The Duran Podcast - Hot summer ahead; ICC, Assange, UKR, Putin-Xi, Slovakia, Iran & more w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

Episode Date: May 22, 2024

Hot summer ahead; ICC, Assange, UKR, Putin-Xi, Slovakia, Iran & more w/ Robert Barnes (Live)

All right. We are live with Alexander Mercuris, and we have with us the great one. Mr. Robert Barnes. How are you doing, Robert? It's doing good. As the Chinese proverb says, we definitely do live in interesting times. We are going to talk about all of the interesting stories that are happening around the world. A quick hello to everyone that is watching us on Rockfin, on. rumble and where else, Odyssey, YouTube, and the durand.com, and that is the second best locals community right behind number one, locals community, Robert.

You want to give a plug to your locals as well as to your e-shop as well, which has great merch. Yeah, the Viva Barneslaw.orgos.com is a great community, very active, very involved, very engaged, much like the locals community at the Duran to the best communities on locals and have established or supporting a independent law center to deal with all these crazy cases concerning political freedom, food freedom, medical freedom, financial freedom, people that want an exit rant from the Bill Gates dystopian control grid.

And that's at 1776 LawCenter.com. That's also going to be a one-stop shop for information, concerning Amos Miller, the Amish Farmer case, concerning all the other craziness that's coming out of Pennsylvania, the Brooke Jackson case against Pfizer concerning the COVID vaccine fraud, and other related cases concerning religious objections to vaccine mandates and recovery and remedy for the vaccine injured and other aspects of medical freedom, issues of financial freedom in the crypto community,

including George Gammon's suit that I represent him on against the Federal Reserve, other suits involving crypto as there's a war on crypto by the Biden administration using every mechanism method and means available to it. We represent a range of people in that space who want to, and we'll be talking about how crypto is even an increasing tool for would-be revolutionaries. It would be if you updated Che Guevara's guide, you'd have to have a guide to how to use crypto to survive off the grid and the control grid. But all that information cases, court documents, news links, including some fun merch, is up at 1776,

LawCenter.com. And we'll continue to sort of be an independent place where people can get information concerning those cases on core freedoms that are all at risk, unfortunately, right now in America. And I will put that as a pin comment, that link as a pin comment when the stream is over. A big hello to our moderators. Thank you to all our moderators today. And Alexander Robert, I think we're going to start off with what is going on with the farmers, right? Let's get started.

Let's get started before I do, just to say 1776, a vintage year, one which English aristocrats still weep over, just saying. I have one which Americans should be incredibly proud of. which still, in my opinion, is the shining, one of the shining moments in modern history for people around the world. Just to say. Anyway, Robert, last time we spoke together, you told us about a case you were involved in Pennsylvania, where you were representing a Pennsylvania farmer, a member from the Amish community, somebody who grows food, crops, rears animals, the way it should be done,

the way it always has been done provides outstanding food to people. You were telling us a lot about him, about the problems that he's encountered from the Pennsylvania authorities, the food agents is there. This is a classic case of food freedom. And I found it absolutely, I found the facts astonishing. But after we finished the programme, I was absolutely astonished to find that it had actually created an absolute firestorm. amongst people I know here in England.

They were all calling me up afterwards. I've been bombarded with messages. Statements of concern about this. Of course, farmers in the UK who also want to return to the roots of farming, want to conduct farming in the way that it should be done. And I know one farmer who's, you know, into yoga, and he's doing yogic farming, for example,

There's another movement called Pasture for Life, which is all about doing pasture in the proper kind of way. It turns out they have all the same kind of problems with the British authorities that the Amish farmer had with the Pennsylvania authorities. And it's the same type of people, the terrifying, I think terrifying connection, union between corporate interests, aggressive, course, interests and elements of the state and regional bureaucracies that they're up against. So on behalf of those people, and to a certain extent of myself also, because I find this a concerning story, I think we all should, by the way. Tell me what's going on. I take it the case is still continuing. How's it going? What's the state of play? The Amos Miller case is very much sort of the standard bearer for what's happening to small independent farmers all around the

world, which is there appears to be a global assault on small independent farmers, an effort to replace them with entirely corporatized, mechanized, industrialized, monopolized food supply. With the Bill Gates's of the world who, you know, where they're beyond meat, Bill Gates, the biggest purchaser of American farmland, yet he doesn't believe in farming. should concern people everywhere, given his global impact. Number two, contributor to the World Health Organization is Bill Gates as an individual and is Gates Foundation, which has overlapping interest, as you mentioned, Alexander, with the corporate interest because his foundation is very unique.

It has investments in a wide range of industries. One of them is, you know, Monsanto and other, not only alternative food products, you know, Z will eat Z-Bugs kind of food products. but also, I guess the rumor is that Klaus resigned today from the World Economic Forum. I'm seeing that story being reported just now, but I don't know if it's accurate or not. But maybe don't make a German who sounds like a Nazi to run your organization if you want to pretend for the people. Just word of the wise for the W.EF, which should be called WTF. But if you look at the nature of what's happened to Amos Miller, it's terrifying to farmers around the world.

And it's terrifying to people who want to control their own food supply, who they want me, us as individuals. I should get to decide what goes into my body, not the government. And the government's trying to take that away from people. In America, we went from most of our food being direct farm to table to now 98% of food comes from four or five major corporations. I mean, the pigs are being bought up and monopolized chickens, poultry bought up and monopolized. cattle, they're trying to buy up and monopolize.

And when they're unsuccessful, getting 100% monopoly, they go after the small farmers by hook or by crook. You know, I mean, in Italy, for example, there are small farmers being ordered to destroy some of their pigs because there was worry about an African virus. I mean, they're going to keep using virus scares to get away with all kinds of violations of rights and liberties. Here in the United States, same thing.

They're doing it with the bird flu, saying somehow magically raw milk is unique. dangerous from from a bird flu that somehow is suddenly going to get into the cow and then get into us even though there's not a lot they're requiring in michigan every farmers to disclose everybody who comes into contact and basically engage a massive surveillance state they're trying to pass laws in the biden administration to require people to tag electronically tag all of their animals and so amos miller is kind of the standard bear for all of these these attacks on small independent farmers of trying to force everybody back onto the Bill Gates control grid.

And so they've come after him multiple times. The feds came after him for a while. We got those settled and got them to back off. Then this Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture under a man I call the food pope, Secretary Redding, because unless he blesses your food, you can't eat it, is basically been trying to use his political power to put Amos Miller out of business. They initially went in, seized a whole bunch of Amos Miller's food. We're still trying to get that food released.

Release just to feed his own family. Release just to feed his own farmers. Right now, the state of Pennsylvania is refusing to allow him to release his own food that they seize to feed his own family or feed his own pigs. In fact, they're saying they get to decide what goes into the garbage and not. That's their new argument. They get to control what goes into your garbage. That that's their complete misinterpretation of this.

federal rule. We got the judge to ultimately allow Amos Miller to sell his raw milk and other products outside of the state because the state law, this is where America's federalism is somewhat unique and it allows the or limits of state governments from trying to restrict what happens outside of their borders. And there's Commerce Clause reasons for this under the Constitution. There's reasons concerning the right to travel clause, the privileges and immunities clause, the due process clause, all of which are implicated. And the judge ultimately agree and recognize that the constitutional issues with trying to prohibit Amos from distributing his products outside of the state. So right now he's prohibited from distributing his raw milk

products inside the state of Pennsylvania, but he's not prohibited from distributing outside the state. The state, however, has refused to accept that. They tried to get the judge to reverse, put massive pressure on him. He chose not to. And now they just filed this week another demand that he reverse. And they're going to take it up with the appeals court for these kind of issues in Pennsylvania, which is the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. This is the same Commonwealth court, a judge on that court who recently illegally imprisoned two farm workers who work on who work on Amish farms based on claiming they have to have a veterinary license in order to work on those farms, even though the law specifically says you don't. And they were not even named parties to the

case. And a judge, it was a subpoena on a business. And the judge decided, well, if the business doesn't comply with the subpoena, I'm just going to order imprisonment of the two individuals that I think are connected to the business without naming them as parties, without giving them a hearing without giving them a trial, without affording them any due process of law or any of the process required under the Pennsylvania rules, constitution, and the United States Constitution. And you got people apologizing for it in the Pennsylvania political power structure saying that this is civil contempt. And it's like, we learned it first year in law school.

If you're not given the keys to your jail cell, that's called criminal contempt because you're punishing me like what they're doing to Trump of the New York cases. So the, and it's another attack on the Amish. because these two farm workers work primarily for Amish farmers. There's other cases where they're going after Amish farmers. There's a complete political war on the Amish community, for which, again, Amos Miller is also the standard bearer. So basically every other day, they come up with a new excuse

to try to take away Amos Miller's food, to try to destroy his ability to sell his products outside the state of Pennsylvania, to try to micromanage every aspect of his business. to try to require that he have veterinary licensed vets on his farm before you can do anything with his own animals to threaten him with civil and criminal prosecutions on a routine and regular basis. And the only reason that, in my opinion,

they haven't prevailed is because the American people have responded very negatively to this. And the, I mean, the evidentiary hearing we held for Amos Miller. Every government official had to admit that in 20, five years of Amos Miller's operation in which he has distributed more than a million products to more than 10,000 Americans, not one had ever filed any complaint with anybody anywhere

about any aspect of his food. No complaint about the price, no complaint about the marketing, no complaint about the labeling, no complaint about the quality, no complaint that ever caused illness. Anybody knows anything about food knows that that's almost an impossible safe record to achieve. And even though the government had to admit that on the stand, the one farmer they're trying to shut down is the guy with the best safety record in the state of Pennsylvania. In fact, hundreds of people filed sworn statements under penalty of perjury. Many of them flew in on their own dime to testify live in front of the judge about how Amos Miller's food is essential to their religious expression, to their political beliefs, but more importantly,

to their medical well-being. For many of them, it literally saved their children's lives. And they're lives because there's unique aspects of the way he makes his food that's utterly unavailable anywhere else in the marketplace. Because he does it the same way his father did it, grandfather did it, great-grandfather did it, great-great-grandfather did it. And these are Amish that came here because they were explicitly promised by the founders of the state of Pennsylvania, a state founded on religious freedom, ironically in the modern era, that said, hey, Amish, we will respect your independence.

We will respect your rights. come here, you're great workers, your great farmers, your great carpenters, we won't harass you, we won't coerce you. And yet that's exactly what they're doing. There's an all out of salt on Amos as an independent farmer

because if they can take him out, they can get rid of all small independent farms. There's an effort to go after Amos as well because the whole key to the Amish community is being able to farm. That's their employment base. That's their wealth base. That's their cultural base.

And people have been asking why, the Amish. I mean, nice, sweet folks, you know, that makes no, everybody meets Amish person, you love them, there's nothing negative about them. And even though Hollywood has been bashing them now for three or four years, if you follow shows like Banshee and others, there's, there's a hint that a war was coming on the Amish, but because the Amish don't watch TV, they didn't know that war was coming. It's because if you wanted a control group outside of the control grid, who said, what would life be like if we live like our founding fathers did in America? You know, the, well, what would life be like if we weren't on the big food, big farm, a big tech, a control grid?

The world that Bill Gates magically sits at the center of like all of deep ties to big tech, deep ties to big farmer, deep ties to big food. And this, you know, people focus a lot on George Soros, understandably. Bill Gates, in my view, is a greater threat to freedom around the world as he exposed during the politics of the pandemic. But there's a control group that says what would be like outside of that big Bill Gates control grit, that W.E.F. Dream World, which is really a dystopia, as most people. It's the Amish. The Amish are outside of big food. They eat the food that they farm. They're outside of big pharma. They don't go to big, they don't rely on vaccines and drugs and modern medicine at all. And they're completely outside of big tech. I mean, they still carry the lanterns. They don't got cell phones. What I'm talking with, them I realize every single cultural reference I have makes absolutely no sense to them because it's like a movie or a TV show. They're like, what the world are you talking about? I got to go back to my Bible learning to give some relevant allegories and metaphors and analogies. I mean, their favorite game to play with the kids, they all go to the same school. They all go to

the local Amish neighborhood schools. They're topped by the Amish. They're all in the same grade. There's no separation. But when I was up there last time, they were playing Underground Railroad. That was their favorite game was Underground Railroad or somebody's trying to capture the slave and you're supposed to help him escape because the Amish were part of the Underground Railroad going all the way back. And now they're back on the Underground Railroad because the state is out to make us all slaves again. And so so far we've won to keep him alive, to keep him financially alive, to keep his farm functioning. Their efforts to bankrupt him have failed. Their efforts to, there's high-ranking people in the state of Pennsylvania that shared

memes showing Amos Miller in handcuffs going to jail. And his farm foreclosed. Those efforts so far have paid. We've been able to stop them. But they keep coming. They keep coming. They keep coming. So, you know, the luck. There's a lot of people that support Amos Miller. You can get his food at Amos Miller Organic Farm.com, at least for now, until the next attack when we're currently facing the current attack where they're trying to shut them down next week. But we're going to take this all the way up. And in the related case of the illegally imprisoned farmer, we're going to file federal civil rights suits. I'm going to have to sue judges because they're judges that as people, if you're watching the Trump case, I've got totally out of control in America.

They just think they're little, you know, they run their little fiefdom. They can do whatever they want, no consequence. But they forget that there's, if you don't have jurisdiction over the person, if you don't have jurisdiction over the subject matter, Commonwealth Court has no criminal jurisdiction. You can't be just ordering people illegally in prison, just randomly and say, screw you, I'm going to order an order of imprisonment. They type of. They typewriter, I mean, because they don't. have orders of imprisonment because they're not supposed to be doing orders of imprisonment. That all of these cases are combined, but there's no question that food freedom is going to be a hot issue in the political arena. It's an issue that's international in scope because the attack on small farmers, the attack on our rights to our own food, our rights to decide what goes into our

bodies is a global attack being done at a global level. And thanks to everybody helping A Miller, raise funds for Amos Miller, supporting Amos Miller at 1776 Law Center or Amos Miller, Organic Farm.com, because that's the only way they haven't crushed him. They thought, hey, he's Amish. He doesn't believe in publicity. He doesn't believe in lawsuits that we'll get to take him out. And, you know, I'm not Amish. So I can say what I'm going to do what I'm going to do in the Court of Public Opinion. And thanks to Robert Kennedy, thanks to Thomas Massey, who publicly highlighted Amos Miller's case. Thanks to all the people around the world who are highlighting Amos Miller's case, because that's the only thing that's going to stop them from

crushing him and taking away all our rights. Indeed. And can I just say, our program and what you said over the course of our last program, as I said, it's called fine here. And of course, one of the things I've been hearing, and I've been hearing this with people who grow mushrooms, people who provide eggs, people who are fishermen, people who make blue cheese. I mean, you know, all these people, they tell me exactly the same thing, that what they face every day is a regulatory maze, which is so complicated, and so whimsically and arbitrarily enforced, that it's almost impossible to avoid not being in purported infringement of some part of it. And the actual quality of your food, the actual

health of your food is really isn't the issue. It's whether you're supposed to be in, clients with regulation 537 stroke B or something like that. It's done like this almost continuously, very much for the purpose that you said. Now, a number of quick points. Just, you know, comments of legal nature. What he is facing sounds to me like an attempt to kill him legally through a policy of death by a thousand cuts. Now, that is straightforwardly oppressive. That is a colossal abuse of law. Law is not supposed to be used as an instrument of oppression.

When it is used in that way, it ceases to be law. It becomes something completely different. Now, it's also, I would have thought, completely inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, which I always ultimately returned to, which is the great advantage you still have in the United States. I mean, am I right about that? And is that really why you're going to the federal courts?

Because to me, it looks completely unconstitutional to operate the court in the law in this fashion. In the United States, historically, the state and federal law, recognized that all of the regulatory apparatus that they started to get imposed in the late 1800s only applied to big corporate farmers because that was the concern, corporate organizations and operations, was this new industrialized food supply, mechanized food supply, presented risks to the ordinary consumer who could no longer trust them because it wasn't their local farmer they were buying

their food from. And the FDA was originally supposed to be a labeling agency, the same with the state version of these. They were just supposed to be make sure what's in the box is actually what's in the box. They use that to usurp the power to dictate what could go in the box rather than just, hey, if it says it's beans, it's beans. If it says it's corn, it's corn, says mushrooms, it's mushrooms. Instead, they're going to tell you what size the mushrooms had to be. I mean, Huey Long famously attacking the New Deal said that, said, you know, now they've got agencies to tell you how fat your chickens can be and how skinny your pigs got to be. They got ABC agency and XYZ agency. This is why the law.

left populist approach has always been anti-regulatory, anti-bureaucratic. It might favor wide range of redistributive politics, but its redistributive politics don't take the form of redistributing power to bureaucrats on a professionalized level because it offended and went against the interest of small business, small entrepreneurs, small farmers. And farmers, of course, have been the basis of almost any popular or populist rebellion, really in the history of the world. You go back to the peasants rebellions of the 12th and 13th and 14th century, you're going to find farmers at the front of it. And that's why Thomas Jefferson and the founders recognize that small independent farmers, their sustainability, was essential to constitutional democracy, a constitutional

republic. You weren't going to have a constitutional government the moment you lost your independent farming base. And that's why I think in part they're wanting to take it out. Part of it's to have corporate control of the food supply. Part of it's to control what we can eat and ever have, but part of it to take apart the constitutional government. Because here they're attacking the First Amendment because this implicates religious rights, both of Amos Miller and of the people who consume his food. It implicates associational rights under the First Amendment as well. It implicates basic bodily autonomy rights, rights to privacy, rights to control our own bodies. If we don't control our own bodies, what do we control constitutionally? I mean, isn't that the definition of

chattel slavery when somebody else controls your body? Someone else controls. Someone else control. what food you take and can eat. Somebody else controls what medicine goes into your body. So, I mean, this is where there's an overlap between medical autonomy and food freedom. And so, and that goes to the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, issues of due process of law. I mean, here, they stole all his property

without compensating him or even affording him a hearing. I mean, they assaulted them without even a reach around. I mean, that was the nature of what they did. And doesn't add violent due process clause the U.S. Constitution? Supreme Court said last week that in the case of civil forfeiture that's widely abused here in America has been for decades. I was introduced to it by some students at Howard University in Washington, D.C. in 1998 when I was a young law student and they were telling me what crazy insanity was taking place with civil forfeiture law. But both justices Gorsuch

and Thomas agreed that and arguably there's other votes, including the dissenting votes, to create a majority, said this has got out of hand. And with the right case, they said, let's look at whether or not due process of law requires that you get a trial before any of your property or liberty is taken from you. Isn't that what due process is historically meant in America? And so we're raising every single constitutional issue. The First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment issues all implicated here. There's really Eighth Amendment issues implicated here because it's kind of an excessive fine because what they're doing is they're punishing him for not having a permit by destroying. all of his food and trying to destroy his farm.

I mean, even though the only fine permitted under the statute is often as low as $100. They're taking away over 100,000 food. This is classic. What they're doing to farmers is outright horrendous. It's constitutionally offensive. It's anti-American. And that's why there has to be an aggregate effort

of people here and around the world to fight for. And maybe we'll get an outcome, kind of like they got in the Netherlands, which I wonder if those people waging the war on those farmers would have waged that war on those farmers if they knew that the next leader of the Dutch government, you know, was going to be Wilders. So hopefully we get the same political rebellion here in America because we need it in order to keep farmers like Amos Miller economically alive. You're absolutely right. And by the way, about what you said about farmers being absolutely caught through revolutions. It's not widely

known, but of course in England, in the Middle Ages, we had the peasants revolt, as it's so which is if you study it carefully, hardly anybody does, by the way. Very few people really know about the story the President's Revolt. You will know what a shock it created to the English system and what a transformative effect it had on English governance and a democratising effect on English governance. And in fact, they used to sing, a gentleman in those days was a word meant an aristocrat when Adam Wove and Eve Span, who was there. and the gentleman. That was their song. That was the song that the peasants used to sing. Anyway, so it goes all the way back and about due process. Of course, the American constitution has

taken the whole concept of due process hugely further, but about punishment without law. It is there in Magna Carta as well. The king is not supposed to punish anyone without due process of law and only through, only after trial by his peers. It's there. It's still there in Magna Carta, and it is still operative law in England, not that we pay much attention to it, do it anymore. And that brings me to the next question, which is, of course, about the, I mean, you brought up the fact that the judiciary in the United States is out of control. And I have to come to this, because I have been trying to watch or follow the events in New York. I have to say there are times when I just don't know what to say. Am I watching a trial or am I watching a Monty Python sketch? Because

there are times when it almost seems like that. This case is crazy. It makes absolutely no sense at all. I still haven't figured out what crime Trump is supposed to have committed. And so, I mean, you know, there's a conspiracy about something. We're told that there's a conspiracy about something. But nobody can quite say what. If there is a crime, it's a crime that's supposed to have happened after the election, which it was supposed to influence, which is already utterly bizarre. And, um, The only real prosecution witness appears to be someone who glories in the fact, I mean, actually glories in the fact that he is a serial perjurer and a criminal, a convicted criminal. I mean, you know, we have this concept in England, I'm sure you do in the United States, that, you know, there is no case to answer, and it's brought before judges, and judges dismiss cases on that basis quite often in the English criminal courts. But this takes that concept of further stage.

I mean, it's just lunacy. And I cannot understand how any judge at all can sit unemotionally presiding over this ludicrous farce and allow it to continue in the way that it does. So explain this to me. How does it happen? It is. I mean, if people would watch the Duran. show that we did a few months back, then they would have got a sneak peek preview of the insanity.

For those that didn't, it's a shock to watch what's going on because they were assumed that the American legal system is portrayed as the ideal legal system for the world. That it's the place where, in fact, it's a critical predicate by which America would get investments from around the world, the source of global capital infusion. the United States. Also along with the city of London here in Las Vegas, money laundering capitals in the world. But part of that was, hey, we can trust the legal system. We'll have impartial judges. You're constitutionally entitled to an impartial judge. You're constitutionally entitled to an impartial jury picked from a venue that is representative of the community.

You're entitled to present evidence on your behalf. You're entitled to cross-examine any of your accusers. You're entitled to have all facts decided by the jury, not by the court or the government. You're entitled to counsel. You're entitled to all of these things, but they're watching a criminal trial that follows a civil trial in New York where none of these things were being respected, where you had partial, partisan, prejudicial judges presiding over the proceedings in such insane ways that if a witness simply looks at the judge's Sideways, the judge, as he did yesterday, kicks everybody out of the courtroom, illegally locks it up. You can't close a trial for any purpose like this, a criminal trial in America, has to be open to the public under the Constitution.

He doesn't care because he's been issuing unconstitutional gag orders prohibiting Trump from defending himself in the Court of Public Opinion about a case that is entirely a Soviet-style show trial. And to be frank, the Soviet-style show trials were better than this show. I mean, at least the show trial would have at least a little bit attempt at portraying something representing justice. Here, this court is attacking witnesses who second guess what he does, attacking lawyers who expose what he does, trying to, I mean, he was issuing sustaining objections. It was like that scene out of idiocracy. That's what Judge Mershon looks like. He looks like that judge from the film mediocrisy, where the prosecutor wouldn't, I mean, the defense lawyer asking a question of a witness, wasn't even allowed to get into like word number three of his question before the government would object and the judge would quickly sustain.

And basically, I think there's been about a 98% rate of the judge sustaining government objections and denying defense objections. I mean, it's so lopsided. He's not even trying to look impartial, least of all be impartial. And as you note, the case is a joke. Nobody can still figure out what the crime is. So knowing the judge denying Trump the ability to present his own expert witnesses, denying Trump the ability to cross-examine on a wide range of subjects, denying Trump the ability to introduce evidence and admissions and exhibits and documents.

I mean, today they went up and wanted to ask about the very emails the government had asked about and the judge said, no, you're not allowed to. That's how nuts it is. It is absolutely bizarre. I'm trying to understand the nature of the crime. It's like a, it's like, you know, with those old kaleidoscopes used to shake, the pattern changes whenever you shake it,

because that's how it is with this crime. I mean, it always seems to sort of shift around. You never quite precisely told what it is. But sometimes it sort of sneakily suggests this, and then sometimes it's suggested it's that. They've even admitted this. They've admitted it's a moving time. They said they didn't define which crime Trump committed to elevate this from misdemeanor to a felony

because they want to be able to change their mind during trial. I mean, it's nuts. I mean, it's Kafkaesque. Kafka's the trial looks more normal and sane than this New York criminal case. And then as you pointed out, out their entire evidence, their whole evidence for any kind of criminal intent, they have no documentary evidence. Even James Carville was going off saying, please God, tell me there's some documents. We're not really relying on Michael Cohen, are we?

Yes, Jimbo, you are. Their entire testimony is the whole case. Hinges on believing a guy who admitted he will lie for money. He will lie for protect himself. He admitted this on the stand in this case, admitted that pretty much every single time he's taken the oath, over 20 times in the last five years before Congress or courts, he's lied. every single time. He also, he volunteered more crimes.

He actually committed embezzlement. He actually was complicit in extortion. He was actually committed theft from the Trump organization. He committed business fraud on the Trump organization, sending in false invoices to get inflated payments so that he could pocket the extra cash. And then he figured, hey, I might as well volunteer my own money laundering while I'm on the stand. You know, I got to get it all out.

It's like the end of the, that showed the shield, where they give immunity to the lead detective. And then they're shocked as he says, let me tell you about the 500 crimes I committed in the last year. But the basically, because what he does is he says, well, I wanted to get cash out. They're like, well, why did you want to get cash out? Who are you trying to hide it from? And he's like, well, I wanted to get about 20 grand out. They're like, why didn't you get 20 grand out?

Oh, I wanted to get it out and broken up so that there was no issues. What he means is anti-money laundering laws require the bank to report any transaction over $10,000 in cash. So he just volunteered. He engaged in structuring. which is a federal crime of its own kind. So in order to cover up his other crimes. So it's, and this is a guy, as you know, Alex, who also, you dream as a defense lawyer to have a witness you could impeach like Michael Cohen.

I said I would have volunteered to do it for free just because it would have been so much fun. Because you could start off with how many times have you lied under oath, how many crimes have you committed in just the last five years? How much money are you making telling people you're going to send Trump to prison? And he admitted he's made over $4 million. promising to send Trump to prison through book deals and podcast deals and video deals, all of it predicated on sending Trump to prison. So you have every form of bias of a witness you could possibly imagine.

No self-respecting individual can credit anything he has Michael Cohen has said against President Trump. And that's the government's entire factual case for cases you know isn't even there legally. The question is, how badly will our legal system be embarrassed if a government, partisan prejudice jury returns a guilty verdict. That'll make our system just put it into it, put the cherry on top of the Sunday of what a complete joke and mockery the American legal system in New York has become. I'm sorry to say that I think that's a real possibility because the case of this lunacy could not have been brought unless they really believed in some form that they would get a guilty

verdict because otherwise they surely wouldn't have done. this, they wouldn't have taken these incredible risks of conducting a case like this to have it fall apart with a not guilty verdict. I will say it has been so zany. It has been so much like a cross between the Moscow trials and something out of Alice in Wonderland. That, you know, I wonder whether even the most biased and prejudiced jury is incapable of seeing through this. But, you know, I've come to be, rather more skeptical of places like New York and wherever, you know, jury pulls there. So I have to say, I'm concerned about this. What happens if he's convicted?

I mean, it's surely going to fall apart on appeal. I mean, even the New York Appeal Court will presumably throw this out. Yeah, there's two ways it could get thrown out. If the Supreme Court is to issue a decision on the scope of presidential immunity, in the next month. I believe they're going to determine. I don't think they'll go as far as I would recommend. To me, the impeachment clause is the exclusive constitutional mechanism of prosecuting

a president or former president. And I think it has to be that way because otherwise a president is subject to the extortionate whim of any prosecutor in the world, not just prosecutors in America. Like right now what prohibits the U.S. government from granting an extradition request of a foreign nation. Let's say somebody wanted to prosecute Barack Obama for various drone bombings he did in various countries around the world. And so let's say those countries indict him. And assume for the moment those countries are part of an expedition treaty with the U.S. How does the U.S. government not extradite Obama for that?

Its only basis to do so, for the most part, would be presidential immunity, that we cannot, because it has to be a crime in both countries, under most extradite, tradition treaties are the requirement of that sort of duality, that the only way to prevent somebody from being subject to future extortionate risk, in other words, while you're president, you're like, I better not offend this person because they could send me to prison when I'm done being president, then is to say that only the impeachment clause is the mechanism by which you can indict a president. That it has to be such a horrendous crime that you can get two-thirds of the Senate to remove your immunity through impeachment and conviction. That's what I think.

the Supreme Court should do. That's what Trump's people are advocating them to do. But you've got such weak need people on the Supreme Court that don't want to be perceived as covering up for Trump that they may issue sort of a mealy mouth middle of the road decision. But they're going to say there's at least some immunity for the president. They may limit it to official acts while he's president. And they may say there has to be an evidentiary hearing on what's official versus what's personal. But either way, all, fact they've indicted him for that they've said as criminal in the New York criminal case happened while Trump is president. They're saying that the plan began while he was running for

president, but the actual crime, the illegal bookkeeping entries, was while he was president. And so that would impact immunity issues. That could throw out the whole case. The other aspect is there's usually delays pending sentencing. That's a separate entire hearing. usually you are here it's fundamentally a misdemeanor they're trying to stick up into a felony even if they get away with that the typical sentence in new york is probation uh so the judge would have to completely deviate there to try to imprison trump he would i my guess is the judge doesn't even go that far because i think the the god the democrat's goal has been just get a conviction and if we get a conviction that will beat trump in the election and then we're done with

Trump and we can, you know, Biden can be gracious and pardon him while he pardons the Clintons and pardons his son and pardons his brother and pardons his sister at the same time. It's still what I think the long-term plan is of Biden. The is just to give himself cover for when he pardons himself later on. But the, but the whole goal for that is that Trump lose the election and they think their main way to defeat Trump in the election is to get him convicted. And I think they're wrong. The poll, I've said that for a year with Richard Barris, people.

Pundit daily. And we're now seeing that in the polls. People say if Trump is convicted in New York, will it change your vote? No. What if Trump is convicted in Florida? Will it change your vote? No. What if Trump is convicted in D.C.? Will it change your vote? No.

What if he's convicted in Georgia? Where we have more prosecutorial crazy corruption going on. And that doesn't even deal with the prosecutorial corruption in D.C. In Florida, because it turns out the classified documents case, those photos that had, oh, look top secret, it was labeled on these documents just left in a disheveled state. Trump, it was entirely manufactured. They made up some of the documents.

They staged the entire photo. And it turned up to prosecuting Trump for mislocating classified documents. Well, guess what Jack Smith's prosecutorial team did? Mislocate classified documents, including those documents. Mishandled it. And then that's just the beginning of it. They breached attorney-client privilege. They illegally and elicently and tried to intimidate and coerce witness testimony.

They elicently used a D.C. grand jury for a case that's pending in Florida. And that doesn't even deal with the constitutional issues there. How can the President of the United States be subject to the administrative deep state's determination about what's classified or not? Only the president, the only elected official in the executive branch gets to decide what's classified, not the deep state. And yet that's what they're trying to provide here. So it violates Article 2, this indictment in the first place, along with all the other constitutional issues, the misapplication of the sedition law, the vagueness of those laws, those being applied to political dissidents and outsiders, the selective prosecution and violation of the First Amendment, all of which are pending in that

case as well. So I think these cases are ultimately going nowhere against Trump. I don't think they're going to get anywhere. I don't think they're ever going to be able to lock Trump up. I don't think they're going to ever impact the election. I think it ultimately, there was a sort of last gasp attempt to derail Trump. And they'll convince themselves that it will work until it doesn't. on election day.

I agree completely. By the way, on the question of immunity, a presidential immunity, I did a little reading up about this, you know, about the English presidents again. And for what is his worst, and I don't want to push this too hard, I get the sense that, you know, the way it once was in England was very much like the way that you say it should be with the president in the United States, which is to say that the English tradition, until the very modern era, was the ministers of the crown and the, obviously the crown itself, was immune to prosecution, pretty much for the kind of grounds that you say. The initiative to impeach and to take action always lay with the House of Commons, never with the courts.

the courts were not involved precisely for the reason that you say. And of course, that would have been the tradition that the founders of the American Constitution would have been familiar with. Now, I mean, all right, we have a crazy case going on in New York, but I'd like to turn to pivot to all of these other cases.

The Georgia case is horrible. I mean, it's collapsing in the most grotesque fashion. I mean, the connections, the, the fibs, frankly, that have been told about the connections between the various prosecutors, the astonishing way that they all interconnect with each other, the conflicts of interest. I mean, this is another horrifying case. And you're absolutely, you know, you anticipated all the things I was going to say about the Jacksmith Special Counsel cases. I mean, the one case that people said, well, there might be something in, I never could see it myself. But anyway, that's what they were saying, was the documents case.

And that's creaking towards collapse. So it seems to me, I mean, you know, we're not even quite sure what documents he's supposed to have belonged anymore because all the documents seem to be mixed up in all kinds of ways. every one of these cases looks so obviously confected, so completely unprepared, so completely uninvestigated. It's absolutely obvious that people, somebody has put them all together,

said to themselves, well, we've got to stop Trump from either standing at all or getting elected. How are we going to do it? We're going to drown him in litigation. and they cobble together all of these cases in all of these different courts, federal and state courts in all kinds of places. And the moment these cases get challenged and challenged properly, they all fall apart at the seams. Now, the Georgia case, I always thought was sinister because basically what it said was that, you know, it's a criminal offense to challenge an election outcome at all. I mean, that's what it amounted to as far as I can see. But, I mean, now that we know how the prosecution has conducted itself, again, why isn't this case being thrown out?

Surely it ought to be thrown out now. Surely all of these cases ought to be thrown out. I appreciate that the one judge who seems to have acted with some degree of sanity is the judge in the documents case. But even that judge has just postponed it indefinitely. the judge didn't have the courage to say, look, how, you know, I can't proceed with this case. This is your case, Mr. Special Counsel. If you can't prove it to me, then I'm going to strike it out because that's what, as a judge, I'm obliged to do. I can't have a defendant hanging around until you get your problem sorted out.

That's not the way prosecution is supposed to work. Anyway, what do you make of this? I mean, what it reveals is how corrupt our legal system has been in politically motivated cases for some time. The difference is they've never tried it at this scale. And what they're shocked by is that the lies they get away with in other dissident cases, other whistleblower cases, other political cases, where usually they're going after someone that's part of a smaller group politically, that the whole world isn't paying attention to, that the net effect of it,

is that now they're discovering the American people when they see this up close, they don't like it, and they're rebelling against it, and they're reacting against it. As one of the chatters noted, Trump keeps going up after each indictment, after each trial. And so the civil case was supposed to damage Trump.

It didn't. He went up. This case was supposed to damage Trump. It didn't. He went up. When you're losing Anderson Cooper, when you're losing those kind of people who are like, this is a weak case, this looks bad.

Cohen is incredulous. or in the Georgia case, we have a corrupt prosecutor stealing money so that she can go on vacations with her secret lover who's married at the time, who she's hired as special counsel, has no qualifications to do the case.

And that's how the case gets processed and prosecuted. Now the Georgia court repeals gets to decide whether she should have been removed from the case and whether she had proper authority to bring it in the first place because of these abuses of power, then the whole Georgia case could get thrown out that way. It could get thrown out based on a broad immunity ruling by the Supreme Court of the

United States in the next month or two, because once again, they've indicted Trump almost solely for things he did while president in Georgia. It could the, and then it could get thrown out on a bunch of other grounds in terms of how constitutionally infirm and factually deficient the criminal case is. So much so that Michigan, Arizona, when they decided to go after the Trump electors in those cases and lawyers, they decided to leave Trump. out because they realized how weak that argument was, even for cases that are bogus to begin with. And what I hope it all means for Trump is, you know, last year when Candace Owens interviewed him, asked him, why didn't he pardon Julian Assange? And his excuse was, and Edward Snowden,

and his excuse was, I'm going to let the courts work it out. There's some stuff for the courts to work out. I wonder if Trump shares the same confidence in the courts today. that he had then. He's now, they've tried to bankrupt them by the courts. They've interrupted and interfered with the election by the gag orders issued by the Trump, by these trials, by the timing of these trials, forcing him to be president in court, he wasn't even allowed to waive his appearance in the civil or criminal case. They're trying to lock him up and strip him of all his freedom and liberty as well as his money and property, tried to keep him, Colorado Supreme Court, try to keep him off the ballot, as we predicted that would fail with the Supreme Court.

But does he have the same confidence in the courts that he did then? And shouldn't that be education? I think a smart move for Trump, particularly given the news on Monday, would be for him to embrace the Julian Assange pardon and at Edward Snowden to the equation. And tie in the abuse. He has suffered in the American legal system to people other than himself. Because the accusation is always Trump only cares about Trump. tie it into someone like Julian Assange, whose cases of global consequence, for whom millions of

people in America are deeply concerned. And I'm concerned that the only reason they granted his right to appeal is it the very robust constitutional reasons, or in this case, legal reasons under Britain, which is that, in fact, this government has said forever here in the United States that they don't recognize the First Amendment rights of non-citizens, unless it's just case. that where they like it, you know, then all of a sudden it shifts. But historically, that they have taken that position consistently. Not only that, they have never allowed anyone to raise the Constitution as a substantive defense to a jury in a criminal case that I'm aware of in the United States.

It comes up repeatedly. I've often argued in these other extradition cases. I've had clients subject to it overseas to always, I keep telling. I mean, right now they should do it with Roger Ver, who's now indicted on completely bogus charges on an unconstitutional attempt to extend our tax powers to people who aren't even citizens, who gave up their citizenship, and we're still saying we can tax them into oblivion, to impose an unconstitutional property tax using Roger Ver and imprisoning him for doing so. And it's probably not a coincidence.

He's known as Bitcoin Jesus. It's another attack on the crypto community at the same time. I think he has robust reasons to object to extradition in Spain, just like John McAfee did, before McAfee got Epstein. And so I think that hopefully, because my concern is that the reason the High Court did this, I was curious what your thoughts were, that one argument is that given there's intelligence connections on some of the people that are involved with the High Court on this case, XMI6, is that they just did this to help buy that they still want Assange's head, but they don't want to extradite him during the election. So they're going to push in the ultimate decision until after election day. And then they're still going to torture him by dragging him to the United States to be effectively executed. Even if he's not physically executed to be effectively executed, given his continuing decline in health in the conditions that he's in.

And despite their lies, they would put him in Supermax or a similar facility. The deep state hates Julian Assange, sees him as one of their greatest adversaries of all time. and they want to use him as an example to terrify anybody else from ever thinking that they're going to expose deep state secrets ever in the future. It's not just about payback to Assange for the deep state. It's about deterrent to anybody else exposing the deep state. And so I think it's perfect timing for Trump to come out and say Biden should pardon Assange and for Trump to join it. Credit to Robert Kennedy, who has said day one, he will pardon Julian Assange and Edward Snow. And I get a blowback from Trump fans about saying anything nice about Kennedy.

It's up to Trump to take on these issues. As long as Trump is being a woeatist and not doing anything about it, he deserves criticism for it. That's on Trump, not on the people calling it out. Absolutely, completely correct. I hope, by the way, that whoever it does with the elections, be it Trump or Kennedy, does do that because this case is a horror. And I'm going to say straight away, the English judicial judicial. has disgraced themselves over the conduct of it. Now, it is possible that they are spinning this out to help Biden.

I mean, you know, I can't definitely say that that is not the case. But for the record, I don't personally think so. I think the English judiciary wants to get Julian Assange to the United States as soon as they can in order to get him off their hands. I think that has been their agenda ever since the decision of the Westminster Magistrate's Court came through, which basically granted every single point that the United States government made, but then said that he shouldn't be extradited on health grants. And they went behind that judgment.

They did in a bizarre way, which will come to in a moment. And anyway, what has happened? And I think this is what explains the decision that was made yesterday. and why it's been focused on the First Amendment and on the human rights issues. And that is that Assange's lawyers have been saying for some time that if this appeal goes against Assange, they will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Now, the European Court of Human Rights is a complex, very strange institution. It basically also does what the authorities tell it to do.

But it is not part of the English system. and it is not controlled by the authorities in London to the same degree and to the same extent. And for the British judges, the English judges, the English court system and the English officials, the absolute catastrophe, and I'm not talking about political catastrophe, but the embarrassment they would feel in the face of other lawyers,

the biggest catastrophe to them would be is if they threw out the appeal, extradited Assange to the United States. He was put on a plane to the United States, and the European Court of Human Rights then did what it has done on other occasions, and said, look, by doing that, you violated his Article 10, freedom of speech rights because he doesn't have the proper protections under the First Amendment in the United States, as he is not a national.

And you have to bring him back, which is orders that the European Court of Human Rights has made in the past, that you extradited him wrongly, so you have to bring him back. So what they tried to do is when they realized that this was a possibility, not perhaps a huge possibility, but nonetheless a real possibility, is they try to get around this problem in the same way that they got round the problem of the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, courts decision to refuse the extradition on health grounds. On that occasion, they accepted assurances from the United States about his treatment in the United States. Now, just to say, and I want to really just go over that all over again, because the judge, the judge in the lower court,

the original trial judge said that he was at risk of his life if he was sent to the United States. the High Court then granted the US leave to appeal that judgment on all sorts of grounds that made absolutely no sense to me. When we eventually got to the hearing of the appeal, the High Court said those grounds upon which we have granted the United States leave to appeal, don't hold water, they don't stand. But of course, instead of dismissing the appeal, which remember they're now admitting, brought on the wrong basis, they say, it's a problem.

We're going to accept the assurances instead and send him back to the United States anyway. And they do that without a proper hearing about the assurances, despite the fact that they're not the suitable courts, to have the assurances addressed to. That should have been the judge in the lower court. They don't give Assange's lawyers a proper opportunity to respond to the assurances. They don't hear expert evidence of the assurances.

It's all quickly rushed through in about an hour, after about an hour's hearing, at the back end of an appeal, which the Americans, have brought and which on the substantive issues they then go on to lose. So this time, Assange's lawyers have brought this appeal, there is this issue of the First Amendment. So what do the English judges do? They're afraid of the European Court of Human Rights. They're afraid that things might turn out in the way that I said, you know, that the European Court of Human Rights might make an order, which is profoundly embarrassing, and which might require them to do things, which they really do not want to do. So they try to do the same thing that they did with the Americans appeal. This time they solicit assurances from the United States.

Now, that in itself is bizarre. Why should the court prompt the United States to give assurances? We're talking about the United States. If the United States wants to give assurances, let me give assurances. It could do something. without any prompting, if they think that there's grounds for appeal, they should grant leave to appeal. They shouldn't say to the United States, well, we're not going to grant leave to appeal if you can reassure us. Come give us assurances. If we grant leave to appeal and there's an appeal and the United States wants to give assurances, then the United States could give those assurances of that hearing. Of course, they don't do that. So they ask the United

States to give them assurances on this First Amendment line, because they're hoping that they the American authorities will find some form of words that they can work with, which will enable them to refuse leave to appeal, so that they can put Assange on the plane to the United States, and then if the case goes to the European Court of Human Rights, they can tell the Human Rights, Court of Human Rights, look, we did all we could. We accepted the American's assurance as the Americans promises. It's not our fault. It's therefore. because they didn't do what they said they would do. Well, it hasn't, it didn't work out because, and this is really very interesting.

In the end, the assurances the US provided on this First Amendment issue were simply inadequate. I mean, you know, they said, you know, this is the law. We can't go behind what the court is going to decide. And, you know, we can't ultimately give you the cast iron assurance. that you are seeking. So very reluctantly, very grudgingly, I think entirely against their wishes, they've been forced to grant Assange leave to appeal, and it looks like we're going to have a proper appeal after all. And I think that's really the whole story of this. The key to this is to ask yourself the question, why did the court, the High Court, seek assurances from the United States

at the previous hearing instead of simply grant leave. Why prompt the United States to provide assurances only for one reason because they knew that there was a case and that they should grant leave

but they didn't want to do so. And the US in the end failed them. So Robert, why weren't they able to provide those assurances? Did they realize that if they simply said in those assurances, look, there's absolutely no problem at all that Mr. Assange goes to the United States.

He can completely rely on all the protections of the First Amendment. The court in London, I'm absolutely sure, would have accepted that. You get him over to the United States, do whatever you like. Did the Americans still understand that? I think it's because they want to use the case as a precedent.

And as part of that precedent, one is the deep state deterring anybody or national security establishment, pick whatever language you want, deterring anybody from exposing their crimes in the future. But they also wanted to establish the legal predicate that they can grab them from any place anywhere and that they're not protected ever under the First Amendment. Because even the Obama administration was conflicted on this. And members of the Obama administration said there's robust First Amendment defenses for Assange. The Deep State's answer is not if he's a very important.

a foreigner. And they want to establish that precedent that if you want to be Julian Assange, try being an American and maybe you'll have a little bit of luck, but don't try to be a non-American exposing these frauds, exposing our criminality, because you don't have First Amendment protection, see United States versus Julian Assange. And that's why they didn't want, because they want that legal precedent, they didn't want to be able to be in a situation where they could be prohibited by having prior conceded that anybody anywhere in the world has First Amendment protection from U.S. government action in a case in which they were engaged in First Amendment activities, regardless of their citizenship, regardless of the location of their activity.

And this goes always back to post-9-11. Well, really goes back even further than that. But, you know, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed because the CIA was abusing that to spy on people. It was supposed to be a restraint on the CIA spying people. became a green light for them to spy on people. But they've often liked pretending the borders don't apply as an excuse for them circumventing constitutional constraint.

And thus Guantanamo, thus the detention centers, thus the extradition without extradition, all of those dynamics, you know, subcontracting out torture to black sites around the world. The goal was to say, you're not a U.S. citizen so we can, or you're not on U.S. territory so we can do what you want. They even went so far during the Bush administration with that lunatic judge looting signed off on it to say they could arrest an American on American soil for American activities without a trial or an indictment and lock them up for as long as they wanted, as long as the President of the United States called him enemy combatant. They partially did

this during the Obama administration. I mean, why did they publicize credit for the drone bombing of an American citizen overseas. They wanted to say, hey, once you're outside our borders, we can skip the Constitution part. We can skip the trial part. We can just go to the direct assassination part. So part of it is they're like the Trump case. They want to establish a legal precedent

that even the elected executive head of the executive branch doesn't get to decide what's secret or not. They do, which really all of these reaffirm Assange's original point of the dangers of secrecy. but speaking of assassination MBS attempted assassination in the last few weeks the president of Slovakia which I'm always confusing with Slovenia somehow

I get Melania Trump confused I should remember Czech Slovakia Slovenia Yugoslavia I still think by the way it was the real conspiracy to break up Yugoslavia wasn't because of geopolitics it was so the Yugoslavians could never feature a national team that would dominate European football like as is coming up this summer because imagine if you had the Slovenians and the

and the Serbians and the Croats and the Albanians I think all four teams are in the European finals imagine if you had all those players playing together that they would they would be winning World Cups but nope got rid of you sluggish but you know how about basketball Rob yeah basketball I mean just you know they would be dominant they don't want them getting all those gold medals they don't want them dominating the world stage so you know I help the Brits

help the French of course what also helped the French is all their colonialism that you'll look at their team and it's like Frank a freak. That's the team. It comes from people who came, you know, Zadan came from northern Africa. It's interesting which teams have gone up and which teams haven't based on their colonial ties to be blunt about it. But putting all of that aside. But then you have the attempted assassination of the president of Slokia.

Now the death of the president of Iran and all that happening like back to back to back, you've got upcoming European elections, you've got the WHO treaty that they're trying to force through. you have the Ukraine war you have and all of this happens around the same time that Russia and China I thought you broke it down well it's almost not been discussed here in the States that was an extraordinary agreement that was like the true shifting foundations of power

to a Eurasian fulcrum of power but in what Russia did with China I mean it wasn't I mean that there's the symbolism don't hug anybody Xi hugging Putin. Putin even seemed surprised by the hug, by this reaction in live time. But as you noted, he brings his entire administration down there. I mean, this is to solidify a new anchor of power against the West in maybe the most

dramatic in a century or so, depending on how you interpret some past historical events. But for all for that to be happening at the same time, there's these back to back to back assassinations and our assassination attempts or people deciding to take the, I mean, still don't get the iran i think you guys highlighted it well the real story of the iran president is who decided to take the old helicopter into a storm in the mountains i mean this was like the ron brown special for those people that don't remember ron brown secretary of commerce bagman for the democratic national committee the democratic party got caught up with his mistress in a bunch of criminal cases while he was commerce secretary went and had a big argument with clinton uh in the

kitchen the next uh the concern was ron brown thought his son would be dragged into the equation and he wanted Clinton to keep his son out, son out by helping stop the case. Clinton didn't make such promises. So apparently threats were exchanged. Whatever it was, he got put on a special commerce trip to develop commerce and the war torn Balkans and never came back. Plain crash. I don't think they ever found the black box. Some say he was found in perfect place with two shots in the back of the head, sort of the Gary Webb special. You know, the guy who shot himself twice. That's always hard to do, but

managed to accordingly. But you see the Slovakian president who's a populist outsider. You see the Iranian president who's having all this success with China, with Russia, with India, with even getting some detente with Saudi Arabia, which people thought had been impossible over the last quarter's engine. All of a sudden, he takes this unfortunate helicopter ride. Any thoughts on if there was an who benefits from this? Even putting aside whether their assassinations are where people say they are, their deaths are what people say they are, who political. profits. Is there any coordination or commonality between who might profit from the deaths or attempted deaths of all these three people? You see, there might be. Of course, we don't know because, of course,

whoever it is who is doing this, and it will probably be more than one group of people. I mean, there's, to say simply, there are agencies and organizations in many countries, involved in many things and they undoubtedly work together and coordinate with each other. Anyway, whoever they are, they're very careful, or at least they're trying to keep their traces hidden. Now, the Slovak authorities are now coming forward and saying that they're starting to think that the person who tried to assassinate feats or didn't act alone. I mean, they're starting to make those observations. they're not saying who was behind the assassination attempt, but it is a fact that he's exactly,

he fits exactly, the individual they called the attempted assassin. It fits exactly the typical type of person that you can manipulate, you can fill him up with all kinds of things, you can then arrange to have him in the right place at the right time with a gun, and it might be difficult to prove connections.

He might not understand himself the extent to which he has been positioned in a certain way. But it fits all that exactly. And, well, FISA, to put it mildly, was a non-popular man with a European and what you might call in Europe, what we call in Europe, the Atlantisist establishment. I mean, they've been going out against him. Absolutely, you know, all guns blazing, if I can put out. I mean, they've been saying the most terrible things about him. And they're continuing to do so.

Even as he's lying wounded in hospital, I read in one British newspaper, one article after another, after the assassination, in which he talked about the atmosphere of violence or, you know, terror that was about to sweep. Slovakia. And you'd think from reading these articles that FISA was the perpetrator of the violence in Slovakia rather than the victim. So, you know, it's not difficult to say generally who might have been behind it. But of course, it's more difficult to talk about any specific person. MBS, it's actually easier because, of course, MBS is the pivotal figure in engineering a political, a diplomatic revolution in terms of Saudi Arabia's political directions.

I mean, the reality is, I mean, the Biden administration is trying to negotiate a mutual recognition treaty between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The reality is that until MBS came along, as everybody in the region knew, Israel and Saudi Arabia were actually de facto allies. They were working together all the time, they were meeting in all sorts of places, they were coordinating in all kinds of ways. And of course, this was part of Saudi Arabia's overall connection to the United States and to the particular faction in the United States, the neocon faction there, whose interests Saudi Arabia has repeatedly promoted. It promoted them in Syria where they supported the war against the Assad government, It supported them in Libya, Hillary Clinton's war, where Saudi Arabia was central in undermining Gaddafi's government and supporting the uprising that was taking place there.

And of course, they've been involved in many, many things for a very, very long time going all the way back to the 1960s in all sorts of places in Egypt, in Yemen, in Yemen, in the 1960s, in all sorts of places like that. So MBS comes along. He's a young man. He's not connected with the first generation of Saudi rulers, the ones who were the sons of the founding monarch, King Ibn Saud. He's got all kinds of ideas of his own. He gets on with the Russians. He gets on with the Chinese.

He's prepared eventually to come to some kind of terms with the Iranians. He is not, by the way, anti-American. I think I would make that point about him. He's shown no sign of being specifically hostile to the US. And he doesn't seem to me to be someone who is actually particularly against establishing some kind of diplomatic relations with Israel. But he doesn't want to burn his bridges with other Arab leaders. And besides, he's there to bargain to get what he can out of any.

deal that's going to be done. So he's a difficult person to win around. So I can very easily see why some people on the near American Israel side or within Saudi Arabia itself, people who are unhappy about this swerve of policy and whom MBS might have gone on the wrong side of. And he's jailed many princes and done all kinds of things against people in Saudi Arabia. they might want him out of the way. And coming to Raizi in Iran, well, he is, again, a different sort of person entirely. He's very different from MBS, but he's proved to be, to many people's surprised, certainly mine, a rather successful diplomat. He's also proved a rather successful economic manager.

Iran at the present time is very drawn into the Middle East conflict. So again, you can imagine all kinds of people who would want to see him out of the way and who would want to destabilize the situation in Iran and who are worried about the trend of events in the Middle East and in particular about the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran are now joining the bricks. So you can easily see how there might be an interest in getting rid of all of these people and the sort of people who would want to get rid of them overlap with each other.

They are basically the same people. I mean, there may be different expressions of it, but it is the same people. So I can't say it's not possible that these things are. you know, carried out in that way. I think the breakthrough case is going to be the one with Fidsov. Because we have the assassin.

The Slovaks are fairly well connected and they have a fairly as I understand it, a fairly strong criminal justice investigation system. There's all sorts of people there who might help them to

take the investigation forward and it's not important. that we will eventually get to the truth. And, you know, there are rumors already that, you know, some of the investigators there are starting to look towards Kiev. Just saying. So, you know, it's that's, if there's going to be a breakthrough, it's going to be in these other cases. I think Saudi Arabia will want to keep anything involving an attack on the crown prince as secret as possible, because that's the Saudis. And if I have to be honest about who, right? I think this is such a chaotic place in so many things. I don't think you're going to get much information about what actually happened there. I mean, especially, I mean, if it was just an accident, I mean, the negligence that must have happened is off the scale, putting your president and your foreign minister on an ancient helicopter

from the 1970s without proper navigation aids, flying it over a mountain in the middle of a storm. There'll be all sorts of people. There must have been all sorts of people involved in that decision. And they won't want to be identified. And that makes investigation of any larger involvement, any wider involvement, a lot more difficult. So the feats of case is the one to watch.

It'll be kind of like, yeah, you're right, because the other ones will be a little bit like North Stream too. We just don't know who did it. Maybe some Ukrainians dive down there and magically did something that really only U.S. and British intelligence could have likely pulled off in special military operations. It's like everybody knows what happened,

but everybody pretends they don't know what happened. But, you know, it shows Biden's ability to bring people together. You know, Nixon was able to separate Russia and China. Biden can bring him together. You know, there was all this Western effort over the last half century as you talk about to separate. Iran post-revolution in Saudi Arabia, argue the CIA was partially inspiring

a lot of reinvigorating the old religious Sunni-Shiya dispute in order to justify Saudi power against the Iranian religious regime. But now Iran and Saudi Arabia for a period of time of making Dayton, thanks to Joe Biden. Because the one thing they share in common, it's not a hatred of America, it's hatred of Joe Biden. But speaking of other things they brought together

is the effort, how Biden has handled the Israeli dispute, has managed to unite most of the global South to the degree that South Africa has now been able to instigate proceedings in the international criminal court, now have arrest warrants out for Netanyahu. This is what the Western promoters of the ICC deserve. Now they're very unhappy that there's arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu. Well, maybe don't promote a bogus court in the first place.

Don't use it to go after the Serbs. Don't use it to go after Russia. It's those people that validated and vouched for this deep state rogue court that is often so susceptible to Western agendas and is not what it's supposed to be, which is, you know, Nuremberg 2.0. Let's have an ongoing Nuremberg court to hold down the excesses in war conflicts and hold people accountable. That's not what it's mostly served as. It's mostly served as a politically weaponized court. to go after targeted groups, it's just now backfired against them in the Israeli conflict. Now, the... Go ahead. No, that is absolutely right. And if you want to see the proof of that, listen to the statement,

the long statement, the long thing that Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the ICC game, because he's an effect conceding all the points that you've just made. Now, what happened was, and, you know, again, And I have to say I have a little bit of information here, which is that the Biden administration, which says that it is disapproves of the ICC now. And in the United States, of course, has never involved in setting it up. But the Biden administration and the British government lobbied the ICC to issue an absolutely bonkers warrant against Vladimir Putin on the child abduction things. Now, I always say I have quite a lot of experience in the past of family abduction cases.

When I was, when I used to work at the RCJ, the Royal Court of Justice in London, I was the person to whom all those people who accused of child abduction came. We used to get people coming into the Royal Court of Justice with their children in tow. I've abducted my child from South Africa or Paraguay or Brazil or Italy or wherever. I need representation. The authorities are after me. find me some representation here. I've dealt with heaps of child abduction. I used to be the expert on it.

And I could say straight away, this warrant that they brought is absurd. It isn't just absurd. They were compelling jurisdiction issues. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a member of the, as ratified the Rome Statute. And of course, Russia is not a party. to the Rome Statute.

Nonetheless, they went behind all of that. They said, look, this jurisdiction issue isn't important. It doesn't apply. You can go ahead and issue a warrant anyway. Just go ahead and issue it. Ukraine says, you know, you can apply the Rome Statute on our territory if you wish. We won't object. So just go ahead and do it.

And they did it. They undermined the key issue of jurisdiction. So the ICC goes and issues this absolutely idiotic warrant. And then of course, what it finds is that all across the global South, South Africa, apparently the African states have been pushing this one, especially hard, Arab states as well. They've been saying to the ICC, well, look, if jurisdiction is so unimportant, and you can just go ahead and issue warrants, why don't you do that against Israel too? because if you don't do it against Israel,

well, we're going to start pulling up. We're going to start retreating because we're going to say that you're imposing selective justice. And so Karim Khan, prosecutor, who is, by the way, British. He's a British lawyer. And if you look at the panel that he works with,

it's almost entirely British people. I know George Clooney's wife is also involved apparently, but anyway. Anyway, he goes ahead, and he does that because he knows perfectly well that if he doesn't do that his reputation in the global south is trashed and the court is out of control

and the issue of jurisdiction which ought to have been the key point is completely thrown away because they themselves threw it away on the Russia case now the Russian foreign ministry has made a really clever statement about this the specific thing, they've said, and speaking about the West, speaking about the United States,

or to be more precise about the Biden administration and the ICC, rather the chief prosecutor's decision, they said they're the scorpion that has stung itself with its own tail, the spider that's got trapped in its own web. And that's exactly what's happened. what's extraordinary is the domestic politics in the U.S. has been comparable. The Biden administration's attempt to tow the line between its older Jewish voting base and the sort of the young, hard left and in certain states, Arab and Muslim vote, he's completely managed to enrage both sides and not satisfy either by,

trying to well you know i'll give you guns to go into gaza but i'll i'll set up a big you know port thing outside of gaza uh you know we'll create a dock and you know get food in but but well maybe i won't won't won't send the arms oh that's kind of what trump got impeached for so maybe i will say i mean just all over the place and politically the way it's going to shake out domestically politically is likely going to be net lost votes now the jewish vote in the united states quite frankly it doesn't matter much because it's concentrated in New York and New Jersey, a little bit in Florida. But Florida has moved so far to the right. It's not going to be close in 2024, nor despite, you know, hopes and aspirations of some people,

nor is New Jersey and New York going to be competitive. It's still overwhelmingly democratic. But so what that does is that strangely shifts the impact vote. So on the right, the base big sport for Israel comes from evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews are also mostly located New York, so the vote doesn't matter a lot. But evangelical Christians are all over the place in America. So that vote can matter on the right side of the equation. But on the anti-Israeli war effort is the reason why you're seeing Biden try to walk this line with the protest on college campuses and all the rest is because if you watch the Democratic primary, he got big objection from there's two states that have a concentration of

Arab or Muslim votes. That's Dearborn, Michigan, and that's Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is where Rashid Talib was elected from Congress in Dearborn, Elon Omar, predominantly Somalian immigrants in Minneapolis. Every Uber, it reminded me of London when I was in Minneapolis last time. Every Uber driver was Somalian.

I remember I was in London. Every Uber driver was named Muhammad. And I was like, say, some things are changing. I wonder if this is going to have. an impact on Brexit. I thought at the time. Turned out, yeah, maybe so. But so though they voted almost half of those voter groups voted uncommitted against Biden in the Democratic primary process.

So it's from, that's what scared the Biden administration, aside from their internal split in the state department between what you could say is the pro-Israel side, put neo-con, neoliberal either label on them, and the sort of the Arabist side, you know, which goes all the way back to Kermit Roosevelt and that whole, you know, people who fancy, they think they all think they're Lawrence of Arabia, you know what I mean? It's that kind of everything. They read Lawrence of Arabia and I'm like, I'm going to be like Lawrence of Arabia. Be beloved in the, well, maybe I remember Kim, uh, uh, can be there. The spy, his father was like deeply embedded in British intelligence throughout the Arab Muslim world. So, you know, that has a

longer history. So he's got institutional issues as well. But the, the vote is about two to three percent of the vote is Arab or Muslim in Minneapolis, in Minnesota and Michigan statewide, but in a tight race, they can end up being a tipping factor. Now, they obviously wouldn't vote for Kennedy, because Kennedy's on the Israeli side as well, but Cornell West or Jill or Jill Stein will likely be on the ballot in both states. And Stein and West have both been very critical of Israel's efforts in Gaza. And so they could easily absorb that vote in a tight election. And a tight election, it could actually flip things. The hard left is more better at organizing than they are at getting actual votes.

Like I tracked to see whether places like Berkeley or other places voted in protest to Biden. They really didn't. They're just weren't enough numbers there. So they're organized enough to take over college campuses. They're kind of like communist in the 80s, you know, that they're loud. If there have been Twitter or YouTube, you would have thought 20% of the country was, you know, hard left because they're the kind of people that are very active, very well organized. They just don't translate in actual votes.

But the Arab and Muslim vote does actually have this concentrated presence that due to the unique demographic and electoral college nature of American presidential elections may actually have some impact on the election. I mean, and then it'll be interesting to watch Trump. Trump has like domestically gone like, so he did an interview with time in which he questioned whether October 7th, he almost said it was, whether it was an inside. I mean, if you listen, what's amazing is the right has suppressed that interview entirely because they don't want to deal with that, you know, Trump's skepticism about some of these things.

Also, Trump has never forgiven Netanyahu for endorsing Biden quickly after the 2020 election. That's the kind of personal grievance Trump keeps forever, memory of an elephant. He's bragged about this for many years. But publicly, Trump sees how it's playing out that as long as it's Israel versus Hamas, overwhelmingly the political right in America is going to be on his real side, if that's the way it's framed. At the same time, both younger generations and the sort of populist side of American politics isn't for getting more involved in these kind of conflicts, isn't for lots of money going over there, isn't just like not for money for Ukraine.

I mean, that is slow. We predicted all the way back that you would watch the anti-Ukraine money rise and rise and rise. That's what's happened. So now it's even the majority of the Republican and the caucus in the House. Doug didn't want to spend money on Ukraine. So I think that domestic politics will keep shaking out of terms of the international fallout. But the biggest problem he has internationally is just war, right? Whoever you're whichever side or however you take your opinion on Israel or Ukraine, it's still war.

And it's with Trump, there was peace abroad. There wasn't, there weren't all these new wars. I mean, you can argue about what was happening. in certain places, but there was no new wars under Trump. And it was an effort to pull out of Syria, an effort to try to change. Somebody asked in the live chat, you know, what happened when Trump tried to enforce the Minsk Accords, anytime Trump did anything to second-guess Ukraine and the deep state politics in Ukraine, anytime he did anything to try to reach a deal with Putin, he was impeached

or criminally investigated. That's what happened. That's how they reacted to those things. So, but, you know, the J.D. Vance, potential VP for Trump is out there saying the message is simple. With Trump, you had peace abroad, prosperity at home. With Biden, you got war abroad, poverty at home. And that simple message is why Biden is in such trouble. The only question is whether or not who Trump picks as his vice president. And if Trump would embrace more populist issues, he would have a complete lock on the election in 2024. If he doesn't, then you could see Robert Kennedy continue to surge and surge and surge.

And if you care about opposition to deep state politics, food freedom, financial freedom, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, these kind of issues, then you want to see Robert Kennedy rise in the polls because that's what's going to force those public policy issues to the front and may get Trump. Trump has already reversed his position on crypto for the first time is embracing crypto. Right. Four years ago, he had a total boomer position. I thought it was all a scam. Now he's like, if you love crypto, vote Trump. That's a complete. That's because of Robert Kennedy surging with crypto community supporters on financial

freedom. Same on the, he's talking about chronic disease. Everybody knows really where the chronic disease comes from. Comes from a combination of big food, big tech and big pharma. It's their impact and influence. You see it in the difference between the Amish and everybody else. The Amish doesn't have a chronic disease epidemic. The Amish doesn't have a shocking rise of anxiety, depression, and self-mutilation, self-arm amongst its young female population like the U.S. does.

The Amish doesn't have an obesity epidemic, nor does it have an autism epidemic like the rest of the world or in the West, and particularly the United States does. And what's different between the Amish and everybody else, the Amish are divorced from big tech, big food, and big pharma that the rest of us are being inundated with. So I think some of those issues, populist issues, Robert Kennedy's campaign does a great job to push those issues to the front. And we'll see if Trump uses that popularity as an opportunity to jump on that bandwagon. Biden is never going to jump on that bandwagon because Biden is Biden. You know, he's LBJ's mentally deficient little brother. But if people want to know what American politics would look like under institutional republicanism, look at Britain. right what is look at what's happening to the tories there's always a parallel between us and

uk politics in the last 80 years or so and i've long said if you had paul ryan republican politics Mitch mccano republican politics in america you would be d oa as a party that you would end up like the tories and if people aren't studying it i mean at least from what i can tell and you can maybe fill it the tories are a disaster now the labor party is not really an alternative in fact maybe we'll see if ferrage surges or somebody else surge but this policy politics of deferring to the deep state, the globalist, whatever a label you want to put on it, but elites against the interest of their own people about core issues of freedom, about war everywhere. I mean, whoever you blame, they get involved, war happens.

They get involved, the economy stinks. That's what happens. And so I think that's where Trump has a good electoral dynamic. Hopefully Kennedy surges in ways that pushes these good populist issues to the front. but otherwise the path would have the US would look like UK today with a pox on all your parties if we had followed the institutional establishment Mitch McConnell around but before I deal with Britain

which is always an interesting topic but rather a sad one in some ways can I just quickly go back to the question of these international courts that have been set up and how they've become basically rogue institutions there's a really brilliant book by John Lauer who looked at the Milosevic trial and said exactly this, that you cannot have courts that are not properly anchored in a sovereign state system. When they become disconnected from it, everything that you expect, all the rules, all of the concepts of due process will inevitably become corrupted because there is no ultimate control

to ensure that they observe those basic rules. And you see this at all of these tribunals, the international tribunal of Yugoslavia, the other tribunals that have been set up on all sorts of things. And you see this again with the way in which, the International Criminal Court has thrown out the key issue of jurisdiction. It's completely out of the window. It doesn't apparently apply anymore.

All you have to do is say that, you know, particular country says, you know, well, we're not going to ratify the Roman statute, but, you know, we're going to apply it in this particular one case, and you're there. You can just issue anything you like, and before long they'll be doing it, and they'll be doing it in more and more cases as well. So John Laughlin's book on the Milosevic trial, absolutely essential reading. Now, you're absolutely right, Robert, about Britain. There's been many comments, many people in the United States talk about,

the uny party in the United States. We have much more of a unipathy in Britain at the moment than you do in the United States. You have two political leaders, Sunak and Stama, who basically are interchangeable. Neither of them is liked. Their parties are not liked. The quality of governance that has been delivered by this uniparty is terrible and universally acknowledged to be such. Living standards in Britain have fallen. Statistics, by the way, are no longer reliable because they're manipulated all the time. Life gets harder all the time and we get drawn in Britain into all kinds of wars and conflicts that we neither want nor have any say in. So, you know, we all become involved.

Britain has become heavily involved, for example, in the conflict in Ukraine. There's never been a proper public discussion about this in Britain. I mean, there's been massive flood of articles, but there's never really been a proper, broad-based discussion looking at all of the issues, asking. what exactly is it that we're trying to do here, what are the policies? You do not want to be there in the United States. And if I'm going to be honest about Donald Trump, this is what I'm going to say. It seems to me that over the last few weeks and months, he has been bending increasingly

towards appeasing the UNI party. I don't think he belongs to it. I think all his instincts are against it. I still think he retains his connection. to the American electoral and political base. I think he's able to talk to Americans and likes Americans in a way that no actual true member of the Unip Party

would ever do. But I think that he's very intimidated by them. He's intimidated by them after what happened to him during the time when he was president, when he was twice impeached and continuously investigated and saw his president

turned upside down. And I think he's intimidated actually by all these cases. I appreciate that they're absurd and ridiculous. They all seem to me to be falling apart. I completely agree with what Robert said about the fact that in electoral terms, they have been completely counterproductive. They made Trump more popular rather than less.

But the psychological effect on someone of being continuously litigated against in the way the Trump has been, threatened with imprisonment over the most nonsensical things, asked to put up bombs for astronomical amounts of money in a case where no one has suffered any loss but of which he still said to be a criminal in some fashion

and whereby the way the victims of the crime apparently still wanted to do business with him. Anyway, I mean, the effect of all of this on him must have been, must be enormous. Anybody who knows anything about the legal process will know how stressful and, in fact, awful it is to be exposed to it in that way. So I think what he's now doing is he's getting himself

altogether too close to people. people like Mike Pompeo, who are about, I gather his back, and people like that. And he's making concessions. He made, I think, an utterly misconceived one on Ukraine aid. Not perhaps even so much about Ukraine, but I mean, you know, the way he dropped the whole issue of the border, which is one that Americans really care about. And I think what he will decide. discover is that even if he does become president, if he's made all these concessions,

he will have simply fed an unappeasable monster, which will sense that he's scared of it, and will then come after him and demand more and more and more, and he will never be able to give them enough. So that is what I think about Donald Trump. And by the way, you know, talking about Robert Kennedy, I mean, you know, there'd be many criticisms of Robert Kennedy, but I would simply say this. To the extent that he reminds Trump, who I think is still the leading alternative candidate, to the extent that he reminds Trump of Trump's own populist roots of the people who Trump really

needs in order to win the election and in order not just to win the election but to work out the promises that he has, the objectives he has if he wants to become remaining power. To the extent that Robert Kennedy does

that and is able to keep Trump, hold Trump, not just to his words, but ultimately to his own course, then Kennedy he is serving a vital purpose. And the fact that there's this concerted attempt to try to silence and exclude him, marginalise him in every possible way, which is driven again by the union party, ultimately confirms that. So that's what I think. And if you want to see what a disastrous outcome,

having a complete control by the union party of every aspect of your policies actually is, then look no further than Britain. We're in a terrible way here. Our economy is stagnating. Our foreign policies all over the place. Our living standards are falling. But nobody, nobody believes that there is going to be any change or anything better because they look at Starbba and they look at Sunak

and they look at the Liberal Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and what they see are the same people. They just see the same people reflecting each other, saying and promising the same things. Exactly. The other interesting aspect, I was curious your thoughts on that has some domestic impact here. It's another place where Kennedy has been out front and Trump in the past has been good, just hasn't talked a lot about it recently, which is the effort, as you mentioned, these moralist, anchorless courts become EU-style bureaucracies that are failed governments

and that fail the causes and principles they're supposed to serve, the World Health Organization continues to promote their new treaty to basically shift power to them anytime there's a pandemic. And the WHO Kennedy has been out front, very critical of it. Trump in the past tried to withdraw us from the World Health Organization, recognizing its problems. I think he would politically benefit to returning to that. He came back and said, you know what? I should have got out of NATO the first time and we're going to get out now. That all it does is lead to more war and conflict doesn't lead to more peace.

Let's get out of the World Health Organization and by golly not support this crazy treaty that would usurp sovereignty around the world. But in America, it's tough for a treaty to become law. First it's got to, the president's got to propose. the Senate has to support it by two-thirds. Even then it's not binding law until Congress it passes implementing legislation that has to go through both the House and the Senate and the president in terms of domestic legislation. And then, even then, it can be challenged constitutionally because a treaty can't override the Constitution. And after that, the Supreme Court and other courts

have consistently ruled, America can ignore its treaties. It's one of the points I always encourage people like Nassanja's camp and other places to always bring up the fact that the U.S. by law can abrogate any treaty at once anytime it wants. Just did it to the Apache out west. They discovered a bunch of copper. And it was on Apache Holy Land. They said in our treaty for over 150 years, 170 years, said we're going to respect that holy land.

But Nat, we're taking it away. We want the copper. And the court said, no problem. Because you can abrogate a treaty anytime you want. Important for most extradite. Tradition courts don't know this because in their domestic country, you can't the local legislative branch can't just throw out a treaty. You can in America.

But around the world, there's different rules about. And so how much is the WHO treaty, how much has it popped up at all in discussion in different places around the world globally? I don't know about the whole world, but I can talk about Britain very little if you follow the mainstream media. there's been a few articles about it in a few places. The Daily Telegraph has had a few critical articles about it because it tends, in fairness to the Daily Telegraph, to bring it up from time to time. But it's not a big topic, and of course it should be,

because what you are going to empower is a institution and organisation over which you have no control. they will have control over you, but you won't have any control over them. You can't vote for the people who run the WHO. So if they decide that they can impose all kinds of policies and restrictions upon you

and you don't like it, well, you can't hold them to account. And of course, the essence of democracy is accountability. Where there is no accountability, by definition there cannot be democracy because democracy

as you know was explained all those years ago in Athens and was the founders of the United States he perfectly well democracy flows from the people power is with the people the people therefore

must be able to hold those with power over them to account if they can't do that if you have an institution like the WHO which says, oh, you know, you've got this treaty, you must shut your doors, kick yourself in, wear masks, put on, you know, arms, you know, suits of armour or whatever it is they want you to do,

inject yourself with whatever we say. If you can't protest about it, if you can't change it, if it is law in your own country, because a treaty says it is, then you're not in a democracy anymore. Now, this is not a simple, there's not a difficult thing to understand. And it ought to be a very easy thing to understand. And, you know, I'm going to be generous to the WHO and say, maybe these are not people necessarily who want the people who are proposing this. Maybe they really believe that, you know, this is the right way, and a good thing, and that they're serving some kind of wider, greater benevolent purpose.

but of course all bureaucracies. And I've worked in bureaucracies, I know, I've worked in state bureaucracies, I know. When you set up a bureaucracy, which is unaccountable, the one thing it will always do is expand. That is in its nature. It will always expand, it will always demand more resources. It will always seek more control because that is the nature of what a bureaucracy is. that's how it justifies its existence. It's true of NATO.

It's true of the EU. It's true of all the various courts that we've been talking about. And of course, it's true of the WF, at WHM. Well, speaking of WF, so it looks like Bloomberg is confirmed that dear Klaus is stepping down. Any thought, I mean, I loved Klaus as a spokesperson for the WF. Because I was like, if I wanted like a caricature, if I wanted someone that looked and sounded like a bond villain for an, for an agency and entity that to me is bond villain worthy, then I wanted it to be someone that sounded kind of like a Nazi. Turned out. They've had some family Nazi ties.

And that's what was great about Klaus, you know, and go eat as he bugs. I mean, he bragged about all this insane stuff for the whole world to see, oh, I don't want to be any part of that. and may put the WEF on the world stage in ways that didn't promote the WEF's ultimate objectives and agenda. So I'll be curious who they replace him with. But any thoughts on his retirement? Well, it's a big event because, of course, he's been there since its inception. I mean, it's important to say, I mean, has he really retired? Or is he going to be there, you know, in the next room, keeping control of things?

You know, one does wonder. I mean, he doesn't seem to me like the kind of person who will quietly walk away and go to his chalet in Switzerland and go fishing. That doesn't seem to me to be quite the Klaus Schwab that I've become used to. But whoever takes over from him, it will be someone very like him, perhaps not in demeanor and personality. And by the way, I wonder whether that's the reason more than any other that he's going. Because I'll say something, I'll say something, but Robert, I'm sure people have been listening to you. at least in Britain, because I noticed a couple of articles in the British media, this is the mainstream media in Britain, who actually were comparing Klaus Schwab to a Bond villain.

They said that he looked and sounded like one. So you don't really want a Bond villain type, a Stromberg or a Blofeld or someone like that, too obviously in charge. So you want somebody who looks smoother, younger, and says all the right things, someone like, you know, Justin Trudeau maybe, someone like that. You have someone like that to be the face of your organisation.

And then you can say, well, you know, we're not threatening in any way. We're actually really entirely benevolent and good people. And I suspect that's what we're going to see. to the to the chatter asked about the Duarte case in America there's I have a case of another Amish farmer under attack Ruben king who just did a private gun sale for his private hobby of gun collection he's a farmer that's his job the government indicted him in security conviction I represented him at the sentencing stage we were able to get him probation but we're taking up on appeal they wanted to put him in prison for three years it gives you an idea

how nuts this was. But the, well, we're taking up on appeals whether the Second Amendment allows that, because the Second Amendment says under the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, unless we ban, unless we made it a crime at the time that the Constitution was passed, or at least when the 14th Amendment went in, then it's not something that can be a, you can permit it a crime now if it impacts your right to bear arms. And our argument's going to be along the lines of Duarte, where they said there isn't a history. of penalizing people saying you can't own a gun and it's a crime to own a gun because way back in the past at some point you were convicted of something, particularly when it was a nonviolent

crime. The same here, I mean, here, just private gun sales. So, you know, that's another place where the Amish intersect with this insane legal attack and assault on the Amish. But I had a question for Alex. I was figuring out my betting odds for the upcoming European football competition. And I was trying to figure it. out what's the risk that like a narrative that could come out of the competition is if we see Eurovision style things. If Ukraine does well, right? You know, this is not a great. It has a couple of good players on the Ukrainian team, but not a great team really shouldn't advance. But I was thinking, what's the possible. It's not like the refereeing and officiating connected to UEFA has been

beyond reproach. You just look at recent controversies concerning PSG. in their game against Barcelona. PSG is owned by the Qataris. Macron is obsessed with promoting PSG and having Mbapé try to stay in the country. And coincidentally, they get very favorable officiating

the key game that got them to the semifinals, not enough to get them to the finals. But what's the risk do you think that the officiating has some impact on, because it's European sports is never completely outside of the political arena. And I'm monitoring how much there's already a narrative building of how great it would be if the Ukrainian team did well and rally behind Ukraine. Because nothing says freedom and democracy like having no elections and locking people up and killing journalists like Gonzales, Lir.

You know, Blinken was busy at a Nazi restaurant. They just had to take down all the Nazi propaganda. You know, like they celebrated the burning of the people alive at Odessa. That was one of those restaurants. Cafes where he goes to where that's usually one of the big photos on the wall. They at least learn the lesson the last guy learned, not to have Bendera behind his head. So, you know, they took down some of that stuff.

So there's no embarrassing little photos. But what's the risk we see politics enter the Euros this summer? I would say for Ukraine, maybe get them out of the first round, get them through. I think once you get through the first round, though, I think it's going to be hard to. Right. You can't really screw over the big powers. Yeah, you can't screw exactly. You can't screw over the really big football.

You can screw a, you know, maybe Georgia might be a good pick. You know, maybe they tell Georgia, look, if you get rid of the foreign agents law, we'll get you guys through the. Yeah. Maybe Georgia might be a good pick. So I don't know. But I think they could do that. I think they could do that fairly easily. But once you get to the later rounds, that's what would be a problem.

Fascinating. You can't screw over the big football powers. Right, right. No way. Not going to happen. Not going to happen. But yeah, I would pick them to get past the first round. Why not?

Exactly. Yeah. Look, they're fast-packing them for Euro for the EU, Ukraine. I read that today. They're going to fast pack them in Moldova into the EU side of me there. They're going to do everything they can to keep them out. What do you guys think? Well, let's say there's a Ukraine led into the EU and NATO.

what does Ukraine look like by that point three, four years ago? Is it just land rump Ukraine? Is it Kiev and Western Ukraine? Does it still include Odessa? I mean, I know Putin said, we're not going into Harkiv yet, you know, at the yet part. Well, where do you think, I mean, I don't see any way that Ukraine wins the war in the East with Russia that's just counting down the time. We talked about the very beginning, you know, this is deep battle policy of Russia

for over a century, going to be brutal attrition. They've been very patient and they've just allowed the Ukrainians to throw people into the meat grinder and just get grind up. They're busy dragging random kids off the street and random old people off the street, force them into the front lines. That has never been a long-term success strategy in this kind of conflict. If you can't get them to go, that means the war is not popular enough to be supportable and sustainable over time. But where do you think it ultimately ends? Does it end in a peace deal? Does the Ukraine just capitulate?

Do they wait? Does the Biden administration wait until after the election to try to capitulate? Or does Russia go further it? Does it go all the way up to the NEPA and take away all the access? Is it true? I have a question for you, Robert. Is it true that Biden wants to get Ukraine settled by the summer? I've read some analysts saying that he's starting to freak out and he wants to wrap this thing up by the summer. Have you heard anything? I think what is it? It's there. They are more paranoid than anybody of the Kennedy campaign. that's why they were obsessed with structuring debates outside the presidential commissions because the presidential commission had set rules that Kennedy would meet.

Kennedy would have more than 15% in the polls and would be on the ballot in a majority of states the majority of electoral votes. That's why they did the deal. They went to CNN, ABC, and said, okay, we're going to screw the presidential commissions that no one had done during the whole history of the presidential commissions, no Democrat at least. And but on one condition, you guys don't allow Kennedy on the stage. that don't rely. And Kennedy, one of his big issues is Ukraine, is constantly critiquing the administration on Ukraine. And one of the longest standing positions Kennedy's had, people can go back and read his articles from the early 70s through the 2000s.

He's basically opposed pretty much every American war. There hasn't been a war that he has supported or military intervention that he has supported. He's opposed it place after place after place after place. And it's the old anti-war left. and where Kennedy is dramatically expanding, the most politically unmoored group in America right now, are working class millennials, zoomers, and younger Gen Xers, and particularly about millennials and zoomers. This is who the Democratic Party of the United States was depending upon being their search.

And they've monitored things like Melisian in France, who was able to activate the young left towards a more populous direction. Wasn't able to build a bridge to Le Penz, though they did some work on that on the parliamentary side on select issues, vaccines and others. But basically what Robert Kennedy did, that's who he's tapping, that they're disproportionately African-American and Latino.

This is where Kennedy's getting votes in places that were not the base of his father or his uncle. It's not boomers that are supporting him. It's not old labor people. It's not old Irish Catholics. That's not his basing. That's not a supporting Kennedy. who's supporting Kennedy are millennials and zoomers who listen to podcast and follow social media,

who are working class disproportionately, the ones of Back Kennedy, or considering Kennedy. And they're the number one group that has said, screw Biden. Biden isn't losing like older black female Democratic voters. Biden is losing young black male voters. He's not losing old school labor Hispanic voters. He is losing younger Hispanic voters, Mexican American and others, Puerto Rican, et cetera. he's not losing the older boomer vote in the working class north that still thinks of him as an old democratic political machine guy who means well even if he's a corrupt pervert on the side um the but he is losing younger working class democratic voters so uh and that's who robert kennedy is running his whole campaign towards and one of the big issues is the war the war the war the war look at all the money getting drained to go to the war the war the war the war so i think in biden's mind okay the way i'll just pretend the economy is fine.

I'll try to juice it whatever way I can. Try to get the Secretary of the Treasury to spend a bunch of money out of the Fed account. Try to get the Fed to lower rates when the time is right. Try to get the Saudis and try to be nice to the Saudis now. Say, sorry for accusing you of murder. Totally, totally apologize. Would you please lower the price of oil? That's not working.

I mean, good luck with trying to do that with Putin. Tell Ukraine, yeah, you can bomb some civilians. just don't need any oil plants, right? We don't need the price oil going up. I mean, this is the kind of nightmare nonsense they're trying to try to maneuver it through. So I have no doubt he would prefer there be a deal that he could sell as a win.

Now, the hard part is the latter part. How the heck do you sell this as a win? You'll know that they're planning on doing a deal. If they start a media campaign that says all of Ukraine is going to be gone, can Ukraine salvage anything? And then when they cut a deal and they just give eastern Ukraine to Russia, oh, wow, we saved Ukraine. We saved Odessa.

We saved Kiev. We saved the Ukrainian people, even though it was the exact same deal that could have been done from the get-go, in fact, on worst terms for Ukraine. But that he needs something he can sell as a win and that isn't a war come election day. Same with Israel. He needs somehow Israel and Gaza to calm down, to not have such a win. inflamed opinions on both sides. Good luck with that. I mean, Netanyahu and Biden, Netanyahu Obama, that hostility between them, those two go way back. So it's the same. They put themselves in a hole everywhere. Right now they need help from China or help from Russia or help from Saudi Arabia

or help from Israel or help from Iran or help from anywhere, help from South America, help from Argentina, help from El Salvador. You see Malay's success in Argentina for the time being. You see the great populist success of the probably the best. popular success in the world is the El Salvadoran president. But they can't get any help. He can't get help from Mexico because the Mexican president doesn't trust Biden at all. So actually likes Trump more than he likes Biden. Even he becomes sort of the left populist Latin American tradition.

So that's their problems. They can't get a deal. But he absolutely wants there not to be active inflamed wars on election day going up against a combined anti-war Trump and a deeply anti-war Kennedy. So I have no doubt the rumors are true. The question is, how do they sell it? Given the only deal that's doable, it at least gives away eastern Ukraine.

I don't know what you guys think about what Russia would accept. I still think Putin would be fine taking the four provinces they've already declared as part of the structure and having Crimea recognized as Russia. I'll just say quickly before Alexander jumps in, Alexander's explanation of how the war could end, even if Russia just gets to the Denebred, I think is the most logical way that this could end, which would still mean that Russia would get most of Ukraine,

even if they just make it to the Denebra because of the geography and the economic dynamics of it. But Alexander, it's much better than I can. Because I haven't heard, once again, I haven't heard people talking about. about this, the way that you talk about, Alexander, even though we have mentioned on video. This is because people don't do economic geography anymore. But briefly, the important thing to understand about the NEPA, which is the river that bisects Ukraine. So we talk about

eastern Ukraine, we mean Ukraine east of the NEPA. When we talk about Western Ukraine, basically we mean Ukraine west of the NEPA, is that the NEPA is not a natural boundary. It is certainly not an economic boundary. If you look at where all the big cities in Ukraine are located, Kiev, NEPRO, Kremlinchuk, Krivoj, Nikopo, Zaporoz, they are all located on the NEPA. And if you have a situation where the Russians are on the East Bank, what that would mean is that without some kind of economic treaty with the Russians, all of economically viable Ukraine would be cut off from its economic roots. all of these cities would wither. They would be within range of Russian artillery. They would not be able to trade or operate well.

It is the idea of creating a western Ukraine west of the NEPA and seeding the whole rest of the territory to the Russians and expecting that this Western Ukraine could somehow prosper against Russia is simply not economically viable. It makes no sense. As a matter of fact, rivers generally, river systems generally, I'm not saying this is always the case, but usually they do not make for borders.

You do sometimes find rivers, which are borders. But if you look at all the great rivers of history, you know, the Danube, the Rhine, the Yangtze, the Nile, they are not borders. they are there actually places that knit countries together because that's rivers historically have been the prime transportation corridors. So that's what I'm going to say about Ukraine. I mean, it's a thing that people don't understand and never talk about

because, as I said, it's economic geography, which used to be, by the way, an absolutely vital subject when I used to study history and before then. really isn't taken particularly seriously anymore. Now, about where the Russians will go and what they will do, I think we have to understand that this is a constantly evolving matter. And Robert, you put your finger on it when you talked about the fact that the Mexican president doesn't trust Biden. Nobody trusts Biden.

Putin absolutely doesn't trust Biden. Xi Jinping has told Biden to his face, I don't trust Biden. Nobody trusts Biden. And the Russians know perfectly well that, you know, they could do a deal with Biden. And after the election, you go back on it. You know, you allow him, you allow the Ukrainians control of some part of Ukraine. and then of course as night follows day that part of Ukraine is brought into NATO

rearmament happens all kinds of things take place and the Russians won't allow that now on top of everything else it really has to be said that we have the most disastrous the most catastrophic mismanagement of foreign policy I think in the history of the United States

going all the way back to the revolution to the 1780s. I'd completely miss this, but I recently learned from an article by Ray McGovern, and I looked at the interview itself. Well, Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, gave an account of a meeting he had with Blinken in January 2020. This is before the war began. and Putin in a meeting of a telephone conversation he'd had with Biden formed the idea that Biden had promised him that the United States would not install ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in Ukraine.

That was just a few days before Blinken and Lavrov met. So Lavrov meets with Blinken and this is going to be the starting point from the Russian point of view of the discussions. And Blinken says, no, no, no, Biden never said any such thing. We reserve the right to have nuclear weapons anywhere we want on any part of NATO territory. Ukraine will one day be a part of NATO. the only restriction we have, we're prepared to consider about nuclear missiles, is not where they're placed, but their number. So in effect, Lincoln told Lavrov, if Ukraine joins NATO, which the Americans want, we will install nuclear weapons, missiles in Ukraine. Now, I don't know whether that was the plan, but that was what Blinkin told Lavrov.

Lavrov, of course, reports it to Putin. The Russians have already made it absolutely clear that they regard the deployment of nuclear weapons to Ukraine as a red line comparable to the Soviet deployment of nuclear weapons to Cuba was for the United States. And Blinken says this to Lavrov on the eve of what would turn out to be a war. it's an unbelievably crazy thing. Now, the Russians are forming their policy on the basis of all of these things that the Biden administration said. So they remember what Lincoln told them

in January 2022. Lavrov, after all, has just provided us with the details recently. So if Biden comes along and says, let's freeze the conflict along this line or that line or somewhere else. And let's come to some kind of informal agreement because they can't be a treaty, because we all know how difficult it is to get the Senate to ratify anything in the United States, and they're not going to ratify any partition treaty over Ukraine.

So let's come to some kind of informal agreement about Ukraine. The Russians know as night follows stay that it's not going to stay. And that incentivizes them, ultimately, to pursue the war up to the point where they will dictate terms. Now, Putin, over the course of his trip to China, and in connection with it, and this is very significant, told the Chinese a very important thing, he said, yes, we are prepared to talk about Nkrake. we are prepared to come to negotiate over the future of Ukraine. We always have been. That hasn't changed. Obviously, the Ukrainians must recognize the territorial realities.

That's an obvious first issue. But for there to be peace in Ukraine, there must also be negotiations about the security architecture of Europe. He said that. Now, I've been saying that this is going to be the Russian position all along ever since the Istanbul Agreement collapsed, as we know how, back in April 22. That is now going to be the Russian demand. Unless they get it, they will go up, they will go pressing on, they will certainly go to the NEPA.

they're winning the war they're confident that they're winning the war Ukraine has been hollowed out I don't think in Washington people quite understand how brittle the situation in Ukraine is the economist is telling us that Zelensky is now

screaming at his generals for example so I mean that tells you how bad the situation is so the Russians know all of this they've no incentive to compromise for anything less we don't know

where their army is going to stop, but at the very least, they're going to make sure that whatever is left of Ukraine is going to be aligned with themselves. And that is the minimum condition. If you want some larger agreement, it has to include the general security situation in Europe. Now, I think a wise US administration, one not led by. Joe Biden, one led perhaps by Donald Trump, possibly by Robert Kennedy Jr., would have no trouble with that. Why not negotiate with the Russians about the security situation in Europe? It doesn't affect the security of the United States. I would say it enhances the security of the United States. far better to have an agreement with the Russians,

which means that you don't face an arms race in Europe at the time when you're facing a challenge in the Pacific. That seems to me obvious, and it's better for Europe as well. But, of course, the current administration will never do that. The Russians will never trust them anyway, and, of course, all of the usual people and the deep state, the think tanks and various other things, the neocons, the neocom newspapers, all of that, they weren't agree to it, either.

To some of the live-tac questions, sort of rapid-fire answer some of them. On the VP side, the populist choices for Trump would be Tulsi Gabbard, J.D. Vance, Ben Carson. The deep state candidates would be Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, Elise Stefani. and it will tell you a lot about which direction Trump's planning on going by who he as his VP, though we likely don't know that until July. Can Trump legally enforce Schedule F? Absolutely. It's one of Vavex's very good ideas for deconstructing the administrative state and the deep state. And in terms of the top five goals for a Trump administration, in terms of what he should do immediately, pardon Julian

Assange and Ed Snowden, get us out of the Ukraine conflict now. Always got to just pick out the phone and say no more money. I mean, just, say no more money that's it that's the grift is over you know uh zelensky you can come to your new party pads in monaco miami and everywhere else uh along with all the other generals i mean i love it when they're like where are the fortifications outside harcive that we said these billions of dollars for uh they're they're down in the cayman islands that that's what those fortifications are they got we fortified the pool we fortified the the new car garage for the 15 cars that's that's that's of the fortifications but you know get us out of the ukraine war see what you can do to

de-escalate the Israeli conflict. The third, fire everybody. Everybody you can fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire. You know, Trump's famous. You're fired. Do it to everybody in the entire administrative state because they're almost all useless. Start from scratch and see who's any good. And start to defund the deep state. Take away their money. You take away their power.

The easiest way to fire everybody is to just take away their job from any money, right? If you fire them, there's all these civil service protection. There's lawsuits galore. or whatever. You just say, yeah, you can do your job. There's just no money left. That tends to have them go away. So, I mean, those will be three of the top priorities. Fourth, you know, restore some trade balance in terms of what's, I mean, there's been a lot of shift from China to Mexico that continues to create trade issues in the United States that impact domestic manufacturing.

It's time to onshore essential American services and manufacturing again, rebuild the industrial base of the United States. And then get us out of all these globalist institutions out of the WHO, out of NATO, out of all these institutions that are doing nothing but undermining liberty and freedom in the United States of America. And I wouldn't mind a special criminal investigation counsel to investigate everybody who did wrong vis-a-vis the pandemic. Because the other thing that's come out is, as we talked about way back, said that if you dug deep and if a lab leak explained COVID-19 from China, if you dug a little deeper, it circled right back to the American deep state. And that's what's, you know, that now it's come out. The funding ties,

they finally admitted they were involved in, you know, gain of function, biodefense. I love that. Bio defense. We got to create a virus that just in case somebody else happens to create this very unique virus in order to defend against it. I mean, it's always been bio weapon research and violation of the Convention on Biological weapons is what's also happening. But there probably needs to be some degree of Nuremberg-style accountability. All the people injured by the vaccine, All the people's businesses were stolen and ripped away from them during the lockdowns around the world. I mean, people forget sometimes the Nuremberg trials like Judgment Nuremberg, the film portrays, we're against judges.

We have judges in the United States violating people's federal civil rights in the January 6 cases and the Trump cases and in other cases. Those judges need to be held accountable. That, in fact, the civil rights laws in the United States were originally written and designed to be able to both sue and indict judges. take away judicial immunity when they decide to violate people's constitutionally protected rights. All of those, we have to re-cund. It's like someone asked about the Free State Project.

And Michael Malice. Free State Project's a great project. The idea is to restore power more locally. And you do have movements that are like it, even if they're not called that, all around the world. Part of the farmer protest across Europe are in part that. The farm issues here in the United States are partially about that. restore power to ordinary people, let them choose their own fate and their own future.

And there's ways in which we can do that by not having these, the opposite, basically whatever the EU proposed, propose the opposite. Instead of power getting concentrated up and up and up and up, and fewer and fewer people, and these professional class bureaucrats that want to manage and govern the world to the point they want to tell us what food we can eat, what medicine we have to take, and everything else. They're going to teach our five-year-olds about sexuality. It's like five-year-old doesn't need to know that yet. All of that nonsense, if we restore power individually, we go back, as Alexander mentioned earlier,

to the principles and precepts of the Magna Carta and restore that around the world. Empower individuals. It's like someone asked about Michael Malice. You know, Michael Malice is a great advocate for anarchism. One of the best arguments is if you only give a small group people a monopoly on both the means of violence and method of violence, what's the likelihood to people that are in that small group are the most conscientious versus the most sociopathic

and psychopathic? Any history of, as like people make the argument against anarchism that, oh, you know, we'll have crime everywhere. And I'm like, well, then I'm only at risk from one individual. You've never seen an anarchistic society engage in world war. That's only something governments and states have been able to do. So the best arguments for Michael Malice, the best arguments for anarchism, same arguments for restorative constitutional liberty and individual sovereignty. Our risk goes up. The more smaller

groups of people have too much power. Our risks go down. The more ordinary people get to share in that power. One final question for you to answer, Robert, and we'll wrap it up. Your opinion on TikTok. I don't think I've ever heard your opinion on the TikTok. Here's a place where Kennedy and Trump agree that the TikTok ban is unconstitutional. Kennedy is actually bringing suit. He's bringing suit against Facebook for trying to censor his 30-minute documentary. He's bringing a suit against the Biden administration for engaging in coordinated censorship against them for four years. After the day Biden showed up in the White House.

And he's suing against the TikTok lawsuit, as are the TikTok folks. Because it's a clear attempt of a First Amendment prohibition. It's like they don't like the fact. They don't really care about who owns TikTok. that's just a fraud. They do care that the deep state doesn't completely control it. That kind of bothers them. All the social media was supposed to be mass surveillance mechanisms

for which the censorship protocols kind of undermined but facilitated other people's intermediary agendas because of the democratizing effects such technology could have on our public discourse and public policy. But the real focus of the TikTok ban is to, one of Robert Kennedy's most successful social media platforms is TikTok. It's mostly used by millennials and Zoom. consumers. It disproportionate. No, there's a lot of stuff on TikTok I don't like. There's a lot of

components. But that that's a criticism of its use, not grounds to ban it, not grounds to prohibit. Clearly it violates the Constitution. I think they should win and prevail in that suit. And Trump is said banning it makes no sense and only promotes Mark Zuckerberg. So he's like, well, why are we just giving even more monopolies, more monopolistic power? How does that solve or serve any purpose? It doesn't. They claim it's a, it just like with a sanctions. Part of it's about punishing Russia. Part of it's trying to establish a precedent that they can control anybody, anywhere, any place, anytime, and reach out and get them. Whether it's the Roger Verr indictment, the attacks on Amos Miller, illegally imprisoning

Pennsylvania farmers, the weaponization of the legal system against President Trump, all of these things combined with the same single message that they should have complete control over everybody, everywhere, all the time, without limits of law, without limits of the elected people without the limits of individual sovereignty and constitutional freedom. And to the last super chat that said, Obama as head of WEF, that makes terrifyingly too much sense. Yeah, I agree. That's very possible. One of my favorite guests from Garland Nixon.

And finally, we'll wrap it up. We'll wrap it up from Sparky. Hey, Robert. Go dogs. Indeed. All right. That was a fantastic live stream. Always great with Robert Bards. Alexander, Robert, any final thoughts? Well, I just looked up, Clause 39 of Magna Carta. I just thought I'd read it out. No free man is to be arrested or imprisoned or deceased. That means have his property taken or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined. Nor will we go against him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers.

or by the law of the land. So there you go. Exactly. We just got to restore the same principle. It's like Healy long said years ago. I'm not here to throw out the Constitution. I'm here to make it read in the words it was written in. And that's all we need in America.

And more individual power and sovereignty around the world. And it would be a much better place to be. Absolutely. Robert, thank you again. Where can people find you? And we're signing out one more time. Here can people find you, including your e-shop. Yeah. So if you want to follow any of the legal cases of what's going on in

financial freedom, political freedom, medical freedom, food freedom, updates, court documents, all that will be shared at 1776 law center.com. And for all the news and information, might have some hush-hushes coming out on some of these assassinations. You go back and watch the hush-hush on Ukraine. Ended up being unfortunately prescient, too many regards. But same with January 6th, but we have stuff on the King assassination, the Kennedy assassination, all kinds of things around the world. You can find all that content at Vivaarnslaw.locals.com.

It will be pinned on the top of the comments. Robert Alexander, moderators, thank you very much. Take care, everybody.