Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, in a world that seems to be going increasingly crazy with bad news inundation day in and day out, we can always take a step back and revel in the abject stupidity of Hollywood.
Behold, a video from 2020 of white people apologizing for being white.
I take responsibility.
I take responsibility for every unchecked moment.
For every time it was easier to ignore than to call it out for what it was.
Every not-so-funny joke.
Every unfair stereotype.
Every blatant injustice, no matter how big or small.
Every time I remained silent.
Every time I explained away police brutality.
Or turned a blind eye.
I take responsibility.
Black people are being slaughtered in the streets, killed in their own homes.
These are our brothers and sisters, our friends.
Black people.
This is 2020.
Black people are being slaughtered in the streets.
Juliana Moore or Julianne Moore, whatever the hell her name was.
She was great in bogey nights when she was playing a poor adult film star.
They're all great.
Aaron Paul is the one that breaks my heart.
Although, in fairness, he is the best actor in this contrived, performative bullcrap.
Our family.
We are done watching them die.
We are no longer bystanders.
We will not be idle.
Enough is enough.
I will no longer allow an unchecked moment.
I will no longer allow racist, hurtful words, jokes, stereotypes.
Racist, hurtful words, jokes, stereotypes.
This dude will apologize for his voices on The Simpsons.
This is Hank.
No, wait a minute.
This is not Hank Hazaria.
My mistake.
I forget this guy's name.
He was from, you know, the Big Night, the cooking movie.
Oh my stereotypes you're going to apologize for now?
Thank you for living up to the stereotype of Hollywood being a bunch of white, privileged, white saviors, hypocrite, scumbags, galore.
Thank you for that stereotype.
By the way, stereotypes exist for a reason.
No matter how big or small, to be uttered in my presence.
I will not turn a blind eye.
Going for a job should not be a death sentence.
Sleeping in your own home should not be a death sentence.
Playing video games with your nephew should not be a death sentence.
Shopping in a store should not be a death sentence.
You realize they all had the script, literally.
And they all had to read the entire script.
And the editor goes through it and snips and clips whichever relative sections were performed with sufficient authenticity.
Business as usual should not be life-threatening.
I stand against hate.
I stand against hate.
I will stand against hate in love.
She will stand.
She's not yet standing against hate.
She will do it.
It's a commitment to the future.
I will make my presence known.
And killer cops must be prosecuted.
They are murderers.
We can turn the tide.
It is time to take responsibility.
Take.
Call out hate.
Step up.
And take action.
Do it.
Do it.
Can you believe they actually did this?
I want to know.
End wokeness.
Celebrities apologizing for being white.
This is real from June 2020.
I want to know if they look back on this the same way I look back on my initial vlogs.
Like, you know, the family stuff.
Cringe as all hell.
Are they proud of this?
Do they now realize, like, holy shit, man, we must have been sipping from the Kool-Aid and we didn't even realize it.
It's the most performative dog rubbish on the face of the planet.
And by the way, there's a thing in acting, you know, because one of my kids is into theater where you take a sentence where you're like, I will not apologize, or take a sentence and you emphasize every different word in that sentence.
I will, let's just go with, I apologize for being white.
Is basically what they all did there.
I will stand against hatred.
Unbelievable crap.
Mind-blowing, mind-numbing brainwash drivel.
And that is the intro because the rest of the show is not going to be as upspirited and happy-go-lucky as making fun of these idiot Hollywood actors.
That being said, we're not typo people.
This is an earlier than expected show because Barnes has an event tonight, from what I understand, and he's got to be out of here early afternoon.
And so we're doing the Sunday night Viva and Barnes Law for the people ordinarily at six o'clock at two o'clock.
If you're hell-bent on watching it at six o'clock, it'll still be on the internet at six o'clock if you want to watch the show at six o'clock.
But, you know, speaking of Hollywood being Hollywood and living up to their stereotypes, and the government being the government and living up to its stereotype, we should thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Gold Safe Exchange people.
Central banks living up to their stereotype, hedge funds living up to their stereotypes, and especially politicians, the very same ones who smile on camera while running up record high debt.
They're all doing the same thing right now, quietly moving the dollar out of the dollar and into gold and silver.
And who's left holding that bag when the dollar keeps slipping?
Why?
There's an obvious answer to that.
And it's you.
You can hold $1,000 in cash in your hands, or you can hold $1,000 worth of gold in your hands.
And as the fiat currency goes down, that gold will stay stable in respect of and therefore gain value in comparison to.
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 don't need to be left behind either.
You can do what they're doing and you can protect yourself and your assets.
I love it.
Cover your assets.
That's where Gold Safe Exchange comes in.
They make it simple and secure to move part of your savings into real physical metals you can hold, touch, run away with, keep from the government.
Absolute transparency, A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, and a price match guarantee.
So you always know you're getting the best deal.
The elites have already made their move, people.
Where's my face?
Ah, there we are.
They've made their move and you can do it too.
Don't be left holding worthless fiat currency.
Take control, cover your ass and cover your assets.
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 with an additional $1,500 in free gold and silver with qualifying purchases.
Go to the website, goldsafexchange.com forward slash Viva.
The link is in the description.
And don't get stuck holding worthless and devaluing fiat currency.
All right, peeps.
Until Barnes gets here, we're going to cover the breaking news.
It's an amazing thing.
And I hate being cynical about these things.
And I don't like immediately jumping to the internet to try to prove a political point in the face of horror and tragedy.
There was a shooting at Brown University yesterday.
There are rumors circulating as to what the gunman shot when he entered a specific classroom and opened fire.
Won't be partaking in any of it.
We'll get the details when the details come out.
And you have to be careful not to get duped or spread misinformation or disinformation in the fog of war.
There was a shooting at Brown University yesterday.
And the amazing thing is the amazing, in a just a depressing political opportunism manner, people immediately just start politicizing it.
And I like Ro Khanna.
He's been a decent man and decent as far as Democrats go, but it doesn't mean they don't get past their political blinders, their motivated reasoning, their ideology when it comes to specific issues that are red flag issues, pun intended gun laws, for example.
Ro Khanna, yesterday.
Now, this was at December 13th, 6.32 p.m.
Horrific mass shooting at Brown, thinking of the victims and their families.
We simply do not have to live this way.
The failure to pass gun safety legislation is a moral stain and innocent Americans pay the price time and again.
To which I have to just point out, I'm tweeting this morning as we're having breaking news of what appears to be a terrorist attack on a place called Bondi Beach in Australia, where two armed gunmen, one of whom has been identified as an Afghan national, open fire at a crowd of something like 2,000 people celebrating Hanukkah.
I want to say, I would say Jews celebrating Hanukkah, but quite clearly there were more than not just Jews there because somebody who we're going to see this disarmed the gunman, if only for a short period of time, has been identified as a Muslim man.
But I say, like, did you tweet this at the exact same time a mass shooting was occurring in Australia where 11 people were murdered, a country that has some of the strictest gun laws on earth?
Maybe if bystanders had guns, they could have done something other than shooting the terrorists with video camera.
And there's a number of things that are just nauseating about all of these blinder politics.
I appreciate people are going to say, well, you know, gun violence, there's less gun violence in Australia.
It's never perfect.
But quite clearly, a disarmed population is at the mercy of armed criminals.
You see it in Canada.
You're seeing it in Australia because criminals don't respect the law by definition.
Because criminals will find a way to procure an illegal firearm despite existing gun laws.
I mean, up in Canada, you're so idiotic that they don't even understand the stricter the gun laws get, the worse than gun violence has gotten over the last decade.
That's not an accident.
Some people are going to say it's not, you know, it's by design.
But the stricter the gun laws get, all that it means is that the criminals have a monopoly on gun violence, on guns, for the purposes of violence.
And so you get the Democrats.
Every time there's a shooting here and Republicans say thoughts and prayers and, you know, condolences to the family, and then the Democrats say, thoughts and prayers aren't enough.
We need stricter gun laws.
They're tweeting this at the exact same time.
A country with the strictest gun laws is now watching a massacre because there's nobody there to shoot terrorists with anything other than their video cameras.
And so they're tweeting it literally like AOC, thoughts and prayers for Australia.
I make the joke, I mean, it's like a cynical observation slash joke.
When the gun violence occurs in America, it's damn you with your thoughts and prayers.
We need stricter gun laws.
When the gun violence happens in a country among the strictest of gun laws, thoughts and prayers.
There's no thought process here as to what is the issue.
What is the underlying issue for the violence?
And so you've heard this now.
There's 11 people who were murdered in Australia at a place called Bondi Beach.
I make sure, and at least I'm not doing the reporting myself, but before you repeat something, make sure it's been reported at three, four sites and not just any sites.
Make sure that you're not misidentifying a person.
The gunman has been identified.
Let me see if I can't find it.
No, I had the article.
Identified as an Afghan national.
Well, before we get there, I'm not showing any of the videos.
I'm not showing any of the videos of the shooting.
This is the video of a man who defies words what it takes to charge a gun.
There's the old expression: you know, you run at a gun and from a knife.
And this man, we'll get to him in a second, charges the gunman and disarms the gunman.
Now, given the length of this video, there might be other stuff, and I'm not playing any of the violence stuff in here.
This is a man who charges at the gunman, grabs him by the neck, disarms him.
Now, some people are saying he couldn't shoot him because under Australian law, yeah, I'm not, I don't, I don't believe that for a second yet.
Maybe it's going to turn out to be true that the reason why he decided not to shoot the terrorist who would open fire on the crowd is he was afraid of going to jail himself.
And what ended up happening, apparently, is that the terrorist regrouped to the bridge, rearmed, and continued firing until they were both subdued, one of which died, and the other one, we don't know yet.
Now, that man's been identified, and this is where you're going to get into people playing politics again instead of just playing reality.
Genuine hero, unarmed Muslim bystander filmed disarming Sydney terrorist.
Ahmed Al-Ahmed, 43, a local fruit vendor and father of two, hailed a hero by Netanyahu Albanese as wrestling rifle from gunmen during shooting.
He's not, he is a hero, period.
Full stop.
Why are people politicizing the identity of the individual?
It could have been whoever it would have been, hero, full stop.
They're politicizing it because what they're going to say now is: well, not all Muslims are terrorists, as if that's what anybody was saying anywhere.
And it was a Muslim man who saved a crowd from further devastation by disarming a Muslim terrorist, allegedly, seemingly, apparently, Afghan.
And therefore, the two are somehow a wash, and you don't have to address border issues because, hey, it's a wash.
A Muslim man disarmed a Muslim terrorist who got into the country, Lord knows how.
The man's a hero, full stop.
And who has been identified as the attacker is an Afghan national.
To make sure about this, hold on, why don't I have this one up here for a second?
Bondi Beach identified suspect.
It was an Afghan man who had gotten into the country, however, apparently lawfully owned a firearm.
And you're going to play politics on this.
And everybody's going to, well, we no longer need to look at any issue about an Afghan imported individual who shot two National Guardsmen in America a little while ago.
No longer need to look at it because it's a wash.
What I wanted to bring up, however, was something else, which is not so much of a wash.
It's an amazing thing when you understand.
I've sort of said it before.
I don't want to get into the fights about drawing attention to online bickering, you know, stuff involving the name that can't be spoken.
I'm joking.
But what's her face?
Candace Owens.
So Candace put out a tweet a little while ago, allegedly.
It said, they have been signaling, they have been signaling that a 9-11 style attack is coming the second week of December.
Save this tweet.
It will age well.
Now, people have been, first of all, all of these things are sick predictions.
They're sick demonic predictions because this is the embodiment of every fear hides a wish.
You got people making predictions so they can then say how smart they were that they called it.
How they, that being Candace, knew that they were planning something and somehow didn't provide the details to intelligence and it happened.
Well, it sounds like they might have, you know, had help.
They, just saying things, you know, it didn't happen, first of all.
A shooting is not a 9-11 style terror attack.
The second thing about this, and it's something that I sort of said about a lot of the stuff that Candace says in her observations, it's sort of like not fortune cookie stuff.
It's like psychic reading stuff, saying things that are so broad and so generally applicable that when they happen, you get to say, oh, look, I called it.
There have been Christmas terror attacks, pretty, I won't say consistently or routinely, pretty consistently, however, for the last decade.
There have been, if we're, if we're now calling two shootings, two shooters shooting on a crowd as a 9-11-style terrorist attack, a 9-11-style attack, there's been a 9-11-style attack a half dozen times this year already.
And if you're saying this globally, where you would have picked any event that confirms this prediction, you've laid out a prediction that is easy to rationalize as having happened because you know something like this is going to happen globally.
You know that you're going to be able to fudge.
Oh, it wasn't really a 9-11.
You know, this was close enough.
I'm so smart.
I knew it was going to happen.
I called it people.
That is what you call the sick demonic predictions.
And then you get people saying it didn't happen.
And then you get people saying, ha ha, you're an idiot.
Look, it did happen.
Awkward, says Ian Carroll.
To a prediction that didn't come to any meaningful fruition.
There's been the terror, the New Year's terror attack last year.
There was the German Christmas attack.
There was the French Christmas attack.
You have these types of Christmas attacks.
I won't say pretty damn consistently.
And you put this filth-type prediction out in the universe so that you can then say, oh, look, I'm so smart.
I knew it was going to happen.
Nobody listened to me.
The Cassandra effect.
Look it up.
Let me just make sure.
And that's what's going on in the world today.
It's sick, gross stuff.
All right, until Barnes gets here, by the way, let me just see what's going on here.
We're live across all platforms: Rumble, Commitube, VivabarnesLaw.locals.com, and Twitter.
Now, let me see here.
It looks like we've got a new subscriber.
I've been told the bell is actually quite loud for the viewers.
We got Scarlett775, who is now a member of our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
Welcome to the channel.
Let's see what we got by way of crumble rants or tipped questions over on Viva Barnes Law until Biggity Barnes gets here.
Tipped.
The Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire is working.
Hamas Weapons Production Division head Rad Saad was successfully eliminated in a targeted Israeli strike made possible by President Trump's Middle East ceasefire, says Gray 101.
I think that's sarcasm.
Ms. Pickle says, Can state governors pardon illegals and grant them citizenship in their state?
I don't believe so, but I would defer to Barnes's better judgment on that.
Gray 101 says, How did someone as gullible and malleable as President Trump ultimately succeed as a businessman?
Genuinely asking because the President Trump and businessman Trump act like two entirely contrasting people.
Gray 101 tends to be a little sarcastic.
Oh, I didn't send the link.
Okay, hold on just one second.
Let me send Barnes the link and then we're going to, I'll get into one other thing before we get there.
Barnes link boom and done.
Okay, bam.
Now, I'll start to play one video because it's a little, it's a little long, or at least it's not a little long, but I'll play before Barnes gets here because we're going to talk about it.
We got an amazing show today.
We're going to talk about the Patsy, the apparent alleged pipe bomb Patsy.
Rumors that have started recirculating.
I don't deal in rumors.
I always qualify them.
If it's true, then rumors that Bongino might be looking to leave or on his way out.
This unconfirmed and even unconfirmed, period.
I have no insider information, but this is what is being reported that he's on his way out because he's thoroughly.
Let me bring this up actually.
It's interesting.
Framing is everything.
We're going to talk about Sean Ryan allegedly apparently being intimidated by what's his face?
Do I say it?
By Patch McCain, it's not very nice.
It's not his fault he lost his eye.
Once upon a time, what's his face?
What's his name?
Dan Crenshaw.
I like Dan Crenshaw.
I thought Dan Crenshaw was a good, honorable conservative.
Then he sort of fell off the deep end.
Whether or not he threatened Sean Ryan, we've got some Supreme Court rulings which are very interesting.
But the news of the day.
Where is it?
Hold on one second.
I want to show you this article that was being circulated suggesting that Bongino was leaving the deputy director of the FBI because senior staff were saying that he's more interested in preserving his reputation with his MAGA crowd than serving the interests of the administration.
I'm like, dude, that sounds more like what you're saying is this guy was warning you that the shit you were trying to sell to MAGA was not going to be purchased by MAGA.
And he was right, if it's true.
But here.
This is the news of the day: that a whistleblower named Steve Friend had been fired from the FBI a week after being hired or rehired by the FBI because of what was being referred to as a threat or a veiled threat that he made against Kash Patel.
Now, the amazing thing, he was on the Kyle Serafin show.
Oh, I hear Robert.
I hear Robert.
And I hear an echo.
I'll turn my volume down.
Robert, I'm getting you headphones for Christmas.
Really?
The still an echo?
A little bit.
I'll turn my vote.
No, a little bit, but we might have to live with it.
Robert, I'm going to play the video just because we're going to get into this first and whether or not this is a veiled threat or not.
It really doesn't seem to make much sense.
Okay, let me play this.
Now, if there are people back there who are Marilyn Melchie style at the FBI, worried about what our foreign adversaries might think if it came to light that the FBI was actually involved in a Reichstag fire modern day, and they had to cover it up.
And I don't care what.
Robert, I can hear the echo.
Really?
Let me see something here.
Hold up, hold up, hold up.
Just do this.
If I bring, oh, my volume was down here.
Okay, fine.
I want to play this and this will be the solution here.
Hold on.
This is how I eliminate the echo, I think.
No, it's not this one.
It's this one here.
Is that going to reduce the echo?
That reduces the echo.
Okay, hold up.
Now I'm going to play the video and let's finish this up here.
Start from the beginning because I think people couldn't have heard it.
Now, if there are people back there who are Marilyn Melchie style at the FBI, worried about what our foreign adversaries might think if it came to light that the FBI was actually involved in a Reichstag fire modern day, and they had to cover it up.
And I don't care what the justification is.
We're worried Marilyn Melke style.
Maybe this guy was a, this Cole character was an entrapment playbook person who you already had on the hook.
And what does it matter what sort of case we put him in, this one or the other?
Maybe he's a Chester the Molester pedophile who you've got on a kiddie porn case and you said, hey, why don't you just plead guilty to this one?
Because time will go easier for you in prison as a WMD guy rather than a pedophile.
Or maybe you're in a position of executive leadership and you're just so damn thirsty to get a win for dad so that the president will be proud of you finally and your fans will return and have devotion to you.
Whatever the motivation is, if you are doing another put-up job on this guy, and I think we spelled out a pretty compelling case that this probably ain't the guy, then may God have mercy on your soul.
And I'm going to end with this.
I'm going to bring out my inner commodities.
You better pray to Gaia or Vishnu or whatever your maker is, that real Steve Friend is never in a position to be an instrument of God's wrath because I will be merciful.
I won't give you a trial and a hanging.
I'll allow you to breathe every breath that your body will have for the rest of its natural life inside of a box.
And then when it ultimately fades to black, that's when real wrath begins.
Robert, the broader context, do you view that as the threat or am I just lost in my own silo that it is in fact a threat and I should be listening to it properly?
Not at all a threat.
I mean, if that's a threat, then Kash Patel belongs in prison for the threats he's made to Christopher Wray and others in the past.
So, I mean, that's basically just, you know, if you're doing evil, then justice will come for you.
I mean, that's all that is.
And the idea that it's an individual threat or a personal threat or anything like that doesn't strike me as viable.
Is it enough of misconduct to warrant being fired the day you get back?
Or, you know, is it a decent enough reason to get Friend out of the FBI?
Oh, not at all.
Not at all.
I mean, I think there's, I mean, the pattern here now is becoming very problematic.
I mean, basically, you're going from, not only do we have this sort of a degree of incompetence and ineptitude in terms of the handling the Epstein files case, potentially this January 6th Pipe Bomber case, the Comey cases, all the other cases that don't appear to be handled at a very high level or the level of expectation, given what, you know, Kash Patel, I'm going to break up the gangsters.
I'm going to turn the FBI into a mausoleum of the deep state, all of that talk that is what got him nominated, including, by the way, befriending and supporting these whistleblowers back during the Biden administration and piggybacking off of their public attention to get validation for himself, that he was going to empower them.
He was going to listen to them.
He was going to follow their guidance as to the institutional reforms that are needed.
You know, I mean, whether it's about Phil Kennedy, Kyle Serafin, Steve Friend, others, the so-called suspendables, as I think they called themselves.
I mean, it's clear what happened here, that there was never a sincere effort to incorporate their advice.
There was never a sincere effort.
They never intended to settle with them for the purpose of reinstating them, getting their back pay and the rest.
But they started becoming very successful critics of what was going on in the court of public opinion.
And so what the FBI under Kash Patel decided to do and Pam Bondi at the Justice Department, and this, because I've wondered why the selective reinstatement, right?
There's like Robin, who I still represent, who's been suing all this time, still hasn't got any relief, still hasn't got any remedy.
You know, Robin Gritz, a long-standing FBI agent, wrongfully terminated because of everything that took place involving Andrew McCabe and his rogue set of predecessors.
They decided instead, the reason why some people got reinstated, some people didn't, some people settled, but somehow weren't being reinstated, like Steve Friend, is because the whole goal was to shut him up.
The whole goal, it was not a good faith effort to settle their dispute.
I disagree with Miranda Devine at the New York Post.
I mean, she's done great work and she criticized this action by Kash Patel to her credit, even though Kash Patel is playing favorites at the media currently and rewarding and punishing people accordingly.
I mean, Kash Patel is just a corrupt FBI director.
It's that simple.
He is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
And what he's attempting to do is use the settlements to censor his critics.
And it was clear that was happening with Friend because even though he was supposed to have been reinstated already, even though he's already supposed to have been back his back pay given already by the terms of the agreement, neither of those was occurring.
And he wasn't getting even his security clearance cleared.
And so the whole goal is: oh, we're going to rehire you, but maybe you'll get paid.
Maybe you won't.
Maybe you'll have a badge.
Maybe you won't.
Maybe you'll have a gun.
Maybe you won't.
Maybe you have a job.
Maybe you won't.
Maybe you have an assignment.
Maybe you won't.
All designed to, hey, you better shut up at any rate.
They think that if you, if the Pat Kash Patel is weaponizing his office for his personal self-enrichment, for his personal gain, and his political gain.
And he's doing it at the expense of the American people and at his duties and tasks.
And here you have someone like Friend who's the who's been a who came out, blew the whistle on the Biden administration, a great risk to himself, had to get delayed to get reinstated, gave all kinds of free advice that unfortunately it clears was ignored.
And then when he figures out this is the game that they're playing, he on a private, you know, not in his public capacity as an FBI agent.
He's not in uniform.
He's not referencing.
In fact, he goes out of his way to say, this is my personal opinion about my personal beliefs in this personal podcast with a friend.
In that context, that can't be confused with FBI speech or anything else.
He's acting well within his First Amendment capacity, First Amendment rights, to be critical of the agency.
I was amazed, these ex-agents online who have been running cover for these rogue actors in Kash Patel in particular, started attacking me.
So you don't understand.
Once you work for the FBI, you don't have First Amendment anymore.
I mean, I get that's what a lot of FBI agents think.
They think nobody has any constitutional rights.
They think the FBI is above everybody.
And clearly, apparently, Kash Patel now believes that the same way.
He saw when he wrote Government of Gangsters, he wanted to join the gangsters.
He wanted to be the head gangster.
And here you have him realizing that it appears to me, and this will go down to their eternal shame if it turns out one of the biggest scandals ever.
It appears increasingly that they set up and are trying to frame an innocent man, an autistic, neurologically developmentally disabled man for the pipe bombing to cover up for the rogue actors that were involved with the Capitol Police at the CIA and elsewhere and the DOJ and the FBI and the Fed surrection.
I mean, it's incredible.
And so if you're an FBI agent, are you supposed to keep your mouth shut about that just because you get a paycheck from the federal government?
According to these ex-FBI agents, absolutely.
If you see corruption and fraud, he's supposed to keep your mouth shut.
That's according to these ex-agents what the law is because they're explaining to me, you don't understand, Barnes, about the Constitution.
We have a little FBI book here, and this little FBI book just trumps everything.
This is how these people think, by the way, this is a lot of these rogue agents think.
They think they don't read the law that they enforce.
They read their little internal guidebook, their little bureaucratic guidebook, and they think that guidebook magically is the law and overrides the law if it contradicts the rest.
But as we've discussed multiple times, working for the government does not take away your First Amendment freedoms.
In order for them to take this retaliatory action against him, they needed to be able to, what isn't a true threat.
That's a complete garbage.
But what is Kash Patel doing?
And how do I know he's doing this?
While we still got no accountability for January 6th, no accountability for COVID.
No accountability for Russia game.
No accountability for the rogue nature of the deep state and the Department of Justice.
Guess who Kash Patel was running around getting indicted last week?
Some guy in North Carolina, yipping on Facebook, talking, you talk about my girlfriend indicted.
Welcome to the life of a Kash Patel.
This guy is a disgrace.
He deserves to be impeached when he gets impeached.
And he might end up getting indicted for the various illegal activities Kash Patel is currently involved in.
And all Steve Friend did is put him on notice that that was the risk he faced if they continue to railroad innocent people, cover up corruption and fraud, and not do their duty or job.
So for him speaking out as he should, they're going to fire him and they think there's no consequence to that?
That strikes me as a patent First Amendment violation.
In order for them to justify his firing, they've got a couple of problems.
One, they never fully reinstated him.
So that's a little bit of a problem.
They're just kind of ignoring and pretending it doesn't exist.
But the second problem is they have to prove, because he did it in a personal capacity about a matter of public concern.
Given that, they have to show his speech making it impossible for the FBI to do its job.
Being called out for fraud, you don't get to say, hey, judge, don't allow him to call out my fraud because that'll make my fraud more difficult to do.
So I think Steve Friend's got a robust claim, a whistleblower retaliation claim against Kash Patel.
And Kash Patel is becoming a disgrace, just an utter disgrace.
Just to highlight something, the issue with what Steve Friend said is many people saw the video and only saw the last 30 seconds or 40 seconds.
I had seen the original, so I don't hear it in any other way other than Steve Friend saying, if they're framing an innocent man and they're going to go through with this and I'm ever in a position of power, I'll throw the book if they are in fact doing something illegal, then I'll throw the book at them.
And when you talk about like silencing the opposition and everyone says, well, it's not Kash Patel suing, it's his girlfriend suing Kyle Serafin, FBI whistleblower, that other guy there, based Sam Parker, who's not job as far as I'm concerned, but whatever, suing him for things he said, Elijah, and now firing Steve Friend.
It sure looks like what you're describing.
It looks like, and to the people in the chat on Rumble, one of them said, but Barn, why does Viva bring on Barnes and many wackos then does not challenge them and comes across as agreeing with them, says Sunny2020.
And there's another one, Robin, who thinks you're an agent.
I don't know what you're representing whistleblowers because it's big money.
I mean, that's all I see with Steve Friend.
And I don't know how else to see what he said or how else to interpret what Kash Patel is doing.
Zero doubt about it.
So for people that don't know, you know, that haven't always covered, haven't seen all of the Viva Barnes Law for the People shows, we often talk about when you work for the government, that the only way in which that limits your First Amendment freedom is that you cannot speak on behalf of the government without certain authority or approval, that the government gets to control its own speech.
So if you're doing it in your government capacity with your uniform on official time, so on and so forth, there's limits as to what you can say, but then you're acting in the capacity as the physical manifestation, the agent, if you will, of the government, and not in your own personal capacity.
But it has never taken away your First Amendment rights.
And what's unique about the government employment context is normally your employment doesn't necessarily implicate the First Amendment because it's a private actor that's taking the employment action.
But whenever it's the government as your employer, the government is always bound by the First Amendment in everything they do.
People seem to forget this.
It's like somehow it's government employment.
So magically the First Amendment vanishes.
That's not the case at all.
In fact, it's enhanced in the government employment context because it's the government making the decision because the First Amendment restrains the government.
And the laws on this has been well developed for the better part of a century.
And they didn't even blink twice.
They didn't show him any, they didn't go through any due process at all, right?
They saw a broadcast and Kash Patel personally fires him.
And in my view, he made false claims in that firing letter.
Now, he knows he can't be sued for Patel for libel or anything like that because he's doing it in his official capacity, right?
But clearly, Steve Friend has complete First Amendment freedoms.
And what bothered me the most was this appeared to be a message to everybody else.
Remember, this comes with a Kash Patel who covered up the Epstein files corruptly, who said Epstein killed himself without real evidence because he never reviewed it and lied to the public about it.
This is the same Kash Patel that has failed to take any meaningful action in all of these areas that people have been screaming and crying for.
But this is also the same Kash Patel that doesn't have the guts to arrest James Comey when he puts 8647 out there for the world to see.
So that's the same Kash Patel.
And he's going to come after, but he's come after Steve Friend to send a message to everyone else.
Remember, this is the same Kash Patel's office that attempted to intimidate a member of Congress, Thomas Massey's staff, from investigating them or exposing their corruption and fraud.
And now he's sending a message: look, I will get you fired.
I will use my office to get you sued, indicted, investigated, potentially imprisoned, or at a minimum, fired if you raise questions about what I'm doing.
And this is just corruption.
Corruption.
That's what it is.
Kash Patel is corrupt.
It's no longer counterfeit cash.
It's corrupt cash.
I'm going to bring one video up about the pipe bomber now that you mention it, because it's also not irrelevant, is a video which people are circulating suggesting that as evidence that they've gotten the wrong person, that the alleged pipe bomber is adjusting a bra.
Now, to say a few things about this, you can watch the video in the one frame per second that the former FBI gave it to the general public.
You see the person seemingly, allegedly, according to some, adjusting a bra, looking over his or her shoulder.
Some people are saying, I'm a woman.
That's not how you adjust a bra.
Others are saying, if you were to see the sports bra that a potential person might be wearing because that person wears a sports bra, then it might be an adjustment of a sports bra.
One thing I think is relatively clear from that is that that's not the movement of someone stimming with a serious degree of autism.
And that's not someone with a, you know, a lack of situational awareness that you would expect from someone with autism looking over their shoulder like they're doing something very suspicious.
And a great many people are saying, you got the wrong person.
Nobody believes this.
Apparently, even within the FBI, people don't believe it.
And we're being told to swallow this and just wait.
And Bongino on hand, and he's sort of downgrading his confidence, saying they're comfortable they got the right guy and the public will be comfortable with it in the context of something that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Robert, what happens if this turns out to be an absolute debacle and one that they should have known was not the case?
It would be one of the biggest scandals in the history of the FBI.
I mean, especially, I mean, who sat there?
So, I mean, there's a lot of representations that were already getting little bits and pieces that this individual was interrogated for four hours without counsel or family present.
You're talking about someone who's developmentally disabled.
That's the level of autism people are reporting about him.
I mean, already this has screams corrupt, bogus case.
He doesn't seem to match the physical description of the person that we're seeing on the video, that his gait doesn't appear to match, according to people that have looked that are aware of him.
He apparently lives in a neighborhood that's filled with feds, by the way.
That they started surveilling him and picked him within days after the Baker story broke.
Does that sound like an agency?
And not only that, it appears the agents running this.
Bongino never should have got anywhere near this.
He should get out as soon as he can so that all of this doesn't fall on his head.
But part of this is because he decided to be at that press conference, I think, very, very foolishly.
I mean, who sat there and said, okay, we've got this guy that's avoided the federal detection for almost five years.
We're running up on the statute of limitations.
Let's blame the developmentally disabled, autistic black hit.
I mean, I mean, right away, there should have been immediate, deep scrutiny.
This is the guy?
Well, hold on a second.
And it doesn't appear any meaningful scrutiny was applied.
It was, this is the perfect guy we can rig for this.
We can frame for this.
I have zero doubts, frankly, at this point, that's the case.
I had doubts from the day they announced it.
But the more the evidence comes out, the more it comes out in the same direction.
But what bothers me even more is now we have a, put it this way, like there's always people who want to defend this.
Would you defend this if it was Christopher Wray?
Would you defend this if it was Joe Biden?
If you wouldn't defend it if it was Joe Biden, you are a hypocrite if you don't call it out when it's Donald Trump or when it's Kash Patel.
I don't change my legal standards or moral standards because I like the party or politician in position of power.
Same rules for everybody.
The Constitution, period, end of story.
And imagine this will go down as one of the most embarrassing cases of corruption by the FBI and its history if they are attempting to frame.
I mean, now that's saying something for an agency with a long, notorious history of framing people, going all the way back to its founder, J. Edgar Hoover, that's what that, you know, the man who liked to cross-dress as a truth teller and a justice seeker, who was in fact mobbed up, for those people that still pretend otherwise, the corrupt in a wide range of other capacities.
And he routinely framed people.
We probably helped build the Bureau of Investigation from the Justice Department ancillary that it once was to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it has become by likely framing anarchists for things that may have been done by somebody else.
And he used it to boost his power.
So it wouldn't be that a shock from that sense.
But in the contemporary sense, name a case.
Imagine if it turns out he's totally fake.
He's totally innocent.
And they tried to railroad him.
And imagine somewhere along the way.
I mean, the point that the friend and Seraphin were making from the get-go was the probability it's this guy is just low.
And for all the reasons you're also pointing out.
In other words, there's reasons to cover up who this is if you're the Biden administration.
This guy doesn't give you any of those reasons.
So there was also, if they passed on him, it probably means there's evidence somewhere in the file that disproves that this is the guy.
And that they either missed it.
And then look at who the prosecutor is on the case.
I think the line agents work in the case.
What happened was the agents realized Steve Baker was going to expose why they covered up the J6 pipe bomber.
So they immediately ran to these clearly almost pathologically insecure people and openly corrupt people like Kash Patel and said, hey, oh, no, no, we got the one.
We got the one.
Oh, we double looked at something, whatever it was.
But they knew they were on the clock to rush out somebody else as the scapegoat, knowing that as long as this guy's indictment stays until past January 6th, a bunch of statute limitations are gone.
So even if they admit six months from now, he was never the guy.
Statute of limitations is gone to go after a whole bunch of anyone else on a bunch of different, not every statute, but most of the applicable statutes.
And that's what I think the and I, and you know that by looking at the prosecutor.
They assign a deep state prosecutor to this case, a prosecutor who went after General Flynn, a prosecutor went after the Proud Boys, a prosecutor notorious for her corruption and misconduct in these kind of cases.
That's who Jeanette Pirro picked.
And for those people who think, oh, Jeanette Pirro, yo, Judge Janine from Fox News, my introduction to Janine Pirro was a documentary called Convicted about a young teenage boy picked up and charged with rape and murder in New York.
There was tons of reasons to believe that this teenage kid was innocent, including the DNA didn't match.
But he's convicted.
He gets railroaded through the whole process.
False confession, because the same thing.
He was somebody that was impressionable.
The cops took him in.
He thought he was helping them.
And really, they were using it to set up a confession.
The evidence came out.
The DNA not only didn't fully match, ultimately, the DA did match somebody else who later on confessed to doing it.
So you got an innocent kid who served 15 years in Sing Sing.
You want to know why?
Because Jeanette Pirot demanded he stay there.
She was happy to railroad an innocent person.
Why do you think Fox put her on?
That's who she is.
So I'm not surprised that she's now willing to railroad another person when she eagerly, she was defending his imprisonment years after it was proven he was innocent.
That's how nuts Jeanette Pirro is and how corrupt she's eager to be.
Just everybody knows the prosecutor you're talking about is Jocelyn Ballantyne.
I talked about with Enrique Terrio.
You know, when I say that if they ever had this guy, Brian Cole, on their radar and they turned it off their radar five, whatever, four years ago, it was because it would lead back to some sort of involvement with the Capitol Police.
There's a way that Brian Cole is, in fact, somehow involved.
Maybe he put the pipe bombs together.
Maybe that's why we see his car in the general vicinity at the time of, but not on the actual path of the pipe bomber, because he might have been delivering it to somebody who was planting it because it doesn't look like him in that video.
And it would explain why they always had this as a backup plan potentially to say, if it ever gets too close to whomever might be the one who planted the bomb, well, we've got this kid, you know, because we've set him up, because we entrapped him the same way we did in the Gretchen Whitmer fed napping stuff.
And then we can get a confession out of him the same way Ballantyne got one out of Michael Flynn.
That was a coerced, fraudulent confession to begin with.
That's how he could, in fact, be involved, but not culpable for this.
And it might not be the new FBI that knows this.
And they might be getting thrown under the bus by the disinformation from the corrupt FBI.
Yeah.
I mean, what I don't have the, I get Bungino potentially getting caught up in this.
So I'll give him, for the time being, a pass.
But, you know, he should be super cognizant.
Do you want to be associated with this case if it turns out to be that this kid's innocent?
I don't want to be associated with it now.
Sorry.
But so that's one aspect.
But the other aspect, to transition into our next topic, guess who is defending the illegalities of the Whitmer fednapping before the Supreme Court of the United States?
Pamela Bondi.
Indeed, that's right.
The case where they, you know, they excluded the judge improperly, in my view, excluded a bunch of exculpatory evidence.
This was, for those people who don't remember, we called it out at the time, by the way, that the uh up in Michigan, right around uh leading up to the 2020 election, they alleged that these, but basically a bunch of autists in their basement were trying to conspire to kidnap Governor Whitmer during COVID.
And it, by the way, it was the template for what looked like the Fed surrection to come.
The federal investigative agents, many of them overlapped the people who would lead up the January 6th investigations at the FBI.
The other FBI agents end up being fired and terminated for their various corruption, including they're so corrupt that they're involved in swinger parties and got arrested for trying to beat up people at local.
I mean, it's just a hopeless, helpless agency, as former FBI agents like Seraphin have said basically said.
Robert, I think one of them, he did, in fact, get arrested for beating his wife after she or he got back from the swingers party.
He was like the star witness.
In this case, Robert, they allowed statements from informants to be admitted in evidence as admissions and not somehow, which gives them more credibility from informants.
Oh, I mean, completely.
So the whole case was set up from day one.
Most of the people conspiring were federal agents.
You know, it's the Spider-Man meme.
You, And on top of all that, even when they go to case, they can't convict them honestly.
The state trial, there's multiple either mistrials or ultimately acquittals in a bunch of cases.
So they bring this parallel federal case.
And ultimately, the judge rigs a lot of the evidence, a bunch of other things.
The excludes relevant evidence, includes irrelevant evidence.
And basically, these kids are going to serve this long federal prison sentence.
And it goes up to the Supreme Court of the United States, where they are now petitioning because the Sixth Circuit refused to correct the egregious legal errors that took place in that case, even though they admitted in their opinion, remember?
They admitted that they are committing these were errors by the trial court.
And now Pam Bondi goes in with it this week with Solicitor General Sauer, goes into the Supreme Court and says, please affirm and uphold these Fed surrection convictions in the Whitmer case and allow all this illicitly admitted evidence, all this improperly excluded evidence to be considered a fair trial.
I mean, it's a joke.
I mean, this Justice Department at the top, there's people still doing good work in the bowels.
Ed Martin's still doing good work.
Army Dylan's still doing good work.
Gail Slater's still doing good work.
But Bondi and Blanche are a complete joke at this point.
And Patel is a complete joke at this point.
But it's getting to be worse than that.
I mean, these are the kind of scandals that can go in all kinds of directions.
You can't have an FBI director who criticized the former FBI director for using the plane, the government plane as his own personal plane.
And then he do it twice, three, four times as often as Ray ever did it.
You can't assign a special FBI security team to your girlfriend as private security and maybe surveillance to make sure she's not stepping out or whatever else is up there.
You can't be using your power to sue, go after people because they're being publicly critical of you or your girlfriend if you want to have confidence in the transparency of your office.
You can't be using it to fire whistleblowers or only settle with whistleblowers on the condition that they keep their mouth shut, not blow the whistle anymore.
And then last thing you can do is start to frame innocent people.
I mean, imagine the optics of this.
You're talking about a neurologically developmentally disabled, autistic black kid.
I mean, it's like every stereotype you could have of fascistic, right-wing, whatever fits this case.
If it turns out it's a fake case and it's looking more and more like the kids of Patsy, this is, they got to get control up there quick.
They got to pep, just fire Patel now.
Fire him, send him packing.
So he can go on his little private plane tours with his little country music girlfriend, get him out of there.
He's not only a waste of space, he's a negative space because he's creating problem after problem after problem for the Trump administration with his combination of corruption and incompetency.
But Robert, is it, I mean, you can blame Patel because he is the director of the FBI, but what is the deal?
What's the rationale with Bondi maintaining opposition in some of these cases?
Why wouldn't they want to blow the lid off of that entrapment case?
Because it was objectively entrapped.
Is it Bondi at the behest of somebody else and Todd Blanche, who has always been a Democrat lawyer, trying to sabotage Trump from within?
It's a good question.
I think in Bondi's case, I doubt she reads any of these.
I think she skims through them.
I don't think she's paying much personal attention at all.
There's talk that she's back and forth to Florida a lot.
So I don't think she cares.
She's just picking up pay-for-play checks where she can and shows up at press conferences to grandstand.
That appears to be all she really does.
I've seen no evidence.
She has detailed policy plans, detailed personnel shifts, anything like that.
I mean, South Parks has her as a permanent brown-nose medical condition.
I mean, that caricature looks accurate, unfortunately.
And then Todd Blanche I've never had any confidence in.
And so, but, you know, it's like, I mean, she keeps doing this.
She's done it in a bunch of Maha cases.
She intervened to try to keep fluoride in our water against Robert Kennedy's policy, continued to maintain the lie that the vaccine is safe and effective and the vaccine shouldn't be challenged.
In the Brooke Jackson case, she had to be guilted into dropping the case against farmers and ranchers out in the Dakotas.
She had to be publicly guilted and shamed into dropping the case against the doctor, the bogus COVID case against the doctor.
She's back all, you know, undermining the Second Amendment in ways that the Justice Department has never argued for.
She's arguing for the most extraordinary extension of federal power ever in that capacity.
So at a minimum, she's a disaster.
And there's more and more, there's pardons that are going to come back to back.
He did more pardons, I think, this past week.
Another big donor who publicly hates him, by the way, and was completely convicted.
Another guy that previously bought off a donation, didn't help his religious background, but that he pardoned in his first term, went right, got caught doing another Ponzi scheme that Trump put out there.
He's busy pardoning huge drug dealers like the Honduran drug dealer while pretending we're at war with Venezuela over drugs.
So it's a level of incompetency ever since the Epstein thing.
I was like, whatever you think, this shows incompetency by everybody who touched that.
And that included Trump.
That included Bondi.
That included Blanche.
That included Patel.
And that included, according to Blanche, Bongino.
This is that they don't, they're clearly winning way over their head.
They're trying to bail themselves out in corrupt ways.
The power has got to Kash Patel's head.
And with Bondi, this is how she's always operated, I think.
And now she's just at a different scale being the Attorney General of the United States.
But I mean, it's like I have no doubt there's nobody there really manning the office to say, okay, let's have these policy changes.
So here's how we're going to review these cases going forward, whether it's Second Amendment cases, all the lawfare cases, the Fed surrection case.
But here's the other thing.
Where was Bondi between 2020 and 2024, right?
Was she on the front lines of defending January 6th defendants?
Remember, Ed Martin, simply for being supportive of them, they wouldn't allow him to have the DC job.
They were happy to let Pierrot in.
People are like, don't worry, Barnes Pierrot.
She talks big on Fox News.
She's going to be really good.
It's like, I know her history as a corrupt prosecutor who liked to railroad innocent people.
And now I see her doing it again and bragging about it and doing nothing in the Robin Gritz case, doing nothing in these other cases.
They're also being sued to give you an idea how sloppy it is.
Apparently, they went through, according to allegations in another suit, a bunch of FBI agents that got fired.
They went through and literally fired him just for their politics.
They fired him because of what they, if they had a rainbow flag or something on their desk.
They fired him because they took a knee during the BLM protest.
Okay, that's not a legal thing to do, right?
You should be clearing out people that are corrupt, not people just because their politics are different.
If they've used their politics impermissibly, that's corruption.
And that's what you dismiss them for and purge them for.
But now they're facing other lawsuits over that.
I mean, it's it's it's it's the only thing I can figure out, you're right.
It's intelligence, it's sabotage.
If otherwise, it's just an incorrigible level of incompetence.
Well, and you brought up the Epstein stuff, and like I will pat myself on the back yet again, but when you said Bondi must have not read the files and it doesn't look like she did, and then when it comes out that, you know, oh, Trump's name is all over it.
So Bondi's recommendation is that they have to cover this up.
And then it turns out, I want to find the picture of this, that in fact, hold on, where is it?
The picture of the blacked out faces where they have, maybe it's this one right here.
Is it the oversight committee?
This is not the right one.
They have the photograph of Trump with these with these blacked out faces coming from a member of the Democrat Party.
And I said, if I had to guess, this is at an event by the Lees on the Neck.
It looks like, you know, a pageant or whatever.
They've again redacted the faces of these alleged, I don't know, models suggesting they were young in the post saying this is disgusting and violent.
Trump's got some answers.
And if that was the reason for which Pam Bondi thought Trump was going to get in trouble, because the Democrats were going to pull that type of hoax, she's an idiot if she's not corrupt and trying to sabotage Trump.
But I guess the segue of that question is, do the Congress people who deliberately misrepresent and unnecessarily redact for the purposes of impugning or suggesting malfeasance, is there nothing that can be done to them other than impeachment?
Well, not even impeachment.
I mean, because they have immunity for what they say speech and debate clause within the context of Congress.
And then now the Westfall Act has been interpreted so broadly and expansively that they basically can't be sued.
But yeah, the, I mean, what's, I increasingly believe, I originally thought, and I still think there was some rogue deep state actor that sabotaged the file in a certain way that misled people.
But my other hypothesis was that for whatever reason, Bondi became convinced and Patel became convinced that Trump was negatively impacted.
But once I heard the FOIA backstory, I was like, I bet these lazy losers just took the word from the FOIA people who were just going through about which names to redact and so forth.
And they said Trump's name and there was a lot of photos of Trump in here.
And she never looked at him.
She never went and looked at that file.
And he's like, oh, no.
Oh, Trump.
And then maybe some bad faith actors whispering in her ear, we've got to cover this all up for you.
I'm here to protect you, Mr. President, because that's how she sees her job as a cover-up agent rather than a prosecutor, unfortunately.
I mean, that's how she got the pay-for-play paying reputation in Florida, dating back to the mortgage fraud cases she let walk, try to set up Zimmerman for a bogus criminal prosecution, try to put in red flag laws.
That's why some of us had doubts about her as soon as she was named.
Plus, she had never, how do you trust somebody who's never been on the front end of anything, really took personal professional risk to represent underdogs in some space?
That was my problem with a lot of these names.
Todd Blanche defended Trump.
Who else did he defend in the January 6th cases?
Because I don't remember any of them.
The same with Pam Bondi.
She was busy getting paid by Pfizer between 2020 and 2024, not representing people suing over vaccine mandates.
She was representing the big pharmaceutical company getting rich off of these vaccine mandates.
So I think somebody just came to him for the FOIA department and said, hey, by the way, Trump's name is all over the place.
And she went and panicked, panicked Trump into causing himself to, now all that Democrats know, all they need to do is redact photos and information that has innuendo, send it out.
And even if it's totally fake, like this one, where Trump is at his own pageant with a bunch of adult women around him smiling, somehow now becomes nefarious.
But this is because Pam Bondi and Kash Patel misled Trump about what was in the file.
And instead of listening to Marjorie Taylor Greene, like Trump should have, he was pretending she was the traitor when the traitors are a lot closer to home, Mr. President.
And let me read it because I showed it.
But if anyone's listening on podcast, they won't see this.
This was a tweet coming from Congresswoman Yasamin Ansari.
I talked about it last week.
Ansari.
Vile, disturbing new photos of Donald Trump that raise even more questions about knowledge of abuses at Epstein's estate.
None of that is remotely true.
And then it goes on to say, oversight Dems are demanding the DOJ comply with our subpoenas, yada, yada, yada, release the full Epstein files.
And I said at the time, if I had to guess based on the decorative leaves around their neck, this is a picture from a pageant or another event.
And if I had to guess based on the fact that you despicable Democrats deceptively redacted the name from prior disclosures to falsely insinuate Trump spent hours with an Epstein sex victim, I would surmise that you were trying the exact same tactic again because you're a bunch of despicable scumbags who belong in jail.
And I dare say I was right.
And I dare say I was right.
It panned out to be that they were adults.
It was some event.
They redacted their faces and made this salacious suggestion that was not based in anything other than they know they can get away with it because they can't be prosecuted for it.
Yeah, exactly.
Now we've got plenty of other SCOTUS and controversial cases this week.
We got the at SCOTUS, we've got the Trump authority over the bureaucracy was in the oral argument this week.
We've got campaign spending limits is going to be up at the Supreme Court quickly to decide.
We've got sentencing disabled people also going to be before the Supreme Court.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to laugh at it.
But Robert, before we even get there, one other, before we get out of the corruption from so-called rhinos, Dan Crenshaw, ostensibly threatening Sean Ryan with a DM saying, my boys at team six, no, my boys at six don't let, you know, been telling me that you've been talking about me and I don't really like what you're saying.
It seems to be not based in reality.
Apparently they're going to have their discussion January 2nd.
What do you make of it?
Am I as sensitive or is it absolutely out of line for a member of government to DM someone and say, I don't really like what you've been saying about me?
I mean, that's fair game if he wants to.
It's what you can't have is perceptions that the government can then, that a government officer or someone on his behalf take retaliatory action.
That's the concern is that we're seeing these other, you know, threats against Thomas Massey, now the firing of former FBI whistleblower Steve Friend.
We're starting to see a disturbing pattern of the government weaponizing its power against its critics, which this government was elected to stop from happening, not continue and exacerbate that happening.
So I think that's, and the way he phrased it, he clearly could have phrased it a lot better, but it's Crenshaw.
So the to the degree that, now Crenshaw, you know, responded with the, I'm going to sue you for libel for saying that that's a threat, which is, you know, an interesting interpretation.
But the response of Sean Ryan interpreting it that way was not an unreasonable interpretation.
He's like, because they're both in the military and he's like, the, you keep, Crenshaw could have phrased it in such a way.
Now, I think what Crenshaw probably intended was, hey, buddy, we're both in the, you know, the, the, you know, the, the, you know, the sealed together kind of military tough guys.
And my military tough guys tell me you're getting a little crazy.
Let's chat.
But to do it kind of out of the blue to a degree is how Sean Ryan describes it.
You can see how Ryan's like, he's describing, hey, I got powerful connections.
I got powerful buddies.
You better watch yourself how he took it that way.
The Crenshaw's got no credible libel defamation claim at all.
I assume that's gone now anyway.
They're going to sit down and discuss it.
You know, as he's called, the one-eyed McCain, it's because, you know, remember, this is the background of him talking about how he would like to kill Tucker Carlson, right?
You know, you remember Crenshaw got caught doing that.
Yep.
And he said, I'm serious.
I said, figure of speech.
But then he said, no, I'm serious.
All right, Robert, before we get into the SCOTUS decisions, let me just, A, we got another Feinway subscribed to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Robert from Pam Walker, do you have the time, inclination to write a comprehensive list of what cases Pam needs to be paying attention to and why?
Maybe if we had all the lists, we could blast it out to Trump or Trump Jr. may get a hold of it.
See my comment.
This is Dr. W.M. Blair, who can't seem to figure out how things work here.
I'll read the other comment, but I won't bring it up.
It says, what has happened to Marjorie Taylor Greene?
I have given money to MTG and happily voted for her.
I also, for the most part, agree with Barnes on Israel.
I watched NTG recently and noticed some of odd views.
First, she then started talking, sounding like Glenn Greenwald on Israel.
Second, she started saying the government should fund Avoidable Care Act to keep premiums low without, I guess that's the Affordable Care Act, sorry, reorganizing, recognizing that it is a giveaway to insurance company.
Then she visited The View and now she's hanging out with Code Pink.
Robert, do you have any insights as to what might be going on with Marjorie Taylor Green?
Well, I mean, she's just, I mean, she's stepping down from Congress.
I mean, that's the long and short of it.
And I think my take is that she was very optimistic about Trump's second term, thought a whole bunch of things would happen that haven't happened.
It's that simple.
I mean, the donors have been served well.
The voters have not.
And I know there's people who don't want me to say that, but that's practical.
That's reality.
You can watch any Richard Barris episode these days.
He's banging his head against the wall saying, you know, these numbers are falling through the floor.
And Trump is still out there talking about Venezuela, some other place for us to go in.
Let's attack over there now.
Woo!
He was not invented.
He was not elected to do a world tour or to be the world president like he apparently thinks he is.
So, I mean, I think she just got burned out by Washington.
And after the person she'd put a lot of faith and confidence in turned around and was, frankly, Trump was the traitor, not Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Trump betrayed his voters for a large part of the last six months and decided to go after people like Thomas Massey, who actually keeps his promises, unlike President Trump, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And I think people like that are just like, well, we're out of here.
We're done.
And so it's not a shock.
People shouldn't be shocked.
This is on Trump.
This is Trump mishandling that relationship.
Trump mishandling the Epstein files.
Trump not willing to listen to critics that pointed out he was making dumb mistakes when he was making them.
And Trump continuing to tell everybody, hey, if you have an affordability crisis, that's because you're part of a Democrat hoax.
I mean, this gaslighting, he apparently thinks because past things have been hoaxes, he can just call anything he doesn't like a hoax now.
He's starting to look like old man screams at Lawn in between bombing Venezuela and maybe we'll go over here and go over there and go someplace else.
He's now talking about doing a NATO guarantee for Ukraine.
Why would we be further involved in that conflict at all?
Just get us out.
It's over a year.
Promised 52 times, at least, according to Richard Barris' count, he would get us out of Ukraine in 24 hours.
Another promise made, another promise not kept.
So that's why Marjorie Taylor Greene is frustrated.
And she represents, because I hear from them, a substantial part of Trump's base.
Not all of Trump's base, but a substantial part of them who feel just like she does.
I'm going to read one more from Commitube.
It says, I'm not your buddy guy97.
It says, I was genuinely excited to see Cash and Dan clean house and fix things, but Cash has been an unfortunate disappointment.
Even Blondie is terrible.
We need a factory reset and clean house.
And then one last one before we get into the SCOTUS decisions, because I see the big red one.
Imported or imported candies, cookies, and U.S.-made Bill Tong make for great seasonal gifts.
This is from Billtongusa.com.
Check them out.
Code Barnes for 10% off of Bill Tong.
Go check him out.
It's amazing stuff.
The meat is delicious.
The candies are amazing.
Actually, too good.
Don't send any more, Anton, because I don't like eating cookies, but I do.
Thank you.
Check it out, Bill Tongusa.com.
And at Viva, no time in history has only voting changed a bad government into a good government.
And we are in the 12 haze of Christmas, 12 days of Christmas.
Now, drop in and watch the classics.
That is from Dominant One.
All right, now, Robert, the Supreme Court case.
Let's start with the one about you can't execute a mentally low IQ individual.
Literally, this was a man who was convicted of beating another man to death with a hammer in his car, stealing his tools and 150 bucks, was sentenced to be killed, consistently tested of an IQ of between 70 and 78 or 72 and 78.
And they're basically arguing he's effectively mentally impaired to the point where execution would be a cruel and unusual punishment.
And I'm having difficulty understanding where the threshold would be for not being able to execute someone who might be mentally, I'm not using the R word, but mentally impaired, but able to distinguish between right and wrong for the purposes of their actions.
Flesh this out as to why this is a threshold or where IQ becomes a threshold in the imposition of the death penalty.
I mean, essentially, what is the court feels gets uncomfortable with the death penalty because of the fear that they're going to order the execution of somebody that turns out innocent 10 years later.
That's one driving area of concern.
Another area, you can read about this in Bob Woodward's book about the Supreme Court years ago, where he in live time, you had people like Justice Black and others talk about how the court deals with death penalty cases tends to be heavily influenced by the fear of convicting the innocent as much as anything else.
But along the way, they've carved away aspects of the death penalty in cases like in certain juvenile kind of cases that Supreme Court's considered pulling back when, you know, how young can a person be before we consider the death penalty a permissible punishment.
In principle, I have no problem with the death penalty.
In practice, it's going back to Deskovich, that young man who served 15 years in Sing Sing because Gene Piro wanted to keep an innocent man in prison for a long period of time for her own political benefit.
He has said, look, he goes, according to a range of studies, that they estimate approximately 5% of the people on death row are not guilty of the crime they were convicted of and sentenced to death for.
And he goes, imagine if it came out tomorrow that there's about a 5% chance when you get on a plane, it's going to crash.
He goes, wouldn't we stop all the planes and make sure we fix something before we send them back up?
And his point is, as long as we have as many as 5% of people innocent on death row, maybe the death penalty needs to be re-examined.
So that's, you know, people get confused as to where I become skeptical of the death penalty.
I become skeptical of the death penalty because I don't trust our government to properly convict the guilty.
I, in theory, have no problem with it in principle.
Now, to this question, there's no question he's guilty.
The question becomes at what level of development.
So, like years ago, Bill Clinton demanded the execution of a man who would become, I think, had like a 50, 55 IQ.
He wasn't there at the time he did the murder.
He did a horrendous murder, killed a cop, I believe.
But he got shot in the crime, and that's what led him to no longer have mental capacity.
Trump, I mean, Bill Clinton still demanded he be executed because that's who Clinton was for political benefits during the campaign, by the way, 92 campaign.
I think it's Richard Ray Rector or something like that, was the guy's name.
So, the question has always been to part of it is knowledge of guilt is one assessment.
Another is degree of culpability.
So, the legal system for assessing knowledge of guilt is a pretty low standard.
You know, if you have almost any degree of functioning brain power, they say you have the capacity to know what you did was wrong outside of like a degree of insanity that has to be off the charts.
People think that's easy to plead the insanity defense.
No, it's not.
They make it very, very, very hard in the modern age.
That's mostly a popular myth.
They always plead your insanity and you can get out and so forth.
But the second, so that question is to what does due process require under the Fifth Amendment, or in this context, under cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, is it disproportionate punishment to someone whose intellect at what intellectual capacity do we say the punishment's excessive, disproportionate?
And that's really where the debate becomes.
When you have someone that's marginally, well, clearly very low IQ, but marginally at the level that you would say mentally disabled.
I'm not comfortable personally doing the death penalty on mentally disabled people.
So, anyway, I'm looking it up at when what IQ becomes an intellectual disability and they say 70.
It's an interesting, like you say, I'm in principle for the death penalty.
In practice, no, because I've now seen what the government can do, and you can't entrust man to inflict the ultimate punishment, even though incidents of today and yesterday, immediate death penalty in an ideal world.
But yeah, they say under 70.
I just think, you know, you're under 70 IQ and susceptible of murder, like brutal beating to death with a hammer.
You're looking at either a life of your hands literally tied behind your back with a straitjacket to make sure that you don't do it again, or the death penalty.
I'd say, I don't know.
But to the extent you have the death penalty, I'm not sure that that's where I would draw the line, but I, you know, just can't trust the government for that anymore.
Other Supreme Court decisions, Trump was pleading, or they were pleading for Trump's ability to fire federal employees.
Oral arguments, to me, it sounds optimistic, but I'm not sure that I would trust my own assessment.
Where do you think that this case goes?
This is the one where they're firing the members of the Fed, and the argument is that they need certain independence.
And Trump is saying we need to be able to control the executive.
My view is that we either have one elected head of the executive branch that's at actual functional control over anybody, period, including discretionary or otherwise, or we're not.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't restraints on what he can do in certain capacities, like other constitutional constraints on his power.
Like you can't decide, well, I'm going to only hire Christians.
I'm going to fire all Muslims, you know, or whatever.
Or in the case of Steve Friend, I'm going to fire this guy because I don't like him criticizing.
There's limits to that in that capacity.
But what there should not be is, and this goes like to the appointment power.
Like, could the, it was a debate we had a dialogue at Vivo Barneslaw.locals.com.
And one of our board members, where everybody's above average, like Lake Wilburgun from Garrison Keiller's days, when he wasn't busy chasing young girls around, but that's another story.
The is the degree to which I momentarily blinked.
I had the head of Garrison.
We're talking about firing federal employees.
I was just saying, I didn't know.
I didn't get the little girl's part, but said that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It was him chasing around the, yeah, so a whole other story.
Is that he should have is can Congress limit, use its appointment power to limit the executive branch power?
And I've never agreed with that theory.
In my view, so the role of Congress is solely to advise and consent for the purposes of people being appointed to the cabinet.
They try to use that to say, well, only for this particular position, we want to limit what position they have.
And in some cases, they want to go further and say, actually, you can only fire them either with our approval or under a good cause standard where some other bureaucrat gets to dictate it.
What they're doing is undermining executive power.
So to me, Article 2, the limit to Congress should be affirm for the consent advice as to whether this person is in the administration if they are in a policymaking role.
And that's it.
And I've never agreed with Congress's usurpation of executive branch power by trying to impose limitations on what office they can serve under the confirmation process, or in this case, using a good cause limitation to basically create a permanent bureaucracy that is separate from the American people's will.
And we end up with an unelected government.
Look at the EU bureaucracy, which is currently busy sinking its own future economy in order to engage in one of the highest end thefts in world history of stealing about a couple of hundred billion dollars worth of Russian government assets out of various accounts like the Euro clear accounts.
That's what happens when you get this permanent bureaucracy who's busy ignoring its own EU treaties, busy ignoring its own EU principles, ignoring the various constituent members of the EU.
They're doing things that the treaties say they're not supposed to be able to do, and yet they're ignoring it.
And they're just arguing from power rather than principle.
That's what happens when you let bureaucrats seize power.
You know, you have all these EU people.
None of them have been elected by the people in Europe.
If you want bureaucracy on steroids, that's the kind of government you get.
You get Kamala Harris and the DMV in control of your medical care.
And so for that reason, I always want the elected head of the presidency to constitutionally control it as a matter of policy.
But I think it's what the Constitution says.
There's no good cause limitations in the Constitution for the executive branch.
And so I think that based on the questions, now, what should shock people is listen to what liberal Democrats believe.
Listen to what Justice Jackson believes.
Listen to what Justice Sotomayor, you know, either read the oral argument or listen into the oral argument.
You can do both at the Supreme Court website.
And what you see is they believe in bureaucracy.
They believe there should be a permanent bureaucracy that has more power to overrule the American people.
I won't play it again because I played it last week, but Katanji Brown Jackson basically saying we need independent, so-called independent experts because the president's not an expert on the economy.
The president's not an expert on medicine or whatever.
And he shouldn't be able to fire these independent experts.
And it's the most laughably stupid idea that A, they're experts, given what we've seen over the last five years, B, that they're independent.
And that C, that they should be basically the deep state that supersedes or transcends the power of Trump to control who the people elected for the government that they elected to have in the first place.
Robert, let me just do one thing here.
I bet these people are naked from the waist down.
I was just making sure what color they were.
I'm wearing shorts, people, okay?
These are black shorts.
I was making sure they weren't the salmon pink shorts because that might be too embarrassing to show.
And Robert Peter N.S. from our above average vivabarneslaw.locals.com community says, Robert, can I list you as my lawyer for my CCW insurance company through USCCA?
I'm in Wisconsin.
I don't know about that.
All right.
What was the other, the other SCODIS that was up there for oral arguments was, oh, I'm blanking on cripe.
What was it?
Was it?
The, well, there's a couple.
There was a very good Amish case that was a one paragraph case.
That is the first promising case that we might finally get some enforcement of vaccine against vaccine mandates and the protection of religious rights.
There was also a campaign spending case that's also pending before the Supreme Court.
Let's do the Amish one because I know you talked about it during Bourbon with Barnes last week, and it's a one paragraph that doesn't directly relate to COVID, but has implications for it.
Flesh that out for those who did not watch the Bourbon with Barnes last week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Yes.
So the so New York is the worst.
So what's been happening is these states, New York, Maine, California, et cetera, have been pushing the envelope over, and particularly in the COVID era, but even before that, trying to force vaccines on the population using access to public schools to do so.
And this, you know, going back to the, this didn't used to be an issue.
There didn't used to be a long litany of vaccines that you have to take in order to go to public schools.
And you're forced to go to public schools.
You're mandated to go to public schools unless you're going to a private school that's recognized by the state or certain homeschools that are recognized by the state.
So it's not like it's voluntary, whether your six-year-old goes to public school or not.
It's not.
And so they use that to say, well, in order to make sure it's safe, you have to take certain vaccines.
Way back in the 80s, they decided that, hey, you know what?
They needed a list to know what list could fit for budgetary purposes for reimbursement.
So the Secretary of Health and Human Services would list which vaccines are useful solely as a reimbursement budgetary tool is how it's snuck into the law.
What they did is they then converted it into this childhood immunization recommendation list through the accommodation of passing federal laws that said, if you're on that list, you're now immune from liability for any injury you cause.
And then the schools took it and said, if it's on that list, it's now mandatory.
You're supposed to have medical accommodations, religious accommodations.
Historically, there's various disability laws and First Amendment protections that are implicated by it.
A range of laws that govern funding of public schools by the federal government that says they have to comply with constitutional and non-discriminatory principles.
Despite that, the states, California, New York, Maine, other states have been trying to figure out ways to eviscerate those exceptions and accommodations.
So, and particularly during COVID, when a lot of people have started religious accommodations, the reaction of the legal system and the medical establishment was to try to take those accommodations away.
In New York, they made it so that you have no, basically no medical accommodation.
So it doesn't matter if taking that vaccine might kill your kid.
Doesn't matter.
If you want your kid publicly enrolled in school, they've got to take it anyway.
And eliminating religious accommodation requests and objections.
So a bunch of people, Children's Health Defense, Aaron Seary, others have been bringing a range of legal challenges, sequential legal challenges to these rules in New York.
And one of them was a group of Amish, that the Amish historically homeschooled, don't go to public school anyway.
But even in those cases, the state of New York was trying to mandate the vaccine, even if you didn't go to public schools and with no religious accommodation available to you.
That's how they want to force this on everybody.
And Bill Gates, you know, grand eugenics dream.
That's where the Justice Department should be focused, not on harassing some guy on Facebook because he says something bad about because he uses some crazy rhetoric about Kash Patel's girlfriend or Cash himself.
But, you know, Cash is too busy chasing those Facebook commentators around and firing whistleblowers in order to rather do his job and get into the massive criminality concerning COVID, especially concerning Bill Gates.
But so the Supreme Court has been ignoring it, ignoring it, ignoring it.
This week, in a real one-paragraph simple ruling, they took one of those Amish cases, accepted CERT, immediately reversed what the Second Circuit did, which was the Second Circuit allowed for all of us vaccine mandates without regard to religious objections to take place.
And they said we reverse this decision, and you, the Second Circuit, have to look at our LGBTQQ cases in religious school and public school context and use that standard for assessing the religious accommodation request.
What that means is the religious accommodation requests are back to being robustly enforced under the First Amendment.
So a one-paragraph ruling was a very dramatic ruling for all those who want to be able to preserve some form of bodily autonomy through religious protection under the First Amendment from these vaccine mandates.
And once again, and I think it doesn't hurt when it's the Amish.
I think there's a degree of judicial openness to second-guessing certain orthodoxies when the plaintiffs are the Amish or when the petitioners are the Amish.
And usually that doesn't happen because the Amish don't sue.
This involved a complex situation where they were able to get into court without taking that particular path.
And so we're able to get some remedy and relief.
Huge ruling for vaccine mandates and religious protection going forward.
Could have a broad-based protection because they're saying that the cases, the doctrine we've announced in these cases about curriculum implicate the same religious rights framework now for the vaccine mandates.
And that really restores First Amendment freedoms in that context.
So big, big white pill for the week.
Amazing.
And the other one there that seems to be dealing with Citizens United, this was the oral arguments in contribution caps.
First of all, I remember Citizens United.
It occurred before I was politically aware of in any meaningful sense.
Citizens United held that corporate, that you couldn't cap corporations or unions aggregating their monies to spend on political causes because it would be violative of the First Amendment.
I think I know that you like Citizens United.
My question is: how does that not circumvent the individual contribution caps?
And how does that not basically just pass the buck on the type of corruption that big spending can have in politics?
So my view is, you know, I support a large degree of transparency of where campaign funding comes from.
Beyond that, my view, the reason why I think the first, there's a constitutional analysis and a policy analysis.
I'll start with a policy analysis.
The reason why I think that campaign finance limits are counterproductive is Because what they really do, the excuse for the law currently is that there could be quid pro quo corruption with individual donors to candidates.
So capping the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate or whether a corporation or union can contribute to a candidate prohibits quid pro quo corruption, even though there's already an obligation to publicly disclose the source of all campaign funds.
The problem with that is how does it really function?
What it really does is it prevents the, it requires you to get the permission of the donor class as a class in order to campaign because it doesn't solve the problem that campaigns are very expensive in the U.S. Because we haven't changed the number of representatives in Congress for more than a century.
So people are no longer, you know, a member of Congress at the time of our founding represented people smaller than a state house district, right?
And now they represent hundreds of thousands of people.
So what happens is those districts become very expensive to campaign in.
So the problem of campaign expense doesn't change by dictating who can contribute to campaigns.
By changing who can contribute to campaigns, it basically makes you get the permission of the whole donor class.
So like, let's say I'm a Donald Trump.
I want to run for office and I have no, Elon Musk wants to back me.
That's all I need.
Elon Musk has enough money to fund the whole campaign.
I don't have to get the permission of all the oligarchs, of all the billionaires, of all the multimillionaires.
By contrast, when the law says, no, no, Elon can only give you $3,300.
Now you got to get a broad consensus of the donor class in order to have enough funds to campaign.
So that's what I've always said.
And the really corrupt rogue actors, they'll always find ways to get you campaign money.
So all this does is allow the corruption to go underground and require the corruption to be institutionalized.
That you can only run for office if you can get the donor class, a consensus of the donor class to back you.
And knowing that that will prohibit and preclude and gatekeep populist reformers and independents from being able to win office successfully.
And so that see, so that's the policy principle.
The First Amendment principle is simple.
If you can ban the, if you can say, well, we're not banning speech, we're not banning political association, we're just banning your ability to spend money on that speech.
It's the same thing as crushing the speech.
Imagine if they said you Viva can only talk about the campaign up until the point that it's worth $3,000 worth to that candidate in your public speech.
All of a sudden, they could completely prohibit you from saying 99% of what you wanted to say.
So that's why constitutionally I favor Citizens United, disagree with my campaign finance reform friends, and on the grounds of policy, but also constitutionally.
If you let the government restrict speech in the name of we're not restricting speech, we're just restricting your ability to either receive or spend money.
It's the same, it's a way to completely eviscerate the First Amendment.
I'm just trying to think of the potential pitfalls or perils of saying nobody, no single individual or corporate entity can donate more than 3,300 bucks.
It seems to me barring an act blue type money laundering system, which I guess is the real response, I don't see the downfall or the pitfalls.
You can say what you want and you can vote for who you want and you can endorse who you want, but everyone is limited, individuals or corporations, even in aggregate to $3,300 each.
I don't see how that backfires.
Oh, it was very simple because now, let's say you wanted to run for a local city council and you have one wealthy donor who supports you and you support positions that are popular in the community, but that a majority of the wealthy people would oppose.
Now that one person can't solely contribute to you.
You've got to go get a consensus of those top 10% before you're effectively allowed to run because they're all because they're all limited.
By limiting them, you empower them as a class.
In other words, by taking away the power of the individual to spend, you empower the class to control gatekeep candidates.
And that's, and I've seen this happen repeatedly.
If you look at most populist reformers, challengers, outsiders, they usually have either an unusual fundraising mechanism or they're just one or two rich people backing them.
Like Donald Trump, if he had to get the approval of the donor class to campaign and wasn't already famous, is never present in the United States.
Now, he was able to spend his own money, but let's say you had somebody backed by Elon Musk.
Elon Musk can't run for president.
But let's say you had a Thomas Massey and Elon said, I'm going to give you a billion dollars to run for office.
Then all of a sudden, his ideas, even though unpopular with the donor class as a class, now get heard by all the voters because one rich guy, it's always, you look at the history of political revolutions.
You need somebody within the elite to dissent in order for most revolutions to succeed.
You need somebody within the institutions to support the revolution for the revolution to really happen.
Very few true grassroots revolutions without somebody within the system supporting you ever end up being successful.
So the system knows this.
So the system knows our goal is to make sure that simply us having a few dissidents within the donor class won't be enough to overthrow us.
You have to get the consensus of the donor class as a class.
And the only way they get that control is by limiting campaign donations rather than uncapping them.
All right.
And in this particular case, are they going?
Hold on a second.
Let me bring this down.
Are they potentially going to overturn Citizens United or is this not going to have an impact on it?
They're trying to expand it and extend it so that there's all these crazy rules that are in place that just make it complicated for state parties to coordinate.
And their point is the theories behind this being free speech protected should eliminate all these other sort of Byzantine rules that are designed to promote effectively the donor class as a class's interest.
So I think not only they're not going to overturn Citizens United, I think they're going to extend it and expand it so that you have less of these procedural barriers and donor class gatekeeping control to campaigns going forward.
Okay.
Robert, let me just read a couple more of the chats here.
We got Krim or Katrin Bach says, where did I get this?
Absolutely every successful peasants' revolt has had some elite support.
And then we've got Howard the Duke, who says, let me maximize my screen here.
Thanks for Viva Fry, Robert Browns with a Christmas discount, just re-upped for 2026.
Best value in the taco sphere.
Keep up the good work.
Then there was Dominic after Dominion after dark, who says, Viva, the amendment is cruel and unusual.
The punishment can't be both.
It's okay to be cruel or it's okay to be unusual.
And put Anton's meat in your mouth from Bill Dong USA.
All right.
What do we move on to now?
We've got big tech in contempt.
We've got the Maryland Mann out and out.
We got the Parolyn, the Pentagon trans ban, at least momentarily upheld.
We've got the utter disaster that's coming with the Euro clear.
That's going to be lead to litigation literally around the world.
It's going to be fascinating to watch.
We've got doctor liability for a drug when they prescribe something for their patient and there's a foreseeable injury.
Is the doctor on the hook for it?
That has all kinds of interesting potential.
We've got the Ferrari, Tennessee tax case, a class action against AI and healthcare.
And yeah, and then what does AI own?
So the combination of interesting little cases, just pick and choose whatever you want.
All right.
And we're going to move it over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com sooner than later.
But Robert, let's start with the Maryland man because I have a video on the backdrop that I wanted to bring up.
And it's quite amazing.
I'm not good enough at the meme game.
I was going to do like a contrast, you know, do the Che Guevara face with this guy's face on it now.
It was Benny Johnson who said, released MS-13 Terrorist Kilmar Albrego Garcia, wages war against the Trump administration.
I will continue to fight the injustices of this government.
And I observed he's wearing the Chicago Bulls, not the Red Bulls.
He's wearing the Chicago Bulls hat.
And some people are saying, Viva, what does that mean?
It doesn't necessarily mean anything definitive, except to say that when he was arrested, one of the pieces of evidence that they cited was a Chicago Bulls hat, which is known to be an MS-13 type devil horns thing.
He's got tats on his fingers, which don't say MS-13.
It says smiley face marijuana symbol, whatever.
That sort of alliterates into MS-13.
Such an incriminating tattoo on his hand that his wife, in an Instagram picture, bleeped them out.
She censored them when she posted a picture.
The man has been arrested.
He's been deported.
He's been brought back.
He's released and he decides to wear the Chicago Bulls hat as an act of defiance.
It was either his handlers who told him to do it or not.
Robert, he got a preemptive injunction in joining ICE from detaining him again.
And I don't understand how this can possibly, I guess to some extent, he's not a flight risk because he fought tooth and nail to come back.
So he's not a flight risk, but he got a federal preemptive injunction in joining ICE from redetaining him.
And I don't understand how that's possibly legal.
And I'll try to, hopefully, you could not convince me, but just make me believe that it's not absolute judicial insanity.
Well, it's happening the same week that Judge Boseberg is trying to breach attorney client privilege and hold the whole Trump administration in contempt for simply following the law when he demanded they reverse course and bring terrorists and murderers and rapists that are here illegally in the first place back into the country.
So in the in Tel Aviv, Ted Cruz too busy worried about Bibi Nanyahu to do his job and get Judge Boseberg impeached.
For the love of the good Lord, will they impeach somebody?
It's like just legally, will they arrest somebody?
I mean, the Democrats are already preparing to impeach pretty much everybody in the whole Trump administration.
And as soon as they get back control of the House, which the inept handling of the last six months of American politics by the Republican Party has made more likely than not at the moment.
So, what are Democrats?
What are Republicans doing?
Can't they impeach this rogue judge?
This is a judge who authorized illegal spying on the Senate, authorized illegal spying on the House, was nicked deep in Russian gate corruption, was nicked deep in multiple examples of other forms of corruption, of weaponization of the political system, including immigration, but not limited to it.
And he, along with his other buddies and pals, think they should override the president.
You had in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
They were trying to say that if the president cuts a deal, any president cuts a deal with the judicial branch and does one of these consent decrees.
They love these consent decrees because it's a way to circumvent the entire political process.
And they've been doing it for forever.
They did it in the election context in 2020.
They did it in other cases.
And what they did in the immigration context is the Biden administration cuts a sweetheart fake deal consent agreement that basically says, we'll go to you judges before we do any of these deportations.
They're really, it's a fake case to give usurp judicial control over the executive branch.
And you had judges saying, oh, you can't even enforce, you can't even arrest him.
You can't even detain him because our consent decree now gives us constitutional control.
Let me ask you one other thing.
In this case, it said as one of the rationales that the window within which to deport him, because he had a deportation order six years ago or whatever, but it was a 90-day window.
And the second they don't deport within the 90 days, it no longer applies.
And he is now basically allowed to stay or even judicially protected to stay.
So deport within 90 days, failing which it's a de facto authorization to stay.
I mean, here's the thing.
As I've debated with these people with family and friends early on in this case, when they said, oh, he has a right to this, and then I was like, tell me how was he ever here legally?
He was never here lawfully, never here lawfully.
Didn't come in on a visa, didn't come on anything else.
He's never been here lawfully.
And yet federal judges are preventing his arrest and detention and deportation.
Even though it's undisputed, Maryland man has never been here lawfully.
Now, the fact Democrats picked him as their symbol is even more problematic because you're talking about a guy with clear gang ties.
The hats and other things he's wearing are affiliations with gang ties.
Allegedly.
The fact he, but he knows that people perceive him wearing a bull's hat as a Maryland man.
Chicago Bulls aren't in Maryland.
That he was sending a signal to who he's part of right at that press conference, right?
So this is not, this guy has been criminally federally indicted for human trafficking.
This is a guy who they found kiddie porn on his computers.
This is a guy who's been found to domestically assault his girlfriends and wives.
So this is a guy who should have been arrested and imprisoned years ago when he got caught in Tennessee during the Biden administration smuggling humans into the country.
So you've got a gangbanger, a kiddie porn guy with human smuggling history and wife beating tendencies.
And this is who the federal judges say.
Once somebody breaks into your house, they get to stay there.
It's illogical.
It doesn't follow the constitutional law.
But all these judges are going to keep acting insane until and unless Congress starts impeaching them.
Because just like Comey is unafraid of this Justice Department, all the other rogue corrupt actors are unafraid of the Justice Department or Congress because they don't take action even when they have them dead to rights.
The question that I had, actually, let me bring this up here.
I'm trying to see if I can get it.
I'm not going to be able to find it.
Darn it.
I wanted to make sure that the federal charges for trafficking were still pending against him.
I want to blame Bondi somehow for this.
Is there anyone who's to blame for how he was brought back to the country?
Or is there anyone to blame for how they've not been able to enforce federal immigration law and how rogue judges have been thumbing their nose at the at the at the DOJ?
It seems like they didn't have an affirmative plan in advance for when the judicial branch went rogue to deal with this.
Now, the other problem with this is all of this ever started out because they had Biden holdovers prosecuting major cases like this one.
And it was that Biden holdover prosecutor who incorrectly told the court he had been improperly sent ordered to deported to the wrong place.
Not that there was any disagreement about his right to be deported, but rather that where he was going to be deported.
And in fact, it appears that the lawyer who represented that represented that incorrectly, but was a Biden-era holdover in the Justice Department because they didn't come in in clean house.
They had to come in and clean house, personnel-wise, and they had to come in and make institutional change from policy down.
And when they didn't do that, they set themselves up for constant continuous sabotage.
And unfortunately, I think Trump prioritized not loyalty to MAGA, but loyalty to him.
And so he picked a lot of people who didn't have the skill set or the courage to be able to go forward and do the kind of reforms.
And now we're stuck with this, but it's also highlighting how rogue the judicial branch is.
So part of it's on Pam Bondi, part of it's on Christy Gnome.
Most of it is on rogue federal judges.
And then some of it's on the Republicans in Congress taking no remedial action against these rogue judges.
And I just double-checked the federal human trafficking charges still pending.
The wife beating is on an affidavit filed by his wife.
And there are suggestions or allegations that he was soliciting nudes from a minor on his cell phone.
And this is the man who's been the poster child now.
Make his face like Che Guevara.
Kill Marabrego Garcia, the man the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail for.
Robert, I don't know what's going on in Europe with the Clear Act.
So fill me in, Phyllis Olin as to what's going on and what the risks are about this.
So EuroClear is a financial institution that basically helps literally clear transactions involving the Euro that has a lot of sovereign stored debt money with them.
So that a lot of foreign governments have money on deposit with Euroclear at some part of the world.
The European Union has frozen those funds now.
Essentially, Russia had over somewhere around $200 billion worth of funds in Euroclear at the time of February 2022 when the special military operation with the conflict between the war between Russia and Ukraine began.
And so the reaction of Europe was to try to wage economic war on Russia.
And part of that was to seize assets sitting in these bank accounts.
Now, they had no legal basis to do so beyond them just declaring something as a policy of the European Union to freeze funds.
That doesn't give them the right to seize those funds.
And there's an argument that doesn't give them the right to freeze the funds either.
They've also seized a bunch of people's money on the grounds those people are Russian.
So all of it was insane from the get-go.
So EuroClear is based in Belgium, one of these big clearinghouse financial institutions that has a lot of other people's money in it.
And what the European Europe wants to do, the European leaders want to do is they want to keep the Ukraine war afloat.
They want to keep the grift going, as Alex Christoforu of the Duran would say.
And they're worried that that will all collapse if Trump actually gets out of Ukraine or forces Ukraine to sign a peace deal that is very beneficial to Ukraine with Russia.
So they're panicking, and there's already money apparently they've taken from these accounts that is unaccounted for, hasn't been reimbursed.
Remember that Ukraine is currently under a massive corruption exposure, be hundreds of millions, billions of dollars being wasted, which we said was going to happen from day one if you knew Ukraine.
But you're talking about literally golden toilets, spending your taxpayer dollars on golden toilets in Ukraine when they're not busy driving fancy cars to Monaco with their mistresses.
So, you know, Ukraine is one big human trafficking, money laundering, inhumane grift source of bioweapons and potential World War III all wrapped into one.
And so Europe is nervous about that the grift will end with all their pals and buddies being able to make money off of this operation that is Project Ukraine.
And so they want guaranteed money independent of the U.S.
And they want to accelerate that before some peace deal could happen.
And so they decided, well, why don't we just lend money using Russia's assets?
Be like me getting money using your house.
And there's like, okay, this isn't legal.
But the major financial institutions, including even the European Bank, is like, we're not getting near this with a 10-foot pole.
The Belgians come out and say, look, this is patently illegal.
You're just going to seize all these assets without any legal basis.
And you're just going to make it up.
And then to give you an idea of how these bureaucratic types think, the Vanderland or Vanderkrazy or Vandermath, depending on what nickname you choose on a given day, has come out and said, what European court would enforce any of these rules against us?
What does that tell you about how the court systems really are?
Here you have the head of the EU admitting every single court system in Europe is so corrupt, it will not enforce the law on a political matter like this.
So that tells you if you have your money or your assets or your resources in Europe, get out now.
Because if they ever decide you're politically disliked, they'll be quicker than the Soviet Union at stealing everything you ever had.
It's effectively, it's exactly what they did in Canada in terms of freezing bank accounts and unilaterally depriving people of their assets.
It's okay.
Well, stay the hell out of Europe, people.
Well, Robert, Europe.
Sorry, go ahead.
Oh, I was going to say, so the latest scheme is they were extending these sanctions every six months because they're always temporary.
Now they passed, the rule is it has to be unanimous.
So they are pretending, guess what powers they're using to suddenly circumvent all the treaties and EU laws.
So it's no longer unanimous because Hungary doesn't support continuing these sanctions, totally opposes any seizure.
Italy opposes the seizure.
Czech Republic opposes the seizure, poses the sanctions.
They've now made the sanctions indefinite.
They've said they're temporarily suspended indefinitely.
Isn't that great?
So it's temporarily permanent or permanently temporary.
But guess what their excuse, what powers they cited for all this?
I'm going to say emergency powers, but I'm not sure how they're going to.
Oh.
Exactly right.
The emergency powers, the beast that comes to consume all constitutional liberties.
They're using that to say now that it's permanent.
And now in order to undo the sanctions, everybody has to be unanimous.
So they lied to everybody to get them to do the sanctions in the first place, are reversing the order in violation of their own EU protocols, laws, policies, procedures, treaties, et cetera.
But Belgium's like, look, you can't do this to us because Russia can sue us because there's a bunch of treaties that Belgium has with Russia that are trade treaties going back to the 90s and 80s that say if you steal their sovereign assets, they can go to arbitration.
And not only will you owe them the amount of their sovereign assets that you took from them, you also owe them a bunch of interest and other things.
The other problem for Euro, but so they're basically just going to screw Belgium.
And they're saying other countries are going to repay it somehow in the future without their capacity to repay.
So Russia's already suing and they're suing all kinds of places because this was the other thing von der Land seemed to not understand the math of, even though she was blatantly saying our European courts are so corrupt, they'll never challenge the European Union or any action that we take, no matter how illegal.
The problem for Euroclear is they've got assets of a bunch of countries around the world on deposit, and they're physically located in countries around the world.
They're located in China.
They're located, in fact, in part in Russia.
They're located in Indonesia.
They're located in Singapore.
They're located in all kinds of places.
And so what Russia is likely to do is to sue them everywhere under these arbitration or local laws.
And those countries are, and Euroclear has enough assets that ultimately they're going to have to pay the Russians.
And Russians are probably going to profit from all of this because it proves to the world Europe is untrustworthy.
Don't have your assets there.
You need to have bricks, independent mechanisms of doing, of storing wealth, of transferring wealth, of doing and clearing transactions globally outside of the Western system because they'll weaponize it to steal it anytime they want.
Look at just what happened.
So Russia gets a big win there.
Second, Russia is probably going to get a big win in being able to get this money back plus some because Euroclear has assets in all kinds of jurisdictions that will recognize and enforce these judgments, regardless of whatever Europe does.
And then last but not least, Russia benefited from all this anyway because they've been stockpiling gold since 2014.
So knowing that when their money got stolen, knowing that it would probably happen, and this is probably why they left it there.
People always wonder, why did they have this much money sitting in European accounts?
I think it was because they saw this coming and knew they could play it the right way.
They could likely get it all back at the end anyway.
They could likely destabilize confidence in the global financial infrastructure that has become a threat when it's politically weaponized by these neoliberal and neoconservative nitwits.
And that would empower BRICS as a functional system independent of the entire Western financial architecture.
And then, but most importantly, because they bought gold, then when their money was frozen, it panicked investors and people around the world.
So what happens when that happens often?
Gold price goes way up.
They did a calculation.
Just the increase in the value of Russia's gold from the action of Europe seizing Russia's other monies was worth more than the amount of money that they seized in the first place.
So, but it's a very, it shows you that they've completely lost their mind in Europe.
The U.S. is right to want to divorce Europe.
And this is further evidence of it because now Europe is a place to not do business, not have your money, not store wealth.
This is going to be disastrous for Europe long term.
Destroy credibility in the city of London.
Destroy credibility in European financial centers.
City of London survives based on all of this.
And it is a earth, it is a world-changing event, this what they are doing, but it's to their own self-destruction long term.
I didn't realize gold was back up to its historical highs.
That's actually amazing.
Gold safe exchange people.
Link in the description.
Get some gold today.
Robert, you know what else tends to appreciate as fast as gold?
Fancy cars every now and again.
Whistling in diesel is going to be the not-so-smooth segue.
Everyone, start making your way over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I'm not going to pull up the video.
Whistling diesel, there was a video that went viral a little while ago of this YouTuber who does funny things to fancy cars on his YouTube channel getting arrested, hauled off in cuffs in Tennessee.
And I didn't really understand.
You see somebody getting arrested?
You sort of, your default response is they must have done something.
I remember reading some comments at the time that this was about buying a luxury vehicle out of state to circumvent the luxury vehicle tax in state in Tennessee.
And I'm like, how the hell does that get somebody arrested in the first place?
And I'm not missing.
So that is the breaking news.
Now, Whistling and Diesel announced, confirmed that he was arrested originally.
No phone call, no nothing to try to work it out because he bought a Ferrari, I forget what it was called, the type of Ferrari, out of state, destroyed it in state, even though the car spent most of its time out of state.
And they arrested him for circumventing the luxury car tax in the state of Tennessee.
What am I missing?
And why is this insane?
It's insane because I've never seen this before.
So all the states try to impose their consumption taxes on high-end items such that it's always a constant debate.
So like in California is the big one.
FTB is always harassing people over where is your boat?
Where is your car?
Where is your plane?
Some of these high-end, high-row, high-end people.
And they have to go through extended negotiations with it because the question is to what, you know, a state has an authority within its state and of the citizens of that state.
But what, you know, to what extent are they actually trying to tax another state's products or another state's property?
And that's where you get the constitutional clash that can occur.
Either way, I've never heard of somebody getting arrested over this in Tennessee.
So somebody's got a burr up there, Ritter, for about this guy, clearly.
Robert, up in Canada, just to give you an idea as to the luxury tax, we had a Ford Explorer, and I think it cost $45,000 at the time.
That was a luxury item.
We had to pay an additional, it was either 1%, I think it was, we had to pay an additional luxury tax on a freaking Ford Explorer.
Not that it's not a good card, it was a good card.
But hold on, let me bring this one up here.
This says, P. Hans says, Whistle Diesel also has billed a killjozer and wanted to park it outside the court.
I'm not sure if that's a joke, but not a good one.
But I mean, it's crazy because A, why not call and why not arrange things first?
This is over $40,000.
And what is the criteria?
If you buy a car and it spends more than six months out of state, if you bring it in, I know all the New York plates that I see in Florida, are they subject to New York laws?
Wait, hold on.
Are they subject to Florida law or New York law for vehicle taxes?
It gets complicated.
And essentially, the state authorities are always trying to expand their authority and define.
And they play a lot of games with what's residency, what's not residency, what's location, what's not location.
California is the most robust developed law on this because there's been, because the big state, because they love to tax these things, because they get into huge disputes with people all the time over them, over these big ticket items.
And usually it goes with a civil process.
I've very rarely seen it go the criminal process.
So I don't know what the backstory is that they and I have them arrested.
I mean, this is a relatively small amount of tax that's at issue here.
So I something, there's some backstory here I don't know.
Or we've got some Tennessee people that have lost their mind because there's a way to address it through the civil audit process.
And the civil collection process doesn't require criminal when you're just disagreeing about where he located the vehicle and whether its location triggers the ability of the state to disproportionately tax it.
I'm going to preface this joke by saying it's a joke.
Whistling Diesel is a good-looking young man.
He kind of looks like Aaron Paul.
He might have, you know, had a relations with the daughter of one of these sheriffs, and that's it.
It's retribution.
I'm joking.
That's a joke, people.
Over on CommiTube, Wellesley says Bondi is responsible for the crazy going on the right.
She has created a vacuum with the lack of justice.
The vacuum has been filled with crazy stuff.
I don't disagree with that.
And we got Eddie Gallagher Seal has a video on who Crenshaw is, and I don't know what that video is or what it's about.
Robert, what do we move on to now before we take the party on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com?
Yeah, we got about three to four topics left.
We got the big tech contempt.
We got the Pentagon wins the trans ban, at least so far.
Doctor liability for patients' drugs, a class action against AI and healthcare.
And what does AI actually own?
Let me do this.
You know, let's do the trans ban.
I'm going to get a link to the locals.
I'm going to raid the next chat before we even get into the trans ban being stayed.
That is to say, being allowed.
Before we get into that, Robert, what are your plans for the upcoming week and where are we going to find you?
So tonight I've got an event.
They're doing some sort of Maha event, and I forgot they had scheduled it on Sunday.
So that's why we had the earlier show today.
And then right now, even though I've asked for a continuance because there's a range of reasons, but I don't know whether I'll get it or not because California state court system is so kind of behind.
I may be on the road tomorrow in California, Tuesday, might be up in Pennsylvania, then might get down to Arizona for the Amfest.
That's a turning points event.
First one they've done since Charlie's death.
Richard Barris was going to be there.
Mark Meadows is going to be there.
A range of others are going to be there.
So I might be there for that event.
But it's all kind of in flux this week because there's two or three court cases I may have to appear in, may not have to appear in, don't know yet.
And that will sort of dictate and shape the schedule for the week.
All right.
And from my end, should be live all day this week, all day next week.
Gonna try to schedule some interviews, but there might be some other stuff that might get in the way.
We'll see what happens.
Robert, we'll do the last one here while I'll set it up.
You'll follow up and I'm going to find someone to raid the ban on trans people with gender dysphoria in the military.
Heg Seth's Secretary of War, the Trump administration, implements this new policy.
It gets challenged.
The lower court says pending the adjudication of this lawsuit, there's going to be a stay on the prohibition of members with gender, of people with gender dysphoria participating in the military in what capacity is one of the questions.
And now there's been a stay of the stay so the policy can be implemented while they run it through the courts because they basically say we need to show deference to the military of the Secretary of War machine who knows what's best.
And this is, you know, they know what's best in terms of who is best to serve.
But so there's going to be a stay on the stay, meaning you can implement the ban pending the full adjudication.
Is there anything more to this case?
No, no, that's pretty much it.
But at least, well, it was two to one.
It should have been clear.
But the fact they're having to even fight this out, that they have the right within the Pentagon to not have trans, not have to deal with the trans issue or give special treatment to trans issues, which has never made sense to me.
At least we're finally restoring some balance.
But it's because there were two Trump appointees, I believe, with the majority, because the Liberal Democrats still dissented.
I mean, the judicial branch in the power under the hands of either the institutional left or the institutional right has proven to not be able to protect constitutional liberty and will weaponize their power anytime they can these days for their politicized aims.
And the fact that this even had to go through the legal system is evidence of that because there's no particular trans right to participate in the Pentagon or in the military.
And there's a lot of evidence for those that don't recognize it that, you know, it wasn't a huge shock that Trantifa was involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Tyler Robinson this week was in court.
There was a range of discussion about what he said.
There was various lip reading exercises.
What's interesting is then Candace Owens comes out and says she knows what the lawyers were saying, what the lawyers were thinking, et cetera.
And it's like, hmm, only way you would know that, unless you're just making it up, which is always possible with Candace Owens, of course, because we've gone through like, it was either the pop gun or the drone gun or the Egyptians or the Israelis or the French or the French Foreign Legion or, you know, who knows who's next?
You know, a group of bees or something.
I mean, there's been one insane, nutty thing that Candace has said from one to the next.
But she was out there saying, oh, totally rebutting what, because what the lip reader said was more acknowledgement for people that still don't know the backstory.
Tyler Robinson was identified as the person who was on that building and rained from that building after the shot was taken with Charlie Kirk with video showing him going up on the building, video of him in position to bring the shot, video of him hiding the gun under a towel, running off.
They later found the gun.
It was the gun his grandfather gave him.
They found his fingerprints and his DNA all over the place.
It was his mom who identified him from a public photo.
He admitted it to his mom, admitted it to his dad, admitted it to a friend, admitted it to his partner, admitted it to people on his Discord community, all of which Tyler Robinson admitted.
And apparently in court, according to people who are doing the lip reading, because of where the camera was unusually close to him, you don't normally see that.
The judge allowed a camera to roam in the courthouse.
That's inside the courtroom, as far as I can tell.
They'll probably control that going forward because that camera was too close to the defense table.
But it appeared to him saying, acknowledging again that he had done the murder.
And so Candace Owens rushes out to say that, oh, no, he couldn't have done it.
And she knows what really happened.
And so the first thing was, how does she know the defense lawyers?
Unless she's Candace Owens is working for the defense to help the murderer of Charlie Kirk escape justice.
That's what she's doing.
And now there's evidence that she's conspiring with them because either she's lying and making up this statement or the defense is feeding her inside information to try to influence the jury.
And if it's information that's not legally admissible, that's precisely what they are prohibited from doing is to try to influence the jury with inadmissible information.
And that maybe Candace Owens is facilitating and enabling that knowingly on the behalf of the defense lawyers.
Not sure.
There needs to be an investigation into what's taking place in that regard.
But she was desperate to say that, oh, it's all this.
She even said that she's now trying to set up that they're going to try to murder Tyler Robinson.
She's like twice the vehicle on the way there.
There was like a fender bed or something unusual on the way to the courthouse.
Except the prior courthouse appearances he had were remote.
They weren't at the courthouse.
So how did this happen before?
And why is there no other public report of this that confirms any of this?
So, I mean, it appears she's just making up more information because she's clearly a clickbait whore is what it is.
I mean, she feeds, she needs it and needs it and needs more and because she's a lunatic.
This is why Tim Poole went off on her this week.
Some people are tired of it.
She's now attacking Erica Kirk, said, Oh, if Eric Kirk tells me to stop, I'll stop.
Eric Kirk says, Please stop, please stop, please stop.
What does Candice Owens do?
More and more, more and more.
Robert, do you know what people's defense in response to that was?
She said, they said Erica Kirk said, stop lying.
They didn't say stop talking.
And so Candace isn't lying so she can continue talking.
One thing is, I didn't comment on it publicly because I mean, on the one hand, you don't need to chime in on everything.
And also, I don't want people thinking like I'm now on team Candace anti-TPUSA.
The New York Post alleged transcription of what, you know, the lip reading.
Told, Sam, I mean, I couldn't put that together.
I would never have put that together.
I don't believe that that's what they were saying.
I've seen some fact-checking saying, you know, what they said, he's been spending all day smoking and they say the Utah facility is a non-smoking facility.
So I don't believe that.
It is very weird, though, that they could have even gotten that close, audible range to the lawyer.
He looked whatever he did say, he had a smug smile on his face.
For even if he's innocent, that's not the type of demeanor you have under the circumstances.
But what do I know in terms of the normal response?
Speaking of which, the people who predicted his facial demeanor and disposition were the body language folks.
They said, look, these people that feel proud of what they did in these kind of murders, like you go back and look at Luigi in New York, very proud, boastful kind of image, smug.
He goes, watch, Tyler Robinson will have the same thing.
And in fact, of course, he did.
Everyone he's been, he's been very smug because he's proud of what he did.
And the Tran Tifa movie, and there's all these confusions out there.
People like the FBI is running this case.
The FBI is not running this case.
This case is run by the local county DA.
This is a local state case.
This is not an FBI case, despite Kash Patel running around pretending he was running things at the beginning of the case.
So be like, oh, you just trust what the FBI says.
I'm not relying on anything the FBI said.
I'm relying on other evidence that's publicly admitted.
His mom was right there with him in the courtroom.
According to Candace Owens, she's complicit in the cover-up.
Father's complicit in the cover-up.
Local friends are complicit in the cover-up.
Everybody's complicit in a crazy cover-up.
If you're wearing a maroon shirt, you're probably connected to it.
So it's just one insane thing after the next.
And she goes like queuing on on steroids is Queen Candace.
But the other issue was Wolves in Finance and some other people have put out utterly false information about Turning Point's financials that these people don't understand at all.
I mean, in Wolves in Finance case, he flat out lied about some things.
And it was found by one of our board members who, you know, who actually trusted the initial report.
And like one of the things he did is he goes, oh, I went to the address where some of the turning point places are registered.
And it's a strip ball.
There's no business.
This must be totally fake.
Of course, it's called using a mail drop, loser.
And then he lied about the UPS being present as the mail drop.
So, I mean, people are willing, they see the clickbait fame that Candace Owens is accumulating.
Now, she's going to accumulate it for the purposes of giving all that money to the Macrons down the road.
But putting that aside, what these other people are doing is they're putting out totally false information.
There was nothing about Turning Point's finances that were unusual at all.
They were completely consistent.
Like the guy trying to make a big deal.
He's like, turning point action in 2024 suddenly gets all of this money.
Were they trying to hide it from Charlie?
No, Turning Point Action was their get out the vote operation.
So, of course, they took in a bunch more money in 2024.
So they're trying to attack this.
The people at Turning Point are a bunch of young people for the most part.
Overwhelmingly.
Nice people, well-intended, et cetera.
And Candace has been waging war on them month after month after month, like she's done multiple other people.
Candace Owens is the queen of libel.
She has a long litany of libeling people.
But I don't know if libeling Tim Poole was the best idea.
Well, I took a little flack on a response, which I wasn't anticipating, and then it causes me to take a step back and reflect.
First of all, I'm done with Candace as well.
It's so awful.
It borders on evil exploitation and harassing a grieving widow with these outlandish theories.
And now she's backtracked a little bit and says Tyler Robinson couldn't have acted alone.
It's like, well, that's one hell of a big concession because now you've admitted that he's implicated in some way.
But, you know, someone's in a reply said, yeah, I've been flagging all of Candace's videos as harassment.
And I said, well, don't, I mean, I think that's abuse of the flagging process.
But then someone says, no, Viva, I mean, what she's basically doing is a campaign of harassment against TPUSA and Erica Kirk.
I'm not convinced, but I mean, what's your take on whether or not this borders on, if not criminal harassment, because I don't think it does, you know, terms of service harassment on social media platforms.
I mean, I think she's operating under the libel proof theory that basically that her real wealth, she married into the British royalty, basically.
I mean, a guy that's a British father's father's, he's a baron and his father's a British lord.
She married him like, I think, three weeks after meeting him.
He proposed to her, apparently online.
I mean, there's all kinds of weird things about it.
Now, there's rumors about his particular set of preferences.
And what's interesting is Candace wrote an article back in the day saying how smart it would be for a married woman to marry a rich gay man.
So maybe that's what happened.
Just asking questions, as the Candace supporters like to say.
So she's financially immune from suit, effectively, right?
I mean, whatever is in her separate amount of money that's coming in currently, all these super chats, et cetera, the Macrons can get that.
But they'll be first in line for a judgment.
So the issue becomes that nobody could sue Candace for libel because she's effectively judgment proof because the Macrons are going to bankrupt whatever she can get.
And whatever's in her husband's name is not subject to likely collection in these cases.
But I think she libeled.
I mean, she libeled Tim Poole about based, she has a habit of making these really dumb libels.
Like, you know, she says, oh, Tim Poole says that his brother shot at him and he was scared.
And Tim Poole never said any such thing.
She's made it up.
I mean, she just combines various nonsense and throws it together and just makes it up.
And you know, she's feeling or whatever it is.
But I think it there's no question she's trying to harass and destroy the entire legacy, in my opinion, of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point.
The only question is whether she's doing it deliberately or not, but clearly the effect of it.
And she called for people to stop giving donations to Turning Point.
She called for people to take back their money from Turning Point.
She said every ranking officials in Turning Point are implicated in corruption and potentially the murder of Charlie Kirk.
To believe after all the other libels she's told and said.
But so the uh uh yeah, I think that what she's doing is way beyond the pale, and she should be continuously and consistently called out for it.
And hopefully, we don't have to spend much more time on it.
But she's pushing herself into the center of attention because that's who she is.
Yeah, and I would say that that's that's the borderline tortious interference with business contracts, which is interfering with third-party contracts on the basis of a tortious lie.
When it came to Tim Poole, and another one where people like Viva, she didn't say Tim Poole beat, you know, loses money at poker and beats his wife.
He just said, she just said he's acting like someone who loses money at poker and beats his wife.
And I'm like, that's as stupid of a distinction as saying, I didn't call him a pedophile.
I just said he's acting like a pedophile.
I didn't say he rapes young children.
I just said he's acting like someone who rapes young children.
Your accusation implies the act.
He's acting like someone who goes up, loses money at poker, and then beats his wife.
You're saying he's implying and suggesting he does that.
And I said, that's my line in the sand.
I'm done.
Go on.
I don't think you're going to lose your MacCon suit, Robert, despite what you say.
But I'm done listening to it.
And I said I was done giving attention to it, but I guess we're going to end that sooner than later here.
Do we head over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com?
We've got to?
When can a doctor be liable for the drugs he gives his patients?
If the patient does something, not because it causes injury to the patient, but because the patient, while on those medications, causes harm to somebody else, when is that a foreseeable harm and the future of AI already in litigation?
Is there's class actions concerning AI'S uh health care uh and, and whether AI is giving bad information and intel and the healthcare services like they have in the legal services and elsewhere.
Uh plus, what does AI even own uh?
That debate is ongoing in a wide range of legal circles, but uh, we'll answer all of the super chat questions uh over at Vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Now, I'm going to go raid.
It's going to be a Bitcoin show, and he's going to have no idea why so many people are coming in.
We're going to go make someone's day right now because it's early in the afternoon and there's not.
Let me see who else is.
It's either gaming.
We'll do a Bitcoin thing and it'll help.
Hold on, let me put on applause here.
So everyone get over to viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Everyone, if you're interested in crypto, go listen to who are we doing here?
His name is Bitcoin News Alerts.
So check it out.
There's nothing more appropriate, guys.
So enjoy and come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I'll be live all week, three o'clock.
And that's it.
While we make the transition, I'm going to do one more thing, which was to read a couple of chats.
Her husband is part of the production company, so maybe his wealth can come into play.
Interesting.
And let me just read a couple of the remaining commie tube chats while I open the window and close this.
It says, Illinois passes legal assisted suicide.
That's from John 10 for a $5 rumble rant.
And Sparky6086 says most people in politics nowadays don't worry about issues and just parrot the last-minute direction they receive from an aide before speaking in public or in an interview without thinking.
And Sparky6086 follows it up with, It's why real estate guy is seemingly oblivious to how ridiculous he sounds pushing a 50-year mortgage.
Now, Robert, my fat fingers are not enabling me to get over here.
We're going to end it.
We're going to update this and we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and get to the remaining there.
Everyone else who's not coming, Godspeed.
And I'm saving the God bless for our locals community.