Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 1, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:19:24

Ep. 226: Elon & X Bannes in Brazil! Trump Superseding Indictment! Kamala Interview! Uber & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Most apples have been grown for sugar content.
	Look at some of the labels.
	Sugar bee apple.
	Now, that ought to tell you what's in there.
	Sugar. How about a honey crisp apple?
	Sugar. That ought to tell you what's in there.
	But if you're in the apple section, grab some crab apples.
	One bite is going to tell you they're pretty doggone bitter.
	They have more of what you're actually looking for, which is the polyphenols.
	And these make a great addition to salad.
	We're gonna stop here, people.
	This is, uh...
	I was at a gas station today looking for a healthy energy drink.
	I haven't put the video together yet.
	A monster energy drink, one of those big cans?
	81 grams of added sugar.
	And a NOS Energy?
	51 grams of added sugar.
	When you see what that looks like, you look like Tony Montana.
	About to have a party time.
	This is our sponsor of the night, Dr. Gundy.
	Speaking of digestive issues, everybody, this is caused by a potential toxin that's in all of our healthy food that scientists have been telling us to eat with a fraudulent food pyramid for the longest time.
	And this potential toxin causes digestive issues.
	According to Dr. Gundry, a world-renowned cardiologist, this is affecting millions of people nationwide.
	Warning signs include weight gain.
	Fatigue, digestive discomfort, stiff joints, and even skin problems.
	Dr. Gundry explains all of these side effects that are mistaken sometimes for normal signs of aging.
	Oh yeah, my decrepit ankles and whatever.
	Check this out, by the way.
	Go watch the video.
	It is at gutcleanseprotocol.com forward slash viva.
	You watch the video.
	He explains what to eat, what to avoid, which foods are actually healthy, and which foods contain this hidden potential toxin.
	gutcleanse.com GutCleanseProtocol.com forward slash Viva.
	The link is in the description.
	After years of research, Dr. Gundry has decided to release an informative video to the public, uninterrupted, showcasing exactly which foods you need to avoid.
	GutCleanseProtocol.com forward slash Viva.
	Link in the description.
	And now speaking also of governments being up to no good, people.
	Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy.
	Moderna scores federal funding for mRNA bird flu vaccine as pandemic fears grow.
	Does everybody know that Moderna never had...
	A functioning product?
	It never had a product to market until the COVID pandemic.
	Well, you know this.
	America, pay attention.
	We are living in perilous times.
	Assassination attempts, coups seeking to take over our government, cybersecurity threats, and we're just heating up.
	Now Forbes just put out an article that the government is handing out $176 million to Moderna to whip up, not in the cool whip, which has too much sugar, to whip up an mRNA bird flu vaccine.
	They're gearing up for the next big pandemic.
	Or pandemic, depending on how you want to go about it.
	And we can't trust the establishment with our health any longer.
	We must take actions into our own hands now.
	I'm protecting my family with a contagion emergency kit from the wellness company.
	And now you can too if you're in America, not available in Canada.
	This kit's no joke.
	It's the frontline defense against whatever the government throws at us next.
	It comes packed with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine.
	We can now say these words because the government admits they might have been wrong.
	Z-Pak Tamiflu Budesonide along with a nebulizer so you can rest easy knowing that your family has the emergency meds on hand along with a guidebook for safe use.
	Every family in America needs these kits.
	It's like having an urgent care in the comfort of your own home.
	Go to twc.health forward slash viva.
	Get your emergency contagion kit there.
	Using code PROMOVIVA gets you 30% off at checkout.
	Kits are only available in the USA.
	Get it?
	I was on with Dr. Drew last week.
	I think everybody understands you need to have food, you need to have water, you need to have medications in case they have the next thing, which many people believe is surely coming, because it's what month is it?
	It's now September, people!
	September to October to November.
	We are two months out of the election.
	Check it out.
	Links are in the description, and that is it.
	Good evening, everybody.
	How goes the battle, as we say?
	Wait until Barnes gets here.
	We're going to start off with, you know, the sponsors that keep this program going.
	Building the parallel economy, we're going to go over to Rumble as we typically do in about an hour.
	I should have made sure that we are live across all of the interplanes of the interwebs, which I think that we are.
	We are live on Commitube.
	We are live on...
	I don't get ads on Rumble anymore because I subscribe to Rumble Premium.
	So I forego now the ads on Rumble while supporting the platform.
	I do not have YouTube Premium because I don't care about letting ads run.
	And I'm not giving YouTube that money there.
	YouTube demonetized my Viva family channel, and I think it's just a mistake.
	Not a big deal.
	I'm going to figure it out, or I'll work it out with them, because when I license videos, the licensing agency claims monetization sometimes of the videos, and I think YouTube thinks that I'm now recycling the licensing agency's videos and not vice versa.
	But they have proven themselves to be not businesses with which you cannot contract for business purposes and rely on for predictability.
	We got a show tonight, people.
	Okay, we're live across all the interplays of the interwebs.
	And I wanted to start...
	Now we're going to get into the fun stuff until Barnes gets here.
	You've heard the news.
	We're going to talk about the disastrous news coming out of the Middle East.
	The vapidity.
	The vapidity of the idiots that are governing us.
	I say we are being governed by evil idiots because they're not just evil and they're not just idiots.
	They're both.
	I posted this highlight from Kamala Harris's interview with Dana Bash, Dana Bash, Donna Bash, whatever the heck you want to pronounce it, last week.
	And I highlighted it at the time because it's just inanity, stupidity, incompetence.
	I know the body behavior panel, I think they looked at this and said, you know, the way that she's looking at the ground while answering this question shows massive insecurity.
	I had put together the highlight, the splicing together of, we got to get a deal done.
	Get a deal done.
	I want to let this play uninterrupted in its unedited glory of stupidity.
	Listen to this.
	This is Kamala Harris with her masterful, thoughtful, insightful solution to the Middle East problems.
	Get a deal done.
	They don't know what the hell it means.
	Listen to this.
	We've got to get a deal done.
	We were in Doha.
	We have to get a deal done.
	This war must end.
	And we must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out.
	I've met with the families of the American hostages.
	Let's get the hostages out.
	Let's get the ceasefire done.
	But no change in policy in terms of arms and so forth.
	No, we have to get a deal done.
	Dana, we have to get a deal done.
	When you look at the significance of this to the families, to the people who are living in that region, A deal is not only the right thing to do to end this war, but will unlock so much of what must happen next.
	We have got to get...
	Verbal diarrhea.
	There's no other way to describe it.
	We've got to get it.
	Dana, Dana, we've got to get it.
	What does that deal look like?
	Here's a deal that would work.
	Give nuclear weapons to Hamas and they'll give the soldiers, they'll give the hostages back.
	That's a deal.
	What would that deal look like, Kamala?
	Oh, I met with their families.
	Oh, okay, good for you.
	By the way, you met with him last week while Joe Biden's sitting there sunbathing at the beach.
	Twice in one week.
	Oh, but he's still hard at work with his phone.
	This news broke yesterday, and it makes these two idiots look like the most incompetent scoundrels on earth.
	I met with their families.
	Look at importance.
	Self-proclaimed importance.
	Narcissism. Met with the families.
	Get a deal done.
	Bring home these hostages.
	Hakeem Jeffries just took to Twitter.
	I don't know, a couple hours ago?
	Got to get the hostages home.
	It's going to be a little harder now to get the six murdered hostages home.
	Just say nothing.
	They don't know anything.
	They don't understand the complexities.
	They don't have any form of a plan.
	What we are witnessing right now is what happens in a world where you have a massive ship that is in the United States seemingly without a captain.
	There's no one in charge here, seemingly, and yet there are people pulling the strings from behind the curtains.
	It's just, it's imbecility is what it is.
	I don't know if that's the right word.
	They're imbeciles.
	They're imbeciles and they're liars.
	I was going to bed last and I'm just like, just pulling up classic clips.
	Where is it?
	I had it.
	Here, listen to this.
	Just like, I listened to this entire speech that Tim Walz gave to the American Legion.
	This is in 2012.
	Listen to this.
	When I talk to my constituents in southern Minnesota, I don't care if they're Republican, independent, Democrat, it doesn't matter to them.
	When I tell them, when I was in Afghanistan, you know what our troops were worried about?
	They were worried about their families' health care and they were worried about their pensions.
	I said, do you think that's really what you want them to be worrying about when their friends and colleagues are being shot on a daily basis and yet at the end of the day they have to worry about that?
	Can you imagine this guy is now running with Kamala Harris, the woman who was at the helm of the Biden administration that had the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan that led to 13 more military servicemen being murdered, killed as a result of their incompetence.
	When I was in Afghanistan, and I put out a tweet because I didn't know for certain if Tim Walz had ever gone to Afghanistan.
	Did Tim Walz go to Afghanistan?
	Well, it's very interesting.
	I mean, he claims to have gone to Afghanistan when I was in Afghanistan.
	Now, steel manning all of this, at this American Legion, they had talked about Tim Walz and his visit overseas.
	Don't know exactly what that includes.
	That visit was four years before this speech.
	When someone says, I was in Afghanistan, I was in Iraq, I was in Vietnam or in Nam, it doesn't mean in passing.
	It doesn't mean on a vacation.
	It doesn't mean studying abroad.
	It doesn't mean on a congressional fact-finding tour to the extent that that's what it was.
	Tim Walz never went to Afghanistan.
	In combat, he had never actually gone to combat, not to poo-poo his 24 years of National Guard service.
	Good for him.
	He should be proud of that, which means that he shouldn't have to lie about what he didn't do.
	He gives this speech four years after this congressional visit to Afghanistan, and in front of the American Legion says, when I was in Afghanistan, you know what the troops were worried about?
	Also suggesting some form of control, leadership over these troops.
	What they were worried about?
	Their futures, health, etc.
	When I was in Afghanistan is not how you refer to a congressional visit over the course of several days.
	I don't know how many days it was that he was in Afghanistan.
	This is the same man also who talked about carrying weapons of war in war.
	Who talked about psychological damage from having been in war.
	Post-traumatic stress disorder from having been in combat.
	And then the fact-finders or the fact-checkers, the propaganda...
	Arm of the Democrat Party come on and say, he was in Afghanistan.
	He went with a congressional hearing.
	And so it's technically true what he said.
	Fact check, true.
	Taken out of context, this could sound like something other than what it was.
	He was just saying he went with a congressional hearing, a congressional visit four years earlier, then gets up in front of veterans where they tout him as being the most military experienced member of government.
	And then he says, when I was in Afghanistan.
	Everybody knows exactly what the hell he was implying, how the media would report that out of the context of the Legion, and then they try to say, no, no, no, it's an unfair attack.
	Don't attack a veteran.
	These are the people that are vying for political power of America right now.
	Cacklin Kamala, who failed her way up, who was, is, and will always be a DEI hire, whether you like it or not, people.
	It's not, it's not, hey.
	DEI is great.
	They make companies make DEI statements.
	You will have diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	Diversity is our strength, and that is why you will hire racial, religious, transgender, whatever minorities.
	It's a good thing.
	It's a good thing until you say, why is this incompetent nincompoop who failed her way up, and I'm being polite when I say failed her way up, to VP, why is she so incompetent, so stupid, can't put together a sentence?
	43 days she had to prepare, and that was the...
	Rubbish answers.
	Gotta get a deal done, Dana.
	Dana, we gotta get a deal done.
	I'm shaking my camera.
	Here, in case you had any questions as to whether or not Kamala Harris was a DEI hire, she was hand-selected from their shortlist of DEI hires.
	Let us turn now to CBS News political correspondent Ed O'Keefe.
	And former Vice President Biden has for three months said his running mate will be a woman.
	Now with recent events, is Biden under more pressure?
	Now? To choose a woman of color?
	Well, Major, he continues to face tremendous pressure to pick a woman of color, but CBS News has learned that his team continues to vet or look into the backgrounds of several women.
	Senators Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, and Tammy Duckworth, a paraplegic Iraq War veteran.
	By the way, this was back in the day when they still thought Elizabeth Warren was a person of color, apparently.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	I'm joking.
	Governors Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Congresswoman Val Demings of Florida, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, and former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
	Despite the recent headlines, Biden continues to insist he's looking for someone he'd be comfortable working with and who he believes is qualified for the job, and we're expecting an announcement by August 1st.
	Let us turn down a woman, preferably a woman of color, and that's what he did with...
	Katanji Brown Jackson, Katanji Jackson Brown, who can't, you know, it's funny, they can identify a woman of color until they're asked to identify, define what a woman is.
	Can't do that either.
	Incompetence of the highest order, and it's only getting worse.
	Now, oh, let me see something here.
	I was going to have a bit of a palate cleanse, but we're not going to do that.
	Let me see this one here.
	You said that you carried weapons in war, but you have never deployed actually in a war zone.
	A campaign official said that you misspoke.
	Did you?
	Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud.
	I've done 24 years of wearing the uniform of this country.
	Equally proud of my service in a public school classroom.
	That's why I had to lie.
	Whether it's Congress or the governor.
	My record speaks for itself, but I think people are coming...
	My record speaks for itself.
	That's why I have to continually lie about it and exaggerate my actual record.
	You get to know me.
	I speak like they do.
	I speak candidly.
	I wear my emotions on my sleeves.
	And I speak especially passionately about...
	Just understand what he said there, by the way.
	This was in the tweet.
	It's okay when I lie if the reason for which I'm lying is sufficiently important to me.
	Obviously, these are serious issues.
	Most people don't lie to him.
	I speak especially passionately, i.e.
	I lie on issues that are children and guns.
	So I'm going to lie.
	I'm going to lie.
	I'm going to deceive when I think it's good for my political cause, as I did when I claimed to have carried...
	Weapons of war in war.
	Now, this is not the Pallet Clans just yet.
	For those of you who missed it, I had Ivan Raiklin on last week, and it was amazing, and we're going to need a part two.
	For those of you who aren't following what's going on in Brazil, we're going to talk about it tonight, but no need to play this video when Barnes gets on.
	I'll play it before he gets on, and you'll remember what it says.
	Tuesday night, apparently, there's going to be another Twitter files.
	We don't know yet what's going to be in it, but this is the ad, and I dare say it looks good.
	This is a public service announcement from the Secretary of Retribution to Mark Zuckerberg.
	You promoted all of the unsafe and ineffective products through your platform, and you still censor to this day.
	You get the ability to share the information that you want with people.
	That's what the service is.
	Mark, that doesn't give you amnesty, that little letter you sent to Jim Jordan.
	Tuesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern. Mother of all Twitter files.
	And that's the ad.
	So that's going to be Tuesday, and I think I'm going to pop on.
	I'll give everybody the link in the chat so you can go check into that.
	Alrighty, people.
	Hold on.
	Link. Bam there.
	Link. Let's go to...
	Oh, I'm not yet in...
	Hold on.
	I don't have this opened here.
	Hold on.
	Hold up.
	Link. Give everybody the link.
	Dwight. Hold.
	Oh, come on.
	Link. And then I'm going to put the thing up here.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Now, when Barnes gets here, I think I see him in the backdrop.
	We're going to have the ultimate palate cleanse right now.
	I'm going to thank our next and final two sponsors of the evening, everybody.
	Oh, Lord.
	The real palate cleanse.
	Okay, guys.
	Get it.
	Eat it.
	Substitute out the sugar.
	We're focusing on health, by the way, because it's kind of the most important thing in your life.
	If you don't have your health, you don't have anything, to quote the villain from Princess Bride.
	Field of Greens, peeps.
	This almost never happens.
	I've shared this for my own...
	Hold on, hold on.
	Distraction there.
	Field of Greens, by the way.
	People, I was at the store when I was looking at the Monster Energy drink, and it goes on silent now, at the store looking at the sugar.
	And it's not just the sugar in the sugar drinks.
	I was looking at the chemicals in the non-sugar drinks.
	You couldn't find one without sucralose, without aspartame.
	And it's just...
	Terrible. It's just terrible.
	And most people don't know this.
	They don't have control over their health.
	They don't have healthy habits.
	They sit there in the afternoon and say, I'm going to suck down an aspartame full Diet Coke, and it's just as bad for you as everything else.
	You're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day, and most people don't have it.
	Field of Greens is what we call a desiccated green.
	It's not an extract.
	It's not a supplement.
	It is ground up, basically, healthy superfoods, fruits and vegetables.
	Picked. On purpose for a specific vital organ, functioning, specific nutrients, and it's healthy and it's wonderful.
	Made in America, USDA organic, and helps.
	Good with the heart, good with the liver, good with the kidneys, good for the metabolism, immune.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA will get you.
	I don't want to oversell it.
	What is it, 15% off?
	Son of a beasting.
	It's 15% off.
	Your order.
	Check it out, Field of Greens.
	And last and certainly not least, everybody, you have to take care of your body and you have to take care of your pocketbook.
	Now, hold up, hold up.
	Let's bring it up here.
	Monetary gold, people.
	It is no secret that we're living in uncertain and volatile times.
	The dollar is collapsing and faith in our monetary system is at an all-time low while inflation is skyrocketing.
	No one has a crystal ball when it comes to the future, but one thing is for certain, gold has historically...
	Done better than everything else.
	Maybe with the exception of Bitcoin, but I'm not sure about that.
	I give myself financial insurance by investing in hard physical assets like gold and silver.
	Historically, gold and silver have been one of the safest investments, and it allows me to hedge my bets against runaway inflation.
	I urge you to take a closer look, protecting your ass and your assets by investing in physical gold.
	Monetary gold.
	They're legit.
	They'll take care of you.
	You can move your IRA into gold and silver.
	Just tell them I sent you.
	For a limited time, they're going to give up to $5,000 for free.
	Gold and silver for qualified purchases.
	Sleep well at night knowing that you're protected.
	Give Monetary Gold a call now.
	800-476-1303.
	800-476-1303.
	Or visit monetarygold.com.
	Barnes is in the house.
	Robert, have you came in on hearing about gold?
	Robert, if you...
	I mean, I say hard gold.
	You said something during one of our streams in terms of you can put your gold in a vault at a bank, but we now know because of the cases that we've covered, it's not safe there.
	You can get a vault and put it in your house, but we know that if anyone ever breaks in, that's the first place they go.
	And good luck saying, I don't have the keys for it.
	What was your advice?
	I remember it, but remind the world what your advice was.
	Remind me.
	It was hiding it in, what is it called?
	Oh yeah, that's true for anything.
	Cash, etc.
	You hide it in places no one would look.
	So like, you know, VCRs that don't work anymore.
	Like nobody's going to rob the VCR.
	Nobody's going to inspect the VCR.
	They just, they don't think that.
	Things like that are the most effective places to store things if you need immediate access to it.
	It's also always good to have things accessible at a location nobody knows about.
	So that's always advisable in general.
	There is a shocking amount of gold that was buried by people back in the day that they die.
	The family doesn't know about it.
	And these are like what people discover with metal detectors.
	It's been a dream of mine to discover that.
	Well, you could hide it so well like Pablo Escobar with, you know, that he had gold, jewels, money all around Columbia and people have never been able to find it.
	His own family couldn't find it after he got whacked.
	So it was never discovered, at least to anybody's knowledge.
	Of course, if somebody did discover it, it's not like they're going to advertise it.
	Robert, what's the book behind you?
	What's the cigar in your hand?
	Yeah, the book is called Liberty and Power by Harry Watson.
	Someone had asked in our replies earlier at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com about what are some good books about Andrew Jackson and the great success he had And the cigar?
	Monte Cristo!
	Okay, Robert, now, I mean, we have our subject.
	Tell us what the subjects are, but we have to start with one that just occurred over the weekend.
	All right, yeah, we have Ken Timpool sue the Kamala Harris campaign for libeling Timpool and their obsession over Project 2025.
	We have a couple of big cases, election cases, out of the state of Pennsylvania from the same court that the Amos Miller case is pending in.
	And we have an update on part of that Amos Miller case pending before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
	It may not surprise people on those election cases which Democratic judge was specially assigned to help.
	We have Trump seeking...
	We discussed last couple of weeks how can you remove...
	A state criminal case to federal court.
	I think some smart people were listening and are seeking to remove the Trump New York case to federal court.
	Now they may have some hurdles with the politically motivated judge in that case, but I think they have sound constitutional grounds, despite what Norm Eisen may be saying.
	We have in Brazil, they're threatening Elon Musk and banning X by the lunatic judge, Baltimore.
	A Baltimore-looking judge there in the country of Brazil, as well as other threats with the Telegram CEO, Robert Reich, calling for the European governments to try to arrest Elon Musk.
	Threats that the Rumble CEO, Chris Pavlosky, has detailed.
	We have the New York Times saying the biggest problem with America is that gosh darn Constitution.
	It poses too many risks to us Americans these days.
	Tommy Robinson facing another wave of politically motivated prosecutions in Britain.
	When is Uber liable for an assault on one of its own drivers?
	What about when schools get your kid convinced that they're not really a man or a woman?
	Do they have to tell you, or can they keep it a secret?
	We have a new court in Texas that should be a model for a lot of other states across the country.
	It's something that some of us have been calling for for years, and we'll see, and already the liberals are up in arms as they finally figured out the impact that court may have.
	We got the update, Namus Miller.
	When can you get bail for probation?
	Apparently, I'm discovering all kinds of things about Pennsylvania.
	There in Pennsylvania, they impose ridiculous conditions of probation, number one.
	And number two, they believe you can't get bail pending appeal if you're in probation.
	They don't think that's custody.
	Apparently, they haven't studied what the definition of custodial status is, which impacts a lot of other rights as well, Fifth Amendment rights and so forth.
	When do you have the right to record and broadcast what the heck's happening in courtrooms?
	Here again, Pennsylvania is the front line.
	But it's not the only one.
	The issue has come up in, what about the right to rebroadcast court proceedings?
	How is it that all these courts, they'll broadly say you have a right to free speech and free expression that other politicians can't prohibit, unless it's them.
	Then they can ban what gets published and broadcast about what they are up to.
	It's one of the flaws, frankly, in our system where the tripartite system of governance falls apart.
	What if you're a hard-working strip club owner and somebody has a similar trademark as you all the way across the country?
	Is Foxy Lady really so unique to the strip club in Rhode Island that it's having to sue everybody that's using the words Foxy Lady elsewhere in the country?
	The limits of trademark law.
	Do you own your own downloads?
	People have been figuring out that Apple and Amazon...
	After you pay to buy what they say is buying the video or buying music or buying a TV show or movie or book, suddenly it can disappear from your account.
	That has led to a lawsuit about whether all these big tech companies are engaged in mass consumer deception and fraud.
	And then we got some of the questions that were the tipped or most liked questions earlier.
	John Jay is talking about early Christianity in the early Republic.
	What about cameras at Dropboxes?
	What about DAs?
	Can they prosecute for some of this censorship?
	What about dental services now trying to deny you care based on some aspect of your medical status?
	What's happening in Pennsylvania on elections and signature matches?
	And are they really preparing Rikers for Trump?
	Robert, Gandalf L. IV.
	Or is that Gandalf L. IV?
	Or Gandalf Liv?
	is now a monthly subscriber.
	Welcome to the channel.
	We've got to start with one that was not on the menu.
	A little lighthearted.
	And I saw you taking the...
	What is the word?
	The unpasteurized piss out of Matt Walsh.
	Look, I know that you know this better than I do, but I know what I understand.
	Raw milk is disgusting, he says.
	We live in a first-world civilized society and people are actively choosing to consume milk riddled with E. coli and listeria.
	Pasteurization is not some evil sorcery.
	It just kills the most...
	A dangerous bacteria.
	Robert, he's been taking a lot of crap for this.
	I say rightly so.
	He's dumb as a doorknob.
	I think he meant it somewhat lightheartedly, then everyone has to double down.
	He's obsessed with it.
	This is a guy who thinks video games are the great threat to humanity.
	People ask why I don't take the Daily Wire seriously.
	Go back and look at Matt Walsh's 2016 Twitter account.
	He obsessively hated Trump.
	And Trump supporters.
	He was a core Never Trumper, like Ben Shapiro, and pretty much everybody at the Daily Wire was.
	So when the rubber hits the road, these guys run the wrong direction.
	But what's extraordinary to me is, and I'll get answers like these overconfident, cocky responses that sound like they work for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, where these people think they know something and they don't know it at all.
	So, for example, is unpasteurized milk.
	Full of E. coli.
	No, according to the government's own data, they don't have anyone that's died in 25 years from raw milk.
	Period. E. coli or anything else.
	Full of listeria.
	Hogwash. Complete garbage.
	He thinks, oh, pasteurized milk only gets rid of the bad bacteria.
	Actually, gets rid of the good bacteria.
	It gets rid of a bunch of things that are good for your gut.
	This is something we've been living on for centuries.
	And people, imagine being so suckered by propaganda.
	And this is a guy who pretends to be part of independent media.
	And here he is regurgitating some of the dumbest propaganda on the planet.
	It's what, in the Amos Miller case, they were relying on.
	They were relying on the judges to share the same prejudices from decades of being taught the wrong information by the government about our food supply and public health.
	It's why it's so important and significant, Robert Kennedy's alliance with President Trump in this campaign to make America healthy again.
	I mean, now, a bunch of Americans have figured this out.
	Anybody that's ever really researched this topic universally concludes that raw milk presents no unique risks of any kind.
	In fact, when they've done the detailed surveys and been subject to the crucible of cross-examination, As Peg Coleman, Margaret Coleman, was as the witness in the Amos Miller case, who previously worked for the Food and Drug Administration, was someone who was intimately aware of all the, has been studying this issue for more than a quarter century.
	And what she found is that once you got through all the different ways they had tried to doctor the surveys and doctor the studies and manipulate the data, that in fact, when you do an honest, independent inquiry, You find out that pasteurized milk causes more health problems than raw milk does.
	And I mean direct health problems.
	I'm not even dealing with the indirect health problems, which are extensive and expansive.
	I'm talking about people drinking it, getting sick, people drinking it, dying.
	You are at higher risk of that occurring from pasteurized milk than you are from raw milk.
	Just because people don't understand how food works.
	They don't understand how bacteria works.
	They don't understand the real history of what happened, particularly with milk, with a lot of things related to milk.
	It's very similar to what happened with vaccines.
	They took credit for...
	They claimed pasteurization fixed things that pasteurization had nothing to do with.
	Just like they claimed vaccines fixed a bunch of diseases that actually have nothing to do with when you actually study the history.
	So it's amazing that somebody is so cocky in reporting and repeating something that's so wrong.
	The only person that was a meaningful expert that I've known that testified in court in the last quarter century...
	It is, Margaret Coleman, subject to the government's cross-examination.
	They couldn't punch a single hole in a single aspect of her testimony.
	Anybody that's ever drank raw milk, almost all these people have never drank it at all, so they have no idea what they're talking about, but they've never studied it in any meaningful detail.
	They don't apply basic common sense.
	I mean, all we have to do is step back and ask ourselves, does a corporatized, industrialized, mechanized food supply make us healthier?
	Does that even make sense?
	But of course, we don't have to guess.
	We can just look at what's happened over the last half century.
	Chronic disease has exploded in the United States.
	We have the least amount of direct access to farm-to-table food in the world.
	And guess what?
	We're the least healthy in the world.
	And people are surprised how resonant Robert Kennedy's message is on these topics that make America healthy again got viral right away.
	It's because ordinary people have been experiencing this now for 50 years.
	They've seen what's happened to them.
	They've seen what's happened to their children.
	They've seen what's happened to their loved ones.
	They've seen what's happened to their own bodies.
	You know, like we were taken for a ride by the government in their bogus food pyramid.
	That was basically corporate food supply, corporate food supply, corporate food supply, corporate food supply.
	And, you know, inundated with chemicals they created out of a lab in New Jersey that are laced on a lot of your food products.
	And so it's that core misinformation that they've been feeding off of and feeding us into for decades that is fueling large parts of the Robert Kennedy movement that's now fueling President Trump's campaign and his continued surge and boost.
	But it's just like even Dr. Drew is this way.
	He was like, oh, I don't know if I would want to drink raw milk.
	And it's like, wow.
	So he's bought all the bogus interpretations out there.
	This is not...
	It's a little tricky to research because the official government narrative is always bad, bad, bad.
	But notice the language they'll use.
	They'll use something like raw milk can be linked to, can have things that are in all food products.
	And not just that, but I'm just pulling it up while you're talking just to show people like, okay, fine, there's been 20, 30 cases that they've linked to raw milk.
	There was allegedly one death that they linked to it.
	I pulled it up for those who are listening in podcast.
	Broccoli! By the way, in court.
	Well, you dug in and it turned out the death that they attributed to raw milk, they attributed to listeria in the patient.
	Problem was the listeria was there a year before when she hadn't drank any raw milk.
	And she died, by the way, of fourth stage cancer.
	I mean, this is why they use these kind of phrases.
	This is the reason why the government doesn't want...
	Any meaningful trial.
	That's why in Amos Miller case, they're obsessed with shutting it down without a trial.
	Having him prohibited from operating before he gets a chance to have a full day in court.
	Because they can't hold up.
	When the FDA was sued, they walked away from all this.
	Thomas Massey, a real farmer, unlike Matt Walsh, he only farms for clicks.
	Massey, a real farmer, a real congressman, who's researched this issue in great detail, has been talking about it for a long time.
	Anybody that's experienced raw milk, grew up around raw milk, it's real milk.
	It's natural milk.
	It's not milk that has been changed or adulterated, which is what pasteurized milk and every other form of almond milk and some of these other things are.
	Maybe soy milk is Matt Walsh's idea of a healthy diet, but for the rest of us, give us milk right from the cow, and it's fantastic.
	But it's just striking the...
	Arrogance combined with ignorance of people like Matt Walsh.
	And it's commonplace throughout the professional managerial class.
	It's why we're in the problems we're in.
	It's why he reacted to Trump the way he did.
	They thought all their prejudices and bigotries were absolutely right.
	And they're absolutely wrong.
	It's why I have a problem with the...
	I'm part of the professional managerial class, but having been part of it, they're the last people on the planet I would want to govern anything.
	Your business, your life, your family, society, politics, you name it.
	They're an incompetent breed of people whose arrogance always exceeds their intelligence.
	And it's what makes them dangerous.
	Going around telling the world, oh, you have to be a moron.
	I have an IQ of 85 in order to believe that raw milk could be good for you.
	You're just showing how stupid you are, Matt.
	I mean, it's an embarrassment.
	I mean, it was almost as embarrassing.
	We'll discuss part of the...
	We're going to do a special Labor Day version of What Are the Odds with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
	It'll be the last one for a couple of weeks because I have trials coming up.
	But we're going to discuss the politics of pot, the politics of abortion, the politics of food, and the way these issues shape up and why Trump is taking the balanced position on a lot of these issues that he is.
	But these people that...
	I did an informal poll on my Twitter feed, which is, I would dare say, mostly conservative.
	And 65% of the 20,000 people said they support legalizing marijuana.
	Then you compare that to, not to name any names, but people who say it's terrible, he's betraying the drug thing.
	Then you got the Lila Roses about the abortion issue, taking positions that even the vast majority on the conservative side are not aligned with.
	And I also just wanted to show, if Matt Walsh is afraid of E. coli, you never eat broccoli again.
	You never eat alfalfa.
	Of course, exactly.
	Leafy vegetables are the number one source of food illness.
	What they've done is the state has colluded with the big ag, the big corporations, to deceive people into believing only government-approved, corporate-backed food is safe.
	When all of the empirical evidence, your own eyes, from your lived experience, tells you it's not.
	We're because they have come to dominate the food supply in just two decades.
	And during that time period, we've become the most unhealthy people on the planet.
	So there's a clear correlation.
	You have the pharmaceutical attribute as well.
	But I mean, we've made our kids incredibly sick.
	I mean, what do you have to be hit in the face with before you realize how stupid it is to continue to believe corporate propaganda and government propaganda that their food supply is safer than what we used to have?
	You think your grandparents had a worse food supply than we got?
	People sold the life expectancy.
	Where were all the chronic diseases?
	Why did we have almost none of them 60 years ago?
	Not to play devil's advocate, they'll say that the life expectancy 100 years ago was much shorter, so you didn't have chronic diseases, but you didn't have the same life expectancy.
	It's not chronic diseases for kids, for children we're talking about.
	It's an explosion of chronic disease in children.
	Life expectancy doesn't explain that.
	Life expectancy could explain the rise of cancer rates, but life expectancy can't explain the rise of cancer rates in kids.
	It can't explain the rise of autism in kids.
	It can't explain the rise of a whole bunch of chronic diseases.
	We have 60-plus chronic diseases now.
	In most of the country, most kids have at least one chronic disease.
	At least one.
	This is insane.
	And yet idiots like Matt Walsh think gender identity politics is the only thing that matters.
	And he wonders why Bushite republicanism isn't popular.
	I mean, these sort of boomer con perspective is utterly out of touch with the world.
	But when Richard Barris polled the topic, he was shocked at how deeply popular food freedom is about having direct access to farmer-produced food is for people all across the country.
	But there's a reason they go to farmer's markets.
	There's a reason why farmer's markets are intensely popular.
	Because they figured it out.
	They figured out that this government corporate crap is killing my kid.
	It's killing us.
	And I don't want it.
	It makes us miserable, makes us unhappy, has a whole bunch of other negative side effects as well.
	And the only people who still haven't figured it out is the political class.
	It's the judges.
	It's the lawyers.
	It's the legislators.
	They're the ones who don't get it, don't understand.
	There's a reason why when raw milk goes through legislative review in the last 20 years in over 40 states, They end up legalizing more access to it.
	Why is that?
	It's because they get all the evidence, all the information, and they're usually all shocked when the information shows, oh, hold on a second.
	It turns out that drinking the same milk our ancestors drank for centuries is actually pretty good for you.
	And that doing what you do with pasteurization, which removes a lot of the benefits of milk, and the taste, by the way, ends up reducing the interest in milk.
	And ends up producing the health quality of milk.
	This is Dr. Simon Godek, who just did an expose, seemingly, what's the word?
	Exposing the Krasenstein brothers as being less than savory characters.
	I'm going to have him on on Tuesday, so stay tuned for that.
	But he's an actual scientist, and he's a smart guy at that.
	The graphic below is exactly why I stick to raw milk.
	If your microbiome is in good shape, consuming a few bad bacteria shouldn't be a problem.
	And then he goes through all of the...
	Fatty acids, proteins, whatever, that get killed when you pasteurize milk, which is why French cheese tastes better.
	It's why pasteurized orange juice tastes like crap.
	Throughout Europe, this has come a place.
	That's the extraordinary thing.
	Even government-happy societies like Europe are more attuned to good food than we are in the United States.
	It was one of the points Robert Kennedy made.
	There's companies in Denmark that make certain drugs.
	That in Denmark, they don't recommend for their own people.
	They just have us be the guinea pigs here in America.
	And it's just incredible.
	But I mean, it's Walsh repeating and regurgitating this utterly false information and doing it from a place of contemptuous arrogance of anyone who disagreed shows the problem and the methods of information gathering and communication that the Daily Wire crowd routinely runs afoul of.
	And that the institutional right.
	Because they're so corporatist and often statist in their approach, often goes AWOL with.
	I mean, imagine, you know not to trust these kind of government sources for things like whether or not someone's a man or a woman.
	But suddenly you turn around and trust them, classic Geller man amnesia, as turned by Michael Crichton.
	You immediately trust them when it comes to milk.
	Even though it betrays every form of common sense and historical knowledge and personal experience that everybody out there has, it just shows that's not someone you could ever trust on anything.
	Because his method of learning is bad.
	His method of understanding things is bad.
	You can't trust somebody like that.
	Matt Walsh is just untrustworthy across the board.
	Too dumb to count on.
	Well, speaking of, I don't know if we need to get into the stolen valor, Tim Wall's stuff, but let's do the two big ones that I think people want to hear before we head over to Rumble.
	Let's start with Trump, because the reminder announcement for tonight's stream was the breakdown of the Son of a Gun, the superseding indictment.
	For those who don't know, Jack Smith.
	I don't know if he's a mercenary so much or a hitman.
	One or the other, Jack Smith filed the superseding indictment, which reduces the scope of the original indictment.
	It's submitted to a new grand jury, so it's not tainted by whatever the initial grand jury heard.
	It eliminates some of the defendants.
	It eliminates some of the allegations, eliminates some of the evidence so that it should be compliant in theory with the Supreme Court's ruling on immunosupportment.
	When I posted this on Twitter, someone said that he wasn't even supposed to submit a superseding indictment.
	There were pending motions on the existing indictment as to what would need to be struck and what would need to be or what would be allowed to be kept in.
	And I didn't have any knowledge of that.
	I just know that the superseding indictment has basically, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, elaborate.
	If it's not wrong, basically starting from scratch, there's no chance any of this goes anywhere before the election.
	But now they get to drag this thing through the election, drag this thing through if Trump wins, that interim period until the transfer of power.
	And then it's a question of what happens if...
	And, touch wood, Trump wins the election.
	First question, though, did Jack Smith pull a fast one by filing or getting the superseding indictment instead of dealing with the indictment that he had already filed in light of the Supreme Court ruling?
	I think the only reason he did a superseding indictment wasn't to escape a motion to dismiss on the existing indictment, since certain parts of it clearly ran afoul.
	It was to primarily delay...
	Any dismissal order or decision until after the election.
	So yes, you're exactly right.
	The goal is to drag this out, continue to try to shame Trump in the court of public opinion, and preclude a dismissal from a higher court, like the Supreme Court potentially, before Election Day.
	So they want this hanging over Trump during the election, knowing that in all likelihood...
	Jack Smith is not constitutionally authorized.
	That has to be dealt with at some point.
	One federal judge has already ruled he's not constitutionally authorized, even exists, to do any of this.
	May I pause you there?
	The circuit that's going to deal with Eileen Cannon's dismissal for Jack Smith lacking, not standing, but lacking authority, does that circuit also include D.C.?
	No. But are they going to disagree?
	I mean, that's the problem.
	So the judge could disagree, and then that creates an issue for the Supreme Court to resolve.
	So either way, this case was never reaching trial.
	And he just wanted to make sure there wasn't a dismissal order.
	He knows the district court's in his pocket and the D.C. Court of Appeals is in his pocket.
	His concern was the Supreme Court stepping in and dismissing the entire case on either the canon theory or the theory they just articulated prior to Election Day.
	That would be politically embarrassing to the Biden administration and boost Trump.
	So they don't want that to occur.
	So that's what this superseding indictment is all about.
	It does not escape the problems that he has no such authority.
	It does not escape the problem that they already gathered evidence in violation of the immunity and submitted it to a grand jury previously in violation of immunity.
	It doesn't change.
	The indictment itself still has things in it.
	That are clearly prohibited under the immunity interpretation given by the Supreme Court just this past year.
	So it's why all the Trump haters have now put all of their eggs in only one basket.
	New York sentencing.
	One quick question.
	Double Jeopardy.
	Does not attach because there had been no jury impaneled?
	Does it apply to a grand jury?
	No. Okay, so that answers the question for the D.C. case and, to some extent, the Florida case, which dismissed it, and now Jack Smith has to decide, deal with whether or not he has authority under the classified documents case.
	September, what is the date for the sentencing?
	It's not this week, but next.
	In New York, people are still taking bets.
	Is he going to get sentenced?
	Whatever. Is the Trump team looking to try to move that criminal case out of the state of New York to the federal court?
	Yeah, they filed, in fact, their A notice of removal.
	So the notice of removal, the way it's supposed to work, the fact that you filed a prior notice of removal does not, despite what some idiots on law Twitter were saying, they were like, oh, that's Ray Judicata.
	That's collateral.
	Let's stop.
	If you want to see just how ideologically corrupt the legal academy is, look no further than Norm Eisen.
	This is a guy who's been promoted as a potential Supreme Court nominee by the left.
	Look at him or Lawrence Tribe.
	They have said some of the dumbest, craziest, most ludicrous interpretations of the law that are basically false, that would fail you as a first-year law student out of class and out of school because they obsessively hate Trump so much.
	And this is the problem with a professional class whose political prejudice they pretend they don't have and who believe, like the Matt Walsh's of the world, that their information is because they're intelligent.
	And they're smarter than the rest of us.
	No, they're not.
	They're just more corrupt than the rest of us.
	They're less self-aware than the rest of us.
	This is what makes the professional managerial class so dangerous as a group of people to have real power.
	They've proven that for a century.
	Dig into fascism and you figure out who runs it.
	It was the professional managerial class.
	Dig into communism and who manages it.
	It's the professional managerial class.
	You look into everything that's gone wrong in American government or EU government.
	It will be, you will find the professional managerial class behind it.
	Because they tend to be arrogant, entitled.
	Imagine like the worst version of a spoiled brat, rich kid, and then give them power.
	And there are people that, you know, were born on third base, end up on second base and think they hit a double.
	You know, they're just, they've created the worst combination of traits, the professional managerial class you could possibly have for making decisions that could impact others.
	But Eisen, for example, goes through and says, oh, it's a collateral estoppel.
	You sought removal before, and I was denied.
	That's not a collateral estoppel, you nitwit.
	So the way removal works is they can deny it.
	You can keep filing it when any incident happens that triggers your right to remove.
	And there's a reason why we were talking about it in other cases that I'm dealing with for the last several weeks, because it was clearly applicable to Trump's case.
	And I'm glad Trump's people went back and revisited it, and they did, and they filed their removal.
	Now, the issue is the prior judge they got assigned was this old Clinton judge whose prior ruling has now been effectively overturned by the Supreme Court because what he said was this case could not impact any issue of official duty.
	Well, it did, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, by the evidence presented at trial.
	Corrupt Clinton appointee in New York, of which there are many there in the Southern District of New York, got it dead wrong.
	So that by itself was grounds to seek removal.
	And the second issue, what they're really going to rely upon, and this is what all law Twitter is doing, they're giving a roadmap for the lefty law clerks for these judges to follow.
	They're doing de facto amicus briefs.
	Explaining to the prosecutors who aren't sophisticated enough to make these arguments and to the clerks who aren't familiar enough with the law to make these arguments what arguments to make.
	So you follow the Norm Eisen's of the world and they're effectively, that's who they're doing it and they're telling them why to do it.
	By the way, Norm Eisen fully discloses why this is.
	He says the removal has got to be rejected and Trump has to be sentenced because it will be the deciding factor in the election.
	The way he pretends that that's not his motivation is he says, oh, that's Trump's motivation.
	Trump's motivation is to avoid consequences so he can still win the election.
	Not me, Norm.
	I'm not butchering and bastardizing American law and whoring it and harlotting it out in order to empower my political side.
	No, I would never be part of that.
	I mean, Norm Eisen is completely for sale.
	I mean, he's represented human traffickers.
	He's represented child labor people.
	He's represented some of the worst human beings on the planet and not for constitutional cause because they wrote a fact check.
	That's who Norm Eisen is.
	The people on the left have told me to like him for years.
	Now I get to say, this guy's a disgrace.
	He's a disgrace.
	Let me bring up Lawrence Tribe was one of the two.
	It was him and the other judge, I think.
	I forget his name.
	so-called conservative judge, who floated the, or who put forward the 14th Amendment Section 3 exclusion.
	A second Trump term would be a nonstop coup against the Constitution that Trump promised All this guy does is lie.
	It's what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent by disqualifying those who swear to support the Constitution but then trash it, says the guy.
	Trying to trash the Constitution.
	But in fairness, he never swore to uphold it, so good for him.
	So there's no collateral estoppel.
	That's not how removal works.
	You get to file it.
	If the court denies it, then often, now in an immunity case, you're supposed to have a right of appeal.
	It gets tricky whether you have a right of appeal.
	But in my view, he would.
	But it's not Ray Judicata or collateral estoppel.
	One. Number two, it couldn't be because this judge was wrong on the law anyway.
	Radio DeCotta and collateral estoppel is factual determination made by a fact finder after a presentation of actual evidence.
	It's not legal interpretation of the law.
	That's precedent, and either it's controlling or it's not.
	And in this case, the judge got it wrong.
	But the second issue, the main issue they're going to argue is they're going to argue the variations of abstention.
	And I have long abstention is excuse number 293, why federal judges get to be lazy and not do their job to uphold the Constitution.
	Like standing, like mootness, like rightness, like latches.
	We have an example of that we'll be talking about in the Pennsylvania courts about the election dispute, excluding Cornel West from the ballot.
	It's an excuse.
	It's another Pontius Pilate pretext for them not to do their job.
	And in this case, Younger is one of the various forms of abstention that even when scholars study it, they can't come to the conclusion as to why there's any intellectual basis for it.
	What's clear is the Supreme Court, when they created it, flat out lied about the history.
	They've done this a lot in this context.
	What it really is, is federal judges not wanting to step on the shoes of state judges.
	That's it.
	That's all it is.
	In fact, there's a long history.
	In fact, the duty of federal courts, the duty of the Federal Civil Rights Act, the number one target were law enforcement and judges.
	Because the number one people violating civil rights in the post-Civil War South were judges.
	And they were the ones who were not supposed to be immune from suit.
	And they were the ones who were supposed to be enjoined when they wouldn't enforce the Constitution.
	But so now the rule is, so the general presumption is, when you try to sue about a pending criminal prosecution, The federal courts have to say, oh, no, no, we must abstain.
	The state courts can handle it.
	We can't get involved.
	It's extraordinary.
	The only reason they exist is to enforce the Constitution against state governments, quite frankly.
	Otherwise, we really don't need federal courts.
	I mean, they're there when your constitutional rights cannot be adequately protected.
	Diversity jurisdiction exists because they distrust a state court to protect the rights of a non-resident.
	That's what that is all about.
	That's what the whole history of it is about.
	But even the younger abstention courts recognize that if you can show that the state court is not a competent, unbiased court that can give a full, fair adjudication of the underlying issues, of federal constitutional issues, then they cannot abstain and they must assert jurisdiction over the case.
	Here... And this is why, by the way, the timing for removal, an issue I'm currently litigating for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, is not a strict 30-day rule.
	It's 30 days from the time you know the state court won't enforce your rights.
	It's not from the 30 days from the time you know a federal constitutional issue might be involved in the case.
	And here, they have constantly sought recusal and disqualification of this judge.
	Because he's personally conflicted and compromised by his family's financial self-enrichment off of this case.
	He's a disgrace to the bench.
	He's a disgrace to the rule of law.
	And that by itself, by the way, the Supreme Court has recognized, is grounds to federally remove a state case.
	Different than recusal, because he obviously will not recuse himself for all of the reasons you stated, but how does a federal court, when asked for removal to the federal court, Not look at that or deal with it if they view it as a second kick at the can for recusal or a bypassing of recusal.
	It doesn't matter whether it's a second kick at the can.
	What matters is you have to look at it anew.
	The court can say it wants to make the same decision it made before, but the facts are different and the law is different.
	The law is different because when that judge said this couldn't possibly impact federal immunity, he was wrong.
	He got overturned by the Supreme Court and that's actual precedent, unlike his prior decision.
	Part one is he was wrong on the law.
	There's now no dispute the case concerns issues of federal law.
	There's no dispute the question concerns issues of federal immunity.
	There's no dispute the issue concerns questions that arose from performance of your duties as a federal official because evidence was presented concerning it at trial that was key to conviction.
	So that's the problem he has is he was dead wrong.
	Now, he's such a Clinton hat.
	He'll pretend that he's not.
	He'll say something arrogant and stupid.
	And the point is, get it up into the Second Circuit.
	Get it up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Don't wait on bail as the sole remedy in case this judge goes nuts.
	And so the second component of that is that, under younger abstention, is that first he has the real official immunity as a federal officer is now clearly in play according to the Supreme Court's precedent.
	We're reversing his prior decision, which means federal courts should have asserted jurisdiction under the law.
	But secondly, the state court is not capable of competently enforcing federal constitutional rights, which include a right to an impartial jurist, so that it includes the right to an impartial jury.
	This judge has proven he's incapable of doing so, and it has compromised his ability to enforce the law, which he has failed to do so.
	Here's the other aspect that some of us have been wanting to challenge for a long time.
	These abstention doctrines are bogus doctrines.
	They're made-up Pontius Pilate doctrines to have a pretext to avoid judgment when it's a politically controversial case.
	The only reason federal judges even exist is to handle constitutionally controversial cases.
	It's the very kind of case they run from whenever they can, if it means stepping on the foot of people with real power.
	But they've now done, this comes from the University of Wisconsin School of Thought when I went to law school there, which was the law in action idea, which was you should not just study the black letter law, but the philosophical ideals that create that law and the practical social reality of how that law is represented and enforced.
	Well, we now have the data.
	These federal judges for 30 years have been saying, oh, these state courts are totally capable and competent.
	Well, guess what they've got to compare.
	When federal courts have not sent it back, and looking at all the history, when they didn't send it back at all to state courts, almost half the time they succeeded, the challengers succeeded, on the unconstitutionality of what the state was doing.
	By contrast, The success rate in state courts have proven themselves incapable as a group of enforcing federal constitutional rights.
	More than 85% of the time, the state courts won't enforce the federal constitutional right.
	So it's now proven with actual data and information from empirical evidence that the federal court's assumptions that the state courts will enforce the constitutional rights of an individual when it's a federal issue is complete garbage.
	As such, the very premise of abstention should be challenged, and I hope the Trump team challenges that as well in the context of this case.
	Look no further than Dexter Taylor, where Judge Darke said, don't bring the Second Amendment into this court, there's no Second Amendment in the state of New York.
	The question that I was going to ask, the time frame within which, so sentencing is whatever pending motion for removal to...
	Federal court will not be heard before the sentencing is supposed to occur.
	Technically, what's supposed to happen is upon the notice of removal, it's supposed to stay the state case.
	Now, they interpret this particular method of removal as not requiring a stay of the state case.
	Typically, a removal does do that.
	They have an interpretation as to why this kind of removal doesn't automatically trigger it.
	But if the state court judge cares at all about the appearance of impartiality, Continue the scheduling date until after the federal court can rule on the matter.
	The main pressure against him now is from the Norm Eisen's of the world, the law Twitter of the left, demanding that they think their only way of beating Trump is for him to sentence Trump to prison on early September.
	They believe that the American people will abandon Trump when that happens.
	So that's why there's talk of the National Guard in New York and them preparing a huge section of Rikers for Trump and National Guard because they're afraid of massive disturbances.
	So that's why that's going that route is the left thinks that, okay, they thought a dieting Trump would sink him and it actually helped him.
	Well, then they're like, okay, it must be, we must, we got to get him convicted.
	Then they get him convicted and it helps him again.
	So these group of geniuses are like, Oh, he hasn't been sentenced.
	Nobody takes it seriously because he hasn't been sentenced.
	If he's sentenced, if he's put in the prison robes, if he's put on the bus to Rikers Island, then the American people will reject him.
	No, they'll reject you, Norm.
	They'll want to lynch your ass, Norm.
	That's what they'll want to do.
	These people are insane.
	They're endangering the country.
	They're endangering the republic, endangering the Constitution like the New York Times is bragging about.
	And they don't understand what they are unleashing.
	They don't understand what they are risking.
	Americans' confidence in our legal system is collapsing by the day.
	And they want to completely crush it.
	Because they cared more about their little power than they ever cared about the rule of law.
	In an honest legal system, it wouldn't be Rudy Giuliani being disbarred.
	It'd be Norm Eisen being disbarred and then imprisoned for endangering the civil rights and civil liberties of Americans.
	That this is how crazy these people are.
	But I can tell you what will happen.
	If they send Trump to Rikers, Trump will win in a bigger landslide even more.
	And the power of these people will be gone and gone forever.
	So be careful what you wish for.
	Before we head over to Rumble exclusively, because I can't seem to get all of the super chats from Rumble, let me read these real quick.
	Old guy's opinion says, so according to Matt Walsh, before pasteurization, everyone living today should be extinct because of raw milk and goat milk.
	I don't want to go down too fast and scroll past.
	We got one old guy's opinion.
	20 bucks says, Matt Walsh is the millennials.
	What is that?
	1981, 19...
	Okay, he isn't stupid, just indoctrinated.
	I can feel from...
	Look, I'm still neurotic about the fears of unpasturized stuff because I was brought up with that, but I know it's wrong.
	I just don't like milk, period.
	The difference is the arrogance, right?
	It's like if you're going to go out there and attack a bunch of people, at least investigate.
	And do meaningful research and study both.
	But this is typical of the professional class.
	They never do this.
	They just assume whatever propaganda they received is absolutely true.
	Credit to people like Nicole Shanahan.
	Nicole Shanahan's putting out great ads for Trump.
	And this is someone who a year ago believed everything bad about Trump.
	She herself has said she had TDS.
	She put in an ad.
	She did an ad about TDS.
	Which Trump is taking to a new level.
	Have you heard of TDS?
	Yeah, it rots the brain and it damages the body.
	It's causing all kinds of health problems in America.
	It's fantastic.
	One old guy's opinion says, Timothy the tampon no-balls walls a real American zero.
	Okay, that's not bad.
	I'm from Denmark and we are big consumers of all organic meat, fruit, vegetables, etc.
	That is John Benson.
	And then I think we're going to be good by going all the way down.
	Alright, that's good.
	What we're going to do now, the link to Rumble is in the pinned comment.
	I'm going to get to the Rumble rants in a bit.
	We're going to now vote with our eyes, vote with our feet, vote with our dollars, vote with our attention spans, and bring this over to...
	How do I do it here?
	Rumble and Locals.
	So we're going to end it on YouTube and Twitter, and I'll post the entire podcast in audio form to Viva and Barnes Law for the People on Podbean.
	I'll upload the entire stream to Viva Clips and the entire stream to Twitter tomorrow.
	But right now, we are going to go support the free speech platform.
	And our friends in the war against the tyrants, Rumble, right now.
	I think it gives us 30 seconds, but if it doesn't, come on over there.
	The link is there, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Robert, speaking of free speech, speaking of censoring free speech, speaking of the war.
	So Pavel Durov, I mean, I spent all last week doing the rounds, talking about it during my live streams, went on with the unusual suspects, did a Twitter space, met this guy named Mikhail Svetov, who came on on Friday.
	To give us his perspective about what he thinks of Russia.
	Putin, he's living in exile in Brazil now.
	And I said, ironic, you had to flee Russia.
	Now you're in Brazil with bricks.
	You might be getting extradited sometime soon to Russia if they really wanted you.
	It's going crazy.
	People say, well, why would France take a position that's adversarial to Russia in terms of arresting Pavel if they're enemies?
	These tyrants don't want the people having access to information, period.
	Macron is not much less of a tyrant than Morales in Brazil, than Biden when he was there, than Kamala what she wants to be, than that stinking scumbag Keir Starmer out of the UK.
	But it's full-on war now in Brazil.
	They're banning, from what I understand, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I am.
	They banned Twitter or X, and they're fining anybody who's using a VPN to use Twitter or X. Maybe I'm wrong.
	Robert, make it make sense?
	No, I mean, credit to Senator Mike Lee, who has become truly based in the last couple of years.
	He put out, why in the world are we providing any financial aid or having any entanglement with a country that is trying to violate our civil rights, violate our citizens' civil rights to free speech and free elections?
	Why are we giving them money?
	Why are we defending them?
	Shouldn't we disengage entirely?
	Shouldn't we cut off all foreign aid entirely?
	Shouldn't we stop spending our own military resources on defending them?
	Like the EU, when they came after Elon Musk, and he made the same point about Brazil.
	I mean, Brazil would collapse as a country without our aid.
	That's the reality of it.
	Their economy is still in semi-shambles.
	And so it's long overdue to discard...
	These alliances that are clearly not allied and aligned with our values.
	Because, I mean, what Brazil has done is you have a corrupt court in Brazil that has usurped all power and is using judicial power, kind of like the New York courts in the Trump cases, and weaponizing it in order to censor any dissident information.
	And is now, and is threatening to imprison anyone to fine and bankrupt.
	I mean, it may seem like $10,000 may not seem a lot.
	That's a lot of money in Brazil.
	If you merely use a VPN now, right?
	So the first pretext was, we must shut down the dangerous Elon Musk's FX.
	And then the second step was, well, we really need to fine people and threaten imprisonment for people who use a VPN.
	On the grounds that we're just doing it is related to accessing X. But again, what VPNs do is allow you to circumvent the censors in your country.
	And so this is an effort to control all forms of information.
	It kind of relates to judges wanting to monopolize information that comes out of their courts and prohibiting you from taking notes or recording your own court proceedings that were litigating in Pennsylvania in multiple cases.
	It's of the same continuous logic.
	I mean, we now know why the Telegram CEO was arrested.
	He was foolish enough.
	He came from the Russian liberal class that thought Putin was the personification of evil and Macron the personification of liberty.
	And so Macron was like, yeah, why don't you come up for a little dinner?
	You know, it's not going to be one of those dinners.
	It's not going to be one of those Marquis de Sade kind of dinners that Macron likes.
	Where they party in all kinds of ways.
	But he's like, yes, I would so love to listen to your opinion, Dura.
	And so he flies in on his jet.
	And what happens?
	The French grab him, throw him in jail.
	Charge him with a bunch of nonsense.
	And as the Duran pointed out, and as we pointed out, if there were serious charges, they would have extradited him.
	Sought his extradition.
	They didn't.
	Instead, they're trying to shut down Telegram.
	Because Telegram has become a major source of dissident information.
	It's the same reason they're trying to shut down TikTok in the United States.
	It doesn't have to do with China.
	They're trying to shut down TikTok in the United States because they don't like it being a source of dissident information.
	Very popular platform for the Kennedy campaign.
	Very popular platform now for the Trump campaign.
	Before that was a very popular platform for people who are critical of Israel.
	In Telegram's case, it's people who are, I mean, both sides, Ukraine and Russia, does close things.
	But what it is, is you get a bunch of more honest, right grassroots, independently sourced information.
	And that's what Elon Musk has done with X. He has converted it into an independent platform where people like Catherine Herridge, great investigative reporter that CBS fired so she wouldn't blow the whistle on various Biden administration scandals.
	You're talking about one of the most well-respected investigative reporters going on.
	30 years.
	And now the only place that she can broadcast is X. One of the key platforms for Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones is X. That you get more independent information from X now than any other American social media platform aside from Rumble.
	And where is Rumble also not located?
	France, Brazil.
	They came after Rumble actually before they came after X, before they came after Telegram.
	It was a sign that Rumble was the real deal in ways that these others were just coming into being.
	But to me, they're violating various international treaties.
	They're violating various international covenants that they are signatory to.
	And Trump, I think, should speak up about it and say any country that continues to try to intervene in our elections, any country that continues to threaten our citizens.
	For asserting their constitutional rights and liberties, whether it's Brazil or Britain, there will be consequences in our public policy towards handling them in the future.
	Britain wouldn't exist as a country if it wasn't for the United States anymore.
	You know, we might have been founded by Brits, but since 1776, we've been very independent.
	And in the last two centuries, they'd all be speaking German if it wasn't.
	Same with the French.
	They'd all be really speaking German if it wasn't for us.
	The part of Brazil wanted to be speaking German, but they were unsuccessful in that effort, though plenty of folks hung out there for quite a while.
	So it shows that this is a global war on free speech, global war on food freedom, medical freedom, political freedom, financial freedom, all of it.
	The Bill Gates dystopian control grid, big tech, big ag, big pharma, and big government.
	Aligned to deny us and deprive us of our core constitutional rights and liberties.
	And it's extraordinary that Elon Musk is one of the Avengers, that the Telegram founder is now, just because he actually meant what he said.
	He was mistaken in assuming the French really meant it.
	All they've done, by the way, is antagonize all the Russian liberals.
	It's amazing.
	They've taken the last little vestige of anti-Putin, pro-European support in Russia and completely crushed it.
	By their own actions.
	But they're so incompetent, they don't understand that.
	They think that these warning signs...
	That's why Robert Wright feels the...
	I mean...
	That guy should just be in a dwarf-tossing contest.
	He doesn't need to be yipping about locking up Elon Musk.
	Someone whose last name is Reich maybe doesn't want to talk about shutting people up and locking people up.
	Stormer is like the Daily Stormer, who now runs Britain and the UK.
	But, I mean, it shows this is a global threat, like their convention that they try to push down on us on the treaty to give the World Health Organization complete totalitarian control.
	So everything Alex Jones has been warning about for 20 years, we're seeing in one year.
	It's so funny, actually.
	I was watching or listening to Alex Jones while getting prepared for the show at 5 o'clock, and he played a clip of him from 14 years ago predicting all of this.
	Now, in fairness, when you make a lot of predictions, some come true and some don't.
	But my goodness, when some of you...
	All he does is study the white papers of what these people are saying they're planning on doing.
	And he just talks about it.
	I mean, that's it.
	I mean, he studied what they have done and what they said they were planning on doing.
	And people thought, oh, that's a crazy conspiracy theory.
	They're not going to use a pandemic to lock us all down.
	That sounds like, you know, more...
	All Jones did was read through their own paperwork and follow Gates' little coronavirus convention.
	Little thing he did, his little special little project right before we suddenly suffered a coronavirus pandemic outbreak.
	What a magical coincidence that was.
	When The Simpsons used to be funny, which meant they had insight, they also predicted it.
	There was that famous scene when the opening of the episode, they crawl in through the Statue of Liberty head and you have all the heads of MSM talking about how to sell the next pandemic and it's got to come from something that is everybody's house that scares the hell out of them and they call it the cat flu pandemic and now we're up to the bird flu.
	Well, this is going to segue, Robert, perfectly into the next one, which is going to be Tommy Robinson, but I'm going to interfere with that segue, but just to make sure...
	Look at that face.
	Hold on for the rumble as we tip...
	Okay, there we go.
	Get that face out of there.
	Signal is better than Telegram.
	Change my mind.
	I think Signal has more...
	Signal is better than Telegram, yes.
	That is from James Pruitt.
	FD Man says, it is an Orwellian ministry of truth being birthed from the Western democracy.
	I like that.
	Kimmy Hunt says, our State Department backed Lula in the campaign.
	Maybe Senator Lee needs to speak to Blinken.
	Well, apparently, with this mother of all Twitter files that's going to drop on Tuesday, Ivan Raiklin is putting it out there.
	There might be some information about this specifically as relates to Western interference or support for Lula, but I don't want to get ahead of it.
	We'll see what happens when we get there.
	FD Man says...
	Candace Owens left the Daily Wire because of the self-proclaimed intellectual superiority running rampant in that organization.
	Admiral IQ says, my dad is lactose sensitive, and he wasn't when I was younger, and never heard of lactose-free or gluten-free until the past 10 years.
	Couple Sooth says, lying equals bad grammar, like calling dead people stutter.
	That's Joe Biden.
	And then Fleet Lord Avatar, Robert Barnes, it is accurate.
	Both houses in Congress could go to Democrats.
	As Pelosi said during convention, being cold-blooded focus on Congress.
	And I think I saw another one come in here.
	The Simpsons was funny when Matt Groening wrote The Simpsons.
	Matt Groening.
	But speaking of Western tyrants who are making Russia look comparable by comparison, you got Keir Stormer, that dude who's now...
	Apparently, they're going after Tommy Robinson yet again for contempt of court, for violating the...
	Prohibition to not defame or smear the Syrian boy who was actually not a victim of any waterboarding or whatsoever.
	Tommy Robinson put out the documentary called Silenced, which showed how the UK government went after Tommy Robinson for exposing the truth about that Syrian boy actually not being the victim of any form of a hate crime whatsoever, but actually being the perpetrator of crimes and violence against his schoolmates.
	How some of the people in the school were paid by these attorneys of the Syrian boy to be quiet.
	He went into it and then went into how the government basically screwed him, denied him his right to actually submit evidence of the truthfulness of his statements.
	Million-whatever-pound defamation verdict.
	Locked him up.
	They locked him up for other reasons, but they're going after him again for violating that court order and trying to hold him in contempt again, Robert.
	I mean, field it from there.
	Yeah, I mean, it's politically motivated.
	And the attacks on Robinson have constantly and consistently, whatever you may think of Tommy Robinson, been politically motivated.
	And it's extraordinary.
	Like, you look at how Britain is responding.
	They're responding by threatening people 20 years in prison for saying things on social media.
	I mean, that's how...
	I mean, did the Brits forget how 1776 came about?
	Did they forget how their empire collapsed?
	It's this sort of colonial, imperial, control, authoritarian nonsense that led to the end of the British Empire as we know it.
	The empire which the sun never slept.
	Now the sun barely sits on any part of it that matters.
	And yet here they are back to doing it again full blast.
	And it's again, I think if these countries are going to completely discard and disregard and disrespect our citizens' constitutional rights and liberties because of...
	Cases like Tommy Robinson, who's not a U.S. citizen, but they're threatening it against U.S. citizens, solely for a speech.
	And what they're really trying to do is pretend their problem is not due to them having open borders and flooding their country with illegal immigrants whose culture completely conflicts with the U.K. And people who simply pointed out...
	And Lawrence Southern was banned from different countries for periods of time, couldn't fly into different places without being arrested and being subject to long interrogations over associations and affiliations.
	I mean, Pavlosky had to flee Europe before he might get arrested as CEO of Rumble.
	Elon Musk clearly can't travel outside the United States for the foreseeable future because that's what these countries are threatening.
	And it shows how important this election is in the United States.
	And the significance of the Trump-Kennedy alliance to take these apart, these systems of censorship and control apart.
	Because what they're doing is, rather than letting the world know they've got a serious illegal immigration problem in the UK, which is their core problem, it's the reason the Tories collapsed, is they failed to keep their promises about doing something about it.
	The Labor Party's only in power because the Tories collapsed, not because anybody likes them.
	They're already way underwater politically and falling apart.
	And their only solution is totalitarianism.
	They think like fascists.
	They think like communists.
	They think like pure statists and authoritarians.
	Somebody saying something bad about me?
	Well, the problem isn't whether I did something bad.
	The problem is them saying I did something bad.
	And so let's censor and suppress and arrest or threaten to arrest.
	And that's what they're trying to do.
	Robinson is the biggest critic of their illegal immigration policy over the past decade.
	And they're just broad open borders policy and the When I was in London, every single one of my Uber drivers was named Mohammed.
	And I remember thinking, hmm, things are changing a little bit here.
	I don't know how this is going to work all so well.
	I mean, you go to the shopping places and half of the people there, which I always found weird.
	We're, you know, women in full hijab shopping for clothes.
	And I was like, I guess you just wear those at home?
	I mean, but, you know, it was like, this culturally is not going to blend well.
	And then you had tons of young men displaced by all the stupid wars the West has been involved in, places like Libya and places like Syria, places like Iraq, places like Afghanistan, that led to a flood of young men coming into these countries.
	And while the far left embraces the Palestinian cause and the like, what happens when these people come flood here or we go there?
	There's a real cultural conflict because they're not of the same.
	It was like the liberal reporter who asked the Taliban, what about letting women do this?
	And they started laughing and laughing.
	It turns out that they're not your ideological ally.
	I think that's what it is.
	It tells you they know they're wrong, and they're so desperate to cling to power, they'll resort to any, any tactic to keep it.
	Well, it was Tommy Robinson's, not his biggest mistake, but what he exposed was not just massive immigration problems and the cultural issues and statistics on crime that it was causing, but also the, not even complicity, but the corruption of the institution to cover up for it.
	Because they didn't want to expose their own failed policy, and so they didn't go after the problem itself.
	They tried to bury it, you know, pretend it didn't exist, that it wasn't specific demographics involved in the rape gangs that wreaked havoc for a decade plus, and then went after Tommy Robinson for exposing that it actually was.
	And now you've got Keir Starmer in there talking about extraditing people who think that they can, behind their keyboards, say whatever they want and stir racial hatred from abroad.
	I thought he was talking to Tommy Robinson at first only, but now I think he's talking to Elon Musk.
	And now that we've seen what happened to Pavel, we know that he probably was talking to Elon Musk.
	And he's talking to Americans who have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, God-given right to say what the hell they want within the bounds of specific threats, credible threats, etc.
	But they want to shut everybody up and shut everybody down and lock everybody up.
	Who dares expose what the hell is going on in that?
	What will soon be a failed country if they don't shape up sooner than later.
	The lockdown was an experiment, and they want to take everything they learned from it in terms of power and utilize it across the board.
	They think only they should have power, and they think the problem is not whether they're wrong on something.
	The problem is anybody disagreeing with them.
	It's very Barack Obama-ish, where Obama defined anything as misinformation that was just disagreeing with him.
	He sort of personifies that combination of arrogance.
	And incompetence that the professional managerial class represents writ large.
	And so they're going to use every tool and technique of power that they can to preclude the people from having their say and having their rights respected in the process.
	Let me bring this up because I misread one of the rumble rants.
	Failed policies are killing and raping their natural-born Brits, says FDMan12.
	FDMan12 says Great Britain.
	A once Great Britain shoved their union up their jackass until Kingdom UK come.
	And Fleet Lord Avatar all the way back down says, Robert, is it accurate?
	Not it is accurate.
	Is it accurate both houses in Congress could go to the Democrats, as Pelosi said during convention, being cold-blooded focused on controlling Congress?
	How could that happen?
	I mean...
	Well, I mean, the election is very consequential.
	I mean, Democrats want to already control the Senate.
	They want to control the House.
	They kind of have partial control of the House right now so that, you know, Republicans need to pick up seats in both houses and take it back.
	The hurdle is that the reason why people don't trust the Republican brand that are voting Trump but not voting Republican down ballot, you're seeing this big drop-off, is because of the Matt Walsh's of the world, to be blunt about it, right?
	They're the kind of people running around, screaming about pot.
	Screaming about video games.
	Screaming about natural food.
	You know, that's all hippie people.
	That's hippie people.
	I mean, how out of touch do you have to be to think that?
	I mean, that means, you know, Matt Walsh must have never visited a farmer's market in his life.
	You know, 90% of the people visit the Amish.
	The Amish, I don't think anyone would confuse with hippies.
	So, I mean, most of the people that go to a farmer's market, not hippies.
	I mean, we got some hippie supporters, but it's not a majority of our group.
	And they all believe in food freedom.
	Food freedom is popular across the board, but people like him don't understand it.
	And that's why your younger working class voter doesn't trust the Republican brand.
	And it's going to take Trump pulling them across to win the House and the Senate.
	And that's why they're trying to scam and scheme away to lock them up before Election Day, thinking that will be their ticket to success.
	They'll discover otherwise if they're dumb enough to go that tag.
	Robert, let me do this one here.
	I'm going to show everybody what Rumble Advertiser Centre is, the rack can do, and it's also a reminder for everyone out there to think about getting the Rumble Premium.
	This sponsorship is from Rumble, one that is incredibly important to the survival of the company when Rumble first started in 2013.
	I've been on Rumble since 2014.
	Maybe 2015.
	When Rumble first started in 2013, they built the platform for the small creator.
	They didn't censor or have biases.
	They were fair, treated all creators equally.
	No one thought platforms would censor political conversation or censor opinions on COVID, but they did.
	Facebook admitted they fell for pressure from the Biden-Harris administration.
	Rumble did not.
	They held the line.
	They are attacking daily.
	They are attacked daily for giving us a voice to talk to you.
	They are attacked in corporate media.
	They are attacked by governments like France.
	They are attacked by brand advertisers who refuse to work with them.
	Corporate America is fighting to remove speech.
	Rumble is fighting to keep it.
	Rumble won't survive with brand advertisers.
	They don't get much of it.
	Watching our show on Rumble is the most they can ask from you.
	But if you really believe in this fight, and if you have the means, one major way you can help Rumble survive is by joining Rumble Premium, joining the community that believes in the First Amendment and believes in our human right to free speech.
	Rumble is offering $10 off.
	With the promo code STUDIO, when you purchase an annual subscription, go to rumble.com forward slash premium.
	Use promo code STUDIO.
	Like I said, if you have the means and believe in this cause, now is the time to join Rumble Premium.
	If you don't have the means, we are just happy if you watch us on Rumble.
	Watch and share.
	I got it.
	Obviously, it's important to me.
	I also just, whenever I wanted to bring up the Rumble stuff, I don't want to see the ads at the beginning.
	I don't mind.
	If you can.
	So you can go scan the QR code and go to Rumble if you can get Rumble Premium.
	Otherwise, everyone I meet on the street, Robert, if they don't know what Rumble is, I tell them.
	And if they do know what Rumble is, I immediately know that they are smarter than 95% of the people out there.
	That's it.
	And that's the Rumble Advertiser Center also, by the way.
	If you use Rumble Studio, you go on the side, you can see campaigns that are active while you're live.
	You can pick whichever one you want, click on it.
	And I obviously love Rumble.
	So that was an easy one to pick.
	Robert... What do we segue into now?
	Well, you know what Rumble won't do?
	Rumble won't do what Apple and Amazon do, which is tell you you're buying something and then steal it from you.
	Well, now I'm curious about this because the theory of this case is that you think you're buying music, you think you're buying content that they say that they're selling, but you're actually only leasing it in that what?
	After what period of time do they say, no, you no longer have access to that?
	Whenever they want.
	I mean, see, what's buried in the small print, it says buy, right?
	Buy for $9.99 or whatever it is on Amazon, Apple.
	Buy this song, $0.99.
	Not rent it, because that's always another option for a lot of these things.
	Buy it.
	But in fact, buried in the small print is, actually, we Apple, we Amazon still own it.
	You don't own it.
	And if we want to revoke it from you...
	For any reason.
	By the way, they've done this.
	I mean, they tried to do a plot against the president.
	The Amanda Milius documentary about the efforts by the deep state to take out Trump in his first term.
	That was one of the first meaningful inquiries into that subject matter.
	And done very well.
	Of course, she comes from good stock.
	The daughter of the great John Milius, one of the all-time great Hollywood screenwriters and directors.
	But obviously very skilled in her own right.
	And people can get it.
	But for a period of time, Amazon was trying to make it so that if you had bought it and downloaded it, because you're using their platform to access it, they would remove it.
	And suddenly something that you'd pay $29.99 for, say, suddenly gone.
	Right? If I put some library, like physical library right here, they got to come in my house and get it.
	But they love digital libraries because they can control it.
	They can remove it.
	They can edit it.
	Let's say you bought Home Alone 2 and you like one of the scenes of Donald Trump in the Plaza Hotel for the period of time he owned it.
	Then they would go in and edit it out so he disappeared.
	If you went and accessed it on Apple or Amazon, suddenly it wasn't there.
	They could gaslight you in real time.
	The word gaslight comes from a play.
	That was produced in Britain that was made into an early film.
	And the whole thing was someone convincing somebody of something that wasn't true, but doing it by persuading them over time.
	No, you didn't really see that.
	No, no, that didn't really happen.
	And they want to be able to control that by controlling the actual access to the underlying digital content.
	So credit to some of these smart lawyers who looked at this and said, okay.
	If you're going to claim legal ownership so we can't sue to get back our original content that you stole from us, we're going to sue you for consumer fraud.
	Because what it says on Apple, what it says on Amazon is it says buy.
	It usually says rent on one side and then buy on the other.
	So it turns out buy doesn't actually mean buy.
	It turns out buy means however long we want you to be able to have access to it, which is not every consumer's common understanding of the word buy.
	It's another area where these big monopolies, these big tech big monopolies, have been committing massive fraud in order to get all their power.
	And they want to do it to control the narrative.
	They want to do it to control your understanding of the world, your viewing of the world.
	Same reason they want to arrest Elon Musk, want to arrest the Telegram CEO.
	Same reason they're going down that path.
	Same reason courts don't want anybody to record their own court proceeding.
	Don't want anybody to broadcast the court proceeding, rebroadcast it.
	Because they want to say, oh no, that never happened.
	I have the official transcript right here, and that never happened.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	That witness never said that.
	And if you do record it and prove they're lying, they'd try to lock you up.
	So it's part of the same scam and scheme to basically implement 1984, which they didn't see as a dystopian script.
	They saw it as a progress path.
	It's something to implement, something to administer, not something to be afraid of and to be worried about.
	Well, it is amazing because, you know, I did an Unusual Suspects episode a couple of weeks back where they talked about whether or not Disney was actually adding chemtrails to old cartoons.
	And I'm like, well, that's good, but then how do you reconcile that discrepancy with a DVD hard copy?
	And we started talking, it's like...
	Do you know how few people have hard copies of old movies, of DVDs anymore?
	And what happens is the digital version will get changed overnight.
	You'll never know.
	And you'll think that you somehow get gaslit into thinking that you missaw something in the original DVD, which nobody's going to have.
	And it makes it that much easier to literally become the Winston Smith cutting out, you know, even the old archives, cutting out the stuff, memory holding them.
	They can do it in real time and you'll never know.
	And they can control what ought to have, you know, been...
	Kept in a hard copy anyhow.
	Are these archive sites also, Robert, are they in danger?
	Because I remember there was an issue about the archive sites being taken down or being ordered to take them down.
	Remember how they went after them?
	They went after them on copyright grounds.
	So their goal was to prohibit any independent access to independent information to be able to even control our memory of events by controlling the means of distribution.
	If in the future all libraries are digital...
	Who knows what the Bible's going to say 20 years from then?
	By the way, hold on.
	I want to bring this up because we have another new member to the community, Bigfoot.
	Bigfoot! Welcome to the community.
	Robert, I haven't gotten the segue.
	What do we go into from there?
	Well, the most natural one is the court publishing and broadcasting rules.
	Oh, yes.
	Well, so this is...
	Catching up on this, I hadn't been familiar with this.
	This is coming out of Maryland, right?
	Where they had passed a piece of legislation that said you couldn't rebroadcast court proceedings, which had been made public by the court itself, invoking something called the time and place rule, which is like you get to do it at a certain time at a certain place, but then never afterwards.
	And now a bunch of journalists are suing to declare this prohibition unconstitutional.
	I don't know if it's prior restraint.
	Is that sufficiently accurate of a summary?
	Well, this is one of many examples.
	So there's a fight in Michigan currently, that I have a big case in Pennsylvania on it, that essentially what's happening is courts are trying to control the official version, the record of what happens.
	So under the First Amendment, you have, and under federal common law, and under most state laws and state constitutions, You have a right of open access to the courts.
	And it's protected under the First Amendment as well because your right to free speech, your right to freedom of the press, your right to petition the government for redress of grievances all requires access to the judicial system, access to understanding what's happening in the judicial system.
	This is what gives the media, for example, the right to get court filings and why most things can't be sealed unless it meets strict scrutiny from public disclosure.
	Yet courts have been obsessed with locking the American people out of what's happening in the courts.
	They want to define the record of the truth.
	To such a degree...
	That they threaten people for rebroadcasting their own trials, rebroadcasting their own hearings.
	Or in the case of Pennsylvania, they're trying to put someone effectively risk prison right now under home confinement because they recorded their own court proceeding.
	And what did they find in that recording?
	That the court reporter was falsifying the transcript on behalf of a corrupt law firm.
	And a judge who didn't want that corrupt law firm or corrupt court reporter exposed.
	So what it is, it's an obsession of controlling the understanding of what happened.
	Understanding the truth.
	And that's what all these bans on rebroadcasting are.
	The problem is, it clearly violates the First Amendment.
	So the courts have come out.
	I was one of the first people to start litigating the idea that you have a right to film police.
	Years ago, I represented a guy.
	He was at a legal aid clinic.
	I used to go down there and donate my time.
	Nobody would take his case.
	He'd been beat up by cops because he just took photos of a raid.
	He didn't know he was taking photos of a raid.
	He loved these different kinds of unique trucks.
	And he worked as a freelance photographer.
	And he loved the new police truck.
	And so he was like taking photos of the new police truck.
	Cops saw him, ran across the street, beat the crap out of him, destroyed his film, then arrested him.
	And what I was litigating was there should be a right to film police, the lawful authority.
	This is our duty under the First Amendment.
	If it's to be meaningful, we've got to be able to see what the people in power are doing in public spaces and places.
	And so, by the way...
	Turned out that entire police unit was completely corrupt, but that's a whole other story for another day.
	The judge was too busy wanting to cover up that corruption and cussing at me, but in the process, by the way, he helped me in another case because he had to disqualify himself from all future cases I was involved in because he lost his temper.
	But now courts almost all across the country recognize your right to film police.
	You're right to film and record and publish and broadcast what takes place in public places by public officials doing public tasks of issues of significance to the public.
	There is probably nothing more consequential in that capacity than a jury trial, than a courtroom proceeding, than an oral argument.
	And yet, all these courts are prohibiting people from either recording or rebroadcasting.
	In some cases in Pennsylvania, they tell you when you come in, you can't even take notes.
	Only the approved media can take notes.
	The goal is to control the narrative so you don't know what really happened in that proceeding.
	You don't know what really took place in that proceeding.
	That it's all subject to the court reporter creating a transcript, and that transcript can, as my client discovered, be completely wrong, be completely doctored.
	I mean, I've been in courts where federal judges will go like this to the court reporter.
	And start asking questions they have no business asking.
	Like, what's the politics of Mr. Barnes' client to the government lawyer on the other side?
	Just doesn't want that on the record.
	So it doesn't exist on the record.
	We saw that in the Young Thug trial where one of the lawyers is telling the court reporter to stop.
	And we've seen how they modify the Joe Biden transcripts of his official speeches to eliminate the flubs, eliminate the brain farts, so that you think it went down.
	It really is Orwellian.
	But so, I mean, what is the direction that this is going?
	The hurdle, I mean, what we're probably going to need is legislative relief.
	Because the problem is, where do you go currently?
	You have to sue the judges.
	You're going to the courts to ask the courts to quit being corrupt.
	You're going to the courts to ask the courts to quit covering up this corruption.
	That's the problem.
	It's one of the flaws in our system of governance.
	Because the judicial branch asserted its unilateral, universal, exclusive right to interpret the Constitution.
	This goes all the way back to McCullough v.
	Maryland and a range of policy disputes that have come up since then.
	Andrew Jackson, his answer, when the Supreme Court wanted to force the bank down his throat, said, you know, the Supreme Court's made its ruling.
	They can go enforce it.
	Good luck with that.
	That we need more legislative action.
	To reform these laws.
	To require courts to be...
	Even the Constitution in almost every state and in the United States requires open access to the courts.
	And the courts have said this is more than just being able to sneak into the courtroom door.
	It means the right to publish, the right to broadcast, the right to record, the right to take notes.
	All of it.
	And yet they're refusing to enforce it because they want to hide.
	What do they have to hide?
	These judges easily make fun of politicians who want to hide this, easily make fun of police who want to hide this.
	Well, what do the judges have to hide?
	Why are they so scared of public scrutiny?
	Why are they so scared of public transparency?
	It makes them look like corrupt hacks.
	And so if they care about the Constitution they took an oath to observe, they'll start to moderate and modify their own rules.
	They'll start at home.
	Where they need to begin to enforce the Constitution.
	And if they won't or can't, we'll need legislative reform or remedy to get it.
	Robert, let me bring these up.
	I saw one from Bill Tong, and I want to bring it up here.
	FDman12 says, John Milius wrote the quint USS Indianapolis speech for R. Shaw, edited the speech for the movie Jaws, Conan the Barbarian, Red Dawn, and my favorite, Big Wednesday, and many more.
	King of Biltong is in the house and he says, Biltong is one of the most protein-dense foods in the world and full of B12, zinc, iron, and creatine.
	Look for a healthy snack food alternative.
	Go to BiltongUSA.com.
	Code VIVA10 for 10% off.
	Cool tie says Hairy Toe.
	And failed policies are killing...
	Okay, I got that.
	Now, by the way, I'm bad at doing this.
	Totally forgot to...
	Robert? Oh, we got new merch!
	It's, look, so I don't know how it happened.
	I was thinking, oh, nobody's done this.
	Put the fist as the eye in the fight.
	At least I don't think anyone did.
	And we've done it now.
	We put it on the merch.
	It's all here.
	VivaFried.com.
	If you want to get the shirt, check it out.
	It's beautiful.
	It's beautiful.
	And it, never forgive, never forget, is already out there as well, but you can get on a mug.
	So if you want that, and we got VivaBarnes24, because we are all above average, or we are above average.
	VivaFry.com, if anybody wants some good merch.
	What holiday is coming up?
	I don't know what holidays are coming up, or birthdays.
	Oh, it's Labor Day on Monday.
	It's my anniversary with my wife tomorrow, so maybe I'll see if I can get rush delivery of a fight hat for my wife.
	You chose Labor Day as the anniversary date.
	Well, yes.
	And for anyone who wants to do math out there, all three of our children are born in July.
	So I add that as nine and a half months from September.
	But Marion tells me my math is off for some reason.
	All right.
	Viva Frye, if you want to get some merch, guys.
	What did we have next?
	I knew what I was going to segue this into.
	Hold on.
	I forgot what I was going to say.
	The heck was I going to...
	Ah, it doesn't matter.
	The Strip Club, Robert.
	Foxy Lady.
	Now, okay, so I start reading this case and I'm thinking...
	The estate of Jimi Hendrix is suing the strip club in Rhode Island for infringing on their song, Foxy Lady.
	There's a strip club in Rhode Island called Foxy Lady.
	Apparently, it's very well known.
	I've been to a strip club, I like to say twice, the first and the last time.
	It was one for a bachelor party.
	I felt very uncomfortable the entire time.
	I did not like my experience whatsoever and did not repeat it.
	So I'm reading this, just so nobody knows.
	I'm not a Krasenstein or an alleged Krasenstein.
	Foxy Lady is a Rhode Island strip club, apparently well-known, has a website called Foxy Lady RI, which I guess stands for Rhode Island.
	And they were suing, or for copyright, trademark, trademark violation, a place called Foxy Lady Cafe in Washington State.
	It's Washington State, right?
	It's across the country.
	And the reason why they were suing the Foxy Lady Cafe...
	It's not because they were a cafe, but they were a cafe in lingerie or something along those lines.
	Teeny baristas.
	These are all foreign terms and foreign concepts to me.
	But bottom line, similar industry, I guess.
	Semi-clad, half-nude women, whatever.
	And they were suing for copyright, trademark violation.
	The amazing thing is the Foxy Lady Cafe never appeared in the case.
	And they got some default judgment, but Foxy Lady Strip Club couldn't even succeed despite the absence of the defendant showing up because the court said, like, I'm already, it's like, who the hell's going to get confused between Foxy Lady Strip Club in Rhode Island and Foxy Lady Cafe in Washington?
	I just found it funny.
	It's a reminder for people out there, trademarks, you don't have to register a trademark for it to be protected.
	It's protecting your investment and your branding.
	And there's geographic analysis.
	It goes down to the relevant marketplace.
	Does the relevant marketplace, considering the similarity of the trademark, considering the commonality of the trademark, considering the geographic location of the business utilizing the trademark, will the ordinary customer...
	Going, in this case, to this coffee shop, think they're getting the same experience as the Rhode Island Strip Club in such a way that it diminishes the value or illicitly profits from the trademark of the Foxy Lady Strip Club in Rhode Island.
	And the point is that one of the key factors in the trademark analysis is geography.
	And in this context, the judge, I think, quite correctly ruled.
	No, this clearly doesn't dilute the value of the strip club trademark because nobody here in Seattle, Washington, is going to think that the local coffee shop is using a name that's not, as you point out, a Jimi Hendrix song.
	Using that name means that somehow they're getting the experience of the Rhode Island strip club.
	They didn't produce enough evidence for that.
	I've defended people that...
	There are people that did a version of the Nationalist Review, and the whiners at the National Review, you know, they're sort of Buckley's bastards.
	I mean, they're not to the intellectual level of Buckley at all.
	They did a huge Never Trump publication in 2016.
	They're mostly useless over there now.
	Even, you know, Andrew McCarthy writes for them, pretty much an idiot.
	But they wanted to go after the Nationalist Review because they're like, oh, people are going to confuse us with the National Review.
	The Nationalist Review was a very populist-type publication.
	And it's like, nobody's going to confuse it.
	If they thought it was the National Review, they wouldn't read it, you know, to point it out.
	But often people confuse.
	They think if they've registered a trademark, they magically have complete protection.
	They don't.
	It's always dependent upon the local marketplace, the market for that product.
	And that might be limited by geography.
	It might not.
	It might be limited by the subject matter of what you're purchasing.
	If you're buying a Foxy Lady song version or whatever, you're not going to confuse it with a strip club, as an example.
	What product are you buying?
	Who is it that's buying it?
	Where is it they're buying it?
	And it's all examples.
	Judge did a good job of showing how copyright can be abused by some of these companies.
	I don't often talk about my cases.
	This one was very public back in the day, but there was a very well-known burger restaurant in Montreal called M Burger, M-B-R-G-R.
	And they had a wonderful menu, very unique items.
	Somebody about, you know, say like two kilometers away decided to open up a restaurant called O-Burger, O-B-R-G-R, rip off the menu, copy it entirely to the point where they actually forgot to eliminate M-Burger from the menu that they literally copied, cut and paste.
	And then they said, well, we thought we were far enough away and we got to exercise a mechanism under the law, which is pretrial seizure.
	I forget the exact term under French law, but we seized their material because they were ours, because they bore our trademark, and we got a bailiff, and they went in, they took the awning, took the menus, took all of it because it was effectively ours by virtue of the trademark infringement.
	Robert, here.
	I'm double-checking this.
	When Robert said it, I was like, I heard that as well.
	The invitation to dinner with Macron's story originated with the satirical weekly Le Canard.
	I think that means the chain duck.
	Has it been confirmed by mainstream media?
	Not that I would trust mainstream media, but I did see it because I had heard about this as well.
	But you never know if it's the rumor that grows out of it.
	Not that Bitcoin news is the best place on earth.
	To my knowledge, Macron has not denied the story.
	Then you got Don, which says Macron denies it.
	But the bottom line is he had previously apparently invited...
	Macron denies inviting Telegram founders to dinner.
	But no, it doesn't matter.
	Change is nothing.
	But this will all get fleshed out.
	It's not yet been explained.
	And we'll ultimately get the story from him.
	But that story that he was invited by somebody, maybe Macron is saying he didn't personally invite him, right?
	It was through some other means or mechanism.
	But it makes a lot more sense as to why he flew to France, right?
	He had no other reason to be there.
	It wasn't on the way back home at all.
	It was way out of the way.
	So, from Azerbaijan back to the UAE.
	So, somebody took him there.
	No, but it also says, arrested, this is from Le Monde, which says, arrested Telegram CEO Pérez du Rommet with Macron several times before obtaining a French nationality.
	Macron has recruited him for forever.
	Yeah, it would not be the most unbelievable thing on Earth, but it's also incidental to the story.
	Alright, Robert, what are we going to do now?
	Hold on a second.
	We got elections in Pennsylvania.
	We got trans parents, Texas courts, Uber, when they can be held liable, bail for probation, and the Amos Miller update, but probably our next biggest PR case, or public interest case, is does Tim Pool have a right to sue Kamala Harris?
	I'm not familiar with this.
	How have I missed some Kamala Harris, Tim Pool drama?
	Robert, what the hell happened?
	So, Harris' campaign put out a clip of Tim Pool saying that he was part of Project 2025 and that they were announcing intentions confirmed by the Tim Pool clip that Trump was going to seize power and find legal ways to imprison or kill his critics and people who didn't support his election.
	Which I pointed out, if you apply a confession through projection filter, Kamala Harris is saying a lot of very disturbing things about what she intends on doing.
	She brought up Trump is going to use the military when he gets in to do this and this.
	I was like, well, that's totally false about Trump.
	I was like, oh, she's thinking about it.
	And that would be very much like her.
	That's who she is.
	She fits the particular problematic pattern of a psychopathic authoritarian, which is they're deeply insecure.
	They're much more dangerous.
	Then the Macron's of the world, which you can kind of see coming in their shenanigans and connivances.
	So Tim Pool is like, you're trying to get me killed.
	Yeah, Trump's operative.
	Let me play this here.
	Should Democrats be in jail?
	No question.
	When Donald Trump gets elected, should he start locking them up?
	No question.
	Should there be lists of Democrats that need to go to jail?
	100%. The reason for that is they've committed crimes.
	We need to make sure that when Donald Trump wins...
	We've got an attorney general, a deputy attorney general, a head of the CIA and the FBI.
	Cash Patel would be fantastic.
	We can have attorney general.
	There are some names floating around.
	And then they can start having their investigators and the feds issuing subpoenas, pulling up evidence, and with real evidence, bring them to judges for warrants.
	Then these people can spend three years of their lives.
	Fighting tooth and nail against the government for crimes they committed and we can prove.
	And the reason why we put them on trial is that we can show the whole world we will uncover what you've done.
	We will make sure everyone knows and you will be held accountable for it.
	Not just jail.
	They should get the death penalty.
	You know, we actually used to have the punishment for treason in this country.
	Laura Lewis is getting everybody in trouble.
	Hold on.
	That's from Kamala.
	Democrats be in jail.
	No question.
	Let me get this out of here.
	Okay. That's very interesting.
	And the statement is, Trump operatives say that Project 2025 is to give Trump unchecked legal power to prosecute his opponents.
	Of course, the problem is the statement that's attached to it says no such thing.
	I just want to see, who is that handle, Kamala HQ?
	Oh, it's the campaign headquarters.
	Okay. So it's Kamala Harris' campaign.
	So you have Kamala Harris' campaign saying that first, that Tim Pool is a Trump operative, second, that he's part of Project 2025, and third, that he supports Trump having unchecked legal power to arrest and kill dissidents and critics, anyone who opposes the election.
	So the problem is, those are factual claims.
	People sometimes forget in the defamation context, with actual malice and the rest.
	Because Tim Pool is clearly a public figure.
	That means you have to prove something impossible.
	That's only corrupt courts that deliberately misinterpret the law to cover for their pals.
	That's all that is.
	So that's always a risk you face, but it's not a risk from the law.
	It's a risk from the corruption of the people who are supposed to enforce the law.
	So if you look at this, an opinion can be the basis of a defamation case.
	If that opinion implies...
	Statements of fact.
	Doesn't even have to explicitly make those statements of fact.
	But here you have three statements of fact.
	Is Tim Pool a Trump operative?
	Is Tim Pool part of Project 2025?
	And did Tim Pool say he supports Trump having unchecked legal power so he can imprison anyone who opposes the election?
	Those are three factual claims.
	They're all patently false.
	The way they may try to weasel out of it is to say, well, we attached the underlying statement.
	And so that modifies or clarifies our further statement.
	This is when you attach the underlying statement, at times that can inoculate you from a libel lawsuit.
	Problem is, it doesn't inoculate at least two of the three lies, and arguably all three lies, because they're using that as further proof.
	But there's nothing in that statement that clarifies the first three facts are false, patently false.
	So he's got a clear defamation libel claim against Kamala Harris and the people running the Kamala headquarters site, which even after that was exposed, they refused to correct this.
	They refused to take it down.
	Democrats have further spread it everywhere.
	I do wonder if it's going to turn out that it's actually not an official Kamala Harris campaign, whatever, and it's somebody who's just a diehard fan and transformed their existing Twitter handle into it.
	Not that it would change anything, it'll just change who we get.
	But then everybody who has retweeted it, everyone else who has shared it in support of it, as opposed to just retweeting to draw attention to it, anybody that owned it as their own statement could also be subject to suit.
	Republishing something to a new audience is its own independent individual act of libel.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But it shows the degree.
	It's part of a consistent pattern that these people are doing of launching attacks on anybody who's independent.
	So if you're independent in the press or you have an independent platform, if you're Elon Musk, if you're Chris Pevlovsky, if you're Pavel with the Telegram, if you're...
	Tim Pool at TimCast, they are threatening and they're libeling you or doing things that put your well-being at risk.
	And Tim Pool has been repeatedly subject to bogus efforts to swat his home and his business.
	But it shows the nature of who these people are, that they would deliberately miscarriage.
	And the other thing is, what I also thought it was useful for, it's confession through projection.
	They're telling you what they're planning on doing.
	They're already doing some part of it, but they're planning on escalating big time.
	There's a reason why Elon Musk is getting much more assertive.
	A reason why Robert Kennedy made the decision he made.
	That these are people that see this election as a rare, defining election that can dictate the future of the world.
	Do we go into World War III or not?
	Do we have food freedom or not?
	Do we control our own bodies or not?
	Do we have the right to free speech and free debate and free thought or not?
	Do we have access to the truth or does the government get to control that from us and keep it from us forever?
	That's what's on the ballot in November of 2020.
	And they're telling you by what they accused Trump of is what they're planning on doing.
	Let me see.
	There were a couple of chats and I think I'm...
	Rumble rants and I unfortunately...
	No, here we go.
	Okay, let me bring this up because they're on point or at least specifically on this issue right now.
	Tim immediately took down that episode.
	Tim never allows any...
	Well, first of all, I know this.
	I've been on Tim's channel close to 10 times now.
	Never. I never get there either, so it's not a concern for me, but absolutely never condones hurting, unaliving anyone.
	John Milius wrote...
	Okay, I got that.
	So... Well, that's pretty amazing.
	I'm going to tweet something out about that after this episode.
	I hadn't heard that.
	All right.
	So we're two hours in now.
	We want to finish up a couple more here and then take it on over to the after party?
	Yeah, sure.
	We got the Pennsylvania elections.
	We could probably cover here.
	And then we got the new Texas court, trans rights or parents' rights concerning trans identity issues in schools.
	When Uber can be held liable for the bad things that can happen to Uber drivers?
	Whether you still have a right to bail and other rights?
	Are you in custody when you're under probation?
	And then there's a few questions.
	Oh, and an Emus Miller update.
	Let me, because I'm familiar with it, the Uber decision is interesting.
	It was the estate of a murdered Uber driver suing Uber for failing to provide, for failing to...
	I don't know if it's a due diligence of care for their worker, the people who contract with them.
	This guy got a call, client pickup, apparently it was a suspicious profile, shows up, gets murdered.
	And the family sues Uber saying you failed and you owed a duty of care to the people with whom you contract as Uber drivers.
	You didn't because you failed to implement warnings for suspicious.
	Profiles, anonymous profiles, and other duties of care.
	Now, I forget what state of the proceedings it was up to, but the bottom line is, did Uber make a motion to dismiss and it failed?
	There was no hearing on the merits.
	Uber won at the district court level and fortunately got overturned on appeal.
	So Uber always pretends to just be a software app.
	That Uber doesn't employ anybody.
	That Uber doesn't make promises to anybody, really.
	They're just a software app.
	That happens to function like a taxi cab service, right?
	This has always been kind of bogus.
	Their goal has been to escape and evade all the laws and rules that govern and regulate taxi cab services or registered car driver services and the like.
	And their ultimate goal, by the way, is to not have any employees, but to have automated cars picking people up.
	And they deliberately underprice every market they go into.
	In other words, they charge less.
	They lose money.
	Their goal is to get people so attached to Uber that they end up monopolizing the market, drive out competitors who can't compete, and then they're going to jack up prices drastically and dramatically to be higher than they ever were.
	This is their whole marketplace.
	They're a nasty monopolist big tech business that wants to evade all the rules and restraints and restrictions.
	And so they provide a good service because taxi cab services were mediocre in a lot of cities.
	So they stepped into a good market gap.
	But the way they try to use their power is a lot like a big tech corrupt company more than it is an honest competitor wanting to provide quality service to its employees.
	So here, their employees were going to places that Uber's own technology knew were dangerous riders.
	They were people that either were anonymous, they were using unusual accounts, they came from locations that had a history of assault attempts or carjacking attempts or other crime attempts.
	And, you know, Uber wants to always be politically correct, so they won't tag.
	Oh, by the way, this neighborhood has, say, a five-fold higher rate of burglary and car thefts, carjackings, assaults.
	I mean, like...
	Kamala Harris is running around telling people San Francisco is this beautiful, perfect city.
	There's no crime there.
	Crime is down like the mayor's claiming.
	And a star player, star rookie for the 49ers.
	He got shot in a failed robbery.
	Yeah, shot yesterday.
	Shot! I mean, this is how bad it is going to a charity event, by the way.
	And you have to appreciate, like, it's only when it starts happening to celebrities that people start paying attention.
	But how prevalent must it have to be in order to get to the celebrities who live at a different level of society where they're not even exposed to this stuff on a daily basis?
	That's how you know it's gotten exponentially worse than anybody tells you.
	And a lot of working class people who are in what you could call almost a transient economy survive based on things like Uber.
	You know, it's their second or third or fourth job in some cases to just keep up with the bills.
	And here Uber was sending them to be politically correct and because they only care about their profits into known dangerous situations.
	And then they're saying, we're not responsible.
	This one driver, they carjacked him, killed him, murdered him.
	So the state sued Uber and Uber's like, we're not responsible.
	Yeah, we sent him to a location we knew was dangerous.
	We didn't care because we wanted to line our pockets and be politically correct.
	And the district court said, yes, poor Uber.
	Oh, poor Uber.
	We can't be doing this to these wonderful tech companies.
	You could have just turned down the ride.
	So consequently, there's no what's called a special relationship.
	So normally you don't have a duty to avoid third parties causing harm to someone.
	However, when there's a special relationship of protection or care, dependency or control, such as...
	Invitees in a business, employees controlled by an employer, people at an inn where they're invited in as innkeepers, and like situations, disability homes, etc.
	Those people, because they have control, because they have a care obligation, a protection obligation, they have a special relationship to manage any foreseeable risk.
	of harm to that individual and try to limit the risk of that harm happening.
	Here it was very foreseeable because Uber knew this was happening and they were doing nothing about it.
	Nothing to protect the safety of their drivers at all.
	I mean, by the way, they've done similar things in terms of their riders.
	They'll have drivers that have a known history of criminal history.
	And because they want to be politically correct and because they want to line their pockets.
	They want as many drivers as possible operating as cheap as possible.
	They can get to work as much as possible for as little as possible while they get as many rides as possible.
	And if that means let's let the convicted rapist pick up the 20-year-old female outside the bar, go ahead.
	That's Uber.
	They have no values.
	I mean, that's who these big tech companies are.
	They're not amoral.
	They're immoral.
	And that's what they're doing here.
	And luckily, the Ninth Circuit...
	Court of Appeals is like, hold on a second.
	No. You're like an employee.
	You're like an innkeeper invitee.
	You're like a contractor or subcontractor.
	You control the entire employment opportunity of this individual.
	You tell him which rides he can take, how much he can charge, where he can pick him up, where he has to drop him off.
	You have true control, and that comes with a duty of care.
	And you knew this was happening, and you were doing nothing about it.
	You're just trying to line your pockets with it and brag about how politically correct you are.
	And thankfully, the court corrected it and said, yes, Uber can be held liable.
	Uber does have a special duty of care to their drivers.
	In my opinion, they have a special duty of care to their riders.
	Because Uber constantly promotes itself as vetting its drivers and vetting its riders for its drivers.
	It says, we make sure you're safe.
	And again, this wasn't a case of something that was utterly unforeseeable.
	It was something that Uber knew that specific incident there was a substantial risk of because of the red flags associated with the driver and the location of the rider.
	So thankfully, some of these big tech companies finally being held to the same legal standards as everybody else.
	Well, especially since the technology is not even that hard, give it a warning.
	Yeah, you say it's higher risk.
	You just let them know.
	And then they can make a choice knowing it's higher risk.
	But they knew that Mugby would be like, most drivers would be, nope, no thanks.
	Do I want to get a regular fee for a 30% increase that I get murdered or killed today?
	I don't think so.
	I was talking to an Uber driver I had in Milwaukee who, she was a black woman, said, I pick up everyone from everywhere.
	And I was like, that's, I mean, it's, I guess, noble in a way, but ridiculous.
	In Toronto, I had an Uber driver.
	Who says, there's places in Toronto.
	I won't pick it up.
	It's not worth it.
	I don't need the $30 fare.
	I'm just going to go home early.
	It's wild.
	All right, Pennsylvania.
	They were trying to not have ballots that were improperly dated, mail-in ballots that were improperly dated or not dated, counted.
	And a court came in and said, no, an incorrect or absence of a date on the outside of the ballot is not going to be sufficient to discard that ballot for mail-in voting.
	You're going to maybe have to explain to me why I don't think that's a big problem.
	I don't know what relevance the date on the outside of the envelope would have if it's a mail-in ballot and gets stamped at the post office, but maybe I'm just superficial thought here and I'm missing something.
	What's the deal?
	So there's two separate issues that they dealt with last week.
	This is the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, where Amos Miller's case is currently pending.
	So the Commonwealth Court assigned a special en banc panel because the presiding judge, Is a judge of certain known political preferences.
	So because she said it was an election dispute, she assigned the panel.
	And the panel, magically, on both of them, included the same Democratic judge who illegally imprisoned two farm workers who worked in the Amish farm community earlier this year.
	So he's a judge who likes to abuse his power and pursue politicized objectives.
	The two cases pending before the Commonwealth Court was one.
	Were they going to be hyper-technical in interpreting the rules in a kind of a crazy way to exclude Cornel West from the ballot?
	And on the other one, were they going to enforce the rules for mail-in ballots that were the basis of the legislature even passing that law in the first place?
	And guess which technical rules they decided to enforce?
	They decided to enforce the technical rules.
	To prohibit Cornel West from being on the ballot.
	And guess what doctrine they used?
	Latches. Latches.
	Guess what they said was so inequitable, so abusive to even bring a petition.
	How long do you think they said was, that's crazy that you took this long to sue?
	Two weeks?
	Yes. 14 days.
	Any lawyer that can't file a suit immediately.
	And it sues just 14 days after the incident arose.
	That's lactic.
	You don't even deserve access to the court.
	It's so obscene and absurd for anybody who's practiced law to gather the facts, to draft the proceedings, to finalize your solicitor-client relationship, to get it served.
	I don't know.
	I presume you have to get it served before you can get it filed.
	Obscene. Obscene and absurd.
	Okay, sorry.
	And it was excluding Cornel West from the ballot, even though the people of the state of Pennsylvania have already shown they want Cornel West included on the ballot.
	And it's not a coincidence.
	Cornel West...
	Draws overwhelmingly from Kamala Harris.
	So the goal is to exclude him from the ballot in order to help Kamala Harris in a state she has to win by almost everybody's estimations in order to win the presidency.
	And then they turn around and all of a sudden, well, we can't be enforcing these technical rules.
	This is an election after all.
	We have to respect the same group of judges.
	On both panels.
	That same corrupt Democratic liberal judge, specially assigned by the presiding judge, who is abusing her power to help rig the elections in Pennsylvania for her Democratic ally, Kamala Harris.
	And they say, oh, no, no, no.
	We can't enforce the mail-in balloting rules.
	No, no, no, no.
	Because that's asserting technical detail over the importance of the right of voter expression and association.
	Hmm. So, as the dissenting judge pointed out, he called it a ridiculous ruling.
	The reason is this.
	The reason for these rules is these rules are there designed to protect against various forms of fraud.
	So, if somebody puts one date on the ballot that's a different date than the date it's sent into the mail, that can be a red flag that something's wrong with how that ballot was handled or processed or submitted.
	In the chain of custody.
	If they list a date that's after Election Day, then there's a good chance it actually was after Election Day, and the post office has just changed the postal date.
	It's a serious problem.
	There's already a major lawsuit brought against the U.S. Postal Service for doing that in the 2020 election currently pending.
	This is what the court didn't want to talk about, and frankly, because the Republican Party...
	I think they should have had more aggressive lawyers litigate this case.
	Explain what this is.
	But the underlying basis of it is this law that authorized mail-in balloting to be done at this level anyway in Pennsylvania, which used to be very rare, used to have a special excuse to vote by mail because we don't trust voting by mail.
	Republicans said, look, we'll agree to allow all this mail-in voting if you agree we're going to strictly enforce these rules.
	And if for any reason...
	These rules are struck down.
	The whole law is gone.
	So how does the Commonwealth Court avoid that?
	They pretend that that part of the law that says it's non-severable doesn't apply.
	They just make up the law.
	That's how corrupt and partisan these judges are.
	And again, they were handpicked by the presiding judge to deliver these rulings, and they delivered rulings that contradict each other in the same week.
	That's when people said, why am I concerned about...
	Lacking confidence in the Commonwealth Court for Amos Miller's case, these are some of the judges that are up there.
	And so, to me, it's so overtly political, so directly partisan, the way they're trying to rig the 2024 elections in advance.
	Remember, it's in Pennsylvania, the same Department of State that was involved.
	People didn't understand fully why I was talking about these Amish-related cases.
	It's not just about food freedom.
	It's that it was exposing systemic problems.
	In the Pennsylvania bureaucracy and in parts of the Pennsylvania judicial system that are not respecting core constitutional rights and liberties, like the freedom to be free from illegal imprisonment, for example, in the case of Wentworth and Hur.
	So, again, same judge, all three cases.
	That case and these two election cases.
	One key judge involved in all three.
	Not a surprise he got assigned.
	Though he's probably the least competent and capable judge on the entire Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court bench.
	And that's saying something because they got some doozies up there.
	So what it does is the Pennsylvania Department of State, same Department of State that illegally imprisoned the two farm workers, is the one that just two weeks ago, somehow magically leading up to knowing this decision was coming down the pipeline, said, we're not going to know on election day what the results are.
	And the election day results might be misleading.
	So don't draw any conclusions by what you see on election day.
	And remember, Pennsylvania is a state where, just like Georgia, the votes kept magically pouring in.
	Pennsylvania is where they were literally blocked talking about transparency and access to public proceedings.
	Why does this all interrelate?
	Pennsylvania is where they were blocking views so you couldn't see what was happening with the ballots, where they were coming from, how they were being counted, what was being done with them, whether some were being thrown away and some being added in.
	All of that in Pennsylvania.
	Is where they tried to assassinate President Donald John Trump.
	So it's not a coincidence all these events are happening in this state.
	The bureaucracy and too much of the judiciary has become openly and overtly partisan, and in my opinion, corrupt.
	And these decisions are reflective of the problem of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
	And the Pennsylvania legislature needs to start looking at examining how that Commonwealth Court gets elected and other aspects.
	Because... It's become a rubber stamp for the state, rather than second-guessing and questioning and being skeptical and supervising and scrutinizing the state on behalf of individual civil rights and civil liberties, and that's what they were supposed to be.
	Now we're going to head over to Locals, but I am going to tease it, everybody.
	I'm going to tease it with this, because I want to tease it, people.
	This is Rena For Real.
	Do either of you know what's going on with Julie Kelly donating $3,000 to Biden-Harris?
	She's doing great work on January 6th in Trump cases, but someone's exposing her on X. I'll tell you what I think over on Locals, and Robert, I know what you think.
	I'll give you the quick update.
	Distrust anybody who says anything critical of Julie Kelly.
	Distrust them.
	They're either dumb or corrupt.
	Note, some of the same people attacking Julie Kelly are also the people attacking James O'Keefe.
	We're also behind the effort to steal Project Veritas.
	These are people not to be trusted.
	These are people, you know, some people, once a Fed, always a Fed.
	Well, that was going to be my answer as well.
	I wasn't going to name anyone by name, but I've had my running-ins on the interverse with the individual who put out that smear video against James O'Keefe suggesting that he hurt a young woman at a bar where she was drunk.
	And I said, what the hell are you putting this up?
	This doesn't say anything of what you said it says.
	Other people involved have had other similar lapses in judgment.
	And my other...
	I don't care who Julie Kelly donates to.
	I don't care if it's her husband donating in her name or however that works.
	Who cares?
	Her work on January 6th has been superb.
	If you're dumb enough to take the bait on a story like that, you should smack yourself in the face first.
	Because think about it.
	Judge a person by the work.
	That's why I always like to say the Bible got it right.
	Judge them by their works.
	What is it?
	By their fruits.
	By their deeds, they shall be known.
	And Julie Kelly's deeds speak volumes in favor of her character.
	And not just that.
	She doesn't speak volumes to her critics.
	From what I understand, she donated years ago.
	Then they say, well, her husband's still donating now.
	It's none of your business what her husband is doing.
	If they have...
	I don't care who you donate to.
	I care about what you do, what your deeds are in the court of public opinion.
	And Julie Kelly has been the lead on January 6th cases.
	So ask yourself, why does somebody want you to be skeptical of how she's exposing those January 6th cases?
	Aren't they actually trying to apologize for those January 6th cases?
	Ask yourself whether they're really the FBI whistleblower they pretend to be.
	I concur.
	Same people trying to sow discord and besmirch other good people.
	Julie Kelly is good in my books until proof to the contrary, which doesn't come from these two people.
	That guy should just not drink and tweet.
	When he drinks and tweets, he says some of the dumbest, craziest things on the planet.
	Well, one last pitch, people.
	Just before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, get your Viva Barnes 24 because we are above average lawn signs, shirts.
	What else is in there?
	It's all in there.
	Go check it out.
	Oh, yes.
	Don't vote for an idiot.
	I forgot about that one.
	Get the bumper sticker.
	Your neighbors will love it if they support Biden and Harris or if they support Harris now because Biden is out.
	We're ending it and we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, you're on with Barris tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
	Yeah, 2 o'clock p.m. Eastern Time with People's Pundit Daily, breaking down the politics of pot, abortion, medical freedom, food freedom, some of those issues, plus an update on where my projections are for every single state and where I think they're going to go in the 2024 elections.
	And we still have the, you know, whether you can still get bail if you're on probation, the Amos Miller case update, parents' rights when schools are trying to convert them into trans.

▲