Viva & Barnes - Ep. 274: Canada's War on Christianity! Is Candace Owens Cooked? SCOTUS, RFK Jr. AND MORE!

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 27, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:08:31

Ep. 274: Canada's War on Christianity! Is Candace Owens Cooked? SCOTUS, RFK Jr. AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Of the interwebs.
	You are looking at Eric Spybanger McSwalwell, wearing a Jimmy Kimmel hat, presumably out of protest.
	No, wait a minute, Jimmy Kimmel's not the one getting cut.
	Jimmy Kimmel's just an unfunny douchebag.
	You are going to watch a man mislead you in 15 short seconds.
	I say get your ears ready because the audio levels on his video are terrible.
	Eric Swalwell, a man who looks like he smells bad.
	Now that Republicans have passed Trump's big beautiful bill, I cannot wait to see how cheap groceries are.
	Squire
	Oh.
	Now that Republicans have passed Trump's big, beautiful bill, we cannot wait to see how cheap groceries are.
	By the way, just put on pause there.
	Having made videos in public, when you are uncomfortable, unsure of yourself, you tend to sort of talk a little bit meekly, like you don't want your voice to carry because you don't want people thinking you're crazy talking to your phone while trying to needle the president and doing a terrible job at it.
	This is Eric Swallowwell.
	Now that the big beautiful bill's been passed, you'd think groceries would be cheaper.
	That's $16.
	$16.
	By the way, this is something I'm teaching my kid right now.
	It's not the price that is reflective of something.
	It's the price per unit point.
	$16 doesn't mean anything if that is a cubic meter of raw beef.
	That's a lot of money, depending on how much beef you got, Swallowell.
	He's very funny.
	Oh.
	That's very funny.
	He thinks he's a stand-up comedian.
	That's a 15-second clip.
	I wake up this morning and I chose war.
	I chose war with Eric Swallowell.
	It's quite amazing, by the way, because you see, like, I'm operating on the basis that he's lying to me.
	Now I'm going to go find the evidence that supports my theory.
	So I went in and looked at this and I said, gee, Spybanger McGee, it looks like you're being dishonest POS yet again.
	That's point of sale, by the way.
	That's not piece of S-H-I-T.
	Point of sale.
	He's being a dishonest point of sale yet again.
	Look at this.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Like you look at his ugly, smelly face.
	And if you look in the backdrop, you can see these letters right there.
	Now that looked like, for me, it looked like Tropicana or Juice.
	But if you have been to a Trader Joe's, you kind of know what the Trader Joe logo looks like.
	He's at a Trader Joe's, exhibit one.
	He's buying ground beef.
	You can see right there, you know, unit price is kind of important.
	That's $7.49 a pound for ground beef.
	Now, anybody who's been doing their own shopping, which I do, but my wife doesn't let me do it because I always come back with too much meat, lost your tail shrimp, and spend way too much money, you know what food prices have been roughly for the last three years.
	$7.49 a pound for also, if you're able to identify this, what is clearly extra lean ground beef.
	It's red.
	There's very little white in it being the fat content.
	You know, standard raw beef is 80% meat protein, 20% fat.
	That's extra lean.
	I mean, anybody knows that.
	Ultra lean, 96.4%.
	This was about $7 a pound last year, Swallow.
	And these are the prices today.
	So basically, everything in that 15 seconds was a filthy lie.
	The beef is exactly as much as it was last year at Trader Joe's because prices went out of control under the Democrats.
	They posted that graph that showed out of control prices leveling off in 2024, 2025, spiking in 2021 when Democrats came into power.
	Then the Democrat Twitter handle subsequently deleted that tweet.
	Oh, I wanted everyone to go, if I may oblige, go and ratio.
	I don't often ask for this, but we're doing well.
	I just want to ratio Eric Swallowell on that pathological lie.
	And so I destroyed him.
	I wake up, have a cup of coffee, destroy him, man.
	Link, please go retweet that and let us continue in the ratioing of the spy banger traitor to the country who doesn't tweet once about Jeffrey Epstein for six freaking years when the Democrats are in power.
	But now he's all on the bandwagon of, oh my goodness, the Democrats must clearly, the Republicans are clearly hiding something.
	That's why we didn't tweet about it once in four years.
	2019, when we thought we could make political hay out of it with the Acosta scandal.
	And now again, because we think we can make political hay out of it.
	All right, some of you might be asking, what the hell is going on?
	Why are you live so early in the day?
	It was either we do the show early today or the Sunday show on a Tuesday because Barnes is on the road.
	I've got my daughter's 12th birthday tonight and it was, you know, not an ultimatum because it was never a serious question, but happy wife, happy life.
	And I'll attend my daughter's 12th birthday.
	So we're running the show early.
	At the very least, people who are used to our schedule can watch this show tonight at six o'clock for those who might not have gotten the notification, but we're live.
	And we've got one hell of a show tonight.
	You might see Robert Barnes and myself disagreeing on something in a good way.
	If Barnes is right, I expect him to rub it in the faces of everyone who disagreed with his assessment of the Candace Owens debacle.
	And if I'm right, I will take another victory lap as having predicted yet another.
	I've done good this year.
	I've done good this year.
	So we're going to have one heck of a show.
	There is no sponsor for today's show.
	So I'm just going to shamelessly plug our own stuff, everybody.
	Go to vivafry.com, get some merch if you want to get some nice stuff.
	There's an event coming up in Chattanooga, which is going to be wild.
	I don't know if there's any tickets left.
	Go to events.gives 1776 Law Center.
	You can get the tickets for the event coming up in August.
	Wait a minute.
	And if you want to get a Louis the Lobster book, it's in the link is in the chat.
	So spread the link around.
	Off hour today, but it's going to be a good show.
	Robert Barnes, when you are ready, sir, come join the stream and we're going to get into today's, the subject of today's show.
	Robert is on the road, so he's doing it off his phone, which I think is going to be pretty good.
	Robert, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	As long as you can hear and see okay.
	Yeah, let's just see if the audio is going to, if people are going to deal with it because it's off the phone, but the levels should be good.
	Audio, good.
	Robert, I won't ask, but you're on the road?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Hanging out with a bunch of old buddies out in Joshua Tree near Palm Springs in Southern California.
	Fantastic.
	Robert, we got one heck of a show today.
	I mean, there's not too many topics to confuse and distract, but we're going to get into a few in depth.
	Yeah, we got Candace against the Macrons, we've got Mike Lindell wins at the Eighth Circuit, we got a Second Amendment win out of the Ninth Circuit, we got Trump winning again at SCOTUS, we got proposals for PrEP Act immunity changes and but new immunity for pesticides.
	We've got what exactly the grand jury decision in the Epstein case really means, what the Maxwell proffer, what that's about.
	We've got a good Maha win for Robert Kennedy, another one.
	We've got some brief explanations of what happened with the prosecutor of the Trump appointee to New Jersey.
	What was that all about?
	Senator blue slip rules and judicial involvement and reappointments.
	And then we got some Russia Gate updates, a brief sentencing update on that murderer from Idaho, Koberger.
	And then Trump does a little tour of the Fed.
	And we've got Trump proposing, I think, danger.
	Trump, maybe with well good intentions, but basically, let's go back to the wind flu over the cuckoo's nest day and lock up anybody that the locals determine cannot care for themselves.
	It's basically stick all the homeless in insane asylums, but it's not like that couldn't be abused by the wrong jurisdiction.
	So we'll get to some shorter topics and then one or two longer topics.
	Robert, we're going to, I think, have to start on the big one of the week, which is the Candace Owens lawsuit.
	And you went very hard on people who are sensitive, like, oh my goodness, aren't you insulted?
	You went hard during the Bourbon with Barnes about the lawsuit.
	And there's diverging views on it.
	And some people are saying Candace is cooked.
	Others are saying, you know, it's Delaware.
	It's a leftist jurisdiction.
	And so she might be cooked on jurisdiction, but otherwise, First Amendments, she should survive.
	I went through it.
	I mean, I did read the lawsuit.
	And when I read the lawsuit, and I heard what you had to say during the Bourbon with Barnes, I'm like, okay, I understand when you say that there can be nothing more defamatory than saying someone is involved in an incestuous relationship, has participated in murder, is controlled by MK Ultra CIA stuff.
	Flip side, I mean, and I know, I'll actually steel man your position.
	I know that you get particularly angry with people who you feel are grifting off of and undermining legitimate causes, legitimate cases.
	During the 2020 election cycle, you went particularly hard on Q, QAnon, whatever the heck you want to call it, because in going with the Dominion vote flipping ghost of Hugo Chavez, German servers, they delegitimized legitimate criticism of the 2020 election and how to challenge the constitutionality of the ballots.
	And I think you're doing the same thing with Candace right here in terms of her delegitimizing or maybe bringing into disrepute legitimate criticism, which might just have to do with the perversion of the relationship between Matt Collin and his wife.
	The flip side, I listened to Candice, and whether you agree with her or not, to me, it sounds like, and I don't want to equate her to Alex Jones because I think, you know, Alex, call me a little biased, maybe has been right more often or is a little bit less extreme in some things.
	But to me, it comes off as sort of like an Alex Jones.
	She's building a theory.
	Everybody regards it as a theory.
	It's her theory, quite clearly, opinion.
	And I think she holds it sincerely.
	That was my long preamble into allowing you to go hard on those who say she's not cooked.
	Yes.
	So the, I mean, for everybody out there that may have re-promoted her story or may have just talked about it, but without crystal clarity, just a little word of the wise.
	The law firm that's handling the case for the Macrons is the same law firm that handled the Dominion cases.
	And it is quite clear they're intending to set up this case to go after a bunch of names, including some big names.
	It looks like the Macrons may be intending to sue Joe Rogan, sue Theo Vaughan, sue Tim Dylan, Sue Andrew Stein, Sue Clayton Morris of the Redacted, to basically take out almost every influential podcaster that flipped to Trump in 2024 in some capacity.
	And they're using Candice to do it.
	And they're starting with this suit, hoping to get it rolling in a certain direction that then predicates them going after the others.
	We predicted this about Dominion all the way back, and then that's what happened.
	So the suit has been filed in state court in Delaware.
	The county that it is in is more Democratic than Austin, Texas.
	So more than two to one.
	A typical jury in that case is likely to have no more than three Republicans at best, and you might end up with zero Republicans in that jury pool.
	The entire judiciary is incredibly partisan, as has become apparent for almost anybody that's dealt with it.
	Candace herself, when she tried to file suit on defamation grounds, got kicked because it's wrong politics.
	Whereas Fox paid $750 million to Dominion to get out of that case.
	Again, wrong politics.
	So her, and if anybody's wondering why Delaware, the Delaware, there were some people that were surprised by the idea that foreigners could sue in America.
	I'm not sure where they got that.
	Foreigners can always sue in America.
	If it's anything like Canada, Quebec, all they have to do is post security for costs in the event that they lose.
	So they put up a certain amount of money.
	I don't know if that's the same thing in the states.
	No, not in the states.
	All you got to do is file suit.
	And why it has jurisdiction is because the defendant is here.
	But there's no limitations on foreigners suing in U.S. courts.
	So they've sued in state court.
	And the reason why it's in Delaware is Candace chose to incorporate her businesses in Delaware.
	Some of us have been saying for years, get out of Delaware.
	She didn't take the message.
	So that's why she's got a very Democratic partisan judicial pool and a very Democratic partisan jury pool.
	Now, the fundamental allegation is defamation.
	I saw a lot of confusion about what defamation is.
	It was striking to me.
	I was like, how is it like the same people that were cheering Trump filing defamation suits were suddenly saying no public figure could win in this suit?
	And it's like, hold on a second.
	Do you not realize Donald Trump was president in the United States when he's suing Murdoch, when he just sued CBS, when he sued all these other people?
	So you're talking about, you know, the, so yes, in fact, public figures can sue.
	And what may surprise people is the big difference between U.S. law and French law is U.S. law is actually much more plaintiff-friendly for public figures, especially in cases where the libel is not made in an official media press publication.
	The U.S. is much better for the Macron than France.
	France has one of the shortest statute of limitations in the world.
	It's a three-month statute of limitations.
	Number one.
	Number two, if the publication is not an official press publication, then you almost can only go criminal.
	There's very little to no civil remedy.
	So third, there's no republication rule.
	So in America, if you republish a lie, you can be sued again.
	Not in France.
	It's from the original publication.
	So if you're going to libel somebody, my advice is definitely go to France.
	The fourth thing is the criminal cases are limited in fines.
	So the fines are like up to 13 grand, something like that.
	So it's very, very small economic risk that you face, very little imprisonment risk you face.
	Fifth, you have a unique defense.
	It's a complete defense if you actually believe something.
	Doesn't mean if you're insane, you have what I call the insanity defense, which is, yeah, the judge, I get it's insane to believe this, but I'm insane.
	And that's a complete defense, which, by the way, was the defense.
	The Macrons brought two criminal charges against two of the three sources that Candace Owens relied on here.
	They were convicted at trial for libeling the Macron and her brother, Bridget Macron and her brother, Mrs. Macron and her brother, and went up on appeal and their defense was, no, no, you don't understand French appeals court.
	Yes, it's insane, but we're insane.
	And the appeals court said, you're right.
	We think you are.
	So that makes it a good faith defense, insanity defense.
	And that's how it got off.
	A lot of people have completely misunderstood what happened in the French courts because of that.
	I think Candace Owens herself did.
	So Candace Owens, relying on this source, there's a reporter who first sort of associated with the right, these sort of lower scale kind of individual, put out a newsletter saying this way back in 2017 when Macron first ran for president, making some of Becoming Bridget, and that was the book title, et cetera.
	Because they didn't care at the time, it was like, oh, some marginal newsletter writer, whatever, they didn't bring a claim within three months.
	And that meant they could never go after him.
	And so consequently, he's built a whole industry on this, built books, et cetera, on and on and on, going on and on.
	And the conspiracies keep getting wider and broader.
	So that's the sort of background for the suit.
	What needs to be proven by the Macrons is that a factual statement was made.
	I even saw Mike Cernovich getting a little confused on this.
	There's a lot of confusion that if something is an opinion, it's protected in America.
	That's not true.
	It has to be an opinion that no reasonable person would interpret as implying a fact.
	And so the question is whether there's a fact inferred and whether a reasonable person could infer that fact.
	I would say briefly for Candace Owens, if you're going to go on this kind of thing, you're much better off saying, no, this is my opinion.
	Candace obsessively reminded everyone, this was not an opinion.
	This was fact that she was staying.
	When she got out of one of her trees, said, she was born a man, she'll die a man.
	And the other difficulty for Candace in particular is, of course, she sued Facebook for trying to claim something wasn't a fact when it was by the opinion being inferred fact.
	So there's some difficulty there for her.
	But the first thing you have to prove is that a statement that at least inferred a fact was made, that the statement was false, that the statement would be damaging to a person's reputation.
	Here there's defamation per se, defamation per quad, defamation by insinuation, so on and all these different kinds of it.
	But something false said about me that would lead to a reasonable person believing something bad about me that could then harm me.
	Defamation, examples of defamation per se are if you accuse someone of a crime, that the person is identified as the person is being talked about, unless you're Alex Jones, then the people don't have to be identified at all suddenly to get defamation sued.
	And last but not least, and there was a lot of misunderstanding about this, reckless disregard for the truth is the standard here.
	So even if Candace absolutely believed what she was saying was true, she can be held liable if they say that she had good reason to know it wasn't true or failed to act with the requisite degree of due diligence.
	Here again, go ahead, sir.
	No, does everybody appreciate that?
	Because the term is actual malice, but actual malice includes reckless disregard for the truth and not like actual nefarious intent.
	I'm going to ask you a subsidiary question.
	Oh, one little addendum.
	In Delaware, there is that added defense that if you can show it was not malicious or malevolent, then you actually have like another added aspect, potential defense.
	But they've interpreted that pretty consistently with reckless disregard.
	I'll ask you now, just before I forget, does merchandising, say it's a sincerely held belief in the person and there's the accusation of willful disregard, whatever, does merchandising what might be the false statement add a level or an argument for actual malice?
	Correct.
	It's motivation to disregard the truth.
	So that's how it plays in.
	It also goes to the unique Delaware defense or relatively unique Delaware defense of this malicious or malevolent component that you that if you can show they had a monetary incentive, then that's proof of maliciousness or malevolence under Delaware law.
	So the core allegations of the Macrons against the as to what factual statements they're saying are false and defamation per se is that Candace, they interpret Candace's sequence of comments.
	Well, I should a little bit procedural background.
	The Macron sent three different retract four, actually, four retraction correction letters to Candace Owens over this time period, including before she did her first video broadcast, but while she had commented on it in other settings.
	And then after each one of the different broadcasts, they would issue another retraction request, another retraction request, another retraction request.
	And then they brought suit when Owens said she would not retract or correct according to the suit.
	Now, again, the suit, maybe Owens will be able to dispute some things in the suit as to whether they're factually accurate or not.
	But we'll operate from the assumption for the purpose of evaluating the suit is if these facts are true, then here's what that looks like legally.
	The main core of the gist of the complaint is that here's what the Macrons say are libels.
	They say that Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, is married to his father, that Bridget Macron is not only a man, but is his father and is part of the Rothschild family, connected to the as literally bloodlines, and that the and that the but the Rothschilds are part of a Jewish cabal that aren't really Jews.
	They're a Khazarian saint, they're Baphim worshipping child pedophile Satanists who drink Christian kids' blood, who are disguised as Jews.
	That the crimes that they say Candace accused them of are false impersonation, forgery, fraud, identity theft, extortion, bribery, blackmail, illegal marriage, rape, incest, attempted murder, and murder.
	So they say, in addition, as part of this process, that Candace Owens would misrepresent all kinds of things as part of covering up her scheme, as they allege.
	For example, they said that she would say she didn't get photos when she did.
	He would say something's in a photo that isn't or isn't in a photo that is.
	He would say an article says something.
	She did this yesterday, by the way, online.
	He said some, he was somehow connecting this to Eli Weisel, somehow they're cousins or something.
	And she says it's in a book.
	It's not in the book.
	It's never been in the book.
	I don't know where she got this.
	But basically, she would say, this is in this article and it's not in the article.
	Or she would say, this is not in this article and it is in the article.
	She would say, this is not in a book and it is in the book.
	She would say, oh, this is in this book and it's not in the book.
	Or it's not in the book and it is in the book.
	She would say it's not in a documentary when it is or it is in a documentary when it isn't.
	She would say that she would even lie according to the Macrons about what their recusal letter, their correction retraction letters said.
	They admit in the letters that they committed rape.
	Actually, just the opposite is in the letters.
	They didn't include any photos with the letters.
	Photos were included in the letters.
	This is again according to the Macron's complaint.
	And I have not seen her dispute these factual allegations to date.
	So basically they have, by my account when I went through back through the complaint, 125 separate lies or give or take, separate factual lies that they allege Owens told.
	Let me bring this one up right now.
	This is where I say that the pleadings themselves sort of almost set out her defense where they say, projecting, Owens claim the MacCons were not behaving in ways one does when you are telling the truth.
	She claimed that there are no photos from the first 30 years of Mrs. MacCon's life, but contradicted herself just moments later by admitting the photos of the young Mrs. MacCon had been released.
	She just does not believe they are real.
	And I don't want to belabor my point because my assess.
	See, now when I'm listening to you talk now, I appreciate that you're saying as a matter of practical policy and given jurisdiction, she might be dead to rights.
	And I hear that and say, well, I don't necessarily like that when people call the Rothschilds, when people talk about Hillary Clinton's kill list, if Matcon succeeds against Candace on that, will anybody talking about a Hillary Clinton kill list or how everybody around them commits suicide?
	It seems to me it's the same type.
	They expose themselves to the same type of defamation if Matcon can succeed from what I believe is clearly Candace's theory.
	And she just doesn't believe what they're producing by way of old photos.
	And therefore, clearly an elaborate theory that she's putting forward with whatever evidence she thinks supports it, but everybody views it as that and regards it as that.
	Yeah, I think that the problem is it's one thing to have sort of a broad opinion theory.
	Like if she'd covered this as here's what this guy alleges, here's what his excuses are, here's what his grounds are, here's what the counter evidence is, here's how he disputes it.
	She might have, she would have been in much better territory.
	But she says these are all facts.
	They're absolutely proven facts.
	And she accuses people of the nastiest, most vicious crimes you can be accused of.
	To be told that your kids aren't your kids, that your parents aren't your parents, that your husband isn't your husband, that you're not even your gender, and your brother doesn't live and you're pretending to be him.
	I mean, you can tell in front of anything but a bunch of hardcore partisan supporter jurors, she's done.
	She's cooked.
	I mean, just that's just my geo.
	That's just my predictive analysis.
	A lot of people have interpreted this as me wanting it to happen or not wanting it to happen or whatever.
	I have been skeptical of this story from the get-go.
	I thought they were serious prop, the story never read true to me.
	And I thought of it as a cover story for the otherwise, you know, things I find unsettling.
	Now, not so unsettling, to be honest, in France.
	Anybody's been to France.
	Lolita, what was that movie?
	It was Lolita.
	Was that French or was that Russian?
	That was a Russian story, but there's versions of that throughout France.
	I mean, you know, sexual harassment laws for the longest time didn't apply in France because being flirtatious at work was considered very, you know, appropriate.
	I mean, the original French story about a man who's the wife cheats on him and then he murders the person whose wife he was cheating with, and that brings them together because they rediscover their passion and love.
	I mean, that's only in France.
	Only in France would tell you that.
	I was just looking at Roman Polanski.
	I thought he went to France.
	He fled to France.
	Of course he went to France.
	I mean, the prime minister, one of the presidents, famous presidents dies.
	Maybe it was even de Gaulle.
	His three mistresses were there with his wife at the funeral are sitting right next to each other.
	So if anybody's been in France, you know, this is, you know, they have a different aspect.
	They got like 500 psychology books about everything.
	But, you know, there are legitimate, I consider Macron a globalist, a warmonger, you know, someone that's utterly untrustworthy and bad for the world, deeply tied into the Rothschild Bank, who helped financialize and promote his political career as this sort of globalist agenda.
	I find the fact that he first met his wife, you know, they claim not romantically that he fell in love with her as a high school student, 15-year-old high school student, when she was 38, I know, I think 39 years old.
	I find that really pervy.
	But all of that's going to get swamped under this.
	That's my other concern.
	They're going to use this to say anything negative you say about Macron is, oh, you're one of those people.
	You're like Andis Owens.
	You think I drink Christian blood and a part of a secret pedophile ring?
	You know, it's that's why she just kept going further and further and further.
	And then basic things like, don't claim a retraction letter says something it doesn't.
	Don't say it doesn't say something that it does.
	I viewed that again.
	She's arguing like they implied, whenever it says they admitted that he raped her, because we're talking age rape, not consent rape, but because there is an argument.
	I'm just, I want to, I want to make sure I'm not going crazy.
	Yes, I'm using chat GPT, but I remember this.
	There's an argument that he was, in fact, 14 when they first met.
	And then it's arguable when they had relations.
	And 14 would have been statutory rape in France at the time because the age of consent was 15 with if they had a sexual relationship.
	Yeah, well, I mean, they've always denied that.
	As I would have told them as their lawyer, deny, deny, deny.
	Oh, oh, sure.
	I just get the impression that he fell in love with her.
	So they, and, and, and, and she supported his transfer to the other school and so forth.
	And she was telling the parents, oh, he'll fall in love with someone else.
	It's just a teenager being a teenager.
	So that's their version of the story.
	And the, but I mean, when you go from that to like, I see these people that will send me photos that they think are real.
	Folks, all the photos showing her having some sort of anatomy are fake.
	They're fake photos.
	Please stop sharing fake photos thinking they're real.
	For the love, I mean, they do this when they sell Obama all the time.
	It's like, oh, look at this, Barnes.
	It's fake, Nitwit.
	I mean, it's incredible.
	So the problem is if you look at this through not a partisan sort of jury pool or a partisan hostile jury pool, and you listen to these allegations and people who say are mostly usually your typical jury pool, often your people end up on the jury, not even that politically active.
	They're going to hear these stories and think, what if they were told about me?
	And think there's going to be some of the nastiest, meanest, cruelest stories imaginable.
	The other problem Owens has, of course, aside from her public statements, this is all factual, aside from her suing other people for doing much lesser version of this to her, is going to be her history of libeling people.
	So Owens going on really eight years at various times when she gets sideways with somebody, often in the conservative movement, she goes out and libels them.
	She's done this to a bunch of black conservatives repeatedly, even did it to Steven Crowder when Crowder got sideways with the Daily Wire.
	Crowder pointed out he thought she was cooked and could he could he was reading the complaint, but it's partially filtered through Crowder's history with her that she would make stuff up about him.
	She would make stuff up about stories he written.
	They were just utterly false.
	That because of the situation he was in, he was not in a well-equipped situation, nor did he want to get into a libel lawsuit with her.
	But a lot of people that have followed her over the years know that she has a tendency.
	I think she thinks this is how Alex Jones operates.
	She thinks that she was going to be Alex Jones meets Oprah, was going to be the new Candace.
	I think the scope of the allegations, the other is, so what's the evidence of intent?
	There's a bunch of people that think, oh, they've never rebutted this.
	I was getting this online.
	And I was like, they've rebutted this repeatedly.
	They've rebutted this going all the way back to 2018.
	Yeah.
	And the argument is going to be that they've rebutted it with newspaper clippings, photocopies of newspaper clippings, all these other things.
	But Robert, are you telling us that?
	It's like, what other proof could you present?
	You know what I mean?
	I mean, on the left is Chelsea Manning.
	That's like, you know, it is what it is.
	That is a person who, you know, the identifies Eltawa, not Michelle Obama.
	It's a fake.
	But like, so the Daily Mail, all the way back, she even admits that this was one of the first articles she read.
	And then she would misquote that article repeatedly over the years.
	I mean, some of this was just, she would rescript in her head what she wanted to believe was true.
	And then, according to the complaint, she would claim to have evidence that she never produced.
	It basically, she relied on a spiritual medium, clairvoyant, psychic, who doesn't seem to have any good record of being a successful psychic.
	Second, an amateur detective.
	And third, this early newsletter writer who has made a whole career on it, who, because of the statute of limitations, can't be sued.
	That's it.
	At least now, maybe she'll come forward that she's got a bunch of other sources.
	But here's like people think, oh, they're suing just because she called him a man.
	Really, that's not it at all.
	She's suing because you've alleged a whole litany of the most horrendous crimes known to man against me.
	And because now your story has gone viral and got hundreds of millions of views around the world.
	And that's their explanation.
	I think their objective is to use all of Candace's screw-ups to go after a whole bunch of other people and permanently silence a wide range of critics because she would just mix match these insane things.
	I mean, can you imagine she's on the stand explaining why Joseph Mengelo was misunderstood?
	Well, I just think that.
	I mean, how is that going to fly?
	On the one hand, that might really bring in an insanity defense or to say, like, nobody takes her seriously.
	Flip side, I don't even see how that gets into evidence on the stand.
	If, you know, the defense is it goes to uh, it goes, well, knowing that she connects it.
	She chose to connect this.
	She kept going and going and then saying the Macrons are blood relatives of the Rothschilds.
	And if you understand her broader perspective, it's that this is a small cabal of, you know, almost cannibalistic people that are disguised as the world's Jews that are that faked the Mengele story, that they lied about Mengele, that Mengele was really a guy doing good work.
	This was the Nazi horrible time.
	Dr. Joseph Mengele, if anybody, I mean, did vivisection.
	I mean, I just can't, I mean, people thought Alex Jones couldn't win the Sandy Hook cases when those started.
	And I showed that there was a lot of the allegations weren't really true and so on and so forth.
	And then I hear the same people tell me they think Candace is going to win.
	And it's like, what are she going to get her fan club as the jury pool?
	Because if not, to me, unless she can meaningfully dispute these facts, and it's the other problem is just the aggregation of them.
	To say, hey, this isn't an article and it's not in the article.
	Or is to say it's not in the article and it is.
	To say it's in a book when it's not in the book.
	Or to say it's not in the book when it is.
	To say things like, for example, she should have never said they admitted to anything in the letters when the letters were just the opposite.
	It's like, how is she going to explain that cross-examining?
	Well, that was just my opinion.
	Well, no, right here on a podcast, you say nothing you're saying is opinion.
	It's all fact.
	You know, I mean, can you imagine her?
	Like, people think the Macrons are going to get hit and cross-examined.
	It's Hannis Owens that's going to get cooked in cross-examination.
	I can see this coming 100 miles away.
	Hanice Owens is done.
	She's cooked.
	Now, she's probably going to be financially okay because she married into what appears to be a very wealthy family, a man who's a lawyer, who's a British lord.
	Now, it says in the complaint that that means she is a British citizen.
	That's not the way British citizenship works.
	It means she could become a British citizen, but you got to live there for like three to five years.
	It's, you know, all kinds of things.
	Britain allows all kinds of immigrants into the country, legal and illegal, but not for citizenship purposes.
	So that claim didn't seem accurate to me, but it is the most damning defamation suit I have ever read in my entire life.
	And just because of the number of half-wit lies she appears to have told.
	I mean, I said, don't lie.
	Oh, this is a documentary.
	And then it's like all of her fans believe that everything she has claimed is absolutely true and absolutely backed up.
	Folks, no, it isn't, because none of them had took the time to look it up themselves.
	And then they would convince themselves of this rabbit hole conspiracy.
	It's very QAnonish.
	And so what they don't understand is Alex Jones, when he talks about something, one, he makes it clear most of the time, he's talking about opinion.
	But when he's not, he's talking about something that nine times out of 10, he has incredibly well vetted, incredibly gone through.
	He's incredibly, incredibly well read.
	So he might make sardonic comments of so-and-so is an evil alien, fifth dimensional, you know, but he's speaking metaphorically.
	He has never done anything like this ever.
	And Kanis thought she was going to be on the cutting edge and she was going to get all this and get the millions of views, get the merch, sell the stuff.
	I mean, constantly asking for donations, pretending she's under risk at any time and can get murdered and assassinated, accusing.
	It's other things like why when you decide to accuse her brother, Bridget Macron's brother of not existing, what happens when he shows up like he did in the prior proceeding when in the criminal case he testified under penalty of perjury as to who he is?
	You know what I mean?
	Oh, yeah, I know.
	I mean, you can see how terrible in front of a normie jury, she's going to, they're going to think she's not only insane, they're going to think she's evil.
	And they're going to hammer her with the biggest imaginable verdict known to man.
	This is the question that I was having because some of, you know, some of what Candace says, I think is, I think should be regarded as clear-cut opinion.
	But is she not today's tabloid magazine, like Bat Boy Escapes type thing?
	How is what she's saying different than what tabloids claim to be true?
	It should be.
	If she was smarter, she would have characterized herself as a tabloid person or covering, but that isn't what she did.
	And she's, and I've run into tons of people.
	You can just see them online in response to my thing.
	Tons of people really believed her.
	Absolutely.
	They believed the whole thing.
	They never connected.
	Hold on a second.
	This is batshit insane.
	This is Dred Robert from our local community.
	He says, Viva, why do you think no one believes her?
	I don't think everyone, I don't think no one believes her.
	I don't think people believe her on everything.
	Like any more than when Alex Jones says, you know, they're snakeskin drinking the blood of babies.
	But everybody kind of knows Alex is being exact.
	She's dumb.
	She really means it.
	She really believes it.
	She thinks it's all factual and she wouldn't back off of anything.
	Anything.
	I mean, claiming somebody's their brother.
	I mean, for example, confusing intersex treatment with transitioning.
	Those are two totally different things.
	Totally different things.
	I mean, like, she's busy falsely accusing, hey, you, brother, you don't exist.
	Hey, you, parents, you don't exist.
	Hey, you mother, you're really a transitioning leader.
	Oh, Louis Vuitton, you wear Louis Vuitton.
	Oh, that means you're into the trans movement.
	What the hell?
	I mean, so, I mean, it's just everything.
	I kept going through it.
	I was like, this is the most damning.
	If she came to me, I would say, same thing Election Wizard said as a lawyer and a lawyer himself.
	Said, my advice immediately would be retract and correct immediately.
	Retract and correct immediately.
	Just do it and do it profligately and get the heck out.
	But for anybody else out there, this is a trap to repeat anything Candace has said.
	Do not take the trap for the record of anybody who's watching our show.
	I've said, long said this is a completely insane, ridiculous story as a critic of Emmanuel Macron, as a critic of how they met.
	But that's American values, not French values, because that's the French.
	But I don't believe anything Candace is saying in this regard.
	I think she's batch hit insane and belongs in a loony bin.
	We'll get to the Trump Asylum stuff later.
	I think she's a pure grifter.
	Hey, everybody, you never go full retard.
	Do you know what else you do?
	Don't do, never go full Kanye.
	Never go full Kanye.
	So I think she's cooked.
	I get a lot of people who are sympathetic to the First Amendment, understand the sort of zeitgeist in which she's operating, and don't want to see that.
	But I think I encourage anybody, if you want to really read the suit, read the whole suit.
	And like the way you do it as a defamation libel lawyer, you put in every factual claim.
	And then you can say, what's the evidence we have that this was true?
	And then what's the evidence that we have that it was reasonable for us to believe that evidence and disregard other evidence?
	Because their evidence as to her intent is that they told her it was wrong over and over again, that they included birth certificates, official government documents, photographs, other newspaper reportings of her birth and a whole bunch of her marriage and so on and so forth, all of which Candace says is fake, basically.
	But produced all of this, that everybody that the Daily Mail had debunked it years ago, that other, every, every independent review had debunked it repeatedly as to every each and every one of those statements.
	And then they would say, you said this was in the documentary, it's not.
	You said this wasn't in the documentary.
	They would go.
	So when I was going through, it's literally like 100 plus, 125 plus factual statements of different kinds you'd have to defend as a defense lawyer.
	It's like the chances you win on all of them are none.
	So like the, she's going to get hit.
	And then the only question is, what's the verdict size?
	And you look at how Adnormi would respond to this.
	It's not like Sandy Hook, but they're still going to respond really badly.
	And so the verdict's going to be very high.
	Now, she likely doesn't, because she, I think, is married into wealth, his wealth is not necessarily attachable.
	So it's only her individual wealth and the wealth of these entities.
	But I think she'll be a bankrupting verdict.
	And my main one, you know, you learn from this case how to do investigative reporting and how to come up with opinions.
	And if you're going to cover somebody else's, do it that way.
	When I do the Hasha series, I make it clear.
	I'm just arguing for the alternative narrative, not the official narrative in the court of public opinion.
	It may not even be my own opinion.
	It's just a hypothesis, speculative in nature.
	There's all kinds of ways you can do this where if you have sincere concerns, you can get them out there without subjecting yourself to high risk.
	And everybody that Theo Vaughn, Tim Dylan, Joe Rogan, all of them.
	I mean, Rogan maybe already has, but all of them need to issue public statements getting themselves distanced from this.
	We had the exact same conversation, remember, during the Dominion stuff.
	Said Sidney Powell made a bunch of dumb statements.
	Don't repeat them.
	Don't get caught up in them.
	Or you're all like Mike Lindell.
	You're going to get into big trouble.
	So that's my advice.
	I think Candace is cooked.
	Other people are hopeful that the First Amendment holds stronger.
	I'm not hopeful in this context because I think what her statements were outside the protection of the First Amendment.
	I'm not sympathetic with Candace because I think she's been a libeling grifter for a while now.
	But that isn't, but I hate the Macrons far, far more.
	So I would much rather she win this suit than lose it, but I think she's literally got zero chance.
	I think it's going to be a bankrupting case.
	But my advice is to everybody else who might be connected to this story, it's a trap if you repeat it.
	Don't repeat it.
	Clarify anything you've said previously, especially the big podcasters, Clayton Morris, others.
	A lot of these guys do great, great work.
	And I don't want them to get sunk because they got stuck on the Candace crazy train.
	Well, and I appreciate that because you were right with the Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Tom Pierce repeating certain statements, which at the time, this was during Dominion, were clearly factually incorrect.
	SmartMaddox connection, corporate connection with Dominion.
	And at the time, you're saying, you repeat these.
	These are clearly defamatory because they're easily verifiable false statements.
	And some people at the time I remembered were saying, Barnes, freedom of speech, yada, yada.
	And we were sitting there saying, look, the 2020 election was constitutionally improper, but this is the wrong argument.
	And these are factually incorrect statements that are going to sink people.
	And they did for right, for right or for wrong.
	Giuliani got his, I mean, I think they all got railroaded.
	I mean, they discredited themselves and they discredited election challenges.
	I still get people, for example, who think I think the 2020 election was perfect because I pointed out this stuff was wrong.
	I get the weirdest, some of the people that have stuck in the candidate.
	And what it's designed to do is everybody who's out there saying this, you're now going to get pigeonholes so that anything else you say, anything else you support, oh, you're one of those people.
	So the penis was simply complete.
	Unless we don't, there's things we don't know, which is always possible.
	She appeared to be incredibly reckless with this.
	You don't double down and triple down and quadruple down.
	There's a hundred ways to do this differently.
	And whatever it was, she got attached to it.
	And I think in her mind, it's her against the French president, the leader of globalism.
	Yeah, there's some PR value to all of that in terms of the suit.
	But at the end of the day, there's, I just, I think, again, 0% chance.
	If it goes to a court judgment or a jury trial, 0% chance in my view, she wins.
	Assuming they don't, you know, default her or whatever into some sort of verdict like they did with Alex Jones.
	But flip side, my theory is at least an argument I would raise.
	At best, Brigitte Macron is a woman who at the age of 39 had relations with a 15-year-old student.
	Some say that the reason why he was pulled from that school was the allegation.
	I don't believe the allegation personally for the record as well.
	Some people are hypothesizing that the reason why Emmanuel was pulled from the school is because the parents were not down with the relationship, and that's why he switched schools.
	And there are some people who hypothesize that he was 14 years old at the time, which if you engage in relations is statutory rape.
	Okay.
	What about the argument that, okay, at the very best, she's a 39-year-old pervert teacher who's having whatever relations with a 15-year-old student, and therefore she has no reputation susceptible of harm in the context of these accusations and is therefore defamation proof?
	Well, except then you're accusing Emmanuel Macron of also sleeping with his father, engaging in ritualistic child pedophilia and incest as part of an extortion blackmail ring, getting people murdered on a routine basis.
	So, I mean, it's like, and I was going through this, I was like, even I couldn't come up with a defense.
	I was looking, I was like, maybe this, maybe, Oh, God, this is the worst ever.
	So that's why I just think I couldn't.
	And then it's all the dumb lies.
	Don't say something's in a book that isn't.
	Don't say something's in a documentary that isn't.
	Don't say something isn't in a documentary.
	So she said, oh, she could only produce two.
	And I would get this stuff on X. I kept getting broched.
	But you don't understand, Barnes.
	You haven't seen all the evidence, Barnes.
	You haven't seen all the proof, Barnes.
	Like, read the whole complaint and her butted.
	Well, things like saying, oh, this documentary only had two photos of her.
	And it turns out the documentary has like 50 photos.
	Yeah, but then they only and for anybody in the chat saying, show some pictures, they showed some pictures.
	And like I'm showing you.
	Oh, they showed her book.
	I mean, they showed her family photos.
	They showed her photos outside of her.
	Here's the thing.
	She grew up in a family that was not a high-profile public family, affluent family, but they weren't a high-profile public family.
	She is 71.
	So the, I mean, look at Donald Trump.
	Tell me how many photos you've ever seen of Donald Trump under 30, right?
	Or under 20, right?
	And he grew up in a high-profile family.
	There aren't a bunch of kid photos.
	I mean, I don't have a bunch of kid photos.
	Everybody else takes a bunch of photos.
	I don't take, this is not my M.O. now.
	And we're thinking in the modern world.
	But basically, she produced, to their opinion, if we produce a news article of your birth, that's even better than me claiming it along with your birth certificate.
	But it was they produced like something like a dozen or so photos.
	But here's what I mean by the dumb lies.
	She says, oh, there's only two photos of her in this documentary before a certain age.
	And it turns out there's about a dozen such photos.
	Okay, how do you explain that to the jury?
	Why did you say that you have to either say, you know what?
	I never watched the documentary, which is probably the case with kids.
	Or, oh, I got confused.
	Oh, I meant something else.
	I mean, you look at these photos.
	These are typical from for that generation.
	This sequence of photos is not that uncommon.
	I'm just, you know, wedding photos.
	The thing, if you look at her when she was younger, people are confusing the plastic surgery that I think she's had since then, et cetera, at 71, trying to pretend she's still 50.
	If you look at her when she was younger, she looks very, very feminine female.
	Her daughters look smack dab like her.
	All of that.
	I mean, instead, like pretending the nephew isn't really a nephew, but is the product of an incestuous relationship.
	Because that's the other thing.
	She's libeling everyone else, Candace.
	Candace is libeling brothers, libeling mothers, libeling fathers, libeling randos that aren't even in the court of public opinion, saying, oh, this person, they don't exist.
	They're not real.
	Oh, this other person, they're actually fake and fictitious.
	I mean, it's just, she couldn't stop herself.
	It's like, couldn't you just stick with the narrow narrative?
	I mean, you have to go to all of this?
	Our bets are in.
	I'm still, I'm still, if I were betting, I'd bet on you, but I'm still sticking with my original prediction.
	We're going to see where it goes, Robert.
	There's going to be a big I told you so, either from you or I'm going to say I'm a little smart.
	Won't be too bad.
	But word of the wise, everybody out there, be very careful of how you cover this.
	This is a trap by what they're laying in, my opinion.
	And make sure you correct and clarify anything that was not your personal opinion that you might have recited.
	This is, if the quartering covered this, Luke Ritkowski covered it.
	If anybody covered it and didn't clarify, they didn't believe it.
	They are now at risk of being sued by where this is going.
	And this is clearly, they're tuning up to take a whole bunch of people out.
	And the, so Candace is just the commit, it's just the appetizer for where they're going.
	Very interesting.
	All right.
	That's the Candace story, people.
	Speaking of a guy who didn't take our advice and got into a lot of trouble, but he was able to get back out of a little bit of it this week, Mike Lindell won before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	So this was funny because this was a totally tangential lawsuit where Lindell had offered a reward for anybody who could disprove his election interference theory.
	And somebody comes out, and I don't know the details because, I mean, I don't even know the terminology of what was the table or the type of information that was provided that allegedly disproved Mike Lindell's election interference theory.
	Mike Lindell says, no, you didn't satisfy it.
	The guy sues and it goes to arbitration, who, from what I understand, effectively interpreted the rules that Mike Lindell had issued by rewriting them to include whatever type of software or information details this was that purportedly disproved Mike Lindell's theory.
	The arbitrator, no, no, no, the rules as we interpret them to rewrite them includes this.
	He did disprove you.
	He is entitled to the $5 million reward.
	And Lindell got a higher court to override the arbitration award that says that their power to interpret contracts does not include their power to rewrite contracts.
	I just didn't understand the nature of the information that the guy purportedly provided that allegedly contradicted Lindell's theory, despite Lindell's insistence it didn't.
	So Lindell is part of the 2020 election challenges, says he's got data that proves contamination in the election results, including software-related data.
	Says, if you want to prove me wrong, I offer $5 million.
	And he put up a public, invited people to a conference.
	They had to sign the contract as part of this.
	The contract required arbitration to resolve the issues.
	That was Mike Lindell's first mistake, by the way.
	He assumed that arbitration usually works for businesses and the corporate side.
	It would work for him.
	Doesn't understand that in these kind of political cases, these arbitrators' prejudice translates in a different direction.
	But what it was required was in order to win the $5 million, you had to prove that the information relayed by Mike Lindell was not related to the election, and you had to prove that unequivocally.
	If there was any discretionary dispute, Lindell's interpretation prevailed.
	What the guy comes and does, and he proves that the data presented did not come from an election county data.
	In other words, it was not election data.
	He didn't prove it wasn't data related to the election, least of all the unequivocal requirement.
	So it goes to arbitration, and the arbitrators want to screw Lindell.
	So they reinterpret the contract.
	They admit that Minnesota law governs.
	They admit that a part of Minnesota law is you don't get to use what's called extrinsic evidence, evidence other than what's in the four papers of the four pages, boundaries of the papers of the contract.
	That you don't get to use parole evidence rule.
	You don't get to use that external evidence, extrinsic evidence extrinsic to the contract.
	And this is similar to statutory interpretation, where it borrows from legally, or statutory interpretation law borrows from this contract doctrine, that unless the term in the contract is ambiguous, unless you can't understand the terms of the contract, then you get to look at what happened extrinsically.
	Now, I'll tell you, Mike Lindell was out there telling people this was election data.
	And in fact, this guy proved it wasn't election data.
	So that was the extrinsic evidence.
	You know, some of the things that some of us were telling Mike, you got bad sources.
	Don't rely on this.
	You're getting set up.
	You're getting distracted.
	It's a red, you're going to get screwed and everybody else is going to get screwed that goes down with the boat.
	But that's not what the contract said.
	The contract didn't say what Mike Lindell was saying outside of the contract about, hey, this is actually election data and you can't prove it otherwise.
	It said it had to be information unrelated to the election.
	And the arbitration panel goes, well, look over here.
	He said this was really election data and that's what the challenge was about.
	So that's how we're going to reinterpret it.
	But the person didn't bring an arbitration claim based on representations outside the contract, some sort of oral contract anything else.
	The only grounds was the contract itself and then a different language.
	And the arbitration panel was used to doing whatever they want.
	So they go in and just reinterpret the contract using extrinsic evidence.
	And what I loved about this case was the appeals court reversing an arbitration ruling by extending and expanding the definition of what is manifest disregard for the law under the Federal Arbitration Act.
	Because they have been mostly letting arbitrators flagrantly violate people's rights, flagrantly violate the law, saying we've got to defer to them.
	But they said, no, if you directly misinterpret the contract in such a substantive way that you've rewritten it, then that is outside of your arbitration authority because the contract was the predicate and premise of it.
	And that's going to open up more challenges to arbitration.
	So good.
	So the Eighth Circuit comes in and says arbitration panel had no such authority.
	It's directly contrary to the contract.
	They recognize it's directly contrary to the contract.
	They couldn't look at extrinsic evidence because the term is unambiguous.
	And so nice win for Mike Lindell.
	But next time, Mike, don't go hook line and sinker on the red herrings and you wouldn't get into this trouble in the first place.
	If you listen to some of us, you wouldn't have this problem right now.
	Good win and good win on arbitration.
	Yeah, well, that's what I was going to say.
	It's not often that you see the appellate courts or the higher courts actually sort of curtailing the jurisdiction authority of the arbitrator.
	In Canada, arbitrators determine their own jurisdiction, and even the appellate levels are very reluctant to get in and say they overextended their own jurisdiction in assessing their own jurisdiction.
	So, all right, amazing.
	We got Trump SCOTUS.
	We got Immunity Prep Act and POTUS, but we could get right to the next scandal, which how much crap did we take for saying that the way Trump was handling Epstein was very ill-advised?
	And Trump is already walking it back, walking it back, walking it back.
	Now, I know a certain Roger Stone is out there pretending he was at the White House and he was the one coordinating it.
	Come on, Roger.
	You're the guy that can't tell whether it's a man or a woman you're in bed with this week.
	So the I'm going to preface this.
	I have no idea what those rumors are and I don't want to know, Robert.
	You definitely don't.
	Roger invites you to a party.
	Decline.
	Decline.
	I like Roger.
	And as much as I know him, I've met him a few times.
	I've heard other people make those jokes.
	I have no idea what it is.
	And I'm not looking into it because I don't care.
	But he was taking shots at me pretending that he was like, oh, Barn, anybody that claims Susie Wildes is representing Pfizer, connected to Pfizer, is going to get sued for millions of dollars.
	And I just pointed out Susie Wildes' last two lobbying firms had long extended lobbying relationships with Pfizer, just like Pam Bonte did.
	And it's a scandal waiting to happen, unfortunately.
	It appears Pam Bonte, as soon as she got in, made sure that major U.S. corporations under investigation for foreign bribery, like Pfizer with the EU, for example, on the COVID vaccine, that she made sure a whole bunch of those criminal cases were completely dismissed right out of the gate.
	The gentleman Nikola, the Nicola company guy that got a Trump pardon that was on with Tucker, I know people in that space.
	They say most of his stories are bogus and that the Nicola guy is completely guilty, that he was probably abused by a corrupt Southern District of New York, or as they like to call themselves, the Sovereign District of New York.
	But there's lots of evidence that guy is guilty as the $3, as you can get.
	Crooked as a $3 bill.
	But you want to know why he mentioned the $80 million he paid for his defense team?
	Well, I guess she was a critical lawyer to that group.
	Probably the reason he got pardoned.
	Pam Bondi's brother.
	So, and this goes back to allegations of her corruption when she was at the Florida Attorney General, covering up for all the RoboPen stuff that was going on by the mortgage bank industry, et cetera.
	So it doesn't surprise me that she screwed up the Epstein case, but at least Trump, seeing the massive blowback from everybody, has started to, even Trump has started to walk it back, walk it back, walk it back.
	And so he can explain what happened grand jury-wise and Maxwell proffer rise this week because a lot of it's being misunderstood.
	I'm not going to rail against this person long at all.
	Do you know this account, Robert War Clandestine?
	Clandestine.
	You know, I like the account, but they started to go full retard recently.
	Well, but what they're doing, and what drives me crazy, is they're sucking and blowing at the same time, saying it wasn't long ago that clandestine, I think it might have been a directly tweeting at me that, you know, people not letting go of the Epstein file are being disloyal to Trump.
	And now, you know, and then two weeks later, back on the F's, he's saying there's a reason for why it's been.
	So these people are like saying it's not a bit.
	Whatever Trump says, they say.
	And I get curious as to these accounts because they know.
	You tell me what opinion I'm supposed to have, Trump.
	Okay, it's like cats are.
	I gotta wait.
	Oh, now that's my opinion.
	Well, and I took a lot of shit, and I, you know, I even got a little nervous.
	Like, I have friends within the administration.
	I was like, do they think I'm an asshole for what I'm doing with Epstein?
	Because I think Trump is making a big, fat mistake that the left has capitalized on whether or not there's a way.
	This is what people don't understand.
	4D chess is like in your head just to rationalize whatever happens.
	It doesn't mean that you can't make good moves from the mistakes you've made in the past.
	So right now, I think it was a mistake what Trump did.
	The silver lining to that is the left have jumped on this bandwagon saying, we want Epstein, we want Epstein, even though they've been dead silent about it for the last five years.
	And now there's a way to capitalize off their mistake, which is to say, Trump is hiding something.
	Release it now.
	And now you got Bongino tweeting, I was going to start the show with that, that, you know, he's seen corruption that has rocked him to his core.
	And I believe him.
	But so Trump has walked it back.
	Bonte comes out and says, yeah, we're going to try to release some grand jury documents.
	Everybody's like, it's never going to happen.
	This is all a dog and pony show.
	The judges are going to say no.
	You get the judge in Florida.
	Yes, she has a Jewish last name, or she is Jewish, I think, but I don't think she's working with Epstein.
	She's an Obama appointee.
	So I would imagine that she's politically loyal.
	And she says, my hands are tied.
	I can't release any of the grand jury documents, whatever testimony.
	An Obama judge.
	So you got Trump asking for it now.
	And then for everyone saying, Viva, shut up about it.
	Move on.
	And, you know, okay, fine.
	He acted and reversed course.
	Then people were saying it's all a show.
	He knows they can't release anything.
	And you got an Obama judge saying, I can't release anything.
	Ostensibly, if I were to guess, protecting Democrats and, you know, whatever Republicans are involved in this ORPID, but not Trump.
	The first question is this.
	I mean, I think the judge is legally correct, right?
	Like the judge just can't disclose these documents?
	Well, I think what people got confused is that there are two, what we talked about last week, is there's different rules in the Southern District of Florida in the 11th Circuit than there is in the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit.
	And we mentioned that the Trump administration had made requests in both jurisdictions.
	The only court that's issued a ruling is the court in the 11th Circuit.
	The 11th Circuit has that wacky rule that says grand jury records cannot be disclosed for public interest.
	They can only be disclosed if it fits within the specific limits of Rule 6E.
	And so what the judge's ruling was just what the 11th Circuit law is.
	And to give you the idea.
	What's that Rule 6E?
	Rule 6E is the federal rule of criminal procedure established by the Supreme Court, not legislatively passed, by the way.
	And I've had constitute and has should be interpreted in light of the Constitution.
	But the 11th Circuit, so what happened, this case just went up in 2020.
	And someone made a request for grand jury records of a case from the 1940s where a bunch of racists went in and killed a massacre of black citizens, I think, at a restaurant.
	And even though they were not masked, and yet the grand jury never indicted anyone.
	And so they wanted to go back and reopen that case.
	And they needed to look at the grand jury transcripts, who wouldn't let them.
	And they were like, what?
	You know, there's no reason for a grand jury secrecy at this point.
	And so the, well, it goes up to the 11th Circuit.
	11th Circuit says, yeah, we agree.
	It's all secret.
	The 11th Circuit wants to hide information that it wants.
	Now, every other federal court in the country that has addressed it disagrees with the 11th Circuit, including in particular the Second Circuit.
	So there was never a chance that any federal judge in the Southern District of Florida could release the Epstein files.
	Does Pam Bondi have a overarching power or is it strictly nobody has the power to do it because of this rule?
	Well, not the grand jury files.
	And again, that's still limited.
	That's just grand jury transcript testimony.
	You could still, if other people have it, you could request it from them.
	For example, if any grand jury testimony was turned over to the Southern District of New York, then you can get it there.
	If the grand jury testimony was turned over to the grand jury in the Southern District of New York, well, and so here's the thing.
	Roger Stone is out saying that the judge in New York would also hide it.
	No, he won't because he's under a completely different legal standard and he knows the public attention of the case.
	So my prediction is that in fact, grand jury files and records will be released unsealed to the prosecutor, to the Justice Department, out of the Southern District of New York.
	And my guess is all the testimony that was down in the Southern District of Florida already exists in the Southern District of New York anyway.
	So you're likely going to get everything.
	But I do hope they appeal that Southern District of Florida ruling to get it up to the Supreme Court because that was horrible law.
	And we need to correct the law.
	And the Supreme Court needs to correct that law.
	Because right now, the courts are complicit in covering up criminal conspiracies using this bogus grand jury secrecy nonsense that's unconstitutional in violation of our First Amendment rights, including the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, which is the right to open courts and under federal common law, enforcing it further.
	So a lot of assumptions were made about that that were incorrect.
	People thought it was the only grand jury request.
	It's not.
	They thought it was the main grand jury request.
	It's not.
	They thought the judge's motivations were political.
	It's not in this case.
	That precedent is clear and open and shut as you get.
	I read it.
	And as much as I think I can understand it, it looked like a rule where it looked like if anyone wanted to say anything, they could say Trump knew that it was a rule that the judge would have to follow in order to protect himself.
	I don't believe it, but I could see people saying that because it was saying.
	I mean, Bondi knew that was going to happen.
	And I was a little annoyed she didn't preface, you know, didn't prepare people for that.
	But Trump separately clearly was second guess everything that was happening because he then sends Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general and former counsel to go talk to Ghelain Maxwell.
	Now, flesh this out for us because Todd Blanche is the guy who comes out Friday after the Sunday of the unsigned, undated memo being leaked to Axios that no one took responsibility for.
	He comes out on Friday after Bongino comes out and says, I mean, he says in so many words, none of us wanted anything to do with that.
	You know, threatening to leave allegedly, according to the rumors which are substantiated.
	Patel, we're still not sure about.
	Then Blanche comes out and in my view, throws Bongino and Patel under the bus by saying, we all agreed to it.
	We all signed off on it.
	And so my trust in Todd Blanche, I have questions that I would ask him and maybe he could assuage Me.
	Trump, in reversing course, yet even more than just asking Pan Bondi to ask for the release of transcripts from grand jury testimony, sends Todd Blanche to talk to Epstein.
	I'm sorry, he will not Maxwell.
	And it seems apparently that no one from the Justice Department has ever gone down to talk with Maxwell, which raises a bunch of questions.
	Sure, she was being prosecuted by Maureen Comey, but if nobody ever talked to her and nobody ever got any information on other potential unindicted co-conspirators, how then they could limit the prosecution to only Maxwell and Epstein?
	I'm going to maintain this as my personal opinion.
	The prosecution was the cover-up.
	What do you make of it?
	Was it recorded?
	Was it video recorded?
	What requirements are necessary for documenting this?
	Is it a good thing?
	Or as some people are floating, is it Todd Blanche meeting with Maxwell to set her up to either, I don't know, protect Trump for those who think he's culpable, which I don't.
	What do you think of it?
	So the way I said that if you're going to do that, you need to do what's called queen for a day, proffer immunity.
	And so what this is, it's called use and fruits immunity as opposed to transactional immunity.
	So transactional immunity is we give you immunity for anything related to this particular transaction, underlying factual events.
	Use and fruits immunity is much more limited.
	It says anything you tell us, we cannot use against you directly, and we cannot use the fruits of what you tell us against you directly.
	Let me pause you there because she's already been convicted.
	She's serving time now and she's already appealing her decision.
	So what would any such immunity look like in that case?
	She's already been convicted.
	They couldn't charge her again.
	They could charge her with other crimes so that she may admit to.
	The second thing is, let's say she is petitioning the Supreme Court on the grounds that the old Epstein plea deal should have protected her and that any Justice Department violations in the way that plea deal was entered should not go to the prejudice of the defendant.
	I actually legally agree with her defense, by the way.
	But the Supreme Court is not going to take that case in all likelihood.
	So consequently, she was realizing her time was running out.
	But if, let's say, they did take the case and they reversed, but they reversed on such a grounds that it opened the door to something else being used against her.
	So it's almost never in your interest as a potential criminal defendant, even one that's in prison, to come out and tell the whole story because you don't know where it could lead to other places it could be used against you unless you're given immunity.
	This might be a stupid question.
	I was just going to go ask Chat GPT, but I figure I'll just ask you in person, have there been cases where commutation or pardons have been direct quid pro quos for participating in further criminal prosecution?
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm sorry, of others, I should say.
	The way they characterize that, though, is they, well, yeah, pardon, commutate, yes.
	It depends on whether or not they plan on using your testimony.
	If they plan on using your testimony, then they tend not to do that.
	They simply say your sentencing will be determined after these cases are done.
	So wink, wink, not, nod, but they don't want the jury to know how motivated you may be to lie.
	But they do do it in cases where if this leads to actionable results, then you will get this partner commutation if they don't rely on that person's actual testimony as opposed to where it might lead.
	The use and fruits immunity was in fact given.
	I said right away, this is not a serious interview unless they're going to give that to her.
	They go down and they do give that to her.
	Now, the one way it still can be used against her is if she lies in the interview, they can prosecute her again for perjury, making a false statement in the course of it, et cetera.
	And usually a proffer, you sign a proffer.
	And she was seen carrying a box back between interviews, which was interesting.
	Not sure what was in there, what that was about, whether the DOJ was the source of that or she was the source of that.
	But he had talked to her for apparently for two days.
	We don't know if it was video recorded.
	We don't know if it was audio recorded.
	There was no reference to that by either the prosecutor or her defense counsel.
	So I would assume they did not do so.
	I have my suspicions about what Ghalen is up to, but I will put those in the hush-hush later this week at vivabarnslot.locos.com as to what as the part two of the Epstein trilogy story.
	I already have Robert Maxwell there, but she knows how to work this system from this side of the angle.
	So the skeptics are going to say this is that she's seeking a commutation or pardon in exchange for not incriminating Trump.
	So that the now, in my view, the Epstein files exonerate Trump and implicate his incriminate his adversaries, particularly in the deep state apparatus.
	And the way he has handled this has incriminated him and exonerated them.
	But at least he didn't stay digging in the hole and has started to get dig himself, get out a little bit.
	First, by having, saying, hey, let's get some grand jury records.
	Then second, saying, okay, let's.
	Now, here's the thing.
	Why didn't Pam Bondi do this from the get-go?
	What Epstein files was she reviewing if she wasn't thinking about talking to Delaine Maxwell, if she wasn't seeking the unsealing of grand jury records?
	I don't believe she's reviewed the videos.
	She says one thing.
	JD Vance says the opposite.
	And by the way, what's in the videos?
	For those who don't know, the polar opposite.
	J.D. Vance says it was commercial pornography, in which case you're not dealing with CSAM.
	There was someone else said that they saw, I forget.
	Oh, well, Cash Patel also had a different interpretation of what the video said.
	Come believe.
	You have Cash, one story.
	Bondi, another story.
	The vice president, a third story.
	What does that mean?
	Bondi's lying.
	Bondi was not meaningfully reviewing the Epstein files at all.
	Bondi, it now comes out that she purportedly told the president in May that he was all over the Epstein files, which is false information.
	It means she was lied to or she lied to some other people or a combination of all the above.
	Or Trump's name is, I'll put it in quotes, all over and that, yeah, the files reveal that he banned Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago place, that he, you know, his wife was in the black book.
	All over doesn't mean incriminating at all.
	And I'm not just saying that for Trump.
	I mean, that's the argument for everybody who's not.
	Well, clearly, because he gave the impression that he was.
	And I think that's completely false.
	Mike Davis kept insisting that they had formed a strike force all along.
	He was implying this, at least.
	He was like, oh, don't worry, everybody.
	They're on top of it.
	They just announced a strike force this week.
	Why wasn't that done from the beginning?
	As to Russia Gate, they haven't announced anything as the Epstein files in terms of strike force.
	So it appears that the corrupt actors in the deep state either deceived Bondi or she was complicit with them, including Swampy Susie.
	That's who Roger Stone's out there trying to pretend.
	I mean, Roger Stone, he doesn't have a moral problem with lobbying because he lobbied for some of the nastiest, meanest, most vicious people in the history of man.
	So I get it.
	He doesn't have the same skepticism of the swamp that I do because he was often a feature of the swamp.
	But that's who Susie Wiles is.
	And I'm seeing more and more evidence that Bondi and Wiles are actually acting in ways directly adverse to the president to undermine the president for other people and other parties.
	He thinks they're friends and allies.
	I don't think they are.
	I think they're beyond controllers.
	I think they're contaminators because, well, how this was done made no sense at all.
	And we're now seeing evidence that there was no meaningful review of the Epstein files ever happened by the, at least by Bondi or her team.
	So, but at least we're getting somewhere.
	And now the House has subpoenaed the Ghelene Maxwell to testify from prison.
	If you're looking at the prediction markets, make sure you figure out how the rules are.
	They're not bringing Ghelene to testify physically in front of Congress, but she will be testifying before Congress from her prison cell.
	But that's in three weeks.
	And I think a lot of this is Ghelene Maxwell orchestrating it behind the scenes as her last dive to get out.
	And she's willing to sing.
	And the question is, is she willing to sing from an honest songbook?
	Or is she changing the songbook as she goes along to get what she wants?
	And that's what we don't know.
	But also credit to the president.
	Comes out and says, yeah, we'll get some Epstein list stuff out to you.
	And by the way, you probably should be looking at the Clintons.
	Because he understood that's who had incriminated all along.
	Let me see if I can pull up his tweet.
	I'm going to see afterwards, where he mentioned Clinton's been to the island 28 times.
	And even when I listen to that, I'm like, oh, I mean, I knew that he flew on the plane.
	And I go to chat, you know, I just try to find the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	There's no confirmation that he went to the island 28 times, although there are strong rumors that he was up to no goodness on the airplane.
	But I don't think there was a community note on that.
	And you have to understand that when Trump is saying that, Trump, we've said this repeatedly in the past, always says things with more information than we know that he has.
	And so I found it to be a very strong statement, Robert.
	Oh, exactly.
	I think Pam Bondi misled the president, deceived the president, to believe that they had rushigated the Epstein docs, that they had gone in and changed the documents to exonerate the Clintons and incriminate him.
	I believe, now, it wouldn't surprise me if Maureen Comey and those related people at the FBI office and the SDNY may have misled her.
	Maybe that's why when Trump was starting to get to the bottom of this, Maureen Comey suddenly gets fired out of the blue.
	But I never believed it to be true that those are like, oh, there are people that are being criticized.
	I had an appearance on George Gammon, an appearance on Vigilant Fox on X. And I was getting various blowback.
	I had an appearance on RT and some other people across the world, different international news stations.
	And I would get occasional blowback, people saying, oh, Barney's covering for Trump.
	And it's like, you really have to believe that Trump is a complete idiot.
	Well, from the get-go, because Trump is the one who originated the Epstein files claim.
	He's the one who popularized it.
	Why would he do so if he was negatively impacted in the file?
	Someone had floated the idea that his son was involved.
	It's Don Jr.
	It was all garbage.
	And so then why is Don Jr. one of the lead champions across the country for disclosing the Epstein file?
	There's so much stupid to it, but hold on here.
	Let me play this.
	This was the clip.
	Well, I don't want to talk about that.
	What I do want to say is that Todd is a great attorney, but you ought to be speaking about Larry Summers.
	You ought to be speaking about some of his friends that are hedge fund guys.
	They're all over the place.
	You ought to be speaking about Bill Clinton, who went to the island 28 times.
	I never went to the island.
	I just want to put a closer.
	This has been up for days.
	This was Charlie Kirk, July 25th, two days.
	There's no community note on that.
	Even to a team.
	I'm not inviting one.
	I mean, that's where they dug into the real files.
	They all incriminate the deep state and Trump's, generally speaking, Trump's adversaries and exonerate Trump because he didn't go to the island, because he added him in 2003, the Vanity Fair, at least indirectly, outed him again when he canned him and excluded him from Mar-a-Lago,
	outed him again when he helped the Florida investigators, out of him again when he just talked to the Florida plaintiffs' lawyers, who have repeatedly said Trump was the only guy who was helping them deal with Epstein, seeking relief and remedy for the victims, outed him again when he started talking about it in the campaign trail in 2015, and outed him throughout his tenure discussing it.
	So in particular the last four years.
	So I think he was lied to into believing they had literally rushigated the files, meaning they'd gone in and doctored it, manipulated it to remove the true culprits and incriminate him.
	This means Pam Bondi is either a complete moron or utterly corrupt because she appears to have been the conduit for this message.
	She clearly didn't do her job, no doubt about that.
	But the only question is, was she acting corruptly?
	It looks to me like she was.
	I'm glad Blanche is doing something on Maxwell.
	I'm glad there's efforts to get the grand jury records.
	I'm glad there's now promises to disclose the list.
	That's all great moves in the right direction.
	I'm sure what we're going to get is very limited because if the world understood the full scale and scope of it, it would shock and horrify people.
	And I was on with George Gammon.
	He finished it with saying, Barnes, it's always fascinating to talk to you and also utterly terrifying.
	So I think for big reasons that the whole file will never see, The big picture will never see.
	But, you know, Senator Wyden is correct.
	He goes, there's all kinds of ridiculous money laundering financial transactions with this guy.
	Problem is, it would implicate every major intelligence agency on the planet, including especially Mossad, but not limited to Massad.
	But at least we're going to get something.
	He hurt himself with this.
	He hurt himself permanently with some voters with this, but at least he's not burying himself with it.
	And this is a step in the right direction, even if you got to view whatever McGillain Maxwell is with a little bit of a jaundiced eye.
	Hopefully we get more than we were going to get.
	Hopefully we get some form of disclosure.
	I think we're going to get some records and put in all those hedge fund boys.
	The world needs to know some of these boys.
	The only other person he didn't mention, though I think he was thinking about it, there's another bill that was really close to Epstein.
	His name is Bill Geats.
	So hopefully we get something, some sort of follow-up from somewhere.
	But it is increasingly apparent to me that Pam Bondi is a rogue actor in the Trump White House, whether through incompetence or deliberate corruption or both.
	Because it's now evident to me, why was Trump comparing this to Russia gate?
	Because he thought they had literally Russia gated the file.
	That was always false if you knew where to look at the file.
	Well, and I mean, I see the theory itself is stupid on the one hand, because if they Russia gated the file, they would have disclosed it during the election cycle in order to tank his presidency, not after he's in the city.
	It's the reason as we bridge into the, and one, you know who would be really good to figure out if the file did have any Russia gated aspects with it?
	Mike Besson.
	The person exposing RussiaGate right now.
	Let Tulsi Gabbard and her crew take a look at the Epstein files.
	John Ratcliffe can disclose what the CIA knows.
	The Besson can disclose what the Treasury Department knows and FinCEN knows.
	Rubio can disclose while busy pretending that the president of Venezuela is not really the president and other fake guys president, these idiotic things that he does unfortunately.
	But Marco Rubio, the State Department, who was, you know, his eyes were going a little crazy when they're asking about Epstein being an intelligence asset in the White House.
	He let Gabbard coordinate all the intelligence, filter through what may have been rushigated into the file.
	And because if they did try to rushigate any aspect of the file, that's a separate crime.
	Then we can prosecute the government officials involved with the Epstein files.
	So that's a gift to the administration, not a hurdle, like Pam Bondi has been misleading people in the administration to believe.
	The pretending she reviewed videos she clearly never did because of the contradictions that are all over the place and her disappearing desks and that whole narrative and meme that's ongoing.
	But the let Tulsi Gabbert take a look at it.
	But it's a good transition into Tulsi Gabbert is showing you this is how you expose a scandal.
	This is how you expose the scandal within the scandal, the attempt to cover up the scandal, the attempt to fake indoctrin documents and manufact all the things that Trump was worried about, the Epstein file.
	Tulsi Gabbard has been able to take apart piece by piece by piece in Russia Gate in brilliant and beautiful fashion.
	Now, hold on, before we even do that, I want to read this.
	I'm not saying it's connected to the Epstein or the Russiagate.
	It was an ambiguous tweet, and I think deliberately so from Dan Bongino.
	During my tenure as the deputy director of the FBI, I have repeatedly relayed to you things that are happening that might not be immediately visible, but they are happening.
	The director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence.
	It's a priority to us, but what I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters has shocked me down to my core.
	We cannot run a republic like this.
	I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned.
	We are going to conduct these righteous and proper investigations by the book and in accordance with the law.
	We are going to get to the answers we all deserve.
	As with any investigation, I cannot predict where it will land, but I can promise you an honest and dignified effort at the truth.
	Not my truth, not your truth, but the truth.
	God bless America and all those who defend her, respectfully, Dan.
	So this tweet was picked up and was all over the news.
	Shocked him to his core.
	People are hypothesizing as to what that might mean.
	Robert, before we get into Russia Gate, let me not fall too far behind here.
	Viva has gone from being a canon man to a Florida man.
	Every younger self-hinted at.
	But Barnes, you are sure want to hang around this guy.
	Have you Googled Florida Man recently?
	Okay, Gray 101 says, on the Epstein scandal, the elites aren't above the law.
	There is no law.
	Tyler Durden.
	Trump and Epstein reveal that accountability in our democracy has always been an illusion.
	Well, I don't think we're there yet.
	But since the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, should it have original jurisdiction over McConnell's lawsuit?
	He's identified as the president, French Republic.
	One, it didn't say anything about being brought on a personal or unofficial capacity.
	Robert, what do you think?
	I mean, it's being brought under state law, so state defamation law.
	So probably not.
	I got this.
	But that's an interesting point they're making, though.
	I brought this one under Dredd Robert.
	I already answered that.
	Howard the Duke, how do we get rid of all the dumb Senate rules and why we can always favor Democrats and swampy Republicans?
	Piran, could the deep state plan use Owens to destroy the alternative media?
	That's what Barnes is alluding to.
	And I think that's exactly what's going to happen.
	Kimmy Hunt says, Candace is the Pizza Gate QAnon on Sidney Powell Linwoods to smear and discredit all alternative media.
	And Dapper Dave says, I don't trust the 100 names Maxwell has given.
	If I was running an investigation, I would find out who visited her in prison.
	Any intel.
	They have that on record.
	The prison calls are.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	That's fully known.
	But yes, so good developments by Tulsi Gabbard, getting more information.
	Now, Trump was putting out the memes, the funny memes of Barack Obama getting arrested.
	I believe Bondi has already told him that they can't indict Obama by presidential immunity because I don't think otherwise Trump would have said what he said at the end of the week.
	I think Bondi has misled him about that.
	He put out the meme, it's Obama behind the wheel.
	I don't know if it was Dukes of Hazard or the OJ Chase.
	Oh, now it's the OJ Chase.
	So he has Obama the Bronco and J.D. Vance and Trump are in police cars.
	He puts that out.
	A number of idiots on the left are saying, thanks for the presidential immunity, Trump.
	Now you can't prosecute Obama.
	And I say, congratulations on the self-owned.
	You're basically saying Obama committed a treasonous conspiracy, but has presidential immunity.
	And I also pointed out that's not what the Supreme Court ruling said.
	It was absolute immunity for core constitutional duties under the second amendment, whatever it is.
	And therefore, that doesn't include criminal acts.
	It doesn't include personal acts.
	And there's presumptive immunity for things that are in between.
	So even it doesn't include post-presidential acts, mostly.
	Yeah, well, that was the big one as well.
	But then Trump says, oh, he should thank me.
	He's got presidential immunity.
	I don't think he means it.
	I think he's playing a little bit coy here, not to let them think that I think he's playing a little coy so people run with the argument, but I don't believe it, Robin.
	Why can they not?
	Why would they?
	There would be no.
	Oh, I think they could, but I think Bondi is convinced him he can't.
	That's my take.
	Okay.
	So I think Bondi is coordinating a lot of these things increasingly in a very corrupt manner to most likely harm the president and for other ancillary objectives.
	It's not like Trump's known Bondi his whole life.
	I mean, she covered for the Trump organization in Florida, but the Trump organization had legitimate defenses on the education stuff and all that at the Trump Education University, whatever.
	They had good legitimate defenses on those cases.
	But I think he thinks she's loyal because of it.
	And I think she's very disloyal.
	I think she serves other interests other than the president's interest.
	And so the, but, you know, the, so I don't think we'll get, I still have no confidence in her that we'll get indictments, but the information is becoming so overwhelmingly clear, especially as to Brennan and Comey, that if neither of them get indicted, it will be an utter embarrassment to the president.
	And as Sulkey Cracker was saying, others were saying, for the love of God, arrest somebody.
	Well, Brennan Clapper.
	So did I say, no, Brennan Comey, what about Clapper?
	Oh, Clapper too, but Brennan and Comey were clearly the most culpable actors.
	So you could be McCabe, Susan Rice, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, all of them you could legitimately indict.
	And I think Obama did things to continue the conspiracy in aiding and abetting the obstruction.
	And again, you don't also don't need any, you'll really know it's insincere by Bondi if she brings the case in the district of corruption.
	So, you know, it should be, there should be grand juries.
	There should be, now she said she's announcing a strike force.
	That's a good, that's a move in this right direction.
	I'm an idiot.
	With strike force just means a team to deal with this specific issue?
	Correct.
	And you assign special prosecutors to it.
	And those, they're not special counsel.
	They're just a, and who she picks for the strike force will tell us whether something will happen or not.
	So once we know who's, like, if you knew who Andrew Weissman was, as soon as Mueller picked him, you knew a bunch of people were going to go through living hell because that's who Weissman was.
	You need that version on the right, someone who knows how to get to the bottom of things and will be fearless in the process and knows how they, you know, again, the grand jury, this case should be run out of the Southern District of Florida, should not be run out of the District of Corruption.
	As Congressman Nunes confirmed, what we talked about last week, yes, indeed, what happened.
	And he, again, was the congressman that was a House member that was the head of the House Intelligence Committee where he and Cache Patel, this is what made Cash Patel famous, unraveled large parts of Russia Gate in live time.
	And then they went after him related to it.
	And Nunes says that the Florida raid on Trump's house was, in fact, a continuation of the cover-up efforts concerning RussiaGate criminality by high-ranking Justice Department officials, including the FBI and intelligence officials and members of the White House.
	That means you've got jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida.
	You're within the statute of limitations in the Southern District of Florida.
	You can make it a related case.
	So Judge Eileen Cannon, who's already familiar with a lot of the underlying facts, handles the case and has already shown her willingness to stand up to the deep state concerning this case.
	So you can make sure you have a fair jury pool, a fair grand jury pool, a fair judge assign the case and have and assigned smart, competent, capable, Tulsi Gabbard, capable people that can do this from a prosecutorial perspective and investigative perspective.
	You need, you know, this might be a good project for someone like Bongino to focus on as deputy director at the FBI, but you can't have the regular schmucks running.
	You can't run this through the regular people.
	You can't run it through the District of Columbia.
	You do either one of those things, this case will die on the vine.
	Even if you bring a prosecution, it will get dismissed or it will get an acquittal or some other nonsense.
	So I don't have any confidence they'll go after Biden or Obama.
	I don't have much confidence they'll go after anybody.
	But if they're going to do it the right way, you'll see more signs of it with who they assign the strike force, whether they organize out of the Southern District of Florida.
	And if that happens, then my prediction would be at least a 50-50 shot, Comey and Brennan get indicted because they're the most culpable.
	They were the most egregious.
	Brennan went and lied under oath in 2023 about this.
	But again, don't take the trap of, well, he lied to the District of Columbia, so let's bring the prosecution here.
	No, no, no.
	That was all part of what happened in the Southern District of Florida.
	Their target was the president who was a resident and citizen of that Southern District of Florida.
	Make sure to bring the case in the Southern District of Florida.
	Make sure to hire the right strike for his people.
	And then there might be some justice.
	I still think it's a long shot, given that Bondi's still in control.
	But at least we have a better shot than we did last week.
	And it's because Tulsi Gabbard is fearless.
	And all the RussiGate journalists that exposed RussiaGate, not your mainstream ones who are hiding this, covering this up, they're having a hard time doing it, though, because Gabbard's next day, another prod.
	Next day, another drop.
	Next day, another drop.
	This is how the Epstein file should have been handled, everybody.
	You're seeing in live time how to do it.
	Pam Bonnie could take instructions on it.
	Let me ask you this question because it's only a question of intent.
	Everything she would have done would have probably been the same.
	I'm talking about Pam Bondi here, talking about Epstein files, talking about a release, then embarrassing the influencers, then promising a phase one, then reneging on that.
	Are you leaning to there's three options, incompetence, corruption, or incompetence and corruption?
	Which one are you leaning to?
	Incompetence and corruption.
	Because the cover-up was so half-assed that there's nothing you could ever describe that as competent corruption.
	But I'm starting to see a disturbing pattern of behavior across multiple cases that evidence manifests corruption and that she misled the president on all these things.
	But I mean, she didn't have the point you made, the methodology has to be good.
	So when Patel and Bondinho are saying, well, we've seen the file, everything's fine.
	Your point is the file is the problem then.
	You need to look at other ways to look at things.
	Your methodology for how you came up with things is critical in this process.
	I don't think we now know Bondi never tried to talk to Maxwell.
	We now know Bondi never tried to get the grand jury records released before.
	We now know Bondi misled the president about what was in the file.
	We don't know whether it was delivered or not, but there's more and more evidence that it was.
	We now know why maybe Bondi left Maureen Comey in charge of the PDD case.
	And it was, again, her modus operandi is if you're corrupt and powerful, Pam Bondi is there to facilitate you getting protected, as long as you're not a political dissident.
	If you're a political dissident like Roger Veer, you can have all the money in the world and you'll never get pardoned or a case dismissed because of how, because the more corrupt actors want Roger Veer to not be able to see the light of day again and expose the corruption of the central banks, the corruption of the central planners, the corruption of the central intelligence agencies, which Roger Veer was on the cutting edge of doing.
	And his tax case is complete and utter garbage.
	She's known this now for months and has refused to take remedial or corrective action.
	At some point, she becomes more and more of an obvious criminal.
	I think she may go down as an even worse attorney general than Bill Barr, a more worse attorney general than Sessions was okay.
	He just made one mistake on the Russian gate thing, but it wasn't like he was daily mishandling the Justice Department like Barr frequently did and like Pam Bondi is now.
	And so I think it's a concern.
	So that's my take on it.
	But at least Trump is starting to see the light of day.
	I think Vance has been a very favorable, you know, in his ear saying, hey, this could help.
	And Vance was the one when Mark Levin was calling for Vance to even be removed from the room on key decisions.
	And when there was this massive effort, I believe orchestrated by Ratcliffe, to take out Tulsi Gabbard.
	We now know why.
	The whole effort was to take out Gabbard in order that this report would never come out.
	Gabbard has that this is exceptional and she does it day after day after day.
	She puts the pieces together and she gets smoking gun evidence.
	Smoking gun evidence.
	I mean, that's just like, wow, that's like bam, bam, bam, bam, bam.
	So all the tools and pressure are there for her to do something.
	We'll see if she follows through or whether she's slow walking.
	But now the literally, Gabbard has delivered this case, one of the easiest prosecutable cases, particularly as to Comey and Brennan, that I have ever seen in this kind of legal matter.
	And so it's only whether Bondi is not so corrupt to obstruct it at this point.
	But it disturbs me that Trump suddenly is told he has immunity.
	That only likely comes from one person.
	That comes from Pam Bondi, is my view.
	And that's Bondi misleading him about that because I think Trump, once he was, people say, hey, Barnes, he didn't do anything in his first term.
	But remember, he let Hillary go in his first term.
	That was before he had ever been targeted.
	And now that he's been targeted, he even said in the press conference, and they came after me.
	So all bets are off.
	I think it was up to Trump.
	Obama would be prosecuted.
	Biden would be prosecuted.
	Tulsi is hinting at where this goes next.
	RussiaGate is connected, it really is connected to the Epstein file, so it should be under her jurisdiction to help handle.
	But the other aspect, RussiaGate is connected to the MLK files, the RFK files, the JFK files.
	Why?
	Because it's all about deep state corruption, even to the point of murder and sabotage and leading to the Ukraine war.
	The Ukraine war doesn't happen but for the Russiagate scandal, as they're talking about in a broad range of global opinion.
	But last but not least in all of this, she connected it this week.
	She said she's continuing to work with Robert Kennedy to figure out what happened with COVID-19 and said maybe it's not a coincidence, all those biolabs in Ukraine.
	So that the 2020 election scandals are going to relate to the COVID scandals, which is all going to go back to deep state corruption.
	And miraculously, like if you looked at Epstein files, election corruption, COVID corruption, you know, you're going to have a lot of deep state agencies connected, but you're going to have two names that come up, the Biden family and Bill Gates are magically connected to almost all three.
	So in some capacity.
	So we'll see.
	But Gabbard is doing fantastic work.
	Hopefully there will be no more excuses for Swampy Susie if her friend Pam Blondie doesn't get anything done in the next six months because these guys are guys that Tulsi Gabbard has delivered and the American people need accountability.
	The market was at 22% that she's out by January 1st.
	I wouldn't take it at those odds.
	10 to 1, I would think about...
	So it'll be tough to get her out.
	Trump has sort of made his bed with her when he says, you know, I have total faith in her two weeks ago.
	I mean, that's five months for something to change.
	What I wanted to do before we got any further, Robert, because we're going to get into some of the other stuff here, I wanted to bring Kimmy Hunt up, who's up in our locals community.
	I've made it halfway to my goal.
	Thank you all.
	I still have two weeks of radiation to go.
	Your prayers and support are getting me through.
	You all, love to you all.
	Give Sandgo.
	I'm going to bring that up in a second.
	Old man Toby said, Viva, did you answer my question from the locals on Friday?
	I'm not trying to cause problems.
	I had an honest question.
	The reason why I didn't entertain the second half of it was because it referred to vigilanteism.
	I answered the question, Old Man Toby.
	Everything that you can within the bounds of the law, be noisy, be annoying, be persistent.
	And then if you have to, vote with your feet and vote with your dollar.
	And then Sun Beam Valley says, Robert, is Candice today's tablet?
	Oh, I got that one too.
	Now, also, I just wanted to show where Kimmy Hunt's give send go is.
	I brought it up.
	Give send go, Kimmy guy.
	G-U-I.
	Yeah, but I have it on the backdrop.
	What does the avatar look like?
	This.
	Everybody, if you can, Kimmy is going through chemo.
	And I can't imagine what it's like, but I'll give everybody the link if you want to support.
	She's halfway to her goal, and um, Kimmy, godspeed, good luck with that.
	It's uh, yeah, I've never heard of someone describe their chemotherapy until I really listened to uh Mark Hopis, Blink 182 lead singer, and his book, and it's it's sounds terrible.
	I mean, it is terrible, but um, speaking of like crazy politics, at least Pam Blondie figured out how to handle her Justice Department job for one aspect, which was the effort by the rogue Democrats in New Jersey, particularly Senator Booker and others, to get the New Jersey corrupt judges to remove the U.S. attorney that was there on temporary assignment.
	Yeah, I didn't understand the mechanisms.
	I know Hakeem Jeffries, there was accusations.
	I think it was Hakeem Jeffries and Booker trying to weaponize the courts to remove Alina Haba.
	I sort of understood that there was some procedural mechanism that Trump could invoke to keep her in position.
	Alina Haba was the, what did they call it?
	The acting attorney general for the state of New Jersey.
	What happened?
	What was, I didn't understand the details of how they were trying to yeet her from her position.
	So the Republican Congress has refused to act on close to 200 nominees by President Trump to positions that require Senate confirmation, and a lot of them are the United States attorneys themselves.
	The Democrats and Republicans about 30, 40 years ago coordinated to create this bogus blue slip doctrine, which said any judge or U.S. attorney from a state cannot be nominated without the support of both senators from that state, regardless of whether the senators are from the opposite political party.
	It is a custom and procedure.
	It is not law.
	It is not constitutionally required, any of that.
	It is solely a way for the swamp to protect the swamp, safeguard the swamp, make sure the senator knows, well, only this person can be a judge, only this person can be a prosecutor in my state.
	And so they are also, so you have them holding it up on the blue slip grounds on the Senate based on a rule that should be scrapped.
	And then you have the Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, and Republican Senate leader Thene conspiring to keep the House and the Senate open through the rest of the, by doing these sporadic meetings where they show up for like two minutes and then close down so that they're not legally in recess.
	So President Trump can't recess appoint anybody.
	So what happens in this scenario?
	He can, every 120, for 120-day time periods, temporarily appoint an acting U.S. attorney.
	Now, what happens when that 120 days expires and the House, the Senate hasn't acted yet?
	Then it goes to the, by Congress, gave the power to federal judges to decide whether to keep the prosecutor.
	Self another bad idea.
	So the New Jersey judges get together like, we're not going to keep this prosecutor.
	However, that is only a temporary power that can be overridden by the president with another 120-day appointment.
	It can also be overridden by a lawyer who probably had to explain this to Bondi, but was doing it online because Bondi failed to seem to process this during the Ed Martin issue in the District of Corruption, D.C. And the is that she could simply appoint her first assistant and then sign her as acting U.S. attorney as well.
	There's multiple ways to get a re to deal with this.
	So ultimately, she did take the corrective action, and Alina Haba is back in charge as the acting U.S. attorney for at least the next 120 days while the Senate screws around with their blue slip nonsense to extort presidents into only supporting people that are friends and allies or will protect the right people, so to speak, in their states.
	And while the judges being partisan and rogue prove just how partisan and rogue they are by trying to decide who the U.S. attorney would be rather than the president of the United States.
	The Senate confirmation that's required, does it require those hours-long hearings or can it be that's up to the Senate?
	I mean, they don't have to.
	But from my understanding is there's 162 people who have already gone to the hearings and they're just waiting for a vote now on the Senate floor.
	And they won't do it.
	So the other option would be the president could do a recess appointment that could last up to a year or even longer in some cases.
	And they're preventing him from doing that either.
	So it tells you who and what they are, that this is what they're about.
	It's how the deep state protects itself.
	It's why Tom Cotton is currently busy trying to pass legislation to strip Tulsi Gabbard office of ever having any power again.
	It's about, you know, Republican Tom Cotton from Arkansas.
	He's a neocon deep state hack and always has been.
	The Lindsey Graham is saying, well, you know, I think this Russia gate doesn't need to be with Tulsi Gabbard.
	We need to have that be a special counsel.
	In other words, someone that will pretend like John Durham style, cover it up rather than expose it and bury it from the court of public opinion.
	See, this is what Gabbard, by controlling it, she's not limited by like grand jury issues or DOJ rules about publication of information.
	She can just keep boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and let the strike force do what it's going to do separately and independently.
	So that's why these rogue actors are trying to do what they're doing.
	But credit to Lena Haba, she wasn't doing her job.
	The judges would have been eager to endorse her.
	So, you know, the fact they all did wanted her out meant she's actually one of the few U.S. attorneys actually doing Trump's work in this administration.
	Yeah, she's another one of the few that I have met personally that I would have total faith in.
	Let me read a couple of comments over on Commitu.
	I forgot about these.
	JM says, criticism of Trump over Epstein was heavily being blended with encouraging people to stay home in 2026 and promote the American Party.
	I didn't see that much of it.
	I saw a couple of tweets.
	No, there wasn't much of that.
	That was more of an interpretation.
	And part of that was just a reality.
	Just tell me to be blunt about it.
	I mean, you know, pointing out this is what is likely to happen doesn't mean you want it to happen.
	It means you don't wish cast your way into bad intel.
	Well, also, if you don't want it to happen, you need to mention it because otherwise, if you want it to happen, you sit down and shut up and let people, you know, continue doing it or get discouraged, Eric Heffelinger says, I'm fine with Maxwell getting Maxwell getting reduced sentence if it means dozens of others arrest.
	But if she walks from prison and there's no arrest, I want Trump removed.
	I trust Van.
	There's a good number of people who would not be happy with Maxwell walking unless others are held to account.
	When someone asked Trump if he would pardon her, he says, well, I can pardon her.
	I was like, that implies it's presumptively wrong.
	And I believe it's presumptively wrong.
	There'd have to be some very, very meaningful quid pro quo in order to expose the broader scale of this.
	There was in our local community, Robert, it was someone saying, it's on the right.
	It's Emerald Robinson, who's notoriously anti-Israel.
	But not to write off everything she says, I had a fight with her on Twitter, and I think we, you know, well, I think I was right.
	She tweeted, I believe all Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Trump, Bondi, and Patel for creating a global PR disaster from the Epstein files that's so spectacular.
	Even illiterate island tribesmen in South Pacific now see that Israel was running a bed of blackmail.
	I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but that's a funny interpretation.
	It is the case that people in French Polynesia are talking about the Epstein files now.
	No doubt about it.
	So hopefully we get some progress with Russia Gate.
	Hopefully we get continued progress on the Epstein files.
	The other area where we need some accountability, and again, who guesses which congressman is exposing these ways in which the House and the Senate is conspiring to prevent Trump from recess appointing?
	Thomas Massey.
	Indeed, indeed.
	It is the one and only Thomas Massey still doing the gods work as that good farmer from Covington, Kentucky, the district he represents.
	So credit again to Thomas Massey, who, for whatever reason, Trump keeps bashing while praising Lady Lindsay Graham, or maybe it's Lynn Gay Graham or Graham.
	I get different things on it.
	Lady Lindsay has a certain ring to it.
	Well, Robert, speaking of crazy rules of procedure, ones that I don't even understand, I'll read the post because I've looked into this after you sent it to me and it's very interesting.
	But this is from End Tribalism in Politics.
	It says, this is insane.
	Section 453 of the House Appropriations Bill, as many in Maha have been speaking about, gives pesticide companies a partial liability shield.
	It's actually fascinating what it does.
	It fixes science at a time where it can't evolve from in terms of what they could be held liable for.
	When an amendment was introduced to remove it, the chairman didn't count votes.
	He just listened to the A's and the Nays and decided which side sounded louder.
	There was no recorded vote.
	I have no idea.
	And we have no idea what the actual vote count was.
	We don't know who supported removing the shield and who backed it.
	This is now how government works.
	Listen to this because it's actually, I couldn't believe that it was for something as substantively important as it was.
	Lady, the questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maine.
	All those in favor say aye.
	All those opposed say no.
	No.
	There were clearly more men that said no, but I couldn't tell which one was better.
	The chair of the no haven.
	And the amendment is not agreed to.
	Kendall Phil, the amendment, from what I understood, would have been to remove liability from pesticide companies if it's discovered that what they had been given protection for in the past was actually health nefarious.
	I mean, basically, if they had been given liability because it was determined in prior times, it didn't create exposure.
	It wasn't toxic, they got liability for it.
	If it became known that it did, they would have that liability removed.
	And they voted no to that.
	Now, first of all, so I don't want to jump to any conclusions on that video.
	Like, I don't know if they had a written list and he knew which one outnumbered the other.
	Is the description of what actually went down on that decision to the amendment accurate?
	Like, do they not have a written vote?
	It's a scam they run.
	So they have the procedure to do it, and someone can demand that they do it.
	But when they all want to cover something up, they do it by voice.
	And you can even tell with some of the congressmen that want to see, it's almost like they're doing that routine, just so they can't be seen for what they're saying.
	This is a corrupt rogue effort being facilitated, by the way, by also Pam Bondi at the Justice Department.
	Kennedy gets them to ban fluoride in our water supply.
	Those supporters had already won a suit in federal court.
	And after she negotiates, it appears to me, with the chemical companies, Pam Bondi comes in and tries to get fluoride back into our water supply.
	Brooke Jackson exposed Pfizer, promising a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
	What they delivered was dangerous, ineffective, not a vaccine and didn't prevent COVID-19, stole billions of dollars from the American people and caused the deaths and disabilities of millions and millions of people around the world.
	She exposes it.
	Pamboni comes in and pretends that the Trump administration policy is indistinguishable from the Biden administration policy, which says there can be no questioning of vaccines without even if fraud was committed in the actual procurement process for the money related to the COVID vaccine.
	So here we see a similar thing where they're trying, these are the pesticide companies that people like Robert Kennedy has successfully exposed going on a decade plus, connected to Monsanto and other companies.
	And by the way, also connected to Bill Gates.
	That's all these things that have connected from just one degree of separation frequently from either George Soros or Bill Gates, these corrupt rogue actors.
	And Congress is trying to sneak in a bill to prevent anybody in the future from being able to get any remedy and relief when the pesticide companies contaminate toxically our food supply and our environment.
	It is a disgrace that Trump is anywhere near this.
	It is a disgrace to Republicans in the House and Senate are near this.
	And it's going to require some people, including in the Trump cabinet, to be honest with you, are going to have to start getting public on this or it's going to go forward.
	It's another sneaky effort to extend at a time when we should be shrinking immunity.
	Here we are expanding it for the things that endanger our public health.
	I just said it was basically what they're saying is the sciences to The shielding of liability is fixed at whatever the technology science was at the time.
	And if they discover something new, even if it's true, the liability will still stand for what it was granted to based on the immunity stays locked into perpetuity.
	Okay.
	And so the similarly, now on the other side, you've already seen the disaster that has come from immunity related to being on the kids list or related to being on the PrEP Act.
	And so the PrEP Act immunity was turned out to be horrendous, a disaster.
	We have a great bill submitted to end it.
	The two congressmen taking the lead.
	One of them is Representative Gosar, great old school populist congressman.
	And the other is the one and only, the inimitable, irreplaceable Thomas Massey, taking the effort again on the right and righteous side.
	For all those that want to be naysayers and doomers about Massey, Massey's a lot more MAGA than Trump himself is.
	He's definitely a lot more MAGA than Lady Lindsay and the others that Trump has been promoting of late.
	So a good, for those that don't remember, if you get, if there's an emergency declared and the Secretary of Health and Human Services declares that a particular drug is necessary and there's no effective alternative for it, then the producer of that drug, the distributor of that drug, the administrator of that drug is completely immune from any of the death or disability or destruction they may cause.
	It was a horrible act.
	It should have been repealed a long time ago, but at least now there's meaningful efforts at relief and remedy to permanently repeal the PrEP Act.
	Congratulations to Congressman Massey and Congressman Gosar for taking the lead on this.
	And we'll see if the Trump administration is serious about its Maha agenda if this goes forward.
	Now, if I'm looking this way now, people, this is the first show that I've had the second computer screen.
	It's actually very, very useful.
	Robert, we have a Second Amendment case, Supreme Court.
	What else do we have left?
	So we got Trump winning at the Supreme Court.
	We got another Maha win for Robert Kennedy.
	We got a brief reference to Koberger getting sentenced that Idaho serial killer.
	We've got Trump's little tour of the Fed.
	That was my favorite Trump moment of the week.
	And then we've got a very dangerous, we got the Second Amendment win in the Ninth Circuit.
	And last but not least, a very dangerous idea, in my opinion, that Trump is pushing to popularize basically red flag laws for, in the guise of cleaning up the homeless, he's giving, he's encouraging local and state governments to have very dangerous power to strip you of your core liberties if they decide you're just not good at taking care of yourself.
	And that's way, we're going back to the age of the wind flew over the cuckoo's nest, the book made into the movie, where all kinds of people were involuntarily institutionalized in insane asylums.
	This is not a legal era to go back to, but it is what Trump is actually encouraging by executive order.
	Yeah, let's deal with that one right now.
	We'll do that.
	We'll do the Second Amendment case.
	Then we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for a shorter than usual after party.
	I haven't been harassed yet to join the party, but I'm sure that that check is in the mail.
	So bring asylum, make asylums great again.
	I guess is what has he used that yet?
	Because that actually mega.
	But the idea is to authorize the institutionalization of people who are living on the streets.
	I know that there's a lot of people who attribute to rampant crime homelessness, although it wasn't Reagan himself.
	It was Reagan-era dismantling of institutions.
	And I shared this, I won't go into the anecdote, but when I was a young lawyer at Borden Leiner Gervais, one of the things we did were called motions for confinement, where you go to a court and you say, this person's a risk to themselves or others, institutionalize them for up to 72 hours until they get a reassessment.
	I never enjoyed doing it.
	It was horribly depressing.
	And the firm subsequently stopped doing it.
	But there are people who say it was strictly the dismantling of the mental institutions that allowed all these people to live on the streets, cause crime, get addicted to drugs, et cetera, and that Trump's initiative to facilitate reinstitutionalization is a good thing.
	I understand the concerns.
	How would it proceed by way of executive order in the first place?
	Well, I don't think this executive order is enforceable, but he's incurred in that manner.
	But he's encouraging a local and state governments to consider utilizing it and using the executive order as kind of cover to achieve it.
	And people are so focused on a particular problem, they're ignoring the dangers of the proposed solution.
	So the problem is massive homelessness expanding across the United States, that there's a good amount of mental health illness in the homeless population, criminal behavior in the homeless population, nuisance-like behavior in the homeless population.
	So it's a problem people want to see solved.
	There's some attribution going back to what happened with mental health asylums in the early part of the Reagan administration, but there's multiple components of that.
	For people that don't remember, yeah, I recommend go back and watch the film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, read the book.
	People used to be routinely, involuntarily institutionalized without any required judicial showing that they were a threat to themselves or others.
	And just to highlight, once they're in, they never get, I mean, there's an argument to say they never get out.
	It's like if you read John Ronson's, Ron Johnson's psychopath test, like there was a guy who institutionalized himself to get out of a prison sentence.
	Once you're in, you're either crazy or you say you're not crazy, in which case you're crazy.
	And for those who also think it's a good idea, I mean, the argument is going to be, if you think for-profit private prison systems are corrupt and dangerous, why would you apply a different logic to this?
	Sorry to mention that.
	Correct.
	And in fact, historically, insane asylums were used as the favorite place to get rid of dissidents.
	It was the number one place.
	Somebody that upset the family because they were exposing a family secret, somebody that exposed political corruption in some place routinely were being institutionalized.
	So think of the red flag laws for the Second Amendment.
	This is giving cities and states even more power.
	Now, because what else will they consider not able to take Care of yourself or not able to provide and be a risk in certain ways to the community.
	In liberal jurisdictions, it's going to be you're a Trump supporter.
	In liberal jurisdictions, it's going to be you want to own guns, things like that.
	They will use the same red flag logic to strip Second Amendment rights, to strip you of all your liberties, involuntarily institutionalize you in an insane asylum where they can involuntarily medicate you, where they can do everything else to you.
	So it is almost always a nightmare and a disaster.
	And this was a dumb idea.
	I get where it came from, but find voluntary ways of getting behavior and enforce nuisance laws and things of that nature, which the Supreme Court has already green lit anyway.
	The idea that we should reinstitution, make asylums great again is a horrendous idea.
	And just because homelessness is bad, it's no reason to give the government this kind of power that will inevitably be used against you.
	So I strongly oppose the president's proposal.
	And more conservatives need to wake up rather than celebrate the stripping of our rights and liberties because Trump's the one doing it and you like the problem he's trying to address to be solved.
	The mechanism and method and means you're choosing is to give your enemies a very dangerous power that has a long historical record of being horrendously abused against some of the most vulnerable innocent people in the world.
	And people should just go look back.
	The MKUltra experimentation in Montreal was done at the Allen Memorial, which was a mental institution into which people were, homeless people were brought.
	I don't want to say incarcerated, but institutionalized and then experimented on for the purposes of mind control attempts through MK Ultra.
	So it's real and it's actually wildly sinister.
	Robert, before we get into the second amendment case, I'm very bad at doing it.
	Guys, go get some merch.
	And Robert, when is our event in Chattanooga?
	I know it's in August, but I can't.
	August 16th and 17th.
	So Saturday, August 16th and Sunday, August 17th.
	It says August 1st.
	That was the month.
	So that's not the date of the event.
	It's not the date of the event.
	Saturday, August 16th and Sunday, August 17th.
	Behavior panel is going to be there.
	Auction, live auction, amazing stuff.
	It's going to be absolutely fantastic.
	People will be there.
	Richard Barris, election wizard, people dependent daily.
	My brother is going to be there to do the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence.
	Great place for people to meet up, hang out, have fun.
	We'll have a sponsored barbecue dinner, sponsored brunch.
	You don't got to dress up.
	It's going to be casual, friendly.
	It's mid-August in Chattanooga.
	So it'll be a lot of fun for folks to get together.
	And we'll go over, you know, we'll celebrate some aspect of the Bill of Rights.
	I may do a booklet that we're working on in 1776 Law Center to be like highlighting like a distilled version of all of your constitutional rights with some key cases and quotes and citations and references and so forth.
	But all that, but there's probably no more important constitutional right than the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it's the one that guarantees all the others.
	That is right.
	The Second Amendment protects the first, everybody.
	Okay, now.
	No second?
	No first.
	Not for long.
	Speaking of Second Amendments, this is a case we've been covering from a while back.
	I think this is the one in California when they were trying to restrict the capacity or the accessibility to ammunition, the capacity of magazines.
	Every time you wanted to buy a bullet, you had to go through another background check.
	It's exactly.
	It's sort of, who was it?
	It was Chris Rock, I think, who says like, you don't need to ban guns.
	Just charge $5,000 a bullet.
	And then he had the whole strict like, I'm going to kill you.
	I'm going to go.
	I'm going to go get a job, put some money on layaway.
	I'm going to buy that bullet.
	I'm going to come back here and kill you.
	Even the Court of Appeal said, no, Moss, this is violative of the Constitution.
	The Ninth Circuit, no less.
	Now, by the way, there's a nice connection here for folks.
	Guess what?
	One of the ways you can lose all your Second Amendment rights.
	What databases do they declaration of mental issues that will get you?
	Correct.
	So, you know, now Trump is drastically expanding this.
	This would be red flag laws on steroids if his executive order was actually implemented at the local and state level.
	Because the databases they check are criminal history, whether you've ever had protective or restraining orders.
	This is why they abuse that so liberally.
	Whether you're a wanted person and whether you have a mental health history.
	So then they can strip you of all your Second Amendments once they can call you Craig Craig.
	So the other thing you had to do was face-to-face meetings before you couldn't buy it over the internet every single time.
	And their excuse was the surety system, the old loyalty oaths, taxes that used to be, or licensures that used to be imposed on vendors, none of which has any constitutional applicability to imposing a background check where the government doesn't have to answer it.
	There's no set timeframe.
	So maybe they get to run to respond to the background check in 24 hours.
	Maybe it's 24 days.
	Maybe it's 24 months.
	Maybe it's 24 years.
	So there was no legal requirement as to when they had to, the state had to confirm the background check.
	So it could be an interminable, an indeterminate limitation on your Second Amendment rights.
	There was, again, this is ammunition.
	Without ammunition, the gun doesn't work, critical to self-defense.
	That's what the Second Amendment is about.
	Hence, presumptively protected.
	Once it's presumptively protected, the state has to show there's an analogous law that was for the same analogous purpose, restrained it at the time of our founding.
	Surety laws don't fit.
	Loyalty oaths don't fit.
	Vendor taxes don't fit.
	They couldn't come up with anything.
	And so to the credit of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, found the ammunition background check a violation of your Second Amendment rights, a way to really reinforce Bruin in a court era that most courts have been trying to undermine Bruin.
	So a very good Second Amendment ruling from no less a surprising place than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Robert, I'm going to read the last one before we head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Since you're both lawyers, what's your opinion on Sidney Sweeney's American Eagle ad from a legal perspective?
	Maybe just show the ad.
	I'm not going to finish that sentence, but it did make me a little curious.
	I just don't know which one's the ad.
	I saw this one.
	My body's determined by my genes.
	Yeah, I think it is determined by your genes.
	I would agree with that.
	I'm a strong supporter of this ad.
	I think it supports women.
	It's for clothing, right?
	I saw another one up here, which might have been the other one that we were thinking of.
	Here, this one.
	Is this the ad?
	Those are good-fitting jeans.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm all for good-fitting jeans on the right people.
	Okay, fine.
	It is for clothing.
	I thought maybe.
	Uh-oh.
	I've been watching the ads and nobody's been seeing them.
	I feel like even a dirtier perv.
	No, this was the other ad.
	This one's equally.
	Did we see this, Robert?
	Yeah, I saw it.
	I've never seen it before.
	But, you know, you can watch it multiple times.
	It's good for the health of the mind, you know.
	Sydney Sweeney has great key.
	From a legal perspective, I say these are highly effective ads.
	Yes.
	Entirely legal.
	Promoted.
	Probably should be promoted on the regular basis during all sporting events and other issues.
	Robert, what do you have come up this week in terms of Bourbon with Barnes and appearances?
	So the next bourbon will be on Tuesday.
	Tuesday and Wednesday.
	Well, Tuesday there'll be a bourbon.
	It might be the only bourbon of the week because I got to get to Pennsylvania, it looks like, for another Amish case at some point and traveling Monday.
	But we'll get a hush, hush up for sure this week on Ghelene Maxwell as part two of the Epstein trilogy.
	We did Robert Maxwell episode one, the Lady Ghelane episode two, and Jeffrey Epstein the man himself in episode three forthcoming soon.
	All of that available at VivabarnsLaw.locals.com.
	And everybody, we're going to go to locals right now.
	I'm trying to think.
	I just want to make sure I don't forget anything.
	I will be live during my regular time slot, three o'clock all week.
	I don't know if I have any specific guests, but it's going to be another great week.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Wait a minute.
	Something.
	Okay, no, we got everything there, and we'll get to the other tip questions.
	But Star Trek Deep Space Nine episodes, past tense one and two, predicted 2020s America would round up the poor and homeless, stripping them of their liberty.
	It says Gray 101.
	The only issue is they were doing it back in the 80s and 70s anyhow.
	So it's predictive of what happened in the past.
	The history of that, by the way, is that the wood flu over the cuckoo's nest popularized challenging the perception of how insane asylums are handled.
	That in turn led to legal challenges.
	In the mid-1970s, the Supreme Court finally said you can't involuntarily institutionalize people against their will unless you can show by a certain evidentiary, high evidentiary standard that they are a real risk to harm themselves or others, usually meaning in their physical safety or life.
	And then, so that led to one level of release of people who are involuntarily institutionalized.
	Reagan, during the Reagan administration, they cut aid to mental health clinics and facilities as well.
	That led people who were voluntarily institutionalized to be released.
	And that was the first wave of major homelessness in modern America.
	But it doesn't explain the surge of homelessness in the last three to four years, or the last 10 years, really.
	But especially the last three to four years, something else is clearly afoot.
	And I don't believe massive mental health asylums would solve the problem.
	Anyway, even if you were for that.
	NeuroDivergent astutely reminded me to raid somebody, but I don't know who's live at this point in time.
	Yeah, no, Sunday.
	Let's see.
	We got Lumpy Potato.
	I know that we've raided him, but it's gaming.
	I think there was fishing.
	Let me see.
	View all.
	Is there any good fishing one?
	That was going to make...
	Yeah, well, I saw the bass competition, but that might have ended already.
	There might not be very...
	It is pixeled on...
	Searching to destroy Discord.
	No, this is a gaming thing.
	Dude, I don't know who's live that we can even raid.
	Oh, we're going to do it.
	Oh, Badlands Media.
	Okay, we'll do Badlands Media.
	I'm not sure what they're watching here.
	Oh, yeah, they're pretty decent.
	Okay, they've definitely got something going live.
	So let's go raid Badlands.
	Let them know.
	Love to all Viva Barnes peeps.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you.
	Raid here.
	And we'll go and raid Badlands Media.
	They do good work, and I'm not sure what they're doing right now, but raid is confirmed.
	Go let him know from whence he came, but I would tell everybody, come on over to viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	That's the after party.
	And boom.
	We got Trump, SCOTUS, Maha Wins, Koberger, the Creep, and the wonderful Trump tour of the Fed.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm going to pull up that video.
	Also, I'm going to talk briefly about what's going on in Canada with Sean Fuch, that guy that, yeah, but I'm going to give everybody the link to that video.
	They're not persecuting Christians again in Canada.
	No, they're fining the church now, apparently, $2,500 for having hosted.
	I mean, it's wild.
	Go share the link on Commitube only so that, you know, maintain that channel so that we can push people over to Rumble and locals.
	There's zero question.
	There's some inorganic manipulation on Commitube.
	Forget it.
	Go over there.
	But otherwise, come on over to vivibornslaw.locals.com.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend, people.
	Godspeed.

▲