Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 20, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:46:57

Ep. 233: DoD to Use LETHAL Force? Bannon Denied First Step Act? Kamala Insults Christians & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is what happens in the last days of the night regime.
	They will never shut me up and kill me.
	I have not yet begun to fight.
	Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, the entire Justice Department.
	They're not going to shut up Trump.
	They're not going to shut up Navarro.
	They're not going to shut up Bannon.
	And they're certainly not going to shut up MAGA.
	We are at war!
	People are asking, what can we do?
	Listen. Pray for our enemies.
	I don't have time.
	Do not write a letter to me at all.
	It will not be read.
	This is a crusade of righteousness.
	Are you with us?
	Are you with us?
	I am not going to take a second to read your letters.
	I'm not.
	Because you know why?
	I don't want you taking time to write a letter.
	I want you to get to work.
	Are we onward to victory?
	Will anything stop you?
	This is all about victory.
	There's no substitute for victory here.
	Guys, no substitute for victory.
	November 5th is Judgment Day.
	January 20th, 2025 is Accountability Day.
	On the afternoon of the 20th, we're also gonna start the pick and shovel work to take apart the administrative state and to take on its rogue element, the Praetorian Guard, the deep state.
	We're gonna run'em all out of town.
	Let's pause it there.
	We'll play the whole thing.
	I will share with you the link.
	Immediately, I've checked that we are live across all of the various planes of the interwebs.
	It looks good.
	We're on the good mic sharing this in.
	What's amazing is I've gone through this transformation with a number of people.
	Alex Jones was the first one, and Mike Cernovich was another one.
	Steve Bannon is another one.
	Don't like.
	That they're bad people or something.
	And the biggest revelation was, in as much as I've ever gotten to know someone who I've never met in real life but have spent a number of hours with online, you get to know Alex Jones.
	You get to know these people who were demonized, I would say pariahs, and you understand why that was done in the first place.
	And more often than not...
	It's not because they're bad people whatsoever.
	It's actually quite the opposite.
	You don't need to sit there wasting time demonizing genuinely bad people because they do it for themselves.
	You need to do it with the people who are ideological threats to you.
	And Steve Bannon, congratulations, MSM.
	Congratulations, Biden regime.
	I never really knew who he was.
	I knew what I thought the media had said about him.
	And now I look at him and I see someone who...
	is something of a hero for the time.
	Didn't choose to be put where he is, in prison for four months.
	Not that long of a time for, you know, anybody who wants to compare him to death row inmates, but four months in jail, in prison, for defying a congressional subpoena of an unlawfully formed committee after having been deprived of all of his defenses before a corrupt, I'm fairly certain it was D.C., but I might be mistaken, court system.
	An unlawfully formed January 6th committee issuing unlawful, invalid subpoenas in which he was not allowed to raise that defense, not allowed to raise executive privilege, sent to jail to be a political prisoner for the four months leading up to the most important election in the history of America.
	And I genuinely and sincerely believe that it is that.
	Look, I'm emotionally invested.
	I'm personally invested.
	I didn't start off this way, and I never thought I would be in this position.
	If it's four more years of the Biden-Harris-turned-Harris-Walls administration, I don't know what's left of America, and I don't know what happens to the rest of the world.
	Things look good, and you can follow the polls, and you can follow the betting markets, and you can follow the catastrophic week that is following, cackling Kamala wherever she goes.
	But early voting is started now in a number of states.
	Like Bongino says, bank the vote.
	Get out there.
	Bring 10 people with you.
	And this is not like holding your nose and voting.
	This is get out.
	Be proud.
	I would say take selfies.
	But double check if you're allowed taking selfies in a state where it might not be illegal to take selfies or ballot pictures and post them to the internet.
	A lot of jackasses out there and they all seem to be Kamala Harris supporters.
	Get out there.
	Vote proudly and make it the movement.
	This is like...
	I spend the weekend thinking about it.
	I'm obsessing about it.
	I'm dreaming about it.
	It's probably not healthy.
	I'm sitting there looking at a Democrat party that once celebrated Dick Cheney as a war criminal that he is for two decades.
	And now they celebrate Dick Cheney as a white dude for Harris.
	They're celebrating Dick Cheney alliance.
	Literally an alliance with the devil.
	And you look at who is on Team Kamala, and they are sellouts, they are has-beens, they are liars, they are war criminals of the highest order.
	And you look at Team Trump, which is beyond Team Trump right now.
	Tim Walls, what was the list I put together?
	Mark Cuban, Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, the scum of the earth.
	Usher joining the crowd.
	Good for you, Usher.
	Usher, who has deep ties with P. Diddy, who on The View, what was it, two weeks ago?
	Shied away from endorsing Kamala Harris.
	He said, you vote for who you vote for.
	And he looked great doing it.
	He wasn't playing partisan politics.
	Two weeks later, I guess they found something on those ditty tapes.
	And he is now towing the political party line.
	Oh, they got George W too on this side.
	It's an amazing thing.
	And then you compare that to Donald Trump.
	J.D. Vance.
	Tim Walls accusing J.D. Vance of...
	Denigrating his hometown?
	Congratulations, Tim Walls.
	You're an idiot and you didn't read the book.
	And if you did, you don't know how to read.
	You got those scumbags versus Trump, J.D. Vance, Vivek Ramaswamy, Elon Musk, RFK Jr., James Woods.
	I forgot a lot on my list that I put together over the weekend.
	Good people.
	You know, the good people who left the Hollywood cesspool support righteousness.
	And the dirty ones who have P. Diddy tapes all up their wazoo are now supporting Kamala Harris.
	I put together a meme and I want it to echo through the ages.
	I don't often...
	Like, I'm sitting here and my wife comes into my studio, the home studio, and says, what the hell are you laughing about?
	And I said, this is what I'm laughing about.
	I've done something glorious.
	If I may say so myself.
	And I need it.
	Look at this, by the way.
	It's just so glorious.
	In case you're not up to speed on Kamala's disgusting, disastrous last week to add it to the rest of them.
	She thought this was a good idea, to scream like a cackling buffoon.
	And some people are going to say, this is evidence why we don't need hysterical, emotional, crazy women in office.
	This has nothing to do with sex or gender.
	You get up there and scream like a banjee, like an idiot, it will take your campaign down.
	Not because you're a hysterical, irrational woman, because you're an absolute unhinged lunatic.
	Howard Dean was no woman.
	And when he lost his stuff on that, when he went nuts, screaming at people like a raging buffoon, it tanked his campaign.
	Listen to this, and it's beautiful.
	It's a glorious meme.
	It's loud, because Kamala is loud.
	Should never again have the privilege of standing behind the seal of the President of the United States!
	Never again!
	I should never again have the privilege of standing behind the seal!
	It's so crazy.
	It literally hurts my ears.
	Like, not hurts my ears like Justin Trudeau.
	Justin Trudeau hurts my ears, but not physically.
	That physically hurts my ears.
	Who the hell thought that was a good idea?
	And it's so contrived, and it's so manufactured, and it's so disingenuous.
	But that's what she is, Link.
	Contrived, disingenuous, and above all else, thoroughly unhinged.
	This comes in the same week.
	Where she has the balls, and I'll say this, to accuse Trump of being unhinged.
	It's insane.
	And I think I want to have even more optimism than I already have because I think after having had a discussion with someone who I would have taken for granted would have been proud to say that they were voting for that cackling hen of an idiot, Kamala, didn't say that.
	They didn't say that they were voting.
	They certainly wouldn't be voting for...
	Big Bad Orange Man.
	But I got the impression like some people who I would have otherwise thought are the most staunch, would have been the most proud, diehard, put a first woman, black woman, Indian woman, DEI woman in the White House, wasn't.
	And so I'm drawing a lot of inspiration from that.
	Pure Evil says...
	I guess we're going to talk about it when Barnes gets here, but let me see if I can bring these up.
	Pure Evil.
	If you didn't hear it, I mean, I was obsessing over it.
	I put out a vlog yesterday.
	She would never insult Catholics.
	And then literally tells someone who said Jesus is Lord to get out of her rally.
	Oh, you wanted to go to the one that's down the street.
	The smaller one down the street.
	Because after all, it's Trump who's the one who's totally infatuated with sizes of crowds, right?
	It's all confession through projection.
	It's all hypocrisy.
	And I genuinely believe she might be too stupid to be evil.
	But evil is not necessarily like...
	Malice. Evil can be cowardice.
	And I say that as someone, you know, I know people can accuse me of being a coward, period.
	But, like, evil, there's different types of evil.
	And one of the evil is being a coward and succumbing to temptation.
	And, you know, if Kamala Harris is too dumb to be bona fide evil, like, I don't know if she goes around killing puppies at night.
	Sure as hell wouldn't be surprised with a cackling scream like that.
	She's evil in that she's playing ball for the deep state.
	Whoever just tells her to say the lines, act like a lunatic, and do whatever you need to do to get elected.
	All right, people.
	Never again!
	Never! Oh, I can't stop hearing it, and it drives me nuts.
	Now, I think one thing that could have prevented me from hearing that, people, is if I would have gotten the Faraday bag from 5G3.
	By the way, 5G Free, one of Rumble's partner products out there.
	It's amazing stuff.
	People, these are our sponsor for the night.
	We got two of them.
	60% of US adults have had their data hacked or exposed.
	That means if your data hasn't been hacked yet, you might be the lucky winner of the worst raffle ever.
	Our phones and laptops are like those shady friends who share your secrets with everyone.
	They're basically homing beacons for big tech and government tracking.
	We all know that anyhow.
	Trusting them with your data is like trusting a politician.
	Might as well believe in unicorns.
	That's why 5G Free's Faraday laptop and phone holders are here.
	They aren't just cases.
	They're like throwing your device into a digital black hole.
	EMF radiation, blocked.
	GPS and tracking, gone.
	Your data stays yours and your privacy stays off the grid where it belongs.
	Let's be real.
	The same folks who pushed Prism now want you to trust them with our data.
	We're not buying it, and neither should you.
	Head to 5Gfree.com.
	Use promo code VIVA for 15% off.
	Say goodbye to digital creepers and keep your data locked down better than your ex's password.
	All right, 5Gfree, right there, people.
	And our second sponsor.
	Here we go.
	Bring it up, people.
	This is the one that we know very well, and hopefully you have it but don't need it as opposed to need it and not having it.
	Remember event 201.
	Just before an election, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and John Hopkins ran a pandemic simulation in October 2019.
	Months later, COVID hit.
	It'll blow your mind if you didn't know this, but I think everybody watching already knew that.
	Here we go again, by the way, because it's October.
	We're on the verge of a historic election and the bird flu summit is announced.
	And what they're going to do there?
	They're just going to run the full-scale pandemic exercise coming on the 21st.
	It's going to be in New York City.
	Their playbook is the same.
	Create chaos, bring back lockdowns, and perform medical tyranny.
	Wake up.
	This could be their October surprise.
	Last time we were caught off guard, but now you don't have to be with the proven...
	Device, medical emergency kit from the wellness company.
	Every home should have at least one of these.
	They're packed with life-saving medications, ivermectin, amoxicillin, Z-Pak, all backed by experts like Dr. Pina McCullough.
	Picture this, no more frantic looking for a doctor, waiting in emergency rooms.
	You have it all, everything you need at your home.
	Protect yourself now by going to twc.health forward slash Viva.
	Promo code Viva will get you 30 bucks off and free shipping.
	Don't wait until it's too late.
	twc.health.
	Forward slash Viva.
	Promo code Viva.
	And get yours today.
	Never again.
	Oh, it's amazing, by the way.
	We might stay on both platforms all night.
	We'll see how this works out here.
	Because coming into the election night, we're going to be live streaming the election night.
	I am not teaming up with, but Eric Hundley and Mark Robert are going to be down the street from where I live doing something.
	So we're going to have a whole night of November 5th dedicated.
	And I'll be bouncing around, but we're going to have this.
	And it's going to be amazing.
	There was a reason why I was bringing that up.
	Oh yes, November.
	I don't want to be accused of the wrong date.
	The election is the November 5th election.
	It's November 5th.
	I keep getting mixed up between November 4 and November 5. By November 6th, we're going to know.
	Yes, in-person voting deadlines, November 5th.
	November 5th, Tuesday, people.
	Get out and vote.
	All right, peeps, we're live across all of the various planes of the interwebs.
	Rumble, YouTube, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Thanks for all your streams.
	Your perspective is so appreciated.
	Bella40, thank you very much for being here.
	Cheryl Gage in the house.
	Trump, do you want fries with your free speech?
	Me, yes, I do.
	Hold on one second.
	If you haven't seen that, I had that one on the backdrop.
	The thing is this.
	I can understand how people have just been indoctrinated to hate Trump.
	Like, I can understand how people listen to Trump's voice and hate his voice as much as I hate Justin Trudeau's or Kamala Harris.
	I can understand it only, you know, mutatis mutatis.
	But I say, like, it's like someone saying, yeah, I hate rib steak as much.
	I hate eating rib steak as much as I hate eating poo.
	Sorry to, like, give a graphic discussion.
	I hate eating rib steak as much as I hate eating rotten milk.
	I can understand how somebody says that, but they're wrong, okay?
	I can understand that someone thinks that they hate Donald Trump's voice and they look at this and say, what a contrived photo op.
	First of all, it is a photo op, and it's a glorious one.
	It's a troll.
	It's funny.
	When you listen to this, listen carefully.
	When he waves out the window and you hear a crowd of people cheering, I think that's what it is.
	I can understand people think they hate Donald Trump, and to them, I wish I could, like, metaphorically slap them and splash cold water in their face and say, you idiots.
	You don't understand that this man is not what you have been brainwashed into thinking that he is.
	I don't need to be brainwashed into thinking that Kamala Harris is what she is.
	She tells us this on a daily basis.
	Oh, but he made fun of the handicapped reporter because you're idiots and you believe propaganda.
	Oh, but he said suckers and losers because you're idiots because you believe propaganda.
	Oh, you wouldn't go to the funeral in France with the gravestones of the soldiers.
	You're idiots and you believe propaganda.
	Listen to this and tell me that anybody can look at this a rational person with a functioning brain and not love this man.
	Okay, let's see.
	Do you believe this?
	Look at this guy.
	He's a MAGA guy all the way.
	Okay, so for his first order, yup.
	Boy, that's a good-looking group.
	Hello, everybody.
	Listen. You hear that?
	This is not a normal situation, is it?
	What a good-looking family.
	How did you produce those good-looking kids?
	Oh, they look like the wife.
	They look like the wife.
	How are you?
	Nice to see you.
	Thank you, man.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	And there'll be no charge.
	Trump is paying for it.
	Is that okay?
	He's buying votes because you're brainwashed idiots.
	I'm allowed to do that, right?
	Let's check and make sure.
	It's everything you said it would be.
	It's going to be the best you ever made.
	I made it myself.
	Thank you, man.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Have a good time.
	Have a good time.
	That's great, isn't it?
	How cute is it?
	Next car?
	You like them both at the same time?
	Yes. I just want to pause this and just make sure everybody understands this.
	If you think you hate them, You're an idiot.
	You've been brainwashed by propaganda.
	I feel bad for you and I hope that you come out of this.
	I guess I can say I pray that one day you awaken from this.
	This man was nearly murdered three months ago.
	Took a bullet.
	And if you think that it was a staged photo op, you're an idiot and you've been watching too much propaganda.
	He was nearly fired upon again two months later.
	Can you imagine just the...
	The courage.
	I mean, look, heroes are not made.
	They're thrust into situations where they respond with heroism.
	To be able to do this and not be paralyzed with fear is not something that very many people on this earth could possibly do.
	Sitting there, smooth as a cucumber, cool as a cucumber, with humor and love.
	Hello, how are you?
	You're a good-looking guy.
	We love you.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you very much.
	I will.
	I promise.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a good time.
	Thank you very much.
	I'll see you at the White House.
	Make sure that you see him at the White House, people.
	I mean, it's a thing of beauty.
	I was going to start with that, but I figured we'd start with Steve Bannon.
	Speaking of heroes who were thrust into the circumstances and responded properly, IHalt86, gotta say those extra salty fries that Uncle Donnie was serving today probably tasted great dipped in.
	You know was the great dipped in.
	You know was the only working ice cream machine at McDonald's.
	Oh, did you know that the only working ice cream machine was in Pennsylvania?
	There's a rumor that those ice cream machines don't work for a strategic reason.
	Stefano GGGGG.
	Are Dominion voting machines being used in swing states?
	It appears mail-in ballots are much less than 2020.
	Do you feel comfortable that the level of cheating can be overcome?
	Let's screen grab that for when Barnes gets in here.
	We're going to talk about this, obviously.
	I don't want to make a mistake here, but I'm fairly certain that that is only for...
	Hold on a second.
	I just got an email from Barnes saying that it's not working.
	Let's try this here.
	That it's down for Democrats, but I believe it might be up for conservatives, Republicans.
	Robert, if you're watching, I just sent you the link again.
	Let's make sure that that one works.
	That should work.
	The margin of cheat that needs to exist in order for them to be able to cheat and...
	And not have it be believable, but be able to succeed doing it.
	Barnes says a half a percent, maybe?
	One percent?
	Make it beyond one percent, people.
	I don't know what otherwise swing states might not be in play now.
	Or, sorry, let me rephrase that.
	What otherwise not swing states could be in play now.
	So that's what I meant.
	So it's like five swing states.
	I would love to see a state that typically goes blue go red.
	It needs to be decisive, overwhelming.
	Get everyone on earth you know to go out there and vote.
	Make it a movement of pride to save America.
	And I swear to you, it's happening.
	I can feel it, but I don't want to jinx it.
	And certainly don't want anybody getting cocky and thinking it's in the bag.
	It's not in the bag.
	Like they said in that horrible movie, the first one there, American Pie.
	You don't score until you score.
	And it's not over until November 6th.
	Get out there and make sure that there's going to be no red mirage.
	That it's going to be a red freaking tsunami.
	That no one will be able to say, oh, look at that.
	We found just enough amount of votes in the middle of the night to steal it.
	It's not going to happen.
	Alright, Barnes is coming in here and I see a super chat over in Commitube.
	Florida Dad, haven't seen him in a while.
	Viva, been away for a while studying.
	But I can report I passed the bar.
	Florida Dad Esquire now, by the way.
	Bless you.
	The New Testament specifically equates cowards with murderers.
	It's very much a sin.
	That is Rev 21.8.
	I don't know what the REV stands for.
	Robert, I think I'm becoming religious.
	It's a crazy thing.
	I keep saying, I don't believe in God, and yet I still think we witnessed an act of God.
	I'm still saying, I'm not religious, but my goodness, the Bible has a lot of the...
	Maybe it has all, but it has a lot of the lessons of life that everybody needs to know.
	And whenever I want to find an insightful...
	Not an expression, a maximum something, I just go Google Bible verses with the word and it comes up.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	You know, we're back to that won't let me use my camera again.
	Oh, you know what?
	I used the wrong...
	I'm going to hop out and come back.
	Come back.
	I'll read a few more chats.
	Wojna534 says, With this great community, $1 to GoFund support Tatiana Dayton.
	What is $1?
	Let me see what this is here.
	I will only endorse this or donate to it once I've been able to verify it.
	Let me see here.
	Opening it up.
	After Michael's loss.
	What do we got?
	This is, We recently lost a brilliant mind and a beloved family member, Michael Kleeder.
	Unexpectedly passing has left his wife, Tanya.
	With many obligations to handle a loan, Tatiana.
	Okay, I'll have a look at this, but everyone, you can check that out.
	That is from Wojna at Rumble.
	And let me see what else.
	Oh, by the way, Florida dad, congratulations.
	Although they say, be careful what you wish for.
	Now you're going to be an attorney in Florida.
	I don't know if it's any worse in Florida than it is elsewhere, but...
	Welcome to the wide world of law.
	Stay in it long enough to get the experience you need, but not long enough to destroy and crush your soul.
	All right, Barnes is back, and I love it.
	I'm like six inches tall of him.
	Robert, what do you have him back to that says it looks like Pilates, one-month Pilates?
	No, if a pirate, I must be.
	So not Pilates, but it's one of the biographers.
	Or biographies.
	I'm one of the great pirates, a very sort of democratizing institution in ways that has never been really fully appreciated by scholars and the public alike.
	For example, I mean, up to a half of all pirates were freed slaves.
	Like, there's all these places where they keep trying to stick, minority actors where they don't fit, and then yet you watch a pirate show or movie, and half of them are missing.
	Because it's one of the big stories, self-free slaves that created their own little pirate armies in the Caribbean.
	And it's one of the fascinating experiments in sort of democratic empowerment, little d democratic empowerment of its own kind.
	But did you get my link?
	I did.
	I texted it to you.
	Hold on, let me see.
	Let me see here.
	Don't tell me yet.
	Barnes. What's...
	I... Oh, Fort...
	No, I don't think I saw this one.
	Hold on.
	See if you can play it.
	Oh, I can play it.
	Let me do this here.
	I'll send it to myself.
	But hold on.
	While you're saying that, Robert, so Pirates of the Caribbean should not have had Johnny Depp as the main actor.
	It should have had somebody else?
	Oh, it was a mixed race.
	But it should have had, you know, about half the actors if it was historically accurate.
	It's not trying to be, obviously.
	But it's that they were ex-slaves, freed slaves.
	I mean, it was its own form of slave insurrection that has been mostly historically absent.
	And it was its own kind of sort of populist revolt of its own form in ways that has never been fully understood in the general academy or in the broader public.
	Well, I've got this here.
	This looks like a short.
	I didn't listen.
	Okay, so I missed this.
	I'm going to unmute it.
	All right, let's see what this is.
	they're playing a little rocky top here on the hill That was for this past Saturday.
	I can't pretend to even know what that is.
	That is the University of Tennessee defeating the University of Alabama in the college football game.
	It is one of the greatest, oldest, historic rivalries in all of world sports, at least in my opinion.
	So this is a great little Tennessee.
	They combine the flag with Tennessee football imagery, very apropos.
	And Rocky Top is the anthem song sung by Tennessee football fans.
	So whenever there's anything to celebrate, folks will be singing Rocky Top.
	I still think the best song of any team, of any brand, of any sport, anywhere in the world.
	But special reason to celebrate.
	And they finish the celebration when they win with a cigar.
	That's a tradition going back...
	Oh, more than half a century.
	So to all my Tennessee friends and family, it was a good day.
	And what they chant is they don't give a darn about the whole state of Alabama, whole state of Alabama, whole state of Alabama, because we're from Tennessee.
	Whenever you win.
	So, great win by the Tennessee Football Team.
	Robin, what do we have on the menu for tonight while I pull up one thing that I know we're going to look at?
	What's on the menu?
	We have the case of Robbie Roberson.
	In Texas, the issues that are happening with Title VII cases, one is going up to the Supreme Court about how employers are getting away with discriminating against people on religious grounds.
	I had another case.
	It's pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's becoming a broader pattern throughout the country where federal courts are converting Title VII cases, especially in the COVID vaccine context, into cases.
	Heresy trials and inquisitions into people's political and religious beliefs as a precondition of them having access to a jury trial.
	We qualified immunity.
	Two separate cases.
	One is a petition that I am bringing to the Supreme Court of the United States concerning how they're shifting the burden of proof in qualified immunity cases and extending and expanding too far immunity for Rogue government agents,
	as well as there's a case already before the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling on concerning a Texas citizen journalist and the very problematic use of a particular Texas criminal law.
	We have the Defense Department memorandum that was, by a slight margin, the most voted topic at the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com board today.
	That sort of went viral with Ron Paul and some others talking about it.
	There's been some misunderstanding, I think, about what exactly that is.
	There were people who thought it meant that the Biden administration had authorized intelligence officers to go out and murder Americans.
	The RICO up before the Supreme Court, when is an economic injury somehow not an economic injury, according to the corporate defendants caught doing bad acts?
	True threats, a disturbing case before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals trying to undermine First Amendment freedoms by extending and expanding true threats jurisdiction beyond its original intentions.
	When is a curfew?
	Constitutional. When must a federal judge recuse and disqualify themselves?
	One of the rare instances of the appeals court scolding a lower court for not recusing.
	Prohibit somebody from suing in another court.
	They're called anti-suit injunctions.
	Those cases also reached the appellate courts this past week.
	RICO, what RICO means in that broader context, and as well the penny trial that is about to start in New York City.
	I said I'll be covering it, following it, but I don't think I'll be doing the day-long, all-day coverage.
	It is being broadcast.
	It's being streamed?
	I have no idea.
	I'm fairly certain it is.
	Let me bring up the one that I know everybody was flipping out for.
	I still think I...
	It's an amazing thing.
	It's 50-50 of people who are intelligent, who I've known are good faith, reasonable people who are disagreeing over the panic to be placed in this.
	So the news of the week was that this Department of Defense directive issued a revised directive, revised as of September of this year, which...
	Apparently... Oh, sorry.
	That's not the right part of it.
	It was this one.
	Which apparently adds this.
	It says, the Secretary of Defense may approve of any type of requested permissible assistance described in paragraph 3.2.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	The decision to approve requests for these types of permissible assistance described in paragraph 3.2 to law enforcement agencies and other civil authorities are reserved to the Secretary of Defense.
	And then it says it's adding assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury.
	And this was in the broader context of the military responding to domestic disturb or upheaval disturbances.
	So, like, I tried to make sense of it.
	I don't think I'm going to be able to.
	What is the context in which this directive is being issued?
	Who is it being issued to?
	And what new powers does it give them over powers that they already had?
	It doesn't give any new powers.
	And in fact, limits existing powers.
	So this particular directive derives back from 2007.
	And it was dealing with the implications of the Patriot Act spying on Americans.
	And it was meant to restrict the activities that could lead.
	To spying on Americans by various intelligence assets at various federal agencies was revised by Barack Obama in 2016 and revised now a third time by Joe Biden and President Biden in 2024 in September.
	What this provision says is that if an intelligence asset from any of the federal government is requested to assist With a local or state investigation or case in any manner, and that federal agent has the authority and the means already of engaging in lethal force,
	that federal agent, he or she, is not allowed to work with the local or state agency unless the Secretary of Defense approves it.
	It's the Biden administration not wanting to get implicated.
	And an agent doing something in a SWAT team raid or one of these coordinating, cooperating cases, especially if they come from the intelligence apparatus in some capacity.
	So I don't know what triggered this particular concern within the Biden administration.
	Maybe there's some blowback from some SWAT raids that have happened over the past six months.
	Where there probably were intelligence sources that are considered intelligence sources.
	That's a broader capacity than just the CIA and the NSA.
	Like in the case of the gentleman who was shot and killed.
	Facebook posts.
	Yeah, exactly.
	One guy over Facebook posts.
	Another guy in another situation with the I think in Arkansas.
	So that may have precipitated this.
	But first of all, A directive cannot create new law or authority.
	That doesn't exist.
	A directive is interpreting existing law.
	So the president can't, through a declaration, say, hereby I declare a new law.
	That's the legislative branch of government.
	And the executive branch can only do it to the degree certain powers have been delegated to them.
	If people read the entire document, which almost all the people jumping to this conclusion have not read the history of the document, And haven't read the whole document.
	And so they're jumping to the wrong conclusions.
	And honestly, it's a complete red herring and a distraction.
	I get, you know, Ron Paul doesn't like the national security apparatus being involved at all in anything concerning Americans.
	And I share his concerns in that respect.
	But this was a misunderstanding of this provision.
	So again, you look at it, it's not giving anybody new authority.
	It's actually limiting the authority.
	It's saying if you're an intelligence asset, you cannot work with local or state government on anything if you have lethal force because your right or authority to use it might be brought in by the local and state authority.
	That's how that happens.
	Because it will then blow back on us if it goes AWOL unless the Secretary of Defense personally authorizes and approves it.
	It's control.
	It's making sure intelligence assets aren't just...
	Working with local and state governments on a regular routine whenever they want to.
	Whatever their motivation was.
	I get people's skepticism of the Biden administration and so forth, but some of the legal interpretation was just really bad that was out there.
	It was unfortunate, but no, the Defense Department memo does not give new authority for the Biden administration to go murder you.
	This is not the case.
	Good enough.
	I'm reading that Apparently, Robert Gouveia disagrees, and I'll go listen.
	I haven't heard or seen what he said, but usually he just covers it briefly.
	To my knowledge, he hasn't done a deep dive on this.
	No, and I actually haven't heard what Gouveia had to say about it either.
	I'll go listen.
	A lot of people just rush to conclusions because they have this deep skepticism, understandable skepticism of the Biden administration.
	But it reminds me a lot of the WHO treaty, where everybody was running around saying, this will magically govern us tomorrow.
	Without going through Congress.
	The president can just unilaterally declare things that the Constitution has long prohibited him from doing.
	It's like, no.
	If you have a president that just wants to violate the law, that can always happen.
	But you can't create new law by a Defense Department directive.
	And what these directives do is channel in authority.
	And you really dig into this.
	This is a limitation on authority.
	Limitation on action.
	That's probably a good one, frankly.
	Because otherwise, these officers and agents are happy to be gung-ho and saddle up on SWAT raids that they shouldn't probably be on.
	If there's someone that is authorized within the federal government to have the authority to use lethal force, but when they use it with the state and local, because that's what this whole paragraph is talking about, state and local investigations, that legal authority will come from the state and local authority that they're kind of deputizing the federal officer.
	The feds don't want to be implicated in that for whatever reason.
	Maybe good reasons, maybe bad reasons.
	But it's not an extension or expansion to mass murder you.
	There's a bunch of trolls in the chat, which is always a good sign.
	Okay, fantastic.
	People want to believe dumb stuff.
	There's people running around saying the elections are all going to be stolen.
	You're wasting your time.
	And what they're not admitting is their real intention is they're complicit.
	With the bad actors.
	Because why would somebody go around telling you that the election is guaranteed to be stolen?
	What's their intent?
	What action do they want you to take?
	They want you to not vote, not participate, not care, not be engaged.
	In other words, they're working for the other side that they claim to be working against.
	And they make stuff up.
	For example, I've been a big critic of Dominion machines and machines in general.
	Ask a lot of these people that claim that Dominion machines will run the entire election.
	How many counties are Dominion machines even located in in America?
	Hint, about 90% of counties, they're not even located in.
	So how are they going to manipulate the vote in 90% of the counties where they're not located in?
	These people don't have answers.
	They buy red herrings and they run off on wild goose chases.
	There's people running around saying that, oh, there's millions of illegals on the voting rolls and that's been proven.
	No, it hasn't.
	That hasn't been proved.
	There's things to worry about in the election, a whole bunch of them.
	But these are not the ones to be worried about.
	And people keep chasing red herrings and black pill doomers.
	And what they're really doing is they're helping the other side.
	And I don't think they're in good faith anymore.
	Some of them are just grifters.
	Like, these people accuse me of being a grifter.
	It's confession through protection.
	These people are grifters.
	They're telling you they're grifters.
	If they're accusing me and Richard Barris of being a grifter, they're telling you that they are the grifter.
	That they are the liar.
	That they are the fraudster.
	And quit buying every Doomer thing that comes down the pipeline.
	Be concerned, be conscientious, be proactive, but don't buy into every Doomer black pill that somebody tries to feed you.
	When I read it, the analogy I had, or at least my experience was in Quebec, people suddenly became aware of a law that said that you could force vaccinate a general population.
	And I was like, look at that.
	They just passed this in the dead of the night.
	Nobody even knew.
	And I'm like, that law had been on the books for two decades.
	And that's also what should be shocking about it.
	I was going back and reading.
	First, it didn't strike me as the government needing any authorization to use lethal force on Americans.
	They've done it repeatedly.
	And so when I went to look at that and the wording seemed to be consistent with prior directives that had existed for a little while, I'm like...
	I thought it was a bit of a red hair.
	There's beginning provisions that say it's still limited by all other statutory and constitutional restrictions.
	So there's reasons to wonder why they're revising these things.
	And I think that's where the skepticism should have been directed.
	Why are they revising?
	What's their goal and objective?
	But the goal wasn't to have mass execution of Americans with secret authorization overnight.
	You have the revision in conjunction with the likes of Ratskin, Jamie Raskin, saying we're going to have civil war conditions.
	Hypothetically, if you knew that that's what they wanted to do, let's just say you want to connect them.
	But this is a restriction.
	This makes it harder for people to get approval and authorization to do things.
	That's what this does.
	This says now you can't do it on your own, local agency.
	You can't local office.
	You've got to go all the way up to the Secretary of Defense and get his direct approval.
	So this is because they don't like people engaging in things for whatever reason they're uncomfortable with.
	Maybe the motivation is people who are doing conscientious work, white hat work with local agencies exposing true corruption.
	Maybe that's their goal is to preclude them from helping in those cases.
	Or maybe they just don't like the blowback for people going AWOL.
	Whatever their motivation, this was a limitation on power, not an extension or expansion of it.
	Now, it segues into what, you know, not to get to doom-pilled, and maybe this is a little bit early, just talking about the election now.
	The question, I have a few questions.
	Technically speaking or officially speaking, there are five swing states or are there seven swing states?
	I mean, it depends on how you characterize a swing state.
	So, currently a swing state is considered a state that has switched hands.
	In the Trump era.
	So in 2016 or 2020.
	Going back to ones that he won in 2016 and then lost in 2020.
	Those are your typical identified swing states.
	But there are other states that can become swing states that might just be close.
	In other words, states that swing from one party to the other.
	And that's the only definition.
	And which ones count?
	Depend on how you assess the probability of those states being competitive.
	So in some people's, there's a consensus, relatively speaking, that Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin are swing states.
	There's some people that would say Florida and North Carolina are swing states.
	That Republicans, that Trump could lose those.
	There are those on the more conservative side that say New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, and New Hampshire are swing states because in either one of the last two elections they've been close and might again be close.
	So the only thing that excludes a swing state is a state that is consistently voted by double digits or more for one party or the other.
	So, you know, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Wyoming, California, New York.
	New Jersey.
	These are not realistically considered swing states in the Trump era.
	So that's all it really means.
	Okay. And now, going into the election, I'm noticing only on predicted that the predicted electoral college difference is now like the most expected one is 65 or 64 to 105 or give or take.
	There's got to be some mathematical calculation as to which is the most likely one based on the number of...
	What's the word?
	Electoral College, depending on the state.
	Which states are, in theory, up for grabs?
	I think the most, the broadest category would be those 10 states.
	So, Florida.
	Most people don't consider Florida competitive, but there's some on the Democratic side that do.
	Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona.
	And on the conservative side, they would include, they would add to that Maine, New Hampshire, a few would even throw in New Mexico and Minnesota.
	So up to 12 states that could change hands from the last election.
	And I'm just looking at...
	I'm looking at polymarket for the popular vote.
	It's got Kamala Harris getting the popular vote at 66%.
	I mean, that is not a sure bet, but you think there's no reasonable chance that Trump can get a popular vote victory in this election?
	No, I've already forecast that he will actually win the popular vote.
	I'll have an updated forecast on Tuesday.
	Usually we do what are the odds with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily.
	You can find him on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
	Also, his public polling project, if you want to get honest, accurate polling from a sincere, authentic, accurate pollster, you can support the public polling project, and you're the only client or customer that you can support the public polling project at People's Pundit Daily.
	And you can find him on Locals, Rumble, YouTube.
	But it'll probably be Tuesday at 2 p.m.
	Eastern. We'll do the latest breakdown.
	There because tomorrow I've got to go to court in LA.
	Then Wednesday I've got to go to court in Seattle.
	I might have to go to court in Philly on Friday.
	So it might be a busy week, as they say.
	But I put out detailed predictions.
	Also, if people want all the details of what I'm recommending, you can go to sportspicks.locals.com where we post all the election picks.
	I've got all those posted for every single state.
	The margin of victory, Senate races, House races, the Electoral College vote, the popular vote margin, because you can vote now because of Cauchy, because of what we talked about a couple of weeks ago legally, was that the reason the Biden administration, my belief, that they were suppressing the availability of political betting markets and prediction markets in the United States.
	Was because they provide a counter to the public narrative that tries to script a story and usually in the favor of the Democratic candidate in the modern era.
	And the prediction markets can be a counterpoint to that because people get to put their money where their mouth is and you get to see what people really think in that capacity.
	And as long as the betting markets were mostly global and inaccessible to the ordinary American on an easy basis.
	Then the net effect was you weren't getting as much of a sampling of American opinion through the prediction markets that have, as a whole, been more accurate than most other methods and mechanisms of prediction of whatever kind of event is being thought about or considered or contemplated.
	But Calshi won their legal suit, and so Calshi and now Interactive Brokers, two different U.S.-based websites, they're one of the most popular apps in the country right now is Calshi.
	And people are pouring money into it.
	So much so that the Wall Street Journal and some social media folks started doing smear and hit pieces, trying to dox a guy.
	One of them they claimed that he was a Montreal Canadian.
	Somehow that made him really bad, that he was a Montreal Frenchman.
	Somehow he was magically, miraculously manipulating all the betting markets of the entire world.
	What happened, as soon as Americans got the chance to bet money where their mouth is at places like Kalshi, K-A-L-S-H-I.com, or places like Interactive Brokers, along with Polymarket, along with Predicted, along with BetOnline, along with BetUS, along with BetFair, along with all the British bookies, all of a sudden, global money started tracking what U.S. money was doing.
	And U.S. money was screaming everybody's understating, undervaluing Trump.
	That people in their ordinary, everyday communities see the Trump that shows up and serves them fries at the local McDonald's, not the Trump that's trying to be caricatured by the mainstream press.
	And they see a Kamala Harris that is just a dumbed-down version of Hillary Clinton, a dumbed-down, more diverse version of Hillary Clinton.
	And so they just, as soon as they could...
	Most of the money were small bets.
	The ordinary people are not making huge bets.
	Now, some of them are subscribers to sportspicks.lovegoals.com, but a lot of them have been active in the markets now for over a year, have already cashed in.
	You could have got Trump 18 months ago at 10% to win the presidency.
	Well, that was one of the bets I put out, and I made a lot of money.
	And I said short DeSantis, some other things.
	A lot of bets of those are already cashed.
	Not all of them, but more often than not.
	And so once they got access to that, all of a sudden, the whole world was like, hold on a second.
	I mean, all the bookies started paying attention to it.
	A lot of the global money started paying attention to it.
	And they're saying, the people who really care and who have a reason to care about making sure they don't lose their money are saying at a record rate, Trump is going to win this thing.
	Trump's going to win a lot of the swing states.
	Trump might even win the popular vote.
	The Senate was going to go Republican in the House.
	Which everybody in the media was saying was going to stay Democratic, would actually go Republican.
	And that's what started moving the money.
	And it so frightened and terrified them that they tried to go into polymarket and manipulated themselves and failed.
	And so then they started spinning this false tale that right-wingers are manipulating the betting markets to try to create this false impression that Trump should have a lead.
	I mean, whenever you...
	I don't know.
	But that's why the Biden administration weaponizing the legal system to suppress accurate information.
	It was like another form of censorship just by disguise, by not allowing ordinary Americans to put money where their mouth is about what they think is going to happen in the election.
	And thanks to Kalshi, the government lost.
	They went begging the higher courts to please intervene and stop this from going on for the next two weeks.
	They're not getting the higher courts to take debate as yet.
	And you see now why in the real world.
	It's another example of lawfare as a tool of suppression of dissent was prohibiting the availability of prediction and betting markets for the U.S. election.
	And actually, just before we get into the natural segue, which is going to be Arizona.
	Hypothetically, Trump gets the popular vote, but what would the numbers look like?
	Based on prior years, you had allegedly 81 million for Biden in 2020 to Trump's 73. What do the numbers look like?
	75. So what do they look like in 2024 or they expect it to look like?
	Well, it depends on turnout.
	So that you could have Trump win the popular vote, but he may not get more than 75 million votes if there's just a lot fewer votes this time cast.
	And there's some reason to believe that may happen.
	So there's some experts estimating only 145 million votes.
	Why would any expert be projecting that Trump votes would be less than 2020?
	If anything, I would imagine people would be more stoked this year.
	They're estimating fewer people are going to vote, period.
	And that will impact both sides.
	So that they're just estimating that the degree of turnout that happened in 2020, which was extraordinary, is not going to repeat itself.
	And that you're going to see a drop-off, a decline in overall turnout.
	And some of that may be the ease with which people could vote by mail-in voting.
	Typically in elections, the enthusiasm has mattered in presidential elections because a lot of people who say they're going to vote just don't vote.
	Unless they're really intently committed to it.
	The issue was whether mail-in voting made enthusiasm irrelevant because it was so easy.
	Everybody just went and did it.
	Now that it's not so easy, does everybody go and line up for two hours and vote?
	Does everybody remember to do it?
	Maybe they think, oh, I'll do it tomorrow when it's a little bit better.
	They never get around to it.
	I'm going with ex-subguy here.
	I don't think that's what's going to happen this year.
	I think turnout is going to be huge.
	I think so as well.
	I think a lot of people...
	Oh, it's definitely going to be down overall, at least so far.
	All the early voting data, mail-in voting data, public opinion polling survey data suggests that we're not going to hit the almost 160 million people that voted in 2020.
	And our voting age population, our voting eligible population is larger.
	So just the growth of the population, you would think we would go over $1.60.
	It's looking more...
	I thought we were going to hit...
	You know, somewhere around 155, 156.
	I thought it would be down, but not down a whole lot.
	It may be at 150 or below.
	Now, the question is, you're right, who did it disproportionately hit?
	Now, here's like somewhere the votes go.
	Remember those people who've died in the last four years, right?
	So there's some Trump voters that literally are no longer around.
	You know, and that's probably several million.
	So in order to replace that, you need new voters who come into the election to replace that.
	So just people passing away takes a portion of the electorate out each year.
	And then the replacement voters determine how many of those turn out.
	Maybe a bunch of the replacement voters don't vote, don't really care.
	But maybe it disproportionately hurts Harris.
	That's where a lot of people are trying to decipher these early voting data, mail-in voting data in states that have it, states that have a better history of that being predictive.
	Not all states do.
	So it's a little bit of a tricky art.
	But from the preliminary data, it does look like fewer Americans will vote in this presidential election as a percentage.
	If I had to guess, though, I would bet that there'd be more than 75 million Trump voters this time around, because back when they hit those numbers in 2020, I don't think Republicans were the ones voting in by mail early because of it being easy.
	So I think there'll be more than 75 million Trump votes this year, if I had to bet.
	I'm looking to see if there's a market for that, but I don't think there is.
	They don't have a specific number.
	I don't even think they have percentages.
	They just have whether he'll win the popular vote or not.
	Get out and vote, people.
	All right, now, speaking of getting out and vote, and make sure you take 10 people with you.
	Arizona, I want to know what on earth has to happen for Carrie Lake to beat Ruben Gallego in Arizona.
	And I just started looking into it, Robert, this fact check about his ties to cartel, and I was less inclined to believe it.
	Before I read the fact check that I am now, the fact check says that it's pants on fire what Carrie Lake said, that he's got links to the cartel.
	His father was convicted of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute.
	His uncle was murdered in Mexico.
	His dad was from Mexico.
	His mother is from Colombia.
	And they fact check Carrie Lake is being pants on fire despite Gallego saying, yeah, my dad was arrested.
	Possession with intent to traffic.
	Uncle was killed in Mexico.
	I didn't want to know any more details of that.
	I never asked.
	What is known about the allegations of Gallego's history and what has to happen in Arizona for Carrie Lake to win?
	She's at like 17% or 20% on Cal sheet poly market and predicted all of these.
	Despite everyone saying it's 43% to 47% and...
	I appreciate that that doesn't mean it should be more to 50-50 on the markets, but what does she have to do, and is she not wildly undervalued as far as betting goes?
	So, I mean, that was what we predicted last week did come true this week.
	It's another example of using the legal system to try to suppress and censor information.
	The Gallego campaign, and Gallego himself personally, was trying to keep his divorce record secret.
	The Arizona Supreme Court of Appeals said they should have never been kept secret in the first place, and the Arizona Supreme Court rejected his emergency appeal, so those records are now public.
	But it didn't show what...
	It wasn't as damning or damning at all.
	There was an allegation in their divorce agreement papers that the parties agreed to note substantial history of domestic violence, which some lawyers suggest is an indication of domestic violence, but they agreed to that so that one person doesn't get prejudiced in the courts.
	I don't know if you have any particular take on that.
	I think the reason why he tried to keep it secret was primarily the timing of his divorce.
	That, you know, that basically he decided to abandon his wife when she was nine months pregnant and take up with the person he was probably already having an affair with who apparently worked in his office.
	So, you know, it's just sleazy Democratic kind of behavior.
	Now, there's no question of his familial ties to drug cartels, especially in Mexico.
	And the only issue there then is, do you extend that to Colombian drug cartels?
	You don't have to watch the Netflix show Narcos to know that the two are indistinguishable and have been now for about 40 years.
	That they work their hand in hand.
	They don't grow the cocaine down there in Sonoma.
	So who are they getting it from?
	So the media fact-checking, trying to disprove that.
	Mostly, the media has run very effective interference on his behalf, and he's using his name, Gallego, to get a lot of working-class Hispanic Mexican-American votes there in Arizona.
	And that's the reason, in part, he is being sort of inflated a bit in the public opinion surveys, in my opinion.
	But he has benefited from a lack of investigative review and prior court complicity in covering up.
	The true nature of who and what he is.
	Not just ideologically, but in his family ancestry, but also his behavior as a congressman.
	And as a congressman, he decides to dump his wife on...
	I mean, put this way, if that was a Republican, if that was Lake who did that, it would have been top news for three months.
	And so it just shows you the degree of disparity in the media coverage.
	And in this case, the courts were, at least for a while, thankfully not all the way through, I had another question there, however.
	The issue about the settlement documents between the spouses saying no meaningful or no substantial history of domestic violence, is that par for the course for any spousal agreement?
	Or when you see that, do flags go up?
	I've never seen it in a case that didn't involve domestic violence.
	Put that way.
	People are doom-pilling and saying Katie Hobbs is in charge of the Arizona election again, so Carrie Lake is done for.
	That's only partially true.
	So Katie Hobbs has control at a state level, but the state really controls very little of the functional election apparatus in Arizona.
	That is heavily controlled at the county level and often has great control at the precinct level.
	And so we'll see what happens in terms of voter registration, voter turnout.
	But so far, if there was a case of questionable ballots coming in, or Republicans all waiting until Election Day in Arizona to vote, which helped make a disparate impact on the Election Day vote in 2022 when machines broke down and the like.
	We should be seeing it in the early voting and mail-in data that's already available in Arizona, as well as the registration data.
	And instead, all the registration data has trended Republican.
	It's the evidentiary way you could prove your case from a court perspective.
	And when you look at it, if there's some secret plan to steal it, it's got to be being kept secret from the people who need to implement the plan.
	So, in fact, it's quite evident that Democrats believe the 2020 election was really on the up and up.
	They don't believe they stole anything.
	They don't believe mail-in voting had really anything to do with the higher turnout.
	They think, well, it was a pandemic, so it was just making sure those people could vote without risking their lives.
	That's it.
	And so, even though mail-in voting has fallen off a cliff in states where it was new and novel in 2020...
	They're saying, oh, that's no big deal.
	Those people are just going to vote early.
	Well, what happens when they don't turn up to vote early?
	Oh, don't worry, they're going to vote on Election Day.
	And what about the fact that the voter registration rolls are showing these massive shifts towards Republicans?
	That they just ignore.
	And they say, well, it's because all the Democrats decide to vote, register unaffiliated this year.
	I mean, it's because they've convinced themselves that...
	2020 was on the up and up, that there were no bogus mail-in ballots, that none of those were, or alternatively, even if you didn't think they were bogus, that those were people who only voted because they were sent and mailed a ballot in states that don't historically do that for everybody in the state.
	And even here in Nevada, where everybody still gets a ballot, two things have happened.
	The voters' rolls got purged.
	So for the first time in a decade that I have lived here, Because they've been sending out mail-in ballots all along.
	I only received a ballot for my name.
	I'd always received multiple ballots and multiple people's names at my address, even though they hadn't lived there in 20 years.
	They finally actually did purge the voter rolls here.
	And consequently, I only got one legit ballot.
	And the ballot's being returned, the ballot's being requested, the early vote that took place, massive decline and dropout in Democratic voter participation.
	So, you know, there's these people that actually believe ridiculous things that basically undermine those of us who care about election integrity because they say things that are provably false.
	And I saw somebody saying, well, Dominion Smart today.
	Dominion Smartmatic.
	And I was being sent these posts.
	I was like, Dominion doesn't own Smartmatic.
	That whole thing changed years ago.
	Quit saying it.
	I mean, you're so lazy, you're going to repeat a dumb lie that got a whole bunch of people in unnecessary difficulty?
	I mean, you know, again, I hate machines.
	I think we should have paper ballots.
	I think they should be counted manually.
	I'm opposed to them.
	I've always been opposed to them.
	That doesn't mean that there's this easy, you can just manufacture however many ballots you want.
	You can just print them up.
	You know, I mean, some people say, oh, they already printed them up.
	They're bringing back the China thing.
	All these things are designed to get you to not vote.
	All these things are designed to help the other side that they claim to be working against.
	Ask yourself, what action do they want you to take?
	Based on the information they're giving you.
	And that should tell you what their real intentions are.
	Their real motivations are.
	It ain't good.
	It ain't on your side.
	And so like some of the election law questions people had asked about is, you know, people raising questions about machine flipping votes.
	That's why there's a paper receipt proof of that in multiple jurisdictions.
	And you can catch it.
	If a machine, if that's happening with any machine, you say, hold on a second, this doesn't accurately reflect my vote.
	You tell them and they fix it.
	So that's the point of getting paper receipts.
	By the way, the people who've argued for paper receipts forever, to their credit, have been Democrats.
	Republicans originally didn't want paper receipts.
	So just a little reminder of how this all evolved.
	So illegals aren't on the rolls.
	The machines can't easily fix elections by themselves.
	You need votes to pack the ballot box.
	You can't just say, okay, I got 2,000 ballots.
	I'm just going to stick them in here.
	When there's not 2,000 people on the voter rolls that have been voted.
	When they're not even registered to vote now.
	So, I mean, there are things to pay attention to.
	The highlighted concerns, in my opinion, are still the same.
	Which is, are we going to do meaningful signature match checks on the elections?
	Now, interesting, so far, like in Alabama, that case that went forward that we talked about last week, the federal district court, the...
	It did enjoin the state of Alabama from going forward because of how it unfolded.
	In other words, so Alabama makes this big deal saying we found a bunch of people who aren't qualified to vote on the rolls.
	It turned out 90% of them were in fact qualified to vote.
	This is why you've got people just running down every rabbit hole over and over again of Doomer black pill theories end up undermining and sabotaging legitimate questions about election integrity by pushing The wrong story and the wrong narrative and chasing various red herrings around.
	I was curious to see what the evidentiary record was, and then it turned out the evidentiary record didn't support Alabama's position very well.
	It's like, okay, that mistake shouldn't have happened in the first instance.
	They shouldn't have made such a huge deal out of it.
	Look at how we're defending the election.
	We found these 50,000 bogus voters.
	If it turns out 45 of the 50 belong on the voter rolls and you're wrong.
	That's where it's important to focus.
	But where there is still legitimate issues, still ongoing litigation, most of it has been wrapped up.
	But one case that will likely reach the Supreme Court is several of Robert Kennedy's cases.
	One of them is out of Michigan that was filed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where several federal judges dissented.
	Of course, the federal judges said they have new excuses, by the way.
	The new excuse, because the old one was, if you sued in spring, the case wasn't ripe.
	If you sued in summer, the case was already moot.
	If you sued in fall, by golly, that's latches.
	You should be smacked around for even bringing the suit, sanctioned for it.
	And in general, you never have standing when you need it.
	Here in Nevada, for example, there are still a few people left on the rolls that don't belong there, according to a very credible claim, a credible lawsuit.
	The district court judge said, no, you don't have any standing to enforce it.
	It's like, well, then who does have standing?
	It's a good point.
	Standing is still one of the major hurdles to constitutional enforcement in this country.
	It has a bogus doctrine invented by lazy judges wanting to play Pontius Pilate rather than deal with their duties to enforce the Constitution.
	Even in controversial cases.
	So there are case examples like that.
	But what Robert Kennedy is pursuing is he's saying, look, I have a First Amendment right.
	This is a great theory that his lawyers came up with, which is forcing me on the ballot when I am now withdrawing from the ballot in that state is compelling me to engage in speech.
	And that's a violation of my...
	First Amendment rights.
	Because you're putting me on the ballot.
	Is me speaking?
	Is me saying, I am Robert Kennedy.
	Please vote for me.
	I have an affiliation with this party.
	I am seeking the nomination.
	I'm seeking the elector's nomination for the presidency.
	He goes, I'm not.
	So you're compelling speech.
	Well, how did the district federal courts get out of it?
	How do they weasel their way out of it?
	They weaseled their way out of it by saying, oh, Ray Judicata.
	Ray Judicata.
	They're two excuses.
	We've already decided it.
	Yeah, the state court decided it.
	I was like, no, the state court didn't really.
	And that can't be Ray Judicata.
	I mean, so if the state court confirms and affirms the violation of your constitutional rights, now the federal courts can't do anything about it when the entire purpose of federal civil rights laws was to enforce it against corrupt state judges?
	Makes no sense.
	The other excuse they had was...
	The way the case was brought was that it's too close to the election.
	It's either too early, hey, you don't know what's going to happen yet, or now it's too late.
	So it's a version of the rightness latches excuse.
	But they're taking the Supreme Court saying, don't get involved in an election 60 days before the election, judges, unless it's really compelling.
	As now their latest pretext to avoid any case where the state is playing games with the ballot.
	But several dissenting judges laid out the intellectual argument that obviously Kennedy's going to take up the Supreme Court.
	They may take post-election because of who they are, but I think may affirm that the candidate controls whether his name is on the ballot next to a party, not the party.
	One of the questions the smart federal judge raised, he's like, okay, well, can states...
	Put people's names next to parties they disagree with.
	So can you actually get a Democratic Party elector by putting Donald Trump's name next to the Democratic Party?
	Could states decide, we're going to stick Joe Biden's name back on the ballot?
	He's like, did you realize what kind of gamesmanship can come here?
	The Democratic judges don't care because they just want Robert Kennedy on the ballot because they think it helps them.
	They're wrong, by the way.
	They're going to discover that on Election Day.
	It keeps coming up in the polling survey.
	The only people still voting for Kennedy when Kennedy's screaming at everybody, vote Trump, are people who can't stomach Trump, would never vote Trump, but dislike Harris enough.
	They'll be like, yeah, screw it.
	I'll vote Kennedy.
	That's what's going to happen.
	Harris's people can get screwed by this idiotic strategy.
	But I think that's going to be an interesting case going forward, just like his case out of New York.
	And one of the judges complained that he was pursuing both cases.
	That's his constitutional right.
	Doesn't want to be on the ballot in Michigan.
	He does want to be in New York because he wants to establish the constitutional right against what they did in New York, which was exclude him from the ballot on constitutionally questionable grounds.
	So, yeah, we'll see how it goes.
	I mean, we will get interest in constitutional law at the end of this whole thing on elections, but I don't think we're going to face...
	Like, there's some people saying the Democrats won't certify now.
	There's two major hurdles with that.
	One, Democrats change the law.
	Kamala Harris no longer has any legal authority to challenge anything in the 2024 election.
	Democrats demanded to make it clear, but they pretended that Pence never had that authority.
	It's like, well, then why did you have to pass a law to say the vice president doesn't have this authority if he never had it?
	Put that aside, people forget they passed that law.
	Harris no longer has any legal role whatsoever beyond ministerial in the certification of the election.
	So she can't block him anymore.
	Harris championed this law.
	The second problem they have is a political one.
	You can't go around for four years, including prosecuting and trying to imprison a bunch of people, saying that challenging an election is a federal crime, and then turn around and challenge an election.
	I get it's hypocrisy from the past.
	What people like Ratskin is trying to do is he's trying to get Democrats down ballot to please turn out and volunteer and vote and donate, even when they think, Trump's going to win by saying, don't worry, we'll secretly stop him.
	So keep giving us money to the house.
	Keep volunteering.
	Keep going to the phone bank.
	Keep knocking on doors.
	And especially keep sending us the check because we have a secret way to stop them.
	That's all that is.
	In D.C., they already know that's never going to happen.
	So people pushing that nonsense out.
	Are, quite frankly, again, trying to discourage and deter you from saying, hey, look, nothing you can do will matter in this election.
	Go home.
	Stay home.
	Don't vote.
	Don't participate.
	Because it's all rigged.
	It's all fixed.
	Run by the machine.
	It's all corrupt.
	China and Iran are all going to work together.
	Hogwash. Hogwash.
	Trump is on the cusp of an extraordinary election that can have extraordinary legal consequences for the restoration of the constitutional republic from some of our perspectives.
	And anybody who abandons that because they buy into this nonsense should smack themselves in the face, wake up, and get back in the game.
	You don't win a game by quitting the game.
	Let me do one thing before we end on YouTube here.
	Locals, get on over to Rumble or Locals, whatever your preference is.
	And before we go over, I want to read a couple of the crumble rants, which I now see over here.
	We've got Steve Bannon.
	Oh, tell me I didn't just do it.
	I forgot to mention, we are going to cover Steve Bannon tonight, too.
	Yeah, yeah, for sure.
	I just flipping...
	Darn it, I think I just lost all of the...
	Hold on, give me one second.
	Let me bring this back.
	There's no way I just did that.
	I wanted to read.
	I saw Bill Tong is in the house live streaming.
	Come on over here.
	All right, let me see if I can pause it.
	Are they going to repopulate?
	They repopulated.
	Oh, thank goodness.
	Okay, because we got all of the crumble rants up here.
	Please see Dr. Frank's statistics.
	Dems are using names of people who are not valid voters in Boca.
	In Baca County, they had more people registered than live in the county.
	That is from Lucy the Dog.
	Epic Guess says Bannon's sweep 2020 plan is DC plan 2024.
	That is why he is in jail.
	We got what's the predicted Trump bump for the McDonald's since Uncle Donnie did his last thing.
	X is going...
	What did I say?
	X is going to bit nuts.
	Also... You all know you want to try the Chicken Big Mac.
	I don't like eating McDonald's, but Epic Guess at Epic Guess.
	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, high-protein snack?
	Get yours.
	BiltongUSA.com.
	Viva10 for 10% off.
	I eat it.
	It's delicious.
	And a shout-out from Chattanooga.
	Love you guys.
	Says, Tinker Tide Powers.
	Matt G. Hammond, does Barnes think the Amish are a permanent voting bloc in Pennsylvania that has been radicalized by Democrats attacking their livelihood?
	Will they vote in state office elections as well going forward?
	Robert, what do you think?
	There will be a substantial increase in their voter participation based on the lawfare against them.
	But the parts of the community are still asleep at the wheel.
	Some are awake, some are not.
	They're more awake than they've ever been.
	They're not as awake as they need to get to.
	We got, if a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey, he is obliged to do so.
	That is from camp.
	Lucy the Dog, Dominion machines are used in 62 of 64 counties in Colorado.
	I don't know if that's true.
	Do you know if that's true, Robert?
	Say that again?
	That Dominion machines are used in 62 of 64 counties in Colorado.
	Oh, in certain states they are.
	In certain states, Dominion is very present.
	It's just there's a bunch of states where they're not present at all.
	And also Colorado is going Democrat regardless.
	Colorado is a mostly mail-in state these days.
	Chained a lock and gate to my local cemetery and the Democratic Party accused me of election interference.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	And then the Lord is on his throne.
	Let's pray that Trump wins.
	That is Lucy the dog.
	Barnes, did Tina Peters get convicted of taking forensic images of ballot papers or using an ID to watch the deletion of paper ballots?
	No, the fake paper ballots are only there in case of an audit.
	The problem with this sort of hypothesis of stealing an election is that basically you'd have to have mass complicity of a whole bunch of election officials, including in a bunch of Republican counts.
	So that's the big problem with that hypothesis.
	And that is that a bunch of ballots are fake and they're brought in.
	And they're said that this is what the person voted.
	And you basically completely circumvented the entire chain of custody.
	Someone tell me how that's done at a mass level across the country.
	Two problems.
	One is how it's done in the first place.
	That doesn't have a bunch of middle-aged, Republican, conservative, small-town election people all agreeing to conspire in this way.
	And then secondly...
	Why wouldn't it be flagged by states where that doesn't happen?
	In other words, you should see a disparity.
	The way you prove election fraud is you see like-minded communities voting in very different directions in which you can explain empirically by some fraudulent mechanism or method.
	In order to accomplish that, There's various ways you can, but you at least at the first place have to have such a disparity.
	The problem was they printed all this stuff about different things with little graphs and whatnot, and a lot of that stuff was just flat wrong.
	That's why Mike Lindell had to pay the $5 million.
	The person came forward with data that actually disproved one of his key hypotheses.
	And I like Mike, but I was saying to him and other people, you're chasing rabbit holes, and you're ignoring the glaring evidence right in front of you.
	Did constitutionally qualified people vote?
	Just check the voter rolls, compare it to whether or not they'll use available databases to see whether they were qualified to vote under the rules set by the legislature of each state.
	Did people vote in a constitutionally qualified method?
	Look at what the mechanisms are to enforce it and cross-check it with that.
	I like 2,000 mules.
	I support 2,000 mules is my thesis.
	My thesis is they got votes from people in some cases who didn't even know they voted.
	Jimmy Carter, or like that old lady who's like, here, Grandma, you're voting.
	Keep the pen in your hand, because otherwise it's illegal.
	And then mark the ballot.
	You just voted for the first black Indian woman, whatever.
	It came from nursing homes, post office boxes, and apartment complexes.
	Places where there were a bunch of ballots.
	You could take those ballots at a centralized location.
	You knew who was and wasn't voting, and you voted for them on their behalf.
	And then you distributed them through a mechanism like 2,000 Mules, and dropped them off at Dropboxes so nobody saw it.
	You're not going through all of that.
	If no, instead, we've printed the ballots from China and they came over and they're sitting here in a box and we'll just run them through the scanner.
	And that's why some of the theories are mutually exclusive.
	People are saying, yeah, well, they boarded up the windows.
	Well, you don't have to do that if they're flipping the votes.
	They already have fake ballots.
	All right, well, we've gone for too long here now.
	We're ending on Commitube and it ends on Twitter as well.
	It is what it is.
	Sorry, I keep spitting tonight.
	Rumble and Locals, we're updating.
	So, YouTube, come on over.
	Either to vivabarneslaw.locals.
	Hold on.
	Before we do this, I have to show everybody what my dog looks like right now.
	Pudge. Pudge.
	Hey, what's up?
	She's ashamed.
	Okay, we've got Halloween costumes already.
	Check this out.
	It's funny when my kid came in here with a devious grin on his face.
	This is what our dog looks like.
	She's got a Yoda.
	A Yoda sweater on, which actually looks much funnier on Winston than on Pudge.
	Yeah, get on.
	We're carrying this over on the free speech platform, Rumble and Locals.
	And I'll put up the entire stream on Viva Clips tomorrow.
	Update. Bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay, I didn't get kicked out of the stream this time.
	No, trust me.
	I appreciate...
	First of all, I think there's a lot of trolls and it's fantastic.
	I've noticed a lot more tonight.
	People, don't complain about the trolls because we really don't block people, except for spamming.
	You spam, you will notice that you're not there anymore because spamming is annoying.
	But people have mutually incompatible theories.
	Dominion votings were doing it, and it's all one quarter vote here.
	And simultaneously, that's why they were also boarding up the windows.
	The 2,000 mules, I don't think you question that whatsoever.
	That was about people harvesting ballots and getting...
	How do you get people who aren't qualified to vote to vote?
	You do so by having a mechanism of voting, like mail-in balloting, that doesn't have a secure chain of custody for the ballot, from voter to ballot box.
	And you circumvent all the rules governing how that chain of custody is going to work, including that they have to request it, they have to take certain steps to request it, they have to prove certain things in order to receive it.
	When they receive it, they have to confirm through their signature that matches their signature on their voter file that it was they who filled out that ballot, and they have to be the ones to return it.
	And that's what they eviscerated in 2020.
	Some states still have liberalized rules.
	Many no longer do.
	And in 2020, in places like Georgia, they mass-mailed all the votes.
	They sent ballots to everybody.
	It looks like Georgia will have about 90-95% of the people who voted by mail won't vote by mail in 2024.
	That's a radical decline.
	If we could just pause on Georgia for one second, there was an issue in Georgia for the judge putting on pause the new Georgia, I don't know what they call them, election.
	The hand-counting rule.
	Hand-counting afterwards.
	I think that's the board.
	The Georgia board sees it as they have the authority to do so.
	The Georgia judge was interpreting it that their power was purely...
	By the way, I think one of the judges that ruled is the same one that's assigned the Trump case.
	It's kind of interesting how these cases get magically reassigned.
	But the other issue there, too, is too much in Fulton County.
	I mean, when are conservative states going to stop...
	Giving jurisdictional control over key major issues impacting their entire state to the one democratic haven in their state.
	You're the state of Georgia.
	Why does Fulton County get to decide?
	Fulton County courts, Fulton County jurors get to decide big issues of political consequence in your state when they're the one pocket of hostility.
	Why does Travis County, Texas get to decide everything for Texas?
	Why does Dane County, Wisconsin?
	Get to decide everything for Wisconsin.
	It's insane.
	It's applied mutatus mutatus.
	It's why they want to get rid of the Electoral College so they can have one or two states govern the entire country.
	They have one or two cities governing the entire state.
	I don't know what the solution is, but it's exactly why they want to get rid of Electoral College.
	Yes, of course.
	But it will not get up the chain before this election, so there will be no hand count after the initial count.
	No, it may get resolved before the hand.
	Okay. As in they might order...
	The Georgia Court of Appeals will have an opportunity to rule on it before the hand-counting obligation is due.
	That might delay the results from Georgia for weeks afterwards if they have to implement this protocol to count them.
	No, it shouldn't.
	I mean, I keep hearing that.
	How is it Florida, and every other country in the world for that matter, can count their ballots on election night and we can't?
	These secretaries of state running around saying, well, we got the overseas ballots.
	That's only because some of these states allow a ballot to be counted that is not received by Election Day.
	And that rule should have always changed.
	And in some states, it didn't.
	And what they're testing out is how will people respond.
	So they keep saying, well, you know, what happens if we don't know for a week?
	And they're waiting to see the public blowback.
	The public blowback is massive.
	Because the public's saying, look, I mean, I get why people got concerned.
	Don't trust machines.
	You shouldn't trust machines.
	You don't trust that when people are putting boards up on windows to block you from seeing what's going on, you shouldn't trust such a process.
	You have a right of public observation, a right of public participation.
	You're skeptical of what happened with the ballots.
	Because they won't print the ballots like they promised in Georgia and elsewhere to do and publish them for the world to see and assess.
	So I get where people's concerns are, but the most likely mechanism and method of voter fraud is still mail-in balloting.
	It has been forever in the United States.
	I mean, one issue was voter registration rolls, but a lot of that, we have the cleanest voter.
	Do there needs to be a lot of improvement?
	Absolutely. But it's still the cleanest voter rolls we've had in 30 years.
	And look at what's happening registration-wise.
	People are like, well, what about their overseas campaign?
	Well, those people have to register somewhere, folks.
	They've got to register by the deadline of those states.
	So if there was a mass overseas voter registration effort, we would see it right in the data.
	We don't.
	And when I see all of these kind of eclectic concerns that almost have this sort of broad conspiratorial tone to them, I'm skeptical because I think that there are attempts at red herrings.
	Hey, go chase this over here so you don't look at what we're doing over here.
	And pay attention to the same thing.
	How is the mail-in voting going?
	Are they properly securing the ballot?
	Are they properly doing signature matches?
	Are they properly checking that the person is constitutionally qualified to vote?
	Who's doing the canvassing?
	Who's doing the counting?
	But there's just no reason why you can't employ sufficient personnel to hand count the ballots on election night if...
	Florida can do it without blinking twice.
	If every other country in the world can do it without including completely third world countries can do it.
	It's something even Canada can do.
	Well, I was going to say, Robert, add Canada to the list of third world countries.
	People were pinging me today about what's going on in British Columbia.
	Look at this.
	There's a tight race in the provincial election and they may not know until October 26th to 28th because final results of the 2024 provincial election in BC may not be known for another week.
	Can you imagine?
	The more technology evolves, the longer it takes to tally up election results.
	It makes no sense, except for the fact that it makes sense.
	I've been told that they're using Dominion in British Columbia, but I've got to independently verify that.
	I think it's a miscue for Democrats to focus on the overseas vote.
	Your real democratically aligned overseas voter always votes.
	The people they're going to start reaching are your libertarian types who are skeptical of voting.
	And it's why they live overseas.
	It's one of the problems they ran into with doing all the motor voter stuff.
	Registering everybody.
	What happened in Pennsylvania?
	Republican registration surge.
	That, in fact, there was stories this week of Democratic organizations concerned that there was too much outreach going on.
	Because they're like, some of these groups were trying to get in.
	They're not voting Democrat.
	They're trying to get the marginal young black voter, the marginal young Hispanic voter, the marginal young Asian voter.
	What are they finding in the data?
	That precise voter group, the marginal voter, is as likely to vote Republican and Trump as Harris.
	So that's the other problem they have.
	And because they bought their own ad, they believed that there was nothing wrong with the 2020 election, it makes it very difficult to repeat a theft.
	That you don't know the theft happened in the first place.
	And they've convinced themselves, because they outsourced the fraud in my opinion, that everything was on the up and up.
	And so they're going to be expecting on election day this mass surge of Democratic voters.
	And you'll see a lot of panic on social media when it's not happening at 9 a.m., when it's not happening at noon, when it's not happening at 3 p.m.
	You can monitor those accounts when they're like, where are all the voters?
	Harris has the greatest voter organization machine of all time.
	I'm telling you, just from my own experience, even with people who are not politically aligned with me, there's a severe lack of interest in voting for Kamala.
	I want to bring this one up just because I want to put the Fed on blast.
	I'm joking.
	I don't think you're a Fed, E-Devens.
	Wait until Barnes loses his bets because of the cheating and then goes crying due to the cheating and hear him cry like this.
	First of all...
	I've never heard you cry, Bonds.
	Second of all, how do I stop?
	There's two things there.
	If you want to bet against me, have at it.
	Email me.
	Text me.
	I'll be happy to bet with you.
	We'll see who ends up with a bigger bank account.
	You don't need to bet with him.
	You're betting with the mortgage.
	These people that talk big, I always challenge them.
	Say, that's fine.
	You think I'm wrong?
	Bet me.
	Make some money.
	Make some money off it.
	You can be cheering on election night.
	All these people didn't suddenly disappear.
	Including big names.
	People like Nate Silver disappeared.
	All of a sudden, they can't pack it up.
	All hat, no cattle.
	Okay, so we got Georgia.
	But first of all, as far as I understand in Georgia, anyhow, it could be very complicated to try to train people to hand count by 75, and then if they don't match, you've got to recount them again.
	I can understand.
	They've been doing hand counting for forever.
	Wouldn't be that hard at all.
	So all this stuff.
	I mean, we do it around the world.
	Okay, boom.
	Boom. There ain't no brain surgery.
	Figuring out all the machines is much more complicated than just doing old-fashioned hand counting.
	So, I mean, it's a lot of hoopla over not a lot.
	But my view is it's probably not going to note it's probably going to matter because you're going to see Trump declare the winner on election night.
	The margin ain't going to be anywhere near the margin of fraud.
	If I could bet.
	I would bet it's more likely than not that there will be more than 75 million votes cast for Trump because he's converted people that I know were never Trump supporters to begin with.
	You see that all over the place.
	I mean, NFL players, rappers, celebrities.
	Not Usher, but I'm sure Usher has his reasons.
	Usher got seen with P. Diddy.
	It's amazing.
	Usher originally wasn't interested in getting involved in the Harris campaign.
	Then those P. Diddy tapes start leaking out about who's on them.
	And all of a sudden, Usher can't wait to get up to Detroit with Lizzie there and campaign for Harris.
	So I think they got the message.
	I mean, I still think the P. Diddy case is about the government monopolizing that extraordinary extortion file.
	But, you know, that's another area where Trump gets in.
	He wants all of that fully disclosed.
	What happened with P. Diddy?
	What happened with Jeffrey Epstein?
	What happened with all of them.
	So I think, but to those people that are talking big out there, another thing to be, just be conscious and careful of.
	You know, there's a good transition into the very threatening, true threats case just promoted by the Third Circuit.
	And if you look at what they put this guy in prison for, for many years, then you can see that a lot of people are making statements that sound, I would be careful about even Civil War references.
	Based on what they put him in prison for.
	Let me see.
	I know I highlighted that section.
	It was a Muslim guy.
	I say that's only relevant for the case.
	Creating fake Twitter accounts with the agent's emblem, but it was intended to not be passing off as them and saying cryptic things.
	It's a great parody.
	You look at what he mostly did.
	They didn't identify any specific threat to any individual.
	Yet he's now in prison for many years on the grounds that he committed federal criminal terroristic threats to law enforcement.
	And the Third Circuit just affirmed his conviction.
	And for those that don't remember, the First Amendment says a true threat requires a serious intention.
	In other words, it can't be satire, it can't be parody, it can't be comedy.
	A serious intent.
	To induce in another a serious likelihood of substantial bodily harm of that specific individual with some degree of imminence required.
	And you have to subjectively know, as well as it be objectively reasonable, that your activities would induce that response.
	And in this case, the kind of facts they used are some of the...
	I mean, there's some facts I get.
	They try to make it more nefarious than necessary.
	Like, okay, if I go by the FBI building, am I now surveilling the FBI building?
	Notice the lack of specificity there.
	So the guy's name was Khaled Mia.
	And just by way of some of the examples, he's serving six years, from what I understand.
	September 2020, FBI agent, yada, yada, yada.
	Where was it?
	Okay, so they're getting him on his ideology.
	Here, listen to this.
	Mia created a Twitter account named after Agent Edquist's wife that contained pictures of her and personal information, including her approximate age, place of employment, education, and religion.
	The next day, agents executed a warrant.
	Mia admitted to creating tweets.
	So you create a satire account of an FBI agent's spouse to mock and make fun of that FBI agent, and they get a search warrant to raid your house the next day.
	Well, look, I can imagine I wouldn't like seeing that.
	The question is, what?
	Oh, sure, but we don't get to go execute search warrants over everybody.
	I mean, I got people making breaking bad parodies of accounts of me.
	All the Ricada haters.
	And some of them are pretty funny and pretty good.
	So the trolls that are, you know, decent, I'll respect.
	You know, you got to pay the toll to troll, but as long as you pay it well, then okay.
	But this is just, I mean, What they greenlit here was they said things like saying zero hour approaching is a true threat.
	Yeah, here we go.
	I got those.
	There's Nick, Dave.
	Yellow tape flowing is a true threat.
	The whole bureau, the deed will be done at a time which is the most opportunistic for me chosen by myself.
	Currently eating pasta, watching videos of the second plane hit the South Tower.
	Think about that.
	In other words, these are some of the most generic, bland statements you can make.
	And to say...
	Oh, that's a true threat where we can raid your house and then lock you up for multiple years in federal prison.
	I mean, guess what else was used against him?
	You know what else is evidence of a true threat?
	If you refuse to cooperate when the FBI comes raiding your house.
	You know what else is evidence of a true threat according to the federal courts?
	Have you ever visited a gun range?
	Evidence of a true threat.
	Do you ever talk about guns and weapons?
	Evidence of a true threat.
	Have you ever done satirical accounts of government officials, evidence of a true threat?
	I mean, this was, I kept looking for, I was like, where's your class?
	To give you an idea for folks out there, a guy went to a Vietnam War protest, put up his gun, he'd been a trained sniper, and said he has his, what do you call it, whatever you call the sniper thing.
	Crosshair. Yeah, and the crosshairs, LBJ.
	He's going to use it next against LBJ.
	The Supreme Court of the United States said that cannot constitute a true threat under the Constitution, that we have to allow a broad range for rhetoric.
	It's got to be, hey, by the way, tomorrow I'm coming to your house and I'm doing this, right?
	I kept looking for that.
	They had none, zero, zilch, zunka, nada.
	It was just, he's a scary Arab with scary Arab views, scary Muslim views, and he didn't cooperate with us.
	And he made fun of us, and he likes to go visit gun ranges, and he used the kind of generic language you see all the time on social media.
	But for people out there, avoid that language, because it's clear they want to use this for their next wave of legal assaults.
	I made the joke, you know, that when Vivek was using the 1776 moment, it's only a matter of time before they criminalized that.
	I mean, in Canada, they were trying to criminalize Hold the Line as some sort of encouraging mischief, not true threat, but it's the same load of crap.
	It's obscene.
	And by the way, so that decision was affirmed for the most...
	I mean, that's what's truly terrifying.
	I mean, hopefully those people run it up.
	The flagpole, maybe the Supreme Court will...
	Fix it, but it just gives you an idea of the danger.
	So I see a lot of people engaging in a lot of hot rhetoric out there that is very ill-advised.
	Just be very, very careful of it.
	That's your greater area of concern than whether a DOD directive has something in it.
	They already use this power to raid people's houses and merely execute them.
	They'll raid you at 6 in the morning, knowing that you're blind and a borderline invalid, knowing that you're prone to react a certain way, and then execute you.
	That's why when I'm reading that directly, they've already been doing this.
	I didn't think they needed more permission to do it.
	Then they'll declare themselves in self-defense, which is a good bridge to the people who are being denied self-defense, just as Kyle Rittenhouse was, but a jury upheld it anyway.
	The case of Mr. Penny in New York starts in trial this week.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	I'll go to the locals chat to see.
	I'm certain they're streaming this because I had a couple of people pinging me today.
	So the Daniel Perry trial starts tomorrow.
	Oh, well, you saw another manufactured racial crisis averted probably because of X, the basketball player woman who was killed by the Asian cop while she slashed his face and was being martyrized until the video started making the rounds.
	Who else is up there?
	So you got Daniel Penny.
	I have to see how long it's scheduled for.
	Let me look that up for a second.
	What else is there for the self-defense question?
	Oh, so for those people that don't remember the Penny case, Penny was the guy on the New York City subway who this crazy person was going around saying he was ready to go to Rikers, somebody was going to die, appeared to have a weapon.
	And was threatening everybody on the whole train car.
	And now the fact that he's a Marine is being used against him.
	It's incredible.
	It's one of their main pieces of evidence against him.
	And so what he does is he gets up and puts him into a chokehold to prevent him from causing harm to anyone else.
	Later, the person he put in the chokehold dies.
	There's still debate about what actually killed him.
	Because apparently the medical examiner...
	Go ahead.
	Oh, no, I was going to say it's going to be a bit of a Chauvin-type situation.
	The only difference being this guy is much more sympathetic of a defendant than Chauvin was as a defendant.
	And also, I presumed everybody already knows the details of the case, and probably wrongly so.
	The guy that he put in a chokehold who subsequently died had a history of assault.
	He violently assaulted women on the Metro.
	They tried to portray him...
	As the angel, an aspiring Michael Jackson street busker when he was, in fact, a mentally unwell, violent individual.
	Was there anything in the toxicology report that questions that we know of yet?
	Questions of the cause of death?
	Yes. Credit to SEC 808, who has a good description of that Third Circuit case.
	Your Honor, we radicalized him, and then he didn't do what we wanted him to do, so now he's proud.
	Which is very true for how the feds operate.
	And that wouldn't surprise me.
	If that's actually how that broke down.
	They probably wanted him to turn radical so they could use him as a fake case to boost their bona fides.
	And when he didn't play ball and made fun of him instead, they're like, okay, we'll show you the other route.
	So apparently the toxicology report, two things, the medical examiner apparently did not conclude asphyxiation causes death.
	Second, apparently the toxicology report does have certain things in it that would suggest there may have been another cause of death.
	So that's part of his available defense.
	The second part of his available defense is the government has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew, and that a reasonable person would know, that his conduct had a substantial risk of serious bodily harm or death.
	Look, I've got to pause you there, Robert.
	It's so wildly disgusting.
	NBC News, they're calling it...
	The chokehold death.
	I mean, talk about baking the conviction into the article, and he's going to go and expect to have a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers when NBC New York is already calling it the chokehold death.
	Okay, sorry.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	So in order to prove manslaughter, they need to prove either recklessness or criminal negligence, but either way, they need to show a subjective and objective knowledge that a subjective knowledge and an objectively reasonable person would believe that their conduct would have had a substantial risk.
	Even if they were to prove that, they also have to disprove his self-defense.
	And in New York, as long as an objectively reasonable person and you subjectively also believed that what you were doing was reasonably necessary to prevent the person from doing unlawful violence to another, to anyone, then you also can't be convicted.
	They got approved both beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Now, this is a case that's all going to cut...
	By the way, heavy racial politics here, because multiple other people have acted in self-defense and high-profile cases in New York, including on subway train cars, and prosecutors and grand juries have refused to indict as long as they were brown.
	He's white, so he gets to get indicted.
	And it just shows you what a complete cesspool and nightmare...
	These democratic jurisdictions have become, and it needs to be part of, legal relief, reform, and remedy in a new administration to come.
	And someone had asked earlier about whether some of us would be involved in significant roles in that administration, runway, shape, or form.
	The answer is yes, and yes, those conversations have already begun.
	But so I think this is going to come down to, it's Manhattan, a bunch of commies in Manhattan.
	But a bunch of people who ride the subway train car in Manhattan.
	A bunch of people who are getting punched in the face randomly on the streets and stabbed.
	Maybe not stabbed to death, but...
	Look at Anna Kasparian.
	Anna Kasparian, yeah.
	Kasparian, yeah.
	The old joke was, everybody's a liberal until they get mugged.
	Well, she got assaulted by a homeless person, and that put her on a whole red pill to attack most of the woke left.
	And so...
	I think that you have a bunch of people in here.
	This is the Bernie Getz case.
	And it's nowhere near.
	He didn't do anything like Bernie Getz.
	Bernie just got agitated and just started firing.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Wasn't Bernie Getz, he was out on the subway deliberately looking to get money?
	I think he was.
	He was looking for revenge for all the beatings and craziness and chaos that had taken place against him personally and New York in general.
	And it turned out he did have certain racial views.
	They never made a movie about Bernie Getz?
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	There's documentaries, movies, there's everything about Bernie.
	I've seen several of them.
	But a Manhattan jury acquitted them because they were sick and tired of being harassed on subway cars.
	So the key to this is entirely the jury selection.
	You need to make sure it's not a bunch of Upper West Side liberals who never ride the subway car.
	How many people are there that don't ride the subway car and not because...
	They don't have to, but because they don't want to and don't need to, and then still might be sympathetic to Daniel.
	A combination of both.
	But there's not going to be many people who don't ride the subway cars in New York who are going to necessarily be sympathetic to them.
	Those would be probably the most hostile jurors, but they need to have to filter out people's perspectives of self-defense, secondarily to the subway car risk.
	But what's amazing is, because he's a Marine, is the other reason why they're prosecuting him.
	They're saying a Marine would know that any chokehold has a substantial risk of bodily harm or death.
	That's their main piece of proof.
	Not that he knew, which they still have to prove, but that he must have known because they're going to have a Marine expert come in and say, every Marine knows that.
	So now being a Marine is being used against him.
	Because he exercised, defended everybody in that train car.
	And most likely saved lives that day is the very thing being used against him to try to put him in prison in New York for 15 years.
	It's wild.
	Let me bring up one.
	There were a couple of super chats.
	We're going to get to the tipped questions, but there was one that said, even if you thunk, it could be stolen.
	Shouldn't affect your vote.
	It's easy and costs nothing.
	Just think of it as forcing them to make the fraud.
	Obvious. And you can get...
	What is the margin for fraud, Robert?
	Beyond which they can't even...
	Well, it's just very difficult.
	They need mail-in votes to do it effectively.
	And they're not getting anywhere near the scale they need.
	So the margin of fraud is itself shrinking.
	Why don't Republicans select a couple of counties to hold their vote tally till all them counties complete and report their totals?
	That happens in some counties.
	And like in Florida, they disciplined everybody.
	By not allowing certain counties.
	It's actually the county you live in.
	That county was notorious for holding back the vote count in order to try to help the Democrat through.
	And one of the very good things DeSantis did as governor was discipline the officials involved there and fix that problem once and for all.
	I like this one too.
	Tarkina53, I keep seeing people on X calling for folks to say, what will you do if a steal happens?
	I want to say, you aren't getting me to fall for that, LOL, feds.
	And they want me to say stupid things online.
	Old young men, what do you guys think of the actual reasoning of the SOS Secretary of State of Missouri and Georgia holding off calling their states until after November 5th?
	I don't see the electorate number able to fudge the numbers here.
	Thoughts? Yeah, I mean, they're putting out test balloons.
	To see if how people will react to them saying, hey, what if we didn't count it for a week?
	And they're getting enough blowback that I think they realize that that path is not going to be a productive one.
	That, you know, Ratberger and these other people survive 2020, but barely.
	They wouldn't survive a steal in 2024.
	And they're starting to witness that in a lifetime.
	But it doesn't help that the main thieves aren't involved this time.
	And the whole Democratic Party doesn't think they used them last time.
	Can you imagine being that delusional?
	But they are.
	Just follow your social media accounts.
	For the feds in the chat, Robert Barnes means to survive politically because Ratburger was in deep political trouble after that.
	Bada-bing, bada-boom.
	They're trying to provoke you into saying anything stupid because you can see they're broadly interpreting those true threats language to target people that say anything that they don't like.
	Well, speaking of targeting people who say things that you don't like, coming back to Steve Bannon, there was a story that was reported last week that in addition to having been wrongfully prosecuted, wrongfully convicted, wrongfully stripped of his defense rights at trial, just to recap, everybody already knows it, Steve Bannon was held in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena.
	They charged him.
	They convicted him.
	After the judge stripped him of his defense rights to argue the legitimacy of the subpoena, to argue executive privilege, reliance, professional reliance, stripped him of his defenses, went in there for what is a rubber-stamped conviction, sentenced him to four months in jail, and even though he's appealing the decision, and by the time his appeal gets around, he'll have served his time, they ordered him to serve his sentence, notwithstanding the appeal.
	In fairness to, I guess, Democrats, the Supreme Court refused to hear it, but I never thought it was a...
	A broad enough decision that they would even agree to hear it in the first place.
	So he's sitting there in federal prison and is expected to be released next week, last week of October, the week before the election after they've locked him up for the pivotal period of July to November.
	Allegedly, he's also now being denied of certain legal early release rights to which he would be entitled under the First Step Act, which is a 2018 law that Trump passed, which was intended to get...
	First-time nonviolent defenders, out of jail, back rehabilitated, onto the street so they can become productive taxpaying citizens.
	It was his daughter that reported it.
	He wrote an email from jail, I believe, or from prison, saying that he's now being denied, in addition to everything else, early release under the First Step Act.
	I know of nothing really more than what I've summarily read on the internet as to what the intent was behind the First Step Act.
	I have no doubt that it's going on.
	What is your legal take, Robert, as a practicing American attorney with a bigger brain than mine?
	Well, I mean, I think, first of all, he was targeted for political reasons and selective prosecution that violated the First Amendment because other similarly situated individuals had not been so prosecuted in the past.
	He was criminally sentenced in ways that similarly situated people had not been sentenced in the past.
	Then he was denied bail pending appeal through a part of the appellate process up to the Supreme Court.
	In my view, that violated the principles behind the Eighth Amendment securing bail.
	And now he has been denied early release available under the First Step Act, and it's reasonable to conclude that when he's been previously denied his constitutional liberties at each and every stage of the criminal prosecution, including the way in which the trial itself was conducted, that there is selective motivation for denial of this statutory benefit as well to keep him locked up.
	So that he can't get out before Election Day.
	That's what appears to me.
	And I think his interpretation along those lines makes eminent sense because I've seen no explanation from the government about why he was denied a benefit that was designed to benefit people in his situation.
	I've pinged the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs and apparently according to Joe Nierman, good logic, New York attorney.
	It's illegal to broadcast trials in New York, so even though it's a state charge for Daniel Penny, it's not going to be live-streamed.
	Ah, good logic.
	That's a great opportunity to extend the principle he's taking up to the Supreme Court on the Trump case.
	Shouldn't he have the right to broadcast it?
	Isn't that a violation of his and his audience's First Amendment rights and rights to open access to the courts?
	A principle protected both under the right to petition the government for redress of grievance and is recognized as both a federal common law and I presume the New York state has recognized.
	All these courts engaging in secretive proceedings, hiding from the public, should be held to account by every means.
	I'm sure he's thrilled that I'm out there saying, here's some more free legal work to impose upon yourself.
	He would be perfectly suited, by the way, to bring that case.
	I think it would be...
	And Penny case, perfectly compelling example.
	The American people should know whether they can have confidence or not in the criminal trial, and they cannot have confidence in that if they cannot watch it.
	Look at how much transparency and sunlight did to expose the bad things happening in the Young Thug case in Atlanta, Georgia.
	Look at how much exposing the truth in the Rittenhouse case benefited Kyle Rittenhouse and brought the truth to the forefront.
	The same thing should be true in Penny's case.
	These courts have decided we're not going to abide by the same rules we impose on everybody else.
	What they're doing is violating court constitutional rights and liberties, and it's going to require all of us to where and when and how we can take proactive action.
	He, amongst others, is in a situation where he could pursue potential relief or remedy in that context.
	Joe Nierman, good logic, a hell of a guy.
	And if they don't broadcast it, he'll just be busy going to court every day like he was doing with other stuff.
	Which he did with Ghislaine Maxwell's case.
	Yep. And speaking of which, by the way, Ryan Ruth is standing trial.
	I'm just Googling this now.
	On November 15th in West Palm Beach District.
	So I think I'm going to be driving up there if that's not being broadcast.
	And even if it is, maybe to get up there in person to report live and attend.
	Because it'll be something of a fascinating trial to attend in as much as it's open to the public.
	Stick around and stay tuned for that, peeps.
	What do we move on to now, Robert?
	Yeah, so we have several different topics, but speaking of bad government doing bad things, one of the things judges do is try to preside over cases they have no business presiding over.
	And we finally got a good ruling on recusal of federal judges from a court of appeals overturning a district court judge that refused to recuse herself from a case that she should have obviously recused herself from.
	You'll have to fill in the details on this one.
	I skimmed through it, but I did see the allegations that the judge...
	Look, I love it how even when the courts, the higher courts, disqualify or force or accuse a judge, they still have to kiss their butt and say, look, I have no doubt the judge would have been good had they adjudicated this case, but it's the appearance of impropriety.
	Apparently, this particular judge had made a bunch of prejudicial statements about the defendant, had gotten a number of legal matters wrong legally.
	This is a pro se litigant.
	It was a pro se litigant, right?
	A pro se defendant accusing the government of...
	Basically, like a case we'll talk about in a bit, framing him as an innocent man.
	And one of the people complicit was the judge in a prior life as a supervisory official, and the main person complicit was a lifelong friend of the judge.
	All right, so take it from there, if you will, because there was history running deep with this particular judge, and the litigant...
	The judge said, no, after all of these allegations, which you'll flesh out, I'm not recusing myself, and it went up to an upper court, and they said, yeah, I don't...
	I have no doubt you would have done the right thing, but it's an appearance of impropriety.
	Because that's the standard.
	So all you have to prove is not that there's an actual conflict of interest.
	You just have to prove that a reasonable person could conclude that your impartiality in the case might be questioned.
	That's it.
	Would a reasonable person conclude your impartiality might be questioned.
	And if it's close, you must...
	One of the problems in the federal system is it allows the judge themselves to decide whether they should be recused.
	That's problem one.
	That should be done by an independent jurist.
	Probably by the chief judge or somebody like that on a regular basis.
	And the preference should be to recuse.
	There's plenty of judges around.
	Why does that one judge have to preside over the case?
	If we're operating under this mythology...
	That it didn't matter who your judge was assigned, they all just followed the law, then how can it matter if it's assigned to a different judge?
	Unless everybody knows that that judge is biased and not impartial.
	And here you had a judge who was complicit in multiple levels, might have been complicit in the underlying illegality that led to his prosecution, had a best friend, and this judge just came up with, you know, they just fabricate stories because they're used to it.
	And the Court of Appeals did it gently, but they basically pointed out she was clearly lying.
	She wrote an opinion that said, I'm not really friends with this person.
	I was just a clerk with them.
	And they're like, she spoke at your investiture.
	She went into great details about how you guys have lunch all the time.
	And they just point that out without saying, you have a federal district court judge who lied so she could be partially prejudiced.
	She was involved in a partial case where she could be prejudiced against a particular vulnerable defendant, a pro se criminal defendant, who is accusing the government of framing him for prison, the worst thing a federal judge could be involved in, the worst thing a prosecutor could be involved in.
	And she was lying in the opinion.
	And, of course, the Court of Appeals doesn't even have the guts to just say, why do we have federal district court judges lying and still on the bench at all?
	I mean, the details will be more or less relevant because it is the broader principles.
	But it says, in sum, the judge, longstanding relationship with one of the players here is not grounds for accusals because a matter of...
	It gets complicated where I don't think we care about the details.
	Personal involvement.
	Bottom line.
	They said it was personal involvement and...
	At multiple levels.
	They're like, everybody knows clerkships, knows that clerks are very close, usually for life.
	And then they pointed out that everything was pointing to...
	That she was involved.
	And again, the standard wasn't, what's the truth of the matter?
	The standard is, justice must satisfy the appearance of justice, because courts are highly cognizant of the court of public opinion.
	That's what they're all really here for, even though they try to pretend and tell you otherwise.
	And it was obvious to anybody who looked at the facts objectively that no one could believe that she would be impartial.
	Under these circumstances.
	And especially when she was lying on the record in an obvious way about it.
	If a lawyer did what this judge did, the lawyer would be disbarred and then later criminally prosecuted.
	Nothing will happen to this judge other than being forced off this case because she can't protect her pal.
	They patted her on the back on the way out and said, we emphasize that our faith in the judge that she would, in fact, think dispassionately and submerge private feelings on every aspect of this case.
	They love to lie about themselves and fellow judges.
	It's ridiculous.
	At least they overturned an egregious failure to recuse.
	No, no, but the problem is that that last paragraph is contradicted by the body of that decision in terms of what they found the judge to be guilty of.
	All right.
	What else?
	Well, speaking of people who are guilty of things and getting away with it, two major qualified immunity cases, one of mine, one of the great constitutional rights group, is going to go up to the Supreme Court of the United States concerning qualified immunity.
	Now, hold on one second.
	I need the reminder of the...
	I need a buzzword to trigger my memory of the qualified immunity case.
	One involves the Texas journalist.
	Yes, there you go.
	The Colorado cops.
	A Texas journalist publishes information that she gets from the business of journalism.
	I didn't understand how she got arrested or charged in the first place by publishing the names of the...
	It was some sort of suicide murder type crash or something.
	And she publishes the identities of the people because she got that information from police officers.
	And then what did she get charged with?
	So in Texas, and they're trying to do this in a lot of places, this is how they keep extending and expanding the law in crazy ways.
	So Texas has a criminal law that prohibits you from soliciting non-public information from government officials for your personal benefit.
	It's clear, you can understand where the law was written.
	The law was to avoid insider trading involving government officials.
	This, of course, is just journalism.
	But of course, you leave it in the hands of prosecutors, they want to extend it and expand it to basically criminalize journalism.
	Well, no, because your personal interest would be making money off your journalism, presumably.
	So you get the information, you get the scoop.
	So basically, it meant anybody who was doing Julian Assange's kind of work was a criminal in Texas, subject to prosecution at the whim of the local prosecutor.
	Attorney General Paxton's office never should have defended this case, by the way.
	So she gets criminally prosecuted.
	The judge realizes how absurd this is and dismisses the case.
	Now, it probably helped her that she had a massive following in the local county as an independent citizen journalist.
	And probably the judge didn't want to be on the receiving end of that audience in terms of public exposure.
	So that might have motivated him to follow the Constitution or that judge to follow the Constitution.
	Don't know, but not uninformed speculation.
	But so then she brought civil rights suit and the fifth...
	Circus, Court of Appeals down there, usually in New Orleans, but sometimes other places, Dallas, etc.
	And one of their many rulings, excusing and apologizing for government misconduct, led, by the way, by so-called great conservative judges, great constitutional conservatives, according to the Federalist Society types, like Edith Jones and others, said that, oh, you can't sue the cops.
	They couldn't have...
	No, that arrested you or the prosecutors that prosecuted you.
	They couldn't have possibly known that this statute was unconstitutional.
	And so they have qualified immunity from suit.
	And to the credit of the United States Supreme Court, they're like, no.
	The idea that they couldn't possibly know that this was in fact unconstitutional conduct.
	Was in fact in dispute, and they made other rulings, making clear that the burden wasn't as high as the Fifth Circuit kept saying it was in qualified immunity context.
	So they remanded back to the Court of Appeals to reconsider that decision in light of them scolding the Fifth Circuit multiple times last year for getting qualified immunity wrong.
	Those that don't remember, qualified immunity is a fictional doctrine made up, invented by courts.
	Doesn't exist in the law.
	They even lied about the statute and lied about the legal history to create it because that's what judges do.
	They like to lie as much as anybody does because they have to maintain this mirage of independence and impartiality that is rarely the case, sadly.
	But it parallels another case I have because several federal courts, including the Fifth Circuit, now along with the Tenth Circuit, have said that you, the plaintiff, If a government official violates your constitutional rights, you, the plaintiff, have to prove that they're not immune.
	In other words, you have to prove things that only the defendant knows, that it's impossible for you to practically prove.
	And what it does is it effectively eviscerates civil rights.
	In the entire 5th Circuit, 4th Circuit, and 10th Circuit that follows this.
	You've got two cases, though.
	You've got the one of the lady who recorded the court hearing in her divorce case, and then you've got the two, that's in Pennsylvania, the two farmer guys who were locked up.
	This one is the Colorado Cops case that we filed a petition for cert tomorrow in the Supreme Court.
	This was the case where police officers, so they get involved in a chase.
	And they got these young teen kids in a car who panic and try to flee the cops.
	And they get shot 45 times.
	Yeah, what happens is they stop the car and then the car is rolling backwards and they decide to do summary execution.
	They haven't been shot at.
	The kids had no guns of any kind in the car anyway.
	They weren't even sure, by the way, what these kids were guilty of.
	It was just purely suspicion.
	I mean, it was like the loosest kind of suspicion.
	And these kids had just panicked.
	And so they blocked the car, knocked it down in such a way the car had stopped working and was rolling backwards into a tree.
	And then they unload.
	And they all get out and just bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam.
	Over 40 times.
	Kill one kid, paralyze another, severely injure a third.
	The federal courts in Colorado...
	Say, ah, those cops couldn't have known what they were doing was wrong.
	Because you, the plaintiffs, the estate of the dead kid, the paralyzed kid, and the severely injured kid, you have to prove that the cops knew what they were doing was wrong.
	Even though the knowledge for that isn't within your knowledge in the first place.
	By shifting the burden of both production and persuasion and proof onto the plaintiffs.
	In such a way that it's impossible to do.
	And the Tenth Circuit was so gleeful about this principle, they threatened me with sanctions for me even saying this is a preposterous standard and every other federal court disagrees with it, and the Tenth Circuit used to disagree with it itself.
	Because the Tenth Circuit invented this.
	By the way, it was constitutional conservative judges on the Tenth Circuit who fabricated this doctrine in the first place in breach of prior Tenth Circuit precedent.
	That always said an affirmative defense of qualified immunity, invented by judges in the first place, is always the burden of the defendant to prove in a civil case.
	Different dynamic in a criminal case.
	But in a civil case, always the burden of the defendant to prove any affirmative defense that they must both plead, then produce evidence of, then bear the burden of proof and persuasion on at both the summary judgment and jury trial stage.
	These people were denied any jury trial because the judges all knew if they got one, the jury would rule in their favor.
	Nobody is for summary execution in circumstances like this especially.
	I mean, they just, you know, you can see the video with the cops where the car is just rolling back to a stop and you just see all the shooting.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Imagine those cops got to take a walk while people like the Marine in New York are the ones being criminally prosecuted.
	Something seriously wrong with the system when that's the case.
	If I may ask the indiscreet question, the kids who were shot, white, black, Latino, do we know who they were?
	I mean, is their identity...
	Mixed group.
	Okay. And the cops?
	Have they had any history of incidents?
	They usually always do.
	But the key part here was you couldn't even get to a jury trial to put that evidence on because you had to disprove that they knew...
	That doing that, summary execution, and you're going to assert, hey, common sense shows that there's court cases.
	They said, no, none of that matters.
	You've got to prove that those individual cops were aware of specific cases on analogous facts, of which there's never precisely analogous facts, or at least hopefully there's not, for these kind of constitutional violations.
	And that's the problem.
	They have done this burden shifting.
	That they've invented out of a fabricated doctrine of qualified immunity in the first place.
	And so other courts, the First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, D.C. Circuit, have all said that, no, this burden of an affirmative defense for qualified immunity is always on the defendants, always on the cops, always on the federal officers and agents.
	The same principle applies whether it's a cop or anybody else, any official or agent that violates your rights.
	So we'll see if the Supreme Court will step in.
	Usually when there's a conflict between the circuits, usually when it's a major question of federal law, usually when it's a major conflict in the scholastic areas in court of public opinion, when it's interpreting Supreme Court precedent itself, that's when you have a case that has an above average chance of making it.
	And hopefully this case will be one of those cases because it's another example of where there's two sets of standards.
	The government can do whatever they want to you.
	But you even question the government and they try to criminally prosecute you.
	Well, no crap.
	First of all, does it bother you when you see bad press being written about you?
	Because when I was doing my research for this...
	Yeah. So what happened is the courts take potshots at me and then the local legal press takes potshots at me for even challenging this.
	And they're like, you know, how dare you challenge this?
	You should have agreed.
	You should have stipulated and conceded.
	Lawyer's failure to cite facts.
	No. My argument is that we cannot have as a burden proving Facts that we can't ever have in the first place.
	Because we don't know what was in their state of mind.
	We can't prove what they knew or didn't know.
	They're going to deny they knew things.
	How do you disprove that?
	It's impossible.
	It would drive me nuts to read jackasses and write these types of things.
	The fact that that piece was written and other pieces like it told me that we're on the right page.
	Because they only go after you to take shots at you.
	Like I said, only a stuck pig squeals.
	That when the 10th Circuit was squealing, when their friends in the 10th Circuit went to the local legal folks and said, hey, do a hit piece on Barnes.
	We want to have that happen many times.
	That told me I'm on the right page.
	That they recognize this is a major problem, that this case badly exposes the fraud that they're engaged in on the people in the 10th Circuit who are being denied and deprived their federal constitutionally protected rights.
	And that piece isn't written to hit me.
	It's written to tell every other plaintiff's and civil rights lawyer, you better keep your head down and shut your mouth about this, or you're the next one that's going to get hit.
	And my reaction to that is, that guaranteed I was filing a Supreme Court cert.
	At my own expense, by the way.
	Because there's always cost, because you've got to print all these little tiny...
	How the Supreme Court needs everything in a tiny little booklet when everything's digital in the world anyway.
	It costs you five grand just to print those things.
	No, I had the same discussion with my wife last week about the medical profession.
	You know, they can do an MRI on your knee and see the internal organs, but then they need a fax machine to send you the results that they give you on a CD.
	I realized we don't have a computer that has a CD in this house.
	But, Robin, the tough question.
	Cops shoot and kill all the time, and the argument is a perceived threat.
	Yada, yada.
	And there's certain rules in place.
	Like, it was a Tennessee case years ago that resolved it.
	Tennessee versus Gardner.
	Where they said, no, you can't.
	They used to say, if you flee, we can kill you.
	And the Supreme Court was like, uh, no.
	The same basic principles apply to law enforcement that apply to any self-defense case.
	So if a police officer has a reasonable basis to understand they're at imminent risk, if that car was coming right at the cops, I get it.
	Things like that.
	By the way, here's my view.
	If you couldn't do it as a civilian, you sure as heck can't do it as a cop.
	If it isn't self-defense for a civilian, then it sure ain't self-defense for a cop.
	And it's important.
	This applies to all federal government agents.
	So people might get caught up that are pro-police and, oh, this is a cop.
	The same qualified immunity principle is what allows all of them to walk that are not cops.
	There are other, whether it's family services officers, social security officers, veterans officers, whoever it may be in government, that's screwing people over.
	A corrupt election official.
	This qualified immunity is so broadly interpreted that it's basically dead letter law in half the country.
	In the 4th, 5th, and 10th circuit that cover huge parts of middle America.
	They're not screwing people over in the West Coast, or the Northeast, or the urban Midwest.
	They're doing it to rule Midwest, rule Mountain West, rule South.
	That's who they're looking to screw.
	And sadly, it's often led by constitutional conservatives.
	But we'll see.
	We'll see what happens in these cases.
	It's comparable to the Title VII cases, of which I have one.
	Another great organization has another that may get up to the Supreme Court, my case before the Third Circuit, on how...
	Badly, they are taking away people's rights to sue for religious discrimination.
	I was going to say, do that one while we're at it, and then we'll find a way to work in Kamala Harris telling a religious person, you're not welcome at our rallies.
	Well, that Kamala Harris attitude is what a lot of federal judges have, especially when it comes to the COVID vaccine mandates, which many of those same judges are culpable and complicit.
	In direct harm, in some cases, disability and death being visited on people because those judges forced it on them.
	And so the people who asserted a religious objection, I call it a conscientious objection.
	That's the breadth of what the religious discrimination law is about.
	You don't have to believe in a specific religion.
	You don't even have to believe in God.
	It's a belief equal to religion.
	Which is, what is that?
	Your conscience.
	So it's like conscientious objection, for which we have a lot of conscientious objection laws, separately and independently written, in the context of drafts and the like.
	Military drafts for war, etc.
	And so if you look at that, what people brought suit, because they asserted a religious objection, and a range of employers, one of the worst in the country, one of the most abusive, Also who hates their workers, treats them terribly, also has a long history of criminal fraud on the American people, including soldiers, is 3M, otherwise known as 3M-Fers.
	And they just left the F-E-R-S off for public display purposes, based out of Tim Walsh's state of Minnesota.
	What they're doing in these cases is they're saying, okay, you're suing for religious discrimination.
	We want to know your entire life history.
	We want to know your medical history.
	We want to know your sexual history.
	We want to know your sexual affiliations.
	In Canada, Trudeau effectively said the same thing.
	They're going to make it exceedingly difficult to get religious exemptions.
	Now, I was sort of under the traditional view that you had to be one of the big three.
	I don't know how many more religions there are.
	Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, or Hindi, and rely on that.
	But it's broader than that, although in reality, it's...
	It has been used as a weapon to basically dissect your personal life and prove to the new popes that you fit a religious exemption.
	No doubt.
	And I think the law in the United States is very broad for a purpose.
	One, courts are not supposed to be in the business of judging people's religious beliefs.
	So the law is written in such a way as the focus is on the employer's intent, not the employees.
	The focus is, did the employer...
	Discriminate against someone based on religion.
	That's it.
	That's the whole focal point of the law.
	It's a statutory enforcement against private employers that extends the core constitutional liberty protected in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	Freedom of religion.
	And your right to believe whatever you want.
	Our country was a country founded by heretics and dissenters, along with a few tax protesters.
	And now they're some of the most hated groups in America.
	And so what's happening is federal courts are distorting and contorting the law to say, well, we're not going to consider it a sincere religious belief unless we think you're a sincere practitioner of the belief.
	And how they're extending that is they're saying, so we admit the employer discriminated against you because you asserted a Christian objection to a vaccine mandate.
	And they made no effort at a reasonable accommodation.
	That's what 3M did.
	3M made no effort at any reasonable accommodation for any of them.
	Again, one of the most abusive companies in the country.
	And the way they've responded to people suing them is to harass the individuals using the courts to do so.
	They have demanded people turn over their entire cell phone.
	Turn over their entire computers.
	Disclose all private political affiliations, all private political conversations, all social conversations, all religious conversations, and their entire medical history, including their personal sexual history, and all their discussions with any therapist or counselor they've ever engaged in.
	None of this has jacked to do with whether 3M intended to discriminate on religious grounds, which is precisely what they did.
	So what are federal judges doing?
	They're contorting and distorting two areas.
	What does it mean to have a sincere religious objection?
	And another area, the right of discovery as compared to privacy under the Constitution, to convert the federal courts itself into instruments of inquisition to punish heretics.
	And what they want is they're punishing you for even suing.
	They punish you if you even object.
	On these grounds, that this is immaterial, irrelevant, is in fact another form of discrimination.
	Because again, the focus is on the employer's intent.
	So whether it's a sincere religious objection is whether a reasonable employer would know that the objection is religious in character, not whether the person making the objection is a sincere religious practitioner.
	So imagine where this is going.
	This is their new theory, 3M.
	Well, you know, you didn't always go to church.
	So you can't really hold the beliefs that your fellow practitioners hold.
	Oh, you hold a belief that's different than the local pastor, so you can't really hold that belief because the local pastor disagrees with you.
	Or the Pope comes out and says, yeah, everybody should get the jab, and now all of a sudden you have no longer any religious objection.
	I'll take it further.
	Oh, the real reason why you came to this objection is because you didn't like COVID lockdown policy.
	You didn't like the Biden or Harris administration.
	Your political affiliations and associations show you're a Trumper or someone who raises questions about a wide range of topics and issues.
	Or even further, well, you can't seriously be a Christian because you had an affair five years ago.
	I mean, that's where they're going.
	That's how insane this has become.
	Federal courts are converting their courthouses into modern-day inquisitions engaged in heresy trials against dissident individuals who simply are trying to prohibit and prevent religious discrimination and employment in this country.
	And so that's the case we're taking up to the Third Circuit because what a federal district court judge did...
	Judge Beatlestone, or whatever her name is, another judge born outside the United States, who's like a chancellor of some foreign university.
	Why is she on the federal bench?
	Why can't we have Americans on the American federal bench rather than foreigners everywhere?
	Like the judge who's trying to fix, who released information against Trump this week, again, daughter and granddaughter of foreign communists.
	on the American federal bench who said because she's apolitical and doesn't want to impact the election, she's going to make sure a bunch of salacious information gets publicly disclosed that never does right on the eve of the election.
	A fraud like that in D.C. needs to be impeached and then needs to be indicted.
	Now that you mention it, though, what would be required to create, I mean, I guess it's just legislation, to create a requirement, something similar to becoming president, that you have to be a naturalized-born citizen in order to sit on a federal or a state court?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Well, at least a federal court, because that's what you can do at the congressional level.
	The states can pass their own legislation.
	I'm just not a fan of foreigners being on an American bench.
	I mean, I'm in favor of foreign courts putting me on their bench.
	So unless you wanted to be more like America, we don't want to be more like commie Jamaica.
	We don't want to be more like commie, these other commie countries.
	We don't want to be more like the England, you know, where some of these people come from.
	So we'll see how that goes.
	We brought the case up before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We'll see if we get justice or not, but it's a problem all across the country.
	Plaintiff's lawyers are seeing it all across the country.
	We probably need additional relief and remedy at the legislative level to make it crystal clear this is never permitted.
	That heresy trials are never permitted.
	Inquisitions are never permitted.
	The courts have no right to be their own.
	What it is, is the courts are compounding corporations and are complicit with corporations religiously discriminating against people by the courts religiously discriminating against them.
	Because what happened in this case is because she simply objected to it and didn't produce all the information according to the corporate side that they wanted, that her whole case was dismissed.
	No jury trial, nothing.
	As a sanction for objecting.
	For objecting.
	The main objectionable activity was simply objecting.
	Because she produced a whole bunch of stuff she never should have been produced in the first place.
	That's how insane these courts have become.
	And this is the same judge, by the way, that an abortion context wouldn't allow a lot of evidence of the same quality that actually was material in because she respected the right to privacy.
	But very selective about that.
	And that's the other aspect to this.
	The right to discovery in the federal process is limited by the role of the courts.
	Because a federal government actor is involved, they must comply with the Constitution.
	Which means that the right to privacy, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to a range of topics that can be correlated with the discovery process, as is here, limits the ability of a federal court.
	To invade that privacy using the power of discovery under federal civil rules.
	And this court didn't even pretend to even look at the topic or analyze it.
	So that'll be another issue that we'll be litigating before the Third Circuit as well.
	Well, it is not an accident that churches are burning across Canada.
	There's an outright vilification against, I say, Christianity in particular.
	Because for some reason...
	There just seems to be one consistent target of all of these types of lawfare.
	It's not...
	It's because it's one of the last institutions independent from their little woke universe of complete social control.
	It's why they went after gamers.
	It's why they went after comics.
	It's why they want complete cultural control.
	And one of the last bastions of independence free from that cultural control are religious institutions and religious schools in America.
	And that's why the religious are being punished and targeted and discriminated against.
	And sadly, some of our biggest corporations are complicit in it.
	And some of our federal courts are complicit in it.
	Another way they've got around all this, and mostly it's the corporate whores in the federal court that have done this part.
	If you bring a Title VII case alleging religious discrimination, there's the burden of pleading, the burden of production.
	And the burden of proof, or sometimes called the burden of persuasion.
	So in the McDonnell Douglas case, the Supreme Court separated them all, unnecessarily created a ridiculous, contorted process for how each burden was supposed to be done that has completely led to conflicts all across the courts.
	But often it's the conservative courts, who are really just corporate whores, who've come up with creative ways to screw over people who are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.
	No better way to suppress and oppress religion than allow employers to punish you for your religion.
	That's going to silence and suppress religion everywhere.
	I mean, why is it there are a bunch of Muslims throughout the Middle East where there used to be Jews and Christians?
	Because you had to pay a special tax if you wanted to stay a Christian or a Jew.
	And so a whole bunch of people are like, screw that, I'm going to become Muslim so I don't get harassed all the time.
	So this is not long known throughout history.
	And of course, Christians have done the same thing.
	Other groups have done the same thing.
	So it's not just targeting Muslims.
	They were just really good at it, to the point of proof.
	So here, what's happening is you, the plaintiff, have the burden of pleading discrimination.
	It's then the defendant's job if they're going to say, no, no, discrimination had nothing to do with it.
	Here's the reason we did the employment action we did, which was non-discriminatory.
	Then there's some vague language in the Supreme Court's decision about what happens next.
	The burden of proof some federal courts are interpreting, the burden of persuasion is then on the plaintiff to prove that that reason that the employer gave is really pretextual and that the real reason was discriminatory.
	Now, this violates the plain language of the law.
	The plain language of the law is, did the employer intend to discriminate or not?
	And so the employer can say, here's the real reason I did it.
	Okay. The employee can say, I don't think that's the reason.
	I think it's this other reason.
	Let the jury decide.
	You've got a material fact in dispute.
	Instead, what courts are saying is, no, no, no.
	You plaintiff now have to disprove the reason that the employer gave as being a reason for it.
	Even though the law says employer can have multiple reasons if any one of them was discriminatory.
	They violated the law, your legal rights, because we want to protect against religious discrimination in the workplace.
	So that also up now going up before the Supreme Court, saying you need to fix your prior mistake.
	You need to restore the rights against religious discrimination and the remedies to deter that religious discrimination against other workers in the country and establish that the burden of pleading is on the plaintiff, then the burden of production is on the defendant.
	And then the burden of proof is not to disprove their defense, but it's simply rather to prove which is right.
	Was any religiously discriminatory animus a factor in the employment?
	And why does that matter?
	Because we want to protect people that are harmed by it, and we want to discourage and deter employers from doing it in the first instance, which means it has to not be a factor at all.
	It can't be, you know, and we recognize this common sense in the racial and gender context.
	It's like, oh no, yeah, I fired him because he was black, but I also fired him because he came in late a couple of times, right?
	And then you have to disprove that he came in late a couple of times?
	Even though it's obvious they fired him also because he was black?
	I mean, you wouldn't allow this in those cases.
	Yeah, it's being allowed in religious discrimination cases.
	Because so-called conservative courts are like, ah, okay, there's my religious beliefs, I'm aligned with religious conservatives, but my real religion is the cathedral of the corporation.
	And it's time to cower before the church of the almighty corporate power.
	And that's what they end up doing.
	Hopefully the Supreme Court will make the right choice, get involved, fix this once it's all.
	Yeah, this one is a broad enough application and enough cases arose during COVID that I would imagine they have to take it.
	Robert, let me read some...
	We're going to have to head over to VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com, but let me read a few of the tipped questions here, because Royca1, it seems to have three that were intended to be one, says, good grief, perhaps the third try will work.
	We've got Bella40, who says, thanks for all your streams, your perspective is appreciated.
	Then we got, down here, Andy D has a picture of...
	It's Trump serving fries, and then it says, what about Maha?
	know and it's rfk trying to stop trump from serving the fries uh net jess robert any recommendations for a utah divorce attorney last chance urgent need I don't know one off the top of my head, no.
	I know you'd be more...
	Optimistic, Robert.
	The short answer is it won't help Harris if war flashes before election day.
	It's further evidence of her ineptitude and incompetence.
	I'm optimistic that it will not happen because this type of thing, it's always the same concerns over and over again every cycle of violence that occurs in the Middle East.
	Buffalo Betsy, roll tide, Robert.
	Then we got SEC 808.
	Army versus Navy and anchors away are better.
	Rocky Top doesn't talk about drinking.
	Actually, Rocky Top does.
	Rocky Top has a reference in the song to drinking your corn from a jar.
	He just meant...
	You know what that reference is, right?
	Like alcohol?
	Moonshine. Moonshine.
	You ever drink Moonshine?
	When we went to the Brookladdy Distillery in Scotland, they had an unaged bottle of whiskey that was clear.
	But Pete levels like over 100, whatever the measurement is.
	And it was like 160 proof.
	It was interesting.
	I mean, it was technically moonshine.
	And my brother-in-law used to make his own alcohol.
	That's what, by the way, Mountain Dew, the drink, used to reference moonshine.
	That's what they were borrowing in the labeling, in the branding.
	That's very interesting.
	Now, as I'm trying to get back to the toggle of the screen, I'm getting the spinning wheel of death.
	Do we go over to locals now, Robert?
	We can figure out maybe cover one more here.
	Either way, we got five left.
	We got Robbie Roberson, the potentially innocent man, is facing execution in Texas.
	We got Rico.
	We got winter curfews constitutional anti-suit injunctions.
	Federal courts prohibiting you from suing elsewhere.
	And Alexander Emmerich Jones.
	They're trying to steal his identity once again.
	We could do the Jones on Locals because we've done it enough and this way it'll be a good clip afterwards to put on the social.
	What's his name?
	Robert Robison?
	Robert Robison.
	This is a very interesting case where I'm catching up on it after the fact and I know what I read on the internet and it seems very scary.
	This is a guy sentenced to It was death row, correct?
	Yeah, he executed death row for the death of his, at the time, two-year-old daughter.
	Guy was, you know, he was involved in drugs, not a savory character, criminal history, yada, yada.
	Takes his two-year-old daughter to the hospital.
	She's got allegedly serious head trauma, and they determine that, or they suspect that it was as a result of child abuse.
	They investigate him, determine that.
	She had bruises, lacerations, all those things, which reading sounds determinate in my mind that it was not even a case of shaken baby syndrome, but that was a pivotal element of the case where his conviction was based on shaken baby syndrome, allegedly what they call junk science, but that he shook his baby and caused a head injury that caused her to die, was sentenced to be executed.
	The execution was stayed at the last minute, but...
	When I read the facts of the case, Robert, it does sound very bad, and I don't know if it's the way they describe contusions, bruises, cuts, if they're going and describing normal cuts and scratches on a kid, or if this guy is guilty of something but not necessarily first-degree murder warranting execution.
	What is your broader takeaway of the case and what happened to him?
	I think the key issue in this case for a lot of people is the shaken baby part.
	Is that shaken baby syndrome was misused and abused by a range of prosecutors, police, social workers, and courts to effectively frame innocent parents.
	And that's where the concern has grown in a certain part of the legal community and public opinion.
	This is why this individual has such support from a cross-section of Republicans and Democrats in a very pro-death penalty state like Texas.
	And it's because they're very dubious of the shaken baby syndrome cases, because it looks like a lot of the so-called science behind shaken baby syndrome was bogus from day one.
	And I also think it came to the broader context of the state trying to control child rearing in such a way that it also disproportionately impacted, adversely impacted.
	Working class and poorer parents.
	This is an autistic father from working class East Texas.
	Do you know it had a history of issues and problems?
	But people should ask themselves, if he was beating up his daughter, does he take the daughter to the hospital?
	I mean, there's basic problems with this case right away.
	John Grisham has flagged this case as that he's likely innocent.
	Other medical experts have reviewed the evidence.
	And said the strong evidence is that she had severe pneumonia and that most likely from falling off the bed and other things related to the severe pneumonia can in fact explain the injuries in a way more predictive of his behavior than can the idea that he was just beating up his own two-year-old daughter all the time.
	And so he is the classic kind of person that is targeted by rogue prosecutors, particularly during this time period.
	When they were pushing and propagating this very dubious science, so-called science, of shaken baby syndrome.
	So for those reasons, now, credit to the Texas legislature here.
	Governor Abbott is mostly a coward.
	That's his nature there in Texas.
	And he has rarely exercised his pardon power in a meaningful manner.
	To thoroughly investigate cases.
	Because he could simply commute to life in prison, for example.
	The defense is not that he's innocent of having done wrong.
	It's that it wasn't murder warranting execution by death.
	They're arguing that he didn't abuse this child at all.
	They're arguing that whatever his other issues are in his life, that basically you've got a borderline Economic individual.
	You got a guy that's autistic, and they misinterpreted that.
	Oh, look, he's not responding emotionally the way someone should respond after their daughter dies.
	He must have caused it.
	Why again did he bring the daughter to the hospital?
	There are just things that are screaming here that don't make sense.
	Well, it turns out he's autistic, like severely autistic.
	I was like, well, okay.
	I mean, but they didn't know how to process that at the time.
	But it really reflected social class prejudice in a lot of police departments, social workers, and prosecutors during this time period where they blamed a bunch of parents for shaking baby syndrome, killing their kids, sometimes nannies and other people.
	And then the evidence proved it was hogwash and garbage, and the science was nonsense.
	So that's why he's got an unusual cross-section of Republican and Democratic support in a state like Texas.
	But it's not reaching the Board of Pardons because the governor...
	Doesn't care.
	And he's mostly paranoid of somebody accusing him of being soft on crime rather than being protective of the innocent.
	And so he refused to take corrective action.
	So the Texas legislature came up with a creative solution.
	They issued a subpoena to him.
	And they argued their legislative authority precluded his execution while that subpoena was pending.
	It was a very creative, interesting solution I've never seen before in one of these cases.
	And the Texas Supreme Court agreed that that meant there needed to be a stay of execution.
	But the governor really should step in.
	And a minimum, commute a sentence.
	If you have doubts about, if you think, no, he really is guilty, at least commute a sentence or stay his execution until there can be full investigative vetting of these issues because this shaken baby syndrome stuff just smacked the problematic aspects.
	And whenever I would dug into a case where somebody asked me to dig into one of these cases...
	I'd find the same pattern.
	The parent was a working or the nanny came from a working class or lower income community.
	They might have had other issues of social dysfunction or being outsiders in their community.
	Maybe they're low level street criminals or whatever.
	But for whatever the local powers that be saw them in a very negative jaundice light that these are the kind of people that really shouldn't be allowed to raise kids.
	We need to have the government do it instead.
	That's the mindset behind a lot of this.
	And they were pushing completely garbage science from day one about it.
	We are going to do the Alex Jones case here.
	We have everybody coming over to VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Get some merch at VivaFry and follow both of us on Twitter.
	Alright, so what did I see today?
	That the trustee wants to receive the...
	Royalties from, among other things, Alex Jones' video game?
	I haven't played that game.
	Now the trustee of the bankruptcy courts.
	I've never met an honest bankruptcy trustee in my life.
	So every bankruptcy trustee I've ever dealt with is a corrupt fraud who secretly works for the creditors and the banks rather than the debtor like they're supposed to.
	And so it's not a surprise to me that this bankruptcy trustee has now decided to go along with auctioning.
	Not only all of Infowars as a way to try to pay back the debts, but what they should have done is they should have stayed everything until all the appeals and higher courts could review whether or not the absurd verdict against Alex Jones is constitutionally cognizant in the first instance.
	But they're not doing that because they don't care about the Constitution.
	They're in bankruptcy court in Texas like they don't care about it anywhere else.
	And so he now...
	Is saying that all of Alex Jones' social media accounts are now assets of the bankruptcy estate.
	And he wants to auction them off.
	So he wants to steal Alex Jones' identity and give it to other people and sell it at auction.
	He wants to include in the auction the real Alex Jones Twitter account.
	The real Alex Jones Truth account.
	Every Alex Jones social media account that exists.
	Is it the accounts themselves or the proceeds generated from those accounts?
	Accounts themselves.
	All right, well, they won't be worth very much when Joe Schmo down the street or owns the real Alex Jones.
	Would he be allowed?
	Hold on a second.
	I just got distracted by this one.
	Yes, indeed.
	Smash that like, you hearty, you bigots, before you leave.
	Jacob Castro, good to see you again.
	Would he be allowed recreating or creating another social media account that would be...
	Because technically, you can't hide assets from the bankruptcy.
	But the court is asking for a very broad definition that could mean that any social media account ever created or originated or operated in the name of Alex Jones is somehow an Infowars asset into perpetuity that can now be auctioned off and sold.
	And somebody can pretend to be Alex Jones and put out fake information.
	They can take the real Alex Jones account and fake information.
	They can basically impersonate him.
	And the bankruptcy trustee files this emergency motion to add this nonsense.
	We'll see if the bankruptcy judge is as dull and is out of it as the trustee seems to think he is.
	Because he acted like, oh, this is normal.
	Here's what's normal.
	If you have a business that has a social media account in the name of the business, for example, there are InfoWars accounts.
	Nobody's claiming the InfoWars accounts can't be included in the estate.
	It's that Owen Schroyer's account can't be included because that's for Owen Schroyer.
	That Alex Jones' accounts can't be included because that's for Alex Jones.
	It's not the InfoWars account they want.
	It's the real Alex Jones account that they want.
	And you have to ask yourself, as you pointed out, there'd be no value if it's really Alex Jones.
	So what would be the value?
	To impersonate Alex Jones.
	To make statements that the person thinks are coming from Alex Jones that are not.
	That's the only reason to want this.
	And they want this right around the election time?
	I mean, so the dishonest nature of the bankruptcy court, just like the dishonorable nature of all of these lawfare cases against Alex Jones, are just being further revealed on full display.
	I remember I got a lot of pushback when I started advocating for Jones in the court of public opinion.
	Oh, you don't understand.
	It's Jones.
	You're Benji Shapiro's of the world.
	We're running and hiding and not wanting to defend the case.
	I mean, even Megyn Kelly's come around.
	You know, Alex Jones was right about a lot of things.
	And, you know, Megyn Kelly, when she was at NBC, you know, did a piece that was very unfavorable to Alex Jones.
	So all these people are now coming around and realizing, oh, what's happening to Jones is a problem because it could happen to the rest of us.
	But it's another precarious precedent where they're trying to claim that your physical...
	Imagine a real, like, AI-simulated world where we expressed ourselves in, say, the meta world that Zuckerberg wants to create.
	And let's say that was the main mechanism by which we communicated to everyone.
	Imagine if they called that a corporate asset that the estate could now take and the government could take and pretend to be you forever and do it.
	That's effectively what they're trying to do to Alex Jones.
	So it's just another egregious effort to usurp him.
	And even though courts have previously called this involuntary servitude, said this violates so many different, and that these rights of publicity are inalienable.
	of the individual and cannot be taken against their consent, their informed consent.
	You have a bankruptcy trustee trying to make radical dangerous precedent in the case of Alex Jones, hoping the judge is asleep at the wheel because he has a complicit plaintiff's lawyers along the ride with him.
	Who, as you point out, they can't be doing this for money because as soon as Alex Jones is known not to be affiliated with it, he can make no money.
	They can only be doing it to impersonate Alex Jones in order to lie about Alex Jones, in order to submit false information and mislead people concerning what Alex Jones thinks and believes.
	That can be the only purpose of it.
	And to otherwise suppress and censor his voice from being heard by the broadest range of audience.
	Before we go over to vivabornslaw.locals.com for the rest of this, Zach Apotheker, he's the Border Patrol agent whistleblower that I actually had on the channel last week talking about James O'Keefe's line in the sand.
	And we talked about it.
	I said the writing's on the wall, Zach.
	What's going to be your plan?
	When they do what you know they're going to do, and they did what we knew they were going to do, Zach tweeted this yesterday.
	He said, They thought they could break us.
	As of yesterday, they slashed my pay by $30,000, stripped me by gun badge credentials, armor, and radio, humiliated me publicly at the station, left a menacing message for me on the chief's whiteboard, harassed by family, promoted the perpetrator to D.C. With a pay raise while hiding names on memos, changed my work schedule.
	If defending over 300,000 missing children and the United States makes me the villain, then I embrace that role, all because I spoke to Ron Johnson, James O'Keefe, the film Line in the Sand, exposing the crushing behind our nation's border on the TCN network, Tucker Carlson network.
	This isn't just cowardice, it's tyranny.
	Allowing this proves we're letting justice be crushed.
	We must rise, unite.
	And then we see the letter, which...
	I won't read it.
	I might do something separate on this later.
	I was waiting for this to be published before talking about it.
	It's predictable.
	This is the warning sign for anybody who would flag the...
	Ineptitude and the corruption of the Biden regime of, what's his face?
	Alejandro Mayorkas facilitating an invasion, human trafficking.
	It's just, it's wild.
	So Zach published this the other day.
	I just gave everybody the link and I'm going to figure out how we can help Zach because he's going to need it.
	Let me read a couple while we're all transitioning over to the Viva Barnes Law side.
	Stingray, would be hilarious if Elon banned the Alex Jones account for impersonation if someone else owned it.
	Sammy, $7 says, if some random person buys Alex Jones X accounts, will they also purchase the history on those accounts, i.e., DMs, etc.?
	It would be necessary.
	All the data and all the information related to it.
	Spam Ranger says, yesterday I published a first article on X regarding the documents case.
	Today I published an article on...
	The Republican Civil Rights Performance.
	I'm going to go to that.
	And now, we are going over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	It's going to be 30 seconds.
	Let's see if it boots me.
	I'll be back in a second.

▲