Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:39:40

Ep. 264: Comey for Prison! Romanian Election! P. Diddy Trial! Ostriches SAVED (for now) & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Looking at two men who have upset a lot of people today.
	This is not the clip that has upset people in which they positively assert that Jeffrey Epstein did in fact not Epstein himself, but in fact Epstein himself.
	You understand what I'm getting.
	This is one where they poke a little needle at Canada breaking some hard truths about their neighbor to the north.
	So where's the trafficking coming from still?
	Where are all the narco-traffickers going to keep bringing this stuff into the country?
	The northern border.
	Our adversaries have partnered up with the CCP and others, Russia, Iran, on a variety of different criminal enterprises, and they're going and they're sailing around to Vancouver and coming in by air.
	And the sheer tyranny of distance of the northern border and the lack of cooperation from federal authorities and prior administrations to actually firm up that northern border is what's causing a continuation of violent crime.
	Now, we're focused on it.
	And we're calling our state and local law enforcement partners up there.
	But you know who gets to step in is Canada.
	Because they're making it up there and shipping it down here.
	And I don't care about getting into this debate about making someone the 51st state or not.
	But they are our partner in the north.
	And say what you want about Mexico, but they helped us seal the southern border.
	The facts speak for themselves.
	The border that's open.
	I'll give you a statistic that I gave to Congress that nobody was paying attention to.
	Well, I say, if you've been watching this channel for the last five months, you were well aware of this particular statistic that you're going to hear right now.
	Over 300 known or suspected terrorists crossed into this country last year illegally.
	Known or suspected terrorists.
	Not illegals.
	Not just illegals.
	Known or suspected terrorists.
	85% of them came in through the northern border.
	This year, 100 known or suspected terrorists have crossed into this country illegally.
	64 to south and north.
	We've been talking about this for a very, very long time.
	Do you see the replies?
	You don't see the replies in Incognito, but I included a few of the tweets that I had put out over the last six months.
	Talking about this very problem that Canada has proven itself to be a national security threat for these United States of America.
	Before I go any further, I should tell everybody who might be shocked and appalled and say, who is this person that they're looking at right now?
	I shaved.
	I yet again feel naked and a little bit ugly.
	But I needed some sunlight on my face, and I needed to exfoliate.
	You have a beard for such an extended period of time, you need to get the dead skin cells off your face, and you need some sunlight.
	And the world feels a little cooler on my face.
	The thing I don't like is you get to see my anger scowl now.
	This is what happens when you deal with the world day in and day out for now going on seven, eight years.
	You can see the scowl of anger.
	When the hair grows over, then I get to look like more uniform.
	And yeah, all that to say, I shake.
	I have not seen the full Maria Bartolomo interview with Bongino and Patel.
	I just saw a few of the clips that were going viral today.
	That was one of them, rightly so, pointing a big fat finger and all four of them up at Canada in terms of known or people on terror watch lists crossing into America from the Canadian border.
	Outnumbering 8 to 1, the amount coming from the Mexican border.
	The fentanyl crisis, which we've been talking about.
	Sam Cooper, the journalist extraordinaire from Canada, been talking about it for a long time, where people say only 1% of the fentanyl nabbed at the border is nabbed from Canada to the US.
	That's not because only 1% of the fentanyl in the States is coming from Canada and the fentanyl superlabs.
	It's only because you have a large unguarded border where things come in on train or where they get shipped down to Mexico and then smuggled up through there.
	So they dropped a few hammers on Canada in that interview, but the one that they dropped today, I'm not going to lie and say that it didn't piss me off as well, because I don't know Kash Patel, but I know Dan Bongino.
	And I just, if I'm reading body language in this clip, I do not believe that they believe what they're saying.
	And I'll play you the clip, and we're going to talk about it.
	You said Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
	People don't believe it.
	Well, I mean, listen, they have a right to their opinion, but as someone who has worked as a public defender, as a prosecutor, who's been in that prison system, who's been in the Metropolitan Detention Center, who's been in segregated housing, you know a suicide when you see one, and that's what that was.
	Pause.
	I've said this with everybody, and I'm going to say it with Kash Patel.
	As someone who does not add credibility to the position you are espousing, as someone who's been in law enforcement, as, look, I can get many other people, as people who have worked in the field of EMT, emergency medical rescuing, who will say the exact opposite.
	So as a blank doesn't enhance your argument.
	And I've said it more in the context of Israel debate.
	As a Jew doesn't make your opinion more valid and it doesn't make someone else's opinion who's not Jewish less valid.
	So I don't care.
	About Kash Patel's resume, I care about the facts specific to this particular instance.
	As someone who has worked as a public defender, as a prosecutor, who's been in that prison system, who's been in the Metropolitan Detention Center, who's been in segregated housing, you know a suicide when you see one, and that's what that was.
	He killed himself.
	Again, you want me to...
	I've seen the whole file.
	He killed himself.
	I know it's hard work.
	Dan Bongino looks like...
	He killed himself.
	I like Dan.
	I can tell you that there are going to be a lot of people who are not going to believe what Dan is saying today because of what he's been saying for the last five years since 2019.
	I've been watching Dan for years.
	Everybody knows that the death was suspicious.
	He killed himself.
	Trust me.
	He's seen the file.
	He has.
	Fine.
	Then you'd better show us the file.
	You better show us what allows you to definitively say he killed himself when none of it makes any sense to anybody with half a sense of critical thought.
	Cameras out?
	Explain how that happened.
	Security guard sleeping?
	Explain how that happened.
	That he was on suicide watch and taken off and then suicided himself?
	Explain how that happened.
	I'm not trusting anybody.
	And then the other thing is this.
	I was trying to make a meme, but I'm not particularly good at making memes.
	If it's a, hey, Epstein.
	We're going to turn the cameras off.
	We're going to make sure the security guards aren't there.
	Here's a bed sheet.
	Do it.
	And he does do it.
	Facilitating a suicide is still not exactly what we would call bona fide suicide under these circumstances.
	If he were murdered and they said, look, we're going to kill you, and this is how we're going to make it happen, or he says, kill me, please.
	I can't do it myself.
	Put somebody here to strangle me to death.
	Facilitating the suicide or allowing it to happen is the suspicious part as well, even if he is, in fact, the one who, with his own hands, tied a bedsheet around his neck.
	Why he even had a bedsheet when he was on suicide watch?
	Explanations.
	Explanations are needed, not assurances.
	And Dan Bongino, there was an episode I was just watching earlier today.
	I was going to post some clips, but I'm...
	I'm not trying to pick a fight with Dan.
	Nor am I even saying that there's something bigger going on here.
	The only question is what?
	2019, 2023, Bongino was out there.
	It's all suspicious.
	Epstein has ties to Middle Eastern or, you know, people in the Middle East, politics in the Middle East.
	Everybody spent the last five years saying this wasn't a suicide.
	Now they come in and trust us, it was a suicide?
	Okay.
	If they let him kill himself...
	And he technically did it with his own hands.
	Fine, I guess it's technically suicide.
	And they're not lying.
	How the hell did that happen?
	Cameras off, security guards out, and he had a bedsheet in his...
	So it doesn't make sense.
	Some people are saying that there's a little bit of an overlap between the Epstein cover-up and the P. Diddy cover-up.
	And that is going to be the perfect segue into our intro guest, which is not just going to be me ranting and raving.
	I could do it all night long, people.
	Joe Neerman.
	Good Logic.
	If you don't know him, you will know him.
	And if you don't know him, where the hell have you been?
	Joe Nierman, Good Logic, L-A-W-G-I-C, New York attorney, who has now been attending the P. Diddy case, the P. Diddy trial, day in and day out.
	He's got a great channel called Good Logic on Twitter.
	He is at TheFollowingPro.
	Don't ask me how he picked that name.
	It's not a particularly good name for a Twitter handle, but whatever.
	Joe, if you can hear and see me, activate your mic and activate your camera and come on in.
	Until he gets in here.
	Joe's been covering the P. Diddy trial.
	And he's going to give us the breakdown.
	Joe, sir.
	Yo!
	Look at this.
	We're going to go like in ascending order of...
	Joe's bigger than me.
	And he looks bigger than me on the camera.
	But I'm much smaller than Barnes.
	Who's going to be even smaller than me when Barnes pops in.
	Joe.
	Who are you?
	What happened to your face?
	What do you think?
	What happened to your face?
	Was it a miss?
	Did you like zzz the wrong place?
	No, no.
	And then you're like, okay, I gotta take the whole thing off now?
	The people have a right to know.
	You wanna know what the real is?
	I pulled out a few too many hairs right here and then I said I have to just shave the entire thing.
	That's what happened!
	I knew it!
	You were like, I'm gonna look Amish or I'm gonna look like a redneck?
	No, dude, I wouldn't mind looking like an Amish or a redneck.
	As it was, it looked like I just had a big circle patch right here.
	And then I make excuses, but that's technically how it started.
	But the bottom line is you gotta exfoliate.
	But Joe, thumbs up or thumbs down?
	Bring back the beard?
	Obviously, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	All right, Joe, tell everybody who you are, and let's get into the PD.
	My name is Joe Nierman.
	I am a New York litigator with over 20 years of experience, and I practiced in the very court that PD is now being prosecuted.
	Not that specific courtroom, but I have practiced in that same courthouse.
	And I'll tell you right now, I have a lot of thoughts about this case, about the way that it's been going.
	I have a lot of thoughts about the Jeffrey Epstein thing you were just talking about.
	Actually, let's talk about that.
	I don't want to put real encryptists on the spot.
	I just noticed his chat over in Rumble where he said, because this is a theory that a lot of people are saying, I trust Bongino.
	I'm not sure if there's something nefarious going on surrounding Epstein's death.
	Why would they lie?
	It looks like Depp and Amber Heard when they were like, you know, Australia takes pets very seriously.
	There's a gun to his head.
	I'm convinced of it.
	Who's done?
	Who can have a gun to the head of the FBI?
	That's what I'm wondering.
	Well, the real Encryptus, as my guess, there's something bigger, a bigger game going on here, and they're saying that because it's what they think needs to be said.
	I don't think Bongino would torch his reputation by...
	He doesn't have to tell the truth.
	He just can't lie.
	So he wouldn't say anything as opposed to saying a lie.
	Encryptus.
	I definitely don't agree with that.
	So in the world of intelligence, when you have the highest clearances...
	There are things that you can't talk about and that you have to play whatever game that has to be played when it's related to national security and intelligence, which leads me to believe that this is one of those crazy conspiracies that we talked about over the last few years, something with Mossad, something with CIA, something along those lines, and there are still people in power well above that.
	That's just my take.
	Ask yourself this.
	How did he get amassed those fortunes when no one has no history of being so much excellence when it comes to the stock market or anything like that?
	So clearly he's blackmailing people.
	Ask yourself this.
	How did he manage to get such a ridiculous deal in 07, the first time that he's being prosecuted?
	I mean, everyone knew what he was doing.
	Everything came out.
	12 years earlier, and he ends up getting a deal where he ends up getting exoneration for Ghislaine Maxwell and a third party, and they basically say, okay, we'll give you two years, and you're going to be in club fed, and you can walk in and out whenever the hell you want, just show up and sleep here at night, like check in for a couple hours a day, and then go back home and do whatever the hell you want to do.
	How the heck is it that he got such a deal?
	How did he get away with doing it for so long?
	Prosecuting him.
	Unless he had ties.
	He had ties.
	And that's what Dan Bajuner needs to tell us about.
	He needs to tell us, okay, look, look, maybe he killed himself.
	Which I don't understand how he has 300 pounds of pressure to snap his jaw when he weighs less than 250.
	So I don't know how that works.
	Like science.
	I don't know how the science works.
	I'll let you go.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm taking over your show.
	No, I don't know.
	First of all, I don't think anybody's denying.
	That he's intelligence-connected blackmail extortion ring that I think might have been influencing geopolitical politics for the last two decades.
	Nobody disagrees with that.
	How he even got Leslie Wexner to give him his billions power of attorney.
	Blackmail.
	Undoubtedly, I believe, pedophile blackmail.
	Full stop.
	But I do not believe that Dan Bongino would strategically lie if he didn't have to.
	Let me rephrase this.
	I don't think he would strategically lie to perpetuate something just for the time being until they can, you know, get Serpico in there to take down the whole enterprise.
	So I either think he's totally, totally coerced into it.
	And, you know, someone talks about a metaphorical gun to your head.
	You know, my thoughts are that anyone with a family is not beyond coercion.
	They might be beyond bribery, but they're not beyond coercion.
	The two of them sitting there affirming Epstein died by suicide.
	It didn't look like they even believed the words that they were saying, but maybe I'm just projecting.
	No, I agree with you.
	I think they looked like they didn't have any...
	Desperately trying to sell something they don't believe in.
	And it still leaves so many questions that you sort of feel like they're never going to answer, like those questions I was raising.
	Like, why is...
	Okay, fine.
	If he somehow managed to kill himself, tell us his story.
	How did he get to be in the position he was in throughout his life?
	And if you're not willing to share that with us, obviously you're hiding a great deal.
	And why should we believe anything you're saying with respect to how he ultimately perished?
	Oh, geez, I just lost my thought.
	It had to do with, let me see if I can remember it.
	Oh, it was Israel.
	This is my, you know, if I have to think very cynically and very conspiratorially, Dan Bongino has been a vocal supporter of the state of Israel for years.
	And so much so that he takes shit for it in his chat.
	And if it came out that, you know, there might have been some Israeli connection to Epstein, and now this is the lie that's got to be perpetuated.
	I can see Bongino being a little bit angry that he has to do it, but, you know.
	This is why you tune into Viva Barnes.
	You can hear two Jews blame Israel.
	And the Jew-ish right there.
	I'll tell you this much.
	I don't know if it's Israel.
	It could be the Mossad.
	I definitely wouldn't rule that out.
	I wouldn't rule out the CIA.
	I wouldn't rule out the FBI.
	I have no idea.
	I just feel as if there are powerful figures somewhere which are white.
	And it almost doesn't matter where.
	It really doesn't matter where.
	Like, you can point your finger here or there.
	It doesn't matter where.
	We have to be concerned that until we're actually able to start hearing the truth, whatever the source of the cover-up...
	Okay.
	I mean, maybe it is Israel.
	I don't know.
	I certainly couldn't rule them out based on this.
	Well, there's definite ties between Epstein and Israeli leaders.
	That goes way back.
	Dershowitz confirmed that Lady Rothschild was the one who introduced him to Epstein, and it was why he trusted Epstein was Lady Rothschild, who the Rothschild family, very influential in, you know, maybe not continuously, but in the foundation of Israel itself.
	The famous controversial banking family of Europe.
	And then on top of that, Barack visited Epstein and had a range of constant meetings with that.
	It wasn't Netanyahu who was connected to him.
	It was predecessors in the Israeli leadership that were.
	Then you go back to Ghislaine Maxwell, Robert Maxwell.
	They had ties to every intelligence agency in the world.
	KGB, MI6, Mossad, you name it.
	The CIA.
	But I agree.
	Having them go out there, it was almost like they were bitch-walked.
	You know what I mean?
	Instead of dog-walked or perp-walked.
	You know what I mean?
	I mean, that was sad to see.
	To see Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.
	They now really have to take remedial action concerning Comey, Stroke, Page, Baker, all the rest.
	Because otherwise, they're going to look like they utterly failed to deliver on their promises and Trump's promises.
	If they're not going to deliver on Epstein, which is clear by what their statements are, they may still deliver on some documents, but we're not going to get the whole story now.
	When they double down on that, that's not going to happen.
	But instead, that means they really need to make sure that Comey gets legally 86ed.
	I just want to say, the thing is...
	When nobody believes what they're saying, for even them to come out and say it is going to cause a problem.
	I don't know that there's anybody on the right or anybody who's been paying attention to this that believes them.
	And if they know that they're going to say something that 90% of their base is not going to believe, why even say it?
	Yeah, I agree.
	Now, somebody on our board, our Locos board, at vivabarneslaw.locos.com, you can also join GoodLogics at GoodLogic, L-A-W-J-I-C, pronounced.
	The New York way, logic, a good spin on things, on his locals page.
	The other, the way, people might wonder, how does Epstein relate to the Diddy trial?
	Well, it's the same set of prosecutors, and they're running the exact same scam.
	The Reed trial is like a small version of it.
	Joe did a great breakdown on, it's almost like the grassy knoll theory.
	Of the Reed trial is the snow on the grass.
	That was a great breakdown on why the official Reed story doesn't hold up, blaming Karen Reed for what probably some cops did wrong at some level.
	Maybe they didn't kill the guy.
	Maybe he just died in such a way they didn't want to be blamed for it.
	The same with the Diddy trial.
	I mean, a lot of the quartering and others have been shocked.
	A lot of observers have been shocked because they were expecting to see what they thought would have happened but didn't happen with the Epstein trial that never occurred and the Maxwell trial.
	They're repeating the same thing.
	I mean, by all evidence to me, Diddy was running an old school style honey trap extortion blackmail operation to rise up through the music industry and fashion industry.
	He would have blackmailing everybody.
	And yet somehow that is not the case at all.
	Instead, it's just like the Maxwell case.
	Ah, he was just a perv.
	And we're going to accuse him of RICO, and we're going to accuse him of sexual trafficking, and we're going to accuse him of human trafficking.
	We're going to accuse him of these broad things that when you see the allegations, you think, okay, this is somebody running an extortion ring, a blackmail ring.
	And instead it's, no, no, no, that wasn't happening.
	No, no, it was just...
	Diddy was a pervert.
	Just like Epstein, he was just a pervert.
	Nobody else is involved.
	There's nothing else to see here.
	That's why I say the...
	An abusive pervert.
	An abusive pervert.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, a violent pervert.
	But instead of that fitting into the pattern of like...
	You know, a pimp, human trafficking for the purposes of getting powerful, rich people ensnared, which there's all kinds of evidence of, abusing young men.
	I mean, there's stories of Justin Timberlake.
	There's stories of...
	Bieber.
	Justin Bieber.
	Yeah, Justin Bieber.
	Yeah, not Timberlake.
	And Usher, I think.
	Yeah, Usher.
	He's from my hometown, Chattanooga.
	So there's all these rumors.
	I mean, Beyonce rumors because of his connection to that world.
	So, you know, and yet somehow they've made the entire case just that Diddy was an abusive pervert.
	And so the Epstein case was a cover-up, not an exposure.
	The Maxwell case was a cover-up, not an exposure.
	The Reed case was a cover-up, not an exposure.
	Russiagate.
	Was a cover-up of Spygate, not an exposure of anything related to Trump.
	And the Diddy case, run by dear Comey's daughter, again, magically.
	I mean, does Pam Bondi have any control over what her Justice Department does?
	Why is Maureen come, why does she still have a job?
	You give her control over the Diddy case, which has all kinds of information?
	But I saw your tweet earlier this week on this, Joe.
	Is my take a reasonable interpretation of the events that they are using the Diddy trial to cover up Diddy's real crimes by going after him, pretending that he did this solely for his own gain?
	I would tell you this.
	I haven't researched the whole backstory of Diddy's alleged nefarious history with respect to the youngins and the blackmail and rising up to the ranks.
	I will tell you that...
	Assuming that there's any whiff of truth to that, which I know it's very public fodder that there is a terrible, sordid tale to be told in that realm.
	If that is true, this is a far worse cover-up than what we saw with Glenn Maxwell.
	I covered the Glenn Maxwell trial, and I'm covering this trial, because in the Glenn Maxwell trial, at the very least, the subjects...
	Who were the victims, who become the center of the entire trial.
	They at least were being trafficked, and they were minors, and they were youngins, and we could see the ugliness.
	And Maureen Comey, who did oversee both of these prosecutions.
	Isn't that amazing?
	How does she magically get these cases?
	In fairness, I'll tell you how, though.
	I'll tell you how that happens.
	Her skills as a litigator, to give a fair assessment, she is easily the best prosecutor I've ever seen as far as being an effective litigator.
	Now, I'm not saying she's not corrupt.
	She is.
	She bends over backwards to try and cover up for the establishment.
	But do not think for a second that they're giving it to her purely on that basis alone.
	They likely have dozens of people like that.
	She was the most skilled corruption person.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	That's a great assessment.
	And she is genuinely a very skilled litigator.
	She's the most powerful litigator in the room where she goes.
	She's really good at it, but she's also corrupt and she's trying to cover up.
	You know, she definitely was – the judge called her out.
	Judge Allison Nathan called her out on it in the Glenn Maxwell trial saying, why are you blacking out all these names?
	They're like, well, we want to protect the victims.
	So she was like, so black out their names.
	Why are you blacking out everyone's names?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	And they ended up, she's like, I'm demanding that you're going to release the full thing.
	And that's why most people have seen those lists from the flight logs and things of that nature.
	It did come out in the trial.
	You can't find that.
	So that's why I don't know why people are always screaming about the flight logs.
	You can find those flight logs if you spend 10 minutes searching around on the internet to get your hands on them.
	But this trial is worse.
	Because what this is, if assuming there's any truth to what Robert Barnes is saying here about the background of the actual real ditty story, this is like trying to prosecute, you know,
	trying to prosecute We're so concerned about justice when really the objective is to get the entire public's focus on something away
	from...
	They're really genuinely terrible crimes.
	And that is a complete and total perversion of justice.
	I certainly agree with that.
	And Joe, it's like we've already almost forgotten that his room, this is from Newsweek, but it's the reality.
	Did he as bad as Epstein, say, officers who saw sex rooms hidden cameras during my...
	So he had cameras, sex rooms, and now this entire trial focuses only on...
	Just a relationship with what?
	Two women, right?
	Two women.
	Everything else is being excluded.
	I mean, it's the weakest Rico case I've ever seen.
	As a Ricoh case, it's a joke.
	That doesn't mean they won't secure convictions because when you have a guy that is easily hateable as Diddy, I mean, you know, beating people up, assaulting people.
	On camera.
	Yeah, on camera.
	I mean, there's not much, you know.
	I think him hiring Garagos' daughter was a mistake.
	I'm not sold on her skill set.
	Now, you've seen her up in the courtroom, so maybe she's better than I think, but I saw her as average.
	You needed someone that could just gut people in a case like this.
	I'm sure she's getting paid huge amounts of money.
	But Garagos was always good at getting cases.
	He was never really that good at winning them, by the way.
	And it looks to me like his daughter's taking the same path.
	I can walk you through the strategy that they're each employing here, from what we've seen so far.
	I mean, obviously, when you're in the opening...
	What we've seen from defense primarily is...
	The only thing we've seen from them is their opening statements and their cross-examination.
	And their opening statements, they spent a lot of time talking about how, yeah, this guy definitely commits domestic violence left and right.
	And he's violent when he's jealous or when he's on drugs.
	And you're going to see that every story here involves jealousy and drugs.
	I think that they have a really strong argument to say that no one else who was in a circle was trying to enable this type of activity.
	Many of them didn't even know it.
	And they're trying to argue based on the legal basis that there's a loophole to try and get him out and say, look, even if he's committing domestic violence, that's not committing trafficking.
	And accordingly, he shouldn't – these charges shouldn't stay.
	But that still leaves you with the emotional element to it.
	And the emotional element is you see all this stuff.
	You look at Cassie Ventura, who was his girlfriend on and off for over a period of 11 years.
	And during the vast majority of that time, he's basically having her go out there and just bang one escort after another and forcing her to perform for literally up to like nine hours, sometimes one time, four days.
	Of, like, you're not stopping, and I'm going to give you more drugs, and I want you to just keep performing, and it's just insanity, like, what he was pushing on her.
	Now, Cassie herself is a very sympathetic figure who you would think is Mother Teresa here, in the sense that she was this young, starlet singer who is, you know, obviously still, to this day, she's 38. To this day, she has supermodel-type looks, even though she's eight and a half months pregnant, and they had to rush in her testimony before she would...
	She's not going to be testifying anymore because they knew of this tight deadline.
	And they really did a great job of portraying her as this innocent, virtuous woman.
	And even the defense could not deny the fact, when they were on cross-examination, they were talking about, they're trying to portray her as an independent woman.
	That she's strong and can make her own decisions.
	And that she made free choice to basically perform for Diddy because she loved him and because she wanted to make him happy and get more time and attention from him.
	And that is very evident that that was certainly a significant motivating factor for her to do this.
	Definitely, to this day, feels some sort of connection to him, and she likely will for the rest of her life.
	And what the defense's strategy is, we want you to recognize that she was acting partially out of love.
	At times, she wasn't.
	There's one incident where she was like, the whole flight home, he's playing those freak-off videos, one that I thought he had deleted, and he was angry at me, and I moved away from him, and he moved to sit next to me.
	And we're flying all the way from...
	From Khan back to New York City and the entire flight, he's playing this freak-off video there.
	And he told me that he was threatening me that he was going to release this to the public.
	And he had already been violent with her throughout the relationship.
	And she was asked, what did you do that night when you got home?
	I did a freak-off.
	Why did you do that?
	Because I was afraid he's going to release videos of me.
	And I was also afraid he'd be angry.
	And what happens when he gets angry?
	He gets violent.
	That right there, boom, you have trafficking.
	Yeah, at least one night that we can put our finger on, she's being trafficked.
	And I assume they introduce evidence that the male escorts crossed state borders and that Diddy paid him.
	And those are two more of the charges.
	Those are the fourth and fifth charges.
	So all the elements are here.
	So what is the defense issue?
	Except Rico.
	Rico's the part I'm like, how is this racketeering?
	Yeah, it's only Rico if you can show a conspiracy with the other individuals who were his bodyguards, his managers, and security who were basically helping to arrange the freak-off rooms and, you know, and basically...
	Using some sort of enterprise.
	Because that's usually what trips people up on the civil RICO side.
	It's very hard to get to the...
	Because it's colloquially understood RICO as being this conspiracy to commit certain itemized crimes.
	But it also requires this enterprise.
	It was meant to deal with when you're extorting a local business.
	Things like that was the origins of the RICO board.
	It's from Apia.
	Exactly.
	It doesn't sound like they've introduced much evidence at all, really, on that side of the aisle yet.
	That probably will come later.
	We're expecting to hear.
	I'm sure we're getting a testimony from security and managers and some people who turn on Diddy who probably kind of deal with the state.
	And we'll probably hear more to bolster up their RICO claims at some point.
	We still have another five weeks for the state to put their case on.
	It's supposed to last six weeks their case in chief.
	So that's probably going to be coming up next month.
	They're starting off with their strongest counts.
	Given their theory of this case.
	By the way, some people in the chat were like, Barnes, you don't understand.
	Diddy was nowhere near the level of Epstein.
	They're wrong.
	Epstein was nowhere near the level of Diddy.
	Diddy could entrap a lot more people.
	Diddy could get all kinds of people to go to freak-off parties.
	Epstein had to do all kinds of work to get anybody near him.
	Now, he was good at it.
	He would offer free plane rides.
	He would offer conferences.
	He would do all the rest.
	But Epstein was nowhere near the level of what Diddy could do.
	Diddy could entrap all kinds of people that Epstein never could get close to.
	And he arguably did.
	But, Joe, I mean, have they even talked about the secret cameras, the recordings, the rooms?
	No, no, no.
	They haven't talked about any other guests.
	Like, their opening statement was the giveaway.
	When Joe recounted the opening statement, for those that don't know federal court, they don't allow cameras in the courtroom, I think Congress, to punish these courts for being wayward anyway, but also to assert the Constitution, should require every federal courtroom to have a camera in it for it to be publicly broadcast.
	Amen.
	But putting that aside, the opening statement made it clear this was only going to be a Diddy case.
	It's about two women.
	Yeah, Diddy with two women, that's it.
	There's nobody else, and there's male escorts, but they're not considered bad actors at all.
	There's nobody.
	There's nothing about entrapment of anybody else or of anyone else being involved in this at all.
	And that's what makes it worse than Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Ghislaine Maxwell, at least they're touching in that area so you know that he's bringing people in there.
	It was in that general realm that these girls were being brought up here and they focused about...
	For his personal enjoyment.
	But you know he has an island there.
	It's like there was a lot more.
	Here, everything is like, oh yeah, we rented a hotel that night.
	And he'd be like, I want to have a freak-off tonight.
	Let's go to a hotel.
	But the focus here is really exclusively on these two women.
	If you don't know anything about Diddy, which frankly, I know very little about him.
	All I know is about these two women.
	I would have no idea that he even met Justin Bieber, if not for the fact that much less all these other individuals.
	But he certainly has the appeal.
	One last point before you get into Bieber.
	That Robert Barnes is definitely correct on this.
	That Diddy himself personally was a massive draw.
	That just being close to Diddy, who has his own star power, so to speak, that just the idea you could say, I spent an afternoon hanging out with Diddy, is something that you would brag to your friends about for the next month, six months.
	Like, oh yeah, I was invited to a Diddy party.
	That's not something, no one ever heard of Jeffrey Epstein before he was arrested.
	You know, he might have been really wealthy in however he amassed his money, but no one heard of him as opposed to the gravitas that Adity has.
	It would be much easier for him to bring in whoever the hell he wants just because of the star power he had.
	Yes.
	It is amazing that the idea is...
	Any of these cameras that he had in these rooms were solely so that he could blackmail Cassie and the Jane into whatever.
	It's like...
	That's not the testimony.
	That's not the testimony.
	Testimony is that all those videos came from his phone or her phone.
	Not even that there were cameras.
	They're not introducing any of the evidence about other cameras that didn't exist.
	It's amazing because I just watched Blood Diamond the other day and like I was so disappointed re-watching it because this movie that's supposed to be about the Blood Diamond trade and child warriors or child fighters.
	And it becomes two hours of these people fighting over a stupid stone.
	And then at the end, like, oh, yeah.
	And child soldiers are still a thing going on in Rwanda or wherever.
	I'm saying it now.
	The prosecution was the cover-up.
	The trial is the cover-up.
	The conviction is going to be the cover-up because even P. Diddy is going to be happy to get off with 10 years for sex trafficking given what else he was probably doing behind all of those cameras.
	This case is so high-profiled, the judge will go way up on the sentencing even if he gets acquitted.
	Well, does Diddy get Epstein is going to be the question.
	I mean, the question is what he did with those other videos.
	So if he still has access and control of those other videos, then maybe he can avoid a premature death.
	Or, as Dan Bongino insists, hanging himself just out of cause.
	I'm going to be making fun of Bongino on that for forever.
	I'm sorry.
	You can't make that public.
	Even if the government was...
	If I was working for the government, they put massive pressure on me.
	You got to say this.
	I'm like, I'm not saying that.
	Have cash say it.
	Have somebody else say it.
	He could have said, the government's official position is that...
	Yeah, say something to caveat that.
	No, I've looked at the file.
	It's definitely suicide.
	Okay, now you've told me that you're the system's B-I-H.
	That's what you've told me, Danny.
	The kindness to Bongino is now gone.
	Once you make that statement, the criticism is going to keep coming until you deliver.
	It's so disappointing because we're like, who's left that we could trust?
	Yeah.
	Who's left?
	Bobby Kennedy.
	Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard.
	That's it.
	Joe, one question about the trial.
	Everybody was saying, oh, the gasp in the room when Cassie admitted that she's expecting a $10 million settlement from the Intercontinental Hotel.
	Oh, the government should have got ahead of that.
	That was a massive mistake.
	Joe, you said they brought this up in, like, recross?
	What example?
	They almost didn't get that evidence in.
	What a monumental mistake.
	I think Viva's heading to like, how is that relevant to the legal claims?
	I want to answer that.
	Forget the relevance.
	My bigger question is, why does that make her look bad?
	That makes it look like she's got no interest in prosecuting Diddy, that she's already getting her 10 million.
	Why would she possibly be doing this for any financial incentive?
	Oh, so I mean, I think the reason everyone gasps, A, is it was a shock.
	No one knew anything about it.
	And also that she got it.
	She just got this settlement agreement.
	She hasn't gotten paid yet.
	She just got a week or two weeks or three weeks ago that it's a relatively new thing.
	So now she's got a total of $30 million, which is the exact amount that she demanded out of Diddy that she wanted in compensation.
	Diddy gave her, she demanded $30.
	Diddy, the day after she filed her civil lawsuit against Diddy, they gave her $20.
	And now she got from the Intercontinental, another 10. The reason why this is significant, potentially significant, from the perspective of Diddy's ability to get an acquittal is this.
	When you think about why it is that a jury will convict, you have the law element, and then there's the heart sense of what's justice.
	Now, part of what they were trying to bring up on Cross with Cassie was that afterwards, he was so nice to her, and there's this really nice, warm text exchanges that went on for years.
	She stopped with him in 2018 and met her husband, and then he's wishing, he's like, I'm not trying to intrude.
	I want you to please know I'm not trying to intrude on your marriage.
	I wish nothing a blessing, and God...
	You know, God's grace on you and that he's taking yoga.
	And I think what they're trying to portray is this, that yes, a lot of this crap went down and it all went down basically 2018.
	And that since then he's reformed and that Cassie has been made whole as much as she can be made whole.
	And I'm not, that's not to say, and she said, you know, they said, would you have done it for the money?
	That's one of the questions the state asked, would you have done it for the money?
	And she said, I would, you know, she said, I would give anything to get my agency back.
	That was robbed from me, and then I'll never get back.
	So she was saying, no, I wouldn't have done it for the money.
	But at this point, you can't undo what happened.
	And so she's financially, from the perspective of what she was demanding, been made whole.
	So when you're looking for a sense of, the jury wants to implement justice.
	So she's been made financially whole.
	And he, allegedly, I'm sure they're trying to portray him, and even use Cassidy to portray him as if he's reformed.
	So now the jury can ask themselves, well, what's to be gained by us throwing him in jail?
	So if we try to find some basis to try and exonerate him, then maybe that's the way we should be going.
	And that's why it's significant that she got literally every dime that she was asking for.
	So you don't need to implement justice on her behalf.
	And if he truly, if the jury buys that he really has reformed, it's not that hard to try and find bases to try and side with him where you say, well, it's not really a reason.
	There's no criminal enterprise going on here.
	And is it trafficking?
	We know sometimes that she definitely, most of the time, she certainly seemed to be in agreement that she wanted his time and his attention.
	And part of the benefit of her doing these freak-offs was that in between, she would have private time with him, which was exactly what she was looking for to get out of them.
	So you could try to find some sort of basis.
	That's what defense, I think, is hoping for, that they're going to take the jury's heart out of the conviction, and that will open them up to the idea of trying to find...
	Loopholes to try and actually acquit him, ultimately.
	That seems to be their strategy to me.
	I mean, the summation of their defense, if they were a little more honest in the way they did their...
	I mean, I thought it was a mixed deal how they presented their opening statement, would be, Pete Giddy's a perv.
	He's not a pimp.
	There he's on trial, as if he was a pimp.
	He's not a pimp.
	He's just a perv.
	And a lot of rich people are pervs.
	Welcome to perv.
	He's not on trial for being a perv.
	There's other places they can charge him if they want to charge him for being a perv.
	And then, and by the way...
	Everybody got fabulously rich off this.
	All the people that feel they're terribly victimized made more money than they could ever dream.
	Now, the reason why the $10 million is significant is the government was very dismissive, didn't bring it up, didn't mention it, and was very dismissive of it.
	I mean, they should have known that before opening statement.
	She'd already got the money.
	They should have got ahead of that.
	Said that she's been partially recompensed, but nothing can bring back the horror and the trouble.
	I would have argued that she's gotten recompensed, and therefore that adds legitimacy to her testifying now against Diddy, where she's got nothing financial to gain out of it.
	Yeah, except for the ordinary juror.
	They're going to say, you got paid 30 million bucks, and your testimony was at least part of that.
	In other words, the assumption is you're on this story narrative in order to get rich, and that you have 30 million reasons.
	To have been inventing this story.
	You've got to stick with the story once you've already said it.
	Once you've already got paid, you can't reverse the story now.
	But going on this path got her $30 million.
	If she would have told a different story that was pro-Diddy, she gets zero.
	By telling the Diddy the story that's anti-Diddy, she got $30 million.
	Yeah, that's fair enough.
	But that video that I've seen is worth $30 million.
	It's worth $20 million from B-Diddy.
	Her credibility was really high.
	I'm not going to kid you.
	And she painted him as being an utter monster.
	And without ever, she still doesn't look him as being a monster.
	But just the story she was telling over, you know, it's almost like she was asked on Cross, do you hate Diddy?
	Did you, do you hate Diddy?
	She's like, I've never hated him.
	I still don't hate Diddy.
	You know, I thought, whenever they could have explored more, I mean, they were all over the place, I thought.
	Tone-wise in cross-examination by what you reported.
	One day one way, another day another way.
	Yeah, because the first day they made her seem far more credible.
	The nature of the tone of the first day of cross-examination was it was like a People magazine thing.
	It was like a People magazine interviewing the life of Cassie Ventura.
	So then you went here, and what was that like?
	And yeah, no, so you were very strong and independent, and you had a successful career when you had met her already.
	You were a model.
	You had a hit song behind you, and you're very beautiful and charming.
	And her response to that was great.
	She's like, thank you.
	And then the whole room laughed, and the defense attorney herself goes, "Well, it's true!" It's like everyone can see it.
	She comes across as being really refined.
	It's almost hard to envision her if you haven't seen any of the videos, which they properly kept from anyone but the jury seeing any of those videos.
	One of them was brought up as an exhibit so they can get a flavor for exactly what she had to do.
	But we haven't seen it.
	We, in the jury room, in the gallery, none of us have seen that, and I think that's the proper way to handle it.
	They're redefining freak-offs as his...
	Yes.
	If you ask me what a freak-off is right now, not knowing anything else, it is Diddy is sitting as a voyeur watching his lady perform with one man or multiple men and occasionally perhaps a woman.
	And that goes for hours and hours and days and days and he directs it and he tells them what to do.
	Sometimes he'll videotape them.
	He was an amateur porn director.
	Yeah, exactly.
	For his own personal amusement and in between sessions and his session is...
	Every time the guy would finish, that sometimes he would take her into a private room, and they would have time for an hour or two hours, and then he would do what he wanted to do with him, and some of the stuff they described on there, I don't know if you want me to describe, it's really sick.
	He's a perv perv.
	He's very, very sick.
	And sometimes he would beat her in there.
	Sometimes he would punch her lights out.
	In fact, that whole incident with the Intercontinental is she left because he punched her in the face and she went running out of there.
	And that's what led to her trying to flee that day from a freak-off.
	And we even know the name of the guy who was in the room who was sitting there.
	The staff, the first guy to testify who had also a great deal of credibility.
	He's the one who I think caused the release of the Intercontinental video.
	And he's like, there's a guy who, I go into his room there, and there's just a guy sitting on the bed.
	And they're like, that's not in your report.
	He's like, why would it be in my report?
	Well, it wasn't significant enough to be in your report, but you remember it nine years later?
	He's like, yeah, if you see a guy hits a girl and she goes running off and there's just some dude sitting on the bed, that's weird.
	I remember that, yes.
	Some of the testimony has been kind of amusing.
	But I think that...
	I think that she seemed very credible, and the state's objective has been, we're going to let this jury recognize Diddy, who they think of as a superstar, music artist, producer, perhaps hero to some of them.
	We want them to see that this guy is actually a terrible monster, and he is.
	And frankly, here's the thing I want to ask you guys, though, because Robert, you keep bringing this up, and a lot of people throw this at me.
	Should we not be rooting for him to be convicted?
	Even if Comey is a twisted bench.
	The only risk is, are they elevating...
	Like, one part I didn't like this is there was an aspect of this that felt like a woke gender feminist prosecution.
	And it was at times, like, there was a statement, an opening statement that was, well, the reason why this is still trafficking, even though he's not actually trafficking in the way all of us think of trafficking.
	Right.
	Trafficking is to make money, usually, not to lose money, which he lost millions on this.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's not this kind of behavior.
	They're trying to say, well, he's part of the male patriarchy.
	He has more money.
	He has more power.
	Thus, it's abusive.
	Thus, it's not only abusive, it's now trafficking.
	It's now RICO.
	It's now a federal crime.
	And I was like, that's the part of the trial.
	I mean, the main objection I had was that they were covering up the real ditty crimes in my view.
	But the second aspect was, otherwise, I mean, the guy's a scuzzbag.
	I mean, he's been involved in murders and a whole bunch of other stuff.
	I mean, this goes way better.
	Notorious B.I.G.
	He's tied to a lot of these high-profile murders, if you know the background.
	He came up with in the gang culture.
	I mean, the gang culture was big, big in the rap culture, etc.
	So I got all kinds of issues with Diddy.
	But I don't like the idea that...
	Of them making a legal predicate of saying that because he's the man, and because he has, then he by definition has more power and has more money.
	And redefines, and takes abuse and now makes it trafficking.
	Takes abuse and now makes it racketeering.
	That's the area where I was like, that's a precarious legal predicate.
	And they're doing this in multiple cases.
	They did it in that cult case in New York, where all of a sudden it was human trafficking.
	And there was things like, what is coercion?
	Well, if we start labeling this real broadly, everybody in their relationship has had coercion at some level.
	So now any aspect of coercion is now a federal crime of trafficking?
	That's where I was concerned with where they seem to be going.
	Joe, five more weeks.
	What happens tomorrow?
	Tomorrow I go back in there.
	Now trial is going to be from 9 until 3. If you want, I can pop in with you occasionally because I know that you don't want me to.
	Normally I was getting out at 5. Now our days are supposed to be ending at 3 o 'clock.
	I drop two videos a day, one by the lunch break, another after the day wraps up, and then at night I basically go through a lengthy breakdown.
	The recaps I give you are 10-minute summations of what happened in the last several hours.
	I go far greater detail in the evening when I do a live stream and I let everyone know how things are developing here.
	But I do think it's an interesting question, even though, yes, I agree with you.
	Comey's a terrible human being, and these charges are ridiculous, and they're BS, and they're stupid.
	You know, the counter to this, and I'm not trying to take a side here.
	I'm really trying hard to play the journalist role of just, this is what's happening, and this is what I can explain to you from my legal perspective, and I just want to break it down for you and not take a side here.
	But I will ask you to just...
	And mull this over.
	You know, Capone ended up being convicted on tax evasion, right?
	So to the extent that it's like, this is what we can get this guy.
	He's definitely a monster and a terrible person.
	To the extent that this is something that we feel confident we can prove, is that a good thing or is that a perversion of justice?
	And I think that might be, you know, for each person to sort of think about.
	It's a perversion if their goal really is to cover it up when they have the mechanism and means to bring to punishment and prosecution those involved.
	I agree.
	And exposing him for who he was.
	I mean, I knew of Diddy's reputation all the way back to LA because I represented a range of, let's say, clients that were impacted by it in one way, shape, or form, but briefly represented a client who was...
	Connected, shall we say.
	So there's no question to me that this is a mass cover-up.
	But for all this, and watch GoodLogic's great breakdown on why Karen Reed is indisputably innocent.
	His version of grassy knoll.
	Yes, the grassy knoll.
	The absence of the snow.
	When the absence of evidence is evidence.
	When the presence of evidence and the absence of something is evidence.
	Watch that.
	Break that down at GoodLogic.
	And you can find them also on Locals.
	We'll give everybody the link.
	Thank you very much.
	And yes, pop on every now and again to give us the latest recap.
	Always awesome having you guys.
	Have a great night.
	Have a good one.
	Now I go kick.
	I feel so bad kicking people from the studio.
	Did you just say exit or release?
	Release would be better.
	Robert, before we get further in and before we get into the evening stuff tonight, I never...
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on a second.
	I got to do this.
	I got to do this.
	I've got to bring this up.
	And then I've got to press play to thank our sponsor for the evening people, which is The Wellness Company.
	And the question is this.
	I know a lot of you are going to answer yes.
	Are you still feeling a little off after getting COVID the vaccine?
	You're not alone.
	And now research backs it up.
	In a groundbreaking study, risk stratification for future cardiac arrest after the jab.
	Dr. Peter McCullough highlights an alarming rise in sudden cardiac events among young and previously healthy individuals.
	His study found that tiny hidden patches of heart inflammation, often missed by doctors, could silently be building up, leading to sudden heart attacks during exercise That's why the wellness company created a 3-in-1 Ultimate Spike Detox crafted with 100% natural ingredients, specifically designed to help your body clear harmful spike proteins, reduce inflammation, and support heart health.
	Don't wait until your symptoms strike.
	Experience the only formula approved and used by Dr. McCullough, the top freedom-fighting doctor who risked it all.
	Go to head over to twc.health forward slash viva.
	The viva...
	Promo code will get you a discount.
	I forget exactly what it is.
	And get back to feeling good again.
	It's interesting not to share too much information.
	I went for a...
	I credit Dr. McCullough for helping to create these detox pills, because that was one of the first things a lot of people had.
	And I asked him and others about, and Dr. Malone and others, and they were really working on this, and that's good that they came up with something to help people that may have adverse health effects from the toxic COVID vaccine.
	My batch was clear.
	I got a recent echocardogram calcium test.
	Watch, but not things to be worried about.
	Unlike the breaking news of the day, Robert, Joe Biden diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer that has metastasized into the bones.
	Which means they knew, which my guess is maybe that's what Vegas was about.
	Remember, he disappeared for a period of time in Vegas, nobody knew what, something about a hospital, something else.
	So maybe that he had cancer and that's why he had to step down, but they wanted to hide it so it didn't impact the election.
	You know, I did love my favorite Babylon Bee headline of the week.
	Jake Tapper discovers there was massive cover-up of Joe Biden's health by Jake Tapper.
	Which is great.
	By the way, not as though we're politicizing this news development, it's got Dr. Drew, who I trust, who also told me about nataconase and detoxing and all this stuff, chimed in in response to Joe Sartor, who put this tweet out.
	And because it was a four-lane highway, That was accessible.
	My mother drove us, and rather than us be able to walk.
	And guess what?
	The first frost, you know what was happening.
	You had to put on your windshield wipers to get literally the oil slick off the window.
	That's why I and so damn many other people I grew up have cancer, and why I can't for the longest time.
	Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation.
	So this was two years ago that, Joe, we remember this, because at the time we said he's so senile he thought he had cancer, and now it might have turned out that he actually was diagnosed with cancer back then, but hid it for two years during the election.
	And Dr. Drew says, to be fair, beginning with the finding of a nodule and then discovering advanced disease does not pass the sniff test.
	Someone not receiving adequate or routine health care, this would make some sense, but does not fit the level of medical supervision given to POTUS.
	They knew early on.
	Or, Robert, or he doesn't have cancer, he's got something else, but they want to write it off as cancer so that it's not something more compromising like senility dementia, which you can...
	Well, he probably has both.
	Well, then there's no doubt he's definitely got the last...
	But I say, like, you know, the prosecution is the cover-up, the indictment is the cover-up, the conviction is the cover-up, and in this case, the diagnosis is the cover-up, because I don't believe you.
	Well, speaking of cover-ups, I remember taking some heat for suggesting that, I mean, not as controversially as suggesting Scott Peterson and O.J. Simpson might be innocent.
	I still get heat from that, of course.
	But the Murdoch case, I just never bought the story that he was responsible for those murders.
	Well, now his clerk, the court clerk, the clerk assigned the case.
	People tell me there's never corruption in the judicial branch.
	That can never happen.
	The clerk running the case, who allegedly communicated illicit, all kinds of illicit communications to the jury while they were, before and while they were deliberating illicitly, has now been indicted for a wide range of crimes.
	I mean, what is going on down there?
	That was another case that might have really been a cover-up case.
	Let's blame him for all these things and cover up the low country, South Carolina corruption that was probably so endemic he could potentially blow the lid on all of it and even accidentally.
	And so it looks like they set him up to blame him for the few crimes he likely didn't commit, but more evidence of that in the court.
	I mean, that should be big, not just because the Murtaugh case was big, but also because, what does that tell you about our court system?
	This clerk felt so confident she could get fabulously rich.
	She could break the law routinely.
	Doesn't that suggest maybe she'd been doing it routinely?
	That the judges had no problem with it?
	I've had bailiffs do this.
	I've had court clerks do this.
	It always...
	The courts always go crazy on me when I expose it, but this shows how systemic and institutionalized our corruption is in our legal system, that in a high-profile case, the clerk could be contaminating illicitly the trial pool in order to get enriched off a later book deal.
	Robert, today I felt genuinely blackpilled.
	Everything you realize is broken and corrupt.
	Starting with the Bongino video and the Kash Patel video, the Romanian elections, you know, the P. Diddy case, which is absolutely a cover-up, the Epstein case, which we're never going to find out about, the fact that it might actually be very sinister government agencies that have now got, you know, elected officials or appointed officials who have families that are easily coercible into, you know...
	Didn't feel good.
	Robert, before we get into the actual menu of the evening, let me just read a bunch of the super chats or the rumble rants that came through.
	Snake Coil Entertainment says, In fact, listening to our album, Sybil, you can't see it because it's in my face, but Sybil the Soothsayer and our new single, The Voice of God is a Gunshot, Premature Birth Mix, has been...
	I'm not reading the rest of that, but it's been known to cure diseases that do not have cures.
	Randy Edwards says, they've the DNC known about Biden's aggressive cancer for years, with his brothers stating over and over again that they hope to share quality time for whatever time they have left.
	Denise Santu says, everyone should follow Joe Goodlogic.
	He does an amazing job providing content, critical political and climate social issues, and he's doing a fantastic job with the P Diddy case.
	David Barnes Bongino is shaking his head no while he's saying it.
	Yes, says Shofar.
	I agree.
	Oh yeah, maybe the body language people can do that.
	A thousand percent they're going to.
	That'd be awesome.
	That'd be great.
	I'll send it.
	They're actually helping me out in an upcoming jury trial, jury selection case.
	And they'll be there at the 1776 Law Center inaugural fundraiser and conference in mid-August in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
	We'll have Chase Hughes about mind control, how you can use Jedi mind control to help you and help others.
	Greg Hartley, Scott Rouse.
	Viva's going to be there.
	My brother's going to be there.
	Richard Barris is going to be there.
	So it'll be a lot of fun.
	But absolutely, I think some of it, you're right.
	If his head...
	One would tell if somebody is...
	knows what they're saying is not accurate is they're shaking their heads no while they're saying yes.
	I'm going to go back and watch it, and I'll play it again in a second.
	Hiroshi Shinobin, Hiroshi Shinobin, says, For you both, what is up with Trump letting Cashmertel, Bongino, Bondi protect all the clients of Epstein's MP?
	Diddy, I feel like our country is still helping pedophiles.
	Well, on Diddy, Bondi just didn't take it away from Comey, and that's how I attribute that, is that she's not paying attention to things top to bottom at the DOJ.
	Unless it involves the latest Fox News scheduled media hit.
	But on Epstein, one of our board members suggested this might be playing into foreign policy.
	So Trump might be using what's happening on the Epstein docs and information to try to get people to do what he wants them to do.
	And as long as they...
	Play ball, if you will, that he won't release some damning information that may be related to it.
	Now, on the flip side, to give credit to Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, what they said today was very promising for future prosecutions of one James Comey and others.
	We'll get to that.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	I'll read these very quickly.
	Alex Jones eats our Biltong.
	You should, too.
	It's packed with B12 creatine, iron, zinc, and much more.
	Get them at Biltong USA.
	Use code BARNCE for 10% off.
	That's from King of Biltong.
	Tao, I'm going to screenshot this.
	I'm going to get to you on this.
	I didn't see what this is about.
	This is from TaoOm123.
	My boomer American parents were scammed, but the scammers were Canadian.
	Any chance I could ask you what they should contact, I'll see what I can do.
	Congratulations on King of Biltong for winning over Alex Jones.
	That is coming from Cultivated.
	Kings of Biltong is awesome.
	You start popping them in and boom, boom, boom.
	It's like better than beef jerky.
	Better than any beef jerky.
	If you like beef jerky, you'll love Biltong.
	If I were a jury on the Comey case was mine, I would still think the speech doesn't meet the Brandenburg test.
	This is Comey.
	We'll get there.
	Do other cases...
	Okay, we're going to get there.
	And do, Club, I am scheduled for jury duty on Tuesday.
	I'm not interested in serving any suggestions.
	Tell them you're prejudiced against all peoples.
	That's Homer Simpson's advice to his name.
	Yeah, yeah, that's it.
	One way to easily go, say, Judge, I really think a jury should determine the law, and I don't believe the jury should defer to the law.
	That will get the judge beat.
	Bye-bye.
	What's it called?
	Jury nullification.
	Two words.
	It's not really jury nullification.
	It's jury enforcement.
	The courts mislabel it jury nullification.
	Well, let's do James Comey, shall we?
	Oh, yeah.
	We should probably go through the list for all those.
	To tease it out a little bit.
	Oh, man, there's so much clickbait out there.
	God bless Tim Pool, but, man, he has a lot of clickbait.
	But you get this clickbait, they'll, like, have a headline, and you're all excited, and you watch the headline, and then the story has nothing to do with what the headline is, what the class, like, ah, I got clickbaited again.
	But Alex Jones taught me, look, Mark Jones got to do the teaser, right?
	You got to do the teaser.
	You got to do the topic that's got a lot of people interested.
	You got to tease it for coming up next, coming up next.
	That's how you do it, Mark.
	He was breaking it down for me.
	But we got...
	Comey, criminal.
	Is he going to finally go to prison?
	We got, as well as Lisa Page and Peter Stroke and James Baker and all the rest of those criminals at the FBI.
	Some promising news there.
	We got all out of SCOTUS.
	This was the number one voted issue at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Our board members create the show notes.
	They are the producer of the Viva Barnes Law for the People show.
	We got injunctions.
	We got immigration.
	We got the Fourth Amendment, and we got personnel all up at SCOTUS.
	We got a case I'm working on, jury selection, a Wisconsin first-ever COVID medical malpractice case, a case that involves egregious medical malpractice, but the hospital's excuse is, please blame COVID.
	Basically, they killed a 19-year-old girl with Down syndrome, and that's what happened, and they're trying to cover up their murder behind COVID.
	Trance, the 11th Circuit discovers all these special rights for drag shows for kids, Apparently, obscenity doesn't mean obscenity, even though that's what it used to mean according to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	But we have another court that says trans is not part of Title VII.
	We've got Pfizer getting exposed for its delay, something I've been talking about now for years, but finally confirmed by Congressman Jim Jordan and his committee.
	We've got Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., according to Public News, going to be taking aim at the COVID vaccine, amongst others.
	We've got the...
	Oh, we got peace around the world.
	We got Trump in Saudi Arabia.
	Big fame, great speech.
	We got Trump in Qatar.
	A lot of debate about the Qatari plane.
	It turns out the Qatari plane was part of the Biden administration's proposal that Trump simply accepted on.
	But it might have been a trap.
	But we'll get to that.
	Trump in Israel.
	Trump in Iran.
	Trump potentially in Turkey.
	Potential Trump, Putin.
	A meeting that might lead to global peace.
	We'll see.
	What are some of the hurdles?
	And is the backdoor man, Lindsey Graham.
	Part of causing a lot of the problems.
	We'll be discussing that.
	The Department of Agriculture has provided a place where you can communicate whether lawfare is happening.
	I think it's a great idea.
	They should have that in more places.
	And this is, by the way, inspired by Robert Kennedy.
	RFK did this during his campaign, in part, and got the Trump administration to do the same.
	It'd be nice if Brooke Rollins can turn to the most egregious lawfare that's currently happening in the Department of Agriculture.
	The aim is Miller case, but we'll get to that.
	America First is suing the Supreme Court to try to discover certain information.
	And we've got pending legislation that people asked about.
	This includes about tax issues, budget issues, Second Amendment issues, the HOLD Act, some others, judicial reform.
	All of that on tonight's Viva Barnes Law for the People.
	Robert, so we're going to start with James Comey.
	I have been obsessing over it.
	I think I know it more thoroughly than...
	99% of the people out there.
	I do not believe for one second that James Comey didn't know what it meant.
	I found an article where he was talking about the Sopranos.
	Oddly enough, the Sopranos used the term 86 in it.
	He knew what it meant.
	I don't believe he didn't make the formation himself.
	I certainly believe that he knew what he was doing when he published it.
	In light of his book, which is specifically about a far-right extremist who tests the limits of First Amendment rights by calling for violence against his political opponents, that something should be done and his fans oblige and carry out acts of violence, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, what it meant, why he was doing it, when he was doing it, and then didn't expect the blowback.
	I don't know how you don't expect the blowback.
	The question is this.
	People accuse me of being an anti-free speech as a result of this because it's protected speech.
	It doesn't rise to the Brandenburg level of threats.
	And I'm wondering that we're not talking about potential threats against your neighbor.
	We're not talking about threats at large.
	We're talking about threats against the President of the United States of America for which specific laws exist.
	I went back and revisited the 75-year-old blind man who made the threats on Facebook.
	Those were Objective threats.
	The only question was whether or not the response was appropriate, and it clearly wasn't.
	This was a guy saying, I'm going to get my sniper, I'm going to make this city famous when he comes here, and I'm going to get my sniper rifle, and it's about time for a good assassination.
	He literally said that.
	So those are quite clear.
	Person, time, place, specificity.
	Okay.
	I think this is sufficiently clear of a threat.
	The only question is, do you apply the Brandenburg test?
	To what is another specific type of law where there is a specific utterance of threat against the president that is its own law.
	Does Brandenburg level of rising to a true threat apply when applying the law in that context?
	Yes, because in fact it's already been applied to the sniper example you gave.
	So the sniper example you gave involved the federal law that had been passed, I think under Lyndon Baines Johnson.
	Because it didn't exist, I don't think, before LBJ.
	That to make a threat against the president is itself a crime.
	You don't have to act on it or anything else.
	Now, to make that threat First Amendment compliant, you have the same forms of imminent incitement, likelihood of occurring, intentionality of occurring, all of those components.
	The difference here that people are skipping is this isn't Joe Schmo saying 8647.
	This is the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	This is someone with incredible institutional power around the world.
	So coming from him, it would be like Putin putting out 86-47, or Macron putting out 86-47, or if Trump, when he wasn't president, putting out 86-46, right?
	Does anybody have any doubts that Trump would have been arrested the very next day?
	So it's because of who they are, and it goes to their intentionality.
	He knew how it would be perceived, that it appeared to be a message to his deep state allies around the world, time to kill President Trump.
	That's what it came across as.
	And there's reasonable belief in it because of who he is and what he's done in his position.
	So this isn't some Joe Schmo putting something on the internet that you could say, oh, there's no imminent incitement here.
	Because of who he is and who he's connected to, it absolutely could be imminent incitement under the circumstances.
	I mean, because this is a not-so-subtle message, time to murder President Trump.
	Putting it out there publicly.
	Now, the reality is they don't need this for Comey because he commits crimes every day.
	He committed crimes the entire time he was at the Justice Department and the FBI.
	And it was what was promising to see.
	Yeah, that's a great meme.
	What was promising to see is Patel and Bongino talking about that they have found a lot more crimes committed by the deep state against Trump.
	That they previously were unaware of concerning Stroke's behavior, Comey's behavior, Baker's behavior, and Page's behavior.
	The court's head at the top of the conspiracy against President Trump, at least as it applied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	They're serious.
	They need to go over to John Brennan, and then ultimately they need to get to the NGOs involved, like George Soros, Bill Gates, and others.
	But at a minimum, it did sound to me like from that part of the interview...
	That what Comey did by putting this 86-47 thing in the middle of every...
	And you have to ask yourself, why does he do it?
	He knows it's going to blow up.
	He knows who he is.
	I mean, the reasonable interpretation is that he expects someone to act on.
	He expects someone to kill the president because he's worried about where things might be going for his own legal risk.
	That's the reason.
	Now, by the way, he, and through his daughter and with his daughter, has blackmail material on everybody in the country and in the world.
	Right?
	I mean, that's why they do these cases in part.
	Just because they don't put the evidence on trial doesn't mean they haven't seen it and don't know it.
	Robert Mueller was an expert at this.
	Go back and look at the Asimov case.
	That was the son of Asimov, the famous science fiction writer.
	Just look it up.
	I'm going to be having a hush-hush on Robert Mueller and James Comey and some of these, Peter Stroke and some of these other criminal cats.
	In the coming weeks at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	But to me, all this was was the tipping factor to motivate them to indict all these people now.
	They're not going to stop.
	They're going to keep trying to overthrow our constitutional democracy, our republic, our election of 2024.
	And the only way we're going to get relief and remedy to preclude its reoccurrence.
	Is if there's meaningful consequences to these constant, continuous bad actors.
	And all Comey really did was give a green light.
	I mean, I think he sent that message out as a back signal to take down Trump.
	I mean, he doesn't say that and do that without knowing the blowback and consequences he's going to get.
	So he's desperate for someone to murder President Trump.
	I have no doubt that's why he put that message out there.
	That was just a cute, ha-ha-ha, I'm going to have a book coming out.
	That isn't what's going on there.
	But what it did is it provided the green light and made clear to Patel and Bongino and the Trump administration that they have got to do something with these bad faith actors or they may get the president.
	Imagine if someone did kill Trump.
	I mean, are we going to wait until that happens before Comey gets arrested?
	This guy has committed all kinds of crimes while he was the FBI director, committed all kinds of crimes when he was in the Justice Department, committed all kinds of crimes when he had associations with the Southern District of New York.
	It is long overdue he be criminally prosecuted with a bunch of them.
	And now I think he gave the last domino to fall for his own prosecution.
	See, it's ironic that this is coming from Costco Law School, so maybe it's intended to be a joke or flattering.
	Viva has a Canadian understanding of the concept of free speech.
	I actually have a very thorough understanding of free speech in America.
	The question of whether or not this rises to the Brandenburg-level threat imminent incitement, like Robert says, it's not just anybody saying it.
	It's not just in a vacuum that they're saying it.
	And it was complemented by him admitting to what he was basically doing, which was pushing the limits of free speech to call for people to kill Donald Trump.
	It's just like, to me, it's...
	And again, remember that guy that got summarily executed by the Biden SWAT team, I think in Utah or wherever it was, out west?
	That guy's threats were less imminent of risk than James Comey making this threat.
	Well, especially his threats, the guy...
	I mean, they've locked up people that are insane, literally insane, because they've said crazy things that they knew were insane.
	And they still locked him up for making threats to the president.
	So if this can't be...
	Imagine what those green lights.
	Oh, Comey can get away with it.
	That means anybody could get away with it.
	But you got your shithead Krasenstein brothers who did that exact same thing.
	You got a guy up in Canada, Dean Blundell, saying it unironically because you know that they would like to see it happen.
	But they're saying, oh, hey, they can't arrest us all.
	First of all...
	They can certainly, if you're not in the country, prevent you from ever coming into the country, and they can arrest you.
	To me, it's a no-brainer because he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was something like a bat call to the sky.
	Absolutely.
	Because of who he is and because of what he knows.
	So it's a very different situation.
	I would agree that there was not imminent incitement if it was Joe Schmo.
	James Comey, whole different animal.
	If tomorrow, I mean, the Iranians were under investigation for merely the rumor and rumination that they wanted to see President Trump dead.
	I mean, here's someone who said he wants President Trump killed.
	I mean, that's what James Comey did, to be absolutely clear.
	He knew exactly what he was saying.
	86 is a term that was part of his training, for crying out loud.
	So he knew exactly what he was doing.
	He knew exactly what he was saying.
	And he knew exactly what he was calling for.
	And it's a violation of federal law.
	And I don't think he has First Amendment protections, given who he is in the context in which he said it.
	What was I going to say about that?
	Oh, yeah, no.
	So I had my other thought.
	If he's under investigation now, and it turns out he deleted certain...
	I've been screaming at them for a while now, behind the scenes, and saying some version of this publicly, that these guys can't talk without lying.
	That's who they are, that's what they do.
	You're going to find all kinds of false statements that they have made to their superiors, to courts, to Congress, all the rest.
	And it's like, it's the easiest way to ensnare them.
	It's the easiest way to punish them for their crimes because they couldn't commit their crimes without covering up their crimes.
	They couldn't commit their crimes and publicly acknowledge and admit they did it.
	So they're going to have, just like Fauci.
	Like, for example, people are like, ah, Fauci's got this big pardon, etc.
	Here's the real easy way to deal with Fauci.
	If Jim Jordan had any cojones, you simply subpoena him back in front of Congress.
	And when you subpoena him, you ask him questions you know he's going to lie to.
	Because those new acts of perjury, Don't have any immunity or pardon attached to them.
	State legislatures, by the way, could do this.
	Somebody with brains out there, brains and balls, that's all you need.
	Somebody to, or at least metaphorically speaking, not excluding half the gender, is to do this.
	They should absolutely call these guys back in front of Congress, too, get them to lie some more.
	But they have plenty.
	Of evidence.
	You know, the people have given them grace of time because of all that they're facing.
	But it's time to start seeing action.
	It's time to start seeing remedy.
	And what Comey did is put it on blast.
	Ha ha ha, look at you, how little you, Bongino and Patel have done.
	I can threaten to murder the president and you'll do nothing about it.
	Now they have to do something about it because that sends way too dangerous a signal if they don't.
	From your mouth to Bongino's ears to Patel's ears as well.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	There's so much.
	You're going through the list and I can't believe all of that only happened last week.
	I know.
	What do you want to move on to?
	We got SCOTUS.
	We got trains and drag shows.
	We got Pfizer and vaccines.
	We got peace overseas, potentially.
	We got AG lawfare.
	So we got a range of topics.
	Speaking of overseas threats, let's go with the potential.
	It looks like it might be a peace deal in Ukraine.
	It looks like it was a ceasefire in Pakistan and Iran.
	It looks like, I don't know what's going on with Israel and Hamas, but the...
	Was it only last week?
	The gift from Qatar?
	That was only last week.
	The $400 million gift that now these idiots online, the trolls, they think they're funny by spamming reply sections with Trump getting out of a plane that says Qatar's bitch on it.
	First of all, it's a Boeing, you idiot.
	Second of all, he wouldn't even be entertaining this idea if Boeing hadn't defaulted effectively on their contract and provided two new Air Force Ones for $3.9 billion, overrun by a billion and a half dollars, I think, on the original contract, delayed on the original contract, such that Trump is now accepting a gift from Qatar, a beautiful, what do they call it, a flying mansion.
	This was in the same week where he goes to Qatar, gives an amazing speech, which was...
	It was a blistering rebuke of nation building from the West, but also, you know, it wasn't particularly flattering for Qatari politics, but it was just, it was ballsy.
	The question was this, that they're looking to have peace in the Middle East to sort of normalize relations with Qatar so that it's not always and only a funder of terrorism.
	The question was whether or not in...
	Arab or Muslim culture, if you refuse a gift, does it not sour relations?
	And whether or not Trump was sort of politely accepting this gift as a gesture of good faith in order to facilitate negotiations for broader Middle East relations.
	But you did mention something about the plane that it was a Biden-era venture in the first place.
	Flesh that out and whether or not you think...
	That A, this is treasonous.
	B, this is risky in terms of security.
	C, this is sort of just playing politics where you can't turn down a gift without being rude.
	What do you make of the plane?
	You know, my view is similar to Trump's.
	That, you know, somebody's offering a plane for free with no strings and it's public and transparent.
	Why not take it?
	Why spend $400 million and you don't have to spend?
	So, you know, that's Trump's, you know...
	Now, I agree with Barris that it would be made to look like...
	He's being bought off with big gifts from foreign nature.
	So I understand, like Barris' point was that PR-wise, this needs to be played very different publicly.
	So I basically side with both.
	I think substantively, Trump is right.
	PR-wise, Barris is right.
	So that there needed to be a bridge between those two.
	And that's what's missing.
	But his speech in Saudi Arabia was even more extraordinary.
	I mean, I recommend it to anybody out there who wants to understand Trump's true foreign policy.
	I'll be on with the Duran on Memorial Day, a week from Monday, to go over the whole global landscape of everything that's taking place.
	But what's extraordinary is within a week...
	Trump got a peace deal between India and Pakistan, a ceasefire as that was starting to escalate, potentially out of control between two nuclear powers.
	Remember, everybody.
	Another would-be potential nuclear power, he got to publicly say they no longer are interested in developing nuclear weapons if Trump can deliver, and that's Iran.
	So he may get peace to the Middle East within the same week.
	At the same time...
	Despite the EU and Zelensky and the Ukraine lovers demand that Russia agree to stop beating the crap out of Ukraine for 30 days while they can rearm and re-aim before they would do negotiations, Trump was like, nah, you can just go do the negotiations.
	And they're like, well, we demand Putin show up.
	Putin didn't show up.
	And Trump's like, nah, you still need to do the negotiations.
	And so what happened is, despite all their demands that they wouldn't negotiate without a ceasefire, They negotiated without a ceasefire because Trump told them to.
	Now, there's a lot of bad faith actors trying to sabotage this.
	In the case of Iran, the saboteurs are Israel.
	It's Netanyahu.
	Netanyahu is doing everything possible to sabotage a peace deal with Iran.
	And that's why Trump took a big Mideastern trip that skipped visiting Israel.
	That was not coincidental.
	That was a reminder.
	Of the score going on.
	And the Epstein docs too.
	If they ever get fully disclosed, my guess is the biggest group that will be exposed will be Mossad and Israel more than anyone else.
	There's a lot of reason to believe that.
	And Trump's just sort of sitting on that as a potential another card to play if Netanyahu in particular, more than Israel generally, continues to try to muck things up for him.
	Netanyahu way overplayed his hand.
	He doesn't understand.
	And the hardcore Israeli first politicians, the Ben Shapiros of the world, Trump has no interest in it.
	He never did.
	And Trump is more at ease in the Arab Muslim world, honestly, than he would be in Israel, right?
	Israel is a natural kind of collectivist country.
	It started that way.
	I mean, it was a rising thought.
	That's why the Soviet Union embraced them, so forth.
	Whereas the Middle East...
	I mean, you know, the Arab Bazaar is the famous place where you come to negotiate, right?
	I mean, so much so that it's kind of legendary, right?
	In the cultural zeitgeist.
	Trump, you can see when he was in Saudi Arabia, he gets along easily in the Arab Muslim world.
	It's probably the part of the world, other than Putin and Orban, that he most naturally sees the world the same way, right?
	He has the same filter, same framework.
	So extraordinary effort to get three global hotspots that could lead to nuclear war.
	We're potentially going to peace all in the same week and give a great speech that says we're not going to be in the neoliberal or the neoconservative business anymore.
	He's trying to overturn globalism on an economic order scale with trade policy and new industrial policy in the U.S., which we got China to squeal just a week or two ago because all that happened, too.
	I mean, we're really living in a time where decades happen in days.
	It's extraordinary, thanks to Trump.
	And I think he's on the right path.
	Now, the key with Ukraine, as this Romanian elect, I mean, J.D. Vance goes over to Europe, tells them, do not continue to suppress speech.
	Do not continue to try to ban parties.
	Do not continue, and he points out in Romania, don't continue to manipulate the Romanian election.
	What does Europe do?
	They go, hmm.
	And they do it again.
	They ban one candidate, and when the new candidate starts to surge, they do all kinds of things to make sure that he can't win.
	They're going to do the same thing in Poland with the runoff election.
	The conservative way overperformed expectations, once again, they're going to do everything possible to derail his opportunities.
	Now, you poll the polls, two-thirds of them say they have no interest in sending soldiers to Ukraine.
	None.
	That's the sentiment throughout Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe.
	But they're going to continue to sabotage us.
	I mean, the German...
	Germany had to be effectively shamed and to stop their efforts to ban the AFD.
	And they backed off temporarily.
	They're not going to do all massive intelligence gathering.
	The head of Telegram comes out today and says the French were demanding he use Telegram to censor political opinions to manipulate the Romanian election.
	This is why they arrested him, and we talked about suspecting this was the real reason, months ago in France.
	When he made the mistake of trusting the French, the never trust the French.
	I mean, if there's any rule in life, do never trust the French is a good one to live by.
	So you look at all of that, and Trump should get out of Ukraine.
	Putin has offered an exit ramp, an off-ramp, which is these peace negotiations at Istanbul.
	Everybody knows what the peace terms are.
	It's the same peace terms that's been there for three years, but in particular for the last year.
	Which is those terms are the ones they originally agreed to in 2022 in Istanbul until the U.S. and the Biden administration, Boris Johnson, sabotaged it.
	They call it Istanbul Plus.
	What's the plus?
	The plus recognizes what changed on the military battlefield in the three years since then.
	And that is that those four republics that they have now declared as part of Russia, they're not giving them back.
	That's never happening.
	That those four republics be recognized as Russian along with Crimean.
	And what they said to the supposed shock of the West was, if you don't agree to this, the next time we sit down, you know, when we first did this in 2022, it was just reinforced the Minsk Accords.
	That was it.
	Now in 2025, these four territories that we've had a battle to get that are historically Russian, that are filled with Russian people, are now Russian.
	And you're going to have to recognize it.
	When we're here a year from now, it's going to be eight republics.
	It'll be everything east of the Dnieper.
	After that, if you're here two years from now, Odessa and your Black River is bye-bye and gone.
	There's no reason.
	Europe has made clear they hate us.
	They hate our values.
	They hate our beliefs.
	America's revolution was founded on getting the heck out of Europe, getting the heck out of European wars.
	As John Adams said, we do not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.
	That's what Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia said.
	No more, no mas.
	We're going to operate on what's in the interest of America economically, and that's it.
	We're not going to be interested in whether your values are our values or anything else in terms of the rest of the world.
	But what we're not going to do is continue to fund countries that are consistently anti-American.
	Which is what the EU now is.
	The EU is anti-American.
	They're anti-free speech.
	They're anti-democracy.
	They're anti-liberty.
	They're anti-economic independence.
	They're anti-working class prosperity.
	As such, it's time to divorce and decouple from Europe.
	Get out of NATO.
	For one, get the heck out of the Ukrainian conflict.
	Either Zelensky signs the deal that Russia puts on the table, or we're done with him.
	And if we're smart...
	The Justice Department announces an investigation into Zelensky and the Ukrainian oligarchs who have stolen billions of dollars of American money in corrupt and criminal ways.
	We put, as Tulsi Gabbard has been saying, we put the bio labs under criminal investigation.
	It's going to lead back to Fauci.
	It's going to lead back to Democrats.
	It's going to lead back to the Biden family.
	There's all kinds of levers he can pull.
	And the person currently trying to extort him and blackmail him out of those policies, the figurehead of the deep state, is the backdoor man himself.
	Means a lot when you know who it is.
	Lindsey Graham.
	But he is bluffing.
	All Trump has got to do.
	He's already got most of his nominees through.
	That was the first thing that Lindsey Graham was blackmailing him on.
	Now he's trying to blackmail him on the budget.
	Graham can't afford to oppose any of those things.
	And all Trump's got to do is say, I'm going to support your primary opponent.
	And Lindsey Graham is done.
	Finished.
	Over.
	Which he should have been a long time ago.
	So it's time to call Lindsey Graham's bluff.
	It's time to call the EU's bluff.
	Get the heck out of Ukraine.
	And have us on a path to just get out of NATO altogether.
	We got dragged into there for World War I. Then we got dragged in there for World War II.
	Then we got dragged in there for the Cold War.
	What the heck are we still doing there?
	Enough's enough.
	Let Europe be the tourist museum that it's bound to be.
	Disney Paris is all they're going to be known for two decades from now.
	Finito, while they're busy.
	Doing their coke and having their little Zelensky parties, their own version of a freak-off, out there in Europe.
	It's time for us to no longer put American wealth and American lives and America's future at the risk of European would-be kings and monarchs.
	Two questions.
	One going all the way back to the airplane.
	People are raising the concerns of security issues.
	Yeah, that's fair.
	Laura Barris mentioned that.
	Some others have mentioned that.
	That's a fair concern.
	We don't have to actually use it, right?
	They can send it to us and we use it or we don't use it to make sure of the security protocols.
	Now, Qatar is bribing everybody in town.
	They spend lots of money on American universities, spend money throughout D.C. So I get the Qatari critics.
	But what Trump is trying to do is align the royals of Europe.
	I'm sorry, the royals of the would-be royals of Europe, the royals of the Middle East, and align them with their economic self-interest and say your economic self-interest is against terrorism.
	Your economic self-interest is for peace in the Middle East.
	Your economic self-interest is for no more global conflict with Israel.
	That's where, like he said, hopefully at some point you join the Solomon Accords.
	They didn't stand up and boo him.
	They didn't stand up and cheer him, but they didn't stand up and boo him either, which is progress.
	Trump's point is, peace is going to make you prosperous.
	Peace will make us prosperous.
	Let's work together to achieve that.
	That's what Qatar's main objective is.
	Despite, yes, I understand they fund Hamas.
	I've been one of the biggest critics of Qatar for a long time.
	But Trump has them on a much better path.
	And that's the smarter path to go than to be obsessed over.
	I mean, I didn't even understand.
	It's fully transparent.
	Some country wants to give us a plane?
	I mean, France gave us the Statue of Liberty.
	Are we supposed to send that back?
	Are we supposed to write a big check for it?
	That was one analogy.
	The other flip side is, okay, then pay for it.
	And how would that be any less bribery that, you know, giving a half a billion dollars to Qatar?
	They'll say that's bribery.
	So the idea is they want to make it impossible for the Trump administration to do anything with Qatar, but that is the alternative.
	And you have to ignore these saboteurs.
	You know, Barris is right.
	Play the PR better.
	Learn the PR for the normie American.
	Only worry about them.
	Do not worry about the Washington establishment.
	Do not worry about the Lindsey Grahams.
	Do not worry about the institutional media.
	They're just going to lie, and people have been catching on to their lies.
	Worry about talking directly.
	One of the things Trump should do is have fireside chats go directly to the people.
	I'm glad Cash Patel and Bongino have kind of finally got around to realizing they need to talk to the public.
	Now, there was a better way to do that presentation than coming out and being a little bitch on Epstein, but okay.
	But at a minimum, they need to be out.
	So I don't have a problem with Bondi doing PR.
	I have a problem with Bondi not managing the Justice Department while she's more focused on PR.
	But there needs to be a PR component.
	The best person, the two, three people have so far really delivered for the Trump administration.
	Robert Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, and Harmeet Dill.
	Harvey Dillon is showing how you can effectively use social media to highlight critical areas of public policy that is within her province as the Justice Department and the Civil Rights Division.
	Done an excellent job.
	Tulsi Gabbard has repeatedly done this.
	Like, right away, Gabbard did what Bondi should have done, right?
	Gabbard goes out there and says, it's obvious what Jabes Comey is doing.
	We know what he's doing.
	We take it very seriously as an intelligence threat, and we're going to deal with it.
	Bondi and others should have been out there reinforcing that.
	But putting that aside, Gabbard continues to do well.
	When the Israeli crowd, the intense pro-Israeli crowd, wanted to go to war with Iran, it was Gabbard that came out and said, they're nowhere near nuclear weapons.
	If you're trying to say they have nuclear weapons, you're wrong.
	You're making that up.
	It's false.
	It's fabricated.
	It set Mark Levin to such a tizzy, he started accusing Jews of being anti-Semitic.
	You know, that guy's always been a fraud, by the way.
	The neocon being pejorative for Jew in reference to Whitcoff, a Jewish man, using the term neocon.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's the reference for those that may have missed it.
	And then Robert Kennedy, right?
	You know, and you saw it this week.
	Now, Kristi Noem has also done above-average expectations so far.
	Tom Holman is, I think, number one.
	Holman's old school.
	He was the right guy for ice.
	So those are people that are delivering and delivering well, both in the court of public opinion and on public policy.
	A lot of these other people have underperformed, in my opinion.
	Okay, so that was one question there.
	I was looking up how Pakistan got the nuclear bomb, but that's too complicated.
	That might have to be a hush-hush for another day.
	Also, that was a China proxy, right?
	There were more than a few people that were suspect.
	Or skeptical of whether or not Pakistan's sudden interest in a conflict with India was really a proxy conflict between China and the US because of the US cutting a deal with India on trade and China, and also the announcement by major US companies they were going to relocate Chinese manufacturing like Apple to India.
	And all of a sudden, Pakistan, which gets a lot of its arms and economic ties to China.
	Suddenly has an interest in the military conflict with India.
	It had all the forensic fingerprints of little panda hands, you might say.
	Okay, so that does it for the international scene.
	I don't think I've missed anything.
	Yeah, we got SCOTUS, we got Wisconsin COVID, we got trans and drag shows, we got Pfizer delay the RFK vaccine, and a couple of others.
	Let me do something here.
	I'm going to bring up a few from our locals community that might still be on point.
	Regarding security of the jet, what is done to sweep for bugs using a nonlinear junction detector?
	The instrument shoots...
	They have extremely sophisticated mechanisms for that.
	My argument about that is if Qatar wanted to do something nefarious to Trump, they'll do it when he's...
	Yeah, there's a hundred other ways to do it.
	Even the think tanks that they bought off throughout Washington, D.C., for one.
	But I also say it's a liability for Qatar to give him that plane because if something doesn't, God forbid, happen on that plane, everyone's immediately going to blame Qatar, even if it was just a Boeing issue.
	I think you asked about Comey's life started going downhill.
	If you think about it, Comey's life started going downhill once Viva shaved.
	Correlation and causation.
	Could it be that Comey knew the FBI was going to bring him in on another matter for questioning, so he did this to keep the story from circulating?
	I had hypothesized also that maybe he does it to protect his daughter, make her fireproof on the Diddy case.
	I think he did it because he wanted to send a signal to the bad faith actors that Trump was having too much success and it was time to take him out.
	If you know who Comey is, that is exactly how he thinks.
	He doesn't put that out there unless he wants it to happen.
	Right after James Littlefinger Comey...
	Little Timmy Waltz tells law school grads that Trump is a tyrant abusing power to persecute scapegoats and enemies.
	Doing this in conjunction with Comey.
	Killing Trump just gets them Vance.
	And then David...
	Left this on your video, but I found a peculiar coloring on the shells.
	Yeah, the 8 was different than the 647.
	The 8 being a different color than the 6 implies more of an 8 miles out, 6 feet deep, meaning also rally around the family pocket full of shells, lying from the rage against the machine.
	Well, the fact that it was made out of shells is not.
	People ask, what's the difference between, say, Lindsey Graham and Tim Walsh?
	Tim Walsh is more of a bottom guy.
	Okay.
	Let me just get that visual out of my head, Robin.
	I don't want to vomit.
	Let's do the Supreme Court cases.
	Yeah, we got a quartet.
	We got immigration.
	We got injunctions.
	We got the Fourth Amendment.
	And we got personnel.
	Which one is the Birthright Citizenship?
	That's Fourth Amendment.
	That's Nationwide Injunction.
	The Birthright Citizenship is Nationwide Injunction?
	Yep.
	All right.
	Well, I didn't get to listen to all of it.
	I started listening to some of it.
	The consensus is, however, is the consensus that the court is going to uphold these nationwide injunctions?
	The consensus is that it's up in the air.
	Essentially, they see four justices, based on the questioning and past rulings, as likely to hold that these nationwide injunctions are in excess of the power of the federal district courts to issue in the first place.
	And that is Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
	And based on Kavanaugh's questioning, that was reinforced.
	So the question is, then there are known to be two liberals against, based on questioning, Sotomayor and Jackson.
	So it comes down to the three other judges who have, at least in the past, voiced concerns about nationwide injunctions.
	That includes Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, and Democratic appointee Kagan.
	Now, Kagan went out of her way to make clear that her prior positions against nationwide injunctions was purely political.
	She was trying to come up with a philosophically sound basis.
	To make it not look obvious that she's purely partisan now by suddenly reversing because just two years ago she said these nationwide injunctions are nuts when she was defending the Biden administration from nationwide injunctions that just almost never happened compared to Trump.
	And so my guess is Kagan will not vote to overturn it now, but she's going to have some intellectual difficulties because of how...
	It'll be obvious when she looks in the mirror what a complete fraud she now is.
	And these kind of judges like to pretend that they're not who they are.
	What will be the congressional remedy if the nationwide injunctions are not?
	Oh, easy.
	Congress can take away any power they want from any court other than the Supreme Court anytime they want.
	But what does it mean?
	The courts come in and say you can't take away those powers.
	I know.
	I mean, right now they are ignoring their clear limitations on power.
	That is true, which is what impeachment is supposed to be for.
	But you can be really, really aggressive, right?
	You can take away all their power, period.
	Take away all their budgets, period.
	All you have to pay is their guaranteed annual salary.
	You don't have to pay for their buildings.
	You don't have to pay for their clerks.
	You don't have to pay for their law clerks.
	You don't have to pay for their U.S. martial security.
	You don't have to pay for any of that.
	And you can just say, yeah, you have power.
	Good luck with making your rulings.
	Here's your annual salary, and that's it.
	It would dry up the judicial branch tomorrow.
	So they do have means of enforcing that if the courts continue to go rogue and act wayward.
	My own view is that Roberts most likely will join the four conservatives.
	Barrett, probably not.
	Barrett, too, by the way, has previously said these nationwide injunctions don't conform to law when it was the Biden administration.
	You know, it's nice to get belated recognition, but the number of normies out there, they're like, golly gee, Amy Coney Barrett's really not that good of a justice.
	Who could have possibly seen that?
	I don't know.
	Study your history next time.
	Putting that aside.
	So I think she's so political, so partisan, that she will likely violate her.
	It wouldn't shock me to see her go with the four conservatives.
	Because her purported philosophy, her belief in following these rules, she's one of these rules kind of people, says that these nationwide injunctions exceed the federal rules of civil procedure, even.
	And she has previously said they don't have this degree of equitable power.
	But she hates Trump so much, she's going to try to find a way around it.
	So I'd say a one in three chance Barrett votes with the conservatives, but I think two in three chance Roberts does.
	And it's just because this is becoming a nightmare.
	The judicial branch has gotten so insane, even though the Supreme Court itself issued another crazy AEA ruling this week, Alien Enemies Act ruling, which we'll get to in a second.
	But if they don't understand it, when judges are getting indicted, like state court judges, this is the other reason to send a message with Comey indictments and others, is to tell the system you're no longer protected.
	That everybody and anybody can be prosecuted.
	It's why you need either George Soros or Bill Gates in the dock.
	You've got to send a message to the billionaire oligarchs that think they run the world that they don't.
	And that there's consequences for their criminal behavior.
	And you do it like Putin did in Russia.
	Putin went to everybody and said, all the oligarchs said you can keep your ill-gotten gains, just give a little percentage of it back, quit stealing, and don't get involved in Russian politics.
	And if you do those three things, no problem.
	There were one or two that decided to act wayward, so he put them in the dock, sent them a free unplanned visit to Siberia for an extended time frame.
	And what did that do?
	The other oligarchs, a lot of them fled and kept trying to sabotage them, but most of them realized, okay, time to play ball.
	Time to quit being oligarchy as our governing society in Russia.
	Same is true in the U.S. But I think Roberts, I am hopeful, I suppose.
	The law overwhelmingly says these nationwide injunctions are illicit and a violation of Article 3, an excess of Article 3, and directly stripping from Article 1 and Article 2 their constitutionally given powers.
	And the simple provision for Roberts, as Trump himself has made clear, but did it indirectly, is if the Supreme Court doesn't stop this by summer, we're going to have a constitutional confrontation.
	And the president will be put into a position that in order to secure the safety of the country, he will have to tell the Supreme Court to shove off in the most dramatic way since FDR said, I'm going to add six justices to you because you can't seem to figure things out, as Abraham Lincoln did before that.
	As Andrew Jackson did before that, to a degree, Thomas Jefferson did it when he said, okay, you want to play games?
	I'm just going to impeach your chief justice.
	Let's see how that works out for you.
	That's what we're back to.
	But we haven't had that kind of confrontation in almost a century.
	But that's what Roberts is going to force if he doesn't go along with the conservatives to at least rein in the incredible extreme excesses of the judicial branch.
	Which other ones?
	Well, on the same week, they issue another insane immigration decision.
	This is the same case they issued that crazy decision before that made no sense.
	And only Alito and Thomas have the guts to say, hold on a second, this is getting ridiculous.
	And he's saying the Alien Enemies Act requires more than 24 hours notice.
	It's like, why?
	Someone that's illegally here, someone that's already been ordered removed?
	How is that person entitled to more due process?
	Well, you know, it's ridiculous.
	They're just making stuff up.
	Now, they're contradicting 200 plus years of American legal history.
	I mean, this is how egregious it's become.
	Now, what they said is there's a bunch of caveats in the order, likely to get Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's votes and others, was that, oh, you can use other laws other than the alien.
	Basically, they don't want them using the Alien Enemies Act.
	To deport all these people because of how broad the power the Alien Enemies Act is.
	That's basically where they're going.
	They're procedurally going to muck it up enough.
	But if they don't fix the rest, to try to impose 20 million trials, that's not happening.
	And at some point, what the president's got to do is just deport them.
	Say, good luck bringing them back.
	You can pay for it.
	Justice Barrett, you really love all these illegals when you're not busy adopting kids for every foreign part of the world?
	How about we send 5,000 to your backyard?
	Good luck.
	You take care of them.
	These frauds and hypocrites.
	So that's where they're going with this nonsense.
	Because it was a ridiculous order.
	It directly contradicts all of the prior precedent.
	They're just ignoring it.
	I can tell you why.
	Even the conservatives that are law clerks up there for these justices, I bet almost 80-90% of them are closet liberals.
	That's the reality of it.
	The legal academy has been co-opted by the left.
	The academy as a whole has been co-opted by the left.
	It's why you can't trust the average doctor.
	You can't trust the average lawyer.
	You can't trust anybody that's got letters after their name, like M.A., Ph.D., J.D., and all that other jazz.
	These people as a group have become culturally contaminated and power-hungry in such a way they're making ridiculous rulings, and that was just the latest one of them.
	It's an amazing thing where the Supreme Court talks about how it's devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest removal.
	If you're not legally here, you do not have a right against removal.
	You never did.
	It's not punishment.
	Removal is not punishment.
	Removal is just, you're not lawfully here.
	Like a trespasser, you get removed.
	Well, they're going to say, but I am lawfully here because of asylum, so you can't remove me.
	But these issues, these rulings come from Supreme Court SCOTUS.
	Most of these people are not even claiming that, right?
	That's what I've told people.
	Anybody who has a legitimate claim is completely still protected.
	If you're actually a citizen, then you have absolute access to the courts and can stop any deportation.
	If you're someone that has legal rights to be here by some mechanism or method, then you have a right against the deportation, higher due process rights.
	These people aren't claiming that.
	What they're claiming is you didn't give me enough notice to discover whether or not I have a claim that I know I don't have.
	That's what makes it ridiculous.
	But the question is this.
	The Supreme Court rulings, they're not on the merits as of yet.
	No, no.
	Correct.
	So-called shadow docket, which Barrett complained about, and now she's using it all the time.
	Because it is wild.
	I mean, they're sending it back.
	Go re-adjudicate.
	Go determine at the lower level on the merits.
	They lectured a district court judge for not getting a decision done within 24 hours.
	This is a Supreme Court that usually takes years to decide things.
	And they have the...
	This is litigants.
	Judges are this way in general, so I have no sympathy for any of them, because they'll often lecture lawyers.
	Why did you get...
	I need this in this time frame, this time frame.
	You take six months to rule on summary judgment.
	Don't lecture me.
	You've got four law clerks.
	This is your sole job.
	And you're going to lecture me on my time frame.
	One of these days, I probably will end up in jail.
	Plenty of judges have threatened it.
	But my patience just keeps going down and down and down for the nonsense.
	But it was a nonsense ruling by a nonsense court.
	And the question is, is it going to become full clown world up at the Supreme Court?
	Or is Roberts going to rein them in before they go completely off the ledge?
	Which one do we do?
	Do we do the...
	Two other ones.
	A big personnel case.
	What people don't know is another federal judge issued an injunction preventing President Trump from basically firing anybody.
	Because he issued an order that said we need 4% staff reductions.
	This has been recognized as a permissible executive power.
	In fact, an explicit and expressly given executive power for decades.
	We'll be back here in a second.
	And what that shows, the president has...
	The executive power is the power to control who works for the executive branch.
	If there's any power, that's it.
	And the very nature of it, the true dynamic of it.
	And so you look at that, but what happens, the federal judge said, no, you can't do it.
	I'm going to call this restructuring agencies.
	I'm going to call this something that somehow is beyond your constitutional power, and I'm going to prohibit you from imposing any cuts on anybody anywhere.
	Even though any person subject to such cuts has remedies already under the federal merits board.
	These people have no standing to sue, no authority to sue under existing case law that exists.
	I have problems with that case law, but that's what the case law says.
	If people injured by a COVID vaccine can't sue over the COVID vaccine, how in the heck can people who have not been injured at all by President Trump's orders can suddenly stop the order from ever going into force?
	So that is going to be up before the Supreme Court.
	And we'll see if Viva comes back here in a second.
	And then...
	Hold on a second.
	Oh, there you are.
	Hold on a second.
	Sorry.
	I didn't want to interrupt you because I just actually needed to go pee.
	I'm sorry.
	Oh, and last but not least, the Fourth Amendment under the Supreme Court.
	This is another case where Gorsuch joins the liberals.
	I think he's correct, though, to join the Liberals.
	This is why I've said that Gorsuch will, in certain civil rights contexts, actually be a better advocate than your conventional conservative.
	What happened was, in use of force cases, courts were taking the moment of force as being the, or what do they call it, moment of threat, as being the relevant time frame.
	The court has always said...
	Take the totality of the circumstances.
	It's a part objective test, part subjective test.
	The subjective part is what did the officer know at the time that he used force?
	And that goes into everything he knew.
	Everything.
	And then the objective factor is what would a reasonable officer do knowing what that officer subjectively knew?
	So that's the subjective and objective part.
	What they were deciding to do in their new thing was, no, no, no, it's really just the moment of threat.
	So you might ask, why would courts limit it in this drastic way?
	It's to help cops get off the hook for doing things like shooting people.
	By the way, this guy's name was Barnes.
	Yeah, so the guy gets pulled over.
	First of all, it's got to be a little bit weird.
	At one point in time, there was a David Freiheit who disappeared on a hiking excursion in Germany and died on the mountain, and that's when my name started coming up for other reasons.
	Guy pulls over, gets pulled over by a cop.
	Starts to take off, and then two seconds cop fires and kills the guy.
	Manages to stop the car and dies.
	And his name is Ashtian Barnes.
	And so the question was whether or not...
	I don't think he was a relative.
	Well, the first name sounded...
	Ashtian is Armenian if it were a last name.
	So the question was whether or not this was excessive use of force or reasonable under the circumstances.
	Yeah, I mean, basically, what was it?
	Tickets?
	So he's pulled over related to tickets, right?
	And at worst, fleeing, right?
	It was not the case that he was...
	Well, yeah, that was later on.
	And that was whether...
	So he gets pulled...
	He's getting inspected on tickets.
	The cop thinks he smells marijuana.
	The cop's magical smell.
	They have these magical smelling abilities where they can smell all kinds of things that nobody else can smell.
	Basically, it was just a pretext to see if he could escalate, right?
	So you got a cop saying, oh, maybe I got something else here.
	And so he starts trying to escalate, escalate.
	Oh, I want to open the trunk.
	I want to search the car.
	One of the tricks cops pull is, is there anything in the car I should be aware of?
	Don't answer that question, boys and girls.
	All right?
	That's a trap.
	You know, like the Star Wars movie.
	It's a trap.
	It's a trap.
	Maybe it's me.
	And so what happens at some point while this guy's, the cop's interacting with him.
	He starts to get out of the car, and then the car starts back up and starts to move a little bit.
	At which point, he just starts firing into the car without even knowing who's in there, without even being able to see the person.
	So you got another insane cop who's just like, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam.
	You know, the gun happened.
	How did he avoid a jury trial?
	Well, all the lower courts said, that poor police officer.
	All that matters is the moment of threat.
	And if the only thing you knew...
	He was on a moving car with someone attempting to escape.
	But by the way, attempting to escape is no reason to shoot.
	That's not a reasonable use of force, by the way.
	But they decided that no reasonable juror could possibly consider that an unreasonable use of force by focusing on, let's exclude everything that happened up until that point.
	And to the credit of the Supreme Court, they said, that's insane.
	The totality of the circumstances cuts both ways.
	Sometimes it will help the cop, sometimes it will hurt the cop.
	But it has to be the totality.
	We don't start changing our legal standards to help cops escape justice.
	By one minute saying it's the moment of threat, and another minute saying, no, no, no, you have to look at everything behind it.
	Which the only consistency was, how do we help cops kill people?
	That was what courts were historically doing, traditionally doing in this country.
	And to the credit of the Supreme Court, they said, that's not the standard.
	The standard is always totality of the circumstances.
	And here, this was a jury question to determine whether the...
	And by the way, jurors love cops.
	It is very hard to convict cops in criminal cases, very hard to convict them in civil cases, to win in civil cases.
	So the idea that this is hurtful to cops, I mean, this is just imposing the bare minimum of Fourth Amendment standards, for crying out loud.
	This was a classic example of excessive use of force.
	You definitely don't want, as a modern policy, cops just shooting into places they don't know and can't see.
	And so the credit to the Supreme Court in this case of restoring Fourth Amendment freedoms.
	It was their only good ruling of the week.
	Do we move down to the lower case courses?
	Well, we got a couple of quick cases that might be heading to SCOTUS.
	Drag shows and trans rights.
	The drag shows, I'm fairly certain that we talked about this at the time.
	Tennessee.
	This is the Florida law one.
	Well, it's the same issue, except it's even more ridiculous what the courts did.
	In the Tennessee case, I could see where the court was saying the law could have been a little clear in certain places, that overturning the Florida drag show for kids' law is preposterous.
	The logic of the court is utter garbage.
	Well, I'll read the...
	I'll read the provision of law, which says, which defined the adult live performance is any show exhibition or other presentation in front of a live audience, which in whole or in part depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities, as those terms are defined in section...
	Whatever of the law, lewd conduct, or lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.
	Now I'm remembering.
	One of these was a lot more specific than the other.
	Predominantly appeals to prurient, shameful, or morbid interests, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, yada, yada, yada.
	It was designed so no more pervert shows for little kids.
	So drag queen story time and all those kind of things.
	Hamburger Mary's Suze.
	Have you ever been to Hamburger Mary's?
	I don't know what...
	I should have looked up what it is.
	I have never been to Hamburger Mary's.
	Well, I went to...
	The first Hamburger Mary's I ever went to was in Palm Springs.
	And I didn't recognize the combination of those two would have a unique audience.
	I had no idea.
	I was like, something seems a little off here.
	And then the way the male bartender was being flirtatious, I was like, what the heck?
	Where have I come into?
	I was like, I was looking around and I realized...
	I'm getting mired for the wrong reasons.
	I gotta get out of here.
	So Hamburger Mary's...
	I literally needed to save my ass.
	It's a drag burger joint?
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's a gay burger place, basically.
	It's for gay people.
	I mean, God bless them and everything.
	They got good burgers and good cocktails.
	But just remember, you go to Hamburger Mary's, it's a surprise surprise what might be in there.
	So women aren't all women.
	Well, the ruling comes out and it talks about the old...
	That's the point here.
	Florida basically took the U.S. Supreme Court's own language and stuck it into the law.
	That's all they did.
	They took the Supreme Court and said, here's what you can ban within the First Amendment.
	And it's the Supreme Court who created these very general standards for lewd behavior.
	So it has to have a prurient interest, has to have no scientific, artistic, educational, other value, and it has to be sexual in nature.
	And if it's appealing to kids, they've made clear that for children you can have a different standard of obscenity than for adults.
	There are things that are obscene for a six-year-old that aren't obscene for a 25-year-old.
	And they just borrowed that exact language from the Supreme Court of the United States.
	In the 11th Circus, one judge dissented.
	The 11th Circus, first of all, skips over the fact that there's no standing in the case.
	Why?
	Nothing's been enforced against Hamburger Mary's.
	So this is a pre-enforcement action that has all kinds of problems.
	Second, Hamburger Mary can move.
	In such a way that they were no longer subject to this law's restrictions anyway.
	And yet, so it's a classic version of mootness.
	But to show you what utter frauds our courts are, whenever they hear standing or hear mootness, it's just a judge looking for an excuse not to deal with something because whenever they want to deal with it, magically, it's unmoot.
	Magically, standing exists.
	Magically, it's perfectly right.
	Rightness is another one of their excuses.
	Latches is another one of their excuses.
	So that was the first flaw.
	Second flaw, as the dissenting justice made clear, he goes, this is really a state decision that it concerns state constitutional law primarily.
	We should give this to the Florida Supreme Court, designate the question to them, let them resolve it out of respect for the states.
	They refuse to do that.
	So they violate the Federalist principles of when you're supposed to assign these cases at the federal appellate level to the state Supreme Court to at least see if they want to make a step in.
	Third, the legal standard is you find what about the law you could make constitutional and thereby limit its interpretation and construction to be constitutionally conforming.
	Here, they did just the opposite.
	They found the most extreme, extravagant interpretation of the law and thereby said that could be the only application of the law.
	Remember, this is a facial challenge, not an as-applied challenge.
	A facial challenge means you have to show every application of the law would be unconstitutional or it doesn't work.
	Otherwise, you have to bring an as-applied challenge.
	Here they flip it and they say, no, you have to show every application of the law would be constitutional or we're going to declare the entire law unconstitutional.
	Direct contradiction of all precedent on this.
	Throughout our history.
	Levin Circus doesn't care.
	They just completely eviscerate.
	They want those drag queen story times.
	Because there's probably no bigger group of pedophiles in America than the ones that wear black robes.
	Little FYI.
	Never let a federal judge babysit your kids.
	Bad idea.
	Just saying.
	These people fit the exact profile of pedophiles.
	Federal judges.
	We'll see when that gets me into trouble.
	So this was a ridiculous ruling.
	The Tennessee law had some limitations to it because it didn't borrow the plain language of the Supreme Court with consistency.
	Here, Florida did, and they say, no, you can't enforce this law at all.
	Perverts for kids.
	Kids have to have absolute access to perverts at all times in the name of the First Amendment, because according to liberal Democratic judges and establishment Republican judges, that's what the First Amendment really means.
	But we had discussed it at the time in terms of how much more compliant with the existing state of the law could it get.
	There is no more specific that this law could have been drafted.
	It's literally verbatim.
	It's quote, quote, quote, verbatim.
	So this, I mean, it obviously has to get overturned by this.
	Yeah, this is going to go...
	Hopefully SCOTUS takes it up.
	You never know, because SCOTUS is SCOTUS these days.
	But this is an egregious attempt to circumvent the...
	Well, one, there's a conflict between the circuits.
	Because the Sixth Circuit, I believe, ultimately said okay to the Tennessee law.
	The Eleventh Circuit has now said no.
	So you've got a conflict between the circuits on this.
	And that is usually ground to the Supreme Court's resolution.
	And here, because of how they're dealing with this.
	Procedurally, are you going to refer cases to the state Supreme Court or not?
	Are you going to have consistent interpretations of bootness and standing or are you not?
	Are you going to have a consistent understanding of obscenity law or are you not?
	It's all these big issues that are broad legal issues that are the kind the Supreme Court usually has to step in to resolve.
	Hopefully they will and they do.
	They have the kid's bookcase in the libraries up before them currently.
	But this is just insane.
	These are efforts to suppress democracy.
	In the name of democracy, they're killing democracy.
	To save the village, they must kill the village.
	And that's what these judges are doing.
	They're saying, we don't like the values of ordinary people.
	And these values, they don't want their five-year-old sitting on some stranger's lap, dressed up as a girl, doing sexual moves.
	Because again, this law required sexual presentation.
	So it wasn't even clear it would apply to all drag shows.
	There's a lot of drag shows that would have no application.
	Remember, that was the problem with the Tennessee law.
	Tennessee law could apply to somebody who's dressing up for acting purposes with no sexual purpose whatsoever.
	This law didn't.
	This law had to make it a sexual purpose that you were doing, appealing only to the prurient purpose.
	And they're saying even that.
	They're saying kids have a constitutional right.
	Or I should say perverts have a constitutional right to access little children according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Nobody thinks that's what the First Amendment intended.
	Well, I couldn't agree more, Robert.
	It's just a question of...
	It being resolved the right way because it's almost like there's nothing you can do to prevent it, even when you use the literal language of the law of the higher courts.
	That's what the courts are doing.
	They're making it impossible to enforce immigration law, impossible to the president to do his job in terms of spending and personnel, and they're making it impossible for local and state governments to enforce their cultural values that still respected First Amendment freedoms because this, again, borrowed from the Supreme Court's own exact language.
	And they're saying, no, no, no, no.
	We want those little five-year-olds sitting on those laps.
	It is the end goal, is to destroy the family unit and to get the kids when they're young impressionable.
	The family is the greatest hindrance to the state.
	The family has always been, you read, The Family Haven in a Heartless World by the great professor Christopher Lash, L-A-S-C-H.
	This book, by the way, somebody asked.
	It's called The Origins of American Constitutionalism, which goes back, by the way, a little short text, a nice book.
	And what's really good for is reminding people that our charters form the foundation of the theory of constitutionalism in terms of mechanisms and methods of governance and government.
	So it's a nice little book in that regard.
	But it's something that maybe they need to read at the 11th Circus.
	Well, which one's the one that got it right here?
	Which district is this?
	District of Texas, so this is not a...
	Oh yeah, we got a good federal court down in Texas, made a lot of good rulings, that at least stepped in and said, no, trans are not a protected class under Title VII.
	What's interesting is how this case is even here, because it's the EEOC flagrantly violating President Trump's direct orders and trying to overturn the 2024 election.
	Because the reason why this case is still in court is because the EEOC is disobeying President Trump's direct orders.
	The EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are basically interpreting Title VII, which was intended to remedy sexual inequalities.
	Religious and racial and gender-based discrimination.
	So they added sex-based discrimination, as in male versus female.
	To Title VII.
	I don't know when the exact history.
	That's only back in the beginning, really, effectively.
	But what is the Biden administration decided that the definition of sex under Title VII meant directly the opposite of what Congress said it was.
	It meant gender expression.
	They have a 2021 executive order which defines sex as gender expression.
	So you can't deny a man access to a woman's bathroom if that man identifies as a woman because that would be gender identity.
	You couldn't have dress codes that prohibited men from dressing up as women.
	You had to respect their chosen pronouns.
	Or you were now involved in discrimination.
	And let's remember, this is the same EEOC that refused to follow its own rules and prior precedents in the vaccine mandate context.
	The biggest systematic discrimination against Americans that has ever happened in the history of Title VII.
	has been the religious-based discrimination against those who objected to the vaccine mandates.
	And the EEOC refused to help any of them.
	Any of them.
	So while they were abandoning and absconding from their duties of protecting the discriminated, they were also at the same time encouraging and incentivizing governments and agencies and other institutions and employers subject to their control, which is very broad under Title VII.
	For diversity, equity, and inclusion, openly, overtly promoting racial and gender-based discrimination in universities and by corporate employers.
	So an agency whose job is to prohibit discrimination was the primary proponent and propagandist for discrimination under the Biden administration.
	The third thing they did was redefine gender to be no longer No longer binary.
	For those that don't know, the law itself makes it clear sex is a biological reference for Title VII.
	So when they say no discrimination based on sex, they mean you're biological sex.
	Biden said, ignore all that.
	We're going to write our own guidelines.
	Our own guidelines everybody has to follow or be subject to losing all their money, subject to massive lawsuits like universities, foundations, think tanks, hospitals, etc.
	And you're going to now let men into women's bathrooms and men into women's showers.
	You're going to allow...
	You're going to recognize whatever pronoun they choose to use, and that's how you're going to call them.
	And they can dress however they want in the name of gender expression.
	Now, Trump comes in and says, the American people didn't like this, don't want this, so it's done.
	It's gone.
	I order you to reverse it.
	What does the EEOC do?
	They go, we don't care what the President of the United States says.
	Even though he's supposed to be in control of the executive branch and we're part of the executive branch, we're going to ignore not only what Congress previously said in the law, we're going to ignore what the President of the United States and the American people just demanded in the election.
	Robert, why wouldn't they, when they see states doing it at the state level, why would they possibly think they'd have to abide by something that would be...
	What they belong is they belong in jail.
	I mean, some of these rogue agencies that have just gone absolutely crazy, they've got to start locking some up.
	They've got to educate people as to what risks they face when they overtly and openly and flagrantly violate the order.
	So what does Trump do?
	Trump fires them.
	He's like, okay, I fire you.
	They try to prevent their firing.
	While that's ongoing, he can't replace the commission, so there's no commission votes to reverse the prior orders.
	That's how we're here in the first place.
	So they have to go to court still, something that should have been all resolved, and the court have to say the obvious.
	No, EEOC, you did not have the authority to rewrite the law.
	Title VII is clear that sex is biological and it's binary.
	You may want the law to change, but if you want the law to change, go to Congress.
	It was never within your authority to change this law.
	And thankfully, the Federal District Court struck it down.
	Now, who knows what will happen on the Supreme Court these days.
	But trans are not a protected class under Title VII.
	They never have been.
	Frankly, they're not a protected class under equal protection clause.
	The equal protection clause does not have a provision that says, we also want to make sure perverts get equal protection.
	We want to make sure the mentally ill get equal protection.
	No, that's not it.
	I was actually just going to Google it.
	Does equal protection not apply to mental illness?
	No, of course not.
	A protected class is literally a protected class, which usually should involve religion, race, biological, gender, national origin.
	That's the classes that are truly immutable traits that have nothing to do with behavior.
	That's the best way to understand it.
	The classification of people that are uniquely vulnerable based on immutable traits, not something you developed or anything else.
	That's never been the case.
	I have AIDS, so now I'm a protected class.
	No, that's not it.
	That's not how any of that works.
	So it's supposed to be only immutable traits that are protected.
	And immutable traits of a particular kind that need political protection as recognized by Congress.
	Let me get a bunch of chats here, Robert, because we're going to fall very far behind on these.
	We're going to take a break in a second to go see the pizza.
	Eric's Pizza is doing the Viva thing here.
	But it has not yet progressed enough.
	Oh, that looks cool.
	I see where he's going with it.
	We'll come back to it in a bit, and after the show, everybody can go watch that.
	But what I wanted to bring up was these.
	Crumble Rants, we'll get some...
	Oh, does anybody have any baby Barnes and Viva ones out there?
	I've seen all these AIs where they do our voices and what we're talking about, but they have baby versions of us.
	I gotta see that.
	Those are awesome.
	Why wouldn't the DOJ...
	We definitely have those.
	I will share them with you.
	Awesome.
	Cindy1M says, these are no-no channels with my sweetie heart.
	He thinks my brain needs to be put positive stuff, but I think it is good stuff.
	The ketchup from Amos Miller you have lost is the best in life sauce.
	Oh yeah, everything good.
	Somebody got to stop by there in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where Amos Miller is still getting harassed.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	We're going to have a fundraiser, though, coming up this week.
	For Amos Miller, the 1776 Law Center and all the legal representation.
	For those that don't know, basically everybody's going after them.
	The state of Pennsylvania continues to harass them.
	The feds have not officially dropped their case yet and are sort of allowing it to go on by not publicly condemning it and not withdrawing the injunction.
	The IRS is harassing Amos Miller now.
	And the state of Pennsylvania, like other environmental groups, are harassing.
	The harassment doesn't, but it doesn't stop Amos Miller.
	People are like, oh, how do you stay optimistic?
	Look at Amos.
	He always stays optimistic.
	He just gets out there.
	He gets farming every day.
	He has little kids running around in little overalls and little Amish hats and Amish clothes, all homemade.
	They're always excited.
	They get up at 4.30 in the morning.
	They get their milk going and all the rest.
	And that milk is so good.
	And some people got to have it.
	But we're going to have some cookies, cookies and milk potentially on sale this coming week.
	Trucking Empire says, Rastaman Transport, coast-to-coast enclosed auto transport, specializing in high-end vehicles from Cali to Arizona to the East Coast and back, trusted, insured on time.
	No-no channels that got that one.
	Cash puts out the press release, proud of arresting a kid in Detroit that reads like Quitmer 2.0.
	Kid told two handlers he had a drone and knew about Molotov cocktails.
	Cash saw an attack on the military.
	BS.
	New York City Pier.
	POTUS Flies Marine Force 1-2 is on the FDR Drive.
	Hold on.
	New York City Pier POTUS Flies Marine Force 1-on is on FDR Drive.
	It is an Assassin's Stamper.
	Geez, now the name of the book.
	You got it, John.
	Let me screen grab that.
	Barnes and Vivi, you got to talk about the No Whites Allowed Democrats and South African refugees.
	We got South African refugees on the tonight agenda item.
	And then we got Matt Rice.
	When Air Force gets a plane from Boeing, don't go through it.
	Don't.
	They go through with a fine-tooth comb.
	What makes anyone think they would be even more cautious with Qatar?
	Matt Reese, absolutely.
	Randy Edwin.
	SCOTUS tipped its hand by hammering on how the bureaucracy would handle stateless children.
	SCOTUS is looking for way to affirmative action, birth control, and marriage, birthright citizenship.
	Harry Toe.
	I hear commercials on every Seattle radio station with Kristi Noem telling illegals to leave.
	Oh, I just realized we did...
	Oh yeah, no, we did cover injunctions.
	Sorry.
	Yep.
	If Barnes...
	If Barnes' chances at a job on SCOTUS weren't ruined with the booty booty gay gay comment, most federal judges fit for profile for pedo.
	Sure will.
	Betting odds would go crazy, though.
	Grandpa Place, company I work for, refused to honor my pronouns.
	I identified as an asshole, and they were his motherfucker.
	That's funny.
	Well, do we segue into the South African one right now, just because it's off the...
	Yeah, yeah, sure.
	Well, Robert, I covered it a little bit.
	What's amazing is watching the training of AI and Grok in real time, where if you Groked, is there white genocide?
	It would give you a very wishy-washy answer.
	It's a very complicated question.
	And then you ask the question, well, you know, how many farmers have been murdered in the last 20 years?
	And they give you a number.
	And then you say, how many of those were white?
	And it says they don't break down the stats based on race.
	And then you say, well, how are you then able to determine that there's no white genocide going on in South Africa?
	And then you get into a bit of a loop.
	87.6% of the farmers who have been killed in the most horrendous manner as possible in the last 20 years, 30 years, have been white.
	There is expropriation without compensation legislation that has been passed in South Africa.
	The argument is that it hasn't been enforced yet.
	There has been expropriation of farmland in South Africa.
	The argument is going to be it's not specifically or only targeting whites.
	There is rampant murder in South Africa beyond anybody's wildest nightmares.
	The argument is, well, it's not only directed against whites because blacks are getting killed as well in South Africa.
	There has been a systematic denial of the violence.
	And political persecution targeting whites and white farmers in particular in South Africa for years.
	I remember Justin Trudeau was not taking or even entertaining the idea of taking white refugees from South Africa because I guess he adheres to the idea that you can't be racist against whites because it needs to be prejudiced with power as though somehow...
	Let's admit the real reason.
	The South Africans didn't come up with any cash for the Biden family.
	So now, the big news of the last week was...
	You know, Trump, by authorizing or welcoming 49 white South African Afrikaner Boer farmers, is now lending credibility to the disinformation, misinformation, that there's a white genocide going on in South Africa.
	And you've got the shitheads on the Twitterverse, like McFaul, saying, there's no white genocide.
	It's a lie.
	It's a myth.
	Horse crap.
	They got, you know, 50. It's not even a drop in the bucket.
	It's a, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Like, it's a symbolic gesture, almost, from the Trump administration to let them in.
	People are crying racism because at the same time he's shut down refugee programs across the country, which have been wildly abused over the last little while.
	He lets in 49 white Afrikaners with their families and the left, who love immigrants, unless they're white, flip their lids.
	What's your take on it?
	I loaded everything here, and I know what you're going to say, but what's your interpretation?
	To the allegation that he's being racially discriminatory in his refugee policy, that is belied by one simple fact.
	More than 90% of the people that have been granted refugee status under President Trump are black.
	So that's part one.
	They're just not highlighting those individuals.
	They're highlighting the South Africans because of the high-profile political nature of it and because it plays into their preordained political narrative.
	Now, notice how these South African refugees show up.
	They show up waving American flags, right?
	Unlike a lot of these other groups that come in waving every flag but an American flag.
	I understand it to a degree.
	But my sympathy has a limit when you're always waving some other country's flag.
	And yet you want access here.
	It's like, come on.
	So it's entirely legal what he's done in terms of there's no racially discriminatory animus best evidence by the fact that majority of the refugee beneficiaries have been black, in fact.
	Second, as to South Africa, there's no question that there has been racially discriminatory targeting.
	For those that don't know, other parts of Africa have adopted the policies that South Africa has done and gone further.
	And those countries have said all white farmers lose We're going to take it all.
	The Mugabe regime did it famously to the destruction of the agriculture sector in that economy.
	What ends up ensuing inevitably is mass starvation.
	And that is, you can say that's racially motivated, whatever.
	When you kick out the farmers that know how to farm, you end up with starvation like you did in Stalin's Russia or Ukraine.
	You have people willing to stay and continue to farm the land, knowing that politically they're now a tiny minority and a hated minority.
	So it's like this is the last group of people you should be trying to expel.
	Here's the problem.
	The communist part of the ANC.
	And then the pragmatist part of the ANC, both sold a dream that they couldn't deliver on.
	And the dream was the only reason why you, the South African people that are of black ancestry, the only reason why you don't have prosperity, the only reason why you don't have security is because of the white man.
	And as soon as we get rid of apartheid, you're going to have all this freedom.
	By the way, it's the same mistake the civil rights movement made in the United States.
	Between 1955 and 1965, they sold everybody that the black working class and the black poor would drastically benefit from racial integration and voting rights and grand jury rights, etc.
	And that was partially true, but not completely true.
	And that's what Martin Luther King recognized.
	So that's why by '68, he completely shifted economics.
	You don't hear King talking obsessively about race in '68.
	He's talking more about economics.
	How do we translate this to economics?
	The Poor People's March was biracial.
	It was not excluded or limited to black people or to African Americans.
	And so what's happening in South Africa is they couldn't deliver.
	Mandela tried.
	I disagree with Mandela's critics.
	I lived it and watched it through that whole time period.
	Mandela tried to build reconciliation.
	I mean, the whole movie about the South African rugby team was part of that effort.
	He was not trying to drive up the divisiveness.
	He was trying to find a way.
	He's like, how can we deliver real housing, real health care, real benefits to this population, and at the same time not make us a pariah again all over again by just taking the extreme reaction to the other side's extreme action?
	But as soon as Mandela was gone, all the grifters were in complete control, and the commies.
	It was the grifters and the commies.
	Problem was they couldn't deliver for the black population, the Bantu-derived populations of South Africa.
	And there's some other Zulus and other groups of tribes that are there.
	And so how do they keep political power?
	They say, you know why we can't deliver you power?
	It's not because we're stealing it and living in this mansion up here.
	No, no, no, no.
	It's not because our commie-driven ideology doesn't work.
	No, no, it's because of those evil white people that are still here.
	They're still stealing it from you.
	And so they've diverted the attention from the corrupt politicians and the broken, bankrupt ideologies onto a scapegoat.
	And the scapegoat being that these groups don't really represent the groups that ever oppressed anybody.
	In the sense that if you were part of that oppressive regime, you got the heck out of South Africa when Mandela took over.
	There were a few who didn't.
	That's another story for another day.
	A hush-hush down the road.
	There's no question that the white farmers of South Africa are being targeted for discrimination and persecution, and that they're doing so because of their race.
	Now, it's a misdirected energy by a corrupt, decaying regime in South Africa.
	Like, South Africa was originally the S in bricks for some people.
	It wasn't for everybody, but some people had Saudi Arabia in there, South Africa in there.
	The reality is South Africa is a failed government.
	Failed society, failed economy, failed experiment.
	Mandela's project didn't work.
	Didn't take, didn't hold.
	And the reason, in my view, it didn't is because the underlying issues were economic in nature, not really racial in nature.
	The racism hid underlying deep economic problems in South Africa.
	And their focus on racism thereby hid solving the real problems.
	And by continuing to resort to now reverse racism in order to escape political consequences for their inefficacy, that's why we're at now.
	And they clearly meet the definition of refugees for president.
	They're real refugees, rather than fake refugees that have been coming across the border with Soros and Bill Gates.
	The South Africans are as close as you get to real refugees in the modern world.
	Let me just do one thing here, because I realize I didn't read any of the commie tube super chats.
	First of all, Sad Wings Raging gifted five Rumble users premium.
	Thank you, Sad Wings.
	We've got...
	Some dude says, jumping in late to FBI news, what about the 19-year-old Michigan two-handlers who had a drone?
	Okay, we got that one.
	Cash's press release reads like Whitmer 2.0.
	Jim Tells You says, it's awesome seeing my friend and co-host Joe Nierman.
	Good logic on here with you, Viva.
	If anyone in your audience wants to see more of Joe, he will be on my 11 p.m. Eastern Sunday show tonight to go over some of the weeks now.
	That is Jim Tells You.
	Then we've got Matthew Hammond.
	I haven't seen you in a while, Matt.
	Mississippi Center for Public Policy Think Tank Douglas Carswell to discuss Mississippi and Britain's problems.
	Okay, I'll screenshot that.
	Then we got XJTC says, Biden just diagnosed with terminal cancer and you look naked on camera without a beard, says Jason Abbey.
	And just to read a couple more in our chat here.
	In Locals, it's many thanks from what a watermelon.
	Alien Baby says, Biden transitioned from...
	I'm not going to read that.
	It says, Biden transitioned from being the cancer to having the cancer.
	Okay, too soon.
	Come on now.
	Alan DS91.
	Tragedy plus time equals comedy, according to Woody Allen.
	No, I did say that I think the diagnosis is the cover-up.
	That's not a joke.
	That's just my personal belief.
	What do we have left before we...
	So we got Wisconsin COVID.
	We got Pfizer exposed, RFK on the COVID vaccine.
	Department of Agriculture lawfare panel or portal for the public.
	America First, suing Chief Justice Roberts.
	And then a little bit about pending legislation.
	But a lot of these are briefer topics than longer topics.
	So we'll do a bunch of them over on the vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty.
	Robert, the big news of the week was the breaking...
	People are freaking out about this.
	I remember us talking about it at the time, where at the time it was they delayed releasing the existence or the discovery of that shitty jab until after the election to deny the credit to Trump when they thought it would be a success.
	It seems that they hid some of the data or didn't release some of the data or the trials in time in order to penalize Trump because they didn't want him to get reelected for the success of this shitty jab in the first place.
	But none of it strikes me as being new.
	Or at least because we talked about it in relevant parts at the time.
	What do you make of the news that they...
	Because I don't think they did proper trials in the first place.
	They even have hid from Trump in the first place.
	So how do you piece together the mutually incompatible portions of this?
	It's a bad jab.
	They didn't do proper trials, but they delayed the results of it because they didn't want to help Trump.
	Yeah, so for the backstory for those that may not be familiar with it, the Department of Defense under the president...
	Under Operation Warp Speed with President Trump, signed a contract with Pfizer that promised billions of dollars to Pfizer if they delivered a safe, effective vaccine that would inoculate against COVID-19.
	That was specific.
	This was not a diagnostic tool they wanted.
	This was not a therapeutic tool they wanted.
	They wanted something that would prevent infection and prevent...
	That was the explicit requirement of what they meant by vaccine in that contract.
	And that it had to be safe and it had to be effective against COVID vaccine.
	And that was the risks.
	The rewards had to outweigh the risks for safety and for efficacy.
	It had to actually lead to reduction in the infection rate and the transmission rate of COVID for the prevention of COVID-19.
	And it was supposed to be delivered at speed and scale.
	So the ability to deliver a large amount of dosage to a large number of people around the world.
	And in speed, there was a specific date listed.
	It was October of 2020.
	It said, if you want to get paid, you have to deliver by this date.
	If you don't, you don't get paid.
	Pfizer didn't honor any of Trump's contract.
	What they delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not a COVID vaccine, not a vaccine of any kind, didn't prevent infection, didn't prevent transmission at all.
	And, last but not least, it wasn't delivered in October like it was promised.
	I've been telling people that Pfizer had all the things that they knew for the ultimate approval and authorization that they got.
	They already had in October of 2020.
	Now, what people didn't know was that a month before, but Pfizer knew, was in a month before that, in September of 2020, a whistleblower from Texas.
	Had gone to the Justice Department.
	Had gone to the Food and Drug Administration.
	Someone who was live witnessing what was happening in the clinical trials for the COVID vaccine.
	Someone who had spent decades in that work to make sure they complied with the rules to assess whether a drug was safe and effective or even what it said it was.
	Had gone to them and told them they're lying.
	They're fabricating the data.
	They're falsifying the data.
	That lady was Brooke Jackson.
	So that information was known to Pfizer.
	It was known to Bill Barr's Justice Department.
	It was withheld and hidden from President Trump.
	So why did they delay production of this until after the election?
	Two reasons.
	They wanted to prevent President Trump's re-election.
	This is in part because Big Pharma thought Joe Biden would be a much better ally to them than Donald Trump broadly on pharma-related policies, whether that's reimbursement rates.
	Price caps, which President Trump has tried to put imposed again this week to most favored nation status so America doesn't keep subsidizing the rest of the world's cheap access to pharmaceuticals, which he can do under his foreign policy power.
	We'll address that once there's litigation about it.
	We'll address it then in the legal context.
	But that's why I think he has above average chance of success.
	But the big one was this.
	Pfizer knew that if Trump won, he might hold him to their contract.
	He might require the drug be proven safe.
	He might require the drug be proven effective.
	He might require the drug be an actual vaccine, like he had contracted for.
	He might require all of those things, and they didn't want any of that.
	So that was problem one specific to the vaccine.
	Problem two was they knew the only way to get mass uptake of this experimental vaccine was by coercing people, by forcing people to get it.
	They knew Trump would never mandate it.
	They needed it mandated.
	In order to line their pockets with all the money, in order to guarantee their profitability, in order to reduce their risk if it was mandated under the child laws, under the vaccine, PrEP Act laws, and those like, it would inoculate and immunize them from any legal accountability and responsibility for anything bad that happened.
	They knew Trump would never do it.
	So they knew that the gig would be up if Trump got re-elected.
	So the goal was prevent him from re-election.
	Control the whole vaccine process, make it look like we're delivering what he needs, and then hold it back at key points and key junctures to sabotage his campaign, and then get paid billions of dollars because you know the next administration will never enforce it.
	No better example than the Biden administration went into the federal district court in the whistleblower claim brought by Brooke Jackson against Pfizer and said it is against Biden administration policy to challenge...
	Any vaccine, including the COVID vaccine, which the current Justice Department lawyer is lying to the courts about.
	I'm going to make this lawyer real famous real soon.
	There's a corrupt saboteur inside the Justice Department who is saying to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, direct lies about what the Trump administration's policies are.
	He is lying to the Fifth Circuit.
	And telling them that the Trump administration has the exact same policy on vaccines as the Biden administration.
	President Trump has said otherwise when he said schools will be defunded if they mandate the vaccine.
	Secretary Hegseth has said otherwise when he said the mandate was always illegal because this was an emergency unproven drug.
	Robert Kennedy has said otherwise, and as it was publicly reported this week, so I'm not disclosing anything.
	You know, known by other means.
	Publicly disclosed this week, the Kennedy Department of Health and Human Services is looking at not recommending the COVID vaccine for children, for pregnant women, or teenagers to revoke the marketing authorization for the drug for those categories of people.
	So what this corrupt saboteur in the Justice Department is doing is lying to federal courts in order to cover up for Pfizer.
	And credit to Congressman Jordan for getting off his rear a little late, in my opinion, but at least acknowledging and publicly proving what I had said.
	Pfizer had internally discussed this exact plan to sabotage President Trump deliberately.
	The only thing Trump owes Pfizer is a lifetime ban on making any drug for anything anywhere in America and bankrupting them into oblivion like they belong and their CEO in prison.
	By the way, this same week?
	Europe got outed.
	Vander Crazy, their EU.
	Admittedly, I stole that from Alexander Christoforo of the Duran.
	You can follow him on his Christoforo channel.
	You can follow Alexander McCorus on his channel.
	Or you can follow them both on the Duran.
	He came up with Vander Crazy, and I was like, that's exactly right.
	And he's great with the clown worlds and the rest.
	I'm even going to have my Magic Macron handkerchief when I go on there with him.
	Works good, I hear.
	But you look at the...
	She, remember, deleted a bunch of text, destroyed a bunch of messages that showed how Pfizer was corruptly involved in the EU.
	And even the European courts said what she did was illegal.
	So what you have is a massive criminal conspiracy, which some rogue saboteur at the Justice Department is continuing to perpetrate at the expense of the Trump administration, despite the disclosures this week of Congressman Jordan.
	I feel sometimes smarter than I should because maybe it's just, you know, even the, even the, what is it?
	Even the squirrel occasionally finds the nut?
	But something along the, I forget the...
	The phrase.
	This was from November 9th, 2020, when I said, how long did Pfizer sit on the seemingly great news that they just announced?
	It could have been relevant a week ago when Donald Trump was being fact-checked for saying we have a vaccine that's coming, it's ready.
	Might have been overstated, but certainly less so given the news when you had CNN fact-checking.
	Trump falsely says COVID-19 vaccine is ready.
	November 2020.
	It's a good thing.
	Twitter is my diary of life because I remember the way I thought at the time.
	And by the way, to his credit, Richard Barris was outing this at the time in October 2020.
	He had insiders giving him information that's saying they're going to deliberately delay the documented production of evidence in support of a potential vaccine solely to make sure Trump loses because they couldn't have the fraud that the vaccine was ever publicly exposed.
	And so credit to Congressman Jordan for documenting how Pfizer knew this was a massive crime.
	That's what this was.
	All these executives were involved in massive criminal activity.
	Now, I think Ed Martin is fantastic at the weaponization division and the pardon division.
	He should be looking at Roger Ver's case, be looking at a range of cases, looking at the Kurt Benju case, looking at the Tina Peters case, looking at these other cases that hopefully will.
	But somebody over there should be looking at Pfizer, looking at the Brooke Jackson case and all these other crimes that Pfizer committed against the American people.
	It's a no-brainer in terms of reinstating the Brooke Jackson-Ketam case.
	Investigating Albert Buller for whether or not he lied.
	He's a criminal.
	He's a mass murdering criminal.
	He even sounds like one kind.
	You hear that last name, you're like, that kind of sounds like a criminal.
	But the, I mean, again, even European courts admitting he was involved in conspiracies and the European officials were illegally destroying documents related to their criminal activity.
	You don't need to delete texts that aren't embarrassing.
	Here we go.
	Let me read a few.
	I think we got one more to cover here, and then we'll cover AG Lawfare, America First against Chief Justice Roberts, and the pending legislation over at the after party.
	We'll cover the Wisconsin COVID med mouth case as our last case here.
	But first we get to the questions.
	Or maybe afterwards you get to the question.
	Let me read a few here just so that we have less to do in the after party.
	Sweaty Zeus over in Locals says, I said from the start I believe Epstein could be under witness protection.
	Would explain their sudden change.
	Virginia G would be as well.
	This would explain it all if I'm not...
	That's a good point, says Sweaty Zeus.
	Just bought a ticket to the 1776 fundraiser.
	Woohoo says Ham Clan.
	And I know I've never seen that name before because I've never remembered that.
	Bender is great.
	Let me bring this up.
	This is the one I wanted to bring up.
	Thank goodness I remember.
	Sina Buffoon is what I am.
	Bender is great, is an amazing, I would say, artist.
	He says, just in time for Memorial Day, want a flag like Viva and Barnes.
	Mine's in the back right there.
	Now's your chance.
	I have made a small batch of waving wooden American flags and would like to offer a discount to the Locals community.
	Go to renixwoodworking.myshopify.com and use code LOCALS50 for $50 off.
	What happens if you get too many?
	Bender is great.
	If you get too many orders.
	That's a good problem to have.
	I'd like to make that problem.
	I'm going to show you mine.
	Made with real wood, and yet it flows like a flag.
	Hold on.
	I would bring mine out, but it's packed up heading to Tennessee.
	Oh, yeah.
	You got a Canuck one.
	Yeah, I got a semi-Canuck with a semi-American right here.
	And then this is the back.
	It's beautiful.
	As I say, real wood.
	It's amazing craftsmanship.
	Okay, Robert, do the last one before we get going to...
	So the last COVID-related case for our show tonight, I'm helping out in the jury selection side of it.
	My buddy Warner Mendenhall is co-counsel in the trial.
	This is the first MedMal case in the COVID context to go to jury trial.
	So this was a 19-year-old girl with Down syndrome, had COVID in 2021.
	Goes to the hospital.
	The hospital basically excludes her own parents from knowing what's happening with her medical care.
	Even though her family had POA, because again, she has Down syndrome.
	They try to keep ventilating her.
	There's a range of mistakes that get made in the process.
	They put her on a bunch of drugs that they shouldn't have.
	They end up putting her on morphine.
	One horrendous medical decision after the other, aside from violating informed consent.
	But here's the big shocker in all that.
	I mean, you've met Mal that happened a good bit during COVID of a range of kinds, of which she was the victim.
	But what's stunning, what's shocking, aside from the exclusion of the parents from being able to look after her and have an informed role in her own medical care, was the denial of informed consent got so extreme.
	They falsely, and I know you've covered some of this, the risk of it happening.
	In this case, I don't understand how they got a do not resuscitate or alleged that they had a do not resuscitate.
	The doctor falsified it.
	He just put DNR in her documents.
	She did not have a do not resuscitate.
	At all.
	The hospital literally murdered this 19-year-old girl.
	Down syndrome or not, what type of 19-year-old without a living will has a do not resuscitate?
	It makes no sense.
	What does that suggest to you?
	Does that suggest hospitals may be doing this systematically?
	That some doctors, rogue doctors, are basically imposing eugenics, using their control over the person's care?
	And when he sees, oh, Down syndrome, DNR.
	I went more along the lines of, I'm trying to think of, like, concealing their...
	I don't know.
	Well, that too.
	They're trying to conceal their medical malpractice.
	But I don't know that it...
	Because the weird thing is you suffer less damages if you kill someone than if you injure them.
	That would be the only cynical way that I would go.
	I would imagine if they're falsifying do not resuscitate, it would have come up much more than this.
	Yeah, it was completely false.
	So it's complete deprivation of informed consent, complete mistreatment of someone with COVID, and what do you think their excuse is?
	Oh, it's all COVID.
	Blame COVID.
	Blame COVID.
	Whatever you do, look at COVID.
	COVID here, COVID there, COVID over there.
	Look at anything except the fact that a hospital murdered a young girl with Down syndrome.
	Horrific, horrendous case.
	It's going to go to trial in Appleton, Wisconsin.
	That's up there in the Fox River Valley in Attagame County.
	On June the 2nd, the courthouses have usually been packed.
	I don't know if they're going to have any video cameras there or not.
	For covering the trial.
	I'll be there in part to help with jury selection.
	As well as some other things.
	And some behavior language.
	Some other people are going to help out.
	Richard Baer is helping out.
	We've got a lot of people helping out.
	To make sure, because this is a very important case with great public policy consequence for everybody.
	Now that someone beat me to at least organ harvesting, I was thinking like, you know, if they falsify do not resuscitate, family would get involved, unless they do it with people that don't have family, like the most vulnerable.
	And then it's do not resuscitate, covering up malpractice, and then harvesting organs, potentially.
	I mean, you see this in Canada, right?
	Where they're basically preaching eugenics more and more by trying to get people to...
	Off themselves.
	Off themselves.
	And there's presumed organ doning now, at least legislation in two provinces.
	Someone said that I almost missed the $300 rumble rant, which comes from Ron Schoolcraft.
	Says, I'm an independent contract engineer and was under contract.
	Biden's EO-14042 was issued.
	My contract was modified.
	I refused.
	My contract was rescinded.
	I emailed you for help.
	No response.
	Help.
	Well, just re-email me.
	Again, there's no guarantee I have the bandwidth to handle your case.
	So if you don't hear back, it's because...
	Because I don't have the bandwidth currently to handle it.
	It's not a statement on your case, one way, shape, or form.
	The reason why I don't respond generally is that people will confuse that with representation just by any form of response.
	And I typically always have the...
	But it doesn't mean I won't take your case.
	I mean, I have a little more bandwidth now that the Tyson cases are all officially, formally, finally settled.
	All the checks have been sent to everybody.
	All that is done.
	That's freed up a little bit of space for me.
	Checks sent are not checks cashed.
	When it clears, and then there's no recalling that.
	Okay, bada bing, bada boom.
	And then also, someone said ostriches, ostriches.
	Update on the Canadian side of things.
	We made a big stink about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordering the slaughter of 398 healthy ostriches, and they...
	Issued their stupid administrative order that was challenged on judicial review.
	A federal judge said, no, it's not patently unreasonable.
	We've got to defer to the authority of these administrative tribunals.
	And it was based on the information they had at the time.
	And we can't reassess in light of today's information, which is that the ostriches are not sick.
	So I do not overturn the judicial, whatever, the administrative order to kill the ostriches.
	And we made a big fat freaking stink last week to the point where the government was saying, We're going to kill them.
	We're going to dispose of them at a place where you put garbage.
	What's it called?
	Landfill.
	Landfill, sorry.
	So there was a local landfill and everybody went to a community, like a council meeting, a city council meeting and said, don't...
	Don't approve of this.
	Don't approve of disposing of the bodies of this landfill.
	People were crying.
	Katie from Ostrich to the farm went there.
	People were watching on Zoom.
	Apparently, the council issued an order that says, we'll take the ostrich carcasses if they have a positive test for H5N1 and not without it, which basically they're not going to get because they don't have it.
	It will make it impossible to dispose of the bodies to the point where now it seems that the CFIA has, at the very least for the time being, not pursued the slaughter.
	And we put them on sufficient blast that I don't know when they protected their tweets, but the accounts from the CFIA and its president have been protected on Twitter, which I think is a violation of government gray checkmark accounts, should not be allowed to protect tweets because they're government entities.
	Apparently the public blowback has been...
	Peaceful, beautiful, and sufficient to at least pause the slaughter for the time being.
	And I will keep up to date with Katie from Ostrich Farms and let you know what's going on there.
	But that's the good news of the week coming out of Canada.
	And there was a good ruling on a COVID out of Alberta.
	Yeah, I saw that, yeah.
	Yeah, WestJet said they didn't respect the religious exemption, and they don't get to play God, pun intended.
	Yeah, which was great.
	So they get 11 months severance, no moral exemplary damages, and however long that took to get to a ruling on that, and we'll see if they appeal and settle for $30,000.
	Okay, let me see that nothing popped back in at the last minute.
	We are good here.
	We are good over here.
	AG Lawfare, America First, suing Chief Justice Roberts.
	What is that all about?
	And pending legislation, tax budgets, Second Amendment, judges.
	We'll give a quick recap of those over at VivaBarnesLaw.Logos.com where you can get the after party.
	What else can you get?
	You get Barnes briefs every week with all kinds of curated content, closing arguments, links to informative material like...
	Bank reserves don't really matter for lending in America, for example.
	You get hush-hushes, alternative narratives on everything from 9-11 to the JFK assassination and everything in between before and after.
	You get after parties with Viva throughout the week.
	Bourbons with Barnes with me throughout the week.
	Exclusive Q&As where you get to ask questions.
	You get quality answers for it.
	And you get the best above-average community anywhere for information, debate, discussion, and the like.
	Over at Viva Barnes Law.
	Now, this is starting...
	Who's the frizzy-haired painter guy?
	Put a little happy dash over there.
	What was his name?
	Oh, yeah.
	I love that.
	I used to watch it all the time.
	You'd go to sleep to that dude.
	The chat's going to know who I'm talking about, but this is the...
	Bob Ross.
	Bob Ross.
	Look, I'm not judging him because the work is not finished yet.
	It either looks like a little bit of Bob Ross or Viva Goes Hasidic Jew.
	Okay.
	All that to say, he's progressing.
	This is Encryptus.
	There it is.
	It's Pizza Artist Eric John.
	That will look like me.
	I see exactly where he's going.
	It's beautiful.
	The page is Eric John Pizza Artist.
	Who are we rating, Encryptus, before we end the show here?
	Eric John, pizza artist.
	Let's go rate him.
	We're going to go over for the vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty.
	If you want to watch some pizza art, you can go watch Eric John.
	I don't know who else is live if you want to check out, but you can go to the cover page.
	Oh, is he going to make that into a pizza?
	It's going to be a pizza, and it's going to be beautiful.
	Oh, there's so many jokes that I would actually...
	I know, I know.
	I can't do it, Robert.
	Oh, he's putting onions on it?
	Oh, God, that's going to give me gas.
	Okay.
	It's beautiful.
	Eric John Pizza, we're going to raid him.
	If you're coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, the party's there.
	I will be live daily, as usual, on the Rumble 4 o 'clock stream.
	The clips go on YouTube afterwards.
	I'm not forgetting anything.
	Robert, do you have anything coming up this week in particular?
	Interviews?
	No, we'll have bourbons on Monday and Tuesday.
	Then on the road throughout the week and next week and so forth.
	Now I want to turn the volume up and just see what he's saying.
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on.
	Did I just...
	It's a raid.
	Hold on.
	This is great.
	I need things like this.
	Hell yeah!
	Okay, go raid and we're going to end our...
	I'm going to put back on...
	Welcome all of Viva's...
	There we go.
	Look at that.
	Okay, it's fantastic.
	All right.
	Stop screen.
	VivaBornsLaw.locals.com and Commitube, thank you for being here.
	Make sure you subscribe before you leave and turn on notifications.
	There's 3,000 people watching on Commitube.
	Come over to Rumble for the daily live streams at 4 o 'clock on Rumble, and make sure that you subscribe, notifications, share the channel, because I don't think I'm being suppressed, but I'm definitely not in the good book algorithm on ComedyTube.
	That's why we take our eyeballs and business to Rumble.
	All right, that's it.
	That's all I'm saying.
	We're going over to Locals now, everybody.
	Oh, get a book.
	Get a book.
	Louis the Lobster.
	You know what to do.
	Okay, peace out, people.
	I'm very bad at plugging my own stuff, but it doesn't matter.
	It will happen one day.
	I'll get on.
	I don't know, the morning show with Kevin Stratton.
	That's where I'll reach the mainstream.
	Okay, done.

▲