Ep. 310: More on the War in Iran! Bondi FIRED! Birthright Citizenship! Tina Peters! AND MORE!
Viva & Barnes dissect the U.S. pilot's miraculous escape from Iran despite $100 million in lost equipment, condemning Trump's threats to destroy power plants as potential war crimes. They analyze Attorney General Pam Bondi's firing amid corruption scandals involving Mike Davis and recommend Eric Schmidt or Josh Hawley as successors. The discussion covers the January 6th pipe bomber case, Tina Peters' election fraud appeal, and a Colorado law barring lawyers from cooperating with immigration enforcement. Finally, they predict the Supreme Court will uphold rigid birthright citizenship while criticizing Marco Rubio's visa revocations as unconstitutional betrayals. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Pilot Rescue Behind Enemy Lines00:06:50
Golf voice intro for today's show, although that is kind of the golf voice.
I'm going to play you a clip of videos that are going around on the internet now about the rescue mission out of Iran after the pilot was shot down, ejected behind enemy lines, and was extracted successfully today.
And you'll call it a miracle, it is an act of technological accomplishment, obviously, but miraculous nonetheless.
This is now you all know that over the weekend, two F fighter jets were shot down over Iran.
Pilot ejected, was behind enemy lines.
I, wrong, wrong button.
I had on the show on Friday a guy named Lynn Westover.
We were actually hanging out all Easter weekend together over on the Rumble side of the Florida Peninsula.
He's a combat veteran.
If you haven't seen him, he's married to Ali Moro, Allison Moro, who is a journalist.
Quit her job over the vaccine, was then fired over First Amendment rights.
These are bona fide patriot Americans, Lynn West over a combat veteran.
And we were talking about it over lunch.
And we were talking about the jet having gone down.
You say, regardless of how you feel about this war, war in general, period, when a U.S. soldier, one of your fellow citizens, is down behind enemy lines, I actually saw somebody post the nastiest, most disgusting tweet on.
On Twitter.
And I wonder what goes through their minds.
And I was going to retweet it, but I don't want to give anybody the dirty attention that they're looking for.
These are like kids who never had proper parents growing up or never got the attention they needed growing up.
And so they grow up to be asshole adults and then tweet out the tweet.
The guy said, and I thought I misread it.
And it said, praying Iran finds him and with little prayer in hands.
And I, you know, not even having that type of mean bone in my body, I was like, oh, you know, he's hoping that it gets picked up by Iranian assets so that it's not, he's no longer at risk.
No, this was a troll.
Who prides himself on being a troll, effectively wishing a death sentence of horrendous nature to a downed American soldier behind enemy lines.
When I'm sitting there talking with Lynn over lunch, our families are sitting there, and I'm telling him, like, you know, I can't imagine anything more terrifying, regardless of how you feel about anything, anything more terrifying than being alone behind enemy lines where you know the enemy wants to find you and wants to do the worst things on earth to you.
And so we started talking.
He's got plenty of combat experience.
He was.
Talking to me about SEER, which is the Survival Evasion Resistance Escape when you get stuck behind enemy lines.
We went into great detail about it privately.
And I said, Lynn, you got to come on the show Friday and talk about it publicly.
And we did.
And he went over what would go into extracting this person, what types of safety mechanisms this pilot would have on them, tracking devices, survival gear, all this sorts of stuff.
And the US military went in over the weekend behind enemy lines and successfully extracted this downed pilot.
You know, the every fear hides a wish.
And you know damn well, you know damn well that there are going to be folks out there on the internet who, one way or the other, are going to use it as an opportunity to spread their.
Belief system, for lack of a better word.
God forbid, had the individual gotten captured, killed, they'd say, use it to support their position already, their foregone position.
Had it turned into a Black Hawk Down 2.0 of one rescue helicopter going down, and then you have to go in and rescue eight people, and then it gets blocked up.
Had it turned into a Black Hawk 2.0, they would have used it to support their foregone conclusions.
A successful extraction that resulted in the military destroying some of their equipment worth 100 million bucks.
As gross as it sounds, it's a drop in the bucket for the budget of the military for a government that just prints money out of thin air.
They destroyed their own equipment because apparently it got stuck in mud or something and they weren't able to leave with it.
And so they destroyed it so that it didn't fall into the hands of the Iranians.
And you know, people are going to weaponize that to say, oh, they lost $100 million.
It's a miracle.
It's a technological feat.
It's an accomplishment, whether you think this war is a big fat mistake or not to begin with.
You cannot like ultimate fighting, but you will damn well recognize an amazing knockout or.
Jiu jitsu escape submission when you see one, regardless of whether or not you think UFC is barbaric.
Jake Shields says, Are you tired of all the winning yet?
No, I'm not sure if Jake understood that this was an actual successful operation, but for the fact that they had to destroy their own equipments on the way out.
It's a miracle.
It's Easter Sunday.
That man, it looked like he got ejected from a downed fighter jet when they picked him up and he had a tracking device on him.
They go in there.
You know, a member of our community, Bill Brown, also.
United States Marine Corps veteran says, you know, the helicopters, Blackhawks going in there for these rescue operations, low and slow, it's the most dangerous thing on earth.
They did it.
Whether you approve of this war or not, whether you think it's going to be politically devastating, whether or not you think it's politically damaging, whether you think it's outright awful, if you sit there hoping that American soldiers die, congrats.
You might not be the hero in this story despite what you're saying.
You get them back safely and you try to work diplomacy if you think that this war is a big mistake and you try to express your ideas respectfully.
You know, and hope that people might listen.
But bottom line, one of the pilots successfully rescued, and it's amazing.
The fear hiding the wish, there were some people who would have wished this turns into a Blackhawk down 2.0.
When I was talking with Lynn, I'm like, what prevents it from being a Blackhawk down 2.0?
He's like, you know, there are ways, couldn't tell me all of them, but it certainly sounds like they worked it well and successfully extracted that pilot.
Now we're going to get into the rest of it for tonight's show, but it may or may not piss some people off.
And I appreciate that some people are fatigued about talking about this.
Unfortunately, the situation is one that is the issue of our time.
And we are going to talk about it.
For those of you who are new to the channel, Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
And I had an amazing weekend with Lynn, Allison, and the family and our respective kids.
And we were playing, talking, and stayed up late.
I say, veterans have, everybody on earth has an interesting story to tell.
Parasite Cleanse and Sushi Risks00:02:25
Everybody on earth is unique.
A snowflake, and not in the sense of being fragile, but in the sense of being singularly unique.
And that said, you know, everybody's got an amazing life story.
Lynn and I talking, it's just wild.
And when I've had on our veterans from our locals community on our channel for interviews, the stories, the life experience they have, it's foreign to me and it's fascinating and it's inspiring.
So, with that said, by the way, before we even get into anything, I want to thank the sponsor of tonight's show, which is.
The wellness company people.
Hold on.
I want to bring up this beautiful video, which I'll press play on, and we're going to talk about this.
People, there's a great opportunity now to get a 45 capsule parasite cleanse with two full cycles, 90 count perfect for this.
People, if you like sushi, you're going to want to know about this.
Over the last two decades, raw fish consumption has exploded.
Sushi is everywhere.
Grocery stores, gas stations don't get it at a gas station.
People, millions of people now eat fresh raw fish, but there's a hidden risk most people don't think about.
I think about it all the time.
Get your flash frozen sushi and don't get gas station sushi, but parasites, people.
Salmon is one of the most popular fish worldwide, but it naturally contains more than 70 parasites.
There's a reason, also, by the way, if you didn't know this, why there's very little freshwater sushi, raw fish, because freshwater has parasites much more than saltwater.
Set that aside.
Most are tiny, nearly impossible to see, and they're making their way into the human body.
Once inside, parasites can hide for years, frequently laying eggs before any symptoms appear.
This is why many physicians are raising awareness about parasite exposure.
Dr. Peter McCullough recommends doing a parasite cleanse at least once a year.
As a preventative measure, the wellness company offers a hard to access RX parasite cleanse, USA compounded ivermectin, and mabendazole.
Ivermectin paralyzes the parasite's nervous system while mabendazole starves them out.
Each capsule contains 25 milligrams of ivermectin, 250 milligrams of mabendazole.
Lab tested for quality, you can now get a more budget friendly 45 capsule option that costs $250 less, giving you a 21 day parasite cleanse cycle.
Same formula as the original, just smaller quantity.
Head over to TWC.
Health forward slash Viva.
That is TWC, Tango Whiskey Charlie, or The Wellness Company.
Health forward slash Viva.
Promo code Viva gets you $35 off plus free shipping, USA residents only.
The link is in the description.
Thank you, The Wellness Company.
And people, by the way, set aside the parasite cleanse.
Fresh Water Fish Safety Warning00:08:36
I'm told it's not a bad thing to do.
Don't eat fresh water fish sushi.
There's a reason why they don't have it.
When you get sushi or sushi grade fish at a store, ask if it's been flash frozen because that kills the parasites.
But If you need to do the parasite cleanse or you want to, check it out, TWC.
health forward slash Viva for the parasite cleanse.
All right, now with that said, let me see here.
We are live on Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
We are live on Rumble.
We are live on X and we are live on Commitube.
And I'm just checking that we are all good here.
And that's it.
You seem to be permanently on vacation, Viva.
Oh, no, no, it's permanent work, don't you see?
I can't bring it.
Hold on, where'd that come in?
That was on Commitube.
Is Rumble bad for anybody else?
Let's see.
If anybody's having any tech issues, let me know.
But otherwise, we are live on all four platforms Sunday night for the Viva and Barnes Law for the People podcast live stream.
We take the questions.
We have an after party at locals and for Rumble Premium.
We get to all the tip questions, all the Rumble rants, et cetera, et cetera.
And without further ado, we're going to get into this.
Robert Barnes, who's in the backdrop, will bring himself in immediately.
Oh, no, no, he thought about it.
He's going to do it again.
And we're going to see.
Some people have been suggesting that they've been noticing a clicking noise.
And we do a pre show check, and I don't ever hear it pre show.
And we're going to see if I hear it and if it drives me crazy.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
I'm getting one of those portable mics that Alex Cristoforo uses because they're really good.
He walks around and the voice is pretty good.
So we're going to play around with that once moving to the new digs.
But this Saturday, for those that are able to make it, we'll have a special 52nd birthday party at Amos Miller's Farm, the great Amish farmer fundraiser for 1776 Law Center.
You can go to 1776lawcenter.com and tickets are available tonight.
And tomorrow, and that's it.
We close out ticket sales tomorrow.
So, for anybody who wants to go or is able to support, or if you just make a donation, if that's all you can do, that's fine too, to continue to support Amish farmer Amos Miller and all these activities.
But I'll be there.
Amos Miller will be there.
Some other folks from the firm will be there.
And Viva's hoping to make it too.
Yeah, I say, like, if I have to drive up there, I think the problem is it's like a 19 hour drive.
It's like two thirds the way back to Canada.
No, but I'm going to do everything in my power, although someone's going to accuse me of being on vacation again.
I'm going to do everything in my power to get there.
And, Robert, by the way, no clicking noise.
So, what did you do last?
What did you do between last week and this week?
Well, nothing actually.
So they were playing around with the sound system and whatnot and seeing if that would do it.
If that didn't work, then we would just go to a whole new speaker.
We're going to try the portable one down the road to see how that goes.
I just seemed like, because you can move around and be in different locations, that seemed interesting.
I don't know if it's as good, but with Alex Cristoforo, it really works.
He's out there by the beach and everywhere else, and the sound seems pretty good.
Well, your sound is actually perfect tonight, but I. Lynn, in addition to being a combat veteran, he's also a tech nerd.
He set up, we finally did it for his, we did a sort of an informal discussion last night, but he had three cameras.
He had the lapel mic, and it was actually amazing.
You know, maybe not quite as good as a shirt, but when you're on the road, it was, you know, impeccably good.
Robert, what do we have for the menu tonight?
We're going to have to set a hard cutoff for the Iran discussions because I think it's.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, we don't.
Only the legal topic on that one is, I may have a brief, you know, take on.
The will happen this past weekend where we're going.
So, people had asked about that in the poll on viva barnslaw.locals.com.
But the main legal aspect is people, a lot of people have been asking about how does the draft work?
Is there what's the probabilities of a draft?
How does that work legally?
We'll have an answer on that.
The Pam Bondi, well, she is out.
Stanley Woodward might also be out.
So, we'll have an update on that.
That might tell you why she is out.
Supreme Court, two cases.
One, the oral argument was heard this past week on birthright citizenship.
What do some of the tea leaves tell us from that?
In addition, a big Supreme Court white pill on the First Amendment on that Colorado case concerning their efforts to use licensure control to impose woke ideology.
What did the Supreme Court say in the latest Colorado version of that?
Speaking of Colorado, a partial victory for Tina Peters in her appeal.
I'll give you an update on what that is.
Well, Colorado's actually requiring as a condition of.
Access to its e filing program that you agree not to support any form of immigration enforcement.
We'll talk about whether that has any First Amendment vitality to it at all.
We've got the January 6th pipe bomber conspiracy case.
More information continues to blow up on that as Steve Baker is out to do his own investigative journalistic platform.
Kyle Serafin, and you talked about that as well.
We have an update there.
Donald DeLayden, who was actually a client of mine, he was the man who exposed the Planned Parenthood.
Misconduct in California and was being subject to major criminal prosecution.
Another nice white pill there.
All charges dismissed.
We've got a Chaz, the first Chaz case to reach a jury verdict in the civil side.
When is the city liable for that autonomous zone they set up?
A young man who was accused of being a white supremacist.
If you saw a photo, you might think that's a little dubious.
Died from the failure of the city to protect him or provide adequate medical care.
What happened to his jury verdict in Washington?
Maui, we've got a doctor who has a self defense excuse.
We'll talk about if your loved one has a special honeymoon plan and it involves a lot of cliffs' edges.
You might want to take a special note on that.
The James O'Keefe Second Amendment rights being threatened by Matthew Timon.
The man who drove him out of Project Veritas as the Florida red flag laws flag somebody big.
Somebody asked on our board, you know, what's up with all this unlimited phone access that appears to be anything but unlimited?
So we've got an answer to that question.
So another Sony settlement where they were screwing gamers over, PlayStation 5.
So that and answering your questions on this Easter version.
And contrary to what maybe the president would say, I would say happy Easter.
To me, happy Easter doesn't isn't Allah Akbar, it's Jesus is risen.
So happy Easter to everybody out there and hope you had a good Easter meal, good Easter services at church or However, you choose to celebrate.
And by the way, no sooner did I say your audio was great than the crackling just came back at some point during the intro.
You'll move to the lapel mic in a bit.
Robert, let's start with the first question being the draft.
Let's get the elephant out of the room even before we get there.
Everyone has seen Trump's post now as of today.
And let me bring it up just because I actually brought it up.
No, I took the screenshot because again, I thought it was a few of them.
Any candy for Easter?
Oh, well, oddly enough, my kid actually found an Easter egg on the beach yesterday.
You got to have peeps.
Peeps.
Nope.
This is a big divide in the Easter community.
But to me, it's not Easter.
It's not truly Easter unless you've had some peeps.
Well, no, I'll tell you what my kid found, which I thought, and I loved it.
I'm looking here.
Something says, Can you see this?
Take heart.
I have overcome the world, John 16 33.
So I found this on the ground when I got out of the car here.
And then it turns out my kid found it in an Easter egg at the beach yesterday.
And I kind of liked it.
Took a picture of it and I'll post it later.
But no, Robert.
He puts out a post.
And what's amazing is, okay, this is the post.
Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran.
There will be nothing like it.
Open the effing straits, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell.
Just watch.
Praise be to Allah, President Donald J. Trump.
Some people thought it was a joke.
Other people thought someone hacked his account.
And other people are trying to frame it as, oh, that's just the Trump we know.
Trump's Exit Strategy Explained00:09:52
And Dinesh D'Souza had put out a few posts, you know, trying to explain it's sarcasm, people.
And it's, you know, it's rhetoric and it's hyperbole.
And this way.
And I like, I don't want to get into fights in public.
Like, I just, I'm curious to know, majority speaking, if people view that post as positive, if you view it as negative.
And one thing's for certain, if it requires, you know, a small army of, Online commentators to try to explain it away.
As they say, if you're explaining, you're losing.
And if you have to explain a tweet like that, where, oh no, Allah just means God.
So he's just saying praise to God.
I mean, look, I don't know what to make of it.
Set aside the praise to Allah business.
I know, and this is what people don't seem to understand, it's not a destructive criticism to Trump to say the Democrats will use this later on if they get back into power and they have impeachment proceedings to say this is basically an announcement of.
I don't know if it would qualify as war crimes, but they're going to use this to say he's basically taken to social media to say he's going to blow up civilian infrastructure.
And I appreciate there's going to be the argument that it's military infrastructure if you're using it for military purposes, but generally speaking, power plants and bridges.
I mean, I don't know how you would argue that when they did it, when Ukraine did it to Russia, it was a big problem.
When Russia was doing it to Ukraine, it was a big problem.
And now all of a sudden, people are pretending it's not.
But are these.
People are going to accuse you of being TDS, Robert.
They're going to disregard whatever your answer is.
Are these legitimate military targets?
Is there a real risk, a perceived risk, a political risk that this comes back to haunt him?
And what on earth is going on with that post?
I mean, I think it's a frustration that he thought that he could threaten Iran into capitulation.
And that if you understood the Persian history, our friend, the quartering, apparently was uneducated on that history.
He thought the IQ level in Iran was low.
It's like, eh.
Unfortunately, it's in America where our historical understanding of the world, our IQ level is the one that's low.
He got a little grok quick crash course that the Persians are, of course, some of the most well informed and intelligent people in the world.
There's a lot of misunderstanding here in the States.
I think he thought that the threats would work.
The threats are not going to work.
That's been very clear for a very long time.
He tries to convince people that they're in settlement negotiations.
They're not.
There's nobody to negotiate with that's willing to negotiate with him.
This is the downside effect of killing people and bombing countries in the middle of negotiations.
Unless you're as retarded as Clay Travis, you knew that was going to be a bad omen going forward.
And so he's escalating the rhetoric.
I believe this weekend, what you saw in the pilot rescue was actually supposed to be a special forces op to seize or destroy the enriched uranium in Iran.
And it just went completely AWOL.
The president, in his speech on Wednesday night, Said that we had complete air control, that we could fly over Iran anywhere, any place, anytime, and there was nothing they could do about it.
That statement has now been proven false.
In fact, all kinds of planes and aircraft have taken hits over just the last two days.
I think the goal was to have a dramatic Monday, Sunday explanation about how we had seized and destroyed their enriched uranium.
Instead, it became a desperate effort to rescue someone who wasn't just, if you look into who this gentleman was that we sought to rescue, he wasn't just a pilot or number two on the airplane.
I think that will come out in time.
That's funny.
As you're mentioning it, like someone says, I don't believe our current administration is being honest.
This was likely a botched ground operation.
I mean, I don't know who these people are, but it's interesting.
Yeah, I hadn't thought.
I hadn't thought about that.
Not that I take it.
Johnson was pointing that out.
A range of other people that are in the military or military backgrounds were pointing out the kind of force being used, the kind of airplanes being used, where the location was.
All of that suggested that a different story was happening.
The Trump went quiet on Saturday.
That led to rumors that there were health issues.
There weren't any.
It was that this special op had gone AWOL and he was desperate to avoid a hostage.
It looks fortunately like we did.
Avoid the risk of a hostage.
There's contradictory stories out there as to whether everybody's in fact okay.
We don't know yet.
We'll find out in time.
The Intercept put out a publication that a large number of the casualties are being classified and being hidden from the public.
We will find out in time who's telling the truth.
But I think this represents his combined frustration with the failure of this special op and the failure to coerce the Iranians to capitulate.
And I hope and believe that Trump will not deliver on those threats because of how overt they are, because they are civilian infrastructure.
Because while there's an article in the Wall Street Journal that they were trying to come up with an explanation as to how targeting purely civilian infrastructure could somehow not be a war crime.
The argument was frankly kind of weak.
It was, well, if they have no money, then they won't be able to develop nuclear weapons down the road.
By that definition and standard, everything's outside the coverage of a war crime.
So it wouldn't, what Trump is talking about would in fact be a war crime under U.S. federal law and the international legal standards we established at the Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.
So I'm hopeful the president recognizes when this doesn't work, and it's highly unlikely to work, that he retracts from that and finds a different.
Exit ramp, maybe one that Russia could offer or that somebody else could offer and not escalate or get us further involved.
I am hopeful that this near disaster, the special operation, discourages and deters the president from putting more boots on the ground in Iran.
We interviewed Joe Kent this past week.
He highlighted, and this kind of shows it, that he said Iran won't take a strategy of trying to eliminate our forces.
They will be driven by taking hostages.
Their reaction to this situation confirms what Kent said.
He's like, that's why we need to avoid these ground operations that are unlikely to achieve the political objective being sought.
And we need to instead take a diplomatic exit.
And then the key to that, the real key to it, is going to be restraining Israel.
The president needs to step up and restrain Israel.
There's good argument for it.
Israel's taken a beating in southern Lebanon as we speak.
They've been taking a beating from Iran as well.
This has not gone the way they thought it would go either.
So, hopefully, Trump finds a way to minimize the ongoing risk rather than escalate that risk.
We'll find out this week.
Robert, I haven't seen or heard from Nate in a little while.
Nate, the lawyer over on our commie tube end of it, says, I finally agree with you guys.
This war is insane.
If Nate, if Robert, this might be the evidence that we're wrong here if we agree with Nate.
I'm joking, Nate.
I love you.
I hope you're doing well.
Actually, I heard from him not that long ago, but it's good to see Nate.
Up in the commie tubes.
And then you should have Sentinel 360 on your show.
Retired Marine, Lieutenant Colonel, fled Pakistan and lived in Iran as a child, came to the US and has great insight on the Iranian people.
All right.
Okay.
So we're not going to belabor this too much.
What is the draft question?
We're not going to go back to the misunderstanding about whether or not the draft is on the table.
My first question was under the current draft laws, women cannot be drafted, correct?
Like there's still that level of biological discrepancy.
I don't think they're currently included.
But the key to understand is that right now there's just registration, there is no draft.
So you are registered for selective service.
That doesn't make the draft enforceable at all.
An actual draft would require congressional approval and authorization as to who can be drafted men or women, what age groups, what are the exemptions and exceptions.
And that's just not going to happen.
So, all the people out there worried about even if President Trump wants a draft, doesn't matter.
Trump is not going to get through his defense budget this year.
He's not going to get through even $200 billion for this war.
In the House, they've already lost.
The three or four Democrats they had have already said no, they won't approve it.
In fact, they'll vote against authorization for this conflict.
Senator Curtis from Utah came out and said he would oppose it in the Senate.
That's probably going to be the beginning of the crack in the dam there, too.
But in order to get the budget through, for example, they need to get it through the House.
And Congresswoman May said she's not going to approve $200 billion for this war or for troops on the ground.
Congresswoman Boebert said she's not going to approve $200 billion for this war.
And Congressman Massey and Congressman Davidson had already said that on the Republican side.
That means not only is there no, you know, the chance of a war, of a draft, is about a million to wound.
So for those, anybody worried about that, you don't need to worry about it.
And that he's not even going to be able to get the budget for it.
And this is why Trump's going to have to exit this sooner rather than later.
So he's not even going to have the money to keep the operations going much, too much longer.
And he's going to have to find an exit.
That's why you're seeing the frustration and agitation in his post.
Why Promoting Davis Now Fails00:15:33
Let me just answer this from Mally 2022.
Why do you idiots think there will be a draft?
I don't think there's going to be a draft.
The concern was when there was a question asked about whether or not the draft was on the table.
Caroline Levitt said, Not for now, but all options are on the table.
And then there was a little bit of a follow up.
And then there was a little bit of a blow up in the media.
I don't think there's going to be one.
And I'm still praying to all things holy that this is the same person who said, There's never going to be boots on the ground, Barge.
What are you talking about?
Well, there were just boots this weekend on the ground.
Indeed, if you took that bet in Poly Market, you just got cashed out.
So, a lot of these people are still living in a denial land and a la la land and a fantasy world.
And, you know, they're in that Fox News boomer con slop world, the kind that the Bonginos of the world like to occupy these days.
And they'll be the least informed and not understand what's happening all the way through.
And when Democrats take the House and take the Senate and take it comfortably in November, they'll be like, how did that happen?
Because you're asleep at the wheel and your sources are poor.
Lynn Westover seems to be in the chat.
Sign me up.
He says, Thank you very much, Lynn.
Well, he's in a little bit different capacity.
All right.
Well, let's.
Speaking of markets, Robert, and there was a market for Pam Bondi and when she was going to be fired.
I don't know if the markets paid out because there's still some ambiguity as to whether or not she's fired, whether or not she's leaving by a given date, whether or not she's been given a promotion.
So it's not fired.
So that market might not pay off.
But bottom line, at one point, it spiked when.
By all accounts, Pam Bombay was fired.
I think Trump's four words to her were, I think it's time, Pam.
And this was as they were on their way to the birthright citizenship oral arguments before SCOTUS.
We'll get to that after this.
So she's been fired, by all accounts.
The excuse is that Trump was frustrated with her lack of progress on everything.
I like, on everything.
We're going to get to Tina Peters also in this and a community note that I don't give a sweet bugger all about, but I want to talk about with you, Robert.
Pam Bondi, I don't know what she did.
So everyone's going to say crime is down.
Good.
I'm not sure that that's as a result of anything Pam Bondi did as the AG of the DOJ.
Maybe it is, and maybe I'm just an idiot.
I don't think it is.
I don't know what the hell she did.
Nothing with Russiagate, period.
Nothing with the Jan 6 persecutions, period.
Nothing with deep state actors, period.
Nothing with election fraud, period.
There was the Georgia stuff, and then there was Tulsi Gabbard, I don't know, seizing some.
She sees something election related.
I think it was in Georgia.
Nothing.
Nothing, nothing.
And when everyone was saying, Viva and Barnes, don't be such black pillars.
Everything's happening.
It's all happening behind the scenes.
It can't be done overnight.
Oh, and then Mike Davis comes out and says, Yeah, nothing's happened because the DOJ was distracted with the Epstein files.
Nothing has happened.
13 months wasted.
And now she's been fired.
Then the question becomes who's going to replace her?
Before we get to the replacement, Robert, other than a victory lap, other than, you know, we've been saying it for a while and taking flack for it, what do you make of her finally being demoted, ousted?
Yeah, I mean, long overdue, of course.
Pay for Play Pam has been a disaster from day one.
She's betrayed MAGA.
She's betrayed MAHA.
She's betrayed Trump.
She's betrayed the Trump voters.
She's betrayed anybody who wants justice or integrity or reform in our justice system writ large.
So, you know, saying to Tennessee, wait long enough by the river and you'll see the corpse of your enemy float by.
Well, Pay for Play Pam saw her corpse float by my river this week.
So, feeling good about that.
Glad that she's out.
The other person who's rumored to be out is Stanley Woodward.
That connection should tell you what was the real trigger here.
It should have been the utter mismanagement of the Epstein files.
It should have been the utter mismanagement of the J6 cases.
It should have been trying to frame an innocent autistic black kid for a person on the CIA payroll who actually planted the pipe bombs.
It should have been the complete failure in the arena of pardons or the deep state prosecutions of Comey and Brennan and the rest.
It should have been any of those categories.
But it's one of the ones that we've been talking about.
There are more and more news stories documenting and detailing the degree to which Mike Davis, who has not properly registered as a lobbyist, who is in fact lobbying the Justice Department for huge, ridiculous fee amounts, padding his pockets to sabotage and betray.
And Megyn Kelly, why are you having him on your show?
Steve Bannon, why are you having him on your show?
You look bad by having this guy on your show.
This guy is a crook.
This guy is a to be convicted and indicted federal felon.
This guy has betrayed the entire Trump voter base.
But when the word leaked that it's Bondi and Woodward out, and the only question is whether Trump has to formally fire him or will they sign his resignation papers?
One story said he'd already had, another said he hadn't yet.
That told you there's only one case, big case, or set of cases that Pam Bondi and Stanley Woodward have in common.
And it's Mike Davis cases at the antitrust.
So the Hewlett Packard, what's the other one?
Netflix?
Just so everybody appreciates.
Hewlett Packard, Live Nation, the Compass case, the Discovery case.
The coming to be Paramount Plus case.
So let me show everybody what I'm reading from here.
This is from The Economist.
I believe it's today, if I'm not mistaken, April 1st.
No, four days ago.
How the Department of Justice became a feeding ground for MAGA lobbyists.
Allegations are strolling of an influence peddling operation.
And just going down to the later paragraph, the fixer in chief is said to be none other than Mr. Davis, who has been hired by several companies that have gained remarkably favorable outcomes in antitrust dealings with the DOJ.
Mr. Davis has no experience representing firms in merger litigation, nor is he a registered lobbyist.
Even so, Resources say he charges $300,000 per month plus a success fee of at least a million dollars, sometimes much more, to get merger approved or lawsuit favorably settled.
By comparison, the most any clients pay to you, that doesn't matter.
Not long ago, Mr. Davis, Ms. Slater were chums.
Then it goes in to say how at one point Davis was opposing these mergers.
What was it?
It's when three become two, then you must sue.
He pretended to be an antitrust enforcer, encouraged the antitrust Trump division to bring these cases.
So that he could go to those companies and sign them up and say, now I can kill your case.
Tony Coelho was a genius at this with the Democratic Party in the 1980s.
He said, look, we're going to let our most radical members propose all this reform legislation.
And the reason we're going to do it is we'll be able to shake down all the companies to kill it.
They needed to create the threat in order to create the solution that lined their pockets.
And that very same article also noted how, at the beginning, Mike Davis and Gail Slater were best friends, and he promoted her.
He celebrated her getting through the process, and then also celebrated her getting fired when she was the only thing holding back either a number of corrupt settlements in certain cases and a number of other corrupt mergers, corrupt settlements, corrupt non prosecutions, corrupt pardons.
The Mike Davis is at the center of a large amount of it.
So, this is the Trump.
Now, I had heard the president consider this all the way back in late January after Richard Barris and I had been up there and got the lay of the land.
He put it off, and then he got frustrated that the Iran war is going so badly.
He's like, I might as well pull the trigger on some of these things I should have pulled the trigger on three months ago.
And that's why, you know, he pushed Christy Nome out a couple of weeks ago.
Story came out about her husband having some interesting taste.
That was her effort, by the way, for those wondering about the timing.
She's trying to get some sympathy for banging Corey Lewandowski on the government dime because Corey Lewandowski has also now been pushed out.
He's under investigation by a range of congressional investigative committees.
May Trump look like a punk by using the office to monetize his own well being and wealth.
So she put out that, hey, my husband is such a loser.
He likes to pretend he's a woman and put breast on him and talk to people.
So that's why she's trying to get some sympathy about using government taxpayer dollars.
To line the pockets of her secret lover or not so secret lover, as the case was in the White House.
So, this is just another, these are the two most egregious corruption areas.
The other areas he is looking at is getting rid of Kash Patel at the FBI, recognizes counterfeit cash, as I like to call him, has been an utter embarrassment to every aspect.
And the common denominator with all of these is between Woodward and Bondi is Mike Davis.
So, you know, if I was Mike Davis, I'd be looking at areas that countries in the world that don't extradite.
The heat is coming and it's getting closer and closer.
And his assumption, same Will Chamberlain as well, any assumption they have they're on the pardon list is mistaken and misguided.
Pam Bonney didn't see this coming at all.
Stanley Woodward didn't see it coming at all.
They thought they were about to really line their pockets and their pals' pockets over the next six months.
Now she's out.
He's likely to be out soon.
Okay, because that's the thing.
I hadn't heard that Woodward had been formally fired, but there are some rumors from what I can see.
And then Kash Patel.
Likely to go next, but what is Kash Patel's connection?
If the thread is the corruption at the DOJ antitrust division, what's Kash Patel's connection to that?
What it all is connected to is it's people who are brazen, not only not delivering on any of the Trump voters' agenda, but were, and even Trump's preferred agenda, but were brazen in personal corruption and using their offices for personal self enrichment.
That's what these people, that's what Christy Noam, Corey Lewandowski, Pam, pay for play, Pam Bondi, Stanley Woodward, And counterfeit cash Mattel have in common.
With Patel, the stories keep coming out more just one after the other.
The way he used, he just came in the FBI and thought, I'm gonna go around pretending I'm head gangster, and I'm just gonna use this to line the pockets of me and all my buddies and pals.
And it's just one, and it folks, it's gonna keep coming.
If he was smart, he would just resign now, but he's not smart.
Cross eyed cash can't figure that out.
And so the problems will continue to accumulate until Trump is gonna have to push him out.
Wouldn't surprise me to see Trump push him out in a month.
You know what's amazing is I've gotten to be good friends with Kyle Seraphim and have him on, and his insights, you know, prove to be prophetic or very, you know, astute.
Where he said that that picture of Cash downing the beer at the hockey thing in Italy.
Again, I wouldn't have given us one sweet bugger all about that, and I still don't really.
But what Kyle said is that wasn't like a leak, that was the FBI or some insiders trying to sabotage Kash Patel.
And it's what we've been saying from the beginning.
You've been a little less sympathetic, you know, when to some of the theories that the deep state actors were trying to.
Sabotage and discredit cash, Dan.
And I was seriously suspecting that Pam Bondi was one of them.
And, you know, when Dan Bongino left and then he posted that post sometime around Christmas of a grok summary saying he left after butting heads with Pam Bondi on the release of the Epstein files.
And I was like, all right, that's kind of exactly what I said was going on, but I couldn't get confirmation if it was true.
And now, you know, it looks like everything that we've been saying in terms of Pam Bondi's.
You know, one failure after another in terms of Second Amendment rights, in terms of pharmaceutical not taking up the Brooke Jackson Key Tam case and acting in a way that looked like it deliberately sabotaged the FBI.
And it looks like there are bad actors within the FBI that want to also sabotage Kash Patel.
So, not to say we told you so, but we told you.
Absolutely.
Yeah, we did, right?
In fact, I said she'd be out by April and she was out by April.
April 1st, basically, was when it was formalized.
And so, now if they're smart, they were considering promoting from within.
I previously would have recommended Harmeet Dillon.
I do not now.
I've lost all faith and confidence in Harmeet.
The other issue is, Harmeet will not likely get through the Senate.
So they're talking about not her for number one, but maybe number three, something to replace Stanley Woodward.
I think there's some.
I think the problem is she stuck her neck out in ways that it's going to make it hard for her to get through the Senate.
They should just keep her at the Civil Rights Division at this point.
As a matter of practicality, technicality, Harmid has been Senate approved already.
She's been committee approved.
She's in the Civil Rights Division, but not to be anywhere else in the Civil Rights Division.
Okay, so they can't just call her.
She could go there temporarily, but wouldn't be able to stay there unless she got confirmed.
For that particular position, for AG.
Okay, so it's not transferable from the Director of Civil Rights.
Ed Martin.
Has Ed Martin been confirmed?
No, he has not yet.
Now, he's considered for a number two, some position, one, two, or three.
He is also being floated.
Now, he has a lot of support.
Todd Blanch, who's the current acting attorney general, he is someone that is connected to all these scandals, not as bad as Bondi and Woodward, a lot of these corruption scandals.
But they don't want to promote him because they know that will be a big set of questions before the Congress.
But who really can't promote Blanche?
Tell me if this is accurate from what I understand.
So you can have an acting attorney general serve for a maximum of 210 days if they haven't been Senate confirmed.
So that could be anybody.
That could be Ed Martin.
That could be Todd Blanche.
That could be Harmie Tillman.
After 210 days, they can't just have a rotating acting.
Do they have to have another one appointed?
He's going through acting ones to a degree.
It gets a little bit tricky.
But he doesn't want that from a political credibility perspective.
So instead, they were looking at Lee Zeldin, who's the head of the EPA.
Given Zeldin is heavily backed by the Israel lobby and given the controversy surrounding the Iran war, it's the advice of Richard Barris and others.
Some people misconstrued what he said in this advice, but what he meant was now is not the time to promote someone with such deep ties.
It's the same problem Harmony Dillon now has with such deep ties to the Israel lobby.
So instead, what some of us recommended, and their names are now being added to the list.
I would love for Ed Martin.
Reality, you know, Senator Tom Tillis already said he'll block anybody like Ed Martin, he'd block anybody that isn't gung ho on January 6th being the worst thing since sliced bread.
So you're going to like a lot of people criticize Marjorie Taylor Greene for stepping down.
She did the honorable thing.
I do not like these congressmen and senators who stay in power when they are no longer accountable to the voters, like Tom Tillis.
Now he gets to sell his Senate seat overtly and openly.
Because he's not running for reelection but won't step down.
I've never been a fan of that.
People that attack Marjorie Taylor Greene on those grounds really haven't thought it through.
But I recommend Eric Schmidt.
Eric Schmidt, former attorney general for the state of Missouri.
Polygraph Test and Capitol Police00:16:20
You know, he helped build the best attorney general's office in the country outside of Texas.
He initiated Biden versus Missouri, correct?
Yeah, he and Andrew Bailey were key leaders to that.
Andrew Bailey is number two at the FBI.
Promote Andrew Bailey to head of the FBI.
These are everybody that comes out of the AG's office from Missouri that started with Senator Josh Hawley have proven to be bona fide folks who deliver bona fide from the great movie, Oh Brother Art Now.
You're not bona fide enough, Dad.
But these folks are bona fide.
And Senator Hawley would make a great attorney general.
Senator Schmidt would make a great attorney general.
Make Andrew Bailey.
And here's the key one, they got political skin in the game.
So they're not going to be as susceptible to these corruption scams and schemes.
That pay for play, Pam and Todd Blanch and Stanley Woodward, and even to a degree, Harmony Dillon by running interference for it, were likely to be susceptible.
Second, he's got independent political capital.
So, this is a former attorney general, well regarded, well respected senator.
So, he's going to be able to do things at the attorney general's office that Bondi, even if she wanted to do, was never going to be able to likely achieve.
Third, he'll get through the Senate.
The Senate has a long history of not denying fellow senators nominations.
Why?
It's because every single senator thinks they deserve a nomination.
So they always are nice with other senators.
So that's someone he could get in, someone he could get in quickly, someone who is proven to be competent, proven to be capable, proven to be aligned on a lot of key populist reform issues.
So I hope Schmidt or Hawley is the nominee.
I think they would take it.
I'm not certain of that.
There's a lot of people.
There was a good January 6th defense lawyer who was put into the Justice Department.
He became so discouraged at what he saw, he left this week.
He was like, I'm out of here.
But Jeffrey Clark left just a couple of weeks ago.
He left, by the way, right after the Iran war started.
You can draw your own conclusions.
So there's a lot of people that are looking when the president's out there, you know, putting out a truth post of how he'd like to commit a war crime tomorrow.
That's going to make some folks nervous about sacrificing or risking their political capital.
But I mean, but I think Schmidt's the kind of guy that knows he could do a lot at the attorney general's office and that he would have independent political capital.
He's not someone Trump could push around very easily.
So, I think he is someone that could really get a lot of good things done for the Trump 2024 voters and for the country.
I hope he's the nominee.
But what's the timeframe on this?
Because 210 days as an acting attorney general.
The sooner the better.
Well, but why not put someone in who would be a badass but might not get confirmation?
Because they won't be able to get much done.
The machine will slow them down.
They'll say, yeah, we'll get back.
Remember how Joe Kent put it?
He's like, the way the machine works.
The swamp works, is they don't tell you no, they just say, We'll get that to you as our file once we get the file back to you.
We'll get that back to you, and it goes on a month and another month and another month.
No, because I'm just thinking like 210 days is seven months, seven months from now is November.
Like, if you can get something like a bowl, I'm all for Ed Martin being acting attorney general instead of Todd Blanch.
But the long term solution would be somebody like Senator Schmidt, okay?
Now, because I mean, I know what I think of Tom Blanch, and as much as I know anything, which I do believe.
He was instrumental in discrediting Bongino and Patel as well by talking about that unsigned memo that everybody signed off on, knowing damn well that neither Patel nor Bongino could come out and say, No, we never approved that memo that we didn't sign off on because nobody signed off on it.
So I don't distinguish him much from Bondi, but maybe that's based on ignorance, or maybe he's not as corrupt as Bondi, but not reliable himself.
So, do they do this before midterms or does this not happen?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yes.
Yeah.
They need to get somebody up there pretty quick to restore the credibility and confidence of the attorney general's office.
Now, he's not going to cover up the Epstein files.
So, if you'll see who they nominate, will tell you are they still committed to covering up the Epstein files?
I mean, they clearly don't want it to be an open, overt corruption scheme anymore like it was under bonding.
But are they committed to true antitrust enforcement?
True.
Key TAM enforcement.
For example, Vice President Vance is now in charge of the fraud as the fraud czar, working with a new assistant attorney general for fraud who quickly got approved.
Now he's tight to Todd Blanch, so I have skepticism about him.
My bigger concern was that within the Vance's fraud czar capacity, is the focus going to be a lot of low hanging fruit?
You know, the local people that are doing a little bit of scamming and scheming?
Because Mr. Vice President, it's a very big fraud case that's pending before the Justice Department.
It's the biggest fraud case, period, pending before the Justice Department.
And it's known as Brooke Jackson versus Pfizer.
And that's billions of dollars of fraud in a key TAD case, fraud on the government.
So if you're serious, Mr. Vice President, step up and make sure this case gets handled correctly, which it hasn't been under Pam Bondi.
Well, exactly.
And now that Pam Bondi, former and potentially, I don't know if she's still current or maybe future counsel for Pfizer, now that she's out, you might have that intention.
Just going back to the private sector to Cash in to ching to ching to ching to ching.
That's what she's back.
We'll see exactly where she goes now.
Before we segue into the second portion of this, and there's gonna be a third portion, I just want to read a couple of these.
My take Birthright Oral is all the jurists acknowledge citizenship in its current bureaucratic form is unconstitutional, but their primary concern is policy preference and who gets hurt, says Randy Edward.
We're gonna get there in a second.
Lynn Westover says, Sign me up.
Here's the Fiverr guys.
Happy Easter.
I would love to debate with you about Iran, but I don't have the funds to buy the super chats and support my argument.
Perhaps I will rant.
On X and Z says forced name change.
Okay, so Robert, what was the two?
There were two things, for goodness sake.
So Pambondi's out.
There were.
Come on, I opened up two caveats when I was talking about it in terms of the FBI.
Okay, whatever.
Speaking of corruption, speaking of fraud by the, and this is another reason why Kash Patel should be out, even though corruption is what's highlighted it.
I mean, did we call it or not about the January 6th pipe bomber case?
So, Robert, this is where you get into arguments with people online, and everyone's like, you don't feel a polygraph.
For those of you who are living under a rock, don't watch the show during the week.
The breaking news of the week, first of all, Joe Hanneman is no longer with the Blaze, and Steve Baker has been fired from the Blaze.
He confirmed this online.
This is his information that he shared.
He's been fired from the blaze as a falling out or as a fallout of his expose, which named a Capitol Police officer as who he thought was the suspect of the January 6 pipe bombing because of gate analysis, because of a thorough investigation into similarities that are almost impossible to explain away.
All of the similarities and all of the anomalies had not been fully elaborated, elucidated, or mentioned in the original expose.
And now that Steve Baker is Untethered, he is untethered from what has been and now is free to do what will be, is going hogwild.
The breaking story last week is that the defense counsel to Brian Cole Jr. filed a motion in which they alleged that they need early release of subpoenas and other information so that they can prepare a defense that, and people don't seem to understand this caveat, so that they can prepare a defense that Brian Cole Jr. Could not have been the pipe bomber because the Capitol police officer, Shawnee, was.
They're not alleging she did it.
They're alleging that they need this information to prepare a defense, which is that Brian Cole Jr. didn't do it because somebody else did.
In that motion, they reveal for the first time ever that Shawnee, the Capitol police officer, who was a person of interest by the FBI designated something like two days before Steve Baker's story broke, that she was a person of interest.
She was investigated.
She was polygraphed.
They were surveilling her without her knowledge.
She failed the polygraph, allegedly, according to the At the motion.
And within a week and a half, she was cleared because of her alibi of a video of her playing with her puppies at the time the devices were placed.
Playing with puppies, which is more than one, and a dog of a certain age.
And we all said at the time, it makes no sense.
She never had puppies.
She had one dog, which was an adopted greyhound that was an adult or at least not a puppy at that time.
And now it turns out that the video alibi of her playing with her puppies is actually just a video of the dog with a voice in the background that sounds like Shawnee.
So all of that breaks.
And Robert, I need you to flesh this one out.
In comes none other than Jocelyn Ballantyne, the corrupt Jan 6 prosecutor, persecutor, who coerced a guilty plea out of Michael Flynn, who tried to get Enrique Tario to perjure himself to frame Donald John Trump.
She's still working the case.
She files a motion to show cause, which is basically contempt, to order or ask the defense counsel to come and show reason for why he's not in defense, sorry, in contempt.
Because he revealed information that was allegedly some sort of secret information, sensitive information that he was not allowed to disclose except under seal.
Other than the address in one of the subpoenas of the people, which I wholeheartedly appreciate he should not have done, what do you make of all of this and what do you make of the threat to try to hold the defense counsel in contempt for having published in a motion allegedly sensitive information?
What's extraordinary is the only way it's sensitive information is if, in fact, the government has been lying and brought a false prosecution because the person that was working undercover.
For January 6th, was someone they said was not working undercover January 6th, which is this CIA spook currently on the CIA payroll that was previously the Capitol Police payroll.
So it is evident to anybody following this that they have framed Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Joyce, was it Ballantyne?
Yeah, Jocelyn Ballantyne.
Jocelyn Ballantyne.
So, like a bad Ballantyne, the, you know, just replaced the V with a B.
This is someone, by the way, it's a longstanding corrupt federal prosecutor.
This is why Gene Pirro should not even be thought about.
For the Attorney General.
She's a disgrace.
She wouldn't be able to answer questions competently or capable.
She has a long history dating back to her state prosecutor days of rigging cases so innocent people go to prison.
This is what she, this is one of her number one cases, was trying to frame an innocent black autistic man for what was done by someone that's currently on John Ratcliffe's CIA payroll, who was at the time on the Capitol Police.
All of the video evidence continues to corroborate that she is the likely person.
She took a polygraph test and failed it on this precise issue.
The person taking the test, who has done many of these, said in watching her, her reaction appeared to be staged in order to try to get past answering this question.
Now, hold on.
I add an important caveat there because some people say that's what the polygraph administrators do regardless.
It's a sort of like a test after the test.
Even if she passed, they would say, Yeah, some of your science showed deception.
And so some people are saying you can't decipher anything from that because that's something of a trick that they do after the formal exam has been conducted, but while they're still under polygraph.
Take that with a grain of salt because that's part of what you know, one of the alternative explanations for which you can't draw any negative inferences from the fact that she allegedly failed the polygraph because they might have just told her that as a test, even though she did.
We'll see, but we didn't know any of that until last.
I've noticed she did fail the polygraph, and that's the only reason because if she passed it, they would have disclosed the evidence.
It's exculpatory evidence why they had to disclose it under the rules of Brady and Giglio, two U.S. Supreme Court cases, about when the federal government has to disclose material information.
And their very allegations against the defense lawyers further undermine their case because it's only sensitive information if she was working undercover and they previously said she wasn't working undercover.
This is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate defense lawyers for exposing this fraudulent prosecution.
Brought by a prosecutor who went after General Flynn, went after key January 6 people who shouldn't have her job.
Shows Gene Pirro as a fake phony and fraud like she always was.
Go back and research her days in New York and how she long time covered up.
The wrongful prosecution of a young teenage boy for a rape and murder he never committed.
And she was even justifying it long after it was proven he didn't do it.
Years later in documentaries, she was still cheerleading her abuse of power.
She has no business in the U.S. Attorney's Office, period.
But what this documents the good work of Steve Baker, if they were smart, the spooks at the CIA and counterfeit Kash Patel and fake justice prosecutor Gene Pirro, they would have kept Steve Baker on payroll at Blaze.
Because then they could have kept him shut up and quieted by intimidating Blaze.
Now that he's no longer there, there's no limitations on his forthright and full disclosure.
Steve Baker, for those that don't know, one of the best top independent investigative journalists in the country, that he nailed this from day one.
Kyle Serafin and Steve Friend and others who were following this case nailed it from day one.
They said this was a setup, this was a frame up, this is an ongoing embarrassment.
The sooner the Justice Department dismisses this case and fires Joyce Ballantyne, the better.
The longer they let it drag on, the more humiliating and embarrassing it's going to get.
Now, whether or not there's still means to prosecute her, if she did lie in the course of federal duties about this case, one could argue that's conspiracy and one could argue that it's obstruction of justice.
One could argue that it might continue to hide the discovery of the evidence concerning her culpability, that in fact, maybe they could still prosecute her within the statute of limitations for this.
But what it's clear is an innocent kid is sitting in a federal detention center in the district of corruption because of the wrongful framing of him.
By Dan Ballas Bongino, counterfeit Kash Patel, and fake attorney, U.S. justice prosecutor Gene Pirro.
Hopefully, sooner than later, he will be released.
We'll see if the federal courts have the competency, capability, or the courage to let an innocent man go free when it implicates CIA spooks instead.
I got to bring a few things up because now Steve Baker is Steve Baker Unleashed posting here.
This is Steve Baker, a video you've never seen.
And there is a comparison about a limp that is remarkable.
And whether or not you believe.
For those that don't know, they were claiming that she had no such limp.
And this was, I believe.
Yeah, you could see it right there on the leg.
The bottom line, and it was, you know, Kyle said it, we've all said it.
One thing is for certain.
This is not how Brian Cole Jr. walks at all.
Apparently, he barely uses his car.
And the question was, and I was listening to Kyle as I was driving across the Florida Peninsula on Thursday, where he doesn't think Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, or Dan Bongino at the time even knew that the woman failed a polygraph.
This is where I've been saying they did not purge the FBI of the bad actors who were there literally to sabotage them.
And whether it's bad actors sending out the picture of Kash Patel, He said to embarrass him, revealing the way he's been using the private jet for parting.
It was the bad actress within the FBI that said that Pam Bonnie doesn't do her homework.
She's not going to look into this file.
She's going to repeat this hook, line, and sinker, and they're going to get humiliated.
And when it blows up, they're all discredited.
It's not clear that anybody within the FBI, Janine Pirro, whoever, knew that this person failed a polygraph allegedly.
And when it came out, because it was going to come out, my question is how the hell they sent it to the defense team?
Whistleblower Protection in Court00:15:21
People floated to, well, I floated two theories, and then our locals community floated the white pill theory.
I said it was either by accident, they didn't know what was in there, and they just meant, you know, they found it, or it was deliberately to sabotage the FBI and to, you know, blow this case up.
Someone else said it might have been someone with a conscience who doesn't want to see this kid go down for a crime he never committed.
But how the hell do you think they communicated this to the defendants?
Because they're not going to.
They're ethically and professionally obligated to disclose this.
So it's the.
So if they thought anybody knew about it, And they know that there's insiders that know that this is problematic because they've disclosed that information to both Steve Baker and to Kyle Serafin and others, then they were at massive risk if they didn't disclose it because then they get caught hiding material and exculpatory information.
Jocelyn Ballantyne did that during the Jan 6 persecutions that a bunch of the prosecutors did.
But there's a whole team on the case and there's FBI agents on the case.
So my guess is that there's not enough people willing to hide and cover it up.
And so they just bury it in there with whatever terabytes and hope they never find it.
But alas, they found it.
It's going to be wild.
So, Steve Baker did a long piece with Megyn Kelly, and they're turning it into some sort of like I don't know if it's going to be a multi series.
Some have concerns that maybe this is going to be turned into a hit piece against Baker, which I don't think it will, given where Megyn Kelly's at these days.
Yeah, it's manifest and evident that he knows what he's doing, and the people trying to frame this kid don't.
So, anyone, there will be follow ups on this this week.
And I'm going to have Steve Baker and Kyle back on to talk about this, but go check out the work that Steve Baker's doing.
I think they're launching a new platform.
Yep.
I don't know what it is.
I don't know if they have a give, send, go yet or anything, but as soon as I know how everybody can support Steve and Joe, I'm going to obviously put that on the show.
Credit for them for standing up because they got a lot of crap from people who didn't want to hear it.
The Dan Bonginos of the world and their fan base and the rest didn't want to hear it.
But they are standing up for truth and justice in ways that sadly, Bongino, Patel, Bondi, the rest of them have failed to do.
Now, speaking of a miscarriage of justice that was only partially corrected this week in a group of Colorado cases, we have because Colorado's trying to outpace California for crazy rules, crazy laws, and crazy cases.
Tina Peters got some relief this week.
So, Tina Peters, I read through the better part of the judgment.
The Court of Appeal ratified everything, ratified the conviction, you know, basically.
Did not overturn any of the convictions, any of the charges, but they ordered it remanded for resentencing because they found that that judge, what's his name?
Is his name Barrett?
Barrett?
I'm getting mixed up between Amy Coney and Barrett.
That judge, that activist hack of a judge who I said should be impeached, but it's a state judge.
And so you won't get Paulus impeaching him unless there's substantial political pressure.
The Court of Appeal said that activist hack of a judge, what he called her a charlatan, when he said, you know, she was a danger to society for her words.
Overstepped the bounds of using words as aggravating factors for a sentence.
And he relied on her First Amendment protected speech, much of which actually came after and not even in the context of the crimes, which I'll put in quotes.
He used all of her speech, protected speech, as aggravating factors to justify a nine year sentence on a never had a conviction, Gold Star, mom, grandmother, a cancer survivor.
I didn't realize that they detained her the day that her father passed away when he was.
Sick in a hospital, and they knew damn well what they were doing, torturing this woman.
And so they're remanding it for resentencing.
And then the question is going to be whether or not it goes back to the same hack activist of a judge who deserves impeachment, not the power to resentence, and whether or not he's going to recuse himself.
They'll certainly ask for recusal, and whether or not they get a fresh eyes of a fresh judge who says, no, this was a wildly outlandish, punitive, unjust sentence, and maybe time served because, you know, at worst it was a misdemeanor.
Does the judge get to resentence himself?
Does he necessarily get.
Yeeted from the file?
Does he recuse himself?
And what do you think happens in terms of what would be a fair resentence and whether or not the governor gets involved in either a pardon, commutation, andor impeachment of that corrupt judge?
Yeah.
So, for those that don't know, Tina Peters was someone who believed that she witnessed corruption in the 2020 election, tried to document it with independent evidence.
And because of the way she went about trying to document it and the fact that she believed it, that there was election fornication in the 2020 election.
Including issues concerning Dominion.
She was fired and then criminally prosecuted and then railroaded and then sentenced to near a decade in state prison, longer than many rapists and child abusers serve in Colorado.
And the judge admitted at the sentencing that the reason he did it was because she was a high profile critic of the 2020 election.
Now, all of her defense was excluded at trial, and the Colorado Court of Appeals was just fine with all that because, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals, none of it could even possibly be relevant.
Now, this put the court in a bind.
That was the same logic of the trial court judge.
But the problem was in order for any of your statements or activities to be relevant for sentencing, they have to be relevant for trial.
And he had already said that all of her motivation for doing what she did, all of her purpose, all of her speech could not be introduced at trial.
All of her whistleblowing intention, all of her understanding of federal law and compliance with it that required investigation, she understood it, into whether or not the election was an honest election.
That's what she is an election official.
There, she took an oath of the Constitution of the United States and the state of Colorado to make sure there was an accurate count.
She had reason to believe there was not an accurate count and was looking at in ways that would systematically reveal weaknesses beyond the county that she was in in Colorado and beyond the state of Colorado.
So, the judge excluded all of her evidence about that on the pretext that that couldn't be relevant to this prosecution.
Well, if it couldn't be relevant to the prosecution, it couldn't be relevant to sentencing.
But the judge was such a hack and such a fraud that he didn't care.
The Court of Appeals realized how humiliating and embarrassing it was to say, at the one hand, none of this evidence could come in because none of it's relevant, and then turn around and pretend it magically became relevant for sentencing.
Robert, let me just read one thing.
I don't like to put stupid people on blast for no better reason here.
I just saw a comment that says, she's guilty.
This guy isn't biased at all, sarcastically.
And I go up to see who this individual is, and it says, sentenced again under guidelines.
So we've got an idiot out there who's saying she was sentenced under the guidelines when the Court of Appeal just remanded it for resentencing because it obviously was a problematic sentencing.
I'm not biased.
I come to a conclusion after having followed this for a long time.
It's not biased to say right and wrong, and what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.
That just makes you having half a brain.
So Tina Peters, Robert, sorry to cut you off there, was wrong.
Period.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Again, what was her great crime?
She brought somebody in to try to document whether fraud took place.
That's it.
And they're objecting to how she did it.
Yeah, she lied to them in advance that she gave them an ID different than one ID, didn't have one person there rather than another person there.
All the things that, I mean, if you understand how our elections work in the United States, this is a small change.
And the intent is to honor the law and to obey her oath to make sure the Constitution was affirmed and upheld.
So, how did the Colorado court get around that?
They claim that all these federal laws that require that she keep accurate records of the election don't actually get this.
Here's a quote that doesn't impose any duty to fail to, it's okay to quote, neglect to investigate corruption.
That's a quote from the Colorado Court of Appeals.
It's okay to neglect to corrupt to investigate corruption.
In fact, they go further and they say, you have no duty at all to investigate whether the election was stolen or not.
Under federal law and under the Constitution.
It makes no sense at all.
It's a joke.
It's a crack.
But that's how they get there.
Now, that question of federal law interpretation gives the U.S. Supreme Court possible jurisdiction in this case, by the way.
The other is they said that even though the prosecutor and the evidence at the trial misportrayed her as having a security breach, even though actually what they were talking about was an internal system breach, not a security breach, that couldn't have possibly influenced the jury to fail to distinguish between a security breach to the outside world and an internal system breach to the inside world.
What a crock.
So they go through that bit of nonsense.
They also say now they have good law on.
But it's also a potential U.S. Supreme Court issue.
Does the president pardon her?
The question is Does the pardon apply to state crimes?
And the question is Is it the several states or the United States?
Because this has offenses against the United States.
And the argument is that because this could have been prosecutable as a federal crime, and that the United States in this context meant also the several states.
That was her argument.
They rejected that, but that's a potential question for the Supreme Court of the United States.
They rejected on the basis that she provided basically no authority to suggest that there's any historical precedent for a president having the authority to pardon a state crime.
And even the one that was for there was a reference to a 1775 case, which itself was not a president pardoning for a state crime, it was a president pardoning for the federal crime, and then the governor pardoned for the state crime.
But Robert, at the risk, I like bringing these things up here.
So I. Posted the story about Tina Peters.
And people are like, well, what can anybody do?
There's nothing you can do to stop complaining.
I say, no, no, wrong.
We've talked about this at length.
And these are the things that we proposed could have been done a while back.
And it was in response to someone.
Here we go.
So I post the summary from the judgment.
Her conviction upheld, remanded for sentencing.
When does the DOJ get involved to free Tina Peters?
To which someone says, This is a state issue.
There's no federal question.
To which I responded, Wrong.
And then we had discussed this.
Declare Tina Peters a federal whistleblower due to her actions exposing issues related to the 2020 election integrity in federal election, or based on the corruption within the Colorado prison system, which she's now seen full throttle, grant her full federal whistleblower protections under applicable federal law.
I mean, I'm trying to be broad here.
Have federal marshals immediately extracted from the Colorado State Prison, take her into federal protected custody.
This can be done on the basis of her status as a whistleblower.
Federal.
I get, I don't care about community notes.
What we're realizing is the dumbing down of society where people ask Grok for advice, for questions, for clarifications when Grok can't identify photos.
And then I go to community notes, which sometimes, you know, forces you to refer to a man as a woman, getting into a thorny legal question and now saying, I'm sorry, Tina, there's nothing you can do.
Community notes that federal law doesn't allow someone to be declared a whistleblower or removed from a state prison.
Whistleblower protections don't grant immunity.
I don't know who suggested that.
And states control custody.
They do, unless federal marshals come in and say, we're going to take this witness into witness protection.
And then you have this in the 10th Amendment.
Robert, I was looking up cases where state criminals were declared federal whistleblower protections, extracted not against the will.
So maybe I guess the idea is if a state says no, You're not going to take this person into federal witness protection or whatever that the state gets to override the feds.
Uh, one of the ones, there was one, his name was Henry Hill, I believe, a drug dealer.
You know, Henry Hill is right.
Uh, I, I, he's Goodfellas.
That's Henry Hill.
Oh, wow, Ray Leona's character is Henry Hill from Goodfellas.
Based on the description, you know, based on the description of that, it's like, oh, it sounds like a mafioso guy.
They've done it, I mean, albeit with the cooperation of the state.
Uh, they've done it, and then I'm getting into a fight with another guy, a so called crypto lawyer.
Who says, you know, this is a state sovereignty issue.
And I'm like, oh, I didn't realize that states have the sovereignty to violate federal civil rights.
And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, Robert.
Yes, there's no formal declaration, but there's a federal whistleblower protection act.
What would be required in order for the feds to do something proactive, if only to force a showdown between a state that says, no, we're not giving this state prisoner up to your request to take them into whistleblower protection?
The state does this all the time.
So the feds just go in with it and the state releases them all the time.
So make the state do something extraordinary and say, no, in this one case, we're not going to turn over the person.
Then you go to court and you file a petition for habeas corpus.
And in fact, the Colorado Court of Appeals decision noted this, said there is a potential remedy here, but that is a federal district court that has jurisdiction, not us.
And that is a federal writ of habeas corpus.
The bottom line is they just didn't consider Tina Peters significant enough.
She didn't have a bunch of lobbyists getting paid lots of money in order to do something about it.
And it's another example of Harmony Dillon's failure at the Civil Rights Division.
And now, if Tina Peters had been part of the Israel lobby, I have no doubt we would have gone in there and grabbed her at the midnight rig.
We were able to go down and get Maduro, a president of a foreign country for which we had no lawful authority.
We can go and get Maduro.
We can go and assassinate people routinely in Iran, but we can't free Tina Peters.
That's a crock.
Well, but not just that.
People say, first of all, the idea that a community notes is going to rebut a legal argument, which admittedly is an uphill battle.
I'm arguing with people and saying, yeah, Trump has already taken, I would say, more legally.
Tenuous or legally untenable positions, like with Paris.
And he went to the Supreme Court over them.
So make him go to court over this, or make him take the state to court and say, No, we are going to now offer whistleblower protection to Tina Peters for either federal election fraud, lest we forget that Jenna Griswold of the state of Colorado, I don't know if Tina had specific knowledge about this in particular, left passwords in election data available for the internet to decipher.
Elections are still a federal issue.
I appreciate they're governed at the state level.
Or She's seen corruption at the state level of this prison system that literally set her up to be murdered on more than one occasion now.
And so try it.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You know, that's it.
Community notes said Tina gets to rot now because it's a more legally tenuous argument than the tariffs, which got struck down after they took it to the Supreme Court.
Take it to the courts.
Seizing ships or invading other countries or seizing their leaders or murdering people, ordering assassinations.
You know, yeah, no doubt.
Colorado Corruption and Federal Orders00:04:41
I find that.
And especially this is a Colorado.
It's lost what three times in their bake the cake case, and now they just lost big time at SCOTUS on their conversion therapy code regulation case.
Well, let's get into that in one second, Robert.
And by the way, if I if I misread the comment on YouTube, uh, me scusi, that it sounded this with the risk of looking at a chat and not necessarily um following what might have been a totally unrelated conversation.
But apparently, Robert, you are the one who's biased, not me, as if that is any anything of a meaningful distinction.
Let me bring up a bunch of our.
Rumble rants and tips, so we can catch up with these.
Robert analysis spot on with Tina Pierce.
By the way, I've given you all the link.
I think argumentative community notes should be noted as such.
You want to have an argument?
Fine.
That's not what community notes were for.
They're there to correct factual information, not offer rebuttal arguments to legal theories.
But they've been weaponized a long time ago, and that's why I stepped out of that stupid, corrupt community notes, because it's a gang, even when you get on the inside.
Cultivated Mind says, Thank you for covering the January 6th pipe bomb, Viva.
We can't let them get away with framing Brian.
Cultivated, thank you.
It's egregious.
It's egregious.
King of Biltong is in the house, and he says Biltong is one of the highest protein snacks in the world, boasting over 50% protein, packed with B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Visit BiltongUSA.com and use code BARNS for 10% off.
I gave two bags of Biltong to Allison.
They love it, and I think they're going to hook up with, professionally speaking, with Biltong.
Eric 4x4 says, Everyone has that one person they go to as a subject matter expert, rightly or wrongly, politics aside.
That person, when discussing topics outside their experts, tend to be poo flinging monkeys.
Well, I think the idea is most people with self consciousness wouldn't.
Feel comfortable debating subject matter outside of their expertise or without having sufficiently looked into it.
Tropical Rocket says, Hey Barnes, when is the last time a VP had agency?
And now let's, we got to get to locals here.
Hold on one sec.
Hold up.
Wait a minute.
Something.
I saw Andrew Piscatl is in the house.
And okay, we're going all the way up to the top for a few seconds here.
Great.
Oh, my goodness.
More.
Load more.
Load more.
Happy Easter, says Chris Craft.
Happy Easter.
May everyone have a beautiful, meaningful Easter.
Gray 101 says, How will our president's Trump's official message of open the FX trade go down in political history?
I thought they were open.
Okay.
Gray 101 says, if they, Iran, don't make a deal and fast, I'm considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil.
Peace, President.
Gray 101 says, Tuesday will be power plant day.
Bridge it all wrapped up in one.
There'll be nothing like it.
Open the effing straight, you crazy bastards.
You'll slab burn in hell.
Okay.
I got it.
We read it over there.
I'm not reading that last part, Gray, because I don't want anyone snipping and clipping that audio from me and saying Viva said that.
Son of a Mitch 824 says, Robert, at what point can we get a referendum to push for the use of the 25th?
Trump's tweet this morning was by far his most insane tweet of all time.
I say this as someone.
Who missed the Bean tweets, but he's completely lost his mind.
Stingray saw a video today and they were saying Trump's last two truth posts sounded more like Stephen Miller and Hegsef.
Nobody's got control over his truth account, from what I understand, which was why I didn't buy the explanation that a staffer had put out the one on the no trans surgery without parental consent.
Susie C, 20 bucks.
Thank you.
Happy Easter, Austin Peeps.
Thank you, Viva and Barnes.
Susie C, thank you very much.
Schnookums, what the heck?
Dang, high end autophile system are these idiots viewing?
No Barnes audio complaints.
Chris Kraft, Bill, I wish they had seen our declare victory get off the field PowerPoint slides.
We sent Roberts schnookums.
Robert, I think you meant Fubard, our snafu as AWOL is absent without leave.
I think you did also.
Gentlemen, I propose a poll on the popularity of drafting the Trump sons and daughters and placing them on the front lines.
The age limit for the military service is 42.
I'm too old.
And older with waivers, except the Marine Corps, 28 again with waivers.
Thanks, Alan Paterk.
Touche says Chris Kraft.
This is exactly why you earned your attitude, boss, says Chris Kraft.
Chris Kraft says, Robert, she betrayed us all.
No kidding, Commodore.
And TA 346 pack 340.
Robert, remember when you said you would share asset protection to the last 1776 together?
Checks, watch, and taps to see if it still works.
I'll get to the rest of these afterwards.
Let's get to the white pill, Robert.
Colorado.
Oh, no, I had someone.
Several white pills, but this was a big one from SCOTUS.
Well, the funny thing is also, in addition to that other debate with crypto lawyers on Colorado, he actually says to me, Colorado is a corrupt state that won't comply with any federal order anyhow.
It's like, that's the point.
Like, force that issue and force that to be the showdown that you have judicially.
Okay, but set that aside.
SCOTUS Speech Code Ruling00:07:19
Colorado passed a law, much like Bill C, whichever one it was up in Canada, that prohibited.
Conversion therapy, but it was a one way conversion therapy prohibition.
People, you could talk a straight kid into gayness and transgenderism, but you can't talk them out of it.
You can't talk a gay transgender out of the gayness or the transgenderism.
And in Canada, that legislation got unanimous approval by both the pervert grooming liberals and the so called opposition conservatives.
Colorado passes a similar law, which is basically you can't talk a gay, a confused gay kid who wants.
To not be gay, if you think that's shocking, whatever, or a trans kid who wants to not be trans or wants to be comfortable, wants therapy.
You can't talk them out of it, but you sure as sugar can groom them into it.
And it was challenged on First Amendment rights because a therapist was basically prohibited from speaking to her patients, to her clients, with their own consent.
It was initially, I want to say, upheld.
Was it upheld at the court of appeal or at the lower level?
But ultimately, eight to one, even with two liberal justices struck down by SCOTUS.
Take it from there and let me just get something for my dog.
Hold on a second.
Yeah, 6 2 1 decision, the two concurring decisions that agreed in the outcome.
Only Justice Jackson dissented.
So, this was an effort to weaponize licensure, to use the licensing control of the state to impose speech codes, to impose woke indoctrination, to impose an ideology on people so that you think your loved one or your child is going in for psychological treatment, and instead they're actually being there for woke ideological indoctrination.
And this clearly, in my opinion, it always violated the First Amendment, but their excuse was no, we're just regulating the standard of care.
And since we're only regulating the standard of care, it's magically outside of all the First Amendment restrictions.
The Supreme Court clearly struck that down and said no, that's never been the case.
There are no standard of care exceptions to the First Amendment, there are no speech code exceptions to the First Amendment or any of the rest.
And then, in fact, it has to meet strict scrutiny.
They noted the only thing that are excluded traditionally are fraud, defamation, imminent threats, things of the certain kinds of obscenity.
That's all.
Not basic everyday speech concerning your ability to provide meaningful advice to an individual.
And the ability of tort of malpractice is not some exception to any of this.
So it completely gutted the efforts of the states to use license control to impose speech codes.
This is a massive win.
In an area of major risk for First Amendment freedoms in the country.
I mean, it's what's amazing is it's literally the opposite direction of Canada.
I don't know that Bill C nine has been challenged constitutionally, but it's effectively where a country like America diverges from a country like Canada or, well, the UK is sort of coming back to sanity with respect to that.
But, yep.
Well, in fact, I mean, as the state argued for, they said there should be a First Amendment free zone for speech that the state considers substandard care.
This would have eviscerated the First Amendment.
And thankfully, the Supreme Court said, no, not at all.
Said that licensing laws have traditionally addressed qualifications, not codes of conduct, not speech codes, not directions on that.
They said there is no First Amendment exception just because the person's speech that's at issue is a licensed professional.
Another, because a bunch of bodies thought they could get away with this and say, well, it's going to be a lower standard.
It's not going to be strict scrutiny.
There's going to be more deference to the state.
Rejected, rejected, rejected.
They point out you could face fines, probation, loss of licensure.
Recognize that loss of licensure is a state punishment.
That isn't always consistently adjudicated before by some lower courts.
Massive win there for those that care about free speech and protecting the professions against state persecution.
They concluded the First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views reflecting a belief that each American.
Enjoys an indispensable and inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in a free marketplace of ideas as the only and best means of finding truth.
Big, big win for free speech in America.
Big, big win against the states abusing the power of licensure.
Robert, I had to bring in the other white pill.
I love this dog so much, it's beyond words.
He snores so loud.
I'm going to start an ASMR.
Listen to this.
Breathe, just breathe.
No, he's not going to do it.
Oh, I love that dog.
Okay.
He's, and also, oh, okay, sorry.
I had to bring him up and smell his face.
It smells delicious.
Okay, what's the next one?
Our last Colorado case of the night before we get to some other big cases, birthright citizenship being a big one at SCOTUS.
So here's Colorado, which did the bake the cake case, harassed Tina Peters, did the no conversion therapy.
We want speech codes disguised as licensure codes.
Their new one is as a condition of logging in.
To a court e filing system.
You, the lawyer, have to promise not to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing federal immigration law, or you're not allowed to use the system for filing your client's documents.
Of course, the Supreme Court, in knocking down Pledge of Allegiance, made clear that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
This is another patent, obvious.
Violation of the First Amendment violation of this case, Colorado lawyers, but also by extension, their clients' rights.
Hopefully, this too will get struck down soon.
How is that not the definition of some form of insurrection to basically coerce professionals to not abide with federal law?
I mean, how does that even cross the minds of people to implement as state law?
It's the combination of Commerado, the state of Washington, and the state of California.
That they have the left professional class statist on full steroids, wanting to do everything as crazy, weaponize everything in the state to suppress any form of dissidents or independent information.
If you want benefits, if you want licensure, if you want access to anything related to the government, you have to toe their speech line or they run you out and run you off.
And finally, the Supreme Court is starting to hold them to account and reaffirm our constitutional remedies in response to it.
We got birthright citizenship, which is a real big one.
Then we got some smaller cases.
We got the Bulls player who was dismissed because he wasn't a big LBGTQ fan.
Polymarket Bets on Lord Mercy00:02:33
Does he have any rights or remedy?
We got the Chaz verdict.
Oh, yeah.
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
We got a board question.
We got the Maui doctor that says he was just acting in self defense.
We got James O'Keefe, Second Amendment rights at risk.
So we got a few more fun cases, but the big one is birthright citizenship.
We're going to get there in one second.
Everybody, if you're watching on Rumble from the landing page, let me show you how this works.
Don't forget to go click on the channel.
You got to go click on the video.
And then once you're there, download Rumble Wallet.
And if you want to tip the channel, you can go here, scan a QR code, tip in Bitcoin, or I'll leave that up there for a few seconds, tip in XAUT, which is gold backed, tethered crypto, tethered to the gold.
If you want to redeem it, I'm told you can go to Switch.
It's cool.
Yeah.
I don't know what gold's at now, but it was a good time to buy in when it had its dip.
Anyway, if you want to support the channel that way, go to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
You can join us there for 10 bucks a month if you want to be a paying member, 100 bucks a year, or just as a non paying member, where you can still get, I don't know, 90% of the stuff out there is not behind the supporter paywall, but some of it is.
So we can thank our supporters who keep us independent and truly free.
Robert says, Chris Krafts, who's one of the ones that keeps us free.
Hyphen Bill Brown, Lefson, and the special SV, we thank you.
Stingray says, Is there any particular reason Kalshi stays away from bets on the Middle East conflict?
Yeah, I don't know that they had a market for boots on the ground, but I think betting on that is.
Polymarket is the one that has a lot of those bets.
Polymarket has the most, but Polymarket just has far more markets, period.
But I think it's all that.
Polymarket, if I'm not mistaken, is only crypto, right?
You can't actually.
Yeah, it's supposed to be legal in the US sometime this summer.
Chris Kraft says, everyone, is this not exactly what we expect with Viva and Barnes?
Dang.
That's, I know, a compliment.
So thank you.
I put 30 bucks on Schmidt.
It's a long shot, but 1,300 payout.
Well, dude, I might put that on there.
Chris Kraft says, for Robert Barnes called it again, Jar.
Chris Kraft says, Robert, we need Steve Baker to now report for Barnes and Barris's Lord Have Mercy consulting.
Hold on, Robert.
I know that he would like one.
Hold on, hold on.
Wait a minute.
There you go.
Lord Have Mercy.
Okay.
On this good Easter Sunday.
We got Andrew Piscadlo.
Donald Trump needs a Lord of Mercy at the moment, I think.
Pay for play, Pam.
Will always be a corrupt corporate whore who used the DOJ like a cash register, keeping the Epstein class covered along with counterfeit cash and not a crime to play.
Blanche DuBois.
Andrew Piscadlo says this.
Green Card First Amendment Violations00:08:38
I'm reading a rumble rant.
A tip question.
Updated Eternal Truth number two.
Valentine and Susan Yates are both corrupt, says Greg76.
Chris Kraft, we are counting on a Commodore.
Okay, we got that.
Will the damage of the last eight months.
Or so be mitigated to limit Democrats' margins in both the House and salvage 2028 JD.
This is Jonathan.
I was thinking, Robert, that it could be so disastrous that nobody's going to want to vote Democrat.
And Marco Rubio, I don't think I have much.
I mean, he might not be the best candidate, but he's kind of turned around this term.
But it might just be so bad that people are going to look at JD as a Republican and say, that's the one.
He's the moderate Republican because none of us want to vote Democrat.
That's my white pill.
Speaking of Rubio and some craziness, we got two, you know, Short topic transitions before we get to birthright citizenship in some big cases.
The one is Secretary Rubio is apparently taking advice from Laura Lahuzer and abusing his State Department power in ways it's going to get him in peace, by the way.
Which this time he's going after people that she says, get them deported, take away their green card, take away these people.
This utter lunatic, who again was the inspiration for the movie character Saw from the horror movie, you just got to take a look at her and you're like, whoa, yeah.
She's out there trying to get.
So, the State Department's already been found by a judge to have violated the First Amendment rights of people in the way they're using their green card authority.
Already happened multiple times.
And so now Rubio decides now's a good time to double down by going after people because they have the name Soleimani in their name.
It appears from published reports that these people aren't even related to him, that he has no cognizable legal grounds to get them in ways that is grounds to deport them.
You don't just get to say, I don't like your green card, let's send them out, just because I don't like their speech.
He's already under an injunction for violating people's First Amendment rights.
Somebody get to Narco Marco and let him know quit violating people's First Amendment rights when they have a green card.
But the argument was, as far as I understood it, that they were the niece and granddaughter.
Obviously.
Which is, which it's like, so what?
You know, are we going back to Japanese detention camps?
And by the way, that's in dispute whether, in fact, they actually are related to him.
That's why, and I say, like, you know, again, I say not fog of war, but trust everything with a great degree of.
Don't trust anything.
But the reporting is that it's niece, grandniece of slain Iranian general, whomever, whatever, arrested by ICE, green card revoked.
The argument is that they were actively.
Promoting, supporting terrorism, saying death to America, America, great Satan.
I mean, it's just death to America.
All that speech.
It's speech.
So, I mean, how is it?
Does someone have to put a, you know, to take Marco Marco and send him down to Guantanamo and black bag him to educate him on the First Amendment?
He's already been found by multiple judges, including Reagan appointees, that he is routinely and repeatedly and flagrantly violating First Amendment rights because of speech for the Israel lobby.
And now he's going to go after people criticizing the Iran war, the Even though that has been far from clear, he's just going to overnight.
I'm going to take away.
This was clearly Laura Lumer saying, Hey, please take it.
And now she's saying it about Dr. Parsi.
She's saying, Take away his, too.
Take away all of my critics' rights.
We should deport Laura Lumer so that her nut, loony ass won't be contaminating our politics.
I mean, to whatever alien nation her ugly ass came from.
But this is flagrant violations.
These are impeachable acts by Rubio.
Multiple judges have said he constantly, routinely violates First Amendment rights based on speech he doesn't like.
And it's almost all connected to the Israel lobby.
This is, and going out and bragging about this, where was the, was there any due process here?
Doesn't appear to have been any.
He's violating First Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights.
Get off your rear and do something other than be the Israel State of, Secretary of State.
This is what really irritates me, and I'm not going to unleash on Repix 2897.
You are here on a green card.
We don't have to keep you.
This is literally what I presume it means when you are enacting a law based on speech.
When Congress reprimands you, it's a privilege that they afforded to you.
If they decide to, I don't know how you revoke a green card when it's been issued because you have to do certain things.
There's a whole process that you should be ignoring, and you can't use someone's speech as the basis of it.
This has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Bridges case that we've talked about multiple times.
More than 80 years ago.
This is a flagrant violation of the Constitution, flagrant illegal activities by the Secretary of State.
Stop it.
Stop listening to that lunatic.
Laura Loomer is a lunatic.
She's a nut job.
She's corrupt.
She's probably an unregistered foreign agent.
She probably belongs in a federal prison.
But he looks like a joke.
I mean, I get it.
Why do I call him Narco Marco?
Because all of his family wealth comes from being tied to the cocaine cowboys.
That's who Marco Rubio really is.
The people like me will never.
Ever vote for Marco Rubio for president, period.
No, it'll be a cold day in hell before people like me would.
But this is disgraceful.
This is a flagrant First Amendment violation by an administration that was elected to stop First Amendment violations.
That is what drives me a little bit crazy where everyone's like, you're on a visa, it's a privilege.
Yeah, you're on a visa.
Legal residents of the United States, and that includes people on visas issued by the states and green cards, have constitutional rights.
They might be different depending on certain things, and true.
If you say great Satan and death to America, I mean, arguably that's going to maybe contradict certain statements you made on your visa application, but you still have the hearing there.
What I love is that, you know, when I was being very critical of the Biden administration and very supportive of the January 6ers, and even then at one point arguing that they should all get pardons, even the violent offenders, you know, I was thinking like, you know, if Kamala Harris gets elected, she might just willy nilly declare that that's supporting insurrectionist behavior and come down on me.
Watching people on the right now say the same things to me.
Robert, the comments that I got for just the clips and the having on Joe Kent and saying, go back to Canada, get the F out of here.
You know, you're here on a privilege and we can just willy nilly get you.
It's like, don't you understand?
You have literally become the left type enemy to free speech.
Oh, it's not free speech.
You can say what you want, but we don't have to have you here.
There are constitutional rights to legal residents, including freedom of speech.
And when you are talking about sanctions because of your speech from government privileges or whatever, you're literally becoming the enemy that was the atrocious element of the left.
And it drives me nuts to see people reflexively doing this now and then justifying it like, all right, if they say, if they support terrorism, it was the issue with the guy on the campus guy when he was, what was his name?
Which by the way, it turned out their evidence was crap for.
Yeah, well, I mean, we got that one video.
That's why they lost.
I mean, this is just becoming disgraceful.
I mean, it turns out they took their list of people to deport from the Israel lobby.
They did no independent investigation at all.
It was just embarrassing.
And people are like, well, it's only the pure bloods that matter.
Well, 99.999999% of you out there ain't as pure blood as I am.
So if we're going to go with that standard, I'm kicking your ass out too.
Because my family goes back to the beginning of this country, the very foundation of this country.
So, the people pretend to be, oh, I'm uber patriotic as a keyboard warrior, trying to compare yourself to Joe Kent with 11 combat tours, with six brave, with six heart, you know, I forget which hearts.
I mean, all the different awards for service to this country.
You bunch of punks and losers and fake patriots.
That's what you are.
You're a disgrace to the founders of this country when you attack people like Joe Kent and you support any violation of our First Amendment freedoms, no matter in whatever bogus name you want to.
It's like people say, well, I don't eat french fries.
Oh, freedom fries.
That makes you stupid, not smart.
That makes you a traitor to the American founders, not a supporter of the American founders.
So I got no patience and no tolerance for any of those midwits, nitwits, and halfwits that are pretending to be smart or care about America when they are traitors to America.
Birthright Citizenship Jurisdiction00:16:02
Well, I can see that a lot of the chat saying, Testify, Robert.
Let's just do a few more of these.
If only Cash had a book about corruption at the FBI or Bungie had a book.
Stop excusing them.
This is from Hope for Better.
They knew the corruption was there going on.
They chose not to see it.
Well, I mean, I say Bondi's being fired at least somewhat vindicates Bongino, but his lashing out at people on the internet.
If JD Vance has got to stand up or help, otherwise he's going to be permanently known as Tattoo from Fantasy Island watching BB doing what he's doing to Trump.
I'm going to not breathe.
This is Andrew Piscadlo.
He says, hearing Boss, JD is going to take on fraud, ensuring that we have ample lube while the government continues to screw us.
Who is that?
Is that supposed to be BB in the background?
Yeah, that's BB Nanyahu.
Let me read the whole thing and then he doesn't have the stones to go.
He's going like full Lindsey Graham there on Trump.
You have to be bold enough to call a professional class of liars fake studies, difficult justifications, province.
Okay, fine.
Now we're going to go up here to skip over though.
Jocelyn Balanitis.
Use someone else's computer to look it up.
I don't know what that is.
Okay, well, that's funny.
There's a meme from Andrew Pascodlo.
There's USA Now, Mario got replaced.
Chris Craft, Bill, are you the kind of Henry 2.0?
All right, Robert.
We got birthright citizenship.
We've got, oh, the one brief transition, and it's truly a transition.
I don't know if you heard about the lawyer who got thrown out of court, that got the court personnel to come in and grab him, throw him down, and arrest him, and they were screaming and everything else.
And I know it was Colorado.
And I was listening to this lawyer, and I was like, something's a little off here.
Turns out the lawyer, this is why I called it a transition, the lawyer was a former woman, now man.
So, you can take the woman out of the man, but you can't take the woman out of the courtroom.
I hadn't seen that, but I'll see.
He apparently dropped the phone in front of the judge.
He's like, You're just doing this because I'm dead.
And so they got, and cops are trying to grab him.
He's going nuts.
Apparently, he's going to leave the practice of law and all the rest.
I was like, What a wild story.
So, was it a man dressing up as a woman or a woman?
It was a woman born a woman, now a man.
Though you listen to him, you're like, I don't know.
Okay.
There were some clues.
This would have been the one where if they had said, Don't tase me, bro, that would have been okay.
Oh, there's a don't tase me, bro, somewhere.
You're trying to hurt me or try to destroy me.
And then started screaming, You're trying to rape me in the middle of all this.
It was just cops just trying to get him under control because he just went nuts.
His client didn't show up for court.
And he's like, He drops his phone in front of the lawyer.
I was like, This is, I was like, I was watching this.
Like, that's so, you know, prima donna kind of behavior.
But then, you know, everything made a little more sense.
Robert, let me play this real quickly because, you know, this is, I guess, something of a smaller, White pill coming out of Canada.
This is Kayla Pollack, who's been on the channel.
She was rendered a quadriplegic from the Moderna booster after two Pfizer shots, suing Moderna.
The CBC finally reported on her story, and her story is now finally being covered by mainstream media up in Canada.
iHeartRadio is sort of mainstream legacy media, but I'll give you all this.
So, bottom line, you know, the vaccine injury support program in Canada is being rebranded, being taken over by the government because the delays are too long.
Kayla Pollack and her story, finally.
Legacy media has decided to cover it.
And I don't know, there's still miracles that can happen, but go support Caleb Hollock if you can.
Absolutely, very important.
Robert, birthright citizenship.
So hold on a second.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Have you heard the oral argument this week?
So the fundamental question is the president has said that on a go forward basis, the people would not be recognized to be a citizen of the United States unless they went through the naturalization process.
Or their parents were citizens of the United States.
The question is prior to that, so this does not, this case does not impact anybody that has citizenship previously from being born in the United States.
Only going forward, if they were born in the United States, do they automatically get citizenship, even if both of their parents are not citizens or even legally present in the United States.
That was the question before the Supreme Court.
Yeah, first of all, General Sauer, he seems to be a very, very smart man.
I mean, in as much as he, You can detect anything from his arguments.
Smart, thinks quickly on his feet, seems principled.
I haven't heard him say anything stupid or remotely compromising of the position.
He was amazing.
The argument, as you mentioned, he was clear to specify this is all perspective.
This is not retroactive because retroactive criminal law is, or this would be effectively criminal, would be fundamentally unfair.
You'd go and strip people of citizenship that they got under the existing laws at the time, which would create an even bigger problem and give an even bigger excuse to the judges to come to the conclusions that.
It sounds like a lot of them want to come to.
The question was Birthright Citizenship.
John Eastman was on the channel.
Was it Jeff Clark or John Eastman?
It was John Eastman.
Eastman came on with the debate.
I mean, I don't think he.
Yes, yes.
That was our debate with him on birthrights.
So Eastman came up, put up a very compelling argument, one that was so compelling.
I was convinced that he's right and not you, Robert.
But that being said, so they argued effectively what Eastman argued here, which was that this was intended to refer to people who were subject to the jurisdiction, and that was intending to cover people who were here lawfully, not of the exceptions that were already provided.
And that people who are here had intent to stay here, to be here.
The question is how quickly or succinctly can you summarize the Wong Kim arc, which seemed to be the precedent that they were all arguing from in that case?
So, what happened was Wong Kim arc was a person who was born in the United States to two parents who were from China, who were here legally but could not become citizens of the United States because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts passed in the late 19th century.
That a lot of Chinese workers came to work in places like San Francisco, came to work on the railroads, and that there was a lot of labor hostility, Irish and others who felt they were being replaced by these Chinese workers.
And it was one of the first primary immigration exclusion laws ever in the United States history.
So they were legally okay to be here, but they could not become citizens.
He left the son who was born in the United States to these people that were legally here, but not citizens, went back to China.
And then when he came back to the United States, he was blocked from entry.
They said, You're not a citizen.
You can't be a citizen because you were born to Chinese parents who were not citizens and couldn't be legally.
He took his case up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court determined that, yes, he was a citizen because he was born in the United States.
The question was how much did it matter that he was born to two parents who the only reason they weren't citizens was the Chinese exclusion laws, not because they were illegally present in the United States?
And the argument that Professor Eastman Fashioned over the last two years is that domicile was essential to the decision because it's cited about 25 times in the case.
The argument on the other side was that the specific language of the holding doesn't reference domicile.
It says born in the United States unless you're part of an exclusion.
So the 14th Amendment says if you're born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you are a U.S. citizen constitutionally.
The question was what does that subject to the jurisdiction exception mean?
And after Won Kim Ark, it was interpreted in the most limited way to mean.
Subject to the jurisdiction only applied to untaxed Indians, to invading armies, to foreign diplomats, to people that were quite literally not subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Okay, but hold on a second.
But natives or Native Americans who have children, they are citizens of the United States, whereas diplomats who have children are not.
Oh, it depends.
Many often the answer is no.
In fact, what was interesting is that question went unanswered in the oral argument because even it was the one question General Sauer was not ready for.
That you're right, he was very, very well prepped.
Compared to the Valley girl who was on the other side, that Valley girl accent was a little bit agitating.
But he was very, very deeply ready to go, except to that question, because I think Justice Barrett was going down that rabbit hole.
She's like, what exactly she thinks that the filter to understand subject to the jurisdiction has to be how Indians were treated, members of tribes in the United States.
Because her point is all the others kind of have a practical sensibility to them, because again, all of this stems from British common law.
And the one thing I wanted a more robust, they presented it, General Sauer presented it in part, but I wanted a more robust presentation on why the US would be rejecting the British common law tradition.
For those that don't know, if you were born in the territory of the British king, you were a citizen, period.
However, this is important with these rare exceptions invading army, foreign diplomat, et cetera.
The key thing though is citizenship used to be a burden, not a privilege.
In other words, the king wanted everybody to be subject to his jurisdiction so he could take you, so he could tax you, so he could draft you.
Today, citizenship is empowerment.
It's not a burden or obligation in the same way.
Now, some people that were randomly subject to it that didn't know they were under various laws about foreign bank accounts and so forth, not the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but FATCA and the rest, that were shocked to discover they could be penalized and punished overnight because they'd been born in the United States but had never lived in the U.S. and their parents weren't there.
But putting that category aside, That for most people, this is power citizenship.
And I thought the best argument, and he, General Sauer, implicitly and indirectly referenced it by saying, look, they had a monarchial view, the Brits, of a monarchial view that created their citizenship that's completely contrary to what the US did.
But I would have liked that to have been more robustly presented.
Said, look, we had a revolution in the United States against the very idea of monarchial rule.
For us, citizenship is empowerment, not a burden.
And consequently, it cannot borrow from the tradition of British common law.
That was a little bit underdeveloped, I felt.
But putting that aside, his main argument was look, the subject to the jurisdiction was about people who had some meaningful allegiance to the United States.
And the other side's argument was no, we just borrowed British common law.
British common law was all about the state having as much power as possible.
And that's about, and thus Justice Jackson was like, look, if you can be arrested, you're subject to the jurisdiction.
There's a part of that that's right.
Now, they also were drawing big distinctions about.
Subject of the jurisdiction versus subject to the jurisdiction.
What do those things mean?
Are those distinct or unique things?
And Justice Barrett was going down the Indian rabbit hole, saying, you know what?
What's distinct about this in the subject to the jurisdiction in the U.S. context is how they treat Indians.
And General Sauer was asked by Justice Roberts, would you agree that now, under your theory of domicile, that even children of citizens born outside of tribal territory are birthright citizens?
And he said, I think so, but let me get back to you.
It was the one thing he hadn't thought about.
And nor had the other side fully thought about it.
Because there's like, okay, some cases, the person's not even in the territory.
If it's a territorial based linkage, like you're arguing the jurisdiction word, because that's what it's all about.
What does jurisdiction mean in the 14th Amendment?
If it's territorially driven, there's Indians that are born outside of the tribe, born outside of the territory of the tribe, that are you saying they're not citizens?
Why is it they weren't citizens if they're not?
This is what I didn't understand.
We're talking Native Americans born outside of the tribe, means off the reservation?
Correct.
Physically.
So their parents might be both tribal members, but they're physically not born.
They're physically born in the territory of the United States, not physically born on a tribal territory that's within the United States, but considered a separate sovereign.
Yeah, but hold on.
That's the issue that I didn't understand.
Are you telling me that the children born to natives on a tribe that is within the United States?
Country, but on the tribe are not deemed to be United States citizens?
That was the question that was left unanswered in the oral argument.
Okay.
Because that was the one that Souris, like, I think so, but let me get back to it.
Okay.
And so, what was clear from the arguments is that they're all worried about how this is going to impact illegal aliens.
I mean, that was the question how it's going to impact illegal aliens going forward.
The question was this that I had.
They're saying, well, illegal immigration didn't exist at the time.
So they could not have possibly intended to cover the children of illegal immigrants with birthright citizenship.
Then they had the microwave argument.
Who was it?
I think it was Alito that asked it.
He says, look, in some archaic law against theft, they didn't have microwaves back in the day, so you can't use it as a defense.
Well, they couldn't have intended this to cover microwaves because they didn't exist back then.
When that's an easy straw man to burn down, is that it's theft of whatever and not necessarily theft of things that didn't exist at the time of the theft laws.
Here, illegal immigration didn't really exist.
And so it only applied to occupying force and diplomats.
And that was the two exceptions carved out.
Children of diplomats were never intended to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And occupying force obviously are coming to occupy and conquer, not become citizens of the country they're trying to conquer.
But my only question was if those were intended to be the only exceptions, then why have the term in the first place subject to the jurisdiction thereof as opposed to just except for the children of diplomats and occupying forces?
In the civil rights laws of 1866, included another phrase that said, and not subject to a foreign power.
But that was not included in the 14th Amendment.
The question became what's the consequence of that choice?
Of not having that additional provision.
In addition, if you say the person's not subject to a foreign power, how does it impact dual citizens?
So there's an issue there.
And if someone's a dual citizen and they have children, are their children, because they're subject to a foreign power, now stripped of birthright citizenship?
Then there's the practicalities.
How do we adjudicate this?
In other words, if it's not, right now it's simply a factual question.
Were you born in the United States?
And if you don't fit in these two categories that are publicly known, then you're in.
But what happens if it requires subjective intent establishment by the parent that they had an intent to stay?
A legality issue about whether they were legally present.
Now, the analogous provision historically has been temporary sojourners to current illegal immigrants.
And there, most of the case law has trended in the direction that temporary sojourners are, in fact, considered birthright citizens in the cases that have gone through the system, but it hasn't been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
So that's where the analogy would end up being drawn to.
And it gets back to what do they really mean by subject to the jurisdiction?
And is it a living constitution or is it what they meant when they passed this in the 1860s?
And then is it something that's subject to congressional change?
Is it a floor or is it a ceiling?
Illegals Domicile Intent Questions00:03:57
Could Congress come in and change that definition?
So there's going to be big impacts of this decision.
I think Barrett's obsessed with the Indian angle and where that goes.
It's sounding from the questions, the three liberals are definitely not going to affirm Trump's thing.
No surprise there.
It sounded like Roberts was more skeptical.
The Roberts, because, like, to the issue of illegal immigration, explosion, and anchor babies, and people coming from China and deliberately having a baby here, up to 10% of all babies born to people that are not U.S. citizens apparently are part of this anchor baby tourism system where they come in from China and they get U.S. citizenship that way.
That seems like a practical problem or hurdle.
But what did Robert say?
Said lots of things change, but the Constitution doesn't.
So, you know, he was ready with that little repartee.
That would suggest he's skeptical of the president's order.
Thomas almost never asked questions, he asked one or two, always hard to read.
Alito was the most aggressive at defending the president's position.
He asked more hostile questions of the other side than the Trump, but he was the only one to do so.
Barrett and Roberts were a little more skeptical.
They didn't like the argument being made in part by that particular.
Practitioner, they were a little sarcastic about some dumb things he said, like domicile has nothing to do with this.
They're like, Well, why are you saying that when you're saying this case is the governing case and it talks about domicile 25 times, things like that?
But my takeaway is they're going to say it's constitutionally rigid and can't be changed by Congress.
Number one, and number two, they're going to have a broad determination that does not uphold the president's executive order that says a person is a birth, is a citizen by birth within the United States, unless.
They fit in these very limited exceptions of ambassador's kid, certain kinds of Indians are going to try to figure that part out, and then the invading army.
And they'll say the only way to change that is by amending the Constitution itself.
So the next place the issue of birthright citizenship is likely to go won't be legislative remedy or executive remedy.
It will be full amend the Constitution to make clear that just being born here doesn't make you a citizen here, which would normalize it with most of the rest of the world.
Which also says just being born there on the territory, just sola, as it's called, doesn't make you a citizen.
It only does here, the US, and a few other countries in the world.
What I loved, I think it was Kagan asking, I think it was, unless I misunderstood the question, it was the dumbest question I've ever heard, where she said, Well, obviously, it doesn't apply to temporary sojourners who are not here with any intent of permanency.
And so if they have a kid here, it wouldn't apply to them.
But it would apply to illegals because they're here illegally with the intention of domicile intent.
The part of domicile that says if you have an intent to stay, then that would make you there.
And that wouldn't make the, in my view, is they're going to have to say if they don't say temporary sojourners' children are citizens, then the Trump's executive order has a very good chance of being affirmed.
If they do, if they go the other way, just based on the number of questions that were asked, but the practicalities that they have concerns with.
How would you implement this?
And largely because most of the legal scholarship, not all by any stretch, But most of it has assumed that birthright citizenship existed in the United States for the better part of the last century.
No, I just love that question where it also says, okay, well, illegals have the intention of remaining permanently.
And then I think it was now Alito afterwards who said, well, you know, to rebut that, if they live here knowing that at any point in time they can be lawfully removed, it's hard to argue that they have a sense of permanency.
The way I would have put it was trespasser.
Trespassers can't have allegiance to the country.
No, any more than squatters can have a right to the premises.
To the property.
James O'Keefe Video Loopholes00:08:39
Unless you're in California, then that's a special gift.
But as you go in and you squat, and you get to steal people's property that way.
Robert, okay, let's do it.
How many more do we have before we start?
So we got mostly smaller cases.
James O'Keefe, which we got to get.
Yeah, Delayed and Dismissal, James O'Keefe Second Amendment, the Chaz verdict, the kid who died there, whether the Bulls player has a right to bring a religious discrimination suit, the board question about unlimited becoming limited on your data plan from the phone, and the Sony settlement on PlayStations.
And last but not least, the Maui doctor who's pleading self defense.
She was trying to push me off that ledge.
Not me trying to push her off that light screen.
We're going to do, listen, we'll do one more big one here, the James O'Keefe, then we'll do the rest over at the after party on locals.
Robert, I have to, in order, okay, start this again.
You need to see the original video in order to understand where this is going.
This was now a month ago, give or take.
James O'Keefe caught Matthew, what's his name on?
Tim Rand.
Tim Rand or Tim Rand or not a man.
Pretending to be a man, feigning to be a man, acting like a man, but not really a man.
You know, all variations like that will work.
He's the guy who got, who was hell bent on getting James kicked out of his own company, got him.
You know, they had their, what was it called, struggle session when they basically brought James O'Keefe in and said, We've got to let you go.
Employees are complaining about you.
You're a terrible boss, a mean boss, yada, yada.
We're going to kick you out of the company.
They kick him out of the company.
Let me bring this up for one second.
And as could obviously be predicted, James O'Keefe was the company.
Whether or not you like James O'Keefe, Whether or not he's got his own foibles as a human, whether or not he's got his own idiosyncrasies as the type of person who does what he does, I have no doubt he's probably hard, difficult to work under, that he is a very demanding person.
And he's very unique in what he does.
Not everybody could do it.
He leaves the company.
This was called Project Veritas at the time.
And everybody takes their money, the donors, saying, We're getting the F out of here.
And then Timurand, who realizes now he's just put in the death nail to Project Veritas, which might have been the purpose, then tries to go out and get an injunction against James O'Keefe so that he can't start his own company, a new company.
Can't accept donations without even soliciting them because that might violate a non compete provision, which you don't get to enforce when you fire the employee.
Set all that aside.
Apparently, I don't.
Let's see.
We're gonna play this.
Listen to this.
Bad because he was your friend.
I would kill him because he is one of the most evil people I've ever known.
This guy shot up my book and ragged that he wants to kill me.
There's a bullet right through my heart.
The second I saw him get shot, I wished that was my immediate first reaction.
Why couldn't it have been okay?
So he got this on camera.
Because a journalist got this footage of Matthew Tirmrand on footage saying, Now, whether or not it's hyperbolic, you don't talk like that, don't even wish that type of juju in the universe, but he said it quite clearly, you know.
Whether you take it literally or not, that's now the expose.
It comes out like a few days ago.
James gets not raided, rather, he gets served while he's alive with some restraining order from a domestic violence case in Miami that Matthew Timorand filed.
I don't know the exact procedural posture, but they're going back to court on May 11th, and I think I'm going to be there to hear the hearing.
But Timorand accuses James O'Keefe of some form of domestic violence where he had to get a restraining order against James O'Keefe.
Even though apparently the only person threatening anybody here is Matthew to James O'Keefe.
James gets served with this.
They wanted to confiscate his guns because of the allegations of some form of harassment or stalking.
The irony is, you know, I said this, they want to put people in vulnerable positions so that they can then become targets.
And if it's known publicly that James O'Keefe is not packing, can't legally have a gun, that makes him much more of a vulnerable target.
And I got to do a little bit more of a deep dive.
I just got to catch up on this story.
But that's basically where it's at right now.
There's an emergency.
Um, reply to the injunction that James O'Keefe has filed, and it's going to be presented on May 11th.
It's a domestic violence in a family court case in Miami, and I don't even understand how the procedural posture got down.
That's what I know thus far, and I haven't been able to look through James O'Keefe's emergency reply filing.
What the hell is going on?
For lack of a better question.
The first problem, so I was one of the first lawyers in the country to use orders of protection.
So they passed federal laws to provide expedited relief for victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse.
And one of the things the Democrats did was they included a provision that allowed you to take away a person's Second Amendment rights if they had such an order of protection issued against them.
That's always been a problem.
It was such a nightmare that in rural Tennessee courts, All the benefits of an order of protection would not accrue to the usually the daughter, the son, the wife, the partner, would not accrue to them because courts didn't want to take away somebody's Second Amendment rights.
So I kept telling my lefty friends this backfired, it was a bad idea anyway.
But it's gotten worse.
And the way it's gotten worse is a lot of due process protections don't apply.
They've expanded the scope of Second Amendment violations by having red flag laws attached to this.
So basically, if you get committed to a mental institution, take away your gun.
Somebody says that you're a threat to somebody, take away your gun.
These are these red flag laws.
And what's worse is they've taken something that was meant for the very circumscribed circumstance of domestic violence, of usually a wife, sometimes a husband, trying to escape a very dangerous situation, and usually with their children.
And instead, it's now so that corrupt corporate hacks like Tim Ann.
Tim Rand, not a man, whatever his name is, who, by the way, was disclosed to be connected to corporate investments in Big Pharma right after James O'Keefe detailed with Project Veritas all the corruption at Pfizer.
So, this guy, I said at the time, I strongly suspected a Pfizer connection to him, to James O'Keefe being run out of the foundation he created, the organization he started, that he made real as a real, powerful, undercover, investigative journalistic organization.
And so, this corrupt hack who gets caught on tape, I mean, he really thought that that hot chick liked him.
I mean, that's how dumb this guy is.
He thought the hot chick, oh, yeah, let me tell you, what a big macho man.
I think that, like, I got a debate with this guy, this loser.
At the Republican National Convention.
And then midway through, I was like, I better be careful because I'm not sure if Wisconsin law prohibits dwarf tossing.
This guy's like five foot four or something.
And a prick to be.
Nothing against small people, but I can't, or little folks, little people.
I just can't.
But this guy was a prick on top of it.
So I was like, I'm going to be accused of something.
So this guy is violating James O'Keefe's First Amendment rights, documenting and detailing his activities by not allowing him to be an investigative undercover journalist or anybody connected to him.
To be one, be by getting a temporary restraining order meant for wives and children that were never even meant for this.
So they keep expanding, expanding, expanding.
Who can get an order of protection?
They keep expanding, expanding, expanding.
It's First and Second Amendment loopholes.
And it's so egregious that it's happening in James O'Keefe's case that it's First Amendment.
This is prior restraint on unprotected speech activities.
Imagine if you could stop a reporter from ever being able to go undercover by just getting a restraining order against them.
The Supreme Court said you couldn't get a restraining order on the Pentagon Papers during an act of war.
How is this crazy Miami judge thinking you could do it for some corrupt corporate whore like Tim Rand is?
So, this is, and then taking away his Second Amendment rights to boot, this is an embarrassment to the Florida courts.
And where the heck is DeSantis?
I mean, is he asleep at the wheel?
I thought he was supposed to enforce the First Amendment in Florida, supposed to enforce the Second Amendment in Florida.
That's why James O'Keefe moved from New York down to Florida.
And it turns out in Miami, they're doing no better than New York at protecting First and Second Amendment rights.
No, it's wild.
Restraining Orders and Pentagon Papers00:02:30
I've got to get clear on the procedural posture as to how he ended up in some form of a family court, which is.
Oh, it's because it's called that.
But you no longer have to have a family relationship.
You just have to say, this person is harassing me.
That's it.
Boom.
Bang.
You're all of it.
And all the orders will say domestic violence orders, domestic.
The Benchuf case, one of the main people coming after him, had no family relationship with him at all.
It's because they've taken these laws because of how powerful they were and they were meant for.
Poor victim of domestic abuse, right about to die.
Something terrible happened.
We got to stop the crime.
We got to protect the kids.
And then they're throwing everybody into it.
It never should have happened.
It was a bad law in the first place to have gone down this path.
But that's what we're dealing with.
And now we're seeing the worst effects of it on First and Second Amendment rights of James O'Keefe being violated.
Okay, we're going to locals.
I'm going to figure out who we raise.
This is the link to locals.
Robert, before we leave the biggest part of the crowd, what do you have coming up this week?
And you can still get tickets for one more day to the 52nd, my 52nd birthday party fundraiser for 1776 Law Center at Amos Miller, Amish Farmer, Amos Miller's home.
It's going to be his own food.
His own family has cooked it.
There's limited tickets available, so it's going to be a small, select set of people.
Going to be there from noon to five, take a tour of the farm, hang out with Amos, hang out with the family, hang out with other Amish.
I'll be there.
Viva's going to try to be there the whole time as well.
Maybe take a little buggy ride if Amos is in the mood.
See his very beautiful farm.
That's at 1776lawcenter.com.
That's this Saturday in Bird in Hand, Pennsylvania.
The tomorrow.
You're saying Bird in Hand?
That's the name of the town.
Bird in Hand.
Bird in Hand.
Okay.
Bird in Hand.
Isn't that great?
The beautiful farm up there.
We're going to have a raw milk bar.
So, you can try to taste all the different ones.
It's going to be good.
Some of it's a buffalo, you name it, it's good.
So, we'll have that.
But tomorrow we'll be on with Richard Barris, I believe, at noon Eastern Time.
What are the odds?
We're going to be predicting every single Senate seat up in the 2026 midterms.
And then throughout the week, we'll be on sometimes with Alex Jones, be on with the Lotus Eaters or whatever you call that.
Raid Update and Enraged Demands00:02:28
The British one.
I'm on, I think, with Slav, our great.
The Russian we interviewed, I'm forgetting his name, Slav.
I'm getting it wrong.
But I'm going to be on with a bunch of those discussing a whole bunch of things.
But the big event, if you want to come in, a special exclusive VIP event, five hours hanging out, getting some of the best food in the world, having one of the best meals in the world, some of the best conversation in the world, one of the best locations in the world to support one of the best causes in the world, 1776lawscenter.com.
Come if you can.
One day left to get tickets.
You all have the link.
I just brought up the website.
That's it.
We're going to take this party over to Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
You got the link there.
And we're also going to be on Rumble's premium.
Rumble premium.
So we're going to go raid Barry Cunningham tonight.
I like him.
And I would have otherwise raided Salty Cracker, but he doesn't allow raids.
So go raid Barry.
He's talking about his show tonight.
It's called President Trump Announces Amazing Rescue.
Was Pam Bondi really fired?
Live tonight.
And he's live right now.
So go say hi.
And I'll say Viva Raid Booyah.
And we're going to do one quick one until the raid is completed.
Then we're going to end this.
So end it on commie tube and X. Another white pill.
The Mr. DeLayden, the man, the undercover investigative reporter who went in and documented the utter moral horror of what Planned Parenthood was doing selling body parts, selling babies' parts.
He's the one who broke that whole story.
Kamala Harris, who was Attorney General of the state of California at the time, was enraged and demanded he be criminally prosecuted.
So he was facing all kinds of criminal charges for doing First Amendment protected activity to protect some of the most vulnerable lives in existence against one of the most corrupt, nasty organizations in the world, a eugenics organization like Planned Parenthood.
Well, good news.
I was actually part of his defense team in certain capacities.
The all charges dismissed.
All gone, all finished.
No more rogue nonsense against that very good, excellent undercover investigative journalist.
Another big white pill on the night.
Amazing.
And now we're going to update.
And if you're not Rumble Premium, you might not get this.