Viva & Barnes - Ep. 293: Seditious Six! Venezuelan Boat Strikes! CIA Mole in D.C. Shooting? Witkoff Leaks & MORE!

Nov. 30, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:59:15

Ep. 293: Seditious Six! Venezuelan Boat Strikes! CIA Mole in D.C. Shooting? Witkoff Leaks & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, you might be asking who you're looking at right now.
	In fact, you would only be asking that if you are listening on podcast and do not read the words Alex Jones, 1996 on the screen.
	Back in the day when Alex Jones looked more like John Ritter from Three's Company, he had this to say.
	Prescient, no doubt.
	Behold.
	I'm Alex Jones, and I'm your host on exposing mass media.
	Understand that.
	Your money supply, your government is paying interest to private banks for bills that should be free of interest to you.
	I mean monetary control.
	I mean cameras on the corner.
	I mean thumb scans at the post office and at the driver's license, which they're doing now.
	I mean the banks.
	I mean all this control in your life.
	I mean bigger and bigger police forces with more and more totalitarian policies.
	All they do is buy our government up for peanuts and then control our monetary system.
	So understand folks, this is why I never hear about this in the mainstream press because they're owned and controlled by these mass bank conglomerates that want nothing less but total slavery.
	All we want is for you to be a free American and not to have to kneel on bended knee to the elites that are consistently more and more buying up this country and controlling it.
	I'm Alex Jones.
	See you, folks.
	How was that?
	Thank you, Douglas.
	I'm sure this will be on TV too.
	I've seen some of their clips.
	That's a bright light on there.
	My eyes are very light-sensitive.
	They're good eyes.
	So first of all, let's just put things on the levels of what is shocking.
	First of all, everybody was once upon a time younger.
	Alex Jones, now, some might say, look, there's a, what was that movie with Paul Rudd, 40-something?
	Or it might have been knocked up.
	It was one of those stupid rom-coms where his wife was complaining that men get better looking as they get older and women don't or you know age differently.
	I don't necessarily agree with that up until a certain point, but Alex Jones today is, I mean, I would never guess that that was Alex Jones in any way, shape, or form.
	He's chiseled nowadays.
	He's looking ripped nowadays.
	He's obviously got a different demeanor nowadays.
	That man, that young man that we were looking at, a babe in the woods.
	I mean, I don't know how, what is he, 33 years old right there?
	Looks like John Ritter.
	I mean, if everybody remembers Three's Company, come and knock at my door.
	But that being said, very few people have, what year is that?
	96 to 2006.
	96 to 2006 to 2016 to damn near 2026.
	What the hell's my problem?
	That's 30 years.
	That is 30 years of consistent, prescient, beyond the curve, ahead of the curve, observations and predictions for the world that we live in.
	Why?
	Because history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	Why?
	Because once you see the path broadly, you see it in all things.
	And Alex Jones saw the path broadly and therefore saw it in all things, including government.
	It is amazing just to see someone when they were so much younger, had no idea what the world was going to turn into and had no idea what the world would try to do to them, which is to utterly destroy him.
	And Alex Jones, like the, I won't even say like the Phoenix.
	I don't know these, these, these, what are they called?
	Legends.
	He hasn't risen from the ashes because they haven't destroyed him.
	He has gotten stronger than ever, more prescient than ever.
	And it's an amazing thing to see.
	Alex Jones was right, says Alien Baby.
	Over in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	He was.
	And this wasn't the real reason why I brought that up.
	I actually had that intro clip.
	I was going to play it at some point with Kyle Serafin on Friday because it was actually Kyle Serafin who posted that video to say, what did he say in that?
	I'll give everybody the link.
	I wanted to bring that up on Friday, but it's just as well that we could start today's shows with it.
	What did Kyle Serafin say in that tweet?
	He said, the world is a better place with voices like real Alex Jones, a consistent warning for 30 years for those who care to hear.
	Yep.
	You would be smarter if you listened to Alex Jones.
	Nobody's perfect.
	Everybody makes mistakes.
	So it is not the imperfection that is the permission slip to write off someone entirely.
	Period.
	Mr. Sauerkraut says, Viva, your interview with Kyle was awesome.
	I don't often pat myself.
	It was amazing.
	And it's not me.
	It had nothing to do with me.
	It was Kyle.
	And I posted that clip about the Bahi Bazi to CommiTube, thinking that they would potentially suppress that.
	It seems that a lot of people did not know about Bahi Bazi, whatever the hell, Bahabazi, however you pronounce it.
	Go watch the interview with Kyle Serifin and check out the clip that I posted later.
	Now, the reason why I wanted to start with that is sort of a good thing to start with, because Alex Jones was warning about what we're seeing in real time.
	Shameless and seamless transition to our sponsor of today's show.
	Central banks, head funds, even politicians, the very same ones who smile on camera while running record high debt, they're all doing the same thing right now, quietly moving out of the dollar and into gold and silver.
	And who's left holding the bag when the dollar keeps slipping?
	You.
	Everyday Americans, families who work hard, who save responsibly, who do everything right, but they watch their paychecks shrink.
	The more money you save and you just keep it in cash, the more you lose because cash is a fiat currency that is intended to devalue.
	You watch your retirement funds lose value and your trust in the system basically evaporates.
	The elites know better.
	They know hard assets, gold and silver, are the lifeboats when the dollar takes on water.
	That's why they're loading up.
	And here's the truth.
	You can do it too.
	You don't need to be left in the dark.
	You can go to Gold Safe Exchange and ask the folks there how they can help you.
	Gold Safe Exchange makes it simple to secure, simple and secure to move part of your savings into real physical assets you can hold.
	Absolute transparency, A-plus rating from the Bureau of Better Business, price match guarantee.
	So you always know you're getting the best deal.
	The elites have made their move already.
	They're doing it.
	I mean, gold was at an all-time high, and I think it's pretty close to it.
	Now I have to see what it's at.
	Protect your savings, protect your future.
	Click on the link below, mention Viva to get a special offer where the team over at Gold Safe Exchange will provide you an additional $1,500 in free gold or silver with qualifying purchases.
	The link is in the description.
	Go to goldsafexchange.com forward slash Viva and cover your assets.
	Protect your ass.
	And look at this.
	Look at that.
	Oh, beautiful, beautiful profile picture.
	It's so nice.
	My wife took that with an iPhone.
	But yeah, go check it out because we're living through it right now.
	It was at the Bitcoin conference that someone said fiat currency is intended to devalue.
	That's the purpose for it.
	Keep you a slave, keep you indebted.
	And gold, silver, Bitcoin, the reason why they increase in value is not because they're necessarily increasing in value.
	They're remaining stable while fiat currency inflates to inflation is prices, but devalues.
	And so long as you can just keep your assets at a certain degree of value that holds value, they will increase in value as the fiat currency loses value, which it's designed to do, and which it does because of government policy, printing cash, infinite lending, and so on and so forth.
	Invest in Bill Tong says Super Buff Shaft.
	I actually had the dry wooler or the beef sticks before we went live today to satisfy that hunger.
	That will carry me through to the end of tonight's show.
	We've got a banger tonight.
	Barnes is in the backdrop.
	I was going to start with a few things before we went live, but maybe Robert and I were having technical issues.
	So I think Barnes had to restart everything.
	I hear something.
	Does he hear me?
	He's coming in.
	Fingers crossed, people.
	I see the mute button.
	I can't share my screen to show you what I'm looking at.
	He's gonna try.
	While he tries to come in, I'm gonna bring up something which I thought was funny and worth a share.
	We're gonna talk about it tonight.
	Eric Michael Garcia, who is oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	I didn't realize this was a different guy.
	I thought I was picking on the guy from one of those states that said he's no longer going to vote for the gerrymandering because Trump used the word retard.
	Michael Garcia, Eric Marco Garcia, this I gave this guy a ratio like it's never been done before.
	This is in use in reference to Trump using the term retarded to describe Tim Wallace.
	You know, he's saying what we're all thinking, and some of us are also saying it.
	So the man says, this is disgraceful.
	I'm sorry, as a journalist and as a human being, this is unacceptable for any president to use this word.
	I was, you see, you see a tweet and you're like, which is the best angle to go?
	Do I want to go like the Obama calling B.B. Netanyahu a pain in the ass?
	Maybe, but maybe not, because a lot of people might agree with that these days.
	Do I want to go with, who was it they called one of the French presidents called someone a piece of shit or something?
	I don't know.
	That wasn't the right angle for this particular tweet.
	I just went through Eric Michael Garcia's Twitter feed to see when he used the term moron, imbecile, or idiot.
	Why did I do that, you might ask?
	Well, if you were following me on Twitter, you already know this.
	I said, hey, Eric, you moron, you do realize the terms imbecile, moron, and idiot are all former clinical terms on par with retard, used to denote mental deficiencies.
	Why do you feel comfortable using other words, those other words freely, but you feign a moral outrage when people use the word retard?
	I highly doubt you'll have an acceptable answer, but surprise me.
	Would you be happier if I called you a moron or imbecile as opposed to a retard?
	And then we got Eric Michael Garcia, watching the president give the commencement address on TV.
	He's an amazing speaker and a lot smarter than the last moron that we had.
	What was the other one?
	Bill Clinton has said one of the best things for politicians is to be understanding.
	And incidentally, I think all five of our past credits were underestimated.
	Clinton was thought of as a bumpkin.
	W an imbecile.
	Obama a novice.
	Trump a demagogue.
	Biden a fool.
	Obama wasn't a novice.
	Obama was a Manchurian candidate.
	But then I just, you know how this is.
	The terms moron, idiot, imbecile, and retard were once officially clinical classifications for different degrees of intellectual disability, but are now considered obsolete, highly offensive slurs.
	Well, Michael Garcia, you son of a bitch, as a human, you have offended me to my imbecilic core.
	In clinical practice, these terms have been replaced by a more respectful and accurate diagnostic category of intellectual disability.
	Don't they call it an intellectual superpower these days?
	All right, anyways, that was the own that I got over Michael Garcia.
	If you use the word moron, imbecile, idiot, or whatever, you are just as offensive as having used the word retard.
	Do I go see my text messages if Barnes is able to Barnes?
	Are you able to pop in or do you?
	Oh, we got private chat.
	Let me see what's going on in the private chat.
	How are you doing?
	that's lol we're gonna see what oh he he he popped out I'm going to see him.
	We're going to do this stream on our phone.
	He's going to do it on his phone tonight.
	All right.
	Until Barnes gets in.
	I did have some other stuff on the backdrop that I wanted to bring up.
	Yes, you know, speaking of stupid is also what I think.
	Stupid and dumb.
	This is Trump, again, saying what everybody is already saying inside their heart of hearts.
	A question about this tragic shooting in Washington, D.C. U.S. officials say that the suspect worked very closely with the CIA in Afghanistan for years, that he was vetted, and the vetting came up clean.
	He went cuckoo.
	I mean, he went nuts.
	And that happens, too.
	It happens too often with these people.
	You see him.
	But look, this is how they come in.
	This is how they're standing on top of each other.
	And that's an airplane.
	There was no vetting or anything.
	They came in unvetted.
	And we have a lot of others in this country.
	We're going to get them out.
	But they go cuckoo.
	Something happens soon.
	Your DOJ IG just reported this year that there was thorough vetting by DHS and by the FBI of these Afghans who were brought into the U.S.
	So why do you blame the Biden administration for whatever man did?
	Are you stupid?
	Are you a stupid person?
	Because they came into on a plane along with thousands of other people that shouldn't be here.
	Look at everything.
	Can you imagine what it feels like to get called stupid by the president?
	I mean, it's kind of, it's like once upon a time when I was doing a live stream during a court hearing and I was just listening to the court hearing and I thought they were talking about me live streaming, which I wasn't.
	I was listening and then relaying what was going on.
	My heart stopped.
	I was like, I thought I thought I was getting called out in real time by a court, which I wasn't because I wasn't live streaming it because it wasn't allowed and I knew it wasn't allowed.
	I was just listening and then relaying what was going on on the phone call.
	Can you imagine what it feels like to get called stupid by the president?
	Doesn't feel good, but then the question is going to be: well, why did the Trump administration approve his asylum in April?
	Well, from what I understand, we're going to get into it.
	Robert, can I hear you?
	Can you hear me?
	I can.
	Your gain is very low.
	Now, this is going to be tough.
	The button that says one of the dials, you're going to want to turn it up because you're going to turn your gain up.
	My brother used to sell.
	How about now?
	Can you turn up a little more?
	My brother used to sell pills and he used to call these people.
	It's like, you know, Colt.
	How about now?
	It's still soft.
	That's weird.
	I got whatever it is, turned up to max.
	Okay, no, just so bring the mic close and we'll let me let me see how bad it is in the uh uh locals.
	Let me know how low Robert is and then maybe I'll back away.
	You might have to get up.
	I hear it.
	Maybe it's not and maybe it's not as low as I think it is.
	Hold on.
	Still too low.
	Turn up the radio.
	Let me see here.
	He didn't call her stupid.
	He asked if she was stupid.
	Way too low for Robert.
	All right, Robert.
	Do you have anybody to help you with the how about now?
	Ah, there we go.
	That might be too hot.
	No, no, no.
	You don't keep it hot.
	Keep it hot.
	Sir.
	How goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay.
	If it's still too low, I'll ask the chat to turn it up.
	Yeah, so Robert, I guess we'll go right into it before we even get into the other stuff of the evening.
	Do you know what the process is for the approval of asylum?
	Because I imagine that once an Afghan refugee is here when they came in with Operations Allies Welcome five years ago, if they've been in good standing, their asylum claim is obviously going to be approved because if he goes back to Afghanistan, he will obviously get in trouble with the Taliban to the extent he was helping America.
	It depends.
	It's never open and shut.
	All right.
	We're going to get into all of this.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu?
	First of all, where are you?
	Back home in Tennessee.
	Okay.
	I noticed you got the 1776 law center behind you.
	You've got crop circles and some other good stuff.
	No cigar.
	Robert, I watched Frankenstein now yesterday.
	I would take those picks at 3%, and I have.
	It was objectively good.
	And it was so good that I started watching the first five minutes.
	Like, I'm hooked on this movie and I'm good to go.
	Now, it got a little long.
	I can appreciate some people think it's a little bit, a little bit preachy in terms of, you know, I don't want to ruin it for anybody.
	It's a must-watch.
	It's not quite as good as Interstellar, but it's damn good.
	All right, Robert, what do we have on for the night?
	Yeah, we have the National Guard shooting, the CIA, Afghan asylum connections present there that became a political issue.
	We've got the Venezuela attack, the various legality, various discussion points surrounding that.
	Is that what the sedition six, as they're being called, was referring to?
	To what degree did what they engaged in, was that illegal or constitutionally protected as well?
	The pardon for a former Honduras president, a little bit odd, apparently intending to influence the Honduran elections today.
	This Honduran president, unlike the Venezuelan leader we're trying to overthrow, is an actual drug dealer and at scale.
	I'm not sure what the political talking points out of the State Department are supposed to be at the moment, but we can discuss that in a little more.
	We've got leaked calls.
	We're back to Russia Gate all over again.
	Somebody within the deep state is leaking private confidential conversations between the president's peace negotiators and foreign nations.
	A high crime and misdemeanor.
	Will we see legal relief or remedy?
	We've got a whole bunch of stuff up at SCOTUS.
	We've got the party presentation rule.
	What is that rule?
	When does it prohibit justice, as was the case here?
	When on Election Day, what are the issues there?
	When is Election Day, Election Day?
	Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument on that soon.
	The Cuba and another one that's going to be hearing oral argument soon, Cuba and the four, where does Cuba fit into the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the opposite of FISA, FSIA?
	That is going to go up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Got the Brooke Jackson case will be heard Wednesday morning before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, against Pfizer.
	So we got that.
	Then we've got a couple of, we got Luigi's going to have a big hearing this week on all of his efforts to suppress evidence.
	That's the United Health executive murderer, accused murderer.
	We've got Trump dismissed in one case for his benefit, dismissed in another case against his interest, both happening in the state of Georgia, no less.
	One in the 11th Circuit, one before the state courts in the RICO case, and a class action case against DraftKings concerning how they are hooking young people onto various forms of gaming apps.
	So that and more on the busy docket.
	Robert, turn your volume up or whatever you did just a touch more to satisfy some people.
	They said it's good, but it's at the max.
	Okay, fine.
	So just bring the mic a little closer and maybe I'll just turn mine down a touch.
	Robert, let's start with actually the leaks.
	It's all going to intertwine.
	Last week, the person getting the hard time was Witkoff because people, you know, the theory was that Witkoff was trying to blow up the peace talks.
	Now it seems that the leaks of Witkoff's discussions are not coming from Witkoff himself.
	And then I forget who floated this theory, but it's not a bad one either, that the leaks are intended to basically humiliate Witkoff.
	How the hell are these conversations being leaked?
	On the one hand, you can sort of almost through AI, you know, generate what you think the conversation would look like and what they're discussing, but nobody denied the transcript of the call, and I think it's admitted.
	So the question is: who the hell is leaking this?
	There can't be all that many people involved.
	And if it's not an actual human in the administration, is it something akin to NSA or bad players at some form of surveillance entity like Glenn Greenwald is suggesting that are spying and then leaking this to their players who will play along?
	Well, I mean, it's disturbing to begin with that these conversations are being recorded because they're the U.S. peace envoy to Russia.
	So why is anyone recording these to begin with?
	So they appear to me to be illicit intercepts, unless it's our own government doing it.
	And even then, what has our own government said they're doing?
	Was everybody aware they're being constantly wiretapped by our own government?
	So the first question to me was who's doing the surveillance?
	We don't know the answer yet.
	Apparently, it was the actual recording itself.
	That's wild.
	So that starts to limit even more who is involved.
	So it appears that members of the U.S. government or European intelligence agencies, the stated focal point here is on MI6 of the UK, but these are the people that are involved in Russia Gate 1 and Russia Gate 2, which was called UkraineGate at the time.
	So Russia Gate 1 was to cover up for Spygate, which was spying on the president because they didn't want any detente reached with Russia.
	RussiaGate was launched as a cover story for Spygate and decide swipe the president's first term.
	Then UkraineGate was the impeachment efforts when Trump was stumbling and bumbling his way into Ukraine corruption, which has now blown up so big in Ukraine.
	The chief of staff, Deselinsky, who was doing the negotiations just last week, has now been sacked because he's been identified, Yermak, as neck deep in the billions of dollars of corruption that involved the theft and robbery of U.S. taxpayer dollars by the Zelensky regime.
	And so the presumption is whoever leaked these conversations wanted to let everybody know that they were still in charge, not the elected president of the United States.
	That's the message that's being sent out, that they're able to listen in whenever they want, that they're able to leak whenever they want, that they anticipate no consequence.
	Pam Bondi's too busy in Florida doing her next media PR hit to know what the heck's going on.
	Todd Blanche is too busy worried about protecting his own reputation in the sovereign district of New York, from which he stems, for him to be paying any attention.
	But it tells you they, everybody, including the American deep state especially, know what a complete joke Kash Patel is.
	That they can do this in front of everybody.
	The former FBI director can say 8647, inspire a bunch of death threats against the president and face no consequence for it, while Kash Patel rolls out and talks big, but carries a wee little stick.
	And we see another example of it this week when the deep state, after they did it throughout Trump's first term and in the off years in between, trying to derail a second term, now trying to derail a third term with illegal, this is high crimes and misdemeanors.
	So whoever did it should be impeached and removed from office, and whoever did it should be indicted and be facing 20-plus years in federal prison.
	This is serious compared to the false, exaggerated accusations against Edward Snowden or Julian Assange.
	Yet both of them face near life in prison.
	Every other whistleblower like John Kiracow faced years and years in federal prison.
	And yet here we have James Comey.
	We'll get into whether his case can get reinstated or not.
	But it's just reflective and representative of where we're at that the deep state feels so cocky they can spy on the president of the United States, leak against the president of the United States, and fear no consequence.
	I don't want to sound like I'm becoming one of those people and I'm not.
	But when I heard that someone, you know, that it was potential NSA-type spying, I did kind of think Israel.
	Not because they have a history as well of, you know, trying to get into the White House with bugs.
	My thought would have been, okay, if there's continued ongoing conflict in the world and if they can exacerbate that, it sort of could be the distraction.
	It could be, I don't know, a little bit of revenge for Trump, what I believe, you know, nudging Netanyahu into a peace agreement.
	I mean, there's nothing to say one way or the other, but between MI6 and other intelligence, who would have the best technology and the easiest access?
	It would be us.
	I mean, it's either the U.S., Israel, or MI6.
	And the belief is that it was U.S. intelligence spying on Witkoff because it appears to be Witkoff, not the Russians' phones being tapped.
	That would be an illegal, that'd be a Fourth Amendment violation of Witkoff's rights.
	But the people doing it are federal government officials in the National Security Agency.
	And they have shared this information with MI6 to publicly leak it.
	And that that gives you an idea for how open the deep state now is.
	That, you know, like some of this was happening behind the scenes, but you had a difficulty pointing the obvious finger of guilt.
	Not this one.
	This was a very select recording of a very select individual leaked at a very select time.
	And that points all the fingers back at the U.S. intelligence apparatus, but they would want to have cover, so it would make sense that they would, some past Bloomberg pieces appear to have been sourced by British MI6.
	And Brits are the one most angry and enraged at JD Vance trying to get a peace deal done.
	They despise the U.S. Secretary of the Army, Driscoll, who served in the military, because they don't like his blunt talk about the realities of the war in Ukraine.
	So that the Brits are masters of deluding themselves.
	I mean, they still think they have an empire.
	They don't realize that empire was gone about a century ago.
	That's how delusional the Brits are.
	Kier, Daly-Starmer, and the rest of them.
	But to me, if Trump doesn't right away get meaningful prosecutions, whoever leaked this, then his whole second term is going to be an open sieve because this is an open public announcement of, we'll do what we want to do when we want to do it.
	That the president is the president of nothing, that they run this country, not we, the American people.
	And if unless Trump wants to go through Ukraine gate and Russia gate again, there need to be meaningful consequences.
	And whoever leaked this needs to be in federal prison for the rest of their natural born days to send the requisite message that needs to be sent.
	Now, I've looked I still not protect, I still defend Bongino because I think my assessment is accurate.
	And I think Bongino wants to be a good law enforcement and wants to be a good cop and bring down bad guys.
	And I think he's doing that at the FBI and happy with that, happy with those accomplishments.
	I'm getting less forgiving on Kash Patel, and I'm not forgiving on Pam Bonte anymore.
	Now, the question is this, in terms of finding out who the leaker is, this is going to be whom?
	This is going to be Pam Bonte or this is going to be Kash Patel who's going to have to go after this and figure it out.
	Well, I would hope that they would use primarily to organize all the efforts Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence.
	I think this would be an appropriate role for her.
	And I have more confidence in her agency than anybody else.
	Patel, I don't know what the F he's doing.
	In the wake of the National Guard shooting, he's coming out talking.
	I mean, I'm not retweeting those things because I'm not trying to, like, that is what that is not useful criticism.
	But it's like he's just, it looks like he's out of his league.
	It looks like he doesn't know what's going on, literally.
	And he's making statements in all of these, the biggest, you know, ongoing investigations, the biggest ongoing incidents that are just factually incorrect.
	And it's just, it's inexcusable.
	Like, why say anything if you're going to say something like totally stupid?
	Okay, so that's Witkoff.
	People were saying they thought it was Kellogg who was leaking it.
	Kellogg's who leaked the original peace report for which he got fired.
	But the transcripts of calls is not something Kellogg would have access to.
	So that came from somebody else.
	That came from somebody in the National Security Agency, somebody within the CIA, or MI6 is the most likely trio of sources.
	I didn't really actually mean to bring that one up.
	It said Tulsi is too attractive to dislike.
	No, she's also too principled to dislike, and she's doing good work.
	Do we have any news on the alleged infighting between Cash, Tulsi, and Joe Kent?
	Has there been any progress or any further developments on the alleged friction between Joe Kent trying to look for a terrorist angle to the Charlie Kirk assassination, Tulsi Gabbard looking into that, and the FBI?
	Or has there not been any meaningful progress there?
	No update of any kind.
	Okay, well, so that's the Kellogg.
	Now, does that segue into, do we segue into the, I guess it's going to be part and parcel.
	Let's get into the DC shooting by an Afghan CIA, former CIA operative, an elite CIA unit in Afghanistan.
	Robert, I don't take for granted or even presume that you have all the time to watch everything that I do because even my wife doesn't.
	But I had on Kyle Seraphin on Friday, and it was enlightening.
	Like it was eye-opening what he was describing.
	And he had, which I think was the first time it's ever been shared.
	I'll pull it up while you talk, a video of what these Afghan encampments look like in New Mexico.
	And it's literally like, call it whatever name you want.
	It's like installing a mini Afghanistan in the middle of America in the desert, and you've got tens of thousands of Afghan men.
	I didn't see very many women or children in the video that he had, but I'm sure there are some.
	Basically turning New Mexico into a mini Afghanistan in all its horror, Bahabazi, whatever that is called, included.
	So the DC shooter, alleged shooter, suspected shooter, is a former elite unit that worked with the CIA in Afghanistan.
	He came over in 2021, give or take, but he had been a CIA asset, for lack of a better word.
	And if that's not the term of the art, forgive me, since he was 15, Robert.
	So they got this guy.
	The CIA had been using him since he was 15.
	The steelman argument is he might have lied about his age to be 18 at the time because everybody wants to help America or help the Americans.
	It's a way to get paid, whatever.
	And he helped in the whatever, the debacle of a withdrawal.
	He comes over here 2021.
	We don't really know what he was doing here for the last five years.
	He was living with a wealthy Democrat donor couple for a bit who had a give a go F me for him to try to raise some money.
	And two weeks after the Seditious Sixes public statement, one month after Alyssa Slotkin CIA, former CIA, if you're ever former basically you know what I said was a call to action or a dog whistle.
	Two weeks after that statement, two weeks after the Seditious Six statement and a month after Slotkin basically saying there's going to be blood in the streets and it's going to exacerbate, this guy goes out and shoots two national guardsmen, one woman who passed away and a man.
	I think he's still in critical condition.
	Whether or not he targeted the woman for misogynistic purposes or intent, we don't know.
	Um, he's in custody, Robert.
	I mean what, what?
	What insights do you have on this?
	How the hell does this happen?
	And do you think am I being bombastic when I say that this is a man who maybe heard a dog whistle from his former CIA handlers and thought he was gonna rise to the occasion?
	Well, did you see what Legal Eagle had to say?
	Uh, that's not the same Legal Eagle, but um oh, that's a different legal Legal, Legal.
	No I, I was shocked.
	It was not the same Legal Eagle, unless i'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.
	That's not the guy that I know because I went to look for DMS um.
	Yeah, that was a different Legal Eagle, basically saying hey, if they wouldn't have been there They wouldn't have gotten shot, like what you get for wearing that short little skirt.
	Whatever.
	But no, so not the same legal legal.
	So everybody don't go and go crazy against legal legal.
	Go crazy against him for his take on Marvel movies.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, boom.
	But what is your take, Robert?
	I mean, is this a sleeper cell activated?
	Is this terrorism and a sign of things to come, or is this just a one-off?
	Well, what's interesting is how few congressmen, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey were two of the only people to vote against this.
	Almost every other Republican in the House voted for these Afghan asylum seekers coming in on an expedited basis.
	Almost all the Republicans in the Senate, same way.
	So it's like interesting.
	The people that get all the criticism, I mean, like Trump was like, this is ridiculous.
	Well, it was all your friends, President Trump, who signed it off to the expeditem coming in and your own administration that granted him amnesty.
	That, you know, it tells you how much Trump doesn't even know about what's happening in his own administration.
	That you not realize Christy Noam was running down there talking about how great it was they were going to set a record with the number of people they were going to naturalize as citizens this year.
	Some of them are people like this guy.
	So, you know, which was a mistake from day one that, you know, there's a wide range of people here that it's not healthy or safe or productive for the American economy, for the American worker, that they continue to be here.
	So that's a reality.
	And God knows how many of these we have.
	This is just from our, and now we're like, here would be a solution to this, Mr. President.
	Don't create another migrant crisis.
	These are all migrant crises created by conflicts.
	That much of the wave of immigrants we've had since the 1980s relates to that in terms of Central America, where we're back trying to stir up trouble again.
	And now we're going into Venezuela over a fake cartel that does really exist in the modern era in any meaningful form while we're pardoning the biggest drug dealer of any political leader in the history of Central America on the exact same framework, same windows.
	You can't invent this.
	It's like, shouldn't this be a warning sign to us?
	No more stupid wars that bring people back who are not going to fit in, who are going to be constant problems.
	And what happens when you train them to do war and there's no more war to do?
	You know, who knows where their minds go?
	You're bringing them into a culture they don't fit, society they don't fit, skill sets they don't fit.
	And in many cases, angry, dangerous, and violent, and trained and tutored in the methods and mechanisms of violence.
	What do you think is going to happen?
	At least some percentage of them are going to go off.
	You don't need to have the life story of Rambo to be that cinematic character in order to act out the way this gentleman did.
	And this is just going to be a constant problem.
	What it should be is a reminder to stay out of these stupid conflicts.
	He wouldn't have been here if we would have stayed out of Afghanistan.
	But he was here because we were in Afghanistan.
	That's why, pure and simple.
	And, you know, it isn't just our immigration policy is a product of failed foreign interventions all around the world.
	It's the number one cause of the worst kind of people ending up in your country.
	It's not the sole cause, but it is a primary cause.
	And it appears we haven't learned a single lesson at all.
	I mean, two good Americans die for no other reason than we had to have some politician to feel good about invading some foreign nation.
	That's the reality of it.
	But yes, this is going to be a ticking time bomb of problems that are going to keep up ongoing.
	That there's too many people like this in the country for reasons of, I mean, whether you're talking about the Somalis that are here, the Hmong that are here, Cambodians that are here, the various Arab and Islamic regions and places they've come from.
	This was the exact reason of the Syrian refugee crisis in Germany in 2015.
	I mean, it's, and by the way, the second, so the one national, the woman passed away, Sarah Beckstrom, and the man, Andrew Wolf, is still fighting for his life.
	This was as of two days ago.
	I don't think the man passed away.
	But you know, it's Somalian crisis, and then they're going to change it to the climate crisis as well.
	So you're going to get every gang member from South America coming into America for the environment crisis.
	But that is manufactured as a means of infiltration.
	The Syrian crisis, yeah, you destabilize foreign countries, and then you say, well, look what we've done here.
	We need to give them a better life, bring them into Germany.
	It worked out so well by the end of it, Merkel's paying them to go back to Syria.
	Can Trump denaturalize and deport all of the, you know, whoever came in with Operation Allies welcome?
	I mean, it's not going to be easy because of the way the laws are structured, is a short answer.
	I mean, they're giving him difficulty just deporting regular people who are never here legally at all.
	People that have, as Mike Benz has been pointing out, it's intelligence agencies that do all the protection of these kind of specific kinds of refugees.
	And so I think it'll be tricky is a short answer, unfortunately.
	But it should be a warning going forward.
	There should be some effort to try to make accommodation for it on the back side.
	But there's only so much we can do at this stage, unfortunately, of our problem we ourselves have bred.
	Well, this one is going to be a bit of a tangent because it's related now, and I don't want to forget.
	I'm not, you know, as my immigration status is concerned, I don't like the idea of the potential for political reprisals to basically say, now I'm going to strip everyone of their visas and naturalization if we don't like them politically.
	Lord knows what the Democrats will do with that when they come into power.
	That being said, what Trump announced this week by way of truth post, I don't think it goes anywhere.
	I just don't like the idea.
	And you'll tell me if there's any legal impact or if there's any legal consequence, annulling all of Biden's executive orders.
	We had talked about this a while back, where this is a Pandora's box to open, where if you do annul the prior president's executive orders and everything that he signed, next president comes in and does the exact same thing to you.
	And we're going to, you know, that's that's a fast spiral to the bottom.
	Is it legally possible to follow through on what Trump announced he wants to do by way of truth post?
	In part, but some of this was passed by Congress.
	So he's got to get congressional reversal.
	So a lot of the Afghan expedited acceptance was passed by Congress, wasn't dependent on executive order.
	And pretty much every Republican signed it.
	I think, like I said, literally, only 16 opposed it.
	And this kind of thing happens all the time where the establishment all get together and vote for the same thing.
	And then they try to convince me that people like Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene or Rand Paul are the problem.
	And usually when you show up on one of these really dumb votes, why did we expedite the rushed in of a bunch of Afghanistan?
	Oh, the only guys voting against it are usually Thomas Massey, Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	It's all the establishment, the Lindsey Graham types who are cheering it on, saying how necessary it was.
	And that's who Trump was backing.
	So, like I said, I mean, the Trump administration can't maintain messaging from one day to the next, unfortunately, at the moment.
	So there's no question that these are people that should not have been led into the country and should be pushed out of the country.
	People are like, well, just put them on a plane and send them out.
	Then a federal judge, you're in the middle of a contempt proceeding with a federal judge.
	That's just the reality of where we're at, unfortunately.
	Well, the fact that we've got congressional approval at least would make the remedy legally tenable, get Congress to pass a new law, and that way you've at least done it by the problem is once you have individuals that have something vested in them, they have a reliance interest.
	That's why it's hard to just expedite anybody that once you made a promise, hey, you can come here and you're protected, can't go, well, oops, we're sorry about that.
	We got to send you packing right away.
	Now they have constitutionally protected due process interest.
	This might be the segue into the tangentially related issue as well.
	Hold on.
	It was about the illegality.
	Oh, the illegality of the order.
	The seditious six.
	Hold on, I'll bring this chat up because this was the segue that I wanted to get.
	Well, first of all, we got B.M. McCork, Timu Tibau, B my Bowls.
	What the hell is this English?
	Last night, and I forgot I needed some kitten correction.
	Kiffen, that's for Barth.
	What the heck language did I just read?
	Laura says, Robert, can we reinstate McCarran-Walter Act?
	What is that?
	Actually, before we.
	I'm not sure what they're referencing.
	And then if the seditious six were only referring to unlawful orders, then ask them which of Trump's actions since taking office did they consider to be unlawful.
	They should be able to answer easily.
	This is the segue.
	Before we even get into the definition, the legal definition of sedition versus treason.
	It's going to be another foreign conflict that might lead to more disaster.
	The bombing of the Venezuela, the blowing up of Venezuelan alleged drug boats.
	Now, I comment on it.
	I've observed it.
	Once you see the path broadly, you see it in all things.
	In order to attenuate what was, in my view, an outright seditious public service announcement, now they've got to find unlawful orders.
	And now you've noticed, like at the drop of the hat, they all got the memo.
	Heg Seth ordering to bomb the boats is now one of these unlawful orders.
	That's what they're running with and saying, look, this is what we were talking about.
	So to answer that chat, they're going to say that Heg Seth bombing these boats and ordering them to finish the job after there seemed to be two people clinging onto the boat is an illegal order.
	There you have it.
	You want the truth.
	You can't handle the truth.
	Is there exposure for Heg Seth now, legally, and all the more so if Dems take control in 2026?
	What is his exposure?
	Oh, yeah, there definitely is exposure for anybody in the military, depending on the circumstances, because it's never been legal to obey an illegal order anyway.
	It was just sort of much ado over nothing in terms of their public statements.
	It's always been the case.
	You're trained as a military member in the U.S. that you can disobey an illegal order.
	You just have to suffer the consequences if you're wrong about that order being illegal.
	And so you're discouraged from second-guessing whether an order is illegal rather than just deferring to higher-ups as to its legality.
	So that's always been the case.
	Their statements in that respect were like much ado over nothing.
	I thought they did a good job of stirring Trump up.
	I'm sure there was a bit of a wink and a nod there in terms of encouraging people to start disobeying.
	I would look at not so much the Venezuela issue, but look at their behavior in light of illegal leaks that, you know, see whether there's any contacts there, et cetera.
	I know Trump was talking about just their statements.
	Their statements are constitutionally protected and their statements are not illegal.
	So he'd be better off focusing on conduct that any of these individuals have engaged in separate from this.
	I don't think trying to bring Kelly back for military proceedings.
	There's a lot of political sense to that, to be honest with you.
	I would look more to who's leaking and are they connected to these people since these people have national security ties and there's at least some timing.
	Them saying, hey, disobey legal orders, hint, hint, wink, wink, nod, nod.
	Go do it with whatever we want you to do against to embarrass the president.
	And then immediately thereafter, there's illegal tapes, illegal recordings being leaked illegally to the public about an ongoing peace deal.
	Well, so this is my two cents is when, you know, like you say, they're just repeating the law.
	That was what I was saying from the beginning.
	Nobody needs to be told to not defy.
	Nobody needs to be told to not follow illegal orders.
	Nobody needs to be told that you can defy illegal orders.
	It's definitional.
	It is the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, where you don't need to say it.
	So what you are, in fact, knowingly saying is find some way to defy or, you know, here's your political permission slip.
	So again, If it's a congressman saying these things versus a citizen, I would, you know, it would be unquestionably protected speech from a citizen, but can you, I mean, it's going to be too hard of a threshold to reach to prove seditious conduct or the mensrea of sedition from what their statements were.
	Oh, yeah, their statements are completely protected.
	And it's counterproductive, honestly, for Trump to highlight those statements rather than highlight conduct surrounding their statements.
	So he's he, all of them are campaigning on this.
	You know, Markelli's campaigning on this.
	All of them are Democrats are campaigning the big see the president of the United States for us calling him out as a liar wants us murdered now, right?
	They get that pitch out there.
	So I didn't think this was the most effective time, point in time to raise it.
	I would have waited till the leaked information and then said they're trying to sabotage peace.
	That's a more effective route.
	There's definitely issues.
	There's always been issues with the attacks in Venezuelan on the drug boats.
	Their defense basically is one of, hey, every president's been murdering people for the last century, so we get to too.
	That's what their defense boils down to.
	It's not a good legal defense, not in domestic law, international law, any kind of law you cite to say you can just, hey, we think that boat has drugs on it.
	We get to murder everybody on the boat.
	Sorry, there's no theory of self-defense that justifies that.
	Now, I'm sure there's some lawyers that are happy to say so because the lawyers inside the White House and the national security apparatus have approved of everything.
	You know, mass murder, targeted murder, isolated murder, child murder, torture.
	But they have no credibility, in my opinion.
	But so, you know, Trump's defense is going to be, hey, Biden did it.
	Hey, Obama did it.
	Hey, Clinton did it.
	And he'd be right.
	But what would be required to make it lawful?
	A formal declaration of war against the cartoon?
	Well, I mean, for one, they would need to actually be an imminent risk to America's safety.
	And, you know, I have a hard time believing every single person on every single one of those boats is an imminent risk to the life and safety of other Americans.
	We don't even allow executions of drug dealers here in America.
	So, I mean, on what grounds is it self-defense to execute them on the high seas?
	This never made any sense to me at all.
	These people that were cheering and saying, oh, okay.
	I was like, on what grounds do you think it's, I don't like that person, so I'm going to murder them.
	And we have yet to be told what their source of information is.
	We've yet to be, all we know is that when somebody survives, sometimes they're being ordered murdered, and sometimes they're being released back to their country with no follow-up consequence, which is it.
	My guess is this is not going to turn out so great.
	When that admiral resigned in the middle of all this, it was further evidence that, okay, they don't have any confidence inside that their information is all that accurate, even if it was okay.
	I mean, but and again, it's not naming the international law that says you can murder someone for dealing drugs.
	Name me the law that says that you without any trial or anything else, you can just murder.
	I mean, theoretically, the only time you can do that is when you think that person is about to murder you.
	And so this person is not about to murder me.
	They're out off the coast of Venezuela.
	It can't even get to the U.S.
	And we're bombing them.
	That I guess it's even if you take their argument at its face, okay, they are engaging in drug dealing, that it's fentanyl and it's millions of pills of fentanyl.
	Even if that's true, do you then get to and it's well, you know, it's not fentanyl.
	Fentanyl is all coming through Mexico.
	Yeah, no, I'm just okay.
	But right, even if we postulate everything, there isn't any basis to do it.
	We couldn't do it here.
	But if I can't walk down the street and do it, my country can't do it either.
	My country doesn't have greater self-defense rights than I do.
	You know, that's never made any sense.
	No, but somebody.
	I can't go execute the drug dealer down the street.
	Well, it gives Donald Trump the right to do so just because it's an open seas.
	No, but you also don't get to go invade a foreign country and kill.
	I mean, I won't say nothing.
	You can't do that either unless it's the grounds of self-defense.
	Yeah, well, then you know.
	The law internationally and domestically is the same.
	There's no big difference between domestic.
	There can just be more restraints.
	There's more restraints when the state acts than I, as an individual, act.
	Other than that, the state doesn't have a greater right of self-defense than the individual does.
	Their argument isn't one from law.
	It's one from historical fact that historically this has been done all the time, and nobody does anything about it legally.
	Nobody ever faces consequences unless you lose in the war.
	And this was the U.S. general's saying.
	This is why a lot of U.S. generals didn't like Nuremberg, and they didn't like the portion of it that happened to Japan.
	Because they said, if we would have lost, every single one of us would have been in there.
	And no doubt about that.
	I mean, we firebombed men, women, and children to try to get a slight edge in a tactical conflict.
	We're the only country in the world to ever use nuclear bombs.
	So you can see why.
	But so from a legal moral perspective, these are not strong arguments.
	The argument is one of just practicality, that pretty much every president has done it since Roosevelt.
	So I don't know if any, Kennedy maybe didn't know.
	You could say that about some things.
	That's about it.
	Every other president was murdering people around the world.
	I say not to be glib.
	Kennedy wasn't president long enough to do the bad things that presidents invariably do.
	So it's concerning.
	I mean, obviously, Hegseth would be prime target number one for some form of impeachment.
	Trump would be too.
	Trump would be, they would go after Trump and Hegseth, both.
	they would go after trump and hexath both and they would go uh maybe some uh people in the military chain of command depending on who's in the chain of i just thought it was a rushed out process that had all kinds of risks tattooed on it that i saw very little chance of reward And I think now, and all they did is they sat and waited, and then they'll wait for the right time politically to launch it.
	And I thought it was, you know, they could simplify a lot of this if they didn't go into Venezuela and escalate.
	If this is something, if we don't have a bunch of these between now and January 2027, it's probably faded enough from the public mind to disappear and be limited.
	But if it's still going on, they think this is a huge winner.
	I don't think it is.
	I think it's undue legal exposure for everybody up and down the chain of command.
	And they would be better off just getting out of these problems and quit using the military to solve what are political problems anyway.
	Take the deal that Maduro is offering and refocus on America's domestic agenda.
	I think politically, that's what makes a lot more sense.
	But legally, they're at major risk.
	And it definitely doesn't help him pardoning.
	I mean, granted, America manipulates elections all the time, but now we're just being open about it.
	We're telling Honduras, here's how you have to vote if you want our support.
	And by the way, we're going to pardon the guy who ran one of the biggest, nastiest drug cartels in the history of Central America while we're going to take out Maduro because, by golly, we're against those drugs.
	That's why we're pardoning one of the biggest drug dealers in the history of Central America.
	I mean, who in the heck is advising the president?
	I mean, I was like, I mean, I get it.
	You want to boost in Honduras.
	You want to help the old oligarchs get back into control in Honduras.
	Obama did that the first time in staging a coup when he was there.
	And that's how those people got, those huge drug dealers got into place.
	But you're talking about guys that were just openly, notoriously became the central hub for drug distribution between Colombia and Mexico was Honduras, thanks to our CIA-sponsored president there.
	And that's the party Trump wants to put back in control while pardoning the guy who was supposed to be serving 25 years in federal prison for being one of the biggest drug dealers in history.
	And Trump's going to turn around and say, but I think a drug dealer's out to murder me, so I have to shoot that boat down right now.
	But here's a pardon for the guy that just did more drug distribution in the United States than all the Venezuelan fishermen through all of history combined.
	Does somebody advising the president say, this kind of doesn't look so great?
	You look like the South Park version of Trump right now.
	This does not work.
	Sadly, I don't think anybody is telling them that.
	Well, I'll fact check you in real time.
	He was sentenced to 45 years, Robert, in the U.S. prison.
	And so I mean, he's about 400 pounds of cocaine on just one deal.
	This dude was hanging out with the famous Sonola drug cartel head, El Chiapo.
	I mean, with photos with the guy.
	I mean, this guy was one of the most notorious.
	Remember, we discussed his case when it broke down.
	Yep.
	Because his brother got caught running the operation first.
	This is the president of Honduras, one of the biggest drug dealers in the history of Central America.
	And President Trump is bragging about pardoning him.
	It's like, while at the same time, saying our self-defense requires us to take out these six fishermen boats.
	I mean, does anybody know if they're in front of a normie jury, they would be like, what?
	I'm going to bring this up, not because I agree with it, but this is how I know that you're right, Robert.
	Here, fuck Barnes whiny.
	This is when people like, they like seeing the president do.
	Yeah, Gil Killibidz.
	It's easy to cheer him on from the sidelines.
	You're not doing him any favors.
	If they changed the name to Biden, these same people would be condemning this.
	And when you find yourself in that position, you're no longer an independent thinker.
	You're a cultist.
	And the way you know that is that your opinion of something changes depending on who it is that's accused of doing it.
	Now, a lot of people do this, left and the right with classic motivated reasoning.
	But it's no less embarrassing for people to be doing it on behalf of Trump than when they were doing it on behalf of Biden.
	Well, it's not just that.
	It's also the yes men that will yes you into impeachment.
	Yeah, it feels good to kill drug dealers.
	Everybody says, yeah, kill drug dealers, kill pedophiles.
	If you started having extrajudicial assassinations, when people are going to say, well, Obama killed a U.S. citizen abroad.
	So that's the distinction.
	These are not citizens.
	If you're talking about strategy that's going to be beneficial for a long, successful presidency of Trump going into JD Vance, this might not be the right strategy to take.
	It's going to make you feel good in the moment.
	You'll get some pats on the back from some gung-ho people who say, kill all drug dealers.
	Fine.
	And then if it gives the Democrats the power to impeach, and if they get the power to then convict, and lo and behold, you've neutered any conservative movement or MAGA movement, which is supposed to be inherited by JD Vance.
	And people like, how can you simp for cartels?
	Donald Trump is simping for cartels by pardoning one of its worst members.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Are you still there?
	Is home somewhere present inside your mind?
	These are people that their ability to just shut things down and turn on other things.
	And it's not helping Trump any.
	Because I mean, this is going to be very damning when all this stuff blows up down the road.
	Hopefully he stays out of Venezuela, listens to the better angel of his nature, listens to Tulsa Yabert, and doesn't compound the problems.
	But if he goes in further and we just keep bombing boats for forever, this will become a major political and legal problem for him of his own doing.
	How does it work?
	He pardons the guy.
	What's the guy's name?
	Hernandez.
	Yeah, former President Hernandez.
	He pardons him, releases him from jail, prison, I guess.
	And now he's going to go back to Honduras to run for president.
	To influence.
	The vote is today.
	So just to influence the election, I think was the thought process.
	And again, what message are you really sending?
	Hey, Honduras, we're putting the guy that ran the really nasty drug operation through your country.
	We're sending him back to you.
	What message are we really sending?
	In case anybody had any doubts that we were just flat out lying about Venezuela.
	Oh, it's the secret cartel of the Suns and something we dusted off the old CIA desk.
	He said, yo, bring back.
	Remember that one 25 years ago, that fake cartel?
	We used to run, you know, get the CIA, you know, bad ideas and plans shelf.
	And you pull that one off and boom, dust it off.
	Cartel of the Suns.
	Oh, yeah, that even sounds scary.
	Cartel of the Sons.
	We're going to take on those drug dealers in between pardoning them.
	Oi, Robert, let me get to some chats and then some tipped questions, and then we're going to segue into our next topic here.
	Where is my rumble window?
	Oh, Tabarno.
	Here, it's right here.
	We got Bill Tongs in the house.
	Naval captains have universal jurisdiction over unflagged stateless vessels to address privacy and trafficking, even under UNCLOS.
	We have been doing this since the Barbary Pirates.
	Nothing new says Jarbots.
	I don't know enough.
	That's only partially true and partially not true.
	So if you use the Barbary Pirates were a group of people involved in kidnapping and all kinds of activities, and President Jefferson and others took them out or did things to limit their influence.
	From that, people are saying, oh, that means we get to invade any country we want anywhere in the world.
	Hold on a second.
	A little bit of a logical gap there between those two.
	The Barbary pirate operation does not justify regime change in Venezuela.
	Because for one, they're not vi-Barbary pirates.
	We're going in because they provide support to Cuba.
	And Narco Marco of Cocaine Cowboys fame himself from Family Wealth.
	That's where they got it, folks.
	Cocaine dealing.
	That's right.
	We want to take on the drug lords kind of mindset mentality.
	Something to behold.
	But the, you know, Narco Marco Tori made his cash.
	He wants to free Cuba.
	So Cuba depends.
	Cuba's economy is in crap shape.
	It's been for now.
	It's always been that way, but it's gotten much worse after the pandemic.
	You know, the commie country that doesn't supply its own food anymore and doesn't supply its own fuel is not in a position to just turn the lights off the economy.
	So their economy's sunk even further.
	Then they've had hurricanes come through.
	That's done damage they can't repair.
	So they're completely dependent on Venezuelan cheap oil and energy.
	And Narco Marco thinks he can take them if he takes that offline than by replacing and controlling Venezuela.
	He doesn't care.
	The globalists want there to be a big war in Venezuela because it's a natural country for a civil war.
	Unleash another 10 million migrants into the United States.
	And how are you going to turn them down, folks?
	When we started the war, how are you going to say no then?
	Just look at what this Afghan guy just did.
	Every war overseas is an invitation to immigration at home.
	Until you recognize that one will automatically follow the other in the modern world, then you don't understand what war is really about.
	Let me bring up the Bill Tong is in the house.
	My fat fingers are not getting the thing when I want to get up here.
	Bill Tong is in the house.
	He says, we also specialize in imported foods.
	Check out Bill Tong USA for a great selection on imported cat.
	Oh, Bill Tong.
	I got the box yesterday.
	It's amazing.
	The cookies are beautiful.
	I meant to send you the picture.
	Groceries, of course, Bill Tong.
	Bill Tongusa.com, code Barnes for 10% off.
	Larry Sharp, who is running for governor of New York, has been saying, stop these wars that cause refugees.
	You should have him on for his thoughts.
	Absolutely.
	I'm going to screenshot that.
	And there you go.
	Now, a couple more.
	Let's just get to some of the ones in our Viva Barnes law.locals.com community.
	I forgot there were a bunch of CommiTube chats that I missed from last week.
	I'm going to have to get to those in a bit.
	U.S. troops bravely storm Venezuela's beaches.
	Could President Trump please lead from the front like a modern-day Eisenhower's gray 101?
	Sarcasm.
	President Trump can save lives in Gaza by relocating all Palestinians to multifamily FEMA facilities built in the United States.
	Sarcasm.
	President Trump should invite Venezuela's leadership to a neutral third country for peace talks, then act surprised when forces eliminate them.
	They won't see it coming.
	Sarcasm.
	Our president needs to stay the course, ignore the polls, and remember he is MAGA.
	Trust the plan.
	Sarcasm.
	Piscatla says, I had a funny moment while going into a bar involving a cute young college woman wearing a reflective vest, soliciting donations for the ACLU.
	Her, she asked me, Do you know about the ACLU?
	Yeah, but what do they do?
	She tells me a bit, and then about 1776 Law.
	Amen.
	Okay.
	76.
	Oh, she tells me a bit.
	Then I start talking about 1776 Law Center, Amos Miller, Kurt Bensoof, Dr. Moore, and all martyr money loser cases.
	1776 Law Center is cooler than ACLU and needs an Instagram account.
	It doesn't know.
	I got a drinker.
	Okay, I'll get to the few of this afterwards.
	All right, Robert.
	The segue into the next topic, which I'm going to go to our list.
	Honduras pardon.
	Okay, so we did that.
	Geez, what do we do?
	We got SCOTUS.
	We got a bunch of SCOTUS.
	We got Brooke Jackson.
	We got Luigi.
	We got Trump denied.
	Trump denied, but one good, one not so good.
	And the DraftKings class action.
	Let's do.
	Luigi's interesting.
	Okay.
	Luigi is, they're going to have a multi-day hearing over the admissibility of some of the evidence that they have collected in that case because we talked about it at the time, Robert.
	And I'm only ahead of the curve because I talked to you and I picked your big brain.
	Where you said at the time, when they were searching through his bag at the McDonald's, A, it all looks a little like minority report orgy of evidence.
	Apparently, he had a 3D printed suppressor for the firearm, which he used.
	And I don't know, maybe, again, maybe I'm an idiot because I think you can 3D print in steel or metal.
	I didn't think you could 3D print a suppressor.
	What do I know?
	Maybe it's just a little component.
	Okay.
	He gets arrested in a McDonald's.
	They were searching through his backpack, backpack, which they did not have a warrant to do.
	Their argument at the time was they thought there might have been a bomb there.
	So there's an urgency to go through his backpack, even though there was apparently no indication to suggest there might have been a bomb in his backpack.
	They go in, they find the gun, they find the manifesto, they find the suppressor, yada, yada.
	They're going to have an argument as to the admissibility of all of this because if it was obtained without a search warrant, it's the fruits of a poisonous tree.
	And it's going to apparently be a relatively lengthy hearing.
	Nobody's simping for the suspected killer here.
	And there's no although to that.
	We yet do not, we do not have definitive video evidence of him being the one pulling the trigger other than what they've connected.
	Set that aside.
	There's a serious possibility that this evidence gets dismissed, gets tossed.
	You will, because it's a multi-layer analysis.
	So this will be under New York state law and New York Constitution and U.S. constitutional law.
	So all of it will mix and match.
	One issue will be whether or not they had a right to search it.
	Then the second will be whether they had a right to seize it.
	And the third is that even if they didn't have a right to search it or seize it, is there a way in which the evidence can still be allowed in a trial?
	And that's the exclusionary rule.
	And essentially, the courts have come out, carved out like a hundred of the exceptions to the exculpatory rule.
	So you might think it's open and shut when they conclude didn't have a right to search it, didn't have a right to seize it.
	Look for the government to rely instead because they don't appear to be arguing too aggressively that everything the cops did was on the up and up.
	Because those don't remember, Luigi is the one who allegedly murdered the United Healthcare executive, assassinated him on the streets, caught in another state.
	The state that he was in, the officers appeared to surround him in such a way that he would feel not free to leave.
	Once you feel you're not free to leave, then your Miranda rights are invoked.
	In other words, that if anything you say at that point is incriminated used against you, then that can be a violation of your Fifth Amendment rights.
	Compelled coerced testimony against your will, if you will.
	But the key is whether or not you feel free to leave.
	If they use some of those responses, in other words, because it all starts from the tree, the fruit of the poisonous tree.
	It's everything up all the way up to you get to the branch.
	So if what led them to search the bag was his answer to a question at a time in which he felt he was not free to leave, then you've got another problem.
	All of a sudden, your probable cause isn't there to search the bag because you never should have heard that answer because that was a coerced answer in violation of his constitutional rights and state analog constitutional rights under New York law.
	So it looks like what they're really relying on.
	So they're not really saying they know they should lose on the law on whether or not they coerced statements.
	They know they should lose on the law and whether or not they illegally searched his bag because their pretext to do it was kind of lame.
	But cops are cops.
	They're like, oh, yeah, it's awesome.
	I got to be the one to find it.
	So they start searching right away.
	They usually get away with this.
	The reason why they're not worried about getting, like, you might think, hey, high-profile case, don't you know better?
	You know, go through all the, you know, cross all your T's, not all your I's, don't go searching everything.
	Don't go sees and everything.
	But they're accustomed to judges finding a way to excuse it.
	So that in most cases, when a judge finds something was an illegal search, they don't throw out the evidence.
	And they come up with some new excuse.
	Likely the excuse here is going to be, well, we would have discovered it inevitably.
	I find that hard to believe because this guy was hanging out on a McDonald's.
	You were going to discover inevitably that particular bag at that particular time and to be able to search for it independent of all the illegal things you did to take a sneak peek at it?
	Probably not.
	The question is, where is this guy politically?
	Normally, the courts are so corrupt in being deferential to law enforcement.
	Contrary to conventional wisdom, in these liberal jurisdictions, they're just as deferential to law enforcement.
	Just not Trump's law enforcement, but every other law enforcement they're deeply deferential towards, including their systematic and systemic violation of civil rights.
	It's why these cops do what they do.
	They usually get rewarded for it, not punished, even when caught.
	But the other possibility here is that Luigi's got this huge cult following amongst young lefties.
	The Virginia State Attorney General is the person who got elected even after saying he wanted to see his loved one, the children of his opponents, murdered in their mother's arms.
	He's now the attorney general of Virginia.
	So you wonder where.
	He apologized for that.
	Come on.
	Bygon.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	So will the judge do like what the judge did before?
	Because it's the same New York court.
	They've already dismissed terrorism charges against him.
	Might see this judge throw out everything.
	Now, he would still face federal charges.
	He still faces separate federal charges on all of this.
	So this wouldn't be the end of it.
	But would it really shock you if the political vibes in the city of Momdani, where Mandani just got elected, decides that they're going to let Luigi walk on Fourth Amendment violations?
	I'd say at least one in three chance, I think, one in four, one in three, that this judge finds the Fifth Amendment violations occurred and orders the suppression of all of this evidence, which would mostly gut the whole case against him at the state level.
	Won't end what it'll do at the federal level, won't end whether an appellate court reverses it.
	I want to see if there's a market for that.
	Not that I would bet on that.
	That feels sacrilegious to bet on.
	I would be shocked.
	I would imagine that they're going to find a way to retain that evidence just because I would imagine it would be politically disastrous, even if they're legally correct to do it, to exclude it and then risk letting a suspected cold-blooded assassin walk free.
	Normally, unless that young cold-blooded assassin is very popular amongst a whole group of voters in your city, like Luigi is.
	All right, well, that's why.
	My guess is Luigi has net positive approval amongst people who voted for Mamdani for mayor.
	Is the hearing?
	It's a state hearing.
	Has anything in this case?
	So it could usually be broadcast, but I don't know whether they're going to let it be broadcast or not.
	This would be very interesting to cover.
	Maybe see if good logic is going to go down there.
	Sometimes one of those ones that don't video broadcast, sometimes you can make him feel guilty and get him to go down there.
	Well, I'll do that, but this is after he's debating destiny right now.
	Now that you mentioned it, I'm not watching this.
	I'm going to watch it.
	I'm going to watch it afterwards to see how terrible of a not Joe is, but just how terrible of a discussion.
	I don't know who the two people on the bottom are.
	I don't even want to.
	People asking, should he walk?
	I don't think he should walk.
	No.
	But I'm saying I think the liberal Democratic judges in New York are going to be tempted to.
	And the over-aggressive cops gave him a pretext to do it.
	Well, not that I'm not trying to be holier than that.
	I would like to see the evidence because I'm not saying it's another guy.
	I'm not saying Israel did it.
	I'm just like, we lack the key connecting points of the evidence.
	They say they have ballistics on the weapon.
	Well, maybe they'll send it to Candace Owens and they'll include a similar acronym like they did with that agency.
	Can you imagine getting that and then figuring out?
	Oh.
	Apparently she's off the air.
	And who is it?
	The Hodge twins said that they saw the evidence and they believed that there was an actual hit put on Candace Owens.
	For those that don't know the way the French word is spelled, the acronym of the agency that's supposedly coordinating the assassination is the NIGR.
	So you do the math on whether she might have been trolled.
	It's almost guaranteed that she is going to fall for some of the, I mean, Sidney Powell fell for a lot of these.
	They're going to fall.
	She's going to fall for some really bad trolls.
	Some really smart, sharp little Fuentes fan types that live on the internet.
	They live at the Reddit or used to live at the Reddit.
	Donald used to be on the Donald the Reddit.
	Now 4chan, 8chan, wherever else it is.
	But I think the acronym is accurate.
	The GIGN is Le Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale.
	translates into the National Gendarmerie Intervention Group.
	So I think the- Yes, yes, but you see that too.
	Exactly.
	See what it translates into.
	I think the acronym is that it's not.
	I'm not sure that she was she getting trolled because the acronym seems to be an accurate.
	Maybe I just thought it was a way she had it done.
	I was like, okay.
	But I still think the people who did it, yes, I think she was getting trolled.
	I think somebody took a couple of things and said, I wonder if we can get her to say it this way.
	And I think that just because when I saw that, I mean, everything about it, she's unfortunately, she falls for anything.
	Well, I don't, as mad as the French family is, I don't think it's anything that they're going to hire an assassination.
	And they have to be in this group.
	There was an Israeli assassin in there as well.
	Yes, of course.
	Yeah.
	Throw it in.
	Throw it in, of course.
	She's right on top of it.
	She's right about to bust it.
	Robert, let me bring this up here.
	We got a couple in our locals chat.
	Bender is great.
	Says, a few weeks ago, we were talking about whether or not AI companies can be sued for causing a death.
	Is there any overlap with cases brought against GPS companies where their products led to deaths?
	At the end of the day, you've got to be a bit of an like, unless you're a driver from India who goes over a bridge because GPS told you to go that you didn't read the signs.
	You're making the decision at the end of the day.
	But actually, on that question, because I did have one.
	I don't know if you know who Misfit Patriot is, but I had one that rings a bell.
	So he was on the channel a while back.
	Apparently, Grok is outright hallucinated.
	I do believe that he was not charged with any pedophilic offenses.
	Grok is providing an answer basically saying, yeah, here's the docket for this guy.
	It's not accurate, operating on the basis that it's just a AI information.
	Yeah, you get so much wrong.
	Remember, it confused your wife with your daughter.
	Well, it did that.
	What was the other one that it just terrible?
	It gets tons of stuff wrong.
	Well, you know what it is.
	It's apparently like based on a Russian language that I was reading about that these two Russian mathematicians were competing each other at the end of the 19th century.
	And one of them to prove that math was actually determinate, not completely independent, showed that you could have that it could, if one letter was before something or one number or something else, you could actually show that math is often functions dependently.
	But the idea is that they're really what it's searching for is the words that are supposed to go next to a word.
	So it has no concept of intelligence really at all.
	And that's why it's being greatly exaggerated.
	But I mean, I hope we don't put a whole bunch of economic eggs in that basket because it looks to me like this is AI is much more artificial than intelligence.
	There's no question.
	And it empowers the stupid by thinking, well, I found it on AI.
	This is it, though, here.
	Misfit Patriot put out, hey, Elon, would you care to explain why Grok is falsely calling me a fucking pedophile?
	Or would get that out of there?
	Or would you like to explain to my lawyers?
	Be happy to prove this shit as well.
	So it is, this is Pania Bloom who wrote, you know, it's all fake.
	There's no verifiable public docket, whatever.
	Can Elon be sued for this?
	Not Elon, but Grok AI could be, yes.
	Just for the same reason that Robbie, what's his name, is suing them over a bunch of suing open AI about all their libels of him.
	Remember, don't they have him falsely doing assaults or something?
	Robbie, is that Robbie Starbuck?
	Yeah, that sounds right.
	I think isn't him who's, I thought you covered it.
	He was somebody who's suing because they keep falsely accusing him of something over and over again.
	Oh, crap.
	And he keeps correcting it and then they still get it wrong.
	I'm going to have to jog my memory on that.
	But so the idea is you could, in theory, go after for liability the programmers or the owners of the AI that are generating.
	Yeah, we've seen copyright suits.
	We've seen negligent homicide suits.
	We haven't seen victories yet.
	We've seen the ability to sue them.
	Right, right.
	We haven't seen the actual outcome yet.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, that was the misfit.
	If you're watching, that's.
	I wonder who, I guess the corporate executive tries to defend the AI because it's not like they wrote it.
	It's AI wrote it.
	Well, that's the, that's the, how is it that they're going to say, well, we're just aggregating information on the internet.
	So it's, if we aggregate what someone else said, but if you're aggregating a lie with no verifying whether or not, like, yeah, if you're aggregating disinformation and then recirculating it as AI, I mean, that's making it your own, I guess.
	I got to see why Trump's head is bobbing around here.
	This is Andrew Piscato that says, maybe you and Barnes should respond to people's emails because people offer do things like Instagram, but not limited to that.
	Maybe y'all Barnes cough.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm sure you got it by yourself, dude.
	I'm ribbing you.
	Okay, good.
	Oh, that was for a Barnes 17.
	And then what's his name?
	Oh, yeah.
	Back by popular demand.
	Go, guys, go break them again.
	Take all of them.
	Back by popular demand just in time for the holidays.
	Back in stock.
	I have another batch of waving wooden American flags.
	I would like to offer a discount to the locals community.
	Go to Renix Woodworking.
	I'm going to give everybody the link here.
	RenixWoodworking.com.
	Use the code locals50 for $50 off their beautiful.
	That's mine behind there.
	Feel free to reach out if you want something custom.
	And now I'm going to give everybody across all platforms that link right now.
	All right.
	That was the bad segue, Robert.
	We're going to get into the Trump victories, Trump losses.
	The Trump suit that Trump got dismissed on him suing Hillary Clinton, Comey, a bunch of others for Rico basically election interference, which is very odd because Comey has now been charged criminally, although we'll get into that charge being dismissed and whether or not it can be brought back.
	He got charged for basically what Trump was suing civilly for.
	This was a RICO conspiracy, election interference, Clinton, DNC, Comey, all of the usual suspects of Russia gate.
	And it was dismissed, not just dismissed at every stage.
	It was dismissed, and Trump was ordered to pay up to like upwards of a million dollars in court fees, sanctions for a patently, and this is not my words because I don't agree with them, a patently frivolous and abusive proceeding.
	And it was just ratified by the Court of Appeal.
	Which court, this is now 11th Circuit Court.
	So this is this is a Trump, if nothing, he's going to care much about a million bucks.
	This is a done deal.
	The suits were dismissed.
	The frivolity and abusive nature of those suits ratified.
	And the million-dollar penalty, whatever it was, legal fees and costs, ratified by the 11th Circuit.
	There's nowhere to go from here.
	I mean, I guess it could go to the Supreme Court, but they're not going to take this.
	I doubt the Supreme Court's going to take it.
	I mean, it was, we mentioned at the time that there were some good ideas in the suit, but the suit appeared to be a little bit scattershot.
	It had some legal theories.
	RICO is not the legal theory to use.
	I get it's colloquially popularized out there.
	It's mostly inapplicable to most contexts.
	RICO is about getting the mob involved in extortion businesses.
	It was not the catch-all for every bad thing that ever happens.
	And that people get this confused now all the time.
	And unfortunately, Trump's lawyers got it confused.
	So they brought a RICO case by lawyers that, to my knowledge, had never done one before.
	So they were in over their heads, made some mistakes in what was going to be a high-profile political case, and gave a rogue judge the leeway, the pretext to hammer him, and enough for the Court of Appeals to repeat the hammering.
	And, you know, one of the one of the main lawyers hit on this is Haba.
	You know, the Babylon B had a, you know, a headline this week about Trump's lawyering taste and where it may be running afoul.
	But, you know, the several of these people are just not the best suited to handle this.
	Like, to my knowledge, she, Haba, had never done a RICO case in her life, nor had most of the other lawyers working with Trump.
	It was a lot of lawyers that saw an opportunity to write a check rather than an opportunity to actually get some really good law made.
	And so, unfortunately, it gave these judges more freedom to screw them over than they necessarily had to.
	Now, these judges might have done that anyway, given how rogue these judges are, but they would have been better off.
	I mean, one of them was a Bush appointee.
	One of them was a Trump appointee on the 11th Circuit that screwed him over.
	But it's a reminder to also be disciplined in your approach, especially if it's a political case.
	Be aware how people are going to come after you and be prepared for that.
	It appears there were some weak links here, even though they are dismissed with like, oh, the judge, you know, might not have got this or right wrong, given the Durham report and other things that ultimately got published.
	But it's like, no, I mean, they're giving that judge who said a bunch of things that were just flat out false about the facts at the trial court level.
	They're letting that judge off because that's what abellot judges do nine times out of 10.
	They find an excuse to cover for their pals.
	They don't meaningfully subject them to real scrutiny.
	And we just saw another example of that.
	But while that dismissal was a disappointing dismissal from a justice standpoint, there was in the same state, no less, a very promising dismissal that we'd been predicting for quite some time, but finally got around to saying it.
	Robert Kitty Brown, I-3163 says, RICO is about conspiracy.
	Barnes is wrong again.
	I love it when they tell you you're wrong.
	That's why the R in racketeering or R and RICO is for racketeering.
	So it is not any and all conspiracies.
	People think, oh, I just throw the word conspiracy and magically it's legally bad.
	No.
	Conspiracy is a mechanism like aiding and abetting for how you prove somebody did the underlying tort or crime, but you still have to have an underlying tort or crime.
	Well, they would argue that it was, I don't know, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, but we're talking civil.
	And even there, it's supposed to be, what's the enterprise?
	A RICO requires an enterprise.
	So like enterprise is usually the number one thing that trips you up.
	Because remember, it was designed to deal with a couple of mobsters use a business to extort somebody else.
	So you can sue that business that is being used to extort them because it's the enterprise mechanism they're using to infiltrate the free market.
	This is the logic of RICO law.
	So unless you know it's free market relationship, it's economic predicate, then it's very, then you're going to screw up.
	And also recognize 95% of RICO civil suits get dismissed and never allowed to go to jury trial.
	Judges hate recivil RICO cases.
	They don't want you to bring Civil Rico cases.
	They're happy for expansive liability on the criminal side, but they don't want them on the civil side.
	So everybody's saying, Rico, Rico, Rico, RICO.
	I get what you're trying to get at.
	You're trying to say these people are conspiring to do bad things.
	And when you think of conspiracy to do bad things, you think of RICO.
	The problem is those are two different kinds of conspiracies to do two different kinds of bad things.
	One to interfere in the economic marketplace to make it uncompetitive using illicit mechanisms, otherwise known as racketeering to a large degree.
	The other is various forms of election fraud, various forms of public fraud, various forms of election interference, so on, various forms of obstruction of justice and false statements to government officials.
	That's a conspiracy to violate civil rights rather than a conspiracy to racketeer in the economic space.
	And that's where people if it will help people if they understand those distinctions.
	I just thought I was just surprised by the dismissal, given the indictment of Comey, which sort of seems to confirm, at the very least, the basis of the allegations against the big part was statute of limitations on Rico.
	And on the state claim, their biggest part was they didn't flesh out how it applied.
	So the ruling looks like everything they filed was frivolous, when in fact, it's two very technical interpretations the judges are relying upon.
	But the media will get wrong consistently what it means going forward.
	And they'll say every election lawsuit was brought and was thrown out as frivolous and Trump's lawyers were sanctioned for it.
	Well, they got that.
	Now, which one was the one that was dismissed to Trump's benefit this week?
	I was right then in a good state of Georgia.
	Oh, yeah, Fanny Willett.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Fanny went packing.
	As soon as he went packing, the lawsuit, that criminal case went packing with her.
	The lawyer's name or the district attorney's name is Scandalakis.
	It's like a Greek name of scandal.
	Scandal.
	Scandalakis.
	Yeah, it's like if it were Jewish, it would be Scandalstein is what his name would be.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, well, we all saw this coming, and this was this.
	People are still laughing, by the way, about that quarter in the desert joke.
	Well, Scandalstein or Scandalberg is pretty good as well.
	We all saw this one.
	The writing was on the wall.
	It was Judge McAfee who didn't have the cojones to toss this.
	Well, to disqualify Fanny, toss the case like he should have.
	Fanny got disqualified, confirmed, and now Scandilakis came out and said, in the interests of justice, we're going to dismiss the charges.
	The administration, it was going to be too hard to prosecute.
	Sitting president, yada, yada, yada.
	I mean, it's total vindication, but what now?
	Well, a couple of very good, even though it's not like a legal finding, it's something that can be used as persuasive authority.
	So the judge said that challenging an election is not a crime, which is very, very good, very, very promising.
	I know.
	Yeah, we always have a scale like this.
	Indeed.
	So, but that was great to see.
	That's not a crime to contest an election.
	Found, you know, you can cite that in the future.
	That was one of the dangerous and perilous precedents they were trying to set here.
	Second, that most of the conduct that was alleged to be criminal was, in fact, constitutionally protected conduct.
	That was a very good thing to see in writing.
	And third was just that, you know, when you make public statements about an election that are not sworn statements, those statements should not be subjected to criminal prosecution because of the way in which it could invalidate challenging an election, because of the way in which it could suppress censor or chill speech.
	So those three predicates that the prosecutor made were very important in dismissing all the Georgia cases on everybody.
	The first righteous outcome in any of those cases.
	Robert, what happens to Jenna Ellis?
	I didn't want to ask this publicly because I don't want anyone thinking about it.
	Or Sidney Powell.
	Remember, Sidney Powell suffered.
	Both of them were suckers.
	We told them they were suckers for taking that guilty plea.
	And then now they look like suckers.
	Well, how pitiful.
	I am so sad I did this horrible thing.
	And of course, it's not even a crime.
	And it's acknowledged by the prosecutor, not even a crime.
	And yet, as a lawyer, you're going around bragging about that guilty plea.
	I had a sad, sad day for Jenna Ellis.
	Sad day for Sidney Powell, who took the bait on that, too, last I checked.
	I'm going to double check that as we speak.
	I'll see if I can pull up the video of, I said I was not going to be judgmental on Jenna in terms of pleading guilty at the time.
	I said, you know, her, her, her maya culpa, her like, you know, begging the court to show mercy or whatever with her written statement, which she didn't have to do.
	That's where I gave her a bit of a harder time.
	For those who forget, I'm going to double check if Sidney Powell pleaded guilty also.
	But Jenna took a plea.
	It was a, what was it called where it would be expunged?
	A no-contest plea, I think.
	Yeah, it would be.
	An Alfred plea and maybe a diversion of some sort.
	It'd be dismissed down the road.
	Yeah.
	Well, the bottom line is like by the time everything was satisfied on her end, she would have no, it would be no guilty plea whatsoever.
	And it was a pretty good deal.
	Some of the criticism against Jenna was that she had raised a quarter of a million dollars for her defense and then either spent all of that to get up to that guilty plea or whatever.
	I'm not getting on that part.
	Her guilty plea is going to stand.
	I mean, that's going to stand forever.
	That doesn't get expunged or not even reversed.
	That doesn't get expensive.
	No, no, no, no, that's a good question.
	Yeah, I don't know how that works.
	I don't know what the final details.
	Sometimes the final details of the deal allow it to be dismissed as if it never happened.
	Well, that was the case in any event.
	But now that the entire case has been dismissed, or well, similar question, that's actually a perfect segue into the next one.
	What happens next?
	So James Comey, there was some confusion or there is some active disagreement as to whether or not the statute of limitations is going to be a preclusion to the DOJ amending the indictments.
	The case against James Comey was dismissed without prejudice.
	And it was dismissed without prejudice on the basis that Halligan was not properly appointed as a district attorney, as a U.S. attorney.
	I forget the title.
	As the U.S. attorney.
	So she wasn't properly appointed.
	And so therefore, every crime, I mean, it was carte blanche to commit crimes in the Eastern District of Virginia because they didn't have a U.S. attorney.
	The statute of limitations has lapsed on Comey's charges, on the two that were brought against him.
	The question then was whether or not they can amend because it's dismissed without prejudice.
	So they can amend, fix the mistake.
	And then I don't know that they have to refile.
	If they have to refile, then they're going to raise the argument that this is now time barred.
	And congrats, dismissed without prejudice, refile, but you're too late.
	Ha ha.
	8647.
	Do you know the answer to this?
	Because I wouldn't venture and I don't trust AI to give me an answer.
	Is it is there someone said there was a procedural delay within which to amend such that the statute of limitations will be told, and then others were saying, I mean, I'm still predicting one way or the other, they're going to raise the argument and they might even get lucky at the lower levels.
	Do you know the answer definitively to this?
	So it's because it's a federal prosecution, they can bring the case back within six months after the appeal is done, no matter what.
	So the so they have another six months that it extends the statute limitations.
	So the statute limitations won't be a defense for Comey.
	If they wanted to, they can go back into Morrow and reindict him.
	So they'll be able to reindict him and he will be reindicted on these charges.
	My own view is I would like him to be charged in an aggregate conspiracy in the Southern District of Florida because I don't trust the Eastern District of Virginia.
	And I believe these particular acts of perjury and falsification of statements of a material nature in an official proceeding, in this case, Congress, constituted obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct justice in order to be part of a broader conspiracy to violate the federally protected civil rights and civil liberties of Trump and his supporters.
	So I would like to see it brought in as part of that.
	But Comey will be reindicted.
	And the statute, it's amazing.
	So I had originally just assumed that it was like the civil case.
	So in a civil case, if your case gets dismissed, even without prejudice, you don't get to toll the statute of limitations for the time period in which your suit was pending.
	Civilly, criminally, there's an exception.
	Oh, poor little federal prosecutor.
	It's hard work being a federal prosecutor.
	So there, there's a huge carte blanche six-month extension, no matter what.
	Six months, if your case gets dismissed for any grand jury irregularity, which is what this is, without prejudice, then the federal prosecution can reinstate the case at any time within six months, period.
	As long as they wasn't dismissed because of the statute limitations, it wasn't dismissed because there was some confusion because they had gone back in and reindicted using the attorney, using Bondi's name herself.
	And the judge somehow said that didn't save the last one, but that confuses the issue because they could still come in.
	But okay, fine.
	But the way it works is when you dismiss both, you get six months to reinstate no matter what.
	So he's going to continue to still face prosecution.
	If they're smart, they won't let it be that same judge because that judge will find a new excuse to dismiss.
	I'm going to bring just do I bring it up?
	I feel bad, but I have to refresh everyone's memory.
	It was this where I said Jenna did not even have to, she did not have to give a written statement.
	And she did.
	Here on our free opportunity to address the court.
	I can't believe I'm confessing to a crime that's not even a crime.
	Oh my God, I'm a dumb lawyer.
	I'm so mad at this.
	I still call me a snowflake Canadian.
	I wouldn't judge somebody for not being in those shoes.
	She didn't have to give that written statement.
	She confessed to a crime that wasn't even a crime.
	And she's a constitutional lawyer.
	And she was seemingly throwing the senior attorneys under the bus by saying, I was just following orders.
	I'm talking about Sydney Powell.
	It's everybody else's fault.
	Please don't mean I can't think out of a paper bag.
	Which is obvious by the fact that I'm pleading guilty to something that's not a crime.
	Well, you know, that'll be all-time classic, all-time classic.
	Just pitiful and sad.
	Pitiful and sad.
	Hello.
	You're a Snowflake Canadian.
	What you asked me to call you?
	I have a bleeding heart.
	Let's do a couple more things here.
	Let me just bring up this.
	Yeah, we got some SCOTUS.
	We got Brooke Jackson.
	We got a lot of people.
	Let's see.
	Gray 101 says the Food and Drug Administration's top overseer of vaccine policy on Friday told employees that at least 10 American children died after and because of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
	In a 3,000-word memorandum first reported by PBS, I'm going to just go ahead.
	Vinay Prasad, yes, he did.
	It's a credit to him identifying and Robert Kenny continues to march in that direction, and they need to.
	There needs to be accountability for what happened around COVID.
	Now, what doesn't count for accountability is me having to defend the Brooke Jackson case because the government keeps lying, as they will be doing this week in New Orleans.
	So it's one step forward, two steps back.
	Maybe I'll come and visit you in New Orleans, Robert.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, the food is good.
	The food is good.
	Oh, yeah, it's amazing.
	I would think the investigations into the peace negotiations leaker would be up to Ratcliffe and Tulsi.
	There was a leak on two Russians talking to them.
	Says Kimmy Hunt.
	Yeah.
	What does Google say?
	What is AI?
	Many Android Google Play app stores require many permissions.
	Every person in the government should check the permissions of each app they download.
	Well, I mean, also, I don't know if there's other ways that it could happen.
	Like, you know, adding someone to a group chat on Signal.
	I mean, you're dealing with boomers to some extent who might not know how these things work.
	Andrew Piscadla said, I'm disturbed by the killing of the two national one thus far, CIA contract paramilitary member who had to drive 42 hours in and leave behind a wife and five children.
	What the hell?
	The whole thing stinks of a nudge by his former bosses.
	I wrote about it on locals, and I will datamine and investigate it later.
	Rest in peace.
	Andrew Wolf is still alive.
	Sarah Bextron passed away.
	Yeah, I didn't appreciate it was a 42-hour drive.
	I have to double check that because I heard other people say the same thing.
	That's even weirder.
	Odds are that these federal judges have violated civil rights.
	If Pam Blondie wasn't worthless, she'd know which judges to investigate.
	The judicial branch needs to be put under the same pressure they want on Trump.
	Let's deal with that, Robert.
	You know, Roger Veer got a settlement.
	You know, he got a settlement.
	You're going to pay $40 million in taxes.
	He got a settlement.
	He has yet to get a pardon.
	Maybe it's still on the table, but I'm sure he's happy with the deal that he got because at least it's freedom and he can go on with his life now.
	But Pam Bondi was carrying on the Biden-era crypto persecution of Bitcoin Jesus.
	She carried on the COVID tyranny on Dr. Moore.
	She carried on the free speech tyranny against Douglas Mackey.
	She carried on Second Amendment violations.
	The government in the Brooke Jackson case, this is the key TAM Brooke Jackson whistleblower fraud case against Pfizer, alleging that Pfizer basically fraudulently misrepresented and fraudulently delivered what it was supposed to deliver to the government, which was a safe and effective vaccine that prevents the transmission of COVID-19.
	There was a third part to that.
	Maybe I forget, but that's how you say it typically.
	The Biden administration came in after years of litigation and quashed your lawsuit with Brooke Jackson after great cost, great investment, time, emotional, you know, to pursue this because Brooke Jackson was a whistleblower, saw the bullshit tests that they were running at Pfizer, who paid the greatest criminal civil settlement fine in the history, at least of pharma.
	Maybe there was a tire.
	I don't know if there's another company that did a big one.
	But the Biden administration came in and quashed it.
	You're fighting to have it reinstated.
	And Bondi, who was counsel for Pfizer in 2021 to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars net profits, or maybe not net, gross, has yet to reinstate it.
	The government has yet to intervene just so that your client, Brooke Jackson, can pursue this case and discover and flesh out any fraud, if any, committed by Pfizer in the context of COVID.
	I don't know if I'm allowed asking.
	I'm going to ask you if you can't answer, don't answer.
	Have you not tried to reach Bondi directly?
	Is there a way to reach Bondi directly to say what the F is going on?
	Oh, yeah, with everybody, there's been effort afoot.
	And it's been, and Bondi is the one that has prevented anybody else from being assigned the case, prevented anybody.
	So, the people that run the civil appellate division, Yakoff Roth is one of those people.
	He and his boss both have long-standing big pharma ties.
	So, there's problems with them being involved in any big pharma case.
	Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch also have been involved in law firms of big pharma ties.
	So, there was an issue that whether any of those four should have been involved.
	All of them stayed involved at various levels.
	And they kept the people assigned the case, people who are deeply anti-second-guessing anything vaccine-related.
	So, they've had every opportunity to fix it, and they refused to fix it.
	Despite the egregious nature of what looks like pay-for-play in the case of Pam Bondi.
	So, for those that don't know, her reputation was as attorney general in Florida.
	If you made key donations to her friends and allies, then she made sure big criminal cases went away against you or big civil cases went away.
	The Epstein cases never were developed by her, even though Epstein was there for the period of time.
	There was huge mortgage fraud.
	Robo signed documents.
	So, long before the Auto Pen, there was big problems with Robo signed mortgages.
	That made them illegal under Florida law.
	Could have provided massive relief to homeowners who were put into those bad loans.
	And Pam Bondi did nothing about it, protected all the big banks instead, many of which had made big donations to her or her allies or hired the lobbyists connected to her.
	Right there with her in all of this, or in much of it, overlapped all the way back to her days in Jacksonville when she worked and coordinated against Zimmerman, who defended himself and was wrongfully accused of murder.
	She also advocated aggressively for red flag laws in the state of Florida that would take away people's Second Amendment rights.
	So, these concerns were all present when she was nominated.
	And there were assurances made that don't worry, she understands what the Maha track is.
	You know, she would go over and talk with Bobby Kennedy, be photographed with Bobby Kennedy, put a picture of his father in the attorney general's office because his father had been attorney general, all the rest, talk a big game, while behind the scenes, she was shutting down all cases of anybody who had made major donations or had previously hired her or Susie Wiles or their lobbying firm.
	So, major criminal cases against Pfizer were pending around the world, some of which related to the COVID vaccine, but not all of which, because Pfizer is the most criminally fined corporation.
	You want to talk about drugs that kill people.
	The number one drug dealer that kills people is Pfizer and has been for a long time.
	Look no further than all the big corporate fines and penalties they have paid for murdering people, killing people.
	That's what those fines were for: disabling people, making them sick, knowing they're making them sick, and not doing anything about it to correct it.
	So, Pfizer comes into the Defense Department to hire under Operation Warp Speed to get a vaccine at speed and scale.
	And what they promised to deliver at speed and scale was a vaccine that was safe, effective, and in particular, prevented COVID-19.
	Not a therapeutic, not something that was risky, not something that was ineffective, and not something that was simply helped with some other disease.
	It had to be a vaccine that had not prevented COVID-19, and it had to be safe, and it had to be effective.
	These were contractually guaranteed terms.
	They lie about all four.
	They know it's Brooke Jackson, is a long-standing clinical test observer, saw that all of their, they were describing, they were scrapping all of the scientific methods that you would use to determine whether a drug is a drug, whether it's a therapeutic or a vaccine, whether or not it's safe or not, whether or not it fits certain risk ratios or not, whether or not it was effective or not.
	Did it actually serve the purposes for which someone was taking it?
	In this case, did, in fact, prevent COVID-19.
	They had people out.
	I mean, you could see people's medical records if you were the local janitor tattooed on the walls.
	You had people floating out in the hallways that are being unmanaged and unmanaged.
	You had people knowing what was blinded and what was not.
	I mean, it was just a complete joke.
	She reported it to her bosses.
	They did nothing about it.
	So she reported it to those bosses.
	They did nothing about it.
	And she kept encouraging ways to fix it and remedy it, at which time she was immediately fired.
	And the moment, the day she went to the FDA, she was fired the same day because somebody at the FDA leaked that she was a whistleblower.
	So she brings the suit the government promises to meaningfully investigate.
	They lied to her for years while they roll this out to a lot of unsuspecting Americans that now are dead or disabled or have a loved one dead or disabled from this drug that was not a vaccine, didn't prevent COVID-19, was not safe and was not effective.
	They lied about everything, all four deliverables.
	This is billions of dollars worth of American taxpayers.
	I think it was $50 billion was what they'll double check what they sold.
	And what Brooke Jackson agreed was to take the full money that was recovered out of the fraud quotient, as separate from her getting wrongfully fired.
	That the whole fraud quotient would put aside just for victims so that all those that have been injured by the COVID-19 vaccine could now get remedy and relief.
	And so this was the main case to get some form of accountability for COVID, the main case to get some sort of relief and remedy for the vaccine injured.
	The main case to stop and deter this from happening in the future with Big Pharma capturing public policy to our detriment.
	And the Biden administration said vaccines are so important, we will not support any case, any case, they said, challenging any vaccine.
	That was their sole basis for it.
	That was the only basis they got the court to dismiss because Brooke Jackson's bringing this case as a whistleblower on behalf of the United States government.
	And the judge deferred to them, I think, unduly and too much because the reason why Congress created a law whereby ordinary people get to bring these KTAM claims is because they did not trust the people in the government to not be in on it because these KTAM laws arose after the Civil War because of all how much crap a union soldiers were getting.
	They were getting blankets with smallpox in it.
	They were getting clothes with shoes with holes in them.
	They were getting food that made them sick.
	And it was like, we got to stop this from happening in the future.
	And so you, the private citizen, if you see something, you get to do something about it.
	Now, the federal government has a right to, within its policy priorities, to redirect it, but that was never intended to be a way so that corrupt rogue actors like the Biden administration, like the Justice Department under Donald J. Trump, could derail these cases.
	But that is, in fact, what has happened because of the rogue actions of the judges and because Trump isn't serious about taking on Big Pharma, because Pam Bondi isn't serious, Susie Wiles isn't serious.
	Everybody in the civil appellate division is Flat out lying, repeating lies, because the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy's position is exactly the opposite of what the Biden administration's policy is.
	And yet they are hiding this fact and not telling this and being open and straightforward with the courts.
	So I'll be up there on the Fifth Circuit with Warner Mendenhall on Wednesday morning in New Orleans, down on Camp Street, explaining to the judges why Brooke Jackson's case needs to go forward, should go forward, and must go forward if the law is to be affirmed and upheld.
	But it's sad that I have to even be there from a Trump administration that failed to keep its word to the Maha voters by continuing to protect and hide and cover up for Big Pharma, who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Pam Bondi and has paid millions of dollars to lobbying firms that chief of staff Susie Wiles was a member of.
	And I have no other reason to doubt that that's why here we're at.
	How long is the oral, how long is the argument scheduled for?
	So it's 9 a.m. Central Standard Time in New Orleans, Louisiana.
	So it'll be 10 a.m. Eastern Time.
	I think we're up first or second.
	I think we have a total of 20 minutes.
	They have a total of 20 minutes.
	So Warner will be taking the lead.
	I will be the reply.
	There's two different federal prosecutors assigned the case, career prosecutors, career U.S. attorney people.
	They should have had assigned somebody different to the case who doesn't have this deferential approach to Big Pharma that I think these two lawyers have clearly shown.
	But I suspect people like Yakoff Roth will hide in Washington and not want to be seen publicly for his continued complicity in helping pay-for-play Pam Bondi protect Big Pharma at all costs.
	Is it going to be public?
	Is it going to be publicly aired?
	Oh, yeah.
	And usually you can tune in.
	It's not like usually sometimes they have a YouTube channel.
	The Fifth Circuit may actually have a YouTube channel.
	Some of them have a YouTube channel.
	Some of them have a live audio feed, but one or the other will be available Wednesday morning so people can tune in and listen to the argument.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	Well, I will be doing that live myself.
	I'll make sure that I get the link from you, Robert.
	Okay, and then the other question was: it's a stupid question.
	There's no mandamus or any sort of recourse you can take against the government to force them to reinstate.
	I mean, you can't even make a formal motion to demand that they reinstate the case.
	Well, I mean, that's sort of what we're doing in the appeal.
	So the appeal is saying it should not have been dismissed at the government's request and should now be reinstated.
	And so after the Fifth Circuit, if we don't get relief, we'll go up to the Supreme Court.
	They don't have to take the case, but the government will have up until the Supreme Court decides.
	So they'll have sometime by May or June, depending on when the Fifth Circuit makes a decision.
	They rule our way, great.
	If they rule their way, then they'll be back on the clock to, are they going to continue to make this worse?
	They seem to think they can just get away with this sort of thing.
	Pam Bondi appears to think that she can betray the voters and there'll be no consequence.
	Todd Blanche, Kash Patel, betray the voters, be no consequence.
	I think they're going to discover.
	Otherwise, they'll be blown about it.
	But it shows you the mindset up there is really misplaced.
	That this was an excellent opportunity.
	There's other cases.
	It doesn't have to be this case, but this presented the best opportunity for them to get accountability for COVID, for them to get some sort of monetary pool from a responsible party to go towards the vaccine injured, of which there are many, and some form of deterrence so it doesn't happen again.
	And instead, they're blowing it because that's basically what Pam Boni's DOJ does.
	I'm going to read Hopeful Pessimist86 over on Commitube says, haven't seen a lot of interaction between Yellow and America's Untold Stories.
	Hope Yell and Groubert are still on good.
	We're all good.
	And I'm going to see Grobert in December.
	He's going to come here and we're going to hang out.
	Andrea 62703 over on Commitu.
	This might have been Rumble.
	Larry Sharp.
	Oh, I got that one.
	Larry Sharp was running for the governor.
	Okay, sorry, I screenshotted.
	That's why I could not forget it.
	Mr. House Party 6, Democrats were perfectly fine with military personnel getting fired for not obeying the illegal order to get the vax.
	Sure were.
	But that's the way I was reminding people.
	I don't mind politicians coming out saying to disobey illegal orders because I was the one calling for that during COVID, saying these are illegal orders and you have an obligation to disobey them.
	So I don't mind politicians saying it was obvious these politicians were up to something else.
	You can know that just from their history.
	But that's where I was like, I have no problem defending the right of a senator to say that because I was all for Rand Paul and others saying it during COVID.
	These were illegal orders that should not be followed.
	Sorano Gardia says Joe is debating Destiny on his channel and the loud, obnoxious knob actually sounds like Donnie from the wild thornberries when he opens his mouth.
	I don't know what that is.
	And there was another one there.
	But let me bring up over in Rumble a couple more chats.
	Ginger Ninja 1776, the man who made this chessboard behind me.
	He's amazing.
	I stayed with him up in Tennessee.
	A British IT consultant was in the U.S. and shotguns.
	And when he arrived back in Britain, he was arrested.
	Yeah, I'm going to talk about that tomorrow.
	Robert, did you hear about that?
	I didn't get the details.
	Yeah, I thought that was funny.
	I mean, funny in a disturbed way, but it gives you the nature of how nuts the UK is.
	I'm half nervous to go back to Canada for Christmas.
	Robert, if I need a lawyer, well, I won't call you.
	I'll call.
	I know who I'm calling.
	Robert, David, have either of you run across Prometheus action?
	I have not.
	I have.
	Some stuff is interesting.
	I think some stuff is off the rails.
	I don't know who they are, so I'd have to check that out.
	I thought it was a movie.
	And let's get a few over on viva blondeslaw.locals.com.
	S. Ren, all of the federal judges have violated civil rights.
	If Pam Blondie, we already got that one, right?
	Yeah, I did that.
	Griffin, by they, I mean the government employees should read the app permissions before putting it on their phone.
	Piscadlo says, I'm glad Trump is considering a moratorium on all third world immigration as a result of this tragedy.
	The whole tragedy stinks, and you better make their lives mean something.
	It shouldn't take this to get you to do this.
	It is also fitting that Trump is rising in the polls because of this and is about to invade Venezuela.
	We'll see about that.
	As the meme suggests, for OG MAGA, the administration is one long picked the wrong day to quit.
	This looks from an airplane.
	Data starts.
	It's a classic wrong day.
	He's drinking.
	Picked the wrong day.
	Blue CW soldier says, in the military, you also have to be prepared to suffer the consequences if you disobey an unlawful order.
	And it was the jab.
	How many careers are still in shambles?
	Well, we just had Kyle on.
	Yeah, it's outrageous.
	They said there were hex upset he was going to fix this.
	Now he too is becoming a South Park meme.
	He said they've reinstated 96 people.
	I think that leaves several thousand that have not been.
	So they need to get off their end and start fixing things.
	Don't just look at donors first.
	Actually do something for some voters, please.
	Viva, if you would like to have Larry Sharp on, I'm on a volunteer for his campaign.
	Absolutely, Andrea.
	Let me just screenshot that and I'll email you.
	Okay, amazing because I can get your email address.
	S. Red Dallas 94.
	Of course, the Trump administration has done with the Brooke Johnson lawsuit.
	Trump still loves the COVID-19 vaccine and represents the jab and represent and represents that he is not given credit for saving the world.
	Yeah.
	Piscadlo, hey, trap the GOP consultant now with their words.
	Who does this chest-slapping imbecile think he works?
	Do I want to bring this up?
	I don't want to get into any trouble here.
	I don't know what's okay.
	Okay, fine.
	And then we're going to go up here.
	Shofar says, Robert, this seems to be intentional destruction of the America first by the GOP establishment.
	We are acting like the black sheriff in blazing saddles, holding the gun to his head.
	Then we have Schnookam's when in New Orleans, you simply must ride the trolley and Camilla breakfast.
	Chattanooga Barnes on fire.
	That's a great little play.
	I've eaten there multiple times.
	It's an old school little old school little place up in the garden district.
	In the garden district.
	Save image as, and we'll do Christmas.
	Oh, that's a great one.
	Yeah, we got to get some plushies.
	Got to get some Santa plushies.
	Oh, here we go.
	Piscatlo erase.
	Is this from Piscatlo?
	I can tell by the formatting is erasing history.
	This is, once you appreciate that this is an actual photo, it's oh, that's Trump.
	I get what's going on.
	Yeah, they replace it.
	Tulsa's gone, and Elon's gone, and Tucker's gone, and Marjorie Taylor Greene is gone.
	So they just use that as the Stalin substitute photo.
	Quad Cam, this is about Luigi Emangion.
	There's no market, Robert, for Mangioni getting off yet.
	There was more evidence than just what was collected at the McDonald's.
	They also collected a burner phone dropped by the shooter and a water bottle.
	He threw it right before the shooting, presumably the fingerprints.
	DNA I'd be I'd be more convinced with I'm beginning to wish Trump should simply no no no no no uh apparently he wrote notes that they have of him confessing So that's why basically he's got no chance if that evidence comes in.
	That doesn't mean they have no way to just that they couldn't still prosecute without it.
	But with it, it's hard to see how he gets.
	Basically, he confessed, apparently.
	And there, I'm like, you know, not that I'm suspicious.
	But the only reason why I think it's definitely bad is the defense lawyers are demanding it not be publicized what he wrote.
	They're saying that's not necessary for the hearing, Judge.
	You don't need to tell everybody what's in there.
	But it sounds like I killed the SOB, Son of Luigi.
	And I'll do it again if you give me the chance.
	Here, I'm going to give everyone the link to locals, Robert.
	So, what do you, we have a few cases left, right?
	We got Scotus, the party presentation rule, the Sixth Amendment, Cuba, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and when is Election Day, Election Day?
	And then, last but not least, a class action against DraftKings for trying to coerce and trick people into using their app.
	Do you have one that you prefer to do across all platforms or anyone?
	Let's do the DraftKings just because that one I'm more familiar with than the other three.
	DraftKings class action lawsuit, alleging that they're specifically making misleading representations about the ease of cashing in and cashing out.
	They are misrepresenting bonuses and how you can get sort of the DraftKings is it's the online, you can bet on game.
	I don't use DraftKings.
	I once upon a time, this was a long time ago, played poker online.
	And this is where I discovered the small print on the bonuses.
	So if you go, oh, $50, they'll match a $50 bonus.
	If you accept the terms, the terms are that you have to like 10 up your money before they can cash you out.
	So if you get the $50 bonus, you got to get to basically $1,000 winnings before they will let you take the money out.
	And if you're at like $900, oh, too bad, you only nine extra money when you took that $50 bonus.
	So you don't even get your original investment out.
	It felt dirty.
	But if you're playing poker online, you're asking for dirtiness and you shouldn't complain.
	That being said, DraftKings and betting on fights and whatever.
	It's a big time thing.
	And basically, they're alleging that these terms of the bonuses were nebulous.
	People can't get their money out.
	They're designing it in a way to really stimulate the addiction as if anybody who's using DraftKings needed that in the first place.
	And what stage are they at of the class action?
	Are they asking for certification?
	Now I forgot what stage of the proceedings they're at.
	It was just an emotional dismiss stage.
	Okay.
	And it has yet to get dismissed.
	So they can proceed with their claim against DraftKings, which I'm sensitive to.
	When they make trickery and they give you the bonus, there's always strings attached.
	But that being said, you know, don't don't do those things, people, unless you're asking for unless you're asking for I say that as I, you know, have taken an affinity to baseball cards.
	But Robert Odell Beckham, do you know who he is?
	Oh, yes.
	Great football player.
	Played for the University of Mississippi before he went to the, he got famous at the New York Giants with a great one-handed catch.
	Then I believe he won the Super Bowl with the Rams.
	I think he's still on a roster someplace, but he's now had too many injuries.
	Well, elite, one of the great all-time wide receivers.
	This is with one hand.
	No, I do remember.
	This apparently is a $35 ungraded card.
	It's in good condition, except it's got a relic.
	And then you go read the terms and conditions on the back, and it says the enclosed authentic memorabilia is not from any specific game or event.
	That means nothing.
	Okay, everybody, get your butts on over to locals.
	We're going to have our after party there for a bit.
	And hold on, locals, and then we're going to go raid somebody right now.
	Who do we raid?
	Let me see who's in the, I mean, the DraftKings case is still ongoing because they got past the motion to dismiss.
	Basically, they're saying it's a design defect.
	The design defect is interesting because they're saying it's some if you design your product to addict people, they're calling that a defect, even though that's the intention of a lot of these tech products.
	So it'll be an interesting product liability theory because normally you get like something's wrong with the design defect that its intended use doesn't work like it's supposed to.
	Yeah, it's like this.
	It's like suing alcohol companies for getting you drunk.
	Like, I mean, that's yeah, I know that's what's fascinating about is like, or making you addicted to it.
	What if alcohol companies did something of their product to make it like tobacco companies did?
	People always forget it wasn't the nicotine that was the primary driver of the addiction.
	It was that the tobacco companies were putting other products in there chemically to increase your addiction level.
	So the question is: if you design, if a product might have a natural inclination towards addiction, but if you are doing things to enhance their attraction to addictive personalities and then further enhancing that addiction by how you run the app, can you be held liable?
	Because if you can, if that becomes recognizable as a design defect, like at least it was here past the motion to dismiss stage, I think all of big tech is in serious trouble because its design has been to addict you no matter the consequences.
	And we've seen how horrendous so many of those consequences are.
	And it turns out the big fantasy football sites, the big official sports gambling sites are no better than all of other big tech.
	They see their app as a tech platform.
	And their goal is to manipulate you into losing as much money as you can using the same way they use coins and games to trap kids when they're not busy making sure pedophiles and pedarass have access to your kids.
	So maybe some of the least ethical moral companies in all of human history are big tech companies.
	But it's intriguing how legally, because what is they promised bonus bets and free bet and no sweat bets.
	And it turns out that was all false because in order for you to get that money back, you had to go on a ridiculous winning streak.
	So in the end, and it was just a way to sucker you to get into the app to for was it it?
	Is it who's that clown character that Pennywise?
	Yeah, Pennywise.
	Well, you know, Pennywise invited him in and then they got trapped.
	And so it'll be interesting to see because it has broader application than just this particular site.
	Whereas the one site that doesn't do any of this, like Calci, like Polymarket, they got knocked down in Nevada by the federal judge saying, you can't be interfering with our boys down here.
	So all of a sudden, Calci, which is one of these cases pretty much everywhere, somehow loses in Nevada because if that doesn't convince you, Nevada is just one big, fat, corrupt state.
	Always has been.
	And now the one place you can't use Calci in the United States is the home of sports gambling, Las Vegas, Nevada.
	Well, yeah, that would be a competition with itself, Robert.
	All right.
	So shameless plug, by the way, Louis the Lobster.
	I got 10 books left, so I'm trying to do like a cameo book version.
	So if anybody wants a custom version, the link is on eBay because I can't find a better one.
	So it's eBay.
	And we still have our holiday sale up, our Christmas sale.
	Yes.
	Which is, I think, all cap, just all caps Christmas, I believe.
	And you get half off the annual subscription throughout the holiday.
	So, you know, Black Friday, Cyber Monday, everything else, just go to vivabarneslot.locals.com.
	You can sign up, get a half price, just put in the discount code.
	All caps, Christmas, because it's my dad's favorite holiday.
	And now, I think, I think we can't raid Salty Cracker, people.
	So we're going to raid Nerd Roddick for the.
	I'm going to try to see if we can raid Salty Cracker.
	I know he, I don't think he lets it because he's, you know, it's an interesting tactic.
	Let me see here.
	Forward slash raid.
	No, he can't.
	Salty's too important for us, commoners.
	He doesn't want us commoners.
	Right, you know, invading invading his little gun club.
	Okay, so we can't raid salty.
	We're going to raid nerdrodic, so it'll be a little bit.
	Nerdrodic's always great.
	Yeah, he's great.
	Remember to ask him, why does nerd rottick recommend pineapple on pizza?
	Ask him, ask him that.
	That's got probably just as a troll.
	Viva raid.
	That's a troll.
	Yes, it is a troll.
	It's not terrible.
	I used to remind him to say, yeah, why do you like pineapple?
	Barnes says you love pineapple and pizza.
	Is that true?
	And then someone said Viva Fry for the merch.
	I'm trying to get the new merch design up.
	I just sent it to the guy, so we're going to do that.
	So hopefully we'll get some little plushies up for Christmas.
	That'd be perfect.
	People get like a Christmassy, a little, you know, hang them on the trees.
	They'll have like a okay, never mind.
	It's going to make terrible.
	All right.
	Come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, people.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
	Just got to be down in Orleans for the Brook Jackson case.
	So we'll maybe be able to do an episode here and there of Bourbon with Barnes and maybe some hush hushes up at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	But otherwise, yeah, you got to be on the road to the Brook Texas case.
	Bill Brown says only a commie puts pineapple on pizza.
	Okay, so this week for me, it's going to be the weekly thing.
	I just think I thought I had something scheduled.
	I'm pretty sure I have a guest coming on and going on a guest somewhere else.
	So just stay tuned, everybody.
	We've done everything.
	We've done all the business.
	So now they're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the end.
	Yeah, we have some Scotus cases we'll talk about and answer all your tipped questions over to you barnslaw.locals.com.
	Definitely got some more of those.
	Updating stream Rumble.
	See you later.
	And YouTube also see you later.
	Make sure that you subscribe before leaving YouTube.
	Call me Tube and Twitter.

▲