Eric Swalwell faces scandal allegations while the episode critiques a potential U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, arguing it constitutes an unconstitutional war declaration violating international norms despite neither nation ratifying UNCLOS. The discussion highlights a controversial "Dignity Act" amnesty bill for 17 million immigrants linked to Palantir biometrics and condemns the reauthorized FISA Section 702 as a Fourth Amendment violation enabling mass surveillance via Five Eyes partnerships. Furthermore, the segment exposes a coordinated legal assault on the Amish community by big tech and media, framing their defense as essential for preserving food and medical freedom against government overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Refiling Pfizer Injury Claims00:12:53
Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, we're going to play a recording and then we're going to draw some connections.
You can call Viva Fry a conspiracy theorist or just acknowledge him as a conspiracy realist.
Behold a recording coming out of Canada, which you've already heard, but I'm playing it again for good reason.
So, what I will suggest to you, okay, and it's I'm going to guide you to the new portal since it's the federal government, okay, and I would advise you to reapply.
Reapply.
Reapply, yes.
It is going to be taken care of right away.
Hello.
So they can deny it like they did the first time and then make me appeal again?
Is that what you're saying?
This is the father of Sean Hartman calling the vaccine impact something program.
I forget what it is now in Canada.
After four years of his vaccine injury claim for the death of his son had not been adjudicated yet, at least not on appeal, it's been taken over by the federal government after the.
Third party administrator of the vaccine injury support program suffered some corruption.
He is being told by the new government clerk to refile his claim for the death of his son, or at least his son's claim for his death and injury.
After four years, when it has been under appeal for the last two or three years, I'm going to play this out because this is, in my humble view, an actual conspiracy.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is it's a total new, like, Before it was Auxero, okay.
The federal, since last week, took it back because there was a lot of things going on.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Auxero was the third party independent contractor that was administering $50 million that was intended to be vaccine injury support compensation.
Listen to what she says about what was going on under the prior administration by a third party, OXERO.
It's O X E R O. Listen to this.
Because, well, I can't say what I found there, but anyway, there's a lot of things going on.
So that's why they took it back and they did all their procedures back.
And as it goes, okay, and they have their own evaluator that's going to evaluate the case.
Like it's real doc.
That's going to evaluate the case.
Okay.
And it's real health agency agents' case that's going to take your case.
That's bizarre.
Now it's going to be real doctors.
I won't belabor the point because I played this on Friday during my afternoon show on Rumble at three o'clock.
This is the government clerk now saying to a man who's been waiting four years for compensation for the death of his kid, at least acknowledgement, and we're going to get there, that the Pfizer shot was the proximate cause of or The result of the death of his son 33 days after the Pfizer shot, and he's applying now for compensation for vaccine injury because it includes death.
She's telling him to refile because the government took it over, and what they saw in there, she can't get into, but my goodness, it was smelly as hell.
So that's how it works now, okay, as of last week.
So, what we've been told, okay, like it's if you already had applied with Xerio just Never mind that, apply and do a freshly application over the portal.
She's French Canadian, people, so don't make fun of it.
She means application.
You did a freshly apply, and that explains her accent.
She's telling him to do a fresh application.
Sean Hartman's father, Dan Hartman, after four years of waiting, do a fresh application.
You know what the problem is?
This is literally the exact opposite of what the official government position is.
I'll get there.
There's going to be all kinds of questions, and at the end, it's going to ask you Are you applying for somebody else?
So that way, you're going to say yes.
Oh, yes.
Because you're applying for your son that's dead.
It's going to ask you if you're applying for somebody else, and you're going to say yes, because you are for your dead son.
She has to remind him that that's what he's doing it for.
You're doing it for your son who passed away as a result of this government mandated jab.
Now, the problem is I'm telling you this, I'm giving everybody the link in the chat right now.
Put that on blast.
That is Dan Hartman on the phone with a clerk of the government who's telling him now how to do his vaccine injury claim, but they call it now a vaccine impact claim under the new administration of this.
Compensation program because the feds took it over because it was so bloody corrupt under Oxera, telling him just apply again, just start from scratch as though the last four years haven't happened.
You know what the problem is?
This is exactly the opposite of what those in the program are being told in real time.
This is the email, mail, whatever the hell it was, however it was sent to people who.
Have already applied under Oxera.
March 18, 2026.
Remember what that woman said.
Reapply, start from scratch, forget about your prior application.
I'm going to get to where I think this is a conspiracy realist and a conspiracy reality and not a far fetched conspiracy theory.
An update on the vaccine injury support program.
Dear applicant andor family representative, if you're applying on behalf of a deceased family member, Public Health Agency of Canada, FAC, that's exactly what it makes you want to say every time you listen to these FAC and needy FAC, is writing to share some important updates about the vaccine injury support program.
We recognize that people who have applied to this program have gone through a difficult time living with health concerns and navigating the claims process all at the same time is challenging for individuals and their family.
Government just hopes to drag their feet as long as they can.
Maybe people will die.
It'll be one less person to compensate.
That's why the Government of Canada is taking meaningful steps to make the program more efficient and to improve the experience for everyone who has applied.
We plan to introduce these changes incrementally over the coming months.
Our goal is to move files as quickly as possible while ensuring each claim receives the attention it deserves.
We appreciate your patience as your claim moves through the program.
The Government of Canada.
Funded the VISP Vaccine Injury Support Program, previously administered by Oxaro Inc.
This agreement ends on March 31st.
We are now midway through April.
Starting April 1, the Government of Canada will deliver the program as the Vaccine Impact Association Assistance Program.
Change it.
It's no longer an injury.
We don't want to call it an injury, we want to call it an impact.
FAC is currently working with Oxaro to securely transfer claim and files so that VISP claims can continue to be processed under the new VAP.
Idiots, acronyms, nothing, just garbage, garbage government newspeak.
What you need to know FAC will not cancel current and ongoing claims or appeals.
Your existing claim will continue to be used under the new program.
Your existing claim will be continued to be used under the new program.
If additional information or documents are needed to continue processing your claim, a member of our team will contact you directly.
Over the next few months, FAC.
Will review the claim files transferred from Auxaro.
We are working to establish new systems and processes to administer the program, including a new online client portal.
Through the portal, you'll be able to check your status, view documents, update, upload.
Good.
At the end, the new portal will be available by no later than July 1st.
That's another April, May, June, July, three months.
What's three months in four years?
For now, existing claims will continue as normal, and the Vaccine Injury Impact Assistance Program website will accept new claims.
You can expect to receive an update about the status of your claim and instructions for registering to the new online portal no later than July 1st, 2026.
How to stay informed.
We will contact you directly if we require information related to your claim.
Just wait to hear from the government.
They'll get back to you.
Cue the little skeleton sitting on the sidewalk bench with cobwebs all over it.
We will also provide updates about the transition through the program website and an upcoming information session for individuals who applied to the vaccine injury support program and whose files have been transferred to the new program.
Information session.
Understand what's going on here.
They're giving an information session to people who filed under the VISP as to how it's going to be conducted under the VAP with these FAC facts.
And FAC is the public health of Canada.
I'm not swearing people.
Information session for applicants.
We know that many people have questions about what this transition means to them and their claim.
To help provide more information, FAC will organize an information session to explain the transition to the new program, what is changing, and what to expect in the months ahead.
The session will take place virtually on March 30, 2026, whatever.
I happen to know, as a matter of fact, that all that was disclosed at that.
Virtual meeting was a reiteration of what they said in that memo.
We're handling it.
Don't, you know, nothing's going to get processed.
Trust the plan.
When it comes to two people in particular who were told to refile, one was Dan Hartman, Sean Hartman's father, who's suing Pfizer currently for tens of millions of dollars.
They told him to refile very specifically go ignore the one that's already there, refile.
I guarantee you that had he refiled or if he refiles, it'll reset everything.
He'll start from scratch again.
Another person they told to refile as well, from what I understand, Kayla Pollack, the woman who was on last week on my show, rendered a quadriplegic by Moderna.
Do you know what she's also doing?
She's suing Moderna.
So it would seem that by some accident, the two people who are currently suing the pharmaceutical companies for the damage caused by their jibby jabs are being told to refile despite all indications to the contrary being the existing file should be transferred.
Do you think it's to give them priority or do you think it's to treat them more slowly?
Maybe I'm just getting cynical.
Maybe I'm just getting a little bit too conspiratorial.
If I had to guess, it would be to treat them more slowly.
And why?
Because they're suing Moderna and Pfizer respectively.
And the longer it takes for them to acknowledge, recognize, and confirm their vaccine impact, the better for the lawsuits that they have against Moderna and Pfizer.
And so you have Dan Hartman on the phone being told, A, what I saw, I cannot tell you.
It is a very serious, I can't tell you what I saw on there, but it was bad.
A woman basically confirming egregious corruption of Oksaro and Kayla Pollack, who's suing Modena, being told, refile.
They want to put off the adjudication of those two claims for as long as humanly possible, because if they have to, as they should, as based on the actual medical information there, if they have to confirm that Sean Hartman, Died as a result of the jab 33 days after his first Pfizer shot.
And if they have to confirm that Kayla Pollack got transverse myelitis from her Moderna booster after two Pfizer shots, because the science then was mix and match whatever the hell you want.
It's open bar, people.
The sooner they have to confirm that, the more that they give, I won't say a silver bullet for their lawsuit, but the more that they give them the biggest piece of evidence they need in their lawsuit against Pfizer and Moderna, respectively.
This is not an accident in my view.
It's not incompetence in my view.
I know they say don't attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence.
When it comes to the government, it's a healthy dose of both incompetence and malice.
And they're being told to jerk around again, file anew.
You know damn well what's going to happen.
Oh, we lost your new file and it reset the old one.
So now you've got to start from scratch, refile it.
Because the sooner they adjudicate on those claims and determine that those injuries and death were the result of the Pfizer and Moderna jab, respectively, the more that they strengthen their lawsuit against those two pharma companies.
I wanted to put that on blast so everybody should know about that.
Caleb Pollack.
Who is still literally struggling to survive, literally surviving off crowdsourcing the generosity of others?
You know, the government said, We can't treat you, but we can certainly offer you death, and they did.
And Dan Hartman, whose now mission in life is to get retribution for the death of his son from something that they said was safe and effective, required his son to take so that he could just play hockey because that's all that he wanted to do.
And I said, I would put this on blast and make sure everybody understands this is not conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy reality.
And even if I'm wrong and it's only attributable to incompetence, this is the type of incompetence that deserves to land people in jail.
Period.
End of rant.
Dan Hartman's Mission for Retribution00:04:24
Good evening, everybody.
Let me see what my heart rate's at.
I had two energy drinks back to back, but they were 100 milligrams of caffeine each.
So I had one that had 150.
I was like, which one?
I want to drink.
I wanted to have two drinks because I was driving.
So I wanted to lower the caffeine.
But my goodness, people, there might have been too much caffeine in both of those respectively.
This is the Sunday of the Viva and Barnes Law for the People podcast, common, whatever they were calling it now.
The word podcaster now has become a slur as if to undermine, denigrate, and demean.
The valuable legal insights and commentary and analysis that some people put out there.
I don't mind the title.
I've never considered myself a podcaster or an influencer.
I am a former lawyer doing my best to make sense of the world and navigate my way through it.
And that's what this entire community has become part of.
And, you know, hopefully we've succeeded in a bit of that.
Sunday nights, we have our show with Robert Barnes.
We have our locals community, Viva and Barnes Law for the People.
It's the best, above average, awesome community out there.
We are live on Crumble and Um, commie tube and hold on, that's me.
I hear myself in the background, and uh, and our viva barns law.locals.com community.
I sometimes forget to get to the commie tube chats, and if I forget, if I don't come and do this and show yours to the world, don't get angry because um, I it'll happen.
And if it's going to be if you're only giving that on a predicate that I bring it up and mention it, don't.
And we'll all be happier as a result.
We are live across all platforms.
Share the link out there.
Make sure that you are subscribed.
If you're watching, let me see where we are on Rumble here.
If you're watching from the landing page, as I mentioned, everybody do it all the time.
Make sure that you click on the landing page, go into the stream from the landing page, hit the subscribe button.
Today I gave it a thumbs up.
I was going to give it a thumbs down.
Let's go for it.
Ooh, no, we're going back to thumbs up.
Oh, you're voting too often.
All right, people, I've broken the system.
Robert, come on in.
We got one hell of a show tonight.
Let me see if I can bring up a couple of the.
Gangsta Robert in the house with the.
We're going to get to the hat in a second.
Fitzie Empson says, We're going to find out it was Eric Swalwell that was colluding with Russia to get elected next, aren't we?
And Joden says, Enjoyed you on Patrick Shin.
Been on Friday.
Does it hurt your brain to have to sit next to and listen to people?
I'm not getting.
Look, Adams, I don't know him.
I'm told he's a very nice guy.
I think he makes some bad arguments.
So we'll get there a bit.
Robert, you said this during one of your Bourbon with Barnes's last week as you were being viciously trolled.
Maligned, berated for your 25th back and forth hyperbolic bit with Alex Jones and Scott Jennings, who caught wind of it.
I'm going to bring that up real fast.
While I get that clip, tell the world what is the history of the hat that you are wearing.
So, yeah, these are Scott Jennings, otherwise known as Mitch's bitch in Washington, D.C., for his longstanding ties to Mitch McConnell, who is the entire premise of his career, in case of those people didn't know it.
He thought my hat.
Was a funny looking hat.
That's a funny looking hat.
What's that funny looking hat you're wearing?
So, this hat has a long history.
It's a variation of, it's loosely called the working man's cap, sometimes newsboy's cap, other ones.
But, you know, take that, you know, the, now this particular one has this little for the Peaky Blinders, the popular show that was portrayed in 1920s Birmingham, England.
But they would actually put razor blades in here, the Peaky Blinders, as a weapon when needed.
So, that's what the, that's, What that's for.
I had a little problem going through the airport.
He's like, that's not a real razor blade, is it?
I'm like, no, no, no, no.
Just in honor of it.
But for those that don't know, great working man's caps.
There's a lot of great stores out there that still have them.
More common in England in certain parts of the U.S. than other parts.
But that's what it is for Scott Jennings.
Just a little education on the history.
Leave it to Scott Jennings to not know the history of the working man's cap.
Well, Robert, we're going to, I didn't plan on talking, but we have to.
We're going to have to deal with the elephant in the room right now.
This is what set the world on fire last week.
The 25th Amendment Risk00:11:29
So what we do.
Tackle Trump and let him pretend he's president and publicly report that he's going through a health issue.
So, what do we do?
Oh, it didn't happen from the beginning.
Tackle Trump and pretend, let him pretend he's president and publicly report that he's going through a health issue and Vance take over.
And so the turnaround here was really strong.
I want to play the whole clip because of the whole.
May I ask, for the amount of shit that I ended up having to take indirectly as a result of a, it wasn't even a Theory that you were putting forward because they seem to have cut out the beginning there, which was kind of the most important part.
Here we go.
Here, Lord, Lord, Lord, why can't I?
I want to, sorry, my fat fingers are not doing this properly here.
I want to play it from the beginning because I think everybody needs to see this here from the beginning.
Paradoxical threat.
How do we get the 25th Amendment, his ass?
The problem is to get the 25th Amendment, it's harder than impeachment.
You have to get two thirds of the House and two thirds of the Senate.
So what do we do?
Tackle Trump and let him pretend he's president and publicly report that he's going through a health issue and Vance take over.
It literally needs to be something like that.
It's that bad.
I've known you in a long time.
You've never called for an internal coup before.
Ever, ever, ever.
But that's how dangerous this is.
That's how risky it is for the whole country.
Yeah, if that was the Democrats, I'd stop poking Trump and messing with him.
That only makes a lot of applause here.
Robert, may I ask what the hell you were thinking, sir?
So that was after President Trump put out his genocidal threat to eliminate the entire civilization of Iran, which in order to do that, you would need to mass murder every last one of them.
And that had followed his promised intentions to take out all the power plants, all the electricity, all the bridges, all the water desalination plants of Iran.
And so, if he was going to actually do something like that, then what, in fact, this is what Alex said was all if.
It's like if he's serious about this, and Mark Levin was out there talking about, hey, it took nuclear bombs to get rid of Japan, so you probably got to do the same thing.
So, that's where talk was of nuclear weapon use.
And said, if he's actually serious about that, then he needs to be removed, at least for some period of time.
As he said, a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.
And we'll get into the debate that Good Logic, Joe Neerman, and others had on this argument.
But Alex and I's point was if he really means this, if this is his actual intention, a genocidal intent to mass murder all the people of Iran, then not only is that an incredible war crime, but it would be a disaster for the world.
Iran would have retaliated and taken out all the water desalination and power plants and oil and energy throughout the entire Gulf.
You know, a third of the world's oil and gas would be gone for five to 10 to 20 years.
This would be a third of the world's fertilizer would be gone.
A third of the world's helium, that's critical for making chips, would be gone.
If he was serious, that was the X factor.
But what we were laying out was if he was serious, then he needs to be removed.
People around him will know is he really serious or is this just hot air?
But if he was serious, he absolutely needed to be removed from making that decision because that would have been devastating for the entire world, independent of what you think about his genocidal intent that comes with that statement.
I will steal, man, for those who are not here.
People, the argument was when he said civilization, he meant government, Robert, and you're not supposed to take his words literally.
Ironically enough, At a moment when everyone was taking your words literally, when I've known you a long time and you've frequently used it's a metaphor that I wouldn't use, but you say when dealing with Trump, you have to, you know, well, I can't imitate your voice like I can, Alex, but you always say like he's got to be smacked in the face, you got to get up there, not say yes, not be uh passive, you got to get in his face.
And I always know that you mean it, um, metaphorically.
And here, a you didn't use the word coup, but you know, it's you and Alex Jones bantering about how to 25th the president, and you specifically said you.
It's harder to 25th Amendment.
All these people that are talking about that, even if you support that, there's plenty of people who don't support any of that and are still fully with the president.
But even if you thought that that was the remedy, it's not a practical remedy.
I see all these people talking about it.
You have to get a majority of the cabinet.
You have to get two thirds of the House of Representatives.
You have to get two thirds of the Senate.
You have to meet the evidentiary standard that he's incompetent and incapable of executing his duties as president.
Whereas with impeachment, you don't need any cabinet member to support it.
You only need a majority of the House.
The House has to only find probable cause, not his guilt.
And then you only need two thirds of the Senate.
So people that keep talking about, I get where they're coming from colloquially.
They think Trump has lost it.
So I get why they think that's the appropriate one.
But it's not, anybody talking about the 25th is wasting their time.
If you think that Trump is a risk or a danger, from a legal perspective, the only constitutional remedy is impeachment.
The only practical constitutional remedies impeached.
The 25th really is.
The 25th is really intended for when the president is truly not able to speak, not able to make decisions, things of that nature, because he, under the 25th Amendment, is allowed to contest it.
And that removes its efficacy very quickly.
And then the question is whether, now, if Trump was actually serious, then the, and I was obviously, do I expect JD Vance to, you know, have executed to tackle him?
You got to get low.
You got to get low.
He was trained, you know, JD was trained in this high school.
So, you got to get low.
You boom, you come in, hit through the midsection, carry them all the way down.
Obviously, that's an exaggeration.
The point is that Vance and others needed to, and Vance did step up, and he got the ceasefire by his direct negotiations with Pakistan, through Pakistan with Iran.
And so, to his credit, he stepped up because I know a lot of people, we'll get into the legal debate on the war crimes issue in a second.
A lot of people assume that the president didn't mean that at all, didn't intend.
That he was going to actually eliminate all, and Steven Crowder's defense was the same.
The it was, oh no, actually, let me stop.
Just even Steven Crowder's defense, and I did watch it with Piers Morgan, even his defense was he shouldn't have tweeted it.
I mean, that was even his defense from Steven Crowder.
And that's my point is like, if people have to interpret whether or not it was actually genocidal or not, like, and you people say it was not genocide, but if this was not meant to be taken literally, the fact that people have to actually have that discussion publicly is not a good thing.
And people saying, well, it's good for negotiations because he's a loose cannon, no, it's not.
Period.
So I never took it literally.
I thought it was an ill advised tweet, but even Steven Crowder, I'm not trying to throw Crowder under the bus in his absence, even his defense was yeah, it was a bad tweet.
I probably should have done it, but he wasn't going to do it.
And a good example is Good Logic, similarly.
So Good Logic laid out his defense and his entirety.
He agreed with me that if Trump meant this, intended this, that he intended to take out all the power plants, that he intended to take out all the bridges, that he intended to destroy the civilization, that that's what he actually intended.
If his words are to be interpreted either literally or seriously, Either way, he admitted that would be a war crime of extraordinary proportion.
My cousin was up for the Amos Miller birthday event, and he said, Barnes, you don't understand.
BB Netanyahu or Belza BB or BB Nutanyahu, depending on the various nicknames that are coming up, people are coming up for him.
He's not against genocide, he's against the wrong people getting genocided.
He's explaining that provision.
But so, if you, so what in his ex post, Joe Neerman, good logic, is a very different interpretation of the war than I do, of course.
But his point was not that this wasn't a war crime.
His point was he did not take Trump either seriously or literally on this post.
That, in his view, and this was the most common defense, Steven Crowder made this defense, many others in the Trump camp that were honest.
Now, you can read ex posts that are disturbing.
You're starting to see Paramount Tactical is saying this kind of stuff.
Other people are saying we're back to like post 9 11 stuff, saying everybody who's Islamic should die.
We're seeing very disturbing.
Stuff from the margins, not good logic.
No, I know, I know for sure.
But one of the things and one of the, you know, psyop theories that some people have been floating is this is an attempt to shift the Overton window to what would otherwise be acceptable.
People are going to say, well, it's not nuking an entire country.
So therefore, whatever else we do is a step better.
And therefore, it's like sensitizing people to what would otherwise have been, you know, conceptually impossible or untenable, unacceptable beforehand.
Sorry.
So yeah, go on.
Yeah.
So there's no question any of that would be a war crime.
So they reinterpreted what Trump was saying to mean.
Was that he would only target the, this is called the dual use doctrine that the United States follows.
Now, some people were comparing this to World War II.
They don't understand.
We ourselves in our own military academies say that what happened in the firebombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo by Curtis bombs away LeMay, as he was called, that those were war crimes and that those are war crimes.
LeMay himself said they were war crimes.
So people using that say, oh no, look at these other war crimes that have been done in the past.
So that must make this okay.
That's not a good argument.
Instead, the argument is a dual use argument.
And the argument is that Trump would, in fact, limit the use of the military weaponry to target only those targets that have military utility, hence the word dual use.
Now, the problem there is even under our own doctrine, but also various conventions and treaties that we have signed, including the Hague Convention, certain Hague Conventions, and certain Geneva Conventions, because there are many versions of many different conventions first, second, third, fourth, so on and so forth.
But those have also been incorporated.
In United States federal law under the War Crimes Act.
And what those require is proportionality and necessity.
So, the mere fact that something can be used militarily does not make it a legally legitimate target under U.S. law, as well as international customs and norms to which we are party to as a treaty signatory, which makes it the binding law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.
So, necessity is is it militarily necessary that we hit that particular power plant or bridge or road or what have you?
Or a factory, for example.
And then, secondly, is it proportional?
Is the harm to civilians sufficiently low and the harm to the military utility sufficiently great to justify and warrant it?
Now, I could tell you from people that have reason to believe, well, I don't say too much, but let's just say the president did not mean dual use.
He meant taking out all the power plants, all the bridges.
All the water desalination plants.
Classified Press Conference Oaths00:13:44
That's what he meant.
It's disturbing where his mind is at.
It's declining.
I know people don't want to hear this.
They don't want to hear that he's losing his filter, that he's the sign of whether it's early onset dementia or something else, that the filter that used to be there, and I get people say Trump is unfiltered.
Not like this.
Go find the tweet where he said, I want to destroy somebody's entire civilization.
Go find the tweet where he said, I want to destroy all the power plants and bridges and I'm going to make it a holiday.
Right?
These things, you know, he might have had them in the back of his brain, but they would not like, he wouldn't post them, least of all, think them.
That's where he's at.
And a lot of people in the Trump world are in denial about what is the people in the White House know all about it.
And the people should have paid a little more attention to Melania Trump coming out this week, doing an unannounced press conference and state, or not press conference, a public statement, video recorded public statement with the press president.
She completely blindsided the entire White House who didn't know what was coming.
It may ask you that, but how do you know that some people would say?
And I, it was my theory as well.
There's no way that they didn't know that she had scheduled that.
They've got a schedule, they didn't know the topic, they didn't, they thought the topic or subject was one of the projects she's working on, um, which involves these various kids' projects connected with it, you know, like Facebook on those down that board.
But that's what they thought it was connected to.
They did not know it was connected to Epstein at all.
And this is you can, people can find public, this has now been publicly sourced, so I'm not disclosing anything out of school.
The and what she did is one, she said she had nothing to do with the Epstein file and all the rest with Epstein.
She's like, I knew him socially.
That's it.
I had no relationship with him.
That's all garbage in terms of any personal relationship or anything like that.
Met Trump by accident.
But the second part they should have paid attention to.
She said, I demand Congress bring in all the victims and publicly testify and name and shame everybody to the whole world.
Now, let me say that's a direct.
That says who are some of the names they're going to name?
Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce, is one of the people that's going to be named.
So that was a shot across the bow to Trump himself.
And people should ask, well, why did she do that?
It suggests not only a complete disagreement with the president on the Epstein file handling, but more significantly, her level of being concerned about his decision making approach.
That if anybody's going to see, he's losing his temper with E. He's always had a quick fuse, but now he's losing his temper at things that make no sense.
The filter is completely gone.
First thing that comes into his head, he says, he forgets things from day to day.
Folks, just look at the post attacking Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson.
In the beginning of the post, he says, I have 100% CNN approval from CNN's own polling.
Two sentences later, he says, CNN is complete fake news.
I mean, which is it?
This is what I mean by his brain is not all there.
And nobody wants to believe that.
It's going to be, you know, it's going to come out maybe 5, 10, 20 years from now.
Reagan, towards the very end, started having early onset Alzheimer's.
Woodrow Wilson was non functional the last six months of his term.
His wife was running the White House.
So some version of this has happened.
Joe Biden, we just witnessed it for three years.
But right now, a lot of Trump supporters sound like Democrats in 2023.
Oh, no, Joe Biden's great.
He couldn't be any sharper.
He's sharp as attack.
And, you know, folks, now a lot of Trump supporters are in that same place.
Same space.
And that's why Vance is trying to step up and avoid these calamitous decisions that the president is making that are just dangerous for the country, dangerous for the world.
And that's why Alex Jones was hearing this from a whole bunch of people connected to the White House.
And he was hearing it for two weeks and he didn't want to believe it.
And then when he saw Trump post those kind of things and realized if he's serious about this, this is incredibly dangerous to the whole world.
That's why he came out public and he knew he had to do it aggressively.
To give people some political cover in the White House, which Vance used to be able to get a ceasefire so that Trump didn't push his finger on the wrong button at 8 o'clock this last Monday night.
So, people don't know what the backstory is, but assume that a guy who has given up and sacrificed for his support of Trump as much as Alex Jones has, that he's not going to do this for any reason other than it's his sincere belief.
You may think his sincere belief, like my disagreement with good logic, is did Trump mean it?
Did Trump intend it?
Would Trump have done it?
We have an empirical disagreement.
It doesn't go back to the initial, should he have posted it, period.
And I want to just bring this up.
This is in our community.
We have diverging thought in our community.
John Weirdall says, He wasn't serious.
Barnes knows he wasn't serious.
It doesn't matter if he wasn't serious.
And it doesn't matter if Barnes, in his heart of hearts, believed that he wasn't serious.
He said something which, if he were serious, even Jan is acknowledging would have been a problem.
That's the problem.
Right.
That's part of it.
And I did believe he was serious, to be clear.
I understand people disagree with me, but I have certain, I have very good reasons to believe that.
And I know that the very, very good reasons from people and people that have been on the Bourbons with Viva Barnes Law would not be surprised because I was long before the Iran war came about, I was talking about this.
In January, after I was up at the White House up in DC and heard from a wide range of people that the early steps were here, where he was starting to lose it.
He was starting to slip mentally and emotionally.
I mean, you see him starting to go on about how we're going to have a new conquest and the kind of things that maybe you think in the back of your mind, but you don't overtly and openly say.
But yet, and for people that disagree with me, I understand that's fine to disagree.
But do understand.
And people are going to great lengths to convince themselves.
Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Theo Vaughn, Tim Dillon, Richard Barris, Robert Barnes, and other individuals.
Dave Smith, Duncan Trussell, I mean.
Ron Paul, Thomas Massey, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
They've just all lost their mind at the same time.
They've all lost their mind.
They're all crazy.
They're all corrupt.
Only Trump has no corruption.
Only Trump is acting with complete sanity.
Ask yourself if that sounds like.
Good logic or sounds like cult logic?
Sounds like, oh, great leader can do no wrong.
I mean, that's that the latter is what it sounds to people who sound exactly like the Democrats defending Joe Biden in 2023 and they don't even realize.
I want to read the rest of Jan's Weird All's con Barnes and Joe spurged out.
Now they pretend they are shocked when Trump finally responded with some general insults.
Nobody's shocked about anything.
Your actions are so very feminine, Barnes.
Okay, now I'm realizing this might not be in good faith, but whatever.
You lash out and then grasp and cry when someone strikes you back.
Zero people are crying.
I mean, I thought it was funny.
That everyone decided to take that statement so literally that you were calling for a coup of the president to tackle him in the White House.
A physical assault.
A physical assault.
David.
The president definitely didn't mean it when he said he wanted to destroy an entire civilization.
The president definitely didn't mean it when he said he wanted to bomb every single bridge and every single power plant.
People need to think through these things.
The other thing is the madman strategy, two problems with it.
Historically, it actually doesn't work.
You could apply game theory to this, but Nixon thought it would work.
He never did.
Nixon ended up giving away Vietnam on the same terms that were present in 1968.
His idea that he could just bomb them into oblivion, just like Truman's idea that we could bomb North Korea into oblivion, never worked.
Firebombing Dresden didn't cause Germany to collapse, to fold.
Firebombing Tokyo didn't cause Japan to fold.
Even dropping nuclear bombs didn't cause Japan to fold.
It was when the Soviet Union entered Manchuria and they realized they had no more allies left and that all the adversaries were coming for them that they actually capitulated.
So there's that problem just historically.
Secondly, there's just an inherent flaw.
If you're going to say the president wants the world to believe he's so crazy, he'll do something insane to get them to capitulate.
And you can't also say nobody logical would believe he's serious about doing it.
Because if nobody logical would believe he would ever do it, it doesn't work as a threat.
It actually undermines his credibility because they say, oh, he's just a classic BSer.
So this is the problem, like the inherent logical contradiction of the various defenses being made for the president are not even being addressed.
And so the common reaction hasn't been here's why your empirical assumption is wrong, Barnes.
Here or Alex or Tucker or Megan Kelly or anyone else, or Jesse Kelly or Richard Barris or anyone else.
It's been you're now crazy.
You're always a Democrat.
You must be corrupt.
You must be looking for.
You don't need it to act blue, Robert.
Yeah, exactly.
False, by the way.
Again, the people falsely stole my identity to do that.
It was one of my complaints.
It'd be nice if Harmony Dillon ever got around to that referral that people like me and James O'Keefe gave her on a spoon.
To easily do.
But the, so that's the issue.
Now, the, so we'll see what the, you know, we had negotiations.
It looks like the president went back to his pre war position, told Vance to not budge at all.
And what we agreed to on Monday, we walked back by Sunday.
So unfortunately, it looks like we will get no peace negotiation with Iran.
We will, and the ceasefire may be over very soon.
The, so that gets us to the next set.
Now, I don't.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Two more questions.
First, I just want to show something here.
It's limited.
I don't think Rumble has a poll capacity yet.
What's just amazing is how divided even our own audience is on this.
And I appreciate there's some new faces in the crowd because we got a lot of freaking trolls, people who just created their accounts.
Pretend to follow for years.
I can verify if you have ever commented on my channel in 14 years.
So I don't go out of my.
But so bottom line, pretty evenly split.
When it came to Melania's press conference, there's two things here.
I don't hate you for it.
I'm not as convinced about you, you know, about certain things about Trump's mental.
You know, wherewithal, but I don't have whatever sources you have.
And so I go by my own better or worse judgment.
When it came to Melania, I would have thought there's no way she's giving a press conference or a video recorded statement and nobody knows what it's about.
So I sort of assumed she wouldn't do something that would, you know, maybe undermine Trump or the position he took on Epstein.
But it, you know, I don't know how you make that argument.
People are arguing that what she did actually didn't affirm or ratify the legitimacy of Thomas Massey's efforts.
But that she was actually setting a trap by calling for them to testify under oath before Congress.
And now Massey's backed off and the victims have backed off.
And so she was playing 3D chess to make Massey look like a fool.
I don't believe it.
But to the extent that she did offer or promote the idea that they should testify under oath before Congress and the victims haven't jumped at that opportunity, in fact, have sort of walked away from it, what do you make about that?
So, I mean, what they wanted to be done in a certain manner.
But I think the reason why she was calling for that is it would afford complete immunity.
For anything the victims say.
So, like right now, the problem is if Massey comes out and gives a list, the White House will claim he disclosed classified information because they've listed part of that list as classified.
If he says his source is not the government list, but is the victims, then the victims can be sued for his statements for defamation and libel, even though he can't be sued.
So, how do you get around that problem?
You get around that problem by having the victims testify under oath, under subpoena from Congress.
So they were compelled to testify.
And then everything they say is completely immune.
Then they are completely immune across the board.
And so that would be the effective mechanism to get it done.
And that's what she was calling for.
And she knew, Melania knew exactly where.
Remember, she knows that the president has told Marjorie Taylor Greene that his close friends are named in the Epstein files.
We know who one of them is.
Howard Lutnick is one of them.
We know there are others as well.
And what Alex Jones pointed out was this is a similar path to the one Melinda Gates took.
He started a little step here, a little step there.
It was the beginning of her breakup with Bill Gates on grounds of his connection to the Epstein files.
It should not be a surprise that Melania Trump is very unhappy with how President Trump has handled the Epstein files.
Well, if only because.
Well, if only because.
And her name has been completely wrongfully smeared, is the source when she knows she had nothing to do with why he is covering it up.
It's a little country called Israel in the Israel lobby that has a lot to do with why he's covering it up, in my opinion.
But she was tired of being dragged.
Let the trolls get triggered.
No, Rob.
Look.
Whether or not I agree, I agree that it was certain people in the orbit that they were clearly trying to protect.
What I do also wholeheartedly believe is that Melania was pissed off either with Trump or with Bondi because it was only and strictly as a result of Bondi's botched disclosure that Melania, the rumor started that Melania was introduced to Trump by Jeffrey Epstein.
So she's going to be pissed at somebody for that.
Territorial Waters and Blockades00:14:52
And Bondi was fired.
And then a week later or a week and a half later, she comes out with that press statement.
The two dots that I connect, but let people call you what names they will.
Yeah, that's what I want to do.
So, the other legal issue so, one was, was it a war crime?
Was it not what Trump said or did?
And that all comes down to most of the legal consensus.
Did Trump mean it as he said it?
Was he either serious or literal in what he said?
The second one is what's happening currently, both with Iran closing, well, effectively closing the Straits of Hormuz, and now the president's reaction is he is going to blockade.
He's going to blockade everything coming out of the Straits of Hormuz that's connected to the Iranian ports.
So, what is the legality of this?
And I got into a debate, a brief debate with Jack Pasobic on this.
So, the United Nations Law of the Seas, the Convention on the Law of the Seas, so UNCLOS is the acronym, passed in the 1990s, has a much more expansive right of navigation, which includes a right of transit to when you are even in another country's territorial waters when you need to get a shipment of goods between two other nations.
Before that, the right of transit wasn't a commonly recognized international right.
Instead, the only rights were rights of navigation or right of innocent passage.
Innocent passage, meaning that if I'm in, now, right of navigation if the waters are truly international, but right of innocent passage if you're going through some territorial waters.
And what it is, people don't know, a certain amount of seas and even ocean outside of your physical barrier is considered part of your country.
This gets into big debates usually around oil development, things like this, is when you mostly see this debate pop up.
Historically, going way back, It was a common, you know, the Straits of Hormuz, long before Iran got the idea to weaponize it, the Brits weaponized it.
Before them, the Portuguese weaponized it.
You can find Portuguese forts on the coast of Oman dating to the 1500s.
The Omanis, Oman itself, their predecessors were great seafarers, learned to weaponize that trade.
So that goes all the way back.
But in the current form over the last century, predating the The law of the seas convention of the United Nations is you have a right of innocent passage, which means if your passage doesn't threaten for any reason the security or order of the nation whose territory you're going through, whose territorial waters you're going through, then you can go through them.
Iran has taken the position that innocent passage doesn't exist for anybody that is transiting goods through their territorial waters that is opposed to them in this war or that has military bases in their country of the people that are, of the country that's bombing them.
So, the now that now international waters are different, rule.
So, the so, but let's just take a look at the Iran provision.
Jack Posobic's position was the U.S. Navy could go in and secure that as international waters.
And I pointed out, no, actually, where the Straits of Hormuz are territorial waters, not international waters.
The he responded, he goes, but there's a right of international transit.
And I was like, that right is true if Iran was a signatory, a bound signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas.
Iran is not.
The United States is not.
Both countries signed it, but they didn't ratify it under their local laws.
So that means neither the United States nor Iran is legally bound by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas.
Now, there's an argument that the principles that are articulated and enunciated therein are accepted as international legal norms.
You can make that argument, but there's no binding effect of them.
And the problem with that argument is these countries didn't ratify it.
It's also not the best argument for the United States at the moment.
Because I found odd the idea that, okay, so a country can break a blockade, if you will, by entering another country's territorial waters.
Okay, so does that mean Russia and China can freely do it when we were doing it to Venezuela?
Can they do it when we were doing it to Cuba?
Isn't Jack Posobic implicitly acknowledging President Trump violated international law in Cuba and Venezuela?
And I'm not seeing an acknowledgement of that.
I see people getting on their high horse ready to critique Iran over a misunderstanding of international law.
But even if they were right, they're condemning the United States and Donald Trump more than they're condemning anybody.
Who do you think has been seizing ships on the high seas?
The United States.
Who do you think has been blowing up ships in other people's territorial waters?
The United States.
Who is now going to try to blockade the Straits of Hormuz?
The United States.
So, figure out a doctrine that says it's legal for us to do it, but illegal for everybody else to do it, because I haven't seen the consistency there.
Now we get to the president's suggestion of a blockade and the law of it.
There's the geopolitics of it, which is an entirely separate question.
There's a lot of people in the geopolitical world who don't think that's a solution to the Iran conflict, U.S. Iran conflict, because all it would do is further block the Straits of Hormuz.
So, how do you open the Straits of Hormuz by further blocking them?
Iran has other methods of getting food and essential goods in and out of the country because of the long borders they share, not far from Russia and China.
They're two key allies.
And then there are practical issues.
Much of that oil and gas that's coming out of Iranian ports is going to India, is going to Japan, is going to South Korea.
These are our allies.
Years ago, a great book called Going to Tehran.
I recommend it.
You could also read all the Shah's men and the.
How did you describe it?
Entanglements by Dr. Parsi, that we had on as well, which is Treacherous Alliance.
Those three books are probably the best on U.S. Iranian relations.
But one of the things in going to Tehran is they said high ranking diplomats in Asia, including Japan, said the moment the United States is no longer the guarantor of the seas for the shipment of oil and gas from the Middle East is the minute you will see Asia drop the United States as an essential ally.
And what have we seen over the last couple of weeks?
South Korea come out and denounce Israel.
Japan have an internal conflict with their new political party about whether they should have pushed back against Trump or not as to the Iran war.
Japan and South Korea directly negotiating with Iran for products to come from them.
India, the same.
So, are we going to stop things from getting to India, to South Korea, to Japan?
Now, and what about China?
Are we really going to order ships that might be Chinese flagged ships?
Now, do we really want to get into a direct conflict with China right now on the high seas?
So, there's a lot of doubts about the geopolitical wisdom of this, but putting that aside, legally a blockade is a declaration of war, has long been considered a declaration of war.
What does that mean under our US Constitution?
It means the president needs to go to Congress and get its authority.
It appears he's not going to do so.
What does that make it?
That makes the blockade an unconstitutional action under our Constitution, which also makes it a high crime and misdemeanor.
An impeachable act under our Constitution.
I'm not going to change my views of the Constitution because it's Trump that's violating it.
But hold on and then flesh this out because one of the arguments you hear a lot of people make is it's not a war for those saying it's a war because it hasn't been declared a war by Congress and therefore anything and everything can happen and it won't be a war unless it gets that wonderful seal of war from Congress.
But then, flip side, and people, I'm not in a position to confirm or contradict what you're saying, you would not be able to initiate a blockade unless you were already in.
A formal declaration of war, which has not yet happened by Congress.
And so at this point, people who are saying it's not a war, but I support a blockade, are going to have to decide which way they're sucking or blowing.
Yeah.
And so, under international law, you're only allowed to, and this includes the Geneva and the Hague conventions that we are signatories to, you can only do a blockade for, and it goes back to for everything, think about it like an individual in a case of self defense.
Most of the legal principles that govern what a nation can do are predicated and premised on the same.
So, is it in two of those principles that are very common in any self defense case are necessity and proportionality?
So ask yourself, is this action necessary?
Is this action proportional?
Even going past the constitutional issues.
And so, what the president would need to establish is that, and this is why I mean, I think it's in his own best interest to go to Congress and make the argument.
Now, I don't think you would get congressional approval, but putting that aside, at least go make the argument because then you're making the argument to the American people.
How is it necessary and proportional for us to blockade the Straits of Hormuz?
Lay out what you think the self defense argument is for the United States.
Explain how it's proportional, explain the nexus between it.
You know, the reason why our founders never wanted one man to make decisions about kinetic conflict that could end the world is precisely this that it's not just one guy who feels a certain way, thinks a certain way.
You think he has access to certain information, he can share that with Congress.
It's authorized under the law.
If that's the case, then it's because we trusted, our founders trusted more, having a bunch of people have to approve something.
Have to have 268, 69 people approve something rather than just one guy to approve it.
Go through the deliberative process.
Have people that are going to be up for election in six months be able to effectively defend and justify their decision.
So I have never approved of any president, liberal, Republican, conservative, Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter, ignoring our constitutional constraint on the declaration of war.
And a blockade is a declaration of war under almost every legal standard that's out there.
Now, the question is this I mean, I'm trying to think of what the practical benefit of the blockade was.
And I'm not picking on Misfit Patriot for any particular reason, but one of the arguments was that we don't need the Straits of Hormuz because we're, you know, at some point in the near to distant future, going to become energy independent.
Why would we do a blockade?
Why would America do a blockade if the closing of the Straits of Hormuz doesn't impact America?
We definitely don't need the Straits of Hormuz, but you effing idiots better open it now or I'm going to nuke you all.
I mean, the variation.
Trump's been all over the place on this.
The reason is because Trump is not being accurate about that.
We don't need it for pure supply the way some countries do, like Asia does and Europe does.
But we live in a world of global markets.
We do not live in a world in domestic markets.
What does that mean?
It means something like oil and gas is priced globally.
So go to your local gas station and see if we don't need the Straits of Hormuz for the price of gas or diesel.
See what your price of gas is.
See what your price of diesel is.
And ask yourself when these people tell you it will have no impact.
You know, Dave Rubin will have no impact on gas and oil in America.
Well, how's that price working out at the gas pump?
Now, so that's what issue one is it's a global marketplace.
Issue two, we still are a net importer of certain kinds of oil and gas.
We don't produce every kind of oil and gas.
Oil and gas doesn't come in one form.
This is where people thought Venezuela could replace certain things.
Aside from the fact that Venezuela is a decade away from getting back to meaningful production, Venezuela produces this sludge like kind of stuff.
It's not the same thing as everything else.
You've got sour crude and sweet crude and light crude and heavy crude and all the rest.
So it's not all the same.
Then you have things like natural gas that, for certain economic purposes, are much more efficient to get from the Middle East, say, than to get all the way from the United States.
Then you have the supply chain issues.
So, this gas and oil is needed to provide energy for companies that produce goods that go into the whole supply chain that come back to the United States.
Then it goes to things like plastics, like petrochemicals, like pharmaceuticals, like helium, like fertilizers.
About a third of this comes out of the Gulf.
So, for example, one concern is that the president does do this blockade on the Straits of Hormuz, that the Houthis will now blockade the Red Sea.
And we'll blockade that portion out.
Well, that's another 10% of oil and gas offline.
That's another portion of fertilizer and helium.
Helium is critical for things like semiconductor chips.
You had, I mean, if you want to see the geopolitical fallout, ask yourself why the very anti China Taiwanese opposition leader welcomed Xi, the premier of China, to Taiwan for a nice photo shot this past weekend.
That, you know, people are wanting to put their head real deep in the sand.
And I know it's comfortable sometimes down there to live in a delusional world, but usually it's a form of dealing with tragedy is denial.
And so I get it, but it's not a solution.
So those are some of the practical issues closing the Straits of Hormuz, and then geopolitically, what they said in the book, Going to Tehran, by two longtime State Department people who left the Bush administration because they disagreed with the Iraq war.
Go and read some of their predictions.
They predict almost a decade ago everything that we're seeing right now.
But one of the keys was our control of the seas.
Our control of oil and gas from the Middle East and our ability to guarantee that through our big navy was essential to a lot of our relations in Asia and Africa.
What happens if Africa starts experiencing a famine or large parts of Southeast Asia start experiencing a famine from lack of fertilizer?
Who do you think they're going to blame?
Think they're going to blame Iran?
Or think they're going to blame the United States of America?
So that's the other issue the geopolitical fallout, which ultimately will have some degree of economic fallout.
Then you have all these Arab Gulf countries that are massive investors in AI, massive purchasers of our U.S. treasuries, use of the dollar in what is locally called the petrodollar that holds up the entire value of the dollar globally.
You start aggregate that and you realize why Trump is misleading people when he says, oh, we don't need the Straits of Hormuz.
Geopolitical Famine Fallout00:06:05
It's irrelevant.
It's, to be frank, a slot for the Boomer Con suckers.
Of which there are many and multiple out there.
And I've been very, very harsh on certain people out there.
The reason for that.
Is trying to get a warning sign so that people pay attention.
But also, if you're going to go after someone, if you're going to accuse Joe Kent of being a fraud, if you're going to go after Tucker Carlson and then you go after my longstanding friend Alex Jones, I'm going to come for you, whether you're Salty Cracker, whether you're the quartering, whether you're Mark Robert, doesn't matter who you are.
That comes with the territory.
You decide, now you can disagree with Alex, but if you start calling him a fraud and a crook and he's taking money secretly and all that, when I know how much suffering he has been through, Because he defended Donald Trump, because he championed Donald Trump, then, bro, I'm coming for you.
And that's just going to be the way that it is.
And I know it'll upset some people, make some people unhappy, but I'm loyal to people like Alex Jones because he's one of the greatest Americans that's ever lived.
And some of us are not walking away from him because we got a half demented president in the White House who wants to take pot shots at his own base.
Robert, let me bring up something here, which is a funny joke on topic.
Brigitte Macron is so much hotter than Candace Owens.
It's not even close.
That is a reference.
Is that not a bigger red flag that he's losing his mind than anything else?
I mean, that is the ultimate truth.
No, I'll tell you, the thing substantively that really irritated me about the post was also relishing in Alex Jones being bankrupt from the very same lawfare that, you know, hey, has Trump paid the 500 million disgorgement?
I mean, no, because they got.
That injustice rectified?
Has he paid Eugene Carroll because of that?
That's what sort of irritated me, which was lending credence to the very tools of the oppressor.
But set aside, we've done enough on this, and I don't want to bore people too much.
Robert, let me get a bunch of.
We got the.
Is a new amnesty bill being snuck through the House?
Maybe that's the answer, yes.
Can Trump at least build the security under the ballroom?
We got the war on the Amish that keeps accelerating.
I'm up here in Amish country.
We've got Israel, pro Israel censorship, and those issues reaching the royal courts of England, no less.
We've got the case that we've been following that had a great Fifth Circuit result the right to distill at home.
But it means a lot more than that.
It's about limiting constitutional abuse of its taxation power and its necessary and proper clause.
We've got Google up to more shenanigans, including venue abuse and class action settlements.
We've got a Supreme Court petition that filed on behalf of 1776 Law Center.
By me on the way in which people that were discriminated against in the vaccine mandate context are getting screwed over by our rogue courts.
We've got when does an interview by police who raid your house not really count as a custodial interview, according to the second circus of appeals?
When is a copyright violation not really a copyright violation?
And it has major impact for people that may want to organize legal documents across the country.
Kentucky court, Supreme Court decides.
Hey, Kentucky legislature, you can't impeach our judges.
How dare you?
Creating its own impeachment crisis.
Are those Supreme Court judges next?
The FISA.
That's right.
They're trying to sneak in not only amnesty, but a full extension of the spying on you FISA laws that the president himself said he would not do.
And last but not least, a question from our board members Mighty Pay.
The Massachusetts is trying to sneak in biometrics laws under the guise they're trying to protect your kids as social media users.
when they want to make it part of the Palantir surveillance state.
We're going to get to all of this, Robert.
Let me read through these real quick.
Like, if legal morons are correct about constitutional citizenship being rooted in juice solely, then why did SCOTUS opine the United States lacks the power or authority to impose citizenship on anyone?
Elk v. Dominant one says, King of Biltong.
I hope the Viva Fry did not sit on Anton's Firm and Juicy Meat from Biltong.
He should put Anton's Firm and Juicy Meat only into his mouth for pleasure.
King of Biltong says, craving a snack that's bold, authentic, packed with protein.
Biltong boasts over 50% protein, packed with B vitamins, creatine, iron, zinc, and more.
Biltongusa.com.
Use code Barnes for 10% off.
Biltong is South African beef jerky.
It's like prosciutto made out of beef.
It's flipping delicious.
He's based in Texas.
He's an amazing man.
Support the work that he does.
Biltongusa.com.
Sweaty Zeus.
The victims ain't going to testify because most of them, like Haley Robson, are indicted co conspirators.
Randy Edwards says, Throughout my life, I have been reminded of the patience of Job.
When up against the masses, my faith always proved true.
When everyone is in agreement, I know to question the masses.
Is it fair to say that Robert agrees?
With more of Nick Fuentes' positions on Israel and its influence compared to last year.
We're not starting that fight.
Robert has his own ideas.
We don't need to compare to people who you know are controversial so that people can then say, oh, Nick Fuentes and I drink coffee.
I don't think coffee is a sign of anything.
You can have good ideas, bad ideas, and not be tied to a person.
Randy Edwards says, come on now.
International law is just like the Pirates' Code, it is more a guideline than an actual law.
U.S. authority derives from being the last one standing after two world wars.
Back to back world war chants.
But the, by the way, but the international law that I'm referencing here.
Is the law that's U.S. law.
It's codified domestic.
Exactly.
U.S. Constitution, it's either treaties we've signed.
So the Constitution makes that part of the supreme law of our land, federal law.
But once we have signed those treaties or conventions, or statutes that we have passed that often incorporate or institute or enforce other international legal standards, but they become U.S. law by that mechanism and method.
So that's what I was referencing in that regard.
Cultivated Mind says, Viva, thank you for interviewing Steve Baker.
Supporting 1776 Law Center00:03:06
It's sad to watch.
Alt media bend to the will of the mainstream.
The shit I've been taking for that from Shipwrecks.
What's his new channel?
Oh, I'll share that up in a second.
I'm going to have to go.
It's on his X profile.
If I only knew the prize cases, 1863, Supreme Court ruled that President Lincoln's naval blockade at Confederate ports without a congressional declaration was constitutional, Robert?
Yeah, because that's within the United States.
There we go.
So remember, I mean, so that consequently, it's not a declaration of war, it's a suppression of an insurrection.
Please send me your new address, Barnes.
I hate sending packages to the wrong people.
Yeah, most people are not.
Just go to the one that's at 1776 Law Center.
That is a post office box.
And that comes, that gets picked up and brought to me.
Okay, because it needs to be done within the same day because you've got a refrigerator when you get it.
All right, now, before we get into anything, hold on.
We're going to get to all of them on our Viva Barnes Law.
Robert, it was your freaking birthday yesterday and I forgot to send you the presents.
No problem.
Okay, you did.
We got a cool one.
Aaron, who works in my works for us, is part of our.
Community, she went to a local chef that was a White House chef.
So she got this really cool dining at the White House, has like recipes and everything in it of meals that he served at the White House.
And then my Uncle Eddie found my grandfather's watch and all his actual watch.
And I love pocket watches.
So this was awesome.
So there was a bunch of other great gifts people brought.
Thanks to everybody who came up for the Amos Miller 1776 Law Center event.
They got to have that great raw milk.
Water Buffalo Rob Mill.
I mean, all just fantastic.
The uh, his I mean, his whole family was there, a whole bunch of other Amish were there helping to get all the food together.
Yeah, people got to take a tour of the farm.
They got to go on this big, uh, like green wood I don't know what it was, but they call it, Hey, this is Amish Uber, and it's a couple of horses up front.
You hop on the wagon, and he took people around to the local schoolhouse and where he grew up and got to take a tour of the farm.
People were out with the animals, uh, had you know, a bunch of fun conversations with everybody.
So, thanks to everybody who made it down to support 1776 Law Center and this week.
We will be posting up the tickets for the 1776 Law Center Conference, the 250th anniversary of America Conference, the Quarter Century America, August 1st, August 2nd, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
All the tickets will be available at 1776lawcenter.com.
We got Alexander McCorris, Daniel Davis, Chase Hughes, Greg Hartley, Scott Rouse, Richard Barris, the who else?
Biva Fry, State Representative Maha Representative.
We got tons of great speakers coming in.
The uh, so come on down August 1st, August 2nd.
Uh, you'll be able to get tickets starting tomorrow at 1776lawcenter.com that supports all this work we do for the Amish and other good cases.
Yeah, and that one hell or high water, I'm getting to it, Robert.
I don't often feel like an asshole.
I when I forget the birthdays of people who are important to me, I feel like an asshole.
Light Indictment Allegations00:09:49
I apologize.
I have your gift, I had your gift for months because I planned ahead to get you that gift.
Uh, so that was Chris Craft for the Barnes birthday jar.
Uh, Dapper Day says Trump is blocking the streets of our moves.
What happens when Russia, China, India, Pat?
We got we covered this one.
Try to enter and leave the straight.
Serena Repens says, grateful for this community, thanking all of those who are here, especially Robert Barnes and Viva Fry.
Thank you, Serena, Serenoa Repens.
Schnookums, with respect to your Vogue ad agency recording, oh, yeah, VAC.
Obviously, there are things they are saying and things they're doing.
Another, any bets?
Then rather than trying to live up to the complaints filed with the license agency, it's just a delay, but rather they are hoping the number of filters will be smaller because now unplanned and unfortunate delay may have simply died.
No, there's no question about that.
They died in the interim.
That's what they want.
Something to happen to Kayla.
Jonathan G94, Robert, when do we start winning as a movement again?
Getting there.
This weekend was depressing.
When does the turnaround happen?
Other things were positive, like everybody that was at the, I mean, you know, JD trying to get what he did get done, but like just all those good people trying to do good work, hanging out together at the beautiful Amos Miller Amish Farm here in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
So that you got it when stuck in the darkness, always look for the light.
How about the lose on purpose theory to disrupt and destroy the Middle East, oil American empire, and force nations to buy our?
I hope it's really 8D chess when all of our military bases are gone from the Middle East.
Hey, and we don't end up in any kind of nuclear war or global depression.
Then, whatever's intentions, perfect.
Mind by me.
I think we're going to get to the show now.
Robert, look.
Okay, let me bring one.
I'm taking, speaking of what's it called?
Oh, for goodness sakes, the Brian Cole Jr. Latest filing.
So they had the latest filings were the motion to hold the attorneys in contempt.
I don't know that we've heard any news on whether or not they were successfully held in contempt if they've had a hearing on that order to show cause.
I want to look that up.
But I've been getting into it with Shipwrecked Crew, who seems to have taken either a liking to me or a hating to me.
And the latest developments in the theory of the case, I'm going to get to the tweet in a second, is that the prosecution filed a motion, filed a pleading in which they now allege that.
When they seized hard drives in the mother's room, Brian Cole Jr.'s mother's room, it had searches from 2012 on how to make a pipe bomb, pipe bombs, manifesto templates, and a few other things.
The father's name is also Brian, and I presumably stays in the same room as the mother.
And then nothing, so I say, like, this is outlandish.
This wasn't alleged in the original indictment.
I appreciate you don't allege everything.
I don't know.
I mean, I think you would want to allege more than less in the most.
Politically relevant prosecution in modern history.
Now they're saying that Brian Cole, when he was 16 or 17, was searching online how to make a pipe bomb, does nothing for damn near seven years.
Seven years later, buys cable.
Another year or two later, buys iron wool.
And what was the other thing that he bought that was, I think it was the black powder components.
And then about a year later, however much the timeline is, places the two bombs.
Shipwreck crew is coming after it.
I don't mind if.
If it were just, you know, if I knew that there's a clear cut answer to this, Shipwreck Crew says because the prosecution has not, when I said the prosecution has not alleged and has not offered any evidence to the fact that anything was done in the seven years before, you know, since the search on a Brian Cole hard drive, which could very well be the father's who's running a bail bond industry, he says that is not something that needs to be alleged in any particular document.
I've written over 500 federal indictments.
How many are you up to?
And they don't offer evidence until they need to, oh gosh, this is when they go after the semantics.
I say ad hominem.
We're no longer talking the indictment, Robert, but his point is you simply do not understand pretrial litigation in federal cases.
This is not civil litigation where they need to convince a judge of anything.
The prosecution is entitled to a trial.
Okay, hold on, hold on.
Where was it?
Here we go.
The prosecution is entitled to a trial based on the general indictment unless there is a legal basis to dismiss.
It is no obligation or need to fill in holes to make you or anyone else happy.
The indictment needs only to state the facts sufficient to meet every element of the charged offenses.
It can have all kinds of holes.
They don't matter.
Robert, this is where debates on Twitter maybe are not the most useful because people end up talking past each other and then focusing on semantics.
There were people who were claiming that the indictment was surprisingly light given the importance of this case.
Now, true, you don't build your case until you go to trial.
There's discovery obligations.
They don't have to allege everything that they disclosed to the defense, the defendant, in the indictment.
We agree on that.
Because if they did, you would think that they would have disclosed the fact that someone might have failed to polygraph.
They wouldn't have ever disclosed that, but they somehow communicated to the defendant.
They did not allege in the indictment that the basis of his knowledge to build a pipe bomb stemmed to a surge in 2012.
But the more that they allege in subsequent pleadings, I mean, the more outlandish it makes the case look.
I'll pick your brain.
I'll still pick Shipwrecked Crew's brain.
But what's your take on how him saying I've drafted 500 federal indictments is not necessarily a feather in the cap.
It might be part of the problem that this is how they do things.
In prosecution.
But am I wrong in thinking that the more they allege, the less this case makes sense and the more holes they put in their otherwise thin initial affidavit?
Sorry, indictment.
Yeah, and he's confusing multiple things.
There's what's necessary to get a grand jury to indict, there's what obligations there are in terms of evidentiary presentation to the grand jury, there's obligations in what leads up to the grand jury, there's obligations in terms of what you give to the defense, there's bill of particulars that can require more detail in the indictment.
Their motions to dismiss that can raise independent evidentiary grounds for dismissal.
Like he seemed to think, I bring an indictment and I'm hereby entitled to a trial forever and that's the law.
No, it's not.
Shipwreck crew, quit drinking and tweeting.
People have told you that before.
So a lot of this, he pretends he's this big expert.
He's not a big expert.
Almost nobody who knows him, I know people who know him and know everything about him.
He is not well regarded in the criminal defense world, put it this way.
If he was on the list of people to hire, he'd be at the very bottom of that list.
Somebody asked, Would you rather have shipwreck crew defend you?
I mean, the dude's name is shipwreck crew online.
I'm fine.
Or a local public defender.
Choose the public defender.
He won't screw up as often as shipwreck crew.
So a lot of what he's saying is inaccurate.
There's all kinds of ways to challenge the evidentiary foundation of indictment prior to trial.
There's all kinds of obligations to disclose evidence concerning what is going to be presented at trial before the trial.
And the more they give their theory of the case, In response to these either motions for discovery or motions for dismissal, the more you're correct, they contradict themselves and raise more questions than provide answers.
For those that don't know, Mr. Cole is a young autistic black kid who the Justice Department and the FBI, by counterfeit Kash Patel, are trying to frame for the J6 pipe bomber when everybody and their brother that studied the case knows it's somebody that's on the CIA payroll.
Steve Baker is doing the Lord's work with his expose.
And thus far, it's amazing, though.
You understand the fact that I've had my theory that, you know, to the extent that Steve Baker has not yet been sued, I mean, nor Kyle Seraphim for their statements, for their reporting, it's an indication they cannot be sued.
When you understand the politics here, let's just assume that he's a Patsy, Brian Cole Jr.
The need to convict that Patsy, because if they do convict him, well, then I imagine she would sue.
And that this is going to be.
If you think he's a patsy, a battle of good versus evil, so that they can get that defamation lawsuit after a conviction, I don't think he's going to get conviction.
Doesn't establish collateral estoppel for any of her cases, number one.
And number two, it opens her up to discovery.
There's no way on God's green earth she's going to subject herself to it.
Well, that's what I said.
She's just not, her law firm is not going to follow through on their threat.
They haven't thus far, but you can understand the forces of good versus evil.
I'm not saying who did do it.
I'm just saying defamation suits coming.
For certain people, there's certain people that like to hop on our board and pretend to be someone they're not.
And they have, I guess, do they not know that emails are disclosed and things like that?
Yeah, we have the list that not anyone else does.
Just FYI, Mike Davis, the next time you want to hop on the board and pretend it's not you, but those two, expanding your libels is not going to happen, bro.
Hold up, Robert.
I did not know this.
You're telling me something new while we're live.
Is that true?
Did you trace back as someone who registered as a troll and it traced back to Mike Davis in our community?
I'm just educating everyone that we can do so.
I'll just put it that way.
So, the other people are so slow, they give themselves away.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance State00:11:07
But while we're on Black Pills, did you take a look at the new amnesty bill?
The White House with a bunch of rogue, rhino Republicans are trying to push through Congress.
Well, this is so my understanding.
I don't know what the does it overlap with?
It doesn't overlap with FISA?
Uh, what was it 307?
No, it's two.
I mean, think about it.
They got this war going on.
Everybody's distracted by the war, and so they're trying to push two bills through Congress.
One of them is a new amnesty bill mass amnesty bill for up to 17 million illegals, and the other one is a complete extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that they can spy on you without any limitation whatsoever.
So the the, the amnesty bill is uh, I think it's catching some people by surprise.
It would grant not amnesty, Robert.
It would just grant legal status to illegal aliens who are in America, paying taxes, don't have criminal records.
And what was the other condition?
But basically, they're not calling it amnesty, but it would grant legal status to some of you might not have a problem with it above and beyond the illegality of being in the country illegally, law abiding, tax paying illegal aliens.
That's the gist of it.
Yes, in fact, so it's a, they call it the Dignity Act.
It is an extension and expansion.
Of the Dream Act.
Remember Obama's Dreamers?
Oh, yeah.
But it goes much further than that.
Anybody who is in the country prior to January 2nd, 2021, can basically become a legal citizen of the United States.
All the illegals that have come in for the last 30 years, this act makes legal permanent residents of the United States.
Secondly, it extends it to kids of anybody that was in that category under their DREAM Act provision of the so called Dignity Act.
And last but not least, it includes a biometrics provision to have mass.
So their version of e verify, people often will, you know, why does Thomas Massey oppose certain aspects of e verify?
Because it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and no better evidence of it than here.
Here they're going to make them all legal and then pass e verify.
E verify for what?
There's nothing to verify anymore.
It's intended to be a surveillance state on you.
It's intended to force your biometrics into the federal system.
In the name, we're going to fight illegal immigration.
No better giveaway that they're not fighting illegal immigration than the same bill that has E verify makes them all legal.
And by the way, how are they going to prove somebody wasn't here before January 2nd, 2021?
Right?
So, all these people that came in under Biden, they're saying, don't worry, we're not approving any of them.
Well, how are you going to prove they weren't here then?
Well, let me try to answer the question.
There is no record of the border interaction.
There's going to be presumably a date, their date of first filing where they first claim asylum.
I guess that's if they have to put it in.
Only those people, only the people that made a filing after January 2nd, 2021, will be excluded from this category because most of the illegals that came in under Biden never made any filing with the federal government.
So they're going to come in and say, oh no.
And according to the Center for Immigration Studies and others, this could be 17 million people.
Close to the whole 20 million are going to be given legal status in the United States quickly by the Republicans in Congress.
And unbeknownst to many people who are still defending this president, this was pushed by President Trump.
The question is going to be what in the name of sweet holy hell?
The motivation, the rationale is you know, Trump had floated amnesty for hospitality workers, amnesty for agricultural workers.
That's going to be the argument, right?
We got to get the Mexicans in the janitor's man.
We got to, you know, we got to get them working on the fields.
You know, the I mean, I couldn't believe it when Trump put it that way, but the it's no, it's a sellout, it's a complete portrayal.
There are two original pillars of Trump's OG MAGA base back from his 2015 primary stage.
And one pillar was the anti war, anti deep state pillar when he went to the South Carolina Republican debate and said George W. Bush should have been impeached for lying us into war and said all the money we'd wasted on these dumb Mideastern wars as we're going through billions every single day on this war.
The other pillar was anti immigration.
We were finally going to do something about illegal immigration.
He was going to build a wall.
He was going to do mass deportations.
Now you're not going to get mass deportations.
Instead, you're going to get mass amnesty.
You don't got to worry about the Democrats doing it in the fall because Trump is bringing it to you this summer, unless people get up and start yelling and hooting and hollering at their members of Congress to do something about it.
By the way, this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that they're trying to get through to mass spy on us, that the president himself denounced and said should never be reauthorized, and now is back to reauthorizing it all over again without limitation.
Jim Jordan said he would never do it.
Now he's back doing it.
There is one member of Congress.
Fighting this new amnesty effort.
There is one member of Congress fighting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It's the same member of Congress who compelled the disclosure of the Epstein files.
It's the same member of Congress who has constantly stood up against the surveillance state and stupid wars and a big ag, big pharma, and all the rest.
It was the one congressman who stood up against the CARES Act and the inflationary COVID spending.
And of course, that man is one Thomas Messi.
Richard Barris and I will be talking to him on Monday.
On Richard Barris' People's Pundit Daily, there.
And then on Wednesday, to go on what the heck fires all the economic impact of the Iran war, but also what's going on in the private credit markets?
What's really going on in China's economy?
What's going on in our economy?
What's going on in the housing markets?
Well, Wednesday, 3 p.m. Eastern time here on Viva Fry, we will have Edward Dow back to interview to give us the economic landscape so you can know do I need to buy gold now?
What do I need to stick in my backyard?
Hold up.
Survival plans, do I need to get out of here?
All of that and more on Wednesday.
So, just a couple of scheduling updates.
Monday with Thomas Massey leading the fight against this amnesty bill, leading the fight against this new FISA Act, spying on us.
While he is in a hot, heated race with over half, close to $50 million has been spent against Thomas Massey by the Israel lobby and their big billionaire, Wall Street billionaires, many of whom are in the Epstein files, by the way.
Also, they're in the BB files documentary as well, by the way.
So, they're out to take out Thomas Massey.
Ordinary people are organizing to his defense.
So, you can see that on Monday.
And then Wednesday, Ed Dowd, always great.
We interviewed him back because he was the guy outing everything crazy that was happening during COVID and connecting dots that other people didn't want to connect.
Ed Dowd is the guy who pointed out, as we're getting more confirmation this past week about all the harm caused by the COVID vaccine, but trying to tell President Trump, you don't want the two things to be known for the COVID vaccine and the Iran war.
Maybe we come up with something different to be memorable, please, Mr. President.
But Ed will be back on Wednesday, 3 p.m. Eastern time.
Should be a lot of fun.
Okay, so that was the amnesty.
And it's a problem for.
I mean, I don't want to say how the sycophants are going to spin it or at least try to rationalize what some might think.
It's 15 DHS, Barnes.
It's 15 DHS.
No, they're going to say you did vote for it.
You understood.
Yeah, it was implicit.
It was supposed to be in the footnote on page nine of the internet.
So, amnesty, one issue.
FISA.
This is one I was talking with someone today, and I sort of now do understand what the steel man argument is for a clean extension of the FISA 702.
And it ain't good.
The FISA 7.
Okay, so FISA 702, they're talking about a clean extension, which is, I guess, just there's no modifications made to the current state of the FISA section, which allows for surveillance of foreigners.
I guess it's surveillance of foreigners not on American soil.
It is not on American soil, correct?
At least in theory?
Yes.
Okay.
And this is the same FISA that was used and abused to two step from.
Surveilling Russians to surveilling Carter Page because he was in touch with Russians.
And then they used it to go to secret FISA courts, falsify evidence literally, get unlawful renewals of unlawful FISA warrant, spying warrants.
And Trump, now who was the victim of this, is now discussing a clean extension of the very same law that was weaponized to delegitimize his presidency, to spy on his campaign and administration, and to undermine democracy.
So, I didn't understand if I'm misunderstanding something in terms of there are safeguards that are being included into this extension or there are not.
But now, because we're at war, we want to preserve the right to surveil foreigners on foreign soil without any limitations.
And then, my conspiracy theory understanding, the steel man argument is to the extent that we know that American intelligence uses foreign intelligence to spy on Americans and then relays that information to us, we don't want to lose the power to spy on Americans.
Foreigners and relay that information to foreign intelligence agencies who might not be able to spy on their own citizens for similar restrictions.
Am I getting too crazy and thinking that that might be one of the reasons why you want to preserve FISA in its current state so that we can continue this mutual synergy of spying on each other's citizens through foreign intelligence agencies who don't have to abide by what would otherwise be domestic law for surveillance of citizens?
The most famous victim ever of this was President Trump, and it's unsettling that he is now authorizing its complete extension.
For those that don't understand, what it does is it allows us to spy on foreigners, what it's supposed to do.
But because of our Five Eyes partnerships with the UK, with Australia, and others, they're all able to launder it.
So the UK will spy on ours, we'll spy on the UK citizens and thereby share that information when they spy on our citizens.
And they did this information laundering to go after President Trump.
FISA, in my view, has always been a Fourth Amendment violation.
To give you an idea, FISA was intended to control and constrict the spying on foreign agencies and foreign individuals and foreign conversation and communication.
Instead, it's been a mass data gathering system to spy on U.S. citizens.
General Flynn was a victim of it.
President Trump was a victim of it.
Congressman Jim Jordan promised it would not be reinstated.
President Trump in the campaign promised it would not be reinstated.
Speech Codes and Human Rights00:09:07
And here they're now pushing both to be reinstated with no restrictions, no limitations, and no changes.
It is an outrageous bill.
It's an outrageous to our constitutional freedoms under the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which protect our right of speech, our expression, our association, and with it implicitly a right of anonymity, a right of being private.
And then the Fourth Amendment that has the broader components of privacy from the incursion and intrusion of the state.
And it's being eviscerated by the FISA laws, and it's outrageous that this is being pushed through in this manner at this time.
But there's no question it corresponds to the censorship efforts that are afoot, both in the United States and Europe.
As to issues like Israel, people's YouTube channels getting canceled or suppressed.
Russians with attitude had their Patreon and YouTube both removed as soon as they were critical of the Israeli role in the Iranian war.
Israel is busy, sabotaged the peace ceasefire right away by mass bombing civilian neighborhoods in Lebanon, killing hundreds of people, almost all civilians, almost all non combatants, none of whom were Hezbollah, none of whom were.
Uh, Shia, uh, the or very few of them were, and and many of whom were children.
Uh, and you know, the if Bibi uh isn't killing a baby each day, I guess he isn't happy.
But you know, they don't want people talking about these things, they don't want people discussing these things.
Now, unfortunately, uh, the uh, you know, one of the more populist leaders in Europe, uh, Orban of Hungary, uh, took a position of being very pro Israel and opposing any European action adverse to Israel, and he lost his election tonight in Hungary.
And he lost badly.
And it started to go that way.
I shared with members of sports picks over the weekend.
I said, dump all stocks on Orban.
The Iran war and the Israel issue is completely sinking him with the last group of undecided voters that he needed.
And they all went against him 80 20, 90 10.
And so it's similar to the results we saw in Georgia's election, saw in Wisconsin last week.
Wisconsin voted for more Democratic for the Supreme Court than it has in the modern partisan era of that Supreme Court.
By over 20 points, Democrats won in Wisconsin.
In some parts of Wisconsin, in Norwegian Western Wisconsin, we're historically anti war.
In lumber country, historically anti war.
Industrial Southeast, historically anti war.
The swing from Trump to the Democrat was 35 points or more.
In Marjorie Taylor's Greens district, the Republican ran 17 points behind her margin.
And in Hispanic areas and African American areas, and in areas with higher concentration of younger people, ran anywhere from 30.
To 50 points behind.
And yet these people are out there pretending everything's fine, coalition is strong, gonna win big in November.
It's more evidence supporting things like FISA don't help.
Supporting this Iran war doesn't help.
Trying to push through these other bad and dumb laws like an amnesty, especially at this moment, does not help.
I do want to bring it up.
It's shofar in our local community says, I'm so unhappy with President Trump's domestic and international affairs.
It seems that he is not protecting the freedoms of the American citizens.
What an utter disappointment and shame and betrayal of his office.
And for those who take off, I can hear people say Barnes has gone off the anti Israel or the anti Israel train with the BB remarks.
You could shit on Barnes for that and say, oh, it's hyperbolic rhetoric.
But you do then just at some point have to address the arguments that what compromised the ceasefire.
Was the bombing of Lebanon at a time when people were coming back to Lebanon and in a day where they destroyed an apartment building with, I don't know, I think it was a couple hundred.
And then some will say, well, that's war.
And that's what happens when you lob rockets from Lebanon into Israel.
And those are the arguments that you have.
So, in as much as I can hear people sighing or screaming or getting angry at Barnes, get angry.
And we all understand what the argument is.
Well, Lebanon and Hezbollah stopped throwing rockets at Israel.
And those are the back and forth that you're never going to get into.
Especially hit Beirut.
And they're hitting Christian sections and hitting Christian towns.
That have nothing to do with it.
It's not going to help with support.
That's for damn sure.
Even the war excuse.
But set that aside for now.
Bring BB back in.
Bring BB back in.
But we've got, let's see, we've only got, I think, really one or two more black pills, and then we get to some white pills.
Briefly, the High Court of the UK banned, in the UK, they're banning a bunch of groups under terrorism and hate speech laws.
Many of them are targeting people that are critical of trans, critical of open borders.
But they are extending that increasingly to anybody who's anti Israel.
So they banned a group called Palestine Action.
And it went up to the high court.
They got so many high courts there in the UK.
It's like the royal court of this and the high court of this and the high court of the high court of the royal court.
It's like, man, you guys are pretentious.
God bless.
And so it was challenged.
The high court said, you guys, UK didn't even follow its own laws.
You didn't even follow your own rules, your own principles when you banned this group.
You overreached.
And so the EU Convention on Human Rights, which actually has more free speech protections than the UK does domestically.
Found it was illicit.
And so that provides some hope against some of the speech code laws.
Hopefully, that starts getting into all the other crazy speech code laws they have on immigration, on trans, on things of that nature.
And the UK returns to the free speech side of the equation, which would be nice.
Of course, our own Secretary of State is busy abusing his power by targeting people who are the sons and daughters or grandsons and granddaughters of somebody that they don't like that was Iranian.
And they're trying to revoke their visas and deport them.
This will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.
Secretary Rubio has been found to repeatedly be violating the First Amendment rights of Americans.
And remember, people, green card holders have First Amendment rights.
It's established over a century ago in a range of cases, the most famous of which was Harry Bridges versus the United States and Harry Bridges versus the California corrupt courts and other people like that.
And here it's even worse.
He's not even doing it based on their speech, he's doing it based on the speech of their parents or grandparents.
Well, they're being back to Japanese detention camps.
What next?
Is Rubio going to announce he's going to lock up all the grandkids of Iranians and put Patrick Ben David in some camp out in the middle of the desert because his parents were for Iranian?
I mean, this is getting ridiculous.
We're not a disagreement, but there is a lack of agreement on facts as to what they said.
You have people saying, yeah, if they chant death to America, I'm all for revoking their visas.
And then the question is, well, did they chant that?
And we go back to that.
Like the one person they did was somebody, all he said was their grandmother was bad.
I was like, am I reading this right?
I get.
Rereading it, rereading it.
What the heck?
Well, don't go to the UK if you're looking for free speech, anyhow, people.
But may we not import that into America?
It's already been imported into Canada.
We see what's going on in there.
And you see how it happens very slowly, then all at once.
And then lo and behold, if you don't call a he or she, you can be in big, big trouble with the human rights tribunals.
Okay, what's the other black pill before we get to the white pills?
So, oh, the, which is mass biometrics, which is, and this is in Massachusetts.
So, one of the members of our board, Mighty Pay, pointed out that in the guise, just like in the guise of illegal immigration, they're doing an e verify bill that has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration because they make everybody legal in the same bill.
Here, Massachusetts, we want to protect your children from the harm of social media.
So, we need adults to give their biometrics.
We need adults to enter your biometrics in the system so that we're making sure kids aren't accessing the internet when they're not supposed to be.
And it's like, why do you need my biometrics for this?
Well, we got to make sure you're not eight years old, Barnes.
And this is about the state mass gathering your biometric data, scanning your face, taking like eyes.
Ultimately, they're going to keep going.
They're going to try.
That's what real ID is really heading for.
They're heading for biometric identification.
So you're going to have to look into, you know, like total recall or whatever.
You have to look into a little computer thing, double check your eye.
I mean, I'm just waiting for them to say, we just need a little stamp right here on your forehead.
This little one.
It happens to say the same thing as Jared Kushner's favorite address in New York City 666.
Just waiting for that to be next.
I see, I haven't resigned myself to the biometric state, but in as much as I, when I travel into the States, they have my biometrics, they have my kids, they have everything.
And I appreciate exactly where this may all go.
Tom Steyer's Biometric Concerns00:15:09
And it certainly is ratifying some of the concerns that many people had with the Palantir connection to this administration.
And it's a problem when people start to actually lose faith and a lot of the dots start to align to justify a lot of their concerns.
Excuse me.
So, Okay.
So the, but what we have left is we got a couple of cases against Google where Google got caught.
One case, they got away with something.
We've got my favorite white pill of the week about distilling at home.
We've got fair use copyright, a good win there.
A decent win for Trump to be able to actually build his ballroom and the bunker underneath the ballroom in the East Wing.
And we've got one sketchy decision on custodial interviews.
And then fighting are the vaccine cases all the way up to SCOTUS, the latest petition.
Filed by 1776 Law Center in support of people objecting to the vaccine mandates.
This is not a white pill because I don't want anyone thinking that I am rejoicing in the demise of Eric Swallowell.
I am not rejoicing in his demise.
People's sketch pics are because I gave out Tom Steyer to be the next governor of California when he was a big underdog and they're already cashing those checks.
Let me add, I'm not rejoicing in his demise.
I am simply satisfied that there's cosmic justice.
I was going through all of my historical insults to.
Eric Swalwell on the internet.
He has been the biggest earmuffs, children, piece of shit on the internet, among the greatest, right up there with Adam Kinzinger, right up there with Adam Schiff, right up there with, what's his face there?
The guy, the cheese on the bird, Schumer.
He, it's imploded, by the way.
There's nothing graphic here, people, but if you are cheating on your wife, you should expect to meet harsh, harsh consequences in the context of your marriage.
The stories are now breaking and they're accusations.
People, I'm not pulling a double standard here.
These are not convictions in the criminal court of law.
I'm not even banking on the fact that the sexual improprieties need be assault or need be non consensual.
I'm satisfied that even if they're consensual, this man is getting everything that he deserves on this earth right now.
There have been stories of non consensual, taking advantage of intoxicated women, many, many stories.
This video went.
Uh, quasi viral, and we're going to give a massive shout out to Marco Polo Garrett Ziegler, who really verifies things.
I did not immediately retweet comment on this because I didn't know if it was AI because it kind of looked like it might have been.
This is Eric Swalwell with a woman who's not his wife, and she appears to be there's another one where he's kissing her.
Marco Polo, with his technology that he has, puts out a tweet says, as our group and no one else was able to do with many women of the night on Hunter Biden's.
Sorry, hold on.
As our group, as no one else was able to do with many of the women on the night on Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop, we have ID'd the woman groped by Swallowell.
The clear and convincing evidence standard was used.
Tattoo on the right forearm, facial recognition.
And it seems that, if you could see this, that's a cross tattoo on the right arm.
And they literally found.
The call girl, Robert, I guess is the proper word.
Maybe some people say prostitute hook or whatever.
Swalwell puts out an apology, or at least he puts out a defense video.
I swear to you, I made a joke like life pro tip.
When you're doing the apology video, don't admit to the material elements.
But I would, you know, I should have called it a pro tip because I've got no professional life experience with this.
A lot has been said about me today through anonymous allegations.
Yeah.
I thought it was important.
Not anonymous anymore, Mr. Swalwell.
That you see and hear from me directly.
These allegations of sexual assault are flat false.
They are absolutely false.
They did not happen.
They have never happened.
And I will fight them with everything that I have.
They also come on the eve of an election where I have been the front runner candidate for governor in California.
Wow.
I do not suggest to you in any way that I'm perfect or that I'm a saint.
Every now and again, I have sex with hookers, even though I'm married.
I have certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past.
Bang, bang, McFang, Fang swore.
See, I even waited the longest period of time before making the joke that he bang, bang, Fang, Fang, because, you know, they said they had a relationship, it wasn't clear.
Now I feel more comfortable.
But those mistakes are between me and my wife.
So let me apologize to her.
Publicly.
I mean, in case you weren't sure what kind of mistakes they were between me and my wife, what kind of mistakes might those be?
If he were not the most rapacious asshole on Twitter, the most mocking people, oddly enough, for that for which he has been accused right now, it's almost like confession through projection is a rule of life, people.
So, anyways, he is done for.
The latest breaking news is that there's a number of people who are named Nick Sortor, who I think is going to be.
Participating with a potential criminal probe into him right now says just in over 50 former staffers of Eric Swallow have just released a statement calling him to resign.
They also referred to the rape allegations against him as credible.
Democrats have known for years, yet they never spoke up until now.
Disgusting people.
Why did they not speak up until now, Robert?
It might have something to do with is it Katie Porter, the woman who's running against him for the yeah, and Tom Steyer?
And they wanted to make sure too.
Now, Trump unfortunately helped this by endorsing, like if Trump wouldn't have endorsed anybody, there was a possibility two Republicans would have taken the lead and one Republican would have been guaranteed.
The next California governor.
But Trump, we came in and endorsed one of them.
And so that's going to cause the other one to drop.
So now the question was who's going to be the Democrat with him?
And the assumption was that Steyer was the source of this.
But I don't think it was.
I think Katie Porter and some people connected to her were the source.
And the Institutional Democratic Party didn't want to gamble on his scandals coming up in the general election, costing them the California governorship.
So, I think the next governor of California is going to be Tom Steyer.
And if you want to sprinkle a little cash out there, Tom Steyer may be a surprise presidential candidate in 2028.
Uh, the he's whoever runs the most against Israel in the Democratic primary presidential primaries will be the next Democratic presidential nominee.
And Steyer, because of his independent source of money, could potentially do that.
So it'll be somebody to watch.
He may surge fast and rapidly, uh, in ways people are not currently paying a lot of attention to.
But I think this is the beginning of the end of the career of Eric Swalwell.
Oh, gosh.
And by the way, they always get the criminals on tax evasion when they can't get them on murder.
Well, if they don't get them on the, uh, you know, the sexual stuff, uh, They apparently he's under a federal investigation over unauthorized nanny hire.
Filmmaker, what is this?
Eric Swallow alleging that the nanny was paid with campaign funds for roughly two years.
Oh, my jail for all of them.
It's just such glorious cosmic justice.
And even if it comes because of that evil woman, Candy, whatever her name is, Katie Porter, who is demonic, we've covered her before, but um, yeah, anyways, it couldn't have herped, it couldn't have herped because of the herpes, it couldn't have herped to a better Eric Swallow.
No doubt.
So, somewhere the chat was like still obsessed with the Jew thing, Jewish thing.
Remember, everybody, two thirds of American Jews oppose the Iran war.
90% of American Jews oppose boots on the ground in Iran.
And a majority of American Jews have an unfavorable view of Bibi Netanyahu.
So, quit pretending any defense of Bibi or Israel is about defense of Judaism.
It's not.
You're defending a particular politician.
You can defend him if you like, but don't pretend that criticism is about his Jewish identity.
Nor can you defend him on those grounds.
Those are people that are living in a fantasy world that is quickly disappearing from a world we call political reality.
Jan Weirdall says, Barnes, did you spurge out in this manner years ago with the North Korea Rocketman nuke tweets?
This is the same method of shit talking that Trump used back then.
I'll go look at those because I don't see them.
Go back and compare.
Find where he said he would destroy the whole civilization of North Korea.
Find where he said he would raise it to the ground and destroy every single one of their power plants, destroy every single one of their water plants, destroy every single one of their bridges, and their civilization would never come back.
Fine.
I want to bring them up because I want to see them myself, so I'll do that in a second.
Yeah, yeah.
Reports are Melania, this is from Dred Robert.
Reports are Melania is responding to Amanda Ungaro.
A former longtime friend who was deported after divorcing Trumpo Paulo Zampuli, who apparently took their son from Brazil accused of kidnapping, but it's a model friend who claims inside knowledge and got put in a detention center after falling out, not just the father.
I've heard those stories, but she wouldn't have added the part about Epstein victims testifying unless she's unhappy with how President Trump has handled the Epstein files.
And part of it was because she was next to the president with a story I heard from people close to her.
There's been ongoing concerns because he loses his temper quickly at her for no reason at all.
This is, again, I know people don't want to hear it, but he's declining.
He just is.
We have to start thinking about a cap, an age cap.
We have an age limitation for holding office.
Doesn't mean there's no smart 35 year old, 34 year olds out there, but we say there's a risk that you're not intellectually capable enough to hold the presidency.
We need to put a cap on it.
I'm sure there's plenty of people 85, 90, 95 that are super brilliant, but there's a disproportionate tendency.
For that population to run into issues.
We've seen it.
We saw it with Reagan at the end of his term.
We saw it through almost all of Biden's term.
And I believe we're seeing it now with President Trump.
And I think we should consider a cap of like 75 years of age is the oldest you can be to hold an office like the presidency of the United States.
I just think it's unfortunate.
But what happened was the final trigger was the Easter event where you have this people were saying, Did I just wake up and do mushrooms and forget?
Because they wake up.
And you've got a guy standing there in an Easter outfit and the bunny rabbit, Melania on one side, a bunch of little kids in front, and President Trump is going on about war.
I mean, she was like, what, what, what?
He's just not, he's losing it, folks.
He's just, it's slipping.
He's slipping here, he's slipping there.
And people close to the White House know about it.
And they just kept a lid on it.
And people don't think, oh, no one could keep a lid on that.
Remember how they kept a lid on Joe Biden?
Nobody in the White House was leaking how utterly lost that he was.
And they had to set him up by doing that early debate.
Son of a Mitch says, What was your personal read on the results of the negotiations?
I think we covered this.
Did JD have the authority to make the best deal he thought he could make?
Yeah, Trump stripped him of all of his authority once he was there.
Patricia Carey, 82.
Remember when Trump called off an airstrike because he felt the cost of lives was too great in his first term?
This guy is not the same from 2016.
Not at all.
He used to be greatly empathetic.
Like today, he's being asked about oil prices.
I mean, normally he'd be real empathetic.
He would say, Hey, look, we're going to do something.
Even if the prices go up, I'm going to find a way to help working people.
And so he's like, Yeah, they're going to go up.
So what?
It's like, what?
This is not the Trump I've watched for his whole life.
The last six months has been a different Trump.
Schnookums says, Robert, the Constitution has a minimum age requirement for presidents at least 10 years after Biden, Pelosi, other congressmen, senators.
Oh, no, I think it's 35 for presidency, isn't it?
Oh, Schnookums is on the same page as me.
Yeah, I agree with you, Schnookums.
You're absolutely right.
We got to put a maximum age for Congress, for judges, and presidents.
But we can't have a geriatrics.
We got to have a maximum age, just like we have a minimum age.
The list of people Barnes just gave don't agree on anything else.
That's not an accurate premise.
This was all of the Tucker Carlson analysis.
They agree on tons of stuff.
But it's impossible that 10 people not agree with each other on anything.
But now, since they agree on a highly profitable perspective, how is it highly profitable?
How is it highly profitable?
What fantasy land are you living in that you think it's highly profitable to have the president of the United States personally attack you with his entire truth fee?
You're in a delusional Trump cult world and you don't want to admit it.
And you want to pretend everybody else is crazy.
Everybody else has lost it.
Everybody else doesn't understand.
Only Donald Trump is sane.
Only Donald Trump is free of corruption.
You're living in a cult.
You're a cultist.
You're part of a cult.
And if you don't want me to tell you that, you've come to the wrong channel.
It's not been Candace's profitability, it has had to do with Charlie Kirk conspiracies and President Macron.
Alex Jones risked his entire legacy and his financial future defending Donald Trump.
He was targeted because of his support of Donald Trump.
This is well known to anybody who knows the backstory.
He was censored because of his support of Donald Trump.
He did not want to raise doubts about where Trump was at.
He did so because he felt he needed to and had to.
And for it now, Trump is personally attacking him and targeting him and going after him.
So the idea this is profitable is ludicrous, laughable, absurd.
Now, over the poll is that you are right versus wrong.
Which is it, by the way?
If it's so profitable, how is it?
Oh, they're doing it because it's really profitable, but also nobody listens to them anymore.
But also because so many people listen to them, they can shape the elections.
You people can't even maintain the same logic in two sentences back to back.
Oh, I'm just pointing out right now the poll has shifted now.
You are more right than wrong in commie tube.
All right, hold on.
I want to get to it.
I'm falling too far behind here, Robert.
Here.
Blockade is the new plan.
Sounds like Turkey is willing to get involved with Israel now, too.
It could get so much worse.
B.B. Netanyahu was in the White House in February telling people Turkey is next.
He wanted Israel to go after Turkey.
He wanted Trump to pull out of NATO officially so he could go to war with Turkey because he thought it would be after he easily toppled Iran.
This was on the table, heard it from people who heard it directly from him.
That's how crazy Bibi Netanyahu was getting.
And people in Israel need to restrain him, just like we need to restrain the worst of Trump.
People around Israel have got to restrain Bibi, or their future and longevity is at risk.
Who is Santa Cruz Mountain Goat?
Follow back.
Well, if someone just said, now I'm making an active decision to follow a person because I don't just follow people for no good reason.
Santa Cruz Mountain Goat, Rob, what is this?
I want to get back to the tweet.
Well, hold on.
It says, I'll give him credit for a very unique name.
No, he says, Robert, congrats on following Santa Cruz Mountain Goat on X.
Now Viva has to go on his podcast and run with him in Santa Cruz Mountain.
Dude, I'll do that.
Restraining Bibi Like Trump00:09:06
Now I'm not.
I follow nine.
I know exactly who I follow people.
John Vidal is nuts and at Barnes are not insults at Barnes are not in good faith.
Give me a break.
Barnes has been throwing out countless Purell insults for the last year.
No, he hasn't.
Andrew Piscatlo, what's up?
What JD is up against from White House today?
Iran's Navy gone.
Their Air Force obliterated.
Hundreds of ships at the bottom of the sea.
Balls to the wall.
Mr. Vance, get forceful with Israel lobby.
Otherwise, food shortages incoming.
Recession will deepen.
Have you seen all the Don Zhu jokes?
So they have Don, so they have Trump as Don Zhu.
And like one of breaking enemies' blockade by blockading their blockade.
My favorite one was if you don't know your plan, neither does your enemy.
That's good humor.
Dread Robert, didn't Trump invite China and other countries to the straits?
And now they're going to be okay with America blocking it.
And if they.
He's the.
Robert, we just watch his feed, folks, and figure out, you know, he's not operating at 100%.
Andrew Piscatlow says someone from locals sent me this hat tip insider trading.
Pardons for cash.
President says nice random things about business.
Few million.
There are people who are trading on this.
Like when he put out the positive thing about Palantir, he included their stock code.
He included their stock.
It's like, come on, don't make it that overt, that open.
Barnes, could they don't just fly the helium out?
The quantities are fairly small and the value cheap.
Has Trump not risked as much as Alex Jones?
He has, which is why he should be more.
Alex Jones is a lot shot at, but he should be a little bit more sympathetic to what Alex Jones has gone through.
Thanks, Robert Burns.
Mighty pay.
Greg 76.
Trump is treating his voters like Joe Biden treated his underwear.
Greg 76.
That's rough.
Oh, that's rough.
That is rubbish.
What if Alex Jones is suffering from dementia?
Then will you throw him under the bus?
Only if he's president and has presidential powers.
Yeah, I think you do it for the world.
I think the entire chat needs Bill Brown and I to buy a Lord Have Mercy from Mighty Pay.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Wait.
No, no.
Don't do it yet, Robert.
Don't do it yet.
Now do it.
Lord Have Mercy from Mighty Pay.
Now I'm back in.
All right.
You know what?
We'll take that as a break.
We're going to come back to these in a bit.
Let's just go to Rumble here.
MK Telephone Man says Trump's wife is getting jealous over Trump's constant pretty girls' cabinet picks.
I don't think so.
Punk Rockford Swallow doesn't even live in California.
That's what I heard as well.
So he shouldn't be eligible.
Too bad.
They got him out on better reasons.
I trust God over any human, says MK.
That's always smart.
Punk Rockford says Swallow is being pushed out because they have to consolidate the Democrat votes to push the Republicans off the top of the ticket.
That's part of it.
Yep.
Exiting Man says, could the government use the Selective Service Act to turn many illegals into felons?
That would make them ineligible for the amnesty bill.
Oh, interesting.
Interesting.
Yeah, I mean, they are doing the selective service registration and expanding that.
People are confusing that with a draft.
The draft still would have to get through Congress.
It won't.
They don't even have the votes to get through money for this war.
Maybe Elon's third party is not such a bad idea after all.
Please send me your new address, Barnes.
Okay, good.
Robert, now let's get to the.
We've got a couple of Google.
We've got a fair use copyright win.
We've got a Trump ballroom win.
And my favorite case of the week, we've got a big win to distill in your home.
That also restricts the unconstitutional abuse of the taxing and necessary and proper clause.
Start with the first two, and I'll take the distilling and the ballroom.
So, on the Google cases, two cases one, Google got the venue transfer, even though over a dissent.
The dissent was right because the.
So, what happened is after Google got found to be an antitrust violator, a bunch of companies have sued them under that same principle for their individual damages.
And they sue under the laws, the Clayton Act allows you to sue lots of different places.
Google's like, no, no, all of our rules require you, if you have a contract with us, to go to the Northern District of California.
And the Fifth Circuit, two judges said, yes, yes, you do have to go over there.
Even though they say, here's the eight standards, the eight provisions you have to apply.
And then they don't apply seven of the eight, they don't even do the analysis.
Lazy Fifth Circuit.
So we'll see what happens with that.
But on the other, but it's good to see Google getting sued by people following up on these antitrust verdicts against them.
The other favorite one was Google got caught.
Again, stealing our information, again, spying on us, again, using their Android access, and they had to pay 135 million bucks.
I know, but it's just, it's like one verdict after another.
I was going to say, hold on, I had a thought where it was.
Oh, the thought will come back to me, but at this point, if you're using Google, I mean, you're basically consenting to the theft at this point.
Everybody knows what Google does.
If you use their product, you know, you can't say you didn't know.
So they'll be citing you.
According to legal expert Bima Frye, The we are immune from damages.
Implicit consent to theft when you're dealing with when your phone was off, they were stealing your information and giving it to other people.
That's what they got caught for the last time.
The fair use copyright case is great.
This is big for legal cases.
Yep.
So people were, you know, these companies that will build these, make these building codes, these standards, these, you know, nonprofits and the rest.
A lot of them aren't really nonprofits.
They're run by big corporations behind the scenes, but we'll put that aside for the moment.
They create these building codes that you have to comply with.
And then a lot of the cities and counties and local towns and states borrow from the income.
Sometimes the federal government regulatory agencies will put it in like vendor contracts and things like that.
They'll take these codes and make them law.
And somebody said, you know what?
This should be easily accessible to people.
You should be able to do AI searches with this stuff so you don't get caught.
You shouldn't spend tons of money for it.
So they made it freely available and accessible in a wide range of ways.
Well, these companies were suing, claiming that any legal material printed, they have a copyright of, which is a complete abuse of copyright laws and limits your access to key legal information.
To me, all legal cases should have to be freely available, publicly searchable.
All statutes should be freely available and publicly searchable.
All regulations freely available and publicly searchable.
All administrative decisions freely searchable and freely available.
And what the court said is a copyright law, which comes from the Constitution, gave it to Congress.
But what did it say?
It said to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
And that has always meant that whenever you have a non commercial purpose, for example, when you have a transformative use, Those are the kind of things that are colloquially in the copyright world called the fair use.
And under the fair use doctrine, you could print it.
And this was the best part of the decision.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, said making legal materials freely accessible and educating the public on any law that could bind them is something that can never be subject to copyright protection.
Westlaw and Lexis must be sweating a little bit.
This would be great for everybody, take away their monopoly, allow ordinary people to search and figure out what the law is.
I don't think people actually necessarily realize how much it costs to surf on Westlaw.
How much does Westlaw?
It can cost up to depending on how many lawyers and paralytics you have.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's like at least $5,000 a month up to $25,000 a month.
It's funny because we were in the practice.
We had Westlaw Candlow.
There was a service.
I want to say it wasn't Westlaw.
That one you just pay.
What was the one that was extremely expensive?
Oh, gosh, it's going to drive me crazy.
But it was like to use it, it was hundreds of dollars an hour.
And so you had to have a case that warranted it.
Um, and sometimes you it would be a deterrent.
I remember one of the biggest mistakes that I made as my young lawyer is trying to be you know, uh, what is it, uh, you know, smart on the pennies but dumb on the dollar.
Where we it was a case, and you know, I get asked a question, it's a procedural question, and I get the right answer, but I go like I'm invoking a hundred year old case law, and then the senior partner says, uh, why didn't you just use uh Westlaw or whatever it was?
And I said, well, because you know, it was like a few hundred dollars an hour, I didn't want to do it.
He's like, this is a multi million dollar case, we could have splurged.
I got the right answer, but.
It was like, it's crap.
How much does it cost?
Hold on one second here.
Let me see if I got it.
Current pricing, single slate.
Okay, it seems, well, I'm going to find it.
I can't remember the.
So that's, that's, they're getting the, it is the, and so it is amazing to have a monopoly over that type of content for copyright.
It's the kind of thing that should have always been freely and fully accessible and available.
And so it's great to see a good, and copyright laws have long been abused to create de facto monopolies in ways that discourage.
And deter education and creativity when it was meant to increase and incentivize education and creativity.
So it's good to see some courts returning to their original principles on this, but particularly valuable in the context of law.
Barry Cunningham Copyright Monopoly00:08:24
I think jury verdicts should be publicly available, freely available, and freely searchable.
Don't allow a small group of people to monopolize it because it's very valuable information that could really educate people about how their country truly operates.
It might have been Westlaw.
I'm going to have to text my brother because I'm going to get obsessed over this for the rest of the show.
Okay, set that aside, Robert.
Someone in the chat said if Barnes is against the ballroom, then it's officially over.
So the Trump ballroom, remember this?
The case that went to the court.
Yeah, the court said, hey, go ahead.
Trump demolished the old ballroom and he's going to build a new one.
People at the time, it's like a moving target of controversy.
He's going to spend however much millions of dollars on the ballroom.
Americans are starving, yet again.
And I was like, it's privately funded with donor money.
And they're like, well, he can't do that because it's like, I don't know, it's a pay to play, whatever, for the ballroom.
Then they went after a procedural block to the ballroom.
Destruction, it's too late, but to the construction, that it's not of the jurisdiction of the president, it's of the jurisdiction of DC, and that he didn't get the plans approved.
And they wanted to get an injunction to prevent him from rebuilding the ballroom.
And then, what was it?
They got an initial injunction, but then the government got a stay of the injunction.
And then they just got two to one, a stay of the injunction, but only until.
The 17th, I think this week, at which point it was a two to one decision where the one of the judges said, I would have granted the stay of the injunction the entire time.
Now they're going to have to come back and argue it on the 17th.
I took notes as to what the reasons for preventing it or objecting to the ballroom were.
One had to do with like a historical building preservation, the other one had to do with getting the plans approved.
What is it?
It's destroyed already.
Why not just go for a declaratory judgment to say what the president did or did not have the power to do as opposed to an injunction to prevent the rebuilding of a building that has now already been?
Well, and one of the big problems here is, of course, as people discovered, they're building an extensive bunker underneath there, a whole new bunker structure for safety and security purposes.
And by putting a complete freeze on the ability to do any construction, they're creating safety and security issues for everybody that works at the White House.
So, at least even the DC circus figured out that this is one little circus act that they needed to rein in.
And so at least two of the three recognized, well, all three recognized they needed to halt it.
Two of the three said, well, we'll give you a couple of weeks.
We'll give you a week and see what we decide in a week.
But the problem is that this is going, I mean, if it wasn't Trump on the defense, this suit wouldn't have been brought.
If it wasn't Trump as the defendant, no court would have affirmed it.
You know, he's cleaning up the ballroom.
It's something the president is complete carte blanche generally on.
He's making it more secure underneath.
The whole plans are.
I have no doubt Trump's not known for screwing up things like real estate.
I wasn't a big fan of his 50 foot gold statue to this Trump library.
It's like, could we not use the North Korean leader as our inspiration for the war?
But otherwise, I love Trump hotels and all the rest.
He's always usually top notch in service, top notch in quality, top notch in architectural design.
And so I have no doubt that it'll be above average.
But it's just the DC political class just wanting to harangue and harass Trump on anything little or small.
And at least the DC Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this endangers the safety of people working in the White House.
To stop this mid-range.
So, I think ultimately it'll get overturned.
The president will get to fix whatever they're going to put in that big bunker down there and fix what that was the bunker I was suggesting he temporarily stay in for a little while with a special jacket.
Oh, so now you're promoting forcible confinement of the president, Mara.
Yeah, exactly.
Kidnapping the president.
Just a joke, everybody.
So, on those terms.
But the so I think he'll ultimately win this and it'll be able to get back to build it.
And I have no doubt that the ballroom will look much more beautiful than it was before.
So it is Westlaw.
I was ultimately thinking of Westlaw and their models are.
Listen to this.
This is the last time I use it.
Exact current per minute, not publicly disclosed, $19 to $46 per minute, equating to $1,100 to $2,700 per hour if you are actively browsing.
That's what I remember from the practice of law.
Holy crap.
Imagine.
And all that should be freely available.
And with modern AI, even easier to search.
Every person should be able to find out what these judges are up to.
They just don't like people finding out what they're up to.
They want to limit it.
They want to create an excuse for the lawyers to have a monopoly.
But we have three more cases discussed the Supreme Court petition to SCOTUS for vaccine mandates, when a custodial interview somehow isn't a custodial interview, according to our wonderful courts.
And of course, the greatest case of the week, one of the top 10 of the year the right to distill bourbon in your own home.
Well, crap, Robert, it's eight o'clock.
We've got to get over to the locals after party here.
Let me, when are we impeaching some judges?
We're going to get to that in a minute.
Oh, last but not least.
Sorry.
Yes.
And Kentucky.
Supreme Court tries to stop the Kentucky legislature from impeaching Kentucky judges.
Might they be next?
And then midterms are back.
Midtimes are put us back to 2020.
Hold on, pray, stock up, survival, food, gold, silver, MK Telephone Man.
Okay.
And then let me just do a couple more here.
We're going to pick up everybody.
If you want to support the work that Robert and I do, the easiest and bestest way to do it is to come over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
You can tip if you are so inclined, although this would, you know, you can tip over on Rumble.
You just download the Rumble wallet, not the sponsor of today's show, but Rumble.
Download the app, download the wallet.
If you want to tip with crypto, you can tip with Bitcoin here.
Just scan the QR code.
Or you can tip with XAUT, gold backed, with Tether.
You could do that.
And you could go to 1776 Law Center to support the work that Robert does, which is the Lord's work.
And we're going to do one last case.
Yeah, because I forgot the War on the Amish.
Yeah.
So let's do the War on the Amish here because that's the big audience.
And then we'll do the rest over on Viva Barnes Law.
Yeah, we have the right to distill.
Big case.
Big implications, big ramifications.
I can make my own alcohol at home and I don't have it.
The constitutional limitation on the taxation power, the constitutional limitation on the necessary and proper cause, the constitutional enforcement of the enumerated clause provision of the alleged Article I of the Constitution.
So, a lot of big constitutional ramifications of that case.
We'll also win as a custodial interview, not an interview for Miranda purposes, and vaccine mandates taken all the way up to SCOTUS, and winning the Kentucky impeachment went rogue by the Kentucky courts themselves.
We'll have all that on the after party.
Last case we'll discuss here, or set of cases we'll discuss here, why I'm up here for 1776 Law Center in Amish country is the legal war on the Amish.
I'm just looking at Barry Cunningham and I'm looking at who to raid, Barbara.
And now, after demanding that the straight be opened, this is what I'm seeing on Barry Cunningham Trump closes the straight.
It's super genius, my friends.
It's super 8D genius.
If you don't know what he's doing, nor does anybody else.
Kimmy B is in the house.
I'm going to bring this one up then, Robert.
You're going to rant about what's going on with the Amish Gray Stream.
The chat cracks me up.
The chat is on.
I appreciate it.
Even our own chat is divided.
I have a robust debate.
It's completely fine to totally disagree with me and have fun and you can attack me.
Just don't defame Alex Jones and the likes of those, or I'm coming for you.
That's all.
And if you're okay with, but don't complain about me coming for you when you're out there defaming Alex Jones because you made that choice when you chose to defame Alex Jones.
So that's just a little FYI.
I've defended and protected him in the court of public opinion for a long time, known to be an extraordinary human being and person.
And we'll continue to defend him come hell or high water.
We're going to do, let me see if Badlands Media is up.
Okay, they're not up.
We're going to go raid Barry Cunningham.
And if you don't want to get raided, opt out.
But I'm hitting that.
Sorry, I just got lost in the chat.
We're raiding Barry Cunningham.
If you want to opt out, opt out as we do it.
Robert, war on the Amish continues.
Yes, it does.
War on Big Tech Media00:03:24
I mean, in the, this was a, for those that don't know, that there was sort of a cultural buildup over about a decade.
Plus, you know, politics being downstream from culture, that people within institutions of influence, in think tanks, in political action committees, in various charitable foundations, so called charitable foundations, with cultural influence in Hollywood and in academia, you started to see about a decade ago a shift of perception and portrayal of the Amish.
So the Amish are a religious community that comes from parts of Germany and Switzerland that were brought here upon invitation.
By our founding generation, including in the state of Pennsylvania, that their religious freedoms and liberties would be protected.
And those included the right not to serve in war because they don't believe in serving in war in the military.
And other traditions are they don't use modern technology, they don't go to state schools, they're not part of any of what I call the Bill Gates dystopian control grid.
They're not on the big pharma list of all the medications and 80 plus vaccines they want your kids to take.
They're not on the big tech, doom scrolling Instagram, latest Kim Kardashian filter to abuse the minds of young girls.
They are not on the big media, big Hollywood institution of propagandized control, of cultural control that normalize things like boys wanting to be girls and girls wanting to be boys as trans.
They're not part of the big media world.
They're not part of the big tech world.
They're not part of the big pharma world.
And last but definitely not least, they're not part of the big ag world.
They get their food when it's grown right in their own gardens, right on their own farms.
And so they're a very tight knit community that doesn't, they don't have cars, they don't have electricity, they ain't got smart TVs, they ain't even got smart phones.
You're not supposed to bring attention to yourself.
So they dress in a very humble way with clothes they themselves make.
They live their lifestyle, they live their religion.
They don't go around preaching it, screaming at everybody.
They just live it from sunrise to sunset, from Sunday to Sunday.
And because of that, they became an effective control group for what would America look like if our kids didn't have 80 plus vaccines injected in them when they're only two years old?
What if they didn't have, they weren't put on anti anxiety pharmaceuticals, anti depression, sleep medications by the time they're 12 years old?
What if they weren't inundated with Hollywood culture as the definition of good values?
What if they weren't instructed by their five year, when they're five years old in the local elementary school?
About the school teacher wanting to share her journey to her self discovery into some places that you aren't supposed to be talking about birds and the bees until you're much older than that.
What if they weren't put in a place where they had ultra processed, corporatized, industrialized, monopolized food supply where the chickens only live inside a tiny little cage eating their own dung?
What if they lived in a world that was independent and free from that big media, big education, big pharma, big food, big tech?
World.
Criminal Charges Against Amish00:06:42
Well, we know because we have the Amish.
And the Amish are screaming at us that our way of life is not the right way of life.
The Amish live like our founding generation.
What does that mean?
It means the Amish are, by every objective metric, living happier, healthier, longer lives than ever before.
Their life expectancy is going up while ours is going down.
Their happiness metrics are going up while ours is going down.
Their well being and wealth is going up while ours is going down.
Because of that, the Bill Gates of the world needed to destroy the Amish.
And so an assault started first in culture.
All of a sudden, instead of movies like Witness, which really portrayed them quite accurately and sympathetically, you get things saying there's an underground railroad of not abolition support like the Amish did, but of secret criminal mafia organizations connected to the Amish.
What are they really carrying in that little carriage with the horse?
Probably something illegal and sneaking.
They started to suggest maybe they're too familial, maybe they're too close together with all kinds of nasty inferences that came from that.
Fake reality TV shows demeaning and defaming them on a regular basis.
And that led the politicians, the regulators, the administrators, the prosecutors to spot an opportunity.
And then, if you added another layer of that, the Amish didn't vote at high levels, they don't have a specialized lobby, they finish education at eighth grade, they don't have a bunch of lawyers and professionals running around, that they were going to be subject to attack by the licensure class.
And all of a sudden, you can't operate your farm unless you have a licensed vet on staff.
All of a sudden, you're not allowed to put down your animal without being accused of felony animal cruelty.
All of a sudden, you're not allowed to sell the kind of milk that we've been drinking since we figured out how to milk an animal.
All of a sudden, that's dangerous and more unhealthy and scarier than cocaine and illegal drugs.
You can't sell it without federal government or state government permission, whether it's beef, whether it's poultry, whether it's vegetables, whether it's milk, whether it's yogurt, whether it's cheese, without a special government and permission.
And many times, the government wouldn't even give that permission, even if asked for or sought.
So, because of it, they're waging war on the Amish.
They're being subject to criminal charges, civil charges, regulatory charges.
You don't want to put a smart home in your home because the Amish don't believe in any of that kind of technology.
Oh, your house is no longer up to code and we're not going to let you build it.
We're going to put a new environmental regulation on how you operate your land.
Even though if you go to Amish country, it's some of the most beautiful land in the world outside of like New Zealand and France and Switzerland.
It's extraordinary, the Amish countryside here, because of how well they take care of their animals, how well they take care of their land.
It is a source of pride.
It is part of their identity.
But that doesn't stop them from being the subject of continuous attack and assault.
And so they're facing sudden criminal charges out of the blue, sudden injunctions out of the blue, sudden searches and raids out of the blue.
Tax authorities, state, local, and federal, are coming after them from every single direction imaginable.
Amos Miller is facing off against the IRS and Pennsylvania state officials and county officials as we speak.
They're demanding he disclose his entire customer list, his entire vendor list, his entire employee list, even though he has a Fifth Amendment right.
Not to be a witness against himself in a case that could later be used against him in criminal proceedings.
The courts are ignoring those rights, ignoring his privacy rights, ignoring his rights to object to irrelevant and immaterial information.
The same thing is happening to the two people that work with Amish farmers, part of No Bull, who were previously illegally imprisoned four years ago by a Commonwealth Court judge who had no legal authority to do what he did.
Well, they're back demanding they be held in contempt again unless they waive their constitutional rights and liberties.
And give up all the information to anyone they ever worked for or with so the government can come harass, suppress, and stomp them.
Now, that stopped for a little while after the November 2024 election because Amish participation reached a record level.
You can find this from independent third party publications that hate yours truly, that hate Amos Miller, and said because of the Amos Miller case and the work 1776 Law Center did on his behalf, it led to a record level of Amish voter participation that guaranteed President Trump's election in November 2024.
But as the political base has fractured in November of 2025, Pennsylvania elected Democrats at every level of office.
And as soon as that happened, they got their guts back and they decided now it's time to harass the Amish again.
Now it's time to go full scale, wholesale, crush the Amish while they still have a chance.
So there's more criminal cases they're bringing, more civil suits they're bringing, more invasive discovery demanded, waiver of constitutional liberties compelled, contempt proceedings being threatened, imprisonment being threatened.
So that's why we're up here.
We're defending in over a half dozen Amish in those cases.
Most of these were representing pro bono or at very, very discounted fees because the Amish can't afford to mount the kind of legal defense against what they're facing.
They're facing tens of millions of dollars of government legal power coming down on their head.
These are just simple, everyday farmers trying to live the simple, everyday life that is the closest parallel to the way our founding generation lived of any group in the country.
So I hope people continue to support 1776 Law Center.
And you can support all kinds of ways.
Just get the information out there to your local people in Pennsylvania, people across the country.
Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, other places where there are Amish.
Make sure your representatives know that the suppression and oppression of the Amish, the stripping away of our political, financial, medical, and food freedom is something that impacts every single one of us.
So we are, will 1776 continue to take the fight all the way through and all the way up and isn't backing down or backing off at all.
And I appreciate everybody who came out, even people who disagree with me on Trump or disagree with me on the war or other things, they recognize the importance of protecting the Amish, that those principles.
Are as important as any other set of principles.
And I appreciate everybody that came out and joined us this weekend.
I appreciate everybody that can come down to the August 1st, August 2nd conference in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where you can meet a wide range of interesting people and get a wide range of great guests, but also support the important work 1776 Law Center will continue to do on these frontline cases for food freedom, medical freedom, political freedom, and financial freedom.
And paramount right now, in principle, amongst those is defending the Amish, because as goes the Amish, So goes America.
Dr. Strangelove Lego Videos00:04:09
Robert, just in time.
CJ on South Carolina donated, and I get to break out the new member bell.
Welcome to Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
And right before we transition into Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com and Rumble Premium, I went up and dug up the most offensive Little Rocket Man tweets that Donald Trump had ever put out.
That's not okay.
I'll start with the less bad one.
I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man.
Okay, that's that's this is the this is as bad as Grok could pull up the second horse.
And it's funny seeing Trita Parsi down there.
If you reject diplomacy, you choose war.
Let the record show that you chose war with North Korea, just like Bush chose war with Iraq.
Well, it never got there with North Korea, did Barnes just leave?
And I'll bring up the worst one to respond to the member from our community.
And this is here just heard foreign minister of North Korea speak at UN.
If he echoes thoughts of little rocket men, they won't be around much longer.
I presume that's as much of a threat as anyone's going to get.
And even that, the they could be misconstrued as North Korea, but most likely would be misconstrued as the foreign minister and Little Rocketman themselves.
They won't be around much longer.
And that is light years, light years different than the truth post that we had that we were talking about.
So, with that said, we're going to go.
Robert, this week, I'm going to be live daily.
What do you got coming up this week?
So, Monday with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily.
I think at noon Eastern Time, if I understand right, it may get moved around, but my understanding right now, noon Eastern Time, going to be on with Congressman Thomas Massey, talking about these FISA laws and amnesty laws and latest things they're trying to snooker and sneak in there while he fights off the biggest foreign lobby spending against any single member of Congress in American history.
And then on Wednesday, right here, Viva Fry, 3 p.m. Eastern Time, we'll be on with Edward Dowd.
What's all this private equity stuff?
What's going on?
Is there some.
Serious financial risk from that?
What's happening in the housing market?
What might be the ramifications of the closure of the Straits of Hormuz if it continues?
How might that impact the supply chain, the equity markets, and the oil markets?
Should we be stockpiling our gold and burying it now?
All that and more with Edward Dowd on Wednesday.
And then we'll have live bourbons with Barnes on Tuesday night and Thursday night next week, where we do breakdowns on all the latest topics and I try to answer.
a whole bunch of questions from members of the board.
Andrew Piscadlo, I read without approval.
This is from Dr. Strangelove.
Dr. Strangelove, hell bent on destroying the world.
You've even got a computer miscalculation killing a bunch of schoolgirls.
He gave the data.
That's a pretty good Peter Seller's invitation.
I know, I could do it on Dr. Strangelove.
This is, what is this?
This is awesome.
That looks like me and you, Robert.
They're taking AI and doing all this stuff.
This is fascinating.
Is that supposed to be on Barnes, leaving on a high note with Viva?
Is that supposed to be, you look a little bit too much like Rob Reiner in that video.
You're Duran Jacket.
They got all these different ones.
The way you can do with AI now is wild.
Oh, yes, hold on.
I'm updating.
Apparently, they were so offended or affected by the YouTube version of those Iranian propaganda Lego videos.
They banned them from YouTube?
They banned them from YouTube.
I was like, they're just funny little Lego videos.
Well, I can appreciate that it is actually.
Oh, it's really Iranian propaganda.
I don't know if the company itself is, to me, for the record, I don't know if the company itself, it looks to me like Iranian propaganda.
But I found most of them.
Funny and fabulous, like that's what you can do these days with AI.
Anybody can become a funny filmmaker.
I don't think I even quote posted it with commentary because I didn't want to promote that stuff.
But we're updating and we're going to be Rumble Premium and Viva Barnes Law.