benefited the vast majority of Americans, lower class, middle class Americans, through some historic, historic legislation.
	And when you compare what you saw from Joe Biden last night to what you saw from Donald Trump, you realize that this is a choice, ultimately, in November, of someone who is...
	They gotta show an unflattering picture of Trump.
	Look at...
	Anderson Cooper's disgusting faux intelligence face.
	I mean, he's real intelligence, like government intelligence.
	Look at...
	Andrew Goldman, you're really...
	Daniel Goldman, you're making a lot of sense.
	Oh, yeah.
	Let's hear what you have to say about him.
	Honest man of integrity who has served his country his entire life against a felon who is an inveterate liar.
	And only cares about himself.
	Look at Goldman's eyes.
	So yes, the New York Times is correct.
	The stakes are very high.
	But let's not go with this double standard where we just normalize Donald Trump's absurd behavior.
	Do you notice they all spout the same nonsense?
	Not one of them has any concrete example of what he lied about.
	Not one.
	It's just inveterate lies.
	They throw in some fancy language.
	Lies.
	Absurd behavior.
	Not one example.
	His absolute outrageous lies of denying January 6th, his refusal to accept the results of the election.
	Lie, and another lie.
	His pride at overturning Roe v.
	Wade and taking reproductive freedom away.
	That is what the choice is.
	That's also a lie, but we all know that.
	We're dealing with here.
	And ultimately, it's convenient for the New York Times to say, oh, Joe Biden should step down.
	Why aren't they saying that Donald Trump...
	Because one is about mental degeneracy and the other is about political disagreement, you raging moron.
	Always apologizing and normalizing.
	Have you noticed all these lying intelligence asset politicians, they all have the same face.
	What's the guy, Kirby?
	The other one, Blinken.
	They all have this very plastic face when they talk, and they talk in a very smooth, comforting voice.
	It's brainwashing.
	Look at that face!
	Oh!
	For Donald Trump.
	And frankly, Anderson, that's what happened last night on the debate stage.
	Nobody fact-checked Donald Trump when he was blatantly lying over and over.
	And this guy's been talking for a minute and 46 seconds and didn't mention one fact that Trump lied about.
	They don't understand the difference between hyperbole, opinion, and statements of fact that are incorrect.
	You want a statement that they should have fact-checked?
	I mean, the problem is they have to be able to understand it in order to fact-check it.
	Let's fact check this.
	Can your sister sexually assault you and get you pregnant?
	Can we fact check that one?
	Look at that face, first of all.
	This is a man on the left who is genuinely dismayed at the state of the country, and this is a man on the right who has no idea what country he's in.
	President Biden?
	It's been a terrible thing, what you've done.
	The fact is that the vast majority of constitutional scholars supported Roe when it was decided.
	Supported Roe.
	And that's this idea that they were all against it.
	It's just ridiculous.
	And this is the guy who says the state should be able to have it.
	We're in a state where in six weeks, you don't even know whether you're pregnant or not, but you cannot see a doctor have your...
	And have him decide on what your circumstances are when you need help.
	The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying we're going to turn civil rights back to the states.
	Let each state have a different rule.
	Look, there's so many young women who have been, including a young woman who just was murdered, and he went to the funeral.
	The idea that...
	She was murdered by an immigrant coming in.
	They talk about that.
	But here's the deal.
	There's a lot of young women who are being raped by their in-laws, by their spouses, brothers and sisters.
	It's just ridiculous.
	And they can do nothing about it.
	And they try to arrest them when they cross state lines.
	Thank you.
	Please stop talking, sir.
	How do you fact check something like that?
	A minute.
	65 seconds of pure demented verbal diarrhea.
	Go fact check that.
	And what did one have to do with the other?
	They were talking about Roe v.
	Wade, and then he starts talking about an American who was murdered by an illegal immigrant, and who went to the funeral, but then bringing it back to people getting raped and impregnated by their brothers and their sisters?
	Go fact check that, Goldman.
	That doesn't count as a lie, because it's just the result of absolute dementia.
	It's the most outrageous thing.
	If France has any indication the global swamp is under threat, there's only one meaningful analysis for the establishment.
	Panic.
	There's no question about that.
	Oh, that was from Nescio.
	And then Crash Prone.
	Five pounds euros.
	Picture the scene of Winston blindly humping the Washington Monument and discuss how that symbolizes the decline of America.
	Alright, I see Barnes is in the backdrop.
	But before we get into that, and speaking of the decline of the American empire, although it's not the globalist empire, there will be something else up their sleeves, people.
	And they will bring it.
	And they will bring it hard.
	And they will bring it relentlessly because they will not be happy until they control every single aspect of your life.
	And that's where we come into the fine folks at The Wellness Company.
	Listen up, people.
	If you're not stockpiling medications after what we've been through, you're setting yourself up for disaster.
	The warning signs are everything with this bird flu.
	In the headlines, the FDA commissioner just went on recording saying that the real worry is that it will jump from animals to humans, from lung to lung.
	I'm not...
	Quoting now, this is sort of paraphrasing.
	And the mortality rate has been upwards of 25%.
	Yep.
	We've got to have testing, got to have antivirals, and we need to have a vaccine ready to go.
	I forget what country.
	I just read that they already have a vaccine for a bird flu that hasn't yet become a pandemic.
	Could they be more transparent about what's going to happen?
	Dr. Eric Ding, COVID-19 expert, says, I would start stockpiling flu medicine, Tamiflu, for your family starting now.
	If bird flu is ever human-to-human transmissible, you will regret it.
	When the nearest shortage of medications hits.
	It's our personal responsibility to be prepared.
	And fortunately, you can get medications like Tamiflu easily without having to book an office appointment with your physician.
	The wellness company developed the Contagion Emergency Kit, a prescription-only stockpile of life-saving medications, including Tamiflu, Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Z-Pak, medications that every American should have in the medicine cabinet.
	Do you have what your family needs the next time around?
	Because there will be a next time.
	And doctors might not consider prescribing things like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
	We've got you covered.
	Easily order online the one-of-a-kind prescription contagion emergency kit from the wellness company.
	Each prep kit provides you with carefully selected assortment of effective medications for bird flu, COVID-19, other respiratory illnesses.
	The medications include ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, Tamiflu, Budesonide, along with a nebulizer.
	Rest easy knowing that you have the meds on hand along with a guidebook for safe use.
	Backed by the research of experts like Dr. Peter McCullough, every American should have at least one of these kits in their home.
	Avoid the chaos of the wait times of a hospital and have exactly what you need for as low a cost as one doctor's visit.
	At the end of the day, have these life-saving medications on hand and you won't have to worry about whatever is next.
	It's only available in the States.
	Kits are only available in the USA, so...
	Don't try ordering them in Canada.
	Go to twc.health forward slash viva, the wellnesscompany.health forward slash viva.
	We'll get you 10% off at checkout plus free shipping.
	And this is unfortunately only available for those in the States.
	Link is in the description as well.
	All right.
	Well, now we're going to get into Biden.
	We're going to see if Barnes can resolve a debate that I'm having with some family members.
	And we're going to talk about the other SCOTUS rulings and a ton of other stuff.
	Oh, it's going to be one hell of a week.
	Okay, Barnes, I'm bringing you in by doing this.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Let me make...
	Yeah, touch that over the right and let me go to the chat here.
	Let's see what...
	Locals, tell me how the audio is.
	Oh, we've got Ithaca 37 Cato $5 tips has two questions.
	What drug cocktail do you think they're giving...
	The Hope Ribbon.
	And do you think the COVID shot he took helped speed up his dementia?
	FYI, some posters on other sites are calling Biden President Corpse.
	What did I call him?
	The Walking Dead.
	I had a term that I used in today's video that I forget now.
	Robert, okay, so first of all, what's the book behind you?
	It is a reference to what exactly happened with the Titanic.
	And I have my interpretation of it.
	Along with other information, in a hush-hush up this week at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	And it's just one of the books.
	There's not many, but there's a few books that have really done a little mini deep dive on the topic.
	As usual, the usual suspects might be the people that you should be looking at even more so than the official narrative.
	But this one book has an interesting theory about that.
	And does relate to the individual involved.
	Well, hold on, Robert.
	I'm too morbidly curious, and I have some politically incorrect jokes to make that I'm going to hold off on.
	What the hell could the...
	Other than incompetence and arrogance...
	Well, maybe it wasn't even the Titanic that sank.
	I'll be right back.
	Maybe it was a cover-up of a murder conspiracy disguised as a ship sinking that wasn't supposed to lead to what it led to.
	Maybe it was an insurance fraud scam.
	Maybe it was an invitation to get into World War I. Maybe it was connected to the Federal Reserve Bank.
	There's a lot of different angles I had to chase down in doing the different alternative narratives out there that you can find summarized in the Hush Hush.
	And a single individual is connected.
	And it even concerns a Supreme Court case.
	So I thought it was apropos because there might have been a Supreme Court conspiracy connected to the Titanic sinking.
	And we got plenty of Supreme Court conspiracies going on this week.
	All right, well, Robert, tell us what we have on the menu for tonight.
	And we're going to start with...
	Sorry, everybody who's new to the channel, I don't think that's very many people.
	We start off on YouTube, Twitter, Rumble, and VivaBarnsLaw.Locals.com.
	And after we've given a bit of our time here on YouTube, we vote with our feet, vote with our dollars, and head over to Rumble.
	But we're going to do the main question tonight on YouTube for sure, and then we'll get over to the other stuff.
	But Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So, a bunch of Supreme Court cases which top the poll for the top topics at vevabarnslaw.locals.com.
	We've got homelessness rights.
	We've got January 6th.
	We've got the Chevron Doctrine.
	We've got the EPA.
	We've got state and federal power.
	We've got opioids and bankruptcy.
	We've got the right to a trial by jury.
	We've got social media and State collusive censorship.
	First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Article 1, 2, 3, all on the Supreme Court agenda this week.
	And issues impacting President Trump and impacting the administrative state and its power going forward, as well as the censorship state.
	So that's just the Supreme Court cases will be the dominant cases discussed given their...
	Considerable consequence from this past week.
	Then we've got a couple of vaccine case related updates.
	One, the PrEP Act is being challenged again in another court for the way it makes everybody immune from all the injuries caused by various bad actors during COVID, especially the COVID vaccine manufacturers, but not limited to them.
	And a little update.
	On Tyson Foods and United Airlines.
	Then we have one of the most popular topics to discuss tonight.
	What is the hurdles, legal, financial, political, to Joe Biden stepping down and not being the Democratic Party nominee?
	Are those hurdles too cumbersome for those that want Biden out?
	To actually succeed in taking Biden out.
	The Julian Assange is free after many, many years.
	The inside details of the plea deal, they're cut.
	And last but not least, come Monday, Steve Bannon is going to be in federal prison through the rest of the election.
	We'll be discussing that case briefly as well.
	So those are the top dozen cases for tonight's discussion.
	One little bonus part will be...
	When not to try to extort your lawyer or your former lawyer, which will be a little direct shout-out to a certain person who might be trying to do it to a certain lawyer as we speak.
	And I think they need a little crash course on when that's not a good idea.
	I have no idea where that's going, Roberts.
	I'm going to think about it and put it together as we go along here.
	We're going to start with the obvious big one, the debate, the debacle.
	And now everybody's saying, oh, it was clear as day.
	The deep state was trying to set Biden up to fail so they can replace him with somebody else.
	Look, I made the prediction first.
	It was almost like to a T. But I'm trying to reconcile why they would want Biden out.
	Why would anyone want Biden out unless it's just a question of them knowing he's just too demented to go along.
	But then if that's the case, who's keeping him in?
	And what is Jill Biden's incentive to keep pushing her husband instead of just bowing out and letting...
	I don't know who the next replacement would be.
	People are accusing CNN of having set Biden up.
	They're faulting CNN for not having done real-time fact-checking on Joe Biden as if they would have had enough time to do it...
	I'm sorry, on Donald Trump, as if they would have had enough time to do it at all because Biden was...
	It was just one idiotic statement after another, as though that's the purpose of a two-on-one tag team because Joe Biden is so demented he can't do it himself.
	It was a disaster, by design or by accident, and who would want Biden out at this point in time?
	So, yeah, we did a live reaction show to the debate, so you can go back and watch that on Rumble.
	It was definitely a first-round knockout for President Trump, 9 out of 10 in terms of his debate performance, Biden around 4 out of 10 just because he didn't die on stage.
	And he had no memorable gaffes because you couldn't understand what he was saying.
	So that's the upside to being Mr. Mumbles from Dick Tracy.
	Nobody has any idea what you're saying, so they can't say it was a gaffe like talking about sisters raping brothers.
	Just randomly in the middle of the debate.
	You know, welcome to the world of Uncle Joe.
	It's very much like some Frank Miller comic, Sin City or something.
	That's probably a good reference for Joe Biden.
	Watch the boss character in Sin City and you get a pretty good view of who Biden is.
	But here's the legal obstacles to all of that.
	So there's ballot access obstacles.
	There's campaign finance legal obstacles.
	And then there's the practical political obstacles, which include...
	A Democratic delegate nominee fight, which relates to the laws governing how the Democratic Party can function, and what an uncontrolled Biden might be who isn't concerned anymore for re-election in the last four months of his presidency that some people may not necessarily wish for.
	So, Sports Picks put out a bet earlier last night, late last night.
	For the political betting markets on whether to bet on or against Biden withdrawing.
	And you can go there to get those picks.
	They might already be substantially up in the betting markets.
	But first up, the ballot access problems.
	So ever since Ross Perot 1996, both parties have conspired to create laws in various states entirely intended to exclude another Ross Perot.
	Right now, they're using those same rules and laws to try to exclude Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. from being on the ballot.
	Indeed, the Democratic Party has brought suit against him in pretty much every state in which he has sought to be on the ballot.
	Several of those suits still ongoing.
	The existence of those suits was the pretext...
	Well, the state hasn't yet made a ruling on whether you're going to be on the ballot, so we get to exclude you despite it being a violation of federal election laws to do so.
	Well, one of their schemes was force everybody to declare early who is going to be on the ballot in order to get access to that ballot.
	That means, as they were discussing on Fox News and other places this past weekend, there's about 15 states where if they tried to substitute Biden's name, there'd be a serious legal problem of whether any Democratic nominee would appear on the ballot.
	That's hurdles number one.
	Hurdle number two, when you raise money for a campaign, it is not transferable to any other campaign.
	You cannot use your campaign funds to support another candidate.
	Consequently, all the money Joe Biden has raised, which is massive, would have to be sent back to the donors.
	Can I pause you there?
	If, hypothetically, Kamala would take over, that's not the same campaign?
	Nope.
	Not the same campaign.
	Because the campaign is simply Biden for president, Harris for vice president.
	So you can't...
	But that money can't be transferred to Harris for president.
	Now, I'll get into a way that some of these legal hurdles could be skipped, but I'll get to that in a second.
	The next problem is the Democratic Party's rules.
	If Biden does not voluntarily step down and doesn't voluntarily and volitionally release his delegates...
	His delegates are legally bound to vote for him.
	It means the Democratic Party cannot nominate anyone else.
	Indeed, due to their Ohio ballot issues, the Democratic Party has already nominated Joe Biden for the presidency.
	They held a virtual nomination for this.
	So being able to replace him is exceptionally difficult unless he agrees to doing so, and highly unlikely.
	Now then you have what happens if he does step down.
	Well, he doesn't get to declare who his replacement is.
	The Democratic National Committee in August in 2024, just like 1968, would have a contested convention.
	And it would be on the convention, but all the delegates would have been Biden loyalists.
	So he would probably have a lot of influence on who they chose to replace him and succeed him.
	But that's who would choose it.
	Not party hierarchy, not superdelegates, not congressmen and senators, not Biden himself.
	Those delegates would make a pick.
	There are plenty of people in the Democratic Party, for political reasons, who don't want to have Chicago 1968 all over again.
	Now, for those who don't know anything about Chicago 1968, Robert, what happened?
	In Chicago, 1968 was where Robert Kennedy Sr. had been assassinated prior to the convention.
	Lyndon Baines Johnson had stepped down from seeking renomination, so Hubert Humphrey stepped in at the last minute.
	Many of the Kennedy supporters in the anti-war vote didn't want anything to do with the Johnson administration.
	They held massive protests throughout the city and Grant Park and elsewhere.
	The Chicago police went and basically blitzkrieg those kids everywhere they were.
	A famous story of Pat Buchanan and Norman Mailer sitting in a hotel room overlooking it all from their glass window, watching it happen in live time to great political historical figures.
	It would go viral, and many people believe the Democratic Party never recovered.
	Then there was all the things happening on the convention floor with Mayor Daley referring to a Democratic senator from Connecticut as, you stupid kike, why don't you shut up?
	Other things that were not politically correct then or now.
	And so the fear is that you would have all the anti-Israel protesters, if they knew there was a contested convention, they are going to descend on the city of Chicago again.
	And they're going to have flashbacks to what that insanity was like.
	They're going to try to intimidate all the Biden delegates into nominating an anti-Israeli candidate or an anti-Israeli platform.
	They don't want to get anywhere near that.
	Then you get into the diversity, equity, and inclusion quotas of the Democratic Party, and you have that level of insanity.
	Then you have the inner California problems, which is that Newsom comes from one wing.
	He comes from the Pelosi-Feinstein wing of the Democratic Party base.
	Kamala Harris comes from the Willie Brown wing of the Democratic base.
	They hate each other, even though they're both based in San Francisco.
	And that would be one of the nastiest wars on the planet if Newsom throws his hat in the ring in against Harris.
	Booty, booty, gay, gay.
	Ain't going nowhere.
	He'll be throwing his hat into the ring, and he has the backing of a lot of high-ranking Obama people.
	So they would just see a complete disaster if that is what takes place, and it's because of the legal rules that require Biden to volitionally release them, and those Biden delegates are now the ones deciding the next nominee if it were to go that route.
	If I may pause you there, though, is there a rule about unfaithful delegates?
	This is one of the memos that internal research...
	Yeah, in some state laws, there's some states that have passed those laws.
	There's the Democratic Party's own rules, which sometimes are also governed by various state laws, depending on the circumstances.
	And that's what makes these laws and rules enforceable.
	And it's unlike the Democratic Party would want to breach them.
	Under these circumstances.
	I mean, they could try, but then they've got their own disaster on the hand, especially if they screw over the black female, Kamala Harris, which takes us to the big political problems with trying to replace Biden.
	One is, what does an uncontrolled Biden look like?
	What does a Biden that doesn't have any election to ever worry about ever again look like?
	For four months in the build-up to the election.
	I'm picturing a lot of crack, hookers, and nudity in the White House.
	Even more than we've already seen.
	Joe walking around, kicking his dogs, Hunter bringing in every hooker that they've ever known.
	It'll be a full relapse.
	That's what I would see.
	You could get lots of pardons.
	Don't mess around with commutations or anything else.
	Pardon all your buddies.
	Pardon all your pals.
	Pardon all your friends and family.
	You could see him reverse course in who knows what direction.
	In terms of the Israeli war or the Ukrainian war.
	He could change his mind on a bunch of stuff that he's only currently doing to placate the political actors who control his re-election prospects.
	So there's a lot of people in Washington that know they don't have any idea what an unrestricted Biden would do.
	So they're not all that thrilled with that either.
	That option.
	And then you have the other...
	Ace in the hole.
	Which is that every other replacement for Joe Biden is more unpopular than Joe Biden.
	And they just tested it after the debate.
	And it was still true.
	Biden was still getting more votes than every other Democratic candidate for the presidency.
	Especially in swing states.
	Particularly in the industrial Midwest.
	Newsom.
	Kamala Harris.
	Booty, booty, booty.
	Gay, gay.
	All the others, they have no chance in the industrial Midwest.
	And Biden has a vestigial legacy appeal with those voters.
	So there are massive legal, political, and financial hurdles to replacing Joe Biden.
	Now, there is a way to do so.
	There's three ways you could do so in terms of not doing it volitionally.
	If he were to suddenly become officially incapacitated, in that case, he'd have to be removed from the presidency itself under the 25th Amendment.
	If he were to die, then he can be replaced.
	The other is, he could say, I'm going to stay on the ticket, but come February 2025, I'm going to step down.
	So that I'm running to keep the country safe, keep the country secure.
	Keep it away from that terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible Donald Trump.
	But I'm going to turn over the helm to Kamala Harris come February 2025.
	That would be a way in which he could sort of walk between the lines and avoid all the financial, political, and legal fallout.
	Problem, of course, is Kamala Harris is deeply unpopular throughout the country, especially in swing states.
	That's the legal hurdles and the practical hurdles to trying to replace old Uncle Joe.
	Okay, hypothetically, and I'm not wishing this, although Tyler Fisher, who's been on this channel, was just on Joe Rogan and he has a good joke.
	He says, you know, Joe Biden might be the only president who gets assassinated by time or father time.
	If, hypothetically, Joe doesn't wake up one morning...
	The money question.
	That's still going to be the same problem with all of the donations raised.
	Not like death is an easy out for the money?
	Death and incapacity.
	No, they would still have to send back the money.
	So they would have to re-raise the funds all over again.
	But the other hurdles, death and incapacity, are exceptions for ballot substitution.
	And if it's death or incapacity, then who and how could they substitute for the ballot?
	In that case, Harris would be the new president.
	Oh, I'm an idiot.
	Okay, fine.
	Because that takes place now and he's still president.
	So for the next two months, it would be President Harris.
	She would run.
	And then the Biden delegates had committed to Biden.
	Presumably, they would then vote for Harris.
	They wouldn't have to, though.
	Even if he's removed or dies.
	The delegates could pick someone other than Harris to be the nominee.
	I guess the question is, from my own self-interested perspective, now it seems very, very unlikely or very difficult for Gavin Newsom to become the candidate.
	The most likely, after Biden himself, would be Kamala Harris.
	Oh yes.
	And then if it is a Gavin, that's going to be a contested convention in Chicago, and it's going to be wild.
	He would have to win the delegates.
	And he'd have to win Biden delegates.
	And again, he would likely not even win the delegates out of the state of California.
	Because more of them are loyal to either Kamala Harris, to that wing of the party, and more clearly Willie Brown, than they are to the Pelosi, Feinstein, Newsom wing of the party.
	So if you can't even win your state, how are you going to win a majority of delegates outside of your state?
	Probably very low.
	So you would expect, if Kamala Harris were to be beat, it would be somebody with a big name that's not named Gavin Newsom that could do it.
	Well, as I look at the markets, Robert, or at least predict it, Michelle Obama is not even listed yet.
	Oh, it won't be her because she hates, hates, hates politics and hates me.
	So then it's going to be Hillary Clinton.
	And I'm looking at...
	Let me just throw up a little bit in my mouth here, Robert.
	Oh my goodness.
	First of all, now I'm appreciating the dynamic of the Kamala Harris-Willie Brown wing of politics.
	I thought the only thing relevant there was the two of them schtupping.
	Now I appreciate the demographic of who she represents and why she is Biden.
	She's Willie Brown's protege.
	And Biden, by the way, is more aligned with the Willie Brown wing of the Democratic Party in California.
	And so you can assume his delegates are, too, than the Pelosi-Feinstein wing.
	Willie Brown is the last great political machine leader of the old school type left living in America.
	And Kamala Harris was his protege and project.
	He's always wanted one last thing.
	And that's the White House of the United States.
	Let me ask you this because I have the question.
	So the 25th can be automatic if death or like medical incapacity.
	There's no time for Congress or it would be like sort of an impeachment proceeding.
	Well, incapacity can be challenged by the president and that I think would only happen if it was indisputable incapacity.
	In other words, wakes up and, you know, doesn't wake up.
	It's a vegetable, effectively.
	Is there a way for Congress to petition for a 25th declaration?
	That has to go through the cabinet.
	Only they can do it.
	Impeachment is the only way they can remove them.
	Can you impeach someone for being incapable?
	No, you can't.
	Holy hell, that's very, very complicated.
	That's much more complicated than I thought it was.
	What do you think?
	We'll just make a prediction, Robert.
	What do you think is going to happen?
	Does he survive to be on the ticket?
	Well, that's how you go to sports picks if you want the official pick.
	I got the official pick up right there, exclusive for those members.
	Okay, amazing.
	Okay, now what other questions did we have from the performance, Robert?
	I don't think that covers it.
	We'll see if Robert Kennedy did a live response.
	People can go and watch that to what he would have answered had he been allowed to be in the debate.
	That was an interesting format and approach to take.
	I had John Stossel asking him some questions.
	The next big political thing to come down the pipeline, other than Biden announcing whether he's in or out, will be Trump's vice presidential pick.
	He said his vice presidential pick was there with him at the debate.
	A photo was taken later of who was in the debate room, and it excluded some names and confirmed other names.
	But J.D. Vance was there.
	Ben Carson was there.
	So was Tim Scott, Marco Rubio.
	Somehow Lindsey Graham was invited to be one of the people in his debate room.
	So that tells you there's still a big guessing game as to who Trump is going to pick to be his VP.
	Does he pick someone that comes from the establishment wing?
	Because here's the other interpretation of the Biden debate.
	If it was a setup...
	Maybe the setup is that Trump's cut a deal.
	Maybe that's the setup.
	And they're willing to let Biden take the fall.
	Well, we'll know what his VP.
	Oh my god, Robert.
	That's the next level of 5D conspiracy that I didn't even contemplate until you mentioned it.
	Vivek wasn't in the room?
	Nope.
	Okay.
	Damn it.
	Well, we still got a chance with JD.
	Let me see.
	If he picks JD, if he picks Ben Carson, then I think it's fair to infer no deal has been done.
	If he picks Tim Scott or Marco Rubio, a deal has definitely been done.
	And Trump is going to agree to limit how far he goes in the second term.
	And that conspiracy theory interpretation would be that...
	That's why the rules were set up to make it look like they were bad for Trump.
	But anybody who really knew Trump knew those rules actually would make Trump much more effective.
	No audience to distract him.
	No mic to distract him on all the time.
	He had to be focused and he was really tuned in.
	But we'll find out.
	We may have a very interesting political summer ahead.
	Tim Scott, for anybody who's interested, was once leading in the polls or at least leading in the market at Predicted and now he's like...
	Virtually at the bottom rank at 8 cents.
	So that's wild.
	Robert, okay, hold on.
	I want to make sure I didn't forget to ask any questions about the debate night, the debacle, and the ensuing what's going to happen.
	I think we got to it.
	Let me see if there's anything in the chat, and then we're going to get ready to go on over to Rumble, Viva Fry, or VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Do you think they will use that audio tape to force him out of office?
	Which audio tape are we talking about?
	We're talking about the Her tapes of the interview with the special counsel that Garland has refused to turn over.
	I thought they were thinking of that tape of allegedly Trump using the N-word that somehow has not yet surfaced.
	Biden called brother-sister rape ridiculous.
	Traffic is ridiculous.
	Rape is magnitudes worse.
	That is from Corn Pops Revenge, who I guess does not like...
	Okay, so we got that.
	We got that.
	Robert, let me just do one other thing here because we're going to go over to the Rumble, Crumble France and get these real quick like Marty Smith fan, Jill Biden is not leaving ever.
	What benefit does Jill procure by clinging to Joe as president?
	Like I Well, there's many people who believe that she may be the president right now.
	Well, in practice.
	Now, what does Jill have to do to get on the ticket?
	She's not an option yet either.
	Well, even better.
	You have all the power without any of the responsibilities.
	We got Squeaky Wheel says, is Biden even legally competent to make the decision to release the delegates?
	Unless he's 25th or not otherwise.
	Baird O2 says, when would it be too late for Dems to get someone else on the ballot considering he doesn't die?
	We already got that.
	The Engaged Few, if we're going to have a reboot of Chicago 68, can we get an updated version of the Gore Vidal-William F. Buckley TV commentary too?
	Robert, I don't get that joke.
	What is that?
	Those two used to debate all the time through the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
	Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley.
	And I think they had commentary on the...
	I don't know whether it was live or right after it.
	On the 1968 convention.
	Most of it was about the riots outside and the police reaction.
	But about a quarter of it was about what was happening on the floor.
	We got whatever became of the potential, for goodness sake, I just lost it here, of the tainted juror in the Bogus Merchant case.
	We'll get to that afterwards, but nothing, there's been no more news other than that letter.
	Any talk of Biden being anything but the best?
	The best that ever was is a threat to democracy.
	I hope the DOJ puts down this insurrection of voices pushing this misinformation about Biden not being perfect.
	That's from Pinochet's helicopters.
	Karolevsky, can't the Dems cut a deal to have Joe step down but let Jill continue to sleep in the White House?
	It seems to be her sole interest.
	Pasha Moyer, P. Moyer says, Robert, per your recent predictions, how close are you to the line between yay, I was right again and no, I was right again?
	And on which side of the line are you?
	When Biden said Trump banged a porn star, Trump should have said, no, Joe, I sleep with supermodels, not porn stars.
	And then being reported that Biden family has met and they're encouraging him to say, okay, fine.
	So we got that.
	Here's what we're doing now.
	We're going to end on YouTube and we're going to end on Twitter.
	Coming over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Let me give everybody...
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Let me get some of these tip questions here before we leave over.
	We got...
	Scrolling up, spam ranger regarding COVID and vaccines.
	I'm encouraging people displaying anomalous oxygen dips when attached to high sample rate recording oximeters.
	My sample size is too small to conclude anything, but I'm requesting that professionals in the audience be attentive to this.
	It might be a result of a vaccine injury, and it might be related to the elevated incident of sudden deaths.
	Curiously, the low oxygen dips can occur or continue while breathing normally, but end upon...
	Changing position.
	We got prayers for Massey, Buffalo, Betsy.
	It was his...
	Robert, Rep Massey.
	His wife.
	That's terrible.
	I heard that.
	I thought for a second it was his mother.
	That's...
	Yeah, so prayers for Tom, for Rep Massey.
	We got another one that says, Persona Non Gratis says, please give our condolences to Congressman Massey and his family and friends.
	Buffalo Betsy in the situation with Biden replacing Biden a way to delay or disrupt the election in November.
	Could they do that if we fight him in court over his candidacy?
	No.
	Okay, and then does Chevron's death impact Amos Miller's case?
	Says Buffalo Betsy.
	We're going to get to all of that when we go over to Rumble, but I'm going to give everybody the link to...
	This is the link to Locals first, and the link to Rumble is in the pinned comment, I believe.
	It's not.
	Is it?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me just do this one more time.
	No, it is.
	It is.
	Okay, it's there.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	We're going to end it now.
	Here's the link to Rumble.
	Link to Locals.
	Ending on YouTube, and I'll post the entire stream on Viva Clips, and the audio on Viva and Barnes Law for the People on Podbean.
	Ending on YouTube now.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Done.
	And ending on Twitter now.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Done.
	And now, Robert, let's get to the Hocus Pocus SCOTUS.
	Smorgasbord of cases that came out this week.
	We'll do the SCOTA stuff and then we'll get to the other, the trans stuff and whatever.
	Okay, so let's start with Chevron just because it was a question that we just had in our locals community.
	And because I started reading the decision and then I remembered why I get very bored reading those decisions.
	The bottom line, the Chevron rule was showing deference to administrative bodies.
	That by legislation get to sort of enact their own rules and regulations, interpret their own rules and regulations, and there was some threshold that was set before which there could be court intervention in the administrative decisions of these tribunals, not say tribunals, but these administrative bodies.
	And it was a very high threshold before which a court could intervene and say, no, your administrative body interpretation of your own rules is patently unreasonable.
	That was Chevron deference and has been overturned recently in this case.
	So flesh it out at least what the Chevron Doctrine was specifically and what will become of the world now that it is no more.
	Yeah, so the Chevron Doctrine put in 1984 in an environmental case into place a judicial deference to the administrative state.
	And by the administrative state, we mean bureaucracies where people are not elected to office, not appointed to office.
	Become office holders, get protected by civil service reform laws, so they cannot be removed by elected officials outside of extraordinary circumstance.
	And they are supposed to be simply tools of the executive branch enforcing the law and the political decisions made by the elected head of the executive branch.
	What they're not supposed to be doing is being the legislative branch.
	They're not supposed to write rules.
	They're not supposed to write the laws that govern everybody.
	What they're also not supposed to be doing is being the judicial branch.
	They're not supposed to interpret the rules as to their legal meaning.
	They're not supposed to be adjudicating the enforcement of those rules in individual cases.
	What the administrative state has done in the New Deal, post-New Deal era Judicially ratified, first by the Supreme Court absconding from its constitutional obligations between 1936 and after,
	in cases like interpreting interstate commerce so it applies to every little tiny thing that exists in the world, including growing weed on your own farm, could now be limited by the federal government, even if it's for your own consumption, because it could somehow...
	By six degrees of separation, impact interstate commerce.
	Try applying that logic to their recent standing doctrine.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	And then it got further and further.
	So first they said, hey, administrative state, you can intervene in all these places you never could before.
	So all of a sudden, the administrative state had extraordinary reach.
	Then we started making federal government a bigger...
	Government is a bigger share of the U.S. economy than so-called socialist Venezuela is.
	The U.S. economy spends more to the government and gives more to the government than the so-called socialist.
	That should tell you how big the administrative state has become.
	Step one, expand their legal power.
	Supreme Court abdicate obligation of judicial review and limitation.
	Step two...
	Give them tons of money and permanent positions that are immune from elected office removal.
	Indeed, the idea of the deep state originated from the dual state by a publisher at The Economist over a century and a half ago, further developed and articulated by German and Italian scholars who fled those fascist countries to explain how fascism arose so easily.
	And they said it's because we've got a dual state.
	The state of elected officials and this administrative bureaucratic state that's immune from elections and from elected officials.
	And now, increasingly, immune from constitutional constraints on the subject matter of what they can do or how they do it.
	The next steps was, you can start writing your own rules.
	You can start interpreting those rules that are often writing your own rules.
	There's a word for that.
	It's called legislation.
	They were usurping all of a sudden, unelected, and executive branch officials.
	We're now acting like Congress and usurping the role of Congress.
	The next step was, hey, you know what?
	You can also adjudicate your own cases.
	You can create your own bogus courts.
	You know, like that so-called California State Bar Court that went after Professor Eastman.
	These are not constitutionally appointed officials.
	They don't have to follow any of the rules of due process of law.
	They can take away your right to a trial by the peers of your vicinity, which is the vicinity and venue and jury trial requirements of the Constitution.
	And they're the ones who write the rules.
	They're the ones who administer the rules.
	They're the ones who enforce the rules.
	And all the rest.
	So essentially, you had unelected bureaucrats with all the power of the legislative branch, all the power of the executive branch, and all the power of the judicial branch, with no constitutional restraint on the scope of their duties.
	So this has become an increasing problem for civil society.
	And fortunately, it also became an increasing annoyance for big corporations.
	Because if it wasn't a big annoyance for the latter, our Supreme Court would still be sticking their head in the sand.
	But because it did, because these bureaucrats turned out to not only be morally ill-equipped for the task, but in fact, about as cognizant as Joe Biden is currently.
	I mean, these people are not competent, not capable.
	And they would just make basic screw-ups.
	The rules would change every other day.
	You never knew what you were going to deal with.
	It's just a nightmare dealing with this bureaucratic Byzantine.
	So slowly, steadily, the Supreme Court has started to pull back.
	The most consequential decision was last year, maybe two years ago, in a West Virginia case, which said, you know what?
	If it involves a major policy of economic concern, you administrative agencies have no power of the legislative branch.
	That has to come from the legislative branch.
	Only they can write those rules.
	Only they can interpret those rules in a way that rewrites those rules.
	They did the same when they said the CDC had no power to enforce an eviction rule in the guise of pandemic control on every landlord in America.
	The next two big decisions that we've been talking about ever since they were at the lower courts saying to track these cases.
	From the district court level, we talked about them.
	Court of Appeals level, we talked about them.
	When they were briefed at the Supreme Court, we talked about them.
	After the oral argument took place, we took them.
	We talked about it.
	And the prediction made was that the Supreme Court was going to eviscerate the last vestiges of administrative state power, and that's what they did last week.
	They had two key decisions.
	The first was the one that officially, formally overturned Chevron.
	And said, no, the administrative state has no authority to act like it has the Article III judicial power to interpret the law any more than it has Article I legislative power to rewrite the law by interpreting the law.
	And we hereby say Chevron is wrong.
	Chevron is gone.
	That's it.
	No more deference to the administrative state, both Article III and the Administrative Procedures Act.
	Require courts to be exercising judicial power, not unelected bureaucrats.
	The second one is the SEC decision, which said, you know what, if you're trying to do something that looks like a common law cause of action, like a lot of these civil fines look like old school fraud claims, then that cannot go through your special little courtrooms at the SEC or any other part of the administrative state.
	We've been talking about this forever.
	I still think this is true for judicial sanctions.
	If you're seeking something that's monetary remedy, then a jury should determine it.
	They did that decision today, this week.
	And those two decisions say, administrative state, you no longer have the power to act like the legislature.
	You no longer have the power to act like the judiciary.
	You could only do what you were specifically delegated to do by Congress and by the elected head of the executive branch, and you can go no further.
	It is a death nail to the power of the administrative state in America, and it's going to apply to a bunch more cases to come.
	We're just beginning to see.
	The ramifications of the reversal of the Chevron Dock.
	Because it's amazing, like I say, America, judicially, seems to be going in one direction, say the opposite direction of Canada, where you have these administrative tribunals, total deference from the court system, where they don't get involved, and you get these rogue, unelected officials and these entities issuing the most insane rulings ever, and you have much of a pushback at all, and in the States it seems like you have it.
	What is going to be the threshold for judicial oversight?
	Like these administrative bodies, they're going to make their own, they're going to make internal decisions in interpreting their own rules.
	Is it just the right decision?
	The courts will get involved anytime there's.
	The administrative agency has to be acting within the delegated powers of Congress and the choices of the elected head of the executive branch.
	And what they can't be doing can't be legislative power or judicial power.
	If it is, then they are acting outside their authority, and they can be challenged in court accordingly.
	And the analogous provisions would apply to state agencies operating in the same way, since analogous case law would be applicable to them as well.
	So what it effectively, it neuters the administrative state, reduces it back to the processing people they're supposed to be.
	To the low-level administrative people they're supposed to be.
	No more legislative function.
	No more judicial function.
	And this is consistent with other cases where they say you have to be removable by the president.
	Or you also can't have the authority you're usurping and claiming to.
	So it's the end of the constitutional approval of the administrative state in its current form.
	And in its most pernicious mechanism, and we saw another live example of it this week.
	The EPA was trying to interpret the Clean Air Act, usurping judicial power, usurping legislative power, to shut down, to force a one-size-fits-all policy on every single state that was going to screw over a bunch of states.
	They challenged it, and originally under the deferential preference given, the EPA would have got away with it.
	And the court said, no, no, no.
	This violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act requires us as a court to interpret the law, not allow any deference to anybody else's interpretation of that law.
	And they said, say the APA requires meaningful answers, reasoned answers, and these agencies aren't giving those.
	And so it overturned the biggest, most aggressive effort of the EPA to enforce.
	A kind of cuckoo environmental plan on a one-size-fits-all environmental plan on a bunch of states.
	Now, there was one.
	The three liberals, of course, dissented.
	Who do you think was the other judge who dissented on the clean air?
	I'm going to say Amy Coney Barrett, if I had to take one guess.
	What a lucky guess you have!
	I'm a slow learner, but I learned, Robert.
	Indeed.
	This week, that political headline from last week flagged by one of the members of our board at Viva Barnes Law.
	.locals.com was, in fact, predictive.
	In many key decisions this week, Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberals and opposed.
	In every case she sided with the liberals was not the civil rights cases.
	As I also predicted, Justice Jackson repeatedly this week sided with the conservatives when it came to certain civil liberties cases.
	Justice Barrett was on the other side when she wanted to virtue signal, when she wanted to give even more power to the state, and the rest.
	The other thing we saw was what we had predicted three years ago, which was that the court is forming three branches.
	There's the liberals, there's the constitutional conservatives, and then there's the corporatist institutionalists.
	And the presidential immunity decision likely coming down on Monday, we will see, it will all depend on what the institutionalists decided.
	Can two of those three side with President Trump, then we're going to get a great immunity decision that puts an end to the lawfare.
	If they don't, then we'll get some other decision.
	But as he talks about at the time, much criticism of a lot of so-called conservatives, Amy Coney Barrett is not a Scalia conservative.
	Amy Coney Barrett is Justice Roberts in a dress.
	And she's proving she, at times, is even worse than Roberts.
	I just kicked my foot really hard.
	I'm sitting on a piano bench, and it rocks, and it's uncomfortable, and it's got no back, and it's a little wooden circle that's really painful in my butt.
	I didn't understand it at the time.
	This is like where you acquire more knowledge and more information.
	I didn't understand what people said when they said liberals, one-third liberals, one-third constitutionalists, and one-third institutionalists.
	And now I understand it specifically.
	I mean, it opened my eyes reading the dissenting opinion in the January 6th obstruction case.
	Look, I'll say there is only one decision that makes sense in that case, and it's the majority decision.
	Just by virtue of the fact that...
	You know, the issue there was whether or not subsection 2 of 1512C, when it came to obstruction and by any other corrupt means, was such a broad net that it basically rendered the first half of that provision as though it had never been drafted.
	And standard canons of interpretation are that a legislator doesn't draft something to say nothing.
	And so if you read a provision of law that basically renders null and without effect or moot.
	Academic, another provision of law, it's the wrong interpretation.
	And so the majority decision comes and says, look, if that's the interpretation to give to the obstruction charge, you know, destroys, alters, falsifies, or by any other corrupt means, and it's so broad and so ambiguous that it eats up the first provision, that's an unreasonable interpretation of it, and we can't give it that broad scope.
	And then I read Amy Coney Barrett's decision, the dissenting opinion, and she basically says, well, that's what Congress said.
	And I'll just cover my ears, block my...
	Whatever it is.
	Cover my eyes, block my ears.
	And it's not my job to interpret an ambiguous provision of law.
	So the Jan 6 case, it's the big one, on the obstruction charges being enhanced to a felony.
	Many people convicted under it and many others charged under it.
	The Fisher case.
	And they came down 6-3 and said, no, this is never the interpretation that was intended to be given to this obstruction.
	It's got to be something concrete and not protesting being...
	By other means, interfering with an official congressional proceeding.
	Can you try to make sense of ACB's dissent?
	Well, I mean, it's exactly what we predicted.
	I think we were the only ones to predict it.
	People can go out there and look and find the people that told you Barrett would be on the wrong side and Justice Jackson, the liberal Democratic Biden appointee, would be on the right side.
	That was the only one.
	I got so much blowback.
	Oh, you're nuts, Barrett.
	The so-called legal analyst.
	Couldn't analyze that.
	I mean, I think Shipwrecked Crew, when he's not busy drunk and tweeting dumb things towards Julie Kelly, was busy accusing me of being a fraud for saying Amy Coney Barrett wasn't going to be the greatest constitutionalist of all time.
	She was always a fraud.
	And you could tell she was a fraud if you just read her cases or knew her history.
	And you could tell from Justice Jackson that she would surprise conservatives on certain civil rights and civil liberties cases.
	And she has consistently.
	I mean, the number one, she concurs with Gorsuch more than Barrett does.
	That should give you an idea of the difference between those two.
	Barrett's interpretation is ludicrous.
	Barrett is one of these law school students who had to memorize her way through law school.
	She's not intuitively smart at all.
	See, someone if you gave an exam to right on the spot, she'd fail.
	What she's good at is studying really super hard and super duper and memorize everything.
	And not understanding anything intuitively.
	Not understanding policy at all.
	Because some of her argument is asinine.
	It's absurd.
	I mean, there are basic, for those people that don't know it, they're called canons of statutory construction.
	These are axiomatic rules you use when you're trying to interpret what a legislative act was intended to do.
	And what it covers and what it doesn't.
	Now, in the criminal context, as the six...
	Justices, the constitutional conservatives, they got Roberts and Kavanaugh to come along, and then they got Jackson added on, agreed.
	Just look at statutory canon.
	Every rule of statutory canon requires us to interpret this in a very limited way.
	You have to interpret any set of words in the context of the words before them and after them, in the context of the statute as a whole, in the context of the policy they were trying to prohibit, and in terms of other obstruction statutes also written by Congress across the entire context and scope.
	And if you use those very simple rules of statutory canon, every single one tells you that the defendant was right and the government was wrong in interpreting the obstruction statute.
	Every single one.
	Let me bring it up.
	We'll read it in real time and to illustrate how absurd the Amy Coney Barrett interpretation of it.
	This is under the provision of tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
	And we'll just skip right to...
	Well, it knows how it starts, right?
	About witnesses, about informants, about...
	In other words, it's...
	All of these obstruction statutes...
	Had to deal with prohibiting someone from corrupting the integrity of an adjudicative process, an investigative process.
	Now, they call this the Sarbanes-Oxley, or they call this the Enron provision.
	My knowledge of the legislative history is not that great.
	Is it the entire provision or specific sections?
	Like, this entire provision was...
	Large parts of the entire law, yes.
	Yeah, I'm looking at here, 1982.
	They added all of these relevant provisions in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to deal with securities fraud when various companies were doing things to corrupt the investigative process.
	And they wanted to reach those things because sometimes there would be creativity in the way that worked.
	And that was the anticipation that the government was conducting an investigation at the administrative or legal or Justice Department basis, and that the person they're trying to investigate is doing things to corrupt the investigative process, to obstruct the investigative process in ways that are not within their rights and remedies in terms of the adversarial process.
	So reading that and knowing the history, which was fleshed out in the majority decision, Here's what this was.
	Arthur Anderson got away with this because at the time this law wasn't there.
	Arthur Anderson, the accounting firm for Enron...
	Knew an SEC subpoena was coming the next day because of all the things that Enron was accused of doing.
	So they went and found the old Hillary Clinton shredder special and went shred, shred, shred, shred.
	But because no subpoena had yet come, they couldn't be criminally prosecuted for it.
	That annoyed Congress.
	So they were like, let's add, if you intend to obstruct something that you know is coming, then we're going to call that a crime.
	That's the point behind this.
	Not at all thinking of dealing with a January 6th event.
	Well, and the issue with the Enron case is that they had all these documents in their possession, so they weren't intimidating witnesses.
	They weren't threatening people.
	They just destroyed what they could get their hands on and got away with it.
	So, alters, destroys, mutilates, etc.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	And then...
	Subparagraph 2 of Section 1512C says, otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined or imprisoned for 20 years.
	So, Robert, they applied this felony charge to protesters.
	They took something that was meant, okay, if you're doing something like this, but you've found a creative way for it to be right outside of the strict definition of the words, then anything like what you just saw...
	Is also a crime.
	That's what the words otherwise means.
	According to Amy Coney Barrett, otherwise means, oh, you didn't need any of that statute.
	You made it a crime for anybody to do anything that could in any way possibly be perceived or conceived as obstructing and proceeding.
	And that's it.
	It was an asinine interpretation.
	She's not a constitutionalist.
	She's not a legal scholar.
	She's a corporate whore.
	And she's a phony fake and fraud.
	And Trump should be embarrassed for putting her on the bench.
	That's the bottom line.
	Robert, who did you suggest in the stead of Amy Coney Barrett?
	I forget her name now.
	I remember she was...
	Who's been a very good judge on the 11th Circuit.
	Amy Coney Barrett said Jacobson was a good decision.
	She approved the Illinois lockdowns.
	Trump should be embarrassed for making a stupid decision.
	If he wants to be president, then he needs to assure people he won't repeat stupid, stupid, stupid decisions like this one.
	I can read the indictment of Trump's officials by just quoting Donald Trump on those officials and how they were.
	And then things like Barrett being the utter embarrassment she is.
	The one vote that no 2020 election issues weren't reviewed.
	The one reason 2020 election issues were not reviewed was Amy Coney Barrett.
	And here she is issuing a horrendous decision on January 6th that shows she can't do basic law.
	She's not a basic law scholar at all.
	She's an embarrassment to the profession of practice of law.
	She can't read statutes.
	She can't interpret statutes.
	She can't read the Constitution.
	She can't interpret the Constitution.
	It is an asinine interpretation.
	And anyone who defends it is also a disgrace.
	Because here's the other problem, as the six justices noted, including Liberal Justice Jackson, which was, and by the way, she would have been the one in place of Barrett had Ginsburg died later.
	And guess who would have been better on criminal issues?
	She would, not on constitutional issues, and on statutory interpretation issues in this context.
	She, not Barrett.
	That should be an embarrassment to everybody who pushed and promoted Barrett.
	But the other reason is the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	Under the Fifth Amendment, the rule of lenity, the requirement of due process, you are obligated as a court to interpret the law in a way most favorable to the defendant.
	She completely ignores it because she doesn't understand the Constitution and she doesn't care about it.
	And then the First Amendment, as Gorsuch noted in writing the opinion, this has ridiculous ramifications for people who engage the government on a regular basis.
	You could lock up protesters.
	You could lock up lobbyists.
	You could lock up activists.
	You could lock up anybody for 20 years because that's insane.
	But not according to Barrett because she doesn't give a rat's rear end about the Constitution.
	That's what a disgrace she is.
	And every senator who voted for, every congressman who backed should be embarrassed.
	Every public legal analyst should be embarrassed.
	This is the disgrace they put on the bench of Amy Coney Barrett.
	Robert, while I find a section that I want to bring up from the judgment, also flesh out how the hell were they charged with this?
	Like, who makes the decision to charge people under a novel and untenable interpretation of the law, drag them through years and convictions only to have it overturned?
	Who made the decision to say, yeah, this is how we're going to interpret that section of obstruction?
	The district attorney in charge of the District of Columbia.
	That's who.
	And he's notoriously corrupt.
	And Julie Kelly has highlighted his corruption all the way through.
	Credit to Julie Kelly, who has stayed active in this case, promoting these defendants' cases, exposing courts, including courts that Trump appointed.
	And exposing how incompetent many of them were, how corrupt many of them were, how prejudiced many of them were, how disgraceful the jury pool has been, how corrupt the prosecutors have been.
	There's been none of this nonsense law enforcement deference that just, you know, if they're blue, it must be true.
	None of that nonsense.
	Exposing these people, engaging in bad behavior as they have done.
	And so the...
	So yeah, credit to her for it, for covering all of it.
	But it's all because of the corrupt prosecutor, who's a very political prosecutor and a very corrupt prosecutor.
	This is the guy trying to put grandmas in prison.
	While they're letting out rapists, murderers, thieves, burglars, assaulters on a daily basis in the District of Columbia.
	Why does that district still exist?
	Why hasn't Trump called for its abolition?
	Not a big new fancy FBI building, President Trump.
	That you're going to make sure it's really nice and connects real easily to DOJ.
	How clueless are you?
	Are you still asleep at the wheel?
	You know, the decisions like this are horrendous.
	And they didn't have to happen.
	And they happened because Trump made a dumb decision.
	Like he made many, many, many, many dumb personnel decisions in his first term.
	And it wasn't helped by people not holding him to account.
	It isn't helped now by people not holding him to account.
	That if we want a better second term...
	These mistakes need to be highlighted.
	Now's the time to do it because he's in the catbird seat for re-election or for a second term.
	Let me bring it up.
	This is the last bit of her reasoning.
	It says, there's no getting around it.
	Section 1512 is an expansive statute.
	Yet Congress, not this court, weighs the pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.
	As if the court has no role in interpreting...
	Once Congress has set the outer bounds of liability, the executive branch has the discretion to select particular cases to prosecute through those boundaries.
	By atextually narrowing 1512c2, the court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches.
	I mean, that's bullshit, Robert.
	No, it's completely.
	I mean, it violates every statutory canon of judicial interpretation of the law.
	By her own?
	She's lying about what Congress intended.
	Amy Coney Barrett is a liar.
	That's who she is.
	She's been that way her whole life.
	That's how she got to her job.
	She comes from the Southern aristocracy.
	And it's sad and pitiful that she dog-walked Trump just as bad as Fauci dog-walked Trump.
	This is proof of it.
	And I had to wait a couple of years for the proof of what I was saying three, four years ago when I was screaming, and the only one out there screaming, she's going to be a disaster.
	She's terrible.
	She's horrendous.
	If you care about the Constitution, you must oppose her.
	And I got two responses.
	Oh, no, Barnes.
	You're making it up.
	She's going to be a Scalia clerk.
	You don't understand.
	She's going to be a constitutionalist, Barnes.
	People can't read the law.
	And the other response was, how dare you question President Trump in this key time?
	Well, you know, our job for President Trump is to never question or criticize anything he ever does.
	Guess how that worked out.
	So did it help him get a challenge to the election after 2020?
	Nope.
	Thanks for that decision.
	So, it's a ridiculous interpretation she makes.
	Ridiculous.
	Oh, I'm standing by what Congress did.
	No, you didn't.
	You're lying about what Congress did.
	Well, Robert, you were right.
	And, no, it's just like, following her rationale, the courts never need to interpret laws.
	I mean, Congress drafted them and just apply them.
	How do you apply them?
	The way they're drafted.
	It's a very circular logic.
	But not only that, what she's really saying is let the executive branch decide what they mean.
	And have no review of it.
	Just like she did with the Clean Air Act and descended on that one.
	And wanted to screw over states because she wanted to signal, she's with the environmentalists, don't you worry.
	But what she really means is she's with the administrative state where and when she can be.
	She wasn't able to back up Chevron because that doctrine had been eviscerated by every respected jurist, by legal mind, who reviewed it with any degree of objectivity or independence.
	But what she's really saying is The executive branch, the prosecutors, however they interpret the law is what we should agree to.
	Because she's pretending I'm just deferring to what Congress said.
	No, you're not.
	You're interpreting their words in words that directly contradict what they said.
	She's the one having an extrajudicial interpretation of congressional legislation.
	She's using the word otherwise to no longer mean otherwise.
	Well, it's a good decision.
	So practically speaking, I know I've asked you this privately.
	What happens to all of the people who were convicted under that statute, and what happens to those facing charges?
	They send it back for remand.
	Yeah, they all have to be reviewed for whether the charges were even sufficient.
	They have to be reviewed for whether now cases have to be dismissed, convictions and verdicts vacated, sentences vacated.
	So in some cases, they will do remand for resentencing.
	In other cases, it will be remand for starting from scratch.
	In some cases, The key verdict is thrown out, and there's nothing else left.
	It is a massive win for every single January 6th defendant who's had to go through all this politicized nonsense, despite Amy Coney Barrett's best efforts to do to greenlight this and rubber stamp it.
	And we'll see how the lower courts do.
	I'm sure the Justice Department will try to find a way to weasel around the decision.
	I'm sure the more rogue partisan courts will do the same.
	Only one judge of all the D.C. judges made this same determination.
	We talked about his decision several years ago.
	And only one.
	All the rest of them should be embarrassed, including the Trump appointees.
	They should be embarrassed.
	How could you not understand the law at this level?
	If this was a law school exam, every single one of those judges failed.
	Because this was basic statutory construction.
	And then after you do that, another rule of statutory construction is to interpret the law in such a way that it is constitutional.
	And look at the First Amendment.
	Look at the Fifth Amendment.
	And that required the rule of lenity limit the interpretation and scope of a criminal law.
	First Amendment, make sure you don't prosecute innocent conduct that is otherwise targeted for politicized reasons.
	So the great decision by the majority of the court, horrendous dissent that reveals what a disgrace Barrett is, and expect her to get worse as time goes on.
	I predict now she will be the worst Republican nominee since Justice Souter.
	And I think she'll end up worse than Souter on the bench.
	And that's Trump's last appointee that he put on the bench will be one of the worst of all time.
	For the Canadian schnooks who might not appreciate the Souter reference, why was Souter so bad?
	Because he was a liberal Democrat.
	That's why.
	So he wasn't the constitutional Republican they sold him as.
	Robert, okay, before we get on to the next one here, let me bring up some of the rumble rants because I saw a purple one.
	Which I know what it means.
	Sammy says, Ben Shapiro called Nikki Haley his spirit animal and he fawned over Amy Coney Barrett during her appointment.
	So it's official.
	Ben Shapiro's judgment is terrible.
	LOL.
	It's always been true.
	PJParkJD.
	I think I know who you are.
	Well, I think that you're on Twitter as well.
	Chevron was like trigonometry.
	They made you suffer through it in con law, but you never use it again.
	Now it's gone.
	Lucky first years.
	An observation says, does the Seventh Amendment decision cover the phony IRS courts and require jury trials there?
	We'll get into more detail on that in a second.
	And then we got an observation, says, an observation, well, tagging himself, man.
	Okay, thank you, an observation.
	King of Biltong!
	Good afternoon from Anton's Meat and Meat.
	Free shipping for your Biltong using code VIVA on BiltongUSA.com and AntonUSA.com.
	Help us fight climate change, reduce the cows, eat more Biltong.
	Biltong, for those of you who don't know, is a South African form of beef jerky.
	It's freaking delicious.
	Hands down, objectively, and I eat probably too much of it.
	GitFiddler says, keep up the great work.
	And T1990, what can we do to make it so these bureaucrats can get fired?
	Will this affect the ATF?
	Robert, the Chevron case, will it impact the ATF?
	Yes, in part, yes.
	Panther AI, as crazy as it might sound, Emma Obama's refusal to engage in politics might make her the best option for everyone else's perspective.
	The thing is...
	They could force Michelle in, Robert.
	If I think dirty, deep state nastiness, they've got a family.
	They can blackmail them into running, no?
	I suppose, but she hates politics and hates people, so that would not be wise.
	And remember, there's Kamala Harris who wants to be president, Hillary Clinton that wants to be president.
	There's nobody really getting through those two, in my opinion.
	Becca2 says, who do the people sue for being misled and lied to about this administration?
	Just turn off the news.
	Don't watch MSM or Legacy Media anymore.
	Just turn them out and don't give them your eyes or your money.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, was Vivek at the debate?
	I don't know.
	We said no.
	Personally, I was hoping Trump would pick him for VP and Barnes for AG.
	Jill Biden is not leaving ever.
	I'm Marty Smith then.
	Okay, we got that already.
	All right, Robert, so what is the next SCOTUS decision from the week that we're going to get to?
	Well, before we get to the jury trial one, let's get to the decision that Justice Barrett authored with the three liberals and the two institutionalists this week.
	How the Biden administration was greenlit on its social media censorship campaign.
	Oh, lordy.
	All right, so there's...
	Discussion as to the scope and extent of this case.
	This is the Biden v.
	Missouri, where standing, standing, standing, and Robert, I've listened to your Bourbon with Barnes on Viva Barnes Law to make sure I pick the brains of everybody.
	There's others out there.
	Good logic was saying, you know, this is not as catastrophic a decision as some, and I'm not saying you or me, Robert.
	It's not catastrophic because it didn't render any determination on the merits.
	It's just a cheap cop-out to wait for another day for that to happen.
	They determined no standing on the plaintiffs, the state plaintiffs, and the individual plaintiffs to get a TRO, temporary restraining order, despite the massively well-documented evidenciary basis of that case, just because the basic rationale was that the plaintiffs had suffered in the past, but before the impugned actions.
	And it's not clear that what the social media companies did after the state got involved was as a result of their coercion, that their fears of future censorship are not illusory, but prospective.
	And as such, they didn't have standing to even petition the courts in the first place.
	But I might be oversimplifying that because it's been sent back for remand with a decision in accordance with that judgment.
	The bottom line, though, they did say that the state's So I might be oversimplifying it, but it's a load of crap.
	I mean, what the hell?
	What?
	What does anyone have to have by way of standing?
	I know what your feeling is on standing, and now I totally understand it, because case in controversy, bullshit.
	The fear that they might do it in the future is a case in controversy.
	Whether or not there's ambiguity as to whether the social media companies were doing it at the behest of or the coercion of the state, even though they had done it before, that's a matter of fact to be determined later.
	But I don't know what standing anybody needs now to sue, but what is your take on this, and tell us how bad it is.
	Just briefly, we're having a...
	Interesting conversation in the live chat at EvaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	One common refrain I've heard from conservatives and Trump supporters is not to blame him for bad personnel or policy choices.
	And my question to those people is like, this is the Michael Tracy criticism of the MAGA movement.
	He's like, every time Trump does something terrible, you tell me it really wasn't Trump who did it.
	But we should absolutely vote for Trump because why?
	So if the president isn't responsible for his personnel or policy choices, what are we voting for them for then?
	To what, to talk in front of the cameras?
	To be funny sometimes?
	They absolutely have to be held accountable for their personnel and policy choices.
	Celebrated for their good ones, condemned and criticized for their wrong ones.
	And especially with someone like Trump, they'll repeat it.
	Like one response was, Barnes, you know, Trump's not a lawyer.
	He doesn't understand these things.
	He's not a military person either.
	He's not a police officer either.
	So is he now immune from every bad decision he makes about 99.999% of his job?
	Why are we going to fight for him?
	Why are we battling for him in the court of public opinion?
	If he's going to make bad choices, then why?
	So the goal is that he make better choices, that he make some choices that are good ones, and that he make better ones.
	But if you've ever studied Trump at all, the only way he makes better decisions...
	It's when people criticize him when he makes bad ones.
	If you don't criticize him, you're guaranteeing him he makes another bad one.
	So just briefly on that, but there's more discussion about it.
	Live debate at BebaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	The horrendous standing decision, people may remember my introduction to the audience to the doctrine of standing, goes back to the 2020 election cases.
	I think uncivil law did about, like, An hour or something, you know, cussing and screaming about it.
	I wasn't going to name any names.
	I don't like the infighting.
	There were a number of members of the law.
	I thought it was funny as heck.
	But it became like a mini debate in aspects of so-called law tube, which other than Robert Gouvet and good logic is mostly useless these days.
	But the reason why I was critical of standing is twofold.
	It's a made-up doctrine.
	Didn't exist before 1920.
	It ain't in the Constitution.
	And if you have to, if somebody keeps telling you something about the Standing Doctrine and they aren't quoting you the Constitution, that's a sign that maybe it's not really a constitutional doctrine, that they're not using the Constitution's own words.
	And there's a reason they're not using the Constitution's own words, because the Constitution's own words don't have the words standing in them.
	Nothing like standing.
	It says the judicial power shall, mandatory, obligated, shall be extended to all cases or controversies, all that concern certain subject matter.
	If it arises under the Constitution, arises under federal law, arises under a treaty, involves citizens of two states, involves Indian tribes, so on and so forth.
	So there's no question that this is a case.
	There's no question that it's a controversy involving the United States as a party.
	There's no question that the, and either one of those means the courts have to hear them under the Constitution, under Article 3. And there's no question that it concerns issues arising under the laws of the United States and arising under the Constitution of the United States.
	So how did Justice Barrett, with her institutionalist allies, Roberts and Kavanaugh, think about it.
	Two of three Trump's appointees, bad on this issue.
	And just think about that, folks.
	I mean, he needs to drastically improve.
	And if he's going to nominate someone like Tim Scott or Marco Rubio as his VP, should people really go to bat for him to vote for him?
	I mean, I won't be in a good position to advocate for him if that's his VP choice, because that means he's making the same bad decisions, if not worse than before.
	And who cares about that version of Trump?
	That's a mostly useless version of Trump.
	It's a marginal improvement over Joe Biden.
	Not a great improvement.
	And that's saying something, given how bad a President Biden has been.
	But there you go.
	They come in and they say with the three liberals, for their ideological reasons, who love censorship, that the Biden administration could do whatever they want to coerce private actors to censor your speech on the most important public forums that exist.
	And they do it right on the eve of the 2024 election.
	So you can be guaranteed they're going to ramp it up.
	They already are towards Robert Kennedy.
	But Kennedy, more than Trump, was going to be the first target.
	And right away, anybody who shares Robert Kennedy's response on the debate is being shut down on Facebook and Instagram.
	And they're either being suspended or something else.
	We've got people on our board who've shared older things that have nothing to do with Kennedy, but older things to do with COVID vaccine and other issues, who suddenly saw their Facebook posts and pages starting to be removed again.
	And this is what Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh and Roberts made sure of.
	I don't understand the logic.
	I mean, you have people who have...
	It's arguably...
	They've arguably been censored.
	Because I can appreciate they're going to say, well, the social media companies were doing it before.
	They were doing it on their own.
	The massive collusion is just coincidental.
	How do they say that they don't have the standing to pursue the claim?
	Well, I mean, the first problem is standing doesn't exist.
	There is clearly a case for controversy.
	So what they've done is they invented this.
	And they invented this in the 1920s.
	And any legitimate, credible, historical, or legal scholar that studied the issue will tell you they changed their mind all the time on standing.
	Because it's a Pontius Pilate pretext for not hearing a case they don't want to hear.
	Or not dealing with an issue they don't want to deal with.
	That's all it is.
	The same judge will issue five different contrary rulings on standing.
	As Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch in their dissent make clear, they said, look at the census case we took just a few years ago to screw Trump from being able to collect whether somebody is a citizen on the censorship form.
	We had a six degrees of separation version of standing.
	There was no causation or injury there.
	Of any kind.
	And we said, oh yeah, no problem standing.
	Anybody who studied standing, that's why I say I never respect someone who takes standing seriously.
	It's because no self-respecting judge has ever taken it seriously.
	And you can see that in that they've contradicted themselves on the same doctrine.
	It's not historically rooted.
	Somebody said, oh boy, they're just enforcing the Constitution.
	That's what they're required to do.
	Tell me where standing is in the Constitution.
	Well, I can't find it.
	Well, but it's always been there, and the courts have always said so.
	Okay, cite me one case before 1920.
	They can't.
	Huh.
	So none of our founding father generation or their next generation, the generation after them, the generation after them, or the generation after them, could find standing in the Constitution.
	But these groups of frauds could.
	And it's the Pontius Pilate pretext in reference to who Pontius Pilate was for those that don't know.
	Well, so he was the man who gave the order to crucify Jesus, and his explanation was that, well, I'd love to do something about it, but the mob has spoken, basically?
	Yeah.
	I mean, well, yes.
	I would love to be involved, but it's not my responsibility.
	I washed my hands of it.
	I'm going to let someone else make the choice, and I didn't make the choice.
	And that's what the courts love to do in these kind of cases.
	When they wanted to avoid the 2020 election, they cited standing.
	When they wanted to avoid the FDA lying to kids about the dangers of vaccines, they cited standing.
	Now, when they want the Biden administration to censor speech at scale, they cite standing.
	Now, you get into the specifics of it.
	They're like, oh, the platforms are doing the bad things, not the government's.
	That's not what they're complaining about.
	Well, that was the premise of the suit, is that they're doing it, but at the coercion or at the pressure of the administration, and there was ample evidence to confirm that.
	Yes, and this, by the way, explained, there was a precursor, a preface, that this was going to take place, and that was when they excluded Robert Kennedy.
	Remember, Robert Kennedy moved to intervene to join it.
	Scalia descended from them not letting him in.
	It's because they know...
	They would not have been able to make the arguments about standing to Kennedy that they would be about all the rest.
	Kennedy was specifically targeted.
	Kennedy was targeted more after the Biden administration asked them to than what he was before.
	Kennedy hadn't been targeted on an Instagram at all until Joe Biden came along.
	Their new rule is, as a government actor, don't do anything formal or official.
	Get somebody to start doing the bad behavior, constitutional, beforehand.
	Then when you come in and give a motivation and excuse to do it, we'll say, no, that wasn't you doing it.
	That was them doing their own independent action.
	And we'll say no standing.
	Now, they claim no standing as to...
	They didn't say that these actions were First Amendment approved.
	I mean, that tells you how badly unconstitutional the government's action is.
	They couldn't even find any constitutional excuse for their conduct to say so.
	Not in a concurring opinion, not in any opinion.
	Second, they didn't limit damages claims or other claims.
	Now, there's other things that limit damages claims, of course.
	They just limited injunctive relief claims.
	They said you can't enjoin it.
	You can't prevent it or prohibit it.
	Because there's not a likelihood of future injury.
	Now again, they excluded Robert Kennedy from the case because Robert Kennedy could show imminent future injury.
	I'm running for president and they're censoring me.
	That's why they excluded him and ran for cover on his case.
	But that doesn't stop a lower district court from going with Robert Kennedy anyway and enjoining this behavior.
	The other bad thing they did was on the First Amendment.
	The bad part of the First Amendment decision is they limited the right to hear to, quote, there needs to be a concrete, specific connection to the individual speaker you want to hear from.
	Otherwise, you have no First Amendment right to hear beyond that.
	And what does that look like in reality?
	It drastically limits the ability to bring suit and allows massive levels of censorship against the right to hear.
	So they eviscerated the right to hear.
	In standing, they created a doctrine that now is so broad that it's impossible to sue whenever the courts don't want you to be able to sue.
	Now, you can't overturn this with congressional legislation.
	Congress could specifically give jurisdiction to the courts to hear these matters.
	And how it defines case or controversy.
	It's not a guarantee the courts would still have to take the case.
	They may try to find a way around it.
	But generally speaking, when Congress speaks in that regard, the courts don't try to slap back and say, no, we're going to ignore you too.
	And I think what should happen is Congress should pass law.
	Robert Kennedy is on board with it.
	No reason why Donald Trump shouldn't be on board with it.
	And a whole bunch of other people shouldn't be on board with it.
	Which is, if you are harmed by the government and in ways that violate constitutional rights, then you should have the right to sue in courts for relief and remedy.
	And that should be particularly true when you file a citizen's petition.
	Because our citizen's petition is the right to petition for redress of grievances protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	It's the right that...
	The constitutional scholar Amy Coney Barrett couldn't even remember before Congress when she was being sworn in to be a Supreme Court justice.
	You'd think you at least would remember the five provisions of the First Amendment, but she couldn't even remember that.
	Maybe that was a red flag for people out there that didn't want to listen.
	So congressional reform could help.
	It's not a perfect help because of how ludicrous now the courts are interpreting the word cases.
	My extended rant in the Barnes brief at vivabarneslaw.locals.com this week was on, if you read the legal history, their interpretation of the word cases is absurd.
	It's not originalist at all.
	It has no foundation in any originalist interpretation.
	So all the people told me, oh, Amy Coney or Barrett, Barrett's going to be an originalist.
	You were wrong.
	You know, send in your apologies, courtesy of support of 1776lawcenter.com.
	We're going to be fighting our nonsense for the next decade.
	But embarrassing ruling, embarrassing for the court, embarrassing for the rule of law, embarrassing to have a functioning constitutional democracy in this 2024 election, but it is where we're at.
	Explain this to the stupid people out there like me.
	Someone is going to one day have a bona fide standing recognized claim.
	They're going to have to start from scratch and go through all of the loops and procedure that...
	We know what you've done.
	You've gone through every level of the court now, evidentiary hearings, and we're going to punt it back and say one day someone else with a good standing is going to come.
	How do they justify it that way?
	It gets them out of jail for now.
	The key problem for the Supreme Court was that the Fifth Circuit had already...
	And the Federal District Court had already stopped the government from doing this.
	That's what forced them to get involved.
	And then they cherry-picked it in such a way that they could gut the injunction even though there were people who had standing to reach the merits.
	And it's really an abdication of their constitutional obligation.
	The judicial power says shall extend all cases and controversy.
	And every single justice up there has been guilty.
	Of using this as an excuse to dump cases they don't like.
	Every single one of them.
	It's just this is one of the more egregious examples of it.
	And because of its immediate public policy consequence, that the green light to mass censorship is fully back in business through election day.
	And it's another area where Trump should speak out more.
	That he's going to oppose it, that he'll support Rand Paul's legislation to prohibit it, to defund it, to make it a crime if any government agent or individual engages in it.
	He's talked about it sporadically, but he failed to even mention it during the debate a day after the decision was issued.
	And if it's not on the top of his mind, it doesn't exist.
	So, you know, there needs to be continued effort in Trump camp.
	Political freedom matters to a lot of people.
	Just like financial freedom and medical freedom and food freedom matter to a lot of people.
	We polled the whole country on it.
	And Richard Barris' poll showed people care more about the right to buy food from a farmer without government permission than they do about abortion.
	Sorry, liberal Democrats.
	They care more about political freedom and being able to speak their minds and not being censored than they do about abortion.
	They care more about financial freedom.
	The right to not be dependent on the Federal Reserve and the right to access to Bitcoin and crypto and the like and to be able to exchange currency as they see fit than they do about abortion.
	They care more about the right to sue drug companies for causing injury from their vaccines than they do about abortion than almost any other issue in the country.
	That's how significant these issues were.
	So hopefully President Trump uses this bad case as an opportunity for meaningful legislative reform.
	All right, Robert, before we get on to the next subject, let me just bring this up one more time in Viva Barnes.
	Well, we're at Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Almanac says, Viva, Robert, any thoughts on the new book of the Kennedys by Maureen Callahan, Ask Not, supposedly detailing severe degeneracy by JFK, RFK, and even RFK Jr.?
	RFK Jr.'s point of view is that if you track and trace the history of it, you will track and trace it to the CIA.
	That almost every one of those really nasty stories about his father and uncle come from CIA sources.
	So if you trust them, then you probably trust the people accusing President Trump of being a fraudster and a criminal rapist.
	Barnes, you need unanimous jury for convictions if a state fails to convince a...
	A unanimous jury of guilt.
	Shouldn't Jeopardy attach because you're innocent until proven guilty?
	That's my view.
	The pitiful courts have refused to enforce it that way.
	Sean Joe, I love you guys.
	Thank you very much.
	And then Becca20, Barnes, who do you like for VP?
	And thank you.
	We know Barnes likes J.D. I mean, who I like the best personally?
	J.D. Vance, Ben Carson.
	I think Vivek would be fun.
	Who I think would be good for Trump electorally?
	J.D. Vance or Ben Carson.
	Who do I think would be good for a Trump presidency?
	Insurance from impeachment?
	Insurance from assassination?
	J.D. Vance and Ben Carson.
	It happens to align.
	Just think about it.
	Do you think the CIA will blink twice about assassinating Trump if Tim Scott is his VP?
	There'll be no fear there.
	And some people say, why do I say there's a deal with the deep state if Trump puts Tim Scott or Marco High Heels Rubio on the ticket?
	It's because if I were the deep state, I would want guarantees that Trump won't do whatever he wants once he becomes president.
	And I would want someone that he knows that the deep state would be happy to assassinate him, to replace him with, by one means or another.
	And that it would become the deep state insurance.
	Deep state knows if Trump picks Scott or Rubio, that Trump is not going to rock any boat when he's in the second term.
	He's not going to change anything meaningfully.
	He ain't going to drain no swamp if he's in there.
	That's what they know.
	They know if he picks J.D. Vance or he picks Ben Carson, then all bets are off.
	And then once he's in there, he may go through, follow through on the things he's talked about in defunding the deep state.
	And getting some payback against these corrupt actors so they are discouraged and deterred from doing so in the future.
	As Steve Bannon talked about being necessary all weekend while he's about to go to federal prison for standing up for President Trump.
	So that's why I say it matters as much as it really does.
	The reason why I'm highlighting these things at this moment, some people are like, oh, Barnes is just conspiring to support Robert Kennedy.
	That's not it at all.
	It's because in the next two weeks, Trump is going to pick his vice president.
	And that's going to tell us everything about his future.
	Let me take a deep breath, Robert.
	I'm having shortness of breath, and I don't know if it's because of you or just life in general.
	What do we move on to now?
	Well, you are up there in comedy, so you're going to be impressive.
	I sit here looking out at the window.
	It's beautiful.
	Mountains, water.
	Everything's beautiful except the politics.
	And you can choose to travel for landscape, but you have to choose to live for politics.
	That's the crazy thing.
	What do we got next, Robert?
	What do you want to move on to?
	Now, on the white pill side, a little more detail of the Supreme Court's decision on the jury trial case.
	We also have the opioids bankruptcy case, which was more on the white pill side.
	More of a mixed deal was their homelessness decision.
	And then later on, we have some big news on the vaccine mandate front, and we got that gender case out of Montana, where the liberals from Missoula, as they like to call them in Montana, proved to be true liberals from Missoula, even on the bench.
	Well, Robert, hold on.
	While we have what might be close to the biggest audience we're going to have for the evening.
	Tell everyone about your victory against Tyson Food, because I know you're happy about it, and you deserve as much amplification for that victory as you can.
	I hadn't been following the procedural posture, as we say.
	What happened, and why is it good?
	Because it's sticking it to Tyson Food.
	So, I mean, this was the first big case against vaccine mandates as soon as they were coming down the pipeline.
	In early, or I should say late 2021.
	So the vaccine mandate started with companies announcing it in the summer and early fall, and then enforcing it in late fall.
	And that was prior to the Biden administration forcing it through.
	The Tyson Foods was very close with the Biden administration rolling this out.
	They were supposed to be the example case for all other companies across the world to follow.
	To say, see?
	This is how you make sure your employees take this vaccine, so-called vaccine.
	They told their employees they could object, but only on limited grounds, only on medical grounds or religious grounds.
	Their employees did.
	Then they told their employees, well, we recognize you have sincere religious or medical objections to this, so we're going to give you a special status.
	It's called leave, but it's unpaid leave.
	There's another word for that.
	Fuck, it's fired, Robert.
	It's called fired.
	It's taken away all your main benefits and your actual paycheck.
	So don't worry, you know, you're still on just leave.
	You're just not going to get paid anymore.
	Can I ask?
	It's even worse than that because they can't...
	I don't believe...
	Would they be able to work somewhere else?
	You would not be able to work somewhere else.
	They could work somewhere else.
	But there was a risk they would lose any opportunity of reinstatement if the Tyson ever reversed itself.
	So they were putting these people in limbo.
	Tyson was contesting, in many cases, their unemployment benefits.
	So they couldn't even get unemployment benefits.
	So they were getting hammered every which way.
	And many of these people were blue-collar workers who had worked at Tyson for more than 25 years in some cases.
	You're talking about long-term employees.
	So these are working-class folks in working-class towns that have been deeply loyal to Tyson Foods.
	And Tyson Foods reciprocated that loyalty by denying them the essential benefits of employment.
	It's only because they had a religious objection or medical objection to a drug that they wanted to force them to take.
	So we initially filed suit in state court in Chancery County, and we didn't file suit to seek attorney's fees.
	We didn't file suit to even seek monetary damages.
	Initially filed suit to get legal clarity on whether this was legal or not, what Tyson Foods was doing, under Tennessee state law initially.
	And to give Tyson the opportunity to get clarity.
	See if the courts are okay with this.
	If the courts are okay with it, then we'll deal with it accordingly.
	But if they're not, fix it now, rather than screw these employees over.
	The Tyson Foods, in this case, acted like they were going to engage with that process.
	Because it seemed to me a very fair process.
	Their risk was very limited.
	This was clarity they needed.
	Anyway, sooner or later.
	And so they're like, yeah, why don't you do all your research on an expedited basis and file these extensive detailed briefs where my whole firm dropped everything and did nothing but that case for three weeks.
	And then right on the eve of the hearing, and for Tyson Foods to respond to our legal paperwork, they suddenly removed the case to federal district court in Jackson, Tennessee.
	Completely preventing any early opportunity to get direction or resolution and putting these employees in permanent limbo.
	About a year later, after this had been a complete debacle for Tyson Foods in the court of public opinion, complete debacle for the Biden administration, complete debacle for Tyson Foods in terms of employment, because the people that they let go were some of their best employees, they suddenly reversed themselves.
	They also did it hoping to limit the amount of damages they would have to pay in all the different lawsuits that had been filed.
	But they argued that the Tennessee state law claimed that we were primarily seeking relief under because Tennessee passed a great law.
	All the controversy concerning this Tyson Foods case led Tennessee legislature to pass a law banning employers from imposing vaccine mandates on people and said that if a person objects For any reason.
	They're like, we're not even going to let you employers speculate as to the reason.
	They have any reason.
	You got to let them work there.
	You can't take any adverse action of any kind.
	And so, but according to Tyson, that law was passed.
	11 was passed in response to Tyson Foods.
	And they're like, hey, you passed that law 11 days after we put people on leave.
	So now the law doesn't apply to us.
	Ha ha ha!
	There was a problem with that.
	They left them on permanent unpaid leave.
	It meant they were discriminating against them every single day.
	They were on that unpaid leave.
	They were engaging in a new adverse action every single day.
	Those little super smart guys over in Fayetteville in the general counsel's office.
	Thought they'd come up with a super genius way to get out of legal liability.
	Well, guess what?
	You created legal liability for yourself, geniuses.
	And so we went to the federal district court.
	They moved for summary judgment on the grounds this law could never apply to them.
	We moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
	We said the law clearly does apply to them.
	And we should just decide, let a jury decide damages.
	And this past week, the federal district court said we were right, and Tyson was wrong.
	Said Tyson violated these people's rights, and the only question is a question of damages.
	How much is it going to take to compensate them for?
	How much of reasonable attorney's fees does Tyson Foods now owe?
	An attorney's fees bill that is very big because of the nonsense Tyson Foods engaged in in this case.
	And remember, this was the case where they were playing such shenanigans that I had to file suit in three different state courts to get over to this court, to get to that court.
	I mean, just to deal with the nonsense of Tyson Foote.
	They got a EEOC referral somehow sent to Fayetteville, Arkansas.
	It was supposed to be handled in Tennessee.
	They had letters sent out that weren't sent out to the right people that I was never even notified on, all as a scheme to get away with that part of the deal.
	So, great.
	It's the biggest decision interpreting this Tennessee state law that's been issued or any state law like it in the country.
	It is now a model law for every other state to follow.
	The only reason any of it's possible, the only reason the law exists, the only reason why this decision exists, is the only reason there was as much consistent, effective...
	Speaking out against these mandates and their harms that ultimately saved a lot of people's lives who did not take this vaccine and suffer injury, disability, or death from it.
	Because that has happened related to Tennessee employees who are forced to take it.
	Employees have died.
	Employees are disabled.
	Employees are severely injured because of what Tyson Foods forced on them.
	But that would have been a much worse issue.
	If there hadn't been a blowback against the vaccine mandates, and there wouldn't have been as big a blowback against the vaccine mandates, especially in Tennessee, but to a degree across the country, unless a lot of ordinary working class, blue collar folks from West Tennessee were willing to stand up for their rights and everybody else's rights and say no, even though it meant they wouldn't have the means to put food on the table or pay for their kids to go to school.
	So I was pleased to represent all of these people.
	So the credit isn't to us.
	The credit is to those ordinary, everyday, working-class people across this country who stood up for their rights despite all odds being sacked against them.
	They're the ones that deserve the credit.
	Robert, what happens next?
	Is it going to be settlement time for Tyson?
	They're going to write a big fact check.
	And they can apologize, or we'll let a jury decide how fat that check should be.
	And they might want to check out the Chattanooga case, where a jury just awarded in the first major vaccine mandate case to go to trial anywhere in the country over $600,000 in damages.
	So the, I mean, these people will tell you stories that you'll break your heart in five seconds.
	So if they're smart, they should say, you know what, we were wrong.
	We're going to apologize to every single one of our employees.
	We're going to say we were wrong.
	We shouldn't have done it.
	We're going to agree to a consent decree that we never do it again.
	Put that in an injunctive relief in the federal district court.
	We'll write a check for every harm you suffer.
	And I'll take a huge haircut on the attorney's fees if they're willing to do that.
	If they're not willing to do that, we'll let a jury write a check and then a judge write a check after that or order them to write a check and they'll be writing lots of checks.
	And maybe it'll be enough to cover Don Tyson's cocaine abuse problem.
	Maybe it'll be enough to cover their other chief financial officers busy getting so drunk he's invading other people's homes and trying to jump into a single woman's bed that wasn't his girlfriend or wife.
	It wasn't even his home.
	Maybe they can deal with some of their other problems over there in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
	But it's thanks to all these ordinary, everyday people that a lot of rights and a lot of lives of ordinary people were saved.
	But if I'm being cynical, they'll drag you through an appeals to this process.
	They can drag me through all of it.
	The longer they drag this through, the bigger the check gets.
	That's it.
	They're losing.
	They're going to lose.
	Told them they're going to lose.
	They've already lost.
	And they can just lose some more.
	How big do they want the L to be?
	That's the only question they have now.
	Robert, I can't end it better than that.
	I'm going to go back to Rumble for a second.
	D-Town123, 2016 Ben Carson, quoted by Bloomberg.
	Arm Ukraine.
	Expand NATO.
	Remove Russia from the UN Security Council.
	Carve new Palestine out of Egypt.
	I'm not convinced he's a safe for Trump.
	I didn't see any quotes there, so I don't know if these are actual direct quotes.
	Robert, do you know anything about that being Ben Carson's policy?
	I don't.
	Viva.
	Robert, any thoughts on the new Book of Candy?
	Nope.
	We already got that one.
	Okay.
	Robert, what do we got next?
	Next on the ballot.
	This is related before we turn back to a couple of the Supreme Court cases and then that crazy gender roles case.
	United Airlines, I'm part of a range of cases that has been fighting United Airlines for doing similar things.
	I've had to fight these cases all over the country.
	Anytime I sue in one jurisdiction, they try to drag it to Chicago.
	Have to fight that for forever.
	So it's multiple levels of this.
	It goes from one court to another court.
	Back that up, this court.
	Good news is...
	Federal courts are recognizing there's a right to a class action against United Airlines for systemically violating the civil liberties and civil rights of people in their way in which they ignored religious accommodation requests for their pilots, stewards, stewardesses, mechanics, and others.
	And so it looks like the big case against United Airlines is going to move forward.
	So that is very promising on that front.
	And then on the PREP Act...
	There's now a second, really a third.
	There's a case in D.C. brought by Ray Flores that challenges aspects of what happened.
	There's another case by Aaron Seery in Louisiana that's challenging the PrEP Act.
	There's now a new case brought by Moms for America, Jeff Childers and others down there in Florida, the lawyers, that's challenging the PrEP Act, pointing out that the PrEP Act violates your Article III rights.
	And because it usurps judicial power and gives it to the administrative branch and prohibits people from having common law right of access to the courts, which in turn violates your Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury.
	It violates the Administrative Procedures Act because of the way in which it excessively delegates authority and doesn't require reasoned decision-making in the way emergency order decrees are issued in the first instance that are the predicate to grant all this immunity.
	It violates the Fifth Amendment for lack of procedural due process in these so-called vaccine injury courts that are a crock.
	And it violates Fifth Amendment and substantive due process rights to have a common law right to sue.
	So that's promising.
	We've got to get through the PREP Act if we're going to get any relief or remedy for all the injured people.
	The only other case that can provide that remedy is Brooke Jackson's case where we're waiting on the district court to rule.
	And we did file a supplemental brief this week.
	To show the court other examples of favorable cases that support our argument that have either been issued since our oral argument or have come to our attention since then.
	So promising on that.
	And the one reason why the PrEP Act might really have got a boost is the Supreme Court's jury trial decision this week.
	And just so everybody appreciates, the PrEP Act is what immunized the pharma companies from their vaccine.
	In Canada, we didn't have a PrEP Act legislative immunity.
	We had contractual.
	Hold harmless clauses, which makes it possible to sue the pharma companies in Canada, South Africa, and other countries, which is where they're being sued, which is where a lot of stuff is being disclosed.
	In the UK, it may have been South Africa or Australia.
	The AstraZeneca, I think that was the latest one to disclose the fact that, yeah, their stuff was dangerous in killing people.
	In Canada, Moderna and Pfizer are being sued by Kayla Pollack and Dan Hartman, the father of Sean Hartman, respectively.
	Because we don't have PrEP Act immunity, we had contractual hold harmless clauses, which means you get to sue them, but they get to call the government to hold them harmless.
	And if the government says, you lied to us and you concealed information, we no longer have to hold you harmless, that's when the shit starts hitting the fan for the pharma companies.
	In the States, you've got the PrEP Act, so godspeed and good riddance, hopefully the bad rubbish.
	Robert, what else?
	We talked about the administrative...
	State context, but it applies much more broadly.
	In fact, I'll probably be bringing suit on these grounds for the previously illegally imprisoned farmers in Pennsylvania as an example.
	It's a strong argument against the PrEP Act for striking the PrEP Act's immunity that might open the door for all injured people related to the COVID-19 vaccines or other injuries that took place in hospitals and medical treatment, remdesivir and other things.
	That PREP Act coverage has been excusing for a while.
	Not in all courts, but in too many.
	And that is the right to trial by jury.
	The language in it is fantastic.
	The language in it talks about how ancient this right, how critical this right is, how broad this right is, how the reason why the Seventh Amendment exists is because it was the number one reason why the first Constitution almost failed to pass, is it did not include a right to trial by jury in a civil case.
	Right to trial by jury is included in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution for a criminal case.
	But for a civil case, it wasn't there.
	People were outraged.
	Said, well, we're not going through this nonsense anymore.
	We've already seen how the Brits created their own fake courts so they could get around the right to trial by jury with their own politically motivated appointees and eviscerated our rights.
	We don't want to go through that ever again.
	And they said, oh, hey, you SEC.
	You have no right to issue civil fines in a fraud case.
	You've got to sue them and take it to a trial by jury.
	And they pointed out what a joke these administrative trials have been.
	They pointed out the SEC won over 90% of the time in these kind of trials.
	Historically, how have these agencies got away with this, given how robust and well recognized the right to trial by jury is?
	By saying there's a public rights exception, and nice that this time the Supreme Court Drastically limited that to what it should be.
	They said if the claim is the kind of claim that existed at common law at the time of our founding, or in, say, 1865 as applied to the states, then you have a right to trial by jury.
	If the kind of relief or remedy you're seeking is the kind that a jury was typically had to decide back at the time of our founding, then two.
	You've got to go to a jury before you can get that kind of relief and remedy.
	And I've been trying to make this argument to deaf ears for a quarter century, that when they're seeking monetary relief, that should be a jury trial always and forever.
	I believe this about judicial sanctions, too.
	We'll see how it ends up working out in that context.
	But this is the best, broadest Seventh Amendment ruling in American constitutional history.
	And it's followed up by...
	Them limiting the public rights exception.
	So they said, here's the times when you don't have to have trial by jury.
	If it's the government, only enforcing something that only applies to the government.
	There's no private right of any kind whatsoever.
	And this goes beyond the standing context, where they've often called a lot of things public injury rather than private injury.
	That isn't their claim here.
	It has to be literally a governmental injury.
	And government-specific and government-only.
	And it cannot be anything akin to or analogous to either the kind of claim or the kind of relief typically done by a jury.
	So to that earlier live chat question, here's one area, unfortunately, they did exclude from the right to trial by jury.
	But if it concerns government action, government land, government benefit, government immigration, Indian tribes, foreign nations, Or the government's collecting tax revenue.
	Those are the times you're not entitled to a trial by jury.
	Why is the government so scared of a trial by jury in a tax case?
	The civil tax case makes you wonder.
	But otherwise, a fantastic ruling that is the grounds to challenge, like the regulatory agencies issuing fines to those illegally imprisoned farmers in Pennsylvania.
	They never got a jury trial.
	And here the SEC said civil fines sound like monetary relief, sound like the kind of thing that typically requires a trial by jury.
	So there's a bunch of administrative agencies love their fines.
	All of them now are in jeopardy if there's anything analogous to it to the time of our founding.
	And in my view, if it's monetary relief, there is.
	They need to be revoking a license.
	Okay, maybe not.
	But fining somebody?
	Probably so.
	Taking away money?
	Taking away property?
	If you're not simply just trying to restore the status quo ante like an injunctive relief, which is a classic equitable rather than common law claim, then jury trial entitled.
	So it eviscerated not only the administrative state, probably more consequentially than the Chevron decision, but opened up grounds to make a really robust right to a trial by jury and a bunch of other cases.
	So it was my white pill case of the week from the Supreme Court.
	How much do we have left?
	We're going to save it for VitoBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We've got the homelessness case.
	We've got opioids and bankruptcy.
	Both those from the Supreme Court.
	We've got then the other case, the case you covered, the Montana gender roles case.
	When even the judge, even in Montana, doesn't know what gender means.
	Needs a special title to figure it out in the law.
	And then last but not least, when it's really ill-advised to try to extort your lawyer.
	When you think that if you've ever hired a lawyer in any capacity, at any time, for any reason, through even some ancillary entity, that you now have a permanent injunction and prior restraint on their speech forever.
	And you can do whatever illegal bad acts you want to, and they can never question or judge you.
	And if they do, that you could sue them, apparently.
	So explaining to some folks out there.
	When it's a bad idea to try to extort your lawyer.
	Well, Robert, so first of all, I clicked on Salty Cracker because he had a great meme of the Grim Reaper coming after Joe Biden.
	And then I accidentally shared our locals link in his chat, not ours.
	And now I don't want to look like a big-ass poacher.
	I apologize, Salty.
	I meant to share our locals because we're ending on you right now.
	We'll reciprocate later.
	We've sent people to the re-stream of the one and the only, the great, the inimitable, the irreplaceable Salty Cracker.
	What an asshole I must look like.
	I randomly appear in his chat saying, come to locals.
	Okay, sorry.
	Anyhow, everyone knows where to go to watch what they want to watch.
	So, Salty, that was my bad.
	I'm going to end us now, Robert, on...
	Oh, also, briefly, Ben in jail and Julian Assange's plea deal.
	Is Bannon going to jail as a...
	It's not tomorrow.
	It's a week from tomorrow, right?
	No, it's Monday.
	Tomorrow's Monday.
	Yeah.
	In fact, he's going to do his last war room show from right outside the federal prison before he walks in.
	Shut the front door, Robert.
	But the one guy who finally got out of prison is Julian Assange.
	But there was interesting aspects to that plea deal.
	We're going to get there right now.
	I'll just read these before I leave.
	Barnes, why aren't we in a constitutional crisis right now?
	Biden is not running the executive, so who the hell is?
	Damn good question.
	The same deep state that usually does, that other than Trump, Carter, and Kennedy, Ed Carte Blanche, well, Nixon in his own way pushed back, but more often than not, really runs the administrative state and always has, sadly.
	And then we've got here, thanks to you, Barnes.
	You make sense.
	Any chance to mingle Tyson case to help the GOB over COVID-19?
	The GOB.
	I don't know what that is.
	Required by the FBI.
	Like employees of Tyson, GOB has family and his life.
	Well, I don't know who GOB is in particular, but 26, we got that there.
	Okay, Robert, this is what we're going to do.
	We're going to stop it here.
	Boom, bada bing, bada bing.
	We're going to end it on Rumble.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week before I forget to ask?
	Oh, we'll just be got legal work here.
	Brothers coming out later on this week.
	There's going to be some fun for July 4th.
	There's going to be some fun Copa America games here in Vegas that we're going to go to.
	So that's on the family.
	I'll have a little mini vacation.
	I don't know if it's a full vacation because I got some big summary judgment motion paperwork for guys being screwed over by a bank.
	Got another set of clients who are trying to steal their farm.
	Also a bank.
	Banks are usually bad faith actors.
	Got some criminal cases and civil cases in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
	Still ongoing.
	But we'll have live Bourbons with Barnes Monday, Tuesday, and likely Wednesday night of this week.
	Fantastic.
	And for me, I don't know if I have anything scheduled for this week, but stay tuned.
	I'll be live like random hours in a random schedule.
	No heads up and no nothing.
	We're ending on Rumble now.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we will have the after party there doing it.
	There are bets to the question in the live chat.
	There are bet recommendations for the July 4th election in the United Kingdom.
	You can find them at sportspicks.locals.com.
	And see what recommendations we have for who we think might overachieve the expectations.
	Might look a lot like the French elections today.
	All right, people.
	That is it for the non-locals end of this stream.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	This will all be on Viva Clips in its entirety.
	Viva and Barnes Law for the people on podcast.
	And see you all tomorrow if you're not coming over.
	But come now!
	Ending, bada bing, bada boom.
	Alright, we're out.

▲