Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 4, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:34

Ep. 222: O'Keefe WINS! 2nd Amendment WIN! Coutts 4 VERDICT! Olympic MADNESS & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Do some encrypted communications at events?
	On our radio nets, we do, sir.
	Are those memorialized?
	Are those saved?
	The radio traffic from Butler, we did not have recordings.
	Do you normally?
	Not on the road outside of D.C. or outside of a presidential or vice presidential stop.
	So communications between Secret Service agents will not be available like we've gotten the communications from local law enforcement?
	I'm sorry, Senator.
	So we're not going to be able to get those communications.
	You didn't save them.
	No, sir.
	Which is very unfortunate.
	It is, sir.
	Moving forward, we've actually, I've directed that we will now start recording those so that we will have them.
	So, does Secret Service use encrypted communications at events?
	Let me just put this.
	On our radio nets, we do, sir.
	Are those memorialized?
	Are those saved?
	Do you use encrypted?
	The answer is yes.
	Are they saved?
	No. The radio traffic from Butler, we did not have recordings.
	Do you understand?
	By the way, it's very, very curious.
	He didn't say...
	He said we don't have recordings.
	He didn't say there weren't communications.
	But listen to the question.
	Are those saved?
	The radio nets we do, sir.
	Are those memorialized?
	Are those saved?
	The answer to the question is, sometimes we save them, and this time we didn't.
	But I've got to find a very creative reason as to why we didn't memorialize them.
	Save the communications of Secret Service on the day of Butler.
	And he'll explain why.
	Here, listen to his explanation.
	The radio traffic from Butler, we did not have recordings.
	Do you normally?
	Do you normally?
	Not on the road outside of D.C. The answer is yes, but not on the road outside of D.C. D.C. or outside of a presidential or vice presidential stop.
	We do it for the president and vice president.
	So communications between Secret Service agents will not be available like we've gotten the communications from local law enforcement.
	I'm sorry, Senator.
	I'm sorry, I'm just choking on my own bullshit here.
	You're not going to be able to get those communications.
	You didn't save them.
	No, sir.
	No, sir.
	Didn't, didn't.
	But don't worry.
	I'm proactive, sir, Congressman.
	I'm way ahead of you.
	We're going to save them in the future.
	You know, when it's kind of important, you know, like when we're protecting a former president, leading presidential candidate.
	I don't believe that they didn't have it.
	That's just my personal belief, but I've got no evidence to back that up.
	But I'm proactive.
	Congressman, we've learned our lesson.
	We're going to record.
	Because it's not like we don't live in the digital age where everything is recorded, whether you like it or not.
	Where's my phone?
	Where's my phone?
	Actually, where is my phone?
	Here. It's not like the NSA is not just recording everything.
	Oh, no, but this we didn't.
	Okay, here, listen.
	It's very unfortunate.
	It is, sir.
	Moving forward...
	Unfortunate is not the right word.
	Convenient is the very right word.
	We've actually...
	I've directed...
	I've directed...
	We will now start recording those so that we will have them.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	So you weren't doing it before?
	You're fired!
	Oh, it wasn't protocol?
	You're fired?
	Holy sweet, merciful hell.
	Before I get too far into the rage, we're not going to let this just fade into the distance.
	What has it been now?
	It's been three weeks and a day?
	Mainstream media doesn't want to talk about the Trump assassination.
	I'm talking about it not every day, but pretty much every day.
	Let me just make sure that we are live across all of the interwebs.
	Going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Once bitten, twice shy.
	It looks like we are working.
	Let me go to Rumble.
	Rumble looks like we are good.
	Holy hell is right.
	Second CH.
	And then on YouTube, I know that we're live.
	But what I'm going to do as we do this is put the link to the Hrumble page in the pinned comment on the chat.
	So before I get too far into the Viva intro rant, link to Hrumble...
	Understand that.
	We are never going to know what was said or what was not said among Secret Service on the day of Butler.
	Bear in mind also, this is the same dude...
	Who, from what I was understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong.
	This is the same individual that was involved in deleting the text messages from January 6th because they decided to do a migration of cell phones, so they just deleted all of the text messages from Capitol Police or whichever police on January 6th.
	Did someone say unforgivable?
	Yes. Humble Half Acre says it's all unforgivable.
	It's not unforgivable.
	I mean, it's unforgivable.
	It's culpable.
	It's culpable.
	I don't know what anybody needs to hear more than what they've already heard in order to come to the conclusion that...
	Who was talking about the term deliberate incompetence?
	I'm going to see now.
	I think it was Tim Poole.
	Deliberate incompetence.
	No, it's not deliberate incompetence.
	It's just incompetence.
	No, it's not deliberate incompetence.
	I think Tim said it this way.
	It's just deliberate.
	Oh, and we have no...
	No evidence now.
	We can't hear what they said and what they didn't say.
	We can't hear these, you know, idiots fumbling around.
	There's somebody on the roof now.
	30 minutes, by the way.
	30 minutes they lost the threat and they still let Trump come on the stage.
	The media is ignoring it outright.
	And I will not forgive.
	I will not forget.
	And I will not move on.
	Because this should be front page news 24-7 coverage in any other realm of the universe.
	Freaking Joe Biden dropping out makes the front page news.
	And I think it was the perfect distraction from the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
	Are we looking at this?
	I pulled it up here.
	Listen to this.
	This is another one.
	I think these were from the original hearing on Tuesday.
	And I think I just missed these clips because I thought what I thought was listening to a new live stream on Friday.
	And I heard these clips.
	I'm like, holy crap.
	I know I didn't hear these on Tuesday because if I did...
	I would have had the exact same reaction.
	Listen to this, by the way.
	And listen to it carefully.
	I'm not going to interrupt it.
	I am going to persuade you and to listen to what he says.
	You know, sometimes when someone says, you better lay off.
	Like in Pulp Fiction.
	Let me just take this out for one second.
	In Pulp Fiction, when Vincent shot the guy in the head in the back of the car and Jules is like...
	No, sorry.
	It was the other way around.
	And Jules is berating Vincent.
	And then Vince says, I'm in the red.
	I'm in the red.
	And you better back off because when you put me in the red, I might do something.
	There's the flip side to that.
	When someone says, you better stop yelling at me because A, I'm talking about the Secret Service now, we're still working Secret Service.
	If anybody listened to this, not only has no one been arrested yet.
	No one's been fired yet, and they're still on jobs, and they're still on investigations, and they're still on security detail.
	So this dude right now, and I'll bring it up, is basically, in my humble view, saying, you better go easy on us, and I've got to go easy on them, because they're still working, and if I go too hard on them, they might let another thing happen.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this, and I'm not talking for the next 32 seconds.
	I just want to reiterate that our Pittsburgh field office staff, Are wearing this harder than anybody right now in the Secret Service.
	They feel completely demoralized.
	And what I'm trying to do is also let them know that, listen, they need to be focused on the mission at hand.
	I also have to walk a tightrope here and make sure that I'm not tainting any future discipline action.
	I just want to...
	I need to walk a tightrope here to make sure that I'm not, you know, that I don't piss him off too much.
	Because if I piss him off too much, people might stop doing their jobs even more than they haven't been doing their jobs already.
	That is a veiled threat.
	Period. I'm going to play it again.
	I'm going to pause it where I wanted to say something.
	I'm going to reiterate that our Pittsburgh field office staff, they are wearing this harder than anybody right now in the Secret Service.
	I'm glad he qualified it.
	Harder than anyone now in the Secret Service, because they sure as hell aren't the ones wearing it the hardest right now.
	I'm fairly certain Corey Comprator's family is, and Copenhaven, the other two Americans grievously.
	I'm pretty sure their families are wearing this harder than your poor, itty-bitty, incompetent, corrupt, malicious Secret Service agents who let this happen under their watch.
	I'm pretty sure.
	But thank you for clarifying.
	They're wearing it the hardest among the Secret Service community.
	Good, good.
	Like anyone care?
	Hey! Dumbass.
	Morale should be low because you all didn't just fail at your jobs.
	You were corruptly negligent at your jobs.
	One person's dead, two grievously injured, and but for the grace of God, a slight tilt of the head, we would have been in World War III right now.
	They feel completely demoralized.
	They should!
	When you suck at your job, you should feel demoralized.
	When you are bad at what you get paid to do, you should quit out of dignity.
	And when you fail at what you were hired to do, you should be demoralized.
	Just imagine, like, I'm a lawyer, and I screw up on a document out of pure negligence.
	Don't go hard on me, client.
	I'm demoralized.
	You should be.
	People are dead because of it.
	And what I'm trying to do is also...
	Let them know that, listen, they need to be focused on the mission at hand.
	No, no, they need to be fired.
	Because quite clearly, they are incapable of doing the mission at hand, which is a no-fail mission.
	And not a no-fail mission somebody skydived in without a net, bro, and crazy.
	No! You didn't do step one.
	And I don't believe it was an oversight.
	...
	rope here and make sure that I am not...
	Well, I understand.
	I don't want to go too hard on them.
	They need to be focused on the mission at hand.
	I also have to walk a tightrope here and make sure...
	I have to walk a tightrope.
	Because if I ride him too hard, accidents happen.
	And then, excuse me, in the realm of not only not forgetting, you've got your...
	Violent event deniers.
	You've got people on Twitter basically denying that this happened on the one hand.
	Let's just minimize it.
	It was shrapnel.
	It wasn't an assassin who failed inexplicably to take his target.
	It was shrapnel.
	No biggie, eh?
	Except for there's one dead American and two grievously injured.
	There's another amazing one here.
	Listen to this.
	No, that's my personal account here.
	Hold on.
	Oh, J.D. Vance, this guy here, Tim Miller.
	I don't know who Tim Miller is, but who is Tim Miller?
	Host of Bulwark podcast.
	Oh, MSNBC.
	Like, dude, I can't tell what's parody anymore and what's not.
	The dude puts a cuck zone in his banner?
	It's not, it's not, is it parody?
	Maybe it's parody.
	It's not parody.
	No, it's not parody.
	Bulwark, MSNBC analyst, which explains everything you need to know.
	Author, why we did it.
	Joe, I don't know what the hell that says.
	Self-important podcaster.
	Haha, truth and jest.
	Weak and gay.
	More truth than justice?
	Hold on.
	I can't tell if this is parody.
	It's not parody.
	This is a real person.
	Forget the gay part.
	Who prides themselves on being weak?
	J.D. Vance just said they even tried to kill him about Trump.
	This is a deeply irresponsible lie.
	And if he had one iota of integrity left, he would stop?
	Someone literally tried to kill Donald Trump.
	Literally. Not Rachel Maddow, mad cow, lying scoundrel, literally.
	Literally, literally.
	I'll put a they on it, because I do believe it was more than just a lone crazed gunman who has three encrypted accounts and scampers around a...
	A highly secure area for hours with a drone.
	And I think it was more than one person who was involved in the deliberate security lapse and or the MK Ultra weaponization or allowing of this to happen.
	Fed napping in Whitmer.
	Fed surrection on January 6th.
	I don't think that this was not something of an SS setup, pun intended.
	This guy comes in.
	It's deeply irresponsible.
	They tried to kill him, jackass.
	And I had more choice words for him yesterday, which included...
	The dumb word and the F word.
	They're trying to minimize it, brush it under the rug, forget that it ever happened, but there's an even better one, which is just outrageous.
	This is the original one.
	Dean Gloss, I don't want to put this guy on blast.
	I feel bad because, you know, when people with big accounts say tremendously stupid things that last long beyond the tweet being deleted, listen to this.
	It's not a big deal.
	No one tried to shoot him.
	It was shrapnel.
	It wasn't a bullet.
	No biggie.
	Let's just move on with the week.
	Holy hell.
	Just imagine switching the Trump for anybody else.
	We had to hear about Nancy Pelosi's husband for weeks.
	And I appreciate people were making mean jokes about Nancy Pelosi's husband.
	We heard about that attack for weeks.
	Why? David DePop.
	We know everything about him.
	Canadian in America on an illegal visa.
	Green Party supporting lefty nudist, Frico.
	We heard about that for weeks.
	Why? Because they could weaponize it against the right because it was being passed off as a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
	This, they didn't want to talk about it three days later, but listen to this because it's actually shocking and horrifying what people don't understand they're admitting to.
	The Secret Service counter-snipers couldn't fire on the gunman until he fired first because it's illegal in Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia, to carry a rifle anywhere because it's legal.
	Sorry. To carry a rifle anywhere, thanks to the GOP.
	So let's just start from ground one, point one.
	It's false to say that Secret Service could not fire.
	It's flat out wrong.
	Understand, however, what that factual incorrect statement necessarily implies.
	This guy is admitting, in his own perception of reality, he's admitting with his own two eyes that Crooks got the shot off on Trump first.
	While Secret Service did nothing.
	That's what this says.
	That's what this guy is admitting.
	He believes he witnessed with his own eyes.
	He witnessed a shooter on a roof taking a clean shot, not getting shot on, despite being surveilled by Secret Service.
	And his explanation for that is, oh, they had to hold off until he shot.
	Rules of engagement.
	Blame it on the Republicans.
	People understand exactly what they saw.
	And this lefty jackass comes out and tries to rationalize it by saying, oh, well, they had to wait.
	I acknowledge that they waited.
	I acknowledge that they had him in his sights and that he got off three, if not eight shots.
	But that's the way it had to be, and it's the Republicans' fault.
	I don't care about the factual incorrect.
	He's an idiot.
	I don't care about the politicizing of it.
	He's an idiot.
	He saw what we all saw.
	A man get off three to eight clean shots despite being patently visible.
	Thank you.
	I think that's all that we need to talk about today in terms of this.
	Never forget.
	Ever. Never.
	And don't let this fall out of the news cycle.
	Dan Bongino is obviously...
	First of all, he's got the inside scoop on a lot of this.
	He's doing the Lord's work.
	And he's on it.
	But I'm never going to...
	This is the most shocking thing of my lifetime.
	And then you get the minimizers, the deniers, the conspiracy theorists.
	Oh, Trump didn't really get shot in the ear.
	And then you get the scoundrel, mockingbird media.
	Utterly ignoring it.
	And once you understand the history of Mockingbird Media, controlled by intelligence, you understand exactly why they're not putting this on blast.
	They don't want to put their own work on blast.
	That is my humble and definitively substantiated opinion.
	Now, speaking of government being corrupt, ding-dongs.
	And speaking of the next thing, let me see here.
	There's another article here.
	This is...
	Hold on, where is it here?
	I had the...
	I pulled the article up.
	Here we go.
	Bird flu vaccine.
	Check this out.
	You know it's coming, people.
	Moderna scores federal funding for mRNA bird flu vaccine as pandemic fears grow.
	July 2nd, people.
	It's a month ago.
	You know it's coming.
	And if it's coming, and you know it's coming, you need to...
	Get familiar with the fine folks at The Wellness Company.
	America, pay attention.
	We're living in perilous times, assassination attempts, coups seeking to take over our government, cybersecurity threats, and we're just heating up.
	Now Forbes just put out an article that there's a $176 million vaccine grant given to Moderna to whip up an mRNA bird flu vaccine because the first one worked so damn well.
	Hashtag sarcasm.
	They're gearing up for the next big pandemic and we can't trust the establishment with our health.
	Any longer.
	We must take matters into our own hands now.
	I'm protecting my family with a contagion emergency kit from the wellness company, and now you can too.
	The kit's no joke.
	It's for your frontline defense against whatever they throw at us.
	Next, it comes packed with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak Tamiflu, butesonide, along with a nebulizer so that you can rest easy knowing that you have the emergency meds on hand.
	Along with a guidebook for safe use.
	Every family in America, because it's only available in America, needs to have at least one of these kits.
	It's like having an urgent care in the comfort of your own home.
	Get your contagion emergency kit now.
	It says the cost of a singles doctor visit.
	At the end of the day, you need to have these life-saving medications on hand so you won't have to think about how to get them if the poo-poo hits the fan.
	Be proactive, prepared, and take control of your health.
	Don't wait for the next health crisis.
	TWC, Tango, Whiskey, Charlie.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	Grab your contagion emergency kit now.
	TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	$30 off with the promo code Viva.
	$30 off at checkout.
	Kits are only available in the USA.
	And in case anybody doesn't know what the website looks like, let me just show you what the website looks like and then we're going to get into something else here.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Where is the website?
	Yeah, here it is.
	The Wellness Company.
	Look at this.
	Check it out, people.
	I got a new phone.
	Let me just show you what this looks like here.
	I got a new phone.
	And the new phone screen is badass!
	There you go.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Yeah, I went to get a kayak in the water up in Canada with my old phone in my pocket.
	That's just a $1,500 mistake, just like that.
	One month out of warranty?
	Very frustrating.
	Okay, now before we get too far and I lose...
	I'm going to go into the Viva Barnes Law tips because I can't bring them up now.
	You mentioned a Swedish bias recently.
	I haven't been able to find the podcast.
	Would you mind repeating the info?
	It's a material about Barris brings up.
	Okay, we're going to get to these later.
	Viva, was there some change to Canadian law or outlook to facilitate immigrants using Canada as a pass-through country and walk across the border into New York?
	Seems they are now using that as the stepping stone to a sanctuary city like in New York.
	No, that's from Schnuckums.
	I actually think it's the other way around.
	I think they were using New York to cross over into Quebec.
	Through the Roxham Road.
	And what's his face there?
	Adams. What's the guy's name?
	Eric Adams was actually buying bus tickets for all of them.
	To ship them up to the Quebec border so they can cross over here.
	Let me do a few of these before we get too far down.
	Mad Max 77 says, if cackling hyena commandos gets elected, America deserves to go down.
	V6 Neon doesn't deserve to go down because I don't deserve to go down with this.
	You don't deserve to go down with this.
	If she gets elected, what you are...
	I forget, I think it was Blair White who said it, but I had the same idea.
	If people vote for her...
	They don't understand, or they do understand, they're voting for packaging.
	They're basically voting for five decent-looking dudes that they whip together in a shitty band and call it One Direction.
	You're voting for packaging.
	You're voting for packaging, which means you are either a propagandist of the highest order or you are an unwitting propagandist of the highest order.
	V6neon says, Mainstream media give Islamists Tommy Robinson's family location info and photo of his family.
	The Daily Mail have even stated that he is on the run when the holiday was planned for before quarter.
	I'll talk about that in a second.
	Now I appreciate something here.
	Trud says, if we lose this election, that means we are a bunch of cowardly cucks and we deserve it.
	And then you got Rev 68.
	United States Secret Service doesn't ever record radio traffic.
	It's the WHCA that records the radio traffic.
	But I'll tell you, hold on.
	WHCA supports PPD and the VPD.
	I don't know what these acronyms mean offhand.
	Philadelphia Police Department and the, I don't know, not former presidents and CINO's events.
	HCA wasn't at Butler, hence no record.
	What can you say?
	If it's just orchestrated incompetence.
	This was not radio.
	This sounded like Secret Service Communications.
	Anyhow, okay, let's bring that out.
	Let me make sure that I gave Barnes the copy of the link.
	And hold on before we even get there.
	Link copied.
	Okay, boom.
	And now I escape from there.
	Let me go over to YouTube and get a few of these super chats, which I can no longer see.
	Where are they?
	Oh, I can't see the super chats anymore.
	All right, people, I'm going to apologize if I miss some of these super chats because it sometimes moves too fast.
	Allgoodguy says five bucks.
	Viva, the Apple TV app needs to be updated to use the keyboard.
	I can read the chat, but no text box to type into.
	Okay, I'll screen grab that.
	If Cackling Hyena gets elected.
	Okay, I got that one.
	All right, people.
	There's one more thing that I wanted to talk about here before we get started.
	It was Tommy Robinson.
	So Tommy Robinson gets arrested last week.
	Oh, Barnes, you're in the house.
	Hold on.
	Let me take you out while you get it ready.
	Hold on.
	Yeah, forget it, Barnes.
	You're going to do it while we're on camera.
	Tommy Robinson got arrested under the Terrorism Act, which from what I understand, I was listening to him on Russell Brand, and I'm going to try to get him back on, but he's on the run right now because his location was disclosed, the hotel he was staying at.
	And if you don't appreciate that Tommy Robinson is public enemy number one within a very large demographic, you're not paying attention.
	So that's it.
	Tommy Robinson, whether it's on purpose or by accident, the Daily Mail I don't think would deliberately dox Tommy, but he's in big fucking trouble.
	There's no other way to put it than sorry for cussing.
	So I'm going to see if I can get him back on at some point this week.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	I wonder when Rumble Studio I'll be able to actually use my camera for whatever reason.
	It says it's available, but it's never available once you're actually in.
	Okay, I'm going to take that note and send it right back to the team.
	Robert, before we get going, actually, because I think I forgot to do this.
	Hold on.
	Be naked, people.
	When Barnes comes in unannounced, it's sort of like being naked.
	This is our second sponsor of the night.
	Be naked.
	If you're one of...
	Oh, by the way, this is naked organs for anybody who doesn't get the pun yet.
	You'll get it in a second.
	If you're one of those people who uses the phrase toxic masculinity because you're intimidated by real men who embrace their primal instincts, you should probably turn this off right now, literally.
	Who's that guy that I was just talking about in the intro?
	Tim, who's weak?
	Forget the gay part.
	Weak. So turn it off.
	Whatever, Tim.
	As a man, you're the rock people depend on.
	A shoulder to ground, a fighter, a lover, and a protector of many.
	We at Rumble created Be Naked as a brand that celebrates manhood and champions masculinity.
	While we're on it, did you see, Robert, the guy who knocked over the pole vaults with his penis?
	Because apparently it was a very large penis.
	I'll see if I can find the video later.
	Men with real balls that share our enthusiasm for clean, non-woke, and agenda-free products dedicated to helping you dominate every challenge life throws at you.
	Because we all know that life will throw us tests, push us, challenge us.
	So when life kicks you and you need to kick back harder, you need to tap into the primal strength.
	This is why you need to supplement Naked Organs.
	Our signature product will help you unleash your inner beast.
	Naked organs come from the purest and strongest animals on Earth, the fearless bison.
	I have eaten bison testicles for everybody who's really interested.
	It's nature's multivitamin powerhouse, delivering endless energy, regulating hormone health, boosting testosterone, and enhancing muscular recovery and natural creatine.
	Go to BeNaked right now and pick up some of the naked organs to embrace your manhood.
	That's BeNaked.com slash Viva.
	Use code Viva to save 15% off.
	Celebrate being a man, getting healthy, living naked, and putting your hard-earned dollars towards supporting freedom-loving creators like me on Rumble, not...
	And I'm going to bring that out.
	Robert, did you see the video?
	The pole vaulter, the high jumper?
	Knocking it over with his ding dong.
	And they said, imagine you strive for excellence your entire life and you get disqualified because you have a larger than average genitalia.
	Well, you know, it turned out he couldn't vault the pole because of his pole.
	I made a similar joke when I was sharing that with my parents.
	Robert, sir, how's it going?
	What's the book behind you?
	Soccernomics, about the nature of soccer.
	European football is known through most of the rest of the world.
	Though soccer, by the way, the term itself originated from England.
	They used to call it soccer until the mid-1970s as part of a British way of combining certain things back in the old days.
	You know, applicable, we got Olympic soccer that's coming to the semifinal stage tomorrow.
	And then European football in all of its league play starts this month.
	Along with American football on the collegiate side starts this month.
	And then pro football on the American side will start around Labor Day.
	What else?
	What are you smoking tonight?
	Or what are you not smoking?
	This was a gift.
	It's called a Las Calaveras.
	Las Calaveras.
	Yeah. I haven't had it.
	I don't think I've had it before.
	Gifted the Cigar Guy, so we'll see how it works.
	What do we have on the menu tonight, Robert?
	So we got James O'Keefe, a big win over Project Veritas.
	Don Lemon against Elon Musk.
	Self-defense in Minnesota doesn't mean a lot, unfortunately.
	We got a lot of election cases.
	The trial of Tina Peters in Colorado being covered by Rachel Alexander, who's been on...
	The show before.
	Voter registration issues subject to a lawsuit that's been filed.
	Ballot access in Pennsylvania.
	Voting rights up before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The efforts of the Biden administration to leverage federal law and federal enforcement powers to do a mass voter registration and mail-in voting campaign.
	Now subject of a federal suit.
	We got a prisoner exchange in Russia.
	Fortunately for Joe Biden, apparently Joe Biden thought that he was the person being exchanged.
	Because after the prisoners came off, he hopped on the plane to go back to Russia.
	Robert, he was thanking the pilots.
	It was absolutely nothing to do with him being senile.
	He was thanking the pilots.
	Of course, of course.
	I'm sure he was thrilled to discover he doesn't have to go to Russia.
	The border wall being required to be...
	Actually built with the money spent and allocated for it by a federal court ruling.
	Another good ruling in favor of Texas' ability to enforce its borders in terms of the buoys it's putting up in the river.
	A gun ban struck down, finally, in the state of New Jersey.
	Your right to make alcohol in your own home.
	Homestills. A federal law finally struck down as unconstitutional.
	FCC's net neutrality runs into a little bit of borders in the courtroom itself.
	The cryptos and banks, when can you sue banks for facilitating fraud?
	This case involving crypto Ponzi schemes, but has broader applicability outside of that.
	In the Venezuelan elections that people had asked me to take a little bit of a look at to see what is the evidence about whether those elections were done with integrity and accuracy or not.
	And any other fun topics that hop up in tonight's conversation?
	No, I will say it because, first of all, I had to double-check that Bill shared the news with the community before I would, but Bill Brown, who always shows us pictures of his beautiful pig, Templeton.
	Templeton unexpectedly passed away just, like, spontaneously.
	No sickness well before age, and Bill is...
	Anybody who has pets understands, like, it never gets easier and it never gets...
	It never hurts less.
	And so, Bill, we all love Templeton.
	I haven't told my kid yet.
	My kid's got a picture of Templeton up in his bedroom.
	But everybody's thinking about you, Bill.
	And anyways, Templeton is now in a field and has a wonderful view of where, you know, a good view out there.
	What do we start with?
	Hold on.
	I wanted to say something about, well, Project Veritas.
	I couldn't figure out which summary to announce the show tonight, so I went with the Elon Musk versus Don Lemon.
	So maybe we'll start with that.
	The vlog is out there, people.
	I put up a quick one before we got started.
	Don Lemon suing Elon Musk.
	Fraudulent representations, unjust enrichment, unlawful use of likeness and image, and alleging, basically, that Elon promised...
	Don Lemon, the sun and the moon.
	I'll pull up the terms of what he says he was promised by this contract.
	And Don Lemon says, you know, I made all of these investments to do a show exclusively on X. Says that Elon Musk came to me and said, X needs me to rebrand their image, to shine up their tarnished image.
	This is what he actually alleged in the lawsuit.
	And he said, look, I made all these investments.
	Then, after an interview, Elon...
	Cuts everything short, says we're done and through.
	And anybody who didn't see that interview, it's an embarrassment of an interview.
	And he's suing him for what will be, I don't know, however many millions of dollars.
	He's suing in California.
	I don't know how that jurisdiction plays into the suit, the person who he's suing.
	What is your take on this?
	What do you think the chances of success are?
	And what of the venue in terms of favorable or not to Elon?
	Well, I mean, that's because Twitter has forever been in the Northern District of California.
	So that's why the suit presumably was filed there, as opposed to the...
	Interestingly, he didn't file in the Southern District of New York, where he resides.
	I had prior litigation against Don Lemon related to alleged...
	Well, let's see.
	There was a resolution of that case, so I guess I can't discuss it any further beyond that.
	But I'll just say that the Southern District of New York seemed to be a very...
	Friendly jurisdiction to him, politically.
	So it's interesting that he chose the Northern District of California instead, maybe because of something that was in the contract that wasn't ever signed.
	I mean, what's basically Don LeMond's theory is that a contractual negotiation that does not result in a signed agreement gives you the right to bring a lawsuit for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment?
	You know, is there any cases out there where failed contract negotiations gives you the right to sue for fraud?
	Gives you the right to sue for breach of contract when there is no written contract that ever got signed?
	I mean, that's his problem.
	I mean, I didn't see a lot of credibility to the suit.
	I mean, it was glaring.
	I kept looking in the suit.
	Okay, was there ever a written contract or not?
	And there wasn't.
	It's admitted like...
	Three quarters of the way through the complaint.
	And the excuse is, well, you know, that Musk said some things verbally that they interpreted as not requiring a written contract?
	I don't think so.
	So I think it's an incredulous claim about, you know, it's like saying that you thought she was going to tie the knot and then she didn't.
	And you're going to sue over what exactly?
	I mean, until you tie the knot, you haven't tied the knot until it was signed.
	There was nothing signed.
	Listen to this here.
	During Lemon's June 16, 2020 conversation with Musk, Musk asked Lemon to enter an exclusive partnership.
	I want you on X. This is what you should be doing.
	By the way, it's negotiations all the time.
	Imagine translating that into a fraud, unjust enrichment claim.
	I mean, it's kind of legally laughable, isn't it?
	It's laughable that...
	Lemon thinks that Elon needed Lemon for, you know, rebranding for X. Oh yeah, that part's just funny.
	Lemon expressed reservations about entering into a partnership with X due to ongoing controversies surrounding the X platform.
	Oh my goodness.
	Narcissism. Listen to this.
	In response and to induce Lemon into the exclusive yada yada, Musk represented to Lemon that he would have full authority and control over the work he produced, even if disliked by defendants, and that there would be no need for a formal written agreement or to fill out paperwork.
	Let me say what you couldn't say at the beginning.
	I don't know anything about the case that you were involved in.
	Other than what I've read in the news.
	At the beginning of this lawsuit, where he describes himself, you've got to see this because it's freaking hilarious.
	Did he include all the public attention that came to that lawsuit that preceded his sudden departure from CNN?
	I'm guessing no.
	No, no, no, he didn't.
	Didn't mention that he was unceremoniously fired because of controversy from CNN.
	Listen to this.
	Don Lemon is an American journalist best known for his work with CNN from 2006 until his tenure ended.
	Fired for cause, from what I understand.
	Relatable and charismatic, Lemon's work defies genre.
	candidly exposing injustice and the resiliency of the human spirit.
	At all times throughout his career, Lemon has been an exemplary journalist known, quote, for sticking his finger in the eyes I thought it was...
	Yeah, that was an interesting reference.
	I don't know, if I was Tom LeMond's counsel, I would reference anything he does with his finger.
	It's sticking his fingers in eyes.
	Nobody says that.
	And given the allegations that he stuck his fingers in his genitals and then in the nose of the guy, I forget the guy's name, and then said, do you like P-U-S-S-Y or D-I-C-K because the guy was gay?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And then he was promised.
	It was paragraph 24. The amounts that he says he was promised, like a million and a half bucks.
	Where was it here?
	Hold on.
	Let me just get this real quick.
	It was...
	Oh, I can't find it.
	Oh, here we go.
	In exchange, defense agree they would pay him $1.5 million guaranteed, $200,000 upfront within three business days.
	This is how business works.
	$300,000 within three days.
	Let's see here.
	Paid quarterly installments with additional incentives, including one option to renew this one-year deal two times with the same terms at Lemon's sole discretion.
	No one agrees to that, period.
	60% of the gross advertisement revenue that X received from programmatic advertising on Lemon's content.
	Performance of threshold payments for reaching 4 million followers and 500,000 for reaching 6 million followers.
	So, it's, I mean, okay.
	They might have had these discussions.
	$500,000 in advertising credits on the X platform.
	So he gets to advertise his own show and then reap benefits for whatever success that would yield.
	For a period of 48 months, 10% of net revenue that X receives once it exceeds $350,000 for content creators that Lemon referred to X. And six, that all content created by Lemon originally or distributed on X is wholly owned by him.
	I don't think this contract ever happened.
	Oh, God, no.
	Disable camera?
	What did I just do here?
	So, Robert, it's a joke.
	I mean, no good deed goes unpunished.
	That interview, Elon, is going to cost you however much it's going to cost you to defend this if you don't choose to pay off a nuisance settlement.
	All right.
	Do we do the other one before we head over to...
	Sure. Before we head over?
	We'll do Project Veritas, another good...
	It's sort of a win.
	It's an objective win, right?
	So this is the lawsuit of Project Veritas against James O'Keefe.
	Alleging... Oh jeez, I'm having a total brain fart.
	They were trying to get an injunction enjoining him from contacting donors, seeking damages as a result of their breakup, and it was dismissed by way of directed verdict?
	Well, so they were seeking a preliminary injunction.
	And the preliminary injunction that the Project Veritas was seeking against O'Keefe would have basically eviscerated O'Keefe's ability.
	To operate.
	And that was the goal.
	They thought they could contractually force him to not compete at all with Project Veritas after the disastrous handling of Project Veritas, of James O'Keefe, by the new board at Project Veritas.
	A lot of the claims were ridiculous.
	There are limits to non-compete agreements.
	Of course, the Federal Trade Commission has rendered many non-compete agreements illegal under federal law now, but they didn't even need to rely upon that aspect.
	They had a lot of robust New York law that supported their claims.
	When we discussed this complaint when it was first filed, it said it did not have the legal merits.
	To warrant any kind of preliminary injunction against O'Keefe.
	But O'Keefe had to spend the time and the money and the effort to defend against it.
	But the court recognized the same thing.
	There was simply no good grounds at all to enjoin at any level, any aspect of James O'Keefe's activities.
	Because it wasn't just the part of the preliminary injunctive request was denied.
	All of it was denied.
	So it's still scheduled for trial on the merits, but basically Project Veritas' case is DOA.
	It's not going to get anywhere functional other than waste people's money and time.
	And it just represents the disastrous handling, which we talked about at the time.
	The board at Project Veritas was incompetent and incapable of discharging their duties.
	They betrayed the point and purpose of their donors.
	They pushed James O'Keefe out the door like suicidal, inane idiots.
	And whether they were doing it at the behest and the behalf of some ulterior interest, well, we may never know.
	Maybe O'Keefe will discover some of that evidence in the ongoing case.
	So there's more for him to discover than for Project Veritas to discover.
	But some of the Project Veritas types.
	That justified and rationalized their behavior.
	We're predicting differently with this preliminary injunction that the truth would come out.
	Well, several key Project Veritas witnesses apparently were no-shows.
	They didn't even show up at the hearing.
	And then some others didn't have the evidence that they claimed to have.
	And so once again, it was proven that the allegations against James O'Keefe were baseless.
	And credit to James O'Keefe.
	For prevailing so that he can continue to operate.
	His exposure, I mean, his latest great success, MediaCoup, has been exposing ActBlue and that ActBlue appears to be illicitly laundering donations disguised as being small donors' contributions that appear to be coming from someone else and not given actually by those small donors.
	And he's detailed this now for over a year.
	Recently was detailing it in more degree concerning Kamala Harris' sudden fundraising surge after the announcement that she would replace Joe Biden.
	And now multiple attorneys general are opening criminal investigations and civil inquiries into whether or not Act Blue is engaged in money laundering and illegal donations to the Democratic Party.
	So again, that's a benefit we wouldn't have if Project Veritas' objective had been achieved.
	I'm going to read this Super Chat because I can't bring it up elsewhere and I think the person might have put it through twice.
	Alan Tanass says, Long time watcher, first time Super Chatter.
	I'm always happy you guys are on top of the stories that matter much, like another man was on top of Rakata's wife, but I am not one to blow...
	Okay, I'm not reading the rest of this because I'm not...
	Okay, I'm not sure I get the jokes, but I think I might get the jokes.
	So... We did discuss it at the time, the extent and application of overbroad and non-compete, non-solicitations, and you don't get to strike them down and say, well, we went a little bit too broad, so let's narrow it down.
	It's you succeed or you fail.
	So they said it's too broad on an injunctive basis, which means it's pretty much going to be too broad on the merits?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Oh, completely.
	I mean, so the non-compete is DOA.
	The attempts to prevent him from raising funds is DOA.
	The attempts to prohibit him from contacting people is DOA.
	The attempt to prevent him from operating is DOA.
	Now it goes to a trial on the merits.
	Project Veritas should just drop it and move on.
	It's been a disaster for them.
	It only continues to be a disaster for them.
	They can pay whatever their lawyer's legal fees are, but it's a waste of money and a waste of effort.
	And the only question is when the board gets sued for the breach of their duties to their donors, because that's all they've done from my standpoint over the last year.
	But at least O'Keefe is free now from those restrictions and restraints, the threat of that litigation and what it could cause, and can pursue the more nobler causes that have been his life's calling now for two decades.
	This was not on the menu, but Robert, if you don't know about it, you'll tell me.
	Who was I listening to?
	It was during the congressional hearings last week where I had speaking of employees who get dismissed and then sue or get sued.
	Peter Stroke and Lisa Page were compensated $1.2 million and $800,000 respectively for having...
	Allegedly had their privacy violated through the disclosure of their text messages.
	Had you been following this?
	Yeah, I mean, it's just a payoff.
	I mean, it's the Biden administration giving them a payoff and rewarding them for all of their activities and sabotaging President Trump.
	I mean, I have a legitimate case against the FBI on behalf of former FBI agent Robin Gritz.
	You know, they're not doing anything to resolve those kind of cases.
	So it shows how corrupt the system is.
	And this is the same FBI whose director, Christopher Wray, Federalist Society guy, who weaseled his way into the position of the FBI because it was a poor appointment by Trump, who lied about whether or not Trump was shot and shot at by a would-be assassin.
	And then that was followed up by the deputy director of the FBI gaslighting the world and lying to Congress.
	About the social media history of the alleged assassin, Thomas Crooks.
	That he said that they had found an unidentified account.
	Well, he didn't tell anybody.
	It was an account on Gab.
	And it suggested that he was right-wing and anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant.
	It was completely false.
	He basically was on Gab to troll Paul Watson, to troll Bill Mitchell, to troll a bunch of conservatives and tell them how great...
	Joe Biden is.
	How great his immigration policies are.
	There was nothing about him that was anti-Semitic or anything else.
	He was, by at least to what degree we have any political footprint, a lefty, a donor to the left.
	And yet, there you had the deputy director following up Christopher Wray's lies with his own lies.
	And in the same week, they're paying off a couple of criminals who are operating at the top of the FBI, Peter Stroke and Lisa Page.
	In the same way.
	It shows how the only solution for the FBI is for the FBI to not exist.
	It's that simple.
	That they have proven themselves incapable of being a constitutionally compliant law enforcement body.
	They will weaponize their power to misuse it and abuse it against civil rights and civil liberties of dissidents in America.
	Frankly, that's mostly what they've done throughout their entire tenure in history, if you really study it.
	It's just gotten egregious.
	The payoffs, the rewards to these two corrupt agents is just further evidence that the agency cannot be trusted and needs to be probably disbanded.
	It is just flabbergasting and enraging.
	I believe these are all passive-aggressive acts of provocation, although they might be more aggressive.
	Paying him off $1.2 million.
	And they're sending a message.
	Everybody else out there that wants to betray Trump, you'll get rewarded.
	Even if Trump somehow gets into office and takes away your position, we'll make sure you get millions of dollars on the backside.
	And this is just what the government is paying them.
	It doesn't include what CNN is paying them.
	It doesn't include the book deals, the lucrative book deals they're getting without justification.
	So, I mean, it's just, this is the message.
	You'll betray Trump, sabotage Trump.
	And they do this at the same time.
	The FBI is busy covering up whatever really happened in the assassination attempt of Donald Trump.
	So, I mean, the timing is not unintended.
	Because it was relatively recent news.
	I was from June or something of this year, where when I was listening to the hearing, I was like, oh my God, I thought I would have known that if it had happened.
	Happened very recently.
	It's taxpayer dollars.
	I mean, they're the same week they even attempted to give.
	A 9-11 plea deal to the alleged 9-11 plotters.
	And it got so much public blowback on the eve of an election that they had to withdraw it.
	Now, I don't know what the heck the Court of Guantanamo is.
	I'm still not a fan of these, you know, whatever, these courts that aren't courts, laws that aren't laws, covered but not covered by our Constitution.
	Not a fan of this.
	But the fact that they were even contemplating Such a special deal to such individuals on the eve of the election just gives you a sense of where the mindset is of this administration.
	I had one other question, which I think I forgot what I was going to ask.
	Oh, sorry, the act blue is right here.
	We'll do a couple of chats before we head over.
	Head over to Rumble, people.
	We're going to end on YouTube.
	And Twitter.
	And go vote with our feet, our eyeballs, our dollars.
	Create a parallel economy.
	I will put up the entire stream in podcast on Podbean and on Viva Clips tomorrow.
	Barnes, wouldn't Act Blue be required to cut a 1098 to the small donors?
	We talked about this before.
	I mean, I don't know what that means in 1098, but they're objectively...
	Tax. But that's for...
	People you pay, not people you receive money from.
	And you don't get a tax credit if it's under $20, so they do these micro donations and just do them all.
	But there's a question of, you know, are they laundering funds?
	And then could that trigger potential tax liability depending on the way in which they were doing so?
	Yes. And there was this one here.
	Barnes. What are your oft-repeated three things that must be done to help determine if an election is fair, votes cast, is less than equal to registered voters, signature matches, and three?
	Oh, yeah.
	If you have more votes than voters, you got a problem.
	That's always number one.
	The signature matches on mail-in balloting, the signatures need to match.
	Generally, the third I say to look for.
	And whether an election was credible or not, we'll get to this in the Venezuelan election, which I guess we can progress into, is unusual disparate turnout between similar groups.
	So to give an example, in 2020, there was unusual turnout at nursing homes right next to each other.
	One had a 60% turnout, one had a 95% turnout.
	Unusual turnouts at apartment buildings of similarly situated demographics of who's occupying them geographically, etc.
	One would have 65% turnout of its tenants, another one 90-95% turnout.
	That's usually a giveaway that somebody has filled out a lot of those ballots other than the actual alleged voter who was purported to have done so.
	So that's usually the quick way to detect whether election irregularities Or dubious ballots have been cast is comparing like-minded, unusual voting turnouts among similar demographics, signature matches not matching, or the signature match check not being conducted.
	And always, like as sporadically happens whenever they audit the Detroit, having more votes than voters in a precinct always tends to be a problem.
	Robert, okay, so we're going to end on YouTube and Twitter.
	Come on over to Rumble while we do that, or vivabarneslaw.locals.com while we do the migration.
	It's in the pinned comment, people.
	Thank you to our sponsors.
	The links are in the description, so show some love.
	Kimmy B says, who became the director of Veritas?
	I cannot remember his name.
	It was...
	It had a...
	One of them was the guy I ran into at the Republican National Convention was Matthew Timmond or something.
	Tim Rant.
	It's Tim Rant.
	Tim Rant.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	Does it?
	I don't think he likes either of us, but I think he hates you more than me, Robert.
	Yeah. Bread pit on bread.
	It says, Barnes wouldn't act.
	Okay, we did that.
	And Levert Sr.
	Barnes. Oh, I just, I read that one too.
	Peace is the prize.
	Here's 10 cents in 1930s money.
	Cheers for Brazil.
	I finally figured out a VPN for using Rumble.
	Thanks for Viva and Barnes for speaking the truth regardless of the subject.
	And then we got New at Political Align-O-Matic, The Real Encryptus.
	Enhanced quizzes and media analysis.
	Support our growth and deepen your political insights.
	Donate here.
	And it's GiveSendGo.com.
	P-C-A-T.
	And what do we hear?
	Barnes. This is from Sunbeam Valley.
	Amish in the stands.
	At DJT rally in Pennsylvania.
	Some said they aren't real.
	They're fake plants dressed up.
	Also that Amish can't get involved in politics because it goes against the religion.
	Is this true?
	No, that's not true.
	They're likely Mennonite.
	The reference is that Amish, the traditional Amish, don't appear for cameras or videographer deliberately by choice.
	Mennonites generally do.
	And you do have some Amish communities that a lot of Mennonites share a lot in common with the Amish.
	Some of them, they may drive, they may use cell phones, things like that, but maybe they dress the same.
	So it's just a different degree to which they accept certain modern contemporary technologies or not.
	But there's nothing in the Amish religion at all that prohibits public participation in elections at all.
	That's not the case.
	If I were to have referred to a Mennonite as Amish, would I be an idiot?
	No, I mean, to a degree, they are very well comparable, and you could say indistinguishable in many respects.
	Because when I was in Wisconsin and I saw a family of what I thought were Amish at the zoo, and I struck up a conversation, presuming they were...
	Amish, and I hope I didn't insult anybody.
	All right, so here's what we're doing now, people.
	We're ending it on YouTube and Twitter, and we shall go over to Rumbles and Locals in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Come on over now, and we'll take over the rest of the subject matter there.
	All right, it's going, and I'm going to go tweak out and end this in YouTube afterwards.
	All right, so can we talk about, like, I have not been following the South American elections vet.
	Venezuelan elections.
	Maduro. Okay, I don't know anything.
	I thought at one point that he had political support, and then I saw what was not a meme, $15 million for his arrest and conviction, and I'm like, arrest and conviction, which is a big investment to the person who's going to risk their life doing that.
	What the hell's going on south of the border, Robert?
	So they recently had an election.
	The Election Commission declared Maduro the winner by about a seven-point margin.
	The United States government and a range of other governments have denounced the election, saying that it was a fraudulent election.
	It's interesting what the U.S. State Department considers a fraudulent election, given how the people that occupy that office at the State Department, how they got there.
	But so I was curious about, okay, what are the specificity of the allegations about how the election was stolen in some manner?
	Didn't represent the populace, the will of the voters.
	And the only thing really given was exit polling data that I don't trust at all.
	The other thing is, I think they clearly doctored it, in my opinion, because they were predicting they had exit polls showing...
	Maduro losing by 30, 35 points.
	And I'm like, there was almost nothing predicting that before the election.
	And as soon as I saw that, I was like, this feels like when North Korea does an election and he wins 99.9% and the 0.1% got executed.
	I mean, it's like, come on, let's not be ridiculous.
	Dug into it, and there's a range, like a lot of the defenders of Venezuela, people like folks that are at the convo couch, come from more the left sort of anti-empire perspective.
	So, like, they're always obsessed with being pro-Palestinian.
	I'll never fully get that.
	Why the left anti-empire crowd has to love Islamist radicals, I just won't.
	It's like, good luck trying to live there, if you really believe that.
	Putting that aside, I listened to some of their criticism, watched some of the various, sort of took a mini deep dive into it.
	Members of the board sent me some links.
	If you want useful information about a country these days, often look for random travelers, like these people that do travel vlogs.
	A lot of them are non-political.
	Now, the ones that are often promoted by YouTube, you can't trust, quite frankly.
	But if you dig in enough, by the way, there's this Canadian refugee who now lives in Venezuela.
	This was pointed out by one of our members of the board.
	This guy's on a little YouTube channel.
	So what's interesting is, because my biggest curiosity first was, okay, what's the grounds to say the election was invalid?
	What happened in the election itself?
	And then the second part was, okay, if Maduro did legitimately win, why did he legitimately win?
	And only them.
	And so...
	Was the people who voted, were they qualified to vote according to the rules set by the legislature of their state?
	So part one, were there only constitutionally qualified voters?
	Those people can include people who are simply not properly registered in their county, people who have dual multiple residencies in multiple counties, not just multiple residencies between states, which is another category.
	People not registered at a legitimate address, like post office boxes or...
	Or parking lots.
	People who are too young to vote in the presidential election.
	The people who, in certain instances, certain kinds of felons don't have, in some states, the right to vote for a period of time.
	And then, of course, dead people.
	People who are dead at the time they supposedly voted.
	So those would all be constitutionally unqualified people to vote.
	Then whether the method by which they voted was constitutionally qualified.
	So if they voted in person...
	Did they comply with the rules and the way they went about doing so?
	Some states require identification.
	Some states require other things in the process of the vote.
	Or if they voted by mail, did they meet the constitutional qualifications for, again, the rules set by the legislature of their state for being able to vote by mail?
	Did they properly obtain that ballot?
	Did they properly return that ballot?
	Did their signature on the ballot match their confidential signature on the voter file?
	As is required in most jurisdictions for mail-in ballots.
	And then third, when they canvassed the vote and counted the vote, did they do it according to the rules set by the legislature of their state to make it constitutionally qualified as a canvas and count?
	So in Georgia, for example, since this issue percolated up this week with President Trump's criticism of Ratberger, the Secretary of State of Georgia, and the Governor Kemp, who's Governor WEF, Wuss Governor, Trump was rightly critical of how they handled 2020.
	Even Georgia's election officials in other jurisdictions have admitted there were problems with what happened.
	But, of course, Kemp was denying there was ever any issue and saying there's no issue for 2024.
	But, in fact, as Cleta Mitchell, who I was co-counsel with during a period of time representing President Trump in Georgia, publicly stated, the Georgia election contest, with thousands of pages of evidentiary documentation, Showed that the margin of victory was less than the number of people who either were not constitutionally qualified to vote or that their method of casting the ballot was not constitutionally qualified and confirmed with an actual signature match and the method by which the canvas and
	count took place in Georgia was not constitutionally qualified because it did not comport and apply with the rules of the Georgia state legislature.
	That happened at every single stage and the number of ballots was over 100,000 that were in question and in doubt.
	In an election that was decided by 12 or 13,000 or 11,000, whatever the final number ended up being, because it kept shifting there in Georgia.
	So the question is, what about Venezuela?
	Very interesting.
	Venezuela's election mechanism, by the way.
	It might be some helpful lessons here in the United States.
	So in order to vote in Venezuela, you can only vote at your precinct.
	You can't just vote anywhere.
	You have to have ID.
	You've got to do a fingerprint confirmation after you vote.
	So they're really making sure one person doesn't vote twice, and someone that's not qualified ever votes in the first place.
	They don't have much of mass mail-in voting.
	You put into a machine your vote, but the machine is not like the Dominion machines here.
	The machine's more like a typewriter.
	What happens is you put it out and it prints out, so it stores it digitally.
	But it's not connected at any level to the internet.
	And when it prints out is a receipt, a paper receipt, you get to check to make sure it's accurate.
	And then you separately put that paper receipt in a separate ballot box.
	So you got dual level confirmation of the process.
	And it is party observers of all candidates are allowed to watch this entire process, including the counting and canvassing of the ballot, which is what should have happened in Georgia, did not.
	Let me just try to play a little devil's advocate, just checking the population.
	Venezuela's, say, $30 million rounding up.
	The argument's going to be, what is this cost?
	And is it feasible at a scale of $350 million?
	I'm asking a rhetorical question.
	Venezuela. They're a broke country.
	They're broke.
	It's like that meme where the little kid is doing the math and saying, you know, George has got $0.03 here and $0.09 here, so how much money does George have?
	And the little kid says, George broke, and just starts laughing.
	That's the conclusion.
	So we could easily do it here.
	The world employs forms of identification.
	The world employs paper ballot proof in production.
	And by the way, Venezuela has managed to count this vote within 24 hours.
	I think they're still counting in Arizona.
	How ridiculous is that?
	It's planned or deliberate incompetence.
	Oh, and by the way, I had to double-check as well.
	The reason why there's a strong, I don't want to say, Islamic presence in Venezuela, I actually had Michael Yan on who explained it.
	There's a lot of Hezbollah.
	For whatever the reason, that has settled.
	There's a strong Iranian connection to Venezuela, which has accounted for why there are villages of Hezbollah entities in Venezuela.
	People who were watching that interview knew that answer.
	What's interesting is all the critics, now the Carter Center observers said that they were unhappy with the election, but they were talking about the context in which the election occurred.
	They didn't identify a single problem with that part of the election.
	I kept waiting for, give me the details as to how the vote was not accurately represented, and nobody was producing it.
	You know, you got Canada, the whole Western world, the U.S., everybody's against the Venezuelan government, and nobody can produce.
	Any documentary proof of what went wrong in the election beyond their criticism of how the election was conducted and who was qualified as a candidate and the way in which the media campaign was done.
	I was like, well, by that standard, 2020 was definitely stolen.
	Go back to the Hunter Biden CIA nonsense about the Hunter Biden laptop being fake as one of many illustrative examples.
	So under the State Department standards for Venezuela, most of the people in the State Department shouldn't be there.
	Because that 2020 election was stolen even worse by any metric compared to Venezuela.
	But so I'm not finding objectively verifiable evidence that the election didn't represent the will of the voters.
	So then I went and dug in.
	I was like, well, everything I've heard about Venezuela has been negative.
	Why would people vote Maduro back in?
	And here there's a couple of factors.
	Number one is about 4 million people have fled Venezuela.
	It might be up to 7 million, depending on what estimates you get.
	What does that mean?
	It means an election decided by 700,000 votes, many of the people that would vote against Maduro are no longer in Venezuela and no longer qualified to vote in Venezuela.
	So that's probably a big factor.
	Second factor is he managed to get at least some modicum of control over their hyperinflation problem.
	Still bad, it's just not as insanely bad as it was a half decade ago.
	Third, They increased community policing efforts.
	And here is a Trump criticism.
	They've encouraged, shall you say, a lot of their gangs that were rising up in Venezuela to leave Venezuela.
	And they've set up shop throughout the rest of Latin America.
	And by the way, are now setting up shop in the United States of America.
	It's a gang that's going to make MS-13 look like some kids in a park.
	But what does that do?
	All of a sudden, a crime problem that was insane five years ago has now been managed and is not as bad.
	And you can see this in a bunch of tourist videos over the last year, where they're talking to Venezuelans, they're doing the trip, and like, okay, crime is no longer what it once was here in Venezuela.
	So he stabilized things enough, and then it comes down to his opponent.
	The problem is the Venezuelan opposition...
	Is a bunch of corporate oligarch types, backed by the U.S. deep state.
	I mean, remember, we ridiculously pretended that Guado, or whatever his name was, was the president of Venezuela.
	I mean, it was totally fake.
	It was like that scene from High Plains Drifter, where the little midget gets to be mayor and sheriff, and he stands up on the bar and says, I'm the mayor!
	I'm the sheriff!
	And it's Clint Eastwood's way of mocking the local town.
	Even a Republican congressman admitted this in a hearing this past week, saying maybe that was kind of a mistake.
	And now, because what he's done is the same thing they do in Cuba, the same thing they do in Iran, which is when you do these broad sanctions, like the U.S. has issued against Venezuela, it gives an excuse to the Venezuelan leadership for their economic troubles that are often, in my view, As much a product of their mismanagement of the economy.
	But now they have a cop-out.
	The reason for the economy is the bad U.S. that wants to come in and steal all our oil again.
	And so, you know, it gives a national rallying cry to the Maduro audience that is not credible coming from an opposition that is so tied to the old corporate oligarchic elites of Latin America and especially there in Venezuela.
	And it's also the Venezuelan lead opposition party had been aligned with welcoming U.S. military invasion.
	That's not someone people are probably going to vote for in the Venezuelan populace, whatever they think of the Maduro regime.
	They're not wanting U.S. military to take over their country instead, at least those that have stayed in Venezuela.
	And then the one thing that's semi-worked.
	Nice emphasis on the word semi, but has been the various social programs put in place by Hugo Chavez.
	There's a part of those that are still popular because they're the only means by which some people in Venezuela get food or health care.
	And the opposition had suggested they would scrap them entirely.
	Well, that's not really an answer, right?
	Imagine if someone was running in the United States saying, I promise to get rid of Social Security and Medicare.
	How well would that go?
	So I think that Maduro legitimately won the election.
	I think the majority of the voters did, in fact, favor him over the deep state-sponsored opposition.
	And that in this, and even though I'm by no means a fan of the Maduro regime, you can look at, by the way, old Hugo Chavez, the more populist wing of Hugo Chavez's original political base.
	And there's documentaries of them being very critical of the Maduro regime in ways that it's become statist more than it is populist.
	That being said, one little component of this, it's like when Ben Shapiro and everybody calls them socialists.
	Well, I want an objective metric for socialism.
	Objective metric is the state owns the economy or a large share of it.
	Well, folks, the federal government in the United States of America owns a larger share of GDP in the United States.
	With its state governments than the Venezuelan government does over the Venezuelan government.
	So what was interesting by this guy who's the refugee from, I call him refugee, but kind of from Trudeau's Canada, there's parts of Venezuela that are almost ungovernable, but that have become like little anarchistic, quasi-libertarian havens because you just do whatever you want.
	And that's a part of Venezuela that hasn't been adequately covered.
	By Western press that's so universally hostile, you can't trust Maduro and you can't trust the critics of Maduro.
	And it makes it brutally difficult to get honest, independent, objective information.
	But from what I can tell, the election wasn't stolen.
	What of the, not the charges, I mean they're relatively old, but the 15 million bucks for the conviction for narco-terrorism of Maduro, are they involved in the...
	I find that funny because...
	That's basically a charge you could wage against almost every leading member of the Central Intelligence Agency for the last 50 years.
	There is evidence that he has aligned himself with various drug groups and gangs.
	The degree of that evidence is disputed and debated because, again, you have the same problem where either people are entirely in Maduro's camp or so obsessively anti-Maduro that you don't get honest, accurate information in between.
	And it's just...
	Brutally difficult to extract that intel and information.
	So I suspect he has ties to those elements.
	But I would say this.
	If his goal was to be a narco-terrorist, the best way to do it would be to align with the United States.
	Because the United States is better at doing that business than anybody else.
	But why don't they go after Xi Jinping?
	Why don't they go after China for narco-terrorism, for flooding the border with fentanyl?
	If there's ever a country that should succeed, it's Venezuela.
	They have so much oil.
	Oil, natural resources, meat?
	I mean, I think it's a wonder.
	They've badly mismanaged the oil economy.
	But there are economists that have done a study that have said that if you look at Venezuela in the last 25 years, that the biggest indicator, other than the price of oil, which has historically always been whether Venezuela goes up and down.
	Venezuela has also gone way down under right-wing governments.
	There's sort of a conservative mythology out there that says Venezuela was rich and prosperous, and then the left came and destroyed it.
	It's not really true, to be blunt about it.
	In fact, if you just track up and down, up and down, because they're tied to oil.
	And as long as you're tied to oil, you're in trouble.
	But the U.S. sanctions appear to have been the...
	Proximate cause to their most immediate economic issues.
	And we created that by unnecessary involvement and intervention, in my view.
	If we would have just stayed out of it, then I think the government would have collapsed under its own incompetence.
	But once again, we have helped sustain a government we're hostile to because of our own incompetence.
	I don't know.
	I'm thinking of a segue, Robert.
	That might be a good segue.
	Well, speaking of elections, I mean, while they're busy trying to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela, like we need another foreign war on our table.
	When we got Iran rattling the cage, and the Israeli-Palestinian war that's ongoing may expand, sending a bunch of ships out there.
	Ongoing war in Europe.
	What, we need another continent with war?
	I mean, what are we going to do?
	Make sure we cover all our bases?
	Get all the continents in war?
	I mean, I'm reading the Roman Empire expanding, fighting foreign conflict, reading the creation of America, opposing taxes that were going to England so they can wage war across the world to feed their empire.
	I mean, it's like, this is history rhyming, not necessarily repeating.
	But sorry, I cut you off.
	Where were you going?
	Well, let's talk about honest elections.
	Here, one of the people that was trying to expose the problems of the 2020 election, an election official in Colorado known as Tina Peters, rather than investigate the allegations that the 2020 election was being done in an illegal, illicit, unconstitutional manner there in Colorado, and whether or not the Dominion and the state officials were trying to destroy the evidence by prematurely...
	Getting rid of all the election files in violation of federal and state law, which required two years or more, 22 months to 25 months, depending on the relevant and applicable law, to keep records.
	Instead, that election official who blew the whistle on what they were trying to do is herself now subject to the state of Colorado trying to put her in prison in the case of Tina Peters.
	It's the exact same situation, mutatis mutatis, of the woman in Pennsylvania who records her own corrupt proceedings and in so providing the evidence or obtaining the evidence breaks the law because the laws are set up to make sure that you can't whistleblow.
	So this woman apparently downloaded the records of the voting machines and I'm trying to figure out exactly how she did it because it sounds bad on its face but then you sort of read through the situation and she...
	Apparently had the authorization to contract this out to a third party contractor to mirror the information only for the purposes of preservation.
	But then somehow some of it got online.
	I don't know how that happened.
	And so they're going after her now for having violated the law, allegedly.
	And Rachel Alexander's following the trial.
	It started the other day and that's where it's at.
	I mean, the question is that I haven't been following the trial, although it's being live streamed.
	Did she have a legislative or a legal basis to actually You know, I think her case,
	along with Julian Assange and Edward Snowden's, reveals the need for legislative reform in the form of that I think it should always be a defense.
	To any criminal charge, now you can argue that it's already kind of there in necessity and other circumstances, but courts won't enforce it in this manner.
	There should be a specific whistleblowing defense that if what you did was in the better public interest of doing so, which again is supposed to be a justification defense, some cases a necessity defense, depending on how it's interpreted and construed, but courts are not enforcing it that way.
	There should be a whistleblower defense that what you did, In this case, the judge,
	who is basically a prosecutor, it's another case of another court embarrassing the rule of law by his partisan corruption in favor of the prosecution of the case, prohibiting and precluding her from presenting critical evidence on her behalf.
	Preventing and precluding her defense counsel from merely asking questions that could be pertinent to her defense and instructing the jury in such a manner as to basically guarantee a conviction of some sort.
	Now, what she's charged with is that the manner and method by which she found a way to copy the servers.
	For those that don't know, the background is a county.
	It was a Dominion county, a county where Dominion servers were involved.
	Dominion software was involved in the election of 2020.
	And Dominion was coming in to do an upgrade.
	And her concern became that Dominion would use the excuse of an upgrade to erase all files of what took place in 2020.
	And not to interrupt you, but just to draw the analogy, yeah, upgrading and we lose information, like what happened when they merged the cell phones in January 6th and then lose all text messages.
	Like it has to be done now.
	Sorry. Exactly.
	It's one of the most common methods and mechanisms to erase evidence.
	So she wanted to find a way to make sure that they copied the hard drives before any upgrade could occur.
	The allegations against her, the method by which she did so was to bring in somebody, this is again just the allegations, that used somebody else's ID in order to be able to achieve it.
	And so they're claiming that that constituted criminal impersonation, attempts to illicitly interfere with an official and an official process.
	You know, in his official misconduct.
	So they've tagged on all these criminal charges.
	Now, the sensational part that the press was covering is twofold.
	One, the press's headlines have been almost all false in this regard.
	The press's headlines are she's being criminally prosecuted for tampering with the 2020 election.
	Now, Robert, she's catering to conspiracy theorists as if it hasn't been proven over and over again that there were anomalies.
	Sorry. Oh, yes.
	I mean, there's also the, but so they made a big deal about all this video published that showed the passwords and that that was such a severe security breach.
	But it turns out she's not, there was nothing illegal about the video recording is what's come out in the trial.
	And that the passwords already changed, number two.
	So in fact, that meant nothing.
	It was just one big red herring.
	And then, you know, speaking of red herrings, you should watch the original presumed innocent film.
	The TV series on Apple's okay, but the original film was brilliant.
	One of my favorite criminal defense lawyer presentations who says something about red herrings during the trial, which is brilliant at multiple, multiple levels.
	Masterful presentation in that case.
	But basically what they presented is not any evidence of election tampering by her, not any evidence that there was any real security breach.
	It's just they're arguing that...
	That the person that came in that accomplished the hard drive copying used somebody else's ID.
	That appears to be the whole case, as far as I can tell so far.
	But again, Rachel Alexander at Tennessee Star and one of the Arizona publications, and you can follow her on X, is covering it.
	There is some live streaming.
	The judge has been restricted about what live streaming he's allowed, not allowed of the trial process to date.
	But I'm not sure what the defense is on using somebody else's password, someone else's ID to get in to do it.
	And that's what it shows is the necessity of a whistleblowing defense.
	They went after Julian Assange and Edward Snowden because there's no whistleblowing defense recognized in American law, even though there's supposed to be.
	Under the laws of justification, necessity, and duress and other comparable provisions that, in my view, are analogous.
	But the courts just don't enforce it.
	So we need a whistleblowing defense for all criminal defendants.
	I may bring it up with Robert Kennedy and Trump's world.
	Trump's too busy, worried about immunity for cops.
	So I don't think that's the number one thing that should be on everybody's agenda.
	God bless them.
	But hopefully we'll see more embrace of that.
	But so, from my view, she's an honest whistleblower who's being targeted because of her whistleblowing, not because they're so outraged that somebody used the wrong ID to walk into the building.
	Now that you brought it up, and only because you brought it up, a bit of a critique of Trump, the focus of his policies, I know that we're aligned on the Rittenhouse thing.
	What did you think about the Rittenhouse scandal, the drama of the weekend, Robert?
	So, I mean, all Kyle did, he lives in Texas.
	Texas is not going to be a close state.
	So his vote, he could probably make more noise with his vote by it not being for Trump, frankly, in that context.
	He said that because he was concerned that Trump was sporadic on the Second Amendment in his first term, that he was going to write in Ron Paul.
	As a way to incentivize Trump to be better in his second term.
	And all these people, some of them people who funded his defense and the rest, apparently decided that they were entitled to control him for the rest of his life.
	And were publicly all mad and enraged and climbing the walls.
	And it's like, well, he has a conscientious choice to make whatever choice he wants.
	If you think his choice is wrong, persuade him.
	And just saying...
	You can't let Harris win, the lesser of two evil argument.
	I've never found a persuasive argument.
	Make an argument on specific policies as, with Trump, we'll get this, this, this, and this.
	Without Trump, we'll get this, this, and this, and this.
	And that's why it's better.
	Instead, it was just mass demonization of him.
	Now, of course, he talked to some Trump people.
	A day later, he retracted all that, set him fully on board backing Trump.
	Now, some of this is...
	One of the people he works with currently is someone who's been a very good Second Amendment advocate but has never liked Trump.
	He's a harsh, harsh critic of Trump.
	So I think some of this may have reflected the influence of that individual who's honestly obsessed.
	The problem with the criticism of Trump is so much of it comes from either people that got TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
	Or people that are so obsessively anti-Trump that you can't take credible their criticism.
	It doesn't come across as constructive criticism.
	It comes across as crazy criticism.
	And one of these people that Kyle works with, I think, is way over the top in his obsessive Trump hatred.
	But that probably may have bled in to some of Kyle's understanding of some of the issues.
	But the reason I supported him...
	The reason I assume most donors supported him and people in the public supported him is because he was a kid they were trying to put in prison for asserting his self-defense rights.
	It's because he was innocent, not because he was going to agree with us.
	You didn't by donating to defending his innocence.
	They're trying to railroad a poor kid into prison to steal our self-defense rights.
	You didn't earn an entitlement to control his voice for the rest of his life.
	Or the obligation.
	People sometimes get me confused with that.
	They think that, okay.
	Someone's contributed something or they're a member of our board or something else or they super chat in and they think suddenly I'm obligated to whatever viewpoint they have.
	That's not how this works.
	Kyle's a sweetheart of a kid trying to figure everything out and along the way will make all kinds of mistakes and miscues, just the nature of the animal, trying to figure out how to lend his voice To the court of public opinion, now that he's become a public figure.
	But he's just a kid.
	And the way people handled it, I just found irresponsible from older adults.
	That if you disagree with him, engage him.
	Engage in a constructive way.
	Make a constructive argument.
	Don't make a destructive argument.
	You know, it's like some people would come at me for being ever nice about, for saying good words about Robert Kennedy.
	Because he's a good man with good ideas.
	That's why.
	And Nicole Shanahan.
	I want to pull up what was an actual fake Trump reply to Rittenhouse.
	It's so good just to be a little bit skeptical and not fall for stupidity.
	I'm sitting here talking with my wife.
	He's 21 years old.
	Lord knows if he's had a father figure, an older brother, someone to bounce off ideas with so that you don't, as a kid, go out and do Stupid, tactical things.
	And he's 21. And not that he's, like, undeveloped.
	This is like, you learn from mistakes, and there are better ways to make the point he was trying to make.
	And the mob, and I don't want to say the mob, because I don't think it was everybody.
	There's just, you know, big names and big accounts jumping down his throat.
	And then when he does come around, it looks like he didn't come around for authentic reasons.
	It looks like he came around because he's catering to the mob.
	And I get people to think it's Trump or die.
	I get that.
	But make positive arguments.
	For your position.
	That's a more persuasive mechanism than negative arguments.
	The negative arguments, it's like people that, oh, you can't say anything nice about Kennedy because then somebody might vote for Kennedy and then Trump's going to lose and then the world's going to end.
	Okay. I get it to a degree.
	But make the argument as to why Trump will make the difference on the issue that matters to whoever that voting group is.
	Negative arguments generally don't work.
	In that context, from my experience.
	And I think they're just less persuasive than the other.
	They made a lot of Trump voters look cultish.
	That's what it did.
	You're willing to denounce a kid who was almost imprisoned to the victimization of the rest of us and loss of self-defense rights because he said he wasn't going to vote for your favorite candidate.
	And you're willing to demonize him overnight.
	It wasn't just criticism.
	Demonize him.
	It makes you look bad.
	It makes you look bad.
	Cancel and block.
	What I love is, I don't want to pick on any...
	But chill, bro.
	I agree.
	Well, I agree.
	And ultimately, Trump camp dealt with him the right way.
	He called and said, look, we will be good.
	I know what he wanted to do, and he got the same result, but he got there a little bit of a hard way.
	Speaking of the hard way, hold on one second.
	It's actually, there's nothing hard about this.
	21-year-old go.
	That's not the...
	There's 21-year-olds that do a lot of dumber stuff, by the way.
	Not likely a 4-D chess move, but he did put the second back in Trump's radar, just saying so.
	He failed.
	Forward, at a minimum.
	Agreed. That's from a Nike 7. Grandpa's Place says, so if I donate, you're required to follow my instructions.
	Here, spend my money.
	Sad news.
	The people that he's working with need to quit putting pressure on him to endorse their version of the world.
	The person I'm talking about knows who I'm talking about.
	And I think he put pressure.
	I don't have personal information on this.
	I represented Kyle all the way through that process in the court of public opinion.
	Glad to do so.
	Did so pro bono.
	So there's no inside information here.
	But it's just reading the tea leaves from afar.
	There's people that have...
	There was a prior person that was obsessed with controlling Kyle.
	And I think there's some people in Kyle's world that are also obsessed with controlling Kyle.
	They don't have to endorse your view either.
	Now, this person was very good.
	At helping financially in other ways, Kyle during key times of his defense.
	So I get it.
	But that doesn't entitle him to push his Trump, his anti-Trump obsessive agenda.
	And I think he put too much pressure, just reading it from afar, on Kyle, to make public statements that agreed with his perspective, which I find loony.
	He's a great Second Amendment advocate, but his Trump hatred is insane.
	It's literally clinical.
	I don't think I know who you're talking about, but I'll ask you after the show.
	Oh, crap, hold on.
	Oh, and I was going to say, it's a tough thing, especially for a young kid who might not have proper...
	By the way, that guy, if people were upset about Kyle's view, he deserved the criticism, not Kyle.
	By the way, it was his account that shared the video.
	It wasn't Kyle's account that shared the video.
	It was his account that shared Kyle's video.
	So it's like, quit using your position to...
	Kyle benefits him now more than...
	He benefits Kyle.
	And maybe he started to realize that.
	But don't coerce him to have your position on these kind of issues.
	And you know what?
	I'll do an open offer.
	Happy to have him on and debate Trump and the Second Amendment with him.
	Because I agree with some of his criticisms, but they are way over the top.
	Trump still put on the Supreme Court the votes.
	To restore Second Amendment freedom in the United States constitutionally, in a case we're about to get to.
	Yep, and now I do know who you're talking about, because I did ask the question.
	This video was not...
	He's got an unfortunate first name.
	It's like, when you see that first name, you're like, I feel bad for him right away.
	I'm going to go back and look, because I don't remember what the name was.
	I just remember seeing the video, and it wasn't on Kyle's channel.
	His handle is like, oh, that's interesting, but I hadn't thought twice about it.
	And Kyle and everyone who gets in the public light...
	The toughest thing is finding out, you know, making friends who are going to be looking out for your best interests and not looking for anything in return.
	It's a very tough, tough journey to navigate.
	But speaking of someone who wants only good stuff in return because they...
	Biltong, I was eating the Wagyu Ghost before the show because I was a little bit tired, but I couldn't have another caffeinated drink.
	So I ate the Wagyu Ghost Biltong.
	My mouth was on fire.
	That's why I was drinking this freaking carbonated water.
	On fire, in a good way.
	So, King of Biltong.
	Good afternoon from Anton's.
	Free shipping for your Biltong using code VIVA.
	BiltongUSA.com.
	AntonUSA.com.
	Biltong is not taxed.
	Boycott the government.
	Buy Bill Tom.
	Also help us move our store.
	It's freaking delicious.
	And the Wagyu goes spicy as hell.
	Okay. The Second Amendment case.
	This was a judge begrudgingly striking down legislation that limited...
	It was these Tommy judges that had to follow the Constitution.
	Wind about it all the way through, but I'll give it...
	New Jersey!
	At least they follow the Constitution, because some of these other...
	Illinois, some other judges are refusing to do so.
	This judge at least recognized his obligation.
	And I'm comparing him with Judge Darke in Dexter Taylor's case, where Judge Darke says, don't bring your Second Amendment into this courtroom.
	There's no Second Amendment in New York State.
	This was New Jersey, not New York.
	And this judge, I'm reading it, I'm like, how the hell is this judge going to...
	Strike down the regulation because he said it was a victory.
	Doesn't sound like it's a gun-loving judge.
	And he's like, the regulation limiting high-capacity magazines.
	I'd love to strike it down, but you can't do it.
	It doesn't fit any of the criteria.
	And so you'll flesh out the details, but this judge basically being pulled and dragged the entire way says, I want this to be the law.
	I want this regulation to pass.
	I want it to be applied, but it's unconstitutional and it can't be done this way.
	New Jersey, tell us what's going on.
	So for a long time, they have an AR-15 ban as part of their assault weapons ban.
	It's always been unconstitutional.
	But this particular judge has been the one trying to stop it from being struck down.
	But then in the middle of this came Bruin.
	And he acknowledged that the AR-15, in the inimitable words...
	Of Alexander Ocasio-Cortez is a commonly used weapon.
	Very common.
	Everybody knows it's used.
	So thanks for her contribution to our Second Amendment advocacy.
	Pointed out that it is commonly chosen for lawful purposes, especially self-defense.
	And given that it fits within that, the complete ban doesn't have any historical support.
	There's no history.
	Prior to, particularly the key times, our founding in 1865, whichever one you're applying under the circumstances, that there were complete bans on something commonly owned for self-defense.
	So, correctly, the New Jersey AR-15 ban is bye-bye.
	And just so people appreciate that, that the jurisprudential or the...
	Doctrinal? Is that a word?
	The principle is that if it is the common firearm of choice, or if it's sufficiently common, then that is the threshold for determining what can and cannot be infringed upon.
	I don't know what a grenade launcher is not the right example, but I don't know what type of firearm would be not sufficiently in common use.
	That is the relevance.
	She basically...
	She satisfied the legendary...
	Those are pretty prolific as well, Robert.
	It just depends on who you ask who's got them.
	So anyways, bottom line, New Jersey struck down.
	It was a regulation to limit high-capacity magazines.
	It was only bringing it from 15 to 10?
	Or what was it?
	It was bringing it from 18 to 10?
	I think there's still a limit.
	I don't know how many rounds you can fit into any magazine just logistically.
	So that's it.
	Second Amendment win because New Jersey respects the Second Amendment, but New York State doesn't yet.
	You know who else doesn't respect it?
	The state of Minnesota.
	Though this isn't a gun case, it's a self-defense case.
	Okay, so this is another one.
	I start reading this and I'm like, oh, dude's swinging a machete at two chicks and a guy on a train?
	I was like, how does Robert think this is a bad case?
	And then you read it, and then you read beyond the headlines.
	So this is a case of a guy who gets on a train, wherever they are, they're on a train car or something, and...
	He gets into an altercation with two women and a man.
	He walks by them, they don't like the way he looks, and they say something to him.
	The other man at some point says, come off the camera footage here and I'm going to slit your throat.
	This is in a metro station or a train station.
	And the guy, for whatever the reason, I mean, I don't know, it seems like not guns are the weapon of choice.
	Is this in Minnesota?
	Yep. It was machetes.
	So this guy, who just gets threatened by a guy who's brandishing the knife, says, come away from the CCTV, I'm going to slit your throat.
	He pulls out his machete from his pants, and for about a minute, starts threatening them and saying, get away, F off, you know, piss off, blah, blah, blah.
	And they got it on video, I guess.
	It works.
	They decide, oh, maybe, oh, my knife, his machete, okay, I might lose that bet.
	Yeah, so he's like, oh God, what was there?
	It was a video that a guy, they were in a knife fight and someone lost a hand in the fight.
	It's just disgusting.
	But so bottom line, he's screaming at them, shouting at them ex-wilers for a minute, and they scuttle off, and then he scuttles off.
	And then he gets charged with whatever, it's like assault for threatening bodily harm.
	And he gets convicted, Robert.
	And the rationale is he had a duty to retreat after the point where I guess the guy was no longer saying, I'm going to slit your throat, or they were sufficiently far away.
	And he had a duty to retreat.
	And because he didn't retreat within that one minute where I think this guy legit thought he was fighting for his life, not even fighting, but threatening for his own safety.
	Yeah, it's crazy.
	I mean, that's crazy.
	And what it is, in my view, I took the Oregon case years ago of someone who just showed a gun briefly when people were coming to attack him.
	In my view, that's your Second Amendment rights.
	Second Amendment is not just...
	A commonly used weapon for self-defense.
	It is self-defense itself.
	And in my view, there is a constitutional right to stand your ground.
	And there's a constitutional right that you do not have a duty to retreat under these circumstances.
	Historically in Minnesota, they'd only applied the duty to retreat when you caused actual physical harm and said, hey, you know what?
	Before you actually inflict harm on someone, You should see if you can retreat.
	That I don't agree with, but I understand.
	Now they're saying, oh no, you always have a duty to retreat.
	You can't even brandish a weapon without trying to run as fast as you can first and seeing how that works.
	And that I find much deeper problematic.
	And so, to me, that actually violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	This was the Supreme Court of the state of Minnesota that made this decision.
	So it's another state to avoid if you can.
	I'm just like, they're running around with a machete.
	The guy carries a machete for self-defense.
	I mean, what kind of...
	Well, it might be a certain part of Minnesota.
	Maybe a certain part of Minneapolis.
	A certain congressman represents that part of Minnesota.
	Now it's making a little...
	Okay, possibly.
	Robert, any significance?
	Joe was in church during assassination on a Saturday and was at Mount Airy Church in Philadelphia on Sunday before shooting.
	Looking decrepit.
	Confession? Perfect alibi.
	Can you wait?
	Nancy Pelosi's talking about...
	I don't know if it's serious.
	I don't know if she was joking.
	Putting frickin' Biden on Mount Rushmore?
	Hold on.
	It's a very, very new story.
	We know what you're trying to do.
	They're trying to keep him on board with helping Kamala.
	They don't want him to just not care at all about Harris through Election Day.
	Robert, this was from our locals' community.
	That's a great game.
	It's amazing.
	I don't know if they took it from somewhere else, or I have to go back and see who gave this to us.
	I want to give full credit.
	I mean, I could not have done it myself.
	Okay, so that's good.
	Let's get this out of here.
	What do we segue into?
	You know, his head already is full of rocks, as somebody pointed out.
	I was going to say, if they do it, they're going to have to call it like Mount Paedo Pete.
	So it's not something you want to do.
	Oh, what do we do?
	We did Tina.
	What do we segue into here?
	So, I mean, well, a win against that other...
	Harassing agency usually involved with guns, but it's also known as alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
	The right to make a homemade still in your own home.
	I didn't read this case, but I can tell you from personal experience, we've got similar laws up in Canada, and my brother-in-law, who was at one time working with a company called La Chaufferie, it means the distiller, it's like, no, the chaufferie is the boiler room, because it was in the old boiler room, I think, of a big company.
	Anyway, it was called La Chaufferie.
	It no longer exists, because the frickin' Liquor Commission basically puts them out of business.
	So where is this?
	You can now distill your own hard alcohol in America, or only a specific state?
	It's in America.
	The law, this was the federal government's excuse.
	So for those that don't know, if you try to make alcohol in your own home, the federal government makes it a federal crime to do so.
	Federal crime to have a still in your own home.
	Well, Robert, let me stop you there just for one second.
	The rationale is that in the stilling process...
	When you start distilling the alcohol, there's a period of time where the alcohol that is produced is the poisonous alcohol.
	I forget if it's ethyl versus methyl.
	And you have to boil off the toxic alcohol before you can get to the drinkable, the sweet, sweet, juicy, drinkable alcohol.
	And there's also risks of explosion.
	So there were legit reasons.
	That's not the grounds for the federal law.
	None of those are safety, none of that.
	Then it has to be with tax.
	Taxation. Well, the reason is the federal government doesn't have that power.
	That's a local government choice.
	Whether the local government or county, city, or state is concerned with safety hazards of having a still.
	I mean, East Tennessee had some of the greatest stills of all time homemade out in the mountains and the hills and the hollers.
	And then the revenuers, as they were then called from the Internal Revenue Service, come and harass everybody.
	I mean, we still sing about it at University of Tennessee football games.
	We sing about Rocky Top.
	The part of the song is about where you drink your corn from a jar as it goes.
	But the federal law makes it a crime to do this.
	And so it's like, what's their legal authority?
	They cited three clauses.
	They said, this is just taxing.
	This is just our taxation clause.
	Of course, there's a problem.
	This is a crime to even have it.
	It has nothing to do with taxes.
	It has nothing to do with even collecting revenue.
	Well, they said, well, if it isn't taxing, it's the necessary and proper clause to enforce our other tax regime.
	And the problem there, of course, is how can it be necessary and proper to tax when you're not actually taxing anything, when there's no actual revenue from this law?
	And then they said, well, okay, it's the Commerce Clause.
	It's the Interstate Commerce Clause.
	And we regulate alcohol across the country.
	And this was the excuse to regulate purely local activity, right?
	This is how you're a wheat farmer and you're making wheat for your own family.
	And the federal government says we can prohibit you from doing so because it impacts interstate commerce.
	So the rule is you can regulate under interstate commerce as long as it substantially affects interstate commerce.
	And you have a comprehensive regime dealing with production and distribution, dealing with supply and demand, trying to actually nationally control the volume on the market.
	The problem is federal liquor laws have never done that.
	Federal liquor laws have never been about regulating production, distribution, market size, supply, demand, any of it.
	They don't care about volume.
	They care about other things.
	And so the problem was this didn't substantially affect interstate commerce that is systematically governed of the marketplace by federal law.
	So to the great credit of the federal judge, he's like, this doesn't meet the taxing clause.
	The taxing clause is not the right to control everybody's behavior forever because something they might do somewhere down the road might impact revenue.
	It's got to directly impact revenue.
	It's not necessary and proper if it's neither necessary nor proper.
	And last but not least, it's not interstate commerce if it doesn't even substantially affect interstate commerce, and there's not even a systemic effort to govern the marketplace for home-stealed liquor across the country or any liquor across the country.
	So he said, federal law making it a crime.
	This is my favorite phrase.
	What they tried to do, he said, was Congress was trying to ferment a crime without constitutional predicate.
	You could see that judge just snickering.
	That's a damn good one.
	That's great.
	I'm not going to do it, but good to know a little bit more freedom.
	What was I going to say about distilling your own alcohol?
	You have to know what you're doing before you do it.
	Don't everybody jump into the business.
	Yeah, my brother-in-law.
	I drank some of his homemade stuff and I was scared, but that's only because I have no idea what's going on.
	It tasted great.
	Never drink Chinese wine unless you're ready for it.
	It's basically moonshine in disguise.
	It's not Chinese wine.
	Made the mistake of ordering it at a Chinese restaurant, ordered a whole bottle of it, and I saw all the local Chinese were at one of the great RNG Lounge, great place in San Francisco, one of the best Chinese food places in America.
	And I saw the local Chinese were snickering, and I was like, oh, okay, I'm in for something.
	And, you know, you poured a glass, I was like, holy moly, that was like Tennessee moonshine.
	But I was not going to let them...
	I was like, I got to drink the whole thing now.
	I can't order it and look like I'm some kind of wuss that didn't know what I was doing, which I didn't.
	But just word of the wise, unless you want moonshine, Chinese wine is moonshine.
	So it is like strong percentage.
	It's not 14%.
	That's an understatement.
	Well, now I kind of want to taste some.
	I'm going to go find me some Chinese wine.
	I'm going back to our list here.
	Which one do we go to?
	Well, we've got so many, while we transgress, well, transgress might be the wrong word, transition into where Biden is transgressing on the border wall, and that will transition into some of Biden's other things and all the election integrity cases that came down this week.
	Before we do that, let's throw one in there that wasn't on the list.
	Are you following the business with Iman Khalif, the boxer?
	Oh, I feel like an idiot.
	I don't know why I didn't bet on it.
	I was like, I mean, it's so obvious.
	People were on sportspicks.locals.com where I got a discount.
	You can get half off an annual subscription through tomorrow at sportspicks.locals.com.
	You just have to put in the discount code, all caps, FOOTBALL in honor of European and American football soon to commence, plus political betting.
	Predictions and prognostications that are up.
	We'll be on Monday with Richard Barris on what are the odds to break down a whole bunch of stuff taking place on the election betting and election front.
	But the...
	Remind me what you were asking about.
	Oh, no.
	The betting of the boxer.
	Oh, yeah.
	You should have bet on the boxer.
	Always bet on the man to beat the woman.
	It reminds me of the line from Naked Gun where they ask him why he bet the way he did.
	Leslie Nielsen's character.
	And he goes, I just know, never bet on the white guy.
	In a boxing match between a man and a woman, always bet on the man.
	Now it's going to be two men fighting for gold and silver in the Olympics women's boxing match.
	So this is the issue.
	You've seen the South Park episode of this, right?
	They predicted this eight years ago.
	Well, the thing about this is, I want to say the nuance to this is that when the story first breaks, And they're saying it's a man fighting a woman.
	And I'm like, well, is this one of those medical anomaly cases?
	Or is this a man who was born, a man, I don't know how to do it anymore, but who identifies, is it a trans issue or is it a medical fairness issue?
	And so now it seems that it's more of a medical fairness issue in that...
	Iman, a Caliph, was born with female genitalia, although there is some debate about that.
	But that when he, she, she's a she, I guess, in the sense that visibly no one would know the difference naked, but you see some photos and you're not so sure.
	But Caliph has XY chromosomes.
	And I think that's why...
	Which is normally known as man.
	Being a man.
	But then people think, well, born with female genitalia, but has XY chromosomes.
	I don't know if it's intersex.
	I think it's DSD, like developmental sexual disorder, where the person is born with a vagina, but there is some debate, but let's just say a vagina-ish parts, but goes through a development that is more in line with XY chromosomes, meaning testosterone and other stuff.
	And so it's a question of medical fairness, not trans ideology, which is why I think this entire discussion got derailed.
	Someone who's not a doctor sent me...
	It says, basically, the Olympics didn't want to redefine gender standards and errs on the side of inclusion, such that XY females with elevated testosterone can apparently qualify as women because...
	They would ban somebody for doing certain kinds of things to their body with chemicals to create the same effect.
	So how does that make any sense?
	It's like those old East German shot putters, women.
	You're like, whoa, I'm not sure there's still women anymore.
	But I mean, they're like, you know, really rough.
	I mean, it's about having women's competition with people who are not, whether it's biologically created or created by doing something to their bodies.
	Have an advantage that is an unfair advantage given the circle.
	And someone with XY chromosomes has an unfair advantage in boxing.
	They might not have an advantage in the pole jump, but they have an advantage in boxing.
	The issue was, I try to think of the other...
	Let's just say there was a woman, XX chromosome, born with a vagina, no question, but had very elevated levels of testosterone for whatever the reason.
	Not drug-induced.
	There I can see it.
	Sagittarius, the horse, had a bigger heart than other horses.
	For that decade of Sagittarius, Sagittarius will conquer.
	This is an XY.
	So I think there's a medical issue here.
	I'm not necessarily sure I trust the passport out of Algeria, but that's a second...
	Or any certain countries, that's a separate issue.
	But this was actually my question.
	So I think we agree on this as well.
	But when they say that she's a...
	Or someone is a minus 150 favorite, what does that mean in terms of...
	60% favorite.
	It means you have to bet $150 to win $100.
	If it's minus, that's how much you have to bet to win $100.
	If it's plus, that's how much you win if you bet $100.
	What that translates into is they said 60% chance that she would win.
	What does that mean?
	It means if she won 60% of the time, you would break even.
	If she won more than 60% of the time, he, she, whatever.
	Always reminds me of a court case, by the way.
	But there was someone who had also gone through some sort of transition and used to be one gender and it looked like Pat from Saturday Night Live.
	And there was a federal judge who brought us up to the sidebar and said, what do we call it?
	I was like, I won't be a politically correct judge, but I was like...
	Just first name, I think, Judge.
	Let's stick with the first name.
	Can't get wrong there.
	Last name, something.
	But skip the Mr. and Miss and Mrs. Don't want to mess around with that at all.
	So that's what that means.
	But let's be honest, it was a 90-95% chance they would win.
	If I would have known that that was a man up there boxing, I would have bet on the man.
	But hey, it turns out domestic violence is now an Olympic sport.
	If it's negative 150, you bet 150 to win 100.
	And here Occupant says, she has internal testicles.
	I genuinely feel sorry for her, but she has male bone and masculature.
	I mean, you look at a picture.
	She should be allowed to compete in the men's division.
	The other question was this.
	Another place where I have a bet currently pending.
	Do you think Kamala Harris, if she gets to be officially the nominee, because I'm still...
	She already is.
	So I lost my bet on that?
	Mother effer.
	That's where I was right on Biden, but I thought they would not take Kamala.
	I thought it was going to be Gavin.
	Does she pick Shapiro or does she pick Waltz?
	I'm hoping she picks Shapiro because that would highlight what's been happening in Pennsylvania the last two years.
	We'll get to an Amos Miller update.
	I have a big hearing before the Commonwealth Court on Wednesday with the latest government effort.
	To try to shut down Amos Miller, the Amish farmer of Pennsylvania.
	Well, I'm hoping that she picks Waltz because there's a number of reasons, but primarily I put...
	I bought in Waltz at 10 cents, so I'm...
	And, dude, I'll put it on blast anyhow.
	You got George Soros, chummy chummy with...
	What's his face?
	Josh Shapiro.
	It'll do wonders for anti-Semitism to have Josh Shapiro as the VP with his ties to George Soros.
	Both of them making ominous predictions about Donald Trump.
	Go to Pennsylvania.
	He nearly gets killed there.
	Not George Soros.
	Alex Soros.
	Sorry. You couldn't be critical of the ticket without being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and ableist.
	Oh, no.
	You heard about how Michael Malice explained why it's ableist.
	Yes, but I had that joke before he said it.
	I didn't hear that he said it on Rogan, but I didn't want to...
	Yeah, he said she's...
	That was my joke.
	It's ablest, because I didn't say the retarded part, but he said it.
	No, but I already said she already had the anti-Semitic angle because her husband's Jewish, so you can't criticize.
	It's just terrible.
	It's all terrible.
	All right, so we'll do a couple more, and then we're going to end...
	Yeah, then we'll end on Rumble.
	Well, we've got a bunch of election cases.
	The FCC...
	Net neutrality rule went into court, crypto and banks, and the border wall.
	And Russian prisoners, the Russian prisoner swamp.
	Let's do that right now, because I don't know enough about that.
	I only know that Biden got his only zinger on Trump, but I suspect there might be something inaccurate about it, whereby Trump said, I would have gotten those two prisoners out for a better exchange, and then Biden locks out and is like, wait, my earpiece just kicked in.
	Then why didn't you do it when you were president?
	Who were the people and why didn't Trump do it when he was president?
	Do what?
	Get the prisoner swap in exchange for...
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, because most of them weren't prisoners while Trump was president.
	I knew it!
	I see!
	If he said...
	Incapable of telling the truth.
	Okay. I knew it.
	I just didn't know to say it publicly.
	Okay. So, yeah.
	Putin probably got the benefit of that.
	The better end of that swap.
	One of them was a journalist that Tucker Carlson asked Putin about releasing.
	And Putin said, well, it's subject to negotiation.
	So maybe Tucker had some benefit there.
	I have some doubts that that journalist is just a journalist.
	There's already stories starting to come out that maybe something more was going on there.
	But it was a beneficial swap to Putin that he got some good assassins back.
	And things like that.
	But still, my favorite part was Joe Biden trying to climb the plane back to Russia.
	Maybe he was trying to escape.
	He's like, I gotta get out of this Kamala, crazy Kamala.
	I gotta get out of here.
	Go join Putin.
	Or maybe he thought he was the person being swapped, whatever it was.
	But the smart swap by Putin, who, I mean, is still the best swap of all time, will be trading a WNBA player for the Lord of War.
	For literally the guy known as the Lord of War.
	Was he the merchant of death?
	Yes, he's the merchant of death.
	For Brittany Griner, people.
	For Brittany Griner.
	A Lesbo WNBA player.
	I mean, that had to be the greatest trade in the history of trades for Putin, what he pulled off there.
	Alright, what else?
	Hold on.
	I wonder where that meme came from of Putin riding a bear, but it seems apt.
	Let me go see this.
	I got distracted by the dogs in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Okay, hold on.
	There was one more that we should do.
	Okay, what was the other one?
	All the election cases that we should cover.
	Oh, okay.
	We'll do those, and then we'll end.
	But let me do one, actually, the Canadian one that's in the title of this video.
	The Coots Four.
	So, you know the story, Robert.
	I mean, I've talked about it, but these are the Coutts.
	The four Coutts men, Coutts Alberta, arrested on conspiracy to commit murder, kept in pretrial detention for over two years.
	Two of them were given, I don't want to swear, but they were given plea deals.
	They agreed to plea deals, which reduced their charges to absolutely nothing.
	Dropped the conspiracy to commit murder, whether or not they...
	They agreed to statements of fact in their plea deals that threw the other two under the bus.
	That was my concern at the time.
	The other two, Olianek, and I'm going to forget the other guy's name, obviously, because I'm senile.
	Bottom line, the two remaining four of the Coutts four, the men charged with conspiracy to murder an RCMP officer, they were obviously found not guilty on the murder charges.
	I mean, obviously, because it was...
	I mean, the thing is, I'm not guilty, but people still think they must have done something bad enough to warrant it.
	It's political prisoners from day one.
	Not guilty conspiracy to commit murder, Anthony Olienek.
	Guilty possession of weapons for dangerous purposes.
	I don't know the details of this yet, so I'm either going to get Jason Levine or Gordon McGill or one of the two men if I can on next week.
	Mischief over $5,000, which is nothing.
	I mean, it's like, you know, I don't know, knocking over a statue.
	Not even.
	Because that's worse.
	Possessing of explosives for a dangerous purpose.
	And then Chris Carbert, conspiracy to commit murder, not guilty.
	And then other bullshit charges.
	So they got off on the biggest charge, which was a total political hitch-off from day one.
	From what I understand, if their sentence is likely going to be time served because they did two years in remand, some of it in solitary.
	So it's just political...
	Prisoners, absolute abuse, and those are the victims of Justin Trudeau's Canada.
	And there was outright corruption in the evidence that was not disclosed, in the manner in which they went about this, the manner in which they were charged, detained, just terrible, terrible, but a little bit of white pill, I guess, if you want to call it that.
	Okay, the election stuff.
	You go.
	Take it away.
	Ah, yeah.
	So we got voting rights, ballots as a public record, and voter registration.
	And we'll save the border wall, crypto, and suing banks over Ponzi schemes and the FCC net neutrality for the afterparty at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So, I was interested.
	I was watching Alison Morrow interview Eric Hunley and her husband after they took a little trip up to where the assassination took place.
	And her husband's got it down right.
	Hunley's still got to work on it.
	But, you know, you got to get the.locals.com right.
	So, like, the big, the 24-hour discount opportunity at SportsPix is sportspix.locals.com.
	Right? That's how it works.
	So, we got some big election cases that came down.
	The first one is out of the state of Pennsylvania.
	So, people had been trying to get a copy of what Ratburger down there in Georgia publicly promised they would get when he wrote that big fat check to Dominion.
	Which was that they would print and publish all the ballots, which Ratburger still hasn't done down there in Georgia, contrary to his public promise.
	Similarly, in Pennsylvania, in Erie County, they were refusing to produce copies of the actual ballots, even though the ballots have now digital images, so they're easy to produce under Pennsylvania's version of the Freedom of Information Act.
	Or Open Records Act or Sunshine Law, depending on what state you're in.
	Theirs is the right-to-know law.
	I used it to find out, as we'll discuss also in the after-party, the Amos Miller case, that the state of Pennsylvania had been conspiring to shut down Amos Miller for more than a decade.
	So they used the right-to-know law saying, we want to see the actual ballots, the digital copies of the ballots.
	Get this.
	They pretended the ballots...
	Weren't digital copies of ballots, but they were part of the voting machine.
	And that because they're part of the voting machine, that was excluded and exempt under the law.
	Because the idea, the concern was they didn't want software to have to be disclosed under the right to know laws.
	So fortunately, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, where I will be in front of this Wednesday for Amos Miller, that has otherwise not always been a reliable ally.
	of legal integrity in the state of Pennsylvania, correctly ruled that this is a complete violation of the right to know laws, that in fact, all the ballots are public records as is specifically required under plain language of the text of Pennsylvania statutes.
	So now you're going to be entitled in Pennsylvania to see the ballots, to see the ballot envelopes that they came in.
	So what that would allow you to do is to better enforce election integrity in a state that's considered maybe the tip state, tipping state, for the 2024 election.
	So big win there for election integrity advocates there in Pennsylvania.
	I'm still thinking, Robert, if she actually appoints as VP the governor of the state in which this disastrous assassination attempt occurred, I mean, it would actually be, The deep state laughing in your face.
	Or at least demoralizing you one last time.
	This is a guy who bragged while Attorney General before he was governor of the state of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, that he guaranteed Pennsylvania was going to go for Biden.
	How? I would say by not enforcing election integrity laws in Pennsylvania.
	The governor of Pennsylvania is the guy that is trying to shut down Amish farmer Amos Miller from being able to sell his food anywhere in the world.
	That he, in fact, currently is trying to order him to destroy food so that he can't even, his own farm food, he can't even feed his own family, can't even feed his own animals.
	That's who Governor Shapiro is.
	Governor Shapiro is the guy whose administration illegally imprisoned farm workers.
	You can research it, Wentworth and her, for 30 days of cases they were never even charged with a crime for.
	Governor Shapiro is the guy who has covered up sexual harassment scandals, covered up murders, he covered up potential money laundering involving the teachers union.
	So there'll be a lot of fun topics should, and I hope, Harris pick Shapiro to be her VP choice.
	I hope she doesn't.
	That will finally get the national attention they deserve.
	Well, what do you make of what happened last week with the mayor of Pennsylvania releasing that video saying, ah, we support Kamala as president and VP Josh Shapiro.
	They released it early because she's already made her choice.
	And within the Democratic Party, they're angling some of the people that don't want him to be there.
	Pete Booty Booty Gay Gay is busy trying to preclude.
	He wants to be on the ticket.
	There's other people that want to be on the ticket and they want to exclude Shapiro.
	And Shapiro has some adversaries right there in the state of Pennsylvania.
	But a lot of this attention will only happen if he's put on the ticket.
	So I want him on the ticket.
	And you think leaking that video, because it could have been a leak or it could have just been there.
	What's the word when you lobby?
	It could have been a lobby.
	Conclusion, yes.
	Well, yeah, they're certainly persuading.
	But I could have seen it as them lobbying it.
	And then I could see maybe Kamala wants to test the water and see what the reaction is.
	And now that she sees what the reaction is, better pick somebody else.
	Because in addition to the sex scandals and all the other stuff, now they dug up a 30-year-old essay that he wrote where he basically said Palestinians are not looking for peace.
	And that might not be the best way to win over the votes.
	Even though I know Democrats are worried about the Muslim vote, by Richard Barris' polls, they need to be more worried about the Jewish vote.
	So there's a lot more Jewish voters than there are Muslim voters, including in the only states Muslim voters exist in any meaningful number, New York, Michigan, and Minnesota.
	There's more Jewish voters in each of those states.
	So if I were them, I'd worry about the Jewish vote.
	Oh God, this is good.
	But I think, I mean, look, I'm the reasonable one.
	the pandering to do that, to pander to the Jewish road, it will make me angry and it will exacerbate a great many anti-Semitic stereotypes and sentiments out in the world right there.
	Alright, I might be one of them self-hating The next big case is concerning the Biden administration, which has basically issued an executive order to enlist all federal agencies in a massive get-out-the-vote effort targeting Democratic voting demographics.
	Mail-in voting.
	To basically force them, in fact, enforce state governments to make sure that they get everybody registered that's a potential Democrat and make sure they have ease of mail-in voting.
	And the Ninth Circuit, which had previously properly ruled that the state could require citizenship as a condition of registration, went and reversed itself in a panic move.
	And this is all coming from the Biden administration.
	Well, now a bunch of attorney general have sued.
	The elections clause for the presidency gives to states exclusively the means and method of governing a presidential election.
	The only place for the federal government at all in governing the elections is concerning elections for Congress.
	But there, that power is only given to Congress, not to the president.
	The president didn't even cite any laws for the basis of this legislation.
	So it's a usurpation, violation of the elections clause, usurpation of states' prerogatives and legislative power and the separation of powers.
	And so hopefully it's a suit that will win and put a stop to the Biden administration's effort to weaponize the entire federal government to maximize Democratic turnout.
	Now that Zuckerberg's...
	Is off the table.
	Well, Zuckerberg has come out and said, I'm going to stay out of 2024 after all the disaster of 2020.
	Although some people are saying he's not by having come out and actually complimented Trump after the...
	He called Trump and told him that the Facebook censorship that was occurring was a mistake and he was going to put a stop to it and that he was staying out of 2024, period.
	I saw a tweet, I didn't read any article, and I don't know if it's true, that there's talk of going after Elon Musk for election violation, or FEC violations for starting a pact.
	That's a lot of confession through projection, because that's the entire media and Google and everybody else.
	That's what election interference is.
	That's what illicit illegal campaign contributions are, what they've been up to.
	So they couldn't try to set a precedent against Musk without destroying themselves in the process.
	So that's going to get nowhere fast.
	And the last part of the voting issues, voting rights and redistricting before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	For a while, the Voting Rights Act had been construed so that you could stack minority groups.
	The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to make sure that all the poll taxes and grandfather clauses and other provisions used to keep Black voters from voting in the South ended.
	It specifically said it was not To guarantee proportionate representation.
	That's right in the statute itself.
	It also said it was concerned with a racial group, not let's stack racial groups together.
	But what started to happen was the Fifth Circuit some years ago allowed you to stack groups together.
	So normally in order to show, hey, we're getting screwed, you can say we're geographically compact, we're politically cohesive, we're a minority group.
	And we're underrepresented because we normally would have had representation if they treated us equally.
	But what's happened in a lot of jurisdictions, they didn't have that.
	So they said, well, if you combine this racial group with this racial group with this racial group, then we would have a district.
	And there are courts saying, yeah, you're right, enforcing these districts that basically just guaranteed Democratic representation, as well as really, bottom line, Democratic Party representation, capital D, not little d.
	Fifth Circuit en banc finally reversed all that nonsense.
	Said that's never been what the statute says.
	It's contra the entire purpose of the statute.
	And you can't stack groups in order to create a Voting Rights Act claim anymore.
	So big win.
	And better because it's not...
	It was never supposed to be proportionate representation.
	And that's where it was trending in favor of.
	All right.
	Awesome. Let me bring up...
	There was one or two more Super Chats.
	Rumble Rants.
	Alex Davey Duke says, just a little bit of support and a little more.
	Thank you, Davey Duke.
	We met in Toronto.
	Let's do it.
	Let's go over to Locals.
	It's going to be the supporters only because that's the way this is fine-tuned in Rumble Studio.
	Let me...
	Well, let me see.
	I'm going to get a bunch of the...
	Let me bring it up here.
	I think I'll get as many of the $5 plus as I can before we go over there.
	Let me see here.
	Oh my gosh.
	Load messages.
	Okay. All right, am I at the top yet?
	Oh, no, hold on.
	That's why, because I'm not, I'm in the chat and not, you know what, I'll go from the bottom up just to do a few of these.
	I am Drum.
	I volunteer for a non-profit.
	I am learning now about the CTA, Corporate Transparency Act.
	Hopefully in the near future, you can talk about the constitutionality of this act.
	All members of our board must share personal information or suffer a hefty fine.
	Blue CW Soldier 3. Remember the brown best?
	The musket used by the British Army for over a century was the AR-15 of its day.
	It was perfectly legal for private citizens to own and possess in its day.
	It was capable of three to five inaccurate shots per minute, and it even had a bayonet lug, which is hated by the anti-gunners for some reason.
	The AR is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
	I was talking about this with my kid.
	We bought a musket at Harper's Ferry, like carved out of wood, and then we tied on a dinner knife to the end of it to make a bayonet out of it.
	Von Cobra, $10 says, My lord, please let the ATF challenge this up to the Supreme Court.
	Overturning Chevron was good.
	If we can get Wickard versus Filburn overturned, that would be so much better.
	Denise Antu, Ash Epp and Brian Lupo are also covering the Tina Peters trial.
	You can watch on Rumble.
	On both CanCon and MyAmerica.
	They have been following this since Tina's office was raided.
	Five bucks from BlueCWSoldier.
	Saw that SportsPix is doing half off until tomorrow.
	I am thinking of trying to enter the world of political betting.
	We will see if I'm any good.
	We'll see if I'm willing to try it.
	Political bets.
	Over 2,000 sports and political bets over the course of a year.
	Less than a dollar a day.
	Right now.
	Discount code.
	All caps.
	Football. Sportspicks.locals.com.
	You get, really, when you add in the discount, it's more than half off for the annual subscription.
	Best deal in all of sports and political betting.
	We'll have lots of political bet recommendations throughout the rest of the election season.
	And we're about to commence all the football bets.
	We put out over 50 bets every week.
	Probably put out about 100 bets recommended each week on average.
	Best value anywhere in sports and political betting.
	Sportspicks. Do we have anything yet?
	I'll get him in here.
	He wasn't in the best of moods today.
	We were fishing today and we ran into a fan on the Glades.
	They're like running to the fan, right?
	No, no, no.
	I think I know you from the internet.
	Yesterday I ran into one also.
	Oh, yes, yes.
	When you say every community glades, I think of those things.
	Oh, no.
	A member of the community.
	BoominVroomin says, five bucks.
	WinRed does the same thing.
	I had the woman on.
	Her name was Mel.
	She gave the instructions on how the FEC.gov, see if your name is...
	This is talking about...
	Using your name to vote for people.
	I found it looked like I made donations every single day in 2022 for small amounts, sometimes several per day.
	Donations went to WinRed, FEC, and a specific race.
	I told James several months ago, and he thanked me.
	Still have the email.
	And they got free SC01, 10 bucks.
	No reporting on the massive U.S. military buildup in the Philippines regarding the ownership of the second Thomas Shoal.
	China claims ownership.
	Philippines half sank a Navy vessel.
	In the ownership, this will be our Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war with China.
	Barnes, your thoughts?
	I hope you're wrong.
	I hope so.
	Let's not cover all the continents of war.
	Let us end now on Rumble.
	Everybody, the entire stream will be up on...
	Well, everybody knows what's going on here.
	Viva Barnes Law.
	Let me just go give the link one more time, see how many people we can get over from Rumble, and then we're going to end the party over there with a little Locals exclusive.
	Here it is.
	And now we are ending and going exclusive.
	To Rumble, locals, supporters only.

▲