Meta faces potential bankruptcy from New Mexico and California lawsuits alleging addictive designs harming minors, while Elon Musk's antitrust suit against the World Federation of Advertisers was dismissed. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court limits mail-in ballots to Election Day receipt and upholds qualified immunity for police, yet Meta's legal troubles persist alongside concerns over Iran's nuclear program and Joe Kent's resignation. Ultimately, these rulings and conflicts highlight a judicial system struggling with civil rights, election integrity, and the escalating geopolitical risks of military intervention. [Automatically generated summary]
Dog, which had nothing to do with politics, although maybe it did.
Afro Man, we're going to start with his video, which is now my go-to when I want to feel good in life.
Behold, Afro-Man.
Afro-Man will bring it to you.
Afro Man is gonna do ya.
Afro man is gonna screw ya my proofs on the inner net.
They vandalize my property.
My money came up short.
They disconnect my cameras because they are a poor sport.
They're the predators and the victims.
And they're suing me in court.
My proofs on the inner net.
Now, I'm not going to play the whole thing.
I just want to draw your attention to the part that I absolutely love.
When Afro Man does a very lackluster thrust from the groin.
Afro man will bring it to hallelujah.
Afro man is gonna do ya.
Now Afro man is gonna screw you.
My hold on one second.
Where is it?
There, it's right here.
Hits right here.
Afro man is gonna do ya.
Afro man is gonna screw you my proofs on the inner net.
All right.
I have a new goal.
In studio interview with Afro Man.
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, it's Sunday, which means it is time for the Viva and Barnes Law for the People Sunday night law extravaganza.
Put out a car vlog today.
Did a little work.
Did a family Spartan race.
For those of you who don't know, over on Rumble, we've got another channel called Viva Random, which is basically the random stuff, fun stuff, family stuff.
I've also got Viva Family on Commitube, but ComiTube is a very frustrating platform, yes.
commie tube is commie tube for a reason people it seems to not be getting better but getting worse in terms of the they don't call it shadow banning And I have been credibly told that YouTube doesn't do shadow banning.
When YouTube says we don't do shadow banning and uses the term shadow banning specifically when nobody else does, you know they're doing shadow banning.
I'm going to share the link with everybody so you can go put those various videos on blast.
But check this out.
This is the second channel, which many of you may or may not be aware exists.
Rumble Wallet Digital Sovereignty00:03:08
I came in like a wrecking ball.
We're doing a Spartan race in Boca Raton, and we're going to be going through waters that have alligators.
We did, and we did, and we survived.
All right, people.
That is Rumble, Viva Family, or Viva Random on Rumble.
Check it out.
I'll give everybody the link for that so you guys can.
If you want a light-hearted break from stuff, I put up a video yesterday where on the 4th of July, I bought the entire rack of poppets, those little whippersnappers.
I've been sitting on that content for eight months and finally got around to editing the video.
Good evening.
Before we get into tonight's show, which is going to be another massive, awesome lost stuffs, and we're going to have to talk a little bit about the stuff that's pissing everybody off these days.
Viva Random over on Rumble because Rumble is the platform that is perhaps the most important digital company these days.
They are innovating in ways that make other platforms look like rubbish.
And the way they've innovated here is with Rumble wallet people.
You already know why people are moving to crypto.
But there's the problem is that most wallets still plug into the same system we are trying to escape in the first place.
That is why Rumble built Rumble Wallet, self-custodial, meaning it's non-custodial.
Nobody owns it except for you.
Nobody can access it except for you.
It lives inside an ecosystem that actually defends free speech and financial freedom.
No bank holding your balance, not even Rumble, can touch your funds.
This is your money on your terms, on your keys.
I think literally, because you can only access it through your keypad.
If you're already using Bitcoin or stable coins, Rumble Wallet gives you even more power, direct fast tipping and support for creators right on Rumble without waiting weeks for payouts or dealing with random account holds on-chain payments in assets like Bitcoin, Tether, Gold, Tether Gold, XAUT, or USAT, which is the United States-backed dollar-for-dollar crypto.
You can move value globally without asking anyone for permission, without anybody putting a stop or shutting you down.
Most wallets stop at storage.
Rumble wallet connects your money to a marketplace of ideas that refuses to cave to censorship.
If you're serious about sovereignty, people, financial and digital, this is where you level up.
Go to wallet.rumble.com and you can download the wallet.
Let me just show you exactly how it works.
Do I have the option on the other channel here?
Now we're going to go to tonight's show and we're going to show you how you can do this in real time.
For those of you who don't know, first of all, if you're land, if you're watching this show on the landing page of Rumble right now, click on the actual video.
And when you do that, you can see down here, you go to tip, click on tip, you can tip with another wallet, you can tip with Bitcoin, and you just scan that QR code if you've already got access to crypto.
And if you want to invest, invest at your risks and perils, people, get the Rumble wallet, and you can invest in XAUT, which is digital currency backed to Tethered by gold, thanks to the partnership with Tether and the interest that's taken that company has taken in Rumble.
And you can also do it with all sorts of other stuff.
Joe Kent Investigation Resignation00:10:56
So that's that.
Now, as we get going, peeps, and Barnes is going to pop in here.
What else is going on?
It's like this is this old joke about like old Jewish ladies sitting around a bridge table playing and one goes, oi, and the other one goes, oi, voy.
And then the third one goes, oi, voy, voy.
And the fourth one says, I thought we weren't talking about our kids today.
You'll get that joke in a bit.
We're going to talk about much law stuff tonight, some politics.
We're going to touch on some stuff going on with Iran because you can't avoid that.
We are live on Rumble.
We are live on CommiTube.
We are live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And we're live on X as well.
And if you're not following us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you should be.
It's the best place on earth.
Check this out right here.
We got a $10 from who's it from?
Before we get in here, and Robert's going to join us in a second.
I live in California, and according to some pools, two Republicans are in, oh, polls.
Two Republicans are in the lead.
But since we trust no one but Barris, is there a pollster in California that is doing a good job?
We're going to leave that one up to Barnes in a second.
You don't get it?
The whole point is everybody's complaining about their kids.
And they said, we're not going to talk about our kids tonight.
All right.
All right.
Well, hold.
Robert, come on in.
I don't want to get the show started without you, but I must.
No, we're going to give it a second here.
And if we go over to Rumble and see what's going on on Rumble, people, I don't want to talk about it, but we have to talk about it.
And until, well, hold on a second.
Until Robert gets in here, What drives me crazy right now is we've entered a realm where people have stopped thinking critically and started thinking via mob mentality or via emotional blackmail.
And the clearest example of this, and by the way, started employing the exact same tactics that we have been lambasting what we call the left for legacy media for having done forever.
I think about it more and more in terms of what Joe Kent represents and why people hate him so much and how there has been, you know, the absolute destruction of nuance and only tribal politics, even within a tribe.
This is another, it's another interesting one, another good joke.
And I forget which religion we want to do it with, but you can do it with anything.
You can do it with Judaism.
You can do it with Christianity, Catholicism.
We're too, I'm going to screw it up.
But to like, oh, you're Catholic.
Oh, yeah, well, what denomination?
And they're like, they're best friends right up until they keep going into these subdenominations and they say, oh, we're mortal enemies.
Among the right, you have certain players which have never really, you know, everybody says now they were never, they were never conservative.
They were never MAGA to begin with, whatever.
Where anybody who associates with anybody now becomes literally guilty by association, and you have your tribes writing off everything and anything they have to say.
And the prime example is Joe Kent.
Now, subsequent to his resignation, which has stirred a lot of controversy, because he went and did interviews with Tucker Carlson and a five-minute interview with Candace Owens and Sean Ryan, well, now he's an apostate who needs to be attacked and destroyed.
That interview defines him as who he is, a traitor.
When he goes and does the interview with Mark Levin, well, that just gets ignored because nobody wants to say, well, he's just going to do interviews with either and both sides to express his sincerely held beliefs.
People have stopped thinking once they start getting into that writing off as good versus evil.
Everybody's evil who's not on the side of the person who thinks they're good.
That's the way it goes.
And they've simply stopped thinking critically.
And I have these discussions where like you want to understand, okay, Joe Kent, after he resigned in a way that might piss people off if they don't think everything he said about Israel leading America into wars is accurate.
He did it certainly in a way which many of you incidentally were clamoring for Dan Bongino to do.
Like this is another thing where people just stopped thinking critically.
People were demanding that Bongino leave the FBI in a manner that would indicate, signal his protest.
And I said at the time, if somebody doesn't want to do harm to the administration that they want to succeed, you could never expect Dan Bongino to resign in the way that Joe Kent did.
Then you're going to say, okay, well, now people are right to be angry at Joe Kent for resigning in the way that he did.
Okay, hate him.
Call him whatever you want.
That people don't understand what seems like an operation for the time being.
And I'll qualify my words where I said, you know, they're going to smear him and they're going to defame him now that he basically has become an apostate.
Because you don't just hate apostates.
You've got to destroy them even more than you've got to destroy your enemies.
He resigns.
And then lo and behold, it's leaked that he's under investigation.
And then that piece of information, and we might even call it disinformation.
We'll see if there's in fact even an investigation, gets circulated around.
And then it gets twisted and contorted, as does the broken telephone.
And then it turns into Joe Kent leaked classified information, black and white classified information.
And then it turns into, well, the evidence of that is that the text message that Andrew Colvay from Charlie Kirk Show gave to Joe Kent made its ways into the hands of Candace Owens.
Have sort of stopped asking questions as to who else had access to that text message.
And then that becomes the blurred line when you ask people, well, what's the evidence that he leaked classified information?
Oh, well, that.
What's the evidence that he even leaked the text message that Andrew Colvay gave to him?
Pure deduction.
And then you say, well, what's the evidence that he leaked any classified information?
Well, he's under investigation.
What's the evidence that he's under investigation?
Three anonymous sources familiar with the investigation, illegally leaking it if it's true or lying about it if it's not to Axios.
And people have just absolutely stopped all forms of critical thought when they want to go out and besmirch and denigrate and libel an individual so they can write off everything he has to say and then blame everybody and anybody who either doesn't jump on the bandwagon or who doesn't publicly disassociate from this.
Oh, Robert.
And so you have these discussions.
What's the evidence?
What's the evidence that an investigation even exists?
Well, it was leaked by three members.
Oh, has anybody officially confirmed it?
No, they can't confirm the existence of an investigation because that would be illegal.
So you're relying on a leak that he, whatever.
The evidence that you have that he did something, which was the deduction from the candidates.
Robert, as far as you know, and if I'm wrong, I mean, I'm not sure that I'm wrong because I'm not making an affirmative statement.
Is there any evidence that there is, in fact, even a bona fide investigation by either the DOJ, the FBI, the CIR, whomever?
No.
Sorry.
Don't worry.
If there had been one before he resigned, he would have been denied classified access during that time period.
He never was.
So there is no investigation.
It's just an attempt to smear him.
That's all it is.
And the people whose desire that their motivated reasoning is mastering them to such a degree, they're willing, they should have taken a step back when someone like Joe Kent, who has deep military experience in the Middle East, was head of the National Counterterrorism Center.
If he's stepping down because he's saying that President Trump is walking into a trap, they should step back and reevaluate.
And instead, what you're seeing is a reflexive effort to refuse to recognize any opinion that's different than the one they share by wanting to believe some smear or censor against that person.
And so the, you know, and Kent's just the latest illustration of that.
Now, that's been going on for a while.
The wrap-up smear, which people don't seem to understand they're living through right now and buying into, it's amazing that they've forgotten what Nancy Pelosi described.
But you make a good point, which is, as far as anybody knows, Joe Kent's access up until the day he resigned had never been limited or restricted, which you would think that there would have been if there was in fact a predating his resignation investigation into him leaking classified information.
Right.
I mean, that's clearly badly false.
So there was no investigation pending at the time that he departed.
And there is no investigation now, is my understanding.
It was simply to spread that rumor to just try to smear him so that people don't pay attention to the dissonant information that he's providing about the risks of this war.
And you're seeing in broad scale, like the power of motivated reasoning is probably most evident in the context of people's opinions about the war, about the Iran war.
And so like people wondered on the right and even independents how it is that Democrats could believe for so long that Joe Biden's mental state was just fine when we were seeing evidence that clearly it was not.
It's because they had siloed themselves in such a way that their only sources of information told them, oh, Joe Biden's just fine.
Joe Scarborough, he's sharp as a tack, all of that routine.
And that any information they saw otherwise was, and we're seeing this repeated now, it was AI, it was fake, it was, you know, it was incorrect, untruthful sources, untruthful information.
And thus Democrat, so the people around Biden recognized that four more years of Biden was going to be a disaster even for Democrats.
So that's why they scheduled the earliest ever presidential debate in American history in the summer of 2024.
And because they knew that once Democrats and the media saw live just how completely lost it Biden was, that that would force Biden out and they could replace him with Harris so that they would have a chance in the election.
But Democrats up until that point, if you had followed it in live time, they were shocked on social media.
They're like, holy cow, he really has some issues.
And everybody on the right made fun of him.
Now it's people on the left and others making fun of people on the right because they're replicating and repeating it.
And I'll give an example, not to be critical of this person, just to use it as illustrative.
So take Eric Cunley.
Eric's nice guy, does America's Untold Stories, multiple little broadcast stations.
Civilian Strikes and Casualties00:06:40
He's someone with military experience.
He's someone on the right, but not necessarily hardcore right.
He does a weekly news show, does conspiracy-oriented shows about different conspiracies that have happened over time, in particular about how governments lie people into war as an example.
And he believes a couple, I saw a couple of clips this week.
He believes that like he believed that Trump was really in serious negotiations with Iran.
I mean, that's our top topic tonight, the Iran war.
What's more likely in the near short term, ground troops or a peace deal, number one issue topic voted on by the Viva Barnes Law.locals.com board.
He believed that there's real serious efforts at a ceasefire.
And he believed, for example, that Iran doesn't have precise weapons, that all they're doing, they can't hit our U.S. bases, that they're just hitting civilian neighborhoods and whatnot, whereas we're very effective.
I think Mark Robert called it the most precise, extraordinary military effort he'd ever seen.
Both of those things are going to be proven to be completely false.
Well, I see.
Just the opposite is true.
To give an example, the New York Times admitted, because of Pentagon sources that disclosed it to them, 13 of our military bases are literally uninhabitable because of the precise strikes of the Iran regime.
But this is why our civilian, and one easy metric on this is just another minute, then transfer.
If you look at civilian, reported civilian injuries or casualties by, you know, you can look at independent groups, you can look at the governments themselves, but they all are in relative unanimity, that there have been about 10 times more civilian casualties in Iran from U.S. and Israeli strikes than there have.
I mean, right now they're debating in the U.N., you know, the recent strikes on a university in Tehran, residential neighborhoods, schools, famously the school at the very beginning of the conflict where the little girls were located.
There are about 10 times more civilian non-combatant casualties caused by Iran and by Israel and the U.S. against Iran than Iran against the Gulf states or Israel.
But the more, so what happens when you get so siloed is that you're listening only to people who, because these are people who want Trump to succeed, want the war to succeed.
So that motivation directs them to what sources they trust, what sources they rely on, what sources they discard.
And so when someone like Joe Kent comes around and says, by the way, this is all going to be a disaster, they have to, it creates cognitive dissonance.
And that motivation is so powerful that the natural instinct is to ignore it or to find a way to dismiss it or a way to say, I can't trust them.
Notice how much of the criticism of Joe Kent is not substantive.
It's not, okay, here's why he's wrong about the military tactics here, or he's why he's wrong about the strategies employed.
Instead, it's just Joe Kent back, Joe Kent back.
So now I can disregard whatever Joe Kent says because Joe can't back.
These are bad methodologies.
Unfortunately, the president himself has similar opinions.
He's getting his information.
He's discarding any information he doesn't want to hear.
This has been going on now for months, even before the Iran war.
You know, a buddy of mine that was at the Treasury Department stepped down.
Others have been stepping down because they've been witnessing in live time.
Trump doesn't want to hear information that he interprets negatively.
He grabs or latches on to information that he wants to believe.
Thus, he thought, you know, that there were ships going through the Straits of Hormuz as a gift to him.
None of that was accurate.
He claims that there's negotiations ongoing that don't appear to actually be happening.
And he also believes at the same time that the Iranian regime is near collapse.
And so all he's got to do is one more tipping factor, one more aggressive action, one more thing.
And that's why he's sending the ground troops in.
There's somebody that's on polymarket that's been making money on inside information.
And their latest big wager is that there'll be troops on the ground in three days.
So these are people that have been, the only bet they make is related to this conflict.
And they've been unusually accurate repeatedly.
That suggests that we sent, I think, we're sending another 10,000 troops.
There's 3,500 Marines that are already there.
There's troops that are already on the ground.
Otherwise, some part of the paratroopers have already been sent.
Fortunately, we have a board member, James.
His son is part of the 82nd Airborne.
It sounds like his son was not part of the group that was sent, thank God.
Because the risk here, I think, is very, very high.
But it's when you make these falsey, faulty assumptions because you choose to let your motivation direct you.
That's why I've encouraged people.
You don't have to take my opinion for it.
You can just find people whose motivation is to be accurate.
That's their number one motivation.
Their motivation, you know, people like we had Dr. Parsi on, people like Brandon Weishert.
Brandon Weishert's from the right.
Dr. Parsi, there's no love lost between him and the Iranian regime.
They persecuted his father.
They had to flee that regime.
But these are people who are in the profession and their reputation is dependent upon their accuracy, particularly because they're dissidents.
If you're part of the military-industrial complex, you can liar like General Keene and General Kell Lieutenant General Kellogg and those kind of, you can lie forever and you'll be rewarded for it.
But Dr. Parsi's, the Quincy Institute with Responsible Statecraft, they take no money at all from the military-industrial complex.
Consequently, they only have credibility if they're accurate.
So when your motivation is to be accurate and have a short, our mutual friend, recently departed Scott Adams, pointed out this was a really key way to measure whether someone's a reliable source on something that's outside of your own area of expertise.
Try to find people whose reputation is dependent upon accuracy, not a reputation of, you know, whose motivation is for their side to win or a motivation to promote the military-industrial complex or any particular government's agenda, whether it's Iran, Israel, the Gulf states, or the U.S.
But rather, their motivation is, I got to be accurate because otherwise I'm out of a job.
I have lost respect.
And those people are almost unanimously Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, Colonel Douglas McGregor, a wide range of Professor Glenn Deason, Professor Pape, a range of these people, Professor Parsi, Dr. Parsi.
They are all in agreement that going in with ground troops.
Democrats Trapped in Analysis00:08:17
Megan Kelly was on with Jesse Kelly.
No relation between the two.
Jesse is the brother of Julie Kelly.
And both of them were warning of just the domestic political fallout from putting boots on the ground, given that 90% of America is his favorite.
But if you get in a position like Trump himself is in, like Eric Hundley is in, where you're taking information from unreliable sources because it's what you want to believe.
It's because what you need to hear.
Yeah, Robert.
You're in big, big trouble.
Yeah, but to push back on this, and by the way, I'm sharing Hunley's America's Untold Story.
So everyone go subscribe to that anyhow, because, first of all, I do like them and they're good.
And the issue here, Robert, is you say they're in a silo.
People are going to listen to you right now and say you're relying on the New York Times.
The New York Times wants Trump to fail.
And so in theory, they should be describing everything in a way that would make it look bad so that Trump should fail.
So the New York Times itself suffers from the same confirmation bias or political agenda.
And then the people are going to look at you and say, okay, well, Joe Kent, what are his intentions?
And the problem is we're not going to know who's right or who's wrong until it's over.
And then even then, not necessarily because some people might argue that, you know, it's been reported that the bases are destroyed.
And if it comes out to the bases were not as destroyed.
Well, I brought it up.
I've been talking multiple places.
And you can see it also in a wide range.
So there's other people like policy tenor online, armed chair warlord who we've interviewed before, a range of other people that I would call military nerds.
There's also people in the oil space, the economic space, the market space.
But I'll give an example, right?
And this is what I encourage people to do.
If you think what Trump thinks, that this is going great, that it's about to be over, that we're about to get a peace deal.
Well, then, you know, put those, take your assumptions, what they are, and translate them into predictions and short, medium-term predictions.
I'll give an example of someone who did have the willingness to, I give him credit for making these predictions because it was a way to measure it.
Dave Rubin.
Dave Rubin said that we were wrong, that the straight store moves wouldn't be closed and oil prices wouldn't go up.
How did that work out?
So I see people citing the Victor David Hansons of the world, who's literally got wrong every single war for the last 20, 25 years.
How do you have someone, and you just follow the president's own words?
He contradicts himself from moment to moment, from truth to truth, from post to post.
By the way, if I mean to press conference, just to interrupt you there, that I've started noticing only because what people are doing is saying, oh, no, no, Trump said we always needed to go to war with Iran.
And then they play a clip from 40 years ago, then 10 years ago, then five years ago.
And so now I'm realizing when a politician says both A and not A on any given day, even if it's spread apart, it allows anybody who wants to support their position right now to go back and say, oh, no, no, he said it here, there, and there.
And you're wrong for saying that we were all misled into no new wars because this isn't a new war because it's been going on for 47 years.
And so it's like it rewards doublespeak, or at the least, someone saying both A and not A.
And then you can say, no, no, he said that.
And you're wrong for not having thought that he said that.
When in reality, like people are making the argument now that this war with Iran had to happen and it was an inevitability.
And this is the response to Matt Walsh.
And I don't want to get into it anymore because I'm actually fucking fed up with it.
Where they say, no, no, it's an inevitability.
It had to happen.
How would you negotiate with a country that has ballistic missiles, this and that, vows death to America?
And I want to say two things.
First of all, how long have you known all of this for?
And in which case, this should have been an election item in 2024.
Second of all, if they are this death to America terrorist regime, why the hell were you ever negotiating with them in the first place?
And then if the argument's going to be, well, we were only negotiating with them as duplicitus to then kill them afterwards when they didn't give us what we wanted.
What could they have ever given you that you wanted if your premise is that they are more evil than Hitler and less trustworthy than Hitler?
And so, but it drives me nuts because now people are just going back and saying, well, no, he said this and this and this, but he also said that and that and that.
And now, therefore, there's no truth to the matter anymore because he said both A and not A on any given day.
Well, you get a sense of it when people like Richard Barris, who wants the Trump coalition to succeed, wants the Trump administration to succeed, has been warning about this for a year.
He's the best polling data person out there for the last decade.
And all he gets is hate when he says, this is high risk.
This is going to break the coalition.
This is going in terms of just domestic political impact and ramifications.
Do people think Megan Kelly or Jesse Kelly, who are warning about this, screaming about it, saying if we put ground troops on the ground, we may lose the power for a decade or more, for a generation or more.
Does anybody think that they all really hate Trump now?
That they're really secret moolah lovers of Iran?
I mean, they have to go through all of these shenanigans because most of the time they don't have a good argument.
This is why whenever they get into a debate, whether it's Dave Smith or somebody else, they lose quickly to anybody that's an independent observer that doesn't have a dog in the fight.
They're like, hold on a second.
That argument makes a lot more sense than that argument does.
It's because they, I mean, even, you know, on our own locals board, I've, you know, asked people, okay, if you disagree, go through this analysis.
Most of them who disagree can't.
Instead, they come back and say, well, you just love Islam.
You just love Iran.
Because there isn't good arguments there when you break it down.
The arguments are, why is it that nobody in the geopolitical realist space, Professor John Mearsheimer, only is a geopolitical realist that has been the best at it going on 25 years.
He's the guy who said we never should have made China rich in the first place because it will make him a great power competitor that is not in our economic, political, or cultural interest to do.
He ended up almost all the academy.
Oh, no, you don't understand.
He ended up dead accurate.
His Israel lobby book has looked very prescient in terms of power within the U.S. of a foreign nation.
But they have to go to great lengths because they can't, like, what are exactly the objectives?
Just lay it out, whatever you believe about the war.
Here's what the risks are.
Here, what the rewards are.
What are the probabilities of obtaining those rewards?
What methods do you think you can?
Because somebody would say, well, do you want Iran to have ballistic missile?
Maybe I don't.
How are you going to stop it?
Are you going to do mass genocide?
How are you going to stop Iran from building those missiles?
These are basic questions that have been asked.
Pentagon's been doing war simulations with Iran almost 50 years.
And those war simulations all came back the same way.
We lose.
We do not achieve the objective of either regime change or conquering Persia.
That they come back again and again and again.
That we can't, like people, oh, it'll be easy to secure the Straits of Hormuz.
What do you mean it'll be easy to secure the Straits of Hormuz?
Are you going to remove their capacity to launch drones on the ships?
Are you going to remove their capacity to launch missiles on the ships?
Are you going to remove their capacity to send underwater drones or their little mini subs or their go-fast boats to attack the ships?
Are you going to remove their capacity to mine the strait?
And I don't even hear answers because a lot of people haven't even thought about it because they just want to believe something so passionately that they just shut out dissonant information.
If anybody on the right wondered how Democrats could literally believe for years that Joe Biden was just fine, just turn to your friends on the right right now who will say things that make no sense when you do any, like the kind of analysis you're talking about, they can't give an answer.
I'm yet to get an adequate, competent answer from any of the critics online.
When I say, okay, what do you think the goal is?
What do you think the probabilities of achieving that goal is?
You might dislike Iran.
You might say, I don't want Iran to ever have nuclear weapons.
Okay, how do you achieve that?
How do you achieve it?
Just saying it doesn't achieve it.
Just bombing them doesn't achieve it unless you're willing to do mass genocide.
Because as long as there's a will and there's a way, it will happen.
It's not something that was ever within our complete control to do.
And it's not recognizing limits of military power.
How did we get trapped in Afghanistan for 20 years and achieve nothing?
How do we get trapped in a decade in Iraq and achieve nothing?
How do we get trapped in Syria and Libya and achieve nothing?
I mean, how is it people get, I was told today, oh, history doesn't matter, Barnes.
That was Vietnam.
That was 60 years ago.
Oh, what's magically changed between now and then?
Well, our weapons are different.
Oh, really?
So that somehow is going to change the equation?
Nobody's been bombed into regime change in world history.
Military Quagmires Achieve Nothing00:15:21
And yet these are the kind of ideas they believe.
And unfortunately, the president himself is trapped in this level of thinking.
The Pentagon and the latest reports, the Pentagon's not even giving him detailed updates since March 13th, two weeks ago.
Instead, they just give him two-minute videos where he gets to watch of all the cool stuff we blew up.
That's why I think he really believes it when he's like, oh, this is all AI that says our bases are getting hit.
This is fake news from the New York Times that says there's anything that's not working.
When almost every objective analyst out there, people, again, that have no political bone in the fight in many cases, are saying just the opposite.
I have no doubt our Pentagon is saying just the opposite.
Our intelligence community is likely saying just the opposite.
This is what happens when you trap yourself in a motivated form of reasoning that wishful thinking becomes, and positive thinking, which Trump is known for, can become delusional if it's not tethered to some form of objective reality.
And that's the reality in the White House.
That's why chances are Boots will be on the ground within a week or two, not a peace deal.
You make a very, very good point, which is that there have been people that are, you know, have been suggestions of insider trading, at least on these prediction markets, because there's no regulation.
And if you have the insider information, you can make a lot of money.
And somebody's been making a lot of money off these prediction markets, presumably because they have access to information.
Inside, an Israeli lieutenant colonel was indicted in Israel for being one of the people to have done it before.
So I guess it does violate Israeli law.
And the market for boots on the ground now is up 30%.
And I haven't noticed that.
Second thing.
Well, that's another, a little cue to everybody out there.
If you want to figure out, okay, am I right?
Am I wrong?
There's all on polymarket especially, someone on Cauchy, but more on polymarket.
There's a bunch of markets, you prediction markets on whether this is going to happen by this date or that's going to happen by that date.
So I recommend two things.
One, monitor people that have had an unusual history of accuracy in it in ways that don't, that isn't explained necessarily by prescience.
See what they're doing and saying that tells you something maybe up on the track the inside traders, basically.
But the other is just track how the market is in general.
So for example, like there was a belief that would have a ceasefire within a week or two before his April 6th, 6th, Monday after Easter deadline that he's extended for the third time to do mass bombings and attack.
It looks like we'll go in before then.
This habit is not a good habit of saying, hey, I'll give you time and then not giving them that time.
This is developing a bad reputation globally and destroying presidents' credibility.
You can only lie so much, so often, so frequently.
He tried to move the markets all week this week.
He did succeed early in the week.
Then when he tried it later in the week, completely bounced back within five minutes.
The markets no longer believe him.
They think he's just making stuff up to manipulate them.
But you can monitor what's tapping the oil price, gas price, things like that, but also on places like Polymarket.
They'll have predictions on when a ceasefire is going to happen, when grounds on the troops on the ground are going to happen, so on and so forth.
If you see them have a very different opinion than what you think, ask yourself why that is.
Because maybe it's you have a better analysis of it than those in the markets.
The one reason why I like to use those markets and at sportspicks.locals.com, I put my mouth, I put my money where my mouth is, is because it forces me to shift my own motivation.
I might dislike this war as a bad idea geopolitically, et cetera.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it will politically backfire.
It doesn't mean it will necessarily fail anything else.
And I try to look at those markets and see if I can be more accurate than those markets because then my motivation is shifted.
My motivation isn't whether I want something to happen.
It's what do I think is going to happen because money's at stake.
And it encouraged just that shift.
This is what lawyers are taught from the beginning.
The whole adversarial system of justice is premised upon the idea that you can improve your reasoning by changing your motivation.
So change your motivation to be accurate.
Try to be accurate.
And that's why I give credit to Dave Rubin for saying, look, I think these things are going to happen.
A lot of people are taking shots at him now, understandably, but at least he's willing to say, this is what I think is going to happen.
This is why I'm not worried about this risk.
This is why I think this reward will happen.
This is why I think this risk won't happen.
But that's what needs people to do.
But you can use those markets in live time to say, okay, all these people seem to think.
So supposedly, I think if I think a ceasefire is going to happen in two weeks, why does the prediction market say it's unlikely to happen for another month or a month and a half?
That should tell you, okay, so people who are putting their money where their mouth is are telling you something different.
What I want to highlight is some, I couldn't find the comment, but someone says Barnes never predicts anything.
Well, you know, my only.
I've been the best political predictor or one of the best in the world for the last decade.
Let me just give you two related to this conflict that I gave out on February 14th this year.
You can find it at sportspicks.locals.com if you want to look it up.
I said, one, we will likely attack by the end of February or at least by the end of March.
We attacked by the end of February.
The prediction, those same prediction markets, said there was only a 9% chance of that happening.
So those people got better than a 10X rate of return who took that pick.
The second one was the Straits of Hormuz would be closed for at least seven days.
That's a 90% drop in capacity.
And that too, at the time I gave it out, they said there's only a 9% chance of that happening because these people were buying the institutional media.
Those people made 11X rate of return on their investment.
So B, yeah, you can bet me, but it's usually a good way to go broke.
And it's also like, I remember that prediction.
I remember this, my learning curve for this conflict has been roughly, you know, the same as my learning curve for Russia, Ukraine.
And I don't take opinions quickly and I listen to everybody.
I remember us discussing closing of the Straits of Hormuz.
At the time, many people.
I think people did Duran all the way in the summer of 2020.
We said, if we escalate the conflict, they'll shut down.
Remember all the people who were ragging us at the time back in 2020?
That's why I remember.
You're an idiot.
Straights of Hormuz will never close.
You know what you're talking about, boy.
And, you know, those are the people that had the market saying there's only a 9% chance of it happening.
No, no, I remember it.
And then I'm looking at it now.
And people are saying, well, A, we always said the Straits of Hormuz were that they could close them.
It's like, first of all, no, you didn't.
And you say, you're still pretending they're open, except for the fact that you can't run ships through them commercially anymore.
And so I've lived through it and I know who has been thus far more accurate and less accurate.
And it's, you know, and you put it in, we put it in a show.
It's out there.
We can't take it back.
Dave Rubin did it.
His prediction came out wrong.
And so now the question is going to be, why did it come out wrong?
And what do you do with that information now?
And that's what people like him should do.
But anybody that's is that's why, you know, force yourself to make predictions.
And maybe you only put a little bit of money on something like this, or maybe you just do it internally.
But that way it forces you.
So like, for example, in the 2025 elections, I didn't think it would be a Democratic blowout.
I thought, you know, Mamdani is going to win York and the rest.
Barris's data came back and said it was going to be a Democratic blowout.
And I convinced myself it wasn't going to be a bro.
And then it was.
And I had to, okay, now I got to go back and reevaluate what's happening on the ground.
What's happening with voters?
What's happening that it's moving much faster that this democratic movement is happening much faster than I thought.
So it's just a good way to check yourself.
But I also recommend follow people whose only whose accuracy is critical for their reputational credibility.
And those are going to be people that are not tied to the military industrial complex or Fox News or those places.
But they're going to be people that like people at the Quincy Institute, everybody there, their credibility disappears if they get key things wrong.
We had Dr. Parcy on last week.
And as you noted when you're going through his stuff, he had been incredibly prescient in what was coming in.
I want to, I want to, like, first of all, these idiots out there who think that saying nothing but judgmental is going to make you right.
Someone said Barnes is a broken clock, right?
Twice a day.
It goes from you're not right.
If you really believe that, please directly message me because I am a strong believer that really stupid people can't be allowed to keep their money for the broader sense of society.
And I'm happy to take your money if you really believe.
Sound like you're a real smart fella.
So just email me and we'll set up some wagers.
Someone in the chat also noted, well, Robert, we did bomb people into submission.
It was called, you know, Germany and bombing mass civilians.
It required that's the extraordinary thing.
That's the argument.
Oh, you did it to Germany and Japan.
That's what today would be known as mass genocide.
If you kill 150,000 people with a nuclear bomb today, unless it's.
And even then, Germany didn't quit.
I mean, we bombed them into the Stone Age and they didn't quit.
We dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs on Japan.
And it was only when the Soviets went into Manchuria that they finally stepped down.
So this is a reminder that these kind of regimes and belief systems are very unlikely to collapse from even the only, you can just, you know, follow anybody.
It doesn't have to be Mearsheimer, but he has had the best track record of anybody.
But others in the geopolitical, military, analytical space and see how many times has bombing a country led to that country installing a regime that is favorable to you, that removes all these risks.
Because what a lot of people are saying, they don't even realize they're saying it.
When they say, well, I don't want them to have ballistic missiles that can reach far.
I don't want them to have any capacity to develop nuclear weapons.
I don't want them to have any support for the various rebel groups that they are connected to, whether it's the Houdis or Hezbollah or the Shia militias, or there's a current uprising.
I was told this wasn't going to happen, that there would be an up.
There's going to be no uprising in Bahrain.
The Shia aren't united in support of Iran.
Well, right now there's mass protest happening in Bahrain.
And whether that regime lasts is a big open question for those that don't know.
Bahrain historically used to be part of Iran back in the day, by the way.
But, you know, continue to use those objective metrics so that you can measure the accuracy of information and as to your sources.
Some people are saying things that like, you know, in fact, people like McGregor and Daniel Davis and others have asked other people this in their circles, saying, okay, if you believe, for example, that we can take Harg Island, what is the logistics to get there?
What is the logistics to keep the island?
And how does it even play out?
For example, if we, well, in Axios was reporting that there's a combination of that maybe we'll go take that island, maybe we'll take some of the smaller islands, maybe we'll invade the southern coast.
You have 800 kilometers of coastline that you need to guard to secure the strait.
And even that doesn't secure it from the drones and the missiles that are located further up in the mountains of Iran.
So explain how that strategy is going to work.
If you list these guys on Fox, they don't give you an explanation.
These Lieutenant General Keene and Lieutenant General.
No, they go to the default.
So when do you surrender, Barnes?
And I know.
It's like you have to live in the real world, not the fact.
Look, there's a lot of things.
Like there was a meme going around when Rubio was like, well, the Strait is open, but for Iran attacking ships.
Yeah, right.
People are like, man, Sidney Sweeney would date me, but for the fact that she keeps saying no.
You know what I mean?
I mean, these are not good arguments.
You really can't even find them.
They're childish level arguments.
But when you have Trump saying to put, get this, we're back with Al-Qaeda.
We're back with Al-Qaeda.
Trump said, hey, everybody, watch a micro-Mark Levin.
You can look up Megan Calley's account for why I call him Micro Mark.
But the look up his interview with a guy thinks Mark Thiessen, who, by the way, he used to make fun of.
In fact, he talked to Richard Barris making fun of this, the president, this guy, how what an idiot he was because he was a huge Iraq war propagandist, et cetera.
He's now bringing back.
And you're going to have a lot of your Fox News boomer cons.
You're going to believe this.
That Al-Qaeda is connected to Iran, everybody.
Yeah, it was correct connected to Saddam Hussein, who waged an eight-year war against Iran.
But no, no, no.
Now, now, yeah, okay, the Sunni, those are groups that have long been opposed by Iran.
Iran is the one that took out ISIS in Libya, Syria, and northern Iraq, not the U.S.
But let's pretend all that isn't true.
And let's pretend that, you know, they're going to take that nuclear dust and make it into a bomb.
I mean, God bless if Vice President Vance was trying to spin a story on the TV show 24.
The TV show 24.
He can have a nuclear suicide vest, everybody.
I don't think that's what he meant.
I think I err on the interpretation that he was just using it as an ill-timed comparison.
And he wasn't referring to an actual weapon of a nuclear vest.
This is just, but by the way, their risk, their parliament, so here's what this people who said military operation like this could backfire.
They said it's going to motivate Iran to now get a nuclear weapon.
It's going to motivate that the hindrance in Iran getting a nuclear weapon wasn't sanctions.
It wasn't our threats.
It was the fatwa issued by the now dead Ayatollah back in 2003 that said it violated religious law for them to do so.
Yeah, but Robert, people are doing that.
And Fatwa died with him.
Well, here's what I mean.
Their parliament is going to be voting on getting out of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty entirely.
Professor Postel, who has long MIT, long studied nuclear research, development, other aspects like this, he believes that there's a 75% chance Iran has a nuclear weapon now in six months.
That's where people say, okay, I don't want something.
Okay.
Does the means that you want to use, is it more likely to achieve that outcome or less likely to achieve that outcome?
Is it worth the risk that you take of other things happening?
And that analysis is just not being done by almost any of the war propagandists and supporters.
They're either ignoring history, ignoring military logistics, or ignoring political reality.
And that's a bad place to be.
And it's how you get, how did we get into Afghanistan for 20 years to only have the Taliban replace the Taliban?
How did we get into Libya, Iraq, Syria, believing it would lead to liberal free democracy reigning throughout those regions?
And now they're all hell holes that produce all, I mean, Syria's leadership this past weekend was busy attacking Christian communities throughout Syria.
While Israel made the incredible decision to shut down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and block the priest from access to it this weekend.
And that blew up as its own scandal.
Even Huckabee had to come out and say, oh, maybe this is not so good.
But it's because people get into a mindset where they replace realistic objectivity with wishful thinking.
And wishful thinking is how you end up in dumb wars.
Well, people are going to say, Robert, anybody who places any reliance or weight on the fatwa against nuclear weapons is being willfully blind.
I mean, they'll say that.
And I think you can entertain that argument and say, okay, fine.
Even if you believe it.
Whatever the case may be, are they more likely or less likely to get him now?
I mean, at least what the critics said was they'd be more likely to get him after an attack than before an attack.
Now we're seeing it.
The Iranian political leadership is considering pulling out, withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty altogether.
Nuclear Intelligence Evidence Wrong00:02:01
So they would no longer be bound by it, which would mean the only reason you would do that is you plan on developing nuclear weapons.
And how can we prevent them?
That's where people are like, well, let's say we went in and took their current enriched material.
From all the analysis I've seen, that is not an easy military thing to achieve.
We don't even know where it is.
But let's say you do.
What prevents them from enriching in the future?
And again, I keep going back to unless you have complete regime change or mass genocide, you can't achieve these objectives by military means.
My argument would be that I don't know what would deter North Korea from giving them a nuclear weapon.
I mean, that's actually the flip side.
If people if the deterrence was the issue and then the question would be, then I thought we had obliterated their nuclear capabilities during the 12 day war.
And then then then the answer is going to testify to that.
She said that all the nuclear enrichment capability had been obliterated.
And she also said after this war started, there was no evidence, no evidence that the intelligence community had that there had been any effort to restart it.
So any suggestion that there was imminent risk from the nuclear materials is just is Joe Kin is right.
Anybody saying otherwise has to rebut our own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
Yeah, but they will.
They'll say that Trump has more information, whatever.
But my question to them is.
Which country might be providing that?
Well, but my question would be: was it right or wrong at the time when it was said that their nuclear capabilities were obliterated?
And if people are going to say, well, it wasn't total obliteration.
All right.
Well, then, I mean, then intelligence is not accurate one way or the other.
Either it was obliterated and they somehow rebuilt it in 10 months, or they were wrong when they said it was obliterated.
And in which case, you're relying on intelligence that has now been, at the very least, wrong and potentially wrong again, going into a boots on the ground type conflict.
And then if you get 5,000 soldiers who get killed on the ground, then you say, well, look, this is the same argument for Hiroshima.
Helium Prices Spike Globally00:03:55
It's going to take us too much manpower.
It'll cost 200,000 American soldiers to invade Japan.
So nuke them into submission.
And that's what this looks like it might go to.
I'm not saying that's not doomsday stuff.
That's where the argument would lead is that it's like, okay, well, if we can't do it by land ground invasion, and if it's going to cost too many soldiers, that was the argument to nuke Japan back in the day.
No, exactly.
And that risk is still there.
The risk is there.
What if this becomes existential from the perception of Israel?
Do they use nuclear weapons?
So that's why this can get the other side of the economic side.
I encourage people there to just follow a range of oil accounts, commodity accounts, investor accounts.
These are people that truly don't have a political bone in the fight.
They're analyzing, okay, where they think oil price is going to go.
And oil is denominated in a wide range.
You have, you know, you have crude, you have CL, you have Brent, you have West Texas.
And the actual barrels that are being bought in different parts around the world.
And I think what people are missing in that is the economic blowback here can be massive.
Already you look at people who price things like bonds and the bond yield keeps spiking.
What does that mean?
It means housing, the whole Trump affordability plan for housing was not to reduce prices.
He said this publicly repeatedly.
It was to reduce the interest rates.
Well, the interest rates are going spiking right back up.
It went from under six for the first time in years to right back up over 7%.
In fact, there's Deutsche Bank has come up with when Trump will taco, and that you can look at three factors, you combine them, and you can predict it with a high degree of accuracy.
And one of them is the yield on the 10-year.
But it impacts interest rates.
It impacts, first of all, there's three things that come out of the Gulf: food, fertilizer, fuel.
Also, certain specific items like helium, for example.
Helium goes in as critical to make chips.
Right now, they're already panicking in South Korea and Taiwan about not having adequate helium supply to even make the key chips that go into this whole semiconductor industry, such as AI, the AI boom that they were all banking on at the White House.
Might become the prices go boom.
Already a range of inflation expectations estimates are expecting the key issue to help Trump win in 2024: affordability.
Now, he was starting to get things down.
Well, gas prices at the pump that everybody can see are up over a buck a pop, up over a third across the country, and expected to go higher.
But not only there, people tend to forget.
So, you also have fertilizers that go into food supply all around the world.
There's a limited window of opportunity.
If that fertilizer doesn't get there, there's a bunch of fertilizer that comes out of the Gulf that's currently blocked because rates of removal are.
You could have potential, there's already major global organizations warning about global famine risk in all parts of the world.
So, you got food costs spiking, fuel costs spiking.
You also have a range of specific items.
There's things that are made with helium and other products that come out of there that the prices are becoming unavailable.
Or they're saying there won't even be adequate supply.
They're talking about COVID-type rationing controls in places like Australia as we speak, in places like South Korea, as we speak.
This could lead to political unrest in many of these places, which might blame the United States principally for their problems.
Then you have things like diesel and you have things like jet fuel, jet fuel prices spiking dramatically.
What does that mean?
It means airlines are going to have to start doubling and tripling the price of their tickets.
How does that impact a wide range of things like the tourism industry, which parts of the United States are heavily dependent on?
Then you get into things like in diesel.
Diesel goes in.
This is how a fuel price cost impacts so many other things because it's an input in the entire supply chain.
So take diesel.
Diesel is how we transport our products all across the United States of America, already up over 40% in just a month in the United States.
How do they recoup those losses?
Hispanic Vote Political Ripples00:08:56
Exactly.
The price of food.
Exactly.
And then what happens is you get demand destruction because what happens when people can't afford it?
When people can't afford it, they stop buying it.
And when they stop buying it, that's how you get global recession risk.
And you've got serious economic.
This is the biggest oil shock in the history of man.
This is bigger than 1973, bigger than 1979, bigger than any time in American history is what this oil shock already is.
You have almost 20% of LNG taken offline with Qatar announcing force majeure of all of its LNG contracts for the next three years to many of the countries around the world.
So this is just, we're only beginning to feel the beginning ripples of this.
If this war ended tomorrow, there would still be devastating ripples from this.
And instead, what it's building into is a tsunami, not only politically, but economically and geopolitically.
And because people are not taking honest advice in the White House itself, this risk is escalating rather than de-escalating.
I'm going to bring this one up and then we're going to move on to another topic.
Zero evidence of this.
The centrifuges were obliterated and buried under rubble, but the uranium was shipped to multiple locations.
Then why declare it mission accomplished?
If it was always a war with Iran, you should have said it from 2024 and not GOP peace ticket.
And you know, people say Stephen Miller said, hey, vote Trump because we won't be in war in the Middle East.
JD Vance specifically went on podcast and said, we won't get into a war with Iran.
President Trump specifically said its speeches, we won't get at war with Iran.
People rewriting history to pretend this was all part of the campaign are just lying to themselves.
It makes you feel better.
God bless.
It ain't going to change what happens at the polls in six months.
And not just that, but then they say peace through strength.
I mean, there's a difference between peace through strength and war, peace through war.
Peace through war.
Exactly.
Well, you know what it is?
It's like when you're hitting war on this, we've been at war with Iran for 47 years.
You know what it reminded me of?
It's Georgia oil.
We've always been at war with Oceana.
No, no.
And war is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
And what is it?
Freedom is slavery.
Let's read these things before we move on to the other, some other stuff.
Bucklebrush.
We got free speech cases.
We got voter ID cases.
Yeah, we got philanthropic.
You need to get it.
What time is it?
Six.
Hey, we get another two hours of non-Elon Musk cases.
We've got a big, big loss, big loss by Meta and Facebook on cases that might reshape big tech altogether.
We've got Google settling for more bad acts.
We've got Minnesota suing for evidence related to the shootings.
So we got about another eight big cases to cover here on the law for the and by the way, let me just bring this out.
I appreciate this is upsetting to people.
There's subdivisions of the fighting within our broader community.
You need to address it.
You may not like hearing it.
You might like hearing it because it makes you feel smarter.
You can disagree and you can call everybody names whatsoever.
Our history.
My advice: use what are the risks?
What are the rewards?
What are the probabilities of the various means that we're choosing to get to minimize those risks or maximize those rewards?
And do you think it's worth it?
And have some objective, short, medium-term predictions you can make to see whether your assumptions are accurate or inaccurate.
Well, the polymarket one has been eerily prescient because people have been making a lot of money off the insider information.
So that's one to look at and actually rely on in a way.
I hope it's wrong.
And I hope whoever does bet on that loses their money, but we'll see.
That is not a prediction.
So nobody gets to say Viva was wrong.
Bucklebrush Jones.
I'm covering it up.
Says, I want to be like Danny DeVito, not Dan Bongino.
That's the new song that the guy who did the Alex Jones folk song put out.
And it's catchy.
Crash Bandit says, why the hell has the USA not learned from the last three to four years of the Ukraine and the small drone?
It is almost like the government needs something to gaslight our butts again.
Jodin, 80.
I have reason to believe David.
I'm not reading this because I don't want anyone taking it out of context and saying I've defamed David Pacman.
I don't like him, but I don't think he's a serial killer.
You can read this.
I don't even know what the hell it's supposed to mean.
Yeah, I had no idea.
Randy Edward says, guidance received 30 years ago is that 80% of oil harvested in the United States is sold to Europe due to World War II contracts, where big oil gets higher profits.
Oil is up on cheaper Arab oil.
Tropical Rocket says the no-case protests are a joke.
If Kamala got elected, we would still be doing this war and there would be no protests.
King of Bill Tong says premium Bill Tong from Bill Tong USA.
High protein.
By the way, I just devoured half a bag before going live so that my stomach would stop grumbling.
Delicious.
Keto-friendly, no additives, U.S. sourced beef, authentic South African flavor.
Get some now at Billtongusa.com.
Code Barnes for 10% off.
Tropical Rocket.
I don't know who Ted Postal is.
Exposed how our AD has been an unmitigated fraud for decades.
And Barnes, last year, I bet you $5,000 Trump was going to cause a depression.
TikTok don't Jonah.
Does he know that you made the bet?
I don't know what it is, Robert.
Did you bet $5,000?
First of all, I don't know what he's talking about.
No, hey, he bet you, Barnes.
He bet you in his own.
I don't know.
I don't want to make jokes.
I don't know.
In his own fantasy land, I guess.
Daniel Dyke says, I live in California according to.
Okay, I got that one.
Chris Kraft for the Bill Brown 2 was right again.
Jar, thank you, Chris Kraft.
Jonathan G94, these events make me want to.
I'm not reading that.
Well, first of all, this too shall pass.
And also, that will not solve anything.
So you use your voice to effect positive change in the world.
When will Tiger get his third DUI, Barnes?
He got arrested this past.
Yeah, he rolled his car.
It did an accident up in Jupiter, not far away.
And I just wonder if he's going to be able to play.
I hope he plays.
I would love to see him play.
I know people say, why are you going to vote?
It was DUI.
He had no alcohol on him.
I suspect it's medication related.
He refused to do a year-on test, but he did a breathalyzer and blew triple zero, rolled a car, crawled out through the other side.
It didn't roll.
It just fell on the side.
And I would love to see him play and win because it would be one hell of a comeback.
Jaswin, Utah.
I still hope JD can beat the Prince.
That was promised.
What did I just do?
Follower 46.
Barnes, what changes here analysis came from Jasmine Crockett losing?
I love you, Embarrass.
Did she, oh, she lost to Tallariki, whatever his name is?
Tallerico.
Yep.
The key there was how the Hispanic vote would break.
So I got the white vote right.
I got the black vote right and was better than the polls on that.
I did not think the Hispanic vote would.
What happened is a bunch of Hispanic voters that were Mexican-Americans, predominantly in Texas, that historically have voted, that voted for Trump in 2024, voted in the Democratic primaries for Tallarico.
So there was a massive infusion of new Mexican-American voters, and they went overwhelmingly for Tallarico.
And that's why he won.
That's why Texas is at risk.
Now, it does look like Paxton's going to pull it out in the runoff.
And I think that improves Texas Republicans' chances of holding that seat.
But that was a warning sign.
I mean, we just had this earlier this week in Mar-a-Lago.
The independent vote.
And this is why people looking at how Republicans feel is kind of insignificant.
You want to look at how independents think about a lot of these issues.
Trump's own district, the Mar-a-Lago district, which Trump won by 11 points.
The Republicans outvoted Democrats by close to 10 points.
So it's like, how did they lose?
They lost because independents voted, the independents that voted for Trump last time voted for the Democrat by a 40-point margin.
This is screaming warning sign, warning sign, warning sign.
People just don't want to listen to it.
Did you predict that Tallarico would lose?
I remember you said if Tallarico won.
Well, I thought it was a 50-50 shot, and she was trading it three to one in the markets.
Okay.
No, because I remember you saying warning, if Tallarico wins, it's a very bad sign for Texas.
It might go, it might go back.
And I just want to read the end of it because I love you, Embarrass.
I'm curious if you're both changing your sources based on her unexpected loss.
Dr. Hoof.
Robert Hoover.
Her loss was expected.
It was just three to one in the markets.
I thought it should be 50-50.
And our analysis was right on the white and the black vote.
The Hispanic surge was a warning sign that was just, and it's gotten worse.
People, if you look at public opinion polling on this war, for example, though, people's biggest complaint is its impact on them, impact at the, at literally at the gas station.
But also they perceive it as Trump being focused more on foreign issues than domestic issues.
That's how it's translating as negatively as anywhere else.
But that's got worse.
Hispanic vote is right now.
The Hispanic vote will vote more Democratic than maybe it ever has.
That's how bad it is.
Trump had made massive inroads there.
And they're going to lose a lot of seats in places like Arizona, Nevada, or chance to win some seats in Nevada, California, to those five Texas seats they redistricted.
Contributory Liability Consent Issues00:15:35
Watch.
Unfortunately, I was hoping Brandon Dilley could win.
I think now he's an underdog in that seat because the Hispanic vote is shifting massively, massively against the Republicans.
Let me finish this one here.
I'm realizing this might be Fuhrer.
This might be the way of Dr. Fuhrer, but spelling it in a way that makes you say it without realizing you're saying it.
Fuhrer says, what is your opinion regarding state laws that preempt county authority to enact local ordinances prohibiting wind and solar projects?
Are they unconstitutional?
Seems like data centers will be forced in the future also.
S. Ren says, did either of you see that the Rothschild Bank in France was raided by French authorities?
Another strange Rothschild connection this week was the Vatican appointing a former Rothschild banker to head the Vatican.
Vatican Bank, I mean, they make it a cameo appearance in Godfather 3.
I've got a whole hush-hush, actually, on the Vatican Bank, and a hush-hush on the Rothschilds, just like I have a hush-hush on the guy who may have tricked everybody into this war.
The man with nine lives, up available at vivabarneslaw.locals.com for alternative narratives to the official narrative.
Let's get to the law stuffs, Robert.
What do we want to start with?
We got the second most popular topic on the board past the war was SCOTUS.
We had two big decisions from SCOTUS and a third big oral argument on mail-in voting this week at SCOTUS.
Then we've got, other than that, we've got the meta cases, we've got the Musk cases, we've got the free speech cases, and another big tech case, and Minnesota suing for evidence concerning the ICE shootings.
Well, okay, let's do the SCOTUS.
Now, were there two?
Was one of them had to do with two decisions and then the third oral argument.
One was copyright, one was immunity.
And then they did the oral argument this week on is election day election day or is it election days and election weeks and election months?
The copyright one had to do with the ISPs facilitating copyright violation in that the ISPs were providing services to hundreds of accounts that were committing copyright violations, copyright fraud.
They were getting notifications.
The ISPs apparently only severed the service to, I don't know, three dozen, 30 some odd of these accounts.
Many of the other accounts continued with their copyright infringement.
And the ISPs were held liable.
What was it, contributory liability?
Well, initially by the jury, because it's a case we covered at the appellate stage.
We covered it when they filed their petition for SCOTUS.
We covered it again when SCOTUS took the case.
And it's what we predicted.
But what happened is Cox Communications was held liable as a copyright infringer simply for providing internet services, internet services to people that were engaged in copyright violations.
And they called that secondary liability through the form of contributory negligence and vicarious liability.
Well, no, no, and I say in fairness, just to steel, man, the argument.
The argument was that they were notified that these accounts were committing copyright fraud and they didn't do enough to terminate them, thus facilitating their copyright fraud.
And you could see how dangerous this would be.
This would be backdoor censorship.
Because what they could do is big, big companies that hold these, who have constantly abused their copyright power already to get people's YouTube channels deleted, for example.
By the way, the two guys we interviewed, Russia with Attitude, because they pointed out issues related to the Iran war, like all their pointing out things about the Ukraine war, that was tolerable.
But them saying that maybe Israel and the U.S. were not going to do well in the war with Iran, they have now been banned from YouTube and banned from Patreon.
No violation identified.
It was simply because there's a mass censorship effort now connected to, yeah, the Israel lobby is my hypothesis, and it is theirs.
But what you could do is you could use the, you could give CBS, this case was Sony, you could use this to say, we identify this person as having violated copyright.
By the way, none of these people were adjudicated to have violated copyright law.
This was solely based on them saying and claiming this account here, this IP here, has violated the copyright law.
And they were saying, if you don't ban them, if you don't cancel all their internet access, then we are going to demand you, internet provider, pay us billions of dollars.
This was a $1 billion jury verdict in this case.
They called it contributory copyright liability.
And the idea that, I mean, it's interesting because you use the analogy of a service provider or like a highway.
And are the owners of the highways going to be held liable for drug trafficking if they know known drug dealers are using the roads and not, I don't know if you can cut off the roads to the drug dealers.
In this one, I mean, not to steal, not to agree with it, the argument was that they knew and that they weren't cutting it off to people who they knew were engaging in copyright fraud.
I mean, I guess the question is, they set up nothing new identified by Sony as doing so.
But I mean, that's the problem that you have.
You have, I mean, also people could be set up for this.
People could make innocent mistakes for this.
So contributory liability is secondary.
Under copyright law, only infringers should be subject to suit.
The Supreme Court has expanded that to called contributory liability, accessory liability, by saying that.
You can be vicariously liable if you're the one that, in fact, is responsible for it occurring.
It was your agent who did so.
By example, encouraging promoting the actual copyright violation and then not just being a passive conduit for it.
And being a profiteer for it, et cetera.
Ultimately, that got the Court of Appeals like that.
That part of the verdict doesn't make any sense.
But the Court of Appeals thought contributory liability could still be good on the grounds that they knew there was an account that was violating it and that they thus were intending to provide a service to someone with the intent that they then in turn violate copyright law.
Thank God the Supreme Court was like, that is not what we meant at all.
The two conditions, but basically they say if you infringe through encouragement or promoting it, or you offer a service that has no other commercial purpose other than facilitating where your only intent is to really, here, I'm going to help you.
So for example, this is like the Kim.com, right?
The is the implication they're referencing here.
If you create a business and the purpose, and they allege that the only purpose of that business is here, I'm going to create something so that you can share copyrighted material between each other, and that's its primary intent and objective, then that could be contributory liability.
Merely providing internet services did not meet that standard at all.
I was shocked that lower courts thought this was okay.
Again, it was a backdoor way to have massive speech control and censorship.
Thank God the Supreme Court said, nope, that's never been the law.
Is it the law?
Won't be the law.
Throughout the whole verdict, throughout the whole case, said that does not constitute contributory liability.
So using copyright law to engage in mass censorship and denial of basic access to what should be a utility, which is what internet service providers really are functionally these days, is for the moment not something that is likely to occur.
You're still going to have the old school censorship, but we have a big win on that part of the case in the Missouri versus Biden case.
Well, hold on.
Just last question.
It was 7-2.
Just had to double check.
a 7-2 decision for this one, overturning the lower court, which found liability vicarious and contributory.
The, oh, okay, before we, oh, okay, fine.
The Missouri case.
Before we go back, we can go back to SCOTUS, but there's a nice little categorical connection or thread between the two.
Remember the Missouri v. Biden case?
Well, yeah, this this this was when, you know, the Biden administration was sued for actively coercing social media companies to engage in active censorship when they went after.
You know, I don't know how the Stossels and even the Candices lost their suits when I need to refresh my memory on these things where they were basically fact checked and they had their content effectively removed.
But after having their audience parasitized over to over to the fact checkers.
But Biden was basically not even back-channeling, directly coercing and pressuring social media companies to take down information and not just misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, information that was accurate, but that might have been detrimental to the COVID cause.
We covered it at length.
I mean, Jen Saki effectively admitted it in real time.
We got all of the exposures of this during the Twitter files and it went to well, where was it?
They got relief, basically.
It's not a declarator judgment.
What's the word?
A decree.
Oh, it's a consent decree.
So these consent decrees is how police departments are subject to constant supervision, all of those things.
So it's a very powerful tool.
So one, they'll get to recover their attorney's fees in the case.
Second, the consent decree means if they ever violate it again, they can go right back to that judge and get remedy and relief.
And so basically, this was an acknowledgement and admission that the Biden administration engaged in systematic and censorship through coercion of the social media companies that originally they were claiming either didn't happen initially, then Discovery proved it did, including depositions of Anthony Fauci.
But in that same capacity, this case went up to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court said maybe they have standing, maybe they don't.
It goes back to the district court.
District Court says yes, they do, which is a good district court decision clarifying that vague effort by the Supreme Court to kind of suppress these kind of cases.
And ultimately, they admitted, rather than go through the rest of Discovery and get further embarrassed and humiliated, that these government agencies, including CDC, by the way, there's a current coup effort to try to push Robert Kennedy out again, being led by the president's own pollster, by the way, Tony Fabrizio, who guesses who his client is.
Oh, yeah, Pfizer.
What a shock.
But we'll save that for another show.
But this was, you know, Jim Hoff, Gateway Pundit.
This is a case Robert Kennedy helped bring a whole bunch of other people brought initially.
How many people told us?
Had no chance to win, no chance to succeed.
Well, they won.
They won and they got a consent decree that says henceforth, the government cannot try to recommend various forms of censorship to the social media companies because it's a blatant First Amendment violation by the manner, method, and mechanism that they chose to do so.
And even though their tool and their instrument were private companies, those private companies were only acting at the coercive behest and behalf of the government.
And so it's a great precedent for that purpose, for just First Amendment purposes in general, but a particularly good, effective one against dealing with these bad actors in the government and colluding with the censors at big tech.
That is a major win.
And credit to Eric Schmidt, who's now Senator Schmidt from Missouri.
He was the attorney general from Missouri.
He's the one who took this suit when a lot of other people wouldn't.
That's why it's Missouri v. Biden.
And just to read a little bit from what I'm showing right now, if I can find the page again.
Well, settlement resolves all remaining claims.
This is from Schmidt's own publication through a consent decree rather than continued litigation.
In it, the government agrees to a 10-year court enforceable injunction barring the Surgeon General CDC CISA from threatening major social media platforms with legal, regulatory, and economic punishment.
Robert, who on the other end, this is the Trump administration government consenting to this decree to some extent, correct?
Yes.
So the agency, but particularly it's those agencies who have their career counsel.
So the, I mean, now, if pay for play Pam Bondi was doing her job, she would have forced this consent decree right as soon as she got in.
Instead, it took discovery risk by the regulatory agencies, recognizing where this was going to go for them to fold and capitulate because they didn't want all the details of the scale to which they went to coercive techniques to censor us during our COVID era.
I was pointing out that Klay Travis is your retard of the day.
If you want a retard finder, just look up anything Klay Travis has posted and you'll probably find one.
He also betrayed Tennessee Sports, but that's another story for another day.
And somebody responded to me, oh, whatever, Libtard, we're not going to listen to your COVID rules anymore.
And it's like, how can you be so lazy?
You're accusing me of being the COVID guy.
That's how lazy these propagandized people are.
But the other free speech win was against the Trump administration.
And that was its effort to punish Anthropic for not going along with it being used for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons purposes.
Things that AI should not be used for, period.
If there's any, if it's true that it turned out we used AI to bomb that little girl school in Iran, that should have been a screaming warning sign to not be using AI for such purposes.
Well, Anthropic said, look, the AI is not even at the point where we have confidence in it, the company that makes it, to be used for mass surveillance or to be used for lethally autonomous weapons.
By the way, we'll have other cases we'll cover next week, and it'll be probably an ongoing topic of AI wrongly identifying people.
There are people that are getting arrested, multiple cases where police departments are using AI and they got the wrong person because AI screwed it up.
I just have to go ahead.
No, no, first of all, I don't trust AI for Jack Squad.
I mean, not that Grok is the best measurement.
It can't even identify photographs.
I just want to, is it definitively?
I'm not trying to be obtuse or protect anybody here or at all.
Is it now?
Grok is saying the United States struck the school in Iran.
Has the United States military or Heg Seth acknowledged this publicly?
Like just that, that would eliminate all doubt.
They haven't acknowledged the AI part of it.
It's a story that is circulating in the military press that they used AI for it.
There's others that suspect Israel did it deliberately as part of collective punishment of their theory of how to do these things.
I mean, right now, there's settlers in the West Bank going after Christian communities.
They're invading southern Lebanon.
They're bombing bridges.
They're killing journalists.
It's just another day in BB's Israel.
But the other explanation is that it was AI.
We'll see.
It's not clear what happened or not.
But this attempt to the government said, no, we're going to use it.
We want to use it for these mass surveillance and the autonomous weapons purposes, the Defense Department.
And these companies said no.
So then what happened is the Defense Department not only banned use of Anthropic, but they demanded that all defense, because what happened is Anthropic went public with this.
Anthropic said, look, we're not going to use it for these purposes.
The government wants us to use it for these purposes.
We can't.
There's a whole bunch of ethical issues, legal issues, moral issues that we don't want to get involved in by it being used in that manner.
And as soon as they went public with it, the Defense Department retaliated by not only banning them from being used by the Defense Department or any other government agency, but banning defense contractors, which covers almost everybody in that industry because of how many people contract with the Defense Department.
It's how the defense, it's what the military-industrial complex warning was partially about by President Eisenhower.
It said it was going to become part of the academic industrial complex where you could compromise the independence of various industries in the country by making them have to be dependent on government contracts and use those government contracts to control their behavior.
Qualified Immunity Police Officers00:07:33
And so they sued.
Anthropic said, look, we made a speech.
They retaliated against us because of that speech.
That was outside of their prerogative to do in the sense of banning us from even any defense contractor from using us.
And the federal court said, you know what?
You're right in looking at the evidence and enjoying the Pentagon from using its weaponizing its power, its contractual power to censor and punish people because of their speech.
And it was the right decision, in my view.
Well, speaking of punishing people because of their speech, I guess this gets to the other SCOTUS decision, which was relating to qualified immunity for police officers who hurt protesters who refused to comply with orders to cease and desist from the protesting.
Where was this one?
This was in, I want to say Vermont.
Okay, this is Vermont.
There was a sit-in protest.
I forget the plaintiff who was sitting in and protesting.
They all refused to leave.
The police come in and they order dispersal.
They order people to leave.
They don't.
So they go one after another and start arresting them.
This woman here sitting with her arms, I don't know, hands locked, whatever.
She's told to get out and stop resisting passively.
They take her arms, twist them behind her back.
I think it's called a rear whisk, a rear whip.
Holy cow.
A rear wrist lock.
Yeah, that's tricky.
Rear, rear wrist, rear wrist lock.
Because the wrist is a little bit of W.
It's like, boom, you think you have alliteration.
So they do their things to force someone to comply when they're not complying.
She was falling down, doing the exact thing that everybody does, which is create dead weight when you're a protester and you want to do nonviolent passive-aggressive resistance, gets badly injured and sues for damages.
What was the order?
Lower court lower court of the Second Circuit?
I think the Second Circuit reversed the qualified immunity.
SCOTUS reversed the reversal.
Of course.
Another horrendous, horrendous SCOTUS decision on qualified immunity.
By the way, at 1776 Law Center, we did the wonderful little quilt made by one of our board members.
We did a nationwide survey.
And one of the questions we asked is: do you favor eliminating all immunity for all government agents who violate people's civil rights?
It is like an 80-20 kind of issue.
Over the top, massive support.
But the question is, what qualifies as a violation of civil rights?
Like if someone gets injured from a lawful arrest, that's not a violation of civil rights.
If someone has their arm twisted and broken during a peaceful, you know, passive aggressive arrest.
This is a question that a jury should determine.
Qualified immunity cuts that off because what qualified immunity does is it says the judges get to prevent you from having a jury trial on whether the cop violated your civil rights.
Here, what's extraordinary is over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court said using a rear wrist lock is a violation of someone's civil rights because you know the risk of injury, particularly for someone that is not actively resisting, they're just passively resisting.
That they said you know its probability of causing injury and it's unnecessary for the purposes of executing an arrest.
And yet the Supreme Court said that here's how they're doing qualified immunity.
They're increasingly saying that unless that exact fact pattern has happened before, that they're immune.
Yeah, but we've discussed this.
It makes no sense because there has to be the precedent to create the precedent.
Exactly.
So it's basically immunizing cops and government officials across the board.
So that unless you have a case that's exactly like a past case, where the facts are what are almost never going to be the case, because the Supreme Court has also said whether or not a civil rights violation depends on the facts of the case.
So by saying the facts have to be identical, almost no case is exactly identical.
That's how they're getting away with things like what happens when they raid the wrong house.
Many judges say, nope, you can't sue for that.
Can't sue for that.
Because that particular way they raided your house isn't the same as the other cases that found it was a violation.
So the Supreme Court going to great lengths.
And by the way, this immunity doctrine is invented.
The Supreme Court continues to lie about the legal history.
This has been documented by originalist scholars, as people on the right, as well as people on the left, that in fact, there is no history that supports qualified immunity in the civil rights laws.
It's not in the law.
The Supreme Court made it up to hide and cover for bad government actors.
And they continue to do it in these preposterous cases that are making it so, well, yeah, he broke your arm, but he didn't break your arm the same way that other cop did.
It was immune.
A spiral fracture, not a clean break.
So but a bing, but a boom.
But so meanwhile, the lower, the whatever district it was, the Court of Appeals said, no, there's no qualified immunity here.
SCOTUS comes in.
It was 6-3.
I think the liberals dissented.
I was disappointed that Gorsuch didn't join the dissent.
But he's, I mean, when it comes to abuse by the government agents, you often see all the so-called originalist constitutionalists and conservatives go AWOL.
They go AWAL.
They tend to go AWOL in cases that favor big corporations, and they tend to go AWOL in cases that make government agents accountable for their violations of civil rights.
And it's an unfortunate trend, and it's a trend that continues with this case that's going to be used in a way that's going to gut half the civil rights cases pending in the country.
That's what's going to happen.
No, I don't think there's any, there's no ambiguity on my end.
There should be, on the one hand, how do I reconcile not thinking that cops should have qualified immunity with thinking that a president should have presidential immunity?
I mean, I say that the issue.
I should think there's certain kinds of presidential immunity has a more, well, it's not within the civil rights law context.
For example, he doesn't have presidential immunity for civil rights suits.
Well, that's the thing.
Like, when I say qualified immunity, the criminal cases.
And no, here's we should scrap immunity altogether to a large degree and replace it with what our founders established, which was you could argue that what you were doing was necessary for the performance of your job as a defense to a jury, that you could always do that.
And the average juror is very sympathetic.
It's not like police officers run into critical jurors very often.
They're mostly very sympathetic to the police officer.
And so it was like medical malpractice.
It was like there was no great risk that doctors were suddenly going to get strung up everywhere.
80% of cases that go to a jury, they see the doctor as a substitute for God and think he can do no wrong.
So the same thing here.
Our original defense was you had a defense to the jury that what you did was necessary for your job.
That should be the law.
We should return to what it was before this qualified immunity doctrine was invented.
But they have a different standard, by the way, for you know, the president can get away with less than a cop can in many cases.
And that's how bad it is.
Well, I mean, I'm a civil context.
Barring overt criminal conduct, you know, I can't think of any cases where, I mean, I'm trying to think of some of the prime cases where they shot into the woman's apartment where they fired hundreds of shots through the women's apartments.
Brianna, was it Brianna?
Brianna Taylor.
Brianna Taylor.
Yeah, I'm just trying to think of the cases where the cops have been held liable for and the threshold, but it's very rare.
Ballots Late Save Act Skepticism00:08:20
All right.
Robert.
And then they'll sue you if you expose their misconduct.
But again, my big white pillow of the year is still Afro Man.
You're showing the show.
I've been going deeper.
I just want to see all those clips.
And what's amazing is he decided to live basically in, I won't say the middle of nowhere, in countrytown in Ohio.
Like it's, it looks beautiful.
And his pound cake, man, the pound cake and watching the female cop cry because the song lyrics were that she likes to, you know, engage in oral sex with another woman.
Oh my goodness.
If I, if I cry every time someone calls me a homosexual, I don't even know why you would cry about something like that, but I would have no tears left.
All right.
SCOTUS, this one is the last SCOTUS case was the oral argument on mail-in voting.
Well, so I didn't get to listen to the whole thing, but the question here is whether or not mail-in ballots should be counted up to five days after election day to the extent that they're postmarked properly prior to election day.
I don't know.
What was the consensus in terms of which way you think it's going to go, Robert, if you're putting any money on this?
So there were different people that had different analysis afterwards.
The general consensus leaned towards the Supreme Court finding that election day means election day.
Now, some justices asked a good question, but they probably don't have the guts to get to go here, which was, shouldn't election day just be election day, both before and after?
In other words, you only vote on election day that you don't vote before election day.
You don't vote after election day.
But instead, they weren't challenging the early voting that takes place.
And so the only challenge is: does the ballot have to be received by Election Day, given that Congress, since 1845, has defined Election Day for federal elections, general elections, which is within their constitutional right to do under the Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Does it only have to be, you have to receive it, not just be mailed or sent or intended to vote or any of that standard?
And it's just as Alito pointed out, he goes, don't there have to be some limits here?
The state of Mississippi?
By the way, Republican state of Mississippi that's advancing these principles.
Nobody should be allowed to vote for forever.
From what I understand, it was Roberts and Barrett who are asking, you know, how long is too long and why would you have a different, a disparate treatment for mail-in that arrive after versus how early you can vote?
To me, it's a they're obviously not equivalent in terms of early voting versus receiving after election day for one obvious reason.
One is susceptible of knowing the results at the end of the day of election and the other one can mess that up.
So, you know, vote early as much as you want so long as they're received and counted by election day.
I mean, the obvious question is how late is too late?
Why five days?
Why not two days?
Why not two weeks?
And then imagine if it, if it reverses an election or at least allows an election to be ambiguous for five days and set aside the logistics of making sure that it's properly post-stamped or postmarked.
Why is it an effing thing, Robert, that it should not be received by?
You want to mail it in, mail it in so that it's received by election day.
And if you can't do that, walk it in if you want to do it.
I don't even know why it's a question.
Yeah, I agree.
And so the Supreme Court, the general, you know, given Alito's questions, Gorsuch's question, it's clear Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are skeptical and that they wanted it cleared up and they made clear the litigants.
We're only asking this for the general election, not for primaries.
We're only asking it for federal elections, not anything else.
And given that absentee oversee military ballots have to be are sent out 45 days prior to the election.
And by the way, what they didn't disclose is that these ballots, these, that is a cute dog.
Robert, he's let me pick him up.
Look, how can anybody look at this dog's face and not love it?
They said his disability is mental, right?
Yes.
I'm starting to think he might not be totally dumb, but he's on the slower side.
He's innocent, as we like to say.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
But the, oh, that reminds me of a Chuck Norris joke that he found out his daughter lost her virginity and he went and got it back for her.
So, you know, very Chuck Norris.
There was a memes of Chuck Norris presiding over his own funeral.
But so I think Barrett and Roberts and Kavanaugh seem sufficiently skeptical based on Alito's question that there has to be some limitation because if you can say, oh, it just has to be postmarked by that day, couldn't there be other things you extend it to do?
So that unless we have a hard rule that it has to be received by that day, we're opening up Pandora's box for potential voter fraud or election fornication, as they like to say.
So I think that the mail-in voting, I think they're going to rule that the Fifth Circuit was correct, that election day is the last day the vote can be received and can't be received anywhere after that.
And that will cut off a lot of these very questionable ballots that magically sprinkle in after the ballot.
Remember, if it wasn't for these ballots magically sprinkling in, Trump wins 2020.
No, no, it's a.
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania both had all these mail-in ballots show up real Georgia real late.
And it eliminates any issue about post-dating or the date, the stamp on an envelope, it's a flipping thing that you can adjust it by one the day after if you're so inclined.
And given how politically active the, what is it, post-workers union has been, you received by election day.
There's nothing that you can falsify about that.
If it comes in the next day, too flipping bad.
That one looks like Viva.
Well, oh, I just want to show you, by the way, both dogs are now coexisting in my office.
And Banny is not even listened to the oral argument rather than read the transcript in the chat.
And they're like, they lost brain cells listening to Justice Sotomayor.
But between Sodomior and Jackson, you can lose a lot of brain cells really fast.
They were right, I think, on the civil rights case, but they're not the brightest bulbs on the block, that's for sure.
I'm trying to see if I can find some good highlights of Katanji or whomever.
But all right, so yeah, it just, it's so easy to draw the line in the sand.
It's received by election day, period.
And if you have to count them to the next day, it's fine.
And then there's a different level of fraud as if you can sneak them in after and say, oh, we got them on election day.
That's a separate issue, but at least you know what the black and white line in the sand is.
Another nice win was North Carolina's voter ID law went to a very skeptical federal judge because it was being challenged on racial, disparate impact grounds and historical discrimination grounds.
And again, the whole claim was that somehow black people can't get ID and can't get photo ID, which makes no sense.
The judge even went along with a lot of those factual findings, but ultimately admitted and acknowledged that under the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court, there was insufficient evidence of willful intent because there's not a significant barrier.
They pointed out that this is a relatively, that there's all kinds of barriers to voting.
You could say there's a barrier to voting by where you place a place to vote.
You know, do you have to make sure there's never any kind of impact to any kind of community by the time you allow people to vote, by where you allow people to vote, by how you allow people to vote?
And the answer is no.
It only just can't be a significant impediment to being able to vote.
And the court correctly acknowledged after a substantial evidentiary hearing and lots of discovery that indeed not having voter ID is not having, is not a significant hindrance to vote by racial group.
And consequently, the voter ID laws of North Carolina were upheld.
Now, it'd be nice if the SAVE Act was being passed.
Well, that's what I was.
They're too busy.
They got to make sure that $200 billion goes to the military-industrial complex to have a war in Iran.
Then they are willing to include the SAVE Act and the pass.
So it looks like the SAVE Act is DOA, unfortunately.
Epstein Files Honeypot Campaigns00:06:24
It's like you have one job, and then people say, well, you know, you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Apparently not when you're in government.
So, you know, if the SAVE Act, well, what's the D-Day or the deadline by which we know that the SAVE Act has no chance of getting passed?
Well, right now in the prediction markets, it's down to 10% or less that it gets passed.
In order to impact the upcoming elections, you would need it by June.
And there doesn't appear that there can be anything.
That's when anyone says, look, we can walk and chew gum.
You can fight an international war and take care of domestic issues.
I mean, this is the prime example.
The Pan Bond, there has thus far been still zero deep state arrests.
They've just taken one off the checklist.
It's just, it's institutionalized incompetence that rewards itself based on the more it screws up.
I didn't see your interview with Kyle Serafin.
Was there an update on that the CIA spook pretending not to be the person who planted the pipeline threatening defamation?
Kyle, for the first time outside of his show, went over the lawyer's letter that he got from Claire Locke.
And that's a sleazy defamation law firm.
Represented Smart Manic that went on Tucker Carlson and claimed that I couldn't sue anybody related to the Covington kids case.
And I remember reaching out to them.
It's like, hey, apparently you want to help out in this case.
And so, oh, no, no, no.
Total bunch of mediocre, subpar lawyers who are political hacks.
I would take a case against Claire Locke just because it's Claire Locke.
Well, I don't want to jinx Kyle.
All that I know is that he received that in January, has yet to be sued.
And we went through the lawyer's letter and, you know, he pointed out some interesting inconsistencies with even the CBS narrative of the alibi of a video of the person playing with their puppies.
And Kyle was quick to note, you know, one person has one dog that was not a puppy.
We still haven't seen the video of the suspect or the not the suspect, I shouldn't say that, but the person that was identified by the Blaze playing with their puppies, which totally absolved them.
And it's been two and a half months, and neither Baker nor Kyle, actually, nor out of third, Blaze have been sued.
And I would say, I don't say that you're guilty if you don't sue, but I am saying if she is in fact the person, she literally physically cannot sue because there would be no way of escaping.
For those that don't know, you know, the credible, plausible evidence pointed out someone that's currently on the CIA payroll while they were working, working at Capitol Police, was identified as a likely suspect through a plan of the pipe bombs that appeared to have been a distraction rather than a real intent.
That currently corrupt Kash Patel, counterfeit Kash Patel, who, by the way, managed to get hacked this week in his email disclosure.
And he was like, $10 million arrest warrant for anybody who doesn't.
And you see, Alexis Wilkins lunatic thing?
Oh, my goodness.
There's too many things here.
The leak or the hack into his email, I wasn't sure if it was an older hack or a recent one because it seems that they've only gotten emails up to 2022 and his email was hacked in 2024.
That being said, if they got nothing out of his email account, I'm kind of impressed as to how clean cash is, at least not overtly corrupt.
But it's not clear if it was a new hack or the older documents because the fact that they had nothing apparently as of 2022 or past is bizarre.
What's her face?
Alexis Wilkins.
What was the flag he had on his accounts?
Before the American flag, he had another country's flag.
The Indian flag?
Israeli flag.
Oh.
Just FYI, a little bit about why the Epstein files case may go on the way.
And Alexis Wilkins comes out with a 13-thread X thread.
I know it was Tuesday night because I'm bowling.
I'm like, what the fuck is this?
Like, if you want to, I don't think she's in a honeypot, but my goodness.
I would never accuse her of being a honeypot, but if you had a honeypot, she'd look a lot like her.
Well, if I would accuse her of being a honeypot, but my goodness, there's methinks the lady doth protest too much.
And then a 13-thread X thread, which accuses Michael Flynn, Ivan Rakeland, who else?
Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, of being on a foreign, what was the word, influence campaign?
I'm like, that's something that either a honeypot would write or the FBI would write and then give it to their girlfriend to release to the public.
It was absolute insanity.
And it was connected to RT, everybody.
So she was back with the Russian propaganda paranoia.
Yeah, there's a foreign influence campaign happening right now.
And it's connected to a book that John Mearsheimer wrote called The Israel Lobby.
It's not any of these other people.
Yeah, I agree with you.
I was like, this is so detailed.
Now I'm starting to believe that Kyle Seraphin was onto something.
Oh, no, he suggested.
Kind of kind of looks like a honeypot.
13, and it was a long thing.
And it was drafted in a way like I haven't heard her speak at length.
It didn't sound like it was drafted by her, but I'm not any special.
Look like an Intel operation to do to distract from the real Intel operation.
Tropical Tropical Rocket says half the cops, twice the pay.
Tropical Tropical Rocket says, How did YouTube et al. get out of copyright jurisdiction in the first place?
Well, no, hold on.
They have a mechanism in place that allows them to claim that they have an institutionalized algorithmic method to prohibit and to sanction copyright.
The only problem on YouTube, Commitube, they go the other way in terms of allowing for copyright trolling abuse, which someone just sends a notice and they take down your content or they claim an entire thing and strike it, even if it's fair use or even if it's not the actual content at all, but sounds enough like it.
They've got copyright abuse as a what's the word?
What's the expression?
As a feature, not a bug, Tropical Rocket.
S C J D G.
Okay, convince me Iran wouldn't nuke Israel if they got a nuclear weapon.
The thing is, can you prohibit or prevent that?
And can you prohibit Israel from using nuclear weapons?
But that argument, and I appreciate that, you know, some groups of Muslims don't like other Muslims, but there's 20% Arab Muslim living in Israel.
Advertiser Discrimination Ideology00:15:38
The idea that they would just get it and if they could, well, maybe.
But I mean, the North Korea example is a pretty decent example of a rogue, lunatic regime that has nuclear capabilities.
That's not just running around nuking people.
And so I mean, to this day, the only country that's ever used nuclear weapons is still the United States of America.
Well, on another country, Russia used them in testing.
Oh, yeah, be able to test it.
But yeah, that have actually used them as a weapon of war.
But again, it's one of those: okay, let's say you even identify that as a problem.
What is your recommended solution?
And that's the analysis that's missing.
Forget it.
Don't get back into it.
Everyone's pissed off.
Everyone's fatigued with the Iran discussion.
Let me bring up over on Viva Barnes.
Let's see this.
That's not funny.
That's USA now.
The meme to that, by the way, is you get in there and you make it about yourself.
And it's a great meme.
Blue CW Soldier says the following quote from Ernest Hemingway seems to be quite applicable to the current time.
The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency.
The second is war.
Both bring a temporary prosperity.
Both bring permanent ruin.
But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.
That's beautiful.
Manny is so cute.
I've had a mentally disabled dog, but he was so cute.
Also, well worth it.
He's not as dumb as I'm making him out to be.
I think he's actually quite smart.
Moxie one, he looks dumb.
His eyes are too far apart.
Moxie one says, I know this is way off topic.
It's really important to me to know what's up with the draft and the shit show with Iran.
Nobody, they, the argument is that, what's her face?
Not Kelly.
Press secretary.
Yeah, Caroline Levitt.
Caroline Levitt, all options are on the table.
Subsequently clarify they're not thinking of the draft, which was still not the categorical hell no that I would have wanted.
But that, so it hasn't moved since then.
Ms. Millie and I humbly request a Lord have mercy from Mighty Pei.
Oh, for Mighty Pei, Robert.
Hold on a second.
Hold on a second.
Wait, Now do it.
Lord, have mercy for Mighty Pei.
It's not going to get better than that, people.
That was a full screen, full throttle.
What is this one?
Quasit says, I feel like the U.S. is doing because of what's going on now.
The midterms are going to be going to go to the Democrats.
They're going to impeach everyone they can.
They'll grant amnesty to illegals and it's all over.
Not seeing a way out of this.
I'm old and won't and won't live to see the worst, but I fear that for the children and the grandchildren.
Look, when things risk, and that's what people sometimes are not calculating.
It's like, okay, think whatever you want about the war.
A risk is that it politically backfires and leads to democratic power and control to such a degree that they have big enough margins.
Like my advice, now you saw it from Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
She came out after being briefed by the military and said, I'm against any boots on the ground, period.
And I'm not voting for any money.
Lauren Boebert, same thing.
I'm not voting for any money now that I'm seeing.
Yeah, but there's a trend.
These are the same ones who are on the Epstein thing.
So people are just going to write them off as partisan enemies of MAGA.
Well, that practically matters because that means they don't have the votes in the House to get any money for the war.
Okay.
So, but what you can fairly infer from that is that they, when they are being briefed, in fact, there was an attack on Nancy Mace that somehow she was disclosing classified information by simply saying she opposed what was happening.
That's preposterous.
Mike Johnson.
This is going, this is what Tucker Carlson's been warning about.
There's going to be a domestic censorship campaign coming.
That, you know, we already see the smear attempts on Joe Kent, the efforts to intimidate Tucker Carlson with, you know, claiming they're investigating him when there is no crime.
So, you know, this is a, you know, when wars happen, bad things tend to happen domestically.
Beyond the war, that's when they always use it as a control technique.
Whether in COVID was just a different kind of example of that, but it almost always happens during war where they try to censor people, try to suppress your independent voice, try to punish independent dissidents.
And I think that's going to accelerate, unfortunately.
I'm here for the truth, not what I'm hoping for, says Susie C.
So we're screwed.
Repeat of 1974 gas supply.
Is Susie Wilde, Susie Wilde's, really sick or is she being booted?
Or is she staying closer in the White House and making sure that her control is even more tight?
I heard someone say this is an excuse now she can remain in the White House basically full time.
I don't ever assume anybody's lying about having cancer.
That's just that's that's not something that I would assume anybody does.
Just kind of weird to be in the White House all the time.
I mean, usually you step back from your job, not I'm going to be in the White House.
Seems name names.
Who is advising the president with this nonsense?
I want to know what the draft got that.
Last Sunday, you spoke positively about Brooke Rollins.
What has she done to deserve a positive mention?
The last I heard, she was a corporate shill for Big Ag asks.
So she has talked about being open to a range of food freedom reforms.
She may actually do a town hall just for the Amish up in Pennsylvania.
So that's what I mean.
So her office and Robert Kennedy's office have been the most open to do maha-style reforms with their offices.
So that's why I have hope for both of their offices, even if some other departments, a little less so at the moment.
S. Ren says, so can I sue the phone companies for all the scam robocalls?
What about the ISP that provides internet connections to VoIP services used to scam calls?
Yeah, well, those are the obvious.
Atrophy Cat says, how does Trump know what he knows if he knows?
What is the form of chain of negotiation communication?
For example, Trump to BB to Rubio to Kushner to Witkoff to Israel Translator to another Iranian to Khomeini and back again.
I need to know if Trump is getting the actual information.
We don't think he's getting it.
He's choosing to believe what he wants to believe at the moment.
And it's gotten really, really bad.
And in the context of war, that can lead to really bad decisions.
If Iran wanted to go nuclear, they have proven they can hit every nuclear plant in the Middle East by what happened to all the trillion.
By the way, what happened to all the trillions we spent on the military wonder weapons?
I think we're due a refund.
This is J45.
Dan Sundan says, oral arguments, Monday 30th.
Well, I am watching that.
That's tomorrow, right?
Oh, the birthright.
Okay.
Yeah.
And tomorrow night, I'm going to co-host a Messy money bomb.
We're going to have Scott Horton on, gonna have Dave Smith.
Tom Woods, gonna have Tom Woods on, gonna talk to Massey himself about the different legislative proposals that are coming forward, like the Prime Act, big one for food freedom.
A bunch of cool people are gonna join.
So it's uh, this was an old Ron Paul tradition to do the money bomb.
So got to help Massey because he's the last honest member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Remember, California gets over 18% of both oil and refined fuel from foreign sources.
Now I can go back.
And people forget also that there's certain oil that we have a surplus of, but there's certain kinds of oil we have to import.
So that's the other way it impacts it.
And because oil is generally a global market, unless you try to close it off, which there's talk that that might happen, Rey Zakaro, who's one of our board members, was on with the Duran talking about that risk that the U.S. may try as a way to control prices, prevent and prohibit exports of various goods.
If everybody does that, that can create a reciprocal problem of its own accord.
It's not clear that's an easy solution to implement.
There's a joke here.
It says, please use TIP to pay Mark Mitchell's ransom.
That's from Jazwin, Utah.
Yeah, Ted Carroll R.S. Mooson has him tied up in a basement someplace.
John G94 says, presume Democrats sweep 2028.
What would Republicans or third party win in the 2030 midterms?
What would be the most ideal conditions and circumstances?
I assume all the bad actors screwing things up right now or being discredited would help a GOP come back.
There's time between now and 2020.
Well, that's what 7876 Law Center is doing is building a platform that people can use to make policy changes that can improve the country at the local level, state level, and federal level.
And so part of it is embracing that platform.
Another part of it is trying to restrain the worst instincts in the Democratic Party.
Because what if they stack the Supreme Court, stack the Senate by adding Puerto Rico and D.C. estates, stack the House by giving mass amnesty to illegals, rig the census because they would have control of it then because it's the 2030 census.
Those are the areas of big, big concern.
So you'd want to restrain that and then build the platform that can restore credibility.
And maybe that's not even the Republican Party.
Maybe it's a new party that comes about.
If the Republican Party can keep getting hijacked by its institutional donors the way they've done to the Trump administration, then maybe a new party has to be the option instead.
So I think all options are on the table.
Let me read the last one over here, which was to 03.
Thanks, Commodore.
Indeed, does not get better than that, says Chris Kraft.
Thank you, Chris Kraft.
F. Charton says, the only upside is this war is going so bad, so fast, they can't bury the truth.
The implications to other countries cannot be ignored.
It's a very public war.
And shut off Middle East oil source, refining of California, blend fuel from Asia sources will dry up.
Okay.
In fact, they predict it fast.
You're talking about like some of these places are going to not have enough supply to just provide what their essential services in parts of Southeast Asia by Wednesday and then some by next week and then some two weeks later.
I mean, it's disaster.
And I see that's where I'm concerned that so many people on the right are sticking their head in the sand, pretending everything's fine, not recognizing the risk.
And by not recognizing the risk and not relaying that message to the president, they increase the risk.
He compounds the mistake rather than fixes it.
Everybody watching, don't forget to like, share, subscribe, share my latest videos.
Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
Like, share, subscribe because it helps him.
It makes it feel good.
Yeah, do it.
And if you're watching, you know, whatever, you know what to do.
The question was this now, Robert.
So do we get on Elon Musk has a few had two big losses.
Meta had two big losses.
Google got exposed again, this time in the subscription context.
And Minnesota sues for evidence concerning the sues of the federal government.
And last but not least, case that you highlighted, the Lion King joke loss.
Oh, my goodness.
Well, and there's a woman who, there's one of the wrongful death of the woman who was in a car that got rear-ended.
We'll get to that.
The details in that are a little bit interesting.
Let's do Elon Musk.
So he filed a lawsuit against what was it, the World Advertiser Federation or something, alleging abuse of monopolistic practices because they were engaging in a concerted boycott against X by pulling all of their ads.
I forget which five companies, big, big, big companies, they represent big corporations.
So the World Federation of Advertisers decide to boycott X, leave X because they don't like the platform anymore.
And Elon Musk was going after some abuse of monopolistic practices by literally abusing their monopoly to, I don't know if it's coerce business practices or censor or at least just engage in unscrupulous business practices.
And Elon, hands down, I mean, was it dismissed at a preliminary stage or it was what I say?
I want to forget if it was the summary judgment stage.
Yeah, so it dismissed.
And they said, no, there's no evidence that they engage in this behavior as a form of violation of antitrust laws.
They made a decision, as they're within their rights to do, to leave because they didn't like the fact that he said the F word during that speech where he said, go fuck yourselves if you think you can use your power to make me do things.
I don't disagree.
Nobody can force the advertisers to stay.
And I don't even, if they form an aggregate, they're obviously going to take action as an aggregate.
And I don't see it as being any meaningful abuse of any antitrust or monopoly laws.
What's your take?
Yeah, they didn't find the evidence that supported that because these same entities were targeting the same agencies and groupings were targeting Rumble and continue to discriminate against Rumble and it's advertising.
That's why Rumble doesn't get anywhere near the advertising revenue per user that YouTube does.
And so to me, what they're doing is a systemic violation of being able to access full free speech.
But figuring out the legal theory of liability is the tricky part.
And here, Musk's team didn't find the evidentiary support for it.
Now, in another case that we wonder about.
But hold on, just because I'm trying to think out loud, what would be a theoretical mechanism?
We're not looking at tortious interference because there's no underlying tort, and this is not third-party contracts.
These are, they are deciding with whom they want to contract.
The problem is, you can see a world in which they politically align to bankrupt the competition, but nobody has any right to the advertiser dollars.
I always just figured the free market would work out over time.
And Rumble, if it has enough eyeballs, I don't believe for a second that advertisers don't want to advertise on Rumble.
I believe they want to have the political circle fallatio that they have on YouTube so they can each rub each other's backs and promote the same messaging, political messaging, whatever.
But eventually they'll come to their wits and say, yeah, we want to be where the eyeballs are.
But if they continue to drive the companies economically, they'll eventually win in the short to long run.
And they'll go right back to having an effective monopoly if they succeed in bankrupting or pushing out of the market X, Rumble, and the competition.
What is a plausible legal theory?
I don't know yet.
That's a short answer.
This Musk team is a pretty good team, but the one downside is that his lawyers are all corporate types.
So they're not lawyers that fight the system.
They are the system usually.
And so I think that there has to be continuous thought about creative ways to come at this.
Now, some states have passed laws that might be helpful, but then the courts have intervened at enforcing those laws.
But I think something along those lines, we probably need legislative reform.
Yeah, this might fall under discrimination for political ideology.
Like the only reason they wouldn't advertise on these platforms.
And the UNRU Act in California doesn't seem to cover that, or is that between he chose not to sue there under that theory?
That would be, I know some people have, and generally the California courts are so beholden to big tech, they don't enforce it on us to big tech.
Because I had brought that in the past and they find all the excuses in the world not to enforce it.
They're just so in big tech's pocket.
Speaking of which, now it'll be interesting whether Elon will get into trouble for this.
He was making fun of the judge that was in his case.
But remember the case we covered with X that in California?
And we pointed out the jury was so biased against him and that it was a joke of a jury?
Well, they proved that.
They not only ruled against him, they were even making jokes by making some of the damage calculations literally 420, which, you know, he's famous for 420 for the pot reference and all the rest.
And so, and then the lawyer's like, this is obvious that this jury was biased against him.
Biased Verdict Antithetical Business00:08:04
They admitted they were biased.
The judge still sat him despite the fact they were biased against him.
And then their bias showed up in the verdict.
And it's the failure to meaningfully enforce an impartial jury, which is obligated to be provided under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the context of federal court that courts are just have long ignored.
They have no problem if you're politically disfavored in that particular constituency, completely running over your rampshot over all your rights because meaningful jury selection isn't allowed.
And even to the degree it is allowed, they allow openly bigoted and biased jurors to sit on the jury if you're a politically disfavored party.
And that's what happened to Elon.
He lost the case because the jury was biased, as it made clear by making a 420 reference that had nothing to do with the case in the verdict form.
Yeah, well, it's the well, they said, okay, hold on.
They argue they made a referencing the $4.20 in the damages verdict, which they said was mocking his 2018 $420 Tesla privatization tweet.
This was the one where this was the one where he was being accused of manipulating the market prior to buying Twitter.
Well, a lot of it makes sense because all those people made a windfall anyway.
Yeah, well, if they, if they held it, I mean, the whole point is like, if you sell, if you sell at a loss when you didn't have to, I never understood how you could like, how you can then sue for damages, but for, okay, never mind.
I'm not going to bring that up.
All right.
So Elon had a couple of losses and now his Teflon Elon streak is no longer.
Not in court.
Now, the only people who had good, deserved losses was Meta and Facebook.
Let's do the first one was out of New Mexico, where they were, Meta was ordered to pay $353 million.
You use the term bellwether case.
These are not yet class actions.
These were the litmus test individual cases to see if they have merit.
And now we can assume that we're going to see some class actions out of these.
The California one that we've talked about that we covered even the whole trial for that one, or at least on the Sunday show, that one is a test case for a pending class action in that case.
The New Mexico case was not yet, but that was a state actor that every other state can now repeat and replicate.
So the $353 million out of New Mexico was for failure to protect teenagers, implementing a product or selling a product that was knowingly and deliberately made to be addictive, to harm children.
It was an action taken by the state, and the jury came down and awarded $353 million.
Some people are saying it's a big deal.
It's the cost of doing business.
But if every state starts doing this, it's going to be a big cost of doing business.
I mean, we've been talking about it for a while.
A, it's going to go to appeal.
The question is going to be, does it get overturned on appeal?
And what is going to be the future for Meta, Instagram, Facebook, if these rulings start coming out?
Because they have presumably, and I say not presumably, obviously been doing the exact same thing, designing a product that they know is addictive and harmful to underage people.
Yeah, I mean, it's huge ruling out in New Mexico because other states can replicate it in a huge amount of money.
And the test case, the test case in California was the social media addiction case.
They manipulated their algorithms and technology to make, I think there's like the creepy thin line is one documentary.
There's multiple documentaries where they came out, people who had helped develop these algorithms for big tech and said this was designed to manipulate and addict young people.
And we saw an explosion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation, all of that occurring amongst people, young women in particular, but not limited to that, at the same time as the rise of these social media giants.
And it turned out that wasn't a coincidence.
Their developers and designers, including the one who testified in the California case, said that was what it was there for.
It was there to get eyeballs for them to stay on the, you know, thus certain scrolls and other things were designed to keep people engaged, to get people enraged, anything that would manipulate them to have them to be addicted to that.
I mean, it was worse than what Big Tobacco did with its products and cigarettes.
And this is the first test case and massive loss from Meta.
And potentially, it could bankrupt them.
The combination of these cases could bankrupt big tech because their entitle model not only was built on antitrust monopoly violations, but also built, we started talking about this years ago, that these two legal areas of attack could completely derail big tech.
And one, it continues to go on in the big, in the antitrust context.
But this was the other one, which was their manipulation of young people, often minors, deliberately doing it for the purpose of lining their pockets at the expense of our people, at the expense of our children.
And now there's finally legal comeuppance in consequence.
And if this continues at the scale it is already at, Facebook could be gone in a couple of years.
So because that's how these are bankrupting verdicts.
And at a minimum, hopefully it stops them and deters them from continuing to do this to another generation of young people.
But ideally, it sinks them like it should because these have been bad actors that have caused net harm to civil society and the American people.
Yeah, I wonder, I mean, the world would be better off without Facebook to some extent.
I mean, but something will take its place.
Or I don't know how they can go and remedy the wrong that they've already done, make it less addictive is going to be antithetical to their business model.
Maybe make it addictive.
They're going to have to if they want to stay in business.
Well, I mean, how about if they just don't allow anyone under 18 to use the platform and make it addictive for adults?
You know, that could happen.
But on top of that, just change the platform to be an honest information source, not a manipulative, money-making, you know, kid-abusing source.
You know, they could just be honest and moral and decent, not illicit and indecent.
And then that would, you know, would they make as much money?
No.
But they don't deserve to make money causing this amount of collective harm on our young people.
Well, then someone says I'm suing Viva Fry.
That's because we have the most addictive content, Robert, out there.
That makes your brain bigger.
Trump is partners with Zuckerberg now.
I mean, we touched on this on Thursday, but that was unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
This is what this is.
This is political cluelessness.
This verdict comes out in both cases in New Mexico and California.
And who, to help with kids on big tech, Milani won, they have a robot walk out with her?
People are not looking forward to the days of robots replacing us.
I don't know where anybody thinks this is a great idea politically.
Robert.
But they have this weird robot.
Okay, so now I am in the simulation.
So we got a dumb foreign war, and we got big tech's going to take over our lives.
What?
And then invite Zuckerberg to be on the board.
A guy who banned Trump from Facebook and Instagram.
A guy who banned Robert Kennedy.
These are the people you're kissing up to.
But this is what happens when you start to live in a little tiny bubble.
The White House is in a tiny bubble of delusional thinking that they think this was popular.
They think it was, oh, let's be seen with Zuckerberg.
This will be great.
Even Laura recognized that doesn't play well.
Well, no, what I love is Laura Loomer.
This is like, I just keep track of people not being consistent, but Laura Loomer is going after Alex Jones for having turned on Trump.
And I'm like, you literally this week said this is a slap in the face to MAGA because Trump appoint or no, it was Trump, you know, brought Zuckerberg into the White House.
I'm like, it's like, what's amazing is everybody wants to criticize when they think it's justified and then shit on other people when they criticize when they don't agree with that.
Hypocrisy, intellectual inconsistency.
And I make my damn surest to make my damn best is to not engage in it myself.
Rumble Premium After Party00:05:24
Robert, we got to say some stuff for the after party.
What are we going to do with you?
We'll have three for the after party.
When making a joke about the Lion King gets you sued.
Man, I don't know what Google, Google caught again on a new scam about how it was recharging people for subscriptions without adequate notice.
And then Minnesota, the state of Minnesota, is suing the federal government, demanding to know the intel and information about the two ICE or Border Patrol-related deaths that took place in Minneapolis.
So we'll have that trilogy and answering all the tipped questions over at viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Or if you have Rumble Premium, you can stay right here and have it here.
Somebody asked what my email address is.
Just go to BarnesLaw, LLP, as in Peter, dot com, go to the contact page, and I think they wanted information about, they wanted to give some information about the wrist arrest.
And that's how to reach me and everybody.
If you have any kind of question about any legal matter, that's the way to reach me.
Do we're going to go raid Amonsgold, Asmon Gold?
He's playing with the Gold.
We're going to do that.
He's a great famous gamer who's got politically active over the past two, three years or so.
So he's still mostly a gamer guy.
It's gaming.
No, but people can be like, oh, don't send us to Badlands.
Don't send us to Redacted.
Don't send us to, you know what?
You're going to go game tonight.
See if you like that.
Tell him we said hi.
But before I hit confirm raid, Robert, what's your schedule this week coming up for everybody who's watching now across platforms?
So tomorrow, I believe at 6 p.m. Eastern time, I'm going to have the Massey Money Bomb.
You can sign up for it, just Massey Bunny Bomb.
You can look it up.
And we have a bunch of great interviews, not only with Congressman Massey himself, but Tom Woods, Scott Horton, Dave Smith, a whole bunch of other people are going to try to join in to help Thomas Massey defeat the deep state.
The number one adversary of the deep state in Congress is Thomas Massey.
Number one advocate for food freedom, Thomas Massey.
Number one advocate for financial freedom, Thomas Massey.
Number one advocate for political freedom, Thomas Massey.
Number one congressman for medical freedom, Thomas Massey.
The man who stood up to the surveillance state, stood up to the war machine, stood up to the COVID hysteria, stood up to the Federal Reserve, stood up to big ag, big pharma.
And big tech is Congressman Thomas Massey.
We're going to have a Massey money bomb for him, co-hosting it with the red-headed libertarian.
So it'll be a lot of fun.
But, you know, you don't have to donate.
If you're a conscientious person, you're going to feel the need to donate.
But even if you don't, you can tune in to watch a lot of cool, fun, engaging conversation and topics of the Massey Money Bomb.
So tune in, 6 p.m. Monday will be that.
Then Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, we'll have Bourbons at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Had a hush-hush up about the Rothschilds a week ago or so.
Had another hush-hush about the man with nine lives who may have caused the death of the American Empire by tricking us into the Iran war.
And we've got another, probably another hush-hush coming this week, depending on what topic the board selects.
So we had a good movie night Saturday night with Chuck Norse, Lone Wolf McQuaid.
It was a lot of fun seeing that old 80s school films.
That was cool.
Probably have another movie night on Saturday night.
A Barnes brief on Friday, curated content across the Webisphere with closing arguments, usually about the Constitution.
This past week, it was answering questions and criticisms about the Iran war.
So you always go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where everybody is above average, even the trolls.
Someone said raid Drew, but Drew is in the afterparty, I think.
We're going to raid Nerd Roddick because at least that we can't raid Salty Cracker because he doesn't allow it.
By the way, everybody, speaking of movie nights, we reviewed Grobert and I reviewed the French Connection last week.
You can check out the channel if you want.
We're doing Shawshank Redemption this week on Thursday.
We're going to go raid.
We're raiding Nerd Roddick.
So go raid Nerd Roddick.
I'll be live tomorrow three o'clock throughout the week.
And this is great.
Now, as we do this, go raid Nerd Roddick.
Let him know from whence you came.
The question was this before we hit into the after party.
Let me make sure that we haven't missed anything.
I had a question at Commitube.
Hold up here.
Is this it?
Okay, no, that's not it.
There was one.
Give me one second.
Let me get this before we end this and go behind the Rumble Premium.
Close all of this.
Where is the thing that I had from a tip question?
Okay, on Commitube, it was.
He said that the U.S. is Israel's lapdog and that information is supposed to be classified.
That says, that was inventive harvest.
I knew it was a joke.
That was the joke as to what classified information Joe Kent released.
Okay, so now we are going to go to the after party, take some questions, have some fun.