Viva & Barnes - Ep. 300: SCOTUS Rulings Good & Bad! "Justice" Out of Canada? FBI Promotes a Bad guy? AND MORE!

Jan. 18, 2026 - Viva & Barnes

02:32:56

Ep. 300: SCOTUS Rulings Good & Bad! "Justice" Out of Canada? FBI Promotes a Bad guy? AND MORE!

SPONSOR! Go to my sponsor https://venice.ai/viva and use code viva to enjoy private, uncensored AI. Using my code will get you 20% off a pro plan.
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
NATO's Arctic Ambitions 00:02:20
	Going to annoy you.
	The bell is going to annoy you.
	Sorry, not yet.
	Not yet, Belle.
	Let's go.
	Greenland, the future of Greenland is a decision for Greenland and for the Kingdom of Denmark.
	We are NATO partners with Denmark.
	And so our full partnership stands.
	Our obligations on Article 5, Article 2 of NATO stand.
	All right.
	We'll stop it there.
	Everybody knows what Article 5 is.
	That's the pact of mutual aggression.
	If one NATO member gets attacked, then all NATO members come to the defense.
	This jackass, I love how he says, it's a decision for the Kingdom of Denmark.
	You know, not to sound too imperialist because it's not to sound imperialist.
	No, no.
	Sometimes at some point, if it's, you know, between Russia, China, and or America saying, that's a nice little island you got up there in the Arctic Circle.
	You know, it might no longer, it might be the decision of, subject to the veto powers of.
	And that's not to say, you know, we now know, or at least, you know, we've allegedly been told that neither China nor Russia have displayed an interest in acquiring the land of Greenland.
	That doesn't mean, however, that it's not a strategic national importance.
	We're going to get there.
	There was some chat over in Rumble before the show went live as to, you know, how do you say you're America first while proclaiming any form of an interest in the land of Greenland?
	And I say that's a lot easier of an argument to make than, say, war in Iran or than, say, war in Ukraine.
	There is a very, very strong argument that can be made, whether you like it or not, just from a realpolitik perspective, that Greenland is actually much more in the interest of America first than, say, ousting Maduro from Venezuela.
	But you can make a good argument for that as well.
	Now, I struggled with the intro video because I wanted to start with something really funny, but maybe something that needed a bit of a warning versus something that I just have to poke fun at that globalist buffoon.
	This was the alternative intro clip that I came across, and I had to do a little bit of a deep dive verification into the fact-checking nature of that, which is so good.
AI Bikini Skit 00:07:50
	It's almost too good to be true.
	Check this video.
	For no apparent reason, we're going to get into AI bikinis and the sponsor for tonight's show.
	But first, watch this.
	You should be running fire.
	That's what should happen.
	You should be burning fire for that disgustingness.
	That's not nasty.
	You're not.
	You're pointing at me.
	Help me.
	Help me.
	You see this, son?
	You fucking pointed me again.
	You can't get fucking jogged.
	Now, by the way, it's a skip.
	I had to double check because it's too glorious for words.
	It's a skit.
	I found the actual outright link for it, and they cut out the best line afterwards where the dude picks up the phone and goes, hello, Trish.
	Yeah, I'm doing fine.
	Let's get into this.
	This is not a real picture.
	There's a whole big discussion about the risks and peril of AI on X, on the internet.
	And now, at least I couldn't find the video or the meme that our locals community put up with me in an American bikini in front of my Bronco.
	And I said, I didn't like that one because it lacked the muscle tone that actually exists in my body.
	Now, I don't like this one either because it gives me a little bit too much chest hair.
	I don't have chest hair.
	And some people say, well, that makes you less of a man, Viva.
	And I say, no, that makes me more of an evolved man.
	I've got a very small nail on my pinky toe.
	And I believe that that is a sign of evolution.
	All that to say, this is an AI image.
	And if you want to create, you know, ethical AI images and you want to delve into the world of good, clean, protected AI, the sponsor for tonight's show is Venice.ai people.
	You can get great search results, great images generated.
	And we're going to talk about this a little bit more because Sam Altman said ChatGPT will get to know you over your own life.
	There's an expression, you know, like predictive models.
	AI will know you better than the people you know and love.
	They'll know you better than yourself.
	Chat GPT has the former director of the NSA sitting on their board right now.
	Edward Snowden called this a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
	Alexa listens to us and recommends products based on our conversations.
	Meta targets us based on our browsing history and other forms of engagement online.
	Why do we assume AI is going to be any different?
	It took us far too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with the data they were gathering over the last decade.
	Are we going to make that same mistake again?
	OpenAI has hinted that they might start requiring the users to provide government-issued IDs.
	Would you feel comfortable giving that over to a company?
	You can, by the way, go check out Venice.ai for good images.
	I don't know.
	I wanted to see like the equivalent images created by Venice.ai of me, but the issue is there.
	Open source AI models.
	Venice.ai uses open source AI models to deliver text, code, image generation to your browser.
	No downloads, no installation, no nothing.
	They don't spy on you.
	They don't censor you.
	Messages are encrypted and your conversation history is stored on your browser.
	AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy to use it.
	The Pro Plan unlocks the full platform and features, including PDF uploads, summaries for your insights, the ability to turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation, the ability to change how Venice interacts with you by modifying the system prompts, limitless text, et cetera.
	Check it out, by the way.
	Go to Venice.ai.
	Link is in the description.
	Download it.
	Experiment with it.
	If anybody already has it, ask it to generate an image of Viva in a bikini.
	And that's it.
	Thank you to the sponsor.
	It's great stuff.
	In the link, in the description.
	And now, on with today's show.
	We're going to talk about Sam Altman, among other things, when Barnes gets here in a few minutes.
	By the way, so we're live on all platforms.
	I put the podcasts on audio format on Podbean, and I think it's available everywhere.
	And I think it's called Viva and Barnes Law for the People on Podbeam.
	Let me make sure about that.
	So you can get them there after the shows.
	The daily show is three o'clock on Rumble in the Rumble lineup.
	The Sunday show is across all platforms.
	And we are also currently simultaneously live on Rumble, CommieTube, Locals, and X.
	And we have a great community over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Since Trevor, Gray 101 is our resident sarcastic and insightful individual.
	And the only question is, which one is it going to be?
	And I don't know before I start reading it.
	I am reading what Gray 101 has said here.
	Since Trump covers for the Epstein Predators, what did he also cover up in his hotels and business properties?
	See, now I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcastic, as in if anything untoward ever happened that Trump was aware of and concealed in any of his business ventures, it would have already been out there.
	That being said, some people are taking some flack for lack of results on certain elements of promises made that might not have been delivered just yet.
	How do I get out of here?
	Hell yeah.
	Let me just get this out of here.
	Okay, there we go.
	There we go.
	And now before Barnes gets here, there was one other humble rant.
	If I miss your Commitube chat question and you're going to be angry about it, don't do it.
	I would recommend coming over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And if I miss it, anyhow, it might happen.
	I would do my best to get to all of them.
	Sean 487 said, this is for Barnes.
	Does he see the hypocrisy of Americans screaming America first, yet in favor of America's naked aggression in Greenland?
	The Dutch have had Greenland for a thousand years.
	What right?
	I don't know if that was a question about the what right, but is this guy Canadian?
	I am Canadian, currently living in Florida.
	My real name is David Fryhade.
	For anybody who doesn't yet know that, I ran for federal office in Canada for the People's Party of Canada.
	I have since moved to America, to Florida, the free state of Florida.
	I have, according to many, become the Florida man.
	And Bill Brown says he's the resident asshole.
	Bill is not an asshole.
	Bill is actually a very wonderful person, veteran in our Viva Barnes Law.locals.com community.
	And that's it.
	Let's get into this.
	Without any further ado, there was one other clip.
	Oh, this was the one that I had to double-check.
	Robert, have you?
	The warning comes, it's short.
	Robert, it's beautiful.
	And there's a lot of gratuitous see you next Tuesday words in it.
	But I'm told in Aussie talk, it's totally normal and it's actual sign of affection.
	I thought this was AI and had to look it up and it's not, but it's a good lesson for leading into today's show.
	Let's just play this uninterrupted.
	Hi, Kants.
	So a bottle of water will cost you 50 cents at the supermarket, two bucks at the gym, three bucks at the fucking movies, or six bucks on a fucking plane, cunts.
	It's the same fucking bottle of water, same fucking water.
	Nothing's fucking changed.
	The only thing that's changed its value is its fucking location.
	Kantz.
	The next time you're feeling you've got no fucking self-worth, maybe you need to change your location, Kantz.
Heim Saban's Controversial Claims 00:04:27
	Location talk.
	No, no, Kantz, love you.
	It's so good and it's true and it's funny.
	And Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	The eventful week in the practice of law and around the world as we figure out what country we might invade next or take next or try to buy next or something else.
	The administration, you know, one step forward, two steps back, though at least we dodged another Middle Eastern war middle of the week.
	So I saw my old adversary, Heim Saban, with Miriam Adelson taking credit for owning Washington, D.C.
	It reminded me of some other history with Heim Saban.
	But hold on, Robert.
	A lawyer in court apparently said about Heim Saban that he has bragged about being able to use Mossad to assassinate his economic enemies.
	They said it about Heim Saban, ended up in news articles all around the world.
	Heim couldn't do anything about it because the lawyers spoke about it in court and they were just covering court proceedings.
	And by coincidence, they happened to be in the courtroom, the federal courtroom that day when that conversation was had.
	Now, the lawyer might have been that might have mentioned this, might have been me that did it.
	You ran into Heim years later at the restaurant.
	I was like, man, these lawyers get away with all these kind of statements in court.
	Just shocking, just shocking.
	And he just smirked and went on.
	Though I think he said, I'm probably on a list that's not a good one to be on at Heim Saban.
	But the, yeah, oh, yeah, eventful week.
	And we got, you know, big cases out of SCOTUS.
	You know, we've got the, we've got, is the Insurrection Act going to be invoked in the Twin Cities as chaos consumes the town?
	The, we've got ICE being sued again for its activities in the Twin Cities by the ACLU and other groups.
	We've got a big Second Amendment oral argument that's going to take place this week in the Supreme Court.
	We've got Fourth Amendment election cases, standing cases, the Second Amendment case that's upcoming and a good criminal law case out of Supreme Court this past week, but no tariff decision yet.
	We've got Elon Musk versus Sam Altman in open AI.
	By the end of this, Elon Musk own AI or a huge percentage of it because they forgot the never-in-writing rule of Giraffe Barnes Law School.
	We've got Trump's administration facing sanctions over its deportation policy related to pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel speakers.
	The case we've covered before, but now the court is moving to the remedies and sanctions stage of the case, while Harmee Dylan was busy telling all the Israeli lobbyists how much the Justice Department is working hard for them.
	Harmee, it'd be nice if we got some other cases to it.
	Like one of them is Tina Peters went up before the Colorado Court of Appeals and even the Democratic governor is considering clemency because of enough of the court of public opinion has had its voice heard.
	And the Court of Appeals sounded potentially epithetic, at least a little more open-minded than the state court that I was in front of on behalf of Kirk Benschuf as that case continues to go through the appellate chain involving broad constitutional and civil rights and liberties.
	We have the, when you get subscribed and automatically renewed without your consent, well, sometimes that can lead to a class action under like California law and other law.
	A big company got caught doing that this past week.
	Pam Bundy's corruption list and litany keeps getting wider and deeper.
	But even but all from a wide range of organizations independent of my own have identified which companies he's the most solicitous and corrupt in favor of.
	And if you guessed Pfizer, you guessed right once again, as pay-for-play Pam continues to run him up.
	And last but not least, we have the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and its rogue criminal chairman demanding that his institutional independence doesn't exist under the law and makes it unconstitutional to the law, means he cannot be criminally investigated or prosecuted for lying to Congress about overbilling taxpayers in the tune of billions of dollars.
Greenland's Misnamed Potential 00:15:27
	So that and answering your questions live on this Law for the People Sunday show.
	Let's just start actually with the Greenland question because it was the Rumble rant over on Rumble.
	And actually, by the way, before we even get into that, everybody, I forget to mention it and I should because that's me right there.
	You can tip, by the way, in crypto.
	If you go download Rumble Wallet from either Google Play or the Apple App Store.
	If you have a Rumble account, you can automatically sync it up.
	Remember your 12 seed word password thing because if you lose it, you lose access to your wallet.
	It's a non-custodial wallet.
	And if you want to tip in crypto, you can do it.
	Here.
	I'll leave that up for one second.
	Here, boom, bada, bing, bada, boom.
	So download the wallet, everybody.
	But there was a tip question out there earlier about Greenland.
	How could anybody say they're America first while talking about taking over Greenland?
	And I mean, the discussion has reached something, I don't want to say a fevered pitch.
	It's interesting.
	There's people online who are hearing it for the first time.
	Admittedly, Trump talked about it in 2019.
	It was not as anywhere near of a big issue back then, but the world was much different back then.
	Also, it was 2019, right towards the tail end of his first term.
	But people have been talking about the strategic importance of Greenland in the Western hemisphere for someone corrected me.
	I said 200 years.
	It was intended to be an overestimate.
	It's about 100.
	Since 1860s, Greenland has been an element of importance for various reasons in the West, as far as hemispheric interest is concerned.
	Trump is not joking anymore.
	It's quite obvious.
	My issue is, I don't know if he's planning for war and then taking the appropriate steps to plan for it or if the steps he's taking are going to trigger it.
	That will be a question of perspective, but it's a serious discussion.
	Now, Greenland, as far as Arctic interests are concerned, as far as ensuring hemispheric safety, I don't think anybody can undermine or downplay its importance.
	And he's like, one way or another, we'll buy it or we won't.
	And it's a nice piece of land you have up there.
	It's a very easy argument to make as to why this is necessarily America first, maybe even more so than ousting Maduro.
	I think it's, well, I think it depends on which voter group you're looking at.
	So I would say amongst the independent voters, the new voters that came into the Trump campaign in 2024, sort of new MAGA, for a lot of those voters, any foreign policy focus is a distraction and is a negative.
	So Richard Barris started polling on this People's Pundit Daily several months ago, and other pollsters started picking up on it.
	Now even, you know, CBS, YouGov, Wall Street Journal.
	And it's, do you think President Trump is paying enough attention to domestic issues or do you think he's too distracted by foreign issues?
	So for that voter group, any foreign policy focus is a losing issue and is not considered.
	For them, American first meant domestic priorities first, domestic policies first, domestic issues first.
	And Greenland does not fit into that for them.
	Now, there's different arguments about its geopolitical strategic import.
	The question is, why do you need to own it?
	We already have U.S. military bases there.
	So from a national security perspective, if you're talking about route shipment and other countries being there, that's already conserved by the existing arrangement.
	So the only reason you would need to own it is if you think there's a bunch of minerals there that you want to extract and own 100% of, or the U.S. companies to own 100% of, and you don't want them to be subject to Denmark's regulation or EU regulation.
	So that would be, you think there's some economic re because the national security part's already met by the existing military cooperation agreement, already military bases there on the ground.
	Trump's kind of misrepresenting that making sound, Denmark's only got these dog sleds out there and can't, that's a complete mis that's a complete red herring, but God bless them, but it's a red herring.
	We have our own military bases there.
	We have for a long time.
	We've even had nuclear bases there in the past.
	So it's meant to drive up the theory is that security will get a lot of people to support this.
	Reality is with Patrick Basham of the Democracy Institute has generally been a very Trump-friendly, MAGA-friendly pollster.
	His publications are often published in the Daily Express in the United Kingdom.
	He's pulled this precise question, and it's even split on buying Greenland.
	Militarily invading for Greenland is totally unpopular.
	It's not well liked by anybody other than boomer cons.
	So unless you're Fox News boomer cons, they're like, what?
	Why do we need to invade Greenland?
	Why do we need to be military?
	So they don't buy that.
	It's split on whether he physically, just materially buys it.
	Now, the question is going to be while ordinary people are economically struggling.
	What does it look like when he spends billions of dollars to buy Greenland so a bunch of billionaire oligarchs can develop it and get rich off of it?
	Because that's kind of what it looks like.
	How is owning Greenland going to help ordinary Americans?
	Not clear at all.
	They definitely haven't made the case that it will or how it will because they stay so vague about it.
	If I can't, I mean, is there talk?
	I know there has been talk.
	I don't know what the realistic assessments are of the necessary rare earth minerals for, I don't know, lithium batteries or microchips.
	And then I don't even know how you set aside how you would actually extract them.
	But is that argument there that there's good resources?
	They won't make it publicly and maybe because they don't want to highlight who owns those interests.
	It's a lot of the same oligarchs that are Israeli first oligarchs, but you get the added bonus, if you like, of Bill Gates being involved.
	So they have bought up Leo Lauder and these other guys that are connected to Venezuela operations, connected to Israel operations, connected to this board of peace that's getting way out of control.
	I mean, Trump's basically, he is perceived, is running the White House like it's a Gambino crime operation.
	Hey, it's a nice little island you got there.
	It'd be too bad if you lost it.
	We got to have a, can we pull back a little bit of this?
	I mean, people like some of that.
	They weren't voting for a full Gambino in the White House.
	But, you know, Trump's grown accustomed to this kind of language that I don't know if they even understand how it's perceived around the world.
	But, you know, that's its own animal.
	So the, but here the theory is the only explanation I've heard for why you want to own Greenland as opposed to have military security with Greenland, which we already have, which we could amplify if we wanted.
	That's not really in debate or dispute.
	The is why do you want to is if you want the resources of it.
	If you want the only resources that have been identified are these rare earths.
	The problem is the logic.
	It's a logistical nightmare to get that out.
	The only other advantage is potentially you could put a bunch of AI data centers there because natural cooling, you don't have local environmental complaints because nobody lives in the whole, for people that don't know the whole history, Iceland and Greenland are misnamed.
	Iceland is green.
	Greenland is ice.
	The, you know, by the old Vikings, my Viking forebears who wanted to mislead all the snookers and the shooks, the snooks and the suckers.
	But the so, but, but, you know, it's that, that's not, my understanding is what they're banking on, these big tech oligarchs, is they believe AI will revolutionize things so much so that robotics will be able to extract these elements.
	So the reason what would make the elements economically competitive to mine in the first place is that the demand will continue to skyrocket for it in the belief that AI and robotics will continue to take off and that the AI and robotics, in addition to that, will be able to help you mine the rare earths at a much more economical scale.
	But part of it feels like Venezuela part two.
	Trump has finally figured out.
	He was completely misled by what would happen in Venezuela.
	He thought Venezuelan oil was easy to extract, easy to make, and all the oil companies couldn't wait to go down there.
	Turns out they're like, no, we're not interested at all.
	So this huge profit mine that he was talking about turns out to be more of a money pit than a profit mine.
	And I mean, what's the odds they're saying the same thing?
	I mean, they're pitching Gaza.
	They think the Gaza Strip is going to make tons of money.
	Trump's out there saying billion bucks.
	If you want to be on the board of peace, a billion bucks is the entrance fee.
	I mean, board of peace, billion dollar entrance fee?
	Some of these things don't sound very congruent.
	I don't know who comes up with this stuff in the White House.
	Some of the script writing is just poor.
	If we're in a simulation, we got Disney writers writing this because it's not the most persuasive or compelling.
	But how much is it all these, some of these people are misleading him into doing deep state agenda business that is not actually in the interest of the U.S. and by giving him fake pitches about the economic profit of something?
	I'm starting because it's starting to show up again and again and again where he thinks it's going to benefit something that it doesn't.
	I can say announcing you're going to tariff everybody related to it probably was the final nail in his any chance he was going to win with SCODIS.
	He's been convinced by people that are against his interest that by saying national security is at stake.
	So sanction, you know, issue tariffs related to Iran, issue tariffs related to Ukraine, issue tariffs related to Venezuela.
	Now issue tariffs related to Greenland will help him.
	No, it doesn't.
	It completely guts his entire legal argument.
	This is based on an economic emergency of exceptional kind built over time.
	When you're doing it because you want to grab Greenland and you want to help Israel and you want to undermine Iran or Ukraine or hurt Venezuela, you're making it clear.
	It's just it's whatever you want it to be.
	And then when you're out there saying dumb stuff like, oh, there is no international law and like Stephen Miller saying even more moronic stuff, which by the way, then he was back to citing the law this week.
	He was saying, oh, the law is unless you can defend a place, it's not yours.
	What law is that, Stephen?
	Didn't you just say the law doesn't matter?
	Didn't you just say Mike makes right?
	Now you're back to citing international law that you said doesn't exist, Stephen?
	And what international law did they teach you at Duke Law School, Stephen, that said that if you can't defend something, all your property rights are gone.
	What sort of, this is just more.
	The guy is a moron when he's not busy laughing.
	Stephen Miller gets really excited when Palestinians are getting killed.
	That's when he gets really excited and real happy, along with his wife there, Katie Miller doing that ridiculous podcast.
	So these are not persuasive arguments to me politically.
	I'm not sold on it at all.
	And from all of the polling data, nor the American people.
	I mean, just refocus, could we focus for a month on America?
	Just at least a month, a month, without going into war someplace, bombing someplace, kidnapping somebody someplace, invading someplace, thinking about invading someplace, just for a month, for one month.
	Can the Trump administration keep its word to the American people?
	Open question.
	I was following the chat if it looked like I was laughing because I'm following it.
	So, Robert, people in the chat are angry that you're using.
	I didn't realize that MSM, MSM, yeah, mainstream media was using the term movest.
	They, oh, Barnes, why are you using that term?
	First of all, it's, I don't even think that Trump would disagree with that description of what it is.
	It's team American.
	He thinks that's leverage.
	He thinks that's power.
	It's the part of the world he grew up in.
	I get it.
	It's just getting excessive.
	Him saying that the only thing that restrains him is his own morality is not the pitch to make to the world.
	We'll get into it with ICE.
	Why is ICE now more controversial than it's ever been?
	Well, why are these raids that should be very popular?
	Why are they deeply unpopular in large parts of the country?
	Why are they now at legal risk related to these issues?
	It's because when you go around doing things like blackbagging foreign presidents in foreign nations, that creates a perception here at home that people start to think of you as this guy who does whatever he wants.
	He says his own morality is his only limit.
	He's not limited by these are not good marketing messages.
	You can support Trump all you want.
	You can be in favor of all these policies all you want.
	This is bad marketing, bad marketing.
	BoomerCon Team America World Police slop is something that is seen satirically as something to be to mock amongst many of the independent voter groups that are going to determine and decide the 2026 elections and again the 2028 elections.
	And in the process, shape Trump's perceived political capital.
	And people like, well, how does it matter what happens in November?
	Very simple.
	If a bunch of members of Congress think Trump is radioactive, he won't be able to get Jack done.
	That's why it all has, if courts see him as vulnerable, they'll feel more political leverage to run right over him and run right over the executive branch.
	These people that are ignoring the American people is one guy was responding to Richard because Barris was making the same point I was making.
	You're seeing all these young, influential podcasters with young, independent, nonpartisan voters go off the Trump train.
	Andrew Schultz off the Trump train, Tim Dylan off the Trump train.
	He had a big rant about this, about this foreign focus this week.
	Same thing.
	Joe Rogan off the Trump train.
	Theo Vaughan off the Trump train.
	And people are like, oh, who cares?
	And I was like, well, they're representative of their audience, which is a lot of young independent voters who we won and were key to the future of the Trump populist coalition for any Republican candidate.
	And some people responded, oh, Barnes, all the young men there, they're still fully on the Trump train.
	It's like, dude, have you not talked to anybody?
	Have you not watched it, read a single survey?
	They're underwater by 20 to 30 points with young men.
	That's what Trump is.
	A while back, I had seen, you know, there was a meme going around that even CNN had to acknowledge Trump's gaining numbers.
	And I just saw it literally live last week where it's double digit.
	Whether or not you believe them, because I don't believe these polls, I do believe and rely much more heavily on Richard Barris's methodology because he's been accurate.
	And that's all you can ask for on a pollster.
	It is a problem and it is having an impact.
	The only question is, can you turn this ship around, come no longer?
	You don't turn the ship around as obsessing over foreign nations, foreign countries, foreign policies, foreign priorities, foreign issues.
	That's how you don't turn it around.
	And we thought that message was received about a week and a half ago, and he's right back to it right away.
	I mean, thinking about going into Iran off a bogus color revolution, the amount of fake news Americans believe about Iran is just preposterous.
	These were BLM-style riots being run by foreign intelligence agencies and operations.
	You don't have to take my word for it.
	Mossad and Israel bragged about it, bragged about that they were the ones sponsoring and instigating the riots in Iran.
	They took organic protest that arose because we and the Soros crowd and others have been trying to sink the Iranian economy by sinking its currency for the last six months.
	And those precipitated economic protests that were then infiltrated by outright, by terrorist groups.
	We're aligning.
	People should look.
	I mean, the Kurds you can make different arguments about, but the Kurds are going to trigger a negative reaction from the Turks.
Grok's War Declaration 00:15:30
	Then you got these other groups, whether it's MEK, whether it's the Shah's former allies, the Shah's son's former allies, whether it's these other Sunni Islamic groups.
	By the way, they're all like terrorist-oriented, and they're either Marxist or more Islamist than the regime is.
	And it's like, wow, this is a good idea is beyond me as well.
	But we were going to go in there and start bombing and having, and boots on the ground, by the way.
	The plan was to send special forces in this past week.
	And finally, Trump woke up.
	That was, you know, because various people got information to him.
	The State Department, the CIA was saying all he had, and Mossad was saying all he had to do was go in, do these bombs, do these special force operations like Maduro.
	The whole regime would collapse and some liberal democracy regime would emerge in its place.
	And then there would be no retaliation.
	Don't have to worry about our bases getting hit in the region.
	Don't have to worry about Israel being unable to defend itself from an Iranian ballistic missile attack barrage because, hey, we got it all solved.
	And finally, Vance and some other people pointed out to him, well, ask everybody in the room.
	And finally, Tosi Gabbard got to be in the room.
	And ask everybody in the room who will say that this military attack will lead to regime change and no retaliation against Iran or our bases.
	And all these people that had been misleading him all this time weren't willing to raise their hand a single one of them.
	And that's when Trump, all of a sudden, at the last minute realized, oh, this is going to be a big L.
	Now, it's a big L even talking about foreign policy at this moment, being distracted by foreign policy.
	Think about it.
	How many people even know Trump had a very good, positive health care reform proposal this week?
	Almost nobody.
	I was watching Normis or talking about, oh, I was going through my media screen.
	It's all Iran, Iran, Iran.
	Once again, he has these good, good domestic policy announcements, and it gets buried by this foreign policy obsession that is driving him.
	I mean, the Israel lobby is in the CIA are running Trump.
	And it's to his own demise politically, domestically, that this is happening.
	But that was an Iranian color revolution.
	And now we're going to give NED more money than they ever had before.
	Mike Benz was putting out jokes in comedic about how he was feeling about everything because all of a sudden the censorship comp and deep state financing money laundering complex that Doge took apart is now being refunded by Congress and apparently Trump's going to sign on to it.
	It's going to give the National Endowment for Democracy run.
	You know, people like Victoria Newland are there.
	It's a disgrace.
	This is an organization that spent the whole last eight years sabotaging Trump as much as anybody.
	And now he's going to turn around and give him a half a billion dollar check while demanding about a half a trillion for the defense and military industrial complex.
	These are not the things that the independent voter that put him over the top voted for at all.
	We'll see what he can avoid for another week or two.
	Well, the America First argument I think can be made more easily with Greenland.
	The Iranian thing, I mean, it's wild to see who just hasn't learned about anything.
	Whether or not you believe that the regime, the Iranian regime, the IRGC should be overthrown.
	And people say, well, it'll be good for Israel.
	First of all, good.
	Will it be good for America?
	Then you say, well, by proxy, if it's good for Israel, it's good for America.
	And then the question is, how?
	I mean, it'll be good for a certain demographic in America or at least certain interests.
	But what I've realized, I actually started a deep thought to our locals community.
	I never finished it.
	The Israeli wedge, and not anti-Semitism, just the Israeli interest wedge is like the Ukrainian one, except more divisive within the GOP itself.
	It seems like, you know, the Ukrainian, everyone at some point said enough with this foreign war, enough with this money laundering, enough with this Ukraine is our ally in Eastern Europe.
	And it was sort of divided among Republicans and Democrats.
	When it comes to Israel, there's a divide within the Democrat Party itself, which has sort of led to, you know, some certain amount of confusion.
	But that becomes a harder thing to convince America is America first.
	But I appreciate everybody saying it's non-America only, and America first means having your useful ally, Israel, in the Middle East.
	But at some point, I mean, you could maybe tamp down on that and focus on domestic issues, which they don't see.
	Especially when you gave up your first year, your first term to serve Israel first.
	And I mean, now, what is this Gaza border peace becoming?
	They're talking about it becoming a replacement for the UN.
	What?
	And people get to buy their way in, and it's going to be influential.
	Pat, what is this?
	And Gaza is going to be made into Dubai?
	How's that going to work?
	How's that going to serve the local population?
	BB's back to talking about ethnic cleansing again.
	Let's ethnically cleanse all these.
	And now he's saying it openly.
	You know, normally he would let his wife defense minister say it.
	Now he's yipping about it.
	No, no, they said it when they basically entertained the idea of displacing all of them and putting up hotels.
	This is 1962 Polara over on Commitube says the midterms is the last chance for the deep state and Dems to take Trump out.
	And the more he looks off his original message, the easier it will be.
	That's on Communist.
	Absolutely will be.
	I mean, whatever you think of these policies, I personally am skeptical of them.
	Politically, they are poison.
	Poison.
	Right now, America First means America first, literally.
	It means I want domestic issues being the focus.
	That's what these voters want.
	Anytime you're talking about foreign policy is a day you lost.
	That's what I told the vice president and the people in the White House.
	Every single day, any day, you can mark whether you won or lost by whether you were talking about domestic issues or foreign issues.
	If you're talking about foreign issues, you lost that day politically.
	And they keep doing it.
	They can't seem to avoid it.
	And then can the Israeli lobby quit doing conferences, bragging about how they influence and control and want to gatekeep everybody and can steal any candidate they want?
	This has got to be the dumbest PR campaign known to man.
	It's almost as dumb as Mark Levin trying to go out there and gatekeep.
	I mean, this is just embarrassing.
	You have to be as stupid as Clay Travis to think this is popular.
	Two things.
	First of all, that article that I brought up, what's amazing is, you know, when they're doing a fact check on Mossad involvement in Iran, they're going to confirm it, and it's going to be wordsmithing of the devil.
	They've confirmed a certain element of Mossad involvement, but that's because Mike Pompeo was bragging about it.
	Here's what they thought.
	They thought by telling Iranians that Mossad was implicated and the U.S. was coming, that it would inspire mass.
	Yeah, the problem is the regime is not that weak anymore.
	And after the attacks in the summer, the regime is probably politically stronger than ever because what we did is we took the people who opposed the regime and we made them patriotic defenders of the regime in the name of patriotism.
	This was almost guaranteed to happen.
	Iran is nowhere as weak as Iraq, as Syria, as Libya, as any of them, as Lebanon.
	So the and of course, what we created in those places was chaotic nightmares for the whole world.
	It did not serve our interest for Iraq to be what it is today, for what Syria to be or Libya.
	I'm quoting Donald Trump from 2015, 2016.
	He said, yeah, they're killers, but it was stupid to replace them.
	So why is he back doing the exact same thing in Iran?
	It makes no sense at all.
	I thought, hey, Stephen Crowder, I thought you said, don't worry, it was only about the nuclear weapons.
	And that's the only reason Trump went in in the summer.
	And that's why you justified it.
	You look like a joke now, Stephen, because it was never about nuclear weapons programs.
	It was always about regime change.
	And now it's exposed for what it is.
	And Trump looks like a liar and a hypocrite.
	Because didn't he say he took out the nuclear weapons?
	Didn't he say that was his only reason?
	Then why is he going back in now?
	Did you hear talk about it?
	No, it was purely for regime change to police world to police another country's protest, which, by the way, there wasn't mass execution of civilians.
	It was these terrorist rioters going around killing cops.
	It's all on video.
	They were lighting people on fire.
	They were bombing mosques.
	They were grabbing people out of ambulances and beating them to death.
	I mean, this comes from a wide range of sources.
	Basically, anybody but the Western press and Barry Weiss running Israeli propaganda nonstop at CBS.
	So, I mean, this is just the politically disastrous.
	Policy-wise, it's dumb, in my opinion.
	I think it would backfire like every other regime change war has backfired since the end of World War II.
	And I find it, you know, mind-boggling.
	But the defenses being raised, I think, are weak legally, weak politically, and weak policy, in my opinion.
	I didn't realize this is Katie Miller.
	This is Stephen Miller's wife.
	This is Stephen Miller's wife.
	I know.
	That's why she's her podcast.
	That's why, what do you think Robert Kennedy sits down with somebody that's a no-name podcaster who just started it six months ago?
	It's because of Stephen Miller's wife trying to create their own little niche.
	And Stephen Miller has become an Israel first lobbyist.
	He's become a war whore lobbyist.
	And him being in charge of immigration and the rest of this at the same time is hurting the political popularity of the domestic immigration agenda to where you get the disaster you now have brewing in the Twin Cities.
	Let me read some of the tipped questions before we get too far behind here.
	I'll get to tip.
	Then we're going to do Rumble Rants.
	Viva, you and Barnes got to get with the China guy, China show guys, and get them over to Rumble Locals, et cetera.
	I screenshot of that.
	I'm going to reach out to them.
	Trump is having, that's from Quellen.
	Trump is having the military exercise at this moment on the shores of Greenland, and it closes off Canada's access to the Arctic, a national threat.
	Troublemaker Jonas says, let's talk about the eugenics of Denmark against the Greenland Aboriginal population.
	Tropical Rocket says Trump has to choose between the people and the money.
	He may want to help the people, but never at the expense of the money.
	808 Scotty says the golden page was the turning point.
	Trump started kissing up to Bibi immediately after, then telling Israel to pardon Bibi.
	That was.
	Had to be a threat.
	But I mean, I don't even, this one would segue into a few other things.
	Did you see?
	I don't know if it's a very bad sign to be on MMFA, the Media Matters for America's website.
	And I didn't realize I had been on there before.
	But they clipped the part of my Friday interview with Stuart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers.
	And that was one hell of a good interview.
	Everybody should go check it out if you haven't seen it.
	I don't know why they clipped that.
	It was the part where Stuart Rhodes was saying in his view that Kash Patel has now become a little HBA of the deep state and has crossed over to the dark side.
	Now, that might be hyperbolic, but it might be also difficult to discuss, you know, difficult to deny given the action or lack of action of the FBI.
	Well, you pointed out that Bongino seemed to be confirming your prior assumption about the Epstein files this week.
	Nobody got back.
	I didn't get a response to that.
	I'm going to bring that up in a second just to show everybody because Bongino put out a tweet that was a Grok summary and it said something effectively like, you know, Grok is declaring war on the Black Pillars and the anti-Trumpers.
	And it was saying, no, Dan Bongino did not participate in the cover-up.
	He had falling out with the heads up of the DOJ as it relates to redactions, et cetera, and therefore, and left in 2025.
	And I'm like, I just want to say, I mean, so I mean, this would be confirmation because even though Todd Blanch said everybody signed on, Bongino never confirmed that ever in any setting.
	And here he is retweeting a Grok statement saying that basically he was carved out and his objections overruled about the whole way the administration has handled the Epstein files.
	I mean, and he's resharing it and almost nobody's covering it.
	You're one of the only people to point this out.
	I thought, because you never know.
	Like Twitter is made for ambiguity.
	It's made for misunderstandings.
	I didn't know if he was saying, look, even Grok is not, you know, even Grok is politically biased in the results that it generates.
	Bongino put out Grok versus anti-Trump doomers trying to destroy his administration.
	Friends don't let friends fall for Doomer bullshit.
	2026 will be one of the best years in the country.
	Ecstatic to be back on.
	And the screenshot, which it seems that it says, no, that's not what I meant.
	Bongino advocated for releasing the Epstein files multiple times before 2025.
	As FBI deputy director, he pushed for transparency, but clashed with the DOJ over redactions, leading to his resignation in late 2025.
	That's something that's not even.
	I mean, that should have been a major news story on the right.
	I legit asked, I'm not trying to be sassy or sarcastic.
	Was he posting it because he agreed with it?
	And then someone says, eat shit, blackpilling Grifter.
	Okay, that's good.
	That doesn't answer the question.
	He never really answered.
	So, because that would seem to me, like, not to say that that would undermine the Trump administration.
	That would be an open critique on the DOJ.
	And incidentally, for everyone out there, I'll pat myself on the back with my short, stubby little arms.
	It's exactly what I've been saying for about eight months now.
	I still haven't gotten an answer.
	Maybe, and I say maybe we'll find something out in February, but I still don't think Bongino is going to do anything to, you know, that might hurt the administration because it's an existential.
	This came very close to it.
	I mean, this was a way to say that this was true without him officially affirming it's true.
	But again, he chose to share this saying, this is right, what Grok is saying, not what the doomers are saying.
	In other words, I, Dan Bongino, disagreed with the administration's cover-up, the Epstein files, and disagreed with it all along.
	And that's why I never signed the document.
	And that's why, and that was the beginning of the end of me working at the FBI.
	That's what he appears to be confirming.
	Then when he lost out on that, he just gave up all hope on the FBI and was planning his exit from that day forward.
	Remember, it's not long there after Andrew Bailey comes in as co-deputy.
	Now, of course, as you pointed out this week, and as Kyle Seraphin, who's like, he's like the executioner of corrupt deep state action.
	He just goes door to door.
	You got the meme out there.
	Kyle Service taking that one out, taking that one out, taking that one out.
	But, you know, how embarrassing that counterfeit cash, as I like to call him these days, the digging into some of his lobbying history in the six months leading up to his FBI appointment might reveal some interesting connections.
	Just say it.
	But he appoints as the new replacement for Bongino, a complete deep state hack who may or may not have mental health and other issues, but beyond that, is someone who was a leader, instigator, and a key decision maker over harassing falsely accused January 6th Catholic school teachers.
	And this is who Cash, counterfeit cash, just nominated to be the replacement for Bongino.
	It's, I so Kyle was on, I think it was Friday afternoon.
	And because, you know, like, I understood the allegations that he was in the FBI when that ongoing investigation, persecution of Crowder, not any relation to Steven Crowder, but the woman Crowder was placed on Quadus.
	Her husband, who was an air marshal, you know, I don't know when he got wind of this, but it was an outright persecution.
	They knew they had no basis for any investigation into her, let alone surveilling her social media.
Congress Exempts Fed From FOIA Laws 00:15:32
	And the FBI nonetheless did it over a two-year period.
	Christopher Raya was, I forget what his, what is ASAC at the Texas field office or the Texas field office for the FBI over that period of time.
	And then, you know, they say you just promoted the guy that was overseeing, if he wasn't outright participating in this persecution.
	And then their retort is: no, no, he was in charge of the, I don't know, violent acts or, you know, the violence division.
	But as Kyle explained, and it's compelling, unless somebody can retort to it, he was so high up.
	He was effectively the partner that would have partner meetings where they would go over all of their persecutions, prosecutions, whatever.
	And for two years, he had to have known that this investigation was going on, said nothing, did nothing, and then gets promoted.
	So you got Jocelyn Ballantyne, who's still the prosecutor of the Patsy Pipe Bomber.
	You've got this guy who just gets promoted to the deputy director position to replace Bongino, who partook in the persecution of the former FBI.
	I mean, I do hope Bongino talks about this.
	And maybe if they were buttonheads this much, maybe he will be a little more aggressive with Patel when he's got the mic.
	We'll see.
	But it's a big flipping mistake.
	It's indefensible.
	I mean, the guy just continues to be a disaster.
	And it correlates to the utter disaster that is Pam pay-for-play Pam Bondi.
	She should already be out.
	She's not out yet.
	She's rallying.
	She's announced some big investigations.
	They're going after Powell.
	They're going after Jacob Fry.
	They're going after, they haven't done anything yet.
	They only did that after we created a bit of a storm the week or two before when Richard Barris and I and a few others were up in D.C.
	And she should be on her way out.
	But so late stage trying to grab something on Powell's case that she had let do nothing after the congressional referral, promising something's coming in the southern district of Florida, even though nothing has been forthcoming as yet.
	Promising the, you have Trump complaining again.
	He's like, well, why on the auto pen scandal where you have other people independent of Biden that committed crimes by their own admission from again another congressional referral?
	It's like, we got to prosecute these people.
	Well, just have fire your attorney general and get a real one in there, Mr. President.
	Because until then, all that's going to be is talking into the truth space.
	So there's no evidence because the public citizen, a Ralph Nader group, has been following and tracking all the big corporations getting sweetheart deals under the under Pam Bondi, pay-for-play Pam.
	It's now up to over 150 corporations had more than 150 because many of them were subject to multiple civil investigations, key TAM cases, criminal investigations, fraud overseas.
	Much of it, by the way, connected to COVID in one way, shape, or form.
	And Pay for Play Pam has shut them all down.
	And as the report notes, when they looked for one company, which company above all others had received the most benefits under Pam Bondi, has had literally every single civil and criminal case domestically or in the United States shut down by her in her first year.
	And they said one with over about a half dozen different investigations, fraud overseas, fraud domestically, key TAM cases, all kinds of other illegalities that they're involved in.
	Was Pfizer?
	She has done, she has basically shut down.
	She's become Pfizer's personal counsel with the power of the Attorney General's office.
	And so that's why we're going to see, that's why she doesn't care if counterfeit cash is doing his job or letting the deep state dogwalk him on a daily basis because she's got a deal to cover for the deep state as long as they cover for her so she can all do her quid pro quos with all these big corporations and outside rogue lobbyists like Arthur Schwartz,
	like the like Mike Davis, like these kind of people lining their pockets with cash because they're MAGA lobbyists when they're not, they're undermining Labby, betraying him on a daily basis.
	Unless Trump gets ahead of this and fixes this, it's going to continue to be a disaster for him on the accountability issue that many voters are still unhappy with his administration.
	And we knew that there was a grand jury convening up in Fort Pierce, Florida last week on Monday.
	We haven't heard Bubkiss about it since.
	There has not been James Comey's, what are the charges, are not going to be reinstated because they're appealing it because they're going to have statute limitations issues because of when they brought it.
	So we'll see what happens there.
	James Brennan, we haven't heard whatever in a little while.
	Who's the other guy?
	Their mustache man, the chicken guy.
	Clapper.
	No, no, no, the other ones.
	Bolton.
	I mean, Bolton's out there yipping on the media, demanding that we get, you know, invade Iran tomorrow.
	I don't think Jake Tapper mentioned his criminal case that's pending against him.
	No, but we've seen, and it's not to be, there's been good progress on crime at large, which was already tapering down.
	And at some point, you know, the FBI and the DOJ doesn't get to say, we did our job, therefore excuse us for not doing our job on the other issues.
	There's been zero deep state accountability, but the low-hanging fruit, here's a little chunk of meat for the dogs, us being the dogs, was announcing, or at least announcing a criminal investigation into Jerome Powell of the feds, which I mean, it'll make people happy, but it's not what, you know, that's a ex post facto because what the, you know,
	what the Trump administration was elected on was going after those who partook in stealing the election in 2020.
	COVID tyranny, January 6th here, we've seen none of it, but if we can touch on Jerome Powell being investigated criminally for allegedly lying to, what was it, Congress or the Senate oversight?
	Yeah, I mean, basically, they only did their, so, you know, Barris and I and some other people were up there causing a storm.
	And then finally, they take action on a referral that came many months before, like seven, six, seven months before, going back June, July.
	Congresswoman Luna is doing very good work.
	Congresswoman Luna is trying to ban stock trading by the insiders in Congress.
	Congresswoman Luna is exposing Ukraine's religious discrimination against Orthodox Christians in their country.
	She's called for peace and diplomacy involving Russia.
	Congresswoman Luna opposed the funding of the NED.
	So she's doing a lot of good work.
	She was outraged that Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a appointed official by the president with the consent of the Senate, came before them and told them that he was not doing all these big billion-dollar plus charges for their new Fed building, all paid for by taxpayer money.
	It's private banks that own the subdivision federal, individual federal banks, Federal Reserve banks, in terms of it's a complicated structure, but they have an incentive and they should be paying for this, not the American taxpayer anyway.
	But I mean, talking about like marble floors and marble this and marble that and special fountains.
	And I mean, over a billion-dollar overrun.
	And then he lied about it to Congress.
	And this comes from a Federal Reserve that has board members that he was part of recommending that had committed mortgage fraud, like Lisa Cook, that have committed insider trading again and again and again without criminal prosecution.
	And he goes out last Sunday night in order to try to sink the markets and say, I mean, all they did was send him a subpoena because they'd sent him investigative requests and he refused to answer any of them, refused to talk to any of them because he's the Federal Reserve chairman.
	He's Mr. Central Bankster.
	You don't get to dictate to him.
	You don't get to control it.
	You don't get any authority, any accountability with him.
	Just like you, that's why you've had all these insider traders, rogue banksters, mortgage fraudsters running our economy into the ground like the Fed has done for the last two decade plus, doing things that were never constitutionally or congressionally authorized anyway.
	But he tries to sink the markets as punishment for them simply sending him a subpoena to produce the evidence and information that he should have produced honestly to Congress six months ago.
	And he's like, this is an assault on the independence of the central bank.
	There is no independent central bank in the Constitution.
	To have an independent central bank makes it unconstitutional by definition.
	There's many law.
	If you look at the non-delegation doctrine, you look at the principal officer doctrine.
	You look at separation of powers doctrine.
	You look at the political control over elected officials and the removal power doctrine that has been, we've been talking about now that's been more robustly developing for the last four or five years.
	The Fed shouldn't exist.
	Period.
	Back it up just a little bit because people have to appreciate this.
	The Federal Reserve is not a government entity.
	It's not a government body.
	And so the argument parts of it are and parts of it are not.
	And that's what makes it a disaster.
	Okay.
	It was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
	But let's remember: first central bank, first national bank in the United States, President Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders, got rid of it because he realized what a scam it was.
	You know, go back and read what he said about the risk of having these central banksters print your currency.
	Then the second national bank comes along, and President Andrew Jackson shut that bank down.
	Thank God, another great populist American.
	So we didn't have any of these central banksters until J.P. Morgan decided to hang out.
	You can read the great book by my friend G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, a beautiful little island, by the way.
	I've been there for a George Gammon event and some other events talking about the whole nasty, pernicious, sneaky history of the Federal Reserve.
	I mean, in 1913, we get the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson, which brings us World War I, by the way, and the birth of a nation launched in the beginnings of the Ku Klux Klan, thanks to Woodrow Wilson.
	Only movie, ever, first movie ever shown in the White House was Birth of a Nation, which is like one battle after another, which is being used by the Oscars in Hollywood to try to promote these ICE attacks and terrorism that we're seeing against ICE across the country that we'll get to in a bit.
	In the same 1913, they passed the income tax.
	They proposed the 16th Amendment.
	I'm sure it's just a big coincidence that they get the 16th Amendment income tax through the same year they do the Federal Reserve Act.
	And the people crafting and drafting this Federal Reserve Act are a bunch of banksters.
	But it was disguised as ways to regulate those Wall Street people.
	We need to regulate it, even though it was written by the biggest Wall Streeters of them all.
	Probably a sign it wasn't there for.
	But the Federal Reserve Act creates all these unconstitutional provisions.
	It creates the Federal Open Market Committee, which has on it almost half the people on it, five of the 12 people on it are not appointed by the president, are not appointed with conference, not confirmed by the Senate, and are not removable by the president.
	They create a law that says the board of governors, that's the government entity, is the board of governors.
	So you got a Federal Reserve that's not quite government, but you got a boy of governors that is.
	And then you got the Federal Reserve Bank individual banks, which are capitalized by private banks, which help select who serves as board of directors on those banks.
	So you got a true creature from Jekyll Island.
	You got a legislative nightmare that appears to have no constitutional tethers or roots.
	And in my opinion, it violates the non-delegation doctrine because they're given boundless standards to do whatever they want.
	This is legislative power.
	They're making rules governing our monetary system.
	That should be determined by Congress.
	It violates the major questions doctrine.
	It violates the non-delegation doctrine for an executive branch body to be doing Congress's business, the legislative body's business.
	Second, it violates the principal officer doctrine, which means any principal officer which has major influence over our government policy has to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
	Many of the people that are on the Federal Reserve board are not that.
	They have never received approval or the rest.
	Third, you have the removal doctrine, which is that everybody that has principal officer power must be removable at will by the president of the United States.
	This is the crux of the entire scandal, so to speak, is that people are saying, well, Trump can't fire Jerome Powell because he's appointed and technically, I don't know, is not a member of the executive, so he can't be fired by the president, although he can be removed for bad behavior.
	And people are saying, well, this is pretextual.
	Trump is trying to manufacture some lying under oath or lying to Congress to get rid of him.
	Others are saying his term is up.
	If I'm not mistaken, Robert, his term is up, Jerome Powell, in May this year.
	As chair.
	There's chair and then his term on the board itself, which he could continue on.
	But the other problem is, so I mean, this is Congress created this nightmare creature.
	An unaccountable blob is what it is.
	Completely.
	To give you an idea of how unaccountable they are.
	The Federal Reserve is exempt from many FOIA laws.
	I've FOIA the Federal Reserve, so been at it for a long time.
	Gammon and I have been doing this for about four years.
	They deny it.
	We come back, make another request.
	They deny it.
	We come back, make another request.
	We figure out it's here, it's here.
	They're hiding it there.
	They're hiding it over here.
	But one of the things they always rely upon is that many of their subdivisions.
	Hold on a second.
	I got to get this.
	Yeah, I was actually just going to bring this up in our viva BarnesLaw.locals.com community, which is a good meme.
	And the Fed.
	What happened to George Gammon taking on the Fed seems like he's given up on that?
	I don't know that they've given up, but Barnes will get back to it in a second.
	I'm actually curious as to what phone call he had to take in that point.
	And I'll just, I'll continue with Jerome Powell, Jerome.
	I'm pronouncing like a French Canadian because his name is Jerome and my best friend up in Canada's name, Jerome, is that people are hypothesizing this is to get Jerome Powell out of his position because he can't be fired.
	But like Barnes says, he can still stay on the board.
	And then the other subsidiary argument is that Trump is sending a message to any future appointee that he does appoint when Jerome Powell's tenure is over that he's saying, you better do what is in my administration's policy's best interest, or we'll find a reason to get you out as well.
	I don't think this is quite as pretextual.
	When we get into the nature of the charges of the dishonesty and just the abject grotesque incompetence, Jerome Powell should be nowhere near governing other people's money.
	Sorry, Robert, what were you saying?
	Oh, exactly.
	But here's what Congress has exempted the Federal Reserve from, from many FOIA laws.
	They've exempted them from the sunshine laws.
	That's what allows them to meet in secret at these open market committee meetings.
	Even though that is an entirely controls government monetary policy that radically and dramatically influences us in the world, if anything should be subject to sunshine laws, they should be.
	They are exempt from congressional, because they receive their money from private banks and self-funding.
	They're exempt from the entire congressional appropriations process, which means they're outside much of congressional oversight, including audits and financial reviews.
	They are also exempt from the government accountability office.
	So they can't be audited by the government.
Auditing the Federal Reserve 00:05:30
	So this is why people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Thomas Massey and others have been calling for auditing the Fed for a long time.
	It was something Doge was going to do when suddenly Soros Scotty Bessett.
	I said I wasn't going to use this phrase that often, but I got to go down there.
	You didn't get a cease and desist, Robert?
	No, not yet, not yet.
	I got advisements that he is aware of me popularizing that reference.
	So, hey, but hey, quit backing up the Federal Reserve, Soro Scotty.
	I won't call you Soro Scotty.
	But on top of that, you've got, yeah, and then they're outside a whole bunch of other processes because a bunch of their people are not even publicly appointed in the first place.
	And they're said you can't remove them except for cause.
	That is an unconstitutional constraint on the president's executive office.
	What it creates is a technocratic bankster-driven elite that serves the interest of Wall Street against the interest of the American people.
	And anybody that says they're technocratic geniuses, look back at the last 50 years and tell me the Fed has been any kind of geniuses.
	For a while, they were reporting to the Treasury.
	Harry Truman was getting people fired all the time.
	So until 1951, they used to peg the interest rates to whatever the treasury dictated.
	So this idea that they've always been independent is actually nonsense.
	But the mere idea of an independent Federal Reserve is anti-American and anti-constitutional.
	And that alone is warrant of Powell's firing.
	But the evidence is abundant that he's also a criminal stealing billions of dollars from the American people.
	The denials, I won't bring up the list.
	They involve denials of no VIP dining room, no new marble, no water, no beehives, no roof terrace gardens.
	A roof terrace garden.
	A roof terrace garden.
	No, no, no, mischaracterizing of the expenses.
	I mean, we were there where we saw the back and forth with Trump where he said you're a billion dollars over budget.
	He's like, oh, no, that was for the other building or that was for another part.
	Bottom line, that, you know, when Trump makes a mistake, and I'll put that in quotes, that was a strategic mistake because it highlighted even within the own renovations of that building.
	Why in the name of sweet holy hell, A, would American taxpayers pay for that?
	And B, how in the name of sweet holy hell can you be so far over budget, whether or not Trump included a building that ought not have been included, is objectively egregiously over budget and is yet somehow in charge of managing the most fundamental financial elements of American society and American government.
	Precisely.
	Not only that, ever since COVID, ever since 2008, they've just been giving themselves more and more power to do more and more things.
	You could have a de facto central bank digital currency issued by the Fed by how much power they've grabbed.
	That was part of what inspired George.
	But yeah, to the question that people ask about Gamut, we've continued to keep doing the FOIA request so that they block us here so we go over here.
	Then they block us here so we go over there.
	And they always buy time.
	They always get extensions and extensions and extensions.
	And so it's just been around and around and around with the Federal Reserve now.
	And we've got a lot more intel and information.
	We're going to be not far away from the point we can give out free templates so you can FOIA the Federal Reserve out there.
	And you can make Jerome Powell's life utterly miserable.
	We're getting her closer and closer to that template, but we had to know where they hide the bodies, which means how do they index the documents?
	Where do they store the documents?
	What are the ways that you can get FOIA to be able to pull the documents and to disclose the documents?
	He's understanding the inside of the FOIA system in order to unravel it, which the FOIA department at the Fed is just as corrupt as the one at the FBI and the DOJ because they are still blocking Tom Fitton's many different FOIA requests related to whether it's J6 cases, related to other, whether it's the Seth Rich case, that they're sabotaging and they're just doing the deep states bidding top to bottom, left to right, because Pam Bondi and counterfeit cash can't do their job.
	Or the job they see it as doing is covering up for the donor pals and not serving the interest of the American people.
	Let me just summarize a few key points before we head off of the Jerome Powell.
	The investigation is, I'm not putting words in your mouth.
	It's my opinion.
	It's absolutely righteous.
	The guy's incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest.
	Set that aside.
	The idea of investigating him, they won't get anything done before his term is over, but this might preclude him from continuing to sit on the board, although he wouldn't be the chair.
	And this sends a strong signal to anybody else coming in: you'd better be responsible.
	You'd better be diligent.
	You'd better be honest.
	And you better not bilk American taxpayers for your own opulent, lavish expenses.
	That's the bottom line.
	You're not above the law.
	You're not above the law.
	I mean, wasn't that the Democratic slogan back in 2022?
	Well, who it should absolutely apply to is the Federal Reserve chairman, who has been acting above the law since the law was passed.
	And it's long overdue.
	He be held accountable.
	And we start reconsidering the role and power this institution has.
	Perfect.
	And now I want to bring up a bunch of our tip questions over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Why I dreaming?
	That's a new name that I have not seen.
	I know that for sure.
	Is there any reason besides optics the left would want to Trump to enact the Insurrection Act?
	We're going to get to that in a second.
	Gray 101 says, have you heard of the UK government's propaganda game, Pathways Backfiring?
	Somehow warning young men that getting into the alt-right will get you in hot, will get you a hot goth girl, does not scare them away.
Backyard Mess: Strategy Discussion 00:03:04
	That's very funny.
	Since Trump covers Fridays, okay, I got that.
	Chris Kraft says exactly, not sure what that's to.
	What does SCOTUS rule on the VRA section 2?
	I thought it would have already issued, but we have opinions coming on Tuesday.
	So the two big ones I'm waiting on are that I thought would have already been issued, but I think will be issued very soon, are the tariff case and the Voting Rights Act case.
	Cameron 1 and Men says, I just read some headlines how Sweden, Germany, France are all sending some troops to Greenland.
	Now, these are just headlines I'm not sure about.
	What if that was the point the whole time?
	Was just to get Europe off their asses and get some NATO military on the island to make sure our adversaries aren't.
	Sure, Trump has made clear to lots of people he's going to take Greenland one way or the other before the year's out.
	So that's been Trump's view.
	Oh, God.
	This hurts my groin.
	Everybody, I've told Barnes before, it feels much better now, but I pulled my back out yesterday like an old effing fart, like an old, just picking up a bucket.
	I'm cleaning out my fish tank.
	And I was incapacitated yesterday.
	Now I feel a little better.
	But this, watching this guy split a nut on the top of the chair.
	This is Andrew Piscadlu says, Bongino and the admin practicing their karate to go ape on us black pillars.
	Why don't you trust us?
	Piscadlu says, I'm amazed at how Massey has repressed himself and blazed forward with the message, hell or high water, I'm going to get the Epstein docks done.
	I just want accountability, multiple ways of skinning the cat.
	And Sassy Massey is giving me that now.
	I'm going to save that one and come back to that.
	Meanwhile, we're fighting Somalis over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
	Wait, what?
	Howard the Duke.
	I'm going to have Jake Lang on tomorrow to talk about things.
	And it's not going to be me celebrating what Jake is getting himself into.
	It's going to be a frank discussion.
	I wanted to, I was thinking about doing it before today's show, but it's going to require more than 20 minutes.
	So he'll be on tomorrow.
	We're going to talk about what happened to him in Minnesota.
	If you didn't hear, you can go look it up.
	Dred Robert says, U.S. rare us, U.S. rare earths and won't mine them.
	U.S. has them.
	Why would owning Greenland increase the rare earth?
	Because you could go mess up somebody else's backyard with less.
	You know, you don't have to, not in my backyard is a very good strategy when it comes to the main hurdle.
	Refinement of rare earths is a very environmentally messy process.
	And China has a monopoly because, contrary to what some climate change people think, China doesn't give a rat's rear end about their environment.
	And like, you know, suppressing lithium development up in Canada and suppressing natural gas and oil up in Canada.
	Yeah, you just outsource your pollution to China.
	So that's great for China.
	And now that you understand what's going on in Canada with Mark J. Carney, three passport carrying globalist Hoover, sucking up to President Xi's nipples, now you understand exactly why they're doing that.
	If the goal in Greenland was to keep China out of the Arctic, it looks like Kearney is going to give them direct access.
Citizens' Self-Defense on the Streets 00:15:33
	Oh, Carney's going to end up with an invasion on his own.
	U.S. Rare Earth, we want one.
	Look, I got that.
	Bruce Dang says Michael Jan, who's very smart, had an interesting spin on Presid Trump's arm twisting on Greenland.
	He suggested that another issue may be the Danish-owned major rail line that is the major transport in Panama.
	Interesting.
	Charton says, Barnes, can you answer this for me?
	I saw this coming months ago with ICE.
	Can you ask a generic person on the street for ID because they have an accent?
	They can't.
	I don't think so.
	No.
	I argue with Americans about this, and I think you cannot without probable cause.
	You know what?
	Let's put on pause there and let's just get to the ICE stuff.
	That's a good segue.
	I don't think you can without good reason.
	When it comes to enforcing illegal immigration, if you get areas where they congregate, known for illegal work, like at Home Depots, and they don't speak English and they're congregating suspiciously, that might do.
	But let's get to the ICE is getting sued in Minnesota because exactly what you might think, abusive, unlawful, violating the Constitution, search and seizures or detention.
	There's a number of Article Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, I think Eighth.
	You'll add them.
	But it's a proposed class action.
	And the three plaintiffs thus far are U.S. citizens, whom I presumed are naturalized citizens.
	So, you know, I have not yet heard a story where even if it's going to happen, it doesn't mean you like, it's like I talked about it, I forget where, but it's not because you accidentally or inadvertently lock up innocent people in jail that you don't lock up people for crimes.
	They are invariably, undoubtedly, going to detain an American citizen, natural-born American citizen or naturalized American citizen in this pursuit.
	It's invariably going to happen.
	It's a question of statistics.
	It doesn't mean you don't do it.
	But there's a proposed class action of people who are unlawfully detained, constitutional rights being violated because of the tactics of ICE.
	And I don't know what's, it's not, it's not at, it has not yet been certified.
	It's just at the request for certification of the class action.
	You know, they allege that they're engaging in strong, strong-armed tactics, racial profiling, which I think the argument for racial profiling doesn't hold water because they've deported a number of Russians and Ukrainians.
	And so they're quite clearly going after all illegals and not just darker-skinned illegals.
	But they may or may not have done themselves any favors.
	Robert, what's your take on the proposed class action?
	So, yeah, the allegation is that it's masked men are violently stopping and arresting U.S. citizens because of their ethnic background without probable, without reasonable suspicion of their removability, without probable cause, arresting them.
	So that's when you stop them, you just need reasonable suspicion that they are a person that you can remove from the country as illegally present within the country.
	In order to arrest them, then that goes up to you need probable cause that they are removable.
	They're saying people are being arrested without probable cause that they're removable and without probable cause that they are at risk of flight, even if they are removable.
	And so this governs the various federal laws and then internal DHS statutes, regulations, if you will, that constrict and control ICE behavior.
	Now, I would say, I don't know how much of it is true or not true from the allegations.
	They have multiple U.S. citizens who got suddenly kidnapped off the street according to the allegations.
	If true, somebody's doing a sloppy job at ICE.
	I thought certain aspects of the operation were sloppy to begin with.
	Having an ICE officer have to remove somebody that's in the middle of the street that led to that school shooting.
	I think they're better off with somebody else doing that that's trained and disciplined into doing that, at least requesting that aid so that if they turn it down, it forms a better predicate to make an insurrection act argument later.
	But that's the allegations.
	And so we'll see.
	Clearly, I mean, this apparently is partially what informed Joe Rogan's mistaken view that we've actually deported U.S. citizens.
	We have not deported any U.S. citizens.
	There's no U.S. citizens that have been deported.
	There have been children who are U.S. citizens who chose to leave with their parents when their parents who are here illegally were deported at the request of the parent.
	But there's been no U.S. citizen illicitly deported.
	There have been cases of U.S. citizens being stopped and cases of U.S. citizens being arrested, but they haven't actually been deported.
	What I don't understand is how did that happen?
	Some of these guys they're chasing.
	I mean, they look like the South Park version.
	And, you know, it's bad enough we got team.
	And this is where I keep trying to tell the administration.
	How you engage in foreign policy will not only shape people's beliefs about whether you're paying attention to their issues first, but also they will shape their perception of how you're addressing domestic issues.
	The perception of the National Guard restoring order, the perception of ICE chasing down dangerous gangbangers will be undermined and eroded if you're bragging about kidnapping foreign leaders in the middle of the night.
	If you're bragging about how you're just going to replace the Ayatollah because you feel like it, because you don't like his speech and how he handles protests.
	When they see that, they're going to see ICE in a different light.
	All of a sudden, the masks, which initially were understood as ways to secure themselves, is now seen as net negative in public opinion by people who are still very pro-deportation, but they don't like the way in which they perceive ICE is engaging.
	And how much of this perception is shaped by misinformation from the anti-ICE crowd versus how much of it, I think a lot of it's being driven by perception of Trump's foreign policy.
	That, you know, when you have this perception, I can go do whatever I want because we got all the badass weapons and men, all of a sudden they perceive ICE as an extension of your foreign policy, not as a domestic law enforcement agency.
	They need somebody else to accompany ICE on some of these raids to handle the crowds and the obstruction.
	It should not be, ICE officers aren't particularly trained at doing that part anyway.
	They're not anti-obstruction kind of teams.
	But I'm sensitive to the fact that you can't have masked men or it's optically, not just optically bad.
	How do you know you're not getting kidnapped by criminals and not just taken into detention by ICE?
	Can to give you that thing, by the way, that used to be a recurrent problem.
	Like drug dealers and other people used to get raided all the time by people who are there to rob the house pretending they were law enforcement.
	So for those people who think this could never happen, it happens.
	It happens.
	I mean, it's not even, and it's not to say, I understand the argument for the need to cover their faces because they're getting doxxed, threatened, assaulted, and killed.
	I mean, I understand that.
	So the question is, what's the balance and how do you go about it?
	I appreciate what you're saying, Robin.
	Yeah, definitively, you won't be able to rely on state law enforcement, but have unmasked, clearly identified law enforcement setting up perimeters, setting up areas where you don't have mums.
	She was an agitator, an instigator, an activist.
	That doesn't say that she deserved to get shot for that.
	She was quite clearly not just dropping her kids off at school.
	And how does it look when we're complaining, saying we get to invade a foreign nation because they took self-defense steps against rioters burning people in the streets, beheading people in the streets, lighting fire stations on, you know, grabbing people out of ambulances.
	We said we get to invade another nation because of how Iran was handling it while we have ICE shooting people in the street.
	Right?
	I mean, people should still have self-defense, but so do the Iranians, by the way.
	They have a better case of self-defense, to be blunt about it.
	And so do they not understand how this looks?
	I mean, the messaging is just all over the place.
	Just so everybody understands also, Barnes believes that the shoot was righteous or at least legal.
	Yeah, that was self-defense.
	That was legal, legit self-defense.
	People.
	But politically, that doesn't mean it's going to play well.
	No, for sure.
	But you try to convince somebody.
	How do you argue that a woman who is unarmed?
	I mean, I appreciate the vehicle is a weapon.
	You're not going to convince people who are on the fence that that was a necessary thing to happen given what was going on.
	But it is true optically.
	You say, oh my goodness, they're killing protesters in the streets.
	It's not analogous and it's a dishonest comparison, but you know that they're going to make it.
	It's not possible that you did not know people were going to compare that woman to Ashley Babbitt.
	And there's material differences that if you are not inclined to see, you will not see.
	Politically, you say, yeah, well, they're killing protesters in the streets in Iran.
	Let's go invade.
	You know, someone's going to say, look, look what's going on over here.
	And so how the hell do you do that?
	And then to go out and put out videos on truth and X celebrating the deportations and not having a shred of humanity, even as to the necessity of what's going on, you know it's going to not work out well.
	They need perimeters.
	They need to make sure that people who are brainwashed, MSNBC, Rachel Matta watching fools do not get themselves in the fray.
	Because even if they get shot, you think they deserve to get shot.
	It's not going to be political good fodder that you're going to want to have.
	And it's not the optics that you want to have.
	Making fun of the kid who just lost his eye is not, I mean, good.
	Ha ha.
	You could LOL FAFO.
	It's not good optics about a kid losing his eye like my Iranian friend lost in the protests in Iran.
	So it is weird who's doing the messaging.
	They think this Team America stuff is going to work with anybody other than people who are already on board.
	It might push people.
	This is boomer con slop.
	Some people out there get confused.
	I'm not criticizing all boomers who are conservative.
	I'm referring to a certain image, you know, the boomer con, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, watches Fox News all day, thinks Wall Street Journal still likes George W. Bush, still think there are WMDs in Iraq.
	I'm referring to a particular who doesn't want Trump to lower housing prices because where they got all their equity in the stock market from.
	I'm talking about that boomer con donor type, Fox News type, not your normie working class boomer person.
	That's not, you know, it's just a quick phrase in my mind pre-creates an image for some people because people get better.
	Why did Barnes hate boomer?
	I do not hate boomers.
	Don't apologize to the boomers, Robert.
	That's a very boomer thing to do.
	I'm joking.
	But Robert, so class action, we'll see where it goes.
	I mean, I think it will advance because prima fascia, they're not going to dismiss it on it.
	They're going to authorize it because it's happened.
	I don't know how you go with a class action on an adjoinder of suits because I don't know how many people it's happened to, but set that aside.
	Also, they've just got to exercise some discipline.
	Like what happens is this appears to, you know, they're able to sell the suit as Donald Trump doesn't like people from Somalia, so ICE starts just raiding Somali neighborhoods and grabbing people off the streets.
	They can do that because of the timing of the operation.
	Trump makes complaints about the Somali presence in Minneapolis, and two days later, they're mass eyes raided because that's who Christy Noam is.
	She's incompetent.
	I mean, when she's not busy banging people, not her husband, who are married to other people, and then giving sweetheart contracts to their relatives, for which the Democratic Party already knows all about is going to impeach her and send her to oblivion down the road.
	She had voluntarily stepped down.
	I mean, she looks like the South Park satire.
	It's like their version of ICE was an over-the-top, crazy race, don't know what they're doing, shooting people randomly.
	They always have Christy Noam shows up and she tries to find the dangerous, find any dog.
	And it's like, bam, oh, I got him.
	I got him in time, you know, based on her shooting that dog, all the rest.
	But she's starting to act like the caricature.
	This is not well managed.
	There's ways to manage the optics of this.
	There's ways to manage the, so the enforcement is the most effective.
	So you don't put ICE officers in immediate harm's way.
	So that there's a hundred ways to do this better than the way they're doing it.
	So that you avoid these kind of class actions and public perception and optic debacle.
	But as long as Christy Noam runs HA, I have no confidence that she'll know what she's doing.
	Well, I had no idea about these affairs.
	What is so hard about keeping your schmeckle in your pants?
	Like, what's so hard about it?
	It's a very easy thing to do.
	Holy sweet merciful Washington, D.C. They're all a bunch of perverts and pedarass.
	Obviously, the president didn't care for being saying he was.
	And I got like bitty job.
	Other people were like, oh, this is so cool.
	It's like, no, it's not.
	It's not good when blue-collar workers are so outraged at you, they call you a pedo protector, and your only defense is to say F you and flip them off.
	That looks like how he's treated blue-collar workers writ large.
	Here's Trump flipping you off.
	It's going to be used against him in the camp 2026 heavily.
	Here's Donald Trump's message when he said, when you're mad about him doing wars or whatever it is, it'll be Trump flipping him off saying F you.
	That was bad optics for Trump, not good.
	Well, it's a good point.
	Like I say, there's certain things I won't even say.
	Like people say, Viva, why won't you use the N-word?
	It's like, I don't want that soundbite out there for anybody to use and then say out of context.
	You know, the CU next Tuesday, you might find one or two.
	But it is, like you say, it will be taken out of context.
	It will be used as a visual.
	And then, oh, you'll have your community knows, no, he did that.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's a visual that you don't necessarily even want to have.
	But when it comes to that.
	That doesn't help when they go in to Massey and Connor, send a letter to the courts saying, hey, courts, we're not getting this.
	You think you might have a role in this?
	And they go running into the courts saying, no, we would demand that there be no special master, no judicial review, no enforcement of the Epstein files, even though they continue to fail to disclose it at a record level, continue to redact incorrect information at a record level.
	And all they're going to do, by the way, by convincing the court that it has no special, they should have embraced that opportunity.
	Say, yes, we appreciate it.
	We would welcome a special master.
	It would simplify, streamline things.
	It would be make it public transparent.
	All the blame wouldn't be on us for non-disclosure because we're doing it pursuant to the special master and a court control.
	Instead, they're like, no, no, no, we're above all, everybody and everything and everywhere.
	So they're then shifting all accountability and responsibility exclusively to them.
	So it's bad politics, bad optics.
	And it continues to undermine the administration's goal to be perceived as transparent.
	There's a bunch of people that are going to think, I was on with the Durant and said why I believe Trump was never negatively impacted in the Epstein files and why it was.
	Though most of the audience was like, you're making this up.
	That's how badly he's handled this.
	He's handled this so that the average American is going to believe Donald Trump is the main per and his friends are the main people incriminated because of their what we told them.
	This would be the result if you handled this in such a half-assed, idiotic way.
	And they listened to the cat turds of the world telling him it was a non-issue instead of paying attention to good advice.
	And now they're in a political and legal disastrous situation.
	I'm bringing this up just because I don't know if people misunderstood or you didn't get to the part of the show yet where we talked about this, but that was not what Barnes was saying at all.
	Just the bottom line is people are going to be offensive.
	People are going to make the same self-defense principles apply in both places.
	And most of what Iran did was not oppression.
	It was self-defense.
	But by the way, your term, that's how the left calls the ICE protests.
	Maybe that oppression.
	So you borrowing the language of the anti-Iranian crowd is mirroring the same language as the left in the U.S.
	And that's my point.
	And you don't want to pay attention to it because you like your fake information from Fox News.
	Let me play this one.
	This is what the optics of ICE should be.
	I'm going to play it.
	I'm going to shut my big mouth.
	This is, you know, you need more of these gentlemen.
	It would be nice if you didn't have the face mask.
	But listen to this explanation.
Antitrust Moves Overshadowed 00:04:28
	And if you saw more of it.
	Face out in the snow so you kind of understand that kind of cold conditions.
	True.
	We're here to arrest a child sex offender.
	And you guys are out here honking.
	Oh, they're not worth pressing.
	That vehicle right there is honking and impeding our investigations while we're trying to arrest a child sex offender.
	That's who you guys are protecting.
	Insane.
	This is what you need by way of officials.
	And they needed to manage more optics like that.
	In other words, they needed to manage targeting the right people that protect the facilities, don't have the timing of it, be right after Trump says go here.
	And so there's so many, but there's no evidence that there's any competency at the top of the with Christy Noome.
	There's just no evidence of that.
	I mean, we were just seeing mountain.
	I mean, how do you take a 60-40 issue, I mean, or even two-to-one issue in support of deportations of those illegally present, particularly those dangerous to the community, especially prioritizing them, and make it a 50-50 issue?
	You manage it as badly as Christy Noam has managed.
	Let me bring this one up because Kimmy Hunt is, it might segue into this.
	Kimmy Hunt is a member of our locals community.
	We know her.
	This is a good faith person.
	Robert, I love you.
	Is Trump doing anything right?
	Please don't discount the phone.
	Oh, there's a whole bunch of stuff he's doing right.
	And good.
	The problem is it gets overshadowed by all of this.
	So that's part of our point.
	The great announcement on health.
	Now, there's not a lot of it that's law-based for this show precisely because it's more general policy in terms of good policy.
	You know, announcement of let's cap credit card interest rates.
	Let's do things in the housing market to bring down prices, lock Wall Street out of monopolizing the housing market.
	The healthcare, let's have a one fraud assistant attorney general to have all the fraud cases.
	So antitrust moves forward, Key Tan moves forward, civil and criminal fraud cases move forward.
	And like here, here's on this.
	What would have stopped all of this if they would have from the very beginning unraveled the Trantifa NGOs, Soros connected NGOs that are sponsoring and organizing all of these protests?
	And this again, it's not to rail against Patel, but he just did an interview where he's like, oh, did you guys know that we're going to follow the money and try?
	Dude, first of all, you declared Antifa a terrorist organization.
	Everybody's been talking about George Soros open found, whatever, open society funding these things further.
	Everybody knows about the fall of the money paper trail.
	Why are you talking about it on OAN instead of having done it already in the first year of your tenureship?
	And there's been no evidence of anything being done, anything being done.
	And that's why they're so able to do this.
	So, I mean, you cut this off at the heart of it in the bud by doing this.
	And so the point is not that Trump is all a failure or anything like that.
	The point is that the Trump successes are getting blinded by the failures of counterfeit cash, pay-per-play Pam Bondi, Christie, who can I do a deal for my new lover, Gnome?
	You know, the Soros Scotty covering for the corrupt and rogue Federal Reserve, and Narco Marco and RAT, the rat CIA director rat Ratcliffe put the rat in Ratcliffe, demanding he wage war on behalf of the CIA or where they are.
	It's sinking his administration by swamping all the good policies that are being pronounced by Robert Kennedy on vaccine, Robert Kennedy on the food pyramid.
	Things that should have dominated this month should have been take on the credit cards, take on the big banks, take on the Federal Reserve, take on with antitrust the big ag companies and the big pharma companies and the rest with the AAG for fraud at the Justice Department.
	The unleash housing affordability by making sure Wall Street is foreclosed from owning all of it so that you're not stuck and owning, you know, owning nothing and being happy about it, WEF style.
	Now, Trump's going over this week to Davos, I believe it's this week.
	Give a big, big speech.
	Hopefully that moves things in the right direction.
	We will see.
	Before you even get there, now I actually want to go to the Calcium market and see what he's expected to say in his speech.
	Oh, you know what you can bet on it, Polymarket?
Mayor's Call to Federal Law Enforcement 00:04:24
	Well, someone's going to fart in the crowd.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, but I made a joke.
	I want it to be fake.
	You can easily wager that somebody would fart.
	I want to fly out.
	You guys sponsor my chip.
	I'll let one rip and we'll all make a whole hell of a lot of money.
	No, Robert, what I was going to ask is: in terms of, and I don't know where your answer is going to go, net positive or net negative if Trump is to invoke the Insurrection Act for the shenanigans that are going on in Minnesota.
	Meaning, to me, put away legally and policy-wise, I think there's clear grounds.
	So the so this all starts with the Constitution.
	The Constitution gives to Congress the power to call up the militia and the rules and regulations that will govern it.
	The Congress has, in turn, established what rules those are and given them to the president of the United States.
	And the Supreme Court, dating all the way back to the 1800s, because George Washington has invoked this power, by the way.
	That's how far back almost every president has at one time or another invoked the Insurrection Act.
	And so the Supreme Court said that the decision is exclusively in the hands of the president and cannot be second-guessed by anybody.
	That doesn't mean they won't try at some point.
	They've kind of watered that down over the years, but we'll see.
	But so basically, from the Constitution, it goes to Congress.
	Congress then gives it to the president for certain circumstances.
	And that includes that he can bring in the military and it'd be excluded.
	The Posse Comitatus Act, which, by the way, was all part of helping the Ku Klux Klan retake over the South in the 1880s.
	So I love you, like, quote that law.
	I think it's this wonderful law.
	It's like, hmm, it's history.
	Not so pretty.
	But putting that aside, there's an exception to this if you invoke the Insurrection Act in this particular way.
	And you can invoke it, which would allow the military to even enforce law despite the Posse Comitatus Act's limitations if it's invoked for the purposes of enforcing federal law because it cannot be done.
	It's impractical to do it any other way.
	Now, as a custom in practice, the Insurrection Act has most often been used when state and local authorities won't protect people's civil rights.
	So people think of it in those contexts or when there's complete out-of-control riots.
	But that's not what the law says.
	And you go back, the law is much broader than that.
	And the Supreme Court's own precedent affirms that the president has pretty much carte blanche to determine if these standards and conditions exist.
	And that is, can he, is it impractical right now with the usual and customary federal law enforcement officials to execute the laws In this case, immigration laws in the Twin Cities.
	It seems like it's sure trending in that direction.
	You've got a governor talking about obstructing.
	You've got an attorney general talking about obstructing.
	Governor.
	DAA talking about obstructing and riots to boot.
	A governor talking about being at war with the feds over the feds' enforcement of law in the state.
	And Jacob Fry, that son of a beasting.
	Kami put me, you know, get on my knee for the BLM mayor.
	And that, I think, informs the background.
	The Twin Cities got burned to the ground during the BLM protest.
	The same people, Governor Walsh, the same mayor, Mayor Frey, are the ones still in charge and involved.
	And with that backdrop and with their current statements, I think you have a reasonable basis for the president to conclude the city of Minneapolis's authorities and the city of St. Paul authorities and the governor of authorities, including the attorney general and the district attorney and even local police, will not enforce or protect these officers.
	And because of that, these officers are left being obstructed and impeded and endangered from executing federal law to do things like the man and the ICE officer in the truck pointed out.
	I mean, some of the people they were seizing were some of the nastiest, worst human beings on the planet.
	You're talking about multiple charges: rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, child abuse, child sexual assault.
	I mean, this is the bottom of the barrel.
	You know, even for the special group that the CIA brought over from Somalia, which included, by the way, some of the nastiest people from Somalia, like Elon Omar's father, it's long overdue.
	And they are interfering, interrupting, obstructing, endangering.
	And that would be grounds to call it in.
	So legally, constitutionally, I think he's completely in the clear.
Paul Thomas Anderson's Political Optics 00:08:03
	Doesn't mean he won't get a federal judge to just throw it all out and try to obstruct it.
	But if he does it in the right factual predicates and enforces it, it can legally be affirmed and upheld because it should be.
	Politically, the optics are going to.
	This is the problem with saying we're going to send military to Greenland.
	We send military to Venezuela and we're sending military to Iran.
	And we're talking about putting boots on the ground at some level in Gaza.
	And we're still supporting all the nutty stuff going on in Ukraine.
	Is then you look like the authoritarian dictator that the left wants to make you look like.
	And that's the optics he's got right now are going to be tricky to maneuver in because that's the dynamic that's emerged because of the conflation of his international policy with his domestic policy.
	No, I could not agree more.
	The left needs their, they need him to act like the authoritarian that they've painted him out to be.
	So they're going to get increasingly radical to try to make him do it.
	And if this had been the first act of what they could call authoritarianism, declaring, you know, invoking the Insurrection Act, it would be a lot easier of an argument to support if it had not been distracted with what people might consider to be global authoritarianism in terms of I have not yet seen this is going to be a shameless plug of sorts.
	I haven't seen one battle after another, but I'm going to watch it.
	Horrible film.
	Horrible crap.
	Great director, Wes Anderson, but this is no, no, P.T. Anderson, Paul Thomas.
	I don't know if they're related.
	Paul Thomas Anderson, yes, yes.
	Paul Thomas Anderson.
	Who does all those eclectic oddball films?
	Oh, I like Boogie Knights, Magnolia.
	What's the other one?
	I think he did Punch Drunk Love.
	My problem is.
	Did the one with Bill Murray Rushmore School or whatever?
	No, that I think that was Wes Anderson.
	Oh, am I confusing to you?
	Maybe right.
	No, I think.
	Yeah, Wes Anderson did all the quirky ones.
	Paul Thomas Anderson did all the semi-serious ones.
	Yeah, he did the ones with the sex violence.
	Yeah, are they big?
	He did No Blood for Oil.
	Was that Paul Thamis?
	Yeah, Thomas.
	He did, what was it called?
	There Will Be Blood.
	He did the Blood.
	Okay.
	I didn't like that one.
	Yeah, the Great Performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, greatest actor of our time, maybe the greatest actor in history.
	Yeah, Paul Thomas.
	This movie is purely an Antifa love letter to Antifa.
	And it's against ICE, by the way.
	The evil person is ICE.
	The heroes are Antifa.
	And Oscars have been pushing it like mad.
	I've been trying to tell people in Washington elsewhere.
	As soon as it came, I was like, they're going to try to make this the Oscar movie.
	They are trying to recreate Birth of a Nation.
	And for those that don't know, The Birth of a Nation, D.W. Griffith, famous movie director, basically glamorized the Ku Klux Klan.
	You can time the rise in the popularity of the Ku Klux Klan, including in states like Indiana and other states.
	You know, I'm going to be betting on Miami on the Monday Night Football.
	And some people are like, how can you go against the Hoosiers of Indiana?
	I was like, well, biggest state that had the Ku Klux Klan was Indiana.
	You know, just saying, nothing against all my Hoosier friends.
	It's not just a postdoc rationalization for my bet on Miami.
	Truly, it's not.
	But the ad out took off because of D.W. Griffith's film.
	First film ever shown in the White House by President Woodrow Wilson, who's, you can say, you can spot almost everything evil in the history of America disproportionately is tied to President Woodrow Wilson.
	Doesn't matter whether the beginning of the deep state with World War I, the Federal Reserve Act, and income tax control bills, and the progressive takeover of many of our social, cultural, and other institutions, the recreation of our medical institutions and the image of Rockefellers and all the rest to push their oil-based pharma products.
	A lot of it's tied to Woodrow Wilson.
	But this too.
	And one battle after another was intended to reach young, disconnected people into being radicalized and saying you can be a hero too.
	You can be Leonard DiCaprio.
	You can be Benedico del Toro.
	You can be your true hero and idol and icon by joining Antifa and engaging in violence against ICE.
	And there has been so little coverage of this from the conservative press who are still asleep at the wheel because they don't pay enough attention to how pernicious Hollywood can be.
	And now we're seeing the real life demonstration of it.
	And that's what I've been telling people, this isn't going to get better.
	This is about to get a lot, a lot worse.
	Robert, not to shame.
	I don't know if I told you this.
	Who am I talking about?
	Lord Buckley.
	Mark Robert and I are going to watch movies.
	And so we're going to, this is, he set this up over the weekend.
	And the first movie we're going to do, and it's not political, but I said I have to watch some of the Oscars.
	We're going to review this movie.
	And I'm thinking.
	This movie is as political as it gets.
	Yeah, but the problem is, I know that this is what I'm anticipating.
	I'm going to hate the message and it's going to bother me.
	But the movie is movie crap.
	So it's great directorial skill, but even people that don't care politically one or the other said the movie is just.
	And I've seen one.
	I don't want to ruin it because I have to watch it.
	John Penn plays this over-the-top caricature of a right-wing gentleman.
	It's all driven by race.
	It's like a six-year-old wrote the script.
	Well, I saw the clip of Leonardo DiCaprio trying to remember the date of the, you know, they'll know the time.
	What time is it?
	Even his acting, maybe it's my own preconceived bias now.
	His acting looked worse than his typical acting.
	But anyhow, all I say, what's the channel called?
	It's called Viva and Lord Buckley Go to the Movie.
	So I think it's every Thursday.
	We're going to review a movie, Robert.
	And I'll send everyone the link.
	We'll get it going and maybe subscribe now here.
	I'll send everyone the link again.
	And we're going to set up a Rumble one as well.
	But I want to get back into movies.
	And I went back and re-watched Fullmetal Jacket with Ethan.
	He might have been a little too young, but I think.
	Yeah.
	Well, maybe given his personality, he probably might be unfazed by it.
	But it's normally that's a little young metal jacket.
	When I was a kid, I watched Hamburger Hill Full Metal Jacket.
	Apocalypse Now was the one where when I was younger, I absolutely did not appreciate or get the other classics, Born on the Fourth of July, but I think I was a little older when that one came out.
	I think our movie of the week this Saturday is going to be, I was going to do one this Saturday, but you had some client matters come up.
	For the Viva Barnes Law at thatlocals.com board, because it's very pertinent, and it's its own form of war movie.
	Team America, World Police.
	It's because it's how applicable it is right now.
	And apparently, you know, if you're watching it on DVD, some of the deleted scenes are absolutely epic, but the vomit scene is the greatest scene of all time.
	The um and a lot of the T America F.
	Yeah, I mean, that's what I remember.
	They blow up the paper, and they make but they make fun of lefty protesters in it, they make fun of the terror groups in it, they make fun of North Korea's leader in it.
	The, I think I got banned there for Ron Reed.
	So, Ron, it's it's classic, and I'm see that I can't watch with my kid because the sex, the violence, the not the violence, but the swearing and the crudeness.
	Kids don't know the limits as to what they can say outside.
	Oh, right, because they repeat it.
	Oh, my goodness, and especially my youngest one, we watched Spaceballs, Robert.
	This is the greatest thing ever.
	He's my kid is on, he's like, I don't know, five years old.
	He's on the playground, and I hear him say, Keep firing, assholes.
	I was like, What did you say?
	Sorry, what did you just say?
	He's like, Keep firing.
	I was like, No, no, you can't say that outside.
	Like, so we had to put some movies.
	We have not yet watched Blazing Saddles.
	We're going to do that one in a bit, but we've gotten to the jerk.
	Uh, Robert, before we get too far behind here, let me bring these up because I want to bring it.
	There's a couple more over on Crumble.
	I would have to say, Trump's wins are coming from the populist left and right in his party more than entrenched Republicans' thoughts.
	No, I've been trying to crash.
	I think that's you're right.
	The Bronx 183 says, I do believe your view of the Trump foreign policy ignores the broad impact of Iran and Venezuela and Africa has on Chinese influence on those regions.
	True, but then in which case, Canada is now public enemy number one to the Trump administration, but they might have already been beforehand.
	Mike 9451, if I remember correctly, back in Jan Fed, Barnes thought Trump was the best thing since sliced bread a year ago.
Constitutionally Sus Interaction 00:15:40
	Now, Barnes says Trump right up there with Biden.
	Not quite, but uh, that was before the presidency actually got into full swing.
	So, things might change depending on how things actually change.
	Randy Edwards says, California charged the U-Haul driver who recently ran through the crowd of protesters with assault with a deadly weapon.
	He didn't hit anybody.
	Wenora, Barnes is exactly right on the discussion of the Federal Reserve.
	It should be clipped and sent to the White House.
	We're going to clip it, don't worry about it.
	And then Barnes is exactly right on the White House.
	Uh, thank you, everyone, especially NeuroDivergent, for their unwavering support for an independent Alberta Alberta prosperity project.
	Has the referendum schedule, stay saltyalberta.com.
	Amazing.
	Oh, Viva, can you explain why the Rasmussen is sharing the Venezuela Smart Mattic Dominion story?
	If true, I know Rismusson believes there's leads there.
	I do not.
	And King of Bill Tong is getting it right now.
	Most Bill Tong talks a big game.
	We focus on meat quality, clean.
	I just had the Dwar Dorfa, however, you pronounce it, King of Bill Tong.
	Anton, it's amazing.
	Ingredients, doing it right.
	Let the consumers decide.
	Check out Bill Tongusa.com code Barnes for 10% off.
	Thank you.
	Check it out, everybody.
	Bill Dozer says, Thank you for the shout out, Mod King Neuro.
	I'm about to break in this freshly seasoned cast iron skillet with some medium-cut flank steak while getting great information from high integrity fellas.
	Thank you very much.
	And 808 Scotty, I got that.
	All right.
	We'll get to the end.
	Talking about rogue prosecutions.
	That, by the way, one thing you can invoke the Insurrection Act for a state's failure to protect people's civil rights.
	You know what I wouldn't mind?
	Send the, instead of sending to Venezuela and Iran and Greenland, everywhere else in God's green earth, send them into Colorado and free Tina Peters because they're systematically violating her civil rights.
	Invoke the Insurrection Act, send in the Marines, get her out of there.
	But it looks like the Court of Appeals may do that for him.
	Yeah, well, I won't play the entire thing.
	I played it on Friday's show, I think.
	I'll just play 30 seconds.
	Is it your position that a person can still be convicted of a crime with which they were never charged and with which the jury was never instructed?
	As long as the evidence is sufficient?
	I'll pause it right there.
	That's all we need.
	This process is a question that answers itself.
	I mean, so credit to the court.
	They asked a lot of questions that, remember the, remember, we took a lot of crap when we were making arguments saying this is a credit, like whenever you think of the politics, whatever you think of the 2020 election, put all that aside.
	This was a garbage prosecution brought in violation of basic principles of federal constitutional law, Colorado constitutional law, its own statutes, its own rules, its own processes, its own procedures.
	It is an embarrassment.
	The prosecution of Tina Peters, aside from the wrongful prosecution of an election 2020 whistleblower, is simply on its own terms an embarrassment to the rule of law and the protection of federal civil rights in this country.
	And credit to that court for exposing just some of the more egregious, insane examples.
	Well, so the egregious insane was that she was convicted on a felony because of faulty jury instructions given to the jury by the judge, where they found her guilty of a crime for which she was never charged because she was charged with a misdemeanor and it added 15 months to her sentence because that corrupt piece of shit of a judge made the sentences run consecutively on many issues and not concurrently.
	And even the commie governor of Colorado might be being motivated by the president boycotting, I mean, vetoing some water relief for Colorado.
	And he's like, until Tina Peters is out, not going to be doing any favors for Colorado.
	Credit to President Trump on that.
	But even the governor was like, nine years on a bureaucratic case?
	Nine years.
	And I got to remind everybody, she, like Bannon, like Navarro, like Brian Colfaj, they were denied defenses that they wanted to invoke, one of which was lawful execution of a public duty.
	She was.
	And by the way, these are defenses that we'll get to in a little bit in the Fourth Amendment that Justice Gorsuch is talking about in a wide range of contexts.
	First Amendment context, Fourth Amendment context, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth Amendment context.
	He's talking about looking at the common law justification defense, the common law necessity defense.
	Justification defense is part of the defense that I'm raising for the lady that was wrongfully prosecuted for tape recording her own proceedings in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, also raising variations of it in the Benchoo proceedings that we'll get to.
	But Tina Peters had those in abundance here.
	When you're doing something, it serves the greater good.
	So a classic, easiest example to give to people is you're driving down the street, and if you don't break the traffic rules, you're going to run over a six-year-old.
	So breaking those traffic rules, you have a necessity or justification defense, depending on which state you're in and how they frame it and phrase it.
	But she was denied and stripped of all of her defenses.
	The instructions were a joke.
	The sentence was absurd.
	So at every level, the way in which the trial was conducted, what the jury was allowed to determine and how it was allowed to determine it, and then what the judge did in sentencing made a complete mockery of basic rules governing our criminal trials in America.
	And even a liberal, democratically inclined Colorado Court of Appeals kept highlighting this case after case, example after example.
	You know, and in fact, when they asked her, where's your case law that supports this?
	And saying, man, I don't, I don't have, it's in my binder, but I don't remember.
	I don't know why she's talking like a Minnesotan.
	But this was still, nonetheless, this was the same Colorado court system that did declare it unlawful to have prevented Trump from being on the ballot.
	So yeah, so yeah, exactly.
	You have that court system.
	But I think they even, if you have any conscientious ounce of care or concern for criminal law in its own terms, which at least liberal judges used to, then the, because disproportionately they came from that background, then they would see how outrageous this case is.
	It's like it's be they can realize because of the politics of the case is not reasons for dismissing or anything or reasons for granting her appeal.
	It's the politics of the case was so bad that it contaminated principles of criminal law that make it a mockery of the courts of Colorado that such a trial or sentence ever even occurred.
	Now, I had on Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oathskeepers on Thursday, I believe.
	And I didn't realize he was a Yale graduate, Robert.
	He made it through or at least tolerated that institution.
	But he was laying out what he thinks can be done to get Tina Peters into federal custody.
	What does it take for Trump to do it?
	Who has to make that decision and make that call?
	Well, he may, the governor may preempt it all by just commuting her sentence immediately.
	And then she's just awaiting for whether or not her conviction gets set aside.
	The proper protocol for that typically is you file a petition, the federal government files a petition for habeas for release of the state prisoner into federal custody because they're a whistleblower under those grounds.
	And there's, I mean, they do this all the time for informants and rats and other people.
	So it's not like they don't do this regularly.
	I don't understand.
	We don't know how to do it.
	Well, I'm not too shocked.
	Stanley Woodward's kind of an idiot.
	He doesn't know a lot.
	He's number three at DOJ.
	Todd Blanche, kind of an idiot.
	He doesn't know a lot.
	Pay-for-play Pam, kind of an idiot.
	None of these people have been involved in these areas of law.
	They have literally no skilled criminal defense professionals on the Trump MAGA side in the entire Justice Department, in the entire Justice Department.
	To my knowledge, there's not one who is competent and capable and experienced at some level in criminal law who's on the MAGA side who's been appointed.
	And maybe there's a reason for that.
	They don't want those people giving him ideas that they don't want to act on.
	They want to slow it down.
	They want to slow walk it.
	They want to make it look like they're doing something, but actually do nothing at the same time.
	And that's why you have President Trump begging his own Justice Department to get on it because they're not going to get on it.
	They're going to continue to slow walk it because of the traitorous, treacherous, seditious deal that Pay-for-Play Pam Bondi has cut with the deep state to help corporate, corrupt, corporate lobbyists like Arthur Schwartz and Mike Davis and others along those lines in the same rope.
	So I think we've been recommending these ideas from the very beginning.
	Before the administration was even in, said, here's how to do it.
	Here's what the protocol is.
	Here's the policy.
	I've seen it done repeatedly.
	Because it's only the government who can do it.
	I can't do it as a private citizen or private lawyer.
	And they've refused to act on it.
	And instead, you know, God bless Harmik Dylan.
	I think she wants to do great work, but she's busy going to Israel lobby events talking about how the civil rights division is spending so much time chasing down whether somebody did anti-Israeli graffiti someplace.
	Graffiti.
	They're talking about chasing down people doing graffiti.
	I mean, for the love of God, Harmit, focus on Tina Peters, not the Israel lobby.
	Israel lobby's got every other department in the government.
	They don't need the Justice Department to.
	I'm just tweeting at the governor.
	I realize in my tweets on Tina Peters, I never tagged the governor.
	What's his name?
	Jared Paulus.
	His name is Police.
	I mean, it's talk about a police state that is Colorado.
	Come on, people.
	These jokes write themselves.
	Robert, before we get into the next subject, let me just go back to our locals community, viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	That is not the right page that I wanted to bring up because I want to get to the tipped questions because there's a few and I noticed from Piscadlo.
	Not that one.
	This one right here.
	Yeah, let's go here.
	On Greenland and how badly Trump wants it, there are very interested parties in Greenland for long-term strategic purposes, do not have anything to do with resource extraction, entirely to do with Space Force, Trump's baby, Mars, et cetera, et cetera.
	Space Force idea.
	But what's been unclear to me is why do we have to own it to serve the Space Force purposes?
	Because to me, that has a military component.
	We could just agree with Denmark for it to be used for those purposes.
	That's why I don't understand his sudden interest in owning it.
	Owning it suggests he's more interested in the resource extraction than he is in the Space Force or military shipping lane protection.
	And Piscado says, Sassy Massey, quickly becoming one of my favorite congressmen, pushed for an impossible boulder.
	A pillimo's accountability earning forever street cred in my glittering eyes.
	Two groups of people who talk big why swinging what they call the big D accomplished precisely nothing at all.
	All right, now let's go.
	I think I have to go all the way down to the bottom.
	Miriam Adelson's Miriam Adelson's great again.
	This is Piscadlo.
	Okay, we got memes.
	Andrew, don't take offense.
	This is a constitutionally sus interaction, in my opinion.
	Maybe watch later.
	Any bad ice interaction does so much damage.
	I'll watch that one afterwards.
	There's a bunch.
	I mean, they're just, they're being put into a difficult position, and they should know that.
	And they shouldn't be put in that position, in my opinion.
	And I think there are ways and protocols and procedures to go into.
	Like right now, it should be happening.
	You should have the whole country demanding Trump invoke the Insurrection Act.
	That's what should be happening.
	It's not for PR purposes because of all this, because of how this has been managed, but also because of all the foreign policy adventurism.
	It undermines his credibility and his identity domestically.
	It makes it easy to make him look like a South Park satire villain when he's off doing all these foreign policy adventures.
	And whatever the justification or rationale is, I mean, does it have to be so high profile?
	Like, okay, well, you want Greenland.
	You could do that quietly.
	There's 100 ways to do that quiet.
	They don't have to be on the front page of the news every day.
	Hey, I care more about Greenland than I do America.
	That's what a lot of people are hearing.
	Whether you agree with them or don't, that's what they're hearing.
	And the advice we're giving is please, for the love of God, shift, so that you can get your policies through because Americans still want illegals, particularly dangerous illegals, deported.
	So, you know, use that and leverage that effectively in ways that is, in my opinion, being wasted at the moment.
	Never Mourn says, I heard people debating that movie.
	I think this is one battle after another, was a parody on the ineptitude of lefty radical revolutionaries.
	And they try to make it that there's a satirical aspect.
	It's weak.
	It is far.
	You don't have DiCaprio in that role if it's truly a satire.
	Let's put it.
	No, because no, because when DiCaprio, the only clip that I saw so far, by the way, subscribe to Lord Buckley, was him saying I've been a lifelong drug addict, alcoholic, and I can't remember the number.
	I was like, oh, maybe they're making fun.
	Maybe this is like 3D level.
	Anyhow, I will see.
	I'm going to watch it and I'm going to assess.
	But it being a P.T. Anderson, I'm predicting a lot of people getting shot in the head in this movie.
	I haven't seen it yet.
	We're going to see if it holds true.
	And a lot of boobies.
	A lot of boobies.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	So the Supreme Court was busy this week.
	We got a Second Amendment case upcoming, a big Fourth Amendment case, a big election standing case that, you know, for some of us that have been fighting, they literally wrote an opinion that is identical to the argument that a group of us have been making for 20 years.
	And we finally see it in writing.
	So I keep telling people, bang away at the Supreme Court.
	Even if they turn down your case, you plant a seed of an idea in their head.
	You keep hammering and hammering and hammering.
	And the more persuasive you are, the more they see your predictions come true.
	They may not be your case that they take, but it's going to be your arguments they make.
	And I've had this happen repeatedly at the Supreme Court level.
	So that was an awesome decision.
	Fourth Amendment decision, not such a big fan of.
	We'll get into that in a bit.
	We got an upcoming Second Amendment case that's going to be argued this week.
	Big, big Second Amendment case, Hawaii's gun ban law.
	And we've got, that may go even to broader doctrines.
	And then we got a criminal law case about double jeopardy.
	So a quartet of big cases out of SCOTUS this week.
	And well, three big ones, one about to come.
	And my perfect segue was speaking of boobies, let's talk about the trans rights issue or the trans ban that was before SCOTUS.
	I didn't, I mean, like, I didn't get to hear it.
	I read a bunch of these synopses and analyses and Katanji Brown Jackson is the buffoon that she's always been.
	And it looks like it's going to be six to three conservatives supporting the ban on men from women's sports.
	What insights do you have on those oral arguments and where you see it going?
	It was a little, the only person was a little nervous was Barrett because she was using trans language and lingo in terms of identification of preferred pronouns.
	How many times did I warn?
	It was Shipwreck Crew, that loser.
	You're wondering when you're talking with Kyle Serafin what led him to hate us.
	It goes all the way back to me saying Barrett's a fraud and is not a constitutional conservative.
	He went nuts on me.
	He said, you're making that up.
	You're lying.
	All this other stuff.
	I was like, bro, just watch.
	I've studied her for years.
	I've been up in front of the Seventh Circuit on cases she was involved in.
	I knew her very, very well.
	I knew how horrible she had been in the COVID case.
	So I knew she would be atrocious on all these other ones.
	Her loose language, you know, the risky parts are the three institutionalists: Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
	But what we're starting to see is the only real risk in a lot of these cases is Barrett.
	You know what?
	I mean, it's kind of interesting.
	It's like the, I think it was the good election standing case as an example.
	Hey, you know, the only reasonable people up there are just the men.
	If we could, you know, I got to rethink loving women in law school.
	I'm not so sure about this anymore.
Lefty Women Woes 00:04:36
	Women voting as well.
	Not so sure about that anymore.
	Especially you see these studies of lefty women, how left, how crazy, wacky lefty women are becoming.
	They're not marrying.
	Maybe we need to mandate marriage for some of them.
	Maybe those old traditions have a point.
	You know what I mean?
	They had to marry.
	They didn't have a choice.
	Because you see these four women get together and they write some of the craziest, wackiest, nuttiest, looniest stuff on the planet.
	It's all feel-good kind of garbage.
	But I think Barrett's the only risk on the trans case.
	It wouldn't surprise me to see her join the liberals, but I do think Kavanaugh and Roberts will go with the conservatives.
	I think the men will recognize that men are not women.
	It's wild that women don't.
	I'm just trying to see what the market is.
	Because they want to be super sensitive and sympathetic.
	Like, here's on deportations.
	Guess which group is the most pro-deportation?
	I'd say legal immigrants.
	Hispanics.
	Hispanics by far.
	They're like, get all these bums out of here.
	Get these criminals stealing our jobs.
	Get them out of here.
	They don't want anything to do with them.
	There's no group that stereotypes others, by the way, more than like, say, if you make the mistake of telling somebody they're El Salvadoran when they're Honduran, you're going to hear a lecture for an hour.
	I do remember growing up before I understood anything about anything, confusing a Chinese person with a Japanese person was like the cardinal, as much of a cardinal sin as like confusing a Moroccan Jew with a Middle East, a Muslim from the Middle East.
	When you have no idea, it's like, hey, look, it was the family guy joke.
	He's like, all I'm saying is put them in a room together and I can't tell the difference.
	But yeah, there's some historical, cultural differences that exist that you'd better not.
	It's why Machado has trouble in Venezuela.
	She doesn't look like a majority of Venezuelans, if you know the whole political thing.
	Yeah, but then how the hell does Shinebaum succeed in Mexico, Robert?
	Well, yeah, she has some family friends, you might say.
	Well, you know what Nick Fuites would say.
	But I would say her connections to the liberal democratic establishment that was kind of built up by an old populist who was her predecessor, who had an election stolen from him back in the day by the cartels.
	But she is seen as friendly with the cartels.
	Has a kind of not letting them run everything, but not interrupting or interfering with their business too much.
	We'll still see how that translates.
	But Machado thought she could convict the I predicted on the Duran.
	It's like, here's what happened.
	Machado will go to the White House.
	She'll give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.
	He'll say, thanks.
	See you later.
	And just keep it.
	I'm not putting you in charge of nothing, honey.
	I know you can't control nothing.
	And that's exactly what happened.
	It was like, oh, thanks for this.
	Yeah, that's mine.
	See you later.
	So that was great.
	So Trump has unofficially now received the Nobel Peace Prize from a shadow who thought she could use it to bribe her way into running a foreign country.
	But yeah, it's a sign of Hispanics overwhelmingly want deportation.
	This is why Trump and the populist movement was always right on that.
	You imagine, just hypothetically, because we were talking about it before the show, you're from El Salvador, you come to America, and then you see all of the criminals that you left El Salvador coming, like, you know, smuggling, sneaking into the border.
	Like, of course, you fled certain issues.
	You came to the country legally at great expense, at great cost, and you know, great lengths.
	And now you see the same criminals that you fled getting coming in by the boatloads, or I should say, not by the boatloads, but you know, by the word when they came in on the trains.
	They had a word for no, but what's the word?
	The thing that was going across the country, and they called it a the chat's going to get the word for a mass large amount of people.
	Convoy coming by the convoy.
	Okay, so the trans rights, I just looked at the calcium markets, 95% they're going to uphold the ban of males and female sports.
	The other ones, do we do the one that you didn't like there?
	The you know, the Fourth Amendment one we repeatedly talked about being a unanimous decision, disturbingly.
	They can come to do a wellness check, and if they kill you during the wellness check, then they didn't do anything wrong.
	This was the case.
	Was it the guy, was it his wife, who called in and said he had ex-girlfriend, who said he had a real like.
	They just ignored the uh.
	So ex-girlfriends are now reliable sources of information.
	They're saying, oh, it's ex-girlfriend.
Emergencies Act Exception 00:15:31
	Surely they don't even said maybe she was lying, maybe she was exaggerating.
	I mean I have never heard of personally an ex-girlfriend ever lying about you.
	Right?
	I mean, I mean it's like what the?
	What land do these people live in?
	The I mean it's, that's the number one source of false information is ex-partners, ex-wives and ex-husbands.
	They're the number one group to give false information on somebody to try to get them into trouble.
	The I mean it's, it's and the idea that oh, we can just always trust them and that just based on that information.
	And then you, you you're spying inside the house, which otherwise would be an illegal search, by the way, where they were at inside the cartilage of the house, looking inside the house.
	So there's that problem to begin with, and all they see is just some things laying around and they decide oh, we think he's gonna kill himself, so we better jump in and raid the house and shoot him, kill him.
	Say ha, we're gonna, probably we're gonna make sure you don't shoot you because we're gonna shoot you and this is all okay according to our Supreme Court.
	Well, but now, and I try to understand, I mean I understand the arguments where they you know the exigent circumstances that allow for a warrantless um, I don't know say raid or or or entry, but it's always going to be on a fact-by-fact or case-by-case basis.
	And then the only question is, in this particular case, did they have exigent circumstances that warranted what happened?
	Set aside, how the outcome he, if he, if he weren't killed, it would still be the same legal questions.
	It's just that the questions are uh, accentuated by the fact that when they go to do a wellness check yeah, Do they have the right to go into a place without a warrant.
	And the fact that they killed them is just sort of like the cherry on the injustice Sunday.
	But they said, yeah, unanimous.
	Nine nothing.
	Yeah, the two concurrences.
	The one by Sodomayor, who said that if, in fact, it would cause the mental health check and a suicide risk check, you need to have a reasonable cause to know that intervention will more likely prevent the suicide than cause it.
	Because you pointed out that in many cases, it will precipitate the very event you're trying to avoid.
	Because basically, it was the cops can raid your house anytime they believe they have an objectively reasonable basis for.
	I mean, the only upside to the decision was the Montana Supreme Court.
	It said all you needed was reasonable suspicion, which is a ridiculously low standard.
	The Supreme Court said, no, that's the wrong standard.
	It has to be an objectively reasonable position that you have gone into somebody else's property for the exclusive purpose of preventing serious bodily injury or death.
	And you can only do it for that purpose.
	So what you can't do is go in and search the house for other things or anything unrelated to it.
	It has to be, has to fit.
	And what was interesting was Gorsuch's concurrence.
	Gorsuch was saying we should borrow from common law doctrines of trespass.
	And like he was saying, hey, we should use the justification defense more.
	Instead of there being a homelessness right to be homeless, there is a necessity defense against criminal charges related to homelessness.
	He's trying to brainstorm these originalist mechanisms of merging these doctrines together.
	And what he pointed out was: here's the part that he skipped over, though, and the whole Supreme Court skipped over.
	So, yes, it is the case since the beginning of time.
	I can go into somebody else's property if I am doing so because they would likely want me to be there due to immediate distress about risk of serious bodily injury or death.
	So, it's so I can't be sued or charged with trespass when I do that.
	However, there's a caveat as the restatement of tortz quoted by Gorsuch himself in the concurrent states, unless you have reason to believe the person would not want you to do it.
	So, the whole predicate for emergency exceptions that's rooted in this old justification, necessity, exception to trespass has always had the caveat that you have to know or have reason to know that the person wants you there, that they are effectively inviting you.
	The real premise of this exception to trespass was that it's a de facto invitation to come onto the property when you have reason to believe the person would want you there to save their own life or save somebody else's life on the property.
	Here, they had reason to know he did not want them to come in from his prior interactions with them.
	So, they completely ignore that by just constantly expanding and expanding and expanding these loopholes that are just swallowing the Fourth Amendment whole.
	So, that so I agree with where Gorsuch was going, but he didn't go all the way according to his own quote, nor do the rest of the Supreme Court.
	And a Fourth Amendment decision, I think, undermines rather than secures our constitutional liberty.
	All right.
	What were the other decisions before SCOTUS?
	Ah, the big election standing decision and a criminal law decision.
	And then we have a Second Amendment decision upcoming that's big.
	But the election standing decision was bodaciously beautiful this week.
	Robert, I missed it.
	So the election standing decision, which so it was brought in part by Tom Fitton and others on behalf of a candidate, and there were two issues.
	They only reached one.
	The second issue was: is Election Day Election Day?
	They didn't decide that issue because he was denied the opportunity to even get appellate relief on the pernicious doctrine of standing, the main doctrine utilized to block everybody.
	They said even a candidate can't sue to deal with illegal ballots in their own election unless they can meet all these heightened standards.
	And the Supreme Court, and forever, in fact, we've been citing a particular FDA case that I've been citing every time I've argued standing before the Supreme Court.
	And I knew it was going to be a great case as soon as I saw that's the first case they quoted out of the book.
	A case we've been arguing on our side of the aisle against standing forever, been hammering saying this case should be the guidepost.
	This case should be the guide code.
	This case finally, the Supreme Court says yes, this case should be the guidepost.
	And what they held was a candidate merely by being a candidate has an interest, a constitutionally protected interest in the integrity of the election itself, regardless of whether it would impact the election, regardless of whether it would impact his reputation, regardless of whether it would impact his funds.
	He is a candidate.
	He has an interest in that election being done in the most high integrity manner.
	And so he has a right to challenge any rule or regulation governing that election.
	So what does this do?
	All the cases that Trump was gutted on standing are now reversed by this decision.
	If you, in fact, you want to challenge some bogus rules, bogus laws, just be a candidate.
	And for many, for decades, we have been shut out of court because they say, oh, it's not ripe yet.
	So, you know, you got to wait until the election to know whether you've suffered injury or not.
	So then you bring the election right on the eve of the election because then you're supposed to have suffered injury.
	And they say, oh, no, it's moot by this point.
	The election's already supposed to happen.
	We don't want to intervene in the election right after before it happens.
	So then you bring it after the election and they say, oh, this is latches.
	How ridiculous of you to bring this suit now.
	So that's why I said there was no, it wasn't ripe in spring, moot by summer, latches by fall.
	Those were the seasonal winners of election law standing.
	And the Supreme Court just gutted all of them.
	It said, if you are a candidate for office, you have standing to challenge any election law rule.
	So, hey, maybe you don't care about getting elected to an office.
	Be a candidate anyway.
	And then people like 1776 Law Center will support your cases getting these bad rules and bad regulations and bad restrictions finally struck down or getting ones that should have always been there actually enforced, like checking whether the signatures match, like making sure people aren't voting out of post office boxes in abandoned parking lots like happened in Georgia.
	Like making sure people enforcing all the rules that hold up the integrity of the election.
	The accumulation of all the challenges we brought and everybody else brought over the elections finally got into the Supreme Court's head saying this looks bad that half the country or more of it thinks we rig elections.
	So we're going to give candidates the rights to go to court and challenge.
	Huge, huge win for election integrity and eviscerating the horrendous doctrine of standing that is precluding judicial access for a real relief or remedy in these contexts.
	But what does it do?
	I mean, it does nothing other than maybe exacerbate the frustration for the chicanery of the 2020 election and the who is investigating that is Tulsi Gabbert at the Director of National Intelligence.
	They shut her out of Venezuela.
	They shut her out the first time with Iran.
	They shut her out sporadically on Ukraine.
	They brought her back this time with Iran.
	Maybe that's why we don't go in because the president gets honest intel.
	No, Mr. President, if you Obama ran, it will not collapse the regime.
	It will actually rally people behind the regime who are critics of the regime.
	And all of a sudden Trump's like, oh, I don't want a big loss on here on the ledger.
	But she's doing good work on COVID and on the 2020 election.
	And so hopefully that will continue to see it.
	But the big hurdle on that is the same hurdle.
	It's pay for play, Pam Bondi.
	Lee, you know, why is there no action on the Auto Pen scandal?
	Why is there no action on these other deep state scandals?
	Why is there no action on COVID?
	Why accountability?
	Why is there no action on the J6 accountability?
	Why, in fact, are they setting up Patsy?
	The evidence keeps accumulating that Brian Cole is a Patsy, Patsy, Patsy being framed by a rogue corrupt justice department for the CIA officer who I believe did it.
	He is currently on CIA payroll.
	You can't make this stuff up.
	It's unbelievable.
	And so it is because there's no lobbyist.
	There's no lobbyists there to help Pam's pals get rich.
	So if there's no lobbyist to help Pam's pals get rich, no case will be brought.
	I'm going to pull up a tweet that I wanted to refresh my memory with in a second.
	But Robert, hold on.
	Just on this, just CanCon replied to my tweet, which was, you know, when I tagged the Colorado governor, he says, if he commutes her, I've heard rumors she'll reject it.
	She wants exoneration and to present her evidence.
	I think it'll just end up.
	No, no, she'll take the commutation to get out of prison.
	She's facing death.
	There's no reason not to take that.
	No, but she'll continue to fight the appeal, though, to exonerate herself.
	A commutation does not remove your right to appeal the conviction because she has interest in having the conviction set aside on its own ground.
	And you mentioned it, Rhodes, whose sentence was commuted.
	Was it Rhodes or was it?
	Oh, geez, who else did I have on this week that was talking about continuing to challenge certain elements?
	Oh, it was, oh, I'm going to forget his name now.
	They got a commutation or a pardon, and they're still challenging because they want access to certain documents that were taken from them during the file.
	I forget the name now.
	Okay, what else do we have before the SCOTUS?
	We have to take this party over to viva barnslaw.locals.com and leave something for our after party.
	How much, what do we have left?
	We've got a couple of Scotas.
	We've got that opening.
	The Second Amendment case SCODUS is going to be handling this week.
	A little sneak peek of that oral argument.
	We've got the criminal law case that they decided applying Double Jeopardy, the new government scheme to evade Double Jeopardy.
	Embarrassing again that the Pondi Justice Department was arguing for a position that embraced the federal government's ability to prosecute people in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
	Be nice if we have a constitutionalist someday, someday at the Solicitor General's office or the Attorney General's office, but we ain't got one there right now, but we got a good Supreme Court decision either way.
	We have Elon Musk versus Open AI.
	We have Trump's Israeli protection and deportation of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli students is going to face sanctions.
	The range of government officials, including Rubio, are going to be facing that in an upcoming hearing.
	EPA is back to trying to push forever chemicals into our system again.
	Kurt Benzhoof, I was arguing that case before the district court in Seattle.
	And unconsenting subscriptions led to a class action that was recently resolved in California.
	You may be able to qualify.
	It's one of the ongoing issues in the automatically renewed environment that a lot of scammy companies have been operating.
	Now, I want to bring this up because this is Tamara Leach.
	You may remember her from such Canadian insurrections as the Ottawa Trucker protest, who is now doing great work.
	I'm going to give everybody your ex-link.
	I don't know why it keeps going away there.
	That's Tamara Leach's ex-link.
	And I want to bring the comment up, which was, good evening, gentlemen.
	I hope your back is better, Viva.
	It actually feels a little better, but now my ass on the other side is starting to hurt because I'm overcompensating by sitting on one ass cheek more than the other.
	I hope I'm not too late to hear your thoughts on Canada's new partnerships.
	Oh, we started off the show with that.
	That's with China.
	There was something else I was going to talk about with Mr. At least a good, you got the good.
	Did you talk about the good court case out of Canada?
	Oh, no, that's exactly what I was going to do right now.
	So, Robert, the good news that it's good news.
	It's not, maybe I'm getting a little blackpilled.
	That out of Canada, the federal court of appeal unanimously came down and affirmed the lower court, the federal courts, Judge Mosley's, declaring that Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and ultravirus, ultravirus, meaning being beyond the authority of the government.
	I put out a vlog on it yesterday.
	I'll give everybody the link.
	So, you know, it's everything, and I mean everything that I had been saying from day one.
	And I was talking about it with Tamara.
	I was like, it's great.
	All right.
	Four years later, from a personal perspective, yeah, total vindication.
	Everything we said at the time as to why it's unlawful turned out to be true.
	You know, they didn't need it.
	Existing laws were adequate.
	There was no national security issue.
	There was maybe a localized problem in Ottawa.
	They had already resolved the other issues without invoking the Emergencies Act.
	They used existing laws and court orders and injunctions to end the Windsor blockade.
	That the instructions given to banks to share information violated privacy rights was totally willy-nilly.
	And that's it.
	Ratified, reaffirmed the lower court decision, unreasonable ultravirus.
	No penalty, no jail, no fine, no nothing.
	Just a clear cut, this is what they ought to have alleged in order to invoke the Emergencies Act.
	And so they gave a blueprint for the government in the future.
	When you decide to invoke the Emergencies Act, make sure your instructions to the banks are clear.
	Make sure you pad it with the language.
	Oh, it's a national security.
	They decided that economic harm, which is what the government invoked, was not sufficient to invoke the Emergencies Act, economic harm.
	So it's a good victory.
	It's too little, too late.
	It's not going to change anything as far as the criminal prosecutions and convictions go.
	It might help with some of the civil claims, but probably not.
	And as far as I'm concerned, the court just gave a blueprint on what the government has to say next time in order to have their decision to abuse and trample civil rights ratified by the courts later on.
	Oh, you used the words that we told you to use in this federal court of appeal decision.
Double Jeopardy Feds Robbery 00:07:03
	So more power to you.
	And then Francis Chaton says, Love Tamara, no one suffers at all for fucking us over, debanking a person till this day.
	Oh, yeah, they froze bank accounts.
	It's Canada.
	It's Canada is the new China.
	It's the Western China.
	So we should all bear that in mind.
	Let's do the rest of the SCOTUS decisions.
	Then we'll go over to Viva Barnes' Law.
	So Second Amendment, which one?
	No, let's do the Double Jeopardy one.
	Was a guy who was convicted of, what's it called?
	The Hobbes Robbery Act?
	Yep.
	Or a Hobbes Act robbery, which is seems like, I had to look it up.
	I don't know what Hobbes robbery.
	It sounds like just fancy legislative robbery.
	And in the context of robbery, they had a couple of years of a good heist.
	And in one of the heists, it wasn't so good.
	The other guy kills somebody who they're robbing.
	And the guy who was the driver gets sentenced, like, I don't know, 50 plus years in jail because of the use of a firearm during a Hobbes Act robbery.
	And the question was, you flesh out the details, that there were two separate convictions, basically, but sort of cumulative, which was the robbery and then using a gun, which caused him to basically get a super duper sentence for one and the same act.
	And they declared that it wasn't clearly intended to be cumulative.
	Flesh it out because I didn't actually fully appreciate it.
	It wasn't like felony murder.
	This was just two separate charges that added on to each other from one and the same act.
	And it was declared violative of rights.
	And we're one in the same statute.
	So, what the feds are doing to circumvent double jeopardy prosecutions is within the same proceeding, they try to charge you for the same act with multiple crimes and then get multiple consecutive sentences as if you were convicted of completely separate crimes when, in fact, it's the same offense that is the conduct.
	So, the double jeopardy clause prohibits you from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.
	And there's no question that if they had taken one part of the statute and another part of the statute and prosecuted them in separate successive trials, that it would absolutely violate the double jeopardy clause.
	So, the government's genius idea for evading this was, well, just bring it in the same trial.
	And the Supreme Court, quite correctly, said, no, that's the same thing.
	And that Congress has to clearly intend if they're going to try to do something like this because of the double jeopardy implication.
	And they didn't even do that.
	So just looking at the statute makes it clear.
	But as Gorsuch pointed out in his concurrence, this is becoming a problem because of how flagrant he pointed out.
	It used to be the case that if a prosecutor charged you with more than one crime for the same alleged facts and offense, that our courts that are founding for the first hundred years would automatically quash the indictment for abuse of prosecutorial power and double jeopardy violations for trying to put somebody in jeopardy twice for the same offense.
	So it doesn't matter whether it's within the same trial or in separate trials.
	The same double jeopardy principle applies was the point Gorsuch makes.
	They didn't have to fully reach that because they said Congress didn't make this clear.
	They were even trying this in the first place.
	You're just abusing what Congress even tried to do.
	So a good restoration of the right against double jeopardy, a good restoration against the government's abuse of statutory interpretation to expand the power beyond what even Congress permitted or prescribed.
	And a good reminder by Justice Gorsuch that we have a systemic problem from our over-criminalization that is becoming rampant and infecting our legal system in ways unanticipated by our founding generation because as I pointed out at Hillsdale College, there is no FBI in the Constitution either.
	That was invented just a century or so ago by a man who cross-dressed as a patriotic American, you might say.
	Excellent.
	Now, I want to bring this one up just because I'm going to, gentlemen, when do we get the Viva Barnes plushies in the store?
	I got to, I got to just.
	Ah, the forthcoming.
	I'm hoping to have it up ready for Valentine's.
	Good.
	We can put up a link.
	What you can get right now, what you've got to get right now is a D-lish, D-Lish pumpkin pie from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	And Amos MillerOrganicFarm.com, you can contribute and support his legal defense.
	The government is after him again, harassing him again.
	IRS harassing him.
	State of Pennsylvania harassing him.
	Right now, they're demanding he give up every customer he's ever had, every vendor he's ever had, everybody he's ever talked to.
	It's not even within the scope of permissive discovery under these standards, but they're back to demanding that kind of invasiveness and harassment again.
	And so as a fundraising device, he has a homemade pumpkin pie you can buy.
	And most of almost all the money goes to support his legal defense at 1776 Law Center and others.
	We've put in probably two, three million of legal services.
	And most of it's been pro bono we've done for Amos.
	But this helps mitigate some of those costs, at least cover the out-of-pocket cost for local counsel and filing fees and travel and all that jet.
	So you can support Amos Miller, Amos MillerOrganicFarm.com.
	Go there.
	You'll find the link for the D-lish, D-Lish, pumpkin pie.
	I think you've had the mini one.
	It's delicious.
	I had the raw.
	And you don't even like pumpkin.
	No, and I don't like, I don't like milk.
	And I had the water bison.
	It was the water buffalo raw milk.
	And it was.
	Isn't that good?
	You get ready to go.
	I said, better than cocaine.
	Even the government admits it's better than cocaine because they compared it to cocaine.
	So the better than cocaine without the side effects.
	I'm going to bring this one up because I think Mighty Penn needs to have a bit more of a sense of humor in life.
	Robert, shame on you for your comments about repealing women's rights to vote, et cetera.
	Not funny.
	I don't know if this is intended to be sarcastic, but you need a sense of humor.
	That was obviously a joke.
	We have several people on our locals' board.
	They're like, repeal that amendment.
	It allows women to vote.
	No, no, but I have a when you see such a gender split.
	You know what I mean?
	I mean, granted, three of the women are Democrats and all the men are conservative or Republicans, rather.
	But the fact that Barrett, the sole female Republican, is wandering off to join the others, especially on an issue like trans.
	It's like, well, where did this come from?
	I mean, this is women's sports.
	Women are getting speed up in the boxing ring.
	It's suicidal empathy, Robert.
	It's Gad Sad's suicidal empathy.
	They're such tolerant women, they will allow other women to get punched in the face by men for the sake of talking.
Second Amendment Oral Argument 00:05:38
	If we can only get Gad to apply suicidal empathy to his undue empathy with Bibi Netanyahu, then I think we may have some progress.
	Powell is the only one keeping this sinking ship afloat.
	If we get someone more dovish, we are effed.
	If you get a dive that Trump wants, run for the Hills.
	And I'm not reading entry.
	See, I'm not even going to read this because I'm not getting anybody to have that sound bite.
	But thank you, Entropy Nomad.
	I heard people debate.
	Okay, there we go.
	All right.
	So let's do a let's do the last one for Scotus.
	Then we're going to take the party over to locals.
	Yes, this is the Second Amendment oral argument coming up this week.
	Big, big, big case.
	It's the Hawaii ban.
	And they came up with a creative one.
	They said they've all got all kinds of ones, but this is the particular gun ban.
	They said you are not allowed to conceal carry, even if you conceal carry permit.
	You're not allowed to conceal carry on any private property open to the public.
	In other words, 90% of the places where you would want to conceal carry, unless you get the affirmative written consent of the owner of that establishment in advance, which is almost impossible.
	Private property that is open to the public, shopping centers, gas stations, grocery stores, every place.
	I mean, pretty much 90% of the places you're going to go.
	They basically prohibited you from the reason why you had your concealed carry warrant.
	They've got, do they have to justify that according to the Bruin decision, that which was historically the case at the time?
	And there's two issues coming up.
	You'll get a kick out of which law Hawaii is citing.
	I don't even know if they fully understand which law they're citing.
	But so their first argument was, you know, there used to be requirements that it was the private owners could prohibit people from carrying on their property.
	Yes, that's not what this law does.
	This law makes you go get affirmative consent before you can conceal carry on that property.
	Not like, this isn't about if Walmart says nobody's allowed to have guns on this property.
	That's a whole different issue.
	That's not what this law is.
	This law is you're not allowed to go into Walmart with a conceal and carry unless you advance right to Walmart and get a written permission in advance, which is going to be very impractical.
	That has no precedent and predicates in our past, except one place.
	And this law was written in 1865 in the South governing certain plantations, saying recently free people cannot have guns on those plantations.
	They were Hawaii's main logic is literally the black codes that they tried to institute after they lost the Civil War in the deep south.
	Black codes that were met.
	Remember, folks, a lot of the first NRA gun rights advocates in America were freed men and women.
	They were some of the top advocates for it because they were the ones being denied it.
	So this raises a separate question.
	Should the, and there's a separate, I shared it with the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com board in the Barnes brief that we put up that covers the whole the weekend, the best of the board.
	We have curated news articles and interesting stories from all across the globe that cover the week.
	And we highlight there's a closing argument about doing masterclasses in the Constitution.
	And we include the homework for the Sunday show, which includes these links.
	One of the links I included was to an Amicus brief filed by a very good National Firearms Association.
	National, the NRA these days, mostly DOA.
	It's all these other groups, Gun Owners of America, other groups that do much better with Second Amendment work, frankly, in the legal context.
	And what they pointed out is that 1791 should be the standard.
	So the issue has always been in 1868 through the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution extended its application not only from federal government prohibitions, but to state and local government prohibitions.
	Now, in terms of the rest of the Bill of Rights, now it's been sporadic as to which of those Bill of Rights are included and so forth.
	But there's long been an argument that what that was was applying saying our 1791 understanding of these amendments is now being enforced on the states.
	A bunch of lefties have tried to say, no, because this was passed in 1868, it's whatever laws were on the books in 1868 that matter.
	Hence, they're citing the black codes for the ground.
	Hey, we've discriminated against people in the past, everybody.
	So that's grounds to continue it now.
	I mean, it'd be like citing Hitler-era eugenics laws or something, you know, for the COVID vaccine mandates.
	Oh, yeah, Will Chamberlain was doing that.
	The Mr. MAGA, who supported DeSantis in 2024, by the way.
	Now working with Mike, I like to whore out MAGA for my personal profits, Davis, over at the Article 3 Foundation, which isn't very busy with Article 3.
	They're busy articles named 20, 50, and 100.
	But the so the issue is which said, I think the 1791 rules should apply.
	And this gives them an opportunity to say 1868 rules never should apply to apply it under the original interpretation, analog provisions that prove the Constitution was understood in this particular manner requires going back to 1791 and soon thereafter, not all the way forward to 1868.
	And that way, black codes cannot be used as the basis to strip you of your civil rights in modern day America.
	All right, amazing.
Salty Interviews with Kanye 00:05:55
	Yeah, well, yeah, over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
	Put in tips of $5, 50 coins or more, and we'll get to them.
	In addition, we'll be covering Elon Musk.
	Might he be ready to take down Sam Altman and Open AI?
	Class actions for when people are automatically renewing you without you knowing you're being automatically renewed.
	The EPA, busy trying to get forever chemicals back into our system all over again, as Lee Zeldon can't keep his word to the American people.
	The First Amendment implications and sanctions likely coming the Trump administration for trying to do deportations based on people's opposition to Israel.
	And last but not least, the nightmare case still going through the Seattle court system and the Seattle court and the Washington state court system that they're slow to appreciate.
	The Kurt Benschuf case, the constitutional consequences, had oral argument before a Superior Court judge.
	We'll go to what those issues are and how they're developing over at VivabarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Robert, I'm going to share one thing here.
	This is just answers for Sean Dan Hartman, father of Sean Hartman, who's suing Pfizer.
	He appealed his decision, which dismissed the Health Canada from his lawsuit against Pfizer.
	So this is the information which I've transcribed into text so that people can register because you have to register in advance to hear the arguments on Zoom.
	So I'll give everybody that link.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
	So let's see.
	I think just Bourbons this week.
	I don't think I have any interviews.
	People can go back and see our interviews with Max Blumenthal on Venezuela and Hungary and Iran.
	Also our interviews with Colonel McGregor on Venezuela and Iran and Global and Ukraine and what's happening around the world from this past week.
	Good sidebars there.
	But I'll be at vivabarnslot.locals.com.
	Bourbons Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night this week.
	The week after that, got to do some travel.
	And I'm going to have I'm having Jake Lang on tomorrow, and it's not going to be to celebrate what he's doing.
	I'm going to be, I'm going to say publicly what I've already mentioned and said to him privately, but we're going to have a discussion about this.
	And what else was I going to say?
	We're going to go find someone to raid now.
	I don't think we can raid Salty because we can't.
	You know what?
	We can't raid Salty.
	I don't know why he doesn't let anybody do this, but I'll give everybody the link so you can go if you want to go see Salty, which might be more online.
	That's Salty.
	We're going to figure out who to raid here.
	Let me just give me one second here.
	Let's go rumble and get your butts on over to Viva Barnes Law.
	I'll be live, you know, daily as always, three o'clock on the Rumble lineup.
	I had on, go check out the episodes from last week.
	We had on Kyle Serafin, Stuart Rhodes.
	I read a comment, and I don't know if it was true that someone said there's too many interviews in a week, which I don't.
	I kind of like that more than just, you know, talking about news, but you'll never please everybody one way or the other.
	Owen Schroyer, let's go see if Owen Schroer.
	Robert, have you seen what Candace Owens has been up to this week?
	Without controversial?
	She was offering.
	I mean, God bless him.
	Tucker had his brother on.
	Buckley Carlson keeps diving down these rabbit holes too of all this nutty stuff.
	Like the Wolves in Finance guy thinks he's a serious person.
	I was like, that's not a serious person.
	Turning point, by the way, is now decided they've hit their limit and they're sending cease and desist notices to people.
	They're like, okay, enough of this nonsense.
	We've run out of space to continue to tolerate this insanity.
	And it looks like they're probably going to sue Wolves in Finance for making up a bunch of stuff.
	Buckley was citing him saying, oh, I think he's authoritative.
	It's like, Buckley, come on, smack yourself in the face.
	I mean, Tucker had Ian Carroll on.
	It's like, why?
	This guy's a lunatic and a loser.
	And he undermines any credibility.
	Whereas Tucker had a very good interview with a high-ranking Russian advisor who pointed out Russia is going to start, is now threatening nuclear weapons use in Europe because they don't think their red lines are being tolerated and respected enough.
	And they said we're going to have to restructure all of NATO as a precondition for any Ukraine peace deal.
	It turns out Putin and the Russian Russians were not too happy about CIA director Ratcliffe trying to murder Putin in that drone assassination attempt he wrote off as a Ukrainian attempt to hit a nearby building by accident, right?
	Whatever.
	So you got all of that kind of nightmare disaster out there.
	But the Candace is, I point out to Candice, like, turning point, you just hire me as a consultant.
	And I just pointed out, well, probably nobody knows how to lie and libel more than you.
	So you are an expert in libeling, people.
	That's about the only expert you are.
	But yes, apparently Elon Musk is already a robot.
	And what was the other one?
	It was about being brought into the school for special needs X-Men type time traveling thing.
	And the thing is, I don't want to jump on it because I don't know if it's true.
	I saw some clips and then you don't know if it's like sort of taken out of context or if she's building her insanity defense of what you think is going to be the defamation.
	She's going to go full Kanye, everybody.
	Never go full Kanye.
	We're going to raid Badlands.
	So go check them out now.
	Badlands Media.
	The No Treason Podcast episode 15.
	So enjoy the surprise, Badlands Media and the gentleman who's podcasting right now.
	And we're going to go over to our viva barnslaw.locals.com, get to some of the tip questions that I missed.
	And by the way, sir, Charlie Kirk is a time traveler, she thought.
	Yeah, but that's like okay.
	So now I think Candace basically is a is what would happen if if retards time traveled or something.
Update Stream Options 00:00:31
	Baby P, Robert, I have to be too.
	All right, we're going over to locals, people.
	So I'll be live three o'clock tomorrow.
	Be there or kindly be square and thank you all for being here.
	It will be on podcasts.
	I'm going to do it tonight so I don't forget.
	That is it.
	Locals, here we come.
	Rumble, CommiTube, and Twitter.
	Peace out.
	Update the stream.
	And by the way, it doesn't update to premium yet on Rumble.
	There's a feature and it's only giving me the option between Rumble exclusive, premium exclusive, or locals exclusive only.
	And it's locals tonight.

Chapters

00:00:00 NATO's Arctic Ambitions
00:02:06 AI Bikini Skit
00:09:41 Heim Saban's Controversial Claims
00:14:08 Greenland's Misnamed Potential
00:29:20 Grok's War Declaration
00:44:36 Congress Exempts Fed From FOIA Laws
00:59:54 Auditing the Federal Reserve
01:05:10 Backyard Mess: Strategy Discussion
01:07:59 Citizens' Self-Defense on the Streets
01:23:18 Antitrust Moves Overshadowed
01:27:31 Mayor's Call to Federal Law Enforcement
01:31:41 Paul Thomas Anderson's Political Optics
01:39:29 Constitutionally Sus Interaction
01:54:54 Lefty Women Woes
01:59:16 Emergencies Act Exception
02:14:32 Double Jeopardy Feds Robbery
02:21:20 Second Amendment Oral Argument
02:26:44 Salty Interviews with Kanye
02:32:24 Update Stream Options