Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 22, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:36:37

Ep. 269: U.S. Strikes Iran! Karen Read Verdict! Grace Schara Verdict! National Gaurd, SCOTUS & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, everyone.
	What you are about to witness now is the embodiment, the personification of an empty barrel making the most noise.
	What is amazing is that Jasmine Crockett, appearing on your right, otherwise would look like a very nice, reasonable person, until such time as she opens her mouth.
	Behold.
	I go back to Ian on Monday.
	You could have hollered at us on Monday.
	If you truly felt like there was something like...
	And it needed to take place without the consultation of the Congress.
	All right.
	Give me one more.
	How can the Senate be involved to make them accountable for what they're doing?
	I mean, listen, y 'all was talking about accountability.
	The systems have broken down.
	The systems are broken down because people have legitimately decided that they would rather serve him than serve the people that put them into office.
	I don't really have any good answers for you, except for the fact that legitimately...
	Like, he just breaks the law.
	And I know that there are some people that think that I just say this stuff because I'm a Democrat.
	And I can tell you, I have my own issues with my own party.
	I'm not saying these things because I'm a Democrat.
	I'm saying these things because I am.
	I'm a liar.
	Because I'm an idiot.
	Let's hear it.
	Let's hear it.
	This is the best part.
	A black woman in America who just happens to be educated enough to know what the law is.
	And I can tell you that while some people want to disparage my credibility and act as if I don't know what I'm talking about, I can absolutely guarantee to you that if you Google war and authority and constitution, you're going to see Congress.
	The fingernails have always Hope my wife isn't watching.
	And this thing that's on my chest tells you that I am a member of Congress.
	How that happened?
	I don't really know.
	I don't really know how that happened either, Jasmine.
	She's not an idiot or anything.
	You look up war and Congress and declarations of war.
	Yes, you'll see some provisions of law.
	You look up military strikes, you might see other types of action that the president is allowed to take But I do want to highlight.
	She's the biggest idiot on the face of the planet.
	I'm going to play this classic because it's going to tie into a couple of other things.
	Then we're going to thank our sponsor for the evening.
	We're going to bring in Barnes and we're going to let the fighting begin tonight in the chat, that is to say.
	Jasmine Crockett is an idiot.
	How she ended up in Congress is a testament to the fact that idiots can end up in Congress.
	So I had to go around the country and educate people about what immigrants do for this country or the fact that we are a country of immigrants.
	Right, right.
	The fact is, ain't none of y 'all trying to go and farm right now.
	Ain't none of y 'all trying to go and farm right now, says the idiot.
	Who doesn't know that there are people who are proud to go farm out there, but let's get to the beauty part.
	Okay, so I'm lying.
	Raise your hands.
	Imagine asking a bunch of elitist pricks at whatever event that she's in, if it's in D.C., are you guys going to farm?
	No, no.
	So we better import illegals to do the farming because none of y'all You're not!
	You're not.
	We done picking cotton.
	We are.
	You can't pay us enough to find a plantation.
	Oh, I know that's right.
	So we got to go import our own new era of slaves because moral objection to slavery until you need people to pick the vegetables in the fields because, and I'm quoting Jasmine Crockett, We done picking cotton, so let's import the next generation of illegal aliens to be exploited as modern-day slavery.
	And don't take my word for it, people.
	Governor Gavin Newsom, who we will be talking about tonight when we get to some of the rulings on Gavin Newsom's attempts to usurp governmental authority from the executive.
	Los Angeles Times is reporting immigration raids are threatening businesses that supply America's food, Farm Bureau says.
	To which Gavin Newsom replies, are you sure about that, Mr. President?
	In response to his statement that I never want to hurt our farmers.
	Our farmers are great people.
	They keep us happy, healthy, and fat.
	LOL.
	Are you sure about that, Mr. President?
	Says Gavin Newsom, the modern-day plantation owner.
	Farmers are witnessing firsthand that between 25% and 45% of workers have stopped showing up since your raids began this month.
	Don't think your logic is adding up.
	Let me translate that for Gavin Newsom, because he apparently didn't hear Jasmine Crockett put it quite so eloquently.
	They found their next generation of people to pick cotton, and now it's picking fruits and vegetables in the field.
	You bring them in illegally.
	They don't speak the language.
	You can exploit them, threaten them, manipulate them, traffic them.
	And now when you try to deport illegal aliens, you then say, well, who's going to pick the vegetables and fruits in the field, Mr. President?
	Holy cow, who's going to scrub your toilet, Mr. President?
	Oh, this is going to get annoying.
	I'll have to figure that out in a second.
	All right.
	That's the start of the show, people.
	Good evening.
	If you're new to the channel, it's going to be probably something of a heated discussion in the chat because we're going to talk a little bit about what's going on and people are going to have some harsh opinions one way and the other.
	But before we get into it, by the way, let me start with some good.
	I have it here.
	The sponsor for tonight's show.
	I'm going to show you these things because they're actually totally amazing.
	And then I'm going to play you this without volume.
	I'm going to turn this off here so you can see how the thermometer works.
	This is the Chef IQ, people.
	And it's the sponsor of tonight's show because it's summertime and people are barbecuing.
	And the hardest thing about barbecuing is making sure that your meats, steak, chicken, fish, etc.
	are cooked properly to your liking.
	Those days are gone because I got the Chef IQ.
	It's amazing.
	It will revolutionize the way you do barbecues.
	It's a brilliantly simple cooking sensor that goes into whatever you're cooking.
	It's a meat thermometer, and it actually works relatively well on human body temperature, but that's besides the fact.
	It takes the stress out of knowing when your meat is cooked, when it's going to come out, and if it's undercooked because nobody wants to get sick over the summer.
	You download the app, as you can watch.
	My wife did it because...
	And you can preset what you're cooking, how you want it cooked, steak, chicken, fish, whatever.
	And once you choose it, you can put the thermometer in and cook it in an oven with it.
	And it will tell you whether or not you got it well done, medium, rare.
	I don't know who cooks steak well done.
	It's a horrible sin to do that.
	But if you so choose to do it.
	You can set that and it will notify you when you have ruined your steak.
	I like mine Pittsburgh rare.
	Nice and pink on the inside and charred on the outside.
	Chef IQ Sense continuously monitors and predicts precisely when my food will be done.
	No opening a hot oven.
	No sweating over a barbecue frying pan or air fryer.
	I'm free to kick back and enjoy my martini.
	Then Chef IQ Sense sends an alert to my smartphone when my steaks, chicken, seafood, or whatever I'm cooking is done.
	No more guessing.
	It's the world's smartest, simplest-to-use wireless cooking center.
	And right now, there is a flash sale going on.
	You need to jump on it.
	Summer grilling season is here, and Chef IQ Sense makes you a grill master.
	Go to Chef IQ, as in intellectualquotient.com.
	Use promo code VIVA.
	You'll get 15% off.
	Once again, Chef IQ.
	ChefIQ.com.
	That's Robert Gouveia.
	ChefIQ.com.
	Promo code Viva gets 15% off.
	All right.
	Well, speaking of things getting heated, and I was going to make another joke, which I won't make because it's not any laughing matter.
	We're going to get into tonight's show, and it's going to be one hell of a show because the world is on fire to some extent.
	And the question that I've been asking myself all day today is...
	And look, I'm not sitting on the fence about this.
	I'm genuinely torn between what I believe, I think I believe, and what I also suspect, and the level of skepticism and cynicism that I have acquired over the last 10 years of a red pill up the wazoo, and 30 years of acquired knowledge now.
	Barnes, whenever you're ready, come on in.
	We're going to talk about this.
	For those who are new to the channel, we are live across all four platforms tonight.
	We're going to have our vivabarneslaw.locals.com afterparty afterwards.
	I will post the clips to Commitube.
	I am live daily at 3 o 'clock on Rumble.
	That's the Rumble exclusive live stream.
	And I will get to pretty much all, but if I don't get to a tip question and you're going to be miffed and say, why didn't he get to it?
	Don't give the tip questions.
	They pop up in the side like this.
	Illegal immigrants are the Democrat new slaves.
	Don't forget it was the Democrats who fought to keep slavery, says E.Taylor67.
	Then we got Howard the Duke over.
	Sorry for your family's loss.
	I'm really trying to look on the bright side considering last night's events, as hard as that is.
	Is it possible, one, given Thomas Massey's newfound partnership with Ro Khanna, he will revert to supporting the BBB, Big Beautiful Bill, Trump agenda to burnish his conservative credentials and guard the flank?
	Holy crap, Apples, that's a long one.
	Hold on.
	And guard the flank from primary challenges.
	And two, will Trump accelerate his pullback from Ukraine-Russia to mitigate increasing accusations of being a warmongering neocon hypocrite?
	Gray101 says, asking out of honest concern, did Trump have a medical event around G7?
	He's been acting like a completely different person.
	And then we've got Avalok.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me see if I can bring this one up here, Robert, because it looks like it's going to be purple.
	Yeah, it's purple.
	Bring it over here.
	Hey, Viva, my mom got hit by a scammer and lost $7,000.
	Much to my shame, I can't help get her back on her feet.
	I'm asking for those that can help.
	please look at the give, send, go, and it's there.
	I have no knowledge of this Give, Send, Go.
	This is not an endorsement.
	I'm reading a rumble rant.
	And everybody do your due diligence before you support any gifts and goals that you don't then say, why did Viva endorse that?
	Cause I didn't.
	And I don't.
	You'll know what I do when I actually personally contribute to it, but these are still not endorsements, but thank you.
	And I'm sorry for your mom, Avalanche.
	And Robert, I'm sorry, but you mentioned it yesterday during the Bourbon with Barnes, It's just, it's tragedy and we're, everyone's thoughts and prayers are with you.
	Robert, you have been Tell us what you have on the menu, and some people might understand why you might have been a grouchy Marx this week on Twitter.
	We'll get to it.
	What's on the menu for tonight?
	Up first, the Israel-Iran war.
	President Trump is busy putting out truth that now he's for regime change and he didn't mean MAGA.
	He meant make Israel great again.
	Literally go to his truth post.
	He literally just posted this.
	That's how insane President Trump has become.
	We'll get to...
	That's on Viva's channel, on Rumble.
	You can find it all there.
	some of the events are already occurring as we speak as Iran is already moving to close the Straits of Hormuz.
	And there's been...
	Now, if you want the political fallout, One of the viewers of the show was none other than Vice President Vance himself.
	So you can go and look at what the potential political fallout is there.
	What we'll be covering here, with just some brief updates on those two components, will be the legal fallout that may be occurring, the War Powers Resolution Act, the various legislation being proposed by Thomas Massey and Ro Khanna.
	The constitutional aspects, Congressman Massey's interpretation of the Constitution and Congress's authority to declare war.
	How does that apply?
	The various nuclear nonproliferation treaty and allegations of a violation of that that has now been filed by Iran against the United States with the IAA, as well as resolutions that are now proposed before the United Nations concerning the lawfulness or alleged lack thereof.
	Then we've got a lot of SCOTUS, who have major changes in the law on standing.
	Indeed, if you had read the opinions, some of the cases and arguments might seem familiar to you, because it's the ones we were asking the court to make last year.
	They refused to help then, but...
	D.C. Circuit, district courts.
	All of those, all really about agency power, came down this past week.
	We got about a half dozen cases that impacted.
	We also have when can you sue for crazy environmental rules in California.
	I've been waiting on this because I have a client that wanted to look at this.
	Waiting on this decision came down.
	Good decision in that regard about when you can challenge those rules and agency actions as well.
	We have the Supreme Court talking about jurisdiction in a other wide range of contexts that we will cover as well.
	The big decision on the Tennessee trans law was decided.
	That was the most controversial, publicly controversial decision of the week.
	We will go through that as well.
	When you can sue under the employment and anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, does it cover retirees or not?
	That case went down this week.
	When you have a right to a jury trial for various claims created, does exhaustion of remedies, if the factual issues implicated, actually entitle you to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment?
	Big split decision, but majority decision ultimately on that.
	This week.
	So we got all the SCOTUS.
	Then we have trial verdicts in the Karen Reed case, trial verdicts in the Grace Shara case, explain why the Shara case has an exceptional chance of being reversed on appeal.
	The Trump National Guard authority, it's similar but different than his authority to declare war or to involve us in war.
	What did the Ninth Circuit have to say about that this week?
	And then the...
	What about Senator Mike Lee's proposal to sell federal land?
	Some have been critics of it.
	Others think it would work.
	We can debrief that.
	And then last but not least, our historic case of the week is Wickard v.
	Filburn, one of the most problematic cases in Supreme Court history that might be overturned in the next five to ten years.
	We'll see.
	By the way, first thing first, I forgot to break.
	This is the Chef IQ, whatever, what are these things called?
	The box that you do.
	What are these things called?
	QR code.
	This is the Chef IQ QR code.
	So everybody right now, I'm going to keep this up here for 30 seconds.
	Scan it so that you can go get your thing there.
	And I think this incorporates the code Viva.
	I just forgot to show the QR code.
	I'm trying to figure out how to turn off the beeping for notifications for texts on my computer.
	But I'm an idiot.
	I'm a boomer idiot, and I don't know how to do it, but I'll figure it out eventually.
	That's the Chef IQ QR code.
	Check it, scan it.
	Link is in the description.
	And now let's get into the mild news of the day, that we went to bed last night with strikes in Iran.
	It's not a war, everybody, so don't call it a war.
	It's just precision military strikes.
	Which, I guess that's what Japan did to us in Pearl Harbor.
	That apparently wasn't war.
	The conservatives are explaining this to me online now.
	That wasn't war, Barnes.
	A military strike isn't war.
	Really?
	Well, I was unaware of that.
	I'm pretty sure we describe Pearl Harbor as an act of war.
	Now, I'm in not an awkward spot.
	I'm sincerely not torn.
	I can argue both sides and steel man this very easily.
	But the, the, the bottom line is that, um, And I don't want to get into the fights about whether or not Pearl Harbor was an act of war, a declaration of war, or an initiation of war.
	We are now splitting hairs over.
	It's not war.
	It's a military intervention.
	We're splitting hairs over whether or not it requires congressional authorization, despite the fact that no president since Clinton, each having done something similar, requested congressional authorization.
	And I'm like...
	And then the question is, well, at what cost?
	And if Trump did what he said he did and what the military said he did and what Fox News said he did, took out the three nuclear secret plants and devastated them and now there's no more nuclear regime within Iran and that's going to be the end of it and everybody goes on and now they go back to negotiating.
	All right, well, I guess that'll be a smashing success if that's all it is.
	The concern now, and we're seeing the fallout, is that that's not all it is, that this is not the end of anything.
	This is the beginning of the next chapter, and Lord knows what.
	The news is that last night, an operation that they say spanned 18 hours.
	It involved decoys.
	I was watching a good 20-minute breakdown about how they sent bombers west, and they were actually going east, and they fueled up, I don't know, however many times during the 18-hour flight with these B-2 bombers to these three nuclear research facilities or whatever you want to call them in Iran.
	They used massive bunker buster explosives.
	They used, I don't know, whatever, 36 tomahawks that they fired from ships, which took something like an hour to get there, and then struck bunker bombers, more strikes.
	And then they left, and it was a smashing success.
	No fireback.
	They weren't even detected.
	And we are led to believe that now the Iranian nuclear bomb acquisition pursuit, if they were ever under one, is done.
	Maybe it was just a hole in the desert.
	And then we have to decide whether or not we support this, where six months ago, it was no new wars, Epstein list, and a whole bunch of other issues that were important to the populist movement.
	And now, six months later, it's no Epstein list, new wars.
	But you got people saying, this isn't war, this is just military strikes.
	And now you got a deep fissure.
	At least it seems to me maybe I'm too far in the hole and it's not that big and it's not that deep and it's not risking the primaries, not the primaries, but the midterms for 2026 and the presidency for 2028.
	Robert, I mean, you've been on a tear all week and some people have been getting a little eerie.
	Take it from there and I'm going to ping away with questions as I get them.
	Sure.
	So, yeah, briefly on the political update, the analysis that Richard Barris and I did covered political data, polling data on war and conflict in the U.S. since the end of World War II.
	In fact, we went back before that.
	And unless, other than World War II, every single military intervention or war we have conducted has ended up being politically unpopular for the party that initiated or instigated it, even ones perceived as successful at the time, such as the Iraq, first Iraq war.
	That president, Poppy Bush, 90% approval at the peak of the war.
	Everybody said that meant he was guaranteed to get re-elected.
	He ended up with the smallest percentage vote of any incumbent in over 100 years.
	Right after Britain won World War II, Winston Churchill was sacked by the UK.
	So, the idea that this is, that generally speaking, war is not politically palatable in the modern age, in any sort of democratically governed country over any extended time period.
	That's part one.
	Part two is unique parts of the Trump coalition of 2024 included libertarians, included Muslim voters in places like Dearborn, Michigan, and included a lot of historical anti-war voters that had shifted to the Trump coalition, including people like Norwegians in Wisconsin or Appalachians in East Tennessee or Southeast Pennsylvania or Southwest Pennsylvania, rather, and some other places like that.
	Areas that have had a historical proclivity against our involvement in overseas conflicts and wars, places like East Tennessee.
	And people are somewhat shocked by Thomas Massey.
	He comes from Eastern Kentucky.
	He comes from the part of Kentucky that J.D. Vance comes from.
	That part of Kentucky was the only voter, the only person who refused to vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to support the Vietnamese War.
	Congressman Duncan, one of the other congressmen that's opposed to the war is Congressman Burchett from East Tennessee, looking at running for governor.
	That shouldn't surprise anybody.
	One of the few Republicans to vote against both Iraq War I and Iraq War II were Republicans from East Tennessee.
	So these are areas that have historical opposition to war.
	And if Trump is unable to extract us from this conflict on a quick basis and gets us further engaged and involved, What we'd point out is that overwhelmingly Americans don't support this conflict out of the gate.
	And now normally there's a rally around the flag effect once you get involved.
	And so right before Iraq War II, the country was split about 50 to 50. Then it went 80-20 in favor of the conflict once it started.
	But what happens is the costs start to accumulate and the benefits start to diminish.
	And as that happens in modern warfare in the Western world, its political sustainability and popularity decline as American blood and treasure gets wasted on this.
	It also has a tendency to completely divert all political attention domestically so that your ability to get your domestic agenda through drops like a rock.
	This was true even for W, George W. Bush, at the peak of the popularity when he was declaring, mission accomplished!
	With shock and awe with Iraq War II.
	Dave Rubin might want to study some history.
	Declaring easy success right out of the gate doesn't tend to bode well over time.
	Trump will lose the libertarian side.
	He'd been losing them on other issues already.
	You will not see Elon Musk meaningfully engage in politics in the near short term.
	But you can see them in influencers like Ron Paul, people like Senator Paul, Congressman Massey.
	Others, you know, people like Dave Smith, who has a big platform on the libertarian side, they've all already come out against this conflict.
	And you'll see a lot of those libertarian voters leave the MAGA coalition permanently.
	And the problem is the MAGA coalition is very close to tipping over.
	It's within a, you know, we only won by a few points in many of these key states.
	So people's like, ah, who cares?
	We got 90% on our side.
	90% won't win you an election, folks.
	You need 100% of MAGA.
	You need 95% of MAGA.
	Not 90%.
	Definitely not 80%.
	And the problem is that the polling data that's come out since the conflict, at the peak of what normally would be 80-20 support, and within your own party, usually is 90-10.
	Well, instead, Americans in the most recent poll right after, flash poll done right after the conflict was announced, our involvement in it, Americans oppose it on about 35% support.
	You'll see tons of fake polls.
	Rubert Murdoch will circulate fake polls.
	It'll be stuff like, do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?
	Oh, that must mean you're for the war.
	Sorry, that's not an honest poll question.
	There are ways to poll this.
	Richard Barris has done it in great detail.
	And others have done it over the years.
	And they'll tell you what is likely to occur.
	So the longer the conflict goes on, the more Trump leads political capital.
	Right now, he has lost part of his MAGA base, which is the MAGA coalition of 2024.
	Muslim voters will turn on him now.
	It will make Michigan much more difficult for Republicans to win in the near short term.
	The Senate race there is probably already DOA and will be locked in for Democrats.
	The libertarian side, he'll most likely lose.
	He was already losing them.
	Dave Smith is calling for his impeachment.
	That's how quick that libertarian reversal was.
	And Trump, rather than trying to find ways of building bridges back to the libertarian side, is busy saying he wants to raise money like he did in 2020, which people forgot.
	He and Liz Cheney teamed up to try to take out Congressman Massey because Massey didn't agree with Trump's early COVID lockdown policies.
	Massey was right, Trump was wrong, as Trump himself has implicitly acknowledged, but much later after that.
	But he and Liz Cheney raised a bunch of money.
	For a lawyer that I happen to know I didn't like.
	But that's another story.
	Massey won, I think, 75-25, 80-20.
	It wasn't close.
	So, but instead of trying to build bridges to the libertarian side, he's busy burning bridges to the libertarian side.
	So that side, that's going to put everything in it.
	He has weakened his foundation, not strengthened it by this attack.
	Well, people in the chat, and I can ask the question as well, are going to say, well, if this turns out well, they'll come back in time for the 2026 midterms.
	So, you know, this might be a bit of panic-ins, which anyone who uses that word unironically drives me nuts.
	Unlikely with the Muslim voters, right?
	That's what the Biden people thought, that their...
	And they said at a minimum they'll never vote for Trump.
	It's exactly what they did.
	They had massive erosion amongst Muslim voters.
	That's why Michigan wasn't that competitive.
	I mean, it was close, but not as close as expected.
	I don't see those voters coming back.
	And the libertarian-type voters I don't see coming back either.
	They were already skeptical of Trump.
	It took a lot of work to bring them into the fold.
	Now, then you have the third group that I would call your hardcore anti-war vote.
	So there's a lot of voters with anti-war proclivities, but that might, for practical reasons, make different choices.
	The hardcore anti-war vote is represented really with Tulsi Gabbard.
	And Gabbard's had to sort of change her testimony because Trump demanded it.
	Change your story to repeat a statement that's patently false.
	Trump is just lying to the world about it.
	He just is.
	I'm going to give you my honest opinion no matter whose ox gets gored in the process.
	And for those online, if you are going to whore for war and you're going to libel the likes of Alex Jones, I want nothing to do with you.
	I will not be appearing on your shows.
	I will not be sponsoring you.
	I will not be promoting you.
	I will not be pitching you.
	So just word of the wise out there.
	Fine to think the war is going to be great.
	Have at it.
	But if you're going to add on, like Dave Rubin is, add on like some others are, I'm going to call you out for it and not want any association or affiliation with you.
	The supporting war whores who libel Alex Jones is not part of my agenda.
	Never going to be.
	So I think politically, he's at major risk.
	Major, major, major risk.
	And how it turns out definitely impacts the ramifications.
	But I think the Tulsi hardcore anti-war vote, I mean, they're already calling her Mrs. Colin Powell because of Colin Powell vouching for weapons of mass destruction when he knew there weren't any to lead to the first Iraq war that completely broke Powell's public support anywhere in the court of public opinion over time.
	This was a guy who fancied himself a future president.
	I remember him telling me that when I was A whole other story for another day.
	So if he loses the Gabbard vote, then we're all of a sudden outside of a majority support for House and Senate races in the industrial Midwest, for example.
	So that's a major risk for him.
	Now, what happens with the anti-war portion of MAGA that's not a Tulsi Gabbard kind of hardcore anti-war vote is that they are likely to stay home.
	That's the biggest risk.
	If they think Trump is not delivering for them, if they think Trump is betraying them, and many of them currently do, then they won't rush to the polls to vote for a Democrat.
	There'll be a few that do in protest, but most of what they'll do is they'll stay home.
	That was already a problem because the Trump voter coalition relies upon low propensity voters, voters who don't often turn out.
	The biggest risk, though, from Trump, from all of it, really isn't the geopolitical fallout.
	It's not direct political response to being involved in the war.
	It's the risk of economic fallout.
	And namely, what we highlighted on the Wednesday show was if Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz, then that can jack up the price of the estimates from various independents.
	You can watch Doonberg, who has his own report.
	He follows this in great detail.
	He's a great commodities analyst, so highly recommend him.
	Doonberg.
	There's others that also provide good work.
	Scott Ritter writes for one of the major energy publications.
	Their general conclusion is that oil prices and gas prices will go up anywhere from one-third to quadrupling, depending on what happens with the Straits of War Moose.
	There are some assumptions, apparently the Trump administration made the assumption, that Iran would never do this, even though they said they would.
	In part, it's because they think Iran has no other mechanism of getting oil to its allies to make money.
	I guess people didn't pay attention to that Belt and Road Initiative train that goes straight from China to Iran.
	Not only that, they could shut down the Straits of Ramuz, but not shut it down for ships carrying Iranian oil.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	The question a lot of people ask is, with what could Iran shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
	Because they geographically control that whole, I think you'd call it the east coast, if you will, of the sea.
	And the Straits of Hormuz are really small.
	They can either mine it, they can just use ballistic missiles, other missiles to attack it.
	But here's the reality.
	All they have to do is say they can use technology that's already apparently happening with jamming.
	The key is all they have to do is say they're doing it and convince enough insurers that they are.
	Because what will happen is insurance companies will refuse to insure any tanker going through the Strait of Hormuz.
	And so what happens then?
	They don't use it anymore.
	They shut down.
	They're not taking that risk.
	And so that's why a lot of people from analysis I'd read is our ability to prevent them from doing so was very limited.
	Alex Jones is trying to make this point all week.
	I have yet to hear...
	Calling and begging China.
	What world is everybody living in over there?
	China has other ways of getting it.
	They've been stockpiling it for a year in terms of oil and gas.
	So, I mean, this shows a complete lack of thinking this through at all.
	It's just doing whatever the Israeli lobby wants them to do, what Netanyahu wants them to do.
	And that's why, I mean, I'm still shocked that Trump is literally tweeting out, or truthing out, make Israel great again.
	Well, I think there was a pun.
	I think it was make Iran great again, where he said, I'll pull up the truth.
	Oh, is that what he meant by that?
	Maybe he doesn't understand what people mean by it's MAGA, not MAGA.
	They mean make Israel great again.
	Maybe he didn't.
	Fully appreciate it.
	This is just an idiot.
	Maybe you're right.
	But this is an idiotic statement.
	It's not a politically correct term to use.
	It's not politically correct to use the term, quote, regime change, end quote.
	But if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?
	Mega.
	He doesn't understand.
	Or maybe he does and he's...
	I mean, that's going to be...
	There's one thing I'm going to either play devil's advocate or just steel man.
	People are going to say, and it's the question I ask myself, okay, gas prices are going to go up.
	That's an economic consequence to an international stabilizing necessity of striking Iran and making sure that they don't develop nuclear weapons.
	And so people are going to say, okay, so gas will go for a bit.
	You'll figure out alternative means.
	Maybe they shouldn't have blown up the Nord Stream pipeline.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Go back to domestic production.
	But that's a small price to pay to ensure that Iran doesn't acquire a nuke and use it, forget not just on Israel, but to nuke whomever.
	Well, there's several different problems with it.
	I mean, you can make that choice, but that choice was not put to the American people.
	And not to steel man my own question, the question is going to be what has changed in the last, let's just say, since Trump took office in January?
	Because everybody's saying Trump has been consistent for 15 years.
	Iran shall never have a nuclear weapon.
	Agreed.
	For 15 years.
	And when he ran, it doesn't seem that there's much more new intelligence creating this immediate urgency that occurred since January 21st, 2025.
	No, my view is Trump was pretty committed to the conflict and decided to latch on to this lie as a way to propagate and justify the conflict.
	That's what the reality is.
	I know people want to believe otherwise because it's Trump, for those that are supporters of him.
	I'm utterly unconvinced and unpersuaded.
	And they definitely did a poor job persuading the public.
	But in terms of all these collateral risks, I'm not convinced that they've done that meaningful assessment within the White House at all, number one.
	Number two, they have not pitched it to the public, to the American people, to have a vote on this through Congress as the Constitution intends.
	And then third, if you're evaluating the policy, the assumption that this will result in short-term impact.
	Is not the most credible interpretation, in my view, of the likely course of events.
	I mean, when they did far less than what happened if shutting down the Strait Hormuz, that when oil prices spiked during the second Iraq war, go back to OPEC, it quadrupled in some cases with less impact.
	People seem to think we can replace it.
	It doesn't matter.
	Oil is a globally priced product.
	Globally priced.
	We don't control it in the way some people are fancifying that we do.
	For a lot of particular kinds of oil, we still have to import it anyway.
	Third, the biggest impact is all the input cost.
	It's not so much what you pay at the pump.
	It's what the tanker is paying to transport goods.
	It's what the factory is paying to produce goods.
	That's where it has this huge ripple effect throughout the entire economy.
	Already, I think oil is up, what, 25%, 30%?
	The futures, I think it was 17% last I checked about an hour ago.
	I mean, it was heading for mid-50s.
	And for those that don't know, the number one reason Trump got cost of living under control is, however it happened, there was a substantial increase in production by the OPEC and the oil-producing countries over the past six months.
	And oil and gas prices had dropped by double digits, percentage-wise.
	And that's the entire reason the cost of living got under control.
	And that's the number one reason.
	President Trump got elected.
	So do we really think that there's 100% buy-in from the American people, that they're willing to have cost of living spike again, double again, gas prices drastically increase, everything else at the grocery store, to the products you buy at the Walmarts and Targets and the rest?
	How many people do you think it's going to be 100% buy-in that, oh yeah, bombing Iran was worth this?
	We all know that has literally never been the case in American political history, where people have been able to consistently sustain supporting a foreign war, as opposed to defending your own country.
	But a foreign war, having to pay double, triple, quadruple.
	I think Richard Barris is going to poll on this.
	And what you're going to find is it's been polled before.
	When you're given options of diplomacy versus military intervention.
	And when you're given the possibility of certain consequences of that military intervention, it escalating, cost going way up, whatever it is, what you find is the support for the conflict drops like a rock.
	I don't know if some people are making this argument.
	We're not seeing it pan out in real time.
	I'm not saying oil prices will go down, but if there's international support or at the very least international silence for these strikes, it'll instill some sort of confidence in geopolitical stability.
	What I was noticing, you know, Saudi Arabia put out a statement and sort of wishy-washy, we strongly condemn yada yada.
	If it turns out that the- It's one of the strongest condemnations Saudi Arabia has ever issued for an attack on Iran.
	So this is much different than this, what Dan Caldwell was explaining with Tucker Carlson.
	Dan Caldwell is someone who was purged out of the Pentagon based on a false story about him leaking things by the Israeli lobby.
	That has been busy purging the Trump administration of loyalists and true MAGA supporters because of anything they've ever said negative about Israel in their 20-year history on social media or any other content.
	Instead, we have basically, just as the Biden administration was basically running for president of Ukraine, Trump right now is apparently the president of Israel.
	We didn't know it, but I guess we elected Netanyahu president because that's what's happened with I mean, right now there's an ongoing effort to remove Tulsi Gabbard.
	There's an ongoing effort by Mark Levin to attack and conspire against Vice President J.D. Vance.
	This is a complete coup attempt, and people should not understate that.
	And stop that there just for one second, because Roger Stone put out a tweet that said any rumors about disagreement between Tulsi and Trump are a lie.
	They're getting along fine and well.
	Roger Stone is good, and he's pretty accurate and pretty reliable.
	But just on his face, I don't see how you can have the president say, I don't care what my director of national intelligence says.
	I believe something different.
	But I do trust Roger Stone.
	But maybe, I don't know, maybe his intel is not good on this.
	I mean, she's trying to be as accommodating to Trump's agenda as possible.
	And that, you know, he thus issued a public statement that there was intelligence out there that they were closer to a weapon.
	The way she phrased it.
	It means that intelligence came from Israel and Mossad, who is just lying.
	And they know they're lying.
	If they had any evidence, they would actually produce it.
	They don't have it.
	The point that people go to is the IAEA and Iran themselves confirming that we've got 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%.
	And thus, that makes them very near making nine or 10 bombs.
	So people are going to say it's IAEA.
	That latter part is just false.
	The IEA director himself has said that's false.
	He said they're not anywhere near creating a nuclear weapon.
	That it's likely between one to three years.
	And what Trump wanted to do was to pretend that enriched uranium is the same thing as a nuclear bomb.
	It's not.
	He knows it's not.
	That's a lie.
	But he committed himself to this conflict, so he's now willing to propagate wars.
	And you're seeing him now.
	What he told everybody was, don't worry.
	The way he got Tulsi Gabbard and Vance and others on board is, don't worry, this will And what is he saying today?
	Regime war change.
	Regime change war.
	If Trump does that, he's done.
	He's completely done.
	His coalition will completely collapse.
	He'll be impeached, and he may be convicted, and he'll deserve to be if he goes down that path.
	If he launches a regime change war in Iran, Trump will deserve to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office, and then indicted for the crimes he's committed.
	So Trump world is crystal clear.
	That's where those of us that are deeply anti-war have always been.
	And we're not going to accept Trump betraying us and putting Jeb Bush in power.
	That's not going to happen.
	And there's a lot of people out there that are asleep.
	They think Trump can dodge it.
	Trump can evade it.
	There will be consequence.
	All MAGO will rally.
	It's not going to happen.
	Will most of Trump's base stick with him?
	Absolutely.
	But that's not the problem.
	He needs, in such a tight electoral arrangement, he needs 100%.
	And he's going to be closer to 65%.
	He's going to be where Nixon was during impeachment, where a third of his base abandoned him.
	That's where Trump's going to be if he escalates.
	The key is going to be he needs to de-escalate and find an exit ramp fast before his presidency is over before it begins.
	Flesh that out because the question of the day is, was it legal for Trump to do what he did?
	To declare war, it requires an authorization by Congress, but for...
	It's within the executive, the purview of the commander-in-chief.
	Clinton, military strikes, no authorization from Congress.
	Bush Jr., same thing.
	Obama, same thing.
	What's his face?
	Biden.
	It's varied.
	Both Iraq wars did get congressional authorization.
	Barnes froze?
	Okay, that's it.
	The FBI just came.
	Barnes has been taken.
	Wait for it to refresh.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, no, you froze up for a second there.
	Oh, can you see me now?
	Yeah.
	All right, yeah.
	So both Iraq wars did receive congressional authorization, the authorized use of military force of 1991 as well as 2002.
	Prior to World War II, any foreign war we got involved in, there were votes by Congress to declare war.
	Now, there's...
	Let me stop right there so that nobody takes what you said.
	Barnes is not wishing for impeachment.
	Barnes is outlining its inevitability.
	People need to understand that.
	I want Trump to stick to his promises, stick to his word, get us out of this, minimize the risk altogether.
	I do not at all want him to escalate the war.
	I do not want him at all to be impeached and removed from office.
	But I'm saying that's what will likely happen.
	If he gets us involved in Iraq War III, just in Iran, that if we put troops on the ground and we get involved in a continued extended regime change conflict in Iran, that's just the highly likely outcome.
	It doesn't matter whether I want it to happen or not want it to happen.
	I was on with the SportsPix local members this Friday, and I laid out why I thought there was a 50% chance he would attack this weekend, even though the markets were saying there was only a 7% chance.
	And it was because of his reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard question.
	The anger with which he responded told me, okay, he's committed to attacking.
	And he's committed to this being the pretext for the attacking.
	That they were really close to a nuclear weapon that had no choice.
	And so that meant he was going to attack.
	It isn't because I wanted an attack to happen.
	It's because I thought it was more likely than the markets were predicted.
	So when we talk about war powers of the president, we should always start...
	And what the Constitution does, it gives different power to different branches.
	To Congress, to the President, it gives the power to be the commander-in-chief of all armed forces.
	That's the primary source of foreign military power of the President.
	To Congress, it gives the power to declare war.
	It gives the power to make all rules governing armed forces.
	It gives the power to raise the army and to call forth the militia.
	So, at the time of the founders, the debate, they originally were going to make it so that Congress had all power to make war.
	That's how broad it was originally intended.
	And they said, but what if we're suddenly attacked?
	They're like, okay, we'll make it a declare war, but a self-defense exception exists for the president to not have to require congressional approval when emergency timing requires imminent action.
	So then Congress passed the War Powers Resolution Act in 1973.
	Because after World War II, the Korean War, Harry Truman entered without any declaration of war or authorization of military force from Congress.
	Beyond that, that might have been budgeted for certain personnel.
	The various coups and other things we staged around the world never got congressional authorization.
	Vietnam got partial authorization.
	In the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
	But the question is whether they were exceeding that by the time we had gone a decade or so, basically, in a continuously escalating war.
	Teacher, just remind everybody what the Gulf of Tonkin was, because it might be, I say, one that learns from history.
	But just refresh everybody's memory who may not appreciate what the Gulf of Tonkin was.
	That there had been a sneak attack by the North Vietnamese against U.S. ships.
	It turned out, of course, to be a lie.
	Indeed, almost.
	I mean, it's extraordinary.
	Like, people wonder, how do politicians get away with lying to us into war?
	Because it works almost every time.
	That's why.
	And I'll highlight this.
	It works every time.
	And then I'm not even vocally opposed to what Trump did because I'm sincerely, I can argue the pros and the cons, but to get out there and just even suggest Regime change hasn't worked the last four times we did it.
	Holy crap, people.
	The WMD's argument was a lie, and it got into a 20-year war.
	Yes, it's Iran.
	It's not Iraq.
	Yes, it's 2025 and not 2001.
	When I sensitize the people to everybody who was out there saying the Ukraine war is not our proxy war to fight, let them figure it out with Russia, somehow rationalizing overnight strikes and yes, let's go here because it's Iran and not Russia.
	Then you get called all sorts of names, grifters, panicans, whatever.
	And it's as though people have not even learned not to be contrarian.
	Just to be remotely skeptical about the information that everyone is getting whipped up into a frenzy to support yet another war, seemingly.
	Although I was told it wasn't a war, Viva.
	It's just a military strike.
	And now, lo and behold, there's an overt suggestion of regime change.
	Sorry.
	So please carry on with what the presidential powers are in terms of...
	Congress declares the war, there's a specific statutory authorization for use of military force, or it's an emergency where self-defense is required because there's an imminent attack or attack on the United States.
	So then the president can commit troops, but has to pull them back within certain timeframes unless he gets further congressional approval or authorization.
	What you will find, and then if you go to the UN charter, what you're going to find in all of these, and to a degree, arguably the interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that was led by the US, signed by almost all the world, only Israel, India, Pakistan, and South Sudan are not signatory, and North Korea, are not signatories.
	Currently, North Korea in the past has been, are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
	What you will find in the UN Charter, what you will find in the Hague Convention, what you will find in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, what you will find in the War Powers Resolution Act, what you will find in the Constitution's original choice to declare war rather than make war the power of Congress, is that all of them agree that you have the right as the commander-in-chief.
	To use military force whenever self-defense requires.
	This is recognized by international law.
	This is recognized by the treaties and conventions that we are signatories to.
	This is recognized by the United Nations own charter.
	This is recognized in the War Powers Resolution Act.
	This is acknowledged implicitly in the interpretation of choosing declare rather than make war in the Constitution itself.
	So the key to whether or not Trump's action is constitutional is actually the same analysis as to whether or not it's They would say the War Powers Resolution Act exceeds Congress's authority.
	There's two different arguments for its unconstitutionality.
	One argument is one that would strip the president of any power.
	It argues that Congress is effectively delegating its declaration of war powers to the president, and that that's an unconstitutional delegation of power.
	That's one interpretation.
	Another interpretation is that this is So the courts have never answered these questions because they've usually dodged them on the grounds that the dispute is either moot by the time it reaches them, isn't right.
	You're hearing some familiar doctrines whenever judges want to run and hide from deciding an issue.
	Or they determine it's a non-justiciable political question.
	So this is highly unlikely to get to the courts, though in the modern age of the courts, nothing's off limits, unfortunately.
	So effectively, it's up to Congress to enforce it through its authorization, yes or no, also through Congress not approving appropriations, right?
	That's another way Congress can cut off the means by which a president can wage wars just to defund.
	Then there's the third option Congress has, which is the impeachment option, which is if they believe the president has exceeded his powers and has done so in a way that's in violation of his oath and has committed something that you can call or classify a high crime or misdemeanor, then it could subject him to impeachment.
	By the way, the person who supported impeachment the last time this issue was raised was Donald Trump, who supported the impeachment of George W. Bush for lying to us in the war.
	You can go back and watch the South Carolina Republican primary debate of 2016, where he doubled down on that.
	So, you know, it's like a lot of other statements Trump has made over the years, like anybody who goes to war with Iran is because they're a bad negotiator.
	Trump said that about Obama in 2012.
	The, you know, come back at him.
	The argument on the Trump side...
	They know that the deep state is much easier to achieve its objectives if Congress has no meaningful oversight in that capacity.
	Yes, Donald Trump expressed support for the impeachment of George W. Bush over the Iraqi war.
	On multiple occasions.
	And he, again, doubled down in the South Carolina Republican presidential event.
	This was the grounds by which it was done, that he was calling for, was that there had been misleading information about the necessity and exigency of getting into conflict.
	And even though there was approval of the authorized use of military force, it was based on false representations of evidence and information.
	Note that there's always been these public statements and leaks about intelligence.
	Nobody's sworn to that intelligence under penalty of perjury before Congress as yet.
	Slow FOIA.
	I don't expect Tulsi Gabbard to go that far, even though there's massive pressure on her to do so.
	I saw Tom Fitton and some others say that Tom Massey's dead wrong.
	What Trump did is absolutely constitutional.
	My answer is it's not absolutely clear it's constitutional.
	Using Trump's own standard for George W. Bush, And again, think of it like regular self-defense.
	You might think that guy down the street wants to beat you up.
	He may have said he wants to beat you up.
	But unless you have reason to believe there's an imminent risk of it occurring, you're not authorized to go and shoot him in the head.
	Would that apply to imminent threats to allies, Israel?
	Yeah, not really.
	So it depends on the circumstances.
	Like if you look at by state by state, but if you look at from a perspective globally of how international custom in the U.S. works, it's only been attacks on the United States because this debate happened actually very early on in the country.
	And George Washington, as I mentioned in the Barnes brief this week, declared the founder's fundamental and foundational principle of foreign conflicts, which was the Neutrality Act.
	People say, oh, you're an isolationist.
	They're just trying to pretend something that doesn't exist.
	There's really never been a true isolationist movement.
	Instead, there's been a national interest movement, a sovereignty movement, and a non-interventionist movement, or best described as the neutrality principle.
	That was established by President George Washington at the founding of our country.
	Refused to get involved.
	And in fact, what he said was, the greatest risk of war isn't undue antagonism towards an adversary.
	It's undue entanglement with an ally.
	Some of my Israeli friends might want to reread that.
	So at the time, the concern was people who were strongly affiliated with France and wanting us to get involved on behalf of France.
	And he's like, we only get involved when America's interest is at stake and we're under attack.
	That's been the overarching principle since our founding.
	We started to deviate from it meaningfully in World War I. And have continually deviated from it since then.
	The best argument Trump has is that all kinds of presidents have been involved in military intervention.
	Obama with Libya in Syria.
	George W. Bush in Afghanistan.
	Well, Trump with Soleimani back in 2000.
	Trump, to a degree, with the attacks on a Syrian airport that had a bunch of highlights, etc.
	Now, I think those precedents might have misled them to think this was going to be easier and simpler than this is.
	When you talk about the impeachment, what has to happen for there to be a plausible impeachment for Trump in terms of a shift of power in the House and Senate?
	Well, this is why he should not be saying anything about regime change.
	There is also another federal law applicable here.
	Our federal law, after the church committees, prohibits, prohibits, under penalty of high crimes, assassinating people.
	Suggesting you might murder the Ayatollah is an overt admission of a violation of federal criminal law.
	But Trump apparently thinks, whatever.
	So, I mean, this is why he's doing things that will make it very easy for his opponents and adversaries to take him out politically.
	And I find it baffling and disturbing.
	But that's what happens when you have a swamp creature like Susie Wiles as your chief of staff.
	That's what happens when you let Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby dictate who's going to be in your Pentagon, who's going to work for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
	I mean, there have been people that are deeply loyal to this country that are true veterans who have been removed from power solely to make sure Netanyahu could have his war.
	And for some of us, that's inexcusable.
	And, you know, I agree with Steve Bannon.
	There should be a federal criminal investigation as to whether or not Mark Levin, Laura Loomer, And some of these others are secret, unregistered foreign agents of a foreign government trying to hijack American policy for the priorities of a foreign government.
	Because by golly, it sure looks that way.
	Israel has dodged a bullet for a long time because they've had the sympathies of many of us in America at having to deal with people like Hamas and Hezbollah.
	However, when you start getting honorary veterans fired from high-ranking positions of power so you can push your obsessive war with Iran, To the great risk of everything people that have been part of MAGA and Maha have been championing for decades and finally have a chance to do.
	Well folks, some of us are off that train.
	And it's time for Israel to be put under investigation for all of the illicit activities it continues to engage in the United States.
	This is a foreign lobbying campaign.
	We're waging war for a foreign nation.
	And that is not appropriate under our laws.
	Now, again, Trump's best argument is almost every president since Roosevelt.
	has not felt bound by the war declaration.
	And the War Powers Resolution Act has had many of those aspects to it.
	So I think that, yeah, Grateful Nation thanks you.
	He means Israel because Mark Levin is Israel first.
	The same with Laura Loomer.
	Been trying to tell people that she's utterly unreliable and untrustworthy.
	Now you see it on full display.
	She might as well just, you know, be Israel first.
	You know, that's fine.
	But at least be honest and open about it.
	But Steve Bannon said, Hey, we need an investigation because what he sees is a foreign government dictating American foreign policy.
	That's unacceptable.
	I don't care if you're Miriam Adelson.
	I don't care who you are.
	Enough is enough of enabling and basically co-opting American foreign policy for foreign wars.
	I'm also not convinced that all this is in Israel's best interest.
	I mean, I think there's a reason why they're begging for a ceasefire at the moment, that they bid off more than they could chew.
	And they need us, the United States of America, dragged into this for forever.
	Because otherwise, they may flat out lose in the conflict with Iran.
	So if they were so confident they could win, let them have the consequences.
	But Netanyahu is on the verge of being sacked three times in the last three years.
	He's barely holding on.
	There's many people in Israel who do not support this conflict.
	There's many intelligent people like Marlowe, the editor of Breitbart, said this is going to unleash anti-Semitism around the world.
	And anti-Israeli sentiment in the United States, which already has an unfavorable opinion.
	Majority of Americans don't favor Israel.
	My prediction is that if we get, again, big if, if we get further entangled into this conflict and it goes sideways, Israel will be a political pariah in the United States of America.
	Running against Israel will be a winning ticket for both parties in the next five to ten years if we don't get this fixed quickly.
	Well, and people are going to say that's two big ifs.
	If we get further involved...
	Absolutely.
	If they get involved But now, so the strike in the desert, massive military success, or so they are reporting.
	When Fox News is engaging in orgiastic glee at what a marvel this was before the dust has even settled to know what you struck and the degree of the damage, I'm skeptical.
	skeptical of Fox news at large.
	The question is going to be, however, on the one hand, But what's the plan?
	So you strike these three nuclear facilities and then walk away, and now you say, Iran, come back to the table, and if you don't, at least we set you back 10 years?
	I think Trump sincerely believed that this threat would get them to capitulate.
	The problem is what he was offering was a capitulation that guaranteed they couldn't survive.
	So the capitulation was no nuclear energy program at all.
	I mean, that's what I've told people.
	Find me where Trump said Iran can never have enriched uranium.
	Hint, he's never said it until very, very recently.
	That's a whole new position.
	He moved the goalpost from no nuclear weapon to no nuclear-grade enriched uranium to no highly enriched uranium period.
	I saw Konstantin Kissin, that constant war whore, son of a disgraced criminal Russian oligarch who now lives in Britain and loves to advocate for war, hoard for the war in Ukraine for forever.
	Almost every prediction he made turned out dead wrong.
	He was saying when his debate with Dave Smith, his claim, oh, that everybody agrees that you never need anything more than 3% to 4% to have any non-military purpose.
	For enriched uranium.
	That's completely false.
	It's known to be completely false.
	So here's the other issue.
	This is a complete violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
	I'm yet to hear a credible argument that it's not a violation.
	So for those that don't know, the U.S. led the effort in the post-World War Oppenheimer era, you might say, about the use of nuclear weapons.
	And the agreement that we reached in 1968 that we got most of the world to sign up to.
	Was this quid pro quo.
	You have a right, if you sign up to this treaty, you have a right, protected by every signatory to that treaty, to peaceful development and use of nuclear energy.
	So that all becomes the question of peaceful.
	I would note the IEAA has never concluded that Iran's current program is not peaceful.
	Most of their complaints have been about what they were doing 20 years ago, not what they're doing now.
	People are going to say Iran has been open.
	They want to get a nuclear bomb.
	They want to acquire it.
	Well, no, they've never said that.
	They've never said that either way.
	In fact, they've said just the opposite.
	They have a fatwa against having a nuclear weapon.
	The Ayatollah opposes any nuclear weapon being done.
	They've had that fatwa since 2006.
	And all evidence is that they have, in fact, complied with it.
	What they have wanted, as we talked about, is they know enriching uranium gives them leverage.
	There's people that do enrich uranium for the purposes of certain what's called nuclear medicine and other purposes, certain kinds of nuclear reactors on submarines, etc.
	So the idea that you could never have a legitimate, legal, peaceful purpose for enriched uranium above 3.7% is simply not true.
	It's just not true.
	Now, that doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea for people to be enriching uranium above 3.7%.
	It's a whole different policy argument.
	But in terms of what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states, it says any peaceful use, and in terms of prior precedent, including by the IEA, 60% enriched uranium is still considered peaceful use, or has a possible peaceful use.
	So that's the problem, is that we were not able to substantially prove, from anything I've seen, that this was non-peaceful use at this point.
	Vice President Vance appeared to be surprised.
	That this argument even existed, which means Secretary Rubio has completely failed to do his due diligence and present what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is, what the different arguments are on each side, where the likely counts.
	They didn't even know that there could be a civilian peaceful use of enriched uranium above 3.7%.
	That's not in dispute, meaningfully.
	And yet these people just believe this inaccurate statement.
	And also protected under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is you can't attack any peaceful use of nuclear use.
	I mean, what Trump is calling for is for them to abandon a peaceful nuclear program.
	That's what he's saying.
	When he's saying you can't enrich uranium and he's moved the goalposts.
	That's in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
	Just is.
	Now, consequences?
	Probably not a lot.
	Iran will go to the UN.
	Iran will go to the IEA.
	Now, the IEA may do something.
	Maybe not.
	There'll probably be another split vote like there's been in the past.
	So I don't know if there'll be much legal consequence.
	I think the biggest risk to Trump in Congress, Thomas Massey and Ro Khanna have proposed.
	And by the way, people are being critical of them.
	Thomas Massey has done it for every president, no matter whether they're Democrat or Republican.
	He has opposed.
	He has had the same interpretation of the Constitution all the way through, and he's stuck with it no matter whose ox gets gored.
	Credit to Ro Khanna.
	Ro Khanna was proposing this to rein in Joe Biden.
	He wanted to propose this limitation then.
	So this is not new for Ro Khanna.
	What is new is you're going to see an anti-war movement when the Democratic Party explode.
	And all of a sudden, all those people wasting their time on illegal immigrant protests and trans protests and BLM protests.
	Now they actually have a purpose worth something, which is an anti-war protest.
	When Bernie Sanders merely mentioned it, His crowd went crazy chanting anti-war.
	No more war, no more war, no more war.
	This has been a city, the best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party is the resurgence and resuscitation of an anti-war movement within their party that they have abandoned for the last, really, 30 years since Clinton.
	This would be a complete resuscitation of it, and all of a sudden you'd have a whole different political animal in terms of what might happen with Trump.
	I think what Trump did is not consistent with international law, our constitution, or the NPT.
	That said, his argument is, you could say the same thing about almost every president since Roosevelt, and he'd be right.
	So that's the argument he has, is that precedent argument.
	From a policy perspective, as well as a constitutional originalist perspective, I don't think our founders intended to allow us to go to war on the basis of just the president.
	They wanted public consent.
	They wanted public buy-in through Congress.
	The talking point yesterday was that we're not going to war.
	It's just a precision military strike.
	And now today, Trump is floating the idea of regime change with those very words.
	And the new law is proposed to prohibit him from expanding or escalating.
	And I think what the Israel lobby doesn't understand, or the pro-Israeli side doesn't understand, is that there's no support for Israel within the Democratic Party at all.
	Some boomer Jewish liberals still are pro-Israel, but even they despise Netanyahu.
	So to support Netanyahu's war, they're going to be surprised when Democrats start rushing into the anti-war side.
	But they should have seen what was happening over the last three years.
	Then on the Republican side, they will stick with Trump.
	The question is how many will vote for the War Powers Resolution Act to restrain Trump.
	They'll be under massive pressure not to do so.
	That's why Trump is threatening and making Massey an example.
	And I understand where he's coming from politically.
	He likely will prevail.
	But it's going to be a closer call.
	I mean, in terms of the legal impact for Trump prior to that, He'll have to deal with war powers, resolution laws in Congress.
	There'll be efforts then later on to defund various operations.
	But he likely can dodge any legal, immediate, imminent consequence.
	His greater risk is definitely political and geopolitical.
	And everybody has convinced themselves that this was a dire urgency that needed to be done, and if you don't support it, you're anti-American.
	Which has been the justification for literally every single dumb war we've ever fought.
	Let me read a bunch of the chats, because I'm well behind in Barnes.
	If you can answer it quickly, let's do it.
	Decision by committee means nothing gets done ever, says Yaquindia.
	PattyJO63, how much is the CIA influencing this regime change chant?
	I'll quote Steve Bannon.
	He says I don't know what the difference is between Mossad and the CIA these days.
	T1990 says, most of our establishment needs to be investigated and thrown in jail cells.
	Beta1989, I am disappointed in Trump.
	Hopefully he'll change this trajectory.
	King of Biltong is in the house.
	Premium Biltong from Biltong USA.
	High protein, keto-friendly, no additives.
	Authentic South African flavor.
	Free shipping over $54.95.
	Shop now Biltong USA.
	Code Barnes for 10% off.
	Gorgeous mayhem.
	Barnes, do you think Trump could expose BB's criminality and get someone more reasonable in the Israeli government?
	And then try again with peace with Iran.
	I mean, that would have been a more effective path than the one he's currently on.
	Just pinched my finger on the chair.
	Isn't it a good thing, this is from Lucy the Dog, that Iran will not be able to make nuclear weapons?
	Remember that Clinton, Obama, Biden funneled billions into Iran with no penalty.
	The question is whether or not he even did that, if he achieved that.
	You have two issues.
	The first issue I always ask people is, what cost are you willing to pay for that?
	In other words, how much is it worth and what's the cost from a policy perspective?
	The second aspect is whether you can even achieve it.
	There's many analysts out there that say this increases the probability that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and increases the possibility that they get it quicker rather than later.
	Today, one of the Russian leaders, Medvedev, had said that multiple countries are already offering Iran nuclear weapons as we speak.
	In response to this.
	This was a predictable response, whether it's Pakistan, whether it's North Korea, whether it's somebody else.
	So you can desire that something not happen.
	I'd love to look like Brad Pitt.
	That isn't a plan.
	That's not a policy.
	That's a wish.
	So one is, what's the cost that you're willing to pay?
	And two, what's the likelihood you can achieve this?
	Now, from a legal perspective, it's a different analysis.
	What's the probability you were at imminent risk of a nuclear attack from Iran on the United States?
	I know no one credible who says there was such an imminent risk.
	And just to highlight, everyone was saying, well, it's not a war, it's military strikes.
	It's not prolonged.
	he did it and now we're out, but if it turns out, well, we didn't get the- Or let's make it more limited.
	Let's say Iran bombs our nuclear weapons facilities.
	Are Americans going to be, that wasn't an act of war?
	That was just a strike in search of peace.
	Well, no, but the argument keeps changing because they say it's, you know, it wasn't war, it's military strikes, and it's not prolonged.
	out now, but if it comes out, this is, well, we didn't get what we needed to strike and now it's got to...
	And now you have Trump out there saying regime change is okay.
	An evening with Uncle Ray says, is Barnes going to admit he got cheap faked on the Tulsi?
	Iran said they weren't working on nuclear weapons.
	I don't think you ever quoted that.
	In fact, she's never reversed that statement.
	What she has said is that there is some intelligence that they could get one soon.
	She didn't say it was her intelligence.
	She never testified to that under penalty of perjury, nor has anyone in any government anywhere testified to that under penalty of perjury.
	So I'm deeply suspect of the claim.
	Roosevelt Media News.
	So thankful Barnes is holding the anti-war position, even if it means disagreeing with Trump.
	Rare these days.
	DO7JJ.
	Viva and Robert, what is your opinion on the Wiseman Institute bombing?
	Heard on another podcast that they were working on antimatter, also in my humble opinion.
	Yeah, working on a bunch of stuff, both military and non-military.
	That was a place that got bombed by Iran's ballistic missiles into Israel.
	I don't want to read this.
	What does this mean?
	Is this a threat?
	Oh, I absolutely saw what Tulsi said two days ago.
	What she said two days ago was that there was intelligence that they could develop a nuclear weapon quicker than what she had previously testified to.
	She didn't say she supported the intelligence.
	She didn't say the intelligence came from us.
	And it didn't.
	As Steve Bannon and others have reported, that is from Mossad.
	And it has no credibility, and none of them are willing to say it under penalty of perjury.
	They are coming out against, but Marco said behind the scenes they're in full support.
	Watching Maria this morning lies stop falling for them.
	And that's what he's trying to claim.
	I have a reason to believe that's utterly false.
	Hey, Viva Barnes, I love your show.
	I would love to shout out my book, Irony of Ideas, A Voice of Reason.
	I'd send you a copy if you like.
	The link is there.
	Everyone, Rambozo, check that out.
	Thank you.
	None your business is Chinese hack of American telecom.
	Exposed, unresolved China delivering to Iran during attacks on Israel.
	Collateral risk not realized, I think.
	Gorgeous mayhem.
	Man, what the fuck happened with Trump?
	I don't get it.
	If this Iran thing gets out of control, Vance is going to have to come out hard against Trump after the midterms to have any shot.
	2028 Barnes.
	Transpo.
	Remember, Trump is no politician.
	He's a tough businessman and through his tactics, Okay, so trust him.
	Okay.
	His leadership is about MAGA.
	Rakeda Law for Prez.
	Question, Dimitri, the enrichment for nuclear material, and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons will continue.
	Doesn't that sound like they are really doing it?
	Ree Barnes.
	Yeah, I mean, what Iran has said is that now they will develop the enriched uranium at a faster timetable.
	This is what they've always done.
	In response to any sanctions or strike, they have said, now we're going to enrich it more.
	You know, it's the whole, the wall's going to be 10 feet higher.
	You know, that's, I think, tactically, it's been a dumb strategy.
	And to be absolutely clear, I'm anti-Iran.
	I don't like the Iranian government.
	I don't like anything about them.
	You know, don't chant death to America, death to Israel.
	You know, you want to be at peace with the world.
	Don't support proxy armies like Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas and all the rest.
	That doesn't mean that Trump made a tactically wise, politically savvy or legally correct decision when he did.
	I'm going to read these quickly.
	Viva, your imitation of Bernie Sanders is great.
	Votevillian Edwin.
	Thank you.
	That's par little McFlam.
	Leverett senior Trump himself has his New York strips cooked.
	Well done.
	He puts ketchup on them.
	Not kidding.
	Bobby can probably confirm this.
	Robert, I like the Duran much as you do.
	But what do you think of the gaggle?
	We've had them on.
	They're great.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, they're more anti-Israel than I care for.
	The more deferential to Russia than I care for.
	But the yeah, we've had George.
	I'm going to read these quickly.
	I've known Peter Lavelle for many years.
	And they represent a geopolitical perspective that's outside the mainstream.
	And I always recommend that so that you can get multiplicity of perspectives so that you're not locked into saying being the president of the United States and being unaware or the vice president of the United States and being unaware that there are possible legal uses of highly enriched uranium.
	My real name Barnes will see over under the Dems sweep midterms and Trump gets impeached again.
	Randy Edwards says Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was not a declaration of war.
	Japan's preceding declaration of war was the U.S. mission was a peaceful protest in opposition to Iran's nuclear aspirations.
	And that's that.
	Let me read just a bunch of others here real quick because Encryptus has been sending me them via DM on Commitube.
	Do you think the strikes will help Trump when dealing with China over Taiwan and Russia with Ukraine?
	Just the opposite right now.
	Guess where all of our aircraft carriers are right now.
	No longer in the South China Sea defending Taiwan.
	They're all in the Middle East.
	That was from Gorilla Strength Equipments.
	Then we got Laurie Dawn.
	Thumbs up.
	Thank you.
	Douche Elias.
	Try not being an adversarial ale tonight, Barnes.
	Put the name like Douche Elias.
	That ship has sailed, brother.
	That ship has sailed.
	Look, my red line is anti-war, especially dumb wars.
	And so I'm not changing that because the reason why I like Trump isn't just because I like him as an individual, though I do.
	It's because of his positions on these policies.
	And if he doesn't follow through on those positions, it is our duty.
	It is our obligation.
	To warn him of the adverse consequences and that he's betraying his voters.
	That I got a lot of criticism when I told him that going into Syria was a mistake and it was based on a lie.
	Luckily, he was able to get out of that without major blowback, but it was, turned out, it was based on a lie.
	In 2019, I was, in 2020, I was screaming bloody murder that going along with Anthony Fauci on COVID policy would be a complete disaster for the president.
	I got blasted by a bunch of the Trump loyalists saying, what's wrong with you, Bart?
	Oh, you hate Trump, Bart?
	You're always a Democrat?
	And who was right?
	It wasn't Donald John Trump.
	So on these kind of policies, I'm going to voice my opinion come hell or high water.
	You're always getting my authentic opinion.
	You can disagree with it.
	You can yell at it.
	You can scream at it.
	If you want to troll, make sure to pay the toll and put it in the live chat.
	That's fine.
	Absolutely okay.
	Don't lie and smear friends of mine because you're so strongly you feel this way.
	That's red line number one.
	But otherwise, have at it.
	Attack me.
	Attack the position.
	But you're going to get my honest opinion and my honest advice.
	You're not going to get a fall on the line, say whatever the boss says, line of advice.
	Shane Bell says, not a fan of the strikes.
	Hopefully it's closer to op mantis than a full spool up.
	As a general note, don't touch our boats.
	Joe Spinella says, Rubin has become such a shill for this.
	The level of gaslighting.
	It's really kind of weird.
	He started out as an anti-war libertarian.
	I mean, I get that.
	I think he's...
	But it's like, okay, it's fine to be pro-Israel, whatever.
	I disagree with it.
	You know, he was out there saying regime change would be wonderful.
	It's like, you know, these are not well thought out ideas and history would say otherwise.
	And geopolitical analysis would say otherwise.
	But then he started libeling people like Tucker Carlson and others.
	And it's like, come on.
	It's more likely Dave Rubin's getting money from the Israeli government than Tucker Carlson's getting money from the Arab government.
	I don't think, I mean, I don't think, I don't know.
	I'm not saying he is.
	I'm just saying.
	If you're going to libel Tucker Carlson, if you're going to libel Alex Jones, like a bunch of people did, including mutual friends of ours, then I'm done with you.
	I'm not going to be on your show.
	I'm not going to promote you.
	And I'm going to call it out if you're Dave Rubin.
	And I like Dave.
	I like Dave as a person.
	I have no personal grievance with him.
	But this is a line that's a very important red line for me.
	Not just anti-war.
	I believe if Trump doesn't handle this correctly, and he's already handled it incorrectly, but if he handles it even worse, it will destroy every reform we care about.
	Being able to get illegal immigration under control will be gone.
	Being able to get meaningful, lasting tax relief for ordinary working people will be gone.
	The ability to restructure, to re-industrialize America will be gone.
	The ability to deep-six the deep state with institutional reform will be gone.
	That's why I'm as concerned as I am.
	It's not just an opposition intrinsic to this war and not thinking that I think the risks exceed the rewards.
	Doesn't mean he won't get rewarded at the end of the day.
	Just saying, I think, you look at a probability map.
	The risks exceed the rewards.
	But especially the big risk is to the American domestic agenda and everything MAGA actually cares about.
	That was actually Joe Spinella's next point.
	There was newsflash.
	We're in debt.
	Can't afford living standards.
	There's no Epstein file.
	A welder.
	Trump sycophants are on patrol like browncoats being bullies.
	All appears backwards.
	Are you a good person?
	Believe what your eyes are telling you like Gaza.
	Same weird shit.
	Different players has Texas grown.
	Kevin Patrick.
	Soon BB will trot out the next boogeyman.
	Yemen will be just two weeks away from a biological weapon.
	Trump can go to hell in the midterm.
	I'm done with his lies and not keeping promises.
	And there's a percentage of people that will feel that.
	You're not going to talk them out of it by saying, well, then you were never really MAGA.
	Okay, you can shrink real MAGA to a tiny percentage that can never win any election anywhere.
	Congratulations, Cat Turt.
	Congratulations.
	Life of Brian says, Trump has just pushed regime changing around.
	This is who he's always been.
	It's been con all along.
	The question is, now what?
	That's what a lot of people are going to feel.
	And that's the only thing that Trump, I mean, this was relayed to Vice President Vance this week and other people within Trump's team.
	This is publicly known.
	So I'm not disclosing anything that's not publicly known.
	Is that Americans feel so deeply betrayed.
	President after president after president has promised them peace.
	President after president after president has promised them a massive reduction in the necessity of the defense budget to afford money to invest in America.
	President after president after president has promised to restore American industry and reform our politics.
	Every single one has lied to them.
	The only one who didn't was Trump in his first term.
	But these are people that are, you'd almost say, fragile.
	Because they're so used to betrayal, they're just waiting for it to happen again.
	And so in the way Trump has handled this politically, he's been very poor in the domestic court of public opinion.
	He's living in a tiny bubble of boomer.
	The only people who currently both have a favorable opinion of Israel and support Netanyahu on the right are boomer cons, white evangelical conservative Protestants over the age of 50. Everybody else, even within the Republican Party.
	Trump doesn't trust Netanyahu or has a negative view of Israel or both.
	Trump doesn't even process this.
	He thinks it's popular to talk about God bless Israel on a speech that we give supposedly to defend the United States of America.
	This shows a political disconnect.
	That is terrifying.
	Okay, I'm going to read these out, then we're going to get on to the next subject.
	Papalo Papano says, the war whores will back Trump like they did after Soleimani.
	Soleimani side out burns.
	Then we've got JS.
	Israel may need a leadership change too.
	The abolitionist says, in all the pushback and virtue signaling from the woke right, I haven't heard anything that would have been the slightest bit relevant the day after Iran tested its first nuclear weapon.
	AI Courts, here we come, says Douche Elias.
	Why can't we replace Slim Pickens with Netanyahu and Dr. Strangelove from Donald Fish?
	If there ever was a time for Barnes to get a message to President Trump, please let it be now.
	I hope he can get this message to him.
	Flex Hancho.
	Viva and Barnes, explain to the chat what committing perfidy is.
	Text is grown.
	I don't know what that is.
	Life of Brian says Trump.
	Okay, then that's it.
	Oh, Justin Amash is a Palestinian Christian.
	He's a very compelling libertarian candidate.
	He could coalesce the anti-war vote.
	Amash Shanahan, 2020.
	That's what you'll see.
	You'll see a shift there.
	I mean, J.D. Vance is doing great work.
	And here's to the credit of Trump.
	There were people who wanted him to use a tactical nuke.
	He refused.
	There were people who wanted him to extend the bombing campaign to the rest of Iran.
	He refused.
	There were people who wanted him to assassinate the Ayatollah.
	He refused.
	Those were smart restraint acts.
	What disturbs me, one is I had doubts about whether we could just stop, that we could just hit the nuclear facilities and not have no blowback.
	That was risk one that I was concerned with.
	Risk two was this risk that he's now on.
	Escalating.
	Talking about regime change.
	Going full Bush.
	That would be a utter disaster for Trump.
	And when I was saying that about COVID in 2019, 2020, I got tons of pushback.
	Was I wrong?
	Shouldn't we have all been telling him to get off the Fauci train immediately?
	And if we had?
	And Trump had taken that advice, wouldn't he have been better off?
	Wouldn't America have been better off?
	I just love the idiocy now.
	like you can't question him if you're not otherwise you're not MAGA.
	But you know, when he picked Chronister for the head of the DEF, I forgot.
	I'm glad you mentioned it.
	which transitions into our next topic, which concerns SCOTUS.
	When I was going ballistic, You did it.
	I got tons of blowback.
	Oh, you know what you're talking about, Barnes, you're a traitor, Barnes.
	You know, I had that shipwreck crew guy getting drunk, tweeting all night, Barnes is evil, Barnes is bad, Barnes is terrible, this, that, and the other.
	Everybody was after me on it.
	I ended up dead right.
	Wouldn't we have been better off not just deferring to Trump, but telling him when his ideas are bad ones, when he's got the wrong idea in his head?
	In fact, I would say his greatest supporters have the greater obligation to make it clear to the president when he's on the wrong path.
	In fact, you could argue he relies and depends on that because the deep state sure ain't going to give him honest advice.
	They would love the twofer of a deep state neocon war in the Middle East and Trump taken out and MAGA destroyed.
	They would love both to happen.
	So we've got to advise them otherwise and support the Tulsi Gabbards and the J.D. Vances and the Pete Hexits who are urging more restraint on a go-forward basis.
	Well, that's interesting you mention it.
	and they'll get a 2-4, break down the MAGA, lose midterms, lose 2028, and get their war in Iran like they've wanted.
	Since they see us as a temporary...
	They always thought that they would get back into power.
	And sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.
	They think of Trump as an anomaly, that all they've got to do is sidetrack him.
	And they did so effectively on COVID, and now they're doing so effectively on this war.
	And so we've got to scream and yell and hoot and holler.
	And sometimes you've got to be a little dramatic.
	Sometimes you've got to tell Gadsad he's acting like a little bit of a honey bitch rather than a honey bat.
	And I like Gadsad.
	I think he's a brilliant man, great guy, does great work, does great research.
	However, if you're going to justify getting us into this war, that's bad advice, bad intel that will undermine everything we are out to achieve.
	But, speaking of SCOTUS, we had mostly good rulings this week, to my shock.
	Well, do we get it?
	Let's pick on the good ruling at the appellate level before we get to SCOTUS out of California, Robert, when Breyer...
	There are things that Congress has clearly given the president authority over, and thank God the courts actually at least recognized it this time.
	This was the power to deploy the National Guard.
	Or I guess the catch in the California case is it was the power to...
	you're pulling them from the border, yada, yada.
	And Trump deployed the National Guard to protect federal facilities, federal employees, I guess.
	As well.
	And to enforce federal law.
	And to enforce federal law, which was the immigration law, you know, and to enable to facilitate Gavin Newsom files for a TRO, temporary restraining order, which gets pushed off for a day or two, ends up with the...
	How old is Breyer's brother out of California?
	an old geriatric activist judge whose brother was Breyer on the Supreme Court, who issues an injunction or who declares that Trump has to relinquish power of the National Guard to Gavin Newsom.
	Gavin Newsom gets out a tweet of a celebrity Of a celebration lap.
	Before it's overturned unanimously by the Court of Appeal, I forget whatever district it is, who says unanimously, Gavin Newsom is such a godforsaken liar.
	He comes out and says, tonight the Court of Appeal said that Trump can't do whatever he wants and it's a victory for me.
	Paraphrasing.
	In fact, what they said was, yeah, Trump doesn't have total unreviewable power over the National Guard or certain executive functions, but the courts have to be highly deferential to him.
	And in this case, it looks like he's got a clear cut.
	And unanimously, we overturned Breyer's activist decision to strip Trump of his power to appropriate the National Guard.
	What do you say?
	Dead in the water?
	There's no going to higher levels.
	Now Gavin Newsom's going to have to lick his wounds and go back to sucking down adrenochrome?
	Well, I mean, I think he'll try to take it up to the Supreme Court of the United States that he's unlikely to get.
	Now, it was remanded in part for Breyer to consider other issues.
	Breyer's still considering issuing another injunction on other grounds.
	So this will not go away quickly or quietly, unfortunately.
	Now, here again, Constitution gives to Congress the power to call into the militia.
	President Trump is only commander-in-chief of the militia when Congress has called the militia in.
	However, Congress has delegated that aspect to the president if specific statutory provisions are met, including basically emergency-like provisions that anticipate that there are certain circumstances where Congress would not have the time to vote on it before the president has to take immediate action.
	Those emergency preconditions are variations, again, of self-defense of the country in this case, but it includes a very broad provision.
	And here, there's no question that immigration law was being delayed and being obstructed and being impeded by the various riots that were taking place, and local law enforcement was not helping, and they did not have adequate federal law enforcement there at the scene to be able to make sure the federal laws were properly executed.
	So President Trump called into forth the National Guard, which is, in effect, You can argue about how the militia and National Guard statutes work and there's disputes about all of this.
	But the long and short of it, this is its constitutional authority for it, or its original foundation.
	Called the 2000 National Guard in, federalized them, and put them under federal control for the purposes of making sure the immigration laws could be enforced and executed and federal property and personnel could be protected.
	The Newsom filed suit claiming, well, you're supposed to send it through the governor.
	Oh, that's right.
	And he tried to expand that interpretation to mean consent of the governor.
	The district court went along with it.
	The Court of Appeals said no.
	Court of Appeals said, one, how the president handles this is highly deferential and that he doesn't have – this is what Newsom was referring to.
	They said he doesn't have complete carte blanche.
	Now, to be honest with you, past court decisions say he does have complete carte blanche.
	So that was a slight erosion of the precedent supporting the president in this matter.
	But not much, because they said it's highly deferential, and clearly you had adequate basis here.
	Then the only question was, what about this consulting the governor?
	And they're like, that's not what that provision means.
	It's just a mechanism of relaying the information to the National Guard, and they said sending it to the adjunct general appointed by the governor to run the National Guard is the same thing as sending it through the governor when you look at the history of the law.
	So I think it's a correct decision, unanimous decision.
	Two Trump judges, one maybe Biden appointing.
	And I think this will be reaffirmed, even if it goes up, if it has to go back up on appeal with some new theory that Breyer announces, or it goes to the Supreme Court, I think it will be affirmed.
	That this is, in fact, Trump was acting clearly, consistently within his constitutional and statutory powers when he called out the National Guard in California.
	I'm going to bring this up here.
	Just address this because it's important to address.
	The abolitionist says your channel is now down 75% from previous weeks.
	People are voting against Barnes with their feet.
	First of all, it's not.
	But even assuming it was, Congratulations!
	You're basically saying you want bought-off and paid-off analysis to cater to your predisposed desires and beliefs.
	Good.
	Leave abolitionists.
	You know what else it is?
	Confession through projection.
	That's why I'm saying all these people that want to attack...
	We're not on anybody's payroll.
	But that tells me Laura Loomer probably is.
	That tells me some other people, Mark Levin probably is.
	Because I always use my confession through projection filter.
	If you start making up crazy...
	Those of us that are on the populist roots of this, the Mike Cernovich's, the Jack Posobiec's, the Steve Bannon's, the Tucker Carlson's, Viva, me, others.
	And Viva has more of an in-between opinion on this topic.
	We're never going to tell you what you want for clickbait.
	I lose money being in this business.
	I lose money.
	I don't gain money.
	I lose money speaking out.
	It's not, unlike Laura Loomer, this is not where I make my money from at all.
	So I don't care whether you like or dislike my opinion.
	I don't care whether you follow me or don't follow me.
	I don't care whether you subscribe or unsubscribe.
	I don't care whether you send me love letters or hate letters.
	I'm going to give you my honest opinion because that's what you actually tune in for.
	You don't tune in for to hear a robot.
	Say the same thing.
	Say what your audience wants to hear, Robert.
	Otherwise, we're leaving.
	Goodbye.
	It's these other people that are obsessed with clickbait.
	These other people that are obsessed with influence.
	They're not talking about us.
	And we have a long, extended, prude, And last but not least, you can bet against Barnes.
	It's not a good way to make money long term.
	All right, Robert.
	Sorry, that bothered me because audience capture is a real thing and you have to be conscientious of it.
	We've never been that way.
	We've managed to offend every single part of our audience at one time or another.
	We were the ones that told them all Lin Wood was insanity.
	We created Lin Sanity.
	They didn't want to hear that.
	We told them the Kraken was a little something that you'd get out of a Cracker Jack box.
	Not a real thing.
	Nobody wanted to hear that.
	Said that Dominion was a red herring.
	Nobody wanted to hear that.
	Said Trump was dead wrong early on throughout COVID.
	Nobody wanted to hear that.
	Said the vaccine wasn't safe and effective.
	A lot of people didn't want to hear that.
	So you're going to get honest opinions.
	You can hate the opinions.
	You can disagree with the opinions.
	But at least break down the assumptions.
	And where you think it's wrong, rather than just respond with, I'm going to personally smear you, I'm going to personally attack you, so on and so forth.
	Tell me what I want to hear or I'm leaving.
	Goodbye.
	When has that ever worked with us?
	That has literally never worked.
	That is a guarantee.
	I'm going to double down on what I just said.
	Robert, let's get to the speaking of feelings and doubling down on stupidity.
	It'll break into SCOTUS.
	You'll do the other ones.
	I'll do the one that I'm more familiar with.
	The transgender ruling that came down from SCOTUS, which was 6-3.
	One of the cases where Amy Coney did not disappoint.
	It was really 3-3-3.
	You had a three majority.
	You had three concurring.
	It drives me nuts.
	Remember we talked about it.
	Some of these cases are getting delayed.
	Probably because there are big disputes behind the scenes.
	And we saw, it was like, can't the Supreme Court just write a majority opinion for the love of God?
	Does it have to be one here, and then one joins over here, and then two join over here, and then four join over there, and you're like figuring out what exactly is- Well, I was just flabbergasted by Sotomayor's idiotic dissent.
	This was in the case where Tennessee- Yeah, that's classic Sotomayor.
	Some of us, there's people in the chat that wanted a, I think you've already given a partial right, but they wanted a righteous rant on, is Justice Sotomayor the dumbest justice in the history of the Supreme Court?
	Ever.
	It's a yes.
	She's competing for it.
	It's an interesting dunce prize to win, but I think the dunce cap, she might be entitled to it by terms in.
	Robert, look at this.
	Our numbers are up 75%.
	We must have told the audience what they want to hear.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	That's pretty funny, actually, because they are.
	Okay.
	So Sotomayor, people need to remember and not forget that she's the idiot who said there were 100,000 children hospitalized in serious condition with COVID.
	And she believed it.
	It wasn't like you said 100,000 when you meant 10,000, which would have still been wildly stupid.
	She's an idiot, ill-informed, reads the New York Times and believes it.
	In this transgender-affirming care therapy case where Tennessee set out legislation that prohibited gender-affirming care on its genital mutilation to kids.
	And they argued that it was constitutionally violative because it discriminated based on sex.
	And they wanted the trans to be treated as a suspect class.
	And so the question ultimately revolved around the heightened degree of scrutiny of the interpretation.
	Is it intermediate scrutiny?
	You'll flesh out the legalities, but they basically said, no, this is a rational or limited scrutiny that we approach this law because it's not on its face discriminatory against any protected class.
	It doesn't discriminate based on sex or whatever gender.
	Six to three, but the three said it does, and it's denying life-saving treatment to children, and that we should have adopted the more strict scrutiny of interpretation of the legislation.
	As it goes now, states are going to be free to implement such legislation, and it will not be subject to heightened scrutiny in terms of constitutional interpretation.
	flesh it out in greater legalese from an American lawyer.
	Yeah.
	So the issues were, so this is Tennessee's law that's This one was very carefully crafted to directly conform with the Constitution.
	And what it said is that a medical facility could not prescribe puberty blockers based on certain kinds of diagnostic material, but could only do so based on a limited subset of diagnostic bases.
	There was no classification at all based on gender.
	There was no classification based on gender identity.
	So there was no suspect class to be dealt with here.
	And yet you had lower federal courts pretending that there was.
	And so the Supreme Court clarified, this is not a suspect classification.
	There's no gender-based classification here.
	The fact that it could disparately impact women or disparately impact trans doesn't change the fact that there's no classification in the law to discriminate against someone or to treat someone differently because of.
	Gender or gender identity.
	So they said that just means it's rational basis.
	And here there's tons of rational basis.
	So now the three dissenters just love trans.
	And Sotomayor just went on this cry fest about the wonders of trans and how critical it is we take little kids and change their genders.
	Tells you how nuts these people are.
	I mean, she showed during COVID.
	She's gone full COVID idiot.
	Lefty, wokester justice.
	It's been something to witness.
	Now, what's interesting is, in a bunch of cases that we'll get to, Kagan is not on that train.
	Kagan is off that train on a bunch of different stuff.
	But not on this one.
	He or she was for the wokesters.
	Now, the three concurring is that Thomas would have gone further.
	What Thomas wanted was for the court to say trans is not suspect class.
	Court was unwilling to go there because Robertson Gorsuch wanted...
	I don't support that that's intended within the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as to state actors.
	But so they skipped that.
	And then the other big issue was Bostock.
	I said at the time, Gorsuch was just doing a literal statutory interpretation, that people were misreading it as he wanting to give broad rights to trans, that that wasn't affirmed.
	They went through this whole decision and said Bostock is very limited.
	And doesn't apply into these other contexts.
	Anyway, now Thomas would have gone further.
	He's like, let's make clear that Bostock was dumb at the time.
	That's what Thomas thought.
	Then he thinks now.
	He's not bashful about sharing those opinions.
	I lean towards Thomas on the classification of trans not being a suspect class.
	For equal protection purposes, even if I think Gorsuch did the correct statutory interpretation as to the meaning of the law, how it was written by Congress, and the breadth with which it was written.
	So I side with both.
	So it isn't the full win some of us wanted.
	Some of us wanted to make it clear trans and gender identity is not a suspect class.
	They didn't go there.
	They just ignored it.
	They didn't say it is.
	They didn't say it isn't.
	They said it doesn't, but what they did do is give a roadmap for how to handle these issues.
	If you think a particular form of medical diagnosis is more risky than reward, a state can ban it as long as they go through the proper rational basis review to do so, and as long as they don't target and discriminate directly and intentionally with classification people based on gender.
	So you've got a roadmap now for most trans treatment laws to be affirmed as long as they use this roadmap.
	Let me read a bunch of the tip questions over on Locals just for a bit here.
	Save America from World War III and Peach 47 from Gray 101.
	I don't know if he's being serious or it might be sorry.
	No, there's a bunch of people on that.
	I mean, there's members of our board that feel that way.
	Now, it will be like 5% probably of the MAGA base thinks that way right now, but that gives you an idea of where it's going.
	No, and I've been following it.
	I've been surprised by some of the frustration.
	I'll put it like mild.
	But think about it.
	If you knew family or friends that had died or been disabled or came back drug addicted because of these stupid wars based on lies, how would you feel?
	And that's what Trump is forgetting.
	These people are deeply, deeply, deeply and bitter, and they got every right to do so.
	They have friends and family who served, who died, who are disabled, who are drug addicted because our politicians care more about lying than they do protecting American security.
	And right now, that's what Trump is doing.
	He's lying us into another war.
	Change direction now.
	Reverse course now.
	Presidency can be salvaged.
	And I can confirm from private discussions, I have a number of people who've become friends who are veterans, and they were the ones who are most outraged about this and texting me privately.
	The Israeli raids, sorry, since VP said we aren't at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program from Gray 101.
	I understand what Vance is trying.
	He got a lot of criticism for that.
	What Vance is trying to do is limit the scope of this.
	He's doing everything he can to limit the scope of this, to make it so it doesn't blow back on Trump, doesn't blow back on the country.
	I mean, he's a man who served in our military based on a lie, and it takes it personally.
	And so he's doing everything he can within the administration to limit this.
	So when he's saying that, what he's trying to do is to reshift the focus of the Trump administration away from what Trump just pushed it towards.
	Unfortunately, Trump sabotaged that with his idiotic statement.
	Trump was probably dumb enough politically.
	To not realize how badly he's going to get ratioed on his own truth platform over that statement.
	And I suspect he's putting it out there to see what the reality is.
	But he should have known the blowback is going to be vicious.
	Vicious.
	It's like when he was saying, vaccines are wonderful, everybody!
	COVID vaccines are wonderful!
	And it took everybody booing him over and over and over and over for him to realize, uh, maybe I should quit yipping about this.
	What does a ratio look like on...
	So what you're going to be looking for is the retruth ratio to criticism ratio, and a response, a reply.
	And then you can also go through the replies and see who's getting the most liked responses.
	And that's where you'll get, my guess is over the next six months, you'll see...
	Like women of Trump always are trying to get attention, so they just put pro-Trump stuff in there.
	I was surprised by how much.
	I don't want to call it spam because I'm not familiar enough with truth.
	There's tons of spam on TruthSed.
	So the quick ratio, if you're looking at it, Number one.
	But number two, did he get 1,500 replies or is it more than that?
	And on some of these statements he's been making about the war, ratio is when there's more replies than retweets or retruths as this case is.
	He usually still gets more retruths than replies, but what happens is the replies jump from 1,500 to 4,000, 5,000.
	And when you see that, that's how he interprets this is not popular.
	The Israeli raids on iron debacle as a U.S. Department deep state coup.
	Bibi, AIPAC, AL are pawns of the U.S. deep state.
	Bibi must go for Israel's sake, but the real question is how to redirect the justified anger to where it really belongs.
	The U.S. deep state says fresh eye.
	Bender is great.
	I'm bringing this up so that we can see this because I always neglect to bring these up when we have.
	Bender is great.
	Makes absolutely beautiful woodwork.
	I'll show you mine in a second.
	Just in time for the 4th of July.
	Want a flag like Viva and Barnes?
	Now's your chance.
	I've made a small batch of waving wooden American flags and would love to offer a discount to the Locals community.
	Hopefully you'll get more orders than you can satisfy.
	Bender is great.
	Go to reenixwoodworking.myshopify.com Use the code LOCALS50 for $50 off.
	Shout out to Margie L. Happy Independence Day.
	The stuff is absolutely amazing and beautiful.
	And I'll show you ours.
	RB, first, sorry for family's loss.
	I'm trying to look on the bright side considering last night's events, as hard as that is.
	Oh, I read this one already.
	Okay.
	Robert, hold on.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to have to put it back afterwards.
	This is real wood.
	It's absolutely beautiful.
	Full frame.
	Solid.
	I do not use it as a cooking cutting board.
	And it's beautiful.
	The link is there, everybody.
	Robert, take us away on SCOTUS.
	So we had a bunch of cases about standing, venue, and agency power.
	And the good news is most of them were good decisions.
	Where do you want to start with it?
	So we'll start with the FDA.
	What's interesting about a lot of these cases, I always urge people, file petitions to cert when you have a good policy argument, even if you know that your odds of...
	So we had made various arguments over the last couple of years, multiple FDA cases we'd brought up with Robert Kennedy on behalf of Children's Health Defense, challenging when you could sue an agency.
	And we're wanting to expand the appropriate definition of who can seek legal relief in courts when agencies go AWOL.
	And we were doing it in the COVID vaccine context.
	So, of course, the Supreme Court went and hid under their various desks in order to not rule on it.
	But what's good is what I've told people is often you'll see your arguments, your ideas, even the very cases that you cite.
	Suddenly show up a year or two years later in the Supreme Court's logic because the Supreme Court reads all these petitions.
	Their clerks read all these petitions and it influences the way they perceive things going forward.
	And you often can have an influence.
	Is it a guarantee you have an influence?
	No.
	But don't diminish the possibility of you having an influence.
	That's why I bring cert petitions to the Supreme Court every single year, no matter how much of a long shot it is and no matter if I'm even paying out of my own pocket to do so.
	Costs like five grand just to file it because you got to do these little pieces of paper.
	Everything's electronic, but it's the Supreme Court.
	You got to do this, you know, little mini book and all this crap.
	Oh, for those who are wondering, that's ancient Gonzo wisdom by the one and only Hunter S. Thompson.
	I'll have a little quote from him at the end of the show about how to handle war.
	So this is what happened.
	This is the e-cigarette industry.
	Now, leave it to the Supreme Court.
	When you're a little fella trying to get an election corrected, we can't give you standing for that.
	When you're representing ordinary people trying to challenge corruption in the government to put out a dangerous drug that's mislabeled a vaccine, mislabeled safe, mislabeled effective, when it wasn't a vaccine, wasn't safe, and wasn't effective, the so-called COVID Jap, you would like them to get involved, but they don't.
	But when it's the poor e-cigarette companies, when it's the poor oil companies, then all of a sudden they're like, ah, we have seen the light.
	It is time to listen to this argument that was previously made by Barnes and Kennedy and expand the standing dark.
	So this is the e-cigarette companies.
	Who were like, this is an adverse effect.
	And it was a range of people who brought suit.
	And the claim was that you didn't have a standing to basically bring the challenge unless you were the direct manufacturer of the product, not someone who would subsequently retail sell the product.
	Because what happened is the people that were making the e-cigarettes were located in circuits they thought were hostile.
	So they teamed up with people who were going to sell the product to bring it in the Fifth Circuit.
	The Fifth Circuit said, that's fine.
	Supreme Court agreed.
	Seven to two, no less.
	Only Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, because they are big statists.
	Here you're seeing Kagan branch off from the hard left on issues of agency power in certain content.
	Not with consistency, because he's a neoliberal corporatist.
	So that might have played a role in the latter part of that.
	But what they said is, seven to two, yes, if there's any adverse effect on you, you can sue.
	Now, how is it that getting hurt or injured by the vaccine is not adverse effect?
	Well, maybe we'll ask the Supreme Court sometime in the future about that.
	But at least this is a big progress at expanding the people who can sue when the FDA goes AWOL.
	Robert, a little bit of breaking news.
	If I did look distracted for one second, I just got a ping.
	Federal magistrate denies government's motion to detain Kilmore Obrego Garcia while he's pending his human trafficking charges.
	Prosecutors have appealed the decision, a June 25th hearing.
	So apparently, not apparently, the judge authorized the release, said it's basically academic because ICE will probably detain him.
	And ordinarily, I would say, yeah, you know, you are entitled to be free, no unreasonable bail.
	Pending trial and everyone's presumed innocent.
	This fits the definition of a guy who has an unreasonable probability of escape.
	He's literally a foreign citizen tied to foreign gangs, facing 20 years in prison.
	If anybody should be denied bail, you can make an argument that there's a substantial chance he doesn't show up at trial, which is, in my view, the only constitutionally permissible grounds for bail to be denied.
	But look at this.
	I mean, the same federal judges that lock up everybody else, that locked up January 6th defendants for three years in a hellhole, are the same federal judges rushing to help an illegal immigrant gang member accused of major crimes including human trafficking and child porn.
	Let him right back out on the screen.
	How much more of an insurrection do you need?
	They order the government to bring him back.
	Then they order him to be released.
	Illegal alien.
	gang member wife beater ordered to be brought back to the country where he's illegal and then released onto the streets because surely he's going to show up for his court hearings.
	They said apparently it's not a Pyrrhic victory but rather an academic order because a full...
	He's a little more than an academic exercise because ICE will likely detain him, I guess, and keep him locked up until they can hear that.
	Outrageous.
	Okay, what's the next one from the Supreme Court?
	So the other one was the...
	And what was happening was this.
	So this was the all the different this is implementation of the of the change in the Chevron doctrine.
	For those who may not remember, the Chevron doctrine is where the Supreme Court basically said courts had to defer to the bureaucratic branch for doing the judge's job of interpreting the law, which was nonsense.
	But it gave the bureaucratic branch extraordinary power.
	The Supreme Court reversed that a few years ago.
	And said, no, you don't have to defer to them in a wide range of contexts.
	Sometimes it's whether it's a major question, there's other versions of it where it's an impermissible delegation, so on and so forth.
	So in this context, people were saying, there's all these traps out there.
	And one of them is, if you don't like an agency action, you have to challenge them in a particular court, you have to challenge them in a particular way, you have a particular protocol applicable, and there's all this deference given.
	To the agencies under these specific procedures, even though this deference directly contradicts the Supreme Court's attempt to revoke the Chevron Doctrine and its pernicious effect on the functioning of a constitutional republic of having meaningful public input through elections, which were being eviscerated by bureaucratic control of every aspect.
	We were writing the law, interpreting the law, and then enforcing the law.
	It was all being done by the bureaucratic branch.
	They were making their own law by regulations.
	And then they were...
	And then they were enforcing the law.
	So, you know, forget separation of powers.
	And so the Supreme Court came in and said, nope, you don't have to go through this special pre-review procedure, and you don't have to defer to an agency in any context, unless it's absolutely crystal clear that Congress has completely stripped you of it.
	And since they did not do so in this context either, that you don't have to defer to these.
	Ridiculous procedures as precondition mechanisms of access to courts.
	And you don't have to ever defer to an agency's interpretation of its own laws outside of extraordinary circumstances inapplicable here.
	So another good ruling, implementing the reversal of the Chevron Dock.
	We still have, there has been no order on the universal, sorry, nationwide.
	No, it's a big one.
	They must be really fighting that out.
	No big ruling on the Obama task force.
	And all the big agency powers and bureaucratic power that decision concerns.
	No decision on birthright citizenship yet.
	No decision on nationwide injunctions yet.
	Those are some of the big ones that are just sitting there waiting.
	They must be, you know, knives here, there, negotiating.
	Like, you might even get something at 7-2.
	But what made that 7-2?
	They were fighting with each other.
	Okay, you give this language, I give you this language, that sort of.
	By the way, that kind of cattle trading.
	Happens all the time in the Supreme Court, which may shock people.
	Outrageous.
	All right.
	What's the next one from Supreme Court?
	So we got one about California with all of its crazy environmental rules.
	So this was the effort where California decided, we're going to go all electric vehicles.
	This was before Elon Musk was briefly part of the Trump administration.
	They probably would never have passed it under those circumstances, given Tesla is the best electric car maker in the world.
	to go fully electric by what was the year?
	I want to say 20. I think 2036, something like that.
	Get rid of all gas-fueled cars.
	People don't seem to understand that California, which already goes into periodic blackouts because people need too much AC during the summer, rolling blackouts, they can't satisfy the grid as it currently exists.
	Expected to go electric vehicles, which require charging by 2035.
	Okay.
	Sorry, that was the contextual background, Robert.
	What's the legal concept?
	Seven to two decision saying that those who are fuel producers are at least indirectly impacted by this and thus are adversely affected within the meaning of the regulatory rules, which meaning they can sue the EPA for its illicit exemption and exception made for California.
	Which will help in a range of cases that I'm looking at trying to find ways to sue the state of California for its crazy rules on behalf of a client.
	This case makes that more possible than not after that.
	Another great decision restricting administrative carte blanche bureaucratic power.
	So a good case.
	But reducing, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Standing to potential harm, not actual realized harm.
	Yeah, but in my view, that's sort of always been the case.
	Like, if you're trying to shut down my business, I don't have to wait for my business to be shut down to sue, especially when it involves the federal government, because you can't recover monetary damages from the federal government.
	So the whole point of the APA was to be able to sue the agencies whenever you're adversely affected.
	Pretty broad term, adversely affected.
	And so what happened here was the lower courts were interpreting adversely affected, very narrow.
	And now the Supreme Court's saying, nah, we've got to open that back up.
	Now, maybe it's because it's fuel producers, maybe because it's e-cigarette companies, that those corporatist judges on the bench suddenly rediscover the breadth that Standing is supposed to have.
	But I don't care.
	It's good decisions.
	I'll have good precedent for us going forward.
	Back in our Locust community, Gray101 says, Were there signs that should have been during the election that voting for Trump meant voting for World War III?
	I Hate Death says, Just wanted to send my condolences to Robert and his sister for the loss of your sister's son and nephew.
	God bless you, brother.
	NetJess, Massey has always worked with Kana on limited government.
	Don't waste your breath or money trying to primary him.
	Ro Khanna, I saw him speaking live at some event in D.C. Strikes me as being the only reasonable Democrat that I see in the car.
	Well, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you see Ro Khanna not only resuscitate the anti-war movement with the Democratic Party, but see him try to shift the party.
	He has more left populist roots.
	Shift it away from a focus on wokeism, shift it away from a focus on illegal immigration, and shift it towards economic populism, government reform, and anti-war policies.
	It's the perfect rallying cry.
	For someone that's aligned with him.
	He's been ahead of the curve.
	Then AOC started figuring it out.
	Then Bernie Sanders started figuring it out.
	The others who have been way behind on the anti-war cause are suddenly rediscovering it now.
	And we did correct this, but I think the issue is that by saying, I feel bad saying the word, it sounds too much like something else, but M-I-G-A, everybody under, like everyone's going to accuse Trump now of wink, wink, nudge, nudge, saying he's trying to make it great again.
	I know.
	I mean, that's the problem.
	I get he wants to say, make Iran great again.
	That's what MIGA means.
	But also, that's not make America great again.
	We didn't run on making Iran great again.
	We didn't run on making Israel great again.
	We didn't run on making Ukraine great again.
	We ran on raking America great again.
	The question is, does Trump care if his support diminishes?
	Oh yes, he absolutely does.
	It's the main reason why he, earlier in the week, he was going to go in with a full bombing campaign.
	And he only backed off because of public pressure that was communicated and relayed to him through people like the vice president.
	Ooh, Rue Stank says, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn told Benny Johnson today that he believes Tulsi Gabbard was deliberately lied to about the uranium nuclear capacity by Obama and Biden appointed hacks still in her defense department when she made her findings public in order to sabotage her credibility at a later date.
	I'm sorry, I don't buy that at all.
	If Netanyahu had credible evidence of that, we would have already seen it.
	Even Netanyahu said, well, maybe months, maybe a year.
	He's been saying that for literally 35 years.
	So that tells you they have no new evidence that Iran was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.
	People are hanging their hat on the 60% enriched, which you discussed might have been a bad negotiating tactic, but doesn't mean they're a couple of weeks away from nine nuclear bombs.
	Kimmy Hunt says, Robert, I know you love President Trump and your blunt criticism and warning are coming from a concerned and good heart.
	You are so much like my family.
	The last thing Trump's needs right now are yes men.
	Absolutely.
	And you can go to, you know, Kimmy's dealing with cancer, and you can go to GiveSendGo at KimmyGuy, G-U-Y, KimmyGuy, and help support her as she goes through this.
	The longstanding member of our locals community, where pretty much everybody, even the trolls, are above average.
	I'm going to bring that one up now, Robert.
	What's the next Supreme Court case?
	So up next on agency action, when can you sue when you're a non-party?
	In other words, you're not adversely affected, but you think that you should have a right to intervene in the case.
	There, the Supreme Court decided that third parties don't have a means of suing when they are not directly, adversely affected or agreed.
	Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
	I agree with their dissent.
	They said that the definition of agreed should be more broadly.
	Now, I wish Thomas and Alito would remember that on some other cases, but I fundamentally agree with their premise.
	But the reason was it was how to dictate policy.
	How many people are they going to let in in terms of being able to sue?
	And they're expanding the definition of aggrieved so that it covers a lot more people, which is good.
	But they don't want it to go so far that it becomes unmanageable.
	And the court found including third parties that are not directly affected as being unmanageable.
	So that's how they and then the other one was venue agency for environmental rules when there's a.
	And if it's a local regional impact of a certain environmental rule, you can go to the circuit for that region.
	However, what the agencies have been doing is been trying to force feed this into the D.C. circuit.
	And so a bunch of states said, no, we can interpret this fairly as local or regional, and we should be able to go to a regional circuit and not be stuck in that hellhole that is the D.C. circuit.
	And the Supreme Court agreed, also said, yes, in fact, there's a local regional impact, you can do it.
	Now, once again, maybe it's because the Supreme Court really cares about Big corporations that don't like to be governed by environmental rules.
	That may be why they're motivation.
	But either way, a good precedent to expand and extend the ability to put a check on the bureaucratic state.
	And then last but not least on the bureaucratic state side, we have jury trial rights.
	Now, this is in the prison context.
	So the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides rights for prisoners to seek relief when they're being abused by their guards, if you will, and others.
	But they love these exhaustion rules, which magically don't apply to illegals somehow.
	To everyone else, you have to go through, you've got to file this, you've got to file this by 30 days, and this by 90 days, and you've got to file this over here, and that over here.
	All these landmines that are littered about trying to trap and trick you into not being able to get relief or remedy in front of a jury, as the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles you in federal cases.
	And under your state law, it's its own state analog, which sometimes can even be broader than what the Seventh Amendment provides.
	So what happens when the factual issues concerning whether or not you exhausted remedies overlaps with the factual issues concerning the merits of your claim, in other words, whether the abuse actually took place, a legal violation actually took place.
	This often comes up where when there's intersecting facts, If the facts are disputed,
	Are the kind of concerned facts that the jury has to resolve anyway, then the jury determines that, not the courts.
	Now here, there was a dissent by Gorsuch and Roberts and others, and I disagree with the dissent entirely.
	They wanted to gut jury trial rights in this context and wanted to reinforce the exhaustion rules because those exhaustion rules effectively gut people's right to relief and remedy independent of the merits of the dispute.
	So I'm glad the majority signed on.
	I'm sorry, Gorsuch and Roberts were on the majority side.
	All the other conventional conservatives were on the dissent.
	And I agree with Gorsuch and Roberts that they're entitled to this right.
	Gorsuch is a long-standing advocate of jury trial rights being meaningful and impactful.
	This is another example of Gorsuch continuing on that path.
	Amazing.
	Credit there, too.
	I said Jackson would be an ally in these kind of cases, and she's proving to be.
	On some of these jury trial issues, some of these civil rights issues, some of these criminal defense right issues, she'll break from the neoliberals and join people like Gorsuch.
	There'll be a libertarian civil liberties alignment on some of these questions of jury trial rights that is promising to see.
	It's amazing.
	I just got something in the mail, which is an update in the Karen Reed civil trial.
	For wrongful death filed by James O 'Keefe's brother.
	Are we good on SCOTUS?
	Only one last, two last ones, briefly on sentencing.
	There were courts using their power of supervised release and then revoking someone from supervised release on terms that were not afforded, allowed by Congress under the statute.
	To the credit, the Supreme Court came and said, no, no, you can't do that.
	You got to stick with the statutory standards for that.
	And you can't go beyond that just because you want to rethink your prior sentence based on post-sentence conduct.
	And then a retired firefighter brought suit under the ADA.
	Supreme Court said that retired employees are not covered under the ADA or Title VII.
	I think that's a reach, in my opinion.
	I don't agree with the decision.
	The best dissent was Justice Jackson, because she will continue to be an employee rights advocate, a civil rights advocate, in a range of contexts where her neoliberal pals are not.
	I agree with the dissent.
	I don't agree with the majority.
	But it is what it is.
	And then all we have left is the federal land case concerning Mike Lee in the big, beautiful bill, and our historic case of the week, Wickard versus Bill Byrd.
	Oh, no, we've got to do Karen Reed and Grace Shara.
	Oh, yeah, sorry.
	And those two, yes.
	So Mike Lee, the controversy this week is that he has proposed authorizing the sale of federal land for private, I don't know, private ownership, private development.
	I thought Mike Lee's got in trouble this week for his tweet about Mike Walls and Nightmare on Wall Street, which he did as well.
	So what is the controversy that it's the idea of there's a lot of federal land and many people argue that there's too much federal land to begin with and that it was sort of a land grabbed by the federal government to appropriate private land for government use.
	What is Mike Lee proposing exactly?
	It's not as controversial as selling it to the Chinese.
	It's selling it for private acquisition.
	Yeah, the fear is that it will basically be a ripoff scheme to enrich the Black Rocks of the world.
	And Mike Lee says he's built in protections to limit that net negative effect.
	His point is that we have more land than we need, that we could use this land to build affordable housing of other kinds to reduce the pressure on the housing market.
	Though the pressure on the housing market is due to unaffordability.
	The theory is that if you drastically increase supply, that you would be able to reduce this.
	It's not clear to me it would work in that direction.
	So it really depends.
	The devil's in the details.
	And the idea of making available some federal public land for private development.
	Maybe win-win for the American people, but it all depends on the details.
	And he is disputing what some people are saying those details are.
	I have not been able to do a deep dive into those details, and it's still in progress and in process because the Big Beautiful Bill hasn't passed.
	People should ask why that is.
	That were there senators like Lindsey Graham and like Tom Tillis and Mitch McConnell deliberately refusing to pass President Trump's domestic agenda until he went along with their war agenda?
	It sure, by golly, kind of looks that way.
	Lindsey Graham had bottled up an immigration bill until after Trump went to war with Iran.
	And all of a sudden, it's no longer going to be bottled up in committee.
	So that's clearly part of what is taking place.
	But the concern was that this could be a massive sell-off to insiders and that the nature of the land that was going to be sold couldn't really be developed for affordable housing anyway.
	It would be more like luxury housing for the Black Rocks of the world.
	Or that even if it was mass consumer housing, it would be owned not by the American people, but by the Black Rocks of the world.
	So the devil's going to be in the details.
	Mike Lee, I think, has deserved some degree of deference.
	In this because he's been a populist advocate now for several years.
	He wasn't always, but he has been in the last several years.
	And I think his intentions are good.
	But the devil's in the details when it comes to laws like this because we know the lobbyists always get a role in writing it.
	So it'll be something to continue to monitor to make sure it represents what the American people want and isn't a betrayal of those principles where there's a lot of concern currently that that could be the case depending on what the ultimate legislation is.
	All right.
	Now, before we get to Karen Reed, Grace Schauer, which one was good and one was obviously very, very bad.
	How can a billionaire be forced to action by a handful of donors, Gregory Ziggy?
	How, well, I mean, first of all, we know- I mean, people like Miriam Adelson, you're talking like $100 million plus to the party.
	So if you look at Trump, yeah, Trump's a billionaire.
	He doesn't like to spend his own money on campaigns, and he hasn't since August of 2016.
	And he mostly hasn't spent his own money on a campaign since then.
	So he likes to raise lots of money, but it's also raising money for the House, for the Senate, for other people.
	And so I think that's part of why some people are concerned that some big donors are having a disparate effect is because some of these big donors' agenda was only a war with Iran rather than anything else on the MAGA agenda.
	And when they see that being done, but they see the MAGA agenda not being stalled.
	Being stalled in the legislation, being stalled on immigration, being stalled by judicial hostility, and in some cases being stalled because, as I posted this week, things like the Epstein files not getting disclosed, things like the assassination investigations going no further, no apparent effort to deepsix the deep state using the Department of Justice power.
	When they see nothing there, but they see aggressive enforcement.
	On any immigrant who said something bad about Israel, when they see us going to this war, when they see that the top items on Miriam Adelson's list are getting checked like this, but a lot of the Maha and MAGA is somehow not occurring, people have a right to raise concerns of whether the big donations they've made has contaminated the decision-making process in Washington.
	All right, I'll read a few more and then we're going to get to some other stuff here.
	Kicked Tulsi to the curb.
	Increased gas prices.
	Increased violence on our soil.
	Anti-war coalition grows.
	Midterms tank not feeling very magus.
	Has hoped for better.
	Buffalo Betsy says, this is so depressing.
	That's all I just needed to say that.
	Praying we bounce back and there's some bigger picture.
	We have family in Tehran.
	Best friend's daughter stationed in Bahrain, Navy.
	For fuck's sake, we need good news.
	What do you want?
	Agreed.
	Sorry.
	Somebody points out, you know, Jefferson used him with the Barbary Pirates.
	So there was also a quasi-war with France that I think Adams used with.
	So there's been a range of after George Washington was the only one to really stay consistent to the neutrality principle.
	Every other president was too tempted to go elsewhere.
	And that's why I think we're better off as a constitutional republic to have Congress have a meaningful role so the American people can have a meaningful role.
	Especially in things as consequential as war.
	But I think it's also what the Constitution plainly says.
	You can read it for yourselves.
	It doesn't say, why didn't it give the president the power to declare war if its goal was for the president to have carte blanche in war?
	King of Biltrox says, I have an off-topic question.
	what is the fed up to and why are they not bringing rates down?
	I'm going to try to, uh, well, I think he's convinced that the, uh, Powell, There's some people that think he's still more concerned with inflation than he is with the economy going down.
	There's others like Tom Longo that have their own unique perspectives.
	So I'm going to try to get, I think it's Guns, Gold, He's always smoking cigars.
	Tom's a cool guy.
	Old school libertarian, but with a populist sensitivity and sensibility.
	And we're going to try to have him on because...
	He has a very unique theory about all of it, about what Powell's up to, the Eurodollar system, etc.
	He also understands...
	Someone asked about it in the chat.
	The stablecoin law.
	I understand a bit of it, but clearly it has broader implications for the presence of the dollar as a global transactional currency and other things like that.
	And so we'll invite Tom Longo to see if he can come on to share his very distinct perspective on that because he has unique contributions in that regard.
	How much is the CIA influencing the regime change chant?
	Patty J06.
	Yakinda, decision by committee means nothing gets done ever.
	Sean487.
	The thing that drives me insane is the timing.
	From what I can tell, there was no need to be done, and I truly believe Israel led him by the nose or sabotaged through premature action.
	Ed Biagini can almost feel Trump's base leaving.
	Between the Iran strike, weak deportation numbers and talk of protecting illegal farm workers from deportation.
	Even JD isn't polished enough to spin this crap.
	Average dirtbag.
	I don't disagree about enrichment, but they do it for leverage.
	What peaceful leverage does that give them, the enrichment?
	Iran is the reason for most of the problems in modern history.
	I don't care.
	Sometimes you have to nut up or shut up.
	Iran has been anti-US and has operated as proxy in the country possibly.
	Street skirt.
	Hey, Barnes, did you try the Amish delicacy Scrapple?
	When visiting Pennsylvania during the Amish Miller case.
	Oh yeah, I've ordered it multiple times from Amish.
	Snooty Mims.
	Barnes, sorry about your lost prayers.
	Go to you and your family, King of Biltong.
	You really do make delicious, healthy snacks.
	America needs more like that.
	Freedom speech rumble.
	Jack Flack.
	Anti-war.
	People were successfully boxed with anti-Semites.
	And Trump is afraid of the Nazi accusation, so Trump was manipulated.
	Some anti-war voices didn't help themselves by hanging out with Nick Fuentes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, what I do understand now is I think Queen Candice is a grifter.
	But I didn't realize myself how much support for Israel, especially under Netanyahu, had collapsed amongst younger Republicans in the last three years.
	And nobody in the White House has processed this at all.
	iPod says, I'm an American-Palestinian Muslim that voted for Trump in 2024 for no war.
	I'm of the opinion that Bibi went behind Trump and bombed Iran.
	Trump is saving face but needs to get back at Bibi.
	That's not a terrible theory.
	If you have three Republicans in a room and they agree, be very suspicious.
	Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mark Levin, who else?
	Mike Pence.
	John Bolton.
	John Bolton.
	I said that as a joke yesterday.
	The first Iraq war.
	I mean, this was like Viagra for the John Boltons of the world.
	Barbary pirate wars were started by presidents with no congressional authority.
	They actually said no.
	However, this was likely a mistake by Trump.
	This could cost him his ability to tell the courts to pack sand.
	The best argument for Trump on the legality, aside from the fact that courts have determined this is a nonjudiciable question historically, is the past precedent of many polypresidents doing the same.
	Though, like I said, I don't think the long history of presidents ignoring Congress's constitutional role.
	Sean, 47. Every time Trump's son-in-laws show up, shit hits the fan and the deep state and Israel get their way.
	DuckFat says, Robert, have you read the Mesa County Report No.
	3?
	You should.
	It outlines how Dominion tabulators manipulated results.
	Tina Peters was jailed for exposing Dominion.
	Very anti-Dominion.
	My point was that was a distraction in 2020.
	It would not keep us focused on where they stole the votes the most.
	I thought reasonable bail applies to citizens, only decisions.
	That would be one where I would imagine the people means anyone who gets arrested or charged.
	It does, it does.
	The Supreme Court has said anyone facing criminal prosecution is entitled to the same rights regardless of their citizenship status.
	I have an off-topic question.
	Okay, I got that.
	What is that up to?
	I think Trump says make, insert country, great again of any country so he wants the country to be great.
	Yes, but the thing is MISA has a specific connotation and will fuel that.
	Not only that, it's not what MAGA means.
	I get where...
	Nor should it be.
	Okay, let's start with the good ruling, which was Karen Reed, who got not acquitted but found not guilty, I mean, I guess.
	Did we say acquitted?
	Yeah, it's acquitted.
	Legally, it's the same anyway.
	Found not guilty of the charges of first-degree manslaughter.
	They got her.
	They got her dead to rights on the OUI, operating under the influence, because apparently she was over the legal limit when she admitted to driving her car or was on camera driving her car.
	Acquitted on the murder, first-degree manslaughter, whatever the charges were.
	Look, I didn't follow the trial thoroughly day in and day out, but I went and watched the highlights.
	I mean, I don't even understand how it made it to the first trial and then got deadlocked, and yet how it makes it again to the second trial.
	The evidence was so bad.
	I mean, I think everybody knows this, but basically they accused Karen Reed of having, in a fit of rage, run over her boyfriend, James...
	not James O'Keefe, sorry.
	O'Keefe, but...
	Jeff O'Keefe?
	O'Keefe, who was a police officer, found dead in the snow with head injuries and...
	He had what appeared to be dog bite marks on his arm, which the prosecution tried to pass off as a vehicle injury, even though there was apparently no damage to the vehicle that would have been commensurate or correlative with that type of injury to the head.
	They say that there was corruption or delinquency of the police force in gathering evidence, in tampering with evidence.
	Apparently, the taillight of the car was already gone before the incident even took place, and then broken pieces of taillight only magically appeared days later.
	Some of the implicated parties were in the witness, sorry, the evidence room for hours on end.
	Indescribably, they were allegedly collecting They then plant the body outside in the snow, which made no sense because at the time it allegedly happened, it had started snowing, but when they found the body, there was snow under the body, which would make no sense.
	Good logic put out a great green grass defense theory.
	So Karen Reed was ultimately found not guilty, acquitted, except on the OUI operating under the influence, which is going to have maybe a month, I don't know, whatever, probation.
	Robert, what's your takeaway from the case?
	The correct verdict.
	It's too bad it took this long to get here.
	There's evidence throughout that there was no collision, period.
	Least of all that the collision caused his death.
	Least of all that the collision was intentional by her to cause his death.
	And the jury came to the right decision.
	Based on the evidence, the first jury should have, but it was a mistrial because, as we'll get to in another case, you never know what's going to happen, unfortunately, with jurors.
	You can try to predict it as best you can, but you're often shocked by what a jury verdict is.
	My favorite one all-time was an old-school lawyer in L.A. said, Barnes, let me tell you my best ever closing argument.
	What is it?
	He goes, I had a case where my client had absolutely no defenses.
	I couldn't figure out a single defense.
	And so I just stood up to the jury and said, He didn't do it, and we all know why.
	And sat down.
	The jury spent the next three days trying to figure out what the why was, but ended up acquitting him.
	They came to me, and they're like, was this the why?
	Was this the why?
	And I was like, I hadn't thought of any of those excuses.
	So that's the nature of the way things are.
	But this was a travesty and tragedy of justice unfolding, had it resulted in her conviction.
	Despite every effort, a lot of law enforcement officers got up and perjured themselves in my behavior panel.
	Great review of one of the witnesses in the case of her body language, which was very interesting.
	Chase Hughes has tons of great work out there.
	Greg Hartley, tons of great work out there.
	Scott Rouse, tons of great work out there.
	All the behavior panel, you can find them online.
	They do just fantastic, great work.
	They often volunteer to help people help me in a range of cases.
	So it was the right and righteous verdict.
	But it can't counterbalance the wrong and unrighteous verdict that happened in Appleton, Wisconsin.
	Someone said Karen Reed will pay for her crime eventually.
	She committed zero crimes.
	Excuse me, sorry.
	Yeah, well, don't drive under the influence, people.
	It's a very bad thing.
	Is there a difference between OUI, DUI, and DW?
	There's driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence, and Yeah, it usually depends on the level of alcohol and what facts you have to prove.
	Okay, I thought maybe she was on private property.
	Sometimes you could be operating under the influence with a car not running out on the street, right?
	That's one of the ways they ensnare you.
	She's still facing a civil trial.
	That's what I got by email was the updates in the civil trial, which can now proceed now that there's been an acquittal, which...
	I don't know how you appeal a jury verdict.
	Oh, you can't.
	You can't.
	That's it.
	The criminal case is done and finished.
	It was civil with Grace.
	Okay.
	Done.
	She's done.
	She's free.
	She's going to write a book after she faces her civil trial, and that seems to be like wrongful death.
	Grace Shara, we've been talking about it for a while.
	I put out a summary vlog of it earlier today.
	19-year-old girl, Down syndrome, admitted to the hospital with COVID symptoms or testing positive for COVID, admitted to the hospital.
	By all accounts, I'm going to say this in my humble opinion, killed by the hospital, over-sedated.
	They were given her medications, which were one on top of the other.
	And then somehow, magically, a DNR appears in her file.
	Which is a do not resuscitate, which nobody ever authorized.
	She was under the tutelage or the tutorship of her father.
	Her father, because he was unhappy with the treatment, was ejected from the hospital room by the nurses and the staff while they were allegedly mistreating her or misdiagnosing her, misprescribing her.
	Magical DNR appears, not signed, not lawfully authorized, at least as my understanding goes.
	They jack her up with sedatives one after the other.
	I could give the names, but Encryptus in our Locals community had an amazing summary, which I'll share with everybody.
	And she dies.
	She goes like, defib, and they do not defib.
	They let her die because there's a no, do not resuscitate, that nobody authorized.
	No liability.
	The jury deliberated for two hours, which from what I understood also included dinner.
	So they were baffled by the simplicity of the defense of the hospital, which is we did our best, COVID chaos.
	They go have dinner, come back and find no liability.
	Too bad, so sad.
	This kid was effectively killed by the hospital.
	And I think there was, was there even, it was basically unanimous from the jury, but you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
	No, there was a dissenting, at least one dissenting juror.
	But in Wisconsin, there has to be at least three or more dissenting jurors for the verdict to change.
	So there was one juror who did dissent.
	At least one.
	There may have been a second, but there's definitely one who dissented.
	Yeah, I thought there was only one on one issue.
	DNR requires signature.
	Supposed to.
	Supposed to require a lot of things.
	So, I mean, they're basically, here's what, two things that are shocking about this.
	One is the jury verdict is shocking.
	In most reviews and preparation, I was involved in reviewing the case in advance for the jury selection part of the case.
	And about at least two-thirds of the time, jurors were ruling in favor of the Schar family.
	But there was always a one-in-three risk that you get a jury go AWOL.
	And generally what it is, it's tough to get MedMal cases through in a lot of states.
	Because largely conservatives and Republicans have gaslit a lot of people in those states to believe that doctors can really do no wrong and that these are bad laws that we have on the books to allow med malpractice to even go forward at all.
	So they put these strict caps on it that make it economically very difficult.
	To the credit of Scott Shahr, Grace's father, he has expended every penny, nickel, diamond dollar he could to try to get to the truth and try to get to justice.
	And what came out of trial, for anyone who observed it, Is that the hospital did not provide adequate medical care to her.
	They ignored informed consent.
	They ignored consent, period.
	They excluded her advocates from critical parts of the process.
	Then they over-drugged her and overdosed her and killed her.
	They often did things like restrain her and pretend she wasn't restrained.
	A whole bunch of others.
	They locked out her father, locked out other family members from the participation process, etc.
	Now, so there's two issues on appeal.
	One is the judge did not even allow the jury to determine the big question in the case, which was battery, which is outside the MedMal limits.
	And that was the important precedent setting part legally of this case.
	The argument was that them administering medications or over administering medications without consent was battery because you are By the time you admit yourself to the hospital, you consent to any treatment they give you.
	Anything.
	Can you imagine that?
	Nobody goes to the hospital thinking they can chop my leg off if they decide to do it.
	You're supposed to have informed consent and consent at every single step before the medical treatment happens.
	Not, I go to a doctor and now they can do what they want with me.
	Not, I go to the hospital and they can do what they want with me.
	An outrageous decision by that authoritarian judge in Appleton, Wisconsin.
	Outrageous!
	This judge goes nuts once every three months.
	Like, he put somebody in jail for six months, even though he doesn't even have, because he didn't like the way they put their eyes on him.
	That's how kind of loony this judge is.
	So that was an outrageous legal ruling that prevented the jury from even determining the core question in the case.
	Was this consensual or not?
	That goes up on appeal.
	That is a critical component of that.
	Even if Scott Schar runs out of money, there's a bunch of us that doesn't have the means to support.
	Doesn't matter.
	There's a bunch of us that will continue to support this case from hell or high water out of our own pocket as we need to.
	It's too important, too critical.
	And Scott's done too much good work for the wrongful death of his daughter to let this setback be the final determination of this case.
	And to explain everybody why that can go to appeal more easily than the jury verdict, that's a question of law that the judge decided, and therefore it's subject to a He prevented it from the jury even determining anything.
	That is so...
	Why did they determine no medical malpractice?
	This is because of the judge's second egregious, egregious error in the case.
	In fact, I was live.
	People can go watch.
	I went on GoodLogic, who is busy breaking down the P. Diddy trial and covering it in real time.
	Recommend it.
	L-A-W-G-I-C.
	GoodLogic.
	You can follow.
	If you want a recap of the Karen Reed trial, go back and follow Nick Ricada.
	Ricada Law.
	He covered it all the way through.
	get great analysis all the way through.
	Also, excellent conversation.
	You want unique, distinct insights into the diversity of Jewish opinion about the state of Israel, about the land of Israel, about favorability to Israel.
	You could also listen to that conversation because Good Logic comes from the Orthodox Jewish tradition, and he really explains it very well.
	You have this stream, this stream, and this stream means this, but not that, so forth.
	There's a lot of caricaturing going on out there by all sides.
	Uh, and whatever you do, don't take your theological advice from Ted Cruz!
	Uh, the, uh, uh, the, and hey, all I gotta say is, uh, you know, uh, his dad was hanging out with, uh, Lee Harvey Oswald, that's all I'm saying.
	The, uh, as Donald Trump pointed out in 2016, right before the Indiana May primary.
	And as brought to the world's attention by the one and only Roger Stone.
	The, uh, so, if the key, but I'm sitting there discussing with him this case, I just wanted his live reaction without giving him anything.
	Said, here's what happened.
	The defense lead expert in the case came into trial and decided to completely change their expert testimony.
	Completely change it right at trial.
	I just said it with, you know, just straightforward.
	And Joe Neiman, done good logic, done a lot of civil cases over the years in the belly of the beast in the city of New York and near Gotham itself.
	Because the whole point of a civil trial is that you don't get ambushed at trial.
	And so particularly for experts, there are all these strict rules about getting the expert, disclosing the name of the expert, disclosing the CV of the expert, disclosing the opinion of the expert, subjecting the expert to counter-expert, having the expert subject to deposition.
	All of that is useless if you can just go to trial and change your whole testimony.
	It is a patent, egregious, evidentiary error.
	And yet the judge allowed it.
	On that basis alone, this judge will get reversed.
	The Shara case will go back to trial, and I'll give you another prediction.
	The battery argument will be reinstated because of the moral horror, the policy horror of saying every time you walk into a doctor's office, you consent to their experimentation to anything and everything, including your death, is not and cannot be the law in Wisconsin or anywhere in this country.
	How did it go to the jury trial without that question being adjudicated first?
	The judge took it away right at the end.
	He said, I find as a matter of law, it is always considered consensual the moment you walk into a hospital.
	Anything!
	Anything the hospital does, including killing you.
	But this, then that answer, it's a stupid answer.
	It illustrates the stupidity.
	So they adduce evidence of battery throughout the trial.
	Then the judge says, I'm not submitting that to the jury for a verdict.
	So you've wasted time, effort, and cost, and confusion on that.
	And it was 80% of what the case was about.
	It was about that aspect.
	And then you gut the rest of the case.
	You say, hey, defense expert, because they had him nailed!
	Warner Mendenhall, great work.
	Other team, those team members worked hard, very conscientiously.
	They didn't sleep at all for three weeks straight.
	Warner's been obsessed with this case.
	He did put every iota, and Scott Shara, the whole family, they're good people.
	They're hardworking people.
	They're trying to do the right and righteous thing against difficult odds and obstacles.
	Credit to Scott Schaher for not letting his daughter's death go without any response, without any remedy, without any recompense.
	But what he's fighting for is...
	We have to establish that hospitals and doctors do not have consent to do whatever they want simply because we walk into their office.
	That is an outrageous interpretation of medical battery law, contrary to battery law dating back over a century when it was in part created, the whole doctrine of informed consent.
	And consent in general, in the medical context, by legendary justices, judges, out of New York.
	The learned hand and the rest.
	So this is, imagine that.
	I didn't know every time I walked to the hospital they could do whatever they want.
	I mean, I've been in hospitals, they wanted to chop my foot off in one of them.
	You would think you wouldn't want to screw with a lawyer who sues hospitals, but they were ready and eager to do it.
	I had to have advocates right there with me all the time.
	My executive assistant I picked because she's a nurse.
	I made sure my sister Ellen was there.
	My sister Laura was there.
	They're all there making sure they didn't chop me up.
	This is outrageous what this judge ruled and what he determined.
	He's never received a challenger before in out of Gamey County.
	Maybe it's time he does because this is an outrageous ruling, dangerous to all of our rights.
	Credit to Scott Schar and the Schar family.
	They're going to keep fighting for her.
	I think they're going to win.
	Sooner or later, they're going to win.
	They're going to win a reversal of the battery charge and a reversal of the trial because The jury was misled by an expert who was allowed to change his testimony at the last minute because his prior testimony was such garbage.
	All right, outrageous.
	We're gonna move this over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com in a second, I wanna bring up- Yes.
	Wigert v.
	Philburn, the Commerce Clause.
	And we'll answer all tips, $5 or more, over there.
	You know, I'm a little disturbed.
	I was like, I gotta figure out somebody to offend pretty quickly here.
	This is getting dangerous.
	Yeah, we cracked 31,000 on Rumble, and we've been at 4,000 on YouTube, which is great, and we're at 1,200, give or take, on Locals.
	The last tip, the Rumble thing, Liam Sturgis says, people have been asking for info on the America First Policy Institute.
	I just published some research on White Rose Wiki.
	Let me bring this up so people can see this.
	Well, yeah, that's a good word.
	Because the America First Policy Institute has a lot of pro-corporate people who want to sabotage President Trump.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	The shit I took yesterday for just noting that, you know, the people who have been opposing the war in Ukraine are going to have some rationalizing to do here.
	When Mike Pence, and I made the joke, who's next in the happy tweet?
	Nikki Haley.
	oh wait, she's already done it.
	I didn't realize that John Bolton has...
	It's just a military strike.
	I was like, first of all, I only used the word military strike.
	Now it looks like a war.
	Oh, it's not regime change.
	Now he's jokingly saying it.
	And I have no doubt he's being bombastic, but it's not.
	Geopolitically, there'll be a lot of fallout.
	I recommend to people keep following the Duran, Alexander McCourse, Alex Christoforu.
	They have been way above the curve in predicting what was going to happen, how it was going to happen.
	Their short to medium term predictability is off the charts compared to almost everybody else out there in this space.
	Even when I've disagreed with them, they've ended up right and I've ended up wrong.
	So, you know, I've learned to fully, completely respect their opinion.
	It's like Greg Hartley or Chase Hughes or Scott Rouse tell me about something, whether it's a juror or a witness or something else.
	They're pretty much always right.
	Even when I disagree with them, they end up right.
	So they're good to continue to follow.
	And it's absolutely okay to be completely pro-Trump and for this war and everything else.
	It's also okay to be completely against it and to voice your opinion accordingly.
	All I ask is those people that are against it, quit libeling those that are for it.
	Quit libeling those that are against us.
	And if you're going to make an argument, make a credible argument, not a slogan.
	A red cannot have a declared weapon is not a plan.
	It's not a policy.
	It literally is a bumper sticker.
	I'll look this up after.
	Okay, what I'm going to do right now.
	First of all, Robert, what do you have coming up next week?
	Unfortunately, I mean, we'll do a bourbon probably tomorrow.
	I've got to travel back home to Tennessee because of my nephew's death.
	So I don't know what the plan will be the rest of the week.
	Okay, I'll be live daily, guys, at 3 o 'clock, and we'll have some good guests on this week.
	The preferred regime change is Vance Gabbard.
	There's a lot of people who feel that way right now.
	From my understanding, Vance is urging restraint at every point, and so is Gabbard.
	Yeah, but Mark Levin wanted to know if Vance disagreed with Trump.
	It's important to know if he's actually disagreeing with Trump.
	Mark Levin belongs in a federal prison for being an unregistered, corrupt foreign agent.
	That's who he is.
	You war whore.
	People like you have ruined this country.
	Mark Levin is a disgrace to America.
	Let us bring the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We've got to raid somebody, actually, before we leave.
	Hold on, I almost forgot to do this.
	Let me see.
	Can we now raid Salty Cracker?
	I don't know that Salty is a raid recipient capable.
	I thought that the Rumble kind of changed some rules on that or made it easier or something.
	I don't know.
	I encourage people, if you want to go back and watch, Encryptus' channel on Rumble covered the Grace Shara trial, and so a lot of good coverage there.
	We're going to raid Salty.
	Encryptus, I'm DMing this to you in private chat here.
	Let's raid Salty Cracker.
	The only, the inimitable, the irreplaceable Salty Cracker.
	I mean, not only beautifully well-named, but you can listen to his perspective, and he'll give you a perspective that just doesn't want us involved in these dumb wars.
	Encryptus.
	Sorry.
	Salty has raids shut off.
	That son of a...
	Let me go back here.
	Who do we got?
	Cool Frog is live.
	Okay, let's do Cool Frog.
	I can't see.
	I'm going to the live panel here.
	All right.
	Yeah, we'll do...
	That's interesting.
	Okay, go raid Cool Frog.
	Get a book, Louis the Lobster, on Amazon.
	If anybody wants...
	So I've discovered...
	It's teaching responsibility.
	The kid for the last couple hours has been individually...
	Penny-sleeving and then top-loading.
	These cards are all worthless.
	But one day, one day there will be...
	We'll see.
	Again, if you want the political fallout, the best review is Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily.
	He's a veteran, by the way.
	The best pollster in the country.
	People's Pundit Daily.
	You can see the show last Monday.
	We go through this.
	Richard will keep talking about this and the potential fallout.
	He's well-respected.
	The fact our show and what he has said went global.
	They're covering it around the world in the news and whatnot.
	The other is the show Viva and I did with the Duran where we go through all the different geopolitical ramifications of this.
	And you can go to Viva's channel for the Wednesday show and get that detail.
	And what I always remind people, when I thought the best quotes all time in dealing with war, it came from the one and the only, the Kentuckian himself, Hunter S. Thompson.
	And as the founder of Gonzo Journalism once said, this was during the second Iraq war, as the vote was forthcoming and the war was incipient.
	And some of us were warning it was not going to turn out.
	Like many of its proponents were preaching.
	Needless to say, our side ended up right again, unfortunately.
	But what he said was, whenever the bugles of war start to cry out, he goes out to his back porch, puts a little Wagner on the record player, takes out his.44, and he shoots into the darkness, and he hopes he hits something evil so that he can feel no guilt.
	No truer words against war have been said.
	Karen Lira has joined our Locals community.
	Karen Lira, welcome to the channel.
	Everyone, go raid Cool Frog.
	Let them know from whence you came.
	And we are taking the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Rumble, peace out.

▲