All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 4, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
02:38:06
Ep. 298: Maduro "Captured"! Lawful Arrest, Or Illegal Act of War? Jan. 6. Patise Detained & MORE!

Support Viva: GET MERCH! www.vivafrei.com BUY A BOOK! https://amzn.to/4qBXikS SEND ME SOMETHING! David Freiheit 20423 SR 7 Ste F6319 Boca Raton 33498 TIP WITH CTYPTO! bc1qt0umnqna63pyw5j8uesphsfz0dyrtmqcq5ugwm THAT IS ALL!

|

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, tonight's intro video comes with the warning: if you have recently eaten and you are easy to make throw up, you may want to turn down the volume or turn off your computer entirely.
I watched Sean's Ryan's podcast with Hunter Biden, and I have to say this now: it was indeed repulsive, but not for the reasons everyone thinks.
I will present to you sociopathic narcissism pathology, the dark triad, as Jordan Peterson calls it, Hunter Biden, in his own words.
Behold, look, we should all have a common enemy.
And the truth of the matter is, it's not any politician or federal government worker.
Who's benefiting right now?
Who?
You know, whether the Democrats are in control of Congress or whether the Republicans are, who ultimately seems to be benefiting?
Well, they tell you who's not benefiting.
Not normal people.
Yeah.
Not regular guys, not the guys you serve with, not the guys that I went to high school with, not the, you know, nobody that I know.
You know, the people that are benefited are the people that seem to always some way avoid the consequences and win.
The people who have benefited from all of this are the people who seem to have avoided the consequences and win.
And he doesn't realize he's talking about himself.
And that's, you know, the 0.1%.
And it's not even the 1% anymore.
I mean, it's like literally the, you know, and I'm not saying, you know, oh, billionaires are evil.
I'm not saying that.
I promise you.
But I am saying that from my vantage point, we are all the victims of the algorithms that they have cased us in.
Okay.
First of all, you have to appreciate a little bit of the irony that in the backdrop of a man who was a crackhead, whatever cokehead, raging drug addict, you have an open bar behind him.
That might have been, could have changed the decor for this particular interview.
Listening to this felt like listening to Joe Biden, but a little less senile, but more cracked out.
You remember that scene from Boogeynights when Roller Girl and Julianne Moore are in the room doing Coke and they're like just having this psychotic rantings with each other?
That's what it felt like listening to Hunter Biden during this interview.
A lot of people were giving Sean Ryan grief for not being harder on Hunter Biden, for not pushing back.
You can do that.
My analysis of it, which I shared over in our Viva Barnes law.locals.com community and on X, is that you make strategic decisions depending on who you're interviewing.
And sometimes you might have made the strategic decision that if you push back on a man like Hunter Biden, you might cause the individual to turtle up and the interview will be over.
Or if you stop and say, hold on, Hunter Biden, we're in algorithms that are making us fight with each other.
And who wins?
Not even the 1%, the 0.1%, the people who seem to always get away with it and enrich themselves and win.
It's like, Hunter, you like, if I had, if it were me there, I would have paused and said, you know, like, Hunter, you're talking about yourself.
No, you could be a little bit more easy with it and say, Hunter, would you appreciate that some people might suggest this is you that you're describing, who has gotten away with a life of debauchery, criminality, and has benefited from all of this.
Nobody might have asked him that, but anyhow, it was a um, it was painful to listen to the amount of times in that interview that Hunter Biden said, anyway.
I mean, it was like listening to Joe Biden earlier on in his career.
If you go back to Joe Biden's speeches, he even has the same shrill, sort of nasally pitch to his voice, which, you know, as Joe got more and more demented, it got a little bit lower in his guttural chest.
It's pathological.
It is outright pathological, and it was frustrating to listen to.
And it was not value added in terms of anything other than revealing what an absolute sociopath.
Hunter Biden is.
I would like to know if there was any improper parenting, to put it mildly.
I suspect there might have been.
I would like to know where all of this trauma comes from.
Not everybody who becomes a drug addict has had trauma in their childhood, and not everybody who has had childhood in their trauma in their childhood grows on to have addiction problems.
You know, but things have certain tendencies, and abuse begets abuse.
And as they say, hurt people, hurt people.
For anybody who doesn't know, yes, it was on the Sean Ryan show.
Maybe I didn't make that sufficiently clear.
That was Hunter on the Sean Ryan show.
So that, we start off with something light before we get into the heaviness of tonight's show.
This is our first show of the year 2026.
And it's going to take some time for all of us to get used to saying 2026.
Happy New Year, everybody.
How goes the battle?
I found an old shirt.
The honesty troll.
I now understand what it means.
It means being honest.
Even when you troll, I didn't actually design this one.
This one was designed way back in the day.
But it's a good shirt.
Plus, it's nice and fresh because I have never worn it.
Happy New Year, everybody.
It's going to be one hell of a show tonight.
For those who are new to the channel, you guys know Viva Fry, David Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumbler.
We are live across all platforms right now.
We are on Rumble, where if we go see what's going on in the chat on the Rumble, we can go like this, escape.
And are we?
No.
No, hold on a second.
That's not it.
I'll have to get to.
Did I just close myself out of the screen?
What the?
Uh-oh, hold on.
Am I?
Where am I?
Panic time.
It's still there.
Let me go to Rumble and make sure that we are live on Rumble, which we are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And we've got one hell of a show tonight.
The war that wasn't a war.
I don't want to get into it until Barnes gets here, but I do want to cover some of the more interesting takes about it.
Glad to see you're out of the cold, says, says Carpet.
There we go.
Good to see you out of the cold.
It's good to be out of the cold.
Back into the sun.
I've gone to the beach twice since having gotten back.
The sun is good.
The salt is good.
And life is good in Florida.
We're going to be talking about the war that was not a war of the regime change that wasn't regime change in Venezuela.
When Barnes gets here, before we go anywhere, we are live on Rumble.
We're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we are live on CommiTube as well.
We're also live on X, but I don't know how many people watch this on X. Let me bring up vivabarneslaw.locals.com so we can get to a couple of questions before we get going here.
Oh, there's a lot of questions here.
Gray 101 says, frustrating to hear President Trump boast yesterday he'll make Venezuela, the Venezuelans so rich in contrast to his earlier talk about Americans declaring Americans don't have talent.
We're going to get into all this in a bit.
All right.
So before Barnes gets here and until Barnes gets here, I may or may not get to all the tipped questions.
So if you're going to be angry, don't give them.
But I'll try to get, we get to all the ones in locals and I want to make sure that I've got the being open on Rumble, which I have.
And now you can see this is what I want to say.
Old man Toby's in the house and says, I asked in Twitter, but do you guys think that if gas prices drop down to 150, the Republicans will win the midterms?
We'll get, we'll talk about all this when Barnes gets in here.
I have heard many things that you appreciate you know what you don't know, and sometimes you don't know what you don't know, but it's important to know that you don't know things.
I have heard arguments to the effect that the Venezuelan oil is not as high quality as American oil or Canadian oil for that matter.
So, whatever oil concerns are going on here, it's not going to necessarily have that much of an impact or that much of an immediate impact.
I would ask that question of someone who I think knows the answer and not ask it of myself or answer it of myself.
But before we even get going, we know what happened yesterday.
I want to pull up Jonathan Turley, so I don't have to do too much reading when Barnes gets here.
Jonathan Turley had an interesting take on the lawfulness or potential unlawfulness of the strike and arrest of Maduro.
Jonathan Turley, who is now a regular contributor to Fox News, was a darling of the left up until such time as he actually applied what he believed the law to be in respect of the impeachments against Donald John Trump.
And I don't remember, how many people are relatively new to the channel that you don't even remember or know who John Turley was before he became a Fox contributor?
He was a darling of the left, as was Alan Dershowitz, until such time as their application of the law caused them to defend Donald John Trump.
And when you're talking about a cult, and this theme might come up a couple of times tonight, when you're talking about a cult and people are perceived to be apostates, well, the cult turns against those even more than they turn against those who never believed in the first place.
And so Jonathan Turley, who was loved by the left, became public entity number one, as did Alan Dershowitz when they defended Donald Trump against, I believe it was the first impeachment, 2019.
So it is a piece that he put on Fox News as to the lawfulness of what occurred in Venezuela Saturday morning.
Yesterday morning, let me take this back out and just remind everybody: if you've been living in a freaking cave, if you've been living in a cave with no cell reception, yesterday morning at about 3:48, give or take, military operations in Venezuela, in Caracas, to extract Maduro, the alleged, you know, say the leader of that country, although people say he never relinquished power after having lost the last election,
so he was never a leader for it to be regime change in the first place.
Military goes in, land, sea, and air, and land, sea, and air.
That's right, okay.
And takes out Maduro, takes Maduro out, not takes out Maduro, who had an indictment for his arrest with four charges.
It was cocaine smuggling.
It was possession of a machine gun.
Some of you were asking, how could that have been illegal if it wasn't on U.S. soil?
And apparently it violates some 1934 treaty.
Conspiracy to possess a machine gun.
And there was another one.
Oh, I forget.
Narcoterrorism.
If that was an independent charge, whatever.
Indictment four charges in the southern district of New York.
They whisk in in the middle of the night in an operation, which, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, was a smashing success.
Whether or not you say, oh, it's very easy to carry out such a military operation against a military or regime as weak and feckless as Venezuela.
I think we can all agree that it was a military success and definitely showed the stealth, not necessarily the might because of the scale, but the stealth and coordination of the U.S. military.
The question was whether or not it was lawful to extract with force from a foreign country someone who's been indicted in the Southern District of New York.
Jonathan Turley argues that it was indeed lawful.
And reading what he said, and this is, I highlighted this particular section from his article.
Trump knows that the courts have routinely dismissed challenges to undeclared military offenses.
So one argument is whether or not they needed approval of Congress.
Trump needed approval of Congress for military strikes.
And the answer to that, according to Turley, and according to basically everybody's past presidents have done the same thing without congressional approval.
In fairness to Trump, most Democrats were as quiet as church mice when Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked Libya's capital and military sites to achieve regime change without any authorization from Congress.
They were also solid when Obama vaporized an American.
I think the American was an American miner, 16 years old.
That makes it worse.
Doesn't change facts.
Vaporized him under this kill list policy without even a criminal charge.
So spare the outrage now.
So Turley is arguing it's been done before.
Nobody made a noise.
My response to this is that might not be anybody's saving grace this time because we know, and I'm going to think along partisan lines or describe it along partisan lines, but it's really sort of deep state, rhino, and Democrat military industrial complex lines.
The fact that they were silent on it in the past doesn't mean they're going to stay silent on it right now.
And so the argument is, well, it was lawful because other presidents have done similar things and nobody said anything doesn't mean they're not going to say anything this time.
They've already proven the double standard or hierarchy, as some people like to say, that they've gone after Trump for lesser, in fact, things that he didn't even do that we definitively know Joe Biden did.
What was that?
Remember the whole thing about him telling Obama to hold off a billion in aid unless it wasn't regime change, but it was certainly regime shuffling, unless they fire that prosecutor in Ukraine who was looking into burisma.
Oh, no, but they fired him and put someone else in who's going to investigate even harder.
So you have on video Joe Biden doing that for which they attempted to impeach Donald Trump.
Doesn't mean they're not going to do it again.
And I think that they will if they ever get the reins of power again, even though they probably, as per the Duran, if you haven't watched them, Alex and Alex, go check them out.
They're amazing, you know, to assess without what's the word, dispassionately assess politics, which is what I like to think I'm trying to do with this, despite having my own inklings as to what I think about this.
Turley's basically saying other presidents have done it, so it's going to fly this time.
It won't.
And when they get the reins of power, if they get the reins of power, they're not going to say, oh, well, you know, well, Obama did it.
Biden did it.
George Bush, who, you know, other ones did it.
So, and we gave them a pass.
They're not going to give Trump a pass.
So this doesn't argue that it's lawful.
It just argues that it is either lawful and they know it, which is why they didn't go after prior presidents who did it, or it's unlawful and they didn't care when they were the ones who were doing it.
And now they sure as hell are going to care, even if they benefit from it.
Second part, it says the courts have previously upheld the authority of presidents to seize individuals abroad, including purported heads of state.
Noriega.
This is what I want to, you know, I didn't live through Noriega, or at least if I did, I wasn't conscious enough.
This case is actually stronger in many respects than the one involving Noriega.
Maduro will now make the same failed arguments that Noriega raised.
He should lose those challenges under existing precedent.
If courts apply the same standards to Trump, which is often an uncertain proposition, Trump will win on the right to seize Maduro and bring him to justice.
It's not uncertain, is my retort to that.
It's certain that they will not apply the same standards to Trump that they've applied to prior presidents.
It's certain.
Trump can't deport an illegal alien, wife beater, alleged human trafficker, alleged MS-13 gang member, objective illegal alien.
He can't even deport Kilmar Albrego Garcia.
He can't deport illegal aliens without rogue judges telling him to turn the planes around.
It's not uncertain whether they're going to apply the same standards.
It's certain they are not going to apply the same standards.
And that is not to say you let your adversaries dictate your policy.
It's just that you better plan better for if and when they ever get the reins of power, and they will impeach and, if they can, convict everyone who was involved in this.
Which is like, you know, give him credit, the Democrats play for keeps.
They play for locking you up forever.
They play for bankrupting you and they play to kill you.
The deep state, which might involve some overlapping.
So you got Turley, who's, you know, saying there's precedent for it.
Who gives a crap?
The Democrats sure as hell won't.
If they apply the same standards, he'll lose.
This is the southern district of New York where you have, you know, potential activist judges, potentially, you know, when it comes to Luigi Mangione throwing out the terrorist charges, although that is at the state level, if I'm not mistaken.
We have seen that there are activist judges who would do everything they can to frustrate Trump's ability to govern.
Set aside the morality, set aside the practicality, set aside whether or not it ultimately turns out to be a good move.
They will do everything they can to frustrate his ability to govern successfully.
So we're going to get into a lot of this in a bit.
I wanted to highlight that before Barnes gets here.
I was going to say before Trump gets here.
But okay, now until he gets here, let's do a couple of couple and say a lot of the chats here.
Ryan PD911, is it time to interview the smartest populist candidate running right now?
Time for cyber with Royce White.
Royce also wants to have Barnes on to talk about politics.
We can do that.
I screenshot that, so we'll see who it is.
Then we got Dr. W. M. Blair.
C comment.
I am not smart enough to tip and comment.
I'll get to that in a second.
Old man Toby.
I got that one already.
And Spam Ranger.
Well, let me bring this one up here in locals.
And then I'm going to go see where Barnes is.
Hopefully, he didn't get lost.
Okay, hold up here.
Bring this one up.
We got Gray 101.
How can Alex Jones and MAGA honestly believe middle and working class Americans will see a dime of wealth from Trump's conquest of Venezuela yesterday?
Says Gray 101.
We'll get there.
I can argue it.
It's if it makes gas cheaper.
If it actually prevents more mass migration, what was it like?
One-third of Venezuelans fled Venezuela under Maduro's reign of terror.
I mean, the question is only going to be if removing Maduro, although people are saying it's not regime change because it's still the same regime.
They've got a second man in power now who was just appointed as the leader by the courts.
If it stabilizes the country or at least makes it better so that you have less exodus and less migrants trying to cross into America, they'll maybe not care.
You might make them appreciate the consequences of it, the beneficial consequences.
If it makes gas cheaper, you know, but it's going to be not a tough sell.
It's going to be prima fasci, contradictory to stated policy and campaign promises.
And we'll get into it, but you know, there was a montage going around where Trump, you know, of Trump saying regime change hasn't worked in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, et cetera.
no more regime change wars i've actually it's it's amazing thing by the way when you talk about people who are arguing from conclusions and not towards them and want to defend this at all costs and they say oh yeah he said no more regime change wars He didn't say no more regime change.
Or he says this wasn't a war because it lasted 90 minutes.
It wasn't regime change because Maduro wasn't the lawful leader of the country.
This is all semantics that maybe some lawyer might think is a good argument, but it's not going to convince the layperson.
The best argument for why this is materially different than regime change in Africa, Syria, I would say Africa, the African continent, Egypt, Syria.
Now I just totally forgot the other ones.
Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, is that this is in the Americas.
And so that this is not on some far-off continent separated by a massive ocean, irrelevant to us.
This is part of the Americas with a direct impact.
And if you start getting Chinese influence and Chinese interests getting a foothold in the Americas, it's the argument that I've been raising as to why Canada is the national security threat to America that, you know, could be used as the basis for this type of intervention in Venezuela.
You get China establishing military bases.
I mean, as it is, they're already sending people to invade via the southern border, but you could argue that this is materially different than the continent of Africa.
And so that is the distinction to say, well, he said that then the situation has changed.
You've got Venezuela.
You've got China actively interfering there.
And so therefore, the necessity of this intervention is sufficient to warrant adapting from election campaign promises.
See, Barnes is in the backdrop.
Let me make sure that he, I'm not sure if he's having trouble checking in here.
If an undisclosed reason was to kick out CCP China, more evil government from VE Venezuela, acceptable, especially with its extreme low known and unknown casualties.
If an undisclosed reason, well, I don't think it was undisclosed.
It wasn't a cited reason during the press conference, but it wasn't an accident that Trump did this four hours after they left.
China, that is, because there was a Chinese delegation there.
USA now says, cash, use it or lose it, practically info to stop building digital electronic surveillance and control, children's health defense.
We've got Howard the Duke.
Does Trump have a follow-on strategy and or a pending revelation that can override the inevitable unpopularity of his actions in Venezuela, particularly when combat deaths start happening?
We'll see.
And then, I'm not see, we'll see.
If there are no combat deaths and if there are, how do you run a country of 30 million people?
I mean, part of, come on, Turley's paper was that, you know, he might have undermined his own arguments by saying we're going to run the country.
How do you run the country?
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
How's the sound?
Ooh, it is.
I don't hear an echo.
Your sound is very good.
Sweet.
And let me make sure that it's balanced over in our locals community.
Audio, good.
Are you looking dapper, Roger?
Robert, who do I call him?
Roger.
You're looking good.
Let me make sure they say over in locals.
Sound is good.
Five on five.
Good.
Robert, I mean, I have started.
I laid the groundwork a little bit because there was a lot of reading that I didn't want to have to do when you're on screen.
We're obviously going to talk about Venezuela.
We're going to talk about the Patsy.
I'm sorry, not the Patsy, the suspect in the January 6th.
We got a bunch of other stuff.
You want to?
We'll do that.
We got law, politics, and policy on Venezuela.
We'll focus here on the law side.
We'll be on the politics side with Richard Barris tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
And then may have a debate with Nick Ricada on the policy side tomorrow night on Ricada Law side of the aisle.
I think he has some professional expertise when it comes to the white power.
The brilliant fun guy, Nick.
The Patsy Pipe Bomber.
Totally not a Patsy.
Totally not a Patsy.
Not looking like a Patsy, not acting like a Patsy, not walking and talking like a Patsy.
No, not at all.
We'll be discussing that case.
Ninth Circuit, big Second Amendment win against Comifornia.
Did the CIA try to kill and assassinate Vladimir Putin this past week?
Maybe it wasn't Ukraine.
Maybe it was the man who puts the word rat in Ratcliffe.
The Top Gun wins a copyright case.
Also, similarly, there's a Miles Davis tattoo case that we previously talked about, reached final resolution.
What happened?
Did the tattoo artist also get held liable for copyright violation or did they prevail?
Another TPS, while Christy Noam, the Department of Hemland Security, appeared to be saying on the media that she was going to reopen temporary protective status for Venezuelan refugees, later walked it back, said, That's not what I meant really at all.
We'll see.
But what happened to all the other temporary protected status reversals?
Did she lose once again in court?
The part of that might be lefty courts.
Part of it might be Christy Noam can't do her job.
The Amtrak, when is murder on the train?
There's a lot of murder on the train kind of movies, the murder on the Orient Express, all that kind of thing.
Throw Mama from the train.
Well, what happens when it happens on Amtrak?
Is Amtrak liable?
Police misconduct exposed.
The Maduro case has some unique aspects that have Second Amendment implications.
People might not have been recognizing that aspect of the case.
Crocs are a croc, it turns out, at least some of the time, according to its own patent infringement case, do you have a constitutional right to vacation rental your properties?
A case that could impact Airbnb and VRBO and others pending out in Hawaii as a potential regulatory taking.
The police completely fall down on the job and investigate a live kidnapping scene that could have saved a woman, leading to her death.
Take a wild guess what the federal court said.
If you guessed immunity, bingo for you.
The Drake is Drake involved in promoting an illicit online gaming gambling operation that is also involved in illicit bot operations to inflate the streaming markets for his own music and then getting paid in money laundering forms with bogus tokens.
That's the allegations in a recent case.
The EOC, finally, finally, credit here to Harmeek Dylan, who has decided not to respond directly to Viva and respond to everybody but Viva because probably she can't answer Viva about the trying to defend Pam Bondi.
That is a thankless job.
I feel for Harmee having to defend that blubbering incompetence of the head of the Attorney General's office.
And I'm going to be in D.C. next week.
Let's hope I come back.
But there's a good EEOC finally involved in taking on the vaccine mandates and religious discrimination cases concerning the COVID vaccine.
Credit to Harmik Dylan and the people of EOC for getting on that.
A little late, but hey, better late than never.
Last but not least, that beef cartel had to pay up a civil settlement.
You might be entitled to a little bit of money out there if you bought meat at any time, basically through this large time period.
Hopefully, Gail Slater is going to take on and slay some of the big ag cartels going forward to the big antitrust case.
But this was a prior antitrust case.
I wonder who the main defendant was they found guilty.
Oh, yeah, Tyson Foods.
And remember, everybody, Tyson sounds a lot like the Nazis name, Tyson, which some people were trying to explain to me this week that if the Nazis had got away with it, it would make it legal and moral.
I didn't know that.
Makes right.
So it's like, yeah, that's a little different definition.
So we'll get into that and more on this edition of Law for the People.
Robert, before we even get started, we got a subscriber.
So at WandaQuist, I'm going to shake the ginger ninja bullet bell.
Welcome to the channel, viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Robert, we're going to get into the Venezuela stuff.
I laid a lot of the groundwork down here.
I wanted to start with a question because I can read the words.
I have difficulty contextualizing in the historical context in a way that you have the ability to do and express.
I appreciate the Monroe Doctrine.
Was let me just, the Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe, basically saying we will protect our backyard, no more wars in Europe, and we'll protect the Americas, our own backyard.
Everybody's invoking the Monroe Doctrine right now for what Trump did in Venezuela.
My issue with understanding what it means is we'll protect our own backyards.
I have zero difficulty imagining that when it came to the war in Iraq, one would invoke the Monroe Doctrine and say, well, if we don't do that there, it will come to our backyards, and that's why we have to do it.
I don't know if they did it during Iraq 2001.
And I don't know contextually, historically what it meant in 1823.
Can you flesh that out for those who may not know exactly the history of the Monroe Doctrine?
Yeah, there's similar misciting of precedent concerning the Barbary pirates.
So the Monroe Doctrine was penned.
Apparently, a bunch of people didn't know this.
They're telling me, oh, you're an idiot, Barnes.
You don't know.
These people bragging about their historical illiteracy, right, on live display.
But putting that aside.
So the Monroe Doctrine was written not by President Monroe, but written by his Secretary of State.
His Secretary of State was a family cousin of the Barnes family.
You can go back, you know, Barnes's were at, you know, my great-great-grandfather was the one who said, don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes, Colonel Prescott.
Go to Valley Forge, look up all the Barneses that were there.
There were plenty.
And some of them were direct ancestors.
So John Quincy Adams, who famously said in a great July 4th speech, America is different.
America is not an empire.
Empires kill constitutional republics.
Hello, Matt Walsh.
Time to read a little history.
If you get involved in empire, it's not whether the empire is good or bad in its own terms.
It's because America's founding generation recognized empire will kill a constitutional republic faster than anything.
So do everything you can to avoid an empire.
And how he put it, still the most eloquent description in American history that I know of, said, America sets the light of liberty with the example of its constitutional republic and its example of not being an empire because we will not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.
And I see all these people who remember my replies saying, no, Barnes, we have to go abroad to search monsters for destroy.
You don't understand.
They're a monster.
This was a monster.
Hey, Dimwit, this is who John Quincy Adams was talking to.
He was talking to you.
That's who our founding generation said we will not be and we will not become.
God bless the vice president.
But no, I don't think it makes us a great power that we can go kidnap some foreign leader of a poor nation.
That makes us a disgrace, not a great power, according to who?
Our founding generation.
The you know, people are surprised by this.
They're expecting us to just cheerlead whatever happens.
We are not here.
I'm not here for politicians.
I'm here for the Constitution.
Period.
End of story.
So with that broad contours, the Monroe Doctrine was against regime change, period.
Donald Trump is historically illiterate.
He's never read the Monroe Doctrine.
He doesn't know who John Quincy Adams is.
God bless him.
And I say this, someone is a fan, supporter, and admirer, and voter of Trump.
But I'm not going to sit here and lie for him when he gets up there and makes preposterous, bushite claims.
And remember in the chat, if you want to troll, you got to pay the toll.
So you put at least five, 10 bucks in there.
And maybe we'll take the time to read your comment if you want to troll, which is fine, no problems.
So within some degree of reason.
But so that the Monroe Doctrine, it all starts off.
All these people quoting the Monroe, say, there's a Monroe Doctrine, Barnes.
It's like, you've just told me you never even read it.
You never even read it.
Read the very beginning of the letter to Congress written by John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State for President Monroe.
What is he complaining about?
Foreign regime change, foreign invasion.
The argument was not, oh, now we're going to do regime change.
And now we control the American.
It was no more regime change in America's period.
We'll stay out of Europe.
You foreign governments, like us, will not be involved in the regime change business because no matter how well intended it is, this was our, John Quincy Adams recognized this in 1823.
Said, it always goes AWOL.
It always goes.
He goes, I'm sure Spain has great intentions.
France has great intentions.
England has great intentions.
And by the way, the original doctrine was going to be co-authored with England, by the way.
And then John Quincy Adams realized that wouldn't work well, given England's empire ambitions.
The point was to make the claim, it was not just to tell Europe to quit doing regime change.
It was to tell the world to quit doing regime change.
Regime change doesn't work.
For all these people preaching right now, there is a clear precedent.
I recommended it to the good vice president, JD Vance.
They used to be, hey, you know, look, there were some drugs coming through Venezuela, and this will diminish the cartel influence.
I heard that story before.
I've seen this script before.
It's called Panama 1989.
Now, in JD's defense, he was five years old at the time, so he probably wasn't watching Panama Deception on the news like I was.
Great documentary, The Panama Deception.
The whole thing had nothing to do with drugs at all, by the way.
It was all about trying to grab back the canal.
That's what it was all about.
And they also, like we're apparently doing again in Venezuela, they lied completely about how many casualties there were.
So when we originally went to Panama, we said, oh, there's only a couple of hundred dead total, Max.
That was the officials.
It stayed the official American story.
And then they started finding the mass graves that Americans had buried a bunch of Panamanians in.
Indeed, I would hear these stories years later and taking on, and by the time I know about all the litigation concerning what when we get into Maduro's case, people are trying to educate, boy, you don't know how, have you read this case?
Have you read that case?
I know all about it.
I've litigated as much as any lawyer in the country, litigated out of a Panama case.
But there was a great constitutional Panama lawyer who came up and testified in that case.
And it was about illegal, the illegality of rendition.
Does rendition without extradition constitute deprivation of jurisdiction?
All the issues we'll get into in Maduro, but also malfeasance and misconduct.
This guy was one of the most conscientious, brave lawyers I've ever met on a global scale.
And he was terrified to come to the United States.
His horror stories, none of them concerned Noriega.
They all concerned the United States of America's military presence, which Americans to this day have been lied about what happened.
Thousands of people were murdered.
A bunch of civilians, women, and children were murdered in Panama.
A bunch of people's poor people's homes were burned to the ground in Panama.
And guess what happened to drug supply in the United States?
It went up.
Not only that, guess how much drug trafficking came through Panama after we removed the great evil drug dealer, Noriega?
It more than doubled.
Probably the same thing that's coming through Venezuela.
So, you know, I've been through this, seen this multiple times.
Americans always wonder, how did that generation fall for weapons of mass destruction?
How did that generation fall for incubator babies in Kuwait?
How did that generation fall for we're going to stop the dominoes in Korea and Vietnam?
How did they all fall for these?
Because you out there right now are falling for it again.
Alex Jones is falling for it as we speak.
That's how they do it because they usually get away with it in live time.
Those of us who've lived through it are not surprised at all by seeing all the Makismo, Team America, World Police, America, if, yeah, woohoo.
Because we've seen it again and it's you folks who end up regretting it.
It's you folks who end up telling us apologies.
It's just five years from now.
So the so let's go.
So there's the politics of it.
I'll discuss that in much better detail with Richard Barris because it's clear people have forgot how the polling on elections work on war works.
But I'll tell you this, they already have a pollout.
Normally, there's a huge boost of support.
Trump's approval rating on the Venezuelan intervention is lower than his intervention, his approval rating.
It's in the 30s.
It's already unpopular.
And folks, dig in.
There's no war that becomes more popular in time after it starts.
This is only going to go downhill from this.
I want to bring up a few things here just because it's funny following the chat.
For fuck's sake, Viva, interrupt this chattering.
Someone says, enough of this bullshit.
out it the amazing goodbye and good but it's not that it's it's This is authentic, honest opinions.
We're not here to give you what you want to hear.
We're not here to cheerlead the war whores.
We are not here to champion lies.
We're going to give you our honest, open, authentic opinion.
And you can bet against me if you think I'm wrong.
And if you didn't ride the special bus to school, I'll take your bet.
Betting against me has not been wise in the past.
There's so many logical fallacies.
And what's amazing is we've heard them as recently as this year.
This is not a war.
There were people claiming that what happened in Iran was not a war.
It was just pinpoint precision strikes.
Then Trump calls it a 12-day war.
And then they have to eat crow.
Set all that aside.
You look at this and people are now saying, you know, Team America, a great military strike, FIA, as though it's not regime change.
And then they say, well, it's not regime change, Robert, because Maduro was not properly elected or he lost the election or refused to step down.
As if then it's America's international policing to now go to Romania and take out whoever won that presidency and or the prime minister, whatever the leader of the leader now, and install George Simeon or install Kaylin Georgescu.
So you say it's not regime change because he was unlawful leader and therefore it was America's right to do this.
Okay, fine.
It's not regime change because all they did was take into custody by way of Noriega precedent, the leader of a foreign country.
That's the one I think has the strongest argument to the extent that Noriega.
This is a repeat.
It's a repeat.
And by the way, everybody, I'll just finish this up on the politics side.
Then we'll get to the law side.
And I see a lot of people conflating the two.
I may want something to have happened, but I'll think political, like, I don't want Democrats to win the House, but I think it's going to happen, right?
There's a difference between political, what you want to have happened and what you think is going to happen.
But there's also a difference between the political analysis, the policy analysis, and the law analysis.
I see people conflating this all over the place.
I even see conservatives championing left-wing communist era doctrines that might makes right, that truth is whatever I say it is, the law is only what it can be enforced.
These people who are adopting a subjectivist, moral relativist view.
And it's like, you claim to be a conservative and you're championing moral relativism?
I mean, oh my goodness.
So we'll get to that in the law side of the argument because they're just conflating a lot of these things.
That it can be legal and immoral.
It can be illegal and moral.
It could be bad policy and illegal, good policy and legal, or good policy and illegal.
Those are all depending on how you value the rule of law compared to other issues.
This was my debate that Jared didn't seem to understand who works with Stephen Crowder, CEO Rick Crowder.
He didn't like the point that I said there's a legal process with extradition.
He was like, yeah, but this is the president of the country.
He won't get along with extradition.
It's like, but you're making a policy argument.
You're saying you believe this person should be detained, should be seized, should be removed from power.
That's fine.
That's a policy argument, not a legal argument.
Now, there might be legal ways to go about it.
The way we did wasn't.
But he was conflating and confusing what he wanted to have happen on terms of policy with what is or is not the law.
And I'm a believer in objective truth.
I'm going to believe in objective morality, which means I believe in the rule of law as an objective truth and as objective morality.
So I'd have never believed that the, now, when you're talking geopolitics strategy, I agree that you have to look at the way the world is rather than the way the way you want the world to be.
I don't dispute any of that.
But when we're talking about law, it either exists or it doesn't.
And it's either subject to subjective whim, in which case, if the Nazis had won, everything they did was now moral and legal.
It's like, what?
But if you don't accept the subjectivist view and you have objective truth and objective morality and objective law as your guiding, as your guide star, you might still be able to make the argument Jared makes for sometimes there's efficient, morally efficient and good reasons to break the law.
That you're choosing one, you might say one law over another.
But that's a policy argument, not a law argument.
And Matt Walsh effectively said as much in his tweet.
He's like, look, might makes right.
So, you know, you don't like it, go suck a lemon.
We're a strong country.
It's not a war only because it's such a small country, small.
I mean, it's like saying an invasion.
If China invaded Tibet, it wouldn't be a war because it would be such overwhelming force.
They wouldn't be able to effectively fight back.
Calling it a war versus not is semantic quibbling.
There's a constitutional issue there, which we'll get into about what is an act of war.
And I think that's part of why they want to pretend it's not a war at the moment.
Not if you studied our founders.
So we'll save the policy debate.
I'll save that for with Nick Ricada and others, but we might answer some questions here and get into some of the policy ramifications.
Some of the legal ramifications in terms of enforceability probably do depend on how the politics and policy shape out.
And that's just objective predictability rather than subjective desirability.
Well, get to the objective element of war.
Not since World War II has any conflict America has been involved in actually gotten congressional approval for war.
Am I wrong about that?
So it depends.
So I would say generally Turley and some others have made some broad statements that aren't really backed up.
So we have the War Powers Resolution Act, and then we have the authorized use of military force.
And frequently, that's what's been cited is the authorized use of military force.
Or we argued we were acting in self-defense and then went to the War Powers Resolution Act.
One of the issues I'll debate with Nick Ricadas is he doesn't like the War Powers Resolution Act.
Thinks it unduly restricts Article II.
So, for this, I've seen a lot of people use the pirates as an example.
What they forget is that in every single instance, our founders went to Congress before they took any action against the Barbary pirates, repeatedly.
They would not engage in any kinetic conflict.
They sometimes engage in a Caesar of a ship, but without any kinetic conflict, unless they got congressional approval vertices.
That's how conscientious our founding generation was that any act, any act of military aggression anywhere in the world was unless it was imminent self-defense, was considered required, was considered an act of war constitutional, and thus required congressional approval before it could happen.
I have often championed that because it's a more public way to control war, require Congress to vote on it, require, even if it happens after the fact, require Congress to vote on it.
This effort of ignoring abdicating congressional obligation, which is the main argument that Turley and others are making.
And my point there is that's like saying if a rapist, serial rapist got away with it for 20 years, hey, no problem.
Now you can serially rape and it's legal.
That's not a legal argument.
That's an argument about whether or not Trump will face consequences from what is an unconstitutional, illegal act, in my opinion.
He's unlikely to face policy consequences.
Now, he'll probably get impeached in a couple of years and Democrats win the House and this goes South, but that depends on how you interpret the politics of the policy as to whether that will actually happen.
But that's different from whether I face legal consequence doesn't change what the law is.
I don't agree that Mike makes right.
I don't agree that subjectivity and moral relativism define truth, law, or morality in the world.
Disagree entirely with that premise.
So do I think Joe Biden violated the Constitution?
Yes.
Do I think Barack Obama violated the Constitution?
Yes.
Do I think George W. Bush violated the Constitution?
Yes.
Do I think Bill Clinton violated the Constitution?
Yes.
Do I think Poppy Bush violated the Constitution like when he went into Panama?
Yes.
Do I think now Ronald Reagan mostly avoided this?
And with Grenada, there was actually an argument of imminent self-defense.
That's the only place he voluntarily publicly went into.
Otherwise, he pulled us out of Lebanon.
People kind of forget those kind of things.
Jimmy Carter generally didn't launch military interventions of this kind.
Now, Nixon did to a degree, but Vietnam was voted for the Gulf of Tonkin in terms of Congress.
You can argue about under international standards.
I also see this, it's amazing to hear the right say, we don't believe in human rights.
We don't believe in international law.
Okay, you don't believe in the Nuremberg Code.
Remember what all of us were arguing during COVID was that the Nuremberg Code should be, is the law and should be enforced?
Now you're all saying, nope, I never believed in that.
I was a hypocritical lion fraud.
I was just waiting for Trump to tell me what to think because I can't think for myself.
That's what these people are saying and doing.
And I got very little patience or tolerance for it.
Going through blocking all the boomer conflict like, yeah, you can only listen to so many of those people.
You can come on our locals board and we're happy to chat away with you.
But don't want my whole X feed filled up with these people that are just slower than slow, God bless them.
And by the way, the polling data, only boomer cons are strongly supportive of the war.
Everybody already is off the boat.
Everybody already is.
That's a political disaster.
Actually, to stop you there, the left, no matter what Trump does and he could cure cancer, they'll hate it.
I don't know who on the left is celebrating it.
There is the neocons and globalists.
Rothschild celebrating it.
David Frum celebrating it.
Every neocon who has criticized Trump was like, woohoo, this is great.
This is awesome.
Let's have more of it.
What I have noticed is there is a fracture on the right, but there are very loud cheerleaders for this who are very much berating anybody who even questions it.
As if people have not learned, I brought up the chat that said, you know, the same people who fell for the Iraq war are falling for this.
Just to parse it out, for them to say, no, this is different than Iraq because it's not going to be a 25-year war.
The toppling is always the easiest part.
It's the filling in the void that becomes the harder part, especially if the next in command who's not better than Maduro, if Trump's goal is to run the country, steps into power, then the regime change failed.
Good.
You got your guy.
Whether or not you were allowed to go forcibly extradite him through military force.
You haven't changed anything, and you're not going to run that country.
And then do people start getting, do soldiers start getting killed on the streets of Caracas?
Do you have to put in a substantial military presence?
And how many more videos are we going to get of like old people's apartments that were blown up and like an 81-year-old lady died?
How many ones are we going to get of eight-year-old kids that ended up dead?
I guarantee you that it's coming because they said initially only 30, 40 died.
They're already up to the hundreds already.
So given the history of the U.S. military just flat out lying about how many civilians it kills, you could almost guarantee the number is going to keep going up.
How's that going to look politically?
There's a whole bunch of other problems with it, politically-wise.
Policy-wise, I tend to oppose it because I believe in the American Constitutional Republic.
And I think what makes us a great power is we being a constitutional republic, not Matt Walsh's desired empire.
So that's a policy belief that I have.
Disagree with it.
That's fine.
But then there's the realities.
Are we going to get to control the oil?
Are we going to get to control the gas?
Because what Trump, they are all over the place, because we'll get to the law here in a second because it relates to it.
They have never made a consistent explanation as to why we were going to do what we did or why we even did it.
So when we do it, in the lead up, it was all about drugs.
This is a huge narco-drug deal.
Narco-terrorist.
Some of us said from day one, and credit here to the libertarians.
I see libertarians taking a lot of crap.
They're like, wonder if libertarians ever understood geopolitics.
They've understood it a lot better than the neocons.
So go back and read whose history has been more apt and more accurate.
But putting that aside, the entire political excuse was first he was a drug dealer, then it was he was a terrorist, and then it was something else.
And then it was, and then Trump, of course, God bless him.
I do love this fact about him.
He's just blunt and honest.
Nah, nah, we're there for the oil.
We're there for the oil.
And then after this happens, the initial excuse is we're just executing arrest warrant.
God bless Vice President Vance.
I have great respect for him, adoration for him, personally like him.
But he put out there that it's not illegal to execute an arrest warrant, a foreign nation.
Well, if I may pause for this, by the way, also for his defense, there might have been a class at Yale Law School, because that's where the CIA was founded, that said when the CIA does it, it's legal.
So maybe that's what he got taught.
Well, and just to raise that one, because I was trying to, you know, make a point as to what a hypocrite Mamdani is who Mamdani says, I'm strongly against this terrible, you know, whatever.
And it's like, Mamdani, you threatened to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to travel to New York in virtue of an ICC warrant.
And people were correcting me, well, Viva, he wasn't going to kidnap him.
He was just going to arrest him if he came to the country.
I'm like, first of all, the hypocrisy that I'm trying to illustrate is one is exercising a warrant of an international criminal court and then complaining when someone exercises an arrest under their own indictment.
That is the hypocrisy, but that's what people were saying.
Well, look, it's different to go and get versus to have the person come and arrive.
What was the CIA?
I mean, I know that they've kidnapped people at airports and done all sorts of things.
You know, when people say he was arrested, or they sorry, he was indicted, and therefore this was an arrest.
Extradition treaties exist for a reason.
Now, he would obviously never have abided by an extradition treaty.
But like you say, that's a policy issue.
You don't then go get to invade, even if only for 90 minutes, effectively legally kidnap in virtue of domestic law, and then say it's not a war.
It's not regime change.
We're just forcibly extraditing somebody who we're not extraditing under any international treaty.
There's three aspects to this as I see it.
One is what its legality is as you looked at, say, from the territory or the government of Venezuela.
The legality of it as you look at it from the perspective of the United States, including the constitutional authorization issue, Article 1 versus Article 2, but also whether or not warrants apply beyond the territory of the jurisdiction that issued the warrant, of which there was a lot of, including the vice president's confusion on that subject.
And then last but not least, the relationship between states.
International law has two components.
It's the relationships between governments and universal norms that apply to all government officials.
These are just Kogan's principles of international law.
That's what the Nuremberg Code is.
It says there are certain such universal moral truths that they are legally enforceable on any government actor anywhere in the world and any private individual anywhere in the world.
So those are the principles of international law that right now people on the right because they're confusing international law with international institutions.
Two things are not the same.
Governments don't make law.
The governments are there to enforce law, but the law exists independent of that in the sense of the constitutions, the treaties, and just Kogan's as universal principles that can't be changed.
They don't originate because anybody passed them.
They are derived from those that truly believe in a sort of natural law principles, or you don't even have to necessarily believe in those if you just believe in certain universal moral truths.
I believe in them because I believe that the God's architecture leads to our souls and our minds being able to divine these eternal truths.
Now, one of those eternal truths, Epstein didn't kill himself, but we'll get to some of those other ones in a minute.
But I believe, but that, so those people who are championing might is right, law doesn't matter unless it can be enforced, don't realize they're championing leftist, Soviet-style communist arguments about moral relativism.
Do not fall for that trap.
You can think this is a good policy, good politics.
You might even have a legal pretext or explanation for it.
But do not, for the love of God, fall into the trap of advancing moral relativism.
And let me, what's interesting is from what I understand, AI gives a summary of my video yesterday where I fleshed out these arguments and said, my comparison to, well, now can China or Russia not say, we've passed a domestic indictment and now we're going to go kidnap Trump, for example, bomb Washington.
It'll be a quick operation and extract him.
It would never go down the same way, but people say, Viva, that's totally different.
And I'm like, I would like to know, how is that totally different except for the balance of force involved in it?
It's not different on the legality.
It's different in terms of the response because of the balance of force.
And all that you're saying in that case is legally, they're both legally untenable or equally legally tenable, except one has the power to fight back in one case where they don't in the other.
But I don't see any dissimilarity in terms of a comparison, an analogy.
You're absolutely correct.
And that's the point of law.
I got to cap up.
I don't want to hear anything about hypotheticals anymore.
I was like, I get it.
You don't like the rule of law applying when you want something to happen.
And it's important that people just learn that distinction in general, that you can want something.
There's things I want to have happen that the law doesn't yet reflect.
There are things about the law that I don't like in terms of its impact on society and the world around us.
I, for example, want us to be able to buy milk and buy food directly from the farmer without getting permission slip from the federal government first.
A bunch of things.
Learn to distinguish an objective understanding of the law versus an objective understanding of morality and policy and the objective understanding of politics.
There's what you want to have happen.
There's what is likely to happen.
There is an objective truth and don't get the moral relativistic trap.
So let's get into the broad excuse initially taken.
And then I had all these people attacking me.
They were attacking, you and Massey are lying.
This has nothing to do with oil.
This guy put out this big TikTok on this.
I felt better.
Well, Robert, I posted the clip of Trump saying, you know, what did he say?
He said, we're going to, you know, talking about the operation.
And then literally in the next sentence, we're going to run the country.
I'm going to bring in oil corporations and we're going to run that country and it's going to be prosperous.
And even Turley said, look, him saying that right after sort of undermines the legitimate, any legitimate legal basis.
This is why I love Trump.
He's so blunt.
He's so honest.
He's like, oh, but democracy, Machado, no, but that's all about crap.
Machado is not even popular.
Nobody likes her in Venezuela.
You can see Elliot Abrams is still shaking with rage about Trump's honesty in that regard.
On that note, not for nothing.
People were telling me, Viva, oh, Machado's going to take over because she was, you know, she was the rightful winner or, or, you know, she offered her Nobel Peace Prize to him.
Wait a minute.
I'm not thinking, I'm not mistaken.
That was Machado who offered her.
Okay.
I mean, no, Machado never won.
It was somebody else who we first pretended.
I'll get into that in a little bit.
We pretended different people have won over the time.
We keep shifting who it was that won.
Machado's never even run.
She was the one who said she was allowed to run.
But she said that she was going to, she's going to say she's the Nobel Peace Prize winner that said she'd donate the Nobel Peace Prize, that she'd open an embassy right away.
And so people are telling me, no, Viva, she's going to go into power.
It's going to be great.
And then he says, no, she's not even popular.
We'll find our own people.
Which I love that honest in the guy.
I mean, I'm like, whatever you think of Trump, right, wrong, good, bad.
You might like some policies, dislike others.
I do love it when he's completely honest like this.
He's like, nah, we're not here for no democracy crap.
We're not here to execute a restaurant.
Nah, we just took that guy because we could.
We want the oil and we're going to get it, boys and girls.
We're going to get it.
No, I'll get into whether he could or whether that would work.
But what it does is completely guts the entire argument that this was just an extra warrant execution to stop drugs.
Trump killed it right now in open.
And also, you know, he had raised the argument that they were stealing American infrastructure, American oil, you know, relating back, which, by the way, I'll get to what I think the real reason is for the conflict.
After we wrap up the law conflict, we'll do a little mini hush-hush here live.
Viva Barnes Law, Law for the People.
And just to say, that was not in the indictment either.
The only charges in the indictment were trafficking, machine gun.
Can you answer that one really?
Owning a machine gun.
Only machine gun.
Well, we'll get to that in a second because I want to get into the Second Amendment implications.
They always try to use these cases of some unpopular defendant to screw you over and steal your rights.
Always be aware of this stuff.
You can hate Maduro all you want and want to protect our Second Amendment rights.
Remember that.
I want to bring this up.
Saying wrong doesn't make someone wrong and it doesn't make you right.
So often.
And if you're going to troll, you got to have a little sophistication there.
You got to throw it in there.
It's like, oh, people that hated me about disagreeing with what was going to happen with Nick Ricada.
You know, they made a meme of me in an AI video of me being the breaking bad lawyer teaching little kids how to use cocaine.
But it was funny enough.
I was like, I can respect that.
I'm going to take any shots of that.
That's pretty funny.
So, you know, you got to tune it up.
You got to tune up your quality if you're going to be critical.
Not just, you know, lame rhetoric, not just trying to threaten.
Oh, you're going to lose all your supporters.
Don't care.
We are not captured by the audience.
Never will be.
It's so it's frustrating only that people are actually that juvenile.
Like, oh, you're if we wanted bosses, we would have bosses.
If you think you own our opinions because you pay to be here, first of all, nobody who actually does it would even say that because they know better.
But it's just the mentality.
Like, you are with the cool kids now and agree with us, or we will berate you.
And incidentally, I'm not even convinced that I'm entirely convinced by Barnes' arguments.
I'm sort of like Turley's putting together a good position as well.
I'm not on the fence.
I'm just sort of undecided yet as to whether or not I think this is a good idea in the long term and whether or not it was legally justified.
One in five of our audience, you know, we have a much more above-average audience over at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, much more geopolitically literate, much more historically literate, much more constitutionally conscientious, independent of politicians.
And about 10% approve, strongly approve, about 10, 15%, somewhat approve, 10 to 15%, somewhat disapprove, almost half strongly disapprove.
And there's about one in five, they're like, yeah, let's wait and see.
You know, they're in the same position here.
But we could see the good, we could see the bad.
Maybe this law could just be that could justify.
Maybe the policy will all work out.
Maybe peace and freedom will flourish around the world.
But that's why I think, and not to poo-poo on the one-fifth that I'm seem to be a part of.
It's like, that's not, that seems like a bit of a coward's way out to say, I'm going to wait to see how it turns out.
I'm inclined to think this is not justified under the Monroe doctrine, that you can always make the argument that what happens in Africa is going to come to our backyard at some point to justify regime change in Iraq or Egypt.
So, and I know this is definitely not what people were sold on when they ran for no new wars and no regime change.
You can quibble over the D.
Oh, he said no regime change wars.
Bullshit.
He said no regime change, no new wars.
Whether or not you think Iran was a war.
It was a 12-day conflict that could have descended into World War III if Iran, if Russia and China decided to get involved.
This is a 90-minute pretext of a regime change under the guise of exercising an indictment by kidnapping somebody.
And the only question is whether or not you think the ends justify the means and if there was a legal basis to do it.
So I'm on the fence, but I'm definitely more inclined to think this on its face breaks certain campaign promises.
And then the only question is: has there been sufficient amount of change in the geopolitical context that justifies deviating from that initial campaign promise?
Sorry, Barbara, go.
Yeah, absolutely.
So on the law side of the, so some of the policy, I think a lot of people that are undecided.
Part of it is they're undecided about the law.
They're waiting to see how that debate fleshes out.
And then a good number undecided about the policy.
They don't know how it's going to play out policy-wise.
And then there's a good number that are undecided because of the politics.
There's people that would say, hey, maybe this is an okay policy, but if it cost us the house, it's not worth it, right?
It's not worth the trade-off.
It's not worth the prioritization.
So it's going to be a wide range of opinions.
That's completely fine.
I put out there that said, watch whose opinions are authentic versus not.
And that doesn't mean if you disagree with me, your opinion isn't authentic.
There's plenty of people who disagree with you whose opinion is completely authentic.
I think Jared's opinion is completely authentic.
I disagree with it, but completely authentic.
There's a range of people.
Now, is it a big shock that Tim Poole is fence sitting?
Not really.
I mean, that's Tim Poole's whole career.
God bless him.
But there's some other people that are completely flip-flopping.
Now, Alex has an independent view, along with General Flint.
He thinks a whole bunch of good policies are going to come out for this.
I am skeptical of that, but Alex's view is entirely sincere.
It's not bought and pay for.
I think he's getting sabotaged by misinformation, but most of it's based on we have different interpretations as to what's likely to come policy-wise on this.
But shifting back to the law of it, any court process, service of a subpoena, summons, arrest warrant, physical seizure, property seizure, judgment, any of it, is only enforceable within the territorial limits of that government.
So someone just said apprehension is not kidnapping.
I'm trying to find the chat, but I can't find it.
I mean, I'll remember that the next time I kidnap you.
Nobody says that.
No, you haven't been kidnapped.
I'm just like, how did that work for the guy who did this?
Remember the case we talked about?
The citizens' arrest down the street?
Well, that was no excuse.
I was just arresting you.
You were committing a crime.
They're going to say, well, now he's serving 20 years in prison.
Congrats.
Their argument's going to be: well, it's the government.
How else can the government exercise its warrant or its indictments?
I mean, I guess only within its territory.
So explain just a second.
And it's not to be a naysayer for the sake of being a naysayer.
You have a warrant or an indictment that is a domestic indictment.
What do you typically need to do in order to get that imposed on or able to be executed against someone who's not within your jurisdiction?
So the legal process for that is if it's between states within the United States, they have to go to the extradition treaty between those states or extradition.
Sometimes there's a federal extradition law that's applicable.
Sometimes there's a state agreement or treaty or some or a domestic state law.
But it's kind of like collecting on a judgment.
For example, Connecticut court has a judgment against Alex Jones.
They can't enforce that right now in Texas.
Instead, they have to go down and record that judgment in Texas.
And then Jones gets a chance to challenge it in Texas on personal jurisdiction grounds, due process grounds, other grounds.
Only once a court affirms and records that judgment does a Connecticut judgment even become enforceable in another state of the United States.
Between the United States and foreign nations, a United States federal warrant is enforceable anywhere in the United States.
It is not legally enforceable outside the United States.
It never has been.
It can be the basis of a request to a foreign nation to extradite that individual.
And there's a whole extradition treaty, a whole extradition process.
Now, what people are confusing is whether a court has jurisdiction in the United States over a defendant that it obtained custody of through illegal kidnapping.
Because that's what people are forgetting is you might think what you're doing is a citizen's arrest or anything else.
That doesn't make it so.
So in order for when you physically seize another human being and remove them to some other place, that's called kidnapping.
Now, it's not kidnapping if you had a lawful excuse.
The lawful excuse has to come with lawful authority.
You do not have lawful authority to execute an arrest warrant outside the country, period.
You don't have lawful authority to murder people outside the country unless it's in self-defense, period.
Those rules are universal.
Governments are people.
I don't believe governments deserve special rights that people don't have.
I've never agreed with that principle, period.
So the warrant being is not the reason they could legally go in.
God bless Vice President Vance.
No, no, that's never been legal.
Here's what's happened in the U.S. courts.
So let's say you extradite somebody.
If it comes through extradition, the courts say the U.S. federal courts say we only have jurisdiction over that defendant to the degree the charges are consistent with the extradition.
Now, the question then became: what happened if you obtained the federal court obtained jurisdiction because the person was kidnapped?
Kidnapped by the, say, private actors like the Pinkertons, kidnapped by, or kidnapped by DEA agents or kidnapped by the U.S. military.
These cases went up to the Supreme Court in the 1880s.
The Pinkertons went down, kidnapped a guy in Argentina, brought him back.
He was like, look, if you didn't have authority over me through an extradition treaty, how can you have jurisdiction over me without any extradition?
Doesn't respect for extradition mean you have to actually go through extradition?
And the U.S. Supreme Court was like, nah, we're not going to require that.
It could be the kidnapping, totally illegal, but it doesn't matter for our jurisdiction.
What is, I did not live consciously through the Noriega precedent.
This was literally what they did.
These were the precedents cited in Noriega.
Noriega's case itself never went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
By the way, that was one of the most corrupt proceedings in American legal history.
People citing the Noriega case, no dispute, no denying he was a drug dealer.
He was just on the CIA payroll most of the time.
But that was one of the most rigged federal cases in American legal history.
People citing it as some sort of great example have no understanding of what they're citing.
I know that case frontwards and backwards.
But even before then.
So first you had the Pinkertons do it.
Then in the mid-1980s, big case went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I was challenging this decision in a case I had about 20 years later.
And so litigated all of this in great detail because my client was illegally stolen and kidnapped out of Panama.
And so the, because they couldn't extradite him legally.
And it implicated the regional security officer in charge of the Panama Embassy under the George W. Bush administration, who claimed to be a U.S. Marshal.
Turned out he had a different little three-letter agency he was part of.
That's where the Panama lawyer came up and testified.
Kidnap, yes.
To take a person illegally by force.
Yes.
So you have legal authority.
Just saying, hey, I have an arrest warrant someplace doesn't give you legal authority.
It has to be an arrest warrant within that territorial jurisdiction.
So the process for extradition is you got to go through a formal request.
You go to that foreign court, that foreign government, that foreign executive.
And remember, Julian Assange was never extradited to the United States until a plea deal was cut.
Yeah, no, they were just talking about killing him via drone strike.
Yes.
But the obvious argument is going to be that he would never have voluntarily or, you know, via treaty been extradited.
So what do you do then?
Well, we have another issue of foreign sovereign immunity, which is implicated here, too.
So the question is then, could you kidnap him?
In the mid-1980s, you remember the Narcos case?
I don't know if you ever saw Narcos.
Remember the guy that got the DEA agent, he got killed, tortured, and killed?
I remember we covered it.
I didn't remember that being in the series Narcos that I watched.
Oh, yeah, it's Narcos season three, I think.
Okay.
It's really good, by the way.
I highly recommend.
Fun show.
It has a great little ending with the finale, which was related to one of my hush-hushes, by the way, about whether a certain pilot, what happened to him or not, the Santa Claus of the skies for the cocaine crowd.
But that's another story for another day.
You can find that at the hush-hush at Bava BarnesLock.locals.com.
But basically, so what happens is the DEA suspected a particular Mexican doctor was involved in the torture, was constantly keeping Kiki alive by giving him injections so he could be tortured some more.
Needless to say, they wanted to get this guy.
Mexican government wouldn't extradite him.
So the DEA went down, kidnapped the doctor, and brought him back.
That case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court because the prior case was the Pinkertons case.
Private actors did the kidnapping.
What happens when the government does the kidnapping?
Supreme Court, very split decision, by the way.
But they decided they were going to uphold the Pinkertons precedent.
They're like, yeah, no problem.
You can get an illegally kidnap.
We still have jurisdiction.
They never said the kidnapping was legal.
In fact, the very implication of their decision is that in Mexico, the doctor could have executed those DEA agents on the spot in self-defense because what the DEA agents were doing was illegal.
They never said it was legal.
They just said it does not deprive us of jurisdiction over the crime by the fact that you were brought here illegally.
Interesting.
So you could, in theory, have a judge that says, although the legality or illegality of the kidnapping, put it in quotes, had never been adjudicated prior to we had recognized jurisdiction, notwithstanding the method of obtaining, you could get a judge in New York that says, send him back now, like you sent Kilmaro, send him back like we ordered you to bring back Kilmar Obrego Garcia.
It was always possible, but like the Noriega judge, real deep state judge.
Bill Barr helped run that case.
Robert Mueller helped run that.
One of the most corrupt cases ever.
He borrowed those two cases and said, based on that, I'm going to keep jurisdiction of Noriega because the issue there was, could you illegally kidnap a foreign leader given the sovereign immunity implications of that?
And the judge was like, hey, all the case law, Supreme Court case law says how you were brought here doesn't matter.
That it's only if you were brought here.
This is ironic.
The Supreme Court has said we got to respect extradition treaties, but we won't respect them if you just completely ignore the extradition treaty.
And I've always found, I agree with the descending justice of the Supreme Court.
That makes no sense.
Also, for I believe in policy reasons, we want this.
We don't want every government in the world starting to think they can issue arrest warrants and arrest whoever they want anywhere in the world.
This is a political nightmare you're asking people to do.
People don't think Trump was legitimately elected in case people have forgot that.
Well, he was elected in 2016.
Under their logic, China could have come and kidnapped Trump, and it wouldn't have been an act of war and totally legal because they had an arrest warrant.
That's how dumb their arguments are.
And Owen Schroyer rightly pointed out that if that were to happen, you'd have 50 million Democrats in the streets sobbing with joy that somebody all over Chinese media.
They wouldn't have to do like they're doing.
For people that are out there thinking, oh, Barnes, the Venezuelan public is just celebrating.
That is all fake.
God bless Nick Shirley, but I don't trust anything that guy does now.
All of a sudden, he shows up after doing the Somali expose, putting out completely fake news, fake media.
My favorite, though, this was great.
Somebody put out a fake news piece.
Somebody, I think, even trolled somebody into doing this that became huge on TikTok.
And what it said is, Venezuelans cheer as Democrats cry.
And all these conservative accounts are posting it, saying Venezuela is celebrating.
And underneath even the TikTok poster, it even says what it is.
It says, this is when the people in their underwear went racing in Orange County.
And they were printing this.
This is expert info.
And Alex Jones got take the bait on this.
Look, they're celebrating in Venezuela.
And he found something that was from like 18 months before.
Another one was taking Venezuelans from outside of Venezuela.
Yeah, I get Venezuelans outside Venezuela don't like the government.
Yeah, no, duh.
There was a big mass protest in Caracas this week after this happened in favor of the government, condemning the U.S. government.
That's the only big protest that occurred.
You know, you could track about, and you know, people go, well, Barnes, but you got that from like RT, your commie account.
I got that from Sky News, owned by Rupert Murdoch in Australia.
I want to just address this.
You went hard on Alex, who got duped by a similar fake out of context video.
I like Nick Shirley.
I think he did good work on Somali, but it's like when I see him take quick the E, I'm like, well, this is Benny Johnson got caught.
Hey, Benny, please correct it.
Everybody, if you see Venezuelans are out mass celebrating the arrest of Maduro, just double check the sourcing.
Double check the so much deep state slop out there.
It's unbelievable.
Well, then, you know, Alex always says, you know, they try the same tactics over and over again and they tend to work.
And one of them to discredit people is to get them to retweet things in the fog of war.
It happens to the best of us, but you got to learn from your mistake.
And I can appreciate Nick Shirley's moving at the speed of the news and, you know, doesn't even think to.
He'll certainly check every single video.
That's what I'm traumatized before retweeting because I don't want to accidentally get caught doing that because it does discredit based on your judgment process.
So yeah, there's some their argument is going to be, well, it's the wrong video, but they're still cheering in the streets, both in Miami and in Venezuela.
I mean, the 8 million Venezuelans that fled the Maduro and Chavez regimes despise the regime.
I have no dispute about that whatsoever.
Within the country, it's much closer.
And in fact, because some fundamentals had improved in terms of crime and economy over the last couple of years, it had really started to stabilize.
This is why it took so long for us to get Maduro out.
We had to get the air defense people, we had to bribe them to not fire at the helicopter.
This was the Duran, also, Alex and Alex that had, you know, have the theory that people must have been paid off, bribed, and there was an agreement with that.
That's why it was as quick as it was.
That's why it was as effective as it was.
Now, it probably wasn't quite as effective as it's being pretended to be because, I mean, I'm so tired of this, but our military always lies about how many casualties they are.
Look, it's not in their interest.
Hey, we killed 500 people.
It's not in their interest.
Their interest to minimize it.
And like during Panama, they cleared every murder, even murders where they found the body.
There was eyewitness testimony.
They're like, nah, forget about it.
No, I mean, I'd be skeptical as well.
I would be skeptical for the time being.
You know, there haven't been videos of massive civilian death and destruction.
So, I mean, I'm inclined to.
But the New York Times has already increased the estimate from the U.S., from its own sources, that it's about 10 times higher, what we said.
So it's probably going to end up in a couple of thousand, is my guess.
Just because we bombed, because what it is, is we didn't have a complete buy-in from the regime.
If it's like the presumption, all we really did is buy off the air defense people or bought off some of them.
We were able to, we bought off enough of them so they weren't effectively firing at the helicopters.
It appears a lot of his security team didn't betray him because it appears we killed them all.
According to the Venezuelan government, they're saying that.
They're admitting that.
So it appears we knew where he was from inside information, bought off and bribed various military officials that were part of the air defense regime, and then probably killed even more people than, God bless us, but America tends to always go in so heavy that our civilian casualty rate tends to be way higher than like Russia's in Ukraine.
I mean, it's just reality.
So, but legally, there was no justification for the arrest.
So now, but that's good policy, different argument for a different day.
And there's the constitutional argument.
Is this an act of war?
Is this the authorization of use of military force statute does not is limited to which countries?
And by the way, Venezuela was not yet listed in one of those countries.
So it is not within the authorized use of military force.
So that means, is it an act of war?
Not within the authorized use of military force.
Explain what that means.
Oh, so the, in other words, one argument is that yes, Congress controls whether there's an act of war, but they have already declared an act of war that authorized the commander-in-chief to act because it's consistent to the 2001 Iraq evasion authorization, which obviously Venezuela would not be a part of and therefore not covered by it.
Okay.
Correct.
What is this?
Everybody, Obama, Biden, everybody cites it no matter where they go, but it's been, and they haven't been called to account by Congress ever through an impeachment proceeding, for example.
That's how Congress's only enforcement mechanism for that really is impeachment.
They don't have any other effective enforcement mechanism for its breach.
And then the question is whether the breach is significant and substantial enough to justify.
And then there's the politics of it on the other side.
I don't think the authorization use of the authorized use of military force covers this.
So that means the question then shifts to the Constitution and is it an act of war?
There's the Article II, Commander-in-Chief, broad powers, but those powers, if you go back to our founders, the debates they had, how it was implemented early on by Presidents Washington and Adams and Jefferson, all the way through to Monroe and Jackson and Adams, John Quincy Adams and others as well.
You get some sense of what it meant.
And the act of war was kind of almost any military.
In other words, they considered Commander-in-Chief could militarily act under an imminent risk, imminent threat.
But that was it.
The moment the threat was over, its power ended.
And otherwise, it was up to Article I, Congress, to authorize it if it involved any use of force anywhere in the world.
In my view, this was an act of war.
And in almost all of our founders' views, both based on their writing and early policy press and of American legal and political history, including the Barbary Pirates cases, including the Monroe Doctrine.
This required Congress's approval and authorization, and the president didn't get it.
In fact, he didn't even notify him in advance.
The argument why he claims if he was a feared, it would leak and it would sabotage the operation.
I understand that, but that's not a constitutional excuse, right?
There's no little footnote.
You know, the, if you don't like Congress, you can skip it process.
So I think it was unconstitutional, what he did.
Now, the argument is the Jonathan Turley argument.
Everybody, every president's been violating the Constitution since Poppy Bush, at least.
You can argue about some of the people before that, but definitely since Poppy Bush, all of them have done force somewhere in the world that was not covered by a use of force authorization by Congress that would be considered an act of war by our legal history and political history at the beginning of the country in terms of the Constitution.
But to me, that doesn't change the law.
That only says.
Also, by the way, you could argue it was unconstitutional, but it was justified by some higher purpose.
I'm not, that's a policy debate.
But legally, people pretending that they want to rewrite the Constitution and make things constitutional because they like the politics of something, because they like the policy of something, is unacceptable to me.
I'm a constitution first, constitution forever person, always going to be.
You can disagree with my interpretation of the Constitution, but let's stay within the debate about the Constitution, not, hey, let's rewrite it for whenever it's convenient.
Let's make it a living constitution for every policy I like.
The one person told me, oh, Barnes, these other people don't respect the Constitution, so we don't have to respect the Constitution when it comes to them.
Pal, then you're just as bad as they are.
Robert, is it disappearing this whenever I try to skip, go back to the screen?
You see this right now from Nate the lawyer, who's back and feeling better.
Do you see this commie tube super chat?
Okay.
U.S. Venezuela have a 1922 extradition treaty.
Absence in express self-executing treaty bar on forcible rendition Maduro has no claim under U.S. versus Algerie's machines.
Marche.
Illegal capture abroad does not defeat jurisdiction.
That's on the jurisdiction issue.
Right, right.
And people need to recognize that doesn't mean what happened wasn't kidnapping.
That doesn't make what happened legal.
That just means a consequence of the illegality is this is why, like, for example, government gets caught doing illegal things in the prosecution.
Nine times out of ten, federal courts will say, yes, that was illegal, but we won't give you, the defendant, any remedy.
I just want to read this one because it's up.
Can Barnes recognize a self-admitted commie mass murderer is not just any human.
International law is self-refuting, non-existent to debate me.
Well, forget the debate part.
Do you not understand that that's literally what people say about Putin and that he's a mass murdering commie.
So assassinate him?
Go in and kidnap him?
People aren't thinking.
I mean, there's a couple of things with that, too.
Politically, the person is making a policy argument.
So they're saying from a policy perspective, they think Maduro is a bad guy, and they think his removal from power is good for that reason.
That's a policy argument.
They're wanting to conflate that with law.
And when they hear law disagrees with them, they just get mad and they say, well, I say the law doesn't matter then.
You know, that routine.
Okay, fine.
You can make that policy argument.
Recognize that's the argument you're making.
Don't pretend like this guy that, oh, he's making a sincere argument.
Oh, international law is crap.
Then you think the Nuremberg Code is crap.
You think Just Kogan's principles are crap.
You think objective morality and truth is crap.
You are now a moral relativist, pal.
That is not a place you want to be in.
And it's not a good place to be in.
And pretending international, I get all this might makes right argument.
That the, hey, look, it hasn't been enforced in the past, so now it can't be enforced now.
Sorry, that's not how that works.
That means it might not be enforced now.
But do you think any Democrat, you pointed this out?
Do you think any Democrat in the House or Senate cares about how bloody hypocritical they would be for impeaching Trump?
They don't, they've already impeached him for things they did twice as bad.
They're not going to be bothered by this.
They're not going to be deeply struck by a, oh, you know, my sudden care about the Constitution is complete garbage.
They're not going to care.
No, people say the question is.
Stop saying kidnapping.
If it was illegal to kill him.
It was kidnapping.
It was kidnapping, Kenabi, Kenneth.
And now the reality is that will not be the basis for ordering his return, and it will not be a basis for denying jurisdiction.
But it was.
No, it can be an impeachment of President Trump.
And it could be an impeachment of Secretary of War Hickson.
And it could be an impeachment of other people.
It could be a future criminal indictment of them.
All that could happen.
That's a policy power argument.
But the principal issue: is it illegal?
Yes, it's illegal.
Whether anybody enforces it, whether they should.
I mean, again, I've been trying to make an argument to people out there.
You can think this is illegal and still believe it was right.
I don't happen to be in one of those camps, but I concede that the argument can be made.
Not every violation of law is immoral because maybe it prevents a worse violation of law or a worse public policy outcome.
So I recognize that argument is a legitimate argument to make, but that's the argument people should be making rather than lying about the law.
So, okay, you'd say it's either illegal, but presidents have done it in the past, and therefore it's going to be a double standard if anyone impeaches Trump for this time around.
And I would say double standards are the only standards that Democrats have.
They're politicians, exactly.
Now, jurisdiction is not going to impact jurisdiction unless you get a rogue activist judge who says, no, I found my conscience.
I want to send him back.
I mean, there's people who have wanted to challenge this because the Supreme Court was a very, I think it was 5'4 Alvarez Machine.
So, or 6'3.
It was close either way.
There's people who will want to challenge it back up again because you've got a bunch of new justices who've never signed on to this.
And you could imagine a scenario where the three liberal judges to get back at Trump could join a Gorsuch, who's a libertarian who believes who's a very strict constitutionalist.
And then you would only need one more to come over to say, you know what, to enforce and respect extradition treaties, we need to say the only way you can bring somebody here is through extradition.
Now, the additional question here is there is generally recognized sovereign immunity of a foreign head of state.
In this precise context, this has been litigated.
It was litigated in France when they went after Assad.
And the court concluded that it doesn't matter if France doesn't recognize Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria.
That it was recognized as a matter of fact that he was.
As the indictment of Maduro says, he is the de facto leader of Venezuela.
Under that precedent set in France, that would mean they could not execute this warrant either.
And so you may have, it won't be this judge, by the way.
This judge is a known deep state judge.
Why do you think they brought it in the sovereign district of New York?
I've been trying to tell my friend Alexander down in Austin: look at who's involved in this.
Look at who's cheering it.
Look at who's supporting it.
Hint, hint, it's not people who oppose the deep state.
It literally is the deep state.
All right.
Now let's get into the future just to wind it down.
How can it go wrong?
How can it go good?
Just review any history of regime change.
And you've got a long litany.
How it can go wrong, I guess, is easier to foresee.
How does it go so fantastically well that come midterms, enough middle-of-the-ground undecided voters say, I retroactively approve of and celebrate Trump's decision to the point where he now or all of his candidates get my vote?
The Venezuelan leaders and Venezuelan public has an overnight conversion.
You know, Scott Adams, unfortunately, facing some dismal health problems, says he's going to convert to Christianity.
I'm a born-again Baptist, so I believe in deathbed conversions.
So the Venezuela goes through a deathbed conversion, decides to celebrate old school populism and restore power to the people.
Now, of course, we'll get to the hush-hush version here in just a second.
There's some other people that need to get rewarded for Trump to probably be happy about all this.
But that they join it, they create this vibrant, like Elon Musk.
It's going to be the most prosperous Venezuela ever.
It's going to be the most prosperous country in the world.
It's going to return to the 1930s of Venezuela or the 1950s of Venezuela when oil prices were high and the population was low and the profits were running for everybody.
There'll be peace and freedom throughout Latin America.
And all the Venezuelan immigrants around the world who are celebrating this conflict always ask them a question: Are you going to go back to Venezuela now?
Are you going to stay here in the United States?
See how many of those Venezuelans suddenly go back to the U.S.?
They're so deeply concerned and committed about their home country.
Probably none of them will go back.
They like the benefits they got here.
God bless them.
I understand.
Not objecting.
But in an ideal world, they would all go back and reduce the migration problem here in the United States.
And it leads to greater prosperity here in the United States, greater freedom in the United States, greater economy in the United States.
That's what they sell it as.
But if that were actually to ever happen, then you could see it pop doing something no conflict has done outside of World War II, which is get more popular the longer it lasts.
Yeah, but none of that can happen within the next nine months.
As far as I can predict, the only stuff that can go that can happen in the next nine months is bad, at least temporarily.
And that's why every poll in the history of war after World War II has shown the public slowly gets more and more negative and sour.
And that's why it's very, very bad news for Trump that out of the gate, he doesn't have more than 39% approval.
And the only people he's banking on are boomer cons who love the Fox News slop.
And that, you know, if it were a pinpoint strike, we're in, we're out.
Let the regime do what it wants to do.
That's fine.
That's, you know, I say, like, what's going to happen now?
And then he comes out and says, well, no, we're going to run the country.
That's not a short-term solution.
I love that.
How many people for two hours on the cat turd train were like, hey, don't worry.
We're not going in there.
We're not staying in there.
This was a one and done deal.
And then Trump was like, what?
No, of course not.
We're going in there to take over the country, to run the.
And he even said it.
He said, to make Venezuela great again.
Donald, you are not elected to make Iran great again, to make Israel great again, to make Argentina great again, to make all of Miriam Adelson's promises come true, or to make Venezuela come great again.
God bless them.
But that's why politically, this is going to be a shit show and a disaster.
It will hurt Trump.
It's always a plus and minus game.
Look at any issue.
How many voters are we going to add?
How many voters are we going to lose?
Name what big voter group that never voted for Trump or Republicans is now going to turn around and vote for him because of this.
Now, name the people who are going to drop off.
Libertarians, anti-war voters, people who just think he doesn't care about them anymore.
He only cares about foreigners.
So it's a game in which it's minus, and very few pluses.
Now, here's what this war was all about.
The oil is decades away from even being developed.
And by the way, Venezuela has the richest reserves in the world.
No, they don't.
Hugo Chavez made that up.
He may go back and look at what their reserves were in the 1990, 1993 before Maduro got into power.
He claimed, you know, if we had this perfect technology, all of a sudden he like multiplied it by five.
Right.
So most of these reserves are fake.
So that's that's part one.
I think fake because I do not trust Hugo Chavez or Maduro on these things.
Second aspect is what about being able to extract it?
So being able to extract it will take 10 years and a billion plus dollars.
Go and follow the oil people out there.
They're like, what are you talking about?
Get the oil.
It will take a decade to even try to get the oil.
And a lot of people will.
So who's doing this?
Well, you see, Venezuela, going back to that Hugo Chavez expropriation in 2007, owes a range of big, big companies about $21, $22 billion.
They haven't been able to pay it because of our own sanctions, to be honest.
Trump's trying to figure out an excuse to get rid of the sanctions.
I think by removing Maduro, he can have a pretext to loosen the sanctions.
So Venezuela sells the oil back to the U.S. and in turn increases their cash flow to pay off that $22 billion judgment.
Well, last year, somebody bought all the debt that Venezuela owes, and they bought it for dimes on the dollar.
That they could, for about $7 billion.
Will it come as a great shock that it is a someone who also late in 2024 suddenly became a big donor to the Trump campaign?
His name is Paul Singer.
Yes, the Paul Singer, who's also obsessed with Israel.
His equity fund spent $7.8 billion to buy that $21 or almost $22 billion debt that Venezuela owes.
And imagine telling Trump, hey, Trump, I get you $50 million, bro.
Can you take care of this little Venezuela thing?
You don't even like Maduro anyway.
So by taking off of that, what can happen is that he could make $15 billion.
That'd be a good investment for $50 million.
And here's the kicker.
Paul Singer, who Trump is doing all of this for.
I put out a meme that he's like Les Grossman from Tropic Thunder.
He's doing his little dance when he saw Maduro was coming to Southern District of New York, where Paul also lives.
Paul Singer was the man who spent tons of money to try to get Trump defeated in 2016.
Then he spent a bunch of money to try to get Trump defeated in 2024.
Indeed, guess who originated Russia Gate?
That's right.
Paul Singer.
And that's the man who Trump is going to make fabulously rich by removing Maduro.
And I think that will be the only real policy impact of this whole thing.
I had a question that I forgot to ask about it.
It'll come back eventually.
Robert, let me get to a bunch of the tipped questions over on.
We'll go do start with Rumble, and then we're going to go to Viva Barnes' Law because I know there's a bunch of questions on point here.
Where the heck is it?
I know that I have it up here.
Hold on.
This one.
Somebody's asking, do you like Maduro?
If I was in Venezuela, I'd vote for somebody who knows how to run an oil economy.
And that ain't Maduro.
So, no, I'm not a Maduro fan.
Regime change again.
Where is it?
Here, share screen.
Are you seeing this now?
Yes, we are.
Okay, good.
FTW 1976, U.S. government illegitimate also should be under American common law, not incorporation.
America is not supposed to be involved, but has the right to defend itself, sovereign or not, for now.
Bill Doza says they are already saying we will take the refugees.
How the heck can we say we made things better for them while saying they can flee to the U.S.?
If I only knew says going through Congress, people went into slavery, do law or do right?
Citizens dying, citizen slavery, 700 Americans between 1784 and 1850, 1.25 million.
Do law or do right.
If I only knew the U.S. has a narco-Congress, CIA, DOJ system, narco-FBI, we don't have justice.
Why do we, the people, need to keep law ignored by lunatics in Congress?
Law, do right?
Okay.
Cindy 1M says, well, Monroe doctrine might be where some of the smarter brains need to look at it.
Plus, Teddy did it in 1922 and Trump did it in 2020.
They mean Teddy Roosevelt did that in 1902, 1903.
They're referencing the deal with Colombia to create Panama and the Panama.
Oh, that was the, thank goodness I got to it, Robert.
What about the voting systems in Venezuela?
Patrick Burns investigated says Laura 850.
Patrick Burns has been misled.
That's the short answer.
Patrick Burns and General Flynn have both been misled into believing.
I'll put it out there.
Anybody want to bet me, go ahead.
Nothing will come out about the 2020 election for the Maduro prosecution.
Nothing will happen.
Everybody's predicting this.
Watch.
I'll be right again.
Gorgeous Mayhem says, sad to see how many MAGA people are on board with regime change.
Having said that, Barnes, what do you say to Venezuelans that are super happy and should and we should do about the country not and not liking it?
It's not true of what's happening within the country, though.
There isn't the same degree of opposition there used to be because so many of the people that oppose the regime left.
And so, and the, and they've done enough to stabilize economically, militarily, social.
And to be honest, this is a huge boost for Maduro.
This makes Maduro is taking on the Yankee Imperialismo.
I mean, look at how he's acting, walking, he's like waving, he's smiling, he's saying, happy new year.
The heat sees this as a huge boost.
And look at how the Venezuelan government is treating it.
We want our president back.
We will stand up to the Yankee Imperialismo.
All that jazz.
Trump gave them a huge political gift.
Now, I don't think Trump cares.
I think he wants to find an excuse so that Venezuela can get some cash to give Paul Singer a bunch of money so he can deliver on that donation.
I think that's what all of this is about.
Now, I think Narco Marco would love to be able to cut off supply to Cuba and the rest.
I still say, oh, well, China now has redundant.
Yeah, guess where China gets to go now or has to go now for the heavy oil that they were getting from Venezuela?
Russia.
So people are like, why isn't Russia getting involved?
Why would they?
No, China's become more dependent on them than ever before.
I mean, this was a huge win for BRICS.
People are like, oh, this is a destruction of BRICS.
That's a huge win for BRICS.
They don't understand how this is going to play out.
P. Vecchio says Venezuela has a jungle the size of Iraq.
Seems like an ideal location for a 20-year insurgency.
It's where FARC is.
It's where all the, we'll get into it a little bit.
We talk about the Maduro indictment, the potential defenses.
But yeah, it is a nightmare that that area.
And here's how I give Trump credit.
Clearly, a bunch of people wanted him to go in, wanted a full occupying army, wanted Machado put in.
He recognized that was batshit insane.
He was like, yeah, we'll just go in.
We'll take this Maduro out and maybe I'll shake down Venezuela for a little bit of cash.
And, you know, Singer will get paid off.
And he's got to be happy and thrilled.
And we can just kind of forget it ever happened.
And I'm just a hero.
I think that's what Trump's planning on doing.
I don't think he's planning on going back in.
You never know.
You never know because he was also talking about, hey, maybe we should invade Colombia, Mexico, and a few other countries while we're at it.
I'm like, please, please, could we have all my only New Year's resolution?
No war in 2026, Porpo Bor.
So both.
So much for that so far.
King of Biltong says, kick off your 2026 health journey today with Bill Tong from Biltong, USA, packed with B vitamins, iron, zinc, creatine, and more.
Bill Tong, USA, B-I-L-T-O-N-G-U-SA.com.
Use code Barnes for 10% off.
Bull Gadari says, Barnes, was the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional?
The Civil War itself?
Boy, that's a whole secession debate and a whole nother debate.
And that would be a little bit longer to have.
Did the Constitution afford a right of secession or not?
That predicates whether you think the Civil War was legal or illegal.
Sammy says, what's good for U.S. companies is good for the U.S. global economic position.
Don't ask us how we get that done or else sign the CIA.
Randy Edwards says, as a descendant of John Quincy Adams, William Clark, James Buchanan, I maintain a protectionist leaning.
However, do you justify South Korea, the Philippines, Japan, and Germany?
I mean, there's plenty of examples.
And again, you could make some arguments since during World War II, that the world felt better about that war after it ended.
It's one of the only ones that's been true of in the last 2,000 years.
I like Force Dame Change says something that I had the thought of as well.
I know Maduro is not the leader of Panama.
It's the message that's sent to the rest of the world.
Fuck around, find out.
The problem is for a military.
It's sending just the opposite message.
It said the message is telling people is you better be Uber authority.
Yeah, and you better be strong because if you're weak, we'll walk over you.
And you better get nuclear.
Medvedev put this out.
He said, now the message is get nuclear weapons, everybody.
Because it's the only thing that deters you from crazy America who might come and kidnap your leader in the middle of the night.
It's not sending the message people think.
And honestly, I didn't know Team America World Police, the South Park satire would become the mantra of the Trump administration.
Yeah, my buddy.
You look like idiot frat boy retards.
You do not look like smart, intelligent leaders of the world.
I'm not, it's not my business to do.
It would be fun to go around for everybody who said Epstein files most important thing on earth and then overnight said, move on, it's a hoax.
Everyone who said, no regime change, no new wars, pull up those tweets and contrast them.
A guy named Brandon, who's following me on X and said he was a locals member.
I have no idea.
And he was sitting there saying, oh, yeah, you don't understand, Barn, you're losing over, da-da-da.
And so I went to his feed and his feed was all about like, no regime change, no new wars.
That's why I was like, pal, just because you became a hypocrite overnight doesn't mean we got to become hypocrites overnight.
Let me bring up a bunch from locals right now.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
DTQC says, Robert, do you know the story of Raymond Boulanger, a Canadian pilot who used to work for the Medellin cartel?
His take on the Narcos show was that it was mostly inaccurate.
Pehan says, I haven't seen his interview.
Now, I've seen other people's interviews that were part of the cartels and they were part of the DEA that said it was mostly accurate.
Pehan says, how many different people are of the origins of Russia Gate?
This is the fourth or first person, not fifth, fourth or fifth I've heard of.
You can go back and look at the history, but the very first person to start it through the Washington Examiner was a PAC funded by Paul Singer, who was backing Ted Cruz for president.
That was where the idea started.
And the original payer of some of the MI6 people was Paul Singer.
So Singer started it.
Then the Hillary Clinton campaign took over.
And then alongside of it, the FBI and the Justice Department took it off from there.
And the CIA and the NSA and everybody else.
Irene Pelagian says, Robert, firmly in the undecided camp, but why doesn't former president precedent re-pass presidential actions provide constitutional cover for well?
I mean, we addressed that.
It said if it was illegal then, it doesn't become legal over time.
And they might decide to enforce the law now by impeaching Trump.
Mostly you're banking on congressional abdication.
So for example, here's what you won't find.
Like a real precedent would have been if Congress authorized it after the fact and said it was always legal and constitutional to do.
That Congress has never done.
So that's the problem is that Congress has just abdicated from ruling on it.
That's not really the kind of precedent you want.
You want a precedent from an actually enforced policy, adjudicated policy, not a policy where the judges, like take civil rights, for example.
From 1886 or so to 1956 or so, the Supreme Court ignored everything that was happening in the deep south.
It was always a violation of the Constitution.
That didn't change.
But notably, Supreme Court never said it was constitutional.
They just stayed away from their separate but equal 1896.
So there's that issue.
But all the other voting rights, other issues, Supreme Court never said that was legal, but they never said it was illegal.
That doesn't create a legally enforceable precedent.
It just creates an argument politically that it's hypocritical to now be condemning Trump over something everybody else has done.
I want to read this one.
I have to look up what geneur means because I don't know what under the context.
It's from Elliot.
Viva, please consider tracking down a copy of L'En l'Évement, which means the kidnapping or the removal, a 2000 French language novel about a special operations in the Balkans.
The book opens with the U.S. president talking about the political leader of a self-proclaimed Balkan state.
On leve olive se géner.
Remove this.
Someone who gets in the way of things.
Oh, someone who impedes our progress, I guess.
Dylom le Prupris engonde says the most powerful person on earth.
Remove him.
Ilme Jean.
He's getting in my way.
Vladimir Volokov, en levement edition, roché paris.
That's a cool book.
Yeah.
Our board always has great recommendations.
No, I know.
Well, I recommend everybody who want to see a film, what this looks like in the past.
I highly recommend the Panama Deception that was made very close in time.
You know, it has Congressman Wrangel saying dumb stuff, but you can ignore some of that.
But a lot of informative stuff.
I watched it back at the time.
Another one called Invasion, Invasion.
I'm probably mispronouncing it, but I mispronounce English.
So I'm definitely at liberty to mispronounce foreign words.
That's also a very good invasion, a very good film in that regard, too.
We got the Schnookums who says removing Maduro does not put an end to the cartel bribery and threat of violence to follow on politicians going.
By the way, the number two person indicted in that indictment.
By the way, there were some people saying, hey, Barnes, why did they let his wife come with him?
It's all good.
She's been indicted.
She's imprisoned, everybody.
We imprisoned both Maduro and his wife.
Number two in the indictment is the current president of Venezuela.
Okay.
So the idea that if you actually believe this cartel of the sun, the cartel of the sun was created by the CIA in the late 80s, early 90s, using Venezuelan military.
And they called it Cartel of the Sun simply because they had the sun on their military badges.
It was politically, nobody started talking about it until they got so mad at Hugo Chavez and Maduro that they recreated it.
Even Tulsi Gabbard's intelligence report said it mostly doesn't exist.
It's very modest.
You read the Maduro indictment, you see how weak it is, by the way, on multiple, multiple counts.
But by the way, to my friend Alex Jones and some other people out there, like, oh, didn't Venezuela impact the 2020 election?
No, that was always fake.
That was fake news.
People drew connections that didn't exist.
And you want proof of that?
Guess who was also after Maduro?
Who tried to displace Maduro in the 2024 elections?
Who increased the bounty on him to $25 million?
Joe Biden.
The Democrats were all over this.
The Democrats thought about doing this themselves.
Why, if Maduro is in bed with the Democrats, did the Democrats go to great lengths to increase the sanctions on his economy and try to steal an election from him and try to get him in prison?
These people, like Alex is not even putting common sense together.
God bless him.
He wants to believe something, and people have misled him into believing something that is going to look embarrassing two years from now.
That's my girl.
Perhaps I should add the necessary cash to fix the chat says, Chris Kraft.
Thank you very much, Chris Kraft.
Or Congress removes the authorization use of force.
We got this part that was from P. Hans, Bluepin 5.
Somehow within the first year of the administration, they are able to get a warrant for a foreign leader that involves a military operation to arrest him, but the individuals in the deep state remain free.
Not one arrest.
I mean, hey, instead of going into Maduro, why don't we free Tina Peters?
Oh, well, I was going to say there's something to use our Marines for.
Get Tina Peters out.
And people like, Barnes, don't you care about these drug dealers?
Absolutely.
You know who the drug dealer I want in prison?
His name is Borla, and he's ahead of Pfizer, and they keep inviting him to the White House.
That's the biggest murdering criminal in our drug dealer in America or in the world today.
Going Pinkerton in other cases, it's not illegal kidnapping.
We work within the case law that we want, says P. Hans.
I've mentioned this previously.
Isn't it interesting how a citizen arrests someone else invalidly has violated the law and can be charged?
But if a cop institutes an indoor arrest, the reaction is nothing to see here.
Well, it doesn't invalidate the possession.
Could you check if you mistakenly blocked German IC Bear on X asking on behalf of his counsels?
S.J.
Well, no idea.
Then we got to do this one here.
There are some people I have mistakenly blocked.
That's why I just basically going through the people that are like bad faith on X that aren't.
If you're going to turn me the conversation, I'll often engage with the people that are not engaged and they're just messing up the feed.
This is the best.
And why they make everybody else so unhappy?
They don't want to even get into the feed.
This is why I don't block because I don't want to deal with it.
Cool, Robert.
You blocked me on Twitter.
I don't know why I haven't tweeted at you.
I've only liked or retweeted your posts.
I believe you are.
That was a mistake.
So that's German IC Bear.
Let's go ahead and screenshot that for later.
Jeanette Victoria says, I found another Robert Barnes cousin, likely a distant Gleason, Joseph Gleason, Orthodox priest who has since moved to Russia.
Though his grandmother, Winnie Adams, he descends from Sam Adams.
Yeah.
Okay.
They were probably cousins because Sam Adams was cousins with John Adams and the Barnes family is cousins with the Adams family.
The Piscadlo Andrews says that Trump GOP aren't interested in putting Americans first and have failed as leaders.
JD Vance is failing as a leader by backing this.
Even before the Venezuelan BS, why on earth would electing a GOP help the elected help Americans?
They have made it crystal clear they have no interest in improving American lives, helping non-insider businesses get ahead, defending deep state accountability.
And then we've got the meme: best I can do is 24/7 foreign policy and regime change.
Okay, Robert.
There's like all the people.
Why is it?
Let's put Fauci in prison for the love of God.
If we're going to breach the law to lock people up, let's make Anthony Fauci the top of the list, not let some guy in Venezuela, not a fan of Maduro.
But do you think Maduro is a real threat to America?
No.
Anthony Fauci, yes.
Bill Gates, yes.
George Soros, yes.
Well, Adam Schiff, yes.
Jack Smith, yes.
I mean, go after these guys.
Okay, do you want to go over the indictment briefly?
I mean, yeah, sure.
So the scary thing is, according to the government, they can indict you for owning a gun anywhere in the world, even if you're the leader of a foreign nation.
I had to keep rereading the indictment.
I was like, what?
The Pam Bondi's latest attack on the Second Amendment.
She's using the unpopular Maduro to try to establish a new legal precedent that if you use a gun anywhere in the world or own a gun anywhere in the world and we accuse you of being connected to something else illegal, we can now put you in prison for simply owning a gun.
Biggest attack on Second Amendment rights of any administration.
But I'm going to pull it up here.
I'm going to go to the charge counterclockwise.
Owning a gun while trafficking drugs.
Okay.
And that's a particular thing.
Well, it was a machine gun as well.
It had to be the rapid-fire machine gun, which is different than an AR rifle.
Which every military, foreign military has.
I mean, it's chasing machine guns.
I mean, I was like, what?
I was like, why is that even in there?
I mean, is this supposed to be?
And by the way, Alex Omberlo, oh, it's about elections.
Not a single word in here about elections.
Nothing about elections.
Oh, it's about fentanyl.
Not a single word in here about fentanyl.
So in the actual indictment, which they even admit, guess what the cartel is and what Maduro is really accused of?
I was curious, were they going to accuse him of possessing cocaine?
Nope.
Were they going to accuse him of producing cocaine?
Nope.
Were they going to accuse him of directly distributing or transporting cocaine?
Nope.
Were they going to accuse him of money laundering?
Nope.
Were they going to accuse him of receiving money from the proceeds of drugs?
Nope.
Instead, they say his military and government have people that provided cover and support for it.
And then a few other random stories of a couple of randos who are already convicted criminals claiming that they had offered bribes to Maduro.
That's literally, but no bribe allegations in the indictment.
So literally, the only allegation is his government allowed cocaine to happen and he has guns.
Put him in prison.
It's one of the weakest indictments I've ever seen.
Well, but for it's not like Noriega.
Noriega was guilty, he was guilty.
But they wouldn't allow Noriega to say, I did this for the U.S. government, everybody.
That's what they hid.
Poppy Bush was like, Don't you listen to any of these crazy conspiracy theories about me being involved in any of this?
Of course, when the FOIA stuff came out, Poppy Bush put Noriega in the payroll back in 1974.
That's how long back it goes.
That Noriega was on the CIA payroll and Poppy's pal.
But what happened is they wanted Noriega to give back the canal.
This has been a debate all the way back to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley debated on it with Pat Young.
Pat Buchanan was sitting there firing away.
Oh, you know, old school debate on that.
If you want to watch that on PBS Frontlining, you'll find a documentary on YouTube.
It was all about stealing the canal.
That's why when the inside the military, they actually seized Noriega and they said, come and pick him up.
And we never did.
Instead, we allowed the Noriega supporters to go in and kill those guys and free Noriega because the goal was to destroy the Panama military.
Because after, guess what happened after we destroyed the Panama military?
The U.S. Congress passed a bill saying we probably need to keep the canal because Panama doesn't have a military anymore because we destroyed it.
That's what Noriega was all about.
Just like all this stuff about Maduro is about other stuff.
But Maduro is looking forward to this trial, folks.
You can tell.
He's smiling.
He's happy.
He doesn't care about over in Brooklyn, hardcore prison, hardcore facility.
He's looking forward to being the ultimate, either ultimate martyr or ultimate victor.
Imagine if he goes through that trial and it'll be fixed and rigged.
The judge is an old deep state judge.
That's why they chose SDNY.
It's one of the most corrupt deep state prosecution centers in the world.
It should be a huge red flag to the Alex Joneses of the world and the General Flynn's of the world that this is a deep state operation, not an anti-deep state operation.
Why is it we can go arrest Maduro, but we can't arrest Fauci.
We can't arrest Bill Gates.
We can't arrest a single Democrat for January 6th.
We can't arrest anybody for the law fair.
We can't arrest anybody for Russia Gate and Spygate so far because the deep state doesn't want those arrests and they do want Maduro's arrest.
Isn't that the common denominator?
Probably a big Q and Clue that arresting Maduro is in favor of the deep state.
But he actually, this case is weak, weak, weak.
And you never know with a Democratic jury pool in New York these days.
What happens if Maduro gets acquitted?
How humiliating and embarrassing would that be?
Haven't thought about that.
He's going to get a jury of his peers are going to be a jury of Americans.
But a lot of lefties on that jury pool potentially.
I mean, this was the problem with doing it in New York.
If you're thinking jury pool, you go down to Florida where all the Cubans and Venezuelans can't wait to hang their enemies.
By the way, trusting any, it's like people tell you, hey, trust the Venezuelans that left Venezuela.
It's like, I've seen how that worked, trusting the Cubans that left Cuba.
It didn't end well, folks.
Trusting those people was always trouble.
And so I think it'll be the same here.
But he has legitimate defenses because this is a very, very weak indictment.
And he can't wait to put the Trump team on trial, everybody else on trial.
The judge will try to fix it as best he can, but he won't have as much success as Bill Barr had down in Florida with Noriega because one, Noriega was guilty, as all get out.
And two, unlike Maduro, it's not clear Maduro really ever had anything to do with drugs.
That doesn't appear to be his modus operandi because I went through the indictment thinking they'll have some really damning facts.
They're made-up facts.
And it was the weakest indictment.
Compare it to the Noriega indictment.
It's not even close.
No mention of theft of American property, theft of American infrastructure.
No, no, no, because that was going through the civil arbitration process, and they'd already seized a lot of assets.
That was about collection of those judgments, not about any of the rest, because that happened in 2007.
And it was not seizure, really.
It was, we've changed the legal structure.
Do you want to continue the partnership or not?
They said no.
So they said, okay, fine, we'll go for it anyway.
Now, it was a mistake tactically because the oil production fell through the floor.
For those leftist friends of mine out there that may like Maduro or Chavez, there'll be a bunch that will just because he's anti-Trump and he's taking down Yankee Imperialismo and all that jazz.
Go back.
There's a great left.
I'll find it.
It's a left dot produced documentary about how in mid-stage Hugo Chavez and all of Maduro's regime completely betrayed the working class people of Venezuela related to the oil.
But all of this is going to get distracted by now it's Maduro versus Yankee Imperialismo versus Uncle Sam coming down to run Latin America again.
We are giving his regime a massive PR boost in their country and people don't even realize it.
But that wraps it up.
But we'll get to our last international case before the list of domestic cases some of we'll get to, some we may not get to this Sunday, which is, did the CIA just try to murder Vladimir Putin?
So I heard a little bit about this, but I was just trying to make sure I understood what was going on in Venezuela.
Robert, well, first of all, some people were saying Putin's going to learn the wrong lesson now and he's going to go do this to Zelensky and try to kidnap Zelensky and enforce law there, but apparently he understands the problem.
People should look at the National Security Archives, great organization at George Washington University, where Professor Jonathan Turley teaches.
And I recommend people want to look at that text as to the argument as to why one of Trump's arguments against impeachment is the hypocrisy and duplicity given the history.
Turley lays that out as you cited.
But it's not a legal argument.
It's a policy precedent hypocrisy argument.
But if the I blanked on what I was saying right before that.
Yeah, and I got distracted because I saw TWS as a serious thing, and I don't know what that is.
If it meant to be a T D D S, I'm looking where the W is on the board.
They mean like that there are people that it's what Thomas Massey calls the other version of Trump derangement syndrome.
That there's a group of people that no matter what Trump does, it's awesome.
It's crazy.
I'm actually trying to cheat and listen to what Salty is saying to see if he's on board with this or not, but I can't decipher what his family is.
Salty's likely to initially be on board because he's sort of, he's not like deeply immersed in the geopolitical world.
He's more the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign, you know, that sort of thing.
So I'm sure Steven Crowder will be on board with it.
Well, you saw, you saw his, what's the guy's name?
Who's his?
You're arguing Gerard's response to me.
Oh, yeah, that's what I was referencing earlier, Gerard.
And I like Gerard Drude, but I was like, that's a weak or Jared.
It's Jared, not Gerard.
Sorry.
I'm giving him a fancier making him look smarter than he is.
That's my defense.
But I saw his response.
I was like, that's kind of a lame response.
I was like, one, you're confusing law and policy.
And what I'm trying to educate people on is to distinguish the two.
I mean, I'll give an example.
Take the Civil War.
Let's say it was illegal and unconstitutional.
The argument would be abolition of slavery made it worth it, that that was a higher moral and legal calling that justified it.
And Martin Luther King often said, don't confuse morality with legality.
So I'm not making an argument that everything that's legal is necessarily moral.
There is an argument for that, but I'm not saying it's the only or sole argument in town.
But so, but what happened?
I mean, this leaked publicly.
So on the day that Zelensky was here, meeting with Trump, Trump tells Putin before the call when Zelensky is not there, please stay put wherever you are.
I'm going to call you back when the Zelensky meeting is over.
While the Zelensky meeting is occurring, a huge drone attack is launched from Ukraine that Russia has now found the drones and got the maps for that were going right to Putin's principal residence in the Novograd region outside of Moscow, where also the nuclear command is located, by the way.
Now, unfortunately for them, the people who launched the attack came from Ukraine.
All the drones were knocked down.
Also, unfortunately for them, some of the drones were knocked down intact.
Some of them were knocked down intact where Russians could take out the map of where they were going, figured it out, gave it to the Americans.
Now, the initial response of the West was no drone attack happened.
Then CIA Director Ratcliffe goes out to the Wall Street Journal and says, yeah, a drone attack did happen, but we were looking at a building.
But he says, he doesn't say we.
He says Ukraine was looking at a different building, not just in the vicinity, but we can't tell you which one it is.
Yeah, right.
Now, the problem is what happened earlier that day.
They ran another story, I think, in the New York Times, where the CIA admitted they've been running the entire drone war.
How you thought out there, Americans, that we were no longer paying for the Ukraine war?
Wrong.
Trump has been increasing the funding for the Ukraine war through the CIA, according to the CIA.
They said they got him to increase it.
And by the way, if your goal is to do things, according to the article, Trump said, this is great.
It gives me plausible deniability because we can pretend the Ukrainians are doing it.
You know what hurts plausible deniability?
When your CIA director is yipping that to the entire world in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Why was that piece written the same day?
Here's what I think they thought was going to happen.
They knew Putin was staying put waiting for Trump's call.
They were going to use that as the opportunity to murder him and take him out.
And they were going to use the article being printed that same day to say, look, Trump authorized this, everybody.
Don't be mad at us.
Trump approved this.
Trump green lit this.
And they thought it would be a great achievement.
We took out the evil dictator, Vladimir Putin.
What they would have done is potentially trigger nuclear war because there's people in Russia saying this already, high-ranking people.
They're saying the West just pushes us around, ignores us, dismisses us.
It's time we use our nuclear weapons like the U.S. did.
It worked for the U.S. in World War II.
It will work for us now.
That's how crazy these lunatics are in the CIA that Ratcliffe has unleashed on the world.
The Venezuela, the Trump administration for the last six months, their foreign policy has been run by the CIA.
They're not running an anti-CIA operation.
The CIA is running the operation.
And we came that close to World War III.
And the only reason it didn't happen is because Russia's air defenses are gosh darn good.
All right.
Well, that's enough to make you angry.
Look at this.
I'm getting a new grimace wrinkle above my eye.
Robert, let's get to the other one that's going to make some people grimace.
Speaking of Patsy's, speaking of injustices, and I'm like, I don't care, like, I have, you know, Trump stuff.
I want Trump to succeed.
It doesn't mean that I'm going to swallow garbage and say it tastes like Philippon.
When it comes to Brian Cole Jr., I don't believe they have the right guy.
To the extent he was involved at all, I believe he's part of a broader conspiracy, which some people who are now going to go back to being able to express their own opinions have thoroughly believed that it was an inside job of a broader scope than just a one-off lone bomber, autistic, borderline, dysfunctional, now 30-year-old man.
The affidavit was weak.
The thing I need to ask you, and I don't know if you're going to be able to flesh it out, the distinction as to how they went by way of affidavit for probable cause and not a grand jury indictment because there's two levels of courts in D.C. and they didn't get a grand jury indictment at one level, but then on the eve of the preliminary hearing, they tried to get a grand jury indictment at the local level.
I know that I don't understand it because I can't explain it.
Are you able to make me understand what that distinction is, the levels of grand jury indictments and why they didn't get one and then tried to bypass it or circumvent it by getting one the night before?
If the case is so compelling and persuasive, and they know there's a bunch of people, including ex-FBI agents, accusing them of setting up a Patsy, in this case, an African-American, severely autistic individual, level one, the wouldn't you welcome a preliminary hearing for the world to witness?
Why is it the U.S. government is so scared of a preliminary hearing, even that they went to great procedural shenanigans to try to avoid?
That should be a red flag that this is a false flag, that they are framing an innocent autistic kid.
They're becoming like the caricature of caricature.
Like the FAFO, I'm going to be the next Imperialismo, General Eastmo of Venezuela from one day, and the next day, they're setting up black autistic kids.
I mean, for something cluely, a CIA agent did.
When I say the CIA is running this government, I mean the CIA is running this government.
I mean, they were giving him misinformation about Ukraine for six months.
And this is just another illustration.
Because why?
Why do I say that?
Because there was credible evidence developed by Steve Baker and others that the person who actually did the pipe bomb was on assignment, you might say, to the Capitol Police and works for who now?
The Central Intelligence Agency.
And as soon as this came out, they rushed and pointed the finger at this Patsy.
Now, legally, what do they do?
One, they were scared they couldn't get a grand jury indictment, so they didn't go get it.
So they bring the information and they coerce the kid into a confession with like six hours of barraging this kid without counsel.
Severely autistic.
Yeah, but so he allegedly waived his Miranda rights.
How does someone who might not be of sound mind wouldn't understand what that even means?
That's what they did.
This is how sleazy the Kash Patel, corrupt cash FBI is.
No, Mike.
Because Cash has no idea about it, just like the 5 million new Epstein documents they discovered that he claimed didn't exist.
And they're like, uh-oh, there's another 5 million.
Nobody reviewed them all, remember?
You know, there was no Epstein list, remember?
There was no co-conspirator.
Kash Patel is a crack.
He's a joke.
He's a joke.
Dan Ballaspongino is back to his podcast so he can run and hide from this.
But the legacy of this FBI is one of the most corrupt prosecutions I've ever seen.
But I want to make sure people understand this.
And you'll tell me if I'm not blowing it out of proportion.
The kid is, by all accounts, autistic.
Apparently, by his family's and friends' admission or affirmation, he's got the cognitive capacity of a 15-year-old.
How the hell do they put on black and white on paper?
He waived his Miranda rights, so we proceeded to interrogate him for four and a half hours.
How does an autistic person waive those rights?
And how does anyone think that that's a legitimate waiver of their rights?
It's not in my opinion.
But you get a broad sense of it.
They thought they would force this kid into an immediate plea.
And when they didn't, they started to get nervous because all of a sudden a preliminary hearing is requested and they're like, our evidence is cracked okay.
Now, tell us what happens at a preliminary hearing.
This is where they go over the evidence for probable cause to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to arrest and whether or not there's sufficient cause to maintain detention.
You know, I've got to avoid the temptation to dump on retarts, but there's so many of them on X. There was a bunch of them to, hey, Barnes, there was an arrest warrant issued.
That means there is no preliminary hearing.
Probable cause has already been stabbed.
Don't you know that?
Let's understand some things.
There's probable cause for the purpose of an arrest.
That probable cause is a much lower standard just reached by a magistrate.
It is not the probable cause necessary to detain and hold someone for trial.
For that in the federal system, you need something more.
You need either the independence of a grand jury or you need a contested adversarial hearing where the defense gets to present witnesses, where the defense gets to cross-examine evidence.
So that's what a preliminary hearing is.
By the way, it's still probable cause.
So it's a very low evidentiary standard to meet by the government.
It's the lowest one in the entire criminal justice process.
The only thing unique about it is the defense gets to present some evidence and the defense gets to cross-examine.
The government is so scared that their case is so weak in the January 6th Pipe Bomber case that they're terrified of a preliminary hearing.
And so what do they do?
They panicked.
They ran over to the local court.
Now, D.C. is totally unusual.
You could not get away with this in any other jurisdiction.
That's beyond dispute.
But because the District of Columbia is a quasi-federal jurisdiction and it's run by Congress and the courts are appointed directly by the president, so you have a much more friendly judicial environment, typically, to the existing administration, though some have been appointed by prior Democratic presidents.
But it doesn't go through the same disciplined process the federal ones do.
You don't have as deferential judges consistently in the state court system, you might say.
They're trying to pretend that their indictment reached by the local D.C. court is identical to a federal indictment because legally they were required to have already held the preliminary hearing.
This is why the defense is now demanding immediate release because preliminary hearing rights have already been violated.
And the idea, you know, guess what judge said that it was okay you could do these kind of shenanigans.
There's only one judge in the history of the country to say you can avoid a federal grand jury and avoid a federal preliminary hearing by having the local D.C. court issue a grand jury.
Well, I know it was Boseberg that did it, not in D.C. If Boseberg issued the decision, it's wrong.
You can just bet on it.
That's like that's a law.
It's like if you see all the Bush, Jeb Bush and the Rothschilds and Lindsey Graham and all those people on the side of saying a foreign action was a good idea, run, run while you still can.
Because you know it's trouble.
So I think it's garbage.
The question is, will judge, will any of these judges have the cojones?
Because generally they don't.
He saw the magistrate, yes, we must detain this black autistic kid because he's kind of a danger, but I didn't say explain how.
I mean, his analysis, Eighth Amendment analysis was a crock, but it's because of how deferential they are to the government there in D.C. and the deep state, especially.
You can take on Trump, but not if it serves the deep state.
This indictment serves the deep state.
That's why you're suddenly seeing these judges not care about the law and enforcing the Eighth Amendment in this context, because they know it's a deep state indictment brought to cover for the CIA's complicity in January 6th, which Kash Patel has been busy covering up.
The, along with Pam pay-for-play bundy.
So, who's almost becoming a self-satire?
I mean, she actually put out the Venezuelan case, which was a perfect example of upholding the rule of law.
It's like there's a lot of arguments for it, darling, but upholding the rule of law ain't one of them.
So, this they're trying to frame this Patsy.
And now, the question is: will any federal judge have the courage of simply enforcing the law to protect this innocent man?
Well, I believe is an innocent man's rights through the government's own implicit admission that they're afraid of a preliminary hearing proves they're and here, what might come out in a preliminary hearing?
Well, that the kid doesn't match any aspect of the person on tape, doesn't match the gait, doesn't match the walk, doesn't match the demeanor, doesn't match any of it.
Not only that, the car he drives appears to have been many, many blocks away at the very with him driving it at the very time the pipe armor was putting the pipe bombs in.
This was some of the evidence that Kyle Serifin and uh Steve Friend talked about.
Maybe helping out Steve Friend, Sue Kash Patel, to get back that money that they was promised, about half a million bucks.
I got to review that this week, as a matter of fact.
But Kyle Serafin's done really good.
I haven't always agreed with him.
He said his New Year's resolution is to be a little less snarky this year.
See how good that works.
He's failed already.
I can tell you that.
Yeah, this is what he already said.
He said it's not working.
But his analysis, FBI-wise, is fantastic.
It is top-notch, really, really good.
These guys are the real deal in many respects.
I give them their kudos on that.
We may disagree on this or that politically, but by golly, law enforcement analysis is top.
No, it's, I think, you know, Kyle's issues are that he is personally, what's the word, aggrieved by a number of people that he will not forgive.
And it taints the manner in which he deals with them, but it doesn't taint his intellectual process.
It doesn't taint his analysis of law enforcement.
And they were the ones appointed.
Basically, there's tons of evidence that even the dimmest judge, or at least the people in the court of public opinion watching the case, Robert Gouvet is there in D.C. following this case in live time, going down there.
You talked to Ivan Ranklin, who's gone down there, who had a nice little fun interrogation of the U.S. attorney.
Didn't mind that whatsoever.
Thought that was respectful and made some good points.
By the way, for those of you who don't know, the U.S. attorney, the Gene Pirro, and Kash Patel chose to run this case against this Patsy is the same U.S. attorney who facilitated and enabled and assisted the rogue prosecution of General Flynn and assisted the rogue prosecution of many K January 6 defendants.
No, and I just tweeted out.
I mean, how is she still on this case?
It blows the mind how she's because it is a CIA deep state.
Who do you hire?
Who do you put on a deep state case than one of the deep state?
Robert, are you suggesting Janine Pirro is either in the deep state?
The same judge, Janine Pierrow, who deliberately kept a young kid in state prison for the better part of a decade, who she knew was innocent, that Judge Gene?
Do you think Fox News put her on because she's an honest prosecutor?
Do you think Fox News promoted her or Congress approved her because she was going to do Ed Martin style cases?
Guess again.
Yes, while Janine Pirro was Westchester District's attorney, her office refused to test DNA evidence in the case of Jeffrey Deskovich, who was wrongly convicted and fought his appeals for years, even as DNA later proved his innocence, leading to his release after 16 years in prison.
Deskovic claims he repeatedly asked Pierrow's office to test DNA from the crime scene against databases, but they declined, only for this to happen years later under her successor, revealing another man committed the crime.
All right.
Well, now I no longer like Janine Piro.
That's it.
Done and done.
Robert, meanwhile, any judge should let this kid go, and a judge just ordered his detention until trial because he's satisfied he did not sufficiently rebut the presumption for detainment given the nature of the crime.
He's a nature of the circumstances.
Because they do statutory analyses rather than constitutional analysis.
Do you have an idea of how bad it is?
I was in front of a federal magistrate a few years ago, and I started talking about the Eighth Amendment analysis.
And he actually asked me, what does the Constitution have to do with this?
Can you imagine a federal magistrate judge who presides over bail proceedings not knowing the Eighth Amendment applies?
That's how bad they've gotten on bail issues.
So, but meanwhile, now he's been detained.
They've made an emergency petition for his release, which I think they're presenting tomorrow.
So we'll be following that.
Robert Gouveya watching the watchers.
I don't know if he moved to D.C. Ivan Rakeland said he might have, and I'm not sure if we're supposed to know that, but apparently he's going to be there.
So I'll be following that and maybe try to get Gouveia on.
All right.
Anything else on Jan Six's pipe bomber case other than it's a travesty of justice, fact and law, and it'll be revealed sooner than later, presumably.
Those are all the basically the black pill cases of the week.
Here's the big white pill case of the week.
Huge Second Amendment win out of Camifornia.
Before we get there, let me read a bunch of tipped questions over on locals.
Dapper Dave says, Viva, I believe you're wrong regarding Mamdani arresting Netanyahu on the ICC warrant in New York.
Local and state authorities can arrest on international warrants.
Robert, who would issue the internet?
An international warrant is not coming from the ICC, typically.
Yeah, I mean, and even there, people don't understand how those.
So even an ICC warrant is only enforceable when you go through the local court process.
If that local, like, this is why what's his name's threat to arrest Netanyahu is completely bogus.
New York, the United States is not a signatory to the ICC.
Its warrants have no impact whatsoever, no legal effect whatsoever in the United States.
So there may be an existing ICC warrant for B.B. Netanyahu, but it's only enforceable by the local courts of the nations that have signed on to enforce the ICC.
It's like an interpol notice.
An interpol notice is to a local jurisdiction to use its local arrest warrant authority.
That's how that works.
Like homologating a foreign judgment.
It's not the foreign judgment until it gets ratified by the local courts.
Bingo, bingo.
Same exact thing.
All right.
R.B. Ham says, obviously, this latest regime change operation shows us that no matter who America votes for, you get Dick Cheney.
Kalati says, what am I missing?
Is there no concern with Russia, China, and other undesirables working with Maduro using the oil in the territory to compromise America's security at home?
I think we covered that fairly thoroughly.
Venezuela was a short-sighted move.
I guarantee China immediately went to all South America dictators, offered them cheap Chinese weapons.
China has now an easy argument to bring countries to their side and create hostile armed nations, says S. Ren.
What treaties are broken with this action?
We covered that.
Charton says, I saw this coming from the first drug boat when the first drug boat got hit.
Any chance Trump can save the narrative by calling it a joint operation with Vezina Venezuela?
Also, if the people there see immediate improvement in their lives, yeah.
There's no such thing as international.
Okay, so I got that part.
How much of the Venezuelans coordinated with Maduro, the vice president?
I think we got that stingray.
If Congress wants its war powers back, it can change the law.
Maybe this will get them to do it, says Pi Hans.
Susie C says, thank you.
Tony says, I think it's sarcastic.
I survived World War III.
The channel locals has been broken for a week.
Every time someone posts a message, it jumps to the top of the chat.
The old one kicks me up.
I'll send this.
I thought they fixed it because I've been sending it to them.
Iran bombing got more popular when we did not go full scale.
Also, it also gets forgotten if it's short.
Absolutely.
You thought leaning was, okay, this is funny.
Passion Moyer.
Barnes has definitely hacked up on Amos Miller's raw milk.
Ken Worth, Mafia 92.
It would be a totally different set of circumstances if we had arrested all the fraudulent leaders.
Congress people and senators, we had our affairs in order to get there'd be less political blowback if we were if Trump was in a better foundation to do this.
I know Barnes does not think 10% of cocaine is issue or them training Hamas, but when does it become our interest?
Well, I guess the question is: how do you deal with it?
It becomes our interest when they're a direct imminent threat in a different way than first of all.
That wasn't the biggest.
If you believe Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran are all hanging out in Venezuela, well, God bless you.
You're the kind of person who probably still waiting for us to discover those WMDs in Iraq.
And probably still, it's like your Fox News boomer con uncle that is telling you, oh, no, yeah, remember the incubator papers?
We had to go in there and do that.
You know, people still believe that sort of thing.
That slot.
So, you know, God bless and good luck to them.
But no, I don't believe any of that is the case.
By the way, if any of it had any ounce of credibility, they would have included it in the indictment.
That's what I was going to say.
There was nothing about Hamas working with terrorists.
They had the cocaine dealing, but if the cocaine is the only thing.
Even the cocaine dealing was indirect.
And they even admit in it, the total amount of cocaine that came through Venezuela, period, even the part that had nothing to do with Maduro, is less than 10% of all the cocaine distributed in the U.S.
No, absolutely.
And none of the fentanyl.
So you want to save 77,000.
Currently in Canada.
I was going to say, you want to save 77,000 people, then go invade Canada.
And that was the segue into this one.
We'll invade Canada.
We got to kidnap Cornell, criminal.
Currently in Canada, but I'm looking to do an H-1B visa to immigrate to the U.S. I'm an airline pilot, 25 years of experience.
Right now, the law firm that we are considering using has about a 70% success rate.
What do we think enhanced application?
Do you think the U.S. economy will continue?
Well, I would just say Bloom McConnell, Dorothy McConn, is the lawyer I used, and she was great.
So Bloom McConnell, Dorothy McConne, MCCAN of New York.
Low-key says, Barnes, your camera's not focusing.
We got that.
Will you have to go back to Jimmy Carter for a president who didn't start a foreign war and back 100 years to Herbert Hooper for one who didn't send troops overseas to fight a war?
We either started or supported.
Locals chat is broken.
I got that already.
Spam rate.
God, it is in.
I'm going to get to it as well in a screenshot.
This reducing taxes on regulation on entrepreneurs, beginning with President Reagan, yielded the greatest and most sustained improvement in prosperity for poor, rich in history.
Here are the numbers.
Spam Ranger.
C. Comment.
I'm not smart.
I don't know if I'm going to get that one.
Okay.
And I got a bunch of these.
Hope I didn't miss anything, but we'll get to some more afterwards.
Robert, let's get to some of the other.
Oh, hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on.
That's a great Second Amendment win.
Oh, yeah.
So that's coming out.
You got to give a white pill in the middle.
Well, it doesn't seem like it's a white pill.
You get your rights infringed on less.
That's the white pill.
This one was one, Banta, coming out of California, where they had outlawed, forbidden, restricted.
They had outlawed open carry in any city that is over 200,000 people, which is 95% of California.
And then the initial ruling was, yeah, it was a justifiable restriction on Second Amendment rights.
Court of Appeal came down.
There were some other issues about shall issue in towns of 200,000 people or less.
In the rural areas, whether they're shall issue permitting that into issue because some of the issues weren't pursued on appeal, were pushed off.
But big winning, which was the right to open carry, whether Comifornia or any other state, is part of the history and tradition protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And Comifornia's complete ban on your right to open carry for self-defense is now completely struck down.
And by implication, every other place in the country that bans open carry, they said open carry is part of the history and tradition of the Second Amendment.
If it gets affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court, where it might end up going, that would be great.
But this is a big, big, big Second Amendment win to make more robust your right of self-defense.
Did the um they did.
What was I going to say?
Um the Bruin interpretation, which was interpreting it in light of the historical uh precedent and whether or not it was a generally recognized right at the time.
Second amendment, they said open carry was.
But Robert, they still have to get a permit right.
But it's that they still have to get authorization to open carry, but they are not allowed basically willy-nilly, restricting the issuance of permits.
Or do you not need a permit to open carry period?
So in the rule there is, there shall issue permitting processes that allowed open carry.
And they said because a lot of the legal issues related to that had not been pursued on appeal, they were going to let that go for now.
So that's for another day.
But the more important one was the fundamental right to open carry, period.
And Commifornia's problems are like, well, we theoretically have a licensing process.
And so they're an oil argument.
They're like, has anybody ever got a license to open carry?
I'm like, well, it's probably been zero so far.
So the court saw through that garbage.
And big, big Second Amendment win for expanding, extending, and deepening Second Amendment rights against one of the worst states in the country.
I mean, now you can go in LA and you can open carry.
So you can actually defend yourselves when TDA, Venezuelan gang, that Maduro might have helped release in the U.S.
I get criticisms of Maduro's regime, trust me.
But now you can protect and defend yourself, thank God.
And that's critical, essential, and a huge constitutional win for Americans in the country.
I was like someone in the chat.
They're like, FIVA's awesome.
He delivers bad news with a smile and a laugh.
Yeah, right.
I mean, it's yeah, no, I just, I'm happy to live in the free state of Florida, just to suffice to say that.
Robert, what was the case Robert was going to share about the vacation rental properties?
We're going to get there in a second, Patty, and that might be the segue.
Kiki.
Keep the case out of Hawaii.
Yeah, please comment on JD Vance's comments supporting the Venezuela actions, especially as we covered that.
I didn't respond to him.
Oh, I was kind about it.
I was like, you know, for the other Yale law graduates out there, no, I don't, I'm unaware of the course that says you can actually execute an arrest point outside the territory of the court.
But when I thought about it, I was like, well, okay, there's two statues of Nathan Hale, which I wrote this as a young college student at a particular university we're about to talk about, in America.
One of them is located on the old campus of Yale University.
I wrote this for a little Yale publication when I was a freshman there.
And the other one is sitting in at Langley, Virginia, because Nathan Hale was considered America's first buy.
But the founders of CIA all go back to various secret societies at Yale for the most part.
The huge overlap.
I did this deep dive on it.
So it might be the case when JD was at Yale Law School.
They were teaching when the CIA does it, it's legal.
I'll read a couple more and then we'll get into the vacation rental.
We really need a white pill because the topics of conversation, what we are all certainly dealing with in our personal lives, America needs, seems to be continuing as a decline.
Please give us a white pill.
Well, if he's going to open carry, you can actually defend yourself in Comifornia.
Big wave.
The vacation rental, I guess, is a small white pill.
This was in Hawaii, where they were phasing out property owners' ability to rent out their properties as rental properties because they have seemed to have a housing shortage in Hawaii.
I'm not sure if it varies by island.
And I forget the area now.
You'll clarify the area, but the bottom line is people bought their properties having thought that they were grandfathered into an exclusion from restrictions on rentals.
And they said, yeah, you did, but we really want to free up properties for purchases because that'll solve the housing crisis.
So over the next however many years, we're basically eliminating your right to rent a property that you acquire for the purposes of rental.
And did they have it?
Am I going crazy or was it declared unlawful?
Oh, it hasn't reached that statement.
I'm imagining the outcome based on the pleadings, but they're basically saying we were grandfathered in.
Is unlawful takings without compensation.
It's deprivation of what I can do, you know, peaceful enjoyment of my own property.
Set aside the grandfathered in.
The policy behind it, I mean, it's so patently absurd that the housing shortage is as a result of rentals and not, you know, I don't know, build more houses, or I don't know, maybe there's some immigration issues that might be going on there.
So, sorry, in the pleading stages.
But the bulk of the argument is that this is unlawful takings without compensation by the government and therefore should be declared unlawful.
Any precedent on this yet?
Yeah, yeah, basically it said that when a regulation, so when does a regulation become a taking?
A taking of a property that would require under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution into the analog provisions under state constitutions.
This case, I think it's Article 5.
I'm not sure which one of the Hawaii Constitution.
When is the state taking property without just compensation?
And usually that requires a physically taking of the property.
But increasingly, the Supreme Court has recognized often this effectively happens when you strip a critical property right within the bundle of property rights that you have.
That if you completely eliminate one of your key property rights, like the right to exclude people from coming onto your property, for example, this was the California case that allowed union organizers to go on people's property for a range of reasons for that breached people's property rights that was considered ultimately a taking as a regulation by the Supreme Court.
So when a regulation strips you entirely of one of the key bundle, one of the key parts of the bundle of rights of property that you have, vested rights, if you will, then the, and that's the key factor here, then it is considered a taking that requires just compensation.
Additionally, you've got due process rights because it's an invasion of property and liberty without due process of law because there was no notice or hearing process individually.
Again, because the right had already vested.
It's not a right to do something that had not previously been granted.
Here, these people brought, what they focus on is the reasonable expectation of the individual.
And here, because as they pointed out, within the contracts to build, within the contracts of agreement, within the zoning permissions issued at the time they purchased the property, all of it guaranteed their right to vacation rental this property in a region that is very tourist-driven.
So Maui has different parts.
This was in Maui, but this part was a very terraced tourist area surrounded by tourist hotels.
So it was a condo development, meaningfully that got all the investment it got for the purpose of treating it as a vacation rental, whereas some people would use it for themselves, but most of the year they would vacation rental it to others.
And that was what justified the investment that they made.
And now Hawaii is coming in and saying, nah, we want to take all that away because Hawaii is a quasi-commie state.
And so the, so they brought this very well-brought, thorough legal action challenging it.
And hopefully the courts will recognize it.
And this will have an impact across the country because they're trying to strip people of their right to rent for vacation rentals all across the country.
They're trying to kill the entire Airbnb VRBO industry, which is often a critical side business for a lot of ordinary people that might have a second property.
The only way they can afford that second property as a vacation property for their family is if they Airbnb it or vacation rent it out.
It's not the super rich people doing this.
They don't rent out their properties.
So Bobby Barnes can show up and crash at Bill Gates pad Maui.
I don't want that to happen.
I might go peeking around seeing what's in there.
It's more normies that do this, more middle, upper, middle income Americans.
And I'm all for stripping the state of its ability to steal your stuff without compensation.
At least I'm going to get some stealing it to begin with.
So promising case that might become a white pill in the future.
Now, Robert, we're going to have to move the party over to locals because I kid who's been probably eating candy and watching stuff that he shouldn't be watching.
Another white pill gases at two bucks or at the least or at least that's true.
Yeah.
Gas are coming down.
Here's the black pill part of it.
They're mostly coming down because global demand is dropping off a rock, which is usually a sign the economy is about to take.
But for now, just ignore that part.
Be glad the gas is cheap.
William Edge says, after tonight's show, is there anything good happening?
What dose of what does?
Okay, we got there already.
Jarbot says, Cole's defense attorney recognized the attorney.
The AUSA regularly uses grand jury to indict, and we're willing to waive a primary preliminary hearing for favorable pre-trial release agreement and try to force release conditions.
Go Steelers says J-Law Branco.
Trump wins.
Yeah, go Stealer.
I got money on the Steelers tonight.
So Go Steelers.
No, I think TWS is Trump Warship Syndrome is what I saw that it was on the table.
That probably makes sense, yeah.
Okay, and then we'll do a couple more tip questions.
So what do we have left, Robert?
I'm going to go raid someone and I'm going to read a few more here.
What do we have left for the after party?
We got some rapid fire cases.
We got some cases we can save for next week.
We got a couple of copyright cases involving Top Gun, Miles Davis, and tattoos.
We got a big immigration case that Christy Noam lost again.
We got murder on Amtrak.
When is Amtrak responsible?
We got what if the cops totally screw up an investigation and let a young woman get murdered and killed?
Don't worry, they're immune, according to the federal judges.
We could probably save that for another week, given all the doers.
We got Big Ag.
Oh, this is a white pill.
We got Big Ag getting hit for their cartel for their antitrust violations.
You might be entitled to some money because they've been the ones jacking up meat prices.
EEOC, another white pill, jumping into the vaccine mandate context concerning COVID, going after these rogue companies that are still mandating the vaccine.
That's a huge, huge white pill.
We've got the Virginia state of Virginia being sued for trying to give in-state tuition to illegals.
That's also good work by Harmee Dylan at the Civil Rights Division.
We got whatever.
We may save this for another week because it's so detailed.
It's that toll state case involving Drake, involves apparently automated bots.
Yeah, I couldn't.
I lost track because I don't even know.
I have to go see what the underlying app or platform is.
I want to read this one just because it's funny.
M. Sidloy says, let me guess, David.
Kids have been watching South Park.
I would rather he be watching South Park than YouTube shorts.
Shorts, I'm going to smash the television.
I'm going to break the television.
I don't know.
And there's no way to block shorts on YouTube.
Like, you can't remove it as a type of content.
It creates short attention span.
I would rather he watch Family Guy, Old Simpsons, not even the new ones, or South Park.
Okay, good.
Hold on, hold on, hold up.
Wait a minute.
Something, right?
Where is it here?
This one?
No, that's not it.
Okay, well, I've lost that.
Let's just go back here and read a couple more.
Okay, so we got a bunch.
We're going to do an after party on locals.
Gentlemen, another great stream YouTube bill says, Chris Kraft, level one autism is the least severe.
Level three requires more substantial support.
He lived with his parents.
The 7-Eleven guy says he was basically non-verbal, had a headphone.
If DOJ is smart, do new grand jury in correct court.
They are just dumb and slow and ran out of time before the last hearing.
Probably because they rushed it, because they had to use it to offset the actual story, which was Steve Baker's journalism.
Steve Baker's doing better, by the way, everybody.
Last I checked.
We really need a white pill, says Blue CW Soldier.
Okay, and I got these here.
Okay, so I'm going to see if we can raid Salty.
The little bastard make it available for us to raid him.
Hold on, hold on.
Let me see here.
Oh, no.
Salty doesn't allow raises.
Raid?
Do it.
Ah, Target channel can't be raided.
Yes.
Well, go here.
You know what?
Go to Salty anyway.
We got to remind him on that on X.
Yeah, he doesn't like to get raided, but it'd be good to rate him now.
No, I want because I want to know.
I want to know what they think.
Plus, he's on the cover page of Rumble.
They have to, they have to.
Yeah, anyways, there's Salty's link.
Who do we go raid then?
That's not going to be totally off topic.
Let me see here.
You guys want to watch a fireplace?
Is Owen Schroyer live?
Let's see if Owen Schroyer's live.
Owen.
He's usually only like in the afternoons from three to six.
Yeah, no, he doesn't look like he's live.
Alex, well, Infowars is probably live.
We can do Eric John Pizza, but that's not, I mean, it's sufficiently different.
Are those Badlands people?
Are they up and going?
Let me see.
Badlands.
Oh, what about Badlands?
Paramount Twitter.
Badlands Media.
They're live.
It looks like they're live.
Yeah, Badlands is cool.
Okay, let's do this.
No, the No Treason podcast.
It looks like it's good enough.
Let's go raid.
Let's go read it.
I'll text Salty afterwards.
Forward slash raid Badlands.
Go say hi.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com for the after party.
Raid has been confirmed.
Let him know from whence you came.
Viva has raided the stream.
Viva Raid Booyah.
And just so everybody knows what a raid is, it redirects the audience over to the target channel, Salty.
Otherwise, hop over to locals.
We got Top Gun.
We got an immigration loss, unfortunately, for Christy Noam because she can't do her job.
God bless her.
Made it easy for these common judges to overrule her.
There's people like Barnes, why haven't you been critical of all the judges?
I was like, pal, yeah, obviously at least go through and research my team before you say something stupid.
When you're reaching, you know, we're reaching hundreds of thousands of people.
It's like people, they just see one tweet.
It's the first tweet they've ever seen from you.
A lot of these people are bots.
But we'll get into that next week in a great case concerning Drake steak, whether they're inflating music charts, whether they're doing money laundering using online gaming operations that are not really real, that are disguised fake gaming and it's real gaming.
Oh, I mean, fascinating.
It involves Aiden Ross, a whole bunch of people, these allegations.
Fascinating little sneak peek into some huge scam.
We'll cover that next week.
But we got EEOC challenging vaccine mandates, Virginia tuition, Amtrak, murder, tattoos, and Top Gun all over.locals.com.
I'm going to do something real quick.
I'm just going to read some of the CommieTube chats.
Michael Swade, U.S. issued letters of marquee against the British Venezuela is conducting irregular warfare against us.
The founders never would have stood for it.
Okay.
Noriega was once the CIA puppet, says Sparky 6086.
When he stopped being a puppet, they came down on him 20 times harder.
Yeah, that's correct.
Okay, then we got, wouldn't it be more.
In fact, he probably helped kill Torillo, the former leader of Panama.
I think we got this one.
Sparky 6086.
Wouldn't it be more in the Minot doctrine anti-European colonism spirit for President Trump to change the Dutch Anteals to the Trump Anteals?
Okay, free Dutch Anteals, says Sparky.
He's got something with the Dutch Anteals.
President Nixon's something, we won't do anything about corruption because it's a big club and we ain't in it.
We got the Tomaduro before we got the release of all the Epstein files.
It's not D versus R, but elites versus the people full stop.
That's what people knew that Maduro's after Maduro was arrested.
They knew he wasn't in the Epstein files because nobody in the Epstein files gets arrested.
I go to South America and Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela, and it's not fake.
They are super happy.
Outside of Venezuela, they are.
Nobody's.
Oh, absolutely.
It's why they're outside of Venezuela.
Okay, I got the rest of these.
If I missed any, I apologize.
I got Nates and I got Khamenei just fled Iran.
Persia is free.
That was from Mark Guidet.
Then we got, from my experience, nothing is legal.
Okay, that's it.
I did it all.
Okay, good.
Now we're going to go.
I got to find my screen.
Oh, cripe.
Where am I here?
This one?
That looks like it.
Am I seeing my face?
Okay, I see myself again.
All right.
Let's go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Robert, what do you have on for this week?
So tomorrow, a special edition, the polling and the politics of war and foreign interventions with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, 2 p.m. Eastern Time, YouTube, Rumble, and peoplespundit.locals.com.
The best pollster in the country.
And we've been, we nailed these kind of issues before.
Gone back, watch our Iran one, watch the other ones we've done.
With these kind of issues, we've been way above the average in the normie out there in terms of predicting where it's likely to go at different stages.
And then tomorrow night at some point, undetermined, Nick Rakeda with Rakeda Law debating the policy of the Venezuelan intervention.
Then later in the week, I think I got a bunch of interviews with a bunch of people.
And then in DC at the end of the week, to meet a range of folks, I'll put it that way.
So, to try to get some more white pills out there in law and politics and meet with the people who can make it happen, we'll see what happens with all that.
But then we'll have some bourbons with Barnes throughout the week at viva barneslaw.locals.com at least on Tuesday, probably Wednesday and Thursday as well, but it'll depend on the schedule.
All right, perfect.
And I will be, I got Will Pope January 6th or on tomorrow.
I'm going to be on with the quartering on Tuesday, and I'm going to have my own show Tuesday, and then Megan's Court.
I don't know when they air it, but we'll be recording that.
And I got my bowling.
And then we'll see what happens to the rest of the week.
People, that was too loud.
I apologize.
Oh, by the way, coming soon.
Well, a good interview that someone we've been trying to get to interview, Colonel McGregor wants to appear on the show.
So we got a schedule of time for Colonel McGregor.
Great guy, advocated for and was part of the Trump administration, high up.
Very good anti-war voice or geopolitical realist voice.
He'll give us his intake on how things might unfold in Venezuela, how they may be unfolding in Ukraine, how they may unfold in China.
Will China look at this and think, hmm, you can protect your backyard, eh?
You can just use some domestic law enforcement, eh?
Is there a little island we've been eyeing?
So we'll be discussing that and more when we get the chance to interview him.
But that will be coming soon here at VivabarnesLaw.locals.com.
And that is where we are heading.
Updating now.
Everybody who's not coming, enjoy the rest of the weekend.
▲
Export Selection