All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 31, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
02:23:56
Ep. 279: Patel's GF Sues for Defamation! Rogue Judges vs. Trump! Raja Jackson, Kick Stream & MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, you are all wondering how long is Viva going to make you look at this woman's face before we actually hit play button.
Long enough for your stomachs to turn.
Get ready for propaganda.
I'm joined now by Dr. Dmitry Daskalakis, who stepped down this week from his position leading the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
Thank you for joining us this morning, Dr. You have been at the CDC for five years, about seven months under Secretary Kennedy.
In your resignation letter, you said that the CDC is generating policies that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than improve the public's health.
What are you talking about specifically?
I'm going to say, well, first, thank you for having me on, Martha.
And I'll say that we're seeing the tip of the iceberg.
So right now, I think probably the most prominent demonstration of that is what Secretary Kennedy did.
I was going to try to not talk through this.
Listen to how many times he says, understand what this man's position was.
I wish I could juxtapose two screens at once.
Many of you know exactly where I'm going with this.
Listen to this answer.
This man was in charge in one degree or another of public health.
Science from the people who can't tell a man from a woman.
with changing the childhood schedule for COVID-19.
In that, we were directed that only children with underlying conditions would be the ones that should qualify for vaccination.
That's not what the data shows.
Six month old to two year old, their underlying condition is youth.
Fifty three percent of those children hospitalized last season had no underlying conditions.
The hospitalized with what?
This is just verbal diarrhea and that jackass woman, I forget what her name is.
Just give me more data say that in that age range, you should be vaccinating your child.
I understand that not everybody does it, but they have limited access by narrowing that recommendation.
Insurance may not cover it.
And insurance may not cover it.
So they're still free to do whatever the hell they want.
This comes down to dollars and cents and a corrupt medical institution because insurance may not cover a parent's decision to jab their six month to two year old with the COVID jab.
Oh my goodness, but wait for the best part of this.
And you say designed to hurt.
The policies are designed to hurt the public's health.
Does she look like James Carville with a wig?
No, is she related to James Carville?
You're saying they are deliberately, purposely, knowingly hurting public health?
I mean, from my vantage point as a doctor who's taken the Hippocratic oath, I only see harm coming.
I may be wrong, but based on what I'm seeing, based on what I've heard with the new members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices or ACIP.
They're really moving in an ideological direction where they want to see the undoing of vaccination.
They do want to see the undoing of mRNA vaccination.
They have a very specific target on COVID, but I do fear that they have other things that they are going to be working on.
Hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda for the meeting in September.
I predict that what they're going to do is try to change the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine so that kids don't get it when they're born.
So if you have a mother who is well connected to care, you know her hepatitis B status, that may not matter very much.
But if you have a mother who has not gone to prenatal care who comes into in to deliver?
We have one bite at that apple so that child gets that important hepatitis B vaccine.
Why does it matter?
Kids who have hepatitis B, they get liver scarring.
It's called cirrhosis later in life or it's a really common cause of liver cancer.
Hepatitis B for a baby because the mother might have hepatitis.
Now, for those of you who don't know who this individual is, I actually could not bring this up in incognito because it says age restricted in incognito.
This is the doctor, people.
This is that guy who is in charge of public health to one degree or another.
Now, just make sure I'mm doing something here.
Yeah, look at this.
For those of you who can't see what's going on on this pervert's chest, it's a pentagram, the satanic star, but it's not pointed down.
I don't know.
I guess it's pointed up or whatever the hell that means.
I don't know what the hell I'm looking at right now.
This is the doctor, very happy with his physique, I guess.
Tattoos everywhere.
You got the, I think that's a pentagram star right there with a furry.
That's a furry.
I don't even know what this pervert is looking at me like, look at this.
This is the guy giving medical advice to people.
Hepatitis B. Why would you need to get hepatitis B vaccines into a newborn?
Well, because you don't know the mother's hepatitis B status..
Here's the clip.
Just pay attention to this.
Hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda for the meeting in September.
I predict that what they're going to do is try to change the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine so that kids don't get it when they're born.
So if you have a mother who is well connected to care, well connected to care to know if you have hepatitis B. This is the degeneracy of this mind frame.
Well, you don't know if you have hepatitis B. Well, I haven't really been doing needle drugs or paying money for sex recently, but I don't know what my hepatitis B status is because I'm not well connected.
Dude, this is the soft bigotry of low expectations is what this is right here.
But what's the easiest way to get your hepatitis B status known?
It's a flipping blood test.
And I say, hey, doctor Demetri, I didn't call him a disgusting pervert, although I did in the previous tweet, so I don't expect him to ever respond to me.
I expect to get blocked by this man sooner than later.
Instead of giving newborn hepatitis B shots, why not just test the mothers to see if they have hepatitis B?
Hmm, it's a simple blood test for hepatitis B. If the mother doesn't have it, why in the hell would you need to administer it to a newborn or wait for an answer which is not going to come.
The answer probably goes back to who gets paid what for the jibby jab.
I don't think they get paid for a hepatitis B test to determine that the medical intervention in a newborn is not necessary.
But boy how do they get paid for administering that hepatitis B jab to a newborn?
Because you don't know what the mother's hepatitis B status is.
She might have been doing needle drugs and she's not well connected to get a hepatitis B before the baby comes out.
So you better jack up the baby, a newborn baby with something that it absolutely does not need in any realm of the sane universe.
Serenity now, people.
How goes the battle?
It's Sunday night, which means it's time for another Viva and Barnes Law for the people.
Let me just make sure that we are effectively, properly live cross-platforming.
We should be live on viva barns law dot locals dot com and we are because I see myself three seconds ago doing the serenity deep breath.
We should be live on Rumble, the free speech platform and we are where second channel says makes no sense.
Tatanka Dave says, baddie boy, an expert.
I don't know what that means.
And then L Hofbauer says, these insane people, I'm not reading that.
Sorry.
We, uh, we do not have calls to violence on this channel period.
Punctured.
Newscomb just approved a $101 million low cost multifamily low-income housing in the Palisades.
We all call that that was going to happen going to happen beforehand.
All right, look, if you're new to the channel, Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler.
If you, by the way, yeah, I had James Carville up here because that woman, am I crazy or does she not look like James Carville with a wig?
She does.
Man, that would be really funny if it's actually James Carville's relative.
Bottom line, if you're new to the channel, I am Viva Fry, David Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler.
We have our beautiful Sunday Night Live show with Robert Barnes, part of our Viva and Barnes Law for the People, Viva Barnes Law dot locals dot com community.
If you want to get some merchandise to support the channel and support the work that we do, vivafry.com.
Like, share, subscribe, turn on notifications.
Many of you have been asking for it, and I have returned to doing more car vlogs.
I'm committed now to doing one to two standalone car vlogs a day, in addition to my live stream, which is three o'clock every day on Rumble exclusively.
And Sunday night is the bestest night for the lost us imaginable.
We got some Bill Brown in our locals community says, oh, you're crazy.
No doubt about that.
was singing about it today I am and I am the sanest person in the universe that's how crazy the the world is.
Okay, before we get started, I've got to thank our sponsor for tonight's show which is PDS debt now they have this fancy thing it's called a QR code that I'm instructed to bring up so that you can all go scan this for the easiest access to PDS debt people the system isn't broken it's rigged and if you're buried in debt that's exactly how they want it i i've been doing a lot of like not shopping but uh visiting of like you know ebay just to check baseball card costs and whatever you can they offer you
financing for baseball cards obviously they want you to be permanently in debt financing stuff that you can't afford that you don't need and then they want you so desperate that you'rere putting stuff that you do need on credit card so they can own you via interest.
Big banks profit when you're desperate.
Creditors win when you lose, but you don't have to play their game.
PDS debt helps you take back control.
They've helped hundreds of thousands break free from credit card debt loans, high interest traps.
It's your money.
It's your future time to fight for both.
PDS debt goes beyond the numbers and understands your unique financial situation and crafts a personalized plan designed just for you.
No minimum credit score required.
They help you save money, pay off your debt faster and start putting money back where it belongs in your pocket.
I am fortunate enough not to need it.
If I needed to use it, I would use this.
PDS debt is A plus rated.
Rated by the Bureau of Better Business, the three B thing boasts hundreds of five-star reviews on Google, holds a five-star rating on Trustpilot.
Why?
Because BDS helps hundreds of thousands of people get out of debt faster.
You're thirty seconds away from being debt free.
Get your free assessment and find the best option for you right now.
pds dot com slash fry pds dot com slash fry.
I want to hold on a second.
I want to bring this out now and bring in the website so you can actually see what it looks like because I've done brought it up on the back right here pds dot com forward slash fry.
This is what it looks like.
If you're in trouble with debt, give them a call.
And the link is in the description below.
Oh, now, before we even get on with the show, I see Barnes is in the backdrop.
There was a story that I wanted to get to today, which was sort of not related to, um, not related to a law theme of the evening, just related to something that I've been saying for a very, very long time that Canada has made itself a national security threat to these United States of America global news reporting.
I mean, it's so amazing.
First of all, the idea that, you know, I I am not reflexively like, do you have permission to do that?
Why you should be fl flying a drone right here.
Do you have a license?
Yeah, you got it.
Oh, you got a license for that.
For that self-defense mate.
This is coming out of Can.
Well, the threat coming out of Canada in America.
This is from Global News.
And when they report on it, you know they're doing it grudgingly.
Canadian deported from the US after admitted to drone spying at Florida Space Force Base.
Yeah, by the way, China's involved.
I hate to.
I hate to play on stereotypes of things we've been saying for a very long time.
A Canadian man has pleaded guilty of illegally photographing classified US defense facilities at the Space Force military base in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Xiao Zhuang Xiao Xiao Guang Pan, 71 of Brampton, Ontario.
Look, I hate to be judgmental.
Something tells me he may or may not be of Brampton, Ontario.
If I'm just taking a wild guess, pleaded guilty to three cases of unlawful photographing a military installation without authorization on three separate days in early January.
What did he say he was doing when he first was busted?
Just admiring the nature of Florida.
Geez Louise, I go fishing up in the Everglades at the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee Reserve.
It's a federal reserve.
I see people flunching.
I'm like, dude.
People flying drones like, dude, this is a Federal Reserve.
You can't fly drones in Federal Reserves.
Of course, being on a visa and adhering to the laws of the nation that graciously offered you this visa, I'm not pushing any limits.
But when you're a potentially Chinese spy, maybe those things aren't on top of your list.
US District Court in Florida, judge put Pan on probation for twelve months and immediately ordered him deported to Canada by US immigration ICE officers.
And then I found Pam did not respond to a request for comment.
Did Xiao Jinping, US Department of Justice official, was unsure about where Pam is in the ICE deportation process?
Pam's guilty plea and deportation.
comes as anxiety grows among US lawmakers and ordinary Americans about hundreds of unidentified drones flying over sensitive American military bases amid concerns of foreign surveillance and spying.
You know, amid concerns that Canada has been infiltrated and taken over by Chinese interests, Indian interests from India, Kalashnikov terrorist interests, and they seem to be from Brampton, Ontario, for whatever the reason.
On a copy of Pan's agreement, Please reveal stark contrast between what Pan said he was doing in Florida when he was stopped by police versus what US federal agents found on his drone, phone and storage devices after seizing them on an artist's biography page published in Brampton Arts Ontario Organization.
Pan stated he was born in China in 1953, but I was told he was a Brampton man, immigrated to Canada in 2001.
So he spent forty years in China, less time in Canada, and you call him a Brampton man.
He's a probably a Chinese spy.
And I say probably only because I don't want to get fact check.
I'll qualify my statement.
Pan worked at Best Buy Canada, technician, for eighteen years until retirement.
What's he doing in retirement?
He entered on a tourist visa, yada yada yada.
In November, the court documents suggest Pan was doing, didn't suggest what he was doing November, December.
The retiree was charged by summons.
Okay, hold on a second.
Does it say what he said here?
Federal agents caught the Brampton resident.
using his powerful unmanned drone and a separate camera with a telephone lens to photograph and to photograph and video classified military facilities.
According to the statement, yeah, yeah, Pan signaled whatever he said he was, Pan told the agents he had flown the drone to take pictures of the beauty of nature, the sunrise and the cruise ship port.
He stated that he had not seen any launch pads and that he did not know where that he was near a military base.
Oh, really?
He voluntarily submitted his devices.
That's when the investigators found more than sunrises nature and cruise.
It's unbelievable, people.
1900 photos, 243 photographs.
Yeah, yeah, showed specific images of the Space Force based military infrastructure and launch facilities, including fuel and munition storage, security checkpoints.
Holy shit, people.
I'm still going to have to put this story on blast tomorrow via CarVlog.
This is the point when I had Sam Cooper on the Canadian journalist who's been talking about the Chinese infiltration in Canadian politics.
American intelligence doesn't even want to share intelligence with the Canadian government because of how badly infiltrated they are by China.
This guy is a Chinese born individual lived in China for the better part of his life, moved to Canada and is now video air whatever the air, air, aerial, aerial surveillance, photography and videography of classified military structures lying about it.
And Lord knows what he's doing with it.
Is he working with the Canadian government to funnel this to China?
Is he working with the knowledge of the Canadian government?
Or is he potentially worse, working without the Canadian government knowing one sweet thing of what Chinese interference and Chinese influence in Canadian politics and Canadian.
immigration status thing is.
I mean, it's madness.
Why isn't he in jail for spying?
What information did he already relay?
Who knows?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Okay, that being said, let's get this out of here.
I hear Barnes coming.
I think he's coming in the backdrop.
Let me just see what we holy crab apples.
Junkman says, correct me if I'm wrong, Viva, but I believe the FDA is going to be exposed for the corruption associated with the COVID vaccine and the warning signs they ignored because of the almighty dollar from your mouth to God's ears, Junkman 611.
Cameron, oh, Barnes, you can activate your camera there.
We can hear you.
Cameron one M says Cameron Vessi is not only my favorite.
Sorry, I have to be on the left.
It's not my favorite Barnes law.
Oh, by the way, Elan Hunk Hulkover from our Locals community.
We're going to be doing an interview after tomorrow's show.
We'll see if Barnes can get in.
I didn't ask you, Barnes, if you're available, but if you are, we can do this.
I'll get to all the tip questions in a bit.
I may miss some of them.
If you're going to be miffed, if I miss them, don't give them.
I don't like people feeling rooked, jipped, ship, whatever.
But let's get it going.
Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
Good, good.
Your studio is looking like it's coming together.
Yeah, I got the quilt made by one of the supporters at 1776 Law Center, which is great.
Another gift design and some gifted books and all that.
So yeah, got a little bit of it up and going.
Robert, what's the book up?
I'm going to pick the one arbitrarily.
It says story palette.
Story palette.
So the was a gift of people who came to the event.
Okay, very nice.
Robert, what do we have on the menu?
There's so many freaking good stories that we have on the menu for tonight.
What do we have on the menu for tonight?
We got Trump tariffs.
That decision came down late Friday night.
Unfortunately, it was as predicted, but what the chances are at SCOTUS will may may in part depend on what Trump does on certain foreign policy issues.
We've got Trump versus the Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve governor claiming her right to permanent employment.
We've got Trump's ability to cut foreign aid.
We've got that was up before SCOTUS and the DC Court of Appeals.
We've got Trump's executive order on flag burning.
So we've got all those Trump topics.
We've got the number one voted topic at viva-barneslaw.locals.com, which was the all favorites.
All the topics were good, good.
But the second favorite was RFK's efforts on mRNA, the COVID vaccine, the CDC coup attempt.
We've got Cash Patel's girlfriend suing Kyle Sarafin.
We've got overseas and geopolitics.
We've got trouble in the Balkans.
We've got South Korean presidents getting indicted.
We've got a possible invasion of Venezuela.
We've got a possible re-ignition of the Iran conflict.
We've got Palestinian representatives being blocked from the UN by the US.
So we've got a lot of different little foreign policy news.
We've got a big win for open courts in Pennsylvania, but a loss for mail-in ballot integrity in Pennsylvania.
We've got a...
We've got a dispute, a $14 million dispute with a sports book, DraftKings, that doesn't want to pay out a winning bet.
We've got a win over drug price transparency by the Ninth Circuit over an Oregon law.
We've got a lot of craziness going on in the tech world.
We've got an open AI being open AI chat GPT, I think, or one of them is being sued for wrongful death.
We've got another one where a kick is being sued potentially for various members basically torturing people live for clicks.
And we've got Rampage Jackson son saying give me 50 subscribers and I'll come in and beat the heck out of a guy and maybe kill him.
So we've got all that insanity on top of all the rest.
So more than an active week this week for the show.
It's ridiculous.
Like I always say every day there will be a calm Newsday, but by the end of the week it's like it's insanity.
Let's just let's start with the Cash Patel.
I should say not Cash Patel.
Cash Patel's girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, suing Kyle Sarafin for defamation because I think I've had an original thought that I want to get out there before anyone else gets it.
Since that Florida defamation lawsuit, which Florida defamation lawsuit was it where where we became aware of the fact that there's a provision of law that says you need to issue a request for retraction before filing suit?
I forget which lawsuit.
Well, it depends on the state.
Some of these states have this, some of these states don't.
But which which which which case was it where they sued before issuing the notice?
We just talked about it a couple of weeks ago.
Oh, it was the Trump case against Wall Street Journal.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Okay, good.
So since then I kind of like I forgot to reflexively look at it before I did the vlog yesterday, but for those who don't know, Alexis Wilkins, Cash Patel's girlfriend of a couple of years now, is suing a guy named Kyle Seraphin.
If you don't know who Kyle Seraphin is, FBI whistleblower blew the lid off some James O'Keeffe stuff.
It was very, very active and value added with respect to January 6 stuff.
I've had my issues with him on the internet in terms of, I think, some stuff where he was unfair with James O'Keeffe and Julie Kelly.
But, you know, he's an ex-FBI whistleblower, United States Air Force, probably a very decent guy.
who said something to the effect of, I mean, I could bring up the statement, but suggested that Cash Patel's girlfriend is a honey pot working with, although working with Mossad and trying to get close to the administration.
And I don't think they quoted the entire clip in its entirety because I think a very important qualifier.
he added at the end of it was, that's my view on it.
They sued for defamation or she did, Alexis Wilkins for five million bucks.
She's a country singer, not Jewish, never stepped foot in Israel, has no ties to Mossad, except for the fact that she worked with Prager U for a very limited period of time.
I've always thought the argument was stupid bunk when people were making it.
Texas has a provision that requires a request for retraction and correction before you can file suit.
I'm not familiar enough with whether or not this is going to be an immediate block to the lawsuit, Robert, but A, is it going to be a block to the lawsuit?
And B, am I correct in thinking that maybe this is a relatively flimsy defamation case or do you think this has any legs to stand on?
Yeah.
So the references to Texas.055, the Texas Defend Defamation Mitigation Act, which in order to get punitive damages or to be able to maintain a defamation claim, if it concerns a publication or broadcast that you provide pre-suit notice in order to maintain the suit.
Now, the Texas Supreme Court has interpreted that rule to only be that within a certain compressed time frame, you have to file a plea for abatement.
It's not a right of dismissal.
And so the difference being that you can plead to abate the case, they can then give the notice, then you can either issue the correction or attraction or not and then bring the suit thereafter.
So the remedy is not dismissal, the remedy is typically abatement.
And the premise behind it is that you can remedy it if you're a plaintiff.
Now, they have filed suit in federal court because she's a citizen of Tennessee and he's a citizen of Texas according to the suit.
And there's an argument that this is a procedural requirement, not a substantive requirement.
And if so, then under the Erie principles, federal courts don't have to follow them.
Hence, for example, the anti-slap law in Texas is not followed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
So no federal court in the Fifth Circuit or in Texas is bound by the anti-slap provision because it's interpreted as procedural rather than substantive.
And they may I didn't find any case that has adjudicated this question as to whether or not this is substantive or procedural in federal court.
There's at least an implication that it is because a plea and abatement is typically a Texas state remedy rather than a federal remedy.
So there'd be an argument there, but they could make an argument to plea and abate because they don't allege that she provided any retraction or correction notice to him prior to bringing the suit.
But she may argue that that is a procedural requirement, not a substantive one.
Even if it's enforced, then it just goes to an abatement and you file your request and you see whether he issues a correction or retraction or not.
I think that is a weak link in the suit is not giving him notice.
It's almost like they were looking for...
for somebody to sue to to vindicate this case more than they were remedying a perceived wrong And so the if they were out to remedy a perceived wrong, then you issue a correction letter, retraction request, you do the proper notice, you follow the law.
They may be banned entirely from exemplary damages.
That's one of the requirements of the pre-suit notice provision.
But we'll see.
Now I think in terms, so there's that procedural hurdle is the first one.
The second question, I'm also sure there's the reason why they're suing in federal court is they don't want to deal with the Texas anti-slap law in case they were to lose on the grounds that this suit is suing for to prohibit or punish public participation.
That's what slap means, strategic litigation against public participation.
So the but the anti-slap law definitely doesn't apply in federal court.
So then the quote they only identify one statement.
I want to clarify one statement, which is that he referred to her quote as a former Mossad agent.
Here I'll read the whole thing.
I mean, first of all, I don't know why people are picking on Cash being Indian as though that somehow precludes a young white woman from being attracted to him.
He, Simon Godek, a number of other people on the internet, does matter.
This is what he said august 22, 2025, defendant stated the following FBI director Cash Patel has his own little honeypot issue that's been going on as of late.
Just going to acknowledge it real publicly.
He has a girlfriend that's half his age who apparently who is both a country singer, political commentator on Rumble, friend of John Rich through Bongino, who also owns a big chunk of Rumble.
And she's also a former Mossad agent in what is like the equivalent of their NSA.
But I'm sure it's totally because like she's really looking for a cross eyed, you know, kind of thick builds.
Super cool bro, who's almost fifty years old, who's Indian in America.
Like it has nothing to do with the fact that we're really close to the Trump administration.
Anyway, I'm sure that's just like total love.
That's what real love looks like.
And then in the actual clip, which I pulled in context, he then looks, ends it by saying, That's my take on it.
Robert, you go for it.
Yeah, the key is going to be, is that a factual statement that someone is a former Mossad agent?
And so if the, if you interpret, I think it will get past the motion to dismiss and it will likely get to discovery and may get to a jury trial.
The reason is that, you know, that would seem like a factual statement to me.
His and his argument may be.be that, like, for example, if he said asset of Mossad, that would be, I think, a little bit much, that's more of a broad cat, you know, what does that mean exactly?
Right?
Like take Nick Fuentes.
I think Nick Fuentes is an asset of the federal government.
Does that mean he's a winning and knowing agent?
No, it doesn't.
It just means that he is doing their bidding whether he realizes it or not, willing or unwilling, winning or unwilling, as the case may be.
But when he keeps being pointed in the direction of going after some of our best deep state critics like Tucker Carlson, like Joe Kent, like JD Vance, then you can start to be suspect of what his agenda may be.
And then when he actually damages the Israeli skeptical side of public opinion by repeating every anti-Jewish conspiracy theory known to human history, then you might say, okay, he's acting as an asset of the feds of the globalists.
Does that mean he's a winning knowing on a payroll?
No, it doesn't.
The so the problem here is using the word agent.
That I think now there again, as you pointed out, there's an interpretation of agent that's like asset.
And it's like, well, you're working to propagate their agenda.
So you're an agent, right?
Like we get called agents of Mossad.
I've been called agent of everybody.
It was in pride.
People who oppose one another.
I've called them.
So I guess that makes sense.
I've represented people on both sides of the political aisle, left, right, all over the place.
I used to tell people to guarantee you hate somebody I represent because my clients don't like one another.
So, you know, that the only thing they have in common is fighting for First Amendment and other freedoms.
And they're usually the underdog in the case that I'm representing them in.
But otherwise, there's no shared political beliefs between them.
But the, I mean, we've been called, I mean, Mossad agents, Mula agents, Russian agents, Chinese agents, you know, whatever it is the latest you know the uh uh uh uh uh smear is but the question is is her calling her a former agent of mossad that was like the nsa the agency she worked for that strikes me as too factually specific to avoid a jury trial now his argument at trial can be he means that broadly he means that in terms of opinion that the people watching
would interpret that in terms of opinion here again the other point you made similar mistake i think that cassandra uh not cassandra uh plakan on what's her name uh candice owens uh also made is making is saying over and over again that everything you say is factual, right?
Sarah Finn has a propensity to do this.
When he was going after Julie Kelly, when he was going after James O'Keeffe, he was making claims that I thought were opinionated claims, but that were misinterpreting the information.
To the degree he was relaying facts, then they're actionable as libel.
The problem he has here is he likes to go around saying everything he's saying is factual.
He just says the facts.
He said that on multiple occasions.
That's going to get him in a little bit of trouble here because it was to his audience that he has said anything I'm telling you is factual, saying this person is an agent, is a former Mossad agent.
agent that worked for the agency that's equivalent to the NSA sounds kind of factual to me.
So for those people that want to know, you know, what distinguishes fact from opinion from a jury perspective in America on the libel law?
It is whether or not a jury can determine it as fact.
So whether or not she worked for Mossad or was an actual agent of Mossad, you can determine as a fact whether someone is an asset of Mossad from a broader perspective.
I would say his opinion is not subject to factual determination.
That's more of an opinionated interpretation of their behavior.
So I think that he it's likely this will reach a jury trial because they could say a reasonable person in his audience interpreted that statement to be factual that she had actually been on the payroll of Mossad, uh, when it appears that is false.
I always get I think he's probably facing a jury trial.
Now, what's her real damages?
How, how, how did she get to five million?
Well, not just that, she might be getting net benefit out of this because a lot of people didn't know that she actually was a country singer.
I know.
It's when they, when they, the same thing with Candace Owens.
In my view, maybe I'm just getting jaded and callous from being on the internet for too long.
I think everyone views them as they're obviously Rachel Maddow esque commentators and they describe him as a political commentator, which is, you know, I would say different than an analyst of sorts or something, than a scientist, than a political scientist.
And so I think everyone listens to him.
He presents his theories as based on the facts as he understands them.
But if everybody being called an agent of Mossad is now going to be actionable, I mean, they're opening up a Pandora's box of everybody suing anyone on the internet because it's one of the most cliched tropes.
That's why I just recommend it, make clear what's your opinion versus what's a factual claim.
And things like asset or agent be a little bit clearer.
So the, I mean, there are other cases where she, Rio Mano, got away calling people Russian agents.
And the court said that was too vague.
If he had said agent of Israel, probably in the clear, that's more like an opinion statement.
The problem was it's so specific.
It's like saying so and so used to work for the CIA.
Well, that's really a factual statement.
You know what I mean?
I mean, it's hard to argue that's an opinion statement.
You can say they're CIA adjacent, CIA asset.
That's much more broad.
That's more of an opinion of what their course of conduct and its effect has been.
The problem is saying the way he said it was so specific and it being an FBI agent and him saying running around saying everything I say is factual.
All they have to do is show a judge could a reasonable jury conclude that a reasonable member of his audience thought what he was saying was factual.
And I think the judge would be obligated to say, yeah, a reasonable jury could conclude that doesn't mean they have to, but they could.
And he's in the western district of Texas.
You know, the principal county there is, is Travis County.
Now, how would this play out in a liberal democratic jury pool?
It's two conservatives arguing with each other.
So who knows?
The federal courts are, of course, a lot more, a lot less politically prejudiced than the state courts there in Travis County.
are because it's hard to be more prejudiced than the Travis County State Court judges are.
But I think chances are he's going to face discovery and then chances are he's going to face trial depending on where this all goes.
Now there may be issues of correction, retraction and they back down and that sort of wraps it up.
But I think he was a little too factually specific.
or at least said things that could be interpreted as factually sufficient, sufficient for a jury to get there.
That's why I've always advised people, if you have an opinion about something controversial, make sure.
Yeah, there's ways to frame it and phrase it so that you don't create undue and unnecessary.ary legal liability for yourself.
Let me bring up a bunch of the rumble rants first.
There's from G ten.
I don't know what this is about.
Jean G ten.
Anything to help this family would be appreciated.
Donald Dean was a good man murdered in front of his granddaughter and daughter on her birthday while in Roanoke, Virginia.
GoFundMe has the funeral home to verify.
I hadn't heard about that.
Crash prone says breaking.
Mossad operative.
Mossad operative goes rogue and is on the run.
The agent, a master of disguises, is said to be posing as the blind West Highland Terrier.
He's an asset.
That's a joke, people.
Awesome Diesel.
Happy Monday morning viva in Barnes, which means you're in Australia and Jeffrey Frenchpads says that's the Canadian spice.
Swalwell slept with.
Okay, gross.
Let's I guess we get to start with the Trump stuff.
Yeah, yeah, we got it.
We got a bunch of Trump stuff.
We got the Trump tariffs, Trump Federal Reserve, Trump Foreign Aid, Trump Flag Burning.
Oh gosh, all of a sudden we got the geopolitical disasters that Trump is sitting on, ticking time bombs literally all around the world from Venezuela to Iran to India to Ukraine.
So the we got a quartet of topics on both sides.
Let's start with the Trump Executive Order, which I'm not to be judgmental.
I think a lot of people started retweeting before they actually read.
the executive order and what was it?
Well, because of the headline.
I mean, I think Trump wanted that headline, but you're absolutely right that the headline suggested that this was a actual flag burning provision.
When you read the actual provision, it's no such thing.
When you read the actual provision, it's like treating flag burning as though it's speech.
And if it's done in an imminent incitement or manner to incite violence, it will be prosecuted as such because they confirmed that the, you know, the Supreme Court said you could burn the flag, but not in a way to incite.
I don't know how that would actually pan out.
But he issued this executive order.
As far as I'm concerned, Robert, it merely applies existing Brandenburg test laws to the act of burning the flag.
It doesn't criminalize burning the flag, although I think there are a great many Americans out there who would say it should be illegal.
I'm not torn on it.
I can understand why a number of veterans say, you know, my brothers and sisters fought and died for that flag.
You're damn right, it's going to be illegal to burn it.
Others say, my brothers and sisters fought for that flag, which entails the freedom to burn it as an act of protest against what you might feel to be a tyrannical government, depending on who's in charge.
Have I ever asked you?
I know you believe it should be legal to burn the flag.
Oh yeah.
In fact, I wrote that when I was ten years old to my local newspaper that my mom begged me to use a pseudonym so that no one would know that her son was out there saying the flag burning was First Amendment protected in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1985 or whatever.
it was.
Robert, I was listening to that.
That was a bourbon with Barnes, and I'm listening to this with Marian, my wife, and she's like, can you imagine that's what Barnes was doing as a ten year old kid?
Like most ten year old kids are sitting there like playing Roblox and picking their butts, and you're writing op-ads as to why you should be allowed to burn the flag, but under a pseudonym for the Chattanooga.
He said, all right, so bottom line, the executive order does nothing to criminalize illegal burning of the flag.
It just applies the Brandenburg test of incitement to the act of burning the flag.
Yeah.
Now, the one thing I have some doubts about is I'm not a big fan of the there's clearly a new effort in the executive order mentions it and it relates to another little bonus case we can talk about tonight, the which I didn't., I wasn't real fond of them saying, if you can call it disorderly conduct, you can arrest for it.
Remember, a lot of the J six people, disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct is a trap to try to ensnare, it's like curfew laws to ensnare ways to prohibit speech and association.
And I've not been a fan of that kind of broad use of disorderly conduct laws.
So I'm not in favor of treating flag burning as disorderly conduct outside of unique factual circumstances being present.
The mere act of burning the flag should not be called disorderly conduct in my opinion, no matter which flag, it doesn't matter American flag, foreign flag, LGBTQ flag, etc.
Well, by the way, here's an irony.
You can't burn the you can burn the American flag.
Guess which country's flag you can't burn without it being called a hate crime?
Israel.
Yes.
A federal judge thinks that our federal department of justice has advocated stronger for the Israeli flag than they have the American flag, a little bit sad.
But the but the disorderly conduct, I'm not a fan of like trying to drive a truck through that loophole of eviscerating First Amendment freedoms.
And I respect Ginger Ninja and other people that are like, look, the flag is the flag.
It should be seen as different.
I understand that.
But to me, the ultimate sign of the flag is your right to burn it because that's how America American is and that's how free speech we are.
The arguments that I Ginger Ninja for everybody watching is a member of our local community.
He took me to the gun range up in Great guy, great guy.
Amazing.
But my argument was like, okay fine, if he if he said burning a flag in front of him, I may defend him on self defense purposes, what do you do?
I say, if the argument is burning the flag is that the desecration of it should be illegal, it's only a matter of time before they say flying it sideways or or spray painting it is desecration should be illegal or flying it upside down.
And then you get this law that will be applied with political vengeance by your political adversaries.
And so that's the door you open up to do little, you know, UE's around, you know, rainbow crosswalks.
And you should be able to do what, you know, say whatever you want in front of a George Floyd statue.
All of it to me is the same.
Speech is still speech, expression and association.
And unless it goes beyond that, which is what Trump's executive order actually says, then it's when it fits.
I just don't want the referrals to start coming out from the Justice Department saying that just because it was flag burning, that equals disorderly conduct.
I want local governments to prosecute.
Guess who else got prosecuted on disorderly conduct grounds for speech this week?
Hold on.
Disorderly conduct, speech this week.
Darn it.
Who, Robert?
Remember is the one that you're still skeptical.
I'm still skeptical as to how legitimate it really was from Minnesota.
Robert, I'm the lady who said the N word.
Oh, they ch ch No wait, I didn't hear this.
They charged her with, I think, multiple counts, at least a count of disorderly conduct solely on the grounds that I just saw it late.
So that's why it's a late added.
I didn't, I didn't, I didn't even, I'm sorry, I didn't disorderly conduct.
What's her name?
It was, I raised like close to a million bucks.
Can you imagine?
And the other guy raised a bunch of money too, more than a quarter million apparently.
I mean, they're all like raised apparently, you know, this is what I've just seen, so I can't confirm it.
But the, uh, yeah, so this was the lady that supposedly used the N word on Shiloh, Shiloh Hendrix.
Okay, I got the name now, I can at least look it up.
She got charged with disorderly conduct.
Yes, just for using that word.
And it's like, okay, this, and this is a classic example, like the flag burning context.
So you use a certain word in front of somebody, does that, that magically makes it disorderly conduct?
Because isn't that just speech, right?
Whether it's a liked or disliked word or not for certain people to be able to use.
I mean, it's commonly used in rap songs.
So it's the.
Trump plays around with us, by the way, when he says, oh, so and so used the N word.
He means nuclear, of course.
But it's Trump playing around on the association.
But yeah, so it's the, so like in flag burning, if you burn the flag in front of a veteran, is that disorderly conduct?
And now you can be charged with a crime.
I'm not in favor of sort of eye of the beholder.
that kind of context, redefining these, just using the word is a disorderly is a presumably the conduct has to create some disorder other than an argument between people in a park.
I mean, there couldn't have been more order to that.
It should be more like saying fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
The reason why that isn't that that's still speech.
What makes it actionable is you created disorderly conduct by your action because there wasn't because it was false.
So the, so I'm a little concerned that they're trying to expand disorderly conduct to capture speech, whether it's in the flag burning context or in this N word context.
To me, saying the N word is not a crime.
And isn't that speech?
I mean, how is that a crime?
Are they saying because she said it to someone who is black, that makes it a crime?
The person, even though black people say it to each other all the time.
Now they use the A rather than the hard R, but the it's still like, you know, I'm not comfortable with the idea that this is what it looks to me like creating speech code and to make it a crime is what it looks like to me.
And I disagree with that, whether it's the N word on a playground or burning a flag even in front of a veteran.
Well, I humorously hypothesized at the time and some people didn't appreciate it was a hypothesis or, you know, a long shot prediction that they were in cahoots to raise money.
If, and I said, if she gets charged then they might if it was indeed and I'm, you know, it was only half serious prediction, if they were working in cahoots to manufacture this kind of viral moment, well, that's when they turn against each other to say, no it was just a joke and so it couldn't have been disorderly we'll see that's wild i didn't hear about that um well we're gonna have a follow-up vlog on that tomorrow that's for sure no it's it's it's i mean fighting words if you go up to someone and you say you know the hard rn word to get them uh you know fighting you i could see in that kind of potential situation even
there i'm not super comfortable with that but if you have a course of conduct actions and behavior that that you know that that's what should be well you know outside of first minute protection but just speech uh like like i said just burning the flag to me is just speech depending you know the there has to be some other circumstances of why that would be inappropriate or why it could be labeled criminal.
That was a 54 Supreme Court decision.
So it was a close decision.
And I know Trump would like to reverse it.
I would not be in favor of reversing it.
But it's just the same way.
How was just using the N word?
You know, it was clearly a disagreement, but it was unlikely to provoke a violent response.
It wasn't going to have imminent incitement reaction.
It was her, you know, using a foul word because she was mad at what the other, the father, the other parents' kid did.
I mean, she's every day on the playground.
She needs to go get a do the 23 and me and find out that she has sufficient amount of African heritage to say now she has the permission slip to use it the word.
Oh man.
Okay.
Now I just looked up.
It's she's been, it looks like two charges, each carries a 90 day max or $1,000 fine.
Well, we know she's got the $1,000 to pay off the fine, people.
Okay.
That's wild.
So that's the fly brain.
The Trump, the, which is, we got Trump Federal Reserve, Trump tariffs and Trump foreign.
Speaking of criminals, the Federal Reserve lady, what's her name?
Lisa Cook is in hot water.
There's a lot of puns in here.
Cook is cooked.
This is a woman who I say arguably, but I don't know what the defense is going to be other than I didn't know what I was signing or someone signed it on my behalf.
This is a woman who signed mortgage documents for two separate properties claiming they would each be used as a primary residence within a time frameme that would make it physically, logically, um, judicially impossible for them to both be her primary residents.
She did this presumably to get a more favorable mortgage rate because they're a bunch of cheap criminal bastards at that.
And, um, this came to light.
Trump then used it as a pretext, said, resign or we're firing you.
Uh, she did not resign and he fired her.
She has yet to offer any meaningful defense as to what her defense is for having lied knowingly or having had someone misrepresent on these mortgage documents.
Um, and then my question was, I don't remember who she's a judicial, oh, no, the Fed, the board of on the governor, the board of governors of the Fed, are they judicial appointments that can be eliminated or terminated at the will of the president or do they have to complete their term?
So while it's commonly confused, I'll probably have a hush-hush on it at some point.
The Federal Reserve, the governors of the Federal Reserve are a public body.
So there's parts of the Federal Reserve that are not, but the governors are.
They're created by the Federal Reserve Act by Congress, and the president appoints the governors as principal officers, cabinet level officers, principal officers to be governors of the Federal Reserve Board.
So now what it is is Congress sets a fixed term and then puts a cause limitation on their removal prior to their term expiring.
There's always an issue with attempting to put a cause constraint on the president because to me that violates his Article 2 discretion.
The idea that you can appoint someone in the executive branch and that person has permanent employment unless the president has a particular reason to terminate her employment.
However, in this, so putting that issue aside, which has been the longstanding position of the executive branch, no matter who has been in the White House, Democrat or Republican, but the other component of this.
is the law itself clearly does give cause but doesn't limit the cause.
And so this has been adjudicated in a couple of cases.
One, a Reagan case, not Ronald Reagan, different Reagan back at the beginning of the 20th century.
And then later in the 90s in the Spectre case.
And so in the Reagan case, what they, it was judges had the power to appoint certain positions.
And shock, shock judges came to the conclusion they could fire them anytime they wanted, right?
And they said, look, yeah, there might be cause restraints here, but Congress didn't say what the cause was.
And that means cause can be any reason that the decision maker has.
They have full discretion to do it, and that's not judicially reviewable.
And then it arose again in the Spectre case, which was the closing of the Navy base very controversially in Philadelphia.
And they concluded that because the president was given statutory discretion, which base is to close, that that discretion, even though there were cause constraints on that action, because there was no specificity as to what constituted cause, that meant the president had full discretion and it was not judicially reviewable.
So it would have presumably under those two pre-precedents, the case should get thrown out.
Now she's in front of a communist judge.
So who knows what that judge will do.
But I think as the case rises, the other problem she has is how is she entitled to an injunction for her job?
Her only loss would be wages and economic loss.
This is, this is, I mean, I presume it's roughly the same under US law.
I did a lot of injunctions when I used to practice and it's for irreparable harm and financial compensation by definition is not irreparable harm.
And so even if even if she were to be wrongfully terminated, her only damages, reputational and compensatory, would be her salary for whatever would have been the term of her job.
So at worst, she doesn't work for the next two years and they still pay her what she would have paid.
pay her what she would have got by way of salary.
Correct.
And principal officers are long expected not to, they're not entitled to any kind of notice and comment before they get canned either.
So her argument is that she was entitled to notice and comment because she had a for-cause limitation in her employment.
That's not an argument for injunction in any, in any case.
You know, You go through the regular remedies, but there's a problem with saying these principal officers, cabinet level executive appointments that the president has full discretion to make, somehow he can't fire them unless somebody else approves and then they get to run to court to adjudicate it immediately.
Doesn't and in my view, if Powell keeps her employed when the president has terminated her, then the then I think.
there's issues, then there's cause to fire Powell, which I think should have, you know, there's cause anyway.
And I think the Federal Reserve should be subordinate to the president.
The Federal Reserve isn't elected, the president is.
So either we have the president in control of the executive branch or not.
And this is just another effort to have the Bureau, I mean Paul Danes, the excellent candidate for Senate in South Carolina that we interviewed, challenging Lady Lindsey Graham there, the Warhor.
It is not a statement of fact that it is Barnes' opinion that Lady Lindsey Graham is Lady.
Yeah, exactly.
Yes, yes, yes, indeed.
Lady in spirit.
Maybe a lady in some other ways, but we'll deal with that another time.
No, no, no, no.
But so you look at that and I think that the, it only makes, there are other remedies you can go through under the various Federal Merit Protection Board, et cetera.
But given her position as principal officer, she should be fireable at will.
To be anything but fireable at will is a violation of Article 2 power, number one.
Number two, given the statute doesn't limit cause, whatever the president determines as cause under prior precedent should be sufficient.
And in those prior cases they've said no notice is due or required.
He gave her five days notice anyway and she just refused to respond.
And last but not least, there is cause.
because she's a crook.
She's a crook.
She's a financial crook.
You can't have a well, you might say the Federal Reserve is filled with financial crooks and always has been, but you can't have them be official crooks and be running a financial, the most powerful federal financial board in the world.
So she should lose.
I think ultimately she will lose, but that doesn't mean she will lose in front of that loony district court she's in front of.
She's offered no plausible explanation, none at all about the allegations.
Just look at who her lawyers are.
It was kind of like a lot of the people that came out with the CDC that Bobby Kennedy finally got rid of.
And all you have to know about who they are is who their lawyers are.
It's all the deep state crowd.
It's the Abby Lowell crowd.
It's Norm Eisen.
It's all those guys suddenly showing up.
And that tells you how they're part of the, there's no better sign that you're part of the permanent deep state when you suddenly show up with a deep state lawyer in the moment Trump finds out who you are.
I'm just double checking.
Her lawyer is Norm Eisen as I think her lawyer is Ab Lowell, though I think no, Norm Eisen will probably join and support the case.
Unbelievable.
And yet Mark Zaid, who's connected to some of these people, I think the CDC type, he's always been a crook in my view.
The, you know, he was someone who shouldn't have had the security clearance that he had, has been part of staging coups against Trump forever and broadcast himself.
There's a guy who bragged about all the different people with kidney porn that he got security clearances for.
That tells you Mark Zayed.
That's all you got to know about him.
But it's so Trump should win doesn't mean he will.
Now we got another big win that was SCOTUS was about to give him a win when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals realized, instead of getting slapped down, they fixed one of their opinions on foreign aid this week.
Okay, hold on a second.
We just got one from Schnookem's over in our Viva Barnes, which is immediately on point.
So let me just bring this up here.
Schnookem says, why the heck does no one bring up these secondary problems with all these mortgage fraud accusations bring up?
Stop moving.
The resultant insurance fraud as they are even easier charges.
If not primary residence, it has to be insured differently as a non-residence.
Leticia's multi unit fraud is even more because she lied.
Absolutely.
I mean, that's baby steps.
They're making some good baby steps here.
But hold on.
Wait a minute.
Something right.
Okay.
What we were going to do?
The foreign aid win.
The foreign aid win.
Yes, which is now that Trump can, in fact, cut off the financing for foreign aid programs.
Who would have thought?
I mean, they were trying to say that the Impoundment Act and the that basically whatever.
the Congress had passed, the president couldn't modify at all.
The president did some more resolutions this week, which were good pocket resolutions because of the timing in which the Congress had recessed, gave him that opportunity to do this week, and he did.
So billions more saved there.
But here they were trying to stop him from being able to cut off the deep state's money machine through USAID and foreign aid, and were trying to force him to write checks.
And he was going to go up to the Supreme DC Circuit Court of Appeals recognized he was probably going to win, but still allowed the injunction that was forcing him to write checks to stay in place.
And he was like, well, that can't handle that.
So I'm going up to SCOTUS.
And then the whole DC Circuit got involved before SCOTUS could rule and say, oh yeah, we're going to fix this part too.
For the time being, Trump can in fact not pay people while this case is pending, given that it's supposed to be his presidential prerogative to begin with.
And the congressional carte blanche is not so large as to strip the president of his power to make spending determinations consistent with law, which is what Congress has always the authorized legally and what the Constitution gives the president the power to do.
So if Congress could completely constrict your ability to be the executive branch, you no longer have an executive branch.
What's amazing is this is the this is a deep state, the deep state, the administrative state.
These administrative bodies now getting judicial affirmation basically saying the system has been set up and nobody can take it down, not even the president.
It operates on its own, it survives on its own, it basically finances itself on its own.
And the president is just a figurehead, much like the prime minister.
I mean, it's basically they want to turn the American government into something like an administrative parliamentary system or something along those lines where the machine can't be stopped once it's started.
It's like the show Yes, Minister that we watched last week.
That was a UK show making fun of the bureaucratic state.
And they green lit it because they thought it was making fun of Margaret Thatcher when in reality it's just making fun of the administrative state and the bureaucratic state and the deep state writ large and it does a brilliant comedic sarcastic job of exposing how that of how they they scam their way into power and keeping and maintaining power.
And but this was a big judicial win for Trump on that side of the aisle.
The now the the one the big loss he had this was on the tariffs.
Now I can't appropriate your wisdom and your prediction on this.
Basically, as far as I understood from that decision, which I mean the court the court didn't use your logic, but you predicted what logic they would use in order to determine that Trump is not using the tariffs in accordance with the legislative purpose for which it was authorized or wish the president could act.
Explain for those who may not have heard it how exactly the court concludes that Trump has gone beyond the bounds of what the legislation authorized him to impose by way of tariffs on the world.
When you read it and they start off by saying the president has basically imposed tariffs across every country across the world on all products, you know damn well where they're going with this.
What's the logic that they use, judicial logic or lack thereof, in order to determine that Trump can't do it for the time being?
So there are certain tariffs on automobiles, steel, copper, other aspects that they have not set aside that were established pursuant to very particular tariff statutes where Congress gave specific authority to the president to use.
The president also used a sort of catch all provision, which was the various emergency laws that were passed in the 70s that gave the presidency broad powers to deal with an emergency, including concerning the importation of goods.
And that power includes the right to regulate those goods, to prohibit those goods, to nullify any transaction concerning those goods, to cancel those goods.
And they didn't use the word tariff in the statute.
And that's what the court hung their hat on.
Because they said, well, you know, yes it says you can regulate imports.
Yes it says you can ban imports.
Yes it says you can control imports.
But it doesn't say you can tariff them.
And it's like, how is a tariff not a form of regulating, banning, prohibiting or concerning imports?
Kind of seems like a practical tool to deal with imports, right?
They acknowledged that there is in fact a they didn't dispute the president's prerogative in determining there is an emergency.
They didn't dispute that there's an economic emergency related to trade.
They didn't dispute that there could be trade provisions, including tariffs.
They didn't say any and all tariffs were illegal under the law.
They didn't say that.
They just said the way in which Trump has gone about it exceeds the authority of the law.
And they focused on the constitution specifically referenced duties and imposts effectively as tariffs going to Congress that, well, Congress can delegate that.
They usually delegate it by explicitly referencing tariffs.
They didn't do so here.
So that was their construction.
Now I think there's good grounds for the Supreme Court to turn it on grounds that the discretion given under the statute is very broad.
Fact that hasn't been utilized in this particular manner before.
It doesn't make sense to me that Trump can just literally prohibit goods from a country coming in, but he can't tariff them.
It's like, how does that work?
So the you can ban them, but you can't put a tax on them.
I mean, I don't understand the logic of that.
The so I think there's grounds to challenge it.
The problem the president has written himself into, which was evident by their commentary, evident by their questions at oral argument, the reason why I predicted he would lose it was because he was doing it in these areas that don't even relate to his own economic emergency legal basis to do it.
So I mean, I mean, somebody in the White House should have if Peter Navarro cares about Trump's trade policy, one, quit pretending you're an expert on India.
You're a complete idiot on India.
You sound like an idiot to the world on India.
For the love of God, it's the same with Stephen Miller, the same with Scott Bessett, quit repeating these stupid talking points that are pushing India into a coalition with just like Russia into China.
I mean, so it's some of the dumbest geopolitics I've ever seen.
But what's killing Trump is constantly using tariffs as economic sanctions policy, as political policy.
And somebody should have been telling this jeopardizes your entire tariff agenda and it jeopardizes your entire industrial policy agenda.
But clearly nobody in the White House has the IQ or the guts to tell the president this.
And instead, what's happened is they look at this, okay, he's imposing tariffs anytime he wants, for any reason he wants.
Well, of course they were going to invalidate his tariffs when they see him doing that.
When they say, oh, I don't like what you did on bricks, so I'm going to give you a 10% surcharge.
I don't like what I don't like you funding, buying Russian oil.
So I'm going to do a 50% surcharge.
Okay, that's not legally authorized.
That was illegal actions by the President of the United States.
And it was, and what it would do is jeopardize his entire trade policy.
And that's exactly what it's doing.
And somebody in the White House is not screaming at him, warning him about this.
And so the, just by way of example, I mean, we talked about it with the tariffs on Brazil where it was basically in retaliation for censorship, which as welcome as it must be for, you know, for a great many people, statutory grounds listed that Congress gave him to delegate the authority to say if you don't like censorship taking place, you can issue a tariff.
If you don't like somebody buying Russian oil, you can issue a tariff.
If you don't like someone being part of BRICS, you can issue a tariff.
None of those are legal grounds to issue tariffs.
Well, is the amount of money derived, I mean, it's going to be almost circular and maybe even a stupid question in advance, but he's toting the amount of revenues generated by these tariffs.
They could be ordered refunded.
The government might have to write massive checks.
That's how badly he's jeopardized his policy.
He got so enticed by it and the lady Lindsays of the world knew he loved tariffs.
So like, hey, why don't you tariff as a policy to deal with Russia as a way to deal with China, as a way to deal with BRICS.
And it's intact.
I mean, Modi, India was one of the very few countries Trump had very positive relationships with and was very well liked in the country.
He's completely sunk.
Now there's mass protests comparing him to the British royals.
The Modi, the Prime Minister who had close relationships won't even pick up the phone when he calls.
This should be a warning sign that this is stupid politics to pursue the in the name of Ukraine, that, you know, ten cup dictator.
The you have Ukraine deeply unpopular Zelensky, Starmer, UK deeply unpopular in his own country, Macron deeply unpopular in their own country.
They're talking about Merckx in Germany, deeply unpopular.
Why is Trump taking advice from that group of losers?
I mean, these are people that are about to beg the IMF for bailouts.
That's how bad their economy is in Germany, in France, in the UK.
And they're deep, they're hated.
And all three countries, including Ukraine, you had four, all support peace.
The right populist AFD number one in Germany, Le Pen's party number one in France, Farage's party number one in England.
What do their voters all have in common?
They don't support spending a bunch of money on a stupid war in Ukraine, on a stupid war against Russia, on undermining their own economies by cutting off their energy supply from Russia.
It's idiotic.
We were the ones who begged India to buy under the Biden administration to buy Russian oil to stabilize energy prices.
They went from seven percent to forty percent of their supply coming in with Russian oil.
And now we're calling them evil for doing so.
This is stupid, stupid.
Peter Navarro looks like an idiot.
And he's undermining, sabotaging his lifelong dream of a meaningful industrial policy by pursuing this political garbage in the name of the Ukraine war and EU.
It's just, and I predicted this.
I was like, now what will happen is that this court, he could have got at least two of these justices because there were eleven, it was a seven to four vote.
All he needed was two of those seven to vote with him.
They would have voted with him and not wanted to go up against him if he'd stuck to tariffs being economically driven.
Once he decided to make them personal political tools of whatever sanctioned thing he's the latest whisper from Lady Lindsey Graham in his ear to do, has sabotaged not only creates dumb foreign policy, it has badly sabotaged his principal tenet of industrial policy.
I want to bring this up because what I love, this is on ComiTube and it says, wow, this guy is a no it all.
I like that we have new people to the channel.
Because yeah, Robert, when you, when you predicted in advance and then some people are going to say, why did you give them the idea?
Like you need to give these judges the idea.
When you predicted in advance, you get to take a victory lap, even if it's not a result.
And that happened at the Oral Argument.
And it's what some of us were warning about about, didn't want this to happen.
Strong believer in the constitutional right of the president through congressional authority to issue tariffs as part of industrial policy.
Huge fan of using tariffs as an industrial policy.
I've been one of his principal advocates in the legal space for this authority.
And what I've said is that this would jeopardize it.
And as soon as I heard the oral argument, it's like, okay, we're screwed.
I was like, I mean, I was hoping that he could find a way to get a deal done some capacity or at least exit the Ukraine conflict.
But we should not have done the Indian tariffs.
It was just, it was dumb.
And it was to do them, not only was it just dumb economic policy, dumb geopolitics, no reason to push.
Russia and India into the loving arms of China, which they were they were they're meeting during the Shanghai conference.
Modi for the first time in like a decade or well is in China and they're all getting together and they're talking about how the dragon and the elephant and the bear are now united and it's the eagle that's going to be left out of the parade.
This is dumb politics and it was dumb strategy legally.
So I still think there's a decent chance the Supreme Court reverses this at least partially, but he needs to stop using tariffs as a tool that he can use whenever he gets irritated at somebody, somebody in the world, because that was a mistake.
It undermined and sabotaged his, his, his.
And if he doesn't fix it, then he'll have to get congressional authorization to do any tariffs on a go forward basis.
That was actually my question.
I have no idea what would be required time frame wise.
Does it have to be passed by way of bills?
Yeah, it would have to get the House and the Senate to do it.
And then the only thing they're willing to pass is they're willing to pass some crazy sanctions on, let's keep escalating the war on Russia.
That's not going to help Trump at all.
So the, the, all that does is put him in a position where he's issuing tariffs in the name of a Ukraine war that's going to backfire on a US economy, US economy.
So I think that he's unduly and unnecessarily jeopardized a key component of his econom his economic policy by pursuing globalist foreign policy.
Let me bring this up here actually because there's a couple on point.
This is not directly on point, but it's close.
Bill Dozier seventy four says, Why is Trump cubating on truth social?
Just why?
I presume that's in reference to a meme where he says you're all gonna you're gonna understand everything just wait.
He just likes the meme.
He doesn't he still doesn't know what true QE it is.
I actually didn't know I didn't get the direct Q reference to that.
I just thought it's okay.
We're waiting for big news to come sooner than later.
Was it legal for Biden to extend?
Okay, we're going to get to that in a second before we get there.
And then we're going to get to some of the Viva Barnes law tip questions as well.
Well, the other thing was sort of more related to the Lisa Cook is that woman Susan Minares, who was fired, who was, who was terminated and then refused to leave.
Or they said resign, and we're going to, did they ask her to resign first?
I think they asked her to resign as well.
This is, this one I double checked at the time was an at will political appointee who could be removed at the drop of the hat without any reason whatsoever, refuses to go.
She was a partisan hack from the get-go.
I put out a video.
It's not so hard to find.
You just go look on YouTube and you can see she was a Biden administration pushing the Biden agenda, talking about how great it was working with the NIH, talking about, you know, more mRNA investments and whatnot.
Partisan hack.
How the hell did she get into this administration, Robert?
Oh, Bill Cassidy.
So what Cassidy has been doing, Senator from Louisiana, who hopefully who is being challenged by Blake Miguel, has a range of really good challengers there in Louisiana.
Now remember, Cassidy was trying to hold up Kennedy's nomination and was going to block it, was getting a lot of political heat.
And so he cut a deal.
And the deal he cut was in exchange for me picking some other, you know, having a veto over personnel decisions, I'll let Kennedy through to the Senate through a full vote.
He was going to block him out of committee.
So that's what happened.
And so Kennedy's been trying to maneuver through this, through Cassidy trying to block him out of the Senate, through Susie Weil's and Pambandi's tight ties to Pfizer directly or indirectly.
And so he's had the, and then Trump's love affair with Operation Warp Speed.
Those have been sort of the hurdles along with, of course, Big Pharma, which is just Robert Malone and some others have published the inside leaks.
Big Pharma was doing a massive coordinated effort to sabotage Robert Kennedy.
And their whole goal has been looking for the right opportunity to sue him, the right opportunity to try to get him impeached, the right opportunity to get him investigated.
So, you know, he's known this all along and he's been very careful, thoughtful and deliberate and going through the proper legal process about each step of this.
The advantage he had here was these kind of people like Minoras and others can't, can't help themselves, right?
And it was he went along with Cassidy getting his pick for CDC and all the CDC person had to do was go along with the administration.
Could still be, you know, could push back, give their own advice, their own contrarian opinions, et cetera.
But still had to follow the administration.
She refused, right?
Because that's what these people were there for.
They're used to running the show themselves.
And the Kennedy was done with it.
And Kennedy announced this, he announced two weeks ago, no more money for mRNA vaccines.
And then number two, he and then this week, he had already taken it off the kids list, had already taken off being recommended for most people.
He now removed the COVID vaccine from the emergency use authorization.
Well, what does that mean?
It means any future administration of the COVID vaccine by anybody can be sued.
That's what it means.
So that means the next time somebody, the Pfizer, Moderna, or some doctor, some nurse, some hospital gives this COVID vaccine shock to somebody and they it causes them disability or causes them death or causes them other injury, then they can now be sued.
They're no longer immune.
They're outside the PREP Act.
They're not on the kids list.
So it was always going to happen that this was going to happen.
It was about the timing of it.
Kennedy putting in motion the proper studies, the proper internal documentation and substantiation of it, not pre-committing to it.
That was very wise.
There were people that were mad at him for not pre-committing to it, not understanding that legally and procedurally doing that would undermine and sabotage the success of the effort.
Now it's going to be very, very hard for them to get that mRNA vaccine reinstated given the 181 plus studies that he cited from all around the world from his own internal commissions that have been reviewing this, from his own VCIP committee with Dr. Robert Malone.
Otherwise, he put different people there.
So he put the people in motion and put the things in motion to prove the scientific and evidentiary and empirical basis to end our dependence on mRNA vaccines that Bill Gates was trying to force feed to us through the COVID, through the COVID and coronavirus.
And so what's great is a whole bunch of these scum, CDC scum, went and quit, which is always great.
It's always great when, you know, the, the, it's even better.
You don't want to have to fire them.
You just want them to line up and quit., you know, they say, come here, you're going to be part of something I know you hate.
So cheerlead for this on TV.
No, you're going to quit.
Okay, good luck.
See you later.
Bye bye.
I mean, I we I started the show off.
We started the show off with that doctor Demento, that perverse who's literally wearing, you know, pentagram.
Literally name doctor Demento.
No, it's doctor Dimitri's subject.
Like doctor Demento.
Well, that's like they call him doctor Demento, but this is, this is one of the guys who's quitting because, you know, he's convinced that six months to two year olds need this, this, this COVID shot and RFK junior's putting people at risk.
I mean, what we're witnessing the CDC do or RFK junior do at the CDC is what we should be seeing Cash Patel do at the FBI, but he hasn't done it.
And I've been giving them the benefit of having him in Bondi at DOJ and hasn't done it.
So, I mean, basically, now you've had four CDC principals.
I don't know what their names are off hand.
The more the merrier.
I hope all those people that lined up to cheer for him, just like all the people that lined up to cheer for Merrick Garland, they should go through and look at every single one of them and fire every one of them.
They're bums.
They're corrupt bums.
And a lot of them, a lot of them should think long and hard about how public they want to be.
Because remember, all you CDC folks, Biden pardoned Fauci.
He didn't pardon you.
So keep that in mind.
The, you know, a future commission that might be coming.
So if you want to get real public, you want to get in the limelight, you want to brag about all the corrupt things you did while you're at the CDC and demand it continue to happen, then I think you deservedly should be looked at by the DOJ for the criminal activities you conspire to commit against the American people.
So the but credit to Robert Kennedy for dealing with this nonsense, managing to continue to clean up these utterly corrupt agencies and institutions, continuing to make progress on all kinds of critical public health issues, and despite the efforts to from inside and outside to sabotage it, that the efforts of Candace Owens' efforts to libel him failed.
I wondered, did she get a check or not?
A little bit curious given the disclosures that came out about.
In his humble opinion, she did.
I'm just putting some connections together.
There was a big, big pharma put together a whole committee and they said their key group was to use conservative influencers to sabotage Robert Kennedy and that you could pay him under the table to get it done.
And then all of a sudden we see Laura, around the same time period, we saw Laura Loomer and Candace Owens libeling Robert Kennedy.
Coincidence?
Hmm, maybe not.
That's all I'm saying.
So there's a lot more factual credibility for that than thinking Emmanuel Macron is the daughter is the son of his wife.
So but yeah, great work by Robert Kennedy continuing and we're going to have to continue defending him in the Court of Public Opinion against all the saboteurs.
And it's long overdue that Bill Cassidy be removed from the Senate, which I think he will be by the January 2027 rolls around.
My, you know, there'll be no more Mitch McConnell in the Senate, no more Lindsey Graham in the Senate, no more Bill Cassidy in the Senate.
So that will be a good and promising day.
But Kennedy continues to do very good work despite all there will be continued efforts to sabotage him, continued efforts to run media campaigns against him.
They were trying to find the right opportunity, but he's maneuvered it so well well that they end up looking like entitled bureaucrats who feel that they have a legal right to run our lives with immunity and impunity for themselves and their big pharma allies.
And the reality is that day ended on election day, 2024.
Robert, I want to, this is my serenity now face.
Let me just read a bunch from our Locals community.
Cameron Vesey is not only my favorite Viva Barnes law locals dot com member, he's the smartest and best looking of the bunch.
That message comes from Cameron.
We get it.
Kimmy Hunt, any woman without prenatal care who comes into the hospital in labor has a hepat blood test ordered along with all other blood tests, whether she's in while she's in labor.
They know if she's positive or negative before or quickly after birth.
That's actually why there's no reason for that vaccine to be given babies.
Tsadaka says, The reason I love you, David, is because you ask the same questions that go through my head.
The world is so crazy.
I start questioning my own sanity.
And then when I hear you asking the same questions, it helps me realize I'm not the one.
I'm not the one insane.
Junkman says, correct me if I'm wrong, Viva.
I believe the doctor from the FDA is about to be exposed for the corruption associated with the COVID vaccine and all the warning signs that they ignored to get it approved.
Did I read this one?
It feels familiar.
That's why we're seeing so many resignations from the FDA.
Well, Junkman, as Barnes just astutely pointed out, it was not a blanket pardon for anyone who worked with the FDA or had anything to do with that.
So resigning will not absolve them of potential criminal prosecution.
By Anola says, David, I'm seeing more and more reports about Wexit.
Do you think Western Canada will leave Canada?
Not anytime soon.
It's a long judicial process, even if they get the public support, which they don't necessarily have right now, but they have a substantial grassroots.
The most likely one would be Alberta.
Oh, yeah.
Well, it would be Alberta.
I mean, yeah.
But I mean, it's not, I don't think it's going to happen.
It's not to be cynical.
It's I, Danielle Smith.
is not, uh, she's good.
And we need to invade.
We're going to invade somewhere.
Let's invade Canada.
Like they said in South Park, you know, the, uh, the old South Park movie, invade Alberta, free the Canadians from their Canadian overlords and deport all the, all the English wannabes back to England.
And they want to show the Pakistanis and all the others that, uh, because apparently according to the English, uh, these days, the English, there's actually a court or some body or federal body that said, our job is to protect foreigners more than local residents, local citizens.
I would.
came out and said that.
No, no, it's amazing.
actually just watching a random not a random video because avi amini from rebel news put up a an update of a story he put out last year where you literally had the police saying to avi we're not here to intervene i don't want to get involved when there's a uh you know i say pro-palestinian it was a madman who's out on bail for for kidnapping and torture um the police said we're not getting we don't want to get involved when avi amini is being threatened and assaulted by uh these these these nut bass it's it's yeah it reminds me of the alex jones song remember the they
made a folk song out of the alex jones stuff yes and he's like you know somebody's gonna get stabbed in in minneapolis and the police chief's gonna come out and say i love all my somalis the uh and now they're singing uk in live time that you know the u.s i mean there was a guy i guess on a subway platform and this guy was threatening him with a knife so he hit him with a skateboard he got arrested and apparently the cop sitting there watching it the whole time and wait for the guy to defend himself and arrest the guy that defended himself no oh i'll pull up something that happened i mean we talked about what happened in canada i'm not playing the
whole thing i'm going to give you the link this is my go-to it's the greatest thing ever two-thirds through is this absolute control he goes here it's a work of art.
We're going to stab you with a butcher knife.
And then the French chief is going to.
We say we love our smiles, we love our muslims, all they're so good, all they're so sweet.
Nick Lutzko, this song, I'm convinced it became so wildly viral, not just because it's an absolute work of art, but because people who love Alex Jones are going to love it, and people who hate Alex Jones are going to love it.
And so he got both crowds.
I think Lutzko seems to be more right-wing, but I'm not sure.
I'm going to give everyone the link.
Everybody go watch that if you've never seen it.
It belongs in the vault of works of art that go into outer space.
It forms sort of the backdrop for the Carl Benjamin James Lindsay debate this week, where Benjamin's point was that the point of a country is to defend its citizens.
And we're not all individual, atomized, disconnected from culture, context, history, tradition, or religion.
And that Britain should be for the Britons.
And to say that should not be controversial.
And yet, you know, Lindsay has sort of an older school liberalism that doesn't, you know, it's anti-nationalistic by nature.
uh but i think in watching the debate ongoing i mean benjamin's a very smart guy for one uh the so he's more erudite uh but also able to be communicate in an accessible format uh then i think a lot of your more public intellectuals tend to do.
And I think he got the better of the argument with James Lindsey because he was just pointing out the immigration disaster.
And he goes, how can we have a situation where we have the British government come out and say our job as a government is the state is against its citizens?
Elon Musk has been making the same point all weekend.
And that's where I think, you know, Benjamin is right about true C conservatism chooses to conserve something like its people, like its cultures, like its traditions, like its working classes, like its citizens.
But that apparently is too tricky for the Brits to do who are part of a globalist empire that want to sink their country for a foreign war in Ukraine that's a feudal war against Russia.
But speaking of foreigners getting special preference, one area where they didn't is the Saudis and the 911, another little bonus case.
But I mean, sure, they didn't get preferential treatment.
Twenty five years later, the families have been authorized to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
That's, I mean, that's not justice at all.
I don't understand how it, how it has taken so long.
And I'm not mistaken, this was an appeal of a decision from twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen.
So what happened, it goes all the way back, but what happened in the inner, in the middle of the suit going up and down, appellate courts and so forth.
Congress passed a law that said that you are allowed to sue a foreign government if they commit tortuous conduct towards international terrorism that causes a injury, physical injury to an American in the United States.
So those are the limitations.
So it doesn't apply outside the United States, doesn't apply in a range of other circumstances, but that changed the law.
You used that you didn't used to be the law.
And so once that changed, the Second Circuit said you need to reevaluate whether your prior dismissal should still be a dismissal given this congressional change in the law, which was retroactively applied by Congress passed it retro, they said it applied back.
In fact, this whole design was for people to be able to sue governments over 911 and they finally and what the what has been alleged in the suit is extraordinary detail about the complicity of the Saudis with the 911 alleged 911 terrorists.
Now, of course, I can tell you where else that leads.
It's going to lead back.
Guess who was in the working at the CIA to coordinate the visas for these terror alleged terrorists to have come into the country when he was at the CIA?
Let me see.
It's going to be George Bush, Merrick Garland.
What's the other guy named?
Closer to home actually, if someone is looking at criminal charges as we speak.
Hold on, closer to home.
Someone is facing criminal charges.
It's not gonna be Joe Biden, not gonna be.
What's his face?
The border guy.
No, not the border.
It's Brennan.
Brennan shows up.
I would have never gotten that.
Can you imagine?
I mean, Brennan, you mentioned a deep state crime.
Magically, Brennan shows up constantly, continuously, consistently, but still a good win because I think governments should not have special immunity when they engage in terrorist event.
Sorry, I can't.
The chat's going too fast in studio TV.
Yes.
So people were getting Brennan.
Well, let me, I have a question, but I just want to show, I don't know why in our local community, somebody found this relatively older picture.
I can tell by the madness of the.
Beard.
Robert, how do you make a because you're making a law retroactive?
This is a criminal law that will, well, no, this is for civil liability, not criminal.
So they can retroactively sue because basically what happened, people, the details of the involvement of the two individuals allegedly working for not just for and on behalf of Saudi Arabia, not as agents but as employees, that they were suing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, KSA, on the basis that two of their employees who held official government positions participated, aided and abetted in the carrying out of 911.
They were initially dismissed.
Funding issues, cover up issues, transition issues, visa support issues, logistical support, you name it.
I mean, I mean, remember, the bin Laden family was rushed out of the country by George W. Bush when there was a complete freeze on air, air, air, air.
Well, this is why we'll get to the Israeli potato file, dude.
But this is where like, people say like, oh, their preferential treatment for the Israeli Tom Artyom Alexandrovich who was arrested in Vegas.
Like, they did this for the Saudis in 911 as well.
There are many countries that get potentially preferential treatment for their criminal citizens because of diplomatic relations with those countries.
Ukraine, I mean, Russia, not so much Western now, but.
And some would suggest that the Saudi CIA may relate to this the CIA role in 911.
We'll be interested to see where that rabbit hole goes when they get through the discovery.
But now they get to that discovery, which will be very interesting.
Saudi Arabia five years later.
The Saudis may just write a big check to have this go away and they may have some support from certain three letter agencies in the United States, though Gabbard has not been one of those protectors of the Saudis in the past.
So we'll see.
Are the two individuals, I forget their names, but Saudi last names, are they still alive?
I don't know.
I'm thinking like, if I'm them, I would be afraid of getting whacked.
And I don't know where you go for protection.
Speaking, I mean, we got a quartet.
of foreign policy issues related to it of various kinds.
We've got trouble in the Balkans.
We've got a South Korean president that got indicted.
We've got a potential invasion of Venezuela.
And we've got Palestinian invitees to the UN being blocked by the United States.
Before we get to those, because we'll get to those in a second, we're sort of still on it.
Tom Atyom Aleksandrovich, the vague, the Israeli cyber, the Israeli citizen cybersecurity dude working with the Netanyahu government, gets whisked off.
You mentioned a guy ahead of cybersecurity, wanting to date a 15-year-old in Las Vegas.
You kinda have to wonder about what else is he doing in that cyber activity?
There's no question, especially like you're in Vegas, in so much as you're a degenerate pervert, you can buy pretty much anything, even if it's not legal, that you have to do that.
Use computers when you're the cybersecurity head or whatever to lure from what I understood was a mentally challenged, but it doesn't matter, a minor for sexual purposes, like, felony child sex crimes, gets his passport back, ten thousand dollars, and he flees.
And we're like, oh yeah, he's not showing up for his bail hearing, his arrayment.
And he doesn't show up for his arrayment, Robert.
And they said, don't worry, he'll definitely appear.
Yeah, yeah, we'll wait to see.
No, no show when court hearing came.
Not just that, he'll appear.
Oh,, he didn't appear because we have an agreement with the DA and the judge who's like, you don't get to have these agreements with the DA.
Well, but first of all, I don't know how this works.
Like who the hell gets, how does a lawyer advise their client not to show up for an arraignment without the permission of the courts?
Well, I mean, I would never say I've ever advised a client to not show up.
But I mean, what you can do as a lawyer is you can explain the consequences to your client.
That's to explain the consequences of a certain if you do course A, here's what's likely to happen.
If you do course B, here's what's likely to happen.
You don't have to give him advice.
You just say, but even though it looked to me like the lawyer was taking credit for actually giving him this advice.
But it shows you how unique Israel is perceived that the lawyer doesn't think he'll get any blowback for it.
Any other case, the lawyer would be put in immediate trouble.
Yeah.
For coming out and publicly stating he advised his client to refuse a court order to appear.
And he notified the clerks.
Like he's like, all right, I've notified the clerks that I've advised my client with no court order.
But the judge almost protected the lawyer by saying, well, you've made a basically, I guess, a motion which is denied.
He's got to appear electronically for the next hearing.
Yeah.
It's the, of course, electronically.
Make sure he doesn't have to physically appear up in court.
The, and I mean, it just shows how because the U.S. attorney there.
that was appointed by the Trump administration, I don't think has been approved yet by the Senate, was controversial already in Nevada.
The federal prosecutor, because of a lot of controversial, she went and deleted her entire personal Twitter feed because she had a habit of saying really nasty things in favor of Israel, that basically suggested she supported, literally eliminating the Palestinians.
So when they saw her, and is it a coincidence that a deep pro-Israel person would be picked for US attorney in Nevada?
Does that have something to do with, oh, I don't know, Miriam Adelsen being elected?
Madelson being originally from Nevada, having a lot of the casinos in Nevada giving 100 million dollars to Trump, millions of dollars that go after Thomas Massey that is involved in the BB Netanyahu corruption allegations in Israel.
Maybe, maybe Trump himself is on record.
You can find him on video saying he gives Miriam Madelson anything she asks for.
Not exactly the thing I would admit on, you know, necessarily, but that Trump is Trump.
So it's an embarrassing case to have a high ranking Israeli official connected to CP and connected to and it was caught up and everybody else gets prosecuted except him in this sting operation for people seeking, again, pedophilic activity.
It's a rash activity.
And yet the and Israel has continued to protect him and the US is doing nothing really meaningful.
He was allowed to leave the country.
His passport wasn't taken.
My understanding the case has been referred to the state rather than being federally prosecuted, is my understanding.
So the, I mean, that's what it appears to be the case.
It appears to be an extensive cover up effort for Israel at a time when that's probably not the wisest goal when Israel appears to be marching us in.
And aside from all the disaster of what is happening in Gaza, they appear to be marching us that they had they did more assassinations in Yemen today, more attacks on Lebanon over the weekend, even though it's supposed to be a ceasefire.
And the, and maybe Elon Hookover will at least give the Israeli perspective on this.
I'll be curious about that.
You talk to Elon, does a very good substack, does, you know, a lot of detailed, very knowledgeable individuals as part of our viva bonds law dot locals dot com board.
But the other risk is, you know, they keep, you know, rattling the cage to have another war with Iran.
I think Iran, according to I was watching a person on, a Iranian professor that was on Glen Deeson.
You can follow him on Rumble and elsewhere, very smart, a Nordic professor that's a sort of dissident opinion about geopolitics comes from the Mearsheimer geopolitical realist school is often on with the Duran.
And he was saying that next time around, Iran is planning on massive retaliation and particularly as to the oil and energy markets.
So it's like, this is not a good idea.
And in the middle of all that, we decide we're not going to allow the Palestinians that were invited by the UN to attend the UN session that involves where everybody except pretty much the U.S. wants to recognize Palestine now as a state.
And we are refusing their visas.
The problem with that is the reason the UN is in the United States is we agree to never.
block any UN invited to an UN event.
We said, don't worry, we'll never use our border control to control the UN.
And here we are doing exactly that.
So, you know, taking a lot of legal risk for Israel, political risk for Israel.
We'll see if it pans out well or poorly in the end.
I can just imagine the conversation that Netanyahu had with Alexander was like, this was the worst time to get busted for this.
It shows the arrogance.
I mean, you know what I mean?
These people should be on, I mean, BB's good busy, I mean, Patrick Beth David learned to do an interview for the love of God.
That was the most pitiful Wuss interview ever.
He took a lot of.
I mean, that was what, dude.
That was what times what?
That wasn't being Persian.
That wasn't being, well, he's not like Persian.
He's like part of.
He's Assyrian.
He's Assyrian, yes.
So the, I mean, the real Assyrians wouldn't have put up with that.
The Sargon of Akkad would know how to do that a little bit better.
God bless him.
The, I mean, Lord, that murder, that was a pitiful.
I get BBs trying to make the rounds and they've convinced themselves they can propagandize their way out of their disastrous handling of these conflicts.
And it's like, no.
I like, I won't, I like Patrick.
There's nobody.
And I like Patrick too.
And Ben and all the rest, I was like, but dude, you get the chance to do that interview.
You can't be a wuss.
Israel's banking on you being a wuss., ask BB some.
BB's been asked tough questions forever.
He's been, this is 50 years.
One of the smartest men I've ever seen debate.
For the love of goodness, put him under the gun, challenge him, question him, make him answer questions in real ways.
Is he still repeating the nonsense lie that Iran tried to murder the president, for example?
Where does he get that nonsense?
Does he expect, does he still believe there's nobody suffering hunger problems in Gaza?
Where does he get that nonsense?
Does he believe in Greater Israel like he's been out screaming about?
So, you know, ask him real questions.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg for the foreign policy legal issues, because we got him all over the place this week, all around the world.
We got to cover the globe.
PBD took a lot of heat for that.
He took to Twitter, then he was doing some QAs.
And one of the questions was, why didn't you ask him about, I forget the specific issue.
And his answer was, well, he had already been asked about this a few weeks earlier, and I didn't think it was, you know, needed to bring it up again.
It's like, no, I mean, that's what you bring it up again and you push it a little harder.
You know, put them under the gun, man.
Make, you know, if Israel wants to get the confidence back of members of the American public, stop propagandizing and give honest answers.
And, you know, doing the rounds of BS answers, there's just a degree of arrogance here.
And you see it in the CP case, in the Peter Ass case.
And you see it in other examples of their escalation with Lebanon assassinating people in Yemen.
And, you know, they clearly are building towards another war with Iran.
And they don't, they don't stop at Gaza.
They just keep going and going and going.
And the US just keeps doing their bidding without second guessing anything, questioning anything, challenging anything, revisiting anything.
It's not a good look, I think, for the Trump administration.
But it's only one of many because they're unhappy in the Caucasus.
You know, we're stirring up trouble in the Caucasus, stirring up trouble on the Russian border, stirring up trouble in the Middle East.
And on top of that, we're stirring up trouble in the Balkans and in Venezuela.
So, you know what I mean?
It's like, how many conflicts are we going to fight at the same time?
Just so I don't lose these because they're over on Committee.
Andrew Naps is about fiftfteen minutes behind catching up.
Curious fact, Barnes sounds like Ben Shapiro at one and a half speed and JSBL four JB.
Humans can't do anything with the vaccine as newborn.
We don't have a real functioning immune system.
We are running on our moms, AKA female humans.
Immunity for six months can't help but can't hurt.
You're both great.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
So this is where I like, Robin, I lived, I was a child during the Bosnian Herzegovina war.
I don't, I it's like Serbia.
Yeah, but my my learning curve for the Russian Ukrainian war took a long time.
I've never got into the Bosnian thing.
who drank the poison at his trial and then died.
So my knowledge of that is not just limited.
I'm not even sure I could ask the logical questions.
When we get to South Korea, you know, I know what's going on there, but I'm not as obsessed with their politics to know who the good guys and the bad guys are.
I just see good guys, bad guys, everyone looks bad.
What's going on in Bosnia?
So what's happening in the great, there's a range of good books, but actually several books are written on the whole history of the Yugoslavian conflict.
It's written by someone we've interviewed, George Samuelli.
So I, you know, S Z A M U E L Y, I believe.
I hope I didn't miss, I didn't misspell his name.
Of the gaggle you can find Google, YouTube, Rumble, Logos.
Locals as well, he and Peter Lavelle do that.
He does a lot of good, very independent analysis of geopolitics around the world, extraordinarily and exceptionally well, right?
Lended some books he got into a little bit of trouble for back in the day.
That's how much he loves books.
Plus, obviously, he looks like, you know, Eastern European version of Bob Dylan.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
That is a good description.
He's the Hungarian Bob Dylan.
That's a compliment, definitely in Hungary, because Hungary is a huge, all their heroes are poets.
I didn't know Budapest were two different cities until I was there, right across from one another.
They combined the two.
There's a great absinthe bar there.
So good, I've had absinthe once in France, not enough to cause any problems.
It tastes like black licorice and other than the brain damage, I was not much more inclined to.
You gotta get the real stuff done the right way.
The, and then it's a, I call it, it's like the wolf bite, the movie wolf with Michelle Pfeiffer and Jack Nicholson.
The, the, the bite of the wolf doesn't change the character of the person.
So to the person who seeks, it gives them power without guilt, if they're not such a good person, love without doubt, if they are a good person.
And the, I, I, I said absinthe was like a wolf bite from the movie.
So the, but basically, you know, the, we broke.
up the Balkans, the West, deliberately.
So whenever you hear the EU countries talk about we must respect territorial borders of Ukraine, it was the same people that said we must not respect the territorial borders of Yugoslavia.
But it was part of this.
There was a Serbian portion of Bosnia.
So it all gets subdivided.
You end up with Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Albania, Croatia and Kosovo all connected together in the Balkans as separate independent nations of some type.
Kosovo is like in a quasi independent status.
A European court said they had the right of self-determination and could separate, which means eastern Ukraine has the same legal right that the Russians have been citing Kosovo as their legal precedent to support, which the West created in the first place.
But in this one of the leftover issues was there was this Serbian region that was going to be stuck within Bosnia.
They were promised it's sort of a degree of autonomy in their control, much as eastern Ukraine was promised their autonomy after the Maidan coup.
The Ukrainian government and the European governments never honored that.
German President Merkel would later admit it was all a trap to Russia to sucker them into an ongoing conflict by simply delaying the timing of that conflict until the 10th of July.
of that conflict until the NATO could build up the Ukrainian army.
But the similar is what happens here.
So there's this, what is it, Office of High Representative who somehow can override this unelected official can override, thirty years later, anything the local government wants to do, which is ridiculous.
And they've been going along with this.
And so the leader there, it's the Republic of Perska.
I can't, I mean, can you how do you pronounce something that's spelled SPR SKA?
What the heck?
Oh yeah, you're probably right.
You got it.
I have no idea.
But so the leader there., Dodik, they have banned from office.
So they're back on the ban from office routine.
They banned the Romanian president from running, trying to ban the AFD, EFD, AFD in Germany, trying to ban Le Pen in France, trying to ban various people in Ireland in the case of, you know, Conor McGregor, trying to ban Farage at some level in England.
So that's their democracy is to prevent all forms of democracy.
It's, you know, very contrary.
So this high representative is refusing to recognize his power, declaring him out of power, you know, just unilaterally and is threatening to lock him up if he continues.
to exercise the lawful authority the local people gave him.
So they're trying to trigger, well, they're doing this at the same time.
They're trying to throw Vukic with a color revolution in Serbia.
So they're always trying, Europe will just stir up trouble, trouble, trouble and trouble.
That's why we got, you know, Vice President Vance is on the right track.
Trump in 2016 was on the right track, which was get us out of NATO and out of Europe.
That this is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
We've already had to fight two world wars for these lunatics.
We should not have to fight another one for them.
So that's the issue there.
It's going to go on in the legal situation.
They don't get relief from the courts there because they're in the pocket of the High Representative.
It shows you how unsustainable that so-called peace model was in the Balkans.
In the same time, now the South Korean get indicted.
That's a South Korean tradition.
Go run for president, steal what you can while you're president, then you get indicted after you leave.
It's almost like third world the way South Korea operates.
It's like you can bet you're just waiting.
How long is it?
Six months, twelve months, eighteen months before the ex president gets indicted?
But now they're indicting like the first lady and indicting a bunch of other people.
So it's just like the ceaseless corruption of the South Korean people.
But on things which are on charges, which were, what were they?
Like election fraud or finance fraud or no market fraud.
Like, yeah, it's a lot of things that that I just think it's not the best tradition that South Korea has that whoever is now, part of this was because this was a South Korean president, remember, who declared martial law for him.
So a lot of it is related to that.
So I understand that.
But this effort that no matter who gets elected, they get indicted within a year or two of them leaving, makes South Korea look like a clown world country and not like a legitimate government.
No, I mean, you read it.
I don't know who the good guys and the bad guys are, but it just looks like a slightly less corrupt version than North Korea.
I mean, but we're told that they're civilized.
We're told that it's all democracy.
And yet, Eastern Europe, South Korea, they're all corrupt to that the core and they just have their coups and their tyrants in different ways than North Korea and different ways than I don't know, pick another country.
Who we think is a legitimate leader.
I hope we're not going down to Venezuela with all these military ships to stage a coup of Venezuela.
Robert, they Andrew Bailey is the code has been named the co deputy director at the FBI, which leads people to believe what's going to happen with Bongino, what's going to happen with Patel, the Attorney General.
He's a former, not a former, former attorney.
No, no, sorry, hold on.
What was his position?
The Attorney General of Missouri.
Okay, so some people hypothesize that, you know, the former Attorney General of the State of Missouri doesn't sign up to be co deputyputy director and that maybe he's got his eyes on the director prize or maybe replacing Pam Bondi.
And I said it a couple of weeks ago that maybe they're going to move Patel to fight the cartel.
That was a long winded preamble.
What is the pretext for starting this war with Venezuela?
This is about Maduro, this is about, is this about drugs?
There's been no public explanation beyond we're sending military bases to patrol the river to patrol the seas outside Venezuela based on drug cartel enforcement.
I'm sorry, Venezuela, it looks like what's happening based on this and combined with the $50 million.
$50 million.
That essentially we're sending up to overthrow the government of Venezuela on the pretext that he is a drug cartel leader masquerading as an elected president and that the real elected president is somebody else.
And that, you remember the New York Times said that somebody else won the Bolivian, the Venezuelan election.
And remember Trump was trying to pretend that Guido guy who was hanging out in Miami was the real president of Venezuela.
Very embarrassing.
Remember he put Elliot Spritzer at the helm, a famous regime change coup plotter over Venezuela politics, which was a disaster.
Rubio has always been a hawk, particularly in Latin American politics.
So on Cuba, Venezuela, other places, it's a risk.
Now, as Alexander McCorus on the Duran pointed out, there's no military troops on the ground.
So he's like, I'm not sure how you would do a military invasion just from the sea, given the ships that are there.
On the flip side, it's hard to understand why those ships are there to deal with drug cartels.
The drug cartels are still heavily Mexican driven.
So it's like, are they not, are we going to go into Mexico too?
I mean, how many countries are we going to go into in the name of stopping?
Well, I'm not crazy.
It was Cash Patel who talked about releasing the military on the cartels, right?
Yes, yes.
Marjorie Taylor Green has been for that.
Trump has talked about that.
I've never been a fan of that.
I think that's a disaster waiting to happen.
Definitely if we're getting involved in foreign governments.
Now, of course, a lot of these drug cartels' original power comes from our three-letter A. I was just listening to, I was just checking who it was.
It was Ed Calderone on Rogan talking about the cartels and basically their intimate ties with the CIA at their core.
Yeah.
It would be like the Spiderman meme.
We're going to take out the cartels.
It's taking ourselves out.
So I'm not sure what this all means and how this and I hope we're not going to be in the regime change business.
This is Dred Robert in our Logos community says asks, is there evidence the Venezuelan government is more of a drug pusher than the US government.
No.
And the other thing is, well, there's ties between Venezuela and various drug cartels due to FARC and other terrorist groups basically funding their operation and rebel groups with drugs in Central and South America, which we help facilitate all the way back to the 70s, by the way.
This goes back to us using the Nazis, ex-Nazis, to organize drugs out of Bolivia in late 1970s, starting the massive cocaine boost on behalf of the various Latin American dictatorships that we'd set up after 1964 in the name of fighting the Cold War.
Then we were the ones that helped establish.
a lot of these drug trafficking routes and have exercised continuous control with selective enforcement of drug laws to promote one drug cartel against another.
And those ties go deep, deep and wide and broad and long.
And it's like the Venezuela is not one of the leaders of drugs into the United States, just isn't.
So aside from my skepticism in general that the drug war can be successful, can achieve its end as long as there's demand for a product like that, there's no history outside of a totalitarian society at being able to suppress it adequately.
It just isn't.
We should have learned that from prohibition.
I guess we haven't.
But putting that debate aside, I don't want us going into another foreign.
It wouldn't be popular if we went into Venezuela.
It wouldn't be popular.
I mean, I ask like, obvious questions, what would be the incentive?
But it's a resource.
It's a lot of oil and gas in Venezuela.
And they have good, they had, I don't know if they still have good meat, but I was told once upon a time they had very, very good red meat.
Robert, let me read a few of these so we don't fall too far behind.
Largo Joe says I gave Keely Farms Dairy of New Smyrna, Florida a six month subscription to the board.
You should have them on to talk about the way they're being smeared in the fake news screenshot and absolutely look into that.
Sweaty Zeus says the Satanists can't get away with it.
With the kid.
I represented that Kiwi Forum guy for very dirt dirt cheap and he became a huge pain.
I did it as a favor to Nick Ricada and then all he did was harass Ricada.
Oh, they mean Kiwi Farms, not Kiwi Farms.
Yeah, yeah.
Kiwi Farms, sorry, we're not going to be promoting Kiwi Farms.
Oh, no, no, sorry.
I saw a lawsuit, but that, you know, credit to Ron Coleman for bringing it.
We'll get to that four Chan suit here in a second, but the four Chan joined with Kiwi Farms and I don't think they should be suppressed or harassed or fined, but you're not going to fine me otherwise.
No, no, no, no, no, hold on.
He burned more bridges than anyone knows the man.
No, no, Robert, Kiwi Farms is a dairy farm in Florida.
This is not a.
Oh, okay, it's a different one.
That I'm all in favor of.
It's a raw milk farm, just googling it.
Oh, that's the one that's being targeted in Florida.
Yeah.
Kiwi Farms is part of the four chan case against the UK company over censorship.
We'll get to that in one second.
So Kiwi Farms Dairy, different than Kiwi Farms.
Okay, Satanists can't come away with effing the kids if they're not vaccinated for hepatitis.
Duh, Sweetie Zeus, F. Jatan, the old chest end of letting your enemies expose themselves and be seen.
Let them burn the flag.
Let them burn the Koran as well.
Things must remain legal, secret, crazy people make the new too often these days.
Sweetie Zeus, I thought the executive order reads that burning flags in areas with burn bans.
Well, that was part of it, but that was part of it.
Yeah.
So they get special immunity.
Schnookum says, speech issues over the N word wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't weakeneded our rights by allowing the hate with respect to speech laws.
Yes.
Dunoklin says since the executive power is vested in the president, then he can simply take back the power to set the Fed funds rates.
No.
Well, he's trying to assert more control over it.
Yes.
Okay, we'll get back to some more of these afterwards.
So what is the majority control of the governors if he can get rid of these people?
Okay.
Venezuela seems to be the next chapter in the story of perpetual war, says Bulldozer over on Rumble.
I'm so freaking demoralized about how strong the military industrial complex is.
Then we got some bison meat from Bill Tong up there.
We'll get to that in a second.
Okay, Robert, Kiwi Farms, they're going in.
They're there.
Well then let me bring these up.
This is from the crumble side of things.
Buy some meat at Bilton.
Use code Barnes for ten percent off.
The eight ounce bags are excellent gifts, says Harry Toe.
Yeah, they do.
It's like this.
It comes just like that.
A little wagyu.
This is the wagyu.
It's amazing.
It's amazing stuff.
I got the Angus one too.
Oh, the meme, the meme has a Q plus in the meme and Trump left hand.
Just made an omelet with four eggs, salt, paper, garlic powder, cayenne, pepper, fresh on it and Biltong.
So good.
Eat Biltong.
Bilddozer's all in on Biltong is delicious.
Okay.
Kiwi Farms.
Now that we've gotten past the Kiwi Farms, Kiwi Farms suing the British government.
Did I not wrong or did Rumble also not?
take some sort of intervention with this or did they did they not go after Rumble as well threatening?
Okay, they threatened Rumble with action if they didn't basically do what Brazil demanded they do of certain accounts there.
What's going on?
This is the, oh jeez, I'm going to lose the word.
Online safety act.
Yes, that's right, they had they passed one.
So it's always that kind of definition, you know what I mean?
The online safety, the child protection bill.
So, you know, the it's always got that kind of Orwellian language.
So this is Britain wants basically to surveil the internet, make sure that even companies that are operating outside of the country.
I mean, gather certain information and have certain requirements in terms of what they allow on the content that's going to be available in the country.
And Kiwifarms and others have filed suit.
What's the deal?
Yeah.
So Ron Coleman filed suit for four Chan, Kiwifarms and others.
So the UK under its Online Safety Act has given power to a private organization, Ofcom, to basically demand that various Internet service providers provide all kinds of information to them to the in the name of due diligence, reviewing what's being said on their platform, who is saying it.
They're basically demanding they convert their publishing role into an editorial role and they're demanding that they use that editorial power to rattle out their own customers to spy on.
This goes to a question that Quartering raised where a bunch of public online publications, online platforms like YouTube, others pursue in parts of this Online Safety Act are requiring people to identify, give their age and other identification information in order to make sure kids are protected.
But in the name of protecting kids, what their real goal is to get identity information to prohibit anonymity so they can have a record of who's saying what where and which platforms they and they threaten to fine them and even criminally punish their principles if they don't go along with us.
So Ron Coleman has brought suit under a declaratory judgment in the District of Columbia, challenging it on two different grounds.
Well, and at the outset, he's saying it's not a foreign state entity because or an instrument of a state agency because it's actually private, it's created to be private.
So there's an argument he can get around various foreign immunity laws on those grounds.
He's seeking declaratory relief on two different things.
He's saying that the letter they issued did not go through the mutual assistance treaty, the MLAT treaty, which requires that if you're going to use U.S. government empowerment to enforce a foreign government's request, you have to go through certain protocols that they ignored.
So he's seeking a declaratory judgment that their letter is unenforceable in the United States.
And then otherwise, he's saying it violates their First Amendment rights.
The part that I wasn't crystal clear from in the suit, and that is Ron Coleman, very skilled and capable lawyer.
He's part of, we call him part of the LawTube community, but still a practicing attorney and has been involved in cases with.
He represented Laura Lumer in some libel cases, represented Gavin McInnes in some cases, has been very prominent in the copyright space, had some big wins up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The only thing that wasn't clear to me is like, okay, this is a British private company.
How are they governed by the First Amendment?
And that when I read through the suit, that was never clearly, he wanted a declaration that what they were trying was would be unconstitutional.
And I was like, but why is it unconstitutional if in the UK?
Right.
But and and then they No, he's doing in the US because they're trying to do this to a US company, but it's like they're a foreign government and you're saying it's a foreign company.
So I'm not quite it wasn't clear to me.
I get the principle.
I just don't understand the legal tool how that you get to bring a declaratory judgment that what they're doing is unconstitutional given They're not governed by the constitution and they've deliberately circumvented.
This is maybe why they're not trying to use government force to enforce their letters and requests.
So they might get a judgment in Britain that could then be the question.
Now, here's when it could be actionable.
And maybe this is what Coleman is meaning.
If they got a judgment for a fine in the UK and they recorded it here in the U.S., the moment they start using U.S. courts to collect on that judgment, then you can have a constitutional argument that you have the U.S. courts as a government actor.
This is how defamation is subject to First Amendment restraints, even in suits between private participants.
But that's not clearly fully laid out in the suit.
So the part of the suit that was unclear to me was how it's you get to sue a foreign company for First Amendment issues in the United States when they're not governed under the Constitution.
Well, so this would, even if they hypothetically issued sanctions in the UK and they get a court order in the UK and it's final and binding, they've got to take it to the US, have it homologated or recognized by the US courts, which the US courts wouldn't necessarily do because it would be violating the American Constitution.
But the end goal is very much the same.
You'll get to the point where in the UK they're just going to they're going to shut off access to four Chan and Kiwi Farms, like France basically forced Rumble out and like Brazil wanted to shut off access to Rumble.
Yeah, that's what seems like is coming.
Now the JD Vance got them to back off demanding backdoors and a bunch of other things as part of the Online Safety Act, but it appears this vestigial component is still present.
And why are we going to back for these European countries that are threatening our freedom of speech on a regular basis?
I mean, I just don't understand the logic of this that they should be made to suffer for their stupid decisions.
We should not be made to suffer for their stupid decisions.
And this is further evidence that we need a divorce from Europe.
Heck, that's what the American Revolution was supposed to be about.
So it's about, you know, long overdue a return to that principle.
The but so but you know, I encourage the suit.
Ron Coleman, very smart, sophisticated lawyer.
I just don't know quite how he's going to get to the declaratory judgment stage against a foreign company concerning First Amendment speech.
That's the tricky part.
And he's also in DC.
So good luck with the draw of the judges.
I've just got distracted by a chat here.
Is Viva collecting women's sports cards?
He only asked for baseball on UFC.
How dare you, sir?
This was, uh oh, hold on.
Oh, I'm not going to find it.
Ah, whatever.
Here's a good one.
Who is this?
This is Glover to Sharer.
Signature people.
Yes.
They're worth nothing.
They're worth nothing.
But it's fun.
There's a fight.
By the way, the fight I thought was on this weekend.
It's on next weekend.
I've recorded my picks already.
So, Barnett.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Send me those.
I'll get them.
I will.
I've been doing very good in this one.
I, you know, I, I think I'm going to be good.
I've had a good weekend college football and baseball and soccer didn't completely brutalize me like it usually has lately.
So the, so but college football is really good and and major league baseballs that is at sports picks dot locals dot com.
Yeah, but we have to have those UFC clips.
We have to have those UFC tips.
Guys, you have to share those.
You have to keep it on the download.
Um, Robert, what are we?
So hold on, we got Trump.
Let's see what we're at here.
I think we're almost.
We got the Open Courts win.
We got SCOTUS concerning race-based districts.
We got the Sportsbook $14 million dispute because Draft Kings is a cheap rogue actor.
Mail and voting in Pennsylvania, a win for drug price transparency.
And then all the crazy stuff about online cases.
The Open AI helping somebody commit suicide.
The people getting literally kicks on the kick network out of beating up a mentally disabled person and then murdering him.
And then Rampage Jackson's kid saying for fifty extra subs I'll go in and beat this man to death.
Holy moly.
Let's get to that in a second.
Let me read a few more of these before we get going here.
Why the hell does no one bring up the secondary problem with all these mortgages?
I got that one.
The unsourced talking boy that Trump is mad at Indy because Modi wouldn't nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I hadn't heard that.
Changing the name of the show, Barnes, damned if I do, damned if I don't, can't win regardless of what he says.
Healthpot, Gray 101, going into the midterms, Republicans need to cut overly generous benefits like social security, but promise continued funding for Ukraine.
I think that's sarcasm.
Viva is better than Rogan at interviews.
He needs to be more aggressive.
I could have done that.
Oh, and I just skipped all the way to the bottom now.
What if you reach out?
You know, they're they're desperate to make a podcast circuit because they're shocked that they're syncing.
They didn't listen to Barris and I and others saying, here's what your problem is, here's how to fix it.
They just ignored that.
They just, you know, the but I bet you might be able to get an interview with BB.
You could say, hey, you talked to Alan Dershowitz.
Oh, condolences, by the way, Professor Dershowitz.
No, it was, I forgot to mention that the oldest son, uh, yeah, Elon.
Elon Dershowitz passed away, I say, suddenly.
Yeah, it was his tragedy.
But you might be able to get BB to, come on.
You'd have to leave my name out of it.
But the, though you could say, here's Barnes, who defended who defended Israel on the Alex Jones network with Nick Fuentes.
Here's my partner in law, who's Jewish, even though he's racist.
Exactly.
Keep talking about.
Well, I have you seen the new and I noticed you reference it.
Have you heard seen the new, the new and the anti-Semitic?
You don't say who, you say JHO.
Oh, that guy.
Well, there was that guy.
I couldn't believe that.
The low.
It's a Jew who.
Get it?
That's where my cowardice, my neuroticity is on interview.
You would get a brother interview, but that would be meaningful.
He would be an idiot to accept it.
But the, I think the, but you know, give it a shot.
See what happens.
No, no, no.
What would happen there is that I would, if I revealed what I, you know, could potentially reveal, I'd get, I'd get whacked or I'd get audited.
something.
I'd have a, I'd have a, no, never mind, skip the jokes.
Robert, do the, let's do the kick one.
I hadn't heard about the other story of this French dude who did a 12-day abuse marathon stream on kick and then died.
I don't know what the torture was, like people hitting him, slapping him, whatever.
And I don't know if he was older and he was mentally limited.
Okay, I did not know the.
It was covered by the really a fun little culture commentary site called, I mispronounced their names.
I call them side sweepers.
They're side scrollers, side scrollers.
The YouTube Rumble elsewhere, they do a really good., quick job of covering sort of culturally, sort of they're part of the Geeks and Gamers network.
You know, we've interviewed Jeremy and Ryan and then Nerd Roddick, you know, Gary and then that whole crowd, it'd be cool to get the Critical Drinker at some point.
That guy's funny.
You know, Count Dankula, we had him, of course, one of the funniest interviews we think we've ever done.
The Count Dankula's dog died on Friday.
I didn't know that.
Robert, okay, look, I I I I losing a dog is never easy and in some ways it's even harder than losing a human because humans have the consciousness that, you know, they know his dog died.
I I have to pull up the meme because it was off his channel.
The man has a sense of humor even in his.
Yeah, he does.
You won't believe what it is.
Hold on, hold on.
Let me go here.
It was on Friday.
Here we go.
Robert, you won't believe the meme.
Everybody who doesn't know the context, Count Dankula is the guy that taught his cute little pug to do the Zieg Heil.
And then he said he trained the dog to Raz's then girlfriend, now wife, because she just loved the dog and said he was perfect.
And he's like, what could I get the dog to do that would make it very hard for her to call that perfect?
He's like, Nazi salute to every time he sees Hitler.
And he's like, he says, you want to I'm not even going to play the video and I won't say the word.
do something to the jews oh and the dog would lift up so the then the guy count ancula got charged with hate crimes he was actually put in jail for a bit i didn't it's 12 years ago robert the dog died this is the meme that he posted yeah he's great he's he's he's a one i said that i mean this is the thing there's so many things that are funny about it it's not only that hitler's welcoming his dog into heaven but that hitler's in heaven in his meme it's it's okay but that's the man who can
find the laughter even in his moment of sorrow because because losing his dog is is but um no speaking of guy who's probably joining hitler but in a different location is that uh ukrainian maidan leader who got assassinated this past week.
I didn't hear about it.
We're getting ahead of them.
I just came up on a motorcycle and boom, took him out.
And this was a former Speaker of the House of Parliament, their version of Parliament in what in which country in Ukraine in Ukraine.
He was considered he said that Adolf Hitler knew how to exercise direct democracy.
That's who you're dealing with in Ukraine.
Okay, well, so that the people should look at what happened to Benderra, the Ukrainian hero that the US helped him escape to Germany after he committed all his Nazi horrors.
Again, so horrible.
Even the Nazis were shocked at how crazy the Western Ukrainians were and how brutal and vicious they were.
That's why, you know, there's a certain Jewish memory of anyone connected to that region that has no empathy with any of them.
The Poles don't either.
They're starting to talk about banning people flagging the Bandera flag.
But Bandera thought he was well protected in West Germany.
The Ruskis, they got long memories.
One day he woke up, walked outside and pop.
And apparently that's what happened to this fellow.
And that tells me that my read on it, Russians are taking care of some old business and they're making it clear to certain people that you know, you burn Russians alive and you laugh about it on national TV like a lot of them did with what they did in Odessa.
The kids they used as playground targets for shelling.
I mean, they were shelling playgrounds.
Why do you shell playgrounds?
It wasn't Russia that did it.
It was Ukraine that did it.
If you want to know what someone criticized, oh, civilian casualties, Barnes.
There's like several thousand civilian casualties in the three and a half years Russia's been fighting this war.
Yeah.
That's less than a week in Gaza.
So that's the difference.
But this may put us, I'm not going to be crying any tears for this Maidan leader who got executed.
But that was a reminder to certain Ukrainians that may think they're immune to some of the horrible things they've engaged in.
Russia's got long memories and good luck that you're going to need it.
Robert, this is the story I hadn't heard about this part of kick.
French streamers on air death provokes outcry as authorities probe allegations of abuse.
They do the abuse to get the clicks.
Yeah.
It's like there was a common pattern with these cases.
I was like, it's what happens when technology.
is so amoral or even encourages immorality that you get you get this dystopian sci-fi reality where you actually you get clicks by abusing someone.
You get clicks by trying to murder someone.
You you build up your AI platform by encouraging people to commit suicide.
All of that happened just this last week.
It's some I hadn't heard that he was mentally deficient or mentally challenged.
He was mentally limited.
What I've read, I mean, it was very, very quickly, but that they've determined his cause of death.
I mean, it could be exhaustion just from staying up for twelve, how long would it take?
They'd make him stay up.
They'd wake him up.
They'd beat him., they punch him, they do all these things and he's mentally limited.
It's like the sick version of the circus.
Yeah.
And online clicks have made this a monetization event.
You can get monetized by doing some of the most horrific snuff film type activity and it's out there in public.
And then the question is what liability do the platforms have?
Because we, you know, discussed this in other contexts when they're facilitating pedophiles to get access to kids and they do so knowingly.
The psychological torture they've imposed on a whole generation of young girls to where they're, you know, they're upside down.
You know, over half have severe mental health issues according to their own self reporting.
And a lot of this is tied directly to their introduction of big tech.
And here you have, I mean, so that's a disturbing case.
Then you have another disturbing case of OpenAI being so encouraging to whoever's talking to it, it encouraged a kid to commit suicide and talked him into committing suicide.
So you have OpenChat AI getting sued over that.
And then you've got, you know, Rampage's kid losing his brain and saying, hey, for fifty more subs, I'll go in and see if I can kill this guy.
And then he goes and tries to kill him.
Robert, this is it's been a week, I think, and he still hasn't been charged.
Is there a realm of the universe in your predictions where he doesn't get chargeded for this.
Is it LA?
It's LA.
I think it's LA.
Yeah, there is a risk.
It's on...
Okay, it's unbelievable.
At least in France they're finally starting, but it's like there's something really disturbed.
We're going to have to figure out legal liability in a manageable way that doesn't become a dystopian surveillance control grid.
Because one thing I was not in favor of, because the other thing that happened this week is the trans another trans shooter and the and Melania Trump is out there.
I mean, I like Melania.
I liked her when she stayed out of politics.
I didn't, you know, her grandstanding for kids to end the war in Ukraine?
Well, you need to send some more letters, right?
Not just a letter to Putin, send one to Zelensky, send one to European leaders.
Not only that, while you're at it, send a letter to BB Netanyahu about what's going on in Gossip.
But now she's out there saying, hey, wouldn't it be good?
You know, there's lots of ways to see the red flags.
And I was like, hold on a second.
I know where this is going.
And it sounds like Mumdani's minority report.
So I get her intentions are good.
She's like, there's some of these people that's severe mental health issues.
We need to find ways to intervene before something disastrous happens.
Yeah, but the devil's in the details.
Otherwise, you green light a huge red flag.
surveillance state apparat.
Well, let me bring this up just because I saw it over on ComiTube and maybe it's not quite as good.
This is I have no knowledge of any of these people.
I'm just reading the super chat.
Keeley farms made my family so sick they were hospitalized.
Thank God the health department finally issued a warning against Keeley farms raw milk to save others.
I I know nothing of this.
Yeah, the problem I have with that is there according to the farm, there's no evidence of the state taking any follow-up activity at all towards the farm until late.
In other words, if they thought there was a problem, there's a protocol here.
You go through, you notify the farm, you do it, conduct an investigation, you don't go public with it, and so forth.
They have so often lied about raw milk producers.
I wouldn't trust for one second that any of those statements are true.
I saw them lie about Amos Miller for years.
And when we finally got the evidence, it turned out there was no evidence anybody had ever gotten sick with Amos Miller's milk.
And yet there's people who believe this stupid lie because, and they do it all the time.
And these health departments do it all the time.
The, the, do they ever shut down or warn somebody when, you know, Walmart shrimp turned out to be poisoned?
You know, these put out, ah, it turns out the shrimp were not good.
No, they shut down Walmart.
Recall, recall, and that's it.
Yeah, they say just that's it.
So they, they never do this with big farms, with corporate farms.
They only do this with small farms and disfavored food products like natural food.
Like natural milk we've been consuming for centuries.
So the I'm deeply skeptical about the allegations against that farm.
I'll check, I mean, I'll I'll say I'll check it out.
I'll look into it because I didn't know it was.
No, Alison Morrow has been covering it in part and she's been talking to other raw milk experts in Florida.
She's down there now.
They drink raw milk every day from their goat milk.
Did you, did you have any of the goat milk when you were up there?
I don't remember, but I did have the buffalo, the raw buffalo milk from Amos Miller, which was Wasn't that good?
As far as milk goes, I don't like drinking creamy fluids, but it was good.
I mean, it was delicious.
Isn't it amazing?
It's like, I said don't, I've never done cocaine to no one, but according to the government, it's as good as cocaine.
That's why they had to ban it.
So the, but the, yeah, so we'll see what happens.
But the, we've got, uh, the, some other cases, more quick cases, but we got the big pharma case, price transparency in Oregon.
Uh, we've got the mail and ballots in the Third Circuit.
We've got a sports book trying to stiff somebody over about 15 million bucks.
Uh, we've got some redistricting at SCOTUS.
Uh, so we've got, uh, and open courts as all part of it.
Let's do a few more and then we're going to take the party over to viva barnslaw dot locals dot com dot But first let me get a few more of the tips in over to locals.
Uh, Bill Cassidy's defending mandatory hepatitis B vaccines for babies on X. I haven't seen that.
Gray 101 says, did you read the New York Times article about Ukraine now fielding pregnant women on its front lines?
I didn't read that.
Viva, hope to see more cameos in the car vlog Dogs with Winston.
I can do it.
It's a little hot in Florida for the dog in the car, but how far off is America from turning a blind eye to migrant sex crime like Britain does?
It won't happen.
There's too much of an independent media in America to let that happen.
Barnes, you get that cough that you've had for the past six months.
Check.
I don't, maybe, I don't know if you have asthma, but I know that people don't know.
It's just a little nagging, but I've had it for a couple of weeks, but it's mostly fading.
What's the plan?
After we smoke Maduro, there's never a plan after it engages the populace against.
the populist against us and we stall out.
Who's the better alternative in Venezuela?
I mean, it's but also we're going to prop up one of our loser idiots.
I'm assuming Colombia will supply ground troops.
They are very good, says Plantner.
Dred Robert says, is there any evidence Venezuela government is more of a Yeah, we got that one.
Okay, then we got, oh, they're definitely a drug partner in my opinion, but by no means the lead drug sponsor in the United States.
Barnes, we should follow our South Korea and Illinois and imprison our politicians.
They are among the worst criminals imaginable, says Dred Robert.
I know Barnes doesn't like Constantine from trigonometry, but what do you think of the interview, his of their interview with Netanyahu?
Also, Viva is better than Rogan at interviews.
He needs to be more aggressive.
I'll get, maybe I'll reach out to Beth and yeah, we'll see.
Did, um, all he can say is say no, and that makes its own point.
No, no, no, he can do much more than say no, Robert.
All right.
Um, let's do a few, a few quick cases.
Which ones do you want to have?
Big one, we should probably cover here is SCOTUS racial redistricting, the other and the mail and ballots.
And then we can save the open courts win, the sports book lawsuit, and the big farmer price transparency for locals.
Okay.
Uh, Scott Pressler's taking to Twitter and saying bookmark thisk this tweet, if we don't get our shit together, we're going to lose the midterm elections and lose them heavy.
I think he's talking about more voting early because there's always chicanery the day of the reason and efforts to motivate voters and organize voters because Musk is probably not going to be helping the Republicans out in 2026.
And he was the lead participant in the get out the vote operation.
A lot of other people took credit for things.
There were some people that really did good work, Scott Pressler, Charlie Kirk amongst some others.
Some others that Richard Barris worked with that do good work.
There were some others that claimed credit for things that they don't want the credit for.
And there's a serious question about it.
Now what happened is the mail in ballots, the issue was we've covered this forever.
It's going back and forth throughout Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that the failure to date the ballot properly makes the ballot invalid under Pennsylvania state law and said they would enforce that because there was no constitutional right to vote by mail anyway.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, federal court, reversed on civil rights grounds.
Now, I agree with their reinvigorating the constitutional analysis for ballot access, which is this is the Anderson verdict test.
I disagree with some of my conservative colleagues who want to eviscerate that.
that and empower the state to screw our elections no matter what.
I've never been in favor of that.
So I agree with their substantive analysis in that regard.
And when I finished reading the decision, I changed my mind.
So after reading through the decision, they made a pretty compelling argument that simply the date doesn't really matter and is inconsequential to most fraud.
So they're like, you're throwing out a bunch of ballots based on a technical deficiency that you haven't shown is actually tied to fraud inquiry.
But as a pure matter of fact, who's misdating the envelope here?
Is it the stamp at the post office or is it the person?
Okay, so this was the when a person.
submitted their ballot and got the date wrong or left the date out, they were throwing out the ballots.
On their ballot, within the envelope, but the envelope itself is still dated, obviously, by the post office.
Right.
You still have legitimate dating by when it was received by the election commission, still have legitimate dating by when the post office received it.
So this was only when the ballot was still timely received but improperly designated by the voters.
Yeah, and they signed it.
Like technical deficiency versus substantive, it's still signed, it still got the accurate information.
Right, it's got everything else in it.
Now, here's what I really liked about the decision that most people have probably overlooked..
The Third Circuit reaffirmed, guess what they said was the main reason you don't have to worry about this as a risk of fraud.
They said there's a much more effective tool available to the state of Pennsylvania under its laws to prohibit fraud.
Guess what that was in the mail and balloting context?
I want to say an affience to swear in on the signature?
The signature match.
So it said, hey, they have to sign and you can check the signature.
And that's much more effective than whether they got the date right of when they stuck the ballot in.
And so the thing is, Pennsylvania has been inconsistent about that provision.
They've the I've always I've long been in favor.
I much prefer a strict enforcement of the signature match than the date.
The date is, you know, anyone that's fraudulently doing the vote can get the date right or wrong, but definitely can get the date right more often than not.
It's the signature match, which is supposed to be the best way to monitor for fraud in the vote in the mail and voting context.
Now the other thing is to get away from mail and voting in general outside of limited circumstances, which the president is trying to do through his executive order, but it doesn't achieve that necessarily immediately because the states have control over that legally.
Well, or just milk the mail and voting as much as a Republicanans did during the presidential election and not let only the Democrats get the edge on mail and voting when there's chicanery on the day of the election.
I originally came in thinking it was a bad decision, but then looking at the logic they made, I was like, okay, as long as you're going to say that signature matches should be strictly enforced as the fraud detection technique, I don't have a problem with the decision because I agree signature matches is far more effective for fraud detection than getting the date right or wrong because fraudsters can get the date right all the time.
It's the signature they tend to get wrong.
And so I agree when they gave that analysis, I was like, that's a pretty persuasive analysis.
So it was one of those cases that people say I never change my mind, but in fact they do.
And this was case after reading the decision, like, you know, that logic was better than my logic coming in.
So I hope that the key though, devil in details, will be the Pennsylvania authorities actually enforcing the signature match because so far to date they have not done so.
Even though this was the third circuit's excuse for why they didn't have to strictly enforce the dating requirement was the signature requirement sufficient for fraud detection purposes.
All right.
And what do we get here?
Let me take a brief pause.
One SCOTUS racial redistricting we'll cover here and then we'll cover the open courts win, the sports books trying to stiff somebody for 15 mil and Oregon big pharma disclosure law getting upheld in the ninth circuit.
Let me I want to bring up one thing before we leave because it's about the ostriches in Canada and our attempt.
They're trying to kill them, right?
They're trying to kill them.
They got they got the okay and now the I well let me bring this up.
I just can't find it right here.
This is from the ostrich farm itself.
Elon, we need Starlink and live feeds as soon as possible at our Universal ostrich farm.
This is the idea that I've been saying for a while and I tagged Elon.
It got some traction.
Everybody else should go do it.
Link, I say if they're going to live stream it, if they're going to kill them, let the world see it in real time.
HD Starlink continuous feeds.
So tag Elon Musk with that tweet and let's make it happen.
The redistribution, Robert.
I immediately shut down when there's a case about redististricting.
What's going on?
They want to gerrymander along racial lines so they get the outcome they want and it's always the same play, just different state, different election.
What's the deal now?
So what happened in the 1980s, liberal democrats and conservative republicans cut a deal to redistrict in the South and Southwest based on race.
And at the time, Republicans thought it benefited them because it stacked and packed Democrats into certain districts.
It prevented populist Democrats from building a biracial coalition and allowed conservative Republicans to surge in the South.
What has happened over time, however, is as the populist wing, well, used to be ancestrally populist Democrats have joined the Republicans pretty much en masse throughout much of the south and southwest.
And so consequently, it no longer makes sense from a Republican perspective to continue to racially redistrict.
All it does is guarantee a certain number of Democratic seats in deep red states across the south and southwest.
The legal excuse for all of this has been this is solely remedial and temporary.
Robert Kennedy said there's nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.
And that has turned out to be absolutely true in this context.
And so it was supposed to be temporary like affirmative action in general.
You could understand affirmative action in nineteen seventy.
1970 when five years before the person was being discriminated against uh and for a century had been discriminated against it makes no sense in 2025 when you know the last person to be discriminated against was somebody's great grandfather so the the having and using the same logic has happened in the affirmative action case the state of Louisiana said look it's time the ship has sailed and they've for two reasons one it's no longer temporary the way they put it is quote eyes set on eternity for this so-called temporary remedy Very good phrase for how this.
So like one, this has no limits.
This is not problem one.
Problem two is it's impractical in enforcement because all it does is mire the courts into constantly supervising various congressional redistricting.
And that has been a nightmare for federal courts for a while.
And SCOTUS has been tired and bored of this for a while as well.
And last but not least, but maybe most consequentially, it's unconstitutional.
It always was to say, we're going to define you according to your race.
We're going to district according to your race.
We're going to make sure you have representation according to your race.
We're going to stereotype your politics based on your race is by is considering race as a classification, which is exactly what the 14th Amendment was supposed to permanently prohibited in America.
So their point is the 14th and 15th amendment require that race not be considered a classification.
Whatever excuses were there before are no longer present, can't meet strict scrutiny.
And so the Supreme Court should get rid of racial districts altogether.
I think based on the logic and argument state of Louisiana is making, I think the Supreme Court by the end of next year is going to say no more racial redistricting.
And what that will mean is Republicans can pick up another eight to ten seats across the south and southwest once they're allowed to redistrict without giving special consideration to create minority majority districts.
I never, I still don't, I'll never understand, I guess, the history of how you were able to.
redistrict based on race.
I mean, to me, it should have been Population density.
Late 1960s.
Well, this was all done in early 80s.
But the theory back then was, look at the long history of all the different shenanigans they went through to make sure there were no black representatives in the state house or state senate or Congress.
But forget the representatives, just as long as it goes by area population density, and that's it.
I mean, it's not a question of yielding a certain result, it's just to make sure that everyone's vote is counted on an equal weight.
Right.
And that's probably what they should have done all along.
I was one of those people that was against this in the 80s and early 90s because I mean, I was a populist advocate, so I knew what it would do is it would gut populist support.
It'd create leftist lobby controlled minority representatives who weren't going to be really representative of those communities anyway.
And it was going to create more conservative establishment.
Republicans have more seats and populists were the ones that were going to get screwed on both sides.
And that is in fact what has happened.
So that's my political perspective.
But legally, I understood it in part, there had been such ridiculous efforts for a century since the end of the Civil War by the South to screw blacks from being able to vote, being able to sit on grand jury, being able to sit on trial jury, being able to have any basic rights, being able to run for office.
When right after reconstruction, there were all kinds of there were black senators, black members of Congress, et cetera.
It was clearly meant to destroy there.
So I understood the concern the courts originally came at it from, but the racial filter was always a mistake.
It never should have been the filter.
And definitely should, it makes no sense 60 years removed, yes, 60 years removed from the Voting Rights Act to still be pretending we're in the 1960s.
We're not, race should not be the basis of classification for representation, not even on a remedial basis in the current political environment.
And what it will politically, so constitutionally, I think they're right.
I think they're going to win politically, the effect will be more representative members of Congress than these sort of guaranteed democratic seats that is how it effectively evolved.
Okay, excellent.
We're going to move the party over to locals right now.
Robert, what's coming up this week either by way of appearances or by law stuff?
So on Monday we'll be may have a Labor Day vacation, you know, holiday here in the United States.
Maybe on Richard Barris may do a special Labor Day.
What are the odds?
If not, that'll be next Monday.
Otherwise, I'll be with the Bourbons Tuesday, Wednesday.
Maybe, maybe not Thursday.
It depends.
It looks like I may have to be in Seattle on Friday.
Okay.
And I'll be live all day, every day, not all day, every day, but daily this week at 3 o'clock.
we're going to have Elon Honk over from our local community for the after party tomorrow, which is going to be very interesting.
Talk about some very interesting.
Yeah, Elon is very knowledgeable about anything and everything.
Israel comes from a pro-Israel perspective in general, but not reflexively so.
And it's far more well informed than I am.
And almost, almost anyone I've followed on Israel topics, Elon is usually the most well informed of any of them.
We're going to raid NerdRotic.
So while we do this, say hi.
It'll be a bit of a change of pace, but it's been a while since we raided NerdRotic.
I'm going to read one comment afterwards.
Everyone get your butts over to viva bars law dot locals dot com dot That's where we're going to have this.
Oh, maybe after your Wednesday show, there'll be someone to raid over at Sports Picks.
Cricket and I may do a breakdown of the big games.
College football and pro football starts next weekend.
So we're going to break down the games over at Sports Picks on Rumble.
Some of the big games, so we can come for that will be at 4 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, right after your show.
All right, let's do this.
I'm going to hit the raid right now.
You're at 3 o'clock, aren't you?
I'm at 3 o'clock, yep.
Okay, I'm going to hit the confirm raid.
And let me just bring this up for one second because there's a tipped, a Rumble rant, which we didn't see.
It said signature matches.
Be sure that the signature used for the comparison is wet ink signature, not one of those signatures from an electronicic pad, such as the one at DMV.
Yep.
And then Bill Dozer says Venezuela seems like there was one more in there.
It said, I thought I saw one about if someone's too dumb to date their thing properly, their vote shouldn't count, but that might have been in locals.
And that is it.
Let me just make sure that the raid has been effective.
Viva raid booyah.
Okay, there you go.
All right, that is it.
Tomorrow's going to be good.
Everybody stay tuned.
And I'm going to be on with David Cryden.
I'll send the link around at 10 o'clock in the morning talking about some Canadian propaganda disinformation as it relates to the ostriches.
So that'll be, I'll send the link to everybody.
▲
Export Selection