Ep. 305: War with Iran! Clintons Testify on Epstein! Patel Confirms FBI "Prohibited Files" & MORE
Ep. 305 dissects the Iran strike as a potential war crime, with Trump’s base fracturing over his pro-Israel pivot—95% odds Democrats win Congress in 2026, likely impeaching him despite weak conviction chances. Legal experts argue the strikes violate the War Powers Act, while oil prices could hit $150/barrel, destabilizing global markets. Meanwhile, ICE-IRS data-sharing scandals and Medicaid fraud crackdowns expose deep-state overreach, contrasting with Kennedy’s public health reforms. The episode ends with warnings: Iran’s nuclear ambitions will accelerate post-strike, and Trump’s political future hinges on avoiding another Iraq-style quagmire. [Automatically generated summary]
To show with our new adopted dog from a local shelter, I would ask you to kindly not pay any attention to the squalor in which we live, but rather focus on the dog as I announce his name to the world.
Behold!
We must not ignore the other dog.
The one who might feel a little neglected.
He's still lovely.
He's beautiful.
All right, people.
Let me put this on pause for one second before we announce.
Now, we had, it was a unanimous, virtually unanimous family decision.
Not that I had to call him a veto.
The dog's name when we first got him was Ravioli, which is four syllables.
And by all scientific accounts, it's science, people.
I don't make this stuff up.
You can't name a dog a four-syllable dog.
Oh my goodness, Sammy.
IW7DO says, disgusting dog.
If I were to block people, I'm joking.
So then we were thinking, okay, well, we're going to ravioli.
We're going to change it to macaroni, and then short would be Mac.
And we were going to call him Rigatoni, and short would be Tony.
I wanted Gizmo, but that was forever spoiled when someone said that's too close to something that sounds gross, also too close to Gitmo.
And then we found a name that struck us in the face, like a manatee.
Because if you notice his face, it looks like a manatee.
And then we said, let's call him Manny for Manatee.
It's a name with historical biblical roots.
It means God is with us.
It's a name that is popular among the Portuguese community.
Where was the oh, cripe?
Where is that?
I forget.
Portuguese and Spanish.
For anybody who watches the movie Modern Family, a great character.
He shall be known as Manny.
He is absolutely adorable.
And the risk is that when you have kids and you have a new cute dog that comes in the Winston's cute.
He's a West Highland Terrier.
You know, they have their own charm to them.
I am ingrained with the mushy bull mastiff type face.
It's what I grew up with.
It's what I love.
It's impossible to look at that face and not want to kiss it right between that little nape where it meets its nose.
And he was a rescue.
He's beautiful.
Apparently, he was rescued from backyard breeding.
And I mean, I don't know why anyone would have not wanted that beautiful specimen to breed.
I don't know how these backyard breeding things work in Florida.
There seems to be a lot of them.
And after some, I get that joke now.
After a long pursuit of finding this dog, we finally found him.
Winston is getting used to him.
It's been two days and we've been slowly introducing them because Winston is cranky.
Winston is totally blind.
And when he stepped into the house and smelt another dog, you know, Manny is a great name.
And there was somebody, hold on, where was it?
It was actually someone in our locals community who suggested it.
And now I have to remember who it was.
So all that to say, we're starting off with something that's not going to upset everybody except people who say, how can you get a dog like that?
It's breeding defects and it's terrible and it's cruelty to animals.
It's a rescue.
Cam's from a no-kill shelter and he's not going to be killed because he's going to have a life of love and happiness in our house.
Simultaneously Streaming00:03:29
All right, people.
On the bad news of things, we're going to get into it in a few seconds.
We are live.
This is Viva and Barnes, Law for the People, Sunday Night Law Extravaganza.
If it's your first time watching, where have you been?
We are now at episode 305.
305.
If you do the math, that's five years.
No, hold on.
That's six years.
That is amazing that we've been doing this for six years.
It started during COVID and we're like, oh, okay, let's just make this a thing.
And then it became a thing.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, where we are simultaneously streaming.
We are on Commitube for the sake of it for the Sunday night show.
I am live daily in the Rumble lineup at three o'clock.
Three to four give or take.
This week is going to be a big week coming up because tomorrow, do we call it a debate?
I'm going to be having a discussion on the Epstein files with Michael Tracy, who, for reasons unknown, has decided to dedicate his internet existence to, I won't say defending.
He's not defending the Epstein files, but he is taking the position that it does not reveal what everyone thinks it reveals.
We're going to have a fun discussion tomorrow.
Three o'clock live tomorrow.
We've got Jim Carlin coming on.
It's going to be another amazing show.
Tuesday, there's also something coming up and whatever.
So we are simultaneously streaming right now on Rumble, free speech platform, CommieTube, the land of commies, vivabarneslaw.locals.com and X Twitter.
I will do my absolute best to get to everybody's super chats.
If I miss them and you're a Rumble rant and everything, if I miss it and you're going to feel miffed, don't give it.
We are very good and we go to all of our vivabarneslaw.locals.com, tip questions and get them.
And we got one hell of a show tonight when Barnes, come on in, Robert, whenever you get a chance.
And I'll just start by going through some of the tip questions, which we already have here.
Gray 101 sounds like sarcasm, says Egypt must cede the Sinai Peninsula to Israel soon.
A buffer zone in the region will lessen tensions.
Gray 101 is a great member of our community and it's tough, sometimes tough to tell if it's supposed to be sarcasm slash parody or seriousness.
We got Klout who says LOL and that's a video that I'll have to watch afterwards.
Gray 101 says Netanyahu says bombing in bombing Iran.
Israel now has the quote assistance of the United States, my friend, U.S. President Donald Trump and the U.S. military.
This coalition of forces allows us to do what I've yearned to do for 40 years.
Washington Post.
I think that's also sarcasm.
Could you explain the Democrats' talking point for not wanting ID, i.e. because women who got married will not be able to vote birth certificates?
We'll get into all of that.
We're going to obviously talk about what's going on in Iran.
It's, you know, occurred in the middle of the night Friday, although everybody knew it was coming to some extent.
There were markets predicting as to when it was going to happen.
And now the real question is whether or not it's a good or a bad decision is one question.
The subsidiary question is whether or not it's a violation or a reneging or a about face on campaign promises and whether or not it's just going to end any differently than any of the other decades worth of experience of foreign wars, regime change, and the like.
And then we're going to talk some law stuff.
So, Robert, if you're in the backdrop, come on in and say hi to the house.
And by, oh, another thing, by the way, there's no sponsor for tonight's show, but Rumble Wallet is always a sponsor of the show.
Predators and Animal Cruelty00:04:58
Everybody should go download the Rumble Wallet app, download the Rumble app as well.
So you get immediate notifications when people go live.
If you download the Rumble Wallet, you can invest in crypto if you are so inclined at your own risk and peril.
When you set up the wallet, it's a non-custodial wallet.
Not even Rumble has ownership over it.
Do not lose your 12 seed password thing.
And if you want to support the channel, all you have to do is click on tip and you can tip in Bitcoin, scan the QR code if you're so inclined.
You can tip in XAUT, which is gold-backed crypto.
It's crypto-tethered to the price and the actual physical gold bar.
It's tethered one for one, and you can redeem it for actual gold.
And if you believe in the gold value dollar, you can invest crypto that is tethered to the gold, thanks to Tether, who now has a stake in Rumble.
And that's it.
It's an amazing thing.
You can also, you know, tip in crypto back to the US dollar.
That's all you have to do.
Click on that thing and that's it.
You know, we'll do speaking of dogs.
I covered this story in a vlog yesterday.
And it's, you know, it's funny.
You can do a vlog, and I've been doing my at-home vlogs on stories.
And you just know when a platform like Commitube is not going to like your vlog because it uses terms like animal abuse.
And for those of you who don't know, there are verboten words on Commitube like abuse.
People always say grape instead of rape.
I mean, I don't even know how that works.
There was this horrendous story of a man in Wyoming who apparently deliberately ran over a wolf.
There are predators out there.
They're a big pain in the neck.
And the man deliberately ran over a wolf with his snowmobile.
Apparently, it's called running down and it's a thing that people do.
And then faced animal cruelty charges.
Initially, he just got a fine.
He hit the wolf.
It was grievously injured.
He apparently duct taped the mouth shut, took it to a bar, took some selfies, took some videos.
It's a town of 150 people in rural Wyoming.
And he initially got a slap on the wrist fine.
And then a prosecutor, who I don't know who would think it's a, what's the word I'm looking for?
Activist prosecutor decided to up those charges to animal cruelty.
And then the man moved to dismiss the charges because he said there's an exemption for animal cruelty when it comes to predators like wolves.
I don't know.
I imagine coyotes as well.
And he sought to have the charges dismissed because I presume in these areas, sometimes you need to kill these animals.
And if you have to use a trap, for example, some states might deem that to be animal cruelty.
And so they say, well, animal cruelty laws are an exception when you're killing predators.
But he wanted the entire thing dismissed on that basis.
And a judge actually said, no, the exemption for animal cruelty doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to the animal once you've already captured it.
And so this guy was facing serious animal cruelty charges.
And a judge said, no, you're going to go to trial.
And he just struck a plea deal that will see him not doing any time in jail.
He has to pay like a $1,000 fine.
He's not allowed hunting and fishing anymore.
I don't know what the timeframe on that is.
And I posted this video and I was actually getting seemingly conflicting replies where some people were saying, Viva, you're a city boy.
You don't understand how bad these animals are.
They were reintroduced.
It's a human mistake and they have no business being there.
I'm like, dude, I appreciate that.
You know, we've got members of our community who live in rural areas.
Foxes, coyotes, wolves are serious risks and serious threats, not just for livestock, but for your own dogs.
I got an aunt who lives in California up in the hills, and coyotes snatch up people's dogs all the time.
And the issue was never that.
The issue is, how do you justify torturing it for an hour instead of just putting it out of its misery if that's what you're going to do?
Like you can't relish in animal suffering, regardless of how much you hate the animal.
And so I'm reading through the comments, but it's a wild world where I think we're actually living in a world where, I say, I think, we're living in a world where people don't watch first, they don't read first, and they instinctively just reply with something that might actually have already been addressed in the substance of the analysis or something that's just untethered from the actual analysis itself.
Where I say, okay, fine, they're predators, they're pests, they're dangerous, kill them if you have to.
And reintroducing them into areas that don't have other means of controlling the population, you're asking for problems, but you don't get to torture an animal after you deliberately strike it, posing for selfies with it, even if the ultimate outcome is the animal is going to die.
But the idea of, I didn't know that people, I didn't even know you can actually run over on purpose.
Battle Not So Good00:03:31
I mean, I don't have trouble.
I say have trouble.
It's almost difficult to hit an animal by accident.
Robert, have you ever heard of people running over animals on purpose, like coyotes and wolves?
I was not aware of that tradition.
Apparently, it's a practice.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
You know, in terms of the battle, I mean, some of the news this weekend was not as good, depending on your perspective.
But, you know, we live in interesting times, that's for sure.
I won't ask the idea that there are markets for these things almost seems not immoral in any sense, but I don't know what the markets were.
I presume coming into this weekend, the markets were high probability that there would be a strike in Iran.
You know, most of those markets are on polymarket.
On Kauchi, it was just whether or not the Ayatollah would stay in power, but it said that that market would just be a refund if he died because they don't want to, Kaushi doesn't want to be in the market.
Incentivizing assassinations.
Correct.
So that's more of a CIA hobby.
And so the polymarket had some markets.
And what I said on sports picks on Friday was that I thought there was an 80% chance we would go into Iran within two weeks and at least a 50% chance that we would be into a war with Iran this weekend.
That was the markets were pricing that closer to 20%, 25% in terms of timing.
And because Rubio said he was going to Israel early next week, we were still in negotiations.
Apparently, that's where the attack on the Ayatollah Khamene took place was when he was discussing the proposal the United States had made in Geneva.
This is now the third time that there has been a sneak attack when someone is negotiating.
I don't think it's a good look.
You have to be as stupid as Clay Travis to think that's smart geopolitics.
The message we're sending to the world is don't negotiate with us.
We're untrustworthy.
We're deceptive.
We're dishonest.
We're dishonorable.
And we might try to murder you in the middle of the negotiations.
I don't think that's a good look personally.
Or geopolitically, but we'll see.
Well, okay, what do we have on the menu before we just tackle the big one?
So, yeah, the top topic tonight, the Iran war, does, we'll look at it from a legal perspective.
The politics will cover, I'll cover with Richard Barris tomorrow, People's Pundit Daily, new time for the What Are the Odds show, talking about the political ramifications from the Iran conflict at noon Eastern time.
So that's on his show, People's Pundit Daily.
Peoplespundit.locals.com, People's Pundit on Rumble and on YouTube.
He's the only honest pollster left.
Everybody else is either a media university left-wing pollster or you'll see a bunch of fake polls from right-wing pollsters like Trafalgar, like Insider Advantage.
That's because they've been told they have to rig their polls in order to keep the Republican money flowing to them.
There's a third pollster that might be faking polls soon, but I'll wait and see to see whether they actually go forward with it.
You might have seen a very prominent public pollster suddenly disappear over the last two weeks from social media, so you can guess who that is.
My advice to Ted is no money is worth your integrity.
As the holy scriptures say, what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?
Third Pollster Faking00:04:06
There might be someone in the Mar-a-Lago who might be able to take that advice, we might hope.
But we got the Iran war.
We'll focus here on the legality.
Is it a legal war?
Is it an impeachable act?
What are the legal risks to the president from it, both practically and constitutionally?
We'll talk about what the president's defenses and arguments in his favor might be, as well as the arguments that may be brought in an impeachment proceeding against him as well.
The Trump tariffs.
Trump has new tariff proposals to replace the old ones.
He talked in the State of the Union about the proposal that 1776 Law Center had done a survey on, but he didn't actually put that proposal before Congress, unfortunately, in my opinion.
We'll talk about what's the probabilities his new tariffs will meet SCOTUS scrutiny.
The Vice President Vance, who public opposition to the war, has been made apparent by a wide range of press reports.
He was not in Mar-a-Lago for the attack.
He, Tulsi Gabbard, and Energy Secretary Wright were clearly opposed to the conflict.
And so they were left back home in the White House.
Swampy Susie Wiles and John Ratcliffe were the ones running the show down in Mar-a-Lago.
We'll talk about, but one proposal that the State of the Union was made that was formalized was that Vice President Vance is in charge of fraud.
But what does that mean?
Is it what was originally intended or has a lot of his actual supervisory power been undercut by Todd Blanche?
We'll cover that as well.
The ICE and the IRS.
ICE was getting IRS files.
Is that legal under Section 6103 of Title 26?
That went to the federal courts this past week.
We have a big Fourth Amendment case.
What happens when they, in the name of supervising a probationer, they violate the rights of somebody who's not on probation?
What are their Fourth Amendment rights in that context?
Major Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision was issued this week.
The father of Riley, the young lady who was murdered, assaulted and murdered by an illegal immigrant, has brought suit against both the University of Georgia and the apartment complex where the illegal criminal was living and was able to use those premises.
What is the probabilities that that suit is able to move forward?
A bookshop.
What about your privacy when you buy a bookshop?
Can a detective just walk in there and demand to know all the books you've been looking at or buying?
That case went before Colorado State Court.
If you're not renting anything weird, you've got nothing to hide.
Isn't that what they always say?
The strict liability, what does it mean?
That went forward in a federal court in Virginia concerning the substantive state laws of West Virginia concerning a loan servicer violating people's legal rights and remedies under the West Virginia law, but they said we didn't do it intentionally.
Well, strict liability says intentionality is irrelevant.
We'll talk about that.
Cuba, three different cases went up to oral argument before the Supreme Court this past week.
Cuba confiscation.
You know, how does all that work?
What's trafficking?
What's not?
What's property?
What's not?
What statutes provide remedy, which do not?
We have equity removal.
You know, when can you remove a state court to federal court?
When is there equitable exceptions from the various statutory rules governing removal?
That was before the Supreme Court of the United States.
And the tax liens.
What happens when they seize your property and sell it off cheap at auction?
Does the state and the auctioneer get to and the auction purchaser get to profit the pot the profits without paying just compensation under the takings clause of the United States Constitution?
And does it, in fact, constitute an excessive fine when there's a great disparity between the value of the property, the fair market value of the property, and what it is sold for at auction?
The right to surf, the came up in Cal California, where they're trying to restrict and restrain the ability to simply teach.
You may not know it, but the First Amendment actually includes protection of your right to teach, not just your right to speak, associate, press, and petition and the like.
Congressional Authorization Required!00:14:13
What about the White House ballroom?
Is it legal?
A federal court said what Trump was doing for now is legal, but may not be legal if the different kind of challenge was brought.
What was the roadmap for that?
And then last but not least, Walmart has to pay a big fat settlement because it was scamming its own drivers and its own consumers of the tips they thought were going to drivers was going to Walmart instead.
So a robust package of topics tonight.
But the big one that everyone was most curious about is the war in Iran.
I'll preface this by saying one thing.
You know, people are going back and pulling up clips from Trump, you know, tweets from Trump from a while back to say what a hip, you know, he said Obama was going to go into war with Iran because his numbers are failing, yada, yada, yada.
I mean, some of these tweets are 15 years old and yes, situations change.
I was having, you know, we're having a family debate during our Sunday Zoom call where, you know, somehow there's a unifying force that people support these Iranian strikes, even those who had been critical of Trump in the past, because, you know, it's a necessary, call it a necessary evil, or it's a necessary act of justice to take out this leader of a terrorist nation that's been doing nothing but wreaking havoc for the last 40 some odd years.
And so preface it by saying the decision itself is one element of this.
The decision in the context of what Trump was elected on and what might be viewed as an about face for either political purposes or political nefarious purposes is the other issue.
The impact that this is going to have on midterms is the other issue.
2028 is the other issue.
Some people say, well, you got to do the, even if it's politically unpopular and even if it's politically damaging, it's the morally right thing to do.
Separate debate.
In 2024, Trump ran on the peace campaign.
You know, the tweet from the GOP was, this is the ticket of peace.
And I sort of sarcastically, but it's almost reality, say, war is peace.
I mean, you understand now how George Orwell literally said that.
And it sounds ironic or mutually incompatible, but we're at the point now where people are saying, yes, peace through strength.
Okay, and that's another way of saying war is peace.
Yes.
It's peace through war.
You know, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
Okay, that was 2024.
2025, when they had the initial strikes on Iran, and we took a whole hell of a lot of flack for being mildly skeptical of the utility of that, everyone's like, it's not a war.
These are just precision military strikes.
We've obliterated the Iranian nuclear capabilities and mission accomplished.
And I said at the time, I have a bad feeling this is going to age poorly.
They're going to say it wasn't as devastating as we thought or whatever.
And we're going to be back here in who knows when for a prolonged conflict.
Because at the time, everyone said, this is not a prolonged war.
This is not a conflict.
It's military strikes.
No boots on the ground.
No U.S. soldiers dead, whatever.
And now it's 2026 where people are saying, yes, it's war.
I don't think anybody can deny that right now, although you're going to clarify legally, but it's justified.
Or people actually unironically said, Trump said no new prolonged or no new forever wars.
And this is not a forever war, as if a 20-year war starts off as a 20-year war.
The, I will say, ex post facto rationalization, and not to take a tweet from your best friend, Robert, is the argument now is to suggest that the necessity and legality of this strike is that Iran posed an imminent threat and that this is not an act of war, but this is rather a defensive strike that doesn't need congressional authorization.
And this is what Mike tweeted.
When was it?
I guess it was today.
No, yesterday.
Iran is labeling.
I'm not going to be able to do appropriate labeling.
This is corrupt, felony, criminal, corporate, whore Mike Davis, who is a proud Israel cop.
I just wanted to make sure we got to the point.
The last part were his words.
The first part are your words.
So Mike Davis, who did say yes, I cuck for Israel.
The word is so gross, people should stop using it even as a joke.
Iran has waged war.
I'd like that in some other capacities too, Josan.
Iran has waged war against America for 47 years, reading the tweet.
Iran has killed thousands of Americans.
Less than two weeks ago, Iran's supreme leader threatened to sink American ships.
The president doesn't need permission from Congress to prevent the next Pearl Harbor.
He has the inherent Article II constitutional power and duty.
It's hard to sink American ships as Iran.
as Iran's supreme leader if your house is obliterated or you're dead.
All right.
This is the set aside the hypocrisy because it's just changing the justification, the rationale.
It's sort of like we'll always find an excuse to do what we said we wouldn't do because things have changed.
What is the legal requirement for, I don't know, an act, a declaration of war, a strike?
Because there's military strikes, you know, immediate necessity.
Obviously, you don't go to pass a declaration of war in Congress.
Even if it hadn't been approved by Congress, you can go with there's a period of time afterwards where you can get authorization from Congress unless you argue that it was an immediate necessity to save, you know, prevent an imminent risk.
Then people are just going to use their own good judgment as to whether or not this was an imminent risk that had been allegedly obliterated eight months ago.
So the legality, the constitutionality, what is required for strikes?
What is required to go to war?
And is there a retrospective way of rationalizing it or legalizing what might have otherwise been unauthorized?
So we'll start with the U.S. law.
The Constitution of the United States provides that the executive branch, the president of the United States, is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but did not give him the power to declare war.
And that was left to the legislative branch in Congress.
So here, did Congress declare war against Iran?
The answer is no.
So then the second question becomes, is there some implied authorization of force that the president could rely upon, such as the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973?
That provision requires an imminent risk to the national security of the United States.
There was, by nothing I've seen, any substantial evidence that there was an imminent risk to the security of the United States from Iran that was proportionally met by this attack.
So I don't think there was any congressional authorization.
I think congressional authorization is constitutionally compelled.
So then the question becomes, could the president say this simply is not within the definition of war under a declaration of war?
Here, there's some basic issues.
I agree with Senator Rand Paul, who said, if the attack was on us, would we consider it an act of war?
The answer is absolutely.
Somebody bombed us.
We're going to call it a war.
If someone's trying to murder the president of the United States with a bunch of bombings, we call it an act of war.
The lengths to which some members of the Trump supporter crowd are willing to go to just make up legal doctrines and make up factual claims.
They make themselves look like an embarrassment, to be blunt about it.
Well, it's not a war, Barge.
Bombing a whole country is not a war.
Trying to murder their whole leadership is not a war, Barge.
Do you think our founding generation, from an originalist perspective, the Constitution, would agree with you?
Thomas Jefferson went to Congress before he went after the Barbary pirates.
So that gives you an idea of what our founding generation believes.
No, this is from KamiTube.
Itchy Kami says, I hate though, it's not war.
The shortest war in the world was the Anglo-Zanzibar War, and it lasted 38 minutes, but it was still a war.
Yeah, I think anybody arguing that at this point, you know, that argument's not going to be taken seriously.
The question's only going to be, was this to prevent something imminent?
I don't know how that's client.
There's been no evidence presented as yet that such a risk was imminent, that we were imminently at risk of harm and that national security made our reaction proportionate.
And so given that, and I think it is war, I believe the president's actions were, in fact, illegal and unconstitutional.
Now, the argument the president can muster, is it an impeachable act?
Well, hold on.
Let me stop you there.
Illegal in that you don't think it met the criteria, the threshold for imminent threat that would warrant this strike without having first sought congressional approval.
Correct, exactly.
So under those grounds, unconstitutional and illegal.
The question then is, is it impeachable?
Well, impeachment requires a high crime and misdemeanor.
Here, by the way, for the people that are arguing it's not a war, that's not a good argument from an impeachment legal perspective.
Because if it's not a war, the president just went and murdered a bunch of people.
Okay?
The war is the justification for the deaths.
If it's not a war, he's just a murderer.
So that's not an enhanced defense that people think it is.
Well, no, no, because it diminishes his defense.
doesn't enhance it the flip side is that if it wasn't a war it was to prevent an imminent threat and therefore it would still be a war in that case but it would be justified legally justified under the war powers resolution act did we not Did we not definitively determine already through the last two impeachments that it doesn't need to be an actual crime?
It could be, you know, they don't like his tie?
Like, I thought that was the ultimate conclusion of the first two impeachments.
Practically speaking, we'll get into that in a second, the practicalities where there's both Trump defenses and arguments against him.
But from just the legal perspective, the Constitution requires a high crime or misdemeanor.
And the high crime or misdemeanor, that's where you would do an international analysis of, so you have unconstitutional conduct that gets us involved in military conflict.
Many would say that is itself a high crime or misdemeanor.
But let's say you say, no, it's only a high crime or misdemeanor if the war is also a violation of international law or could be considered a crime under U.S. law.
And there, you know, the death of, you know, causing the death of other people, homicide is in fact a crime.
And then the question becomes, but is there a justifiable defense?
Well, it's the same kind of defense that you do under the War Powers Resolution, same kind of analysis as the War Powers Resolution Act.
In order to justify it as not being a high crime or misdemeanor, you would need to say it's in self-defense, that there's imminent risk of substantial harm to the American people that required as a proportionate response the attack that was made.
So personally, I don't see that.
I don't think it would meet just war standards.
So then we get into practicality.
And as we got the law on paper, does it matter?
And there, that cuts both ways.
In the impeachments of President Trump, they've made clear they don't hold themselves to any high standards of law in terms of Democrats and how they've approached those two impeachments of President Trump.
On the flip side, the best argument President Trump has is Barack Obama killed people without declaration of war overseas, including American citizens.
Joe Biden killed people overseas without any declaration of war, including leading to the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan.
George W. Bush obviously went into war in Iraq and in other places and killed people in many cases.
Now, not in the case of the war with Iraq, but in other cases without a declaration of war.
Same with Bill Clinton in Serbia.
Same with Poppy Bush to a degree in Iraq War I and in Panama.
So you look at his argument would be, hey, American presidents have been doing this for quite a while now.
How is it suddenly impeachable when I do it?
And so that's the practical precedent.
It's kind of an argument from precedent of non-prosecution, non-conviction.
Then it is an argument from the law itself as I see it.
Now, maybe others can muster a self-defense argument, but I'll be frank, the administration itself hasn't even tried yet.
No, it's interesting because I was just looking up whether or not you could be impeached for an act that is quite clearly within your core constitutional powers, which no one's arguing this was in Trump's personal best interest.
Like this, I think he would benefit from presidential immunity because it's quite clearly within his core constitutional powers.
But you can still impeach a president, even if the act is within the core constitutional powers.
Oh, no, no question.
And Richard Nixon was for things that were outside within his constitutional duties in terms of power and authority that you would look at from a subsequent immunity from criminal prosecution, but not from impeachment.
And the president can't pardon an impeachment.
He can pardon the subsequent criminal act from indictment, but can't pardon the impeachment act itself.
So I think that the risk he runs is that he likely will be impeached, but this will just be one of many of the charges.
It's not likely that this will be the main one.
His risk of conviction is still relatively low because it's just the politics of the decision maker in this context, which has historically not shown a strict alliance to the Constitution either direction, whether it's strictly enforcing it to the benefit of the person being impeached or strictly enforcing it to the detriment of the person being impeached.
They don't strictly enforce it, period.
Politics tends to govern the decision of these political branches who the Constitution delegated this power to because they see it as fundamentally a political question more than a precisely a legal one.
And in the Senate, he's not likely to be convicted on just this count or even an aggregate of counts.
It would likely require some sort of personal scandal involving financial issues, which unfortunately are burgeoning up because of the deal that just got cut with Paramount Toby Warner Brothers, by the way.
But I'll save that for another later show.
I think it would require something like that to tip over the factor.
Now, what I put out, I guess it started trending on X apparently as one of the trending topics on X, was that the, I'll go into more detail tomorrow with Richard Barris on the political ramifications.
But I put out that I thought Democrats have about a 95% chance of winning the House in 2026, about an 85% chance of winning the Senate in 2026, and there was about a 75% chance of winning the White House in 2028, holding all three.
If Democrats take the House and the Senate, Trump will be impeached, and this will be one of the charges against him.
Whether he gets convicted, the story, the scuttlebutt is that there's at least a half dozen Republicans happy to stick Trump in the back.
Trump's High-Risk War00:03:45
Well, if the Democrats get as many as 53 or 54 seats, if Murkowski flips side in Alaska, like she's likely to do, Democrats take over a majority, it might be a closer call than people in the White House imagine.
So from a legal perspective and a political perspective, this is a high-risk conflict that Trump has engaged in.
And I don't think it will redound or rebound to his benefit.
I think it will substantially hurt the Republican Party.
Just as a brief snapshot, for wars of choice, the only war that was not considered a war of choice in the U.S. domestic political opinion is World War II because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us before we declared war on them.
Now, you can watch my hush, hush, if you have a BarnesLaw.locals.com on what FDR may or may not have known about being culpable in Pearl Harbor, but that was the American public perception.
All the wars that were not considered that are World War I, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, the two wars with Iraq.
Those are the principal ones that are not considered.
They're both considered substantial wars.
You had Afghanistan, but there was at least a perception that Osama bin Laden under the protection of the Taliban had attacked us on 9-11.
But on all the other ones, they were considered initiated by the United States, started by the United States.
Every single president who has started a war, by the end of that war, his party loses power in the White House, often in the House and the Senate as well, and often for long periods of time.
Woodrow Wilson brought about 12 years of Republican presidential rule that required a Great Depression to unsettle after his support for World War I after promising not to get us involved in a war.
Harry Truman, after the Korean War, led to eight years of Eisenhower in the White House.
LBJ, after his Vietnam War, led to 20 out of 24 next years being dominated by Republicans owning the White House.
After Poppy Bush got into war with Iraq, he got the lowest level of support in American political history, presidential history as an incumbent in the 92 election.
And then, of course, George W. Bush, after the Iraq War, led to the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in 06 and the White House in 08.
So it's that historical precedent here is that wars don't remain popular for very long.
The war currently is the most unpopular war at the start of a war in American political history.
They have less than a majority support.
In fact, it's somewhere in the low 20s to low 30s.
Richard Barris was pulling over the weekend.
The anti-war part of the coalition, the Trump MAGA coalition, is dead.
That's why I said MAGA is dead.
And so people were confused by that.
It's like there's going to be plenty of people that are in MAGA that support MAGA that support Trump.
It's just not going to be the majority coalition needed to continue to govern the country.
That is, I believe, now dead on arrival because Trump compounded the issue.
It's not just getting involved in a war that's triggered every successor losing power in the modern era.
Poppy Bush gets us into a war, he loses.
Bill Clinton goes to bombing in Syria.
I mean, Serbia, that leads to the loss.
Al Gore's loss in 2000 when George W. Bush ran on, we don't need to be the world's policeman, in case people forgot.
2008, John McCain loses because George W. Bush got us into war.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton loses because Barack Obama decided to bomb Libya into oblivion.
So every time the every president since the end of Cold War has made this mistake, Trump did not in his first term, though his sort of rhetoric led a lot of Midwestern voters to think Biden was less likely to get us involved in a war than him in 2020.
But the additional issue here is Trump campaigned on this.
Trump campaigned for a decade on no new wars, no wars for regime change.
But Trump now entered a new war.
Why Wars Are Done00:15:11
He's now done it for regime change.
And that's going to lead to a good portion of his voter base, a decisive portion of his voter base, even if it's only 20% of his voter base, being not only discontented, but feel betrayed.
And betrayal is something you don't come back from politically.
And I know people are going to retort and they're going to say, well, Robert, he's said for the last decade that Iran can't have a nuclear bomb either.
And the issue is the war is not about nuclear bomb.
He gave that up right away.
He didn't come out and he came out and said, hey, we're here for regime change.
We're here to change the regime in Iran.
But also, the argument was that they obliterated the nuclear capabilities 18.
By the way, they just removed geopolitically.
Now Iran is much more likely to get nuclear weapons.
And my prediction would be within three years, Iran now will have nuclear weapons.
Because the number one deterrent to Iran getting nuclear weapons was not external threats.
It was Ayatollah Habini.
I may be mispronouncing his name.
He issued a FATA in 2003 and said no nuclear weapons no matter what, period.
He was the main restraint in Iran.
There were a lot of other people in Iran.
Professor Mearsheimer's out saying reasonably, rationally, logically, it is in Iran's best geopolitical self-defense interest to get nuclear weapons.
They have all the different constituent components.
They just haven't put them together.
It'd probably take them a year to put it together.
But the restraint was the man we just killed.
And people are like, oh, you know, the piece, you have that moron, Clay Travis, complete retard.
He's like, you know, you have that, you know, find a retard day.
Every day you could just find a post, post a picture of Klay Travis.
This guy's an embarrassment taking over the legacy of the great Russian law.
Just sad and pitiful.
But, you know, what is most likely to the next Ayatollah, they'll vote for him.
They have a temporary one, but the next one will be voted on in about 40 days or so by their electors is his, we just murdered his father, his mother, his wife, and his one-year-old daughter.
Do you think he's going to be gung-ho on détente with the U.S., on cutting a deal with the U.S.?
I don't think so.
I think realistically, we're going to have a more hard line, more pro-nuclear weapons, more aggressive Iran because of this.
We just took out the last restraint in the name of thinking we toppled the regime and peace and democracy would magically flow in the streets, which, of course, everything Israel told President Trump he discovered last night was complete garbage.
There's no mass protest in the street against the regime.
There's mass protests in favor of the regime.
We've now took the number two leader in all of Shia Islam.
We murdered him and murdered his granddaughter and bragged about it to the world.
We turned him into a martyr.
He was happy to be a martyr.
He had spoken about wanting to be a martyr.
He was 86 years old and in frail health already.
So we took him out in the middle of negotiations, in the middle of Ramadan.
Does anybody think that's going to rebound well in the Shia Muslim world for the next generation?
I don't think so.
And let me just address two things in the comment.
I brought one up and left it up there for a bit: that Trump, Robert Barris, and me are anti-Trump.
You have to be, I mean, I say this respectfully, you have to be stupid to actually think that.
And being a Trump supporter does not mean barking like seals at what might be the demise of the movement that Trump started.
So just to get that out there, to the other people in the chat saying nobody's going to impeach over this.
I guarantee you he'll be impeached.
By the way, if you're out there and you think Republicans are going to sweep the House and the Senate in 2026 and you think Trump will never get impeached over this, please DM me.
I want to bet you because you're too stupid to keep your money.
But it's the sake of society.
I have to take your money away from you.
I'm sorry.
I have a duty, a duty to do so.
It's not even that.
Now the goalposts have moved there where everybody's like, well, you know, the incumbent, what is it?
The party in power always loses the midterms.
And it's like you're trying to nail an egg to the wall.
Back in 2025, you were taking crap for saying this is going to impact badly on midterms.
And everyone's like, you're an idiot.
They're going to crush it during midterms.
And now the argument has moved to the party in power always loses the midterms.
Well, congrats.
I mean, it's idiotic.
But if you think they're not going to impeach Trump over this, not convict, but impeach, you don't think you're an idiot.
They're waiting for any excuse, and this might be a good enough one.
Whether or not he gets convicted, separate issue.
And then the question is this.
And people say, whether or not you agree with the decision, the question is, does this betray a certain portion of the base?
People are out there saying, you can't bought these polls.
It's 50-50.
Even when Michael Knowles runs a poll, do you support the war?
50-50 split.
And I can tell you this from our community, Robert, which is about 160,000 strong now on locals.
Pretty blood of America, like salt of the earth people, pro-Trump.
And they're split 50-50.
That's not how you win an election by splitting your most loyal base, which is represented in our viva barnslaw.locals.com community.
So if you get within the Republican party, about two-thirds of them will be okay with this.
About a third will be cheering it on.
About a third will be, okay, I'll trust Trump.
And about a third will be against it.
The problem is, politics is a game of math.
Who are you adding?
I can list the long number of constituencies you're subtracting.
The long anti-war group, 1776 Law Center to the National Survey.
The Americans now believe that Democrats are much more likely to keep us out of war than Republicans, much more likely to keep us out of war than Trump.
The margin, that margin has been consistent to predicting the midterm and presidential margins.
Going back to 1948, when American National Election Survey studies began doing their election surveys, nationwide surveys.
You can get their data.
I think it's up to the University of Michigan.
Where they store that data and information, they've been asking this question: which party do you think is more likely to keep you out of war?
Now, a third of the country thinks both parties suck now.
So that's where about a third of the country is in a majority of independents.
Majority of independents like both parties suck.
Both parties are going to get us into war.
That's why I think politically, if you're looking at this, say, five, 10, 15 years from now, I think what you're seeing in the UK will come to the United States, which is in the UK, in the next parliamentary elections, the three parties that have dominated the last century plus of UK elections may not even have a single seat in parliament.
Labor Party gone.
Tory Party gone.
Liberal Democratic Party gone, being replaced by the Greens on the left and reform on the right.
And if reform doesn't deliver, by the way, they made the mistake of running on a pro-Israel ticket with a bunch of young voters in a constituency outside Birmingham, and the Reform Party got whacked, whacked by a, I know Matthew Goodwin, the candidate in that race, a good professor that done books on national populism, but he idiotically thought running on a pro-Israel ticket was popular.
He got crushed by the Green Party, who ran on an anti-Israel ticket.
Israel is becoming a political pariah just in the Gallup polling for the first time ever, ever.
More Americans are sympathetic with the Palestinians than the Israelis.
I mean, that took a mini miracle of Bibi Netanyahu's utter disastrous handling in his Greater Israel project to create in the United States.
In the United States now, a majority of Americans prefer the Palestinians to Israelis.
The Palestinians represented by the likes of Fatah, Hamas, and the PLO, right?
I mean, that takes incredible ineptitude by the Greater Israel project, but that's what they've created.
And Bibi Netanyahu, being the natural bitch that he is, what does he do as soon as the conflict happens?
He flees the country.
He flees the country.
This great war leader flees the country again while his people get bombed over his foolish war.
So I think the real regime change six months from now won't be in Iran.
Iran will still be the Islamic Republic six months from now.
You know what will be who may there may be regime change in?
Bibi Netanyahu may be in an Israeli jail six months from now because I don't know if he can survive this latest debacle.
And President Trump's presidency, I think, will be a dead man walking.
I think it will be very, very difficult for him to maneuver out of this because so many of his vote, key ports of his vote, going back to 2016, this is a man who stood on the stage in South Carolina and said George W. Bush should be impeached over the Iraq war.
And now he's done the same thing 10 years later.
Well, what's amazing is I saw a couple of comments that says, we don't have the intel.
I trust the president.
They literally provided the intel for the war in Iraq.
They literally provided, and it was incorrect intel.
We've literally had members of this military betraying Donald Trump by keeping information from him.
So, I mean, you can't trust the president is one thing, but you can trust him to either keep his word on certain issues or not, or have a good reason for which he is now changing course.
But you can also trust the deep state military-industrial complex to fabricate what they need to fabricate in order to justify their existence and line their pockets.
That's what they did in Iraq.
You had Millie hiding information about numbers of troops in Syria.
You have Millie talking with China.
So you can trust the president.
You can also say he's made some mistakes in personnel and he's made some judgment mistakes.
You can also just support this decision entirely, but acknowledge that it is something of a 180 that is going to push people away.
And what are we saying?
A third of he'll keep a big part of his base, but not the problem is that isn't enough to win elections.
So, in order to win or to survive an impeachment, potentially, that you need the, he's, he's, I think his numbers are going to end up near Nixon's nadir in 1974 with Watergate.
He, he lost, he still had two-thirds of his base, but a third had gone away.
And because a third had gone away, a third of his vote, well, a lot more of his vote share had gone away, but a third of his base had gone away.
And that was enough to tip being a tipping factor to where he wasn't going to win the impeachment vote.
And that's the problem Trump now faces.
His base did not fracture in either of the first impeachments, not even after January 6th.
His base held strong.
Now his base is fractured.
It just is.
You can go anywhere on social media.
You can look at the, you know, Richard Barris does extensive and expansive polling on this topic.
You'll see a lot of fake polls from Insider Advantage and Trafalgar and that crowd because they want the Republican money and they're willing to sell their soul for some cash.
Barris will not.
Barris will continue to report honest polling.
He was on with you on Monday.
He pointed out there's a bunch of his own personal politics.
He'd be fine with taking over all Latin America.
You know, he's still an Italian at heart.
But he says, look, I'm just here to represent the voter.
And I can tell you the voter doesn't like these things.
The voter doesn't want these things.
And a big portion is going to feel betrayed.
And sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's not happening is not a solution.
Nor are you supporting, if you don't want Democrats to run the House and the Senate and the country, then you should have taken action to oppose this war.
By supporting this war, you betrayed Donald Trump.
You betrayed MAGA.
You elected Democrats in control because you ignored the warnings, you ignored the risks, and you decided to live in La La Land, the same fantasy world that has led to every global war debacle that we've been involved in for 30 plus years.
You mentioned something I had to look it up to make sure I get the phrase properly.
You know, politics is a plus one, minus one, or net positive, net negative.
This is what Bongino always says.
And however you feel about Bongino, he still has some very good insights and some things that we can learn.
Yep, there was this plus one, negative one.
I don't care.
Forget the assessment of the morality or whatever.
Is this going to add a voter, not add a voter or subtract a voter?
The question is, it's a good question.
these strikes who's it going to add is it good now people are saying persons in l.a right You'll get Patrick Bed-David, who is out circulating completely fake polls.
By the way, they fed these fake polls to the president, even though other people gave him honest data.
If you can go to the University of Maryland, there's a Sadat professorship there that they've been doing honest polling in the Middle East for a long time.
There isn't this massive desire in Iran to overthrow the regime or to have chaos or to have civil war or to look like Libya, Syria, or Iraq.
It just isn't.
But these fake polls funded by the NED, funded by USAID, funded by CIA cutouts, out of, by the way, Toronto, Canada is one of the main plays.
Another one is out of the Netherlands, which says 80% of Iranians can't wait to overthrow their government.
It's garbage, folks.
It's been garbage for a while.
People that have known, Larry Johnson went through the details of how garbage these polls were, where they came from.
By comparison, if you look at the University of Maryland, it's a U.S.-based pollster, by the way, U.S.-based funding pollster, has been doing accurate data.
And the Iranian population is mostly unhappy with where the economy is in Iran, but have not wanted regime change in any major way.
That's why Trump literally thought as soon as they the difference is Iran is not run like Libya, Syria, and Iraq.
Libya, Syria, and Iraq were built around a personality, whether it was Hussein, Assad, or Gaddafi.
And they convinced Trump that Iran was the same, that it was a cult of personality around the Ayatollah.
Just take out the Ayatollah, bam, regime will collapse, freedom, peace, and democracy will flow in the streets.
And some of us told him, no, that's not going to happen.
Even Tulsi Gabbard said that wasn't going to happen.
Jay Vice President Vance said that wasn't going to happen.
That's why they got left behind.
They're not in Mar-a-Lago.
They got stuck at, and with the energy secretary.
Ask yourself, why is the energy secretary?
Why was he one of the dissidents?
Because he knows the energy markets.
Iran has already effectively closed the Straits of Hermuz, folks.
What does that mean?
20 to 25% of oil and natural gas is off the markets, off the markets.
Red Sea, closed by the Houdis.
That's another 10%.
You just took a third of the gas and oil supply off the global market.
You don't think that'll have any economic impact?
You don't have any impact on the cost of living, the number one topic in the polls.
You don't think they'll have any impact on a wide range of geopolitics around the world?
Okay, keep living in the little fantasy land you're in where we discover WMDs in Iraq for George W. Boss.
But people repeating and regurgitating the same bad propaganda from the past.
And it's like, look, is it possible this all comes up roses and the whole world becomes peaceful and everything becomes prosperous and Trump is a hero?
Yeah, it's about 1% given history.
Well, the bigger odds are this becomes a debacle and a disaster at a minimum domestically, politically, because that's independent of the outcome of the war.
But if the war goes bad at all, I mean, they're already bringing back Americans in body bags and coffins.
What do they die for?
Didn't we say no more blood for oil?
They died for Israel.
Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the Middle East.
If you want to count dead civilians and dead babies, we just killed 100 kids, 100 girls.
Congratulations.
Go and pray and celebrate that at your Christian Zionist church.
For the rest of us, we're done with this.
Done with the dumb wars, done with the needless wars, done with the rogue wars, done with the deep state running our government and society.
President Trump has turned his administration into the Epstein administration, an administration of the Epstein class, by the Epstein class, for the Epstein class.
He is a traitor to the voters that stuck with him for more than a decade, that took real personal sacrifice.
Well, right now, he and his family get fabulously rich off the White House.
Strategic Strait Concerns00:16:01
Sorry, I have no patience or tolerance for it.
So do I think he'll survive this politically?
No.
He may stay in the office, but he'll go down as a dumber president than George W. Bush.
Congratulations, Mr. Well, I'm only putting the parentheses on the school, the school that was apparently bombed.
There's always conflicting reports.
I'm waiting.
I don't know when I'm going to wait to be satisfied with the conflicting information.
Was it a bomb from Iran that went astray?
Was it a strike?
It's a girls' school that's right next to these military facilities.
So there's an asterisk on that.
Bottom line, you have now three dead soldiers at the very least.
I mean, they got martyrs.
I mean, we got U.S. casualties coming back.
We'll have more coming back.
Does anybody think Americans are going to cheer that?
Americans believe in this?
You have to be such in a tiny, you're in that TDS portion that whatever Trump tells you, you believe it.
If he says A, you cheer it.
If he says the opposite of A, you cheer it.
Well, if he does B, you cheer it.
If he does the opposite of B, you cheer it.
These people are not serious people.
These are partisan people that are so blinded that they no longer have any commitment to any principles at all.
They're principles people.
They're what we used to mock the left and the Democrats for.
That's what some on the right have become.
Cheerleaders now for war.
Cheerleaders now for regime change.
Cheerleaders now for people.
I mean, it was going to happen that these kind of, when you have mass bombing strikes, you're going to have civilian casualties.
It's just really horrendous that somebody didn't look on the map to make sure we didn't take out a little girl's school.
But I mean, how do you think the Iranian population is going to respond?
Do you think they're going to cheerlead you and be on board?
You have to be in a delusional world.
How many times have we said this and it turned out false in Iraq and Libya and Syria and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea?
It has failed, failed, failed, failed, and failed.
How many times does it have to fail for the American people to wake the heck up?
Most of them are.
That's why they're against this war.
You can pretend otherwise all you want.
They're against it.
They'll stay against it.
The numbers will get worse in time.
And then you'll blame somebody else when you get slaughtered in the midterms.
It's your own fault.
And the president took an unnecessary risk.
And I think it's unfortunately going to cost him his presidency.
Well, and I want to highlight one thing is this was from Mark Levin himself.
Earlier, where was it?
Mark Levin tweeted.
I don't think I included his original tweet.
Where is it?
Mark Levin comes out and basically says, you know, the truth, oh, he wrote an article.
That's why it was not a tweet.
Mark Levin writes: The truth is that we are completely, if we are completely hands-off, we risk a rerun of the regime we have destroyed.
There will undoubtedly be remnants of existing regime or even a sizable population hell-bent on sabotaging the establishment of a democratic or non-authoritarian government.
90 million people in a country with multiple factions.
Maybe you should have thought about this before.
If they're not disarmed, if they're not disarmed, they may well succeed in a power struggle for control later on in his article.
I'm concerned that not enough thought has been given to this, particularly if our position is to leave the matter entirely to others.
Like, I see, it's amazing that you're asking these questions now, which these have been the concerns for not doing it.
But then, and now, now that it's been launched and initiated, it's too bloody late.
Now you're in for a dollar, in for a pound, in for a penny in for a pound.
But the other part of this, which I just lost my flipping thought, is that part of me thinks that maybe the strategy is just, you know, turn it into a Libya and just create such a domestic mess that they spend the next 20 years fighting in Turkey.
That's what Israel wants.
Israel wants no competitors, no rivals.
So they're happy to have complete chaos throughout the Middle East because, under Bibi, I should say Israel, because there's a big portion in Israel that doesn't agree with any of this.
But Bib's plan has always been this: tear apart Lebanon, make it a hellhole.
Tear apart Syria, make it a hellhole.
Tear apart Libya, make it a hellhole.
Tear apart Iraq, make it a hellhole.
Make sure there's nobody that can challenge us.
That does not make Americans more safe.
It makes Americans more at risk.
Right now, our entire, all our Gulf royal partners are wondering why they cut a deal with us at all.
The whole deal was: hey, we'll have U.S. military bases that will protect us from attack.
But what do you think we did when we decided to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel?
We evacuated those bases.
So now those countries are just getting hit whenever Iran wants.
Well, hold on.
I mean, are you going to buy a condo in Dubai when you can realize that it's actually the target of a major conflict zone for the next generation?
But we're destroying our alliances in those regions very quickly and very effectively.
And who knows?
A lot of these royal elites have a very thin level of control.
Take Bahrain.
Bahrain is a majority Shia population.
That's why they're cheering when their own country gets hit by Iran, when they see Iranian missiles hitting U.S. plan.
They're out there cheering.
Why they're majority Shia, being governed by a Sunni dictate.
So these royal elites that have a very thin level of control that don't have popular buy-in from their countries that are not democracies by any stretch, are now very vulnerable because the U.S. military bases that were meant to secure them to provide a security umbrella have all been evacuated.
But so we're disappearing from them.
And good luck.
Now they're dependent on Iran not deciding to hit their oil facilities.
They've already closed the Straits of Hormuz.
That's about 20, 25% of all oil and natural gas supply.
Gas oil is likely to go up over $100 a barrel.
Goldman and Sachs estimates up to $150 a barrel.
How do you think that's going to impact?
People seem to think, well, we have our own supply.
So somehow that won't impact the price of oil.
It's a globally set price, folks.
It will impact it right here, just as much.
And when affordability is a major issue going into the election, how's that going to be if Trump's been bragging about looking at how low gas prices are?
What if they increase 50% in the next three months?
You think that's going to help the president get re-elected?
I mean, help the party get re-elected to Congress?
I don't think so.
Help JD Vance in 2028?
Don't think so.
What of the argument that the fact that Iran is proving what a wild dog it is by striking Bahrain or striking, sorry, now which one was it?
Qatar or UAE?
Which both?
They've been hammering the heck out of it.
What of the argument that, well, now even the other Muslim nations in the area are going to side with the U.S. and everyone's going to team up against Iran.
And I don't know, they'll send their two soldiers.
They don't have anybody.
All they have is the U.S.
That was the quid pro quo.
What happens if it all, what happens if it all backfires?
And by the way, Israel has already proposed to the White House wanting to go after Turkey next.
They want us to go after a NATO member, Turkey next.
Bibi Netanyahu breached this, he broached this exact subject with the White House a few weeks ago.
He's not done with Iran.
He wants to keep going and going and going and going.
War, war, war, war, more, war.
That's his campaign on.
He will not stop until we, the U.S., stop joining his efforts, his insanity, his greater Israel project.
It is going to destroy.
Israel is making itself a pariah, even in the United States, the last country that supported it in the entire world.
For the Israeli supporters out there, what happens when you don't have any support from anybody?
What then?
What happens when Iran now does develop nuclear weapons?
Because they realize how foolish they were not to adopt them before as a deterrent.
I mean, I don't think this was thought through at all.
I think Trump listened to a lie from the Israeli lobby in Bibi Netanyahu, and now he's caught with his pants down and very little options out.
And I saw someone say the Straits of Hormuz are not closed.
Barnes is wrong.
It's AI, but it's not for me.
It's not for me.
Let's look at how much here's what happened.
Actually, if you want to look at the, you can look at the ports of, there's certain ports that the Cauchy prediction markets are tracking.
And it's whether 90% or more ships go through.
So almost all the ships have stopped.
You don't have to literally mine the Straits of Hormuz to close them.
All you have to do is make sure Lloyds of London won't insure a single ship coming out of it.
And that's already the case.
They're already jacking up insurance costs so high, it's more than any profit you could ever make.
And then a couple of ships, including sanctioned ships, by the way, that were associated with shipping Iranian oil in the past, the Iranian guard hit today when they tried to go through the Straits of Hormuz.
So the Straits of Hormuz are effectively closed.
More than 90% of the traffic is shut down.
Anybody pretending otherwise is living in a la-la land and denial world.
I'll get to some of the chats now.
Hope for the best.
What is it?
Pray for the best.
Prepare for the worst.
But right now, we'll get to some tipped questions before we get into the other subjects of the evening.
One of them is going to be covered by my ugly face.
Data 12 says, Did Harvard say Comet 3i Atlas is alien last month?
Will Yale say hold your horses?
Comet 3i Atlas is stolen comet, stolen comet.
LOL, I like my jokes, says data 12.
Randy Edwards says, wait, did David move Robert in with Winson?
What did I miss that aside?
What if I asked President Trump to step in for the Amish?
Would that help calm Mr. Barnes this episode?
The Amish deserve love.
That was all a good guy.
Says, David, good discussion on your ex-thread regarding that veteran.
I'm actually a fan of military law and have written an amicus for the Court of Appeals in the Armed Forces.
Funny how they interact.
I mean, there's a good number of veterans that are more, you know, I mean, people like Colonel McGregor said this would be a disaster.
People who was an advisor to President Trump in his first term, supporter of President Trump in 2024.
The Daniel Davis, Lieutenant Colonel.
You can watch his follow-up show Deep Dive with Daniel Davis.
A range of other military analysts that have been on a range of independent media programs have been saying the same thing, this scream disaster, the geopolitical analysis from people that I trust, whether you're talking about Alexander McCorris and Alex Christoforu of the Duran, whether you're talking about Professor Glenn Deason, whether you're talking about Professor John Mearsheimer, some of the most predictive geopolitical analysts in the world universally were like, this is not going to work out well.
The risk's way out, way out way of the way.
And the same politically.
I mean, domestically, politically, this is the point we're making.
Is even the war was a huge success.
Americans will see it as a distraction from the domestic agenda they wanted to focus on.
For them, America first didn't mean America number one, F yeah.
It meant America being the focal point of the president's attentions.
And here we have a distraction.
I mean, he has a great, at least, you know, theatrically, a great State of the Union speech.
And he completely destroyed all the political momentum he had from that in three days.
In less than three days, he blew it all up over a war for Israel.
Catholic bishop, this is Randy Edward.
Catholic bitches have bishops, not bitches, have insisted its Catholic SCOTUS jurists be more Catholic than jurists in their recent birthright citizenship amicus brief.
Will the six Catholic jurists have to abide by their faith?
Failing tuna says, I suspect that Trump will be impeached.
And his defense will be that the U.S. has been at war with Iran since 2020 when they interfered with the U.S. elections.
King of Biltong is in the house.
Thank you.
Iran, by the way, never influenced the U.S. elections.
And they were trying to allegedly pin the Butler attempted assassination on Iran.
That's why they did it.
That's why Dan Bondino went nuts on me when I called him out and said he's hiding the Epstein files and lying about what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, in order to allow false blaming of Iran for the assassination of President Trump.
The attempted assassinations of President Trump were the American deep state and with connections to Ukraine in the second case and the not Iran.
There was no plausible connection to Iran at all.
So that is all garbage and hogwash.
Americans are the most propagandized people on the planet.
And their willingness and eagerness to regurgitate it is striking.
Canada, Robert, is number one.
But for anybody wondering what that erectile dysfunction thing is, it's from where the Gopher Tortoise Rome and it says prison for animal torturing Hicks with erectile dysfunction.
I thought for a second I was getting an ad for erectile dysfunction because those seem to be coming up on my YouTube.
I don't know if they're predictive or okay, never mind.
So with that said, premium Bill Tong for Bill Tong USA, high-protein, keto-friendly, no-additives, U.S. sourced beef, authentic South African flavor.
Get some now at BilltongUSA.com.
Use code Barnes for 10% off.
It's amazing.
Delicious.
Taste it, eat it.
Mitkey says, but Barnes calling Trump a traitor is inexcusable.
I think you're missing the tongue-in-cheek where Trump referred to Marjorie Taylor Greene as that Margaret traitor girl.
He is a traitor to the anti-war portion of his base, and he will be seen as such.
I mean, the Kurt Mills, editor of American Conservative, called it the great betrayal.
That is how those voters will see it.
Now, not most of his voters, but a substantial portion that had been deeply loyal to him for 10 plus years, dating back to the early 2016 primaries, and ignoring that that constituency, pretending they don't exist, pretending they don't matter, is no way to strategize going forward with elections or other political capital that the president needs that he's now spent on Israel.
Now, Randy Edwards says, point of order.
President Trump did draw a clear line with Iran murdering of its citizenry.
That line was crossed.
Conversely, Iranian relations are grateful.
Mercenaries were the ones killing them.
If the rationale now is so it wasn't an imminent threat to America, but it was to liberate the people who were being oppressed by the Iranian government, where do you stop?
Go now to go to Tibet.
Go to we were busy opening fire on protesters outside the U.S. embassy in Pakistan.
It looks like we killed a dozen or so Pakistanis.
I mean, that's the new standard?
You have a right to go wage war around the world if you don't like how they treat their domestic population?
Isn't that literally being the world's policeman?
Yep.
Jay Darga65 says, Viva and Barnes, Trump like an idiot.
He saw how quick Venezuela happened and thought, oh, I could do this in Iran too.
I thought he was a bad.
He learned the wrong lessons from it, sadly.
Well, and I don't know what's better in Venezuela now, but whatever.
Joe Masky.
Same regime.
Same regime.
The only Persian I know personally is drunk celebrating the absolute all Persians in exile or in what's the word anybody who fled the regime hates the regime.
No, I'd like to.
I would like to see the regime fall.
Like Patrick Ben David is out there repeating bogus polls.
Hey, Patrick, stick to running pyramid schemes, bud.
That's what you're really good at.
Why is Jared Kushner heavily integrated in the Middle East discussions and negotiations?
Is the administration trying to position him for the next Secretary of Straits?
Say, oh, no.
No, they're all lining their pockets.
Witkoff is lining his pockets.
Kushner is lining his pockets.
Don Jr. is lining his pockets.
Eric Trump is investing in an Israeli military-industrial complex now.
They're all lining their pockets.
Trump's family wealth has gone up $4 billion in his first term, first year of his second term.
He lost money in his first term.
And unfortunately, I guess the lesson he learned from the lawfare was: boy, next time I'm in, we're really going to cash in.
Dominant one says, real men will not sit on Anton's firm and juicy meat.
Real men will only put Anton's firm and juicy meat in their mouths for King of Built on King of Built on USA.
Backdoor delivery is not available.
And Gorgeous Mayhem says, hey, Barnes, you forgot something else about the Iran risk of terrorist attacks here.
One happened last night in Austin.
We saw one.
It may have been one.
That last shout out.
Killed the number two religious leader in all of Shia Islam.
Of course, there's going to be blowback.
Well, that argument is predictable, but that would not be fearing reprisals back home from nutcases is the indication you need to crack down on your border and crack down on deporting illegals.
That should not be the deterrent.
Well, some crazy person might do something here.
But all the rest, I mean, pretty much stands just in terms of whatever.
We're split in the chat.
The sentiment is split in the chat, but that goes to show you how split this actual decision is.
We've got a pretty decent sample.
At least 90% support from your own base of support to go forward with a milit foreign adventure in the current political environment.
And he can't even get to 50, 60% with any consistency in the surveys.
I think ultimately he'll get 70% or so because you'll see a lot of fake news, a lot of slop from the bogus influencers, the cat turds of the world.
Wrong Again?00:02:56
I love Trump because he'll keep us out of war.
I love Trump because he gets us into war.
Woohoo!
You know, that crap.
The American team, American World Police, F yeah, from the South Park caricature.
Yo, plenty of those running around.
It was like back when, I mean, I've been anti-war since I was a kid.
I organized anti-war protests to the very first Iraq war when I was 16 years old.
And I remember people telling, oh, Born, you probably eat French fries instead of Freedom Fries.
You know, I remember all that nonsense.
And none of them have been right yet.
They have been wrong about every single war we got involved in since I've been alive.
They've been wrong, and wrong.
And they're going to be wrong again.
It's unfortunate that we have to keep relearning this lesson again and again and again.
That's what's really unfortunate.
Collective memory.
Chris Kraft 2 says, anytime I see you in the chat, I know I have to take my Ginkgo Baloba.
I'm not sure what that's about.
Chris Kraft II says, Bill, based on your considerable experience, do you think the Venezuelan and now Iranian effort is more about strategically keeping oil away from China for the longer term so we can control most of it?
I'm not going to do that.
It's not going to let the regime change.
By the way, China's got a little neighbor that I hear has a lot of oil.
It's called Russia.
So China's fine.
They already got six months of oil back stockpile.
They benefit from the sanctions because they get Iranian oil cheaper than it otherwise would be.
And so the idea that we're going to somehow cut off what happens when China reciprocates by cutting off all rare earths that go into our munitions and we can no longer build our own munitions.
What happens then, boys and girls?
A couple of things have been highlighted.
Also, shortage of missiles in America.
Now, as a result, we're seeing weaknesses there.
The other issue is when they're talking about the vacuum that's going to be left in Iran.
And now the argument is: well, if we don't go in and occupy Russia, China, and others might go in and exercise their influence there.
Well, that's the void that you just opened up.
And now it's like it was the same pretext for Iran for Venezuela, except Venezuela is not Iran.
And at least Venezuela is in our hemisphere.
And the argument is a little stronger for ensuring what goes on there.
All right, we'll do a couple more on the vivabarnslaw.locals.com side, and then we're going to start moving into the other issues.
I was just reminded of the FAA airlines requiring more COVID jets for pilots.
This is from Joey Butters.
There had been testimony in front of Congress, I thought, stating the shots had compromised.
Oh, though, that a lot of pilots were suffering issues that made them grounded.
You know, I'm still representing pilots suing United Airlines, but a lot of the courts are trying to dismiss all those cases without letting them get to trial, unfortunately, at the moment.
We'll probably need a pellet or Supreme Court reversal because the judicial branch has returned to its hostility to those bringing challenges to the vaccine mandates, even when brought on very good, robust religious objection grounds.
Then we got: Will President Trump support Israel liberating their ancestral land of Lebanon and Western Syria from its aggressive?
That's got to be great.
That is great one-on-one, Robert.
All right, we're going to go down here.
All right.
So let's do we move, we'll move into other stuff.
Imposing Sanctions on Rampant Fraud00:14:50
I mean, Trump, we got Trump tariffs.
We've got a whole bunch of other topics.
Well, but maybe the Trump tariffs.
The new one.
Yeah, let's do Trump.
So when the court came down and declared the tariffs unlawful going forward, they have to figure out what to do with them retrospectively.
Congress can still act and save it so that they don't bankrupt the country, but we'll see if they do.
Trump then immediately the day of says 10% more across the board under another provision of law, which I acknowledge I'm not, you know, this is, I don't know the law and I find this subject matter relatively boring, but I understand the broad brushstrokes is they basically said at the time, this is going to get challenged exactly the same way the last one gets challenged.
In a month or two, you're going to have another ruling saying you couldn't impose tariffs under that provision of law.
And I don't know what the long-term solution to it is, but what is this other subsidiary power under these emergencies provisions that Trump is now using to maintain and increase the tariffs that were just declared or unlawful might be the strong word, but just declared unlawful.
So the policy proposal, based on the polling data, 1776 law centered in a nationwide survey in depth with Richard Barris of Big Data Poll, People's Pundit Daily.
And what we found was that there was overwhelming support for this proposal, which was a 20% across-the-board tariff passed by Congress, so clearly constitutional, clearly legal, would pass all judicial scrutiny, but paid, but made it revenue neutral and pay for it by eliminating the individual income tax on 95% of American households.
And so basically, anybody that has an adjusTedros income in a given year of less than a quarter of a million dollars.
And so all of those people would pay no income tax.
It would remove it from everybody's, every working class person's middle class person's, you know, just the top 5% would be paying any tax, income tax going forward.
And, you know, the goal would be to get rid of the income tax long term.
But that, you know, that was a dollar-for-dollar payoff.
You know, we have a $2 trillion plus the goods imported each year.
And so this would produce enough revenue to offset the amount of revenue brought in on that category of income tax earners.
Trump liked it, and he indirectly referenced it in the State of the Union.
He said, I want to get rid of the individual income tax on these folks, you know, on my people, working class people's head with the tariffs.
But he didn't actually propose it to Congress.
And instead, he's decided because Congress says that they don't want to, but he should have forced them to vote on it.
Make them vote on keeping taxes on working class people rather than foreign-made goods.
I mean, it's a lot of Americans are confused about how tariffs really work.
So the way to get more political buy-in was to directly relieve their taxes on their income and give them a tax that they can avoid paying because you don't have to pay a tax on foreign goods if you buy American goods.
So it was a win-win, politically, huge possibility.
He saw it.
He liked the data, talked about it at the State of the Union, but then didn't force it on Congress because Thune, the Senate majority leader, doesn't want it proposed.
And Speaker Mike Johnson doesn't want to propose, which is unfortunate.
So instead, he's using the Trade Act of 1974, and in particular, the balance of payments clause rather than the balance of trade deficit clause to try to impose a 15% across-the-board tariff around the world.
The problem is that statute was meant to deal with balance of payments when they create a currency issue.
That's not one in a 15% across-the-board tariff is tethered to.
So he's repeating the mistake of the first set of tariffs, and especially when he decided to use them willy-nilly like he did.
So outside of the confines.
So by not tethering the tariffs to the statutory basis of it within the Trade Act of 1974 means this is also going to get struck down.
So now he's got Section 302 and other sections that he can use.
This one was used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Problem is, I mean, there's already analysis out there from Iran.
They're already preparing the legal cases to go, and they're probably going to win.
And they're probably going to, in other words, the people challenging the tariffs are probably going to win.
So, you know, some of us were telling him, use this now, put pressure on Congress now, try to get, you know, make Congress go on the record saying they want to keep taxing working class people to help China make big billions and billions of dollars on a global trade deficit.
But instead, he took this path because they pitched that this will be the easier path.
It's not when it gets invalidated a month from now.
So it's frustrating, but I don't think this set of new tariffs will hold up.
People run with that talking point that, you know, tariffs are a tax on Americans because it filters down to them and whatever.
Let's set that aside.
America's already being taxed regardless and heavily, depending on, you know, at the Fed level, heavily, state levels, you know, free state of Florida is quite beautiful for that.
The idea that you'd say, okay, fine.
So then no income tax.
So you're not getting taxed twice, even if you're getting taxed once on the tariffs.
And if you want to get taxed by buying foreign, then you'll pay that tax, or you can buy domestic and it won't be taxed.
That makes total sense.
And it also responds to what I believe is a fallacious argument that if you impose a tariff, it's just an additional tax because it doesn't necessarily trickle down.
But then absolve the domestic tax, impose a tariff.
And if you want to buy domestic without paying the foreign domestic tariff tax, whatever, you have that option.
I mean, there's not enough time to get this done, Robert, even before midterms.
I mean, how long does this take?
Trump is now saying the Iran war will, I think he wanted to last a weekend, but now he's saying four weeks, maybe longer.
So this is going to suck up all the oxygen in the room.
And by August, they're all in campaign mode.
There's literally no chance they're passing something in the fall.
So the problem is this is going to suck up all the auction in March and into April.
And then you're almost to the end of the legislative session and getting anything done.
So by not using it, the State of the Union is the opportunity.
Unfortunately, I think he's repeated his past mistake politically.
And I think that the tariffs will be DOA and there's no way a Democratic Congress will pass them.
Now, that doesn't mean people can't run on it, campaign on it, get the idea out there in the zeitgeist, because I think it can build as a platform for the future.
But I don't think it will pass.
I don't think he'll push it or be able to get it through anytime soon because he did not take the opportunity to do so at the State of the Union and then chose to follow up the State of the Union with a war with Iran.
So that was not a good way to, you know, he had some real momentum there from, you know, the, I mean, I mean, he has Democrats sitting down about, hey, will you please stand up if you support Americans over illegals?
You know, that's a huge political win for him.
Embarrass the Democrats.
You got Elon Omar screaming at him.
You got Rashid Talib screaming at him.
You've got hockey people.
You've got people that have been one issue we had recommended was he really talked about these illegals stealing truck drivers' jobs and causing accidents.
They did a good job of that, highlighting people that have been injured by those people, highlighting military heroes, highlighting the U.S. hockey team's great success against the Camida.
Canada really should wear ashcloth for four years after that humiliating defeat in their own sport.
But the, you know, and then he decides to blow it all on this.
So on a war for Israel.
I was going to say something about the state of the union.
It had to do with.
Oh, no, yeah, not getting the Democrats or getting the Democrats to sit down when they wouldn't acknowledge that the government's job is to look over and take care of Americans over illegals.
And then some people could say: if the argument is Trump did what he did in Iran to liberate the people of Iran, some Americans are going to say this is Trump now caring more for foreigners than taking care of domestic issues.
So it's focused on foreign issues, focused on foreign policies, all of it.
Well, I never root for Canada.
There's literally nothing where I ever root for Canada.
I never root for Canada on anything.
Not for beer, not for hockey, not for nothing.
Well, hold on a second.
I did cheer for the L.A. Dodgers to lose, but that's because I hate the L.A. Dodgers.
But let us not be only black pill doom pill, whatever you want to call it, negative on the Trump administration.
I was jogging.
It's a long podcast.
It's great.
I was jogging, listening to RFK on Rogan, and I'm like, set aside the whole executive order on glyphosates, which we talked about last week.
And credit to him to say he opposed that being done.
He understands why the president did it, why he feels boxed in, but he opposed it.
You know, you're seeing Kennedy still honest to the core, still committed to the values.
You see all the reforms that, yeah, I recommend his interview with Joe Rogan that people watch and listen.
You see both his ongoing integrity, but he can really make a lot of changes.
I mean, even if Trump is kind of a dead man walking presidentially, there's a lot of good work that can happen in the executive branch of government.
And probably the main saving grace of the Trump second term, I believe, will be Robert Kennedy's noble work at Health and Human Services.
That's the type of thing which we'll see the effects of that, hopefully, you know, already by 2028 when you should see material differences.
But talking about policy that is not being accepted by Democrat states in terms of healthy food and schools, healthy foods, eliminating dyes, it is the only, I say, the only silver lining for the time being right now.
At one point, we had hopes for the civil rights division, and that's good.
They've gone after some change.
They're the same thing pretty much dead.
But there's a lot of allies.
Elbert Colby is still trying to do good work.
I think Tulsi Gabbard could at least out the dirty secrets, the family jewels, if you will, of the corrupt intelligence agencies involved in the 2020 election, involved in COVID, involved in January 6, involved in the Kennedy assassinations and the King assassination.
These other things she can continue to document in detail.
I think that's how she'll focus her role because the president, unfortunately, is not taking her advice on a lot of global conflicts to his detriment.
But, you know, this is what it is.
But I think there's a lot that can still be done in the administration to get good things done, even if Trump is kind of off on his own, off on his own tree there.
One of those good things, Robert, is the fraud task force out of Minnesota.
And now the feds have said we're cutting, we're not giving you any Medicaid money until you figure out what's going on with this fraud, which is in the order of billions.
I mean, literally billions.
And I think they've said they're going to cut, what is it, $250 million in Medicaid funding to the state until they figure this out.
And then you actually have that idiot Tampon Tim come out and say this is going to hurt families, veterans, children, the cutting $250 million.
And yet somehow the $10 billion in fraud doesn't hurt the working families and children and veterans 20 times more.
So what is the practical empowerment of JD Vance and the task, the fraud task force to actually meaningfully, I don't know if they can investigate at the state level, but impose sanctions for rampant fraud at the state level.
So I'll give you the bad first and then the good.
The original intention was to create an assistant attorney general for fraud that would incorporate the civil division for fraud, the criminal division for fraud under its supervision, and the KTAM whistleblower division and the antitrust division, as well as the HHS and Ag Department referrals and defense department referrals for fraud.
This would be extraordinarily powerful and potent.
This is what was announced a month and a half ago.
And it was going to be an assistant attorney general new position appointed, nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate, but under the supervisory power of the vice president, Vice President Vance.
Todd Blanch came in and eviscerated that whole thing.
And basically, for whatever reason, the president went with Blanche over Vance.
And so the effect is that now the VP's role has been very limited.
Now, here's the good.
He's got a really big ally in the biggest area where fraud occurs in the government, and that's Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy is a huge ally with Vance.
They're both allied on Maha causes, get along very well personally, as well as share the same political perspectives on these issues.
And he is agreeing to work directly with Vance on all the HHS fraud.
And he's documented hundreds of billions of dollars every year given out to these bogus organizations, like two of the places, three places he's highlighted.
One is Minnesota, where they were doing bogus autism diagnoses in order to inflate and line the pockets, principally, but not exclusively, the Somali community.
And then in LA, which was getting like almost all the hospice money in the whole country somehow was going to L.A., they turned this into a huge, sophisticated fraud scheme that, as he pointed out on Rogan, accelerated under President Biden.
And they're going to take that all apart.
He pointed out they had Cuba and other governments, foreign nations involved in a range of schemes, including bogus health equipment in Florida and other places.
So he is going to unleash this.
This will be very profitable for Vice President Vance politically, but very good for the country.
And so what's good is at least that part was salvaged.
So credit to Vance and Kennedy to salvage that from Todd Blanche trying to subvert it because all Blanche cares about is the same thing pay for pay play Pam Bondi cares about, which is let's make sure the big corporate lobbyists get as much cash as possible, like felony, criminal, corporate whore, Mike Davis, and people like that.
Bobby Kennedy knows of, you know, may be aware of that, hypothetically speaking.
So that's why he's working directly with Vance to make sure these fraud prosecutions actually happen and billions And billions and billions of dollars, maybe up to trillions of dollars, get saved for the American taxpayer.
So, congratulations to Vance and Kennedy at keeping that part of the fraud program alive.
I think the budget of HHS was the equivalent to like the sixth largest GDP on earth, if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, that's what Kennedy pointed out.
Well, it's a budgetary control and the regulatory control are parallel controls for him to influence public health policy.
And he's really trying to take it apart piece by piece by piece to restore public health in America, despite all the obstacles and opposition.
And even when dumb things get done by the Justice Department wanting glycophate to be immune for causing death and cancer in America, and even when President Trump gets snookered by Swampy Susie Wiles into signing an executive order on that, and he's got to go out there and try to explain it to people.
But he was honest.
He was honest with it.
He was like, no, I oppose this.
I've always opposed this.
I don't support immunity.
In fact, one interesting thing the 1776 Law Center survey pointed out was people hate immunity for big drug companies when their vaccines cause injury.
No More Vaccine Immunity00:05:29
One of the most popular issues in the nation.
As he shared, the polling results were shared by Senator Rand Paul this past week, where he pointed out from the big data poll 1776 Law Center did that Americans love his idea of no more immunity for big drug companies when their vaccines cause injury.
Another real popular one, no immunity for big chemical companies causing injury.
But here's another big one.
No immunity for banks when they discriminate against you for political reasons, as currently exists unbeknownst to most people.
And this one actually surprised me.
No immunity for any government official, including a police officer, when they violate your civil rights or civil liberties.
Massive support.
Broad support, deep support.
So these are all popular issues to run on and campaign on.
Kennedy's trying to do the best he can within the scope of power he has, despite Swampy Susie sabotaging him, despite President Trump going AWOL, despite pay-for-play Pam doing all of her nonsense.
He keeps marching on undefeated the same way Thomas Massey does.
He's a true happy warrior in the old Reagan style.
And Kennedy pointed out, this was interesting because I was like, how do you deal with the psychology of this?
When everybody's out to sabotage you, when everybody's out to undermine you, including from within the administration frequently, how do you stay focused?
How do you keep achieving things day to day to day?
He's like, I wake up.
It's just that day.
That's my focus.
What am I going to get done that day?
How much good can I get done this day?
It's a version of the good, good philosophy is how Robert Kennedy lives and operates.
And that's why he will keep getting good things done.
Before we fall too far behind over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, we're going to get into ICE and the IRS in a second.
Ronald B. says, I've been looking forward to voting for Paxton over Cornyn for a year.
Paxton tweeted his total support for the Iran invasion.
I will vote for Paxton.
I will not vote for Paxton in any way.
Am I wrong?
I understand your sentiment on that.
The Republicans have got the message that they got to be on the war train.
So Thomas Massey and Rand Paul are the only people so far to have the courage to voice opposition to it.
We got, I just lost my fat fingers here.
There it is.
The U.S. representative in the U.N. Security Council claimed in his speech that Iran tried to assassinate Trump.
Does Trump still believe the FBI story?
I was thinking right, that might be the, there was an assassination attempt before Butler of a man with a firearm.
I think it was at one of the rallies.
And know the FBI CIA scam to try to blame the attempted assassination on Trump, thinking it was going to be successful retrospectively on Iran so that Nikki Haley would be the nominee, Mike Poppeo would be the vice presidential nominee, and we would have been on the march with war with Iran sooner.
Trump has rewarded them because Dan Ballis, Bongino, and counterfeit Kash Patel lied to him about what was in the Butler file.
Crovatis is asking you again to unblock the property.
I think I texted you a screenshot of this.
Yeah, take a look at that.
Yes, yes, oh, yes.
Dicktim says, people's pundit needs to be wary of the company he keeps.
Barnes is causing rich to lose popularity.
It's not a popularity contest.
Paris doesn't care about popularity.
He cares about truth and accuracy and holding the people in power accountable to the voters that put him there.
He's been consistent about this forever.
Even when the voters have a different opinion about a public policy than he does, he advances and advocates for the voters because that's what he sees as his role is to communicate what they believe to the decision makers.
And he doesn't care about he's they've threatened him.
It hasn't changed how he's acted.
They've tried to bribe him.
It won't change how he's acted.
This is somebody who's actually served our country and to you know to his physical health detriment.
So this is not somebody who's going to cheerlead and change his principles for money.
He's not going to change his principles for fame.
He's not going to change his principles for celebrity.
So you can complain and whine about that all you want.
Some of us have principles.
Obviously, this commenter really doesn't.
That's on you, my friend, not me.
The funny thing is like people accuse you, me, Barris of being grifters while simultaneously saying, look, what you're saying is unpopular.
So the two things are mutually incompatible.
But if your audience captured, then you're no longer a human being.
You're a human abiding.
And that's not a good thing to be.
Howard the Duke says, have you heard Tucker Carlson's theory that Iran conflict is Israel's opening gambit in an effort to realign with India, simultaneously weaken the U.S. as a world power?
What about his opinion that this is Israel's last chance to get the U.S. to intervene in Iran before bipartisan support for Israel evaporates?
Thoughts?
I think we covered that one.
Well, I think as a whole, they don't mind if the Gulf states collapse under Iran's counterattack because Israel would like there to be no regional rival at all to them throughout the Middle East.
Bill Brown says, remember, folks, the Jewish people got their own state so they could stop meddling in everyone else's affairs.
That's why Netanyahu has zero influence over the countries today.
I think there's sarcasm there.
Mr. Mike says, Trump violated the WPR 6090-day limit since hostilities with Iran actually began on June 22nd, 2025, during the so-called 12-day war.
Hostilities were suspended from the negotiations.
Trump acting illegally.
Schnookam says, we need to change our viewpoint and words.
Stop defining foreign leaders as bad guys and realize them as just the other guys.
The first allows one to act badly or immorally or illegally to a bad guy and stop critical thinking you might use for evaluation.
Well, there's a lot of people out there who look at every president of the United States and says the exact same thing.
And it's not that it's equally as true or not true.
It's just like that's how people rationalize their own conduct.
This morning, we were already claiming there was intelligence that Iran was getting ready to attack American assets, and that's why Trump gave the order, LMAO, assisting Ray.
Iran economy near collapse, 90 million.
IRS Information Sharing Controversy00:05:37
I saw that one earlier as well.
Four Stooges.
Tequila Leposado says, Biva, Barnes, without accountability, Congress can fund proxy wars without a declaration of war.
However, presidents can be impeached if they undertake actions that account to a declaration of war.
Where in the Constitution is Congress's unchecked funding of foreign proxy wars authorized?
Why would Congress impeach Trump when he's now doing everything they want?
Why would Congress impeach?
Okay, I get it.
Kay Trimbach.
Dictums.
Okay, so we'll stop here.
We're going to get to some other subject matter, and we'll come back to that in a second.
Robert, speaking of IRS and the ICE.
So this was a funny one.
I say funny.
In a cynical way, that ICE was trying to get information addresses on, I don't know, I would say alleged illegals, but by the sounds of it, you know, they were just, I don't know, reaching in a bag and hoping to pull something out.
The IRS allegedly, or at least now by order, communicated upwards of 45,000 people's information to ICE based on a request from ICE to allegedly assist them in identifying and locating illegal aliens.
There's some provision of law that sets out the criteria, the threshold, the requirements in order for ICE to ask for or IRS to communicate information on people that they collect from.
And by all accounts, in this case, the IRS did not abide by these statutory requirements in terms of a request for communication of information and basically gave the information on 45,000 taxpayers, I guess.
So, I mean, it's illegals who are paying tax to ICE so that ICE could go and locate and track.
And, you know, it was struck down.
You want to flesh out what are the legal requirements that the IRS must abide by when there's a request for another branch of government.
I guess the first question is this.
Why do not, it's going to be a stupid question.
Why do not all branches of the federal government communicate with one another if they need information from the other?
It's because of the uniqueness of the tax gathering.
So the theory is that you're compelled disclosure under the Internal Revenue Service laws to the IRS under the tax laws somehow doesn't violate your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and other things.
And one of the ways they've got away with this is they've statutorily guaranteed under Section 6103 of Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code, the United States Code, Title 26 is loosely called the Internal Revenue Code, or colloquially called it, is that this information can't be shared for any reason other than tax computation perspective.
So that's the argument that as long as the information you're providing is necessary for tax computation, and since it can't be shared with anybody for any reason other than tax computation, there's no Fifth Amendment implications to this compelled self-incrimination.
This is a specifically unique element of the IRS because you're compelled under the law to disclose stuff.
And then if they were to share it with other branches of government, it would be a violation of the current current.
It creates some constitutional issues at the wazoo.
So they created a statute, Section 6103, that said, here's all the limits before you can share it with anybody, including other agencies.
And ICE just ignored all these limits because Christy Noam was too busy.
Can you make sure you can get the bed in the back of this plane so I can bang Corey Lewandowski when we're on special trips for the government?
You know, like Kash Patels for the government trips to get drunk with the U.S. hockey team in the locker room, you know, those kind of special trips.
Another one of her dumb ideas, because there is a way to go about it legally to get this information.
She just didn't go about it legally.
They would request addresses from them when you have to have the address in advance before you request confirmation of it.
They just abused all kinds of nonsense.
And this is stuff Homan, I don't think, would have ever let get out of hand.
But Noam did and went to court.
And Noam lost again, doing something that, frankly, is patently illegal.
It's actually a high crime.
I mean, it's one more impeachable offense in the long litany of Christy Noam's impeachable offenses, including no bid Noam, Grifty Christie, as some folks have come to call her, for giving special deals and secret deals worth billions of dollars to lobbyist pals and friends treating the office as a cash register for Corey Lewandowski and his buddies.
And this is all over the place now in media reports.
She was complaining because she discovered that some people in her office apparently had planted spy devices on her phone.
You don't want to know what sounds on that phone.
Trust me, folks.
I mean, it'd be like, I really didn't want to see that.
But there's a lot of that there going on, a lot of other stuff.
But this is what happens when you're a complete crook.
You get caught easily.
I mean, it's just embarrassing.
The sooner Trump gets rid of her, the better.
Just dump her, put Homan in charge and move on from all this.
Who is, I mean, I don't say who's the next or the first to leave.
Homan has now been replaced in Minnesota.
Effectively.
He's really running the, he's now running the show.
But, and she's still there as a figurehead.
Just get her out.
I mean, Trump is bleeding political capital by keeping her around.
I mean, she was one of the favorite early targets of South Park.
So it's like, okay, you've already got somebody that's way too vulnerable.
You know, her face falls off and does crazy stuff because of all her plastic surgery.
And whenever she sees a dog, she's like, bam, oh, I got him almost.
He was close there.
I mean, it's just, you know, I was skeptical of her from the get-go because of her corporate horror days as governor of South Dakota.
There's talk she may voluntarily resign and Trump back her in a potential Senate race in South Dakota.
So that's a possibility.
Contesting Assets Under Civil Forfeiture00:15:27
You know, fine.
I don't, she won't be a great senator either, but at least get her out of that being an embarrassment at ICE.
All right.
Well, that's, I mean, it did seem dirty that that's the way that they, once they force you to disclose your information to the government, they then procure it for the purposes of.
But in terms of other state level, federal level, where there's required communication, what's the rationale if we're just talking about states not communicating information on it depends on how they gathered it.
Did they gather it truly, voluntarily, or was it gathered in some coerced way?
And if it was gathered in some compelled or coerced way, then there's Fifth Amendment issues with sharing it for any reason other than the limited purpose that it was provided.
And the statutes and regulations often enforce that underlying Fifth Amendment principle.
All right.
Well, I guess, you know, speaking of government abuse in terms of its powers, the other one, which is very interesting.
So hold on.
I want to make sure I get the right amendment here.
This is the Fourth Amendment, unlawful seizures.
Robert, so we've always been asked about civil forfeiture when they go in, when the government comes in and accuses you of a crime, and then they seize your assets on the basis of whatever alleged criminality, even if you are ultimately exonerated, even if they never press charges, oftentimes they abusively just confiscate and keep whatever assets they seize.
This is a particular case when a guy is out on, what's his name?
Perez, I believe.
He's out on parole.
He's got some conditions that allow the authorities to visit him without warning to make sure that he's in compliance with the terms of his release.
And the man owns a property, which is a rental property.
People are going to say, well, it's a maneuver here to evade whatever.
He owns a rental property that he rents out to a third party who happens to be his girlfriend and her kid.
And when the government comes to check on him and make sure he's abiding by all his terms and conditions and they can, I don't know, effectively search and they can search whatever is within the order.
They determine that they then also get to search property that he owns that is a real estate property that is being rented by a third party who's not a party to the terms of release.
They go and search this property that is rented by his girlfriend and they find $25,000 some odd dollars in cash.
And I don't know if there was other stuff that they found which was suspicious.
And they determine that these are the proceeds.
This is cash that is the proceeds of drug dealing.
And they confiscate the $25,000.
I think it's like 15,000 of which was his girlfriend's, 10,000 of which was, he admitted was his own.
And they go and contest the government's ability to seize assets under civil forfeiture in a property that he owns, but that is rented out to a third party who's not the object of the order, even though it happens to be his girlfriend.
First instance, I think they lose.
Second time around, they declare it that it was unreasonable, excessive, that it doesn't allow you to go and search the properties that he owns, but that are occupied by third parties.
This is specifically real estate.
And they ordered the return of $25,325 in U.S. currency.
Finally, somebody, hey, look, I don't know if they were dealing drugs, but what's your bottom line takeaway from this particular court order?
So someone asked in the chat whether I like Senator Thune.
And the answer is no.
Some of us said not to make him Senate Majority Leader.
They made it anyway.
Whoever asked that must be new to the channel because I think that has not been.
He's killed the SAVE Act.
Save Act's not going to pass because he won't push it through.
It's where Trump has misused his political capital and leverage.
I mean, he even calls out Thun at the State of the Union.
They still won't push the SAVE Act through to have at least some degree of integrity in our federal elections.
But it is what it is.
But yeah, so if you're a probationer, your Fourth Amendment rights are less, but they're not gone.
And if you're a probationer, it goes from instead of probable cause for search or seizure purposes, it's just reasonable suspicion.
However, if the predicate is you're going to search a third party's property, then you need probable cause, even if what you're trying to search is the probationer's proprietary interest or property located at that property.
So they have to have probable cause for that.
They didn't.
And if it's any third party, you got the same probable cause rights against a, you know, for those that don't remember, you have to have probable cause to engage in a search or seizure.
Often you have to go through with a warrant process, a certain circumstance where you don't.
But here they didn't have that.
And so the seizure was illegal.
And because the evidence gathered that supported the supposed illegality of these funds had to be suppressed, that meant they had to return the money.
I'm not a fan of all these forfeiture rules.
They're meant for the government to steal your money and property.
That's all it really is.
I think they should have the same judicial process as anything else.
I don't think they should have special exceptions by calling it forfeiture, somehow circumvent so many of our constitutional protections and liberties.
But this was a good decision, reinforcing that they can't use probationers' limited rights to strip everybody else of their rights.
So good decision by the Fourth Circuit.
It was, oh, I had something I was going to say about that, but I'm going to forget about it.
All right.
And Robert, I guess moving on to something that's more consequences of the Biden administration, which is open borders and illegal aliens that kill American citizens, and then Democrats that refuse to stand to pay tribute to them during the State of the Union address.
So we all know what happened to Lake and Riley out of Georgia.
It was on campus, on university campus, and her family has now filed suit against the university.
Who else did they file suit against?
The apartment complex.
The apartment complex.
Because what they allege in the lawsuit, I mean, obviously, is that the university apparently had had advanced warning of this guy, I forget his name.
It doesn't matter.
We don't need to mention it.
Was looking through the window looking to enter a dormitory.
Someone in that dormitory called the campus authorities.
The man fled off into the woods, and that's it.
Now, whether or not you think the university has to be put on lockdown or issue a warning, it appears they did nothing.
This guy then, shortly thereafter, assaults and murders Lake and Riley.
He was staying off campus with his cousin, who was an employee of the university.
And apparently, you know, they knew he was staying off campus in an apartment, but I think it's an apartment that was, it was somehow was connected to the university, right?
Like they had a certain premises obligations.
So effectively, they created a staggered sense of liability.
There's certain aspects of the complaint that looked a little sloppy to me, like there was a separate cause of action for punitive damages.
Like punitive damage is not a separate cause of action.
It's usually a form of relief or remedy that may have different facts you have to allege to establish it, but it's not a separate cause of action.
That part was a little confusing.
But fundamentally, it's father seeking relief and remedy against the university and the apartment complex under multiple theories.
One is negligence, one is premises liability, one is failure to warn.
And what it documents is there were multiple times where the university and the apartment complex owner were on notice that they were providing protection for a criminal, illegal alien with a history of violence and repeatedly reported as a peeking, peeping Tom and doing other illegal criminal behaviors on campus.
And they took no protective actions at all, took no remedial actions at all, took no actions to warrant at all.
So, while there's legal theories here that are going to be difficult to establish liability to just get through to pass the motion to dismiss, it is a factually unique case.
And I'm hoping it does survive the motions to dismiss because it will put people on notice.
The people that are making money off of violent criminal illegals being located in the country should be held accountable and responsible more often for their financial culpability and complicity in making this happen and getting rich off of it when it leads to the horrible harm like it did to this young nursing student at the University of Georgia.
Yeah, because the argument's always going to be what level of security do they need to implement if they've gotten wind of an alleged peeping Tom.
The guy, don't need to mention his name, but had a lengthy criminal record, which they allege they ought to have done some sort of due diligence on to screen him as an employee if failed to screen.
The employee was his cousin.
He was a tenant and they knew it was staying there, and he had a lengthy criminal record that would have been easily discernible.
And then you just wonder if it's the same policy that happened at Brown University, where they don't want to discriminate against illegals, so they shut down cameras because they don't want to have to cooperate with the FBI.
And they basically create a susceptible situation where students are at risk because of A, cost cutting, B, negligence, and C, virtue signaling for illegal aliens because you don't want to be mean and not let them stay because that'll turn them to a life of crime.
No doubt.
So good luck to her father who suffered a horrible tragedy.
Hopefully he gets some justice, but at least he's calling attention through the court system to the dereliction of duty of the university and these apartment complex owners and the way in which they're making money off of illegal immigration to the detriment of the rest of us.
And then let's read a few here.
We got Viva Barnes got Glenn Beck, always been anti-tariff pro importer to be all for tariffs for no income tax.
Barnes is leading the way against this JDARG.
J-Law Bronco says Barnes will be correct till he is not, or a little offish, Wink.
Barnes, no help so we can shoot fish in a barrel.
Lawyers help at the same time.
Not sure I understand all those, but we're all wrong.
And then the only question is, are we right more often than we're wrong in terms of reliability?
Let me do a few more over on viva barneslaw.locals.com.
Are either of you willing to take another look at the Kirk assassination?
Now, I'm not saying go kooky Candace, but the circumstances of his death look more suspect by the day.
Well, look, the easy plausible conspiracy is that everybody understood that Kirk was the glue that held MAGA together.
He was a voice, he was the Jiminy cricket in Trump's ear.
And if you're an activist liberal campus, don't have drones.
Don't secure a rooftop and set up the circumstances for something like that to happen.
Israel being involved until Turning Point is playing into this by not having the Charlie's anti-war voice consistently on their own broadcast.
And I know that there's people there that want to make sure that Charlie's legacy.
Charlie was fiercely against a regime change war in Iran.
President Trump personally promised Charlie Kirk he would not do a regime change war in Iran.
And personally, I'm never going to pardon the president for breaking that promise to Charlie.
But there needs to be at turning point if you want to put a pin in the various conspiratorial claims against you by the Candace Owens of the world.
A good way to do so is to make sure Charlie's anti-war voice is at least somewhere on the broadcast and in published formats of Turning Point.
Otherwise, they end up confirming the suspicions against them if all they do is echo the sound bites of the donor class.
So I hope that they do a little bit better job than they've done recently, in my opinion, of respecting the legacy of Charlie Kirk, which was strongly against the regime change war in Iran because he saw it as far more risk than reward, understood how damaging it could be to the young voter portion of the MAGA coalition.
Let's bring this up here.
Dapper Dave says Trump lost the libertarian because he went to war, the black voter because of the Obama.
Well, I don't think he lost any black voters for that.
I think it's let's disregard two.
Lost a lot of Latino vote because of the aggressive tactics of ICE.
Maybe.
A good portion of MAGA because Trump is Israel's bitch.
Yeah, I could say I've seen a lot of that comments.
And lost independence because of the Epstein-List cover-up.
There's not been a massive net positive for what he's done there.
Chris Kraft says, Chris Kraft 2 says, Bill Brown, too, was right again, Jar.
Thank you both for your work, says Balukso.
Boys Mamas says five bucks.
I wouldn't care if Trump is impeached at this point, but my concern is that if Democrats win all three branches in 2028, they will stack the Supreme Court and our freedoms will be gone.
Anyway, prepare protective precautions.
Build a really good, try to get as much done as we can with the good people at federal and state and local level.
Build a big platform everybody can campaign on, break through to the court of public opinion, break through the people running for office to help build a platform of real revolutionary reform and change, and build up a protective network, including whether it's asset protection or freedom planning or other forms of protections to try to be able to derail the likely Democratic trilogy, the tripartite power they're going to likely have in 2028.
So it's going to be preparing for all three.
The way you don't prepare for all three is seal clap for Trump while he jumps off a political cliff.
Then we've got Restore Britain and a Million Amelias is the answer.
It says Jazz, Utah.
Have either of you seen Chase Hughes' newest video on PSYOPS?
I don't know how old it was.
I saw one like a couple of, maybe a month ago, but I don't know if that's that.
I don't know.
That Chase is great.
Good buddy.
Great, great, great person.
He'll be at the 1776 Law Center Conference this August, first weekend of August in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Brilliant.
Chase Hughes, brilliant.
Body language panels, brilliant behavior panels, brilliant.
Then, you know, includes other good folks that, you know, the Scott Rouse, the Greg Hartley, great group of people, brilliant guys, very conscientious, and they do brilliant public work.
Jay Red Monson says, in summer 1995, I made six trips to Korea because the North Koreans started to build nuclear weapons.
Now the North Koreans have, what, 100 weapons and a ballistic missile program?
Should we have tried to stop them?
Why does Iran need weapons-grade uranium?
They were doing that as a leverage technique.
They actually never quite really got to weapons-grade uranium.
They only got to 60%, not to the 90, 95%.
But they were doing it to get sanctions relief.
The Ayatollah we just killed is the one who issued a religious fatah, fatwa, however you pronounce it, against nuclear weapons since 2003.
It's why they didn't build it.
Now that he is dead, that fatwa is also gone.
And I suspect the next group of leaders there in Iran will not share it.
And Iran now likely will develop nuclear weapons in the next couple of years.
I didn't mean to go back to my face there.
Let's read a few more and then we're going to get.
How likely that Trump gets impeached and chooses to give up presidency, leaving Vance holding the bag?
Did I just skip?
I think that's not in Trump's nature to do.
Hold on.
I wanted to read one where it was seemed to be.
Okay, here.
Do you think if we hold, if we told Trump that Dems are a few short years from having nukes, he would focus on the home front.
Here, no.
Wasn't it convenient for Israel that Iran targeted the West Banks as Stingray?
Here, Joel Ronald 1017.
You call Trump a traitor and you say you are not anti-Trump.
Also, want to fire everyone when you know he's not going to get anything better, anyone better.
That's a bad argument through Congress.
He doesn't need to get them through Congress.
Suing to Derail Accountability00:15:18
He needs to get the people he has to get in line.
Well, threatening to boot him is one way to get him in line.
And let's go, we'll go back to some subject matter and then we'll get back to he's allowed good people like Gail Slater to get sacked while covering for corrupt actors like pay-for-play Pam Bondi.
So this is most on Trump.
Trump is failing to take corrective action.
It's continuing to excuse him at this stage is just making excuses for somebody rather than being honest about his accountability for this.
Well, you're conceding implicit in that question, is conceding the point that his administration is not performing and his key players are not performing.
So how do you get him in line?
Maybe kick one or two out and then the others start protecting the good ones and fire the bad ones.
And he's doing the opposite.
He's firing the good ones and keeping the bad ones.
All right, Robert, let's move on to a legal one, which is fun: strict liability versus, I don't know what the alternative is exactly under these circumstances.
Some dudes are paying off their mortgages.
What's the company here?
Loan care LLC.
So people are paying this family, Teterik, paying off their mortgage, the mortgage of their house.
And everybody knows there's a portion to the principal, there's a portion to the interest.
And depending on how it's allocated, you can reduce the principal and incidentally thus the interest if you pay off more of the principal than the interest.
I don't know what the exact numbers are.
I forget.
And I forget what they were in Canada.
But when you appreciate that, if you have a half a million dollar mortgage on a home, by the time you pay it off in 30 years, Robert, how much have you paid in interest?
How much have you ultimately paid for that $500,000 house?
I think it's like, I want to say two, multiple times the actual value because you're paying off interest on the principal.
And so in this particular case, the people were paying off what they thought was a portion of the principal and a portion of the interest.
And in reality, for whatever the reason, they had allocated more to the interest than to the principal, such that they were actually never reducing the principal in a meaningful way.
And they ended up, once they discovered this, suing.
And what was the defense?
Is that we didn't do it on purpose or something along those lines?
Yeah.
Do you guys have strict liability in Canada?
Yeah, we have strict liability.
Typically, it's for there's certain there's certain offenses that are strict liability, like speeding.
If your Odoma, if your speedometer is broken, it's not a defense.
But in terms of private actors, I'd have to refresh my memory before answering that.
But they basically said, look, we didn't do it on purpose.
No harm, no foul, even though we've basically made more money off of our mistake because you were paying more interest to us.
And they basically said, it doesn't matter whether or not you intended to do it, this was strict liability.
You just couldn't do it.
You could not make a mistake like that.
One of my favorite closing arguments was from the legendary Jerry Spence in a case concerning radioactive waste in the McGill.
I think it was McGill, the sort of nuclear reactor case.
Karen Silkwood was the underlying whistleblower case, led to a movie.
And he was trying to explain to the jury strict liability because otherwise a lot of jurors are like, what?
You could be held liable even if you didn't intend it.
A lot of them think that sounds kind of squirrely.
And so he explained where it came from.
And he said, strict liability is imagine if, you know, it was back years ago, centuries ago, back in England, somebody decided that they wanted to have a lion as a pet.
Now, the problem is a lion is inherently dangerous.
And so the strict liability came about said, well, if you're going to have a lion as a pet, you're going to take on that risk.
If anything goes wrong with that lion and cause any harm, you're on the hook.
And so the way he put it is, I think it was Claire McGee, the firm, the big radio, the firm that had the big nuclear plant, power plant, where radio, Basically, radioactive material had leaked from causing injury.
He said, You know, so it's simple: if the lion got away, Karen McGee must pay.
And it was a brilliant, beautiful closing argument to take a complex erudite construct like strict liability and make it accessible to ordinary jurors and particularly parallel the particular facts of that case.
So, here was another example of that.
The law says that if you screw up somebody's interest payments under West Virginia law, you're strictly liable.
You've got to correct that.
Doesn't matter if you intended it or not.
You got unjustly enriched with money you doesn't belong to you, and it does belong to the person you took it from.
And the lower district court was like, Yeah, no problem.
We should let them get away with it.
They didn't intend to steal your money.
So, those poor big banks, you know, there isn't a big bank a judge doesn't love to kiss up to.
And luckily, the court overturned it.
Said, no, that's not how strict liability works.
Intentionality is irrelevant and inconsequential.
And so, consequently, the case gets to go forward, and these good homeowners get back the money this rogue lending actor was trying to steal from them.
Well, let's see.
I don't know.
The Walmart case might be out of order, but it's sort of the pedo doctor, insurer.
We got the bookshop privacy.
We've got Cuba confiscation, the right of removal to federal court and equitable exceptions before SCOTUS, tax lien seizures, the right to surf or teach surfing, the Trump ballroom.
Those are the other ones we got.
So, yeah, we'll do a few more here, then we'll take some for the after party, and we'll get to some of the tip questions.
Let's do the pedo doctor here while we're on the subject of it.
This case goes back a while, Robert.
I wasn't paying attention to the news at the time, but this was a allegedly a well-known issue of a pediatrician.
What was his name?
Bartow, Johnny, Dr. Johnny Bartow.
So, apparently, this pediatrician was molesting his patients for an extended period of time.
The hospital that employed him was Laurel Pediatrics Associates.
They knew or ought to have known, and they had indications that this man was a threat, and they continued to employ him, and he continued to molest.
Parents sued.
And then the question was whether or not, the question was whether or not insurance would cover the lawsuit or protect the institution or protect the individual and where the ruling went.
So he said this is how insurers get away with things.
So it's a little pedo pediatrician, range of people being sued that have insurance.
And the insurance companies don't want to be hit.
And so they've been sued for bad faith denial and all these other breach of fiduciary duty to the insureds for not paying what was due to the victims under their insurance agreement to the person insured.
And the way the insurance companies like to evade jury trials, like to evade liability, is when they get sued, they'll bring a declarative relief action.
They'll say, oh, we should have declatory judgment that we have no duty to defend, no obligation to actually honor this insurance agreement because there's some carve-out or cut-out or exception somewhere.
Well, because they'll allege we specifically don't cover deliberate criminality.
How can sometimes the exception?
Sometimes there's other ones.
For it to get this far suggested to me their insurance agreement wasn't that crystal clear.
But the way they circumvent it all, including even discovery on their bad faith, is they say, Judge, we should bifurcate this case.
Like the movie A Civil Action, where they did the same thing in environmental litigation in the book, which is very good.
We'll watch it at some point on a Saturday night at Viva BarnesLaw.logles.com movie night.
But with the essentially, they bifurcate the case so that the whole bad faith case gets removed and kicked, and the declaration gets prioritized.
And then they get a stay on discovery relating to their bad faith so that only discovery goes forth on the deck action.
And by doing that, often the deck action is a judicial decision rather than a jury decision.
So by doing this, they get to short-circuit the jury, short-circuit discovery, short-circuit the embarrassing facts that may come up in discovery, and basically derail any effort to be held accountable for these kind of things.
So it's just one of the common scams and schemes.
I just thought the fact they were willing to go to such back to do this scheme to cover up accountability for a PDO pediatrician made it particularly offensive to me.
No, incidentally, for those asking, he was sentenced to 79 to 158 years.
And at the time, he was old.
So life sentence.
But you have insurance liability where they say if you do something deliberately criminal, we're not going to compensate the individual.
And then the PDO PDP pediatrician probably got access to kids by being part of a broader network that had claimed to have screened him.
And it's probably their negligence in screening him and following up in investigations, kind of like the Larkin Riley case, that led to his opportunity to cause injury.
And they are what they're insured for is that negligence of failure to screen.
But the insurance company knows if they can get the deck action first, the judge to make a decision first before the jury, they can usually circumnavigate.
They probably wouldn't if all the facts and discovery disclosed get by with the jury.
That's why they play these procedural games and judges are eager to facilitate it because they see those insurance companies, it's like big corporations and big farm and they just start, they feel so bad for him.
It's so sympathetic for him.
Poor big insurance company.
Let's not have them be held accountable for all the premiums they pocketed for some insured they're not going to pay for the people that were injured by the negligence of their insured.
So it's just part and parcel of the nature of insurance litigation, particularly high-profile big ones.
Robert, let's move on to the ballroom, which people were outraged about that Trump is spending however many.
I think it's what was it?
I want to say 25 million, but it might be more.
The country's having all these problems.
Everyone's suffering.
And people don't seem, and he's wasting taxpayer dollars on this ballroom, but people don't seem to appreciate that the ballroom is actually being paid with private donations and therefore the renovations.
And therefore, it's not an issue of misappropriating taxpayer dollars.
Set aside the other issues that's being paid for by donors and then whether or not they get attention or interest or whatever.
People were objective.
It's not going to be called the Epstein ballroom.
You're going to take so much flack for.
Okay.
Yeah, it's not going to be called the unless one of the donors was an Epstein who's unrelated.
Epstein's a very common last name and not one I would want to have right now in the Jewish community.
But apparently now, so people are trying to oppose or sued, but they sued under the Administrative Procedures Act.
And the Administrative Procedures Act specifically exempts and excludes the White House from coverage.
So the federal judge, who still wanted to hammer Trump, said, nah, you can't do it under the APA.
But he said, you could do it if you bring an ultravirus action.
Then I'll be happy to screw with Trump on the ballroom.
So they're going to be renewing the suit, just call it ultravirus, because this judge thinks that gives them authority to overrule the president's use of the ballroom.
And so, but we haven't seen the end of the ballroom litigation.
So it strikes me as frivolous litigation.
Ultravirus beyond the powers of somehow outside the president's authority.
And somehow that's something that a court has jurisdiction over, even though they don't have jurisdiction over the president.
We'll see how that works out.
Apparently, the announcement was 200 million, not 20 million.
And it's up to 250 to 400 million.
Is there any other burying the Epstein files down there?
They got to bury them deep.
No, Robin, they're building a bunker.
This is like people have never thought there was a bunker in the White House before.
Is there any other precedent?
Like every president does, you know, builds a not to my knowledge.
I find it a frivolous suit.
I find it ridiculous that judges entertaining this.
This is privately funded reconstruction of the White House.
If Congress really found it terribly offensive, they could maybe take some limiting action of federal funds.
But again, no federal funds are being used in this.
So now, am I a big fan of taking big donations from big donors that might make you look susceptible to their influence?
No, I'm not.
But the idea that this somehow is illegal or outside the president's authority for how the White House is constructed strikes me as a little absurd.
And there's no heritage provisions prohibiting the destruction or defensive building.
This is like if they want to make it impossible to do renovations on the building, declare it a heritage site and you're effectively screwed.
How many topics do we have left here?
So we've got the bookshop privacy.
We've got equity and the right of removal.
We've got tax lien seizures.
We've got the right to surf or the right to teach about surfing and the Walmart settlement.
Well, let's do Cuban confiscations, Robert, and then do the Cuban confiscations.
I'm going to go find out who we're going to raid, and then we're going to get to our tip questions and I'll read some super chats and Rumble Rats before we go.
What's going on with Cuba?
So it's the basically there's all these various federal laws that have passed over the years about confiscation of things that have been trafficking in Cuban goods, whether it applies under Cuban sanctions, whether it's an executive order or legislative enactment, and when do you get reimbursement?
When you not.
Several cases up before the Supreme Court of the United States this past week.
Things like is a leasehold a property under the definition of the statute.
So it's a nice little subcategory of law if you're interested in that area.
So I recommend reading or listening to the oral arguments of both of those because it gives you an idea of statutory interpretation within the constitutional framework of what's permitted, executive order versus legislative action in these sort of intertwined environments legally.
I mean, there was a apparently boat of some people who thought they were going to take over Cuba with four people and the Cuban Coast Guard apparently unfortunately dispatched several of them and imprisoned several others.
I would recommend other protocols.
We probably have other issues coming up with Cuba.
A Russian oil taker is heading to Cuba to provide oil relief.
Is the U.S. willing to block it?
Is Russia willing to break the blockade?
You know, how that's going to work.
We'll see.
I mean, it's another, I think, in my view, unnecessary foreign policy distraction for the president, but you're going to see more of it.
And then it was fascinating that there was a Cuba confiscation case, two of them before the U.S. Supreme Court involving docs, whether you're bringing claims on behalf of other parties, all of this sort of procedural, unique areas of law at the same time that we have Cuba-U.S. conflict rising up politically.
So it was interesting to see how that works.
But that's what is in a nutshell.
It's a very niche area of law.
We are going to go raid Barry Cunningham.
Now, there's a bunch of stuff on the interwebs that we can go look at in terms of salty crackers up.
But come to locals for the after party.
And by the way, it's going to allow us to stay on a Rumble Premium as well.
So I'll make sure that that's running because now they've integrated.
So when we go exclusively for the locals after party, it includes the Rumble Premium, those who have been gifted Rumble Premium services.
Purim Decree Rumble00:05:41
Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
Oh, so tomorrow, Monday, we'll be live at noon with the Richard Barris People's Pundit Daily going through a couple of things.
One will be what's the potential political fallout from the conflict with Iran?
What is the political consequences that may flow from it?
Second, looking at 1776 Law Center's national survey, what are some of the popular issues candidates could campaign on across the country, including the president, but not limited to the president.
What people running for state office and federal office and local office.
What is the national survey data done by Richard Barris?
What does it show and what does it say?
And then third, we'll give our updated predictions on what we think of the House races, what we think of the Senate races, what we think of those two categories, but also some of the primaries.
Big Texas primaries coming up on Tuesday.
Early votes completed, but more election day vote yet to come.
On the Democratic and Republican side for the Senate and for the House and governors, we'll give you some Intel insight information, all of that as well.
Noon, People's Pundit Daily, peoplespundit.locals.com or People's Pundit on Rumble or YouTube, or I think there's some other ones.
He's on it.
Are we doing the thing at 3 o'clock?
Yes, we are.
So that's with Carlin tomorrow, 3 o'clock.
It's going to be fantastic.
Jim Carlin, great U.S. Senate candidate in the state of Iowa, running on a lot of these good populist issues.
He will be live with Viva Fry and I Monday at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
At some point, I'll be on, I think, with Turning Point USA, the Charlie Kirk show sometime this week to discuss some aspects of Iran and the rest.
I just have to work out of time with him.
And then we'll have a bourbon definitely on Tuesday night.
Wednesday, I got to go to Pennsylvania.
Thursday, more hearings and Amish cases as they just can't stop harassing the Amish.
And then so probably only one bourbon this coming week.
Then we'll get back to normal schedule after that.
We got March Madness upcoming, so there'll be some fun there for the college basketball fans out there and the rest.
So it should be an interesting week, and we'll cover bookshop privacy.
When are your records that you buy at a book?
When do you have a Fourth Amendment right against the government sneaking us look at that?
What about the right of removal into federal court?
Are there equitable exceptions that apply to the 30-day time limitation?
What about tax liens when the government likes to steal your property, sell it at a cheap auction to insiders?
Do they get to pocket all the profit?
That was before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Or is that an unjust compensation under the Fifth Amendment?
The right to teach surfing and the right to teach anything.
First Amendment protection, unbeknownst to many.
And then last but not least, Walmart caught with her pants down trying to steal money once again from drivers and customers alike.
Metaphorical pants down, not literal.
I forgot to mention.
So, okay, so tomorrow, Robert, we're going to be at the same time.
I'm going to be having a discussion with Michael Tracy at noon.
And then we've got Jim Carlin.
It'll be the second time on the channel at 3 Tuesday.
And I made the joke privately that I don't know what I've gotten myself into, but we're going to have a discussion about the situation in Iran with someone who people may not know.
I don't know how it came across my wires.
Warren McCommon, and who's a so-called libertarian, who I believe is going to be taking the position that the actions are good.
And basically, I don't purport to be an expert in Iranian politics whatsoever.
This is going to be the other side of the discussion.
That's going to be Tuesday at 3 o'clock, but after Larry Sharp, who's now the libertarian candidate in New York, is coming back on to give us an update on his campaign.
So Tuesday is going to be a fun show as well.
And so with that said, right now, I'll read some chats, but we're going to go raid Barry Cunningham, whose show tonight, live tonight.
President Trump updates the American people.
My interview with HUD SEC, Housing Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner.
So go show some love there.
We'll raid him, and I'll read some chats as we go on to our after party.
I wonder if you could ask Tracy, is it deliberate that he looks like a guy who just got caught at coming out of an adult film movie story?
I'm not going to make it.
No, I just, it's going to be interesting.
I get a little nervous because nobody wants to look stupid, but it's an interesting question as to, you know, it's going to be a fun discussion.
There's been no concrete evidence of overt pedophile criminality from the disclosures.
Okay.
What's that email about seven people?
How thinly you have to slice a pizza.
Maybe it's not pedophilia.
It'll be a fun discussion.
I'm not there to prove anything that I actually don't even think is either demonstrable from the files.
The fact that I don't want to give too much ahead.
I don't think my Tracy's watching us now anyhow.
It's going to be fun.
Viva, Purim's in a couple of days.
Does that mean anything to you?
I don't celebrate the holidays.
I mean, I know it's coming, but because of the story of Purim and liberating from the Purim is Haman, and you're supposed to get drunk to the point where you can't determine.
Yes, I know the history of that, but I have no idea what that even means.
Hold on, I don't want to bastardize it.
Purim is the Purim origin.
Okay, so hold on.
Purim celebrating the fourth, fifth century salvation of Persian Jews from genocide plot by Haman, the king's advisor.
Queen Esther and her cousin Mordechai revealed the plot to King Ahash Verush.
Wow, they spelt that weird.
Ahazrus, overturning the decree.
It is celebrated annually, the 14th of Adar.
Persian Jews and Purim00:04:10
Yeah, I mean, I think I understand where the person's going with that.
What was I about to do?
This is what I was about to do.
Here, duck fat, which I always read as FVAT.
It seems to be lost on many people that Trump is not up for re-election.
He doesn't care about the feckless, weak-ass rhinos who refuse to do anything.
He's getting shit done, taking care of issues.
I mean, I think that's a superficial way of looking at it.
Really?
The Save Act not getting passed?
Is that taking care of issues?
No, but also not getting a tariff through Congress.
Is that taking care of issues?
I don't see that.
They'll be blunt about it.
No, and also.
Unfortunately, he's deferred.
He's let the rhinos run over him, not the other way around.
And some people say the fact that he's not up for re-election means that other potential interests for, you know, if you want to get, I don't believe it, but the argument would be other financial interests are at issue.
I don't believe it, but that's what the response would be.
And let me see.
I'm not going to bring him up because it involves too much of a headache to bring him up on the backdrop.
But Sean McDonald 4155 over on Commitube says, I have five friends who live in Iran.
They were burning mosques in the protests.
There are tons of videos on this.
Okay.
Yeah.
I mean, we basically try to do regime change through, and we align with some very violent groups.
And that usually doesn't work out well.
Here, Sean McDonald, I remember now, he had a few for you.
He says, Barnes, explain the 60% aposty rate in Iran.
Tell me why the second fastest growing Christian population in the world is in Iran.
First of all, I have to look that up.
Going from 500 in the 70s to a million today, I mean, comparing the growth of Christian populations in Muslim or Middle Eastern countries, yes, it might be the fastest in the Middle East.
I'm not sure that it's the fastest in the world, but even if it is, going from 500 to a million is hardly something to celebrate about it.
And that's despite or in the face of severe religious repression in Iran.
So Persians are like 60% of the population.
But yeah, people would be surprised.
There's a good number of Christians and Jews.
It's got the numbers.
They don't officially persecute.
They're not that kind of fundamentalism.
They don't officially persecute.
There's Jewish synagogues throughout large parts of Tehran.
There's a range of, you've got multiple Persians are about 60%.
The others are divided amongst mostly Azerbis, I think, are about 15% to 20%.
Most are Shia Muslim, but you have a very substantial Sunni Muslim population, decent-sized Christian population, small, but still a sizable Jewish population.
And that's where some of the sort of Western caricatures of Iran don't quite add up in certain ways.
But I think because we bought into our own caricatures, we assumed certain things would happen.
But as a general rule, bombing people has never been a way to rally them to your flag.
Just FYI.
Well, and also, when people, it is a fact that Iran has the largest population of Jews outside of Israel in the Middle East.
But when you're talking numbers of 9,000 to 25,000 and down from 100 plus 000, it's the small numbers.
And people forget, a lot of Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist.
You have leftist Jews that are anti-Zionist, especially going back to sort of the communist movement.
And then a lot of Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist because they see it as a form of heresy.
So this constant conflation of Israel with all Jews has always been a mistake.
Not only that, within Israel, there's a very diverse range of opinions.
The idea that everybody in Israel is for the Greater Israel Project is just not accurate.
There's many Israelis that have been on a peace-oriented approach for decades.
I knew many of them going back to the 90s, you know, met them and befriended them when I was a young kid, and they're still on the peace side of the equation.
They're on the two-state solution side of the equation.
They're not for Greater Israel.
So don't conflate whatever Bibi Netanyahu wants with what all Jews around the world want.
If you want to get some merch, go to Viva Fry.
Shameless promotion before we head over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com with the after party for premium subscribers.
And I'm going to make sure that it's working today.
So everybody who's not coming, see you tomorrow.
One way or the other, we'll see each other.
And for everybody who is coming, parties over there.
Local supporters.
See, now it's telling me, now it's only giving me the update to locals only.
So you might not get it for premium exclusive.
Let me screenshot this and just see what's going on and then we'll see what happens.