Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 20, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:35:13

Ep. 260: SCOTUS Blocks Trump Deportation? Letitia James Criminal Referral! RFK Jr. & Autism & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Bet you didn't think you were going to start with a butterfly emerging from a crystalline thingy ray.
	We're starting off today's show a little different.
	Look at that butterfly in the back.
	That's it.
	Did you see that?
	The butterfly in the back just flew off.
	This is one that was born this morning.
	We're going to get it outside.
	Now that the wings have come out, it's going to take a few hours to dry.
	And let's just...
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	That's Sentry Bob in the back.
	We use him to kick him in the face and the ribs.
	Oh, crap.
	Okay, get the net.
	No words for that.
	That is absolutely magnificent.
	I did not know the camera was in zoom on that.
	Okay, I got it.
	I didn't even have to put it in the net.
	I just got it to rest on the net.
	And now, watch what's going to happen.
	Someone's got to remind me what the meme is where they're releasing a butterfly and they say, is this democracy?
	Okay, butterfly.
	This is your moment.
	You were born for this.
	You were reborn for this.
	Go. Beautiful.
	Okay. Second butterfly is right here.
	We won't.
	We can skip the second butterfly.
	People, it's a little known fact that on Rumble, let me just give this tweet to everybody.
	On Rumble, I've got a second channel called Viva Random, which is where all the random stuff goes.
	And there's a longer five-minute intro video to that where we know that the metamorphosis of a Caterpillar into a butterfly is amazing.
	It is fitting.
	I did think, I'm not religious, everybody, you know this, but I did think it was kind of weird that this was occurring today.
	I go look into the actual metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly, and it's literally a rebirth, and it's literally Easter Sunday.
	Happy Easter to everybody out there.
	Everybody thinks, okay, you think the caterpillar goes into its chrysalis, and you think it sort of weaves a little thing around it.
	That's not what happens.
	The caterpillar, after gorging itself on the milkweed, goes into a little J position and then turns into the chrysalis.
	The outside of the chrysalis is the skin of the caterpillar.
	And when you go to see other better made documentaries as to how the caterpillar turns into a butterfly, you see it sort of like the skin starts to bubble up.
	And then within the chrysalis...
	They refer to it as caterpillar soup.
	And why I know this now?
	Because I was sitting there looking at this.
	We had a deformed butterfly.
	You'll go look that one up as well.
	The wings didn't develop properly.
	It looked like the wings were upside down.
	It looked like it had a portion of the caterpillar section left on it.
	I'm like, oh, did the caterpillar's head turn into the butterfly's butt?
	And then I go look it up and they say, no, the caterpillar's head does not become the butterfly's head.
	Let this blow your mind.
	When it goes into the chrysalis, the caterpillar emits some chemical that breaks down virtually all of the proteins of the caterpillar, turning it into, quote, soup.
	Virtually everything except for what they call the breathing tubes.
	And then it releases another, I don't know what it is, a protein or a chemical or whatever, that then...
	Constructs the butterfly basically from scratch around the breathing tubes that have not been eaten away by the proteins.
	And then after the butterfly develops as its proteins are rebranded and rebirthed, literally, it then emerges from the chrysalis and flies off a beautiful butterfly.
	It's freaking amazing.
	It's science fiction beyond anything.
	And I can't think of another animal that literally gets born again in its life cycle.
	We have one deformed butterfly.
	It will be our pet.
	We're going to keep it in the area.
	It can't fly, but we've got the milkweed in there so we can track its development and have our own pet butterfly.
	Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
	Happy Easter.
	That was a good way to start the show.
	I figured we're going to start with the beauty of God and the magic of life before we get into the infinite depth of human stupidity.
	It's our Sunday night show.
	If you're new to the channel, Viva Barnes, Law for the People, everything...
	Virtually ends up on podcast format unless I forget to do it.
	It is Viva and Barnes Law for the People or Viva Frye Recovering Litigator.
	I forget what it is.
	You'll find it.
	It's on Spotify, Podbean, all the places.
	I've got Viva Frye, the main channel on Rumble, Viva Random on Rumble.
	The weekly lineup is only on Rumble, but then I post the clips sections on Viva Frye on Commitube.
	On Commitube as well, we've got the family channel.
	It's called Viva Family if you're interested.
	You want to get a book, Louis the Lobster?
	You want to get some merch, Viva Frye.
	All right, make sure that you subscribe, turn notifications on, because not a lot of people do that.
	People, we're going to go now to the infinite depths of human stupidity, and in order to start with that, we are going to, you guessed it right, a demicrat, or a dummy-crat, as we're going to have to start to call them.
	We're going to have to start calling Jessica Tarlov.
	We're going to start calling her Jessica Tardov.
	I mean, that's what we have to start calling her.
	Hashtag, it's my creation.
	We're going to get into it a little bit more when Barnes gets here.
	But just to relish in the stupidity that is the Democrat brain, the smooth-brainedness of the Democrat brain.
	They have literally gone all in defending gang member, wife-beater, illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
	Listen to this.
	Let's be very clear about this.
	Stop. I don't know if the audio is too low, but it's as loud as it can get.
	Let's be very clear about this.
	What happens after someone says, let's be clear?
	They are going to say something tremendously stupid.
	Let's be very clear about this.
	The accusation of being MS-13 is based on a double hearsay testimony.
	They never followed up with it.
	And a detective who, weeks later, was indicted for sharing confidential information.
	His legal status, Abrego Garcia's, was approved by the Trump administration in 2019.
	And every year since then, he has checked in with the Department of Homeland Security.
	And nobody has said anything about him being a gangbanger.
	Until he was...
	No, no, not until anything to this day.
	It's not about being a prop.
	There will be other senators...
	Nobody said anything about him being a gangbanger, Tardov?
	I disagree with that.
	Do I have my...
	Oh, cripe.
	Nobody said anything about him being a gangbanger?
	Well, they said something about him being an MS-13 gang member.
	And I'm getting really tired of showing the same receipts to the same idiots who seem to be pathological in their dishonesty.
	Pathological. And there's no reason anybody is not familiar with it.
	And they say, oh, no, no.
	So no court ever said he was an MS-13 gang member.
	Oh, what's that?
	I've got the receipts right here.
	An immigration judge?
	This is from the 2019 bond hearing.
	This decision of the bond hearing judge,
	based on the evidence, was ratified by appellate review of the bond hearing.
	So he's always been a gang member.
	He hasn't always been a wife-beater.
	That was a little bit later that his wife actually filed a complaint that he physically beat her.
	And then she goes on and does an interview with that guy from Good Morning America where she doesn't seem to be too happy that her husband is...
	That the Democrats are fighting so hard to get that wife-beater back into the same house as the wife that he beat.
	But it's pathological.
	They've gone all in, defending the indefensible and lying day in and day out.
	And Jessica Tardoff, congratulations.
	You're the latest addition to the smooth-brained, pathological, lying, dishonest Democrats.
	That's what they do best.
	But before Barnes gets here, we're going to just do a little bit of a summary of what's going on in Canada, everybody.
	And tonight, color you shocked, as you may be.
	I'm going to defend the Conservatives.
	I'm going to defend Pierre Poilievre.
	I'm going to suggest that this wasn't a total flop.
	Oh, for goodness sake, now I have to...
	Oh, come on.
	Where is it?
	It's this one.
	Okay. Let me just...
	I'm going to cut that part out when I smooth this all together.
	I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Conservatives for this ad, which I think is a troll that is not being respected as such or identified as such, especially by the liberals who seem to be outraged by the hypocrisy of this promotional
	campaign. Either that or if it's too subtle and too many people are misunderstanding it, it's yet
	Listen to this.
	This is a conservative party, straight up off their Twitter feed, political campaign, and it says we can't afford four more years.
	The amount of people who think that that's a typo are far too many.
	Political demographics of them because I still think there's far too many so-called conservatives who are complaining about the typo and not getting what I think is the deep irony, almost subtle troll of this ad.
	Vote for change.
	Vote conservative.
	Let's hear this here.
	Two old white men playing golf.
	How's your son David?
	Well, it's been a tough few years for him.
	He just can't seem to get ahead.
	Yeah, we had to pay for Sarah's down payment last year.
	Things are tough for her too.
	You know what Mark Carney says.
	Come on, do you really think that a fourth liberal term is going to change anything?
	You know, I've been thinking the same thing.
	Are we really going to give these clowns a fourth term?
	I'm voting conservative.
	There you go!
	Yeah, for a change.
	Okay, so, straight up.
	If this is intended to be a serious ad, it's the cringiest ad of all time.
	If those are supposed to be two fence-sitting potential conservatives, they're not making their own demographic look particularly good.
	Two old, well-to-do white men playing golf.
	There's no other sport that is the embodiment of expensive, upper-class, wasted time and money.
	It's not just that golf is flipping expensive, stupid expensive.
	It takes so much time to play.
	That time itself is money.
	If you go for a five-hour round of golf, even if you can get it in four hours, there and back, it's five hours.
	You have no job that day.
	You can afford to take off an entire day.
	You don't get paid for that unless you make content playing golf.
	But if that is supposed to be two conservative, potentially conservatives, and that's what they're trying to do to appeal to fence-seating conservatives...
	I can see it kind of being a little bit tone deaf while people are having a tough time in life and in Canada in particular.
	These two dudes are playing a nice day of golf at the driving range, which isn't a full round of golf.
	I happen to think what they're doing with that is actually making fun of the Liberal base.
	Two old boomer jackasses who are sitting there playing golf and one of them is actually thinking of voting for the Liberals.
	For another four years to give him a full 14 freaking years in power.
	I've been saying it and I'm never going to stop saying it.
	If you vote for these people, the liberals, you are an idiot.
	I'm not telling you to vote for Pierre Poiliev.
	I'm not telling you to vote for Maxime Bernier.
	Even when I ran for the PPC, I didn't tell anybody to vote for me.
	It might have helped.
	But if you vote for the liberals, you are the biggest idiot on earth.
	You are either a government employee.
	You are either absolutely propagandized by Canadian media.
	You are...
	Either stupid, and no judgment, people are entitled to be unintelligent, especially politically.
	Or you're corrupt to the core.
	Look, you gotta see this.
	This is what they are putting out by way of ad campaigns from the conservative side.
	Oh, and by the way, if you vote for the liberals because you think it's a middle finger to Donald Trump, you are retarded with TDS.
	I mean, you have TDS that is so...
	Suicidally empathetic that you are the wood cricket to channel Gadsad, who is jumping in the water because the liberal parasite of the mind has infected your small, smooth little brain to the point where you're going to jump in the water so that you can help the parasite that is the liberals grow.
	This is what the Liberal Party has to say.
	We can give ourselves more than the United States could ever take away from us.
	What the hell does that mean?
	What has the United States...
	It makes no sense.
	But they're running on Trump bad.
	Even Pierre is, which is, I think, his biggest mistake of this, but we won't get into that.
	I'm not dumping on Pierre tonight.
	I'm dumping on the libs.
	We can give ourselves more than the United States could ever take away from us.
	This is like Kamala Harris-esque.
	What did she say?
	Living unburdened from the past.
	Mark Carney has a plan to unite, secure, Protect and build Canada strong.
	After 10 years of Mark Carney's party, leaving wide open, dividing, leaving vulnerable, and making Canada impoverished and weak, Mark Carney unveils a plan to Trump-proof Canada.
	These people, the liberals, are running on you being so afflicted by TDS, my fellow Canadians.
	I'm still Canadian, whether you like it or not, that they are banking on you doing the absolute stupidest thing because you think it's going to spite Donald Trump.
	If you vote for these liberals, you are an idiot and you will deserve everything that these liberals bring in.
	That's not to say it's going to be much better with the conservatives.
	At the very least, it might be a bit of a slowdown in terms of the destruction of Canada.
	By the way, look at this.
	Pierre. You fool.
	You've let them trick you into a bad campaign strategy.
	You don't want anybody coming in with the Make Canada Great hats again because they might equate you with Trump, you know?
	They're doing it anyhow.
	You should have embraced it, you frickin' coward.
	Too late.
	We'll see what happens in a week.
	The election is a week from tomorrow.
	This is another one of the Liberals' campaign ads.
	A foreign government that is threatening Canada and is destroying its own country right now.
	Oh, it's destroying its own country.
	Will, your question is false.
	Everything is broken.
	Everything is broken.
	The left-wing censorship regime.
	Their woke censorship ideology.
	Defeating the radical left.
	Radical leftist authoritarian.
	It's not the Americans' fault.
	It's our fault.
	We're stupid.
	Jeez. By the way, that last one was in the context of something totally different.
	It's almost as though what made Pierre Polyer popular.
	Was being realistic about the lamentable state of the Liberal Party and of Canada at large.
	It's almost that what made him popular in the first place.
	And by then himself going off the TDS deep end, it almost like it compromised his campaign.
	It's weird how things changed radically.
	Not when the tariffs were implemented or threatened, but when Pierre made the decision to go full TDS tard.
	And then we just got one more.
	One more just to highlight the fact that the Liberals...
	Are racist.
	The Liberals are everything they accuse others of being.
	Because if you don't know who this individual is, it's Canadian politics, you might not know.
	Could you tell us, like, can you point to some people who will be key in your administration?
	We've got newcomers like Jamil Giovanni.
	While enrolled at Yale Law School, Vance met Jamil Giovanni.
	The Conservative MP was elected to Parliament in a by-election earlier this year.
	They are, in Giovanni's words, best friends.
	My friend, J.D. Vance, there's no way that Canada can win a trade war with the United States if you don't do the United States of America.
	And to Canada, if you guys don't win, the tariffs are even higher.
	Could you tell us?
	Can you imagine now?
	So they want to play this game then?
	All right, so then Mark Carney hanging out with Prince Andrew makes him a pedophile.
	Is that how it works?
	Because they're friends, somehow now Jamil Giovanni is guilty of whatever you think J.D. Vance is guilty of.
	J.D. Vance, a successful, wonderful VP.
	Mark Carney can only hope to a higher power to ever aspire to be half as good a man as J.D. Vance.
	Remember, they want to play that game?
	All right, let's go back to the picture of Mark Carney with Jelaine Maxwell.
	Let's play that game.
	Bunch of freaking hypocrites.
	Plus, by the way, if anyone ever dared say something like that about their party, you know they would pull the race card.
	Stop yelling, idiot.
	I hope you're not talking to me because if you are, you can go.
	I don't kick people out, but I do make fun.
	I don't think you're yelling at me because that would be really stupid to come to someone else's channel, watch their thing, and then tell them how to deliver.
	Surely you wouldn't be doing that.
	Unless you are doing that, and I'm going to stop calling you Shirley.
	People, before we even get into the show, we got to thank our sponsor, The Wellness Company.
	But hold on one second, actually, because I'm not going to do that.
	I'm going to play.
	They gave me a beautiful little B-roll video that I need to place right here.
	So I go like this.
	And now what I do is I bring this up here, you see, right?
	I go share screen.
	And then I got to go to window.
	And then I bring this up.
	And then I hit the play button right here, you see?
	And then I...
	Tell you about losing weight isn't just about looking good.
	It's about taking back control of your overall health.
	42% of adults in America are classified as obese.
	That's not a good thing, people.
	Obesity is directly linked to severe health issues including heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer.
	These illnesses are costing Americans over $173 billion a year in medical expenses alone.
	If you're tired of diets and different workouts with no success, it's not your fault.
	Big food, big pharma.
	I have certainly played a number on a lot of people.
	There's good news.
	The wellness company just launched Drop, a GLP peptide oral drop formula developed by their clinical, but developed by their chief medical board, specifically designed to support your metabolism, curb cravings, and help you shed weight.
	No injunctions.
	No the risk of some other certain medications that are out there.
	Simply take Drop in water, gradually increasing quantity over time to let your body do the rest.
	Start your weight loss journey today.
	Go to...
	The website, I'll give you in a second.
	50 bucks off with the promo code TWC.health forward slash Viva.
	We'll get you 50 bucks off.
	Free shipping.
	Take action today for a healthier tomorrow.
	And get out there and exercise.
	I mean, it's not easy.
	It takes discipline.
	Get out there.
	And if all things don't work, the Wellness Company is offering you something that will help you run through fields with beautiful pink balloons in your hand.
	And with that said, peeps...
	Let's get this show on the road.
	Biggity Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Let me see here.
	Have I declined to allow permission?
	No, I think it's good.
	Oh, there he is!
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Happy Easter to everybody out there.
	Or as the great birthday card that I got said, Happy Passover and sorry about Jesus.
	I thought that was one of the funniest.
	Jewish birthday card gifts I've ever got, so that was great.
	And then, you know, some of these cool gifts, they framed my favorite quote from Trump's Art of the Deal, which I read as a kid, along with Robert Kennedy's book, To Seek a Newer World.
	And it says, expect the best, plan for the worst.
	I always thought that was brilliant on President Donald Trump's advice.
	The book, Still Bad Money, by Kevin Phillips.
	I also recommend, I was trying to find, but I don't...
	I have the physical copy around of The Revolt of the Elites by Christopher Lash.
	I recommend both of those texts because they previewed a lot of what we're dealing with today.
	But Kevin Phillips' book, Bad Money, is really good about what Trump is trying to undo is that.
	The leveraging and financialization of the American economy that divorced American economic success from the interest of its own working class.
	Barnes, Chad is saying you're a little low.
	Can you move your mic a little closer?
	Yeah, I'll probably block the book, but...
	We know what book it is now.
	Okay, good.
	Is that better?
	I think that's better.
	We'll see.
	Let me see here.
	Yeah, a little louder Barnes.
	Okay, let's give it a second.
	All right, Robert, hold on.
	You know what?
	I also, I forgot to...
	It's spinning on my computer here.
	Let me just read.
	There were three...
	Oh, also, real quick, going to shout out to this really cool birthday gift.
	Take a look.
	Oh, the Bourbon with Barnes is amazing.
	Isn't that awesome?
	And they even got the Never in Writing, Always in Cash, the bottom and the top.
	That's fantastic.
	Robert, I wanted to...
	There were a bunch of super chats before we even got started that I want to get to.
	And one of them was for you, Jack.
	Oh, and the...
	Yeah, over on ComedyTube.
	Probably not even about the added extra topic for tonight.
	Nick Ricada.
	Update on Ricada Law.
	Oh, we're going to talk about that.
	I'm curious.
	I wasn't starting any fights with anybody this week, but I have my thoughts.
	Let me read these three.
	Question for Barnes.
	I was listening to my future brother-in-law and a family friend talk about the tariffs and getting rid of US aid and saying that it makes no difference in reality and that we can't get manufacturing back in five years here in the US.
	And the family friend...
	Talk about the poll where they ask a bunch of MAGA people allegedly about bringing manufacturing here to the U.S. And if they supported it, they said yes.
	And then they asked these people if they were polling were willing to work these manufacturing jobs.
	And they allegedly said no.
	In this poll, my suspicion, they polled a bunch of upper middle class people.
	Well, I mean, really, it was a misleading headline, right?
	What we want is about a quarter of the industry, American industry, GDP, to be back in manufacturing.
	About a quarter of American workers said they wanted a manufacturing job over the job they currently have.
	I mean, there's plenty of people that don't need the manufacturing job.
	It's not for everyone.
	It's for the one quarter of the population that lost those jobs.
	And those people said, absolutely, they wanted it back.
	So it was a misleading headline for the media.
	Is the setting going to drive anybody else crazy out there?
	This is what, like, it's called pure OCD.
	I'm aware of my own obsession compulsions, and I can't help myself.
	Thank you.
	That makes me...
	Oh, that reduces some anxiety.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Because, look, I know we got the Supreme Court.
	We're going to talk about the Supreme Court throughout the week.
	Your words of how the Supreme Court got the Civil War started have been echoing through my head all week.
	But what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	We do have that Supreme Court.
	Midnight ruling.
	Maybe one of the worst rulings they have ever made.
	It's not a binding precedent decision.
	It's part of their so-called shadow docket.
	It can, and I think likely will, be overruled ultimately when the court actually issues a written decision.
	The dissent by Alito and Thomas is presciate, I think, in that regard.
	But so we've got everything going on with the insanity of the courts.
	Letitia James might be on the receiving end of those indictments soon.
	Harmeet Dillett is now installed as the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.
	What might that mean going forward?
	Antitrust. We've got a couple of cases.
	As predicted on this channel for years, Google has now been found to be a monopoly in violation of antitrust laws.
	Facebook is currently facing a trial verdict that's likely going to go the same direction based on the admissions of Mr. Zuckerberg himself at that trial.
	Sarah Palin also in trial against the New York Times about their licentious libels and the New York Times announcing to the world that they have a no-apology policy.
	The Associated Press thinks they're entitled.
	To a position in the White House.
	They had one of Trump's dumber judicial appointees, Judge McFadden, out of the District of Corruption, say yes, they're entitled to it.
	The D.C. Circuit is now hearing that case.
	We'll discuss that.
	Mangione now federally indicted.
	I'm not a big fan of these federal and state parallel indictments of people.
	It's based on the myth that these are two different sovereigns and consequently somehow not double jeopardy to have the same government effectively indict you twice for the same offense.
	The state of Maine is now being sued for its refusal to exclude men from women's sports.
	The AP issue we've been discussing for a while, but it kind of blew up this week on social media.
	When both Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk suggested that it was time to water down intellectual property laws, the Chris Pavlosky of Rumble pushed back saying he was sus of what they were intending to do because it looked to him like they wanted to steal creator content for their AI machines.
	We'll discuss that.
	And then Harvard might be facing the Bob Jones treatment back when my brother attended Bob Jones University for about a year, year and a half.
	So I'm well familiar with the university.
	I used to go there for Christian school competitions as a kid.
	But they were stripped of all federal funding some years ago.
	And not only that, they were stripped of their tax-exempt status.
	How that might impact Harvard as we go forward.
	And then our bonus topic, Nick Ricada.
	Who was right and who was wrong in their legal predictions about the case?
	I'll give you a hint.
	It wasn't the critics.
	And I feel bad because no one wants to be in the news.
	I don't feel bad.
	I feel really, really good.
	All these people that, you know, lambasted somebody who they called a friend, demonized, repeated libels and false statements about, made all these predictions as to what would happen in the criminal justice process, including people like Uncivil Law,
	who doesn't have a clue about criminal law, never has.
	You know, people like Nate the Lawyer should have known better.
	So, yeah, we'll discuss about how that case progressed, proceeded.
	It's a sort of education.
	In how the criminal justice process works, and credit to Nick Ricada, who managed to maneuver through a very difficult system and keep his family intact, keep his kids, get his business up and going, and won't be serving any time in prison as was projected and predicted by his critics.
	We'll get to that in a bit.
	Robert, let's just start with the big news of the week, which was the Supreme Court for the time being.
	Putting on pause Trump's ability to deport Venezuelans who are currently in detention at the Texas, I think it's Allen, Texas facility, in a one paragraph, now that I mention that, though I haven't read the dissent from Thomas, the news sort of makes it out to be like some big defeat.
	When I look at it, to me, I'm just hoping the Supreme Court says, okay, we'll just pause it now and make everybody happy until we come down with our ruling, which is going to be to obviously ratify Trump's ability to carry out acts in virtue of the Alien Enemies Act, which he's within his full presidential authority to invoke and to designate people as terrorists.
	People are saying due process.
	That's what you do when you invoke the Alien Emergencies Act.
	This is a predatory incursion from people we've designated as terrorists.
	They don't get the full due process.
	This is something of a quasi-war tactic that the courts don't get to determine.
	People were freaking out all week.
	The bottom line, let's even go back to Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
	I keep putting out the evidence that he was designated by the court as an MS-13 gang member.
	In the photo of him with Van Hollen the other day, when Van Hollen traveled to...
	El Salvador, to look in on...
	In an interview, he almost called him an American, to look into the situation of the El Salvadorian who was deported to El Salvador and is now in detention in El Salvador, presumably because he's an MS-13 gang member.
	He had finger tats.
	It was a marijuana, smiley face, and then what looks like the numbers one and three, and that is by and large because he's a member of the MS-13.
	The question that I had was, is there any legitimate question as to his designated status as an MS-13 gang member?
	Yeah, they've tried to dispute it, but the evidence is rather overwhelming against him.
	When he's had the opportunity to contest it in immigration proceedings, he's been unsuccessful.
	Every immigration proceeding that has adjudicated the question in which he had the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine accusers, etc., has concluded that he is, in fact, an MS-13 member.
	If you just knew who was largely coming in from El Salvador in the time frame he originally came into the country, a lot of them had ties to MS-13, one way, shape, or form.
	Then you know that he's been, it was a Prince George's County police report, which by the way, if you don't know, Prince George's County is one of the most liberal democratic counties in the country.
	It was that county that concluded in its police report that he was an MS-13 member because of when he was arrested.
	He was arrested wearing MS-13 paraphernalia.
	He was arrested having currency and he was keeping that currency and it was marked in certain ways that is consistent with being an MS-13 member.
	He was hanging out with other MS-13 members.
	He was identified by a consistently reliable confidential informant, according to the immigration officials.
	Not only that he was an MS-13 member, but what his rank, status, and nickname were.
	That's the kind of detail you're looking for in a confidential informant's report for its authenticity and reliability.
	He was, on top of that, arrested in the state of Tennessee, and the Biden FBI ordered him released.
	Bringing in six or seven other people that didn't appear to be U.S. citizens, who didn't appear to have any luggage, and other indicators that he was involved in a human trafficking operation on behalf of MS-13.
	And the only reason he didn't go to prison sooner and wasn't deported in a timely manner, because he's been ordered deported many years ago, is because of the Biden administration.
	And then, of course, it turns out he's got domestic violence protection orders, and his wife reports attacks her all the time, and so on and so forth.
	So the evidence overwhelmingly points to him being an MS-13 member.
	If he was not an MS-13 member, he could dispute that in El Salvador, because, again, he's being detained in El Salvador, not pursuant to U.S. law, but pursuant to El Salvador law.
	El Salvador released him temporarily to meet up with the senator from Maryland.
	Who was calling him, like the media, a Maryland man.
	He was in El Salvadoran.
	And they released the photos showing him drinking margaritas with him, which has impaired.
	Just to steal Manette, allegedly, according to Van Hollen, someone ordered those or delivered them after the meeting took place.
	He's trying to make up all the different excuses for him doing the love affair meme with, I think Matt Walsh originally put that meme out, and then he actually lived out the meme.
	And go credit to the El Salvadoran president.
	He knew exactly how to handle that.
	And then he returned the individual to El Salvadoran custody because the conclusion of the El Salvadoran authorities is that he is an MS-13 gang member and has such dangerous and a threat to the safety and security of El Salvadoran.
	At this point, he's not being detained pursuant to U.S. law.
	He's being detained pursuant to El Salvadoran law.
	And then last but not least, as President Trump highlighted, He has tattoos on his body that are consistent with what MS-13 puts on it.
	And some people are saying, oh, well, the letters MS-13, they're not that dumb.
	The goal is you communicate using various tattoos that the gang knows is being affiliated with you without saying, I'm a gang member right on the tattoo, as if that's what's necessary to prove someone's...
	And MS-13.
	So there's really no meaningful question that he was subject to MS-13.
	There's also no meaningful question that the Trump administration, and like, for example, they said the Trump DOJ admitted, Trump DOJ admitted nothing.
	As Stephen Miller pointed out, a Biden holdover, Democratic, liberal Democratic attorney was representing the Trump Justice Department.
	And misrepresented the record in order to highlight one piece of information, namely that one immigration official, many years ago, in a different set of circumstances, had said for him to be deported, but not to El Salvador.
	Of course, the president can override that at any time.
	An immigration official is a bureaucratic official that works for the government.
	All immigration judges are bureaucratic officials that work for the executive branch of government.
	They're not part of Article 3. They're not part of the judicial branch.
	It is all the due process that until this last decision was all that has ever been required.
	You want to know American law?
	I'm going to be doing a masterclass at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll make this one freely available and shareable for people.
	And I'll go through about six or so of the most significant immigration cases in American history.
	And those stem from the mid-1880s.
	Through the 1950s.
	And they cover two different groups of people that raise the question of what constitutional rights are illegal immigrants or other immigrants entitled to.
	One question on my end, because the steel man is, they say the bond hearing is not a full evidentiary hearing on his status as an MS-13, as if there's some sort of declaratory judgment where you have a trial on the merits.
	But it is not the case that the bond hearing is ex parte or non-adversarial.
	It's an adversarial hearing during which time the prosecution or whatever you want to call it puts out their evidence and Kilmar can put out his counter evidence.
	So it's not as though he wasn't present.
	It's not as though there was no evidentiary hearing.
	There was, albeit not on a trial on the merits as to his status as an MS-13 member.
	And after that contradictory or adversarial evidentiary hearing.
	The judge, the bond judge, and the appellate review determined him to be an MS-13 based on the evidence.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And the other key component with this is illegals, people that are not legally present here have never been entitled to a trial.
	They've never been entitled even to a full hearing.
	They're not entitled to legal counsel.
	What people are confusing is what constitutes due process depends on the circumstances.
	What does that mean?
	The Due Process Clause of both the Fifth Amendment that applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment that applies to the state governments includes procedural components and substantive components.
	So those are when your substantive rights are being infringed upon.
	I've always considered that a misnomer.
	The better way to understand it is what process is due depends on what property or liberty interest is at stake.
	So what the Due Process Clause says is you will not be deprived of your property or liberty if you're simply a person under the 14th Amendment, as applied to the states, and to a degree in the Fifth Amendment as well.
	Then you're entitled to all the process that is due, depending on what property or liberty interest you have.
	What the Supreme Court did until this weekend had been unanimous in its determinations and its precedents going back more than a century was that if you are illegally here, if you've basically trespassed into the country, you have no legally recognized
	property interest in being here.
	You have no legally protected liberty interest in being here.
	Deportation is not seen as a punishment.
	Deportation is not seen as a deprivation of your property or liberty.
	Because you have no property or liberty interest to be here in the first place.
	If you do have legal right to be here, and there's been a deliberate confusion by the press and the legal left pretending that in order not to remove him by an immigration official to El Salvador equals a right for him to be here.
	It does not.
	The law has been universal in all of his cases.
	He is not entitled to be here.
	He must be deported.
	That's what the law has consistently held.
	And just to add that the reason, unless I've misunderstood, and I hope I haven't, I don't think I have, is that the reason why he was withheld from return to El Salvador was specifically because rival gang members would want to harm him.
	That's where his danger was, because he was an MS-13 gang member.
	Yeah, in part.
	Now, he had this whole other story about how his family owned this small business, and this particular gang was threatening the business.
	There was no independent corroborative evidence of that.
	And it was evidence he didn't introduce until after he'd been ordered deported.
	So what's been happening is the legal left has weaponized the asylum law.
	And they've been teaching and training people to fabricate stories and falsify stories.
	I believe a lot of the pro-immigration lawyers should be looked at by the Justice Department because I think they've been engaged in systematic and systemic subvernation of perjury before federal officials.
	Because there's too much of a pattern now.
	People who didn't claim any asylum at all when they first got here, people who claim no asylum when they are initially picked up, don't claim asylum when they're going through the whole deportation process until they're ordered removed, suddenly coming up with asylum stories.
	And this happened under the Trump administration.
	And the Soros-sponsored, funded NGOs were out there promoting it, preaching it, teaching it.
	Here's how you come up with a fake story to stay in America.
	Here's how you've come up with a fake story to get illegal access to American goods, services, employment benefits, as we are now discovering, massive benefits.
	Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were being spent, given to these people.
	You know, if you're a veteran and got injured in battle, you were getting less money when you came back for your disability than were illegals being imported into the United States by the Biden administration.
	By which I would note, the courts did absolutely nothing about.
	That they took very little affirmative action to prevent the systemic and systematic violation of the due process rights of the American people and American citizens.
	That's whose due process rights have been systematically violated because their liberty and property interests have been put at risk by releasing a large number of criminals onto our streets.
	Not just competitors with labor and other aspects, but also just flat-out criminals.
	That's who Trump is targeting.
	The latest group the Supreme Court prevented deportation of is some of the worst rap sheets of all illegals in the world.
	I mean, you're talking sexual abuse, rape, rape of a minor, physical assault, systemic robbery, gang activities, you name it.
	I mean, these people have unbelievable rap sheets.
	Amazingly, they're inside the country at all.
	And here the Supreme Court is rushing to keep them into the country.
	And this has arisen even in the habeas context.
	And there's two components of that.
	One, it's useful to remember, the Constitution itself allows the President of the United States to suspend habeas corpus.
	Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War, for kind of obvious reasons.
	Now, by the way, Lincoln extended it to places that it didn't belong.
	So, for example, Lincoln extended the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to parts of the country that were not in the middle of a conflict.
	So he could dispatch certain critics and others that he didn't like.
	So that was a part of Lincoln's legacy that's not the better part of his legacy.
	But it is useful to remember that in case of invasion, and that's what the president has already determined here under the Alien Enemies Act, that there's been an invasion, particularly of TDA gang members, on behalf of a state-sponsored invasion by the Venezuelan government as payback and punishment for sanctions on Venezuela and to relieve their massive crime problem in the then-upcoming election in Venezuela.
	They needed that radically reduced, so how did they do it?
	They gave basically free mechanisms and means in collusion with Soros-sponsored NGOs to flood America with some of the most dangerous gang members in the world.
	And that's who Trump is trying to correct and fix and remedy.
	The Supreme Court up until this point had constantly said that even in the context of a habeas petition, that that relief is very limited.
	Essentially, the only thing you're looking at is whether a person's in U.S. custody is whether an executive official gave him due process.
	And what does that mean?
	Did they ask some questions?
	I mean, it's real basic.
	They said it could be summary.
	They said it could be at a two-minute hearing.
	So when you're not here legally, you have very little constitutional interest against deportation.
	That's what the courts have said forever.
	And now this happened even with people who are here legally.
	This happened in all the first set of cases all include the Chinese Exclusion Act cases.
	So from 1886 to 1915 or so, you've got a bunch.
	And with all kinds of, you know, eclectic sounding Chinese names, you know, like Wing Wong and Ying Yu and all the rest.
	You need to pronounce Mandarin to get it right.
	And Mandarin is an important language to pronounce because...
	The same word can sound totally different based on your pronunciation.
	Either you're saying, I want some soup, or you want the kind of soup that ends up in the toilet.
	All depending on how you phrase the word.
	But that's been the law until this past weekend, where the Supreme Court overturned and ignored over a century of legal precedents that said...
	The executive branch completely controls the borders and foreign policy and immigration.
	That Congress completely controls what due process they allow.
	They didn't allow the courts to be involved in this process much at all if they're illegally here in the first place.
	And that due process does not require anything more than a very summary executive official proceeding for that person to be removed from the country.
	They just ignored it all in issuing an insane injunction that wasn't even procedurally proper.
	I mean, what happened is after they said you have to bring individual habeas cases and you have to bring it in the jurisdiction where the person is detained, and habeas is extremely limited as to what it's required and doesn't require anything more than the court to just say, yes, he got his executive due process,
	that's it.
	The habeas is there for the person that is truly being mistakenly removed.
	In other words, someone who's legally present, who, for example, say wasn't a communist, as was in some of the communist deportation cases.
	Because the first group, Chinese exclusion cases.
	Second group, communist exclusion cases.
	Read the breadth of the law in those cases.
	The Supreme Court many times said, quote, there is no place, no place for judicial review.
	The Supreme Court has said this repeatedly for a century and a half.
	Now, all of a sudden, the worst, most dangerous gang members in the world, who are part of an invasion, according to the president, by which the president could suspend the writ of habeas for those people.
	He could say, I'm suspending the writ of habeas corpus as it applies to the TDA members who are part of a systemic, organized, state-sponsored invasion of our country to destabilize our society and cause massive criminal issues in our country.
	The same Maryland senator that cared greatly for this El Salvadoran gang member said literally nothing about Maryland people who have been raped and murdered by illegals present in his state thanks to him.
	And so, in fact, the mother spoke out with President Trump this week in opposition to what that senator was doing.
	But what this shows is that the Supreme Court is still fragile, that the Supreme Court is still ideologically aligned more with the elites than they are the American people.
	The American people have made crystal clear.
	This has been a global cry, frankly, throughout Europe.
	You know, Brexit passed because of immigration.
	The Maloney seized power in Italy because of immigration.
	Orban is extraordinarily popular in Hungary because of immigration.
	Figo was very popular in Slovakia because of...
	Yeah, Slovakia.
	Or maybe Slovenia.
	I get those two confused all the time.
	Because of immigration.
	So the...
	The rise of the AFD.
	Alternative for Deutschland.
	Yes, exactly.
	Yes, that's right.
	You can speak some German.
	But some languages just sound brutal.
	Russians always sound like they're going to beat each other up when you listen to them talk in Russian.
	And Germans always, you're like, now I know why the Nazis came from there.
	You see people screaming in Italian.
	It's almost beautiful.
	You see people arguing in Japanese and it's intimidating.
	German as well.
	Oh, yeah.
	My brother can speak it fluently.
	But I'm not one of those people.
	But accuse me of being too idealistic.
	Is there not a possibility that the court is saying, look, we'll make everybody happy, just pause the deportations for now, and then we're going to really lay down the blueprint and legitimize it so that no one will scream bloody murder or foul from the press?
	I think, I mean, you know, it's always speculation at this point, but it's the three justices that went AWOL.
	We're Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.
	I'm sorry, Four, and Gorsuch.
	So now Gorsuch does have a libertarian streak.
	Sometimes that breaks good.
	Sometimes it doesn't break good.
	So from a populist, a more populist perspective.
	So we'll see.
	He's always been against nationwide injunctions.
	So I think he's, I mean, that's what, the other procedural problems with this case.
	They issued this prohibition without any briefing from the government.
	They did so on behalf of a class action that not only hasn't occurred, because they call it a putative class, which means there is no class action, and under federal rules of civil procedure, you can't give class relief until there's been class certification.
	And yet the Supreme Court just did that.
	But also, did they not just defy their own court order of a couple of weeks ago because they said putative class action is not the mechanism.
	Go by habeas in each individual case.
	And yet now they've prohibited the deportation as a putative class, which has not yet been materialized despite their prior ruling.
	And that's the third problem, is that these habeas is not capable of these kind of class actions.
	So it violates their own federal rules of civil procedure.
	It violates their own precedent.
	It violates their own policies and the policies behind these rules.
	So the question then becomes, why and what does it mean now and what does it mean on a go-forward basis?
	For President Trump, this kind of confrontation was necessary.
	I told people the courts, along with bureaucracy, would be the principal obstacles for Trump getting through the agenda that the American people voted him.
	So one of the priorities of the American people is changing trade policy, but also trading all foreign policy, including wars and immigration.
	Less war, less immigration, better trade.
	That was the magical trifecta for Trump in the 2024 election.
	And they're doing everything possible to derail that.
	The bureaucracy is rushing to the judicial branch, and the left is rushing to the judicial branch to get their protection from the American people.
	This isn't about exercising democracy.
	This is about crushing democracy.
	Another question.
	What happened?
	I was just Googling to see, or not Googling, I was looking up the trends of asylum, because it seems that at some point in recent memory, everyone coming to the States claimed asylum.
	And in Google Trends, this is global, but it was the same spike on the domestic U.S. It was 2009, or just before 2010.
	It was Obama's second year in office.
	What happened in 2009?
	Did this become the de facto policy for the Democrats as it relates to immigration back in 2009 and none of us who were not paying...
	It did to a degree.
	So the idea started then.
	But the mass education and the mass campaigning to get buy-in from all the NGOs and then all the lawyers representing them really didn't happen until Trump.
	And so you started seeing it take off in 2018, 2019.
	One of the ways, basically what you would do is you would come to the U.S. border and say asylum and you'd get released into the country.
	They called it catch and release.
	Because you have no other legal entitlement to be here.
	And the problem was almost none of these asylum cases met it.
	For example, the El Salvadoran man, they didn't find the evidence credible that he had an asylum claim.
	They just said that maybe there's a risk if he goes back to El Salvador.
	Now the reason why that was no longer valid was threefold.
	First, the president had changed policy and said, if you're an MD-13 member or TDA member, you're getting deported, period.
	So that overrode that prior lower official in the executive department's determination.
	Second, the facts changed.
	So the gang he was worried about no longer exists in El Salvador.
	So there was no longer any basis to withhold him from El Salvador.
	And then third, why wouldn't he prefer El Salvador to Gitmo?
	Because that's the other place Trump is sending a lot of these folks, sending them to Gitmo.
	So it's not necessarily in his interest, whatever his lawyers may be advocating.
	But basically what they did is they made asylum a fraud.
	And I've objected to this all the way back, not only on grounds we can't afford this amount of immigration to the country at this point where the country's at in terms of its labor supply and working class conditions in communities, but also just legally that what it would do is undermine legitimate.
	Asylum claims.
	I say this as someone who has represented people in the asylum context.
	And generally, it's been getting harder and harder and harder for a legitimate asylum person to win because the left has flooded the system with fraudulent claims.
	And I think those lawyers should pay some consequence for those fraudulent claims.
	In the context of asylum, does the threat need to come from the government or can it come from an entity within the country?
	Generally speaking, it needs to come from the government in order to be a legitimate asylum claim.
	Right. I mean, just facing high crime is not a legitimate asylum claim.
	Having a poor economic market is not an asylum claim.
	So there are certain circumstances where if the state cannot protect you from private violence, you can make an asylum claim.
	But it was intended originally for people seeking asylum because they were being threatened by their government.
	And that's why they couldn't go back to that government.
	It was never meant to be...
	And so now can I come here?
	And that's the nature of what it's become, unfortunately.
	Now, most of the corrupted parts of the immigration administrative process went along with some of this nonsense, but most rejected it.
	Now, what the liberal courts have been doing and the liberal legal media has been doing is they've been repeating the lies of these folks' lawyers as if they're true.
	These lawyers systematically perpetrate fraud upon the courts, and they know what they're doing because it's too much of a pattern now.
	It's not someone who, oh, they told me this claim.
	Okay, I'll present it as best I can, even if our evidence isn't great for it.
	The lawyers are making up the claims themselves because you're seeing people have never made these claims until the lawyer gets involved.
	And then all of a sudden it's, oh, maybe you're really an asylum person.
	Have you thought about that?
	You know, that kind of routine.
	So I think the NGOs who aided and abetted mass illegal immigration under the Biden administration should be civilly investigated and criminally investigated.
	I think some administration officials under the Biden administration aided and abetted the illegal immigration into the country, all of which is a federal felony.
	I think they should be put under investigation and, if necessary, indicted.
	And the lawyers and the NGOs are with them.
	Need to be under investigation and potentially indicted.
	This is the professional managerial class has used its credentialed position in law and medicine to corrupt those institutions to favor their own ideological bias.
	That's how you get the medical profession signing on to changing teenagers' genders based on mental confusion of a 10-year-old or their parent.
	That's how you get to all the insane COVID policies.
	And a lot of people have been commenting, where was this concern for due process of law when our rights to go to church were being taken away?
	When our rights to go to school were being taken away?
	When our rights to work were being taken away?
	Were we being forced to undergo medical experimentation as a condition of employment or education?
	When we were being forced under mass house arrest throughout the country?
	They were nowhere to be found.
	The ACLU is nowhere to be found.
	The ACLU is like when I grew up with their reputation in the South.
	The anti-Christian liberties union.
	The American commie-loving union.
	That used to be the joke about them.
	But now the two they are.
	They only care about leftist ideas.
	And they only selectively promote them for leftists.
	Even if it's the same policy.
	If it's the policy, say, about bail.
	If it's somebody on the right, like the January 6th defendants, like Kurt Benshuff, suffering from wrongful abuse of bail powers of the courts.
	ACLU, nowhere to be found.
	They only care about actual lefty causes and constituencies, and that's illegals and criminals.
	That's pretty much it now.
	They don't actually care about ordinary Americans or American citizens.
	And I think what this is pushing to is potential constitutional reform.
	Maybe we need to go back and amend the 14th Amendment to make clear it's all citizens who are due due process of law.
	That that's who the Constitution was meant to protect.
	It's so preposterous.
	You illegally enter the country despite any, you know, you set aside your criminal status and then claim constitutional due process after having broken the law in order to procure that constitutional due process that is otherwise not bestowed on you, if only because you're illegally breaking into the country in order to steal those rights.
	I mean, you're basically stealing constitutional rights by illegally entering the country.
	And this isn't the separation of powers.
	This is the usurpation of power by the judicial branch.
	This is the judicial branch saying they are supreme to the executive branch.
	They are supreme to the legislative branch.
	Because they are now encroaching in areas that they themselves have recognized for a century and a half were not their business.
	They said it was up to Congress to determine the laws of naturalization.
	It was up to Congress to determine the rules for deportation.
	And it was up to the president to execute them.
	And that those decisions were unreviewable.
	In almost all instances.
	Outside of, if someone had a...
	How can you get a property interest?
	All right, Viva's an example.
	Viva does have a property and liberty interest because it's been given a visa, right?
	Then your rights change.
	Then you have much more rights than someone who's illegally present.
	You have a legitimate, constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.
	Not as much as a U.S. citizen, but much, much more than an illegal.
	And by way of example, it's conceivable that once you've procured a certain visa, that when you cross the border, they...
	Accidentally enter you under a, let's just say, what is it called?
	A travel visa, which expires after six months.
	And then you would say, if they just kicked you out, you'd say, no, no, no, that was a mistake.
	I'm entitled to however long my visa is.
	And no due process.
	That's where you would talk about it.
	A clerical mistake.
	And the due process that is afforded to someone who procured the lawful visa in the first place.
	And you have these people quoting saying, see, the Supreme Court has always said due process.
	Yes, what they're ignoring is what process is due.
	Due process does not mean the same thing.
	In certain instances where your property or liberty interest is substantial, due process means a high evidentiary standard.
	It means a full trial.
	It means right to counsel.
	It means right to cross-examine and confront your accusers.
	It means right to an independent judge appointed by the Senate and the President.
	That's not what it means in the illegal immigration context.
	It means whatever Congress has said and whatever the President gave you.
	That's it.
	No more.
	That's all.
	So that's what's being ignored.
	So the question becomes, is the Supreme Court going to reverse a century and a half of American case law on the power of immigration in order to overturn the results of the 2024 presidential election and not allow the president to correct what Biden did,
	which was allow, against the law, mass invasion of this country, of illegal immigrants, including the ones Trump is focused on currently, very dangerous.
	These are convicted criminals in most instances.
	The injunction they just issued, the people that are just about to be deported on the TDA list, have, again, some of the worst rap sheets known to man.
	These are people who've been through criminal trials and been convicted.
	They've been afforded more process than they were ever due.
	And so the key becomes, what is Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts going to do?
	I'm confident that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are going to come around.
	Because they're going to see the blowback.
	The blowback wasn't just in the court of public opinion broadly.
	It was from places that they otherwise have allies.
	I mean, take Bill Ackman.
	Bill Ackman's been a moderate Democrat his whole life.
	He supported Trump in 2024 because he said things are getting out of control.
	When you lose Ackman, Ackman's like, you can't have a society that says you can illegally import 20 million people and then you can only deport them if you give them all 20 million trials.
	That's going to be too much money just in cost and expense.
	It's going to be impossible.
	He goes, you no longer have a country then.
	You no longer have a constitutionally run country then.
	Elections no longer matter because the American people made clear what they wanted executive policy to be in the election.
	The Supreme Court and the judges and the left don't like it.
	Professional managerial class doesn't like it.
	They're used to a monopoly on power.
	They have usurped power from America has not been a functioning constitutional democracy for the better part of a century is the reality.
	The bureaucracy, whether you call it the administrative state or when you're looking at national security and law enforcement, you call it the deep state.
	That's what Peter Dale Scott called it in 1969.
	That was originally a leftist critique, by the way, that the right embraced because it accurately depicted and described what was taking place and predicted what would then happen.
	And the judicial branch takeover of major cultural issues.
	They just decide to unilaterally step in and decide.
	We're going to decide.
	About the issues of gay marriage.
	We're going to decide about abortion.
	We're going to decide about a whole bunch of things that they really had no business doing.
	Now, they've stepped back from the breach on some of those, but not enough of them.
	But what that means is the American people had no say.
	We didn't have a functioning constitutional democracy.
	The American people could win an election or a constitutional republic.
	They could choose who they wanted and what they wanted didn't get done.
	And often it didn't get done because of unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges.
	Being part of a professional managerial class coup of America's constitutional power.
	And this is the ultimate expression of that.
	So I think there's so much blowback.
	Elon Musk, a whole bunch of other people.
	But people even in the center.
	And other legal minds that are kind of what I would call centrists.
	That may lean right, but are not like hardcore populists in the same sense I am.
	They were saying this doesn't make sense.
	This is impractical.
	This is unachievable.
	This is overturning an election.
	This is usurping executive power and congressional authorization.
	This is rewriting the rules of entire...
	I mean, what next?
	So if you're on a battlefield, do you have to give them due process before you shoot?
	I mean, these are impossible things to do.
	This would kill governments and societies.
	And I think enough of that message will get through.
	to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh so that they'll join Alito and Thomas.
	Then the only question is Roberts or Barrett.
	Barrett is utterly untrustworthy and as dumb as a doorknob, so you can't trust her for anything.
	The question, what I've been banking on, is that Roberts would realize the political blowback is serious, severe, and substantial, and that the credibility of the courts, the power going forward of the courts, is a great danger if he doesn't reign in the courts.
	One of two things is going to happen.
	Either Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch will get on board, reinstate what has always been a legal precedent, say the president's got carte blanche in this space, and save the judicial branch from itself, also overturn all these other insane decisions trying to dictate policy, personnel, money, etc.
	Or they don't get on board, or Roberts stays AWOL with his hatred of Trump.
	Roberts, by the way, he so cared about due process, he denied it to President Trump in his own impeachment trial.
	Not allowing him to out that the whistleblower was a fraud.
	That's who Mr. Due Process Roberts is.
	They don't care one rear end about due process of law.
	They care about protecting illegal immigration because it enriches their pals.
	We have a judicial branch that comes from...
	The real oligarchy is not the one that Bernie Sanders keeps fancifully imagining.
	The real oligarchy is bureaucratic and judicial usurpation of constitutional roles and authority to prevent and preclude the American people from being able to choose and direct policy through elections.
	That's the real threat.
	That's the real oligarchy.
	And that's who these people are.
	They're aligned in that direction.
	But if Roberts doesn't reverse the court...
	You're going to have a direct constitutional confrontation.
	Because President Trump is not going to tolerate this incessantly.
	He will afford them the opportunity to fix this over the next six months.
	If they do not, then it'll be time for the president to say, I took the plane, I ordered it out.
	Courts can do what you want.
	That's end of story.
	That's where it's going.
	Trump will do that if he has to.
	He's trying to avoid it, both to avoid the public brouhaha of it, but he's also trying to avoid it to give the court...
	an opportunity to set a impressive precedent that could restore our constitutional balance of powers.
	Right now we have an imbalance of power with the judicial branch exceeding its constitutional role.
	Either they're going to hem it in themselves Or President Trump's going to do it for him.
	Yeah, and then they'll impeach him again.
	But let me bring this up.
	This is the summary paragraph of Alito's dissent, where he says, in sum, literally in the middle of the night, it was literally, the court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application,
	with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order.
	It was a one paragraph.
	I showed it earlier.
	I refuse to join this court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.
	Both the executive and the judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.
	The executives must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump versus JGG, which was the one talking about habeas being the proper remedy.
	And this court should follow established procedures.
	I don't know how much more blistering it can get in legal terms than that.
	I mean, what he's saying is that what they did was lawless.
	And so whenever you have a cross of powers, the separation of powers means the president can continue to execute executive powers if the judicial branch is usurping his role.
	He doesn't have to defer to them.
	As a practical matter, the whole point of balance of powers is that if one branch goes too far, the other branch has some power within it that the other branch can't take away.
	And so the power of the president, well, what are they going to do?
	The president controls all enforcement power.
	What are they going to do if he just puts them on a plane and ships them out?
	Why about it?
	Complain about it?
	I mean, there's nothing they can do.
	So the courts have long understood that their power comes from public trust and confidence.
	If they lose that trust and confidence, they will lose their power.
	What's amazing is Congress is considering increasing the budget for the judicial branch.
	There should be massive, massive cuts in the judicial branch.
	They have proven themselves untrustworthy and unreliable allies of constitutional liberty.
	Indeed, the greatest threat to constitutional liberty in America today is the federal judicial branch.
	And it is long overdue they get hemmed in.
	Hopefully, Roberts wakes up and in self-preservation mode does so.
	If he doesn't, President Trump's going to have to do it for him.
	Robert, I'm going to read a couple of...
	CommieTube chats.
	I'm going to get some of our tipped questions here.
	No arrests, no progress, says Alex Michael.
	And then Corn Pop, I guess, forgot to put in a comment with his.
	But let me get to a bunch of the crumble rants, which I've fallen behind are.
	Pack the court, says Sportfish177.
	It would be a good strategy.
	They certainly supported it.
	Pinochet's helicopter tours, which I've always loved the name of.
	If these elites keep it up, college alma mater stickers will just serve as...
	I'm going to not read that because I don't want to get in trouble, but thank you for the tip question.
	The preamble of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the Constitution only applies to ourselves and our posterity.
	The U.S. Constitution must be taken as a whole, not a la carte, says Randy Edward.
	DO7JJ says, Good afternoon, Vivan Barnes.
	Elian Gonzalez was sent back in the middle of the night.
	No one cried.
	Leticia James, Whitewater Scandal 2.0.
	That was the Cuban kid who the Clinton administration sent back.
	to Cuba over the protest of the local Cuban-American population.
	Pinochet's helicopter says, to correct my rant, I see the suspension of habeas for aliens different than Lincoln's suspending habeas for citizens.
	Yep. Oh yeah, I agree with you there.
	But the point that, I don't know if they know this yet.
	I mean, I assume they do, but you never know.
	When he invoked the Alien Enemies Act, based on an invasion, the exact same factual predicate.
	It affords him the right to suspend habeas corpus for anybody that is subject to that order because that's what the Constitution explicitly gives him the authority to do, and he's already established the factual foundation to do so.
	This wouldn't suspend habeas for everyone.
	It would only suspend habeas for those subject to the order, those who are illegally present here and are members of Dangerous Games.
	Crap, hold on.
	I just lost this flaw, for goodness sake.
	What did I just do here?
	Now, I hope I didn't lose all of the tip...
	Now I hear Barnes.
	Okay, let me just try to read these.
	I'm going to blitz through them just so we don't fall too far.
	And then I want to bring one up from our locals community.
	FlealordAvatar says, correction, it was five-week-old IHOP waffle.
	There was one there about IHOP.
	KMGood says, Viva, much like butterfly, humans can be born again too.
	I appreciate that.
	Accept Christ into your heart, repent for your old self, and you're born again.
	Happy Easter and God bless.
	Blessed Easter, Viva Robert and Vivian's.
	Viewers, forced name change, cultivated minds.
	My heart goes out to you, Vivo.
	Elections are stressful and you have had two back-to-back now.
	I hope Canada makes the right choice, the best choice.
	Death's Patriot.
	Happy Easter and greetings from the Philippines.
	How do you think the exchange rates will be affected by Trump's recent moves with tariffs and international trade?
	Randy Edward.
	Alito stated in his dissent, POTUS and SCOTUS must abide by the rule of law.
	Okay, we got that one there, Randy.
	Thank you.
	Ian Mack.
	Good Lord.
	Watching this debate on laid-back law was horrendous.
	Pisco is 100% a dishonest actor.
	Thank you very much.
	And Isen2103 says, Viva, there is not other sport other than golf that is the embodiment of excesses, upper-class equestrian?
	Maybe. Maybe you're right.
	Squash also.
	No, even squash, you can get a good, cheap racket and you can kick some ass.
	And then this was Pinochet's helicopter tours.
	I thought he suspended Hades Corpus.
	Didn't he essentially get a due process when he went?
	Didn't he essentially get due process when he went through the immigration process?
	That's the whole thing, BBB.
	Canada. Now, hold on.
	Because I screwed this one up so badly last week.
	We're going to get to all of our tip questions on Locals, but I want to bring this one up because, Barnes, I don't know if this is the same individual who made what's behind you now, but it's the one who made mine.
	Beautiful thing there.
	Bender is great.
	Says, Happy Easter.
	Want a flag like Viva and Barnes?
	Now's your chance.
	I have made a small batch of waving wooden American flags and would like to offer a discount to Locals community.
	Go to renixwoodworking.myshopify.com.
	Use the code LOCALS50 for $50 off.
	They are beautiful.
	Absolutely. So, re-nix woodworking.
	Made here in America.
	Which is what President Trump is trying to achieve with the trade policy.
	Now, speaking of made in America, by the way, Topo Chico is the...
	I only discovered it in the States.
	It's the best carbonated water on Earth.
	My throat was a little bit dry, so I need to drink something.
	Robert, what do we segue into?
	We're done with the Supreme Court?
	Yeah, yeah.
	So we'll see where it goes.
	I'm hopeful that Roberts has enough of a self-preservation instinct to get them out of this latest trouble that they've put themselves in.
	If not, impeachment should accelerate.
	Judicial reform in Congress should accelerate.
	And President Trump may have to take things into his own hands, as Andrew Jackson famously did when he told the Supreme Court they can go enforce their own order.
	Good luck with that.
	I want to go see what the Calci odds are on Trump being impeached a second time before the end of term, because that might be one to put a few bucks on.
	Well, if Democrats get back to the House, they'll impeach him no matter what, because it's who they are and what they are.
	Unlike the weak-kneed Republicans, as Mark Robert pointed out, can't abide by Marcus of Queensberry rules when you're in a gutter fight with gutter fighters.
	The Democrats always, this is what frustrates Republicans.
	They see Democrats get control and they impeach everybody they don't like.
	They see Republicans get in control and are scared to impeach some of the most rogue actors in government.
	I mean, it's embarrassing.
	What keeps holding Republicans back in winning elections is that they are less, not enough like Trump, rather than enough like Trump.
	And that will probably continue.
	Now we'll see what happens in Canada up at Sports Picks.
	Dotlocals.com.
	We made a lot of money this weekend.
	Good soccer bets, good NBA bets, good Major League Baseball bets, all of it.
	We got predictions and recommended bets, including a rare 5% play, which is my most confident point, on the Canadian election.
	Maybe it's not going to go the way the media are saying.
	Hold on, Robert.
	What's the 5% play in the Canadian election?
	Ah, you got to go to sportspicks.locals.com to get that.
	Oh, son of a...
	You'll tell me after.
	I'll give you a free sneak preview.
	I think you're right about the French and English debates held last week.
	And you look at the underlying fundamentals, the Liberal Party is not quite on the standing that the betting markets are assuming.
	Polymarket is heavily manipulated, so you can no longer trust it as a reliable indicator of what the betting market is doing.
	Sometimes they're aligned, sometimes they're not.
	And the reason why polymarket is no longer reliable is you're no longer betting on what's going to happen in the election.
	You're betting on what certain decision makers at Polymark decide what happened in the election.
	So Polymark famously, infamously, claimed that the opposition won the Venezuelan presidential election.
	Nope, he didn't.
	According to the Venezuelan government, that used to be the determination of who won the election or not.
	According to them, it was the New York Times.
	But really, it was because there were a bunch of corrupt actors who have voting decision-making power over whether or not it's considered a successful bet or not.
	A successful prediction or not.
	So that shows the insanity there.
	Of course, Cauchy is having to go to court in Nevada because Nevada likes to limit and suppress.
	The reason why you can get more gambling opportunities in almost every state of this country other than Nevada, one of the reasons I'm moving out, is because Nevada's gaming board won't allow Cauchy to place sports prediction markets up on Cauchy.
	Cauchy's like, these are not bets under established law.
	These are prediction markets of outcomes of events.
	And that consequently, they don't fit with the definition of gambling under the Gambling Control Review Board's power.
	And so they're going to litigate that question, which will also be very interesting.
	The Nevada Gaming Board is infamously corrupt.
	And the casinos out here are backwards, as you can get.
	I mean, that outside of Circa and the Westgate, the rest of them won't expand their betting markets in the way the rest of the world is.
	So we'll see what happens.
	So you might not always –
	Well, I don't give any...
	Betting it or investment advice ever, period, full stop.
	The only thing I can say is I don't see any safer bet than betting no to a liberal majority, which you can now get for 40 cents.
	So you can two and a half times whatever you bet, whatever you invest, if they even win a, what's the word, a minority government, that pays two and a half to one.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, yeah, a liberal majority in some markets was as low as three to one that you could bet against the liberal majority.
	And for those that don't know, it's based on how the parliamentary system works.
	If you want to do your own simulation, I think it's 338 Canada or something like that.
	It's their version of 538, which was so notoriously unreliable it had to shut down.
	So I was telling Richard Barris of People's Pundit Daily, you wait long enough by the river, you can see the body of your enemy float by.
	So he's got to be there while 538 floats by.
	But 338...
	You can put in what percentage within ranges you think the parties are going to get of the total vote and how that translates into parliamentary seats.
	Because ultimately this is decided, I guess they call them ridings there.
	Yep, the ridings and it's first past the post.
	So whoever, you can win every riding by one vote and it'll be 50-50, but you'll have 100% of the seats.
	That tells you how many...
	Horse racing degenerates there are in British and Canada.
	I never even thought of that.
	They call it first past the post.
	I never thought about that or writings.
	I never even thought about the word.
	Exactly. Both are like horse racing metaphor, which if you don't know, it was Britain who invented betting on elections in the modern era anyway.
	The British markets used to dominate that market.
	So not a surprise that they're using similar language.
	But, yeah, so you can go there to see what my predictions are, and I align with Viva that the public marketplace predictions and the press predictions of a blowout parliamentary victory with a big liberal majority I think is less likely to occur than the markets are saying.
	Sportspix.locals.com, people.
	Robert, on the subject of people who might be going to jail...
	Big Tish is in big, big trouble.
	And I say, this is not a question of let's weaponize it because they've weaponized it against us.
	This is a question of confession through projection that the Tishes of the world, Leticia James, AG of New York, they look at everybody and they immediately impute, impose on them the crimes of which they are guilty because that's how they see the world.
	Yeah, and that's where confession through projection came from.
	That if you listen to people make ridiculous allegations against yourself or somebody you know, or somebody you know enough about to know that the allegation is ridiculous, assume that they are confessing their own crimes by projecting them onto other people, because the telltale heart always beats loudly.
	And people have a need to confess, and they'll often confess by who and what they're accusing others of.
	Letitia James accusing President Trump of bookkeeping irregularities.
	In order to cover up some crime that was all garbage.
	But what it told you was, this is someone...
	By the way, that indictment is probably the best evidence against her.
	It means she knows very, very well the significance of every single financial-related document you submit to any financial institution.
	And it turned out, of course, she's been the one fraudulently obtaining money under fraudulent pretenses by lying about...
	Now, I covered it in thorough detail earlier this week, so you can go check that stream out.
	I won't go through the document itself.
	The document is a letter of referral for prosecution.
	And in the letter, it alleges that Big Tish Leticia James lied about a Virginia home that she had, a Norfolk, Virginia property, as being her primary residence, when she was the Attorney General of New York.
	It couldn't be because in order to be the Attorney General, you need to have your primary residence be in the state in which you're serving as AG, which was New York.
	She lied about that.
	And where else has the State Attorney General made that claim?
	I'm going to feel stupid for not being able to get it.
	Who did she help sue to keep off the ballot based on primary residence?
	Or RFK Jr.
	Exactly. Oh my goodness.
	So she's someone who has shown intimate awareness, intimate knowledge.
	And for those people that don't know, there are certain loans you can only get at the interest rate you're getting it at if it's your primary personal residence.
	Certain FHA loans, other loans.
	And so it has a direct economic impact on the bank's willingness to lend you the money and the amount of money you have to pay the bank.
	And what she did is systematically and systemically lie and kept claiming multiple different residences were her so-called primary residence, including on one case, saying she was married to her own dad.
	This is another one?
	Like, dear lord, even Elon Omar, at least left it to the brother, didn't go, like, full incest.
	Well, Leticia likes older men.
	I mean, that's how probably she ended up with anger on.
	She lied about the Norfolk property being her primary residence.
	Because, like you say, they'll give you a better rate if it's your primary residence.
	If not, if it's a secondary residence, the rationale being people are less likely to continue paying the mortgage on secondary residences.
	There's increased issues about not visiting them, not being there, etc.
	Her father was her husband in another one.
	The one that I found absolutely amazing, especially in light of what she accused Trump of, she accused Trump of...
	Overstating the size of one of his condos to get a more preferential loan, where what she did was understate the size of one of her units, which she said was four residential units, to get a better loan, because if it becomes five units, then it's no longer a residence or no longer a family residence,
	and it's a multi-unit, and they don't get as favorable rates.
	The hilarity that she actually lied about the size allegedly to get a better rate, whereas Trump was overstating, which means that he would pay more for insurance, pay more in the, you know.
	In all respects, hilarious.
	But someone had asked the question, is this not a case also where there's no plaintiff, there's no one who was wronged by it, assuming that she paid everyone back?
	She was getting these loans on Freddie Mac.
	Those are federal institutions, right?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So what she was getting is federally subsidized loans, scamming the American taxpayer, scamming the banks.
	And enriching herself.
	And I want to flesh out that distinction so that no one makes that.
	It's not a private bank saying we were very happy with the loans.
	We got paid back all good and well.
	They were federalized institutions after the 2008 housing collapse.
	I remember that occurring.
	The other difference is in those cases, they said they would have made the same loan on the same terms if Trump had disclosed things even differently.
	By contrast, there's no dispute.
	She would have not either got the loan or it would have been a higher interest rate.
	So she's not going to be in a position where the bank can come in and say, oh no, there was no impact here.
	They would say, yes, there is.
	We made less profit than we otherwise would have.
	And we may not have even extended the loan, but we definitely made less profit because of this.
	And then the taxpayer dollars that went into subsidizing it, a loan that never should have been subsidized under the FHA rules because she didn't qualify.
	She lied in order to get the benefits.
	So this letter for referral for prosecution, Who drafts it?
	Who does it go to?
	And then whose decision is it to take action?
	Is it Pam Bondi?
	It was the regulatory authorities concerning the banking laws that made the referral.
	And that's appropriate because they don't have an inherent criminal prosecutorial power themselves.
	And it goes to the Justice Department of the Southern District of New York.
	But also, because she did what she did in Virginia, they can prosecute her in Virginia.
	So they don't have to prosecute her in New York.
	Where she obviously has a lot of political connections and protection, as the Attorney General of the State of New York.
	But in Virginia, she has far less of those political protections and connections.
	And so you may see the indictment go there.
	Ultimately, a Pam Bondi decision.
	And I hope that we'll see who's assigned to it, who's involved in it.
	But it transitions to our next topic.
	A lot of this weaponization of the legal system against the American people and our civil liberties.
	Hopefully will be handled by the newly appointed Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department, Harmeet Dillon.
	Wait, Robert, before you get there, I want to bring this one up because it's Fleet Lord Avatar who says, you suck.
	Never tip and no more locals, which I don't understand the question.
	We go to locals for all of the tip questions afterwards.
	I don't know if our locals community wants me to read their tip questions as publicly as the other ones, which I do in any event.
	As I'm going to do right now, and as I pretty much do my best to do every single episode of Fleet Lord, I'm not angry with you.
	I just think your criticism is based on a factually incorrect premise, if I may.
	U.S. vs.
	Willis discusses the Founding Fathers not wanting a consistent increase in judges' pay.
	Could there be a law locking in a judges' pay upon appointment, effectively creating a financial term limit?
	After a while, they couldn't serve unless they get reappointed.
	The Constitution requires their pay not go down.
	All right.
	Roger G says, tip for my comment.
	Bender is great as the one I specifically wanted to get to before.
	Now they'll go down here.
	Hey, Viva and Barnes, like your review of Judicial Titanic, a 2025 romantic reboot of, oh gosh, of James Cameron's Titanic.
	Susie C, Happy Easter, Viva, R&B, and the Ish Board.
	What part of the Constitution is used to account for the President's authority over immigration?
	I know this one.
	This is section...
	Two-something?
	No, no.
	Well, really, it's twofold.
	Mostly it derives from his power over foreign policy.
	The second, though, is that he has to faithfully execute the laws as written.
	So this is enforced.
	Basically, the Congress gave the president the power to enforce immigration law, including to adjudicate questions or controversies in most instances without any role for Article III judges to be pledged.
	So that's what it's a combination of the referral to the two.
	And the reason why Congress has involved immigration is the laws concerning naturalization were constitutionally given to Congress.
	Now, what were you segwaying into before I got so distracted, Robert?
	Oh, Harmeet Dillon!
	Oh, yeah.
	She's in and done?
	Oh, yeah.
	Amazing. Well, we might have to talk a little bit about Bongino because there's been some news with Bongino over the last week, but I haven't fully apprised myself of it.
	Harmeet Dillon.
	I've had her on at least once, I think maybe twice.
	I like her.
	She's fantastic.
	Amazing. I have nothing even remotely negative to say or even constructive criticism to offer, but you better get some stuff done.
	What's she going to do now that she's in?
	She is head of civil rights division in Trump's administration.
	That's correct.
	Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
	So this is what enforces and protects American constitutional rights and liberties.
	And you've highlighted this before, but I think everybody needs to hear it again if they haven't heard it.
	The reason for which that position is there is specifically to protect against state violations of justice, not private violations of civil rights.
	Without going too far into it, the history of why this is set up to protect against civil rights violations from rogue judges and rogue police and rogue state officials.
	Exactly. Because what happened after the Civil War, they passed the 14th Amendment, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment.
	And what happened was the post-Civil War South was refusing to recognize and respect those civil rights and liberties now being extended to Black Americans and others.
	And that's partially, by the way, why the word persons was used rather than citizens.
	It wasn't to embrace a whole bunch of illegals.
	It was meant to embrace any ex-slaves that had been freed by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment's passage and the success of the North in the Civil War, or the Union, however you want to frame it or phrase it.
	And so in that context, what happened was a bunch of state court, usually law enforcement, state court judges, sometimes in complicity with private actors, We're violating people's civil rights, denying them the right to vote, denying their right to property, denying their ability to sit on juries,
	denying them the ability to run for office.
	By every hook and by crook, the Southern aristocracy of which Amy Coney Barrett derives from, for example, wanted to suppress and repress all forms of civil liberties of any dissident.
	And as I always remind people, it wasn't just ex-slaves who were excluded from the ballot box or political power.
	The primary target, effective target...
	Was actually working class whites in the South.
	And that is why in Mississippi, for example, the population doubles between 1860 and 1900.
	And yet you get fewer votes in 1900 than 1860.
	That's not ex-slaves.
	There's no slaves to vote in 1860 in Mississippi.
	That's working class whites.
	Systematically disenfranchised.
	Same thing happened in Alabama.
	Same thing happened in Georgia.
	Same thing happened in South Carolina to varying degrees.
	So what happened is the Congress passed federal civil rights laws.
	To say we need to stop state and local governments from violating the constitutional liberties of Americans located in those states.
	And they empower the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division to be the lead enforcement mechanism.
	They also give private attorney generals, namely private litigants, the ability to sue in certain instances, including private employers under various laws like Title VII and so forth.
	We'll get to Title IX concerning school districts in a bit about the main case.
	But that's what they're there for.
	So, the multiple contexts in which states are violating people's constitutionally protected rights include First Amendment contexts, state involved in censorship, I think?
	speech like the Colorado Baker case or to suppress or punish speech like in part what took place in the Ben Jouf case, redefining stalking and harassment laws so that it reaches petitioning the government, makes it a crime to blow the whistle on somebody's criminal activity.
	That's what they did in Seattle in the Ben Jouf case that's now going up on appeal.
	So the
	But the other context was Second Amendment rights.
	They've been systematically attacking Second Amendment rights.
	Tulsi Gabbard, to her credit, publicly disclosed that the Biden administration had a broad-based plan to eviscerate Second Amendment rights under the guise of domestic terrorism prosecutions.
	So you get a scale of what they were going to credit Tulsi Gabbard for putting it, publicizing that information.
	As she also published, as I predicted, and that cashed this past week, I said that within the first 100 days, Trump administration will indeed.
	Release files concerning RFK, JFK, and Martin Luther King.
	And in fact, they did this past week.
	So credit to them on that.
	Still waiting on the Epstein files to be fully disclosed, but they are supposed to have tons of people working on it.
	The sooner the better for Pam Bondi.
	You don't want to be known as Pam Blondi, which is what she's being called in some conservative circles.
	Kind of an airhead that just wants to talk on TV.
	If she wants to be taken seriously...
	Within the MAGA core constituency, she needs to show action.
	And that action can include what Harvey Dillon is doing in the Civil Rights Division.
	So the other issue, but basically there's been systematic attacks on the Second Amendment by local and state governments all over the place in all kinds of creative and inventive ways.
	Sometimes with a complicit collusion of private actors, sometimes not.
	But either way, but all of it is actionable under the civil rights laws.
	Next, you have the states involved in a systemic effort to aid and abet illegal immigration in this country, sometimes by extending the benefits, sometimes by trying to extend the voting rights, sometimes by doing things like being so-called sanctuary cities or states where
	they refuse to assist in the prosecution of people who are legally here.
	But they go further than that.
	In Massachusetts, you have judges holding ICE officers in contempt for trying to do their job.
	So that goes from not lending aid.
	Under the anti-commandering doctrine, which is constitutional, to something that's not constitutional, which is aiding and abetting the interference of execution of enforcement laws.
	There's a big difference between not helping and deliberately interfering, and they have been deliberately interfering.
	So that third context is the immigration context.
	Fourth context is elections.
	That the state and local governments are suing to try to prevent the enforcement of Trump's executive orders about making sure only constitutionally qualified people vote, and they only vote in a constitutionally qualified method, and their vote is only counted and canvassed in a constitutionally qualified method, which are the rules established by either the legislature or Congress,
	as the case may be.
	Federal Congress has control over federal elections, the local state government has control over other aspects of federal elections, and then local elections.
	But they basically have been...
	The Tina Peters case, for example, to me, is a violation of her constitutionally protected civil liberties because she blew the whistle on serious election irregularities in that county.
	This is where, like, I feel the need to steal mine, even though I don't believe the argument, but they're going to say, look, she went to trial and she was convicted.
	And then the answer is going to be, so were many other people based on race, religion, creed, or whatever prejudices of the day were getting them locked up.
	And that's exactly what this was intended to protect against.
	Tina Peters...
	Yeah, it's all the three items of lawfare that I've identified in the Roger Veer case.
	You have novelty in the theory of prosecution.
	In other words, look for how often that theory has been used to prosecute someone.
	Very rare.
	Second, you have selectivity in the prosecution.
	There are all kinds of election disputes that took place in 2020.
	Colorado only went after the people that raised questions in favor of Trump.
	They didn't go after the people raising questions in the other direction or took action in the other direction.
	So you've got political motivation.
	Her beliefs and who she was siding with was a key reason as to why she was even prosecuted in the first place.
	That's selectivity of prosecution, violation of the First Amendment and evidence of lawfare.
	And then last but not least, you have government fraud and the prosecution.
	You had judicial misconduct in that case.
	The way the jury selection was done was highly questionable.
	You had prosecutorial misconduct in that case.
	So, you know, the unholy trifecta.
	The gentleman who was prosecuted in New York, for example, that you've talked to.
	Dexter Taylor, I keep missing his calls when he calls, and I hope he's not.
	Dexter Taylor, Second Amendment issue, and they said there's no constitution in this courtroom.
	Judge Darkey.
	It's as clear a violation of the Constitution and constitutional rights as you can imagine.
	So she is high.
	And then the other aspect, there's two other aspects.
	The other aspect are all the cultural issues.
	This is diversity, equity, inclusion, and discrimination being encouraged or incentivized by both private institutions and by governments.
	All of that comes within the coverage because even private institutions are covered under many of the Civil Rights Act laws, particularly concerning employment discrimination, for example, are within her province.
	So, within her prerogative.
	So, as well as the cultural issues connected to it, trying to force men into women's sport, for example, and other variations thereof.
	Trying to force people, for example, to identify as non-binary and all kinds of other nonsense.
	You have that aspect, and last but not least, you have all just the lawfare in general, like what happened to President Trump, like what happened in January 6th cases, like what happened to Tina Peters, Kurt Benchhoof.
	Dexter Taylor.
	These other cases that have that unholy trilogy of lawfare present, which is novel theories of prosecution, selectivity in the prosecution, and government misconduct and malfeasance in the Constitution, all of those impact constitutional rights and liberties.
	Your right against vague laws, for example, under the rule of lenity, should preclude and prevent novel theories from ever being utilized in criminal prosecutions that could take away someone's freedom.
	Selectivity in the prosecution violates the First Amendment because it uses some protected status, including political beliefs or affiliations or associations or religious or the like, as the predicate to prosecute someone that is otherwise not prosecuted.
	That similarly situated people without those politics or religion or race or gender are not prosecuted.
	That's all over the place in the Tina Peters case, in the Kurt Benju case, in the Roger Ver case, and other Dexter Taylor case and others.
	And then last but not least, when the government engages in malfeasance and misconduct in the criminal prosecution of someone, whether it's tampering with the jury, tampering with the judge, tampering with the evidence, some aspect of that.
	All of which is present in Tina Peters' case.
	All of which is present in the Kurt Benchu case.
	All of which is present in the Dexter Taylor case.
	All of which is present in the Roger Ver case.
	Well, Ver hasn't gone to trial yet, but in the first three, it's the violations of due process even within trial, being denied of defenses.
	It's real due process for real American citizens.
	Unlike illegals, they have very little due process, right?
	U.S. citizens in a criminal case have maximum due process.
	That's where it reaches its peak.
	And that due process requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence.
	It requires being honest and forthcoming and acting as an advocate before juries, grand juries and judges.
	It requires random assignment of judges.
	It requires the judge be impartial and not politically prejudiced against you.
	It requires a jury pool that's impartial and not politically prejudiced against you.
	So it's all these rules of evidence and process.
	And all of them were routinely and repeatedly violated in the cases I discussed or up to the point.
	Like in the Roger Ver case, their lies were to foreign judges, foreign courts, foreign officials, U.S. courts, U.S. grand juries.
	So they haven't got to the point of lying to the jury yet, but they've done everything else that's misconduct.
	That violates your Fifth Amendment rights under the federal government, against the federal government, or 14th Amendment rights against the state or local government.
	Who has the power to enforce that?
	Harmeet Dillon, the Civil Rights Division.
	She's already highlighted.
	Four of those six areas that I've taught, five of those six areas.
	The one area I haven't yet seen her office announced, and she just got in, so she's worthy of some grace for time, but I'm a little concerned about is not being prioritized by the Trump Justice Department.
	It's ending the lawfare.
	The lawfare required, the only way you were going to stop local and state governments using their legal systems to crush dissidents in their communities, to impose foreign values on those communities, to eviscerate their constitutionally protected liberties in those communities,
	is if Harmeet Dillon prosecutes prosecutors and judges.
	Not just prosecutes the bad private actors, not just in those other contexts or cases.
	You know, for example, she could do real habeas relief and have people like Kurt Benchhoof, people like Tina Peters, release the federal custody, removed from where they may end up dead in the state custody to another state while they investigate the various federal crimes committed and civil rights violations committed in both of those prosecutions.
	Same with Dexter Taylor in New York.
	So all the Trump cases, everybody connected to those cases, the state and local level, Fannie Willis, Leticia James, and others, should be investigated.
	The judges involved in those cases were committing routine and repeated constitutional violations and flagrant violation of their own.
	Now, as the state and local officials, they're not subject to federal impeachment.
	What they are subject to are federal civil rights suits.
	What they are subject to is federal criminal investigation cases.
	This is how the Biden and the Obama administration before them weaponized the Civil Rights Division to force radical reform on police departments all across the country.
	It's time to return the favor.
	And return the favor by forcing radical reform and the ending of the weaponization of legal systems to promote and protect lawfare.
	It's going to be up to Harvey Dillon to take meaningful action so that powerful people face meaningful consequences, or this will continue unabated.
	But practically speaking, at a procedural criminal level, how would it work?
	Take the judge, that activist judge in the Tina Peters case.
	Investigate. They don't have the power to impeach.
	What would they do?
	Federal criminal charges?
	Just do what they did to Trump, but do it in reverse.
	So you can go look at the federal civil rights suits brought against Trump.
	That gives you a roadmap for ideologically, or intellectually, how you can architect a case against all these people.
	They've given you the roadmap.
	The allegations against Trump are bogus, but they showed you the legal theory to get there.
	And I told a lot of people on the left, okay, you guys go down that path.
	That can be reversed in return, right back to you.
	And it's time it be done.
	And if it's not done, they will continue unabated.
	The only way, you've got to send them a message in ways that have consequence, right?
	They pay attention to impeachments at the federal level.
	And there's all kinds of information discovery that that can do, even if you can't remove the judge and convict them.
	It will ultimately motivate the courts to correct.
	And for people that don't understand, this has been commonplace.
	You know, Andrew Jackson got into a fight with the Supreme Court.
	Supreme Court had to back off.
	Abraham Lincoln got into a fight with the Supreme Court.
	Supreme Court had to back off.
	The FDR got into a fight with the Supreme Court.
	Supreme Court had to back off.
	So, you know, there's a long history and pattern of this.
	That's how you discipline the courts to stay within their lane and not get outside of it and usurp elections and engage in a judicial coup, as both the El Salvadoran president, Elon Musk, said is happening right now in the United States of America, is a judicial coup.
	That's what it is of our constitutional liberties.
	The only way you're going to protect that is if judges themselves face consequence, prosecutors themselves face consequence, state powerful politicians face consequence.
	The left has given you the roadmap for what they've tried to do to the people they don't like.
	They often laid out the legal theory.
	Now, their legal theory was factually flawed in the cases they brought.
	It's not factually flawed against these people.
	When you have judges enriching themselves, like Boesburg, when you have judges like Merchant, when you have these judges getting rich off the lawfare they're doing...
	That is an absolute civil rights case.
	It's not only that, it's probably a lot more.
	Like Letitia James.
	I've said forever, you put any of these corrupt actors, corrupt because of their partisan ideological preferences, above being an apolitical, impartial, neutral jurist.
	That's how they're violating their constitutional oath in these cases, whether it's a state judge or federal judge, both of whom take oaths to the Constitution of the United States.
	But the, is that they're always corrupt personally.
	They're not just going to be a little corrupt.
	They are the Biden family.
	And all you had to do with the Biden family was scratch a little and you see the cesspool of corruption underneath.
	The same will be true of Judge Boesberg.
	The same will be true of Judge Merchant.
	The same will be true of Judge Nipple there.
	All these loony judges.
	You will find they'll be financially corrupt.
	They just can't help themselves.
	They're part of a corrupt political apparatus that gives themselves wealth and money and power by illicit mechanisms, methods, and means.
	So put them under meaningful investigation and make them do to them what they tried to do to Trump, because doing it to them will prevent it from happening to the Trumps of the future, and doing it to them is actually factually and legally merited, and doing it to them is necessary to protect constitutional liberty in this country.
	The key question will be, will Harmeet...
	Dylan, deliver.
	I'm still hopeful.
	I'm still optimistic.
	But we're yet to see the full progress as yet.
	All right.
	Well, I want to bring up a couple of things here.
	Let me go down to this.
	Because we've got King of Biltong in the house.
	Oh, hold on a second before that.
	Cultivated Mind says, Viva, I joined your locals a few weeks ago and it doesn't get enough credit.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I've saved three memes today, plus the deep introspective knowledge from...
	What seem to be quite knowledgeable people.
	Yeah, we have a way above average community.
	What you get at feverbarnslaw.locals.com is you get to join a great community, over 100,000 people, all involved, active on the community at various levels and layers.
	Many people just sort of watch and speak.
	Some people speak a lot.
	Some people only speak occasionally.
	Some people don't speak at all.
	You can do it as you like.
	But you get tons of links to relevant curated content each day.
	That are pertinent material to what you care about as issues.
	You get an above-average community.
	We moderate the community to make sure that bad faith trolls and others are out.
	So you're not going to be subject to random racial or other harassment that can happen at other places.
	You get above-average community with above-average methods and mechanisms of communication and concern.
	In addition to that, you get after parties, after the Vivas, after all the live shows, either Viva by himself or the both of us together.
	You also get exclusive material and information, including the Bourbons with Barnes, happen on average four days a week, usually at nine-ish Eastern time.
	Each night, in which I answer tons of questions, usually goes an hour to two hours, depending on the length or the circumstance.
	You also get hush-hushes.
	And what are the hush-hushes?
	The hush-hushes are alternative narratives to the official narrative.
	So if you had watched the January 6th hush-hush back in January of 2017, I'm sorry, January of 2021, you would have predicted pretty much everything that happened over the next three years.
	If you had watched the Ukraine one.
	You would have predicted pretty much how that conflict would go over the next several years.
	But also, a lot of it's fun.
	A lot of it's interesting.
	You know, is there gold in Fort Knox?
	I mean, there's all kinds of fun ones on there to explore, to think about.
	There's also masterclasses.
	The masterclasses are educating about law and politics and public policy.
	We do deep dives.
	In some cases, we review books and legal materials, sometimes complaints, content that provides independent access.
	Going to be doing one.
	This week on immigration so you know what has the Supreme Court actually said about immigration throughout history and what that law actually is as opposed to what the legal left lies about.
	Practical things.
	People have used certain information like draft letters to how to respond to various issues concerning the religious discrimination they were experiencing over the vaccine mandate or other things.
	So you get the best content for the best value anywhere with the best community anywhere at Viva.
	BarnesLaw.Locals.com Barnes could sell you Ice in the Arctic.
	King of Biltong says, try our Biltong, almost 50% protein.
	Creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Anton is a member of our Locals community.
	He also has his own channel.
	Eat at Anton's.
	I think Richard Barris said he's going to only go to that from beef jerky.
	He said it's so good, so tasty, so healthy.
	He was like, man, this is awesome.
	And Barris is a tough kid from Jersey, so getting his approval is always not easy.
	You would never go back to jerky if you've tasted biltong.
	It's like prosciutto made from beef.
	When will 1776 sue for nationwide injunction against the NFA assault weapons ban or something along those lines to force an end to them?
	By hitting a Democrat...
	Yeah, 1776 Law Center supports all kinds of freedom, food freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, personal freedom, financial freedom in a wide range of contexts.
	It was 1776 Law Center was the primary support for the defending Kyle Rittenhouse in the Court of Public Opinion.
	As Kyle pointed out, it's very weird for people to say that...
	Stabbing a guy in a tent is self-defense, but him defending himself from pedos trying to physically assault him and murder him somehow wasn't self-defense.
	He's got a good point there.
	The same people who deeply care about due process for illegal immigrants didn't care at all about his due process rights.
	I think the way Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries put it was, put Rittenhouse away and throw away the key.
	Hmm. It's strange how you don't care about due process when it's the other side of the political aisle.
	Maybe you should have cared about it then if you wanted anybody to care about it now.
	In the way in which you want to care about it.
	So, but yeah, it does a lot of work.
	But yeah, there are a bunch of Second Amendment organizations looking for the right time and timing to bring actions challenging the various National Firearms Act of 1934 and other gun control limitations and restrictions is not being consistent to what the Supreme Court ordered in Bruit.
	To her credit, Pam Bondi is now reevaluating after we called her out a couple of weeks ago for not reevaluating the pending gun cases.
	Yeah, she apparently didn't know there was a decision pending before the Supreme Court.
	That's what happens when you spend too much time worrying about your Fox News scheduled appearance at 5.30 than you do about what's pending before the Supreme Court of the United States that has your name on it.
	We got Macramental says, Thank you, gentlemen, for your wisdom and education.
	Happy Easter.
	And Denise Antu says, The media has lied to us so much over the past several decades that I don't believe anything they say anymore.
	Like, did the baby Jessica story happen or was it staged?
	I remember they based an episode of The Simpsons on that one.
	Now, hold on.
	Hold on.
	I do want to go back to Viva Barnes Law.
	Datlocals.com here.
	We'll just read a few of these before we get into our next subject.
	Susie C. Happy Easter.
	We got that one before.
	RushBabe49. What part of the Constitution is used to account for the President's authority?
	We got that.
	Due process here.
	Two questions from Ithaca37Cato.
	Besides Andrew Jackson, how many presidents have disobeyed, ignored Supreme Court orders?
	All of them have to some degree when you dig in, by the way.
	Joe Biden bragged about it.
	When you went to found another way to forgive student loans after the Supreme Court said you couldn't, I mean, it depends on what you mean by that.
	Franklin Delano Roosevelt said he was going to stack them with his own people.
	So, yeah, there have been much bigger confrontations between presidents and the Supreme Court than what Trump is currently doing.
	Why did the founders not include judicial review in the Constitution?
	Would you be able to provide to us?
	Real simple.
	They didn't intend the judicial branch to usurp that over every other branch.
	That's why the judicial branch just self-declared, we give ourselves this power.
	Like, they give themselves the power over sentencing that was supposed to belong to juries, give themselves the power to declare the law and not allow juries to consider the law in violation of what was intended.
	The judges have been grabbing power for centuries, and mostly it's been a failure.
	If our founders see what has happened to date, I think they would go back and radically reduce the role of the judicial branch because it's mostly failed as an institution protecting constitutional liberty in this country.
	And I'll just read this one because actually it'll clarify something I talked about last week.
	It says, apparently Garcia left, this is Garcia Kilmar, left El Salvador in 2019.
	Bukele became president in 2019.
	Is there any indication that Garcia left El Salvador due to Bukele crackdown on violent gangs?
	The order of deportation was 2019.
	My understanding is he entered the country actually in 2012.
	Yeah, he entered the country in 2012.
	I was going to be curious as to when the decrease in crime in El Salvador.
	Yeah, that's all thanks to the new president.
	So when he came in, it was out of control.
	And corrupt judges, by the way, were blocking him.
	Corrupt politicians were blocking him.
	And so what he did is he politically was able to wipe both of them out.
	And that freed him up to do what he needed to do, which was lock up dangerous gang members.
	And he said, look, we're not at a...
	And that's what led to the incredible, the most dramatic improvement in public safety in any country in the world was by that El Salvadoran president.
	He's also the most popular leader in the world.
	It's about a guy with approval rating in the 90s.
	And it's not like fake Stalin-esque Mao 90% approval.
	It's honest to God, complete approval, because he has done something no leader in Central or South America has succeeded at in 80 years, which is to restore safety to their country.
	Not the case that El Salvador's crime went down because they were deporting or encouraging criminals to leave.
	No, that was Venezuela.
	Okay. Robert, what do we segue into?
	We got a lot still to cover, but in terms of institutions violating federal civil rights laws, the state of Maine continues to flagrantly do so.
	So Maine came out publicly and said they're going to defy Trump's executive order on Title IX, which is to prohibit, I'm not even saying biological males.
	No men in women's sports, no boys in girls' sports, no men in women's spaces, no boys in girls' spaces.
	Maine, I forget her name.
	That's a commie.
	That's all you got to know.
	Commie from Maine.
	They're not going to do it, and now have the feds filed suit?
	Yes. The Department of Justice did file suit this week under Title IX, seeking declaratory injunctive and monetary relief because the Maine Athletic Association, essentially, has said they are not going to follow federal law.
	And the state of Maine has decided they're not going to follow their Maine Athletic Association and ignore federal law.
	And the problem with that is twofold.
	First problem is federal law requires that they comply in public education with Title IX.
	That's who Title IX applies to.
	And Title IX requires that you not allow men into women's sports.
	That's very simple.
	The second aspect is they've signed contracts to get federal funds in which they agreed to obey Title IX.
	And they're like, eh, Title IX.
	So we're going to take the money and we're going to keep the money.
	And the Justice Department is like, no, you're not.
	We're going to take that money away.
	We're going to sue so that you have to pay other people money.
	You're going to have to pay real damages to all the women athletes you've harmed by your bad policies and your discriminatory policies.
	And they should win.
	Now the hurdle is they're in federal courts in Maine in the First Circus.
	So who knows whether the federal courts will actually enforce discrimination law now that they're culturally in favor of discrimination, much like the issue that faces Harvard.
	Well, do you think the courts in America are going to take a bit of encouragement from the courts in the UK that have defined a woman as an adult female XX chromosome?
	Like, are we getting to the point where this has reached peak insanity and even the politicized anti-Trump courts have said enough is enough.
	We're not having men and women's sports anymore.
	One would hope so, but you just can't bank on anything when it comes to the federal judges these days.
	But I think the Trump administration's other...
	A mechanism of relief and remedy is one they must exercise, which is defund the state of Maine.
	That these states that are engaged in systemic and systematic violation of federal law concerning protection of the constitutional liberties of ordinary Americans, whether it's in the Second Amendment context, the gun context, the censorship context, the school context, that all of these local and state governments depend entirely on federal funds.
	They couldn't exist.
	Their budgets would be in insurmountable deficit, and they don't get to print their own currency like the feds do.
	What would be the argument for which they would be entitled to continued federal funds if they're defying federal law?
	Oh, that they know what's right and nobody else does and that they must be deferred to ceaselessly and eternally.
	That's really all this.
	Otherwise, what they do is they always put up, if you don't do what we say, some victim will suffer some bad thing, right?
	So, you know, it'll be the disabled kids.
	It'll be these kids.
	It'll be somebody else that will lose money.
	It'll be the trans kids or the boys who don't get to beat girls at sports.
	Right, but they won't highlight those.
	They maybe have learned their lesson that, you know, treating an MS-13 convicted domestic violence gang member as your icon of your party was probably not going to be.
	I don't even think they've learned that yet, Robert.
	Yeah, they may not.
	They may not.
	Well, you see it a little bit in the congressman trying to back down from, well, I didn't order the margarita and somebody else brought the margarita.
	He knows how politically embarrassing that is.
	I don't know who ordered the margarita.
	It just seems that one of them...
	Actually had less in it than the other, which indicates that someone was...
	He apparently did this on Taxpayer Dime, by the way.
	Everything was paid by the U.S. taxpayer.
	Oh, thank you for reminding me.
	Any argument that he violated the Logan Act?
	I'm not a huge fan of the Logan Act.
	I think it's a dumb law that's constantly used and abused.
	The point and purpose of the Logan Act is to make sure foreign governments know that if somebody is coming to them, that they do not represent the U.S. government unless they actually represent the U.S. government.
	And if you say you're a governmental representative when you're not so authorized, then you can be criminally prosecuted in the Logan Act.
	And so he goes down.
	He is a senator.
	No one's going to negotiate with the senator as though they're negotiating with the president or someone who has the power.
	And if you say you're a senator and you're not, and you get the recognition of a senator, that's where you violate the Logan Act.
	Or if he said he represented the Trump administration in any capacity.
	It doesn't look like he did.
	So he most likely didn't violate the Logan Act.
	And I'm not a fan of the Logan Act, so I never call for prosecutions under it.
	Now, waste of taxpayer dollars, maybe.
	You know, it's not clear that...
	How does that fit within his senatorial duties?
	Well, I mean, I guess the guy's from Baltimore.
	A Maryland man.
	He is the senator of Maryland.
	So if an illegal travels through my state, that means I get to use taxpayer dollars to go...
	I'm an idiot.
	I was like, go ahead.
	He's not a Maryland man.
	He's an El Salvadorian man who's illegally in Maryland.
	That's what I pointed out.
	People had posters.
	Return him home.
	I'm like, Trump already did.
	His home is El Salvador.
	His home has never been the United States of America.
	And if these people are so gung-ho on it, why don't they open up their doors for them?
	But what's this?
	Jessica Tarnoff, let a wife beat her into your house and see how he treats him.
	I'm sure you'll be very, very happy to do that.
	But it's part of a broader pattern, because Harvard...
	It can violate federal civil rights law.
	It's already been held to account by the Supreme Court, no less, for doing so.
	Been successfully sued repeatedly for its systematic and systemic violation of federal civil rights law.
	But it insists it's going to anyway.
	And so what are the remedies?
	One, Trump can cut off all federal grants.
	Two, Trump can cut off visa access to foreign students at these universities.
	I think that's good policy anyway.
	Way too much money has been going to these universities than they deserve or that they produce, create productive use of.
	But last but not least, he can cut off their tax-exempt benefits so their huge hedge funds, they operate as their entitlement operations, which are also intended to manipulate public policy around the world, by the way, and how they use that money, can be taken away by taking away their 503 status.
	And once again, this is where the left opened up their own door.
	It was the Bob Jones case that establishes unquestionable precedent whereby the IRS can strip Harvard.
	And all the other private universities of their tax-exempt status, like they should be looking at with NGOs.
	Because if you understand the full scope of the Bob Jones case, you understand how broad presidential power is in this context.
	Robert, I got distracted with something.
	Can I play something totally off topic?
	Sure, go ahead.
	It's Desi Media.
	If you don't know them, I'll give everybody the link.
	So give a shout out to a guy who's doing some good Canadian journalism on the street.
	I made the joke.
	It's gone from elbows up to fingers up real quick in Canadian politics.
	These are your peace and love Canadian liberals waiting to, I guess, vote for Carney.
	Look at this.
	Hi, my name's Casey.
	I can tell you why you shouldn't vote for Pierre Polyev.
	He's a liar.
	He's a thief.
	Are you casting this?
	Because I want to tell everybody this.
	Yeah, put that on.
	Go ahead, put that on.
	I will.
	Don't you worry about it.
	That's good, because it's the truth.
	We'll stop it there.
	Desi Media people getting the Liberals.
	It's amazing.
	Elbows up.
	No, no, it's middle fingers up right now.
	These are your peace-loving Liberals of Canada.
	My goodness, they are everything.
	Elbows up.
	Elbows up.
	How many Liberals do you think have ever actually played hockey?
	They don't look like people that can play hockey.
	The other thing is like...
	They were liberals who said there's no core identity to being Canadian.
	They had no...
	We were post-national state.
	All of a sudden now, patriotic because it's Trump derangement syndrome is what the liberals are running on.
	Hey, we love being subservient to the British king.
	That's the only thing the Canadian redcoats are good for.
	We watched the movie The Patriot this weekend.
	That's a good one.
	That was a fantastic one.
	Remind everybody the redcoats.
	And as somebody pointed out in the chat...
	You know what?
	Basically, all the Canadians, redcoats, loyalists, British loyalists, as they were then called, was like, yeah, a lot of them were.
	And they're back to that sort of, you know, they'll decide their own future.
	Are they going to be completely irrelevant?
	If they elect the liberal majority, Trump will use them as a useful foil.
	Anybody in Canada that thinks, no, we'll stand up to Trump.
	No, no, no.
	You're going to get smacked twice as hard because he can do it easier if Carney is in power.
	He'll enjoy Carney as an adversary.
	And he'll teach Canadians a real lesson in power if they're dumb enough to go that path.
	This is like a fancy, prissy figure skater deciding they can play tough guy hockey.
	They're going to be missing some teeth in more than that after this is over.
	You're going to get Carney to ally closer with China as if they can even get closer with China.
	And then Canada's going to be...
	And that, by the way, will be even more of a predicate for the U.S. to shove China down the hole it belongs in.
	And maybe just go and take Alberta, take some of the good ones, and we'll deport all the others.
	And so I played a clip earlier this week of, like, in Nova Scotia, some health experts, like, we'll take all of the Americans who are fleeing America to come, who trust the science they can come.
	Good. You take them.
	You have no money to pay them.
	Let's just do, like, an exchange.
	All the Americans fleeing America.
	Who wants to become American?
	It's so classic.
	There's far more Canadians trying to escape than Americans trying to escape.
	There's no question.
	The two most prominent spokespeople for Carney's campaign are Mike Myers, who lives in America, and now Neil Young is the last one, who's lived in America for 60 years, comes out and says, yes, support Carney.
	Go to freaking Canada.
	To correct some of this insane propaganda that's coming out, China's trying to infiltrate, interfere in the Canadian election as we speak.
	Unsurprisingly, they've been doing so and kind of dictating policy in parts of Canada now for the better part of a decade.
	Part of the reason why Trump's concerned, part of how Canada became a fentanyl trans-distribution place for the global drug trade was their alliance with China, some of which was under the table, some of which has been now made more clear.
	But I invited on a couple of guys.
	They used to motorcycle their way across China.
	So they lived there a long time.
	One of them is from South Africa.
	So he understands a lot of what's going on in South Africa, too.
	And they do a great weekly show.
	It's either the China story.
	I think the network is AVN, if I recall right.
	Invited them on to do a sidebar.
	Because what they do a great job of is debunking all the insane Chinese propaganda.
	But they managed to do it.
	Without being so over-the-top anti-China that you get unuseful predictions.
	I like Gordon Chang.
	He's a good economist, good political historian.
	But he'll overstate, in my view, China's military threat to the rest of the world.
	I understand why he's concerned.
	But you have some people that get so anti-China that they accept stories like, oh, the whole Chinese population is dead.
	There's only 300 million alive or something.
	These crazy stories.
	These guys do a great job of really deciphering between the two.
	And they put out...
	How those things going viral on TikTok this past week about, oh, all of a sudden, people don't know this.
	In China, they're producing all this fake material which says that Americans are panicking in response to tariffs and are running out and getting every kind of Chinese good they can.
	What they did is they showed old Black Friday footage and falsified.
	The other things that went viral this past week is a couple of Chinese, and they totally exposed them.
	These two people saying that they make the real French goods or the real Italian goods are really made there and you can buy directly from them and so forth, all part of a big psyop.
	To say everything good and useful is made in China and you're going to have to come to us and you want to come to us.
	It turned out they made it all up.
	What they do is what China does really well, which is copyright fraud, which is steal stuff.
	I mean, I've been to China and I've seen it for myself.
	So I meet the Douglas Murray test, right?
	Oh, you must go there first before you can judge them.
	Well, apparently Dougie hasn't done anything good for you.
	Because your information level and your neocon worship has continued to go up when you visited places that should have told you.
	Bad idea there, Dougie.
	I don't want to chime into the Murray debate.
	Except to say, like, if the army...
	Except that he's an English prick, and he's the kind of prick that, you know, the reason why he kicked him out in the first place.
	I was talking, messaging someone earlier, I was like, I don't know Doug Murray from A Hole in the Wall, but if his performance there is an indication of his character, he's an arrogant, pompous asshole.
	Oh, that's always been.
	The argument that you have to...
	He worships neocons.
	He wrote a book about how great neocons are.
	I mean, this is how...
	So, he got under the conservative plot because he was part of the British establishment.
	And he's been anti-woke.
	And so because of the anti-woke stuff, him like that former Russian, British, you know, Kristen, whatever his name, and Konstantin, whatever, those guys got notoriety and attention because they're anti-woke, but they're deeply aligned with the sort of neoconservative,
	neoliberal, globalist agenda on most other issues.
	And so that's why I consider them unreliable narrators in general.
	But you get these, like, but what they're putting out in China.
	None of these things are made...
	They basically libeled some of the great French and Italian fashion designers.
	Many of these people, if you're aware of them, they only make in their own home countries in several cases.
	Why? They want quality control.
	So they don't go to China.
	What does China do?
	China makes cheap knockoffs.
	That's what China does.
	China steals your IP and then makes cheap knockoffs with it.
	That's their economic ingenuity.
	And a bunch of people believe this utter nonsense that was being circulated.
	And these guys did a great job debunking it.
	They also show stuff that nobody else is showing.
	The problem of crime in China, the heightening level of political rebellion in China.
	You're seeing factories go up in smoke.
	They even got new creative ways to block when protesters come out.
	They don't set up the police first.
	They set up these big massive blue screens.
	So nobody can see what the police are doing when they're grabbing these protesters off the street and throwing them in the who's cow.
	But yeah, so invited them on.
	Hopefully, anybody that follows their channels and encourage them to hop on, they're a great channel to introduce to people as you get a lot of false intel and information from both sides on the China conflict.
	These are guys that have lived there for a long period of time, friends, family, relationships there.
	And you can tell we've watched their show long enough.
	They really try to be factually accurate and try to be impartial, though they come with a legitimate skepticism.
	The Chinese Communist Party, because what else can you do to a government that mass-murdered its own population?
	Robert, let me read a few more of the tipped questions.
	The China Show.
	Bill pointed out, Bill, the great pig owner from Maine, is a farmer amongst other things.
	I just remember his big, beautiful pig.
	It's the China Show.
	That's the name of their show, the China Show, here on YouTube.
	Why can't we charge the SCOTUS justices with not acting in accordance with the Constitution?
	They could be impeached, right?
	You could impeach, absolutely you could impeach a Supreme Court justice.
	That was from Pam Walker.
	Ruestang says, these Democrat lawyers are getting ready for the next stage in these cases and make this suggestion.
	A referral for prosecution is now in motion and legal expert Michael Popok breaks down what happens next.
	If Trump officials refuse to return the detainees, the judge could bypass the DOJ and even Pan Bondi by appointing a special prosecutor himself.
	Robert, can a judge do this?
	No, and you can read Alan Dershowitz on this as well.
	Dershowitz has said that there's one small case that was not decided by the Supreme Court that suggested they have that power.
	They don't.
	That's a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
	So a judge that tries to do that will get rejected from doing so.
	And Chinookum says, the outrageous influx of illegal immigrants is guidance from rules of radicals to overload the system.
	The goal was exactly to make the court's inability to logistically handle the 20 million court actions.
	But it's up to courts to do that.
	The reason why courts avoided that in the past is by saying they had no role.
	And that was the proper constitutional decision.
	Now they're abandoning that because their political elite pals want a different outcome.
	Because their stock market hold it.
	You know, here's the reality.
	Most justices, their friends, their pals, their allies, the way they get rich.
	Is off things like illegal immigration.
	And that's part of the problem.
	The great, terrible Indian land title decision that led to the Trail of Tears.
	The Trail of Tears wasn't the problem.
	The problem was the predecessor decision that predicated it legally was issued by a Supreme Court justice who had an economic interest in denying any Indian land ownership rights and Indian land title claims.
	So they got rich of their own decisions.
	They've been doing this for a long time.
	And Chief Justice Roberts?
	You wouldn't have to scratch very deep to find how people connected to him who were saying money to his wife could lead to legal cases magically going away.
	So he was doing the Biden thing before, or well, Biden's been doing it since 1970.
	But he was doing his own version of the Biden.
	And I'm going to read these here.
	We've got BBB Canada.
	Oh, if Comrade Carney wins, my home will be up for sale on the 29th and I'm moving to Florida with my dog and all my guns.
	Time to move my business to the USA.
	Yeah, I recommend that anyway.
	Canada is really not trustworthy.
	The Duran had Matt Eret, I think, on, you know, has a very independent analysis.
	But his argument was that the sort of globalist elite are going to use Canada as a check on the U.S., particularly in case they are unsuccessful at making Ukraine a check on Russia for various financial and political reasons.
	And so if I was it's like what I've told people in general, get out of democratic states, get out of democratic countries.
	So-called democratic countries.
	Left-leaning governing states of any kind.
	Get out.
	Progressive hellholes because they are not progressive.
	They're going to be shitholes and they're going to still be shitholes and it's only going to get worse.
	J. Mill over on the ComicTube, Happy Easter.
	Marge DiBenedetto says, You are amazing.
	America is a joke.
	Americans have tolerated far too much.
	DC was successful with their coups.
	Yeah, you can ignore all that.
	I mean, Trump's view is Trump would like to...
	Restart relations with Canada in a different way.
	He wants Canada to exclude China, not be part of the China global order.
	Second, he wants more national security in terms of shipping lanes and other resource issues related to Canada.
	And third, he wants to rebalance trade with Canada.
	So that's what he wants.
	The best way for him to achieve that is to have someone like Carney there.
	Just to be blunt about it.
	Because he can run over Carney.
	Carney has no support in the United States.
	Carney's a WEF stooge.
	And he can undermine and circumvent and sideswipe Carney every which way.
	Pierre would have a better chance of protecting Canadian interest in those negotiations than Carney can.
	So if you're Trump, why do you want someone who can negotiate better with you?
	You want someone who's going to be worse at it.
	Who's going to be easier to maneuver around.
	So if you're Trump, that's why you really don't care what happens in Canada.
	And there are some people like Sargon of Akkad and others like, oh, you know, if you go lighter, then you could get Pierre in.
	He doesn't care if Pierre's in.
	Pierre's been anti-Trump rhetorically anyway now for a year.
	He would rather, but Pierre would be a little bit more difficult for Trump to navigate around because he has some support amongst conservatives in the United States.
	And because he's not the WEF stooge.
	To the same degree Carney is.
	Carney would be much easier for Trump to deal with.
	So from Trump's perspective, he mostly doesn't care who wins in Canada.
	But he doesn't mind if it's Carney because that's a person he can more easily blitzkrieg than he can Pierre.
	How much do we have left?
	So we got Nick Ricada.
	We got Antitrust.
	We got Palin, AP.
	The IP, AI.
	And the...
	Related to it, what we were just discussing, to wrap up the Harvard Bob Jones case.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, okay.
	We got to do Rakeda for everybody.
	And then we'll do...
	So we'll do Rakeda.
	There's not much with the Palin.
	We should probably wrap up the Harvard Bob Jones one.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, fine.
	Sorry. And I'm not...
	That's the one I'm less familiar with.
	So what's...
	Okay, sure.
	I know about Bob Jones because my brother went to Bob Jones.
	For about a year, year and a half, he got kicked out, I think, for having a Batman Cup.
	They had some interesting roles there at Bob Jones University.
	I went there for competitions.
	The National Christians, I think it was like, instead of NCAA, it was NCCAA, something like that.
	But we had these speaking competitions, musical competitions, art competitions, things like that.
	And the National one was held at Bob Jones University each year.
	So I was there, heard the old man speak.
	And what happened is Bob Jones University was from South Carolina, Greenville, South Carolina.
	And as part of that, they usually used to have racially discriminatory policies.
	They moderated those policies, but they still opposed interracial marriage in the early 1970s.
	So the IRS comes in, and the IRS decides to reinterpret 501c3 rules to borrow from common law traditions of charity.
	So 501c3 says you're tax exempt.
	You don't have to pay any tax on your revenues if you're involved in a charitable organization and you have to go through certain aspects of registering for it with the Internal Revenue Service and your local and state government as applicable in order to get that benefit.
	What they said is they were going to reinterpret those rules.
	There was no dispute that Bob Jones was an educational institution that was meant to have the 501c3 benefits, but they extended and expanded the definition of charitable purpose.
	They said charitable purpose is, quote, something that is Part of the common community conscience and not contrary to public policy.
	So what they said is that because Bob Jones was not allowing interracial marriage on its campus, that that was contrary to public policy, that that was contrary to the common community conscience, and consequently was no longer charitable under internal IRS rules,
	and as such could no longer be tax exempt or 501c3.
	The question was this was a religious institution, so did this violate their First Amendment rights?
	And other rights.
	When I look at the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court ruled the IRS was absolutely correct that if somebody is violating the, quote, common community conscience or was advancing policy that was, quote, contrary to public policy, then you can completely strip them of their 501c3,
	501c4 benefits, that they would no longer be tax exempt.
	Harvard is undisputably discriminating based on race, as the Supreme Court of the United States already found.
	Harvard is advancing ideas, beliefs, and values directly contrary to the common community conscience and public policy.
	As such, that alone is sufficient to revoke the 501c3 status from Harvard.
	I'm in favor of all these private universities that are from the Ivy League and other elite institutions that have been violating American values, and if politics is downstream from culture, contaminating that river for a long time, contaminating that stream for a long time, being stripped.
	Of their special tax benefits and special federal funding.
	And those saying, oh, there's no right to do so.
	Larry Summers is out complaining about it.
	This is unheard of, unprecedented.
	Barack Obama's like, whoa, what is this?
	Same Barack Obama who sued a bunch of poor nuns and tried to drive him into oblivion because they opposed abortion if they wouldn't do his abortion policy.
	That same Barack Obama.
	The net effect is Harvard could completely be on a different financial terrain because legally they should not be in a position to win this fight with the Trump administration.
	I don't want to make a mistake before I go ballistic.
	I just wanted to Google the salary of Harvard executives.
	Is it possible?
	Compensation for the university's leaders.
	Lawrence Bacow, president.
	A million three plus other compensation of a half a million.
	Alan Garber.
	$884,000 plus other compensation of $238,000.
	Brian Lee.
	Development of Alumni Affairs, 866.
	Are these people netting?
	This is a 501c3 and the executives are netting a million.
	It's the biggest scam in the world.
	And that's why my recommendation is don't limit it to Harvard.
	Don't limit it to the Ivy League.
	Start looking at all the NGOs, right?
	What Doge has been outing is the integral part that non-governmental organizations, so-called fake charities, 501c3 organizations that are getting taxpayer benefits.
	I mean, this is why the law firms were put under Trump scrutiny.
	They were getting federal benefits and federal security clearances and special federal privileges, and then they were using those privileges to engage in lawfare against the American people.
	In the same capacity, these Soros NGOs promoting illegal immigration, open borders, aren't they violating the common community conscience?
	Aren't they violating their policies contrary to public policy?
	Doesn't that mean All of their tax-exempt status should be taken away.
	And indeed, we have no better inspiration for this than Democrats.
	Democrats did it by going after Bob Jones, making the legal president in the 1970s, the Carter administration.
	But not only that, remember who else went after NGO status using the IRS to do so?
	Who laid out the roadmap that the Republicans could return the favor to the Soros and Gates crowd?
	Barack Hussein Obama, who weaponized the IRS to go after every Tea Party organization based on what?
	So, okay, what's good for the goose, my brothers, is good for the gander.
	If it was good for Barack Obama, it's good enough for President Trump.
	And that means every single left-wing organization promoting illegal behavior in this country should be subject to having their tax-exempt status ripped away from them in order to reaffirm constitutional liberty in this country, using Democrats' own precedence as the path forward.
	I'm still flabbergasted by those quantums.
	You're paying for these execs to live large.
	We were giving federal taxpayer dollars to Harvard so that they could help a Chinese spy steal our intellectual property to go to America.
	That's what's been going on.
	To educate foreigners to undermine American interests.
	Harvard is not America.
	It's never been America.
	I love Matt Stoller.
	He does great antitrust work, but God bless him.
	He's a hopeless lefty when it comes to everything else.
	And so he's convinced that going after Harvard is going to be this bad thing.
	What world are you living in, my brother?
	There's no bigger monopoly in the world than the Chinese monopoly on industrial goods based on their legal violations.
	If you're against monopolies, you should be against China having such a dominant manufacturing role in the world.
	Similarly, if you're against the abuse of power, you should be against Harvard as much as anybody.
	The idea that Harvard is politically popular with the ordinary American?
	No. Ordinary American knows exactly the people that come from Harvard.
	They're snobs and elitists that look down on us and want to steal our wealth to enrich them and empower themselves.
	Enough's enough.
	It's time for action.
	Okay, perfect.
	What next?
	Ah, we've got briefly on antitrust because we'll have more updates later.
	But as predicted on this show, Google has been declared a monopoly.
	They're always a monopoly and violating the antitrust law.
	Here, Bat Stoller has been excellent at exposing this and outing this on a sub-stack.
	And this is going to be fantastic for Rumble's suit against them, I would imagine.
	Oh yes, absolutely.
	I've been telling people that had Rumble stock, Rumble's going to sooner or later win that suit, win, win, shape, or form.
	And the amount of damages or settlement value is in the billions of dollars of the damage that they have caused to Rumble.
	So Google already found to be violating any trust.
	The beginning of the end for Google is here.
	How long Google is able to even own the YouTube, for example.
	Sooner or later, Google will be forced to divest its ownership of YouTube.
	That's my prediction.
	It will happen within the next three years.
	Second, Facebook.
	I said they were a monopoly in violation of antitrust laws.
	They're going through a trial right now that is likely to determine that's exactly who and what they were.
	Credit, by the way, to Mike Davis, Rachel, and some others who had been aligned with me at saying we need to go after big tech.
	You know, 10 years ago, five years ago even, many on the establishment right had been bought off in the legal world by big tech.
	Didn't want anybody to question Google or Facebook or any of your David Frenchies of the world, people that are really well-named.
	Anybody named French is somebody you can't trust.
	It's like the French in general.
	The only thing they're really good at is surrendering.
	Food and wine, otherwise, good.
	But otherwise, just surrender it.
	That was like, I think, a zero-hedge joke.
	Different countries respond by fighting back.
	The French wave the white flag because that's what the French do when they fight back.
	So they've been useless since Napoleon.
	And remember, he wasn't really French.
	He was Sicilian.
	Or from whatever island.
	But you look at those combined dynamics.
	There's consequences coming to Facebook, consequences coming to Google, consequences coming to these antitrust big tech monopolists who have been hurting American workers, American people, American freedom, American liberty for a while.
	And it goes beyond just cutting them off from their cheap production factories in China and overseas.
	It's also breaking up their antitrust model of operation.
	They were undisputably a monopoly.
	The question was, did they leverage that monopoly power to hurt competition?
	If you'd really followed this industry, you knew that was exactly what was happening.
	But finally, the courts are waking up to it as well.
	This is part of a process Trump started in his first term.
	So expect to see more of that, not less, on a go-forward basis.
	Robert, we'll go from the rant to the chill, and we're going to save the other subjects for our locals after party.
	I don't even know if it's a victory lap because I haven't talked to you about this.
	We haven't said one word about it since the news broke this week where Nate, the lawyer, tweeted out.
	Rakeda is getting 30 days in a county jail or something.
	Yeah, which was also wrong.
	God bless him, but he really couldn't get literally anything right when it came to that.
	I don't know how it is you can't read a sentencing diary, but it told me that whatever Nate says, his actual criminal defense experience must be just limited to New York or just really limited in general.
	I know how to read these things, even though I don't practice in Minnesota very often.
	And a lot of people got that wrong.
	The short answer is...
	First, we'll talk about the early predictions as to what was happening.
	The early predictions were...
	Past the threshold, 25 years in jail, losing wife, losing kids.
	For a quarter century, like the rest of his life, he's gone.
	And people were loving...
	It was a...
	Yeah, there was schadenfreude enjoyment by a lot of these people who became obsessively hateful of Nick Riccato.
	And some did it for personal profit.
	Some did it because treason is what runs in their blood.
	And they're just disloyal by nature.
	Some did it because they're utterly incompetent and not capable of analyzing the law from a practical experience.
	And then others just got caught up in the parade.
	So the early allegations of Nick Riccato was like he was some sort of huge drug addict and drug user and his kids were using drugs.
	I mean, all this crazy allegation.
	There was stuff like Nick Riccato's running a cult.
	And we probably took more heat.
	For just going through what the law is concerning Nick Ricada, defending Nick Ricada.
	I think everybody does need to recall, in the early stages, it was child neglect.
	Then there was the cocaine found in the kids' hairs.
	There was drugs and guns.
	There was the swinging stuff.
	I don't get into anybody else's familial life in that regard, but it was everything.
	It was how can you defend this child-abusing, drug-abusing...
	I mean, people create fake images.
	This is me as Breaking Bad, telling people how to get your kids hooked on cocaine.
	I mean, I got more smears, slurs, attacks.
	People would brigade in the communities.
	If I was just doing any interview anywhere about Rakeda, they'd come bashing in.
	They always hate over a case they didn't know, over a person they didn't know.
	Especially, I got a kick out of people who are somehow personally impacted.
	How are you personally impacted?
	Because Nick isn't able to do his show at the moment?
	I mean, come on.
	What I said was that, you know, knowing Nick Riccated, not knowing him great, but knowing him well enough, that most of the allegations, the scandalous allegations against him are likely untrue.
	That people should not rush to judgment of the case or the individual.
	That all kinds of people make mistakes.
	Nobody wants their personal life broadcast, you know, to the whole world.
	Least of all the biggest mistakes they've ever made in their personal life.
	You know, that's the principle of the Bible.
	Be careful what stones you throw.
	Don't point out the...
	Little problem in somebody else's eye if you've got a big stick out of your own.
	Those are good common sense principles and precepts to adapt in life.
	Kind of like expect the best, plan for the worst.
	And Nick Riccato did that.
	He did the Donald Trump strategy.
	Expect the best, plan for the worst.
	Simping for the Constitution for a quarter century.
	I love that.
	And so the way in which you defend yourself in that kind of case is defending yourself in law and defending yourself in the court of public opinion.
	And defending yourself in law, the way you go about doing so in a drug case, is you document, is you figure out all the constitutional infirmities that may exist in the case.
	And I highlighted what those different constitutional infirmities are.
	Some people confuse that with me saying it was a magic bullet and it automatically all the case would be dismissed.
	That isn't why you do it.
	You do it knowing that most lower courts are not willing to challenge the prosecutor police.
	Documenting the seriousness and significance of those constitutional issues, it usually motivates the prosecutor and the police to consider a more reasonable plea negotiation terms.
	It's how almost all drug pleas get done.
	If you don't raise a search warrant or Fourth Amendment or constitutional issue in the way the case was prosecuted, you have very little leverage at getting a fair deal.
	Good logic to his credit.
	When he first got confused as to what I was saying, corrected that upon review.
	The second thing, as I said, the allegations about his kids were false.
	There are easy ways to know they were false.
	The allegations against him didn't make sense.
	Some of the people that were listed as making the allegations weren't in a position to make those allegations.
	There was obvious factual contradictions in the very original story.
	And just so people understand then, the first-hand account of the children smelling and wearing dirty clothes and complaining about being hungry was allegedly the...
	It was third party.
	It was like...
	It was like rumor by six degrees of separation and multiple years out of context and a story that didn't even make sense on its own.
	Plus also, kids are dirty and kids are hungry, especially when they don't feed them.
	That's the reality of the world.
	There was no kids using drugs.
	Kids weren't around drugs.
	Any of that.
	If you understood how those hair tests work, you knew that was going to be bogus and be rebutted very quickly.
	And so what I predicted...
	Was that many of the allegations against him were false, that he had good constitutional defenses, and that if he leveraged them correctly, he would get a reasonable disposition and would not end up losing his kids, losing his wife, losing his family, losing his business, or losing his liberty.
	In fact, I was right on this one.
	So, you know, trusting in Nick.
	Paid off.
	I think Nick's made his mistakes.
	He's been public about those mistakes.
	I think he's been way too harshly attacked for those mistakes.
	There but for the grace of God, go anybody.
	If you know anything about the nature of drugs or certain substances, that people get caught up in that all the time.
	I mean, every day people are out there eating ultra-processed food and destroying their bodies a lot quicker than Nick ever did.
	And so, you know, let's be a little careful before we rush to judgment.
	Never done cocaine in my life, full stop, period.
	I worked in the practice of law, and the amount of adults who I would have never otherwise suspected who did it blew my freaking mind.
	The amount of adults who had sex with other people blew my freaking mind.
	The amount of raging alcoholics, people with serious life issues, blew my freaking mind.
	So it's not to absolve or party.
	And I also separate that from people causing...
	Deliberate harm to people, physically assaulting people, attack, etc.
	It's a big, big difference between those two, in my view.
	And so, I mean, as the state prosecutor acknowledged its sentencing, what Ricada did was harm himself.
	He didn't harm anyone else.
	They said there were no other victims.
	So he got his family entirely back.
	In fact, the case was closed in record time for that county.
	So that shows you how bogus and false all the accusations against him concerning his kids were.
	It was meant to go at it because he takes one of his greatest prides.
	All the ridiculous amount of stuff he does for his kids.
	I mean, literally goes to every sporting event, takes them to all these homeschooling events.
	I mean, he's more actively promoting his interest of his kids than anybody I know, to be honest.
	As someone who did homeschool kids for a year, year two, two years, I know how incredibly difficult that is.
	Least of all, if I got like five of them, and I'm running around in literally every single event they do.
	And I'm even teaching other homeschool kids in the process while trying to run a full story business.
	Good luck with that combination.
	I think that he put himself under a little bit too much stress, I think.
	But it turned out those allegations were false.
	Here's been the outcome.
	The outcome is all charges against him other than a third degree drug charge have been dismissed.
	So a lot of the gun charges, dismissed.
	All the charges concerning his kids, dismissed.
	They wouldn't dismiss those charges unless there was not a factual basis to do so.
	Number two, he is not serving any time.
	What he was given is what's called a deferred sentence, a stayed sentence.
	It's known as diversion or deferment in most jurisdictions.
	They stay the adjudication is the way they do it, the method, the mechanism they do so in Minnesota.
	What does that mean?
	It means in five years, let's say he complies with everything, all charges are dismissed.
	He's not even a felon.
	He doesn't lose gun rights, voting rights, any of it.
	And he's not serving any time in jail.
	The jail is, if he doesn't comply with probation, then he can end up going to jail.
	That's not going to happen.
	He will not serve another day in any...
	Thanks to the smart way he went about approaching it, which was in the court of public opinion, people were demanding he say things that made no sense.
	Come out and confess.
	Come out and say everything he did wrong.
	Come out and say everything he did wrong.
	That's ridiculous.
	You can't do that in the middle of a criminal case.
	And he properly prevented them from misusing and abusing.
	One of the things I highlighted was governments now are routinely and regularly And they're going to be doing it in more cases.
	They're going to be doing it in political cases, kind of like they did in a Benchoof case, like they're threatening to do in the state of Washington and Colorado to everybody.
	They don't use the right pronouns for their kids.
	They weaponize taking your kids away.
	And they love to do so while they bring a criminal case against you.
	Why? Because in order to defend yourself to keep your kids, you have to give away your Fifth Amendment rights that puts you in prison forever under the criminal cases.
	He rightly demanded that they give him use immunity.
	You say you only care about my kids.
	I want to tell you the whole story, but I can't do so if it's going to be used against me in the criminal case.
	So they finally conceded.
	He didn't take the bait of disclosing.
	A lot of parents panic and give up their entire Fifth Amendment defense because they want their kids back.
	He made the right sound decision to require one for the other, to require use of immunity in order to do that.
	And ultimately, when they investigated, he hadn't harmed his kids, period.
	That was all false.
	Bottom line is he harmed himself.
	As he himself has publicly said, did drugs he wishes he hadn't done.
	He's been clean and sober now ever since the arrest.
	How do you know that?
	Because he has to do testing five days out of the week.
	And so a lot of the accusations and allegations against him were false.
	A lot of people rushed to judgment.
	A lot of people rushed to hate him.
	And there were a bunch of people that abandoned constitutional liberty because they thought it was useful to do so in the name of grift baiting.
	Their way into getting, you know, followings online and cash support.
	In other cases, I think in like Nate's case, I think just wrong, just not.
	He just got a lot of stuff wrong.
	But a lot of them were like way wrong, dead wrong, totally wrong, wholly wrong.
	And a lot of them personally attacked me repeatedly, sent people to brigade, various chats to attack me.
	I don't really care.
	I mean, these people were on the low end of the low end of the totem pole to begin with.
	But they were miseducating the public.
	about their rights, the public, about what is the right way to handle this situation.
	So Nick Rickey is back.
	Apparently he's going to be trying to live stream next week, part of the Karen Reed trial.
	She's getting tried again.
	This is someone who never should have been tried in the first place, in my opinion.
	There isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty.
	There is evidence, in my view, beyond a reasonable doubt of cop corruption in those cases.
	But Nick is back, and he's back to being Nick.
	Good luck to him.
	I'll be happy to hop on with him at some point.
	I think he's a good man who got railroaded.
	He made mistakes like every human being on the planet.
	And a lot of people treated him too harshly, rushed to judgment, made up facts about the law to demonize him and line in their own pockets.
	And they should be ashamed.
	And for those that want to write an apology...
	And once again, always send the apologies courtesy of Viva Fry.
	Nate said he's jail time damn because he was retweeting Kiwi Farms.
	Even if you went into Kiwi Farms, like I showed you guys there, it said 30 days, you know, deferral if he complies.
	Stick my head in a vice before I ever, you know, some of the Kiwi Farms people I represented in the past, as a favorite to Nick, did it for dirt cheap, got him out of a difficult situation for ridiculous low cost, at which all they did is complain later.
	when I was defending Nick Riccata's constitutional rights and interests and discouraging arrested judgment against him.
	And the, you know,
	I'll tell Nick.
	One of the worst clients I ever had was one I did as a favor to Nick.
	Well, someone said, you know, everybody gets things wrong.
	Everybody gets things right.
	Everybody makes mistakes.
	Oh, yeah.
	I don't mind the mistakes.
	If you're going to go out there and do things that miseducate people about their constitutional rights, that's when I take personal affront.
	Everyone thought it was fair game to jump on Nick that way because he had done it.
	To other people in non-legal context prior, you know, where he made some good content out of destroying people.
	Going at him personally to a certain degree, understand, but they were miseducating people about the law.
	They were saying things about the Fourth Amendment, they were completely wrong.
	They were saying things about the Fifth Amendment, they were completely wrong.
	They were saying things about the Sixth Amendment, they were completely wrong.
	They were saying things about state Minnesota law, they were completely wrong.
	They were saying things about how you handle the criminal.
	I mean, these idiots were like...
	Prostate yourself.
	Go public and confess every bad act you did.
	That would have guaranteed him years in prison and he would have lost his family.
	These are people I would never...
	Higher as any kind of lawyer.
	You got that Jabba the Hutt lookalike there.
	Potentially criminal.
	His legal advice is potentially criminal.
	I mean, this was legal malpractice, some of the idiocy that was out there concerning Nick Ricada.
	I'm glad because I think he's a good guy trying to do good work, whatever his mistakes may be along the way, so I'm glad to see him back on his feet and going.
	I'm glad because I like the Constitution to be affirmed and upheld in this country.
	And I like people to fight for it, as Nick Ricada has done, and a lot of these other people have not.
	Well, I'll tempt everybody with a little bit of a teaser to come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Come on over to Locals.
	What the heck is that?
	I have no idea.
	It was this, and then the other person you were just talking about was also in the chat there, but I'm not going to bring that up.
	I don't want to make fun of anybody.
	Get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If you are not coming...
	Encrypt us.
	Who do we raid?
	We should raid someone...
	Who could be...
	His name is Cool Frog, who is live.
	He's also in the same commentary space, and I actually think that a lot of our community would like him.
	Do it.
	We're going to go raid.
	What's his name?
	Cool Frog?
	Yes, sir.
	He's a frog that's cool.
	So cool, not gay.
	Not one of the gay frogs that Alex Jones is trying to preserve, trying to avoid too many of.
	Just cool frog, cool like Fonzie.
	You know, it's funny.
	You go to frog and you go to Pepe.
	And when I hear the word frog, I immediately go to linguistic.
	And I'm thinking, is he commenting on European politics?
	Oh, right.
	Yeah, because that's what they call the French.
	It's a little known fact.
	They call the French from France frogs.
	That's the derogatory term.
	The French from Quebec have a different term.
	You'll have to Google it because I'm not even going to repeat it because I have to go back to Quebec from time to time.
	They've got a different name.
	They've got a different derogatory name.
	I kind of like the French from Quebec.
	You know, like somebody told me they were the rednecks of France.
	And I was like, yeah, they love boats.
	I was like, these are much cooler French than the French in Paris.
	Small town Quebec is fantastic.
	You want the best road trip ever.
	You go from Montreal through Quebec City to Gaspé-Z down the south side.
	It's beautiful.
	And small town Quebec is beautiful.
	One last question before we hop over to our after party at Locals.
	Black Quebecois.
	Let's say they end up with the...
	Let's say there's a minority of the liberals and conservatives.
	And the...
	And the Quebec bloc has control over who has the majority.
	Is it guaranteed they align with the Liberals or might they align with the Conservatives?
	It's not guaranteed.
	No. Look, in my humble estimation, it's not guaranteed at all because they hate the Liberals because the Liberals don't respect the identity of Quebec as a province.
	Some people get irritated that all that they care about is Quebec.
	That's fine.
	But when they were going hard, when Yves Blanchet, the bloc, was going hard on Carney for basically saying the feds are going to impose their will on the provinces whether you want a pipeline or not.
	No, I think they might be more amenable to negotiating with the conservatives who are, I say as far as it goes, they're more reasonable and they want every province to exploit their natural resources properly.
	So no, I'm just looking at how many seats they have.
	The bloc right now have...
	They're projected around six...
	Somewhere between 5% and 8%.
	But because all that vote comes just from that Quebec portion, they are anticipated they will get a lot more seats than the NDP.
	Well, no, the NDP is going to get annihilated.
	How many seats do they have after the last election?
	They had 35 in 2019.
	The Bloch, Quebecois, Yblanc, 32 freaking seats!
	Holy hell!
	And initially I thought it might be less, but then I was looking at current projections based on what I'm seeing.
	I think that they may control the decisive majority for the future Canadian Parliament.
	Because you're going to have a lot of Quebecers who don't want to vote Liberal but might not want to vote Conservative and they're going to default to the Bloc.
	That's interesting.
	Well, all of I know is I'm saying I'm going hard that it's not going to be a liberal majority, at the very least a consolation prize, but may it be a conservative majority, and I'll be dancing for a few days in terms of at least Kalshi predictions.
	Have you seen this?
	I don't know where they got this, the Alex Jones one of the...
	This is my favorite Alex Jones meet.
	Is this in our locals?
	Yeah, from Tony.
	Oh, God, okay.
	Isn't that great?
	That's classic Alex.
	I don't know how he did his face this way.
	I mean, but...
	Wait, is this the real American badass?
	No, no, it's a different one.
	Hold on, hold on.
	It's an actual visual of him doing some sort of monkey thing.
	Oh, this one?
	Yeah, no, that's a gif.
	That's definitely a...
	Hold on, hold on.
	Yeah, that's an actual...
	I was like, only Jones could come up with something that...
	I just kept laughing at it when it...
	Yeah. That's great.
	Only Jones could do that.
	I don't know how he got his face going that way.
	People, before you leave, Louis the Lobster.
	Go get one.
	Let me just get the link here.
	I have to see.
	I'll give an update on books sold.
	We haven't made the top, what is it called?
	The bestseller list yet, but one can hope.
	Louis the Lobster.
	And make sure that you're subscribed.
	You have notifications turned on.
	And what else was I going to say?
	Live tomorrow, 4 o'clock.
	Robert, what's your schedule for this week?
	So we'll be doing live bourbons each night at 9ish, Monday through Thursday, at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Booyah! That's where we're going for the after party.
	Canadian bets that are up.
	We've made money on the Ecuadorian election last week.
	Made money on the German election.
	Made money, of course, big money on the U.S. election.
	Made money in the past on French elections and British elections and other elections around the world.
	Argentina election, etc.
	You can see what the best bets are for the Canadian election.
	That is going to be next Monday.
	Next Monday.
	I can't believe it's so freaking close.
	And I'm nervous.
	If Corny gets in, I probably wouldn't advise you to be going back anytime soon.
	No, I...
	If I have to claim...
	There's asylum.
	And by the way, you see what's going on in Canada.
	They want to lock Tamara Leach up for two years, Chris Barber for two years for mischief.
	Hey, dude, I've put out a lot of saucy tweets that are probably incriminating, not incriminating, I should say.
	That will become criminal under Carnies Canada.
	Come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll be live at four o'clock.
	I'm going to be pre-recording some good interviews this week, I think.

▲