All Episodes
Previous
Feb. 1, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
02:25:36
Ep. 302: Back from El Salvador... What did I Miss? Epstein, Rogue Courts, Don Lemon, Georgia & MORE!

SPONSOR! Check it out! 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.

|

Time Text
Pete Buttigej: Smelly Liar 00:03:46
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, you all remember the wonderful childhood fable of Pinocchio, the little boy whose nose grew longer with every lie that he told.
I present to you Pinocchio 2.0 Pete Buttige, whose mustache between his nose and lip seems to grow thicker with every lie he tells.
Behold!
Plus, he looks like he smells very, very bad.
We have these shocking events in Minnesota, right?
When you have American citizens being arrested, being gunned down, something that I think can bring a lot of people together.
Watching somebody exercising their First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights.
I know my party doesn't talk about the Second Amendment as much, but I think seeing an American taken to the ground, having his gun removed, and then after having his gun removed, being shot in the back up to 10 times, and then having the government say that he was a terrorist all along based on no evidence besides the fact that he was a lawful concealed carry holder.
I think those are the kinds of things that as painful as they are can actually bring together a lot of Americans to say, hey, we need a different direction, or even if you do usually vote Republican, we need some balance in our government so that you've got a Congress that isn't just a rubber stamp that can exercise oversight over an administration that's gotten out of control.
And at a time, when we have these shocks, hold on, if you can hear me, I seem to have a mirror.
I think you can hear me, but I can't seem to hear my own.
I'm not even a lot of people together.
Pete Buttigej.
Watching somebody exercise.
Do you guys still hear Pete Budig?
I've now got to go on my Mac and find out how to change the audio.
But I think seeing an American source taken to the ground, having his golden eye in the back up to 10 times, we're going to have government that he was a terrorist all along based on no evidence besides the fact that in fact that he was a liar.
Oh, right, now I can hear Carrie Holder.
I think those are the kinds of things that as painful.
Okay, did you all hear Pete Budigej the entire time?
I look, when I unplug my stuff to take my computer on the road and then I plug it back in, I had thought I had set it up properly.
Okay, you heard him.
Pete Buttigieg, I mean, everything that comes out of, I don't want to just limit it to Democrats.
Let's just say, you know, politicians at large, but Democrats in particular, liars.
And I don't know what's going on with Pete's face.
I'm not one to make fun of the way somebody looks or their facial hair or them looking unkempt or looking like they smell bad.
If I look like I smell bad, everybody, I smell very good.
I wear old spice, the very, the rustic ones, not the fruity ones.
But if I ever look like I smell bad, I want someone to tell me Pete Buttigej just looks like a dirty, smelly liar.
And that's what he is.
Lawful care, like spouting lies that are just, you know, they will be believed by people who have not seen the actual video, who have not seen the actual footage.
And they just, you know, repeat a lie over and over again.
We're going to talk tonight because I think, you know, I'm a big boy.
I have my own opinions, even if they differ or disagree with Robert every now and again.
We're going to talk about Alex Predi, the man who was just exercising his Second Amendment rights, while as far as I'm concerned, was interfering with federal law enforcement.
And now we know that he was just an ordinary gun-abiding law-abiding citizen, you know, taking out taillights, a federal officer of vehicles, begging to be assaulted.
And people just getting gunned down in the streets.
AI Hoax Hiccup 00:03:21
It's like open season.
I mean, heck, what's her name?
Slotkin, X-CIA, after she said to her dog, her minions to go and shoot National Guardsmen because they might open fire on people on the streets.
It's like you just would think that they're walking around just picking off targets as though we haven't already seen all of the video.
Now, I wanted to start with that because I just wanted to start with Pete Booty Booty Jedge Jedge.
But this was the original video that I was going to start with.
We're going to play this.
It's classic.
It is also something that we're going to talk about.
I'm going to thank our sponsor for tonight's show, and then we're going to bring on the Barnes.
AI, it's cool, but it's getting annoying because I don't believe anything anymore.
And like, I'm getting also not duped, but I don't know what is intended to be a clear joke that it's an AI-generated image.
This is obviously AI, but it's hilarious.
And we're going to talk about this tonight as well.
Behold.
And now, your presenter for the Hoax of the Year award, Sidney Sweeney.
Tonight, we honor excellence in storytelling, not films, not novels, but the most convincing political hoax of the year.
And the award for best failed hoax performance goes to Ian Omar.
It's bananas and rice, people.
I mean, it's glorious.
And the AI paid close attention to certain details on Sidney Sweeney that I know many of you out there are looking at.
Get married, people.
Keep your schmeckles in your pants and stay out of trouble.
We have got one hell of a show today, and it's going to be a banger.
I got back from El Salvador.
I left El Salvador, at least got in a taxi at 4:30 in the morning, El Salvadorian time, so 5:30 in the morning here.
Had a bit of a hiccup that had me legit panicking internally for 35 solid minutes as I stood there waiting while boarding began and I wasn't being issued my ticket because the person on the Avanse, what's the airline from El Salvador didn't recognize my visa and apparently they were calling Custom Border Patrol.
And I, you know, I don't know why they were even looking at it on the end before you hit customs in America, but I'm sitting there waiting, being told to wait.
And I'm not losing my temper because you don't lose your temper or argue or mouth off to anybody.
Certainly not the people who literally are the gatekeepers and certainly not in a foreign country when you don't speak the language.
I got on the plane with a few minutes to spare.
The plane was a rough one.
Windy coming out, windy coming down in Florida, where it's slightly above zero today, and the iguanas were outright falling out of the trees and in comatose positions.
I made it here.
And thank God to be home.
Thank God to be back in America.
El Salvador is beautiful, but these United States of America and Florida in particular are magnificent.
Now, with that said, people, I was out in El Salvador for the Plan B Bitcoin conference, and we had a lot of talk about AI.
And the sponsor for tonight's show is Venice AI.
People, Sam Altman said ChatGPT will get to know you over your own life.
Chat GPT has the former director of the NSA sitting on their board right now.
Ed Snowden called this a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
Alexa listens to your conversations.
Diminution Of Value 00:03:48
Meta targets you for branding based on emails, surveillance.
It took us far too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data.
But once that data is lost, it never comes back or once it's stolen.
And do we want to make that mistake again?
Open AI hinted they might start requiring their users to provide a government-issued ID.
Would you feel comfortable having your ID in ChatGPT's hand for them to do whatever with?
Venice AI is the solution.
It uses leading open source AI models to deliver text, code, and image generation to your web browser.
No downloads, no installations of anything.
They don't spy or censor.
Messages are encrypted on your, and your conversation history is stored only on your browser.
AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy to use it.
And I wanted to do this because it's also going to be relevant for our show today.
Did Epstein kill himself?
Let's see what himself.
Let's see if it reads through my typo.
I want to say Venice AI has a pro plan that unlocks the platform features, including PDF uploads, summaries, insights, the ability to turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation, the ability to change how Venice AI interacts with you by modifying system prompts, limitless text, and high-resolution images.
And the answer, official cause of death, is suicide by hanging, as ruled by the New York Commissioner.
He was found unresponsive yet to yet.
However, significant skepticism and alternative theories, I like it.
They don't call it conspiracy theories, persist.
Epstein's brother, Mark, has repeatedly rejected the suicide conclusion, claiming Jeffrey was murdered and suggested new autopsy details would prove it.
One of Epstein's attorneys also expressed doubts shortly before his death, stating that they did not observe a despondent or suicidal person.
Public opinion polls reflect widespread disbelief.
One poll showed only 16% of respondents believed Epstein died by suicide, while 45% believe he was murdered.
39% were unsure.
I'd like to know how many still think he's alive.
I think there's a lot of people out there who still think that Epstein is alive.
Regardless, everybody, go visit venice.ai forward slash Viva.
You'll get 20% off the Pro Plan using my link.
It's in the description.
And you can go get good answers to good questions.
You can generate images with the Pro Plan.
You'll get 20% off venice.ai.
That is V-E-N-I-C-E dot AI forward slash Viva.
20% off for all of you.
Check it out.
I'm not reading the chat, but I'm not going to read that part of the chat.
When Barnes is ready to get in here, he's going to come on in.
Oh, there he is right now.
Robert Barnes, speak of the devil, and he shall appear.
How goes the battle, sir?
Hanging out in Snoop Dogg's territory, in Long Beach, California, where it is like 75 degrees by the water and everything else.
Got stuck here because the judge continued a restitution hearing for a week because the government and the judge think that the value of a stock in a misdemeanor unregistered securities case has no relevance to the value of restitution.
So it's like, hold on a second.
This is about a stock case.
The stock has gone up in value.
There is no restitution due.
They're like, well, we don't care what the stock's valued.
It's like, what?
The only loss is the diminution in value of the stock.
And there has been no diminution in value of the stock.
So things I didn't think I had to explain.
Turns out we got to spend time explaining.
But the upside got to hang out here in Camifornia for a week in perfect weather, really perfect.
What's amazing is that Cold Front is now sort of hitting Florida.
They're all freaking out about it.
It's, you know, it's cold, but it's still beautiful.
But Robert, I was saying the iguanas, they go, I forget what this state is.
It's sort of like a comatose state when they get too cold because they can't, they're cold-blooded animals.
They're everywhere.
Turns Out We Had To Explain 00:15:40
And Ethan and I wrote, I was going to start the video with that, but picking them up and then you warm them up.
Except Florida has limited, has lifted the requirement to have a permit to hunt iguanas.
And if you bring them in now, you can bring them into control centers where they're going to euthanize them humanely because they're an invasive species.
They're everywhere.
And they are like, it's so cool.
There's iguanas on the ground.
When they pass out in the water, that's when we notice that they actually drown.
We pulled one out of the water.
It was dead.
Someone said, eat one.
The problem with iguana, and I would, Greg, this is from our locals community, vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Apparently, they taste like chicken and they're called the chicken of the trees, but they carry salmonella in their gut and they are prone for parasites.
So I looked it up and I washed our hands thoroughly.
Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
It's going to be a good one.
Yeah, the top topic we got is the 2020 election, finally some legal action on that front.
Thanks to Tulsi Gabbard.
We'll get into the search warrant conducted in Fulton County and where it might lead from evidentiary purposes.
It made Mark Warner, the corrupt hack Democratic senator from Virginia, very, very nervous, and that's a very good sign.
We've got the state of Missouri, which continues to produce the greatest proportionality per capita of populist lawyers in positions of power, Senator Hawley, Senator Schmidt, and now the Attorney General that's in that same vein, Andrew Bailey, now the deputy director of the FBI.
She brought suit challenging why should people that are here illegally be included for the purposes of apportionment under the representation clause of the Constitution.
The Epstein files, finally, we get 95% of it, 98% of it.
The Justice Department is saying it's all they're ever going to produce.
But we'll get into the shocking materials.
Michael Tracy, who was trying to pretend that the Epstein case was a nothing burger, has disappeared from the internet for a few days.
As it turned out, not exactly true.
Maybe something to enter into Venice AI.
Do the Rothschilds run the world?
The more connections there with the Epstein file.
Fourth Amendment, a couple of big Fourth Amendment cases.
One is about interstate travel.
You may not know that traveling on the interstate between states can be considered traveling on a known drug corridor between a drug destination state and a drug source state if you're just going from Colorado to Oklahoma through Kansas.
The cops even have something they call the Kansas two-step.
What do they say about the Rothschild family?
Oh, this they called a conspiracy theory.
The Rothschild family, the idea that they secretly run the world is a long-standing conspiracy theory.
Oh, it's not the family, Robert.
It's the enterprise.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
We also have a Fourth Amendment.
They're using new techniques to use your phone against you as a tracking device.
When does that run into Fourth Amendment questions?
We've got the self-defense aspect.
Last week we covered in the Minneapolis shooting whether the supremacy clause defense might apply to the shooting of Alex Predi.
The next question is: to what degree do the police officers as federal officers have the peace officer defense?
It may not matter because in Minnesota, the peace officer defense is almost identical to the normal self-defense.
So we'll give you a little bit of analysis of what that might look like.
The Don Le Mon has been arrested and indicted.
Did they do their due diligence at the Justice Department or do we have another Pam Bondi screw-up in the works?
The censorship of libraries, you know, they want to get those trainee books to kids.
And Idaho is trying to stop that.
Well, the Ninth Circuit put a stop to Idaho trying to stop it.
In Virginia, their efforts to redistrict and stack and pack their congressional districts to have no Republican representation goes to one of the questions in the show notes from Vivo BarnesLaw.locals.com at the board, which is, how can you have 40, 45% of the votes and 0% of the congressmen?
Welcome to Democratic politics.
We've got immigration, but a court has said Virginia didn't do their redistricting right at all, so they may not be able to get through there.
Immigration, two major cases, one out of the Ninth Circuit, temporary protected status extended.
Again, despite the Supreme Court twice overruling the Ninth Circuit on this, they went back and did it again.
They said, no, you can't prevent, you can't, the courts can prevent Christy Noam from being able to prevent it.
Now, maybe Noam committed more screw-ups.
But we'll get into that.
Also, Judge Beery issued like a three-page ruling in that case of the five-year-old kid that got picked up, declaring that with his usual rhetorical flourish, because he's an egotistical prick.
I've been in front of him before.
I got a little story about that.
But he did rule administrative warrants are not warrants for Fourth Amendment purposes.
That still doesn't really answer the question that Beery actually dodged.
Are trespassers protected by the Fourth Amendment?
We got Luigi.
He's not going to have to face the death penalty, at least in the federal case.
In the state case.
No, this is the federal case.
So there's two cases against Luigi, the state case and the federal case.
The federal court determined that he can't face the death penalty because the statute doesn't fit.
This might be, by the way, another example of Pam Bondi screwing up.
The detransitioning.
One of the first people that was, you know, that went through the whole transitioning process as a teenager just won a multi-million dollar verdict out of the state of New York.
What might all these doctors really be hiding behind?
A thing that a lot of conservatives used to love and still love, some do, which is medical malpractice limitations and caps on damages might allow the transitioning industry that basically butchered these kids to evade liability because of these caps that a lot of conservatives thought was to, you know, get rid of frivolous lawsuits.
Well, now it's being used against conservative causes.
But a good trend in that big win in a jury in New York.
Elon Omar attacked with apple cider vinegar.
Was it an inside job or has there already been federal charges?
Big Pharma caught price fixing with the big insurers on diabetic drugs and brought suit in Iowa.
And a major, major trial starts this week in Los Angeles, California in the downtown Superior Court is social media addiction.
TikTok, Google, Facebook all face the first major trial on how they manipulated their products to hurt your children, including things like sexual grooming.
So that and your questions on this edition of Law for the People.
Robert, let's start with the least controversial of all of it.
I was going to bring up a tweet by Simon Gedek, who I've had on the channel before.
And I get along with him.
He gets along with me.
He doesn't get along with people I get along with.
And I'm certainly not liked by some of the people who follow him.
But he was tweeting out A. Cernovich, You're Awful Quiet on the Epstein document release.
And he's now made a joke about Daughtry, who's another account that, you know, is very pro-Trump, silent on it.
I don't know if it's a joke either when he says, you know, breaking Daughtry has been advised to remain silent on the Epstein files.
And I tweeted at him and we had a back and forth.
And I said, look, you're suggesting that there was something in there that was particularly negative or damaging to the Trump, to Trump himself, which would explain why they're silent.
And I don't think that they're silent.
I just don't think everybody has to talk about everything all the time.
I was following it as much as I could from El Salvador.
And from what I saw, and I think I got the better part of the gist of it, is there's nothing really new in there except for some salacious details involving Bill Gates.
But the one thing that it does illustrate, which might be compromising, although I think everybody's given Pam Bondi a hard time for this already, is that she clearly lied when she said there was nothing more to release.
She clearly lied.
And again, I don't use the word lied often.
She couldn't be wrong because she was presumably speaking about what she had access to.
And if she was speaking about what she did not have access to, then she said something without a legitimate basis to say it.
It clearly reveals that they had information that they were withholding, not disclosing, concealing the fact that they had it, presumably because Pam Bondi, either because she's dumb or corrupt, thought it would hurt Trump.
And so they didn't want to release it because they had that stupid FBI report from 2020 of a guy who said Trump killed 13-year-old girls and used them as fertilizer for his golf course.
And then idiots repeat that now online as though it's somehow true.
So I don't fault anybody for being silent on it because I don't think it reveals anything new except that particular issue.
But I mean, the things that we've learned is that Bill Gates is, he's a piece of human trash.
And he allegedly contracted an STD from sexual intercourse with a girl.
I don't know if she was underage, and then spiked Melania's cocktail with a high dose of antibiotics so that she wouldn't contract whatever VD he had contracted from having allegedly an affair with whomever.
So we got that bit of detail.
It's fantastic.
There's some other knowledge of like relationships that seemingly were ongoing despite people denying them.
Elon Musk is emailing back and forth with Epstein, although he doesn't go to the island.
There's a particularly, I say damning for the Democrats and for Michael Wolfe in particular, Michael Wolf interacting with Epstein and Epstein confirming to Michael Wolf that Trump never got any massages and basically exonerating Trump even more from any wrongdoing.
I mean, that's my overview takeaway from it.
What is your takeaway?
And how do you think it negatively impacts the Trump administration or certain players as it relates to the release of these documents?
Well, what it shows is a lot of what we have said all along.
One is that the Todd Blanche, Pan Bondi, counterfeit Kash Patel lied to the president and misled him into believing that the files had been doctored in such a way that he was negatively implicated throughout.
In fact, the only thing that's in there concerning Trump are the things we already knew about that stem from the Clinton campaign trying to drum up a fake case against Trump.
That's why almost everything that's all the rumors and innuendo and hearsay against Trump don't start until 2016.
Let me correct myself before the crowd goes too crazy.
I'm sorry, I meant Melinda, not Melania.
She's got a new documentary out.
It's a little unfortunate that the documentary director is named throughout the Epstein files.
So, like what we've said about Epstein is that he's a deep state middleman and operates in the gray space.
He's a deep state asset.
And that means he has affiliations and associations with intelligence agencies in France, the UK, Israel, and the United States.
But he's not necessarily an official agent of any of them.
The way in which he was constantly foying them, he was trying to find out what they had publicly disclosed to anyone else.
And as Mike Benz has been detailing, that suggests that he had been an asset all the way back to the late 1970s.
That is confirmed, that he was tied into these elite circles and networks at an extraordinary rate, from Danish royalty to English royalty to various European officials to former prime ministers and presidents.
It already has led to the resignation of a security, national security advisor in Slovakia.
This follows the prior resignation of the ambassador to the United States from the United Kingdom when his name was released and disclosed.
The lots of ties to Ehud Barak of Israel.
Which was not just largely already known, which was already a big, it was a big political cudgel against Ehud Barak to begin with, very suspicious, taking millions of dollars for his company, meeting with him after it was known.
So again, not anything that we didn't already know if we were paying attention.
Correct.
Steve Bannon continues to have terrible judgment of people that he wants to interact with.
He was doing a documentary for Epstein and was all chatty with Epstein because, God bless Steve, it's like his affiliation with loser lawyers like Mike Davis, who likes to try to pimp out MAGA reputation to line his pockets of that and his pals.
I mean, God bless Steve, but I've been saying this now for a decade.
He has the worst judgment about people known to human existence.
And he continues to show no modification of that.
And so there's a lot of embarrassing information about, no, no, Bennett's not implicated at all in anything illicit or illegal.
It's solely there to talk about politics, but he never should have let Epstein play him the way Epstein did.
You see the modus operanda.
A high-ranking Goldman Sachs counsel, who was a high-ranking Obama counsel, had said she wasn't very involved and all the rest turned out.
She was lying.
A bunch of people, high, you know, big owners of major football franchises in America, baseball franchises, basketball franchises.
You know, it's a, I forget how George Carlin put it, it's a big club, but we ain't in it.
And we don't want to be in that particular club.
Robert, about the Bannon thing, just I'm sorry to cut you off.
There was a video going around, and it seems to be a full interview.
Benny Johnson posted it.
He's, you know, Benny's quite reliable, although everybody gets taken every now and again.
I don't think he got taken here.
This seems to be the video of until the mid-80s or so.
Of Steve Bannon prepping give back to the community.
Jeffrey Epstein.
And so I, I mean, I don't ask Rock.
I just go to, because I'd say, is this, is this video real?
And Grock says it's both a deep fake and it's real.
My understanding is it is in fact.
I think this one is real.
Yeah.
Because he was making a documentary.
Epstein played Bannon like a fiddle, just like Robert Mueller played him like a fiddle, just like Mike Davis plays him like a fiddle.
It's unfortunate, but this is one of the weaknesses of Steve Bannon.
Brilliant architect of populist politics, worst judge.
Basically, you ask Steve Bannon if he wants to recommend someone.
If he does, never hire them.
I mean, God bless Steve.
But otherwise, the only, as Trump himself acknowledged, he goes, oh, yeah, there's really nothing negative about me in here, nor about Melania.
Melania knew Glene Maxwell.
There's a couple of emails, but nothing major, which is what we said from day one, which means we said it was the dumbest act of political self-sabotage in the history of American politics.
And now we're proven correct.
You can see it.
I mean, I took so much crap when I was on the Duran and I was like, when all the files are disclosed, Epstein, Trump will not be negatively implicated by any credible evidence.
In fact, that's exactly the case.
That's the consensus.
There's no credible evidence implicating Trump adversely.
Now, there is Howard Luttnick, his commerce secretary, who I said at the time I didn't believe his story.
And of course, Howard's like, oh, I had nothing to do with him.
Howard apparently was even hanging out on the island.
So after his arrest, by the way, after Epstein's arrest.
So Howard is the only person close to Trump.
And Howard's not that close to Trump.
He supported Hillary Clinton before.
So, you know, you could put a big asterisk by that.
Howard's just on a little power spree.
Oh, boy.
Robert, I am, I'm taking yet another victory lap, and I will pat myself on the back with my short, stubby arms because we both took a lot of shit for this.
I remember I was going to the beach one day just to try to clear my head.
And I remember getting into a fight with Dilly Mean team and others where they were saying, hey, you know, it was the day, I think, when Trump said, if you still pursue this, you know, I don't want your support.
And I'm like, this is terrible.
And, you know, this is going to show a number of things, and it might embarrass people close to Trump's administration.
Howard Luttnick was the one at one point we discovered was Epstein's neighbor, like literally his neighbor.
He bought his property off of him.
I think he was either, I don't want to make a mistake on this, but he was his neighbor.
Power Spree Revelations 00:12:29
And Luttnick's name came out.
He was.
Yeah, he was his neighbor.
He even had financial transactions with him.
What we always said was that everything that we have said about him is basically confirmed in these disclosures.
What his modus operandi was, who he really was, what he was really up to, who he is connected to, who he is being protected by, that it doesn't adversely impact Trump.
That never made any sense for a whole bunch of reasons.
Namely, that if it did, it would have been disclosed a long time ago by the Democrats, who were in possession of all these files going back a decade.
Many of these files date back to his 2008 investigation.
Further evidence.
Now, there is some suggestion.
I mean, he was on first name basis with the Rothschilds.
So, you know, that was very, but we knew that when we interviewed Professor Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz said he was introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Lady Rothschild.
And that's why he had confidence and credibility in her.
And I was like, hey, Alan, did you not put one and one together?
What they're doing?
They're trying to entrap you, pal.
I get he's, you know, he loves Lady Rostild, you know, big Israel defender.
I understand all that, but you gotta know, you know, especially if somebody says, hey, why don't you come over and why don't you go take a massage, a massage with one of my little masseuses?
I mean, you just gotta hit the door for it.
There's a tremendous distress about being totally neurotic, and there's also tremendous value.
Don't go for massages.
And by the way, my memory was right.
I just have to refresh and make sure.
Luttnick bought the neighboring property directly from him, was his neighbor.
And I said, look, I'm not calling Luttnick any words that start with the letter P, period, full stop.
Even just being in the orbit is embarrassing.
Now, being on the island, it's getting to a next level of embarrassment and suspicious behavior.
Well, you wonder whether Luttnick also participated in lying to him.
My theory all along has been that the FOIA people and Pam Bondi lied to the president about what was in the Epstein files in order to snooker him into shutting it down so that the deep state didn't get its dirty laundry revealed.
Because if you go through these files, what it reveals is the modus operandi.
You know what else it connects to?
Pizzagate.
Epstein is using, hey, come over and look at this video I have of torturing some pizza, right?
A lot of that kind of stuff is bad.
Watch Jake Tapper, the mainstream media, try to shut that down and silence it and not want to talk about it at all.
It more implicates Democrats than Republicans because that's who Jeffrey Epstein was.
And that's who he was tied into.
He was not tied into the Bush networks.
He was tied into the Clinton and Obama networks.
He's playing a script with Steve Binn and trying to pretend that, oh, you know, yeah, Bill Clinton was bad.
And let's talk about the banking system.
And I mean, the guy's a master manipulator.
That's what he really is.
All the stuff about tax money laundering, tax evasion, offshore jurisdiction and financial manipulation.
There's all kinds of detail about that in there.
You see the eagerness with which, I mean, he was clearly a purveyor of illicit products, mostly money laundering, but also human trafficking.
That's where you have the Bill Gates disclosure.
Classic Bill Gates.
I mean, do you want a guy in control of our vaccines who's secretly drugging his wife so that she doesn't know about the STD he got from some underage Russian prostitute?
I mean, Robert, this is not to promote violence, and there's no but to that.
That is the type of behavior where you should expect to wake up with your wife holding a gun to your face in the middle of the night.
Or wake up like Bobbitt.
No, it's so, it's demonically bad.
Like it's the essence of evil, and it is deserving of some form of cosmic retribution, which I think he's getting here on this earth right now because I can't imagine anything being more embarrassing to a man's, to a human.
And he'll get it in the afterlife.
I just read in the chat that Luttnick didn't go to work on the Dave 9.
I'm not entertaining any of those advanced knowledge.
It's long been a suspicion about Lutnick and some others have had some skepticism about that.
I've never thought that part was true.
I mean, I didn't, his brother died in the attacks, right?
Yeah, no, he look, there's, there's, you know, people missed flights and the planes crash.
It's things like that happen.
You're going to let 658 people.
I don't entertain that theory, but I just wasn't sure of the fact and the fact is true.
Whatever conclusion you derive from that is going to be true.
No photos of Trump in the way that they try to suggest.
There's no blackmail material on Trump, no extortion material on Trump.
There's just a bunch of wild anonymous allegations coming in from the Clinton machine between 2016 and 2020.
That is literally, that's all that.
Otherwise, it's Epstein obsessed with trying to get material on Trump because he never did.
So he was an adversary of Trump.
And so, what I said all along was that an honest reveal of the file would exonerate Trump and incriminate his adversaries, and that's exactly what it does.
And it was a massive, massive, what Trump should be doing is slapping himself in the face forever taking the bait on this.
He cut off ties to Marjorie Taylor Greene because of this, cut off Thomas Massey because of this.
Trump, you got played and you got played by pay-for-play Pambondi, by counterfeit Kash Patel, who now has been discovered either perjuring him.
Well, really, he committed perjury before Congress because either he lied when he said he'd reviewed the files and knew what was in there, or he lied when he said there was nothing in there that incriminated Epstein concerning minors and sex trafficking because it's all over the place.
Epstein's asking for girls under a certain age, under the legal age.
Photos all throughout of him with girls under age.
I mean, it was just, so that's who it should be embarrassing.
Now, apparently, you know, Blanche Dubois there, our deputy attorney general, Todd.
Is that his nickname now?
Yeah, yeah, Blanche DuBois from the – Streetcar Named Desire.
Exactly.
He – He is still withholding the FBI 302s and the draft indictments concerning other named people that they further investigated and found substantiating proof, substantial proof, that they had engaged in illicit behavior, including human trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein.
Why is he hiding this information?
He goes on media this morning and says, oh, well, because basically Massey and Rokana said, hey, we would like to look at this at least, that you're claiming privilege.
He's like, well, I'd be happy to do that.
I just hadn't received the letter yet.
They leaked it to the press.
No, they didn't, Todd.
They emailed you, you moron.
And of course, Massey produces the proof of the email that was sent before it was distributed to the press.
So there's, you know, Pay-for-Play Pam is still playing games.
Todd Blanche is still playing games.
Counterfeit Cash is already caught with perjury.
So what we have is a self-sabotage scandal that was utterly unnecessary because the deep state played Trump like a fiddle.
Now, I want to maybe, here's the interesting thing.
After all this comes out, that mostly exonerates Trump, incriminates his enemies, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, a whole bunch of other people, a bunch of big tech people.
Reid Hoffman is all over it.
I mean, that guy just screams pervert.
You know what I mean?
He looks like John Wayne Gacy, basically.
Well, and Elon Musk was quite unequivocal about his assessment of Reid Hoffman on Joe Rogan, and it's panning out to be quite accurate.
Yeah, for people asking how it's not involved, Trump, real simple.
Trump is not negatively implicated whatsoever.
So basically, he did cut off ties with Epstein.
That's confirmed in the documents and information.
Epstein had no blackmail material on him whatsoever.
That's why he's out there seeking it, trying to develop it, trying to create it with Wolf, trying to come up with bogus lies.
Michael Wolf is exposed as a fake journalist and a deep state hatchet man.
But who's really implicated is big actors on Wall Street, people connected to the Biden regime, people connected to the Obama regime, people connected to the Clinton regime, people connected to the deep state, people connected to the CIA, to Mossad, to MI6, to French intelligence, to Saudi intelligence, all of that.
And all of it points in the same direction.
And it's again, it's Trump's primarily Trump's adversaries.
I just find it interesting that after this comes out and Trump's not negatively implicated, all of a sudden we also get wind that Trump is now not so eager to go to war in Iran.
That Trump's like, yeah, maybe we can just cut a deal.
And, you know, probably the same deal, by the way, has been on the table since March, which is to further solidify no nuclear weapon development by Iran.
Not all the stuff about ballistic missiles, not all these pretend numbers of fake, they keep increasing.
I'm just waiting for him to say the Iranian regime killed 300 million people, you know, three times more than the total population of Iran, but don't worry.
We have trustworthy news sources here at the New York Post and Rupert Murdoch.
All of a sudden, you saw Trump at the same time when he realized he'd been had, that these files don't negatively implicate him, which is a huge relief for him or his wife, that all of a sudden he's like, eh, maybe we don't need to go into Iran.
Maybe we don't need to keep escalating conflict.
Was it really a coincidence that he had a complete reversal in foreign policy at the same time that all of a sudden he had a reversal in the Epstein files?
Or does Trump now realize he's been played?
And maybe there's an opportunity for Trump to return to his original no new war, no regime change foreign policy now that he knows that the deep state was running a number on him as it relates to the Epstein files.
I am going to take the victory lap and tell everybody who said Viva.
Don't be panicking the Epstein.
Go suck a lemon.
You were all wrong on the substance, wrong on the subject.
Don't suck a Don Lemon.
Robert, saucy.
I'm telling you, this is, you're not here to hear the things that you necessarily want to hear.
You're going to hear the things that I believe to be true that pan out to be quite accurate and prescient.
We were right yet again, Robert.
And I, in particular, because, you know, look, you take flack all the time and, you know, you sometimes ask for it.
I'm going to be demonized for not changing my view on something that I've had a consistent view of for five years because I got the instructions, then I go get blocked by all of the Dilly Meme team who led Trump and cheerleaded Trump clandestine.
Maybe go check my Twitter history with that person as well, all blocked me, by the way.
I remember when we had these discussions.
You were wrong.
I was right.
There you go.
End of story.
So how much, first of all, the risks of Pan Bondi suffering any legal consequences for being able to do that?
Oh, still is because she redacted more information that she shouldn't have.
She failed to produce the FBI 302 interviews.
She failed to produce the indictment referral and memorandums about a dozen prominent people who were recommended for a criminal investigation.
And Blanche Dubois is out on the media today saying there's going to be no further investigations or indictments in the Epstein matter.
So they were covering for the deep state to Trump's detriment.
And now it's obvious what they were doing.
And the longer that Trump has them around, the more in danger he is politically.
But they're going to face future impeachments, indirect contempt proceedings, maybe future indictments.
Of course, it's really just the tip of the iceberg.
A lot of people saw this week what we talked about on Sunday came true in live time.
Said that, in fact, Tom Homan wanted a different strategy, that Christy Noam was screwing up.
That's another incompetent person, that her and Corey Lewandowski were complicit in these screw-ups for the personal enrichment of them both.
And we saw a lot of information and intel on that.
So there's some people that Trump has that he staffed that he thought were loyal, but actually are not, and that he thought were competent and also are not.
But we are about 90% through the Epstein files case.
What we should get still is referrals of at least, you know, put in a special counsel, maybe a Tom Fitton, somebody skilled, capable, and able, to finish the review and disclosure and then bring relevant referrals, investigations, and indictments.
Because what it reveals is just how evil these elite networks are.
And this is Epstein, who is, you know, spearheading global health initiatives, who has more power than he ever should.
And yet, Robert, I'll point another finger maybe back at Trump, is not a part of his administration, but it seems to be a welcome element of his administration.
And so I don't know how you get past that.
Evil Elite Networks Revealed 00:13:04
I don't know.
When you squeeze him out of the administration, that sounds so gross.
When you extricate that cancer from the Trump administration, because that is exactly what Bill Gates is, and I'm sure he's trying to develop a vaccine for that.
You know who I think we'll be talking about it tomorrow as his show comes back and re-airs.
There's a certain man, Ballas Bongino, but we'll see.
Well, I say, we'll see, because I was right, by the way, all along, and now we, you know, I was right.
And this might be Dan's opportunity to say, when I tweeted out that Grok summary, now you guys understand when Todd Blanche said we all signed off on that bullshit memo, we didn't.
It was an, we'll see, we'll see.
Holding out hope yet.
But Robert, now let's get to the other one where I won't say I was right, I was wrong, whatever.
This is the, I think we disagree on this one, but we're going to see if the additional information that came out last week changes your view.
I don't think it does because I listened to your bourbon with Barnes.
Out of the Minnesota shooting, where you had video now being revealed or being discovered of Alex Predi, 11 days before getting fatally shot, engaging in an outright, obvious, violent altercation with federal, I think it was ICE agents, but it might have been CBP, you know, federal agents begging to be assaulted, assault me, assault me, spitting on them, kicking out a taillight, getting into a scuffle while armed.
And it was only determined that, you know, it was him afterwards.
They reassessed the video.
It was only determined afterwards that he was armed because you could see a handgun up in his pants as his shirt got lifted up.
They wrestled him.
They let him go.
Quite clearly, they didn't know that he had a firearm on him at the time because I suspect that would have been immediate arrest, even involving Second Amendment rights when you are armed, committing a felony.
Now, I'm not stupid.
I can steel man the argument.
What happened 11 days earlier is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to what happened the day of.
That's going to be the argument.
I'm sure that that's the legally tenable argument.
Flip side to that is it's going to cast a little bit of doubt on the argument, the narrative that he was just there to document, that he was just an innocent protester exercising his first and second amendment rights, and that he was, in fact, something of an activist agent provocateur who was consistently looking for trouble and possibly even looking for his own heroic death by cop or Luigi Mangion hero moment.
And it didn't go as planned.
He got shot.
Now, we don't have any new evidence about the circumstances that day other than that.
So people are going to say it changes nothing 11 days earlier, irrelevant.
It's a character assassination.
The prejudicial value outweighs the probative value.
Disregarded.
I'm inclined to think that it shows that he was part of some sort of active sinister operation that means that he was out there not in good faith, but also looking for trouble and actively got into it, which sort of now attenuates how the situation escalated as quickly as it did.
Have you changed, altered, tempered your opinion whatsoever?
Well, I don't think that he is like that fake Republican on the view that Hispanic lady, what's her name, Anna something?
I'm blinking on her name.
Kind of a lord-ass.
She said, remember, he's the kind of guy you want your daughter to date.
Okay.
I guess you go down to the local jail when you're recruiting dates.
The local fellow, you know, who got out of the local prison today?
Here, honey.
This six-tattoo gang member.
So last week we covered the supremacy clause defense.
And that is a defense that a federal officer has against state criminal charges, gives them both the right to remove the case to federal district court and gives them the right to have the federal judge decide whether it even reaches a jury.
And there you have a different evidentiary standard.
It's effectively preponderance of the evidence.
And the defense gets the opportunity to show that what they were doing was necessary and objectively reasonable as part of that.
And so some people got confused.
I put that up as a poll survey.
And even in Ginger Ninja was really mad at me.
And some of you were mad.
Like, oh, this is just the supremacy clause defense, everybody.
That's all this is.
They're like, yeah, this standard is crazy.
It's like, that's just the, that's the first prong.
If the defense wins on that prong, they never face a jury trial.
If they lose on that prong, that doesn't mean they're convicted.
Then it goes to the jury on the separate question of self-defense.
Now, in Minnesota, there is a peace officer self-defense.
A federal law enforcement officer is not included in the definition of a peace officer, but there's some argument that it could be.
But honestly, as I dug into it, it doesn't matter because in Minnesota now they have reduced self-defense to the same standard.
Now, I'm for that.
I like it to be the same standard.
I think individuals, the government, government officials, and the government itself, whether we're talking about war, whether we're talking about government officials acting in the course and scope of their duties, or we're talking about individuals, I think they should have the same self-defense rights.
But that is the case.
Basically, it's 609.066 under the Minnesota Revised Code.
And was it necessary to protect someone from great bodily harm?
There's some escape components, but those components basically come back to the same thing.
Do you think if I don't take this action right now, then it will result in great bodily harm to either myself or someone else.
But under 609.065, even for people that are not peace officers, it's the same standard.
It's whether it's necessary to prevent great bodily harm.
It just doesn't have the escape part.
But you could argue that that escape part could be relevant under other circumstances, even for non-officers.
Now, the key then comes down to what does the word necessary mean in this context?
Because what the word necessary means under the supremacy clause is a different analysis than what necessary means under the Minnesota self-defense statutes.
And now, by the way, I've long advocated that the Second Amendment should include a universal right of self-defense, regardless of local law.
That was the point and purpose of the Second Amendment, or at least half of the purpose.
But what does necessary mean?
Well, under Minnesota law, you end up with almost an identical self-defense as most of the country, except there's a duty to retreat for people that are not police officers.
That's the only difference.
But is the force reasonable?
Is it proportionate to the threat?
And is the threat imminent?
So it's the same kind of analysis you get in basically every self-defense case.
Did what I do, is what I did something that a reasonable person would say was necessary for me to do to avoid the harm, in this case, great bodily harm, to myself or other people.
Now, for that analysis, if the officers knew about the past and or at past incident, then I believe it's relevant to their state of mind.
So if they knew, they're like, now it can't cut both ways, because you could see a scenario where the prosecution says, in this case, the state prosecution, for example, now there's a separate DOJ civil rights investigation going on.
That's a different standard, different analysis.
I'm not going to get into that at this moment.
We'll just get into the state self-defense.
What's the probability that they face charges?
And if so, what's the probability they get convicted by a jury?
Assuming that they lose on the supremacy clause defense before a judge.
Because I don't think they'll win on that at this stage, not in the Minnesota courts.
There's others that think they will.
So it depends on one's perspective.
But essentially, is what you given where if they knew the past incident, that this guy wanted confrontation, wanted violent confrontation, was spitting on them, was attacking their vehicle, was kicking their vehicle, was breaking their vehicle, was saying, you know, I kind of had a martyr kind of, you know, suicide by cop kind of routine going on, you know, attack me, attack me, please attack me.
If they were aware of that, then it is relevant.
If they weren't aware of it, it probably isn't.
Now, how it could be used against them is if they were aware of it, a prosecutor might spin it into saying they wanted revenge on this guy and chose their opportunity to get him.
So that's where my guess is these individual officers didn't know about it.
So then it likely doesn't come in, except sometimes you can show modus operandi that conduct was in conformity with the prior institution.
Or that he was actually partaking in a criminal enterprise when he did what he did.
And I wonder, I mean, again, it's like, as far as I'm concerned, you know, when you say necessary, and hold on one second, because I brought the meme up, whenever I hear the word necessary, necessary, is it necessary for me to drink my own urine?
Probably not.
No.
But I do it anyway because it's sterile and I like the case.
Dodgeball.
Now, whenever I hear duty, Robert, you know what I think?
And now whenever I hear necessary, necessary?
But, you know, the criteria as to whether or not it was proportionate, necessary under the circumstances, and whether or not there is.
It's going to be what was in their head.
In other words, what do those officers know?
What do they think was happening?
I would say the Twin Cities are going to have a hard time.
That's where the jury trial would be from.
Now, they can remove it to federal court, so they might not get as hostile a judge, but the current Twin Cities federal courthouse is not very favorable to the administration for a range of reasons at the moment, especially around immigration policy.
In my view, because they mishandled the Don Lemon case, which we'll get to in a bit.
But it depends on your perspective and what you believe.
I would say in comparable cases that I've seen that are like this, particularly in a Democratic leading jurisdiction on an issue of immigration being a hot button of whatever it is, like it's a George Floyd type case.
We thought George Floyd did, that he, that Derek Chauvin, who I was not a fan of, we were both very critical of his history.
I operated from guilt in that case.
My initial reaction was changed by the evidence in that trial.
Exactly, but it didn't change the jury's perspective.
So I think that's the hard part is if the Minnesota state prosecutors bring prosecution, I think they would not win in a jury trial.
And I'm looking at Kim, I mean, I forget Kim Potter also, where she pulled out her gun thinking it was a taser.
And everyone's like, that's an understandable mistake, especially given what those tasers look like.
No question.
And she still got sentenced.
Yeah, exactly.
So I think their best argument is probably a supremacy clause defense with the right kind of federal judge or a right kind of federal appellate court draw.
I think because they're going to have difficult because of where he was located and because the fact that he was shot in the back, I know there's some people saying, oh, why should that matter?
It just does to ordinary jurors, just being realistic about it.
And the fact that he wasn't himself at that time armed.
Now, what may happen is the officer may say he heard a shot.
He heard gun.
He heard a shot.
And he didn't realize that what was in his right hand was his phone.
He thought it was the gun and thought he had no other choice.
That, I presume, will be his defense.
They said they have body camera footage, but they're not going to release it.
I find that a little bit, that's unfortunate, I think.
I think from the court of public opinion perspective, if there's a helpful, because it will probably look at least chaotic and crazy from the body camera footage, that you might have a more sympathetic view.
I think the best argument ICE officers have is the context, that they're being constantly attacked, constantly harassed.
Now, one of our board members, at Viva BarnesLaw, dotlocals.com, pointed out the whistles may be so loud that they actually form a form of assault.
Their decibel level is such that it actually could be.
Absolutely.
We talked about that in another case where I talked about the fact that this is a form of assault and it's even when it's in the instruction manual not to point it in the direction of ears to have a certain distance and that they're being used as active weapons.
And so and our weapons are weapons nonetheless.
Now, one of the things that is going to hurt is Stephen Miller apparently said that they, remember we mentioned that I didn't understand why they had them being the crowd control people and they should have had other people doing it.
Well, according to Miller, they weren't supposed to be part of crowd control, that they breached their scope of their duties, which could hurt their supremacy clause defense as well.
You just said the word, Robert.
In running over there, so that the, I think a couple of the officers just got just lost it.
And I think they lost it to such a degree that they're going to have difficulty if they face a Twin Cities jury getting acquitted of some form of reckless homicide.
And I think that likely is coming.
I think the Minnesota prosecution is coming probably in the next six months or so.
And I've listened to everybody and I've listened to you, Robert.
I think it was, you know, I say awful, but lawful under the circumstances, it's mayhem, and it was a one and a half second incident.
And the guy now, and maybe I'm tainted now by what I understand of the guy, but just, you know, we can't not play the meme because it's classic.
Homan's Trust Matters 00:03:26
Caring for people was at the core of who he was.
He was incapable of causing harm.
Alex carried patience, compassion, and calm as a steady light within him.
Even at the very end, that light was there.
I recognized his familiar stillness and signature calm composure.
And by the way, I am not laughing at his death.
No, I'm laughing at the idiot.
The idiot warned pretending that all these protests are peaceful, civil, nice guy protest when Claire, like, you know, I think in his case, he's someone who lost his mind.
That it appears up until a year ago, he was a relatively normal man.
When you see that video, he got divorced.
He's lost his job.
He became obsessed with this.
He became part.
Now, what they should be doing, in my opinion, is taking apart these networks that are radicalizing people, radicalizing people like Tyler Robinson, who murdered Charlie Kirk, in my opinion.
And taking apart the funding for these networks rather than trying to pick him off one by one.
But you already see Homan already going in, cleaning things up, clearing things out, saying, got rid of that Bovino idiot who apparently was busy making anti-Semitic jokes to Jewish lawyers on calls.
You know what I mean?
That's how dumb that guy was.
You know, like Nick Sortor and these other people running cover for this guy.
Like this guy, I knew the backstory.
Todd Holman is the real deal, folks.
Todd Holman's always been the real deal.
So Todd, I trust Todd Holman much more than I trust Christy Noam, who's busy banging Corey Lewandowski, who's married, helping Corey Lewandowski line his pockets and buying off his wife with no big contracts and giving sweetheart deals to Palantir.
These people are incompetent and they prove they were incompetent.
Now Todd Homan is there.
All of a sudden, you're getting even Governor Tampon Tim there saying he's going to now suddenly cooperate, at least in terms of getting prisoners put into ICE custody.
So, I mean, that's a substantial improvement.
So getting cooperation on getting rid of some of the craziness of the protest.
So the, you know, you just put Homan in charge, and Homan is very good at this.
He knows how to maneuver through this.
And if we're going to be real about immigration enforcement, we got to do the things that Trump doesn't want, which is to go after his big corporate pals and buddies with meaningful enforcement in that respect.
But Homan is more aligned in that regard.
I don't think you're going to see many more incidents like this now that Homan is in charge.
And people seem to forget, Homan was the hero when he was appointed.
He was the Borders Art hero.
And then because they put Kirsty Noam and the other guy, they're Bovino in, then he became the hero.
This is what he should have been there from the beginning.
Homan has, I mean, he's got trust.
And it's not a question of like not cooperating with local Minnesota authorities out of principle.
That's what you want as a concession from them.
That's the concession.
Exactly.
And he's not, people are saying he's withdrawing.
He's not withdrawing.
He's coming up with a more efficient, effective, less collateral harm way to achieve the primary goal, which is to enforce our immigration laws.
Now, the other person who thought that he was, you know, his own version of a hero of Alex Preddy was, of course, Don Lamon, who got arrested while attending the Grammys, no less.
Homan's Trust 00:02:40
Stinky finger Don Lamon got what he deserved.
But hold on, before we get there, Robert, let's get to some of the chats before we go too far down.
Randy Edwards says, Damn, Robert is just down the street.
Why does everyone want to live near me?
Stick around and beat Mr. Barnes and you can suffer through next week, 85-degree weather.
Disneyland can be fun.
May Dog says, I find it racist as F that someone tried to break out a guy named Luigi with a pizza cutter.
Tip.
I didn't hear about that, but that's kind of funny.
And I got a tip tipped via Rumble Wallet, which, if you want to do it, go to the little tip thing right here.
You can go to tip with another crypto here.
Go with crypto.
Boom.
Scan that tip.
That is from Mr. Bry Guy B Money.
And then we got King of Bill Tong in the house looking for real food.
Try some Bill Tong made with clean ingredients and done the right way at Bill Tong USA.
We don't make pressed process junk.
Check out Bill Tongusa.com, code Barnes for 10% off.
It's delicious.
It's the best stuff out there.
Get some and support a man who makes good American-made products.
He is from South Africa, living in the greatest country on earth.
Tip questions over here.
We got awful but lawful, great description.
It's not mine.
That's a what is it?
A term of the art.
Alien baby says, shooting any.
Okay, I'm not reading that one out loud, but Alien Baby, thank you for the support over on viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Poshin27 says a few questions.
What is the full Huey Long quote you keep citing?
Because there are so many clothes you can wear.
Huey Long needed for my video script.
It's a great, a famous speech he gave, I believe, to the Washington, D.C. interns.
And he was talking about, you know, God created a picnic for everybody, but a small group of people came and took all the vitlins off the table.
And he goes, look, I'm not saying you can't.
He goes, once you have all the clothes you can wear, all the houses you can live in, all the food you can eat, you got to bring back some of those vitlines for the rest of the people.
And it was the famous, one of Huey Long's many famous things.
His other great one was he compared snake oil salesman to the two parties in Washington.
He said there used to be local snake oil salesmen, had two different snake oils.
He said this one cured half of your illnesses and this one, the other one cured the other half.
Barnes just go mute.
Oh, can you hear me or no?
Can you hear me?
Can you hear me or no?
Yeah, it says they can.
Yeah, everybody can hear me.
The chat can hear me.
Chat can hear Barnes.
AirPods 00:04:46
I think I know what's going on here.
And I'm going to destroy a pair of AirPods when I leave this stream.
I think someone is putting on AirPods that's disconnecting my computer.
Oh.
So the AirPods.
I'm going to fix that in a second.
I missed what you said, but the chat heard you.
That's more important than me.
And let me go up here.
Okay, oh, gosh, and I'm sweating because I'm going to figure out where the hell those devices are.
Tip questions.
Let me go all the way up to the top here just so we can not fall too far behind.
Pasha Mora, Lemon Cross the Line.
Okay, that's funny.
Rumble wallet requires a photo idea picture just saying, I talked to them about that in terms of the biometrics to access the wallet.
They're going to work around that for people who want to use a password, but there have to be, I don't, I'll double-check about that question as well.
Gray 101 says, Robert Barnes, Esquire, can we count on President JD Vance to finally arrest Epstein perpetrator?
Robert, are we not?
Are we running into statute of limitations that we were told were not going to be a problem?
I mean, oh, yeah, on some cases, yes.
But Blanche Dubois says that he's refusing to bring any further Epstein investigations or indictments.
Dapper Day says, So now they released the Epstein documents, 2.5 million still missing, by the way, which is going to happen, which is going to happen first to distract us.
Bombing Iran, new pandemic, Antifa Riots, stock market crash.
Well, you're already on.
We got number four.
Number three has always been in the works.
I don't think we're getting a new pandemic, and it looks like we're not going to bomb Iran.
So thank goodness for small miracles.
10 years ago, everybody thought this guy was crazy.
They didn't.
Nobody thought he was crazy for that.
They just thought he was crazy for driving piss drunk and going nuts on that cough.
Is Bill Gates on President Trump's friends in the Epstein files under presidential Gray 101?
Our master satirist.
When I read them out loud, I don't get them.
So I don't get them right away.
Regarding the Virginian nurse fired for describing how to incapacitate ICE agents, I think where there's smoke is fire, why would we assume an obvious sociopath wasn't sharing her experience?
Certainly, any uncomfortable symptoms, her patients' experience, now potential explanation.
I get the hospital, local authorities won't pursue it, but wouldn't it be a civil rights?
Dude, I think you're 100% right.
You don't think of something like that for the first time under these circumstances.
Does President of Nurse ratchets?
COVID exposed.
There are a lot of good nurses out there, but there are some nurse ratchets out there, too.
It's a lot of murderous Karen nurses.
That's what they are.
Does President Trump still support seizing rural and Amish land for corporations to build AI data centers?
Gray 101.
Yeah.
Dr. Doolittle eating some Preserve America Pie while watching tonight.
Beautiful.
That you can get from Amos Miller, organicform.com.
Did I miss it or have they still held on to the financial documents?
I think this is in respect of Epstein.
I really want to know.
They never had the financial documents.
They're over at the Treasury Department, and the Treasury Department was never part of all of this.
And so that information has still not been reviewed or disclosed, nor was it legally obligated to, because this was just what the Justice Department had.
I don't know what, why wouldn't Bill Gates be charged?
That would require a complaint from the victim, I would imagine.
And I imagine also it's probably time-barred because it was, I presume, over 10 years ago.
It was probably the implied value of the divorce.
He wrote a big check because of it.
She got her billions.
Who was that?
That was great.
Here's a little tithe to the Barnes and BBI who were right again.
Okay, so let's actually do the Don Lamont right now.
Another one, Robert, where I dare say we were both right.
Even though we disagree on it, you know, I think he deserves to be charged.
You think he doesn't.
But we both agree.
I think he potentially deserves to be charged.
It's whether they've gone about it the correct way.
Okay.
And so now the question is.
Yeah.
And then the question is: when they went around it, when they went about it the last time, they apparently did not include the relevant allegations to substantiate to warrant, pun intended, a judge, a magistrate judge signing off on it.
It's not like, again, you're not signing leaves if they brought blow across a desk.
If this judge is reluctant to arrest Don Lamon because it's his folk hero, he's going to make you allege the right things that warrant the arrest.
They didn't do it the first time around.
I happen to think there's hard evidence.
I laid out my case over the weekend, but they went back and it looks like they got, well, they got him arrested Thursday night.
And it seems that they is bona fide a word in English?
They strengthened their allegations against Don Lamon to justify probable cause for the purposes of an arrest.
We were both right, period.
And it's good.
It sounds like some people might be listening begrudgingly, even if they've blocked me.
Grand Jury's Verdict 00:14:21
But, Robert, what is your take on the latest developments of stinky finger Don Laman getting arrested?
My concern is that they were more interested in rushing the case than developing the case.
And so the, and it's because there's unique constitutional implications.
It's not the ones Laman and his Don Lemon and his defendant, his defenders in the public are saying.
There is no journalistic right to violate the law.
So that's not applicable at all.
It's the general First Amendment defense, which is codified in the FACE Act.
So Megan Kelly, God bless her, and a bunch of others keep getting this wrong.
And they keep saying it's a federal crime to disrupt a church service.
It's not.
Now, it can be a state crime.
It can be trespass.
It can be nuisance.
It can be disorderly conduct.
It can be certain kinds of harassment, depending on the state involved.
But the federal crimes that have been alleged here are the FACE Act and the Klan Act, 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 248.
That's where they're codified.
The important thing to understand is under the FACE Act, which protects buildings where church services or abortion services take place, is 1820 USC 248D, which is, quote, nothing shall be construed in this law to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration.
So that's an interfere has a unique interpretation.
People are looking at it and they think it has this broad interpretation.
Under the Klan Act, it does.
Under the FACE Act, it does not.
Under the FACE Act, interfere only means restriction of physical movement.
Intimidate means fear of physical harm.
Obstruction means physically impassable.
So in order to violate the FACE Act, you have to either physically obstruct, use force, or threaten to use force.
If I may, actually, I'll defend Megan Kelly a bit, and then I'm going to defend you even more.
And then I'm going to highlight how good Venice AI is.
If you go to, I mean, this is what I presume most people are doing.
You go to AI.
Is it a federal crime to disrupt a church service?
Yes, it's a federal crime to disrupt a church service or other place of worship if it involves obstructing, intimidating, or interfering with people exercising their religious freedom, often prosecuted under the FACE Act.
So that's the answer you get from AI, which is, you know, it's a little bit more categoric than what you get from Venice.ai, which says, and I actually appreciate the way this was worded, yes, it can be a crime to interrupt a church service, but it depends on the nature of the interruption.
The key federal law is, I think we're going with the FACE Act here, it makes it a crime to intentionally damage or destroy property.
Okay, fine.
Or by threat or force obstruct a person's free exercise of their religious belief.
And then we get into a more nuanced analysis.
So I think people are speaking sort of colloquially when they say, you know, when they reduce it to interrupting church services, when we all agree that it's not just walking through silently with a picket, but rather the way that they were in fact doing it or did in fact do it under these circumstances.
So I say everybody can be right in this circumstance.
The key under both, because of that catch-all phraseology in the First Amendment that has been used in the Eighth Circuit, the U.S. versus Bruce Lee decision to restrict the interpretation of the civil rights conspiracy statute, is it all comes down to some form of violence or physical obstruction.
And the physical obstruction requires that you make ingress or egress impassable.
So the so to give you an idea, like, and it's consistent with Brandenburg, you have to accuse the person of intending to use force or violence in a way that is likely to imminently produce that force or violence.
The threat has to be of such a significant magnitude that it literally prevented others from access to the property or for the purposes of religious services.
So, the question under the FACE Act is: did Lemon render impassable entrance or exit to the church or make passage unreasonably difficult or hazardous?
Or by threat of force or use of force, place a reasonable person in reasonable fear of bodily harm or complete loss of freedom of movement.
Now, so I put up on the on the Viva Barnes law.locals.com board.
And I was like, here's what the three elements are likely to be.
And here's my point to the Justice Department: was look at the law, figure out what's the most restrictive interpretation a court may impose on the law for the purposes of potential dismissal.
And then what's the most restrictive interpretation the court may impose on the law for the purpose of instructing the jury on whether to find guilt, knowing that five of the six judges who reviewed this initially did not determine there was probable cause.
I keep seeing people get this confused.
Like they say, oh, the appellate court said there was probable cause.
One of the three judges said that.
The other two did not.
And that was even, it's weird to say, like one of them said this probable cause, presumably it was not based on the allegations as drafted.
And so they had to go back and thicken it up a little bit.
So here's the alley.
There's several.
So my view was given that you knew that, that you likely, a district court assigned to this case is a liberal Democratic Biden appointee, a Yale Law School grad, is likely given while the courts have already responded to the Lemon case where five of the six said no probable cause, that you needed to assume the most restrictive interpretation of this criminal law is going to apply.
Now, it's interesting.
Some people in the pro-life community are saying, Don Lemon walks, then Randall Terry is going to be replicating what Don Lemon did at reproductive clinics all across the country and see if Democrats still have the same view of Don Lemon's activities, of Randall Terry's activities that they currently have of Don Lemon's activities.
They quickly would abandon it, by the way.
And I've long been a critic of the FACE Act, full disclosure.
I haven't liked it.
It's mostly targeted pro-life protesters, made the lives of little old nuns miserable on the excuse that they're physically obstructing things and things like that.
And that's why I was also telling people, we don't want a broad interpretation of this law.
We don't want something to say any disruption or discouragement is a crime, because remember, most of this law is enforced against pro-life protesters.
Very little of it has ever been used to protect church services.
By the way, just to highlight, the second time around he was indicted by a grand jury.
The first time around they went to a magistrate judge.
I wanted to ask you something.
And they went to two district court judges after that, and then three appellate court judges.
And when I'm referencing five of the six judges, that's what I'm referencing.
Five of the six said no probable, didn't find probable cause.
Look, Robert, look, I know you'll, I think you'll agree with me about my assessment here, but when they say, well, he didn't interrupt by threat or by force or intimidation, and I argue he literally documented the fact that these people who presumably are reasonable people, they're the average person, by his own assessment, felt sufficiently intimidated that they had to flee with their children.
And he was documenting how intimidated and threatened they were to the point that they had to flee.
The only defense to that would be, well, he didn't do it.
He was just documenting it.
But if he's conspiracy part and parcel to it, he documented the intimidation of his own crime.
Well, and what they should have done.
So my view, here's the other thing on the federal side.
Once you bring an indictment under the grand jury, you can no longer use the grand jury to discover additional evidence.
It's considered an abuse of the grand jury to use it for a discovery tool once you've brought an indictment.
So my view was understand it's going to be a very restrictive interpretation in all likelihood by the judge, either for purposes of dismissal or the jury, and instructions up to the jury.
And assume that you've got a hostile judicial pool and a hostile jury pool that's going to be looking for excuses to let Lemon walk.
Knowing that this is such a high-profile case, knowing it could have potentially great consequence for church service protection across the country, it was important, in my view, to cross all your T's and dot all your I's.
Further, use the grand jury to investigate and expand.
I'll give an example.
One of our members of our board pointed this out.
This church is located not far from another church where a shooting took place.
So it explained, and here's what I think you may have been able to find.
You may, in other words, use the grand jury subpoena to get all the financial records and information.
Use it to get all the text and communications and emails and signal chats and all the rest.
Use it to see whether there's a broader pattern of behavior.
For example, what if these people discussed in advance that they knew they could really scare them by doing it in such a way that it would remind the parishioners of the prior shooting so that that's what was going to happen and that they were going to block access to the kids and tell the kids their parents are Nazis and are going to die and all of that kind of thing.
You have a whole different context then.
And I think there were more allegations like that.
Were they connected to the broader ICE protests where they're biting people's fingers off and making physically assaulting people in a wide range of ways, harassing officers at restaurants?
I mean, in LA, they kicked out a couple of U.S. air marshals because they mistook them as ICE officers from a restaurant.
They were terrified.
So, you know, put that broader context in, really develop all your evidence because you want a lockdown case against someone like Lemon, given that this is about church freedom.
Instead, they chose not to do that because Pam Bondi knows that her job is at risk.
So she wanted an indictment as quickly as possible, like she did in Luigi, which we'll get to in a bit, without going through the best way to bring the charges.
So there's even a part of the indictment that uses and slash or.
Don't use and slash or.
Just say and.
It's going to open the door to some of this.
But here's what they have on Lemon.
He stood in close proximity to the pastor.
He was posted at the main door of the exit.
And they use the word physically obstruct.
Okay, for young prosecutors out there, young civil lawyers, don't use the elements of the offense.
Read the definition of the elements and use the definition.
So what you wanted to say was he made it unpassable or unreasonably dangerous or hazardous for people to exit the property without answering his questions.
That's what you want to allege.
They don't.
They just say physically obstructed.
Well, that by itself is insufficient.
They're just trying to stick the elements in there.
It's enough to get through a grand jury.
It's not enough to survive dismissal or acquittal.
Those risks are high.
They point out that others stood in the main aisle in ways that was obstructive.
But again, they don't say unpassable.
They don't use the actual factual definitions.
And then they say that they blocked the stairs.
And there they use the language about unpassable.
But it's not Lemon who did it.
It's others who do it.
They at the end say maybe he ate it and abetted it, but they don't say what he ate it and abetted.
What you want is you want a specific allegation that he knew they were going to do this, put it in the context that there had been a shooting in another church.
The goal was to terrify the living hell out of everybody there.
And the way they knew to do so was to cut off access to the children, cut off access to exits, and remind them of that shooting so that the parents are paranoid about how their kids are reacting while going around saying your parents are Nazis and are going to die.
So is this case good enough to get through the grand jury stage?
Should it survive a motion to dismiss?
Yes.
Will it?
Maybe not.
My own view is they failed to do the due diligence they should have done.
They've blown a great opportunity.
And now there's a 90% chance Don Lemon never does a day in jail when he belongs in jail for several years for what he did.
And I would say, look, not that I built out the most meticulously thought-out essay with exhibits in support of, but, you know, it's clear.
And the evidence was there.
Don LeMon knew what he was partaking in, proudly boasted about having early access to this clandestine operation.
Can't give you the details that they're pulling off an operation, documented the terror as they carried out this clandestine operation.
He was making nothing less than radical porn.
I should say, porn for radicals, or, you know, like terrorists.
Well, also, put it in the broader context.
I guarantee there's Lemon saying all kinds of aggressive stuff on other, in other, on his podcast and other areas that was relevant here.
What they were, Pam Bondi was so obsessed with getting an arrest, she didn't care whether she would secure a conviction.
And in my view, what happens when his case is dismissed?
What happens when he gets an acquittal?
Then all of a sudden, it's justification for all the critics.
See, this was just Trump targeting the journalists that are press critics for their ICE abuse.
And that narrative takes on a whole new level.
And you've made Don Lemon a martyr for the First Amendment, who doesn't deserve it at all.
And so that was my frustration: they didn't take the criticism in the constructive manner to which it was intended.
They ignored it and blocked me, Robert.
Yes, exactly.
And it's like, come on, for the love of the good Lord, do this the right way.
Do not blow cases of this consequence.
Like we made a similar warning about the Comey case.
And it's not just that they're corrupt at the top and pay-for-play Pam Bondi.
It's that they're dumb as a doorknob.
And Harmee running interference for her rather than doing her job and researching the law.
And Megan Kelly, God bless you, but please research the whole law before you misquote it and misrecite it.
They reinforce that because people like Harmen are like, oh, because she's blocking people like you, ignoring those of us who are saying, here's what you need to do to win this.
Because my view is win this.
Don't set it up so that Don Lemon gets to win an Emmy for hero of First Amendment thus.
Robert, he's going to star in the sequel to one battle after another.
And it's funny, as the individual over on Comitube was saying, I was ignoring the chat on Comitube.
I was actually literally just screenshotting the Commie super chat so that I can get to these.
Why has Don Lamon not been charged with hate crimes as he constantly brings race into this reasoning, even on video when he was committing the crime?
I mean, I think.
Well, there's a potential harassment.
The other thing I had recommended was refer this for all the state crimes that Lemon committed as part of this.
And then when they don't prosecute, when the state doesn't prosecute, city doesn't prosecute, county doesn't prosecute, you add them as defendants.
What do you think the likelihood Lemon knew was connected to the lieutenant governor who was running the Antifa ICE protest?
Yeah, I mean, discovery could be interesting.
Great Recommendation Rushed 00:10:11
Exactly.
And you could use the grand jury for that for six months, unravel the money networks, unravel the local political networks, unravel the Antifa networks.
And then you've got an indictment that's not 10 pages long.
It's 200 pages long.
And it puts Lemon in an entirely different light as an infiltrator, an instigator, an informant, a criminal operative, a political agitator, pretending and disguised as a journalist.
Robert, this question was off topic, but what's going to be the segue into the next one?
Cause I have no idea what the hell it means.
Before you get too deep in the woods, Robert needs to answer this most important question.
Where are you at in Stargate SG1?
Up to the last season.
So up to, that was a great recommendation by the board.
That Firefly, another great recommendation for the board.
If you like sci-fi shows, Babylon 5, another great recommendation by the board.
So I haven't finished.
I finished Firefly, but I haven't finished Babylon 5 last season yet left and the last season left as well for Stargate SG1.
You say, Robert, you can be corrupt and you can be stupid, but not both.
Throw into that the Holy Trinity stubborn.
Like, okay, if you're stupid and corrupt, but you listen to those who are trying to offer, a Canadian podcaster, we have one of the, I say, the best law-themed Sunday evening shows on the internet.
Well, it's the most popular one by a long mile, and it's the one that has the most informed followers.
For example, when I was in court this week, one of the Orange County prosecutors recognized me.
It's like, hold on a second, are you the Barnes of Even Barnes?
Because he listened to us on Monday, and I was like, Yes.
So, I mean, we have influence all over the place.
So, you know, if they would just listen to good advice and good productive feedback, they would be in a much better position to achieve what they want to achieve.
We're write about the Epstein files, write about how to bring about the Comey case, right now about how to bring about the Lemon case.
Now, and write about the risks of the statute of limitations at large, despite but Robert.
Here's one thing: we have a beautiful above-average board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
I'm going to refresh this.
I've asked the question on Twitter.
It was 95.8% believed Ilhan Omar's attack was staged.
I say our community is a little bit more divided, not by much.
And I'm going with the minority here, people.
I am saying that it was not staged.
Not that it's impossible that it was.
I could build one hell of a strong argument for that it was staged because they're all reasonable arguments.
For those who don't know, you've been living in a hole.
Ilhan Omar is giving a town hall, talking about all the crisis in Minnesota.
This is the day after or two, the alleged potential fraud of her husband's winery, which hasn't sold a bottle, as far as anybody knows, and is now worth millions of dollars.
That's come to the light again because some of us were covering it.
There was a journalist who broke the story last year.
I remember covering it at the time.
At the same time, she's giving a town hall, and a big, seemingly drunk, burly individual who looks like he's out of his gourd sprays her with a yellow fluid.
Now, at the time, they said it was a foul-smelling yellow fluid, and we saw it in the syringe.
I thought it was extremely old urine, and I thought that was really disgusting.
It turns out it was actually just apple cider.
People were complaining about Ilhan Omar's reaction, saying it's totally staged and fake.
She goes to charge him like a tough girl, and you know, it's totally unrealistic.
And I'm like, look, it's called fight or flight, not just flight.
And even still, you did see her flinch before then.
She decides that he's not carrying a gun, not carrying a knife.
And so she's going to charge him.
That's, I don't judge people on the reactions.
Remember what her father was.
You know, he was a death squad guy in Somalia.
So she might have had some training from birth.
Well, that's one element of it.
But I also, it's not that her reaction that's the most, I can appreciate people say they don't know what the liquid was.
It could be acid, which is, you know, a common type of honor punishment in certain cultures.
It could have been, I don't know, something of a neurological agent that could have poisoned everyone in the room.
She doesn't take off her shirt.
She doesn't, she doesn't get changed.
They don't clear the room out.
She says her fight, fight, fight, and then finishes her search.
She's not going to let these assholes win.
I still don't think it was fake.
I think people are just bottom line idiots and we're seeing incompetence in real time, like we saw in Butler.
Although I think there was a little facilitation there, you're dealing with With security, that is illusory.
They're idiots.
They're stupid, stubborn.
She probably wanted her moment.
They probably realized it wasn't anything serious any more than when Tom Cruise got sprayed in the face by that prankster when he was giving an interview.
Do you think it was staged?
I'm assuming for now, no, because federal charges were then brought.
Now, I was interested.
He was charged with assaulting.
And technically, it is an assault.
It's kind of, you know, those kind of substances when they're, you know, it's like, okay, but it's interesting to me that the local Minnesota prosecute federal prosecutor, I think they have issues in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office because the case against Lemon that was ultimately brought, I don't think a single local Minnesota, other than the U.S. attorney, the political appointee, I don't think anybody else signed on to that.
And they rushed to bring this case in.
And it's like, this is an assault on a federal officer while engaged in their official duties.
But how many cases have they brought against the protesters for assaulting ICE officers?
So, you know, that was one of the things that struck me.
I was like, it felt a little political because this felt like a state case otherwise.
And then the second question I had was, was she engaged in her official duties?
I mean, I get it that they keep expanding this so that almost anything a politician does as part of their official duties.
I'm not so sure this was necessarily in that capacity.
I guess it most likely is, but it wasn't obvious that that's what this was about.
So, but otherwise, I'm assuming it's on the up and up.
Otherwise, the charges wouldn't be brought.
And I'll say, look, I think they needed to bring these charges, assuming it's not staged.
I think the fact that they brought them is evidence that it is not.
If it's staged, the U.S. Attorney's Office is in on it.
Well, that was the other.
Well, they would have been even more in on it had they not brought charges against them.
Like, if they didn't bring charges, then I would say that now it's looking, if they didn't bring charges.
They didn't bring charges.
They wouldn't have been in on it, but Elon was.
The fact they did bring charges means either it's legit or the U.S. local U.S. attorneys are in on it.
No, no, my rationale for saying if they did not bring the charges, that would be indication it was fake because they don't want to bring charges knowing that it was fake, but that would operate that they knew it was fake.
Set all that aside.
Bottom line, they brought federal charges.
This guy's looking at lots of years in jail.
If it was a staged operation, he will sing faster than the Osundairo brothers.
I just think, I don't think it was.
Now, some people are going to say it wasn't fake.
They knew the guy was in there and they let him do it.
Okay, then we're talking about a different type of setup here.
I had a rice and bananas on her.
Then it would have made a little more sense.
But you see that the rice and bananas chick got arrested for assault.
That's another one I called it when I was going on.
I said, nothing about this story makes any sense.
By the way, the way you said it, it sounds like rice and bananas.
That's that would be a, I think it is.
Isn't that what she said?
She said, you know, no, she said rice and bananas.
I thought it was.
I thought it would be rice and bananas.
I was like, what?
It's it's it's insanity.
No, but the um Ilhan Omer, hold on.
It was one last thing about it.
I forget what it was now, doesn't it?
Not somebody points out they like their bananas and rice in apple ciders vinegar, which is really good for you, by the way, out of cider vinegar.
No, maybe that'll be his defense.
He was trying to help her.
He was trying to help her helping products.
This is what I was going to say.
They needed to bring federal charges against this guy because they cannot be seen as a political party now that is green lighting acts of it could have been if it was acid, it would have been an act of terrorism against a sitting member of government.
So they had to.
I don't think it's fake.
I think I'll be vindicated despite it being 95 to 5 and 92 to 7 in our own community.
It's rice and bananas.
My joke is Ricin, the poet.
Oh, right.
So this woman, I forget her name now.
She came out with that viral video.
And, you know, Lauren Chen put out a tweet and said, I kind of understand what she's saying.
And I kind of understand it too.
Like, I made a joke to my dad before we had our Zoom call.
And I was like, yeah, rice and bananas.
It would be like a rabbi coming out and saying, being Jewish in America is like pork.
It's like bacon and matzo ball soup.
It's like that sounds crazy to anybody else, but okay, bottom line.
Yeah, it's a cultural fusion being Somali in America.
And some say you're either American or you're not.
And you can be a naturalized American who says, yes, I am American in spirit, despite having been born elsewhere.
She came out and said, she was a poster child, again, for like two days, detained for two days by ICE operations.
They called her the N-word.
As if I believed for a bloody second that ICE agents or the CBP would call anyone the N-word.
I don't believe it.
But it sounded to me like she might have done something stupid, tried to be a hero, try to defend two guys.
And by all accounts, I think she got charged with assaults.
And I think it was for spitting on ICE agents.
I'm not sure if it was spitting or kicking.
It was something.
Yeah, I thought it was worse than that.
It was something more severe, I thought.
But I just had a, I was like, by the way, a lot of Somalis are very racist themselves.
They consider themselves superior to other Africans and they don't like being called out.
Not all, clearly, but it's a disparate tendency within the Somali community.
Okay, so it was more than spit.
And her name was Nasra.
I asked Groc this time, what was the bananas and rice woman charged with?
Nasra Ahmed, the charge against her and the group assaulting, resisting, impeding federal.
That's why I said it sounded like, oh, they started following two guys and they opened the door for me and then they called me the N-word and arrested me.
Bullshit.
Like you have to think we're, you have to think we're as stupid as you to believe something that stupid.
So good on her.
She caught her charges.
No longer a hero.
They're not parading her around quite as vigorously as they were last week.
What do we move on to, Robert?
The top topic, although there was no favorites, was the number one candidate, but very close number two was we're finally seeing productive action in the election arena.
Though I wouldn't credit the Justice Department, I would credit the person who was on site making sure it actually got done correctly.
Signature Verification Controversy 00:15:22
And that's the one and only Tulsi Gabbard, as a search warrant was executed in Fulton County, Georgia for the election records concerning the 2020 election.
I don't want to get ahead of ourselves.
I had to edit my tweet and say that we might likely again be vindicated when we took, not took flak, but at the time, people were telling us, no, Viva, you dummy Canadian.
You don't understand American law.
They did a signature verification.
They recounted the ballots.
And I was like, recounting the same signatures is not the audit that Rat Faceburger.
Was it Rat Faceburger or Ken?
Yeah, Rat Burger.
Rat Burger.
Kim Kemp was the governor.
Rat Burger was in charge of the election.
Yeah.
So I said, that wasn't the signature match that we were clamoring for at the time.
They never did a signature match back in the day, and presumably because they knew the signatures would not match.
Then there was all sorts of litigation.
Everyone ran with their talking points.
All of the 60 pieces of lawsuits were all dismissed.
They all got to the marathon.
That's how bad they seized.
Oh, gosh, I got to pull up the video of the woman having an absolute meltdown.
The FBI went in and seized a lot of 2020 Georgia election documentation.
Tulsi Gabbard was spotted on the scene.
People were saying this is a coup.
I'll pull up the video in a second, Robert.
We might very well finally get that signature verification That Ratberger failed to provide, and it might show exactly what we thought it would have showed from day one.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping.
So, my understanding is they seized ballots, voting rolls, election records, physical ballots, digital ballots, tabulator tapes.
I'm assuming and hoping part of that was the various signatures on file as part of those election records.
Because that I think would be the most productive.
It's productive to be able to see the digital ballots.
It's productive to see the physical ballots.
It's productive to see whether who signed what.
We know that over 300,000 ballots were counted without the appropriate chain of custody certification by the local official, which was required by state law before they could certify that election to the governor, before the governor could, in turn, certify that to the president of the United States.
For those that may not recollect or remember, the three major constitutional questions about the 2020 presidential election were: did only constitutionally qualified people cast ballots?
Was the method by which they cast those ballots a constitutionally qualified method?
And did the election officials canvass and count the ballots in a constitutionally qualified manner?
For a presidential election, the Constitution assigns the determination of qualifications to the legislative branch of the state.
The executive branch has no power under the Constitution in that capacity, nor does the judicial branch.
And so the question was: did people that cast ballots like I saw all this nonsense about over 60 cases were brought and were dismissed that President Trump brought?
No, there was only one election contest brought by President Trump in 2020.
It was in Georgia.
And they never conducted any hearing on it.
They never made any adjudication on it.
Illegally and in violation of Georgia law, they never conducted a hearing until January 6th had come and gone.
And by that point, the presidential ballots had already been certified by Congress mooting the election contest.
So there was nothing to do and nothing to go forward.
A bunch of good, conscientious people have continued to use the Open Records Act under Georgia Sunshine laws to try to get the records that the election official, including Ratberger, promised to publicly provide, which was a digital copy of all the ballots that were produced and a meaningful signature match check.
They did a select audit by select government officials of a select subset of signatures.
Nothing that could qualify to meet the evidentiary standards, like they did in Arizona, where the Democrats' own expert said more signatures didn't match than there were votes in controversy in the state when you project it out given the sample size that he looked at.
And so here in Georgia, the election contest brought by President Trump.
You know, I was part of that process initially.
Then Cleta Mitchell and others did really good work.
Several people, by the way, I won't get into certain details, but the reason why I know the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, understands as well, is one of the key people in her employ was with me on the ground in Georgia going through the entire thing.
So he knows the entire backstory.
He knows all the details.
So what we were able to detail was that there were constitutionally unqualified voters.
Who are the people that didn't reach the age of 18 at the time of the presidential election?
These were felons who had not had their rights restored.
This is people who voted in other states or were not domiciled in the state of Georgia.
These were people who were supposedly living in a post office box or in a parking lot, which did not qualify constitutionally under the state's rules for who could vote.
In addition, the method by which they voted was mass mail-in balloting, which were often picked up by people.
This was detailed in 2000 Mules by Dinesh D'Souza, who were not qualified to deliver those ballots to the election location.
Why does that matter?
Because you don't know whether the person actually voted or not.
If you don't have a clean chain of custody, you don't know whether the person dropping off the ballot is the one who helped fill out that ballot or not.
In addition, the signatures didn't match.
That was the only way to check the authenticity and certification of the accuracy of the ballot.
Did that person, that vote, was that cast by that person?
And the only way you can know is the signature on the envelope outside of the ballot.
Does it match the signature on the voter file?
They never did a meaningful signature match check.
And in violation of the constitutional qualifications for such a ballot being counted, they failed to do a signature match check entirely and excluded independent observers from looking at it at the time they processed the ballots.
That was how there were constitutionally unqualified ballots.
So you had constitutionally unqualified voters, constitutionally unqualified ballots, and then you had constitutionally unqualified canvassing and counting of those ballots, including the picking up stuff late at night, you know, from underneath the table when election observers had gone home to run them through the machine.
So at the end not doing the signature match check and then not checking to make sure the person was actually a legal resident of age, not a felon with unrestored rights voting.
So the canvassing and counting of the ballots were in violation of Georgia state rules, which in turn made them a violation of the United States Constitution, which means the ballots couldn't count.
There were 40 times more ballots that didn't count than there was the margin of victory, which required a recall, a revote in the presidential election in Georgia.
The people in Tulsi Gabbard's office understand all of this because they were working with me on the ground in 2020.
And so that's why I believe Tulsi, recognizing that pay-for-play Pam doesn't like to do anything that doesn't line her lobbyist pals' pockets, like the Mike Davis's MAGA grifters of the world, realized she needed to make sure this got done directly and helped make sure it get done because the job of the director of national intelligence is to secure America's elections from possible illicit interference foreign and otherwise.
And so contrary to Senator Warner's complaints, Tulsi Gabbard is doing her job.
So let's hope it leads to protective action in the future.
People are like, well, what can be done now?
One, you could bring criminal charges in many instances.
You can bring other civil rights claims.
But more importantly, you know where the fraud took place.
Once you detail it and document it, you can prevent it from happening again.
And that's what Tulsi Gabbard is doing is her charge or her duty is to help secure America's elections from illicit interference.
And she's doing her job by making sure the Justice Department does its job.
Let me bring up the video of what's the woman who she was the commissioner dressed like a commie when she was complaining about the raid.
I just had it in the backdrop.
It's right over here.
Come on, where is it?
Oh, yeah, here we go.
This is, I'm not reading into it.
I'm a pretty decent body language reader, not an expert, and a pretty decent judge of character.
This is a woman pulling out the Gavin Newsome ninja hands, which is always a sign of deceit.
Except when I do it, then it's a quirky habit.
Listen to this.
We're at the elections hub right here off Fairman Road, and they did correct the warrant, and they are now in there getting the documents.
700 boxes of 2020 ballots and accompanying things that go with it, you know, absentee ballots, all the things, right?
Good.
Accompanying things is signature matches, by the way.
Alexandra is in.
Like, when she says this, I thought she was happy about it.
Like, who would have a problem investigating elections?
Audit every single election.
And they're making a log of everything that they're taking, but this is like all wrong.
So, we're trying to figure out a legal plan, and we should have one, whether that's an injunction, whether a motion to quash.
I mean, whatever it is, we're trying to figure it out right now because this is an injunction.
An injunction on a search warrant to keep you from trying to go to the polls in November, being too afraid to change what's going on in our nation.
So, instead of worrying about people dying in Minnesota, here we are at the Fulton County election.
I love it.
It's a rubber shit.
It's trying to imitate a black preacher, but doesn't have the skills to do so.
She's trying to be a pretend election official, knowledgeable law.
Newsflash, there is no injunction for search warrants.
It's all wrong.
And now we're trying to find the legal theory to defend my premise.
That is what you call arguing from it.
Why is it all wrong, man?
Because there's no reason why they should be analyzing and auditing the election results because we said no.
We did it already and we've investigated ourselves.
Nothing to see here.
Speaking of nothing to see here, we've had a major suit brought in Missouri challenging all of these illegals being included in apportionment that is inflating the electoral votes and members of Congress for the Democratic Party that also proffers great promise.
We've been talking about this for a while as well in terms of everyone says, well, illegal immigrants don't vote, so there's no impact on federal elections.
And then again, I feel like I must have misunderstood something about American law.
I'm like, are they not tallied in the census to determine congressional seats and therefore they have a direct impact on American politics?
And the answer is yes.
They are, because it hasn't been adjudicated unlawful or illegal.
You gotta take a look at the meme in the chat.
I'm just holding.
I'm gonna bring.
Well, Russell.
Well, she does look like one of those people that works at like a high-end hotel or something.
I said she looks like a communist.
Someone said it's a Navy jacket.
Here we go.
How did you do this so fast?
That must have been old.
So they count illegals in the census for the purposes of determining congressional seats, the number of seats.
And electoral votes for the presidency of the United States.
It is a lie for anybody to say that illegal immigrants in America do not does not have an impact on federal elections.
A lie.
You're stupid or dishonest or both and stubborn.
Now, how has it not been definitively adjudicated by the Supreme Court yet?
Because the scale at which it's occurring has rarely happened in American history.
So here's the apportionment clause.
One of the things we reviewed as part of the ongoing Constitution masterclasses over at viva barneslaw.locals.com, part of the weekly Barnes brief, breaking down different segments and subsections of the Constitution.
And as part of Article 1, determines, and then the 14th Amendment modified it solely for the purposes of the three-fifths clause being removed.
The 14th Amendment being a Civil War amendment after the Civil War was over to restore rights to all freedmen, but also they should be counted as whole people, not three-fifths of a person, like they were under the Constitution originally.
So the clause is that representatives, this is of the House of Representatives, and remember the number of House of Representatives impacts the number of electoral votes a state has for the presidential election.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.
And that last provision is a cue and a clue that it's only looking at people that are domiciled within the state for purposes of the protection.
It kind of has a corollary to the citizenship clause, citizenship issue that's before the Supreme Court currently.
Because the point is, because it's the same 14th Amendment, is where they have determined a claim of birthright citizenship.
But the idea is if you are subject to the jurisdiction, to the allegiance and protection of the state, allegiance to the state and protection of the state, that's the purpose of this citizenship provision of enumeration.
And consequently, it should not include anybody that's here temporarily, just like it excludes, and it's not taxed.
Why?
They're not subject to allegiance to the U.S. government.
They're not subject to the protection of the U.S. government.
Well, anybody that's like that should also be excluded, like people who are just there temporarily, people who are vacationing there, people who are visiting from a foreign location, people that are there on student visas.
In other contexts, the Supreme Court has agreed with all of that.
So the question is, why should trespassers, invaders be included when visitors are not?
The point is you have to have a legal obligation of allegiance and protection, which illegals do not have.
And consequently, the Missouri Attorney General is like, we're getting screwed.
We're losing representation in the House.
We're losing numbers of the Electoral College.
Our state, well, you would also lose funds because there's a lot of funds that are dictated by a portion of the population.
And so consequently, this is unconstitutional, this apportionment of the census that includes those who are not actually there legally with a domicile in the state with a purpose of citizenship being present affiliated with it.
So it can include non-citizens.
It can include the vivas of the world.
It can't include the people who didn't come here legally.
It can't include the student visas.
It would include vacationers.
Would it include a legal resident on a vacation?
It would be potentially, but only if you're considered domiciled in the state of Florida.
So in all likelihood, you would be included for enumeration purposes.
And I would steel man the argument.
People are going to say, well, if they pay taxes, even if they're illegal, they should be counted.
But the retort to that is tourists also pay taxes, just not on income.
And an illegal, in theory, is not legally allowed to work in the country anyhow.
So you can't legally pay taxes on a job that you have unlawfully because you're an illegal alien working illegally in the country.
This would solve a whole bunch of problems.
It would also remove a big incentive because a lot of people still don't understand.
Why Send Them to Jail? 00:15:27
They're like, how is it Republicans or I hear this from people more on the left or just apolitical?
Why do conservatives feel that illegals impact elections when illegals can't legally vote and that there's limited evidence on the amount of illegals voting?
Here's how.
They're included in apportionment.
They're included in representation.
They're included in electoral college representation.
It inflates the number of representatives, Democrats, and Democrats disproportionately benefit from this.
Representatives and electoral votes, they get from states like Illinois, states like California, states like New York.
And that's why it matters.
And so winning on this would be huge because it would remove one of the primary incentives Democrats have to pack states with illegals.
Let me read a bunch of the tip questions over on vivabarnslaw.locals.com so I don't fall too far behind.
Here's our time.
Okay, I got that one.
R.S. Click says, that's crazy about the drug deal, the drug corridor.
I'm from Oklahoma and went to Ohio a few years ago on vacation.
I changed lanes in Ohio because of construction work, got pulled over and detained because of the drug corridor thing.
Luckily, they released me pretty quickly.
Poshin27 says, been watching those car vlogs after six years watching you both.
I have finally announced my run for Minnesota governor as a as them?
As a Democrat.
As a Democrat.
Oh, I got to say, hope to you both.
Hope to you can both help my run.
Let me screenshot this and open that up.
I'd love to talk to you about it.
And I'm going to open up that tweet so I'll have that in the backdrop.
Another Barnesy was right.
Tip says, Susie C. Gray 101 says, does the Juice, does the Justice Department under Trump still prosecute the arms?
I think I got that one.
I thought that was like you're doing a great 101 version.
Does the Jews depart?
No, no, I thought I thought it was the juice, the juicy department.
I was thinking juice, not Jews, Robert.
And now I'm canceled.
What could the DOJ do about the celebrities and leftist influences like Kathy Griffin encouraging their fans to put their MAGA neighbors on enemies list?
Fuck them, let them do it.
They're such a bunch of stupid, feckless idiots.
They'll do it.
They'll put us on.
Nobody wants to be friends with them anyhow.
I don't think it's a call to violence.
It's just like children being children as adults.
Thankfully, President Trump will never apologize to Marjorie Trader Greene.
These Epstein files are damaging successful people's reputations.
How the hell did Le Wambanaus lose in Texas 9?
I don't know who that is.
J.R. What happened is a Texas Senate district swung by about 30 points from the Republicans to a Democrat because a lot of voters are very unhappy with where Trump has been the last six months and the Republican Party writ large.
So hopefully Trump can use the opportunity of the clarity of the Epstein files to redirect his path politically.
The fact that we may be de-escalating on Iran is very promising in that respect.
See my other post: Tom Fitton is not a lawyer, though.
He said that himself.
Says, Tina Gwen, Tina Gwen, Tin WJ, do Signalgate.
Do we people vote, get a shadow government via street thuggery?
Oh, well, no, not enough is known in terms of definitively who was on those signal chats and whether you know what they're whether or not they're participating in domestic terrorism or illegal activities or just protected speech.
I didn't realize Tom Fitton was not licensed to practice law.
So he brings these cases for judicial watch, but I didn't realize he's not a lawyer.
But he degraded the FOIA department.
You don't got to be a lawyer to run the FOIA department.
Read the pretty shooting.
Here's payment for the Bill Barnes 2 and Chris Kraft 2 were right, Jar again.
A few questions.
Okay, so I'm going to, I think we've caught up on this.
Let's do another one.
Speaking of Viva and Barnes were right again, I'll introduce this next clip with a video, and it's going to be a flashback.
How many years ago?
I think this was six years ago.
No, four years ago.
You look the same, Robert.
You look a little, you look about the same.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, that's funny.
Your hair did look a little different.
Little Bob Dylany and the beard was dark.
Listen to this.
Forced name chains asked it.
I mean, it's right on right at the point.
But do you think a child who has transitioned young would succeed in a lawsuit later in life against their parents?
I'm going to go and say yes against their parents and against the doctors.
And setting aside legislative immunity, that might be the next step.
We're going to immunize parents and doctors who do this.
I say yes.
And obviously so.
And I say that's going to have to happen before it sensitizes parents to caving to the whims.
I'm not saying children in a demeaning sense.
I'm just saying children are idiots.
Children are idiots by and large.
Like all decisions aside, children are idiots.
They don't know what they're doing.
We got enough of the gist here, Robert.
It's look, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and I don't want to make more of this case until we hear the details because the entire case is under seal.
The journalist who's covering it blocked me after, and I remembered why.
And I was like, I wanted to go retweet and say, hey, man, you want to come on the channel?
And I couldn't retweet.
I was like, oh, what did I do to this guy?
This was the journalist who published that clip of not Joe Rogan, Ronald Reagan, talking about tariffs, and then clipped the part at the end where it became clear that he was arguing for the power to tariff and not against it.
And I was like, and I tweet, I was like, why did you not edit that part in or edit it out?
Did you do it on purpose?
And did you like, are you not ashamed of yourself?
It picked up some traction and then I got blocked.
But there's a journalist, I forget his name.
I'll pull it up when you're talking who covered the trial.
It's all been under sealed, but what we know from it now, and it might be a unique two-circumstance case and not a broad brushstroke condemning all of this, what I believe is nothing short of child genital mutilation because it is.
A doctor has now been ordered to pay $2 million to a, it's a trap, it's a, I'm not even using the word.
It's a girl who was mutilated, cut her breaths off.
I think she was 16 at the time.
And ordered to pay $2 million.
I think it's under medical malpractice.
And the question is going to be: is there something uniquely like this girl was, I don't know, autistic, didn't give proper consent, which I think they never give because a child can't give consent to that.
But we don't know if this is going to be like distinct, case-specific, and not broader application, or it will be.
And it's the beginning of what we called four years ago.
Talk us through it, and I'll pull up the tweet from that journalist who blocked me.
Yeah, we don't know much details other than the headline because the case was uniquely and unusually sealed in the way it was done.
I mean, granted, the issues that originally arose arose while she was a minor, but you don't often see that.
But it's a wave of cases.
There's several dozen of these cases pending against a range of medical facilities across the country.
Robert Kennedy continues to do very good work stopping all of this, stopping refetter reimbursement for this stuff.
For those that don't know, basically it was putting people on dangerous drugs and providing invasive surgeries that was permanently changing.
It was mutilation.
It was mass mutilation by the medical professional industry.
And the only thing I would highlight for conservatives out there is: do you really want these med mal caps to stay in place?
Because these med mal caps are protecting people who did things illicit under COVID, did things illicit in the vaccine context, and then did it illicit in this context.
Maybe we should reconsider some of those med mal limits that you thought was being brought to protect doctors from frivolous suits.
No, it wasn't.
Being brought so the medical professional industry knows that they have limits on any economic suffering they can take for this self-enrichment.
And by the way, they made tons of money on this and they were encouraging it.
They were lying to kids.
They were misleading kids, lying to parents, misleading parents, and did severe damage.
Most of the science, as Robert Kennedy is detailing, never supported this if you looked at it.
You know, just like the vaccine context, when you dug into the details, it was not vetted like they said it was.
It was not verified or validated like they said it was.
Kind of like the ADHD drugs they gave to little kids that ended up leading to be a precursor to drug addiction down the road.
So hopefully we'll see more of these cases as we progress and proceed.
But in order for there to be meaningful remedy, we need to look at revisions of the medical malpractice caps and give back to jurors the power to make the ultimate decision when these people do these horrific things.
Do we really look that much older, Robert?
I feel like we, I don't feel like I look pretty much the same.
I think you look the same.
I looked 50 when I was 20.
So, you know, I think other than my hair color, I like to think every, but this is what happens.
Like it happens very slowly.
Then all at once.
Robert, here's the tweet from the guy, Benjamin Ryan.
And now the problem is, because of my prior run-in with Benjamin, I'm now going to question the unbiased nature of the reporting.
But this is, he attended the trial.
So I would be very curious to know what he says.
Fox variants sued her Westchester, New York area psychologist, plastic surgeon, for gender transition mastectomy at the age of 16.
I was the only reporter to attend it.
Go to his substack.
I don't even care.
Ben Ryan.substack.com.
He says he was one of two journalists that was there for the entire three-week trial.
And I would be curious to know what happened behind the scenes.
And if I was a little too harsh on him, maybe I have to reflect because this was my tweet to him when he cut out that section.
I said, it actually takes gall to be so dishonest.
Here's the full video.
Here's the full video.
Wow.
You literally cut out the last 55 seconds, which was the most important part in which Reagan speaks of the need for the president to have the power to impose tariffs.
I show exactly where you cut your video, and I added the last 55 seconds that you cut from your quote full video.
How are you not ashamed of yourself?
All right, maybe that was a little harsh.
Maybe he also got embarrassed for either being, you know, not doing his due diligence or trying to pull the wool over people's eyes for political bias reasons.
What do we go on to now, Robert?
Speaking of all kinds of election shenanigans, the Virginia redistricting effort hit a big snag as a Virginia court determined that the way in which they went about amending the Constitution to stack representation with Democrats, the Utah Supreme Court, by the way, is stacking the Supreme Court, but in a conservative direction.
We'll see how all that turns out.
But Virginia court determined they didn't follow their own rules and procedures.
So consequently, they may not be able to stack and pack Virginia's congressional delegation as originally intended.
So we'll see how that unfolds as we wait for the big, big redistricting Voting Rights Act case by the U.S. Supreme Court, which I predict will come down in February.
And I'll tell you, wait, February, which would give it enough time to be implemented for 2026.
Yeah, we got 28 days, which unfortunately for Judge Beery down in San Antonio, Texas, who wrote this very rhetorically inflamed critique of ICE and letting some people go.
He dated his order February 31st, 2026.
Judge Beery apparently doesn't know there aren't 31 days in the month of February in any year.
He must have been relying on AI for that.
Robert, let me pull up a few here on Rumble.
If you have the financial means, send out some beautiful financial love to Robert Gouvea on the announcement that his wife is expecting.
Very nice.
That's fantastic.
There are certain people who need to procreate.
Shouts to him on the wife, too, to be honest with you.
He did well.
As we say, the non-perverted way, Robert, is they're going to have good-looking children.
Maybe that's even more perverted.
I don't know.
Crash Bandit says, I love Viva Barnes and Gouveia, but man, I hate attorneys.
Two things can be true at the same time.
I hate attorneys.
Robert hates attorneys.
Yeah, exactly.
Super Buff Shaft says, this is why you guys need Jovan Pulitzer.
I know you've been asking for a long time, Super Buff Shaft.
Let me see here.
As he was on the ground, Mark Meadows helping burning up ballots that they got from the shredding truck.
Mr. Barnes, Shake67, says, Can the ambulance chasers representing that Somali girl with the fake injury be disbarred?
Notice the bandaid is gone.
No injury.
Look, it might have healed.
Sparky63 says, David, does it matter if the ICE agents who shot the nurse had no idea about the nurse's prior behavior against ICE?
I think it's mostly going to come down to what they thought and saw at the time, and the body cameras will probably be most helpful for that from an evidentiary perspective.
I think the hurdle they face is he appeared to have been unarmed at the time, wasn't pointing a gun at them at the time, and he was shot in the back.
Those are probably the three most problematic facts.
If I was the defense attorney in the case, and then the real big problem is they got him in his Minneapolis jury pool.
That's the biggest problem.
What do we remember?
For those people who don't remember, they convicted everybody else in the Chauvin case.
They were tried separately.
Those guys that never did anything to Floyd were all convicted.
Yep.
So, I mean, that is not a friendly jury pool to be in.
Let me see here.
We got this.
Alien baby shoot.
I'm not reading that one again.
Awful but lawful.
Okay, good.
There are a lot of Irish.
There are a lot of Irish politicians involved.
Very funny how all records on the flight logs of Jeffrey's flight to Ireland have been deleted.
Thus explains why Bill and Hillary bought a big house in Waxford.
Unfortunately, the corrupt politicians in Ireland are all silent.
Piscadlo says, Barnes, one question, Viva, breathe.
Epstein files were partially redacted and awful.
Confirmed what I already knew didn't implicate Trump.
Will Trump learn a thing?
I'm sick of worm-tongue, Swampy Susie.
Pay for play.
Blanche Dubois using the scary Epstein files when Trump was not implicated to do Iran strikes.
They might have been doing it to protect Lutnik just by ricochet.
I think it was a broad, just the timing is too coincidental.
I think it was a deep state op and it was a very successful one.
And I think the reason why Pay for Play Pam did it was she would leave the deep state alone.
The deep state would provide her cover.
And in return, she would get to use the Justice Department as a cash register for her lobbyist pals like Mike Davis.
Sassy Massey, MTG, can take a bow for pushing the boulder up the hill and getting this W for the American people.
People can also send apologies to Barnes and Trump.
Owes Sassy Massey a big thank you for clearing of the air.
What have you, worthless reps, done as you wanted Sassy Massey out and now MTG is persona non grata?
Yeah, you're not wrong, Pascadlo.
Don Lemon in the car on the way to the protest says, I don't think we can go ahead.
I don't think we can go inside, right?
No, no, no.
We can stand outside.
Then he went inside.
Stingray says, I don't think Harmeed and others are that sloppy.
I think they don't want to send these people to jail.
In the end, the majority will blame either the judge or the jury for the loss.
Hopefully, Barnes, you're going to watch Stargate.
That's from Pasha Moyer.
Yes.
We've got some memes.
Okay, I'm going to start skipping some of these over here.
Mr. Mike says, Glad you made it home safely, Veeves.
The Trumps, see, the Trumps knew about Jean-Luc Brunel, Maxwell, Jeffrey, from the time Ivana began entering Ivanka into pageants.
Ivanka followed her mother's footsteps into the New York City fashion scene.
Both Ivana and Ivanka knew about Jean-Luc Julaine.
It's almost impossible the Trumps did not, since the most of everyone in New York City fashion scene knew about it since the 80s.
Therefore, the Donald knew about the Jeffrey Edstein for years.
Well, yeah, and he has said in various respects he knew aspects of what was going on.
That's why he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago.
Yeah.
I mean, that's what I mean.
It depends on the extent to which you're talking.
It was not common knowledge until, you know, Trump's.
Certain aspects.
That's true.
Yeah.
I mean, that he was a partier and all the rest.
But Trump kept hinting at his issues.
Apps Designed to Target Children 00:06:05
Yeah.
It wasn't like he was back.
And Trump, what the all the critics of Trump are forgetting.
When I was on the Durand, a bunch of the commenters just went nuts about, oh, you're crazy, Barnes, for not, for not, for thinking Trump's not implicated.
Trump was the one to introduce the Epstein files into the political arena in 2016.
He was the one to talk about Epstein's connections to British royalty.
How do you explain that if you think Trump is negatively implicated in the files don't show him beyond the fake allegations that took place from 2016 to 2020?
They're obviously fake.
You've got a lot of that loony stuff thrown in.
Ignore that stuff.
Look at Epstein's own emails, communications, and that tells you what really was taking place.
Let me see here.
What do we do?
We got some big Fourth Amendment cases.
We got some people that were arrested for protesting on the right in Portland and had part of their case reinstated.
We got Luigi dodging the death penalty.
We got Trump suing the Infernal Revenue Service.
We got a couple of immigration cases and library censorship and social media addiction.
Let's do a few more here.
Then we'll take the party over to VivaBarn's Law.locals.com.
Social media addiction.
And I say this now, you know, got two daughters.
And the thing is, I can't be a hypocrite.
You know, I have the phone in my hand all day long.
And if I'm not leading by example, then it's, you know, I'm setting a bad example.
I like to justify it.
It's all work.
There's no doubt it's compounding or creating an obsessive-compulsive disorder, short attention span, addictiveness, for lack of any other word.
They knew about it.
I think we all know that this will go down as what the tobacco industry knew about tobacco.
And they're going to seemingly, the trial started.
Did it start last week or does it start this week?
This week.
It's against, who do I want to say here?
Facebook?
Instagram?
As to whether or not they knowingly.
Neta, Google, and TikTok all three.
As to whether or not they knowingly and deliberately designed an app to be as addictive as humanly possible, despite knowing of the harms that it was caused by they would addict kids.
Yep.
And the specific demographic of minors, children.
And, you know, people are going to say it's all on the parents.
And to some extent, you're right.
But the trial starts.
They're going to trial.
So it's going to be a hearing on the merits.
We're going to know what they knew.
They're going to have experts testifying on both sides.
Zuckerberg apparently is going to testify.
Who was the former CEO of Facebook that himself acknowledged all of this?
The Indian guy.
And he said, I don't even let my kids use.
Oh, yeah, one of the early investors.
Yes, I knew you're talking about it.
I'm going to pull that video up in a second.
Robert, what's your take on it?
I mean, it'll be a while until the trial goes through, until we get a hearing, but we're going to find out the dirty secrets of what they obviously not only knew, but designed it to be.
Yeah, documentaries like The Creepy Thin Line and some others that are out there about basically they designed these apps, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, the, you know, all of them, Meta, Google, and ByteDance, knew that what they were doing was to target children, number one.
Number two, to target children to make them addicted to it.
And in making them addicted, to increase the probability, they knew it would increase the probability of psychological harm.
But they believed this mechanism of psychological harm would enrich them.
And so they did it anyway.
They're worse than drug dealers, that it led to anywhere from a three to six-fold increase in young girls that grew up on social media committing acts of self-mutilation, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and anxiety, depression, all the things that go with addiction.
That's some of the worst attributes of addiction in terms of not having productive family lives, not delaying development of families, delaying a wide range of psychological and emotional skill sets and capabilities to be functional contributing individuals.
It was a mass experiment, Mangala style, on the American children, and it was done by big tech.
And they had dodged responsibility and accountability before under the guise that this was a Section 230 issue.
Finally, a court recognized how you design your app has nothing to do with the content on that app.
You were designing an app knowing it was intended to addict, knowing it was intended to harm, including sexual grooming of children, including helping pederasts and pedophiles.
I got a potential case that I'm working on.
Part of this restitution case that I'm working on involves a major inventor who invented a way to protect your children from predators and for you to be able to monitor your children's activity and people trying to target your children.
The big companies, Facebook and Apple, infringed on his patent so they could steal the value of it in terms of being able to target children while removing its protective benefit purpose.
And so that parents couldn't look at it so that pederasts and pedophiles could get access to children and they could groom children.
That's part of this, that they knew they were grooming them for sexualization purposes from a young age in order because it made them more money.
It got them longer eyeballs, eyeballs on their apps for longer periods of time, more eyeballs in longer periods of time.
They knew what they were doing was manipulating these young minds at an age from 8 to 14 principally that caused massive social harm.
And finally, they recognized that's not a Section 230 issue.
That's not about you being held liable for the content that happens to be published on your platform.
That's about how you design the platform.
And so this is a big, big case that might unravel big tech forever if it goes forward and has the kind of damages that could be ascribed to it.
And at a minimum, start to put in protective precautionary mechanisms that can preclude this kind of harm from going forward in the future.
Manipulating Young Minds 00:15:15
And here it is.
It's the guy's name is.
Where did I just put the video?
Here, Shamath Pellahapataya.
And this is, I'll play a portion of it.
I'm not going to be able to because there's no audio on that.
Okay, well, there's no one.
He admits it, people.
The videos out there.
It's on YouTube.
No, but he basically says, you know, he acknowledged it was a problem, doesn't let his own kids use it.
And now they can't get away from it.
They seemingly don't.
The distinction, Rogan made the distinction.
It's free to disregard if you think you're just making excuses for yourself.
All of us, Robert, you and I, in as much as I might overuse it, we developed the executive function skills without it when we were kids.
And so we could sort of live with this addiction and handle it properly because we've already acquired all of the other skills in life.
The kids are neurons in the brain are much more developed, whereas they targeted children knowing their neurons in their brain had not developed.
So they could manipulate them in ways that would cause them and society massive harm, but would line their pockets.
Yeah.
Well, there's that.
All right.
We'll follow it.
Now, speaking of people who like to people who kind of went a little bit insane with social media in part, Mr. Luigi gets to dodge the death penalty in a federal case because Pam Bondi may have screwed up again.
Well, so I haven't followed that other than the headlines.
And what's the criteria for imposing the death penalty?
So one of the charges, they charged him with four federal charges.
He's also facing state charges in New York state court.
The four federal charges are two stalking charges, a murder charge and using a gun and a crime of violence charge.
Their only grounds to bring the murder charge was that the stalking charge.
The problem is stalking is not inherently or necessarily a crime of violence.
Consequently, the murder charge didn't meet, didn't fit.
And it appears that Bondi didn't review this before bringing the indictment.
And so the murder charge has now been dismissed, and the gun charge has now been dismissed that came with the death penalty potential.
So now he no longer faces the death penalty in his federal trial.
He only faces two stalking charges, and that's it.
And so the court made note of the fact that stalking not being a necessary or inherent crime of violence might strike people as odd, but that actually makes sense if you think about it.
She was saying what this guy did was ultimately the ultimate act of violence, but federal law is intended to be more limited as to when it prosecutes things like murder, which is mostly left to the state governments.
And I'm for that.
I think there were some other charges they could have brought, as other analysts pointed out, that she just didn't bring because she didn't vet the charges before she brought them.
It was typical.
It's like, oh, I want to get in on this Luigi business.
Let's bring an indictment, federal indictment.
Oh, I didn't double check to make sure it had the death penalty attached to it anyway, which was the main point of bringing a federal indictment on top of a state indictment.
So Luigi will not face the death penalty, period.
This has nothing to do with the activist judge is at the state level, correct?
If I'm not mistaken.
That's correct.
This judge, not an activist judge at all, pointed out, thought some of the law's interpretations were kind of wacky, but was just following the Supreme Court's logic.
But there is a logic behind it, behind what the Supreme Court was doing.
The federal government generally shouldn't be involved in murder cases.
That should be a state crime issue.
And I still, and I support that.
It's Bondi looking for a headline rather than results.
And that's who she is, sadly.
Well, we'll finish on this one, unless there's one that's much more important.
Trump is suing the IRS for $10 billion.
Is it that guy that goes?
10 million 100 billion.
Robert, the first thing that came to my mind is: I can think like a scoundrel on the left, and I can also just reasonably anticipate problems.
He's suing as a private citizen while he's the president and the head of the head of the Internal Revenue Service.
He's basically suing himself for $10 billion.
I mean, two things.
So, lefties are going to be, I mean, in fairness, everybody, he's going to donate whatever he gets out of this lawsuit.
I don't know how the hell they're going to determine that to charity.
So, you know, it's not going to be him appropriating taxpayer dollars.
It's not like Lady Lindsey Graham, who shut down the government this weekend because he demands that the government write him a half a million dollar check for surveillance that he authorized the legislation in support of.
There's a guy that's so greedy, he demands a half a million dollar check, and he's willing to shut down the government for the weekend until he gets it.
Well, so Trump is suing as an individual.
It's an objective, the guy who leaked the information got sentenced criminally.
So it's objective criminality that occurred in violating his privacy by disclosing his tax information to the New York Times through criminal means.
But he's still the commander-in-chief, head of the executive, suing the IRS for $10 billion.
Logistically, realistically, how do you even follow through?
How do you deal with a case like this while he's president?
That part will be interesting.
I'm all in favor of the suit because I hate the Infernal Revenue Service and because what they did here was illegal.
For those that don't remember, the IRS failed to.
So there's two laws that are applicable here.
The main one is Section 6103 of Title 26 of the United States Code.
This is the provision that protects you from the IRS, from people accessing your tax records and publishing your tax records.
Both.
And the IRS routinely violates this.
Often, the auditors often violate this.
Criminal investigators often violate this because they will detail in an IRS summons to a third party who and what is under investigation for what years, which often is inappropriate.
They can subpoena the rest, summons the records, but they can't say what the subject matter of the investigation is because that's publishing private information under section 6103 of Title 26.
Now, what that provides, basically, tax return confidentiality.
It provides an evidentiary privilege if anybody tries to demand this disclosure in a state or federal suit.
It says, no, these records should not be disclosed, just like they should not be reviewed in the first place.
Now, Section 7431 of Title 26 enforces this.
It gives you the right to bring suit against the IRS for either knowingly or negligently allowing it the access or disclosure of your confidential tax return information.
Here, somebody deliberately got a job through a third-party contractor with the IRS for the purpose of accessing Trump's records, for the purpose of publishing it to the world.
So, this is Trump suing, but it's not just Trump.
Donald Trump Jr. is also suing.
Eric Trump is also suing in federal court in Florida.
In addition, Section 552 of Title V is the Privacy Act that provides additional protections from it allows you to access what the government has on you in addition to the Freedom of Information Act.
Freedom of Information Act is not the only source by which you can request information of what the government has on you, but it also protects from public disclosure information the government gathers in the governmental process.
And so it's a Trump's got a straightforward suit.
His grounds are that the typical trigger for the two-year statute of limitations under the law is that the IRS gives you notice that it happened.
There you brought suit within that two-year timeframe.
So even though they may have had knowledge and awareness all the way back to 2019 and 2020 that this happened, they didn't know who did it or how they did it until the IRS provided formalized notice.
And that didn't happen until within the last two years.
Now, $10 billion in damages.
You know, it's a little tricky how that you calculate that.
But I'm all for Trump doing it because it establishes precedent for everybody else and hopefully finally cleans up this aspect of the IRS, which, like the Federal Reserve, would be better off if it didn't exist, in my opinion.
But speaking of the Federal Reserve, Trump's nominee was a rather peculiar and disappointing one this week.
So I heard you go, I say go off, not unhinged.
You're extremely disappointed in the pick.
I have no idea who it is, so I can either attest, confirm, nor deny what you say.
Trump went from bad to worship.
Yeah, I wasn't going to see.
Whose pun was that?
Because it was.
No, it was one of the board members' puns.
The was from bad to worship.
He picked the worst choice.
I mean, this guy is the son-in-law of Lauder, as in Estee Lauder, who has huge investments in Trump getting hold of Greenland, who's a huge Israel-first guy.
He's literally president of the World Jewish Congress.
So it's like, he's a Bilderberger Worshi.
He's a Bilderberger.
I mean, he's a deep state hack.
He was on the Fed back during the global financial crisis, and he kept saying, no, no, we don't have, we shouldn't be worried about unemployed people.
Who cares about them?
We got to worry about inflation during the global financial crisis.
That was not the problem, inflation.
The problem was deflationary loss of credit around the globe.
I mean, this guy's a dimlet, and he tricked Trump.
And Trump was like, oh, but he's like right out of central casting.
Trump, you got to quit picking people that look like models or formerly were models.
That is a bad look, to marry him, God bless.
Go at it.
Have at it.
To put him in a position of professional power?
No, no.
This is not the basis by which you do this.
Look at Christy Noam.
Look at Pam Bondi.
Look at these people.
They're a disaster.
And he picked pretty much everybody in the White House that has any populist instincts at all.
He's also a hawk.
He wants to raise rates.
He lied to Trump and said, oh, don't worry, we'll definitely cut rates.
No, he won't.
He was one of the biggest hike, hike, hike, hike guys in the history of the Fed.
So he is a disaster for Trump's policies.
He will undermine and sabotage Trump the moment he gets in.
And it's another disastrous decision by the president, listening to the donor class and choosing looks over substance.
And look, I know nothing about him.
All that I know is you took Flack for being right on Amy Coney Barrett.
Who were some of the other ones that you were said?
Powell was a loser when he put him up the first time.
And all Trump does is complain about him now.
This guy's a criminal.
The Senator Tom Tillis, though, is refusing to allow any Fed person to get appointed until the outrageous prosecution of Jerome Powell is dismissed.
Tom Tillis is a corrupt deep state hack, always has been, only in the Senate because Trump ran for president, frankly.
Otherwise, he would have lost in North Carolina.
But it's another, it's a disappointing choice.
But hopefully, but by and by the way, he makes a cameo in the Epstein files.
Robert, let's.
Oh, yeah, sorry.
What were you going to say?
Word of the wise.
Never side with people who sided with the Nazis.
Never side with anybody who's in the Epstein files in a negative way.
By the way, you see that Epstein was talking to the Rothschilds about how supposedly Adolf Hitler lived when he was in Austria, lived in some Rothschild shelter.
I was like, this is like something made up out of some wacky simulation.
But there it was, an actual email discussion.
I wanted to pull up the letter.
There was notifications here.
Hold on.
It was Elon Musk talking about how he dodged a trip to the island.
Here we go.
Let me bring this up.
Because what's his face?
Epstein was trying to entice Elon Musk to go to the island by saying that Reed Hoffman had been there.
Elon Musk is, and I tweeted, there's no free lunch and there's no free trip to a sex pedophile island.
This is how I knew so long ago Reid Hoffman went to Epstein's Island.
Epstein used Reed being there to try to get me to go, not realizing they would have the opposite effect.
And it said Reed was on the island last weekend.
Do you think you will be in Carib for Xmas?
That's just because everybody goes down to St. Bart's for New Year's.
They all hang out at those islands.
I rented a place there once where all the yachts hang out and they did a little special fireworks and all just beautiful places there in St. Bart's.
That's what Elon was going down there for.
And that's what Epson was like, come over to the island, Elon.
Come on over.
And Elon wasn't dumb enough to take that bait.
Holy crap, apples.
It's amazing.
Once you appreciate that some people are just purely transactional for the most nefarious of reasons.
I'm just trying to make sure that we got all of the ComiTube chats.
And I think we have, unless I missed this one.
Before you go to, no, that's not the right one.
How would this one?
Is Don Fruity also conspiring with his friend in the video, like a reporter, filming a crime, not trying to help the victim?
That was one of the.
Yeah, it reminds me of that whole argument about somehow that you have a journalistic right to violate people's First Amendment rights for expression of religious freedom.
And I was like, that seems like a bit of a queer take on the Constitution to me.
No.
Okay, the pun was intended.
Everybody, get your butts over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I'm going to read just a couple more chats, give you the link over in Crumble.
And on Commitu, for those of you who are looking or on that platform, go play a bunch of my videos, share them.
YouTube, it's the most amazing thing how they can kill a channel by not recommending it to people.
It doesn't matter.
And maybe the audience is all over on Rumble anyhow, but it's a good marketing platform on Commitube.
So share the videos, watch them, let the ads run through, and especially my last one.
We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, get to some of the tip questions there.
Yeah, we got a couple of big Fourth Amendment cases.
We've got library censorship.
We've got two big immigration cases.
And we have pharma price fixing.
So we'll be covering that and then some of the questions that was asked by various board members as well.
We're going to raid out somebody.
I'll see who we're going to raid, but in the meantime, let me just read these.
So social media was intentionally targeting kids.
And now I know who to blame for the Mr. B-style garbage polluting every platform.
Brain rots is what it is.
Sparky63.
If Iran is out of the crosshairs for now because of the recent Epstein files disclosures, will Greenland be back in the crosshairs and finally be freed from the Danish tyranny and brutal oppression?
The argument for Greenland is a lot easier than the argument for Maduro.
It's a lot easier.
It's not going to trigger regional war for a decade.
Well, I was thinking the only way that could trigger regional war is if Russia and China say, no, we're not letting you take it over.
But I don't know.
I don't care.
Russia's already in the Arctic.
China doesn't care.
The only people who care about Greenland is Europeans.
And let's face it, they're not fighting anybody.
It's like, welcome to France.
We surrender now.
Kay Sorenson 917 says, Viva and Barnes, have you heard of the Kids Online Safety Act that has been working its way through Congress?
I heard about the one up in Canada.
My cousin Griffin McGrath, Madison, Wisconsin, lost his life in 2018 at 13.
That's terrible.
I mean, I've got to screenshot that.
Merch and Bears 00:05:49
I'm going to see if I can find the story.
It's, you know, and kids doing stupid things.
They just have no concept of consequences.
And then it's trending and they want to be funny.
Robert, did you see the woman in China taking a selfie with the snow leopard and then she got her face mauled off?
Okay, this is probably disturbing, but I kind of find that kind of funny.
The joke was the selfie was great, but she got the selfie and then she got mauled.
It reminds me of this like journalist that was doing something with a bear.
I can never find the video, but they have this bear, supposedly a trained bear, and you see the bear kind of look at the journalist, look back, and then all you do is you see the camera drop, you see the camera drop because the bear just goes wham.
It's like, who thinks to hang out with a bear?
It's like those guys that you see videos of like guys in the Middle East with their pet lions, and they all end up getting mulled.
Dominant one says, a neurodivergent one, it is not gay when a real man like me puts Anton's firm and juicy meat in my mouth.
King of Bill Donk is great food.
Nobody wants to tell, okay, tonight, 8 p.m. Central, dad at Judge Maddie Radio Show 0201, CRSTL.fm, community radio, St. Louis internet.
Okay, cool.
As a bouncer, I once confiscated the February 31st ID, and the higher on cop I handed it to write the ticket, asked me how I knew it was fake.
And then we got one more that just came in.
Considering the fact we were discussing impropriety dating things, Robert, your videos are all dated 2025.
Maybe we're still the second last year.
Okay, now let me go see.
I'm probably putting up bourbons.
I got to remember to put 2026.
So I can't raid Salty Cracker.
We'll go raid Barry Cunningham.
He's good.
So we got Barry Cunningham is live.
He'll be surprised.
I watch him every, I mean, periodically watching me.
He's great.
Okay, so we're going to go here.
We're going to do that.
Viva, third Ralify non-political.
No, we'll go raid Barry Cunningham.
Let him know that we sent you.
Come on over to Viva Barnes Law.
Oh, I forgot to say before you go, everyone just raided there.
Viva Raid Booyah Booyah.
Okay, I wanted to show you.
Robert, the merch is up.
It's not the best merch on earth, but it's still pretty damn good.
VivaFry.com.
Where is it?
I can find it with my fat fingers right here.
Boom.
All right.
We got, this is good.
Freedom over life.
Ha ha.
Freedom finds a way.
I am not my brother's gatekeeper.
That's the one I was particularly happy with.
Am I my brother's keeper?
Maybe, but you are not your brother's gatekeeper.
And one should not gatekeep information from anybody as though the gatekeeper knows better.
It is free information, free.
Get it out there.
And then we got learn or repeat.
I like it.
And I think it's on mugs as well.
If it's not, I'm going to make sure that it does go on mugs.
And we got a bunch of other stuff.
So go to vivafry.com if you want to get some merch.
Everybody needs a mug.
So, you know, or Louis the Lobster.
Everyone loves a book.
I brought all those books to El Salvador.
And then I realized I was not setting up shop and selling books outside the center.
I was like, yeah, that's not happening this time.
All right.
What else are we going to do?
Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
So on Monday, we'll be live at 2 p.m. Eastern Time with Richard Barris on People's Pundit Daily on Rumble, YouTube, and Locals going through the, you know, sort of update what are the odds, looking at various political prediction markets, the latest polling data, what we might see upcoming, where there is risks to the Trump administration, where there is opportunity to the Trump administration, and then answering people's questions there as well.
So that's 2 p.m. Eastern Time, People's Pundit Daily.
What are the odds?
And then I'm here in LA and then in Texas and then back.
So I don't know if we'll get any bourbons in it.
VivaBarnes, law.locals.com next week.
And then we will, then the Sunday show next week will be on Monday.
Is this the Super Bowl?
Yes, Super Bowl Sunday next week is my dad's New England Patriots will be taking on the Seattle Seahawks rematch of a Super Bowl about a decade ago or so that had a big Super Bowl party here in Long Beach, actually, when I was last in Long Beach.
They had people, you know, dressed up in referee outfits and all the rest.
And it was good success.
I think we're four for five at sportspicks.locals.com on Super Bowl.
So hopefully we'll have another good one.
We had a good national college football championship.
That cashed in well, had a good soccer weekend as well.
But yeah, so next Sunday show will be next Monday.
Otherwise, what are the odds with Richard Barris, People's Bundy Daily, for covering the political landscape on Monday at 2 p.m. Eastern Time?
And now, everybody, I'm showing you the Bitcoin thing there that Rumble Now has.
Download Rumble Wallet.
This is not the sponsor of today's show.
It's Venice.ai.
Download Rumble Wallet.
You can invest, you can tip, you can hold, you can have currency that you can go to another country and use it.
Just buy it.
It was wild.
I bought a cup of coffee for $4,000 Satoshi.
It was $4.
It was great.
Something along the line.
Come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com for the Afghan Party, where we'll be discussing a couple of big Fourth Amendment cases, a couple of big immigration cases, a book library censorship case, and a Portland DA got caught lying to try to lock up some conservative protesters.
So we'll be covering that and answering all the questions of $5 or more over at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Ending it now, you can find the audio on podcast format, and I will be live tomorrow at 3.
And I think I might have Ron Coleman on at some point this week.
So stay tuned for that.
Locals, here we come, everyone else.
Export Selection