Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 23, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:32

Ep. 252: Liberals DISQUALIFY Candidate from Race! DOGE Wins & Loses; Rumble Sues BRAZIL! & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The CIA has complied immediately, by the way.
	That's good.
	But I understand Maine.
	Is Maine here?
	The governor of Maine?
	Are you not going to comply with it?
	I'm complying with state and federal laws.
	Well, we are the federal law.
	Well, you better do it.
	You better do it because you're not going to get any federal funding at all if you don't.
	And by the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal, although I did very well there.
	Your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports.
	So you better comply because otherwise you're not getting any federal funding.
	Good, I'll see you in court.
	I look forward to that.
	That should be a real easy one.
	And enjoy your life after governor because I don't think you'll be in elected politics.
	Sorry. That last part.
	Enjoy your life afterwards.
	I didn't know where Trump was going with that.
	I got to show you the caption for this.
	I hope that was loud enough because you couldn't really hear what the governor of Maine was saying in the backdrop.
	All right.
	Where do we start with this?
	That was Donald Trump.
	I forget when President Trump addresses governors at White House, invited the governors, basically said, you're going to comply with executive orders and federal law.
	Or you ain't going to get any federal funding.
	This particular executive order that the governor of Maine, a woman, she must have had access to a biologist who confirmed what she was, says, we're going to abide by state and federal law.
	This is as it relates to not letting men, boys, play in women's girls sports.
	To which he says, I am the federal law.
	This guy, Tim Walker, don't know him from, I've never seen him before.
	Let me see this here.
	It says, Tim Walker.
	At ThatTimWalker, a point of view.
	Oh, he's on Blue Sky.
	Well, that explains everything.
	ThatTimWalker.bsky.social.
	BSKY, the platform that had such a problem with CSAM that the moderators couldn't respond to requests fast enough.
	Okay, so this guy's chumming it around with the potato files on Blue Sky, but set that aside.
	He unironically tweets in a room full of men.
	It's the lone woman that has the courage.
	First of all, dumbass, how are you even able to identify what a woman is?
	This is the lone woman in a room full of men.
	Are there no other female governors there?
	Saying that she's going to defy Donald Trump's executive order to not let men and boys compete in women's and girls' sports.
	So she's got the courage, all right.
	Do you know what that proves right there?
	That you have an irrational idiot of a woman.
	I just see her as a human, but interesting that he sees her as a woman, being an idiot.
	If you see things through the spectrum of identity politics, gender politics, racial politics, you might look at that lone woman and say that she is a batshit crazy idiot.
	Doesn't understand the law, doesn't understand biology, doesn't understand basic justice, doesn't understand actual women's rights.
	And you gotta love Trump saying, well, that's it.
	Good. Don't do it.
	No federal funding.
	What's that?
	You think you're a spoiled rotten brat and you get to get your parental allowance without having to follow your parental rules?
	I'm sorry, forget about the way the legal system works.
	Yeah, feds, we want that money.
	We're just not going to follow your laws.
	We're going to enact sanctuary cities.
	We're going to protect illegal aliens from...
	Federal law enforcement, but still give us some of that sweet sugar because we're a bunch of spoiled, rotten, juvenile brats.
	Not necessarily the image that you want to be projecting as the lone woman in the room to the extent that she was that.
	So congrats, Governor of Maine.
	We all knew you're an idiot.
	Was it the Secretary of State of Maine that tried to remove Trump from the ballot?
	Yeah. No federal funding for you.
	Not complicated.
	You do what the feds ask, or you don't get the sweet gravy that comes from the feds.
	Only a child would say, I don't like you.
	I'm not following your rules, but give me that money.
	Which is exactly what she's saying.
	Now, by the way, just, you know, on the issue of women, girls, you never thought you'd ever gonna hear Viva start a rant against the Girl Scouts.
	I gotta tell you something.
	I'm angry.
	Nobody can say no to the Girl Scouts.
	They come, they ring the doorbell, they say, we're raising money, it's a cute little kid.
	They're like, oh yeah, we're raising money.
	Who could say no?
	Why are they selling cookies?
	What year are we in?
	They're still selling cookies.
	You can't say no to a kid when they're selling cookies.
	You can't say no to the girls.
	So, all right, 20 bucks.
	You can't do less than 20 bucks.
	Otherwise, you're a cheap bastard.
	What can I get for 20 bucks?
	Well, sir, you can get three boxes of cookies that you don't want, that have ingredients that you don't like.
	So my wife, PhD, not very impressed with the ingredients.
	Listen to this.
	I got three boxes of these.
	I'm either going to go give them to a neighbor or I'm going to burn them because with that level of sugar and...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Carbs in there.
	Those would be good fire starters.
	It might be cheaper than the fire starter I get.
	I want to sell carrots.
	Sell oregano.
	Not oregano.
	Yeah, oregano.
	No, not oregano.
	Cilantro is what I'm thinking of.
	I'm thinking of the dryer.
	Sell cilantro.
	I will buy four bushels of cilantro for twice the price of one box of cookies.
	Ingredients. Sugar.
	That's great.
	Number one ingredient.
	Vegetable oil.
	I don't even know what that is.
	Enriched flour.
	These are three shite ingredients, back to back to back.
	Vitamin B, good.
	Folic acid, fine.
	Corn syrup.
	Coconut. I hate coconut.
	Do you all know why I hate coconut?
	If I haven't told the story, I'll save it for another day.
	I hate coconut.
	Sweetened condensed milk, sugar, whatever the heck.
	What else do we get in here?
	I don't even know what this is.
	Leavening, okay.
	Garbage. Garbage.
	Girl Scouts, sell something healthy.
	But I'm happy to support you nonetheless.
	So, from the irrational lone woman in the room to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, get some healthy stuff, raise some money with it.
	You'll raise more money.
	Get some Amos Miller vegetables.
	I will pay much more for that.
	I got these things.
	Cookies. Cookies.
	Good evening, everybody.
	This is Viva Frye, David Frye, Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler on our Sunday night law extravaganza show.
	We've got a doozy for everybody tonight.
	Let me make sure that we are live across all platforms.
	I believe that we are live across Rumble.
	We are live on CommieTube.
	And we are live on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, where I see everyone in Barnes.
	Please save us.
	All right.
	That is the intro rant.
	I got another good one, which we're going to get to in a second.
	But before we even get there, I do want to bring up our sponsor of the evening and figure I have to cuss out the...
	Cuss out the children.
	I'm not cussing out the children, but...
	Okay, that's it.
	Done. Our sponsor of The Eating People, The Wellness Company.
	I need to make sure to play the video this time so that we watch this while we're talking about it.
	Elon Musk's dedication to Doge, by the way.
	He will likely uncover spending on weather modification.
	What's her face?
	Shanahan was just talking about this.
	Weather modifications played apparently potentially a major role in the decline of people's health.
	Influx of sickness taking over America is not natural.
	We've also seen this fog, which contains something called sericea marcisins, a bacteria, in the samples tested.
	With the wellness company's medical emergency kit, you can tackle the serious health concerns and potentially avoid hospitalizations, or at least until a doctor can see you.
	This beautiful compact blue case right there on your right.
	It carries medicines like ivermectin, Z-Pak, amoxicillin, six other essential prescription medications.
	They will be right at the tips of your fingers when you need them.
	You can literally order it from your couch in a matter of minutes, hopefully while you're not eating those Girl Scout cookies.
	The process is fully digital.
	Their medical board created a guidebook that outlines common treatments for UTIs, urinary tract infections, strep throat, bacterial infections, respiratory illnesses, and more.
	It takes...
	A matter of minutes to fill out online.
	Digital intake form, you fill it out one to two weeks, the kit arrives at your door.
	Don't let illness catch you off guard.
	Order your kit now by heading to twc.health forward slash Viva.
	Promo code Viva gets you $30 off and free shipping.
	And by the way, kits are only available in the US.
	So me scoozies to my Canadian counterparts, twc.health forward slash Viva.
	And the link is in the description.
	All right, now I wanted to start with the other rant, but I wasn't sure if it would last too long for an intro rant.
	If you haven't been following the news, people, Enrique Tarrio gave a press conference with some other Proud Boys with Ivan Raiklin Friday in D.C. I like Enrique Tarrio.
	Period. Full stop.
	Nobody's perfect.
	Some people are more perfect than others.
	I don't even know what the hell that means.
	Nobody's perfect.
	I like Enrique Tarrio.
	So, full disclosure.
	He was given a press conference, and...
	The video that went viral was of him.
	This is where the video starts, and we'll watch it.
	Allegedly, apparently, ostensibly slapping a phone out of a woman's hand.
	And then the woman swiftly demands that Enrique Tarrio be arrested, which, this being D.C., in D.C., where right in front of D.C. police, where he was just pardoned for his egregious, non-existent, seditious conspiracy, they proceed to arrest him.
	They arrest him.
	And they actually charged him with simple assault, I believe, and released him the same day.
	Thank goodness.
	When I saw this and I texted him, I was like, dude, when do you get out?
	Because hopefully they're not going to detain you.
	Deny bail.
	This is the video, and I'm not going to play the whole thing because it's long, but this is the moment, and we're going to get into this.
	Come on, come on.
	Oh, they're doing their job.
	Alright, that's the moment.
	Okay, so we don't know what happens.
	It's right as he...
	Let's just go super slow motion.
	Why the hell is she that close to him?
	Touching him, doing Lord knows what, and he smacks it.
	Okay, doesn't know what to do.
	Alright. That's the video.
	And this woman, if you didn't know anything any better, you wouldn't know that she's a toxic...
	As far as I'm concerned, assaulty, provocateur, harasser, stalker.
	Listen, listen.
	So that's the video there.
	What you don't see in that particular video is the woman from before.
	Listen to this.
	This is, you'll hear her in the backdrop, using a bullhorn to harass and, forget the insults, harass and use audible, loud noises for the purposes of assault.
	Stop platforming Nazis!
	Stop platforming Nazis!
	Yeah, right.
	I am.
	You literally did.
	Stop platforming Nazis!
	That's her.
	I like this one.
	Haarashment, just haarshing us.
	I saw there was a two-hour livestream of the entire event and I watched it with extreme interest.
	The woman is batshit crazy.
	A lunatic who was sitting there stalking, harassing, screaming in their ears, getting in their face, sticking her phone, making contact with persons.
	And she did that for a solid two hours before, from what I understand, happened.
	She touched Enrique with her phone and he didn't know what it was and he slapped it out of her hand or shoved it away from him and got swiftly arrested.
	I'm lying.
	Can you close the door, please?
	And that's what happened.
	Now, people don't know, but using loud noise things in proximity to someone's ear is assault.
	Forget the harassment, forget everything else.
	The only problem is the woman was going around looking for that reaction.
	She spent two hours trying to get it, and Enrique, in a moment of weakness or in a moment of confusion where he put up with it for so long, why wouldn't he put up with it for another five minutes?
	From what I understand, didn't know what was touching him and thought, for someone who had already been stabbed in the abdomen, By Antifa at a prior protest, didn't know what the hell this psycho biatch was doing, and smacked what was ever in her hands that was making contact with his body out of her hands.
	He was released the same day.
	From what I understand, they did in fact press charges, and they haven't dropped the charges.
	But the consensus is that they will, because it's a load of crap, and this woman is exactly what she appears to be, a batshit crazy person, looking to get that rise up.
	Just following them around for two hours, interfering with their...
	With their press conference.
	The D.C. police do absolutely nothing while she's using a bullhorn in certain times to scream in people's ears, a whistle to scream in people's faces.
	The D.C. police do nothing.
	And then the moment Enrique Tarrio slaps a phone out of her hand, whatever he knew that it was, well, then they sprint into action.
	Those big bad men come to protect the wee victim woman.
	But the problem is...
	People are going to want to see Enrique back in jail, and they're going to do everything within their power, within the realms of the law, to make sure that he does something, snaps, or whatever, to make that happen, because that is going to be their absolute wish list.
	All right, until Barnes gets here, people.
	By the way, the way it works is we're going to start live on Rumble, YouTube, Twitter, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com in about, I don't want to say, at about an hour.
	Maybe a little less.
	We're going to move on over, vote with our feet, vote with our eyeballs, and get on over to Rumble.com.
	We're talking Rumble tonight because they've got a great lawsuit against the evil...
	We're going to call him Dr. Evil.
	Alexandre de Marais out of Brazil.
	So that's the schedule.
	When Barnes gets here, we're going to bring him in.
	But for now, we'll just cover some crumble rants, super chats, and tip questions.
	Cheryl Gage says, if Adam Schiff really ends up in prison, I'll be so happy I'll buy even more Girl Scout cookies.
	I would not hold your breath for that to happen.
	But I'm going to float my legal theory with Barnes when he gets in here.
	Good luck in Seattle on Monday.
	This is Barnes has got a nasty trial tomorrow starting in Seattle.
	We're going to talk about that.
	Are you in communication with Tim Iman and WeTheGovern?
	Would love to see you have either of them on.
	They might be able to help connect you to local council.
	That is from August, B37, over in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ashley St. Clair.
	Is a conservative thought, PSYOP.
	That is all, says Bill Dozer.
	I'm not getting involved.
	I mean, look, I'm following it.
	It's fun in the sense that I won't call that grifting, but I do call that gossiping.
	The initial discussion when Ashley St. Clair announced that she had carried Elon Musk's baby was whether or not conservatives should congratulate a woman on having had a baby if that baby is out of wedlock.
	That was the original discussion.
	It's getting freaking serious from a Jerry Springer type perspective right now because Ashley St. Clair put out the tweet.
	I've had this kid.
	Thank you.
	Congratulations. Good for you, Mazel Tov.
	Nothing but happiness.
	Now it's not clear if she was honeypotting Elon Musk or Elon's not an idiot.
	He's done this with other people.
	It wouldn't be his first rodeo, pun intended.
	But it's getting wild because now you got Milo Yiannopoulos pulling up tweets from a while ago, making it look like this was a trap so that she could get pregnant, not unwittingly to Elon's plans and then carry his baby.
	And now she's apparently making a motion in family court for sole custody.
	I can imagine, I could steal man arguments as to why she maybe wants the baby not to grow up in the public light, like X who's, you know, going to be in the political limelight.
	I can understand all that.
	It's gossipy.
	There's very little legal value to it.
	And at the end of the day, there's also a baby's life that's involved.
	But thank you for the tip question.
	We got ticker over on vivobarnslaw.locals.com.
	Wait till you find out how much glyphosate, Roundup, are in those Girl Scout cookies discovered after recent testing.
	Don't make me do that.
	Oh, God.
	We got Rusty Gus over on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Viva, can you give a cute little Girl Scouts your money without taking the toxic cookies?
	I was half inclined to do that, but I didn't want to look like that's an act of not disrespect, but I could have done that.
	I probably should have done that.
	Argentinian Malay, Bitcoin drama.
	His sister taking money.
	Is there any truth to this?
	I haven't heard about his sister taking any money.
	Live tonight, maybe Encryptus can see if there's any truth to that.
	My understanding thus far, and I've gotten mildly deep into it, is that Malay tweeted something out.
	He thought it was a viable project.
	Well, I should wait until Barnes gets here.
	Let me actually make sure that Barnes is coming.
	Now I'm getting nervous if he has his trial tomorrow.
	You're coming, comma, right?
	LOL. We'll get into that.
	We'll get into that.
	Okay, now, what else did I have on the backdrop that we could use as the intro?
	Oh, here.
	Just by way of an example, I'm going to make sure to lower the volume on this.
	This is what the woman was doing the entire time.
	I'm not sure that this the same one.
	This is what I mean by this is actual assault.
	I'm not even going to play this.
	All right.
	Okay, let's go see one more thing over here on Commitube.
	We got David.
	Don't take the award to Vegas.
	Eric and Mark can buy Robert a new one, says Fletcher Boy.
	And then we're scrolling up here.
	We got Heart Taco.
	I haven't seen you in a while, Heart.
	Hey, Viva.
	New box goodies on the way.
	Be in Miami and Boca end of May.
	If you're around, love to take you to dinner.
	Or we can go fishing.
	This is Hart Tackle, people.
	H-A-R-T Tackle.
	Made in America.
	Great lures.
	Eclectic Deb says, people have forgotten that the drinking age in the U.S. was set at 21 in the 1980s after Feds threatened to restrict funding to states.
	I never knew that to begin with.
	Okay, I'm not reading that one either from there.
	And then what else do we got here?
	David. Okay, fine.
	We got that.
	All right, people.
	I had one other thing.
	We'll talk something Canadian until Robert gets here.
	Where is...
	Oh! Okay, first things first.
	A good laugh.
	The left are...
	They lack a sense of humor and they lack introspection.
	And therefore, they're prone to make these types of mistakes.
	I presume that the community notes is largely left still activist motivated on Twitter.
	People were freaking out all week that Trump fired.
	A general of the military.
	And I had to get into this with, who was it?
	Oh, it was that Russian propagandist guy again, Pekka Kalyomene.
	You won't believe the level of stupidity that exists within this world.
	Let me pull it up.
	Pekka Kalyomene, the man who I will continue to needle on Twitter because he's an idiot.
	Here, hold on a second.
	And remorselessly, I shall continue.
	This is the expert on Russian disinformation who comes onto Twitter and does nothing but spew disinformation.
	Here. Pekka Kalyomieni.
	Listen to this.
	The original tweet.
	Pekka Kalyomieni says, first, take over the media.
	Replace officials and judges with loyalists.
	Silence the opposition and then take over the military.
	I've never seen a country slide into authoritarianism so quickly.
	Firstly, what media has Trump taken over?
	I mean, if you think that we are the media now on Twitter, I can understand it.
	Fine. At least you're acknowledging that legacy media is dead, and rightly so.
	Replace officials and judges with loyalists, also known as appointments.
	You know, like when you got Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench?
	You know when Joe Biden, in his last week in office, was ramming through federal judges?
	Silence the opposition.
	Well, they're doing a very bad job at that.
	And then take over the military.
	I'm not a constitutionalist.
	I'm just someone with half a brain.
	President of the United States of America is literally the commander-in-chief.
	You rapacious moron.
	The commander-in-chief doesn't take over the military.
	He has control over the military.
	He took control over the military when the American people gave him control over the military when they elected him to be the president and commander-in-chief.
	That's Pecky Kilimane with his infinite wisdom.
	But then you get Jack Posobiec, who's a great troller on the interwebs, who comes in and says, this is the first time in U.S. history a general has been fired.
	Anybody who knows Jack...
	And you know Jack.
	Anybody who knows Jack and anybody who understands tongue-in-cheek glib humor knows exactly that this was supposed to be sarcastic or a bait that the idiots took.
	Reader added context that you thought you might want to know.
	Presidents have fired generals before.
	Idiots. Truman fired General MacArthur.
	Lincoln fired General McClellan.
	And even Obama fired General McChrystal.
	Take that.
	Jack, you've been community noted, biatch.
	And you guys absolutely missed the point of what was going on.
	Oh. Oh.
	Thank you.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Encryptus sent me something in the backdrop.
	Oh, here we go.
	Okay, let me bring this one up.
	Put it in the private chat.
	Here we go.
	We got it here.
	Let's bring this up live and we're going to see this.
	Oh, boy.
	This doesn't look good if it looks like it's what it is.
	Libra, crypto scandal.
	Oh, okay.
	Oh, that sucks.
	Okay, let's go like this.
	Archive. And we'll put it here.
	One more step.
	Okay, well, we're going to do this.
	While it does this, it looks like there are allegations that his sister may have taken some money.
	Malay crypto.
	This is from Bloomberg.
	Take it with a grain of salt.
	Nobody likes Malay.
	you knew that if they were going to make up these allegations uh he gave them the grounds to it Malay crypto scandal widens with allegations against his sister.
	Memecoin investor reportedly bragged about paying Karina Malay.
	Argentine president facing biggest scandal of his term.
	Yeah, this is hopefully the biggest scandal of his term.
	Presidency, because this is serious.
	The political uproar over Argentine President Javier Malay's role in the crypto scandal has cast a spotlight on his closest advisor and gatekeeper, his sister.
	Hayden Davis, a key figure behind the Libre token, which surged, then crashed on Friday after Malay promoted it on X, bragged in a text message to another investor that he was paying Karina Malay to get the president to do his bidding, according to separate reports Tuesday by Argentina's Marque.
	La Nation newspaper and crypto industry site Coindesk.
	Davis, who hasn't responded to multiple requests for comment, denied to Coindesk that he made payments to the president.
	It was also Karina who first took a meeting at the presidential palace with local crypto consultant Mauricio Novelli, who later introduced her brother to several of the parties involved in the meme coin La Nation reported Sunday.
	Tokens crash.
	And the government's botched attempts to reclaim the narrative have snowballed into the biggest scandal the Libertarian has faced since taking power more than a year ago.
	First, an advisor to Karina Millay redirected Bloomberg's request for comments to Millay's chief spokesperson who declined to comment on the news reports.
	Davis acknowledged in an interview with Barstool Sports on Monday that he made money from Libra and was seeking ways to make things right.
	He described the situation as a botched launch.
	Davis said he firmly believes Malay is not corrupt and said the money from the venture belongs to people on the Argentine president's team or whom he thought was Malay's team.
	Malay to his vicer...
	Oh, boy.
	Well, that doesn't look good.
	All right.
	We'll see.
	What she was paid for, what she was receiving monies for, what she thought she was receiving monies for.
	This is why you do business with scoundrels and it's going to rub off badly.
	Especially when there's a massive potential presidency ending scandal like the one that we've seen.
	Now I'm getting nervous.
	Whenever Barnes is substantially late, I get nervous the feds got him.
	Let me just double check with Robert and see what the deal is here.
	Did the feds...
	Did the...
	Feds get you, question mark, LOL.
	All right, we'll see where that's going.
	In the meantime, people, if you didn't see the interview that we had yesterday, we'll start with some Canadian law.
	The scandal that's brewing in Canada is that the Liberal Party is corrupt to the core, misogynist to the core.
	I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek.
	That they're corrupt to the core.
	And we're having the general election or the leadership race for the Liberal Party.
	Government's prorogued until March 24th.
	Justin Trudeau said he's going to resign.
	He will resign once his replacement has been appointed following a robust national leadership race.
	Okay. They're in the midst of that right now.
	And it would seem that they don't like the competition because just like that, they've decided to disqualify the competition.
	A woman named Rudy Dalla.
	You may or may not have known her.
	She's born in Winnipeg.
	Her parents are from India.
	I'm not exactly sure where.
	She says she's a liberal, but the policies that she esposes makes her more conservative than liberal.
	We're certainly not within the standard liberal party as it exists today.
	They've unilaterally disqualified her, alleging that she engaged in some election finance problems.
	And I had her on yesterday.
	After the scandal broke, I reached out via DM and she graciously accepted.
	And she was actually a mildly reasonable person to talk to.
	Actually exposes mildly reasonable policy.
	Deport illegal immigrants.
	Zero tolerance on drugs.
	Tough on crime.
	I was like, okay, you're not a liberal.
	At least you're not this liberal party.
	They kicked her out.
	Bullcrap excuse.
	Unanimous decision within the party.
	No rules, no nothing, no transparency.
	They just kicked her out.
	I had her on yesterday.
	Listen to this.
	There are people in the chat suggesting, and it's not an implausible theory, that you were paraded as a woman, a minority, and was good for fundraising.
	And now that they've fundraised off of you, they can set you aside.
	What happens to the funds that you raised if they, in fact, disqualify you from the party?
	Do they go to the Liberal Party at large, or do they get refunded?
	Well, firstly, I can tell you I never entered the race to be a pretty face or for any party to be able to check all the boxes, you know, of having a woman, a woman of colour, someone who is young.
	I entered this race to actually win it.
	And I entered this race to talk about progressive policy ideas that are the need of the hour, you know, of our country.
	And it is really surprising to me that, as you have shared, that there was a $350,000, you know, entry fee required for this race, the final date.
	The date of that deadline was the 17th of February.
	And guess what?
	A few hours later, after the deposit fee was given, we were requested to have a meeting with various Liberal Party officials.
	It was after that fee was given.
	So I don't know if this was all pre-planned and strategic, but I can tell you those...
	Hundreds of volunteers that contributed to my campaign, it was because they believed in the vision that Ruby Dalla had for the Liberal Party.
	That $350,000 was not being given to fill up the piggy banks or the pockets or the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada.
	And now that they have made this decision.
	The Liberal Party needs to do the right thing, the honorable thing, what would be with the highest degree of integrity, and refund that $350,000 to those hard-working Canadians.
	That's the end.
	I was thinking, am I getting played in that this is a way to make a Liberal candidate actually look like you could be able to vote for her?
	I don't think they're going to invite her back to the debate.
	The debate is tomorrow.
	It's Mark Carney, the WEF globalist pig that he is.
	Three passports, by the way.
	Three passports.
	He's running for Prime Minister of Canada.
	A man who has never been a sitting member of Parliament.
	A WEF goon who has loyalty apparently to England and Ireland is set to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
	And he will be if he wins this leadership race which is looking as curated as the Kamala Harris race because it's not a federal election yet.
	The federal election comes afterwards.
	So this man, whoever replaces Justin Trudeau, will be the next Prime Minister of Canada, and it's going to be this scumbag WEF stooge with three passports.
	All right, Robert's in the backdrop.
	I see him, unless he's having camera problems.
	He'll come in in a second when he gets in here.
	Lots on the right are unduly harsh on Farage.
	Trump figured out he needs generally...
	Generals... Laterally and his admin loyal lieutenants down to enforce rules and leaders like Bannon to enforce the message.
	Faraj needs to learn the same lesson.
	I'm not sure what that's about, actually, but...
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	No, you're either on mute or your audio is not working.
	Oh, geez.
	How about now?
	Now I can hear you.
	Okay. And we'll let Encryptus tell us if the audio level is good.
	Sir. How are you doing?
	You're getting ready for some serious shenanigans tomorrow.
	Yeah, fly out tonight to Seattle, Washington.
	There's a sentencing in the Seattle City Court, that's municipal court there, in the afternoon at 1.30, in case of the city of Seattle versus Kurt Benzhoof, B-N-S-H-O-O-F.
	And the city is, you know, we'll talk about senseless in Seattle, this case, combined with the county case, combined with other things that are happening in his cases.
	But the short answer is the city is seeking to put him in prison for six years, up to 80 years, 80 years or more, for simply talking to his son, responding to his son by text.
	That's literally it.
	And because they got a court to issue what I consider a patently unconstitutional no-contact order, that's where we're at.
	But in the state of Washington, where murderers and rapists get low sentences, they're demanding six years or up to 80 years life imprisonment for simply talking to your own teenage son at his request.
	That's the insanity the city of Seattle has got to.
	I never realized his last name is Ben's Hoof.
	Is he German or Caucasian?
	Yeah, I guess he'd be listed in their system as Caucasian.
	So from the Seattle area, very little criminal history of any kind at all.
	Very few run-ins with the law until COVID.
	Objected to mask mandates and vaccine mandates.
	And his ex used that as an opportunity.
	To use the legal system.
	And what the legal system ultimately did is they took away his car.
	Then they took away his home.
	Then they took away his son.
	And now they're trying to take away his liberty.
	And for what?
	Objecting basically to vaccine mandates and mask mandates and using the legal system or trying to use the legal system to get relief or remedy.
	They say in the sentencing brief, judge, put him in prison because he sued judges.
	Put him in prison because he sued prosecutors.
	Put him in prison because he filed civil rights complaints.
	Put him in prison because he challenged our COVID orthodoxy.
	Because they don't have any grounds to put him in prison.
	Otherwise, the typical sentence for this kind of issue is probation in Washington.
	The city couldn't find a single case anywhere in the country where anybody's been in prison for this.
	And then there's a separate issue, big constitutional issue, of can they just circumvent your fundamental right to parent your own child by just issuing no contact orders instead?
	So you have a fundamental right to be a parent, and that means the right to care, control, and custody of your child.
	At a minimum, that requires contact.
	Imagine something that says, no, not only you can't care for your child, you have no control over your child, you have no custody over your child, you can't even have contact with your child.
	Even when your child is begging for that contact.
	That's the insanity of the city of Seattle.
	And then Key County is going to bring prosecution the very next week to put him in prison even longer somehow on charges related to the ex.
	They're bringing domestic violence charges without any allegation that actually any violence ever occurred by him ever to anybody.
	In fact, all the police reports are of his ex physically assaulting him.
	I mean, it's insanity at multiple levels.
	But because he's a pro se litigant, the whole system has crushed him.
	The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he filed suit, dismissed their case without even allowing him to brief it.
	Without even allowing him to brief the court.
	I presume he's been declared a vexatious litigant, and I presume he might be an abrasive human on a...
	I'm presuming a lot, but...
	Well, and that's the other thing.
	I mean, you watch him in court.
	I mean, the people can see prior proceedings where he's been in court.
	Very diplomatic, very polite, very proper.
	There's literally nothing of what you would expect to see in a case where the city and county are trying to effectively imprison someone for life.
	And you dig it?
	Like, the district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just got it completely wrong.
	I mean, the bottom line is the courts were too cowardly and too lazy to do their job, right?
	If the Ninth Circuit had done its job, I'd made an appearance in the case to say, hey, this case is significant.
	The Ninth Circuit didn't want to hear about it and quickly rushed to dismiss his case without even reviewing the briefing.
	And if they would have spent any time, he brought legitimate ADA and discrimination claims.
	The district court said everybody was immune.
	As we'll get into later, no state officer is immune from federal civil rights claims.
	You might have qualified immunity as a defense, but you're not automatically immune.
	There's not automatic sovereign immunity.
	Same with the public estates or public accommodations.
	When they're operating in public accommodation, they're not immune from the public accommodations.
	Yet that's what the federal district court said.
	The 9th Circuit said it's so obvious that that's the case, you can't even appeal it.
	And what's happening is they've decided to label them.
	And then once they label them, discriminate against them.
	Punish them.
	Again and again and again and again.
	And the, I mean, they deny them the opportunity to go to court.
	Deny them the right to bring suit.
	Deny them the right to bring petition for redress of grievances.
	Deny them the right to have meaningful hearings.
	Deny them the right to have meaningful notice.
	And they're just used to, and they're saying, the city of Seattle and King County is saying, if you challenge us, we'll put you in prison for life.
	I mean, murderers will let walk.
	Rapists will let walk.
	Sexual assaulters will let walk.
	Pedophiles will let walk.
	Bill Gates lives in Washington.
	They're going to follow up on his Epstein connection.
	He's going to be on that Epstein list, folks.
	Find the betting markets.
	You'll see Bill Gates' name is a heavy favorite to be listed in the Epstein list.
	You know who else is a heavy favorite?
	Bill Clinton.
	Has the city of Seattle ever investigated any of them?
	No, they're too busy putting people who file suits in prison for life.
	Because they don't like them challenging the system.
	That's why I call it senseless in Seattle.
	It is insane.
	And they're rushing these cases.
	The case that he got sentenced to on the city grounds, they wouldn't allow him even a brief continuance for me to represent him in the case.
	They're going to sentencing within six months of an indictment, which is almost unheard of in the state of Washington.
	I mean, it's like that gives you an idea for how...
	Just nuts this is.
	Well, no, look, I've had a few vexatious clients, at least back in my time as a lawyer, and you know that they're...
	It depends if they're off their meds bipolar or they're just people who have pissed off the administration.
	By the looks of this one, it looks like he sued the administration, sued 70 city employees, and is public.
	He's obviously persona non grata, but they view him as a threat.
	Whatever. And so they're going to use their powers.
	Seeking redress of grievances through the court system.
	They always treat pro se people bad, but this is a whole new level.
	And it's what happened with COVID.
	It unleashed the power madness of liberal democratic jurisdictions.
	And think about if they can just circumvent all your fundamental rights as a parent by just having a court somewhere issue a no-contact order.
	Without going through all the preliminary findings.
	Because there's all these findings that a state has to go through in order to do so.
	And what the state is saying, yeah, those rules apply, but only if we're using that process.
	If we decide to just ignore that process, we don't have to abide by any of it.
	It would be a complete evisceration of the fundamental right to parent.
	If you can go to prison for years for responding to your own teenage son's inquiries and request to talk, then you don't have a right of parenthood.
	And again, there's been no allegation at all that he's done anything wrong towards his son at all, other than simply responding to his text.
	I mean, it's just nuts.
	It's beyond insanity.
	You were talking about it during one of your Bourbon with Barnes last week, which is, you know, you have to remain sufficiently passionately involved in the case to care about it, but not so much so that it consumes you.
	I couldn't ever get to the not letting it consume you part.
	This would make me...
	Have a breakdown.
	I wouldn't be able to deal with a case like this.
	It's frustrating.
	So I'll be up there for the sentencing Monday afternoon, and then the court's going to decide whether or not...
	I'd request a continuance because we got hundreds of hours of videotape testimony just a few weeks ago, or videotape evidence that needs to be reviewed.
	The court, for the time being, has denied it.
	So at this point, we go to trial next week in King County.
	And that's a King County case.
	And they're looking at trial for several weeks there in King County.
	So it's one of the wildest cases I've ever had to deal with.
	Very difficult case because the judicial system is all hostile.
	The prosecutors are all hostile.
	Police hostile.
	Everybody's hostile to this guy who's, you know, you dig in.
	He's like, what did he do to really cause all this?
	And it's basically just to use the legal system to try to get redress of grievances.
	And refuse to go along easily with COVID vaccine and mask mandates.
	And they went nuts, in my view, in Seattle.
	But there's nothing stopping them right now.
	Every court is piling on, rather than saying, hold on a second, this is getting a little excessive.
	You'll be sleepless in Seattle, pun intended.
	Robert, before we get into the topics of the night, have you been following Malay's crypto coin scandal?
	Yes, in part.
	So we have tonight the SCOTUS agenda.
	So we've had the Supreme Court's brief ruling on Trump, emergency ruling on Trump.
	Civil rights before the Supreme Court.
	Key Tam fraud claims before the Supreme Court.
	Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act before the Supreme Court.
	Evidence issues about due process of law and habeas petitions in criminal cases.
	Also before the Supreme Court.
	Parental rights before the federal circuits.
	First Amendment rights before federal courts.
	Indentured servitude being alleged has an illegal immigration or immigration visa abuse tie-in as well.
	Big class action brought in the healthcare space, no less.
	Doge, of course, in federal courts.
	When is the high seas the high seas?
	Courts continue to expand congressional criminal jurisdiction in ways way beyond what our founders anticipated.
	And then making some money as we speak in the German elections, one thing I'd point out to everybody out there is that I'd put out a bet that I didn't think the big three parties, the Greens, the so-called center-left and the so-called center-right parties, would get more than two-thirds of seats.
	However, if you bet that on Kalshi, Please note, Cauchy has defined that as two-thirds of the minimum number of seats.
	So it's like 399 seats.
	That is much more likely to get than the actual more than two-thirds of actual seats.
	The actual seats are likely to be 630 or more.
	But somebody at Cauchy frankly misconstrued how to frame the question because the question is contradicted by the rules interpreting the question.
	And this will continue to be an issue in Polymarket, for example, last year.
	Unless you bet on the Venezuelan election and Maduro to win, you somehow lost the bet.
	How? Polymarket rules decided they were going to allow American media authorities to tell you who won the election, not the government of where the person's actually being elected.
	So you do have to pay attention to these rules because sometimes they contradict common sense.
	I'm told that that's called rule suck, and I think I might have been on the receiving end of that where I had predicted that Eric Adams was going to get a pardon.
	Or, you know, a reprieve.
	And what happened to him was not deemed to be a reprieve in the constitutional sense, even though they came in and said, we're going to, you know, sorry, withdraw without prejudice your suit.
	Which the court has temporarily refused to once he's independent.
	It's the Flynn case all over again, where they don't like, judges don't like, politically motivated judges don't like dismissals and are trying to force the Justice Department to prosecute bogus cases.
	So the judge is kind of a nut in the Adams case, and that's what we're seeing.
	And we're seeing, you know, a mixture of crazy courts, courts doing crazy things, and sensible courts in all of these different cases.
	And so it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out in the end concerning Trump, the bureaucracy, deep state, Doge, Musk, etc.
	Well, start with Germany, people.
	First of all, I'm showing you my quote, tweet, and not my reply to Democratic wins media because...
	I was slightly less polite in my response.
	They put out a tweet.
	I think this is called gaslighting.
	I think I'm going crazy because the tweet says, breaking Elon Musk's ultra-far-right AFD party got completely destroyed in German elections.
	Musk is being rejected.
	Yeah, that's a completely fake thing.
	These numbers are accurate.
	Well, not only that, that's actually low.
	AFD is close to 21% now.
	Because I had a bet of AFD over 20%.
	And so they initially said, AFD, which has never got, I think, more than 10 or 11 percent.
	No, 10.5 percent in 2021.
	Exactly. And usually we're low single digits, is now the second biggest party in Germany.
	And is the dominant party amongst the working class of Germany.
	The working class of Germany, you'll see it be represented geographically because in Germany, there's more working class in the eastern section than in the western section of Germany, the old ex-communist.
	Part of the country has more working class people.
	But if you just look at working class precincts across all of Germany, their number one party is AFD.
	So there's a populist left party that's right on the verge of getting that 5% to get a seat or not.
	We'll see if they get there.
	They're like 4.9%.
	The old left party is around 7 or 8. But basically the two big institutional center left and left parties, the Greens in this case.
	Because Der Linke is the far left, which is the ex-communist party.
	The Greens got collapsed in public support.
	There's just a complete rebuke of them.
	They're not even going to get 15% of the vote.
	And the SPD, this will be, I think, the lowest level of support they've ever received.
	And maybe in the history of German elections.
	It's right around 15%.
	And this is a party that's used to getting around 30%.
	So like half of its support.
	So, in fact, Germany will be shocked by the election outcomes.
	Now, what's true is that the German establishment has agreed to cut out the left, their delinquent party, and cut out AFD from any involvement in the government, so that you're going to have a government of the center-left and the center-right, and they're probably going to have to include the Greens in it.
	Maybe not.
	They can probably, if they exclude the Greens, it's just the center-left, center-right parties back to managing the country.
	And nothing better indicates what the problem of European politics when you can vote for the opposing party and it's the exact same thing as voting for the prior party.
	So the issue is not that the German public is at a record level of being upset, especially its working class.
	And that's what the vote represents.
	The fact that they can continue to use the corruption of the institutional parties to suppress.
	The German protest vote is an indication of the problem of corruption in German elections, of institutionalized corruption in their elections, than it is any kind of rebuttal or rebuke.
	I mean, the odds were that AFD would get under 20%.
	I had bets that they would get over 20, that they would get over 25. The 25 was a long shot bet.
	It was like a 10 to 1 bet.
	And they're already approaching 21. They'll probably get a little over 21 when it's all said and done.
	I'll write about where the polls at in 2021, 2022.
	But this is at or above average performance, way above average, and even above polling.
	So if you see any statements, Musk rejected, right rejected.
	That's an utter lie in a fabrication by the media.
	No, I mean, I had to look it up and say, the graph you're showing shows them at 20%, second largest party.
	I'm like, is the graph wrong?
	Am I misreading something?
	And then you go back and say, yeah, they doubled from 2021.
	It's their best result ever.
	And that's gaslighting of the highest order.
	Geographically, it's concentrated, and socioeconomically, it's entrenched.
	The other problem is, what happens if the center-left, center-right doesn't solve anything?
	Doesn't solve the immigration problem over the next three or four years, doesn't solve the energy problem over the next three or four years, doesn't solve the Ukraine problem over the next three or four years, and doesn't solve the...
	Various issues of environmental regulation and the like related to its energy and economy problems.
	Then the only place people have to go is the AFD, the Darlinka, the old left communist, and then the new left populist party.
	That's the only place they have to go.
	So they're setting themselves up for failure.
	The only thing that's going to save them...
	Is Trump getting a peace deal in Ukraine, giving them the political green light to turn back on the nuclear energy and the coal and get the oil and whatnot from Russia?
	That's the only thing that could salvage them.
	Otherwise, Germany is in for a long winter economically and otherwise because of its energy and immigration policies.
	Okay, I mean, it's good news.
	I'm going to see if I can get Christine Anderson to come back on and talk about it because it is objectively good news.
	It's as good as it could have gotten, pretty much.
	What do we start?
	Let's start with the big one, two big ones, Doge and Rumble.
	Rumble is, well, speaking of one not corrupt government, but one incompetent government, and then you come right over to Brazil, which is corrupt, incompetent, and very malicious.
	The breaking news was that Rumble is now seeking a temporary restraining order against Demorais.
	Personally, as they're suing him personally in Brazil, because they filed a motion the other day, which was for declaratory relief to declare that these these gag orders, these demands of suppressing content from U.S.-based content creators are unconstitutional, violent of the law, bypass the existing procedure for recognizing foreign judgments, foreign orders.
	And they've issued they made a motion for a temporary restraining order filed this morning.
	And it's basically asking that these gag orders that have already been issued by Judge DeMoraes be declared unlawful.
	DeMoraes, for those who don't know, he ascended to power after his predecessor died in a plane crash while investigating the Operation Car Wash Corruption, which involved high-ranking government officials, judicial officials, corporations.
	DeMoraes, who had very minimal...
	He had some court experience, he had some prosecutorial experience, rose to power.
	He's become a dictator on the bench.
	They threatened to shut down Elon Musk.
	They said, you've got to have representatives in Brazil if you're carrying out business in Brazil so that we can serve on them and we can jail them if you don't comply with our court orders.
	Elon ultimately, he succumbed and he paid the fees and the fines and agreed to censor the accounts that they asked for to be censored.
	They were always Bolsonaro accounts.
	Chris Pawlowski, he's never said yes.
	They don't do business in Brazil, and they're going after accounts that are based in America.
	The lawsuit alleges that de Morais set aside the unlawfulness of the orders, is bypassing existing protocol, existing legislation, existing international agreements for the recognition of foreign judgments.
	And I don't want to get ahead of myself.
	I mean, I think de Morais is a criminal, and I think that Chris should never step foot in Brazil.
	But the lawsuit seems very sound.
	I mean, it seems very legitimately based in censorship of free speech.
	They call it disinformation, misinformation.
	It's going after your political rivals for the party that's in power.
	What do you make of it?
	What do you make of the way Rumble's going about it?
	And what do you think Pavlovsky's exposure is going forward if he were to step foot in Brazil?
	Yeah, it probably has to avoid that for now under Lula Silva.
	I mean, Silva, the president, is going after the former president of Brazil, Bolsonaro.
	They're trumping Bolsonaro in Brazil, bringing all kinds of charges related to the prior election in Brazil, which shows that whatever old labor routes the current Brazilian president has, Lula, he's lost.
	I mean, it's now like the Seattle Benzov case.
	The left has become obsessed with power.
	And all they care about is weaponizing that power against their political opponents.
	Like in the Benzouf case, they accused him of weaponizing the legal system.
	It's like, what, by petitioning for redress of grievance?
	Weaponizing the legal system is what the judges are doing.
	It's what the prosecutors are doing.
	It's what the opposing parties are doing.
	It's what they're doing in Brazil, is weaponizing the legal system.
	I don't know if you heard this.
	They're charging Bolsonaro for an alleged attempt to poison Lula.
	Some of this stuff is loony stuff that makes no sense, but it's the kind of thing they think they can get away with in Brazil.
	So I told my friends on the left that Lula was not the same Lula.
	This was not the labor advocate from the old 70s days fighting the totalitarian dictatorship.
	This was a Lula that had been corrupted by his time in power, took bribes from U.S. connected people.
	He took bribes on behalf of Bill Clinton, repeatedly, and others.
	And so I was part of cases that were part of exposing those bribes.
	So that's who Lula is.
	There was some naivete on the left that he was this old school laborer, civil rights.
	He's like, nah, you're going to discover otherwise.
	And he's been worse than his predecessors by far.
	But yeah, the question is, when can anyone seek relief in U.S. courts when foreign governments...
	are abusing their powers against them and trying to reach into the United States and threaten people in the United States.
	To me, once they do that, like the EU did with Elon Musk, like Brazil is now doing with Chris Pevlovsky and Rumble, they are now subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
	That's a deliberate choice.
	Now, definitely it's the case as we'll get to the high seas case later under the court's interpretation.
	It's very broad, U.S. jurisdiction.
	I'm nowhere near as broad as U.S. courts are.
	But under U.S. court's current jurisdiction, there's no question that Rumble has a claim.
	But even under a more constricted definition of U.S. authority, I would agree in this instance they do, because they're threatening U.S. companies, they're threatening U.S. citizens, unless they agree to censorship in ways that violate our rights and liberties.
	And that's a deliberate choice, and it'll make it so that Brazilian judge can't step foot outside of Brazil.
	Make him subject to potential civil and criminal cases.
	The U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division should be looking at this, and other components of the Justice Department should be looking at this.
	Because this needs to be shut down.
	It relates to Vance's speech in Europe, to the European Union and the rest of them, at the Munich Security Conference, talking about America doesn't have much in common with Europe these days.
	Europe is busy trying to undermine the core American values and liberties of Americans from Europe.
	And it's like, why should we spend lots of money defending you when you won't spend any time defending us but are instead attacking us?
	And the way in which that could be in part remedied is for the U.S. government to take a proactive role in preventing these foreign governments from engaging in these kind of activities when they target U.S. activity, U.S. citizens, or U.S. businesses.
	I did forget one major detail is the co-plaintiff is Truth Media.
	So it's literally Trump's company that is being...
	Pursued by Bolsonaro or the object of these unlawful orders.
	And he might have a favorable jurisdiction.
	The suit was filed in Florida.
	So it's fantastic.
	I put out a video earlier today.
	People can go read the highlights and watch the video.
	It's up there on Rumble.
	But it's good stuff.
	All right.
	And then the next one.
	Do we do Doge here or do we do Doge over on Rumble?
	We're 55 minutes in.
	Get your bus.
	Yeah. I was thinking we would start maybe The SCOTUS High Seas case, since it kind of correlates thematically to the Rumble case.
	Okay, do the SCOTUS High Seas case now, and I'll make sure everybody gets the link.
	Get your butts on over to Rumble, and then after this, we're going to go to Rumble and carry on with the show there.
	What's this one about?
	So this is about the felonies clause of the U.S. Constitution.
	So the U.S.
	Constitution provides that Congress has the power to, quote, define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations.
	So you can see what the founders, the founding generation, which I include as the people who voted for and approved the Constitution, including conditioning it on access to the Bill of Rights in the first Congress.
	What were they thinking?
	Not just the limits of those people who were at the Constitutional Convention or who penned the terms.
	I think there tends to be a too narrow focus in originalist interpretation, when to me, what matters is what made it binding.
	What made it binding was people's approval of it.
	So what you need to know is what did they think these provisions meant at the time.
	And to me, what Congress was getting at were crimes beyond the power or effective reach of the states.
	That crimes committed on the high seas, like piracy and the like, were crimes that would be difficult for a state government to be in a position to either write or simply enforce.
	So that's the idea they're getting at.
	It has been interpreted as a massive expansion of federal power.
	I don't know if the courts have said no yet to a case brought under this provision.
	So to give you an idea for what's happening, the DEA, for example, or like the Lord of War case, where that guy was given back to Russia, you have people arrested who are not U.S. citizens for doing things outside of the United States.
	That didn't even implicate the United States.
	And so this was the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and they said that Congress has such broad sway over the definition of...
	First of all, they said international law didn't matter as to the definition of words, which strikes me as problematic given the whole historical intention of this provision of the Constitution was to govern, was to have the national government governing international concerns, which they've acknowledged in other contexts, just not in this one.
	You know, somebody gets arrested...
	For trying to transport drugs from Colombia to Panama.
	Nothing to do with the U.S. They don't even allege it has any tie to the U.S. Person's not an American.
	Ship's not an American.
	Nobody on the ship is American.
	None of the recipients are American.
	No allegation the product is intended to come to America.
	Purely foreign.
	And you hear the U.S. saying, oh yeah, we have jurisdiction to prosecute those crimes.
	It's like, based on what?
	Well, you were in the high seas, you see.
	We weren't in the high seas.
	We're in the economic zone of a particular nation.
	Which is a part of its extended territorial waters.
	And the court was like, no, no.
	Territorial water just means like the 12 feet or so, 12 miles maybe max off your coast.
	That's it.
	It can mean nothing else.
	Even if international law has changed that over time.
	They said we're going to ignore that.
	So basically you can just call high seas if you're out on water.
	Now, the U.S. government has the authority to arrest you and imprison you with no other ties to America whatsoever.
	So they've effectively expanded and extended high-seas jurisdiction to where it has no meaning.
	And you'll see a lot of conservatives go along with this because they love...
	What unites federal judges on the left and the right is their propensity for authoritarianism.
	That's the only thing that really unites them.
	That both on the left and the right, they love to give the government power to punish.
	Wherever and whenever they can.
	Unless it's one of their protected allies.
	Then it's like, hold on a second.
	You can't take away their benefits.
	You can't take away their job.
	You can't supervise.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Let's not go too far.
	You're only supposed to punish ordinary people.
	That's who you're supposed to crush with your judicial power.
	That's what judges really believe.
	That's why I say that disproportionately you will find no higher rate of sociopaths and psychopaths than America's judicial branch of government.
	I would say maybe also the...
	Among lawyers as well.
	All right, everybody, here's the link.
	By the way, if you see me saying, here's the link to Locals and you see it in Locals or Rumble, it's because I'm using the All feature on Studio.
	I could probably do the other one.
	Let me read a few Rumble rants while everyone moseys their butts on over to Rumble or VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And I'm throwing a surprise topic in, speaking of threats and what qualifies as a threat.
	King of Biltong says, increase your protein intake with some great tasting meat snacks.
	Biltong is packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much, much more.
	Get some at BiltongUSA.com.
	Use code VIVA for 10% off.
	Today someone sent an email to Biltong saying, you've inundated all of the podcasts.
	It's really annoying.
	Also known as advertising, dumb bum.
	So whoever wrote that email, you should be ashamed of yourself.
	Kupu Onn...
	Kupu Onn...
	It's true.
	I haven't heard any bird flu.
	They're not killing chickens in Mexico.
	I guess they probably have eggs there.
	V6 Neon says, please tell me that people outside the UK saw that the UK Labour Party are sending police after voters of opposition political parties or who dares question what the government is doing.
	And we got Bill Dozer74 says, Ashley declare conservative sob.
	Da brew that do.
	Just threw one in here.
	It says, Yar matey, Styx has been dressing like a pirate.
	Now pirate talk here.
	Now pirate talk here.
	Did a theme go out?
	No, it certainly didn't.
	And I still have to have that debate with Bill Tong.
	Not Bill Tong, Styx X and Hammer about something.
	Everybody. I'm going to ask Robert what he thinks about that Brian Garcia letter that he got.
	Over on Rumble, so get your butts on over there.
	The link is pinned in YouTube, so go, come, and if not, see you tomorrow.
	I will be live.
	Oh, with the woman who's being spied on by the Irish government.
	I forget her name now, but tomorrow, 1230, so going to have a good show tomorrow.
	Updating the stream, come on over to Rumble or vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, let me bring it up.
	It was not on the menu, but we're going to do it anyhow, because it's also a good excuse to call out Brian Tyler Cohen a second time in an evening where he says, oh, the guy's threatening to prosecute Rep Garcia for criticizing Elon Musk.
	Robert, if you hypothetically hear someone say, what the American public wants now is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight, this is an actual fight for democracy.
	Do you understand that actual to be actual or a metaphorical Rachel Madcow actual?
	As in, look, I'm not saying to go prosecute.
	I'm not that litigious.
	But this definitely is getting very close to a line where we're talking about actual weapons and taking things literally?
	Yes. Barnes is getting distracted.
	All right, so the word actual and Rep.
	Garcia being someone, they know what they're doing on a moral, spiritual level, on a legal level.
	I mean, they have a degree of congressional immunity because of the combination of the speech and debate clause and the very ridiculous breadth that the courts have now construed, the Westfall Act to mean, that basically as long as members of Congress are doing anything that could be of interest to their voters or even, you know, marginal interest to the voters.
	Then they're immune, no matter what.
	So, like, the ability to civilly sue, and it's not even clear where the line is for criminal immunity at this point, beyond, like, bribery and those kind of things that they've excluded and exempted from it.
	So that's one of the big hurdles you run into, is Congress has granted itself extraordinary immunity from any individual accountability for their bad deeds that anyone else would be held accountable for.
	All right, well, let's get into Doge, because you've got to reconcile some of the decisions that are coming out here.
	Doge is winning in some cases, losing in others, in terms of what Elon Musk and the Doge team has access to.
	The surprise lawsuit or the surprise victory of the week actually came from, you know, Jamaican-born commie judge Tanya Chutkin, who I didn't realize.
	I mean, I guess I should have really put it together.
	I saw that she was called the scion of Marxist revolutionaries, which I mean, I guess means the child or the offspring of her grandparents were actual commie revolutionaries.
	Like you've mentioned many times.
	I thought you were being hyperbolic.
	She's the one that gave a big W to Doge in a sense where she said, you know, you don't get a temporary restraining order to prevent Elon Musk and Team Doge from doing what they're doing because There's no irreparable harm.
	You haven't even alleged a sufficient irreparable harm.
	But then she goes out and says, but you've made a very strong case that what might be happening here is an unappointed official who's not subject to Congress doing work that no one has any oversight over.
	And I was like, oh, exactly like Jack Smith.
	But she gave them a W, but gave them a little bit of a small...
	She gave Doge a W, but the other team a little bit of a bone.
	But then there were other courts that said, no, they're enjoining Elon Musk from accessing Treasury information.
	How are we getting split decisions from various courts across the country over what Doge's authority is in terms of what they can do?
	So this is an onslaught of lawfare led by Norm Eisen and the famed money launderer, Mark Elias.
	That you'll launch this massive lawfare against Trump in jurisdictions and they pick jurisdictions that would be the most sympathetic.
	So the Southern District of New York, the District of Columbia, and similar type jurisdictions across the country.
	And they're winning a little less than half the time now.
	They were winning more than half the time because you have all these judges eager to, in these jurisdictions, eager to overturn the election results and usurp.
	Power that doesn't belong in their hands to hamstring Trump.
	Just pure political motivation.
	Law doesn't support anything they're doing.
	And the question is, some of the ones that were real aggressive early on, it backed off as they got public backlash.
	That probably they didn't expect the scale and scope of it.
	Remember last time the judges got a lot of media favorable coverage, and a lot of the normies weren't processing the information as well, so they got away with the courts being obstructive in Trump's first term.
	Not realizing that the abuse of power involving the courts in COVID and involving the courts in lawfare against Trump and Trump's allies has radicalized and red-pilled the Trump-supporting community to where now they see judges interfering for what it is, judges interfering, not exercising law, not trying to follow law, just being political, wanting to overturn the election and usurp power so their corrupt pals can continue to have their pockets lined.
	And so the question is which court, and what's disturbing is that there's any courts willing to entertain this nonsense.
	The fact that Chutkin just denied an obvious denial of a TRO and yet is suggesting maybe she'll grant the preliminary injunction gives you an idea of how nuts this is.
	Most of them, according to the court's interpretation of standing, which I don't agree with.
	But if you're going to interpret standing to have all these limits on who can sue, none of these people should be able to sue.
	So there's that issue.
	Then the second issue is none of them have been harmed in a legally recognizable, judiciable way.
	This is the power of the executive branch, the elected head of the executive branch, to set the terms and conditions of the executive branch.
	He is simply following the take care clause of Article 2, which requires that he take care that the laws get faithfully executed.
	And part of those laws stem from Article 1, which say the only money appropriated by Congress shall be spent, and for what Congress appropriated it for, and says that you shall make it publicly available to the country, what's happening to the public's money, both receipts and expenditures.
	That's all Doge is doing.
	Making sure Congress specifically appropriated funds for that project and making it public what is being spent.
	There was no congressionally authorized approval to give money to people who are dead, like this clearly happening in Social Security.
	They're giving money to people who are dead.
	These are clearly fraudulent payments.
	There was no authorization to spend money.
	There was broad authorization to spend money to help people in foreign nations.
	It was not to impose ideological transformation on foreign nations by requiring things like Payment for training books in Peru.
	So this was the most normies that see this as shocking corruption and waste of funds.
	And the courts are shocked.
	The courts see it as their professional class and political allies losing money, losing power.
	So they're rushing in.
	I mean, some of these judges have family members that get money from USAID and they're making decisions on USAID.
	I mean, this is something that should be obvious.
	That's egregiously impeachable conduct.
	Now, members of Congress are now bringing articles of impeachment.
	Elon Musk is calling for impeachment.
	Others within the normie conservative world are finally calling what I've talked about for years now, which is that when federal judges go rogue, some portion of them need to see the consequence of impeachment, even if they're not convicted, just to remind them that there are limits to the abuse of their power.
	Otherwise, they will continue to abuse that power.
	And we have a mindset that's a century old.
	It's fascistic in orientation.
	And many judges share that fascistic orientation.
	If most state federal judges were in Germany in 1930, they would have joined the Nazi Party eagerly.
	If they had been in Italy, they would have joined Mussolini's Fascist Party eagerly.
	If they had been in the Soviet Union, they would have joined the Communist Party eagerly.
	That's who they are by personality and predisposition and ideological inclination.
	You see it on full display in insane cases like the Kurt Benzou case in Seattle, but it is far from the only example.
	Here they're trying to overturn the presidential election.
	Supreme Court got a chance to intervene quickly.
	They got a sneak peek, the Trump administration, everyone else, for what Supreme Court is thinking.
	Seven of the nine justices were like, well, this is just a TRO.
	Let's see where it goes in a week or two.
	We don't want to jump in right now.
	We're not going to jump in right out of the gate.
	But this was after a bunch of judges stepped back and issued different rulings, pulling back on some of their most extreme rulings.
	But the two justices, Gorsuch and Alito, dissented, saying it's quite obvious the courts have no injunctive authority here at all.
	They're just doing things they've got no constitutional injunctive authority to do.
	And so they were saying we should step in now because this is insane.
	But so you see where it's going.
	I think it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court is going to be forced.
	Within the next six months to make a substantive ruling on the unitary executive theory.
	Does the elected head of the executive branch get to control the executive branch of our government or not?
	That's going to be answered in the next six months.
	I'm also trying to struggle to understand what exactly they're trying to enjoin Musk and Doge from doing.
	Elon is a special government employee.
	They're deliberately vague, right?
	What they want is just to muck it all up, make it impossible for him to do anything.
	Now, the special counsel case went to the Supreme Court.
	That's insane.
	They're giving prosecutorial power to someone who is not elected or appointed by elected officials.
	It's like, what the heck?
	And who the president is asked to be, the president's fired, and they're refusing to allow him to be fired.
	This week, as one of the ex-commentators pointed out, we've now reached that stage of democracy where firing unelected generals is a betrayal of democracy.
	Where I come from, unelected generals running thing, is the definition of dictatorship and lack of democracy.
	Only the left could suddenly celebrate, and Elizabeth Warren, worshipping it, oh, our great military generals, oh, they are holy and sacrosanct.
	I feel stupid because it seems so bloody obvious where what it means to be commander-in-chief is to be in charge of the military.
	How the hell do you argue that he doesn't have the right to remove anybody who serves at his pure, exclusive pleasure?
	Exactly. Do the American people get to control the federal executive branch of government through their elections or not?
	That's what this is going to decide.
	My prediction is that the Supreme Court will say, yes, the elected head of the executive branch controls this and will ultimately find everything Trump has done.
	In this capacity, putting aside birthright citizenship disputes and other legal issues, for which if you're most interested in that subject, go back and watch our debate and discussion with Professor John Eastman from last week that you can find.
	And he does the best job, most articulate job.
	I'm skeptical of the theory, so you can see my skeptical questions.
	But if you want to get an articulate defense of it, there's no better, more articulate a defense from an originalist perspective of Trump's.
	Propriety of a birthright citizenship restriction than Professor Eastman last week.
	And don't be offended, Robert.
	You had convinced me that it was going to get dismissed, and either John is more...
	What's the word?
	Either I'm more susceptible to...
	I don't know what.
	He's convinced me that the arguments are...
	He thoroughly convinced me now about the legitimacy of the executive order, and if I were betting, I'd probably take the longer shot that it would...
	That it will be upheld as lawful.
	I'm going to give everybody the link to that here.
	Trump has given it his best chance, and the best argument is the one made by Professor Eastman.
	I also do want to steel man it a little bit.
	Okay, so if Trump issues an unlawful executive order, the courts can come in and declare it unlawful.
	If he does empower someone unlawfully to do something, there has to be some court intervention.
	If hypothetically he says Elon Musk is now, I don't know, I was going to say deputized to go and arrest people, but I think, can the president even do that?
	Yeah, yeah, he can.
	He's got a complete carte blanche of executive power.
	So the only limitation is what's specifically identified as a limitation within the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
	It's not clear Congress can pass limitations like they've occasionally, like these so-called independent agencies.
	And I think they should have never allowed this independent agency theory to breach the constitutional power of Article 2. But they sometimes have, and I think that's what they're going to have to put back in the box.
	They're going to have to say, the elected head of the executive branch, or get a severe political blowback and potential restraint on judicial authority and power, writ large.
	Because the American people are behind what Trump is doing en masse.
	I think that's probably surprising them, too.
	This is not like the first term.
	Where Trump's election shocked a lot of people.
	Where the people in power could just come up with every crazy conspiracy theory and get a lot of people to buy in.
	Where the media smear jobs on Trump mostly worked to where he was underwater politically throughout his first term.
	All that has changed.
	These people are awake and red-pilled, or enough of them are, to judicial abuse so that it will not go through unchecked.
	You're seeing the serious efforts of considering judicial impeachment, serious efforts.
	I agree.
	President Trump finally came around to the position, been advocating here for years, which is the District of Columbia should be returned to congressional control, get rid of the D.C. court systems, both the local and the federal ones, reassign those judges elsewhere.
	And as Trump put it, we have no other choice.
	That's exactly right.
	The Supreme Court ultimately is going to have no other choice.
	But to put the elected head of the executive branch in control as the Constitution compels.
	Or they risk massive more blowback against the judicial branch, more restraint on judicial branch power, and more clear support for executive power through legislative change and future elections.
	So I think that's ultimately where it's going because that's where the law is.
	You won't find...
	I mean, here's the reality.
	If I know if I change the names from Trump to Biden...
	Almost every liberal democratic judge would be issuing an opposite ruling to what they're issuing now.
	And that's a problem.
	Let me bring up some rumble rants as we segue into the next topic.
	Randy Edwards says, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, Clinton's secretaries of state, each stated on PBS that U.S. citizenry was enslaved to Europe until Europe could stand on its own.
	Europe has refused to, and I guess there's a part two coming on that.
	Pervilism says, FYI, not all feds are lazy POSs, as Elon would have to believe.
	Many of us are under attack by our own party, who we supported.
	It is especially disappointing to those of us who are veterans.
	I want to get to this in a second, actually, and we're going to come back to that.
	What does that say?
	iCare22 is now a monthly subscriber.
	Welcome to the channel.
	And Drew, DeBrew that do, says, if I knew...
	Federal jobs were so lucrative, I'd have sought one out years ago.
	Then maybe I could afford to leave more than a fiver here.
	Thank you.
	I don't want to immediately write this off as this one here.
	I don't want to write it off as...
	Oh, you don't see what I'm reading because it's not sharing the screen again.
	That's great.
	I'll refresh in a second.
	It's a rumble rant.
	And it's someone suggesting now I'm a Trump supporter.
	I'm getting fired because I'm a federal worker.
	I don't know if this is a psychological operation, if there are Trump-supporting feds who are losing their jobs right now.
	I'm sure there will be some.
	I mean, because the government just ridiculously extended it beyond its means.
	Now, the vast mass of it was going to deep state and Democratic allies, but you'll definitely have some normie Republicans.
	Trump supporters included in the group that used to have federal employment.
	That is true.
	Now, Trump's trying to get the private economy up and going so that those people will have more than capable replacement opportunities.
	But there will be some people in the bureaucracy who are diligent Trump-supporting people who are just in a position that when you look at it, either wasn't congressionally authorized or isn't very efficient from a broader perspective, even if their work has been very good.
	No, and it highlights how the government gets control over a population through overemployment through the federal.
	I mean, this is why...
	So that you want food?
	You need our food stamps.
	You want housing?
	You need our Section 8 relief.
	You want access to education?
	You've got to agree with our ideological indoctrination.
	You don't want to go to prison for life?
	You better be on our side politically.
	So it's one after the other after the other.
	We are seeing evidence of...
	The weaponization of the legal and political process to crush adversaries and opponents in a way that's not...
	But that's not what Trump is doing.
	Trump is trying to make the government lean and mean, efficient.
	He wants to streamline services.
	Contrary to what some predicted, he'd include the Defense Department and the Pentagon within that.
	Almost 10% cuts.
	Massive cuts at the CIA.
	Thank God.
	Massive cuts at the IRS.
	Thank God.
	Now, some of those CIA employees, some of those IRS employees, some of those are going to be good, hardworking, decent people.
	But that they were simply part of a governmental function, in most cases, that didn't work.
	Now, if they think they're being targeted by their local supervisor or local bosses for political reasons, then they have a legal claim, and that's a whole different animal.
	That might be happening as well.
	But as a whole, Trump and the U.S. just needs to not have as many government employees as we do, or we're going to become a redundant.
	Uh, uh, downward, uh, declining society and economy as most places that rely on government employment do.
	No, but it's how you capture the society and it's how you get people to do the government's bidding during a time of COVID because nobody can lose their jobs.
	And when you have 25% of the population employed by the federal government, like in Canada, Hey, no, one's going to not do their job because everybody's got kids to feed.
	And, um, and that's how you get full compliance, full subservience and full tyranny in a country.
	So, cause I couldn't figure it out.
	You want to think that there's sort of people pretending like, hey, there are fellow Republicans, I'm pissed off with Trump.
	But then like, the government might have gotten too fat, period.
	And it's disconcerting and it's destabilizing.
	Very few people are sympathetic, to be blunt about it.
	I mean, some of these government workers have really got, don't realize how unusual their service, you know, that they get all these holidays, they get all these pensions, they get all these benefits, they get all the health care, they get, they don't realize how much the ordinary person doesn't have that.
	And the ordinary person's like, hold on a second.
	I have to go into work.
	I get laid off.
	I don't have the same levels of pension and benefits.
	And my job wasn't dependent on my tax dollars going you to pay for it.
	So when they see bureaucrats out there crying, they're just not very sympathetic.
	They're like, sorry, that's not our reality.
	And it's clear that a lot of these federal employees thought they were entitled to the people's money.
	I mean, it gives you an idea how just...
	Divorced from reality, this became.
	I was reading about a small island country that used to be fabulously rich near Australia because it had these resources.
	And so they built up a huge government program of government jobs and all the rest with no real training and no real diversification of the economy.
	Then all of a sudden the value of their main resource went way down.
	All of a sudden the country's dirt poor and people are having to move it all around the world to survive.
	That's what happens when you do that.
	Trump doesn't want that to happen here.
	He knows that in order for that to happen, we need to massively reduce the size, scale, and scope of federal government involvement in our economy.
	To give people an idea, if you think Venezuela was socialist under Hugo Chavez, under Joe Biden, more of our economy and our GDP, how do you define socialism?
	The means of production being owned by the government.
	How do you define means of production?
	Most commonly, gross domestic product.
	If you take GDP and the share of GDP controlled by the government, under the Biden administration, state and federal government share was higher as a share of our GDP than Venezuela was under Hugo Chavez, the self-described socialist.
	That gives you an idea for how out of control things got.
	Robert, I'm just sharing the link because I'm letting everyone know.
	We're on the cusp of hitting 20,000, so when that happens, we'll ask the chat to blow up the chat.
	Not a totally disjointed segue, but did you see this good tweet of the week was Ross Ulbricht?
	Yeah, correct to Ross Ulbricht.
	I mean, as he pointed out, you know, Roger Ver has been, if he's committed a crime, it's been that he's been real quiet in the public background.
	So over the last 15 years, he has mostly been behind the scenes supporting a lot of freedom and liberty causes.
	So that if you're in the freedom movement...
	You knew Roger Ver was a strong supporter of any kind of freedom or liberty-oriented movement against government oppression.
	But he's more of an introvert than an extrovert.
	You watch him talk and kind of figure that out.
	He's like a lot of the nerds in crypto.
	I don't know if he'd like to be called a crypto nerd, but he's a crypto nerd.
	Even when he dresses, he's kind of a nerd.
	You don't get this pretentious.
	You don't see him in Lamborghinis and Ferraris and getting out with models in Monaco.
	Instead, you see him helping John McAfee, helping Ross Ulbrich, helping these other people that are dissidents and outsiders.
	And as I keep pointing out, there's no more classic example of lawfare.
	And credit that Trump has appointed someone he's previously pardoned to be involved in managing the pardon effort systematically.
	That was one of the things I've been calling for.
	It's like have somebody that's sole and whole job is to examine pardons, commutations, reprieves, and dismissals of lawfare cases.
	And the reason why I've explained that Roger Ver's case is a classic example of lawfare.
	It's the most egregious example of lawfare currently facing anybody looking at a prison sentence today on a federal level.
	Kurt Benzo probably tops it on a state level.
	I knew that qualification was coming because I know that that one's near and dear to you now.
	But yeah, 109 years for alleged unpaid taxes.
	Yeah, and for people that don't know, Roger Ver was never sent a tax bill that he didn't pay.
	Ever. Never happened.
	Roger Ver has specifically requested whether or not he owed the IRS money.
	The IRS didn't tell him he owed him a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar.
	He used the Freedom of Information Act to try to force them to disclose whether they even thought he owed them money, and they didn't produce anything that said he owed them anything.
	So how in the world, then, you might ask, is he being criminally prosecuted for tax evasion when there was no tax bill that he ever got?
	And when he asked for one, they wouldn't give him one.
	Under the Biden administration, a decade after the alleged incident, alleging that there were transactions three years after he left and filed everything he had to.
	Well, that's the second part.
	So the first thing you look for, lawfare, threefold things you want to look for is this case, lawfare.
	Number one, is it novel?
	So is it a novel theory of law or a novel set of facts being criminally prosecuted?
	That's the first thing.
	Because if it's unusual, if it's something that doesn't normally traditionally happen, that's a huge red flag that this is being motivated by something other than the underlying facts.
	In other words, if the facts lead to the charges, then the facts should be facts that are commonly charged as a crime.
	If the facts do not lead to a commonly charged crime, then that means they went looking They did the Berea approach, show me the man, I'll find you the crime, not see the crime, prosecute the man.
	So that is all over the Roger Ver case for the reasons I've already articulated, but additional reasons.
	The two additional reasons are this is the only exit tax I know of that's ever been criminally prosecuted.
	This is a controversial tax Congress has only imposed over the last quarter century or so, didn't exist through most of our history, that said you are a U.S. citizen for life.
	And you have to go through special procedures and protocols before we renounce your citizenship.
	By the way, this is the best counterargument right now to where Professor Eastman and Trump are at.
	So if Trump wants to support his birthright citizenship claim, that you don't have birthright citizenship, you should not be criminally prosecuting Roger Ver.
	It's a contradiction, right?
	You can't say, oh no, you don't have a citizenship by birth.
	Oh, actually, you not only have citizenship by birth, you can't give it up either.
	You can't claim both of those things as a country.
	They contradict each other.
	So if you support Trump's order on birthright citizenship, you have to support a dismissal partner reprieve for Roger Ver.
	But the first part is exit tax, never been criminally prosecuted before, constitutionally controversial, because our Constitution says you can't impose a direct tax on U.S. citizens or direct tax, period, on anybody inside the United States unless it is properly apportioned.
	by state, which no exit tax has ever been.
	It is a property tax.
	That's what it is.
	And it's an attempt to get a property tax imposed on us by using criminal prosecutions.
	Imagine if the IRS knocks on your door tomorrow and says, you owe a property tax.
	You're like, no, I don't.
	And they're like, well, if you don't pay it, we're not going to tell you how much it is, but if you don't pay it, you're going to prison.
	See, Roger Veer.
	That's the deep danger problems of...
	Ever allowing them to use our criminal prosecutorial process to create novel interpretations of law.
	The other part is, they've never gone after anybody, civilly or criminally that I'm aware of, for tax when they were not a U.S. citizen based on not having U.S. sourced income.
	This is unheard of.
	I mean, they're basically saying, we're going to pretend that this is money, we're going to pretend the money is located here, and we're going to pretend you are still a citizen after you renounce your citizenship.
	It's novelty on novelty on novelty on novelty.
	This screams lawfare, lawfare, lawfare, lawfare, lawfare.
	Then you get to the second category of lawfare.
	And what you look for is selective prosecution.
	Are there other similarly situated people that were not criminally prosecuted?
	To quote a recent federal court and the Supreme Court of the United States from a few years back, is it a case where typically the person is not prosecuted?
	If it is...
	Even if there's probable cause, that violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	Here, there's tons of people, thousands of people, tens of thousands of people that have gone through the exit tax process that have done more questionable things that the government didn't like than Roger Revere did, and none of them were prosecuted.
	None! So it screams the second element of lawfare, selective prosecution.
	And do we know that he had any speech that the government didn't like?
	Well, first of all, the government has a history of selectively prosecuting Roger Revere.
	Roger Rear, as a kid, involved in libertarian politics, exposed the FBI wherever and whenever and however he could for its Ruby Ridge and Waco behaviors.
	And right afterwards, they paid him back.
	Same agencies, by the way, involved in the criminal prosecution.
	One of those big red flags, siren songs, warning signals that you've got a lawfare case.
	It's my favorite thing to tell people, but the number one fact you need to know about Roger Rear is why did he spend time in federal prison before?
	And people try to guess all these things and they think it's excelling on money laundering.
	It's like, nope.
	Fireworks. He got the wrong fireworks.
	He didn't get the right permit for the fireworks.
	Fireworks. Year in federal prison on fireworks.
	So he's been the victim of prior selective prosecution.
	And here, is it a coincidence that within one month...
	Of him writing and publishing the book Hijacking Bitcoin, exposing the deep state and intelligence agencies' deep involvement in trying to co-opt Bitcoin and prohibit and prevent and preclude its use as a democratizing financial freedom tool around the world, within one month is when this indictment comes down.
	And come on.
	They knew the book was coming, so they put him under investigation, but they waited until the book was published.
	And then, on top of that, you get to the third element of lawfare.
	First element, novel theories of prosecution.
	Second element, selectivity in the prosecution.
	Third, government malfeasance and misfeasance.
	That they lie, that they deceive, that they break their own rules.
	That is all over the Roger Ver case, where even high-ranking tax division prosecutors...
	Lied to not only grand jurors and federal courts in America, but they lied to foreign governments and foreign courts, claiming after they stole his attorney-client privilege records, another point of evidence of government malfeasance and misfeasance in the case, that they claimed his attorney-client records showed that he had withheld information from them and did not comply with their advice, when an actual review of the records showed that he strictly complied with the advice and he told them everything.
	In fact, he paid more money in tax than they recommended that he paid.
	That's what the case of Roger Ver is about.
	It screams lawfare, but the key is getting it to the Trump world, because unlike some other people, Roger Ver hasn't been donating money to lots of politicians.
	He hasn't been out with a high-profile public opinion.
	So not enough people know about how dangerous and precarious the lawfare case is against him.
	But it is deeply problematic.
	There's a pending motion to dismiss his...
	Appeal right now had been denied in Spain so he could be extradited at any time, stuck in Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, a very dangerous prison facility run by foreign gangs at any time, could end up dead in McAfee and Epstein before he ever gets the opportunity to present his defense at trial.
	So that should all be precluded and prohibited by the Trump administration, which is pro-crypto and opposed to the Bitcoin lawfare and the Biden administration lawfare.
	Roger Ver fits every single one of those.
	It's check the box, check the box, check the box.
	Trump gets the chance to literally pardon Bitcoin Jesus.
	Not every day you get that opportunity from a political perspective.
	So it's a golden opportunity for the Trump administration to make good on its promises by ordering the dismissal of his case at a minimum, if not giving him a pardon or a reprieve so he isn't under the subject of this constantly.
	But we'll see whether they get around to doing it or not.
	And I just want to bring this up to end with this because few people know that actually Roger Ver was one championing the Free Ross Ulbricht movement back a decade ago and 10 years later it's now Ulbricht who's recently been freed and pardoned doing it for the man who did it for him a decade ago.
	People in the chat are rightly noting that we didn't talk about Cash Patel.
	Did we talk about Cash Patel being confirmed yet?
	No, no, it's a great...
	And apparently, I didn't think he was going to do it, but apparently he's at least temporarily put Patel in charge of the ATF because he wants those lunatics over...
	A lot of people that ran ATF were deeply anti-gun people.
	Well, that's what I mean.
	I saw someone in the chat saying, oh yeah, isn't he looking over the ATF?
	The ATF were the ones who actually locked up Roger Ver because...
	He called them out for being baby murderers because of what they did at Waco.
	And then when they went after him for the fire, you call them fireworks.
	They were pest control firecrackers to scare off birds.
	That was the case there.
	Pest control firecrackers.
	Serving a year in federal prison for pest control firecrackers.
	Well, that he bought from, what's that company?
	The camping company.
	That starts with a C. Collagio?
	Bellagio? Costellas?
	It's an online store.
	He bought them and then resold them.
	And he bought them for someone who was selling them without a license either.
	Cabela's. Cabela's.
	So now cash got confirmed.
	51 to 49. It was a nail-biter because Collins and Murkowski flipped and Mitch McConnell flipped.
	First question first.
	If J.D. Vance is not there physically present and it's 50-50, how does he split the vote?
	Can he do it electronically or do they have to wait for him to get back?
	Yeah, wait for him to get back.
	Okay. It didn't get there.
	It didn't get there.
	It was 51-49, very close, because two rhinos.
	Collins and Murkowski at the last minute voted against Patel, and then McConnell flipped back to voting for Patel right before announcing he's going to step down from the Senate, which had predicted.
	That McConnell would not run for re-election in 2026.
	When he starts giving his speech, I will not be looking for...
	He's 82 and infirmed.
	And I was like, did anybody think you were going to go for another?
	Yeah, a lot of people did.
	Which is incredible.
	Well, he was trying to lock up his base of power in Kentucky.
	And it's mostly been unsuccessful.
	Though it's his protege that's thinking about it, Daniel Cameron.
	I'm in favor of Thomas Massey.
	Running for that Kentucky Senate seat.
	Can you imagine?
	I'd almost have to consider Kentucky an honorary state.
	I'm from Tennessee, so we got a lot of phrases for Kentucky and dealing with basketball competition and whatnot.
	Call them Ken Sucky and other things like this.
	You know, the old rivalries.
	But a lot of similar backgrounds of people who settled both states.
	But can you imagine Massey and Paul as U.S. Senators?
	I mean, that'd be the greatest Senate representation in the history of the United States Senate.
	I would love to see that.
	But yeah, Cash Patel delivering as President Trump required.
	I think he wants Blake Masters in charge of the ATF, but there's some hurdles in getting the nomination process through.
	So he realized that, okay, people are crazy over ATF, so I need somebody in charge right now, temporarily.
	And once Cash Patel's been confirmed for one thing, you can sort of move him around.
	You have power as a president.
	Once you're confirmed for one cabinet position, you can move around to another cabinet position.
	And so I think that, so Trump is just on top of it.
	Realize ATF's been a huge problematic agency, very political.
	I mean, now we'll see, you know, if Cash wants to reform ATF, I'll give you a case to do.
	Dismiss even the prior case.
	Amos Miller.
	Ruben King.
	Ruben King.
	You know, dismiss that bogus case brought against an Amish farmer, that, you know, go in and say that this is not pursuant, consistent with our prosecutorial priorities, or even our interpretation of federal law, because the Trump administration doesn't agree with how Biden's administration was interpreting that law, and go in and set aside that charge.
	That would be a good way to do it, just like the best way for Brooke Rollins, who a lot of people are skeptical of in the small farmer space.
	Aside from stopping this nonsense of killing all the birds, the name of bird flu is driving up egg prices beyond what's necessary.
	A lot of farmers have complained about that.
	Is dismiss the case against Damus Miller.
	That would be the honest and honorable thing to do and be consistent with President Trump's promises.
	Notice that President Trump, he called him the Pennsylvania Dutch, which is the old traditional reference.
	People forget, Trump went to school in Philadelphia.
	He went to Penn.
	So he's familiar with the Amish going way back.
	But he called them the Pennsylvania Dutch.
	He pointed out, Pennsylvania Dutch have a much lower rate of autism than everybody else.
	So clearly they're doing something right that the rest of us are not doing right.
	Well, one of them is their food.
	That's what they're doing right.
	And if you want Amos Miller's food while it's still legally available in America, AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	Milk's so good, you'll think you're doing cocaine.
	So, seek no further.
	The state government of Pennsylvania said it was like doing drugs.
	Hey, that's according to them.
	But get rid of these harassment of the Amish.
	The Amish rolled out in massive margins for President Trump.
	According to farm publications and people who followed it politically, they guaranteed Trump's re-election in Pennsylvania.
	That means they guarantee a future.
	Trump-aligned senator, a Trump-aligned governor, a Trump-aligned congressman, Trump-aligned president down the road if you keep your promises to the Amish.
	And there's no critical aspect of that more so than the prosecution of Amos Miller.
	But Reuben King would be a great way for Kash Patel to make the point that there's going to be no more political weaponization at the ATF either.
	Now, technical question, who does that go through?
	Does it go through Kash Patel or would it have to go through Pan Bondi?
	Both. And so it's like the Brooke Jackson case that is pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	That's the exposes Pfizer's fraud in the Ketam context.
	We'll get to a Ketam case Supreme Court ruled on this week.
	That involves Robert Kennedy, a Secretary of Health and Human Services, the head of the FDA, who is a Kennedy affiliate, associate, and supporter, and the Justice Department.
	So in almost all these cases, the Justice Department has to be roped in.
	But there's another agency that should have substantial say, whether that's the FBI and ATF under Kash Patel, whether that's IRS under whoever comes in as Trump's IRS commissioner, whether it's SEC.
	There's the administrative regulatory body and the cabinet authority figure above them.
	And then usually, if it involves civil or criminal litigation, the DOJ is going to, by necessity, have to be involved.
	So Bondi has a role in all of it.
	And as some people point out, I have great hopes.
	High hopes for Harmeet Dillon at the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department, but they need to get it going.
	So a lot of people are eager to see the Trump administration put an end to the weaponization of the legal system against political opponents across the country.
	And that means there should be a Justice Department investigation into all these leftist cities that went nuts during COVID.
	There should be a Justice Department investigation on the selectivity of prosecution on Kurt Pensoof in Seattle.
	There should be a Justice Department investigation of the weaponization of the legal system against Trump and his allies in New York and Georgia and Arizona and Michigan.
	When you look at what's happening with John Eastman, they are violating Professor Eastman's constitutional rights.
	They violated President Trump's constitutional rights.
	There need to be relief and remedy for this, and there's no better department than the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department.
	So will Pambani deliver in the way that she has promised?
	Will Harmeet Dillon be able to deliver in the way she hopes?
	That's two of the big questions yet to come, but having Kash Patel at the FBI is definitely a big help in that process.
	I had one more question about Cash Patel.
	The Epstein list.
	Okay, they've promised to release the Epstein list.
	And Pambani confirms she's going to release it.
	The betting odds had shrinked.
	They'd be like, ah, now they're not going to release it.
	And she's like, oh yeah, we're reviewing it.
	Well, but I'm still wondering why the betting odds are still only at 64% and not higher.
	But I'm still not putting...
	I'm not putting anything...
	I don't want to get involved in that because there might be like a technicality where they say, well, this stuff was already released and whatever.
	Do we expect that they would be redacted?
	Are they going to be partial documents?
	Is it going to be only the list?
	What are we even expecting with that?
	My understanding is that they're going to release as much as they can, including the list.
	And it would include any information about list of clients, contacts, communications, all the rest.
	That they're going to keep very little of it under seal.
	Okay, and I don't want to give many ideas, but when they say it could compromise an ongoing investigation, would all of this be lapsed?
	Would this be beyond the statute of limitations so that argument no longer applies, or could this potentially nonetheless still apply to...
	That could always be true, but usually that's always a cover-up strategy, rarely an exposure strategy.
	Okay. Let me do this here right here because I wanted to thank Sad Wings Raging from a long time ago.
	He had gifted five subscriptions to Viva Fry.
	Thank you very much, Sad Wings.
	And I see them there.
	Mad Max IK or Mad Maxic says, what about the Matthews Hoover case that ATF brought?
	He is in jail now.
	CC with a concealed carry with the auto sear diagram etched on it.
	Robert, do you know about that?
	No, I don't think so.
	We'll screen grab that and see what that is.
	Then we got RW Parker says, And Maryland voters back to Maryland and increase the, is that South Carolina Supreme Court?
	And each justice has one circuit to oversee.
	Randy Edwards said, oh, I wanted to talk about this, Robert.
	Randy Edwards, Mark Levin noted at CPAC, as is the case with abortion, birthright citizenship is not written anywhere in the United States Constitution.
	Hey, Fave guys, what about the missed mRNA to chickens?
	Madeline Albright.
	Okay, we got that one and the one just came in here.
	Abolish the ATF altogether.
	It's unconstitutional and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.
	Robert, why do I feel like we've talked about what happened to the CPAC, but I don't think we did.
	Unless it happened...
	The CPAC was this week, so no.
	Yeah, I feel like you were explaining who the schlaps were in CPAC.
	Well, in the past I have, yes.
	Okay. You saw them kick out and then make right the incident with the January Sixers.
	Nothing more.
	No harm, no foul.
	The CPAC, it serves a purpose?
	It's okay.
	I mean, there's a lot of grifters and lobbyists there that are looking for connections and contacts and self-enrichment.
	There's a lot of honest advocates and grassroots activists as well.
	So the latter is the good part.
	The former is the annoying part.
	And so if you can filter it through, then you can get some benefit.
	I mean, I went to CPAC, I think, twice under the Trump administration.
	The second time was, you know, now the famous photograph of me and Mike Cernovich and the Tate brothers and Will Chamberlain.
	You know, I don't think Kash Patel's actually in that one, but he might have been around, by the way.
	A whole bunch of people.
	And then it's like, ah, this is the secret conspiracy that's running everything.
	Here's the photo.
	Here's the incriminatory photo from the Trump Hotel.
	Yeah, just held in court because I tipped well.
	So they let me do whatever I wanted back when it was the Trump Hotel.
	Beautiful, beautiful lobby.
	Beautiful facility.
	And everybody just came and, you know, we chatted about anything and everything.
	Paul Watson was there, all that crap.
	But otherwise, I'm just not a big fan.
	I find a lot of the presentations mediocre, not particularly informative, and that the people running it, I'm not as big a fan of either.
	Let's take a few of the...
	Oh, we got a quartet of SCOTUS cases coming up, plus a few more.
	Okay, let's do the quartet of SCOTUS cases, and I'm going to let you run with that, because I'm not going to have much to contribute other than questions from time to time.
	So the Supreme Court took up four cases.
	One, it may issue decisions along with the Trump emergency docket case, which wasn't quite a decision, really.
	Then the news said Trump's Supreme Court rejects Trump.
	That's not what happened.
	They just decided not to get involved at the preliminary stage, at the temporary release restraining order stage, which they rarely do anyway.
	But they issued formal opinions, published opinions, on civil rights, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
	On when evidence is so prejudicial, it violates due process and key time.
	So under the Civil Rights Act, in state of Alabama, people are trying to file claims for unemployment during COVID.
	And they're just moving really slow.
	So they sued under the Federal Civil Rights Act in state court.
	State court said, no, you have to exhaust your remedies first with the state process.
	And they're like, that's the problem.
	We're bringing suit because they're not giving us timely remedy under the state.
	So waiting for them, your delay is the injury.
	So it's like, how is Moore delayed the solution?
	Went to the Alabama Supreme Court.
	They went along with it.
	It goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	6-3 decision.
	There were some concurring decisions that are almost dissenting opinions, but two of them are clearly dissenting opinions.
	What is this?
	Always the federal civil rights laws preempt state exhaustion requirements.
	The state cannot say, oh, you can't sue us for violating your federally protected civil rights because we pass special restrictions on this.
	That's historically been the precedent.
	That's what the Supreme Court determined.
	Thomas dissented with Gorsuch, not because he believed that the exhaustion requirement could be imposed on federal civil rights claims.
	He said, you can still go to federal court.
	He said, but only federal court.
	State courts can decide not to even hear civil rights cases, so they can impose whatever rule they want.
	And I understand where he's coming from.
	He sees it as a respect for state courts issues.
	I see it as the shenanigans state governments use to circumvent civil rights enforcement.
	But the argument is that if you want your rights protected, basically it's almost forcing you into federal court rather than state court.
	If you're a federal civil rights law, you often sue in state court.
	When you have ancillary state remedies or the state jury or judicial poll you think will be better.
	So that's also the politics that's lurking behind it.
	But fundamentally, I agree with the majority decision that says you can't effectively immunize state actors by states just passing laws limiting federal civil rights applications in their states.
	And if the states had decided they would not hear civil rights cases, that'd be one thing.
	But here they're saying, we will hear civil rights cases, but not under the terms and conditions of the civil rights cases.
	That, to me, is not a position that's consistent for state courts to take.
	They decide to take a contradictory position, so I don't agree with Thomas and Gorsuch, agree with the majority, that you can't immunize yourself from federal civil rights laws.
	Unless it's Kurt Benz of suing you, and then the courts just make it up as they go along, kind of like the Alex Jones defamation cases.
	The other one, which was unduly prejudicial information, and that was in the context of a woman who was convicted of having murdered her husband.
	They brought in unduly prejudicial evidence.
	I forget now the nature of the evidence.
	It didn't have to do with the crime, but it obviously...
	Basically, they had a wife accused of murdering her husband.
	Those are always cases to pay special attention to because it's where innocent people can be disproportionately railroaded.
	Because you have someone that's not a lifelong criminal involved in the drug trade.
	That's your run-of-the-mill criminal case is somebody that has an extensive criminal history.
	Whenever you see someone without an extensive criminal history, chances are the case has something wrong with it.
	Or a higher way above average risk.
	But this often happens in family dispute cases where they just get it wrong.
	The government and cops get it wrong.
	And here, what they did is, in order to convict her of murder and conspiracy to murder, They basically put her entire personal life on trial.
	They highlighted how she dressed.
	They highlighted what kind of mother she was.
	They highlighted what her sexual history was before the marriage.
	Things that clearly had nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of the trial.
	But the Oklahoma courts and some of the lower federal courts were like, yeah, okay, they all agreed.
	This was...
	Unduly prejudicial.
	What does that mean?
	I was going to say, because some people are like, well, of course the evidence is supposed to be prejudicial.
	It's supposed to be evidence.
	And it's the nexus between relevance and generally broadly prejudicing the individual in a way that's not relevant to the accusation.
	That's where people sometimes fail to understand.
	Are you appealing to emotions or are you appealing to intellect?
	This is what the theory of the law is.
	One could argue about whether this theory makes sense given how the human mind works.
	But put that part aside.
	Are you appealing to factual determinations made on logic?
	Or are you appealing to emotional arguments that might prejudice someone to make an irrational decision against the facts because they're biased against someone that has that kind of behavior or that kind of lifestyle?
	And the goal is to always convict on the facts.
	Don't convict because the person has been subject to a smear campaign in the courtroom beyond what's particularly relevant.
	And so you balance how relevant is the evidence versus how prejudicial.
	And it's when it's unduly prejudicial, when it's likely to lead to an emotional response rather than a rational response, that's when the evidence is supposed to be excluded.
	Under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a trial is not a fair trial.
	You're entitled to a fair trial.
	This includes how the juries pick.
	This includes how the judges behave.
	This includes how the prosecutors behave.
	It's all protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against state actors.
	And in that context, and this is an Oklahoma state prosecution that was being dealt with, And you can bring a federal habeas petition if the state courts have been unreasonable in interpreting the law.
	And what happened here is they said that, and this is where I'm not agreeable with Thomas or Gorsuch or Alito and others, they tend to just love law enforcement way too much at a local level.
	I get it, but it's just disproportionate.
	So they were eager to say it wasn't well established that admitting a bunch of ridiculously prejudicial evidence could violate due process.
	It's like, what?
	I didn't even understand it.
	It's like 101 of law.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, this is when I tell people that Gorsuch and Thomas and Alito are not reliable in criminal cases.
	This is what I'm talking about.
	Their mind seems to go out the door and they seem to embrace things that they would reject otherwise because they just have a reflexive preference for law enforcement.
	It's like old normie conservative talk.
	Well, they have a badge.
	It must be right.
	They have a badge.
	They wouldn't lie.
	Oh, no.
	Who would possibly imagine that?
	I mean, that's just the nature of it.
	Then January 6th comes along and people are like, oh, maybe we shouldn't have greenlit such a deference to law enforcement.
	Maybe we shouldn't eviscerate bail standards.
	Maybe there's a reason our founding generations put that in there.
	So I agree with the majority, again, in this context, and disagree with the dissents.
	Because to me, it's also an attempt to eviscerate habeas corpus.
	Which a lot of the conservatives on the bench have wanted to do forever.
	And I disagree with him on that as well.
	Unsurprisingly, Barrett joined him.
	Barrett loves power.
	So, oh, we get to abuse an individual's civil rights?
	I'll sign up.
	Because that's who Amy Coney Barrett really is.
	The other two cases that were decided, one I agree with, one I'm not so sure about.
	And the first one is the Ketam cases.
	Because this is the other great power the Justice Department can unlock if it really wants to stop massive fraud and abuse.
	If Doge wants to have a real impact on fraud, what they're doing is great, but unleash the KETAM division and have Doge employees working with them.
	Because the KETAM division of the Justice Department, like the case brought against Pfizer for Brooke Jackson, is the best mechanism and means available to expose and recover monies for fraud against the taxpayer.
	In this context, somebody sued because, and the defense argument was, yeah, maybe what we're doing is illegal or is fraud, but we're paying for it ourselves.
	It's one of those cases where the industry is all regulated.
	They pay into the federal government, and then the federal government enforces it by paying the money out to others.
	Basically, make sure schools and libraries can get internet and other wireless services cheap.
	That's what the law is for.
	But they're like, oh, but all the money really comes from us.
	We fund it through an indirect tax.
	So even if we're committing fraud on the program, it doesn't matter because it's fraud on ourselves, if you will, or fraud on other private actors, so we're outside of key tail.
	Again, thanks to the Supreme Court, again, Gorsuch, Thomas, I think Alito all issue concurring opinions trying to limit the scope of it.
	Once again, they're not good in this space, unfortunately, with consistency.
	But it's the institutionalists and the liberals who are.
	Because usually these are plaintiff's lawyers bringing these cases for the left.
	But they reaffirmed that if the government is involved at all, if taxpayer dollars are involved at all, then you have a KETAM claim.
	You've got a False Claims Act claim.
	So important expansion and protection of False Claims Act claims for those that want to expose the Bill Gateses and George Soroses of the world.
	A huge win in that regard to the Supreme Court.
	And then last but not least, A Jewish Holocaust case reaches the Supreme Court.
	I actually did read that one also.
	And the Supreme Court rules against the Jews.
	Well, look, at the risk of being called names, in as much as at some point you have to live with the injustices of the past, when do you lose your right to be able to go sue a government for atrocities that were committed 100 years ago, 200 years ago?
	And so this was a Hungarian Jewish fan or descendants of that that had assets stolen during the war.
	I didn't exactly understand the details of how there was talk of co-mingling, I think, in this case.
	But bottom line, they had assets taken from them during the Holocaust, and they wanted to have that wrong righted.
	And I guess the court said you can't sue the Hungarian government in America.
	What was that?
	What was the ultimate punchline?
	Judicial outcome.
	Because it was the opposite of Pfizer.
	It's the opposite of FISA, it's the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.
	So instead of FISA, it's FSIA.
	And what it said is, Congress said you can sue a foreign government involved in commercial activities in the United States if they take your property in violation of international law.
	So on paper...
	Kind of sounds like what happened when the Hungarian government, on behalf of the Nazis, did so.
	Now you've got a second question, which I think is a fair one.
	How much is the current Hungarian government the inheritor of the Nazi government, since this government is directly opposed to the Nazi government?
	And the history of it related there, too.
	But they avoid that question by just saying, broadly speaking, that if the...
	That you have to specifically trace the property.
	So this is called equitable tracing in American law and some other jurisdictions.
	I've dealt with it in fraud cases.
	So if you can actually trace the actual property itself or the proceeds of the property itself, then you can bring suit wherever that property is located to seize that property because you have legal title to it originally.
	And it's equitable tracing under various fraud claims.
	They were trying to expand it.
	And say all we've got to show is that any of the property taken ended up with them having those funds that were later spent in some manner just because it was commingled.
	And the Supreme Court rejected that theory.
	They said you've got to show actual equitable tracing.
	You can't circumvent that by just saying at some point in the past there was commingling.
	So I get that point, and I think that's mostly a fair point to make.
	But it also reflects, as if you read the opinion, Their obsession with not offending and upsetting other foreign nations in general.
	And giving the power to the government to regulate.
	They don't really want ordinary people to enforce these laws.
	They want it to be up to the government to enforce these laws.
	Whether it's about high seas cases, whether they're talking about key tam cases, whether they're talking about...
	Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act cases.
	They basically want the government to be in charge of whether the case goes forward, not an individual.
	And they often find various pretexts and excuses as to why it is they can't enforce a law that appears to apply on its face to the case.
	So I get where they're coming from.
	I'm sympathetic in part, but not fully, because I think their political prejudice is too deferential to letting governments control things that involve harmed individuals.
	Robert, while we're talking about the Jews, this was not on our menu tonight, but I have to bring it up because I saw this earlier.
	Okay? I will not say where I fall on the spectrum of this particular debate.
	I don't know if you saw Jackson Hinkle is in Beirut for the burial of Syed Hassan Nasrallah.
	And he's there posting content and this is one of the videos that he posted.
	He's there for the burial of a man who I think is widely regarded, I think, legally as a terrorist.
	And I'm not putting anyone on blast because this is an interesting legal discussion, maybe a moral one as well.
	Laura Loomer and others are saying, is this not material assistance of terrorism?
	And she says the real test is going to be whether the Trump administration will be enforcing the books is how they respond to Jackson Hinkle.
	This is the ultimate test for the DOJ under Pam Bondi relates to combating terrorism and supporting terrorists in America.
	Will Pam Bondi take action?
	She goes on and lists what she thinks are potential crimes that Jackson may have violated.
	More signs that Laura Loomer is an idiot.
	I got a lot of blowback when I was being highly critical of Laura Loomer over the last two years.
	But all the telltale indicators were there.
	This is an untrustworthy narrator that you cannot rely upon that likes to stir up unnecessary controversy in ways that undermine the Trump administration and the populist cause.
	That's who and what she is.
	That's who and what she'll probably always be.
	I'll never be a fan or supporter.
	She's lied about me before.
	That's who she is.
	She lies about all kinds of people all the time.
	So people wonder why I don't trust her or like her.
	This is a big part of why.
	Secondly, the people on the pro-Israeli side should not be pushing this nonsense.
	There's already efforts afoot to protect Israel from criticism.
	TikTok, that animated a lot of the TikToks.
	In Florida, there was some...
	Talk about banning anti-Israel or banning anti-Israel boycotts.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And they're trying to pass laws that basically would do all kinds of things.
	This is not productive, right?
	If you're on the pro-Israeli side, that hurts your side.
	That's who it does.
	Laura Loomer is hurting the Israeli side.
	It'd be like, if I was on the anti-Israeli side, I'd pay Laura Loomer to pretend that she's pro-Israel because she'll undermine things so badly.
	On the Israeli side.
	So I've never been a fan of these Foreign Agents Registration Act law.
	It is easily abused.
	It is an attempt to circumvent and violate our First Amendment freedoms, which Jackson Hinkle fully has.
	I don't see anything that suggests he's a real foreign agent.
	Foreign agent is the foreign government pays you to go lobby the government and you don't tell anybody you did.
	It's that kind of not meant...
	I mean, here she's saying she is cheerleading the very law that was used abusively against General Flynn and his son.
	I mean, this is ridiculous.
	She's an idiot when it comes to the law.
	She's unreliable politically.
	She's dead wrong.
	I would defend Jackson Hinkle on this completely if anybody were to go after him.
	The test of the Trump administration is not to be weaponized to be a tool and token of foreign governments, whether that's Israel or anyone else.
	And so, you know, I'm not on the pro-Mah side of it.
	I'm identified as being on the pro-Israeli side because I sympathize more with the Israeli side.
	Practical reality.
	But that does not mean we should be punishing people who have a different political opinion on the subject by abusing the same laws that were abused against us.
	And my opinion on it, if anybody was hesitant or was wondering, I don't like Jackson Hinkle.
	I believe he's an idiot.
	I don't know how much of an idiot you'd call him.
	My main issues with him is he retweets actual terrorist propaganda.
	But I don't know that I would call that materially supporting terrorism by showing up and documenting it.
	And that's why I don't like these laws.
	These terrorism laws are used abusively.
	I mean, they used the terrorism laws against January 6th defendants.
	It was inescapable.
	Enrique Tarrio, terrorist enhancements.
	We don't need special terrorism laws.
	We already have laws against murder, assault, and all the rest, plenty effective against criminal activity.
	When they start creating new crimes, they're creating new people to give the state power to prosecute.
	That's all that is.
	I've never been for any of these FARA-related laws.
	It was so obvious they were going to be abused.
	They've always been abused politically, and I don't even think they should.
	Same with the Logan Act.
	It's a complete garbage law.
	All of them.
	Our law is intended to protect the state against meaningful criticism.
	And, you know, going to somebody's funeral is not for agent's registration.
	No, and people say, how did he get it?
	It's not supportive.
	It's Lebanon.
	People travel to Lebanon.
	I just think he's making friends with people.
	Well, it's like the crap you have to deal with all the time.
	The fact that RT ever supported anybody anywhere, anyplace, means nothing to me.
	In fact, you never received any money from RT.
	I never received any money from RT.
	It doesn't mean people to sort of jump on that equation.
	And it's like, Well, name somebody around the world.
	If receiving money from a foreign government discredits somebody, then pretty much everybody that the U.S. media cites overseas has to be discredited because pretty much all of them have received money from the U.S. government for their actions under USAID or NED or the like.
	So if that's going to be the standard, I mean, especially Laura Loomer, does she really want to be talking about this?
	Does she want people looking at whether she's ever received money from someone that could be listed as from a foreign government?
	I don't think so, Loomer.
	So this is ill-advised path that all these people are going down.
	And I say this as someone who generally is more on these.
	I don't agree with Jackson Hinkle on the Israeli dispute.
	Don't agree with him on a wide range of disputes.
	But he's someone who has strong opinions and is completely constitutionally protected in speaking them.
	And any attempt to criminally prosecute him for this is absolutely absurd and asinine and a threat to the First Amendment.
	Good. That was what I felt before, and I feel now much smarter because you agree.
	Robert, we're going to go over to locals.
	We got the involuntary servitude, how visa abuse, legal immigration, the healthcare industry, involuntary servitude all tie into a recent class action, special treatment for trans in jails, schools are not only propaganda factories, And indoctrination factories.
	Courts are now approving it to exclude parents from even knowing about what's happening with their child at school.
	And federal courts are saying that's just fine.
	And then last but not least, First Amendment selective prosecution has arisen in federal court.
	We'll talk about what must be proven for that.
	It's less than a lot of prosecutors and cops think has to be proven to establish that.
	We're going to do that over on Locals.
	Everyone, start getting your butts on over there now, and I'll just read a few of the tipped questions that are starting from the top so I don't lose these.
	If Mar-a-Lago Alternative is needed for the 1776 event, I have a great venue on the water a little further north in, I think that's Palm Beach County, that can accommodate 300-plus full bar food, dedicated sound PA, reasonably priced compared to other...
	I'm screen-grabbing that, Mario B, because I think we're going to need that, and I also want to go fishing, and that's going to be right in the same area.
	RN says, seriously, when is SCOTUS going to grow a spine and put a stop to these inferior judges way overstepping their authority?
	They should all be removed judicially.
	NetJest says, please support, like, repost, or otherwise boost my latest comment on X. It's a solution to building the farmhouse.
	Let me go open that one up on the side.
	It doesn't come up here.
	Okay, good.
	Then we got Max Biagi.
	Thanks, Robert Barnes, for commenting on the case in Jana Lunden.
	She's coming on tomorrow.
	The U.S. citizen being secretly spot on by the Irish police.
	Also, thank you, Viva Frye, for reaching out to Jana.
	Interview with her.
	Much appreciated.
	The U.S. Embassy is still sitting on the sidelines at the moment, despite J.D. Vance's speech last week.
	For anyone unfamiliar, I'm going to open that one up, too, because I'm going to have to get up to speed on this before tomorrow.
	Going down, cynical RN, when do you see Congress starting to pass laws to make these executive orders binding beyond Donald Jump, DJC's term?
	You know, there's the next dem installed in the White House.
	We'll just nullify the EOs unless Congress makes them law.
	Isn't that the power of the new executive?
	Well, really, it's, yeah, I mean, whoever becomes the executive branch would benefit from the Supreme Court.
	Uh, in giving a broad unitary executive, but mostly it empowers the people so that they know that whoever they elect to run the executive branch actually will be able to run the executive branch.
	Okay. Very good.
	Uh, let me get back up here.
	Local government people need to start going to jail.
	How long do we wait?
	And what is this?
	The gateway pundit violent, uh, I remember murder.
	Okay. I'll look at that afterwards.
	Good luck in Seattle on Monday.
	Are you in communication with Tim Iman of the We The Governed?
	Would love to see you either have them on.
	They might be able to help connect you to local council.
	That was from August B37.
	Ticker, wait until you find out how much, oh yeah, I got that, I read that one for.
	Viva, you can give a cute little girl the money without taking the toxic, I'll give the cookies to the neighbor, but they probably got some also.
	I have recognized a noticeable uptick in the MSM telling us 1 million Russians have died while only 100,000 Ukrainians have died in the war.
	Even eyepatch McCain is gaslighting us that Russia is not winning this war.
	Why do you think there's such a big push to gaslight us this way?
	Desperation? I don't think it's a...
	It's not over a million Russians died?
	Maybe casualties?
	I think it was over a million people who died in the conflict, but most of those are on the Ukrainian side.
	And let's question about the crypto drama in Argentina that we covered.
	Entry required.
	I was a Boy Scout 50 years ago.
	Here's a copy of the...
	What is this?
	Today I would never buy cookies or donate to the BeWoke or Girl Scouts.
	Entry required.
	Good Sunday Live.
	That's Thinks Now.
	Entry required.
	We've got another one here.
	Lots on the right are duly harsh on Farage.
	I got that one too.
	Alright. What we're going to do, I'm going to give everybody the link and get your butts on over if you want to.
	If not, you'll get this on podcast tomorrow.
	Robert, you're off to Seattle right after this.
	What's your flight?
	Like a red eye?
	No, wait, you're out there already.
	But it's the West Coast, so...
	Yeah, yeah.
	Sorry, I forgot.
	You're in Vegas, so it's not that far.
	Three hours?
	Yep. It's still a big-ass country.
	For you to go to Nevada, to Seattle...
	Okay. What was I going to say?
	Get your butts on over to locals.
	We're going to end this here.
	I'm going to give you the link.
	That's it.
	You're busy for the next month, and I'll be live tomorrow, noon 30. So, ending on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	If you're not coming, if you're coming, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and otherwise you'll get this in podcast format and when I post it all to Commitube.
	Updating now.

▲