Ep. 229: P Diddy DENIED BAIL! Pool SUES Kamala Harris! Jamie Raskin "DISQUALIFYING" Trump & MORE!
|
Time
Text
Annie Polishchuk went viral that used artificial intelligence in my face to make it seem like Israel had planted explosives inside the rectums of goats, which were then detonated when thousands of members of Hezbollah became intimate with those goats.
While humorous, here at CNN we are very concerned with the proliferation of any fake news that we didn't create ourselves.
Disinformation is a very serious threat to our country and the world when it isn't us here at CNN creating it.
We acknowledge the average person on the internet is too stupid to tell the difference between parody and reality.
And if it was up to us, none of those people would ever be allowed to vote.
Some of you might be thinking this video is AI and you would be incorrect.
This is a totally real thing that me, trusted journalist Jake Tapper, would totally say for realsies.
Yesterday, a video from comedian Danny Polishchuk went viral that used artificial intelligence in my face to make it seem like...
I almost can't tell.
I almost can't tell.
Which were then detonated when thousands of members of Hezbollah became intimate with those goats.
While humorous here at CNN, we are very concerned with the proliferation of any fake news that we didn't create ourselves.
Disinformation is a very serious threat to our country and the world when it isn't us here at CNN creating it.
We acknowledge the average person on the internet is too stupid to tell the difference between parody and reality.
And if it was up to us, none of those people would ever be allowed to vote.
Some of you might be thinking this video is AI and you would be incorrect.
This is a totally real thing that me...
Oh my goodness.
I gotta tell you...
I laughed so hard the first time I saw that.
At first, I mean, I genuinely thought the first five seconds was real.
Then I became increasingly...
I mean, the thing is this.
We're quickly getting to the point where you will quite literally not be able to believe anything you see on the internet.
I use my grandmother or my now deceased grandmother as the test.
Would my grandmother believe it?
And if the answer is yes, we've got a problem.
Not because, you know, my grandmother was senile or unintelligent.
Now, if the average person, not dumb, but of a certain age, where they don't appreciate the technology to even question it in the first place, that is undoubtedly sufficiently real to be convincing and to be deceiving.
And I'm like, I watch that, and if I just take my glasses off...
That's real.
I mean, if I take my glasses off, that becomes real.
Save and accept for what Jake the fake tapper is actually saying.
And that's actually Jake the fake the tapper.
But the joke about, you know, that being sufficiently realistic that low information voters out there might believe it.
People. We are living in a world where people are actually low information, but also.
Unintelligent. There's nothing wrong with being unintelligent because there's various ways of being unintelligent.
I'm going to needle him because he's not here.
And as we say in French, les absents ont toujours tort.
Those who are not there are always wrong.
I had Pisco Lydion on Friday and I made the joke to his face.
You can be very intelligent and still have a broken brain.
And I do like something that I've said and I don't know if it's...
I know it's an original thought.
I just don't know if someone else has not said something.
Of an iteration of this, and I have to take for granted they have because there have been plenty of smarter people than me, but intelligence without a moral compass is a liability and not an asset.
It's a weapon and not a tool.
So there's various ways to be stupid, not all of which involve being unintelligent.
We're witnessing this now from Mark Cuban, who, I gotta tell you, he might be the richest dummy you've ever seen in your life.
But he's not the one that I want to absolutely, remorselessly put on blast and tear a new one to tonight.
Tonight, that honor.
Maybe we're going to start every Sunday show with the dumbass of the week.
Of course, we might have this man repeatedly, one week after another, being the dumbass of the week.
Here's the dumbass of the week, people.
Now, I'm just a city boy, and I didn't grow up on a farm.
But even I have...
The most mildest of knowledge of old McDonald's farm.
So, the context for this is Kamala Harris says, I will gladly accept a second presidential debate on October 23rd.
I hope real Donald Trump will join me.
This is in response to Caitlin Collins.
She might also be featured on Dumbass of the Week, but not this week.
Vice President Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former Trump.
Because after that debacle...
And arguably fraudulent debacle of an ABC interview where I'm still, you know, you can't even trust a video, let alone screen grabs of an alleged affidavit of an alleged whistleblower testifying to the fact that allegedly ABC was, you know, fraudulently scheming to give Kamala Harris a leg up.
Excuse me.
Two legs up.
Okay, stop it.
To give Kamala Harris a certain advantage in that first debate.
Go from ABC.
To Jake the fake tapper CNN and accept that invitation and expect it to go all total kosher and holier than the Pope.
CNN, by the way, the same CNN who Donna Brazile worked for when she leaked the questions to Hillary Clinton to bend Bernie Sanders over the proverbial DNC stool and give it to him.
Yeah, go from ABC and accept the invite from Caitlin Collins' propagandist extraordinaire to do a debate on CNN.
All right.
Kamala Harris says, I would gladly accept a second debate, sure, from another corrupt propagandist news outlet on October 3rd.
I hope real Donald Trump will throw up.
All right, to which, dumbass of the week, George Conway comes in and says, your move, Donald Trump.
And then, do you see what's going on here?
Like, I would like to say our crowd is above average.
Who can spot the problem here?
Let me just make sure.
Let me see.
Who can spot the problem?
Look, admittedly, I had to double-check.
That's a frickin' rooster, people.
That's not a chicken.
He's suggesting.
This is George Dumbass of the Week Conway is suggesting that Trump would be a chicken to not accept the debate.
And so he does, I guess, an AI-generated image of Don the Chicken.
People, okay, let me, like, I knew these things.
How did I know these things?
Because I go to farms and I ask questions.
And when I lifted up the rooster and I rotated the chicken, you know, rotate your owl for science.
Anybody who gets that reference, good for you.
I know the difference between a chicken and a rooster.
I mean, anybody who's played that game when you pick up a little piece of grass and then you go chicken or rooster and you pull up the thing.
And if it's a bushy tail, it's chicken.
And if it's got a...
Spike picking up.
It's a rooster.
Look at the freaking tail.
You can tell by the waddle on the neck as well.
And that red waddle is a damn good sign that that's a rooster and not a chicken.
The tail is the tail of a rooster, not a chicken.
So dumbass of the week, George Conway, in thinking he's calling Trump a chicken, actually is just illustrating that Donald Trump is not a chicken, but he is the cock of the walk, people.
And if you don't know what cock of the walk means, let me just go ahead and...
Refresh my memory as to what cock of the walk is.
The cock of the walk is someone who dominates others within a group.
Here. Let me get rid of this anyhow.
Stop screen share.
The cock of the walk.
Because that's what George Conway just called Donald Trump.
Someone who dominates others within a group.
Don't ever forget, he's the cock of the walk here.
The he being the Don.
Ho! People!
How goes the battle?
I want to see when Barnes gets in here.
We know what his answer is going to be.
It's been another heck of a week.
I should have double-checked that we are actually live across all of the platforms of the interwebs.
For those of you who are new to the channel, I don't know how many people are watching this for the first time.
I would be genuinely curious to know.
We start live on Commitube, that being YouTube, Rumble Free Speech Platform, Twitter, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Because we vote with our feet...
And we vote with our eyeballs and we respect the platform that respects free speech.
We go over to Rumble at a given point.
And then because we want to give our supporters at Locals a bit of a perk for supporting the work that we do, we have the Locals after party where we answer questions and take the tip questions and all that other stuff.
All right.
So that's the way it starts.
Rumble is not running, David.
No, it's running now.
So refresh.
Rumble's running.
YouTube is running.
Twitter is running.
And VivaBarnesLaw.locals.law is certainly working.
Now, you know, before we even get too far into this, because you want to talk about...
No, no, I got to bring one more thing up because it's going to, you know, it will allow me to segue perfectly into the intro for today.
Kamala Harris.
The snake with a forked tongue, who speaks with forked tongue.
And then we're going to get to the other one that I want to put on absolute freaking blast.
Kamala Harris came out and tweeted, you know, she writes, it is a false choice to suggest you are either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away.
I am in favor of the Second Amendment.
And I am in favor of an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and red flag laws.
I am fairly certain there's universal background checks save and accept for the loophole, the gun show loophole, which I would be very curious to see any statistics on how much crime is committed with guns procured from the gun show loophole.
I'd be very curious to know if that amount of gun crime is infinitesimal or exquisitely infinitesimal.
First of all, it's called a false dichotomy.
Kamala. So you might want to get familiar with that term.
It's a false choice to suggest you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away.
To which I had to say, so you're only against the shall not be infringed part of the Constitution, proving it's not a false choice.
You are quite literally against the Constitution and against the Second Amendment.
An amendment the importance of which I have only grown to appreciate.
The wisdom of which I have only grown to appreciate.
In my lifetime, when I've seen what happens, when they come for the guns and they only say, oh, we're only coming for the big, bad, scary ones, and then lo and behold, take a look up north, people.
Then they come for the small ones because the black markets, you know, they come for the small ones.
They come for all of them.
And then they don't just come for the guns, by the way, people, because anybody who doesn't know what's going on in Canada, you can't have pepper spray for the purposes of self-defense.
You can't have tasers.
You can't have stun guns.
You can't have the burner launcher people.
You can't have anything for the purpose of self-defense.
You can't have nunchucks in Canada for the purpose of self-defense.
When you want to go get your firearm license, the long arm, the rifle, that's the only one you can get without the special license, although they basically shut down small arms entirely in Canada.
You got to go take a course, which I don't have anything against, but whether or not it should be mandatory is a separate issue.
Background checks.
If you so help you goodness suggest on your application that you want that hunting rifle remotely for any purpose of self-defense, you'll get refused.
So they start with the unpopular targets.
We're going to talk about it tonight.
They start with the big...
Oh, we're only coming for assault rifles.
Alleged, so-called, put it in quotes, assault rifles.
Background checks, universal background checks, which I'm fairly certain every state has.
And red flag laws.
And then those red flag laws expand.
And then those background checks expand.
And then once the AR-15s are confiscated, then they find out, oh, the majority of gun violence is actually committed with small arms.
Oh, well, shit, now we've got to go after the small arms.
And then lo and behold, you turn into Canada, and then you turn into Venezuela, and in that order.
And so with that said, people, because the government doesn't stop until they've thoroughly screwed you.
Until there's nothing left to screw, people.
Listen up.
The world is getting more unpredictable by the day.
Political insanity, rumors of civil war, an unstable market, and now the looming threat of a new global health emergency.
You heard this, people?
There's a bird flu summit coming up in October, eerily reminiscent of Event 201 that foreshadowed the COVID pandemic.
And get this, the first topic, what's the first topic?
Mass fatality management planning.
What do they call it?
Pre-programming.
They call it pre-programming people.
If that doesn't send chills down your spine, I don't know what will, but here's the good news.
You don't have to be scared if you're prepared.
The wellness company created the medical emergency kit, and every home in America should have at least one of these.
They're packed with life-saving meds like ivermectin, aloxicillin, and even Z-Pak, and they're all backed by experts like Dr. Peter McCullough.
Imagine this.
No more frantic searches for a doctor.
No more emergency waiting rooms.
Just a few clicks, and the kit is delivered to your door.
It's times like this.
Having your medical emergency kit, it's not just a luxury.
It's a necessity.
Protect yourself.
Protect your family.
Now, head over to twc.health forward slash Viva.
Promo code will get you $30 off.
Don't wait until it's too late.
Act now.
The link is in the description.
Protect those and the ones you love.
By the way, kits are only available in the US.
twc.health forward slash Viva.
Viva for $30 off and free shipping.
Do it.
All right.
And then I got some more fun stuff in the background.
But before we get there, because I want to make sure not to fall too far behind on the super chats on Commitube before we get over here.
We got, how do we know you aren't actually an AI right now, says ED2276.
Dude, we're going to get there.
We're going to get there.
We're like, the way I'm lucky, I've got a footprint on the internet, which may or may not be lucky because that's more of a footprint to use to create accurate AI.
This is from ED2276.
Even with the worst of AI for me, no one's gonna believe anything related to sexual improprieties because I firmly believe that anybody who cheats on a spouse is risking their lives.
But you're gonna get to a world where you're gonna see stuff and it's gonna be so compelling and so realistic and fake.
And then you're gonna get to the world where it's gonna be real.
But they're going to get to say that it's fake.
And you're going to get to a world where you will literally not know what to believe, even when you see it with your own eyes.
R. Valera says, Trump should counter.
Let the debate be hosted on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Three hours impartial.
That would be something that they would never, ever accept.
Ian says, if that rooster was in a fight, I'd bet on it.
Kimmel Jo says, 10 bucks.
Viva! Biden gave WHO control over America for our next pandemic.
And the next week, the UN is voting on the global communist governance.
Yep. I saw there was a $100 tip in here, which I can't seem to bring up.
It says, Detailer's Choice Car Care.
But why can't...
I want to find it.
Let me see here.
Detailer's Choice Car Care.
Right here.
Okay, so I'm going to go like this.
Let me just see if I can do this.
And I can't seem to find it, but I'm going to bring it up.
Keep up the good fight, Viva.
Best live show on the interwebs.
Thank you.
I can't get the rest of that super chat.
And let me just see what else is going on here.
I want to be able to bring it up.
Make sure I get the full name.
Here it is.
It's... Oh, you know what?
I can't even...
I'm just going to say thank you.
It's in there.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We've got a show tonight when Barnes gets here.
But before Barnes even gets here, I'm going to play something so that we don't have to play it when Barnes gets here.
All right, the runner-up for Dumbass of the Week.
It's Mark Cuban.
You thought I was going to let Mark Cuban off, did you?
Oh, you thought there was only going to be one Dumbass this week.
No! In this inaugural week of Dumbass of the Week, we've got two.
And here is Mark Cuban.
2015, what I find most shocking about this video.
From Patrick Bet-David.
Look at Patrick Bet-David.
He's a little baby in this picture.
He looks like he's like 12 years old.
Listen to this, people.
So one would call you a Democrat.
No, no, hell no, no, no.
Look, there's different things for different reasons, right?
Would you be comfortable with a capitalist like Donald Trump being our president?
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.
I like Donald and he's smart.
You know, like a lot of candidates and politicians, you vote for not what they say.
But knowing that 99% of they say won't come true, what they'll do...
Does everybody remember that one of the faults levied against Trump in his pregnancy?
In his presidency, my apologies.
In his presidency was that he was keeping too many of his presidential promises.
Google it.
I lived through it.
Fake news.
CNN was faulting Trump for keeping too many of his presidential promises.
Gonna follow through.
And do I think he's smart enough to figure that out and then just do the right thing after he's elected?
Yes. And then Hillary and Bernie say, okay, tax the 1% and that'll pay for everything.
Doesn't work, right?
Won't work.
You know, Hillary's- Like now I don't know if this is a real video.
Can you believe the full inversion within 10 years?
What do they have on you, Mark Cuban?
They have to have- What does P. Diddy have on you?
That's my conclusion.
I'm joking, haha.
Joking, not joking.
I'm joking.
Hashtag no defamation.
Straight up joke.
But seriously, what do they have on you, Cuban?
This was 10 years ago.
Remind me of the expression.
It's an amazing expression my father taught me and I never forgot it.
Listen to this.
Pay for college.
Her plan is ridiculous.
It'll increase college costs, not reduce.
So they don't think them through.
You said, you know, Trump, I get it.
He's changing the tone of politics.
You know, in the past, you had to be a Stepford candidate.
You had to be perfect.
I don't think we need to go all the way through here.
Let's just get to the present.
I agree with him.
I like what he's doing from that perspective, and we'll see what he does on the personal side.
But he's obviously had an impact on the economy, so he gets credit for that.
People believe in what he's doing on the tax front.
They believe, and I agree, on the reduction of regulation.
Not all regulation, EPA type stuff, I don't agree with, but in some of it, the simplification of doing business, I agree with reducing...
If this turns out to be AI, I'm going to be really embarrassed because in as much as you try to do your own due diligence, it's going to become impossible.
This is the expression.
My father told me this when I was a kid and never forgot it.
He says...
It's an old expression.
I forget who said it.
Someone in the chat can get it because it wasn't my dad's.
It was when I was a kid, my father was the dumbest person on earth.
And then...
I'm going to screw it up.
And then as I got older, I was shocked at how much my dad learned.
The idea being that when you're a young child, you're so ignorant and naive.
You think your dad is stupid because you don't understand a damn thing of the world.
And then...
As you get older and realize that your dad was right, you think that he's the one who learned something.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Mark Cuban has gotten dumber over the last 10 years.
Dumber or compromised, because there's no other way to explain it.
And the idiots think that their words somehow disappear, or that they'll find a way to weasel out of them.
Like, oh yeah, I said that then, but my goodness, I've learned so much since then, I never knew that.
He was such a truly bad man.
Danger to democracy.
Such a danger to democracy.
Are we going to go with the third?
No, because Jamie Raskin is not a dumbass.
He's a scumbag.
Jamie Raskin Raskin.
I made the joke.
Like, in the movie Private Parts, Paul Gimetti was Howard Stern's boss at WNBC.
At one point in the movie, Howard Stern was playing a persona.
He's like, my boss there, Pig Vomit.
I call him Pig Vomit because he looks like a pig and he makes me want to vomit.
I'm calling Jamie Raskin Jamie Ratskin because he's a rat enveloped in human skin.
And it also rhymes with his last name.
There's no other nickname for Raskin other than Ratskin.
Words which, again, I would have thought were AI-generated until I went...
I verified the first time I went ballistic over the statement, but then I went and listened to the entire one-hour conference to understand the full context.
It might be repetitive because anybody who saw the vlog that I put out Friday night put out, you've already seen this, but we're going to play it just so that you can understand what Jamie Raskin said.
This was on the eve of the Supreme Court ruling on the Colorado disqualification from the ballot for reasons of 14th Amendment, third paragraph.
Insurrection, disqualification.
This is before the ruling came down.
9-0, Jamie Ratskin-Raskin.
Listen to what Jamie Ratskin-Raskin said.
Last night, I was most worried about the Supreme Court's prospective imminent abdication of its very clear duty to disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and what that might mean if their decision says that it's really up to Congress.
On January 5th, or January 6th, 2025, to disqualify him at the counting of the electoral college votes, which really could lead to something akin to civil war, if that's what the suggestion is, which is what I think I heard when I went to the oral argument, that they themselves were unwilling to rule whether or not the Colorado Supreme Court was correct in finding that he had engaged in insurrection.
Now, first of all...
Who the hell gave Raskin the heads up as to what the ruling was going to look like?
You understand?
He says, oh, that's what I understood from the oral arguments.
First of all, bullshit.
And second of all, that type of psychological manipulation?
Well, that's what I understood.
That's what I understood.
No. Someone was leaking to him or discussing with him from the Supreme Court that the ruling wasn't going to come down in his favor.
He didn't seem to really understand that it was going to be 9-0 unanimous, Raskin.
But that was his understanding.
On January 6th, 2021.
But that was just last night's worry.
To disqualify Donald Trump.
Last night, I was most worried about the Supreme Court's prospective imminent abdication.
So he knows it's coming.
How did he know in advance that it was coming?
Oh, he says, that's what I surmised from listening to Oral Arbor.
Horse crap.
It's very clear duty.
And you want to talk about pre-programming?
Sensitize everybody.
They're going to overrule it.
They're going to strike it down.
9-0.
Unanimous. But when they do it, it's an abdication of their obligations.
It's dereliction of duty.
To disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And what that might mean if their decision says that it's really up to Congress on January 5th.
Or January 6th, 2025, to disqualify him at the counting of the Electoral College votes, which really could lead to something akin to civil war, if that's what the suggestion is, which is what I think I heard when I went to the oral argument.
He thinks he heard civil war.
If they don't disqualify Trump.
Because it's so clear, cut in day.
He had engaged in insurrection on January 6th, 2021.
Forget the impeachment, the second impeachment acquittal.
Because Jamie Raskin says he engaged in insurrection.
Civil war.
The court is not going to save us.
And so that means the only thing that really works is people in motion amending the Constitution.
But again, it's...
It's necessary, but it's not sufficient because what can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly.
And the greatest example going on right now before our very eyes is the Second Amendment.
Oh, I'm sorry.
No, no, no.
Of course not.
It's a disqualification for insurrection.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which they're just disappearing with the magic wand as if it doesn't exist, even though it could not be clearer.
Could not be clearer.
But nine justices of the Supreme Court said your theory is dumb as rocks, as dumb as Mark Cuban.
What it's stating.
And so, you know, they want to kick it to Congress.
So it's going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified.
And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions, all because the nine justices, not...
Because their election of duty.
You want to talk about threats to democracy.
You want to talk about actual meaningful risk.
There it is right there, people.
And I'm not using threat to democracy hyperbolically.
He's quite literally saying, well, we're going to disqualify Trump if he wins.
They're not going to disqualify him before because the Supreme Court already ruled on it.
They're going to let the election happen after they try to impeach him once, twice, Russiagate hoax, lawfare, bankrupt, try to lock him up, try to kill him twice.
Then after that, they're going to have the election.
And then after that, Jamie Ratskin Raskin is going to unilaterally declare with Congress, Trump is disqualified.
I'm going to do it because I could very well be wrong.
I thought private dealers did not have to do background checks.
When selling firearms.
I don't know what the number is per year.
And we've got Arkansas Crime Attorney says, I am here, but I have to leave soon.
I wanted to say hi.
Long time no here live.
I have watched you since you were a short-haired attorney in Canada.
Posted on Commitube and here.
Thank you very much, Arkansas Crime Attorney.
And then, because we're not going to not only not neglect our fine folks at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, so I don't fall too far behind over here, we got in the house.
Think. Now40 says, Legalese.
MAGA Hat Stays says, what is going on with Kamala trending on the poly market?
Does it have something to do with the recent decision re-Americans betting on elections?
I'm going to find out when Barnes gets here.
Then we've got Denise Antu.
Viva. There is no gun show loophole unless it is a private sale.
All my guns have come from gun shows, and I always had to do a universal background check.
It's a shame I lost them all in that boating accident.
Sorry, I might have meant the private...
Private sales and not gun show, but when Barnes gets out here, he will both correct me and then berate me.
And I think I see his screen in the back.
Robert, do I see your screen in the back?
Oh, he's coming.
He's coming.
Coming in hot with a hot mic and a hot camera when you come in.
So hot.
Hansel is so hot these days.
People, there he is.
Yeah, I can't.
Basically, I have to be black.
As soon as I hit click that I'm here, it takes me right here.
That's one limitation with that.
I've mentioned it to them.
This is why I don't use studio with a guest who's unfamiliar with this particular thing, because they might come in and be pulling a tube in there.
Or do something embarrassing that I would want them not to feel bad about.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
What's the book over your shoulders?
I see Dave Sale on damages.
I think it's David Ball, isn't it?
Yeah, David Ball.
Yeah, you can't see the B. It's used as a text commonly by personal injury and plaintiff's lawyers, but its utility is broader than that.
It's about how the human mind operates and what motivates people.
And so there's multiple texts of that.
It's also references to the reptile brain.
There's independent texts on that.
But it's a very, I think it's useful for understanding the art of persuasion in general.
Are the books on the reptile brain damages the elephant in the mind, the elephant in the brain.
So a lot of those to teach about how the human mind really operates, which is relevant and pertinent for.
Any aspect of persuasion that people might be engaged in, particularly applicable to the law, but not exclusively applicable to the law.
Robert, correct me immediately if I made a mistake.
Is there no gun show loophole and it's a private sale loophole in terms of...
There's definitely no gun show loophole, no.
What is governed by private sales is in dispute currently, because they're trying to require all private sales to be registered gun dealers.
I mean, that was the basis by which they prosecuted Ruben King.
Okay, this is amazing how you just control language.
And now I'm just going to Wikipedia, and it says, Gun Show Loophole, also called the private sale exemption, is a political term.
It's amazing.
So they've dubbed it the gun show loophole, where it doesn't apply to actual gun shows, but rather private sales.
And if I were to go to the Miami gun show, if I were to attempt to purchase a gun, they would do a background check on me.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I mean, not only that, I mean, now they're basically trying to govern all private sales.
They're saying there's no such thing anymore.
So, I mean, that's what Ruby King's being prosecuted for.
They're saying anybody who sells a gun to anybody is in the business of selling guns, and that there's no such thing as private sale at all.
I mean, there never was really a private sale exception.
There was people who were selling guns for collecting reasons, for non-commercial business-driven reasons.
They weren't in the business of gun selling, but they weren't commercial gun sellers.
That would have been the more relevant and pertinent distinction.
The government's eviscerated that.
They're not respecting that at all.
The problem is it assumes that everybody that goes to gun shows is somebody that's a hobbyist who is recognized by the government as not being in the commercial business gun transaction business.
One, that doesn't describe many gun shows.
And second, it's not something they recognize right now anyway.
So it's all mostly mythology.
It's always been mythology, pretty much.
But now, if I think out loud, okay, so the gun show loophole is actually a misnomer for what they're going after.
They're referring to private sales, which is if I happen to own five guns and I don't want one anymore, and I don't know if you put an ad in the paper, whatever, and I sell one to somebody, that would be the private sale that they would want to govern.
Yeah, right now, they're not recognizing that.
Non-commercial sale is a better way to phrase it.
But they're not recognizing that currently.
Now, hypothetically...
It doesn't recognize any non-commercial sale at all.
They believe all sales are commercial sales.
But hypothetically, I sell my private gun to a criminal who then uses it for criminal purposes.
I want to know the stats on all of this anyhow.
I bet you the stats are absolutely infinitesimal.
Like, it's a non-issue as far as the actual...
Almost all guns used in crime are...
Or illegal or black markets.
Yeah, yeah, of course.
I mean, what idiot?
Wants to register their gun that is involved in crime.
Makes no sense.
And the same people who run drugs run guns.
So that makes no sense at all.
It never made any sense that the idea that somehow gun registration or regulation would restrict criminal use of guns.
They're criminals.
So no, they're not going to recognize gun laws any more than they recognize any other.
Well, I discovered that apparently some of the guns they seized from P. Diddy's place had some serial numbers removed from them.
We're going to get into all this in a second.
Finboy Slick says this show is definitely AI-generated.
Viva looks taller than Barnes.
I have officially...
I went through a late-life growth spurt.
I'm 6'6 now.
I tower over Barnes.
I wouldn't even tower over Barnes at 6'6.
Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
We got Tim Pool, who's...
Kamala Harris, or the campaign of Kamala Harris.
Arbitration is becoming a bigger problem.
Now the case against Red Hat and IBM, that's the gentleman who was fired for not being sufficiently compliant with the diversity, equity, inclusion mandates of IBM.
They are demanding a secret proceeding away from a public courtroom with a conflicted arbitrator.
And this is becoming a systematic and systemic problem in America.
They are eviscerating access to the courtroom, eviscerating access to jury trials, eviscerating access to unconflicted decision makers, and appellate review.
And so, filed an opposition this week in that case, but we'll be discussing the problem of arbitration writ large.
The adverse possession, in that little case, people sometimes ask about when does adverse possession actually give you a legal title to property?
Went up all the way before the Tennessee Supreme Court recently.
The First Amendment, we have the First Amendment as to the California law attempting to, in the name of regulating deepfakes, is actually trying to prohibit parodies of Democrats.
Already a First Amendment suit filed on those grounds.
And then when does the First Amendment apply in the classroom?
A major case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for the University of Chicago Law School by a law professor who was removed from their job because of their speech inside the classroom.
The P. Diddy is now on Epstein watch.
He's arrested.
He's indicted.
Who else may implicate?
What may be behind the scenes?
And was the denial of bail a constitutionally correct decision?
We have election lawsuits, which was the top topic voted on by the members of the board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in cases in Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
3M. Finally had to write a big fat check for all the crimes that's been busy committing.
Over $6 billion for harming, you know, 3M is a big government contractor, big defense contractor, went out of its way to harass employees who didn't submit to vaccines and asserted any religious objection.
Continue to harass those employees in court, trying to spy on them, try to get their private communications, all of their personal medical records and sexual histories going back decades, subjecting them to heresy trials.
3M is one of the nastiest companies in America, one of the biggest criminal corporations in America.
Extraordinary here is, after causing all this injury to soldiers by selling them bogus earplugs for about 20 years that they knew were bogus on the battlefield, is the government let them off cheap.
Wrote a small $9 million check, no criminal prosecution of anybody.
Now they got caught with civil lawsuits so bad they're having to write checks worth over $6 billion.
3M's executives belong in a prison cell, and 3M should be dissolved, given this criminal scope of behavior, which this case is just the top of the iceberg of criminality there.
We got a sheriff who shot a judge.
We don't know a ton about it, but we can speculate as to what may be developing further there.
We have eating pets reports, contrary to the press claims.
I have, in fact, increasingly been confirmed with police reports, official reports, witness interviews, videotaped evidence, and the like.
So a robust, we have Tim Pool, P. Diddy, Kamala Harris, and some famous cases, and then some cases that are impacting ordinary people all across the country, like arbitration and the like.
Now, before we even get started, I guess we're going to start with the election updates before we head on over to Rumble.
Then on Rumble, we'll do the rest of this stuff.
So everybody, either make your way.
You got the locals link and you got the Rumble link.
We're going to do this one right now.
I've got an important message about Donald Trump for all the parents out there, so please listen up.
President Trump said he wants to take back America and teach our kids to love our country again.
By the way, MAGA and MAHA holding hands make America healthy again.
Kennedy's movement.
It's amazing.
It's important that our kids know the truth about Trump, not the distorted lies they're hearing in the mainstream media from the AI-generated characters like...
Jake the Fake Tapper, the good news is that Mike Huckabee's team put together the Kids Guide to President Trump, and right now you can get it for free with fun illustrations and easy-to-follow content.
This important guide teaches kids all about President Trump's accomplishments during his first term because he kept too many of his promises, and it helps kids understand his goals for 2024.
Mike Huckabee wants to send you his free guide so you can teach your kids the truth.
If you see the QR code right there, you can go scan it.
It'll bring you there.
Amazing read.
And it's good to have.
Amazing. That's it.
Now we're going to get into President Trump and hopefully his ascension to his second presidency based on what's going on with the elections.
And the results.
Okay, so there were three that...
I think we're going to get back to the Pennsylvania one because I watched a video from Mark Elias talking about how unfair it is that they are going to actually disqualify ballots if it's not properly dated on the outside of the envelope.
Okay, let's start with that one.
We talked about it last week.
The Pennsylvania ruling, which says that they're now going to not count a ballot if it's not properly dated on the outside of the envelope.
And if I've misunderstood Mark Elias...
Who I know you don't like very much, but his argument is that the date on the outside of an envelope is absolutely irrelevant.
It's dated elsewhere.
And why would that be a measure by which to accept or disqualify a ballot?
I'm not sure I am.
I mean, the argument sounds compelling, but to the extent that I know I can't trust a word that Mark Elias says, flesh it out as to whether or not he's oversimplifying or just grotesquely misleading.
Yeah, well, there's two problems with his analysis.
One is, that's what the legislature agreed to.
So if he thinks he's right, go back to the legislature and convince them.
The second thing where he's being misleading, what all these cases that we'll be talking about tonight have in common, is they want to be able to pad the ballot box with constitutionally questionable ballots because of either who is voting...
How they're voting or how the vote is being counted in canvas.
And they want 2020-like rules and environment where basically the rules set by the legislature of the branch, who is the constitutionally authorized branch for presidential elections, that they eviscerated and ignored those rules in 2020 in all the key swing states and many other states as well.
And this time around, they're not having as much success.
Convincing those legislative branches or executive offices or judges to either rewrite the rules or ignore the existing rules.
And they want to do so because the more that they do so with the name of, oh, we just want to protect this nice, honest old person that's trying to vote that by golly just can't figure out how to fill out a ballot.
Can't figure out how to fill out an envelope.
Can't figure out how to deliver an envelope.
Can't figure out how to request an envelope.
And simplify it so that their ballot doesn't get thrown away and suppressed because of overly strict enforcement by those counters and canvassers.
That's what the Democratic messaging has been now for four years.
The problem is they needed to convince legislatures of those changes rather than circumvent those in an unconstitutional manner like they did in 2020.
In 2024, they're finding less sympathetic executive branches, less sympathetic judicial branches, and more resistant advocates on the other side in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.
The reason for the rule is simple.
They want to make sure it matches up.
That with a mail-in ballot, you have extraordinary opportunity for fraud.
You don't get to see the person show up themselves to fill out the ballot.
You don't see them walk by themselves alone and in secret to fill out the ballot.
You don't see them return the ballot.
So your ability to know whether that person is a constitutionally qualified voter is in doubt.
And so when they're casting a ballot in a way other than in person, then there's massive risk of fraud.
There's risk of the person that's casting the ballot that isn't their choice for the ballot.
There's risk that they didn't ask for the ballot.
There's risk that they're not the ones who returned the ballot.
They're not the ones who filled out the ballot.
Or their ballot was blackmailed or coerced or bribed.
Or that someone else cast their ballot on their behest or behalf without their knowledge.
All of these little rules, as Mark Elias calls them, are designed to make sure that's an actually constitutionally qualified voter casting their ballot.
Because of the lack of protections that we have with in-person voting through mail-in voting, which for this you can find people like Mark Elias and others in August of 2012 in the New York Times, when they thought Romney's campaign was going to barrage the ballot box with mail-in balloting, identifying all of these risks of mail-in balloting and how it's a fraud.
It wasn't because they suddenly discovered their nobility, because it's not a court notorious or known for their nobility.
They overturned the Commonwealth Court, which assigned very questionable jurists.
It's the same Commonwealth Court that on Tuesday, October 8th, in Allegheny County Courthouse, 9.30 or so in the morning, is going to be hearing the government's latest effort to try to shut down Amish farmer Amos Miller.
That's who this Commonwealth Court is.
So they were overturned because on procedural grounds that they decided to short-circuit the process to jump into an election matter that they didn't have legal authority to do.
And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, I think, doesn't want to be in the middle of as much election controversy as they were eagerly so in 2020.
It also may reflect that the Democratic governor, Shapiro, who was passed over for vice president, isn't necessarily...
Too eager behind the scenes to aid the Harris presidential campaign since he thinks he's going to be in the White House in four years as long as she's not.
So we'll see how that...
But that's what's behind it.
The same is in Michigan.
And there's two different issues.
One is who's on the voter rolls, whether the people on those voter rolls are constitutionally qualified.
And the other is how do we make sure that...
The person voting is actually a constitutionally qualified voter who casts their ballot in a constitutionally qualified way.
We've got to make sure the counting and the canvassing of the ballot strictly enforces rules governing the method and mode of ballot casting and being on the registered voter list in the first place.
So in Arizona, after many insisted there was no problem with non-citizens being on the voter rolls, they suddenly discover there's about 100,000 people who never provided proof of citizenship on the voter rolls.
There's been continuing issues about new registrations and whether they have to provide proof of citizenship.
In Michigan, comparable suit.
In Michigan, the Secretary of State there has been trying to find every creative way possible to liberalize and not apply and enforce the legislature's rules governing mail-in balloting, which is now expanded in Michigan after various election laws they passed over the past eight years.
And doesn't want, you know, there's these protocols in place like you can use a stub system that has a number that matches up certain things that make sure the ballot is in fact that person's ballot.
Make sure they're the ones who filled it out.
Make sure they're the ones who are constitutionally qualified.
The Secretary of State's trying to not enforce the signature match standard, not enforce dropbox restrictions, not enforce these stub numbering systems.
Similar in Michigan, that's why Republicans have to keep suing there and have, because the whole goal is to remove the barriers to fraud.
by removing the detections for fraud, by removing the strict enforcement of the legislature's rules governing how a constitutionally qualified person can vote in the first place and cast that vote.
Similar in Arizona, we've had mixed decisions.
Arizona Supreme Court says leave the 100,000 or so on the voter rolls.
It's a clerical error.
That's the mistake.
I thought that never happened.
Garrett Archer down there in Arizona, media's election expert, said that never happens.
And then he's turning around and acting like it's totally normal.
When he gets caught lying again, he suddenly turns around and says, oh, no, no, this is just a loophole.
It's been here for a long time.
Everybody knows this.
It's like, well, that's not Arizona's defense.
Arizona's defense before the Arizona Supreme Court was it was a clerical error.
A couple of days before, Garrett was insisting no such administrative errors ever take place in the election context, which shows you how incredible he is.
So that's what's happening.
Those aligned with the Democratic side are doing everything possible.
To be able to flood the ballot box with dubious ballots, either by people who are not constitutionally qualified to vote or who you cannot trust are the person who actually cast that ballot because they didn't cast it in a constitutionally qualified manner.
And they want to prevent all the fraud detection signals.
You know, it's kind of like being Bernie Madoff.
You know, the best way to succeed with fraud is to remove all the alarms for fraud.
Say, all these alarms for fraud are unnecessary.
They're just duplicative.
They're just an excuse to deny people an opportunity.
That's who Mark Elias is.
Famous criminal money launderer for the Clinton family, Mark Elias.
Lead Democratic lawyer.
Tells you everything you need to know about that side of the aisle.
I recently rediscovered that he was pushing the steel dossier back in the day, which confirms pretty much everything I need to know about him.
His law firm at the time was the one that helped filter it and lied to the FEC about the source of the funds and the reason for the funds of that entire Russiagate operation.
Not that I expect you to willingly and unnecessarily submit to torture.
Did you see my discussion with Pisco Liddy on Friday?
Yeah, tune in to bits and pieces of it.
I'm always intrigued by what democratic lawyers think or democratically aligned lawyers think, simply just to know what their mindset is, their approach is, their reasoning is.
And they've always had the same approach, and they've convinced people.
That every mechanism of detecting election fraud is really a secret voter suppression mechanism like it's some racist disguise from the 1960s.
But it was the Democrats who did those racist disguises from the 1960s.
It's the only thing in common is that nobody cheats as well as the Democratic Party has going on from really much the beginning of the Democratic Party.
They've always cheated more.
Not to say Republicans don't have it or never have.
Because that's not the case.
But the Republicans, when they cheat, it's the establishment Southern plantocracy class that holds on and then leaks information against the Republican gubernatorial candidate they don't like.
Because they'd rather have a white Democrat than a black populist Republican be governor of North Carolina.
That's your Eric Erickson's of the world, part of that sort of corrupt cadre of Bushites and Romneyites who are the actual people responsible for leaking that kind of information.
But otherwise, it's been the Democratic Party as a general rule has been behind this.
But their excuses, did they convince themselves?
Credit to Robert Kennedy.
He was recently talking about it.
How in 2016 he believed a lot of the nonsense, that he believed a lot of things about MAGA, believed a lot of things about Trump, that he came to discover were untrue.
And that's because he stayed open-minded, unlike most of his fellow left-leaning lawyers did in that time frame.
Because his allies during COVID were not democratic civil liberties lawyers.
They were old-school populist lawyers on the right.
But otherwise, it's not a surprise.
I saw bits and pieces of it.
I wasn't persuaded by his presentation.
No, well, I mean, like I say, it's interesting to know how they think.
And you see this, it's not circular reasoning, it's motivated reasoning.
It's whatever they do is legitimate.
And if someone else does the same thing on the other side, it's not legitimate.
They're arguing from illegitimacy.
And we touched on the Steele dossier just a little bit in terms of like...
How did Trump get 34 felony conviction on that bogus Stormy Daniels payment?
And Hillary Clinton gets nothing for that, but we won't get too distracted on that.
To the election stuff, coming out of Michigan, also speaking of Michigan, RFK Jr. taking it to the Court of Appeals to get his name removed from the ballot.
He'll be on the ballot for November, correct?
Because there's not even enough time right now, even if the appeals court decides to hear it, to reprint, forget the cost, to reprint all of the ballots.
I mean, they can do something.
Whether they will or not is up in the air.
So it's just further the selectivity at when they try to keep him off the ballot or try to force him on the ballot is representative of what a scam our ballot election laws are and the way in which they need to be reformed and remedied.
So it's just highlighted and illustrated that.
I don't think in the end it will make much difference on the actual election day.
No. People are not...
Those kind of shenanigans they're capable of.
And to steal, man, the federal court said we're not hearing you, RFK, because you're not coming to the federal court with what a state court already adjudicated.
The state court 4-3 based on partisan lines says, no, there's not enough time.
It's going to cost $500,000 to reprint the ballots.
As if...
I would imagine RFK would...
Would pony up the $500,000 just to do it, given the millions he's already spent on litigation.
So it looks like RFK...
And they said you couldn't leave a party on the ticket without a candidate.
All a load of crap.
They fought to keep them off, and they fought to keep them on when they think it's going to be prejudicial to Trump.
The irony is they're probably going to get burned by that.
What they've done over the years with election laws is in the name of protecting the secrecy and anonymity of the ballot.
The state has monopolized the printing and publishing of the ballot.
Most people don't realize that's completely novel.
That was not common to the founding.
You didn't have the state being the sole source of ballot printing until the early 20th century.
And it never had anything to do with ballot secrecy or anonymity.
It had everything to do with stripping power from political machines that had a populist bent, that were often fueled by support.
From immigrant and other working class communities and populist movement, which peaked strongly between late 18, post-Civil War period, late 1880s and the early 1900s.
And what they've done is they've enhanced on that.
They increasingly create rules that then justify the rules.
And then they create a new set of rules for those rules that justify the other rules.
And so because of like, oh, we have to print these ballots so early.
Then, you know, when it means replacing Biden's name with Harris, suddenly Biden's cost of printing the ballots is not a problem.
No issue there by all these Democratic politicians.
You see, like, okay, Kennedy can't remove his name from the ballot, then how did Michigan remove Biden's name from the ballot under the same rules?
They can't explain these.
They're just complete hypocrites and frauds.
But nothing exposes...
The political prejudice and the insider bias of both state and federal judges than ballot access law.
You won't find it anywhere else where you can just predict by who will be hurt and harmed by the inclusion or exclusion of someone from the ballot what way a judge will decide.
The law never governs them when it comes to these cases.
Tell me if this is the last one, but coming out of Georgia, it's not in the court system, it's in the...
I forget who the people are that vote on the rules for the election, but they're voting for, again, you know, control the terminology, control at least the public perception.
It's not hand counting or hand verification of each ballot.
It's just hand counting the number of ballots cast to the number of votes cast to make sure that they are commensurate or that they equate.
And everybody's saying, well, this is going to delay the results as if you have to go through each one one by one and meticulously analyze it.
This is not a case of the little woodpecker signature verification in Arizona.
This is just count the number of ballots versus the number of votes to make sure that they are equal and that there's no problems and people are throwing a conniption fit out of Georgia saying this is going to delay the results, yada, yada, yada.
Others saying it's also going to get overturned or reversed by a court if it ever gets to litigation.
Apparently the rat-face burger doesn't very much like this policy.
What is going on in Georgia?
Is it a real risk that it is meaningfully going to delay the results?
Because I understood it as they've got to go through, verify each vote, make sure it correlates.
This is just a question of counting the ballots and making sure it equates to the number of votes cast.
I mean, this explanation of delay makes no sense.
How can the entire world count their ballots on election night except the United States of America?
This is something that the Garrett Archers of the world and the others, they can't explain.
It's their common excuse.
It's like, oh, now it'll be two weeks, three weeks.
It'll be so long.
There'll be delays.
This will lead to lack of confidence in an election.
Why? Why can't you adequately staff up and adequately have personnel equipped?
To count this on election night, like every other country in the world, it's another excuse.
Their excuse is, oh, if we discount any ballot by strictly enforcing the rules, then we're suppressing the vote and denying someone their ballot.
If we strictly follow the rules, it will be incurably and interminably delayed, and this will lead to lack of confidence in the elections.
Do they think 2020 was a banner example of confidence in presidential elections?
But just to highlight the hypocrisy, they're the ones who talk about the red mirage.
It's going to take maybe weeks to determine that Republicans aren't going to win, despite what it seems on election night.
And then all of a sudden, they start talking about delays going to compromise integrity.
If Canada can do it the day of, with two pieces of ID, maybe I won't overstate it, ID and paper ballot.
California can do it in one night.
If California can do it in one night, every single bloody state in America can do it in one night.
Florida never has a problem.
If Florida doesn't have the problem, everyone else does.
What Garrett Archer can't explain is why can Florida do it so much quicker and better than Arizona?
I know they're his buddies and pals, but he can't explain that.
Nor can any of these other Democrats explain that.
So it's obvious what they're doing, but they're so used to spinning the narrative to rally their base and get buy-in from corrupted politicians that they don't expect anybody to see through it.
Everybody sees through it.
They saw through it in 2020, but they really see through it now.
You're not going to convince anybody of this nonsense.
And so ultimately, they are way behind where they were in 2020.
They're losing more of these suits than they're winning.
All kinds of states are summarily on their own accord double-checking the registration rolls to make sure they match and purging people that don't fit.
Whether it's Texas, Oklahoma, or other states.
Now everybody knows about the 100,000 or so voters that didn't provide proof of citizenship at the time of registration in Arizona.
So Arizona was already under deep scrutiny because of the 2020 and 2022 controversies.
They're going to be under triple scrutiny this election.
And in most cases, they have nowhere, well in all cases, they have nowhere near The laissez-faire environment towards enforcement of election rules in any state in 2024 that they had in 2020.
They've been able to fight to prohibit a full, meaningfully transparent election, but they're way away from how liberalized the environment was towards ballots in 2020.
You see that in their data.
They're not getting...
Very many, they're way down in the number of Democrats they're getting to even request mail-in ballots.
And so they're going to be fighting over all these technical rules and the rest in order to make it as easy as possible.
But the reality is it's going to be about three times harder than it was in 2020.
And they're going to need the election to be a lot closer towards Harris.
A lot, or I should say, further apart towards Harris than it was towards Biden to pull it off.
And in the end, I don't think they'll be successful at it.
But it shows we need real, meaningful, comprehensive election reform.
We should return.
You wouldn't have all these debates about mail-in balloting.
You wouldn't have all these debates about voter registration if you simply required voter ID to vote.
And required people to vote in person outside of extraordinary circumstance.
Like almost every other country, and we use paper ballots.
Like almost every other country in the world, and like in our entire American history.
I think courts themselves will start to get fatigued by the degree to which they will be continually blamed for interfering in elections.
And I think they will themselves be more agreeable to these reforms.
And then what we've seen with...
The Kennedy and the Cornel West and the Jill Stein and other cases is we need reform on ballot access.
Let's have open elections.
Let's have transparent elections.
Let's have elections everybody can have confidence in the outcome in.
And all we have to do to do that is do what pretty much most of the world does today and what our country has done through almost all of its history.
That's it for the elections?
Yeah. Everyone head on over to Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
But before you head over to Rumble, I'm going to pull a rack right again, people.
Check this out.
This is a very fitting segue to the invitation to get your butts on over to Rumble.
This sponsorship is from Rumble, one that's incredibly important for the survival of the company, people.
Rumble Premium.
When Rumble started in 2013, they built a platform for small creators 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 did.
And what's his face?
Zuckerberg admitted that he fell from the pressure.
Biden and Harris have basically come on.
It's confirmed they were manipulating and pressuring.
Rumble did not.
They're attacked by corporate media.
They're attacked by governments across the world.
France, Brazil, Russia, China.
They're attacked by brand advertisers who refuse to work with them.
Corporate America is fighting to remove speech and 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 the fight and if you have the means, one major way you can get Rumble Premium.
It's a service for ad-free service, $100 a year.
Join the community that believes in the First Amendment and believes in our human right to free speech.
Rumble is offering $10 off when you use promo code VIVA10 with a subscription to an annual subscription thing.
Rumble.com forward slash premium.
Use promo code VIVA.
You'll get $10 off the year, which is 10%.
Like I said, if you have the means and believe in the cause.
And if you don't...
Snip, clip, share away, people, and just continue watching us on Rumble, which is where we are going right now.
It's going to yeet us from Twitter as well, but let me give everybody the link.
Locals is, you can come over to Locals, people.
Skip all of this.
Here's Locals link, and let me give you the Rumble link one more time.
And while I'm there, by the way, I just saw something before we head over.
Robert, what do you make?
This is from Sorano Guardias.
What do you make of these wild rumors about Trump and Laura Loomer?
Confession through projection is what that is.
Now I'm wondering what Kamala and No Balls were doing.
We know what Kamala Harris' husband was doing.
I mean, Kamala Harris' husband was banging the nanny and apparently forced an abortion on her to avoid having any consequences for that.
So it's very much...
It is a case of confession.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
And especially since you know that the...
What do they call them?
Influencers who went to the DNC got D-I-C-K-E-D'd at the convention.
I had no idea what it meant.
And now that I know, I'm not any better of a person.
Did they get invited to a P. Diddy party?
Oh, Robert, that is what we're talking about over on Rumble, people.
Ending on Twitter and ending on...
Commitube. Come on over to Locals.
Come on over to Rumble.
And it is happening now.
I think Viva accidentally...
Here he is.
I'm here.
I'm coming back.
How do I switch the screen?
There's something of a glitch when I end it.
It's not me, people.
I'm not that much of an idiot.
I hit end the update, and then it kicks me from the stream.
Speaking of freak-offs, okay, Robert, I read the indictment against Puff Daddy.
I will tell everybody this right off the bat.
I think he has been up to nasty no-good for years.
You go back and you watch Get Into the Greek, oddly enough, with Russell Brand and P. Diddy, and you see what P. Diddy was doing in that movie?
In that movie, Russell Brand was the addict, and we know that Russell Brand was recovered by that time.
P. Diddy was a degenerate in that movie.
So I have no doubt that...
Look, I've seen the video of him abusing...
I forget who the woman was, an ex-girlfriend.
I believe that P. Diddy is up to absolute no goodness.
I read that indictment.
It reads like a nasty novel, but not necessarily with the requisite degrees of criminality that I would have expected after a years-long investigation.
But like I said, I'm predisposed to think he's guilty, and yet...
Okay, so he's been indicted.
Three charges.
There was RICO, all sorts of RICO stuff.
What was it?
Sex trafficking?
Prostitution? There was something about kidnapping in there.
And what went on at these parties, people?
Hearing a United States attorney talk about freak-offs involving, he had like thousands of bottles of baby oil and the people would get drugged up and do like morally depraved things.
The only question is whether or not there's a defense to it.
Okay, fine.
All that.
He's been indicted.
And he's been denied bail twice.
Now, I think I know what you're going to say on this in terms of denying bail, Eighth Amendment violations.
I'm just trying to think if I've forgotten anything about the facts here.
Tell us what you think about him being denied bail a second time.
I know a lot of people are going to say that he fled the country during the investigation.
And my inclination is to read that as evidence that he's not a flight risk because why would he come back in order to get arrested?
If he were a flight risk, unless he was so arrogant and narcissistic that he didn't think he was going to get indicted at the end of the day, which I think is, he might be an arrogant, narcissist, psychopath, but he's not stupid.
And after a year-long investigation, they're not doing it for nothing.
You're getting arrested, yet he came back, told the police where he was staying, yada, yada, yada.
Denied bail on the basis that he's violent because of the video.
Allegations of violence, allegations of...
A witness, not intimidation, but witness bribery.
So he's not threatening.
He's bribery, allegedly paying people, you know, alleging, claiming to pay people or suggesting he'll pay witnesses, handing him sums of money for them not to turn on him, and flight risk because he's got, you know, all sorts of stuff.
Arguments against the flight risk.
Actually, he'll tell us what he agreed to basically everything under the sun by way of bail conditions, including $50 million bond.
And a judge says, no, not good enough.
You go to hell on earth.
What's your take on it?
Yeah, I mean, there's the substantive charges and whether there's some weakness in those charges.
In particular, I was looking for something more clearly Epstein-esque, and at least in the charges, you're not seeing those kind of charges.
This goes back to the other debate that I remember Scott Adams was a part of a few years ago, that other guy prosecuted in New York.
When is something sex trafficking?
If it involves a bunch of willing, complicit participants, is that human trafficking in the same way?
I think that's where there's some facts to be figured out.
But everything about the case makes it appear that P. Diddy was running an Epstein-style operation and running it for a long time.
Now, go back and look at the kind of people that are weirdly buddy-buddy with him.
Look at the people who he gathered influence over.
Look at the people on social media suddenly deleting their entire social media accounts.
People like Pink and a range of others.
The Usher, I believe.
Usher's from my hometown in Chattanooga.
But, you know, Justin Bieber was targeted by P. Diddy when he was a teenager.
And then watch some of the behavior of people like Pink.
Towards Bieber when he was underage.
So, you know, the stories of Epstein in Hollywood is stories of, in politics, political power in D.C. We'll go back to what Madison Cawthorn talked about, that they tried to host these orgies in D.C. to try to both induce you to their side and entrap you if you don't play ball with their side.
My suspicion is twofold.
That P. Diddy's been running this operation for a very long time.
That it involves all kinds of perversion and entrapment.
That the way you have entrapment is to have something that people would really be disgusted by because of the nature of the act or that's illegal, someone that's underage.
And that he likely was using it and has...
But just say, there was no allegation of underage anything in the indictment, which I thought was remarkably absent.
Exactly. I was looking for Epstein-style allegations, and they're not there, even though there's plenty of other people that have said they are there.
So what that, I mean, they're there factually with PDD, and yet strangely absent from the indictment.
My read from the very first time this happened is that PDD was running a blackmail extortion operation.
As his means of power, this is very common, and this is as old as politics around the world, but it's been especially true of the American media industry, Hollywood, music industry, etc., and American political power.
And, you know, P. Diddy was unusually connected politically.
He was connected to people that are close to the Kamala Harris world, people that are close to a lot of high-ranking Democrats.
It's much like Epstein.
So, you know, this doesn't have the intelligence operation angle.
It appears to be more of a traditional blackmail extortion angle.
But what it does, I mean, a lot of people are going to have questions about people who have been apolitical, suddenly getting political and endorsing people, if they have a P. Diddy connection.
Because what this looks...
Remember, the Epstein was...
This goes all the way back.
People can watch my hush-hush.
At VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com about Robert Mueller.
Robert Mueller was an expert at gathering this kind of intel and information.
Not only was Robert Mueller neck deep in the Epstein case and the sweetheart deal given to Epstein, go back and look at the deal he did with the son of Isaac Asimov, who was one of the biggest producers of child porn in the world and managed to do, I think, not a single day in prison because Mueller took over his case.
And you know what's unexplained?
What I always look for in those cases is, Is there evidence they seized a bunch of video files, and then do you never hear about those video files ever again?
That's what happened in the Asimov case.
That's what happened in the Epstein case.
Watch, that's what happens in the P. Diddy case.
My guess is that P. Diddy got too big for his head, decided he could blackmail and extort anybody when he was in trouble for any reason, and they decided to turn on him, and they want to control it.
They want to have sole possession.
Of all those blackmail and extortion files so he doesn't have any access to them.
The Kardashians were close to P. Diddy.
I mean, you can go on and on and on.
The people connected and close to P. Diddy that implicate very, very, very powerful people.
And that was part of a case where the IRS stole 60 million medical records of 10 million Americans, including every judge in the state of California, including every major league baseball player.
Including every major producer at the Producers Guild, every movie actor, every screen actor, and a bunch of high-ranking foreign diplomats.
Because it was J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream of a blackmail file in those medical records.
And you've got to assume he did.
He had the same thing.
And now he's on Epstein's watch, quite literally.
He's in the same prison, on the same floor, for the same pretext of suicide watch that Epstein was at when eternal truth number one, Epstein didn't kill himself.
Are they going to kill P. Diddy while he's in custody and claim it was suicide?
They got away with Epstein, watched them get away with it again.
I think there's a way above average risk that P. Diddy never sees trial.
So the...
So that's my concern.
Now that you say it out loud, it is incredible as to the length, the degree to which they went out of their way to deny him bail, notwithstanding everything that he offered.
Private security to make sure he doesn't leave his apartment, condo, whichever.
Monitoring, no internet, everything.
$50 million bond.
Sell his plane so there's no flight risk.
He's already given up his passports.
But now, as you describe that, and I'm starting to put two and two together, they get him on these three...
I won't say innocuous charges, but they're compared to what the allegations, suspicions were, innocuous, that have nothing to do with the blackmail extortion ring that they described that he had a setup a la Epstein in his place.
And so they go in, seize everything, as we saw them do, they get all of the blackmail material, whatever, and then charge them with a bunch of Rico nonsense that has nothing to do with the underlying evidence that they have, and make off with it, and the story becomes P. Diddy.
And drug-fueled, baby-oiled, lathered-up sex parties, and not the blackmail material that he must have on a great many people.
It was pertinent, you know, the Saturday movie watch, Admebo Barnes Law, at thatlocals.com, this week was No Way Out, which is about, it was pertinent and relevant, because it was about a prosecution that is itself a red herring.
With another red herring, quite literally the color red, involved as well.
Brilliant story, much like the presumed innocent, my other favorite version of that kind of legal story.
But what we've been trying to explain to people here is that sometimes a criminal prosecution is in fact the cover-up.
The Hunter Biden criminal prosecution on tax charges was the cover-up.
The goal was to make sure they could control Hunter and he wouldn't go AWOL.
And at the same time, make sure that the underlying facts about his criminality running criminal operations at the behest of the Biden crime family, enriching and empowering deep state politicians in America and the administrative state still in power, that that information never got public.
And it never did.
That was how they did the plea deal.
And I predicted that they would magically have sentencing not happen until after Election Day in either case.
And voila, this week, his gun sentencing case was delayed until after Election Day.
That's when the pardon or commutation is incoming.
We said Russiagate was, in fact, Mueller's way of covering up Spygate.
of their illicit operation to spy on Team Trump and to smear Team Trump during the campaign and then undermine and sabotage his ability to engage in a detente with Russia once elected.
The Epstein operation had all the hallmarks of him going AWOL, them wanting to control it, and then they whacked him when he wouldn't play bowl.
Ghislaine Maxwell has managed not to know enough information, but what's critical that everybody keeps talking about?
Is that in both criminal prosecutions, they managed to never disclose who and what were the real client list.
There are a lot of people who traveled on planes and whatnot.
What people want to know is the real client list.
And magically, all the files that they took from all the premises have disappeared.
They were never used at trial in a blackmail extortion file.
And they're doing the same thing here with PD.
Now, my issue on bail...
Aside from the fact that I think this is a cover-up operation and they plan to either extort PDD into a plea deal or murder him, is I believe in the Eighth Amendment.
Many of my conservative allies don't.
They're selective about the Constitution.
They got Thomas Jefferson's version of the Constitution, but his Bible approach, which was any part of the Bible Thomas Jefferson didn't like, he just took out, pretending it wasn't there.
And that's what a lot of conservatives do when it comes to the Eighth Amendment.
They don't like that promise of bail.
They want to imprison people without trial.
They don't like it when it's done to them, but they want to do it to their adversaries or the people they dislike.
So they want FTX, Sam Bankman, detained without bail.
They wanted Jeffrey Epstein detained without bail.
They wanted Ghislaine Maxwell detained without bail.
They want a lot of your common criminals detained without bail.
They get enraged at no-cash bail and other protocols that encourage and incentivize bail.
They want Minority Report-style criminal justice.
They are people that our founding fathers fought against many of our so-called conservatives in the legal space.
But I believe in the whole of the Eighth Amendment, and that is that unless you can prove by what should be clear and convincing evidence that a person will successfully flee.
And never appear for trial, they should be given bail.
The definition of unreasonable bail, constitutionally, is bail that doesn't relate to appearing at trial, to securing their presence at trial.
There is no better evidence that someone will appear at trial than knowing for a year they're under criminal investigation, that knowing all the evidence against them has already been gathered by the government, and them taking no meaningful efforts to actually flee.
Devil's advocate.
He's such a narcissist, he thought they would not charge him at the end of the investigation.
Even then.
So now that he's been indicted, if he's such a narcissist, he believes that he'll never face sentencing, too.
How is it his narcissism is not broken when the search warrant is done, but magically is broken when the indictment is issued?
So that's issue one.
Issue two is how do you show with actual evidence to clear and convincing evidence standard that there are no set of conditions other than imprisonment that will secure his presence at trial?
Quite literally, they said, we'll do anything.
Like, we'll do anything.
And the judge said, eh, I'm not convinced.
Yeah, exactly.
Because what has happened is the Bail Reform Act of 1984 barely upheld in a...
Five-four split decision by the Supreme Court when the so-called conservatives loved to eviscerate the Eighth Amendment, those saying, we just care about the Constitution and originalism.
Well, then apply it to the Eighth Amendment.
Apply it to all the Constitution, not just some of it.
Abandoned it.
And it was liberals advocating for it in that context.
And so ever since then, if you're a magistrate or a district court, you know your only political exposure is if you release somebody and something bad happens while they are released.
The fact that you illegally imprisoned somebody won't matter.
That only offends one person.
That won't cause a big public stir.
How many people really cared when Epstein was found dead inside?
They don't.
And so consequently, they won't care when P. Diddy's found dead inside.
A few people will yip about it for a minute or two, and then that'll be it.
I mean, I think that if I was on PDD's defense team, which I'm not going to be, but if somebody, I thought his defense counsel, I would have been hammering Epstein over and over again.
I'd have come in and said the government wants him dead, and they want you, Judge, to be complicit in it.
Do you want to sign on his death warrant like your colleagues did with Jeffrey Epstein?
Put it right on him, because these courts are such political hacks.
They don't care about the Eighth Amendment.
They care about the political perception about somebody.
Politically unpopular being released pending trial.
And the reason for the constitutional standard is it was known that courts would not protect people's rights.
We only send people, we only punish people when they are convicted by a jury in America.
And what bail is, is that bail guarantees that.
And a lot of conservatives who cheer led, who led the cheers against bail reform.
And suddenly we're shocked when it was applied to them in the January 6th cases.
And they're like, really?
That can happen?
Yeah, many of you were cheering it when you didn't like it when it was some street thug in San Francisco or New York.
Robert, just by way of example, I put this up.
I blacked out the guy's name because I'm not trying to put them on blast, but this is a reply I got in YouTube.
What is it with this, quote, constitutional, end quote, nonsense?
Reading the first line, I thought it was going to be a joke.
Between Rakeda and this is becoming a sad joke.
This guy is dangerous and has every means to pull a Roman Polanski.
You can't trust him.
He's got plenty of money.
He's got all kinds of operatives, including powerful people in Hollywood.
No doubt he has several passports, and it's likely multiple citizenships.
But he's got offshore money, access to planes.
In other words, the ideal flight risk.
He just disappeared.
He's done.
He's done it before during the investigation, to which I replied, if it ever starts off with a statement with, what is it with this constitutional nonsense?
That might be the non-starter, but then it gets into, you know, he disappeared allegedly, but then meanwhile came back to be arrested.
What's up with this constitutional nonsense?
It's called the Constitution!
And set aside the constitutional argument, which is compelling and may be determinate, when you look at it as though the reason to deny him bail...
Is to facilitate his Epstein in jail.
That's exactly why you respect the constitutional right to bail pending trial.
Because he's not guilty yet.
You might think he's guilty and he might very well be guilty of a lot of stuff.
He's still innocent until proven guilty.
And denying bail is the utmost of unreasonable bail.
It represents sort of a split in the right.
You have a part of the right that's very liberty oriented.
And you have a part that really is fascistic and authoritarian.
And a lot of them will come out.
Like that guy's statement.
Well, what's up with this Constitution stuff?
Yeah, you did the same thing with Ricardo, Robert, you bastard.
Exactly. That's when you're getting the petty fascist.
The petty authoritarian.
And they're all over the place on the left, and they have a lot of power at the moment.
But people shouldn't forget, they're also all over the place on the right.
And where it comes out the most often, sometimes it comes out in the religious case context, where they want to impose their religious values on everybody.
But the other way it comes out is in this context, on the Eighth Amendment especially, or criminal defense in generally, or reflexively defending cops, no matter the circumstance.
That's when you, or defending a soldier, no matter the circumstance.
That's where you get people who, down deep, they weren't constitutionalists.
Down deep, they're not.
And that's the problem here.
This is another example.
The reason the government does it, government didn't deny him bail because they really think he could succeed in fleeing.
People say, oh, multiple citizenship.
Tell me the country that won't extradite him.
It won't matter about multiple citizenships.
It's not like...
I don't want to use a...
It's not an ordinary...
It's frickin' Puff Daddy.
It would be like Andre the Giant trying to flee.
Like, where are you going, sir?
I'm going to...
And find all the examples.
There are almost no examples of people successfully fleeing these kind of charges.
One, you have to get to a country that won't extradite.
That's almost no country in the world.
Two, the few that won't extradite, they'll deport you.
They do the same thing.
Or they'll allow your kidnapping.
Number three.
So the ability to legally escape in the modern world is almost non-existent.
What you want to be is you want to be outside of the country at the time of the indictment, because then you can negotiate bail.
So why do they do this when they know the person can't successfully?
The only people who successfully flee are people who are not citizens of the United States, who are part of a deep criminal underworld, global criminal underworld for a long period of time.
They're people who don't care about...
And third, they're low-profile people.
They're arms runners, but they're not arms runners you and I know about.
So the idea of a celebrity being able to flee charges that are extraditable or deportable for the entire world, successfully being able to do so is next to nil.
They can't find any modern or contemporary example of it occurring.
Well, someone in our local community said, come on, Robert, who wouldn't want to live in Iran?
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, that's where you'd have to try to flee to, right?
And if you're going to do that, you would have done that before now.
But here's the reality.
The PDDs of the world, they don't want to live in those places.
Most people who you think would flee, they never do.
And remember, the standard is more likely than not that they both would flee and they would succeed in doing so.
You have to prove both.
There's no case where they can prove more likely than not they will flee and successfully flee outside of...
Foreign spies outside of foreign drug runners and gun runners.
People who are not easily recognizable, like Michael Jackson.
People have very few connections here.
Why don't people flee?
Everybody always assumes somebody will flee.
They almost never do.
Because having represented many people over the years, they won't even if they're facing life in prison.
Jeffrey Skilling never fled.
He was facing practically life in prison.
He was worth huge amounts of money.
Why didn't he?
Multi-millionaires, billionaires never flee.
Because they don't want to give up their lifestyle.
They'd rather take their chance at trial and appeal than live in hiding under a bush.
This is why the only people who do it are spies, are people who live in an illegal world their entire lives so that living in secret is their life.
Living underground is their life.
If it isn't already their life, they don't do it.
I've known people who tried to flee, get caught with ease.
The idea that more likely than not that P. Diddy was going to flee was just nonsense.
I mean, again, he proved it by voluntarily coming back and subjecting himself to U.S. jurisdiction, knowing the risk that it had taken.
Forfeited his passport.
I presume it's the only one.
We went over the terms.
What would he say?
Not that there's a market for it, and I wouldn't bet on it if there is.
More likely than not that he does not come out alive?
Either he's going to cut a plea deal or they're going to kill him before it ever gets to trial.
I'd say about 80-90% chance of that.
And that's what these people are rewarding.
When they're like, oh, they love...
It's their punitive authoritarian streak that comes out.
They can't wait to punish the politically permitted people.
The only difference between them and the left authoritarians and the right authoritarians is who they want to punish.
But otherwise, they have that deep authoritarian punitive streak and they can't wait to punish P. Diddy because he's been a disapproved figure.
And they're so eager for it, they're taking the bait on covering up criminality rather than truly exposing it, which is what this case really is.
Also, they've morally justified it because they think P. Diddy is guilty, therefore it justifies pretrial detention.
The reason why our Constitution requires presumption of innocence, which is also protected under the Eighth Amendment, is because ordinary Americans are terrible at applying it.
They say they believe in it, but they really never do.
Let me bring a few of these up because we're getting a little far behind on this.
Varak says, does Diddy have anything on Kamala?
I just went out.
I'll show you what I found in a second here.
This, I can't read this.
It says, frigate captain is now a monthly supporter.
Welcome to the club, frigate captain.
Amdrum12 is a bummer in the Diddy videos.
Grobert thinks Barack pulled the trigger on the indictment, but why now?
Then we got MrRepurposes.
Hi there, you two.
Here's a lousy $2.
Spend it well.
Thank you very much.
King of Biltong in the house.
Biltong is one of the most protein-dense foods in the world, packed with B12, zinc, iron, creatine, and more.
Need a healthy snack?
Get your elk and venison at Biltong USA.
Viva 10 for 10% off.
Cup of Sooth says, we need international observers for our own elections.
I kind of agree with that.
KMGood329. Arizona has some behind-the-scenes scamming.
The people...
Impacted will be those holding a license prior to 96. This may mean majority Republican.
Randy Edwards says a historic average mail-in disallow is 1.2%.
2020 disallows was eight-tenths of 1% in spite of an over 200% increase.
That's bullshit.
I mean, that's the evidence of fucking fraud right there.
I'm sorry to swear.
Too big for bike.
Viva, you should reach out to Ohio lawyer Tom Renz.
You are both fighting good fight on multiple topics, although your cadence is twice as fast as his.
I think it would be a good one.
Then we got Josiah...
Why can't I read this?
Someone I know.
Josiah H.M. Someone I know bringing up the fake election scheme in 2024.
Correct me if I'm wrong, weren't those alt-electors chosen by the legislators whom authority resides?
Keep up the good work, guys.
Francis Montgomery Barnes, you could talk about the latest Matt Gaetz accusations.
We'll get there in one second, actually.
Robert, don't forget about the government supply weapons of drug cartels, Ukraine, Middle East, when pointing out gun control doesn't work.
That's T-1990.
Then we've got Stefano G-G-G-G.
Master voter each county slash state.
50,000 voters in one area and Trump gets 27,000 votes.
Does this stop the possibility of a steal?
Are machines allowed in swing states?
Can they be monitored for cheating?
Robert? It's a big question.
Oh, ask it again.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I've got to get back here.
Master... Let me see what the real question is.
The question is...
Are machines allowed in swing states?
Can they be monitored for cheating?
I mean, I know what your answer is going to be.
But machines are not the serious risk because machines don't dominate.
They're not in all the states.
They're in some of the states.
In some states, they're only in some of the counties.
But they are not the primary area of risk.
But the best way is not to have machines deciding elections in the first place.
So we just go back to paper ballots, hand counted.
That's what the Georgia rules were, makes common sense as to why that is.
Make sure you don't have more votes than voters.
It's amazing Democrats are complaining about that.
It just shows you the scale and scope of their lack of respect for an honest, transparent election.
And something I just dug up while we were talking, Robert, back in 2020, Diddy endorses Joe Biden, launches Black Political Party.
We own our politics.
My goodness.
Well, I mean, Jennifer Lopez, he was married to her.
What does she know?
Oh my goodness, she must know things.
I mean, there's tons of music stars that are deeply intertwined with them.
Not to mention a lot of big political actors.
And if they have no connection to P. Diddy, that's of any concern.
Why are they busy erasing social media accounts as quickly as they can?
My theory is when you're deleting a tweet, you might be deleting exculpatory evidence unless you know that you're deleting incriminating associations.
Alright, I can't segue into anything else.
What do we move on to now?
We got Tim Pool versus Kamala Harris.
I'll say it.
I like that Tim Pool sued, but I don't think he's going to get very far with this lawsuit.
Tim Pool sued Kamala Harris for that...
I would say allegedly.
It's a defamatory tweet referring to him as a Trump asset and that he's basically advocating for extrajudicial assassination of his political rivals.
A little bit of confession through projection.
He filed the lawsuit.
I went over it last week.
That's effectively the essence of it, that there was a tweet.
They clipped a video where he had Laura Loomer on.
Laura Loomer said, yeah, what's the punishment for treason?
It's execution.
Tim, who I know has very strict rules about not even...
Giving the impression of calling for violence, took that video off of YouTube, and they alleged that him deleting that video was deleting the evidence where he knew that he was doing something, whatever, and they caught the clip, and they put up the clip.
The bottom line, Tim was saying, you know, these Democrats need to go to jail for what they've done, yada, yada, yada, and then Laura Loomer said, yeah, and, you know, it's treasonous or seditious or whatever, and what's the punishment for that?
Execution. All right.
Then Kamala Harris HQ, and I need to know the definitive connection between Kamala Harris HQ Twitter feed and the Kamala Harris herself.
I wonder if there might be a problem of not association but connection there.
They put off that tweet, make all sorts of accusations, and Tim suits for defamation.
My feeling, first of all, is they throw in at the end of the lawsuit, they made the statement with actual malice because Tim Pool is a public figure and the statement has to be not only false, defamatory, yada yada, made with actual malice.
My concern is that there weren't enough allegations fleshing out the actual malice of the tweet on the one hand.
On the other hand, like we discussed last week, and I forget what the tweet was in particular, they made their opinion tweet and included the video so that people could watch the video to see whether or not their assessment correlates to the video.
And I think that's going to be the biggest way that they're going to weasel their asses out of this and say, look, the video was there.
So our opinion is whatever.
You can agree or disagree.
We shared the video with you so that you could see it for yourself.
And I think it's not going to get very far, but the bottom line, I don't think it was filed to be won.
I think it was filed to be read.
And I had to oblige and actually do a little analysis of it.
Robert, what do you think?
Yeah, I mean, I think the Harris campaign made statements that are subject to defamation.
And even though they attach the underlying statements, the problem is...
They didn't make clear in their initial statement that they were simply interpreting the attached video.
In other words, so when you say, here's what's happening, and then you attach a video with the idea that it would substantiate you by evidence or something else, but you don't explain that, here's my interpretation of this statement.
Then, if you say, if you have that precursor, then the person can look at the underlying statement.
And it can be a defense against defamation.
But here they didn't do that.
And I think because they failed to do that, you have an actionable libel claim.
Because the libel claim is that he was a Trump operative.
He's not.
That's factual statement, false number one.
False statement number two was that he was part of the Project 2025 plan.
He's not.
False statement number three.
Was that he intended to give Trump unchecked legal power.
Trump, he's never said that at all.
So it's attributing to him a statement he's never made.
Fourth, that he was out there advocating and stating that Trump was going to be able to criminally prosecute both his and Trump's enemies.
He never made that claim.
Never made that statement.
Made statements just the opposite to that.
And so you look at those quartet of statements.
And he's got four separate statements that are factually false that infer, at a minimum, infer a factually false statement that are not fully exculpated without an adequate disclaimer by simply attaching an underlying video that a person reading it might not know what that underlying video is there for.
And so I think he's got enough.
And then they also allege a bad faith misconduct provision to try to create a fee shifting.
That's under Virginia law, right?
West Virginia law.
West Virginia.
Sorry, West Virginia.
Yeah, I can't pretend to know what that is.
And I presume that the lawyer wouldn't make a fundamental mistake like that.
So there's a specific provision of law under West Virginia law.
The jurisdiction itself is obviously going to be more favorable than not.
He's Tim Pool.
Lives there, pays taxes there, is a respected member of the community.
They probably needed to state a little more than they did for jurisdictional purposes.
So they sued in West Virginia, but simply being the resident there is often not adequate.
In a bunch of cases, they're making it very difficult in the internet age.
A lot of courts are making it very difficult to bring suit against somebody unless that person is a resident of the state that you're bringing them.
Well, as far as defamation goes, I mean, he would merely have to add or include an allegation that the defamatory statements were intended to be heard by West Virginians, and they were, in fact, heard by West Virginians.
Even that may not be enough, because in the Covington's kids' cases, they said that wasn't enough.
In the Robert Kennedy case, they said that wasn't enough.
So you're running into courts that don't, if you run into a judge that, for whatever reason, doesn't like the case, they will dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, unless the defendant is physically located there.
Yeah, you would have to say they made the statements to West Virginians for the purpose of causing injury in West Virginia, that they were fully aware and knowledgeable about that and give some detailed examples.
They talk about them raising funds in West Virginia so there might be general jurisdiction over them in West Virginia.
That's going to be a little bit tricky.
But so what will likely happen is they'll move to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.
I think he should be able to defeat that, but it's going to depend on the judge because the factual allegations weren't as detailed or specific for jurisdiction as needs to be in the modern age.
And then, of course, practically speaking, they only sued the campaign.
They did not sue Kamala Harris.
They did not name a Jane Doe or John Doe.
And the reason why that's important is to find the individual who made the statements, the individuals who are complicit in making the statements, hold them individually responsible, because otherwise, let's say you get through jurisdictional motions to dismiss, you get through discovery, you get through summary judgment motions.
By the time you get to trial, the Harris campaign that you're suing has no money, so you have no chance of recovery at all.
And so if it's something other than a PR suit, which as you're mentioning, maybe that's just the motivation, is to deter this from others and bring a public relations case.
But if it's anything beyond that, I'll be honest, it's not going to work as a deterrent because everybody in that space knows the campaign's broken six months.
It's an LLC.
Not a question of saying, oh, well, if we proceed to discovery, we discover, and then we can add a defendant, that would slow down.
I mean, they'd have to re-serve and re-file.
You really have to name the John Doe's and Jane Doe's right out of the gate.
Otherwise, if you don't name them within the time frame for the statute of limitations, they say that the SOL has passed.
So I don't know what the SOL is in West Virginia.
Maybe it's a year.
Maybe you could wait.
SOL is statute of limitations and not shit out of luck, although you might be shit out of luck if you pass the SOL.
Bada bing, bada boom.
So I think it would have been a little more robust if they'd added a few more people, a few more jurisdictional facts, a few more detail about how these facts negatively and adversely impacted.
For example, Poole has explained that his concern with this wasn't just your run-of-the-mill political concern.
His concern was that there are crazy people who would take this to mean he is a leading enemy.
And he's already been subject to stalking threats.
He's been subject to harassment.
He's been subject to doxing.
He's been subject to swatting.
I would have included a lot of that detail to make it more sympathetic for the judge and the clerk reading the case and to enhance the legal basis to proceed with the case.
What his real concern is is that somebody like the person who took the pot shots at President Trump on a golf course We'll decide to take potshots at him because he's heard from the Harris campaign that he is one of the principal people organizing the Trump fascist coup, according to the Harris campaign.
So I would have explained that in a little more detail, would have had more jurisdictional facts alleged, would have included some Jane Doe's and John Doe's so the individuals knew they were going to have to pay out of pocket for what took place, and that could bankrupt more than a few of them.
If you're some low-level intern, you don't like being named as a potential defendant, a civil suit you can't afford to pay.
So I thought it could be more robust, but I'm glad he's bringing suit in the first place because you've got to deter this kind of bad faith behavior and take at least some meaningful legal remedy step to do so.
Okay, subject that we didn't actually touch on when someone had asked earlier, what do you think of the Matt Gaetz allegations?
There's going to be three things we're going to talk about right now.
Matt Gaetz allegations of that he was at drug-fueled sex parties with teens.
I mean, these keep resurfacing.
I, unfortunately, it's a little bit of a boycott who cried wolf.
I just don't believe him as a rule, as a reflex now.
I mean, what do you think?
You heard about this?
Yeah, well, remember they did those investigations and they were debunked.
They smeared him so that they would prevent him from running for governor in Florida in the future, because he was going to run for statewide office in 2022.
So the whole goal was to try to, this was part of the effort to destroy Trump world.
And they spread false allegations against him.
And even the Biden Justice Department had to conclude that, that he was the subject of an extortion attempt.
By bogus, bad-faith actors who wanted to blame him for an association, for somebody else, and when his association was very loose, and it turned out they had no proof of it at all, and they just circulated lies and libels about him, which we predicted at the time was the case.
You could see all the red flags of that case was bogus.
The sole and whole goal was to deter him from being a future statewide office, and it was an aborted effort to try to deter Trump in 2024.
Two other things I forgot to ask you.
It was talking about the elections and the...
First of all, I thought it was a joke.
I did not send the tweet this morning because I thought it was a joke when I saw an article about the IRS endorsing Kamala Harris.
And I started drafting.
It's like, no, this can't be real.
I went to read the article and it said...
It quoted someone as having said...
The IRS, her tax plans will kill jobs for Americans, but create jobs for the IRS.
I'm like, oh, okay, this is a parody article.
And no, Kamala Harris wins on Twitter, tweeted out the endorsement of the IRS union worker people for Kamala Harris.
So they've got Satan incarnate war criminal Dick Cheney and his evil spawn Liz Cheney.
And now they've got the IRS.
That was the humorous part of this.
United States Postal Service also endorsed Kamala Harris.
How does that not cause a problem when they are going to be manhandling the ballots?
Well, not the service itself, the union.
The union.
I'm sorry.
The workers kind of run the service itself.
So how does that not cause a problem when they are the ones who are going to be...
Transporting ballots.
It's always been an issue because it was like the point of the Hatch Act was to prevent federal employees from using their federal employment position of power for political purposes.
But they've allowed a huge carve-out by allowing government unions to do so.
I've never been a fan of the idea of unions and government, period.
I'm a big supporter of private sector unions.
I believe that it represented collective effort to help ordinary people get unequal playing field with big private corporations.
That's not the case with the government.
Government, you work for the people.
I've seen no excuse for government unions.
I would be for unionization not being allowed in government.
I don't think that makes...
All it does is corrupt it.
And that's what we're seeing.
But they've carved out an exception for them so that...
But it creates an obvious conflict of interest because the postal workers who are going to be handling those mail-in ballots are all for Kamala – their union is for Kamala Harris.
And, of course, the same with the teachers' unions, right?
The teachers' unions, they're so political.
It shows you you're not – your kid has no way your chances – your kid's not getting indoctrinated.
And if you try to stand up to the indoctrination, maybe you're a law professor at the University of Chicago.
You get fired for doing so at the so-called free, one of the great free speech schools of law and thought in America.
And he's having to take his case all the way to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Is that the segue?
Yeah, that's the segue, yeah.
I'm such a dense idiot.
I'm trying to look for something for Gavin Newsom when we segue into that.
All right, so tell us what's going on with this case.
Law professor included, in an employment discrimination case, the actual language used from a real-world case.
Of course, the actual language used was the N-word and other words like that.
His black law students got enraged at seeing that in an exam.
Apparently hearing it on pretty much every rap song that exists in the world, that doesn't offend anybody.
But seeing it in a law school exam, even though that represents exactly what you would see in real life as a lawyer, you don't get to just put in, you know, and dot, dot, dot, dot, dot.
You know, the actual evidence has to come out at some meaningful proceeding.
So offended their sensibilities and sensitivities.
That they protested the professor.
The professor got agitated at how they were protesting him, for which led to further protest, which led to the University of Chicago Law School suspending him.
He brought suit and said, look, if a law professor doesn't have the freedom of academic thought, again, involving a public university, then there is no more free academic thought in college or law school or high school, elementary school or anywhere else.
And most critically, this is law school, teaching future lawyers and judges what the law is.
And if there was any place there needs to be maximum freedom of speech and thought, it is law school.
But he had to sue.
And this goes back to an old Supreme Court ruling.
When the Supreme Court said, when you are speaking in your official duties as a government employee, you are basically the state's spokesperson.
And so the state can absolutely censor that speech because it's simply controlling their speech as the principal and you're the agent.
But they recognized that would make, by the way, 80% of it was bogus because almost all the cases that arise in this context isn't really, nobody's confused with whether or not the person is speaking on behalf of the state.
What they should do is go back and modify that rule and say, if you're solely acting as an agent of the principal, then in those contexts, the principal has the right to control what speech the agent makes on behalf of the principal.
But if people know you're not speaking on behalf of the principal, then that rule should be scrapped.
As to excluding it and exempting it from First Amendment coverage.
It was a bogus excuse when they came up with it in the first place.
But this doctrine created obvious problems in the academic context because if strictly applied, it would mean there's no academic freedom at any state university in the United States.
University, law school, high school, anywhere.
That you would have to constantly censor your speech unless it gets pre-approval.
From your administrative bosses.
It would be the greatest direct threat to the First Amendment that has ever existed in the United States.
And so what the Supreme Court did is recognizing that problem at the time they made the decision, they just sort of said, by the way, we're not deciding whether this ridiculous doctrine we came up with applies in the academic context because the academic context exposes how bogus our doctrine is in the first place, principally. And conceptually.
So every appellate court that has dealt with it later has said, obviously, that principal agency doctrine does not apply to academic freedom.
And you have complete First Amendment protection, even though your speech may come in the context of your official duties, speaking to a class, speaking as a professor at a university, writing academic publications, and so forth.
You have full First Amendment protections, and the state can only punish you under the same restrictions they can any other First Amendment-like case.
But the Seventh Circuit has never made that decision, and the Obama judge that got the case said, oh, you have no First Amendment rights at all in America's classrooms, that there is no First Amendment protection for academic speech ever, disagreeing with the other federal appellate courts who said otherwise.
So this is a case that goes way beyond law school, way beyond the University of Chicago, way beyond even the Seventh Circuit.
Because the question is, do we have constitutionally protected academic freedom or not in America?
And this case is going to decide that.
Well, on the subject of freedom of speech, Robert, I had to find the video to segue us into this one because it's just a thing of beauty.
If you haven't seen this AI piece, came out of the Babylon Bee.
Before we get into the subject of the new law passed in California, listen to this.
Hi, I'm Gavin Newsom, the governor of California.
This is a message for the people of America, given in my authentically recorded non-AI voice.
Thanks to my leadership over the last several years, California has become a world leader in extremist left-wing governance.
My policies were so effective that almost one million people are now fleeing the state every year.
We even ran out of U-Hauls.
During the COVID pandemic, I locked everyone in their homes and shut down businesses for months.
Not the French Laundry, though.
That's my favorite restaurant.
Last year, I cleaned up the dangerous messy streets of San Francisco, you know, because Chinese Communist President Xi was coming, and I really wanted to impress him.
Okay, stop it here.
It's incredible.
It's impeccable.
And if people want to be boneheads about it, they can go after the Babylon Bee and say, When they made the joke about it totally not being an AI-generated voice, that was to convince people that it was totally not an AI-generated voice.
All right, that is obviously the segue into the new law that Gavin Newsom has signed into effect in California.
I could probably have played the video where he's on some late-night talk show talking about, this is how easy it is to govern.
I just signed shit here.
You can find one of the ones that all the Ricada haters have made of me where they decided they were going to make me into the Breaking Bad character.
And they have Barnes promoting his legal practice.
And it's, you know, all these fake, it's a deep, AI deep fake.
I'll give him credit on that one because that one's pretty funny.
Why people are obsessed with Nick Riccate is beyond me.
But I only care about his constitutional rights because I care about everybody's constitutional rights.
And wish him good luck on that accord.
But, I mean, it's extraordinary.
What's amazing here is, I'm not protected under the law, interestingly, they weren't concerned with AI deepfakes in general.
It was only AI deepfakes during an election that, you know, made basically Democrats look bad.
I mean, because you can only, if you do an AI, you make a Democrat look bad, who's an elected official during an election, you can get sued into oblivion now in California.
Even if it's parody, even if it's satire.
Because the distinctive, the catch in it is that intended to mislead, when people want to pretend that they're not getting a joke or they want to be deliberately obtuse about it, as they did with Douglas Mackey and his text in, you know, beat the lines and text in Hillary.
They'll be obtuse and they'll pretend that, oh, well, or they'll just make your life hell anyhow and you'll get acquitted, whatever.
Intended to deceive or mislead disinformation or misinformation.
I mean, does it get held up?
Sorry, does it get upheld, not held up?
Does it get upheld by the courts when it gets to the court system?
Because it will.
Well, it already is.
So one of the, in fact, the person who made the parody that Newsom was so objected to.
And who said he was going to, in response to that tweet, said he was going to pass a law banning, making it illegal to do what he just did.
He has now brought suit against the state of California and said, look, I make money doing this.
And he pointed out several things.
One, it's a content-based restriction.
They're trying to pretend it's time and place by limiting it to the time and frame of an election.
This is the scam and schemes all the politicians do.
Whenever they want to prohibit speech, they pretend it's a time and place restriction because as long as you have a content neutral time and place restriction, it applies a lesser standard.
This is a content based restriction, not content neutral.
How do you know?
Because you have to look at the content of what's in the communication for whether or not it's illegal or not.
That's the sign that it's content.
These lazy politicians who think that they can pass a content based restriction but call it Time and place.
Don't realize that doesn't escape constitutional scrutiny.
It also is vague in its rulings.
They needed to say, if you made a false statement of fact that you intended people to believe was a false statement, but of course, they already have those laws.
California's got plenty of fraud laws on the books.
California's got plenty of libel laws on the books.
Deepfake AI is already illegal.
If it is not satire or parody, this was an attempt to get to satire and parody by saying even if it's satire, even if it's parody, even if it's intended as such, even if most of the audience receives it as such, if anybody thought was misled that claims you intended to mislead a very selective and subjective standard, then you consume into oblivion.
And the goal is to deter people from doing the speech in the first place under threat of litigation and lawfare.
So the second problem is it's vague.
So it's void for vagueness, which raises its issues under the Fifth Amendment, but as well as under the First Amendment, because the vagueness of speech-based restrictions make them First Amendment offensive.
And then last but not least, it's compelled speech, because it requires you to put a label.
This is satire and parody.
That's so big, you can't even put it on most videos of the deepfake videos.
It requires you to show it the whole time, and that's a version of compelled speech.
The brilliance of satire and parody is if you have some doubt as to whether it's satire or parody.
That's what makes it most comedically effective and impactful.
Satire and parody has always been protected.
I don't think this law will pass any First Amendment scrutiny.
A constitutionally conscientious court at some point will come in and knock it down.
It was Newsom's last-ditch effort because it shows Democrats not only can't meme, They want to make it illegal for you to do it.
Well, because they're so bloody bad and they have no sense of humor and they're deliberately obtuse and also oftentimes just dumb.
Let me bring it up here.
This was the original.
Stop it.
I won't play the whole thing just a bit.
I, Kamal Harris, and you're Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility of the debate.
Thanks, Joe.
I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire.
I'm both a woman and a person of color.
So if you criticize anything I say, you're both sexist and racist.
It's so glorious.
So that was the video.
Then Gavin comes up and says, manipulating a voice in an ad.
Quote, like this one, should be illegal.
I'll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure that it is.
And Elon replied.
Just in case the plaintiff needed any stronger claim, he has the governor saying, we're going to pass a law to make what you're doing illegal.
Even though it said Kamala Harris campaign ad parody.
Apparently, by the way, you can do AI now that can put us into all the different, our voice, tenor, but in different languages.
Yeah, I, I, we're good.
I wonder what I sound like in Russian.
The people who circulate his proof are a Ruski spy.
Although they'll be able to AI fake that anyhow.
It'll be you and Putin having dinner.
Okay, so that's fantastic.
That is the Gavin Newsom's idiotic law from an idiotic governor who's turned California into a...
Poo-poo hole.
Thanks to his Attorney General and District Attorney Kamala Harris, who turned San Francisco into a poo-poo hole.
Quite literally, they have apps to detect human poo-poo on the sidewalks.
Oh yeah.
And needles.
Needles sticking out that might give you a disease and all kinds of other things.
What do we move on to?
We've got arbitration, adverse possession, Fourth Amendment, when the magic nose of police officers is finally being called back.
Eating pets, 3M, and a sheriff.
And I think Marley's saying, I shot the sheriff.
I guess the sheriff thought he meant, I shot the judge.
Let's do a few more here, and then we'll go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
The Red Hat.
Okay, the Red Hat, I noticed a name on the proceeding, and I believe it was yours.
They're moving to arbitration in the Red Hat discrimination case.
This is the case of a white Christian man.
I don't know if he was fired for being Christian, but he was certainly fired for being a...
He checked all the wrong boxes.
White, great, Christian, male.
Yeah, the main reason was because he was male.
But the other reasons...
But it was even worse that he...
He had no saving graces.
It was okay to be...
Well, it wasn't okay to be a man.
But maybe you could save your job if you're a minority.
Maybe you could save your job if you're a racial minority or a religious minority or if you weren't straight.
So it's something to salvage your terrible, toxic masculinity.
But Red Hat, owned by IBM, found him particularly inexcusable.
Because he checked all the wrong boxes, discriminated against him, ultimately fired him because of it, fired a whole bunch of people at the same time for the exact same reason.
I've heard from other people who are like, you know, this is why I got fired.
So IBM is one of the most discriminatory companies in the country, led by its subsidiary, Red Hat.
There was evidence of quotas in that context.
Oh, yeah.
They also made it explicit.
This is the one James O'Keefe outed on tape saying we're going to hire and fire people, promote or demote people based on their gender.
Priority one.
Priority two, based on their race.
Priority three, based on their religion.
Priority four, based on their bedroom behavior.
But number one was gender.
They thought they didn't want a bunch of men.
Even though it was a field naturally occupied by men.
You know, it's always interesting.
I don't see all the feminists demanding to take over high-rise construction.
I don't see all the feminists demanding to take over fire departments.
I don't see a bunch of feminists demanding to be on the front lines of military war and get drafted.
I don't see a bunch of feminists demanding to go work in the coal mines.
Overwhelmingly, the most dangerous work in America takes place by men.
That's who does it.
And those are the jobs that the feminists don't really want.
They want the jobs they see as Kamala Harris kind of jobs, where you can be incompetent and still get a paycheck and still get a promotion.
But this is what Red Hat and IBM became complicit in, and they don't want the world to know about it.
So they're moving to compel arbitration.
His employment agreement says nothing about arbitration.
He didn't agree to arbitration in the employment agreement.
What they're doing, and this is a lot of corrupt employers.
We talked about it recently.
Disney's doing it.
They're trying to find any time where they can contract with you over something small or modest that you're not going to read in full detail and bury in it a mandatory arbitration clause that then magically applies to every disagreement you ever have with them.
In a sales bonus package deal that was about...
A special marketing plan had a little provision about arbitration, and they're saying, aha, this means nobody can ever sue us in America's courts.
Nobody can ever get a trial by jury.
The public can never know the truth about our illegal behavior, about our discriminatory animus, about how prejudiced and bigoted IBM and Red Hat are.
Because we get to go to a secretive, Star Chamber-like proceeding with a conflicted arbitrator who's being paid by IBM.
To adjudicate the case without any rules of evidence being applicable, any rules of due process being applicable, any rules of appellate procedure being applicable, any opportunity for a jury trial being applicable, where we can charge you the privilege of being screwed so that your client has to write ridiculously huge checks to this corrupt arbitrator, conflicted arbitrator, who, all the evidence proves, rules overwhelmingly for corporations.
This is a return to the...
What led to the right to trial by jury in America in the first place, as Justice Gorsuch talked about just this past couple of months ago, as we discussed here, which was the British colonial administration didn't like American courts because American judges and American jurists were honoring their local community and the actual law.
So they created their own special vice-admiralty courts without the benefit of trial by jury, without the benefit of...
A person who was not conflicted by their appointment.
And they were rigging the cases against people.
And that's what arbitration has become.
And arbitration is just one big railroad job that deprives us of our right to petition the courts for redress of grievances, the right to public, open, honest, transparent trials, the right to a decision maker appointed by elected officials, the right to full, meaningful appellate review, the right to due process of law in the entire discovery process, the right to confront accusers, the right to discover evidence, the right to evidence that's only been tested with the...
Means of reliability for that evidence.
The right to trial by jury.
All of it gone with arbitration.
And the courts have become complicit in supporting this arbitration because it helps the government and big corporations who they're basically in bed with.
And Congress has passed laws that have been interpreted too loosely, too liberally, and too broadly to eviscerate constitutional rights they never had the privilege or power or prerogative to do in the first place.
So I'm challenging every aspect of the arbitration in the case in Red Hat and going to litigate it all the way up in IBM.
And people can use and cut, cut and paste however they want.
No copyright asserted.
Take authorship.
I don't care.
Use it for your case in the state and federal court.
I'll be putting the whole brief up.
Put it up as part of the Barnes brief this past Friday at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Cut and paste however you want.
Going to put up the whole brief this week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Cut and paste however you want.
Because arbitration is a major threat to constitutional liberty in America.
One thing that you alleged in the brief, and I forget it, it was the rebuttal to their motion to dismiss or motion to arbitrate.
You said that Congress basically said you can't compel arbitration for...
Discrimination lawsuits.
How do you get around that?
Because the Supreme Court found...
So, two things.
If the case concerns gender-based discrimination, harassment, Congress has made clear that those claims can't be arbitrable.
So we should, on those grounds, win anyway.
But you never know because judges have gone out of their way to find excuses to send cases to arbitration.
And that's why we're litigating all the rest.
When the Supreme Court greenlit this, either the facts were very different or they just lied.
Because they claimed, oh, there's no difference between the arbitration process and American courtrooms, other than a jury.
And that's not a big deal.
It was completely false.
But now it's proven false.
There have been massive detailed studies.
Arbitrators are in the pocket of the corporations they serve.
You have a better chance at impartial justice in a tax court dealing with the IRS, which is the most notoriously biased court in America, than you do with an arbitrator.
The corporations win at a 90% clip.
Almost nobody is able to successfully challenge them.
Corporations wouldn't do it unless they were guaranteed to get a better outcome with an arbitrator than with a jury.
A better outcome with an arbitrator than a federal judge, who's already very sympathetic to corporations to begin with.
That's how much these people are in the pocket.
And so it's these secretive trials.
Not only that, the public doesn't find out the truth.
The public doesn't know what discrimination is taking place, what illegality is taking place by a company that has major government contracts at this local, state, and federal level.
That's information they're entitled to.
That's the point of open access to the courts.
So the other thing arbitration is doing is keeping secret the illegal behavior of powerful people.
And we should be opposed to it on core constitutional ground.
Yeah, that's funny.
As a practicing attorney, I loved arbitration, not for any nefarious reasons.
I hated the courts.
And I figured it was the way of bypassing, you know, not bypassing, but getting out of the corrupt court system where you just spend all day waiting around not to be heard.
And it cost more.
It was quicker, confidential.
But now I appreciate on the flip side, those might be good for some of the players, but not for justice as a whole.
And this is a case of mandatory arbitration.
If people want to do true voluntary arbitration, that at the time of their dispute, they would have more confidence in an arbitrator, like some labor disputes that's true of, no problem.
But that's not...
True with compulsory, coerced arbitration in take-it-or-leave-it standard form contracts where there's a huge negotiating power between the parties.
Yeah, the contracts of adhesion in terms of compelling arbitration on the player that doesn't have the bargaining power is exploitive.
And speaking of exploitive and corrupt companies, we alluded to 3M, but we didn't get into it.
So I'm reading this, because I remember we touched on it, or we covered it a while back, and I forgot how flipping bad it was.
They've been ordered to pay $6 billion.
This is in civil suits.
This is in civil suits, right?
Oh, yes.
I mean, there was also a key tan before this that now looks ridiculous by comparison.
The Ketan being the government...
What happened in that?
Did the government seek the dismissal of the lawsuit?
The government dismissed it on a $6 million settlement.
They said, oh, this is more than fair and compensatory.
And otherwise kept a lid.
Never referred it to a criminal Ketan.
Didn't refer any of the individuals involved to a criminal Ketan.
And provided small pennies on the dollar to all the soldiers harmed by 3M.
And if you remember, you see 3M.
Originally stood for 3M efforts, but they took the FERS part to hide their criminal history.
That's who 3M is.
Because the key term would have been for the people for fraud committed against the people because this is a government contractor selling earplugs to military servicemen and women for using them on the field, training, etc.
Combat arms earplugs.
Given specialized contracts by promising it met unique standards that it would protect your ears from damage on the battlefield.
And what they were doing was falsifying the results or at least concealing the fact that these were not performing to the standards they were required to perform to, resulting in hearing damage for how many?
Like hundreds of thousands?
Tens of thousands?
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Every soldier who used them suffered.
And some suffered complete hearing loss.
And so they were finally collectively sued.
I don't know if there was...
I think it was a class action.
But the bottom line, they've been ordered to pay $6 billion.
Now, $6 plus billion.
The evidence in this case is that they knew their products were not up to standards.
They were concealing the fact that they were not.
They were nonetheless pushing them off and warranting that they were good.
And they lied and people suffered massive amounts of damage.
And this is how the government exploits its own military people.
And this is how the government...
Rubs the back to not be crass of their military contractors where they're all just dipping into the slush fund of taxpayer dollars to screw the very people that they're supposed to be protecting both by the government side and the military contractor side.
I mean, flesh it out from here, but it's...
No, the Defense Department took no corrective action.
The only people who exposed this was a small company that blew the whistle on it that brought the KETAM action.
When the government was confronted with the KETAM action, they hid most of the evidence rather than investigated most of the evidence, cut a sweetheart deal with 3M to make it look like it was a small matter.
Because to give people an idea, 3M designed earplugs they knew didn't work from the beginning.
Then they falsified test reports, fabricated data to the American government and the American people in order to profit billions of dollars.
They did so systematically and systemically for decades.
That's how criminal the corporate executives at 3M are.
They are a criminal operating enterprise.
This is the same company that forced its employees to take an experimental vaccine.
As a condition of employment.
And when those employees objected on religious grounds, they then discriminated against those employees, demoted those employees, ultimately fired many of those employees, and then when those employees sought relief, they harassed them in court, demanding they disclose their private sexual history, their private medical records, every single political affiliation they've ever had, every single aspect of their religious beliefs they've ever had.
Demanding their cell phones and social media accounts and laptops be taken over.
And corrupt courts have been complicit in it, just like the corrupt Defense Department was complicit in these bogus earplugs stolen using taxpayer dollars that ended up causing more harm than if the soldier had never used any earplugs at all on the battlefield.
That's who 3M is.
And the fact they're writing $6 billion worth of checks gives you an idea of the scale of criminal operation they're operating, what a complete joke the entire Keytan unit is at the Department of Justice, which is currently busy either harassing small people because they become politically disfavored or protecting the big corrupt people like they are in the case of Pfizer and in the case that is ongoing.
So it's just a reminder of what a...
Criminal operations, some of these big defense contractors are.
Some of these big corporations are.
And if we had an honest justice department, 3M would have been put into receivership and its corporate executives all imprisoned.
And just because some people did not necessarily...
Some people may or may not have gotten the reference, but in case you didn't get the reference...
We object to the term urine-soaked hellhole when you could have said pee-pee-soaked heckhole.
Cheerfully withdrawn.
Alright, that was my joke about the urine-soaked hellhole.
Do we save the rest for over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com or is there one more that we should touch here?
We've got the Fourth Amendment searching the magic smell, the magic nose test.
We've got the sheriff who shot the judge.
We've got adverse possession.
Those are probably all good for over at the other one.
We could wrap up here with, yes indeed folks, they're eating the cats.
Yes, we absolutely should.
First of all, everybody who saw the people of Springfield, please don't eat my cat.
I got one, okay?
Now I'm an idiot and I thought it was a keyboard and not whatever the heck this thing is called.
You got to have a digital audio software thing.
So I got GarageBand and I'm learning how this works and I'm not a very patient man.
Anyhow, I'm going to be a digital music master by the end of this.
I'll let you before...
I don't want to taint anything here.
I thought I had found sufficient evidence such that the statements that were made were not knowingly false.
So when they say Trump lied and he's like...
And J.D. Vance elucidated this quite clearly with a CNN interview.
People are telling me this.
People on the ground are telling me this.
There was a video from March.
2024, of some city manager in Springfield saying how people are coming up to him and telling him this, but they want to remain anonymous.
I think I already tainted the evidence here.
Robert, what is your evidence that it's actually happening?
So we have police reports of people before Trump ever talked about it.
Police reports filed by the police, including 911 calls and other calls.
That it repeatedly, pets were going missing.
That people saw Haitian immigrants and other migrant groups taking the pets.
And we now have, of course, Christopher Rufo's video coverage of them literally being, Gats literally being barbecued.
By similar migrant communities in neighboring towns in Ohio.
I was going to make sure to steal that.
That wasn't Springfield, Robert.
That was unbelievable.
It was half an hour away.
I mean, over and over again.
That this town was near Springfield is just crazy.
The second aspect is the city manager and others confirming it back before they decided to play dumb in published hearings saying they had received multiple reports.
Of pets going missing and suspicions that they were being taken by the migrant groups and being consumed by them.
And then there was other public police reports, found community newspaper reports, found live witnesses, found videotaped evidence.
But one of the things I cited, why I said from the get-go that this story likely was true, and despite the media pretending this could never, ever, ever happen.
One of the things I shared with the Barnes Brief at vivabarneslaw.locals.com is the report from the U.S. Marines that was done actually by some sort of diversity types, if you will, some lefty types decades later.
But I went back and looked at the underlying data.
And it was about the Marine experience in Haiti.
And the authors of the report are like, they're so prejudiced because they're like, okay, so the Haitians like to eat animals and pets and they do ritual sacrifice.
Oh, and sometimes they do cannibalism too.
But these people are just so prejudiced against cannibalism.
These Marines, do they know better?
I mean, it's just littered throughout.
I mean, the most Marines that went down to Haiti were just shocked by what was going on in Haiti.
It's just a different world down there.
And as the authors put it, it's a different set of values.
So whatever explanation, yeah, folks, they're going to eat the pets.
That was always going to be true.
That has always been true.
And the famous meme from the most famous moment of that debate in any recent debate is, in fact, the media's attempts to gaslight everybody and thinking this could never, ever happen.
Lots and lots of evidence such that if we're in a trial, a reasonable, impartial jury would conclude.
That at least some pets have been eaten or sacrificed by migrant groups against the informed consent of that little kitty cat and dog.
I'll lower the expectations just one bit.
Or at the very least, that J.D. Vance and Donald Trump were not lying when they said it.
Because if you don't believe me, here is, I think this guy is the city manager.
And culture is 180 degrees different than what they're used to.
And one of the things that I heard that bothered me very much, I've actually had quite a few people contact me here lately.
Quite a few people contact me.
Is some pretty horrid things occurring to domesticated animals in the neighborhood.
Listen to this part.
We've had some stuff in the park.
We've had some stuff in the park.
Everybody knows it.
That, again, they're being taken advantage of for reasons other than.
You shake your head, Brian.
No, no.
I asked if there was proof.
People that have confided in me have asked me for anonymity.
I can't give their names up.
I mean, we haven't seen the proof that you're...
Even the guy there, Brian, knows that they...
He's like, shake your head, Brian.
We've both heard the same things from the same people.
Oh, but I haven't seen the proof of consumed animals.
It's an old farmer joke.
I was just trying to push that sheep over the fence.
That's not...
We're going full circle back to the exploding goat anuses of the Jake Dapper report.
So yeah, that's...
And I can understand why people would want to remain anonymous when there's 20,000...
It's just the reality of Haitian culture.
It dates back to animism and the religious tradition that Haiti voodoo reflects.
Again, Barack Obama wrote about this in his book and experiencing it.
He talked about people eating dogs.
And the idea is that you inhabit the...
It's not meant as an act of cruelty.
It's a belief that you inhabit the spirit of the animal you're consuming.
And so that's where part of the cannibalism came from, was that you were inhabiting...
So it's just a different cultural viewpoint.
But it was one that was going to shock little grandma next door.
Here, kitty, kitty!
Here, kitty, kitty!
Nope, kitty, kitty's on the grill out back.
Now, I had something in Locals, and it seems that I missed this.
Roundhammer117 says, Viva, I sent a $10 YouTube superchat on Mark Cuban as, quote, the assassin of the gray, end quote.
You didn't read it, Mr. Fry.
I must have missed it, Ms. Scoozies.
What is the assassin of the gray?
Is that a book that I...
I'll have to Google that.
Let me just finish up the superchats before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Hold on one second.
I'm going to give everybody the link here.
Boom. Now I'm going to go back here.
Come over to Locals, people.
Before you leave, before anybody leaves, if you're not coming to Locals, smash the thumbs up button.
Make sure that you are subscribed and have notifications turned on.
Yeah, you can still have it to get Rumble Premium and the Trump Kids book.
Yeah, Mike Huckabee's book.
And I'll be live tomorrow.
What are the odds?
Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily.
Demystifying the polls, debunking the fraudsters, giving all my predictions for updated predictions in the election markets.
Made big money last week, predicted six weeks ago that the Fed would raise in September by 50 basis points.
Every economist said I was wrong.
There are people on the board, they're like, are you sure about this?
There are people that made a year's income just on that bet.
Because, yes, indeed, it went up 50 basis points.
But we'll be going through that.
And then the rest of the week, there won't be any bourbons this week because I'm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Then going to be in Richmond, Virginia, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, another civil rights case.
Then I'm defending depositions in the Tyson Foods, some types of Tyson Foods civil rights cases.
So a busy week, but we'll be back.
Sunday for Law for the People.
Next week, we'll probably have some bourbons back.
Fantastic. And I'm going to be on California time for the rest of the week as of tomorrow.
So I will still be daily live.
I just won't be at 1230.
So don't anyone be shocked.
And what else?
Oh, before...
Okay, hold on.
We'll get the super chats here.
The rumble rants.
Do you hear the dog scratching at the door?
I hear this dog.
Can someone let the dog in?
I could do that before, Tanner.
Any specific Russian speech you want.
Robert Solzice.
That's Finboy Slick.
Jane Catherine Barry 1. BBC World published article pushing conspiracy theory that Trump staged the assassination attempts.
I pulled up that tweet.
I'm going to read that.
I'm going to put that on.
Finboy Slick is one of our awesome meme makers.
He's amazing, among others.
Made a new friend today at MPP on Laura Smith.
Oh my goodness.
You know what it is?
Aviva, the dog here, heard the Haitians are coming.
No, I made a joke about feeding that dog to an alligator.
I should not make...
Hold on, I've got to let her out.
She's scratching it.
Get out!
Get out and stay out!
You'll go out!
Holy cow!
She's going to be scratching at the door.
Get back in in a second.
Okay, and then one last thing before we go, people.
I've got to go read that article.
You will want to go to...
I think I'll be back here in a second.
Boy, that's a great meme.
I'm an idiot.
Hold on.
I'm coming back.
I'm coming back.
I kicked myself because I accidentally went to the wrong screen.
Viva Fry, people.
Viva Fry for some merch.
Here, I gotta push.
Remind people we got our own merch here.
Here, go get some.
VivaFry.com fight.
And there's a bunch of other great stuff there.
Okay, now we are heading over to the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com afterparty.
That's it.
Don't be shocked, people.
I'll be on a different schedule, but I'm going to be live daily this week.
It's just going to be a different time.
Let's see what happens.
Oh, because I'm going for a PragerU Michael Knowles book club, and we're going to be reviewing The Old Man and the Sea, which I read.
Oh, great book.
You know what the best?
I read that book in the town, in that particular country, where he wrote it and wrote it about.
That's the best way to read it.
It is Cuba, right?
Yeah, yeah, of course.
I couldn't remember if it was...
No, because I know that he was on the Keys.
I'm like, oh, the Gulf Coast.
It's a beautiful little fishing town to this day.
The Old Man in the Sea was awesome.
What I love about the book is it was short, and I read it.
It was like one of the first books I ever read beginning to end in the same day when I was 13 up at my parents' cottage.
The best way to read it, you're in that little Cuban town, get a little Cuban rum, get some Cuban cigars, watch the fishermen go in and out in that small town.
That's the right way to do it.
It was good.
So stay tuned for that.
But that's what we're doing.
And then we're going to go make it a learning experience as well.
Okay. So what we're doing now, we are ending on Rumble.
And we're going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And that is it.
What else?
Okay. So now I go here.
I go local.
It's only supporters because this is the way Rumble Studios is designed.
And it's the appreciation we show to all of our supporters.