All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2024 - Viva & Barnes
02:33:44
Ep. 223: Rumble SUES for "Illegal Boycott"; CopyCat Kamala! Walz Stolen Valor & MOR! Viva & Barnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Fight for our democracy.
Fight for our democracy.
Which includes respecting the voices that I think that we are hearing from.
And let me just say this on topic of what I think I'm hearing over there.
Let me just speak to that for a moment and then I'm going to get back to the business in hand.
You know what?
If you want Donald Trump to win...
then say that otherwise i'm speaking Which includes respecting the voices that I think that we are hearing from.
You know what?
If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that, otherwise I'm speaking.
Oh, my goodness.
Are we playing it again?
No, we're not.
Oh, it started from the beginning.
Let me interject with my humble two cents.
Give her credit for one thing.
They certainly will respond to what social media tells them to do by way of correcting their disgusting, despicable behavior.
Someone must have gotten to her.
I mean, look.
I'd say in a cynical way, good for her for steering that ship in a 180 from her itch bay of a response barely a week earlier.
This was sort of like, you know, they said, yeah, Kamali, you remember that time when you scolded those protesters like you were their kindergarten teacher and they were naughty little boys?
Yeah, that didn't resonate very well with your crowd.
Maybe don't do that again.
Oh, sorry.
I thought that's what they wanted that day.
They wanted to see a strong woman shutting down young protesters.
Oh, yeah.
By the way, she's reading off her notes.
I zoomed in on her face so you could see the degree to which she's reading off her notes because she's naturally not a nice person.
She's naturally a nasty woman, to quote Trump, who turns over staff more than...
I'm not going to go with that analogy.
We're here to fight for our democracy.
Fight for our democracy.
Looking down at the notes.
Which includes respecting the voices that I think that we are hearing from, and let me just say this, on topic of what I think I'm hearing over here.
What I think I'm listening to.
Let me just speak to that for a moment, and then I'm going to get back to the business in hand.
Contrast that a week ago.
If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that, otherwise I'm speaking.
Stare down.
Little people, look at that.
Oh, strong woman.
Look at that.
Wait, I love it.
I just, I love it.
Every time I see it, right now.
You want more of that?
Blame out where that came from!
Yeah, she's not a nice person.
But at the very least, you know, she does what is necessary for popularity.
You know, you can't hate the media enough.
You think you hate them, and you know that you can't hate them enough.
She is just an awful liar who will say and do anything, literally say anything and literally do anything, to further her political career.
I won't get into the Willie Brown jokes or the Montel Williams jokes, but I did.
When I say that she'll say anything to get elected, I made a joke earlier, in case you haven't heard, um...
She's endorsing Trump.
It's an amazing thing.
She just came out.
She wholeheartedly endorsed Trump.
She'll say anything to get elected when she thinks it's cool to beat down on young protesters who are there protesting what they perceive to be the genocide in the Middle East.
Oh, she'll beat them down.
And she'll get the roar of applause from her idiot sycophant crowd because that's what they wanted that day.
And the next day, they'll...
Oh, today's sensitive listening to the protesters, Kamala.
The other day was Itch Bay Nasty beating down on the protesters.
And we love both of them, depending on the day.
And she'll...
That ship will just go whichever way the wind is blowing there.
But the wind is blowing another day today.
Another way today.
What's the...
Oh, yes, that's right.
Remember that whole thing?
Write on your receipts.
Write on your invoices.
No tax on tips.
Vote Trump.
Kamala heard.
And eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.
Hospitality. It's a misspeak, but my goodness, it's kind of funny anyhow.
Eliminate tax and tips for hospitality workers.
And eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.
You know where I heard that?
I heard that from such campaigns as Donald Trump.
It's Biden's IRS that was coming down hard on taxing tips from hospitality workers.
Eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.
When I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips, people making tips.
I put out the pre-show vlog before we started today, and I said, like, it's a little despairing because you try not to...
I don't say this judgmentally.
It's not a question of being smart.
It's a question of being informed.
Someone can be informed and not be intelligent.
So I'm not saying stupid, low-information voters as in a judgment call on their capacity for intelligence, but rather on their propensity to be informed on the subjects that they take positions are.
This is going to work.
This deceitful, lying plagiarism.
Is going to work on low-information voters who get their information from the likes of CNN, MSNBC.
Oh, that's a great idea.
You're damn right it's a great idea.
And Trump had it a long time ago.
Oh, Kamala Harris, the failed delinquent derelict, derelict border czar, is now going to come out and say we're going to be tough on the border.
What's the other one I have here on the backdrop?
We're going to get into all of this during the show in greater...
What did she say here?
She's going to be tough on the border.
Did I have that?
Did I have that clip here?
Maybe it's this one.
Hold on.
I think it's this one.
We know our immigration system is broken and we know what it takes to fix it.
Comprehensive reform.
Yeah, she's going to be comprehensive reform.
Strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship.
Can you believe they have the balls to come out and take this as a policy position?
Strong border security.
It's not an open border.
Viva Fry said it's an open border.
Fact check, false.
It's a porous border.
No security.
No screening.
Catch and release.
And these MFers are going to come out now and say, we're going to be strong on border security.
Oh, and we earned citizenship?
Earned pathway to citizenship.
And an earned pathway to citizenship.
And everybody's like, yeah, that's right.
Oh, you were never the Bordazar.
We didn't have the media telling us two weeks ago that you were never the Bordazar, even though you were the Bordazar.
But Donald Trump does not want to fix this problem.
Be clear about that.
He has no interest or desire.
No, be clear about it.
First of all, her nasal wave drives me nuts.
It's like the opposite of vocal fry.
It's vocal nose.
Donald Trump has no desire to fix it.
What did she say before that?
Be clear.
Be clear about something.
What do I always say?
When someone says, let me be clear, they're going to lie to you.
He has no interest or desire to actually fix the problem.
Confession through projection.
He talks a big game about border security, but he does not walk the walk.
He's not president, and you undid his policies.
Everybody here knows earlier this year we had a chance to pass the toughest bipartisan border security bill in decades.
But Donald Trump tanked the deal.
I can't even...
I have to play it out.
I have to play it out.
Two minutes of hate.
Because he thought by doing that it would help him win an election.
When I am president, I will sign the bill.
When I am president, I will sign the bill to resolve the border crisis that I caused.
And by the way, of course she'll sign that bill.
You know why she'll sign that bill?
Because that comprehensive bipartisan border bill was a steaming load of political garbage.
It was not a Pandora's box.
It was a trap.
Of course she'll sign the bill.
It gave D.C. courts exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on border issues between the states.
Of course she'll sign that bill.
It ratified illegal immigrants crossing the border, but less than 5,000 a day.
It legalized illegal immigrants crossing the border so long as they didn't exceed 5,000 a day.
Of course she'll sign that.
Because it gave more power to D.C. and screwed the border states even harder.
Low-information idiot voters.
And they're sitting there clapping it up.
Oh, Donald Trump torpedoed the deal.
He wasn't president.
Biden comes into office and the first thing he does is undo executive orders and opens up the border.
Oh, shit, we've got 15 million illegals that came in in our regime.
First day in office, I will solve the problem I caused.
And these idiots clap like barking seals.
I said I wouldn't give myself a stroke, so I won't.
But, the best way to make sure that you know what's going on with your body, people, first sponsor, oh, first sponsor, it's the sponsor of the night.
Best way to make sure that you know what's going on with your body?
Lumen, people.
It's a wonderful thing.
It's the world's first handheld metabolic coach.
It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath, and on the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat, carbs, and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management, which I could use a little help with.
I'm pretty good on my metabolism, but my goodness, I went for a jog this morning and it was so flippin' hot.
I actually had to walk for a few seconds to not pass.
It was too hot.
How does Lumen work?
All you have to do is breathe into your Lumen first thing in the morning and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs.
Then Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for the day based on your measurements.
You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals so you know exactly what's going on with your body in real time and Lumen will give you the tips to keep on top of your game.
Your metabolism is your body's engine.
It's how you burn fat, turn foods into energy, and keep going.
Because your metabolism is at the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic health translates into a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness, better sleep, etc.
Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health.
It can also track your cycle on the onset of menopause, which I don't have to worry about, but if I go to the UK, maybe they're going to have to start warning men that they can go through menopause.
I'll tell you about that in a second.
Adjust your recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy throughout hormonal shifts so you can keep up your energy and stave off crannies.
Go to the link, people.
It's in there.
Lumen.me forward slash Viva.
Lumen. L-U-M-E-N dot me.
forward slash Viva to get 15% off your Lumen or just click the link below.
It's in the description.
Lumen.me slash Viva.
15% off your purchase.
Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring tonight's show.
Bada bing, bada bing.
What was I going to say about...
Hold on.
It had to do with the Lumen and it had to do with...
Oh, hormonal shifts.
You see, I read things in the news and I was like, this can't be true.
It can't be true.
NHS... Warning men of pregnancy prior to x-rays.
There we go.
Look at this.
This is from the Telegraph, people.
I see it on Twitter.
And I'm like, I'm not sharing this.
This can't be right.
Can't be right.
I'll read you the headline before I share the screen, actually, so that you know.
It's crazy.
NHS staff.
That is...
Oh, crap.
What's the NHS?
It's in the UK.
NHS staff.
Told to ask men if they are pregnant before x-rays.
New guidance requires radiographers to check whether all patients aged 12 to 55 could be expecting bullshit.
It can't be true.
We do not live in the world where this can be true.
Oh, what's that?
It's actually true.
Oh, I'm not creating an account.
I'm going to go to the archive and put it in here.
Last archive, 13 hours ago, NHS x-ray operators have been told to ask men if they are pregnant before conducting scans the telegraph can reveal.
Radiographers at multiple hospitals have been told they must check whether all patients aged 12 to 55 are pregnant, regardless of their sex, as part of inclusivity guidance.
Oh, I don't want to jinx anything and say, like, meteorite, now's the time, because Lord knows that it might actually happen.
I had this discussion with someone, and like, well, of course they have to do that, because...
A person can be a trans male.
You realize what just happened there, right?
They just got you to use words that don't exist.
A trans male is a female.
So you don't need any guidance if you're going to ask a female if they're pregnant.
Okay, well, they might have had that phallus sewn on, so they might look like a male.
I don't think anyone's going to have that risk in any event.
They might have had a phallus.
What is it called?
You know, take the skin off the arm and build a phallus.
So the doctor might not know that they were born.
They're a woman who has done body stuff to make them look what they think a man looks like.
It's insanity.
And I said, well, you're using the language now.
You're playing the game.
And they've moved the Overton window so much that you, an otherwise reasonable person with a decent amount of life experience, is now saying, well, it makes sense because, you know, they could be a trans man.
Oh, so they could be a woman.
A man with a ding-dong.
Better make sure.
Better make sure he doesn't have a uterus.
What are your chromosomes?
Do you have a uterus?
No. Then I don't need to ask if you're pregnant.
Although, you know, before taking an x-ray, you might want to ask them.
Regardless, x-rays can cause problems if you have too many of them.
Okay. Everybody, good evening.
And to the gentleman that I met fishing today, if you're watching tonight, good to see you digitally.
I went fishing Loxahatchee.
We landed the clown knife fish yesterday for the first time ever.
We out-navigated.
We out-navigated the alligator.
And it was quite good.
The video's up there on the interwebs.
Now, let me just make sure I should have actually done this a long time ago.
We're live across the interwebs.
For those of you who are first-time watchers, Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
We start off across all platforms.
YouTube, Rumble, Twitter, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And then, because we're going to create this parallel economy, we're going to...
We spend our dollars and give our eyeballs to people who deserve them.
We end it on YouTube.
We end it on Twitter as well, but that's not for any shade on Twitter.
And we go to Rumble and we go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com exclusively.
And then at the end of the show, we end on Rumble and we have our vivabarneslaw.locals.com supporters after party.
And it's fantastic.
We seem to be live.
I'm on the good mic.
I can hear my nice.
Deep, resonating, bassy voice.
And I'm using Rumble Studio so I can do things like this.
Now check this out.
Can you discuss Coffezilla being sued by Logan Paul?
Specifically, Paul wanting to move this suit to federal jurisdiction versus Texas to avoid anti-slap.
What grounds would he need to put in?
We'll keep that and we'll see if we get there in a little bit.
By the way, it will happen that some...
I will not get to all of the tips in the Rumble rants.
I got to actually make sure that we're live on Rumble.
And then...
Open it up.
If I miss anything and you're going to be miffed, don't be pleased.
It's very difficult to keep track of all this.
It's a good problem to have.
Okay, there we go.
We're live everywhere, people.
What a time to be alive.
We've got an amazing show tonight.
It's an amazingly big week that we've had.
Okay, I'm going to bring this one up just because I saw it.
What do you think about the...
I'm joking.
Whenever I see caps, I tend to read it as someone screaming at me, but I have an elderly aunt who writes in caps because it's easier to see.
What do you think about the fake effing polls these mother effers are pushing on us to make us all sad boys?
Why do we all fall for their bullcrap?
Trump's still winning in real polls.
First of all, I don't know that they're fake polls.
I think if you go to Predict It and what's the other one?
Polymarket, where people put their money...
is typically the more accurate representation of statistical likelihood of where things are at right now.
Where does it have a problem?
Well, they had Josh Shapiro at a 70% favorite right up until the night before Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz for VP.
And then the night of, then Tim Walz bangs right up to like 70%.
But then the morning of, when she actually picked Tim Walz, Tim Walz went back down to 30-some-odd percent before being picked as the candidate.
Still kicking myself for having sold Tim Walz, rolled over my profits into Shapiro, and then got screwed.
Because what's two times zero?
Nothing. So the markets are an accurate reflection.
The polls are nonsense.
They're always nonsense.
But then you can't invoke them when they're in your favor and then disregard them when they're not.
And you cannot let them lull you into a faux sense of security when they're in your favor.
And you can also not write them off.
As being totally irrelevant where you have previously invoked them as being mildly relevant when they're not in your favor.
So get out there and make sure you get people to vote.
Don't get disparate.
We are three months out.
That's a long time.
That's like an eternity.
This totally inorganic manufactured honeymoon with Kamala Harris will fade.
I would not waste any time trying to say what is a fake AI image and what isn't and she doesn't have anybody coming to her rallies.
I think it's a losing tactic.
But I don't trust the polls for good or for bad.
But when they are...
The betting markets are a little bit different.
And the betting markets had Tim Waltz as the underdog right up until, and even at the underdog the morning he was selected.
And speaking of Tim Waltz, we're going to talk about it tonight.
And speaking of liars and scumbags and pathological, immoral people.
Who will say A and then not A, depending on the day.
Tim Walz, the campaign actually had to, this is from NBC News, they've had to now backtrack.
Remember the whole thing about the stolen valor?
And the Mockingbird Media, the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, came out and said, it's not stolen valor.
He served in whatever he did for 24 years.
And now, after they lie to you about that...
They lie to you, lie to you, lie to you, and then they tell you the truth a week later.
Tim Waltz misspoke when he discussed using weapons in war, campaign says.
The statement from the Harris campaign follows criticism of Waltz's military record by vice presidential candidate.
Do you understand that even when they tell the truth, they lie because they're the scum of the earth?
Nobody was criticizing his military record.
They were calling him a liar for having lied about...
Anybody who does 24 years in the National Guard, whatever he did, deserves praise for what they did.
Nobody's criticizing the fact that he did 24 years of the National Guard.
They're calling him a liar because he stole valor by falsely alleging that he carried weapons of war in war.
And then they said you were a liar for saying it.
They said everyone who says that is wrongly accusing another veteran of his military service.
But now they can't even tell the truth properly when they tell it.
Nobody criticized his military record.
They criticized him for lying about his wartime combat experience.
Having been one of those that came back, we were in support of OEF, but being sitting in there with OEF, OIF veterans.
When we came back, they showed us the horse whisperer and told us to be nice when we went home.
And that was the extent of it.
That was in 2004.
Now, I'm proud to say that because of the people sitting in here and people who came before me, things have changed over the last four years.
They have not changed enough.
But Mr. Kennedy is following and moving something forward that the late senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, advocated so clearly, mental health parity and this issue of destigmatizing mental health, of understanding.
And I being in there and knowing as a first sergeant, knowing exactly what you're saying and watching as people aren't trained on this, that there is...
There's a discrimination that goes against a soldier who has the courage, the fortitude, and as you said, the insight to admit this.
So having been one of those that came back, we were in support of OEF.
That wasn't the clip I thought it was going to be.
I thought it was going to be the one where he talked about carrying weapons of war in war.
So lying about his military experience in terms of having been to combat.
So that he could push an anti-gun agenda, which is what he was also doing.
These weapons of war have no place except in times of war.
And I've carried these weapons of war in war, which was a lie and always will be a lie.
Sronovich put out an amazing analysis on this.
And I shared that earlier as well.
Now, while Barnes gets in here, Barnes is in the backdrop.
I see the avatar.
Let me make sure if I can see something up here in the YouTubes.
Cheryl Gagey, nice knife fish.
Who was holding the camera?
The gentleman that we met at the Loxahatchee, because I don't trust the kids to hold the phone over the ledge.
I've seen many people drop their phones into those waters and you're never getting them back because you can't pick them up with a magnet.
I got a professional, super powerful magnet fishing magnet and it doesn't pick up the iPhones unless it happens to be in one of those magnet cases.
And so you're never getting those cameras back, especially because those waters are infested with alligators.
And then we got Ian says, when the Irish start playing My Little Armalite, you know it's hit the fan.
I'm not sure I get that.
Robert, why are you on that side?
How dare you, sir?
Okay, there we go.
Robert, they say he never lied, and then they actually come back and backtrack, and he misspoke when talking about a memory of his own life.
That's not a misspoke.
That's a lie.
Okay. Oh, hold on, hold on.
I'll just bring this one up one time.
Explain the Overton window for me.
Use an example from your show if you can.
Love you guys.
The Overton window is what is tolerated in mainstream society as being acceptable discourse or acceptable politics, acceptable ideas.
And the more people push towards radical trans ideology that you can go cut a wee-wee off a 12-year-old boy or the breasts off a 15-year-old girl, the more you normalize what would otherwise have been the radical center point.
10 years ago.
And the more people push radical stuff, the more the Overton window shifts to tolerating what would have otherwise been intolerable or not tolerable decades earlier.
So I think that's it.
I think I did a good one there.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
The only annoying thing is the camera thing.
I'm going to fix it.
I'm going to make sure.
I'm doing it now.
I got two.
Recommendations, and we'll see if it's not a problem on our end, or a technical problem, or they'll figure it out.
So yeah, you're not...
Amazing, you go to the camera thing, and it says you have this option, but you click on this option, and it won't load.
Hold on, what do we say here?
Speaking of it, JFC stands for Jesus F-ing C. Conservatives quit the stolen valor BS.
Focus on the federal stolen valor law he broke when he lied about his retirement.
That's what we've got to talk about.
Robert, so first of all, book behind you, because that's an interesting one.
I can't possibly read the white on purple.
What is that there?
Esquire's Handbook of Style.
Recommended for anybody out there, but particularly for if you've got a younger son or nephew.
It's a good little guidebook.
It's almost as...
I also like the old English book that was written in the 1850s that they've re-updated over the years on manners.
Proper manners from an English style that's also useful in that regard.
And the cigar?
A Partagas cigar.
I always ask the question because it was the ritual earlier on.
I have no idea about anything of cigars except for Cohibas, which my dad used to have.
He's still alive, but he used to have...
Ah, because you're a Canadian.
You got the real Cubans.
Yep. But the thing is, he got the real Cubans, except they were always stale, dry, moldy, because he didn't have a proper humidor.
Oh, that's too bad.
There was actually a cool little cigar shop in Toronto that got Cuban tobacco shipped to them directly, and they made their own cigars with Cuban tobacco.
Been there since the 1960s.
I'm screen grabbing this.
It says, Viva, look at your ex-livestream.
I posted the laws he broke.
Okay, we're going to get there.
Robin, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
It's going to be a bang.
Well, one of them is, did he violate, did Waltz violate the stolen valor law?
For those that may not remember, the original version of the stolen valor law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
So some people think the older law still applies when it doesn't.
There is a new law, and we'll discuss whether or not it applies to the situation with Waltz.
Big antitrust decision.
You know, we've been talking about variations of these cases now for years.
The first big judgment came down concerning did Google violate the antitrust laws?
Are they an illegal monopoly?
Big decision that has big ramifications going forward.
Rumble and Elon Musk team up to sue the woke advertisers doing a corporate boycott on the same or comparable antitrust grounds.
And they get immediate results, at least in part, right out of the gate.
You talked to Pavlovsky earlier in the week, the CEO of Rumble, and what he predicted came true within 24 hours of the outcome.
We have the...
And where does the mindset come from, the mentality come from, from these corporate blacklisting that is occurring based on ideological purposes of alternative platforms, platforming independent voices.
The Ripple gets a final win against the SEC in the ongoing crypto battles by the Biden administration.
The UK is threatening to extradite Americans based on their speech.
To be prosecuted in England.
I must admit, one of my red coat tweets, I was like, hmm.
I wonder how it could possibly happen.
No doubt.
The... former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, it was disclosed by whistleblowers this week, had been put on a secret watch list and was being spied on and surveilled and monitored and followed by government officials for the last several years.
Scott Ritter, a famous critic of American foreign policy, had his home raided this week by the federal government.
This appears to be political payback, and they're using and abusing that same law they used against General Flynn, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, that somehow managed to never get used against Hunter Biden and the Biden family despite additional disclosures in that Hunter Biden case upcoming in California concerning exactly that illicit activity.
Speaking of political lawfare, Robert Kennedy Jr. spent this past week in New York state courts as they try to strike him from the ballot disputing his residence.
There's all kinds of problems with that lawsuit.
It's always interesting when they decide they have jurisdiction and when they don't because that relates to another question that was the discussion of the Barnes brief this week.
Is Kamala Harris qualified?
As a natural-born citizen eligible for the presidency, and this relates to another legal policy dispute between Harris and Trump, which is whether birthright entitles someone to citizenship in the United States as a matter of constitutional law.
We've got updates.
Unsurprising, if disappointing, updates in the Brooke Jackson case against Pfizer.
The hearing this past week took place in the case of Amos Miller as the state of Pennsylvania continues to try to shut down Amish farmer Amos Miller and prohibit him from making his food available to people who desperately need it and want it.
Many vaccine mandate updates across the country.
We've had about a half dozen decisions over the last six weeks over where those cases are going in terms of Title VII discrimination or First Amendment discrimination particularly.
Nick Ricada had some big news in his case that we'll have an update on.
How do they really pick juries?
And when is it unconstitutional?
Second Circuit case.
Gave some direction and guidance on how our juries are really picked in American federal courts.
Did Yale get out of its suspension and refusal to refund tuition when it decided not to allow on-campus activities?
Was the Second Circuit particularly deferential to Yale, and might that reflect some of who's on the clerkships up there?
We'll discuss that in a bit.
Of my once would have been, could have been, but not alma mater.
Secret Service decided to do a little raid on a little salon without any approval.
Iran, supposedly, maybe not Iran.
The hack, the Trump campaign, maybe the source of that hack is a little closer to, I don't know, Linsburg, Virginia, maybe, or other places in Virginia.
Langley, maybe.
Might be more applicable in particular.
And then Kamala Harris's ties to various left-wing organizations being exposed and brought up on our board as a couple of the topics they wanted us to cover.
So just a few cases on the docket tonight.
Well, let's start.
I don't know with which one we start.
Let's start while we're on.
Let's start with Waltz, the commie governor of Minnesota.
So I will bring up, let me see, I'm going to get to the live stream, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
I'll bring it up in a second.
To summarize for those who don't know, there have been numerous accusations against Tim Waltz.
I will never be able to say his name without kicking myself for that.
I should not, Robert, I should not be politically betting.
I can't deal with losses.
I'll never stop.
I can't, I can't steal it.
Okay. Hey, but if you want a whole list of political bets, sports bets, futures bets, week one bets, we got them all up at sportspicks.locals.com.
We got, you know, 30, 40, 50, depending on the sport, depending on the outcome, bets already up.
And I think the political betting markets are going to be...
I don't know if I can ever top 2016, but I think it will be one of the most profitable betting periods out there.
So if you want the insights, you can go to sportspicks.locals.com and we got a bunch of political betting recommendations because I think the markets are off where they should be.
Well, and also, I don't know if you use Polymarket or Predicted.
Polymarket's the best.
But you can only...
Invest with cryptocurrency on Polymarket.
And there might be additional utility for that sort of thing, especially if, let's say, the UK government decides Viva's been a bad boy.
You might need a little extra currency to get out of that.
Because the thing that would predict it doesn't have that many markets.
Polymarket really has a lot of markets, and some of them do seem to be way off.
But Tim Waltz...
He was 24 years, I want to say National Guard, but it wasn't National Guard.
What was the nature of the service?
You're absolutely right, it was National Guard.
So National Guard, he served in peacetime issues, floods and the like, and he did 24 years, and it's a commendable thing.
The problem with him, and I'll try to find the clip when you explain this and flesh it out for us, he specifically said that he carried weapons of war during times of war.
Oh, not only that, he suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from his time in Afghanistan, fighting on the front lines.
So there's that.
Then there's the issue about him running for office and submitting his retirement papers two months before his battalion that he was the leader of was going to be sent off to Iraq.
And he's like, oh, we're going to Iraq.
Time to retire!
Let's get edited real fast!
No, and so the retort to that was that, oh, well, he submitted his papers before the battalion was deployed, except, as Sertovich noted, he damn well knew upwards of six months before and decided to do it.
So that's the retort to the media fake narrative.
But the bottom line, he objectively outright lied about having been in combat.
I thought it was only once, but apparently it's more than once.
And now he's got to backtrack.
He misspoke.
People are suggesting he might have...
Is it the 2013?
Because some people don't remember that the old stolen valor law was struck down by the Supreme Court.
So under the old stolen valor law, he would be completely guilty.
But that stolen valor law was struck down by the Supreme Court correctly, in my view, because they said, look, you're criminalizing speech.
If someone claims to be something that they're not...
But there's no consequence of that, other than in the court of public opinion or politics, then you are criminalizing pure speech.
And so the original Stolen Valor Act was struck down as unconstitutional.
So they came up with a new one in 2013.
And what this required is it reduced the criminal scope of the Stolen Valor laws to fraud.
So in other words, you have to have actually obtained...
Money and property are something of value for your false claims of military heroism.
Not to play devil's advocate to look to criminalized speech where it shouldn't be, but what is something of value defined as?
Political profit?
Is that something of value?
It's going to be historically First Amendment interpreted.
So it's going to be that it needs to be something analogous to consumer fraud laws in order to be constitutional.
Because if something of value is merely the increased your chances of winning an election, then the problem is then you're right in the core of free speech.
And so something of value has got to be something like the equal to what's before it.
In other words, money, property, something analogous to that.
Other tangible benefits.
So obviously, if he were to have received any sort of compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder, for combat that he never saw, that would be...
Or a higher retirement designation.
Like, maybe he didn't get it, but maybe he tried.
For example, because of how and when he resigned...
My understanding is that required a demotion because he didn't finish certain coursework and duties and obligations.
A demotion in his status, which would in turn impact his pension and benefits.
And did he falsely apply and claim to be a higher?
Because after he resigned, he lied about what status he had.
He had been demoted because of how he resigned.
But he kept lying about that.
I mean, until just now, really.
And so did he lie when he applied for benefits?
Did he lie when he applied for any other kind of pension or other aspects of monetary tangible benefits from the government?
And that's why, if this was J.D. Vance, if we just changed the names from J.D. Vance to Tim Wells, J.D. Vance would have already...
Not only step down from BP, he would have resigned from the Senate because the media would be talking about this nonstop 24-7 demanding full disclosure of what he submitted to the government.
Yet the media here, of course, is doing their typical propagandist job of illicit campaign contributions, misusing their monopoly of the airwaves, all of which should be civilly and criminally investigated.
I mean, if we're serious about restoring constitutional democracy, the media...
CNN, ABC, NBC, New York Times, these big, but definitely the ones that have access and monopoly on the airwaves, they need to be subject to civil and criminal investigations because they become nothing more than the Pravda for the Democratic Party.
But the big question is, what did he submit?
What did he submit to the government?
Has he ever made a false statement about his background in terms of most likely his status that was demoted from?
And any application for any kind of benefit ever from any U.S. government agency.
Because if he did, because if he didn't, then he knows he's been lying all these years, right?
Either he knew he was publicly lying because he admitted to the government he didn't have that particular status, or he also lied to the government as well, and then he did commit a federal crime.
And you got a criminal, a real criminal, on the ticket for the Democratic Party.
Sorry, I got a tickle in my throat and now my eyeball is watering.
What would be required, actually, to find out?
I mean, FOIA requests for...
No, I mean, you'd need media pressure on him to disclose it.
Now, if he was a Republican, the military would leak it, like they did in 2022.
Remember, they leaked records about political people repeatedly to a Democratic request.
Admitted later, golly gee, oops, oops, we just made a mistake.
They're not going to do that with Waltz because they're so ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party.
But there needs to be media pressure on him.
Of course, if he doesn't do it, then I'm sure J.D. Vance might have that question for him in the vice presidential debate.
It's just scoundrel-less unbelievable.
You've also seen, Robert, now that Kamala Harris is adopting Trump's campaign policy of no tax on tips?
Not only that, she's running against whoever the president is.
Whoever the current administration is, she's going to fix all those problems of the current administration.
She's going to do something about inflation.
She's going to do something about whoever the current administration doesn't know what's going on.
Kamala Harris is running against Kamala Harris.
Let's see how that works for them.
I'm going to get to the tips afterwards on YouTube and everywhere, but Viva, I sent you a Rumble ad yesterday.
It would be an honor to participate in this parallel economy with you.
Keep up the great fight, my brother, and that is Cultivated Mind.
I screen grabbed that, so I'll get to you afterwards for sure.
Folks out there, if you don't like ads and all the rest, or you just want to support independent free speech platforms, you can now become a premium member of Rumble, which I've already done.
I do it on YouTube, too, because I don't like the ads.
But I do it for...
For Rumble to support Rumble, to help monetize Rumble.
What Rumble disclosed with Elon Musk this week is how they have been subject to a corporate boycott, a corporate blacklist by the woke ideological agenda that has taken over the advertising budgeting departments of major corporations, including, surprisingly, Dunkin' Donuts.
Dunkin' Donuts is supposed to be American.
I used to eat there when I was a kid.
My dad loved their eclairs.
And now it turns out they've got a bunch of commies controlling their advertising budget.
We're going to do this one, and then we're going to go over to Rumble, because this is the one that everybody on YouTube should need to hear about.
X and Rumble sued various entities, but the top of the umbrella was WFA, the World Federation of Advertisers.
It is a partner with the WEF, the World Economic Forum, and the WFA has what they call an initiative known as the acronym GARM, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.
Yeah, they forgot.
They originally planned on that acronym spelling G-E-R-M, because it would at least be more accurate for what their effect is on the economy.
Yeah, it's just missing the S at the end.
It needs a Soviet at the end, because this is perfect communism in action.
We have an alliance, it's an initiative, and you can become a member, and we take care of security and safety on the internet.
And they bragged about it on their own website that they controlled 90% of online ad spending, something in the order of $700 billion.
And that if you want to be a member of the WFA, you have to adhere to certain protocol.
And if they don't like you, they then pressure all of the agencies who control all of the companies and they don't advertise on you.
They boycott you and they try to bankrupt you for not adhering to their safety protocol, their brand protocol.
The only issue is this was disclosed by way of an exhibit in the ex-Twitter lawsuit.
You have this guy, Rudowski, I don't know, his name doesn't really matter.
He's on the board of the WFA talking about how Unilever wants to see evidence that overtly partisan content is being appropriately censored.
Nothing to do with security, safety, or whatever.
Overtly partisan content, such as, and they put in brackets, the Hunter Biden laptop expose.
So we basically find out that this is a partisan, politicized...
They call it an illegal boycott, and I think people took issue with that because they say, look, we can do whatever the hell we want.
We're private companies.
The question is...
That's never been true.
You can't engage in antitrust behavior.
You can't engage in various forms of consumer fraud.
And there's a wide range of boycotts and blacklists that you can't do.
There's some boycotts and blacklists that are legal, and there's some that are not.
This is sort of the corporate whore wing of the so-called conservative movement.
That basically, if it's a corporation, everything they do is just fine.
This is the...
Quote-unquote libertarians who aren't really libertarians at all, because when it comes to individual liberty versus big corporations, by golly, all they care about is big corporations.
We have a Supreme Court justice.
That's all she cares about.
Amy Coney Barrett is big corporations, not individuals.
But that has never been true.
I mean, it's partially a populist-libertarian divide, but it's also just not accurate as to the law.
No, as a corporation, you don't get to do whatever you want.
Well, they sued.
And especially they sued alleging Sherman Act antitrust violations because by their own admission, they control 90% of the ad spans.
That's pretty close to a monopoly.
And they file suit Trump.
Elon Musk went after Unilever, a bunch of other, Mara's, a bunch of other players.
Rumble went after the WFA and a bunch of other players as well.
And within 48 hours of these lawsuits, the WFA, the World Federation of Advertisers, announces they are disbanding.
Their Global Alliance of Responsible Media initiative.
Just like that.
Up and run.
Chris Pavlovsky, he was on the channel on Wednesday.
Tuesday. Oh, it was Wednesday.
Maybe Thursday.
He predicted, he says, by the end of the year, I think they're going to be done 24 hours.
They announced this initiative is winding up.
People, Robert, are asking, they're just going to get away with murder.
Like, there will be no discovery, etc.
My understanding, I'll defer to your obviously better judgment on this.
I don't think this avoids any discovery.
The entities are still there.
They still proceed with the litigation.
If they try to get it dismissed, that would preclude discovery.
Okay, fine.
The initiative has been disbanded, but the entities and the liability for past wrongs still exists, and this is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Unless they get this case dismissed, it still proceeds forward with the possibility of discovery.
Exactly. Some of us have been arguing for a long time.
That the ideological indoctrination and idolatry of the woke elites that have hijacked universities, hijacked big tech,
hijacked advertising budgets against the economic self-interest of the stockholders of those companies, against the economic self-interest of the students in those universities, Of the consumers and the American public, as well as the constitutional liberties implicated by this behavior, that one of the best mechanisms and methods of legal attack would be antitrust laws.
And here I'm with more Matt Stoller from the left and other people like that.
I'm on the populist side of the antitrust laws.
To me, the Rockefellers of the world and the Bill Gateses of the world dominating and monopolizing the economy is not my idea of...
And for those that don't remember, Adam Smith, the free market champion, said long ago, aggregations of capital are a far greater threat to the free market than aggregations of labor.
They always seem to forget that at the little libertarian get-togethers of these corporate horror types that have taken over and captured the legal academy.
So, my view is that the antitrust laws exist for a reason.
We want true competition.
We do not want someone to be able to monopolize the advertising budgets of major corporations and use them to deter competition.
Nor do we want it in the big tech arena or in the university arena.
The ideological takeover and monopoly is anti-American.
It's also anti-freedom and anti-free market.
And in this capacity, Rumble's suit was, I think, a robust suit, still is a robust suit.
What they've done is they've just limited the scale and scope of the injunction and future damages claims, but they haven't removed the past damages claims.
And how did the woke nonsense take over?
I mean, Hollywood losing money, pound over pound, dollar over dollar, euro over euro, because of the ideological indoctrination.
They just completely butchered.
One of the last great brands of Disney, Snow White.
By having these fake dwarfs, because they don't want any actual little people running around.
And this total woke nightmare.
Whereas, you know, the heroes, the whole nature of Snow White, aside from the fun dwarfs, was the prince saving the princess.
One of the oldest stories known to man.
But that's way too, you know, chauvinistic.
So can't have that.
She's got to save herself.
You're destroying a story.
You're destroying a narrative.
You're trying to destroy a culture.
And that's the other reason why this nonsense of these corporate idolaters in the conservative movement, you're going to kill America.
You're going to kill the culture with your nonsense.
There's some things that are of greater moral value and virtue than the almighty ball of corporate culture.
And that's what's happened here, what the woke people did.
They took over HR departments at major corporations.
They took over the advertising budgets at major corporations.
They took over the screenwriters and the people producing content in both institutional media and in Hollywood.
And they took over the universities.
And they understood those are the four centers of culture in America.
And they've been trying to destroy and wreck our culture.
That's how you end up with something like the Olympics beginning.
With all the moral horror of that, broadcast to billions of people around the world, is because we let it happen.
And mostly it's because the so-called conservative legal academy has been like, oh no, antitrust is bad.
It messes with the wonderful corporations.
They got a little ball statue in their legal libraries to almighty corporation, we must bow.
That's who these people are.
And it's horrendous, and it's been horrendous for a while.
So it's congrats and credit to Rumble and Elon Musk for exposing this, because what they've done, I mean, you can read a bunch of digital publications.
And what they did is they said, you know, you don't want your advertising dollar next to hate speech, right?
You don't want to be associated with racist and so forth.
And they used that pretext.
To justify putting it next to trans ads, putting it next to things that actually are extreme, while using it to blacklist conservative content creators and any dissident content creator.
You look at Rumble, some of its biggest broadcasts are Russia Today, Glenn Greenwald, Kim Iverson, Russell Brand, Jimmy Dore, people that, like Joe Rogan, are likely going to vote for Kennedy in the presidential election, not Trump.
But because they're independent dissidents, they too are dangerous, extreme speech.
I mean, they targeted Stephen Crowder, but he's not their only concern on Rumble.
They targeted Alex Jones, but he's not the only one.
And so we've allowed these corporate monopolies and corporate capture, and there's been a capture of the corporations by the woke.
To completely contaminate our culture and do so in a way that violated the laws of the United States of America.
And credit to Rumble, credit to Google, and it's a good transition to the next topic, thanks to the states that brought the suit, along with the Justice Department, against Google to expose that all of these big corporate...
The only way they could push this indoctrination is through illegal monopolization.
They could not have done it, but through illegal monopolization.
And it's time they pay the piper for their illegal acts because illegal monopolization is illegal in America.
Before we get there, and this will be the last, what we'll do on YouTube, I want to just bring up a tweet from Dan Hartman, who's Sean Hartman's father.
And I say that it's easy for everybody to move on with their lives and sort of forget what's going on, but he puts up this tweet and it's just horrendous.
His son is the one who died 33 days after the Pfizer jab.
It says, this is what I'm left with.
Talking to a grave, talking to grass.
Nobody has been arrested.
It's hard to believe in justice anymore.
The huge accounts who can help me with a simple tweet.
They chose not to.
The rich who claim to have my back have donated nothing to the only lawsuit in North America against Pfizer for wrongful death.
You wonder why, Matt, really?
You want me to fight and you refuse to help?
Be fucking thankful.
This wasn't your child.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
You can't blame a man for being angry beyond words.
But there's a Give, Send, Go, which I'm also going to share right now.
And I'll share the link.
And if anybody can, if he can't, because there's also not unlimited resources, share the link.
This is the Give, Send, Go.
I'll share the link around, speaking of Google Monopoly and exercising that monopoly to censor and...
And I'll give them credit.
The brilliance of the left was to use the right against itself.
Use the right's idolatry of big corporations, which again are just state-created entities.
Corporations are an exchange.
You get a special privilege that all your investors...
Cannot be held individually liable for the bad acts you collectively and aggregately do through your agent, the corporation, up to the point of your limited by the scope and scale of your economic investment for the corporate form.
It's a state entity.
It's a state privilege.
That's what it is.
You're celebrating.
You're celebrating the state when you celebrate a corporation.
And they use the corporate form in substantial part.
To be able to indoctrinate our own kids and an entire generation against our culture and our beliefs in ways that has caused and wreaked havoc in our culture and has caused specific economic harm to the ability to compete.
And none of this could have existed but for monopolistic practices.
Just like the people pretending Google had a natural monopoly.
No, they didn't.
If you had studied anything about Google, you knew they had anything but a natural monopoly.
We're going to get to that in Rumble.
Let me just read a bunch of the YouTube superchats that I won't be able to bring up later.
Yes, this is from Kimmy Hunt, who says, Yes, Walt applied for retirement and military benefits under E9.
The military knocked his paperwork down to E8.
And now I've got to go see what that is.
Then he committed stolen valor.
He violated the Stolen Valor Act.
He's a federal criminal.
Well, we're going to see if we can verify that.
Barnes, I believe you're referring to the House of Horvath Cigar Manufacturers in Toronto.
Yes, yes, I think that is correct.
It's a cool little place to take a tour of, by the way.
That came from J13IRD, and then there's a couple more.
Okay, here, let me just see if I can do this.
Robert, open your window so you can smell the burning tires.
I don't think I understand that.
Oh, that's a reference to Waltz's wife, who said she liked to keep her windows open during the BLM riots that did so much damage to people and businesses in Minneapolis so she could smell the burning tires.
I mean, he comes from a family of education.
I mean, nothing worse.
I mean, the only thing worse...
Then two teachers who come from families of teachers getting together and propagating children or gaining power is when two federal prosecutors do it.
But otherwise, I mean, they're not from the Midwest in that sense.
They're from the teacher culture that is part of this ideological indoctrination and contamination of our culture.
I mean, this is a guy that they went in a honeymoon in communist China.
He loves visiting communist China.
He loved taking his kids to communist China.
I mean, this is a very...
Kamala Harris's father is a communist professor from Jamaica whose family owned slaves because that's a natural commie tradition, to be honest.
It gives you an idea who these people are.
And we let too many of them get too much power.
Time they'd be held a legal account like Google finally was.
All right, last one.
Will the Overton window shift towards each party having about 50% support?
It seems that close elections are a natural state of things.
And that's from Peter Barrett.
Oh, I lied.
One more.
Barnes, I believe you...
Okay, I got that.
Okay, now, here's what I'm gonna do.
Let me get my window back up because I had to minimize a few things here.
We are going to end this on YouTube.
Do we leave?
I mean, we're gonna end it on Twitter as well and I'll post the replay tomorrow.
And so come on over to Rumble.
It's in the pinned comment.
Come on over to Locals.
I'll give you the link one more time.
And we shall take this party to the free speech platforms.
It includes Twitter, but we're going Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com in 54321.
All right.
Google's a monopoly and they've been abusing of their monopoly power to screw advertisers by abusing of their monopoly.
To jack up the prices on their ad spend.
So, Judge Mehta, M-E-H-T-A, 286-page decision.
Thorough, meticulous.
I mean, I go through it.
I get my brain shuts off when it gets too technical for computer stuff.
But the bottom line...
It's ironic, by the way, this judge, who otherwise is a very political judge, January 6th cases has been horrendous, that he comes from that Democratic Party tradition that it still believes in antitrust, thank God.
And to me, it's a sad reflection of the status of too much of the conservative legal academy that you are better off suing Google in D.C. or a liberal democratic jurisdiction than you are a conservative jurisdiction.
Conservatives should return to their free market roots, which is very deeply antitrust.
And one of the biggest antitrust advocates ever was President Teddy Roosevelt.
And so there's been this bastardization.
In conservative legal academy, beginning in the 1950s and 60s, that culminated in the 70s and 80s with people like Bork, who in my view was not a constitutionalist, by the way, never been a Bork fan.
I didn't mind how he got Bork, to be blunt about it.
This was a guy who didn't really believe in civil liberties of individuals, was a complete corporate whore as a judge, and would have been had he been on the Supreme Court.
It is a bastardization of the academy.
But you're right.
Because he actually believes in antitrust law, he followed through on that, followed the facts, followed the evidence.
Now, of note, he didn't sanction Google, even though Alex Jones was accused of not complying with discovery when he actually did.
Sat for hundreds of hours of depositions and provided millions of pages of documents and information.
By contrast, Google destroyed and deleted Okay, and I'm sorry,
I just got distracted with one thing.
30,000-foot overview of a 200-some-odd page decision is, as far as the evidence went, the judge concluded that Google had a monopoly.
It had a monopoly in that it was paying billions of dollars a year to ensure that their apps were being tied into mobile phones and various devices.
Internet browsers, too.
I mean, basically any method of distribution of search and for advertising on search or advertising connected to text, Google leveraged exclusive contracts with the browser providers, with the phone distributors, with the text message, with the phone makers and the text distribution folks.
Google owns YouTube now.
Rumble has several lawsuits currently going against Google and YouTube.
Because they go to great lengths to suppress and censor information that would lead you to a Rumble link because Rumble is a competitor.
This is how they've abused their monopoly power for anti-competitive purposes.
For purposes that undermine the free market.
Free market is not, God bless the aggregation of capital.
Free market means real free enterprise.
Go back and read Adam Smith for real in ways that people like Bork never really did.
He didn't believe in it.
A lot of these other conservative legal academy folks didn't believe in it and don't believe in it.
Sadly, it's taken the left to reinvigorate any trust law in America.
But most of the state attorney generals who sued are conservative, but come from the populist tradition more so than the libertarian and the corporatist tradition within the legal academy.
And that's why we got to the case we got to.
They had exclusive contracts with all the distributors, whether it was your cell phone platform distributor, whether it was your browser distributor, whichever one it was, they designed exclusive contracts to say we're going to monopolize the market and we're going to prohibit competition.
And it has ideological implications because Google is trying to rig elections around the world, most paramount, here in the United States of America.
Try to search assassination of Donald Trump.
Try to search Tim Walz, stolen valor, and you're going to discover that they're being driven down so you can't find them because that's the other problem, the side effect, the impact of whoring, of being corporate whores in the conservative legal academy, is you're allowing your political adversary to fix elections because that's what happens when you let monopolists run free.
Look at this.
They fixed the Trump assassination.
Trump. At least you get assassination attempt.
Now it auto-populates.
Here. Waltz.
Stolen. State pension.
Stolen valor.
It doesn't come up.
But then it comes up in search results.
Okay. Nice.
Yeah, so put it all in, or otherwise you're not going to get it.
Oh, that's just because, you know, it's digesting the new search terms.
It'll be ready in a week or two.
So the judge comes to the conclusion they have a monopoly, they exploit all these tying agreements to pay off billions so they can then jack up the prices of advertising based on the monopoly that they've acquired through unlawful monopolistic means.
And most importantly, prevent competition.
Prevent anybody from getting any degree of share.
Google doesn't have a natural monopoly on search.
Google has manipulated and illicitly and illegally contracted with a range of parties to create that monopoly and to economically discourage and incentivize free competition in a true free market with true free enterprise.
You're not allowed to compete.
With Google.
Because of these exclusive secret contracts that they have done with people like Apple, like all the Android makers, and the others.
That's why they have...
The reason why you...
Open your browser and it goes right to Google is because of these illegal, monopolistic, anti-competitive contracts.
The reason you open your phone and the only Play Store is the Google Play Store is because of these illegal, anti-competitive, monopolistic contracts.
That's why they exist.
And everybody's known it for a decade and a half.
And it just finally took conscientious attorneys general and conscientious people in the Justice Department at the Antitrust Division to take remedial action.
And it took a court that valued antitrust to enforce it.
People are predicting that there's going to be some, I know it's going to reshape the way people do business online.
What is going to be the practical outcome of this?
Look at what happened to Microsoft.
Microsoft was in a position to monopolize the internet browser market because Bill Gates understood the power of this.
He lost his antitrust suit and he was no longer in a position because they broke up parts of it, ordered other things to take place.
They basically stripped him of the capacity to monopolize the browser market.
So what happens when they order Google to sell YouTube?
Right? That's one of the things they can do.
They can order the breakup of Google.
What happens if they require Google no longer have these contracts enforced in this manner with web browsers and with cell phone makers?
What happens when they require that Google not be able to have dominance on Android phones?
So it's a radical restructuring of the marketplace is what's coming if there's meaningful and effective enforcement of this provision.
And it's what Trump and Vance and others should be campaigning on.
That, you know, your biggest opponents, these two cases, which is not a coincidence that Rumble is in their goal in both.
Rumble's provided evidence and testimony to the Justice Department, Attorney General's, and his prosecution of Google, and has two of the leading private action cases.
Now, by the way, if you look at Rumble's suit, for example, against the woke advertisers, and I think you could extend what Google's doing here with YouTube, the other people that might be able to bring suit, It might be a fun little project for 1776 Law Center to take a look at.
But it's critical to not only restructuring our economy to be open and free in the world of big tech for these unnatural monopolies.
They're as unnatural as Pete Buttigieg pretending to be a woman to breastfeed his kids.
I mean, it's that level of unnatural.
Is that you could also restore free and transparent elections in the United States.
You could also just read Robert Epstein's work on how Google completely shapes election outcomes around the world.
Globally, you could have an impact.
You could have an impact on honest, independent news for the first time, to have access to it at a broader, bigger basis, wider basis, wider reach.
You could influence, you could restore cultural norms to our culture rather than the degeneracy being celebrated by these insane woke people who want to destroy it from the inside.
So this is the legal fulcrum by which you could completely restructure our elections, culture, and economy.
And the power here is massive in antitrust.
You can order them to broken up.
You can order them to sell different components.
You can order them to no longer exercise certain kinds of authority or power through your injunction actions.
This is a devastating ruling for Google, but it also is devastating for the woke monopolist.
That depend on that monopoly for promoting their cultural degeneracy and attacks on the United States and for those trying to fix our elections.
It's all of it.
There's no greater power than the antitrust power to reshape and restructure American society.
And this was a first critical, essential step in that direction.
It's wild.
Robert, okay, so I don't know what we want to get into next.
I'm going to bring something up for our discussion on the UK.
But before we get there, and speaking of stuff, let me catch up on some of the tips on...
Oh, don't you backtrack, because then I lose everything.
Okay, Barnes, the plan to kill a swamp, blame Iran, go to war.
This week, FBI thwarts Iranian Trump to kill a plot.
FBI met with PERP in New York.
Remember the phone call?
The Crook's house, D.C. in New York.
Yeah, I mean, clearly they had planned on blaming Iran for the assassination attempt on Trump.
Now they're blaming Iran for the hack on Trump.
Does that really make sense?
I mean, is Iran so in love with the democratic government they really care about Trump?
That story screams deep state fake.
Everything about it.
A deep state deep fake is all the anti-Iran stuff concerning Trump, in my opinion.
Entry acquired.
Remind me.
Yes, they got me one of the magnetic fishing kits.
Too bad it doesn't work on the dropped iPhones, but hope you and the kids enjoy using it.
We do.
Lost Corps.
Don the Pleb did a great breakdown of Vance and Waltz's military awards on X. I'll definitely look at that.
Matt G. Hammond says, in case you missed my super chat, can you ask Barnes about the Third Amendment violation by the Secret Service who broke into a salon to use the restroom?
We're going to get there.
During tonight's show.
Just Thinking says, Garm going belly up will be just like Journalist.
It will pop back up with a new name like Journalist.
Yeah, they're going to rename.
Well, the entities are still there, so it's not bankrupt.
It's just the initiative is no longer doing damage, but the entities are still there.
Viva Magnets, iPhone, water no good, Ziploc bag, duct tape, etc.
You can fix anything with duct tape.
There is time to...
Well, I'm not...
Trud? There will never be a time for violence because it just won't do what you think it's going to do.
Cultivated Mind says, Viva, I sent you a Rumble ad yesterday.
I got that one.
King of Biltong in the house says, Good afternoon from Anton's.
Free shipping on your Biltong using code VIVA, BiltongUSA.com, AntonUSA.com.
Never bought shares, but bought Rumble shares this week.
So did I, by the way.
And will be bi-weekly to support Rumble.
Biden said he defeated Big Pharma during his term.
Kamala is currently campaigning to lower Big Pharma prices.
Robert, it doesn't make sense.
Kamala's promises are empty.
They're as empty as she is that she's claiming she'll fix what she helped break.
No question.
That was from Snuggle Struggle.
Marxists and their earl, Ilk, have correlated competition into being synonymous with criminal.
Trillions are recklessly borrowed, spent, and the working class are stuck with 56,025% taken by the government.
The radon we have with monopoly is because government intervened in the economy to save the problem 100 years ago.
T1990 says the truth of most forms of regulations that there is...
They are there to ensure monopolistic status of the individuals and companies paying off the politicians.
Get the government out of the economy.
Illegal monopolization is the only possible because government intervention in the economy.
All of a sudden, Newsom wants to clean up California, says Denise J. Smith.
Ginger Ninja says, I'm not usually able to catch y'all live Sundays.
Just popped in to say hi.
Booyah! Snuggles the quarterings in the house.
Many praise companies like Walmart.
I see quick path to Cuban-style markets, just Walmart-brand items that hike all costs for their brand goods because their competitors were forced into bankruptcy.
The Quartering says, if you don't follow the Quartering on Rumble after this stream, then every fish Niva catches for the next seven years will be eaten by alligators.
Quartering, that would make for very monetizable content.
So everyone check out the Quartering.
He's trying to get to a big round number.
What is it?
It's 300,000?
Harry Toe says, if you don't eat Anton's Biltong and follow the quartering, then you hate America.
And then T1990 says, again, look into companies like Google, Microsoft.
You will find they are paying off politicians left and right.
That's why they have monopolistic status.
Okay. Okay, we did it.
The salon, Robert.
What are they doing?
I don't even know what they're doing.
They needed to go to the bathroom and they can't do it behind a tree like a normal person?
It's the Secret Service used to being the Secret Service.
We watched a couple of weeks ago on the board the Saturday movie night.
This week was the shooter, which was really good, about how assassinations can work, how the deep state can operate under certain conditions and circumstances.
But In the Line of Fire had a more celebrated view of the Secret Service.
The more real, like you had some back in the 80s and early 90s, the reality of the Secret Service, as Mark Robert has detailed in America's untold stories, going back to the Kennedy assassination, is that at the top, it's been a very corrupt institution.
It doesn't mean there's nobody good that works there, just like with school teachers, as somebody mentioned in the chat.
There are plenty of school teachers that are good people, but the people who dominate the public school teaching trade over the last several decades are ideologically corrupt who can't wait but to indoctrinate our kids, as one teacher bragged about at a recent Kamala Harris rally.
So it's the nature of the sort of popular front ideology of communists and leftists is to infiltrate institutions that have disparate influence on the public mind, and thus the...
The focus on teaching, the focus on advertising, the focus on human resources.
They're no fools, and that's how they achieved a cultural revolution in basically a decade.
Things that would be considered wacky and insane just a decade ago are now normalized, and questioning it, list you as a hate speech advocate that will get your entire platform you publish on.
Blacklisted from marketing and advertising as the Rumble and Elon Musk lawsuits detail.
So it just shows kind of the nature of the animal.
But the Secret Service just decided to usurp a woman's salon to break into the property, open up her bathroom for anybody to use.
Without any permission.
What they committed was trespass.
What they committed was burglary.
I mean, they could be prosecuted under local state law, theoretically.
Not that anybody is going to do it.
They'll argue federal immunity, but was that within their official duties?
Robert, it might have been their official duties.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Okay, never has that been more applicable of a joke.
I don't even understand the rationale.
They do it because they can, because they can't go to Any other place to use a restroom publicly?
I mean, in a public place?
I mean, what they needed to do if they needed extra restroom...
I mean, obviously they probably did some inadequate planning, but it gives you a sense of the mindset and mentality.
We're the Secret Service.
We can do whatever we want, whatever we need.
And they tape up the camera so that they don't get seen except you get seen putting the tape up?
Stupid! Kind of like when the shooting happens in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Well, give Trump credit.
He says he's going to go back to Butler, and he's going to start his speech with, as I was saying, only Trump could be having fun with his own assassination attempt.
The complete lack of fear.
Can you imagine Kamala Harris?
If anybody took a shot at her, you wouldn't see her in a public setting for six years.
She's scared of journalists asking questions.
Totally different mindset and mentality there.
But I think it's what Rogan said recently.
When Rogan praised Kennedy as he has throughout, people interpreted that to mean he was going to vote for Kennedy.
He came out and said, I'm not endorsing anyone.
I never have.
I like Robert Kennedy, but I have respect for how Trump handled the assassination attempt.
And so maybe the prior anti-Trump statements that Rogan had made, he was saying, put that in some balance.
The guy showed some real cojones there.
But you get a sense for it.
The Secret Service, when they want to, can assert all kinds of power.
In the movie The Shooter, made over a decade ago, they're talking about how their perimeter is always up to a mile.
Kind of interesting.
Did that suddenly change between now and then?
Were the Hollywood screenwriters completely off base?
With what the basis was?
But of course, a lot of their cameras and techs and other things that just didn't work.
But you can see, when it's a local salon, they want to break in and use for whatever purposes they want.
They just put a little tape over the security camera, burglarize the building, and leave it open for as long as they want.
So it gives you a sense of the mindset of the people that are in power in the Secret Service.
They just happen to get caught this time.
Now, Kenji Su, Because of all the immunity issues, it's tough to sue.
So, I mean, that's the problem.
She would have to find a claim that's cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because that's the only act that's seen as having a waiver of sovereign immunity.
The Bivens claims, thanks to, sadly, our conservatives on the Supreme Court, have been completely gutted, so you can't sue under civil rights laws.
The federal government, the civil rights laws only apply to state government officers and local officials.
They don't apply to the federal officials.
And the Bivens Act, Bivens has said that when they violate certain constitutional rights, you can sue, but they have drastically limited that to just the Fourth Amendment and certain Eighth Amendment circumstances for prisoners in custody.
That's it.
I mean, as a whole, otherwise you can't sue the federal government for monetary damages, for doing things like trespass, burglary, usurpation of property.
Robert, it's not going to be a segue, but it might be because, you know, just people knocking at your door.
I literally, I'm just paying attention to what's going on in the world.
I swear to you, I've never seen anything like this in my life.
It's like the UK government is deliberately trolling the world to make it look like Orwell's 1984.
This is from...
Hold on a second, let me get this out of here.
Get out of here.
What are the lead UK government?
We are the lead UK department for immigration and passport, crime, policing, homeland security, etc.
And they literally just put this up.
Knock, knock.
Anyone who commits violent disorder should be expecting a visit like this.
Hello, what's your name, Pete?
Yeah, love it.
Yeah, love it.
Yeah, love it, thank you.
Love it, thank you.
I've been expecting, yep.
It's one thing if it's just straight up flabbergasted.
It's one thing if they do it.
But then, remember when the grooming gangs that Tommy Robinson was covering?
Total blackout.
Media blackout.
You couldn't mention the names.
You couldn't show any video.
Good name.
Now the government is posting these, like, trophy catches, these trophy convictions of what's going on in the UK for posting stuff online, for throwing missiles, which means, like, a rock or anything, you know, you shouldn't do it, but missiles sounds a whole hell of a lot more intimidating than a stone.
And they're posting these videos to, like, just scare the shit out of everyone in the UK to terrorize them.
The government is the terror.
To quote that guy from that show, The House of Cards, But Robert, it's one of our topics for tonight.
Did you see that the law enforcement officer who said they were going to be looking at extraditing Americans based on their speech on the internet?
Well, the headline, I would say, might be a little bit hyperbolic.
They say they're going to extradite.
You don't just get to post things and then flee the country.
I think they're talking to Tommy Robinson, who has now been forced to, I don't know where he is, but to go somewhere.
And they're like, you don't just get to post and flee.
They're going to try to extradite Tommy.
America was trying to do to Julian Assange.
Robert, what are the chances in hell that they would...
What would have to happen between the UK government and any foreign government to extradite anybody based on social media?
Let's not say, like, I don't even know what it is, what you would have to do on the internet.
You threaten to murder someone.
Obviously, you would expect to face the consequences, but...
How would it even go about happening that any country would extradite to the UK for a social media post?
Well, what's interesting is this is a case that the Julian Assange precedent implicates.
And maybe in part, why the US settled it was before it could become a full precedent.
Because what that precedent established is that in UK courts, so for those people that don't know, Europe does not have the First Amendment.
Americans do.
And so attempting to extradite any American or any person who engaged in activity in America for activities protected under the First Amendment is not permissible under any of our extradition laws.
So they would have no right to extradite any American for First Amendment protected activity.
The second issue, though, is where there is a free speech protection.
It's one of the only benefits to their global laws there in Europe.
The various European conventions that they've all been signatories to is look at the Julian Assange case, which required certain kind of speech protections as applied to extradition, either request or grant by a European country.
So the UK would be restrained from even requesting extradition under those human rights conventions of European law.
So I think mostly it was an empty threat.
But what it showed, and I think 90% of what they're doing is intended to be empty threats.
But the mere fact they're saying, what you comment now on social media in the United Kingdom can lead to criminal prosecution and years in prison shows you where Obama wanted to go.
Obama kept saying, if we could just get control of the misinformation problem.
Then everything would be fine.
Hillary Clinton planned on implementing these kind of policies.
You now have a Labour government in charge in the UK for the first time since, I think, Tony Blair and his successors.
And you're seeing how nuts these people are.
This is what, I mean, Tim Walsh, the VP candidate, has publicly stated how he doesn't value free speech and thinks the same way the Labour Party does.
The same way his ideal...
The Communist Chinese Party has behaved.
And this is a guy.
I mean, it was amazing.
Their degree of disconnect.
They're putting out signs about my body, your choice.
How terrible that is.
These are the people that just mandated vaccines on everybody.
Do they have no self-awareness at all?
I think they have no self-awareness, or they are just means to an end, and they'll justify whatever they want to do in the moment that they're doing.
And this Walsh, I believe in small-town freedom.
Really? He had one of the worst lockdowns in the country, in the world.
He had a snitch.
He had a snitch line.
A rat line.
Rat out your neighbor if they don't comport with my extreme lockdown policies.
I mean, that's why he is...
Mostly despised in small-town Minnesota.
His support in small-town Minnesota collapsed in 2022.
The only thing that saved him is all the commie Swedes that exist in Minnesota and the Twin Cities, which is like little mini Commieville.
And they're over half the vote in that state.
Otherwise, he would have lost because he got crushed in the rural and small town parts of the state, including the Norwegian parts of the state, which are the more populous parts of Minnesota.
So but this is a guy who and there's been too little talk.
I hope Vance discusses it in the VP debate.
I know there's some people at the top of the Trump campaign, you know, like Susan Wiles, who's a lobbyist for Pfizer, who doesn't want anything discussed about the vaccines, doesn't want anything discussed about the lockdowns, who supported the lockdowns, who's trying to undermine the Trump campaign from within.
Along with Chris LaSivita at the Republican National Committee, who's busy doing the same thing.
It's the reason why the RNC is nowhere near the skilled, capable people to monitor the 2024 election.
You have the Pennsylvania Department of State.
And it's that same Pennsylvania Department of State that issued its comment this week that said, we're not going to know the outcome of the election on election night.
And if you see results come in and they suddenly change a few days later, that's totally normal.
No, it isn't.
Venezuela can count their votes by the end of the night.
Venezuela! I mean, how in the world can we not count our votes on the same night?
But it gives you an idea of the mindset and the mentality of these corrupt agencies.
But the fact that Waltz and Harris have the same view as the United Kingdom when it comes to free speech, which is they don't believe in it.
They believe it should be censored under emergency exceptions, public health exceptions.
Public safety exceptions gives you a mindset of the dangers of what we face.
But the UK has no constitutional authority or legal basis to request the extradition of any American based on their speech in America.
What about a Canadian residing in America?
Game protection applies.
Because I did tell them to go fuck themselves multiple times.
Only twice.
Only twice.
And I called them a redcoat.
I now understand the redcoat, Robert.
There's a judge.
I gotta bring it up.
He's literally wearing a redcoat.
This is a judge who's admonishing somebody as he sentences them to 20 months.
For participating in...
You have been committed for sentence, having pleaded guilty to an offense of publishing written material, which is threatening, abusive, or insulting.
Publishing written material, which is threatening...
It's insulting.
Insulting. I mean, it just gives you...
UK has completely lost its way.
Completely lost its way.
It's why we separated from them in the first part.
So they're back to their kingly way.
I love the replies because when they don't disable the replies, they just get dumped on.
It's the only thing that people have left.
Other than violence, it's public shaming and just revealing them as the tyrants that they are.
It's Gestapo.
This is Gestapo-level Orwellian rubbish.
Okay. There was something else I was going to ask you.
Well, actually, now that you mentioned it, there was a bit of drama.
I think everyone overreacted, and I even think Trump might have overreacted to Rogan's...
It was never an endorsement.
He's just saying the guy's got some good characteristics and whatever.
Look, we want Trump to win.
I mean, I think Trump has to win if there's going to be a future of elections and a future of America.
But that doesn't mean that everything he does is right because he did it.
I think he could have not...
Put out that tweet.
And it's still humor.
Humor translates badly on Twitter and on Truth.
Wait until Joe...
See how badly Rogan gets booed at the next UFC event.
They'll make up and they'll make friends and all will be well.
But does he have some bad advices, Robert?
No, I mean, I think Trump's just instinctually reacting and probably represents the...
Rogan has been very negative towards Trump historically.
So, I mean, he's refused to interview Trump despite multiple requests by Trump for an interview.
So, Rogan hasn't hidden his animosity towards Trump.
It's moderated over the last year or so.
And he said, you know, favorable things about how gutsy Trump's reaction was to his attempted assassination.
So, but Rogan is not a Trump fan.
And Rogan never will be a Trump fan.
And so, I guess some people had forgot that.
I have no doubt when Rogan goes into the ballot box, he's going to be voting for Robert Kennedy.
That represents who Rogan is.
I'm sure Russell Brand is going to do the same thing, who had a humorous endorsement message for Robert Kennedy that got posted on social media.
But the certain public reaction, I thought, was excessive.
Once again, if you want to advocate that you think Trump is the only solution and that you think that thus Trump should be the only person anyone considers voting for, argue, in my view, if you want to be persuasive, don't be antagonistic.
Here's why you think these positive results can only happen with a vote for Trump.
Just make that positive argument.
That has always worked better, particularly in appealing to people considering third-party or independent candidates.
Say, well, only Trump can win.
So tell him, oh, you're just throwing away your vote.
Okay, that generally isn't persuasive.
So instead make other positive arguments for why you think Trump will be a lot better.
But recognize that people like Rogan that come from that tradition, people who are not religiously conservative, That, in fact, have some skepticism towards religious conservatives.
That a lot of those people are probably not going to vote Trump.
And in that situation, you want them to vote for Kennedy instead of Harris.
So, you know, there's, I mean, Richard Barris and I have discussed it.
Barris has discussed it separately.
A smart campaign knows how to push certain voters to a different alternative.
That you know how, okay, all right, so there's some people that won't vote for me, but I can get them not to vote for my opponent.
How do I do that?
And there's ways to do that other than negative messaging about your opponent.
You can push a third-party independent candidate.
So there's smart ways to handle this.
Was his tweet or truth the smartest way to handle it?
No, it wasn't.
But I think it was an emotional response that was an aggregate.
Of Rogan dissing Trump for the last several years.
I think that's what you saw.
And he just went with, hey Joe, you make a lot of money on UFC.
Be careful on coming after me given how it might work with your UFC audience.
That's what Trump was saying.
A little shot across the bow.
I didn't have a problem with it.
But I think everybody else's reaction was over the top and unproductive.
Now, Tim Pool...
Tim Pool has been trying out his troll, his Michael Malice troll routine over the past year.
And he put out he was going to vote for Robert Kennedy after all this, just as a troll.
Thing is, all Kennedy camp believed it.
So Pool had explained, I was just trolling everybody.
I'm going to vote for Trump.
But like the reaction to Rittenhouse, there are persuasive ways to argue, though, for those people.
Who you think should vote for Trump instead of Kennedy.
And those arguments, I would suggest, are more effective than attacking them.
Attacking them is going to encourage them to harden their position to not vote Trump.
And I can appreciate you.
Sometimes you can attack someone, and even if you push them further away, you can use that to convince others, which might have been the tactic with...
Rittenhouse was a little bit easier to browbeat into submission.
That won't work on Rogan.
And also, I'm going to bring up Patrick Beddavid.
I won't play the whole thing.
It's a little bit long.
I didn't put something together that PBD did and that you obviously did as well.
The relationship with Dana White, Joe Rogan, UFC, and Donald Trump.
There was a better way to do it.
MAGA and Trump community, I'm a little bit concerned, and there's a blind spot I want to bring up to you.
What benefit do you get from calling out Joe Rogan for complimenting RFK?
What benefit?
What benefit do you get from saying, I wonder how people are going to boom at the next UFC fight when Joe Rogan walks in?
Do you realize who are the only two names that have been constant the last 20 years in the UFC brand?
One guy's name is Dana White, who is feared and respected.
The other guy's name is Joe Rogan, who is loved, liked, and respected.
You think UFC is going to flip on Joe because he complimented You think they're going to do that?
And why would you even call out Joe Rogan when Joe Rogan is friends with Dana and put Dana in a tough spot to have to defend UN Joe and obviously Dana's a...
We can stop it there.
I'll give everyone a link to this.
It's fantastic.
PBD is obviously a very smart man.
The smartest...
I mean, I get what Trump is doing.
Trump is just setting a shot across the bow to Rogan.
To be careful because Trump might have influence with his audience in a way that could impact Rogan's bottom line.
And I have long stated that I think Rogan is far more of a business pragmatist than he would let the world believe, put it that way.
I have respect for a lot of independent positions he's taken, but I think money tends to be the guidepost for Joe, more often than not.
Just putting it out there.
I've said that many times before.
And I think that's what Trump is shooting at.
So Trump's not really trying to impact the public debate.
Trump's trying to let Joe know, I get you have a big platform.
I can damage your brand.
It's like what Trump did with Rupert Murdoch and Fox in 2016.
So you guys keep coming after me.
I won't show up at your debate and we'll destroy your brand.
Think twice about that.
It's the same kind of dynamic.
So this response I'd have an issue with.
But it was all the audience.
By the way, all they did is create a Barbra Streisand effect.
I mean, RFK trended for three days in a row on Twitter.
That's all they did, was get attention to Kennedy.
Get attention to Kennedy.
So if you don't want attention to Kennedy, a pretty bad way to do it is to keep talking about how other people like Kennedy.
That's probably not a smart move, folks.
Did you just call it the Barbra Streisand effect?
Isn't it the Barbra Streisand effect?
I've never heard the Barbra.
It's the Streisand effect, but I thought that was kind of funny.
That's our first name, isn't it?
No, I don't think I've ever heard anybody go both first and last name.
Okay, good.
It's not the end of the world.
It'll blow over, especially once...
Generally speaking, with a third-party candidate, the way you reach their voters is by reaching positively on where you overlap with issues.
Donald Trump completely controls how many Trump voters vote for candidates.
That's 100% in Donald Trump's control.
And what won't work is bashing those voters.
What will work is finding areas of common overlap, whether that's medical freedom, whether that's food freedom.
Look at financial freedom, because that'll be a good bridge.
Look at how much he has embraced.
You went from being a skeptic and a critic and kind of sounded like a boomer talking about crypto just a year ago to today celebrating it.
Don Jr. and Eric.
Are looking at creating a platform for crypto, monetizing the Trump brand affiliated deeper with crypto.
The Winklevoss twins are out there bashing co-founders of Facebook until Zuckerberg stole it from them.
Out there supporting all the Silicon Valley money that got organized for Trump.
It's all tied, folks, to crypto.
So Trump is getting this big boost.
And Robert Kennedy showed over the last year there's a lot of political juice by backing crypto.
Trump finally woke up to it, and since he's embraced it, he's getting a lot of that financial support.
He's getting a lot of that public support.
He's getting a lot of that monetary support.
That's the right way to deal with a third-party independent candidate.
Find where you overlap and positively appeal to those voters based on where you overlap.
There's other smart, creative ways, which Barris and I will talk about on What Are the Odds?, which usually will occur every Monday at 2 p.m.
Eastern. Depending on the circumstances.
Which you can find at People's Pundit Daily on YouTube and Rumble and Locals.
And he's doing independent public policy, public project polling to give you real independent data rather than all the crap you're going to be getting from Nate Cohn, Nate Silver, that crap.
But that's the sort of smart way to handle that.
And that's a good bridge into look at one of the big cases that highlights this, which is Ripple against the SEC.
So what is the news in that?
They handed down the fines on Ripple and there's an appeal obviously pending?
To my understanding, it's the final judgment.
And the final judgment, I don't know what the full status of what can be appealed is.
But the final judgment is what Ripple was doing was not a security.
Because the Securities and Exchange Commission waging war on crypto, along with the Treasury Department, at times along with the Federal Reserve.
At the behest and on the behalf of the Biden administration.
And Elizabeth Warren, who wants to kill crypto and says so publicly over and over again, because it is such an independent source.
It's sovereignty.
It's power.
It's financial freedom.
If you don't control your body, you don't own anything.
That's medical freedom.
Same with food freedom.
If you don't have direct access to organically made food in the natural way and you control it, which is about the farmer and the customer, the consumer on both sides, that's food freedom.
And it's key to bodily autonomy, which is key to sovereignty, which is key to civil rights and civil liberties.
But financial freedom is as essential as any of it because it's stripping from central planners and central banks the ability to control your life through money, whether it's a central bank digital currency or what we've had over the last century.
With the Federal Reserve and the Eurodollar system and the like.
Bitcoin poses a direct threat to that.
And crypto poses a direct threat to that.
And the way they've tried to attack it is they've tried to pretend that the altcoins they're selling or Bitcoin that they're selling is a security.
They've also tried to pretend that it's an income-producing activity instead of property for taxation purposes.
And then the Treasury Department has been going after financial institutions for allowing crypto to be exchanged or used in any particular manner.
And so you've got this war on crypto.
And the first part of that war, first prong of that war, was against Ripple to try to declare what Ripple was doing was selling unregistered securities.
And if they were able to win on that, they could completely gut and eviscerate the Bitcoin economy and the crypto economy.
They failed.
Federal judge said Ripple was not selling a security.
What Ripple was doing, what its coins were, were not unregistered securities.
Huge win out of the gate.
Hopefully they're able to protect that win on appeal because crypto is critical to the future of political freedom as financial freedom.
And credit to Trump for showing how you appeal to Kennedy voters.
You just find their issues that you can overlap with and you take them.
The big dog pushes the little dog aside and eats the little dog's food.
That's what you do when you're the candidate who has the best chance of winning on populist issues.
You just grab as many of those as you can, and you'll suck up all those votes because people like to vote for someone who can win.
I'm just reading an article here because I had thought that there were fines being issued or the judge was talking about issuing fines, but I don't see that.
Oh, no, it says...
Hold on a second here.
It says, SEC considered next steps.
The federal judge's recent ruling has delivered a decisive blow to the SEC's case, imposing a $125 million penalty on Ripple, a far cry from the judge's initial $2 billion.
While the SEC has yet to officially throw in the towel, the prevailing wisdom among legal experts...
All right, I guess I don't understand what the nature of the fine is.
The fine was on other activities.
But the big ruling was, was this a security or not?
And they said no.
The judge said no.
Okay, interesting.
All right, well, what does this segue into now?
I know we got a lot of COVID cases, but let me just get our email list of what's on.
Well, we got, you know, speaking of freedom, the other area where money and freedom interact or intersect is free speech.
And so some states, in this case, Indiana, passed a law to prohibit independent expenditures.
And for those people, I mean, this is where I, this is a place I disagree with Kennedy and disagree with a range of folks.
On campaign finance, in my view, campaign finance control is giving the state the power to allow a donor class elite as a class to control what messages you hear and what candidates you find out about.
And the assumption of sort of what you could call the populist left has been if you could somehow get money out of politics or you could control the amount of money in politics, that the net effect of that would be to maximize honest democracy.
I've never agreed.
What you do with campaign finance caps and independent expenditure caps is, first of all, you can prohibit speech now by just labeling, well, you have a right to speak, you just don't have the right to spend any money to help your speech, to express your speech, to reach.
There's speech and there's reach for more people to reach through your speech.
And that would utterly gut First Amendment freedoms because it's almost impossible to express yourself without spending some sort of money.
And if they can use, oh, we're just controlling the money as the pretext, they could say, okay, you can have a podcast as long as you spend no more than $5.
Well, all of a sudden you have completely eviscerated the ability to free speech.
Right? Unless you get our regulatory permission first.
So this is why it was a very dangerous legal precept to say you could, through controlling money, effectively state monopolize speech.
And what the Supreme Court has said is that the only thing that can legitimize campaign finance controls is transparency.
You can always require transparency, disclosures of who's funding what, when, and where, as long as it doesn't offend anonymous speech principles.
And it's to avoid quid pro quo corruption, or the perception of it, or at least to have public knowledge, okay, this candidate is backed by this group of people or this individual.
And to avoid, if they're allowed to give anything, the fear is that that would create quid pro quo corruption fears.
Now to me, transparency suffices for that.
So I'm not in favor of campaign finance donation limits either.
There's a hundred ways to get around it.
All you do with all these regulatory restrictions on campaign funding is you help the more sophisticated groups, the wealthier groups, find creative ways to subvert it and preclude the independent dissident from having an impact.
Imagine if you could prohibit a candidate like Trump, for example, from spending his own money on behalf of a campaign.
All of a sudden, If you look at any group, what happens when you put in these campaign finance limits?
This is what I think Robert Kennedy is missing, and the other critics are missing.
You don't remove money from politics.
Money from politics exists because of reach.
In order to reach people, you're going to have to spend money.
That isn't changing.
You don't magically change that by putting a limit on who can donate what.
And that's problem one.
That there's a cap.
I think it's currently $3,300 per election cycle.
What you're doing is you're prohibiting the dissident problem.
And so you're actually helping the establishment with these campaign finance caps.
You're helping corruption with campaign finance caps.
And so what happens, like what happened in Indiana, the pro-life cause had some big wealthy donors that wanted to help.
Now, if you went to the donor class as a group, right, because you can only donate $5,000 to a cause, say, then you require the entire donor class to have a consensus in support of that issue or candidate.
You effectively, you now have country club permission slips, right?
You got to get approval of a majority of the members before you can come in.
That's the idea.
You don't want any Rodney Dangerfields walking in.
And taking over Caddyshack-style to the club.
Or Jackie Gleason's.
And so that's what campaign finance control does, is it empowers the donor class as a class to control candidates' and causes' ability to reach people.
And what it prohibits is that one rich guy.
Like, you look at the American Revolution, you look at any peasant rebellions, almost any revolution that's ever happened.
What led to the Magna Carta and everything else.
You're going to find there was a dissident group of people within the power structure who disagreed with the ideology of a majority of the power structure and were willing to leverage their resources to change the world, often to the benefit of people outside the power structure.
That's who George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Sam Adams and John Adams and Ben Franklin, that's who they were, dissident members of the power structure.
So what the power structure is always trying to do is prohibit and prevent and preclude those dissidents from having political effect.
And they do it by, we want honesty in campaigns.
So we need to have a limit on how much you can spend for a candidate or for a cause.
And what that does is it effectively allows the donor class to exercise a veto as a class on which causes their candidates are able to reach people.
And in Indiana, the...
Correctly, they said, look, when it applies to independent expenditures, the quid pro quo justification for campaign finance donations, which never made sense to me, but that exists for that, clearly doesn't apply to a cause-based expenditure.
There is no quid pro quo corruption even possible.
They're just spending money for an idea they support.
And that's pure speech.
And you can't control that by calling it a monetary control.
So a great ruling that struck down states' efforts.
to cap the amount of money you can spend on behalf of speech.
My view is I'm for maximum transparency with some protection for anonymity in certain aspects of speech, obviously more important in the doxing age, but for nothing more because anything more will just help the establishment monopolize power over who can reach whom in a campaign.
Well, speaking of campaign finance fraud and whatnot, Robert, Smartmatic is back in the news and it's...
I was told they're one of the most ethical, honest, independent organizations.
Rupert Murdoch wrote him a big fat check along with Dominion.
They said that there's no fraud.
There's no criminality involving its executives.
No, because this doesn't have anything to do with the voting machines.
It has to do with the procurement of contracts.
Because once a criminal, not always a criminal, right?
Well, so the co-founder has been indicted on fraud bribery, criminal bribery, for paying a million bucks or bribing his way into the elections in the Philippines.
So it's criminal bribery to get the contracts.
What's amazing is that...
This all predates 2020.
This is 2015, 2017, give or take.
The authorities obviously knew about this.
I mean, I don't know how long they've been researching the indictment, but I don't know.
I'd like to know if they were investigating this prior to the contracts for 2020 or prior to everyone saying Smartmatic and Dominion are the most kosher of the kosherist hot dogs out there.
It's Hebrew National by way of election voting machines.
But the guy's been indicted for bribery, fraudulently trying to get in the contracts for the elections in the Philippines.
And it goes back to 2017, before the 2020 election.
Look, some people might give you a hard time because we were not among the many jumping on the bandwagon of the ghost of Hugo Chavez and servers being raided and votes flipping on the machines.
But there's overt, egregious, at least alleged criminality now that the co-founder has been indicted.
What do you make of it?
What are the impacts of this?
And does Smartmatic still get contracts for the 2024 election?
Well, I mean, Smartmatic itself had a limited footprint in the United States' 2020 presidential election.
The Dominion had a much bigger footprint, but even Dominion was not present in a majority of votes in a majority of counties.
This was something that the people that got obsessed with Dominion and Smartmatic missed.
And there was a legal relationship and proprietary software purchases between Software and Dominion.
That also led to more confusion than good direction.
We still have the...
So I think in those aspects, nothing about this case sheds a lot of light on the 2020 election.
What it does shed light on is the problems of allowing these kind of big corporations to count votes, to be involved in the vote counting process, to be involved...
In the ballot printing process that interrupts and interferes with the ballot chain of custody, that is an ongoing issue.
And so I think, and it reveals that I don't understand yet why Fox wrote that check other than some secret backdoor deal so that he's really recycling money back to himself and could use it as a pretext to go after Trump and Trump allies inside the Fox News organization.
Because there were many grounds to justify what Fox communicated or allowed to be communicated during the 2020 election concerning Dominion and Smartmatic.
But Smartmatic, these companies scream the kind of corrupt, almost military-industrial-complex-type contractors that you shouldn't trust.
And this is further example, illustrative example of that.
We shouldn't have so many machines involved in the elections.
It's clearly the case the machines are not facilitating They go digital so that you get immediate results, and yet somehow you need to wait days.
We have the slowest.
I mean, the places with machines, places like California, are the slowest.
I mean, it takes them months.
Find the other country anywhere in the world that takes as long as California takes to count ballots.
The state of Pennsylvania is promising in advance that they're going to take forever to count ballots.
And that, by golly, that vote count just might change.
I mean, while the State Department is condemning the Venezuelan elections, declaring one party the winner, while the government declares somebody else a winner, and there's many more problems in the U.S. elections than there were in the Venezuelan elections.
So it reveals the hypocrisy and duplicity.
But fundamentally, it says those people that are critics of the executives at Dominion and Smartmatic Got further affirmation for their skepticism in the indictment of high-ranking Smartmatic-connected former executives to their criminality that they engaged in, contrary to what the media is talking about, on behalf of Smartmatic related to these indictments.
All right, we've got a few things left.
Let me try to catch up on some of the rumble rants, and then we're going to probably wind up with a couple more subjects here.
What do you think the possibility of Kamala being assassinated and Hillary bravely stepping forward to take her place?
Well, we know the Secret Service are useless twats.
I mean, it's like, we'll see if they can protect anything.
Ham sandwich.
That was from MDJ83.
Sad Wings Raging says the UK is Fabian socialism reaching its final form.
Lost in West Virginia says Waltz claims misinformation is not protected First Amendment, protected speech.
Could the UK attempt extraditing using Waltz's claim?
We talked about that.
Razor Fist said it best.
State Electoral College win.
Okay, the reason the UK is having the problems is because Tony Blair's reforms back in the 90s.
Smuggle struggle.
Snuggle struggle.
So many leftists readily believe in so much misinformation, propaganda, and lies that the newly found religious icons accuse.
I've run across countless Dems who claim the failed assassination is a conspiracy.
They're nuts.
Also, years ago, Pew Research did a study into the dissemination in...
And consumption of propaganda.
They found the left disseminate and consume the most, but leftists freaked out, making them take it down.
Viva, I commented on your paralyzed dog.
I had issues with my Maltese, so I found Ultra K9 Pro, which detoxed the dogs and puts minerals and vitamins in their body.
They lack more of what Pudge is doing.
She's been paralyzed for damn near nine years now.
Rep Scout says, Viva Barnes, question, I'm working on a website to provide...
Public track records for U.S. government officials sent in as reps.
Post-launch, would you be able to hear more and maybe have a short conversation?
Let me screen grab that.
No promises.
There's a lot of stuff.
Okay, now, I'm going to stop screen.
What do we do for the last topics on Rumble?
And what are we saving for VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com?
So what we got left on Rumble, Tulsi Gabbard on a watch list, Scott Ritter rated.
RFK ballot fight against the Democratic National Committee, Trump, D.C., New York, and January 6th updates, Brooke Jackson, Amos Miller, and vaccine mandates.
And we could save the updates on Reketa, jury discrimination, and Yale COVID tuition for Rumble, for locals after party.
Save the Reketa for sure.
I want to know what's going on with that.
All right, what's going on with RFK?
They're challenging whether or not he's actually domiciled in New York to...
Take him off the ballot.
Yeah. I was told he has no chance.
Yeah, it's amazing.
The Democratic National Committee has been suing.
I mean, this is where people keep telling me, oh, Kennedy's definitely going to hurt Trump.
And that's what all the attacks on Rogan's perceived endorsement of him said.
Well, the Democratic Party doesn't agree with you because Trump is spending no money and no effort to keep Kennedy off the ballot or outside debates.
The Democratic Party is spending massive money, massive efforts, massive leverage to keep Robert Kennedy off the ballot.
So the Democratic Party's belief is that Kennedy hurts Harris more than Trump.
So you might disagree with their conclusion, but the fact they're spending the amount of money they're spending and using the amount of political leverage that they're using should tell you that they have a different conclusion and a dramatically different conclusion.
The latest scheme...
To engage in lawfare to keep Kennedy off the ballot is in New York.
And their grounds is that the...
So a bunch of people submitted petitions to sign saying we want Robert Kennedy on the ballot.
Now my view is these petition requirements in the first part are unconstitutional.
Historically, what happened was you used to have to pay an exorbitant fee to get on the ballot.
And the Supreme Court said...
That discriminates against people based on their income availability.
So you should be able to allow signature permits to get on the ballot instead.
So you submit petitions, and if you get enough signatures, you get on the ballot.
It's supposed to be a cheaper alternative than the fee.
States looked at this and they're like, oh yeah.
We'll require a ridiculous number of signatures to be submitted under a ridiculous time frame that will impose extraordinary scrutiny on, scrutiny they refuse to apply in the mail-in ballot context, by the way, to effectively increase the cost from, let's say, a $500 fee you had to pay to get on the ballot to now, in many states, $50,000, $100,000 plus dollars to get on the ballot.
It's cost Kennedy...
Millions of dollars to make sure these are organized because they impose all these strict legal limits on them.
In New York, they also tried to sabotage him getting on the ballot by infiltrating his petition signature organization and deliberately creating incorrect petitions that they could later challenge.
So they had infiltrators instigating...
Invalid petition signature gathering as a way to try to keep them off the bat.
That was their second mechanism.
Ultimately, that failed.
He got more signatures than that.
So they can't challenge...
The third way you challenge is you challenge when the signatures were gathered, you challenge how the signatures were gathered, you challenge the form that the signatures came in, or you challenge the signatures themselves.
And what's interesting here is they impose a strict standard for signature matching.
Your signature has to match what's on your voter registration file.
Your address has to match what's on your voter registration file.
Your name, let's say you get married.
If you use the wrong name, that signature struck.
So in other words, exponentially more stringent than what we saw in Georgia, which was nothing, and exponentially more stringent than, I guess, in Arizona as well.
Oh, even any of the mail-in balloting in 2020.
They impose no standards on those signatures, while they impose strict standards on whether you just get on the ballot or not.
Now, they know from public opinion surveys, the only grounds for any of this is they don't want the ballot to be too crowded.
That's the only constitutional excuse.
Justice Scalia said that was garbage, because they call it the phone book excuse.
Man, if we let anybody on the ballot, there'll be 10 million people who want to be on the ballot.
Turns out most people don't want to run for office.
Most people don't want to be politicians.
In states that have extremely low limits, you get no more than maybe nine candidates on the ballot.
But even so, they have the threshold for signatures, and so long as you can get a certain amount of signatures, then you should be allowed to be on the ballot.
In my view, you should be allowed on the ballot if there's simply independent support for either a small fee, small number of signatures, or...
Independent public opinion support that you're getting at least 1% of the polls.
That's it.
Because that would prohibit the too many candidates on the ballot nonsense.
They use ballot control, whether it's Russia, Venezuela, Iran, other countries, to keep out dissidents.
And America does it worse than all three of those countries combined.
You'll find more candidates for president on the Venezuelan ballot than you will on most American ballots.
Which tells you about what a scam this is.
The whole thing's a scam.
But all of those challenges fail by the Democratic Party.
So their new challenge is that the people who signed the petition, their signatures can't count simply because Kennedy was listed as the candidate and he was listed as a New York resident on those petitions.
Now this, by the way, I don't understand how the court's even hearing this.
Because, oh, okay, if the grounds are a candidate cannot qualify for the ballot, if anything they submit is inaccurate to the election commission or the state, Democratic Party, I think, has no understanding of the doors they're opening in a selective lawfare against Robert Kennedy, this legal war against Robert Kennedy, is, okay, if that counts, then why can't we sue?
To keep Kamala Harris off the ballot because she falsely stated that she's a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Right? Because when people did sue on Barack Obama's place on the ballot on those grounds, all the courts said, oh, no, no, no, no.
We have no authority to decide such matters.
Those matters are solely for Congress.
We can't decide that.
When they challenged John McCain, same grounds.
Now all of a sudden they challenge Robert Kennedy and, oh yeah, yeah, we have total authority to do that.
Which is it?
I mean, expose the hypocrisy of the court system, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, but based on this precedent of them allowing a hearing, I think people who don't believe Kamala Harris is a natural-born U.S. citizen for purposes of the Constitution to qualify for the presidency now have legal precedent to sue to strike her from the ballot based on the...
Democratic Party's own legal warfare against Robert Kennedy.
Now let's get to the substance.
The substantive claim against Kennedy is ludicrous.
An honest court would have already dismissed this on jurisdiction grounds, if not the substantive ground.
Your domicile is not where you physically live every day.
Legal domicile is a state of mind.
It has always been a state of mind.
And they use this, by the way, If you want the best law on domicile, let's say you want to argue that you are legally domiciled in a particular place, even though you no longer physically live there.
For example, I've maintained my legal domicile in Tennessee for forever because Tennessee is my home.
Tennessee is always going to be my home.
That's always been the case.
However, in places like California, they will tax you based on their understanding of domicile.
And New York has been especially aggressive.
Because if you've been a resident there and physically present in the state for a certain amount of time, then you're subject to New York income tax.
Or you're legally domiciled there.
And so there are people that have moved from New York who set up residence, in one case in Florida, got their voter registration in Florida.
Got their driver's license in Florida, paid tax as a Florida resident, and yet the state of New York said, nah, nah, nah, you're still legally domiciled here in New York.
And the reason is, their business was based in New York, and their occupational license was a New York occupational license.
Well, let's look at Robert Kennedy's case.
Well, in his case, he's maintained an ongoing legal residence in New York from the time he's 10 years old.
Registered to vote, always in New York.
Driver's license, in New York.
His election history, all in New York, in terms of voting.
His tax history, he's been paying New York income taxes all this time.
Why would you do that unless you're legally domiciled in New York?
And his law license is a New York law license.
That is the basis of his profession and occupation.
So by all of New York's precedent, he is a legally domiciled resident in New York.
If this was a tax case, they would conclude beyond doubt he is a New York resident.
So why is this even still being litigated?
Oh, because his wife's an actress and they have a home in L.A. That's a ridiculous basis of the claim.
They're arguing residency issues that are specific to residency, not domicile.
Domicile does not equal residency.
Residency does not equal domicile.
It is a legal state of mind that has historically been looked at driver's licenses, voter registration, tax payments, and your occupational licensure.
Those have been the four major premises, and all four say Kennedy's clearly illegally domiciled resident of New York.
So this is a frivolous claim brought by a Democratic Party that just wants to engage in lawfare against Robert Kennedy.
To suppress dissidents from having independent access to the ballot so the people get to decide who we want to vote for, not who the politicians want to dictate who we can vote for.
But hypothetically, you get a partisan political activist judge and they determine...
There's tons in New York, so you have to keep fighting this.
And they're going to use this to fight them everywhere else.
So, I mean, he's had to spend millions on his own security because the Biden administration wrongfully denied him Secret Service protection, despite having one of the highest threat risks and assassination risk in the country, even though his father was assassinated, he was running for president, his Uncle John was assassinated as president, and he has been threatened routinely and repeatedly at a high level, refused protection.
Why? So they could drain his budget so he couldn't campaign, so he couldn't spend money reaching voters.
And in the same capacity, spent all this lawfare, so he had to spend millions and millions of dollars, time in court, just like they did to Trump.
And is it a coincidence they used the New York courts?
I mean, the New York courts are becoming a joke.
They don't recognize and respect the rule of law in New York.
The next administration, hopefully it's a Trump administration, turns the Civil Rights Department on full-time.
To go after these corrupt prosecutors, corrupt politicians, and corrupt politicians wearing robes, known as judges, and start civilly suing them and criminally indicting them for the bastardization of the legal system for political weaponization purposes that's taken place here.
And it transitions into...
They're not limiting it to Bobby Kennedy.
They're not limiting it to Donald Trump.
They're raiding Scott Ritter's house.
They're monitoring and spying and putting...
Tulsi Gabbard on a watch list.
This is way out of control.
Well, so I'll bring this up afterwards.
It's Jamie Ratface.
I'll bring it up.
Tulsi Gabbard, she's on that.
What's the acronym they have for it?
There's an acronym for...
Quiet skies.
No, yeah, it's not the safe travel or whatever.
She's on the quiet skies on the domestic terror watch list where they just waste money following these people.
A ton of January 6ers are on it by virtue of their participation in January 6. I think there's some additional...
I don't know if there's additional screening, but they have agents following them as they fly.
So just wasted resources, wasted time, spying on American citizens, even American politicians.
I mean, what do you...
Well, and then Scott Ritter getting raided under the FAR Foreign Agent Registration Act.
Scott, who's had his run-ins with the law for other issues, but this might not be related to that.
I mean, what do you make of it?
Tulsi Gabbard, why would...
It doesn't...
It just doesn't make sense.
They should be protecting Tulsi Gabbard following her, not following her for whatever the purpose could possibly be.
What do you make of it?
Well, credit to her that she is looking at bringing suit.
That this violates her First Amendment rights because it's retaliatory and exercise of her speech.
And maybe just seeking declaratory relief because it's very difficult.
We've discussed some of the suits before.
They make it difficult to sue for being wrongfully placed on these quiet skies lists.
Thankfully, a whistleblower came forward.
You had federal air marshals following her around on a regular basis.
So it's not just that she's on a watch list.
She's being spied on every single day, every time she travels anywhere.
And this is a person who's a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
And unlike Tim Waltz, that some people call Tampon Tim because he wants five-year-old boys, eight-year-old boys to have tampons in their bathrooms.
I guess that gives you a sense of...
Who he is, right?
It's the same thing with the pervert politicians in Canada.
They're perverted.
I don't know what his married situation is, but he gives me a vibe which is not a friendly vibe.
No doubt about that.
Put it this way, you ain't letting him babysitting the kids, are you?
No, I am not, sir.
We'll see if that information comes out.
But unlike Tim Walsh, Tulsi Gabbard has actually served this country in defense of this country in areas of conflict.
Still does, whenever called upon to do so.
So the fact that one of our best constitutional advocates is being spied on shows you the weaponization of the legal system against all dissidents.
So in the same way we've had the weaponization of the monopolies in the universities, in the academies, in the public schools, in the big tech arena, in the advertising budgets and the human resource departments to indoctrinate our children and indoctrinate our population and to weaponize economic power against its dissidents, the Biden administration has just gone off the rails at doing so towards its critics.
And this is particular to Kamala Harris.
It appears the time frame by which Gabbard was put on this list directly corresponds to Gabbard embarrassing Kamala Harris on the national debate stage during the Democratic primaries of 2020.
So I think that what the government is doing is retaliatory.
I think she should look at not only suing the government officials involved in this, but she should look at suing Kamala Harris for misusing and weaponizing and abusing legal power.
To target her political critics and dissidents, because I think that it's exactly what happened, and there might be legally cognizable claims, constitutionally and otherwise, for Kamala Harris's illicit activities.
But what's happening shows the abuse of the watchlist programs that should require and encourage and incentivize Congress to reconsider all of these programs, much like the Patriot Act.
And we see just as...
Congress should go back in and rewrite the Foreign Agents Registration Act, because I've said I've never been a fan of this law.
It's an invitation to abuse by the deep state to target its dissidents.
It's how they went after General Flynn.
It's how they went after General Flynn's son, Mike Flynn.
And now it's how they're going after Scott Ritter.
They're going to pretend he's an agent of a foreign government, and they raided his house because he's a public critic of America's conflicts in Ukraine and Israel.
And this is clearly targeting a dissident who's had a history of being targeted for his speech, not really for his alleged activities.
And here, his alleged activities are what?
I mean, speaking out against U.S. foreign policy now makes you an agent of a foreign government?
This is deeply raiding his house, stealing all his communications with his illicit search warrant that I can't believe was predicated on a reasonable, probable cause?
Any surprise?
I think he lives in Pennsylvania, right?
You know, interesting, the movie The Shooter, they have the assassination take place in Pennsylvania.
It might be people who recognize a certain inherent corruption to its powers that be.
But I have no doubt that Ritter is being wrongfully targeted and violating his constitutional rights and liberties for First and Fourth Amendment purposes.
Now that you've mentioned, speaking of registering as a foreign agent, I remembered I had heard that Kellyanne Conway...
Registered as a foreign agent for a Ukraine billionaire?
Oh, yeah.
Well, I mean, yeah.
I mean, Kellyanne Conway will take whatever paycheck from anybody.
She had Kellyanne Conway.
Like, people didn't understand this about some of Trump's spokespeople, that a lot of these people were not Trumpers.
I mean, she originally was anti-Trump.
She was on the Ted Cruz campaign.
Whoever writes her a check is who she's for.
I mean, you know, she has that idiot nitwit husband who became a Trump hater after he didn't get a job.
But to be honest, I've never been.
Kellyanne Conway is skilled.
She has political acumen.
Susan Wiles in the Trump campaign, skilled.
But they're both lobbyists who will sell out to anybody, anywhere, anyplace, at any time.
The question isn't whether they're corporate hoes.
It's what's the price.
That's it.
I was also looking up.
I had the...
She's... Sonia Labosco.
Who represents the air marshals.
We were talking about the Jan 6th, you know, surveilling them and the six-month-old kid.
Wasting air marshals tracking American citizens and actually not tracking those who would need to be tracked.
So they're doing the same thing with Tulsi Gabbard.
Robert, what else?
Speaking of political lawfare, we have a few updates in the Trump cases.
We'll hold on.
Which cases and what's the updates?
So, well, first we got D.C., where the judge was denying all the other motions to dismiss.
Of course she was.
She had pre-written them.
I mean, this is another commie foreigner who's on the American bench.
She was raised by literal communists, parents, grandparents, all the way back if you look at her political ancestry.
Also Jamaica.
It's like Kamala Harris.
That's who this judge is in D.C. The Supreme Court has ordered...
To engage in a completely different presidential immunity analysis.
She's refused to do so to date.
Instead, she's denying Trump's motions to dismiss for selective prosecution, wrongful withholding of discovery, government misconduct.
Of course she is.
She's rubber stamping all of it.
She's a disgrace on the bench.
An honest Congress would have already commenced impeachment proceedings against her for the violation of her oath and not be engaging in good behavior, which, by the way, is the limitation on judges is broader.
Impeachment is much broader than it is for the president.
For a judge, it's not high crimes and misdemeanors.
It's good behavior.
And to me, the partisan weaponization of your power against your oath is bad behavior.
It ain't good behavior.
So I think they should commence impeachment proceedings against her.
But unfortunately for her, because she faces two big issues, the immunity issues that would suggest she's got to dismiss the indictment.
Either because the indictment alleges conduct that's immune or because the grand jury received evidence that violated immunity, as the Supreme Court's decision made clear.
And she's got the issue from the Florida court that says Jack Smith has no constitutional power here.
He was illicitly appointed.
He has no power to seek an indictment, no power to obtain an indictment, no power to prosecute an indictment.
But of course, she doesn't want to because she wanted to lynch Trump before Election Day.
The problem for her is even Jack Smith is nervous about the situation.
So Jack Smith came before and said, ah, we've got to postpone all these things.
I've got to figure out a way to weasel out of all these legal problems I've created.
And so even she can't fast-track it the way she wanted.
Ultimately, for those people worried, it is extremely unlikely that the D.C. case reaches trial before Election Day.
If she even prosecutes him, or tries to, it will be overturned on appeal.
By the Supreme Court of the United States.
It might be the timing and the outcome of certain lawsuits in the Supreme Court ruling on immunity, but it really seems they have all but abandoned the lawfare against Trump.
I mean, they should, but Jack Smith can't give it up.
Democrats can't give it up.
Though I think Smith's goal was to do this on behalf of Biden.
With Biden stepping back, that may be part of the reason he suddenly wants to go slow rather than fast.
So we'll see how that...
Of course, Trump is still scheduled for sentencing here in about a month in September.
Now, I've got at sportspicks.locals.com, there's actually a bet at Polymarket you can make on what that judge may do in September.
So if you want my investment advice of types, then you've got to go there at sportspicks.locals.com.
But that's what we're waiting on in New York.
And remember, there the issue is whether or not the judge has to declare a mistrial because evidence was procured during trial and submitted to the jury that violates the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
Now, in the January 6th cases, the judges are finally recognizing that the Supreme Court said all these obstruction charges were garbage.
They're starting to dismiss charges and they're starting to release defendants.
So that's good to see on the January 6th front.
I'm looking, I'm trying to find the market.
It's very complicated on Polymarket.
Hold on, I don't, let me see something here.
It's an illegal subset.
Yeah, and it says Trump prison time and hushed money sentence.
It seems that the no prison time is the 80% favorite.
Yeah, there's also whether or not he'll dismiss the case or not option.
Oh, yeah.
Look at this.
They got a lot of options on Polymarket.
Robert, why did you make me go there?
This is very bad for an obsessive-compulsive personality.
Okay. Well, you might as well make money on your opinions.
I might have to give it a try.
Yeah. We'll see.
We got three cases left here for Rumble and then three for Locals.
Locals will discuss the Nick Ricada update, the jury, and panelment process.
How that works in the federal system and whether it's constitutional when it's not.
Yale COVID tuition that relates to all the COVID-related cases.
But here we got an update on Brooke Jackson, Amos Miller, and vaccine mandate cases.
Before you do that, I want to read a few of our tips from the locals community.
Remember everybody, make a $5 tip or more on locals and we will answer that question in the locals after party.
Five bucks.
Can you discuss CoffeeZilla being sued by Logan Paul?
Specifically, Paul wanted to move the suit to federal jurisdiction versus Texas to avoid anti-slap.
Oh, I forgot.
Well, we can either cover that here or we can cover that on Logan.
We can cover that here, I suppose.
So CoffeeZilla suing Logan Paul in Western District of Texas, which, by the way, I'm a member.
So if CoffeeZilla needs some legal help, I might be willing to extend it.
I like CoffeeZilla for the most part.
Disagree with him on Alex Jones and a few other cases.
But the...
But for those people who don't know, CoffeeZilla is a big YouTuber who exposes frauds and scams.
Doesn't necessarily get everything right, but he's sincerely attempting to do so.
And Logan Paul promoted, the big podcaster, got involved in the crypto world, and a little bit carelessly so.
Because in the crypto world, you had a lot of good faith actors trying to change the world.
And then you had some bad faith actors trying to scam on the good faith naivete of some of the customers, consumers, and investors.
Logan Paul got affiliated by his own admission with some fraudsters.
He's unhappy because Coffeezilla criticized Logan Paul for getting involved with scammers.
And he sued Logan Paul in the Western District of Texas.
Why the Western District of Texas?
Because Logan Paul is not a resident there.
Coffeezilla is.
So they've got diversity jurisdiction, and he's suing for more than $75,000.
As noted by...
Is it Runkle of the Bailey?
Runkle of the Bailey.
Runkle of the Bailey.
I did get that right.
Runkle of the Bailey.
It's an eclectic English reference.
Broke down the Logan Paul suit, and he was very skeptical of the legal qualities of the suit.
But he thinks that Logan Paul, in part, is trying to run up the legal costs for CoffeeZilla.
We could represent him on an affordable basis because I think Logan Paul is abusing the legal system here.
The bottom line is Logan Paul got involved and used his own name and marketing and public image and reputation to get a bunch of people to put money into a crypto-related investment that, frankly, had he done his due diligence, he never would have done.
He never would have promoted it.
He never would have pitched it.
He never would have potentially profited from it.
And to blame Coffezilla for highlighting this by trying to convert it into a defamation claim that it doesn't appear it is.
By the way, his lawsuit's way too detailed.
If you're going to sue somebody for defamation and you really don't have a defamation claim, don't include a bunch of facts that prove you don't have a defamation claim in your complaint.
Coffezilla has grounds to seek a motion to dismiss on the merits right out of the gate.
Based on what Logan Paul's counsel admitted in their own pleadings.
Because he basically admitted it's a scam.
It was a fraud.
He's just like, don't blame me.
I'm poor Logan Paul.
I can't do due diligence.
I don't know how to do that.
I'm poor Logan Paul.
I mean, come on.
And I think some of this suit is animated by CoffeeZilla exposing a lot of people that people hate being...
Exposed by.
And again, I don't always agree with Coffezillo, but I have no doubt he is trying to, in good faith, pursue when someone has an honest business and when someone has a dishonest business, particularly in their affiliation and association with it.
And I think the legal claim is really, really weak.
He's got good grounds to seek dismissal.
He should not gamble on a jury trial in a case like that there in the Western District of Texas.
But I don't think Logan Paul has a legally credible claim.
It's a little bit of the luck of the draw there.
We've got Antar, which you've answered this one.
Viva and Barnes, did you see Antar24, did you see the video of the U.S. Secret Service breaking into the salon, taping the camera so that people could go use the salon's restroom for a two-hour period?
It was in Massachusetts for a Kamala Harris event, potentially a very rare Third Amendment violation.
RNC claims they have hired 130,000 poll watchers.
I don't think the DNC is going to roll over and accept the election.
The media is playing up Kamala.
Is in a tight race.
Bullshit. Can you offer a white pill to calm my anxiety?
This comes from Junkman611.
Yeah, well, I'm going to put money where my mouth is this election.
You can find out where and how at sportspicks.locals.com.
It's exclusive benefit for those folks there.
Okay, so let's finish up here and then we're going to go to locals.
Well, speaking of judicial disappointments in the state of Texas, the judge that I'd previously accused of making wuss decisions, In the Brooke Jackson whistleblower case against Pfizer for the fraud and deception it engaged in concerning the COVID vaccine, this week, the federal Biden administration intervened and demanded that he dismiss the case because they don't want to be politically embarrassed.
in the fall for their collusion involved with a corrupt Pfizer vaccine.
And just for everybody's got, the refresher is this is Brooke Jackson's key time case of fraud against Pfizer.
The US government or Biden regime stayed out of it for a long time.
They then intervened, what, a year and a half into it?
Yeah, they intervened just a few months ago.
Right on the eve of the first hearing that was going to be conducted based on Pfizer's motion to dismiss, they were afraid that Pfizer would lose that motion to dismiss.
That we would be entitled to discovery that would expose the scope and scale of Pfizer's knowledge, culpable knowledge, that they were defrauding the American people.
And it's very simple.
Pfizer contractually promised the Trump administration that they would deliver, at speed and scale, a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
Those four phrases precisely in the contract.
And in there, Repeatedly.
What they delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not even a vaccine, and didn't prevent COVID-19.
And they got over a billion dollars of Americans' taxpayer dollars for it.
That's called fraud on the American people.
And the index witnessed it from the beginning.
She was a longtime clinical trial of pharmaceutical involved in that industry.
Believed in pharmaceuticals, believed in vaccines, was part of the COVID vaccine testing by Pfizer in the state of Texas, and witnessed that they were not even keeping data in an accurate, honest way that could possibly attest to the safety or efficacy of the vaccine, whether it even was a vaccine, and whether it even did prevent COVID-19.
She went to the federal government in the fall of 2020 and exposed this.
Attorney General Barr, Justice Department, hid this information from Trump and the American people, demanded the case be sealed for over a year.
Why did the government demand it be sealed if they never believed it had legal merit?
They did it to hide the corruption that the government was complicit in, that the Food and Drug Administration was complicit in, with Pfizer, because they knew this vaccine was not a vaccine.
They knew that this drug...
It was ineffective at preventing COVID-19.
It didn't prevent COVID-19 at all.
In fact, they knew it was not only all of that, it was dangerous.
It was the most dangerous vaccine, arguably, in modern history.
That it has killed and led to the deaths and disabilities, as well as discrimination, against millions and millions and millions of Americans and people around the world.
And so Brooke Jackson took action.
To expose this to the world, to try to minimize the harm to innocent individuals, particularly to children who the vaccine was being extended to in early 2022.
And she brought suit.
We joined the suit to expose it to the world.
And right on the eve of getting to discovery to find out the truth, the government intervened and the Biden administration said, please, please, please dismiss this case.
And their only excuse, their only good cause, Was the official position of the government as the vaccine is good.
Not a single person for the government attested to anything under penalty of perjury in these cases.
Not one.
And the only question is, would this judge be a wuss again?
And he was.
This judge is a wuss, wuss, wuss with a capital W. That's all he's ever been.
That's all he'll ever be.
He's another disappointing Trump appointee because he's too much of a wuss to stand up to government corruption, too much of a wuss to stand up to corporate corruption, which is all he's done the whole case.
He has been nothing more than a rubber stamp for the corrupt actions of the government and the Pfizer Corporation in these cases.
He is a sad disappointment of the federal bench on the federal judiciary.
And he issued a decision dismissing the whole case, wouldn't even take the state retaliation case.
So that case we're going to be refiling in the state of Texas, the state retaliation case.
We're going to be, of course, appealing this judge's decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and find out, are the federal courts closed to the biggest public health scandal in the history of the United States of America?
Will they continue to reveal themselves as an embarrassment and enforcing the rule of law as it concerns government and corporate corruption in this precise area?
And we're going to be looking at other ways to bring other key tam and related claims across the country.
So it's not going to deter us at all.
But it shows the corrupt collusion of the government and the corporations as it concerns vaccines.
And it's why there's some people who support, like people get mad about some people who support Kennedy out of Trump world.
This is the motivating issue.
So you got a problem with it?
Don't complain about Kennedy.
Don't complain about Kennedy voters.
Complain about Trump not joining this issue.
That's on Trump.
That Trump is solely and wholly responsible for his failure to address medical freedom.
That's Trump and only Trump.
So quit blaming everybody else for Trump's mistakes.
This is a Trump mistake, and it's time he corrected and remedied it.
Because it's an embarrassment.
This is the number one public health problem in the United States over the past five years.
The number of people who have been disabled.
The number of people who have died.
The number of people who have been discriminated against and lost their livelihoods over this.
And it's time there be remedy.
Because now the courts are saying, we're closed.
You can't seek remedy from us.
That means our only remedy is going to be in a future election.
So it needs to be an issue of candidates in the future election.
And 1776 Law Center surveyed this.
This is one of the top issues for independent voters in this country.
One of the top issues for swing voters in this country.
And you can continue to ignore it at your own political peril if you're someone who's refusing to engage.
How much...
Time and cost was incurred in the lawsuit in pursuing the key time before the feds took it over to kill it?
I mean, it's over seven figures of legal time that's been spent by my firm, Warner Mendenhall's firm, other lawyers that have assisted in the process, other paralegals that have assisted, investigators that have assisted.
So, you know, they waited until the last possible minute.
They no longer trusted that Pfizer could win it on the merits.
So they intervened to try to jettison it.
And they figured the judge, this judge, the government knew, this judge is too much of a wuss to stand up to us.
And he proved that that's true, sadly.
All right.
Let me do one thing before we head on over to the Viva Barnes Law after party.
Harris bragged about her parents protesting for equal rights, but neglects to acknowledge her parents were unlawfully present at the time.
That's from Randy Edward.
Harry Toe, any $5 question gets answered on Locals.
Hey, hey, hey, hey.
Drunk cynic, if Tulsi Gabbard is being followed by federal air marshals, she's received more federal protection than RFK Jr.
What's the over-under on the number of people watching Trump and Elon on X Spaces tomorrow, both live and over the next week?
That's going to be wild.
Okay, that's it.
Bringing this out.
Whatever it is, we might have had one more.
We're going to save it for the Viva Barnes Law.
At the Locals After Party, we'll discuss...
The Amos Miller hearing I had this week in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Updates on the vaccine mandate discrimination cases.
There's been about a half dozen over the last month.
Nick Ricada case update.
Maybe some people like Nate the lawyer should be issuing their apologies now.
Just saying.
Jury discrimination.
How can the federal government pick a jury that they know is discriminatory?
Well, the Second Circuit gave them a roadmap.
And last but not least, Yale COVID lawsuit and other university lawsuits.
How are the courts allowing the big academies and universities to escape contractual responsibility?
And if they're going to do that consistently, don't a lot of people who had bank loans that they couldn't properly pay during COVID because of the lockdowns and the business interference, don't they have a claim even more robust than Yale did?
And will the courts be consistent at protecting them from the banks?
That they're so eager to protect big institutions and universities for.
You are on with Barris tomorrow at 1 o'clock?
It varies.
I don't know if he can do it tomorrow or not, but typically what are the odds is either at 1 p.m. Eastern or 2 p.m. Eastern every Monday that both of us are available on the schedule throughout the rest of the election season.
Okay, and I'll be live.
I want to get back to a schedule or get to a schedule.
Kids are going back to school as of tomorrow.
So hopefully I'll pick a time, stick to it, and make it work.
But if you're not coming over to Locals, this will be on Viva Clips.
It'll be on podcast.
The Law for the People podcast that you can get on whatever podcast.
Podbean, Stitcher, it's everywhere.
All right, now we're going.
Local supporters only, people.
Enjoy it.
If you're not coming, enjoy it.
If you are coming, see you there.
▲
Export Selection