Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 7, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:36

Ep. 218: Biden DISASTER Continues! Trump Immunity FALLOUT! Europe in Turmoil! & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh yeah, look at this.
	Oh, what the?
	We're live.
	Okay, yeah, hold up.
	The blood still works.
	Come on, if you know the blood still works.
	Come on, lift up your voice like a trumpet.
	The blood, the blood of Jesus.
	Hallelujah. Everybody, let's lift our hands to the Savior.
	Hallelujah.
	This is a new song, but it's very simple.
	It says, we worship you, oh God.
	You are our Lord.
	Okay, hold on.
	We're going to change this video here.
	No, this is Robert.
	Okay, so we're both in the screen here.
	I didn't know that we're both in the screen.
	I'm just trying to find a video to play while I go and adjust everything that I have to adjust on YouTube.
	That's all right.
	The devil's not going to get the glory out of this.
	We worship your name.
	Come on, let's lift our voices and worship him.
	Robert, I don't know if you've seen that entire video.
	It's awkward to say the least.
	Biden gets up and gives a speech.
	You mean the part that she's talking about the devil and he's right there on stage?
	No, the worst part was when he was singing.
	They were singing Amazing Grace.
	I wish I had the right lined up spot there.
	They say, you know, he saved a wretch like me.
	And Joe Biden goes right at the wretch and points to his own chest.
	That was not a smooth intro, people.
	My apologies.
	Robert's in the house early.
	And Robert, why are you dressed so fancily, if I may ask?
	It's in honor of July 4th.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, it is the July 4th weekend.
	Holy crap.
	I'm not used to getting in this early with Robert.
	I had some stuff that I was going to bring up and rant and rave for a few minutes.
	But we're going to get right into the show, I guess.
	Although we're going to have to get to the sponsor in a bit.
	Robert, let me bring one thing up.
	This is what I was going to bring up before as the preamble to the show.
	We have...
	Is it Anton Van Buren?
	Let me see here.
	Anton. Here we go again.
	Okay. Anton from Anton's Meat and Eat.
	The Biltong.
	The South African beef jerky.
	Apparently he's having problems with the town of Roanoke in Texas.
	We've talked about it.
	You've warned us about Austin, Texas being a blue dot in an otherwise potentially red state.
	Anton from Biltong, king of Biltong, he makes the South African beef jerky, got a notice from the city of Roanoke.
	And Robert, I said they're going to have to change the name of Roanoke to Karenville because Anton runs a business.
	It's got the beef jerky.
	They manufacture or produce Biltong.
	It's like beef jerky.
	Got a correction item notice from the city of Roanoke, Texas.
	Health and zoning.
	And when you read this, first of all, I'm inclined to never give the government the benefit of the doubt.
	But when they put, like, in caps, cease immediately.
	He got a notice, Robert, because apparently my dog is eating something.
	It says no outdoor, outside cooking, grilling, smoking, and he had two barbecues outside.
	Cease immediately.
	In caps.
	Remove all of the grills, trailers, smokers, equipment from the yada yada yada by July 8th, which I guess is tomorrow.
	Remove the forklift, equipment, and books, tables, and chairs, because he had two tables and a bookshelf with books on it.
	And then there's a bunch of other stuff here.
	And he wrote, if I can get to the actual tweet, it said, here we go again.
	The free books and tables we have had.
	Outside will not be available any longer due to, quote, complaints.
	We are not being targeted.
	I hang my head in shame.
	Please show this far and wide as this is how Roanoke, Texas, treats small businesses.
	Happy Independence Day.
	King of Biltong, I guess, you know, advertises on the wrong think channels like, you know, he gives out rumble rants on our channel.
	He's partnered up with Sticks Hexenhammer 666 with The Quartering.
	Robert, I've never been...
	The chat is telling me you may be on your computer, Mike.
	I checked that only three times.
	Thank you.
	Robert, you know of the Texas better than I do.
	Roanoke, I've never heard of it, but what's the issue when these petty tyrants get their claws in and they say, well, you're a business, you have a permit, and if we catch you with a grill...
	Outside your premises, cease immediately.
	Par for the course in Roanoke, Texas?
	Or is Texas no longer going to be a red state for much longer?
	No, I mean, it's going to stay a red state.
	But it's a reflection of the bureaucratic state.
	And they rely upon permits and licensures.
	And we have to take away their power of permits or licensures.
	It's that simple.
	It doesn't make us safer.
	It doesn't make us better.
	We can inform the public what, you know, what...
	People have approved of us or not.
	What degrees or licenses or certificates.
	As a marketing advantage in the free market space.
	But we should not give the state control because it always makes things worse.
	Always has.
	Always will.
	That has never changed and it never will change.
	And for all the examples that people can illustrate of it being a positive, there's 10 times more examples of it being a negative.
	So it just, you know, the fact you can't do a setup for July 4th.
	Do a little barbecue picnic, put out some free books for people without the government trying to harass you and shut you down and fine you and maybe try to stick you in jail someplace.
	Tells you how out of control the things have become.
	The only job growth under the Biden administration, aside from being for foreigners, is for government workers and part-time workers.
	If you exclude that, the people have been getting hammered economically and we're spending way too much money on the federal government.
	And on the state government.
	And on local government.
	And it comes from all these bureaucrats.
	And all these bureaucrats derive from permits and licenses.
	We've got to get rid of the permit licensure state.
	No more permission to do something that's as all-American as a cookout in your backyard.
	Well, not just that.
	There's people who say, well, were you cooking barbecue outside?
	You're not allowed doing that if you have a restaurant.
	I was like, first of all, the idea that we need to ask whether or not we can do very fundamental things.
	I was once upon a time flying a drone.
	And then someone was like, are you allowed flying a drone here?
	I was like, dude, this is the world we live in.
	Like, are you allowed having a dog here?
	Are you allowed doing basic things of humanity?
	And I was like, well, you're telling him to barbecue inside?
	No, you're not, because you can't barbecue inside.
	You're telling a man in Texas that even if it's a business, he can't have a barbecue outside.
	But something tells me, if you were to go to a football game or whatever the sporting team of Texas is, you could barbecue outside there.
	And so this is not a question of, It's a question of weaponizing them against people who might become political targets.
	Because I have a feeling Anton of Biltong has become a political target.
	So yeah, I put that on blast because I'm not giving the government the benefit of the doubt.
	When they say cease immediately and they put it in all caps on the notice, take away the bookshelf, which had books in it and tables because you can't have people sitting outside.
	You don't have a permit for that?
	What a load of crap.
	Robert, at the risk of screwing this up again, let me just...
	Speaking of a government gone totally haywire, People.
	The Wellness Kit, Contagion Emergency Kit, is our sponsor for the evening.
	They do fine work there, and we're going to listen up, people.
	If you're not stockpiling medications after what we've been through, you're setting yourself up for disaster.
	Robert, before I carry on with the ad read, do you think we're going to have an event between now and November?
	There's definitely a risk of it.
	The warning signs are everywhere with the bird flu.
	In the headlines, the FDA commissioner just went on the record saying the real worry is that it will jump from human lungs where...
	If that happens in certain parts of the world, the mortality rate has been 25%.
	We got to have testing, got to have antivirals, and we got to have a vaccine ready to go because the last one worked out.
	Oh, remind me to tell you what happened with our last stream there, Robert, and you reading from Brooke Jackson, although I know you know it.
	Could they be any more transparent with what's going to happen?
	Dr. Eric Ding, COVID-10 expert, says, I would start stockpiling flu medicines like Tamiflu for your family starting now.
	If bird flu is ever human-to-human transmissible, you will regret when near-certain shortage 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 a doctor.
	The wellness company developed the Contagion Emergency Kit, a prescription-only stockpile of life-saving medications that include Tamiflu, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, medications that every American should have in their cabinet.
	Do you have what your family needs the next time around?
	Because there will be one.
	Easily order online one of a kind prescription contagion emergency kit from the wellness company.
	Each kit provides you with carefully selected assortment of effective medications for bird flu, COVID-19, other respiratory illnesses.
	It includes ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine.
	We can now say these words on YouTube because the science has changed.
	HCQ, Z-Pak, Tamiflu, Budesonide.
	I always get that one mixed.
	Can't spell that.
	Along with a nebulizer, rest easy knowing that your family has the medications they need, along with a guidebook for safe use.
	Backed by research from experts like Dr. McCullough, every American should have at least one of these kits in their home.
	Avoid the chaos.
	Avoid the lines.
	Avoid the shortages.
	Get it now.
	It's a prescription, so you've got to go online, fill out some forms.
	It's only available in the USA.
	Go to twc.health forward slash viva.
	Use promo code viva for 10%.
	On checkout, plus free shipping, kits are only available in the US.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	The link is in the description.
	Robert, I got a video taken down for you talking about Brooke Jackson's Key Tam lawsuit.
	If I gave a crap, I would give a crap, but I just want to use it to humiliate YouTube.
	They took it down, and then I asked them to review it, and within 10 minutes...
	They said we carefully reviewed the one-and-a-half, two-hour livestream, and it's confirmed on appeal.
	So I'm going to have to figure out a way to make a stink about that.
	Robert, we're going to have some updates on this.
	What is on the menu?
	First of all, what are you doing tonight?
	Are you going to have a dinner after this is over?
	My brother's in town.
	So we took in some European football, took in some Copa America, went to a live game here in Vegas, and have some fun tonight.
	It was a good July 4th.
	We have up for tonight.
	We got all the rest of SCOTUS.
	The Supreme Court has finished its term, including the very big Trump immunity decision.
	We also have the unfortunate decision on the social media laws out of Texas and Florida, though they might not be as determinative as they first appeared.
	We've got all the fallout from the Trump immunity decision, politics, the New York mistrial, the Missouri versus New York case.
	It's now been filed before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	We have Jack Smith being challenged in Florida before Judge Cannon, as well as the search warrant challenge there before Judge Cannon.
	We have Biden getting overturned on an attempt to ban LNG exports.
	We've got the elections in UK and France, updates on both of those.
	We've got some Supreme Court dissents from denying cert on social media, Section 230.
	On Second Amendment, on juries, on prosecutorial misconduct, on the power of agencies.
	We got a good Supreme Court decision on statute of limitations on agency power.
	We've got a big jury verdict out of Chattanooga, Tennessee, my hometown, on vaccine mandates.
	And a little update on Amos Miller.
	We're going to start with a few things that are not on the menu.
	Then we'll get into the election stuff.
	For everybody who doesn't know, we're going to start on YouTube, Twitter.
	We're on Rumble, we're on Locals, and then we're going to end on YouTube, or as I call them, Commitube and Twitter.
	And then we're going to go over to Rumble, and then we have our after party on Locals.
	Robert, I don't know if I'm picking a fight with the Patriot Front.
	I have no problem with them.
	I just think that they look very suspicious.
	The timing of some of these videos looks very suspicious.
	What do you know of the Patriot Front?
	And do you think I'm...
	I hear a dog who seems to be stuck somewhere.
	I'll get that dog in a second.
	Do you know anything about the Patriot Front?
	Or am I being a little bit overly conspiratorial thinking they reek like a federal infiltrated agency?
	Well, they sure look like a Fed, talk like a Fed, and walk like a Fed.
	So they're probably a Fed.
	So I would presume otherwise until convinced otherwise is my takeaway.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	What the heck is going on?
	Robert, I'm going to go see what's going on with the dog.
	I hear it making noise.
	Robert? Tell the world what's happening in France, what's happening in the UK with the elections, because that's what a lot of people want to know a lot about.
	I'll be back.
	Sure. So if you're members of sportspicks.locals.com or followed some of the free picks I've given out over the last month or so, then you've profited on both the UK elections and the French elections.
	The news story headline will be about the left succeeding in these elections, but that disguises the fact...
	The real headline is the rejection of establishment parties in both France and the UK.
	And for a range of reasons, it ended up taking a left direction in terms of actual power, but that's more about the procedure of how those elections are done than on what the voter mindset was.
	So in the UK, the Reform Party, as we predicted, surged because of their first-past-the-post system.
	They didn't get anywhere near the number of seats they should have got given their popular vote.
	Labor did one of the worst performances in terms of popular vote it's ever done.
	However, because of the way that first-past-the-post system works, they have a supermajority.
	The Tories completely collapsed.
	If you want to see what the Republican Party without Trump would look like, you have an easy preview, the Tories of the United Kingdom.
	And for a long time, the political nitwits And midwits have been saying that the Republican Party just needs to get rid of Trump.
	And then the Republican Party would surge.
	And, well, look at the Tories.
	Because they said the same thing about the Tories.
	The Tories have collapsed.
	There is a good chance that the Tories don't exist in the future.
	They may be gone politically.
	The Reform Party may replace them.
	Led by Nigel Farage, they now have at least five seats in the Commons.
	First time ever.
	And while the Labour Party was the immediate beneficiary, the Labour Party is a globalist establishment-oriented party, it isn't because of popular demand, it's because of the Tory collapse and the first-past-the-post system in the UK.
	If you took the bets that Labor would underperform their 40% predicted margin, you made money.
	If you took the Reform Party to get double digits, you made money.
	If you predicted the Reform Party would win more than one seat, you made money.
	If you took bets that their margin between they and conservatives would be pretty tight, you made money.
	If you predicted the Liberal Democrats would do less than 14%, you made money.
	On the French elections surged the first time around.
	Anybody that's followed us at SportsPix knows how we bet the French elections.
	The issue in France is that the left, the populist left, despises the right and simply won't align with the right no matter what.
	Macron's entire objective was to force another choice between the populist right and his party.
	However, it backfired on him.
	The French electorate is completely exhausted with Macron.
	And it was another rejection of the center establishment in Europe.
	His party will now go from a big majority to a small minority party.
	However, because the left populist united against the right, they are the big winners of today's French elections.
	And the right will be very close to a majority, but they won't get there.
	That was one of the bets that we put out, is that they don't bet on the right to get a majority, because they can't yet get...
	Well, there's some unique issues in French elections.
	There's actual history of fascism in France and Spain, so that makes a difference amongst the younger populist left that deters their alliance with the populist right.
	But the other factor, it should be a reminder to people here in the States that think Trump should run a more conservative establishment campaign.
	Look at what happened to the Tories.
	Look at what happened to Macron.
	Look at how Le Pen was unable to get a majority.
	It's the failure to unite with the populist left has killed the populist right ability to get a majority in France.
	And the same thing will happen to the United States if Trump makes the mistake of ignoring why people are voting for Kennedy or considering voting for Kennedy.
	So that if he's smart...
	Which he's made steps in this direction, but then two steps forward, one step back.
	Then he'll recognize the lesson from the UK in the French elections and borrow them to improve his own prospects and the Republican Party and those who are on the populist or constitutionalist side of the equation, their angle.
	If you want some good independent political commentary on the UK and French elections, you can follow Matthew Goodwin.
	He's written about national populism across Europe, has had his finger on the pulse there, been very effective at it.
	But the news headlines will be, Labour Party majority out of UK.
	The right rejected in France.
	That's how the establishment is already spinning it.
	When what they're ignoring is the establishment is being overwhelmingly rejected in both France and in the UK.
	And the populist left in France, for example, was opposed to the vaccine mandates, was skeptical of a lot of COVID policies, is skeptical of the Ukraine war, is skeptical of the EU.
	Robert, let me bring up, I want to bring up one video of Rishi Sunak from a little while ago.
	Yeah, this is going to have to do my own channel here.
	Look at this.
	This is a vaccine-injured man.
	My name is John Watt, and I'm one of the COVID vaccine-injured in this country.
	I want you to look at the pain, the trauma, and the regret I have in my eyes.
	We have been left with no help at all.
	Not only am I in here that's vaccine-injured, there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that COVID-19 vaccine.
	I know people who have lost legs, amputations.
	I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak.
	Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that COVID-19 vaccine?
	Why are the people who are in charge...
	I'm going to skip it.
	Not to be mean.
	Disrespectful. You've got to hear Rishi.
	Okay. John.
	Thank you very much indeed for your question.
	You've made a really strong point, John.
	Prime Minister.
	John, I'm very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances and you said someone over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing.
	Robert. He's a repulsive human.
	I'll share that so everybody can watch it one more time and we don't have to play it in its entirety.
	The question that I have...
	How do I bring this out?
	There we go.
	The question that I have here is someone in the chat is saying Trump had better learn some lessons, maybe get on some lefty podcasts and make some social media appearances.
	What's the risk of Trump?
	He can just adopt the popular populist positions, which he's gone part of the way to do on financial freedom, on aspects of political freedom, on aspects of medical freedom, has been mostly quiet on food freedom.
	I see the typical response in some parts of Trump world, which is the same as Le Pen took, which is just bash Kennedy and don't say anything good about Kennedy, just attack Kennedy, attack him, and that's the path.
	Well, Le Pen has tried that now for 15 years and it's failed every single time.
	At what point do you realize...
	That bashing your potential allies is probably not a solution.
	Just maybe to those people that are so doggedly obsessed with it.
	So if Trump is smart, he will embrace the positions where there's overlap in order to unite the populist left and populist right.
	Because if he doesn't, he both impairs his potential presidency and creates unnecessary risk in the election.
	As we've seen in other jurisdictions.
	The Tories refused to embrace populism.
	They ran on it, they won on it, and then they abandoned it.
	And look at what happened to the Tories in the UK.
	So if the smart tactical choice is an apparent one, but he's handled it well in the case of embracing crypto, has handled it well in the case of raising some issues about social media.
	He was better at times last year when he was putting out campaign statements that got recirculated.
	Which was a good one about exploring what the source of chronic disease and holding big pharma accountable.
	But he needs to increase on that.
	The chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee is a Never-Trumper.
	Laura Trump put him in charge.
	He's the one who brought in a Never-Trumper to be their lead election counsel.
	He's currently staffing the entire RNC with inexperienced, incapable people on the election front.
	They're not doing anything serious on making sure the elections have integrity.
	Wisconsin decision came down this week that put that back at risk and exposure.
	And then he came out and attacked Project 2025 in ways that was unnecessary.
	And so I have criticisms of aspects of Project 2025, but it's his Trump loyalists who want to take apart the administrative state.
	I think there's part, and they're just putting together a list of good ideas.
	Or ideas to consider.
	I think, you know, don't mess around with any aspect of Social Security or Medicare.
	Things like that are stupid when people propose them.
	Just politically suicidal.
	But on other things, like why should we have a FBI?
	Why should we have a big federal government administrative bureaucracy?
	There they're asking exactly the right question.
	But it's because of the people that are at the top of Trump's campaign told him...
	That he needed to disassociate from this group.
	They're all former lead MAGA-Trump allies that are intellectually leading that effort.
	And yet he's taking time out to be critical of them.
	And Amanda Milius is pointing out this is not a good sign.
	Again, the director of the plot against the president, the person who worked, was one of the MAGA people in the State Department, daughter of the great movie director, Milius.
	So she has...
	A good bloodstream there.
	A good ancestral history.
	So people can look up Project 20. I mean, there was a fake Project 2025 group out there that was a Democratic group pretending to be the Project 2025.
	It's not.
	And again, I have my criticisms with it.
	But I think there was a way to disassociate from it.
	I don't even know why you go out of your way to disassociate from it.
	Robert, last week I noted there were three concerted efforts, three concerted social media campaigns.
	One was to compare Trump to Hitler.
	The other was to bring up...
	To bring back up that debunked Epstein, underage girl Trump story.
	And the third was to demonize Project 2025 and anybody who has ever inhaled the same air as anybody who had anything to do with the drafting of it.
	It's an initiative started by the Heritage Foundation, from what I understand, or are they just integral in it?
	Yeah, they're integral in it.
	Paul Danz is one of Trump's best people.
	And so it was just, there were a lot of people telling me, don't worry about there being a solid substantive ideas for an agenda because look at all the key Trump people, Stephen Miller, others that are part of Project 2025.
	And then Trump comes out and attacks it in like an over-the-top way, in ways he hasn't done other groups that are associated with him.
	So it's like, okay, you know, he still doesn't get it in substantial part.
	And, you know, some people in the chat asked, who's the populist left?
	It's real easy in America right now.
	I mean, in France, it's Melchorne.
	In the U.K., it's Corbyn.
	In the U.S., it's RFK.
	Yeah, it's Robert Kennedy.
	So if you want to know what's popular with the populist left constituency, just look at what Robert Kennedy's campaigning on.
	And his top issues are food freedom, medical freedom, political freedom, financial freedom.
	Those are the things he talks about 80% of the time.
	Those are easy issues, in my opinion, for Trump to embrace.
	And so the fact that he's been very slow on food freedom, only come part of the way on medical freedom, only come like political freedom.
	Well, you know, the broaden the lawfare that he has been the victim of to all the other people that have been victim of it.
	And there was an effort on that two months ago.
	And now it's gone completely quiet.
	There's been no effort at all.
	Like that they were going to include Amos Miller's case, other case examples.
	And all of a sudden they went mute.
	And I suspect it is because people at the top of the campaign...
	Is Trump going to drain the swamp when he keeps hiring the swamp?
	I mean, it's a problem.
	Why is the RNC hiring as its chief operating officer a guy that has been a longtime conspirator against Trump?
	A guy who is wanting Trump to be 25th Amendment in 2020.
	That's the guy that's the chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee by Trump's choice.
	And these are the people whispering in Trump's ear, Oh, you better not be affiliated with this scary Project 2025.
	I'll do all this political damage to you.
	When their real goal is to make sure those ideas don't get popular within Trump world and to make sure those personnel are not picked when he's a new administration.
	To make a lot of the same horrendous personnel decisions he made in his first term.
	And so that's, I hope that people that are on the right side, the popular side in the Trump camp, look to see what happened in the UK.
	Look to see what happened in France and say there are lessons here we can borrow from that can improve the prospects of our campaign, improve the prospects of our presidency.
	Now as he can start to begin to see the lawfare in the rearview mirror.
	But Robert, is the concern that it's sort of like Parkinson's law of mundanity where some of these issues are too complex and too new, not nuanced, but rather they're too complicated that they might not just go mainstream.
	So if he comes out and says...
	Oh, that's why 1776 Law Center commissioned a nationwide survey by Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, Big Data Poll, most accurate pollster now for a decade in predicting elections.
	And we tested, is food freedom popular or not?
	Do people care about it or not?
	Is it an issue of intensity or not?
	And is it something that can get breadth?
	Is it popular with the key swing voters, these populist left, populist right hybrid voters, people that are considering voting for either Trump or Kennedy?
	So we looked at all these particular sub-demographics, and what we found was that food freedom is more popular and more important to people's vote than abortion, which Democrats insist is the number one issue, or is going to be a key decisive issue.
	Medical freedom, way more popular than the issue of abortion.
	Not only in terms of breadth, but in terms of depth.
	Over half of Americans say they would make their election decision based on a person's position on food freedom or medical freedom.
	And food freedom being defined as your right to buy food directly from a farmer without any government permission or regulation in between.
	Medical freedom is held drug companies accountable if their vaccines cause injury.
	I mean, in many of these, among swing voters, independent voters, voters who are deciding whether to vote for Trump or Kennedy or to vote at all, it's a 60% to 65% issue.
	It's one of their top number one issues.
	And so it has depth and breadth.
	So there's zero doubt about that.
	And, I mean, there's a reason why Kennedy keeps talking about it.
	There's a reason why he has done as well as he has to date in surveys, even though he's been completely blacked out by institutional media for the most part.
	And been smeared.
	What's he up to now?
	Like roughly 10-11% support?
	It depends on the survey.
	So it really depends on whether they meaningfully include him.
	So if they meaningfully include him, he'll get double digits every time.
	And up to 20%, depending on what you look at.
	But if you look at deeply within the numbers, younger working class independent voters who aren't sure who to vote for or whether to vote in this election, if they've heard of Robert Kennedy, he gets 40% or more.
	So, I mean, amongst those, for example, amongst people who did not, Trump, for example, has no edge amongst people who have voted before.
	Amongst people who voted in 2020, it's a dead heat, complete dead heat.
	It's going to be 2020 all over again.
	Same with 2016, same with past 2018, 2022, etc.
	It's new voters that are at Trump's entire margin.
	Amongst people who said they did not vote before, Trump has a 25-point lead.
	But what's interesting is it's a 25-point lead over Kennedy.
	Biden finishes third.
	So it's Trump getting half the vote, Kennedy getting about a little more than a quarter of the vote, Biden getting about 20% of the vote.
	But if you dig into that vote, like we did in the 1776 Law Center poll, Trump could win 80 to 90% of those voters that are voting for Kennedy.
	Now, by the way, he could also lose half of his own vote amongst that group.
	Because these are voters who don't trust the Republican brand at all.
	And just like they didn't trust the right brand in France, but their willingness to, they're open to the possibility of voting Trump because he had a successful term with peace and prosperity.
	But they want convincing, convincing that they should vote at all, that it won't be just irrelevant, insignificant, inconsequential, and to vote for Trump in particular.
	And so I think the data proves it without doubt.
	I mean, I'll have that data to share with everybody up at the Republican National Convention, which will be up next week.
	Did you get your United States Secret Service clearance yet?
	I haven't gotten official clearance, but I've done the application.
	I got an email that was a mistaken email that said, you've been denied clearance.
	And then I got another one that says, it was a mistake, you got clearance.
	So just keep an eye out.
	It takes a few days to get.
	But, Robin, okay, when I say it's a complicated issue, when you come out and you say, I don't know, what's he been campaigning on?
	The lawfare persecution is easy to understand.
	It's easy to sell.
	It's easy to describe.
	If he comes out and says, the vaccine, that I can understand.
	No mandates, and we will investigate Pfizer.
	Easy, big sells, and that would get a lot of people who might have abandoned Rishi Sunak because of what he did in the UK.
	The food for him, how do you sell it?
	I mean, how do you sell it?
	What's happened, that's what Barris was surprised at.
	The polling data is so strong.
	What we asked is, if a candidate supports your right to buy food directly from the producer of that food without any government permit, is that a major issue for you in whether to vote for them or not?
	And to give you an idea, what's considered a major issue is if you get to 50%.
	Abortion's right at 50%.
	It's 60% on food freedom.
	It's 65% or more among swing voters.
	So the reason is that the ordinary person, particularly younger working class voters and older working class voters, this is a big issue with their day-to-day lives.
	So increasingly, they don't trust the American food supply.
	They often have had to seek out independent sources of food for their own medical or other needs.
	A lot of people have history.
	Of buying at food markets.
	At buying directly from farm in some capacity.
	And they're increasingly being prevented from doing so by the government.
	It's things like the experience you started the show off with.
	Somebody just wants to do a barbecue and invite some friends over.
	Neighbors over.
	Right? All of a sudden the government is stopping that.
	His story is happening to people all across the country.
	So it's not on the politician's agenda, but it is on the ordinary person's agenda.
	And this...
	This gap is a gap of perception between politicians and the people.
	Food freedom is an intensely popular issue with a broad cross-section of Americans.
	Only bureaucratic lovers, who are a diminishing group of people, are the people that oppose it.
	Nobody else does.
	And it crosses over parties, politics, demographics, regions, races, religions, you name it.
	It's just universally popular.
	And it's because it fits into something they have ordinary everyday experience with.
	And if you're in the podcasting world, where a lot of the populist left occupies, this is actually a popular topic.
	It's the number one question, of all the legal cases I've covered over the years, and I've been a part of over the years, the number one source of diverse inquiry from podcasters has been about food freedom by a long mile.
	The biggest response I get when I go to this place is on food freedom.
	The biggest questions I get is on food freedom.
	So the ordinary person gets it.
	It's the establishment that doesn't get it, that doesn't understand it, that doesn't recognize it.
	And so now the hurdle is, you know, key high-ranking people in the Trump campaign official are lobbyists for big agriculture and big food.
	So a lot of the people that are, like right now, there's a big popular case out of Tennessee that is going after what's been happening on agriculture farming financing.
	And I'm representing people that may have to file for bankruptcy in California, bankruptcy protection, because of the same thing.
	And what's happened is these banks, they're supposed to be owned by the farmers and working for the farmers, are working for big ag instead.
	Sometimes they're working for foreign governments instead.
	And what it is, I mean, you know, China is a relevant participant in a lot of this.
	And I mean, like Trump's first administration paid no attention to it.
	His administration was terrible on food freedom.
	Sonny Perdue, who basically think of boss hog but dumber, was Trump's pick for Secretary of Agriculture.
	It was his political machine that completely screwed up the Georgia 2020 election and screwed up the recount and the challenge to it.
	That's who was running things, was these big corporate agriculture people who were primarily big corporate people, not family farmers, corporate farmers.
	And so, you know, Bill Gates, the biggest purchaser of farmland in the country.
	And so the people right around Trump have no clue.
	And consequently, Trump is not as—I know Melania, this has actually matters to her, having food freedom.
	So it's just not something that is consistently translated to Trump.
	Financial freedom finally broke through.
	Medical freedom started to break through, but not fully yet.
	And then—but food freedom is the last one to fully embrace.
	And then more on political freedom.
	We'll talk about the cases tonight.
	But increasingly, the presidential election is going to shape— Whether we're going to be able to put some sort of stop to social media monopolistic censorship or not, because the Supreme Court has decided to go AWOL on it.
	Robert, before we get too far in and I fall too far behind, let me share the screen.
	I'm going to get some of the YouTube Super Chats, then I'm going to get the Rumble Rants because I can save those more easily.
	Eaters of Dead.
	Five bucks.
	Trump needs to do a 30 days of spontaneous social media appearances, specifically on the left.
	Talk directly to the American people.
	Give a final blow.
	Then we got Ronald Reardon.
	It was $5, and just thank you for the tip.
	Will the globalists unite against America and affect us on sanctions?
	Trade wars?
	How bad will it get?
	When will it happen if Trump actually wins?
	That is, Eaters of the Dead.
	The election is about sovereignty alone.
	Eaters of Dead.
	That was on the YouTube side.
	Now, if I get to the Rumble side here, Almanac says, holy shit, the shilling for RFK is getting obnoxious.
	Is this podcast sponsored by him or something?
	I think Almanac is missing the point there.
	Populous left.
	So it's the people that are like that that are in denial that are the reason why the left just won in France and UK.
	Because you're like, oh, I'm going to just bash the people on that side of the aisle and that will be a super genius strategy.
	It's idiocy like that chatter.
	That led to debacle.
	And if you want debacle here in the United States, well, good luck with that.
	But don't be, you know, that's politically retarded.
	There's no other way to put it.
	It's politically retarded.
	That chatters comment.
	So the, it's, you have to understand that the idea of taking popular ideas on the other side ideological where you align with some people.
	You can't say, oh, you can't say anything good about the populist left because that means you're saying something nice about some person on that side of the aisle.
	If you're caught in your little silo, you're going to get stuck there in minority position forever and you're never going to have power again.
	And just to highlight this as well, the reason why RFK Jr. is doing relatively well, whether or not you think it's 20% or 5%, the reason why he's doing well, A, I do agree, long format interviews and social media appearances, but B, It's because he's an alternative to Biden.
	And, you know, at the beginning, I was thinking, like, he's going to take votes from Biden, and he has.
	He's now at the point where you could risk taking votes from Trump if Trump continues to stubbornly ignore.
	Trump controls how many votes Kennedy gets from him.
	That's there in the polling data, that's there in the history, that's there in common sense application.
	And saying, well, don't talk about Kennedy or criticize Kennedy is not the solution.
	Nope. Adopt the good ideas of Kennedy.
	And that's probably a better solution.
	It's the simplest, easiest solution on the planet.
	You are free to do as we tell you, says the engaged shoe.
	That was from a while ago.
	V6 Neon.
	Okay, I'll start there.
	Liam Sturgis says, I'll be hanging out with Viva in Toronto in just under a week at the Rebel News Democracy Fund Journalism Conference.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Next week on the 12th.
	V6 Neon, the French Prime Minister has resigned.
	Both French and UK election winners both declare they recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
	I'm diabetic with a death wish.
	Comfort eating chocolate.
	And then we got King of Biltong, 100 bucks, says, thank you for highlighting our issues with the government.
	We want to get out of Roanoke, Texas, ASAP.
	We are also considering legal recourse.
	We appreciate all the support.
	Farnicator says, I'm officially retired.
	Wait until the economy crashes.
	I'm free.
	V6 Neon, the establishment rigged the French elections.
	Far left and Islamist riot and burns Paris tonight after the left win.
	In the UK, the Labour Party are in power when 80% of voters never voted for them.
	Shofar says it's the same establishment Republican playbook they used against the Tea Party.
	Torgo the White Barnes.
	Are the Chevron and Starkey SCOTUS decisions going to have any effect on the prosecution of the developers of the Samurai Bitcoin wallet for money laundering?
	State eroding financial privacy.
	JT, the real Donald T. It says, RFK Jr. is good on the defilement of the scientific process when it comes to COVID, but the same method has been used on the climate Ponzi scheme is lost on him.
	Yeah, that's fair enough.
	Streaming better on Rumble, says VJank58.
	And Liam Sturgis, in less than a week, I'll be hanging.
	Okay, good.
	I think I caught everything.
	I'm going to get to the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com chat in a bit.
	Okay, so that's the election front.
	That's Trump.
	Do we end this now?
	We'll end this on YouTube and Twitter.
	I will post the entire stream on Viva Clips.
	It used to be called Viva PPC because I use it for my PPC run.
	Then I put it to Viva something.
	It's Viva Clips now, but that's where I'll get the entire stream.
	Okay, let's do that.
	I don't have to remember how to do this.
	We're going to go to Rumble and Locals only.
	Everyone on YouTube, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Or Rumble.
	Actually, hold on.
	Before I do that, let me just make sure everybody's got the link because I think that's one of the things I forgot to do was pin it in the...
	Let's go Rumble.
	Sorry, guys.
	Here. And let's pin this to the top.
	And I'll give everyone the locals if you want to come directly over there in two seconds.
	And actually, before I even do that, locals, let me get a few of the...
	Robert, let me get a few of the...
	Tipped questions up in our Locos community.
	LocoLocomotive, five bucks.
	Hopefully this can be answered today at the Sunday show, putting it down since it's fresh in my mind.
	If Joe Biden drops out, gets replaced, he will be able to pardon his family?
	Or will that be up to whoever his replacement will be?
	He could pardon them before he officially ceases being president, Robert?
	Yes. Slim Shagan says, Trumpcarson.com has been activated.
	Didn't work before.
	It's the final countdown towards the Republican convention.
	Yes, it was registered in 2021, yet it ends in 0325.
	Trumpbergen.com was registered.
	I don't care about any of those except for Trump.
	Vance. That was from Slim Shagan.
	Mandelichi, five bucks is viva.
	You recommended...
	Oh, you commented on the Patriot front earlier.
	Look at this.
	It already passed the House and the Senate.
	And it's a bill in the United States Senate to amend...
	Prohibited unauthorized private paramilitary activity.
	Oh, Mandelichi, that sounds like what I was predicting in the stream, my vlog, that it'll allow the government to pass more laws.
	BruceBruce28 says, Viva, you're a wise man who understands the importance of being strong.
	Remember, getting off the toilet is a half squat because I love what Viva and Barnes do.
	I'm offering 12 weeks of online strength coaching to anyone who donates 500 bucks to the law center, 1776 Law Center.
	Just show me proof.
	Donate to a great cause and get stronger than you are now.
	Visit Bruce Trout Barbell Club and see if you're interested in my services.
	My goodness, this dog is wickedly annoying.
	Okay, you two get it.
	You can go up two, Winston.
	Yeah, I'm on the specific spot here in the not normal location.
	Go. And Jeanette Victoria says, I need some advice.
	How responsible is the person for the URLs they use to archive tweets at a webpage?
	This creep has been suing me for 10 years.
	We settle.
	Then he claims I have not kept our agreement.
	This time he says I was responsible for removing his archive tweets from archive.is, which is situated in Crimea.
	He fired his lawyer and has a motion to compel.
	Jeanette Victoria, get a lawyer.
	That's too complicated to answer here.
	Okay, I'm going to end this now on...
	YouTube and Twitter.
	Come on over Rumble and Locals as of now.
	Bam! Okay, Robert, what are we dealing with first in terms of SCOTUS decisions?
	Well, I mean, we could start off with a big one.
	I mean, there was a sort of close race for most popular.
	Most popular as usual was no favorites.
	They liked them all on our Locals board.
	But between Amos Miller and Trump immunity, may save the Amos Miller update for the Locals exclusive after party.
	So if you want to troll somebody, probably for the next 10 years that's on the left, just tell them.
	I was watching a soccer channel known as football around the world.
	And the guy was depressed over the U.S. losing in Copa America.
	But he was like, his whole life was terrible.
	And he started off with, the president has immunity.
	I thought he was about to cry.
	So it's obvious you can troll them with that.
	But that was the big, big decision of the week.
	I think it could have been a better decision.
	It came down pretty much as we predicted it was going to be.
	But we can break down the nature of the decision, its longer-term consequences, legal constitutional ramifications, and its immediate legal and political ramifications.
	That decision came down on Monday.
	That feels like it was a month ago.
	I forgot we haven't had a show since the immunity decision.
	All right, well, everybody knows what happened to the immunity decision.
	It was the logical decision.
	That is politically palatable to anybody who's not a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, vitriolic, anti-Trump, TDS-afflicted zombie.
	In that it was 6-3, Clarence Thomas had a great...
	Well, it was really 5-1-3, because Barrett limited her opinion so much that the real opinion is just the 5. Okay.
	Well, the 5 that is...
	Immunity for constitutional acts as president.
	No immunity for purely private acts.
	Presumptive immunity for anything that fits within the outer orbit of presidential conduct.
	Nobody on earth can have a problem with that decision.
	Like we both discussed, it should have been impeachment conviction if there's to be prosecution after he leaves office.
	Otherwise, it's just too easy to make the argument that something was within the outer ambit of presidential conduct, but it was actually a private act, so we get to sue him anyhow.
	Okay. Clarence Thomas came out with his concurring but separate opinion, casting doubt on the appointment of Jack Smith, which was an argument raised by one of the amokies, and I forget in which case.
	Trump has immunity for that which fits within his core constitutional duties as president.
	How does that get established by way of a test?
	How does that get established?
	Because someone said, all right, you can assassinate your rival.
	And then the answer is, well, only if that is within the core constitutional duties of a president.
	How do you even establish for that clear-cut, pure immunity, what is within the president's constitutional obligations or duties as president?
	So they read presidential immunity as implied under Article 2 because Article 2 vests all executive power in the office of the presidency.
	And that's where they got it, because immunity is not there.
	Now, the other alternatives they had...
	Were to say no presidential immunity, like the district court and the D.C. Court of Appeals had done, to grant impeachment-based immunity, which was my argument, but that was made a little bit belatedly by people on Trump's legal team.
	And then the argument, the conclusion they came up with, which was absolute immunity for constitutional acts.
	If he shares power with another branch of government, presumptive immunity, and they suggested that they might extend absolute immunity there as well.
	Essentially, if you can't sue the president, you can't indict the president because they borrowed most of the civil immunity language and legal principles in how they dealt with it.
	Now, to give an example as to, and they interpret it as necessary under Article 2 because all executive power vests in the president, And if the individual who occupies the office of the presidency can be compromised, extorted, blackmailed by threat of personal prosecution, then it can derail the ability of the office of the presidency to discharge its constitutional obligations.
	This was the exact same basis that they prohibited monetary suits against the president for civil damages.
	They said if the person occupying the office...
	He's going to worry about personal consequences of doing his job.
	He's going to quit doing his job.
	And that's why we need to interpret the clause, all executive power invest in the president, to include implicitly, by necessity, immunity from monetary suit and now criminal indictment.
	They hedged a little bit on the acts within, quote, the outer perimeter of the presidency.
	Where he shares duties with other branches of government.
	And they just said it's presumptively immune, but we may extend on absolute immunity.
	My guess is sooner or later, in fact, they do.
	Because they made it very difficult to breach that.
	They said any court that wants to say and act within the outer part of the perimeter of his duties, where he shares power with another branch of government.
	That you have to claim that indicting him on that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the office of the presidency ever.
	Well, that's an impossible burden to meet.
	So, functionally speaking, absolute immunity.
	If you can't sue him for it for monetary damages, you can't indict him for it.
	That's how the test is going to ultimately be applied.
	Now, let's talk about the impeachment alternative and why I thought it was a better policy solution and a better constitutionally rooted position.
	They take a lot of claims about, hey, at the time of our Constitution, there's no reference to impeachment applying outside of impeachment.
	Their interpretation is the ability to criminally indict the president referenced in impeachment after conviction is solely dealing with impeachment, has nothing to do with the power of criminal prosecution against.
	Now, the first flaw with that analysis is, as they admit elsewhere in their opinion, there's also nothing in there about presidential immunity.
	This precise question never came up.
	So saying, hey, you can't make a constitutional argument because there wasn't a discussion about it at the time, and then turning around and saying, oh, actually you can when we like it, when there's even less constitutional argument about it, shows the hypocrisy of the decision and what they're really disguising.
	The reason why I favored the impeachment remedy is it meant that a president who committed a crime, a serious enough high crime, Could be held criminally liable for it, regardless of whether it was within his duties or not.
	But it just required the political branch to reach such broad consensus about his behavior that he had to be both impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by more than two-thirds vote in the Senate.
	And that way, to me, that allowed the second benefit of that, just from a policy perspective, is it allowed the elected branches, the elected people's branches, to make the decision.
	Was this a high crime or not?
	Is this worthy of criminal prosecution or not?
	Now, what does it do?
	It takes that power away from a prosecutor to make that determination.
	It takes that power away from the judicial branch.
	It gives it to the legislative branch.
	And that was clearly a constitutional choice.
	And so, in my opinion, that was much more practical and politically much more sellable.
	Right? You tell people, no, the president's not immune.
	You just have to go through impeachment first before you can try him.
	That's all.
	That's a much better sound than, yeah, yeah, actually he is immune.
	Yep, yep, he can kill whoever he wants.
	Yep, he is.
	Because that's the new law of the land.
	We'll get to how far it goes and what it means in a second.
	But that's why the political solution made a lot more sense.
	Now let's look at the Constitution.
	Just actually before you get there, because one of the issues was that the lower courts had denied basically no immunity.
	But how did they reconcile that with judicial immunity, qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity?
	Because that's basically...
	There is an angle there.
	It's because criminal immunity is generally not granted to anybody.
	So that was a distinction they were making.
	And that's where no one is above the law language was coming from.
	Now, what they were really saying is they wanted the power to be in the hands of the state.
	And the executive branch and the judicial branch to make that determination.
	This was a power debate.
	Who has the power?
	And the courts were saying the prosecutors and the courts share that power.
	That's who has the power to determine when the criminal justice system can be used against the president.
	The Supreme Court limited that to a degree by mostly shifting the power from the prosecutorial branch to the judicial branch.
	Limiting how bad the judicial branch could abuse its power.
	So, for example, the constitutional reasons for impeachment is throughout the entire Constitution, there's only one place there's references to criminally prosecuting a president.
	And that was the impeachment clause.
	So, why not borrow the actual clause that actually addresses the question, at least in some manner?
	And they just dismissed that.
	I'll get to why they dismissed it.
	It's not the reasons they gave.
	And the other thing is, they have this carefully delegated differential power branches being given.
	And it's, okay, what happens when the executive branch is AWOL?
	When the president himself is the individual AWOL?
	What do we do about that?
	Well, they could have given it to the power of a future executive branch or a different executive branch at another government around the world.
	They chose not to.
	They could have given it to the judicial branch.
	They chose not to.
	They gave it to the legislative branch.
	And that's what the Supreme Court should have done.
	Because that's what our founding generation chose.
	But that's now done because they all ignored it, didn't want to go there.
	And the reason is simple.
	They want they, the judges, to determine.
	That's it.
	But they realized now, with the same reason been predicting now for a year, that this would happen.
	that the Supreme Court would ultimately radically reduce and restrict the ability of lawfare to be used against President Trump is because it made the judiciary look bad.
	So how do they keep the power in the hands of the judiciary to have the guillotine of criminal on the back of They reserve the right to adjudicate that for which you can and cannot be criminally prosecuted.
	Yeah, and what is they impose some limited standards.
	Like, okay, all you crazy judges that are abusing the system so bad for partisan purposes that you're making us as judges look bad.
	You're making the American judiciary look bad.
	You're reminding people why the judiciary was not chosen to have this power by the founding generation, and we want to have it.
	So we're going to put real strict limits on when you judges can exercise this power.
	And then they gave some examples.
	And I'm saying forever, all these ridiculous lawfare cases are going to put maximum pressure on Roberts and Kavanaugh to give Trump immunity at some level.
	They've got no choice because this is a disaster on the globe for the judicial branch.
	It's not because they care about Trump.
	It's that reason.
	I also said Barrett wouldn't be fully on board, and of course she wasn't.
	She would have mostly eviscerated the immunity decision in her concurrence.
	Because the dissent is because they're liberal democrats.
	If this had been Joe Biden, if this had been Barack Obama, if this had been Bill Clinton, they would have gone the other way.
	I mean, they're so politically motivated that if the case is partisan, they are going to be on the partisan side.
	Principle be damned.
	That's the new logic of the liberal left, sadly.
	You can get them on issues that are not so overtly political that they can actually rule, at least occasionally.
	Constitutional on some subset of issues.
	But not on this.
	But the net effect of it, the other big part of the decision they made, and I kept predicting this and kept getting blowback from it, I said they're going to try to do something to make all of the cases difficult.
	And they did.
	And the way they went there was to say you cannot use as evidence ever, at any level of a proceeding, any official act of the president.
	Or any conversation he has concerning that.
	So it's not just that you can't indict for it.
	You can't use it as evidence in a criminal case.
	Now, what does that do?
	That blows up every single case that exists.
	The Florida federal case.
	The grand jury was presented evidence based on what he did while he was president.
	They did things while he was after president, but they included things he did while he was president.
	That impugns that indictment.
	If I may stop you there, though, they'll say they included acts that were alleged while he was president, but they're just going to say those were purely private acts or purely personal acts, or if they fit within the outer ambit, that though presumptive, they can prove that they were not.
	So what they would have to show is that the evidence they're using, not just what the substance they're indicting him on, but the evidence they're using was not an official act.
	And the problem is, if you look at the evidence they used to secure the indictment in the first place, in every single case, Florida federal case, D.C. federal case, Georgia state case, New York state criminal case, New York state civil case, they used evidence of official acts.
	So I've been predicting now for almost a year that the New York criminal case would be thrown aside.
	Or put in doubt by the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity.
	And all the legal scholars, all the experts, oh, no, you know what you're talking about.
	And even the day after the opinion came down, I was like, this jeopardizes the New York case.
	And I was still getting blown up.
	What are you talking about?
	And what happened?
	Trump's team filed a letter explaining, by the way, Judge, remember when we brought that motion to eliminate to exclude evidence of Trump's official acts and you ultimately overturned our objection?
	And then they introduced a bunch of it, and then people publicly cited it as the critical evidence in the case.
	We've now got a mistrial.
	You've got to throw out the entire verdict.
	And the judge recognized, even this corrupt partisan judge, all of a sudden said, we're not going to be doing sentencing in July.
	We're not going to be doing sentencing until September.
	And he even goes out of his way to say, maybe never.
	If any.
	If any.
	Now, Robert, hold on.
	A lot of people are hypothesizing, theorizing.
	That Mershon knew that this case would be overturned on appeal.
	He wants to avoid a judicial embarrassment.
	He now gets to punch his pilot, wash his hands and say, I've got to throw out the verdict, but I'll blame it on SCOTUS.
	And so some people are hypothesizing, no, no, he put it off until September so he can jail Trump right before November.
	And others are saying, no, he put it off because he's going to have to overturn or set aside that verdict.
	But at least now he gets to blame SCOTUS for having to do that.
	This is my theory.
	Which one is more plausible?
	I have said all along that this case was purely political.
	And that his goal was to secure a jury conviction to impact the court of public opinion.
	And that was it.
	It went no further.
	And that his goal wasn't to lock him up.
	His goal wasn't to imprison him during the election.
	His goal wasn't to do any of those things.
	His goal was to impact the court of public opinion.
	That's why he rushed the trial.
	He rushed the trial knowing the Supreme Court was going to be making a decision.
	He wanted the verdict in before he had to vacate the verdict.
	And once they got the guilty verdict that went global, since the Biden campaign could run $100 million of ads and call him a convicted felon for forever, he had achieved the objective.
	Now he can back out of it without ever having a higher court say what he did was horrendous.
	And, you know, it's a classic political move.
	And if you know the New York courts in particular, they are some of the most political courts in America.
	When I represented Amy Cooper, the so-called Central Park Karen.
	Really, she was the Central Park person worried about somebody acting really weird and trying to kill her dogs, or seemed to be trying to kill her dogs.
	That's what it appeared to be to her.
	I researched in depth the New York courts, and I'd had experience in New York before to see how much it was still the case.
	They're the most political courts, the state courts in Manhattan, most political courts in the country by a long mile.
	They have unusual ways in which they get appointed, unusual ways in which they maintain power.
	They get peculiar ways in which cases get assigned.
	Mershon's job was critical, was the same from day one.
	It wasn't to lock Trump up.
	It was to convince the American public he's a convicted felon, so you can't vote for him.
	He's already achieved that.
	Now the Supreme Court has got him a get-out-of-jail-free card, and I suspect he's going to exercise it.
	He's going to say, golly gee, you know, I guess that crazy political Supreme Court has just made me throw out the case, everybody.
	Now I guess there'll never be an appeal to see whether what I did was right or wrong.
	And so I think that's where the New York case is going.
	I think it's heading towards a declaration of a mistrial.
	There'll be no sentencing.
	There'll be no imprisonment, is my prediction in that case.
	75% chance, guaranteed.
	One in four goes still crazy because they're crazy in New York.
	Now, the other part of the Supreme Court decision was the inestimable Clarence Thomas, the greatest justice on the Supreme Court, alive.
	He's probably out on his RV vacationing across America with his family.
	Unlike Barrett, he'll be going to southern cocktail parties or academic circles to say, oh, see how I'm so independent.
	You know, I'm not aligned with Thomas.
	I'm not aligned with Scalia like I lied to President Trump about.
	I'm what Mitch McConnell thought I was when he promoted me.
	I'm a corporate whore.
	That's what she is.
	She's a Southern aristocrat, a traitor to the conservative and constitutional cause, and will remain one as she's proven this term.
	But not Justice Thomas.
	He's going to be out in his RV with his wife, enjoying middle America, because he's one of the best ordinary, everyday Americans to ever occupy the power of Supreme Court justice.
	It's amazing when I went back and did the vlog and broke down Clarence Thomas's...
	What do you call that?
	It's not a concurring.
	It's an independent opinion.
	Yeah, it was a concurring opinion, yeah.
	Concurring because he agreed with the majority but wanted to highlight a specific issue.
	Much like he did...
	It was back when I think they declined to take up a Section 230...
	What is it called?
	Communication. To take the cert, yeah.
	And so he issued his own opinion as to how the 230 Communications Act can be challenged in the future.
	He issued his own opinion.
	But, Robert, before we get there, because we're using Rumble, and I want to show everybody how this works, and speaking of a good American who respects American values, I'm going to run it.
	We're going to do this.
	Look at this.
	Look at this, 1775 Coffee, people.
	It's time to say goodbye to Starbucks and say hello to Rumble's 1775 Coffee.
	Unlike other brands, this is a coffee that backs free speech and is unapologetic about it.
	Visit 1775coffee.com.
	Use the promo code STUDIO to get 15% off.
	We've got 20-some-odd thousand people watching now.
	Go do it, people, and use the promo code so that Rumble can see how effective...
	I should say not Rumble, but the advertisers can see how effective this new Rumble Advertising Center is.
	It's promo code STUDIO, 1775coffee.com.
	It's good.
	It's objectively great coffee.
	I will not go to Starbucks anymore for their crappy-ass burnt coffee.
	You've got to support a company that supports people who support free speech, supports companies that do and create the parallel economy.
	The coffee comes in medium and dark roasts.
	It comes in pea berry, which is similar to Kona coffee.
	And in other words, it's premium stuff.
	Click the link in the live chat.
	Go to the description.
	You can also go directly to 1775coffee.com.
	Use promo code studio to get 15% off today.
	Scan the code.
	It's right there.
	This new Rumble Advertising Center is...
	Absolutely glorious.
	Absolutely revolutionary.
	And thank Rumble and thank 1775coffee.com.
	It's delicious stuff.
	Go. Done.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Robert. Okay, so Clarence Thomas comes out.
	Do you remember what case it was?
	I was trying to fish it out.
	Which case was it where the...
	Two years ago.
	It was two years ago.
	And by the way, Robert...
	Do you know that we've been together for so long that there's people out there who don't know the Amy Cooper case?
	The Central Park Karen, the woman, a young white woman who I called it at the time had clearly had mental issues that was...
	That would explain why she reacted the way she did.
	She was called racist because she said, I'm calling the cops and saying there's an African-American man who's threatening me in the park.
	And everyone thought she was a total raging BITCH.
	And I said, that was the result of trauma, not the result of racism.
	And the guy was also saying, come here, doggy.
	I'm going to give you some food.
	If you're going to do something that I don't like, I'm going to do something that you're not going to like.
	Come here, doggy.
	It was a lifetime ago.
	Okay, so all that to say, the amici that called into question Jack Smith's The lawful capacity to act in this in the first place has now seen the ratification as in approval, not of the Supreme Court, but of Clarence Thomas, who has now laid the groundwork for what I suspect will be adopted by Judge Eileen Cannon in the Florida case.
	And Clarence Thomas came out and basically appropriated the argument in the amici that Jack Smith is a private citizen who was unlawfully appointed by corrupt Megan Garland.
	What's his first name?
	Merrick Garland.
	And that Merrick Garland basically bypassed congressional oversight, appointed a private citizen to an office that did not exist under any law, and that it's unlawful to begin with.
	I've asked you the question before, I know the answer, so I'll just ask and let you answer it again.
	If the argument is held to be legit, does it strike the indictments or does it just say we're going to find a new lawfully appointed...
	I don't even know if it's going to be a special counsel, but someone to carry this on.
	The indictments will stay until we find a replacement.
	If we don't find a replacement, then they ultimately die.
	What do you make of Clarence Thomas's roadmap?
	Who's going to adopt it?
	And what are going to be the consequences if any judge adopts it?
	Well, thanks to Jeff Clark and others who were raising this from the very beginning.
	It took them a little while to get the Trump world's attention on this.
	They ultimately got Ed Meese, who filed the amicus brief before the Supreme Court of the United States, and it started to get attention, got Thomas' attention, and he issued a concurring opinion saying it's quite obvious that Jack Smith is acting without legitimate constitutional government authority.
	And it's what prohibits a government janitor from going into a grand jury and indicting his next-door neighbor.
	It's that he does not have the constitutional authority to do it.
	So in order to have the power of the United States Attorney's Office and to even seek evidence from a grand jury, to ever seek indictment from a grand jury, to ever seek court assistance, In gathering evidence, in enforcing a grand jury subpoena, you have to be constitutionally appointed.
	And in order to be constitutionally appointed in that role, you need to be appointed by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate of the United States.
	That the past special counsels that have ever looked at anything, whether it was Mueller, whether it was Russiagate, whether it was going back to Plume and all of that during the W administration, They were someone who the Senate had appointed.
	I mean, the President appointed and the Senate had approved.
	Going through the approval and consent, appoint and consent, nominate and consent process.
	Jack Smith never has.
	He's never been appointed as a U.S. attorney anywhere.
	And yet, he is acting with all of the power of the Attorney General of the United States.
	And the problem is, they want to politically present Jack Smith as independent, apartial, apolitical.
	But when...
	Judge Cannon was like, well, where are you getting your money?
	Who's supervising it?
	And they're like, then, because for legal reasons, they need him to just be Garland's right-hand man, all of a sudden, oh, you know what?
	Garland's really running this whole thing.
	So the problem is Garland pretended he wasn't, and he pretended that Smith was.
	And if Smith was doing this, this is like the janitor indicting your neighbor, except now he's indicting.
	The former president of the United States and future president of the United States.
	And so to me, if he doesn't have authority, it's not a matter of whether he gets to try the case.
	He didn't have authority to indict the case.
	He didn't have authority to seek evidence in the case.
	Sometimes this is called ultra-virus.
	This is not fruits of the poisonous tree?
	It's both.
	But it's ultra-virus in that if you don't have authority to act...
	Then everything you did, you didn't have authority to do.
	And then that's how you get the fruits of the poisonous tree.
	If you have all this illegal unconstitutional behavior, you can't produce any evidence from it.
	So it not only requires he be removed from the case, it requires the federal indictments both be dismissed.
	And then it would raise an issue if they ever try to use any evidence that they gathered through this process.
	And the traditional rule of fruit of poisonous tree is you have to show you would have...
	You would have independently, organically got this evidence.
	There's a lot of evidence that's not true of.
	They breached the attorney-client privilege repeatedly due to the corrupt D.C. courts.
	They were not even, who should have been supervising this and never were.
	So, I mean, just because somebody shows up and says, I'm a U.S. attorney, I have the power to do this, you as a judge just say, okay, I guess anybody could blow a leaf across your desk and you'd sign it.
	That's what a disgrace the federal judiciary has become, the embarrassment.
	That forced the Supreme Court to extend immunity to President Trump.
	If anybody wants to blame anybody politically for that, blame themselves.
	The Democratic lawfare led to that outcome.
	Made it inevitable and escapable.
	It made Barrett's attempted compromise to eviscerate it politically ineffective.
	And so, in my opinion, if Judge Cannon agrees with this decision, and she's also already considering other motions to dismiss, For misconduct, for search warrant violations, for evidentiary violations, for attorney-client privilege violations, for grand jury abuse in D.C., grand jury abuse in Florida.
	I mean, it's extraordinary the scale and scope of corruption in the prosecution of President Trump in the name of prosecuting corruption.
	And not even to go to the selective prosecution, abuse of the Espionage Act, etc.
	I think it's almost inevitable.
	She's delayed all trial.
	There's no trial date now at all.
	So she's just going to handle the legal matters.
	And I think on some grounds, she's going to dismiss.
	That then puts pressure on the D.C. judge.
	The D.C. judge that now just got smacked around by the Supreme Court of the United States on immunity now has to go back and hold a whole hearing on that process.
	In my opinion, the indictment has to be dismissed if they ever included any official acts evidence.
	Before the grand jury.
	Well, we know they did.
	Based on what's already public knowledge.
	That means the indictment has to be dismissed on the immunity grounds.
	But she's going to have additional pressure for all the reasons that Cannon is going to dismiss the case.
	And if she corruptly rejects Cannon, then she's created another conflict that's going to get right up on appeal.
	Short answer, there's going to be no trial in Florida.
	There's going to be no trial in D.C. There's going to be no trial in Georgia.
	And sentencing is likely to get thrown out of New York.
	Which means, for the most part...
	The lawfare is in the rearview mirror for President Trump.
	Robert, what of the people who, I won't mention any specific names, who pleaded guilty in Georgia if it all gets tossed in Georgia?
	Now, Gouveia, his analysis was that all of these pleas are held, not in abeyance, but basically they will have no legal ramifications, no legal record after everything runs its course.
	But what of the ones who pleaded guilty in Georgia?
	Who will now see this turn out the way it's going to turn out in Georgia?
	So, I mean, the other cases may proceed, but I think it will be difficult.
	I mean, you already have the Georgia appeal issue of whether the prosecutor is a legitimate prosecutor.
	It's not going to be heard until October.
	So that case is slow-paced anyway.
	But I think the case against Trump has to be dismissed.
	And then the issue is, Mark Meadows' case should be dismissed.
	The case against Jeffrey Clark absolutely should be dismissed.
	It also raises questions about the D.C. bar prosecution of Jeffrey Clark.
	So they've cited evidence that concerns conversations and communications between the president and his staff and amongst each other, the Justice Department, which was specifically cited by the Supreme Court as being the kind of things that can never be evidence.
	Well, if they can never be evidence, then can't they never be evidence?
	Right? Doesn't that mean that the disbarment proceeding against Jeffrey Clark is illegal and unconstitutional and violates the president's immunity?
	And so even though the president himself isn't the subject of it, I mean, if you can completely circumvent the exclusion, the evidentiary exclusion of official communication by just indicting the recipient of it, by just trying to disbar and punish the recipient of it, then you completely eviscerate the principle and its protection, right? So it seems to me that there's a good argument.
	That a lot of these lawfare cases are now unraveled.
	And it's all because they went too far politically and forced the courts out of political embarrassment to save the courts from themselves by extending these various principles.
	But I think the accumulative addition is that Trump can see the lawfare in his rearview mirror.
	But to the degree that there's any doubts, one of the last vestiges left.
	Is the gag order being imposed by the New York judge, which, while more limited, is not as limited as it should be.
	And that has been the preface and predicate for the state of Missouri to sue the state of New York in the Supreme Court of the United States for unconstitutional election interference.
	Now, before we get there, Robert, one last question.
	Oh, Judge Eileen Cannon, there were people calling for her impeachment because of her...
	Treatment of Trump in Florida, which was not even pro-Trump.
	It was almost just borderline fair.
	She's now been given impeachment protection as a result of SCOTUS.
	She can dismiss everything that's going on in Florida and good luck trying to impeach her.
	That's a fair decision.
	Well, I mean, they can threaten to impeach her, but the Senate's not going to convict.
	So it's not a realistic political risk.
	Okay. And...
	Before we get to the next question, Robert, let me just do a bunch of crumble rants.
	Patriots.win wants to know, how far back does non-compos mentis invalidate Biden's actions?
	Real question.
	They'll never be able to invalidate anything he ever did, right, Robert?
	Then we got Kimi B. Our government just helped France steal an election and that's it.
	That's all, folks.
	It's not rocket science.
	It's 2020 all over again.
	Am I wrong, Barnes?
	Robert, what do you think?
	We'll see.
	Okay, we got Randy Edward.
	My understanding presidential immunity is courts are to assume immunity, but plaintiff is free to appeal the ruling to SCOTUS for determinations extending innocence until proven guilty to executive...
	Yeah, we covered that.
	It's close enough.
	Contact Trump for a consultation meeting at Mar-a-Lago.
	He needs your opinion, says First Based.
	Visited Amos Miller's farm on the 4th.
	The atmosphere was much different than the last time I was there.
	Everyone seemed much happier.
	Amos was very confident for the future.
	Thank you, Robert Barnes.
	Space Target.
	Thanks, Viva.
	Found you.
	This year, thanks to Salty Cracker.
	Keep up the good work.
	Oh, I'm still kicking myself from last week.
	I accidentally sent our Lincoln locals to Salty's chat and not ours.
	WonderWriter74, Vivan Barnes, have you heard of the Michigan Department of Agriculture as doing to the Nourish Co-op?
	Robert, have you heard that?
	Yeah, that's the case we've talked about.
	That's the Michigan co-op that was raided, ordered to destroy a lot of their food.
	It's the same pattern of what they did to Amos Miller.
	We're still litigating that in the case of Amos Miller.
	I hope that people in Michigan, if it's appropriate for them, pursue legal remedy and relief.
	But what it shows is that this is operating in scale.
	This is part of a broader pattern to come.
	It's another reason why I think it is in Trump's best political interest.
	It's most importantly in America's best interest, but I do believe it's in Trump's best political interest, to get on top of food freedom now, because this issue is only going to grow.
	I mean, it led to the overthrow of the Dutch government.
	I mean, it's a huge issue across the globe.
	You know, I know he's got some big donor pals that are big corporate agriculture, that want to wipe out small farms in the country.
	I know Bill Gates goes around bragging about he smacked Trump around.
	When Trump was considering doing a vaccine committee with Robert Kennedy in charge, and Gates brags about how easy it was for him to push Donald Trump around.
	People should share that little clip with him, just to remind him of what Bill Gates has been saying.
	One of the people that's coordinating and conspiring against President Trump from the very get-go and the inception.
	But this is why food freedom is very popular, and it's going to get more and more popular, and it's going to matter to more and more people.
	It doesn't matter.
	I'm talking about Trump, but everybody.
	You're running for city council.
	You have impact on food freedom in your local community.
	County commission.
	Local judge.
	Local DA.
	State representative.
	State senator.
	United States congressman.
	United States senator.
	These are popular, popular issues.
	Jump on them.
	This is a no-brainer.
	Just side with the American people's right to buy food directly from a farmer without regard to government intervention.
	Without the corporate monopolist having control.
	Robert? That'll be part of it.
	Not that I'm fact-checking you in real time.
	I want to hear what this guy says.
	You ever wonder what people who've actually met Donald Trump, especially powerful, successful people in American business, who've had to try and interact with him because he's a leader of the free world?
	This guy, I don't know what his name is.
	I forget what his name is.
	He's the male version of Rachel Maddow, or as some might say, the other male version of Rachel Maddow.
	Let's say about those encounters behind closed doors.
	All In has obtained some never-before-seen footage that gives you a good idea of what one of the wealthiest men in the world, Bill Gates, thinks of the president.
	Bill Gates took questions during a recent Gates Foundation meeting with staff, and he talked about meeting Donald Trump.
	Here's what he had to say.
	I haven't heard this, Robert.
	Yeah, so I never met Donald Trump before he was elected.
	There was a thing during the election where he and I were at the same place and I avoided him.
	Anyway, then he got elected and so I went to see him in December.
	He knew my daughter Jennifer because Trump has this horse-show thing down in Florida.
	In fact, he went up and talked to Jen and was being super nice.
	And then, like 20 minutes later, he flew in in a helicopter to the same place.
	So clearly he had been driven away.
	Anyway... So when I first talked to him, it was actually kind of scary how well he knew, how much he knew about my daughter's appearance.
	But Melinda...
	Robert, first of all, I'm going to pause it here.
	Is this the clip?
	Yeah, yeah, it is.
	Okay, and second of all, I'm going to say a little confession through projection.
	Bill Gates is the one hanging out pally-pally with Jeffrey Epstein, talking about how he thinks Trump is noticing his fucking daughter.
	What a sick...
	You can see what a sneaky, nasty guy this is.
	I'm sorry.
	He knew so much about my dog.
	What a weird thing to impute to sort of, what's the word, project onto somebody else.
	Okay, fine.
	Let's just hear where this goes.
	Oh, God, I hate his voice.
	Okay, I'll shut up.
	Too well.
	Anyway, so I saw him in Trump power.
	I said, hey, science and innovation is a great thing.
	You should be a leader who drives.
	And that conversation was about a broad set of things.
	In energy, in health, in education.
	You know, pick things you want to do that are big.
	HIV vaccine, you could, you know, accelerate that.
	Be associated with innovation.
	And then the second time I saw him was the march after that.
	So March 2017 in the White House.
	In both of those two meetings, he asked me if vaccines weren't a bad thing, because he was considering a commission to look into ill effects of vaccines, and somebody, his name is Robert Kennedy Jr., was advising him that vaccines were causing...
	And I said, no, that's a dead end.
	That would be a bad thing.
	Don't do that.
	Both times he wanted to know if there was a difference between HIV and HPV.
	So I was able to explain that those are rarely confused with each other.
	Oh, but wait, there's more, including how President Trump talks about himself next.
	Robert, that's wild.
	Hold on, let me just escape and refresh.
	What year was that?
	That's 2017.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And so he's been taking credit ever since then that he killed the Kennedy Commission on vaccines that President Trump had promised in the 2016 campaign.
	And so that's who Bill Gates is.
	He's also the number one purchaser of farmland in the United States of America, even though he doesn't believe in farming.
	He's also the one whose wife divorced him because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and the things that they were doing.
	He's the leader on...
	If you wanted to look at the control grid, big tech, big food, big pharma, big Hollywood and big media, etc., you don't find any single individual more at the center of it than Bill Gates.
	Bill Gates is big tech, Microsoft, etc.
	Bill Gates is big food.
	He has massive investment in it all over the place.
	He's the number one producer, or was the number one producer of alternative meats.
	In other words, not meat.
	He's the guy out there saying we need to get rid of cows.
	And if you want to talk about Big Pharma, he's the number one pusher of vaccines and pharmaceuticals, was number one pusher on all the COVID lockdown politics, number one pusher of the vaccines and the COVID vaccine mandate.
	This guy should be eat.
	Persona non grata, enemy number one, is Bill Gates of Freedom in America.
	And he's still going out there bragging, and you can see all the snide shots he's taken at Trump over the years, and bragging that he was able to stop Trump from putting together the commission to investigate vaccines back in 2017.
	This is before the COVID vaccine disaster.
	It may have been all avoided had Trump kept his campaign promise.
	And he let people like Bill Gates weasel him out of it.
	And this is a guy who backstabs him all the time, who tells swarmy, scuzzy lies about him on a regular basis.
	And so food freedom is one of those issues, medical freedom, etc.
	These are very popular issues.
	More people should run on it.
	More people should campaign on it.
	We're seeing it as more universal.
	And what happened to that question in Michigan?
	It's going to happen more places.
	I mean, Idaho farmers are having to struggle for basic rights to water.
	Oregon farmers are almost going to be turned off until they brought a big political protest.
	European farmers had massive protests across the globe.
	They're still trying to shut down Amos Miller in Pennsylvania.
	I mean, they illegally imprisoned two farm workers in Pennsylvania.
	They're going after other Pennsylvania farmers and the Amish on other issues.
	That every little thing in their lives is being looked at under a microscope.
	So, you know, this is a top issue for freedom if you care about freedom, but it's also a political winning issue for somebody that's savvy and smart.
	I was just about to say something funny, but now I forgot my joke.
	It doesn't matter.
	I paused you before.
	Missouri versus New York.
	Yeah, here we go.
	Missouri AG sues New York.
	By the way, so this is the New Republic.
	Okay, take it for what it's worth, because I love the framing.
	This is your institutional, conservative, federalist society, the kind of people who love Amy Coney Barrett.
	They're framing it in the header that it's a baseless lawsuit, but it's actually exactly, unless I'm mistaken, Robert, it's basically applying mutatis mutandis, the argument raised by Joe Nierman Goodlogic in his New York challenge to the gag order.
	We want to hear what Trump has to say.
	Missouri AG sues New York for the dumbest reason.
	He's accusing the New York state of violating Missouri residents' First Amendment rights.
	Missouri Attorney General Bailey filed a lawsuit Wednesday against New York state, alleging that the gag orders placed on Donald Trump during the hush money trial constituted election interference.
	The lawsuit alleged that Trump's gag orders...
	And impending sentencing, which was recently postponed, illegally interfered with the elections in other states, violated the Purcell principle, you're going to have to get to that in a second, and violated the First Amendment rights of citizens of Missouri, quote, to listen to the campaign speech of a specific individual on specific topics.
	I want to highlight that, only to give Joe Nierman good logic with a shout-out.
	Robert, what the hell is the Purcell principle?
	Oh, that was if the Supreme Court said don't interfere with an election on the eve of an election in terms of judicial acts.
	And so the point, now this goes back to the 2020 suit, that if there's a dispute between the states, then there's only one court in the country that has jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So they filed motion to file a leave to file a suit in the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court dodged that one, in my view, incorrectly.
	We'll see if they dodge this one.
	But at least somebody is stepping up.
	And I understand election integrity sounds dumb to the National Republic.
	I understand the First Amendment sounds dumb to the National Republic because these William F. Buckley acolytes are part of the corrupt corporate establishment on the conservative side that just led to the implosion of the Tories in the United Kingdom.
	If you want to be out of power forever, listen to the idiots at the National Republic.
	They, in 2016, did a big Never Trump publication.
	I don't take any of them seriously.
	They're not serious intellectuals.
	They're political hacks, corporate whores.
	That's who and what they are.
	It's who and what they'll always be.
	And if you ever deal with them intellectually, they're inferior.
	They just are.
	You talk to anybody that has real-life experience.
	Talk to a farmer.
	Talk to a plumber.
	Talk to a mechanic.
	Talk to a ship worker.
	They are a lot smarter.
	Though they don't get the fancy letters and the degrees.
	So the suit is, hey, you're the Supreme Court of the United States.
	You're the ones that have original jurisdiction.
	This is about the presidential election.
	So where else are we supposed to go to get revenue relief?
	Look at what the New York courts are doing.
	They're interfering in the election.
	They are prohibiting President Trump.
	So their first point on the Purcell principle is they're doing exactly what you Supreme Court say nobody should do.
	Nobody has the authority to interfere in the election on the eve of the election.
	Well, that's exactly what...
	And how are they doing?
	Well, in Missouri, their electors are not bound.
	So their electors can vote for whoever they want, that they're not governed by the state's limitations.
	And those electors signed affidavits and declarations in support of Missouri's action, saying they want to hear from President Trump, including on what is a very hot political question, and his qualifications for the presidency, according to Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden says the New York case...
	Is what the reasons why you can't elect President Trump are.
	He's running $100 million worth of TV ads as we speak on that basis.
	And they're like, well, we need to hear President Trump's side.
	And the gag order prohibits him from presenting his side.
	And we're supposed to decide as electors whom we vote for.
	And we're being limited to make a critical decision in the Electoral College about who to vote for because of the gag order.
	So they're interfering with an election in violation of the Purcell principle.
	They're interfering with an election in violation of Article 2, which establishes this is how presidential elections are being done.
	They're trying to rig it by locking up one of the candidates and gagging him for being able to speak on the campaign trail during the campaign.
	And third, they're violating the First Amendment rights of the people of Missouri, who have a right to hear from the president about issues impacting the campaign and his potential presidency.
	And they're like, this is patent violation.
	And because the New York courts are sticking their head in the sand and refusing to enforce the Constitution, that means the only remedy for anybody that's not in the state of New York is to get remedy from the Supreme Court of the United States.
	What happens when the branch violating your constitutional rights and liberties is the judicial branch itself?
	Well, if it's Missouri, the branch, you've got to go to a federal branch.
	In this case, the Supreme Court is the only branch that has original jurisdiction.
	And at least they're bringing these issues directly to them, and they're going to force them to either run and hide or deal with them, because this is an unconstitutional gag order.
	And it highlights its unconstitutional character by bringing this action.
	And I think more states should bring it.
	I think a lot of them got intimidated by the Supreme Court playing Pontius Pilate and onstanding refusing to get involved in the 2020 election.
	And then three of them were willing to get involved, and then Barrett was the fourth one who refused to vote yes.
	Right after the election, at least take up the issues.
	But the analysis is still correct.
	The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
	This is clearly a constitutional conflict.
	It's impacting the most important election in the world.
	The Supreme Court should be the court to take it up like our Constitution authorized them to.
	Do I think they will?
	No, I think they're cowards.
	But if they do, then the state of Missouri will win and this gag order will end.
	Robert, I put it on mute just because I'm screen recording the Bill Gates thing.
	I don't know if you can hear it because I think it's a directional microphone.
	So they're faulting.
	The Missouri guy, the Missouri Attorney General has been very proactive in terms of going after the lawfare against Trump.
	What other states and why are not other states doing the same thing?
	What other states should be doing it and why are they not doing it?
	Some other states have joined in filing amicus briefs.
	Before federal Judge Cannon.
	And then the federal case before Judge Cannon.
	But I think they should have intervened.
	They should have taken GoodLogic's lead and made the same request in the state court in New York.
	They should have looked at filing.
	Now, they couldn't file in federal court in New York.
	They had only filed the Supreme Court.
	But I think more of them should have joined the Supreme Court Act.
	So they've spoken out, but not in the most effective manner legally.
	And Dershowitz finally came around to what?
	I've been arguing.
	GoodLogic had been arguing.
	Everybody that's out there should intervene in the New York case who can, who has any kind of standing to do so, to make it clear to the judges there and ultimately higher courts, this is a severe constitutional violation.
	These gag orders are all in constitution.
	They're prior restraint.
	They're in violation of the First Amendment.
	There's no basis for it under protecting judicial integrity.
	That's garbage.
	And hopefully...
	This case will make good precedent down the road, but while it's happening, Americans' First Amendment rights are being violated.
	And remember, even under their very limited interpretation now of standing under the First Amendment by the Supreme Court, they said if it's a specific speaker you're not allowed to hear from, then you still have a right to listen that's constitutionally protected.
	That's why the Missouri language is framed and phrased the way it is.
	It says this is a specific speaker.
	We want to hear from that a state actor, the state of New York, through its judicial system, is prohibiting us from hearing from on this topic on a critical election.
	Robert, let me do a few more of the rumble rants and then we'll get some tips in our locals community.
	King of Biltong says we have 21 acres on the island of 344 on the land.
	Sorry. This is in Texas.
	We plan on operating a flagship store and move our manufacturing there as soon as possible.
	It's in the county.
	No city nonsense.
	King of Biltong, have you considered moving to Wichita Falls?
	There's an excellent community of folks escaping from blue oppression from up there.
	Barnes probably knows why you mispronounce Chomos.
	Is it C-Homos or is it Chomos?
	I pronounce it Chomos because it's Hebrew and it looks like Chumus.
	I don't know what it is.
	Nifranziel, patriots.win.
	I think I got this.
	Yeah, we got that.
	Robert, and then I'll get...
	Let me take this out and just get some of the...
	Yeah, too.
	People point out that the article actually came from the New Republic, which also sucks.
	Compared to the National Review, but the National Review also sucks.
	I think the New Republic might suck even harder than the National Review.
	I love the framing.
	The framing was just gloriously biased.
	I'm going to go to the bottom and then scroll up and get some of the tips here in our locals community.
	On the question of non-Compus Mentis, we got that one from Pasha Moyer.
	The question is perhaps not what will be done.
	Perhaps we should rephrase the question as to how far back in time should his decisions be invalidated.
	It won't happen.
	Spam Ranger, five bucks.
	How about Barnes Law putting a nail in the documents case by borrowing from my materials and filing an amicus brief against the indictment?
	My pro se brief might be a good starting point.
	Spam Ranger, I'll screen grab it.
	Escape here.
	Beavis Wallace says, was the Supreme Court's bucket suggestion for presidential immunity the standard for Nixon impeachment?
	If not, would this decision...
	Would this decision have given Nixon immunity?
	This decision, Robert, it would have given Nixon presumptive immunity.
	I understand things.
	I'm not that thick.
	We've got to scroll up.
	We've got Finboy Slick, a nice meme here.
	Going up, going up.
	Five bucks from JMO2.
	Just trying to extrapolate the presidential immunity consequences.
	This means the president can't be impeached unless it's a high crime or misdemeanor.
	But the high crime or misdemeanor can use any official acts as evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
	So after this decision, when could a president be impeached?
	Or am I understanding it wrong?
	There's no impact on impeachment.
	He could have previously been impeached.
	He can still be impeached.
	But now he cannot be criminally prosecuted, even if he's impeached.
	If he's impeached and convicted, he still can't be criminally prosecuted.
	If it's within the presidential acts.
	Yeah, within the outer perimeter of his duties.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to point to you.
	That's very rude, Robert.
	He can be impeached and convicted for something that's not a crime if we're following the last precedent, but then he couldn't be...
	I mean, not constitutionally.
	No, but then he certainly couldn't be criminally prosecuted for an impeachment that was not a high crime in his demeanor or other high crime.
	Okay. So where do we move on to now if I'm totally lost?
	So the fallout is most of the legal lawfare will be over against President Trump, but that also means, like people are still talking about indicting Biden when Trump gets in.
	No, that's not possible now.
	Pretty much all that would be an official act.
	Well, that's true now.
	So even if Biden gets impeached and convicted for weaponizing the DOJ, because it's a constitutional presumptively or...
	Nothing and no communication can ever be the subject of any criminal investigation or criminal indictment.
	So hold on, Robert.
	If I can get really tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, did this decision of immunity protect Biden?
	Well, yeah.
	And also who the establishment people were worried about.
	It protects Bush, protects Obama, protects Clinton, protects everybody.
	Because when Obama killed that American citizen, the 16-year-old kid, it was within the arguably...
	They'd have to make an argument it was purely personal, but good luck with that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah. I mean, if you look at...
	People can look at the civil cases to see what they consider personal.
	Motive is irrelevant.
	It's... Is what he did something that's within the constitutional power of the presidency?
	And waging war is within the constitutional power of the presidency.
	And everything goes with it.
	Now, you could argue about there should be congressional limitations and so forth.
	But practically speaking, anything that a president does is now beyond the reach of the criminal law.
	I mean, unless it's as egregious as...
	Oh, I don't think even being egregious wouldn't matter.
	It needs to be truly personal.
	Something he never could have or would have done unless he was president.
	Robert, this is not a confession.
	Remember in the defamation context, what they've interpreted is official.
	They've interpreted making statements about your divorce is an official act.
	Making statements about your neighbor is an official act.
	Making statements about random strangers on the internet on your social media account, official act.
	I know who you're talking about.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That scale is massive.
	Anybody that's reviewed it knows that when you parallel the two, there's immunity for pretty much everything.
	I get that the D.C. judge may ignore that.
	Jack Smith may ignore it.
	Try to pretend they can go forward.
	Jack Smith says he's going to keep prosecuting even after the election.
	I get all that.
	They're not getting the message.
	That they're supposed to be done.
	And if they're not done, they're going to get whacked even harder by the Supreme Court.
	But if you understand where the court was coming from and the history of that doctrine applied in the civil context, you would know it is almost impossible to sue a president for monetary damages where this kind of immunity is given.
	You would also know it's almost impossible now to indict the president for almost anything.
	It would have to be something.
	I was on a beach.
	I saw somebody, you know, and I shot him in the head, right?
	I mean, it's got to be, like, way, way outside of presidential duties and tasks.
	Something that would have happened even if you'd never been president.
	I just, you know, I don't know what Jack Smith is into, but he might not mind getting whacked harder by some members of the Supreme Court.
	No, but I was going to make the joke, like, pull up Christy Nome again, like...
	If Biden kills his dog, can it be animal cruelty?
	And he'll say, well, no.
	I took the dog onto the front lawn and shot him in the head with a shotgun because he bit Secret Service and therefore it's within the presidential...
	I mean, if you're going to go with, like, I didn't like my food so I killed the chef because that was...
	That might be the one...
	That might be the line.
	Even that one, no.
	If you look at civil suits, this has arisen in the civil suit context.
	And they've found immunity pretty much every time.
	Holy hell.
	Okay. I mean, it's fantastic, hilarious, cynical, dark, and I'm not so happy with that decision anymore.
	All right.
	What do we move on to now, Robert?
	So we have Biden's LNG exports getting banned.
	Here's a ban attempt getting blocked.
	Vaccine mandate jury verdicts.
	Amos Miller.
	Social media.
	I would say here's the suing agencies.
	We got to wrap up SCOTUS because this is the last week of this term of SCOTUS.
	Won't have much news on SCOTUS until October now.
	We go through, you know, it's mostly election season we're transitioning into and whatever other legal cases come up in that context.
	But we got cert denials that, you know, Gorsuch descended from one, Thomas descended from a couple, Jackson descended from one.
	We've got their big social media decision, the ability to sue agencies.
	And then we'll save the Biden LNG export ban, the vaccine mandate, jury verdict, and the Amos Miller case for the after party.
	So we'll probably wrap up here with SCOTUS.
	But we got a lot of SCOTUS.
	Okay, so I just kicked a dog in the head by accident because he's under the table.
	Immunity. Robert, you're pretending to be Joe Biden.
	It's terrible, it's funny, but it's not funny.
	No, do the Amos now while we have the most massive audience so that the world can know about it.
	And then do the bang, bang, bang because, look, I started reading some of them.
	I'm not saying I got bored, but I got distracted.
	And then we'll bring over the after party on the locals.
	The potentially disturbing decision is the social media decision.
	Give us the Amos Miller update now because locals is going to get it regardless.
	We've got massive people watching on Rumble.
	What's the Amos Miller?
	Everybody knows, if you don't know it, we're not going to summarize it right now.
	Before we even get into the Amos Miller, if you can, update us on the veterinarian practitioners, the two gentlemen who were locked up for a week or, no, it was a month.
	They're out.
	Is there any update you can give us on those guys?
	Not yet.
	The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said moot.
	And so they dodged the issue.
	So we're probably going to have to file a federal civil rights suit at some point.
	Moot because they've been released.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They delayed hearing it until after they released and then decided to hear it and called it moot.
	So that tells me the Pennsylvania courts are probably not going to be an answer, unfortunately.
	We're probably going to have to look at federal courts.
	But the federal courts have been very erratic in Pennsylvania, sadly, on constitutional liberty.
	Unless we can get base Judge Stickman out in Pittsburgh.
	But there's no jurisdiction there for Pittsburgh.
	Stickman, he ran the first favorable decision under the COVID lockdowns.
	I forget what it had to do with a COVID lockdown.
	But he documented what a fraud it was very early on.
	All that.
	Fantastic. Really one of the best.
	Stickman for SCOTUS.
	We'll get it one day.
	Absolutely. So what's up with the Amos Miller?
	So Amos Miller is the Amish farmer who's been prosecuted, persecuted, harassed by the Pennsylvania.
	Well, first by the FDA, they dropped it, then by Pennsylvania, and they don't relent.
	So what's the latest going on there?
	So the Amos Miller has been operating, he's an Amish farmer in Lancaster County, but it's actually pronounced Lancaster, there in the local community, as they reminded me.
	It has been a dairy farmer and other form of farming for a quarter century.
	One of the most popular, successful farmers, small farmers anywhere in the world.
	It has delivered millions of food products to tens of thousands of Americans.
	During that time period, as the government itself has admitted from the stand, their own officials, there has never been a single complaint, single complaint of any kind.
	By any consumer of Amos Miller's food about any aspect of it.
	Not the packaging.
	Not the labeling.
	Not the quality.
	Not causing illness.
	Nothing. They don't have any complaint.
	He has the highest consumer satisfaction rate of any small farmer operating at scale in the last quarter century in America.
	He's a fifth generation Amish farmer in Pennsylvania.
	His papa farmed, his grandpapa farmed, his great-grandpapa farmed, and his great-great-grandpapa farmed.
	Despite that, the state of Pennsylvania has been waging a holy war against him for the better part of a year.
	They went into his farm, seized all of his food, ordered all of his food destroyed, then ordered him shut down.
	Went to a state court judge and demanded the state court judge shut him down.
	And effectively shut him down in such a way that he would be bankrupt and out of business.
	And they were making jokes in their internal emails and communications with...
	Them and some other outside agitators, some corporate whores that work at places like Penn State University, they were showing Amos Miller, the Amish farmer, in handcuffs.
	They were going to bankrupt him, they were going to foreclose on him, they were going to take his farm, and they were going to put him in jail.
	So we have been fighting that case now for six months, the state case.
	Ultimately, we got the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.
	To reject the state of Pennsylvania's position as it related to food being sold outside the state borders.
	That he's still prohibited from selling within the state borders, but he is permitted to sell outside the state's borders because that's how the law actually reads in Pennsylvania.
	And again, the only basis has always been the government's asserting that you have to get a permit to sell any food, and the nature of getting that permit requires you to forfeit not only your rights, Your right, your First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, or Sixth Amendment rights, but also that you forfeit producing most of the food that you produce.
	In other words, their idea of licensing food is an agreement, voluntary agreement, to not make 95% of the food you make.
	It's one of the most ridiculous licenses of all time.
	So we went in front of the judge.
	They went back and begged the judge to change his mind.
	He said no.
	Most recently, they went back and begged the judge to change his mind a third time.
	Demanding that he shut down Amos Miller immediately.
	The judge turned that down this week.
	The judge said, nope.
	The law and the court cases are all on the side of Amos Miller.
	Now their next step will be to go beg to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is the appellate division of this issue, and beg them to try to stop, shut down Amos Miller.
	Because that's how nuts they are.
	And it's the commonwealth of the judges on the commonwealth court that illegally imprisoned two farm workers because the state government blew a leaf across his desk asking them to do it in the sense of the lack of due process that was followed in that case.
	So this is going to be a continuous battle.
	It's never going to stop realistically until we get legislative reform in all likelihood.
	That even when the courts show them that they're wrong, even when the law overwhelmingly shows that they're wrong, even when the court of public opinion says they're wrong, they're going to do everything possible to prohibit people from using the Amish exit ramp of food freedom in order to be free from the Bill Gates dystopian control grid.
	And these bureaucrats are out of control in Pennsylvania, but they're not going to stop.
	And it's similar to what the state of Michigan saw what Pennsylvania did.
	What did they do?
	They go into the Nourish Cooperative, grab all their food, and order it all be destroyed overnight.
	The food they did not prove was in any way unfit for human consumption.
	This is why we need a right.
	We might already have it, but since these bureaucrats are not respecting it, we need more direction from the legislative branches to make crystal clear.
	That you have a right to get food directly from the farmer without government permission.
	In this case, what we're also currently litigating is that food destruction order.
	And we're going to be filing our opposition on Monday to the government's effort to destroy a bunch of the food that they, in my view, illegally seized in the first place.
	And like what they're doing in Michigan.
	It'll be one of the first cases of food destruction ever litigated in Pennsylvania courts or in America.
	That this is very rare.
	That this happens.
	But it's becoming real common real fast.
	Because they want a complete control of our bodies.
	Control what food we're allowed to have access to.
	Control what medicines go into our body.
	And by doing so, they own us.
	Government owns your body.
	You're chattel.
	You're no different from a slave.
	It's the legal definition of a slave.
	And so that's what their goal is.
	And they're doing it by going after Amos Miller and the Amish community.
	And thanks to all the people that have continued to support Amos Miller.
	To keep him afloat financially when they've waged these repeated and recurrent legal wars on him that have cost tons of money to defend.
	And we've been able to do it at a very discounted legal fee basis to keep him afloat and not go broke at the same time ourselves.
	And Amos got a new special July 4th Preserve America fundraiser for 1776 Law Center supporting his case.
	He's made some great goat soap.
	Awesome. Yeah, and that stuff smells particularly...
	Goat's milk soap smells the most delicious of all soaps.
	He's got a special mint thing because he's got a little mint farm right there on the property.
	And you can get that at amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	It's also up on my Twitter feed.
	It's also up at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Basically, what you're giving is mostly a donation, but you get a really cool product in the process.
	It's an above average.
	Donation gift response.
	So you can make that available to everybody to help us continue to crowdfund.
	And I definitely recommend going to amosmillerorganicfarm.com to get what you can, because they're going to keep trying to shut him down.
	So stock up now, given who knows what's next from the government harassment.
	He continues to be the front of all of this, the template for all of this, the tip of the spear.
	For all of this.
	Amos Miller's rights are our rights to our food, to our freedom, to our bodies.
	And so supporting him supports yourself as well as supporting America.
	Robert, I'm just checking the journalists on an article here.
	Before we head on over...
	Well, there might be another one.
	I just want to bring this one up because I'm not sure...
	Oh, there's some SCOTUS ones we should probably go through first.
	Okay. So maybe we'll save this.
	Read the headline.
	Radio station parts ways with the host who interviewed Biden with questions.
	She got fired after disclosing that they gave her the questions to read.
	And I'm not sure if she was fired because she violated ethics or because she released some information she shouldn't have.
	We'll get to that in the after party.
	Okay, so do the bang, bang, bang on the SCOTUS.
	Sorry, the SCOTUS.
	No, because I also had a tweet about Fetterman talking about how Joe Biden beat Trump's ass in 2020.
	So never mind that.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Well, Fetterman would know.
	I mean, Pennsylvania was ground zero for how to steal an election.
	So Supreme Court, it's the really troublesome social media decision is the biggest one.
	So for those who don't know, this is the case.
	We've been covering this from the very inception.
	State of Florida and the state of Texas both passed laws trying to limit the big social media monopolies from discriminating and censoring.
	Based on political viewpoint in the digital public square that they own a practical and functional monopoly on.
	The 11th Circuit said, no, that violates the First Amendment rights of these big corporations.
	The 5th Circuit, one of the best decisions, in my opinion, written on this topic, said, no, this law is just in protecting First Amendment rights, doesn't undermine it.
	Goes up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court this week threw out the decisions.
	Both the Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit.
	And the majority made clear they're not going to allow states or anybody to regulate social media.
	They're not going to allow them to restrict social media from eviscerating our First Amendment rights.
	They already did it in Missouri versus Biden by saying those states couldn't sue, those people couldn't sue.
	So that the only leg left standing on is Robert Kennedy's suit against them.
	And now they came in and said, hey, you local state governments, when you try to protect your citizens' rights against the wayward behavior of big corporations, we're not going to allow you to do that either.
	Now, the only upside to this decision is that the nature of it is mostly dictum, because there was agreement that the lower courts had not fully vetted certain factual issues.
	And so on that basis, they agreed to overturn both the 11th Circuit and the 5th Circuit, saying, go back and develop a better record for us.
	But that didn't stop the three liberals really disappointing in Kagan.
	Kagan had previously been skeptical of these aspects.
	Now she understands the politics, so she's fully on board with the censorship.
	And then the three institutionalists, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett, wrote basically opinions that as Thomas, Scalia, And Alito pointed out in dissent that it's called concurring.
	They're like, hey, everybody, just pretend this is dictum because they didn't have an actual binding decision yet.
	And so we're concurring, not dissenting.
	But it's clear what the guideposts are.
	And what they said was, this goes to the same Section 230 issue that Justice Thomas dissented on again this term of them denying cert on in a Snapchat case.
	What's really promising is Gorsuch has joined him.
	And it looks like Alito's starting to line up.
	So Thomas was sort of out by himself a couple years ago.
	Then Gorsuch came in.
	Now Alito's come in.
	We'll see if they get any of the others.
	The problem is Barrett's going to be a disaster on this set of issues.
	Like she is on a lot of constitutional issues that matter.
	Of consequence.
	And the issue is that these big tech companies are acting as...
	Simply as platforms for other people's speech.
	And based on that, they got immunity from Congress.
	Section 230 said you can't be sued for just being a platform because you shouldn't be blamed for speech that you didn't make.
	But what they've been doing the last 10 years since they decided to take the censorship route, especially the last five years, is they've reversed course and said, no, no, no, we're actually not a platform.
	We're the editorial page that decides which letters to the editor get printed.
	Because now we want First Amendment protection.
	So even though they lied to Congress to get immunity, they now want to use that immunity as a shield and use their First Amendment as a sword.
	And as Thomas and Alito and Gorsuch have pointed out, this makes no sense.
	That if they're a platform, they're not the speaker.
	Let's not pretend that they're the speaker.
	We've never treated somebody as the speaker in that situation.
	You don't have First Amendment rights in that situation.
	Also, these are all big corporations and monopolies, which should change the First Amendment analysis.
	Unfortunately, they've abandoned the anti-monopoly analysis about a couple of decades ago, the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And now they're abandoning the rest.
	Of course, they're big corporations.
	And by the way, Justice Barrett wrote separately, just to remind everybody, corporations are people to everybody.
	So we got to protect their First Amendment rights above everybody else.
	And what their guidepost was, is that Texas and Florida's laws are going to be overturned, are going to be thrown out.
	They're going to be invalidated.
	No state is going to be allowed to regulate or restrict social media companies on antitrust monopolistic grounds, on consumer violation grounds, or all the rest, because at the same time, they refuse to take CERN on Section 230 cases where they're immunizing Snapchat and others for deliberately promoting child pornography, for deliberately promoting specific harm to individuals.
	What they said is every basically...
	Now, credit to Justice Jackson, of all people.
	Just as Jackson said, in a concurring opinion, clearly not everything a big tech company does in speech, right?
	No, Robert, now you're shilling for Katanji Jackson and Brown.
	But what is the practical solution to this?
	Because each state tries to pass its own laws.
	Take away section 230.
	End of story.
	Here's what I've been proposing as a legislative solution now for 10 years.
	At least for the...
	Sorry, I don't mean to point to you, Robert.
	At least for the five years that I've known you, it's the carrot and the stick.
	Yes, correct.
	So you go back in and change Section 230 and say you will be, and this was the original intention of Section 230, you will be immune from suit if you are a digital platform.
	First of all, only apply Section 230 laws of restrictions of any kind to platforms that are functional monopolies.
	You have to have more than half of the digital public square in your space.
	So it doesn't apply to little mom-and-pop operations or anything like that.
	People regulating their own personal content pages.
	You've got to have monopolistic power.
	And we used to recognize that.
	When you have monopolistic power over the public square, you are a state actor.
	You're no longer a private actor.
	That should be one of the burdens that comes with being a monopoly.
	We shouldn't have monopolies, but if we're going to have them, that should be a precondition.
	It was the problem of the company town.
	Companies would buy up whole towns and prohibit labor petitioning, prohibit political activism, because they would literally own the public square.
	And we stopped this, and then the Supreme Court reversed itself about a half century ago.
	Some state courts have gone forward with it in California, but they refuse to apply this to big tech.
	So take Section 230 and say, for these big social media monopolies, here's the deal.
	You can keep immunity for anything that happens and any way your platform is used.
	However, only if you comply with making it censorship-free and viewpoint political discrimination.
	Right? The things that are outside of First Amendment protection are still outside of First Amendment protection.
	But codify First Amendment protection and use it as the carrot.
	And the stick is, if you don't do that, you're no longer immune.
	And you can be sued into oblivion.
	And that's how you can get it done.
	That's now the only solution.
	State legislatures will not be allowed to regulate.
	The courts will not be allowed to cabin or control.
	Supreme Court's made it clear.
	Social media immune.
	Big tech immune.
	Nobody can sue.
	Maybe Robert Kennedy's suit manages to go forward in Louisiana.
	That's the only hope in that context, to at least stop the collusive government aspect.
	But it's now clear because Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, the institutionalists, have taken, unsurprisingly, the corporatist position.
	They care more about protecting big corporations than they do individual rights, and we're now getting, sadly, one of the blowbacks from it is in this space, meaning the remedy has now shifted to the federal legislative agenda is the only place we can go now.
	Robert, let me read a couple of tips in our locals community.
	Coram Mobile, 10 bucks, says, keep up the good work.
	Tip for Amos Miller representation.
	All the best from the UK, an avid follower of all your good work.
	Ollie J. I'm starting to believe that all of these ludicrous charges against Trump were intentional, designed for the Supreme Court intervention to protect Biden, Obama, Bush, and the Clintons.
	This has nothing to do with Trump.
	Protect the deep state at all costs.
	Can't disagree with that.
	Patty F. Weber, $100, says, Thank you, Robert and David, for all of your wealth of information you share with us.
	No questions today.
	Only a tip.
	Thank you very much, Patty.
	And we got P. Hans.
	Patriot Front is the Antifa of the right.
	Can I pretend they don't exist like the left thinks of Antifa?
	Let me scroll up here.
	Robert, I want Georgia trial to go forward so we can get the discovery and prove the election was grossly fraudulent.
	Denise Antu.
	Robert, at the risk of asking that question, because I've seen a number of people ask that same question, that if the Georgia trial were to go forward, it would prove the election fraud, what do you say to that, or at least to I'm not following that because of that concern, but would that have happened?
	Well, I mean, amongst people that are not within direct Trump circle, that case will go potentially forward, unless it gets replaced with the prosecutor.
	But there's a high risk they're not allowed to present the evidence.
	So the people assume the evidence would be presented.
	There's a high risk that would not happen, unfortunately.
	So it depends on whether the case goes forward to who defends it, but it's not a guarantee.
	And nobody wants to risk their criminal liberty on proving a point if they can avoid it.
	Yeah, that's fair enough.
	All right, Robert, before we go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, exclusively, what's left on the Supreme Court accepted and not accepted by way of certiorari?
	So credit to Justice Gorsuch, who dissented.
	On what's happening in Florida and other states, they allow criminal convictions with less than 12 jurors if the criminal sentencing risk is relatively low.
	Gorsuch pointed out, we need to reinvigorate the right to a jury trial.
	He goes, it was social science nonsense that led us to eviscerate constitutional liberty for that rogue decision that said you needed less than 12 jurors.
	And he goes, it's time to recognize it was rogue nonsense and reinstate the 12 juror requirement.
	And respect jury trial rights in America.
	So good, righteous dissent from Justice Gorsuch on that question.
	Justice Thomas dissented on the Second Amendment.
	Remember in New York, they banned so-called assault weapons on the grounds that they're militaristic.
	And something that's militaristic isn't within the arms permitted under the Second Amendment, which is absurd.
	It's ahistorical, unconstitutional.
	The Supreme Court dodged taking the issue at this stage on procedural grounds that it's early and premature and they'll wait until there's a better evidentiary record.
	Thomas wrote, well, just remember everybody, this is clearly unconstitutional.
	And he goes, if Illinois doesn't fix it, the Seventh Circuit doesn't fix it, we are going to overturn it.
	Pointing out, of course, part of the point and purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure the power of the state That's why it's connected to militia.
	It's not constricted by militia.
	That's why the militia provision is also added.
	By the way, the reason we want to make sure people can have the right to bear arms that the government can't take away is so that they can also be there as the military tool of the state by being the militia.
	The thought process was, if the tools and means of violence were in the hands of ordinary people, it restricted the capacity of government to abuse power.
	Hence the opposition to standing armies also at the time.
	And so the idea that something that's militaristic is the one thing excluded is laughably absurd.
	But credit to Justice Thomas for his dissent.
	Hopefully that predicts they will step back into the Second Amendment when they need to, because the Seventh Circuit Illinois Supreme Court decisions have been absurd that have been issued so far.
	For a refreshment of my memory, the circuits, how many circuits are there and which geographic areas do they cover?
	So there's, well, there's more than 11, but there's the 1st through the 11th Circuit, then there's the D.C. Circuit and the Federal Court of Claims.
	So technically, unlucky 13 is how many federal courts there are at the appellate level.
	Another good dissent.
	A denial of cert came from Justice Jackson, who dissented from the deferential review in federal habeas proceedings of state criminal law.
	It was a case where a prosecutor, there's something called Batson, that says when the government's acting, you can't racially discriminate.
	That's the 14th Amendment.
	And in the prosecutorial context, it's you can't pick jurors because you don't like the race that they are.
	And this prosecutor really didn't like that rubble.
	He was like, well, I'm going to strike all the black people.
	I don't like the black people on the jury, Judge.
	Strike off the list, not hit them.
	Unconstitutional. He's like, well, that's ridiculous.
	I don't buy that.
	And so ultimately the judge only overturned some of his decisions, left in a lot of the problematic decisions, and the Georgia state courts allowed it.
	And then the 11th Circuit, of course, allowed it because the so-called conservatives on the bench have all been about eviscerating the Constitution if it means helping a criminal defendant.
	And Justice Jackson is right, saying this deference is preposterous and is anti-constitutional.
	Credit to her.
	And racial discrimination and jury selection is still a massive issue.
	And it works both ways.
	I mean, there's racial discrimination against whites.
	There's racial discrimination against everybody based on race.
	It's prosecutors breaking the law and they've been getting away with it for too long.
	So what would be the practical solution to that?
	You have to bar names, race, identities, and just have jury selection be totally anonymous?
	Oh, that's interesting.
	I'm going to steal that next time around, actually.
	I hadn't thought about that.
	Because typically the way the prosecutors get away with it is they find something out about the juror that they can claim as their excuse.
	Oh, no.
	It's nothing to do with a race, Judge.
	I just don't pick jurors who wear purple cord.
	That's funny.
	Crap like that.
	Stuff you know is racially motivated.
	So that's how they usually get away with it.
	And then a lot of judges, they get enraged when you even raise it.
	Like, oh, Judge, I think that's racial discrimination.
	How dare you?
	They'll attack you personally as counsel to try to discourage you from raising it.
	They do that a lot in jury selection.
	They try to fix the jury to be pro-prosecution and then get mad when you expose them for doing it.
	Another good dissenting opinion from a denial of cert, Justice Thomas, again, pointing out that they've taken out two prongs of the administrative state.
	Actually, three prongs.
	They've taken out the administrative state's ability to legislate, replace the legislative branch of government.
	On major questions.
	That last term.
	This term, they took out two more.
	They said they took out their ability to create new rules by claiming they're interpreting old ones with discretion and to replace, in that case, replacing the legislative branch.
	And then that's the Chevron deference decision.
	And then they also took away their ability to replace the judicial branch on Chevron deference by saying, we're no longer going to defer to whatever your opinion is, we're interpreting the law, and took away their power to strip jury trial rights from people by making them administrative trials instead, if it was an issue that arose at common law as a jury trial.
	Justice Thomas said it's time to finish it up.
	He goes, Congress can't say, we don't want to have Article 1 authority.
	We're going to give it to Article 2, Article 3. We're either going to give it to the courts or to the executive branch.
	Can't do that.
	Constitution gives it to you, legislative branch, nobody else.
	And in OSHA's context, he's like, pretty much everything they do is unconstitutional derogation of legislative obligation of the legislative branch.
	So credit to him on that decision.
	Now, it's not binding because he just descended from cert, but that is the next step.
	Of stripping the administrative state of its unconstitutional authority.
	And then, last but not least, with Section 230, Thomas and Gorsuch joined together saying it's absurd that we're giving these platforms immunity whether or not they're just platforming people or speaking themselves.
	He goes, let's stop pretending.
	If they're being a platform, they're not speaking.
	So we shouldn't give them First Amendment protection.
	And if they are speaking, We shouldn't give them Section 230 protection because that's not what Section 230 meant.
	Again, the Supreme Court didn't take up the case, so it was a dissent from denial of cert, but it shows the legal direction we need if we're going to restore the digital public square back to the people.
	Robert? Oh, last but not least, at least because they've been screwing everybody over on standing, at least they came in and said, by the way, If the government screws you, you don't have to sue until you're actually directly injured.
	Here's what agencies were arguing.
	You don't have standing to sue us, but if you do, you have to sue us a lot earlier than when we actually caused you injury.
	Classic version, and at least they called out that scam and said, no, if we're going to say you can't sue until you're injured, then that means your cause of action doesn't accrue.
	Until the injury.
	Until the injury.
	It doesn't matter if the final agency action was 25 years ago.
	If it didn't cause you injury until yesterday, then you get to sue within six years of that time frame.
	And that at least redeemed a little bit of their bad standing decisions.
	What was the name of that decision, if I may ask?
	Something postal carrier?
	Yeah. And by the way, I'm bringing up dog number two.
	She's alive.
	She's a whale.
	She will not die.
	She's the Terminator of dogs.
	The only thing I'm thinking is, is she going to shit or piss on me, Robert?
	You just described the Biden 2024 presidential campaign.
	Won't die, and you don't know when it's going to urinate or defecate on you.
	I love how you go with urinate or defecate, and I go with shit or piss, Robert.
	What are you going to do?
	She won't do it because she knows who feeds her tomorrow.
	At what time?
	5.30 in the morning.
	Get out of here.
	That's punch.
	That's proof of life.
	Now on that note, we're going to end it on Rumble.
	We're going to...
	Oh, good.
	Go. Get on it.
	Do it.
	I don't know where they think they're going to go.
	They're not going up any stairs.
	Robert, we're going to end this on Rumble.
	Go over to Locals.
	Hold on before we do that.
	Let me just make sure I'm going to go here.
	We've got T1990, who's got a bunch of Rumble rants.
	And then we've got on Locals a bunch of...
	Okay, we're going to deal with this over on Locals.
	So we're going to end it on Rumble.
	And we'll cover the vaccine mandate, big first jury verdict in vaccine mandate cases, and how Biden administration's effort to ban exporting LNG failed in federal court this week.
	And I've got dogs who are going to fight with each other.
	This is going to be a first.
	Get out, dogs.
	You're done.
	Robert, what do you have for the next week?
	What's coming up?
	So I got two big briefs due tomorrow.
	Then... Got to fly up to Pennsylvania, take care of some legal cases up there.
	And then I'll be flying straight from Pennsylvania to Brewtown for the Republican National Convention.
	And I'll be there for the first couple of days of it.
	Then I got to fly back to Pennsylvania and then I get to fly back to Vegas.
	But yeah, Viva and I will be live covering the RNC from not this Monday, but next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
	In Milwaukee, it's going to be amazing.
	It'll be like...
	I can't even think of a...
	LeVron and Bernty?
	Not LeVron.
	What's the show, Robert, with the people?
	They had the intro where they would hold hands.
	LeVron and Shirley, not LeVron and Bernty.
	I'm done.
	I'm done.
	Okay. I'm going to end it on LeVron and Shirley.
	We're going to go over to locals, people.
	How do I do it?
	I go like this.
	Click. Come on over.
	If you're not coming on over, you'll know I'll be live.
	Probably tomorrow, but definitely over the week.
	And that's it.
	Done and done.
	Laverne and Shirley.
	That's what it's going to be.
	Come on over to Locals right now.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Updating the stream.

▲