Viva & Barnes - Ep. 288: VIva & Barnes Sunday Night Show... ON A MONDAY! Trump, Gavin, Government Shutdown & MORE!

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 27, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:53:26

Ep. 288: VIva & Barnes Sunday Night Show... ON A MONDAY! Trump, Gavin, Government Shutdown & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemens of the interwebs.
	Today I'm going to do something risky and a little scary yet again.
	I'm going to start with a video that I have not yet seen myself, but knowing that it's Bang Bang McFang Fang Eric Swalwell trying to look cool and hip, talk a taka taka, putting out the most cringeworthy videos, I can bank that this too shall be supreme cringe.
	Behold.
	Hey, Congressman.
	What's going on, man?
	What the fuck is up with ICE racially profiling people?
	Oh, you saw that video too where a woman's in a parking lot and an ICE agent comes up and says, are you a citizen of the U.S.?
	I mean, come on.
	Does that feel like America?
	Does that feel like freedom that someone would be so targeted because of the color of their skin or the accent they have or the parking lot that they're in?
	I mean, these masked bandits, and that's what they are right now.
	They're running around like they're invincible.
	Accountability is coming.
	When Democrats are in the majority, the masks are coming off, and we're going to make sure you follow the law.
	And it starts to feel like freedom again.
	Let me get my face in here.
	Hey, Congressman.
	What's going on, man?
	What the fuck is up with ICE racial?
	The F is up.
	Are we looking at the same thing?
	Is he silly?
	What the F is up?
	Because they think it's cool, people, to swear now.
	Now, there's nothing wrong with swearing.
	Unless you're doing it out of character to play a character in your official capacity as Congressman.
	Like, I can assure everybody of one thing.
	Had I won my run for the People's Party of Canada, for those of you who don't know, Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, I ran for the People's Party of Canada.
	Had I won and had I become a member of parliament, you would see a different tone in my tweets by and large.
	I wouldn't be calling Elizabeth May, the leader of the NDP, a drunken retard.
	I mean, I might, I might, maybe I would.
	Who knows?
	These idiots have decided it's cool to swear.
	What I love about Bang Bang McFang Fang Swallow.
	Sorry, Swallowwell.
	Sorry, I threw up in my mouth a little bit there.
	Is you can tell he's uncomfortable with what he said.
	He's speaking like with a bit of a frog.
	Profiling people?
	Oh, you saw that video too?
	Where a woman's in a parking lot and an ICE agent comes up and says, Now, by the way, I don't know what's going on in the broader context of the three-second clip that we saw here.
	A woman in a parking lot might be the way you pull over people selling things that are not, you know, currency.
	I don't know what the heck was going on before or after that led to them detaining a woman in a parking lot of a Walmart.
	Did she have a sign up that I can't even make, not even jokes, but I don't know.
	Who was I listening to talking about?
	Well, if you're looking for illegal aliens who cross the border from the southern border with Mexico, you probably are not going to be looking for too many Polaks.
	You probably, you might be looking for some Russians, incidentally, because a lot of Russians are coming over the southern border.
	You might be looking for some Chinese.
	You might be looking for some Middle Eastern people who are coming over the border as well.
	But by and large, you know, you're not going to be profiling the people with thick Irish accents.
	Now, are you?
	Because they're probably not coming from the southern border illegally.
	Anyhow, Swallowell's an idiot.
	It's fantastic.
	I love it.
	I can bank on it.
	If I want to start with something stupid of, oh, I just realized that's driving me crazy.
	There we go.
	Now we're symmetrical.
	You want to start with something stupid that's going to make you want to throw up a little bit in your mouth.
	Bang Bang McFangFang Swallowwell is the man to do it with.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	It's the Sunday show on a Monday.
	For those of you who don't know, I was off in Switzerland gallivanting around with my now good friend, Matt Koors.
	You see, look, I've actually, I put up not enough content, but I've been talking about what we were doing in Switzerland for long enough.
	I won't belabor it.
	I think everybody knows.
	I was off in Switzerland hosting a panel with Chris Pavlovsky, CEO of Rumble.
	Oh, geez, Ivan Soto-Wright, CEO of Moonpay, and Paolo.
	Ooh, I want to mess up.
	I don't want to mess up his last name.
	Agoino?
	And I screwed it up earlier.
	CEO of Tether about their partnership.
	We were talking about what's going on.
	It was a Bitcoin conference.
	And again, people, I'm not proselytizing Bitcoin, and there's no butt to that.
	I think I understand it a little better.
	I think I understand its risks, its perils, its potential limitations, its potential possibilities.
	I'm not proselytizing.
	I'm not yet there, and I don't proselytize anything, so I'll never get there.
	All this to say, I'm freaking tired.
	We missed the Sunday show because we flew.
	Okay, well, I'm just going to throw a little anecdote in.
	Make sure I have actually have given Barnes the link.
	I think I have.
	I'll tell you about Europe.
	For those who don't know, we flew to get to Switzerland.
	flew from Miami to Atlanta, Atlanta to Milan, and then drove from Milan to Lugano, Switzerland.
	I say this with tongue-in-cheek love and love.
	Italy is a backwards country.
	Okay, people like the stereotypes of Italy, they're true.
	And stereotypes, some like to call them mean, unfair characterizations.
	Other people like to call them like time-tested and true tendencies.
	Europeans work on a different schedule.
	They work on a different pace.
	They work at a different speed.
	And that's good for Europe.
	And I say this actually sincerely.
	Like, it's a different culture.
	It's a different everything.
	I prefer the American culture.
	I prefer the American spirit.
	I prefer the American way of life.
	I prefer American infrastructure because as bad as things are in certain cities here, you get to Italy.
	I thought that airport was going to collapse.
	I thought the overpass where we got with our car was going to collapse.
	There was the protective barrier around the airport.
	I thought it was a detention center.
	Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny.
	It was that green sort of accordion-like plastic barricade with chicken wire.
	And then I realized, oh, we're in the detention.
	That was the protective barrier of the airport.
	We drive over to Lugano.
	Lugano is a totally different country, even though it's adjacent to Italy.
	It's kind of an amazing thing what happens when you enforce immigration laws and control who comes into your country.
	There's a tangible material difference between Switzerland and Italy.
	One is open borders and the other is not.
	Of course, that's not to say Switzerland is good for their closed borders and their prohibitive cost of living that makes sure that the undesirables don't come in.
	Switzerland, on a business perspective, is where certain types of business gets done.
	People offshore or bringing their accounts for tax havens, whatever.
	Probably has its own underbelly as well.
	I'm going to be polite to Switzerland.
	The hell was I saying?
	All this to say yesterday, the flight back, my goodness, we go through Paris.
	It was a nine and a half hour flight from Paris to Miami.
	I watched four movies.
	I'm going to stop with the anecdote after this and get to the show.
	I watched four movies.
	American Sniper.
	I'll post the reviews to Twitter.
	I posted the reviews to locals already.
	There was a movie that I watched called Sinner.
	I just want to make sure that I got the movie right.
	Sinner with Michael B. Jordan.
	Michael B. Jordan.
	I've never seen a racist movie before.
	Sinners.
	A supernatural horror movie.
	I don't use the word racist very often.
	I'm using the word racist to describe this piece of absolute filth.
	If you don't know what the movie's about, for the first hour and a quarter, you're like, oh, this is interesting.
	It's a timepiece crime thriller of 1930s, Mississippi, about two seemingly criminal brothers who come down back down from Chicago to start a speakeasy or a bar in a casino in the Mississippi.
	And then it turns into a vampire horror movie where white people are trying to kill all the black people because the white people are the literal devils trying to ask for permission to get into the bar.
	And they literally bite the black people who then become zombies and then kill the other black people.
	They had a scene in the movie where the white Irish, blood on his mouth, was doing an Irish dancing jig outside the bar with a bunch of other white folk who were all they were there to do is be the white devil literally.
	It was an offensive piece of trash.
	I want my time back and I'm never going to get it back.
	So I expect everyone in that movie to send me a check.
	And everyone in that movie should be put in jail.
	Tongue in cheek.
	Okay.
	It really was an absolute piece of filth, that movie.
	I haven't seen the movie Get Out, which I understand also is another movie that features white people being the devil trying to do bad things to black people.
	It was an absolute piece of propaganda filth.
	I presume that's meant in tongue in cheek.
	So that's it.
	That's my movie reviews.
	American Sniper, very subpar, but I'll get for it.
	Okay.
	Now, before Barnes gets in here, people, and speaking of criminality, I want to thank our sponsor of the day, which is Home Title Lock.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me bring it up here.
	I got to bring this up here.
	Boom Shakalaka.
	Home title lock.
	Hold up, hold up, hold up.
	I've got everything all backed up here.
	Oh, come on.
	I hear a kid making some noise.
	Hold on, people.
	Okay, there we go.
	I want to make sure this, get things backed up.
	I'm going to bring another screen up and scroll this down.
	So jokes aside, peeps.
	When we moved down to Florida, I discovered something that I actually didn't know existed in Canada, which is home title fraud.
	I mean, we have it in Canada, but it doesn't seem to be quite as prevalent here.
	If you are a homeowner in America, not for our Canadian brethren, you need to listen to this.
	The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud on the rise called title theft.
	Your equity is the target, and how it works is very simple because most people don't realize a lot of this documentation is public and easily accessible.
	Criminals forge your signature on a single document, use a fake notary stamp, and file it with the county.
	And just like that, on record, they will own your home using your ownership.
	They can take out loans against your equity, even sell your property, and you don't know about it until foreclosure or collection notices show up in the mail.
	That's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock so you can protect your equity and find out today if you're already a victim.
	Use my promo code, go to hometitalock.com.
	You'll get a free title history and a report and a free trial, and up to a million dollars triple lock protection.
	That's 24/7 monitoring of your title records, urgent alerts on any changes.
	And if fraud occurs, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix it.
	It's an amazing thing when we came down.
	You know, we discovered things, learned things, and learned of this.
	It's a real, it's, it's scary.
	And a million bucks, they're not an insurance company.
	They will fight and make sure that whatever wrong has been righted.
	Actually, I just got off a call with him to make sure I understood everything as well.
	And it's an interesting thing because, you know, depending on who perpetrates the fraud, it's easier or more difficult to remedy.
	You know, sometimes fraud is perpetrated by lawyers, friends, family, people who don't think people should be able to manage their own properties.
	And they can do this.
	And it's shockingly easily, but shockingly easy.
	Go to home titlelock.com, use promo code Viva, and you will get all the protection that you need.
	And it's fantastic.
	All right.
	Now, let me see where Barnes is.
	Does Barnes have the link?
	I might not have sent Barnes the link.
	Hold up.
	Wait a minute.
	Something ain't right.
	Where's Barnes?
	Let me let me send Barnes the link here.
	And then I got some updates on the ostrich farm, but I need to read them and make sure that I understand them before I report on them.
	So that's that.
	All right.
	And now let's make sure that we are live across all platforms.
	We're live in vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but I'm not on the right window.
	Egosh, someone just put you.
	You want to say that we have the best memes on earth in Rumble in locals, but we also have who found this picture?
	I mean, that's me.
	That's what I look like.
	If we freeze something in the middle of a frame, that's what I will look like.
	All right, peeps.
	You know, I'll start with a Canadian story, a Canadian issue.
	Let me see something here.
	I stole the title to the White House.
	It says SVA123.
	You may or may not want to actually be there.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Did you guys see?
	I mean, the news of the weekend, we're going to get into this when Barnes gets here.
	Is Trump going nuts on Canada because of the Doug Ford Premier of Ontario running an ad which I say impactful.
	It was a well-produced ad, but absolutely dishonest in its portrayal of what Ronald Reagan said.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	So the guy who, I'll bring this up, I don't want to put anyone on blast, but to the extent I already posted this on Twitter, the individual has already been put on blast.
	When you discover the truth of things, let me see here.
	Benny, did he delete the original post?
	I think he might have.
	Yeah, he might have deleted his original post.
	That is interesting.
	Post is unavailable.
	This was an independent journalist who works for the New York Times.
	If I go to it, what happens?
	Oh, look at that.
	Interesting.
	Deleted.
	Doug Ford ran an ad in Ontario, and it was a spliced-together audio montage of things that Ronald Reagan allegedly said about tariffs that were allegedly not flattering and allegedly critical of tariffs.
	And thanks to the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs, actually, the first person who I think will give credit to the person who found this original clip.
	People were running with this, saying, oh, look at, look at this.
	And there was a guy who actually posted the video saying Trump is big mad that Reagan said what he said about tariffs.
	And it was, you know, Trump accused him of taking it out of context.
	And it wasn't.
	And here's the video.
	And the video that the individual posted conveniently cut off about 55 seconds too early.
	And if you haven't seen it, I think many of you have, but enjoy it nonetheless.
	Now, it hasn't always been easy.
	There are those in the Congress, just as there were back in the 30s, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who risk America's prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than 5 million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business, and additional millions are tied to imports.
	Well, I've never forgotten those jobs.
	And on trade issues, by and large, we've done well.
	That's where it cut out.
	That's where the video that I've brought.
	I've never forgotten those jobs.
	And on trade issues, by and large, we've done well.
	In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we've taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products.
	But we've still maintained our basic long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.
	So with my meeting with Prime Minister Nacassoni and the Venice Economic Summit coming up, it's terribly important not to restrict a president's options in such trade dealings with foreign governments.
	Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that.
	I'll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation because it's just another form of protectionism, and I may need your help to stop it.
	Remember, America's jobs and growth are at stake.
	Thanks for listening and God bless you.
	Is that not?
	First of all, how anybody, I mean, like, he's a great president.
	He speaks well, how they made fun of his intelligence, and, you know, he was just an actor.
	How they could claim that what Reagan was doing was a full-throated disavowal of tariffs.
	I appreciate the broader context of this statement.
	On the one hand, he is saying, you know, free trade has certain benefits and tariffs have certain risks.
	On the other hand, most people with half an emoticum of intellectual reasoning understand that what he was doing was not bookending, but rather buffering the statement he was going to give, which was, let me impose tariffs with an argument as to why I don't worry about me exploiting tariffs abusively or to the point where it would hamper American jobs or compromise American jobs.
	Robert, when he says the piece of legislation that he's talking about was Congress trying to pass a piece of legislation to restrict the president's ability to impose tariffs, and that's what he was referring to as a form of protectionism that might actually cost American jobs.
	I'm not wrong on that.
	Yeah, no, that's correct.
	Even though he was inconsistent on his own trade policies, philosophically and otherwise, that particular statement was him wanting to have carte blanche in negotiating authority, which is what Trump wants.
	So they misused that statement to represent something exactly the opposite of what he was trying to say.
	And so I guess Trump hit Canada with more tariffs.
	I don't know if that was the wisest political strategy given the eve of the Supreme Court argument, but he was correct about the facts, not Canada.
	Robert, first of all, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	I couldn't get you the cigar cutter I wanted because I was like, oh, I'm going to go.
	I only had a carry-on.
	I'm not coming over with a blade.
	I'm so stupid.
	You're out in foreign lands.
	You think, oh, I'll get gifts for people that I could get anywhere and ship from anywhere.
	Being in Switzerland and getting it.
	You know what they have?
	Switzerland.
	You just need to pack in some.
	I'm not taking any chances coming over the border.
	Sir, so what's I'm not saying you could put like a different label on them and it wouldn't cause an issue, just hypothetically speaking.
	No, I'm subject to enhanced scrutiny because of the way I look when I cross a border.
	Sir, what do we have on the menu for today?
	We've got all the geopolitics, Russia sanctions, China trade, Venezuela conflict, and Gaza ceasefire on the geopolitics front that Design Trump is traveling this week in Asia, dealing with some of those controversies and conflicts.
	I was myself, my law firm, and a young lawyer that works for me was threatened by a combination of a nutty rabbi and a loony preacher over an issue concerning representing Owen Schroyer.
	I'll get into some of that.
	We've got the, what is all this cattle farmer dispute here in the U.S.?
	Why are prices rising?
	Why is Trump pretending that bailing out Argentine farmers is somehow a solution to U.S. farm prices?
	What is that all about?
	What does it go?
	Senator Mike Lee and some others, Congressman Thomas Massey, still doing God's work in the House, have some ideas on that regard.
	Antitrust, Google and Apple facing it.
	And there might be an antitrust connection to the cattle farmer dispute I was just referencing.
	We've got SCOTUS National Guard is going to be presumably this week resolving that issue and tariffs oral argument.
	They are extending it and expanding it.
	You can even get involved in the prediction markets as to which way SCOTUS might rule on Trump's tariffs.
	It might result for those people who haven't processed it all.
	It's not just about Trump's tariffs going forward.
	It might compel Trump to give refunds to everybody, which would create a budgetary problem because of how tariff revenue has been used to paper over certain issues.
	We've got all kinds of trans issues in court again, as various judges are demanding that trans get funded, trans get protected.
	The Minnesota Supreme Court now says you have a constitutional right for men to compete in women's sports in that state.
	The Melania, in a bit of legal trouble, in a lawsuit with Michael Wolf, the former reporter, who has a very unique form of an anti-slap case, bringing it himself, which is a little bit different.
	And the meme coin dispute, another pump and dump scheme in which Melania Trump has been implicated only indirectly, not directly.
	AI, OpenAI, sued for causing suicide.
	So where might that go in terms of the chatbot world?
	As AI announced its new monetary scheme, what is it going to be?
	Oh, AI porn.
	That's right.
	Something they said they were never going to get involved in.
	They're going to get involved in.
	The Mueller cases finally come to an end.
	John Brennan referred for criminal prosecution.
	James Comey and Big Tish James demand dismissals on the grounds they don't like how the prosecutor was appointed.
	And a renewed version of selective prosecution.
	We'll see if the court system suddenly rediscovers that doctrine.
	And Mike Davis and a bunch of others, even Laura Logan, others are out there saying, Obama and Hillary are right about to get indicted.
	How probable is that?
	The NBA poker indictments or the gambling indictments that were much ado about nothing really.
	We'll get into that.
	And last but not least, the legality of the stablecoin revolution, 95% of which we just covered in a separate interview with Brent Johnson of the dollar milkshake theory.
	You can get into greater deep dive there, but we'll cover just some of the top of the landscape here.
	Well, let's start with the stablecoin stuff because it's sort of consistent with in line with what I just got back from.
	I mean, so we just talked about it for an hour with Brent Johnson, Santiago Capital.
	Everybody.
	And you were there in Switzerland interviewing people.
	Wasn't like when a live stream was like eight hours or something?
	It was like, I was like, hold on.
	This is a live.
	So some screen was like, I turned on, I was like, holy crap, it's like seven hours, these people talking in Switzerland.
	Jeez.
	Well, no, there was on the main stage, it was just day, you know, all day, but broken up into hours.
	There is talk of the U.S., I mean, the Genius Act and the Clarity Act.
	I mean, it's funny that they both, they're befuddling geniuses and they require clarity.
	Can you summarize just summarily what the Genius Act does?
	Basically, it acknowledges the legitimacy of stablecoins and enacts.
	I don't know if it enacts some sort of regulatory framework just yet, but it legitimizes, if not yet, institutionalizes the use of or the potential use of stablecoins, which themselves are a digital currency that, in theory and in practice, to the extent they're done properly, have to be backed at a one-to-one ratio of people who buy the digital coin.
	That dollar investment has to be used to actually buy and have on a reserve actual dollars to back up the digital dollars.
	What does the Genius Act do that people are so optimistic about?
	Well, fundamentally, it was about unleashing blockchain technology into the financial space to provide more financial opportunity for the unbanked globally and to provide some degree of security and confidence in these new blockchain technologies that are being essentially monetized and financialized,
	programming it quite literally into code in ways that the unreliability and uncertainty from the FTX ex-Sam Bankman Freed cases, the Binance case, he just got a pardon last week.
	That's interesting who's getting pardoned to it.
	And all of it relates to the guy who didn't get a pardon, but at least finally got his case dismissed, which is Roger Veer.
	Roger Veer, about a decade ago, started saying, by the way, the government is out to co-opt blockchain technology.
	They're out to steal it to suppress and steal your rights and deny the exit ramp that crypto can be and put you back into the entrance ramp, back into the control grid.
	And as Brend Johnson detailed in our interview with him, that is in fact how the Clarity Act or the Genius Act can be used.
	Not a guarantee they do use them in that way, but they absolutely, what is being sold as regulatory certainty and safety, because this is how they always sell regulatory control, is in fact underneath it, the capacity to the, while it does help the tethers and those kind of in the rumbles of the world and the truths.
	I mean, truth doesn't have much financial future as an independent media platform.
	Its entire economic future is based and tied into crypto in that world.
	It helps provide economic stability and certainty to that world by these laws.
	So I was in favor of that aspect of it.
	But if misused and abused, it can become a form of a global central bank digital currency.
	It can weaponize the access to the dollar in the same way we're seeing with Russian sanctions currently in ways that disturb and unsettle the rest of the world and enhance the probability of conflict rather than diminish it.
	And basically returns us back to the control grid that crypto was supposed to be the exit ramp from.
	The argument I asked, well, first of all, I will ask the question here about George Soros, how he went and almost bankrupted the Bank of England.
	And who he might be connected to in the current White House?
	Well, okay, we're going to get there after this question, Robert.
	So the risks, I appreciate the there were people also saying this was a great way to nationalize, internationalize the national debt by effectively, I don't know, spreading out the U.S. debt throughout the world and giving other people access to borrow against it.
	Or sorry, buy into it.
	What do you, I mean, I'm not sure I even understand that fully.
	Is that a potential purpose?
	Trump is saying so.
	I mean, it sounded to me like that the expansion of the use of the digital dollar, Trump believes, can, in fact, help him monetize the debt.
	And, you know, how you monetize the debt is you just inflate it away, right?
	The benefit of inflation is: okay, I owe, let's say, oh, Viva $100.
	If I control the currency, and I all of a sudden that that $100 is worth, I pay him back in $100, but it's worth a dollar in real terms because of the diminished purchasing power of the dollar.
	I've paid back my debt, but Viva's got screwed.
	And so that's what the risk is of that.
	And they always run a careful negotiation with that.
	Trump has said this overtly in the past, why he doesn't care about debt.
	But the issue is, if people believe that, then that's going to have economic consequences.
	They're like, oh, you're just going to monetize the debt.
	That changes how they perceive the value of the treasury, how they've viewed the value of investing in the U.S. economy.
	That's why Trump will let it float now and then and then not publicly discuss it.
	It's the backup plan in case there's no other way to meaningfully pay back the debt because he controls the currency in which the debt is issued.
	What's very unique about the U.S., unlike, say, Argentina, we had to bail out, is our debt is in our own currency.
	We control it.
	And no one else does.
	And the utility to being able to control it potentially globally, because those that don't understand the Euro dollar system, it's dollars issued not by us, but by private banks around the world.
	Well, what happens if that's just now the digital version of that, except individuals can basically figure it out just by issuing it to themselves through this new form of stable coin currency, if you will.
	All of a sudden, we have control through money over a broad, much broader range of people, populations, behaviors, et cetera.
	And it could become a nightmare.
	In other words, what could become the tool of freedom could become the tool of suppression.
	So watching it and monitoring it, how it's used and how it develops is going to be key.
	And unfortunately, you hear very, remember, Marjorie Taylor Greene dissented on this.
	She was like, I'm worried about aspects of this bill.
	I want this to be fixed because I don't want this possibility to come about.
	She was right.
	I was still for the bill because I'm for more alternative mechanisms of currency distribution, but I shared her concern.
	She was one of the only people expressing that concern.
	I mean, usually, if you're looking for someone to stand up to the administrative state or the deep state of the bureaucracy, few people have been more consistent than Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey and Rand Paul.
	Interesting that they are the ones being targeted by so much institutional interest in Washington.
	So that's the long and short of it.
	But I highly recommend people go to San Diego Capital.
	They can, for very cheap, you know, basically they can get that free paper that's usually only available to his high-end subscribers that he goes into a 35-page review of all the ways in which stablecoin can play out, What that's going to look like on a global basis.
	And he's one of the only people talking about this in that level of detail.
	But there's no question there's some devil in the details, and there's not a lot of people paying attention to those details outside of Brett Johnson.
	Now, it was hyphen over at Viva Barnes Law that had asked the question during the stream with Brent, but we didn't have enough time to get into it.
	I remember it happening where George Soros somehow, I don't know how he did it either, nearly bankrupted the Bank of England.
	How and who else might have been involved in that?
	So Soros is infamous for betting against currencies.
	So this is why he has always been deeply ingrained into the political life of the world.
	We watched this past Saturday documentary on how big oil conquered the world, talking about the rise of the Rockefellers and other related parties, and how that even the U.S. educational system, the medical system, the pharmaceutical system, so many of the aspects of the monetary system all come back to these oil titans, titans that Corbett called the Corbett report called the oil garkey.
	There are two people who looked at that and said, wow, those are people I want to model.
	Those are people I want to mirror.
	And those were Bill Gates and George Soros.
	Born George Shorts, as I recall, and who loved helping the Nazis steal from his fellow Jews, then went on to figure out his open borders, number one infiltrator around the world.
	His favorite pet project has been Ukraine.
	His big adversary has long been Vladimir Putin.
	And what he does is he sinks and shorts or stabilizes and rises various currencies around the world and manipulates the governments and the markets of those countries to line his own pockets.
	He famously bet against and helped sink for a period of time the British pound.
	The person who was his young protege, who is his lifelong benefactor, who owes pretty much all of his wealth and power to George Soros, who learned how to manipulate markets on a global scale, who learned how to manipulate politicians on a domestic scale from George Soros, is none other than one Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett.
	And Steve Bannon, who is infamous for terrible recommendations when it comes to personnel, has been foolishly vouching for this deep state saboteur who represents the interest of Wall Street, not the interest of others.
	So there was good reasons for us to want to help Malay in Argentina.
	But did Bessett's pals really need to pocket a bunch of extra cash on the side, given how Bessett handled it?
	Is it any surprise that when Bessett and Rubio got into the room, the peace deal we were talking about last week with Russia and Ukraine and a rapprochement with the U.S. and Russia suddenly gets sabotaged, thrown out, thrown out the door, and all of a sudden we're back to Joe Biden policies part two.
	Why?
	It's because Bessett is an anti-Russia, has George Soros' views on most of the world.
	This is a guy, lifelong Democrat, only started to join the Trump regime.
	It almost looks deliberate in the way it worked.
	Trump comes to power.
	All of a sudden, Bessett leaves Soros, but Soros funds him to the tune of billions and billions of dollars for his special fund.
	And he uses that to infiltrate over about seven, eight years, Trump world.
	And now he's, whenever he wants to sabotage something, he blows it up.
	If he wants to sabotage Trump's tariff policy, he gets blown up.
	If he wants to sabotage Trump's monetary policy, it gets blown up.
	If he wants to redirect stablecoin policy away from its original intentions of providing a crypto alternative to the bankster class and the central banks and central planners, the actual legislation and its regulatory enforcement looks like what we talked about with Brett Johnson, which is to basically control a de facto central bank digital currency for the entire world.
	And who is organizing this?
	Scott Bessett.
	When Billy Long, the reformer, is put in place in power at the IRS.
	I thought he was the best IRS commissioner ever because he said the IRS shouldn't exist.
	That's my kind of IRS commissioner.
	All of a sudden, he gets sacked.
	He gets sabotaged, sabotaged, sabotaged, then sacked.
	Who takes over?
	Scotty Bessett.
	When Doge is starting to say, we need real reform, we need to dig in to the Federal Reserve.
	We need to audit Fort Knox.
	We need to take a look at what that infernal revenue service is doing.
	We need to take a look at the black book budgets, the black budgets of the CIA and the Pentagon.
	All of a sudden, it gets shut down.
	Not only gets it shut down, Elon gets severed from Trump and kicked out.
	Who is the person who almost got into fisticuffs with Elon Musk when Elon exposed this?
	The same Scott Soros Bessett.
	Okay.
	You are making me, I say I'm on the fence and back and forth about this Stable coin and its expansion throughout the world, where I could see it being good for the U.S. dollar, but you're making me very not cynical, just raising some questions.
	The audit of Fort Knox, there was a market on Calci a while back, whether or not it's going to happen.
	I don't know if the market has lapsed because it's not happened yet.
	What is the idea here that in Fort Knox, in theory, was all the gold that served as the backup before the dollar came off the gold standard?
	I think it's supposed to be like a trillion dollar, close to a trillion thirty.
	Well, especially if it's repriced, because remember, we've never repriced that gold.
	So, I mean, we could change our balance sheet by pricing it to the current price.
	We have at the very, very old price.
	Yeah, hold on.
	Would that be better or worse to now state our assets?
	It would be better to stay our assets.
	It would provide an additional exit ramp for Trump.
	I mean, Elon said it was going to happen.
	Doge wanted to do it.
	It was on pace.
	And then, boom, Scotty Besson put an end to all of it.
	There will be no audit of Fort Knox while Scott Besson is Secretary of Treasury.
	And there will be no investigation, no indictment, no civil action against any of the Soros-related NGOs, as long as Scott Besson is Secretary of Treasury.
	Because guess who controls looking at the money trail?
	Scott Besson.
	Does anybody think the man who made him rich, the man who made him fabulously rich, the man who gave him all the power in the first place, the man who gave him all the prestige, he's going to turn around and backstab and destroy?
	No, nothing will happen to George Soros as long as his pal Scotty's in this Secretary of Treasury's chair.
	That's a little discouraging, Robert Sunday.
	I was nice, by the way.
	I was nice about this for six months.
	People tell me, oh, Barnes, don't worry.
	He's on the good side.
	He's buddies with Fred Trump.
	Steve Bannon says he's good, which, by the way, has never been an endorsement for me because God bless Steve.
	He has the worst recommendations on the planet.
	As a whole, I mean, just disproportionate.
	Just go back and look.
	He thought Robert Mueller was a good guy.
	I mean, oh my goodness.
	But now it's become very apparent what Besson's been up to over the last month.
	And the, and so, I mean, Besson going around the, I think, watch the China trade deal not be much at all.
	Watch the, we end up with tariffs not near 100%, maybe even not even 50%.
	And we end up going back to close to Biden-Arab trade policies.
	Now, some of that, as Brent Johnson detailed, is due to our misread of their rare earth monopoly and how they would play that card.
	But part of it, I suspect, is I don't think Scotty Soros Bessant is fully on board with Trump's China policy.
	And I just noticed for whatever the reason, our stream has been terminated on CommeTube.
	Let me just go make sure I still have a channel there.
	Anybody who's watching on YouTube, Miss Scuzzi, I was trying to broadcast this as though it was our Sunday show.
	I'm going to have to figure out what the hell just happened there.
	It doesn't matter.
	Rumble is the place to be anyhow.
	I had personal, let's just say I have personal reasons to know what Bessant and Rubio are.
	Well, I can't know because I was thinking like you're going hard now, and I don't recall you having gone hard on Steve Besson.
	He gave him plenty of leeway until he proved he was a traitor.
	You had mentioned something that I wanted to delve into.
	It might segue into the geopolitics at large.
	We'll come back to whatever we missed here.
	The peace deal that Trump just negotiated in Cambodia, but the fighting between Cambodia and Thailand, and I don't even think that most people knew that war, I should say this.
	Maybe a lot of people did know.
	I don't think it got the not many people knew.
	No, it was relatively short-lived.
	Well, it started.
	So it broke out in July.
	There was some cross-border fighting killed.
	I don't know, 50 people, maybe a little, maybe a little more, more or less, depending on the numbers.
	And now there's been a peace deal that's been brokered.
	Trump is taking credit for it.
	The left is not giving him credit for it.
	And then I'm sitting here thinking, you know, what was his role?
	What credit does he deserve?
	What credit can he take?
	What role did he even play in negotiating this deal?
	The essence, I mean, does he get to take credit for this or is it something that just happened under his watch?
	He helped.
	He helped the other facilitate it.
	And I like a president that wants peace.
	So I like when he wants to negotiate these deals.
	So the outside people outside of the U.S. would be more critical and skeptical of the degree of Trump's role.
	And that's fair.
	But I think I want a president that says, hey, I have an opportunity for peace.
	Can I do something for peace?
	And he's done this on multiple occasions.
	Now, I don't think him taking credit for ending the Iran-Israel war that he helped start or let Nebib start.
	That I don't think he, I don't call that a peacemaking role.
	I don't call what happened in Gaza exactly a peacemaking role for Trump.
	There was aspects of it, but it means that that deal was on the table for months by the Arab royals and it required Israel bombing Qatar for Trump to wake up to the problem of BB Netanyahu.
	Not that Rubio isn't running around trying to sabotage that on a regular basis, by the way, as well.
	He's full-blown neocon and he's sabotaging deals all over the place, trying to drag us into wars all over the place.
	Bloomberg talked about it.
	Reuters talked about it.
	Others have talked about it.
	The lie, you know, like Lindsey Graham, Marco likes to put on to high heels and dance a little while and dress up, cross-dress a little while.
	Well, he's been cross-dressing his MAGA early in the year, and he's sabotaging all these deals.
	Vance goes over there, makes it clear to Israel, you cannot breach the ceasefire.
	You can't be greater Israel and grab and annex the West Bank.
	So Rubio follows him right away and undermines all of that.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But I mean, Trump deserves credit for putting pressure on Bibi to get to the Gaza ceasefire, but keeping it is going to be a mini miracle, especially when Rubio is happy to help Israel sabotage it on a daily basis.
	Before we even get into that, actually, just wanted to, well, because now one thing's going to segue into the other.
	Part of the, you know, Trump did have some negotiation involved in negotiations, made some trade agreement with actually with Thailand.
	With Cambodia, sorry.
	And that was his leverage.
	I mean, he offered as an incentive in these different, like same with the Rwanda, the African deal, these looking at Ethiopia and Eritrea.
	That's it.
	I should know because it's the, I actually helped years ago with their tax laws.
	Long story.
	But a lot of these places have, like, in Africa, a lot of rare earths, a lot of other resources in play as well.
	Now, with Cambodia and Thailand, there's a relationship there with China.
	So there's geopolitical interests for the, and Trump has used those geopolitical interests to leverage peace where and when he can.
	And so I think he's been very successful in those areas.
	Now, it may have misled him as to what the ease would be and to what the real backstory is on things like Ukraine, on things like Israel and Gaza, on things like Iran, on things like South America.
	But I think his motive is right, and he's definitely deserves at least some credit, according to the foreign leaders themselves who have credited Trump's role.
	Now, they have a motivation to play that up because they want to maintain relations with him, but that tells you Trump has leverage in the first place.
	So that's a very good positive.
	It's been one of his successes has been negotiating these diplomatic resolutions to kinetic conflicts.
	And so hopefully he's able to sustain that.
	But we'll see.
	He wants to meet with the North Korean leader when now he's over there in Asia.
	I'm all in for something, some form of nuclear weapons control, especially.
	I mean, the U.S. is the one that pulled out of all of them.
	We right now have none.
	The Star Treaty expires in February.
	And what Russia is busy doing in between submarines, nuclear-powered submarine, little mini submarines, drone submarines that can induce a tsunami.
	Now they got a nuclear-powered missile that can be nuclear weaponized as well.
	But nuclear-powered, meaning what?
	It can go on, go and go and go and go and go this direction, this direction.
	They just tested it.
	This is not an ideal world to be in.
	We should be back into the arms control business, not the arms proliferation business.
	So hopefully Trump returns to his roots on that.
	But the yeah, so I mean, the whole world keeps going in multiple directions.
	Trump wants it to go one way.
	His own cabinet want it to go another way in the form of Marco Rubio, Neo Khan Rubio, and Scott Soros-Beset.
	I just looked up.
	Scott Besant does not appear to be Jewish.
	He appears to have ties to a church.
	But as someone told you, Robert, you don't have to be a Jew to be Jew-ish.
	Blada bing, blada boom.
	But speaking of the conflict, everyone out there, that's a joke, by the way.
	In Israel, I don't remember when this happened now because last week is something of a blur.
	When was the alleged violation of the ceasefire that Israel went in and killed a bunch more of Hamas, said the two soldiers were killed by terrorists in the tunnel, and then it might have been that the IDF had a bulldozer that went over an unexploded ordinance that killed the two soldiers.
	Then they went back to the ceasefire.
	Was that early last week?
	Yeah, well, basically, Israel's killed about 93 people since the ceasefire.
	That gives you an idea.
	Have we had any?
	I don't know if I missed the answer.
	Did they clarify if those two Israeli soldiers actually went over a tunnel and Hamas soldiers popped out?
	A lot of inconsistent, contradictory intel and information.
	I mean, it looks like Israel's eager to breach the ceasefire.
	Now, well, put it this way, according to their own national security minister, he's like, hey, we got our soldiers back.
	Now let's, we got our hostages back.
	Now let's go in there and raise the rest of them.
	I mean, you can find him saying these kind of things online that people have doubts about this.
	And then you have all the internal insanity of what's taking place in Palestine because you have Hamas who lost power, displaced, trying to regain power.
	You also have legitimate policing and crime issues, as Trump himself has referenced.
	So you've got the, and then who is going to go in there?
	It's not going to, according to Vice President Vance, it's not going to be U.S. troops.
	So it's going to be this combination of Arab and it's not going to be Israeli troops.
	So purportedly, it's going to be this combination of Arab and Muslim troops.
	But Israel's already vetoing some of that.
	So like Turkey, Erdogan, he can't wait to recreate the Ottoman Empire.
	He was like, yeah, well, we'll send some troops down.
	Kind of makes sense and to a degree because Turkey is, you know, Erdogan is more aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.
	That's where Hamas comes from.
	Probably Turkey is the less everybody's hostile to Hamas in the Arab Muslim world, but not Turkey, not as much as everybody else is.
	Egypt hates him.
	Jordan hates him.
	All the royals hate him, so on and so forth.
	Indonesia is talking about maybe sending some troops in from a little bit more distant place.
	So getting to that stage is going to be critical.
	And there's clearly part of the hard right in Israel.
	Bebe's already talking about new elections that wants to go in and finish the job, that does not want to honor and respect the ceasefire.
	Trump's ego is directly vested in this.
	So I think Trump will do everything possible to hold the ceasefire, but he's got in-house saboteurs.
	You know, the only thing Scott Bessett really disagreed with George Soros on when they longtime worked together was Israel.
	Soros is anti-Israel.
	Beset is pro-Israel.
	So you can't trust those sources to give trust honest intel.
	Ratcliffe, who's putting the rat in Ratcliffe and CIA director, has just been recycling garbage from Mossad.
	And you don't have to trust me on this anymore.
	You can just watch Witkoff and Kushner say as much in their interview and Witkoff's son say as much on social media in their 60 Minutes interview.
	They were like, the reason why we didn't get the peace deal done sooner is Trump was being lied to by Rubio.
	They don't say Rubio, but was being lied to by saying Hamas would never take this deal.
	And in fact, they're always willing to take the deal.
	And when they found out it was lying, they got the deal done.
	But think about that.
	Trump's own CIA director is lying to him again.
	His own Secretary of State is lying to him again.
	That means that they were lying that this same peace deal could have occurred at any point under Biden for the last two years.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	It's interesting.
	If anybody notices I'm schizing, I'm not sure that my wife, we actually fixed our air conditioning because I can tell you it's not 74 degrees in my home studio.
	Robert, before we fall too far behind on Humble Rants and Tipped.
	Oh, I just saw a big one coming from Bill Tong in the house.
	Thank you very much, Bill Tong.
	$100.
	Thank you, Bill Tong.
	King of Bill Tong.
	We opened our new storefront on U.S. Highway 287, Sunset, Texas, this weekend.
	We received awesome support from everyone.
	Get yourself some Bill Tong at Bill Tongusa.com.
	Code Barnes for 10% off.
	Bill Tong, you all know it.
	It's delicious, South African jerky.
	It's like prosciutto made from beef.
	It's delicious.
	They have imported candies.
	American company, South African man, Anton, and he's great and it's a great stuff.
	Sean 47 says, I've heard many say Trump after the midterms will give the okay for China to envelop Taiwan, just like what happened to Hong Kong.
	This to me is a massive sellout mistake.
	Have you heard?
	I haven't heard any.
	Hold on.
	I don't think that's likely or probable.
	Now, Trump's trying to get a deal done.
	Most likely, a final deal will not get done and we'll likely just get an extension.
	China has played.
	I don't trust Besant.
	Besant's been very, the way he's handled this, I just don't trust.
	He seems to be creating unnecessary issues, to be frank about it.
	But it looks like what we'll do is we'll just kick the can down the curb.
	Now, there's published reports out of the Pentagon, published reports out of RAND, which are talking about shifting policy on China for the near short term to less adversarial and less hostile.
	And out of that came maybe the U.S. would wink and nod at China taking Taiwan.
	There's another issue there.
	Taiwan's got to go along with it.
	And that's one big water that's not easy in the way people think it is.
	So I don't think any, I don't think Taiwan is going to blow up on Trump's watch.
	I think it will just stay where it's currently at.
	Wouldn't the only realm of the universe where Trump would allow China to take over or envelop Taiwan be if we've achieved whatever independence we need to technologically on the chips so that it's no longer a strategic necessity to not have a China-Taiwan?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	But the reason why I'm escalating with China is we don't yet have an independent source for rare earths.
	And what appears to me is Besant has, I mean, like little things like Besant, you know, was bragging about the Chinese negotiator getting sacked, and it turned out he didn't get sacked.
	He got elevated.
	So that kind of just made him look stupid.
	And you have the lead Russian economic advisor who was here meeting with Congresswoman Luna, meeting with Steve Witkoff, trying to get U.S. reproach Russia reproachment back on.
	And Scotty Soros Besant goes on TV and calls him nothing more than a cheap Russian propagandist.
	This is not productive.
	I'm going to be coming after these two for the next, as long as they're in power.
	Scotty Soros-Besant is a deep state saboteur at Wall Street whore.
	And Marco Rubio is a neocon military industrial complex owned war whore.
	And I'm not going to pretend they're anything but that just because some people around Trump want me to pretend so.
	Oh, geez.
	Now my DMs are already blowing up, Robert.
	People are saying, but Robert's lost his mind.
	Okay, that's a joke.
	Canada left Alberta dead.
	Was I right or wrong about Robert Mueller?
	Was I right or wrong about General Milley?
	Was I right or wrong about John Bolton?
	Was I right or wrong about Mike Pompeo?
	Go back.
	You can bet against me.
	Good way to go broke.
	Astro Sweat says, I left Canada left Alberta decades ago.
	I am Alberta rally was a huge success.
	Let's go, Alberta Prosperity Project.
	Let's go Alberta.
	Can't see it under here.
	It's a super buff shaft.
	Barnes, thoughts on Fulton Georgia judge blocking access to the ballots last week.
	Jovan Pulitzer was going to help audit.
	Please interview.
	I'll have a look at this.
	Save the evidence.
	They promised to print that rap burger, promised to print the ballots when they wrote that huge fact check to Dominion all the way back before the 2020 election.
	And he never printed them.
	He never printed them.
	To this day, we have never seen the actual ballots.
	Remember, these ballots have nothing private or confidential in them.
	There's no identifying information, any of that.
	Why won't Georgia print and publish the ballots?
	Why is it?
	Why is it that people are having to sue and sue and sue five years later?
	Still can't get them printed.
	It doesn't make any sense, but it would be the ballots and the envelopes to make sure that these signatures match.
	Well, no, no, not that.
	This is just the ballots just to make sure they don't look weird, right?
	So it's not the signatures have privacy and other issues involved.
	Sorry, I'm sorry.
	I was.
	Yeah, this is just printing the ballots.
	What's what?
	What when you see those ballots, what are they scared you're going to see?
	Are you going to the there must be something unusual in how they're marked?
	No, how they look.
	There's something weird about the ballot.
	This is just printing the digital copy of the physical ballot.
	That's all it is.
	The ballot that went in that got counted.
	That there must be something weird about this because they've gone to great lengths to hide it when they promised to publish it.
	And nobody kept retained a physical copy of the ballot, or is the question that they're going to be?
	But this is the because they're all digitized, it's easy to publish them to the world.
	That was the pitch as to why it was such a great deal for Georgia to write a big fact check to Dominion.
	And it's like, well, why haven't we seen him yet?
	Clearly, there's something.
	Clearly, as soon as those ballots are published, we're going to look at them and say, that's weird.
	There's clearly something weird about either how they're marked, how they look, something just in the ballot itself is off.
	Okay, interesting.
	Now, let me bring up there were some questions over at viva barneslaw.locals.com.
	Tequila Reposado says, Barnes, you've been busting Thomas Massey's congressional balls when he opposes certain Trump policies.
	Barnes has been a big supporter of Massey, and only, I guess, Chris disagrees with him.
	I like this.
	I like this question.
	I mean, there's times I disagree with Massey.
	He's a hardcore independent guy.
	I don't always agree with his tactics, but he has been the number one congressman against wars, the number one congressman against the surveillance state, the number one congressman advocating for financial freedom, political freedom, medical freedom.
	Number one congressman against COVID.
	People forget Trump went after him in 2020 with Liz Cheney, tried to take him out.
	Why?
	Because he opposed the CARES Act.
	He said it was going to be massively inflationary.
	He said these COVID controls are public policy disaster.
	Said that mass mail-in voting was going to steal the election.
	He was the guy on the front end of that.
	He was the guy attacking the law fair.
	So Thomas Massey, God bless Mike Cernovich.
	But why is he going after Thomas Massey?
	I don't know whether somebody's writing Mike checks or not, but come on, Mike.
	This guy is allied with every populist principle we have.
	We might disagree with him on a few things, but he's far more our ally than our adversary.
	And he's the lead.
	He's taking the lead on the Epstein files.
	Mike did great work.
	Mike Cernovich did great work on the Epstein files.
	Why be against the only guy trying to get the Epstein files still out in the Republican Party?
	I hadn't seen Cernovich criticizing Massey.
	I'm going to see obsessively so.
	And there's clearly a huge astro turf campaign by people that are getting paid under the table.
	People like the, I mean, even Milo decided to jump into this, which means he must be somehow connected to this.
	Who would hire Milo?
	Pay Milo these days.
	I mean, this is, you know, Mr. Lil Kanye.
	This is, I'm pretending I got converted from my lifestyle of behavior into evangelical Christianity.
	I believe that as much as I believe Andrew Tate is now an honest Muslim.
	But yeah, that they're attacking Massey is an icon and hero of anybody who cares about food freedom, anybody who cares about medical freedom, anybody who cares about political freedom, anybody who cares about financial freedom.
	Thomas Massey has been one of the best in Congress, and that's why all the deep state people want to take him out.
	And anybody aligning with the deep state should second guess their motives and how they got suckered into such a psyop to be anti-Massey.
	I mentioned it's interesting.
	I'm looking at a few of Cernovich's posts.
	I know him.
	I like him.
	I don't think he's, I mean, I would, I think.
	Mike's a great guy.
	No, I think it's like, Mike, this is not.
	We should be allied with Massey, not adversarial to Massey.
	No, the question is Graham is the guy we should be trying to take out from office, supporting the great Paul Dance, not try to take out Thomas Massey.
	But is Massey somehow?
	I don't know.
	I'm just reading one post.
	Did he oppose mass deportations or did he say something against?
	A lot of that's just wrong.
	I mean, either somebody's feeding Cernovich fake information or he just said gone off the rails on Massey.
	The Massey has long opposed mass immigration.
	Massey has long supported a wide range of legislation to limit legal immigration and strictly enforce it.
	He was trying to get Trump to veto Congress in his first term so they could do build the wall.
	Instead, they just repeat the most lunatic litany of lies and libels about Massey on a daily basis.
	And some of these people should smack themselves in the face.
	When you find yourself attacking one of the great independent members of Congress, you are the victim of the PSYOP, not anybody else.
	Just as look, there's a no full stop.
	Sergeant is entitled to be wrong, and I don't think it's wrong.
	No, it's actually false.
	Somebody gave certain false information.
	Jeffrey Yas is not one of his top.
	He's not even in the top 50.
	Well, this is, and it got community noted, which I'm not not.
	I try, I don't trust community notes all the time, but you know, sometimes they do write.
	Massey's biggest donor is open borders globalist Jeffrey Yas queen, even if you have IDS, which by the way, Yas is not a big open borders guy, nor he's a big globalist.
	He's a libertarian, mostly school from Pennsylvania, who cares a lot about food freedom and issues like that.
	So that's not even an accurate representation of Yoast.
	No, I'm just trying to one of the people who supports Club for Growth.
	The number two guy is Richard Uline.
	Richard Uline's a huge anti-immigration guy.
	So these people are thinking Club for Growth is the same thing as it was 30 years ago and it isn't.
	Well, what's interesting, just to argue with the community notes, it says poster falsely makes it look like Massey got all his money from a globalist donor.
	Didn't say that.
	It did say his biggest donor.
	So it might be his biggest individual donor, which Club for Growth hasn't even funded Massey in multiple cycles.
	So it's wrong at multiple levels.
	It's just recycling fake information and fake intel.
	And I don't know why he's doing it, but I'm putting the broadcast out there to everybody.
	I know other people are getting paid to push lies about Massey.
	And I'm going to be outing them one after the other.
	Doesn't matter who you are.
	Doesn't matter what your background is.
	I'm going to be outing you, pal.
	I'm going to be getting DMs left, right, and center.
	Whenever you pick fights with people, Robert, somehow they come to me and say, why is Robert doing this?
	Like, okay, let me go over here and just read this one.
	Is there any rumor to the, is there any truth to the rumor I'm trying to start that Trump's will Trump will display things in a new ballroom that best represents some of the former presidents' legacies like Jimmy Carter, long gas lines, Ronald Reagan, Berlin Wall?
	I could see the Bill Clinton cigar bar.
	I missed it.
	See, I didn't read it to the end, miss the best part, but I like this.
	It's a rumor that KL Pat is trying to start.
	That's funny.
	All kinds of memes up there, like somebody added the Death Star.
	The new West Wing is going to be the Trump Death Star.
	Trump is a brilliant construction guy.
	Milani has got a great sense of taste.
	I have no doubt it's going to look 10 times better than it looked before when they're done.
	I'm going to get to the top one in a second because I've got a follow-up question on that.
	Come on, Robert.
	If Massey had been successful with his opposition to the OBB, the one big beautiful bill, we would be fucked right now.
	I'm not sure about that, but we don't know what would have happened had we'll see.
	We'll see about that.
	But you can be critical of Massey on that particular piece of legislation while recognizing that he is one of the only people who is with us on 90% of the most important issues we face.
	So is his prior opposition to that bill going to be your decisive determinative factor as to backing him or not?
	I mean, because then I think you have pretty lame priorities, frankly.
	Do big banks pay their taxes and made-up money?
	So why do we care?
	That's funny.
	That was the meme.
	He's like, if we could just print money, why do I need to pay taxes?
	Okay, how are the Duke?
	And I've got this question too, Robert.
	I don't know if they're trolling.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	What, if anything, do you know about Steve Bannon's plan to put Donald Trump senior in the White House past 2028?
	Last week, he told the economist he'll reveal the details at the appropriate time.
	Robert, if I may steal men, then is the argument going to be something like what Putin argued in Russia that it's two consecutive terms and not two disjoined terms.
	And so that because he didn't get two consecutive terms, he's entitled to shall not serve more than two terms.
	And they meant to say consecutively so that he can get back in in 2028.
	Is that going to be the argument?
	I think there's always a chance that Bannon is like caught up in this, but I'd say 90% chance Bannon is trolling.
	That's okay.
	He knows it drives the media crazy.
	It drives the left crazy.
	It drives everybody else crazy.
	So I think that there's no chance of it.
	There's legally that they will never recognize it.
	Not only that, Trump has no interest in doing it himself.
	He's made that clear, really, on multiple occasions.
	The other thing was that Trump would be vice president and then he would get in.
	The Constitution is very clear.
	If you don't qualify for the presidency, you can't qualify for the vice presidency.
	It says two terms.
	It doesn't say two consecutive terms.
	So constitutionally, Trump cannot run for a third term, period.
	Well, he can run for it.
	He can't get elected to it.
	So you could elect Trump, but he himself couldn't serve.
	And then in that instance, his vice president would become president.
	So people sometimes get confused about what the Constitution.
	The Constitution is not a ballot access prohibition.
	So that's why people that don't even qualify for age, in my view, can be on the ballot, right?
	The Messiest never voted for it.
	I didn't even know that.
	That person is delusional.
	These people think, these people are like, hey, Barn, did you know this about Massey?
	I know it's completely false that if they spend five seconds researching, they would know is false.
	If you think Massey is anti-America first, you are the idiot.
	You.
	I'm going to pretend I did that on purpose to trigger Barnes.
	No, I meant to bring this one up.
	99% troll, 1% crowdsourcing an answer.
	Oh, okay.
	I think that's what that's what Bannon is up to.
	God bless Bannon.
	I mean, Bannon is becoming an expert troll.
	He knows the media goes absolutely batshit.
	Well, but plus, even the way he was delivering it, someone said 50% troll.
	The chat's moving too quick for me to get my fat fingers.
	I'm done.
	Okay.
	What do we move on to now, Robert?
	I might have to go.
	Oh, here.
	Here.
	Okay, I want to show everybody something.
	Bring it over here.
	This is a gift.
	Oh, wait.
	I want to do it.
	Get out of here.
	You get out of here.
	So this is a gift that Ginger Ninja gave me.
	And at first, I didn't know what it was.
	Then I saw the little thing here.
	It's a bottle opener.
	Oh, that's cool.
	It's totally cool.
	Also, not something you can.
	Come on, get, you know, I just wanted some cover.
	Okay, it's the bottle.
	It's not the thing because it works on our story.
	Now, Topo Chico.
	All right.
	So, Robert, what do we, what do we move into now?
	What's a good question?
	Oh, yeah, I mean, I think that covers the geopolitics.
	Now, we may not go into Venezuela.
	I don't know what the heck that's about.
	Now, the reason why Trump's going crazy about Rand Paul at the moment is Paul wants Congress to approve or disapprove Venezuela strikes.
	And his argument for that, the only argument that what Trump is doing is legal is self-defense.
	That it's in international waters and he is ordering, and he's now publicly said he is the one making the order, that the killing people.
	And the grounds is that anybody that's on there, Trump believes, is trying to bring drugs directly into the United States.
	Does that constitute self-defense?
	I'll be blunt.
	No.
	I mean, I don't know how you call that self-defense.
	If I was in court and said, that dude's dealing drugs down the street and I go down and shoot him in the head, do I have a self-defense case?
	But apply it even domestically.
	I guess it won't apply because they won't have the same constitutional rights.
	But beyond being potentially illegal, Robert, is it a potentially impeachable offense, or at least we'll serve as the basis?
	They will impeach him over this if Democrats win the House.
	And, you know, I think it could have been handled differently than the way it's been handled.
	But when you have the guy that's ahead of that command, the admiral that's ahead of it, resign rather than continue to be part of it, this tells you that even in how they have serious problems with how this is going.
	It's not clear our intel is also all that accurate.
	I mean, that's, you got Sagar did a published report this week detailing it.
	You had some other publications, the American Conservative, others did a deep dive, responsible state crafted one.
	Kurt Mills was associated with another one.
	And they're finding the intel and information for this probably isn't reliable because when we pick, when two guys survived, we didn't even indict them.
	We just returned them to their home country.
	The intel is not that great.
	They learned their lesson, Robert.
	It's going to be the what did you learn?
	I want to bring this one up because I take the criticism also from VivaBarnesLaw.locos.com.
	Roostang says Viva is almost always on the fence when Barnes levels criticisms against sloppy podcasters and corrupt politicians.
	First of all, I just saw that much nicer than me.
	No, no, no, I'm not on the fence.
	Sometimes I dislike people that you like.
	I'm not sure I can't think of an example offhand.
	But yeah, I'm not, I don't agree with Barnes on Candace, but I don't know Candace as well.
	So I'm not on the fence about that.
	I don't know that she's batshit crazy.
	That's a good transition.
	Because Candace Owens was out.
	I got so many emails from people saying, hey, Barnes, am I subject to this gag order?
	Am I prohibited from talking about it?
	But here's the thing.
	First of all, and just to bring it back to Cernovich, I'm not on the fence about Cernovich.
	I like Cernovich.
	I respect him.
	He's a great human being.
	He's wrong on Messi.
	And he's entitled to be a good person.
	Nobody can be perfect.
	Nobody can be perfect.
	And that's it.
	If he is wrong, I would probably be inclined to tell him privately so that he avoids a community note.
	Me less so because I'm sending the message to other people.
	There's a whole bunch of conservatives who are being offered huge bucks to come out and do a mass campaign against Messi.
	And I'm saying, if any of you else go that think that this gives you a roadmap or green line, you don't have it because I'm going to call you out, call you out, call you out, call you out.
	What I love is I don't even get these requests.
	So it must mean that they either don't think I it can't be the audience.
	That's the thing.
	I'm like, absolutely not.
	Nothing would be more humiliating than a disclosure that you have been paid and did not say it to spread an opinion that was actually not authentically your own.
	What could be worse than that?
	You have been discredited for the rest of your life.
	Now, on that note, Robert, I did also, I did the stream from Switzerland, jetliked and everything.
	like i don't even understand what the hell i'm reading anymore about a gag order in the charlie kirk case which i i mean i will talk about whether or not you know them floating the idea of not broadcasting the trial or not making it accessible to the public set that aside there's been a gag order uh for witnesses for prosecutors which i look i don't like it i understand it because you don't want to taint the jury pool you don't want what happened with kohlberger to happen in this case where you have like a whole dateline documentary which I was on the fence about Kohlberger until I watched it I'm like,
	holy shit, this guy's guilty of sin, despite no direct evidence.
	So there's a gag order, obviously leading up until the trial.
	And then I don't know what would need to be gagged or, you know, what's the word?
	In camera or confidential during the trial.
	But then Candace puts out a tweet that says, I intend on violating this gag order and goes, I could bring up the tweet, but it's not necessary because I damned her and I asked her if I could make it public after.
	I was like, are you being serious?
	Because I could imagine this being a joke, but people taking it literally, like when Maxine Bernier said that Maoists and communists have infiltrated the government of Canada.
	And it was like, he's fucking crazy.
	But he was obviously joking, but it doesn't translate that way.
	And she said, yeah, it was a troll.
	And she's going to keep being vocal, whatever.
	The gag order does not apply to everybody.
	Anybody with public access to knowledge can talk about it.
	It's witnesses, prosecutors.
	Even witnesses are not governed by it.
	Well, but it did specify that it did cover witnesses.
	That's what I found.
	No, it covers lawyers representing those witnesses, and it still only covers the lawyers.
	So I can explain what this is.
	So the constitutional scope, because I was very curious as soon as I saw it, I was like, this is a young judge.
	I wonder if they're abusing their power again because they love to do so in the gag order context.
	Constitutionally, what a judge is allowed to do, because a gag order is prior restraint.
	So it's prior restraint on speech, not after the fact punishment for speech, but prior restraint on speech, which is presumed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment.
	And what they made clear was that the only prior restraint you can allow is if it's governing people that are participating in the legal proceeding itself, which means the parties and the lawyers.
	And generally, they don't like to limit the parties because of the issues that get implicated.
	Lawyers, they have a little bit more supervisory control over.
	And it's perceived that whatever they say is considered more authoritative.
	But even there, and this was litigated in the case of Gentile versus the State Bar of Nevada.
	And he, I mean, he came out, the defense lawyer in Nevada, and he came out and made all kinds of accusations about what had happened in the case, what would be proven at trial, very speculative in many contexts.
	The trial was only a few months away.
	And the Supreme Court said you have no right to control his speech at that point.
	Instead, all they can do is they can control speech to assure a fair trial.
	But for the purposes of assuring a fair trial, it's construed very limited.
	So it's, can you get an impartial jury?
	And here, by the way, if you discuss, here's what can never substantially, the key part to the gag order is back at the beginning, anything that would substantially prejudice the proceedings intentionally.
	What does that mean legally?
	I would have liked it better if the judge would have put it out there, but a lot of them are so used to these short orders that they just don't spell this out.
	Substantial prejudice means something that is not likely to be introduced at trial because it doesn't substantially prejudice the jury for them to hear before trial what they're going to hear at trial.
	What they're referencing is they don't want a lawyer, usually a prosecutor, to come out and say, oh, the defendant made a confession, knowing the confession, say, is inadmissible for some reason.
	Or the defendant failed a lie detector test, knowing that that's always inadmissible in criminal proceedings because of its unreliability.
	That's what they want to prevent.
	They don't want all the jurors to believe, and it's got to be all the jurors or most of the jurors.
	It's got to be something that jury selection couldn't screen out.
	In other words, that, so for example, if you say it on some podcast someplace, that's not substantial prejudice because it's not likely to reach 95% of the juries.
	What they're talking about is going to the local news station and having every single local news station cover a press conference where you repeat a bunch of factual claims that you know can never be admitted into trial that make it impossible for the defendant to defend himself.
	It's limited to that capacity.
	Now, the way a lot of prosecutors try, because it's mostly prosecutors that you have to deal with, not as much defense lawyers.
	But even that would apply to both.
	When they want to weasel around it, they have their witness disclose it.
	They're like, judge, I didn't disclose it.
	The witness went and did it.
	The cop went and did it.
	What's amazing, I'm just not fact-checking you.
	I wanted to remember what I had read.
	And, you know, it's coming from Fox, so take it with a grain of salt.
	But this is how they're actually reporting it.
	Voluminous evidence and gag order that could impact thousands in the Robinson case.
	And you go into read it, and spoiler alert, from what I'm reading later on, it's confirming what Robert is explaining.
	But they deliberately misconstrued it because they gave him a good headline.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	The man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk had a court appearance Monday, yeah, where the where lawyers discussed a quote voluminous, voluminous end quote amount of evidence, thousands of potential witnesses.
	So, uh, the judge basically said exactly what you're saying.
	If you get a little bit further down the article, so the judge grass said the gag order was that to prevent problems associated with pre-trial publicity.
	The court will rule that as those witnesses become known to each side, that the information is conveyed to abide by this order.
	Obviously, there are potential witnesses, and it's not the expectation that you would do that upfront, but as they become known.
	And you'll read the actual order, the order only covers lawyers because there's a problem with covering witnesses.
	So, the because witnesses are not parties to the case.
	So, what the judge is saying is, you lawyer, don't circumvent the gag order by having somebody get illicit information targeted at the jury pool that you know can't be admitted, that's really you, but you're disguising it as, oh, my witness went and said it.
	That's what they're looking at.
	And even there, that's always limited because sometimes court-I've litigated this in a wide range of contexts across the country.
	Sometimes you'll get a court say, Oh, no, I meant that this was like, no, judge, you can't.
	Not only did your order not say so, they're not a party to the case, so you don't even have personal jurisdiction over them.
	Not only that, that's not within the constitutional permission of what you can do.
	Because a lot of this is based on the right to control lawyer speech because they are lawyers licensed by courts.
	People think they're licensed by these other, they're licensed by courts.
	There may be a bar that does involve indiscipline or whatnot.
	The courts control it, the courts always control it.
	There is no, there isn't the British accreditation registry.
	That's not what, that's not what licensed lawyers in America.
	It's all court-licensed, court-controlled.
	Because of that, they have a little more control with what they can do with lawyer speech than witness speech, than party speech.
	But at a minimum, the person has to be a party to the case.
	You cannot impose a gag order on people who are not parties to the case.
	The point is, it's the lawyer, and he wants the lawyer to communicate to the witness: don't use your witnesses to circumvent this rule by contaminating the jury pool by getting in, and again, inadmissible information.
	The only information that like I saw all these people say, Oh, this gag order applies to all speech.
	No, it doesn't.
	It only applies to that speech that the person intentionally knows will substantially prejudice the jury.
	That's a court, so that means your audience has to be the primary audience has to be something you know that almost every juror will hear, read, and see.
	There's almost none that are watching Candace Owens, let's be honest.
	The uh, very few.
	Uh, second, the they it has to, oh, by the way, you're uh mute.
	Sorry, I said you're gonna get pushback on that because I bet that for the amount of views that well, and and Richard Bears has concerns that Candace Owens may, in fact, contaminate the jury pool by the campaign that she's on to discredit the allegations and accusations against, because now apparently, she as a court, you know, Stephen Crowder's interpretation of her book club statements was that she is implicating the uh President Trump personally in the murder of Charlie Kirk, which I find to be ludicrous, but I find her crazy anyway.
	So, you know, but that is what it is.
	But the it's got to be targeted to reach almost all the jurors.
	One, and two, it's got to be evidence you know is not going to be admitted at trial.
	So, that's a very tiny, tiny, tiny group of information and individuals.
	So, people that may have panicked about the gag order, you are not subject to it unless you're a lawyer to the case.
	And if a lawyer has told you that you're going to be a witness, a lawyer that's involved in the case, and the lawyer has said, don't disclose this particular piece of information because it may never become admitted to trial and targeting the jury, close to, by the way, the jury trial time period.
	That's the other rule of the Gentile case.
	It's got a statement in order to substantially, the judge buries it all in that one little statement.
	He says, Don't do something that would substantially prejudice.
	What if you understand what substantially prejudiced means?
	It also means it has to be the jury pool, it has to be the target, targeted audience.
	Second, that the statement has to be something that is not likely to be admitted at trial and or evidence not likely to be admitted at trial.
	And third, it's got to be close in proximity to the trial.
	So, because what they said in Gentiles, even though the guy went at a press conference, defense lawyer went to a press conference, accused a whole bunch of witnesses of all kinds of crazy, salacious things.
	They said, Heck, it's a few months away.
	So, that's too far away.
	This trial is not going to be done for at least a year, year and a half, maybe longer, because of the scope of the evidence.
	That's the voluminous evidence reference.
	So, contrary to conventional wisdom, this gag order does not gag almost anybody concerning this case.
	And someone in the chat said, Did Candace seriously suggest that Trump is not involved?
	Just reading this, she's suggested that there's more to it, that political insiders, including those close to Trump, may have been involved or turned their backs on Kirk in a video statement on various social media after Kirk's death.
	That she said, Owens claims that they definitely killed you, referring to the establishment's reaction to Kirk's murder and the subsequent declaration of a national holiday in his honor.
	She's definitely said Israel.
	I mean, she went in a whole video that I saw, but when they name a street after you in Israel, it's the one they're referencing.
	Yeah, but which is which is which is also, I think, just factually incorrect because it's all just like I think she's probably believes, she probably sincerely believes what she's saying.
	But some of you.
	Folks, as soon as she said Stalin was a secret Jew, I knew that she was nuts.
	But, bro, there's a lot of people, there's a lot of people who believe that Stalin was Jewish.
	They go Georgia of Jewish conspiracy theories, and it's like check, check, check, check, check, check, check.
	And I think she really believes them all.
	Increasingly, I mean, if I was stuck with defending her in the Macron case, which, by the way, a little side point, she got a boost from somebody who has digital access to the tax records of France.
	Somebody went in to the somebody in the French government who probably hates Macron.
	Everybody in France hates Macron.
	Somebody went into the tax records and changed her name to her brother's name and said she was a man.
	So they changed Bridget Macron's tax records.
	Oh, that's being a fan of Candace Ellis.
	You know, the candidates are like, hey, the French tax records show.
	She's really a man and she's stolen her brother's identity.
	By the way, for the record, I don't support any of those claims.
	I think they're nonsense.
	At the same time, I think Macron's a pervert, like most French are, to be honest.
	Someone said earlier on, and I brought it up, like, regardless of what the truth is, regardless of the man issue, it's still a messed up situation.
	And I go back to what you say, like, you know, the Nick Fuente.
	Unless you're in France.
	And France is normal.
	It's only potential pedophilia.
	I say potential because they've sort of blurred the lines as to when the relationship started.
	Better ask.
	14, 15, or 16 when she was 38, 39, or 40, 25-year difference teacher with a student, perversion of the highest order.
	Robert, it's going to be a hard segue, but I'm going to go do something while you do this because I got a P and I'm going to go make sure the AC is working.
	And I'm going to change your shirt at the same time.
	The Mueller case done.
	Field that one while I put myself on mute and just, I'll be back in 30 seconds.
	So, for those that don't remember the Mr. Mueller, a longtime deep state plant, you can go all the way back to his family.
	He goes from old money in New York to his days at the office in San Francisco, to his days in the FBI, to his days in the Justice Department, to the very peculiar trajectory of employment to the DC office during the time Clinton was president.
	All the way through, Mueller was always a deep state plant there to cover up Spygate by disguising it as Russia Gate.
	The last vestigial prosecution that was still somehow pending, and somehow Pam Bondi had not gotten around to dismissing yet.
	When the new independent Eastern District of Virginia prosecutor was assigned after Trump demanded that she be assigned, that's when we suddenly saw the indictment on James Comey.
	That's when we saw the indictment of Tish James.
	And she got around to dismissing that last vestigial wrongful act of the Mueller investigation against a man who was connected to General Flynn, who was wrongfully accused from day one, whose case had gone up and down with dismissals and reinstatement, dismissals and reinstatement, despite serious legal deficiencies, as well as constitutional questions about the propriety of a case that factually didn't merit it from the inception.
	So credit to the Trump administration and the prosecutor there in the Eastern District of Virginia for getting rid of that.
	This prosecutor is so scary to the corrupt rogue actors in the Eastern District of Virginia that they're having to fire a whole bunch of these bad actors who are busy leaking information, sharing information with the press and themselves that was actually confidential or supposed to be protected information.
	So a lot of these people are getting outed now that she is in charge.
	In addition, she's so influential and impactful that both James Comey and Tish James are begging for her dismissal from the case and a dismissal or at least a dismissal of the indictment.
	And because it implicates the Eastern District of Virginia, they have to assign it to the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit, has to assign it to a judge in South Carolina.
	So the good work by the prosecutor on the ground there, who's trying to clean house, who's trying to get these, you know, get some justice for the lawfare and the weaponization of the legal system by the James Comeys of the world.
	It's, you know, the unfortunate thing is it should have happened a lot sooner.
	Then it only happened because Trump lit a fire under Pam Bondi.
	And that's what that's when he accidentally, it appears, he meant to send that as an individual post.
	So that is.
	He posted it on truth by accident.
	Well, is it?
	Meant to send it privately to Pam, not to post it.
	That's what I had heard.
	It was the initial rumor, then it was sort of contradicted, but then it came back to apparently haven't been proven true.
	By the way, the air conditioning downstairs is not working.
	It's 78 degrees.
	And when they came to fix the unit upstairs, apparently they wouldn't look at the unit downstairs because the booking was for the unit upstairs.
	Who's somebody's getting a negative review on Yelp, you little bastards?
	Which is a good segue.
	Yelp got going on the Ninth Circuit against Google's antitrust violation.
	Yeah, so I mean, it sounds like an iteration of the previous cases that we've been looking at, but effectively, Yelp is alleging that Google is violating what's the name of the act.
	The Sherman Act.
	Yeah.
	The Sherman and the Clayton Act are the two main antitrust laws in the United States.
	That's such a Clayton Sherman.
	Sounds interesting.
	So, unless I'm mistaken, sort of like arguing what Rumble was arguing, that they're monopolizing the search results to favor certain people, certain entities over others.
	What's the motivation for the preference?
	Is it to it's Google's own?
	So, Google created its own.
	It took what Yelp was doing and created its own reviews of restaurants, places, facilities, businesses, et cetera.
	And whenever people were doing a search trying to find a Yelp review, Google would redirect them to the Google one instead.
	It's exactly what they were doing with Rumble and redirecting back to YouTube for videos that were either on both platforms or not on YouTube and redirecting to random videos on YouTube.
	So, given the way things have been going, I mean, what is Google to do?
	It's to cut a check or, I mean, I don't even know how they can compensate or stop doing it.
	Well, they went up to the Ninth Circuit thinking they would get a dismissal, and even the Ninth Circuit has said, nah, that ship has sailed.
	You guys are clearly a systematic antitrust monopolist.
	And the judiciary is running out of breathing room for believing big tech.
	And once it turned, it was going to keep being a cascading effect.
	So, Google is now going to be on the hook for what they did to Yelp.
	I think that ultimately Rumble will get their case reinstated at the Ninth Circuit on similar grounds as to what just happened in Yelp, because this is a preview of where the Rumble case against Google is going.
	And that's a very potentially lucrative case for Rumble and powerful case for Rumble.
	So, the good, good, good to see antitrust action.
	Same in the Apple, you know, getting caught with its own antitrust violations and a way it does its management of its app.
	There's building accountability there.
	Gail Slater is the real deal, the assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division, dedicated and devoted to doing things.
	There's some other people in the Justice Department who haven't always been so dedicated and devoted, but she is doing good work there.
	Hopefully, we see more pursuit on these kind of cases.
	And the other big place that they need to go is the problem with your beef and steak prices at home, folks, ain't because a cattle farmer is getting rich because the cattle farmers have been getting stripped and impoverished.
	It's because of the big four slaughterhouses monopolizing control of it and using what?
	Using federal law to gain that control because of the bastardization of the custom exemption done by the bureaucrats since 1967 to effectively prevent you from being able to buy food from your local farmer directly.
	Instead, they got to go get permission from a USDA permitted facility, often unavailable, period.
	There's people that have two-year waiting lists in certain parts of the country.
	Not to mention, what it did is it helped monopolize power with the big cartel of big ag.
	I wonder if Tyson Foods might be one of those bad actors.
	Remember, everybody, Tyson Foods sounds very similar to the Nazi company Tyson.
	Probably clean that out.
	So if they want to do something good for, we're busy spending lots of money for Argentine farmers to help Malay buy that election down there.
	And it worked on Sunday.
	Sportsbix members cashed a couple of nice tickets on that, which we needed, given the NFL.
	Lady Luck was not a lady at all.
	You know what Rubber was in the Argentine election?
	Did I DM you?
	I missed the entire UFC, but it's who could, I mean, who could have foreshadowed a no contest for the main event because of an eye poke, Aspinall versus it looked bad.
	I saw someone saying it was a fake eye poke or the guy was faking Aspinol that he could have come back.
	It looked like he was looking for pieces of his brain.
	Okay, so what was I about to say there?
	There was something else I wanted to point out.
	Well, the antitrust, the Argentine.
	So, cattle farmers, the reason why your prices are so high is because the federal government, through its permitting process, has effectively created a monopoly so that big corporate slaughterhouses can monopolize the food supply in the United States.
	Another problem is when you go to the store, you think you're buying U.S. meat when it isn't.
	What they'll often do, these big slaughterhouses, they'll get their meat from overseas where you have no idea whether it's trustworthy or reliable or not, anyway, from a safety perspective.
	Throw in a little bit of U.S. meat and claim it's U.S. meat when 95% of it ain't.
	And once again, who's the congressman taking the lead in the House to say we got to have honest labeling on our food products?
	The one and only Thomas Massey of Covington, Kentucky.
	I don't remember the first time I realized that some of the hot sauce that they sell at Target and some of these big chain stores is made in China.
	And I'm like, that is so someone got me one for Christmas.
	I'm just looking and made in freaking China.
	Like, I'm going to eat spicy sauce coming out of China and manufacturing.
	I mean, people should just see how they fish, how they're abusing the fisheries.
	Argentina took out one of the Chinese fishing boats because of how they, how they're just over, overfishing badly.
	And how I recommend the China show.
	If you watch the China show, you'll not want to eat any Chinese food imports for the rest of your natural-born life.
	Robert, what I was going to ask is: speaking of markets and cashing in, Cal Shi has still not paid out on the Comey arrest, and the market still exists.
	So what are the odds?
	What's baked into the odds now that he's going to get arrested again and then somehow it's going to happen again?
	Or are they just not?
	I think Calci is just not wanting to come to a determination as to whether or not that was final or not, even though it was.
	And it's because what Cal Shi needs when they're going to put out these legal markets, they need some people that understand the law on that side.
	They have their lawyers, but they don't have lawyers who are consulting on setting the rules for these terms.
	Polymarket has run into this problem consistently, according to Polymarket.
	One, whoever it was, won the, or no, I guess it was the other one, the machado who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
	By the way, a little inside secret to the Nobel Peace Prize.
	One, apparently, you can scroll their website and find out in advance.
	That's what some guy did and made a bunch of money because they're sloppy at how they do their website stuff and their stuff that's not published but available if you know how to search it.
	The other thing is just look for whoever the regime change person is.
	I think four of the last six Peace Prize award winners have been regime change insurrectionists in their local country, whether it's Belarus or somebody else.
	So I'll remember that next time it's time to place a little bets on that.
	But the go ahead.
	Okay, well, it's irritating.
	I'm going to go needle them on Twitter again.
	Oh, yeah.
	It should have been.
	And for whatever reason, they don't understand.
	There is no way a federal court in a criminal case can get personal jurisdiction over a defendant except by their appearance, which is facilitated by legally what is defined as an arrest.
	So by definition, even if you go in pursuant to a summons, you're going to go through the booking process there.
	That's how the federal government always operates.
	So their confusion about this is the only reason why that market hasn't paid out when it should have.
	Now, here's the flip side.
	This will be a good transition to our next topic.
	How is it that the FBI can't perp walk James Comey, can't perp walk Tish James, can't perp walk John Bolton, but can perp walk an NBA player whose only big crime was promoting people to a poker game that turned out to be fixed.
	That's their big crime.
	Even Trump was saying, why the heck are we spending all our time on this rather than the real crime?
	Because Cash Patel, ballist Cash Patel, basically can't, all he cares about is running around like J. Edgar Hoover wannabe, that, you know, he's the ultimate sheriff in town.
	He's the ultimate cop.
	He's going to, this is not what MAGA voted for.
	Maybe some boomer cons wanted this, but this is why the president is like, why am I seeing this?
	But how is it they can perp walk an NBA player for PR purposes, but Cash and Bongino don't have the balls to perp walk James Comey, to perp walk John Bolton, to perp walk Tish James.
	They look pitiful up there.
	Well, I'm not on the fence about this one.
	I can understand it in that they don't want maybe, maybe the rationale is they don't want to give them their iconic moments so that they can now have a Trump-like mug shop.
	I don't know.
	That's the only, that's the only steelman argument I can come up with.
	But who's the NBA player?
	So the other thing is they tried to pretend that this, what they pretended they had a lot to do with they didn't.
	This has been an investigation going on three, four years.
	They tried to pretend that this is about gambling.
	This is about gambling.
	Sports betting.
	It has almost nothing to do with sports betting.
	They try to throw in a few prop bets that they think somebody made five years ago.
	The amount of money they're saying got bet on that prop don't even make sense.
	But putting all that aside, that is not what the indictment's about.
	The indictment is about something that's been going on since the beginning of games, which is some of them are fixed.
	And these are, I mean, how dumb do you have to be?
	I just don't feel any sympathy with anybody who's like, an NBA player is taking me to this underground game here in New York or L.A. I bet it's going to be on the up and up.
	It's like, come on.
	I mean, everything about it screamed set up, seemed trap.
	But what was interesting was their sophisticated mechanisms.
	They used like, like, like, oh, like almost radar glasses.
	They had like radar glasses to fix the cards so you could see the little symbols to know whether it was an ace, whether it was a 10, whether it was a five.
	Basically, the mob set up a bunch of, got a piece of the action, a bunch of bogus underground fixed games, suckered a bunch of big money people into these games.
	Those people, they robbed them blind.
	And it was always going to get caught sooner or later because some of those big people who got robbed were going to rat them out to the feds.
	And the way they got people into it, the way they got suckers and saps into it was NBA players.
	That's according to the allegations of the indictment.
	You know, the NBA players are saying they're innocent, though.
	Who knows?
	We'll find out.
	But according to the indictment, these NBA players were used as the track.
	They were the honey to bring people into the pop.
	I've known not to go to any of these games.
	I was like, I mean, come on.
	I remember going to Russia in Moscow once, went down to this game.
	It was at the bottom of at least a casino.
	So it's a regulated, restricted game, relatively under Russian rules at the time.
	This was 20 years ago.
	And I went down to the basement and I looked around and I realized there's only one way I'm leaving this game broke.
	Even if I win, I ain't winning.
	I ain't leaving with those winnings.
	That ain't happening.
	I could get a read on that.
	How these other people took the base, but it's being promoted as just the end of sports betting.
	It has almost nothing to do with sports betting.
	You have to be, first of all, you have to be stupid to, if you want to gamble that much, go to a casino.
	They have high-stakes tables.
	People don't even understand how easy it is.
	You can have RFID readers in the cards.
	Somebody was explaining to me actually the shufflers themselves, you can program to deal out specific cards to specific players when they have these electric shufflers.
	And anybody, you know, it's not that I trust the government's shufflers.
	I don't and haven't been to a casino in a while.
	But at least maybe you assume there'll be a little bit more regulation.
	These electric shufflers can literally deal specific cards to specific players.
	And nobody even knows except for the shuffle, except for the programmer of the shuffler.
	So, yeah, I heard before.
	You don't see much ado over nothing.
	Anybody that's followed these gambling, I mean, for example, I mean, there's some big games I know about that are corrupt that they've never indicted.
	I mean, they made a movie about Molly's game that was being a rigged game by high-profile Hollywood actors, including Leonard DiCaprio, was part of it.
	He was the honeypot to bring people into those.
	I don't think I ever saw any follow-up federal meaningful criminal prosecution unless I missed it.
	But this was just much to do over nothing.
	We're seeing this constantly.
	They take a regular run-of-the-mill arrest.
	Patel runs out to do a big press conference on it.
	Makes it sound like such a big deal when really it ain't.
	And it's not what he was there to do.
	No, Patel has been screwing up whenever he uses the social medias to do what I think he wants to do on social media to establish clout and not what is actually necessary in his capacity as director.
	And whenever he does it, he seems to like either stick a foot in his mouth or trip over his foot.
	And credit to Trump for calling it out for saying, okay, I see this.
	See, Trump's been around that world a long time.
	Casino World, New York World, all the rest.
	He was like, this is what we're spending all our time.
	It's Patel trying to make it look like he's doing a better job than he is and build up his own clout to justify his own position, especially if there is in fact a battle for the director of the FBI.
	Maybe Andrew Bailey.
	Andrew Bailey.
	So if he wants the directorship, I mean, Patel knows that he's either got to do good or make it look like he's doing great and might be opting more for the second part of this.
	He doesn't even seem to be aware.
	This is not a good look.
	So we'll see.
	You know, the credit to President Trump for calling it out.
	We'll see if we ever get any meaningful election investigation.
	As long as Scotty Soros-Bescent is at the Treasury Secretary, I have no confidence that we'll get a George Soros investigation.
	I think that, and maybe that will explain some of these odd, the suppression of the Epstein files, the suppression, no meaningful inquiry into George Soros, no meaningful inquiry in the 2020 election from the Justice Department, as far as I can tell.
	I mean, Harmy Dylan's doing good work to clean up the voter rolls, but that isn't her prerogative.
	It would be Bondi's prerogative and jurisdiction to have meaningful criminal prosecution about the fraud of the last presidential election, just two cycles ago.
	I mean, that's a threat.
	That's a risk.
	That's a problem.
	Why aren't we investigating that criminality?
	Which was systematic.
	Maybe because if it leads back to Scotty's best pal, Soros, that he won't allow it there at the Treasury Department.
	Robert, let me read a bunch of these here.
	I want to say something here.
	Now, Barnes wants Trump to stoop to the Democrat level of optics, using the ball player's arrest as his excuse to dispatel and Bongino looks like he's protecting his betting gig.
	I don't think it doesn't make it.
	First of all, Barnes has been going after Blongino and Patel.
	I mean, you didn't go after Blongino today, but he's been going after them hard for President Trump is who you have a complaint with because President Trump just put in the truth saying, I see all this stuff about an NBA player.
	Why am I not seeing something about elections?
	Isn't that more important?
	I'm just paraphrasing Trump, my friend.
	We got, I just switched the wrong screen here.
	Jetaches, Jay Tech, he says, Good afternoon, Vivon Barnes.
	Can you somehow unpack that weird, what President Ronald Reagan tariff commercial?
	We did that earlier in the stream.
	Yeah, that's at the very beginning.
	So go back to the beginning or watch it replay.
	Mitzi Daws.
	Mitzi Dawes says, Roberts, what are your thoughts on Regent Law School?
	Very good law school.
	I've got a young lawyer that just joined our effort at 1776 Law Center and the firm from Regent Law School and some others that we're looking at that are from Regent producing some really smart, savvy, principled lawyers these days.
	Susan Rumble says, hello, where do I find Roberts hush hush to join?
	Thank you so very much.
	That's on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll give you the link again.
	Just go over to the content and go to the content side and you'll see and go to the playlist.
	And we got 80 plus hush hushes up there on a wide range of alternative narratives and topics.
	We've got Tomato 1234 says, Massey is funded by Libs, voted for Biden's big spending bills.
	I think that's false.
	False apologies.
	So let's see how many lies Tom said.
	He's funded by Libs.
	Totally false, Tom.
	He voted for Biden's big sending bill.
	That has been debunked again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
	Don't be so lazy.
	You can't do five seconds of research, Tom.
	Third, he opposes minimal border funding.
	Totally false.
	He kept demanding Trump veto the original bills because it did not include funding for the border wall.
	Ben Massey was one of the strongest advocates on that front.
	So that's the third dumb lie you repeated.
	Stood with liberal Democrats calling Trump a pedo.
	Totally false.
	He's been calling for the release of the Epstein files and has not blamed Trump for it since before Trump called for it.
	And just so I just went used Charlie's desktop opportunity.
	Totally false.
	So you have five libels, Tom.
	It's fine.
	Because you're lazy and you can't do research.
	You're embarrassing yourself on a national stake.
	Don't do it, Tommy.
	Just one, and this is from Comet, which is an actual good search engine.
	Thomas Massey has overwhelmingly opposed President Biden's major spending bills and budget priorities, voting with Biden's stated position only 1.8% of the time during the 117th Congress.
	So the rest is also, yeah, the Charlie Kirk okay.
	Thank you for the support.
	Sean 487 says, okay, a dull time for my fellow Canadians, Quebec, Alberta, or any other province must have legislature vote yes on their leaving.
	That will never happen.
	Only violence will my understanding is there's a way they can get it without that, right?
	I don't know how complicated and tricky, as I recall.
	I don't, let me see what's going on.
	There's like an obligation to give it the right vote or something.
	I remember when I was reading it, I was like, it's not a matter that they can just carte blanche reject it.
	No, I don't, let me let me bring this back up.
	I don't believe it requires the approval of the other provinces.
	It does require the approval of the prime minister or maybe even the king or the but he has to go through a process where he he can't easily turn it down as I researched it.
	So it's not, they don't have veto power like people are assuming.
	I'm going to double check that.
	I didn't think the problem.
	What's his name?
	Runcle the Bailey.
	Who would be a good lawyer on that Canadian lawyer?
	Well, Eric Canadian lawyer.
	Yeah, no, no, but he's usually up to some trouble up there.
	Yeah.
	Well, no, the constitutional stuff is, there was only one decision on this.
	It was back from the subsequent to the Quebec second referendum.
	I just didn't think that they gave any power that the provinces had the power to approve or disapprove.
	I think that was with the federal and that they themselves couldn't just, they had to have a good reason to oppose it.
	But it's tricky.
	It's not as easy.
	I don't think we don't have a pure discretionary veto.
	No, certainly not on an iron.
	All right, Robert, how much do we have left?
	Because what I want to do, we should probably have a bit of a longer show on locals today because we're going past our, well, it's still a Monday daytime.
	We're going to go, we should raid redacted at some point.
	Well, how many stories do we have left?
	So let's see.
	So we got Scotus National Guard, Melania, and maybe a little bit of legal hot water.
	Yeah, we got woke books at the defense at trans issues in court.
	Basically, there's a couple of those.
	AI being sued for causing somebody suicide and me being threatened by a combination of a crazy rabbi, a crazy preacher, all for defending Owen Troyer.
	Who's the rabbi?
	I don't even know the dude was like weird looking dude.
	So the uh just weird.
	I mean, the I mean, I know a lot of rabbis, good stand-up people.
	The so out of the blue.
	So a young lawyer that works with me, Lexi Anderson, does a lot of good conscientious work for 1776 Law Center and 1776 Law Center, one you know, political freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, and food freedom.
	Part of that is the political freedom part of it, which is defending people against wrongful use of defamation suits and defending people who are wrongfully defamed themselves.
	So Owen Schroyer, you know, now does the Owen Report, which is an independent daily news show you can follow on Rumble.
	You can also get it on X, YouTube, other platforms, but primarily and principally on Rumble and X. And he has been critical, longtime association with Alex Jones and Infowars, and has gone to start his own news report, sort of a Rush Limbaugh-style mid-afternoon, late afternoon report.
	And he has been critical of the focus of the Trump administration on foreign policy rather than domestic policy, part of which has been criticism of being too worried about Israel and everything related there.
	Because of it, there's been a systematic effort to attack anybody who raises any questions at all about Bibi Netanyahu as anti-Semitic.
	And this preacher from Tennessee apparently used to have like a, well, let's just say research how he became a lot of these preachers that suddenly become Israel lovers and Israel worshipers.
	I would say Israel worshipers because they whore the Bible to serve a foreign nation and a foreign politician.
	I got big problems with that as an evangelical Christian, as someone who's generally sympathetic and supportive of Israel as a nation.
	That doesn't mean I'm going to say you have to support it because Jesus makes you.
	I mean, I was like, that's really heretical to many.
	They don't understand how much they're offending people in the evangelical community, particularly that are not boomer cons.
	No, but I've actually had these theological discussions with people who believe that they need to support Israel, even if it, even if it, or especially if it does result in the Armageddon, because that's the only second coming of Jesus.
	And that whole crazy thing.
	So the guy who created the whole Christian Zionist move in the United States, he got caught giving the missionary position to one of his petitioners.
	That, you know, the so the by the wife.
	You're talking sex.
	Oh, he was servicing her real good.
	And so got caught, got kicked out of that church, was in real financial trouble.
	So all of a sudden, some APAC comes along and says, hey, why don't you help with the Christian creating a Christian Zionist movement?
	That's John Hagee, who is still leading it.
	And that's how Ted Cruz was saying some crazy stuff a couple of weeks ago.
	That's Hagee.
	That's that old preacher who said, Israel is above America.
	Israel is above.
	That's how loony that guy is.
	But he had no choice.
	He got caught banging the secretary and had to get going.
	Well, apparently, this preacher has a similar background.
	Got caught with an affair.
	Not long after that, all of a sudden, Israel is number one and everybody wants us to be for Israel.
	So he goes out and just libels Owen Schroyer, makes up this ridiculous story.
	It said, Owen is celebrating the terrorist events in Jerusalem.
	This incident that happened where Jews were attacked in Jerusalem.
	Owen did no such thing.
	It's completely made up, completely fictional, completely fabricated.
	So Lexi sends him a letter saying, By the way, this is totally wrong.
	Please retract.
	He goes ballistic about it.
	And then one of his rabbi buddies writes an email threatening Lexi, saying, Hey, I'm going to get you disbarred.
	I'm going to do this.
	I'm going to do this.
	And by the way, oh, and this, if you don't have any doubts, the Justice Department is being misused and abused for the cause of Israel.
	This guy certainly thought so because he sends in his email communication.
	Oh, that he basically implies that he's got connections at the anti-Semitism division of the Department of Justice and can get them to come after her.
	Apparently, he was too lazy or stupid to read who was on the top of that letterhead.
	So I sent him an email because by the way, guess how he finishes it?
	He says, if you don't know who I am, Google me.
	So I respond and say, Pal, this is completely garbage.
	This is, by the way, it attempts to bribery and extortion.
	Don't try it again.
	And second, if you want to Google somebody, Google me.
	Do you remember that?
	Did you remember that?
	It's an Indian meme where they're going like, fuck you, fuck you.
	And you, it's like, this is like, Google me, you Google me.
	Exactly.
	So he backed off for the time being, and the preacher backed off for the time being.
	But the fact I had to deal with this insanity, one, people can disagree with the people that are quit, but it's Owen Schroyer, Tucker Carlson, any of the rest.
	Quit libeling them.
	Quit libeling them for the love of God.
	Number two, to those people that are really strong in the pro-Israeli crowd, quit insulting evangelicals by spreading heresy.
	You're making evangelical, particularly younger ones, enraged.
	You're turning them against you.
	That's how politically daft these people are.
	But no wonder the biggest Jewish shitty in America is about to elect globalize the intifada Muslim mayor.
	Oh, Robert.
	He never actually said it.
	What he said is it's not language I use.
	And another sort of photograph with a guy associated with the first attempt to bomb the new World Trade Center building.
	You know, you get what you vote for.
	And then the problem is, so do a lot of other people.
	Okay, let's do one thing here.
	Let me let me read.
	We're going to do.
	Okay, no, I'm going to save the tip questions for afterwards.
	Let's do both Melania cases, and then let's bring the party on over to viva barneslaw.locals.com.
	So it's funny, I don't remember who I was.
	I was talking about this with somebody at the conference about Bitcoin, the Trump coin, the Melania coin.
	I was looking, you know, I was trying to find my NFT card.
	I bought a $200 NFT card, which I'm told is not worth $200 anymore.
	It's not worth $10,000.
	I'll tell you that much also.
	And I don't really care because I did it at the time as a question of support.
	You know, it's a question of the Otani cards.
	You got the real cards.
	You got all the big money makers there.
	I'm going to show you.
	I don't have an autographed Otani, people, but I'll show you what I do have in our locals community afterwards.
	I came back from PSA today with a good grade.
	But so Melania is, she's not getting sued directly, but they are basically suggesting misleading statements in the launch of their meme coins, the Melania coin.
	I don't know if there's a similar suit for Trump.
	And, you know, there's rightful criticism here, I think, because I think a lot of people, you know, you buy a meme coin, I think everybody should know you're buying it.
	The answer should be Javier Millay's answer, which I still think is the proper answer, but it's a problem that should have been avoided.
	Where don't endorse crypto if you don't know what's going on, and certainly not with the proper disclaimers.
	And you might think everybody knows meme coins are intended to be, you know, comedic, show support, whatever.
	They're going to go to zero, as do all meme coins.
	But Melania launched, or they launched that Melania meme coin, and it, I don't know, it's down 85%, if that, if not more.
	And now I think who's facing the lawsuit?
	It's not Melania personally, but so the media couldn't wait to take shots at her.
	Though I always thought the way the meme coin was handled was like, I'd be more, a little more careful with that, given the history of pump and dump schemes.
	It appears that she was unknowingly used as a pump and dump for the people who were running it behind the scenes doing a pump and dump scheme.
	Much like the Hoctua girl, or the, you know, but then the argument's going to be Hoctua girl might not know, she might not be sophisticated enough.
	Melania, the argument is going to be, ought to know and ought to not even get involved with this stupid stuff in the first place.
	Yeah, I think that was the, I think there's some fair criticism in that direction.
	And because you just got to be real careful of the meme coin space.
	It has this propensity and proclivity to go sideways.
	I think she saw the success of President Trump with some of his NFTs and the rest.
	This was unlikely to have the same sustainability as Trump.
	And Trump did it in a very, hey, I don't know.
	These people say this is something.
	Hey, do what you want with it.
	And whereas they really thought it was the Melania meme coin when really it was she had agreed to lend her name to it, it appears, and didn't realize the people that were promoting it were doing a pump and dump scheme.
	You got to read the, it's just such glorious this.
	Melania Trump's name cited in fraud suit versus meme coin maker.
	Yeah, it's cited.
	They mentioned her name.
	She's not personally named as a defendant.
	I wanted to see what Trump's coin was at because I think that one also is in the dumps.
	You're getting, if you're not, look, I'm not a Bitcoin maximalist.
	I just know if you get any other coin that has unlimited issuances or you don't know who's holding them and they're, it's the pump and dump is sort of like for the penny stocks.
	This is what they, I think they call it a rug pull.
	Like they all sell their shares the second it goes live.
	They're not even pumping.
	They're just dumping, but they're dumping at the issuance price.
	Trump getting a minted coin.
	He can't.
	The federal law prohibits somebody who's still alive being listed on currency.
	One caveat to that, I'm not sure it applies to the stable coins.
	Just saying.
	So there might be a little footnote in there.
	And then the other one is, you know, Michael Wolf that sort of suggested that she was involved in the Epstein thing, that she was passed around in the rings as one of Epstein's clients or something along those lines.
	I think objectively defamatory, whether or not it's his opinion, whether or not you're listening to him literally for literally like Rachel Maddow, literally.
	She sued him.
	He's trying to get it.
	No, she didn't sue him.
	He sued her.
	Well, she sent him a cease and desist.
	Did she not sue for defamation?
	He sued.
	This is one of the weirdest suits I've ever seen.
	In anticipation of her suing him, he sued her.
	Oh, shit.
	Okay, I was, I thought.
	The cease and desist letter.
	I thought, I mean, I'm such an idiot.
	I thought she had already sued him for the statements.
	No, he sued her to prevent.
	Now, I'll give you what I think the tactical reasons are.
	But his theory was one, he was suing for a declaratory judgment that he didn't defame her, which is very weird.
	I don't know if I've ever seen that suit before.
	And the second is he believes, apparently, and I'll cross-check this, but I don't think I've ever seen this.
	So you have the strategic law against public participation, strategic litigation against public participation called SLAP.
	You have a bunch of anti-slap laws that have been passed.
	So laws that say we want to discourage and deter strategic litigation against public participation in violation of your First Amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances or assembly or speech or press or religion as the case may be.
	He has brought it as its own suit.
	He's brought an anti-slap suit.
	Well, so yeah, well, I even, I, I, I, okay, I've just, I, because I, this is going back before the story, I, when I thought that she had already sued.
	Um, I can understand the argument about stifling free speech, about getting these letters of demands.
	But so what?
	You wait until you get sued.
	Everybody says, I'm going to sue you for defamation if you.
	I mean, anti-slap is a, is a remedy to bring a motion to dismiss.
	I don't think I've ever seen anybody bring an anti-slap suit as if it's its own suit.
	As a preemptive, this is what's the, what was the word we asked we were talking about before?
	Um, to prior restraint.
	Prior restraint to exercise your rights to sue seems like something that's unconstitutional.
	It seems odd to me.
	Now, here's what it's really all about.
	He was afraid she was going to sue in Florida.
	So he sued in New York, hoping that New York thereby gets priority.
	That's what the goal is.
	What is that?
	That's what's going on.
	I would never have.
	That's where I feel like, you know, sometimes I fail to see the broader strategy where I would not have even gotten to that.
	I would have been happy saying, oh, he's doing it to create the illusion of and argue and rally to his defense.
	Journalists were going to say, whenever we get these letters of demand, it stifles our free journalistic speech rights.
	Okay, we're going to do the rest afterwards.
	Let me just read the few of the humble rants that are left here.
	No mention today of La Diabla arrest.
	We will see more arrests.
	What is that?
	I'm not sure I even have to.
	Maybe La Dia.
	Is La Diablo the.
	Tulsi Gabbard told the story of this really sick form of human trafficking that's occurring that she outed at the director of national as the director of national intelligence, which they were basically bringing in pregnant women and having their babies born and then trafficking in the babies.
	What's horrific?
	Well, what's horrific?
	This news looks like it's a month old, but what's horrific is that was literally, I won't even mention it.
	It was literally seen in a horrible, horrible, disgusting movie that was a border, that was that was pornographic with extreme violence.
	Okay, that's that's so I'm sorry, that's okay.
	But anyways, I didn't hear about it.
	I'll look.
	Apologies.
	Had not heard of Trump's post until now for a sentence still sense.
	John Finn.
	Understood.
	Good afternoon, Viva and Barnes.
	Can you somehow unpack?
	Okay, I did that.
	Okay, good.
	All right.
	And let me get SCOTUS, National Guard and tariffs.
	Will Trump be able to exercise control over his own National Guard or over the National Guard in the law gives him authority to?
	And trans and woke books at the Defense Department and trans in court.
	And the third topic, AI sued for causing a man's suicide.
	I was surprised at who the parties were to that trans books in the library suit when I looked that one over.
	I'll read a few of these.
	Roostang says, thank goodness for Barnes and dissecting these Patel and Bongino big media headlines for the inflated nonsense they often are.
	Andrew Pascal says, hold up, I almost forgot.
	Don't forget Trump about your absolute promise to do a decapitation strike in Venezuela.
	I'm just dying to see this.
	Fuck this administration.
	How's this America first?
	And S. Red Dallas or S. Reed Dallas says, haven't cashed yet, Robert.
	Calci issued a clarification.
	To be clear, this market will resolve on the official caucus block assignment of each of the 127 newly elected deputies as published by the Argentine Chamber of Commerce at the conclusion.
	That's how we won big on Election Day.
	It was an underdog that Malay's party would win.
	He won by 14 points.
	So the sports picks.locos.com is where we were once again ahead of the polls and ahead of the prediction markets.
	People, we're going to go raid redacted, and I'm going to just say booyah and apologize for the delay, but today was our Sunday show, which is longer.
	Oh, by the way, it's going to boot every, it's going to automatically redirect you if you don't opt out.
	So if you want to stick with, well, just come over to Viva Barnes because the show is going to be over after this.
	Let's do this confirming raid.
	Everyone, I'll be live tomorrow back to schedule.
	Next week, I will be in New Orleans for a conference giving a talk on when fake news has real world impact.
	Something almost with Brent Johnson and George Gammon.
	Dude, it's a big, it's a big panel, and it's going to be amazing.
	And now I just got myself a little nervous.
	Like, what have I got myself into, Viva?
	I'm going to have a nice suit.
	I'm going to see the big easy.
	So that's next week.
	So it should be still on schedule, but there might be a day of travel in there.
	And that's it.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
	So, we'll have Bourbons with Barnes on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
	We'll have Barnes briefs on Wednesday and Friday.
	Substack style articles.
	Bourbons and the Barnes are exclusive QA's for members.
	Probably have a hush-hush or two up this week as well.
	We'll have ongoing debate topics.
	Had very good, robust ones about AI last week and the economy status last week.
	We'll have some more this week about what people think about a range of topics.
	So, all of that will be over at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Now, confirming the raid, and I think I just saw Stephen Baker on Redacted.
	So, boom shakalaka raid confirmed, and I'll say booyah reviva raid.
	My fat fingers, boy, viva raid.
	Sorry for being late, eh?
	Okay, there we go.
	And now I'm gonna go and end this everywhere except for locals.

▲