Ep 263 Trump Trans Ban REINSTATED! Ashli Babbitt Settlement! Ex-CIA Doc SUES! Canada Election & MORE
|
Time
Text
For those who are listening on podcast format, what you are listening to or not seeing reads, A Soldier's Journey Home is 100% volunteer-driven 501c3 comprised primarily of current and retired firefighters and veterans.
And now we shall play the video.
Each year we come together to build a home in only 12 days drawing more than 150 volunteers from all over the nation who return year after year because of the true belief in our mission.
In 2024, we...
Oh, darn it.
I'm slowly drifting to you.
It's the start of the planet.
I call it me.
The field is the way from you.
I'm on my way.
I'm on.
I'm going to go back and just look at one thing here because if I am not mistaken, that is a beautiful piece of wood of the American flag on the wall.
That is the intro video for tonight because our intro guest for the evening is someone who's been on the show before.
He's a member of our locals community.
And this 501c3, a soldier's journey home, it's absolutely incredible what they do in terms of building a house in two or three weeks.
From foundation to handing over to the key to a disabled veteran who gets a house built to accommodate their new needs for accommodated living.
Ginger Ninja, Luke, from our locals community, is partaking in this year's build, which is up in Georgia, if I'm not mistaken.
He's a carpenter by trade.
And a member of the community and asked me if I would go there and document a few days, meet the entire team, which I'm going to do.
And then he said, can we do an intro, a brief 10-minute discussion to let the world know of our cause, how they can support us for the Sunday night show.
And I said, absolutely, obviously.
Ginger Ninja, please feel free to enable your camera now.
And we shall talk.
I forgot I do that.
How are you doing?
Good, good.
Okay, so Ginger, I don't know.
I'm always reluctant.
I mentioned your first name.
I think your name is known, but for those who don't know, you've been on the show.
The feds know.
They're the only ones I'd have to be worried about.
We're going to talk about it tonight.
They know everything despite having access or not to Doge, having access or not to info.
Tell everybody who you are, but most importantly, tell everybody what's going on with this latest build, what a soldier's journey home does, and tell it to the world.
Yes, so thanks for having me on, Viva, to put this on blast as much as I can.
I'm Luke.
I go by JinjaNinjaOnline.
It's an old gamer tag that's stuck around.
Yeah, so I found a Soldier's Journey home in 2016, I believe, 2016, and they were doing a build in Tennessee.
I'm a U.S. Air Force veteran, and so I heard from some other vets in the area that there were some people building a house.
And so I went up there and volunteered to help out with it, and I just met the most amazing group of people up there.
And I was like, these guys are the real deal.
Wherever y 'all are going next, I'm in.
And so what this team does is they, once a year, build a turnkey, forever home, fully adapted house for a disabled veteran.
And we start with a foundation and we go to a fully furnished, finished home, mortgage-free.
We turn over the keys in two weeks.
It's unreal.
At one point, we were talking...
Who was I talking to?
Someone doing some renos here.
And I'm like, to work with your hands and to actually build something is something beautiful to begin with.
To build a house in, what is it?
Two or three weeks.
Foundation up everything.
Electrical.
Don't give us 50% more time.
It's two weeks.
It's two weeks.
Electrical, plumbing, everything.
It's a forever home for a soldier.
I know the answer, but you've got to explain it to the world.
How does the ASJH determine which veteran?
How does it work in terms of who gets the build?
We have a volunteer board, and they get referrals from people or applicants.
That's above my head.
I don't know how they find all the available and needing veterans, but they go through those and find out the one that we'd be able to help the most or the most deserving or We've got to line up a piece of property for them, and everything kind of has to work out.
As soon as we finish the build, they're out there going ahead and getting started.
The prep work, as you can imagine, there is a ton of.
For the next year's recipient.
I'm giving the link to the donate for everybody if they want to.
It is fully volunteer and fully donation dependent.
Yes.
So that's, over the years, this will be their 11th build.
And this will be my 10th.
So I found them on their second home.
And we've built up a really good crew of volunteers.
Just amazing people.
Capable people.
And so we can throw a house up.
But every year it's finding donations.
Specifically monetary.
To fund the thing.
Some years.
They'll start the build, and we don't even have the funds exactly to finish it, and so we're fundraising during it, and I'm on here throwing it out there.
These people are the real deal.
It's not a wounded warrior project, which 2% goes to the veteran or something like that.
It's 100% going to the veteran, and the only other money goes to housing the people.
That are there.
We come from 15 different states all over.
It's incredible.
I mean, the volunteer is one thing, but the raw materials are another that...
I don't know if you have...
I assume there's agreements or maybe you have companies donate raw materials, but nonetheless, there are those costs feeding everybody who's there for the build.
And when...
Are you allowed saying where the next build is?
I already said the state.
It's on the website.
It's in Augusta, Georgia.
So this year's build is for retired Army Sergeant First Class David Mathis.
Him and his wife, I believe, will be residing in the home.
He has two kids.
He's a double amputee.
Lost his limbs in an IED in 2017.
So, yeah, we're building him an adaptive forever home, and he's in need.
Augusta, Georgia.
I'm going to be down there for a few days to meet everybody, document, and see how this works, because it's absolutely amazing.
Yeah, so people are already traveling down there right now, but the official build starts a week from tomorrow, and 12 days later, Saturday the 31st.
We turn over the keys.
We have a ceremony.
Viva's going to get to see it.
It's the real deal.
Okay, it's amazing.
Luke, people can donate through the website.
It's a 501c3, so tax deductible if that matters for anybody.
And if anybody wants to partake in the build to be a volunteer, I guess they can register online as well.
Yeah, so...
You'll have to reach out online, and I don't know how that whole process goes, but I know that a couple months ago, we kind of locked in stone all the volunteers and stuff.
You submitted your stuff online a couple months ago.
For this year's build, it's all set in stone.
Everybody's already signed waivers and stuff, and you'll have to submit online.
But our biggest need...
Honestly, financially, if you can send $5 or $10 or $100, they have a YouTube channel, A Soldier's Journey Home, on YouTube.
That's where Viva was playing that video from.
And you can just watch some of the videos of the different teams and volunteers.
Time lapses of the build, and it's insane.
First two days, walls are up.
Roof is getting decked and shingled.
It's insane.
It's amazing.
Luke, not that you came to plug your Rumble channel, but you have a Rumble channel as well.
I do.
Luke is a carpenter.
He made the chessboard behind me.
Not the pieces, but it's a beautiful chessboard.
It's a one-of-one.
I had never made a chessboard before, so I was like...
Magnificent, and I leave it there so that the kids don't use it as a freaking coaster when they want to play, but we play chess, and it's magnificent.
What's your Rumble channel?
Ginger Ninja 1776, which, you know, in Europe, saying 1776 might get you thrown in jail, but I'm in America, so...
Ginger, it's amazing.
I just do some videos on there, firearms-related stuff.
I'm going to try to do a long-range precision video with shooting out to 1,000 yards, and I might see if I can get a drone out there on impact if I don't shoot it down.
But that'll be after the build.
I'm pretty booked up until...
I'm bringing my drone.
This is my drone.
I'm bringing this to the build, so I want to fly this over and see what's going on over there.
Ginger?
I'm going to see you in a couple weeks, man.
A couple weeks.
Soldier's Journey Home.
Everyone's got the YouTube channel.
Everyone's got the link to donate.
And I wanted to spread this as far as wide.
So, Ginger, thank you very much for giving the update.
And I will see you in a couple weeks.
Thank you.
We'll see you, Aviva.
All right, man.
Have a good one.
How do I do this?
There we go, everybody.
Soldier's Journey Home, people.
If you can't, I don't know if you can donate.
If you can't donate, share the link around.
Truly amazing.
I brought up the comment, you know, that says when the government does it, it takes two years and costs ten times as much.
Absolutely.
And when you are working off hard-earned dollars in the sense of you go out and you bust your butt to get donations, you don't squander any of those.
When you are reliant on tax dollars, it's a piggy bank that you can tap into.
You don't need to be quite as efficient.
Robert, before we go forward, I do have to do our sponsor of the evening, people.
I had a video lined up.
Hold on.
Let me just see something, Robert.
I'm getting bigger and bigger every week.
I'm going to back away from the camera.
We have a sponsor for tonight's show, people.
It's a good one.
Qualia.
First of all, I've got my Qualia right here.
I actually take this stuff.
They have the bi-monthly...
I'll explain what it is.
The pruning of the senilicent cells out of the body.
But as you get older, everybody, things start to hurt more.
And you sort of think, oh, it's normal and just get used to it.
Some people do, but you don't have to.
There's something called Qualia Senolytic, the first of its kind formula designed to help your body naturally eliminate what they call senolysin cells.
I've asked my wife this, and it's actually scientifically accurate, and I was on the phone with the company just to make sure as well.
We've got these things called zombie cells, which are, the analogy is like the brown leaves, the dead leaves on a tree that actually suck up energy and compromise the tree's ability to grow.
That's why you prune it.
And when you prune it, you make everything more efficient.
Senolytics is a science.
It's revolutionizing human aging.
Big culprit behind the bad feeling is traced to what they call zombie cells.
They linger in your body and they hinder its useful function, wasting your energy and resources.
Breaking it down, the accumulation of zombie cells leads to less energy, slower workout recovery time, joint pain, etc., and everything.
Qualia Senolytics is a groundbreaking clinically tested supplement with nine vegan plant-derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate the zombie cells, the senolysin cells, helping you feel years younger.
You take two days, six pills a day for two days every month.
And let me see.
I want to make sure about this.
It's two six pills a day, and you take that two days a month, and then you can do it again a month later to maximize its impact on your body, and you eliminate those zombie cells.
It's fantastic stuff.
They also have a bunch of other great stuff for your body.
These have caffeine in them, so make sure you don't take them too late in the afternoon.
But go to qualia.com forward slash Viva.
You get up to 50% off your purchase using the code Viva.
Qualia.
It's Q-U-A-L-I-A life.com.
Viva!
And you'll get your discount.
Fantastic stuff.
Great company.
And you'll feel better.
And you'll...
I don't know if you...
I don't want to promise you'll look better because there might be other reasons why people get...
Old and haggard, and it might be because you get angry at the world and end up looking like this all day long, and then you get a wrinkle right in your face.
Robert, sir, you're looking dapper, younger, and I dare say you got a haircut.
Oh, wait, you're on mute.
Either that or you lost your vocal cords.
Is it my end?
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Okay, now, hold on.
Now I've muted you.
No, now I'm going to unmute you.
Uh-oh.
Encryptus, help me out here.
Do I have the power to mute?
I don't have the power to mute.
Nope.
It's on you, Robert.
That's on your end, sir.
Maybe...
Encryptus, what was it?
A control hard R reset?
Control shift R. It's a hard refresh.
Bring you back in.
While that happens, I'll start with what I was going to start with anyhow.
The Lincoln Project.
Oh, God, these people are stupid.
Let's play a little bit of Stephen Miller.
This is what I was going to originally start with, but...
Hold on, there's a question back there.
I love Stephen Miller.
Look at his face.
He's waiting to nail somebody with a stupid question.
Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land that...
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion.
So I would say that's an option we're actively looking at.
Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.
At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts, that's the judicial branch of jurisdiction over immigration cases.
So Congress actually passed, it's called jurisdiction stripping legislation.
It passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.
Many of you probably don't know this.
I'll give you a good example.
Are you familiar with the term temporary protective status or TPS, right?
We're getting that in Ohio.
We're talking about that tonight.
I don't know Stephen Miller as a person.
I love him as a public speaker and a public...
This man explains things clearly.
He has just the right amount of sass and condescension to the idiots who pretend not to understand and just the right amount of sincerity for those who genuinely don't understand.
So, by statute, the courts are stripped of jurisdiction from overruling a presidential determination or a secretarial determination on TPS when the Secretary of Homeland Security makes that determination.
So when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted, saying they have no jurisdiction.
So it's not just the courts aren't just at war with the executive branch.
The courts are at war, these radical rogue judges, with the legislative branch as well, too.
So all of that will inform the choices the president ultimately makes, yes.
I love it.
Now, by the way, the ultimate hilarious insanity to this.
That was Stephen Miller talking about how they might suspend habeas corpus during a time of invasion.
And how the courts have, or at least the Article 3 courts, have no jurisdiction to come in and override Congress effectively.
But the threat of eliminating or suspending habeas corpus is scaring a lot of people, including the Lincoln Project, who tweet out...
Suspending habeas corpus.
Let that sink in.
You couldn't script parody any better.
If you had the Babylon Bee writing an article saying, The Lincoln Project, named after Abraham Lincoln, who's the namesake in their avatar.
The president who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.
If you had the headline from the Babylon Bee saying, A president might suspend habeas corpus, you would have something that no one would actually believe in terms of being so outlandishly stupid.
And I had to point that out.
Robert, let's hear if we can hear you.
We're not hearing anything, Robert.
It says...
There's no...
I don't have the ability to mute you in Rumble Studio.
Do you want to maybe just pull the mic out and see if it's recognizing...
Unplug your mic and maybe just go with the laptop?
You can't do that.
We're going to have a boomer moment.
Let me see...
See if he's going to reboot the computer.
Because we've done this every week.
I don't have the ability to...
Encryptus is going to go...
Only in StreamYard do we have the ability to.
We'll see if we'll fix that up.
There's no way that I can...
We're not starting to stream anew.
Oh, I hear a click there.
It's not rumble.
No, I know.
Now I'm wondering if...
We'll get there in a second.
Okay, hold on.
Now I see him.
Nothing.
Did he...
Well, what do we do?
What do we do?
Let's try to troubleshoot in real time.
Do we want to troubleshoot in real time?
What are the options?
He can do it off his phone.
Give us a second.
We'll figure this out.
Open a window and yell loud.
That will not work.
Okay, that's hardy hard.
I get that was a joke.
We're going to try it one more time and then...
Oh, boy.
Is there a way of starting it in StreamYard if we have to and then...
Bringing a window in through StreamYard.
How about this?
What I can do is I can drop him a link.
We can hop off this for real quick and I can troubleshoot with him off of the show.
Barnes has been hacked.
Well, I did notice...
Has Barnes changed locations yet?
Controlled hard R. We'll get it in a second.
But let me just...
Talking about the...
So I had to...
Politically retarded, I meant.
You guys are officially retarded.
President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during Civil War.
And you just have to see the amazing thing about the goalposts moving.
Someone said, LOL, where's the Civil War?
So it goes from, how dare they do it, to they have an excuse to do it.
Nope.
Bards is...
Barnes, I'm going to send you a link.
Let's hop on that call.
We'll troubleshoot it and hop back on.
Okay, send Barnes the link.
Maybe I'll kick him.
Do I kick him?
No, if I kick him, I don't know if I can let him back in.
He'll come back in in a bit, people.
Now I'm going to have to...
Barnes has been cyber hacked by Nicole Shanahan, mad at Bobby Kennedy.
Well, that might be fake news.
But it happens, everybody.
We're going to power through it, to quote Hillary Clinton.
And I'm not going to say that at least it's not my fault.
It's not my fault tonight, people.
It looks like Barnes has changed setups, and so there might be something as simple as an unplugged plug thing.
But anyways, Encryptus will help Barnes behind the scenes.
And what I'll do in front of the scenes right now is say hello to everybody.
Good evening.
A soldier's journey home.
Check it out.
Viva Frye!
Former Montreal litigator, current Florida rumbler.
For those who saw the vlog earlier today about the Canadian election, we're going to talk about that as well.
I did not end up going with the tomato plant.
Can you hear me now?
Oh, we can.
Okay, good.
But you sound so soft and you sound defeated, Robert.
I'm telling you, I didn't go with the tomato plant for my wife.
I went with a lime tree.
And a Barbados cherry tree.
And it's a metaphorical investment in our love and relationship where when those trees bear fruits, we're going to make a delicious lime and Barbados cherry martini.
Robert, sir, let's hear you.
How are you doing?
How's it going?
Good.
There's a bit of a delay.
Have you changed locations?
No, no.
They're just moving stuff around inside the house.
Okay.
Well, you look good.
You sound good.
You might be a little, I think...
Let's see if you sound too soft.
I'll wait for people to say if you're too soft or not.
Robert, okay.
My goodness.
Two things, actually, before we even get started.
We're going to...
The 1776 Law Center event is now scheduled officially for what date in August?
Weekend of August 15th.
So that's Saturday and Sunday.
In middle August, we'll have Chase Hughes, Scott Rouse, Greg Hartley, Richard Barris.
My brother may be able to come down.
So a good number of guests.
There'll be some master class conference sections.
There'll be a dinner section.
We may do a live show that people can participate in if they want to.
The Sunday show.
So it'll be a lot of fun.
And everything, all net proceeds go to 1776lawcenter.com.
How many seats are available and how many seats are there and how many are left for availability?
Do we know?
I don't know what the latest update is.
Good.
Amazing.
Robert, so on the menu for tonight, we've got a bunch of stuff.
We've got the Supreme Court getting involved temporarily with some trans disqualification issues.
I've got a video that we're going to play for that because apparently, according to the Democrat left, transgenderism, which is a diagnosed DSM-5...
I say mental illness with no judgment.
We all...
Well, not all of us, but some of us have...
Our own mental issues.
They equate it with race, color of the skin, which goes to show you what they think of minorities.
What else do we have on the menu for tonight?
So we've got the Maha debate about the Surgeon General and some other issues.
We've got Trump on Ukraine, Trump on Iran, Trump on China, Trump on India, a lot of foreign policy developments in just the past week.
We've got SCOTUS, which was the top voted topic over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
On the trans ban in the military, immigration, another immigration case going up to them, this on parole status, what Stephen Miller was referencing about temporary parole status and jurisdiction.
We've got the Obama Task Force that had some additional filings.
We've got Doge also at SCOTUS.
And we've got Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson making public comments about pending matters before the lower courts.
Updates on crypto on three different fronts.
One is the big win for Hex and Richard Hart against the SEC.
An announcement of the DOJ to completely change the Biden policy towards using DOJ to harass crypto.
And the pending Roger Ver case, the motion to dismiss being moved to June, I believe, when it was originally scheduled for April than May.
Now it looks like it's going to be in June.
We've got...
Oh, I can't read my own writing.
We got the state of Maine where a legislator has been stripped of their ability to vote.
That is now going before the Supreme Court.
We've got immunity for big forever chemical makers in Georgia.
Why are they granting more immunity to companies causing more trouble?
We've got...
And then this was from the comments, the show notes at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
We have the bonus cases, bank fraud issues involving Citibank and Mexican banks, how the banking system really operates, outed, kind of exposed to that suit.
We've got the Babbitt settlement.
We've got another gun ban by the Washington Supreme Court in the state of Washington that completely eviscerates Second Amendment rights.
Because it turns out bullets are not protected under the Second Amendment, according to the Washington Supreme Court.
We've got the religious discrimination issues that went before the...
Federal Court of Appeals that distinguished what happens when the union is complicit.
I have a case against the union concerning this.
And on top of that, we've got the ICE protest arrests, or the arrests that haven't yet happened.
We've got the Epstein documents and questions of Kash Patel by Senator Kennedy in the Senate.
We've got P. Diddy, jury selection ongoing, and witnesses already gone missing.
We've got, you know, and which prosecutor is assigned the PDB case.
Some other people finally stumbled on the issue that we've been talking about for over a year involving who's at SDNY, related to James Comey.
We've got federal judges who are recently naturalized.
We have a Canadian, hey, this is a potential path for you, Viva.
Apparently, he's come to the U.S., get naturalized.
You can become on the federal bench within years.
I would understand why I would not be welcome on the federal.
But yeah, bring in a Canuck who might have different views on Second Amendment constitutional rights and see how that goes.
Bring in commie judges from the Caribbean and see how that goes.
And we've got the habeas suspension that was also being referenced by Stephen Miller that was asked about.
And of course, we've got a new pope.
I was partially on pay.
The people I said to vote no on, bet no, that's cash.
And I thought, take a long shot bet on somebody with African ancestry.
And I just didn't realize this one cardinal actually had African-American ancestry, saying there's Louisiana Crow, who's now the new pope.
What is that going to mean for geopolitics and law going forward?
So a pact.
Stock it tonight.
Okay, so what do we start with?
Let's start with the habeas because I just played the Stephen Miller video and people are freaking out that Trump is considering invoking suspension of habeas corpus.
And the ultimate irony is the Lincoln Project, for those who don't know, they're very questionable past in relation to...
They're a pedo organization.
Wholly justifiable based on the facts in the world.
The Lincoln, in addition to being that, They are also apparently totally historically illiterate that they don't understand that Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War suspended habeas corpus in order to imprison some of his political adversaries, and they're shocked and appalled.
Stephen Hill is coming out, talking about the possibility of Trump suspending habeas corpus because the judges, the courts, are certifiably overriding the president's ability to govern, the executive's ability to be the executive, and overriding Congress itself.
For those who don't fully appreciate what is meant when Stephen Miller says Article 3 courts don't have the authority to deal with immigration issues, could you flesh that out first and foremost?
Because I think that's the critical issue that some people don't truly understand.
Lest I get a bunch of texts from my many, many, many sisters and other siblings and friends.
Happy Mother's Day to all the mamas out there.
Happy Mother's Day to Marion and others.
Thank you.
To give that shout out for everybody.
So the Constitution provides within Article 1, which by itself provides a source of confusion because it's located in Article 1, but it's under Clause 9, and Clause 9 has a range of provisions that don't appear to be exclusive to the legislative branch.
But it says that you shall not suspend the writ of habeas corpus unless there's been a rebellion or invasion.
And historically, the other presidents who have suspended habeas corpus, there's three of them actually, Abraham Lincoln most infamously, but at least that was pursuant to Congress passing a law authorizing him to do so.
Then you had, in 1863, but he continued to suspend the writ of habeas corpus beyond the scope of that law, even after the Civil War had ended.
So that issue ended up ex parte Milligan, I think was the case, 1866, before the Supreme Court.
Then you had Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Suspended the writ of habeas corpus for all the people he was detaining here in America, all those Japanese detention camps.
It's amazing.
Liberal Democrats seem to have complete amnesia about some of those things that they were responsible for.
And then George W. Bush suspended the writ of habeas corpus to get people to Gitmo because he didn't want them to have habeas protection.
Now, his ability to do so was questioned at the time, and there was a mixture of results in the courts and the cases.
So there's no question that in the case of invasion, you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
The question is, is it a power only given to Congress or given to the president or given to the courts?
Because it's located within Article I, some people have said it's exclusive to Congress.
Problem with that is the original proposal was to limit it to Congress, but in fact, that part of the proposal failed at the convention and failed at later confirmation.
So when they went through and confirmed the Constitution and the referendums, because that's what affirmed and approved it, somewhat questionably, but it's another story for another day.
Just a quick detail, because it's so outrageous that in addition to not knowing both Lincoln himself and the Lincoln Project, sorry, what was his name?
It was FDR.
He suspended habeas corpus to...
And he was given no congressional authorization.
Neither he nor Bush were given authorization.
They believe the president had, pursuant to Lincoln, even though Lincoln originally did it pursuant to congressional law, he then did it on grounds that he could do things beyond what Congress had authorized.
But FDR did it to Japanese American citizens.
Bush did it to non-citizens or terrorists.
FDR did it to American citizens of Japanese...
Which tried to do it to citizens, too.
It's just so amazing.
It's not even an invasion, an invading force.
They were Americans who happened to be Japanese.
And there was no invasion by Japan or the United States.
There was an attack on Pearl Harbor, but there was no ongoing invasion.
And there was no invasion by terrorists beyond what happened in 9-11.
What Trump is describing as an invasion is far more analogous to an actual invasion.
20 million plus people from foreign nations, including in the case of TVA being sent by a foreign nation in Venezuela, than ever occurred in either of those three, in two of those prior three.
Lincoln, in addition, extended the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus after the war was over, so there was no rebellion ongoing, and he applied it to his political critics in the North.
So the legal political precedent on this is pretty broad in favor of Trump.
That doesn't mean the rogue courts won't try to prevent him.
From suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the main grounds to challenge it would be the interpretation of it being only something that Congress can authorize.
Though again, they didn't say that for Roosevelt, they didn't say that for George W. Bush for the most part.
There were some cases they did reverse it.
But there is an argument for this.
I was the one who raised it several months ago.
That this was a possibility and finally got into the legal zeitgeist, if you will, the stream of thoughts and ideas into the river that is the White House.
And the consequences, now Trump is seriously considering it, and because he has to.
It's also a way, it's a shot across the bow to the courts themselves.
It's telling the courts, if you don't step in, I will escalate.
I will suspend the writ of habeas corpus and say you don't have any authority to act.
And I may go further than that.
I may just start ignoring court orders on the grounds that the court orders are lawless, which relates to Chief Justice Roberts' comments this week when he was like, you know, Article 3 has to be independent judicial branch, and we can strike down what the president or Congress does.
And the follow-up question should have been, but wasn't, what happens when it's Article 3 usurping its power?
What happens when it's Article 3 exceeding its constitutional authority?
What's the remedy then?
Historically, the courts have said, don't worry, we don't have enforcement power, we don't have the power of the purse.
Well, those powers only matter if the other branches ignore the courts when the courts go rote.
Otherwise, the power of the purse, power of the sword, don't matter.
Because if they have to recognize the courts, no matter what the courts say or do, then you have a judicial supremacy.
You don't have judicial balance of powers with the legislative and executive branch.
And so this is an area where Trump can go to try to further divest the courts of jurisdiction.
Now, there's multiple laws also being passed or considered in Congress to take away their power to issue nationwide injunctions, to take away their jurisdiction in more immigration cases.
As Stephen Miller mentioned in that clip, the Immigration and Nationalization Act specifically stripped the courts of jurisdiction in a wide range of immigration cases.
They're just ignoring that.
They're just completely ignoring it.
Flagrantly, court after court after court after court.
And what Roberts doesn't understand is that if he doesn't get the courts in line, Trump will get the courts in line by ignoring the courts, as will have to happen, as will be his constitutional duty.
His constitutional duty is not to affirm what the courts do.
His constitutional duty is to enforce the laws, period.
And he is under no supervisory jurisdiction or control of the federal courts as to matters that have been taken away from them by law.
Well, when it's taken away from the, which courts is it taken away from, and then which courts are left with jurisdiction to hear immigration issues?
No courts are given jurisdiction over a wide range of immigration issues.
Literally, the specific language, this is the immigration issue, which is the Biden administration paroled a bunch of people, over half a million immigrants into the country, categorically.
Trump reversed that and said, no, no more parole.
The law says that that is exclusively within his discretion to do.
And the law says specifically, quote, no court shall have jurisdiction to review.
That's how broad the language is.
No court shall have jurisdiction to review.
The parole to which you're referring, that's when we were saying at the time, these are still illegal aliens.
It's just that Kamala or Biden, whoever the hell was operating the pen, granted them temporary protective status, which was a sweeping blanket like...
And it was protection from detention while their immigration case was pending in some manner.
And it's something that can be done for humanitarian or other purposes.
There were no applicable purposes.
What Biden did was lawless.
The law did not authorize that under these circumstances.
But what did the courts say?
Oh, we can't review that decision.
Oh, that's interesting.
And now they're turning on saying, oh, no, no, no.
Now that it's Trump, we're going to flip-flop and completely ignore the plain language of the law.
We were talking about at the time where we said, like, this is basically facilitating the invasion.
And someone in the chat saying, seditious conspiracy.
This is facilitating an invasion by turning the illegals, because they were illegals, into temporary protected status, by simply saying, well, no longer illegal just by stroke of a pen.
And now the courts are basically saying, well, that's a one-way door.
You can grant them all TPS.
But you can't eliminate it at a stroke of a pen on all of them.
You've got to go case by case to revoke it, which makes it...
Even though you're supposed to go case by case initially, right?
So Biden was supposed to go case by case, did not, just granted mass parole.
And so Trump can clearly, by law, reverse that categorically.
And they're saying, no, no, no, no, no.
Now you have to go through an individualized assessment.
Biden never did.
But you do.
And we didn't have jurisdiction to review the fact that Biden's mass parole was illegal from day one.
The law only required specific findings of humanitarian purposes.
They never did that.
But the court said, no, we can't get involved because the law says there's no jurisdiction to review.
And then they turn around and say, oh, we're going to pretend there is jurisdiction now.
It's pure fraud by the courts.
The courts are just making things up as they go along.
This is the most egregious abuse of power.
By Article III in America's legal history.
So there's been plenty of examples of it, but not at this scale, not at this scope, not at this self-evident manifest manner.
And this is all because Roberts and the Supreme Court let this all happen when they made their ridiculous ruling a month ago or so.
By the way, that class certification that had not been certified, the district court just now dismissed that entire claim.
And yet the Supreme Court has yet to take remedial action.
And what they did is they sent a message that said, hey, federal judicial branch, let's be the coup against the election.
We don't like what happened.
Let's usurp our power to protect our professional class brethren in the bureaucratic administrative state and the objectives and prerogatives of the Bill Gates and George Soros of the world to effectively have open borders.
To basically block Trump from doing his presidential duties and enforcing what the American people chose him to do, which was deportations of criminals.
Mass deportation is now popular in the country.
First time ever that has been the case.
That you've had people say, yeah, I want everybody deported.
Everybody.
Majority of the country, I want everybody out.
I mean, that's how broad and deep the commitment is.
And what you have is the judicial branch causing obstacle after obstacle after obstacle.
In a manner that the Constitution never authorized, never approved them to do.
So you have Roberts reaffirming it in his public statements this week, and he's making these statements while Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson in back-to-back public appearances greenlit this.
They said, let's have a judicial insurrection against President Trump.
That's the simplified, streamlined version of what they went out and preached to lefty lawyers over the past week.
By the way, that was bad behavior by Justice Sotomayor.
Bad behavior by Justice Jackson.
What does that mean?
It's impeachable conduct that they've engaged in.
Now, what do you have Speaker Johnson doing when he's not busy whoring for some war someplace?
He's saying he's not going to allow any impeachments to go forward in the House of Representatives.
So, I mean, that's what you have with a completely toothless, feckless, useless Speaker of the House that Trump cut a deal with because he thought he had no other choice but to cut a deal with.
But Trump's deference in these kind of places and spaces has caused him problems and blowback.
Just like having Kellogg try to negotiate with Ukraine.
That was idiotic.
Just like deferring to Lindsey Graham on things.
That's idiotic.
These are things that are never going to serve his interests.
They're never going to protect him.
But where we're at now is, since the House is not going to take meaningful action beyond some legislative restrictions on jurisdiction.
It's going to be either up to Roberts to fix it or Trump to ignore them.
That's where we're heading.
We're heading towards that direct confrontation by fall, unless the Supreme Court steps in and cleans this nonsense up because the House of Representatives is as toothless as they've ever been.
Can you imagine if there was an impeachment of one of the three or all three liberal judges on the bench?
Well, imagine how ordinary Republicans in the Trump base are going to react.
When they see the House take no action against these rogue judges, and if Democrats win back the House, they immediately impeach President Trump for a third time.
They're going to say, what useless, feckless losers you are.
The biggest hurdle to Republicans building a populist majority in the House and the Senate is the Republican Party.
It's their hierarchy, their donors, their political class consultants, and the people who seek office.
Like Tom Tillis this past week was trying to pretend he did nothing wrong in blocking Ed Martin from being the D.C. U.S. attorney.
He was out there trying to tweet all this.
He's back to, I'm pretend MAGA.
I'm pretend MAGA.
Buy it, everybody.
Tom Tillis is a big fat fraud.
He always has been.
Hopefully somebody serious challenges him.
It's like Bill Cassidy.
How is Cassidy even still a senator in Louisiana?
This is a man who voted for Trump's impeachment.
How in the world does a Republican populist state like Louisiana, plus 20 Republican states, have such a fraud, such a pharma whore representing the sat state?
That there should be a major concentrated effort of MAGA to field real populist effective challengers to Tom Tillis in North Carolina, Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, and Cassidy in Louisiana.
Ignore whatever Trump is saying or doing on those races.
It's irrelevant.
He's trying to negotiate to get stuff through the House or through the Senate.
If MAG is serious, that's the next step.
They need to show they can...
And don't waste your time trying to primary Susan Collins in Maine.
Maine is a liberal Democratic state at this point.
That's just a waste of...
That's just giving the state a Democratic head.
North Carolina is a swing state, but very winnable for a populist Republican candidate.
Trump has won it now three times in a row.
And Louisiana and South Carolina are overwhelmingly Trump populist states.
You can challenge in those primaries without thinking you're going to elect a Democrat because there ain't no Democrat when in either state, not in the current state of the Democratic Party.
So the hurdle still is, the hurdle Trump faces in general is that there's a populist MAGA majority in the nation, but it's nowhere near represented on the Hill.
That you maybe have half of the Republican Congress that's Trumpish.
And maybe one out of five Republican senators are Trumpish.
The rest are anti-Trump or never Trump at heart.
And they just do various jobs of disguising it and hiding it, depending on the circumstance.
And so the lack of congressional support, like they're not putting the doge cuts into law, which is further continuing the court's abilities to object, to obstruct doge, all of those things means Trump's going to have to take more unilateral action in all likelihood.
Unless SCOTUS steps in and cleans up the mess that they created.
Biden granted, from what I can tell, TPS status to 1.2 million illegals or immigrants.
And they were illegals.
By the way, their legal status didn't change.
They were still here illegally.
They just weren't paroled.
They were paroled from detention.
They weren't paroled from removal.
They weren't made legal.
They were simply said, you won't be detained.
Pending your immigration adjudication.
The TPS, Temporary Protective Status, it lasts for a certain period of time, 6 months to 18 months.
It's predicated on a risk of...
It's predicated on not being detained while you're here seeking asylum, correct?
Usually it's people that have a very legitimate asylum claim that it doesn't make sense to detain but to release on humanitarian purposes pending a hearing on their asylum.
Okay.
That typically is what it's for.
But how do you reconcile that?
I mean, somebody here is either not telling the truth or being sneaky because you have Biden granting TPS, which is their asylum seekers.
And then you got Adam Kinzinger saying Ohio needed the Haitian immigrants who were granted TPS because big companies needed labor.
So are they asylum seekers or are they cheap labor?
Or is it what I think it is, which is claiming their asylum seekers so you can exploit them for slave labor by bringing...
Yeah, it's all of the above.
Okay, so the courts are saying that you can grant sweeping protective status, but you have to remove it, eliminate it one by one.
What happens at the end of whatever the timeframe is for the TPS?
At that point, can they be deported?
Oh, if you go case by case, then you can deport them.
They're saying it's okay to illegally import 20 million plus people.
But in order to remove them, you have to go case by case, knowing that administratively, that would gum it up so much that you're going to have very little effect deporting most of the people there.
So it's simply a judicial coup.
A judicial insurrection against their constitution and the election of 2024.
That's all it is.
Where does it stand in the course now?
SCOTUS has yet to adjudicate on...
SCOTUS has multiple hearings or multiple emergency stay motions brought to them on this precise question.
Okay.
And the, I mean, the law, like you said, is crystal clear.
It says none of these courts have jurisdiction.
And for those that don't remember, Congress has complete control over whether any court other than the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over anything.
The Constitution did not create federal district courts.
The Constitution did not create federal courts of appeals.
The Constitution did not create a tax court.
It did not create a federal court of claims or any of the others.
The Congress created those courts.
The Constitution authorized them to create them, so-called inferior courts.
But it's entirely their creations of Congress.
They only have the power Congress gives them.
And they don't have any of the power Congress specifically denies them.
And yet, they're just ignoring that.
And this is the problem.
I always say, what happens when it's the judge violating the law?
Who do you go to for relief?
Unless you have the executive branch come in and arrest them, or the legislative branch impeach them, there's no remedy when the courts violate the law.
And that's what's happening now, outside of the executive branch just refusing to obey it, or the legislative branch impeaching them.
I mean, here, legislative reform is great.
But the courts, and I'm all in favor of stripping them of jurisdiction in many of these other cases, but the problem is they're not recognizing when they're stripped of jurisdiction right now.
So the legislative reform won't even fix the problem.
So at this point, it's going to take either SCOTUS fixing it themselves or Trump fixing it for them by telling them, hmm, I mean, he's getting to the point where he's got no choice.
The courts are showing just how badly a trophy our system of government is.
It's no longer a balance of powers when one power has all the power.
And that's what's happening here.
And so we'll see, like, that case is before, right now, the Supreme Court.
They have another emergency stay application on the Doge case pending before the Supreme Court.
Before we get to the Doge case, I don't know if it's a good time because we're talking about the immigration, but the poster child of the week for the Trump abuse of deportations is the woman, X-I-N-E-M-A Christobal, who is a 19-year-old woman.
Who apparently has been in the country illegally since the age of four because her father came illegally and never remedied that illegal situation.
I don't know how you remedy being here illegally once you're here illegally, above and beyond leaving and then trying to apply lawfully.
She gets pulled over for what people are saying was a traffic violation, a turn signal.
Turns out she's driving without a license.
She claims to have an international driving license, which I don't know what that means, where she would have gotten them.
You can have those, but you need them recognized by the local government.
There are such things as international driver's licenses of different kinds, but you have to have them recognized before they're actually effective.
Well, she didn't even have it on her in the first place, or a picture of it, and I do wonder how someone gets an- My guess is she didn't have one.
Yeah, well, where is she going to get an international driving license if she's not getting an American driver's license or a state driver's license?
There is a way, I forget, because years ago when I was going over to Europe, I was advised that you can get an international driver's license to be able to drive in Europe, but I don't remember all the details.
I didn't have to go to the European authority for that.
It was some other organization, but I don't remember anything else.
You get it at AAA in the United States.
It's literally a piece of paper.
It looks like an old passport book from 50 years ago.
It's just like three pieces of paper.
They stamp it.
They just check your license.
To get them from Europe or anywhere else, it's similar.
You just go to a local authority that's authorized to give those, and they stamp it.
They're only valid for six months.
The international driver license.
Six months to a year, depending on some circumstances.
But she's invalid no matter what.
I'm just going to tell everybody, Encryptus, I just DM'd you.
Make sure to bring up your face so that people know it's not a random voice coming in.
It's Encryptus Agent Guru underscore IO on Twitter.
So bottom line, she didn't have that license on her.
Questionable whether or not she even had a license.
Questionable whether or not she had insurance, because if you're driving without a license, you probably don't have insurance either.
And she gets brought to a police station where she divulges that she's not here legally.
And now the question is whether or not she's going to get deported.
And it's one of those ugly situations.
But, you know, Andrew Branca, law of self-defense, you know, he makes an incontrovertibly valid point, which is, Homan didn't say he's going to, he said he's going to go after the criminal illegals.
But he did say if we catch up innocent as in not violent TDA gang members, but illegals who are here illegally, that is a crime, and you will get potentially deported.
So it's an ugly situation, but the law is the law, and we'll see where that one goes in terms of a court.
I presume some court's going to come in and say, no, no, no, this is just too unfair.
She's 19, she's been here for 15 years.
I could imagine a lawyer making an argument that she now has...
Connection to the land.
We're going to send her to Mexico.
Like I say, Mexico's her home, which has been here since the age of four.
But then others are going to say, blame her father.
She should blame her father.
And it's not America's obligation to do this with everybody here now.
She missed DACA.
And that's it.
Do you have any other insight, Robert, to add on that particular unfortunate?
The question is whether if you're here for an extended time period, but lawlessly.
But voluntarily, does that constitute a substantial connection with the country, sufficient to be considered part of the people under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
And so that has, to my knowledge, never been adjudicated before.
Because she will say, I've been here for 15 years.
It was not my fault.
I became an adult, but then there's no way for me to remedy that act of my father.
I'm an innocent victim.
And so maybe they grant her, I don't know, now sufficient connection because what country is she going to go to that's going to be called her home?
Her father, on the other hand, goes back and I guess it's...
The problem is if you green light those people staying, it encourages everyone else to do it.
Bring your kids.
Bring your three-year-old because now you'll never be deported.
And people are saying 15 years illegally and it's the act of the father.
At some point, she turns 18, she decides to stay.
Understandable, but at that point she knows what she's doing and violating the law.
And she's an adult at that point.
She just chose to continue to violate the law.
Well, that was the unfortunate one of the week, which is one of the ugly situations where you wouldn't want to have to be the decision maker, but the law is the law, and like the courts say, sympathy doesn't guide the court, unless you're trying to facilitate, not an insurrection, but a, well, call it an insurrection, overriding the duly elected president like they're trying to do with Doge.
Doge has been doing...
Question, Robert.
People are saying Doge is merely identifying the waste in government, but that money's already been allocated, so they're not actually doing anything to cut the funding.
They're just identifying...
No, they often are.
So they recommend, they themselves don't do it, but they themselves recommend canceling funding.
And a bunch of contracts have been canceled.
Could they get to a trillion dollars?
Maybe not.
Because of all the judicial obstacles, but billions and billions and billions of dollars have already been saved and other areas of potential savings have already been identified.
So they've already more than achieved what the minimal cost it was to employ them.
But the people who have benefited from all that fraud, all that waste, all that abuse.
They include the judicial branch.
Their pals and allies are often the recipients of this.
They have a direct material economic conflict of interest, many of these judges, in the rulings that they're issuing.
More bad behavior that should be subject to impeachment if we didn't have a complete sissy as the Speaker of the House.
And just throughout the House.
I mean, the majority of House members are losers.
Majority of Republican senators are losers.
That's just reality.
There's a reason why Trump got in was because the Republican establishment provides no voice for ordinary people, much like the conservatives in Australia and in the UK and in Canada are kind of similarly situated.
And what's happened there is if people are going to get stuck with one form of liberal, they might as well get the actual liberal.
And that's what a lot of these so-called conservatives are.
They claim to be the better bureaucrat, the better technocrat.
But share the same Overton window as the left.
And that is not a viable path forward politically or policy-wise.
So, I mean, Doge wants to go into Social Security to clean up Social Security.
This included the fact that a bunch of people that were clearly dead, like 160 years old, were getting Social Security payments.
And by the way, if I may, just to interrupt you there just for a second, because at one point people were saying, oh, Elon's an idiot.
He doesn't understand how to read the default entry in...
Whatever the name of the software that they're using is, which is some antiquated software.
And so that's why you see a bunch of people who are registered at the default date of whatever, 1869.
That explanation doesn't make sense when some of these ages are not based on the default year, but are actually varying ages of impossibility as at current science.
So it's clearly fraud.
It's not Elon Musk not knowing how to read the default entry and whatever the software is that they use accounting books at the government.
It's fraud, objective egregious.
And they took to the courts to try to enjoin.
And they got a prohibition enjoining Elon Musk from accessing the individual's data.
It's so absurd for a number of reasons.
But they got a court to enjoin Trump allowing Doge access to citizen information.
Bearing in mind...
Elon Musk already has, you use Twitter, you got the information.
The government has your information already.
There have been more government leaks that it would be leaking to other people other than special government employees, SGEs, I think.
How the hell does a court say to the president, your special government employee, whoever's on contract for 18, you know, what is it, six months, does not have access to the data that you're providing them in their capacity as special government employee?
Yeah, well, I mean, the first part is that they magically find standing.
I always said standing is a completely bogus doctrine made up by courts to play Pontius Pilate when they want to evade a case, but that they easily discard it and dispatch it when they want to get involved.
And that shows that it's not an intellectual legal doctrine worth respect.
Because here you have the people suing are a couple of unions and the AARP.
Nobody who's actually been injured or their records accessed is suing.
So it's like there's not even a cognizable injury here.
So, I mean, the legitimate part of standing is to not call it standing.
It's to say whether you stated a claim, and in order to state a claim, you have to have injury caused by the other side's conduct.
Here, the people suing have no injury.
They've suffered no injury.
So it's like, what in the world?
And then the entire legal predicate of the claim is that they acknowledge, federal law provides, that federal employees can access any information that the government has.
It doesn't matter if it's information that might otherwise...
Be private or confidential.
It's not private and confidential when the government has it, as it applies to other government employees.
The privacy protection is the where and when the government can share that information with the public.
That's where some privacy rights can attach, like the Privacy Act of 1974, along with the Freedom of Information Act sort of paralleled together, providing who can have access to government information concerning you.
But the government always can.
And the only requirement is that the government simply need it.
That's it.
Government officials need it for some reason.
The courts are saying, you don't need this.
Can you imagine overriding the President of the United States' determination as to what's needed and not for managing fraud, waste, and abuse in the executive branch?
I mean, this is a complete coup.
This is a judicial coup of the President.
And that is a judicial coup against the American election.
It is the real insurrection they pretended January 6th was.
And the lead insurrectionists are federal judges.
It's a judicial insurrection and not a riotous insurrection, if that was never what it was.
But it is wild.
I'm just looking at all of the data breaches at Social Security.
If you're worried about people having your data, bad actors already have it.
It's not like Elon needs it.
Yeah, I mean, we talk about the remedy for the judicial coup, but impeachments, Supreme Court getting involved, Trump simply defying it, and then leaving it to what?
Fighting another impeachment because he's now...
I mean, it's going to be, at this point, given Congress's lackadaisical course of conduct, that is further endangering the Republicans' chance to hold the House, which then in turn would invite another bogus impeachment by the House.
That's not going to get anywhere.
They're never going to have the votes to convict in the Senate.
Never going to have it.
But the issue becomes, if they're not going to make impeachment to remedy this judicial misbehavior, then it does come down to SCOTUS or Trump.
Now, my guess is SCOTUS will curtail a lot of this.
Maybe not all of it, but they'll curtail 75% to 80% because they otherwise can't afford the public and political blowback that Roberts is witnessing now live around the world.
Now, he is so inbubbled that how much he's aware of that, you never know.
But conservative jurists definitely know it.
And by conservatives, I mean...
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
And so it's just Roberts or Barrett capitulating that will lead to these major changes and transformation.
And the question is, how much is Roberts willing to gamble the future of the judicial branch in America on his Trump derangement syndrome?
And the other thing is, what's hurting Roberts is that the courts can't help themselves.
Like, Roberts can't go around saying, oh, we're totally apolitical.
And then Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor go out in public and say, wage war on Trump!
Right?
It makes him look like a joke, which is what he's always been.
But even he understands this is backfiring.
And the only question is, does he rein it in?
Or does he create a real constitutional confrontation?
With the president trying to enforce the laws and respect the American people's will against a rogue judicial branch that has exposed itself and dropped its robes to show how naked they are and how ugly they are.
Kind of be like if Sotomayor dropped her robes tomorrow.
Not a good sign.
So that's what they've done.
And we'll see.
I mean, they're going to have tons of opportunities.
With the Doge case, with all the different immigration cases that are up there, the other governmental power cases.
Now, at least one positive indicator, though this may reflect deference to the military rather than deference to Trump, is at least they allowed the military Hexas ban on trans participation within the military and paying people back to inviting trans troops in, which never made much sense.
And bearing that expense, the military is no place for social experimentation.
They reinstated that in Barrett and...
Roberts both went along with it.
Only the three liberals dissented.
I'm not going to play all of it.
Just a quick second so you can actually hear.
I think it starts maybe closer to here.
Back against that again.
We'll see what happens in the court.
I can.
I'm sorry.
I can.
What if the president wakes up tomorrow and says, I don't want any black people in the military?
Do we have to give deference to him?
No, no, no.
Wait a second.
It's not ridiculous.
Who's this guy right here?
I forget his name.
Who's this guy?
That Scott Jennings is going to probably run for the Senate in Kentucky.
His answer was weak because, like I always say, calling something ridiculous is not an answer.
The substantive response, the argument there was, they were saying the courts have to give deference to Trump and his ability to rule the military, and they don't get involved with their opinions.
And then the lady there said, well, what if he just comes in and says we're going to kick out military guys based on race?
And Jennings says, ridiculous, ridiculous, but doesn't really give the right answer, which is, it's a diagnosable, diagnosed or diagnosable mental condition.
And at the very least, depending on the level of the transient nature of the transness, it might require medical intervention on a daily basis.
Dilating a neo-vagina, if that's what you've got.
Medicate, whatever.
Trans is a medical condition.
Your race is an inherited aspect.
Trans is not a protected class.
Black Americans are.
Like, if I had been on that panel, I would have responded, it is an insult to black Americans to say their civil rights are indistinguishable from people with a mental illness.
Right?
I mean, it's that simple.
That trans protection is not recognized by the Constitution, nor is it ever been.
But then they're going to say, amend.
Do what we did in Canada.
Add gender expression as a protected class.
Well, and the left is, but they didn't get that passed through Congress, and they haven't, and they won't.
There isn't a majority to extend trans treatment in Congress, and it's because they failed legislatively that they want the courts to usurp, to override the public's veto, if you will, on treating trans as indistinguishable from race or gender.
But here again, you can discriminate on gender in the military.
For all kinds of assignments, all kinds of conditions, all kinds of circumstances.
So the military is when the condition relates to military service, as trans does.
Then you can discriminate on that basis as needed within the military.
The reporter there went on to then read the definition of discrimination as if to suggest any form of discrimination is somehow illegal.
Like, discriminating not letting the blind guy drive the bus is not unlawful discrimination, but it is, by the definition of it, discrimination.
That was the whole issue.
Discrimination for public accommodation is different than discrimination for fitness for a job.
Pervert does not make you part of the protected class.
And that's what trans really are.
So the Supreme Court came down six to three, but there's no motivating the decision one way or the other.
They just reversed the stay.
They reversed the district court's injunction and said Hexth could go forward with his project.
And that they'll effectively put an end to it, even though the suit will go on and likely have further adjudication down the road.
But they should be issuing these stays in all of these cases.
And what it is, is you have institutional conservatives like Barrett, like Kavanaugh, like Roberts, who will be eagerly deferential to the military in ways they won't be to other aspects of Trump's administration.
And that's where the issue is going to lie on a go-forward basis.
Now, you see an example of this in the task force case.
And I wonder if Pam Bondi has yet to pick up the docket.
Of what is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the U.S. government is the defendant.
Because the court came back with, we previously discussed this, the court after oral argument ordered additional supplemental briefing.
So I was like, this is a great opportunity for Bondi to finally check the Supreme Court docket and not continue to defend an Obama administration policy that is directly contra everything Trump stands for.
Because the Obama task force is about, let's have an administrative state, a bureaucratic branch of government, completely immune from elected officials, which it completely eviscerates the people's control over the executive branch, which is intended by how Article 2 is structured.
And so there's a direct violation.
This is why all principal officers, according to the Constitution, have to be approved by the two political branches, political meaning elected branches of government, and that is the President of the United States and the Senate.
And if you're a principal officer, that's what has to happen.
And if you're an inferior officer, you have to be subject to the complete reversal powers of the principal officer.
What Obama's task force did is allow a group of unelected people, appointed by unelected people, to completely dictate healthcare policy for the entire nation.
So it's an incredible power that Trump campaigned against in 2016.
All the way back.
And here it is.
It's finally going to get exposed as unconstitutional, this whole task force.
And Pam Bondi is too busy checking her Fox News TV schedule to figure out what's on the Supreme Court docket.
Is she still defending Obama-era policy?
This is an embarrassment.
This is preposterous how this is still happening.
I was trying to figure out how it was that they were still defending this Obama-era policy.
I don't know what KFF org is, but an analysis which said...
Even though President Trump has supported the ACA repeal in his first term, his administration is defending the lawsuit.
On its face, it may seem unexpected, but the outcome of the case could give the administration broader latitude to shape the recommendations issued by the entities that were originally established with the goal of providing independent analysis and review.
Is there any...
That explanation is...
What they're saying is that because the Secretary of Health and Human Services can convene the task force...
That convene means he can actually appoint them and fire them, even though that's never how it's operated, directly contrary to the plain language of the law, and doesn't make sense.
If they wanted him to have appointment power, they would have given him appointment power.
They didn't give it to him.
I guarantee you the moment Kennedy were to exercise that power, he'll be sued and the court will enjoin him right away, saying, oh, no, this has to be independent according to congressional law.
So this is a sign that here's what's happening.
I even tweeted this earlier this week and it relates to some other debates we'll get into.
Maha debate.
Trump foreign policy, all the rest.
Ninety percent of the lawyers working at the Justice Department are liberal Democrats who hate Trump or never Trump Republicans.
And they haven't come close, close to fixing that problem.
The only person who's taken any meaningful action has been Harmeet Dillon at the Civil Rights Division.
She understood how to go in there and purge them of their bad faith actors.
And she's done an excellent, exceptional job.
She's also done a very good job.
of staying public.
Bongino, I understand, wants to try to do that, but I'll be frank, he's done a poor job of it.
Piss poor job of it.
The same is true of Kash Patel, who has done a very poor job of his public representation statement.
And Pam Bondi's been so obsessed with press schedule, she's not doing policy.
So I'll give two examples.
The Robin Gritz case and the Brooke Jackson case.
So in the Robin Gritz case, this is an FBI agent who was wrongfully fired by corrupt actors, For harassment and gender discrimination purposes, who is one of our best law enforcement agents in the nation.
We brought suit on her behalf.
The same lawyers are running the case as if nothing has changed in the administration.
With the same positions on evidence and rulings and settlement and all the rest.
So it's like, you wouldn't know there had been any.
Change in the administration if you were in part of that case.
Because the judicial deep state, as far as that case is concerned, hasn't been changed.
And so it's the same actors who were...
But no, this is the...
I mean, the Department of Justice lawyer working the case.
That is someone that is subject to Trump's control and Bondi's control.
But they have clearly been given no instruction.
Not only have they not been substituted out, they've clearly been given no instructions.
Oh, on this case, we want to change positions.
But on that point...
They haven't been removed, and they are probably still ideologically disaligned with the- Oh, absolutely.
I mean, you can tell.
Brooke Jackson case, same way.
I mean, they just filed in the Brooke Jackson case that the U.S. government's position under Trump is identical to the U.S. government's position under Biden, even though they know that's a lie.
It doesn't have an outright lie.
They're just lying to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
And let me pause it there.
These are the attorneys in the file, not the administration.
And the complaint here, so that everybody understands, and I said clip it and share it, the complaint here is that the administration is not getting involved to either give directions to these TDS-afflicted attorneys who are still handling the file, or, I don't know, not fire them, replace them, they can appoint a...
Well, absolutely.
You have 90% of the lawyers working...
I mean, Harmeet understood this problem, so she went in right away and said, we're changing policy, and if you're not on board, you can go.
And they recognized it and they left.
So she made clear, everybody's going to be on board or you're out.
And that's what should have happened everywhere.
It's not.
The Robin Gritz case is an example.
Like, clearly they finally, because I think it was high profile enough, got involved in the Ashley Babbitt case.
Reversed the Biden administration policy and have ordered a settlement in that case.
Very good for Ashley Babbitt, good for judicial watch, good for justice in general.
But they're not doing that with any degree of consistency.
They haven't given new instructions to how to handle the DOJ with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Amos Miller case.
It's still sitting in federal court.
There's still a consent decree that's part of the order that the state is using to go after him and harass him continually by the state of Pennsylvania.
What is the pipeline to get this to them?
There has to be a commitment at the top to do it.
So Harmeet understands it.
Pam Bondi does not.
It's not clear to me.
I think Bongino gets it, but I don't know for sure.
Well, I think Bongino does get it, but I get the feeling that he's not the one who has the power to do it.
He has a lot of power, though.
I mean, he's the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
So something should be happening there.
The same is true of...
Now, I get part of it is the Senate and the judicial branch and all the other bureaucratic obstacles.
But one obstacle that Trump has, that's a big one, that is something he can remedy.
Is all the personnel that are in the Justice Department, especially since that who does all the litigation in courts, that those personnel represent the elected will of the people in the Trump policy priorities?
Instead, that has not been consistently communicated.
Those don't remember, Brooke Jackson, the whistleblower, exposed Pfizer, was engaging in fraud in order to see the Pfizer contractually promised President Trump.
By the way, not a therapeutic.
It's right in the contract.
We're not asking for a therapeutic.
We're not asking something that will ameliorate conditions or circumstances.
We're asking for a vaccine that will inoculate.
That was specifically put in the contract.
So the FDA's later changing of the word vaccine doesn't suffice.
And yet, Bill Barr initially hid that information from President Trump in 2020.
Because Brooke Jackson came forward to the government in the fall of 2020, September of 2020.
The government under the Biden administration came in and said, you have to dismiss this case because raising any question about the COVID vaccine is against public health policy, period, of the Biden administration.
Now, this administration doesn't have that policy.
That's clear by Secretary Hegseth, Defense Secretary Hegseth, saying this was always an illegal order to mandate this vaccine, that there's all kinds of issues related to that.
I mean, that led to the interview you did with Ivan on Friday.
So that was a great one.
Absolutely.
And so you see what the background of all that was.
So that's the official position.
It's not.
No questions can be raised about vaccines.
So they're misrepresenting to the government.
So why don't they feel consequence?
Remember the sabotage that set the whole Maryland man case afoot was you had a Biden Democratic liberal U.S. attorney.
Misrepresenting to the court what took place, saying, oh, we deported someone.
We weren't even supposed to deport.
Totally false.
He was ordered to deport.
Oh my goodness, do I feel stupid for having never actually put that together.
Yeah, that's what that was.
So he's got all these saboteurs in his own government.
Some of these saboteurs can be removed or at least tried to be removed.
To flesh it out so that everybody clearly understands what they were relying on as to the administrative error for having deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
The administrative error that the media ran with the entire time, that everyone ran with, say even they admitted it was a mistake, was probably coming from some TDS Biden-appointed.
Oh, it was.
And Stephen Miller confirmed that.
He said the person was a saboteur.
So it's like, how did he get the case in the first place?
I mean, so when I see further evidence, I see it in my own cases, Amos Miller case, the Robin Gritz case.
I mean, the Robin Gritz case, they gave millions to bogus FBI agent claims that were rightfully fired, like Lisa and all the others, Stroke, etc.
Here's someone who was illegitimately fired for purely discriminatory reasons, and there's no resolution.
That case should not be marching forward to trial like it currently is.
It's because they haven't fixed it.
The same as the Brooke Jackson case.
They should have reversed their policy, allow the case to go forward, and say, or at least tell the courts, honestly, that the Trump administration does not have the same position as the Biden administration.
And the same with the immigration cases.
They should at least be monitoring the SCOTUS docket.
I mean, remember, Bay of Bondi got caught defending gun control rules, and then, you know, had a week later say, oh, I'm going to look at this and try to fix it.
You know, there was clearly no plan.
It's becoming evident.
Harvey Dillon had a plan going into the Civil Rights Division.
Pam Bondi had no plan going into the Justice Department beyond, wow, I'll get three hits on Fox News this week.
I mean, that appears to...
And what they all have in common, which, by the way, relates to the sabotage of the Trump-Ukraine peace possibilities, is they're all America First Policy Institute.
And people need to separate this.
Stephen Miller, great.
America First, legal.
America First, legal.
America First Policy Institute was funded by big oil money, originally, out of Texas.
It was Rick Perry's group.
That's where Brooke Rollins comes from.
It comes from the same corrupt Texas political establishment riddled with Bushites that are anti-populist.
Governor Abbott got caught trying to do a deal to help build this big Islamic community in the middle of Texas, and there was so much political blowback that today he had to announce, oh, okay, it's actually not going forward.
So apparently the donations...
Didn't last long enough to withstand all that political scrutiny.
But that's how we're in this position.
The America First Policy Institute put Brooke Rollins.
That's where Brooke Rollins was.
That's where Pam Bondi was.
That aligned with Susie Wiles, who was a huge corporate lobbyist.
I mean, there's talk now.
It wouldn't surprise me.
If Bondi was part of Susie Wiles' lobbying group, guess who one of their biggest clients was?
Pfizer.
It is a huge problem.
If you have, as the head of the Justice Department, in a case concerning massive Pfizer fraud, someone who has a direct conflict of interest, and that conflict of interest is at the Chief of Staff, with Susie Wiles, and at the Justice Department, apparently, that part hasn't been confirmed as the Bondi yet, but it wouldn't surprise me because that's what America First Policy Institute was.
It was not America first at all.
It was fake.
It was a fake group set up to infiltrate the Trump administration and undermine the ability to deliver on populist promises.
And guess who else was there?
Who was the military advisor?
One, General Dipshit Kellogg.
This is the dimwit who I really had hoped Trump brought him on just as a posturing device, as a negotiating tool.
I'm still hopeful if that's the case.
Now it's more like prayerful if that's the case.
But, you know, Kellogg is an idiot.
Kellogg is a war whore military industrial complex guy.
That's all he's ever been his whole life.
Again, the America First policy was a fake name designed to infiltrate the Trump administration, bringing in lobbyists representing the military industrial complex, representing the pharmaceutical industrial complex, representing the big food agricultural context.
That's why Brooke Rollins has basically done almost nothing.
She's done one good thing for one small farmer in South Dakota.
Good.
But nowhere near the scale and scope that needs to happen.
Initially, it took Robert Kennedy intervening for her to get off her stupid chicken vaccine, logic that was going to cause egg prices to keep skyrocketing from the Biden administration.
Kennedy helped on that topic, got her corrected, she fixed it, egg prices come way down, very critical for Trump's policies.
But generally, if you find people connected to the America First Policy Institute, that's where you'll find the seditious saboteurs, those who will undermine or redirect the Trump policies.
Away from what the American people elected him to do.
And sadly, Bondi continues to fail more often than succeed in this arena.
Now, hopefully we'll see more, but you have Kash Patel, who's given a softball question by Senator Kennedy, asking when Senator Kennedy from Louisiana.
So his name is John Kennedy, no relation to the Kennedy family.
There's a lot of Catholics in Louisiana.
It's particularly southwest Louisiana because they're old Acadians from up in Canada.
They got kicked out of part of France, and then they got kicked out of part of Canada.
They're great old school people.
The kind of people that you can find talking with a heavy accent, doing the, what was it, Swamp Show or Swamp Gate?
I love watching that show.
Was it Swamp Men, I think?
Yeah, something like that.
Go out and catch gators, real live gators.
I know one thing.
If I'm coming down, next time I see you, I'm definitely not going on the hike, going on any bike ride.
You got like snakes out there, gators out there, bobcats out there.
I need to go gator hunting.
It's Australia of continental North America.
But I got to go gator hunting.
Hold on.
Let me just kick myself in the butt again.
For not appreciating that when they said we asked, it was an administrative error.
And the counter argument to that was, you can deport him wherever you want after the president says so.
And the actual order, by the way, only referenced a different country than El Salvador.
Yeah, well, that was what I thought was the administrative error.
Because of his, it was the risk to go back to El Salvador because he was a gang member and the rival gangs wanted to get him.
But they actually identified a different country because his family had moved.
I think it was Guatemala.
The actual order doesn't even say he can't go to El Salvador.
So they misrepresented at multiple levels.
So you've got all these saboteurs, which is what happened throughout Trump's first term.
Massive sabotage everywhere.
And they at least try to manage it at some level by getting rid of these persons.
And there's all kinds of creative ways to do it.
I'll give another example.
As people raise this week, it was fascinating that some people finally discovered something we've been talking about now for years, which is the corruption of the Southern District of New York.
And in particular, one of the most corrupt, outspoken people there, or participants there.
Is James Comey's daughter, who magically keeps showing up on consequential political cases.
And she was on the Epstein case.
And people are discovering, oh, look, she's also now on the P. Diddy case.
And some people are like, how is she still U.S. attorney?
Because they've made no efforts to systematically correct any of this.
Only Dillon has done anything.
The rest have done nothing that I can tell.
Now, I think Fontino is trying to fix aspects of the FBI.
But here was a problem of...
Bongino and Kash Patel from the get-go.
They were both naive idealists.
Now, there's two problems.
One, Patel overpromised when he was out of power.
So he would often be very aggressive in his language and rhetoric about how people should go to jail, this should happen.
So it led to expectations.
And now those expectations are not being met.
People are confused and frustrated, etc.
I've known Kash for a while.
He was sort of popularized by Amanda Milius' film, Plot Against the President.
I think he's a great guy.
I think he's very smart, very talented, very skilled, very gifted, right principles, all of that.
However, he's an institutionalist at heart.
And he believed in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
He believed in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
He thought these were just anomalies of a small group of people.
Not the entire freaking agency, which is what it is.
And let's flesh that out as well because everybody says, look, the field agents are good.
At the lower levels, they're all good and they want to do their jobs.
It's a few select higher-ups that pollute, taint the entire system.
The reality might be that it might be the field agents or the lower levels who themselves might suffer from TDS in a large degree.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, they hate Trump.
I guarantee they hate Trump.
I mean, I'll give you an example.
Probably at least half of the members of the House and the Senate, when they went in and voted, voted against Trump.
But you now take that number about 85%, 90%, 95%.
How do we know?
Well, the ones that live in D.C., we know how they voted, because they voted 97% against Trump.
So, I mean, this is the problem, is you have a hostile capital, a hostile power structure, but at least some of it can be ameliorated by having the right people give you the right information, the right decisions, etc.
And that's not what's happened.
I mean, for example, when Kennedy asked, what happened to Epstein, when am I going to get the docs?
And it's, oh, don't worry, we're kind of reviewing it.
Okay, I get it.
Here's what I don't understand.
You don't have to fail to disclose anything while waiting to disclose everything.
Why not have rolling disclosures as you go forward?
And they can't answer that question.
Well, look, this is the argument.
They're coming out now and saying, We're reviewing thousands and whatever, thousands of videos of CSAN, child sexual abuse material.
Almost all the videos you can't disclose anyway.
So that makes no sense.
Because they involve victims, and the victims have privacy rights.
So that is a complete red herring.
That is a red herring.
Here's the probable reality.
The Epstein docs probably have some Republican donors on that list.
So that's probably a little bit of it.
But my guess is the big part of it is that it involves...
U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies.
Israel does not want to be exposed being neck deep with Epstein.
It's undisputed there were ties between Mossad and Israeli government officials and Epstein.
There's no dispute about that.
They don't want that to go public.
They don't want, is what I suspect.
I suspect the people that put a halt, there's two groups.
There's the people that are deeply connected on the Democratic side and the bowels of the FBI who are running road circles.
Around Bongino, around Patel, around Bondi.
That's half the equation.
The other half, I increasingly suspect.
When I saw this excuse being the excuse, I was like, that makes no sense.
There's no scenario in which you're going to be disclosing any of those videos to the world.
It's not just that.
In my view, there's no scenario in which they didn't already know that those videos have existed for a decade plus.
And it's inconceivable that they would then say, well, now we've got to look through the videos.
No one reviewed them before.
How did you bring the prosecution?
How are you planning on presenting the evidence?
Let me steal another flip side to this.
If there are people in those videos who are not Jeffrey Epstein and they might be bringing prosecutions, would that tie their hands in terms of what they're able to disclose?
That's easy.
Law enforcement exception, you don't disclose.
That's no reason not to disclose the things you can disclose.
That's what makes no sense whatsoever.
So this is a cover story.
It smells like a cover story.
And my guess is it's Israel.
Is my guess.
Maybe MI6.
It may be MI6 and maybe the UK.
But why do I say that?
Well, you go all the way back.
Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell.
Maxwell was also part of this honey trap operation.
He was connected to the KGB, the MI6, Mossad, CIA, everybody.
If you were an intelligence agency anywhere in the world, he was your guy at multiple levels.
So when Ghislaine Maxwell showed up and it connected to Epstein, I was like, well, now you know exactly what the story is.
That basically Epstein got himself rich in power and got to explore his eugenics ideas and got to explore his personal predilections and perversions as long as he was creating a massive blackmail operation, honeypot operation, entrapment and extortionment operation for a deep state apparatus.
And a key part of that, I mean, as Alan Dershowitz admitted...
He was introduced to Epstein by who?
Now this will get all the anti-Jew people going crazy.
So take that, throw that stuff out of it.
It's just a government protecting government.
But by Lady Rothschild.
The Rothschild family had deep involvement in the foundation of Israel.
A large reason was their lobbying of the UK and other places why Israel exists.
And I'm not one of those people that's obsessed with all the rest.
You can be critical of George Soros without being anti-Jewish, because nobody was more anti-Jewish than George Soros.
That's the people whose property he helped take when he was working with the Nazis during World War II.
But just like you can be critical of the famous banking family, the Rothschild.
By the way, their wine, they have great taste.
Lafitte Rothschild, still the best wine.
So you can always draw a boundary.
But everything about this feels like a cover-up.
It's like why they never really researched and reviewed and to this day have not disclosed the Seth Rich files.
What I was told by a reason, I'd say reasonably reliable, it's not like Laura Loomer, I'd have to say, even though she's utterly unreliable, maybe she's right this time.
This source was more in between the two categories, but said that the people that helped get the files to Assange, the emails that disclosed what happened to DNC, that the...
That Seth Rich and the intermediary was the Israeli government.
That's what I was told, is that Israel wanted Trump at that time to win, and even though Hillary had been very close with Israel.
So I don't know whether that's the case or not, but it's striking to me that we're getting weird delays on the Epstein docs.
We're getting weird delays on the Seth Rich docs that are raising real quick as to who is pulling the strings inside.
Or it could just be that the saboteurs are still in charge of those specific decisions.
Because so many people in the Justice Department are Trump haters.
And that's who Pam Bondi has failed to purge.
And I don't know whether part of it is like the Kash Patel, Dan Bongino idealistic version.
And I have great respect for both men.
So I hope nobody misinterprets that.
And I'm not being hypercritical.
I'm pointing out that if you think most of the FBI agents are good, and there were just a few bad actors at the top, or that most of the prosecutors at the Justice Department are good, like Sessions did.
And this is a few bad actors at the top.
Then you don't understand the sabotage goes top to bottom.
And some of the worst saboteurs are at the bottom because they're making the day-to-day decisions that actually implement policy.
And that is a continuous cause for concern.
Now, we're a place where it's been misplaced is the Maha debate.
Well, let me answer the question that's a dapper, Dave.
What I found funny is that I knew what Barnes was saying was going to set the chat on fire on Rumble, and I went to check the chat, and yes, the chat is on fire on Rumble.
Yeah, because the people that want to blame Jews for everything will obsess over this.
And I always said there's a difference between idiotic Candace Owens-level Stalin's a secret Jew and...
Pointing out that Israel's not always our ally.
Pointing out that the Rothschilds can have done a lot of bad stuff over their history.
I mean, where did Macron come from?
The Rothschild Bank in France.
I mean, this little Napoleon wannabe.
So the Rothschild family has not been a positive influence on world history.
Just had.
I'm sorry.
When Dershowitz told me that, I was like, oh, now I know Epstein.
How deep?
Clearly, what were they trying to do?
Right?
Someone Dershowitz greatly respects.
Lady Rothschild, a very deeply strong Israeli advocate.
I would argue the most eloquent pro-Israel advocate on almost any policy is Dershowitz.
I have found him to be constantly persuasive and often change my mind on things than where they were.
But when he disclosed, I think it was in our discussion, was the first time I'd ever heard that.
That the reason why he trusted and thought Epstein was okay was Lady Rothschild introduced him.
And I was like, buddy, that should have been your first warning sign.
What they were trying to do, Is get blackmail material on Gershowitz.
Because that's what he was doing on everybody.
His goal, now, you're going to have a lot of people on the Epstein list that have no ties to Epstein.
Epstein gave free flights to all kinds of people.
Epstein was always trying to entrap, come to my dinner.
Hey, I'll do this for you.
I'll do that for you.
He tried to infiltrate Trump world.
He was at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump just smelled a rat and kicked him out.
The other people, like Robert Kennedy, I think, went on a plane with him once.
Going to Colorado.
He's like, the guy's a weird guy.
I don't want to deal with him in the future.
So there's going to be all kinds of innocent people that they unsuccessfully tried to entrap and ensnare.
But the longer they don't disclose the Epstein docs, the greater their criticism and skepticism will be of the Trump base of Pam Bondi.
She's got an easy way to fix this.
Fix it.
But another thing she's got to do is she's got to clean house at the Justice Department and have the right people to sign cases.
And for the love of God, at least figure out what's on the Supreme Court docket and quit taking anti-Trump positions before the Supreme Court.
Barnes, you're a Zionist.
I wanted to bring that one up.
I'm going to get to the chat in a second.
I wanted to say one more thing.
Oh, the CIA documents.
There was the one that was the document that showed Israel's involvement that they were trying to redact Israel from the document.
I forget which one it was.
And the only question was not that it showed that Israel was involved in Yeah, Yeah, I mean, Israel had nothing to do with either one.
No, I know, but there was one document that they had redacted Israel as a country, or they wanted to, or they found out that they had in a prior document.
You know, longstanding.
well, what it was is there was a protocol to redact anything that involved foreign government, period.
That was the protocol.
And so that's why stuff concerning Mexico wasn't...
And the CIA used it to say anything we did you need to hide because that will embarrass a foreign government.
What I love is anybody who thinks that the government of Israel would be beyond what other governments of the world do is an idiot.
And so whether or not it's Israel or Israel and England or Israel, England, Australia or England, Israel, Australia or high-ranking US people that are involved in blackmail.
To me, it struck that one of the, especially the connection with the rich stuff, given what I'd heard, I was just like, why are we not, we got full disclosure of the Kennedy assassination documents, Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy, and full disclosure of the Martin Luther King assassination, or a lot of the disclosure, and they're doing it on a rolling basis.
So maybe they should have put Gabbard in charge of the Epstein-Doc disclosure, because then we would already have it, because she doesn't care where things fall out.
But it's an ongoing concern.
Now, where people are misplacing that concern, because they listen to people like Laura Loomer, who's utterly unreliable, utterly untrustworthy, nothing she says you can take at face value at all, is the Maha debate.
Now, part of that is a legitimate concern amongst a certain group of people within the Make America Healthy Again movement.
And some of it is illegitimate concern.
Fueled by misrepresentations by bad faith actors within that space.
Before we do that, I want to read through some chats because we haven't done this yet tonight.
And we're going to get to some of the local chat.
Look at my pensive face over there.
Look at Barnes.
He's excited.
It says, S. SwagChamp, taking over Palestine for long-term U.S. stability in the region.
Let's all Americans invest in it.
Bring post-racial society to the region.
We have enough Muslims anyway.
And see the NSA ATF in use.
Pseudo-Biden says, Doge isn't even denting the federal budget.
You won't reduce the budget without massive politically impossible cuts for Congress to make.
Debt and deficit will continue to beat records under Trump.
Cup of Sooth, the Pope is not American since there is no birthright citizenship.
Ginger Ninja says, Barnes, it sounds like you should agree with our 100-day assessment of C-minus, not the A you gave him.
Hey, Barnes is being fair.
I'll get to that in a second.
I think there's been...
A mixture of legitimate concern and illegitimate concern.
There's places to be patient and there's places to be impatient.
I'm going to post your locals' assessment tomorrow across platforms, if you don't mind, and everybody can listen to it.
MAGA is being sabotaged by rhino pigs feeding at the trough, says AG Main 5082.
Kevster, active duty for 15 years so far.
Disagree with total ban.
There are ways for trans people to serve if they desire to, and we need everyone that's willing to volunteer to lay down their lives.
Dapper Dave, Doge did its job by exposing the corruption and the Democrats embezzling from NGOs and the government agent grants.
Shofar says it seems the executive state And the judiciary and rhinos are just running out the clock.
King of Biltong says, looking for some healthy snacks to add to your diet?
Try our Biltong, almost 50% protein, packed with B12, creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
Go to BiltongUSA.com, code Barnes for 10% off.
Was that Captain Bluebeard from the Ship SS Treasure Hunter?
One more just came in here.
I once again advocate for speaking to Jay Dyer of The Alex Jones Show and Andrew Wilson of The Crucible for their geopolitical takes.
Now hold on.
I wanted to get a couple in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It says, dump Kellogg, NATO, UN.
It says, MK telephone.
There was losing faith in Trump's dedication in correcting the BS after reading today.
He only gets intel briefings once a week.
He is working on old information constantly.
Then we have, so what can we do to encourage the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, to change his mind on impeachment hearings?
Anything else besides emailing, calling?
That's coming from Ithaca 37 Cato.
And then there was one that I wanted to...
Oh, yeah, here.
Barnes being real soft on Trump.
This is from Dred Robert.
He endorsed a lot of these people.
He cheered on the continuing resolution that included funding everything Doge was supposedly cutting.
He could have taken a stand then or earlier.
Instead, he bragged about it.
To now pretend he really wants the cuts and is surprised the scumbags he has backed and complimented aren't for them is a joke Trump proudly made this bed and to pretend otherwise begs credibility.
It's almost like...
Thomas Massey was right.
Yeah, I mean, I think the problem there is there's been too much criticism.
So there's places, and what happens is when there's a barrage of criticism, the areas that can be productive get masked by the areas that are counterproductive.
So a good example of that is everything related to the Maha debate.
So the first Surgeon General candidate I was not in favor of.
So Trump, at Kennedy's request, replaces her with Casey Means.
And then these people come out and they start attacking him left and right.
Now, some of that concern is, I understand, but I think it's misplaced tactically.
Some of it is just mistaken.
So part of this reflects the fact that a large group of voters and influencers that came into the Make America Healthy Again movement.
We're newcomers, and they were newcomers largely due to COVID.
So these are people for whom the priority of Make America Healthy Again concerns COVID.
Is there going to be truth and reconciliation?
Is there bad COVID policies?
Are they going to pull the COVID vaccine from authorization, from the kids list, from the prep list, or pull it all together?
That is some of the priority of a lot of those people.
And understandably so.
I mean, if you're Brooke Jackson or you're Dr. Bowden or you're other people that have been on the front lines of that, that's where your concern has been focused on.
Now, the thing is, the Maha movement, though, is much broader than that.
Its origins are people who are concerned, used to be, you know, or used to call them, you know, what do they call them?
Not organic, but, you know, fruits and nuts lefties, you know, hippies.
That was the beginning of the food freedom movement in America in the late 60s, early 70s, while the Amish had always been advocating for it in their own way.
They just don't engage in the court of public opinion on any continuous basis because it's against their religious traditions to do so, their belief in humility as a priority of their culture.
And then you have particularly mothers whose children were injured by vaccines with the most predominant injury, but not the only injury, being the rise of autism.
That sort of animated the origins of a lot of the Maha movement.
And then it added people that came in from COVID, and then it added more.
The concerns of a lot of the people that are from the COVID origins, or some of the old-school traditionalists who have been in this movement a long time, people like Nicole Shanahan, was that she saw the Means siblings, Casey Means, I forget his name.
Callie and Casey.
Callie and Casey Means.
They suddenly come involved after being relatively low profile.
They're advising Trump.
They suggest that Trump should unite with the Maha agenda with Robert Kennedy.
They help create that bridge whereby that happens.
I think for people like Shanahan, there's a skepticism that these latecomers, as they understand them to be, I don't think they were as latecomers as people think they are, but that's what the perception was, was, oh, you're just trying to co-opt.
And that's a broad point in general, by the way.
What Trump's election represented was a pure political revolution.
There is no political revolution that doesn't have major institutional obstacles.
And so it's a political revolution against the political class that holds all this power.
Political class with power in the bureaucracy.
Political class with power in the judiciary.
Political class with power in academia.
Political class with power in media.
Political class dominating who consults and represents and advises people for the House and the Senate.
And it concerns most of the members of the House and the Senate.
So it's a revolution against them.
They are not going to go gently into that good night.
They are going to wage war by every means they have available to them.
And this is underappreciated by people who thought, okay, we've won the revolution because we won the election.
No, that was the first step.
That was the shot off the bow.
That's all that was.
The real fighting only now begins.
And there's some lack of recognition of the degree to which Trump, it's not easy for him to try to implement these revolutionary ideas and ideals.
And he'll meet all kinds of opposition.
I focus on areas that Trump can truly control.
Like, you know, to the prior comment about, well, Trump should have done this or that on legislation.
What would he have achieved?
That's often what's being missed in all of this.
Like, for example, If Robert Kennedy right away came out and revoked the COVID authorization, what do you think happens?
Courts reinstate it the next day.
That's what happens.
These are people who haven't thought this through.
Name a court that's been sympathetic or supportive to anybody in the COVID arena.
As the lead litigator on it, I guarantee you there hasn't been one.
So these are people that Kennedy understands the obstacles.
He understands he needs to first get confirmed.
Second, needs to get other aligned people confirmed in as many positions as possible.
Third, Institutionalize reform by putting in things like an autism registry, a vaccine injury registry.
I mean, like today, everybody was attacking, including Jimmy Dore, Markey, who went out and talked about concerns with the COVID vaccine for kids.
And they misinterpreted it.
In order to get through the future obstacles that are coming, you need to go take a step-by-step-by-step-by-step process.
And Kennedy's implementing that.
Tulsi Gabbard's implementing that.
Harmeet Dillon is implementing that.
These three people deserve no criticism because they're doing it exceptionally well, what they are tasked to do.
And you take means.
The Surgeon General is purely a symbolic PR position.
Who was the first pick again for the Surgeon General?
Somebody, nobody knew.
At least I didn't know.
Nobody knew from this space.
And so some ally of somebody of another part of Trump world.
And who didn't show any awareness of any of these issues.
Means has been on the front end of this since she left Stanford's residency, even as one of its top students.
She's been critical of the entire medical industry for a decade plus.
Nishawatt.
It was Nishawatt who people were freaking out about because she was talking about...
She actually said positive things about COVID vaccine.
Now, I get the people that...
So if you're Shanahan, you're worried.
You're worried.
You know how big tech operates.
You've seen enough of politics to know how it operates.
So that's where her concern was.
I don't think her concern warrants skepticism of Means.
So I understand where it comes from, what it originates from, and don't mind her voicing it.
However, it's not a reason to oppose Means.
Means will be an excellent Surgeon General.
Means is, because what a Surgeon General is for is the court of public opinion.
She is the best advocate, not named Robert Kennedy, for those issues.
She's written books on it.
She's one of Joe Rogan for it.
And she deserves credit.
She and her brother deserve credit.
I mean, I was indirectly involved, but she was involved.
She was the key to getting Trump to open the door to Kennedy.
She was the easy, simple bridge between the two.
Without it, Mahan maybe never even happens, never gets on the ground.
So to be honest with you, she's entitled to a position for what she did, a simple political reward.
But she proved during that time frame, going on Joe Rogan, going on with other podcasters.
To be an exceptionally effective advocate for the issues of food safety and medical safety that are not being met by a big pharma, big food-controlled system.
And she's been excellent on all of those, of course.
Does she need to have an active medical license in order to be the surgeon?
No, no, of course not.
Not at all.
The surgeon doesn't require that at all.
And some people, I don't know why, how did anybody in the mom movement suddenly care about credentials?
Credentials are crap.
That's how we got into this mess.
So, again, I understand where people are like, we want to see more action on COVID.
Just like the people that are upset with Cash and Patel and Bongino and Bondi on they want to see more action related to January 6th and to the law fair.
And I share their objectives on that.
The question is, tactically, how to get there.
Now, with Bondi, it's fixing all the commie lefties that are in the Justice Department.
That to me is, that's what I'm concerned with is things that are within her control, things that she can impact, things that are necessary to get to.
She is not consistently taking those steps.
Whereas by contrast, Kennedy is.
Tulsi Gabbard is.
So the Hegseth in his own way is.
He's had intermittent success with that.
But I think one of the hurdles is that they don't recognize The degree, and this was Trump's problem in his first term, so you could say it emanates from Trump.
The degree and depth of corruption in these institutions.
Kennedy fully understood it.
Gabbard fully understood it.
And that's why he was very careful about what he did, when he did it, and how he did it.
And has managed to maneuver around all these people who want to chop his head off very effectively for the first hundred days.
Same with Gabbard, that has done the same.
Hegseth, mixed success.
Again, I think Hexeth was a little naive about the scope of the problems in the Defense Department.
The Defense Department is riddled with people who care about the military-industrial complex and share the political prejudices and biases of the rest.
I mean, I remember, it was amazing to me.
People like Hexeth, not Hexeth directly.
I mean, I've talked to him in the past, but not on this topic.
But remember during 2020, when a bunch of the QAnon people were believing that the military was secretly on Trump's side?
I mean, January 6th happens because people like Ashley Babbitt think they're helping the White Hats who are secretly there on behalf of the military.
Remember people who thought that Milley was a Trump ally?
I mean, this was the kind of delusional thinking that comes from the old conservative institutionalists, that come from the people who believe that J. Edgar Hoover was an icon of law enforcement, right?
Not one of the most rogue law enforcement actors in American legal history, which is what he was.
I mean, the FBI was built to be a corrupt partisan agency.
That's the reality of it.
I don't think Bongino understands that.
I don't think Kash Patel understands that.
I don't think Pam Bondi understands that.
And because they don't understand the institutional flaws that are there, they're going to have great limits getting achieved what Trump wants through their agency and department.
But Kennedy's not the guy to be critical of.
People are being, I mean, it's okay to say we want action, we want action, we want action.
But there needs to be a way to go about that tactically.
For example, if you want the COVID shot removed, first of all, you don't want it taken off altogether.
Because that would be a political death knack.
And I get some people who believe in that and understand why they believe in it.
But Kennedy's position has always been the same.
Informed consent.
That's it.
He doesn't want to take anything away from people.
He wants to make sure.
He gives you informed consent so you know what you're doing.
You don't need to do anything taking COVID off, say it's no longer authorized.
You can simply say you cannot market it as safe and effective.
And you have to disclose all the side effects, which is before they take it.
And they have to sign showing that they've read all the side effects.
That's classic informed consent.
Take it off the emergency list because there is no such emergency anymore from COVID.
Take it off the kids' list because it doesn't belong there.
Kids don't need it.
And in fact...
If people had looked under the hood, they're taking steps to provide the evidentiary scientific foundation for making those modifications to the kids' list and the emergency list if they weren't constantly under criticism from their own supporters.
And so that's where there's a misapprehension.
Casey Means will be an excellent Surgeon General, consistent with Ma, consistent with Trump, consistent with Kennedy, will be a very effective advocate in that position.
We need her as an effective advocate in that position.
So being hypercritical of her is counterproductive.
When I interviewed, when I had the Ivan Raiklin on Friday, and he mentioned that Laura Loomer, apparently, I don't know if you'd call it clout, she has influence, she meets with the president, and I was asking him how she does that, and he says, you know, well, the team sets it up, that means something.
Her issue with Casey Means seems to stem from a lot of conjecture that her father wrote a book.
Classic Laura Loomer.
And by the way, did I miss Laura Loomer being on the front end of the food freedom movement?
Did I miss that?
Did I miss Laura Loomer being on the front end of the medical freedom movement?
Or do I not remember her being anywhere to be seen in either one?
I'm sorry.
Laura Loomer is a disgrace.
Anyone who listens to her should smack themselves in the face.
I get it that there's people who still want to believe that because even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
That everything she brings is an actual nut when she's just a nut.
That's the reality of Laura Lewis.
I mean, I don't use the word grifting.
Maybe Laura's...
Oh, she's a classic grifter.
Well, assume she's sincere in her views.
The critique of Casey Means is that her father wrote a book promoting trans ideology and that she's close with her father, therefore espouses those views.
That's kind of insane.
Again, you can just...
One, who cares about the trans stuff?
And if you really care about the trans stuff, look at what...
There was almost no coverage of it.
By Loomer or others, Secretary Kennedy at the Health and Human Services put out a thing documenting all the problem with trans treatment, right?
I mean, he's had all these successes back to back to back to back that people have been asleep at because either they're very impatient, and I understand it.
If you've been through the hell that Dr. Bowden had been through, you'd be impatient.
If you've been through the hell Brooke Jackson had been through, you'd be impatient.
I get it.
But we need patience at this point.
What we're trying to achieve is a complete political revolution.
With all kinds of deep-seated institutional opposition.
There is a particular way to go about it.
Bobby Kennedy understands that.
Tulsi Gabbard understands that.
To a degree, Pete Hegseth understands that.
What we need is more people who understand that.
What we need is Pam Bondi to understand that.
What we need is Dan Bongino to understand that.
What we need is Cash Patel to understand that.
But that's got to be the first premise.
I remember when discussing this with Bannon people back in 2017 at Deplorable.
I said, this whole town is about to wage war on you.
Do you understand how corrupt all of our institutions have become?
They didn't.
He was clueless.
Stephen Bannon was all happy when Robert Mueller came in.
I mean, Robert Mueller just ran circles around Steve and then later gets him under a criminal investigation.
God bless Steve.
But also Steve misled a lot of people in his audience to think there was going to be immediate political action.
Never in our history.
Has the powerful deep state apparatus faced meaningful legal consequences ever?
Ever?
Briefly, they faced some consequences in the 1970s.
And even that was very brief.
So assuming that we were going to achieve something that has never been achieved in the history of this country, and to achieve it in three months, might have been a little idealistic.
But what happens is, when you lead people to believe...
That all the bad actors are going to jail.
What happens when none of them are even under investigation?
You disappoint people.
When people should be patient enough to recognize whether the right progress and the right direction is being made and where there's not being progress to be selectively but constructively critical.
Like, I'm trying to be here, whether it works or not, is in terms of Bondi, in terms of Patel, in terms of Bongino, that...
I think they can achieve more.
Bongino's one of the best public speakers in the world.
He had one of the most popular channels in the world.
One of the most popular podcasts in the world.
I don't know whether it's something internal or what.
He occasionally comments on Twitter.
It would be great to have daily updates from Bongino.
Robert, the very deep cynic in me is envisioning Bongino having entered the FBI right now and...
Someone's telling him to shut up and that you can't pursue actively the Jan-6 pipe bombers like you did.
You can't pursue Epstein because, sorry Bongino, it might be embarrassing for certain countries and you might have to shut up and like, you're the deputy director, but there are powers.
That's the cynical problem.
When Kash Patel is given a softball question by Kennedy, both as the Epstein docs and as the Epstein killing himself, he says, oh, Epstein killed himself.
Nobody believes that.
I listen to it again.
He says...
He said, I believe Epstein killed himself.
Based on what?
It's not based on anything he's written.
I believe the records say that Epstein killed himself is how it sort of could be spun.
But yeah, the softball question is, am I going to get them before I die?
That should be something that's part of an ongoing investigation.
And that's what he should have said.
He should have said, we're investigating exactly what happened.
And we want to bring the whole truth to the American people.
Because there's legitimate concerns.
No, no, no, Robert.
Without even committing to a position one way or the other.
The cameras weren't working.
But it told me he was in over his head.
He was in over his skis.
I mean, again, I think Cash is a great guy.
Very smart, very skilled.
No one should misconstrue my comments here.
I'm saying that there's a blind spot here.
Like, I like Senator Sessions from Alabama.
I just said, don't put him in charge of the DOJ.
Because he thinks everybody in the DOJ is wonderful and pure.
And he has this Boy Scout 1950s Dragnet version of the FBI.
And I was like, he will get run over there.
And that's exactly what happened.
People like Steve Bannon didn't want to believe that.
Because people like Steve Bannon wanted to believe that the line-level agencies were good.
He came to the conclusion they weren't, but it took him a little while.
And I think that's...
There was no way you were going to get indictments in three months.
That just wasn't going to happen.
Especially because people, I think, underappreciate this is a revolution that's trying to take place.
And you're going to face real opposition, and you've got to be tactically smart.
When you're in this battle.
Mighty Piss is no, Viva.
That's not what he said.
I'm going to play it for you.
Right here.
Here.
Oh, I'm not sharing it.
Hold on one second.
Yeah, I was wondering what you mean.
Well, everyone's going to look at my very thorough brow.
Well, I can hear it, but I can't bring...
Is it up now?
Oh, for goodness.
Let me refresh.
Let me refresh.
Hold on.
I'll be back.
But for everybody wanting super eager action...
Know when to be patient, know when to be impatient.
And that's not an easy distinction to make.
I definitely understand people that have been in the bowels of the COVID movement are tired of being patient as they see people suffer death and disability needlessly based on government lies.
However, the reality of the political situation is that if you rushed into action, you would not only would that action get invalidated overnight.
It would preclude you from taking any other positive action on a go-forward basis.
It's the line from colors where the papa bull and the baby bull say, hey, the baby says to the papa, let's run down there and fornicate with a cow.
And then papa bull says, no, let's walk down and fornicate with all of them.
But hold on.
Here, here.
This is what he said.
Did Jeffrey Epstein hang himself or did somebody kill him?
I believe he hung himself in a cell in the Metropolitan Tension Center.
So that's what he said.
And that's what I said he said.
The only question is, how can one interpret that if they want to weasel out of it?
He didn't say...
It was just a weak response.
It was just a weak response.
No, it was terrible.
If you didn't know Cash Patel's background, you would think he was just another ordinary FBI schmuck.
I would think he's a Democrat shill, is what I would think.
How do you believe that?
I like Cash.
I'm just saying that these little...
When I see these glaring examples, whether it's the Brooke Jackson case, the Robin Gritz case, Robin Gritz is a former FBI agent.
I mean, Patel and Bongino should be making sure that people like her are reinstated, not that she's continuing to have her prosecute her case to get any kind of justice or remedy.
And I know that they're trying to be constructive in their own ways.
I think the problem is, it is what I suspect is the case, the problem is they think that they don't have an agency problem.
They think they have a bad apple problem.
The entire FBI is a bad apple for our constitutional liberty.
90% of the DOJ is the bad apple for our constitutional integrity.
Why does the FBI even exist?
You have state authorities.
What do you need the FBI for?
That's exactly right.
That was a debate going back with...
Ron Paul had that exact debate with William F. Buckley many years ago.
Buckley claimed...
Well, you can't prosecute interstate crime if that happens.
Oh, what?
We had never prosecuted crime between states in the history of the country prior to the FBI?
Now, of course, that's because William F. Buckley was a deep state pimp.
Always had been.
And I say this is a guy with great respect for his intelligence and now they're out.
I have no idea who this person is.
I don't know this person enough.
The founder of the National Review.
Yeah, I don't know enough about the individual, but I will laugh along with your humorous qualifications.
But yeah, so Surgeon General, Casey Means is great.
The criticism of her misplaced.
Another example about Laura Loomer is utterly untrustworthy, utterly unreliable, utterly incredulous.
I understand where this underlying Trump debate is, but it relates to, for example, his foreign policy objectives.
Whether you're talking about India and Pakistan, whether you're talking about China, whether you're talking about Iran and Israel, whether you're talking about Russia and Ukraine, whether you're talking about EU, whether you're talking about tariffs in general, Trump is trying to change the entire global order.
He's trying to change something that no single individual has pulled off in 200 plus years.
So the expectations being put on him sometimes are nuts.
It's like, I get it.
I get the desire for consequences because you've been sitting there if you're a working class person for 50 years having your economic guts pulled out by this globalist order.
So you want action now.
You want it to happen now.
I get it.
But what Trump is up against is a huge financial order.
That has a lot of money and gained a lot of power and a lot of prosperity by this.
These are people that can overnight sink markets.
That's who the George Soros of the world are.
This is a guy who famously, with Scott Bessent and other people, helped do the raid on the British pound.
Bill Gates has power around the world.
There isn't a health agency in the world he hasn't contributed to in some form.
The idea that you're just going to steamroll these guys just because you won an election is naive, given how our power systems work.
And so now that doesn't mean that he should.
So I focus on what he can control.
Now, where he made a mistake, I think, was bringing in anybody from the America First Policy Institute, but especially Kellogg.
So I had hoped that Kellogg was this nitwit idiot to get the Europeans to think Trump was going to play nice.
And this scary guy to create leverage involving Russia, it's dumb on the latter part, because Putin can see through that in five seconds flat.
My guess is that in the U.S. administration, there's probably literally nobody who understands Putin or Russia, which is a problem.
If you see Putin as evil, if you see Putin as good, no matter how you see him, you need to know who he is and what motivates him.
And I don't think they do.
I know Kellogg doesn't.
The guy's a complete idiot.
He's another one of these people who never should have got the military status he got.
Just a moron.
Almost all the military brass are.
If somebody says, hey, I'm a general, oh, that means you're one of the idiots who failed the last 50 years, nine times out of ten.
And so Kellogg told him all this nonsense.
Oh, the Russian economy is sinking.
The Russians are losing millions of people.
They'll be so eager to do any kind of deal.
Nonsense.
The Russians winning the war.
Why do you think Europe's over there in between?
I was literally just looking at that from...
Let me bring it up, because I don't think it's Coke, people.
I can tell you, I don't know what it looks like, so I might not have...
Knowing that, you look up close, they look blazed.
They got together with Zelensky, a famous Coke head, and Macron and Starmer, Daily Starmer, and Mertz or Mertz, whatever his name is from Germany.
By the way, there's a brilliant idea.
Tell the Russians the Germans are going to get involved in the military effort.
That will surely reduce Russian support, right?
If the Germans decide to stick their tanks in, if they decide to send troops in.
I mean, how clueless are these people?
Their degree there.
But I mean, basically, what happened is they got out.
This is what happens when you have a little documentary crew coming along, filming everything.
You end up with like Belichick's girlfriend gets exposed because that's being filmed too.
These dimwits had these professional cameras around.
Look at how we're bringing.
Ukraine back and we're going to drag Trump into this stupid war and how great we are.
And what they were doing was a bunch of lines of coke.
We don't need any audio.
That's from the Lord of War movie where he actually is from Ukraine and he makes a map of Ukraine with cocaine.
So Patrick David posted this and says, look, that's a little bad.
Well, this is in his.
He's retweeting something else.
They say this is a line of coke here.
Oh, I'm such a flipping idiot again.
They say this is a bag of coke.
They're doing lines there.
Now, he takes it away, puts it under his pocket.
See how he puts it under his pocket?
Well, I said, that's what I...
That is a, oh, I left the coke out.
No, but I would do the same thing.
And look at his eyes.
His eyes are like blazed, man.
His eyes are blazed.
No, I would do the same thing if that were a snot rag.
And then I just replied to the person.
You would have it like this?
The little thing of sugar, you wouldn't be like, oh, dang, the sugar.
You gotta hide this from the camera.
So hold on a second.
Somebody replies and says, watch it.
The buddy on the right moves his book at the same time.
You'll see it looks like a line of coke.
And like an idiot, I said, that's not a line of coke.
That's a straw, I think.
But that's what they would be doing the coke with.
Oh my goodness.
So Kellogg is this idiot who was publicly pitching that Russia would have to capitulate.
And he was stupid enough, by the way.
To have leaked out that he was telling Ukraine and Europe that whatever deal Trump gets done, you can just violate once Trump is out of office.
I mean, why does Trump have this guy around?
The guy's a moron.
He makes Trump look like an idiot.
And so I was hoping he was for show.
I don't know.
You never know for sure for Trump with Trump on foreign policy.
He told Joe Rogan he will never say publicly what his honest position is as to a foreign policy issue where he wants to negotiate an outcome.
That it's all going to be posture.
Someone in our Locust community asked, ask Barnes why he thinks Trump supported Carney.
I don't know that you believe- Trump didn't support Carney.
Trump just didn't.
Why would Trump back Pierre?
There was no reason for that.
He didn't back Carney at all.
And in fact, Carney came back into the White House this past week.
And Trump right there with Carney next to him.
He said, are you going to take any of the tariffs off of Canada?
Nope.
Nah.
Just the way it is, baby.
Just the way it is.
I mean, he was just going to smack that little guy around.
He knows Carney.
Now, from a Trump perspective, U.S. policy perspective, Carney is easier to run over than Pierre would be, number one.
Number two, he wants Alberta to succeed because he would like to have a direct, independent, separate relationship between Alberta and the U.S. because that's the resource-rich region of Canada and because of the geographic aspect for national security purposes.
In terms of extending us closer to almost having a direct line to Alaska.
I mean, that's why.
But the idea that Trump backed Carney isn't really true.
Did he mind Carney winning?
No, because it better serves his interests.
If Pierre was there, what would you have?
You'd have the same dumb Canadian policies, just not as egregiously bad.
And Alberta would still think they would have a chance, so there wouldn't be any talk of secession from Alberta.
And you would still have the same macho defense on tariffs.
So Pierre might have been an improvement for Canadians.
He wasn't an improvement for Americans, just being blunt about it.
No, there's no question about that.
There's another picture here from our locals community, which is, I've seen this one too, that they got so coked up, Zelensky put his...
He put his pants on the wrong way.
I don't think that's what it is.
Either that or he took a crap in him.
Or he busted the seams and he's wearing dark underwear, which is what I would do.
Oh, that's always possible.
Because the pants don't bend.
It's not like that's where the knees would be.
And yeah, bottom line...
But what a disgrace that we're involved at all.
And so for Trump...
I was hoping the Duran was wrong, to be honest with you.
But the Duran ended up right.
Their position early on was Trump's get out.
Just get out right away.
Whenever Putin gives you an exit ramp, use it quickly and escape this quagmire that will be like Vietnam with LBJ and Nixon, in which it was something they could never escape.
Even though in some cases, like Nixon, it wasn't his war.
And yet he was so obsessed with being perceived as winning that he dragged that war out.
Five years longer than it needed to be.
The deal Nixon cut in 1973, guess what?
It was identical to the deal that was on the table in 1968.
So the deal that actually Nixon helped sabotage, by the way, through Henry Kissinger to screw Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey needed that peace deal to win the election in 68 after they murdered Robert Kennedy.
After LBJ basically had both the Kennedy brothers murdered, in my opinion, along with some certain deep state allies.
So he needed to get out.
And instead, he kept staying in, staying in, staying in.
And I was like, I hope there's an endgame plan here of some type.
And then the ceasefire offer is a bogus offer.
Russia was never going to accept it.
It was, hey, now that you're kicking our ass, could you give us a 30-day hiatus so we could rebuild?
Can you imagine me in the middle of a boxing fight getting the crap kicked out and saying, can we just take a 30-minute break?
30-minute break so I can get my head straight after you've been pounding me 10 times, Mike Tyson?
That's how dumb that was.
It had zero chance of progress.
Zero.
And Trump was acting like it was going to work.
And thanks to Putin, Trump was given another exit ramp, which it looks like Trump is actually taking.
Praise God.
Because what happened is Putin came.
Trump said, oh, I'm now for this 30-day unilateral ceasefire that these coked-up losers brainstormed in Kiev over extra lines of cocaine.
The dance into the Colombian marching band.
Putin came out and said, because he's exceptional diplomatically, you can hate Putin all you want.
He strategically and tactically is light years ahead of everybody else on the international stage.
And he did it without rejecting it explicitly.
He just said, now there is a problem with ceasefires.
Ukraine has violated every single ceasefire that's ever been there, including the ceasefire that was put on with the original Minsk Accords.
That is the reason why we entered Ukraine in the first place, from the Russian perspective.
Those people don't know, the Minsko court said that they would honor and protect the right of sort of federalism of the Donbass regions, that they wouldn't attack them, and a whole bunch of other things that they just violate all the time.
And it escalated in February 2022, forcing the Russians in.
Putin says, look, how about this instead?
How about we just go back to Istanbul, where we were before, where there was a peace deal already in place before, before Boris Johnson and the Biden administration broke it up.
Let's go right back.
Turkey is ready to do it.
Let's sit down and let's do that.
No preconditions of any kind.
Nobody has to do a ceasefire or anything else.
Just let's get back to really talking.
And I was hopeful, as Alex Christofaru also identified in his, that this was something Trump would take.
This was another, this was like exit ramp number 25 that Russia has offered for Trump to get out of this war so it isn't saddling his administration and isn't bogging him down on a go-forward basis.
It looks like Trump took it.
Because it wasn't long after Putin made that statement.
Trump comes out and says, I think there's going to be peace in Ukraine.
What happens within a couple of hours?
All of a sudden, Zelensky is saying he'll do the deal.
Why?
Trump went out publicly then said, go to the deal.
Go to Turkey.
Do the peace negotiation.
So if hopefully that will work and we can jettison Kellogg to Gitmo or some other place so he can stop interfering in good policy and quit having these saboteurs in his own administration.
Creating world problems?
Because credit to Trump, you look at otherwise massive foreign policy successes that are being downplayed by some of the people that have, in my view, excessive expectations of his first 100 days.
That he gets, you know, India and Pakistan, a place that everybody's been worried about blowing up in a nuclear war because both of them have nuclear capabilities, nuclear weapons, and both of them, though I guess it wouldn't count as a nuclear weapon according to a federal judge because the nuclear part isn't a weapon.
Just like bullets aren't part of the gun for arms purposes on the Second Amendment, according to the Washington Supreme Court.
Maybe a nuclear weapon isn't really a weapon.
Just the nuclear part is sticking out.
But what does he get?
He gets a ceasefire within 24 hours in Indian Pakistan.
Not only that, what else has he achieved?
As it's coming out, some people misunderstood what I said last week when I said Israel advocates are pushing too far, and if they lose people like me, they're going to be in trouble politically in the U.S. People are like, oh, Barnes thinks his opinion is...
No, that's not it.
I meant the populist wing of the Trump base is not so locked into being pro-Israel like the evangelical part of the base is, like Orthodox Jews are, like the Dershowitzes of the world are.
No, he's not part of the MAGA base, but like that community on Israel.
They are going to be more pro-Israel than pro-Hamas.
However, that does not mean they want us bogged down in dumb wars in the Middle East.
Ceaselessly and endlessly.
They're not just going to defer to Israel no matter what.
And whether it's the Epstein documents or conflict war with Iran.
And you see how over the top they are when Mark Levin, that war whore, who's never won a case I know of, law ever.
Has Mark Levin ever won a case?
Mr. Great Constitutional legal mind?
Not to my knowledge.
But it goes out and attacks Steve Whitcoff, saying that anybody who calls somebody a neoconservative...
And he wasn't even talking about Israel in that context, by the way, is saying Jew, which is absurd.
It's the same as the James Lindsay nonsense that anybody who thinks certain things is woke right.
Credit to Tim Pool, by the way, for exposing that big fat fraud that is James Lindsay.
Robert, I don't know if you heard.
Apparently he thinks I'm woke right as well.
I'll keep it cordial with him because I just think he's wrong.
My goodness, he's...
He's at least intellectually corrupt.
The only question is whether he's individually corrupt, James Lindsay.
Let me play this here.
This is the Trump administration putting this out, and you have Mark Levin attacking it because Mark Levin is Israel first, not America first.
You're right.
The neocon element believes that war is the only way to solve things.
And the president believes that his force of personality...
The way he is going to respond to situations can bend people to do things in a much better way in the interest of the United States government, and I believe in that too.
Then, by the way, it says Mark Levin, neocon is a pejorative for Jew.
Unbelievable.
Steve Witkoff is Jewish.
The guy talking is Jewish.
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm going to go Google, I'm pretty sure he's Jewish.
Yeah, yeah, it absolutely is.
It was an absurd statement by Mark Levin.
Those of us that support Israel, but are not Israel first, America first, Israel second, for those of us, were pointing out to these Israeli first advocates that they were going to lose support within the populist base.
You had Marjorie Taylor Greene go on to the Young Turks and elsewhere and start to be very critical, publicly critical, of what this Israeli first policy is.
That's what Ben Shapiro fundamentally believes.
And there's a good number of people I really respect, Lee Smith, people like Joel Pollack at the Breitbart.
But at times, they were going in that same direction.
And I was trying to warn them all, you're going to lose the only country that you have to have to have the continued existence of Israel.
And there's no reason to be doing this.
To launch another dumb war because Netanyahu, all he says is war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war, war.
That's all the guy's ever advocated for.
And to be honest with you, the Netanyahu defenders have never come to terms with his unconscionable screw-ups and lies for the Iraqi war.
I get Netanyahu wasn't in office at that time, and the official Israeli government policy didn't endorse weapons of mass destruction, but Netanyahu sure did.
He went around and made a whole tour around the world, testified in front of Congress, telling lies to get us involved in war because he's an idiot.
I mean, October 7th happened because Netanyahu failed to do his job defending the people of Israel.
And we're not going to wage war around the world because he can't do his job right.
And now more information is leaking that Trump's antagonism is rising.
Not only is Walsh being isolated, Trump hasn't trusted Netanyahu since Netanyahu ran out to endorse Biden.
I mean, he couldn't get to that speaker quick enough to say, screw Trump's election challenges.
Well, we congratulate Joe Biden on his presidency.
Didn't help him really a whole lot when October 7th rolled around.
But that was what Netanyahu chose to do, aside from making his entire country a huge COVID pharma experiment, which also lost him certain populist libertarian parts in the U.S. They're like, you're the biggest advocate of this insane policy.
Are you the lead advocate of freedom?
I don't think so.
And that's going to continue to happen.
I think Trump will get a deal done with Iran that will achieve peace.
I think Trump will get a deal done or will oversee a way in which Russia gets a deal done with Ukraine and keeps us out, just like he did with India and Pakistan.
And there's a bunch of people that say, this will never happen.
This can't happen.
Today, what happens?
After everybody said, There's no chance that China will cut a deal with Trump.
There's no, that China's super strong and their economy's not weak and they don't have, you can't go to the China show every single week and they got a new factory on fire because their employees engage in sabotage because they're so pissed at not getting paid in China.
And yet the fantasy version of China is its economy's great, its technology is cutting edge and all this other propaganda.
They also do a great job of the China show.
They document some of their cutting-edge technology there, like the collapsing bridges, the collapsing buildings, these robots that can't go more than two steps.
They're just big toys.
They're an AI revolution that's led by China.
All China can do is steal.
That's all they've done for 20 years, is steal, steal, steal, steal, and steal some more.
They can't innovate.
Why?
Not because their people aren't capable of innovation.
This is a population that gave us gunpowder, for crying out loud.
It's because they won't let them.
The Chinese Communist Party completely represses and suppresses them.
Hugh Hendry and some others were on, a great hedge fund guy that lives in the Caribbean, and he was pointing this out.
He was like, what Trump's doing is absolutely on the right path, but that China's been one of the world's great suppressors of economic growth because the Chinese Communist Party cares more about hoarding power than they do enriching their own people.
But what did Trump get?
Two days.
48 hours.
Already a deal done in principle with China.
Already a deal done.
Why?
Because China was going to squeal as fast as they could.
They were going to talk big and then run behind the scenes and say, please, God, save us from this disaster.
It answered the question real quick as to who needs what more.
Does China need American dollars more than America needs cheap Chinese crap?
And the answer, if the deal holds, is yeah, we have a deal.
China absolutely needs those dollars.
And what Trump's going to do is transition China into a lesser role in terms of the global economy.
And what Trump is threatening is to completely eliminate that role.
And he's like, if you want a continued role, you're going to have to radically reduce your exports, radically change your trade surplus.
And how do you do that?
You're going to have to open up your markets and allow your markets to innovate, allow your markets to have complete, honest access to U.S. goods.
And most importantly, you're going to have to pay a price to access the US markets in a way that's going to make you less economically competitive with US products on a global scale.
And what China was paranoid of is they figured out what Trump was doing.
Trump's goal wasn't just to shut China out of the US economy and shift manufacturing jobs from China to the US.
It was to completely crush China as a competitor on the global stage.
He was negotiating deals with Japan, negotiating deals with the UK, negotiating deals with Vietnam.
That was going to effectively exclude China from those markets and replace China with US goods in those markets.
And they knew they were DOA, dead men walking, because their economy is in shambles.
This is a command and control economy.
They never built up a strong domestic consumer base because they won't let them.
They never built up domestic innovation because they won't let them.
They've been misallocating.
You know, Richard Werner talks about how China did all these small banks in the early 80s, and that helped them explode.
That's true.
But they changed how those small banks operate over the last 20 years.
What do they do?
They told them to invest in asset bubbles, just like the United States.
So they created the biggest real estate asset bubble the world has ever seen.
They are in trouble upon trouble.
They have such high rates of youth unemployment, they're not even disclosing the information anymore.
And this is a China that loved to just fraudulently publish information anyway.
You can go to the Beige Book and others that do honest information, and what they tell you is China's economy has been in bad shape ever since they did their idiotic lockdowns during COVID.
And so Trump knew this, Trump understood this, and is already winning right out of the gate on foreign policy.
So hopefully, because Putin, it looks like he's taking the Putin exit ramp, and if he does, he can get the heck out of Ukraine.
The moment Zelensky knows there's no more money, From the U.S. coming, Europe can't keep him afloat.
Europe can't, you know, there's only so much cocaine in the world for Zelensky.
So at some point, he's got to exit as well.
And he knows that without Trump's backing, he has no choice but to exit.
And the deal has always been the same deal.
Those parts of Russia that they've declared part of Russia that have historically always been part of Russia, aside from a very brief time period in which it was part of Ukraine post-1991, you can go back and read polls and studies and surveys that were done at that time.
Eastern Ukraine wanted to stay part of Russia all the way back then.
Just that part of Russia that Ukraine has constantly harassed, constantly assaulted, constantly deprived of their civil rights for speech, association, affiliation, belief, expression, you name it, that they become part of Russia.
And that ends it.
And Ukraine doesn't join NATO.
Finished.
End of story.
Bye-bye.
Otherwise, maybe Odessa is going to be rushing again.
Otherwise, maybe Kiev is going to return again.
At some point, there's going to be nobody left in Ukraine to fight.
And I'm not saying that gleefully...
Yeah, they're dragging old people off the streets.
I mean, they're throwing 12-year-old kids in there.
I mean, it's a disaster.
And so hopefully Trump...
But Trump is...
I think the people who think, oh, Trump's betrayed him.
I don't think any of that.
I think...
Trump has made some tactically poor decisions and some tactically savvy decisions.
Besant appears to be an excellent Treasury Secretary.
I think 90% of his nominees have actually been very good.
Bondi hasn't delivered the way she can.
Cash Patel and Dan Bongino I thought were great appointees.
I think that they're just running into more institutional obstacles than even they appreciated was the case.
The Harmeet Dillons are already doing excellent work at the Civil Rights Division.
I mean, here's what I would like to see Bongino and Patel do more of.
Especially Bongino.
Whenever something that's an egregious civil rights violation is happening now, Harmi Dillon is tweeting about it.
She's commenting on it.
She's like, that's interesting.
We should look at this.
That's excellent use of the public attention that she has in her position to stop the violation of gun rights, violation of religious rights, violation of speech rights, target racial-based discrimination and prosecution.
Happened in the Kurt Benchew case in Seattle.
A Minnesota prosecutor was bragging about it.
If you're black, you get a lower charge.
And if you're white, you get a higher charge.
And immediately, Harvey Dillon is saying, we're going to take constructive action.
So that's very promising.
I would like to see more of that from Bongino and Patel and Bondi, effectively.
Bondi's just got to fix personnel and got to get on that ASAP on these key issues and make sure these hot-button cases are being paid attention to at the very top by Trump appointees.
Not by liberal Democrats wishing to sabotage Trump.
But don't underestimate, Trump has still achieved an extraordinary amount in a ridiculous amount of time.
It's a revolution, folks, and we're just in the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Robert, the question is this, however.
Have you ever been to China?
Have you ever been to Ukraine?
Unlike that fake English snob, Doug Murray, I actually have been to China.
I have been to Ukraine.
I have been to many of these places, but that doesn't give me any special insight and analysis like he claims.
I don't know how much we have left.
I think we should probably...
We've got crypto.
We've got Maine.
Maine legislature.
Probably the best next case to talk about is that Maine legislature being banned from voting in the legislature.
For critique of the trans movement.
And we've got chemical immunities.
We've got a bank fraud case, a discrimination case, a gun ban, Second Amendment case.
Briefly, the Babbitt settlement, the new pope.
And we should bridge...
Speaking of Bondi and Patel and Bongino, why aren't those members of Congress already indicted or at least put under criminal investigation?
That's a perfect case.
You have a member of Congress, maybe two, and a Newark mayor deliberately committing trespass, obstructing officers trying to do their job at an ICE facility.
That wasn't protest.
That wasn't oversight.
Like Matt Stoller, man.
I like that guy on antitrust.
He's such an idiot on so many other things.
I was like, I gotta quit following this guy.
He says too many dumb stuff.
Too much dumb stuff mixed in.
But he was like, oh, this is just supervisory oversight.
No, there's no form of supervisory oversight that involves trespass and obstruction of justice.
No, sorry.
But what I hope is, maybe the reason why they weren't arrested out of the gate, is that there's a major investigation as to who funded those protests.
Because in my view...
An honest indictment of everything concerning to immigration would include, at the top of that indictment, one long-time, lifelong criminal from the time he was just a teenager in Europe, George Soros.
Now, his real name, last name isn't really Soros.
He changed it until later on.
But I once called him George Schwartz in my hush-hush, and nobody knew what I was talking about.
Like, who's this Schwartz guy?
Oh, so it wasn't a mistake.
His original name is Schwartz?
That's my recollection.
My recollection is he changed his name and so forth.
Which of course he did.
He's a criminal.
This guy went around with the Nazis and helping the Nazis steal Jewish property.
And he still wasn't bothered by it when 60 Minutes interviewed him.
The second part was the bigger shot.
It was like, okay, maybe people feel coerced.
It's a tough time.
You're trying to hide out and you're trying to stay protected and you don't want to be on the wrong end of that gun and so forth.
But just watch his reaction in that 60 minutes.
He's like, aren't you bothered by that?
He's like, why would I be bothered by that?
His name is Gjelvi Schwartz.
Schwartz.
I thought...
May the Schwartz be with you.
Yeah, that's it.
That's it, yes.
That is from Spaceballs, everybody.
Robert, not that...
Let's do a few more here and then we move a little faster so that my wife doesn't kill me on Mother's Day.
The question...
Okay, Ashley Babbitt, settlement.
This goes back to what we were talking about earlier in the evening where you have the administration compensating for the injustices of the past administration, but the compensation, whether or not it's the full $30 million or we don't know yet from what I understand, it's an indication that they're basically acknowledging the injustice of the prior administration as if to say, change of course.
It will blame it on the government.
Like to Trump's credit.
He told DOJ, get on the Tina Peters case.
Let's be honest.
Pampani was doing her job.
Trump wouldn't have to put that comment out, right?
You know, he'd already be on it.
But at least there's proactive action.
Now, there needs to be proactive action in the Benchoof case.
There needs to be proactive action in the Amos Miller case, the Brooke Jackson case, the Robin Griff case, these other cases that I have professional awareness of and others that I don't have professional awareness of, but I'm sure exist out there, of abusive lawfare that has taken place over the past four years, especially, and correcting and remedying it.
But what they did in Ashley Babbitt is right.
Well, what he did was a lawless order.
I disagree with Andrew Bronk on this, law of self-defense.
I don't agree that that cop had self-defense.
I don't at all.
I think that's undue deference to police officers in that context.
This is someone who saw someone who did not have a gun, did not present an imminent risk, was just breaking some glass on a door, and decided to summarily execute her.
I'm sorry, there's no scenario where that is self-defense.
If you think it's provocation, For somebody to say, touch me and see what happens.
Well, what is just summarily executing them, Andrew?
I mean, that part, that was one of his positions.
I was like, eh, you need to go back and reconsider on this.
So credit to the Justice Department for getting the right people assigned, for recognizing what happened there was a lawless action, and that her family should be remediated, remedied, and that some further action should happen against him.
Against the cop that summarily executed a person who apparently had a long history of rogue behavior.
He had a history of bad behavior.
He raised $164,000 on Go F Me in the wake of this because he wasn't happy with what the department of the Capitol Police was giving him.
It sounds an awful lot like if we want to start getting conspiratorial that something was going to happen.
Someone was going to be the victim because they needed someone to die that day so they could call it a deadly...
And they exonerated him as quickly as they could have possibly exonerated him, Michael Byrd, despite his tainted history.
And they praised him as a hero.
And they got him on, you know, the media circuit to praise him as a hero.
And this guy thinks he saved countless lives by summarily executing an unarmed woman who was, she had a backpack, Lord knows, you know, whatever.
Where was the civil liberties left in all this?
If it were a white cop, a white male cop shooting a black female protester at a BLM riot.
They would have already lynched him by now.
I mean, it was extraordinary seeing how badly exposed the legal left has become, civil rights left has become.
They've become statist authoritarians overnight.
And it's because of the bias and prejudice of the professional managerial class in general that, you know, you could blame the professional managerial class for almost every debacle of the last century in terms of whenever it seeks power and gets it, it always usually turns out bad for people.
That's a good promising indicator.
Hopefully we see some more evidence of it in some other contexts and cases.
I don't know if Ashley Babbitt's family will be given a special grace by the new pope, but the new pope is a little...
I was right that he would have some African blood.
I thought he would actually look black, not be like six generations removed.
And he's an American pope in quotes.
Yes, he lived in America.
Yes, he voted in America.
But he has spent almost all of his career...
In Peru, he's a Latin American social justice guy.
He's probably more conservative on social issues, but the Catholic Church is swimming in corruption when it comes to illegal immigration.
For example, you kind of have to wonder, why do so many of our conservative judicial appointees are Catholic?
And is it a coincidence that so many of them end up being pro-illegal immigration one way, shape, or form?
Is it because the Catholic Church is neck deep in the corruption concerning illegal immigration?
Yeah, but now I don't know.
A judge arrested in Wisconsin was arrested before she was a judge.
What was she?
She was running a Catholic charity.
to massively bring in illegal immigration in this country.
I'm not trying to make any religious tropes about anything, period.
But if an institution is neck deep in illegal immigration, they're neck deep in human trafficking.
And then the question is going to be, is it because there's an element...
Yeah, yeah.
I wonder if the Catholic Church has any history of issues with trafficking children, maybe?
I'm not trying to make any tropes, people.
Oh, man.
To all the Catholic fans out there, yes, I'm a born-again Baptist, but I don't hate...
Somebody misinterpreted that.
When I was born-again Baptist, I was like, oh, Barnes hates all Catholics.
No, no, I just mean that I come from a Protestant tradition that is skeptical of the Catholic Church hierarchy.
It's like Matt Walks put out there, that if you're a true Catholic, you believe God appointed this Pope.
And I'm like, I'm definitely not, I'm not a Catholic, at least of all true Catholic.
And I don't think God appointed this Pope.
No, but how could you say something like that?
Humans appointed him, and now God acts through humans.
Okay, fine.
So the Pope is about as American as Mark Carney is Canadian.
Something of a globalist leader.
He'll be an anti-Trump guy.
So he's more conservative on cultural issues.
But he is extremely pro-illegal immigration.
Well, I went through his Twitter feed.
He's an Open Borders fan.
He's an Open Borders fan.
He's open and brazen about it.
Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec sort of seem to like him because he's very pro-life, which is a litmus test for many.
Barnes just got yeeted, I think.
And I went through his Twitter feed.
The irony, though, it seems that his brother...
I apologize for anything negative said about the Pope.
I fully support the Pope.
He's definitely God's emissary on Earth.
No reason to strike me down.
Maybe he doesn't have to prove that he really is God's emissary.
He's just going to strike me down right away.
What's funny is when I asked you the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and you said deference to an authority, which is naming a Pope, I take not issue.
I don't like someone telling me what...
It has to be done in the name of religion.
And, you know, I appreciate people look to the Pope for guidance and whatever, but above and beyond that, can you imagine, like, someone was making a joke, like, just yesterday the guy was Bob, and now he's the Pope.
Like, now he's the spokesperson, the leader for a...
Well, he's literally God on Earth.
I mean, the traditional Pope interpretates God's emissary on Earth.
And beyond emissaries, he's almost considered divine.
It's like the old divine right of kings and all that.
And...
You know, as a good Baptist boy, I've never been a big believer on that side.
But I think politically, he'll mostly be a problem for Trump.
He'll mostly be a hurdle, a source of harassment.
He'll go to great lengths to cover up the Catholic Church's complicity in the Soros open borders agenda.
A lot of the Catholic Church money these days comes from the Soroses of the world, funding their charities to promote illegal immigration and are very destructive of economies around the world.
And I think the Catholic Church blew an opportunity to try to reach out to the African world by having an African Pope.
Having somebody with a little bit of African American blood ain't going to get there.
Agent Guru is sending me some super chats.
Release the Seth Rich FBI files.
Is there any one, two cases that will end most of the other cases against Trump, says John Finn with a PH.
It concerns me that they haven't.
And again, Put it this way.
Anything in Bondi's control has been delayed and delayed and delayed.
Anything in Gabbard's control has been escalated, escalated, and escalated.
So Gabbard's done a great job of declassifying documents.
Bondi's done an atrocious job so far.
We've got Body Cam Bust.
$10 Canadian says, Westbound NDG creator.
Let's collaborate.
We met back in 2019 at a Montreal YouTube event.
I screenshotted this.
I have to go refresh my memory.
Sad Wings Raging has gifted five users Rumble Premium.
Thank you, Sad Wings.
And then we've got Almond.
Hey, Viva, recent subscriber.
Two seats left to go.
I had to check this one while we were live.
Two seats left to go.
Three recounts ongoing.
I think there's only two recounts ongoing.
They'll slow walk the majority or...
Oh, think they'll slow walk the majority or will they just rip the mask all the way off?
Is this the end of elections in Canada?
Robert, there are two...
Recounts currently pending where the difference is less than 100.
And in one, the Liberals leading by 17. In the other, it's the Conservative leading by 74. They don't even need to rip those off in order to get the majority.
Two NDP defectors or Elizabeth May?
Dude, but we'll see what happens.
There's two recounts going.
They may yet get to that.
And I think what we predicted and what you're saying, Alberta is definitely going forward with efforts to succeed.
I listened to the full Danielle Smith conference or 20-minute video that she put out last week talking about what she wants from the federal government.
She's fantastic.
She would be a hands-down better leader for the Conservatives than Pierre Poilievre.
But they're going full throttle and they're going to get it because the sentiment is there.
Quebec wants out.
Quebec is getting jealous.
And Quebec will go for it.
And then what do you have?
A rump.
You're going to have a rump Canada, just like we end up with a rump Ukraine.
See, now, speaking of at least the, you know, they're stealing it out of the gate up front there in Canada, where they can.
In Maine, they're stealing it after the election.
Oh, my goodness.
So this, by the way, one more, one more, because I don't want to forget.
Raider 208 gifted five Rumble premium users over on Rumble.
Raider 208, thank you.
All right, Robert, how do these things, how do I not find out about these things?
It's a Maine.
A legislator?
Is it a congress?
It's not a congressperson.
Well, they're equivalent.
They're a house of representatives.
A state rep who has been censured because she posted a...
Well, I don't know.
I think it's a sheet.
Posted pictures condemning or criticizing the trans movement and the mains defiance of Trump's executive order and...
Boys kicking girls' ass at girls' sports because boys are better than girls at sports, by and large.
She posted a Facebook post, and I think the criticism is that it contained photos of a high school boy competing in a girls' event, and the legislature, the person, the government, whatever person, got censured and can no longer speak on vote, can no longer participate.
And now I tell you, the censor, they went further and said she can't vote.
That none of her votes will be counted.
This is insurrection.
I mean, that's actual insurrection.
How the hell do they have the nerve to do that?
Well, their claim was legislative immunity.
It's always fascinating to me the way in which courts would go through such shenanigans to protect something they politically like under the guise of immunity.
Because remember, President Trump managed to have no immunity for statements he made while president, according to the same courts that gave such immunity.
To Senator Warren and Deborah Howland when it concerned the Covington kids.
I mean, direct contradiction in the law.
And here, what they did is the same thing.
They abused the speech and debate, but at least here there's no Westfall application.
The speech and debate clause has been applied to the states to say that if what you're doing is legislative, the courts won't get involved.
This is not legislative.
They didn't pass a bill.
This was the legislature.
Trying to silence a dissident by stripping her voters of having any representation in the state legislature.
A direct violation of the requirement that we guarantee a Republican form of government to the states under our U.S. Constitution.
And is not something ever protected by the speech and debate clause.
Which, you know, if you go back and you look at the Kilbourn case, you look at subsequent cases, that speech and debate clause has always been very limited.
It's only applied to...
Because people try to argue the speech and debate clause made it immune when they took bribes.
I was part of my legislative duties.
You know, bribery.
At least it was honest, I suppose.
They're like, no, no, no, that's not legislative.
When you're trying to pass a bill, that is, and the substance of that machinery is, but when you're excluding members, this goes back to cases we've talked about before, the Adam Clayton Powell case in the late 1960s, where the Supreme Court made clear that Congress doesn't have unilateral power to exclude members from voting and participating that were properly voted in by their electorate.
That respecting the electorate requires respecting their voice.
And there's a certain limited procedure and protocol you can go through, but it has to be the expulsion process.
It can't be, and it has to be constitutionally consistent.
Here they took her speech because they didn't like her at her speech.
They said, we are going to prohibit you from voting and that we're immune because what we're doing is speech.
And it's like, no, what you're doing is not speech at all.
I don't know how it's, it's, it's not.
How the people who have done it have not been, let alone sanctioned or censured themselves, but it's criminal disenfranchisement of the people's right to be represented by the person they elected.
Period.
It's how crazy Maine is.
Maine is flagrantly violating federal civil rights, and the Maine governor told President Trump at the White House he was going to keep doing it, and said, see you in court.
And what she means by that, she means that the court systems in Maine, the federal court systems especially, are completely co-opted.
She saw those same federal courts refuse to take any action to protect people's civil liberties and civil rights when she was stripping them of those rights during COVID, so that she knows those courts won't do anything to hold her into account, nor will the First Circuit either, and they didn't.
So now the case goes up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
States from across the country have joined the case.
Yeah, 16 and 16 amici.
They'd better...
Spank them for what they've done in that case.
You just have to hope that the Supreme Court does it.
I mean, it's another example of where the states are absolutely out of control, like the Second Amendment ban that they approved of the Washington Supreme Court.
When you sent me that case, and I'm reading it, and I read Maine Lobster censored, and I'm reading through this case like...
What the hell does this have to do with lobsters?
And then I went back and it said Maine legislator censored.
You had a lobster on your mind.
No, I also had some Maine lobster on my mind.
Second Amendment case, which one is that?
I'm not familiar with it.
Oh, so what happened here is the Washington legislature, which is one of the most woke in the country.
If we keep woke, limited to actually woke people, not mislabel it like James Lindsay and others do.
One of the bills they passed.
Was a ban on owning, purchasing, selling, you name it, magazines with more than 10 rounds.
And it's like, okay, that's clearly a Second Amendment ban.
That's a violation of the Second Amendment.
And what does the Washington Supreme Court say?
Nah, that's the bullets.
And the bullets aren't arms.
But they've already done this in California.
Didn't they do this in California?
Yeah, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
It's the liberal approach.
They keep pretending, first, that the people aren't the people, that that's much more limited.
Second, that the Second Amendment didn't protect certain things that it always protected.
And now their defense is that the Second Amendment only protects arms, and arms are only the weapon themselves.
Not whether it has any bullets in it.
They've gone full Chris Rock.
Like, yeah, they just charge $10,000 a bullet, and you have your Second Amendment rights, but impose a $10,000 government tax on bullets.
I mean, the dissenting judge pointed out.
Pretending that the bullets in a gun are not part of the gun and necessary to self-defense is utterly preposterous.
So the gun is arms, but the bullets are not.
But what does this show?
The states have completely ignored the Supreme Court's brewing decision.
Try to have a well-regulated militia that doesn't have bullets.
The Washington State Constitution is even broader, by the way.
It reinforced what the Second Amendment was always all about.
And it included a broad right of self-defense, even broader than the Second Amendment is.
And they went out of their way to say neither provision applied because...
And then they pretended that, well, you usually only need to shoot twice in self-defense.
So now I'm only entitled to two bullets?
Well, welcome to Canada.
You're not allowed having a magazine that has more than...
I think it's five rounds, if I'm not mistaken.
So...
It's preposterous.
Even though, again, a majority of Americans own these magazines for self-defense purposes, which has been the appropriate test by the Supreme Court.
And this Washington Supreme Court just didn't care.
Just utterly ignored.
Because, I mean, that's what happens when the Supreme Court doesn't discipline other courts.
They go rogue and they go nuts.
And we're seeing how rogue, whether it's in Maine or whether it's in Washington, whether it's immigration, whether it's Doge, whether it's anything else, we're seeing routine, repeated violation of people's civil rights by these rogue courts.
Now, the good news is, Harvey Dillon at the Justice Department is looking at getting the federal government involved in these cases and going after these rogue states.
So that's very promising.
Another promising indicator.
It's good to highlight areas where Trump is weak to try to strengthen him, but make sure what you're doing is trying to strengthen him, not demonize him, not pretend he's had no successes.
So that's good on Dillon's side.
But it shows the problem.
And it's another case where the Supreme Court's going to have to reinforce Bruin.
Or Bruin will be utterly gutted by all of these rogue rulings by lower courts, including in some cases federal courts, and in this case, a state supreme court.
Let me bring this up.
We've got to take the party on over to locals in a second here.
But followed since and before the car vlogs, so thankful for you both, most specifically Barnes Knowledge, but you both have been a light in this dark world.
While man is depraved, we can be redeemed, says JJ Mac A. Angie K. says Mark Levin is Jewish and his family history is from Ukraine.
Ginger Ninja says, Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro both have the same litigation record, I'm pretty sure.
Coke Spoon says, Dan Vicious, they were wrong.
It was a crack pipe.
Says, boo-boo flu, boo-boo few.
And in Cash's defense, Epstein was the one who wouldn't stop running his mouth.
So in that sense, it was suicide-ish.
Dan Vicious, happy Mother's Day.
Okay, good.
What do we do?
Do we bring the party over to locals?
Yeah, what we have to cover is a major bank fraud case exposing Citibank and the global banking system.
We've got religious discrimination cases, the belief versus practice.
What happens when it's the union that's involved?
We got a trilogy of cases.
Maybe we can cover this.
The last one will be the crypto topics because they're relatively quick.
But it's the DOJ announcement, the win for HEX, and Roger Ver's dismissal motion movement.
And then last but not least, we have chemical immunity for the forever chemical companies in the state of Georgia, where they still care more about the big corporations than they do our health.
Funny thing is, I ate a fire pickle today or something, and I was reading the ingredients, and I don't know why it had all of these dye numbers in it.
I'll post it to locals afterwards.
Well, thanks to another success of the Kennedy under HHS, under Kennedy, is that they're now finally going to start taking the food dyes out.
These food dyes that have been deeply problematic.
But yeah, at least in crypto, it's another classic example.
There's places where DOJ is making great progress.
There's areas where there's big wins in court.
And it should be translating to the glaring case they haven't fixed.
Because my guess is, again, the people running the Roger Ver case are the same people that have always run the Roger Ver case.
Why is the Biden administration still in control over a case as politically significant as the Roger Ver case?
It's another failure of the body of ministry.
We don't need to go into the deal.
We've gone into details on Roger Ver, but he's got a motion to dismiss in California.
He's still got the indictment for his arrest for tax evasion, mail fraud for filing allegedly false tax returns on alleged amounts that were allegedly owed on Bitcoin transactions, even though he was no longer a citizen of the country, let alone a resident.
And we had been very vocal about pardoning Roger Ver, and will continue to be so.
Very optimistic that he will be.
We'll see what happens with the motion to dismiss if they don't drop it before then.
Let me give you an example.
This week, the DOJ announced.
So there was a decision in the Hex case against Richard Hart that the Federal District Court dismissed saying they never had personal jurisdiction.
I raised that issue on behalf of other people affiliated with that case two years ago.
Told them that they were going to have serious problems with their case.
You know, representing some people.
Real dirt cheap.
It was almost pro bono.
And the jurisdiction in this case is because it's not a security.
That is the jurisdiction.
Well, that's one aspect, but they didn't even reach that aspect.
The court said even if what he was selling was a security, which I disagree with treating all crypto as securities, putting that aside, said he didn't purposely avail himself of any United States jurisdiction.
In other words, to have personal jurisdiction over you, you've got to do something.
That directly reaches into that jurisdiction to make it fair for you to be held accountable in that jurisdiction.
In other words, what prohibits Russia, say, from saying we hereby indict Robert Barnes for something he did in Tennessee?
It's like, unless I purposely avail myself of Russia, Russia has nothing to do with it.
It has no authority over me, no personal jurisdiction over me.
Our personal jurisdiction laws are the same.
If you're not a resident, if you're a resident, there can be general jurisdiction.
That means jurisdiction for any case, even if the case doesn't concern things you did in that state, if you are a resident of that state, if you're domiciled there, or your business is domiciled there.
Richard Hart was not.
Richard Hart was a U.S. citizen, but lived in Finland and elsewhere.
So instead, they said, well, he publicly marketed it in ways that was available to Americans.
And it's like, hold on a second.
By that definition, any global public statement you make is now actionable in the United States.
Here he took no action.
He didn't have an interactive site.
Clearly, by the way, he had some good legal counsel, how he handled this, right?
And the marketing never had any interaction.
It was no, here's the credit card link, here's the link, here's this.
None of that.
It was, here's this, go research it on your own, go make your own decision.
And any action that took place wasn't related to his marketing.
And so the judge pointed out, Richard Hart, there's no personal jurisdiction of the U.S. government over Richard Hart.
Because this was a specific jurisdiction case.
They said that we have specific jurisdiction over what he did here because he purposely availed himself of New York or other U.S. jurisdictions for the purposes of this behavior that we're saying was illegal.
And he was like, no, I didn't.
There were public statements I made to the whole world from Finland, but none of them, I never even interacted directly with anybody from the U.S. for the purchase of any of these things that you want to call securities that I'm disputing are securities.
And the federal court, to its credit, agreed.
So there is no personal jurisdiction.
So dismiss the case that the government wasted so much money and time on that case.
I mean, I represented some people very cheap because they were clearly harassing low-level influencers who were just pushing crypto.
If they had any tangential connection to Richard Hart or Hex, when many of them had almost no connection to it at all, and the little connection they did was just speech-related activities, they spent millions of dollars on this case.
I was like, this is a garbage case.
Not only is this not a security, not only is this not what they did, it isn't fraud, you don't even have personal jurisdiction over many of these people.
And then the federal court acknowledges it.
Total waste of time.
Justice Department, to their credit this week, announces they're disbanding the entire Biden crypto team.
They said we're not going to do any more regulation through prosecution.
I hope Roger Ver's team supplements their motion to dismiss to include that statement because there is no better example of regulation through prosecution, legislation through prosecution, than the Roger Ver indictment.
As I put up in the Barnes brief this week, talking about how to identify lawfare, you look for three things.
A novel theory of the case, particularly in a criminal case.
A selectivity in the prosecution, namely similarly situated people were not prosecuted.
And the distinguishing fact about the person being prosecuted is some constitutionally protected activity or status.
And third, government malfeasance and misfeasance and misconduct in the investigation or prosecution of the case.
Roger Ver screams all three, because as to the third, they lied to the courts in the U.S. They lied to the grand juries in the U.S. They lied to courts overseas.
They lied to foreign officials overseas.
They claimed that he did not rely on attorney-client advice after they had stolen his attorney-client files.
In fact, his attorney-client files proved that they absolutely knew everything he did was consistent with his lawyer's advice, which is a complete defense in America.
The tax charges, called the Reliance Defense.
The second aspect, selectivity and prosecution, all kinds of people had Bitcoin during this time period that they did not consider a taxable asset or a taxable transaction.
All kinds of people have exited the country during the second term of Obama because they didn't like where Obama was going the same time Roger Ver left the country and exited the country.
And almost, to my knowledge, none of them have been prosecuted other than Roger Ver.
And last but not least, you get, so he's similarly situated in that a whole bunch of other people like him did similar things.
And what's distinguishing is Roger Ver is the number one most high-profile public critic of central banks and central intelligence agencies' efforts to hijack Bitcoin.
How do you know this?
He actually wrote a book called Hijacking Bitcoin.
How do you know it's related?
He was indicted one month after he published his book Hijacking Bitcoin.
Huh, a little bit of a correlation.
But last but not least is the novelty of the prosecution.
The reason why I've been trying to bring attention to this case and the dangers of this case is the U.S. government, through the Justice Department, is trying to legislate a wealth tax, a direct property tax on Americans under the guise of a criminal prosecution.
There is no law that says the exit tax is constitutional.
That has never been fully adjudicated.
This says the moment you leave the country, we can tax all your property.
Though that makes no sense.
The Constitution says you cannot tax property, period, the federal government, unless you apportion it amongst the states.
This exit tax has never been apportioned.
So how do they do it?
They do a legal fiction that pretends the moment you give up U.S. citizenship, magically all your assets become income.
And it becomes income under the 16th Amendment.
Except the Supreme Court in Brushshaber made very clear property is not income under the 16th Amendment.
It can't be.
Because the Chief Justice wrote the opinion, wrote the dissenting opinion in Pollack in 1896, which said that as long as it's income you're taxing gains severed from the source, then it's constitutional.
He said that's what income meant in the 16th Amendment.
So consequently, this was a mass property tax that they were trying to impose on Roger Ver.
And they're trying to say, even though they've never passed it legally or constitutionally, so how are they saying they do it?
They're going to say they're going to criminally prosecute you.
Imagine if they wanted to expand America's taxing power in the future, not by going through Congress, not by getting constitutionally approved by the courts, but instead just indicting you for it and making you face your freedom risk over it.
So this novel theory of prosecuting...
Novel because it's prosecuting someone on an exit tax and a novel interpretation of that exit tax.
Novel because they're prosecuting someone over Bitcoin, which they didn't know what Bitcoin was in 2012.
Novel because they're saying they can double tax.
They're saying even though they taxed you at the time of the exit tax, if you later on, even though you're no longer a U.S. citizen, make money that's not even U.S. source, that you have to pay another tax on it, even though you already paid tax on it when they pretended it was income.
In other words, imagine you haven't sold your house.
You exit the country.
They decide to tax you on the sale of your house as if it was sold, even though you didn't sell it.
That's the legal fiction they're operating in.
Yeah, Robert, that's what the Canadian government does.
Oh, yeah, it is.
Yeah, you know that person.
But then imagine they came back, and after you actually sold, so you pay the tax as if you sold the house.
And then later on, you do sell the house.
Imagine if they came back and taxed you again, as if they hadn't taxed you the first time.
So it exposes, well, that's what they're doing to Roger Ver.
They're saying, oh, you know what?
Even though you pay tax at this time on it, you hadn't actually sold it.
So when you did sell it, we're going to tax you again.
This is how ridiculous this case is.
It's directly contrary to the entire Trump policy of protecting crypto and making America the welcome place for crypto.
You can't announce a policy at the Justice Department.
of disbanding the crypto division, of saying no more legislation through prosecution, no more regulation through prosecution in the crypto space, and allow the Roger Ver case to continue at any level.
So it's another example where Bondi hasn't made sure that people assigned these high-profile cases are making the right decisions because these people are sabotaging President Trump's agenda.
The longer the Roger Ver case continues, the more Trump damages his ability to make America the safe haven for crypto investment around the world, which is an essential part of his global economic strategy.
So hopefully they come in and dismiss the Roger Ver case sooner rather than later and quit letting this linger because it's a direct sabotage of Trump's agenda and it's a reward and endorsement of Biden's lawless law firm.
If they dismiss it, do they need to pardon him or does he need a pardon if they dismiss it?
No.
If they dismiss it, he can still pardon.
And I still favor the pardon to make sure they can't come back and try to do something else later on.
But if he doesn't want to go that route, just dismiss it with prejudice right now.
There's a motion to dismiss pending.
Just come in and say this now violates our policy.
This is not the Trump administration policy.
We do not legislate or regulate through prosecution, especially in the crypto space.
And we dismiss these charges.
So all the other people that are big into crypto won't be scared that they'll be treated like Roger Ver if they get anywhere near America.
Okay, let's do this.
We've got to bring it over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Let me see if I didn't miss anything here.
I think we got everything.
Robert, what do you have on this week for the Rumble crowd?
By the way, everybody, go get a Louis the Lobster book.
Speaking of Maine lobster.
On Amazon.
Illustrated by the daughter of one of our local members, Abigail Martin.
Robert, what do you have on for this week?
So, last week was on with Richard Barris.
What are the odds?
That was a lot of fun.
We'll have the bourbons with Barnes each night at 9-ish, 9-ish Eastern Time.
We've got some additional ideas for t-shirts and merch, which you can get at vivafry.com.
And we'll have additional merch up at 1776lawcenter.com.
So we'll have merch at both places.
But because we're watching the great film, the Tom Clancy film, Clear and Present Danger, and had some Linda Coffee.
It was like code words for corruption.
It was Linda Coffee, Lindo Coffee.
So if you watch the film, you know what that's about.
And there's some other good ones there.
But again, I have some hush-hushes up.
I had the hush-hushes up last week and the week before on 9-11, Building 7, and other aspects of 9-11.
The pilots.
Were they actually the pilots?
Were they perpetrators or were they patsies?
Those are up right now, but we're going to have more hush-hushes coming up this week, along with Bourbon with Barnes, every 9-ish Eastern Time.
The Barnes Brief is currently published right up there at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I'll be live weekly, daily, 4 o 'clock on Rumble with the locals after party afterwards.
And I got to correct myself.
I just looked.
There are three recounts underway in Canada.
Milton East Halton.
Liberal candidate leads by 29 votes.
Terra Nova.
Liberal candidate leads by 12 votes.
Windsor, Tecumseh, Lakeshore.
Conservative leads by 77 votes.
I'm sure magically the recounts will just all favor the Liberals.
Well, they only need to win two of the three.
They're going to get to an outright majority.
Okay, doesn't matter.
Locals, we're coming on over.
Oh, Encryptus, who do we raid?
Geez, I almost forgot that.
Who are we going to raid?
Let's see who's going on here.
We are going to raid Cool Frog.
I've got it queued up and ready to go.
Okay, do it.
And go and enjoy the evening in cryptos.
You'll let me know when we can go on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Yeah, we have Citibank exposed in a global bank fraud involving Mexico and elsewhere.
We've got religious discrimination, beliefs versus practices, what happens when the union is involved.
And we've got immunity for the forever chemical companies getting passed by conservative legislators.
And I'm going to be reading.
We're going to get the tip questions.
Let me see what's going on here.
Yeah, all tips of $5 or more at Weaver Barnes, law.locals.com.
Although I'm kind of loose on that rule.
I'll bring it up.
We often add people in, but the only assurance, the only guarantee is $5 or more.
Absolutely.
Now, Encryptus, can we end it on Rumble?
It's still going.
Just a few more seconds.
Okay.
And, well, who else is live?
I think also Salty Cracker's live, but he doesn't need the raid.
We're going to go raid.
Let me see here.
Raid, join.
Okay, it's on.
It's Viva.
The raid has gone.
When you go to Cool Frog, let him know from where you came.
And if you go anywhere else, let him know from where you came.