Richard Baris and Professor John Eastman dissect the GOP's electoral decline driven by foreign policy distractions and Eastman's disbarment. Baris argues voter disaffection over the Iran conflict shrinks the Republican coalition, while Eastman defends his 2020 election memo as protected speech against a politically motivated "kangaroo court." He accuses Democrats of orchestrating "lawfare" to punish allies, citing selective investigations into Schiff and Swalwell. Ultimately, Eastman plans a Supreme Court petition for First Amendment violations, framing the proceedings as an existential threat to objective truth and democratic foundations. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Billy Falls Asleep By The Pool00:03:39
Hey, Carl, what's up?
Nothing much, Billy.
I see you got a little sun today.
Oh, yeah, you think so?
I fell asleep by the pool for a few hours.
Did you fall asleep or did you pass out?
Ah, ha, ha, ha, Billy, eat your soup.
Eat your soup.
It's good soup.
Gentlemen, I can't thank you enough for coming out here this evening.
Please, Billy, please, no gibberish tonight, please.
I beg you.
Sorry, Daddy.
There's a good reason why we're starting with a Billy Madison clip today.
We started early because we wanted to get started a little early.
And if you haven't seen it, Billy Madison is the greatest movie ever made.
Right up there with Dumb and Dumber, Happy Gilmore, True Romance.
Uh, train spotting, pulp fiction, not so much reservoir dogs, brave hearts.
All right, forget about it.
Oh, by the way, uh, does everybody know that there's another?
I do a weekly movie review with um Lord Buckley, who you may know from such awesome channels as America's Untold Stories.
And yesterday, we reviewed what did we review yesterday?
Chinatown, Viva, and Lord Buckley go to the movies.
And we're going, we've set up the Rumble channel, so everyone's going to be able to get this on Rumble now.
Uh, look, I started with that for a reason.
Did you fall asleep or did you pass out?
I made the joke to Rich, and you're going to understand why I made the joke to Rich when you see him.
Richard, good sir, let me just zoom right in.
So I see Richard in the background.
I'm like, holy shit, his red gauge is off or my white gauge is off.
And he said, I fell asleep in the sun yesterday, and I had to say, Did you fall asleep or did you pass out?
As the joke, he fell asleep.
Rich, what the hell did you do?
I don't know how red you are, but you look flipping red.
I got pretty crispy, man.
I was yesterday, it was kind of like a honeydew stuff, like honey.
There's stuff you have to do around the house, and the pool looks great.
I'm like really proud of how good my pool looks this early.
And I decided, you know what?
I think I just want to put my legs in because it's getting hot.
And I, because I have this splash pad on my pool.
And so, like, the kids can use it.
There's a deeper end, but like, it's a splash pad.
And a lot of times, women, they lay out and tan.
And then I'm like, let me see what this is about, you know?
So I got on that splash pad, man.
And I conked out.
It wasn't that long.
It was like maybe 40 minutes.
What time of day?
Long enough, brother.
Long enough.
And Laura did too.
She was on a chair next to me and she fell asleep, but she has a darker tan already than me.
And of course, like I had 10 years, I was stuck in this office polling.
It's like this one big election in the Trump era.
And I did not go out as much as I used to.
I swear I changed the pigmentation of my skin, bro.
I swear I got white and I had to get some of it back.
And I just, you know, she looks all nice and brown.
I got this.
Well, what time of day did you fall asleep at?
Um, 1 30.
Yeah, okay, that's for Christ's sake.
What you need, you need, yeah, you need a good, neurotic Jewish mother that says, Don't go out of the sun between 11 and 2 because that's the high point.
Uh, and then you need a like a good, neurotic father who tells you that, um, suntan lotion causes skin cancer, which I happen to start, you know, I'm starting to believe a little bit more of that, especially the aerosol stuff.
Election Polling And Skin Pigmentation00:15:01
Okay, yeah, set all that aside, Richard, Richard Barris, people's pundit.
Uh, we started early just because I wanted to get an extra five minutes with you just in case because you might have to duck out at 3 30.
It looks like.
It looks like we're good.
It looks like we're good on that.
Yeah.
All right.
Good.
And then we got, I got John Eastman coming in at 345.
So if we've got a window, let's get into this.
Everybody who.
It's disgraceful what happened to him, man.
But.
Oh, John Eastman.
No, no.
It's disgraceful.
It's disgraceful.
And it's enraging that there seems to be.
I'll give it time for there to be no action.
Maybe they needed to let it run the course of the court system before doing something.
But if they don't do anything, and I say they being.
We're going to get into it.
I'm going to ask John Eastman if there's been a federal civil rights violation of any of his rights and whether or not.
A certain civil rights division or the DOJ can get involved.
But Rich, people are very angry at you.
And I was messing, we were texting each other the other day.
And I said, Look, yeah, Noel, I want to get the latest as to where we're at right now in the polling.
People can love or hate your social media presence.
They must respect your ability to poll and call things the way you see them, whether you like it or not, and whether they like it or not.
For those who are meeting you for the first time, just let everybody know who you are.
Yeah, so that's exactly why they call me the people's pundit because I tell it how it is.
I, of course, like other pollsters, have my own views, but an election forecaster and a pollster cannot allow their own views to get in the way of their job.
And so I think people misunderstand that sometimes I give commentary or criticism, whatever it may be, that I don't want to be true.
Like everyone acts like I'm dying for this to be true or something, you know, or I want Trump to fail.
It's because we live in this world, brother, where everyone else has allowed their own professions to be perverted by their own views.
They have allowed their integrity to be compromised by politicians, by whatever it could be media opportunities, whatever it may be that they're after that they want so they can prosper.
And it's the harder thing to do is to not do that and succumb to it and to tell the truth.
Yeah, I mean, just so people understand, we did technically debut in 14, but I only polled two races publicly, which was North Carolina and Florida, both correctly when others did not.
And then in 16, we started a tracking poll that was experimental, considered experimental at best back then.
And the funny thing is, now most people use that methodology.
In fact, the Associated Press, AP vote cast basically took our methodology to conduct alternate exit polls because the exit polls were being just so bad.
I mean, we had so many misses.
The exit polls in 16 showed Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide.
And of course, that did not happen.
Our polling did not show that that was going to happen.
We conducted exit polls, by the way, in Florida in 16.
I had to wait two and a half hours before everyone realized my exit poll was better.
18, I'm used to this, bro.
18 rolls around.
People don't want to hear it because, of course, who follows me during all this?
How do I build a following?
A bunch of Trumpers who feel like the pollsters are wronging them, right?
And they were wronging them.
But they misunderstood.
You followed me to get the truth.
You followed me to be accurate and to be straight with you.
If you were looking for somebody who would cheerlead for Donald Trump, there are plenty of people out there.
Go do you, boo.
That's not what we do over here.
I'm not compromising myself for anybody.
You're not going to see me put out a Republican plus one generic ballot in a year like 2018.
Just so I can, I'm referencing a specific poll by the way, intentionally.
You're not going to see me do that, so I can still stay in the boys' club and keep my friggin' invitation to the Easter egg hunt at the White House.
Been there, done that, wasn't that impressed.
I'm good.
I would rather tell people the truth.
Am I allowed guessing who you're referring to there, or should I not?
Well, anybody could go look it up.
There's only one person who put out a Republican plus one on the generic ballot in 18, where they lost it by eight points.
By the way, we polled it correctly, and everyone started hating on us back then.
They rolled around in 2020 again.
Like, this is this ebb and flow, you know, where like there's all of these Trumpers who like you while you're doing good by them.
And the same thing goes for the left, Dave.
I mean, the left hated me because I came out swinging because they were wronging people.
They were, they were telling people that it's, yeah, there you go.
I was, I was, look, the thing is, I was going to guess Rasmussen, but I didn't want my own, we'll call it not biases, but silo to potentially taint that.
So, I wrote a defense of them, by the way, back then in 18 against Philip Bump, who attacked them at the Washington Post.
And it basically was called something like if Rasmussen is a right leaning pollster, then what does that make everybody else?
Because they were so left wing.
And I did argue it is possible with the way they asked that question, it is possible the wording of the question influenced it.
The only problem we have to acknowledge with that argument is that they had no problem with that question in years before.
So, you're just not going to see me do that so I could stay on people's good side.
Chris Ruddy at Newsmax can keep covering my polls.
You either cover them because you want your readers to be informed, or you don't.
I really don't care.
But everyone's going to still know that I polled the election better than 99.9% of the rest of the polling community.
Like that's the way it's going to go down.
And if you doubt what my work and you doubt what I do, I guarantee you that my career is littered, littered behind me with the graves of people who tried to do what others are trying to do right now.
I bait them in.
I wait.
When the future that I see way before everyone else inevitably comes to fruition, I tap dance on their graves.
So if you're dying to do it, knock yourself out because I got a laundry list of USOBs.
You'll go down like Aaron Derrickman went down.
Alan Derrickman went down.
Like Nate Silver went down.
Like Ansel Seltzer went down.
Who took, you know, this is hilarious.
Who do you think took all these people out?
Dummies?
Well, this, we're going to get to a few things.
I love asking.
Just for the record.
I asked Rock what was the most prominent example or let's say the biggest mistake, the biggest mistake it can find clear cut.
Yes.
Let me see.
It was 2022.
And now, what is it?
Let me see this.
Pre election polling, Barris released a late poll showing Lake leading Hobbs 49 46, the actual certified result.
Well, I mean, first of all, what was the margin of error there?
And considering we all know the degree to which that election was actually stolen, I mean, I guess you have to take the loss on paper because your prediction didn't come to fruition in the corrupt reality that was that election.
Yeah.
I mean, technically, we were within the sampling error.
I want to say it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.9, maybe.
So, sampling errors don't work the way.
People think they do, by the way.
I mean, if it's 2.9, it means that Carrie Lake could, if she's at 50, she could be at, you know, 47.1, or she could be, of course, more like a confidence interval than it is how people think they work and they don't work the way people think they do.
But still, I don't like to hide behind that.
I think it's very clear what happened in an exit poll that we conducted that eventually I got subpoenaed to talk about, was a private exit poll.
It's very clear what happened.
The voters who said they were going to vote on election day.
And that participated in the exit poll, many of them told us they could, they did not come back to vote again because they could not.
So, for people who think what happened in Maricopa County that day did not cost Kerry Lake the election, you're just flatly wrong.
I mean, we have the respondents and the names of the voters who told us.
So, at the completion rate, and that's how an exit poll is conducted, guys, you recruit them first, basically, and they agree to take it.
Everyone who voted by mail, you're instructed that when you vote, you come back and complete the interview, and we'll pester you to see if you did it.
95% of the people who were contacted and agreed to take the interview and agreed to take the exit poll who voted by mail, 95% of them completed their interview.
That number was like 17% less with Election Day voters.
And when we contacted them, we heard about it immediately.
First thing in the morning, we were contacting people to see if they voted in the early vote surge, which is very typical for Maricopa.
You get this 6 a.m., 7 a.m. line, and the voting is very heavy until noon.
And people were telling us immediately, bro, the votes, the machines are down.
There's all sorts of crap going on.
And a lot of them didn't even trust to leave their ballot in these other boxes.
So it was a total quagmire.
Some people said, F this, I'm leaving.
And others basically said, I'll come back after I drop my daughter off at soccer or something.
And then don't come back.
And then they just didn't, bro.
Like the numbers are there.
And by the way, that cost her the election by about 12,500 votes.
So there's no question that election.
I followed it in real time.
I mean, I remember where I was doing an interview at one point in an airport.
Talking about the chicanery that we understood that was revealed during the trial.
And I just want to read this last paragraph from Grok for those who are listening in podcast.
This stands out, the one we're talking about, within the margin of error of a stolen election.
Most documented case where Barris was publicly tested and widely viewed as off base or overstated.
By contrast, Barris is often praised by supporters for stronger accuracy in 2016, 2020, 2024, and 2022 polling overall.
No other single poll or race shows up in any searches for being wildly off.
So that's one hell of a.
That's all of a great resume where even Grok, that's the best it could do.
But now, Rich.
And just for the record, Dave, let me just say for the record, that year in 22, which was a very bad year for a lot of the alternative pollsters, it wasn't for us.
That was the one miss we had.
And the generic ballad was good.
The Georgia poll was Kemp plus seven, Walker by one.
Walker lost by like two tenths of a percentage point.
That's a good poll.
So, like, we weren't widely off everywhere.
We were off in Arizona.
That's it, you know?
I mean, obviously, it was Arizona.
Come on, guys, give me a break.
If you don't think people, if people, if you don't think that they took that election from Kerry Lake pulling that crap, unbelievable, you take your head out of your butt.
They did.
And I read their plan, Maricopa's plan for testimony.
Todd took a lot of crap for that, but I could see a well thought out attempt to make Maricopa run very well.
What I believe happened is that he was used as a, like a, not a straw man, he was used as a bag boy, man, to hold the bag.
And Steven Richter and the rest of them threw him under the bus and they threw the monkey and, you know, they threw the wrenches into the system.
And gummed it all up, brother.
It's a tragic.
Now, what I texted you jokingly the other day is people are going to want you to be wrong.
Oh, and people are also going to accuse you of, I don't know, having some sort of inherent bias in your polling methods because you're quite vocal politically on social media.
Before we even get into where you see things are going, how could you quell that concern where people are going to say you're unhinged?
Whether or not, I mean, you're unhinged on social media, and that's got to have an impact on your accuracy as a pollster.
Where were those criticisms when we were?
Polling races that were going well for Trump when nobody else was, because I've always been unhinged.
I've been unhinged about something or somebody.
That's why I'm different.
If you think other pollsters in this industry don't have views, the only difference is I don't insult your intelligence and hide them from you like other people do.
Like Nate Silver was always a fanatic leftist.
That was always the case.
Ann Seltzer always had TDS, always had broken brain, yet she was considered the industry standard.
This is the bottom line why this is never interfered with my work.
Because I simply care more about being right than I do about the success of any politician or party.
At the end of the day, I have to look myself in the mirror and say, I did a good job.
Now, there are mechanisms in our polling methodology that prevent you from.
I want to be careful because I don't want to give away some stuff, but if somebody at the firm wanted to just mess up some numbers or play with stuff, they would not be able to do it without me noticing.
There would be a red flag.
The same is true of me.
So there are certain parameters that if something is like out of, something is not right, something's awry, we view them as like safety mechanisms from our own bias, right?
And honestly, I developed them not because of my positions now or like my commentary now.
I developed them because, man, when a cycle like 16 happens, you're doing your work and you are confident in this work.
And you think you're right, but the entire world is telling you you're wrong.
You know, Trump is going to lose.
They had me think I was crazy, Dave.
You know, I don't think so.
I imagine it's like the exact inverse right now where you're sounding the alarm bells and people are telling you, shut up.
It's all hunky dory.
And so I feel like I'm going crazy these days.
And it certainly doesn't help when the side that thinks they're right has the, I don't know, I say not control of the bullhorn, but certainly seems to have the bigger click when it comes to popularity contests.
It doesn't matter what they say publicly, bro.
Like the White House knows I'm right.
Like you people on X are the only ones who don't know I'm right.
You are wishful thinking.
You are not living in the reality.
You get the president privately, you sit him down, you talk to him.
He's going to tell you we're going to get killed.
All right.
So you're living in your own world, in your own bubble.
And the problem with that is, you may be upset with how I'm delivering it, but the problem is, I'm trying to pop your bubble before it pops for you because voters don't care about your damn bubble.
They will pop it no matter what.
And you are about to get the biggest bubble pop we have seen since 2016.
Democrats were flabbergasted.
They just couldn't understand what happened.
Well, the right is in the same situation right now.
They're looking for all these myths to believe and wishful thinking, bro.
And at the end of the day, I will quote the great Mark Penn, the great pollster.
He's a Democratic pollster, but he was a good pollster.
Mark Penn, where he told, he said something once to me that just stuck to me forever.
And I'm glad because he was right.
Reality always wins.
Reality always wins.
Like you can talk this crap all you want, and you can do the, the, your stop black pilling and dooming, Rich.
Okay.
If the Titanic was sinking and you wanted to pretend it wasn't sinking, and you, by the way, you didn't even try to fix it, you just jettisoned the lifeboats like an idiot because you believe it, you have faith, you're going to be okay.
You're still going to go down in that damn water.
Mark Penn Says Reality Wins00:15:44
You may think you're not, but you are.
That's the reality you're living in right now.
And you're looking around, and some people are like, oh my God, we got to do something.
And you're like, shut up, Doomer.
And the ship is going down.
And it's going to happen.
I mean, it is what it is.
You know, at this point, look at New Jersey yesterday catastrophe, catastrophic underperformance, 20 point swings in Hispanic neighborhoods.
Like, the data's on my side, brother.
The data's on my side.
Like, at this point, you really have to try to convince yourself that.
That I'm wrong.
The data is all on my side.
I am right about this.
100%.
I am right.
Let me ask you this.
I guess the one question is before we.
A, can anything be done?
But B, what admits of the possibility that this is where it's at right now?
And if it doesn't go that way, but you start to see that it might be changing, I mean, you're going to be doing polling along the way.
So if things start turning around prior to the midterms, you'll presumably see it.
What people want.
What people want to see happen is that you're going to be wildly wrong.
They're going to come back to your predictions here or your polling now and say you got it all wrong.
And, you know, they'll rub it in your face for the rest of your life.
Where are things at right now?
That's not going to happen because the only way things are going to turn around is if they take the advice I have repeatedly given them, which they have repeatedly not.
And knowing full well it is the advice, you know, it is the correct advice.
They're captured right now and it's unfortunate, but it's just true.
They're captured and unable to do the things that they know they need to do to right.
The ship and turn things around.
So, as of right now, I'm absolutely 0% worried about this because it's not going to happen.
Right now, Democrats are much more enthusiastic.
They're voting at much higher rates.
Registrations in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada, other battleground states are going in reverse.
After 10 years of Republican gains and registrations, what we're seeing is that the anger from last year, because registrations are always a lagging indicator, we'll see it in the polling first.
People will start to tell us.
Maybe they told us they were Republican a year ago, but now they'll start to tell us they're an independent, right?
Really, the data on independence switchers is remarkable, which is that basically, guys, it's like they're independents.
Then before 24, they decide to tell you they're Republicans.
Maybe they even changed their registration.
And then now, of course, they've gone back to being independent.
Some are even now changing the registration back to Democrat.
So we'll see that.
We'll pick this up in the polling first.
Then it happens in the registrations.
And just to give everybody a we got Trump at like 40%.
Right now, of approval.
It's very difficult to get a president into the 30s because, well, let me rephrase that.
A president like Trump or a president like Obama, Biden's a separate story.
He didn't really have a base.
He had typical partisan support and it collapsed.
That's why in our polling, Biden did fall into the 30s.
We have had Trump into the 30s, dip into the 30s, but then there's a lot of pressure.
All right.
So as the public pressure is pushing down on the approval number, his base pushes back up.
The problem is.
Is what I've been screaming about for months now.
The reason he probably is going to fall into the 30s and stay there is because his base is shrinking.
MAGA is basically a, it's tinier, much tinier.
We just had a whole report about this, much whiter, much older than it used to be in 24.
His coalition has been vaporized, Dave.
Vaporized.
I think you need to flesh this out so that people truly understand it.
Because on the one hand, people are referring to that CNN poll that says 100% support from MAGA.
On the one hand, I say, like, that's, if you view that as sabotage, then you'll read it entirely differently.
Explain how the MAGA base is shrinking.
I don't think people are even realizing that.
Okay.
So let me give an overview.
And I wish I would have given you this before because I probably should have, but I could share it if you want me to.
I think.
Yeah, you got it here.
Yeah.
It's because it is important.
If we just go, because a lot of this stuff, we don't put all of our data up publicly, guys, but we put a lot of it up.
And if you go to bigdatapole.com, go down and look under the project section, the first stuff is for clients, you know, because of course we do.
Private work.
That's how we make money over here, not being a social media influencer.
Okay.
If you scroll down in here, let me share the screen with you guys.
Oh, you're there?
Okay.
If you scroll down, you can see all of the different ones.
Big one, of course, that I'm going to go to right now is the second one, second row, first cube.
It's partisan affiliation.
This is, yeah, we've tracked it over time.
You can see when the election, when Donald Trump won the election, about 40% of the country, about 40% of registered voters had said that they were Republican, right?
Just under.
That was huge.
That was a high for us, even going back to 2014.
And then over time, you can see the trend.
I mean, it's a downward trend.
Does it stay down every month and continue to go?
No, we saw some months where it popped back a little bit.
Look at the collapse during the Iran war.
Actually, it was in really the hard lobby leading up to the Iran war.
This is, we already know because we started asking independents.
This is the result.
Those Republicans were exclusively what we would call MAGA or America First that are out.
They've seen enough.
They regret their vote and they are gone.
And they went, you can see where they went here.
some most of them went to independence we it's independence it's a drop of it's a drop of 38 it's a drop of basically five percent it's a gain of three and a half and it's a gain of three give or take three Yeah.
And independence, Dave, like we asked them, were you previously, would you say that you previously identified as America First or MAGA?
It's like 20% of the independents that we poll.
20% of them are telling us, yes, I used to be MAGA.
Is it, is it, is the, well, the reason is subjective.
This diagram and this data is objective, correct?
There's no subjective interpretation.
This is party affiliation.
Is it self identified or is it based on actual registration?
Now, that's the thing.
That's self identified.
All right.
Now, when we poll people, we know what their actual registration is.
So, for the period where people loved our polls, Trump supporters loved our polls, we could see that while typically, typically we were pulling something registration wise that was like D plus four, D plus six, even going back all those years, but it wasn't an identification.
It was a lot of Democrats that were orphaned Democrats that hadn't changed their registrations yet.
And it would really come back like in 2016, it was like D plus two, right?
In 2020, it was about even.
It was about even, even though Democrats had a registration edge.
Over those years, you would expect to see Republicans gain in registration if these trends are long term and they hold.
They did.
So Republicans started making massive gains.
What I'm trying to tell people is that starting last year, this disaffection was clear as day.
And now you can see it in the registrations.
You can say, in North Carolina, it's a disaster.
Pennsylvania is a disaster.
Pennsylvania is losing basically all the gains they made.
Pennsylvania is going to end up being, at this rate, if this doesn't stop, Pennsylvania will end up being a bluer state than it was when Trump won it out of nowhere in 2016.
Like, my God, how did he do that?
And it's sad.
I don't like it, guys.
I'm not in love with this happening.
I don't like it at all.
It's unfortunate.
But this is your screen, so you can show us what you want to show us here.
Yeah, so this is why we did this.
We made this tracker, Dave, because very Unlike other pollsters, I still do interview people myself.
I try to make five, maybe 10 interviews a poll.
I'll try.
Sometimes I'm just too busy, but I'll get an AI flagged down.
This is somebody you may want to talk to because they're falling outside the scope of our sentiment scores when we do what other pollsters don't, which is what we call an elaborated response.
What is the reason that you told us the answers you did on these questions?
And we could see it very clear.
Last year, Especially when he bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, everybody was like, you know what?
This started out good, and then we could see it.
You know, the blob came in.
This is turning into a foreign policy dominated presidency.
This was supposed to be America first.
This was supposed to be a domestic agenda.
We want him to get back to the domestic policy that he ran on.
We do not want him talking about Iran all day.
We don't want him talking about this country.
It's like every day is a new country.
So we created this tracker, which since then, CBS News has stolen without giving us credit.
Barry Weiss.
I want my citation.
Until your pollster is smart enough to figure out their own damn tracker, I want a citation the way Gallup required others who took stuff from them.
This is also tracked by Gallup.
This is originally tracked by Gallup.
I want a citation, Barry.
You know, hire somebody who's got an original thought in their head.
And you don't even do it right.
So, here are these other pollsters, the Wall Street Journal did it too.
They tried to take some variation of this question six, seven months into the tracker because they realized, oh man, this guy must be on to something.
You're damn right we were on to something.
We were listening to the voters.
This is what they were telling us.
So, we created this tracker to give us an idea of how voters believed, you know, what direction they believe the administration was going.
Is it the way they want them to go?
Or do they want to balance it?
Are they striking a balance?
Or do they want them to focus more on one over the other?
As you could see here, it's blown up since the war started.
It's actually now higher.
It's actually the new poll will be around 65.
Tell us what we're looking at.
Scroll down so you can read the top.
What you're looking at, we'll tell them this thinking about domestic issues versus foreign affairs, which comes closer to your view regarding the current focus of the Trump administration?
And the answers are they've been too focused on foreign affairs, not enough on domestic issues, too focused on domestic issues, not enough on foreign affairs, or their focus has been balanced and is just about right.
Balanced and just about right is at 25.1%.
Focused too much on domestic is like 13%, of course.
And too focused on foreign policy is 62%.
Dave, we also do, and it's not up here, we are going to start putting it up.
We do a rank distribution for most important issues.
The top five most important issues to voters who will cast the ballot in November are all domestic issues, all of them.
And this has been an administration that has been focused because of this right here.
Let's just call it out because the Israel lobby has been focused and dominated way too much on foreign policy.
They didn't elect him to be George W. Bush 3.0.
They elected him to deal with infrastructure in the United States, to get prices under control, not start a war that shoots prices, energy prices, 21% higher in a single month.
So, like, to pretend like you don't understand, like, this is what's starting to drive me a little nuts about the 20% in this country that still is in love with Donald Trump, because that's all it is.
Go to the approval page and you'll see it.
Only about 20% strongly approve of him.
They are in their own bubble.
It's like if you want to be in that bubble, fine.
But to pretend as if everybody else who doesn't want to live in your delusion has something wrong with them is that's a democratic thing, guys.
That's what you sound like right now.
You sound like Democrats.
Especially you go to social media and you see the browbeating, emotional blackmail, insults, name calling.
It's exactly what the left did to push the likes of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard out of them and then say, why are we a dwindling group of.
You know, lefty Democrats and why are they coalescing?
And a lot of people are doing the exact same thing there.
I want to bring this one up just because I see it and I don't get all the comments from Rumble because I'm in StreamYard today.
It says, So off, the reality that matters is the future.
Everyone pretends they know.
If the economy is better and Iran and Ukraine are settled, gas goes down.
But over what timeframe does anyone think wrong, Anyway, it doesn't matter.
The economy was rip roaring in November of 2018 and Republicans got their asses kicked.
That is not true.
I hate to burst everybody's bubble.
Plus, the White House, this is what they told me last year.
They were like, Rich, don't worry.
Because when the new year kicks in, the BBB, a lot of the provisions are for next year.
Scott Besant literally was saying, We're going to have 5% GDP growth.
I kid you not.
I'm like, OK.
I'm like, that's a hell of a thing to hitch the future on.
That's not enough.
And the reasons are myriad.
But the fact of the matter is, Republicans did not understand the nature of their realignment.
Who they needed to make sure stayed engaged.
You can't win off of old voters, even in a midterm.
It's not enough.
For all the reasons I put on X the other day, that is not the direction this coalition can go in because boomers, first of all, don't even majority support Donald Trump.
This idea, like, oh, if we just cater to the boomers and get them out, and if gas prices come down and all these boomer talking points, they're getting more democratic every year.
And the first boomers turn 80 this year in 2026.
Two years from now, The electorate will look even more dramatically different than it will in November.
You won't even recognize this electorate that votes in November.
It'll be dramatically different.
Donald Trump did one point worse in 24 with 65 plus than he did in 2020.
And yet he won overwhelmingly.
That's because of how the demographics are changing in this country.
And the 65 plus group, which used to vote 20 points for Republicans, those days are over.
It's over.
You needed to cater.
To the people who are going to decide elections for the next 30 years, not for the next three.
And they ran a very young, forward looking campaign.
They governed like a Fox Boomer Con.
And it's very simple.
And by the way, everyone keeps saying the generic ballot.
Well, it's early.
It's early.
It's not early.
The generic ballot by last November was already slightly more than 70%, 70% likely to predict the ultimate outcome, with, by the way, an average gain of the currently leading party of around five points.
Now we're in the 80s.
The generic ballot is actually pretty predictable, even this far out.
Have there been times where it wasn't?
Yes.
But here's the kicker: the problem.
No, never, never has an incumbent party started an unpopular conflict and won.
This is like without fail, Dave.
The voters punish you.
They punish you without fail, every single one.
But now let me ask you this: some people are going to say, well, Rich, you admitted in 2018 they got crushed at the midterms despite a roaring economy, which I presume is going to lead to the argument, the shift.
That people are saying now, well, the party in power always loses the midterms.
So that's not always true.
That's a phenomenon.
That's a modern phenomenon.
And we have had periods of 30 year periods of Democratic rule, 30 year periods of Republican rule.
This is a modern phenomenon that began with the Republican Revolution in 1994.
And there is a reason for it.
Incumbents Punished For Unpopular Wars00:15:30
I'm writing an entire thesis on it.
It's because of the lobby.
The lobby has captured both parties, both lobbies.
I mean, both parties have been captured by various lobbies.
I'm not just blaming the Israel lobby here.
The problem right now is the Israel lobby with the Trump administration.
Everybody knows it.
So, I mean, I'm just not going to pretend I can't say that out loud.
But other parties have had other issues.
And unfortunately, the capturing of our system is breaking it down.
And voters are constantly looking for somebody to keep their promise and for somebody to do the things that they want them to do.
And they're getting frustrated.
So they keep swinging between these parties back and forth, back and forth.
That is a modern phenomenon.
It is not the vast majority of our electoral popular voting history.
It's not.
This is a thing that started in the 90s.
Go look it up.
I want to bring up, I'm trying to find, let me see here, share screen.
And this is not to put on.
I want to just read some of the rumble rants, first of all.
Ginger Ninja says, Yes, love us some barrass.
And then Ginger Ninja says, Speaking of jokes, Rich has heard a few jokes.
Yeah, Ginger's one of the many awesome members of our community.
But I know Old Man Toby's been around for a while, so I'm not making fun of this comment.
I need to highlight the flawed reasoning of trying to read into intentions when you might be right, you might be wrong.
It doesn't change anything.
I'm at the point that I think Rich Barnes and Richard want to see things burn just so they can be right.
First of all, some might say, I'm not saying confession through projection, but basically the flip side to that is you just hope that they're wrong so that you could be right.
I was just going to say that.
That's actually called a framing bias.
He's trapped in a cognitive bias.
Guys, I mean, you are.
I'm sorry.
This is what I do for a living.
You're stuck in a framing bias.
I just.
Let me read the rest of this.
Don't care about the middle class people like me.
That's exactly.
Reading intentions again.
It's loser thinks Scott Adams.
That's why I spent $20 of my own money to make sure that you guys had honest polls.
It's just a stupid, stupid thing to say.
Like, you're just.
Delving into the gutter and insulting people and casting assumptions on people because you don't like the reality because you want to admit it with your cognitive bias.
James Yoder, DX Rake, I don't know who that is.
Never believe anything, never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true.
Thank you.
So it's like, I can appreciate people are pissed at you because it's always easier to shoot the messenger than it is to digest the message.
And then when it comes true, people don't turn inwards, then they just blame the people who then are in the messenger.
And it's been happening for a year, Dave.
This has been happening for years.
I've lived through it with you where a year ago is not quite a year, it's nine months.
People were saying, You're out in left field, it's going to be a red wave.
And then it slowly moved over to, Well, the party in power always loses in the midterms.
I've had this discussion with friends and family.
Don't you remember what you were saying nine months ago?
I didn't know the goalpost, brother.
They did.
So I guess I don't want everyone being doom-pilled.
I mean, to sunstone, well, if gas gets better and you win the war with Iran, I mean, A, it wasn't a war, but set all that aside, the war with Russia and Ukraine.
Still going on, and I was watching some old clips of you know how that was supposed to be resolved.
I won't blame that not being resolved on Trump, but we have not only not had that one resolved, now we've got another one that's going to jack up prices for a very long period of time, despite what people think.
It doesn't just go up and down.
Oh, well, he announced the the streets are open today, so gas prices are going to go down.
Paid 62 bucks to fill up a freaking Volkswagen Tiguan the other day, and I can afford it.
It's like other people can't, but the flip side, you're relying on all this happening by November.
People make their decisions a little bit in advance, but rich so that it's not entirely.
Yeah, well, what can I know.
Regardless of what they have accepted by way of your advice, what can they do to turn this around?
And what are the various windows, you know, as of which it's too late to try that one?
So now you got to try something else.
Yeah.
I mean, we're actually getting pretty close to that.
This is why there is a flaw in the argument that it's early, it's still early.
That's not really true because of how we tell ourselves stories and narratives.
I don't get too much into this, but I was just talking with a guy, Lenny Murphy, about this.
Same thing with Vardir research and how people make verdicts when they, When they're doing, you know, jury duty or something.
We process facts and events through the stories, our own experiences, and through the lenses of our own experiences.
And we develop these stories that we tell ourselves.
This for an election takes time.
All right.
It develops over time.
Let me tell the story of the election right now.
Donald Trump ran on no new wars and on being a strong leader.
I mean, that's essentially it putting the American forgotten work, you know, forgotten man and woman, the middle class that you, that commenter just talked about right there.
He ran on that.
And instead, he ended up being BB's bitch.
And he started wars that, and by the way, the Epstein, the Epstein stuff is the Epstein class narrative that Democrats are putting together is brilliant.
And it was ridiculous.
It's the direct result of Bondi's absolute debacle.
But I want to, I want to bring this one up here.
This is, this is the madness, Rich.
Mak Maxis says to to the point, to point out an up to the point of an unpopular war.
Rich, Barris ET AL are the self fulfilling prophecy it's.
It's such I.
I think, if I understand that correctly, they're saying now that if Republicans lose in the midterms it's because of you Rich, and not despite your, your warnings.
I mean that that's the delusional level of I call it I hate the word Coke ground control to major Tom.
Okay, ground control to major Tom.
It won't be, you can listen, guys.
Just so you all know, they know this is true.
Again, I'm bringing this up for a reason because one of the things, another prediction of mine that came true is that you will soon see the Israel lobby and the Mark Levins and the Lindsey Grahams and the rest of them find a scapegoat.
It won't be their fault that they lost the election, even though if you want to put it up, you can put it up, David.
That's the generic ballot.
You can see the very month Republicans lost their lead on the generic ballot.
People may recognize what happened.
During that time, it got tighter and people were pissed over the Epstein stuff.
But then it was all over, brother, the minute he bombed Iran last year.
All over.
Well, I say they could have come back from that because.
I do think they could have, yes.
And I dare say, if the straits are opened up and the war is over, here's the white pill declare victory, get back to domestic issues on fire, restructure the DOJ, focus on the Jan 6 injustice prosecutions, focus on the deed, do it actively, proactively, even if it ends up in court, get on it.
Yesterday, but you can get on it on Monday.
And there might be a chance you'll rally a whole hell of a lot of support.
You're going to have a lot of people who are disenfranchised and disillusioned saying, oh, shit, now it's on.
And now we might see some deep state arrests.
Now we might see some Russiagate hoax stuff.
Tulsi Gabbard coming out with a new memo.
They didn't do anything on the first memo yet.
Georgia, they see some stuff.
Everyone was invigorated.
That went nowhere as of today.
You got six months and maybe two months and maybe one month to show the steadfast interest in domestic issues, the promises that people were invigorated by in November.
They can do that.
But now let's bring this back up here.
What is this, Richard?
So that's the generic ballot.
So it's, you know, which party would you vote for?
It's probably our best gauge for the national mood, even more so than right track, wrong track, or the president's approval numbers, especially since in 22, Democrats were very much able to buck the trend.
And it's because they understood what the realignment meant to them.
And that's something the Republicans have yet to understand.
But you could see this idea like, you know, oh, it's just the incumbent party loses.
That's a BS.
They could have held on.
You can see.
Clear as day, what happened every time the administration got sidelined by the lobby and went into the foreign policy land, they lost support.
When something happened where they didn't hold someone accountable or they broke a campaign promise, you can say what you want about Trump during his first administration, but he was not a campaign promise breaker.
That guy kept his promise, it's unbelievable.
You know, certain things were very difficult to do and hold, uh, you know, to the president's job.
You're just under pressure like crazy.
This time, it's like he doesn't even try.
I mean, to be honest.
There are so many promises now that are broken.
They've piled up so much.
But I do, before I say what happened here, I just want to say I do agree with you that it's Donald Trump.
If he wanted on Monday, say, you know what?
This week is over.
Come Monday, we're done with all this crap.
We're done.
These wars have bogged my administration down.
We're going to focus on the healthcare initiative that got completely swallowed up.
He had a housing and healthcare initiative that was supposed to be launched in the new year.
Instead, BB came back to town and he sidelined everything.
And now we're in a war, which, Encompasses everything.
This is a problem.
This is something people need to know about war in DC.
Either the foreign policy lobbies get their way or you get your domestic agenda.
They cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
When the war comes, it takes all of the president's attention every day, every moment of every day is just sucked up by the war.
It's going to consume the headlines, all of it.
But also, just like, just I mean, we've seen how it happened.
It was the war, it was the war.
Then it's the debate about whether or not it's a war.
Then it's a debate about how long this excursion is going to last.
And then you get bogged down.
Yeah, they like a solid week, a solid week on one issue within that sub issue of the war, the Strait of Hormuz being opened.
Which now that it's opened without getting into all the other arguments we're having back and forth, that's like that now is the victory of the day.
But the war is the war that's not a war is still ongoing.
That one sub issue that became an issue because of the broader issue has now been resolved for the day.
We'll see where it goes next week.
And we're not yet on not only not on domestic issues, seemingly failing on domestic issues, renewing the FISA 702 in a clean renewal.
Another broken problem.
It's pissing everybody off.
Who's the other one that was most recent?
It'll come back in a second.
Thank you.
So, I'm sorry, my son just walked in and gave me a package.
Go ahead.
No, no, what's in the package?
Packages like a used diaper, depending on who we're asking.
No, it's an Amazon package.
And then, uh, I was hoping before the girls left, all this stuff would come because I had stuff gifts that they could have taken with them to use.
And they it came the minute they left, one of them started to drip in.
It was like no more than 20 minutes after they left.
And uh, I was hoping it would come before, uh, but one of them got delayed, especially too, which stinks.
Yeah, the girls are gone.
They're off doing the damn competition thing.
So it's just the boys here, which is neat.
Yeah.
But I look, I just wanted to acknowledge what you were saying too that the bottom line is the straights were never supposed to close.
Remember?
I mean, you can't keep moving the goalposts on people and then get mad when people call you out for what you're doing, right?
Like last year, it was calm down, guys.
It's not regime change.
It's just three limited strikes.
That's BS.
Everyone knew it was BS at the time.
If Charlie wasn't there, And he, I mean, we would have had the war last year if Trident wasn't there.
I had an interesting revelation, which was literally earlier this week the closing of the Straits of Hormuz was a big victory because now it's rerouting a bunch of empty vessels to America to refill up.
And everyone's like, hey, checkmate 7D chess.
And five days later, now that it's opened again, it's the victory.
It's so, but, but, and it distracts everything the, you know, the domestic issues in terms of FISA, the other one, you know, uh, Immunity for glyphosate manufacturers.
That's a huge ram.
It's, I guess the question is this, and we want, I know what, I don't know what you've said behind the scenes, but I know that you've said things and given the plan of action, say it publicly.
And what do you think this administration could do as of this afternoon to start turning things around?
Well, I mean, he needs to just at this point, he needs to outwardly come out.
Trump is never going to say, hey, I'm sorry about this, but he can just turn it around and just completely do an about face.
And say, you know what?
I've about had it with this stuff over here.
It's consumed.
People got needs here in this country, and we have to address those needs.
He was, at that time when I was there, very frustrated that the media wouldn't tell the story that he wanted to tell.
And I basically said, you know, you want to answer questions, and that's good because, but when you're out there doing something about healthcare and they ask you a question about Venezuela, ignore them.
Ignore them.
Just, you know, it's what Barack Obama used to do.
He can't help himself, though.
So I kid you not, that day they asked him about something about Iran, and he just was completely diverted and started, he wasted like five, six minutes of the press conference, brother, talking about that.
And I'm like, you're here to talk about healthcare.
Remember, you're here to talk about healthcare.
You have to make a plan to address those five needs that are in the most important, that are in the most important issues list.
We do a rank distribution.
There's, Appealing to the entire coalition.
And then there's the appeal to the disaffected base that he has to make.
Without accountability, you will not succeed.
The accountability issue, or I should just say, the lack of accountability is a huge, huge problem.
That is, I mean, the new book I have out is called Burn It Down for a reason.
He was elected to burn everything down.
That's what people wanted him to do.
And we don't really have a choice.
We're either going to get like Trump's version of populism that does that.
That's a right wing resurgence of nationalism and the economy and prosperity.
But we're going to get Momdani's version.
That's it.
We're not going a third route.
That's not what happens.
The accountability is huge.
He needs to move forward with the healthcare thing because healthcare is number three.
Once upon a time, Republicans had plans of action for it, they just completely abandoned it.
The problem is that healthcare also overlaps with the most important issue, which is how much things cost.
Drop the affordability as a hoax crap.
Like the messaging has to be completely gutted and revamped.
They need a war room with smart people like Obama used to have.
This bubble where they just sit and watch Fox News all day is got to be popped.
I mean, it's outrageous.
The Epstein stuff, do what your wife is telling you to do, Mr. President.
Listen to your wife.
Listen to your wife, who now is in this horrible position because of how they mishandled the Epstein file.
She has to defend herself now.
When Melania from the beginning said, this is going to kill you.
You need to take this seriously and take and handle it the way that you always told people you would handle it.
You cannot do this to prevent Howard Lutnick from being humiliated because he lied about being in the Epstein files.
It's unimaginable, bro.
Like how they mishandled this, unimaginable.
But some of this stuff has to be addressed.
So, my point is, you can't, the mistakes and the broken promises are so severe.
You can't just go on and say, okay, from now on, we're going to do X, Y, and Z and we're going to handle the domestic.
That's good and has to be done, but there has to be a reckoning period here.
There has to be a shifting around of personnel.
There are some people like Bongino leaving and Pambondi leaving, is a good start.
Defending Against Epstein File Claims00:03:52
But look, you have people right now.
You have the Israel lobby right now trying to replace DNI Gabbard with my old friend, like a real life friend of mine who blocked me because I won't show for the president.
So this mentality has got to stop.
Gabbard can't go anywhere, RFK can't go anywhere.
They represent a key.
Key part of the coalition, Maha, which already feels abused.
I told Democrats the same thing here.
You know, during the Trump era, you know why Trump beat you.
You know what you've been ignoring.
You know the concerns voters have, and you have not been listening to them.
So stop pretending like you're shocked that everybody, you know, Donald Trump is appealing to these people.
You know, it's the same thing right now, I would say to the Republicans.
You know what you were elected to do.
Do it.
Do it.
This is not that.
And anyone who's still sitting there with their red hat on going rah rah, you're living in a bubble.
You're living in, and by the way, again, The bubble's going to pop.
And when it does, I don't think you understand how small of a window you have before the coalition gets so fractured.
It'll make the Ross Perot breakoff look like a paper cut.
Ross Perot took 20% off of Bush's coalition for lying.
Read my lips, no new taxes.
And by the way, just for that other commenter, Herbert Walker Bush won the war too.
Did that save him?
No.
They wanted him to focus on the 7% unemployment, not start a war for Kuwait in the Middle East.
Rich, we're going to get to one of the other things where the administration might be not succeeding, which with John Eastman, who's in the back about lawfare and whether they're going after that.
Rich, where can people find you?
I mean, you're going to come back on next week and we're going to go.
There's still some more stuff to tackle, but where can people find you?
Yeah.
I mean, on X, I'm at people's underscore pundit on Instagram as well.
Follow the gram at People's underscore pundit.
It's a new gram, and the following is pathetic.
Go if you want specific policies and stuff like that, guys, about how the administration could turn this around and what needs they need to address and meet in order for people to again feel like they care about them.
It's all on Big Data Poll.
Go to the blog and press release section.
You will see specific policies there, which, by the way, have all been given to the administration and given to the president.
Um, and then locals is the best place.
Uh, people's pundit.locals.com.
And Rich, start deporting people again.
Your base is depressed.
Because you're not doing what you campaigned on.
All of your core promises have been ruined.
So if Republicans don't show up in November because not only did you stop deportations, but you entertained an amnesty, don't be surprised.
Go back to deportations.
And I gave the White House a plan to do that too.
I mean, all they had to do was acknowledge three small changes, Dave.
And ICE could be rounding up Somalis right now, but they didn't want to do it.
Yeah, the amnesty was what I almost forgot to mention, but thank you for dropping it.
It's huge.
Immigration is huge.
We're doing this again.
I'll talk with you offline afterwards.
Thank you very much for coming on.
This was amazing.
Anytime, brother.
All the best.
Take care.
Godspeed.
And now we're going to get to the other element of where the administration might be lacking, and that is fighting against lawfare and the weaponization of all elements of the government.
You may or may not recall John Eastman.
I did want to bring up one thing before, because I remembered.
Back in the day, when I was at Mar a Lago moderating a talk on lawfare and on stage, John Eastman, Michael Flynn, Rudy Giuliani.
Can't remember the other thing.
Then they gave me the warrant after the fact, and it said, you know, we're taking all of your electronics listed on the attached app.
Alan Derschwitz.
Now, I knew that phone was unlike the actual phone.
Leaked Memo And Constitutional Questions00:14:19
Now, let me go here, because at some point.
That's the language of the Fourth Amendment.
Professor, if I may interrupt you, I think you might have your client here who could testify as to whether or not it was solicitor-client privilege.
I was looking in the back, and I thought I saw something I recognized.
And I think I recognized something.
I remember that day.
That was back in the day when lawfare was on the forefront and combating it was on the forefront.
I'm going to bring in Professor Eastman.
Sir, how goes the battle?
You know, David, it's never a dull moment.
The California bar, you know, I suppose I should take some solace in the fact that they're targeting me so vigorously because they think I'm so effective.
So, I don't think.
It is when they say when you're over the target, what is it?
You take the when you're over the target, it must be you're over the target.
Yeah, man, I'm I'd be happy to share this honor with a few other people, though.
I'd be I have to confess, yeah, that's the that's the same.
It's the problem on the one hand of doing business and residing in commie states.
You know, you live in New York and you exercise your Second Amendment rights, you end up in jail for 10 years.
Uh, you exercise your constitutional supervision rights in Colorado, you end up in jail for seven years, and you practice law.
You get disbarred in the state of California.
For those who are meeting you for the first time, I'll say welcome to the channel, but give them your overview.
You don't need to go into all of your credentials.
You are, I won't say the only person thus far who's gotten me to change my opinion on a position presented by Robert Barnes, but our debate discussion on birthright citizenship was amazing.
Tell everybody who you are and your credentials.
Well, I'm a lawyer.
I still am right now, despite California's move this week, although I'm allowed to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court.
We'll see whether that changes now.
But, Law degree from the University of Chicago at the time, the top law school in the country.
I clerked for Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court.
I was 20 years a professor of constitutional law and a dean at a law school.
But I also run a public interest law firm called the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, affiliated with the Claremont Institute.
When I got canceled from my teaching position, Claremont put me on as a senior fellow, and I continued to do the work, like on birthright citizenship, that I've been doing for 25 years.
I've been involved in over 200 cases in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Argued there and represented President Donald Trump in challenging obvious illegality in the 2020 election.
And for that, I have now been disbarred by the state of California.
I had sent you the memo beforehand.
I don't know if you saw it.
Was that the internal memo, the draft memo that you got?
Well, the one you sent me was the first component of what was a larger six page memo.
It was the first.
I was asked to put together a memo of all the possible scenarios and how it might play out.
Just for discussion purposes.
And it was an internal brainstorming memo.
Okay, what do we got?
What are our options?
What are the pros and cons of each option?
But Eastman, start with the most aggressive one first so we see what that looks like.
So that's what the two page memo is.
All right.
The broader six page memo has nine different scenarios.
Biden wins in five of the nine.
And the one I actually recommended was for the vice president to delay things to let the states review the illegality and then report back on whether it impacted the outcome.
And the two alternatives under that scenario were if they say it doesn't impact the outcome, Biden wins.
And yet, I've been accused of attempting a coup to overturn a valid and free and fair election rather than investigate the obvious illegalities and irregularities to make sure what the actual result was.
I'll read, I mean, just very quickly, I want to read summarily.
This was VP, vice president presiding over the joint sessions, begins to open and count ballots starting with Alabama.
Yet, when he gets to Arizona, he announces he has multiple slates of electors.
And so to defer to decision on that until finishing the other states.
We don't need to go over all of this in thorough detail.
All of these are, I say, legitimate legal theories that you proposed, set aside the fact that it was proposed in a privileged and confidential internal memo and not something that was even implemented.
Even if it were wrong to have implemented it in the first place, correct?
Yeah, no, it was look, it was the technical legal phrase is back of the envelope musings.
This was an internal brainstorming document.
Okay, what are we looking at?
How would the various options before us play out?
What are the strengths, legal arguments, and weaknesses of the various options?
And that two pager was just one of the nine options that we end up discussing in the more full memo.
And again, internally, there were only three people.
It never went to the client, it never went to Vice President Pence.
His general counsel admitted as much under oath, and it was no part of it, they weren't even aware of it until it got leaked to the press 10 months later.
So the notion that this was falsely lobbying or attempting to obstruct the transfer of power is just an utterly made up narrative, but it's the only narrative the left has to prevent all of us from looking at the obvious illegality in the 2020 election.
And I have to hand it to them.
If what I believe happened and that they stole an election with illegal conduct, they have so successfully projected that onto their opponents who were just trying to call them on it.
I mean, it's one of the best jiu jitsus I think we've ever seen in history.
Well, I mean, it's the old, it's not Zelensky.
I think it was actually Joseph Goebbels.
Accuse your adversaries of doing what you're doing so as to create confusion.
I just actually want to refresh everybody's memory of the legitimate, I say quasi legitimate, depending on who you're asking.
Concerns for how they stole the election.
They changed a number of the rules back in the day indefinite confinement, mail in balloting, set aside.
Like people think you were suggesting that there was Dominion vote flipping stuff going on.
What were the bases that you felt the election had been tampered with?
But let's start back about what the constitutional authority is.
Article 2 of the Constitution clearly, clearly, unambiguously gives authority to the state legislatures to direct the manner for choosing presidential electors.
For the first third of our nation's history, a lot of the state legislators just chose the electors themselves.
All of the states have now gone to popular vote for choosing those electors, but then the manner for choosing them is the election code.
And only the legislature can alter the manner because they have direct authority from the federal Constitution to direct the manner.
When secretaries of state or county clerks altered the manner, or even state court judges altered the rules of the game without legislative approval, that was illegal and it was unconstitutional.
And there's no question that that happened.
It's undisputable.
The only question is whether the impact of those illegal actions affected the outcome.
And in my view, it so clearly did in Georgia and Wisconsin beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It very likely did in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan as well.
And you only needed three of those five states to have turned the outcome of the election overall.
Now, Wisconsin, I believe, what they did was the changing of the rules for indefinite confinement for the purposes of mail in ballots.
What was it in Georgia?
I mean, there were specific issues.
Well, Secretary Raffensburg cut a deal with the Democrats that weakened to almost non existence the signature verification process.
They created what I call porta potty precincts in Atlanta, they had mobile precincts traveling around.
You could not Notify the opposing political parties in advance where those precincts were going to be if it was a constantly moving travel van.
People couldn't observe.
Those were several violations of state law.
Fulton County refused to do signature verification at all.
And they didn't comply with the state rules on chain of custody of the ballots.
There are 350,000 ballots in the state that have no chain of custody.
When they did the recount, everybody says, oh, they did a recount three different times.
And so they all proved Biden won.
No, when they did the recount in Fulton County, That came up 17,000 and changed short.
And so overnight, somebody went and collected an extra 18,000 ballots to fill the gap.
And we've now got evidence that ballots were replicated inside the machines and counted multiple times.
That's from a forensic audit that was done with the last remaining 2020 election challenge, a case called Favorito versus Raffensberger.
So anybody that says there's no evidence is just either stupid or deliberately lying or downright blind to what all the evidence that we have is.
I've got so many follow up questions to that.
The well, okay, so you needed it to succeed, and you know, you needed to prove this in one or two states in order to change the outcome of the election.
We lived through it in real time where they said no widespread voter fraud, then they said no widespread voter fraud sufficient to impact the outcome of the election.
Why was nothing done about this at the time?
And my recollection is the Supreme Court washed its hands.
We used to call it Pontius Pilate.
But how did this not get adjudicated at the time?
Well, there was a New York Times story based on a leak, an alleged leak from a staffer at the Supreme Court that Justice Alito had said during a court conference, We have to take these cases.
This is just like Bush versus Gore all over again.
And the New York Times report says that Chief Justice Roberts yelled at him, saying, It's not like Bush versus Gore.
If we take these cases, they will burn down our cities.
In other words, I think many of the judges at the lower courts and even the justices at the Supreme Court may well have been cowered by the deliberate riots the Portland riots, the Wyatt riots up in Minnesota, and whatever.
And I think part of the goal of those riots was to put people on notice that we will riot again after the election.
I don't think it's any accident that it happened over the summer leading up to the election.
And so, the idea, or at least behind one of the theories, is that to the extent these were all questionable elections at the state level, the solution that you put forward was at least one of them was the alternate slate of electors theory?
Well, yeah.
So, you know, my memo was basically to summarize the various ideas that were floating around, both internally but also out in the public.
And one of those, which I opposed, but it was one of the scenarios I talk about because people were talking about it.
Is that Pence should just say, I'm accepting the Trump electors rather than the Biden electors and gavel Trump elected?
And by the way, the Oval Office meeting we had on January 4th, Greg Jacob, the general counsel to Vice President Pence, has testified under oath that I said, no, that's not what you ought to be doing.
I said, you ought to delay this thing and let the state legislatures assess the impact of the illegality.
And they've admitted that that was my advice.
But he didn't think he had authority to do that.
I think he's wrong about that.
It's an open constitutional question.
But precisely because it's an open and unresolved constitutional question, by law, it's not something that the state bar proceedings can discipline you for.
Because the rule is even if the law is clearly against you, if you have a good faith argument on why it should be changed, you're allowed to make it.
If there is no law against you, you have an ethical obligation to push the view of the law that.
That advances the goals of your client.
And so, by pursuing my ethical obligation for my client, the state bar has now determined that I should be disbarred.
By the way, the issue is whether any reasonable lawyer would have done what I did.
And we had 17 different state attorney generals weigh in in the Texas original action case adopting my brief.
17 state attorney generals.
And in the bar proceeding, the judge refused to admit that into evidence, even though it clearly.
Prove that other reasonable lawyers, state attorney generals were taking the same position, but she admitted into evidence the briefs that were filed by the states in opposition.
You couldn't sell this script to Hollywood.
It's so preposterous.
Well, I mean, stripping a defendant, I'll call you a defendant in this, of their defenses.
I mean, they did it to Navarro, they did it to Bannon, they did it to Alex Jones, they did it to Donald Trump.
It's the new MO.
But what was the basis for not allowing that evidence?
Relevance?
She said, well, you know, it doesn't matter how many people make false statements.
It's just cumulative.
You just can't pile on false statement after false statement.
And my lawyer tried to say that's not what the standard is.
And she refused to let him even make an offer of proof on several occasions.
Now, you say your client, and I would like you to mention specify for the world who was your client at this point in time?
My client was the president of the United States and candidate for the office of president for the United States for his reelection.
And now, the next question that I have, and we were talking about it on that panel before President Trump came into the room.
The memo was leaked.
The memo is solicitor client privileged internal solicitor client privilege documentation.
How the hell, A, was it leaked?
And B, was it even considered as evidence without it violating?
I don't know if it's a constitutional protection, but the fundamental right of solicitor client privilege.
Well, you know, I mean, so it's a little nuanced because it was not a memo that was ever given to the client.
It was just an internal document of discussions about what advice to give to the client by two or three lawyers in the campaign.
Hawaii Electors And Court Challenges00:03:44
And it was shared with a member of Congress who was also participating in those discussions about what could be done.
And a member of the staff of that member of Congress leaked it to the Washington Post back in October of 2021, 10 months after all of this had transpired.
And then all that was as the J6 committee was, and oh my God, Liz Cheney thought she had the smoking gun.
And so I became, you know, the poster child, even though, look, I had almost nothing to do with the development of the alternate electors plan.
That was, I think, he's acknowledged that that was largely the doing of Ken Chesbro.
I knew that that was underway.
And when I got wind of it a couple days before the electors met on the 14th, I said it's critical that they meet on that day.
Because the Constitution requires all the elector votes to be cast on the same day throughout the entire country.
And we have a point in our nation's history back in 1857 when there was a blizzard in Wisconsin and the electors couldn't meet.
And the electoral votes were counted by the presiding officer, the acting president pro tem of the Senate in the role of the vice president.
He counted them, he ruled everything out of order, people challenging that.
And then he gaveled the joint session closed.
And then Congress, both houses, the House and the Senate, Vigorously and heatedly debated whether that was legitimate or not for three days.
And then they tabled the resolutions and it was never resolved.
I guarantee you, though, if any of the pending litigation that President Trump had launched had won and his electors had not met on that designated day, you can imagine the Democrats screaming, they can't be counted.
They didn't meet to vote on the designated day.
So they met on the designated day and cast contingent votes, just like John Kennedy's electors in Hawaii did in 1960.
The notion that this was somehow criminal conduct when it's not only been done before by the other side of the political aisle, but is required to be done to comply with the constitutional requirements.
And just to highlight, it had not just been attempted in JFK versus Nixon, not just attempted, but succeeded, right?
The only reason they allowed it, it didn't impact the outcome of the election.
But they accepted the alternate slate of electors in Hawaii in 1960, unless I'm wrong.
Yes, no.
And, you know, we should be clear.
One of the charges against me was that my memo says that slates of electors from seven different states were submitted to Congress.
That's true.
They said, well, that's a lie because nobody had certified those Trump electors.
I never said they were certified, they'd been submitted, just like the Kennedy electors in Hawaii.
There were three slates of electors in Hawaii.
There were the certified Nixon electors, he was certified the victor on election day.
There was a court challenge pending when the electors had to meet and vote.
And the Kennedy electors met as well as the Nixon electors.
And the Kennedy electors, without any certification at all, sent their electoral votes to Washington, D.C.
And then, when the court decision two weeks later went Kennedy's in favor, the newly elected Democrat governor quickly certified the Kennedy slate and sent a third slate in.
Richard Nixon, who was presiding, gets up and says, I've got three slates here.
I've got my certified, I've got Kennedy's uncertified, and then I've got Kennedy's later certified.
I'm going to accept the later one.
That violated the Electoral Count Act.
You're not supposed to do that without breaking apart into the two sections.
But it didn't matter the outcome of the election, so they just ignored the Electoral Count Act.
Disbarment Ratified By California Courts00:10:43
And I'm being prosecuted for saying, you know, there are provisions of the La Corne Act that are unconstitutional and ought not to be getting in the way of you doing your constitutional authority.
But these are all open constitutional questions.
We have never before disciplined anybody, much less disbarred them, for taking a stance on contested issues of constitutional law.
And yet that's what's going on here.
Yeah.
And the irony is, if it were the other side of the political spectrum, they would try to disbar you for not availing your client to all of their lawful.
Arguments that you would be disloyally doing your role as an attorney.
Did you face, I forget the timeline here, disbarment challenges before or after the Georgia and Arizona criminal charges?
So the California bar proceedings began with a complaint by a hyperpartisan activist group called the State's United Democracy Center.
They filed a complaint in October of 2021.
So four and a half years ago, I've been dealing with this.
And then in the spring of 2022, Lawyers defending American democracy filed another complaint.
And then now I've obtained documentary proof that they were working closely with the bar attorneys to fashion.
I mean, this is like hiring the fox to write the safety memo for your chicken coop.
These activist groups were actively working with the bar proceedings to kind of bolster a case.
And then that went through.
So we did a whole year of investigation.
The formal bar charges were filed against me in January 2023.
And then in July of 2023, I was named as an unindicted co conspirator in the Jack Smith suit indictment against President Trump.
And then in August of 2023, named a defendant in the indictment down there by Fonnie Willis.
And what was significant is we asked for the bar proceedings to be stayed because I'm obviously going to have Fifth Amendment concerns.
And the judge refused to let me stay the proceedings.
And we went through then a 10 week long trial, the longest and most expensive bar proceedings.
Proceeding, I think, in history.
And it didn't matter.
They said I had no evidence.
We put on 10 weeks of evidence, and it didn't matter.
They just ignored it.
I forgot actually how long you have been facing the lawfare for.
I mean, this is now five years of disbarment.
How many states have you had these disbarment complaints in?
I mean, how many states have you practiced?
I was barred in both California and DC, as well as numerous federal courts all across the country.
California now has disbarred me.
DC will likely follow suit, but those proceedings have been on hold pending the outcome of California.
There's a Supreme Court rule that says federal courts.
Cannot simply just follow suit.
They have to conduct a de novo independent assessment of the record.
But two federal courts where I had active client cases ignored that controlling Supreme Court precedent and removed me from the cases I was representing, pretty high profile cases as well.
But the Supreme Court has allowed me to continue practice there for the last couple of years.
And we'll be filing a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court review of the California decision.
The violations of the First Amendment and controlling Supreme Court precedent are just palpable.
But also the due process.
I mean, this was a kangaroo court.
I'd never seen anything like it.
And there was a reporter who was a former attorney who watched the proceedings every single day, said it was the most outrageous set of proceedings she'd ever seen.
And her name is Rachel Alexander, and you can find her reporting at the Arizona Republic on that.
She did a thorough job.
I've had her on the panel at least a couple of times.
She's amazing, but you need to at least give us some of the highlights.
And just procedurally speaking now, Your disbarment just got ratified by the highest court of the state of California in a summary judgment, basically non motivated, just reaffirming the disbarment.
Is it two courts?
So the Supreme Court has now rejected your appeal and it was just one lower court, or is there like an appeal in the middle?
So California is fairly unique in its bar.
Most bars just put together panels of lawyers to assess other lawyers.
California created its own bar court, and the bar court has a hearing department where you have a hearing with a single judge.
And then it has a review department that takes up the appeals.
Neither of those can actually impose a sanction.
They can only recommend.
And so the hearing department recommended disbarment, and then the hearing department affirmed and recommended disbarment.
And both of them wrote pretty egregiously wrong decisions and drawing inferences on fab.
My favorite is Eastman said that dead people voted, and he knew that was a lie because the Michigan inspector general had already determined only 1,500 dead people voted.
I said, you have just admitted my statement was true.
And they said, well, what you meant by that was that more dead people voted that could have affected the outcome of the election.
And I said, I never said any such thing.
So these are the kind of things that are just throughout those opinions.
Then we go to the California Supreme Court, and only the California Supreme Court can impose a sanction and decide whether to accept the recommendation or not.
But they've got a rule that says if we deny your request to consider it, then we have adopted that lower court opinion as our own and adopted the recommendation.
So, in a three word order, that's what happened on Wednesday.
Petition denied, semicolon, disbarred.
And that was all we got on these very contentious legal and factual issues out of the California Supreme Court.
How many judges on the California Supreme Court?
Seven, I think.
Signed off on this.
Was this unanimous?
They didn't report the vote.
Nobody registered a dissent, so we assume it was unanimous.
I think I saw a report.
I've not paid attention to who appointed, but I saw a report.
Yesterday, that six of the seven were appointed by Democrat judges.
But I've not looked at that myself.
Okay, so it goes through this two step process at the administrative level and then gets ratified at the Supreme Court of California level, which is not the Supreme Court of the United States.
Three words, you're disbarred.
One of the, I want to ask you about one of the allegations because it's sort of, I'm not totally familiar with all of it.
You're accused of false and misleading statements, and one of which was that you omitted allegedly material adverse rulings in Texas versus Pennsylvania with the intent to mislead the Supreme Court.
I want to get into some of the more egregious ones, but that's one that I.
I don't understand it.
I'm not sure if there's any explanation.
So, let's suppose a district court rules a certain way and then that decision gets reversed on appeal.
And you cite in your brief only the district court decision and don't call attention to the fact that it's been reversed.
That's a no no.
But the whole point of the Texas lawsuit was that state actors, secretaries of state, county clerks, and even state judges were altering the rules of the game without legislative authority.
And by the way, the one case that they say I omitted, it's actually cited in the appendix to the brief.
So, I mean, it's craziness.
What's crazy is that even the idea, it's a no no, it's an accident that happens if it's an accident, but then also if it's already in there, then it's not even a no no in the first place.
But that is the most egregious.
And when phrased in the way that the media is reporting on it, it sounds like you set out there with these totally bogus briefs with the intent of lying and misleading and proposing.
Constitutionally untenable arguments, which was nowhere ever the case.
I know what went down during your trial, not in as much detail as Rachel, but we were talking about it at the time.
I mean, if you can give us some of the highlights, you're denied basically affirmative defenses.
Give us some of the examples of the egregious conduct that went on during that trial.
You know, one of the core aspects of due process is the right to call witnesses.
And I had put on our witness list a bunch of people from Pennsylvania, et cetera, who could support, offer evidence that what I was saying was true, or at least there was reasonable grounds to support the allegations.
And by the way, remember, these are all complaints.
These are allegations, which the whole point of the complaint is to make allegations if you have any reasonable basis for making them and then to have them adjudicated.
Even the one in the Supreme Court was an original action.
That's like filing the initiation of a lawsuit in a trial court.
Court.
So they're allegations.
And so I called these witnesses.
And then when Jack Smith started identifying a bunch of these people as potential criminal defendants in his action against President Trump, they all, under advice of counsel, said, Ethan, we can't come testify.
And because all of the conduct at issue here was outside of California, and California can't compel people to testify that are out of state, I had no ability to bring those people in to testify on my behalf.
And so I offered alternative witnesses who were willing to testify, and the judge refused to let them in because I didn't identify them up front.
And I said, well, I had identified other people up front who are now under circumstances that they can't testify.
But she absolutely refused to let me name additional people as substitutes.
Another couple of examples.
It became clear that there were some very significant analyses that had been done after the fact that confirmed that many of the statements that I had made were true or at least certainly contestable.
And in most instances, she said, because that was not published until after January 2021, it's not something you could have relied on.
So it's irrelevant, not admitted.
But when the government lawyers offered post Election analyses that were done a year or two later that said the election was perfectly free and fair.
She admitted all that for the truth of the matter.
And then, of course, well, there's no evidence that those things were false and that Eastman must be lying, even though she had refused to admit the very things that would prove that I was telling the truth.
Proving Intent To Violate Laws00:09:48
You know, it just rattles me to just think about how abusive the whole process was.
You know, I made the joke on Twitter that Kevin Kleinsmith, the FBI lawyer who Actively falsified evidence and submitted it to a secret FISA court, gets busted, pleads guilty to falsifying evidence that he submitted to a secret FISA court ex parte when they were obtaining their unlawful renewals of unlawful FISA warrants.
He gets 12 months suspended, retroactive license.
He still has his license now, and probation, community service 400 hours.
And then you get disbarred for, and it's not because I know you and it's not because I like you, but you are wicked smart and on point in all of this for putting together legal theories to be discussed and potentially to be litigated in the context of the election, which everybody knows was stolen.
I love the one that you say, you know, dead people voted.
And I remember this at the time.
Well, not enough dead people voted to change the outcome of the election.
Dude, if one dead person voted, that's a problem that warrants and necessitates investigation, not writing it off and Accusations of misleading.
Well, only 1500, and that would have changed the outcome.
So now you get disbarred for making false and misleading statements, which you never made.
I mean, I guess on the one hand, what can be done to these judges?
I don't even know if they're judges or administrative judges.
No, they're judges.
They're judges.
And it's.
So the only reason.
You could impeach them in California, but that's not going nowhere through the California legislature.
I mean, look, we are dealing with when President Trump said, criticize, he's a Democrat judge, and John Roberts said, no, there's no such thing as Republican and Democrat judges.
I think John Roberts is thinking back into the 1950s or 1980s.
We clearly have courts that have become hyper partisan.
You look at the number of temporary restraining orders that have been issued against almost every initiative President Trump has tried to do.
Judges who keep doing it even after they get slapped down by the Supreme Court.
Judge Murphy up in Boston or New Hampshire barring the president from deporting people to third countries when their home countries wouldn't accept them back.
And the judge issued a temporary restraining order against that.
And then a week later, The plaintiff's claim that the Department of Justice wasn't fully complying, so he issued a second enforcement order.
Goes up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court vacates the TRO, said it's illegal.
And it goes back to him, and he says, Well, you vacated my TRO, but you didn't vacate my enforcement order of the TRO, so you still can't do this.
And it goes back up to the Supreme Court, and even one of the dissenting judges on the original decision joins with the majority and said, This is nonsense.
You're not allowed to do that.
Judge Boesberg has been doing the same thing, just repeatedly keeping a case that he's already been held to have been outside of his jurisdiction, and he keeps going no matter what the upper courts do.
Congress, the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives needs to bring impeachment charges, and I understand why they don't want to do it, because there's no way the lockstep voting Democrats in the Senate, you're ever going to get to the two thirds vote necessary to convict on impeachment.
But by God, these guys need to know that there's a price to be paid for this kind of Unethical and unlawful conduct on the bench.
And impeachment's the only tool we have at the moment, and make them go through the process.
If the process is part of the punishment, as I've certainly seen over the last five years, then I think it's time we need to start putting some of these guys through that process as well.
Let me ask you this.
I appreciate the argument might be, well, they're not impeaching Boesburg Murphy because these are federal judges that can be impeached.
They're not going to do it because it won't get through.
That's a pretty weak excuse.
Why haven't the Republicans?
Actually, just done it, at least with the two most egregious, just do it.
There's no good explanation for why they haven't done it.
That phrase you just used, pretty weak excuse, I think just truncate that to pretty weak, and I think you got the answer.
Look, the Senate, with a majority of Republicans, cannot pass the SAVE Act that has 85 to 90% support among Americans because they don't want to have to come in more than two and a half days a week to work.
And run an actual talking filibuster to force a Democrat's hands to get up and defend not requiring voter ID, photo ID to be able to vote or not requiring proof of citizenship in order to be able to register to vote.
I mean, for God's sakes, if we can't even push through an 85%, 15% issue, then what the hell are they doing there?
Why don't they just resign and go play at a country club and give us the chance to get our government back?
Now, the question is, you know, impeachment at the federal level, it should have been done yesterday, even if at the end of the political process, the Democrats are the ones who don't convict.
That shot across the bow would be a sufficient warning shot.
The question I'm asking you're at the state level, so nobody's going to impeach these California judges.
Is there an argument in your legal view as to whether or not there has been a violation of your federal civil rights as a result of abuse of due process at the state level by the state?
Yes, there is.
And that'll form the foundation of our.
Petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
First Amendment speech.
I mean, they charged me with making false statements when I spoke on the mall, when I spoke on the Steve Bannon show, when I published an article.
This is quintessential speech.
They claim that my urging the vice president to delay things was an obstruction of the transfer of power and illegal and unconstitutional.
No, there's a constitutional phrase it's the right to petition your government for redress of grievances.
And then the abuse is the The double sided rulings, all of that are key violations of due process.
Those are all federal constitutional rights, which gives me the right to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutional violations that have been committed by the California Bar and the Bar Court and now the California Supreme Court.
And would that give jurisdiction for a certain civil rights division of Trump's DOJ to get involved either as amicus or just take spearhead of your violation of federal civil rights?
Well, you know, I think it does give jurisdiction.
You know, they have to prove intent to violate rather than just that their violation occurred.
I was very heartened to see one of the people that retweeted my notification of what had happened on Wednesday was Harmeet Dillon, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
And what does, I mean, they need to prove intent.
You know, the fact that they took some of your statements on Bannon's war room as though that is, Not impeachable conduct, but disbarrable conduct.
It's clearly the intent of the process from the get go.
The intent is to punish you, to bankrupt you, to frustrate your ability to practice by the distraction, but now literally by the disbarment.
Question in our locals community if you're disbarred in California, I presume you could still practice in another state if you're licensed in another state.
Well, the only other place I'm licensed is the District of Columbia.
So tell me how that's going to go.
But, uh, hypothetically, you could get licensed.
You could get licensed.
I could get licensed, but, but look, it's, you know, the, the default rule, uh, it's called reciprocity.
The default rule in every state is if you get disbarred in one state, we're not going to let you be admitted into our state.
Uh, I will be asking a couple of states that I have residential connections with to, uh, grant me a bar license and we'll see whether they have enough backbone.
To call out this lawfare for what it is and give me the license.
And then we're also going to be telling the federal courts look, you know, Supreme Court precedent is very clear.
You cannot take me off the roles of practicing in your court just because of this disbarment in a state court without conducting a complete de novo review of the record.
And with 10 weeks of trial and hundreds and hundreds of exhibits, thousands and thousands of pages of testimony.
They have to conduct a de novo review of that record before they can remove me.
And I think we'll be pressing that issue for some of these federal courts.
The rule is you got to be a member of a state court bar to get admitted to a federal court, but you don't have to remain a member of a state court bar to continue to practice in that federal court.
And then that's where that de novo review comes in.
And I, you know, look, I think we're going to be forcing these federal courts to take a stand.
And ultimately, the US Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on this because I'm not the only one.
Look, The 65 Project and States United Democracy Center and these other groups have brought bar charges against hundreds of the Trump lawyers.
They have coordinated with the prosecuting attorneys in Arizona, in the California bar, in Georgia, in New York, in DC, actually going to the point of preparing the prosecution memos.
We had back in 1940 a very famous speech by the newly appointed Attorney General Robert Jackson, who goes on to become Supreme Court Justice and head of the Nuremberg trials.
And he gives a speech to all the U.S. attorneys and says, urging them to resist the temptation to go after people they don't like and scour the law books to try and find some law technicality that they can pin on them, because that's the way to tyranny.
Well, that's what these outside groups have been doing.
Attorney General Speeches On Justice00:03:31
They don't like Trump.
They don't like the fact that people represented him.
And they have been scouring and stretching the law books to try and find some hook to be able to then recommend to the prosecutors, their friendly prosecutors, to go after them.
We've got them dead to rights in Arizona, that's what we did because we got during discovery the actual prosecution memo that had been prepared by this leftist activist group called States United Democracy Center, the same group that filed the bar complaint against me.
This is an outrage that this stuff is going on.
And quite frankly, I think it's part of a nationwide conspiracy.
And I hope the Department of Justice is looking at it in those terms.
The statute, in case anybody over there is listening, is 18 United States Code, Section 241.
18 USC.
Let me bring this up here.
I have another question.
18, it's 18 USC here.
Let's, are you in, do I ask?
I mean, have you been in touch with anyone within the administration to see whether or not they're going to go, you know, get involved and go crazy on this?
I was traveling Wednesday when this came down, and all day yesterday I had a speech at Cornell, and I've not had a chance to even talk to my legal team, much less anybody else.
We, you know, we will certainly hope that a number of people weigh in.
With amicus briefs supporting my petition to the US Supreme Court.
We're too close to the end of the term right now to get that petition heard this term.
So it will be next September of the long conference or even a little bit later.
We'll see.
But I'm sure those discussions will go on here in the coming weeks.
The other question that I had now, and feel free not to answer you've been disbarred.
Do you require your law license for what you're doing right now in terms of work?
Or is this sort of like a Jordan Peterson situation where it's a matter of principle?
Regardless of necessity, but it's not a necessity that you have a bar license?
Well, look, I'm a senior scholar at the Claremont Institute, and so I can continue to write and speak about foundational principles of the country.
I can also, under the bar rules, I can serve as a preliminary researcher and drafter as long as I'm not the one actually providing the ultimate representation in court.
Um, under the supervision of an attorney.
So, uh, I can do a lot of that as well.
And then, of course, I, I, I can and have been for the last two years while my, my California license has been rendered inactive, uh, uh, practice in the U.S. Supreme Court.
And I've been doing that.
We, in fact, uh, we're heavily involved in the birthright citizenship case.
I was at the oral argument back on April 1st at the Supreme Court.
Uh, we've been involved, I think, in a dozen or so cases this year as with me as counsel of record.
And until the Supreme Court says otherwise, I will continue to do that.
I want to get to some of the questions here to see if there's anything specific that I need to get to with you, Ms. Reason.
Now, the other question is this What examples are there of egregious conduct of lawyers, like objective egregious conduct that did not result in a disbarment?
Did you cite any in your arguments?
Well, yeah.
So we pointed out, and just recently, even more information about this has come out, but we had enough information back when we filed our briefs to point it out that there were two members of the California bar who were sitting members of Congress.
Firsthand Knowledge Of Obstruction00:02:28
Who participated up to their eyeballs in the false Russia hoax that led to a phony impeachment that tied this country up in knots?
They were deliberately making false claims in public and in filings.
And that's Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff.
Adam Schiff actually coordinated with the whistleblower.
And we now learned with the Atkinson report that was released publicly this week that they backdated a change in the rules of the Department of Justice on whistleblowers that you didn't have to have firsthand knowledge.
Eric Chimorello did not have firsthand knowledge.
And yet Adam Schiff was coaching him on how to bring this thing before him.
I mean, this is blatant.
And the backdating of the document.
To allow that non firsthand whistleblower testimony to trigger an investigation, that's altering a document in order to obstruct justice.
That's a violation of section 1512C, the destruction of documents provision that was thrown at a lot of the J Sixers until the Supreme Court said, no, it doesn't apply to the J Sixers, but it clearly applies to what Adkinson and Adam Schiff did with Jim Raylow.
That's a 20 year felony.
And there has been no investigation whatsoever.
Of these two guys' participation in the biggest political scandal in American history.
They used that false documentation on the FISA warrant, Kevin Kleinsmith and Hillary Clinton, also a lawyer, never been investigated.
The lawyers at Perkins Coy that laundered that money and falsely reported it to the Federal Election Commission as legal compliance rather than opposition research.
All of that was illegal and it led to the biggest political scandal in our nation's history.
Not one of those lawyers has ever been investigated.
Even investigated, much less sanctioned, except for Kleinsmith.
And as you rightly pointed out, he got a one year suspension and it was made retroactive to a date 13 months earlier.
So it was over before it even was issued.
Oh, and not for nothing, Professor Eastman, not for nothing.
It was James Bonesberg, the judge, who gave him that.
I mean, the corruption, it's truly astonishing.
It's so in your face and egregious.
You wouldn't believe it if it were in a movie.
What you describe, it's not just the lawfare against the political targets, it's the lawfare against anyone who defends them in the lawfare.
Federal Conspiracy And Lawfare00:03:00
They went after all the lawyers.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, as you point out, it's a federal conspiracy to violate civil rights, it's a political conspiracy to demonize the people who come to the defense of those that are being politically persecuted under the lawfare.
And they, you know, they did it to many of Trump's lawyers.
I just guess the only question is, and I don't want to get cynical or black pilled, why the hell has the administration not been more proactive about it up until now?
It's maybe, you know, I said, you know, steel man, maybe they needed to wait for your disbarment to be fully ratified.
This is a conspiracy to intimidate lawyers from doing what they need to do so they can get away with their conspiracy to use lawfare to shut up and bankrupt and jail their political rivals.
Well, they're sad, but there's, There's also something even darker, and that is challenging the very understanding or notion of truth.
If you can throw so much mud at the wall to see what sticks, so that people get to the point where we no longer know what's true or not, then we have really lost even the ability to seek truth.
Our adversarial system of justice is supposed to be designed to try and get to the truth.
And when, well, that's what he said.
This is what he said.
That's your truth.
Those are your facts.
Here are my facts.
There's really no such thing as.
Truth, that's utter nihilism that is now seeping in to discredit any claim of truth or accuracy of anything that it says.
So, you know, one other example, you know, we mentioned in the Georgia filing that suitcases of ballots had been hidden under a table and then pulled out after everybody sent home and get processed.
We make very clear in the complaint this is not about whether those ballots are fraudulent or not.
The illegality occurred by processing those ballots.
Outside of public view, as the law required.
We make that very clear.
They accuse me of implying that the ballots were fraudulent, even though the complaint paragraph actually says the exact opposite.
And so they just throw this out there.
And then, of course, it's their distorted version of what I said that gets repeated in the press.
And I come up and say what was actually said, the actual truth, and it's now so muddled that nobody knows what to believe.
That's a nihilism that contradicts the very notion that there are such things as self evident truths, the cornerstone of our Declaration of Independence.
Well, not to deny that.
I still think the federal conspiracy at the national level to jail their rivals and jail their attorneys of their rivals is communist level stuff.
And I say frustrating.
It would be nice if the administration would get very proactive about this.
And maybe, you know, the fact that Adam Schiff was able to get out there and lie to the public knowing that his lies could not be contradicted.
Fighting Back Against Political Plots00:10:31
He's a lawyer.
You know, nothing on them.
And it's not even use lawfare to go after them, use justice to go after actual criminals and fight the criminals that are using lawfare.
To go after the likes of you and dispar you.
You got a couple minutes for a few questions from the audience?
Let me see what we've got going on here.
If I can add this, we know that's the, there's a few in our local community.
Hold on.
Your Give, Send, Go, Professor Eastman, is this the current one that is up and running?
Yes, givesendgo.com slash Eastman.
And ever since the decision came down Wednesday, people have been very generous.
I think we're getting very close to crossing the million mark now.
So we've raised probably 50,000 in the, In the last couple of days.
But people need to understand that in context.
I've already spent over $2 million dealing with the 18 different actions against me.
The bar, the cert petition to the Supreme Court, and if it is granted, is going to cost us somewhere between a quarter and a half a million dollars.
So I'm asking people to help us with that because this is much bigger than a fight over my book.
Look, I'm kind of balding little hair.
You can tell I'm close to retirement.
This is bigger than that.
What's happening to this country with this lawfare is going to destroy the country, and it'll be a place that I don't want my kids and grandkids now to have to grow up in.
So I'm going to fight this with everything I've got, and anybody, anything that people can do to help.
That platform, by the way, lets people send prayers as well.
And my wife and I read them.
They're heartwarming, particularly in down moments.
So please do at least a prayer.
By the way, go to Update 43.
If you want to read the commentary that my two children published back when the bar decision originally came down two years ago, it's heartwarming.
Update 43.
Is it update 43 spelling the words?
Yeah, update 40.
No, update.
If you just scroll down on the page to the updates.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Oh, I'm an idiot.
I thought that was a separate website.
Hold on.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, update 43 on the Gives and Go website.
I thought it was a separate web.
Oh, yeah.
Update 63.
Oh, let's go down here.
Update 51 48.
I went to update43.com and it was a website that was kind of weird.
Oh, yeah.
No, don't go there.
To those of you who share my Christian faith, happy Easter.
For those who are of other faith traditions, please know what a joyous day this is for us.
According to our faith, this is the day.
That the Son of God, who humbled himself and died on the cross of our sins, rose from the dead.
It is the day where the light defeats darkness, truth defeats falsehood, and the gates of heaven are open for the prospect of eternal salvation.
And everybody can read the article.
The reason all that is there, and then the article they published is linked there, it was published over at The Blaze, is because the decision came down on Wednesday of Holy Week and it took effect three days later.
And the significance of the tritium during Holy Week was not lost on my son, who's working on a degree in theology.
That's very nice.
That's very cool.
Here we'll get to summon our viva barnslaw.locals.com community.
Vegcons or Vegcon says, Was the leak of the memo malicious, or do you think this person thought he.?
I would say that this is part of the lawfare and the plot to go after anybody who was going to challenge that election.
But, Dr. Eastman or Professor Eastman, do you think it was innocent, or was it malicious, the leak?
It was malicious.
The person no longer works for that member of Congress.
I don't want to go into any names there, but.
But yeah, it was clearly malicious.
I mean, look, you give it to Bob Woodward, who's working on a story to try and take down Trump.
That's not accidental.
And then Ruth Dank says Viva Robert commented on the Harmeet Dillon statements yesterday and highlighted how it was nice since she spoke up about it, but wondering why she isn't doing her job to investigate what Johnny's been went through and challenged this unacceptable disbarment.
I'll steal, man.
Maybe they needed to wait for the final adjudication to come down in order to know if there was a federal civil rights violation.
I would argue that there might have been one just by the process, but at least now by the definitive outcome.
It seems clear that there is, and it's piqued her interest.
They're drinking from a fire hose over there.
A lot of people are losing patience, but you're drinking from a fire hose, and you've got a whole building full of people that are in subtle and not so subtle ways trying everything they can to prevent you from accomplishing things.
So it's not an enviable task before them.
And quite frankly, the bar license of a single lawyer is probably lower on the priority than the criminal prosecutions, the illegitimate criminal prosecutions.
In Georgia and Arizona.
And we've already seen seizures of documents and search warrants issuing in those.
So I know things are happening.
I know people wish they were happening a lot quicker, but this thing is so massive and you don't want to misstep.
And when you're dealing with very few people in that department that you can trust and people that are deliberately trying to sabotage the efforts, my heart goes out to what they are trying to do.
Let me read this one here.
If a Democrat aligned attorney wrote such a memo, I suspect that person would have been praised and given a medal.
To me, this is obvious discrimination for your political views, but also I suspect you know that absolutely.
And I'm not sure that this one, I'll get to the other ones after locals when we have our after stuff.
Let me go over.
There was one in Rumble, Professor Eastman.
Then I want to, we have an after party afterwards that I will not ask you to attend, but I want to make sure I get all the questions here.
King of Biltong says, why do I think a lot of this lawfare is used to stoke the propaganda that makes people negative and nihilist, trying to persuade them not to vote?
No, this is the big risk.
This is the big risk.
You get the media constantly saying, when I told the truth, that was actually a lie.
And then people get to the point where, unless they're going to invest 24 hours a day trying to get to the bottom of things, they don't know who to believe.
And then we have lost the ability to stand for the truth.
And that's why the book I'm working on is called Disbarred Martyr for the Constitution, Martyr for the Truth.
And I think this nihilistic result.
If there can be an even bigger problem than the broader nationwide conspiracy, it's that.
Because if you lose the ability to even say there is such a thing as truth, I mean, what about the self evident truth that we're all created equal?
Does that mean that goes out the window?
Or that we have inalienable rights from our creator, such as life, liberty, and pursuit avenues?
There was an elected official from Virginia recently, a senator, who said, you know, our rights don't come from God.
That's theocratic.
That's what Muslim theocracies say.
No, it's right there in the Declaration of Independence.
And this idiot didn't know the foundation of our own country.
But things have gotten so muddled that increasingly people don't know or don't know how to assess those things because we've lost the ability of logic and reason to even make assessments like that.
And that's, in my view, a far greater danger because once you lose that, the philosophical foundation, it's almost impossible to recover that.
Well, I mean, it's Orwellian worlds where all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others, and some are less equal than others.
And it happens to be the Republican animals and the Republican lawyers are less equal than Democrat lawyers.
Professor Eastman, where can people find you?
You know what they can do to support?
I'm going to pin the give, send, go in the comment when this process is.
Where can people go to find you, and what can they do to help you?
The best, the give, send, go prayers and donations are immensely helpful right now.
Dr. John Eastman on Twitter.
I'm on the other platforms as well, but that's the one I use most frequently.
So that's.
Uh, everything will be there.
Sometimes I remember to post it elsewhere as well.
But Dr. John Eastman on Twitter, I'll give everybody the link on X, whatever.
Professor Eastman, thank you immensely for doing this.
I mean, it was such short notice and it worked out perfectly.
Thank you for coming on and fleshing this out because I knew enough of the story to know that this is a big load of partisan garbage.
And hopefully, this lights a bit of a fire under the administration to get involved in your case.
I appreciate there's other bigger cases.
I don't want to ask what the state is of the Georgia stuff that we saw a little while ago, but.
People are getting frustrated, but nothing would be more invigorating than seeing some meaningful, fast action on some of these big cases.
So keep up the good fight, Professor Eastman.
Not one I'd want to be involved in.
Thank you very much.
All right.
And fond memories of Mar a Lago.
That was such a great evening.
It was that moment in particular, it's in my memory bank of core memories for the rest of my life.
Thank you.
All right.
Take care.
All right.
Bye bye.
And now we're going to go raid whoever's live on Rumble.
I'm going to read the tip questions that I didn't get to read because I didn't want to interrupt that discussion.
It was fantastic.
We're going to go raid Nerd Roddick.
If you want to get over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com, come on over.
We're going to do the after party.
And I'm moving fast here because I want to get to the questions.
And I don't know.
I imagine other people in the audience have to pee as badly as I do.
But we're doing our locals after party and we're doing our.
Crumble after.
You know, we're not because I want StreamYard, so I can't go.
No, forget it.
Go raid Nerd Roddick or stick around here.
I'm going to go through some of the chat and some of the questions that I missed with putting an emphasis on vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
But after getting to all of the remaining questions on Crumble, Rumble says, LOL, I just Googled to see if your pending book was anywhere to preview Dr. Eastman.
And the first link I saw was Chief Coup plotter John Eastman.
Oh, my God.
It's amazing.
I have to see what that is, but I suspect there's other people out there putting out like troll stuff so that it comes up in the search engines.
To further discredit.
King of Biltong says, That brings me back to the Barris polls.
Yep, King of Biltong.
This has been one heck of a big circle of life or a circle of law where we're right back to what can be done tomorrow on Monday to invigorate a base that's getting disillusioned and disenfranchised.
Flea Speech, Mr. Flea Speech says, Thank you, Viva.
Stellar show.
Fellow expat here.
Has it been easier or harder to critique things within your location?
Critiquing Politics From Canada00:15:16
You know, the irony is, When I used to talk about American politics in Canada, people would say, Hold on, they would say, The Canadian side would say, What do you know about American politics?
You're Canadian.
The American side would say, Stick to Canadian politics.
You're not even American, or you don't live in America.
Why do you care?
Now that I'm in America, some people who don't like the critique say, Go back to Canada, as if that's a substantive retort to anything other than evidence of their own ignorance and intolerance.
And the Canadian side says, You're a coward who fled your country, and so we don't care what you have to say anymore.
There's not very many people who say that, and I understand that a great many people say it primarily out of maybe resentment that a lot of people would love to have the opportunity to leave that communist hellhole.
What I found is that criticism of the inactions of the current administration from those who are, I'm not going to use the word cheerleaders because it's demeaning, but for those who consider themselves to be diehard loyalists, they don't take constructive criticism well.
And the only person and the only group that that hurts.
Is us as an entity.
People have to not just have thicker skin, understand that when you're in the position to do things, if you sit there just patting everyone on the back and saying everything's hunky dory going well, when it clearly isn't, you're sabotaging yourself.
And people who can't accept reality because it's coming from someone who they thought was an ally, sometimes the most meaningful criticism comes from the best ally you have, because there's nothing more devastating from an ally than to not tell you the truth so that you can course correct in real time.
In Jesus Christ, we trust, says, Thank you, Dr. Eastman.
Dominant one says, Successful after your four years of after your years.
I'm not sure what that's in.
Hold on a second.
Of their government, King of England Parliament, what makes you think you are smarter than the American colonists that were successful?
How large?
Who are you talking to here?
The American colonists founding fathers were able to successfully fix their bad government by replacing it with less than 3% of the colonial residents taking up arms against the law enforcement.
I'm not sure what that's all about.
People who think Barris is some sort of hater, listen to him.
He's given the administration a way to solve the problem.
All the way to press conference strategy, a hater wouldn't help you.
But people also think like calling someone a hater means you get to disregard their advice.
But hey, you know what?
Here's a thought experiment.
He is a hater.
You think you're always going to be better off by not taking the advice of your haters?
Hey, sometimes haters, even if they say it with malice, might be giving you good advice.
Someone calling you fat, hey, fatty, and they're not calling you fatty because they like you.
They're calling you fatty because they hate you and they want to make you feel bad.
Well, you might still need to lose the weight.
So someone telling you, I love you, but you're putting on weight and you got to lose some weight.
It's good for your health.
Fine.
A hater calling you fatty because they hate you, they might still be right.
And so go for the intent all you want.
It doesn't change the substance.
But Richard Barris is anything but a hater.
And if you think he's a hater, you're an idiot, period, full stop.
And if you think you're going to undermine the constructive nature of his criticism by going after your perceived intentions of what he's saying, you're an idiot and you're going to sink the ship that you're on.
Dominant one says Trump should do this.
Congress should do that.
SCOTUS should do this other thing.
But no one is saying what they, the individual, should do.
Donald, of course he can.
But put it on blast.
Snip and clip the parts where John Eastman is talking about the civil rights division getting involved because, you know, potentially being able to get involved because of federal civil rights violations.
Put it on blast.
Joe Maskew says, as Rich said of war, inflation eats economics, scandal eats politics, war eats everything.
That's good.
James Yoder says, how do you fix this?
Find a DeLorean and a flux capacitor.
Not yet.
We still have time, but I don't know who's listening.
And all that I know is you go to Twitter and the likes of me getting shit on.
I can name you.
I can name you all half dozen people who's.
Political insights I will never take seriously again if I ever did in the first place.
The cheerleaders are not doing any good here.
This is Major Tom to ground control.
Old man Toby says, I see gains in with trans issues, the border being closed, ice taking people out of my area.
Yeah, well, but the ice taking people out of the areas, coupled with the amnesty that they're floating, I mean, that negates whatever.
You got ice, which only caused problems because of the way it was administered in Minnesota, and then you talk amnesty.
Amnesty would be a black pill for people still clinging to this administration.
When you say Bibi's bitch, doesn't that show your bias?
But assume he's biased.
First of all, the fact that he's exposing his bias is an element against his bias.
The true bias would be someone who doesn't say it.
Who was it that said Bibi was a pain in the ass?
Was it Obama?
Hold on one second.
Who said Netanyahu was a pain in the ass?
I'm pretty sure it was either Macron or Obama.
Bias is not saying it out loud.
Bias is not saying it, but feeling it in your heart.
If we're getting spiritual, I wanna see who said it.
Obama report.
It'll come up.
It's Obama.
I'm not going crazy.
So, yeah, bias is not being upfront with your opinions of people.
And to the extent that he's got a method that will prevent his biases from impacting his results, we'll find out.
Viva is having some high estrogen today.
He should put Anton's firm and juicy meat in his mouth.
I'm gonna have a steak for dinner for sure.
And I think another one just came in at the end here.
We do not mind helping with the 1776 law fundraiser.
If you guys need some extra attractions, check your messages, Viva.
I don't see any messages in my text messages.
I'll check afterwards, Anton.
All right.
And now I do want to see one thing here.
Let's go see what's going on in the chat.
I like seeing the chat here.
Agreed.
There's a difference between hating and disagreeing.
No, but also, it's not because someone's a troll or a bot that what they're saying is wrong.
I mean, they might have bad intentions.
The wrongness of that is not impacted by the intentions.
Who cares?
The Dow is at 50,000.
Hold on, was it?
Because when I checked last, it was at 49,000.
Dow Jones, 49,447.
Up 1.79% today.
All right, now we're going to go over and pay some love to our vivabarnslaw.locals.com community, where I know I didn't get to all of the tip questions.
We're going to do it right now.
Chris Kraft, first of all, thank you, Chris Kraft, for the continued support.
Generous.
And thank you.
For the rich was right again, Jar.
Then we got F. Chartrand who says, I think a bonus problem Trump has that he can't recover from is some mixture of too influenced by Israel, not appearing as sharp as he was even a year ago.
That's hard to walk back from.
To me, the ones that are harder to walk back from, but they're never beyond the point of walking back from.
Let me just take this out.
You don't have to apologize if you don't want to apologize.
Build up the alliances, bring back.
Go on with Tucker Carlson.
Go on with Alex Jones.
Talk with Megyn Kelly.
Who else?
Make amends.
You don't have to apologize.
Make amends with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey.
And, you know, put Tulsi Gabbard to use.
I appreciate she's putting out memos.
I don't know that we've seen any product from the revelations that she's been revealing.
Make amends.
That would be just, it would be a Christmas gift come early.
I said, you know, if only they could make amends when Marjorie Taylor Greene, before she announced her resignation and Thomas Massey, that is the most beautiful possibility.
You're never too late to do it.
Just hopefully, don't wait until the deathbed to do it.
I mean, metaphorically speaking, Andrea6270 says Rich, I'm volunteering for the libertarian gubernatorial candidate in New York.
Oh, Larry Sharp.
He actually, I think he messaged me not long ago.
I have to check that out.
Do you think Larry should lean into anti war messaging, even though a governor has no direct jurisdiction over foreign policy?
I mean, it depends.
Look, I don't know.
Rich is not here anymore.
I would say, I'm sure Rich would say if it's good at the federal level, why not?
I would say it's a good way for making news and getting name recognition among people who might not know you exist and basically broadening.
It's a state governor election, but being nationally in the news and in the headlines has its pluses.
Chungster says, I did my first stream last night.
Barnes posted it and Mike Benz was in the chat.
I'd love to come on with either of you or Rich Viva.
And Rich, I didn't use AI for the blob studies.
This is DOS.
Well, let's just show what you got going on here.
Hold on one second.
I don't know what this is.
And that the Chung stream number one, Orban.
Well, let's just go and follow right now.
And everybody can go follow who's watching because I'm going to go give this over on Rumble.
Link.
Give them a follow.
I'm going to share it.
Well, local.
It's already been on local.
So you guys can, you know, you know where to find it.
Although I'll do it right now.
Hold on one second.
Link.
Give it a follow.
Let's see how many people we can get in real time to see.
Refresh.
Maybe it doesn't update right away.
All right.
Well, that's pretty.
I mean, Chung Stream, Orban, Eastman, Trump, and Tucker.
Barnes has just announced your stream tonight.
Let's go like that.
Okay.
Let's like that one.
Great work.
Looking forward to your content.
I'm voting too often.
I'll be the judge of that.
Okay.
Now let's go back to our viva barnslaw.locals.com and see what's going on in the chat.
I had one more here.
The answer is listening to Rich and Barnes, says Chris Graff.
Lord have mercy.
Consulting Robert Barnes and Richard Barris.
The numbers do not lie.
Vegcons.
I think I got that one.
Viva.
Robert, I got that one.
Was a Lee, and I got that one.
So now let's go over to our comments on the side.
I live in Santa Fe.
I have heard him tell his story.
He's one of the good guys.
Gonna doom pill us Friday?
No, this was actually, I think this was actually mildly white pilling.
Income taxes imposed is undeniably unconstitutional.
Yeah, but I'm not gonna be one of the guys that has on the people who tell you not to pay taxes.
You'll end up in jail.
I've been told also to read the whole things.
Beyond that, 16th Amendment was never fully ratified, but simply said to be in effect.
Okay, well, I'm not reading the rest of that, but.
Thank you, one of the people.
Why the hell has the administration let this happen?
Great question.
We seem to be asking that about a lot.
Yep.
Never bet against Richard Barris.
His record is impeccable.
Trump needs a war room composed of Richard Barris, Robert Barnes, Dulcie Gubbard, RFK Jr., Alex from the Duran.
What about me, Mr. Berkovich?
I get nothing.
I'll put it on blast.
So I'll live stream their internal meetings.
Florida Honey Badger says Viva.
Interesting that Dems who know their base hates Israel are able to steal a Trump campaign promise and stop the FISA extension with a handful of Republicans.
It's beyond obvious that Trump and most of the GOP are captured by Israel.
I mean, there's influence.
You cannot, first of all, Trump effectively confirmed it when he said, you know, like, now I'm going to make sure that Israel doesn't bomb Lebanon.
That said, I'm also not one of the types who's going to deny the obvious that there is statistical overrepresentation of the influence, whether or not it's monetary or other, political.
Period.
Undeniable.
Okay.
China show starts in two minutes.
Well, maybe we can go raid the China show.
China!
Let me see where the China show is out here.
I guess we can probably do another raid and then I'm going to go and see what the family's doing.
China show is live.
Are they live right now?
Hold up.
Hold up.
Wait a minute.
Where the heck is it?
25 days ago.
This can't be right.
Are they on?
I was on Rumble, but maybe they're on Commitube.
Well, we can't raise cometube anyhow.
All right.
So, what we're going to do right now is I'm going to go and see what my family's doing.
What time is it?
I'm going to relieve myself for two hours, and I want to get another energy drink.
I hope you enjoyed this.
This was a good show.
I mean, they're all good shows.
I don't always feel good about the shows afterwards.
Sometimes I have a great degree of insecurity, self doubt.
Has everybody seen the movie?
I Heart Huckabees.
Everyone should watch I Heart Huckabees.
I think I have to rewatch it and see if it's not going to make me sick, like many movies that I used to love make me sick these days.
I remember liking the philosophy of that movie.
Have a good afternoon, all.
Thanks for the great show.
Viva says, Ali Michael.
And one of the people says, I'm not saying don't pay.
I wrote it under duress, under my signature, but people need to know just how illegal the IRS is.
I was telling my kid, I'll end on this.
I was telling my kid because it was tax day the other day.
And I said, this is the amount that we're paying to the government right now.
I have no choice.
It's less than what I would pay in Canada, but it's more than what I probably should be paying if I had creative accountants, but I'm not interested in taking any of those chances.
They take the money.
They then squander it on foreign wars.
They squander it on domestic corruption.
And when they run out of money because of their corrupt administration of domestic programs and funding of foreign wars, they come back and say that they need to take more from you.
And they are your unwilling and involuntary business partners, taking 37% of what you've worked hard to make and not even contributing 100% of that to domestic immediate issues.
If all of it went to veterans, making sure veterans are housed and not taking their lives at disproportionately high rates, if it went to proper schooling that are not indoctrination centers, if it went to taking care of the elderly, if it went to taking care of the homeless, no.
I won't get into the Iran conflict.
Hundreds of billions to foreign conflict, literal death and destruction, and then come back home and say, so sorry, we don't have enough for your actual citizens, your actual neighbors, your actual brothers and sisters.
And then I think I may have black pilled my kid a little bit.
That said, the world can change.
And so, in as much as we are now here and we have no choice, we can do everything we can to try to make it a better place.
Leave it cleaner than when we came.
And that's my white pill.
Two million to sue Eastman.
No, no, they don't know.
He had to, he had two million to defend himself.
You know what?
Do you know how much state funds they squandered on that?
A 35 day trial?
That's three and a half.
I mean, even if it's you make what is Canadian dollars, 10,000 bucks a day for court administration costs.
That's three and a half million dollars the state squandered to persecute their ideological rivals.
Squandered.
If it were private enterprise, they'd all be fired and maybe put in jail.
Squandered State Funds For Trials00:00:52
All right, and that's it.
Now we're going to go.
Godspeed, everyone.
God bless.
I will see you next week.
Next week.
So check this out.
Okay.
This is as a result of, I'm going to say it's Kyle Seraphim's influence.
The next time you see me, if I get the lens today or tomorrow, we're going to have a crisp, sharp live streaming new camera.
And maybe, you know, we'll see how people appreciate it.
Fine.
I've been using an Insta360.
It's a good camera, but.
We're upping the game now.
I finally got it.
I'm just waiting on the lens.
And I'm going to be using the new version of Rumble Studio, which is now apparently has fully integrated a lot of the recommendations.
So, as of next week and hopefully by Sunday, sharper image.
And we will be using the new Rumble Studio Sunday.