Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 2, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:09:12

Ep. 253: Zelensky Dress-Down and Geopolitical Fallout! D.C. Court Rules AGAINST Trump Firing & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So let me start by saying I love Europe.
	Truly love Europe.
	I love visiting Europe.
	I love Europeans.
	I have European friends.
	I respect the relationship we've had for a really long time.
	You Europeans do not respect Americans.
	You can protest and say, no, no, we love Americans.
	No, you don't.
	We know you look down on us.
	You think you're better than us.
	And in some ways you are.
	You know, you work 35 hours a week.
	You have longer vacations.
	You've got this magnificent culture.
	We get it.
	But any relationship in which one side doesn't respect the other can't last.
	This thing where Ukraine comes to the White House and acts like it can tell us what we should do, that's not what the relationship is.
	This thing where somehow we're on the hook, including for countries that are not in NATO, that was never the deal.
	Ukraine is not part of NATO.
	We were never obligated to protect Ukraine.
	Maybe that was something that Europe wants to do.
	Great. Europe should go protect Ukraine.
	We have no NATO agreement with Ukraine.
	And this thing where Zelensky then goes and quotes all these other European leaders, they're with me, not with the United States.
	Great. Go work together.
	We have 100,000 Americans being killed by the Chinese and Mexican fentanyl and methamphetamine mafias every year.
	Our kids are not learning to read.
	We have...
	We can pause it here on Cryptos.
	Good evening, everybody.
	First thing before I get into the rant, I'm just going to...
	Everybody knows I'm on the road, and so I'm doing the stream directly from my computer.
	I didn't put a filter on that makes me look younger, but the quality of this camera, along with the light that I'm using in the back here, which is like one of these things, it makes me look like...
	I don't know, like I'm wearing Vaseline on my face.
	First of all, Schellenberger.
	The car thing is mine, okay?
	That's copyright infringement, and I'm joking, obviously.
	Schellenberger, for those of you who don't know him, Michael Schellenberger, we can share that link to that tweet because it's quite astute.
	And when I saw this, am I allowed to say my wife sent that to me?
	I'm not sure.
	My wife follows Michael Schellenberger.
	When she sent that to me, and I'm watching this, I'm like, I remember movies like Killing Zoe.
	If anybody's never seen Killing Zoe, an absolute...
	A debaucherous movie.
	I think Eric Stoltz was in it, some French actor.
	I want to say it wasn't to Quentin Tarantino.
	It might have been written by Quentin Tarantino back in the 90s.
	Super violent, bank robbery gone bad.
	There was a line in it where the scene in the bank when the French guy's robbing the bank and there's an American couple.
	And right before the American guy gets killed, spoiler alert.
	He says, you know, if it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking German to the guy in the French bank, to the robber.
	Growing up, it was the trope.
	In Canada, Quebec, same thing.
	You know, we're not American.
	Americans are brash, ignorant, can't identify countries on the map.
	Okay, fine.
	It's fun, it's games, and it's the stereotype that Canada has of America, as if, you know, Canadians are much better when it comes to international geopolitics.
	They're proving right now they're not much better.
	Europeans, yeah.
	You know, they tend to speak more than one language, tend to be more culturally literate, probably because within an area about the size of America, you have about, however, 12, 13 other countries.
	And so it's by nature, it's by upbringing that it has to be that way.
	That's fine.
	Schellenberg is 1000% right when it comes to, you guys have it not easier, better in Europe.
	You work less, socialize medicine for however that works.
	And a lot of that is off the back of what America gave to you, freedom.
	Because in reality, if it weren't for America, France would be speaking German.
	Britain would be speaking German.
	It turns out that they'll end up speaking another language, and that's going to be for other types of less violent wars or conquests that are being waged.
	But they would be speaking German.
	And when Steer Carmer, when Keir Starmer...
	Comes to America and says, you know, we're the greatest allies.
	Once upon a time, possibly.
	Allies, yes.
	Indebted to one another.
	Not within the same realm of proportionality.
	And whether or not they were great allies once upon a time, the question now becomes, are they great allies now and does Europe as a whole, and Britain in particular, respect and reflect American values?
	It's nice.
	You get to work less than Americans, take better vacations, have four-day work weeks, 35-hour work weeks.
	There's a reason why you get to do that, and part of it is because you're riding the coattails, reaping the benefits of the fruits and labors of Americanism.
	And so Keir Starmer coming into the Oval Office and saying, Yes, we're great allies.
	We have very similar interests in everything.
	Could you beat Russia without us?
	Of course not.
	Well then, maybe the discussion should be a little different.
	Schellenberger is 1000% right.
	Europeans love shitting on Americans.
	I can tell you that I lived in Paris for one year.
	Canadians love shitting on Americans.
	You can see it right now.
	They love shitting on Americans and yet living under that wonderful umbrella of protection that America provides.
	Now, in reality, also, that umbrella of protection brings with it a certain umbrella of target.
	You get too cozy-cozy with Americans, and then all of a sudden it's not so fun to be wearing that flag when you travel abroad.
	But it's an amazing thing.
	It is handouts.
	You're thankful for them at first.
	Then you expect them at second.
	And then they become an entitlement third.
	And then you get angry.
	And you bite the hand when it starts taking them away from you.
	So Schellenberger is making an astute point.
	Watch the video in whole.
	I don't want to steal all of his insights.
	They're good insights.
	Good evening, everybody.
	So I'm on the road.
	We're going to be doing Tim Pool tomorrow night.
	And I was going to fly in tomorrow, do a blitzkrieg thing alone.
	Figured instead, take my kid down.
	We're homeschooling our youngest and turn it into a weekend, what do they call them?
	Field trip to Washington.
	So we go to Washington yesterday.
	This is all going to like loop together with the intro rant-ish type thing.
	We get to Washington, stay today.
	My wife, I don't know how she did it, but got an amazing rate on Expedia and was otherwise a very fancy hotel.
	And, you know, you compare what a fancy hotel costs to what a reasonable hotel costs and the value added is not there.
	As far as I'm concerned.
	So long as it has a nice bed and a good pillow.
	That's all I need.
	We went down to the Washington Monument and ended up walking around.
	And I thought we were going to end up at the Supreme Court, but we ended up at the Abraham Lincoln Memorial.
	And it was impressive, but I'm having not mixed feelings.
	I'm having conflicted feelings about how I feel about all of this.
	First of all, look at this.
	It's amazing.
	In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever.
	Someone told me that his hands in ALS do A and L. I'm not sure if that's true, but I believe it is.
	And that's me and my boy, who he may or may not appreciate this or even remember when he gets older, but I think he will.
	And I think the history that he's learning now is going to be that much more impactful later on.
	You look at these monuments.
	And I look at these monuments that they built to humans.
	And on the one hand, it feels like a form of idolatry.
	I mean, it's one thing to build monuments to gods, the gods or God.
	That's fine.
	That's religion.
	And I look at this and I say this government is sort of a form of religion in and of itself.
	The monuments are amazing in what they memorialize.
	Someone in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community said they gave Lincoln a massive monument because of how the deep state done.
	Lincoln dirty.
	And the funny thing is also, you know, we went to Arlington Cemetery this morning.
	We did a 12,000 steps.
	We walked up to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
	We went down to find the members of a family of a friend of ours.
	I think there were a lot of people with a similar last name, but I think they're all related.
	And, you know, they gave JFK a wonderful plot in Arlington Cemetery.
	After having assassinated him.
	But it feels a bit like idolatry.
	It feels sort of like...
	It's a difficult sentiment to express because it feels like this is trying to convince the people that all of the bad things that the government did, sweep them under the rug and make you feel patriotic for what some of us are now discovering were actually the most evil atrocities committed by the government.
	We build a monument to the man that the Deep State either assassinated or facilitated the assassination of and then covered it up.
	And when we walk through Arlington Cemetery and all of the soldiers and their family who died in battle or who died afterwards, 400,000 servicemen and women and their spouses buried in Arlington.
	How many of them were killed in wars that should never have been waged in the first place, that could have been avoided from day one, but were not, but for the plans of...
	Older men who would never have to fight.
	Hundreds of thousands.
	How many wars were absolutely necessary to spill the blood of Americans, or anybody else for that matter, were waged?
	How many were not?
	And so we're looking at Ukraine, and you're looking at the likes of, let me see if I can bring up Billy Baldwin.
	Everybody is in a rush to send your kids off to battle, and that's how you end up with Arlington cemeteries throughout the world.
	Everybody's in a rush to tell you what you have to do, what wars you have to support, and then you find out how many of them were absolute wastes.
	Vietnam, Iraq, the global war on terror.
	I mean, it resulted not only in Americans dying, hundreds of thousands, millions of other people.
	Billy Baldwin posted it.
	You just love it because you know that he's posting it from his freaking Malibu mansion.
	I don't know if he actually lives in Malibu, but it's a mansion.
	He's in California.
	People of Ukraine, know that we have your back.
	The people of the world respect and support you.
	We are angered and embarrassed by the weak, petulant, thin-skinned, vindictive, ignorant, cowardly man-child Trump.
	It's amazing that someone can actually do this and think that they are anything but the man-child that they describe.
	Please accept our apology and know that we stand with Ukraine.
	You stand with Ukraine.
	Your apology means nothing unless you go and serve Billy.
	You're still pretty fit.
	They're looking for people.
	They're forced conscripting anyone 18 to 60. Go to Ukraine.
	What the hell does your apology mean?
	You sit there from your Malibu mansion lying on your back, having your toes manicured.
	I stand with Ukraine.
	And it's amazing.
	These old men who either don't have children or will never have children that will be sent off to die.
	And even if they do sacrifice their own, that's great.
	Child sacrifice is as old as time.
	They're very eager.
	To send people to the slaughter.
	Do you know how many people have been killed in the war between Russia and Ukraine?
	Forget who you think started it.
	You think it started in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine?
	Congrats. You're entitled to be an ignorant buffoon.
	But let's just say it started that.
	How many?
	How many is enough for territory?
	Not your kids.
	And then the more that die, it's the gambler's dilemma.
	The gambler's loss.
	The more you lose, the more you have to risk to try to get it back.
	You never get back human life.
	How many have died?
	I mean, the estimates are now like 800,000 wounded and killed or killed.
	And then you get these idiots.
	We got to negotiate a peace.
	But Ukraine has to win.
	I think it was Hristia Freeland.
	You got to negotiate.
	We got to negotiate, but Ukraine has to win.
	Having to win and negotiating are the impasse.
	And you come and say, we'll take some more of your money.
	Yeah, I know the 100,000 young Americans are dying annually from fentanyl, opioid overdoses.
	And we know that, but that's separate.
	Oh yeah, it's coming from China, it's coming from Mexico, but you should dedicate your resources to protecting Ukraine's border.
	And then they shit on you and call you every name under the sun, weak, child, man, baby, when you say...
	I'm going to take care of my own kids first.
	You guys want to fight a war?
	Go fight a war.
	Oh, what?
	You can't fight that war without us?
	Well, then maybe you should think twice about whether or not you fight that war any longer.
	Not one more inch.
	If you thought the war started in 2022, you have no business in politics.
	If you didn't know the Ukrainians were fighting with the Nazis in 1945, you have no business leading geopolitics.
	If you think Russia now, the enemy of all enemies, which was the ally of all allies, When you erected that World War II monument in Washington, D.C., if you don't understand the problem there, you have no business making geopolitical decisions.
	And how many more people are you going to send off to the slaughter?
	You go to Arlington Cemetery and there's no number that is too great.
	They only have 70,000 plots left in Arlington.
	Before I get into the Canadian stuff.
	That is the intro.
	Good evening, everybody.
	On the road.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	Barnes is going to come in a bit.
	I want to thank our two sponsors for tonight's show.
	We have red meat.
	Oh, boy.
	See, the one thing I'm missing is damn good red meat.
	I'm on the road, and all you can get is processed food crap.
	And it's so bad, the food, that I actually choose not to eat more often than not.
	But... Chicago Steak Company, one of our two sponsors for the night.
	Right now, Chicago Steak Company has an unbeatable offer exclusively for all of our viewers here.
	Go to mychicagosteak.com forward slash Viva.
	You get four free bourbon sirloin steaks, a bottle of their signature seasoning and free shipping on your first order that exceeds $199.
	I've had the meat.
	It's amazing.
	Meat. It's amazing.
	The sauce is amazing.
	It's as good as you can get the seasoning.
	It's delicious.
	Tender, juicy sirloins.
	Seasoned with their best flavor, Chicago Company's premium cuts, their beautifully marbled ribeyes, the perfectly aged New York strips, exactly what you need for your holiday spread to impress every guest.
	Hold on a second.
	I want to show you the actual, they have like the beef chart to show you where they get their meat from and how good it is.
	Let me see.
	I got to go here, here.
	This is the only food pyramid you should ever look at, people.
	Hold on a second.
	I want to make sure I get back here.
	First offer over $199, you get the free four bourbon sirloin steaks, signature seasoning right to your front door.
	Each steak hand-cut aged to perfection.
	They are freeze-dried, individually packed, ready to eat when you want them.
	Go over to mychicagosteakcompany.com forward slash Viva, place an order of $199 or more, and you get that four free bourbon steaks, the seasoning, etc., etc.
	It's amazing.
	Link is in the description.
	And our second sponsor of the evening.
	Qualia. If you want to feel better and you want to feel younger, you will go to Qualia.
	Have you heard about Senolytics?
	And by the way, you know the spiel.
	I talk about these things with my wife, who's a neuroscientist, and I talk with the companies before I do these.
	I want to make sure things are on the up and up, and they are.
	Senolytics. If you haven't...
	Okay, hold on a second.
	I think about the zombie cells.
	Aging is something that happens to all of us.
	It doesn't make us feel good.
	It takes longer time to recover.
	It takes you longer time to recover from a hangover if you do those things.
	Senolytics are these things.
	You have these things called zombie cells, and they basically affect the manner in which you convert energy, age, etc.
	Senolytics flush out these zombie cells from your body, like pruning the brown leaves off a tree to make the tree flourish.
	It's non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free.
	Ingredients are designed to work together seamlessly.
	They offer a 100-day money-back guarantee.
	I've noticed recovery time is better.
	I do the detox.
	I'm on the month two of the detox now to flush out the zombie cells and eophilia.
	If I look younger, it might be because of the senolytics.
	My beautiful face.
	The wrinkles are gone.
	Go over to the website is qualialife.com slash viva.
	You get 15% off your purchase.
	Thank you, Qualia, for sponsoring this and actually for...
	Making me feel better and younger.
	Links for the description.
	Now back to the rant, people.
	Okay. I have to bring it up before you even see what's going on here.
	We are dealing with stupid people.
	Politicians are stupid people.
	They are liars and they rely on the stupidity of others.
	Mark Carney, we're going to go down the Twitter thread on this one, says, and never will be.
	And then you have to say, oh, and never will be what?
	To an original tweet from Yasser Nakfi, who, if you look at Yasser Nakfi, is an MP from Ottawa.
	Okay, Yasser Nakfi is saying Canada is not for sale.
	You may not remember this individual.
	Everybody gets old and he might need some synalytics.
	That's Mike Myers.
	On Saturday Night Live, wearing a shirt that says Canada is not for sale.
	Yasser Nakfi, a member of parliament, says Canada is not for sale and says, here's Mike Myers at SNL.
	Mark Carney is running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, probably will be the next Prime Minister of Canada because he'll swap out Trudeau until they have the next federal election, and he says, "and never will be." To which I say, "Canada is not for sale," says the celebrity who moved to America to become a multimillionaire, retweeted by the politician who moved to England to become a multimillionaire, and who is currently selling out Canada to China.
	Virtue signal harder, any virtue signal harder, Mike Myers.
	Was last seen selling his mansion for $17.5 million.
	This was Chelsea Heights.
	That's in New York.
	You got another one there.
	Mike Myers lists his New York City penthouse for $20 million.
	I post this, and there are other people out there who, either through stupidity, through malice, or through a little bit of both, say, oh, Viva, didn't you move to Florida so you're the only one who gets to have an opinion?
	Oh, I thought you supported free speech, Viva.
	If I criticize your stupid opinion, it's not because I say you shouldn't have the right to express it or have it.
	I say that it's a stupid opinion.
	And when I criticize Mike Myers, it's not because he left Canada to pursue what he thought was a better life in the land of the free.
	It's when Mike Myers, after having achieved that better life in the land of the free.
	New York is not much better on taxes, so I can't accuse him of having gone to Florida and benefited from the beneficial tax rate of having gone to Florida.
	But the man who flees the country to go to the other country trumps America to get that better life, and he gets it.
	And then he gets out there all of a sudden all patriotic.
	Sell your mansion.
	Go back to Canada, Mike.
	Go and use their universal health care.
	And then you get Mark Carney, who's running for the leadership of the liberal race and thinks that's the messaging that makes the point for the liberals.
	Yeah, I'm retweeting the man who fled the country because of its lack of opportunity, at best, tyranny over taxation.
	Crappy systems at worst.
	Goes to the land of the free.
	Makes his fortune.
	Tweets from the land of the free.
	Posts his picture from the land of the free.
	Canada's not for sale.
	And this is coming from the same man who is literally selling Canada out to the rest of the world.
	Highest, lowest bidder.
	It doesn't even matter to Mark Carney.
	Globalist shill that he is.
	Yeah, we're going to kill energy production in Canada.
	We're going to boycott Elon Musk's.
	Teslas. And we're going to go buy EVs and rare earth minerals from China.
	While we let China come in and buy up land in Canada, train on Canadian soil, infiltrate our politics, which they have, and not just China, by the way, India as well.
	And these idiots think that I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to express your opinion.
	On the contrary, express it.
	I want to know who the idiots are around us.
	I'm not saying shut up and sit down.
	You don't get to have an opinion.
	But maybe your messaging for Canada is so great should not be the man who fled Canada to lead the better life in America.
	And it's almost a joke.
	What we've achieved now is brain-dead levels of zombie-ism.
	You've got your zombie cells that qualia prunes from the body.
	You've got zombie-ism.
	I'm so proud to be Canadian.
	The ones who are out there saying it have become American.
	Hold on a second.
	Is Mike Myers an American citizen?
	He is Canadian.
	Is he also an American citizen?
	He is an American citizen, yes.
	I know he's from Canada.
	You know, the amazing thing is like the Mike Myers of the world, the Jim Carrey's of the world, the ones who shit the hardest.
	Jim Carrey shits on America, lives here.
	Mike Myers promotes Canada, lives in America.
	And I know they're from Canada, but it's amazing.
	Renounce your citizenship if Canada is such a great place.
	Go back, go buy it, Mike.
	You're not going anywhere.
	All right, let's see when Barnes gets here in a bit.
	I'll read some of the comments.
	But if I don't get to your tweet or your super chat.
	Tip questions.
	I'll do my best as well.
	And you're going to be miffed.
	Don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling rick, ruff, schuld, whatever.
	Cheryl Gagey says, I've never been to D.C. Did you go to some of the museums?
	Not this time.
	We were going to go to the Aviation Museum this morning, but I figured we were better off going to Arlington Cemetery and having my kids see that.
	And actually, amazing.
	Amazing, impactful.
	He was actually passing each tombstone and saying thank you for your service, which unsolicited.
	It's amazing.
	And then I went to see my brother who lives not far and have bagel locks and cream cheese with him and then up to here.
	Museums are nice, but between a museum in D.C. and a museum in Florida, they're going to be roughly the same.
	The internet's amazing.
	The internet is the biggest museum on earth.
	Bill Brown in the house.
	That was not right.
	Oh, Bill Brown says, most Canadians like being ruled by monarchs.
	Yeah, there's no question about it.
	An unfortunate reality.
	Bill Brown also says, we need to back out of NATO now before an Article 5 false flag.
	You know, it's an amazing thing.
	Zelensky, after taking $177 billion, only mentions that he only got $100 billion of it recently.
	He's like, oh, yeah, you promised us $177 billion.
	We only got $100.
	We don't know if that $77 billion was stolen by America or Ukraine.
	You guys know how much Zelensky's worth?
	You guys know that one of his military guys was a...
	Embezzling $42 million by overpricing military goods and just pocketing the cash.
	Oh, yeah.
	If I had to guess which end of it it was laundered, like stolen from, it would be Ukraine.
	The entire thing is a money laundering operation.
	But he comes in and says, yeah, we'll take peace in exchange for NATO and nukes.
	You dumbass.
	It was NATO and nukes that started this war in the first place.
	It's like Yasser Arafat saying, yeah, we'll take peace for the right to return to 6 million Palestinians.
	And that's it.
	Yeah. Okay.
	Sorry, that's the problem.
	That's not the solution.
	Okay, we've got Robert.
	I hope my email helped you out on Kurt Bensuth's case.
	Good luck tomorrow.
	Hope you don't get contempt of court.
	Okay, Barnes, he'll come in.
	Actually, let me text you and let me know you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I cannot seem to get that.
	Look what I've done here.
	In your phone.
	Yeah, okay, it's the phone.
	I'm not touching my phone for the rest of the night.
	I'll see when Barnes gets in here.
	I've never been to see...
	Okay, hold on.
	I want to...
	You do have a number of YouTube ones as well.
	Okay, let's see.
	Can you...
	You're not able to manually get these down.
	Okay, hold on, people.
	Okay. Would you like me to pull the YouTube Super Chats for you?
	Yes, that would be wonderful.
	And in the meantime, I'll see if I can...
	So I'm tethering off my phone because that was actually faster connection than the hotel connection.
	And I inquired as to whether or not they had a faster connection than I could pay for, and they didn't and don't.
	So there was no option, people.
	So don't call me a cheap bastard.
	I was going to do it this time.
	I'll just read.
	I'm going to read the chat because I can't seem to bring them up.
	Denise Antou says, David, people also forget that USSR was instrumental to winning World War II.
	The Soviet Union, yeah.
	I mean, the whole irony is it's not clear who was the worst dictator between Stalin and Hitler.
	I mean, Hitler gets the public recognition, but Stalin, I mean, I don't know how you measure the evilness of tyrants.
	All right, Stalin killed more, but Hitler had much more of a racial target, a religious target.
	I mean...
	Stalin was responsible for the deaths of, you know, they say, what, 30 to 50 million people?
	And he's not even the good guy in retrospect, but he's not, for some reason, not treated similarly to Hitler because you were using one evil murderous tyrant to kill another evil murderous tyrant.
	And by the way, people should also ask themselves whether you think USSR was an ally or not in the long run.
	Russia's never...
	Russia will win the war of attrition every single time.
	Let's see if I can do this.
	The lag on my end now is making it very difficult to bring up chats.
	And I don't want to touch my phone again.
	I just want to see if Barnes is going to come in here.
	That is so long.
	Next chance you get in D.C., try to spot and photograph.
	All of the Masonic Egyptian symbols you can.
	I noticed that, Dan.
	First of all, the Washington Memorial, I mean, the monolith, if that's what it's called, or the phallus, is a very, I mean, Masonic.
	I know when people, it's on the dollar bill.
	I know what people say about that.
	Okay, but I'm just going to read them because we can't do this.
	Bill Brown says, we need a backup of NATO.
	Jameson says, Robert, I hope my email, I got you that.
	Denise Antu, David, okay, the USSR, I got that.
	V6 Neon says, the UK is effed in the current law in Parliament and the civil service alone, the The UK doesn't have to Ukraine.
	You are such a great dad, says, thanks now.
	We've had a good one.
	It's been actually very pleasant.
	We went down to Harper's Ferry and the water is very cold and very, very high.
	This is so long.
	I can't do this anymore.
	Okay, I'm just going to unpin it and stop doing it.
	Nibub says, hey, Viva, nice to see you again.
	Good is coming.
	Canada is whack.
	Also, the Oscars are for, I'm not saying the word because apparently you're not allowed to say the word.
	I always was saying homos, but it's, you know.
	Thank you very much.
	Randy Edwards says, When you can't spend time in West Virginia, Harper's Ferry, the Greenbrier, and Bunker, Devil and Hatfield's grave.
	Oh, there's Barnes.
	Check out my video about Harper's Ferry.
	Every time we come down here, we go through Harper's Ferry.
	And we did the hike up the mountain.
	Absolutely beautiful.
	Tomorrow, we're going to do the Civil War.
	Bolivar? I think it's called Bolivar's Mountain.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	We're both on the road this week.
	I'd rather be where I am than where you are, I'll tell you that much.
	Yeah, the Bentoof trial starts here in Seattle, King County.
	The jury selection is on Monday.
	The actual trial will start on Thursday.
	I'd asked the court about broadcasting it.
	The court declined the invitation.
	I thought it was a kind and cordial one, but the court was not inclined.
	But the court said that anybody can come and watch the trial at the courthouse.
	That's at the King County Courthouse, downtown Seattle.
	The actual trial will commence Thursday morning, opening statements, and the first witnesses Thursday morning in the case of State v.
	Kirk. Ben's hoof.
	For anyone who wanted to come in and watch, always be, of course, proper, respectful, quiet, diplomatic, don't interrupt or anything like that.
	Always behave well, of course.
	But for anybody who wants to, it'll be Thursday, and then the trial will continue next Monday, and expected to go to closing arguments by next Wednesday.
	Let's actually just cover this, because I know a lot of us watched it.
	A lot of us watched it when the sentencing was happening on that for which Ben Sooth was already found liable or guilty.
	It was a misdemeanor, so guilty.
	A city case.
	What they did is they split.
	I mean, it's one of the worst and most egregious examples of overcharging.
	And, you know, prosecutors are infamous for overcharging, but this case may be the worst example I know of.
	Because what they did is they took a single set of...
	Basic facts, which was the state alleges that he made contact with his ex, his son, and with the girlfriend of his ex after a restraining order had been imposed on him.
	Let me stop you there because I got three questions.
	The restraining order was imposed upon this guy, his name is Ben Suf, in his absence?
	Did I understand that part correctly?
	Yes. What happened is two things.
	So one is that it's the whole nature of how family court is operating now in a lot of liberal jurisdictions.
	And this is why this case is more consequential than just Kurt Benshoof.
	The reason why I agreed to take it on at a very discounted rate, being sponsored and supported by 1776 Law Center.
	Was people who are donors to 1776 Law Center wanted the case to be pursued.
	And I normally don't take these kind of cases unless I'm very confident that the client is innocent of the charges, for one.
	I've always represented victims of domestic violence, never perpetrators.
	I don't believe Kurt Benson is a perpetrator.
	In fact, the evidence supports that.
	But the other aspect was...
	I mean, you're talking about an appeal in one case, a sentencing in one case, a trial in another case.
	It's a lot of work.
	We've put in hundreds and hundreds of hours, over 1,000 hours by now, into the case collectively with everybody who's contributed to it.
	I had some great volunteers, law clerks, interns that are doing some great work along with our legal team.
	But it's because of how family law works writ large, and you see it in this little example.
	So here you have a couple that had a parenting plan.
	They were never married, but often lived together, taking care of their child.
	Then COVID comes along, and the legal system in Seattle slowly decides to weaponize ideology to punish dissidents.
	And he's someone who's skeptical of the official narrative about COVID, whether it came from a lab or not, back in the very beginning.
	Skeptical of whether the vaccine was really a vaccine, whether it was really safe and effective for his son or other people.
	Skeptical of mask mandates.
	He's a local preacher.
	He challenged it in court.
	And what happens is the whole legal system crushes him.
	And they use the family court often to do so.
	And an example is when he first goes into the family court, the court recognizes there's no domestic abuse here.
	The first time there was any hearing, the court's like, there's no domestic abuse here, and finds no domestic abuse at all.
	And now, because the problem is they've not weaponized but rather diluted the term because we heard domestic violence, 80 counts.
	The judge had never seen domestic violence like this before.
	Domestic abuse, physical.
	The domestic violence that they're referencing in this is each text message sent to and from his son, correct?
	Right, yeah.
	Words is violence, basically, is how they decided.
	So they took one core set of facts and multiplied it into like 100 charges, which is not supposed to happen anymore.
	It's like it was one thread that extended a certain period of time with his kid.
	Each one was being treated as an act of a charge.
	Each one of those was referred to as domestic violence.
	And whether or not people think it was manipulative or Let's say you go in and do a burglary.
	And imagine they charged every simple, like they said, okay, we're going to say when you broke into the house, that was trespass.
	When you walked into the living room, that was a second act of trespass.
	When you walked into the kitchen, that was a third act of trespass.
	I mean, that's what they're doing.
	And this is what people can look it up, overcharging.
	Kurt Benshoof is a classic case of overcharging.
	They've taken one set of limited set of facts about him communicating to his own son.
	That's 90% of them.
	10% of them is communicating to his ex or his ex's girlfriend about matters concerning his son.
	And they've converted that into criminal stalking, criminal harassment, and nearly 100 criminal charges, in which they are seeking to put him in prison.
	For longer than typically rapists and assaulters serve here in the state of Washington.
	Not only that, in fact, the longest sentence that anyone in a similar situation has ever seen.
	When you have judges so delusional, like the city judge, who claimed this was the worst case of domestic abuse she'd ever seen, that means she's so ideologically contaminated that to her, opposing the COVID vaccine...
	Is a horrific act of abusing your child.
	I'll even steal, Manit, because I couldn't believe what I was hearing when she said this was the worst case of domestic violence.
	And I'm like, she's talking about text messages.
	And even if you think the father's manipulating the kid to use him against the mother, like some of the most damning, I'll put it in quotes, thread was where he says, can you do this?
	It'll help me in court.
	If I do it, they won't take it seriously.
	Your mother's using you against me, whatever.
	Standard stuff, I'm sure, has said.
	All the time in a divorce?
	Every single divorce.
	Each one of those is what the judge was referring to as domestic violence when she said this is the worst case of domestic violence I've ever seen.
	Chatting with your kid about games.
	Because, I mean, most of the charges were those kind of conversations.
	It was, hey, do you like this game?
	Do you like this movie?
	Do you like this thing?
	Do you like this?
	That's what almost all, as even the ex admitted, as even the prosecutor admitted.
	I mean, notice how few statements they could highlight at his sentencing here, right?
	I mean, if he had said horrific things, you would have heard them broadcast right there.
	The hard things they could find.
	He's contesting the divorce or the parenting plan.
	He's contesting his house being taken away from him.
	He's contesting his car being taken away from him.
	I just need to clarify it for everybody because we were watching it, and when she said 80 counts of domestic violence...
	She was only, there was no slapping, there was no hitting, there was no punching.
	Zero. In fact, the only physical violence that's ever happened is against him.
	The ex has admitted she has physically assaulted him in the past.
	She's the only one that's ever committed any physical violence in the entire relationship.
	And so why are you seeing these judges make these crazy rulings?
	We go back to the family court.
	I mean, the order that was issued was a restraining order, not a proper protective order.
	That's part one.
	There's certain specific rules that relate to orders of protection.
	I would know because I was one of the first lawyers in the nation enforcing orders of protection.
	They passed as part of the Violence Against Women's Act.
	They created federal funding to help pro bono public or public interest lawyers work in the space.
	And I was one of the first young lawyers doing orders of protection work throughout Tennessee.
	And right then was the beginning of the ideological contamination of domestic violence representation.
	I was witnessing it.
	I was witnessing feminist advocates who saw this as a means of power, not a means of protecting vulnerable women and children, or in some cases, vulnerable men, because as a whole, women are more violent than men in terms of interpersonal relationships.
	The difference is the women's violence feels far less consequential.
	Because of the physical side.
	The analogy is the Chihuahuas or Cocker Spaniels do bite more than Pitbulls, but Pitbulls send more people to the hospital than Cocker Spaniels.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But so you dig into this, and I was trying to defend actual victims.
	And I could never rely on the social worker network to give me honest, accurate information.
	They would mislead me all the time.
	And it was because for them it was ideological.
	This was a tool to take down the patriarchy and the misogyny.
	To give you an idea, the girlfriend of the mother goes on these long rants against Mr. Ben's hoof about he's part of the white male patriarchy, he's part of the oppressive system.
	I mean, it's all radical rhetoric and language.
	For example, you know what the Seattle court system considers domestic abuse?
	Showing your teenage son the movie What's a Woman or What's a Man, the Daily Wire film.
	He showed that to his son when his son was 12, and that was part of the evidence of abuse that was cited by the courts.
	I mean, see, what is it?
	I've been warning people on the right, don't jump into a lot of the trans stuff about wanting to give the government a lot of power because it's going to greenlight governments on the other side grabbing that power.
	And that when you start saying the government gets to decide what's good or not good for your kid, and what is abuse and not abuse for your kid, I want clear definitions of that.
	There's no evidence at all.
	I mean, even the mother has admitted he loves his son.
	She used the son to unravel him.
	Well, she used the son in the exact same way they are now saying he used the son, which is ironically to get the courts against him.
	And what it is, is they just have all Seattle's ideology on their side.
	I mean, this is a place that ended...
	What you saw with the judge on this past Monday is that they live in such a bubble.
	They're shocked, literally shocked, when someone pushes back.
	And at the end, I was just sincerely agitated.
	I thought you were going to jail, Robert.
	I mean, is there no humanity left?
	No self-restraint.
	It's like, I get the ideology.
	I get you want to punish your opponents, fine.
	When you're just adding and adding and adding and adding and adding and adding and adding, and then these same people are going to come to conservatives and say, we need to change and liberalize bail standards.
	We need to have less of an incarceration-driven system, things I agree with them on.
	I'm like, you're not going to get any conservative buy-in because whenever it's somebody that you don't like ideologically, you throw all those principles aside.
	You're like, screw it.
	Let's have maximum prison, maximum punishment, maximum incarceral system of remedy.
	So they're complete hypocrites and frauds when it comes to these cases.
	And I've grown less patient with judicial fraud, bad judicial behavior.
	And it was like, okay, it's one thing to issue a crazy sentence, another thing to make ridiculous preposterous statements that show bias.
	But when you say, okay, I know you're going to trial next week, and I'm going to screw you and prevent you from...
	From being able to defend yourself by locking you up pending trial, knowing how difficult that will make you, already in a difficult venue.
	You've got an 80% liberal Democratic jury pool here in Seattle.
	I mean, that's who I'm going to be begging to do some justice over the next two weeks.
	So they already have the game as one-sided as it could be, and they've got to rig it some more?
	And I was like, after they issued a ridiculous sentence to begin with?
	Now, ultimately...
	After that, she came back and put out an order.
	She didn't come back on the bench.
	I didn't know what was going to happen.
	She went off the bench, but you could tell she was sincerely shocked.
	Part of it, I was aggressive with the tone and tenor, but I was sincere.
	You're really punishing him.
	You have had a habit of doing so.
	You're telling me that you're not biased, and you're making statements that no person that wasn't biased would ever make.
	I was like, I'm down on those grounds.
	I'm going to move for due process that you disqualify yourself.
	I knew that...
	She would react negative, but I was just done with it.
	And wherever the chips fall, they fall.
	But it's like, someone's got to wake these people up.
	You have these liberal judges that are in a land of denial.
	They are shocked when people second-guess.
	Oh, maybe trans ideology is not universally accepted.
	Maybe it's not the best medicine or science.
	Maybe the COVID vaccine wasn't even a vaccine.
	Maybe it wasn't so safe and effective.
	Maybe all the things they've been mocking Kurt Benzhoof on for years.
	He was more right than they were.
	And yet they can't even contemplate this possibility.
	And the open weaponization of everything, the judges have a lot of power.
	And to keep using it against a guy who was mostly pro se, just to take away his last little bit of either liberty, freedom, or opportunity to defend himself, I was like, enough's enough.
	Someone's got to scream at him.
	Someone's got to yell at him.
	Someone's got to say something.
	Or it's going to keep happening unabated.
	Ironically, by the way, two days later, The Washington Supreme Court issued a ruling that confirmed exactly my argument to the city court.
	The Washington Supreme Court came in and said, in a case of a pedophile, a convicted pedophile, said you can't terminate his parental rights.
	You can't issue a no-contact order against him.
	You've got to go through the termination parental processes to do that.
	And that's a convicted, pled-out pedophile.
	And yet they're doing it to a guy who they admit never harmed his kid a day in his life.
	They disagree with the emotional interaction, but no claim of any abuse ever, of any physical kind whatsoever.
	This is a guy who never even spanked his son, never laid a finger on his son.
	His son has sworn affidavits and declarations under penalty of perjury, affirming that.
	She doesn't dispute that.
	So nobody disputes that.
	And yet he is prohibited from talking to his son until his son is 20 years old?
	That's what the judge ordered.
	That's how insane the judge is.
	The legal system here has lost its mind.
	What did she come back with off the bench that we didn't get to see live?
	She wasn't physical.
	It was just the final written order to the Department of Corrections said less than two years.
	I think she had originally written an order for him to be in prison for seven years.
	The city was requesting five to six years, depending on how you interpreted it.
	But they made clear to her that she could give an 81-year sentence.
	That was their official pitch at the end.
	So that's how insane the risk was.
	And I think she'd originally planned on seven years.
	That's why she had to go back, and it took a while on the bench between that and the written order.
	She had pre-written her order, like most of them have, is my strong suspicion.
	But she had pre-written a different sentence.
	And after we were able to successfully argue, you've got literally no legal precedent anywhere in the world to support such a sentence.
	She realized, okay, maybe that is going to look a little bad.
	Maybe I will get smacked around on appeal.
	Okay, I'll come back and make it just slightly ridiculous, or slightly less ridiculous, I should say.
	So it's still two years.
	I mean, our advocacy helped save five years of his life.
	That matters.
	That's consequential in its own terms.
	But now he faces another 10 years in the trial upcoming because the way they did the city case changes the sentencing guidelines in the county case.
	So he went from facing six months on the county case, even if convicted, to facing more than 10 years now.
	That's the gamesmanship that they were pulling.
	And that's where I'm just getting at.
	It's like this town wants to go around bragging about how the Seattle legal system is so good with protecting criminal defendants' rights, and it's so good about holding prosecutors to account.
	Unless they don't like the politics of the defendant.
	Then they abandon every single one of those principles.
	And the scary thing here is what happens if opposing a vaccine for your child now becomes abuse and grounds to terminate your parental rights.
	They've been doing this in Canada for already using it as an excuse to strip parents of parental rights, visitation rights.
	And that's what this case is all about, really.
	It's about is fighting for your son and the protection and safety of your son.
	Is that a crime worse than rape and murder and assault and robbery?
	Because according to the state of Washington, it is.
	And we'll see whether we have jury selection tomorrow.
	And then there's some motion practice on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
	And then the trial starts Thursday.
	And we'll do everything we can to defend him and protect him.
	And if we don't get a good outcome from the jury, then we'll be making the same argument sentencing and on appeal.
	Here's the other thing.
	All orders of protection are supposed to be personally served here in Washington.
	He was never personally served.
	They knew where he was, and they just emailed him instead.
	And so that's a separate issue.
	Because just having the order of protection in place changes the risk from a misdemeanor to a 10-year felony.
	And they created a 10-year felony risk by creating all these city charges.
	You know, it's the same conduct, but they're just adding and adding and adding.
	And you heard she clearly sentenced him based on things that were not related to the city case.
	So we've got a lot of unique constitutional issues impacted.
	It's a hostile venue, hostile jury pool, hostile judicial pool.
	Honestly, it's pretty much what I've been doing most of my life.
	That's pretty much what I walk into.
	It's one lion's den after the other, and you just try to survive.
	Just don't end up in jail, Robert.
	I don't think they want to put me in jail for very long, because I'll give free legal advice to everybody in there.
	But the, I mean, like to give an example, they put Mr. Benzouf in isolation right away.
	You know, he's had no means of helping to prepare his defense all week.
	I mean, it's just, I mean, we'll see if it works for them.
	I don't think it necessarily will in the way that they think it will.
	That, you know, railroading people is not a good way to go about justice, period.
	The only way they know.
	Robert, before we get into a few things here, I think I can bring it up right away because King and Biltong just popped in the house.
	Add some healthy protein snacks to your diet.
	Biltong is packed with B12, iron, zinc, creatine, and much more.
	Biltong is available at BiltongUSA.com.
	Use code Barnes for 10% off.
	Robert, okay, so I guess briefly, what else are we going to cover tonight?
	Yeah, yeah, so we still have a lot of other.
	We got SCOTUS and Trump.
	Finally, SCOTUS appears to be awaking from its legal slumber.
	We got to SCOTUS talking about prosecutorial duties and obligations, and it's where I side with the liberals and the institutionalists over the conservatives when it comes to certain aspects of criminal defense in the constitutional context.
	A big Supreme Court decision came down last week on that respect.
	We've got all the various forms of craziness concerning Zelensky trying to hijack and extort money out of the United States on a constant continuous basis by calling the Vice President of the United States a B-I-T-C-H in Russia.
	Okay, we'll get to everything.
	Let's start with that right now.
	Someone said that he mumbled.
	Okay, so the news that shook the world on Friday that actually took the attention off Pam Bondi.
	Pam Bondi must have been thanking Zelensky.
	A whole lot of Friday.
	We're going to get to Pan Bondi as well, the Epstein files.
	Zelensky comes to the White House.
	There's a 50-minute broadcast or open to the media.
	What do we call it?
	Not a conference, but a session.
	I'm not crazy.
	We had never seen an open to the media session like that involving Zelensky in a while, if ever.
	Am I wrong?
	Well, not involving Zelensky in the U.S. with Trump.
	We've seen it more in the congressional setting and other settings.
	They probably didn't trust Biden to do too many of those for too long a time period because of his mental acuity or lack thereof.
	And so I think that's part of a why.
	But what's extraordinary is their arrogance.
	I mean, I did a show last week or a week or two ago with the Duran.
	They've been breaking this down great, both Alexander McCorris and Alexander Christoforo.
	They also have independent individual channels where they do some great breakdowns, so highly recommend that.
	But we were discussing that, and they've been pointing out now for years, that Zelensky and the EU is delusional, that they don't have any sense that the British Empire still thinks it's an empire, doesn't realize it's been dead now for a year.
	It reminds me of Al Gore, that was like the onion when the onion was the Babylon Bee, when the onion used to be funny.
	After the 2020 election, or 2020-2000 election, the joke was that Al Gore had not accepted that he'd lost.
	So they had a photo of Al Gore's cabinet meeting, and it's like his cats and his dogs, and they're all sitting around, and he's pretending that he's still the president.
	That's the degree of delusion that Europe has, that Daley Starmer, that Trump had to smack around right there.
	Because the day before...
	Starmer's in there giving his thing about, oh, the US-British alliance is the key to securing liberty for the world and peace and freedom.
	What he really means is the Brits need America's military and economic power to continue its myth of empire around the world.
	That's what he really means.
	And Trump was like, do you think you could be Russia by yourself?
	I mean, everybody started laughing at the guy right in front of him.
	He started laughing.
	It was so preposterous.
	In one...
	Tongue-in-cheek question.
	He puts everyone in their respective positions.
	Completely. I think I found the clip.
	I'm going to send it to Encryptus.
	It shows the example of it.
	And so then the next day, you could clearly tell Zelensky's been a puppet all along.
	He's a clown puppet actor of the EU and George Soros' globalist crowd.
	That's what he's always been.
	And he was literally an actor.
	That's his actual background.
	He played a fake president in Ukraine for five years that misled everybody into thinking that's how he would be president.
	He ran on a peace ticket, said he would enforce the Minsk Accords.
	And then when he gets in, first of all, he evaded President Trump.
	President Trump says, oh, hey, congratulations on the election.
	I'm concerned with where U.S. money is going in Ukraine.
	I'm concerned with...
	Where the connection to Biden corruption might exist, other corruption might exist, Victoria Nuland, other names like that came up.
	And he said, oh yeah, he wanted that kind of review and research to be done.
	Then they used the mere fact that Trump was inquiring about deep state corruption in Ukraine to impeach Trump.
	And Zelensky went mute.
	He said nothing.
	To defend the call that he himself was participant on, an eager participant on.
	You know what?
	I actually hadn't connected those two dots when I was reveling in Trump dressing him down in the Oval Office.
	He didn't do what would have otherwise been, hands down, end the impeachment.
	No, it was not a quid pro quo extortion scheme whatsoever.
	And he said nothing.
	Exactly. After encouraging and inviting President Trump to inquire into those subjects and topics and have him do so.
	And then about six months later, he decides to abandon the Minsk Accords and go along with this sort of neo-Nazi, ultra-whack-job wing of Ukrainian nationalism that goes back a century.
	The Western Ukraine, for reasons of historical coincidence, ended up uniting with the Nazis and other fascist groups.
	In implementing their Ukrainian nationalism.
	If you want to go back, they didn't even used to call themselves Ukrainian, by the way.
	You don't have to take my word for it.
	Just research the Ukrainian nationalist groups in America and in Canada, and you will find that by origin, they called themselves Ruthenian, not Ukrainian.
	They come from Western Ukraine.
	Europe has been messing around with Western Ukraine, trying to use it as a borderland battleground against Russia, dating back to the 15th century.
	That's what Putin was talking about.
	When, you know, Tucker opened the door, he goes, well, let me tell you, you have to go back to 1412, you know, that kind of thing.
	But it's actually true for contextual understanding.
	And we put Operation Gladio there.
	So we had all these neo-Nazi aligned lunatic groups that we had empowered and given money and support to going back to the end of World War II.
	And then George Soros fully unleashed these groups after the Cold War.
	And you had Eastern Ukraine that was Russian, Western Ukraine that was either Russo-skeptical or anti-Russian.
	Almost every Ukrainian election between 1990 and 2014, you can see it literally in the map.
	Eastern Ukraine's voting to be more aligned with Russia, Western Ukraine's voting to be more aligned with Europe.
	Ukraine ends up dead broke during this time period because playing footsie with the EU turned out to be a bad economic strategy.
	Culturally, economically, otherwise, geographically, it made much more sense for them to be incorporated into the Russian economy than for them to be incorporated into the EU economy.
	They would just be used as a source of cheap labor in the EU economy, and they end up becoming one of the poorest countries in all of the world.
	In that time frame, the deep state uses it as a personal playground.
	A playground for bioweapons labs that Victoria Nuland ratted out a couple of years ago in a Senate hearing in front of then- No, no, no.
	They're bioweapons research facilities, and they're nervous that it might fall into the hands of the Russians.
	So it's only there for our protection.
	It's not biolabs.
	Not bioweapons, bioresearch facilities.
	Biodefense. That's what they call them.
	That's the official language, which is all nonsense.
	Massive amounts of human trafficking out of Ukraine for prostitution and other purposes.
	So it's really a deep state playpen and cesspool that they utilized to try to sabotage Russia.
	After the Cold War was over, you needed to justify this.
	NATO operation that makes no sense.
	NATO was literally designed to curtail the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries expanding into Western Europe.
	That's it.
	Once the Soviet Union was gone, NATO should have been gone.
	We promised Russia that if they would give up all claims on any of those satellite countries, by golly, we would never send NATO one inch eastward.
	And all we've done is send NATO more and more and more eastward until now it's literally on the Russian border.
	So they've been using, and what is they use?
	In 2014, they staged a coup.
	They overthrew the elected president.
	They created a false flag where they blamed snipers on killing protesters on the Ukrainian government when, in fact, it was the protesters that were doing it.
	Neo-Nazi-aligned militias that started out of soccer hooligan gangs in certain cities and areas in the central and eastern Ukraine, whereas in western Ukraine, they had long been present over a century.
	And they do some of the most vicious.
	When people in eastern and southern Ukraine rebelled, they did things like literally light them on fire inside a building.
	This is the great democracy that we're supposedly protecting.
	The coup completely overthrows any democratic realm of government.
	Zelensky, they sign an agreement called the Minsk Accords.
	This is what makes Zelensky's statement so absurd.
	The Minsk Accords, Russia has always followed.
	It is Ukraine that has never obeyed.
	The law.
	Never obeyed the Minsk Accords.
	Never obeyed their treaties.
	All Ukraine does is violate the law and violate human rights.
	That's all they've done for a decade.
	And right now, Zelensky is not even a legitimate leader of Ukraine.
	His term for election is gone.
	It's over.
	He has declared martial law.
	He is a dictator.
	Legally, he is a dictator.
	Trump is not a dictator.
	Putin is not a dictator.
	Not legally.
	Legally, Zelensky is a dictator.
	He has banned elections, banned speech, banned press, banned religion, and is kidnapping kids off the street, including people with Down syndrome and people over 60 years old, to die in a deep state war to continue to oppress and suppress Russian identity in the eastern part of the country.
	That's the reality.
	And so for him to sit there and lecture us, oh, what happens when Russia comes knocking on your door?
	Russia has literally never come knocking on our door, you idiot.
	We have zero risk.
	We only have any from Russia because of our stupidity being involved in Ukraine.
	But we have big beautiful ocean.
	You will feel it in the future.
	When he said that to Trump, you'll feel the pressure or I forget exactly the wording.
	What happens when Putin's on your door?
	Or it means, you know, what happens when the people we've brainwashed into thinking that, you know, I stand with Ukraine or else, when they start, you know, setting things on fire in your country.
	It sounded like a threat for Ukraine-motivated false flags or terrorism, as it's known, in America.
	In this whole mythology that's been made up about the Budapest Memorandum, the Budapest Memorandum was to make sure Ukraine did not have nuclear weapons.
	It was at the demand of the West that Ukraine not have nuclear weapons.
	And that got reconstrued into, oh, this was really like a security guarantee that Ukraine gave their nuclear weapons back to Russia to whom it was always their weapons.
	It was always Russia's weapons.
	It was never Ukraine's weapons.
	It just happened to be physically domiciled in Ukraine while Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.
	We didn't want Ukraine to have an independent nation to have nuclear weapons for reasons that belabor the obvious.
	So we asked Russians to take it back.
	That was not a special security guarantee.
	Anybody who's dumb enough to read that memorandum and come to that conclusion should have their head examined.
	So for him to get there and try to lecture the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States, in the Oval Office, while reneging on the deal that he had promised that it was the only reason Trump was letting him in the room.
	Trump wasn't letting him in the Oval Office until he signed a deal to pay us back all the money we've given that criminal.
	And what happens?
	He had no intention of ever signing the deal.
	He only did it so he could get into the room and he could show up Trump advance.
	And all the little Europe crowd would come and cheer and woohoo!
	You know, we're Winston Churchill again in their fantasy land version of themselves.
	When in reality, it's what Trump pointed out.
	We're not going to war with Russia.
	This isn't worth a war with Russia.
	And you need to cut peace deals because we're done bailing you out and letting this war continue to...
	Lead to needless death.
	And that's what's going on.
	And it's absurd.
	I mean, the only question is whether Trump simply backs down from being involved personally and says, well, we're just going to give you no more money.
	And good luck with that.
	You guys have a peace deal.
	You go do it and see how well you can win that war without us.
	And what they're accelerating, what Europe is accelerating, is our disentanglement from Europe altogether.
	This country was founded on disentangling from Europe.
	It was founded on we do not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.
	It was founded on staying out of European wars.
	We got stuck in two of them in the 20th century.
	And all the French or the English or any of the others should be saying is merci and thank you that they're not speaking German.
	Beyond that, we're done.
	America's finished carrying Europe.
	And as Vance has pointed out, a continent that does not even value our core values of free speech and freedom of religion and freedom of the press and free elections.
	As exemplified in one of the most totalitarian, authoritarian countries in the world, Ukraine.
	So I think all Zelensky did is prove to Trump and Vance that they're done with it.
	Now what it did like is people are taking different aspects of the photos from the meetings and they've made them into memes.
	So they made it to a meme where Zelensky is saying, Barnes said Bourbon was going to be at nine, and Trump and Vance, he said, no, no, Barnes said nine-ish, nine-ish.
	So there's going to be a hundred different versions of that.
	But yes, muttering under his breath, Zelensky called the Vice President of the United States, V-I-T-C-H, in Russian.
	That's where the problem that guy was.
	He should be lucky we didn't literally dwarf-toss him out of the White House.
	I still think Zolinski's two inches taller than me.
	There's a meme going around of him doing coke and touching his nose.
	Forget that.
	It's a possibility.
	If one had their inhibitions, what's the word?
	When you relinquish your inhibitions, they might have called J.D. Vance a bitch under their breath.
	Let's hear it on this one because there's two clips.
	We'll see which one is better.
	I have been to...
	I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tournament.
	I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tournament.
	I wouldn't bet a house on it, but...
	This guy's got so arrogant.
	He doesn't care one iota about Ukraine.
	He could care less about Ukraine.
	He, again, ran on peace with Russia.
	He ran on honoring the Minsk Accords.
	He broke both promises to the Ukrainian people who had elected him.
	If he believed he would be re-elected, because remember right now if they hold elections, the Russian part of Ukraine isn't voting, right?
	Because they're Russian-occupied territories.
	So he would have territories that are all anti-Russian, and yet he's still scared to hold an election.
	Why is he scared to hold an election?
	Because he knows he would lose.
	Because the Ukrainian people are tired of the stupidity of this war.
	And it's only the neo-Nazi-aligned groups that are wanting to keep fighting it.
	Everyone else is like, enough is enough.
	They're escaping where they can.
	They're protesting and having their men dragged into vans and thrown into the front line.
	They see no progress or any hopeful optimism to the outcome of this.
	And historically, Russia has been more an ally than an adversary to the people of Ukraine.
	I mean, the original Ukrainian nationalists were mostly obsessed with taking down the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Empire, not taking down the Russian Empire.
	That became a very belated concern.
	During World War II, quite frankly, where we successfully diverted it on the western side, that Ukrainian nationalism, used to be called Ruthenian nationalism, to it.
	But Zelensky's behavior was outrageous and outlandish.
	It continues to expose who and what he is.
	Now, Gorka's in the White House now at some level, but I was waiting for Seb Gorka to admit he screwed up at pimping for him, and yet I haven't yet seen Gorka acknowledge or admit that.
	So I think you look at it, and what you have is a situation where the only person demanding peace is the President of the United States and the President of Russia.
	The President of Ukraine wants to keep the unelected, self-declared, self-anointed.
	Dictator of Ukraine, Zelensky, wants to continue to steal American dollars and American wealth and put American security at risk so that he and his wife can continue to go on their fancy jaunts to Paris, can buy their more mansions in Europe and the United States, which they've been doing with our money, and continue to propagate their own self-enrichment and empowerment at the expense of the entire world.
	So credit to Vice President Vance for standing up to that little midget and his nonsense.
	Credit to Trump that he really showed some restraint because it was part of Trump that probably wanted to smack him when he was just looking at him.
	He's like, I'm tired of you, pal.
	I know exactly who you are.
	I know where you're coming from.
	Quit wasting your time trying to BS me.
	And so I think that's what we saw.
	I mean, I think what this ultimately does is push the Trump direction forward faster rather than slower.
	And in particular, Both Hexeth and Vance have now said it's time to reexamine whether we should be involved in protecting the security of Europe.
	We shouldn't be.
	It's long overdue that we get out of there.
	That was an anomaly that we were a historical anomaly that we were ever there.
	It's antithetical to core American values.
	It's not in the interest of American security.
	And I think that's where Trump is going to march on.
	They think that calling him a Russian agent is going to work again?
	That ship has sailed.
	You've cried wolf eight times before.
	That wolf cry ain't anybody taking the bait on.
	So it's only a matter of time.
	And the only question is, what we really should do is reward Zelensky with a federal criminal indictment for all the money that he's helped steal from the American people over the last five years.
	But it's so wild because people think, oh, the corruption's old and 10 years ago.
	This is as recently as January.
	They're firing military officials who are...
	Embezzling the money, corruptly thieving tens of millions of dollars.
	He gets up there and says, yeah, we only got half of it.
	He only says it for the first time with Lex Friedman and then tries to suggest it might be on the American side that it's being stolen.
	I mean, it's laughably stupid.
	Well, I mean, I have no doubt American deep state people are stealing, too.
	But he is as complicit as anybody in this.
	He is the one who played the role of building this fake narrative of this fake case.
	For a very real war that could endanger the security and safety of the entire globe.
	I mean, I don't know how many are dead.
	I want to know like dead, but hundreds of thousands dead.
	Probably over a million dead or severely wounded or their life changed in an inalterable manner.
	And most of that, contrary to what you may hear in the Western press, is on the Ukrainian side.
	Robert, before we end on YouTube and migrate over to Rumble people, let me bring up a bunch of the chats because there's a lot.
	If anybody knows who gifted the subs, please let me know because there's a gifted sub in there.
	That's always a good idea to gift a...
	It's beautiful.
	I just can't see who...
	Oh, it was...
	Linda Sigs is a monthly subscriber.
	Maybe it wasn't a gifted sub.
	Maybe there's a new subscriber.
	Cheryl Gage says, I've never been to DC.
	Okay, I got that.
	Danny San, I got these.
	V60 on the UK is fed up.
	I got that.
	Dan Vicious, next chance you get DC.
	Try to spot it.
	Okay, I got that.
	Nibush, hey Viva, nice to see you again.
	Good is coming.
	Canada is whack.
	I got that.
	Randy Edward, as noted last week, US elected represented.
	Okay, I got that.
	Keevster says, Viva.
	Harper's Ferry, got that.
	Welcome to the channel.
	I can't see what...
	Linda Siggs.
	Viva, what is your opinion on the veterinarian on pandemic preparations, Gerald Parker?
	Also, have you had Biden COVID vaccine?
	VaxHeart was halted by the new HHS.
	I didn't hear about either of these things, actually.
	They were trying to scam the government into spending money on a new oral COVID vaccine.
	And Bobby Kennedy said, nah, I don't think we need to be spending any more money in that direction.
	Tosk, I can't read, but guys, I'm sorry.
	In Europe, patriotism was once based on the ancestral tie to the very ground.
	When our founders came here, they lost that.
	The statues and monuments are our attempts to remake that patriotism.
	Here, that was from Rata.
	Okay, and then AltScoon says, what are your producers' views on open Wi-Fi and joining the Wall of Sheep?
	What are your producer's views on open Wi-Fi and joining the wall of sheep versus buying a 3-watt 5G Wi-Fi hotspot?
	Also, any comments on possibility of U.S.-funded CP?
	I wouldn't be surprised about the latter part of that.
	Would you please consider getting Heather Bishop on as a guest?
	Let me screen grab this.
	I would like to hear more about the husband's murder and the actions of his murderer.
	She has a TikTok and IG account.
	Screen grab.
	I have no idea who she is.
	I want to take on Thursday.
	And go to the trial, but the downtown Seattle is a shithole.
	That's from Harry Tone.
	It'd be great, by the way.
	Elliott's Oyster House, the old peers.
	This used to be a great blue-collar port town.
	Jimmy Hoffa called for a mass general strike here in the 1950s.
	I mean, Seattle used to have some heart.
	You can watch movies like Stakeout that kind of capture that old style of Seattle.
	And what's happened is it's become kind of a big tech center.
	It's San Francisco North.
	San Francisco with mountains and bays.
	That's about it.
	It's become a very professional managerial class town.
	To give you an idea, a third of your potential jury pool in King County wasn't even born in America.
	A quarter of Canada was not born in Canada.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Yeah, there's a good number of Canadians here, but there's people from South Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Asia, Europe, I mean, all of Switzerland, you name it, all over the place.
	So you have almost a foreign environment that you're watching.
	Not only is it sort of foreign to the rest of America, that politically, like, take the Benshoof case.
	Benshoof would not have been prosecuted in 98% of the jurisdictions of this country.
	That tells you how nuts the Seattle case is.
	And not only is he being prosecuted, They're trying to imprison him for a longer prison sentence than most rapists and robbers serve anywhere in the country, especially in the state of Washington.
	And it's like, how does it get to that place?
	And the downtown now is depressing.
	It's dark.
	It's got homelessness issues, crime issues, other issues.
	When I was here, it was a happening place.
	No, this was 20 years ago.
	When I had a federal case here.
	But it's not as light.
	You can just feel it walking around.
	People have told me this that used to live here in Seattle or do live in Seattle.
	They said it's not the same place anymore.
	It's similar to Canada.
	You walk around downtown Montreal, homeless, everyone's stressed, everyone's unhappy, and it's not a place to be anymore.
	It's kind of like Canada.
	Canada used to be like a light...
	Carefree, you know, relaxed place.
	I mean, I was fascinated by French rednecks.
	I didn't know that those existed until I went to Montreal.
	And someone tells me, hey, they're like your friends from, they like how you grew up back from Tennessee.
	They like big boats.
	They like, you know, this kind of, I was like, oh, this is awesome.
	These are the best French I've ever met.
	And now it's oppressive.
	And repressive.
	And that's the way liberal jurisdictions have become.
	Seattle is probably the most liberal, democratically controlled legal system outside the District of Columbia.
	I mean, that's how tough it is if you don't fit the right ideology here.
	And they believe in weaponizing the legal system for it.
	But it's reflected in everything.
	It's the culture, the mindset, the vibe you get in Seattle is nothing like it used to be.
	Mad Max makes a very good point.
	600 million Europeans asking 350 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians.
	Math doesn't add up.
	By the way, someone on YouTube just said he wasn't saying bitch.
	He was just saying the equivalent of the F word.
	Still disrespectful, though.
	That was from...
	Yeah, because of how you basically construe it.
	But either way, it was...
	It's what someone does after a couple of drinks and they can't hide their emotions anymore.
	Except he might have had a couple of lines.
	And he was convinced.
	I think somebody on the European side, you look at how the Starmer had come the day or two before, so on and so forth.
	I think this was, Europe really thought this was going to work.
	They thought, oh, Zelensky's going to go in and expose Trump and expose Vance and the whole world is going to denounce them and force them to reverse course.
	There's no scenario where that was going to happen.
	J.D. Vance ain't budging for nobody.
	Donald Trump ain't budging for nobody.
	Least of all, this little criminal dwarf.
	We got, let me read these quick and then we're going to head on over 600 million.
	Robert Barnes, my wife and I are longtime fans and we live in Seattle.
	If you're interested in dinner while you're here, let us know.
	That is Falling Tuna.
	Zelensky says, turn down peace.
	Why couldn't negotiations work the opposite direction with us siding with Russia?
	Ukraine would be forced to stop fighting.
	Europe would be nuts to challenge USA-Russia.
	Well, the irony in this is that if they want to push America out and to ally with Russia, what the hell are they thinking?
	For Zelensky to go on about how Russia made all the violations, Russia has stuck with all their agreements with Ukraine.
	It is Ukraine that has never honored a single agreement it has reached with Russia since 1990.
	They've welched on economic agreements, welched on military cooperation agreements, welched on everything, welched on the Minsk Accords, and they've even welched during this war conflict on basic things.
	I mean, Russia will say, well, we'll give you 75. The prisoners for three of ours, and then Ukraine will play some games.
	They'll get back all 75, and then they'll play games with whether they release the right three.
	That kind of nonsense.
	And so it's revelatory and revealing as to who and what they are.
	Everything he accused Putin of is what Zelensky is guilty of.
	And they killed Gonzalo Lira in jail.
	We shall forget that.
	An American citizen journalist commentator was murdered by the Ukrainian regime and the corrupt Biden State Department failed to do their job at protecting his life.
	All right, I'm going to read these and then we're going to end it and then carry on.
	We're going to get to some POTUS cases and some Amy Berman Jackson.
	I had to remember which cases she had been a judge in.
	I remember now.
	Shouldn't we leave NATO considering Tyrant Stormer is threatening to put UK boots on the ground, create a false flag of UK soldiers shot, thus involving Article 5?
	Yeah, we should absolutely get out of NATO.
	FTX Ukraine crypto money to SBF back to the Democrat Party.
	And then Shape of Evil says, little late but made it home to Rumble, lounging it.
	Lounging in backyard with the dog and the cigar.
	That sounds very good.
	And Pinochet's helicopter tour says, Viva, stop it.
	There's no downside to attributing evil to a non-human little like Zelensky.
	Who cares if he actually said it?
	He is guilty.
	The constant steelmanning for evil is getting tiring.
	Well, okay.
	I thought you were joking at first, but no, I will constantly steelman because it's the fair thing to do.
	Okay, so get your butts on over to...
	How nuts Seattle is.
	Their big protest last week was to support the Ukrainian war.
	I was in D.C. As we were at the monument, I see someone running at me with a face mask and a Ukrainian flag.
	I was like, oh shit, they recognize me.
	They moved off.
	I ran into three fans.
	YouTube, get your butts on over.
	Let me give you the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com if you want to come there.
	But we are ending on Commitube right now, and here is the link to Locals.
	That is it.
	We're going to get into Supreme Court ruling.
	We're going to get into Epstein List and Pan Bondi and what you think happened, Robert.
	Trump's going to be up in SCOTUS, as predicted, sooner rather than later.
	Okay, we're doing it.
	We're moving on over.
	Rumble and Locals now.
	Okay, Robert, what do we start with?
	Let's start with Amy Berman Jackson issuing an order that Trump can't fire the director of...
	What's his name?
	Special Counsel.
	It's a DOJ position of somebody who Biden put in to harass Trump.
	And Trump didn't control his own Justice Department, according to Judge Jackson.
	Amy Berman Jackson, for those of you who may have forgotten, I did have to refresh my memory.
	What cases she was in, because I remember that name.
	Paul Manafort, Roger Stone.
	Who was the other one?
	January 6th cases.
	She was involved in a bunch of those.
	Peter Stroke and Lisa Page.
	And the Mueller cases.
	This is a partisan hack of a judge who is now saying that Trump doesn't have the executive authority to fire people who, I presume, things, I don't know, maybe he's unionized.
	Like, I don't know how it works.
	I presume that guy who's the director of the...
	I presume he serves at the leisure of the president and that this is not a judge-type appointment for life that you cannot be dismissed from except for poor behavior.
	But I don't know.
	I mean, do you know if it's one of those types of positions?
	So it's a discretionary appointed position, typically.
	I mean, everything in the Justice Department is at some level in terms of having prosecutorial power.
	That has to be a discretionary employment position because they're either a principal or inferior officer.
	And this whole nonsense of trying to create a bureaucratic state that is independent of elected officials, people who have not been appointed by this president and confirmed by the Senate for this president, are people who do not have constitutional authority, period. And the entire executive branch is vested, the power of the executive branch is vested in the president of the United States.
	And to give you an idea, at the time the founders chose that language, they knew that language paralleled The power of the king in England as it related to executive power.
	Give you an idea.
	They wanted him to have carte blanche as to enforcing the laws.
	His duty is to take care that the laws be enforced.
	Some of those laws, as it relates to Doge, for example, include making sure only...
	Specifically appropriated, congressionally authorized funds are spent in that manner, but also that a full accounting be made to the American people.
	That's part of Article 1, but it's an Article 1 power that is imposed upon the President under Article 2's Take Care Clause.
	So here you have, he's in constitutional control over the Justice Department.
	And here you have Amy Berman Jackson saying the President of the United States cannot control his own Justice Department.
	That someone his predecessor appointed can sit there and harass him for four years.
	It makes zero sense.
	What judges...
	Judges are appointed for...
	Well, let me think about this.
	Judges are appointed for life.
	And that is under what provision of law?
	That's under the Constitution.
	Okay. Now, their power is entirely contingent upon Congress unless they're at the Supreme Court.
	Because Congress controls whether any court of the Supreme Court has any power at all.
	But the one thing they can't do is that once they appoint them, they can't change their salary unless they're removed.
	And the removal procedure, there's some disagreement with.
	I know a law of self-defense, Andrew Branca, is advocating the principle that a good behavior...
	Argument can be just by a majority in the House and the Senate.
	You could remove a judge for bad behavior or lack of good behavior.
	Unlike every other official, judges are only authorized to serve during good behavior.
	Completely different than every other official.
	You can only impeach any other official for basically criminal behavior and consequential criminal behavior that impacts the presidency or the elected office in a way that can't be modified any other way.
	But here you have a situation where judges, much less leeway.
	You can only stay a judge during good behavior.
	But the way that now my own view is, historically by Congress, that has been construed as the same standard as impeachment, not in terms of legal standards.
	It can be a lower standard in terms of facts of what constitutes bad behavior, but the same standards in terms of process.
	The House can vote to remove and impeach for lack of good behavior.
	By a majority vote, but the Senate has to vote by two-thirds to actually find the judge engaged in bad behavior and remove it.
	Even though I think Andrew Branca makes some smart and good arguments for a different interpretation, there's two reasons why I'm inclined the other way.
	One is just historically we've always interpreted this way, going back to the impeachment effort on Samuel Chase.
	So to go against 200 years of legal history I think is tough.
	And the second aspect is I don't want the Senate to be able to remove on a pure straight majority.
	Because then we know when Democrats take control of the House and the Senate, they'll remove every Republican or conservative or constitutional justice in this country.
	So we don't want to give them that power.
	So we want to maintain two-thirds control in the Senate.
	But it's good to see congressmen have now, for the first time in a long time, started to bring serious, significant impeachment removal efforts and are reeducating the American public on a power they have forgot exists, which is our right to remove any federal judge who's simply engaging in not.
	That's it.
	Doesn't have to be a criminal behavior.
	Doesn't have to be constitutionally dangerous behavior.
	It just has to be not good behavior.
	Examples of not good behavior are political, partisan, prejudiced rulings like the kind that Judge Amy Berman Jackson has been issuing her entire career.
	Remember, she denied Paul Manafort basic rights, denied Roger Stone basic rights.
	She did everything possible to railroad Roger Stone, deny him opportunities that he was entitled to in terms of defending himself in the court of public opinion, try to prohibit him from raising money for his own defense, undermine his ability to present his evidence at trial, allow jurors who are openly prejudiced and biased to sit on the jury.
	And then when it was exposed after the trial, continued to affirm that verdict despite it being obviously tainted by a lying juror.
	That was, just so everybody remembers, that was the one where the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone case, not Roger Stone, yeah, Roger Stone.
	It was the Roger Stone case where she was making Facebook posts about partisan stuff and had lied about whether or not she was politically active.
	She lied to get on the jury and then led the jury to convict Roger Stone on totally bogus charges.
	That's who Amy Berman Jackson is.
	He's a fraud.
	So she's the one who helped preside over to make sure that Trump's initial bail hearing on the federal charges was going to show him up, refused to refer to him as the president.
	I mean, this is a corrupt partisan judge who is engaging in bad behavior.
	And for this, we need to look no further than the constitutional precedence set by our founding generation in the case of the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.
	He was impeached for things that were purely judicial acts.
	So the suggestion that as long as it's within their jurisdiction or within their power, that they can't be removed for it is completely rebutted by the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase.
	Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was weaponizing the judicial branch on behalf of his political allies against his political adversaries.
	Back then, the Supreme Court literally rode circuit.
	So your circuit court of appeals...
	Was a Supreme Court justice back in the day.
	Often they presided over actual trials.
	So Chase was presiding over actual trials and was rigging those trials to hurt his political opponents.
	That is exactly what Amy Berman Jackson has not only done to Trump, but has been doing repeatedly now for a decade.
	Remember, it was the same Amy Berman Jackson who went to great lengths to help Clinton hide his tapes that would be embarrassing to him if publicly disclosed because she said...
	The president has carte blanche as to what has to be archived and what doesn't.
	The exact same Amy Berman Jackson then turns around and rules the opposite way when it comes to Trump.
	This is someone that has been openly, brazenly partisan and political, like most of the judges in the District of Corruption, which is what it should be renamed for.
	We're going to rename Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of America.
	Let's rename D.C. what it really is, the District of Corruption.
	And I was thrilled to hear Trump.
	I mean, think about it.
	Two years ago, we're sitting here interviewing Mike Davis, putting out the idea, maybe Congress should reexamine its authority over the District of Columbia, reexamine its authority over the federal judicial branch, reaffirm its power to remove rogue judges.
	And at the time, we were some of the only people talking about it.
	Got Mike Davis on board, which was great.
	You know, part of the Article III project.
	Mike Davis does great work.
	Also, shout out to Jeffrey Clark.
	Who's back in the administration, one of the most conscientious, honorable, honest lawyers you will find anywhere in America.
	We interviewed him here.
	But now all of a sudden the President of the United States is saying the same thing.
	D.C. doesn't work under the local political powers.
	We've got to reexamine that.
	Senator Mike Lee even put out an open proposal.
	How should we structurally reform the judicial branch?
	And I was like, I've got to give you some ideas.
	Get rid of D.C. Get rid of the Southern District of New York.
	Get rid of some of these other...
	Pockets of whack-job lefty jurisdictions.
	You can do that.
	Congress has complete carte blanche to control every court beneath the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Start to assert that power.
	Start cutting their budgets.
	If they can't get the Constitution right with four law clerks, then they don't need any law clerks.
	And so start to reexamine it.
	I mean, if Judge Amy Berman Jackson thinks Trump can't decide, doesn't have the power to decide who works for him, maybe Trump should send down Amy Berman Jackson and fire all of her workers.
	Fire the secretary.
	Fire the bailiff.
	Fire the clerks.
	When the judges would be, oh, how dare you?
	You couldn't possibly.
	You know, because they're such hypocrites.
	But Amy Berman's action should be impeached.
	Now, some people said, look, if it's a two-third Senate vote, they're not going to be removed.
	Neither was Samuel Chase.
	After Samuel Chase was impeached and the trial of Samuel Chase, everybody in the court system got the message.
	Quit playing politics with your power.
	Do your job as a constitutional official.
	Don't try to usurp powers that do not belong to you.
	And do not weaponize your powers against your critics.
	And they got the message well for about four decades until the slaveholding part of the court decided to go and screw everything up and give us a civil war with a stupid ruling in Dred Scott.
	You know, it's funny.
	As we were driving, and I know you mentioned it, and I think you've explained it, but I needed to refresh my memory.
	What was the decision in Dred Scott that you say basically required the culmination of the Civil War?
	They said slaves could never be citizens, ever.
	That it didn't matter if they escaped into a free state, didn't matter anything else.
	If you were a slave, always a slave.
	It was the reversal of Amistad issued 11 years prior in a case that I had ancestors involved in.
	Amistad in 1840, made into a film later by Steven Spielberg.
	The Supreme Court said, born free, always free.
	And there was a constitutional argument well articulated by both Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner that you can read about online.
	It's a free, open source called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
	It's been part of the Barnes Law School book series.
	We've been going through some of those texts over the last couple of years when time avails, because he's absolutely correct.
	And what Dred Scott did is Dred Scott came around and said, hey, you free states that think you can free people, you're never going to be allowed to free people.
	So that guaranteed the conflict.
	The only way to, at that point, end Northern complicity in slavery, which is what they were coercing the North to do with the Dred Scott decision, was to abolish it and abolish it in the South.
	It made it no longer an option to have a Missouri compromise.
	That was no longer effectively enforceable, which would say some states will be slave states, some states will not.
	They were forcing the people that were skeptical of slavery to embrace slavery at criminal risk.
	The Pugitive Slave Act was part of this.
	If you even helped a slave escape, like they were doing in England, bringing habeas petitions that established part of the argument for the unconstitutionality of slavery, by the way.
	It goes all the way back to Blackstone, who said chattel slavery can never be recognized by any common law tradition that has any respect for natural law.
	If you were anti-slavery, now you had to go to war with the South.
	Otherwise, you would be forced to be coerced and complicit because of pro-slaveholding court.
	Some people blame Andrew Jackson for Indian removal.
	Indian removal happened because of the Supreme Court.
	The great Chief Justice John Marshall had huge economic interests tied up in land estates in what was then called the Middle West, or the West.
	Now we call it the Midwest.
	And the issue was, if tribal rights to land could be recognized, All of his land claims disappeared.
	So he went from being the equivalent of then a multimillionaire to being borderline broke.
	Do you think he disqualified or recused himself?
	No. Kind of like that city Seattle judge who was assured everybody.
	I'm not biased at all by the fact that I've been sued for violating this defendant's civil rights.
	Now let me say crazy things that no sane person would say unless they were biased at prejudice.
	Same dynamic with what happened with Marshall, where Marshall basically, who was the one who usurped judicial power in the first place, to say, oh, only us, the courts, decide what the law is.
	That makes no sense.
	That's not in the Constitution.
	So that's interesting.
	The idea, once a slave, always a slave, so that you couldn't have slaves escaping from the southern states to the northern states becoming free men.
	You'd have still the Republic of these United States of America, but some states would be slave states until social norms caught up with the states and others would be not in saying that, no, even if this happens, they will still be slaves.
	Guaranteed a physical confrontation between the northern states and the southern states.
	Exactly. And this is how the Supreme Court screws up over and over again.
	Then in 1896, Blessing v.
	Ferguson and its related decisions through the 1880s, the slaughterhouse cases, completely eviscerated the civil rights laws in America and allowed the old southern planter aristocracy, the Amy Coney Barretts of the world, to retake over southern politics and power and strip not only all former slaves of any meaningful political participation rights, but most working class whites.
	I mean, my favorite quote is to tell people, why were there fewer voters in Mississippi in 1900 than 1860?
	It wasn't because a bunch of slaves were voting in 1860.
	That tells you how many white voters they removed from the roll.
	The white voter population had doubled, and yet its voter participation had declined because they made sure anybody that could be a troublemaker was excluded from the legal system.
	Our civil rights laws were designed to prohibit that.
	It was the Supreme Court's failure to correctly act and their bad decisions that led to the extension of a one-state South from 1890 or so to 1950, 1960.
	And so the court has repeatedly failed at meaningful moments, and now they're going to be challenged again.
	But I think that what we saw this week is Jackson's decision went over the line in such an egregious and imminent way that it forced Roberts, of all people, To stay her order.
	And pending briefing.
	When did that happen?
	Because I thought Amy, I thought Barrett, not Barrett Jackson.
	Oh, geez.
	The bad one.
	Not Iconia Barrett.
	Amy Berman Jackson.
	That order was, was that from yesterday?
	So my understanding is that Roberts has issued a stay as at least to some parts of the orders that have been coming up.
	And I believe the logic of it will apply to Amy Berman Jackson as well.
	But I think the first one he issued that on, I believe, was the one that ordered him to send money.
	Because I think that was a crazy New York judge who was ordering him to send money to foreign aid groups and foreign groups against the president's will and without specific congressional approval.
	And what's happening is Roberts did not want to get involved.
	My view of the court, you're really seeing it evolve.
	I talked about it.
	Almost 10 years ago.
	We talked about it in depth five years ago, but you're seeing it now.
	You have three branches on the court.
	You have the liberal ideological wing on the court, the three Democratic appointed judges.
	You have the three conservatives, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas.
	And then you have the three institutionalists who will tend to be corporatists, tend to protect the prerogatives of the state, tend to protect the deep state.
	They don't like Trump if they can avoid it, even though two of the three of them were appointed by Trump.
	And that's Amy Coney Barrett.
	Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Roberts.
	The thing is, Roberts and Kavanaugh especially want to protect the reputation of the judicial branch.
	They don't want people to remember the Indian removal case or what set up the Indian removal case, which was the bogus Indian land title case that said Indian tribes can't have any right to land.
	See, as soon as the Supreme Court said that, that's what led to Indian removal.
	It wasn't Andrew Jackson acting on his own that led to Indian removal.
	It was the Supreme Court of the United States that really triggered that.
	Now, they wanted to back off later.
	They were like, hey, we want to put a little bit of an edge to this.
	We just wanted to protect Justice Marshall's pockets.
	We didn't want to go this far.
	But it still put it in motion.
	And they keep going so far because they live in this tiny bubble.
	It was like that Seattle City judge.
	She was so shocked at somebody pushing back that she walked off the bench and didn't know how to react.
	Because that's the nature of these judges.
	I've run into this over and over again, where they're shocked that anybody could disagree.
	You're like, maybe opposing a vaccine is not child abuse?
	You're like, what?
	Who would possibly say that?
	I mean, that's the reaction you get.
	And that's the legal liberal judges in general.
	And even Roberts was giving them a green light last week, saying, look, I'm not going to push, you know, fix this yourselves.
	We're not going to jump in right away.
	And what do they do?
	They double down and triple down.
	So they forced him to get involved, issued the first ever stay for Trump that he's issued in this first term.
	And there's going to be more coming.
	The Supreme Court, and what's going to happen is they're, I think, going to, one, Roberts and Kavanaugh have always believed in a unitary executive, so this is their opportunity to enforce it.
	But they're going to have to rule for Trump, who they don't want to rule for, because the lower court judges are so ideological and so partisan and so political and so unrestrained and so without law to justify their decisions that they are embarrassing the judicial branch and red-pilling a bunch of normie conservatives who believed in law and order and who are now like, you know, this isn't law and order.
	This is Berea and the KGB.
	That's who our FBI is.
	I mean, look at Bill Murray appearing on Joe Rogan.
	Bob Woodward's a fraud.
	He lied about John Belushi.
	You can assume he lied about everybody else.
	It's that kind of normie red-pilling by seeing what's happening.
	And I think that's going to continue to happen.
	And they have no choice but to get proactively engaged, proactively involved.
	And my prediction is still the case.
	I think within six months, the Supreme Court begins setting aside these crazy rulings and restores a unitary executive to President Trump, a power that his successors can then utilize so that the American people...
	To me, that's what's most important.
	Now, whether Trump or Biden or anybody in the presidency have this power, is that the American people, through their franchise, their key political form of capital, that the ordinary person dictate how our executive branch operate, not unelected bureaucrats.
	Now, before we get into the other corrupt district and Pan Bondi...
	And the markets.
	Hold on.
	I just want to bring up a bunch of our tipped questions over on VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com.
	Maurice Alazard says videos of dams are being shown from the end of Trump's term saying that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
	One of these dams was guilty by pardon.
	Jamie Raskin.
	No, Adam Schiff literally said the same thing.
	Well, Robert, we're now seeing some of these politicians whose wives have been recipients of aid.
	I don't think White House has answered as to whether or not how he was voting on these bills or grants that his wife was benefiting from.
	It's not a two-tier system of justice.
	They're just not going to get anything.
	Robert, I hope my email...
	Okay, so let me get some more of these down here.
	Such a great...
	Thank you.
	JD Vlansky.
	JD Vans looking at Zalewski.
	That's funny.
	I am so tired of people comparing U.S. military aid for Ukraine to aid for Israel.
	Israel repays America with military and infrastructure mobility in the Middle East.
	Ukraine gives back nothing in return.
	I appreciate they're not totally analogous, but I do look back now and I question whether or not I have been brainwashed on the aid argument to Israel that they're trying to brainwash us now on the aid to Ukraine.
	One thing that I do appreciate entirely is, yeah, the money comes back to America, but that's only because they give aid to Israel so that Israel buys.
	You know, military assistance from America.
	So it's great money laundering, nonetheless, with your tax dollars.
	Tucker and Chris Joseph, great interview, says, thinks now 40. What are the chances Susie takes her hand off Pam Bondi and we have a shot at pulling in a Bailey or Paxton?
	She was on Levin talking about her strongly worded letter and that sealed it for me that she's in over her head thoughts.
	That's the segue.
	We're going to go right there now.
	Robert. The markets are back to roughly 50-50 on whether or not they're going to release any Epstein documents within the first 100 days.
	I think they keep changing, both Cauchy and Polymarket.
	Did not do a great job of establishing how they were going to enforce or interpret the bet, if you will, the outcome.
	Because when I read it first, it said if the president declassified any serious number of documents, period.
	I thought it was any document.
	Yeah, any document, actually.
	It didn't require it to be all of it, that you would win the bet.
	And then they changed it, really, to something else.
	And Polymarket did the same thing.
	And I think that they, you know, for Calci and to a degree for Polymarket, this is a new space.
	Polymarket, I thought, deserved everybody when they created rules in the Venezuelan election that said what the nation of Venezuela says doesn't matter in their election.
	It's like, okay, all right.
	I mean, we talked about last week, to a credit, the people that operate Calci follow the show in live time.
	When we brought up last week that they had got something really kind of wrong in the German election and that they really should rephrase the question because the rules contradicted the question.
	To their credit, Cauchy went in and immediately fixed it.
	They changed the entire question to reflect the issue we raised.
	I want to just set this up right now.
	I had no idea they watched the show.
	I actually DM'd.
	I messaged them about the Eric Adams.
	Pardon or reprieve.
	And they got back to me with an answer which satisfied my concern.
	I said a reprieve in the constitutional sense, not a reprieve in the colloquial sense.
	Right. And they're doing well.
	And I understand some of these political how to phrase things and how to get interest and how to make sure the rules are fair is going to be tricky.
	And I think Koushi's done a better job of that so far than the poly market has, which dominates on the global stage.
	And I think they're working hard for it.
	It's just an area that needs improvement.
	Because some of these areas, you know, whatever the decision is, if the decision is, if the White House says they declassified it, that would be considered a yes, then you've got to stick with that, not change it midway to, well, we're going to actually call it this, we're actually going to call it that.
	But we'll see how they, you know, and for everybody out there, you know, make sure to read the rules.
	And if there's any doubt, make an inquiry.
	Kelsey's been very good at being responsive.
	Polly Market a little bit up and down at that.
	It's not gambling.
	It's investing in your knowledge.
	And when I saw that it was back to...
	I mean, the people that have been following sportsfix.locals.com on the political side have made a lot of money over the last two years.
	I can confirm that that's the case.
	I don't do it.
	And I succumb to my own weaknesses in taking long-shot bets.
	The Oscars tonight.
	I know.
	I got some bets posted on the...
	But I'll tell you one thing.
	I listened to Matt Walsh's review of The Brutalist.
	It was like, pretty much every movie that got nominated, I kind of don't want to see other than the Bob Dylan movie.
	I mean, like, they were describing things that were just, like, The Brutalist sounds like a horrible movie.
	I have no idea.
	I have no idea what it's even about.
	It's about, it's Adrian Brody plays a Jewish escapee from the Holocaust.
	But he's basically, like, a bad guy, so you don't really like him.
	Adrian Brody?
	The guy that assaults him?
	Didn't Adrian Brody already do a Holocaust movie?
	Yeah. Remember, that's the joke from the great British comedian.
	That was his joke to Kate Winslet.
	He goes, I think one of the Golden Globes or one of the smaller ones he hosted one year.
	He's like, I told you, just play in a Holocaust movie.
	That's how you win the awards, honey.
	That's the exact opposite of Tropic Thunder.
	Don't play the full tard.
	Go do a Holocaust movie.
	But hold on, hold on.
	Before I get lost to the thought here, on the Epstein case, there was, and I forgot her name now, I mentioned it on Friday, I believe.
	Someone said they're not going to release any unreleased, previously unreleased documents That struck me as being a compelling argument.
	And now I don't know if I'm so confident on 50-50 anymore.
	I thought it would be much more likely than not.
	Is that not a very good argument for why they can't actually do anything that might compromise the integrity of Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution and her appeal?
	To me, no, because they're not explaining...
	Sufficiently to me, why withholding this information from the public is necessary for an appeal.
	Because if it was part of the government's defense on appeal, it's all stuff they would have to produce to her.
	To my knowledge, there's no argument, legal argument, that they have to hold back the documents to preserve their appeal.
	Or to preserve their winning on appeal.
	Because the appeal is all about what happened at trial.
	Should she have been granted a continuance?
	Should this witness have been allowed in?
	It's not like there would be new witnesses that the Supreme Court's going to call.
	It's assessing the file as it was presented.
	What more can change if we know a few people that she was actually trafficking people for?
	They just want to hide and keep a lid on the aspects of the Epstein case that will lead to exposing that Epstein was operating in cahoots with a range of intelligence agencies around the world, including Mossad.
	Mossad, MI6, and the CIA and the FBI.
	All had deep ties to Epstein's network and Maxwell's network going back to her father, Robert Maxwell, who worked for KGB, MI6, Mossad.
	He did work for all of them at one time or another.
	The good evidence is that Glenn Maxwell recruited Epstein as much as Epstein recruited her because he got to inherit that whole network.
	Still, as Eric Weinstein has explained, His source of income is still completely unexplained.
	He's like, the idea that he was this big trader makes no sense.
	Who's the guy that he took all his money from?
	Yeah, and the theory is that he blackmailed him into basically turning over his estate.
	So, well done.
	I mean, some of those people that that guy was working with have been later charged with various forms of sexual abuse and other behavior like that.
	In the fashion industry, which unfortunately is rife with that abuse.
	So there's plenty of evidence that...
	I think Bondi is trying to do the right thing.
	Whether Bondi is going to deliver has been an open question to me.
	I thought she had potential.
	Not as much potential as, say, Matt Gaetz had.
	But she could be more easily confirmed than Gaetz could be.
	But she didn't show me in Florida a lot of great work that made me think she was ready to go right at these people in the way that...
	Bobby Kennedy is ready to do.
	J.D. Vance is ready to do.
	You saw it right on display with Zelensky.
	He wasn't sitting around there for any of that nonsense.
	You saw it when he went to Europe.
	So, you know, Vance is ready.
	Gabbard is ready.
	Kennedy is ready.
	Hegseth is ready.
	Some of these people are really ready.
	Besant, for the most part, is really ready.
	It wasn't clear to me that Bondi or Brawlins at the Agriculture Department were really ready.
	And we've seen multiple illustrations of that, not only getting easily sandbagged and sabotaged by the completely rogue Southern District of New York, which includes an aspect of that, not just the Justice Department office there, but the FBI office has been notoriously corrupt.
	I mean, remember who's neck deep, by the way, in the Epstein case?
	Who's the prosecutor, neck deep in that case, as well as the P. Diddy case, that is going to be controlling the FBI agents assigned to both?
	The daughter of one James Comey.
	That's the prosecutor in control over these cases.
	What's the likelihood that she somehow ends up assigned these cases when her father with Robert Mueller was neck deep in hiding Epstein's corruption because he was a source for them against other people?
	People can go back and read about Mueller's case regarding the son of Asimov, the famous science fiction writer.
	How did a guy making tons of CP films walk without doing any jail time?
	Well, it happens to correlate to when Robert Mueller took over his case as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, which he magically parlayed into making himself director of the FBI under George W. Bush because he knew what value those files have.
	So clearly what they're trying to hide, just like with the Kennedy files, just like with the King files, they're trying to hide the files that embarrass foreign governments.
	And that embarrass, that's one part.
	And the second part is they're trying to hide the files that implicate high-ranking U.S. government officials.
	And that's what they're really up to.
	Laura Loomer, she might be crazy, Robert, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
	And I'm saying that tongue-in-cheek.
	She makes a good point that Pan Bondi was Florida's AG while all of this was going down with Epstein.
	A lot of people have made the point as well.
	Like, whether or not Pan Ponte says, oh, I thought I had the whole file, but I didn't.
	If that's a ploy to set up the SDNY for what they've done, allegedly, if you believe her, fine.
	If it was a ploy, that's fine.
	But to come on television and say, I've got the file on my desk, I'm going to look it over.
	If that file was that binder, she knew damn well from day one she didn't have the whole file.
	If it was to set up the SDNY, that's fine.
	But then what the hell?
	So she sent a sternly worded letter.
	I want that by eight o'clock tomorrow morning.
	We don't have it and it doesn't look like anything's happened, but it's a Sunday and I'll give her the weekend.
	Do we believe her when she says she didn't know she didn't have the whole file?
	Do we forgive her for the statements she made publicly about you'll be seeing some new stuff?
	She didn't really commit to everything because she didn't know what she had.
	And if she's that easy to do...
	Is she the right person to be going after this multi-headed snake?
	Well, you see it at multiple prongs because she's in such a critical position of importance at the Justice Department as Attorney General that her ability to maneuver around deep state corruption and collusion with high-ranking government officials requires a degree of knowledge and skill that I had doubts that she had not shown particular evidence of when she was as Attorney General of the State of Florida.
	I thought she was conscientious and smart, which are two great attributes to have in an attorney general.
	But I thought her understanding of this system was weak.
	It reminded me more of Trump in his first term, where he badly underestimated the intensified opposition he would face within the bureaucracy.
	And I think she still does.
	She's probably accustomed that whenever she requested law enforcement agency, under her jurisdiction, provide her documents, they likely did.
	Now, for people being critical of her for when she was attorney general in Florida, I would highlight the attorney general in Florida is not like the attorney general of the United States.
	The attorney general in Florida generally doesn't do a lot of criminal prosecutions.
	That's handled by the local district attorney's office.
	That's not really within her province or prerogative.
	But my concern was just that she hadn't shown like what Cash Patel had shown.
	Now, that's what I'm a little bit more critical of in this context.
	So he had just been appointed, which is...
	I understand Bondi getting deceived by the FBI and the SDNY.
	Cash Patel should not have been that easily deceived.
	It's like there's a part of Cash that still is idealistic about the FBI.
	That's still idealistic.
	Or he just, he wasn't fully up to speed.
	Pam Bondi was spearheading it.
	That letter to him sounded more like a, let's cover our asses and say, oh, we're both shocked and dismayed that the FBI is not listening.
	But on top of that from day one, as soon as he got in, he said, the whole file up to me now.
	And he knows how this works.
	He has more sophistication on the inside of the deep state operation than she does.
	Quite executed it the way I would like.
	I'm thrilled to see Bongino's over there as his deputy.
	Bongino does understand what the ropes are.
	I mean, he's sacrificing substantially financially, like a lot of Trump people are sacrificing financially to serve in government.
	Unlike everybody else that's worked in government the last 50 years, these people are losing money by working in government.
	Trump is, Kennedy is, Gabbard is, and definitely Bongino is.
	So credit to Dan Bongino for taking the role, taking the mantle up.
	There needs to be a more, like Trump has been, like look at how sophisticated Doge has been.
	Musk has gone after these people and taken them apart, you know, appeared, and he broke down the Soros scheme in a way I've been describing for years, but couldn't get anybody to, you know, some people in positions of power to really fully understand.
	Musk gets it completely.
	He's like, here's what, you know, Soros is a brilliant investor.
	He gets, he sets up these bogus NGOs.
	He gets the government to fund his own control over the government.
	He goes, it's amazing.
	He goes, it's a great little scam he's got working.
	But he understood how it worked at every level, the inside of it, the outside of it, how to attack it, how to take it apart, right?
	You're seeing this sophistication with Vance as it applies to Ukraine and Hexith as it applies to Ukraine and Trump as it applies to Ukraine and the world.
	And you're seeing it as it applies to Doge and Elon Musk.
	You are not seeing it in the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture yet.
	We're seeing it with Gabbard.
	Gabbard came out right away and rebutted a whole bunch of nonsense that Zelensky was pushing.
	But the weak link right now in the Trump administration is Bondi appears to be a little bit behind, understanding the degree and the intensity of the corruption in D.C. and in those agencies and in those institutions.
	Same with Kash Patel.
	I think it's because Kash believes in prosecutors.
	He was one for a long time.
	And I get it, but I used to argue with him back in the day about, you know, these are not the most trustworthy humans on the planet.
	More of them are bad faith than good faith.
	He didn't believe that.
	He really believed there was 5% bad actors.
	And the rest of the U.S. Attorney's Office was wonderful.
	And the rest of the FBI was wonderful.
	And I was like, no, no, you don't understand how bad it's got.
	The culture has rotted out any degree of independence or integrity.
	And they used the combination of January 6th and COVID vaccine mandates to get rid of anybody who was an independent thinker.
	So there's all the key positions of power.
	The Comeys and Mullers of the world have staff.
	Why is Comey's daughter still even at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York?
	This is someone who herself hates Trump, whose father hates Trump.
	She was involved in covering up the degree of complicity and corruption of other people involving the P. Diddy case and the Epstein case.
	She should be fired yesterday.
	The fact that Pam Bondi doesn't realize this is a major problem.
	Someone who hates you in control over these two high-profile cases and hates your boss in control of these cases and with a history of corruption and collusion, including with her father, concerning these kind of matters, Bonnie doesn't get it.
	I mean, God bless her.
	Nor, frankly, right now is cash.
	There's a lot of hope and expectation in cash.
	Deservedly so.
	He's shown his capacity to do so.
	But I haven't seen it at the FBI yet.
	And this early test.
	Can you get the Epstein files published and released?
	They failed.
	And so now they can still make up for it.
	They still got, you know, if you have money on the bet, they still got 30 days to make up for it.
	But they need to make up for it.
	Because it was a very bad confidence blow to Trump supporters to see on this issue of the Epstein files, both Bondi and Cash.
	Failed to deliver in the way that they had promised.
	It pissed me off, and I'm quite hard to piss off when it comes to that.
	Given some benefit of the doubt, Cash has been on the job for barely two weeks.
	Maybe he's not yet apprised of all these things, but this was the big one.
	There's a lot of big ones.
	And again, Cash, I think he's a sweetheart.
	Pambani's sweetheart.
	Dan Bongino, fantastic.
	But I think Bongino's needed with Patel, because Patel's also over at ATF at the moment, because Congress is delaying them getting Blake Masters in at ATF.
	To me, there's one solution for the ATF.
	Get rid of it.
	Why do we have an alcohol division for the federal government?
	Why do we have a tobacco division for the federal government?
	And we don't need a firearms division for the federal government.
	All you need to do is cause people trouble.
	You got your laws already.
	It seems like standard law enforcement.
	We don't need 300 enforcement agencies.
	We don't need 200 intelligence agencies.
	Enough of this nonsense.
	And just to correct one thing, Pam Bondi was sworn in as AG of Florida in 2011, let's say, give or take.
	It overlapped in part, but the key deal with Epstein had already been done.
	Yeah, it was before that.
	It was 2008, so not to make that mistake.
	It was 2008, done by the George W. Bush administration.
	Robert, let me read some more tip questions over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com before we fall too far behind.
	And not that we can't do a full marathon tonight because I've got to make sure my kid is in the other room.
	I don't know.
	I know he's watching.
	It's on TV, so it can't be that bad.
	We really have one more topic for tonight anyway.
	Okay. What are the chances Susie takes her?
	Okay, we got that one.
	Some people confuse crazy with passionate.
	Let me be clear.
	I am batshit passionate.
	Buffalo Betsy, I was horrified by the judge's remarks.
	And if I recall correctly, she even excused them bringing in the info about the separate case.
	Her mind was made up.
	She's garbage.
	A thousand percent.
	That's another.
	Barnes's case.
	Textmaster says, I'm absolutely convinced Zelensky is the new Yasser Arafat.
	He promises peace until it's time to sign.
	Then he finds a way to derail it.
	It's time to drop greedy Smurf.
	The money trail ends the day the war ends.
	It's interesting.
	Hold on.
	Let me read this here.
	Dad surely crossed some boundaries, but not a crime worthy of violence worthy.
	Inappropriate. Sure.
	Criminal. F no from Buffalo.
	Betsy. Encryptous.
	I messaged him.
	I thought I was trying to get a private chat.
	Robert, did your client deny what the mother claimed that he put the mother's cat in a cardboard box, taped the box, closed, and left it on her porch where it sat for hours?
	Look, this is one of those stories that has changed.
	So first of all, it's from many years ago.
	It's like almost a decade ago, right?
	It's not part of the set of incidents.
	It's something that's completely outside of it.
	And what was happening was, she had a cat that kept killing all the birds and everything else.
	And he was like, please keep the cat inside so it doesn't keep killing all the birds.
	And she didn't.
	She refused.
	And the cat killed a couple of birds, made a big mess of it.
	He was kind of horrified by it.
	So he put the cat in a box on the front porch.
	And that's it.
	They came home.
	They got the cat.
	Got the cat out.
	That's the story.
	But what it is is...
	When she first went to court, the court said, what you're describing is not domestic abuse, and you're actually contradicting yourself in the story.
	So after that, the story gets expanded, and it's more dramatic, and there's a lot of what you saw was all this rhetoric, right?
	You didn't hear, it's like, okay, what was the actual fact?
	That you say constitutes this crime.
	And instead it was the rhetoric of I felt this way, I felt that way, I felt...
	But they sell crates for animals.
	A box is a cheap crate.
	And you put some holes in it, it's probably the safest thing to do for a cat as opposed to having...
	The cat was fine.
	I mean, the cat was...
	There was no issue with the cat.
	It was like, oh, he broke something in my truck.
	The backstory is he...
	This was also many, many years ago.
	It has nothing to do with the current set of events.
	It's just a bogus story to exaggerate, to make something look worse than it is.
	He relocated the truck, and the way the truck got parked, it was one of those old beat-up trucks.
	One of the back windows broke.
	He went and later fixed it.
	That's it.
	And she tried to make it out like, oh, he came and was bashing.
	It's all fake stories that she has to exaggerate because when she told the truth, the court said this couldn't constitute anything.
	And so that's what, you know, what was behind the scenes in those cases.
	All right.
	And we got, let me see a couple more in there.
	The engaged few.
	I wonder how Zelensky would have reacted if, when he called Vanka a suka, Vance looked him in the eye and said, although I would have loved it if Vance had hit him.
	No violence against politicians.
	What subject do we have left?
	The only one is SCOTUS and prosecutorial ethics.
	Do we want to do that over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com?
	Let me read a few more tip questions before we head over.
	Robert, so you're...
	Oh, Lordy.
	Jury selection is...
	How long do you have with each jury?
	What forms do they have to fill out?
	In Seattle is you get a panel of about 30 jurors in the morning.
	They appear by Zoom.
	The lawyers get to ask questions in the state court process.
	You get about 40 minutes each to 20 minutes.
	Basically, you get about a minute to two minutes per jury.
	And from that, hopefully you get the information you need to be able to figure out whether they can make an honest judgment.
	The only reason why this case is being prosecuted here, the reason why the government, I think, thinks of it as an open and shut verdict.
	Is because of the political prejudice of the Seattle community.
	That you have a community that's 80% Democratic, voted about 80% against Trump for Kamala Harris.
	Seattle is one of the few cities in the entire country that voted more for Harris than Biden.
	That gives you an idea for the mindset here.
	It was a big vaccine mandate-obsessed place, the entire King County in Seattle.
	Big mask mandate area.
	They didn't honor religious objections.
	They didn't honor medical objections.
	The courts have railroaded every case against them, and they used the fact that they railroaded them to railroad them some more.
	They're like, oh, we railroaded you last Wednesday, so now we get to railroad you on next Tuesday.
	I mean, it's that routine.
	The Ninth Circuit wouldn't even let him brief his appeal.
	Would even let him file a brief in support of his appeal.
	Said, we determined this is all meritless.
	We're not even going to let you file a brief.
	When he went to family court to try to reopen his right to talk to his son, they refused to allow him to even file a petition to reopen the case, any aspect of the case.
	These are all patent violations, by the way, of the law.
	They just don't care here because the entire court system is aligned.
	They all agree with one another.
	That's why you get judges shocked when somebody raises a question.
	The reason why the government is confident that they can get the verdict they want is because they have a lynching jury pool, to put it simply.
	They have people who hate, who literally, who see people with dissonant beliefs as dangerous, violent threats to their well-being.
	Take TDS, put it on steroids, apply it to, and you have it in Seattle to Ben's Hoof, and then that explains the rest of the case.
	Because I kept expecting, I was like, okay, if this is a domestic violence case, where's the violence?
	How can there be a big domestic violence?
	Zero violence by him.
	He's the victim of violence.
	People do not understand when the judge was referring to domestic violence, it was text messages, manipulation with his son.
	About what?
	I mean, this is the same.
	I mean, the other thing is, okay, if text messages you think manipulate a child during a divorce dispute constitutes a crime, almost everybody who's ever been through a divorce would have to go to prison.
	In particular, in this case, it was the mom that was telling him his dad is an abuser, you should block him, you shouldn't listen to him be critical of you for plagiarizing, you shouldn't listen to him be critical of our lifestyle in terms of her and her girlfriend trotting around the world as sex workers.
	They clearly badmouthed their father to him, and they had far more control and custody of him than he did.
	For more access to him.
	And whereas every conversation he had was recorded, taped, and broadcast, their conversations magically disappeared and vanished.
	They're not in the government files.
	We don't know what they said to his son about him.
	But we can reasonably infer, given the son's attitudes, that they were produced by prejudiced comments from his parents.
	Or from his mom and now the stepmom.
	And you just get a sense of it in terms of where their direction is.
	And it's just been extending for a while.
	It's total control.
	It's what Michael Malice made the point of talking about the Soviet Union, that the family was the greatest threat to communism and to totalitarianism.
	And that's why the ultimate hero in the Soviet Union was the son who ratted out his father and led to his father being in prison.
	They would build statutes to people like that.
	That gives you an idea.
	When you're building statues to rats and informants for breaking up the family, it tells you what the left really thinks of the family.
	And I recommended this week in the Barnes Brief, the book by Christopher Lash, A Haven in a Heartless World, because Lash was an old Marxist who rejected Marxism when he began studying the family.
	And his conclusion was that the family was the greatest institution alive in the world today.
	And it was the greatest means of protecting people from the hurt and harm that can come their way from societies and civilizations.
	And he realized the state saw its ultimate control objectives as being undermined if you didn't have control of the family.
	This is why the slave plantations used control over the family to manipulate the population.
	And one of the most horrendous things that ever happened to a slave was to see their kid taken away from them and sold down the river, as it was said, the old Mississippi River.
	And that's where Old Man River and a lot of that comes from.
	So that's what's happening here.
	Would Kurt Benzhoof say he's handled everything perfectly?
	No. Would he say he's been perfect?
	No. Name a person going through what he's been through that has ever handled it perfectly.
	You're talking about your son being subject to medical experimentation of something you thought could kill him because the data actually said it could kill him.
	And to give you an idea, they completely kept the kid in the dark.
	Here he is, a 12-year-old kid.
	They don't tell him any.
	They pretend that they're giving him informed consent.
	But in fact, they keep his father out of it after they promised to keep his father involved.
	And his father doesn't even know what's happening.
	And they don't give him any of the side effects.
	And they tell him, oh, it's a totally safe, effective vaccine.
	Now, I get the government head was lying during that time frame.
	But the father was right.
	It wasn't safe.
	It wasn't effective.
	It wasn't even a vaccine.
	And for people in his son's profile.
	12-year-old, 13-year-old, 14-year-old young man.
	That's exactly who the vaccine was the most dangerous for.
	Because COVID posed no risk to him.
	He had no comorbidities, no other health issues.
	And there's literally been zero people, as Robert Kennedy's pointed out, zero kids died who had no comorbid conditions.
	Only kids with severe health complications.
	There were maybe three.
	There was one in Canada, and he tested positive, but he died from stage 4 brain cancer.
	Exactly. He didn't die from the COVID, and it had something else.
	Whereas, by contrast, young men were the most at risk for myocarditis and pericarditis of damage to the heart.
	So he was trying to protect his son, and it turned out he was more right than the judges and the guardians that lied him and the other parents were.
	By the way, they still think that the vaccine is wonderful and perfect.
	They don't think there was any problem with, hey, son, you really need to take this, and if you don't take it, you won't be able to play with your friends, you won't be able to go to school, you won't be able to go to camps, you won't be able to have any fun, and it's very safe, very effective, and will save your life.
	And it turns out it's all the opposite.
	And to them, they still think this about it.
	I mean, that shows you how disconnected they are.
	This ideological world somehow hasn't heard that the vaccine isn't a vaccine, hasn't heard that this didn't prevent infection or transmission, hasn't heard that, in fact, it's not safe and has 250-plus side effects.
	I mean, that was what triggered the whole issue with his son when it escalated.
	Was when the father found out his son had taken the vaccine, it's like, well, here, I want to show you two things.
	Show you what the CDC has said about whether it's safe or effective or not, because the CDC's actual language was very watered down.
	If you ever read it, it didn't say it was safe and effective.
	It said, maybe, not sure, don't know, let's find out.
	As Barack Obama said, it's an experiment on the whole globe.
	And that's the nature of it.
	And so the idea that we're going to be putting people in prison for a decade or more...
	For trying to stay involved in their son's lives, even if they had some hot conflicts, you know, hot language in text between parents.
	I mean, I've dealt with real abuse cases.
	This doesn't have any of that.
	It was, we heard the worst of the worst of the text, Robert.
	If that was the worst of the worst, it's actually, you know.
	It is small change compared to any family law case I can walk down in here in Seattle or anywhere in the country and hear much worse than what happened here.
	So it shows the nature of the way the system is operating and it's trying to crush people and it's trying to make it as impossible.
	They always try to make, you know, why can't they play a little bit fair?
	Just like a little bit fair of a trial one day.
	Don't try to rush the case.
	Don't try to lock up my client.
	Don't try to hide evidence.
	Don't try to introduce belated admissions.
	Don't try to rig everything.
	You know, if you're so confident you're right, then let's have an open and honest and fair trial with an impartial jury with admissible evidence.
	But they never can do that because down deep they know they're not in the right.
	I'm going to read a bunch as everyone migrates over there.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	You all know what Robert's doing this week.
	I will do my best to be live tomorrow at 1230.
	Tuesday will be in transit so I won't be able to go live.
	You're at Tin Pool tomorrow night, right?
	Tin Pool tomorrow night.
	And Wednesday, Pat King.
	Canadian political prisoner.
	I think it's going to be among his first interviews, if not the first, since he got his home – what's it called?
	Home prison?
	What's it called when you get locked at home?
	Home detention.
	Home detention.
	So 12.30 on Wednesday for sure.
	But let me read a bunch of these chats while you all come over.
	And if you're not coming, see you later.
	Robert Barnes, did the email help from James in 2012?
	Blue CW.
	Any feedback I get is always helpful.
	Blue CW Soldier says, with regard to the 8,000 federal law enforcement agencies, our founding fathers saw need for one federal agency, the U.S. Marshals, who have largely and unfortunately been relegated to being court bailiffs by none other than the FBI, who have a ludicrous number of agents assigned to spending their daily lives as lobbyists for the Bureau.
	Bob Soapdish, do you think Trump will get rid of appointments if they are not performing, Secretary?
	He should.
	He has said so.
	He has told people behind the scenes, you fail.
	Then that person is out, and the person who recommended them is not going to be listened to any further.
	That's what we told people prior to the appointments.
	Rocky Roads Cole says, thank you, gentlemen.
	I must admit, Secretary of State Rubio has been very strong during interviews.
	Barnes, this is a picture of a lawyer who represents the man who first financially backed Zelensky.
	Looks like a younger Ukrainian Barnes.
	Okay, and then last one before we end over here and bring it on over to our locals.
	Bourbon, 1954, 10 bucks.
	Richard Grinnell has posted that the Ukraine, Obama's team, including Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nguyen, Susan Rice, Alexander Freeman, advised Zelensky to reject Trump's deal in violation of the Logan Act.
	Anyone know the details?
	I'm sure that's true.
	I just hate the Logan Act.
	I think it's a bogus act meant to criminalize political speech.
	So I oppose using it against anyone, my allies or my adversaries.
	And so I'm not a fan of it, but I have no doubt that they coordinated efforts in that regard.
	Now, I also have no doubt that Vindman probably committed other crimes when he's been in the administration.
	He did get a pardon on the way out, so who knows.
	All right, so I'm going to update the stream.
	We're going to do our last topic and the remainder of the tip questions over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Hope to see you tomorrow at 1230.
	Tomorrow night, Tim Pool.
	Tuesday, definitely not.
	Wednesday, Pat King.
	Stay tuned.
	Updating now.

▲