Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 10, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:22

Ep. 250: USAID Money-Laundering! DOGE Madness! Judicial CORRUPTION! & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	What does that fighting entail?
	How do you see that fighting moving forward?
	Is it reciprocal tariffs?
	Yeah, the first step is going to be dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs.
	Impose a tariff on us, we'll impose a tariff back on you.
	Again, no one wins in these trade wars.
	But this is not a fight that we wanted to pick.
	We were happy to continue to have a strong relationship.
	Donald Trump has picked this fight, so we're going to fight back.
	We just announced today, what I would do is put in place...
	100% tariff on Tesla, directly targeting Elon Musk.
	Because Elon Musk is proudly touting this idea of the 51st state, so let's hit back at Elon Musk.
	I've also said we should shut down the supply of critical minerals.
	Another move that directly targets Elon Musk and his Tesla company, the batteries that he needs require these critical minerals.
	We've got tools and we should be ready to use them.
	It's not something that we wanted to do, but if Donald Trump wants to bring this fight...
	Know that we are ready.
	I'm putting Donald Trump on notice.
	Canadian MP Jagmeet Singh, appreciate you joining us and sharing your perspective.
	Nothing better than screwing up your whole punchline.
	And putting Donald Trump on notice.
	Aye, Jagmeet Singh.
	By the way, let me just bring this down here.
	Do you all know that Jagmeet Singh, that's how you pronounce his name, I'm not trying to make fun of him, he says it sounds like Hugmeet.
	Yeah, Jagmeet Singh.
	Was denied visa to enter India because of his support for the terrorist Calistani group.
	This is an MP who, because of his terrorist sympathizing tendencies, was denied a visa to travel to India in 2013.
	But, alas, do not take my word for it.
	You know if it makes it to Wikipedia for a new Democrat Party politician, it's got to be true.
	And even worse than they say, in 2013, Singh was denied a visa to India for raising the issues of the anti-Sikh riots.
	He was reportedly the first Western legislator ever to be denied a visa, denied entry to India.
	Jagmeet Singh, for what it's worth, and it might explain his negotiation tactics, is a terrorist sympathizer, if not worse, of the highest order to the point where he was denied a visa to enter India.
	Now, why do I bring this up?
	A, because he's a scumbag POS and everybody needs to know this.
	I didn't know that he was a terrorist sympathizer until, I say relatively recently, like, you know, six, seven years ago.
	There are people out there who are new to this world of politics that don't know what a scumbag terrorist sympathizing POS Jagmeet Singh is.
	The idea, we didn't want to start this war with Trump.
	Of course you didn't!
	Because you are the recipients of the winning end of an asymmetrical financial relationship.
	Why the hell would you want to revisit that?
	We're going to fight tariff for tariff.
	Do you know what Jagmeet Singh, what he's proposing, is kind of like?
	It's me going up to Mike Tyson and saying, let's go punch for punch, biatch.
	Oh, I didn't want to start this war, but you want to punch me?
	I'll punch back.
	You go first.
	Jagmeet Singh is an idiot of the highest order.
	And they don't want to get into this relationship?
	They didn't want to get into a tariff war?
	Of course not, because they were on the receiving end of an asymmetrically beneficial financial-economic relationship with America.
	Well, guess what?
	That relationship has come to something of a pause.
	You want to go tariff for tariff against America?
	Great! I'll go punch for punch against Mike Tyson.
	Let's see how that ends up.
	And they're going after Tesla, because the party that loves the environment decides to go after the green company.
	And they won't get their cars from Tesla, where they're going to impose a 100% tariff.
	Where are they going to get them from?
	Hmm, China?
	Maybe? Oh no, this whole thing that Trump is doing is forcing Canada to cozy up to China.
	No! They're already sleeping with the Chinese Communist Party of Canada.
	Literally. So that's the intro video.
	Jagmeet Singh.
	Is an idiot.
	Next election, he's going to be out on his ass, but at least he held off that election long enough for him to secure his federal pension.
	But he's going to be persona non grata among civilized Canadians for the rest of his awful life.
	All right.
	I wanted to start with another video, but I figured this one would be the one to start with.
	Let me do one thing.
	I'm going to do the sponsor, and then I have another separate segment.
	Something that I want to share with everybody.
	Thank our sponsor for tonight's show, people.
	Home Title Lock.
	By the way, this is something that I actually use myself because when we moved down to Florida, we discovered things.
	There's a lot of issues in Florida.
	In as much as it's totally beautiful, there's insurance fraud.
	There's home fraud.
	There's a ton of stuff.
	One of which is this type of home fraud that I never knew about.
	Did you know that the American homeowners have $32 trillion in equity and criminals are targeting it with a growing scam the FBI calls house stealing?
	Scammers can transfer your title out of your name using a one-page document they file at the county.
	They can then take out loans against your property and even sell it behind your back.
	The scariest part, you won't find out about it until collection or foreclosure notices start arriving in your mailbox, leaving you with a huge financial nightmare.
	This is, I mean, I don't know that we have this in Canada, I assume to some extent, but it's a bigger issue in America.
	The best way to protect your home equity is with Home Title Lock's exclusive million-dollar triple-lock protection.
	The service offers 24-7 monitoring, urgent alerts, and if fraud occurs, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix the fraud and restore your title.
	When was the last time you checked your title, people?
	Do it.
	It's interesting.
	If you're like me, the answer is never.
	And that's exactly what scammers are counting on.
	That's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock to offer you all a chance to make sure that you are not a victim and do not become one.
	When you use my promo code VIVA, it is VIVA30.
	At HomeTitleLock.com, you'll get 30 days free protection and a free title history report to lock in your peace of mind.
	And be sure to check out the million dollar triple lock protection details when you get there.
	The link is in the description, people.
	HomeTitleLock.com, promo code VIVA30.
	And for the non-Americans, maybe less to worry about for the Americans.
	It's definitely something to pay attention to.
	And they're fantastic.
	And I've been using them for quite some time now.
	Link is in the description, people.
	What I was going to say was this.
	I got a package in the mail.
	I kind of know what it is, and I want to make sure that I open it in a way that doesn't expose an address.
	I keep talking about this.
	There's too much stress, tragedy.
	There's too much people being compelled to fend for themselves against the governments that abuse them that we end up moving along with the news cycle, and we sort of forget about those stories.
	I personally don't, and many of the people that I've come in contact with over the years have become good friends.
	Dan Hartman.
	Answers for Sean.
	His son was 17 when he passed after having 33 days after his first Pfizer shot.
	He's suing Pfizer.
	Kayla Pollack, who's become a friend as well, who's rendered a quadriplegic after her Moderna booster, is suing Moderna up in Canada.
	And these lawsuits, they're not free.
	They're not cheap.
	I know that...
	I have a knife in here somewhere.
	I know that Dan sent me...
	Dan sent me this, and I know what it is.
	Just make sure there's no note in there that's going to be...
	It's a jersey, people.
	Answers for Sean.
	Sean Hartman, number six.
	And the reason why he took the shot was so that he could play hockey.
	And, um...
	Dan, thank you.
	And I'm going to decide what I think, deciding whether or not sign it, write a message, auction it off so that we can raise funds for Dan Hartman's lawsuit.
	And some of you may also, you know, there's so many things to deal with, but you might forget that he's suing Pfizer right now.
	And this is the GoFundMe.
	The give, send, go.
	It is not the...
	Go F. Answers for Sean.
	We invite you to support our Answers for Sean fundraiser dedicated to revealing the truth about the tragic death of 17-year-old Ontario resident Sean Hartman who lost his life in September 2021 after being required to take a Health Canada-approved COVID-19 vaccine to play hockey.
	Together we can stand as a united community to challenge the federal government and demand accountability.
	I won't read the entire thing, but you can read it.
	And that's it.
	Just to remind everybody that that's going on and I'll share the link with everybody.
	In Canada, we've talked about it a few times, there is no PrEP Act immunity for corporations or for the pharma companies, but they did negotiate in hold harmless clauses or indemnifying clauses or indemnification clauses in their contracts.
	So they can be sued.
	They can be found liable for the damage that they've done.
	And I'm sure that if they do, they will then turn around to the government who has the hold harmless clause and they'll say, you pay him.
	And then the government's going to say, you lied to us, you pay him, and that's where this needs to go, but it requires funding and financing in order to do it, because these lawsuits are just not cheap, they're wildly expensive.
	All right, people, so it is the Sunday night show on a Monday, because last night was the big game.
	I didn't watch a minute of it.
	No, I didn't watch a second.
	I didn't watch any of it.
	I was in bed by 10 o'clock, a little tired, a little cranky.
	I saw some of the highlights of the commercials.
	I know the outcome is definitely not going to be what Barnes wanted.
	We'll talk about that with him when he gets here.
	But it was the big night, so we're doing the show tonight.
	I wanted to start the show with something lighthearted, Jagmeet Singh.
	This was what I was going to start it with, because earlier today, I did an interview with the Green Beret, Jordan Goudreau, who's now being prosecuted for a failed coup against Maduro.
	And I'm jokingly saying...
	He started it off thinking it was a Trump-led coup against Maduro, and he found out it was a deep state-led coup against Donald Trump.
	Because I understand exactly what's going on there, I think.
	But sleep with dogs, and that's what I say the deep state is, and you wake up with tics.
	But when we were discussing his prosecution, and he says, you know who's prosecuting me?
	This guy named Scrugg.
	You might have seen the video that went viral on the internet of him stabbing someone in a vehicle on a highway.
	Because that guy stabbing the guy in the vehicle was also the prosecuting attorney for lectern guy.
	And lectern guy has been making this go viral and, you know, giving it some much needed Floridian sunlight.
	Because the prosecutor who is on camera stabbing a man with a pocket knife repeatedly on a Florida roadway is the same man who wanted to lock Adam lectern guy up.
	Without bail, without parole, without bond, without anything, because he was such a violent, dangerous criminal.
	The guy who stabbed McGee got off with $65,000 bail and is out now free.
	And he had his fifth or fourth or fifth hearing today.
	And Adam Johnson, who's looking very happy to cover this, put this out.
	And I want to say this, people.
	I freaking called it.
	I just need to find the video or the tweet where I called it.
	I freaking called it.
	A long time ago.
	Right from the beginning, I called it.
	Listen to this.
	All right, you guys.
	I am leaving the fifth pretrial for my prosecutor, where they just scheduled a sixth pretrial for a few weeks from now.
	Now, the most fascinating and intriguing thing about today's events is that they said they would like to schedule a hearing for a Stand Your Ground defense.
	Now, I don't know if any of you have seen the video.
	It's below here, but it kind of looks like exiting your vehicle.
	Breaking the window of another driver and stabbing him multiple times is not standing your ground.
	It's actually leaving your ground, approaching someone else's ground, and then entering their domain.
	So we'll see how that plays out.
	But again, if you've seen the video, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
	And we're going to see exactly how serious the state is when it comes to impartial justice.
	I'm not playing the video because you don't see anything.
	It's not graphic.
	It's just you can't believe what you're seeing.
	It looks like he's poking somebody.
	Which he is with a pocket knife that he pulled out because the guy in the vehicle in front of him seemingly had a medical emergency on a Florida roadway.
	And this guy flips his lid.
	Maybe he was late to be prosecuting some Jan Sixers and was very angry that he couldn't get to the office fast enough.
	And so he went all stabby McGee on the guy in the driver's seat.
	And I made the joke at the time.
	He's going to argue that this guy was doing something with his car and he needed to subdue him.
	And he's going to do it.
	And it's going to be outrageous.
	We'll see what happens.
	To be followed, because Adam Johnson, a lectern guy, is on it.
	And he's covering it and giving it all the exposure that it needs here.
	The engaged few says, Barnes, if federal courts cannot compel the executive branch to disburse funds as it would violate the separation of powers, does that also apply to Congress?
	I'm going to save this, because we're going to get a bunch of these as we get going.
	And I know that there's more in the locals community, but...
	The SDNY Treasury temporary restraining order also seems to block the Secretary from providing law enforcement access to payment records, even though the Privacy Act has a statutory exception for such disclosure.
	If agencies...
	We're going to get to all of this in a bit when Barnes gets here.
	Unpin. And if I can do this.
	And let me go make sure that we...
	I should have made sure that we're live across all platforms.
	We are.
	Glad to know Robert Barnes is doing well.
	Viva Frye, appreciate your live shows, says Light Fawn.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah, we're going to have a good one tonight because I'm driving around that 1775 Coffee Tesla Cybertruck.
	By the way, I just figured out how to move it out of chill acceleration mode and into dynamic acceleration mode.
	I don't know.
	What good is it having a vehicle that you can't possibly use to its fullest potential because you'd go to jail for driving too fast?
	The car is absolutely stunningly amazing.
	If everybody is interested, $17.75 coffee.
	Get some coffee.
	Every buck you spend gets you enrolled in the raffle to win a Tesla Cybertruck.
	And I think Russell Brand is getting the car after me.
	So that's going to be interesting.
	All right.
	Until Barnes gets here, let me bring up one more thing, which I had in the backdrop.
	This was what I was going to start the show off with.
	From what I understand, the commercials were not very good.
	Ye had an interesting commercial, which we'll maybe get to in a second.
	Who was it that put this out?
	I think it was Tim Young.
	Tim Young says, Forget Super Bowl commercials.
	Tony the Sign Guy is the greatest troll advertiser in the world.
	He destroys the woke mind virus and sells signs at the same time.
	This is the funniest thing you'll see today.
	We won't play the whole thing, but my goodness, good advertising deserves some amplification.
	Hello. Goodbye.
	Anyways, if you want to start a business on a budget, make sure you go to the Source Factory.
	Hi, friends.
	Today we're talking about something super cool called The funniest thing, we're gonna get to his Donald Trump.
	I am my boyfriend's first black girlfriend.
	If you're black, then I'm the real Donald Trump himself.
	China, China.
	I know China very well.
	I know everybody in China.
	I'm proud to be black.
	And I'm proud to be Donald Trump.
	You know, I've been to China.
	Tremendous place, really.
	And let me tell you, folks, there is a way to spot a bad LED sign.
	It's so simple.
	Even Sleepy Joe could do it.
	I want to go buy another sign.
	I don't need one, but I want one.
	Let me give you all the link to that link.
	Link. Here we go.
	All right.
	Now let me make sure that we're good.
	everywhere in viva barnes law dot locals dot com i'll give the disclaimer we should get to all the tip questions but i'll start getting to them now so that we don't fall too far behind Kiki Blue says, It's a terrible thing.
	I love the people who tell me, you don't have to pay taxes.
	I sat down with the IRS and I explained to them that it's not...
	Whatever. The government has a monopoly of violence.
	It has a monopoly of incarceration.
	And you don't have the choice.
	I just said, weak disclaimer.
	Do it like you used to.
	People, if I do not get to your tip question rant or Viva Barnes Law tip question or commie chat thing, Do not be miffed.
	And if you are going to be miffed, I would implore you potentially not to give it because I don't like people feeling bad.
	Over in Commitube, Gunface says, are these corrupt judges going to be impeached and removed?
	Or should we dox and protest in front of their homes since they seem to encourage that method?
	Wrong, Gunface.
	Don't even joke about it.
	You dox and you end up, you go in front of their houses.
	It's not going to be like in front of Brett Kavanaugh's house because they like the...
	I mean, maybe not under a Trump administration.
	It might be a little bit of actual equal application of the law.
	No, is the hard answer.
	It has to be done through exposure a la Doge over the internet, mockery a la chewing them out over on the Twitterverse, and lawful means.
	Because they'll make an example of you, just like they will if you don't pay your taxes.
	One thing I wanted to talk about, actually.
	Last week, we had on...
	It was the week before, Katie from Universal Ostrich Farms.
	And there was a tweet that went quasi-viral saying the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, they've petitioned the court to allow them, the CFIA, to slaughter the ostriches.
	This was after our small white pill of a social movement victory.
	And it's not quite, for those who saw the tweet, and it's not a question of putting anyone on blast, it's all very complicated legalese.
	The CFIA has not asked to go in and slaughter the ostriches, notwithstanding the court order.
	But just let me make sure that I don't get this.
	They wanted to update the quarantine protocols, possibly.
	And they want to expedite the process, or the process, depending on how you say it.
	They're not rushing in to kill the animals now, but they're keeping the pressure on because the CFIA needs to make an example of this ostrich farm that defied or fought back against the administrative regime that wants to slaughter animals so they can sell the fear and terror that goes along with this new H5N1 avian flu.
	But no, they're not rushing in there now to do the slaughter.
	There's still the temporary injunction of a month or whatever until they can actually adjudicate the order in the first place.
	So don't panic.
	And I'm on it and keeping track of it.
	Barnes? Is he coming in?
	I see him in the backdrop.
	There he is.
	Good, sir.
	How goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	A lot of success.
	Everybody that was a member of sportspicks.locals.com made a lot of money yesterday on the Super Bowl.
	Won the 5% play, 2% plays, 1% plays.
	Everybody was up big.
	So it was a very profitable Super Bowl Sunday.
	So other people might have been bored.
	Some of us were cheering each yard, each non-yard, and the rest all the way through the game.
	What were the more profitable long-shot markets predictions?
	Well, the most profitable bet was for Jalen Hurts to win the MVP, which was almost 4-1.
	Another one that gave out live was for the Eagles to win by...
	Four more, the Eagles to win by six or more, the Eagles to win by ten or more.
	Those were anywhere from two to one to five to one.
	So there were bettors that took those.
	We had props up on a bunch of individual players, how many yards, how many receptions, whether they would get a touchdown.
	We had profitable bets on A.J. Brown to get a touchdown, Jalen Hurts to get a touchdown, Jason Kelsey did not get a touchdown.
	That's what happens when you put your heart on Pfizer, folks.
	You end up like Jason Kelsey.
	A shell of your former self.
	President Trump was there in person getting cheered, while Taylor Swift was there in person getting booed.
	He was a little startled by the NFL response, but a lot of fans are done and tired with that whole story.
	So a very profitable day.
	Three of the four Super Bowls we put out picks on, we've won money on.
	One money on three of the four national championships we put money on.
	One money on the NBA finals.
	One money on the World Cup finals.
	One money on the Euro finals.
	And of course, big money on the election.
	Big money on the pardons.
	Got some bets up right now recommended in terms of how many votes will be there for Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy this week, who was in the news for other reasons as he won a big motion to dismiss in a defamation case in Maine that couldn't have come at better time.
	But we got that amongst many other cases to chat about tonight.
	Tell me one thing before I forget the answer.
	We'll get to it, I guess, in a second.
	Mitch McConnell voting yes on Tulsi Gabbard.
	Is that a virtual nil?
	He was one of the people who voted yes on cloture, but he's one of the few senators who will vote yes to have a vote.
	That's what the cloture vote is.
	And then turn around and vote no.
	He believes that they should be given a chance to be voted upon.
	That's all he'll give to the Republican Senate.
	But the assumption is that he will be the only no vote from the Republican Party on Gabbard or on Kennedy or on Kash Patel.
	It looks like they will not be able to get no votes from any other Republican senator.
	There's thoughts that maybe Murkowski, maybe Collins, but...
	Collins has made statements supportive of Tulsi Gabbard, at least sounds supportive of Robert Kennedy.
	She voted for the cloture for it to pursue.
	Typically, she doesn't do that unless she's going to vote for the person.
	So there's a very specific number of recommended votes we have out there on Gabbard and on Kennedy.
	Post it at sportspicks.locals.com.
	We got recommended bets on the Oscars that are already trending in the right direction, no less.
	We'll have bets on...
	Football, world football, European football, and then American college basketball coming up here in a couple of weeks is March Madness.
	But it's always a good day when it's a very profitable day for a bunch of people who got...
	It's been a good roll for SportsPix.
	November, ridiculously good election outcomes.
	January, ridiculously good outcomes on the pardons.
	And now February, ridiculously good outcomes on the Super Bowl.
	So, been a good day.
	If you're a good week, good couple of months, if you're a member over at sportspix.locals.com.
	And last one, mildly related to Robert.
	Roger Veer was on with Alex Jones on Friday.
	And was it Friday or Thursday?
	I think it was Friday.
	I think it's the first time he'd been on Alex Jones and explained what's going on.
	I like to think maybe the world is understanding what's going on with Roger Veer, at least understanding the details a little more.
	Any news on the Roger Veer push for a pardon?
	No news that I'm aware of other than my understanding.
	The Spanish courts have rejected one of his extradition appeals so that he's on the clock.
	I don't know how else the...
	Usually there may be a secondary procedure in Spain, but that means he could get picked up at any time and transported potentially to the United States.
	So now is the time for the U.S. to act, in my opinion.
	And the Trump administration can take one of two paths.
	It could grant a pardon.
	Or what it could do is just tell the Justice Department to dismiss the case, which is what they should do based on the motion to dismiss that's already been filed.
	And so we'll see what happens with that.
	But that's one of the big outstanding cases of lawfare that exists that the Trump administration has yet to remedy.
	Other ones include the Douglas Mackey case.
	Even if Mackey would like to win on the appeal, I can understand that logic.
	But the government should come in and just dismiss all charges against him and say the case that was brought against him was wrong from the inception.
	He's the meme case out of New York.
	Similar with the Fednapping case and the Whitmer case.
	There's still people tied to the federal part of that action that are subject to criminal prosecution or punishment.
	Those charges should be all dismissed due to the government misconduct that took place there.
	But, I mean, it's one of many of the topics for tonight, because we got Roger Veer, we got tariff policy by Trump, who's announcing more tariffs coming.
	The legality of that was discussed in the Barnes Brief this week over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We got Roger Veer, we got when is foreign conduct the subject of criminal prosecution in the United States?
	We've got Rumble v.
	Google as it heads towards trial in May with a pending motion for summary judgment being heard there in the Northern District of California.
	We've got, when can the FBI raid your house and get away with it?
	That's going up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	In a place they admitted they raided the wrong house.
	But what people don't know is that federal courts have been letting state and federal governments get away with that.
	They can raid the wrong house, totally screw up, and the court's finding an excuse to dismiss it.
	That's part of what's going up to the Supreme Court or has taken up this past week.
	We've got the right of return debate.
	As it relates to Israel and the Palestinians, but that is a more global issue, potentially.
	We got libraries, and whether they have to carry pervert books, as various teachers and groups suing are demanding that young children have access to various kinds of sex ed books that go a little bit beyond sex ed.
	We've got Hawaii.
	The families and the businesses that are hurting out there got a big settlement.
	But now it's the big insurance companies trying to take away more than half of that settlement.
	Going up to the Hawaii Supreme Court, Owen Schroyer is bringing suit on behalf of January 6th defendants that are wrongfully targeted and wrongfully libeled in various respects.
	So we brought that suit on his behalf, the 1776 Law Center in the Western District of Texas against Media Matters who had libeled Owen Schroyer and said that He was part of the riot when they knew he was not.
	It had nothing to do with it.
	We've got Kennedy's big win.
	We've got Doge.
	Big balls.
	Got fired.
	Got rehired.
	Good to see that.
	Anybody with such a great nickname needs to be in government in some capacity.
	In full disclosure, friends of his family reached out to me.
	I said I'd help him out if he got into any further legal issues.
	But it looks like everything got wrapped up and resolved before any such legal issues were necessary.
	And then we've got the big topic for tonight, which is the federal courts trying to shut down the elected head of the executive branch from doing his job.
	And protecting the bureaucracies and protecting the corrupt deep state actors and protecting the state's attorney generals at the expense.
	You have a federal judge on a weekend deciding he's going to tell the President of the United States what he can and can't do as to his own constitutionally ascribed duties.
	That's how insane things have got, though we've been predicting it for some time.
	Well, let's start with that because that is the biggest one.
	And then we're going to head on over to Rumble after we do the, you know, the two big, we'll do the big one that everyone is talking about.
	It's the week of USAID, the week of Doge, the Friday night order from this judge, forget his name now.
	I couldn't get my hands on the proceedings, you know, from beginning to end.
	But the bottom line is, I mean, it was a question of access to payment systems where...
	People are asking who controls the purse strings, who gets to make these decisions, and how the hell does a state court get involved in dictating what is effectively executive federal policy?
	Can you flesh it out in terms that people are going to understand like myself?
	So what we've been predicting here is that when Trump tries to defang the deep state and tries to take away the excessive powers of the administrative bureaucratic state, That he would run into not only incredible hostility from the D.C. crowd,
	the think tanks, the policymakers, a lot of the politicians on the Democratic side, etc., but that he would also run into judicial hostility because this is the professional managerial class using licensure and credentialing, which is another way to say using the state, to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of the American people.
	And they did this originally under civil service reform, saying they were taking apart the corruption of the political machines of the late 19th century, the so-called spoil system of American politics, where he who wins gets the spoils.
	What used to be the case is whoever was elected to run the executive branch got to hire who was working for the executive branch.
	In the name of stopping corruption...
	They decided that somehow it would be less corrupt to have an unelected bureaucracy permanently in positions of power, regardless of what the American people want.
	I've never understood how that's less corrupt.
	But that's what you're taught in school by your little political science teacher and history professor, because they are aligned with the same prejudices of political control and economic control toward the professional managerial class as possible.
	The professional managerial class's biggest allies are the judiciary, because like them, they're unelected.
	Like them, they don't face future elections.
	Like them, they come from the same professional managerial class.
	Like them, they share many of the prejudices of that professional managerial class, towards licensures, towards credentialing, all of those things.
	So what I predicted back in 2017 at the deplorable D.C. talking to the Trump folks was that Trump was going to face an all-out war from the administrative bureaucratic state, and then the judiciary would come to its aid more often than not.
	And that's exactly what happened in Trump's first term.
	So the second term, he realizes the degree of entrenched hostility.
	These are people that are part of the executive branch of government, but that have become immune from political pressure.
	In fact, they're the ones who impose the political pressure, using their control of the think tanks, using their control over the federal bureaucracy, using their control over the media.
	And what USAID Doge work is disclosing is that, in fact, they have been literally bribing people.
	With this level of control, of coercive control.
	It was known it was being done internationally.
	Anybody with their eyes open and any foreign leader knew exactly what USAID and NED were, that it wasn't there to help the poor people, that it wasn't there to educate the national, it wasn't there to promote democracy.
	Only an idiot would believe that.
	What it's there for...
	is to entrench the deep state.
	When the CIA's budget got hamstrung in the 1970s, thanks to the House Committee on Assassinations and the Church Committee on Intelligence, Special Select Committee on Intelligence, they've been prohibited from spending the money directly for a lot of those projects that they like to do of propagandizing, getting pandemics out and about, destabilizing governments.
	Running the world, basically.
	I had a friend of mine that got one of these grants to help women in the third world.
	And guess what the grant became?
	How to get them to buy Coca-Cola.
	That's how it translated at USAID.
	USAID has always been a crock.
	It doesn't aid anybody.
	This is my long-time argument against foreign aid, which is different than some others.
	It's that foreign aid ain't actually aid to foreigners.
	It's aid to the deep state to entrench its control around the world for its global corporate pals and defense industry pals.
	Power-hungry freaks.
	And somewhere along the way, Trump figured that out and got Musk to go in with Doge to dig it out and to prove it.
	And they found it en masse.
	Legally, President Trump can absolutely shut down USAID.
	USAID was not started by Congress, not created by Congress.
	It was created by executive order.
	So the president can reassign or just completely destroy or create a new agency as much as he wants.
	So all of that is purely legal.
	But what's happening is people are finding the loosest and thinnest pretext to run to their pals in the judicial branch, say stop Trump from doing what the American people want him to do.
	This is an old history of the judicial branch, of coming to the aid of oligarchic institutions against the interest of the American people.
	This is what the Supreme Court did in the 1850s in creating a civil war.
	The people in the North did not want, they wanted ex-slaves to be recognized as citizens.
	The Supreme Court said, no, we're not going to let you do that.
	And they gave us the civil war.
	You have similar histories with the Supreme Court throughout its history, where it's defending the last vestiges of oligarchic institutions against the American people's will.
	What this New York judge did is he granted an emergency TRO, temporary restraining order, that prohibits the President of the United States from exercising his constitutional discretionary duties, that prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from monitoring...
	Where his own money is going out of the Secretary of Treasury.
	That is how insane this judge's action is.
	One thing, it's a question that I ask, and I don't know the answer because you read the conflicting sides.
	The argument or the rebuttal to it being created by executive order is it wasn't.
	It was created in virtue of the Foreign Assistance Act, which then led to the creation of USAID.
	And so the argument is that...
	That just makes the USA...
	What the Foreign Assistance Act did was not create USAID.
	It said, here's some money to the federal government to spend on foreign sources.
	And then John Kennedy created USAID with the purpose of actually doing that purpose.
	By the 1970s, it had completely shifted.
	And by the early 80s, fully shifted because the CIA...
	USAID's budget is bigger than the CIA's.
	To give people an idea how big this budget is.
	Most Americans have no idea that USAID even existed.
	And that's where, legally, the congressional constraint is where the money goes.
	And that's it.
	And in many of these cases, that congressional constraint was broad.
	It was limited in terms of how much it actually constrained.
	And I would note that the...
	One of the reasons why USA got themselves in this position where they can't run to Congress for protection is because of how many Republicans they've antagonized over the years.
	When you antagonize people like Marco Rubio, who's your otherwise worthwhile ally in the deep state, you've really done great damage to your cause.
	But they made two mistakes that ended up backfiring on them.
	One, people at USA decided to align the deep state with...
	Creating boondoggles and special pet projects for the Democratic Party.
	So if you're a Democrat and you are politically connected, USA got you money.
	One way, shape, or form.
	Didn't matter whether you were in the media, whether you're in the think tank industry, whether you're in academia, whether you just have a blog.
	The deep state became the Democratic Party patronage delivery machine.
	That was going to antagonize Republicans over time.
	They had previously been equally entrenched with the Bushite wing of the Republican Party, but not your normie wing of the Republican Party because that part of the party's never been interested in giving away all our money to foreign governments or to the deep state or the administrative state.
	So that's part of the political problem they ran into.
	The second one was, look at Jody Ernst from Iowa.
	She would love to be a deep state ally.
	The problem is the deep state has shut her out because the Democratic Party demanded it.
	So when you shut out the Ernst and the Rubios of the world, you get no political cover from any Republicans.
	And that's what they're running into.
	The USA thought they would have congressional cover.
	They don't.
	So they can say, we think Congress has to do this.
	Well, Congress isn't saying that.
	Congress isn't choosing to take any legislative action.
	So Congress doesn't agree.
	The problem is they have no political support from the broad majority of the country.
	That's why, where are they going?
	They're going to Democratic state attorney generals.
	To get them to file suit, going to the unions and going to the think tanks and NGOs that they're aligned with and getting them to file suit.
	The problem is, if the courts are going to maintain this standing construct, that you have to have a certain kind of constitutional injury to sue, that they've used to gut all kinds of cases, including cases against vaccine mandates, there's no way any of these people have standing to sue.
	Historically, no taxpayer has standing to sue about where their money is spent.
	How do these people have standing to sue if that's going to be the doctrine?
	Again, I'm a critic of standing.
	Don't believe in it.
	But if it's going to exist, it at least has to be applied consistently.
	Or it'll open up the window for people who now feel aggrieved that their taxpayer dollars were going to be squandered unbeknownst to them.
	But the question is, the State Department budget is 50-some-odd billion.
	U.S. aid was 50-some-odd billion.
	So only 1% of the federal budget.
	How the hell does it not go audited?
	How does it go...
	Well, fundamentally, it was a deep state operation, and so deep state intimidation prevented its meaningful inspection and review, though it was building up hostility in that process.
	It was cutting off allies on a partisan basis because the second step they chose, which they chose really under the Obama administration, was to become the personal patriot.
	Personal patronage machine of the Democratic Party that the Clinton Global Foundation had partially played before then, during the Bush years.
	But USAID just took it to a different scale.
	And it should come as no surprise that the usual suspects and their organizations show up as major recipients of USAID.
	This includes George Soros-tied NGOs that have enabled illegal immigration to occur.
	This includes, I mean, Soros had some of his radio stations broadcasting out in California when ICE is coming to help people avoid and evade ICE raids.
	And the people he's helping avoid ICE raids, again, ICE right now is focused exclusively on dangerous criminals who are illegal aliens in the country.
	That's who he's protecting right now.
	Also not a big surprise.
	Guess who ends up being one of the biggest recipients of USAID?
	The guy who clearly doesn't need it, Bill Gates.
	So what you see is a monetary...
	Some of us have been saying for a long time, follow the money and then stop the money.
	Follow the money will expose how the deep state operates on a functional basis.
	Stop the money will deep-six the deep state's power, and it's the perniciousness of that power.
	The principal beneficiary of USAID being replaced within the State Department is the American people.
	Because now it is subject to democratic controls, subject to regular supervision and restrictions, subject to the intentions of what Congress intended that money to go for.
	In addition, the second beneficiary is every foreign government around the world.
	Because USAID is the leader of destabilization around the world.
	Look at where their money goes and you'll find...
	Overthrown country.
	Civil war.
	I don't know if you saw the interview I did earlier today with Jordan Goudreau, who partook in the attempted Maduro coup, and USAID was in there somewhere, at least.
	I know that it came up in the discussion.
	But hold on, just in case anybody didn't hear this clip here, let me bring this up.
	This is Bill Gates.
	Let's get to...
	Well, I'm very nervous that it's going to cut private sector work.
	Here, hold on.
	Well, Elon...
	His private sector work has been very innovative, really fantastic.
	A lot of private sector people, when they get into government, they don't take the time necessarily to see what the good work is or why it's structured the way it is.
	So I'm a little worried, particularly with this USAID stuff.
	My foundation partners with USAID on nutrition.
	Vaccines. Getting vaccines out.
	We can stop it there.
	They partnered with them.
	Nutrition. The leading maker of fake meat is supporting nutrition.
	Yeah, it's nutrition that's going to sterilize you.
	It's nutrition that's going to...
	Again, Bill Gates, by his own admission, has set all of his objectives concerning GAVI, concerning various vaccine institutes, the Gates Foundation, that his big obsession is limiting population.
	That's him.
	He wants massive numbers of millions of people dead or to not to come into life.
	It's his own admission.
	He has said this repeatedly.
	He wants the population down from where it is.
	The only way you get it down from where it is is a bunch of people don't come into life that otherwise would have and some people die off in masks that are currently alive.
	That's who Bill Gates is.
	He's a eugenicist.
	He should be in prison.
	He should be world enemy number one.
	He's actually beneath George Soros in that regard.
	Just to highlight the absurdity, this is Bill Gates talking about taking government monies, lots of it, and this is the same party saying nobody elected Elon Musk, which is even less accurate because everyone knew what coalition they were electing.
	But the question is this, because in a lot of these decisions, they're making a distinction between government appointees, special appointees, and I think I understand the distinction that some people are...
	But not through a confirmation process.
	So what are they, special appointees?
	Well, that's part of the problem.
	So for a long time, there's been a debate since Nixon really kind of started it, though Roosevelt got it going, which is how powerful should the executive branch be?
	And it's a theory called the unitary executive that was propounded originally by Democrats and then by Republican legal scholars.
	But some, I would say, constitutionalists and populists came to the same conclusion they did about the necessity of a unitary executive.
	And what that means, that's what this is all coming to a head.
	These judges are making a mistake.
	If they would just curtail their rulings to cases of people that have a real legitimate claim, a clearly legitimate claim.
	Only concern them.
	Don't do broad injunctions as to other people.
	Don't try to intrude or invade the executive branch.
	Just try to protect clearly demarcated areas of either congressional authority or constitutional authority against the executive branch.
	They're not doing that.
	They're so eager to protect their pals that they're signing that judge would have, in New York, if Letitia James would have blown a leaf across his desk, he would have signed it.
	To paraphrase the famous quote about the O.K. Allen, the governor of Louisiana, when Earl and Huey were at each other's throats, the Long Brothers back in the day.
	He said O.K. Allen was the kind of governor that Huey could blow a leaf across his desk and he'd sign it.
	I found it to be equally true of many judges.
	They handpicked that judge.
	You might wonder, how do they manipulate the judge?
	Well, first they went to the Southern District of New York, even though a lot of the attorneys generals have no ties to New York.
	That we're bringing the case, number one.
	Number two, they brought it on a Friday afternoon where they knew who the emergency call duty judge was.
	So they knew who the judge was that they could handpick their judge, which is what they did.
	They abused the process to handpick a judge.
	It's a problem in the system that the system needs to fix.
	That you can't have solely one judge appointed on emergency call basis and people know who that judge is.
	Or what will happen is that that will circumvent the entire random assignment of judges, which, by the way, is not only a...
	Mandate by local judicial rule and by congressional statute, but it's a constitutional requirement to have random assignment of judges where it's available.
	Now, you have a lot of single-judge divisions across the country which have their own nasty history when you dig in, but that's another story for another day.
	But that's how they get this judge to sign it, but he's so broad.
	So expansive.
	Like some of the other judges, they had the union suing, think tank suing, NGO suing, different judges issuing different rulings, conflicting, by the way.
	Does this party have the right to sue?
	One time, yes.
	One time, no.
	Does the party have a right to claim?
	Is there a right to do nationwide injunctions?
	This is an ongoing debate.
	Gorsuch and Thomas don't like all these nationwide injunctions.
	They want to restrict the power to the plaintiffs before them or the jurisdiction they're in.
	Does that become part of the process?
	But this judge just didn't impose any limits on his order.
	So the other ones that had either dismissed the cases because they said you don't have standing or dismissed the cases because they said there's no congressional or constitutional authority that's being invaded here, that this is pure executive branch discretion and the meaning of a constitutional democracy reflecting the elected interest of the people and the elected head of the executive branch.
	But what the issue has been, they've tried to...
	Immunize and sort of keep barriers up so that the elected branches of government can have no power over the deep state and the administrative state.
	And they've done this.
	Sometimes they get Congress to pass laws, civil service, pension benefits, etc.
	Another way they do it is through contracts, contracts with vendors, contracts with third-party independent participants, labor union contracts.
	And use that to restrict the elected head of the executive branch, which I've always found problematic.
	Private sector unions, I'm a big believer in.
	Public sector unions, I don't think should exist.
	That's countered the entire nature.
	You then have a private cartel of individuals who can dictate to the elected people what happens and doesn't happen with their money.
	I mean, it makes no sense.
	But what this is all heading to is this is going to accelerate these controversies and disputes to the Supreme Court.
	And the factual predicate of the cases before them is going to be so favorable to Trump's side that I now think the overreach by lower court judges is going to backfire in the Supreme Court stepping in and likely doing something that Roberts and others have talked about for decades.
	Which is empowering a unitary executive branch.
	Which is to say, you can never say that the president can't fire somebody that's within the executive branch.
	You can never say that a lower-ranked employee can override the policy preferences of the elected head of the executive branch.
	This would get rid of all of the special immunities and protections that the bureaucratic branch and the deep state have created.
	And I was doubtful that Roberts and the Supreme Court would deliver.
	On this unitary executive and would equally defer to deep state prerogatives and bureaucratic power.
	But this goes so far.
	When you get Mike Lee calling, Senator Mike Lee calling, saying let's look at the impeachment of judges.
	Elon Musk talking about let's look at the impeachment of judges.
	Something I've been talking about on here for years.
	Said that the judicial branch has been going way too big for its britches.
	Needs to get hemmed in.
	And the more extreme examples of judges going completely off the res.
	They need to face discipline like Justice Samuel Chase did when he was trying to weaponize the judicial branch at the very beginning of our country and that curtailed that because the judicial branch has a long, nasty history that when it doesn't respect the will of the elected people, it doesn't respect the language, the words of our Constitution, it precipitates civil war-type conditions in the United States.
	That's how bad it can get because they are so clueless, so out of touch, so aligned with their professional class compadres.
	They're like the D.C. judges in the January 6th cases.
	They're shocked at the public backlash.
	They can't understand it.
	Because they live in this tiny little bubble that is nowhere connected to the real world.
	And that's what you're seeing with these judges willy-nilly signing orders that are insane.
	No president of the United States, you can't look at your own intelligence.
	No president of the United States, you can't look at where money is being spent.
	No president of the United States, you can't say where people are staffed or not.
	In other words, no president of the United States, you can't exercise any of the powers that the people just gave you.
	That's how nuts these judges are.
	So the Supreme Court's got to come in and clear it up for good.
	There can be no constitutional constraint on the elected head of the executive branch deciding the policy and personnel of the executive branch.
	You say that, and then, you know, we have the Supreme Court come in and issue rulings that ultimately don't get respected and get outright defied by the lower courts.
	You've got the Bruin decision, which the states are overtly disrespecting or disregarding or revolting against entirely.
	You've got the immune...
	Hold on one second.
	The self-executing disqualification ruling, which they haven't enforced on Cooey Griffin, despite the fact that he was removed from office for a self-declared self-executing insurrection.
	It's great that SCOTUS does it when they do it and then don't enforce it when the lower courts defy it openly.
	Yeah, well, I think that's what they're going to be forced to act because these orders are so ridiculous.
	And the states are so arrogant that they get a judge in their pocket to issue an insane order over a weekend without even affording Trump's team the opportunity to know of the suit's existence before issue the order.
	Least of all, be able to brief it or argue it.
	And then they immediately run in and demand...
	Contempt sanctions against the government for not obeying their most egregious interpretation of the order.
	So they're forcing the issue early, and because they're so used to the judges being in their pocket, they're assuming the Supreme Court won't intervene.
	The Supreme Court probably is going to intervene now because it doesn't have a choice.
	And this is what, remember what we predicted about...
	The January 6th cases and the other Trump cases.
	We said they're pushing it so far, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to issue rulings it doesn't want.
	It doesn't want to help Trump, if you understand who Barrett is, and if you understand who Roberts is.
	You'd understand that the majority of the Supreme Court isn't eager to embrace Trump or empower Trump.
	But they're going to have no choice but to do so due to the public backlash against the judicial branch for these insane intrusions into executive branch prerogative.
	I was resharing an article that I put up back in 2017 when I was writing occasionally with Breitbart.
	I'd write legal review articles for them and the rest.
	It was my way to try to reach the Trump world, was through Breitbart's pages, particularly Bannon, but also others.
	And what I proposed back then was that Trump is going to have to consider, at key points, going full Andrew Jackson.
	And what does that mean?
	Andrew Jackson famously said the Supreme Court has issued its ruling.
	Now they can go enforce it.
	And Jackson's point was the Supreme Court is not going to force a second bank on the United States.
	I just got elected to say, no, we're not going to centralize financial power in that way.
	And you can say whatever you want.
	I'm going to shut it down anyway.
	And that's what happened.
	And it shocked the court because they realized the limits of their power when a president called them on that limits of their power.
	I would note Dershowitz agreed with me back in 2017 and 2018.
	He said some of these nationwide injunctions that clearly exceed the equitable power of the court, the president should just ignore.
	Which, by the way, the IRS does regularly.
	The IRS ignores any ruling that it doesn't like unless that ruling is...
	And is controlling over where that particular IRS office is located.
	So you could have every federal appellate court in the country say something, and they ignore it.
	So this is what the administrative state does when they're on the receiving end of this.
	So I think, unfortunately, Trump is going to have to consider it.
	That's what J.D. Vance is pointing out.
	He's like, look, the judicial branch cannot dictate to the executive branch what it has been elected to do within its constitutional scope of power.
	Probably has to be ignored and be enforced anyway.
	So I think we'd be heading to that kind of quote-unquote constitutional crisis, unquote, but it would be a crisis created by the courts themselves.
	And that's why I think the Supreme Court will use these cases to broadly expand.
	Put it this way, it's probably not a coincidence that key members of Doge's team are Supreme Court clerks.
	They either have been or are going to be clerks for Supreme Court justices.
	In other words, they know exactly what they're doing.
	They know exactly what grounds they want that legal dispute to be determined.
	And cases like telling the president he can't dictate his own policy, he can't dictate his own personnel, he can't hire intelligence, and he can't even look at where the money is going is about as compelling a case for the courts of law as well as the court of public opinion as you can get.
	And the deep state defenders and the democratic bureaucracy lovers have stepped into a trap, and they knew the arrogance of Letitia James would facilitate it.
	They've gotten the craziest ruling from the craziest court that shows how dangerous the issue is, that perfectly sets it up for the Supreme Court of the United States to finally restore constitutional power to the executive branch, which may be Trump's lasting legacy.
	If we're going to defeat the deep state and going to limit the corrosive power of the federal administrative state, we've got to restore the unitary executive.
	That's what the Article 2 says.
	It says executive power is fully vested in the President of the United States.
	Period. End of story.
	It's time to, like most things, look to the Constitution for the remedy to our current problem.
	It provides one.
	We just need the Supreme Court to follow it.
	And Democrats and deep state defenders have actually facilitated that.
	By showing how insane the courts will be and how overreaching they will this early on.
	I'll read three Super Chats over on Comic2.
	Brian Smith says, Don't forget Matthew Hoover's CRS Firearms channel.
	Still in prison waiting for appeal.
	Actually, I want to save that one.
	Then we got Barb Ariane says, I have waited a lifetime for someone other than me to call Bill Hates.
	I think she meant Bill Gates, but it might have been a good typo.
	Oh, to call Bill Hates humanity a eugenics king.
	I must be dreaming.
	Yeah, Barnes, we've mentioned that before.
	And then Gunface11 says, are these corrupt judges going to be impeached and removed?
	Okay, I read that one already.
	We don't get any closer to impeachment.
	I mean, they need to look at it, but my view is look at the most egregious examples for it and act accordingly there.
	And there need to be a couple of ones that are picked for that purpose.
	Find the ones that are the most insane and bring action against them.
	That will send a message to the rest.
	But right for now, you can just appeal it on an expedited basis and probably get a very early Supreme Court ruling in your favor that will establish the precedent that you want.
	And hopefully that will suffice and you don't need to go the impeachment route to restore constitutional balance.
	Okay, so the ruling, and I think I said state court earlier, and I meant SDNY, the Southern District of New York, which is the most corrupt...
	What a shock!
	Where are all these decisions coming from?
	Judge Engelmeyer?
	Either the District of Corruption or the Southern District of New York.
	Let's get rid of the whole Southern District of New York.
	Just create maybe one District of New York.
	So then you have some balance.
	You know, you got the Eastern District, you got the Northern District.
	It's extraordinary, but it's no coincidence that it's those two court systems constantly causing these issues.
	It's time to get rid of the District of Columbia, which more Elon Musk is now supporting, Mike Lee, Senator Mike Lee is now supporting, that to restore the power back to getting the Constitution, that means home rule by Congress, and there is no federal D.C. court system, period.
	Reassign those judges across the country.
	And that's it.
	The other thing is...
	Look at curtailing judicial budgets.
	Do judges need all these U.S. Marshals?
	I don't think so.
	Do judges need this number of clerks?
	I don't think so.
	So you can't lower the judge's salaries.
	That's protected by life tenure under the Constitution.
	But nobody else's salary is protected.
	So maybe start looking at how much money do they really need.
	If they can't figure out the Constitution with four law clerks, do they need four law clerks?
	Robert, I'm going to bring these up.
	I gave everyone the links.
	Get your butts on over to Rumble or VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	I'll read through these and I'm going to show a picture afterwards.
	I'll go start from the bottom.
	Barnes, if federal courts cannot compel the executive branch to disperse funds as it would violate separation of powers, does that also apply to Congress?
	I mean, the issue is that Congress can limit what goes with the money.
	They can put certain strings attached, so it has to be with specificity.
	But that's the scope of Congress's power.
	Congress can't take away the executive branch's power in terms of policy or personnel.
	And that's what they occasionally have tried to do.
	And the courts have increasingly, the Supreme Court has increasingly recognized that as unconstitutional.
	Congress can't usurp the power of the executive branch any more than the judicial branch can usurp either one.
	But both have tried.
	In order to promote and protect the administrative state and the deep state from political exposure.
	Just Cuz I'm Free says, Viva, what is your opinion on the current mood of the Canadian political classes wanting to challenge Trump on tariffs?
	Should America be worried about the moose riding maple liquors to our north?
	No, Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau will implement a tariff war that will hurt Canadians, and then they're going to blame it on Trump, even though it's straight up their own decision.
	So, period.
	V6 Neon says, details of funding from CIA through USAID has given evidence that apparently the former first minister of Scotland, Nicholas Surgeon, was a CIA agent to cause trouble in the UK.
	They employed all kinds of people.
	US Media, Politico.
	BBC. It's Operation Mockingbird on steroids, and it's the Truman Show.
	Come to real life.
	Exactly. The censorship regimes globally being promoted by USAID.
	Rumble was back on in Brazil the moment USAID had no more money to give Brazil.
	I didn't put those two together in the timeline.
	I just thought, you know, they decided to get on the free speech bandwagon.
	Those are two good dots to connect.
	I would like to see ActBlue and Smurfing get investigated, says Crash Bandit.
	ActBlue and Smurfing is by various attorney generals in the country.
	But that should be a DOJ inquiry, too.
	Well, who's going to be the new head of the DOJ?
	Pam Bondi.
	Pam Bondi's there.
	So Pam Bondi's there.
	So the key is, I mean, there's big decisions coming up, like on the Brooke Jackson Key Tam case.
	I haven't yet heard it from, I mean, she just got in, so we'll give her some time.
	But there's a bunch of vestigial legacy lawfare cases that she is inheriting that I hope Bondi, the first step she should take is to get rid of the bad cases.
	You know, dismiss the Roger Ver indictment.
	Dismiss any case against any pending pro-lifer.
	Dismiss the cases against the Fed-napping cases.
	Dismiss the meme cases.
	But the second thing she's got to get her hands on is whoever's leaking from the FBI.
	I mean, here you have one cabinet secretary, Kristi Noem, head of dealing with immigration issues, criticizing the FBI, another part of the executive branch, because the FBI appears to be the source.
	of leaking information to immigrant groups to help illegal, dangerous criminal illegal aliens.
	This is not somebody who's been here for 15 years, it's quiet, works in some part of the domestic American industry.
	That's not who they're going after.
	They're going after convicted criminals that have dangerous, violent crimes in their history and that have current gang affiliations.
	They're going after the worst of the worst currently.
	And that's who George Soros' radio stations are leaking, apparently from the FBI.
	Somebody in the FBI is leaking the ICE raids before they can happen to prevent them from getting maximum view.
	We have traitors inside the government, and they appear to be at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	When you have the Secretary of Homeland Security calling it out, saying the FBI is a bunch of crooks, this is a confirmed Cabinet Secretary.
	That tells you how bad the problem is at the FBI.
	That's why I think Matt Gaetz was right.
	I mean, Kash Patel believes you can redeem the FBI.
	I don't.
	I believe you just have to fire everybody and start with a whole new agency.
	Like, look at what Trump did with USAID.
	That was exactly the right protocol.
	Get rid of it.
	Fire everybody.
	Take the money.
	Send it over to the State Department.
	And you can actually spend it consistent to congressional will and with congressional oversight.
	And with constitutional oversight.
	You need to do the same with the FBI.
	It used to be just an investigative agency to help the DOJ, and it became its own monstrosity.
	And that's what we're seeing in a live time.
	I mean, some high-ranking people are constantly sabotaging the U.S. government, and it's people within the U.S. government doing it.
	They were using our money to facilitate mass illegal immigration in the country.
	They were using our money to censor us.
	They were using our money to create global war conditions.
	It's around the world.
	They're top 10 recipients, all connected to war conflicts in one way, shape, or form.
	Using taxpayer money to fund game-of-function research that then leaks into the pandemic, and then they use your taxpayer dollars to lock you down and destroy your life, and then transfer your wealth to their partners in crime.
	It's like the other conflict with Trump, with courts this week, other than Doge, other than his attempts to reform the bureaucracy, other than his attempts to deep-six the deep state.
	Is the ICC.
	Trump recognized the International Criminal Court as a joke.
	It's always been a joke.
	And he said he's going to issue various sanctions against it.
	That's, by the way, where Jack Smith, I think, was going to try to go hide.
	Maybe part of his sanctions will be he's not going to employ any U.S. personnel, pay any money to be part of the ICC.
	The ICC is a joke.
	It's the deep state's international favorite court because it's not constrained or constricted by meaningful constitutional review or democratic constraint.
	And so we shouldn't have any involvement with it.
	I've always been a critic of it.
	I think it's a joke.
	And I don't change whether I think it's a joke whether they're ruling in a way I like or a way I don't like.
	They're a joke.
	So credit to Trump for sanctioning him.
	He should go further and just say, we're not going to have anything to do with the ICC.
	We're not going to give any funds to the ICC.
	We're not going to support the ICC.
	We're not going to aid the ICC.
	We're not going to have anything to do with these internationalist, globalist bodies.
	That are out to undermine constitutional liberty around the world.
	And I'll read these last three, and then we're going to get over to Rumble.
	Elon, once Elon Musk had X pretty close to profitable, Bill Gates posted on X that he'd be happy to help Musk.
	Bill Gates had millions invested into shorting X. Musk exposed him for such hypocrisy.
	King of Biltong says, get back to eating health.
	By adding some tasty high-protein Biltong to your diet, packed with B12, iron, zinc, creatine, and much more.
	Get some at BiltongUSA.com.
	Code Viva for 10% off.
	If we don't see prosecutions from Bondi, DOJ, against the Dems, and the GOP that have enabled the fraud against America, this is all kabuki theater, in my humble opinion, says Sportfish177.
	Randy Edwards says, David, why did Canada surrender to the United States during the Super Bowl?
	Was it just the French district or the capitulation or the whole 51st state?
	And Snuggle Struggle says about restarting the FBI, don't forget how Biden had been spent four years purging.
	Wrong thing from the entire agency.
	The news crying over gutting the bloat are pure hypocrisy.
	No question about that.
	And I wanted to show one other thing just before we do this, because Biltong, this is how I ate it today.
	Let me go here like this.
	I put the Biltong, the ghost Wagyu ghost, in an avocado, and then I scoop it out using the Biltong and the spoon.
	And eat it.
	And it's delicious.
	It tempers the spice just a little bit because the Wagyu ghost is very spicy.
	Okay, what we're doing now, people, we're moving it on over to Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	YouTube, come on over.
	And if you're not coming on over, you'll get the rest of this in clips or replay tomorrow on podcast.
	And that is it.
	We're going to update the stream, make sure I don't screw this up, and go Rumble and Locals only for the remainder of the show.
	Come on over.
	Get off Commitube.
	Come to Free Speech Rumble now.
	Okay. Doge, USAID, the lawsuits.
	I don't think we missed anything on that ridiculous lawsuit.
	No, no, no.
	We did have some good outcomes from courts this week concerning another reformer that Deep State is trying to block and that Bill Gates has been secretly funding opposition to.
	And that is all the lies and libels being repeated by the media and politicians.
	They might want a second look at that because those exact...
	Lies and libels were a state court in Maine, appointed, by the way, by a Democratic judge, a judge appointed by a Democratic governor, found completely in favor of Robert Kennedy's case against David Vickery, called Downeast Dem at the Daily Kos, for repeating lies and libels.
	And part of his defense was, hey, the New York Times has repeated these lies and libels.
	And the judge's like, you've been on notice of these lies and libels from prior suits.
	The world, by inference, the world is now on notice of those.
	And that means anybody who repeats these lies and libels can be sued and a court likely find actual malice because any basic review would have found unearthed these lawsuits and these court findings that these false statements that people have been making about Robert Kennedy are complete libels.
	And even a liberal Democratic appointed judge in Maine came to that exact same conclusion right on the eve of his confirmation.
	So it was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, which is always the biggest ruling in a defamation case.
	Because in a defamation case, it's, can you even allege actual malice?
	Can you allege an actionable false statement?
	Or can you just claim it's, hey, it's opinion?
	Or even if the opinion is a...
	Does it have a factual statement?
	The person had a reasonable basis for it, and it wasn't with reckless disregard and actual malice that the statement was made.
	So that's why almost all defamation cases come down to do you win the motion to dismiss or not.
	And he brought this motion as an anti-slap motion.
	The judge noted that he wasn't engaged in petitioning activity, so the anti-slap statute of Maine didn't even apply to his case, and said even if it did...
	Substantively, this more than adequately suffices.
	And I think the judge was probably startled by, this is a guy who's been repeatedly told that he's libeling Kennedy.
	And instead, because he got out on shenanigans before, like he got out because nobody knew his name, because he was going by an anonymous pseudonym.
	They didn't know where he lived.
	That's how he got out of the first effort of suits, because it's been going on since 2020.
	Then I got involved.
	We were able to locate him and brought suit in New Hampshire.
	And that's when he finally admitted he resided in Maine.
	And the federal judge said, well, he lives in Maine, so you're going to have to sue there, not New Hampshire.
	And he thought he was out because of the statute of limitations in Maine was two years.
	This is something that defamers and libelers are misusing personal jurisdiction law and other forms of immunities like politicians to evade libel accountability by manipulating the state in which they make this so-called statement and pretending that's the only place they can be sued and having complicit courts sadly go along with them too often.
	But this nitwit thought that because he had previously made the statements and got away with it, the New York Times was making the statements and he thought getting away with it, that he could repeat the statements.
	And the court was like, no, when you repeat the statements, that's a new form of libel.
	You are now subject to a new clock on the statute of limitations.
	And just no legal advice for anybody out there.
	But this holds true for anybody who re-quotes or reaffirms without being critical of, but to rather affirm or ambiguously affirm the truth of the false statements that you don't just get, well, I'm just sharing a tweet that's already out there or re-sharing a tweet.
	I just want to read your statement here, Robert.
	This is a significant win for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	said Robert Barnes, one of Kennedy's attorneys.
	The court has made it clear that repeating lies about him that have already been proven false is actionable.
	This sets a strong precedent against those who seek to abuse the first.
	Beautiful. And now people are going to say, well, he might win on the merits.
	I presume, whether or not this settles before it gets anywhere, you know what you might find on Discovery.
	Oh, no doubt.
	I mean, there's all kinds of...
	The key was establishing this as libel to deter other bad actors.
	So, like, the nitwit governor of Hawaii has been running around repeating some of these precise libels that the court found were libelous.
	If he does it again, he's easily subject to suit now.
	Because, I mean, there's been all kinds of news about this case.
	It's a public finding of the case.
	What the court was saying is, when you're aware of a case that establishes these facts, then that's actual malice if you keep repeating the lies and libels.
	And that's what everybody knows.
	That's why they would libel him and then move on to something else quickly in the Senate hearings.
	Because they knew if he was given a chance to respond, that it would be easily proven that these are ridiculous lies and libels about Robert Kennedy.
	That's what they all know.
	That's why their only basis to survive was to pretend it's an opinion, to pretend that they could get away with it because they got away with it before, got away with it because the identity of the individual libeling wasn't known, get away with it because they're in a jurisdiction that's favored by Democrats.
	And instead, they lost across the board.
	And if you're going to lose in Maine, you're going to lose everywhere in a case like this.
	And so that's the big takeaway, is anybody who tries to repeat these libels, Bill Gates, for example, If he tries to repeat them through his various funded organizations, he will be sued, along with anyone else.
	The governor of Hawaii will be sued if he repeats these libels.
	So the timing was critical because Robert Kennedy's vote is coming up this week to be fully confirmed to the HHS, and his cloture vote happened right after this opinion was announced and publicly broadcast.
	So what it says is a court, a democratically appointed court, who looked at the fundamentals of the case, And we've seen CNN with Trump, other people with Trump, etc.
	When it gets to Discovery, suddenly they're not interested in participating.
	And it's because I'm sure Discovery will be embarrassing.
	How much USAID money might be tied to daily costs, for example?
	What else is connected to this?
	Why did Daily Kos turn on its old ally and spend all this time bashing Robert Kennedy?
	These are all people that I suspect we're going to find interesting information in the discovery.
	Now, you're right.
	Typically what happens if you win the motion to dismiss, the case resolves.
	And that may happen here.
	We'll see.
	I don't know.
	But it's a big win for Kennedy.
	A big win for the people that have been defamed and smeared by the censorship surveillance state.
	A big win because of its timing right on the eve of Robert Kennedy's confirmation hearings.
	And a big win because every single lawyer he talked to and I talked to told me we had no chance to win the case.
	So it's always nice when you win a case when every other lawyer tells you you can't.
	Based on the information available from recent web content and discussions on X, Daily Kos, or Kos, whatever the hell it means, did not receive direct funding from USAID.
	There have been claims and discussions about this, but according to the clarification on X, the only financial relationship mentioned is that USAID subscribed to Daily Kos publication, specifically noted as spending $44,000 for pro subscriptions to an E...
	That's aiding.
	There's no reason for anybody paying for subscriptions to places like Puerto Rico.
	Or for daily costs.
	So that's how they did it.
	They disguised it as subscriptions and membership fees and other things like this when it was just bribery.
	I mean, that's what it was.
	If USAID was paying Viva Barnes Law...
	They're not paying us.
	They're only subscribing.
	A voluntary is $44,000 a year.
	Oh, by the way, the daily cost, it's called the cost because it refers to the founder, Marcos Mulitsas.
	He started off as this sort of Greek lefty.
	And you can see the progression of the progressive left.
	It was sort of the Bernie anti-establishment left.
	It then became part of the deep state apparatus.
	I'd be curious, did USAID decide to subscribe around the same time as Daily Kos suddenly changed its perspective on things like foreign war, on things like the big pharma, things like big food, so on and so forth?
	It might be interesting.
	I'm sure there's all kinds of interesting discovery in those cases.
	Robert Kennedy's practically an open book.
	He disclosed all of his finances to go through all this and all the rest.
	What would be the suspicious date if it were going to be suspicious, give or take?
	You know, I'd have to go back and look at daily costs.
	You know, it would be 2017, 2018.
	At the same time they bribed Bernie, right?
	Bernie Sanders went from no big pharma money, no big food money, to overnight being the number one recipient of big pharma money.
	And my view was they did that to buy him off once he showed support in 2016.
	Now, that was the carrot.
	People forget the stick.
	Remember, they were putting Bernie and his wife under criminal investigation for federal fraud.
	And my guess is that was the stick to say, hey, instead, Bernie, we'll drop all these cases and give you a big pile of campaign cash.
	And we'll make sure your book gets bought.
	For example, why is it Angela Merkel's book is all over U.S. airports?
	Are people walking through U.S. airports, can't wait to read Angela Merkel, where she steals your name as the title of her book in a flagrant copyright violation?
	It's the book company bribing and paying off Angela Merkel.
	That's what that is.
	They often will buy the books themselves.
	They'll buy them in bunches.
	They'll buy like $50,000, $75,000, etc.
	It's disguised bribery.
	Bernie still pretends that all of a sudden, out of the blue, everybody wanted to buy every book he wrote.
	And that's why he's a multimillionaire and owns three houses.
	That's why he went from bashing them.
	Well, you can do his voice good.
	Remember when he was the millionaires and the billionaires?
	Now Bernie's like, oh, no, no, never mind.
	Let's just focus on the billionaires.
	Let's not talk about the millionaires.
	You might be wrong, but for the right reasons, because the timing, if this is true, is even more suspicious.
	According to information available, USAID subscribed to Daily Kos in October 2024.
	That's a month before a relatively monumental event in November 2024.
	And by the way, that was on the eve of the...
	That was right after the main suit had been filed and the eve of the court conducting hearings in that case.
	So that's interesting as well.
	So, I mean, I suspect there'll be interesting dynamics, but big win for Robert Kennedy, big win for true First Amendment freedom.
	Because I always said, the First Amendment protects speech, but it also protects against libelous speech and smear campaigns that are designed as indirect surveillance and censorship campaigns.
	The smear campaigns against Robert Kennedy were designed to censor.
	Get people to self-censor.
	Get people to not talk about things.
	Get people to be scared of, oh, I want to protect my position and my pedigree because I'll lose both if I join in Robert Kennedy's criticisms of Big Farmer Big Food.
	So it's a big win for everybody in those spaces as well as a big win for Robert Kennedy and improves his chances of getting confirmed this week, which I think he, Tulsi Gabbard, and Cash Patel will get confirmed.
	And as to Cash, it turned out you were dead right.
	They were trying to set him up.
	So that they could accuse him of a crime of disclosing information that had been ordered on seal because that's what's come out now is that the court had issued a sealing order on the very testimony they were trying to induce and sucker him into disclosing.
	Why would that not be a crime?
	Like, why would they not try?
	It's not suborning perjury because they're not trying to suborn perjury.
	But they're trying to induce someone to commit a felony.
	Is that not itself a felony?
	Exactly. Now, well, upside to them, speech and debate clause may cover immunity in that instance for congressmen so that they couldn't be prosecuted for trying to induce him into doing so.
	I suspect on paper they didn't know about the order, right?
	There's nothing to say that they knew.
	Exactly. I'm sure behind the scenes they had.
	And I think some of these people are going to have to be looked at at some point by the FBI and the DOJ.
	Why Cash Patel?
	Exactly. So I think there'd be some apropos there.
	But I think Cash gets in.
	I think Tulsi gets in.
	I think Robert Kennedy gets in.
	And then the real reform starts.
	Because Tulsi Gabbard reforming the intelligence community.
	Robert Kennedy reforming Big Food and Big Pharma.
	The relationship to government.
	And Cash Patel reforming law enforcement.
	And that these are people that are committed to it, and it looks like efforts to derail their nominations have been set aside.
	And for that, probably the biggest news of the week was Robert Kennedy winning his libel suit against a motion dismissed because of the message that sent that, oh yeah, these clearly are libels.
	There's no truth to these statements being made against Robert Kennedy.
	And now I may be on the hook for the libel if I repeat it.
	Because it's now been published and broadcast with lawsuits, and a court has found that adequate notice to suffice to plead actual malice.
	I got a dog.
	That's what I get for kissing my dog.
	I got a hair up my nose.
	Oh, Robert, by the way, so I'm just following the news as we're talking.
	Rod Blagojevich is set to get pardoned.
	Trump is expected to announce it later tonight.
	Oh, he must have commuted his sentence.
	Remember, I asked him, why would he need it?
	He only got a sentence commuted in 2020, and now he's getting pardoned.
	It makes sense.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	It's the timing.
	He may want that to run for office.
	Yep. But probably on the Republican side, he probably just saw Illinois was shockingly close in the presidential election.
	My goodness, if I just had these reflexes.
	Yes, when I asked you previously, I forgot it was just a commutation.
	Now it's a full party so they can run for office.
	It makes sense with what Blagojevich said in his podcast with Rogan.
	I listen to it.
	The guy seems like a good guy.
	He was an old-school, blue-collar Democrat operating by the political machine rules of the day.
	And Barack Obama knifed him because Obama wanted nobody in Illinois that could be a problem for him while he was president.
	That's why he also knifed Jesse Jackson III, the black congressman, son of Jesse Jackson, who was an up-and-coming figure in the black political community nationally, not just in Chicago.
	He also got taken out with criminal prosecution.
	In my view, that was politically motivated.
	It's another case, by the way, I recommended Trump's team to re-look at and to consider a pardon.
	It would send a message, but it would send two messages.
	It'd be a good one against Lawfare because I think he was selectively prosecuted, Jesse Jackson III.
	Second, it's a good message to the African-American community because Jesse Jackson is still a well-respected person within the African-American community.
	And third, it sends a little message to Barack Hussein Obama, because it's no doubt Obama was behind, in my view, the criminal prosecutions of both Blago and of Blagojevich.
	I can't pronounce his name.
	Blagojevich. Yeah, however you pronounce it.
	It's something Yugoslavian or something.
	There's a lot of those in Chicago.
	I think he's Serbian, actually.
	Polish names.
	Oh, my Lord.
	Those are brutal.
	It went by first names constantly.
	No last names.
	That wasn't working.
	But it'd be a good message that Trump could send across the board.
	Similar to the Roger Ver case, but speaking of big libel cases, the January 6th first set of libel cases filed by 1776lawcenter.com supports people like Amos Miller, the Amish farmer, Kyle Rittenhouse in his Second Amendment defense, the Covington kids in libel lawsuits, supports Robert Kennedy's libel lawsuit.
	Owen Schroyer has sued Media Matters and others for their January 6th lies.
	We're looking at representing other January 6th individuals for where and when they've been libeled or had their civil rights violated.
	We'll try to figure out where and how and whether we can bring suit.
	Also, we're looking at suit related to USAID.
	USAID giving money to organizations that were doing...
	For example, it turned out, as suspected, that Morning Consult...
	Which was doing a bunch of polls showing very favorable anti-Trump Democratic information.
	Ian Seltzer, who did a completely bogus poll, in my opinion, at the end of the election in Iowa to create the impression that Trump was in serious trouble and was going to get crushed.
	It appears that they have ties to USAID.
	Morning Consult was receiving money through USAID.
	And so these pollsters were spending time defaming people like...
	Richard Barris at big data polling.
	Or Mark Mitchell at Rasmussen.
	So might there be some liability that flows from these disclosures of USA complicity in the violating, in my view, their civil rights?
	There might be.
	But the Owen Schroer case against Media Matters is one of the first ones out of the gate to see if we can find some place, some mechanism.
	Well, I don't ask who you represent because that itself is solicitor-client privilege.
	I just know that Adam Johnson, lectern guy, was mighty pissed and might have some claims against some people who still wrongly assert that he stole anything.
	And that information is available in the plea agreements and the various public information, and they're just lying.
	So Media Matters and the people involved connected in Media Matters just lied about Owen Troyer.
	Owen Troyer had nothing to do with any riot on January 6th.
	That's what the court documents themselves say.
	The court documents say that he's solely being prosecuted over whether or not a prior plea agreement prohibited him from being on a certain part of the Capitol grounds.
	That was it.
	There was no allegation.
	That he facilitated, enabled, engaged, solicited in any form of violent conduct towards property or people.
	Just the opposite.
	Owen Troyer went out of his way to try to get people to get out of the Capitol and not go into the Capitol.
	That's what Alex Jones was running around trying to do that day.
	You can hear him on his megaphone saying, this is a trap, get out, get out, get back.
	That's what Owen Troyer was doing that day.
	But they wanted to libel Owen Troyer and connect him to the January 6th cases.
	So because the corrupt Department of Justice in D.C. decided to bring those charges for the headline purposes that only worked if the media lied, right?
	The media was honest and said Owen Schroer had nothing to do with January 6th riot and was actually trying to get people out.
	It negates the entire reason they're bringing that indictment in the first place.
	That they're bringing the indictment solely in order so that the media can print its fake headlines.
	And they knew this.
	They needed the complicity of the lying media, libelous media, in order to misuse the legal system to achieve that outcome.
	And that's what they did to all the January 6th defendants.
	That's what they did to President Trump.
	That's what they've done to other people.
	And that's where we're trying to figure out, well, there's got to be a way to push back.
	And credit to Owen Troyer, he was willing to be the test dummy to see if the legal system will be responsive to this systematic libeling.
	Which was part of the side effect and part of the reasoning behind the weaponization of the legal system against its political critics.
	No better example of that than Owen Troyer, given the underlying set of circumstances.
	But it's the first of other cases that we're looking at, at trying to figure out, is there some relief or remedy for the people that were harmed by lawfare over the last four years, when a part of that was, and I think there is at least in the libelous context, Because there we have evidence that part of the reason for the lawfare was the libelist media's complicity with the lawfare.
	Let me read a bunch over on the tip sides of vivabarneslaw.locals.com from Elliott.
	31 U.S.C.
	Section 39. Treasury Secretary vested with the duties and powers of the department officers and employees excluding ALJs and Comptroller of the Currency and is authorized to delegate his, quote, duties and powers to them.
	The APA exempts a matter relating to agency management or personnel from a 30-day public notice requirement.
	How is it that the Secretary's statutory delegation power hasn't yet been mentioned in the SDNY litigation?
	It's solely because the people who brought the suit didn't mention it, and Trump wasn't given an opportunity to respond before the court issued the order.
	That's why.
	Kiki Blue says, can someone explain with all the shenanigans that the IRS and Treasury and rogue judges being totally blatant about hiding and supporting corruption?
	Then why should anyone bother?
	Okay, I got that one before.
	Elliot says, the SDNY Treasury TRO also seems to block the secretary from providing law enforcement.
	Okay, I read that.
	Triple JTB.
	Can't believe that Barnes doesn't know who Dr. David Martin is.
	You guys definitely need to have him on your show.
	I keep screen grabbing this one every time I see it.
	Bogart63 says, finally people are waking up to the impeachment, impeaching judges.
	In light of what is happening with Doge, what stops Trump from ignoring the judges considering A.G. Bondi's response on separation of power?
	I think you mentioned that with going full Jackson.
	Slim Shagan, when are we going to stop Big Hen?
	Robert, Pennsylvania is apparently going to try to eliminate a lot of chickens due to the Bird Gates flu.
	Is there a way to prevent this?
	Yeah, if the Department of Agriculture does its job.
	So Brooke Rollins is not in yet.
	But once she's there, I'm hoping that there'll be substantial improvements in the Department of Agriculture.
	Because, I mean, one of these people, one of these nuts that was ordering all kinds of chickens destroyed without a basis, one of these regulator crazies over...
	I've been telling people these people exist.
	I've been dealing with them on behalf of Amos Miller over at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	And the FDA and its subsidiary agencies related to food, and it's a bunch of incompetent crazies.
	That's who's running those departments.
	That's who's running those areas of regulation.
	This lady was so nuts.
	She was going around demanding massive amounts of birds get destroyed.
	It turned out she was completely wrong on even demanding, violating people's property rights and constitutional rights in the process.
	And when they were like, you're done, you're out of here, the Trump administration, they had to literally bring in security and drag her out.
	Because she was like, no, you have no right to fire me.
	I'm above you.
	That's how much these people are.
	And we're seeing a very similar thing up in Canada, like slaughtering 400 healthy ostriches because of the fear of H5N1.
	But this is how they do it.
	They bring on the terror so they can then say, look how many we had to slaughter.
	That's how serious this is.
	So Plant Nerd says, Robert, would you take the Doge deal if you had other prospects?
	This is an eight-month buyout.
	Yeah. I mean, what are the options?
	You're not going to take it out and take the buyout and stay there.
	You're banking on...
	The court's coming to your protection so that you don't have to ever leave.
	Smart people would recognize that that's not a sustainable option for the administrative state as they're going to discover in the next six months or so.
	Petey Dog says, Bongino hinted that there may be a specific reason why they picked that judge.
	Well, I can think of a number of reasons, although I know it's not going to help anything because this guy, add him to the list with Judge Engeron, Judge Mershon.
	Yeah, as unreliable, insane judges from the Southern District of New York.
	And I'll give Mike Nichols credit and some others.
	I'd been critical of the Federalist Society pre-screening judges for a long time.
	Said it was a big mistake and that Trump made a mistake by letting them and some of the other establishment institutions.
	In Washington, screen his first set of judges.
	And about half of his judges are bad.
	Half of them are good.
	One of them that's bad is this Judge Nichols in the District of Columbia.
	I dealt with him in a defamation case and said that, I mean, the guy was an idiot, in my opinion.
	I said so publicly.
	And he was one of the judges issuing insane ruling in this regard on behalf of the deep state in D.C. And so Nichols finally realized something I've been saying for a while.
	We need to have a different set of screening for these kind of judges in the future.
	And he said, you know, we can't let these corporate DC types even be nominated in the future because they're unreliable and untrustworthy, as Nichols proved.
	But they're going to judges and judicial divisions that they know will give them what they want without meaningful constitutional scrutiny.
	That's what they're doing.
	And then worse comes to worse, it gets overturned on appeal.
	And whoopsie, we tried and we frustrated and we made a big stink.
	And there's no sanction for the judge, so no harm, no foul.
	Jonathan G94 says, Robert Viva, your attention is needed with an active lawsuit against Lucasfilm as significant as Gina Carano's suit filed by Hollywood producer Catherine McCarthy, who was defrauded by Kathy Kennedy and Leslie Hedlund with the acolyte that was not greenlit or money by Disney.
	It probably got funding via USAID.
	One of the actors from the fake show Abigail Thorns, whose trans even has connections to...
	Well, I mean, are we really shocked?
	We'd suggested this, that everybody going to Ukraine was basically getting paid.
	Yeah, no, no, I love how they say, like, we didn't get paid, but, you know, they don't even, they denied that they got paid, but they did it probably, they structured it the exact same way.
	It was by coincidence they were getting a million dollars, a million, two million, four million.
	It looks like their appearance fee.
	In some of these cases, that's exactly what it looks like.
	It looks like the celebrity's appearance fee to appear in Ukraine with Zelensky.
	David Cook says, My patent attorney included language for my specification and granted claims in another of their client's patents.
	This was done during the blackout window when only the USPTO, my attorney, and me knew the wording.
	The language appears nowhere else in the literature.
	Lawyer claims every patent lawyer does this.
	Am I being gaslit?
	I can't even venture an answer to that one.
	Did Barnes freeze up there?
	Oh, he froze.
	He's back.
	Well, can you hear me?
	Yeah. For some reason, the camera's not working.
	Well, you're going to...
	When it comes back, you can reboot it.
	I can read some more tipped questions.
	Okay, yeah, let me try that.
	Okay. Because that would be...
	It's not the most unfortunate freeze, but...
	Could have been better.
	Let me do this.
	This is actually a good excuse to go back down here.
	Okay, I'm going to go to the bottom.
	Did I just do this?
	Ah, hold on.
	Let's go back to Rumble, people.
	All right, we got Helena Handbasket.
	Oh, Helena Handbasket.
	Helena Handbasket.
	The ostriches were saved, I heard, as of last week or the week before.
	I forget what week it was now, but CFIA wants to go in there and expedite things so they can go in and kill some animals faster and jack up their numbers so the Canadian government has another crisis to manage.
	Maybe postpone some elections if you got the avian flu.
	Snuggle Struggle says Oh, no, I got that already.
	Oh, I got all these.
	Okay, hold on.
	Just... Oh, is Barnes back?
	Yeah. That was fast.
	Okay, what do we have next?
	I don't know where we are now.
	Oh, so we got Hawaii.
	We got libraries.
	We got raids.
	We got rumble.
	We got...
	But we also have the right of return, which I was debating this week a bit with Aaron Maté.
	Look, I know what I think of the right of return, because I think your position is obviously right, and it wasn't even yours.
	It was Bill Clinton's back in the day when they had Camp David, and he says to Yasser Arafat, if you want the right of return for six million Palestinians, what do you want a two-state solution for?
	This one is going to piss people off.
	Look, it's not because of who I am or because of who you are that you're right.
	You're right because you're right.
	The right of return.
	I don't know how it's come back up, but the right of return is the idea that displaced Palestinians from previous wars, let's say the founding war of 48, the war of 67, all those who were displaced get the right of return, as do all of their offspring.
	And so you want to talk about a right of return of like six point some odd million displaced Palestinians or five million living in the Gaza Strip and the occupied territories.
	And this was the key point of contention with Yasser Arafat back at Camp David.
	And, you know, democracy is, you know, or at least in this case would be the capitalism selling the rope to the commie that wants to hang you.
	What's been your fight with Aaron Maté?
	Well, I won't ask why Mate thinks the way he does, but maybe you can shed some light onto this internet debate.
	Mate was in a debate with Gad Saad and others about generally Israeli-Palestinian issues, which can kind of get inflamed and emotional and parental history and all that jazz.
	Gad is the self-described honey badger, so he's not always the most kind in his criticisms in that respect.
	But what I was interested in is, so I saw Mate, and I've seen the pro-Palestinian community say this for a long time, about the right to return.
	And my view was like, what's the legal basis for this?
	What's the philosophical basis for this?
	And is it practical or not?
	And I was curious, because by logic, there is no right to return in law.
	And if there were, every government in the world would be overthrown tomorrow.
	Because, I mean, if there's a universal...
	So I've been trying to figure out, like, what's even the claim?
	That, okay, I once lived here, so now I get to live here forever?
	And my posterity gets to live here forever?
	I mean, what's that legally based on?
	It starts with a fundamental assumption of the utter impracticality of this.
	That if you have a...
	If I've ever lived in a place, and I'm displaced by...
	So I guess number one is, I once lived there.
	That somehow gives me a right to permanently be there?
	Well, then the explanation is you have the right to permanently be there if you are removed by some unlawful means, including by force.
	Now, for those that don't know, international law recognized the right of land by conquest for forever, including American courts going all the way back from the founding of the history, said that you could lawfully be entitled to land if you simply conquered the land.
	This is something every...
	Native American tribe and every Palestinian knows because it's how they got to where they got to when we got here.
	They weren't all born there.
	They had conquered it from their predecessors and they often bragged about it in their oral traditions and even in sometimes their architecture and art.
	Same with the Palestinians.
	They pretend they're Philistines because they're idiots in this fantasy land.
	But they got to where they got by conquest.
	They conquered that land.
	So part one of the assumption is That the right to title by land by conquest no longer exists.
	Okay, but are we going to retroactively apply that to time periods when that was the international custom and practice?
	I get post-World War II, international bodies have no longer recognized this right.
	That doesn't mean they're right.
	That's just their interpretation.
	You're on mute, by the way.
	This was also one of the arguments that we grew up with.
	Being in the community is, Yes, you can't acquire land through conquest or through war.
	But if you acquire land through self-defense of wars that were initiated on you, do you then have to give that land back after you win the war and gain land?
	To me, the first question is fundamental itself.
	I don't agree that you can't acquire land by conquest because that's been the entire history by which land has been acquired.
	And it's to disregard reality.
	By saying conquest can never be a mechanism and method by which you could have legal title to land.
	So that's my first premise.
	But I was like, even if you get past that premise, the second premise, that you have a right of return.
	So it's based on what?
	So they had legal title under the Ottoman Empire?
	Research what that really meant, folks.
	It doesn't quite mean...
	What Palestinians pretend it means.
	Generally, legal title in the Ottoman Empire, you didn't have any legal title.
	You were leasing the land from the Ottomans, is the way the Ottomans saw it.
	So is it the Ottoman Turks that get it?
	Does Erdogan, who claims to be the inheritor of it, is he the one that has the right to return?
	Is he the one that gets to declare what is and isn't property throughout the entire Middle East?
	Because this would apply beyond Israel?
	Ottomans have dominated all of it?
	The Ottomans were the ones that were displaced.
	Erdogan claims to be the inheritor of the Erdogan Turk power regime and legal licenses.
	Does that mean he gets his greater turkey after all?
	I mean, I don't even see these being discussed by people just putting something out there that you look at and you're like, practically that's insane.
	Putting that point aside, that you've got something that can never work, just never can work.
	But even if it could work, it wouldn't work in the way you claim it does.
	Because other people would have, if you've ever dealt with a title dispute in real estate, then you know what I'm talking about.
	Apply international politics to this and you have a disaster.
	Who is it that has the right to return?
	Is it the Palestinians?
	Is it the Palestinians who lived there at the time?
	Is it their kids?
	Is it their grandkids?
	Is it their cousin?
	Is it their niece?
	Is it their nephew?
	Do they have legal rights under Israel?
	Because that's not something they had before.
	And yet that's what they want.
	They want not only the right to physically, is it to the same house?
	Are they going to just mass evict everybody who lives there now?
	I mean, this is how ridiculous the right to return is.
	And yet these people, very smart, capable people like Aaron Montague and others on the Palestinian cause just assert it as if it's obvious.
	And then you research their legal basis and it's some of the crappiest legal argument that exists on the planet.
	Well, the UN once said it would be good if people could return.
	That's not establishing a right to return under an internationally recognized treaty binding on Israel.
	There's nothing even vaguely resembling it.
	Least of all, is it practical?
	I'll say two things.
	First of all, I think it's quite obvious that people who expose that right of return policy, they know exactly...
	The purpose is the destruction.
	Yeah, they want to get rid of Israel.
	They don't believe in Israel like the Jewish left.
	And they don't want to be honest and admit that because that makes them look like it.
	Because what they say is right of return for this period of time, but not beforehand.
	And it doesn't go all the way back to the Romans for the Jews.
	It only goes back to the, you know...
	Well, because that's the other issue.
	So if you have a right to return wherever you've been displaced, then I guess America needs to give up all power and have the Native American tribes come back and take all our land.
	We better all move out of...
	Where does anybody in Europe go?
	Because they all live on conquered land.
	Everybody in the world lives on conquered land.
	Find me the one group of people that's never conquered anybody.
	You say it as tongue-in-cheek, but that is exactly the purpose of the people who say, you recognize that you're on indigenous land, and it doesn't belong to you because that's exactly what they want.
	Do they not know how the indigenous land came to be?
	They replaced the people that lived there before.
	That if you were actually to give land back to the people who were the only people to ever utilize it, like you take a Lockean construct, hey, you were the one to first make this land fertile.
	And by making that land fertile, that gives you legal title.
	That was kind of the old Lockean construct way back.
	Okay, most of those people, they don't exist because they've been wiped out by the other indigenous peoples.
	I mean, that's the reality.
	I mean, it's just war after war after war.
	There was no people.
	Who are born on the land they are currently living on, probably anywhere in the world.
	I can't guarantee anywhere in the world, but probably anywhere in the world.
	The whole history is people conquering and displacing their predecessor.
	That's why the right to return makes no sense on a practical basis, but it doesn't make sense on a conceptual basis, because there's nothing in law that gives you this right.
	There's nothing that says once you establish a residence, you have a permanent right to it.
	Your title derives from whatever government you're part of.
	Now, you have certain common law claims you could make.
	But again, those common law principles did not exist at the time the Palestinians occupied that region that was displaced by the Israelis.
	And so the Ottomans did not recognize legal title to land.
	They never did.
	The title stayed in the sovereign.
	This was common with a lot of different areas over time.
	So you have that problem.
	But even if you were to do it, it goes to your point.
	You've got to cut off the right to return.
	You know what it is?
	It magically starts and stops when the Palestinians profit from it.
	Other than that, the legal principle vanishes.
	The same people are printing, there's a right to return.
	No, no, no, not a right to return for Israelis.
	It's only a right to return for the side we want to win.
	And they don't want to admit, like Aaron Maté doesn't want to admit, he wants Israel gone.
	Because that's what the right to return...
	Guarantees. You bring 6 million Palestinians into Israel, give them voting rights, guess what the first thing they do is?
	Abolish Israel and kick out the Jews because that's what every other Middle Eastern regime did.
	Is there a right to return for all the Israelis that have been kicked out of every Middle Eastern country?
	Why does Aaron Maté never mention that?
	Why do all these other people never mention that?
	Because they're hypocrites on this issue.
	Len Greenwald is a hypocrite on this issue.
	That there is no right to return legally.
	There never has been.
	It's ridiculous.
	And if it was meaningfully enforced, it would be enforced against your interests, not in your favor.
	And, you know, people have a legitimate gripe where they say, okay, there's been a lot of...
	Oh, geez, what's it called?
	When you get money paid back for historical wrongs.
	Not compensation.
	Oh, whatever.
	There's been a lot of compensation from Germany towards the people that they killed.
	Because I'm not trying to limit it to the Jews, but...
	But what's the word I'm looking for, Robert?
	Well, what you're getting to is right to return is indistinguishable from reparations.
	Reparations is the word I'm looking for.
	It's the same as reparations.
	And it has the same absurd impracticality.
	For in a reparations situation, Barack Obama owes money.
	He's not owed money.
	He descends from slave owners, not slaves.
	Same with Kamala Harris.
	She drives from slaves.
	So if we're going to have anybody that ever profited...
	From slavery has to pay anybody who ever suffered from slavery or their ancestors.
	It's utterly insane, practically speaking.
	The biggest people who would owe money would be the Arabs and the Africans because nobody engaged in more slave trade than the Arabs, the Muslims, and certain African parts of Africa did.
	This is part of the historical delusion of a lot of these kind of claims.
	When I heard right to return, it's like there is no right to return.
	There's never been a right to return.
	It's not identified in any treaty.
	It's not identified as a universal principle of international law.
	It's not recognized within Israel.
	It was not recognized within the Ottoman Empire.
	It's not recognized in Jordan.
	I mean, Palestinians have gone to multiple areas and been kicked out of every Arab Muslim country they've ever gone to.
	Why? Because they just act up.
	Because they have more political interest in constantly hating Israel than they do in building their own society, building their own economy, building their own independent culture that does something other than hate on Israel.
	But putting it aside the politics of the issue, there is simply no legal basis to claim a right to return.
	There never has been and there never will be.
	It has to exist under the specific laws of that treaty or the specific laws of that government.
	And neither impose it on Israel to allow them to be abolished and eliminated by importing their adversaries and making them citizens into the nation.
	And those claiming it are doing so without any reasonable legal basis.
	Having a few statements from the UN does not constitute a legal basis.
	And my whole point with the Nazis in World War II is that there was never any right of return even for displaced Jews.
	There was some compensation and the government did that.
	And there's people are...
	Hold that as considered a double standard, that there was reparations for that, not for the Armenian Holocaust.
	But even that was not a right of return.
	It was, okay, we stole your property and now your kids get some money back.
	But M. Sidloy over in Rumble said, the previous custodian of Palestine, the UK, gave one portion to Jordan and another to Israel.
	Those two countries hold the title today.
	And most of the land went to the Muslims.
	Most of the land went to Muslims in Jordan.
	And the local Arab Muslims decided they didn't like that.
	They wanted all of it.
	It was 100% or nothing.
	That has been the Palestinian position from day one.
	The reason why Arafat told Clinton he couldn't do the deal is because he said he'd be killed if he did it.
	Why? Because they're committed.
	The right to return is a thinly disguised, bogus legal doctrine to allow the Palestinians to erase Israel from the face of the earth.
	And people like Mate don't want to admit this.
	People on the Palestinian side don't want to admit this because it sounds bad.
	You don't get to get on your moral high horse about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
	Hint, hint.
	If the population you're causing genocide of is growing at double the rate of your population, that's called not genocide.
	Under the law.
	Under the law.
	Because here there are definitions of these things that have been developed in customs and practices.
	Binding international law is not what the UN says.
	Binding international law is what the customs and practices between nations that has been accepted by courts has been over time.
	That's international law.
	Certain customs and practices.
	Otherwise, it's the treaties that you're a signatory to.
	So if you're going to claim a right to return, it's got to exist under that country's government, its own laws and constitution, by a treaty that government has signed, or by some convention or custom and practice between nations.
	The custom and practice between nations was not to recognize any right to return.
	There is no treaty that recognizes a right to return.
	And the Israeli government has never recognized it within its own laws or constitution.
	So there is no right to return.
	So it doesn't exist.
	So quit pretending it exists.
	If you want to be anti-Israel, be anti-Israel on whatever policy grounds you want to be.
	But don't make up legal doctrines to fancify your argument and make it sound like it's well-guarded in international law when it has no basis in international law.
	None. Zero.
	Zilch. Zunca.
	Randy Edwards says, I have the right to return to Canada because my mother was born there and have the right to return to England.
	Because my grandmother was born there, already confirmed through Canadian consulates.
	And that's because the domestic law allows you to do so, right?
	In other words, what's the source that gives you your right to return?
	To claim the right to citizenship in that country?
	To claim the right to legal protection in that country?
	To have the right to property in that country?
	What can give you that right is domestic laws or international law.
	But you have to look to actual law.
	There's law in Canada that protects Canadian citizens.
	They declare them as citizens in different instances.
	Sometimes different nations recognize citizenship.
	Get this.
	Take a wild guess at who they compare Trump to in the birthright citizenship context.
	Oh, it had to be Hitler, of course.
	Because that was the first thing Hitler did.
	He took away birthright citizenship.
	That means he's just like Trump.
	It's amazing where they get this stuff.
	Some countries recognize birthright citizenship.
	Some countries don't.
	Some recognize citizenship by ancestry.
	Some do not.
	Some recognize citizenship by territory.
	Some do not.
	But if you're going to determine it, it's going to be based on the domestic laws, the treaties that that country has signed, including international conventions that they are, in some instances, bound by, and the customs and practices between nations over time.
	You will not find in the Israeli constitution or the Israeli laws or any treaty that Israel has ever signed or any international custom between nations a right to return because if it was, every nation on earth would have to give up its title to land to a predecessor group of people.
	I was going to say something.
	I forget what it was, but breaking news.
	I don't know if it's breaking, Robert, but the DOJ dropped its charges against Eric Adams.
	Without prejudice, not with prejudice.
	So without, with prejudice, hold on.
	With prejudice means they can't bring it back.
	Without prejudice means they can bring it back.
	So he might still...
	But I assume that that's Trump saying no more of this.
	And I hope they keep going.
	In other words, there are so many politically motivated cases.
	So take Roger Ver.
	I think his extradition should be denied from Spain under Spanish law.
	And extradition law is similar to what the right to return is.
	Extradition law is governed by what?
	First, it's your domestic law.
	What does your domestic law say about transferring someone from another country at that country's request?
	Second, what about international law?
	In this case, what treaties have you signed, in particular extradition treaties, between this nation and the nation that's requesting the return of the individual?
	And has there been compliance with that treaty?
	And then there's certain international customs and practices.
	One of the ones they can consider in the extradition context is the degree to which the nation requesting extradition has obeyed its own laws in requesting extradition and the purpose and principle for which that prosecution is being sought, including prohibiting.
	Ones that are being brought for political reasons.
	Sometimes that predicate is based on domestic law.
	Sometimes it's in the treaty.
	Sometimes it's recognized as part of international custom and practice between nations in the context of extradition.
	Again, you look for sources of legal authority.
	And then finally, random statements from the UN, not binding authority.
	Statements by the International Criminal Court, not binding authority.
	They just aren't.
	There's some people that would like to pretend they are, but they're not.
	Though, by the way, they often contradict themselves.
	They'll criticize the International Criminal Court when the International Criminal Court comes down against Russia, and then suddenly praise the International Criminal Court when it comes down against Israel.
	It's like, which is it?
	Do you believe in this institution or not?
	Don't just conveniently say, it now becomes law because they agree with me.
	It magically doesn't become law when they don't agree with me.
	Have the same principle.
	So I've been against the ICC from day one.
	They're not a basis of, in my view, respected, recognized law under any U.S. tradition or treaty.
	But if you dig into that, Roger, the U.S. government violated the terms of the extradition treaty by lying to the courts in Spain, by lying to their own superiors, by lying to U.S. courts to help facilitate the indictment that was the predicate of the extradition request in the first place, and that on those grounds they should refuse to extradite them.
	Problem is, most governments around the Western world are terrified to stand up to the U.S. government.
	I mean, there was egregious abuse in the Kim.com case, and yet the courts in New Zealand were scared to stand up to the U.S. government.
	There was egregious abuses in a case I handled out of Australia, and yet the government was too scared to stand up to them.
	Now, ultimately, they got a good deal because of the risk that extradition posed to the U.S. government if they were to lose on appeal.
	But this is part of the problem, is these extradition treaties are not meaningfully enforced by any courts other than the U.S. courts.
	When the U.S. courts don't extradite somebody...
	They say screw the extradition treaty, and they refuse to extradite them, and they find an excuse every single time, either in the executive branch or the judicial branch.
	But all the other foreign governments are too weak to stand up to enforce their own domestic laws, to enforce their various EU conventions, European conventions that Spain is party to, that prohibit politically motivated prosecutions, everything about Roger Ver's case.
	First of all, it violates the extradition treaty because it was procured by fraudulent intent, by fraudulent actions led by the U.S. Department of Justice's tax division in the Roger Ver case, who lied about him to get the indictment and to get the extradition request and lied to Spanish courts in that process.
	But also...
	Secondly, and separately, he was clearly selectively prosecuted in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and European Union or European conventions against various forms of inhumane treatment and selective prosecution for politically motivated purposes.
	And there's nobody that can look at his case that says it doesn't fit into that definition.
	They just don't believe.
	That that should be a constitutional constraint on prosecution.
	But you look at it like, what fits selective prosecution?
	Similarly situated people not being prosecuted, number one.
	Number two, you being targeted because of your unique political affiliations and activities.
	That's all you need for a selective prosecution case.
	That violates European law which the Spanish courts should enforce.
	But they're scared to enforce.
	Because here, it's clear, both the fraud on the courts by the U.S. government authorities and The fact that it's clearly a selective prosecution, violation of European conventions and treaties to which Spain is a signatory, mean they should not extradite Roger Ver.
	The fact that he is tells you how political the whole process is.
	Because, again, nobody's been prosecuted over the exit tax criminally that I know of ever.
	Nobody's been prosecuted over how they calculated their Bitcoin payment going back to 2012, 2014, and that time period when the IRS couldn't even figure out whether Bitcoin was even income.
	Is it an asset?
	Is it income?
	They had no idea.
	They had no way to assess that.
	And so you're telling me Roger Ver is the only guy to ever be prosecuted for either of those instances as a non-citizen who relied on attorney-client advice.
	As the U.S. government lied about, you're telling me that guy is the one guy that has nothing to do with him writing books like hijacking Bitcoin and criticizing the administrative state and the deep state and the central bankers and central planners and the intelligence agencies trying to infiltrate and suppress the freedom capacity of Bitcoin, the democratizing capital capacity of Bitcoin?
	That's supposed to be a big coincidence?
	That he's the only guy prosecuted for either one of these cases, and he just happens to be the number one target of certain intelligence apparatus and Bitcoin haters, or those who want to suppress the democratizing aspect of Bitcoin in the world?
	I mean, it's obvious.
	So you can be like, Elon, stick your head in the sand for a little while about some of these kind of things.
	So be it.
	But that's no excuse for the Justice Department to do so.
	So they should dismiss.
	They should drop the request to extradite and dismiss the charges domestically here in the United States in order to affirm the Department of Justice is not engaging in constant, continuous, selective prosecution and weaponized lawfare, which is what the Roger Veer case is.
	Yes.
	The same question is going to be for Eric Adams and for Roger Veer.
	Dismissing the charges without prejudice means technically he could be recharged if anybody ever decides to recharge him.
	I'll take credit for having called it, even though there's a distinction, obviously, as far as Calci is concerned, between dismissal of charges and a pardon.
	Does Eric Adams need or get a pardon, or do they announce the same thing?
	He doesn't need a pardon if it's dismissed.
	And sometimes they prefer that, depending on the circumstances.
	If they don't like the political impact of a pardon, they prefer dismissal.
	And it appears Trump is taking the approach of preferring dismissal.
	Two pardons where applicable.
	So it makes sense that they would take that path.
	And so then the easiest path for Veer is for them to drop the extradition request.
	They could just do that first, right?
	And then second, dismiss all U.S. charges against it.
	Because it's clear that the charges being brought against him are in violation of U.S. constitutional principles and are weaponized lawfare.
	I mean, this is a guy that they refuse to tell him how much he owes.
	Refuse to allow him access to the very detailed civil collection process, which, by the way, gives extraordinary power to the IRS.
	The IRS doesn't have to recognize homestead exemptions, for example.
	They don't have to recognize your right to make a living, like most collection protection laws in most states provide for.
	IRS doesn't have to honor any of those.
	They have the most invasive, coercive tools of any collection agency in the world, outside of a pure dictatorship.
	And yet they refuse to even let him use that IRS favorable process to ascertain whether he owed any money.
	And they still refuse to tell him how much he owes.
	They're trying to put him in prison for 109 years in federal prison based on not paying taxes when they won't even tell him how much he supposedly even owes in the first place so that he could at least pay it.
	That's how nuts the prosecution of Roger Ver is.
	And so the only question is whether somebody in the Justice Department wakes up and realizes this is an embarrassing case for them to even be involved in.
	It's like the lazy Pennsylvania Attorney General who gets elected with the help of Amish votes and then turns around and decides to continue prosecuting Amos Miller.
	And that's what that halfwit did to the Attorney General in Pennsylvania.
	The Department of Justice needs to not repeat those same mistakes that some of these lower-level politicians are.
	And follow through on what they delivered, promised to the American people, which President Trump has been busy doing.
	And a best way to do that is to continue to dismiss these politically motivated cases like Roger Ver, like the Fed napping cases concerning Whitmer, like the meme case concerning Douglas Mackey, like the Blagovich case to give him a full pardon so he can re-engage in the legal process, like the Eric Adams case.
	So far he's delivered on almost all of them.
	And there's just a few more to deliver on.
	And I think that there could be some better advisors up there about some of this process.
	But we'll see how it goes.
	But I think President Trump ultimately will do the right thing.
	And at some point, the case against Roger Ver will get dismissed.
	The question is, how much hassle does Roger Ver have to go through before that happens?
	And we need these cases.
	And the other thing is, on some of these January 6th cases, Trump has talked about it.
	Definitely reinstate everybody connected to the vaccine mandates.
	He should reinstate anybody that got wrongfully terminated as part of the federal government for having any, because some people were, for simply showing up on January 6th.
	And he should look at substantial, he can override the immunity laws.
	So President Trump can just write checks, as Biden and USAID was doing to everybody and their buddy, write checks to some of these victims of lawfare.
	Roger Veer, I'm sure, will be okay because he's been an aggressive advocate for Bitcoin for a long time, and it's been very profitable during that time period.
	But a lot of January 6th defendants are not in that position.
	Their lives were wiped out.
	They're not able to rebuild them easily in many cases.
	Trump should take some of that USAID money meant to help lesbians in Guatemala and instead give it to January 6th defendants who were victimized by our own government.
	It kicked me out just in time because I wasn't able to share a screen anymore, so now I've refreshed.
	We take the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or do we have...
	Yeah, we have probably one more to discuss here.
	We have Rumble, Rumble versus Google, to discuss here.
	And then over at Locals, we'll discuss the raids case that's going up to the U.S. Supreme Court about the scope of immunity for federal government agents.
	When they raid the wrong house, as the FBI did, when foreign conduct can be criminalized.
	When libraries can engage in permissible book banning, and Hawaii insurance companies trying to derail a settlement.
	We'll discuss those four over at vibobarneslaw.locals.com and wrap up here on Rumble with a case concerning Rumble.
	Well, before we get to that, let me read a few more chats.
	Cover some of the basics.
	We're going to cover back on vivabarnes.locals.com.
	Garvin68 says, My maternal grandmother was born and raised in South Dakota before immigrating to Canada.
	I want the right to return to America.
	Are removal of federal income tax and ending estate tax on farm inheritance high priorities for this year, asks Gray101.
	Dred Roberts says, If a Palestinian...
	If Palestine is a country and they are citizens, they have the right to return to that country.
	That is a right to title and property, or any property.
	It's like America being allowed to return to the USA.
	They don't need to own anything in the USA.
	Mark Roberts says, always wondered why they didn't prosecute Alex Jones on January 6th.
	It's not beyond them to make up facts for prosecution with jail time.
	Wouldn't that have accomplished more by keeping him off the air for four plus years?
	Robert, can you be too clean for the corrupt feds?
	Well, the problem was he had overwhelming evidence in his favor.
	And they didn't want that evidence broadcast to the jury or the world.
	Until his empty says burns.
	Before the election, you said Trump was either going to be a transitional or transformational president.
	Happily, he chose transformational fork in the road.
	Thank you for help getting him there.
	That's a good graph there.
	Kiki says, I wanted Barnes to answer my question the last time.
	I'll have to see what that question was.
	Patent attorney included...
	Oh, I got this before.
	Let me see.
	Kiki, just go up real quick and see if I can find it.
	Kiki, Kiki, Kiki.
	And then I'll have to see if I missed any.
	Can someone explain with all the shenanigans at the IRS and Treasury and rogue judges being totally blatant about hiding support why we should bother filing taxes?
	Okay, well, Robert, answer that question.
	I think it's a hyperbolic question to begin with.
	Well, it's an understandable one.
	You're paying taxes and the money's not being used in the way that it's supposed to be constitutionally.
	You have understandable concern.
	A mechanism of political protest has been to...
	Withhold paying tax.
	As a practical matter, the government doesn't act that way.
	They treat you like a criminal when you don't pay whatever they demand.
	They'll treat you as a criminal even if you do, like Roger Ver.
	Okay, I think I got all these.
	Okay, so the Google...
	Sorry, it's Rumble versus Google where they've been getting good indications of Google monopolistic practices.
	This is the one...
	Where Rumble is alleging that Google is basically abusing of its monopoly over YouTube video search engines to drive traffic.
	Is this the advertising one or the driving traffic?
	So that basically what Google was doing is violating antitrust laws and some other laws by suppressing Rumble.
	That once Google owned YouTube, its principal goal was to use its powerful search engine to suppress and exclude Rumble.
	So that if you went to Google YouTube and searched for a Rumble video, even if you put the Rumble itself in the search, no Rumble video showed up.
	So they basically blacklisted Rumble from its search engine.
	And so that was deceptive of a lot of consumers and customers.
	So there's that aspect.
	But it was abusing their de facto monopoly.
	A monopoly doesn't have to be legally established.
	It can be factually established.
	If you have more than 75-80% of a particular market space, you have a monopoly.
	And there are certain obligations.
	Now, just being a monopoly is not illegal.
	Misusing that monopoly power is what's illegal under the Sherman and Clinton various antitrust laws.
	Rumble brought suit, survived motions to dismiss, got into discovery.
	We don't know the full scale of the evidence Rumble has developed because much of the motion practice is under seal.
	Presumably because there's issues involving proprietary trade secrets inside the summary judgment motion that Google has now brought.
	What I was able to deduce from the public hearing that was later reported on was that Google's argument is first that statute of limitations, that they're arguing, hey, some of this stuff was years ago, so it should be out.
	And Rumble's counter is, no, you keep doing it.
	And as certain people found out in the Kennedy case, That is, in fact, a tolls the statute of limitations.
	The second argument was an interesting one.
	Google was arguing in federal court this week that their search engine is utter crap.
	That nobody uses their search engine for anything.
	That their search engine doesn't monetize, create any monetization opportunity.
	Hmm. So has Google been mass lying to all of the people who advertise on Google and pay for those sponsorships?
	Because that appears to be what their lawyer is admitting in court, that there's even a bigger scandal involving Google, that they're engaged in mass deception and consumer fraud on everybody who's advertising on Google by misleading them into believing that there's a bunch of people that use Google Search.
	Or you could have an alternative conclusion, like the one Rumble advanced, that Google didn't buy YouTube to lose money on it, and Google doesn't manipulate its search engines to lose money.
	And so there are suggestions that, oh, there can be no factual dispute that our search engine is complete crap, is belied by Google's own claims that it makes the people who advertise on Google, as well as to the stockholders, who they've made completely different statements about.
	Their main defense is they recognize they violated the law against Rumble, but they want to pretend it wasn't a consequential...
	Violation of the law because they're claiming their products are crap.
	Well, they have to find a way to get around the original video, which was basically, I forget who the woman was 10 years ago, saying, we curate and we manipulate the search results, even if it's against the financial interests of our partners.
	So then I say, well, yeah, what was the argument as to what other search engines are being used?
	You got Brave, DuckDuckGo.
	What else is there?
	Search engines have nothing to do with the use of either YouTube or Rumble.
	And there's only 1% of people ever click on anything and so forth.
	And it's like some of that may be true, but to the degree it is, it means they've engaged in massive fraud on the public market at the SEC.
	Everybody who's bought Google stock has been lied to, according to their lawyers in court, and that all the advertisers have been lied to.
	Right now, Facebook faces a massive class action related to this.
	That they were deliberately exaggerating the number of people your advertising would reach on Facebook.
	It could sink meta because most of their money came from basically lying to advertisers.
	But that's where it's like the only way they can get out of it is to pretend their products are utter crap.
	And we all know they're not manipulating the search engine because it has no consequence.
	They know exactly how much consequence it has.
	It manipulates people's minds.
	It manipulates branding.
	And it's not just directly clicking through.
	It's the overall branding and knowledge of access to it.
	And they did it.
	Even though Rumble was only a tiny competitor at the time and is a more substantial competitor now, they've done it to cost Google billions of dollars.
	And that's why I think ultimately...
	We'll see.
	You know, the judge is an Obama appointee.
	And now Biden is gone.
	So we'll see what their attitude towards Google is in this context.
	But legally, Rumble should survive the motion for summary judgment, which means there would be a trial in May in California that could not only empower Google, I'm sorry, empower Rumble.
	But could substantially disempower Google, who's facing a separate antitrust action from the Justice Department about whether they should own YouTube in the first place.
	So I think one way or another, Rumble is either going to prevail here or Google is going to be forced to give up YouTube and will disconnect the search engine from YouTube.
	And by the way, the evidence developed in the antitrust case completely rebuts every single defense they made to Rumble that was publicly disclosed this week.
	So Rumble should win.
	The summary judgment, not a guarantee.
	I would put the odds at two-thirds chance they win.
	So there are people out there, there are betting markets now that are, and there's Google stock and Rumble stock that is directly influenced by how you perceive this case.
	I, in full disclosure, I own neither.
	Friends with Chris Pawlowski, a fan of Rumble, but own no stock in Rumble.
	I'm not an employee of Rumble.
	One of, you know, Rumble's general counsel is now a...
	Unbelievable! Deputy Director of the CIA.
	Yeah, I was like, holy cow, I know that guy.
	Finally, it's useful to know some of the intelligence people that will be spying on me.
	At least I know who they are that are spying on me.
	Say, hey, Michael, how you doing?
	I used to text him.
	I don't know if I'm allowed texting him anymore.
	It's wild.
	Yeah, Michael Ellis, great guy.
	You run into him all the time at the events.
	Mildly close, and it's amazing to see someone.
	Appointed back into the administration and a wicked, awesome, intelligent guy.
	And it's great to know somebody at the CIA.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But yeah, I'm hopeful that Rumble prevails.
	Rumble should prevail.
	And I think sooner or later, whether the district court level, the court of appeals, or the antitrust case, Rumble will get what they want.
	Sooner or later, Google is going to have to stop suppressing Rumble.
	On its search engine.
	And whether that's done because they no longer own YouTube, because they've been forced to divest of it, or they do it because they lose in this court case, I think one or the other, that's going to be the long-term outcome, which is good for Rumble.
	Rumble's going to get some money down the road at some point from Google, but more importantly, not be blacklisted from the search engines in a way that will naturally begin to continue to boost Rumble's use and Rumble access and Rumble awareness, which is the only free speech space fully.
	I mean, X is good, but not as good as Rumble.
	Rumble has been the best for free speech around the world, advocating for even to the point of being suppressed in places like France and Russia and Brazil.
	So Rumble has proven their bona fides and our confidence in them verified and validated.
	But this is a legal matter.
	They should win.
	So I hope they do.
	All right, and last one will be the segue before we head on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I don't know if you guys have seen it, but MAGA Minute videos are the best thing I've seen come from the government in decades.
	Full transparency video updates from the White House about things done.
	Incredible. It's transformational.
	It's truly a time to be alive.
	All right, Rob, what do you have coming up this week?
	So first, I have a mediation tomorrow.
	Then I have to fly up to Minnesota.
	I have an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals argument on one of our vaccine mandate cases that a judge didn't allow to go forward.
	And then otherwise, preparing for some cases that are coming up in March.
	Some criminal sentencing, some things like that.
	A big criminal trial in Seattle.
	Discovery in another case.
	Some of the Amish cases keep going.
	Getting some of the other vaccine mandate cases resolved that can get resolved.
	Which one is, you know, otherwise there'll be some ones that we're fighting in the Court of Appeals for and so on and so forth.
	But yeah, so it'll be a busy week, but the bourbons will probably be back.
	Probably be back Thursday.
	We'll probably have one bourbon this week on Thursday night because Tuesday night will be travel and Wednesday night will be travel as well.
	Shofar says, Robert, does the president have the right to doge, to give doge the right to freeze the payments to NGOs in deep state?
	Because he has discretion to how the money is spent.
	So he's only limited.
	By what Congress put strings on.
	And generally speaking, there's all kinds of loot.
	What Congress didn't allocate said, hey, USA will spend this amount of money at this time on this project.
	Congress never did that.
	USA didn't want that because USA didn't want the whole world to know most of the time what it was up to.
	That it was a secret democratic patronage machine and a secret deep state sabotage machine, not only of the governments around the world, but of America.
	That's what people are underappreciating, I think, in some circles.
	This wasn't just regime change around the world.
	This USAID was engaged in regime change in the United States against the U.S. government of President Trump in his first term.
	USAID helped fund the impeachment of President Trump.
	These are things that you won't find authorized in Congress's budget, what USAID was using.
	That is the things President Trump has carte blanche to move around as he sees fit.
	His only limitation is when and what Congress said it could be spent on, not where and how it is spent.
	All right, people, get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to get the rest of the tipped questions link here, and I'll be live tomorrow, probably with the unusuals on Wednesday, and same old schedule this week.
	Everybody, if you're not coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, get Louie the Lobster!
	Here it is, Amazon.
	Link is in the thing there.
	I see NeuroDivergent is...
	Beautiful. Beautiful art by one of our local board members' daughters.
	She's amazing.
	And it's amazing.
	All right.
	Awesome. Thank you, everyone.
	Get on over to Locals, and I'm updating the stream now, and I will see you all tomorrow.

▲