Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 9, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:01:45

Ep. 254: China to Pay $24 BILLION? Who Owns Embryos? Tulsi was RIGHT on Syria! Prorogation & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'll end the studio in a second, but just let's make sure that we're live across all the platforms here.
	We'll wait a few seconds, and Encryptus, tell me if everybody hears us, and so that I know which windows to close and which not to.
	Everybody, there was a random glitch, apparently, before we go live that said, sorry, error loading, and start again, which means have to recreate the link across every platform.
	Kill the studio!
	No, hold on.
	There's still 2,000 people waiting in the other studio that we've got to make sure that they see to get out.
	Get out and over to New Link here, and I'll give them the new link.
	And then I'm going to end this all.
	Boom. Okay, I'll wait a few seconds.
	And as they migrate, Dexter...
	So, everybody, good evening.
	This has nothing to do with...
	Say it again.
	Should I terminate and call back?
	No, no.
	Do it until we get the one minute thing.
	Sometimes it goes.
	Just so everybody knows, this had nothing to do with Dexter Taylor on speakerphone from the Coxsackie Correctional Facility in New York State, and I will say it like that until the end of my days.
	There was some glitch and miscusy, but while everyone comes over from the other links which are still live, but I'm going to end them in a second, We got Dexter Taylor on the phone.
	Update, you know, giving us the what's what from where he's at right now.
	I've been in touch with Dexter, you know, a couple times a week for the last period of time.
	And I know what's going on, but I said you should come on on a Sunday and let the world know what's going on.
	Dexter, please, for those who don't know, introduce yourself to the world.
	Hello, everybody.
	My name is Dexter Taylor, a.k.a.
	carbon mic.
	I'm a software engineer, licensed ham radio operator, political commentator, podcaster, musician, and political prisoner of the state of New York, which does not respect the Second Amendment.
	So as you pointed out, I've been a president of state of New York.
	And, you know, we're fighting our case as a second-order case, and I'm glad to be with you again.
	Dexter, we talked about it a fair bit.
	You went to jail for...
	Assembling your own firearms in the comfort of your own apartment in New York State from components that you ordered online.
	Explain what you were charged with, what you were declared guilty of, and what went on in that courtroom.
	Well, you know, my lawyer, my legal team knows the specifics of everything on the charging documents, but essentially it was that I kept and bore arms inside my own home without asking to get in New York for permission.
	So it was, you know, family weapons possession, mostly.
	And so, you know, that's, The moment the indictment came down, you know, my house got raided, I was taken to prison, my legal team came to visit me while I was in there, and I knew right away I wasn't going to plead.
	And so, you know, there was a lot of administrative back and forth, legal back and forth.
	And when we were ready to go to trial, there was a lot of kind of chicanery in part of the New York judiciary.
	And we ended up getting a judge who was getting a judge at the last minute, who was basically a third prosecutor in the courtroom.
	So it was obvious to us that the game was rigged.
	We didn't really expect to get a fair hearing, a fair trial at the trial court level in New York, and we didn't.
	But again, we are accruing the case.
	Recently, my legal team just started writing the first draft of my appeal.
	It's taken this long to get the trial transcripts.
	That was another whole administrative back and forth and costly delay and so on and so forth.
	And we're also looking with great interest at the fact that President Trump just ordered the DOJ to investigate civil rights violations committed by the government, specifically touching on the Second Amendment.
	Right now, I believe the DOJ's portfolio in that regard is focused on the federal government, federal agencies that have been violating the Second Amendment.
	But we're hoping that once they get done with that investigation, they'll turn their attention to the way New York and several other states are, again, violating the Second Amendment, depriving American citizens of protection under the law, simply by accident of where they live.
	And explain this to people because I've talked about it but maybe they don't know.
	You were assembling your own firearms in your apartment, not based on, but with components that you were ordering freely available on the internet, having delivered to your place.
	You get raided by the ATF at one point.
	The ATF is no longer involved in this.
	ATF was there.
	They looked around and said, let's see here, and they vanished.
	We never heard from them again.
	Which also tells you something, right?
	If anything had not been above board, they would have been all over me.
	The fact is that this is New York State, out on its own, defying, as the governor said they would, the Supreme Court's ruling that the states must, the gun laws enact.
	by states must conform with the plain text of the Second Amendment and the history and tradition of the United States.
	We have no history and tradition of saying that a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record and no record of problems with law enforcement or anything else like that, we have no tradition of saying that such a person is a felon simply because he's creating weapons in his house.
	People have referred to the weapons I was building as both guns.
	I think that's a dumb term.
	I call them traditional guns because that is actually the traditional way that firearms have been manufactured in the history of this country inside American homes.
	So that's more or less it.
	I mean, just for some background, I've got 30-some-odd years in the software industry.
	I make furniture.
	I weld.
	I do plumbing.
	I do electrical.
	I build all kinds of stuff.
	And once I kind of got fascinated, became fascinated with kind of building weapons from 80% receivers, right away I started thinking about software and thinking about how I could turn this into a second career for myself.
	I signed up for Rocket FFL to find out how to become an FFL.
	FFL, just remind that.
	FFL for those who don't know?
	FFL is a federal firearms license and it holds such a license.
	So if you get a federal firearms license, you become an FFL as well.
	And that's why I signed up for an online course called Rocket FFL because I wanted to eventually build a gun lab somewhere in the woods of New Hampshire or some congenial place like that and turn this into my second career.
	Because, you know, building guns is cool.
	Guns are cool, in my opinion.
	I was looking to make this into my second career.
	So, you know, New York State kind of knows that I wasn't doing anything crazy.
	You could forgive them the initial SWAT rate, but again, New York State seized my devices.
	They copied my email records.
	They have my phone.
	They have my computers, right?
	So they know I wasn't doing anything crazy.
	They know I wasn't...
	I wasn't espousing some violent political philosophy.
	They know none of my weapons ever left my house.
	They know none of my weapons were ever discharged.
	They know I wasn't transferring or selling or lending or in any way moving weapons.
	And the attorney for the prosecution at one point said to my lawyer in writing that if Mr. Taylor had applied for a permit, he would have passed the good.
	moral character test.
	So don't believe me when I say I'm clean.
	Believe the prosecutor when he says I'm clean.
	So, again, this is a political case.
	This is a matter of New York not wanting to let go of its lawless so-called gun control regime, as is happening to the one who got caught up in it.
	That's where we are.
	And we did an interview as you were standing trial, then you got swiftly convicted and then swiftly sentenced.
	The judge in the case, Judge Darke, it's D-A-R-K-E-H.
	She actually and literally said, don't bring in the Second Amendment into my courtroom.
	This is New York State.
	It doesn't exist here?
	Yeah, the Supreme Court, yeah, the Second Amendment has no place here, is what I recall the quote as, yes.
	So, you know, she went out of the way to make sure that my lawyer couldn't actually mount an adequate defense.
	It's one thing to say that trial courts are not allowed to consider the Constitution when juries deliberate, but in my opinion, she went way beyond that.
	You know, she wouldn't even allow my lawyer to bring up the topic of the Second Amendment, and they tried to kind of...
	When the prosecutor asked me if I had a permit, my answer was the obvious and truthful answer, yes.
	I have a permit.
	My permit is the Second Amendment.
	And that would be a flurry of objections and what have you.
	I'm not taking it back.
	That's my answer.
	So, yeah, there was a lot of politically charged trial.
	The judge in the trial, if I'm not mistaken, is married to the Brooklyn DA's top fundraiser.
	Again, the judge was switched in at the last minute.
	The ADA's were switched in at the last minute for the sake of optics.
	Everyone who saw this thing go down understood what was happening.
	Again, we're hopeful that we're going to find some relief.
	Second Amendment relief is unlikely at the state level.
	This is New York State.
	But we are hoping that we get some relief on other matters, other trial irregularities at the state level.
	And again, the fact that Trump's DOJ is looking into violations of civil rights touching on the Second Amendment, that's huge.
	So we'll see.
	And Dexter, for those who just tuned in, I see some questions.
	Who is this?
	This is Dexter Taylor on the phone from Coxsackie Correctional Facility in New York State.
	You were sentenced to 10 years.
	Yes, sir.
	How old are you?
	I'm 55. 55. I'm sorry.
	Wait a minute.
	No, no, no.
	I'm 54. I'll be 55 this year.
	Just so everybody can appreciate it.
	Ten years, no prior criminal record, unblemished, otherwise taxpaying, hardworking citizen of New York.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And so I'm an able-bodied man.
	In fact, I secured a job offer not long before actually, not long before the end of my trial.
	You know, it's like, yeah, I'm a senior software developer, I've been a software engineer for 30 some odd years, a data engineer for about 10 or 12. And yet, there is no real good reason that New York taxpayers should be paying for my room and board, except for the fact that the people who govern this state do not respect the laws of the land,
	do not respect the Second Amendment, and do not respect the Supreme Court's decision, the Bruin decision that came down in 22. That kind of very clearly...
	kind of circumscribed what the several states of the Union are allowed to do in their gun laws.
	And you're in there.
	You've got your appeal.
	It's going through the process.
	Trump has mentioned sending in Harmeet Dillon to investigate civil rights violations at the state level.
	I know you've explained it to me many times, and maybe people don't really understand this.
	What's life like?
	Well, again, you know my standard response.
	I don't really complain about material conditions in prison.
	Prison is a dismal and depressing place.
	But that's not the point, right?
	It's like my complaint.
	My fellow prisoners, many of them have been inside longer and have seen much worse than I have.
	So my complaint...
	Is that I'm here in the first place.
	My complaint would be just as vehement if I were confined to the Marriott, right?
	So, it's prison.
	That's what it is.
	I'm lucky enough to be in a place where a lot of the guys are a little bit older like me.
	They have programs.
	They have jobs.
	No one in my sex industry is looking to cause trouble, so that's helpful.
	And, you know, I've been able to find really the perfect job for me.
	I get to be a porter in the school building.
	I get to go to the library every day if I want, so on and so forth.
	So it is what it is.
	But again, the point is that we have a lawless government on our hands.
	And that's what has to change.
	Can you also talk about what they're doing?
	You do work in prison.
	I've been asked this stupid question.
	What do they pay you for the work that you do in prison?
	I think...
	Let's see.
	This job in particular, I think it's somewhere around 25 cents an hour.
	25 cents an hour, and they're getting you to do what?
	They're getting you to produce goods for...
	You have one minute left.
	They're getting you to...
	No, no, no.
	I'm just...
	No, I'm just a porter in the school building, so I do light janitorial work and cleaning up the classrooms and the staff bathrooms in the school...
	and changing up the garbage and stuff in the school building.
	I just...
	Yeah, we got the woman...
	Should I call back, or...?
	No, we're going to go on the show.
	Let's do this again in another Sunday, and we'll catch back up, and hopefully there'll be some progress on your end.
	But I wanted to let everyone know, and Dexter, everyone in the chat is wishing you well, and you and I will be in touch, so keep calling me back.
	Keep calling me, and we'll see what progresses over the next months under the Trump admin.
	All right.
	All right.
	Thanks, brother.
	Thank you.
	Have a good one.
	Take care.
	All right.
	Bye-bye.
	You too.
	Bye. All right, guys.
	Let me do one thing here.
	You get your one minute.
	Uh, call and then they boot you.
	Uh, let me take this out here.
	And, uh, I was using the, uh, take a stand, uh, lectern guy's stand to place the phone on.
	It was actually mildly ironic, but quite fitting.
	Um, Barnes in the backdrop, before we bring him in, got a little bit of a late start.
	What I want to do first now, before we get any further into the show is thank our sponsor of the evening, which is the wellness company.
	And because I had to set everything up again, I have to go back here and do this and bring this up right here.
	And now I can share what is the B-roll of the video while we talk about the parasite cleanse from the wellness company.
	Let me make sure I press play on it this time.
	All right, people.
	This is it.
	Could your health issues be caused by an invisible enemy?
	Fatigue, bloating, brain fog.
	What if parasites are the real culprit?
	Digging into this, parasite cleanses have been out for a little while.
	And I saw this here from the wellness company.
	50% of Americans have parasites.
	They are everywhere in our food, water, pets.
	They severely invade your body, wreaking havoc on your gut.
	Energy levels, even your brain and the mainstream media system, they don't want you thinking about this because one great cleanse can change your life.
	The Wellness Company has a solution for you.
	Ivermectin plus Mabendazole, both FDA approved for treating parasites, now combined in one parasite cleanse combo that wipes out many of these invaders.
	How you get it?
	You go to the Wellness Company, twc.health forward slash viva.
	You fill out the digital intake form.
	And it comes to your front door.
	You get a three-month supply.
	Lots of parasites cleanses are all over social media, but they're not the gold-level standard of the wellness company.
	Maha is officially here.
	The wellness company is making these hard-to-get medications digitally accessible so you can live your best life.
	Don't wait.
	Cleanse your body.
	Take action today.
	Let me just show you what the website looks like so that we can...
	Did I not share the screen the whole time?
	I didn't share the screen the whole time.
	It'll work one day, people.
	Let me just play you that.
	Let me...
	If I had a temper, I would smash through the screen.
	We're going to go to share screen.
	Stop share screen.
	Share screen.
	Present. Here, because I had two windows open.
	This one.
	Do we see it now?
	Add to stage, because I got to add it to stage, because I am a raging, raging buffoon, people.
	Let me just play the intro because there was some informational here.
	All right, people, that was the video that I intended to play the first time, which I didn't, and I'll show you the website so that you can go there, get it, and get healthy people.
	The Wellness Company, twc.health forward slash viva, and that is our promo code.
	We'll get you that.
	Link is in the description, peeps.
	All right, now we can bring in Barnes.
	I've got to bring him in here because we're using different software tonight.
	Barnes, are you ready to come in?
	Sorry about this.
	Oh, I'm sweating like such a pig, and I'm angry.
	I hit go live, and it says error.
	Wrap up and leave.
	Oh, no audio.
	There's no audio in it.
	It was talking about the benefits of Parasite Clans.
	Go to the website.
	We'll get it afterwards.
	It's in there.
	Locals, Rumble, YouTube, Barnes.
	How's it going in Seattle?
	Crazy. It's dope.
	So you're in there for the Kurt Benzhoof trial.
	There was jury selection this week, which was in the context of other charges that he's currently facing.
	So this is a case pending in King County in Seattle at the King County Courthouse downtown, State v.
	Ben's Hoof.
	Ben's Hoof is a local, lifelong Seattle resident.
	They are charging him with felony stalking and the crime of harassment.
	What's extraordinary is their basis for doing so and why they're doing so, which is what's so threatening to people's constitutional freedom and liberties.
	They're attempting to expand the definition of the statute so that if you contest, for example, parental custody, it could be reconstrued into a crime.
	That if you file lawsuits...
	That could be construed to be a crime.
	To give an idea, during the trial this past week, somebody other than Mr. Bensouf has filed a suit against his ex, Jessica Owen, who goes by Jade.
	And they served, and they were aware that she was going to be in court as a witness because she had been busy dodging service of process for this case, this other case.
	Mr. Bensiff was a party, but he wasn't the one trying to serve her.
	It was somebody else that was a party trying to serve her.
	They did serve her outside the courtroom, and both the prosecutor and judge went nuts.
	They seem to think it is a crime to serve a lawsuit.
	They think it is a crime to have it filed.
	The judge attacked me personally simply because I was aware that someone was trying to serve process honor.
	This is how insane the city of Seattle has become.
	They are trying to make fighting.
	A parent having contact with his own son is now a crime.
	A parent fighting for their right, a father fighting for their right to be able to care for and contact their son is also now a crime in Seattle.
	Filing lawsuits that they don't like is now a crime in Seattle.
	Suing judges and cops apparently is a crime now in Seattle.
	They are trying to criminalize the right to petition the government for redress of grievance.
	Criminalize parents fighting for the rights to govern their children and criminalize simply trying to defend yourself in court.
	It's incredible.
	I've never seen anything quite like it.
	There's no case in the country that has ever occurred that is comparable.
	There have been a few attempts at some variation of this, and the courts have in those cases correctly struck down the charges, but not here.
	So it just gives you a sense.
	I mean, the legal issues implicated in the case include the right of free speech, the right of freedom of association, the right of freedom of religion, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which includes within it the right of access to the courts, the right to file criminal charges or claim that someone has committed a crime, to law enforcement authorities.
	All of that they're trying to, and of course the fundamental right to parent your child.
	Which, to give you an idea, both the Supreme Court of Washington and the Supreme Court of the United States has referred to the fundamental right of a parent for care, custody, control, and contact with their own minor children to be the first and foremost fundamental right, and a right considered more important than the right to life itself.
	That's the words of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.
	And yet here, you have an attempt to abuse domestic violence laws.
	Abuse vixatious litigant laws, abuse judicial power, abuse law enforcement power, abuse family court authority to strip a person of all of those rights.
	And the backdrop of it, you're seeing sort of a test case of woke authoritarianism come to the legal system, is the only reason why a court denied him access to his son was because the guardian ad litem in the case, in the court.
	concluded that, quote, Mr.
	Bensouf's views were outside the Seattle mainstream on issues of vaccine mandates.
	That's grounds to take away a father's rights to his son, to even communicate with his son, because Seattle considers it outside their mainstream views.
	That's how insane this city has become.
	Without, I mean, everybody can go back to last week's episode and watch the thorough breakdown of the details of this, but this week was jury selection.
	Did you get past jury selection already?
	So jury selection occurred on Monday.
	Then there were motions in lemonade heard on Tuesday.
	There were the motions concerning search warrants and compelled statements on Wednesday.
	On Thursday was the opening statements.
	And the presentation of witness testimony, a law enforcement officer, Detective Ellis, and then the principal complaining witness, his ex and the mother of their son, Jade Owen.
	And that testimony has not finished yet.
	She was served by somebody else during a break, and the court went utterly berserk.
	Served outside the court, right?
	Because you can't serve someone in the court.
	The prosecutor initially falsely represented to the court that she was served inside the courtroom.
	That was completely false.
	He had to retract that claim.
	But the judge was, like, literally shaking.
	I mean, she went nuts.
	I mean, she went berserk and started attacking me.
	She started attacking people in the gallery.
	She said that she could tell that people were staring at her.
	I was like, how can you tell someone's staring at you?
	I'm not mistaken, right?
	You cannot serve someone in the courthouse, but you can serve them all the steps or outside.
	In the well, usually, if they're there to testify, in the well is usually where there's protection.
	Outside the well, usually there's not.
	What was the nature of the lawsuit that his wife or ex-wife?
	I had no idea.
	I had nothing to do with it.
	Someone had asked me, said, you know, I know Mr. Benshuf hasn't been able to serve her because she's been dodging service of process because a court, give it a good idea how nuts Seattle's become.
	They issued an order that said he could only use two different process servers.
	Now, by the way, it looks like the order is expired, but this is how lazy the Seattle judges are and how bad they are doing their job.
	The judge never signed the order.
	There's just an electronic signature attached to it.
	And guess what their excuse is for judges not signing orders?
	A COVID.
	Three years later, we can't sign an order or we'll catch COVID.
	That's how insane these people are.
	These are people that want to build statutes to Anthony Fauci outside their front yard.
	So the order itself says it either applies for five years or one year.
	You get to guess.
	And if you guess wrong, you go straight to jail.
	Welcome to Seattle.
	If a lazy judge can't even sign an order, can't even tell you how long the order is supposed to last, you go to jail rather than the judge for not doing his job, not following his oath.
	But this order said he could only use two particular process servers.
	Couldn't use anybody else.
	And what has she done since then?
	She's dodged service.
	The innovative service.
	She lied about it on the stand.
	She said, oh, I've always allowed my lawyers to take service.
	Complete lie.
	Because I'd reached out to the lawyers before and they said, no, they won't take service of process.
	So process service is often required to start a case to get a subpoena served.
	You have to serve personally.
	The only thing that wasn't served personally was he wasn't served personally, what he was supposed to be served personally.
	So I have no idea what the suit is about.
	Someone had reached out and said they planned on, did I want Mr. Bentsu to be part of serving her?
	And I was like, no, we're not having anything to do with that.
	So you do whatever you're going to do, but I'm not involved in it.
	And because I mentioned to the court that we had nothing to do with it, and I was aware someone else was trying, she attacks me.
	Says somehow it's a violation of my ethical duty to run to the court and say, Judge, somebody else is trying to assert their constitutional rights.
	Please stop them!
	Please stop them now!
	Seattle becomes subject to the Constitution of the United States!
	God forbid!
	That's how it is.
	So it's just insanity after insanity after insanity.
	To give you an idea, 98% of the jurisdictions in this country would have never brought this case.
	It is a classic case of overcharging.
	It is a classic abuse of prosecutorial power, abuse of judicial power, abuse of state power to strip dissidents of their rights, to punish.
	I mean, literally, I was shocked when I read it, where you have Seattle court officials.
	Saying, oh, this man's views are outside the mainstream.
	Don't let him have any contact with his son.
	He might brainwash his son into believing something that we in Seattle know to be true, like how safe and effective the COVID vaccines are and what a great person Anthony Fauci is.
	I mean, this is the insanity that's up here.
	This is totalitarianism on steroids.
	And anybody who says boo about it, they threaten the lawyer, they threaten the individual, they threaten people supporting the individual.
	They threaten people even bringing their own separate claims.
	That's how insane it's got up here in Seattle.
	I'd say I wish you well.
	You're scheduled to be up there for four more weeks?
	The case should wrap up this week.
	Okay, go ahead.
	So it should wrap up on Tuesday or Wednesday.
	Well, we'll see.
	To give you an idea of the jury pool, you have a jury pool where there was no Republican in the entire jury pool.
	There was literally none.
	Zero. It was all Democrats.
	And the only question was how liberal they were.
	And so over half of the jury are liberal Democrats.
	Every single member of the jury strongly supports the COVID vaccine.
	So many of them, for example, I was not allowed to even use peremptory strikes, which I'm given by law, on a potential juror who said she strongly supported forcing children to take the COVID vaccine.
	And given that was the underlying issue in the case, the dispute between the father and the mother was about whether and if the son, who was 12 years old at the time, now 15, would take the COVID vaccine.
	And in particular, the father wanted to make sure the son got informed consent.
	It's like, if he wants to go ahead and take it, that's fine.
	But make sure he knows the risk from COVID is basically non-existent to him.
	He had no comorbid conditions.
	He was a healthy young man.
	And the risk to the vaccine, there were over 200 listed side effects.
	She lied to the son and told the son that there were no side effects, that it was completely safe and effective.
	And she believed that, by the way, she thinks that the CDC and Pfizer's long list of side effects are a conspiracy theory.
	I mean, a mother's so lazy she can't read, go to the CDC's own website, go to Pfizer's own website.
	This caused the son to be upset at her, for which she blamed the father.
	She promised the father, hey, I'm going to involve you in the vaccine process.
	I'll make sure he knows what his rights are.
	And then she lied.
	She lied to the son.
	She lied to the father.
	And that triggered the son getting upset and the father getting upset.
	So a juror who believes all kids should be forced to take the COVID vaccine is not going to be impartial in this case.
	The judge refused to allow me to strike her because she's Asian.
	And her being Asian, I didn't even know she was Asian.
	I had absolutely nothing to do.
	But she was forcing jurors, unwanted jurors, into the trial just to try to make sure that he gets lynched.
	I mean, I've been through a lot of these political cases before, so in that sense it's par for the course, but it is disturbing.
	And particularly what's disturbing is I didn't even realize until the witness went absolutely nuts.
	Can you imagine going nuts?
	About being served as summons.
	She actually testified.
	She would take her son and hide in the back of the house whenever process servers came to the house.
	And these process servers are like 5'2", 50-year-old women.
	I'm so shocked.
	I don't know what to do.
	There's a process server.
	This is stalking.
	This is how insane these people...
	That's not stalking.
	It's nothing like stalking.
	It is an insult to every victim of stalking that this case has even been brought.
	It's an insult.
	Everybody's ever been a victim of domestic violence.
	That this insane case has ever been brought.
	It's being brought for ideological purposes.
	That's it.
	They want to force him.
	They've been doing this now for years.
	They want to declare him insane and force him into a mental institution simply because he pointed out their side effects to the vaccine and that the vaccine doesn't work as one.
	This is how crazy liberal jurisdictions are.
	If Harmeet Dillon is going to do her job, and that's still an open question, and I like Harmeet, been friends with her for years.
	But what's happening in Seattle needs to be under federal DOJ investigation.
	The Seattle police need to be under that investigation.
	The Seattle prosecutors need to be, and the Seattle judges need to be under criminal and civil investigation for the systemic violation of civil rights of people in this community.
	And it's just nuts.
	I mean, you have a fundamental right to go to the courts.
	Indeed, we want people to go to the courts.
	Like there was only one other case I was able to find anything vaguely similar came up in Florida about 20 years ago.
	And the Florida court said this can never be a crime.
	Free speech can never be a crime.
	Petitioning to courts for redress of grievance can never be a crime.
	Petitioning to protect your parental rights can never be a crime.
	That in fact, for most harassment and stalking laws.
	Did not exist in the United States for the first 200 years of our history.
	We created these laws beginning in the mid-late 1980s.
	And the predicate was supposed to be protecting vulnerable people.
	I know this as I was one of the first orders of protection lawyers in the country.
	Right out of law school, they had authorized, under the Violence Against Women Act, they created federal grants to pay lawyers to vote.
	It was $2,000 a month, in case you're wondering what exactly.
	Glamorous pay.
	But $2,000 a month to go represent victims that needed orders of protection.
	And as I got into it, what was disturbing were two things.
	One was the feminist advocacy was using it as a power grab.
	And they were refusing to distinguish between legitimate domestic abuse cases and false.
	Allegations. It was all about, let's take down the man.
	And to give you an idea, the person who inspired the other witness, the other person who was supposedly harassed, allegedly harassed in the case, is an extreme woke activist.
	For example, she thinks that she's against the white male toxic patriarchy, that the only reason why fathers have any rights is because they're misogynist and because the system is misogynist and that they shouldn't have such rights.
	I mean, it's the wackiest.
	You read her stuff, it's just wacky.
	But she said that she opposed the prison system until this case.
	And now she's a big fan of the prison system because she wants to lock up her political opponents.
	To give another idea, so what happened on Tuesday, so Monday we picked the jury.
	Like I said, a good jury is just not all woke in Seattle.
	I mean, you're stuck with a jury pool that's hostile ideologically and strongly disagrees with anyone who disagreed with the vaccine.
	It's only their degree of intensity.
	Then we get to motions eliminated, and the court will not allow me to present any evidence or any testimony about what is lurking in the whole background of the case, which is that the ex, the mother...
	The other woman is a prostitute who promotes prostitution around the world.
	Travels all around the world for prostitution.
	Wanted to recruit.
	The mother into prostitution and porn, making OnlyFans, making other films, basically travel the country.
	The hurdle was she has a son, and that son has a father who actually cares.
	So the problem was how are they going to travel the world in their new prostitution business and bring their son with them if the father were to object?
	That's when they launched the plot to remove the father from the equation.
	By falsifying allegations of domestic abuse.
	Because this woman is a domestic abuse person's advocate.
	Because there's been a left-wing takeover of domestic violence advocacy, which is really sad and pitiful.
	I saw the beginnings of it when I was a young lawyer doing those orders of protection.
	Where they would falsify claims and support people who falsified claims because it was all about taking down the man.
	And I was like, hold on a second.
	We're supposed to be here to protect people, vulnerable people, from people who get violent or abusive during domestic relationships that can lead to horrible things.
	Not, you know, take down the man, you know, not support every false allegation just because it's an allegation by a woman.
	There were plenty of instances where the man was the victim of domestic abuse, particularly emotional abuse.
	It's just the consequence of it is felt more when men are violent.
	So you have someone that's a trained expert witness, knows all the lingo and language, knows how to use it, wants to launch this new career.
	Well, guess what the judge ruled?
	The judge ruled I'm not even allowed to ask them anything about this.
	I'm not allowed to ask them about their pornography, their prostitution, the fact that his main objection to what they were doing was that they were bringing over clients and customers in front of his 12-year-old son, and he objected to that.
	Can't mention it.
	Can't even say a single word about it to the jury.
	By contrast, by the way, the fact that he once took a gun to Sprouts after Sprouts beat him up physically for objecting to mask mandates because Sprouts was not allowing people who had legitimate religious and medical exceptions to go into their store to shop.
	And they'd roughed him up before and tried to take away his permission, his medical note.
	So he brought a gun and just stayed out in the parking lot.
	And he was just like, please don't beat me up this time.
	I want you just to see my legal paperwork and understand where I'm coming from.
	And that I have some legal support.
	They arrested him for it, of course, because that's the nature of Seattle.
	The judge let that in.
	Even though the ex wasn't there, nobody else was there, it has nothing to do with him.
	She was like, oh, you know, I think that relates to their reasonable fear.
	He once had access to a gun.
	That's reasonable.
	I mean, even being around a gun is somehow illegal.
	They want to strip people of their First Amendment rights, strip people of their Second Amendment rights, strip people of their Fifth Amendment rights.
	They want to attack your ability to protect yourself, your ability to go to the courts or the legislative process or the government for relief or remedy for you reporting crimes.
	They want to make that a crime.
	And take away your Fifth Amendment, your core rights to protect your child or to even contact your child, which is nuts.
	And there's, again, no dispute at all.
	That he's never harmed his child for a single minute of a single day in his entire life.
	Other than, you know what the harm was?
	Telling him the vaccine might have side effects.
	Telling him the vaccine isn't a vaccine.
	That's harm to the child.
	Well, Robert, while you're enjoying the hell of a commie Seattle, I don't know if you heard the news coming out of Commie Canada.
	We've got an unelected Prime Minister in Canada, whose name is Mark Carney, who was just elected the next Prime Minister of Canada because he's substituting for Justin Trudeau.
	Add to stage.
	And I'm tweeting about this while you're talking because I'm trying to follow the news.
	Stephen Britton from our Locals community sent me the results.
	Let me see here.
	It says fourth place was Bayless, the guy who I jokingly said nobody was going to remember who he was.
	He got 3% of the votes.
	I'll get to the punchline in a second.
	Karina Gould got 3.2% of the votes.
	Chrystia Freeland got 8% of the votes.
	And Mark Carney, the next Prime Minister of Canada, got 89.75% of the votes.
	Now, if anybody's asking themselves, as they should be, what votes are you talking about, Viva?
	It's the votes of the registered liberals who voted on this within the internal rules of the internal leadership race.
	150,000 of them.
	Apparently, there's 400,000 registered liberals.
	And from what I understand, just doing the math quick, 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, and then the rest.
	About 150,000 of them voted.
	So you have now 150,000 Canadians who just elected a WEF globalist climate crisis-driven three-passport-carrying whore to the next Prime Minister of Canada.
	And that's democracy in Canada.
	We're going to get into the democracy in Romania.
	And we're now seeing the democracy in Seattle.
	I understand the domino effect of the fear of communism infiltrating.
	No doubt about it.
	I mean, they're trying to put him in prison for over 10 years.
	They're going to, Robert.
	They're going to.
	If they can, absolutely.
	They're going to do everything they possibly can to do that.
	And the only thing that stands in the way of them...
	Is his defense and potentially a Seattle jury.
	And then potentially higher courts in Seattle.
	But, you know, we're going to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States if needed.
	The stalking and harassment laws are themselves a stalking horse, pun intended, for taking away constitutional rights.
	And very early on, the model the people designed, the American Law Institute designed the model penal code.
	We're very careful to say...
	Only certain kinds of threats, remember the true threats cases that we've done here, that only those can constitute a basis of a crime of stalking and harassment.
	They're trying to undermine that here.
	They're trying to say it's a crime here, according to the government.
	It is now a crime of stalking if you tell someone you're going to report them for crimes.
	Can you imagine?
	Even if what you said is true, the actual crimes they committed.
	Because like in this case, for example, they took his car, they took his house, they took everything.
	Pretended that he had no legal ownership or claim to it.
	Got a bunch of liberal judges to start to side with him solely because of his ideology.
	Say, hey, look, Judge, he's one of those people.
	Doesn't believe in the vaccine.
	Challenges mask mandates.
	You know, you can just eviscerate his rights.
	So you have retaliatory judicial action and prosecutorial action and police action for his prior assertion of his constitutional rights and liberties.
	But the point of the stalking and harassment laws was never to criminalize constitutionally protected conduct.
	That's explicitly included as an exception and exclusion under the model penal code that every state borrowed from in adopting these laws.
	And now they're just trying to erode it and go back on it.
	They're creating loopholes for totalitarianism in Seattle, and the Ben's Hoof case is the very front and face foremost case that's going to decide whether they can get away with it or not.
	It's terrible.
	I mean, it's despairing, but don't live in commie hellholes.
	That's a sad reality.
	A lot of people who grew up here love it here, who are just shocked watching this.
	I mean, some people are just participating in the gallery.
	They get threatened by the judge because the judge...
	The prosecutor claimed they could hear whispering.
	No one else could hear any whispering.
	What it is, is they don't want...
	And again, I had requested to the court that all this good...
	You wouldn't have to worry about anybody being in the gallery.
	Just broadcast the trial.
	Court refused to broadcast the trial.
	Court even said, this is the case that you would never broadcast the trial.
	Well, judge, you don't get to get on your high horse and be mad about people in the gallery when the only reason why they're in the gallery is because you won't allow the trial to be broadcast outside of the courtroom.
	That's your choice, judge.
	The other thing is, I'm getting this impression in these liberal legal systems that they are utterly unaccustomed to anybody pushing back at all, which is getting even more disturbing.
	It's like, what in the world is happening to the criminal defense bar in Seattle?
	It's an ideologically protected.
	But it's like, I made a motion for mistrial, and you would have thought I was arguing something from Mars.
	I mean, like, the court didn't even know what the legal standard was.
	It's an ideological cleansing that's been going on for the course of several years now, maybe decades.
	They try to do it in Canada where they punish people for wrong things.
	They try to make people say, like, DEI affirmations in their business practices as lawyers.
	And they flush people out of the system.
	I didn't get flushed out.
	I would have been out regardless of this nonsense.
	But it's how they do it.
	So now the only people passing the bar are activists.
	And they come across as trying to intimidate the lawyers.
	I mean, I'm not a lawyer that's very susceptible to intimidation, but for those that are, I could see how they would be scared to take this case.
	They'd be like, hey, they'll come after me next, just for defending the person, just for advocating for the person.
	But what's disturbing is I think when people forget at times about freedom of speech and freedom of thought and the reason why we engage people who disagree with us.
	It's because it improves our own understanding of the issues.
	Not necessarily because we change our mind, as Christopher last pointed out, but because we've always become much more educated when somebody says something we disagree with, and they make a claim, they're like, oh, what do we do?
	We go and look it up, right?
	We become much more factually well-versed when we deal with disagreement.
	What's disturbing in these liberal jurisdictions is they've never heard disagreement.
	It's like, you're a judge in a criminal case?
	And you haven't heard a criminal defense lawyer be very critical of what's going on?
	I mean, that's our constitutional obligation is to zealously advocate for the individual's liberty.
	I mean, what is happening to the entire state bar in Seattle that these judges look shocked when basic constitutional issues are raised?
	This case has been as disturbing as any case I've dealt with in the last 10 years.
	Well, I'll be happy when you are out of that hellhole because I do not believe that you are not fair game.
	You are a fair game for them.
	I don't believe that you're not at risk of some sort of contempt order.
	There's always that risk.
	I mean, judges who abuse their power and legal systems that abuse their power, their only response to being exposed is to more abuse of their power, sadly.
	So we'll see what happens.
	In the case, closing arguments could be as early as Monday afternoon.
	May not be until Tuesday morning.
	Everybody, we're going to get on over to Rumble now.
	I'm a little bit behind schedule, but I want to talk about one thing before we go over.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight before we do this?
	Aside from all the extraordinary, unique implications of the Seattle case that keep expanding in their constitutional ramifications and scope, we've got the Supreme Court and Trump.
	You know, voted as expected, sadly.
	One justice didn't, unfortunately.
	So, you know, we have the Supreme Court not stepping into the breach like they should concerning President Trump.
	We have the Supreme Court ruling on death penalty and other cases this past week.
	And, you know, we've got a few other, you know, unusual legal cases out and about there this past week as well on top of what I've been dealing with all week.
	I'm going to give everybody the link.
	Get your butts on over to Rumble, but let me just read a few of these chats.
	The other breaking news of the day, speaking of democracy, is what's going on in Romania.
	Am I sharing the screen?
	I'm not sharing the screen because I've got to add it.
	Okay, here we go.
	Just to read these, we got King of Biltong, who's in the house, that says, looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet?
	Try Biltong, almost 50% protein, plus it's packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Go to BiltongUSA.com, code Barnes.
	Change up the code from 10% off.
	That'll be there in the entire show.
	People go look for it.
	N Menorth says, as I said on X, no Seattle area judge will be fair to conservatives or vets.
	She knows you exist online, Robert.
	She hates you.
	Kitsap is across the sound, and I had one.
	Ignore SCOTUS and federal law in regard to my vet disability.
	No attorney will rep, says Menorath.
	Forced name change says, I hope Carney's next.
	I'm not reading that.
	See, I knew that was going somewhere bad when I got through the first three words.
	Force name changes.
	Don't wish ill.
	Eric Peculas says, did you guys hear that there was a woman who threw her baby out of the third-story building in France?
	I guess you could say she threw the baby out with the bathwater.
	I didn't hear that.
	We'll go look it up while we're talking.
	Crash Band says, thank you, Barnes, for coming out to my commie-infested state.
	We need help out here.
	And Viva, get your kids to help with the computer stuff.
	No, tonight was beyond my control.
	I even got encryptus in the back, and we were...
	We were freaking out.
	Well, he wasn't freaking out with me because I'd get frustrated.
	He doesn't.
	Romania, Robert, you heard what happened to Kaelin Georgescu?
	Oh, you're on mute, but...
	Yeah, I was just checking.
	Someone thought that the local stream wasn't active.
	I thought it was active.
	It's because there's the old link.
	I think I shut that one down, but we're on the...
	I got you.
	Yeah, everybody's on the good one now.
	Sweet, sweet, good.
	I mean, I was surprised by that because it's one of the few wagers on politics that has not made money.
	I thought that after Vice President Vance's speech, that Europe would not be dumb enough to cancel another election or rig another election.
	And here they are rigging another election.
	It shows their degree of disconnect altogether.
	I mean, I think, I hope President Trump gets inspired by this to get out of NATO, you know, to start escalating and accelerating.
	The thoughts that he, certain actions that he was thinking about anyway.
	Because Europe is making, I mean, here you have the Vice President of the United States, goes to Europe, and says, quit fixing, rigging elections.
	Or we're not going to be, we're not interested in spending billions of dollars in risking American lives defending you when you won't defend the core values that care.
	Exactly, that matter to America.
	Again, they know he would win.
	And so they've illegally, again, this is the second time, he won the first time around, they illegally stole it from him.
	Now they know he went again, so they're not even allowing him to run.
	And watch all the liberal democracy advocates say nothing about this all week.
	So for those who didn't hear, Kalen Georgeski, you know what happened the first time around, because I had him on and I've been covering it since I found out about it.
	They undid, they reversed, they annulled the election the first time around because he won.
	Called him, you know, accused him of getting Russian help on TikTok.
	Then... They recently raided offices, took devices, arrested him while he was on his way to file his papers for the rerun.
	And now they've barred him from the next rerun or the rerun of the original, which he won and would have won again, on the basis of the bullshit charges that they've leveled against him.
	And it's an absolute...
	I said it's a rape of democracy.
	It's nothing shy of a rape of democracy.
	And I hope President Trump says something about it.
	Vice President Vance says something about it.
	And I hope they look at this as, look, between Zelensky trying to embarrass and attack the president in the Oval Office with his nonsense.
	I mean, Putin is not a dictator as a matter of law.
	His power comes from being elected by the Russian people.
	And as a practical matter, his power in Russia comes from his incredible popularity amongst the Russian people.
	Anybody that studies Russia knows this.
	By contrast, Zelensky is an illegal usurper.
	The power he has, he was not given by the Ukrainian people.
	His term that he was elected to has long expired.
	He has declared martial law, suspended the freedom of press, religion, and speech, is kidnapping Ukrainians on a regular basis to die in a fruitless, useless war of money he has been using to divert to the personal self-enrichment.
	Of himself, his friends, his allies, his donors, his military buddies, and other deep state American allied ties.
	He is a tin cup dictator, is what he is.
	And he's a disgrace to anybody who believes in human rights or democracy or peace and freedom or any other core liberties that define what, you know, when someone says, what does it mean to be an American?
	It's not that you're born within a certain contiguous geography during a certain time frame.
	Everybody knows what it means to be an American is to support the Bill of Rights.
	That is the definition of being an American.
	We have a unique cultural identity.
	Our identity isn't shaped by ethnicity.
	It isn't shaped by race.
	It isn't shaped by religion.
	It isn't shaped by gender.
	And it isn't shaped really by geography.
	It's shaped by ideas.
	The commitment to true constitutional republic that supports essential individual liberties.
	Ukraine and Zelenskyy are foreign and anathema to every single value Americans hold dear.
	This was the point of J.D. Vance's speech in Europe.
	Because what it means to be an American, and what we're going to spend our wealth on, what we're going to spend our resources on, what we're going to risk human American lives for, is going to be American values.
	Not European values, not anybody else's values, but American values, because that's what it means to be an American.
	We don't care where you came from.
	We don't care if you came from India, or Asia, or Africa, or China, or anywhere else.
	We care that you love America.
	We care that you love the ideas and ideals of America, that you support the principles and precepts of America.
	American citizenship is all about supporting the civil liberties and civil rights of the Bill of Rights that is established in America.
	And that is what Zelensky is a direct threat to.
	That is what now Europe is a direct threat to.
	We need to get out of Europe, stay out of Europe, let them defend themselves.
	Before long, they can all speak German and Russian.
	It's their problem.
	I like the way you describe it because that's what I feel is to be an American and I sort of maybe have always been an American at heart.
	While everyone get your butts on over to Rumble, let me just pull up these chats here before we end on Commitube.
	Can you ask me about the correctional officer's strike and if it affects his safety?
	That is in respect to Dexter.
	The state prison guards have been on strike for a little while.
	He said it got...
	He actually said it's pretty shitty.
	They're not allowed out to take showers as often as they otherwise are.
	There haven't been any fights or violence, but he says services have been down.
	And they had to bring in, I think, the National Guard in order to replace the workers who were on strike.
	And he said it did affect things like hygiene or the availability for showers, which is terrible.
	Hammond says...
	Part one of two is Tim Pool's opinion on advertisers like the wellness company that sell drugs to customers violate YouTube terms of service.
	And part two, Tim thinks Google may be waiting to strike channels before 2026 midterms on their live readings by citing federal law on drug advertising.
	I've never heard of that.
	I've never had an issue with YouTube.
	I've looked it up and I don't believe that it violates any YouTube terms of service.
	You can't sell illegal drugs or stuff that is, you can't sell stuff that violates FDA rules, which nothing of the wellness company does.
	Would Biden's electronic signature on orders and papers be valid?
	Heard most of them had those signatures.
	Robert, from Gorilla Strength Equipment?
	Yeah, I mean, what's come out is apparently there was an auto pin.
	And it's not clear whether Biden was operating that auto pin.
	It's another example where there's a weird overlap with the Seattle case.
	Because there's a place for the judge to sign the order.
	And that's where you have confidence that the judge read the order.
	All these orders that the judges haven't signed, and they've just attached a separate thing that says, here's his electronic signature?
	How do you even know that was it?
	But apparently Biden, of course, COVID I don't think was his excuse, was everything was being done by Autopen, which, and the question is, who controlled the Autopen?
	Did he actually authorize the signature?
	And then there's what ramifications are there.
	I can tell you as a general rule, the courts have refused to re-examine any of those things.
	So like when there's issues about whether Congress actually passed a law, courts won't get involved.
	Whether they went through their internal procedures correctly, courts won't get involved.
	They should, but they don't.
	And so consequently, the mere fact that...
	Something from the White House said he signed it will likely be something that you can't get behind and challenge, even though we all know he likely never read it or reviewed it himself.
	All right, people, get on over either to Locals or Rumble.
	We're going to end it on Commitube right now.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Sorry for the rough start.
	That's it.
	We're going to talk about a certain judge that some of us predicted would be the great betrayer in the Supreme Court.
	And this one just popped up right in time.
	Check out Judgment's Star Trek Enterprise.
	It sounds like your case.
	That was from Lokville Batson.
	Thank you very much.
	We're going to end on Commitube now.
	Now, Robert, before we get into that, what the hell is up with all of the Israel talk?
	What's up with this?
	A lot of discussion about Holocaust, Jews, Israel, and it seemed, I don't want to say it's inorganic.
	I don't know if people are just paying more attention to it, and I might be at fault there as well.
	Do you smell a COINTELPRO PSYOP going on here to divide into factions of the conservative right with these idiotic things?
	Yeah, well, I think there's always been some people on the right that are anti-Israel.
	And then I think probably some of it may have been precipitated by Tucker Carlson talking to the Qatari officials.
	And Tucker's main reason for doing that was to discourage and dissuade the effort to try to cause a war with Iran.
	And in that regard, Trump has always been careful to avoid a war with Iran, despite a lot of people around him wanting to get into a war with Iran.
	So that may be part of the predicate.
	The other part may be what Tulsi Gabbard, her point was confirmed within a month.
	She said at her confirmation hearings, the reason why she was skeptical of what was going on in Syria was that she's no fan of the Assad family, but said who was going to replace him would likely be worse for religious freedom and for American security and safety around the world.
	And now she's been confirmed.
	Confirmed twice, one in ten.
	Exactly. Because now you see how important she is at ODNI, because she was able to predict what was going to happen when everyone else was saying otherwise.
	And of course, as anybody that knows, what happened is the Assad regime fell in Syria.
	And after about a month of promising to play nice, they unleashed.
	Their religious-based genocidal efforts in Syria, the new Islamic extremists who control the country, and are going around mass murdering Christians and other religious groups.
	And to be honest, some of that blame belongs on Netanyahu.
	Netanyahu is gung-ho for taking down Assad.
	So that may be some of the other reason for criticism.
	Well, that would be a legitimate criticism because I've said long the thought that I've never understood.
	How it made Israel safer or America safer to overthrow governments, to overthrow Gaddafi, to overthrow Assad, to overthrow Hussein.
	I agreed with Trump that however bad these people may have been, they were better than the likely alternative.
	This is the argument I made.
	Even if you don't like Putin, understand that if Putin hadn't come to power, ultra-nationalist or communist would have.
	That's who the alternative was in Russia.
	The alternative wasn't George Soros Jr.
	The alternative was much, much worse.
	And we're seeing now in Iraq, we saw Iraq become a complete shithole and a disaster.
	Then we saw it with Libya, seen it with Afghanistan, and now we see it in Syria.
	And some of that blame does belong on Israel's political leadership.
	They wanted all of it.
	They wanted the destabilization of Libya, the destabilization of Iraq, and the destabilization of Iran.
	Not all the Israeli people, but some of the Netanyahu people did because I think they mistakenly believed it would lead to more peace and security for the Israeli people, and I don't think it will.
	Or they knew that it wouldn't, and it would be yet another crisis to exploit for their own political profit.
	What I just wish could happen is that people could have this discussion without anybody throwing around the term anti-Semite.
	Because they're like, On the one end, I get accused of being a self-hating Jew because I ask these questions and have my suspicions of Netanyahu.
	And then, it's an entirely legitimate criticism.
	Netanyahu has been begging for war with Iran for decades.
	He's supported regime change in Syria.
	Everybody knew, everybody could have recently predicted this.
	I just want to try to steel-man the opposition.
	Who is being massacred under Assad?
	I presume the argument is going to be...
	People were always getting massacred.
	Now it's just the Alawites and the Christians and not whoever Assad was going after.
	But what was the situation under Assad?
	So, I mean, Assad himself never wanted to be the current Assad that's now left to Russia.
	He never wanted to be involved in governing Syria.
	He's a doctor.
	He didn't want any of it.
	He was dragged back in by people who were supportive of the family.
	And what you had is, this was similar to some degree Gaddafi and Hussein, you had people who came to leadership roles in their countries who represented a minority group within their countries.
	And so they were able to sort of keep a lid on the more radical, whether it was the Shiite wings in southern Iraq, whether it was the Islamists in Libya or the Islamists in Syria.
	The Assad regime goes way, way back.
	I mean, for a while, Syria was the greater Syria.
	Originally, Israel was promised to be part of the greater Syria by some British politicians, which they reneged on after World War I. So there's that kind of, and then there's Assyria that goes all the way back to the Assyrian civilization way back.
	But so Assad came in.
	And for a while, Syria and Egypt were united.
	And in fact, it was sort of Nasser's great wish, the Egyptian leader, to sort of pan-Arab, pan-Islamic movement across the Middle East, and that he could do that.
	And he sort of aligned with the Assad wing in Syria.
	And then ultimately, that didn't quite work out, and the Assad family sort of took over governing Syria.
	Now, they have always been adverse to Israel, but it was usually a manageable...
	The biggest criticism on the anti-Assad regime was that Syria was aligned with Iran, was undermining peace in Lebanon and Beirut, and was a source of conflict in the region.
	And then there was disputes between the Assad regime and other Arab and Islamic leaders.
	But the point that Gabbard long made The alternative will be worse because that's who has the natural zeitgeist of political power.
	Now, to some degree, this is on Erdogan.
	Erdogan funded and backed a lot of these rebels in Syria.
	People like Aaron Mate at the Gray Zone and others have made the accurate point about what's going on.
	Mate, we don't agree on Israel and some other issues or on Trump, but Mate has done a lot of really good investigative Work on Syria, especially.
	He was the one who helped debunk, got access to whistleblowers and debunk the lie that Assad was bombing his own citizens.
	And instead, it was clearly something else that was afoot.
	It was a false flag by every classic definition of a false flag.
	And people connected to those that were investigating, it actually said so.
	And then their initial reports were suppressed.
	And it was the good investigative work of people like Aaron Maté to expose that.
	And so anybody that's followed the Syrian issue knew this was coming.
	It knew it was only a matter of time.
	The Islamists just don't tolerate dissent.
	People, you know, you get called an Assad apologist if you astutely or rightly observe that at the very least he did protect Christians or did better at protecting Christians in Syria from Islamists.
	What united Assad, Gaddafi, and Hussein was that they're fundamentally secular regimes.
	And now, there are sometimes often ideological reasons for that or constituency reasons for that.
	In other words, that they were trying to protect a minority sect within their society that they came from and that they empowered.
	And I get there's some grievance by some people within Syria who believe that the Assad-aligned ethnic and religious groups got special privileges during the Assad regime that others did not.
	But it still doesn't change the fact that this is an al-Qaeda spinoff.
	This is an ISIS spinoff that is now governing Syria.
	And unfortunately, now this lands in Trump's lap.
	Remember, Trump might have put an end to all of this in his first term when he ordered U.S. troops out of Syria.
	And had those U.S. troops honored that, the Assad regime likely would have been able to stabilize the country, and this never happens.
	But the military lied to President Trump.
	Kept U.S. troops in Syria, and the effect of it was ultimately Syria collapsed.
	And it's now the only people protecting religious freedom and individual and human rights in Syria is the Russians, because the Russians have an Air Force base that Erdogan agreed to contest.
	Erdogan, the president of Turkey, political manipulator of extraordinary skill for the most part.
	He usually gets himself into trouble and usually gets himself out of it.
	He was backed and came into power in Turkey because of his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
	And down deep, Erdogan thinks the Ottoman Empire should be restored.
	Sometimes he says it that way, sometimes he doesn't.
	But the Ottoman Empire that dominated all of the Middle East for about 500 years was based, of course, in Turkey.
	And so that's what his objective was.
	And he wanted to suppress the independent Kurdish movement in part of Syria as well as Iraq, because he doesn't want Kurdistan to develop either.
	And there's some legitimate disagreements there as well.
	But I think that what you're seeing is why Trump was right, why Tulsi Gabbard was right, and why there's problems.
	And to the degree, some of that blows back on Israel.
	It's the fault of Netanyahu for thinking this was going to be some magical solution.
	My pro-Israeli friends have never been able to persuade me that destabilizing the Middle East leads to more peace and security for Israel.
	And I see no evidence of it.
	I don't see how a war with Iran will do it either.
	Ben Shapiro seems to think so.
	It's clear Netanyahu has been eager to start dropping deep bombs and to take out the Iranian nuclear capacity.
	And I understand where part of that concern comes from, but this constant, continuous destabilization of the Middle East doesn't profit anybody except the warmongers.
	That might be the problem.
	Okay, good.
	Now you guys know what's going on in Syria.
	It's an abject disaster on a daily basis.
	We're just going to hear more and more of this.
	Does Turkey move in?
	Or does it just move in by proxy?
	Turkey kind of already has by proxy.
	But I think, I mean, the Duran has covered this in good detail.
	Alexander McCorris and Alex Christoforu.
	And I think what they're predicting is probably right, that Erdogan probably already regrets that the mess he's been handed.
	It goes all the way back to Colin Powell, who was arguing against a war in Iraq during the George W. Bush's regime.
	And he was arguing with Rumsfeld.
	And he was like, remember, this is like you're in the store.
	You break it, you own it.
	And he was like, what happens when it breaks?
	And what is it you're going to be inheriting?
	And I think Erdogan, much like maybe Netanyahu, Netanyahu, God bless him, seems more too arrogant to recognize sometimes his mistakes.
	But I think Erdogan has already realized that maybe this maybe bought off a little more than he can chew.
	The problem with getting, I mean, this goes back to the U.S. CIA.
	The CIA and the State Department in the late 1970s, with their response to losing their control over Iran, which was basically an MI6 CIA proxy government for about a quarter century, was, with the rise of the Ayatollah, was to go to the, and the Saudis started getting blowback in their own local community when they were trying, like the Saudis were trying to allow like women on TV and things like that.
	And they all of a sudden started getting blowback from the Wahhabi movement within Saudi Arabia that they had long aligned with back before they had oil.
	Before they had oil, they aligned with some religious radicals to grab power locally.
	And then they end up on the oil, and they're stuck in this old alignment.
	And the CIA and the State Department came in and said, you know what?
	The way we can counter Iran's new rise of the Ayatollah is let's reinvigorate the old Sunni-Shia divide.
	I always call it like the Catholic-Baptist divide.
	Do you got to go through an intermediary or not?
	The Sunni tradition, no.
	The Shia tradition, yes.
	And they said that would isolate and marginalize Iran's ability to expand into the rest of the region because they're Shia.
	We'll reignite the old civil war within Islam that goes all the way back to a prince getting killed and all this other stuff.
	Like the 7th, 8th century.
	Around the world, they nurture grievances.
	They make East Tennesseans look polite by comparison.
	We might keep grievances for 300 years.
	They keep grievances for 2,000 years.
	It was the CIA's idea to arm the Muhadine in Afghanistan.
	And it was their idea to create a lot of these radical Wahhabi schools in eastern Pakistan that, by the way, would later become the Taliban because they thought it was a way for Saudi Arabia to counterbalance its internal political issues and its threat from Iran.
	And now we're experiencing all the blowback of all of this over the last two decades.
	And it's whenever they play politics like this.
	With religion and power, it blows back on everybody sooner or later, and unfortunately it's happening to religious constituencies that have long lived in Syria going back 2,000 plus years.
	Well, on the subject of people who hold grudges for a long time, I'm told it's the Chinese Communist Party, or at least I'm just trying to segue into the next story, Robert.
	I've been told that China's playing a very long game of revenge against the West, and part of the fentanyl biological warfare might be...
	Reprisal for the opioid wars that England inflicted upon them.
	But anyway, segwaying into the news involving China.
	Missouri filed a lawsuit against China for damages resulting from hoarding PPE, misrepresentations about COVID.
	They filed it four or five years ago now.
	It was initially dismissed.
	And then, I don't know how this...
	I mean, I guess it's the next level of the court system over in...
	North Virginia, if I'm not mistaken, the district, I forget the judicial district, basically granted, they heard the case, they granted damages in the amount of $24 billion, like excess costs that Missouri had to invest or pay for PPE.
	They found as a matter of evidence, and they did.
	What I wanted to highlight in my video today, I forgot to do it, is that even though China didn't appear, and this was a default judgment, Even China got more benefit than Alex Jones did when he was defaulted because the plaintiffs still had to make their case and prove it by the proponents of the evidence, which they did in fact adduce and submit before the court.
	So Missouri did in fact show damages, causal link, misrepresentations.
	They showed evidence despite the fact that China never appeared.
	And the judge district awarded them $24 billion.
	You'll tell us your thoughts on this, but my main question is, people are saying they'll never see a red cent, pun intended.
	I don't know what farmland China might own in Missouri, but can Missouri execute against farmland or other assets that China has in other states in America?
	So you can sue a foreign nation under certain conditions, including commercial activity that they may be engaged in.
	And then you can collect on that judgment against commercial assets they may have here in the United States.
	China has substantial assets in the United States, so they'll be able to collect that whole judgment.
	So I don't think there'll be a problem collecting the judgment.
	The only question is whether the judgment will get affirmed on appeal.
	But, you know, credit to Missouri.
	The current United States senator from Missouri, along with Senator Hawley, Senator, I think, Schmidt, if I recall correctly, was the former attorney general who started this.
	And then the current attorney general was really good in Missouri.
	Took the lead against big tech on First Amendment cases.
	Took the lead to protect Second Amendment rights.
	Took the lead against woke prosecutors in St. Louis.
	You know, all of those things.
	And once again, delivered here.
	And then you have to wonder, why didn't other states bring this claim?
	I mean, it was clear that China withheld material information that led to the increase of the number of cost, expense, death, disability, and injury from COVID.
	And that they withheld information about when they first knew about things.
	They withheld information about the source and location of the origin of it.
	Transmissibility. Completely.
	They lied about its transmissibility around the world.
	They were shutting down internal travel while they weren't shutting down external travel.
	In other words, they knew there was a problem, but they're like, oh, you're going to Italy?
	Go ahead.
	The traveling internally?
	No, no, no, no.
	We can't let that happen.
	So China took deliberate actions that led to COVID being far worse than it would have otherwise.
	And as was pointed out, they decided to hoard.
	This is what they're doing economically across the board.
	A lot of your apologists for China, your new Atlas sites and people like that, don't like to acknowledge a lot of this, but China uses economic power as a weapon, like any other major power in the world.
	So I'm not excluding or exempting the U.S. from that.
	I'm not saying China's uniquely bad in that regard.
	I'm saying they're like other nations, but there should be legal consequence for that.
	You engage in commercial activity that causes harm to other populations around the world, you should have to pay the economic price of that.
	And Trump's concern is that they want to hoard supply chain, essential ingredients in that supply chain, so that you depend upon China to survive.
	Trump doesn't want the United States to have to depend upon China to survive.
	So this is along those same lines politically.
	But I think there was nothing about the case that I saw that is problematic from a legal perspective.
	China was engaged in commercial activity in the United States and elsewhere.
	Part of its commercial activity was to suppress notice and knowledge for its own profit about the coronavirus and the various protective equipment and other important information essential to diagnosing it as a risk.
	And creating some mechanism to prevent its most adverse effects.
	I mean, the reason why they let the Chinese population get on the plane to Italy that led to such an explosion of it there in Europe the very first time COVID really hit the continent was because that population makes a lot of money in cheap factories where they're able to undermine local wages and enrich the Chinese government.
	So that's commercial activity.
	So I think that the suit is completely legitimate.
	And I think China's going to have to write a big fat check.
	I also, I'm trying to pull up an archived link of an article.
	I want to remind everybody that early on, not only was China hoarding PPE, Justin Trudeau in Canada was donating Canada's PPE to China, knowing that they knew that this was coming.
	This is where I start getting really, really irritated.
	The world knew.
	China knew as of 2019.
	And so this was known well in advance.
	And despite all of that, Justin Trudeau still found a way to send...
	16 tons of PPE to China.
	My only joke was, haha, the face masks didn't work, but now they had to incur additional costs to buy them in North America.
	You think Trudeau, I mean, Trudeau is the, what we talked about was that Trudeau would use the tariff trade war with the U.S. to try to save the Liberal Party in Canada.
	And it looks like they believe that they can win now based on running on the Anti-Trump, anti-American ticket.
	I think they're still way underwater politically.
	They won't get wiped out of seats like they were at risk of doing, but I don't see them holding the majority.
	This is the Ottawa faces criticism for sending 16 tons of PPE to China in February 2020.
	I was on with, I did an interview before we went live.
	I'm very cynical, skeptical, and almost a little fearful that Canadians, by and large, are so brainwashed and so ill-informed that they are actually going to say, let's go liberal again.
	I mean, Mark Carney, for all of his foibles, does look like a competent individual.
	And the thing is, he is smarter than both Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould.
	He knows how to wage a tariff war that's going to wreak havoc on Canadians, but then he's going to blame it on Trump.
	And use that for their political profit.
	And I think Pierre Poiliev has played this as terribly as he could possibly play this.
	Right, because he's been both...
	Yeah, he hasn't found a smart balance to say, look, I know how to reach a solution with President Trump so that our economy is strong.
	No, he's going to be joining in the...
	But didn't he always seem like a wuss?
	To me, he always seemed like a wuss.
	He always seemed like a fair-weather politician to me.
	And he thinks right now that being anti-Trump is popular in Canada, so he should do it.
	He could have said nothing.
	It would have been better.
	But I think what is going to happen is Pierre is very smart when he debates, and he is going to have the dirt on Carney.
	And Carney's got dirt.
	He's never been an MP.
	He's spent the better part of the last decade in England looking out for England's best interests, despite the Brexit, the will of the people, looking out for European best interests.
	His three passports are very suspicious, and I hope they make hay of this.
	I mean, the guy is...
	I don't know what he's loyal to, but it's certainly the WEF.
	He is guilty of having shipped jobs over to America when he moved Brookfield Assets Management over to America, then lied about it during the debate, whether or not it was a lie or a mistake.
	But I think the biggest problem is that this guy, while he is advising Trudeau to cripple Canada via environmental policies, was investing in the very same countries that were then exploiting and producing energy.
	In a non-environmental way.
	And investing there.
	So advising to shut down ethical production in Canada and investing in China and other countries that are up to non-ethical climate crisis activities.
	So he's a hypocrite.
	What would be a good trade?
	I'm all for sending Seattle to Canada.
	I think it fits better in Canada than it does in the United States these days.
	What part of Canada should we take?
	You would want Alberta?
	Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.
	You want British Columbia geographically, but not politically.
	Maybe you take all of British Columbia except Vancouver.
	The issue is you couldn't end up with a landlocked part of Canada, but you want to have access to Alaska via land.
	Build a bridge over Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.
	They would be happier in America.
	America would be better off with them.
	America would not be better off with British Columbia, Ontario, or Quebec.
	Isn't it funny?
	Now that Trump is opening the door to refugees from South Africa, all of a sudden the Liberal Democrats aren't pro-refugee anymore.
	It's only certain kinds of refugees that they like.
	The refugees fleeing reverse racism, they don't want them.
	We'll see.
	I think ultimately Trump has the legal authority.
	To issue whatever tariffs he wants.
	I think from an economic perspective, U.S. has the leverage.
	Canada depends far more on access to the U.S. markets than the U.S. depends on access.
	The only element where Canada had a bit of an edge in negotiation would be hydroelectricity and selling it to New York, the border states.
	But good.
	So you're going to force America to become more energy independent quicker.
	That's what Trump wants anyhow.
	But it's a dollar for dollar tariff war with a country that has an economy the tenth the size of the other one.
	You know, they're going punch for punch, and it's Mike Tyson versus Urkel is my joke.
	Robert, before we get into the next one, I'll just do a non-smooth segue.
	Let me read some of the tip questions over on Rumble.
	Because we've got Textmaster, who says, is the mineral deal with the UK real?
	And if so, why did Trump ever agree to meet with mini Papa Smurf in the first place?
	It's time to dump Arafat version 2. What mineral deal did Trump purportedly get with the UK?
	Maybe he means Ukraine.
	Yeah, but that's what I said.
	He may have meant UKR.
	Okay, so Ukraine, but then why meet with Zelensky?
	Well, Zelensky was supposed to sign it on the Friday and instead proceeded to...
	Weaseled out of it.
	And then as Putin pointed out, if you guys want real minerals, Russia's got a lot more of it than Ukraine.
	But especially if Russia ends up taking the Donbass region and the eastern provinces, they'll be more mineral rich.
	There's nothing in the Dakersk region they're going to win.
	Sooner or later, Russia wins that war.
	And the only question is whether we get a peace sooner or later that limits the amount of death and destruction that comes with it.
	That's really it.
	Guess who owns Seattle?
	Bill Gates, that's who, says Allie Michael over in Locals.
	And Mr. Benchoof, when he was politically active here bringing legal claims, he was including going after Bill Gates.
	And how Gates was manipulating his political connections to the University of Washington and its pandemic preparedness group to give false information to people about COVID and about the so-called vaccine.
	And almost everything Mr. Bench you've laid out ended up being true and accurate.
	They'll never know it.
	But this is from Gray101.
	Have Trump and the Republicans abandoned the Speaker's promise to pass full budgets instead of continuing resolutions that promote deficit inflation?
	Yeah, but that's still an ongoing part.
	I mean, Trump wants to get certain things through and we'll see how well it works.
	But of course, a key to all this...
	Is the judicial branch continuing to interrupt and intervene in the election process?
	Kind of a continuation of the theme of the Benchu case, is the abuse of power by the judicial branch?
	And even the Supreme Court of the United States failed to take the corrective remedial action this past week.
	Well, Poso, Jack Posobiec, put out an article from Human Events last week, and I read it, and I said, well, I'm going to obviously retweet this, but I'm going to give Barnes the credit that he deserves, because who was it that you said would have been the better pick to Amy Coney Barrett at the time?
	Luna? Lagoa.
	Lagoa, sorry.
	You called it.
	Look, I didn't even know what the Federalist Society was back in the day when we were talking about this.
	You called it.
	It's come to fruition.
	What happened this week where Amy Coney Barrett is going to be known as the advanced communist?
	I won't fill in the B on that one, but ACB.
	So what happened this week that she was the determinate vote to basically...
	So this was the case where there's all these judges that are trying to prevent the elected head of the executive branch from exercising his constitutional duties to control the executive branch and to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
	What Trump has been busy doing is making sure, first, that any monies being spent were actually authorized by Congress for that purpose.
	Secondly, that any personnel, our personnel that are aligned, With his administration, given the American people just elected him to be the president of the United States of America.
	And then third, to make sure some of these rogue things that were taking place, funding projects that nobody ever approved, that violate constitutional rights, that undermine peace and security around the world, that those are dispatched.
	One part of that was not sending certain money for foreign aid to various foreign groups, whether it was USAID, which was a CIA front group all along, the National Endowment for Democracy, which doesn't concern itself with actual democracy, these kind of groups.
	And it's the judges that have been trying to prohibit him from doing it, prohibit him from firing people, prohibit him from hiring people, prohibit him from even offering early retirement in one case, prohibiting him from not spending money.
	That the Biden administration had tried to pre-commit outside of congressional authorization.
	And this one concerned billions of dollars.
	And the court ordered him to issue the check.
	The court decided they didn't like who won the presidential election.
	So it was just going to universally overturn, unilaterally overturn the presidential election by ordering him to give money to foreigners.
	That had not been approved of or authorized specifically by Congress, and that violated certain core principles of this administration and principles of law.
	Supreme Court initially stated and said, okay, that's probably going a little too far.
	It goes up to the whole Supreme Court, and Justice Kavanaugh joins the three conservative, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, at saying that no court has this authority to overturn the elected executive branch, head of the executive branch.
	As to these kind of spending matters, that is well within his exclusive jurisdiction.
	So why is it the President of the United States now being forced to write checks to foreigners that he didn't approve and that Congress didn't specifically approve for it?
	Because two justices jumped ship and joined the three liberals.
	And that was Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice, that fake phony fraud, John Roberts.
	I told people that Barrett would be more like Roberts than like Scalia.
	I got a lot of attacks at the time as the conservative world rallied behind Barrett, ignoring the massive red flags and alarms about Barrett.
	Barrett is someone like, in the Benchoof case, what I was, I did like this part.
	When I told the judge, I was like, judge, you can't be telling people in the gallery that they don't have the right to petition the court for redress of grievances, or you are violating their rights, you yourself as a judge.
	The judge said, well, that's just like your opinion.
	That's the law!
	If I may steel man, as far as I understood, the issue in the Trump case as to whether or not he pays these foreign contractors was that the goods and services have already been delivered, and so they're entitled to the money?
	But that is a matter of legal contract dispute, not whether or not it is constitutionally authorized in the first place.
	And so that's the core primary concern, as well as the court's power to issue nationwide injunctions.
	And as Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas and Kavanaugh made clear, this overturns the entire constitutional process to have the federal judiciary decide it can replace the president as to how monies are spent.
	There was a whole point of denying the judicial branch the power of the purse and the power of the sword.
	Was to preclude it from usurping power it doesn't deserve.
	Now what the judicial branch has been doing is usurping that.
	Usurping the power of the sword through its use of United States marshals and usurping its power of the purse by ordering monies to be spent in a particular way.
	At this point, courts have the power of the purse.
	They're not supposed to ever have the power of the purse.
	And yet that's what they've done.
	And so it wasn't the case.
	So they determined that the funds need to be dispersed because they were deemed, or they refused to hear it as to whether or not they were constitutionally approved, not as a result of a contract dispute that would arise if they say, you owe me the money, you contract with me, well, sue me for it.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	That's just a regular, you go to a jury trial, you got damages awarded, et cetera.
	There's a waiver of federal tort claims act for certain contractual claims, et cetera.
	This was about, does the judicial branch Have the power of the purse to dictate how money is spent in the enforcement, or is that the elected head of the executive branch?
	The Constitution says it's the elected head of the executive branch.
	The judicial branch has just been seizing that power, and the decisive vote ends up being barred.
	You know, Roberts is always sort of whimsical.
	But I was surprised, though.
	I thought Roberts, who believes in the unitary executive, went to great lengths to defend George W. Bush's assertion of executive power in areas where it wasn't as quite clear constitutionally.
	And now he's walking back from that because he's such a wuss.
	And he hates Trump.
	And he wants everybody to clap for him when he goes to his parties in the Hamptons.
	To steal that, I could understand how they say, well, the services and goods have been provided, so pay up.
	But I understand the legal basis for why.
	For example, it's whether or not the power exists in the first place in the judicial branch.
	And this is usurpation of the elected executive branch, and they're just giving it to themselves.
	But it shouldn't surprise people about Barrett.
	It's amazing watching all these Normie conservatives in shock that Barrett is the one betraying them over and over again when her entire personal history and legacy screamed that this is who she would be.
	She comes from the old Southern planter aristocracy in the Deep South.
	That is a community that has never cared about individual rights and liberties.
	She was a professor at Notre Dame who deliberately avoided any controversial representation of any kind.
	That is someone who's too cowardly to put on the Supreme Court or expect anything bold from on the Supreme Court.
	I mean, she's busy going to parties with all the liberal justices and making sure they sing Hamilton songs and clap together.
	That's who Barrett is.
	It's always been.
	You know, the Notre Dame law professor.
	But on the Seventh Circuit, she had repeatedly ruled against civil rights and civil liberties again and again and again and again and again and again.
	And I was, I mean, particularly she favorably quoted Jacobson in support of the Illinois governor stripping people of all their civil liberties and civil rights.
	That's that fat-ass Pritzker.
	And so the conservatives should not be shocked, should not be surprised.
	That Barrett ends up being the great betrayer of the conservative cause.
	will probably go down as the worst nominee of any conservative president in American history.
	But she's on for like 40 more years.
	Exactly. That's what made her so devastating is an appointment.
	That's why I think I was really the only one.
	Robert Gouvet came around to being willing to being publicly critical or skeptical, or at least he would share my concerns with his audience, a few others.
	But for the most part, I was attacked.
	Attack, ruthlessly.
	I remember it.
	I couldn't pretend to have an educated opinion on it.
	I listened to what people were saying and you were definitely among the only ones sounding the alarm.
	This video was the one I wanted to pull up that went viral.
	Let me see.
	Is there audio on this one?
	No, there's no audio, but people are reading into the look on her face that she doesn't like him very much.
	Yeah, because you see that little snide look?
	At the end, that's exactly who she is.
	I mean, understand these are Southern aristocrats that come from old Southern aristocratic traditions.
	They despise people like Donald Trump.
	These are old money, inherited money.
	So these are aristocrats who think they're above you and I. And I try to tell everybody her personal legacy, her choice of professional legacy.
	I mean, how could you trust anyone?
	Who's never taken a bold stand in their entire lives in their legal career?
	Not a single one is a practicing lawyer.
	You're going to trust that that person's going to do anything worthwhile in the court?
	That they're going to stand up to the corruption of the legal academy?
	What I'm dealing with here in Seattle is an extreme version of what happens when you create this insular legal academy.
	That believes in values totally foreign to the local population and to the American people and to its traditions and history.
	But it's just an extension of that.
	So someone who chose to be part of the legal academy through their career and not take any bold positions ever, not in their writing, on their law review articles, she would write these really technocratic little legal pieces.
	This is someone who memorized their way through law school.
	This is not someone who understood concepts and policies and principles at all.
	She's going to continue to get worse and worse.
	That's what you can bet on.
	We're only beginning to see how bad a justice she will be.
	She'll be up there with Souter, but at least Souter was independent.
	Even though Souter wasn't a consistent conservative vote, at least he was an independent vote.
	You couldn't easily predict which way he was going to go.
	I mean, I don't know if you could find another justice appointed by a conservative that ends up this bad.
	I mean, O'Connor, you know, was unreliable, but not as unreliable as Barrett is becoming.
	Barrett is increasingly becoming a loyal Democratic vote.
	And look at how she voted on Trump on immunity.
	And not only that, this contradicts her supposed conservative position.
	I mean, she's a total fraud.
	Remember, she lied to everybody.
	She said she would be a Scalia on the bench.
	I told people she's flat out lying to you.
	You're a sucker if you believe that.
	Just because she clerked for Scalia doesn't mean jack.
	In fact, anybody who knows how the clerkship paths work is that people tend to lobby to get those positions so they can get into the legal academy so they can get into positions of power.
	You can't trust them.
	That they were successful at navigating that political terrain is not a good sign.
	It tends to be a bad sign.
	And she's going to be a sabotage, a saboteur of constitutional conservative causes for a long, long time.
	Now, the question is whether the...
	What you're laying out is that there are certain excuses that Roberts could have for why he issued this decision that doesn't guarantee he continues to.
	I don't think he continues this path.
	The bottom line is the courts are getting way out of hand.
	The American people are getting very upset about it.
	That's why Congress members are actually now, for the first time in forever, putting in articles of impeachment against federal judges.
	It's long overdue.
	I think the other person that's going to really need to take proactive steps in this regard is going to be Harmeet Dillon.
	She's going to be in charge of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department.
	And she needs that where state courts.
	State prosecutors, state officials are systematically violating people's civil rights like they are in almost every woke jurisdiction in this country.
	She needs to start to use the power of the Justice Department to deter that because that's what it's there for, the Civil Rights Division.
	I think the accumulation of that will change Roberts' mind, that Roberts will come back around to the unitary executive in the right case and flip his vote.
	That is my prediction.
	We'll see if I'm right or wrong.
	If he doesn't, If the courts go along with all this insane intervention trying to overturn the presidential election, the judicial branch faces serious risk, as they deserve, of having their power stripped from them.
	And there's a lot of ways Congress can do that.
	I know Senator Mike Lee is considering it, but those steps include, I mean, for example, everybody that has forgot, every federal judge outside of the Supreme Court of the United States depends entirely on the legislative grace of Congress to even exist, to have any power at all.
	Congress controls how many federal courts exist.
	They can, if they want to, eliminate every federal court other than the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Now, once appointed, they can't take away that judge's salary, but that's it.
	Everything else they can take away.
	They can take away their power to adjudicate anything.
	They're going to need to start doing that.
	They're going to need to get rid of the District of Columbia, which should be renamed the District of Corruption.
	Mexico is now Gulf of America.
	Let's have a petition to rename the District of Columbia the District of Corruption so that it's at least accurate, much like the Gulf of America is now more accurate than the Gulf of Mexico.
	And take away the District of Columbia, take away the Southern District of New York, take away these liberal, woke activist jurisdictions, their power to even exist, as well as parallel track the most egregious abuses to be either prosecuted by the Civil Rights Division when it's a state court judge, We're prosecuted by Congress in an impeachment action when it's a federal district court judge for those that are violating their constitutional oaths.
	And for everybody to remember, for a federal judge, they only can stay in power during good behavior.
	Every other impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors.
	Not impeachment of a federal judge.
	It just requires bad behavior.
	Bad behavior, to me, includes violating their constitutional oath.
	Now, I think that's going to have to happen, and maybe then Roberts wakes up.
	When he realizes this is a broad-based disagreement and dislike of what the judicial branch is doing.
	Because if Roberts doesn't reverse the Supreme Court's tendency in these cases to restore power to the elected executive branch that is constitutionally given to it and that the American people have chosen to, then the power of the judicial branch as a branch of government is in serious jeopardy in America's legal future.
	It maybe deserves to be.
	It's what I've told people here in this deal in the Seattle case.
	My quarter century of experience in front of Americans' courts is that Americans' courts need to have a lot less power than they currently have.
	Because sadly, they more often than not abuse that power rather than use it for justice.
	Well, I'll get back to reading some chats in a second, but there's a segue or at least a continuation here.
	Harmeet Dillon.
	Has she been sworn in yet?
	I think she just had her hearing last week, so I don't think there's a vote yet.
	I don't think she's been approved yet for the Civil Rights Division.
	But there's every reason to believe she will be.
	She's been an excellent lawyer, and I have great hopes and aspiration for her.
	But credit, again, who's really delivered?
	Tulsi Gabbard's already delivered.
	Predicted it.
	Here's what's going to happen in Syria.
	Exactly what happened in Syria.
	She was the only one amongst the entire American intelligence infrastructure predicting this.
	And she nailed it.
	Credit to her.
	Credit to Secretary Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. for this insane purging of chickens that are driving egg prices through the roof, which was an overreaction to the bird flu, and then another overreaction by basically killing all the birds or forcing a vaccine on it.
	Guess what finally got that stopped?
	It wasn't Brooke Rollins, who's playing footsie with big food and big ag.
	She says she's going to discipline him.
	I've seen zero evidence of that so far.
	They're continuing to harass Amish farmers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	So, so far, she has failed to deliver on her promises.
	So why did they finally stop a lot of this mass killing of farmers, destroying farmers' property?
	But also jacking up prices ridiculously for something that is unnecessary.
	Well, it's because Robert Kennedy came out and took a position.
	And Robert Kennedy came out and said, OK, everybody's looked at it.
	NIH, CDC, everybody out, FDA here at HHS.
	And it's quite clear that the bird flu vaccine is a bad idea and that killing all the chickens is a bad idea.
	And it was only him going public with that that got her to back down and finally correct herself.
	So, you know, credit to Gabbard, credit to Hegseth, credit to Vance, credit to Kennedy.
	They're actually delivering on what the American people elected Donald J. Trump to do.
	It'll be nice when Brooke Rollins gets on board with that as well.
	Well, and then to the ones who aren't exactly yet doing what they're supposed to do, Pam Bondi.
	Did I believe I was speaking of the disappearing Epstein files?
	Did she say that now that whatever they're going to release in Phase 2 is going to be redacted for national security concerns?
	Did I understand that correctly?
	It's been unclear.
	I mean, what I said from day one is that Bondi screamed amateur.
	That Bondi did not speak to me, someone who was really...
	That Cash Patel, I had confidence in.
	Dan Bongino, I have confidence in.
	Bondi, I don't have confidence in.
	Now, I'm not as skeptical as I am with Rollins.
	I think Bondi means well.
	I think Bondi intends well.
	And she's clearly got ridiculous genes because she looks like she's 35 when she's like in her 60s or something.
	So credit to her for that.
	But when she was attorney general in Florida, I hardly remember anything she did.
	So that's not the sign of somebody who's going to really use the power of the Justice Department to take on the institutionalized corruption that exists within that department.
	I mean, as we speak, I believe the Justice Department is hiding information from Attorney General Bondi, from Secretary Kennedy, concerning a case that concerns both of them, which is the Brooke Jackson case.
	This is the Brooke Jackson case against Ventavia and Pfizer concerning the COVID vaccine.
	Brooke Jackson was the whistleblower who blew the whistle in September of 2020 before that vaccine ever got issued.
	Because she was the supervisor on the clinical trials for that vaccine, and she realized that there was no good science coming out of those to say that anything about the vaccine was either safe, effective, or could even work as a vaccine.
	She blows the whistle on it.
	We bring suit.
	The Biden administration gets the suit dismissed on the grounds that the official position of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Biden administration is that nobody could second guess the vaccine.
	Secretary Kennedy is commissioning a study as to whether or not it was a safe and effective vaccine.
	Has already stopped an oral vaccine or drug that they were trying to bring in.
	He was like, there's no good science behind this.
	Not going to stick this on the American people.
	And yet...
	This case continues to go on.
	I haven't seen any evidence that Bondi is even aware that the Justice Department is still advancing the Biden policy position that no one can question the vaccine and that fraud is okay on the American people because they're for the fraud.
	That's what the Biden administration's position was.
	So why is Bondi not stepping in on this?
	Because I don't think she even knows about it.
	So she got played by the FBI in New York.
	On the Epstein files.
	And now she's getting played as we speak on the Brooke Jackson case.
	So she needs to start to show her capacity and capability.
	There's a reason why Trump picked Gates first.
	He understood that Gates had the wherewithal and the chutzpah and the cojones to take on this corruption.
	Pam Bondi so far has not shown that she's able and capable to do so.
	I think she intends well, but I have doubts about her skill set and experience in this area.
	So somebody over there needs to fix things up, and they can fix it up by making sure the Epstein files that were promised to be declassified and published are, and that the files concerning the, and that the Brooke Jackson case, they intervene in favor of Brooke Jackson, and that they put an end to the harassment of small farmers across the country, including Amish farmers, because the Justice Department has a role in that, because it's their U.S. attorneys who are enforcing it in court.
	On behalf of the Department of Agriculture.
	So she's got these high-profile cases that she needs to correct and remedy because right now she's getting played by the deep state.
	Add to that one Roger Ver, who is still awaiting extradition under the order that they got.
	And it contradicts what President Trump put out this week.
	Trump says we're not going to tax crypto anymore.
	We're going to limit how crypto is taxed.
	We're not going to put these ups and downs.
	It's one day it's this, next day it's that, next day it's another thing, then it's this thing.
	Here you have Roger Ver, who they're trying to put in prison for 109 years for paying tax he didn't owe when he wasn't even a U.S. citizen on Bitcoin sales that were not even considered taxable at the time, that now they just want to retroactively impose a tax on him.
	And for those that keep forgetting, They, Roger Veer begged, literally begged.
	He filed petitions.
	He filed Freedom of Information Act requests.
	He filed Privacy Act requests.
	He filed letters begging the government to tell him how much they think he owes.
	They refused to tell him how much he owes.
	Refused. They said, nah, you're just going to go to prison and we'll tell you after you're in prison for 109 years how much you owe.
	Why is that case still being pursued by the Justice Department?
	Is Pam Bondi going to be able to do her job or are they just going to walk all over her?
	Right now, they're walking all over her.
	That Epstein case was an embarrassment to her, an embarrassment to President Trump.
	So she needs to step up, and she's got plenty of opportunities.
	Step up and get rid of all the harassment of Amish farmers like Amos Miller.
	Step up and end the extradition request and agree to the dismissal of all charges against Roger Ver.
	Step up into the gap concerning the Epstein files, concerning the Brooke Jackson case.
	Say that the Justice Department's position is not the same as the Biden administration, and that they are not going to accept the American people being defrauded and hurt to the tunes of millions of people and billions of dollars, and that they want to allow the case to go forward.
	She has easy procedural steps to affirm what President Trump was elected to do, and it is frankly unsettling and disturbing that she hasn't yet.
	Fantastic, I see.
	Not fantastic, but good.
	The word is out.
	Timestamp this.
	I'm going to clip this because I think it needs to be heard.
	What I wanted to do was bring up some of the super chats over in Rumble.
	Randy Edwards says, was Justice Kennedy's presence at the president address an attempt to shore up Kennedy's Obergefell 5-4 majority opinion?
	So that's the question about whether or not the Supreme Court is going to reverse on establishing the right to gay marriage constitutionally.
	I seriously doubt it.
	So the only reason you would see a reversal is that Barrett's Catholic.
	And so she's an institutionalist in that regard.
	And that the Catholic Church officially doesn't support gay marriage.
	Though the recent Conclave film was all about an intersex person becoming Pope.
	Even the Oscars are not as predictable as they used to be because their competency level is dropping on a daily basis.
	I did not see one of the movies this year, and I don't plan on seeing any of them.
	They're wasting time, mostly.
	Except I'm told Onora has some value, if only from a purely carnal perspective.
	Bill Dozer says, the children of Missouri know tales of earthquakes caused by Pritzker.
	They leave mini donuts on the mantle every January 19th before bed is an offering to appease the pagan god of lard.
	R.W. Parker, when they lock you up, Barnes, I'll put a crew together, head south so we can break you out.
	I'm in Snohomish.
	One county north of King County.
	Barnes, how do we draw the Trump administration to the abuses of civil rights happening in Washington and Washingtonia?
	We got that.
	Are you talking about Diagalon?
	I don't know what that's about, but not if I did.
	No, I don't remember talking about Diagalon tonight.
	Barnes, you are a true justice warrior.
	Shofar, J.J. Mackay.
	Is Bondi legit or totally compromised?
	We got this one here.
	She's legit, but she just doesn't have the skill set, I think, yet to deal with what she's dealing with.
	Did either of you catch Serpensa's video on the anarchy overrunning China right now?
	I don't understand why it's not on Chinese news.
	Sorry, I understand why it's not on Chinese news.
	Curious why it's not on ours.
	I don't even know what you're talking about, but I'm going to go look this up right after this.
	Trump, no trust China.
	China asshole.
	Modern Chinese proverb.
	I'm going to feed my pants.
	Curious on what you both think of this.
	Any time for non-far-left people to try to organize, it gets infiltrated by Fed Wokies.
	What can be done?
	I'm scared to start anything.
	I don't like joining groups.
	Basically, you just have to advocate for smart positions.
	There are ways to be careful.
	If anybody's suggesting you do something violent or illegal, then they're probably a new plant.
	That's my proxy.
	Even if they're not a plant, they're too stupid to listen to.
	Or if they're smart, that means they are a plant.
	They're either a smart plant or somebody dumb that will get you to do something dangerous and counterproductive.
	Either way, outcome is the same.
	Respectfully, this push originated with the Supreme Court Canada's imposition of new marriage and that court's subsequent ruling that opposition to their findings are unconstitutional, says Randy Edward.
	And what a funny joke it would be if the USA leaves NATO and then NATO must attack the USA for taking Greenland.
	Okay, that would be funny.
	Right, right, right.
	While we're on...
	I don't know.
	The court there.
	The woman...
	There's no segue.
	Oh, the craziness of...
	I couldn't even believe that someone was even trying to claim that an embryo could be a fungible asset.
	So, okay, this is cool.
	This was out of...
	Virginia. Virginia as well.
	Another interesting read.
	I mean, it's a divorced couple.
	They had fertilized embryos.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Well, the embryos.
	They were...
	Embryos. I guess that means necessarily fertilized.
	And they're getting into a messy divorce.
	And the wife wanted ownership of the embryos as though they were goods and chattels.
	Chattels, I think, is like an accessory to property.
	And so she was arguing that the fertilized embryos are goods and chattels.
	The husband was saying, no, they are not and shan't be treated as such for the purposes of dividing up assets.
	And the court...
	It was interesting.
	I mean, they went through some jurisdictions where...
	Embryos are not...
	Some treat them as...
	I forget where they treated them as actual humans, which you don't divide up as property.
	And the court said, look, I don't know exactly what it is.
	I'll leave it up to the legislature to determine what exactly it is.
	But it is not chattels or property that can be divided up like ordinary assets.
	It's something unique.
	It's something singularly unique.
	And I don't know.
	Just know what they're going to do with them.
	I didn't fully appreciate.
	Call me stupid.
	Because I've known people who have had in vitro fertilization for medical issues, and they wanted to preserve their fertilized embryos before they underwent certain treatments.
	Or maybe it was just the eggs.
	It was for whatever.
	I didn't appreciate that, like, A, she wanted to keep certain types, certain ones, certain batch of the fertilized embryos, because she wanted them more for whatever the reason.
	I don't know if it was like they had blue eyes or whatever.
	I never really fully appreciated that.
	It's the initial stage of life and that they keep these things and then they have to destroy them at some point in time.
	And then the question is, you're destroying basically what is an early stage of life.
	So the court came down with an interesting ruling.
	I mean, I don't see how it doesn't stand.
	They say punt it back to the legislature to determine how to deal with fertilized embryos.
	Yeah. I mean, what to me was a little bit unsettling was the idea of treating these things as assets.
	Because at that point, you know, chattels, well, what does that sound like?
	Sounds like chattel slavery.
	That if we're going to start treating any form of human life as something you can own, I thought we got rid of that after the Civil War.
	So it was disturbing to me that anybody was even making that legal argument.
	So I agree with the court's ruling that no, it cannot be considered an asset.
	You can't own a human life.
	But it was unsettling to me that this was even being discussed and debated in courts in the United States of America.
	The other case that was interesting that you sent, I didn't know the death penalty case.
	It's a woman, a sex worker, who was convicted of murdering a client.
	I love...
	Sorry, I don't mean to be cynical, but a sex worker client, it sounds like a rather lofty word to describe someone who solicits prosecution.
	No judgment for whatever's legal in society, whatever.
	Allegedly killed the guy, and then they found out...
	She's been on death row for 27 years.
	And they just now, did they basically, they sent it back for remand after 27 years?
	Because they determined that the prosecution did not divulge to the woman that their lead witness was an FBI informant or was working with, not an FBI informant, was a police informant working with the police?
	Exactly. You know, there's, I mean, think about that.
	They put a woman on death row, you know, as consequential as any case could be.
	While hiding critical, essential, fundamental evidence to her defense.
	And you can fairly assume, so that means it's a high-profile case, it's the higher-ups that are part of the case.
	So this isn't like some run-of-the-mill guy who just kind of let something slip through the cracks.
	This tells you how institutionalized corruption is in so many prosecutorial offices.
	That's such a highly significant case involving their top personnel in their office.
	Could lead them to lie for more than a quarter century, keeping this woman locked up about critical facts that the jury was denied.
	That the principal witness upon which she was convicted, because I presume the rest was obviously even more circumstantial, was working with the police to find someone to pin this murder on.
	Exactly. And there are people that have every incentive and motivation in the world to lie.
	It's like the movie The Departed.
	All rats must die is the subtext of that movie.
	For people that didn't quite figure it out because Scorsese is not always easy to figure out.
	But the reason why he shows a rat walking across near the capital at the end and why certain people die sometimes shockingly prematurely in the film.
	Which movie was this?
	The Departed.
	If you put it together, you start to figure out all rats must die.
	Even some characters at the end have to because they're rats too, even if they're police officers.
	I remember not liking that.
	I didn't like that.
	I made a mistake once of quoting that in court.
	I realized the government's going to say that Barnes wants to kill the rats.
	And I was like, no, that's not what I mean.
	What I mean is that they're so unreliable and untrustworthy.
	Our legal system recognizes that you can't put anybody in prison, especially for life, based on their testimony alone because they just lie all the time.
	Let me bring these up just because they're on point.
	I remember seeing The Departed.
	I didn't like it at the time, but it was a long time ago.
	I haven't seen it again since.
	If she decided to use those embryos, bears on a child, the husband, of course the husband would be on the hook for child support.
	There's no question to that, which I think was her plan ultimately.
	But if he has the wrong politics, then in Seattle he can be prohibited from even contacting his own child.
	And then Alex David Duke says, the moving forward on policy change for Pfizer COVID mRNA might be waiting on Dr. Bhattacharya at NIH for cover for Kennedy.
	He's about to get in.
	The rest of Kennedy's people are all about to get in over the next couple of weeks.
	Amazing. Let me read a couple of...
	We'll catch up with these.
	Barnes, how often do you get straightforward cases that settle amicably?
	Seems that you're on a streak of crazy, says Dredd Robert.
	Well, the cases I tend to take are cases that have constitutional consequence, where there's some sort of abuse of power that tends to be taking place.
	So there are clients that I do regular representation for, coming up with a tax plan, for example, or dealing with the IRS, or coming up with an asset protection plan for the future generations or some future cause that they care about.
	But a lot of that is factoring in the potential of abuse of power by rogue courts and rogue governments.
	Usually, the number one concern when people come to me and want an asset plan put together, or what they call an estate plan in some circles, or a tax plan, their number one concern is rogue governments, right?
	A rogue court, a rogue government agency, a rogue IRS, a rogue local tax authority, or just somebody else rogue, some bogus case where all of a sudden they want to take everything you physically own and strip you of your freedom and liberty.
	That's why I do some of this work with George Gammon, Rebel Capitalist Pro, and part of it is what I call freedom planning.
	I said, I don't call it state planning, because what people really want is they want to plan in place so they can protect their freedom through their access to property, access to residencies, access to countries, things of that nature.
	But my case is disproportionately...
	Concerned constitutional consequence because the 1776 Law Center helps, thanks to everybody out there that provides support to that because that allows us to do it.
	Someone was asking me the other day how much I cost, and I'm like, well, two-thirds of the work I've done for the last decade has been pro bono.
	Like this case here in Seattle, there were people that helped raise funds to help cover some part of the cost, but it could come nowhere near the real cost.
	I mean, the government's going to spend a million-plus dollars just prosecuting him.
	Between all the different resources they're using.
	Can you imagine?
	A million dollars to prosecute a guy who just wanted to let his son have informed consent for a vaccine.
	$10,000, $15,000 a day in administrative costs.
	It's just nuts.
	And then they want to lock him up for 10 years?
	I mean, that's going to cost another $1.5 million of state taxpayer dollars.
	For what?
	Because he needed his kid to have informed consent on a vaccine.
	I mean, it's just nuts.
	So a lot of my cases, obviously, I'm involved in a lot more high-profile politically.
	I represent a lot of underdogs, a lot of outsiders.
	So consequently, my case portfolio won't look like your normal lawyer's case portfolio.
	Robert, now I understand the comment because they followed up with another one.
	It says, the Canadian provinces, you said, would make good for the USA would make the fictional country diagonal.
	That was the zip going down from Alaska to Florida, the diagonal.
	That's how Jeremy McKenna...
	Okay, now I got the joke.
	Do we take this party on over to locals now?
	Yeah, I think so.
	Anybody over there wants to discuss, chat, ask, you know, put a $5 tip or more and we'll answer the question.
	And to mention, I've got Ezra Levant coming on tomorrow at 12.30.
	I'm going to talk about the Canadian stuff.
	And then I think at give or take 1.30, let me make sure that I don't mangle, forget the person's name, a member of the PPC, Amir Hart, is going to be coming on.
	You've never seen him, you've never known him, people, but I want to have a discussion with a PPC member.
	So tomorrow's going to be Canada catching up.
	Tuesday, Kelsey Sheeran is coming on.
	She was the one who has been covering the maids in Canada as well.
	I think that one, I think, is confirmed, but it might not be.
	But either way, stay tuned for a lot of good stuff.
	Robert, you're going to be up in hell for the next couple of days, and then you're back to Vegas, God willing, Wednesday-ish?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It'll depend on how long the jury is out.
	Okay. You have to be near the courthouse while the jury is deliberating.
	Okay. Get your butts on over to Locals, and if you're not, get a kid's book, people.
	I gave you the link in the chat.
	And yeah, again, sorry for the rough start today.
	That was beyond my control.
	But hey, all's well that ends well.
	What are we doing right now?
	We're going to end on Twitter.
	Then come on.
	Not open it in Twitter.
	End it on Twitter.
	I can't find the stream right now.
	Ending on Twitter.
	Once I'm able to do this, remove.
	And we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party where we are going to take all of the tip questions there above.
	I've been doing three bucks, so we'll probably stick with that.
	Remove from Rumble.
	Now, peace out, people.

▲