Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 14, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:57:02

Trump Assssination Attempt! RNC in Milwaukee! Baldwin Charges DISMISSED & MORE! Viva & Barnes Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And, okay, press play.
	Press play.
	You figured this out.
	That's not the right video.
	Is this it?
	This is it right here.
	Okay. Your thoughts on this, Dan.
	Just continue where you left off on the reaction here.
	So, again, open security questions right now.
	And this is why, again, I think the Secret Service, the PR, Anthony Guglielmi, has to be very careful about what they put out.
	You know, he says in his ex post, and you can read it yourself.
	You don't need to hear it from me.
	That they deployed these extra resources and technology.
	Okay, well, which ones?
	You're telling me the best technology you have was deployed and you missed a shooter 130 yards?
	Say it was 200 yards.
	The Secret Service CS team, Pete, the counter-sniper team?
	And I'm not sure those two guys are Secret Service.
	Remember, we don't always...
	When we go to New York sometimes with high-level protectives, we'll use NYPD ESU countersniper.
	So I'm not really sure.
	Either way, they'd still be briefed in.
	The question we have to ask is, if that's the best technology we have, and we had a CS team up there with a shooter that, you know, we're trained out to 1,000 yards in the Secret Service with the countersniper team, how did they miss someone at most, you know, one-fifth of the way there?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	And even worse, it's broad daylight on a white roof.
	So, again, open questions here.
	Was there forward-looking infrared deployed?
	Was there aerial support, drones, helicopters?
	You know, something happened, too.
	If you go back and listen to the audio, I want you to listen to this after I get off here.
	When Donald Trump, after this tragic thing happens, you'll see the Secret Service agents.
	And, by the way, I know some of those guys personally.
	It takes a lot to run into bullets.
	Divorcing the security failure.
	So at least they did that part correctly and they knew what they were doing after the security absolutely failed.
	But you're going to hear something if you listen closely.
	The guy mentions Hawkeye on the scene.
	He's talking about those two, the black BDU with the tactical gear cat element, that two-man cat element.
	That stands for counter-assault team.
	That's a Secret Service special weapons team, equivalent to our SWAT.
	So they're there.
	They all...
	Oh, God.
	Donald Trump knew to duck.
	I mean, most people would.
	He saved his own life.
	That's just a fact.
	The evacuation did not go right.
	I mean, the rule with the Secret Service is cover the protectee and evacuate.
	The other rule is maximum to the protectee, minimum to the problem.
	Why minimum to the problem?
	Because you don't know that's the only problem.
	It could be a distraction.
	There could be another person in the crowd.
	So if you don't jump on the protectee, you could be looking at multiple shooters.
	So at least that part, the guys there, you know, stepped up there.
	But the failure here is absolutely catastrophic.
	And I gotta tell you, the Secret Service should be very careful.
	I can tell you and absolutely confirm.
	From the horse's mouth, from multiple people, not just one.
	And I saw Congressman Waltz text this out before on X. There have been repeated requests to increase the security footprint around not just the residences of Donald Trump, but the body itself.
	And they have been rebuffed.
	Like I said, I can tell you actual quotes.
	The Secret Service directors completely failed and candidly should resign today.
	Kim Cheadle has failed Donald Trump and honestly failed Joe Biden too.
	He's the president right now.
	Where's the DHS secretary?
	I mean, you're blaming it on manpower?
	So just to be clear, we're a $4 trillion United States government and we can't fork over enough money to keep our people alive?
	Not just our people.
	I won't play the entire thing.
	I'll send this to everybody in the chat so you can go watch it when I pull up all of the windows.
	Catastrophic failure.
	Still seems like an understatement.
	Let me make sure that we're live everywhere across the interwebs.
	I have to make sure that I'm in my good mic.
	Link. Okay, first of all, I didn't realize how crazy I look.
	Crazy of the normal.
	We're good here on Rumble.
	Let me make sure that we're good on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Not that it's been a hectic day, but we drove to Wisconsin.
	We're in Wisconsin right now and drove the entire day, set up a makeshift, not the makeshift home studio, but set up the portable studio.
	We're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we're live on YouTube where I'm going to put the link to Locals in the chat so that everybody can find it.
	Now, as we all trickle in here, link to Rumble.
	Obviously, we're going to suspend.
	Postpone the better part of the standard of law stuff that we were going to talk about tonight for obvious reasons.
	It's the strangest of times to be living in.
	And I tell you, look, in our locals community, people might be saying, Viva, like, you know, in as much as you're reluctantly holding out to admit that you're a journalist, you might equally be reluctantly holding out to admit that you're religious.
	I'm not.
	And I couldn't sleep last night, but when I was sleeping last night and I was imagining...
	The world that is today versus the world that could have been, I don't know how to describe it except to say that if it wasn't some form of divine intervention to prevent absolute irreversible catastrophe, it's pretty damn close.
	The problem is when you talk about divine intervention where someone is dead, however.
	He died shielding his wife and daughters from this terrorist shooter.
	No divine intervention for him.
	But when you think about what is today America and what would have been today America had this bullet been one centimeter.
	I've been told I've been exaggerating when I say it was a millimeter.
	Let me bring this up so I can show everybody the graph of catastrophe.
	At the end of America as we knew it versus divine intervention and now it's just a question of answering the questions as to what the bloody hell happened.
	Because people were...
	I'll play you the video where Trump turned his head at the very last second and that bullet grazed his ear.
	And not just like a flappy earlobe part.
	He grazed the ear on the inside where the ear meets his skull.
	And had he been in the angle where he was talking moments prior...
	It would have been messy.
	It would have been live.
	It would have been in HD.
	It would have been JFK's assassination on steroids for the entire world to see.
	And there would have been a problem today.
	A bigger problem than what we have, which is dealing with the fortuitous divine intervention that we saw.
	Okay, so now without...
	I'm not going to ramble on for too long.
	I can ramble on forever here because...
	We've got, say, a special guest.
	You know who this man is.
	He's been on the channel before.
	His name is Lynn Westover.
	Lynn, you can bring yourself in and show yourself on camera.
	I'm figuring out the intricacies of Rumble Studio.
	Lynn Westover is, I don't want to define you by your spouse, but you're married to Alison Morrow, former, I don't say mainstream media journalist, but legacy media journalist, former, independent, amazing, amazing person.
	You've been on the channel.
	We know each other well, and I like you.
	My kid loves you.
	Can't wait to go back.
	But you are a former sniper, but then we went over it in detail when you were on the channel, and we talked boy howdy in person.
	Tell everybody who you are, and you're going to help us try to flesh out what the hell we just witnessed yesterday.
	Yeah, so, hi, Lynn.
	Go by Sherpa.
	I own a business where I train law enforcement, military, security, first responders in behavior pattern recognition and threat detection.
	I most notably had a career in the Marine Corps.
	I worked in special operations.
	I was a forced reconnaissance Marine and a scout sniper.
	Many of the things that are germane to what we're talking about today is, aside from that background that I have as being a scout sniper and doing counter-sniper operations, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, specifically in Iraq, I personally had to help deal with the Juba sniper threat.
	But also, when I left the military, I did a lot of executive protection details, kidnap and ransom due diligence.
	I have a little bit of insight, too, from the protective detail aspect and some of the advanced teams when they show up to a scenario or a situation like this and some of the things that have to be taken into consideration when you're prepping for a high-profile individual such as Donald Trump would be.
	So that's kind of the 30,000-foot thumbnail sketch that I would give about my background.
	And when you say counter-sniper, that means that you're looking for snipers?
	You're a sniper looking for a sniper?
	Yeah. The thought process always was, hey, you would know being a sniper, it's that tactical cutting aspect.
	You would know what to look for.
	And a lot of times...
	Because there is some misnomers there.
	A lot of people think that, okay, well, I'm looking for the sniper and the hide, but the thing that gets forgotten about quite often is, well, the individual, the quote-unquote sniper or designated marksman or shooter, whatever you want to call them, they have to ingress and they have to egress.
	And so specific to this situation here, I'll get just a little bit ahead of myself for a second, but this one thing that's very specific about what happened, Last night is, in my eyes, regardless of what the end state was for that individual that was getting into that position, had to know that that was it.
	So I almost look at that as like a suicide by cop type of situation.
	So whether, because I've seen a lot of the things on the Twitterverse or X and, you know, the conspiracy theorists around the world unite, you know, as far as what the intentions were.
	With regard to what went down with this thing, at the end of the day, the individual that got up onto that rooftop 130 yards away from a former president who is now a candidate for president had to know that there was almost certainty that you were not walking away from that.
	So the reason why I bring that up is because that speaks to mindset and intent.
	So when you talk about a true believer, somebody who is willing to, I am going to go give it the whole nine yards, so to speak, then that says a lot.
	And I would not, you know, I saw a lot of things as far as people denigrating the fact that, like, oh, this 20-year-old kid and this is his political leanings this way or that way or, you know, what's the so what behind that?
	Hey, none of that really matters to me as far as, like, how did it happen?
	That's my big question.
	How did an individual get within 130 yards of an elevated position?
	And to really describe how lucky he was, I know for a fact that even a non-school trained, meaning a non-sniper, just somebody straight out of infantry training battalion, they could put a 5-5-6 round or a 2-2-3 round into the brain bucket of a human being at ranges of up to 500 yards.
	Depending on the weapon system, depending on the optics he had on there and so on and so forth.
	So the fact that it literally grazed him, I mean, we're talking about a manner of like a half a degree difference.
	Can I ask a situation?
	I'm going to ask a number of, they're not going to be, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Like just looking for gore for the sake of gore.
	When you say brain bucket, and I'm not trying to be funny, is that...
	Like a term that's used in the field that if you get within a certain range, then that's when you make catastrophic injury?
	Yeah. Demonstrate it on the anatomy right here with myself.
	We talk about a tee box shot.
	We call that DRT, which means dead right there.
	And so what that means is all sympathetic parasympathetic nerve response is gone because I've just basically severed your central nervous system.
	There's a lot of reasons and intents for that, but at the end of the day, whether it's right here or from the side, you're looking right about here at the ear, it's going to sever that central nervous system, and it means everything stops.
	It lights out.
	The individual who gets hit, they're not feeling nothing, and if they had a weapon or any type of maybe an arming device, say we're talking about a suicide vest wearer or something like that, Then the intent was so they have no flinch response when the shot takes place.
	So that's what I mean by the brain bucket.
	That's lights out.
	We also say, hey, going right in between the running lights.
	It's lights out.
	You're done.
	And so, I mean, the dude was definitely going for it, given where that round went.
	I mean, it was about as close as close could get.
	From what we understand, it was an AR...
	I mean, I'm saying words.
	I know what they mean, but other people might know better.
	223 is the type of round that I've been hearing.
	Can I ask, also, it's not to be gory.
	That type of round, once it makes impact, does it splinter off and cause that type of explosive catastrophic reaction, or is it more like a hole?
	And that type of...
	So without getting too scientific in the terminal ballistics, so you have...
	A couple different types of ballistics, right?
	You have internal, external, and terminal ballistics.
	Internal ballistics are the ballistics that occur within the weapon system from the moment that the primer is engaged and the round is traveling down the barrel.
	Once the round travels down the barrel and it leaves the crown of the barrel, it is now entered externally to the weapon system.
	So now you have external ballistics.
	So everything from, you know, depending on the range of the round being fired, you know, you hear people talk about like the Coriolis effect.
	You have altitude density.
	So the density of the air, depending on what altitude you're at, temperature, winds, all those things come into play and will change your trajectory, change where the round impacts.
	And then you have terminal ballistics.
	So specifically speaking, terminal ballistics, that type of round, um, So there are differences in rounds.
	So you can have the same caliber of round, but it creates a different fluid shockwave when it enters the media that it is engaging with, the terminal ballistics of it.
	More often than not, when you're looking at a.223 caliber round, you're going to see a small entrance wound, but wherever it exits, you'll see a slightly larger, probably about the size of a fist, exit wound, and it's done.
	I've personally seen fellow Marines, three hit in the head, and one survive.
	You know, unbelievably survived.
	But, yeah, I mean, I've seen people survive that, but it is few and far between.
	So, I mean, I've got to say it again.
	That was so close.
	So close.
	Now, so, if I understand, from a security protocol perspective, that shooter never should have got anywhere close to being able to take that shot if people were doing their job.
	Yeah, I have a couple questions on that.
	Aside from that, because I also saw, and again, you're going to get a lot of interviews from people who, I was there, I saw the whole thing, officer, officer, you know.
	But I saw a short interview of a guy that said that he had been pointing this dude low crawling on that roof for three minutes.
	But it does go back to the whole saying of...
	Oh, well, if you see something, say something.
	And then it's like, well, if you see something, say something, do something.
	But all those are buzzwords, buzz terms.
	I don't know what the hell I'm looking at, number one, and I don't know who to say it to.
	And when you've got thousands of people around screaming as well, that stuff gets all lost in the fray.
	But yeah, the big question I have is, I mean, to me, the guy identified that as a good perch.
	I don't know why there wasn't another counter-sniper team already on that rooftop.
	Quite frankly.
	I don't know details about that, so I myself want to be careful.
	But I do think that a question worth asking is, you have inner perimeter, you have outer perimeter, and you have what we call a defense in depth.
	130 yards is close.
	That's one and a third football fields.
	That's close.
	This is, I'm bringing up, you guys can see this, right?
	The full picture here?
	This is what Tim Kennedy, who's also a military badass for anybody who doesn't know him, I don't know who doesn't know him, but Tim Kennedy says, how did the shooter even get on the roof?
	I've been at several events for Trump and there's no way you can get anything going that close to him.
	I measured it on 150.1 yards.
	This is complete negligence and incompetence, or it was intentional.
	And then we have...
	This roof here from the parking lot.
	And then we'll get into the issue about people saying, I saw this guy, and it would be art.
	You wouldn't believe it for what it is.
	I mean, that is covering a foot and a half in a freeze frame of a second.
	It's loud.
	It's loud.
	So the question here is, the guy's looking down his sniper at the roof, presumably.
	You hear shots.
	And then he takes the shot.
	I'm going to bring this up, but not...
	How do I stop this?
	Stop that.
	Sorry. Let me go back here and take this out.
	Look, again, it's easy playing Monday morning quarterback, but then at some point in time, there's just common sense in asking the question.
	If that was a good shot for the sniper, the shooter, how the hell was there not a sniper on it?
	Or... We're continually manning it.
	And you'll tell me if you can field this one.
	There's some thread going around on 4chan that purports to be that guy, that Secret Service agent or that shooter guy, allegedly saying that he was asking for permission to take the shot because he had identified the guy for 45 seconds earlier and he was told to stand down and wait.
	And then he shot only after.
	I mean, I don't want to share that because it sounds a little fishy.
	There's no way of verifying it.
	What's clear, and you can probably tell us, He's clearly seeing something down the scope, and he's seeing something suspicious, and clearly waits until shots are fired.
	So, yeah, so you have a couple, I guess the way I would put it is relationships here, right?
	Oh, by the way, Barnes, good to see you, bud.
	Sorry, I forgot to introduce Barnes.
	Robert, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good. It's good to see you, Robert.
	At any rate, You have a couple different relationships going on here and each organization, they have different SOPs or standard operating procedures.
	They have different tactics on how communication works because when you're in a situation like that, you are dealing with a lot of stress and you have things like channel capacity to deal with.
	So channel capacity is your brain, your frontal cortex's ability to Handle multiple tasks at a time.
	On average, for the average human being, it's seven plus or minus one or two.
	The reason why I even bring that up is when you have comms going on in your ear, that's going to take up at least one channel.
	So now if you've got to think about whatever is being said to you as you're trying to look down a scope, you're trying to calculate wind, you're trying to also report what it is you're seeing, you're talking with your spotter, your spotter is also looking at things.
	There's a lot going on there.
	Again, without knowing the veracity of what you just said in regards to what was going on with the 4chan thing, I will say that that is not an uncommon thing that happens to snipers.
	I have a photo during the Juba sniper days of me in Fallujah.
	I was doing sniper overwatch, and I got so frustrated with what was going on in my ear.
	You can actually see in the photo I ripped my headset off and I was having only my spotter do the communications for me because it was so distracting.
	So I will say there is a potential amount of credibility to that.
	What I'll also add into it is that, yeah, that is a...
	As an individual getting ready to take a shot like that, we'll say it's a sanctioned shot.
	I am under the color of law.
	I'm either a military service member or I am a police sniper, so on and so forth.
	It is such an up-close-and-personal thing that you are getting ready to do.
	If you figure, well, just look at it like this.
	Everybody at home and then you guys here as we're talking on this live stream.
	Just imagine that, okay, you're looking through your scope and you're looking at this.
	You're looking at my face.
	You are looking at the face of the person that you are about to end their life.
	So even when you know you're in the right, that is not an easy thing to do.
	And there's a lot of stress that gets bottled up into that.
	And so you want to make damn sure that when you take that...
	Pound and a half or whatever it is set for that trigger because it is a precision weapon system.
	When you take that pound and a half out and it's out, there's no pulling that round back downrange.
	That decision is finite and final.
	I think that a person who gets put in that role and is like, you train, you train, you train, you train, you train to be able to do that with half hoping that you never have to.
	And then the other half is like, well, when the time is for you to do it, that not only you do it right, but you are righteous in doing that.
	Nobody wakes up in the morning and wants to just go kill somebody.
	I don't care who you are.
	And I would flip in that perspective around, too, because talking about tactical cunning, putting myself in the shoes of the shooter, the individual that shot at former President Trump, I would say that, well, on one hand, that's a fairly easy shot.
	On the other hand, it's not so easy when it comes time for real.
	So, just to give you an idea of, like, even with iron sights.
	So, iron sights, there's no optics, there's no magnification.
	In the military, when you learn on iron sights with a, you know, M16 variant or an M4 variant, You could also call it a lollipop, but it looks like that.
	So you have a front sight post, that's this, and then you have your rear sight aperture, and you're basically trying to make a lollipop, and then when you center it on your target, point of aim, point of impact, it should hit.
	The reason why I bring that up, typically for zeroing, so when you talk about a battle sight zero or a BZO, when you're zeroing a weapon system for iron sights like that, the zero is typically done at 300 yards.
	For precision weapons, we typically will do a zero at 100 yards.
	So for those weapon systems that the counter snipers were shooting, I would guarantee that they're probably quarter minute of angle.
	They're definitely sub minute of angle, but even at a minute of angle, to understand what that means, is that means at one minute of angle, at 100 yards, I could put a five round shot group into a one inch square.
	Okay, stop.
	At 100 yards, you could put five shots into a one-inch square, which is, let's just say it's about that.
	That's about the size of a small plum.
	Right. So, you know, for this guy to take those shots, and I don't know what the specific characteristics of the weapons were that, or the weapon was that he shot at President Trump with.
	But what I will say is this.
	You can guarantee that he probably had a lot of stress.
	His heart rate was going.
	And again, you know what you're getting ready to do, what you're about to do.
	That might account for another possible reason why he quote-unquote missed.
	It's still a hit.
	It just didn't have desired terminal ballistics effects.
	Again, just to show how close this was.
	I mean, I can't say that enough.
	This was so freaking close.
	It's not even funny how close this was.
	Now, explain to people, like, when you're looking at average security, intersecurity, the further perimeter, you know, everybody that I've seen talk about this.
	Is that they don't understand how the perimeter wasn't secure.
	And supposedly this building was outside any perimeter, which did not make sense to me given the range you're talking about.
	First of all, when you're assessing perimeter, you're assessing risk of someone doing exactly what you're describing.
	So you can describe how do you go about establishing a perimeter, what forms that predicate, and then when you do, what do you do with that information?
	That's a great question.
	It's going to be situation dependent on the actual geographics of the area and the proxemics of all the things that are around.
	Isn't that because you're looking at how someone might be a sniper?
	That's why topography matters.
	That's why buildings matter.
	That's why location of the speaker matters.
	It's because you're looking at someone who can...
	Particularly a sniper risk is what defines perimeter need.
	One thing, for example, and I could very simply do this on Google Earth because we actually used to do this overseas because it was a lot faster than using our S2 or Intel shops.
	You could go on Google Earth and you could do what we call a line-of-sight survey.
	A line-of-sight survey would be I'm going to use this notepad here.
	Hopefully I can show this for you.
	Say I took a cross-section of, like, I had two positions.
	All right.
	So I don't know if you can see that.
	But we'll say that right here.
	Oh, God.
	Please forgive the crudity of this drawing.
	I apologize.
	It's not to scale.
	But that's a back-to-the-future quote for those who hobblah.
	But say this is my shooter, and this is my target right here.
	A line-of-sight survey would be as if I went on Google Earth, and I wanted to look at this cross-section of this terrain and make sure that, say, that there was a house right here.
	That house was not going to get in the way of the flight path of my round.
	You would take it so far.
	Sometimes, depending on the range of our shots that we would take, you have things like bullet drop.
	You would have it where you actually clear certain obstacles.
	I knew a guy that took a shot.
	He didn't actually take it through a window.
	He was looking through a window, but the shot actually went over.
	This corner of the building because of where it was at.
	So then when the shot hit, what he was aiming at on another building, this was in Fallujah, they were looking around.
	They thought it came from a different building than what he was actually shooting from.
	And so again, ways that you would accomplish that in that example is a line of sight survey.
	So I'm looking at what's the actual line of sight of that.
	So I'm looking at, hey, What are obstacles?
	And even to vegetation.
	So in a classic sniper situation, like say I was in a hinterland kind of environment where I was doing like the Tom Berenger going through the jungle or going through the wood line.
	Like even when I set up an FFP, which is a final firing position, I want to make sure that I have zero deflection of my round once it leaves the barrel.
	So what deflection is, is even something as simple as like a little limb.
	A little leave or something like that.
	If it hits it, it could cause deflection in that round and totally throw off a first shot.
	The other thing you have to consider as well are things like a cold bore shot.
	So when the bore, your rifle, is cold, the round is going to impact a little differently than when it heats up after you've begun firing.
	So in order to get a guaranteed first hit cold bore shot, is what we would call it, that means you've got to have a lot of time downrange.
	Collecting that data on your own gun so you know exactly how, on certain weather conditions, where that round's going to go on the first shot, and then being able to adjust after that for your follow-on shot.
	So for those counter snipers in the protection detail, they would know that.
	They would have to be prepared to do that.
	So again, that adds into the stress that they're handling, they're dealing with.
	Okay, I've identified a threat.
	I'm making the decision.
	I'm taking out.
	Pulling the trigger on this guy.
	And now I hope my round hits because I got to consider my backdrop.
	You know, those rounds, just because they hit a person, they don't stop.
	And now you're thinking about firing into a crowd.
	Like police snipers, you know, a lot of people look at military snipers because, oh, the long range.
	And yeah, long range is tough.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I'm not denigrating that.
	However, that close range where, hey, I literally need to get this round exactly where it needs to go.
	Or else I potentially have civilian casualties because of it.
	That's a stressful, stressful shoot.
	And so all those things play in.
	Now when you're designing that inner outer perimeter, because I can't just consider the sniper thing.
	I have to look at, okay, possible...
	Possible VBIED, vehicle-borne improvised explosive device, possible impact device where somebody just rams a car through.
	What are the checkpoints that I have people coming through?
	You'll have individuals that are blending into the crowd, that their whole job, their whole focus is to identify the needle in a stack of needles.
	So you'll have people embedded in the crowd just looking for people, and you create basically these channelizations before they actually get to that main area to hopefully identify that before they get danger close to the president, or in this case, the president.
	I mean, you've fired a sniper rifle, not I presume, but you have.
	Just looking at this video, because this was one of the ones that also caught my attention.
	This is where the guy had been, the sniper had been in position seemingly, looking down the scope, and we all presume at the target because that's where he fires.
	Look, again, I know nothing of this, but I would not imagine that a sniper rifle is supposed to bounce off the ground the way this seems to bounce, or is he maneuvering it to take the shot?
	If you want to really see something just said, take a look at what happened.
	If you want to really see something...
	Sorry, let me just turn the volume down a little bit.
	Are you able to tell anything from that in terms of...
	Take a look at what happened.
	So that little pop-up over his scope, that is...
	So when you're...
	Let me see how I can explain this.
	When you're in a scope, and I don't know what power he had his scope on, I'd be willing to bet...
	He had a variable power scope, so it'd be anywhere from, you're looking at 2.5 power up to 15 power.
	I didn't like having that high of a power on my scope, because usually what that meant was it raised my line of sight over my bore, and so now I had to have all this extra crap for stock weld and things like that, and quite frankly, that's what I had a spotter for.
	So my spotter, you know, with a Leopold Mark IV, Spotting scope, he had up to 40 power.
	So if I wanted him to zoom in on something and get more positive ID for me, a lot of times the more power you have in your scope, that over-exaggerates what I, pardon my French here, but it will over-exaggerate poor marksmanship fundamentals, shitty shooting technique.
	Anybody who's done it before, and even next time you come out to the house, I'll show you on my sniper rifle.
	The difference between just looking at 12 power versus 3 power, and it's a world of difference because you see every heartbeat, you see every move and breath you take, and it's distracting in scope.
	So what's significant about what he was doing is I think he was trying to confirm, you know, because you're so zoomed in, he was trying to confirm, like, wait, is that where I think that is?
	And making sure of that.
	Then he gets back in and he goes to engage because he's realizing things are happening quickly here.
	And, you know, all I would say about this, because I don't want to judge the guy.
	I'm not in his shoes.
	I wasn't there.
	The reality of it is you get put in some of the weirdest positions ever as a sniper.
	Nothing's ever perfect.
	You don't have a great prone position.
	I mean, there he had a tripod.
	It's funny, the tripod my wife used for a long time after we met was my old shooting tripod.
	And we used to make the joke all the time.
	I was like, yeah, I was taking shots on that tripod before you were taking shots, Allie.
	But the point is, you'll get set up in a position and you'll think and feel that, okay, this is great.
	I'm stable.
	Everything's good.
	And then reality hits and things move around.
	That's the reality of combat, and I'll call this that.
	It is, for all intents and purposes, combat.
	It's not like the movies where dudes are doing backflips and everything super graceful.
	There's a lot of falling down.
	There's a lot of mistakes that get made.
	There's a lot of doing things on the fly.
	It was funny.
	As a sniper, I did yoga just so that I could be more flexible because some of these weird, awkward positions I would have to get into, You had to have a level of flexibility and strength to be able to do that and then be willing to sit in that position for long periods of time.
	So based on what I saw in that video of that counter sniper, it looked like he was trying to confirm something, get back into his rifle, get engaged, and then it looked like, unfortunately, that the position may not have been as stable as he had hoped, but at that point he's like...
	Hey, I got to get gas on it.
	I got to put this guy down.
	So in terms of the security protocols, would your instinctual view be to confirm what others have said, that they don't understand how this individual was able to get to the location he was able to get to?
	With a gun in the first place.
	Without putting blame on anybody, not knowing who's responsible, just that if security protocols is correctly, like for example, one issue here is President Biden has refused the repeated request of President Trump's security team to increase their security team in order to make sure they have adequate coverage.
	President Biden has also refused coverage, any Secret Service coverage.
	Despite numerous direct threats against his other opponent, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., whose father was assassinated, whose uncle was assassinated.
	So one of the questions is whether there was adequate service security provided because of the refusal of the Biden administration to provide it.
	But putting that aside, from your experience in doing protective security...
	Is this supposed to ever be even capable of happening, of somebody walking in with a gun, walking up on a roof, and being able to have time to fire at somebody?
	I would say that the gold standard would be is, no, it's impossible.
	The reality of it is, it is totally possible.
	All those people that work those details, all those structures, all the infrastructure, all the policies and procedures that surround that are based on lessons learned.
	As we used to say, shout out to my buddy VB, call him Vanderblast, but his name's Vanderblast.
	There's a long story to that, but he used to always say, hey, SOPs are written in blood.
	And that means that somebody had to get hurt, somebody had to get killed.
	Usually it results in an immediate knee-jerk reaction.
	Talking about the Kennedys, that's why you don't see open cars anymore when the president goes for a drive.
	That was something that changed with that.
	I would say those are questions that I have a little chat thread that I was going back and forth with a couple of my buddies.
	One guy who's a former CIA officer who was also a Marine with me, I actually worked for him.
	Another buddy of mine, all three of us were instructors together, and they both hit me up like, dude, how in the hell?
	And I'm like, I don't know.
	I think those are things that are going to come out in the wash.
	I hope they come out in the wash, because I still have questions about what happened at Mandalay Bay.
	So I'll be curious to see what comes out of that.
	And if there is any truth in the fact that, too, that there was additional coverage asked for based on a perceived heightened level threat, then yeah, I think that would be a good question to ask,
	too. Now, I did see where the spokesman for the Secret Service said he categorically denied or whatever the statement was he put out on X. And again, I just hope that the sunshine brings that kind of stuff to the light of day.
	But I know quite a few times for me, I had a specific incident where I was tasked out to go do a surveillance on an individual.
	He was alluding to threats for a client.
	The client already had a security detail.
	What they wanted to identify was like, hey, do we need to increase the...
	The level of the detail based on the way this guy's behavior was.
	So my job was I actually went and surveilled this guy and did an investigation to see if there was any credible threat there or if this guy was just running his mouth.
	And so when you're that individual doing that behavior profiling of that, it is a little bit nerve-wracking because you're like, man, I hope I don't...
	I hope I don't read this wrong, but in this particular case that I'm talking about, I made the call.
	I said, hey, I do not see an increased threat.
	I would maintain the level of security we have.
	Should anything else change, then, yeah, we look at increasing the level of protection detail.
	But those kind of re-evaluations have to constantly be done.
	And then now when you talk about an individual that's going from place to place to place, like, yeah, you can have SOPs that guide us in how we...
	Do and conduct business, but every location is different.
	Every location has its seams and gaps.
	And that's the rule of thumb.
	If there is a seam and gap, somebody, a ruthless opportunist, is going to take the opportunity and try to fill that seam and gap.
	Unless it's just an egregious oversight where a building within 130 yards that offers a perfect vantage point is not only unmanned but unsupervised.
	And some people in the chat are saying the guy brought a ladder.
	We have to be careful with certain types of information.
	But he brought a rifle, and people were in the crowd saying that they were notifying the police.
	Latest reports, which I'll look at when you're not here, is that he pointed a gun at an officer who confronted him on the roof.
	Officer backed off, he popped off his shots, and then he got hit.
	While the other guy probably saw all of this, but allegedly, whether or not he was told not to shoot, did not engage.
	Some people, I'll ask you this, you'll let me know if you know.
	And I know you've got to go, so I'm not going to keep you too long.
	People are saying that there is a do not engage unless you've been engaged rule that would apply here.
	To me, it sounds farcically stupid.
	I don't know if you have any knowledge of that as it relates to Secret Service, but do you have to wait until shots are fired before you can take out the threat?
	It's a stupid question as I ask it, but people are saying it.
	No, I don't think it's a stupid question.
	I think it's a question that people ask because...
	Until confronted with situations like this, people never have to think about, well, what would I do in this situation?
	But even for you as a citizen, a civilian, if you are seeing somebody who is demonstrating a potential, you know, ability, opportunity, jeopardy for serious bodily harm, serious bodily injury, or death, you as an individual have an inherent right to self-defense.
	That's number one.
	And I'm no lawyer.
	I just play a doctor on TV, but I'm pretty sure that's codified in the Constitution of the United States.
	I have an inherent right to self-defense.
	As an individual who is a badge wearer, they have the responsibility given to them under the color of the law.
	Something as simple as me telling somebody to stop, to put a weapon down in an area like that, that is a secured area, that is failure to comply.
	And if I can articulate the ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and in law enforcement's case, you have preclusion due.
	So what did I do to preclude me from having to take these shots?
	What did I do to give me an opportunity to de-escalate or mitigate this situation so I didn't have to kill this guy?
	And if all those things fail, that's when deadly force occurs, and it's...
	Yeah, it's still homicide, but it's homicide under the letter of the law.
	So I don't know where people get that misnomer.
	It's the same thing as like, oh, the guy only had a knife.
	Couldn't you just shoot it out of his hand?
	Or why did you have to shoot and kill the guy?
	He only had a bat.
	And it's like, no, because the potential for death or serious bodily injury is there.
	I can demonstrate that.
	I can bring any manner of subject matter experts.
	Up on the stand to talk about that.
	And I have a laundry list of them.
	I would.
	I have two lawyers on retainer right now.
	But the point is, I don't know if that holds water.
	I don't know if that's a real thing that took place or if that's just people trying to be a part of the moment and I was there type of deal.
	And I think that's going to be the thing that is going to be tough.
	For whoever's doing the investigation is to weed that stuff out because they had the same issue with that with the Kennedy assassination with the first one.
	So many people there and everybody heard different things like last night while you were doing your stream I saw some of the comments and I even heard some of the stuff where people talking about hammered pairs versus controlled pairs and so like a hammered pair or a quote unquote double tap You know, it's a rapid succession of rounds.
	And the intention is, is like, hey, I'm just trying to put as much, you know, usually it's like a failure to stop drill or something like that.
	But again, having the misunderstanding of not knowing how basically shooting works in tactics and how the physics of a round going through the air sounds, you have the fact that...
	There's the report of the rifle.
	So when the round's coming through and it's making that crack, and then you have the report of the rifle following it, it sounds like it's too common, but it's really, no, it's just that same round.
	So again, trying to weed that kind of information out from people that think they heard something, think they saw something versus what's actually quality information.
	Lynn, I think you might have to go to 10 on your kid.
	I think you might have to wrap up the – From what I've heard from a range of sources, from what you understand about ballistics, that it was because Trump turned his head a half second before the shot is the only reason he's alive.
	Is that consistent with your understanding of what took place and of ballistics?
	I would say, just on first blush of that, I know my reaction to it, and I was like, like I said, damn, that was close.
	And yeah, even something as simple as your head being from here to here, I mean, you can even, like, look right here.
	If you hit me straight on, right, here, yeah, it's going to hit my mandible, probably, but still, there's a potential there that if it deflects, hits my mandible, goes through my central nervous system, I'm dead, versus now here, and you hit like that.
	And I've seen where people, not personally, not the two examples that I gave, but I have seen incidents where people got hit in a helmet and that thing rode around the inside of the helmet and went out the other end.
	I've seen where people got hit in the skull and it rode around the skull and went out the other side and didn't even go penetrate the skull.
	So it's just, you know, real life is funny that way.
	Something simple, something just as simple as an angle, a turn, or like that can change everything.
	I've seen situations where individuals have tried to unalive themselves, and they were unsuccessful in doing that because of the angle in which they had the firearm when they were trying to end their lives and end up surviving.
	So, I mean, it's just crazy how the human body is insane.
	I've seen people code out from one shot.
	I've seen people somehow survive being hit, you know, 20, 30 times.
	It's just, you know, I'm a man of faith.
	I'll say this.
	I am a man of faith.
	I know I'm standing here today because of that.
	On my 30th birthday, I took a round through my MBG bracket on my helmet.
	I got pinned down in the middle of a field.
	Took another round through my cargo pocket.
	Like, I got hit without getting wounded.
	I don't know how to explain that.
	Other than somebody was looking out for me.
	So stuff's funny that way.
	Lynn, I put both of your links in the comment.
	What's your handle on Twitter?
	Just so everybody can hear it.
	And it's in the description.
	I think my handle on Twitter is JRWestover.
	I could be wrong.
	And your business site is slcsquared.com.
	That's also in the description.
	Lynn? You're going to teach me a few things when we hang the next time.
	Yep. We need to bring Robert out to the farm so he can check it out as well.
	I'll have some bourbon there for you, though, Robert.
	Robert. Amazing.
	Lynn, thank you very much.
	It's fantastic.
	I'll text you afterwards, but thank you very much for popping in.
	Thanks, guys, for having me.
	All right.
	Have a good one.
	Robert, I think it's the first time it wasn't my kids screaming in the background.
	Oh, man.
	Yeah, they've got two young kids.
	Robert, I think before we get...
	We're going to move this over to Rumble in a second.
	First of all, you're good.
	We're going to be meeting up tomorrow in Milwaukee.
	Yeah, yeah.
	They won't let me re-register, by the way.
	I got a text.
	We'll be fine.
	We will get it all done tomorrow.
	What I wanted to show before we left this on the subject, I want to bring up the...
	The slow-mo video that's been going around, and I think we're going to get to some super chats, a lot of them in a second.
	Here, check this out.
	This is the video that's going around talking about the head.
	Talking like that, and he turns, I guess it's to the right.
	Right now, then it goes through his ear.
	Right there.
	Yep. And if he hadn't turned to his right, it goes to the back of his head, and he's dead.
	Yep. And then they're replaying it slowly.
	He's talking like this, where that graph at the beginning, just as he turns.
	It's almost like he turned.
	Must have thought he got stung by a bee for a second.
	I think that's what he's told somebody.
	Also that he heard something.
	Yeah, Robert, what everybody who has any meaningful experience with this says is that it's hypersonic, that the bullet hits you before the sound gets there, obviously.
	And then by the time you hear the fizzing, but then by the time the sound pops, then you know something ain't right.
	Yes. Robert, I didn't do the sponsor before we got started because it was not the right time and I feel awkward doing it, but we're going to do the sponsor because we've got a sponsor for tonight and it's Lumen.
	We're going to talk about body hacks and the flukes of life, but your metabolic health in your hands.
	This is Lumen, the sponsor tonight, and thank the sponsor.
	It's a little odd doing it under the circumstances, but...
	We're doing it anyhow because the quirks of life turn your head one way and take care of your body.
	Regardless, Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach.
	It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath and on the app.
	It lets you know if you're burning fat, carbs, gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management.
	How does it work?
	All you have to do is breathe into the Lumen.
	First thing in the morning, it'll show you what's going on with your metabolism, what you're burning, whether it's mostly fats or carbs, because those are two very different things in terms of what you want to do with your body.
	Then Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements.
	You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time.
	Lumen will give you tips to keep you on top of your game.
	Why does it matter?
	Your metabolism is your body.
	It affects how often you go.
	Number two, number one, whether or not you're doing well, whether or not you're sleeping well, getting the rest you need.
	So you need to know what's going on with your body.
	If anybody asks, you can just say you're doing a breathalyzer when you go driving.
	Lumen gives you a recommendation to improve your metabolic health.
	It also tracks your cycles as well as onset of menopause, not something I'm going to have to worry about.
	It adjusts your recommendation to keep your metabolism healthy through hormonal shifts so you can keep up the energy, stave off cravings.
	Go to lumen.me forward slash viva.
	Get 15% off your Lumen.
	Just click the link below.
	It's in the description.
	Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode.
	And what a hell of a week.
	It has been Robert.
	I now know that you believe in God or something higher.
	How on earth are you digesting what the hell we just witnessed?
	Yeah, well, I mean, for tonight's show, that will be one of the topics, the Trump assassination, what risk there is that there's any inside involvement, what you might look for from an evidentiary perspective, looking at it through the historical.
	Then we have the convention, of course, this week that starts tomorrow in Milwaukee that President Trump has chosen to go to, regardless of the threats, and his vice presidential choice, and whether either one may have, for various legal reasons, related to the timing of the assassination attempt on President Trump's life yesterday.
	Then we've got still whether Biden is going to provide security.
	Or does President Biden want his two political opponents dead?
	And I think it's a question that, frankly, should be asked.
	And if Biden were to withdraw from the presidency or campaign, can he just shift his campaign money to anybody he wants?
	Can a replacement get on the ballot anywhere they want?
	That legal debate continues, and we'll get into a little more detail on it.
	We got a couple of cases, petitions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States on the seizures of property and the abuse of criminal forfeiture authority and on religious schools and the discrimination against them in the state of Michigan.
	Speaking of Michigan, we have Michigan changing its election laws and the Associated Press and members of legal media lying about what those election law changes are.
	We've got the secrecy in courts.
	I'm going to be in court on Thursday in Pennsylvania to deal with a person they're trying to send to prison because they recorded their own court proceeding.
	And now they actually want to go further.
	And this was one of the more popular topics on the poll question for the board tonight.
	They want to incorporate in the power of criminal punishment.
	The right to send people to re-education camps to force you as a condition of a prison sentence or a criminal sentence or other form of punishment, in a civil case in some instances, to force you to subject you to unwanted mental health treatment.
	These are just re-education camps.
	And the prosecutors there in Pennsylvania think that's now part of their toolbox and are demanding it for this defendant that they already illegally, unconstitutionally prosecuted for recording her own court pursuit.
	And the issues with court secrecy is going to be big in that case and in other future cases.
	What are people's rights in that regard?
	What does open access to the courts really mean?
	And the last...
	Well, we got a few more.
	We have, of course, somebody who suddenly the rules of misconduct apply and the benefit of.
	So few criminal defendants get the benefit of these laws.
	Yes, the Alec Baldwin.
	Now, miraculously, Alec Baldwin gets the benefit of these.
	It may be the right decision, but you have to wonder whether this is the timing of how that went down.
	And with a judge who has shown very little concern for it in prior analogous proceedings.
	Then we've got athletes.
	Suing the NCAA, saying we're really employees.
	Let's stop pretending we're volunteers.
	In Tennessee, there's a doctrine called the 13th juror.
	What does that mean for Tennessee court judges?
	And a few bonus cases.
	When is your tweets protected speech?
	And when can it be the basis of a criminal prosecution?
	The NFL Sunday ticket class action.
	The NFL lost big in federal court this past week.
	What that might mean.
	And the hiring doctrines continue to be expanded in multiple jurisdictions, governing when you can be held liable for something somebody else did, even if it was a third party, like you hired them and they hired somebody else.
	But one of the big topics tonight will be, what is the evidence that the assassination attempt against President Trump is the responsibility of President Biden?
	What is the evidence that the assassination attempt against President Trump What is the responsibility of some insider, some corrupt insider, whether in the Secret Service, whether in the CIA, whether in other government agencies?
	What does American history on these topics teach us?
	What does the method of looking at staged events, false flags, insider events?
	Remember, false flags doesn't mean the event doesn't happen.
	It means that there's some culprit not being properly identified.
	Or was this just extraordinary recklessness and negligence by a secret service that cares more about diversity and equity than it does about competency?
	Does the person that's being currently identified as the shooter, does he fit the profile of a lone assassin or does he fit the profile of a patsy?
	What is some of the forensic evidence you would look for in making those determinations?
	So we'll be discussing that and more.
	On tonight's Law for the People.
	Now, before we get there, well, before we get into it, because we're going to move over to Rumble, Robert, but let me bring up a bunch of the rants, and we're going to get to as many as I can.
	I'll do them quickly, because I haven't gone to any of them.
	Alex Davey, Nikki Haley, stayed in the primary race because she was told that Trump would be assassinated.
	Likely? Why?
	No. Interesting, and her stock certainly went up in terms of VP pick earlier today.
	King of Biltong says, spend time with the family and friends, cherish what you have, and be thankful for who you are to be with today.
	Eat good food and be grateful for the liberty we are afforded in this great country, the USA.
	And that is Anton, King of Biltong, best stuff on earth.
	The shooter brought a gun and a ladder.
	I don't know about the ladder, but we certainly know about the gun.
	At least had it somehow on a roof.
	Perfect shot, 130 yards from the present.
	It's unbelievable.
	YouTube would not allow me to post this, says Alex Davyduke.
	What about the counter-sniper team that took out the shooter?
	They must have been...
	They must have seen the would-be assassin.
	Why let seven shots before taking out fire all these people?
	Fire is the least of it.
	We'll get into that in a second.
	Please check out Conservative Beats Rumble Channel.
	Please check out Conservative Beats Rumble Channel.
	We make original conservative music.
	For Patriots, we just did a special six-song release called Trump.
	Still standing.
	Enjoy and God bless America.
	J-Dog says, how many drones do you think the SS had up?
	Drones. What is the one that measure body temperature?
	I forget what those are called.
	It could not be negligence, Robert.
	I mean, that's just my view now.
	I think the real question, why wasn't there a Secret Service agent detailed to patrol the set of rooftops?
	VJank, 50 bucks, says, very informative and interesting.
	Lin is a freaking genius.
	And he teaches this stuff.
	He's amazing.
	Sean, 47. Seven shots, 42 seconds, lifetime to return fire.
	Acquired shooter.
	Quickly waited to take out.
	Enough for five more shots.
	Disgraceful. Someone needs to be jailed.
	I'll just say the answer to that is no.
	I'll get to some other super chats and we'll get to the tips over on Rumble.
	Come on over to Rumbles right now because I'm going to end it on YouTube and Twitter, keeping it up on Rumble and Locals.
	You've got the links for that, so let's go Rumbles and Locals and ending on those other platforms.
	So if you're watching it, when you see the blurred screen...
	It's over on those platforms.
	Come on over to Rumble or VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	The entire stream will be posted tomorrow and the entire podcast will be on audio format on Podbean and wherever else Podbean things are done.
	Okay, updating to go to Rumble and Locals now.
	Robert, people need to go to jail.
	Tell me, this is not negligence.
	This was deliberate.
	Whoever's telling this guy to stand down, if that's true, he stood down.
	Whether or not he was just waiting, I don't know.
	It's impossible that a roof...
	Can be unsupervised, unmanned.
	It's impossible that they didn't have...
	What is the word, Robert, that I'm looking for when it detects body temperature?
	Thermal. Thermal cameras.
	It's impossible that the guy got off seven shots and that after he either missed or whatever missed Trump, then he takes out people in the audience and a man got shot in the head and now we know the ballistics of what happened.
	It's impossible, Robert.
	But what do you think?
	I mean, Kibono and this is a hush-hush in real time.
	Yeah, I mean, I think we saw what went within seconds from one of the more traumatic tragedies of American political life, the first public assassination attempt of any presidential candidate or president in more than 40 years.
	And, you know, for those that have a memory of it, it was PTSD.
	Mark Robert remembered living through it.
	If you lived in the 1960s, you saw a president, John Kennedy, assassinated.
	Another future president, Robert Kennedy, assassinated.
	A major civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, assassinated.
	A major black leader, Malcolm X, assassinated.
	Another presidential candidate, George Corley Wallace, shot in public light.
	President Reagan attempted assassination in 1981.
	And then another president...
	That some people believe was taken out by a coup, Richard Nixon, in 1974.
	So the people that saw a government completely out of control or a society out of control, depending on what your perspective was and who you blamed for those murders and assassinations, and you almost saw it in live time, live watching it on a live stream with President Trump.
	And it went from that near traumatic travesty and tragedy to an extraordinary moment of American heroism and courage in that the way President Trump responded to it was not with fear, was not with cowardice, was not of concern for his own well-being, but instead was to ask the Secret Service to stand aside so he can signal to the crowd that he's okay and
	And with his raises clenched fist in defiance of the attempt to take his life.
	And say, fight, fight, fight.
	And, you know, I mean, I don't know about other people.
	I was ready to go through a wall.
	I mean, you know, I saw it in live time.
	And, you know, went from shock and horror to extraordinary act of courage.
	And it's why Trump's people love Trump.
	They see that Trump, that in a moment of crisis, that's who he is.
	You know, a backbone of steel and balls of brass.
	A man with no fear, with no worry, when his own life was seconds from being taken away, his only reaction, his only response is to let people know he's not going anywhere and to tell them at all, whenever anybody tries to intimidate you or crush you or hurt you or oppress you, you fight back.
	You don't collapse.
	You don't cower.
	You don't bow.
	You don't run away.
	You fight.
	It was a deeply American moment with iconic imageries that is going to be memorable for the next century.
	I mean, we're witnessing centuries and days in terms of what's happening in American public and political life.
	Let me play it.
	Is who's responsible and culpable, and it's not just some wacko kid by himself.
	Let me play it.
	I know everybody's seen it, but it is truly, when you say go through a wall, and I'm sitting there watching this, I'm like, I could be like, if this were the defining moment where you say, can you be...
	Could you volunteer to go to war in a foreign country?
	I just have to be careful the way I say this so nobody thinks I'm getting radicalized.
	That would have been enough for me to say, I'm enlisting myself.
	If it had gone a different way or even based on what we saw.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	I don't understand that last shot.
	Hold on.
	Are you ready?
	I'm you.
	Ready? Move.
	Move. Go.
	Hawkeye's here.
	Hawkeye's here.
	Move into the stand.
	Get ready.
	Get ready.
	You ready?
	Get ready.
	Shooter's down.
	Shooter's down.
	Ready? Shooter's down.
	We're good.
	Shooter's down.
	Shooter's down.
	Are we good to move?
	Shooter's down.
	We're good to move.
	Are we clear?
	We're clear.
	get my shoes.
	Let me get my shoes.
	I got you, sir.
	I got you, sir.
	Let me get my shoes.
	Hold on.
	Your head is good, buddy.
	Sir, we've got to move to the box.
	Move to the box.
	Let me get my shoes.
	Okay. Watch out.
	Watch out.
	out.
	I'll be one of the most iconic moments.
	In American political history.
	Because it showed his instinctive reaction in the moment of crisis is to fight back.
	Is to never give in.
	No matter the situation or the circumstance.
	So extraordinary bravery by President Trump.
	And the right mindset as he's...
	You cannot intimidate him by any manner, method, or means.
	So it's a great credit to President Trump.
	Whether you attribute it to divine intervention or good fortune, he came within that close of being murdered.
	And then we shift to culpable parties.
	And to me, there is no...
	I mean, we should just be honest about it.
	President Biden wants his political opponents dead.
	That's the reality of it.
	We have a president of the United States of America who is doing everything he can to make sure his opponents are murdered.
	That's the level of scum that we have in the White House.
	And if that's not impeachable, then what is Speaker Mike Johnson?
	This is outrageous.
	And if people think it's limited to Trump, it's not.
	Not only has he denied Trump the requested full secret service that he wants, he's denied Robert Kennedy any secret service.
	This man wants his opponents murdered.
	That's who it is.
	We have a criminal in the White House of the bottom of the worst kind ever occupying.
	And if our Republicans in the House...
	Had any courage at all, any morals at all, they would impeach him tomorrow because this is just outrageous.
	And it's the same Secretary of Health and Human Services responsible for these Secret Service decisions that the Senate refused to hold a trial on because he's been committing other impeachable crimes of allowing a mass invasion into this country.
	But, I mean, this was a murder attempt, and it has the complicity of the President of the United States in it, without any doubt.
	And he should be called on it.
	And people should say it for what it is.
	You know, I love...
	First of all, Biden's going live at 8 o'clock, so I think we're probably going to want to see what he has to say.
	But they call for unity.
	Let's unify as a country.
	And how the hell do you unify with the person who's trying to kill you?
	And you're not being hyperbolic.
	Anybody who understands what happened, it's not negligence.
	This was intended to produce a certain result.
	Consequences be damned.
	And yet, denying Secret Service to RFK, who had a dude show...
	Well, we know the misunderstanding of the guy who thought he was going to be security showed up with a gun.
	He wants to get it.
	And let's explain what that is.
	Robert Kennedy's father was assassinated by someone who snuck in to the security force of the hotel that night that wasn't supposed to be there.
	And then after the fourth denial of Secret Service protection, despite enhanced threat risk...
	To Robert Kennedy Jr.
	Someone tries to sneak in just about a mile away from when his father was assassinated when he was 14, doing the same method.
	And let's be frank, it's the kind of thing a petty thug criminal like Joe Biden would be happy to see and witness.
	And after it happened, denied him Secret Service protection again.
	After this happened yesterday, denied him Secret Service protection again.
	We have a complete criminal in the White House who, when he's not trying to imprison and bankrupt his political opponents, is now trying to get them murdered.
	That's the reality of it.
	We should call it for what it is.
	What does Trump do?
	Because the Secret Service protection is offered by the very government that we suspect is trying to kill him.
	How does that work?
	The Secret Service?
	They should impeach the Secretary of Health and Human Services and impeach President Biden tomorrow.
	That's part of it.
	There needs to be accountability.
	There needs to be responsibility.
	There needs to be independent investigation and inquiry.
	And because there was never accountability for the assassination of President Kennedy, never accountability for the assassination of Robert Kennedy, never accountability for the assassination of Martin Luther King, never accountability for the assassination of Malcolm X, all of which had government complicity at some level.
	And they're back to thinking they can do it again.
	No one's going to convince me some rando, weird kid.
	Who couldn't even make the firing squad the shooting team of his high school because of how horrible a shot he was, solely by himself got the inspired idea to walk right up to a rooftop with everybody locally screaming, hey, what's the guy with the gun doing running up on the rooftop?
	And nobody taking any action until he'd taken five, six shots at the President of the United States.
	And that wasn't an inside job at some key level.
	We don't even know if he's the one who really took the shot.
	And maybe we'll never know.
	Because we've got the same FBI in Pittsburgh that is so corrupt.
	They were the same FBI office that covered up for the Biden family corruption repeatedly.
	I mean, in the case that I have involving the lady that recorded her own court proceeding, the law firm she thought was committing fraud on the court, turned out they were.
	The law firm is a Biden-connected law firm.
	Pennsylvania is riddled with corruption all over the place.
	Judges corrupt.
	Prosecutors corrupt.
	State agents corrupt.
	And the FBI office, a joke.
	A joke in Pittsburgh.
	They can't do an ethical, honest inquiry to save their lives.
	You're more likely to find the motive of the Vegas shooter before you're going to find any honest inquiry from that corrupt FBI office in Pittsburgh.
	And again, the same office directly involved in covering up the Biden family crimes for decades.
	Ask yourself, why did they pick Pennsylvania?
	Right? Well, why of all the places to attempt an assassination?
	It's the same reason the LBJ picked Texas for the assassination of President John Kennedy.
	Because they want to control who investigates.
	They want to control who inquires.
	And they know the FBI office in Pittsburgh is so corrupt that it will never do an honest investigation.
	It will go to great lengths to create another fake narrative that says one whack job snookered everybody and got in.
	And that everybody did everything they possibly could, but for this one whack job getting wildly lucky.
	That's a hogwash story.
	The perimeter, that building should have been secure from day one.
	It wasn't secure.
	There should have been a counter-sniper crew.
	There should have been a counter-sniper crew on top of that building so that he couldn't just walk in.
	Hey, look at me.
	I got a gun.
	I got a little ladder.
	I'm going to walk up the ladder.
	Hey, everybody.
	And people screaming, what's the guy doing with the gun?
	And no action taken.
	I'm sorry.
	This was an inside job.
	The Biden administration wants their opponents murdered.
	It's made that crystal clear.
	And they rely upon the complicity of all the corrupt law enforcement in Pennsylvania, which is rampant.
	I mean, why is it I have more cases dealing with civil rights violations in Pennsylvania than any other state in America?
	It's because the whole government is corrupt in that state.
	You have rogue judges sending people to prison illegally when they don't even have criminal jurisdiction.
	The state is a joke, a legal joke, and that's why they're state.
	It's now been chosen for this attempted assassination on President Trump.
	And so it's going to require outside investigations by members of Congress to finally do their job.
	Do what the House Un-American Activities Committee that turned into the House Intelligence Committee and the House Un-Assassinations Committee did in the late 1970s.
	Because we will get no honest investigation out of the state of Pennsylvania or the FBI there.
	None. You're making me angry.
	I was angrier, sufficiently angry.
	It's all inconceivable.
	It's inconceivable that whether or not he brought his ladder and whether or not an AR-15, you can assemble it so that it's pretty small.
	People saw him.
	130 yards out with a perfect view of the stage.
	The only question is, really, Who's on Trump's inner team?
	There was a rumble rant or a super chat or it was somewhere in the chat.
	It said he's got to get Bongino on his team.
	Take Bongino out of retirement.
	Who the hell on Trump's inner circle team is saying is not doing these checks for him?
	I'm not saying that his inner team is in on it.
	It's quite clear that it's not culpable negligence.
	It's desired homicide.
	But who does he get?
	How does he do it internally to have his own team that makes sure that they don't come back for a second attempt?
	I mean, to try to supplement or complement it in some way.
	I think that we'll see.
	I mean, the best deterrent is a meaningful investigation to everybody and everything here.
	Let me stop you there, though.
	Who does that, Robert?
	Who initiates that?
	That's it.
	And so it's going to be Speaker Johnson says he's going to do it.
	But, you know, the people have to step up.
	And there's some excellent congressmen, Jim Jordan, Thomas Massey.
	People that have been independent.
	It's going to require everybody stepping in and saying, this cannot happen again.
	They took their shot.
	They missed.
	They will try again unless there's major deterrence to them trying again.
	The deterrence in the past was people in America by the mid-1970s no longer trusted the government at all.
	And it was those committee investigations on assassinations, those committee investigations.
	The Senate Intelligence Committee back then actually wasn't a rubber stamp of intelligence, but actually supervised the intelligence agencies under Senator Frank Church.
	That's what deterred them and discouraged them from ever trying it again.
	And Ronald Reagan was the last time it was tried in 1981, with a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
	And the massive efforts combined with the media to cover up what happened.
	In all of those assassinations, because there was government complicity in every single one.
	President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. At some level, there was governmental complicity at the highest levels in those assassinations.
	And yet, there was no accountability.
	And the fear of the exposure from those House committees is what stopped it seemingly from occurring, both domestically and internationally, because there had also been a...
	Ridiculous number of assassinations around the world from 1955 to 1975 of foreign leaders of all kinds.
	So the fact that they had the guts to try to let this happen, whether they tried to let it happen or were deliberately complicit in partaking in it, there's just no way this happens with competent, capable people.
	It just doesn't happen.
	And it also suggests complicity in the Pennsylvania state officials.
	I mean, they need to be looked at.
	I mean, I'm dealing with all this insanity out of Pennsylvania, so it doesn't surprise me.
	One of the most corrupt states in the country in 1963 was Texas.
	One of the most corrupt states in America in 2023, 60 years later, 2024, is the state of Pennsylvania.
	I mean, remember, this is a state where they caught judges involved in all kinds of bribery schemes to send kids to places they weren't supposed to be sent to.
	I mean, that's how bad it is in Pennsylvania.
	That's why they're trying to destroy Amish farmers of all people.
	That's why they're locking up farm workers that they don't even have jurisdiction over in the Supreme Court, playing games, saying, oh, golly gee, we're not sure if we need this signature rather than this signature, because they're a bunch of corrupt bums at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
	I mean, it's a joke.
	It's a disgrace.
	So we've got to have, and you look at it, you know, just asking these people are like, oh, you know, this was just a random bad act.
	How did he get to where he got?
	Ask anybody with any degree.
	This is the reason why we had Lynn on to begin with.
	And Lynn wants to be very careful.
	He's very reluctant to draw judgment.
	But he could tell you the basic facts.
	Inner perimeter is here.
	Outer perimeter is here.
	There's another level perimeter here.
	Under that analysis, it should be impossible for this individual to do what he supposedly did.
	To be the sole sniper who was able to get off all these shots.
	It's just not possible with any level of competency or capability, which leads you to conclude that it was deliberate, that it was intentional.
	And there's only so much you can do.
	Can Trump add to it, supplement it, create his own security team?
	Sure. But Robert Kennedy Sr. had his own security team, and they infiltrated it at the local hotel.
	It's impossible to be perfect.
	What there has to be...
	It's consequences to the people that are complicit, right?
	Unlike Vegas, where the sheriff who covered it up is now our governor, right?
	That's not consequences.
	We need consequences.
	And unfortunately, it's only the House committee can do it.
	To some degree, there may be some other jurisdictions that have some authority to inquire.
	And maybe they can make it, you know, like the great prosecutor Garrison did.
	In New Orleans, he found a connection, pursued it, and outed it to the world, despite the media on it.
	But don't be deceived.
	They tried to take out President Trump.
	They tried to murder him on live TV.
	And credit to President Trump, whose reaction was, I don't care if you try to murder me.
	I'm still going to fight, fight, fight.
	And you have to ask about the timing.
	They tried to murder him right before the convention.
	But right before he's the nominee.
	Right before he's making his vice presidential choice.
	Which suggests people in power are worried about what that choice is going to be.
	That people in power are worried about their ability to replace him once he's nominated this week.
	And hopefully, I think President Trump picks somebody smart as vice president, someone that scares them as much as Trump does.
	And that needs to be someone like Senator Vance.
	That needs to be somebody like Ben Carson, Tulsi Gabbard.
	It cannot be a Doug Burgum, or they will take another shot at him again.
	It cannot be a Tim Scott or a Marco Rubio, or he has no insurance against assassination at all.
	So if their goal was to try to intimidate President Trump from making a good VP choice, I think they're going to discover that effort will not work in the direction they think.
	um Okay. What do we move on to, Robert?
	Well, the transition is naturally into the corrupt, murdering wannabe thug president, Joe Biden.
	If he tries to step down, can the Democratic Party just replace him on the ballot?
	Can they just take all of his campaign funds and give it to whom they want?
	And some of the legal issues and ramifications that have developed over the last several weeks related there too.
	All right.
	Well, I've been having this debate with people internally, and it seems that the consensus is they would be able to, or at the very least, try and move over all of the money that Biden has raised and presumably roll it into the Democrat version of Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris.
	Robert, what are the legalities?
	I mean, we talked about it.
	You were skeptical at first, but do I now get the impression that you think this is what the tactic is going to actually be?
	I mean, I think that Biden has no interest in going anywhere.
	Thug criminals don't step down voluntarily.
	And so I think, you know, it would only be involuntary that he steps down.
	And I think the assassination attempt on President Trump suggests, you know, he thinks he's got other mechanisms to assure his election.
	Because that's the way he thinks.
	That's who he is.
	We have a true tin can dictator, wannabe, as our so-called president of the United States.
	But the law does not allow the Democratic Party to just sub in whomever they want.
	This isn't tag team wrestling.
	So under the campaign finance laws, people donate to a specific candidate's election.
	So by the logic of all the law, if that candidate is no longer the candidate, you can't turn around and give his money to any other candidate you want.
	Otherwise, what could happen is you could have 20 candidates run.
	And people could illegally fund one candidate by funding all 20, and then the 19 other candidates drop out and give it all to the one.
	It would just be a huge money laundering tool, loophole, campaign finance loophole.
	So the Democrats are asserting these absurd, absurd interpretations of campaign finance.
	Oh yeah, we can do whatever we want.
	We can just give it to this.
	We can just do it to this.
	It would utterly eviscerate.
	The entire purpose of those laws, and as far as I can tell, the plain text of those laws.
	So in my view, unless Joe Biden is running as president, if somebody else is running, that money has to be refunded back to donors.
	And then it's up to donors whether to re-contribute to somebody else.
	I think that would be a massive legal issue.
	And remember, the Supreme Court no longer is giving such great deference to the administrative state.
	So the Federal Elections Commission tried to cover up for it.
	Don't expect the courts to just go along with it because it would make a complete mockery of our campaign finance laws to allow that size loophole in it.
	The second aspect is the ballot.
	Take the law in Wisconsin.
	The law in Wisconsin is crystal clear.
	It says if you are nominated, you must be on the ballot.
	And only if you are dead can you be taken off the ballot.
	If you're alive, you're not allowed to turn down the position on the ballot.
	You're not allowed to substitute anybody on the ballot.
	So in Wisconsin, if they substitute out Biden, they have nobody on the ballot.
	It's either Biden or nobody for the Democratic Party.
	Are they willing to just forfeit Wisconsin out of the blue?
	Do they expect people to still vote for Biden when they know he's not running, if that's the case?
	So I think the campaign finance law limitations and the ballot access law limitations mean Joe Biden ain't going nowhere.
	Joe Biden won't step down.
	This criminal will hold on to power as long as he can.
	Robert, if I can get really conspiratorial, really Jean Le Carré.
	First of all, people are floating the ridiculous idea that this was staged, that they didn't really want to take out Trump, or that maybe they wanted to, but it's turning out to be a good photo op and it's going to make Trump stronger.
	There's a whole bunch of really ridiculous, untenable conspiracy theories.
	But the flip side is...
	No, but of course, watch.
	Those people will never be...
	The courts will never allow those people to be sued.
	I mean, Alex, any questions get sued into oblivion, but these people saying pernicious things after one person is dead and two other people critically injured and the President of the United States almost murdered, these people won't, even though they're actually billionaires, they'll suffer no consequence.
	But if people have doubts about what I'm saying, look at the reaction of people like Elon Musk.
	He's never been a big Trump fan.
	And the first thing he does is endorse Trump, and he explains to everybody why.
	He goes, this was a professional hit.
	That's what this was.
	This was an attempted assassination with the complicity of the Biden administration.
	Now, why do you think Elon Musk thinks that?
	He's come out and said there's been two assassination attempts against him in just the last six months.
	Because Musk sees how nuts these people are.
	That these are people that present imminent risk to the American Republic.
	And so I think that...
	Biden is the personification of that risk, but he is not the only expression.
	I mean, every Democrat who supported taking away President Trump's Secret Service protection based on that bogus nonsense criminal conviction should be embarrassed.
	They should be expelled.
	They should be kicked out for what they're doing.
	Benny Johnson tabled the Disgrace Act.
	A corrupt hack running on civil rights.
	That guy doesn't know anything about civil rights.
	He doesn't care about civil rights.
	He's just another grifting political machine fraud who is willing to make sure other people are murdered so he can stay in office.
	That's the kind of scum we're dealing with.
	But Robert, my deep, dark, sinister thought was they expected to take Trump out.
	Then they would take Biden out because of a reprisal from a man or a woman who was angry, seeking retribution for having taken Trump out.
	You get Trump out.
	He doesn't win.
	You take Biden out and now you put someone else in there who's going to be good for the next eight years.
	You're pretty much stuck with Kamala Harris.
	And that's their problem is Harris is the most unpopular political figure on national life.
	I mean, there's a couple of fake polls that tried to say, but honest polls have shown for two years now she's hated.
	So that's the problem the political establishment has.
	So we can't rule it out.
	I mean, the forensic fingerprints of a false flag event in the sense of not properly attributing culpability to whom it belongs, a false flag literally being pirates who used to raise a false flag to deceive someone so they could get close to their ship before they could board it and raid it.
	And so it's just attributing the wrong culprit.
	Here, there's no question there were some inside complicit parties.
	There's no way some rando, weirdo idiot decided this particular event, he could just walk right in, walk right up the steps of a building and take a bunch of pot shots at the president from 100 yards.
	So I'm not buying that for a second.
	So there's no question there was culpability and complicity, and I think that's more there.
	But I think for legal reasons, very difficult to replace Biden unless he's dead, and very difficult then to substitute anybody but Kamala Harris as president.
	And that has its own disaster attached to it politically for the Democratic Party.
	Now, in the Bourbon with Barnes, it was about, I think, a week and a half ago, you were predicting more hit pieces in the media.
	You didn't predict so much the more celebrities turning on Trump, the Biden, but that goes without saying.
	What do you make of it now?
	Like, it seems that they've shut their mouths.
	You know, the Cloonies, the Rob Ryaners, they came out and yapped for two days, three days, and now they've gone silent.
	Are there backdoor meetings?
	Like, Clooney, shut your mouth.
	This is how it's going to go and stop doing this?
	Or did they just do this?
	They underestimated what kind of petty criminal Joe Biden is.
	That Joe Biden is a ruthless, petty criminal.
	And what I mean by petty is just he's not Lex Luthor-brained.
	He's Lex Luthor but retarded.
	In the same way he's LBJ but retarded.
	But he has the same power-free contentions and he's extremely ruthless.
	You don't stay senator and then make yourself vice president and weasel your way into the White House without being a ruthless SOB.
	That's what Joe Biden has always been.
	And I think people who thought they could take him out with ease discovered that the hard way.
	Unless you're willing to be more ruthless than him, you're not going to be successful.
	And then their problem is they have to deal with the fallout and the chaos of trying to replace him.
	If there was an LBJ right there, then Biden would have been dead six months ago.
	But because it's Kamala Harris and Biden understood this, He's like, I'm going to put Spiro Agnew, but Dumber, as my vice president.
	And so they can't take me out because then they're stuck with, saddled with idiot.
	You know, that he understood why and how that worked.
	So I think that will likely stay that way.
	I think the hit pieces will start to diminish.
	Well, I've noticed...
	They've already started diminishing, at least as of last Friday.
	And certainly now, Biden's cognitive impairments are not in the news cycle for obvious reasons.
	Robert, I mean, we might see Trump this week.
	I don't know when he's scheduled to come down.
	Well, he flew into Milwaukee tonight.
	I don't know what appearances he'll be making around Milwaukee, but he flew into Milwaukee tonight.
	I can't get over...
	We don't...
	Really, it's almost like a joke to say, oh, it grazed his ear on the inside of his scalp.
	Like, oh, it's still very difficult to comprehend.
	And, you know, Mark Robert, who you mentioned, lived through the slew of assassinations in the 60s.
	I mean, he took to Twitter.
	He's like, you know, after all of the adrenaline wore off, he broke down and sobbed.
	I mean, it's like what could have been could have been the end of America as we knew it.
	Okay, so Joe Biden...
	It shows these people have no...
	We have an incredibly dangerously incompetent president and a completely out-of-control deep state apparatus.
	They've been out of control really for 60 years, 70 years, since the 1950s.
	But at least they were hemmed in a bit by the committees of the 1970s.
	And now they're back to full scale.
	I mean, they try to bankrupt them, they try to imprison them, and now they try to murder them.
	I mean, they have no sense of limit.
	And they need to see consequence from people with political power.
	Now, credit to Elon Musk leveraging the power he has, economic and social through X, to really hammer this home while the institutional media was saying Trump fell.
	I mean, CNN, that's got to be the most disgraceful headline in news history.
	Trump fell.
	There's no attempt at assassination.
	Trump fell.
	That's a disgrace.
	Jake Tapper's a disgrace.
	All these people are a disgrace to news and journalism.
	But they embarrassed themselves at a whole new level and scale yesterday.
	Well, Robert, it's interesting.
	People were all steel-mannered.
	They said it was the initial report.
	I think CNN changed it to an incident.
	Fox News or one of their affiliates said a fall.
	First of all...
	Never at any point in anybody's experience of that event was there a fall.
	And for them to editorialize the fall, I go much cynical conspiracy theory.
	I genuinely believe that they didn't want to interfere with what might have been the follow-up to seal the deal.
	And so in the first five minutes, 30 minutes, call it a fall, and the people who are not there don't know what happened.
	And if there's going to be a follow-up, the guy has a second chance, then they don't want to interfere with that.
	I genuinely have these dark, sinister thoughts that...
	They wanted him to die.
	The media wanted him to die.
	A lot of people wanted him to die.
	The people on TikTok and Twitter.
	And so they deliberately lied about what happened in the first critical minutes of fall, an incident.
	And then they have to finally report mildly accurately.
	And Reuters today is finally saying it was an inexplicable security catastrophic...
	Failure. Well, I mean, that'll be the new excuse.
	But that just doesn't hold water to me.
	I mean, one thing, what did government agencies know about this individual?
	Why does he seem to fit the profile of a patsy?
	Somebody, you know, he's bullied in high school, kind of a loser, never gets anywhere socially, bounces around politically, says a lot of dumb and crazy things.
	That person shows up on early profiles of government agencies.
	So what happened there?
	Was there following them?
	Was there not following them?
	Was there other people involved?
	Some stories suggest family members and others are government mental health counselors.
	They are.
	You know, I mean, was there any role of psychiatrics here?
	Do we have another case where somebody gets homicidal by being on Big Pharma's so-called mental health products?
	So, I mean, there's a whole bunch of areas there that there needs to be inquiry.
	But critically, what did the local police, state police, and Secret Service know and fail to do?
	Because that's where there was obvious failure, institutional failure.
	But I think Trump is going to be unaffected by any of it.
	And hopefully he makes a great vice presidential choice that provides a little more insurance against assassination.
	I think if you look at the timing...
	They attempted to assassinate him before he had a VP, before he was formally nominated by the convention.
	I think he substantially reduces the assassination risk once he's both nominated and puts a populist as his VP.
	Then people are like, well, now we've got to take out both of them in order to try to do something.
	And that would look really suspicious.
	So even more than this obviously is.
	But you saw also right away, unlike the prior assassinations of the 60s.
	Even the Reagan attempted assassination in 81 or George Wallace in 72. You saw immediate skepticism.
	You saw the potential power of the internet in democratizing information.
	And that people who have full knowledge, people that have done protective detail, people that have done sniper work, people that have done security work, people that have worked at every level of law enforcement, people that were there at the scene.
	All coming out right away with information that contradicted the official narrative.
	And so hopefully, I mean, Stephen Crowder was sending people to try to talk to the parents, and all of a sudden, the road had been blocked off by that night.
	It's like, the road got blocked off?
	I mean, so, you know, they're not going to be able to get away with it nearly as easily as I think they thought they would.
	But what is terrifying is they thought they could do this again.
	That they could pull this off and...
	In live streaming TV?
	I mean, it's just extraordinary.
	These people have totally lost control.
	Totally lost the script.
	The Supreme Court should have gone a lot further in some of these decisions.
	Because these people are nuts.
	They are nuts.
	And they're a danger and a threat to everybody.
	Robert, the candidates, let me just pull up a list of VPs.
	You got J.D. Vance, who's everybody's favorite.
	Doug Burgum, not.
	The program is a Bill Gates-loving, establishment-supporting, deep state-tied individual who puts President Trump's life at imminent and immediate risk.
	I'll just say this.
	We were jokingly, dark humorous, sinisterly saying he needs assassination insurance for a while.
	I meant it sincerely.
	It's funny.
	We said it and you just never...
	Imagine that it actually happens, but now it's there.
	So Bergam is not insurance.
	Marco Rubio is a threat to President Trump's life.
	Marco Rubio is a threat to President Trump's life if they're VP.
	Tim Scott is an imminent risk to President Trump's life if he's the VP pick.
	Any of those kind of candidates present an imminent risk of assassination of President Trump.
	Whereas J.D. Vance, Ben Carson, Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek, they provide insurance because the people in power that are scared of Trump are just as scared of them.
	And that's why I think the first priority, you know, Mike Cernovich, who's going to be interviewing with Tucker Carlson this week, said the same thing.
	He said, number one priority for President Trump has to be...
	Life insurance.
	And the best life insurance is someone who's ideologically aligned with Trump on populist issues concerning war in the deep state.
	And J.D. Vance is exactly who that guy is.
	Fits that to a T. The same is true of Ben Carson.
	The same is true of Tulsi Gabbard.
	The same is true of Vivek.
	Whereas Doug Burgum is just the opposite of that.
	Doug Burgum is a deep state aficionado.
	Tim Scott is a deep state desired perfect candidate.
	Same with Marco Rubio.
	So that VP choice will provide a lot more insurance for President Trump if he makes a certain choice.
	And hopefully he does this week.
	We'll find out.
	All right.
	Chris Pavlovsky just posted a picture of him with Trump saying it's on my way to Milwaukee for the GOP convention.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Okay, Robert, so we've done Joe Biden, corrupt old man, never given up the power, and we've seen it now.
	Speaking of corruption and getting away with killing people or trying to kill people, the Alec Baldwin case.
	Robert, so I picked, as I'm driving endlessly all day long, I picked apart Eric Hunley yesterday.
	I picked apart his knowledge yesterday because I watched the trial.
	I missed the biggest day, but then I said, like, holy crap, Apple's dismissed with prejudice.
	What happened here?
	Go back, and everyone's saying, They didn't disclose, you know, it was a Brady violation.
	They did not disclose the prosecution to the defense, relevant, potentially exculpatory evidence.
	They waited too long.
	By the time it was revealed, trial's on, jury's impaneled, jeopardy has attached, and the judge says, you know, goes through the thresholds of all of the criteria for dismissal with prejudice and dismissal with prejudice.
	I wasn't fully understanding what the...
	Evidence was, so I speak with Eric Connelly, America's Untold Stories, with Mark Robert.
	Everybody should be subscribed.
	And he explained to me what that ammunition was, or what that evidence was, and it's freaking suspicious, more so than I even thought, is that the day after Hannah Guterres-Reed gets convicted, her dad, what's his name, has a T and an H, Thel, Thel, Thel, Thel Reed.
	The day after Hannah is convicted, this former police officer judge drops off a box of ammunition at the prosecution or at the investigators and says, I'm a good Samaritan.
	This ammunition resembles what was on the set.
	You should look at it.
	Investigation takes it.
	It's like, oh, this guy's crazy.
	We don't need this for anything.
	Files it under a separate investigation file number for whatever the reason.
	And there it goes for good.
	And it never gets disclosed to Alec Baldwin because it's under a separate file, not under Baldwin's investigation file number, whatever.
	The special prosecutor, Morrissey, knows of its existence, doesn't disclose it to the defense because she doesn't think it's relevant.
	What difference does it make?
	Where the ammunition came from?
	This particular box, some nutcase says it's, you know, look at it, haha.
	And doesn't disclose it.
	Baldwin discovers this during the trial.
	It was on Thursday or Friday.
	They then hold...
	A hearing where Morrissey testifies.
	One of the prosecutors resigns from the case the day of because she says, we need to dismiss this and we don't have to have a public hearing on this.
	And they do it.
	It's embarrassing, humiliating.
	Morrissey, the prosecutor, basically admits, I knew it existed.
	I made the decision not to disclose it because I thought it was irrelevant.
	And then they dismiss it.
	So it seems that there is objective police misconduct in this case for people who are saying what relevance could it possibly have?
	Baldwin pointed the gun, pulled the trigger, yada yada.
	Well, Baldwin could have explored the theory that this might have been deliberate sabotage, that the manufacturer of the ammunition deliberately sabotaged the set, so much so that, you know, even the armorer might have difficulty identifying live rounds from dummy rounds and that Baldwin should be therefore exonerated.
	Okay, that's it.
	Dismissed with prejudice.
	He now gets to sue, presumably, for constitutional violations.
	They don't get to bring the charges again.
	And it seems that conduct has gone punished.
	Robert, feel this and flesh it out while I just run and do something real quick.
	Yeah, I mean, so from a constitutional perspective, the duty is under the Due Process Clause as part of what I consider the right to trial by jury.
	In a criminal case as well, and Justice Gorsuch has hinted at this, that there's a robust set of rights to protect the innocent and to protect against government malfeasance or misconduct in the manner of the investigation, indictment, or trial.
	And there's a case called Brady v.
	the United States, another one later called Giglio v.
	the United States, where the Supreme Court laid out there's an affirmative duty and obligation on the government when they have evidence.
	That it could be exculpatory, meaning it could be evidence that could help the defense.
	Then they have a duty and obligation to notify the defense that that evidence exists, and they have a duty to turn over that evidence when they have it in their custody or possession.
	Equally, that's the Brady standard, the Giglio standard, and to provide it to them in enough time for them to meaningfully use it in prep of trial.
	So the Giglio requirement is if you have information that could impeach In this case, evidence came forward that basically potentially tied into the bullets.
	That said the bullet that was used in the death of the woman, in this case, may have come from a different source.
	And that these bullets, the versions of these bullets that may have been on set were provided to the prosecutor.
	The prosecutor decided the bullets didn't match so they couldn't have come from the set.
	But instead of notifying the defense of that, saying here's this evidence that came in, I don't think it matters, but here it is, just FYI, do with it what you want.
	Instead, never told the defense of it and then took additional steps.
	To hide it from other agents.
	And this is how the prosecutorial misconduct works on a regular basis.
	They want to make sure some random schmuck who gets assigned to the case doesn't accidentally turn over this kind of evidence.
	So they don't assign it to that case within the chain of custody as listed in the case file.
	So it never pops up.
	Sometimes that evidence pops up indirectly.
	Like you'll be going through a chain of custody law, inventory law, and there'll be numbers missing, or they'll suddenly jump numbers.
	You'll be like, what's that?
	So they want to avoid that being detected by a smart defense lawyer.
	So they don't even assign, not only do they not notify the defense, they don't even assign the chain of custody and inventory to this evidence to any number affiliated or associated with any aspect of the case.
	Whether Baldwin's case or anybody else's case.
	So they could effectively, systematically hide it from the defense.
	The defense finds out about this early during the trial, figures out that in fact they're wrong, that the claim that the gun, the bullets don't match isn't true, that a lot of the bullets do match.
	So it looks like they've hidden evidence that could have been useful in their defense until after the trial's already started, so they couldn't.
	No longer we're in a position to make meaningful maximum value of it.
	And the prosecutor and the cop knew about this evidence and still hid it.
	And so that's called a Brady violation.
	The question is a remedy.
	I can tell you, 99 times out of 100, the courts don't dismiss.
	They sometimes grant a mistrial and say, we'll allow you to get this evidence before we impanel the next jury trial.
	But about 75% of the time, they pardon the prosecution.
	Say, oh, they meant, well, it wasn't really deliberate.
	Ah, maybe it wouldn't have been that meaningful.
	Of the other 25% of the time, 24% of the time, they say mistrial, not dismissal with prejudice post-jury selection.
	So, and this judge had shown no such hostility to the government, no such sympathy to defendant rights in prior cases that I'm aware of.
	And all of a sudden, midway through this case, in a case Alec Baldwin looks dead to rights because of his constant continuous lies in the court of public opinion, the judge bails him out using a prosecutorial mistake that on the scale of prosecutorial mistakes is a small-scale version of what they do on a regular basis to everybody else.
	So, I mean, they've been committing routine Brady violations in the January 6th cases.
	Routine Brady violations against President Trump.
	Of a much more material and impactful kind.
	And it looks to me like this was almost an inside wink wink.
	We'll indict Alec Baldwin to make it look like we're impartial and not politically prejudiced.
	But don't worry, Judge, at the right time we'll be like, golly gee, did we forget to turn that evidence over?
	We're so shocked and horrid that Judge B, I'm outraged.
	I care so much about the Constitution, even though I never care about it for any other defendant.
	I must dismiss.
	For poor Alec Baldwin, who's not the murderer, but just the innocent victim of a rogue prosecution.
	So while I agree with the dismissal because I think the Constitution matters more than Alec Baldwin's guilt, I don't believe for one second that that's what motivated this case.
	This looks like an inside job to cover up the crimes of Alec Baldwin.
	Well, but so that's the question.
	Now, Morrissey in cross-examination by Baldwin's attorney over this issue.
	She said, you know, okay, she called him a cocksucker and arrogant prick and whatever.
	But she said something very funny.
	I like his politics.
	And so then I'm like, oh, okay, so she's doing this.
	She's doing him a favor by doing this.
	You know, the wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	Except, like, what will be the professional ramifications for her as a sanction?
	In over 2,000 cases, they've studied this, in over 2,000 cases where judges have made referrals to ethics boards.
	And this judge made no such suggestion.
	She was going to make such a referral, by the way.
	Even when the judge makes a referral, the odds of any adverse action happening to the prosecutor is less than 1,000 to 1. More than 2,000 referrals, only 2. We're ever sanctioned by the ethics boards.
	They don't prosecute corrupt prosecutors at the ethics boards.
	So other than like a bad headline for a second, although I don't see many bad headlines.
	At the end of the day, she helped cover for Alec Baldwin, who's politically popular in that jurisdiction.
	And who knows what other benefits might be coming down the pipeline.
	Well, that's what I...
	He's still got the civil suit, so financially he's still going to be in a bit of trouble for a while, but...
	I had that thought.
	If she did it, I'll take the fall for now.
	I know that nothing's going to happen.
	I'm not going to lose my license.
	I'm not going to pay out a million dollars.
	I mean, hypothetically, Baldwin can't...
	And one of the prosecutors was so bothered by how all this was going down, she resigned from the prosecutor's office.
	Yeah, and she was a new one.
	She didn't have a hand in the misconduct.
	She just had a hand in the, we should not be debating this.
	Yeah, why resign?
	That is very rare.
	And I heard the public explanation that she thought it should be a private proceeding.
	Uh-uh.
	She knows something she doesn't want to publicly disclose.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	Okay. So is there a meaningful risk that Morrissey gets sued personally for Baldwin's Brady violation?
	No. No.
	It's almost impossible to bring those civil suits anyway.
	Now, Robert, I've got...
	In the backdrop...
	You know who may get out?
	Hannah Guterres-Reed.
	Oh, sorry.
	Okay, so that's another thing, by the way.
	So... Look, the guy who dropped off this box of ammunition, best friends with Hannah's father, a judge, retired cop, after she gets convicted, discovers new evidence.
	When does the Brady obligation cease to exist?
	After conviction, presumably there's no longer any Brady obligation, but what if the prosecution discovers exculpatory evidence after conviction?
	Oh, it still matters, and their obligation is to turn it over.
	Because it can be grounds, a habeas petition to set it aside.
	And her lawyers already said they're going to move it.
	And this judge did such grandstanding for Alec Baldwin?
	Is she going to suddenly reveal how political her decision was by not giving Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the same relief?
	I think she's almost tied herself into a bind that she's got to let Hannah Gutierrez-Reed walk.
	Otherwise, everybody knows what she was up to.
	Every smart defense lawyer in town knows what he was up to.
	Only the nitwits on LawTube thought this was honest, honorable, courageous action by a judge.
	You've got to be a complete idiot to buy that.
	Unbelievable. Robert, what I was going to say is I've got in the backdrop a live thing of Biden expected to speak on Trump.
	Before we get there, if I may, because it's been a while since we've done...
	I'm sorry, you get my greasy, shiny forehead for this.
	AngryMarsupial says, hope I will see you guys at TimCast and The Quartering next week.
	We're there, Robert.
	I don't know what day our live stream is with Rumble, but we're there.
	I guess we should let the...
	Is Tipo going to be on the ground?
	Tim, I believe, is going to be on the ground.
	The Quartering, I know, is going to be on the ground.
	He tweeted at me saying, you big-timed me at the Marriott butthole, and I have no idea what the hell he's talking about.
	So I'm going to text...
	Jeremy afterwards.
	But yeah, we're all going to be there.
	We're going to find time to go live and it's going to be fantastic.
	And yeah, it's going to be great.
	Let me...
	Antwaba Hack says, anyone that thinks this was a setup to make Trump look good and there was no intent to kill him totally doesn't understand how ballistics works.
	They're idiots.
	They're idiots.
	There's no question about it.
	And I don't know what Destiny's doing.
	I'm not paying attention to that guy, but he's been having...
	It's going to get...
	It doesn't matter.
	They've watched too many Hollywood movies.
	Spudman VP, there are reports of an officer got on the roof and the sniper looked at him and said, not engaging.
	Let me read it.
	Sniper may have been looking at that and not engaging sooner so as not to hit the cop.
	Okay, interesting.
	If Joe Biden's brain were an eight-cylinder engine, seven spark plugs are shattered.
	The last one is fouled, so it intermittently fires.
	Probably need to check the wires too, says SDL Burton.
	Anarchy 104.
	Barnes, what's your take on Biden's speech to donors the other day where Biden says time to put him in a bullseye?
	I want to hear it.
	I will be just as skeptical as those reports unless I see a tweet from Biden, which I've seen only screen grabs of, or I hear the actual audio, but I've heard the same thing.
	Do you think he had anything to do with the assassination attempt of Trump?
	I think we got over that.
	We talked about that thoroughly.
	I think it needs to be repeated.
	Dissenting Supreme Court justices said just a week ago that the president could order the assassination of a political rival, greasing the skids.
	Joe Biden is both a senile corpse and an evil genius.
	I think it's fair to say whatever control in the Oval Office is the entity calling the shots.
	Stop voting for establishment candidates, full stop.
	No, Barnes, Sammy, has explained that he was a criminal, now he's a senile criminal, and he's still got the criminal tendencies, but just in the body of a senile old man.
	I know a demo on Facebook that thinks Trump planned this.
	These people are seriously delusional.
	And then they accuse us of being conspiracy theorists.
	So they can move the money.
	What are you going to...
	Sure, they can move the money.
	What are you going to do about it?
	Well, that's the question.
	Biden seems to think he's an old-school Irish boss in the vein of Nicky Johnson from the Atlantic.
	Cody... In reality, he's a low-tier street enforcer, like mad dog.
	I don't know who these people are.
	The jacket, Terra Argentinium.
	I love when Robert gets fired up.
	Also, my 65-year-old mom, who never shot a gun, who never shot a gun, hit a man-sized target 10 of 10 times at 200 yards.
	It was an act of God he missed.
	Anyone have to prove that they were going to try to unveil Trump?
	Unalive Trump.
	It's because Trump turned his head at the perfect time.
	So I think he had that bullet.
	I think he had the shot perfectly lined up.
	And what it is is Trump had this dramatic thing.
	He loves visuals.
	He had this big visual up to the right.
	And that's what he was looking up to because he likes to lead the audience to do it.
	And the guy who's playing had no reason to know that would happen at the very moment he pulled the trigger.
	It's an act of...
	Look, I'm getting there, people.
	It's strong inferential evidence of divine intervention.
	I'll put it that way.
	I know people have different beliefs about spirituality and religion, but just arguing from...
	Is that a reasonable...
	Is it more reasonable to believe divine intervention than randomness?
	I would argue more reason to believe divine intervention than randomness, given the coincidence of the time.
	Rybo94 says, Viva, look at Julie Kelly recent thread from a woman, last name Crabtree, talking about how Biden had moved resources to Kamala and Jill, making their trip to Pennsylvania an absolute fucking disgrace.
	Agreed. Okay.
	We have a good reason to confirm an inside job.
	We have Biden do another presser.
	We're going to see about Biden's presser in a second.
	Okay. And then, not we've been neglecting our folks at...
	Let me get to a bunch of these, if we can, Robert.
	Why did Trump have his shoes off?
	I think his shoes must have fallen off or slipped off as he fell.
	Gray101 says, will Trump consider the VP, the people who came out against him?
	Will Trump consider the VP?
	It was interesting, that whole response.
	Not only the extraordinary stand-up-and-fight response, but anybody that knows how Hillary Clinton dealt with the Secret Service, Trump's just the opposite.
	There's no bossing around.
	There's no screaming at them.
	There's no demanding.
	It's like, no, hold on a second.
	I need to do this.
	Hold on a second.
	I need to do this.
	What you see is some of us who have defended Trump for a long time and said he's really actually not a big narcissist, but a very humble guy.
	A very good man.
	A deeply principled guy.
	You can see it reflected in the fact that his kids are extraordinarily normal for growing up the kids of very wealthy, prominent parents.
	Don Jr. doesn't have Hunter Biden's list of problems.
	Eric, they're very normal kids, which is incredible in the modern age.
	It's because he's fundamentally a good guy.
	You can disagree with his politics.
	That's fine.
	But the idea that you just saw in one moment both his extraordinary character and just how a good guy he is.
	He's a good guy.
	People that have been around him for a long time have known this about him.
	It's impossible to overstate because, you know, they say, like, golf reveals character, doesn't build it, because if you're an asshole and you're impatient and you blame everybody for everything, you'll do that in a game of golf.
	This was the most stressful moment a human can endure, and he wasn't using these guys as shields.
	He wasn't saying, cover me, you fucking asshole!
	He was, he's like, no, let me stand up, and he was with brethren, and he wasn't there as the sole object of the protection.
	He wanted his shoes on.
	Which I was concerned because that struck me as being like the reaction to someone who just got concussed.
	Like, okay, now who gives a shit about your shoes?
	Run off stage and go.
	But then the fist up in the air and the fight, fight, fight.
	It's enough to make you cry.
	I will go rewatch it afterwards.
	Do we have...
	Oh, I should have...
	Let me...
	I don't have the audio on.
	Is this...
	Oh, is it?
	Is it...
	Hold on, Robert.
	I see something here.
	Okay. Oh, gosh.
	Hold on.
	Sorry. Has Biden started?
	Yep. Oh, cripe.
	I'm going to back it up.
	Let me back it up.
	We're going to pause it.
	Robert, you really have to understand he means it.
	It's his criminal voice.
	That's what it is.
	We're going to pause it for commentary because people have been saying...
	I want to speak to you tonight about the need for us to lower...
	Sorry, hold on.
	I meant to pause that.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Robert, what were you going to say?
	I mean, it's a guy whose administration couldn't wait to brag about one of the worst global infrastructure terrorism events in the last century.
	That's who this guy is.
	Okay, let's hear it.
	Look at that face.
	My fellow Americans, I want to speak to you tonight about the need for us to lower the temperature in our politics.
	I'm sorry.
	Robert, I'm going to pause it here.
	He's saying we need to lower the temperature of our politics as though they came off a bad debate where someone called someone an asshole.
	They tried to murder.
	Barrett's speech, assuming it was after his death.
	And it was going to say his death was his own fault because of his extremism.
	This is where the media narrative was like, you know, Trump's fighting attitude is what caused the event.
	And so this speech was pre-written, and they just decided to stick with it, even though Trump lived.
	We'd say, hey, let's tone down the rhetoric.
	Oh, we just tried to kill my rival.
	Let's tone it down, people.
	Remember. Or we may disagree.
	We're not enemies.
	We're neighbors.
	We're friends, co-workers, citizens.
	And most importantly, we're our fellow Americans.
	And one of those Americans was just murdered.
	And your rival, it's...
	Okay, the dogs are going crazy.
	I'll forgive the hurt.
	Let's just...
	What you're seeing is, you know, this is how...
	As he planned on presenting, he's really above it all.
	And he's the solution to this terrible problem.
	It's very LBJ-ish.
	After Kennedy's assassination.
	This is true narcissism.
	This is true pathological narcissism.
	Together. Come together.
	Yesterday's shooting at Donald Trump's rally in Pennsylvania calls on all of us to take a step back.
	I'm sorry.
	Yesterday's shooting at Donald Trump's rally.
	It sounds like, oh, someone popped the cap.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's like, oh, it must be Trump causes violence, not...
	Joe Biden causes violence.
	Not yesterday's assassination attempt and murder of an American just exercising his freedom of association.
	No, the shooting.
	The shooting.
	It happened.
	The car drove into the crowd.
	Holy... I loathe this man.
	Not quite as much as Justin Trudeau, but he wields much more power than Justin Trudeau.
	Take stock of where we are.
	How we go forward from here.
	Thankfully. Former Trump is not seriously lingered.
	I spoke to him last night.
	I'm sorry.
	What the?
	I will not swear.
	Former Trump is not serious.
	He can't say the word president, so he just calls him former Trump.
	Former Trump is not presently lingered.
	Thankfully, former Trump is not seriously lingered.
	I spoke to him last night.
	I'm grateful.
	He's doing well, and Jill and I keep him and his family in our prayers.
	Oh, yeah.
	I pray.
	Okay, now I won't even say it.
	We also extend our deepest condolences to the family of the victims who was killed.
	Corey was a husband, a father.
	A firefighter and an American hero killed by one of your lefty lunatic nutbags.
	But let's try to tone the temperature down a little bit.
	Volunteer firefighter, a hero, sheltering his family from those bullets.
	We should all hold his family.
	And all those injured in our prayers.
	Robert, I'm calling it now.
	If this mother effer takes this opportunity to talk about gun control, I'm going to swear.
	Earlier today, I spoke about an ongoing investigation.
	We do not know the motive of the shooter yet.
	We don't know his opinions or affiliations.
	He donated it to you, Biden, through ActBlue the day of your inauguration, you moron.
	But, Robert, I forgot to ask you earlier.
	He was a registered Republican.
	Someone in the super chat, I'll get to it in a bit, wanted to remind everybody that Pennsylvania is a closed state, so you have to register if you want to vote for or against Donald Trump.
	Okay, sorry.
	We don't know whether you had help or support or if you communicated with anyone else.
	Law enforcement professionals, as I speak, are investigating those questions.
	Which law enforcement officials, Robert?
	Tonight. I want to speak to what we do know.
	A former president was shot, an American citizen killed, while simply exercising his freedom to support the candidate of his choosing.
	We cannot, we must not go down this road in America.
	It's not America.
	We've traveled before throughout our history.
	Violence has never been the answer, whether it's with members of Congress and both parties being targeted and shot.
	What? A violent mob attacking the Capitol on January 6th.
	Oh, you mother...
	Robert? I won't swear.
	It's our Sunday show.
	I'm going to be good.
	A brutal attack on the spouse of former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
	Or information and intimidation on election officials.
	Or the kidnapping plot against the sitting governor.
	The one that was planned by the FBI that's now investigating Donald Trump after having been authorized to use deadly force to raid Mar-a-Lago?
	It's amazing.
	The whole plan was he gets assassinated and blame him for his own assassination.
	...
	on Donald Trump.
	There's no place in America for this kind of violence.
	For any violence, ever.
	For this kind of violence.
	Period. Period.
	No exceptions.
	No exceptions.
	Full stop.
	We can't allow this violence to be normalized.
	You know, the political record in this country has gotten very heated.
	It's time to cool it down.
	Cool it down.
	We all have a responsibility to do that.
	Yeah, including Donald Trump.
	Yes, we have deeply felt strong disagreements.
	The stakes in this election are enormously high.
	But yet only one side seems to actually take guns to politicians.
	I've said it many times that the choice we make in this election is going to shape the future of America and the world for decades to come.
	I believe that with all my soul.
	I really do.
	I know that millions of my fellow Americans believe it as well.
	And some have a different view as to the direction our country should take.
	Disagreement is inevitable in American democracy.
	It's part of human nature.
	How do we know this is alive?
	Politics must never be a literal battlefield, a God forbid, a killing field.
	I believe politics ought to be an arena for peaceful debate, to pursue justice, to make decisions guided by the Declaration of Independence in our Constitution.
	We stand for an America, not of extremism and fury, but of decency and grace.
	All of us now face a time of testing as the election approaches.
	The higher the stakes, the more fervent the passions become.
	This places an added burden on each of us to ensure that no matter how strong our convictions, we must never descend into violence.
	The convention will start tomorrow.
	I have no doubt they'll criticize my record and offer their own vision for this country.
	I'll be traveling this week making the case for our record and my vision of the country, our vision.
	I'll continue to speak out strongly for our democracy, stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law, to call for action at the ballot box.
	No violence on our streets.
	That's how democracy should work.
	It really should.
	We debate and disagree.
	We compare and contrast the character of the candidates, the records, the issues, the agenda, the vision for America.
	But in America, we resolve our differences at the battle box.
	You know, that's how we do it.
	At the Battle Box.
	Not in bullets.
	Hold on.
	I'm sorry, Robert.
	I've got to back that up.
	He just totally screwed up.
	He screwed up his one line.
	You know, that's how we do it.
	At the Battle Box.
	Vision for this country.
	He screwed up the one line.
	I'll be traveling this week making the case for our record and my vision of the country.
	Our vision.
	He's not looking at me.
	I'll continue to speak out strongly for our democracy.
	Stand up for our constitution.
	The rule of law.
	Okay, this right now.
	To call for action at the Battle Box.
	No violence on our streets.
	That's how democracy should work.
	We debate and disagree.
	We compare and contrast the character of the candidates, the records, the issues, the agenda, the vision for America.
	And in America, we resolve our differences at the battle box.
	You know, that's how we do it.
	Battle box?
	Battle box.
	The power to change America should always rest in the hands of the people.
	Not in the hands of a would-be assassin.
	You know, the path forward through competing visions of the campaign should always be resolved peacefully.
	What the hell is he talking about?
	After acts of violence.
	You know, we're blessed to live in the greatest country on earth, and I believe that with every soul.
	I really do.
	So tonight, I'm asking every American to recommit.
	To make America so...
	Make America...
	Think about it.
	Here in America, everyone wants to be treated with dignity and respect.
	This book must have no safe harbor.
	Here in America, we need to get out of our silos where we only listen to those with whom we agree.
	Where misinformation is rampant.
	Where foreign actors fan the flames of our division to shape the outcomes consistent with their interests, not ours.
	Let's remember, here in America, our unity is the most elusive of goals right now.
	Nothing is more important for us now than standing together.
	We can do this.
	You know, from the beginning, our founders understood the power of passion.
	So they created a democracy that gave reason and balance a chance to prevail over brute force.
	That's the American we must be.
	In American democracy, where arguments are made in good faith.
	In American democracy, where the rule of law is respected.
	American democracy, where decency, dignity, fair play aren't just quaint notions, but living, breathing realities.
	They really are.
	We owe that to those who come before us, to those who gave their lives to this country.
	We owe that to ourselves.
	We owe it to our children and our grandchildren.
	Look, let's never lose sight of who we are.
	Let's remember we are the United States of America.
	There is nothing.
	Nothing, nothing beyond our capacity when we do it together.
	Oh my god, this is unburdened.
	God bless you all.
	May God protect our troops.
	First of all, Robert, someone in the chat said it's now 8 o'clock in D.C. and the lighting in the window looks relatively normal.
	How the hell do we know that that was live?
	We don't.
	Oh, fucking God.
	This guy.
	I loathe him.
	I loathe him.
	I don't know.
	There's a picture of like two people and a kid?
	I don't know.
	They weren't in the shower, so I don't know whose kid it is.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	I'm out of here.
	Yeah, I mean, the faux pas was the honest part of it.
	The battle box.
	The battle box.
	So he meant the ballot, not the bullet.
	I mean, that was the line.
	I can tell you what was written.
	Battle box.
	That's how he sees it.
	That's a truthful representation.
	You get this sort of glimmering little glimpse of honesty that sort of sneaks itself out during the process.
	Bless the troops.
	What about President Trump?
	The president always ends with bless the troops, right?
	It varies.
	That's a weird thing to do, but okay.
	Robert, let me go back to...
	So that's uneventful, inconsequential.
	It confirms my theory that...
	Robert, I still disagree with you.
	Biden will not be the nominee.
	But we'll see.
	We'll get there.
	44MartyM in Local says, Wisconsin...
	Okay, so it's WI...
	The Secret Service Biden Controls mandate...
	That Trump shelled all rallies and campaigns only from a secure studio like Biden did in 2020 and will do this for the campaign.
	That's the ultimate thing about this, Robert.
	They don't have that degree of legal control.
	Oh, I guess it meant will the Secret Service because we were, yeah, the will.
	They don't have that degree of control.
	And the explanation for the typo is the dot dot is right next to the hell.
	That's how Bill Clinton told the Secret Service to stay home whenever he was taking a little trip.
	On the Epstein Express down to Epstein Island.
	Hey, what about Elon Musk calling out that billionaire for all his ties to Epstein Island?
	He's like, oh yeah, this guy hates Trump because he doesn't want to be prosecuted for all his trips to...
	Elon Musk is...
	They did something to him that said he had a Trumpian response.
	If you come after me, I'm going to return the favor in kind tenfold.
	Robert, he's...
	He's full throttle now, pro-Trump.
	It's bottom line.
	Everybody has to be.
	Otherwise, you are sanctioning domestic terrorism in the actual sense, not the lie of the January 6th century.
	Melania Trump referenced Barron.
	Barron was just at the last event.
	He wasn't at the Pennsylvania event, but the one right before it, he was there.
	Can you imagine being a kid and seeing that lie?
	There is somebody who's a kid that saw it live with their own dad at this event, and it's just fucking horrific, Robert.
	It's horrific.
	It's always interesting.
	I remember years ago Rush Limbaugh saying that Barack Obama, after the Orlando shooting, would come out and say, well, we don't know.
	We just can't figure out what their motivation was.
	It was homophobia.
	I was like, no way.
	Is Obama going to do that?
	And then Obama did exactly that.
	He was like, well, we don't know.
	We're reasons.
	I was like, Islamic terrorism?
	Islamic motivation?
	Homophobia related to Islam?
	No, that was the one thing they couldn't talk about was the identified religious belief and political orientation of the culprit, which was clearly tied in to what happened and how it happened and why it happened.
	And there you saw Biden doing the same thing.
	But honestly, I think part of that was a subtle threat from Biden.
	Saying, you know, we've been through these events in the past.
	Don't make me go there, people.
	That's who this guy is if you learn to read him right.
	The battle box was not just a faux pas.
	It is his core belief about how he says things.
	I think people see him as a bumbling fool and they forget he's a ruthless criminal.
	And the number one thing you know about Joe Biden is he's a ruthless criminal.
	In our locals community, Ali Michael, Five Buck, says, was this the second attempt on Trump's life, the first being the potential firefight when they raided him in Mar-a-Lago?
	They brought deadly weapons.
	I would agree, yes.
	I mean, they wanted a catastrophic incident.
	They were hoping for that, yes.
	But this was the first professional attempt.
	And it's probably not a coincidence it happened on the eve of the convention and right before he made his VP choice.
	Robert, it's divine intervention and I believe it in my heart of hearts.
	And thank God Trump is what his supporters see him as being.
	This is a lesson to everybody.
	This is how you respond to threats.
	You do not give in.
	Yeah, but Robert, let me be a cynical man.
	I'm sorry.
	There's some delay in the internet, so I didn't mean to talk over you.
	No, but you defy until then you become a martyr, and then great, you might be a Jesus of our time.
	And the next person defies.
	And the only way you overcome this is when they realize that they cannot use these mechanisms to achieve their objective.
	And that only happens when everybody unites in refusing to capitulate.
	And that's why I say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he doesn't exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing you you can't resist.
	And there's no better example of that than Donald John Trump.
	He has refused to give in, and they're going to have to capitulate before he does.
	But we still got some cases to cover, including...
	Biden mentioned that ridiculous plot.
	That was a government plot to entrap people for Governor Whitmer.
	She's busy fixing the election so that fraud can't be uncovered after the election.
	And the Associated Press is lying to everybody about the law.
	Now, Robert, I tell you, I did a lot of my homework, but I didn't do some of it.
	I drove through Michigan, but I didn't read about this.
	First of all, Michigan is a beautiful state geographically.
	It's actually amazing.
	I didn't appreciate...
	To get from, let's say, Montreal, but more specifically Toronto to Wisconsin, you've got to go down through the Great Lakes, and you're going through Lake Michigan, through the bay.
	It's beautiful.
	Michigan is beautiful, except for the politics.
	Whitmer is a person who, I believe, staged her own kidnapping for political profit.
	But, Robert, as far as the substance goes on this, I am ignorant.
	Maybe not so much, but tell us what it is.
	So, according to the Associated Press, That the only modification in the law was that they changed the word fraud to the word error in order to get a recount after an election.
	And that they just required a higher fee be paid to cover the cost of a recount.
	And they said, you're seeing all these lies on social media that say that they're now prohibiting you from challenging an election based on fraud.
	The Associated Press is flat out lying.
	And they're repeating the lies of Democratic legislators who lied about the law.
	What the big part of the law is not the part of the law that says when you as a candidate can file a recount.
	It's the part of the law that defines what the government can do in a recount.
	And this is what the AP is lying about.
	It's what Governor Whitmer is lying about.
	This is what the Democrats are lying about.
	The law redefined a recount to prohibit.
	Any government agency, any government actor, from investigating an election, from auditing an election, from even considering allegations of fraud, from even looking at whether the ballot was cast in a legal manner, to whether the ballot was received in a legal manner, to whether the chain of custody was sustained in a legal manner, to whether or not the person who voted is even a legal voter.
	They've said you cannot in Michigan.
	You cannot now challenge any election results, even if you have undisputable evidence that the number of ballots cast by illegal voters exceeded the margin of victory.
	Doesn't matter.
	Not allowed for any election official to even look at that.
	You're not allowed to even investigate.
	They say no investigation is allowed.
	No audit is allowed.
	The only thing you're allowed to do a recount on is literally whether the count was correct.
	Not whether the ballots are legal ballots, not whether they were received in a legal manner, not whether their chain of custody was sustained in a legal manner, not whether they were sent out in the first place in a legal manner, not whether the signatures matched such that you could know that that person actually cast that vote, not whether the person who voted is even the person who supposedly claimed to vote, nor even whether that person is legally entitled to vote.
	You're not allowed to challenge any part of that aspect.
	It is basically, Governor Whitmer just forced fraud insurance on the state of Michigan so they could openly steal the election in Michigan with no legal consequence.
	And the AP is lying to the world about it because they don't want, because ask yourself, why is the state legislature and the governor passing a law to prohibit people from even asking whether only legal voters voted?
	Why are they passing a law that says you cannot question the chain of custody?
	Why are they passing a law that says you cannot question whether the method in which they voted was legal?
	Why are they passing unless they plan on illegal people voting and people voting in illegal ways, knowing that will be the margin of victory for them in Michigan?
	This is an open effort to steal the 2024 election.
	In Michigan, what are the...
	What are the legal recourses?
	How does it play out between now and November?
	Someone needs to sue in federal court and they need to sue now because federal courts are complete wusses.
	To me, this is depriving people of their constitutional right to have their vote counted.
	You have to get around all the standing issues.
	A candidate will have better grounds to sue.
	A candidate who's on the ballot will have better grounds to sue than anyone else.
	Who are you suggesting?
	Kennedy or...
	It was a bunch of people.
	So 1776 Law Center in August and September is giving itself the bandwidth.
	As long as we get sufficient public support from people, then we're going to go forward and bring suit in these key states on these key issues.
	Because once they're a qualified candidate on the ballot, then courts usually recognize they have legal standing to sue.
	And one of the biggest ones...
	The three big issues are only constitutionally qualified people voting, meaning they're properly registered, they're legally registered at their actual home residence, and they're a legal citizen of the United States and a legal citizen of that state in sufficient time.
	Second, was the method by which they voted constitutionally qualified?
	So are they constitutionally qualified voters?
	Did they vote in a constitutionally qualified manner?
	Meaning if they decide to vote by mail, did they properly request it?
	Did they properly get it?
	Is their chain of custody coming back?
	And is there a signature match that matches their signature on the voter file so we know they're actually the ones who filled out the ballot?
	And then last but not least, is the canvas and count of the ballot being done in a constitutionally qualified manner?
	Are they doing a meaningful signature match check, not the complete joke in Arizona and Michigan that happened last time, and in Nevada that happened last time?
	There's some people that are taking up these cases.
	In some states, there's other states where they're not.
	And where they're not, we're going to step into the breach on behalf of candidates and bring those suits.
	Because this is an outrageous bill that just got passed in Michigan that basically is, let's legalize election fraud in America.
	That's what Governor Whitmer just did.
	Is she a serious candidate for a VP, not VP, but as a replacement for Biden?
	Oh, she would love to.
	She would love to be up there.
	And of course, she has deep, deep state ties.
	She was complicit with the deep state plot to create a fake kidnapping plot that they could use to influence the 2020 election.
	And the person who helped manage that when the other FBI agents weren't busy at swinger parties and getting arrested for domestic violence.
	Got elevated up to the Justice Department of Washington, D.C. to run January 6th where they did entrapment at scale because they had run another entrapment plot like that in Michigan at the Michigan State Capitol.
	So she's got deep, deep state ties.
	Remember, Governor Whitmer is the one.
	Who had 8645 behind her.
	For the assassination of President Trump.
	I talked about it last night.
	And by the way, I turned my camera off just for one second because I wanted to wipe the...
	You can still hear my voice.
	I wanted to wipe the shine off my forehead, but it didn't work.
	I just made it worse.
	Okay, it's very hot in this place, and I'm sweating through my shirt.
	Yes, 8645.
	It was an overt call for eight miles out, six feet deep.
	However you want to...
	It was a political permission slip to murder the president, President Trump.
	And Democrats have been doing it for eight years.
	So election integrity remains a top issue.
	And it's clear it's going to have to get to the courts again this fall.
	And we'll see if the courts do the honest and honorable thing.
	And at a minimum, we need to call it out in the court of public opinion.
	Ask your Democratic friends that say there's no problem in the election.
	Why do...
	Why is the AP lying about the law?
	Because nobody can justify.
	Why is it that you want a law that prohibits you from investigating fraud?
	Why do you want a law that prohibits you auditing an election?
	Why do you want a law that allows people to vote illegally?
	Why do you want that?
	The answer will be, we don't want weaponizing of the process much in the same way.
	They're weaponizing the process by enforcing the law.
	But, Robin, you're trying to have a reasonable discussion with literal terrorist supporters.
	Oh, no, they're fraud, fakes, and phonics, but at least expose them as such, because they can't answer this.
	That's why the AP's lying, because the AP knows that it's embarrassing that the Democratic Party in key swing states is trying to fix the election.
	Same thing in Wisconsin.
	The Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped the party majority to Democrat, and suddenly it's now legal to do what the law says is illegal.
	You can now have drop boxes wherever you want in the state.
	Why do you need those drop boxes everywhere?
	Why do you need that?
	Is it in order to...
	I mean, can people not get to deliver to the mailman?
	Why do you need a Dropbox?
	Is it because you have people gathering ballots illegally and they don't want a chain of custody that shows up that way by having it at the mailbox, so they want Dropboxes instead, which is what Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules documented was happening in a lifetime in Georgia in 2020.
	So that's what they're in Wisconsin.
	They're trying to fix the election as well by the Supreme Court changing the rules overnight in a way that just embarrasses our Wisconsin Supreme Court, of which I am a member of Wisconsin by the Supreme Court.
	It's an embarrassment that they are changing.
	If they wanted this to be the law, Democrats get it to the state house, the state senate.
	They couldn't.
	And so now they're just getting the Supreme Court because they win one judicial election.
	To say, we're going to pretend the law says something it doesn't so we can try to fix the outcome so we can fraudulently steal a bunch of ballots again.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	I'm watching the news as we stream.
	Why the hell?
	I'm going to try not to swear.
	Why the hell is Fox running cover for Biden?
	For a second, I thought they were making fun of his battle bots.
	I think a lot of these were pre-scripted.
	They thought Trump would be dead.
	And they would say it was really Trump's fault that he was dead.
	And Biden is now the hero.
	And or Nikki Haley would be the new Republican hero.
	Murdoch openly.
	Murdoch is out there obsessed and enraged that Trump is considering J.D. Vance for the vice presidency.
	He's had all of his pals on Fox saying how terrible and bashing J.D. Vance.
	It's quite obvious what they want to have happen.
	Rupert Murdoch has long been an enemy of populism in America.
	He should go back to Australia and stay there.
	We don't need his corrupt corporate politics here.
	We got enough corporate hoes in American politics.
	We don't need more.
	Kamala Harris for one.
	Oh, but a big, but a boom.
	Indeed. So it doesn't surprise me that that's what's going on.
	But they're out to try to steal the election by hook or by crook.
	And we'll have to continue to...
	Fight it in the courts of law.
	And you see that in what's having to be fought in courts just to get transparency and honesty in the fight over judicial secrecy that right now is focused on the state of Pennsylvania but is not the only state that is culpable and guilty of trying to weaponize the judicial system to deny people access to what's going on in our courts of law.
	Flesh it out as to where you want to go, because I'm at the end of my homework, Robert, so I know whatever you're going to talk about.
	If I don't know about it naturally, I will not know about it because I didn't do my homework today.
	Which one?
	Well, for example, take the president's shooting.
	A lot of what we have to know that government agents and actors were complicit in the attempted assassination of President Trump, either through outrageous recklessness and negligence or deliberate culpability and complicity.
	Some level of responsibility is attributable to the Biden administration and high-ranking government agencies.
	How do we know that?
	We know that because ordinary people were filming it.
	We're not dependent on Fox News for their controlled portrait.
	Remember, the filming of the assassination of President Kennedy was kept secret for five, six years.
	Nobody knew that the film footage completely refuted and rebutted.
	What the lies the Warren Commission put out about the assassination of President John Kennedy.
	So here, because we got to see lies, well, what protects that?
	The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	Recording public activities, recording government actors, whether inside a courtroom or outside a courtroom, is a constitutionally protective right because it's communicative, it's expressive, and it's associative.
	So it's protected under the right to press and the right to speech.
	And the right to petition the government for redress of grievances when you're filming government officials.
	It's a critical check on government misconduct.
	And so what's happening in some states, in Pennsylvania, for example, they're trying to lock up a client of mine because she recorded her own court proceeding.
	I was in another court representing Amos Miller where the court bailiffs instructed members of the press they couldn't even take notes.
	Without the bailiff's approval or authority, and they could control any media representation or presentation of what happened in Amos Miller's court case.
	Under state law, the judge was prohibited from allowing any broadcasting or publication of the proceeding.
	In another Pennsylvania case before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, one of the most powerful courts in the country because it presides over the entire state and it presides over government agencies.
	A judge illegally imprisoned two ordinary farm workers who weren't even before him.
	They weren't even parties to that case.
	On a judge who didn't even have criminal authority.
	And how did he get away with it?
	It was a completely sealed docket.
	The entire proceeding was sealed.
	What does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, what have they previously said?
	They said a sealed docket violates First Amendment rights of access.
	They said a sealed docket violates the right to, what does the Pennsylvania Constitution say?
	Most other state constitutions, like implicitly the Common Law and the Constitution of the United States says, it says you have an open access to the courts.
	The court proceedings are presumed to be public.
	The courts are weaponizing their control of access to the courtroom to engage in secret proceedings, to have a monopoly, a gatekeeping monopoly on the broadcasting and publishing of it.
	We saw other efforts of it when courts tried to give an exclusive to law and crime.
	And tried to prohibit Nick Ricada from having independent courtroom coverage.
	We saw it in the Alex Jones case, where the judge in the Alex Jones case said only the Hollywood firm that she had given the right to film broadcast could broadcast anything, and that if Alex Jones broadcast his own trial, he would go to jail.
	That's what the corrupt rogue judge in Austin did.
	All of these are of a common peace.
	It is...
	First of all, you have a First Amendment right, communicative, expressive, associative right to record government activity, to publish and broadcast government activity.
	Second, you have a right to open access to the courts that is presumed that can be only overridden under exceptional circumstances, trade secrets, the privacy of a juvenile.
	The identity of an informant whose safety would be jeopardized by public disclosure.
	Outside of extraordinary circumstances, they have to be specifically factually detailed.
	It is presumed that you have a right to public access, presumed you have a right to record, and yet in Pennsylvania they are now saying it is a crime to record your own proceeding.
	And even when that proceeding, when doing so, documented fraud by the judges.
	The judges that are demanding this individual be sentenced to prison, demanding her prosecution, these judges were the ones engaged in illegal activity and then appearing as witnesses in the case and being called judge as witnesses in the case.
	Another form of outrage.
	So that particular individual is willing to challenge this rogue action.
	But it needs to be challenged across the board.
	No more secret dockets.
	No more secret courts.
	No more star chambers.
	No more monopoly gatekeeping on who gets to transcribe court proceedings.
	No more monopoly on what press can publish and broadcast.
	It's got to be attacked at every level.
	And what we need is it to be recognized, and maybe there needs to be more legislation on this front because judges don't want to grant it, but we need to recognize those are the people that don't know it.
	At the founding of our country, we held trials outdoors.
	That's how publicly accessible it was.
	We didn't have secret courts.
	We hated that.
	That's what the Star Chamber did.
	That's what made it so hated.
	It was always secret.
	Nothing secret.
	We wanted nothing to be secret.
	Outside of extraordinary, unusual and unique circumstance, like kids' privacy, for example.
	So juvenile proceedings.
	That makes eminent sense.
	But outside of those rare instances, there's supposed to be public right of access.
	So we're going to have to litigate it at every level.
	We're going to have to fight at every level.
	But what should we ultimately result to?
	Just like our classrooms for parents should always be available on video so a parent can know what's going on in a classroom.
	The same thing should be true for the entire American people for every courtroom in this country, state, or federal.
	If they're not doing anything embarrassing, it's what the government and what the judges love to say when the government's busy spying on us illegally.
	If you've got nothing to hide.
	If you've got nothing to hide.
	Well, if you corrupt judges got nothing to hide, then it's time to publicly broadcast every single judicial proceeding outside of those extraordinary proceedings like juvenile proceedings, certain kinds of family proceedings, certain kinds of grand jury proceedings.
	Every other proceeding should be public to the world.
	Just the opposite of these attempts to seal proceedings, do secret proceedings, and lock up people for recording their own proceedings.
	Oh, you're on mute.
	Sorry, Robert.
	I didn't realize that.
	I was coughing, so I wanted to put on mute.
	Before we do the next one, I want to try another Rumble Advertiser Center right now.
	Okay, so there's a glitch.
	I'll have to figure this out afterwards.
	Let me just see one thing here.
	Let's try this.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay, that's it.
	Forget it.
	Okay, Robert, I'll get that in a second.
	Screen grab for the glitch.
	Okay, Robert.
	I had something in a second.
	I had a thing I was going to bring up.
	Alright, what's the next thing we're going to talk about?
	And I'm going to bring up what I was going to talk about after that because I love it.
	Give me how nuts Pennsylvania is.
	Again, not a coincidence.
	This is the state where they attempted to assassinate President Trump.
	In that proceeding where they indicted and got a...
	Jury conviction, because of how they're interpreting the law, for a person recording their own court proceeding, they're now demanding a sentence of mandatory mental health treatment that requires the person comply with whatever the mental health treater recommends.
	In other words, these are re-education camps.
	Back it up all the way to the beginning.
	What is the context that...
	Compel someone to have to submit to a state-sanctioned mental re-evaluation.
	Under our current case law, and under Pennsylvania statutes, it requires that the person be in imminent risk to themselves and others of severe bodily harm.
	And only then can you petition for their commitment for a limited time period of evaluation.
	What does imminent threat to harm to others mean?
	Severe bodily harm.
	So that's typically how it's construed.
	Now, I've always found that problematic.
	To me, the only permissible involuntary institutionalization should be after criminal conviction.
	Otherwise, you let the government define what crazy is, and sooner or later, they decide anybody who disagrees with them is crazy, and they weaponize that to take away your Second Amendment rights, take away other rights, including your liberty interests.
	Or you're found guilty by reason of insanity.
	Neither of which has any application of this case whatsoever.
	It's what it is.
	They're trying to say, okay, we got a political dissident.
	We want to weaponize the criminal justice system to go after them.
	And as part of that, we want to expand our criminal justice remedies to include re-education camp.
	And we'll just call it mandatory mental health treatment, where you must comply as a condition of probation with that mental health treatment, or you go to prison for years.
	I mean, I've never seen this proposed before.
	I've found no history of it ever happening in the state of Pennsylvania before, but it gives you an idea of where they're going.
	They're wanting to weaponize the criminal justice system to now include mandatory mental health treatment, which is basically just Soviet-style re-education camps with some nice flowery language in front of it.
	Robert, look, I'm going to try this one more time here.
	Let's just see here.
	Yeah, okay, okay, okay.
	Bada bing, bada boom, and there we go.
	I must have had fat fingers the first time.
	Whoever is doing this now, you can take a picture of the...
	Go take a picture of this.
	Yeah, and it'll bring you there.
	Okay, good.
	It works.
	Two-thirds of Americans are at risk of blackouts from heat waves.
	Are you prepared?
	Claim your power independence from our country's crumbling power grid with the Patriot Power Generator 2000X.
	This is straight out of...
	Over 150,000 Americans trust these powerful solar generators to run things like fridges, fans, TV, CPAP, and more during an emergency.
	Get yours at 4patriots.com and score a free 100-watt solar panel.
	If you're ready to have the ultimate in blackout protection and get a free solar panel, go to 4patriots.com.now.
	The link is there.
	By the way, it's not a joke anymore.
	We left Florida during the hurricane season, and Marin's like, do we have a...
	We might not have a hurricane setup, but the bottom line is...
	What is it, Robert?
	It's Guns Gold Getaway.
	Three Gs.
	You gotta have your plan, and Generator is one of them.
	So, forpatriots.com, bada-bing, bada-boom.
	Robert. And credit to Chris Pavlosky, because what came up this week, disclosed by members of Congress and Congressman Jim Jordan, is that the big corporate advertisers had been conspiring in a monopolistic way to starve independent media platforms and technology platforms providing means for independent media to reach the public of any revenue.
	And so what Pavlosky has said is, okay, we'll align with whatever companies...
	Support free speech, and we'll create our own products to support free speech to compete with these monopolistic, anti-free speech, anti-American big corporations.
	So credit to Chris Pavlosky for doing that on Rumble, and credit to Elon Musk who says he's going to sue them because that's monopolistic behavior, as we'll get to a little bit later in a bonus case, like what the NFL was doing with the Sunday ticket.
	Robert, before we even get to that, we're going to go to our locals tipped questions.
	Barnes is pissed.
	Barnes looks tired or pissed or possibly both.
	Buffalo Betsy.
	This is from a while ago.
	Probably both.
	We got Tadaka.
	I'm not a fan of GoFundMe, but my cousin died in a 30 years old unexpectedly.
	I know everything that with the Trump is overwhelming.
	However, the left...
	He left behind five children where the father is not around.
	She died from an undiagnosed heart issue.
	If anyone...
	I'll share this right now because I'll share it and then people can decide.
	Everyone has to go to Give, Send, Go and not GoFundMe.
	That's the problem, but we're going to do this right now.
	Boom. Here it is.
	Okay. And then, Robert, we're going to get to the next question in a second.
	Link here.
	Boom. Okay.
	Robert, what's the next discussion?
	We got three left for tonight, along with a few bonus cases.
	So the three regular ones involve the Supreme Court, property seizures and religious schools, petitions that have been filed before the Supreme Court.
	Athletes suing the NCAA about being employees.
	And related to that, one of the bonus cases of Minnesota Supreme Court determination that you can be sued for negligent hiring, even if it's...
	The employee of an independent contractor you hired.
	So they're extending that doctrine and it relates to when is somebody an employee for tax purposes?
	When is somebody an employee for federal labor standards purposes?
	In Tennessee, we got the 13th juror doctrine that always tends to confuse people that are not from the state.
	What the heck that's all about?
	When can you...
	The Tyson Foods is trying to deny a right to a jury trial in their case, in part reflected in that doctrine.
	Then we got winner tweet speech.
	And when can a pot cop try to arrest you for exposing his bad behavior or asking about him?
	The NFL Sunday ticket class action is the last one.
	Almost a $5 billion verdict that's heading towards $15 billion.
	$5 billion.
	Yeah, concerning the NFL's attempt to monopolize broadcast rights concerning their football games.
	Okay, so let me do one thing first because I want to get to some of the chats on Rumble Tips.
	Lali Newby, Our Lady of the Rosary Mary, appeared to an Argentinian housewife beginning the 13th of the month.
	Melania was the first Catholic in the White House since JFK Jr.'s wife.
	And who is playing today for the Copa Argentina?
	Okay, that's next level stuff.
	Blue CW Soldier.
	Of note, tonight, Robin Hood will not let my be Donald DJT stock.
	Okay, Trump media.
	I've had multiple orders canceled.
	Okay, that's not something we can get into.
	January 13th, investigations and consequences, please.
	January 13th, J13.
	Oh, we talked about that at length.
	All right.
	There's a massive, beautiful image right here, which we can't bring up because I can't bring it up.
	But, okay, Robert, we're going to do this right now.
	I'm going to go take the link to Locals and share it in Rumble, and then we're going to take this party over to Rumble.
	But hold on, hold on, hold on.
	I'm sweating like a pig in this room.
	I'm in a closet, by the way, just so everybody knows.
	And I don't know if you can see it.
	I'm sweating like a pig.
	But hold on.
	Some people in the chat recognize the NCAA case relates to a South Park episode.
	He was like, oh yeah, athletes.
	We'll call our slaves athletes.
	Yes, yes, of course.
	Go on, I'll share with you my South Park thing.
	Okay, what's the deal with that?
	So what it is is for a long time, the NCAA has pretended their billion-dollar industry built on the stolen labor.
	A very talented, really professional athletes is all done in the name of promoting amateur athletics and some image of 1850s rich kids from Yale going up to Lake Winnie and competing in a little Harvard regatta whose boat can go the fastest.
	When they know that, in fact, it's not been that way for at least a century.
	That, you know, sports is not something people voluntarily do just for kicks and giggles at that level of sport.
	You know, if it's women's lacrosse, yeah, okay, they're playing for fun.
	Nobody cares.
	Nobody goes and watches.
	But if it's real sports, American football, American basketball, American baseball, American hockey, in college, they're professional kids like they are around the world for European global football by the time they're 14, 15, 16 years old.
	I mean, there was a kid who just won the Euros today who just turned 17. You know, he's 16 years old.
	He's in one of the biggest competitions in Europe.
	Everything about what that kid is doing is a professional.
	But here, we pretend they're not professional.
	Why? So the colleges and the universities and the politicians and the coaches and the TV networks and the broadcasters and the big media companies and the big advertising companies, the big sportswear companies, companies like Nike can make tons of money.
	Without paying the people that everybody's actually coming to see.
	And the person who has the most obligation and most responsibility.
	So first they sued the NCAA for stealing their name, image, and likeness under various theories of copyright and trademark law and right of privacy and right of control of ownership of your own name and image.
	Won that.
	Then they came back and sued the NCAA saying, we're really employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act that says you've got to at least pay us minimum wage.
	For all the things we're doing.
	And they're like, no, NCAA, the National Communist Against Athletes, said, no, no, no, you're an amateur athlete, just competing for the honor of being an athlete.
	You're volunteering, don't you know?
	And fortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals said, eh, let's quit pretending.
	These kids are making ridiculous amounts of money, billions and billions and billions of dollars, and they're the only ones not getting paid anything.
	And if there was any place where the labor theory of value applies, by golly, it's in this area of competitive athletics at this level of public interest.
	And so the court went through the traditional analysis.
	When is somebody an employee?
	So if you're an independent contractor, you're not an employee.
	The key is this.
	You can be a volunteer and still be an employee if you expect compensation for the services provided.
	The key is play is not, you know, it's literally playing sports.
	That's not an employee activity if it's purely volitional and voluntary.
	But if you're subject to the control of someone and you're doing it at some level in exchange for compensation for the services provided, eh, it's pretty much an employee.
	And just labeling, well, it's sports.
	These kids are professionals.
	Everybody knows they're professionals.
	Their lives are tightly regimented and controlled.
	And they're making a ridiculous sum of money.
	For the universities and all the other hangers-on involved in the process.
	So they mentioned like if you're a student, trainee, intern, you're getting an independent value and you're not just conferring value on the employer.
	You're getting a value for that experience that can be considered a non-monetary value to be outside of the employee context.
	But when it's entirely you providing services that help monetize them and you're not really getting anything reciprocal in return.
	That's when you're really an employee, when you have an expectation of something in return.
	So if you're under somebody's control, in return for expected benefits, you're an employee.
	And luckily, that's exactly what the court said.
	So finally, these kids enriching everybody but themselves can finally start to get some of the economic receipts and benefits of that.
	How does that work practically, actually?
	It means the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to them.
	So that means that they have to pay them overtime, have to pay a minimum wage, all of those kind of things.
	Some states, like California, some other states have even more broader protections for employees than other states.
	But basically, it means they got to start paying them and probably let them organize and come up with an organized solution to all of this, an organized solution to the free market that exists in the transfer market that works for everybody's benefit.
	Not just becomes one-sided in some manner.
	The kids are making the money.
	They should get their share.
	Revenue share.
	That's where it's ultimately going.
	Because this is just professional sports at a different level.
	It's always been professional sports.
	It should be economically in the free market like professional sports is.
	And if they would do that, they would solve 95% of the problem.
	Alright, Robert.
	If I want to show the scene from South Park, can I break this up to do it?
	Because I have to.
	I think I have to.
	It's the TSA people.
	There will be sweat it safety administration.
	You can't even take a crap at IHOP without a 40 minute line Shoes off belts off sharp objects go in the plastic tray.
	This is inhumane shut up Robert, has South Park always been awesome and have I missed out on 10 years of life?
	That's the question.
	Okay, hold on.
	Taking a dump today, ma'am?
	Uh, no.
	Just need to pee.
	Alright, I just need to check inside your asshole.
	Hey, how about you people speed it up in here?
	I'm about to crap my pants, and I demand access to the toilet right now!
	Alright, do you mind if I touch your balls, sir?
	What? Yes, I mind!
	Do you mind if I touch your f***ing balls?
	Okay, I'm done.
	All right, sir, I just need to check inside your asshole.
	I don't need you wiping my ass for me.
	I'm a grown man.
	Yes, you're a big boy, aren't you, sir?
	Yeah, I'm a big boy.
	That's a big boy, sir.
	I'm a big boy.
	I took a big boy poop.
	Yes. It's the best thing I've ever seen in my life, Robert.
	I want to go back and watch every episode of South Park since the inception.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, they have one on the NCAA where he thinks he's a Southern planner with slaves.
	He's like, yes, amateur athletes.
	That was very, very apt and pertinent.
	All right.
	What do we have now?
	Two petitions for cert that are useful to pay attention to before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	The Supreme Court hasn't yet determined whether they're going to hear the petitions as yet.
	But one of them concerns property forfeiture.
	And what's happening is...
	So the government comes in, steals a bunch of property, claims it's criminal forfeiture.
	Frequently they grab this property, and it doesn't belong to anybody they're accusing of a crime.
	It's some innocent schmuck whose property has been grabbed.
	They're not even allowed to contest it until the whole case goes through.
	Government gets to keep their property for this whole time period.
	Then they have to magically time when they can sue.
	They have like 20 days or 30 days to sue.
	And they're interpreting it in such a hyper-technical way that if they don't sign on the right form in the right way with the original form, they're denying them any opportunity to litigate it.
	And they're shifting the burden from the government to the person.
	There's no burden on the government to prove they're entitled to steal somebody's property.
	It's on the burden of the individual to come in and prove, hey, that's my property that you are busy stealing.
	Please stop stealing it.
	Which is exactly as the...
	Petition details.
	That's counter what our American legal history was for 200 years.
	This didn't exist.
	This form of forfeiture didn't exist until the 1970s.
	It's like taking away people's food freedom.
	Didn't exist until the late 1960s.
	Used to have a right to buy food directly from the farmer without regard to government intervention.
	So these kind of bureaucratic takeovers of American liberty, one of the most abusive is in the area of...
	Forfeiture, that is going back before the Supreme Court potentially in a case that screams how abusive this system is.
	The other one concerns Michigan.
	In Michigan, they banned any form of government help of any kind, direct or indirect, to private schools.
	But what was behind it was they hated religious schools.
	And it was the left in the late 1960s, early 1970s that pushed it through in Michigan.
	And so what it is, it's really discrimination against religious schools.
	But they say, don't worry, we just ban it for parochial schools, even though they know 95% of parochial schools in Michigan at the time are religious schools.
	So clearly the target was religious schools.
	The current continuous target is religious schools.
	And the Supreme Court's been saying you can't do this.
	You can't deny religious schools equal access to public benefits.
	And so that's going up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Can they get away with it by just saying, okay, you know what, we'll say this whole category of schools can't get public benefits.
	And it's just coincidental that 98% of them are religious.
	But everybody knows they're targeting the religious schools.
	Can a state get away with religious discrimination in that way?
	That's what's going up before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	The other cases are just for the bonus cases for the locals community.
	The 13th juror in Tennessee, when is a tweet-protected speech?
	When can you document what a cop is doing without being indicted for documenting what a cop is doing bad?
	The NFL Sunday ticket class action and negligent hiring.
	Okay, Robert, before we do that, let me just bring up a few of these chats before we leave Rumble to go to locals.
	Tanami51, I love what you both do tonight.
	Great work and thank you both for Truth.
	Patrio Girl.
	What kind of cigar is Barnes smoking?
	Much appreciated.
	Barnes, what's the cigar?
	That's a Partagas cigar from a little island off the coast of Florida.
	Now, Sean47.
	I've been looking for this video since I saw this super channel, Rumble Rant.
	I thought it was a joke.
	That prior to assassination's attempt, he was confronted by a police officer who backed away.
	News Nation five hours ago showed the video 1.2 million views.
	I'm going to look for it.
	I haven't been able to find it yet.
	And then we've got Agatha Raisin.
	What are the odds that they try to assassinate a second time?
	If they can't go there, what else do they have planned?
	Robert? Trump needs to get nominated.
	Because that provides some degree of legal protection.
	And then pick a good vice president that they're more scared of than him.
	That would be the greatest deterrent on another assassination attempt.
	Directed answers you can possibly get.
	I don't know which screen we're on here.
	Let me close this.
	I don't know if this is the right one.
	Hold on.
	Let me go here.
	Nope. I just...
	Cut it.
	All right, Robert, we're going to end this now.
	We're going to go over to avivabarneslaw.locals.com exclusively.
	It'll be supporters only.
	Come now, come one all, and if you don't come, I'll see you tomorrow.
	Robert, we'll meet up.
	It'll be live, covering the Republican National Convention, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
	Yeah, I will be live streaming with counter-protesters.
	I will do it at some point.
	We'll see.
	Ending on Everywhere Except for Locals Supporters Only.

▲