Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 5, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:53:23

Eop. 244: FBI Seeks HELP for Jan. 6? FBI Taints New Orleans Crime Scene? Amos Miller, Lawfare & MORE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Mike is on.
	Everybody, you're going to hear a noise that's going to be a little irritating, but this is what happens when you're trying to stream from prison, Jake.
	Give me a second.
	Let me just make sure that we're live across all of the various internet platforms.
	Okay, I can hear me perfectly.
	Jake, everybody, deal with the audio for what it is.
	This is Jake Lang.
	One of the January 6th prisoners, one of the January 6th persecuted individuals, regardless of how you feel about Jake as an individual, because I understand he's controversial.
	I was supposed to go down to D.C. today to attend the pardon panel tomorrow on the 4th anniversary of January 6th, and my flight was delayed twice, and I was going to miss the show, and I said, forget that I'm not flying into an 11-inch snowstorm.
	But we're going to bring Jake on right now so that Jake can give an update and I'm going to be live streaming the event as much of it as I can tomorrow and be attending digitally in the internet.
	Jake, take it away.
	Tell us what's going on.
	Tell us how you're doing and give us the update.
	Hey, hey, people.
	How's it going, guys?
	God bless y'all.
	I'm going to get you live from the Gulag right now.
	We just got a little bit of video capabilities here.
	And we are approaching a crazy snowstorm that's coming tomorrow.
	Right on the fourth anniversary of January 6th, 1,445 days later, I am still incarcerated without a trial held as a hostage by the Biden regime.
	And we have a huge event tomorrow that we're doing at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
	Some of the brave patriot soldiers have, like, George Washington forded the river and the icy snow.
	It'll be live on Viva's page and Gateway Pundit and a bunch of other great streamers.
	And we've got an amazing group of speakers, including Viva is going to speak at Jim Hoff and Mike Lindell, Laura Loomer, Patrick Byrd, Isabella Maria DeLuca, Professor David Clements, my attorney.
	And we've got, I mean, the list is like over 30 speakers right now.
	I really want to check in and listen to this because this is going to be basically the antithesis to what happened at the January 6th Select Committee.
	All of those lies and the farce and just one-sided Soviet show trial.
	This is going to be the truth conference.
	So press is going to be there.
	They're going to be asking questions from Jan Sixers like Coy Griffin, Daniel Goodwin, Brandon Fellows, lots of different.
	Trenus Evans is going to be there.
	Lots of different Jan Sixers and community organizers are going to be there.
	This is very special for me because it's really a moment of solidarity in the January 6th community where all the voices are coming together and saying one thing.
	Leave no man behind.
	No man left behind in the Gulag.
	Pardon all the Jan Sixers on day one.
	We're calling upon President Trump and his new incoming administration to do the right thing, to end this two-tiered persecution, this witch hunt, immediately.
	Four years is long enough for anything anyone allegedly did at the Capitol.
	That was entrapped by the Capitol Police and Nancy Pelosi that was defending their own lives at the Capitol like myself and tried to even save lives.
	And so this meeting is a great meeting of the minds.
	I really want everyone to tune in.
	Viva's going to be one of our first speakers.
	So please, guys, get on the live stream 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
	We will be streaming live on Gateway Pundit's X channel and their Rumble channel.
	Plus, I think Viva's going to be streaming a portion of it, too.
	It's going to be great.
	We can't wait to see you guys here.
	This is like our 1776 moment where we just stand up and we're like, liberty!
	Freedom! It's only two weeks away.
	I can't imagine it.
	Imagine after four years of, I mean, I've done 900 and something days of solitary confinement already in this last four years.
	But imagine in just two weeks from tomorrow, I could be out on the concrete with the sunshine, being hugged by my family, and on another 250.
	Jan Sixers can also be set free immediately on day one.
	So that's what we're calling for.
	That's what this conference is all about.
	Unity and pushing the envelope to make sure that this administration does the first.
	I mean, if you want to make America great again, you've got to start with the January Sixers.
	If we don't have justice, if we've been left behind, then this country will never heal from the disenfranchisement that many of its citizens feel against the DOJ and the two-tiered rigged persecutions that are happening.
	We need to fix the Jan 6 atrocity first, and then we can go forward and make this country the greatest country in the world.
	Thank you so much, Viva.
	God bless you guys.
	Again, Gateway Pundit, 10 a.m. tomorrow morning on their X channel.
	God bless America.
	I'm so grateful to be a Jan Sixer and stand united with all my brothers.
	Freedom ain't free, guys.
	Jake, thank you very much.
	I'll see you tomorrow.
	God bless you.
	God bless.
	The ticking was coming from their end, and I'm reading some of the chat and trying not to laugh, but it's nice to make light of a difficult situation.
	For those who didn't know, I didn't give enough of an intro.
	That is Jake Lang.
	He is one of the many Jan Sixers who, he in particular, has been incarcerated in pretrial detention because he hasn't had a trial yet in four years.
	I've had him on the channel.
	I've had a number of other Jan Sixers on the channel.
	I'll explain a little bit of the controversy in that there were bona fide grannies who were prosecuted and persecuted.
	Like, bona fide grannies.
	There were bona fide peaceful...
	I wouldn't even call them protesters.
	You had your bona fide peaceful tourists who were let into the Capitol building.
	Doors unlocked, police waving them in, who didn't break, didn't vandalize, didn't get into any kerfuffles, who were persecuted as well.
	And then you have others who were involved with acts of violence, Jake Lang being one of them.
	I had him on, he explained his entire story.
	He was at, though I want to say the Rotunda, that's not the right word.
	He was where Roseanne Boyland was trampled to death.
	By the police when they pushed everyone back, struck with batons, and trampled to death.
	He was with her when that happened, and he responded in his own defense, and per his own statements, he responded to police aggression with what he will certainly claim is self-defense.
	appropriate responses to police brutality.
	There are those who don't like confounding the, quote, violent Jansixers, or the Jansixers who broke windows, struck police officers, pushed barricades, and the totally peaceful grannies who went in and, you know, snapped some pictures and were put on a terror watch list.
	I appreciate that.
	At this point, as far as my perspective goes, I appreciate the distinction that some want to draw.
	I don't care about that distinction anymore.
	Every one of them...
	Should be pardoned day one of Trump's second term.
	All of them, without exception.
	No parsing through who committed acts of violence.
	Yeah, there was violence.
	Would I say that January 6th was characterized by, defined by violence?
	Hell no.
	Inasmuch as people say January 6th was an insurrection, put it in quotes, defined by the violent pockets bullshit.
	Inasmuch as, you know, people wanted to paint the Ottawa protest as violent.
	Incidentally, there were fewer pockets, there were no pockets of violence at the Ottawa protest, but they still wanted to characterize it as violence, vandalism, urinating on war monuments, whatever.
	Lies. There were pockets of violent activity at the Capitol building on January 6th.
	Can't deny that.
	There's video of it.
	I mean, from what you'd think, from the January 6th illegally, unlawfully formed committee, the...
	Unselect committee.
	You'd think that the entire thing was a day of rampaging.
	It was an insurrection.
	It was the most unarmed insurrection you've ever seen in the history of America.
	So there were pockets of violence, whether or not it was justified, whether or not it was a response to police brutality, throwing concussive grenades in, firing rubber bullets in, and blowing people's cheeks up.
	Whether or not you think it was justified or not, yeah, there were some pockets of violence.
	Too bad.
	First of all, there has been more brutal violence committed against police officers in New York.
	In blue cities across America, the perpetrators, the suspects, get let out the day of.
	Some of them with no cash bail, nothing.
	Just out.
	Five illegal immigrants who beat up the cop there.
	Out the same day.
	Jake Lang, for whatever he did, has been in pretrial detention for four freaking years.
	Molotov cocktail lawyers up in New York, what do they get?
	A slap on the wrist?
	A smack on the butt?
	So the bottom line is, we know what they did on January 6th was nothing shy of a fedsurrection.
	We know what they did was nothing shy of provocation.
	We know what they did was nothing shy of federal agents, federal assets, agents provocateurs, whatever you want to call it.
	It was a fedsurrection from bottom to top, top to bottom, that was allowed to happen, made to happen on purpose, specifically so they could run with the bullshit narrative of insurrection, persecute half of America, Justify a police state.
	Justify trying to remove Trump from the ballot.
	Justify trying to impeach Trump a second time.
	It was a setup from the get-go.
	Understaffed because of COVID.
	This is the Capitol building at something like a third of the staff with bike barricades.
	And then the cops let people in and then persecute them.
	And then the cops...
	Shoot people with rubber bullets, concussive grenades, pepper spray, and then when people respond in kind to police brutality, persecuted to the fullest extent of any law that you would find in North Korea.
	So tomorrow is the pardon panel.
	I don't know exactly where it's at.
	Well, if you're in D.C., you can find that Jake Lang has posted it.
	I was supposed to go.
	I can't say that I'm not relieved.
	It's a lot.
	You come back from Canada, have that event yesterday, which we'll talk about in a bit, then fly out to D.C. today, and I get to the airport, and then the flights are delayed once, then it's delayed twice.
	I'm like, I'm going to miss the Sunday show, fly into a storm.
	And so I canceled it, lost the night at the hotel, but what can you do?
	But I'm going to attend via the interwebs tomorrow to talk about this, because it's lawfare.
	1980s Eastern European Soviet bloc level corruption.
	And I don't care what people think of Jake Lang.
	Okay, he committed acts of violence and whether or not you think he was out there looking for trouble or reacted improperly or is even guilty of it.
	Four years in the D.C. Gulag or four years bouncing around because he's been in different institutions?
	Bullcrap. Four years without a trial?
	Bullcrap. And then some people out there who, I don't know why they take issue with Jake Lang in particular, say he's the author of his own misfortune, as the expression in French goes, l'auteur de son propre malheur.
	Something along those lines.
	Chef de son propre malheur.
	That's the expression.
	He's the chief of his own sadness.
	He should have gone to trial earlier.
	I actually have these arguments with people and I genuinely question not their integrity but their reasoning.
	He should have gone to trial earlier.
	It's his fault he asked for delays.
	It's his fault he asked for delays because some of the charges that they were charging him with were constitutionally invalid.
	It's his fault he should have gone to trial earlier when they hadn't disclosed all of the evidence to him.
	Oh, you think that they disclosed all of the evidence to the defendants?
	The FBI just last week...
	Releasing newly released footage of the pipe bomber dude.
	It's flipping insanity that they withheld exculpatory evidence from the defendants and then people fault the defendants for not rushing to trial when they don't have all of the evidence?
	As if they could get a fair trial in D.C.?
	You think you can get a fair trial with a jury of your peers in D.C. that's 95% Hillary Clinton supporters?
	95% think that that was an insurrection?
	What I had on Jason Palmer, he was running for president against Joe Biden.
	I was like, Jason, for an insurrection, it's kind of weird that you had no weapons.
	He said, oh no, there were weapons.
	I was like, no, there weren't.
	We're going to exclude pepper spray and bear spray as a weapon.
	That's not an insurrection weapon, whatever you think that is.
	We're going to exclude baseball bats.
	Those are not weapons of insurrection.
	There were no weapons.
	He says, oh, I thought there was a gun.
	No, there were no guns.
	There was a knife.
	It was in somebody's first aid medical kit.
	Yeah. All must be pardoned.
	And I moderated a panel yesterday.
	Did everybody see this?
	Let me pull this out.
	It's not often that you get to introduce the President of the United States of America.
	And that happened to me last night.
	Let me see something here.
	I'm going to pull up the clip.
	Whether or not I was supposed to introduce the President of the United States, I'm not sure that I was supposed to at that particular moment.
	But there are fortuitous mistakes that you say...
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me bring this up here.
	We're at...
	I'm a panelist.
	Not I'm a panelist.
	I'm moderating a panel at an event yesterday at Mar-a-Lago.
	It was John Eastman's documentary, The Eastman Dilemma.
	It's fantastic.
	I'm going to get the link as to where I can share that with everybody because they sent me a pre-review so I could watch it and know what I'm talking about, although I knew the story already.
	John Eastman.
	Legal constitutional scholar, prosecuted, disbarred for his legal advice theory, the alternate slate of elector legal theory.
	The one that was actually done, carried out by Nixon and JFK back in Hawaii back in the late 60s.
	Proposes a legal theory and gets prosecuted and disbarred for it.
	A lawyer.
	So if you don't know John Eastman's story, go watch the documentary.
	I'll give everybody the link.
	They're hosting this, the premier at Mar-a-Lago.
	And there's a panel of the victims of lawfare.
	On that panel was, I'm going to try to go in order, there was General Flynn, who we all know, the legal saga of General Flynn.
	When the prosecution withdrew the bogus charges, they dropped the charges against Michael Flynn after he had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI officers about what they called was an equivocal answer.
	I don't recall having that conversation.
	And I remember Michael Flynn saying, I don't recall having that conversation, but you guys have the transcript of that conversation, so why don't you just tell me what I said?
	They prosecuted that guy to the fullest extent of the law after having threatened to go after his child, his kid.
	So Flynn is on the panel.
	Rudy Giuliani was on the panel.
	John Eastman was on the panel in the middle.
	Then you had Jeff Clark, and then you had Peter Navarro.
	And then I am moderating it.
	And we're talking about solicitor-client privilege.
	And as I'm moderating, I notice in the back, there's someone who kind of looks like Donald Trump.
	And not even that far, it's in the main ballroom.
	That kind of looks like Donald Trump.
	Then I thought maybe it was like a cutout, and someone brought, just sitting there, like, you know, just watching.
	And then it becomes clear it's Donald Trump.
	And then a few people who were organizing, you know, I believe were involved in the organizing, said, they come up to me as I'm on the stage, and I'm like...
	Trump is in the back and he wants to say something.
	I was like, holy shit, am I keeping the president waiting?
	And so then I do this, which ended up being a fortuitous mistake.
	Here we go.
	Let's listen to this, guys.
	Then they gave me the warrant after the fact, and it said, you know, we're taking all your electronics listed on the attached affidavit.
	Now, I knew that phone was unlikely to be on the attached affidavit, which to this day they still haven't shown me.
	That's John Eastman in the middle right now.
	It was not the phone I had on January 6th.
	Didn't matter.
	And then they could search, seize all of the data on the phone.
	But they couldn't look at it, the warrant said, until they get a second warrant that meets the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
	And two months later, I start getting documents from my phone from a taint team in Portland, Oregon, asking if these particular documents were privileged.
	And I said, I don't understand how you even have these.
	I see President Trump there.
	I'm like, I thought I'm supposed to interrupt.
	The content without a subsequent warrant, identifying with particularity the things to be searched and seen.
	Professor, if I may interrupt you, I think you might have your client here who can testify as to whether or not a solicitor or client privilege.
	I was looking in the back and I saw someone I recognized, and I think I do recognize him, it's President Trump.
	Thank you.
	And we'll pause it here.
	They play the whole song.
	It's so wild.
	I'd never seen Trump in person before.
	I'd never seen Trump in person before.
	Amazing. God bless the USA!
	Alright, we'll pause it there.
	So that was the funny story.
	And then there was a three and a half minute.
	They played the entire song, ovation, and then that was it.
	That was my experience.
	Someone in the chat said I look white.
	It's only because the frickin' lights are blasting my face.
	So it's weird.
	I've never seen Trump in person before.
	Certainly never from three feet away.
	And... I try to humanize even those people that I think are awful people.
	I wonder what Rachel Maddow is like if you see her in real life.
	I happen to think she's no longer an actual human.
	Not in a reptilian shape-shifting sense.
	I don't think she's an actual human anymore because I think she's forgotten what it's like to actually have honest, sincere human emotions.
	Trump is not there.
	Trump is still a human.
	And it's not just that he's still a human.
	You see someone who's been demonized like they say he's Hitler himself and you see him.
	The problem is he is so not a politician in the best possible sense.
	He's a human.
	And he's a good human at that.
	And you look at the man in person, in the flesh, that people want you to believe is the next Hitler.
	And you realize just how susceptible people are to outright brainwashing.
	What do you think Rachel Maddow's like in real life?
	Potato head Brian Stetler, I believe, is probably a nice...
	He's like a goofy uncle in real life.
	Don Lemon, I guarantee you, is the most foul snot ball In real life.
	Trump is just cool.
	Just cool.
	And like Rogan always says, he's got...
	What do you want?
	You want to get out of here?
	Give me two seconds, people.
	Get out.
	Go, go, go, go.
	Get out.
	Get out.
	Go. All right.
	That's the intro, peeps.
	Oh, hold on.
	Before Barnes gets here...
	So that's what I did yesterday.
	And if it was a mistake, Secret Service, I apologize.
	For maybe making the intro too early.
	But it couldn't have been a Secret Service issue.
	Oh, anyhow.
	It was fantastic.
	Okay, let me do one thing first before we bring on the Barnes people, because we've got two wonderful sponsors for tonight's show.
	And the first of which, tell me I can share this.
	I'm going to share this.
	I want to make sure that we can see the screen.
	Yes, Suri Bob people.
	Did you know that American homeowners nationwide have $32 trillion in equity and cyber criminals are targeting it with a growing scam the FBI calls house stealing?
	I learned about this when I moved down to Florida, people.
	It's not a joke.
	I mean, it seems harder to do this in Canada than...
	In Florida in particular, but in America at large.
	House alarms, doorbells, cameras, deadbolts won't work against these seas because they're not after your stuff.
	They're after your equity.
	If your title isn't being monitored, scammers can transfer the title of your home into their name using a one-page document they fill out at the county.
	Then they take out loans against your house and even sell it behind your back.
	The scariest part, you won't find out until collection or even foreclosure notices start arriving in your mailbox.
	But by then, the damage is done and you're left with all of that.
	Barnes, I hear you.
	The best way to protect your equity is with triple lock protection.
	For more friends at Home Title Lock, triple lock protection, 24-7 monitoring, alerts of...
	Any changes?
	And God forbid, if the worst happens, restoration services at no other pocket cost to you.
	So when was the last time you checked your title?
	If you're like me, the answer is never.
	That's actually not true.
	I've checked mine routinely.
	And that's exactly what the scammers are counting on.
	But you can check on your home's title today and make sure that you're not already a victim.
	Go to get a 30-day free trial.
	Go to HomeTitleLock.com.
	Use promo code VIVA30 and click on the link in the description.
	HomeTitleLock.com.
	Promo code VIVA30.
	HomeTitleLock.com.
	And then hold on one second.
	We're going to bring this out.
	I just got a text that said I'm muffled.
	Am I muffled?
	I don't think I'm muffled.
	And our second and last sponsor of the evening because...
	While you're checking your home title, people, you can have a nice cup of coffee from the fine folks at 1775.
	It's time to make mornings great again.
	If your coffee tastes like it was brewed in a UN meeting, watered down, directionless, and catering to the lowest common denominator, you deserve better.
	Enter 1775's Vitality Coffee, bold and built for patriots who lead, not follow.
	Lion's mane and reishi sharpen your focus faster than calling out fake news, while cordyceps power your energy like a Trump tweet at 2. And those handpicked Bolivian beans, they're so bold, they make Starbucks taste like crap.
	No fillers, no comparison, and proudly backed by Rumble.
	They are a Rumble partner, so support them.
	The platform that truly supports free speech, we're going to compare that to X a little later in the show.
	The platform that stands for truth, independence, and the fight for freedom.
	Head over to 1775coffee.com.
	Promo code VIVA gets you 15% off and make mornings great again.
	1775coffee.com, promo code VIVA.
	For 15% off.
	All right, now do I have to let Barnes in?
	Accept. Oh, there we go, Barnes.
	I think, okay, I think he can activate.
	Sir, I've grown two feet since yesterday.
	Someone asked if Trump was taller than him.
	I said, yeah, just only by a foot.
	I mean, maybe a foot and two inches.
	Mr. Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
	Ah, good, good.
	Yeah, you had a, what was it like to introduce the President of the United States?
	Well, considering I was told shortly afterwards I wasn't supposed to, I immediately thought maybe I had done something catastrophically stupid.
	But it was wild.
	I mean, we're sitting there doing a panel, and President Trump is in the back of the ballroom watching intently.
	And he watched the better, like, 40 minutes of it.
	And then I guess he had to retire.
	See, I'm not sure if it...
	Because whenever he moves, they've got to, like, get Secret Service in front and in back.
	So I think maybe I...
	I was premature in my introduction, and then he had to go and have dinner with the Prime Minister of Italy, Maloney.
	It was fantastic.
	Yeah, that's cool.
	It looked like he was in good spirits.
	It looked like the...
	The panel had a good presentation.
	You said the documentary is pretty good?
	The documentary is great.
	I would say it's almost more geared for, I'm not going to say this to be pretentious, to lawyers or intellectuals.
	They do their best to keep you entertained with the subject matter, but they get into.
	The legality.
	They get into, when everyone says, you know, Trump filed 60 lawsuits and the courts dismissed all of them.
	There's a section where Eastman goes through basically all of them.
	Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
	And how they screwed everybody in each of those states for what was wildly bigger than the margin.
	How they weren't heard on any merits.
	They were dismissed on latches or standing.
	And they never did a signature verification in Georgia.
	Period. Full stop.
	And how, like, even in Michigan where the margin was $150,000.
	The ballots that magically appeared with no chain of custody was enough to wither that down to 10,000.
	But it's also thoroughly enraging when you understand that they were going after a lawyer for doing nothing more than proposing a legal theory that had a legitimate legal basis, so much so that they then subsequently amended the Electoral Act, whatever it was, to remove the ambiguity that Eastman was arguing was a legitimate path forward.
	So it's great.
	Yeah, I think the cases against him, the cases against Mary Bowden in Texas by the Texas Medical Board, the cases against people like Rudy Giuliani, these are all examples of weaponized lawfare and civil rights violations by the Justice Department.
	And I hope that Harmeet Dillon, when she takes over the Office of Civil Rights at the Justice Department, He looks into these cases, including Judge Mershon in New York and what he's been up to, and so many other illustrations and examples of constitutional violations by the very people charged with protecting people's constitutional rights in the judicial branch and the executive branch of government at the state and federal level.
	One of the themes of the panel was for the...
	VIPs, I guess, of people.
	It was not everybody who had access to the panel, but one of the questions was, what do you do about it?
	And I think pretty much everyone on the panel, although they don't have a grudge, they have an understandable gripe, they say people need to be punished for this, period.
	If they don't get punished, worse still, if they have a place in government going forward, no one's going to learn the right lessons whatsoever.
	They're just going to do this again and again and again.
	But we've talked about it a bit.
	Who initiates this form of justice, which is true justice and not retribution?
	How does it start?
	Who takes the first shot?
	I think the best place is the office for these issues, for weaponized lawfare, the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department that has been politically weaponized by the Obama and Biden administration to go after their political adversaries in many contexts or instances, including trying to influence election policy at the state level, influence immigration policy.
	Influence diversity, equity, inclusion policy, trans policies, etc.
	Things that were not appropriate for the Civil Rights Division to be active in.
	What it was originally designed for is precisely this.
	For those that don't remember, the original Civil Rights Acts were passed after the Civil War to deal with state law enforcement and state judges violating people's civil rights.
	The target was primarily state judges.
	Secondarily, state law enforcement.
	So that's the department that's charged with making sure this kind of lawfare doesn't translate into civil rights and constitutional violations.
	So I think that's the department that can be proactive in civil and criminal inquiries.
	And then I think other departments, you know, Robert Kennedy talked recently about his recommendation to the new attorney general, once appointed, would be to investigate Anthony Fauci for a long list.
	Of criminal violations.
	That would be the Justice Department just in general, with the assistance of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which hopefully will be Robert Kennedy, and then the CDC and the FDA and the NIH directors, all of whom have come recommended by the Kennedy camp and have good roots in restoring the public credibility and integrity of those institutions.
	Otherwise, The third aspect would be what I've been calling for, which is a pardon committee, a lawfare committee, a lawfare committee to look at who has been targeted over the past decade, and maybe go back further to other prominent cases of politically motivated prosecutions, selective prosecutions, to go beyond the January 6th cases, but to look at Edward Snowden, to look at Julian Assange, to look at other whistleblowers.
	I believe unlawfully and wrongfully targeted by both the Obama and Biden administrations.
	Remember, Obama went after more whistleblowers than any administration in American history.
	In fact, more than all 43 presidential predecessors to Obama combined to remind people of the dangers of the deep state.
	I think other aspects, the attacks on crypto and Bitcoin in multiple contexts.
	The president is committed to commuting the sentence of Ross Ulbricht.
	Who I believe everything about that case was tainted from the get-go, and they made clearly false allegations and accusations against him, tried to deny him the ability to fund his own defense.
	And that leads us to the person who did help fund his defense, who is the current highest-profile target of politically motivated lawfare by the Biden administration, and that is Roger Veer, colloquially known as Bitcoin Jesus.
	Who is being targeted for a criminal case where he faces 109 years in federal prison for made-up phony charges by a politically motivated corrupt.
	And now we have evidence.
	A Department of Justice high-profile tax division official, according to the motion to dismiss filed by Roger Ver's legal team, detailed how the U.S. government...
	Deliberately lied and fabricated information to the grand jury to get the indictment.
	Lied and fabricated information to the judge to illegally, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally seize attorney-client privilege communications.
	But what's most striking is, after they seize those communications, they then lie about what the communications said in both the indictment and in their paperwork file to the Spanish court.
	Under a penalty of perjury, they claimed that Roger Ver had withheld information from his tax lawyers and accountants and had not acted in reliance on their information.
	It turns out the attorney-client communications that they unlawfully seized proved just the opposite.
	Roger Ver followed, gave all the information to his tax attorneys and accountants, and he complied precisely with their instruction.
	This, for those that don't know, in the tax arena, it's called a reliance defense.
	We don't want to imprison people for disagreement about tax laws or for the complexity of the tax laws or for debt, simply owing money to the government.
	You have to have fraudulent intent.
	It's called willfulness in the criminal tax arena.
	That means if you in good faith believe your position was right about what was reportable, what was disclosable, what was due and owed, you can't go to prison.
	You might owe money, but you can't go to prison.
	Disagreement with the IRS is not a crime.
	In the same way, if you fully comply and disclose information to your accountant or tax professional and comply with their advice, you can't go to prison.
	It's called the reliance defense.
	They knew he had a perfect reliance defense.
	So they lied to the judges in the United States, and then they lied to Spanish courts.
	In fact, there are Spanish court officials now looking at bringing a criminal investigation and potential prosecution.
	of one of the highest-ranking Justice Department tax division officials.
	And so the question becomes, why is it we have to rely on foreign governments to enforce constitutional rights and liberties in America?
	But the Roger Ver case is a classic case that needs Trump's intervention and rectifying and remedying all the debacles and disasters of this Department of Injustice under the Biden and Obama regimes.
	And I think that's the third aspect.
	So, Office of Civil Rights, go after people that are violating people's civil rights and weaponized lawfare.
	Justice Department, look at everything related to COVID and immigration and who needs to be prosecuted.
	There's substantial evidence of massive conspiracies involving government officials, NGOs, and powerful people that were just given the Medal of Freedom this week by Joe Biden, the one and only Nazi collaborator, George Soros.
	Who was kicked out of Hungary for his intentions of using immigration to destabilize that country and all of Europe, which just follow what's happening with the grooming gang scandal.
	That the British media has been suppressing for almost a decade.
	It's not happy news, Robert.
	It's not happy news.
	It doesn't promote positivity.
	I think your sarcastic version is probably the best reaction and response to that proposal.
	Oh, stop it.
	Thank you.
	Use all positive language to explain how ridiculous and absurd it is with the appropriate droll of sarcasm.
	To transition into...
	That topic amongst, I mean, we have multiple.
	We got the Trump sentencing, which is one of the top vote getters over at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We got the Vegas-New Orleans terror incidents.
	That was the second highest voter beyond no particular favorite.
	The big Amos Miller win in Pennsylvania.
	We discussed the John Eastman documentary, Professor Eastman.
	Great guy.
	Great to see that presentation.
	Great to see Trump connected and involved and invested in that personally, that he would make a personal appearance.
	And the rest there at Mar-a-Lago.
	I forgot to...
	Actually, I'm going to publish it after this.
	MSNBC melting down over Trump appearing.
	He didn't invite press.
	He didn't provide a transcript, which goes to show that he knows what he's doing is wrong.
	You guys are effing mentally unhinged.
	Sorry. Oh, completely.
	Beyond all...
	The Musk X social credit score, as some people are interpreting it.
	The Giuliani contempt proceedings, you have to see him there.
	I guess he's still in good spirits, despite the insanity of everything related to that case.
	AI promoting more fake news, fake reviews, fake information, fake intel, leading to an FTC contempt order to restrain their bad actions.
	The discrimination is okay, according to the courts.
	As long as they say you have no standing.
	Of course, that's their favorite pretext to allow illegal activities to continue unabated.
	The utter disaster of our jails in America exposed again in the Atlanta jail where they were trying to lock up President Trump previously.
	And what an utter disaster that jail is.
	Many of whom, by the way, have been convicted of no crime.
	And yet are horribly abused, maltreated, malnourished.
	We've talked about it, but we'll refresh everybody's memory when we get into it, because it's horrific.
	If you think, oh, they're criminals, they get what they deserve, set aside the fact that many of them are not convicted.
	Nobody deserves that, period.
	You're not a humane society if you believe in torture, period.
	The places where Obama and Biden administration went AWOL was trying to federalize state law enforcement through the misuse of the Office of Civil Rights.
	Enforcement to impose politically motivated agendas.
	Where they were not wrong, and Trump's administration also continued to investigate this, was the problem with our jails.
	Our jails are just in horrendous shape across the country, but Atlanta was one of the more egregious examples.
	Then we've got big tech trying to hide behind the First Amendment to claim that they can avoid laws meant to protect children from abuse and targeting.
	Laws meant to protect parental consent and notification of the use of certain services by big tech, and trying to hide behind the First Amendment to claim that they can ignore labor laws, and then also trying to evade the various aspects of other laws.
	One area where they succeeded, where they probably deserved success, was in challenging the net neutrality rules that the Biden administration tried to impose, that the Obama administration previously tried to impose.
	And that was successfully killed in court, which was a good indicator.
	So we got a robust set of votes.
	We got good stuff.
	We'll start with the one.
	I was going to reply to your tweet earlier today, but there's no way to even have a back and forth with someone you like without people thinking you're fighting.
	So I said, we'll do it live.
	Elon Musk.
	So I legit thought it was a joke.
	I'd been caught up with some other things in travel.
	And I was like, oh, social credit score on Twitter.
	And I didn't really know what was going on.
	Then I went into Elon's own grok on Twitter.
	And I say, You know, ask for an explanation.
	And they say, yeah, we're going to be promoting positivity, literally referencing user regret minutes or regretted user minutes because there's too much negativity on Twitter.
	Like, it's a legit thing.
	So Elon is apparently, it has not yet been rolled out.
	So everybody thinking you're gaming the algorithm, it's not yet in force.
	But he's going to, and I can understand the underlying rationale, try to promote...
	You know, or deter the rage bait phenomenon that is social media.
	Okay. People are going nuts in a way that I think is totally unjustified.
	And I agree with you, Robert.
	First of all, I will give Elon Musk the benefit of the doubt in everything that he does.
	It doesn't mean I'm not going to make fun of him when I think he's doing something stupid.
	Would he refuse to bring back Alex Jones?
	And he's touting free speech and comparing it or even like...
	Prioritizing it over Rumble.
	I was like, eh, you can't exactly say that because you still haven't brought back Alex Jones.
	And it was on improper reasons.
	He thought that Alex Jones was...
	What was it?
	It had to do with children.
	He said he's profiting off the death of children.
	He'll never allow anybody to do that.
	But yet, Pierce Morgan is still on Twitter.
	And I said, you're wrong for that, period.
	But he still does good.
	He's done...
	He was integral in the election, integral in facilitating free speech.
	And so he's making a mistake now, and I think it's a bona fide mistake, but he hasn't become evil just because of it.
	And you put out a tweet, it's like, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and we'll see where it goes, but he's not evil for wanting to tinker with an algorithm, because there's an algorithm there now, so that rage bait is not what makes money on Twitter.
	I think it's stupid.
	Destined to fail.
	YouTube was better when what people wanted to watch.
	Would pop up based on popularity.
	And whether or not people respond to rage more than joy, that might be the nature of the internet.
	But the other bottom line is, in as much as Elon hadn't been aware of the rape gangs in the UK, it's probably because it was suppressed.
	And it could have been suppressed because they didn't want to discriminate or demonize against the Muslim Pakistani men who were perpetrating this.
	Or someone said, oh, it's negativity and we don't want to promote that.
	I think it's stupid.
	Still like Elon Musk.
	I'm not sure I like Neuralink for human control, but I do like it for giving movement back to paralyzed people.
	What is your take on it, Robert?
	Yeah, I mean, I was someone who started off as a skeptic of Elon Musk.
	You can go back and watch the Hush Hush episodes.
	I did a sequence of them.
	I didn't think he'd follow through on his purchase of Twitter.
	I didn't like some of the sort of transhumanist ramifications of some of his ideas over time and didn't trust people out of the big tech space.
	But he's proven himself as bona fides over the last year.
	He was willing to risk imprisonment, risk forfeiture of his businesses, risk billions in almost all of his wealth, risk imprisonment, all to speak out on behalf of President Trump and speak out against what is happening here and around the world on issues like immigration and other aspects.
	He also restored Twitter to a much more free speech-oriented zone than it had been in the better part of a decade.
	And ultimately restored accounts like Alex Jones' accounts, like President Trump's accounts, like a range of other accounts.
	And Twitter has increasingly become a primary means of breaking through the mainstream media's narrative and their monopoly on that narrative in a wide range of topics.
	I mean, look no further than the fact the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is going to have to respond tomorrow on grooming gangs that he was complicit in covering up because Elon Musk has made it a priority for 24 hours.
	So it doesn't mean we have to agree with Elon Musk on everything.
	It doesn't mean you have to defer to him or just accept his judgment on anything.
	But it means that all this hyper-criticism that all of a sudden people, out of the gate, they're eager to turn on Elon.
	First was the immigration issue.
	People went kind of crazy on that, I thought.
	They went crazy because Elon's position on that actually hasn't changed.
	So it sort of displayed a lack of understanding of what his traditional position had been.
	A good number of them forgot what President Trump's position was.
	That it's always been a strong pro-legal immigration position, but with modifications to limit abuse.
	And then on top of that, so he comes out with this proposal, and a lot of people panic.
	They're like, oh, this is a social credit score, this is the Chinese system being reimposed.
	And I was like, if you look at what he's aiming for, that's not it.
	Now, I think I agree with you that current structure of this as being proposed is too broad.
	I get what he's trying to get at.
	He's trying to reduce the reputation of Twitter, especially, now X, for toxicity.
	And it's people who are just nasty.
	It's rage-baiting, as you put it.
	And it's people who are nasty solely for the purpose of being nasty, who go around and stalk people on Twitter and just attack them left and right and make life miserable.
	The red-headed libertarian has talked about dealing with this insanity in a wide range of topics.
	I'm looking at a libel lawsuit.
	Currently, on behalf of Chase Hughes, who's been wrongfully defamed by someone who...
	There's a whole social media world that you build your notoriety by engaging in libelous behavior.
	Hold on.
	Let's dive down that rabbit hole just a bit.
	I don't think I know about this.
	What's the deal with Chase?
	So there's somebody that has basically targeted him, that's made up all kinds of stories to try to cost him as much money in order to boost his own presence, in order to create the...
	There's a bunch of people that that's all they do.
	You can see it in the sort of what I can, like the Reketa case, fall out.
	You know, which people chose to engage in clickbait behavior, betray their principles, in my view, mislead people about the law, and turn on an old ally and friend solely because clickbait works with this group of haters.
	That's all they do is they go from person to person to person to figure out somebody to hate.
	That they just troll and attack.
	And it's led to a lot of people not wanting to use Twitter or X. And so there was a period of time where I just quit using it, in large part, or quit reading.
	I liked replies because it would provide feedback.
	But you get so much garbage in there that you had to filter through all the garbage to find some gems.
	And the biggest thing it did is it led to members that followed that wanted to be part of a conversation.
	Not being able to be part of a conversation.
	Because all of a sudden they get into this sort of nasty side discussion because there's these nasty trolls coming in to just make everybody's life miserable because their life is miserable.
	He wants to take that part.
	He wants to reduce that part of Twitter.
	There's nothing about the proposal that I see is he wants to reinstate censorship.
	During this whole period of...
	I mean, I'll give an example.
	One of the people that is defending him right now is Alex Jones.
	And Elon has actually responded.
	And discuss the issues with Alex Jones.
	If his goal was censorship, like, oh, there's a conspiracy, BlackRock is funding something, so now it's...
	You know, people jump to conclusions that there really isn't a good foundation for it.
	I mean, is Elon Musk, after risking his actual life over the last year, suddenly just decided to betray every principle he had and was really a secret traitor all along?
	No, but it's not...
	Some people might say that he's trying to prioritize the ad dollar over the subscription dollar, and he thinks for whatever he loses in the blue checkmark paid subscriptions, he'll make back from advertisers who are now not scared to advertise on a less toxic platform.
	But if money was his motivation, he never would have done what he did over the last year.
	True. Because he lost billions of dollars by doing it, and he was risking all of his entire wealth and fortune and corporations and legacy.
	And future.
	So that's where it's like...
	These explanations don't suffice.
	And it's people who are kind of like, take the Gab guy, Andrew Torba, who's jumping all over this.
	You know why almost nobody uses Gab?
	Because it's filled with racist and bigots and haters and nasty, disgusting people.
	That's reality.
	Like Andrew Torba.
	No better example than Andrew Torba himself.
	He earned that.
	I mean, I even helped him out, helped people out, connected to Gab early on.
	And got rewarded with monthly emails talking about the Jews in one way, shape, or form.
	Like, no thank you.
	I don't want the Fuentes-Gruyper crowd bombarding my conversations.
	And that's what Musk is trying to solve, and it's a problem that some people on the right have refused to acknowledge.
	Now, I get the sensitivity.
	If you're on the right, you're accustomed, or you're just on the populist side or the dissonant side, you're accustomed to being screwed over and censored for the last decade.
	So you're hypersensitive to anything that even smacks of it.
	I understand that.
	But don't jump to the worst conclusion about Elon or ignore that there are real...
	For example, the best example of this is Pavlosky with Rumble.
	For a long time, he was avoiding developing any algorithm because he recognized that with YouTube, the algorithm was the primary mechanism they used to suppress and censor speech.
	And he was worried about that same phenomenon happening.
	However, it turns out from a consumer user perspective...
	They love the algorithm.
	They want the algorithm.
	They need the algorithm.
	And so, I mean, I'll give an example.
	Like, what he's done with the algorithm in terms of recommended, my recommended feed is much better than my For You feed.
	It's, you know, I'll get some crap mixed in there.
	But about 80, 90%, it's far better than any user experience I've had before on Twitter.
	So the, and his grok has an absolutely accurate representation of me, which is like one of the few.
	Public places, you know, Wikipedia has tried to defame me, other people.
	There's people who go in and edit the Wikipedia account to lie about me like every other month.
	You have to send somebody in there to correct things on a repeated basis.
	Wokipedia would be the more appropriate name.
	But the Grok, precisely right, the Grok AI.
	So I get people's concerns, their right to express criticism and dissent, but I would be more constructive in that criticism and dissent.
	I would say, I see what you're trying to get at.
	Here's a better way to go about it.
	Here's things to avoid in trying to do it.
	And that's ultimately what Pavlovsky and Rumble concluded.
	Okay, we really need to have the algorithm because users' customers want it.
	They've tried to restrict the toxicity.
	They knew that one issue was if your site became known as the place to go and watch the Klan rallies and the neo-Nazis and the haters and the crazies and the Islamist radicals and whoever else is just undesirable.
	To be exposed to these days, that Rumble would die.
	Yes, it would be the purest free speech zone, but it would be a dead one.
	Even free speech places and locations and venues have certain limitations on what you can do to a certain degree.
	It's like our Locals page.
	I think we blocked maybe three people in the history of the Locals page in five years.
	But there are reasons for it.
	There are people that will go in and make the entire user experience miserable.
	They'll go in and they'll attack people.
	They'll go in unnecessarily in crude ways, whatever.
	I've always said you can bash me is all you want, but you can't lie about me.
	You can't libel me or you're going to get kicked off.
	Robert, you're being called a Jew over on some of the comments.
	Exactly, correct.
	Doesn't that expose the point?
	Those are the people.
	We don't want to be exposed to all the Islamist terrorists.
	We don't want to be exposed to all the Jew haters.
	We don't have to deal with that.
	Most people don't want to deal with that.
	So if you're going to have a place that has...
	It's like inviting anybody to a get-together.
	If there's somebody that's disturbing everything and unsettling everything and making everyone else's life miserable, I'm sorry, you're not entitled to that.
	You're entitled to that from government restriction.
	You're not entitled to that.
	To go into Twitter and do the same.
	Go into X and do the same.
	So I think he has a sincere concern that's an understated issue.
	Like the number one thing I find when I ask people, hey, are you on X or other social media?
	The number one thing they'll tell me when they say no is they say it's too toxic.
	So that's what he's trying to reduce.
	He's trying to not only improve the customer user experience, he's trying to increase the number of people who use X, which ultimately would make X more influential around the world.
	And he's not going after Alex Jones.
	He's not going after Dissident speech.
	He's promoted dissident speech.
	He's restored dissident speech.
	Now, here's the irony.
	If there's anybody who doesn't fit the positivity label on his Twitter feed...
	It's Elon.
	Almost every post is negative.
	I was thinking about tweaking them down.
	I'm afraid that this post needs to be de-boosted because it has a little bit more too negative tone, Elon.
	Let me bring up the one that was brought in our locals community.
	Well, it's the one where Elon said he's done it twice now.
	Take a step back and F your own face.
	I mean, he did the meme once and he wrote it down.
	That's the definition of negativity.
	I mean, two-thirds of his posts have negative language.
	He violates his own rules.
	There's new proposed rules in his own stuff.
	But I think it's the right idea to highlight, to get the tone of the conversation better.
	That's what he's trying to do.
	He's trying to make X sound.
	If you listen to Robert Kennedy speak.
	It's almost never personal.
	Even when he talks about Fauci, he's like, he did this, this, and this, and this needs to be investigated.
	But you don't get nasty rhetoric, nasty language very often at all from him.
	He avoids it tremendously because he knows it's counterproductive in the court of public opinion.
	Now, that doesn't mean there's never a place for it.
	There clearly is sometimes a place for it.
	You know, I'm not always on the cheery, positive side of the fiction of things.
	I don't know that I've ever heard you swear or seen you swear, I should say.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, not because we have kids and religious folks that follow, but in other contexts, I might use more straight.
	I might have some judges I've been in front of, definitely half the prosecutors I've dealt with, almost all the corporate lawyers and insurance lawyers.
	Anti-labor lawyers that I've dealt with that, you know, I've had some choice phraseology that might have been adult language time, as they say.
	I'm predicting this.
	I think Elon is going to not follow through on this.
	I think he'll modify it.
	I didn't go through on part of it, but he'll modify it.
	Just make it about positive tone.
	Don't make negative statements about, like, here's what shouldn't be there.
	Content provisions about people in authority.
	That's what, like, okay, if you want to limit negative tone...
	Limit negative, you know, deboost negative tone.
	Make it about tone.
	Make it about personal attacks.
	Don't have a provision like it currently is proposed to do that says if it's somebody in power, then that's somehow uniquely bad and negative.
	If it's an institution of influence, that's somehow uniquely bad and negative.
	Or otherwise, the first person that would get deboosted is Elon himself.
	I hope he doesn't go through with it at all.
	If what is popular is the joke...
	It all started with the H-1B stuff where people were making a lot of Indian jokes.
	And I think then he took that personally...
	He got personally offended by that.
	People are making jokes about how dirty India is.
	And they're extremely popular.
	We've got to de-boost this...
	I think he's legitimately concerned that there's a part of the right.
	That their motivation on issues like immigration and others...
	Comes across as bigoted.
	It's not 80-90% of it.
	Most of the people have legitimate...
	Again, the biggest group that has moved toward Trump in this immigration-driven political era since 2016 are Mexican-Americans and the sons and daughters and Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans and Puerto Rican-Americans.
	They are the sons and daughters of immigrants.
	So the idea that this is somehow anti...
	this is racist is nuts.
	It's garbage.
	That doesn't mean there aren't the Fuentes of the world.
	That doesn't mean...
	I mean, it's like, all you gotta do is scratch a little bit at some of these people and the bigotry just starts flowing out.
	It's like the anti-Israel people.
	It's like, can't somebody have a Thomas Massey position of questioning Israel on a principled ground or Rand Paul issue without...
	It's all these other people.
	It's like, I mean, like Candace Owens.
	Okay, I'll take you more seriously.
	If the next day I turn around, I don't see another...
	Obsession with Jews coming in.
	I mean, she's pretending and she's not.
	It's like, come on.
	I mean, Stalin was a Jew?
	I mean, come on.
	I mean, this is insane propaganda.
	Insane bigoted theories that she's out there propagating.
	And it's like, I'm sorry, I can't take someone...
	Turn your earbuds off!
	I have to turn off Bluetooth.
	You can still hear me, right?
	Oh yeah, I definitely can hear you.
	Okay, sorry.
	Now I hope I'm not coming through.
	How do I find the freaking Bluetooth?
	On this blue...
	Sorry. This is why I don't do things.
	Now I've got...
	Is it coming through this mic?
	Hold on.
	Okay, we're so good.
	Okay, sorry.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Please, well, I forget what you were saying.
	All that I was going to say, hold on, I was going to interrupt you anyhow.
	And I'm going to say, look, first of all, it doesn't bother me.
	I think all that ends up happening when you say, well, now we've got to, like, suppress that is it becomes the meme.
	The whole thing about, like, the Indian jokes and the dirty jokes of India, it was a meme of the week.
	And then people move on.
	The Jews, it's always, first of all, it becomes a meme.
	And the more you try to suppress it, the more you actually encourage it to some extent.
	I think, like, this is, like, come up with some real objective metrics that people can actually follow.
	Right? I mean, like, Rumble, I thought, did a very good job of doing that.
	They tracked legal language and other contexts for their set of revised rules that, in full disclosure, we helped craft.
	And the goal was to give Elon and others a roadmap.
	Here's the roadmap.
	If you want to reduce the toxicity and limit things like harassment and stalking and making people's lives miserable because you decided to post something online, there's objective metrics you can use borrowed from existing legal traditions over the last century plus.
	That avoids the problem of being like Britain, who Elon makes fun of routinely, for people being arrested for posting memes mocking immigrants.
	I get what he's concerned with here, but that should not translate into that issue.
	You should have objective rules that says this kind of language, these kind of attacks.
	Again, we designed it for Rumble.
	There's ways in which you can phrase it.
	He could borrow it, but if he borrows too much of it, we'll have to send him an invoice.
	Just to address something in the chat, Loomer did not, from what I understand, I hate it when people misrepresent.
	They act like not just assholes.
	You're allowed to act like an asshole.
	They do things that violate the terms of service.
	Whether you agree with the terms of service or not, they're there.
	And when you do something that violates it, then you complain that you're getting punished.
	She didn't get punished for disagreeing with Elon.
	From what I understand, she posted private information, or at least docs by the term of it, the employee from X. That's what she did.
	No one's going to convince me she didn't know what she was doing.
	This is classic.
	Laura Loomer loves controversy.
	She loves divisiveness in order to get attention.
	It's controversy to get attention and divisiveness to get attention.
	I've not been a fan of hers at any point and still not.
	And so this was part of my reasoning for it.
	So I get the...
	And so it was misrepresented what was happening.
	Yeah, and some of the Groypers, I saw all of the accounts that got banned, and I'm not sure if it had anything to do with what Greg Bolden reported on.
	Didn't get picked up much, but you know...
	They're the biggest harassers and stalkers on the entire internet.
	I mean, the Groypers are the worst.
	They go into other people's chats and deliberately ruin those chats by attacking people left and right.
	And in fact, what happens is most people then...
	Leave the chat.
	You start to reduce the level of interaction, reduce the level of influence.
	So that's why I've never supported the idea that you have the right to ruin other people's parties.
	Yeah, but I would say to Elon, the solution for that, let people...
	I mean, block was a good function, although letting people see when they're blocked sort of denies the purpose of that.
	Have words that you don't want to see.
	You can go and curate your own experience, but don't tell...
	Yeah, there's much better rules than the ones they're proposing.
	And there definitely should be nothing in there that says that because of who you're talking about in terms of institutional influence or prominence, somehow increases your negativity rating.
	No one is ever going to sell me negativity rating and tell me it's not a social credit score.
	So everybody, by the way, speaking of social credit score, get your butts on over to Rumble because we're going to end this on YouTube right now.
	And what I was going to say was the entire stream will be on podcast.
	It is everywhere now.
	I've managed to get it up on whatever that blue thing, the green one, Spotify.
	And I'll post clips and that's it.
	But we're going to go support Rumble.
	The true free speech platform.
	Rumble and Pavlovsky are me.
	I'll just end with this before we go over there.
	Not everything is good versus evil.
	So you may disagree with Elon.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, I agree.
	And by the way, the advice that we gave out that not to go, you know, there are a bunch of people like, ah, Rumble's collapsing.
	Its stock's not going anywhere.
	Business is going to fail.
	The technology is, you know, slow to pick up to YouTube.
	And we kept saying that there's a lot of reasons to believe in Rumble.
	I had confidence in the people like Chris Pebloski and others at Rumble.
	We probably promoted them earlier and more often than anybody in the public influencer space.
	For full disclosure, other than for a brief period of time, for a very modest fee.
	Very, very modest fee, Chris.
	He negotiated well in that regard.
	Look what happened.
	Rumble is now, you know, they needed this election to go a certain way or the Harris administration would have cracked down and tried to kill Rumble.
	But they were instrumental in that outcome at promoting independent free speech.
	They've allowed a wide range of free speech there and just try to limit the more extreme disruptive behavior and to make the user experience as positive as possible with maximum speech as possible.
	I think they've reached the best balance of anybody in the social media space.
	Absolutely. And I would say that people always say, well, look at all the Jew comments over in Rumble.
	For God's sake, look at the effing Jew comments.
	Look at the racist comments on YouTube as well.
	If you don't like reading it, I would say wipe off your privates.
	And I'll get a few letters and emails.
	Say, hey Barnes, what did the Mossad buy you off?
	I saw one.
	Is that Jew check really helping you?
	Because remember, Robert, you don't have to be a Jew to be Jew-ish.
	And people are accusing Elon of being Jew.
	Or Goy, whatever the reference.
	I hate that word.
	I never use that word.
	I was like, okay, whatever.
	Shabbat Goy.
	You're a Shabbat.
	I was like, I don't even know what that means, pal.
	I'm just going to say, hold on.
	Only to say, if anybody thinks that the comments are particularly bad on Rumble, go everywhere.
	It's the internet.
	And if it bothers you that much, stay at home and enjoy your category.
	Rumble-owned company, the best communities, and by the way, these are communities that are curated by their operators, not by Locals.
	Locals doesn't curate it.
	We, the owner of each Locals account, curates it.
	Your information at Locals is not given to anybody else.
	It's controlled by the owner of the account, the Locals account.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com is one of the most vibrant discussion communities.
	Best place on earth, people.
	Hosting communities in the country.
	And why is that?
	It's because we regulate it.
	So when somebody gets out of hand, they either get timed out or they get blocked.
	Maybe they get a refund.
	Maybe they don't.
	Depends on how bad their behavior was.
	But it's very few that do.
	But you have to.
	If we didn't, we would have had the crazies, two or three crazies, ruin it for the 10,000.
	100,000-plus people that are part of the community at different times.
	We have 500 to 1,000 posts every day.
	You go through there, and it's an enjoyable experience.
	You're like, oh, that's useful information.
	That's a useful discussion.
	That's a useful conversation.
	That's a useful engage.
	What you don't have is a bunch of personal attacks, a bunch of massive nastiness.
	You get a few here and there, and people lose their heads now and then.
	A few people will be dumb enough to post.
	Either they're Fed posting or they're just really dumb.
	And I delete their posts for their own benefit in case they're just dumb.
	That is part of my theory about Gab.
	It's not to give Torba the benefit of the doubt, but I will.
	I think in as much as Torba, he gets frustrated because his site doesn't grow and it turns into what it is.
	And I'm convinced that there are saboteurs in there just spewing shit to make it totally unbearable.
	Of course, exactly.
	And because he's refused to regulate it.
	In any meaningful manner in that regard, now he does restrict beyond free speech limits, by the way.
	The claim that they don't is not correct.
	But I believe in pure free speech as it applies to the government's ability to harass or punish you.
	I do not believe that the social media companies have to have the same free speech standards as the government, but I want as much free speech as possible without them sacrificing their business or the community to achieve it.
	And that's the difference between government action and social media company action.
	We're going to get into, not stuff that we can't talk about here, just stuff that, every video I put out about the January 6th pipe bomb, about the Vegas, about New Orleans gets demonetized.
	I even got an email from the YouTube community saying, people have expressed concern about you.
	Do you need help?
	Self-harm because we're talking about the Vegas guy.
	We're going to get on over to Rumble in a second so everyone get there.
	Now, but let me read a bunch of these chats before we get too far in because I think I've missed a bunch.
	V6neon, a fresh message from Tommy Robinson from behind bars.
	I don't know about the guy...
	Faraj Musk, audio is only on the phone.
	I'm going to check that afterwards.
	Good evening from batshit bonkers Britain.
	Phone message from Tommy Robinson.
	I'm going to see if I can bring that up maybe later in the show.
	Cheryl Gage, so did Trump come to the front and speak.
	He did.
	I posted that video in its entirety.
	Also, someone on the Twitterverse was trying to pretend that Trump skipped over Michael Flynn to create drama.
	And I was like, no, he didn't.
	I was there.
	He said, General Flynn.
	He celebrated everybody on that panel.
	It's in our locals community, but I'm sure I posted it to Twitter as well.
	Constitutional to pardon a crime that hasn't been charged.
	I thought pardons were for convicted criminals.
	No, you can preemptive pardons.
	We've talked about that.
	R.W. Parker.
	And it's also how Biden is going to get away with giving preemptive pardons to the people he just gave medals of honor to.
	Randy Edwards says, it's not illegal to claim that you do not owe money.
	It is illegal to claim you never had the money.
	And then King of Biltong.
	Congrats, Barnes, for your Miller case.
	We're going to talk about that.
	Once everyone's over on Rumble.
	Impressive at Viva announcing Trump.
	If I may ask the very successful Rumblers to shill my Biltong.
	You can and you shall.
	Biltongusa.com.
	It's like prosciutto made with beef.
	It's freaking delicious.
	I was just eating the...
	Not the sirloin, but the Wagyu one earlier today.
	I wanted some Peery Peery, but I didn't have any left, but we got a lot of it.
	Should all laws on the books be enforced without discretion?
	Yes, no.
	The answer is no, they should not be.
	Would this lead to rules being removed?
	That's from Awesome Diesel.
	Maybe we'll talk about this in a second.
	Did you see the video of Ice-T getting pulled over for not having registration, Barnes?
	No, I didn't.
	Was that here in Vegas?
	I don't know where it was, but I know that I said, finally, I agree with Ice-T, and then everyone's like, Viva, we have rules on the books.
	I was like, yeah, too many of them, but we'll get there.
	Okay, so V60, please note the petition calling for the fresh general election in the UK.
	Wow, it's going to be raised.
	So two-tier Keir Starmer is getting it with both barrels.
	I'll note that we did predict that right after the election, when they won in a landslide, said it was a very misleading result.
	And he'll be underwater politically in six months, and he was underwater politically in three months.
	No, he's an actual fascist piece of shit.
	Like, it doesn't get worse than Keir Starmer.
	He's worse than Trudeau, I think.
	Except, yeah, he's equally as ugly.
	Novel ideas in social media.
	Would it be a positive phrase to call him a happy Hitler?
	No, he's a very wonderful smelling piece of turd.
	He smells great.
	He's the most powerful turd smell you've ever smelled.
	Novel ideas in social media has basically scammed users on this for years.
	I choose who I follow, see posts from those people, return to chronological timelines, get rid of bogus algorithms.
	Well, the irony is Rumble didn't have an algorithm for the longest time, and I keep getting bombarded with, I want algorithms, but I don't want videos automatically playing.
	And then we got Bill Dozer who says, rightly so, the road to hell is paved in good intentions, Barnes.
	The intent may be pure, but free speech is under constant threat, and this opens venues for censorship of speech one disagrees with.
	Absolutely. And then if I get to the bottom here, because there were more, but I think I see them on the side.
	Okay, Bill Tong.
	Oh, Bill Tong, congrats on the Miller's case.
	I did that already.
	Should all laws on the bus be enforced?
	I got that one too.
	What's going on?
	Crazy thought.
	A pardon is just a piece of paper with the president's signature.
	How to get it to the recipient without controversy?
	Do it at a public event.
	It's hidden in the Medal of Freedom.
	Is it hidden?
	It's hidden in the president.
	Oh, okay.
	We'll get there.
	Okay, good.
	We're done.
	Let me see.
	Are we under?
	Yeah, we're good.
	We've lowered it on YouTube.
	So everyone who's on YouTube, it's going to go to a green screen.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	And then afterwards, we're going to go to locals for our after party and updating the stream now.
	Rumble. Don't get my fat fingers on the wrong one.
	Done. Okay.
	Robert, okay.
	First of all, I said yesterday at the panel, and by the way, people, I'm not a VIP.
	I was the moderator.
	I was just very, I was graciously offered it and absolutely accepted.
	I said the pardon.
	Oh, that's right.
	I said they decorate the criminals so they can then, you know, turn them into heroes.
	They've decorated criminals, Robert.
	First of all, the Medal of Honor, it's now as worthless as the Nobel Peace Prize, which they gave to outright war criminals and terrorists.
	There is no such thing as an implicit pardon, right?
	There has to be a document of the pardon, so it's not like it could be easily given with the Medal of Honor?
	Yeah, I presume so.
	Historically, yes.
	Just tell me.
	What do you think of this?
	I know we're probably going to think the same thing.
	They're decorating war criminals, literally.
	And they're decorating murderers and the worst people on earth.
	Yeah, I mean, they were revealing how reliant they were on these outside operators who were engaged in such troublesome and problematic conduct.
	And it shows their complicity and culpability of the Biden administration in the last four years of mass illegal immigration into this country.
	And even though it helped cost them the election, they're still doubling down on it.
	And, you know, to give, I mean, what has George Soros ever done for freedom anywhere?
	I mean, nothing that I know of.
	He's mostly been a very negative figure.
	He's been banned from Hungary and Russia because of his negative influence throughout Europe.
	I mean, this is a guy who just go and watch his 60 Minutes interview from years ago, where he has no problem with helping Nazis, even though he himself is Jewish.
	He had no problem helping Nazis, his so-called godfather, steal and take Jewish property during World War II.
	And the complete lack of empathy, lack of shame, lack of guilt, lack of concern, tells you who that guy is.
	He's a lot like Bill Gates, who will go around bragging about, hey, I'm going to unleash a bunch of vaccines through mosquitoes to infect a bunch of people.
	Without their informed consent.
	And I'll brag about it later at public conversations and discussions.
	I mean, these people are criminals.
	I mean, Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest criminals ever.
	I'm not going crazy.
	They are starting to look like the same person.
	They look like that old villain out of Star Wars.
	Yeah, they basically look like the Emperor.
	And that's well deserved.
	I mean, it's just their physical manifestation.
	You know, Gates is on the same path.
	So I think the...
	Yeah, it's an embarrassment, but it reveals just how much some of those high-profile figures require some legal action by the Justice Department.
	Otherwise, you're going to have about half the country and much of the world have zero confidence in the American legal system.
	And that is very, very dangerous.
	The number one reason for global investment in the United States is the trust.
	In five years, the Biden administration has utterly destroyed that and wrecked it and ruined it.
	And that requires, to restore that confidence may require, as Matt Gaetz and others have said, complete reform, restructuring, or maybe the abolition of some of our institutions that have been so corrosively corrupted.
	But at a minimum, some of these people being given Medals of Freedom...
	And so these are two people that, instead of getting medals of honor, need to be put behind medal bars.
	And so we'll see whether they have the courage to do that in the new Justice Department.
	There's talk that people are encouraging President Trump to leave in the existing holdovers on the National Security Council.
	That should never happen.
	That was the number one source of problems in his first administration.
	That's where Vindman was.
	That's where all the saboteurs were.
	That's where all the coup plotters were.
	That's where all the leakers were.
	That's where the bogus impeachment efforts originated from.
	There needs to be a purge, a complete cleaning of the house.
	Every U.S. attorney needs to be fired.
	Every person that you can fire needs to be fired.
	And everybody you can't fire, you need to find some way to reduce their negative influence on public policy.
	Because if he tries to stay with the same game plan at any level...
	That some people are encouraging him to do that he did in his first term.
	His second term will be sabotage from within, from the get-go.
	I was going to say it's my...
	Original thought on this, they're using these medals like shields, and they're going to say, how can you possibly try to prosecute these people?
	They won medals of honor.
	George Soros, who prides himself on destabilizing societies with progressive district attorneys who have done nothing.
	I mean, I guess they've got to reward their men.
	NGOs that helped organize and orchestrate, with funding from the U.S. government, with complicity in how the technology was rigged by the U.S. government, as J.D. Vance has talked about, in terms of how immigrants got into the country, and in terms of European involvement.
	And UN involvement.
	But at the center of it is George Soros.
	And it's his NGOs that engaged in mass criminality.
	And you just had 158 Democrats say that we shouldn't even deport illegals that commit sex crimes here in the United States.
	That's how nuts their position is.
	But that's how dangerous George Soros is.
	Because that has originated from him.
	He has enabled it.
	It's the biggest human trafficking operation in the history of the world, was organized and orchestrated and funded by George Soros and his NGOs.
	Without him, it wouldn't have happened.
	Not in Europe, not in the United States.
	And so this is a guy who's one of the biggest, most destructive criminals in the history of the world.
	And he shouldn't be given medals of honor, he should be given medal bars.
	That he stays behind for the rest of his natural-born days, and his son should be similarly investigated for his similar destructive and criminal lawless behavior.
	It is a crime to aid and abet the illegal entry of illegal immigrants into the United States.
	The Supreme Court established that certain forms of so-called advocacy cross the line when they actually facilitate the illegal entering into the country.
	George Soros is the number one funder of illegals entering into the United States and around Europe.
	And it's done devastating damage to those cultures and to those countries.
	And so it's kind of like the immigration debate.
	My friend George Gammon and some others on the libertarian side were talking about you want to always hire whoever's going to be most productive to hire.
	But that fails to include non-economic costs.
	So what if the cost of giving that person a job is that now they have a vote that's going to later destroy your government and society?
	What if it means they have cultural values that are completely contrary to your culture, that are going to lead to all kinds of conflict and disturbance and the destruction of civilization?
	That there are things to value beyond that that I think the libertarian angle hasn't always consistently fully appreciated.
	I think that was Vivek and Elon Musk's mistake in that debate.
	But the difference is they're advocating all for various forms of when immigration should be legal.
	They all oppose illegal immigration.
	And there's no better illustration of that, of supporting illegal immigration, than George Soros.
	I mean, he literally calls all of his societies and his core principles open society.
	What does he mean by that?
	Open borders.
	He means the destruction of any national identity.
	Listen to his comments on nationalism and national identity.
	The disaster and debacle of Ukraine is probably more responsible to George Soros than anyone else who's been at it since the late 1980s.
	In creating the problems in Ukraine that led to the conflict with Russia.
	So, I mean, this man is literally a global bond level villain.
	And the only person comparable to him, especially after what happened in 2020, is Bill Gates.
	And these are the people that warrant criminal investigation if we're going to have a...
	I mean, it's deeply ironic.
	The Democrats and people in the UK and other places saying, we don't want foreign billionaires influencing our politics.
	Well, George Soros was born in Hungary.
	He's not a native-born American.
	And if you don't want billionaires influencing your politics, there's no bigger billionaire influencer of politics other than George Soros than Bill Gates.
	And so just like we need pardons for the Ross Ulbrichs and the Ed Snowdens and the Julian Assange's and the J6 defendants and Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro and Roger Ver, Bitcoin Jesus, we need criminal indictments.
	People like Anthony Fauci, people like Deborah Birx, people like, I mean, just look at what she confessed to in her book, Routine Repeated Lying to the President of the United States in order to influence public policy that led to the deaths of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of people around the world, depending on how you estimate her influence and impact, and people like George Soros and Bill Gates.
	So the wrong people are getting the Medal of Freedom and the wrong people are being put behind bars.
	Yeah, I have to correct.
	It was Medal of Freedom, not Medal of Honor.
	And speaking of people who should get put behind bars, and it'll be the segue into New Orleans, I guess, although not really because the guy isn't, the perpetrator is not yet, he's an American citizen, but what's his face?
	Mayorkas also, but that may or may not happen.
	Almost everybody throughout the Department of Homeland Security.
	I mean, there were criminal actors at so many high-ranking...
	I mean, the scale of weaponized lawfare and the scale of illegal immigration, it was so extraordinary in the Biden administration.
	That there has to be consequences, or the moment they get back to power, they will repeat it and repeat it times 10. Exactly.
	Make sure that they don't lose it again in the future.
	Let's segue into the New Orleans attack, which illustrates a level of incompetence at the state level, federal level, in terms of immigration, where this guy was living, who he was being radicalized by.
	Last week when I was covering it, everybody knows what happened.
	This guy, his name is...
	Shamsuddin Jabbar.
	Born in Texas, raised in Texas, served in the military.
	Wasn't he second generation?
	I'm sure.
	Well, no, I believe he was born Christian.
	He converted to Islam.
	But I don't know which in his family, how that came about.
	Because what his brother said, he's been Muslim as long as I've known him.
	But clearly radicalized recently.
	Although, according to some, he might have been radicalized years ago.
	And the military decided to do nothing about it.
	Because these are allegations and these are unproven.
	But what's known is what he did.
	To be honest, even though it's politically incorrect to say, someone in the U.S. military that converts to Islam is someone you've got to pay special attention to.
	I know that people don't want to, but that's just the nature of the political controversy today.
	It's like identifying as a communist.
	Even though it's an ideological orientation, the reality is someone who converts to Islam in the U.S. military, you should pay more attention to.
	Just because the nature of the situation is what it is.
	But what happened is they went out of their way to do the opposite.
	Because he was Islamic, he was not treated with the same degree of scrutiny or criticism of his conduct and behavior that a native-born American Christian would be.
	Well, I have heard conflicting reports on whether or not...
	It was Jack Posobiec who put out the tweet hearing from his COC, which was chief of command, that they didn't investigate because they didn't want to be Islamophobic.
	I've heard others.
	I listened to the podcast with Sean Ryan saying that may or may not be true.
	Bottom line, I mean, look, it looks like what it looks like, and it's exactly what happened in the UK where they did not publicize these rape gangs because they were 99% predominantly Muslim Pakistani men, and they didn't want to have blowback at a social level.
	Where cultural conflict matters and where, to be blunt about it, I mean, there's beliefs associated.
	I mean, imagine, all the things they've said about Christian nationalists.
	Aren't really true of any Christian movement in the United States.
	They are true of certain Islamic movements around the world.
	And yet, they focused all their attention on Christians, giving them undue scrutiny, while ignoring warning signs and signals concerning others.
	I mean, this was a guy who apparently made statements that were highly problematic.
	I mean, there were a bunch of bad behaviors that they went to great lengths to suppress.
	He travels to Egypt?
	You're telling me this guy's in the U.S. military, suddenly converts to Israel.
	A reservist, I think, at the time he travels to Egypt.
	Correct. But he had military connections, but apparently he goes back to his days in the military, according to what we know so far.
	Travels to Egypt, the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, then comes back to the United States through Ontario for some reason.
	You know, while he goes through there, that's not the most usual pattern.
	I don't think there's a discount airline traveling straight from Toronto to Cairo.
	I mean, I think it made more sense to go from Texas.
	Well, no, I didn't actually know that Ontario bit.
	It might make sense considering the demographics of certain places in Ontario.
	Bingo! That's my point.
	You're telling me all our algorithms, all our mass spying didn't pick that up?
	Or maybe this wasn't quite a solo operation.
	And maybe it has, I mean, is it a coincidence that two people purportedly connected to, or are connected to the U.S. military connected to these incidents?
	Now that, we got, so in New Orleans, he's going around planting bombs everywhere, which they didn't pick up on New Year's Eve.
	It's like, how is, I mean, that's one of the biggest areas in the country for New Year's celebrations.
	I was almost there this year.
	No, but it's wildly surveilled, and they can pull up the videos within minutes after.
	What the hell good does it do if you don't actually pick up in your real-time thought police, forget thought policing, minority, you got it on video, like, there's, there.
	But it's even worse than that.
	Plus, here's the other thing.
	You're telling me that the places he was going to service weren't being monitored?
	I'm not going to believe that for a second.
	These radical imams that are present in the United States saying crazy, wild things.
	By the way, they use the Islamic scripture to justify sex slavery, to justify rape, to justify murder.
	Because there was a part of Islamic culture that its religious beliefs were used as excuses at the time for militaristic operations of the various Islamic and caliphate leaders of the time.
	And so you've got this ideology that part of the religion is tainted by a war belief system that excused and apologized for morally horrific behavior.
	I mean, as young as nine years old, you could take a sex slave.
	Again, ISIS was citing all of these things when they did their horrors throughout Syria and Iraq.
	People forget it was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and now they've got that in part.
	Even though ISIS itself is not in control, you have the new leaders of Syria meeting with the feminist Green Party idiot from Germany who was behind the Ukraine war and was cheerleading, couldn't wait to meet the new Syrian leaders for freedom and democracy in between when they're chopping women's heads off.
	In other behavior, and purging Christians from the region, but what happens when they meet with her?
	They won't shake her hand, and in Syria, you wouldn't know they met with her, because they went through and eliminated her from all photographs, individual evidence.
	This is using control of Syria, thanks to the U.S. government, by the way.
	I didn't know about the Ontario part.
	That actually confirms a great many other things.
	That this was most certainly not a lone wolf anything.
	The dude is living in a trailer park in Texas, which was described by the New York Post as consisting of Pakistani immigrants, where apparently the neighbors don't speak any English.
	At least maybe they were trying to avoid talking to the reporters.
	And New Orleans doesn't have the ballers in the street because they took them down to revamp them and didn't put up the temporary yellow ones that they had.
	That idiot Kirkpatrick, I forget what her position is.
	She's not a mayor, a police chief, superintendent.
	Idiot. Doesn't understand that they have temporary measures to put on the sidewalk that would have minimized the damage.
	Oh yeah, it would have prevented him from having his car assault.
	So most of the people that got hurt wouldn't have got hurt.
	In fact, probably all of them wouldn't have got hurt.
	And she was...
	I don't know where.
	I mean, I've been to New Orleans many times.
	I've seen those multiple times.
	I mean, they really block from any car travel on the sidewalk or anywhere else.
	You just can't get through there.
	And it's designed to be that way for obvious reasons.
	I mean, they don't want drunks and other people going down there, not just terror events.
	But it's interesting they targeted New Orleans and Vegas, two of our more visited areas.
	This is the second Vegas terror incident we'll get inadequate explanations for.
	And the Vegas one is the...
	So the New Orleans one doesn't make sense because this guy was triggering every red flag alarm that you could possibly have, and they're pretending they had nobody watching him and monitoring him.
	Which makes you wonder whether really he's acting at their behalf or behest at some point.
	Yeah, but Robert, and you say that, and people say, that's crazy, Robert.
	How in the name of sweet holy hell, which is exactly what I said in my tweet, do they let a journalist parade through the crime scene, contaminate...
	Like, I've never done criminal law.
	But I've watched Law& Order.
	I haven't watched too much of it.
	That's a contaminated crime scene right now.
	You'll never know if he acted alone or if someone dragged in the DNA of somebody else.
	How the hell does the FBI do that and it not be an act of malice to contaminate a crime scene for whatever nefarious reasons?
	They're behaving in a cover-up manner rather than exposing the truth.
	And look at Vegas.
	We get a similar dynamic where the person who supposedly does it doesn't appear to have any incentive to do it.
	The note he leaves behind doesn't make much sense that he purportedly leaves behind.
	Somehow the note is in good condition and his ID is in good condition, but his body is burnt so bad they have no idea who it is.
	And even weirder, I'm going to double check it when you're talking, but I'm fairly certain his military ID or his passport was in the bed of the truck and not even in the car, which all of it managed to survive the blast nonetheless.
	And perfectly intact.
	It was like the 9-11 terrorist.
	Everything is gone except...
	Their passport magically floats to the ground.
	It's like, come on now.
	I mean, at some point, you got to see what's credible and what isn't, what's most likely and what's most unlikely.
	And then you have, so he doesn't, the other thing is basic stuff.
	It's like, okay, supposedly he was doing this just, he didn't want to hurt anybody, just draw attention to something.
	It's a weird way to do it.
	He's a Trump supporter that blows up something at the Trump.
	If he really wanted to cause damage, of course, he had the skill set to do so.
	Supposedly he shoots himself before the bomb goes off, which, you know, how did that happen?
	And slow-mo reviews of the video from the vehicle seems to suggest that the person who was in there didn't shoot himself and died from the explosion.
	So we're getting all kinds of stories that just don't make sense, don't add up, and they suggest either extraordinary derelictions of duty and complete reckless negligence by an utterly inept and incompetent.
	National security apparatus, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, or culpability and complicity because they wanted it to happen in order to justify and rationalize further restrictive security and invasive privacy measures to violate our core constitutional liberties.
	That's the most likely explanation, in my view, in terms of what we know right now.
	That's my only...
	Conclusion as well is that they know it.
	It's a let it happen so that people can beg for more digital surveillance, more constant video surveillance, despite all the video surveillance that they have.
	Oh yeah, we're still surveilling New Orleans.
	We got the video everywhere.
	We just get to it after the terrorists and not before.
	You have to wonder whether the Vegas guy was a Patsy.
	Whether he was already dead before that vehicle.
	Also, is it a coincidence electric vehicles were used?
	Was that not a subtle attack on Elon Musk?
	Interesting. So I proposed that our above average locals community said no.
	I mean, the Ford F-150 electric pickup truck goes from zero to 60 in two seconds.
	It's heavy.
	It can do a lot of damage.
	So it might have been chosen for its lethality, ironically enough.
	But what's the odds that two electric vehicles get picked?
	From the same app.
	And one of them is a Cybertruck in front of the Trump.
	And from the same app, Turo, of two men who have...
	Correct. Did you listen to the Sean Ryan podcast with the guy Sam?
	The other utility, by the way, the Turo, is it doesn't have the same ID tracking.
	That's part of the reason why you might use Turo.
	You might use Turo because you can rent a vehicle through Turo without the same degree of ID requirements that a rental car company would provide.
	Just a little FYI.
	Interesting. It says his ID was found inside.
	I thought one of them was found in the bed of the truck, but it doesn't matter.
	Whatever it was, it somehow wasn't on his paper.
	Who leaves their passport in the trunk?
	Or anywhere else in the vehicle?
	That's almost always on you.
	That kind of ID?
	Military ID?
	They almost always carry that on them.
	Throw it somewhere.
	And then how does the whole vehicle get torched?
	His body gets torched to a crisp.
	They can't even recognize anything on it.
	Other than magically tattoos.
	It's like, hold on a second.
	But we can see the tattoo.
	The more you say it out loud, the more idiotic it all seems.
	I don't necessarily believe that he had information on the propulsion system of gravitic drones.
	Apparently that's been an authenticated email.
	He was outing the fact that the drones are likely either U.S. or Chinese in origin because they were the only ones that had the technology to perform the way they were performing.
	And then we've got...
	These respiratory viruses that are taking off at an unusual rate, and the drone story, it seems like somebody's up to try to destabilize things.
	That's what it looks like.
	And at various levels, U.S. government culpability is evident either in neglect or in sponsoring these activities one way or another.
	I'm trying to find a message that I got where in reply someone said, I took a screenshot of it.
	He had a patent.
	He and another person owned a patent.
	It had to do with detection of projectiles.
	One thing, by the way, the Cybertruck purportedly had automated driving.
	I don't know if that's accurate or not, but theoretically, if it did, you could have a dead person in that vehicle.
	Yes, except for Elon confirmed or at least claims that there's no indication that the vehicle was on auto drive.
	Oh, okay.
	So the question becomes, who was that?
	Because to me, the best Patsy setup would be if you had a dead guy in that vehicle and it was being driven automatically.
	And if it's not actually...
	There's a theory that Livelsberger is still alive and this was a corpse that doesn't match the DNA of his kid.
	And the way the FBI is describing it is, oh, the DNA of the corpse doesn't match the kid to suggest maybe he flipped out after finding out he wasn't the kid's dad.
	Or maybe it's not the kid's dad.
	There's not a lot of evidence of this sudden...
	This is a Green Beret.
	And he suddenly decided to do a symbolic, hey, everybody pay attention.
	I'm going to blow myself up in front of the Trump.
	I mean, his life history is not consistent with that behavior.
	And then you have to wonder whether the guy...
	If that guy was a real Islamist or was he a plant or asset of his own type in New Orleans?
	I mean, how is it these guys always end up with U.S. military connections of different kinds, right?
	Whether you're going back to Oswald and other patsies, I mean, they fit a certain pattern.
	So there needs to be a meaningful investigation of that.
	Also, how does Ukraine keep popping up connected to so many of these cases?
	Whether you're talking about the attempted Trump assassination, the second one, or you're talking about the Vegas guy, he was connected to a lot of the Ukrainian activities.
	I mean, Ukraine, probably the leading terror country over the last year.
	Along with the U.S. in terms of, you know, there's name a terrorist incident against infrastructure that was more destructive than blowing up North Stream, too.
	I mean, they're really, I mean, I don't know of one in the last year.
	And that was U.S.-Ukraine sponsored, depending on who you believe.
	But, you know, something is AWOL and amiss in this behavior.
	Yeah, I mean, the Vegas one is just because it was less devastating in terms of human impact.
	The New Orleans one does not make it.
	It's so effing criminal what the FBI is doing there that there's no other explanation.
	But speaking of FBI criminality, I said it, you know, like it's the line from the big short that they're not confessing, they're bragging.
	The FBI now bungling the New Orleans investigation, and I think it's so in your face.
	Hey, let's have a walkthrough with a journalist to destroy the crime scene.
	They're now appealing to the public to ask...
	Let's have the person in charge of law enforcement in the city not know the essential safety tool that would have prevented it from happening.
	It's like, how does that even happen?
	Now, New Orleans has gone nuts with diversity, equity, inclusion, garbage.
	The rest of the state is normal.
	The city of New Orleans, as much as I love it, its politics has gone insane.
	Like a lot of urban centers around the country.
	Whether it's about Austin, Texas, or you're talking about Seattle, Washington, San Francisco, or Portland, or New York City, or the District of Columbia.
	I mean, these places have become, you know, utterly nuts in parts of it.
	But it's like, how does that happen?
	Like, one of my things is when I look at, we do a little hush-hush videos, things to look for as possible false flags.
	One of the signs is unusual.
	And unexplained security lapses.
	And we have them all over New Orleans at every level.
	Actually, you know what?
	Before we get into the Jan 6th, let me just read a bunch of the chats over here on Hrumble.
	And then we're going to get to all of the locals after.
	Why is there not a huge call for Kemp and Hochul to pardon Trump so loud that they have something that they have to acknowledge it?
	In Georgia, they have a separate pardon committee everything has to go through.
	The government doesn't control it.
	In fact, the president this month, he still has criminal trials.
	It's ridiculous.
	But he should, but it's because, you know, Rat Burger.
	And, you know, if I had been there at Mar-a-Lago, I would have had a nice rant about Rat Burger.
	Oh, well, you know, it's funny.
	When Rat Face Burger did come up in the documentary, everyone started booing in the crowd.
	It was hilarious.
	And Dershowitz, you know, everyone loves him.
	But in the documentary, he says, you know, like, I think 2020 was okay, but I think you should be allowed to ask questions about it.
	When he said that in the documentary, everyone was like, boo!
	And then I saw him laughing in the front.
	What did I just do here?
	Did I just kick out the thing?
	Isn't that amazing?
	One of the great civil rights leftist lawyers in the history of the United States now can only find a comfortable setting discussing basic core liberties that the left used to celebrate at places like Mar-a-Lago with Trump supporters.
	I made the joke.
	How much has the world changed in a decade?
	I made the joke.
	It didn't go over badly.
	It just didn't get the laugh I thought.
	But, you know, he's gone from the dem.
	He's gone from dem to MAGA within two years.
	It's not allowing me to share the screen again.
	I'll just read them.
	I have to refresh.
	Viva and Barnes, this is from Tiffanel, says they need to kill herds of cattle and millions of chicken due to 97 cases of the bird flu to triple check the cost of eggs.
	They're idiots.
	It's by design.
	It's not an accident.
	Eric 4x4 is the one who said, Viva Barnes, the award is the Medal of Freedom, not the Medal of Honor.
	The Medal of Honor is the highest military award in the U.S. military.
	Sorry, I corrected that.
	KMGood329. Hello, GodBless2025.
	Can a pardon override treasonous actions and activities?
	Or can any of these people still be prosecuted for crimes against them?
	A pardon, they cannot be prosecuted, regardless of what the pardon is for.
	Right. Well, oh, no, no.
	You're pardoned based on this specific crime.
	Oh, sorry, based on the scope of the pardon itself.
	But if it's for everything and anything from X and Y and Z to cover...
	Is there anything that you cannot be pardoned for?
	Well, arguably state crimes.
	The assumption right now is you cannot be pardoned for state crimes.
	There are some legal arguments that...
	Be careful with that question of illegal opinions, Robert.
	You might end up in jail.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	The Democrat Party is literally the soprano crime family on steroids.
	Never believe a single word a Democrat says.
	Never believe anything the federal government says.
	That's from Seek You Find Q. Awesome Diesel says Bill Gates is still at it.
	I recently had private talks with Prime Minister of Australia.
	Total effing chaos says Lex Friedman just did an interview with Zelensky in Ukraine.
	It's been published on YouTube and he's doing Putin.
	Good for him.
	I'd like to listen to it.
	I think Lex made a controversial decision to dub it.
	Apparently Zelensky discloses throughout when he's actually speaking live to Friedman that basically he doesn't know much Ukrainian and then he speaks Russian like most Ukrainians do.
	And that would have been very embarrassing to have shown over a three-hour interview.
	And so Lex went in and...
	That's amazing.
	Covered it up there by dubbing it.
	I think I'm not buying that.
	It had nothing to do with this being dubbed.
	Right? You couldn't put...
	I mean, it's easy.
	YouTube automatically does stuff of putting, you know, translating it for you on screen.
	It's kind of interesting that the Lex handled it that way.
	Rakeda Law for Prez says, why is there not a huge call for Kemp and Hoke to pardon Trump?
	Oh, did that come through twice?
	I guess that came through twice.
	Okay. Robert, what do we move into now?
	What's the segue?
	Well, speaking of other injustices is the January 6th cases.
	Oh, well, okay, so the January 6th pipe bomb, FBI is looking for, they've now released new information, new video, because they can't find the pipe bomber.
	It's a laughable joke of a cover-up of a rubbing-in-your-face that they found everyone and anything under the sun and locked people up for four years with no trial, but they can't find the pipe bomber, despite the fact that he's wearing shoes, of which there were only 25,000 pairs sold over three years.
	And if you assume...
	that apparently they had either geofencing or other technologies located a phone that was at those precise locations that's connected to the individual and suddenly the investigation stops which means in all likelihood that There's no question about it.
	Absolutely none.
	The Jan 6th cases, other than the movement to pardon them, of which I'm going to be a very vocal proponent, what's the latest?
	I think Trump should pardon all of them.
	You know, my original inclination was anybody that was not violent.
	But the reason why I've gone to all of them is because the procedures were so tainted.
	They were selectively prosecuted.
	There was abuse of the grand jury, abuse of the venue, abuse of the choice of judge, abuse of the choice of jury, hiding discovery, attacking defense counsel, denial of bail.
	There are so many core constitutional rights and liberties throughout our criminal process that have been eviscerated in every single January 6th prosecution that the only constitutionally conscientious thing to do is to mass pardon all of them.
	They chose not to prosecute a single one of them in their hometown.
	Not a single one.
	That by itself to me was abuse.
	Two, District Columbia shouldn't even exist as a jurisdiction.
	But it is the most partisan, most prejudiced, most corrupt jurisdiction in the country is related to these sets of cases.
	You could not get an impartial grand jury.
	You could not get an impartial trial jury.
	You could not get an impartial judge out of the District of Columbia.
	They all thought of themselves as victims themselves of the alleged criminal conduct.
	And so for that reason, every principle of due process that governs our trials, every principle of impartial juries, impartial grand juries, impartial jurists, to have a venue that is from your community, that these principles that are embedded in our U.S. Constitution, that were completely ignored.
	Can you criminally prosecute someone in the location the crime was committed?
	Yes. However you're supposed to, consider whether they can get a fair trial in that proceeding.
	That goes all the way back to the press prejudice cases that informed the first TV show, The Fugitive.
	I mean, based on the true underlying story of that case, where someone was railroaded in an unjust verdict.
	You can't trust any of the verdicts out of D.C. You can't trust any of the prosecutions.
	We know the prosecutors were political, partisan, prejudiced and corrupt themselves.
	So there was no aspect of the criminal adjudicative process, whether you're talking about the Justice Department.
	Whether you're talking about the grand jury, the jury, or the judge, or the court of appeals, that you can have any confidence that they gave a constitutionally conscientious trial to these individuals.
	And based on that, Trump should just skip all the nonsense, pardon all of them.
	Day one.
	End of the story.
	Now, I think he should add names to that list so that it's not easy for the media to pigeonhole it as Trump pardoning his friends or Trump pardoning his allies.
	Include all the other victims of lawfare.
	Include people that have even been critics.
	Like one of the members of the Locals Board had a great recommendation.
	Remember that Black Panther Party group that got prosecuted on those bogus Russian influence grounds?
	I've got to get the name off.
	You should pardon every single one of them.
	Pardon Ross Ulbricht.
	Pardon Ed Snowden.
	Pardon Julian Assange.
	Pardon the Roger Ver, Bitcoin Jesus.
	All these prominent political cases.
	Many of whom don't involve high profile.
	Ed Snowden's not been a Trump supporter.
	Julian Assange was not a Trump supporter.
	To my knowledge, Roger Ver was not politically engaged one way or the other in the campaign.
	But all of these people were victims of lawless behavior by a corrupt, politically motivated Department of Justice.
	And so I'm for as many pardons as possible.
	And for those that question it, it's because any constitutionally violative criminal prosecution...
	Worries me far more than whatever the defendant is accused of doing.
	Because what the defendant is accused of doing is unlikely to be replicated or repeated by the government against us.
	By contrast, when the government is able to violate constitutional principles of any defendant, it puts all of our liberties at risk.
	I'll add one thing and then ask you a question.
	Also, people are going to say, well, they're guilty.
	And it's like, well, if you had to break the law and frame a guilty person, congrats, you screwed it up.
	You don't get two kicks at the can of justice.
	Because the risk is, again, okay, that guilty person gets to walk free.
	That's a bad thing.
	It's not as bad as the government getting to violate all of our rights and liberties.
	Because that is more dangerous, more risky.
	And that's why I think the president should say to assert constitutional...
	Grounds that any case that was tainted or violated the Constitution, that person will be granted a pardon or commutation, or the Justice Department will step in and dismiss the cases or seek a new trial, as may be appropriate, depending on the situation.
	Seek a new trial or seek a trial for those who have still been held for four years without trial.
	Let's just pardon all the J6 guys.
	It's garbage.
	It was hogwash.
	It was from day one.
	Get it over with early, but throw in some big names so the media...
	Can't be hyper-focused on just those names.
	And maybe throw in a few lower-level Democratic names, depending on the circumstances.
	I don't think at this stage, adding Joe Biden, or I think adding Hunter, he originally planned on doing, and Joe just decided to jump the gun and make sure that that happened before he left.
	Now, I do think on the Joe Biden pardons, right now the odds are that he won't issue a preemptive pardon in some betting markets.
	I think it's a guarantee he's going to issue preemptive pardons.
	And the number one person on there I would list is Liz Cheney.
	He's absolutely going to pardon Liz Cheney.
	He was friends with Dick Cheney all the way back, friends with Liz Cheney all the way back.
	They are going to reward her for all of her scummy actions and her family's long history of criminal human rights violations and lawless behavior, in my opinion, going back decades.
	And the system will absolutely pardon her.
	And I think there'll be other names on that list they'll try to preemptively pardon.
	It wouldn't surprise me to see him add Anthony Fauci to the list.
	So don't be surprised if Anthony Fauci suddenly...
	But there will be preemptive pardons by the Biden administration.
	Yeah, I'm...
	Why do you have to tell me this?
	Now I'd have to go and put a bet on that, Robert.
	I don't want to do that.
	I was looking at it.
	I thought I was sharing the screen.
	I'm looking at it.
	It's at 41%.
	And I think it should be more like 75 or 80. Well, it was at 70% at one point.
	I'm wondering what changed.
	Maybe it's just the time frame, the window within which he can still do it.
	I was going to say one thing about the pardons.
	By the way, he may have issued pardons we don't yet know about.
	There's no immediate obligation to publish those pardons.
	Oh, so they could stand undisclosed until they prosecute.
	Diplomatic immunity.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I was going to say, yeah, if he can pardon pedophiles and Chinese spies, Trump can pardon.
	Rapists, murderers.
	I mean, he definitely green-lit.
	He gave political cover to whomever Trump wants to pardon.
	Because he literally went through, in part, you know, commute, well, I think he just reduced it to life imprisonment.
	But of some of the nastiest, sickest criminals in the entire world.
	Remember, by the way, the Guantanamo deal went through.
	Oh, yeah.
	What I said, what happened, I said, see, once they do those deals, they know that they can try to politically cover themselves by trying to revoke the deal, but courts ultimately almost always enforce that deal.
	And so now those guys get to walk, too.
	So, I mean, he's pardoned, like, some of the worst people in the world.
	Not to give attention to the troll, because this is the problem.
	I gave you the benefit of the doubt with the last stupid comment, and now, wow, Viva just said he wants trials for some...
	No. Are you effing?
	I mean, the thing is, you have to be either deaf or deliberately trying to be in it.
	So congrats for your 30 seconds of attention.
	That's to be able to misunderstand and just get caught up in things that...
	No, it is to deliberately put out disinformation so that people who don't pay...
	It doesn't matter.
	That deal, the one of the...
	Oh, and people are saying, like, don't pardon any Democrat.
	I'll give you a Democrat.
	Trump should pardon.
	Mayor Eric Adams.
	That's a completely garbage case by the Southern District of Maine.
	But he pardoned Blagojevich and doesn't get credit for it.
	He pardoned...
	I can't share the screen now.
	He pardoned Michael Harris.
	Who was the founder of Death Row?
	Michael Harris, the founder of Death Row Records, pardoned him.
	He was on stage last night.
	I think he was either one of the sponsors.
	He spoke.
	33 years in jail.
	He gets a pardon.
	Another one who's gone from Dem to MAGA.
	But the media will just totally ignore that.
	And run with their foregone conclusions that whatever Trump does is going to be the worst thing on earth than Biden.
	Speaking of the only thing that may be as egregious as the January 6th case is, is the New York case.
	I'm trying to schedule to sentence President Trump on Friday.
	So, Robert, I highlight when I make predictions that are good.
	I also highlight when I make predictions that are bad.
	I predicted that Merchant was going to vacate the verdict and blame the Supreme Court.
	I mean, I thought for sure that'd be the E, but it just shows you how confident they are that they will face no consequence for their completely rogue, wayward, corrupt actions.
	The example I give to people is from the founding of the country, and it was Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Back then, the Supreme Court justices rode circuit.
	That's where Circuit Court of Appeals originates.
	I wanted to ask you that question, by the way, before I forget.
	How many circuits are there, and what's the division of them?
	They assign different states at different times because they've divided them and subdivided them in different ways over the decades.
	But you have the Court of Federal Claims.
	We have an unlucky 13, is the short answer.
	There are 11 circuits, plus the Court of Claims, plus the D.C. Circuit.
	So, I mean, I'm against 13. You know, I avoid travel on Friday the 13th.
	I mean, I got those superstitions.
	Ask the Templars and Masons of old why the 13th of October, especially, but the 13th of any time has a bad omen attached to it.
	But, you know, having 13 circuits is...
	We need a perfect 12, right?
	12 Houses of the Zodiac, 12 Disciples of Christ, so on and so forth.
	12, good number.
	Good number historically.
	Are you sufficiently superstitious that you would not fly on a Boeing 737-800?
	Well, I'd avoid flying on a Boeing, period.
	I would definitely avoid whistleblowing on them.
	That puts your level of risk of living long up to the level of Clinton death curse.
	It's funny, but it's not funny.
	The whistleblower who waits his entire life to blow the whistle on DEI corruption within Boeing, after blowing the whistle, in deposition, decides to take his own life, make it make sense.
	So we're not talking about New York nipple judge here.
	That's Arthur Angeron, the man who boasts about all the tools he has to carry out his political prejudices.
	This is Judge Marchand, who we covered the decision.
	I think I was up in the cottage when we did it.
	I then did a separate video breaking down the decision because it was so flipping egregious.
	Goes through the decision and says, basically...
	All of the evidence adjuiced in the New York hush money trial did not violate the immunity evidence rule issued by SCOTUS because it was all evidence of purely personal acts and therefore not presidential conduct, even though it was purely presidential communications between his chief and staff, whatever. So he says, okay, fine.
	It all passes.
	But even if it doesn't pass, even if it were violating the rule issued by SCOTUS, It's a no big no harm.
	It's so harmless given the preponderance of the guilt of Trump.
	I mean, it's Nancy Pelosi reasoning.
	So the judge does not vacate the verdict, does not say, I can't do anything.
	I would have sentenced him to five years in jail, but I can't because of SCOTUS.
	He says, no, it's all good.
	Rush, rush, rush.
	And I get to sentence you now.
	Did he bump up the date for the sentencing to make it pre-inauguration?
	I don't know when it was.
	It was originally scheduled for a month ago or so.
	So I don't know if he moved it up precisely because they moved it back initially.
	Well, that's it.
	I don't know if he was supposed to be after.
	I think he did it for the 10th because he didn't want to do it after the president had been inaugurated because there was a risk a federal court or somebody else would step in and say, you no longer have any power to continue this case.
	Oh, someone said here, I don't want to get into religious discussion because it never ends well, but 12 apostles plus Jesus, Robert.
	That's an interesting point.
	I read somewhere that he was bumping it up so he can get the conviction before the inauguration.
	He definitely wants that because he doesn't want a court to step in and say, this is now the president.
	Right now he's the president-elect.
	Once he's the president, then there's extraordinary argument that states have no power to issue any kind of court.
	So then either the sentencing would be suspended until he's no longer president, or he issues the sentence now and then suspends it while he's president.
	He already predicted what he's going to do.
	He's not insane enough to try to literally order him to Rikers Island pending inauguration.
	He was showing indicators that maybe he would by aspects of what he ruled in that decision.
	But instead, he basically concluded what...
	The prosecutor doesn't want that to happen already.
	The prosecutor said, you know, just release them, basically.
	Just end it.
	No probation, no nothing.
	Why is that?
	They want the conviction to withstand as much scrutiny as possible.
	They know they have a New York appellate court system that is hopelessly corrupt, as in partisan and political, as was revealed in their decision this past week to affirm that ridiculous initial verdict in the civil assault case.
	We'll see if Viva will be back here in a second.
	Are you there?
	There you are.
	Now I can't hear you.
	You're on mute.
	Yeah, there we go now.
	Well, at least the good news now is I can go back to sharing my screen.
	I had to refresh anyhow, but I didn't do it on purpose.
	I didn't do that on purpose.
	I don't know what happened.
	The goal is simple.
	They know if they do any kind of sentence, any kind of conviction, any kind of probation, anything but unrestricted discharge.
	That that gives the right of courts to intervene quicker and faster and more assertively against the verdict.
	As long as he gives them, hey, you're just totally discharged.
	The only thing you have on you is the label of convict.
	Then it will go through the normal appellate process in New York, which will take substantial time.
	12, 18 months is very commonplace.
	And they know with the New York appellate courts, they have a bunch of politically prejudiced courts when it comes to Trump.
	They've covered up ridiculous and absurd things so far.
	So the hope is, That allows the label, convicted felon, to stick around on Trump for as long as possible with the most favorable to the prosecutor appellate review in that time period.
	So I think that political self-interest is why, not because of any conscientious concern for interfering in an election or interfering with a president taking power, they want to stick the label on him but don't want to actually try to imprison him at any level.
	A suspended sentence or otherwise, because that would run the risk of a federal court stepping in and saying, hold on, you can't interfere with the presidency once it starts.
	But, I'm sorry, so did I understand, though, that depending on the nature of the, what's the word I'm looking for, not the fine, but the sentence, that it could slow down or hinder the appeals process?
	Absolutely. Okay.
	Because what it is, is he has immediate imminent harm if his presidency is being interrupted in any level.
	Which any criminal sentence would do.
	That would trigger an immediate constitutional crisis.
	And so that's why they'll likely avoid it.
	And because they know that they can have, even though it was the ludicrous Second Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed that ridiculous Judge Kaplan case, they know it's still more likely than not, or more likely that a federal court will intervene than a state court will intervene, and the Supreme Court itself would likely intervene.
	If they were to try to issue any kind of sentence on Trump.
	And so that's why they'll likely avoid it.
	By having no imminent harm to the presidency, just the label, felon conviction, that's not imperative enough for the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis.
	Or for a federal court to intervene.
	Instead, that will go up through the regular, and that's, you know, like I said, usually a 12-18 month process.
	Can go two years if you go up to the Court of Appeals, which is the Supreme Court of New York.
	Where Trump has found more favorable review, as reflected in the dealing with the ridiculous Letitia James case involving the nipple judge.
	But the lower courts have been ridiculous.
	And, I mean, like, good logic brought that challenge to the violations of everyone's speech rights in the gag order on President Trump, and the New York higher courts failed to do anything about it.
	I mean, it's just embarrassing.
	That's why people who are connected to the New York courts and the D.C.
	need to face personal consequence.
	Samuel Chase, going back to him, Supreme Court Justice, writing circuit.
	As part of those duties at the time of our founding, Supreme Court Justice has actually presided over jury trials.
	You know, John Adams was part of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
	Patently unconstitutional attacks on core press and speech freedoms.
	And it was part of those cases.
	And what happened is when Jefferson got in, not only overturned those cases and overturned verdicts related to those cases, Congress realized, hey, the judicial branch doesn't understand its limited role.
	It's not to be political or partisan.
	It's to be the exact opposite of that.
	And so they said what Chase was doing was a violation of his constitutional oath.
	So they impeached him.
	They impeached a Supreme Court justice.
	Very first person ever impeached in American history.
	And he dodged a verdict.
	I think he deserved to dodge a guilty verdict.
	But the mere act of the Supreme Court justice going through that let all the judges know, hold on a second, we better be careful about being overtly political and partisan with how we use our judicial power.
	These judges have forgotten that.
	And that's why there's got to be judges that are put into the...
	Put under investigation and meaningfully either civil or impeachment or criminal cases pursued against them.
	Because what these judges did was interfere in election.
	What they did was politically weaponize their power in violation of their constitutional oath.
	They have not engaged in good behavior, which is the constitutional requirement for federal judges, often for state judges, but you can't trust New York State legislature to do anything.
	That's what the federal civil rights are for.
	Federal civil rights are for rogue states.
	Violating people's civil rights and civil liberties, especially rogue state court judges.
	And number one that should be put in that box is Mershon.
	To educate everybody, you can't do this.
	You can't have your daughter getting rich on your case.
	This is utter outrage and utter embarrassment to the rule of law in America.
	There is no bigger disgrace to the rule of law in America than Judge Mershon.
	I mean, he has some worthy competition.
	Like that D.C. judge.
	But he's proven himself uniquely incapable of upholding his constitutional oath and duty.
	And unless people see, oh, there's actually consequences.
	If you're Anthony Fauci, there's consequences.
	If you're Mayorkas, there's consequences.
	If you're Soros or Gates, there's consequences.
	If you're a rogue state judge, there's consequences.
	If you're Fannie Willis, who repeatedly and routinely violated President Trump's constitutional rights along with others.
	There's consequences.
	Just look at what Eastman pointed out.
	He pointed out that the Federal Justice Department engaged in routine, repeated, and regular violation of Professor Eastman of constitutional laws, constitutional rights.
	Imagine how cocky you have to be, how arrogant you have to be to go after a constitutional professor of law and violate his constitutional rights.
	This shows they think they're above the law, that they have no sense of limits or restraints or restrictions, and they need to face consequence or this country will not succeed in the next century.
	Well, from your mouth to God's ears, but I guess we can go from the bad judges to a good one, Robert, because you had...
	Look, it's not...
	It's nice to sing your praises.
	And you had what I know is a monumental and highly personal victory last week.
	It's interim in a sense because Amos Miller still has bigger issues or more issues.
	The Amos Miller, the Amish farmer who has been prosecuted and persecuted by the corrupt state of Pennsylvania, where they forbade him or they tried to forbid him from selling his...
	You succeeded at the lower level in limiting what the state can do.
	Okay, fine, you can't sell it within the state because we control our borders for state commerce.
	But you can't prevent it from him from selling elsewhere because it violates the cost.
	Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
	One day this is all going to come in very handy, hopefully.
	Touch wood.
	And the state appealed the decision, and you got an affirmation from the Court of Appeal of Pennsylvania saying that there was nothing wrong with what the judge did, limiting the order, so that if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wants to restrict the business, they can only do it within their proper borders.
	They're not the federal agency of America.
	And you got a smashing victory that's going to allow Amos, the Amish farmer, to stay in business.
	First of all, does it feel good?
	Were you scared?
	Because I know that you were scared.
	I don't know that you were scared.
	I presume you were nervous.
	Well, I mean, from the beginning of this case, when I took over years ago, Amos Miller was in federal court at that time.
	Unbeknownst to anyone, the state of Pennsylvania was behind the federal government's targeting and harassment of Amos Miller.
	They had instigated the entire proceeding and basically were the key.
	reasons why he had been targeted.
	For those that don't know the backstory, Amos Miller is a fifth-generation Amish farmer from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the heart of dairy country in America and in the world.
	He uses the techniques that his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather before him utilized, and his only adjustments have been to come up to keep up to speed.
	With using the most organic methods, having the best animal sources, having the best animal husbandry, making things that people need for their well-being, for their health.
	Hundreds of people so testify.
	So when we took over, he was facing contempt charges, being jailed in federal prison.
	He and his wife facing a bankrupting verdict of fines and sanctions and penalties.
	And we're able to get the U.S. government to compromise and basically dismiss all of those charges and proceedings and radically limit the scope of their preliminary injunction.
	Now, as I've mentioned to people in Trump world, there's probably no better step Trump could make to show people his commitment to food freedom, his commitment to small farmers in America, and his commitment to protection of the Amish.
	For those that don't know the Amish history from Germany and Switzerland, Distinct Anabaptist-rooted religious group that was prosecuted and persecuted because of their dissident religious beliefs, which included not serving in the military and not seeking public attention.
	They believed acts of modesty require certain limitations on their clothing, limitations on their conduct, limitations on any photographic or visual representation of them, limitation of their appearances on camera, all of those things, not drawing attention to themselves, etc. And Pennsylvania in particular, but American society writ large, promised the Amish that their way of life and lifestyle would be protected to bring them here.
	They're great farmers, exceptional and extraordinary carpenters, and some of the kindest, best-hearted human beings you'll ever meet in your life.
	If you want to watch a cinematic version that accurately captures the spirit of the Amish, I recommend Witness.
	The Harrison Ford movie from, I believe, the mid-1980s.
	It was actually surprisingly violent.
	Gave me nightmares as a kid.
	Kid hides in the bathroom while someone gets their throat slit at the sink in a bathroom.
	It terrified me.
	It's how the Amish rally to defend themselves but continue to maintain their values.
	So Amos Miller's great quote-unquote crime was making Amish food in the best possible modern contemporary organic food treatment mechanisms.
	Available to people that were not Amish.
	So he was one of the most prominent small farmers and Amish farmers anywhere in the world, making Amish food available to people around the country.
	And tens of thousands of Americans have, over a quarter of a century, consumed tens of millions of food products from Amos Miller.
	And yet, during that time period, as was later admitted at trial, as the court of a...
	The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recognized in its published opinion that is precedential by its decision in Pennsylvania and persuasive around the country.
	It was clear that the government failed to present any evidence, any competent, capable, reliable, trustworthy evidence that Amos Miller's food had ever harmed anybody.
	So all the media publications that like to libel and lie about Amos better pay attention to that court decision.
	Because if you keep going out there and repeating these libels that these state agencies and federal agencies have claimed about him, but were unable to prove in court, just be on alert.
	And I did notice, it was last week, I haven't seen the comment come up tonight, no, no, Robert, someone died from his contaminated listeria milk.
	Utterly false.
	And we proved it was utterly false at the hearing.
	I mean, he has the best, I mean, name anybody in any business.
	That has produced tens of millions of products consumed by tens of thousands of Americans over a quarter century that has literally zero, zero customer complaints from anybody, anytime.
	What's really wild about it is that people don't appreciate the amount of contamination E. coli bacteria from Brussels sprouts, broccoli, from like main chains.
	And then, oh, 25 people died.
	They got to recall them.
	And you simply don't have...
	I know that's because I know the history now.
	Amos never had any food recall ever.
	Never had any customer complaint ever.
	And yet, the state of Pennsylvania, first through the federal government and then on its own accord, set about destroying it.
	Trying to do everything possible to destroy it.
	Destroy him in the court of public opinion.
	Destroy him with his public reputation.
	Destroy him with his reputation with the Amish, in his own community, with his own people.
	And try to literally shut him down, seize food from his own farm, from his own refrigerator, for his own family.
	That's the scope of what they claim.
	And they claim the legal power to go into any kitchen, anywhere in the state, and seize any food, anytime they wanted.
	That you could only eat what the government told you you could eat, and that you don't have your own choice over what goes into your own body.
	So this was a perilous precedent that could have crushed small farms and wrecked food freedom and given the state effective control over our bodies for food and medicine when you throw in the vaccine.
	Well, the problem is you still have the state-level issue, but at the very least, in the interim, Amos can sell beyond the state because the state cannot regulate what is transported and sold into other states.
	What they did is in January of this past year, they went in and raided, stole a bunch of his stuff, lied to the court, got an injunction that prevented him from doing anything for about two months.
	We have a full evidentiary hearing on an expedited basis in late February.
	The court ultimately concludes, issues different opinions, but ultimately agrees with us that the permit requirement for raw milk production to sell within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...
	is only within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
	And that means it only applies to Pennsylvania customers, like all of the public policy behind the law, like all the legislative history behind the law, like the law itself is plainly written to be.
	And the state was relying on a regulation, not something passed by the state legislature, but a regulation to try to rewrite what happened.
	This is the classic example of what happens in food freedom context and other legal context across the legal landscape.
	So what happens is the state of Pennsylvania starts harassing raw milk producers, particularly in the Amish country, back two decades ago.
	That leads to such public outrage that the legislature requires the Department of Agriculture of Pennsylvania to license and permit raw milk production.
	What does the state of Pennsylvania do?
	The Department of Agriculture, through its regulations, through the kind of abuse that led to the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine, of delegating...
	Authority to these low IQ lardasses that dominate the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
	Just take a look at any of them.
	You don't want to eat what they're eating.
	You don't want to look like they do.
	You don't want to feel like they do.
	You don't want to talk like they do.
	You compare the Amish.
	You line up the people of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and you line up the Amish, and you ask any rational person, which diet do you think you want to be on?
	Which food do you think you want to be eating?
	You want to be eating whatever they're eating at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture?
	Or do you want to be eating what the Amish are eating?
	If you want to live a long, healthy, happy life, you want to eat what the Amish are eating, not what any of the low-IQ lardasses at the PDA are doing.
	But they pass their own rules, and here's what they do.
	They say, they interpret the requirement that they permit raw milk to actually be a prohibition on 95% of the products made with raw milk.
	It was an utterly asinine and absurd interpretation of, and they knew it was in direct contradiction to what the state of Pennsylvania legislature was trying to do.
	So they try to drastically expand and rewrite the law through their regulations.
	And my point is that even these regulations are ambiguous and ambivalent because they conflict with other provisions.
	And then, of course, there's the federal constitutional issue.
	We have an interstate commerce clause that's meant to regulate what states can do.
	Namely, the states cannot try to restrict or burden interstate commerce.
	We have an entire...
	Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture that's supposed to be governing the interstate commerce component.
	Every state can't be coming up with its own rules governing interstate commerce and us having any uniform principles anymore.
	And then you also have the right to travel.
	In my view, you have a fundamental right to decide what goes into your body when it concerns traditional foods that have been available and accessible and part of our customs and traditions since the founding of this country.
	Indeed, there's nobody that better celebrates and represents the founding generation of this country than the Amish do today.
	You want the closest example to what life was like and the best version of that during the founding era?
	There's no better example of that than the Amish.
	And so they went in, so we got that, but that didn't stop them.
	They went back to the trial court over and over and over again, demanded he reverse his verdict.
	To his credit, he refused.
	Then they went up to the Court of Appeals, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, demanded they overturn it over and over and over again.
	And we won at every single stage, but most people that had watched the oral arguments that were only available live, but there was huge public demand.
	Available live and then turned off afterwards because I missed my window to see it, not just live, but even to hear it on the government's website because they don't want people snipping, clipping, and sharing.
	Well, imagine taking thousands of hours of legal time spent by my firm over the last several years, and you got seven and a half minutes to persuade three judges who appear to be hostile to your client's legal position.
	That's not an easy task.
	But what made it a lot easier were the hundreds and hundreds of people that showed up outside of the Lancaster County Trial Court when the hearing was held.
	That let the powers that be know...
	That there are a lot of people who care about this.
	And there were all, everyone to the last one, was on the side of Amos Miller.
	There was nobody outside the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture who showed up at that hearing who had one bad word to say about Amos Miller.
	You had hundreds of people, ordinary people, out in the freezing cold, get out there to surround the courthouse to make the point that they cared about Amos.
	Not only that, a bunch of the Amish showed up.
	And the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, through the local corrupt Lancaster Press, had lied and libeled Amos for so many years, and they know they can get away with it because Amish tradition, you don't sue, you don't seek public attention, you don't talk to the court of public opinion.
	So they knew they could get away with lying and libeling him and violating his rights routinely and regularly because of that.
	But those people all showed up.
	A bunch of Amish showed up.
	Not only that, a bunch of Amish took the time.
	To travel all across the state, all the way over to Pittsburgh, where the hearing was held.
	I mean, I don't know whether the government thought Pittsburgh would be too distant for anybody to show up.
	Well, surprise, surprise, they didn't even have enough seats to seat people.
	They were Amish who lined the entire walls.
	And ordinary, everyday people who came out to sit through there.
	And so everybody knew, oh, hold on, this isn't your typical case.
	This is not...
	A case we can get away with violating somebody's rights without folks' notice.
	But the key fact that I think helped persuade them was, aside from the constitutional concerns, aside from the questionable interpretation of the statutes, the dubious regulatory enforcement mechanisms, the selective targeting of someone who had the best food safety record of any farm or any food producer in the state of Pennsylvania.
	Find me somebody else who's distributed that much food to that many people and had zero, zero customer complaints in 25 years.
	And I think the judge in the center who came in skeptical on the oral argument, and she was like, well, there's no dispute that he caused sickness, right?
	I was like, there's no dispute that he didn't cause sickness.
	I was like, they had years.
	They had been tracking him and spying on him and following him for more than a decade.
	And yet they couldn't produce one single witness to testify against him that had actually produced his food that was a customer?
	Not one?
	Did he get some low-IQ, lard-ass quasi-experts to get up there and testify?
	Best expert to testify?
	Our expert.
	Someone that the Trump administration should put in a key position of power in the FDA if they really care about food freedom, as was a key part of their election platform.
	Indeed, you want to know what else helped?
	People like Scott Pressler got out and organized on this issue.
	People connected to the Trump campaign organized on this issue.
	Robert Kennedy publicly advocated for Amos Miller repeatedly in the court of public opinion, as did Children's Health Defense, the organization he founded.
	Thomas Massey, great congressman.
	I don't care any criticism people have of Massey.
	He's one of the best congressmen we've ever had.
	One of the most conscientious congressmen we've ever had.
	One of the biggest farm freedom advocates we've ever had.
	Some people asked, Why was he anti-Johnson but pro-McCarthy?
	It's very simple.
	He had an agreement with McCarthy to make sure he could get through food bills that would have helped small farmers throughout the country, and Johnson didn't deliver on that.
	That's what that's about.
	I mean, Johnson's utterly untrustworthy and unreliable.
	I pray it works out fine, but I have no confidence in him.
	We'll see.
	Maybe President Trump can convert him into something other than what he's been to date.
	But Thomas Massey took political risk and exposure by speaking out for him.
	And ordinary, everyday people rallied to his defense again and again and again and again.
	Not only showing up at courthouses, not only in the court of public opinion, but in raising funds for him and continuing to support his farm, which you can do at amosmillerorganicfarm.com.
	Like, I didn't even realize.
	I just made a big food order.
	Because I didn't realize some of the stuff he's added.
	He's got some great stuff on sale.
	He's got all these great little pies.
	You can get homemade ice cream.
	You can get Amos' own version of potato chips, which is fantastic.
	You can get baked goods right from the bake.
	Muffins, rhubarb muffins that are outlandishly good.
	Almond chocolate chip cookies that are outlandishly good.
	Sinfully good, you'd almost say.
	But it's Amish, so it's all okay.
	So the milk is fantastic.
	The pumpkin pie is amazing.
	I had raw bison milk or water buffalo?
	Water buffalo milk is great.
	You can get camel milk.
	I mean, all of it's like...
	I joked that it was so good you'd think I was on cocaine.
	And then the Pennsylvania government said it was worse than cocaine.
	That's how nuts these people are.
	So there was a lot of pressure, a lot of risk.
	We donated a lot of time.
	Almost all of my time spent on the case has never been, he's not in a position to compensate it, but there was enough funds raised to keep him afloat and to support the underlying cost of associate time, clerk time, travel costs, other costs, so that I wasn't too badly out of pocket in the case and we could survive, the law firm could survive and still dedicate the large amount of time we did to his case.
	They committed perjury repeatedly, they lied about him repeatedly, they lied about him in court, they lied about him in the press.
	Public officials lied about them.
	Half the Pennsylvania officials were a bunch of pansies.
	And what changed the ballgame was Robert Kennedy and Thomas Massey.
	All of a sudden, people that were in political positions of influence were like, hold on a second.
	Robert Kennedy's bringing attention to this issue, giving it credibility and independent review, and it's one of the most popular tweets he's ever had.
	Thomas Massey, one of the top members of the Agriculture Committee in Congress, is bringing attention to this issue.
	Hold on a second.
	We're getting publications on the right and the left bringing attention to this issue.
	So maybe we've misread it.
	Maybe we've misgaged it.
	And you know what?
	It probably didn't hurt any, the political empowerment for the court to make the right legal decision that not only did Trump win the presidential election, he won the state of Pennsylvania.
	But in the process, why did Pennsylvania not have one of those, oh, hold on a second, we got to have three more weeks to count ballot 2020 type situation.
	It's because the margin was too big to be within what I call the margin of fraud.
	There weren't enough ballots that they could cook up to make it look close enough.
	They needed to be close enough so they can get enough ballots to harvest, to dump at the last minute, to be able to influence it.
	Why did that happen in Pennsylvania?
	Well, according to independent third-party political reports, the Amish had the highest level of voter registration and voter participation in the history of the state and in the country.
	And what led this otherwise apolitical group that likes to stay out of politics to get so engaged?
	Well, you can quote Food Safety News, which, by the way, hates me and hates my advocacy in the case.
	They said, ever since we got involved and the public got connected, the Amish opinion completely reversed, rallied to him and became deeply concerned that there was an ongoing attempt to destroy their way of life.
	And that's what motivated them to turn out at record levels.
	Again, credit to Scott Pressler and other people that helped organize that vote, helped activate that vote.
	But it's thanks to ordinary people out there because they created so much attention that they talked to their friends.
	They talked to their neighbors.
	They talked to their family members.
	They talked to other farmers they meet.
	They would talk to Amish that they would meet.
	And they would bring up Amos Miller and their opinion of it was that what was happening to him was outrageous.
	And slowly but surely, the Amish started figuring out what was really happening.
	It was not what the local Lancaster press was lying about.
	And they realized they'd been lying about Amos.
	They went in and stole all his food.
	They're saying he can't feed his own family, that he can't feed his own community, that he's got to lay everybody off.
	They want to shut him down permanently.
	And it turns out there's no evidence his food has ever harmed anybody, according to the very people who consumed that food.
	And the government's been lying about him.
	All of a sudden, the Amish woke up.
	And in my view, the Trump administration, the new Republican Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who partially owns his election to those Amish votes, should recognize that we need to honor our promise to the Amish and keep food freedom alive in America by giving us what has been our right from the beginning of the country, which the state court, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, recognized as a legitimate constitutional question.
	That the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and some of these other...
	Critics out there in the so-called agriculture media were saying, oh, Barnes is just making up this constitutional.
	There's no basis for this constitutional stuff.
	Well, now you've had every single judge who's reviewed the case say there's serious constitutional questions of what they're doing to Amos Melton.
	And they decided to not only write it in a published opinion, they decided to make it precedential.
	And what does that mean?
	It means it's binding throughout the state of Pennsylvania.
	It means it's persuasive authority throughout the entire country.
	One of the big things they established.
	It was the judge who I thought might, if we won, would write the opinion because she had been very conscientious, very thorough, very diligent, one of the best judges I've ever been in front of.
	I wasn't sure I was going to prevail, but she was someone who I was like, she's serious about investigating every aspect of the law, understanding this, and investigating every aspect of the record.
	You get a lot of courts that claim they read the record, but you can tell they didn't or they lie about it.
	This judge went through and was, It's detailed about every single aspect.
	I mean, just nailed it to a tee.
	Pointed out all the things the state didn't even prove at the level that the state couldn't get to prove, which suggested the state would never be able to prove.
	But one of the big things she established is precedent for everybody.
	Aside from the constitutional constraints on state action in the agriculture context, aside from making sure any ambiguity in food law goes to the benefit of the farmer, not the state.
	But the other big precedent that's universal now...
	Is she emphasized what another court had emphasized before, but wasn't as big an opinion as this one will be.
	I mean, it's already, like, you can search Amos Miller and this case pops up in the top five.
	I mean, that's how big this case is going to be.
	And I say that as someone who's had precedents that have been cited by hundreds of courts down the road, so I have some experience in knowing which cases are likely to be consequential and which ones are not.
	And what they said was, you can't get an injunction against a farmer.
	Unless you can prove extraordinary irreparable injury.
	Because it's automatic irreparable injury to take away somebody's farm.
	And that is something that has not been as consistently and clearly established as it should have been in American law.
	But now it is.
	That protects every single farmer in Pennsylvania and provides persuasive authority to protect every single small farmer in America.
	So it was a massive ruling, but it is mostly thanks.
	To Amos would say it's thanks to the prayers.
	As Reuben King told me after we got the Amish farmer they tried to put in prison for three years because he sold some guns to his neighbors.
	They tried to pretend he was the arms dealer.
	No, the arms dealer was the lord of war you shipped to Russia in exchange for a WNBA player.
	That's an arms dealer.
	An Amish farmer selling long rifles to his neighbor.
	It ain't nothing like that.
	These people pretended to be neighbors.
	They weren't.
	They were undercover ATF people.
	But I'll never forget, you know, we got the judge who was going to sentence for three years in prison.
	Again, big Amish turnout.
	The U.S. Marshal, who was in charge of the courthouse, is fans of this show.
	Other people, so that people knew about the case.
	And I think it led to more conscientious attention than what otherwise happens in some of these cases.
	And Reuben King only got three years probation instead, so he wasn't put in prison in a place where he might not have survived.
	The Amish don't have a good history of what happens to them in those places because of their independent belief structure.
	And their refusal to engage in any form of even retaliatory violence.
	But the net effect of it was people were paying attention in ways.
	And how did that happen?
	It happened because ordinary, everyday people out there in the audience continued to talk about it, continued to contribute to it, continued to help out with the legal defense, continued to support Amos Miller.
	And the same reason they couldn't crush Alex Jones, because his audience refused to abandon him like they thought it would happen.
	Because the American people rallied to Amos Miller, Amos Miller is still allowed to make his food available to people who need it to survive, as people testified to in court, that said their health of them or their loved ones depends on the unique food products that Amos Miller is able to produce, and at the high quality he's able to produce it.
	So it's a reminder to everybody.
	It's thanks to ordinary, everyday people being engaged in the court of public opinion that Amos Miller is going to continue the tradition of his father, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather before him to sustain the values and virtues and lifestyle of the Amish and to protect all of our rights to decide what goes into our body when it involves traditional foods that we've been eating directly from farmers for centuries.
	Robert, I'll read the chat, and I think we're going to bring the party on over to rumble after this.
	To locals, I should say.
	Doing God's work, Barnes.
	Thank you from Sad Wings Raging.
	My goodness, I now see what Jake Lang looks like.
	Looks like a candle or something.
	Then we've got removes vote in gun rights and cannot go to Canada.
	That is imminent harm and affects presidential ability to negotiate and travel, says Hans 1PK.
	That's interesting.
	Being a convicted felon, he might have...
	Well, he won't have travel restrictions.
	First of all, Canada doesn't say no to felons, people.
	I'll tell you that much.
	Let me get back here to see this.
	Jesus was first.
	Judas was the 13th, says Tarkina 53, who I know...
	That's a good point.
	See, it's another example of 13 being dangerous.
	And then we got Ham Sturgis says, Barnes, are you aware of any Black Lives Matter Antifa protesters who were unfairly prosecuted that could also be pardoned to further balance the apolitical nature of the pardon effort?
	BLM, no.
	Even from the January 17 inauguration disruption in 2017, there were only a handful of people who let everybody walk.
	Pretty much.
	The people on the left that have been prosecutors in the Native American community, African American community, farm community, but there were other kinds of dissidents.
	BLM was a politically protected operation.
	As a vet, my military ID has always been in my wallet.
	Everything about it smells.
	It says M. Teoga101 says, can the D.C. courts be taken down and eliminated?
	We've talked about that.
	Absolutely, yes.
	There's no reason why any D.C. court should exist.
	And Hunley, Eric Hunley, America's Untold Stories, also texted me and said, Dave, it's not the Medal of Honor.
	That's military.
	It's the Medal of Freedom Civilian Award.
	That's right.
	Hunley's got that military background.
	Yep. You think Cheney gets a preemptive pardon?
	The... Oh, yes.
	Oh, yes.
	No question.
	A bunch of effing scumbags is what they are.
	What about his brother?
	I can't imagine he's really going to let his brother have any risk.
	Not that he's really worried.
	They never went towards his brother or sister.
	But it wouldn't surprise me to see him add those people.
	His brother has never really faced any scrutiny.
	His brother's issue was that he gave money, returned a loan.
	His brother was the coordinator.
	Hunter became the bag man, but the original coordinator of the operations was his brother and sister.
	I mean, he was really running the show, but the brother and sister were the main people until he had Hunter take over.
	We've got a couple of stories left that we'll do over on the Rumble side, on the local side.
	Now, I can never figure it out.
	I'll read some of the locals' tipped questions here.
	I don't know if the Rumble prefers that that be our after-party thing or that I do it here, but while we're here, everyone, if you're so inclined, move your butts on over from Rumble.
	to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and contemplate becoming a supporter if you so choose.
	If you don't, all of this will be available, including the after party, on podcast.
	I'll just read a few here.
	We got Ganfit in the House says, is a Speaker of the House required to certify the election?
	Been some articles in the media about Trump not being President if there wasn't a Speaker.
	I heard the same stories that if, what's his face, Johnson didn't get, they didn't agree on a Speaker, they could have to delay certification.
	My question to that, if you know the answer offhand.
	From what I understand, they can delay certification.
	But what would be the term, then, of the president?
	Does it end on January 20th, four years from now, if they delay certification, or does it all get shifted four years?
	At least Johnson's interpretation was that they're required to do it.
	And so the question would have been, if the House, under its own internal rules, couldn't meet until it voted for a speaker, couldn't it change the rules so that it could meet its obligation to certify?
	So that's how I take that.
	I don't think there's any...
	There's storms in D.C., but the Johnson Speaker of the House said there's no chance that there won't be certification.
	And as we predicted, Democrats are not going forward with a certification challenge.
	The very first thing Hassam Jeffries said when he got up as minority leader was, we recognize...
	President Trump was elected President of the United States by the American people.
	I think you confused Hassan Piker with Hakeem Jeffries.
	Oh, I did, yeah.
	I combined the same.
	Yeah, I still think they're going to maybe try for an impeachment after Merchant's sentences and says, oh, now he's an actual felon.
	Now he's an actual high crime and other high crimes or misdemeanors.
	I don't think there's enough for dissonant Republicans left anymore to allow that to go forward.
	From your mouth to God's ears, Robert.
	Okay, and another one over here on Locals.
	Susie C says, with a $20 tip, RB, you always put things in perspective.
	Amos Wynn reminds me, we are winning and God is with us.
	That is beautiful.
	We got Rocky Rhodes Cola in the house.
	H-N-Y, gentlemen.
	What does that mean?
	H-N-Y.
	Happy New Year, gentlemen.
	Viva, great job moderating yesterday.
	Robert, congrats on Amos Miller.
	Viva, Robert.
	I have something that would be a wonderful addition to Rumble that perfectly comports with free speech and competition of ideas.
	Would either of you be opposed to discussing this next week?
	No. And also, what we're going to get into this week.
	We're going back to the supporters interview.
	We're going to do one a week.
	I'm doing it.
	That's my New Year's resolution.
	That is my New Year's resolution.
	Bada bing, bada boom, done.
	We said people would stick by Rumble.
	Well, if you did, you made a lot of money over the last couple of weeks.
	Look, everybody can get greedy and you can say, I could have made more, could have bought earlier, could have sold later, whatever.
	The bottom line...
	Chris is doing what I jokingly suggested Elon do in terms of allowing crypto transactions on the platform.
	I said, hey, you're doing Doge.
	Use Doge.
	I own a little Doge now.
	But Chris is doing it.
	They've teamed up.
	They got a strategic investment from Tether, which in theory has a cryptocurrency that's tethered to the US dollar.
	They're going to allow crypto transactions to support your content creators on Rumble.
	It's revolutionary.
	Touch wood.
	I mean, it settled down because it went from $5 to $9 to $17, and then it leveled out after people took their profits.
	But it's a long game to play here.
	Well, when you're getting near billion-dollar investments from companies like Tether, you're not going anywhere anytime soon.
	And that doesn't even get to the coming verdicts against Google, both the DOJ action and the very robust Rumble action.
	And one of the Rumble antitrust lawyers...
	That was working with Rubel is now going to be in the Trump administration.
	So we can look forward to more continuous, meaningful restrictions of these various monopolies that have been interfering with and undermining American way of life.
	Now, we've got some AI, we've got some big tech, we've got some standing, we've got some Atlantic cases that we can cover.
	You can pick which one you want to do first, along with Giuliani, how he's holding up.
	Let's do here, before we go over the Atlanta case, because while we're talking about judicial corruption, we've talked about the lamentable state of prisons.
	This is in Fulton County in particular.
	It's interesting.
	The feds got involved in civil rights violations at the state level in terms of the atrocious conditions in the court.
	I never saw the actual video of the prisoner.
	Or the inmate who died and was eaten alive by bedbugs.
	I don't think I want to see it, but that was in Georgia, right?
	That was in...
	Or was that in Tennessee?
	Yes, that was the Atlanta jail.
	It was Fulton County jail.
	So they've come to an agreement.
	The state, Fulton County, is going to have better conditions for its inmates, which will involve not housing uncontrollable violent offenders and gang members with...
	Mentally impaired 17-year-olds where there's rampant sexual abuse, physical abuse, violence, murder.
	They're going to keep better track of that.
	They're going to try to have beds for the sick people.
	I mean, it's so atrocious, Robert.
	You read the details, but tell us what little step forward of justice this is.
	What's happened is systemically the jails in America have become third world institutions.
	And what I mean by that is, first of all, remember, many of the people in jail have been convicted of nothing.
	They've merely been charged.
	Secondly, often the people that are in jail are there because of political reasons or there because of financial limitations on their ability to secure bail because their bail was placed too high.
	And so, like, for example, I have a case in Seattle where my client was jailed for almost six months.
	And the underlying allegations all concern mask mandate issues and vaccine mandate.
	That's insane that Seattle is.
	Well, murderers, rapists, others were being allowed to get no bail in Seattle.
	It gives you an idea how nuts it's been.
	So you've often got young people, vulnerable people, mentally ill people, disabled people, other people that end up jailed simply because they've been accused of a crime, not because they've been convicted of any.
	And what's happening is, I've got a lot of lawsuits against the Silverdale facility in my hometown, Chattanooga, Tennessee, because as the local politicians made it clear, they wanted to make the jail a living hell.
	Their public statement was, it's not Silverdale Hotel, it's Silverdale Hill.
	And that's what they made it to.
	Often, innocent, vulnerable people who were there for either very minor charges or charges they were ultimately innocent of, found innocent of, found not guilty of.
	We're being unbelievably abused.
	One is a complete lack of adequate mental health care.
	Second, complete lack of adequate medical care.
	Third, you talk about bad diets.
	I mean, try to look at what food there is on prisons.
	I mean, right beneath it is food on hospitals and in airports, on airplanes.
	But, you know, completely inadequate nutritional components.
	But that's not all.
	In addition, often they were placed in positions where they didn't even have beds.
	I mean, the kid who died had like a thousand bedbugs, bites all over his body and had never been treated, died inside the jail, only accused of a crime.
	They would stick vulnerable populations with extremely violent populations.
	They would stick informants in jail cells with the gangs they were informing on.
	Basically, they put people in there to be abused, knowing that was the likely consequence.
	The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as applicable to the federal and state governments, respectively, requires that when you have someone in your control in custody, you have to provide adequate medical care and you have to protect them from known dangers.
	One way they try to get around this...
	Is pretending they don't know dangers.
	Golly gee, we had no idea that putting 10 gang members in with the person who informed against them might lead to problems.
	No idea.
	We had no idea that putting in a vulnerable 17-year-old with an abusive, violent person with a history of maybe sexual crimes or other crimes might lead to something bad.
	That's how horrendous the treatment has been.
	And because these are people that are outcast in society.
	Nobody cares about poor, disabled, mentally ill kids just accused of a crime.
	That's just practical reality.
	They don't have a big political...
	They don't got a PAC organized for them.
	Ain't no lobbyist for them.
	So I've been taking cases for years against the utterly horrendous treatment of our inmates.
	And most of them, by the way, are not like violent gangbangers or anybody else.
	That's not who I'm suing on behalf of.
	I'm suing on behalf of people either wrongfully accused or accused of very minor issues.
	Nonviolent issues, etc.
	Not sexual crimes or anything like that.
	They become the victims of those crimes.
	And in Atlanta, they documented what we talked about in the Owen Schroyer case that they used repeatedly against him and the federal system, Bureau of Prisons.
	Because this is endemic to our entire prison system.
	It's worse in some locations, like Atlanta, like Chattanooga with Silverdale, like some of certain facilities around the country, like the whole entire California state prison system that has been under...
	Independent monitoring now for decades, effectively, because of all the horrendous abuse and mistreatment and maltreatment that took place there.
	They've designed the prison systems to create more criminals.
	That's what they've been doing.
	What happens when you take some young, vulnerable person and they get horrendously abused, their only way of defending themselves, their only way of survival, becomes criminal affiliation and association.
	We have a prison system that just doesn't make sense fundamentally.
	Who comes up with the idea that, let's take a bunch of criminals...
	And let's have them work together.
	And you take mentally ill people who are schizophrenic or whatever, misbehaving, and then lock them in solitary as though that's going to do anything except exacerbate them.
	They showed deliberate, selective...
	They use solitary as a political tool and to get rid of people who are just complainers.
	So if somebody was mentally ill, stick them in solitary.
	Someone's physically ill, stick them in solitary.
	Someone says, hey, by the way, I'm at risk for this.
	Oh, stick them in solitary.
	And it's not a coincidence that you're Owen Shroyers of the world and the Bureau of Prisons ended up there.
	Imagine Atlanta, which is 10 times worse, what they were doing to people.
	So it was a good consent decree.
	I'm glad the Justice Department brought it.
	There's pending cases against multiple jails.
	But we've got to figure out a way to handle criminals much better than we handle them currently.
	Because we fail to draw meaningful distinctions between the violent and the nonviolent, between those that are drug users versus drug sellers.
	Between those that are mentally ill and those that are just morally defect, the people that are ongoing threats and risk to outside society versus those that are not.
	And so I think we have to reevaluate and reassess a lot of these things as these lawsuits continue to detail horrendous, like I say, third world conditions of many of our jails and prisons.
	And remember, they wanted to put Donald Trump there.
	It's simply inexcusable.
	Even if they're guilty of the most heinous stuff on earth, it's set aside that many of them haven't even been convicted.
	It's atrocious.
	But if we're operating on the basis that the feds are incorrigibly or irreparably corrupt, why do they go after this particular situation?
	Because it protects their political constituency.
	So they're doing it because the primary people concerned with it are...
	Proportionally in the disadvantaged, public defender, African-American, Latino communities.
	Disproportionately. And so they see it as a way to protect their constituencies.
	But it's the right thing.
	No, no.
	It's atrocious.
	You read it, and there's no excuse in a civilized country for that to happen.
	Which one was the other one?
	AI? There was the AI.
	We got a bunch of big tech ones, plus Rudy Giuliani.
	When you can't sue, when the government's discriminating against you.
	Well, let's do this one.
	This is a white military veteran who was denied, I forget the exact details, but denied a small business loan.
	A loan designed for people that are disadvantaged, like he was as a disabled veteran.
	And so it was disadvantaged or of certain minority groups.
	What it was is, if you were of a minority race...
	You were automatically considered disadvantaged.
	How fucking...
	I'm sorry.
	How racist is that?
	Imagine, was Kamala Harris the descendant of multiple generations of professional managerial class people, the descendant of slave owners?
	Is she more disadvantaged than a disabled veteran trying to start a business?
	No. And yet that's what the federal court concluded.
	The federal court concluded he had no...
	This is why I've been saying this for years now.
	Standing is one of the most pernicious, nasty doctrines that exist that was made up and invented by judges so they could cover up illegal behavior of the government.
	And that is what happened here.
	They said, oh, you can't sue.
	You don't have standing.
	It's like, hold on a second.
	He applied for the loan, was denied the loan.
	That's called injury.
	That's called damages.
	That's supposed to be a case or controversy.
	Again, the word standing doesn't exist in the Constitution.
	Someday I'm going to get to say that in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And I'll say it to Justice Thomas, as well as Justice Sotomayor, that both of you are wrong.
	Word standing ain't in there.
	So quit sticking it in there.
	Is this a case?
	Absolutely. Is it a controversy?
	Absolutely. And what's the language of the Constitution?
	Case or controversy.
	Makes it obligatory if it arises under federal law, as this claim did, because it was contesting federal law, and yet they claim he doesn't have standing.
	It's preposterous.
	They are going to abuse the heck out of the standing doctrine to cover up illicit criminal behavior by the government until and unless we undo the standing doctrine entirely.
	And the rationale for the standing is they said, look, you're not of the race.
	And you're not financially disadvantaged because you had applied for other loans and he had gotten other small business loans.
	But he didn't get that.
	They said he wasn't disadvantaged enough to fit the definition of disadvantaged to have standing.
	I've been saying for a long time, whether or not you have stated a cause of action, they've been confusing that with standing because standing allows them to not deal with a meaningful addressing of the cause of action within that framework.
	No standing was originally intended for people who suffered no injury and have no connection to the case at all.
	This is clearly an injury.
	I'm not a fan of standing, period.
	You should look at, is it a case or is it a controversy?
	That has nothing to do with standing, prudential or otherwise.
	That has to do with, did they state a claim or not?
	Classic, you know, whether you call it Rule 11, Rule 12. No, Rule 12 is the normal rule under federal rules.
	And there's analogous versions in different states.
	It's not always the same number.
	But basically, did you state a claim?
	He clearly did.
	I applied for the loan.
	I was denied the loan.
	If I had been black, I would have got the loan.
	That's racial discrimination.
	And the SBA, the fact they had to resort to standing?
	Tells you the federal court knows it's against the law what the administration is doing, what this Small Business Administration is doing.
	So I hope the new head of the Small Business Administration corrects and remedies this and undoes it.
	Now, because Stephen Miller has integrated a lot of these legal suits trying to unravel all of these racially discriminatory prejudicial systems that our federal government had imposed, I am hopeful and optimistic that the Trump administration...
	Corrects this.
	But what we need to correct is the impermissible doctrine of standing that is eviscerating the judicial obligation to review cases and controversies that concern illegal behavior by our government.
	Yeah, I'll go with the two-pronged approach here.
	Also, banish these racist loan policy decisions.
	They have the same thing in Canada.
	If somebody's disadvantaged now, maybe because you've been African-American or Latino or something, maybe you've suffered racial discrimination.
	But that should be an individualized assessment.
	That's what the disadvantaged principle should be.
	It should not be, you're automatically presumed to be disadvantaged because of the color of your skin.
	That should never be the standard.
	Or because of your ancestry.
	You should be actually disadvantaged.
	Wisconsin Law School, for example, changed its, right when I got in, they had a robust debate over my application over what met the standard of disadvantage.
	Because they had a program targeting, they wanted to include and increase the number of disadvantaged people in the law school.
	Now, a lot of the people pushing it had a racial objective with it.
	And as Henry Louis Gates, African American history professor from, African American studies professor from Harvard pointed out, if you looked at black students in the Ivy League, you wouldn't say they were straight out of Brooklyn for the movie.
	They were straight out of Brookline, one of the wealthiest theories in the country.
	That's Henry Louis Gates saying it.
	That's who disproportionately, it's the upper middle class within the African, like my Latino friends, my roommate at Yale.
	A great guy.
	He's now a dean at Yale University.
	A student dean at Yale University.
	He was Puerto Rican.
	He goes to the Puerto Rican group and he's like, these are all the old Spanish royals.
	I mean, his dad was an old school blue collar.
	He came from the working class section.
	Brilliant guy.
	Brilliant lawyer.
	Sweetheart of a human being.
	Our politics are different, but still a sweetheart of a human being.
	That doesn't change.
	Andy, everybody I knew that was working class in roots has never suddenly...
	You know, decided to block me or ban me or whatever because of political disagreements over the last decade.
	It's only been the upper middle class people I knew that did that, that, you know, were friends, even some family.
	That's another story for another day.
	But the essence, I mean, he was like, I go there, it's all, these are people that come from the European elites.
	Yeah, they were in Puerto Rico, they were the people that ran the country, that enslaved the rest of us.
	So that's who affirmative action really protects.
	It protects the upper middle class of the African-American and Latino communities.
	That's why they don't want class-based disadvantage to be a factor.
	They don't want traditional bases of disadvantage to be a factor.
	When I was applying to Wisconsin Law School, I was an African-American dean who fought for a true disadvantage ground.
	He fought for me getting a full scholarship on those grounds.
	Because to him, he wasn't there to promote somebody based on race or anything else.
	Did you suffer disadvantage?
	Now, can you suffer disadvantage from racial discrimination?
	Absolutely. But that should be the grounds.
	The specific individual facts known to you.
	Not a particular to you.
	Not your skin color.
	Because that's not a barometer at all, automatically, of disadvantage.
	Alright, that's fantastic.
	It's enraging.
	It's fantastic.
	What do we have left here before we head on over to VivaBarnesLaw.com?
	We have Net Neutrality, Big Tech, Giuliani, and AI.
	Okay, Giuliani.
	I'm not, I don't know that I'm fully up to speed with the latest of his contempt.
	What is the, Giuliani, he was defaulted into a liability verdict in the defamation case, an order, a ridiculous order of $148 million to the two poll workers that he allegedly defamed.
	What's the contempt part?
	Has he not turned over documents that they ordered him to turn over that he doesn't have?
	This is the, he's someone who could have used Barnes Law's freedom planning.
	About five years ago.
	Oh, gosh.
	They're going after...
	They're taking his rings.
	They're taking his cars.
	I heard him talking about how he has to live now.
	He's living off...
	His expenses are being paid from a corporate company, bank accounts.
	He has nothing now.
	They've seized everything, including stuff that his children say he bequeathed to them.
	Oh, yeah.
	They're trying to steal his family heirlooms.
	They're trying...
	Special gifts like the World Series ring.
	That he had, that he gifted to his son.
	First of all, the whole case was asinine and absurd, and a conscientious court never would have allowed it to go forward.
	But we don't have that in too many of our state and federal courts across the country.
	This is in New York, is it not?
	I thought it was in Georgia.
	This particular case is being hurt, because they brought it in Georgia, and they must have got lucky with the draw of whatever judge they got.
	Because the whole...
	I mean, $148 million?
	How did these two people suffer $148 million in damages?
	How? Federal judge.
	It's laughably absurd.
	People who die often only get a million dollars in damages.
	People who have their lives destroyed are lucky to get $100,000 in damages.
	$148 million?
	You've got to be kidding me.
	So, it's an absurd case.
	It represented judicial abuse of power, violations of free speech and legal advocacy.
	That a conscientious court would have dismissed a long time ago.
	But so now he finds himself in a position, and this is why I've always recommended freedom planning to people.
	The way I characterize it is, imagine you're Jewish or any kind of other dissident group in Berlin in 1929, and you see the Nazis are coming to power at some level.
	That'd probably be a good time to start doing some freedom planning.
	Some people did, they got out of dock.
	Some people didn't, and they never came back again.
	That's true anywhere you are in the world.
	I mean, look at people that got caught in different places during the pandemic, where all of a sudden they couldn't even move from their own home.
	So there are ways to do freedom planning so that if there's a rogue creditor after you, you are in a position to where you have assets protected, you have your way of life protected, you have your travel rights protected, you have your other rights protected in ways that cannot be easily breached by rogue creditors.
	Courts, rogue governments alike.
	Unfortunately, it's quite clear Rudy never did it.
	We have our answer, Robert.
	A jury on Friday ordered Giuliani to pay $148 million to two former Georgia-elect workers who said he destroyed their reputations.
	The Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington had already ruled that Giuliani defamed the two workers.
	So this is in D.C. They sued in D.C. Then wasn't there another case that was ultimately in Georgia?
	I'm going to have to double check.
	My understanding is the collection actions...
	So what can happen is a court can order you, after a judgment, can order you to sit for a deposition to basically give up all your assets.
	Disclose your assets.
	I forget what they call it in Canada.
	I think it's an examination on assets, so they can know exactly where to get them.
	There are smart people that know ways that you can protect yourself in that situation.
	God bless Rudy.
	Unfortunately, he never took...
	Never got that.
	So he was vulnerable to these kind of rogue actions.
	And the nature of what took place at the...
	So what they're trying to do is the plaintiffs are claiming he's holding things back and that they should have more property to enforce the judgment that he has turned over.
	He has said he's turned over everything he's legally obligated to, that he has legal possession and custody of, that he's not turning over things that he doesn't have control or custody of.
	Because he can't, functionally.
	That he's not turning over things that he's given to other people that belong to them legally.
	And he's not giving over things that he has a legal right to object to.
	And this includes, he had chosen to move from New York to Florida and made Florida's primary residence.
	Well, there are certain states, Florida, Texas is the best in America, that have really robust homestead exemptions.
	And so they're claiming that he has no...
	I love this claim.
	They've already seized his New York apartment.
	They're claiming they have a right to seize his Georgia apartment.
	And so why are they doing that?
	They want to pretend his primary residence is in New York because New York doesn't have anywhere near the same homestead exemptions as Florida.
	So that's why they want to pretend his primary residence was there so they can steal both of his homes from it.
	And so that apparently is going to go to an actual full trial.
	And then they were asking him, tell us who your doctors are.
	Tell us who your lawyers are.
	The federal courts have gotten completely out of control in this regard.
	I'm dealing with vaccine mandate cases involving the company 3M, that I like to call 3MFers, that is their real name.
	They are demanding, and courts are forcing people that are sued for being discriminated against to disclose their marital counseling records for Tell me how that has any relevance.
	Well, these same corporate defendants...
	are refusing to provide basic witnesses for basic discovery and basic testimony.
	These hypocritical judges have gotten so fat with power that they have no sense of regulatory self-restriction or control.
	That's why there's a bunch of them that need to face impeachment proceedings, civil cases, ethics investigations, criminal cases, you name it.
	They've lost control entirely.
	Lost a sense of any constitutional conscience in their conduct.
	Lost any sense of restraint.
	That they are supposed to respect and recognize.
	And there's no better example of the egregious abuse of the system than what has occurred with Rudy Julian.
	Yeah, the default was in D.C. I'm wondering if they took collection proceedings in Georgia and then alleged something.
	That may have been how it proceeded.
	Yeah, no, it's amazing.
	I mean, he looks okay.
	He looks okay.
	Yeah, it's like his spirits are up despite all this insanity.
	But they actually demanded that he disclose all his doctors and lawyers as part of his collection effort.
	All right, Robert, we're going to bring the party on over to Rumble now.
	Yeah, we've got a lot of big tech cases to deal with.
	Net neutrality, AI corruption, and big tech's new excuses for targeting your child with addictive and harmful materials without your consent or knowledge, as well as their refusing to apply labor law protections.
	They're pretending both is just acts of free speech.
	And KDK over here, I'm not sure what this means, but I'm going to have to screen grab it and look into it afterwards.
	It says, find bat shit bonkers rant.
	That's KD Hopkins from the UK.
	Okay, I'll screen grab that.
	Okay, so everyone get your butts on over to Locals if you're so inclined.
	And if you're not, I will see you all tomorrow.
	And you'll get the rest on podcast.
	But we're going to do the Locals tip reads.
	We're going to do the Locals after party and cover a few more stories.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	I'm going to do this and bring it on over here.
	People, see you on the Locals.

▲