Ep. 225: Trump Sentencing UPDATE! Pavel Durov ARRESTED! RFK Jr endorses Trump! & MORE! Viva & Barnes
|
Time
Text
Ready to feel joy.
Okay, I'm joking.
That's not the intro.
This is the intro.
Consider what he intends to do if we give him power again.
Consider his explicit intent to set free violent extremists who assaulted those law enforcement officers at the Capitol.
His explicit intent to jail journalists.
Can I just interject here for a second?
This woman's really scary.
She could easily get elected president.
She's much more skillful than I have ever seen.
She's a liar on the deepest level.
The things she is saying right now are not just untrue, they're the opposite of the truth, which is the hallmark of evil.
She's an extremist.
She'll say anything.
She's much more like Gavin Newsom than I ever realized.
I could go through a whole litany of why what she's saying is not true.
It wasn't an armed mob.
There's not one person inside the Capitol with a firearm, period.
Not just that.
From what I understand, the only knife they found on the January 6th Capitol was in a medical emergency.
Some people had baseball bats and some people had mace and pepper spray.
That is not what you insurrect with.
I want to get to one in the beginning that I think...
I haven't seen this full interview, but I think Tucker...
Didn't remark on.
The only person who was shot in the Capitol was an unarmed woman shot by one of Nancy Pelosi's bodyguards.
So again, again and again, she's telling us that she fought the cartels to secure the border.
She's the border czar, and the border is controlled by the cartels.
She argued that Donald Trump, quote, tried to throw away your votes.
Didn't the Democrat Party just throw away all the votes?
14 million.
14 million.
Well, exactly.
She's saying that Donald Trump will free from prison violent extremists.
That's what she did, literally.
Meaning, like, 75-year-old lower middle class women with diabetes when she endorsed defunding the police and opening the prisons to allow actual criminals out, which is why the crime rate has spiked, to allow the population of Venezuela's prisons, Caracas's prisons, are now living in the United States because of her.
I mean, I guess what I'm saying is, and I don't want to sound like I'm whining or fact-checking, which I hate, But what she's saying is the mirror image of the truth.
She doesn't care.
She's got no reference points in the truth.
And she's an extremist.
And she's a former prosecutor.
And no former prosecutor should hold power, period.
I've covered them my whole life.
I've intensely disliked every single one of them for good reason.
I think they're scary.
They're liars.
And they're megalomaniacal.
And they put people in prison for political reasons.
I've seen it again and again and again.
And she's one of them.
All politicians.
Virtually all.
But the beginning part here.
I'm not going to play the whole thing again.
Consider what he intends to do.
Listen, her nasal voice dries.
She's talking.
Delivery's good.
She's a decent-looking human being.
They made her up good, and she's talking nice and not pointing the finger.
Consider the journalist part.
If we give him power again.
Consider his explicit intent to set free violent extremists.
Explicit intent?
Not explicit statement, explicit promise.
Explicit intent means he explicitly intends to do so.
Who assaulted those law enforcement officers at the Capitol.
His explicit intent.
To jail journalists, political opponents, and anyone he sees as the enemy.
The problem is, it's so flipping enraging that it's not possible.
Anybody can be so deceitful and dishonest.
And when Tucker says it's the opposite of the truth, maybe we're saying the same thing in that everything that she's saying Trump will do is what they are guilty of themselves.
I don't know how many times we've said it on this show.
And it's worth repeating.
Locking up journalists.
You mean kind of like what they allowed Ukraine to do to Gonzalo Lira?
Locking up their political adversaries.
Kind of like exactly what they're doing here.
At least they don't poison their political rivals here.
They just let some 20-year-old mentally unhinged schnook take an open shot because they left the room.
Everything that she says.
That she accuses Trump of doing is what they are doing themselves in real time.
It makes me want to...
I can't swear for another three minutes.
Got to get eight minutes into the show.
It makes me want to flipping puke.
Like, really, it actually upsets my stomach.
And then they get up there.
And they talk about the job.
I'm putting this on blast.
I don't know who it was that brought it to my attention.
But now that I know it...
I'm bringing it to the attention of everybody.
I've been going around all day today.
Spontaneously in my house breaking it.
Joy! Joy!
Look at his hand, by the way.
Look at his hand.
Joy! Joy!
It's psychotic.
This is POS race baiting Al Sharpton.
Joy! Look at that face.
That looked like the face of Joy to you.
If we stay together, join!
Join! Join!
Join! I did not know that this was literally the motto of a part of the Nazi government, and apparently the Mao government as well, but the Nazis are the easier one to, you know, some people don't get the Mao reference.
Join! Look at his head!
Look at his hand!
Join! Join!
It's crazy!
Join! Join!
Let me put it on pause.
NSGemeinschaftKruftBürgteFreud was a German NSDAP, that's the Nazi Socialist Democrat National Socialist Party, I forget what the DA stands for, operated leisure organization in Nazi Germany.
Joy! Joy!
Joy! If we stay together, join!
He's actually throwing his hand up.
It straight up looks like a Nazi hand salute.
Alright, we're not yet done with the intro.
No, we're going to do one more.
We're going to do one more before I break into the sponsor, break into the intro.
We are live across all platforms, so I know we're good there.
I put out a tweet yesterday.
I'll tell you, I love Twitter, and I hate Twitter.
I hate Twitter for two reasons.
It's a freaking black hole, and when you start...
When you start engaging and then you discover that the people with which you've been engaging are absolute trolls whose sole intent it is to waste your time, waste your energy, and waste your psychological focus, it's very difficult to crawl out of that hole.
That's one reason why I hate it.
The other reason why I hate it is the written word is always very easy to misunderstand.
Yesterday I put out a tweet.
Maybe people want to misunderstand it.
Maybe that's the method of distracting people, forcing someone, or nobody's forcing me to do it, and it's my own weakness that I end up doing it, to try to clarify, try to make sure people understand.
I put out this tweet yesterday.
I'm not freaking deleting anything.
People read a freaking tweet.
I mean, the whole thing about Twitter, it's short characters to make it easy to make sure you just read the entire tweet.
I tweeted out yesterday, ooh, I forgot about this tweet.
It certainly aged well, May 10, 2023.
The original tweet, which now we've seen resurface, which is the only reason I actually remembered that I replied to this tweet at the time, just to quell it, this is from RFK Jr., just to quell any speculation, under no circumstances will I join Donald Trump on an electoral ticket.
Keywords. We'll get back to that.
Our positions on certain fundamental issues, our approaches to governance, and our philosophies of leadership could not be further apart.
Now, I have a feeling people read this, and because Twitter is what it is, everyone thinks everyone's out there for a gotcha.
I wasn't out for a gotcha on this one.
I was actually out for a good for me because I forgot that I tweeted this over a year ago.
Viva Frye.
At the Viva Frye for people who are listening on podcasts.
There most certainly are circumstances under which you could slash would join Trump on an electoral ticket.
And the DNC plays dirty enough to possibly make this tweet the quote part one end quote in quote how it started end quote smiley face.
Smiley face.
So I put that tweet out and it seems that there's a slew of people.
Oh what did I just do?
It seems that there's a slew of people out there who think that I was.
Trying to take a dig at RFK Jr., which I say, okay, fine.
You didn't read the full tweet.
I was highlighting that even back then, I was saying, RFK Jr., don't get ahead of yourself.
Never say never.
There are certainly circumstances that would change your perspective.
You know, failed assassination attempt, denying you secret service.
I didn't use that as an example because I think they might have been denying him secret service before that.
Screwing him out of the debates.
Trying to sue him off a ticket.
The Democrats doing this.
There was another one in there somewhere.
Oh yeah, Kamala Harris stealing the nomination from the Democrat Party, then shutting down the convention, not making it an open convention, and screwing Kennedy in every which way possible.
Yeah, never say never, and play dirty enough, you might realize that that tweet might have been too categoric.
It's a risk.
As a lawyer, you're always clear to leave a little window open.
I wouldn't have said under no circumstances, I would say it would take extremely...
Exceptional circumstances in order for me to contemplate being on the ticket with Trump.
So, A, it wasn't to dig at RFK Jr.
B, it wasn't to dig at J.D. Vance to suggest that RFK should be on the ticket and replace Vance.
Anybody suggesting...
I mean, this is why I think they're trolls.
Any idiot out there who's suggesting seriously that RFK should replace J.D. Vance on the ticket?
Politely take it with a grain of love.
You're an idiot.
You're either an idiot or you're a Democrat saboteur or you're...
Anthony Scaramucci.
So, it was neither a dig at RFK Jr. nor a suggestion that J.D. Vance should be off the ticket and replaced with RFK.
Part of the reason RFK made his monumental decision that he did on Friday is because J.D. Vance is on the ticket.
It's because J.D. Vance is out there for agricultural freedom, for food freedom, for autonomy.
It is because of the teamwork between J.D. Vance and Donald Trump that RFK, in part, came to his decision.
There was another element to that.
Not a dig at RFK Jr.
Oh yeah, and then he's not on the ticket, Viva.
You're wrong.
He didn't join.
First of all, if you don't understand the reason of my tweet, it was that the Democrats play dirty and now we have all seen a year of it.
It's that they play dirty.
He's not on the ticket technically, although by some sort of colloquial understanding of the term on the ticket, if he accepts a...
A position in the administration of Trump.
He's not on the electoral ticket, but he's certainly on the ticket in terms of an administration.
Bottom line?
Holy hell, did we witness another.
How good was it Friday?
I put out the vlog.
You've all seen it.
And if you haven't seen it, go check it out.
The analysis breakdown.
We're going to talk about it tonight because I'm interested in picking Barnes's big brain over mine.
That's the intro.
Did you just hear my back crack?
Everybody, good evening.
Welcome to the show, Viva Frey, former Montreal litigator.
My real name is David Freyheit.
For anybody out there who thinks they got a gotcha, like, his name's not even Viva Freyheit.
David Freyheit.
My last name, speaking of Germany, my last name, Freyheit, literally means verbatim freedom.
If you go watch Braveheart at the end of the movie, Mel Gibson screams, Freyheit!
Ich kann ein Freyheit!
No, sorry.
Sie kann take...
Oh, I can't do it anymore.
Sie kann take off our lives.
But they can never take our fly heights!
This is the Sunday night show.
It's the best law show on the internet.
Hands down.
Categorical. Not a question of arrogance or pomposity.
Barnes has got the biggest brain in the history of legal minds.
Everything is on Podbean, Stitch, or whatever.
It's on podcast.
I put out the audio the next day along with the audio from my daily streams.
I go live daily now.
I've committed to the schedule.
We're three weeks into it and it's working out perfectly.
12.30 every day.
For between an hour and a half to two hours, depending on the day.
12.30 Eastern.
Tomorrow, Austin Peterson is coming on.
Thursday, hold on, let me make sure I can make the announcement now.
Let me just go to my DMs and make sure that I can.
Thursday, Ivan Raiklin is coming on, who's been doing some amazing work on January 6th.
And then there'll be stuff in between.
I don't know if I'll be on The Unusual Suspects on Wednesday, but that's it.
Daily, 12.30.
Stay tuned.
Next week's gonna be a big week.
We are live on Rumble.
I just got distracted by a comment in the chat.
We're live on Rumble, YouTube, Twitter, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
If you want to support the work that we do, the best place to do it is in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Hold on, I'm going to give you the link to Locals.
Locals link right there.
And we end on YouTube and Rumble.
We end on YouTube.
And Twitter as well.
Maybe we'll leave it on Twitter.
And then we go over to Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Then we have the after party at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where it's exclusive and we answer every tip of five bucks or more.
Now, hold on.
But before we even get into this, because we also have a beautiful sponsor.
And by the way, I watched the entire video.
You gotta go watch the entire video.
Hold on.
Let me refresh it.
Actually, how far into it are we?
Let's see.
Outside your door, but inside your own body.
The shaky joints, digestive issues, weight gain, and fatigue.
We're told these are normal signs of aging, but in my experience, it could mean something much worse.
I call them the three internal enemies.
We're stopping.
Oh, hold on one second.
Hold on.
And they are wrecking the health of millions of Americans right now.
I'm stopping at this, so you go watch it.
Chuck Norris.
You know who Chuck Norris is.
If you've been wondering what happened to Chuck Norris, he's still there.
He's still out there.
He's still kicking ass.
He's in his 80s.
He's 84. I think he could also be president.
Compare Chuck Norris and Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
Just do that.
Don't, but do it.
It's not because you hit the 80s that you have to end up looking a certain way.
Chuck Norris is kicking ass.
What's even more shocking, he's stronger, can work out longer, and he even has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
He did this by making just one change.
He says he still feels like he's in his 50s.
His wife started doing it.
She's never felt better.
She says she feels 10 years younger, and her body looks leaner, and she has more energy all day.
Chuck made a special video.
It's the one you're watching there.
It's in the description.
He explains everything.
And it's fantastic.
And it makes sense.
And I ran it by my neuroscientist wife, if anybody doesn't know that my wife is a PhD in neuroscience.
Make sure you watch it by going to chuckdefense.com forward slash Viva or by clicking the link in the description below.
It'll change the way you think of your health.
Once again, Chuck's defense, chuckdefense.com forward slash Viva.
Click the link in the description.
You won't believe how simple it is.
Just a reminder, Chuck Norris, the legendary Chuck Norris, is an 84 years old man, and he has more energy than most Americans out there.
He discovered he could create dramatic changes to his health simply by focusing on three things that sabotage our body as we age.
Watch his method by clicking the link in the description in the box below.
ChuckDefense.com forward slash Viva.
Bada bing, bada boom.
All right, hold up.
Hey, Barnes!
How goes the battle, sir?
How dare you take the left?
Our backdrop and the tie is matching yet again.
Yeah, the camera's working for the first time.
I tried a different browser and that worked.
Okay. Oh, I should have said, had you tried unplugging your computer and plugging it back in?
I'm joking.
Robert, sir, what's the good word?
What's the book behind you?
Oh, I know what the book behind you is.
Yes. When I was 12 years old, some months after my father passed away, I had two favorite books.
One was Donald Trump's Art of the Deal.
I still remember quotes from it today about that you should always...
You should always expect the best, and at the same time, plan for the worst.
And it was a fascinating mindset trick that I have found useful throughout the rest of my legal, political, and otherwise activities.
The other book was the one behind me.
It was easy to carry because it was a small little paperback, and it was To Seek a Newer World by Robert Francis Kennedy Sr.
And it seemed an apropos book and an apropos story for what took place this past weekend.
Robert, I've asked my wife to bring something in.
I might want to go get it just to show everybody in a few seconds.
Oh, she's in.
She's in.
Okay. Bring them.
Bring them.
Okay, Robert, speaking of investment, speaking of Donald Trump.
She feels like Vanna White.
Check this out.
Look, I'm not saying I got two pairs of them, but I did.
This is an investment, people.
This is not...
Look at this.
I got the shoes.
These are the red ones.
And I'm never going to wear them.
They took a little while to get here, but it doesn't matter because I got them to support...
I'm going to put this on the ground here.
I got them to support Trump.
I got them to make a bloody statement that we're not letting this...
This is my way of contributing.
And hopefully this will...
I don't know if the...
There's no more shoes left.
I think they all got sold out and they're going to be worth...
It's an investment, people.
I'm going to give it to my kids.
And then one day they're going to wear them, run in the mud with them, and say, oh my goodness, I kept those for 20 years, and now you destroy them.
Sorry. They're fantastic, by the way.
All right, Robert.
I know what we've got to talk about first, but what's on the menu for the evening?
Yeah, so we've got a dozen topics and a few bonus topics tonight.
First up, what is the legal and policy impact of the Kennedy-Trump alignment announced this past weekend?
I'll get into more of the political impact tomorrow on What Are The Odds with Richard Barris at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
That's People's Pundit Daily.
You can find him on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
But we're going to discuss the law and policy potential impact tonight.
That was the top topic over at the poll at bebabarnslaw.locals.com.
Durov. The man from Telegram who escaped Russia via Qatar has discovered his great threat was not Russia but was Europe itself arrested in Paris, France tonight just doing a stopover with his airplane.
Be careful what airspace you cover and what air you land in.
What are some of the legal and constitutional type objections that might be raised by Duroff?
Elon Musk?
Going to the Supreme Court over the attempts to suppress, censor, and surveil speech through grand jury subpoenas.
This is a case against Jack Smith.
Robert Kennedy is authorized to be able to go forward in his lawsuit against the Biden administration for censoring him in Children's Health Defense.
The Big Tech got another setback, this time Amazon, on its antitrust violations in the District of Columbia.
The Trump sentencing.
Well, you know, what does that look like a few weeks out?
The Trump civil fraud case.
Moramikai joined the appeal of that particular pernicious outcome from Judge Engeron.
The Supreme Court and various attorneys general speaking out about illegals voting or registering to vote in the upcoming presidential election.
When is a machine gun protected under the Second Amendment?
A big federal court ruling this week.
The PREP Act, when does it provide immunity even for contractual breaches or violations of informed consent?
A Vermont court had one ruling on it.
A federal court is waiting to see what it rules in a similar context.
When can states...
Passed provisions like the kind Tim Wall's VP candidate from Minnesota did, and then the state of Washington did, currently being litigated by America First Legal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is to allow children to get gender changes without parental consent and even allow them to run away from their parents and deny parents access to those children.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion in court in multiple contexts against IBM.
Related to a case that I have.
And a progressive insurance case where they did selective contracts for black only need apply.
And then we got three bonus cases.
We've got baby food causing autism.
We've got when can you remove a state criminal case to federal court?
This is a case that I have before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
And last but not least, Nick Ricada got some legal news this past week.
And unfortunately, LawTube continues to prove, in general, not all people here, but most of LawTube, their constitutional illiteracy.
I think people who got a law license out of a crackerjack box could give better constitutional analysis than some of these people.
Or maybe it's just they've decided that grifting to hate on Nick Ricada makes them more money and gets them more pals.
Whatever it may be.
The Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment analysis that's been done has been pretty poor.
And so we'll try to correct at least a little bit of that here tonight.
He's already won multiple arguments.
People told me there was no constitutional problems, Barnes, with what happened with Ricada.
Then why does Ricada keep winning in court?
That's not supposed to happen, right?
Maybe some people jumped to some conclusions and are just...
Constitutionally as illiterate as Kamala Harris is economically illiterate.
I'm going to bring up one chat right now just because I saw it and I want to address it.
Pin here.
I take care of kids in a one-parent family and I don't have any extra money to pay for your pay-to program.
Why don't you have a way to help people like me?
I think this is a big failure on your part.
90% of our show is always, always available to everybody.
Give lots of stuff away for free.
And I am mostly sensitive and sympathetic, but to be honest with you, people that whine and think they're entitled to things, I'm not sympathetic to.
Because my question to those people is, do you work for anybody?
Do you work for free?
Do you expect people to have you work for free, whatever work you may provide?
If you're not going around doing all of your work for free, don't expect other people to work for free.
Coming from a working class background, I'm very sensitive and sympathetic to people.
We have another discount out right now at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in honor of the Trump-Kennedy Alliance.
Another 25% off, off of two months off.
So it's basically like six bucks a month for which you get exclusive access to all kinds of, you get hush-hushes, you get bourbons with Barnes, you get ask me anything, you get comment, you get feedback.
In fact, if you had been at vivabarneslaw.locals.com over the last six months, You would not have been as shocked as the entire Democratic Party by what happened on Friday night between President Donald Trump and Robert Francis Kennedy.
And not to plug sports picks, Robert, but you could have made some money off of it also.
I know, other than one stupid bet that I made about switching from Walls to Shapiro, I'm still kicking myself.
I think the markets have not yet...
Yeah, remember, only in Hollywood do you bet on the Jew.
Well, I convinced myself that Soros wanted him so badly that he was the one to pick, and I swapped my...
I'm still kicking myself.
It doesn't matter.
Remember, Soros was on the other side of the German...
Oh, no, but the pictures of Alex Soros and Josh Shapiro, they make my stomach turn, but then I made the wrong decision.
It doesn't matter.
I also would just add...
90% of what we offer is for everybody.
At some point, you have to give them out the free content.
But as a whole, I'm not super sensitive or sympathetic to the people who run around demanding other people give them free stuff.
There's a lot of working class people that I know that don't have the economic means, and they don't.
But you know what they don't do?
They don't go around whining and complaining, demanding to get free stuff.
I'm not sympathetic.
If you're in an entitlement mindset...
You're in the wrong mindset.
You're going to limit yourself economically.
I'd studied years ago what was the main factor for working class people overachieving the expectations of how they grew up.
And the number one factor was they had an inner loci of control.
They did not concede to the external forces opposing them that they couldn't achieve.
Goes back to Donald Trump's art of the deal.
Expect the best.
If you expect the best, if you believe you control your fate, you control your future, then you're going to have a lot more impact and be able to achieve things for yourself a lot better than if you go around thinking you can't control anything and you think you're entitled to whatever.
I mean, for those of us that have been at the front lines of a lot of these issues over the last half decade, what happened on Friday was an extraordinary, unique, incredible achievement.
But if we had gone around like a lot of these whiners and losers do, then we would never have achieved it.
We would have said, look at the odds.
The odds are completely stacked against us.
There's no way we're ever going to get this kind of unity ticket.
There's no way we're going to take down one of the most corrupt institutions of influence in the deep state and the administrative state that's been created over the entire and all of human history.
But you have to believe.
And if you don't believe, you'll never get anything done.
The one thing I know for sure is you never got anywhere by quitting.
And that includes, don't quit on yourself.
Don't sit there and say, oh, look at how bad my life is.
Yeah, there's a lot of people in tough positions.
Figure out what you can do about it and try to make as much difference as you can and believe that you can and often you will.
I'm going to save something for after our first discussion because I think it's going to be very apropos.
Robert, we're obviously talking about RFK and the announcement he made Friday.
I started off with a tweet which, at least from the consensus, nobody really misunderstood it or thought I was taking a jab at RFK.
They played dirty enough, Robert.
The Democrats over a year have played sufficiently dirty that RFK said, I'm not joining the ticket, although I don't know technically what he did is joining the ticket.
He comes out and says, and you'll tell me if I'm correct in my analysis as to why this is even more of a middle finger to the Democrats than simply withdrawing or suspending entirely, comes out and says, look, the Democrat Party today is not, it's the invert, Opposite of what it used to be when my dad was alive and my uncle was alive.
They were the party of anti-big government, anti-big pharma, anti-war, pro-free speech, and now they are literally inverted on themselves, pro-big government, pro-big pharma, pro-censorship, pro-war.
They've screwed RFK Jr. at every step of the way, making him spend millions and millions of dollars on The Democrat Party steals their own nomination, tries to prevent me from being on the ballot, tries to prevent me from being in the debates.
This is not the Democrat Party, and I feel that if I stay on the ballot in the swing states, it might actually hurt in that it'll impact the election, but maybe for the Democrats, and they're the enemy, and I've got a...
I'm not...
Withdrawing, I'm just suspending in swing states.
If you want to vote for me, you can still vote him.
You can vote for him in the blue states and on the red states, which basically means anybody who is going to vote for Kennedy in a red state is going to vote for Trump, and anyone who is going to vote for Kennedy in a blue state is going to vote for Kennedy, which means that he could potentially get some electoral college votes in an unlikely event from a blue state, which I think is a bigger F you than if he had just said, I'm suspending everything entirely and coming off all the ballots everywhere.
Am I right?
And what do you think of this?
Yeah, so I mean, it was a...
Well, I'll do a little bit more of the political backstory with Viva Fry, I'm sorry, with Richard Ferris on Monday on What Are the Odds?
to cover some of those attributes and what the political impact and ramifications will be with Richard Ferris.
That too, by the way, completely free show, free episode.
But what the impact from a law and policy perspective can't be understated.
And this came about Because the short version is there's been an effort afoot for a half decade to unite the populist left and the populist right politically.
And some of us have been at the front, sort of the front lines of that.
I'm probably one of the only people in the country that has been a lawyer in the last five years for both Robert Kennedy and Donald Trump on these kind of political matters.
And so have been a front line witness.
A front seat witness to watch this process unfold.
And it was supposed to happen in 2017.
Trump wanted it to happen in 2017.
But the GOP political establishment captured his transition team.
Bob Corker and a lot of those types, Chris Christie, etc.
And they didn't want to rock the boat.
And so his efforts to have a commission then, with Robert Kennedy in charge, was scuttled.
And that kind of disappointed Kennedy's camp as to, okay, is Trump reliable on this?
And then came around the pandemic.
Trump's first instinct, first impulse was not to lock down, not to go that route.
A bunch of people brought pressure on him and rolled him to the point where Fauci got to take over for several months.
And Kennedy was deeply disappointed in that.
And it escalated for Kennedy, the consequence of the issues he'd been warning about.
About the capture of our public health administration being imminently dangerous to us on a very big and broader scale than we're recognizing.
Sort of big food, big media, big tech, big media conspiring on this sort of Bill Gates dystopian control grid to rid us of our core freedoms.
And the response and the reaction to that from various parts of the populist left and the populist right was political freedom, freedom from surveillance, freedom from censorship, freedom from ceaseless wars.
Medical freedom, the right to bodily autonomy as it related to matters of vaccines or masks or lockdowns.
The food freedom, the right to decide to get access to safe food directly from the producer of that food in the case of farmers and not a corporatized, industrialized, mechanized, monopolized food supply by the Bill Gateses of the world.
And then the food freedom, medical freedom, political freedom, and then financial freedom.
Freedom from central planners, central banks, from the fiat currencies, and into a more sovereign space that crypto's currencies and Bitcoin could allow and afford.
And Trump, his instincts were good on all these issues, but the political establishment that had captured a large part of his administration prohibited and precluded it from coming to fruition.
And that put Kennedy in a position where he had to run for office, run for the presidency.
He had to do it as a national state.
So we were like, why not run for governor or something else?
Because it's the national government that controls food policy, national government that controls medical policy, the national government that controls crypto and currency policy, national government that controls surveillance and censorship and war-related issues.
So that's the level of government that had to be approached.
And unless and until he had leverage.
He had no means or mechanism to break through the establishment wing that was sort of hijacking and kidnapping Trump from his initial instincts to embrace these issues and embrace Robert Kennedy in particular.
And he first offered the Democratic Party an opportunity because he's someone who comes from the Democratic Party.
His father, part of the party.
His uncle, President John Kennedy, part of the party.
His other uncle, Ted Kennedy, part of the party.
His grandfather, Joe Kennedy, he grew up with, part of the party.
When he was young, still tells stories about in his biography, American Values.
And what did the Democratic Party do?
They blacklisted him for the media.
They prohibited debate and wouldn't allow any debates to occur.
And then they rigged the rules so he couldn't meaningfully compete.
So he couldn't compete for votes.
He couldn't compete for donations.
He couldn't compete in the court of public opinion with ideas.
So at that point, he left and ran as an independent.
And during this whole time period, they deny him security while the threats against his life are increasing.
I mean, what Trump and Kennedy have had in common...
It's very clear the Democratic Party wanted both of them killed.
Wanted both of them dead.
That's the only reasonable interpretation of their behavior.
Over the last year, they almost succeeded with President Trump.
And then, when he ran as an independent, they did the same thing.
Blacked him out from media coverage.
Blacked him out.
The one condition that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had for any debates was that Robert Kennedy could not be included in those debates.
And then the third aspect was they waged lawfare against him on completely bogus grounds to exclude him from the ballot, to prohibit ordinary Americans from even having the option of voting for him.
So he's having to spend all this money on lawfare, spend all this money.
For his private, to have meaningful security, given the escalating risk.
So he doesn't have the funds to be able to reach people.
To be able to raise more funds, so that he can in turn reach more people.
So that he can campaign, can simply campaign.
Because he's in court day after day, week after week after week.
So he did whatever he could, and he still achieved extraordinary success.
I'll talk about it on one of the odds, but part of the reason, and thanks to everybody out there who helped with 1776 Law Center, one of the things that the people helped fund was to do a poll by Richard Barris to show people in Trump world that one, 30% of Americans, about 50 million Americans, were considering voting for Robert Kennedy, seriously considering voting for him for president.
Oh, you're on mute, by the way.
If I could stop you there just for one second.
So, the polling.
Kennedy had to achieve 5% national polling in order to get some sort of reimbursement on campaign expenses or something like that?
No, down the road, what it is, is you qualify for certain ballot access and you get like $15 million.
You get a share of what's publicly available for parties in a presidential election in the next cycle.
Do we know what he was accurately polling at?
Because I've heard anything between 5% and 20%.
So, well, what you could say his floor was, was around 5%.
His ceiling was around at least 30%.
When we polled, we asked people, are you seriously considering voting for these people for president?
There were only three people who got more than 10%.
And that was Robert Kennedy, Donald Trump, and at that time, Joe Biden.
So 30%.
And what we showed, so one, we showed Kennedy had real currency.
Kennedy had real leverage.
Kennedy had votes.
Something that Trump, the competitor, instinctively respects and understands.
Second, we profiled who those people were.
And it wasn't who a lot of people.
There were corrupt insiders around Trump telling him that, ah, it's just old hippies.
It's these people.
In fact, you should just be critical of him because he's trying to steal MAGA voters and all this other stuff.
MAGA voters weren't like Kennedy, but they weren't voting for Kennedy.
They were voting for Trump.
The voter group, it was working class, homeless, minority, millennials, and Zoomers.
And so he was reaching a new group of voters.
And who are dislodging from the Democratic Party, but distrustful of the Republican Party.
So that gave them particularly enhanced capital because these voters are disproportionate in swing states.
The third thing that 1776 Law Center poll showed was why these voters were so curious about Kennedy.
It was food freedom.
It was medical freedom.
It was financial freedom.
It was political freedom.
They don't want endless wars.
They don't want a surveillance state that's constantly spying on them.
They don't want a censorship environment where they can't share their opinions without being fired or being threatened.
They want financial freedom.
They want the options of alternatives of Bitcoin and cryptos and those currencies.
The people most interested in the alternative currencies are millennials and zoomers.
The people who want food directly from the producer of that food that they consider safe for themselves and their family disproportionately.
Working class millennials and Zoomers.
Now that's broadly popular across all demographic groups, but it was intensely popular with that voter group.
And then medical freedom.
People who want drug companies held to the same standards as everyone else if their vaccines cause injury.
Why? Because it's the number one group that's been discriminated against related to the COVID vaccine.
Number one group that suffered injury, disability related to the COVID vaccine.
The number one group that knows someone who has died.
From the COVID vaccine.
And disproportionate, right?
It's one thing if an 80-year-old relative dies after the COVID vaccine.
It's something else when it's an 18-year-old.
And these are who they know.
Friends and family in their community.
One in three report death or disability to someone very close to them.
So this was an issue that people were telling, oh, nobody cares, don't worry.
They were just lying to them.
And so we used the 1776 Law Center poll that threw people very close to Trump.
Like, family kind of close to Trump, and other Trump close to Trump, including big new donors to Trump, put right in his hands.
And he was like, why am I...
He backed off of criticizing Kennedy.
He was like, why don't I just operate on my original instincts?
And then they tried to murder him.
And from that moment, you could see the moment he stood up and said, fight, fight, fight, the worm.
There's a line in the great movie, wolf.
Where Jack Nicholson comes back.
And he used to be a nice, placable, try-to-work-with-them, negotiate-with-them the way Trump kind of did in his first term kind of guy.
And he realized he couldn't do that anymore.
And his secretary asked him, has the worm turned?
And Jack Nicholson says, yeah, the worm's turned and he's carrying an effin' Uzi.
And in that moment, when you saw Trump stand up and do the fight, fight, fight, the worm had turned and was going to carry an Uzi.
And it's not a coincidence, the very next day...
And it's after that.
we get J.D.
Vance for vice president.
It's after that, we get, let's talk with Elon Musk and let's put Elon Musk in power to just start chopping away at the administrative state.
And it's after that, He starts talking with Robert Kennedy saying, let's have a unity ticket.
Let's work together on national security.
Let's work together on public health.
Let's get to the bottom of this and let's take on big pharma, big food, big ag, big tech, all of them.
And Kennedy has always remained open-minded throughout this entire process.
And he realized, I'm never going to get a chance to go into the court of public opinion because the Democratic Party is bleeding my campaign dry using every dirty trick in the book.
They found partisan, corrupt judges in New York and Pennsylvania.
No big shock it's Pennsylvania, now is it?
The reason I got more cases in that state than any other state.
And to exclude them from the ballot.
Pennsylvania just excluded Cornel West from the ballot this past weekend, too.
That's how corrupt that state is.
It's one cesspool of political corruption.
It's the kind of state where judges lock up illegally imprisoned farm workers and are still trying to take...
Remove our ability to buy food directly from Amos Miller as we speak, still pending in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
I'm going to be up there later this week for other Amish farmers they're trying to illegally imprison.
That's the nature of the cases.
That's what created the unity opportunity.
The corruption of the Democratic National Committee, the corruption of our political establishment, the out-of-control nature of the deep state, convinced both men they should unite the populist left and populist right because it was their only chance, individually or collectively, to take down this corrosive source of corrupting power at the center of the parasitic.
The nature of the political class in Washington, D.C. that is sapping and trying to destroy the productive engine of this country, trying to endanger the security and safety of this country, and is constantly poisoning our own kids, not only culturally and socially, but physically and mentally and psychologically.
And that now it's either now or never.
And so this unity ticket was something from the populist left and the right.
It was the only way that Trump could be assured of election.
It was the only way Kennedy could have a chance to have his agenda put in on issues of public health and national security.
And so we'll get to now how this might translate and why it is probably, in my view, Friday was the most positive, promising day for America's political future I have ever seen, period. It is that monumental.
It is that consequential.
And politically, the earthquake is only beginning to be felt.
But policy-wise, we can go in just how impactful and revolutionary this can be.
Well, what do you make two questions?
One, the first is, just double-checked, apparently they've pulled RFK Jr.'s Secret Service Protection because of his suspended campaign.
Well, of course, Kamala Harris called up right away and said, pull his security.
You know that.
Well, and I answered this, I forget to whom, but I said, look, the threat of assassination of RFK right now is sort of, it's academic in the sense that even if they kill him, he's already set in motion what will outlive him in any event, which is the movement being pushed in the direction on the one hand of Trump and supporting Trump, and also the agenda being amalgamated into the Trump campaign.
So there's no incentive at this point anyhow, now that the wheels have been set in motion.
The second question was, and I believe I forgot that one, policy-wise.
Yeah, so I mean, the best way, the issues that were still lagging within the Trump administration first term, partially was it delivering on his own intentions and promises, and second, embracing the issues that were the most popular with the populist left, which is reform on issues of surveillance and censorship and speech, but also...
Curtailing the corrupt public health establishment as to big pharma and big food, not just big tech.
And that's what he's now fully embraced.
What he did was not just unite with Robert Kennedy.
He united with Robert Kennedy on these issues.
So the two most likely places for Kennedy...
Some of you are thinking, well, the Senate can block Kennedy.
There's an easy way to appoint Kennedy to positions that don't require the approval of the Senate.
And what I...
They believe will happen.
Is that Kennedy will be part of the National Security Council.
And so he'll be in a position to advise on issues of national security and war and surveillance and censorship all the way through.
Second, Trump will likely create two different commissions.
One commission on issues of...
And the other thing is, I think he will create the equal to the National Security Council in public health.
A National Public Health Council advising the president.
Bring all these disparate agencies, the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bring them all under the same, the Surgeon General.
Bring them under the same rubric.
And let Kennedy coordinate policy and strategy concerning them.
And also do a study, use that to actually study what they've been afraid to study for 25 years.
Which is the impact of food on our bodies, these corporate commercialized chemical-induced food.
The impact of and shutting down small farmers and small farms.
And the same with medicine.
Why do we have a level of drug-taking that...
From prescriptions and pharmaceuticals like nobody in the world.
Why are we the last country in the world that allows our six-year-olds to receive advertising for various risky vaccines?
Why does the vaccine schedule 73-plus vaccines now?
And as Trump explained, they're giving a little six-pound baby something they wouldn't put in a 300-pound horse.
Let's do a meaningful inquiry, and then let's have a coordinated strategic response to that, which is going to be we need food freedom policies and legislation.
We need medical freedom policies and legislation.
We need to remove, we'll be discussing later in the case today, about the PrEP Act immunity.
That needs to be modified.
The childhood immunity needs to be modified.
But you first need the independent inquiry and honest science for that to occur.
And then the same with the national security apparatus.
Also form a commission on that side of the aisle that Kennedy can chair and direct about the greatest crimes the deep state has ever committed as a way to prohibit those crimes from reoccurring in the future.
And that is the assassination of his father, the assassination of his uncle, the other assassinations that have occurred, including the attempted assassination on President Trump in July.
And Trump has already announced he's going to do exactly that.
He's going to do a commission on all three assassinations, and he's putting Robert Kennedy Jr. in charge.
So there's no better person, better equipped to be in that position.
And in that process, start looking at surveillance issues, censorship issues, speech-related issues, and be another advisor to limit the scope and scale of war and our entanglement and an entertainment with NATO and the rest.
So it's the coalition that has been needed for quite some time.
That has come about because these two men stuck with it.
When people around them were telling them don't do it, people close to both of them saying don't do it, they remained open-minded to realize what mattered was put eloquently in Robert Kennedy's words.
We have to learn that hating each other has to be less important than loving our children.
And that is precisely right.
And I think we're on the beginning cusp of the most radical revolutionary change in American politics since 1776 itself.
I want to bring this up because the ideas, Robert, are so damn good that after stealing no tax on tips and pretending it was Kamala's idea, after taking back the flag and pretending Democrats all of a sudden love the flag, Andrew Yang says, winning this election, in my opinion, starts by acknowledging that for many or most American...
Oh, that's not the right one.
Things are not going well.
No, hold on.
That was just the funny tweet.
Andrew Yang says, we need to put together a commission to look into the health of children.
Yeah. Maybe we need to inquire into the food freedom or medical freedom.
But to all those people that helped 1776 Law Center, that poll information was the breaking of the tide that provided the real data because there isn't honest data.
People can continue to support Richard Barris' public polling project.
At People's Pundit Daily on Locals and elsewhere.
Because they're all starting to recognize now this issue deeply resonates with the American people.
You have multiple levels of this issue.
You have people who deeply care about it because they know someone personal that it's happened to.
When you're talking about nearly one in three Americans know somebody who suffered a disability or death just from the COVID vaccine.
That doesn't deal with all the other pharmaceuticals.
That doesn't deal with all the other vaccines on the vaccine schedule.
That doesn't deal with all the corporate crap in our food.
We're going to be talking about a massive class action that's been brought against one of the biggest baby food makers in America.
And this baby food maker had toxic metals in their product that is part of the chronic disease epidemic for children.
And they're now finally being exposed.
And who's the biggest investor?
BlackRock. Who's the person putting that together better than anybody?
Robert Kennedy.
Who is now integral to a Trump future administration on that issue?
Robert Kennedy.
I mean, that's why this is...
Now, there were some people in the conservative world that hear the name Kennedy and they start frothing at the mouth.
And I get it.
That has an old history and ancestry to it.
But when they sat and listened to Kennedy's speech with an open mind...
They realize why he has the popularity he does.
And then you saw even Trump was surprised at the intensity of the reaction to Robert Kennedy being on that same stage with Trump in a Trump audience.
As Trump himself said, no other person he's ever introduced in his life has had the reaction that Robert Kennedy did.
That's because this was the one issue nagging on Trump, the limitation from why didn't the first term, why didn't it live up to his own expectations, his own beliefs, his own promises?
It's because he dealt with people you can't negotiate with.
You just got to crush them because they show no respect, no regard.
They don't believe in the democratic process.
And that's why you're seeing Tulsi Gabbard on board, Elon Musk on board, Rivek Ramaswamy on board.
And there's more coming, more high-profile people that are going to surprise people that are coming.
Because people in this side of the movement, everything related to 2020 woke a lot of people up.
And it's continuing to wake more people up and more people up and more people up.
And you combine Trump and Kennedy in a synergistic effort and a campaign in the White House, you're talking about the kind of most dramatic, positive change for ordinary people in at least a couple of centuries.
I'm going to bring back up the tweet from Andrew Yang and read it for those who are listening on podcast.
This is Andrew Yang saying now, after the first two theft of ideas and policy, I think Kamala Harris and the Democrats should immediately announce a panel to investigate the spike in chronic diseases and conditions among children these past years and invite different figures to participate.
This is a big issue for millions and could easily tip the election.
This is coming from the party that literally...
Did not take the call from Kennedy.
And, Robert, I swear to you, I thought the accounts were parody.
Taking Twitter after the announcement saying Kamala Harris didn't return the call, that's how you know she's got good judgment.
And I thought they were parody accounts, but they take pride in the fact that they snubbed RFK Jr.
And now you've got Andrew Yang saying, well, shit, now we see what it's doing and we should do it ourselves.
You had the guy calling you to join them and you didn't pick up the call.
And I say, oh, he can't.
Because they have become captured themselves.
The institutional democratic party is the party of the deep state, the party of the administrative state, the party of the bureaucratic state, the party of the worst aspects of Wall Street.
They are the party of big ag.
They are the party of big pharma.
They are the party of big tech.
They are the party of big media.
That's what Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out at the very beginning.
They are the party of war.
They are the party of censorship.
They are the party of this...
Kind of fascistic crony capitalism that has big corporations running our public health policy for their self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.
I mean, big pharma and big food overlap in their financial investments, overlap in who owns them and controls them.
You'll find BlackRock overlapping over and over in the national security industry, in the defense war machine, in the big food machine, the big pharma machine.
You'll find the same...
Actors, Bill Gates over and over again, George Soros over and over again, BlackRock over and over again.
You've got this small class of people that are running the world, and the Democratic Party is their puppet.
They can't act independently.
They can't even allow Robert Kennedy Jr. to be on a debate stage during a primary.
That's how captured they are.
But if Kennedy had not run for president, there's a whole bunch of people that wouldn't have realized that.
There's a bunch of people on the populist left that were still naive and idealistic.
That because Bernie Sanders rolled over like a little puppy, they didn't realize the scale and scope and severity of the corruption of the Democratic Party.
That they make Tammany Hall look like a beacon of transparent government.
But they had to experience it.
And you see it online with people who are like, you know, before all of this, I would have never considered voting for Trump.
But after what I've just gone through in the last year, as part of this Kennedy campaign, remember over 100,000 people donated millions of hours to get him on the ballot.
Millions of people signed his petitions.
You're talking about people who deeply, deeply care.
And then they see not only his superb speech that he gives, but they see the embrace.
Of Trump world of the best of Robert Kennedy in the public health arena.
And they're like, wow, we finally have a home.
After decades of being silenced and being marginalized, there's somebody serious finally listening to us.
And it's not just Donald Trump.
It's an entire movement.
And that's not a movement they're going to be able to stop or suppress.
The waves are coming.
And they should be looking for where they can get, where they cannot get extradition.
They could be like the...
Telegram CEO, figure out which country's not to land it.
Oh, you're on mute again.
Yeah, I'm still on mute.
Before I get too far behind here, Robert, let me see if I can share the screen.
Speaking of Telegram, I'm going to read some chats and rumble rants so that I don't fall way too far behind.
But there's a big one from...
An accountant I've never seen before.
Let me just get a few of these.
YouTube is amazing.
It is amazing to watch so many learned YouTube ramblers gradually understanding at least speak out against the hypocrisy and obvious devious agenda to ruin white Christian society.
There's one more right here.
This guy, right?
Sorry, Beavis Wallace says, Howdy from McAllen, Texas.
Viva and Barnes with RFK in the Trump White House.
Will the Kennedy family see this as a chance to return to American politics?
If yes, will they help or interfere with Trump's presidency?
I think his family...
Let me see this.
Well, I mean, there's only one Kennedy that matters.
It's Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
So John F. Kennedy Jr. might have mattered, but he died some years ago.
He was friends, by the way, with Donald Trump.
Trump has always personally liked the Kennedy family of the older generation.
But everybody but Robert Kennedy Jr., does anybody even know their name?
No, other than the fact that he tweeted out.
I mean, there are people who just raise money off the Kennedy name.
And they take nasty personal attacks that Bobby Kennedy refuses to respond to his credit.
By the way, his father, almost everybody was bashing him for running, including people within his own family in 1968.
So this is not something that...
Robert Kennedy knows that this is the reality.
But he cares more about the future of the country and the future of an entire generation of people and our own kids.
Than he does about whether people say nasty things about him, whether his life is threatened, whether his family is going to be disinviting him to the next July 4th get-together up on the beach, up on the coast.
Doesn't matter to him.
And the rest of them are useless because we don't even know who they are.
They're nobodies, to be honest.
I saw a nasty one from, I don't know if it was his sister, but very mean.
What people don't know is all the other kids were way too young when both John and Robert Kennedy died.
Not Robert Kennedy Jr.
He was the oldest who had really come of age.
He was eight years old when his uncle President John Kennedy was assassinated, and he was 14 when his father was killed.
If you study the history of great populace throughout American history in particular, they usually lose a key caregiver young in life, but it usually happens at a time that it is most impacted, and it's usually when they're coming of age.
So it's sometime between 8 and 14, 15 years of old.
He lost both his father and his uncle to high-profile public assassinations.
That, as he himself has said, was done by the CIA.
And don't think Trump doesn't fully appreciate this, because it's one of the first things he says.
On the Kennedy assassination, we're going to declassify everything, and we're going to have a full investigation as to what happened, and Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. is going to be heading there.
So, I mean, the moment they tried to kill him and missed was the moment the game was over.
For the deep state side of the aisle.
And some of their allies inside Trump campaign world didn't realize it.
But they do now.
Let me bring this one up because it's a big one over at YouTube.
Now, I don't know.
Russian Libertarian says, We are Russian Libertarians.
Six years ago, we already defended the work of Telegram in Russia through a big political campaign.
Now we are trying to repeat it on a global level to free Durov.
Our leader, Mikhail Svetov, would like to contact you to unite against censorship.
Is that possible?
I've replied, No, I've never heard of the account before.
I'm happy to.
What's ironic is Putin wasn't really fond of the idea of Telegram being all that independent.
And so that's why Durov left.
And now it's Russia coming to his defense while Europe tries to put him in prison.
I'll get to the Rumble rants.
There's a ton that are stacking up.
Do we go over to Rumble now?
Yeah, we got Duroff.
We got Elon Musk.
We got Kennedy against Biden.
We're still in the other side of the aisle, legally.
We got the Supreme Court, machine gun, Second Amendment, a lot of woke craziness, the Ricada case, the federal removal of state criminal cases, baby food autism.
So it's up to you.
We could maybe cover Duroff here.
But before we even get into Duroff, because I'm going to implement the Rumble Advertiser Center to show everybody, and it's right on point.
Occasionally it works out as beautifully because it is on point.
Hey, that's good Pavlosky saw the message.
I'm glad they arrested.
I mean, I'm not glad they arrested the Telegram guy, but I'm glad they arrested.
I mean, I would have told Chris.
He didn't ask me.
I would have told him.
Don't be vacationing in Europe right now.
If you're in Rumble.
I mean, I was joking with the Rumble people.
Like, who had just come back from London.
I was like, hey, were you guys back at the debate?
It's like, hey, were you guys scared you're gonna end up in the dungeon?
I was like, hey, you could be like my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaddy, the Reverend Robert Barnes, who was one of the 53 people to be tortured and killed in the tower.
Because he kept saying the king was a bastard because the king was a bastard.
Just literally, legally, that's all.
He believed in the Bible, come hell or high water, and he got both, it turned out.
But Pavlovsky was vacationing in Europe when this was going down.
So now, I'll give him credit for this.
Wait until you're out of Europe to let people know that you were just in Europe.
So that was smart by Pavlovsky.
It was like, oh, by the way, I just got the heck out of here.
But I mean, they would have arrested him and locked him up if they could.
Look, I might end up claiming asylum in the States, but who the hell knows where it's safe to go anymore?
But on the subject of Trump, Robert, because this is the sponsor and it's beautiful.
The link is there, by the way, and you can go check this out afterwards, and you should.
I have an important message about President Trump for all the parents out there, so please listen.
I tweeted out, you know, the propaganda, the campaign between Trump and Kamala is policy versus propaganda, and every now and again...
The Kamala campaign has to stop with the propaganda to copy the policy from Donald Trump.
President Trump said he wants to take back America and teach our kids to love our country.
That's why it's so important that we make sure our kids are learning the truth about the president, not the distorted lies they're hearing in mainstream media.
The good news is that Mike Huckabee's team put together The Kid's Guide to President Trump, and right now you can get it for free.
And that's bold free.
With fun illustrations and easy-to-follow content, this important guide teaches kids all about President Trump's accomplishments during his first term, and it helps kids understand his goals for 2024.
Mike Huckabee wants to send you his free guide so you can teach your kids the truth.
But please hurry, supplies are limited to claim your free kid's guide to President Trump right now.
Go to kidstrumpguide.com.
KidsTrumpGuide.com It's amazing.
The amount of propaganda, anti-Trump, pro-Obama.
I saw a book, pro-Obama propaganda.
I think it was in D.C. at the Supreme Court.
You realize history is written by the victors and may Trump be the victor, but in the interim, check out Huckabee's book.
The link is going to be there.
Scan the QR code and you'll get it.
It's appropriate for children, unlike what a Kamala Harris guidebook would be like.
I'm not even going to make the joke because it will be...
Too over the top.
So Durov, Robert.
Okay. I'm trying to steel man it.
Like, we haven't seen the indictment.
Maybe they really have a good case on Durov.
My point in all of this, Pavel Durov, founder, CEO of Telegram.
He started another company.
I think it was called DK.
And they called it the Russian Facebook, where he was facing pressure from Russia to censor certain accounts that were using it to basically, you know, organize for reasons that pissed off the Putin government.
He didn't want to do the censorship.
He sold his interest in the company and then left Russia.
Only now to have started a new company, Telegram, encrypted messaging.
And apparently France decided, I don't know what, I mean, I know what they've alleged, but they've arrested Pavel Durov in France.
And I don't know that we have.
Any more details on what's being reported in MSM, allegedly for failing to comply with investigations into drug trafficking and cyberbullying on Telegram, the platform.
I had a question about this.
Oh, no, my underlying point in all of this is, this is the post-truth, post-information world where the government has so abused of any...
Benefit of the doubt we could have ever given to them after going after Trump, after going after X in Brazil, after going after Rumble in France, where I no longer assume they have good reasons.
I assume they have bad reasons and they better damn well show us the good reasons they have to do this because it looks like political persecution.
What is your take and what are you thinking about all this?
So from what we can tell, it appears that they had no existing criminal case against him.
They got wind at the last minute.
He doesn't reside in France.
He wasn't coming to visit France.
He hadn't gone to clear customs at France.
His private plane had simply landed to refuel in France.
That's it.
They got wind, supposedly.
There's probably an inside source connected to him that's ratting him out on a regular basis.
This happens all the time.
The prince's father who died with Princess Di was shocked to discover that the source...
Of the leaking was the security at the Ritz itself, which was owned by the Prince's father.
Because often the people at these...
I tell people, don't go to high-end hotels when you travel.
The people there are on the payroll of the intelligence agencies and anyone else who's out against you.
Use Airbnb and preferably use Airbnb of somebody else's account, quite frankly.
Because then you're much less trackable, traceable, and reportable.
There's a reason why hotels want your passport.
They want your passport so they can immediately disclose it to the higher-ups.
This is talked about all the way back in the early 1970s in the movies about the famous assassin who was...
Famous across Europe so much they made multiple movies about him.
But the way they were tracking him and tracing him was through hotel registries being reported to national authorities.
This now can happen much quicker than it used to.
Doesn't always happen in places like Hong Kong because China's not on the same page with the United States.
And that's why Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald could check in under their own name.
But other circumstances, not so much.
But here you have him land.
And apparently they just decide, oh wow, we've got him.
Let's just come up with criminal charges.
Any grounds to go and grab him and arrest him and hold him.
Which means they don't have grounds to request his extradition.
Because if they did, like for example, if they had him involved in money laundering for drug transportation, money laundering and drug activities are extraditable offenses almost everywhere in the world.
And remember, he doesn't live in Russia as a Russian citizen.
So it's not like they, oh, we can't get him in Russia because Russia doesn't extradite its own citizens.
Putin is now extending that offer to everybody.
Like, yeah, you don't even need a visa.
He goes, you know, they used to tell me all the time that the reason why they couldn't live in Russia and preferred the West is because of how safe it is.
He said, well, how do you folks feel now, given where things are going in the West?
I mean, Russia's going to be a better free speech zone than Europe.
Well, it already is.
It already is.
I mean, it's wild.
So this means that you can infer by the way in which he was arrested.
That it is highly likely, we'll discuss this later with the Ricada case, you know, how I was able to successfully infer a bunch of things that have now been proven true.
It's because once, look for what is there and what isn't there.
So the fact they had to rush and they didn't immediately have an indictment to disclose to the press means that there probably was no indictment going in.
Number one.
Number two, it also means if the reason why they had to rush to arrest him is that they have something that they don't think is extraditable.
Even in the Middle East.
Even in Latin America.
Even in Africa, where this guy has traveled, or Asia.
So what that means, they don't have him on money laundering.
They don't have him on drug charges.
This is not like the Silk Road case, where they accused him, and credit to Trump and Kennedy.
Both of them already said they're going to commute his...
Well, now, Trump, I mean, Kennedy's committed to it as well.
But Trump has said he's going to commute his sentence as soon as he gets in.
But they don't have the Silk Road.
Which, by the way, a close friend of mine was the person who was his defense lawyer at trial.
He provided evidence to me that he was innocent being railroaded.
I just pulled it up as you mentioned it because I didn't even think to have that reflex.
UAE does have a bilateral extradition treaty with France, and they've used it for things like drug dealing and money laundering, which is what they are alluding to Pavel as having...
It means they don't have it.
What they have is they wanted him to illicitly, we'll discuss this with Elon Musk, the Twitter case before the Supreme Court.
They wanted him to use Telegram to allow intelligence agencies a backdoor so they could, in secret, surveil activities.
And then they wanted him to censor at their direction and demand.
And he refused.
He said, there's no way I can do that that doesn't violate people's core human liberties and human rights.
And that has to be the only reason for his arrest because of, or I would say high probability, 85%, 90%.
Because otherwise they don't arrest him the way they did.
They don't arrest him without releasing a pre-existing indictment.
And they don't need to arrest him in this manner that raises other conventions and treaties by the way in which they arrested him.
We'll get to next.
If they had a legitimate case against them that was extraditable under UEA law, UEA treaty.
So that gets us to the second thing is, this is international space.
And it's still a little bit question of vagueness.
It came up during Ed Snowden.
And a lot of the U.S. scholars were very dismissive.
But in fact, Putin in Russia was being more intellectually honest.
To the dubious nature, the questionable nature, the disputed nature, I should say, of international transit space.
Because a lot of countries advertise and market this international transit space as not being subject to their jurisdiction and control.
And on those grounds, allow for certain zones, for example, where you can place your art that isn't subject to domestic taxation.
Or... Enforcement of local judicial orders.
That you can choose not to execute an Interpol warrant if the person is not yet trying to come into your country.
Not only that, you can detain the person without being subject to the limitations of your constitution.
Which, by the way, they like the other side of this.
So let's say you don't let somebody in.
And you say, you're going to have to wait.
Until you can get back to your country.
Or someplace it will take you.
Well, technically that's a detention.
And it's a detention without probable cause.
Unless, of course, that's not your property.
You don't control it.
You're not the legal sovereign of it.
Right? So every government in the world pretends, at least, not to be a sovereign of the international transit zone.
And that's where he was located.
He had not gone through customs.
He hadn't even asked to go through customs.
These issues also pop up when you're on boats or on planes away from home.
And what tends to govern?
Treaties and conventions.
Now, there should be more recognized international legal principles.
And in my view, if a government says it's not detention for denying you entrance, but you're required to stay where you're at until somebody comes in and gets you, then, by golly, they don't have the power to arrest somebody there.
You don't get to say we're not arresting them for constitutional purposes when we order them to be limited to that space and then turn around and say, oh, we actually have the power to arrest people because we have legal sovereignty in that space.
But putting that aside, the second question becomes all these conventions and treaties that are impacted by this.
So there's all these conventions and treaties concerning transit, concerning transportation, concerning international travel, concerning certain core human rights and liberties that might be at issue.
So all of that is going to be litigated if they try to keep holding them.
And Russia is already raising a huge stink about it because it's a Russian citizen and using it also to embarrass France.
Well, because I was going to say, it's not like they like him or I don't know that they like him or they want him.
Putin has made no bones about not liking him, not trusting him.
Putin was worried that he was in bed with the West in such a way that he would use his new technology so that it could be a rallying tool to basically stage coups of the Russian government.
That's how it translates.
But I'm sure, by the way, that they want to remind him that they helped him out in this sentence, too, because that would be like that, you know, Putin's smart in how he trades.
He thinks like Trump in a lot of respect in terms of how he negotiates and so forth.
I mean, like with Joe Biden.
He's like, I give you a WNBA player.
You give me Lord of War.
You give me Lord of War.
The merchant of death, I think.
Yeah, okay.
Okay, thank you.
And Kamala Harris doesn't know where Russia is, so it wouldn't matter.
But so I think there are major issues with this, the EU conventions at issue, conventions between the different parties and countries that are at issue, this whole politically, legally disputed nature of territorial sovereignty that's at issue, where there's contradictory positions taken by every government in the world.
So, because the reason why Russia came up is, last time it came up in a high-profile case was Edward Snowden.
Snowden was in the international transit zone in the airport in Moscow.
And the U.S. was like, you know, pick him up and send him home.
And Russia was like, well, what exactly?
He's in the international transit zone space and he came from China.
That has all these other implications.
We don't technically consider that our jurisdiction.
And that's where amnesty applicants can stay until the amnesty application is processed.
So that was the background.
Oh, yeah, it doesn't matter.
Well, they take an opposite position when they do it right here in the U.S. So I think that it's clearly being targeted for not censoring speech.
Glad Pavlovsky got out of Europe.
Don't go to Europe if you're Elon Musk.
Don't go to Europe anytime soon.
It's clear they are weaponizing their administrative state on the behalf.
This is not just being done by Europe in isolation.
Like, you look at Telegram's most effective political advocacy, it doesn't even necessarily impact France that much.
So this is at the behest of Britain, who's threatening to lock people up for their unpopular speech online, threatening to try to extradite Americans to the UK.
And you're seeing this escalation.
Because they're losing control of the narrative.
I mean, there's one of the things that Robert Kennedy showed Trump that now Trump is piggybacking on, thanks in part to the support of his son, Barron, who's become very good in all this, which is, hey, you can circumvent the institutional media with places like Rumble, with podcasts that are available on places like Rumble, and now X under Elon Musk.
And so that's what this is all about, the suppression and censorship of speech and trying to illicitly surveil us.
Constantly and continuously with the endgame of censorship and suppression.
Well, actually, quite on point.
I'll bring this one up from our locals community.
Not to take away from your show, but Trump is on with Sean Ryan for two hours, and it's going to be lit.
Talking about doing podcasts.
Oh, if I could get a Trump or an RFK Jr. or both, it would be amazing.
Well, we may get the latter pretty soon.
Sounds like he asks all the questions we want Trump to answer.
Revenge this way cometh.
He's still detained now, Pavel, right?
Yeah, as far as we know, yes.
And I mean, there's a bunch of conventions.
There's the hate convention that impacts, you know, access to counsel, what questions they ask him, the manner and method in which he is detained.
So you may have extradition treaties that are implicated.
You may have other EU conventions that are implicated.
You have Geneva conventions that are implicated.
So you have a range of implications for France because he's not a French citizen.
He wasn't trying entry into France.
And quite frankly, it's quite obvious he hasn't committed a real crime.
Not an extraditable crime, at least.
Some people are out there already spreading the lie that he was facilitating or something, child pornography.
They just throw the word out there.
Again, if any of that was true, they don't need this dramatic arrest.
They get him extradited.
Or, at the very least, they publish the indictment.
They have it prepared already, and it's not...
Don't leave us guessing.
You don't go through all these shenanigans.
I mean, somebody got the pilot to land there.
I mean, this does not happen by, you know, oh, we're shot.
Like, take the Mexican story, right?
El Chapo's kid.
Supposedly, they accidentally, that was the original story, they accidentally landed in the United States with one of the most wanted drug cartel leaders of the last 30 years, and he happens to be on the plane.
It's like, uh-uh.
And, of course, comes out, he was kidnapped.
They summarily executed a couple of...
Politicians asked him to come meet him.
They summarily executed everybody.
They summarily executed the sheriff.
I mean, a whole bunch of people.
Sounds like a DEA black bag operation.
And basically, El Chapo's kid appears to have cut a deal with the U.S. government as part of all this.
I'm not going to comment too much further on that because I can be ill-advised.
Just pointing out...
CIA involvement.
I won't say he'll...
I retract all statements.
I have no idea.
And I have no idea what Barnes is talking about right now.
You're going to be moving north from Miami pretty soon.
Before we go to Rumble exclusively, let me get as many as I can here, people, because we're a little bit behind on them.
That's my twin brother, Paul.
Any statements bad about El Chapo's kid?
Twin brother, Paul.
And for me, it's Kyle Kemper.
My twin brother, Kyle.
Hardware 1197.
Viva, this needs the light of day.
Kamala's prototype version of border crime policy, the murder of the Bologna family in San Francisco in 2008.
She owns it.
I'm screen grabbing that.
I don't know what that is.
Karen Toth says, can someone please explain to RFK that the nuclear industry in the USA is fully insured?
It took two seconds to search on Google to find that out.
The French don't drop their waste into the ocean either.
Did he send to Robert, I got some raw milk today, raw milk on Friday, and it's more delicious than I expected it to be.
I had the raw goats as a kid, and I loved it, but this is my...
First experience with natural, cosmic as an adult.
Grimfillo says the Arizona speech was perfectly timed to deflate whatever energy the DNC gained so that mere days after the convention ended is completely forgotten.
I agree with that.
Shofar says the strive and drive for excellence is the currency of success.
Thumbs up, my dad.
He had his ninth grade education, but was wiser and more intellectually gifted than any elite academic.
V6neon says, I can't find anything over here.
What are the betting odds from across the pool?
Change of UK prime minister by the end of the year.
Flash, a flash UK general election by June 25.
I would love to see it, because the Labour Party snuck in with two-thirds of the country not wanting them.
The Tories were a disgrace.
Keir Starmer, I see evil in that guy's face, and I don't know him from a hole in the wall, but evil in face to policy.
He sounds like the Daily Stormer.
You know what I mean?
I mean his name sounds like...
No, but you look at him, he looks, I see, like, blackness in his eyes.
It's terrible.
Yogalisa, or Yogalisa says, I'm an independent, voted Trump twice, but I live in a blue state.
Trump won't win here.
Would it make more sense to vote RFK?
Yes, it would.
That would be your opinion.
Hrud, or C.H. Rudd, I think the last surviving branch after November will be the Supreme, will be South Carolina, will be the South Carolina?
The demons will eventually pack, oh, the Supreme Court.
They'll pack that, though.
The Republican tombstone will read.
No, it won't.
Right. Entry Required says, RFK oversight CDC FDA with a belated axe.
Good. Make no mistake, RFK is a partisan Democrat.
Read his Wuhan book, Mr. Entry Required.
I don't think he's a partisan Democrat.
If he was a partisan Democrat, he wouldn't have done what he just did.
So all those old narratives about him are DOA.
If you're still believing him, you're living in your own little delusional fantasy world because you can't explain.
You're in a cognitive dissonance peak.
What you just saw.
What, what?
Some of us had been saying now for a year, everybody got to see live.
So fully vindicated.
And some people that are still in denial world keep pretending, keep living whatever.
It's like the people who kept telling me Trump was, you know, an inside plant throughout 2016.
I was like, I don't think so.
They didn't try to kill him because he's an insider, people.
I didn't realize that I hadn't had this show in the entire time.
I'm an idiot.
Cindy1M says, Barnes, since you're in Las Vegas, do you know Jamie Crispin?
Big lawyers there.
I know him personally.
The guy is a super neat person.
Not cool.
I do not.
They give dogs of all sizes the same dose of Ax2.
Check out Dr. John Robb being arrested in Connecticut and mocked by state government trying to protect the pets.
King of the Biltong is in the house.
Biltong is one of the most protein-dense foods in the world and full of B12, zinc, iron, creatine.
Looking for a healthy snack food alternative?
Go to BiltongUSA.com.
Viva10 for 10% off.
It's amazing.
Like prosciutto but with beef.
Kamala's Willie Horton, the murder of Bologna family in San Francisco.
Look it up.
I'm going to do this for the second time.
Hey, Viva, Merrick Garland just threatened anyone questioning the election.
I retweeted it.
We'll get there in a second.
I'm not allowed to tell you this, but President Trump has shopped on our website and bought a shirt.
Fightfor45.com.
That is fightfor45.com.
Stefan Og, 100 bucks, says, love the show.
I think it's important to acknowledge that BlackRock is only an investment company.
You need to look at who the major investors are.
For example, the Rothschild family, etc.
And then we've got Mootsy says, what about RFK also running the commission to uncover the truth about 9-11?
Some of those criminals are still alive.
Alrighty. Now what we're going to do, I don't think it gives us the option to stay on Twitter, so we're going to go to Rumble and Locals, vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Robert, what are you doing tomorrow?
You're live with Barris?
Barris on with People's Pundit Daily.
YouTube Rumble and Locals on what are the odds breaking down the political impact.
And a little bit of the political backstory for the Trump-Kennedy alignment and breaking down the DNC convention, taking a look at the, may take a specific look at Nevada, and I'll have updated prediction and projection for the exact amount of votes I think each candidate will get come election day.
And an electoral college breakdown.
All that will be available at...
What are the odds on People's Pundit Daily tomorrow, 2 p.m. Eastern Time?
Well, I just realized YouTube seems to have implemented something similar to StreamYard, and I can at least access these now.
RFK Jr. is still on the ballot in most states.
Candidate, Congress, and Trump must demand who made the decision to cancel Secret Service protection.
What's the justification?
He's still a candidate.
I agree, but here's the real- All they're doing is forcing the two of them to campaign more together.
Well, good luck with that idea.
I mean, that's just Boos Trump and Boos Kennedy.
You can see the natural energy the two of them have.
Absolutely. And I've never felt...
It's the whitest of white pills.
I mean, it's iconic.
We've had three incredibly iconic photos.
Trump's mugshot, Trump's fight, fight, fight after they nearly killed him, and Trump and Kennedy on stage.
And that's all credit to credit Trump's stagecraft.
They have the lights going on in the background and the hero song.
Before we even leave this, Robert, so Foo Fighters say that they're going to sue him because he unlawfully used their song.
Am I wrong?
Foo Fighters were lying.
It's a great song, terrible band.
So, I mean, it's a band that tried to suppress people related to vaccines and all that jazz.
But Trump had, what a lot of these musicians don't understand.
You can license it and just pay a few thousand bucks.
You can license it a thousand times over.
They don't control this.
Other licensing organizations control this.
But look at that photo.
I mean, that's going to be one of the most iconic photos in American history.
And we've seen three of them in a year.
In a year!
It's flipping beautiful.
I gotta find who the photographer is.
Let me just see if I can.
I think there were a few of them that were like that.
You won't be the New York Times guy who magically shows up when anything bad happens.
God almighty, please protect the...
Okay, this is from Trump Team Tech.
So I don't know who took the photo.
It doesn't say in that tweet.
It's beautiful.
And you can see the reaction within Trump's base.
MAGA base wanted unity on these issues, on issues of public health and deep state corruption in the administrative state, ending surveillance and censorship and all of it, political freedom, medical freedom, food freedom, financial freedom.
These are very popular within Trump's base and Kennedy's base.
And so it was a natural alignment.
And credit to the two men for helping make it happen, despite people whispering in their ears, don't do it, don't do it, don't do it.
And it's going to be...
It's going to be electric.
It's just going to be electric.
Robert, we're going to end it after this question, and we're going to go over to Rumble and Locals, vote with our eyes, vote with our feet, and support the free speech platform.
If you had a guess, the next big names on the left coming in, who would be?
I'm thinking Zuckerberg would be the biggest, but I don't think that's possible.
We'll see.
The tech space is the most likely space.
Though, I mean, I think Tulsi Gabbard has said she supports him, but I don't think she's been on stage with him yet.
Right. So it'd be people that are popular on the populist left.
To join them on stage would be the next earliest domino to fall.
But there's a range of other dominoes out there that would surprise people and, you know, wait to see, to announce it.
I mean, I had, you know, insight that this might happen for some time, but it wasn't productive.
I was a lawyer for both of them.
If I say anything, that could be a problem.
So it didn't say anything until after it was done.
I'll cross my fingers for Zuckerberg.
He seems like the type who wants to be with the cool kids, and the cool kids definitely now are not Kamala Harris.
You can start by reinstating CHDs to Facebook and Instagram.
Start there, Zuckerberg.
Well, that'll segue us into the CHD Children's Health Festival.
Get that on Rumble and Locals.
I'm ending on YouTube right now.
Everybody, the podcast will be up on Podbean.
You can find it at Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
It's up there.
You'll see it.
And what else?
The entire stream will be on YouTube on Viva Clips.
And I'll see you all live at 1230 if you're not coming over to Rumble.
But come over.
Don't be lazy.
Come on over.
All right.
Ending. Now.
Boom. Done.
I do love the...
You know, Rumble's definitely boosting because we're getting the bad faith trolls that...
Yep. Robert, it's a...
Barnes is talking about the deep state.
That's just like a conspiracy theory.
I'm noticing some of the same names.
Yeah. I mean, the deep state is a doctrine that originated from The Economist from the 1880s.
That's how...
Conspiracy theory it is.
It simply explains how you can have an administrative bureaucratic state that continues its own policy priorities and prerogatives regardless of an election.
Because that's what an institutionalized administrative bureaucratic state with civil service protection can do because they're no longer controlled by the people's votes.
And what happens when you have that dual state, that administrative state, again, a doctrine well-recognized throughout conventional political science and academy, when it has national security agency power, when it has intelligence agency power, when it has military higher-ranking power, when it has law enforcement power?
Well, you just call it a deep state, because to explain both its shadowy nature, but its deeply entrenched components in the most powerful areas of institutional government.
So there's nothing, and we used it commonly throughout the 90s to describe Turkey, and you'd find it in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.
So these people are like, that conspiracy theory.
Those are the people that are like, oh, it couldn't have come from Wuhan.
No, our government would never be involved in biolab research.
Though, did you notice?
They saw Kennedy was joining with Trump, and I guess some people in the deep state were disappointed, so they decided to give Fauci a serious virus disease.
Did you see that?
They're going to take him out with one of his own created bio-weapons.
You just knew they would do that.
They're like, hey, Fauci, too much of a problem, pal.
We can't have you be a boogeyman throughout the rest of 2024.
Time to go.
Let's give you a little injection of one of your own.
Concoctions. And I don't revel in it.
I think Fauci...
I could lie, but I do.
No, I think he deserves to burn in hell, but he's already old.
Take a year off an 84-year-old man's life, it doesn't make a difference.
How the hell does he get West Nile virus?
I mean, where does he live that he's getting?
Exactly. You know that's a deep state whacking him.
They're whacking him with his own virus.
They're whacking him with one of his own concoctions.
It's classic.
It's how those people think.
A little bit of a sense of humor in the psychopath wing of the deep state takeout group.
I'm surprised they didn't give him a peanut butter sandwich.
I forget which FBI or CIA assassination.
That was a great interview on America's Untold Stories with Eric Hundley and Mark Grober.
Grober was there at the press conference of Robert Kennedy.
I've got to get Grobert back on.
He hasn't been on in a long time.
I'm going to see Grobert.
We're going to be hanging in towards October, I think.
America's Untold Stories, Eric Hunley, Mark Robert.
Hunley's got a new conspiracy channel up there, too, on true conspiracy stories.
Sorry, I'm a little ragged with my hair.
Let's go straight to Children's Health Defense.
I guess getting a victory of sorts.
They get to sue.
They're not getting standing out of their claim against...
The Children's Health Defense, that was against, is it against the government?
Is it against Facebook?
Yeah, against Biden and the administration.
And they had initially had their case tossed on standing.
Well, they joined, all the attorney generals sued for all the big tech censorship caused by the Biden administration.
Supreme Court said all of them don't have a claim under their interpretation of standing.
But they decided not to hear Robert Kennedy's case.
And so the Fifth Circuit said, okay, everybody is out except Robert Kennedy, because Kennedy joined the case late and said Robert Kennedy and Children's Health Defense needed their own factual record developed because they may be in a unique position.
The Supreme Court recognized this implicitly when they didn't take it, right?
When Scalia dissented from the denial of adding Robert Kennedy's case, You could see what the backstory probably was.
They recognize that Kennedy likely did have standing.
And so it goes back to the same district court, Judge Doty, great judge, and he says, okay, we've got these new restrictions on standing, but even under those new restrictions, Robert Kennedy and Children's Health Defense clearly does have standing because they are named and targeted, and here, his ongoing campaign matters.
Because they said, because he's continuing to campaign, either by himself or with Trump, however that works, that they have continued to censor and suppress him.
And it's like, they can't claim that there's no ongoing censorship or future risk of censorship for children's health defense when they're still banned from Instagram and Facebook.
So the judge is like, this is the classic definition of standing.
That even under the very...
Constricted nature of standing.
Again, standing is made up doctrine by lazy judges to play Pontius Pilate and get out of taking real cases.
That's my rant that will be repeated from now into eternity about standing.
But even under the Supreme Court's very restrictive definition of standing, Kennedy and Children's Health Defense clearly have it because they were targeted by name.
They have been continued to be targeted and they will continue to be targeted.
And they couldn't get any sworn statement from any government official saying, no, no, no, we've now stopped and we'll never do it again.
So that tells you they've absolutely planned on keep doing it.
So credit to Robert Kennedy, credit to Children's Health Defense for continuing to pursue this case.
There will be a legal case with discovery and ultimately a trial.
Of course, by the time it gets to trial, Robert Kennedy may be in the White House.
So we might have some fun, along with Donald Trump, committed to really changing these issues.
But just as a contingency plan, he's got this case still in place anyway.
There will be no immediate relief, and he's still suffering.
No, the judge could issue a preliminary injunction, because the judge has said he has standing to seek the preliminary injunction.
He needs to do that up front.
And I brought it up because I was curious where it says, where the judge says, I showed it already, but it says the court finds that Kennedy's likely to get on his claim for suppression of content.
That means he's likely to get in the next month.
And if he did, that would have all this impact on now as him as a Trump surrogate on Facebook and Instagram trying to suppress Kennedy, trying to suppress the public health message, trying to suppress Trump.
So it becomes an even more powerful tool during the campaign.
By getting that injunction put in place and the ban lifted.
So it's another critical area where there's synergistic energy towards an honest election in 2024.
And hypothetically, he gets an injunction and Facebook is enjoined to either cease interfering or get back up on Facebook.
And then Zuckerberg, you know, mea culpa.
I now endorse RFK's problem.
Please don't throw me into Guantanamo with everybody else.
Save that for Tim Cook.
Save that for Bill Gates.
Amazing. Let me pull up the list here.
What is this segue into naturally?
Speaking of big tech, speaking of people being targeted, speaking of censorship and suppression, what relates to both of our last two cases, Elon Musk going up to the Supreme Court.
Okay, hold on now.
A total brain fart.
Oh, that's right.
That's the subpoena, the warrant to get access to Donald Trump.
I put the video at the pre-streamed vlog show, the clip from the request for Sergio Orari.
Yeah, the request from the Supreme Court to take the case.
People forget, there's so much, Robert, we've forgotten about this, that Twitter was surveyed by the government to provide to communicate Trump's DMs, not tweets.
I thought for a second it was just tweets and they're already public.
Private DMs on Twitter while he was president.
Which raises obvious questions of executive privilege in terms of communicability.
They got the warrant.
Twitter was held in contempt, I think, for not complying.
And when I'm reading this certiorari, and yes, it's all allegations, but some of it is just matter of fact that's not wrong.
The reason why they didn't go through NARA, which is the National Archives Records Act, is because that would have involved advising Trump that they were trying to get his private DMs in Twitter.
And so they circumvent the law.
What district was it in, if I may ask, Robert?
The District of Corruption, otherwise known as the District of Columbia.
They get the warrant and compel Twitter to communicate the president's private DMs on Twitter, and they're taking it up to the Supreme Court.
I forget, what relief are they exactly asking for at this point in time now?
Well, really, it's declaratory relief going on a go-forward basis, because what they've done is it's another place where they've carved out...
An exception to the prior restraint doctrine.
So the prior restraint doctrine is the courts cannot be used as a tool to prohibit or censor speech.
But they've said, oh, but in certain subpoenas, if they're called national security subpoenas, we can order the person being subpoenaed to not disclose the fact they're being subpoenaed to the party whose privacy is being invaded and information disclosed.
And the various courts, like the D.C. courts, have said that prior restraint doctrine magically doesn't apply when you put the words national security or nondisclosure order.
Because again, the biggest prior restraint case ever was the Pentagon Papers being disclosed about national security military policy by the New York Times, and the Supreme Court of the United States said no federal court, no state court.
Could prohibit, could issue a prior restraint on the New York Times publishing.
So how in the world is there somehow a magical non-disclosure order exception because it's a grand jury subpoena concerning what a third party can disclose when they have to disclose for that third party to assert their rights?
In this case, not only including right to privacy, but right to executive privilege that is completely forfeited, gone and lost.
The moment the information is provided.
And so they're arguing there's no more exceptions to the prior restraint doctrine.
If courts are going to try to steal someone's demand that big tech engage in secret surveillance, secret censorship, that the world should get to know about it, at least the person is being victimized by it.
Because that's the court's complicity.
In prior restraint, in violation of the First Amendment.
But it's not just that.
It's not just like it's anybody.
It's that there's an obvious, obvious presidential question.
I mean, this is nothing more than spying on a president.
The presidential...
I mean, he was the president.
It's... Anyway, okay.
So he's gonna...
They're gonna go...
Great case.
And it's Musk again exposing what's happening.
What combines the Kennedy suit against the Biden administration, the Trump alignment with Kennedy, the Duroff indictment, and this case of Elon Musk petitioning the Supreme Court is them leveraging big tech to engage in secret surveillance and secret censorship in violation of the First Amendment by collusion and coercion of the government.
And the Supreme Court, if it's conscientious, not always sure a majority is, Should take this case and resolve that precise question.
Well, I mean, I guess the damage is done in many events.
So they got away with it.
They can stop it from happening in the future.
That's why it can be very credit to Elon Musk for continuing to fight it.
Fantastic. Let me see here if I can find something that this segues into fast.
Well, speaking of what all this is about is the Trump cases.
And we've got both Trump's sentencing and Trump's fraud appeal on deck.
Let's start with the sentencing because I'm more familiar with that one.
But Alvin Bragg comes out with his letter to the judge, Merchant, basically saying, we defer to your judgment, Your Honor.
Everything they say is wrong and stupid.
Blah, blah, blah.
But we defer to your judgment in terms of whether or not they should suspend sentencing until into the election.
This is the question I had.
So Trump asked for a postponement of the sentencing yet again until after the election on the basis of...
Appealing on the basis of immunity, appealing on the basis of the evidentiary ruling in the Supreme Court ruling on immunity that you can't use evidence.
Even if it's a private act, you can't use evidence that was presidential when it was created, or that is presidential privileged evidence.
And he's requesting a postponement of the sentencing.
The judge already postponed it to September.
Bragg responds by way of letter saying...
All their arguments are stupid, but we defer to your judgment and postpone, if you will.
It's a state-level case.
I don't understand the idea of postponing it until after the election.
What difference does that make insofar as he can't pardon himself anyhow?
What difference does that make?
The reason why Trump is seeking it is he doesn't want to deal with this nonsense lunatic doing something crazy during the election.
Prosecutors willing to go along with it is they don't want to get blamed for continuing to misuse and abuse their prosecutorial power to interfere in an election.
So, I mean, that's the political motivation.
The legal reasoning is that there's a range of complicated issues now confronting the court that the court shouldn't rush before deciding sentencing.
What they're really offering is a political way out for the judge to not suffer massive blowback by making a decision that either the Democrats are mad at him for not locking Trump up or everybody else is mad at him for interfering in an election in an illicit manner and the misuse and abuse of his judicial power.
So he could play Pontius Pilate, and judges love playing Pontius Pilate, and simply kick it past the election.
The second thing he could do is do what the law compelled.
Yeah, I mean, the Supreme Court said...
You cannot introduce evidence that a president would be immune from prosecution for in a criminal prosecution.
So even if the criminal prosecution itself doesn't offend presidential immunity, if you use evidence that is excluded by presidential immunity, then the entire trial is contaminated.
There's such a bunch of fiends.
First of all, they're asking for a vacator, which is to vacate the decision.
There's such a bunch of Disgusting scoundrels brag, Al, that what they're saying is, oh, you know, the evidence was inconsequential anyhow, and, you know, it was harmless, is what they say in the letter.
So the fact that we admitted evidence that is now in violation of the novel new ruling, yeah, because it's new from the Supreme Court, it was harmless anyhow, so no harm, no foul.
We adduced evidence that was irrelevant for some reason.
So no biggie.
I mean, the problem with that is, one, that doesn't appear to be the standard the Supreme Court set.
It appears that it's a violation introduced the evidence, period, for which the only remedy would be a vacating of the trial and a trial without that evidence being presented either for indictment purposes or conviction purposes.
But second, they relied upon it, cited it repeatedly in closing argument, and used it for the purpose of getting certain jurisdictions.
So the problem is their own statements on the record.
Talking about how important that evidence was.
So you can't argue it's so important for the purposes of introducing it in front of the jury and argue it's so important for the purpose of getting certain instructions to the jury favorable to the prosecution and repeatedly recite it in closing argument and then say, oh, actually, it was harmless.
I mean, it shows you what frauds they are.
Now, let's say the judge doesn't grant the mistrial.
Doesn't grant the continuance and goes forward with sentencing.
He has three options.
One, he could issue a suspended sentence.
He could say, I hereby sentence you to four years in prison.
And then say, suspended upon good behavior.
In that case, Trump doesn't go to Rikers.
Nothing else.
It's just the same as any other case.
The second option is he could sentence him to actual time in Rikers.
But delay the effect of the sentence for some later time period, either for time he seeks bail pending appeal, for other challenges, so forth.
The third option is he could sentence him to prison, but he himself grant bail pending appeal.
In New York, for charges like this, bail pending appeal is almost always given.
Now, he could say, screw you, Trump.
I'm not going to grant you bail-pending appeal.
Get ready to go to Rikers right now.
And Trump could immediately ask for a stay of that ruling until he could seek a bail-pending appeal motion to the Court of Appeals, or the appellate division, as it's called in New York.
And then from there, he can go up to the Court of Appeals in New York, which is their version of the Supreme Court.
And from there, due to the unique U.S. constitutional issues involved in this case, including the immunity decision, go right up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I put this out a month ago or so at sportspicks.locals.com.
We do political betting and sports betting for agnostication and whether the Federal Reserve is going to reduce or increase rates, all that kind of jazz.
And so I can tell here, I think he either continues the case or grants the mistrial motion.
I think this judge believes that if he were to immediately sentence him without bail pending appeal to Rikers Island in the middle of an election, that it would backfire against Democrats.
And that's basically what the prosecutor is hinting at by saying, well, it's okay.
We don't have any statement on whether you should continue it, Judge.
That's a message.
We don't want to take responsibility, but we would really prefer it if you did because Trump will probably gain if you actually try to send him to write.
Well, I had initially said the judge is probably going to...
Vacate the conviction.
But now that Bragg gives him the opportunity to kick it a little bit past the election, I think now that Mershon is going to say, okay, fine.
I'll be reasonable.
Put it past the election.
So now you get to run with the convicted felon through November.
And so we get a little bit of a fringe benefit of me delaying this.
I won't vacate the judgment because then he's no longer a convicted felon.
And that's a victory.
I won't sentence him to jail because that's just nuts.
Technically, he's still not a convicted felon until it actually is reduced to judgment.
Explain that, because Joe Nierman...
What's happened is a jury has found him guilty, but that fact-finding is not final until a judge reduces it to a legal judgment.
Okay. And so that's partially what they're challenging, is the jury's fact-finding can't be reduced to judgment because they listened to evidence they weren't supposed to be able to have.
And so that's why when some people say you can't technically call them a convicted felon, they're right.
Now, could you bring a defamation case on that?
Nah, that's probably not going to get very far.
And is the reason why also technically a judge could say, I'm chucking this conviction anyhow because no reasonable jury should have come to this conclusion.
Anyhow, what's that called?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
You could always do that.
And this judge would never do that.
No, no, no.
Because I didn't understand the argument.
In any circumstance, yeah.
The jury's factual finding is not an actual conclusion until the judge says it is in judgment.
Okay, fine.
My prediction is the judge is going to kick the can past November so they can still use the headline because they love it and it's the most improbable.
All right, the fraud case.
So, civil fraud case.
How do you call them, Judge Nipples?
I say New York Nipple Judge Engeron.
New York Nipple Judge Engeron.
So his civil fraud case up, a whole bunch of people are filing amicus in support of it.
All across the country, amicus are being provided.
Business groups that have no political tie to Trump at all, because they're all going ballistic.
They're saying this is the most vague standard of interpreting a statute ever, and it's being interpreted in a way that you could forfeit and bankrupt your claims, even without a victim.
That's the second problem.
So your interpretation of this law is nuts.
Your application of it when there's no victim is nuts.
The scale and scope of the punishment is insane.
Bankrupting no matter what.
No proportion at all to any real harm.
That's never been done before.
Supposed to violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
If you can't impose civil punitive damages more than five times higher than actual damages is what the Supreme Court's rule of thumb said for punitive damages claims.
How in the world can you do it?
400 million times higher than what the underlying claims of damages or harm were.
And then last but not least, they're like, this is the most assertively political selective prosecution in New York history, in American history.
They're bragging.
The prosecutor's bragging.
So what you're telling us is if we continue to do business in New York, if we come to do business in New York, any DA that doesn't like us can just take all of our money and property overnight.
They're like...
So they're telling the courts in New York, all of us are getting the heck out of New York unless you reverse this decision now.
So we'll see if the partisan corrupt appellate division in New York, that so far has been an embarrassment to the rule of law in New York, will start to realize just how many people are upset with what happened, who are not even political, and salvage the reputation of the New York legal system.
For the integrity of its business operations, or is New York going to disappear into oblivion like it almost did in the 1970s?
If they don't reverse this decision, no business person with an IQ that's above room temperature is going to continue to do business in New York if they have any means out.
Some businesses don't have a means out.
Anybody that does?
Getting the heck out of New York.
I'm trying to find the clip of Hochul from the DNC where she's taking pride in what they've done.
It's targeted harassment.
It's targeted prosecution.
And they will...
They'll get what they deserve, but the only problem is so will a lot of other people.
They'll turn it into a San Francisco where people are just going to board up and leave because it's not worth the risk to be on the politically disfavored side.
It's not even a Trump.
I mean, Leticia James is showing they'll go after whoever the hell they want.
It's what Peter Thiel predicted.
He said the Democratic Party thinks California is popular.
They'll run a candidate from California for president.
He didn't know which one, but this was many years ago he said this.
And they're going to be shocked.
When they get crushed because the country doesn't want to become California.
He goes, basically, we're the Saudis of America.
We have this real rich resource in California, tech like oil, and a completely insane government that's religiously motivated.
It's just wokeism is the religion.
And right now, all across the country, various groups are running ads reminding everybody the state that Kamala Harris comes from.
Now, do you notice?
I was very curious in her convention speech.
I was like, is she going to tell us which country she actually grew up in?
Apparently she hates your country, Viva.
The words Canada managed to never appear in the entire Democratic Convention.
So the place she actually grew up...
Remember, they even did an image, a photo of Oakland in the 1970s.
She left Oakland when she was five!
Or six years old?
She's such a scoundrel.
So she grew up in the wealthy section of Montreal.
From what I understand, that's where she was able to buy their first home, was when her mom got a gig at the...
Where was she doing it?
It wasn't in the barrio in Oakland.
I don't know.
I would love to know.
Her first home, where it was, not that how much it cost, she pretends that they couldn't get a house if they were renters because they were, you know, middle class.
Horse crap, they didn't get a house because they moved city repeatedly for their jobs, and I think the only time she got it was when she went to Canada for various reasons that are probably not related to anything that she's campaigning on.
Robert, here, this is it.
It's no wonder he had a fleet of Mar-a-Lago.
Sorry about that, Florida!
Sorry about that.
I hate her.
Trump hasn't spent much time in Europe lately.
Sorry he had to flee to Florida.
I mean, this is the insanity, bragging about the weaponization of the legal system.
I mean, Kennedy was able to link it up.
He goes, lawfare against both of us.
You know, denial of security, adequate security protection to both of us.
I mean, they try to take Trump off the ballot just like they try to take Kennedy off the ballot.
And it's like, this isn't the Democratic Party.
It's the anti-Democratic Party.
It's the party of oligarchy.
It's the party of bureaucracy.
It's the party of corruption and collusion and corporate kleptocracy.
But, I mean, we'll see if the New York courts can save themselves or not.
Because Delaware courts are busy torching themselves.
And Elon Musk and everybody else is saying, get the hell out of Delaware.
And people don't understand, large parts of Delaware's economy are because a whole bunch of corporations incorporated there is setting up this whole little subpart of it's a small state economy because its court system was considered the best in the world for business disputes.
And when they see them try to bankrupt Elon Musk, even though his own stockholders repeatedly say, yes, do the same deal that you're now saying we were somehow bamboozled in doing, they realize we got to get out of Delaware.
So you've got to get out of California.
You've got to get out of New York.
You've got to get out of Delaware.
And these courts don't realize, because they're so partisan, so political, so ends justifies the means.
They're like the Supreme Court of 1935.
Now, some of their principles they still should have stuck with, but there are ways to moderate those principles.
But in part, it was because they were arrogant.
I mean, for example, not every child labor law violated the rule of contracts, right?
I mean, that was them being corporate whores on the Supreme Court.
There were places for them to affirm the right of contract.
It was just, they were doing it in ridiculous areas.
Why? Because they were politically clueless.
And then they all of a sudden realized, not only is FDR going to pack the court, it was popular for him to do so.
That was their problem.
It wasn't the first, it was the second.
And that's why they were like, oh, hold up, because they're clueless.
These New York courts are, the Supreme Court in 1851 that approved Dred Scott put in motion the Civil War.
If they would have made the right decision, we would never would have had a Civil War.
So these clueless courts are often the most dangerous to the constitutional republic that can exist.
And the ones in New York, the ones in D.C., the ones in California.
Are endangering the Republic at a rate they don't understand.
Why exactly 1935?
Buck v.
Bell was 27. Korematsu was 44. What was going on in 35?
Oh, so what happened was the New Deal, they just started greenlighting left and right, which they should have greenlit right and left.
But before then, they were striking down every law that tried to deal with any issue.
So you want to do unemployment compensation, strike it down.
You want to do...
You want to limit five-year-olds from working 18 hours a day.
Strike it down.
They were enjoining labor unions for about 35 years.
Labor unions couldn't organize in the country because of judges issuing injunction after injunction after injunction.
So they were such corporate whores that they didn't understand in the Depression they couldn't keep playing that game.
Now, the problem was they were so scared and terrified.
Of the political blowback that they just became a rubber stamp for every nutty bureaucratic notion that our FDR had to the point where they said that it was interstate commerce to govern whether a farmer was making wheat for himself because it could indirectly impact the interstate commerce because he wouldn't be buying it from interstate commerce because he was growing it for himself.
That's not what interstate commerce clause means.
But the part of it, how they got there...
Was they completely mishandled the early Depression-year cases.
Things they were getting away with, like Buck B. Bell and other cases, they couldn't get away with.
Now, they got away with the war cases because of those war, Korematsu.
But a lot of other stuff, they couldn't as much.
But these courts are out of touch.
They're completely out of touch.
Like, look at the courts keeping Kennedy off the ballot.
You had a court in New York pretending that a man whose law license is in New York, Whose legal voter registration is in New York, whose business is in New York, who pays taxes as a full-time New York resident, the highest tax state in the country, somehow isn't a legal resident of New York, which is insane.
By tax standards, he is.
For election purposes, he's not.
And then the Pennsylvania court decided, hey, I'm even more corrupt than that New York court.
Because when his flight gets delayed, She won't let him testify.
Not only that, she won't let anybody testify.
Even the witnesses who had come there days in advance to testify.
Because she knows she needs to rig the trial and rig the verdict to rig the outcome.
Well, I mean, Kennedy thanked them.
And thanks to those corrupt judges, they just helped facilitate the Trump-Kennedy alignment.
Right in the step on the Democratic National Convention celebration haze, literally the day after Harris speaks.
In the most useless speech ever given in a convention.
It was not useful.
It was destructive.
It's all those things, too.
But politically, it has no capital in it.
No virtue in it.
There's nothing like...
I've asked people that are Harris fans, tell me the one policy.
Tell me just one policy she announced.
They still have the no tax on tips afterwards.
Kennedy summed it up.
She didn't even talk about no tax on tips.
She didn't even talk about that in the speech.
I was like, there's literally zero policy.
I'm going to pretend I'm from Oakland.
I'm going to pretend I'm my mother because I myself have never been a mother.
And then last but not least, I'll give you zero policies altogether.
And he summed it up.
He said, who needs policy when you can just hate Trump?
I mean, he nailed it.
They had joy, Robert.
I still like fat Al better than skinny Al.
Joy, Robert.
Yeah, who needs policy when you have Trump?
I mean, you know what that is?
Amazing. That's two minutes of hate from 1984.
Absolutely. To get together, two, hate, hate, hate, hate.
Oh, but they're saying joy.
That's what they were saying.
It was joy.
It was hate.
Oh, man.
What is the time frame on the appeals in the New York nipple judge?
Well, the amicus briefs are being filed now, so the court, I mean, the court decision will come down sometime in the fall.
And we're going to see whether the appellate division has a cloak.
But a lot of the judges have the same political profile, the same district of the same judges who just denied Kennedy ballot access.
The same Harrisburg judges in Pennsylvania that just denied Cornel West ballot access.
So, I mean, the Democrats are so political.
Like, people ask me, why are they still going after Amos Miller, trying to shut him down to such a degree that we can't even get food we need, and we don't even live in Pennsylvania?
Just because Amos Miller has any food that ever touches inside Pennsylvania's borders.
It's because they are power mad.
They have no sense of restraint.
They have no sense of limitation.
And that's how they're sending so many people like Elon Musk, like Robert Kennedy, like Vivek Ramaswamy, like Tulsi Gabbard, like Joe Rogan, running in the Trump direction.
Robert, I think I might have just discovered something amazing.
I went to look up Cornel West just while you were talking.
Oh, you can ignore that.
There's some parodies out there that are pretending he did something he didn't do.
Oh, son of a gun.
Well, I'm hitting tweet.
I'm hitting tweet.
I'm hitting...
Credit to the people that did it.
No, he also isn't dropping out and endorsing Trump.
If you know Cornel, that's very unlikely.
Oh, but hold on.
No, this is his...
Okay, okay.
I'm not going to divulge this until I hit tweet on it.
I'm going to destroy that dog.
Robert, what are we moving on to now?
So, well, we got all the woke cases.
We got the machine gun cases.
We got the baby food autism, RICADA, PrEP Act vaccine immunity cases.
And when you can remove...
Oh, it's a good transition into when can you remove?
It's sort of a weekly update in Barnes Law cases.
When can you remove a state criminal case to a federal court like Trump tried to do and if the federal court had done its job could have avoided this embarrassment to the state of New York?
Go for it on this one?
Yeah, sure.
So this all relates to that case of the woman who recorded her own family court proceeding in Pennsylvania because she figured out the court reporter was Falsifying the transcript to favor the big corporate law firm involved in the case that that court reporter had an ongoing financial relationship with.
When the court system, when the court clerk and the judge found this out, rather than investigate why the court reporter was getting things wrong, they instead referred her to criminal prosecution by the local prosecutor who was buddies and pals with the judge and the court clerk.
And so that was the case where the judge rushed me to trial and all that stuff.
While that was happening earlier on, before I got involved, she had gone to the federal court and said, look, my federal civil rights are being violated.
Under federal law, I have a right of removal of this state criminal court case to federal court.
And in fact, this is the case.
It's an underutilized provision.
But if a state criminal case, it becomes clear that the state court...
Is violating your federally protected civil rights or is refusing to enforce those federally protected civil rights, that triggers your right to go to federal court and remove that state criminal court proceeding, at least for the federal court to decide whether it should be removed or not.
What happens is she goes to the federal court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and there the federal court says, oh no, you needed to file as soon as the indictment came down a year before.
That the 30-day trigger for removing a state case to federal court is triggered from the day of indictment.
That's just completely wrong.
The law on this, if it's when you know you have a basis to seek removal, that triggers the 30 days.
So this comes up in a civil context, right?
Let's say there's a dispute between citizens of different states over a certain amount.
That's what triggers your right to go to federal court.
But sometimes what happens is the original case includes a state defendant.
The state defendant drops out.
And when that happens, that's when the 30-day clock starts, not when the beginning of the case is.
Same is true in a criminal case.
Because what gives you the right to go to the federal court is when you know that the local state court won't protect your federal civil rights and the law wants to give the state court a chance to prove that it will.
She only sought federal protection when it became clear the state court would not protect her federally protected civil rights.
And she did so within 30 days of that event.
And so consequently, she did have a right of removal.
The federal court's dismissal was wrong, and we're up to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
But it's information that's useful for people to know out there generally.
The federal courts are supposed to be much more robustly protecting us from the corruption of state prosecutors, from the corruption of state judges, and it needs to happen at a higher rate.
Robert, now that I can lay claim to fame for having found this old tweet, this is an actual tweet from Cornel West from 2016, and it says, oh, come on, I don't have the window up here.
It says, Brother Bernie and Brother Trump are authentic human beings in stark contrast to their donor-driven opponents.
Given what now...
You have to get screwed to the point where you realize it's not going to get any better before you agree to maybe take a principled approach.
If he had flattering words for brother Trump eight years ago and everything that's happened in between...
That could be an interesting endorsement.
So is Cornell going to be, for those who don't know, in any event, Cornell West, I'm not particularly familiar with him.
I always thought he was a bit of a radical, but I appreciate that.
Yeah, he is.
I mean, he's an old school, old left.
He's anti-Israel on the Israeli war, and that's really animating a lot of his campaign.
And so that's why I think it's more unlikely that he's one of those people.
Well, unless he thinks he can play a role in a Trump administration.
Well, the other factor is...
He right now hurts the Democrats.
That's why they're without question.
Especially like, for example, he's on the ballot in Michigan.
If he's also on the ballot in Minnesota, that's a real problem for Democrats.
Because there's a big Arab vote and there'll be some black vote, black left vote, an old left vote that goes to him.
So it wouldn't be in Trump's interest for West to drop out and endorse him.
It's the way it was for him to have Kennedy do so.
And so nobody thinks I'm a total idiot thinking he'd have a position in the Trump administration.
What I mean is, let it set aside his, assume he has sincerity in his hatred for Israel.
Even if you hate Israel, you still want peace in the Middle East.
Oh yeah, no doubt, no doubt.
And it's similar with Jill Stein.
Now, both of them have complained about the Democratic Party trying to keep them off the ballot.
Trump has earned some bona fides with a lot of their voters by never doing that.
He has never tried to keep them out of the ballot.
He hasn't demanded the media exclude them at all.
He's never demanded anybody be excluded from a debate.
So that has helped Trump in those camps.
That was smart for him to do.
Speaking of something that Trump needs to do, that Kennedy can help him with, is we've got to change the law.
On immunity for big drug companies when they knowingly and willfully and recklessly cause injury with their vaccines or drugs, as we saw this past week in the various PrEP Act immunity claims that are coming about.
Yeah, so this is where there's also a distinction between Canada and the U.S. People are wondering, how is it that Dan Hartman is suing Pfizer for the death of his son?
How is it that Kayla Pollack is suing Moderna for her having been...
I think it's South Africa and probably Australia.
The Pfizer contracts or the Moderna contracts with the government have a hold harmless clause, which doesn't bar lawsuit.
It just means they get held harmless from the government if they get sued in order to pay damages.
The PREP Act provides immunity.
This particular lawsuit, you'll fill in the details, but from what I surmise is...
It's alleging what Brooke Jackson was effectively alleging, which is that you're supposed to deliver a vaccine that works, and there's fraud in there, so you don't even get the immunity that the PrEP Act provided you because of your fraudulent conduct.
Is this another case in which I think there were standing issues as well?
Well, it's basically bifurcated cases.
So one case is in Vermont.
The other case is being litigated by Aaron Seary, the AstraZeneca case on behalf of Dressin.
So she was someone who participated, I believe, in the clinical trials, was made certain contractual agreements by AstraZeneca.
Those weren't honored.
She was injured by the vaccine.
And she's bringing suit.
And AstraZeneca is claiming, it doesn't matter what contracts we have with you.
If your injury in any way relates to the administration of a vaccine, you can't sue.
To give you an idea of how nuts the PrEP Act has been applied in some instances.
Remember, the PrEP Act...
It was done after the anthrax scare, which was falsely exaggerated by Robert Mueller and the George W. Bush administration.
And it's now been applied to the COVID vaccine and to other vaccines along the way.
And what it says is it's like the childhood immunization.
If you get on the kids list, you're immune from anything.
To such a degree, you go into a drugstore.
To get the vaccine, you slip and fall because they failed to maintain the premises.
The local CVS will claim immunity because you were there related to the vaccine.
So it's sort of like the Disney arbitration clause.
Oh, well, your kid signed up for Disney clause.
Sorry. I'm not laughing because it's funny.
I'm laughing because it's outrageous.
Completely, completely.
And so in Vermont, you had a school system.
Giving kids the vaccine against parental consent.
The kids didn't consent either.
And what was the state of Vermont's excuse?
It involves the vaccine.
PrEP Act immunity.
That they're claiming informed consent trumps contracts and trumps informed consent.
It trumps the Nuremberg Code.
It turns out the Nazis just needed to cite immunity.
The poor Nazis just didn't have the PrEP Act.
If they had it, they could have abused every privilege known to man.
And so the Vermont Supreme Court said, yep, full immunity.
That's how these commie courts are reacting.
We're yet to determine what's happening in the federal court because the point that Aaron Seary made was if there's no contractual claim, then these people can go around and violate every right known to man.
It's like, the PREP Act immunity was supposed to be about tort negligence you can't bring against a drug company.
It was not supposed to be, hey, it's now a license to literally steal and kill.
And that's how they're interpreting it.
But what it shows is, we've got to end the PREP Act immunity.
End the Childhood Act immunity.
No more immunity for big drug companies when their drugs cause injury.
Period. End of story.
If their drugs are great, Convince a jury.
If they're not, you deserve the consequences that come with it when you inflict injury on ordinary people.
How does this ultimately get resolved?
Because you're going to have conflicting decisions at the state level, at the appellate level, I presume.
It's legislatively got to be changed at the national level.
First step, have a commission that studies what's happening to kids' health.
I can tell you what those studies, when they're honestly done, because some sporadically have been honestly done, they're going to come back and they're going to say our food is contaminated, vaccines are dangerous and ineffective for most children, most vaccines, and pharmaceutical industry is contaminating people as much as the food industry is.
That's what it's going to come back with.
And what does that mean?
We need to change the laws.
No more immunity for vaccine makers.
No more immunity because of emergency prep act or because they're on a kid's list.
And let's start shifting to small farms as the source of the food for our country, directly from the producer, not big corporate farms, starting with school lunches.
I mean, that's a good transition.
Just look at the baby food case.
Those were parents who thought they were doing the right thing.
It's terrible.
I won't pull up the...
Let me just make sure I don't shut this down.
I can't pull up the decision right now to get the name of it, but they call it like Baby Organic Ultra.
The essential food.
This is a Whole Foods company, Whole Foods-related company, that advertises and markets that they're organic food.
They're authentic food.
They're the healthiest food for your baby.
Well, guess what?
It turned out as organic in their food.
Arsenic. Is what's organic in their food.
PBB lead is what was organic in their food.
Mercury is what was organic in their food.
And they were causing young babies that had perfect health records through two, two and a half years, suddenly severe autism.
Completely dysfunctional.
When you throw in the word, I won't, that's what the lawsuit says.
It says a brain disorder or slash autism.
It's, it's, they've alleged basically heavy metal food, heavy metal poisoning of the kids.
Well, and they found it in the baby.
They found the toxic metals in the baby and they started looking at where in the world could this come from?
And then they found out publicly that this had actually been studied, but in limited publications, these baby food products, organic, special, healthy baby food products.
Targeting babies using Jeff Bezos Whole Foods had high levels of Toxic metals of arsenic and PBB lead and potentially mercury in there.
And how many people did it damage?
And initially the federal court, like a lot of federal judges, like a lot of state judges, was trying to figure out an excuse to hide this case and not allow it to be a class action, not allow it to go forward.
Credit to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned.
Said, no, there's good grounds here.
You've got to credit the facts.
Look at what those facts allege.
And if you're familiar in this world, it won't surprise you.
It's what Robert Kennedy has been studying for 20 years.
It's why he said, I get up every day and pray, how can I make a difference in this world for these kids?
And that had to be my top priority.
We have to love our kids more than we hate each other over politics in order to save those kids.
But that's what's happening.
And then dig into who these companies are owned by.
Is it a surprise?
You've got Jeff Bezos and Amazon and Whole Foods and Washington Post and all that.
And on the other side, the company distributing the food product at these health stores, organic health stores.
You want organic health?
You go to amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
That's where you're going to get it.
That's why the commies in Pennsylvania, all those ugly whales up at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, those low-IQ lardasses, don't like it.
Because that's real healthy food when you eat from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com and you still have a chance to do so before the government comes and shuts them down again.
Instead, they were targeting these little kids.
I looked it up.
I was like, dime the dollar.
This company's principal investor that's going to own a huge share of the stock is going to be BlackRock.
And by golly, it's their number one investor, almost owns 20% of the stock.
That's what these companies are about.
I don't, for anybody who didn't watch RFK Jr.'s intro when he ran a speech, he was talking about how in these impoverished neighborhoods, and he was focusing on inner city, typically black neighborhoods, where they were set up next to dumps or set up next to disposal areas, where the heavy metals were leeching off into the water, and he was noticing there was a distinct impact on IQ of the communities.
I thought he was going to get in trouble for that because I thought someone was going to call him racist or whatever, but he's seen this, and it's a known fact.
Intellectual problems and brain disorders.
Both of them, both Robert Kennedy and Alex Jones were confirmed.
I was just thinking this week, how wild it is.
I'm the one lawyer that ties all three of them together.
So, Robert Kennedy, Alex Jones, Donald Trump, representing all of them in the last five years.
How wild.
But it's like fluoride, right?
Both of them have been mourning about fluoride in the water now for decades.
And what comes out?
Oh yeah, it turns out fluoride in the water directly corresponds to lower IQ.
Just three days ago.
Robert, just three days ago.
Let me bring this up.
Oh, sorry.
I remember when it was a conspiracy theory.
And let's see here.
Bada bing, bada boom.
I think I got to share it in presentation mode.
Here we go.
Fluoride at twice the recommended level linked to lower IQ in kids.
I remember people calling people conspiracy theorists for saying just this.
Confirmed. Amazing.
Exactly. To see Fox News, which gets all of its money from Big Pharma and a little bit of the rest from Big Ag, many of whom, as the Tucker person interviewed, talked about how connected they were.
And by the way, the people that were feeding those people to Tucker are part of this effort to unite Trump and Kennedy.
So you had people that have been working very diligently to make all this happen.
And it's not a coincidence you were seeing it all happen around the same time.
But what they outlined is how much there's overlapping investment interests.
And again, if you want to know who's doing something bad in the world, find out where Bill Gates is invested, find out where George Soros is invested, and find out where BlackRock is invested.
And you will find some of the nastiest, sleaziest, worst actors, corporate actors in the world.
You can just follow them, and you have a roadmap to world crime against humanity.
Let me read a bunch of the rants before we head over to the vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party because there's a ton here that I have to catch up on.
M. Sidloy says, you missed my previous rant.
I read the New York Post, not the National Post article that Alberta Law Society is going after John Carpe.
He's the president of the JCCF who got in trouble for doing something stupid.
Hired a private investigator to go see if a judge was breaking COVID rules.
I don't think it's, I wouldn't have done it, but I don't hold it against him.
John isn't using JCCF funds for his defense.
He set up a give, send, go.
Please put it on blast.
I will do that as soon as I get the link.
Barnes Epic Tie.
That's from Hairy Toe 2. The best white pill my wife gave birth to a baby girl on Thursday.
Celeste René.
That's a beautiful name.
Is a gift from God above in heaven.
Nick Gamblin.
Enjoy it.
Enjoy the it being parenthood.
Or if it's not your first, but enjoy the beautiful baby.
Let me see here.
I can't read that.
Jimmy Long is now a monthly supporter.
Awesome. Outdoor Noble.
Sentencing him to prison sentence wouldn't serve any purpose for his opponent.
He could still run for POTUS, the Tiger King campaign strategy, and it would play to his RFK base, no doubt.
As I understand, the jury finds guilty, but the judge convicts at sentencing.
That's from Denise Antu.
Fighting for Trump, FEC received 59 allegations that Donald J. Trump violated FEC Act.
In 29 cases, office-generated OGC recommended the FEC investigate Trump.
Can Barnes explain?
This pertinent to New York City case.
Robert? Say that last part again?
It says the FEC found 59 allegations against Donald J. Trump for violating the FEC.
Oh, right.
There's an argument that on the criminal side, the fact the FEC already cleared this shows that there was no election violation.
Okay. And I'll go through these real quickly.
Imagine 2028 when the Dem and Rep announces both Trump-aligned candidates.
That's from Knucklefist or Knuckle...
Yeah, knuckle fist.
Swanning, have you followed the Mod Ranch indictment?
I have not in South Dakota.
And the iconic photo, love it.
Today's show seems especially good.
Barnes on fire as always.
Hold on one second.
I think one more came in while we were talking.
Sung the ring of fire and it's bonds, bonds, bonds and viva fry and fire.
That's not bad, actually.
Okay, good.
What do we do?
Do we go over to locals for tips in the after party?
We got, well yeah, it depends on whether we want to cover one more here before we break.
We got Big Tech, Amazon, antitrust case, illegals trying to impact the election of 2024 at SCOTUS and with Attorney Generals.
When a machine gun is protected by the Second Amendment.
All the crazy woke stuff in the Nick Ricada case.
Ooh, ooh, there's two.
Let's do, I've just put the link in the chat so everyone should come over to Locals.
Okay, do the Ricada.
Let's do the Rakeda and the illegals, because I know those two are going to be big for everybody, and then we'll do the rest and read the tips over on our afterparty.
What's the news with Rakeda?
So, multiple aspects.
So there are people that had certain factual conclusions about him that have been disproven by the fact that his kids have been returned to him, which doesn't happen if all those factual allegations against him were true.
That's par one.
In this criminal case, a member of our board, a member of Rakata's board, a member of some other boards, a good conscientious criminal defense lawyer, brought motions challenging multiple aspects of the search and seizure.
Fourth Amendment violations, Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, and kind of a Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment hybrid violation.
So the question is whether statements were coerced from witnesses in violation of their Right to counsel and Miranda rights.
Whether or not the search was procured by fraud and whether or not the execution of the search was overly broad.
Somebody might have mentioned these issues right at the very beginning of the case as staring out from the warrant.
And a bunch of the so-called practicing lawyers on law too.
By the way, if anybody practicing, if any practicing lawyer on law too.
Is giving the kind of advice these people are on the Rakeda case, know to never hire them.
You know, I mean, the potentially criminal defense lawyer, you know, the legal mindset that has very interesting travel patterns.
The, you know, Nate, the lawyer, go back to being a policeman, I think, or covering like women's soccer or something.
Uncivil law, God bless him.
Stick to patent law, bro.
Now, GoodLogic's done great conscientious reviews.
Don't always agree with him, but he's done very thorough, fair reviews.
But most of the LawTube has been utter crap on this.
They've been like, they've made legal legal look sharp.
That's how bad it's been.
They made legal legal look sharp!
So, a little breakdown of this.
So, Rakita's already won on the Fifth and Sixth Amendment issue.
So, as I suspected, I was like, I bet they did a lot of illegal crap during this case, because the whole thing screamed it.
It was like...
A case like this normally doesn't progress like this, doesn't proceed like this, doesn't read like this.
If you've been around enough of these cases, if you've studied enough of these cases, you knew there were sirens going off and red flags everywhere.
And it wasn't Hail Marys or Special Defense of Nick Ricada or anything else.
It was just any case I would look at and say, this case smells like a crap case.
So the government has already conceded.
Prosecution has already conceded.
Yeah, we kind of mirandized one of the witnesses.
And yeah, they kind of asked for an attorney.
And yeah, we kind of had another cop coerced testimony out of him.
So yeah, we can't put that on because he has confrontation clause rights that are independent.
Some people think, oh, unless it's your rights that are violated, you don't have standing.
There's a whole bunch of circumstances, either through the confrontation clause or the due process clause.
Where you can find ways to raise third-party standing effective claims.
I won't go into all the intricacy of it, but there's a bunch of people that didn't understand that basic part.
It's like, Lord have mercy.
So, I mean, the government conceded it.
Didn't even fight it.
Said, yep, no problem.
Can't introduce those statements.
The next set of issues was, as I also kind of predicted, so there's two ways to measure a warrant when you're reviewing it.
And this basic thing, a lot of these law tubers can't get.
These practicing lawyers can't get.
No wonder they have no history of criminal case success that anybody knows about.
One is you assess the cop.
Another is you assess the court.
So, for example, when you're assessing whether or not there was probable cause for the warrant to issue, that is looking at what the judge did with what the judge said and what the judge knew.
And that's based on what the judge was told.
And that can be a...
And it's misinterpreted as a deferential standard.
It's still a constitutional standard, still federal.
You get language and lingo like that, but there's also language and lingo that goes the other way.
But there's a separate, a different way to challenge the warrant.
And it's what I said from the get-go, which is you can challenge whether the cop told the truth.
It's loosely, after Franks v.
Delaware, called a Franks hearing.
What it is, you tell the judge, hey, judge, there was information the cop had access to that he failed to tell the judge, and that's how he got the warrant.
And what's amazing is we don't even require, I think we should, but we don't require, we don't impose a negligence standard.
So we don't say the cop with due diligence would have done boom, boom, boom, boom.
I think we should require that to meaningfully enforce the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but we don't.
We just say, don't lie.
Don't make stuff up.
Don't hide stuff.
But everything about what this cop did screamed to me from the very beginning, before I'd even read the search warrant affidavit, just looking at the detention warrant, screamed that this cop is a liar.
This cop is a fraud.
You don't have to love Nick Ricater to care about Nick Ricater to see that.
You just have to care about the Constitution of the United States of America and have a little bit of...
Practical lawyering experience.
And so it turned out the cop lied about tons of stuff.
So it turned out that Children's Protective Services had already told the cop what's being alleged does not constitute sufficient grounds to allege any kind of child abuse, least of all a crime.
Do you think he included that when he mentioned it to the court?
He just kind of forgot to put that in there.
The second thing.
He knew that the weird dude up in Minneapolis had said all kinds of crazy stuff about Rakeda.
He was citing him like, he's a concerned citizen.
And he just forgot to mention the judge.
Actually, he's kind of a nutjob who's been saying crazy stuff for six months about Rakeda.
And then the third part was he claimed, remember the videotape where he could magically tell?
What was or wasn't white powder as opposed to what is a flash reflection?
And he knew from his special video insight that that must be cocaine.
Extraordinary, even though all the behavior he then describes isn't consistent with taking cocaine.
Which I said, that screams BS off the plate.
Well, of course, he didn't even get the original video.
He lied about it.
He said, oh yeah, I was watching the original video.
No, he didn't even download it.
What he did, Is he saw somebody else talking about it on another video.
And they discovered this going into the process.
So he hid the fact that he watched somebody else's video of something.
There's video of me out there.
People made AI memes of me saying all kinds of crazy things.
They have me as Breaking Bad.
I mean, there's over 200 versions of it.
Imagine some cop getting a warrant for my house because he watched that.
And this guy, he lied about that!
So what you request is what's called a Frank's hearing.
And the prosecution, if they're worried or nervous that they might lose a Frank's hearing request, is they go in and they request, we need to have special briefing, judge, give us extra time, da-da-da-da.
If they're confident, 90% of the time they go into the court and say, eh, nah, here's where they're wrong, boom, boom, boom, let's move on.
Instead, they go in front of the judge and like, we need extra briefing.
Also, we need to figure out how we can try to pretend the cop didn't lie or try to get him to tell another lie or I, the prosecutor, am thinking about how do I get out of this case.
If a smart prosecutor uses this as an opportunity to get a plea deal on the table, to get a deal done, that's what a smart prosecutor does.
One out of three cases in drug-erase cases is pled out before the Court of Appeals ever hears.
One out of three gets outright dismissed.
So, I mean, this is the big issue legally in every case like this.
But it turned out the cop was completely rogue.
Lying, hiding information, fabricating facts, making up claims, intimidating, coercing other cops, intimidating, coercing witnesses in direct violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
And then last but not least, they seized all the guns.
Well, there's a little problem.
There's no reference to guns in the warrant.
The cops had been there at the home previously and had seen, supposedly, been following him as a regular follower on his video channel, so they knew he had guns, but they didn't request from the court to seize those.
Why? Because they didn't have any evidence that was connected to any criminal activity.
Why? Because it might trigger a red flag in a small rural county.
Hold on a second.
You want to go grab somebody's guns?
What's going on here?
But what do they do when they get there?
They're like, ah, yeah, we're just going to grab it.
Many grab random stuff, by the way.
Well, you know there's a word for that, or phrase for it.
It's called general warrant.
And it's called, otherwise known as, for all the constitutionally illiterate practicing lawyers out there, unconstitutional.
It's why the Fourth Amendment exists.
To get rid of general warrants.
Now, here's how cops have been trying to get away with this for years.
They get a specific warrant saying we're going to get this, this, this, and this.
And then they go in and they say, oh, it's in plain view.
I just saw it.
Well, of course, that is basically, as courts started to figure out, hold on a second, that would be meaning you have a general warrant.
I give you a warrant for something particular, but anything you see while you're in there, you can take.
That's a general warrant, which is exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to always prohibit.
It has to be particular with what it describes as to what it's searched and...
What is seized?
And so that was problematic.
They seized all the guns, charged them with things related to the guns.
The problem is they had no basis to seize the guns.
The guns weren't related to the...
They knew about it beforehand, didn't even request its seizure, didn't get approval from the warrant, and it wasn't connected somehow.
They didn't see, oh, I see the gun connected to this somehow.
That makes it a nexus to the underlying criminal activity that you're allowed to search in because that's the limitation they impose on plain view, which means all of...
The gun-related charges have to be thrown, and the enhancements would have to be thrown out.
So he's got robust constitutional issues.
Now, who knows with a state trial court judge?
Nine out of ten are in the pocket of the prosecutor, and they're complete wusses and not willing to enforce the Constitution when it comes to these issues.
So there's always that issue.
But if you're the prosecutor, do you really want to keep going forward on this case, which is for the cases you typically have at the bottom of the pile, frankly?
So, somebody liked to party a lot?
That's your big crime?
I mean, come on.
If you're a local prosecutor, you're dealing with real crimes.
Not this, you know, minor stuff.
So, smart prosecutor dumps this case and doesn't have Fourth Amendment law that embarrasses the entire police department, embarrasses the entire prosecutor, potentially embarrasses the judge.
That's what the smart prosecutor would do.
But I don't know if they got a smart prosecutor up there.
Now, I remember in the original charging documents, or at least when we got additional documents, it said that the way they got to the felony amount of the cocaine or whatever it was, 25 grams, was by including the packaging.
Have they reduced that?
At some point, they're going to have to reduce that dramatically as well.
So a lot of the charges are already coming off because his kids are already back, which meant those claims are all crap.
The guns should be thrown out, so that means that's all crap and the enhancement's all crap.
The measurement was always crap, so they have other issues.
I'm sure there's probably other evidentiary defenses.
But the problem is the cop lied repeatedly to get the warrant.
So what's materiality?
Materiality is...
Why did they put it in the warrant?
This is how I always respond.
I've dealt with these issues in front of judges.
I said, Judge, if it didn't matter to the warrant, then why was it in the warrant?
Right? And so, nine times out of ten, if it's in the warrant, it's material to the warrant.
Like the evidence in the New York case.
Yeah, exactly.
Now, if you take out...
I mean, there's other stuff they haven't even got into yet that's problematic in the warrant.
But this is just, did the cop lie?
And it's just requesting an evidentiary hearing.
Say, let's have an evidence.
Let's put the cop on the stand.
Let's get the evidence and let's see what happened.
Did he lie or not?
Judge, you get to assess him.
You're here every day.
He grants him that hearing.
If you're a prosecutor, you look at this file, there's no way you let that dimwit get up on the stand.
You let a cop that's so dumb, he lied about stuff they could prove with things that were sent in the mail?
Never in writing, always in cash.
This cop clearly forgot that lesson.
It's amazing.
Corrupt cops love their...
They write this stuff.
They put it in emails and other communication.
Because they convince themselves of their fraud and their lies.
You've got a completely crooked cop here.
And you've got multiple crooked cops because there were other crooked cops at the scene doing illegal things.
So you've got multiple levels of crooked cops.
And someone's going to convince me it's a total coincidence that the person being targeted is one of the biggest critics of the local law enforcement community?
Come on.
I mean, what world do you people live in?
You don't have to believe in tentacular conspiracies.
They saw an opportunity to screw somebody that had been a pain in their rear, and they decided to do so.
It's simple as math.
It's why I live in Vegas, but don't practice law in Vegas.
You know, I don't want these boys knocking on my door.
So I'm careful where I come out.
I parachute in like a mercenary, and I get back to my Swiss mountains.
But, you know, it's clear that this has crooked cops written all over it.
And if you're a smart prosecutor, do you let that crooked cop be an idiot take the stand?
God knows what dumb lie he's going to make up.
This guy was dumb enough to lie about things there's written proof of.
So if you're a smart prosecutor, you get out of this case now.
You finish this, conclude this, write this up.
But I don't know if they're smart enough, so we might get to see these crooked cop embarrass himself right on the stand.
Robert, speaking of crooked cops, something that I nearly forgot to talk about during this whole show.
The lectern guy a while back gave me...
Two of these.
One was to keep and one was to auction.
And I said we would auction it off and give the proceeds to a good, a worthwhile charity.
This is not the actual...
No, no, I'm not that big, Robert.
If it were the actual one, that would be the size of me with the lectern.
This is a replica, just to give you a frame of reference.
Of the lectern that he borrowed from the Capitol.
Take a stand is what it says.
So I didn't want to auction this off on eBay, but there's no easier way to do it.
So I'm going to give everybody, I will ship it, and I'm going to put in a specialized Viva Fry gift in it as well.
It's going to charity all the proceeds, and I promised the elected guy I would do it.
It's Adam Johnson.
I'm doing it.
I'm going to leave it up for, I don't know, maybe a week.
Maybe I'll do it again during next Sunday's show because I forgot to mention it throughout this episode.
Let me give everybody the link so that you can go and bid on it if you are so inclined.
Link. I'm sorry it's eBay.
It was the only practical way of doing it.
Go. It's there.
I'm going to share the link afterwards and I'll share it in our locals community.
Robert, let's take the remaining issues over to our locals community right now.
We got illegals trying to vote.
We got machine guns protected by the Second Amendment.
We got a lot of crazy woke cases.
Them trying to change your kid's gender without you knowing about it.
We got IBM and Progressive Insurance both caught discriminating based on race.
And we got Amazon getting caught in an antitrust case.
Now, the way it works is I go over here.
If you're not coming to the locals party, it's going to be for the supporters.
Barnes, you're with Barris tomorrow.
I'm going to be with Austin Peterson tomorrow at 12.30.
Thursday with Raychik.
I forgot his name, but you know what it is.
It's going to be a great week, so stay tuned.
12.30 daily.
This will be on podcast.
It'll be on Viva Clips, the entire stream, for those on YouTube.