The Duran Podcast
Biden passes "torch" to Kamala w/ Robert Barnes (Live)
All right, we are live with Alexander Mercurdis. And we have with us the great Robert Barnes Robert. How are you doing? Where can people find you? And I also see in on your video 1776 lostcenter.com and you also have the best one of the best locals channels out there. So where can people find you Robert? Yeah, for all the content, they can go to vivaabarnslaw.locals.com. That's where we've got, there's a whole hush hush series. And I've got like five new ones I've got to put up over what's happened over the last three weeks. They give some alternative narratives and alternative histories plus a lot of other content, great community. And then for those that want to stay on top of the legal cases, we're part of that concern medical freedom or food freedom or political freedom or financial freedom. We help co-founded an organization called 1776 lostcenter. We have case updates there, put up court transcripts there, court filings there. People are free to cut and paste those and use those and whatever proceeding they may need anywhere here in America or elsewhere because it has analogous principles that are applicable across the globe. But yeah, so the 1776 lostcenter, if you want to follow the legal cases about those issues, and if you want to get all the other content, vivaabarnslaw.locals.com. And I will have those links as a pinned comment when the livestream is over. I have those links right now in description box down below. A quick hello to everyone that is watching us on rock fin on odyssey on rumble. Hello to everybody watching us on rumble and our awesome Duran locals community and everybody that is following us on youtube, big shout out to our moderators. Thank you to all our moderators for everything that you do. You are awesome. Alexander Robert, what a couple of weeks, uh, Alexander, we've got a lot to talk about and we have the perfect person to discuss everything with. Absolutely, because we are, we are in the situation where the incumbent president of the United States of the United States has been ousted from his position. He wanted to be candidate again for reelection. I did it. This has ever happened before. I mean, I used to study American history. I've never come across a situation that remotely parallels this one. And what we have is a transition in the United States of the democratic party from a big political party party with the mass men, well, membership, I think is not quite the right way. But anyway, a huge support, huge organization, massive presence across the country, a party today in which a very small group of people, perhaps I'm guessing around a school, decided between them, the candidate, more the presidency was going to be, who decided that millions of votes that were cast in their primary process really didn't matter, um, who decided that the fact that the incumbent president who is a democrat, his opinions didn't really matter either because they decided that he wasn't the right man, the fit person to actually lead the party into the election. And in an event, which as I said, if you were studying Soviet history, you would find completely unsurprising. I mean, it's really very much like the fall of Khrushchev, if I could say in 1964, suddenly he's there and suddenly he's gone. And, you know, the Pollock Bureau has made its decision, the Central Committee has passed the vote. The leader is gone. He then gives an extraordinary bizarre address. I thought it was one of the strangest, eeriest addresses that I've ever seen from the White House, the one that he gave yesterday, no explanation of why he's stepping down. He doesn't talk about any of the events that led up to the fact that he stepped down. But anyway, he says that we must all do this for the good of the party, the unity of the party, again, incredible Soviet-stanner language, if I can just say, talking about the party, the unity of the party. Suffice to say that in the Soviet Union, in a particular power struggle that all the historians of that time know, the losing faction was referred to as the anti-party group. And I wonder whether that language is going to start to be used in the Democratic Party very long. And then of course, the leader goes and the new leader comes in, and everybody, everybody must support this new leader who is going to be accepted by acclimation. The party congress is due to me, and they're all going to rise enthusiastically to greet the new leader, who the Politburo is gifting to them. And this is the United States, as I said, to those of us who studied Soviet history, this is all incredibly, it brings back all kinds of memories. But what do people in the United States make up all of this? Robert, what do you make up all of this? Can this work? What is going to happen in the presidential election? And how did this happen? I mean, it had lots of questions from me, but anyway, I'm just throwing it out there to you, Robert. Can you take it from there and tell us more? Yeah, very much, it reminds me of the old take him out to the Black Sea, and he discovers he's been overthrown listening to Soviet propaganda, prop the radio, you know, didn't know that, you know, he was out as premier. And they literally did that with Biden, and they took him to his beach house. And you know, they announced he's leaving on a letter on X. Nobody believes he wrote the letter. You know, looking to sign the letter, he never uses X personally. It's other people that are posting for him. Nobody even sees a photo of him for days. There's all kinds of rumors about whether he had a health incident here in Las Vegas before that. Supposedly has COVID, which I'm sure had Pfizer begging everybody not to include in the script Biden dying from COVID since he's got like eight. He's got every shot known to man, supposedly the Pfizer shot supposed to save you from COVID. And then when he does come back, he, as you note, Alex, he gives a speech that sounds like a running for reelection speech. It doesn't sound like he's stepping down. In fact, there's only one brief mention of I'm going to do what's best for the party and go call Harris. I think what we were probably supposed to be discussing today had things gone to plan going back about a few weeks or so is that Biden would be announcing war, an official war with a ring that I think what was supposed to happen is my operating hypothesis inescapably speculative at some points, because there's a lot of things we don't know. But the, I think that the, they thought certain people in power thought Donald Trump would be dead and had that assassination attempt succeeded when I was at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Nikki Haley was there, Rupert Murdoch was there, Mitch McConnell was there, people who were there who despised Donald Trump. And I think some of those people made plans to be there, assuming that Donald Trump would not be there, and that they were going to nominate in their stead, Nikki Haley is president. And this is what Mike Pompeo was telling the entire Iowa delegation for a week before the the convention was that he was going to be the VP. And the, we had the CIA leak right after the assassination attempt that they had inside information that Iran was trying to assassinate President Trump. And so I think the narrative was meant to go or intended to go in certain circles. Trump's assassinated, blame Iran, rallied the Republican Convention behind Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo on a national security ticket, Netanyahu comes to the United States, gives his big speech to Congress. He spent half of his speech talking about Iran and then you have all these American politicians seal clapping a foreign leader, which I've just never been a fan of. It's like the US Capitol, what do you like Israel, what do you don't like Israel? Why do we got a seal clap for foreign leaders in our Capitol, it's not a fan. But it was like, it was almost like it was set up so that Biden could come out today and announce an honor of President Trump, his assassination, and probably the country around the flag. We have to take on Iran, whether they're right about to have a weapon of mass destruction and the deep state national security apparatus, military industrial complex, whatever language you use would have been in a win-win situation. Biden could distract the country from his mental health problems and the economic problems and the social problems and all of those behind a new war. The deep state would be able to sort of slouch off from Ukraine, which has become another one of their disasters and have a new war and recover Iran, which CIA and MI6 have been begrudgingly lost back in 1979 when they had it for about a quarter century as their jewel of the Mid-East as they see it. Then they would have had a win-win in a political campaign, whether Biden won, whether Haley won, deep state would have won. But Donald Trump decided he loved his beautiful little immigration chart and turned his head just at the right time just enough so that all those plans went out the window. Then he stands up and does his iconic fight-fight fight, which to me was a signal that he interpreted the assassination attempt as not entirely random, because that's an interesting kind of phraseology to use, interesting timing, obviously, to use. Soon thereafter, he engages in multiple phone conversations with Robert Kennedy who's running his independence. Part of that conversation gets leaked. One part talks about him second-guessing the American vaccine schedule, which is insane. He says that basically you're putting enough vaccines for a thousand pound horse into a 10-pound baby, and he, and what else he leaks is he leaks Biden's unusual conversation with him after the assassination attempt. Where Biden's like, "Why did you turn your head?" Not exactly a normal question, why did you just keep your head right where it's supposed to be? And he's leaking this conversation with Robert Kennedy Jr., whose father was assassinated, whose uncle President John Kennedy was assassinated. I don't think that was coincidental. He then has the Republican National Convention accelerate his nomination from Thursday afternoon to Monday afternoon, and he picks the most populist alternative he has amongst those being considered as vice president in JD Vance. There's some people that have some misunderstandings of Vance and misunderstandings of Peter Teal, which we can discuss later. But I had an hour and a half conversation with JD Vance back in February of 2022 about coming out against the Ukrainian war, and he was the first major campaign official in Washington at that time in the country in America to come out so aggressively against the Ukraine war. He gets funding it against a no-fly zone against intervention, and he's maintained and sustained that belief all the way through. That ends up being Trump's VP choice. John Bolton is writing screams against it. The Karl Rove was right behind Fox when Karl Rove was shaking with rage when he got news of the appointment, Murdoch is enraged, the entire Washington establishment is enraged, so it goes in a sudden populist direction that now Trump's going to be a little less controllable from sort of a national security state approach, and now all of a sudden Biden's a problem, his mental health issues a problem, and the one strategy is no longer work, and the question was, well, they decide that Joe's too old after the debate, and Obama, Clinton, both Clintons, the Pelosi, especially in Schumer, put massive pressure on Biden. You know, Viva Fry, who we do our show together, he and other people were getting a sudden wave of leaks the weekend before Biden announced his withdrawal, saying there's doctors at UPenn that have been treating him for Parkinson's and dementia for the past year, and that this information was about to come out unless Papa Joe decided to sign that letter, or not contest that he signed the letter when he got back in town, and their backup strategy now, Kamala Harris, but as you know, Alex, this has never happened before in American political history. So we haven't had an attempted assassination get this close since 1981, involving President Reagan, and the before then, we had a wave of them, obviously, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, George Wallace, Gerald Ford, all were shot at, disabled or killed from 1963 to 1975 or so, then you had Reagan in '81, but then, you know, no more assassins. It's always interesting. We have lone assassins, and they always tend to target people that are dissidents for some, on some issue. They never go after the Federal Reserve, they never go after the military industrial complex, they never get those inspired ideas, I'm sure it's, you know, quite to know. And then right after that, we've had people step down from running for reelection, Harry Truman in 1952, LBJ in 1968, but that was before the primaries, and they announced it themselves. They have these weird letters posted someplace. You've never had somebody after the nomination step down. And then you're precisely, not only did everything about it feel very solid, burrow-ish, but then Kamala Harris has just acclimated, I mean, she's not going to have to campaign, she's not going to have to get any delegates through a regular contested convention, it came out today, that she, they're going to nominate her before the convention even starts in Chicago, because obviously they're terrified of a re of a repeat of Chicago 1968. Last time we had a contested convention, the Democratic Party, and a bunch of protesters concerning a war was Chicago 1968. We had Norman Mailer and Pat Buchanan, you know, watching as things went crazy and Grant Park, and you had people like Hunter Thompson out there running around with him. I mean, it was historic kind of scenes in Chicago. They're already locking it down. So, Obama's town, fundamentally, no matter who the mayor is these days, they're clearing out so protesters can't get anywhere near the convention center. They got Chicago police all juiced up and ready to roll and given a lot of discretion, and they're going to push Kamala Harris through even though she's never really won any votes at any time. Not once you ran in 2020, she had a drop out because of how bad of a candidate she was. Now she didn't get any votes in 2024. And the delegates are not going to have a meaningful contested convention because they're going to nominate her by acclimation, by video sort of by zoom weeks before the actual convention. So we're seeing things we haven't ever seen before, all in the name of saving democracy here in America, ever in American history, this combination of things. I mean, back before we had primaries and caucuses, you could say we had some interesting conventions back then, but even then those conventions actually had contested convention. We haven't had this, everybody's going to do a coup within three days, which is what's taking place here. It's not clear that Obama even wanted it to happen, but the Clintons are on board with him. Pete Buttigieg, who's got a lot of political juice with the deep state crowd, he's on board with Kamala Harris and others. And so it's just we're seeing, you know, Soviet style politics in 2024, America, and where all the ramifications are yet to be determined, I have severe doubts that Kamala Harris can be competitive at all. I think it shows that you do have a Politburo that thinks the world thinks like the Politburo, you know, these upper middle class, professional class, managerial class, coastal elites, the kind of people that thought, you know, that for the Tories that they could call an election and that would go well for them, you know, it's that kind of group of people that really don't know the folks in the Midlands or middle America. And I think it's going to be a disaster for Trump, a disaster for Harris because I think Trump is going to just completely dominate. But then you don't know, are we going to see any more? What more insanity could we experience in the next 30, 60, 90, 120 days? Because what we just experienced in the last 30 days, we've never experienced the American history before. Absolutely, can I just say, oh yeah, can I just say about the part, the convention that's coming up in August, it is not a convention in the sense that, you know, parties in the United States used to have conventions. It is a party Congress of the kind that the Soviet Union used to have, everything is scripted and prepared in advance. You can even read the text probably in advance, you know, she comes in, you know, prolonged applause, stands up, more prolonged applause, thunderous applause at the right place. You know, people who've studied that era in Russian history, now what about this? And this is what we're coming to actually, I mean, it seems to me exactly like that. And what is so bizarre about this process is that this huge machinery that you've just described has been used. What is actually produced at the end is Kamala Harris, one of the most unpopular political figures in the United States. And this vast machine is now going to be attempting to sell to the American people the idea of President Kamala Harris and the idea that she is the answer to the various problems that Americans have in their everyday lives. I find it absolutely bizarre. It is exactly as you said, it's the way in which these elites who have become accustomed to power and to the exercise of power in this very strange way behind the scenes have finally lost touch completely with the actual life of their own country. I mean, we discussed the British election, Alex and I, and I said the reason to call that election when it was called was precisely because the political establishment in Britain wanted to avoid smaller parties, especially Nigel Farage's reform party, from breaking through. So they thought if we call the election now, before he's got time to organize, he won't be able to break through. And what happened? They call the election and the conservatives had the meltdown and Labor didn't do terribly well. And sure enough, Nigel Farage broke through and it's going to be exactly the same. Now that, however, brings me back to this other question, the assassination attempt. I noticed that the director of the FBI, no less Christopher Ray, appointed to that job by President Trump, let's all remember, is now trying to cast out on aspects of what happened. He's now saying that he might have been trapped nor we don't know if it was a bullet. I mean, I found this offensive and ridiculous things. One might have expected an assassination attempt like that to be still the dominant story in the United States. Well, I don't know what it is in the United States, but in Britain now, no one is talking about it anymore. And one of the things that really astonished me, dismayed me about Biden's address yesterday, is he condemned political violence and failed to mention the fact that the most extreme act of political violence we have seen in the United States this year took place 10 days ago and sought to take out his opponent. I mean, you would have thought this would be the most important thing that he would mention. He would at least condemn that. And instead, an incredibly incendiary speech from Biden, I found it so I'm only very disturbing the enemies within democracy in danger, not really democracy one senses, but the position of the party and the Politburo there in danger. But anyway, all of that, enormously, incendiary speech, very frightening language. If you take it seriously, and some people will take it seriously, and I'm now hearing stories that the Secret Service is telling Trump, you've got to stop campaigning the way you campaign. You can't go out into the country and meet people in the way that you do because we can't be sure we can't necessarily protect you, and well, that looks to me like a threat actually more than anything else and attempt to stop Trump campaigning in the only way that Trump knows and in the way that Trump is the only person who can do and which distinguishes him from all the others and works, and it does make me wonder whether this plan that you've discussed has really actually been jettisoned entirely, because it almost sets up the target for another attempt, just saying. No doubt. I mean, to the super tech question about Trump and Netanyahu to give you an idea of how politically frisky Trump is feeling these days, he put out, I think on truth, a thank you note from a Palestinian leader, where he wrote back to him, and he included an image of that, and he said in saying looking forward to seeing Netanyahu and discussing peace. So that gives you an idea for where Trump isn't quite pigeonholed in way people may imagine him. They can go back and also read what Trump originally said about October 7th, in which he blamed Israel in part for October 7th, for what he considered an inexplicable security lapse, which he suggested implied might have had something else to it. So that's where Trump is really on his own script entirely, and he feels freer to do that than ever before, after they failed assassination attempt. But you're right, so Ray has always been a deep state hack, it was a mistake of Trump to put him in charge of the FBI to begin with. Most society guy, but he comes from the establishment wing, he comes from the attacks with James Comey and other people along those lines. And he's been a classic deep state FBI guy in the, in the tradition, in the truest tradition of the FBI, you know, going back to J Edgar. And the, but I agree that, you know, the attempts to once again suggest that he didn't really get hit with a bullet, it was shrapnel, which was a rumor they tried to spread right after the assassination attempt, the problem is there's no shrapnel. There was no shrapnel in the stage or anywhere else. That's why they had to back off of that. And then there's that photo that actually catches the bullet, which is wild, because they're operating such high speeds on those photos. And some people have questions because the photographer, one of the photographers with New York Times, photographer, also happened to catch the photo of 9/11, when Bush is a prize, the 9/11 kid talking to the kids, so they were so able to have some questions about that, you know, interesting coincidence. But putting all of that aside, that the follow up with not only trying to demean the nature of the assassination attempt, but also the Secret Service, who Secret Service had to resign after failing to justify anything in front of Congress, which was probably more aggressive than the anticipated Congress being the last assassination attempts, Congress did very little until the mid-late 1970s, when they had the assassination committees and so forth. But they didn't really go after President Kennedy's assassination, after Robert Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, Exodus, Malcolm X, all of whom there's connections to government participants at some level, whether it was cover up because of informants involved, or depending on which narrative you believe, maybe direct complicity and culpability in the assassination itself of those individuals. This Congress is a different Congress, with key members that are much more willing to be skeptical. And you get people like Senator Hawley going to the scene right away, and voicing skepticism right away. I met him up at the Republican National Convention, he's from Wisconsin. He's a guy that's on issues of vaccines, in particular, and COVID-related lockdown issues tends to take a very populous position, a little bit more erratic on other issues. But he was uber aggressive on what the government did, and whether there was inside complicity at some level, whether that was just extraordinary recklessness and negligence or deliberate intentionality. But you're right, they're now trying to tell Trump that he can only campaign indoors, that he can't campaign outdoors at all anymore, which is kind of ludicrous. They did finally, one reason for the timing of the assassination attempt, is it was right before the convention, and that had two components to it. If he died before the convention, then they don't have any ballot issues, whereas laws like laws in Wisconsin, that once you're on the ballot, you can't be off except under extraordinary circumstance and all of those kind of kind of things. But more importantly, he wouldn't have picked a successor. So there would have been no obvious successor if they would have been able to succeed in assassinating him that weekend before, and then on the secret service side, they were denying him full protection. He had been requesting for two years an enhanced protection. They were treating him like a former president who wasn't politically active. And because he was politically active, his threat level was off the charts. And yet they refused every single request for increased protection, just as they refused Robert Kennedy Jr. any protection. And but as soon as he was nominated, they had agreed they would provide enhanced protection. So that was the other reason why that was their like best window of opportunity was that weekend right before the convention. He doesn't have a successor yet. He's not on the ballot yet, not officially nominated yet. And it isn't legally entitled in their view to the full protection that he would have once he's nominated. The interestingly enough, they immediately reversed on Robert Kennedy after all this and they're now finally extending coverage. When you look at what happened, there's this a lot of things that don't make sense. You first have like, if you look at assassins around the world, historically, I mean, America seems to be unique in having these lone weirdo, wacko, mentally ill assassins, I mean, everywhere else, it's usually a political motivation for the assassination or the attempted assassination. But magically in America, we just come up with some crazies. It's always just some weirdo, just went a little cray cray and happened to shoot somebody that is an enemy of powerful people in the country. I think over time, Americans have become skeptical of that narrative. You know, people like James Elroy, who wrote, you know, the American tabloid trilogy finished with the Bloods of Rover, which postulates a alternative narrative as to what was happening during all those assassinations. You have everything weird about this case, the kid, did he come in one car, did he come in two cars? Did he have a van in a car or was it just the van or the car? Apparently, they said he brought a drone and he had a drone going over the site and there was nobody saying anything about this. There was supposed to, there was a government drone that was supposed to be there monitoring everything. Usually a helicopter as well. It wasn't active that day. How did that happen? He walks right up around this building where he gets photographed by multiple law enforcement hours before Trump even takes the stand, nobody does anything about it. The spotted as suspicious by not only law enforcement, but by locals and nobody does anything about it. They have a building that has a perfect shot of Trump only about 100 yards away, an easy shot for most people to make and they leave it completely, not only insecure, they make sure there's a ladder there so that you can climb up and go on. Then he goes up and on it. They admit they had snipers and windows right behind him and the snipers and the windows don't say or do anything. Then this kid takes three shots and then five shots according to the official narrative. They said Ray says, "Hey, we found eight cartridges there," which is kind of interesting because the person who's, there's later photos of people that are up there with body cameras on. By the way, the body cameras were magically all off during the assassination attempt. It's just another extraordinary thing. You got all these cops running around with body cameras and they just magically went off. The field related to crowd strikes, extraordinary IT failure a few days later, that apparently got rid of some other memory, electronic memory that could have been useful in this case. There's the same secret service that accidentally deleted everything they did on January 6th. There was a whole bunch of questions about those related issues all the way back. When they do have their body camera on after the shooting, then they're looking down at the body, there's no shells anywhere and it's like, "What happened? The shells roll off." They picked up the shells. Why did those people pick up the shells? They're not the chain of custody law enforcement folks. Why is there a guy in a gray suit running around taking photos telling them to send it to different people? They all think it's secret service and it turns out he's not secret service and they don't even know who he is exactly. There's things that just don't make sense and they start aggregating that put it this way, if Putin was the suspect, everybody in American media would say this was an assassination by the political apparatus. They would not say some random weirdo did it because the security breaches are so extraordinary. At some level, it's more likely to be the product of deliberate intention than accidental recklessness. So then you do have, as you said, it's almost like it's an ongoing threat by saying, "Well, you can't campaign this way. You can't campaign that way. You can't go here. You can't go there. Maybe something's still going to happen to you." Kind of message. Now, it's a little more troublesome for them to try to do it a second time. I don't think they anticipated the public blowback that they got after the first time. This is not the same America as 1963 or even of 1968. I mean, the net effect of all those assassinations was the House Committee on Assassinations and was the House Committee on Intelligence Activities that exposed the CIA plotting coups around the world, that exposed MKUltra because somebody left them, they had deleted, they thought all the MKUltra files, it turned out somebody kept an extra copy in the book at a different location. But all those things really, because of the House Committees and we only know about those House, from those House Committees because the public got beat with this attempt to just death, death, death, death, what America was doing overseas and overthrowing governments and leaders and the fascinations and coups, it was a different animal when it came back home to the United States and people started being something's wrong. And after Reagan's attempted assassination, there weren't any for a while, for a long until this one. And I think that the biggest risk they have is if they try to do it now, JD Vance would be Trump's replacement as a successor. And on the issues that the Deep State cares about, they dislike JD Vance more than they dislike Donald Trump. They still have the ongoing issue that if for somehow both of them were taken out, people can vote for Robert Kennedy in the general election and they hate Robert Kennedy more than they hate Donald Trump or JD Vance. So how they finangle that, I think is going to be their biggest hindrance and hurdle to try to do it again. I think that was probably their best stop, but I didn't think they would do it the first time. I thought they had moved past, but really you look at it, I think the people who hate Trump, the political establishment, Deep State, whatever language you want to use, they have to capitulate on letting Julian Assange go because Biden is like, I don't want that hanging over me in the election. And we still don't know what Assange has, because Assange had always been hinting. There's other files that could come out someday if I'm not released and he didn't want those coming out in October, he didn't want that to be the October surprise. So they have to begrudgingly give up Julian Assange's freedom, even though it came with certain legal limitations and restraints and him having to basically say journalism is a crime, which is preposterous. But I think they thought, well, we'll take Trump out with all of the lawfare that we'll find him guilty of being a sexual assaultor, we'll find him guilty of fraud, then we'll try to bankrupt him through these civil proceedings, then we'll indict him, and then we'll convict him of something. And surely this aggregate legal lawfare will destroy Trump and the court of public opinion. And instead, it just made him stronger. And I think it was when they realized that, and then Biden can't hold up in the debate at all because his dementia is not even curable by momentary drugs, that they decided, okay, we've got to take him out. And then that didn't work. And I sometimes suspect they don't really have a plan B. I think, I mean, did they have a plan B in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya or Syria or anywhere else they've created or Korea or Vietnam? I mean, it's been a more than a half century of just one deep state debacle after another, after another, after another. And you combine the deep state and DEI policies. And what you get is like a Zoolander version of an assassination attempt. And that's what we have with our current CIA and secret service. So I think there's no longer even competency and capabilities are there. But I can't rule out the risk because these people are clearly, they're moral competence has always been broken. But as we've been talking about, their intellectual capabilities are equally in doubt. Lots of things to say. First of all, I just wanted to say before we proceed that on the legal matters, on the legal cases, which we really do need to talk about, to some extent, you have been by far the best, most accurate commentator on our live streams and on your own shows, Robin. And we really do need to talk about them. But firstly, about the secret service, I've watched Kimberly Cheetall. Is that how you pronounce her name? Well, maybe we are in a simulation. I mean, there's names named Cheetall, the person that's involved in cheating everything and cheating. I mean, that's unbelievable. And I was asking this supposedly named Crooks. I mean, come on. Crooks, I never quite, yes, absolutely. Fiction, a life follows fiction in this case. But anyway, I watched her in Congress and I just couldn't believe my eyes. I mean, the arrogance, the defiance, the evasiveness, the unwillingness to accept that there was anything that she'd done that had been at all wrong or that the secret service had done anything wrong. I mean, it just astounded me. The failures at the actual site itself are just astonishing and they're stacking up. And now we have this additional advice, which is it advice? So is it really a threat? I have to say, I'm one of those people who's very, very reluctant to actually assume that there's some great plot to assassinate someone, but when I see all of this, I mean, what can I say to myself? I mean, it's not possible just to walk away from that any longer. I think they have a big problem now. And this is what I really want to come to because we're getting an awful lot of people coming onto us about this subject. If they assassinate Trump now, they're going to get J.D. Vance. Now I know there's all sorts of people who talk about J.D. Vance and say, you know, we're over talking, talking up J.D. Vance too much. I don't know a huge amount about J.D. Vance. I can tell you two things about J.D. Vance. This is myself now. I read some of the memos that he wrote at the time of the battle over the $61 billion appropriation. I was immensely impressed by their intelligence and their coherence. Now, you know, I have to say that they were very clear, very thoughtful, very well thought structured and laid out and very, very persuasive. This was a very rare thing in politics today, a political leader who actually sat down and studied the problem, got the data together, understood the limits in the, you know, industrial sector and their inability to produce the weapons on the scale that people were talking about and who seemed to have made a genuine effort to understand what was really going on in Ukraine. So already that is making me predisposed to be favorable to him. But there is something else and now I'm talking from Britain. You know, I have some context in Britain. The British are horrified about the thought of J.D. Vance. You see this reflected in the media here, but I can tell you for an absolute fact, if you're talking about the British state, the British deep state, they don't want to see J.D. Vance as vice president of the United States at all. And of course, if Donald Trump will remove his scene in the way that we've just been discussing and J.D. Vance were to be elected president of the United States, having the kind of opinions that he has, not just about Ukraine, but all of the other things. They would be completely appalled. They would be horrified. Now that, and I have to say this, I mean, I don't know about his contacts with Peter Teal. I don't know very much about Peter Teal. All the things that I know, all the things that people say about him, but those two facts in themselves make me take this decision to select J.D. Vance seriously, to see it with an optimistic view and to think that J.D. Vance must be an independent figure, because if the British deep state are so horrified at the thought of J.D. Vance, I can't believe that the American deep state in any conceivable way owns him. Now, Robert, you know much more about J.D. Vance than either of us do. You've met him, you've spoken to him, you've known people who know him, tell us a bit more about him and about the things that I've just said. Yeah, J.D. Vance is the best populist in Congress. The only person that probably comes close, or people that come close, at least on some issues are Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massey. So if people want to know his life story, he wrote his memoir, The Hillbilly Elegy, which was made into a very good movie in 2020, I think it's available in Netflix and other places. And he comes from working class Appalachia. His father was out of the picture early on, raised by his mother who battled drugs much of her life and his grandmother, known as MIMA, he comes from sort of the Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky Appalachia up to through Southern Ohio. And you know, the Appalachian Mountains are a very long history of political independence, irascible independence. They were Scotch Irish that come from the mountains, the highlands of Scotland and Ireland, the Northern Ireland, they were sort of brought over to Northern Ireland by various people, but that's a whole nother story. Historically, their number one defining trait was opposition to foreign war. So you can go back to World War One, World War Two, you'd all of a sudden see in places like East Tennessee, this massive surge of turnout, just to vote against whatever war we were involved in. I remember we were talking about the first notable person to oppose the Vietnam War was an East Kentucky Republican. JD Vance comes from that exact part of the country for multiple, multiple generations. So that gives you a sense of historical ancestry and life history that shapes a lot of the political inclinations that he has. He went to, he, but like a lot of people from that part of the country, after 9/11, there was a real rally around the flag, real patriotism. He joins the Marines to go to Iraq and then discovers midway through it's all a big lie. And that sort of was one of his first seismic shifts in life. Comes back, graduates in two years from Ohio State, goes to State University, gets a scholarship to law school, that's where he met his wife, his wife's clerk for both Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Roberts. She comes from an Indian background, first generation, Indian American are both her parents. We're from India and moved to the United States, both, you know, very highly intelligent part of that professional class group that moved from India to the United States. They get married. He tries to do corporate law for a little while, doesn't like it, leaves it and Peter Teal spots him as kind of a fellow dissident. And this is what, like a lot of the people that don't, they, they see Peter Teal's got an investment in Palantir, Palantir's got a lot of government contracts. They conclude, oh, that must mean Peter Teal is a deep state guy. Anybody who thinks that has not studied or listened to anything Peter Teal has said for the last 15 years. What he says, there's a reason why when he goes to Cambridge, he gets protesters yelling and interrupting all of the speeches, et cetera. Teal has been deeply concerned, he's been a dissident since the early 1990s when he was at Stanford, been warning about woke universities and the decline of academic credibility. And really, he's been, he's picked up the mantle of Eisenhower, the second part of Eisenhower's farewell address where Eisenhower's farewell address. People remember the military industrial complex part. They forget him talking about the new corrupt scientific academic establishment, that these government contracts are going to corrupt the academy, going to corrupt our intellectual class, corrupt our scientific class, and it's going to distort science and going to make it a divorce it from actual progress. And Teal's obsession has been why since the 1970s in his view, has the American intellectual life scientific life. Why don't we have cures for cancer? Why don't we have these major leaps that he thinks we should have had? And he thinks that it's the conformist culture and the corrupt culture and the captured culture of academia, he's been a constant continuous critic of aspects of Silicon Valley, end of leaving Silicon Valley, critic of the entire university structure. So don't assume, oh, he's got investments in this, that must mean he's aligned ideologically with anybody who uses his software or uses a technology, he's not. He's been a well-known libertarian to give the best description of him. He loves Bitcoin and he loves Bitcoin because he likes the crypto-anarchistic nature of it. He complained recently, he goes, you know, the FBI was saying they prefer criminals to use Bitcoin and other things and that really disappointed me. Because when he minutes, he wanted Bitcoin to be a destabilizing deconstructionist element of centralized finance, centralized banking, centralized political structure. That's who he is. These spots in Vance, the sort of group of conservative intellectuals are on the right, but they came from dissident, unusual backgrounds for a range of reasons, who for the last decade have been trying to figure out what went wrong in their part of the world. For Vance, it's what went wrong in Appalachia. Why did the family unit break down? Why did so many of my friends, you know, end up dead in some way, shape, or form, whether it was from a lie in a foreign war or from opioid abuse at home or drug problems at home? Why did his mother, who is one of the smartest students in her class and in her community, not get the success that should have come with that? And he's exploring that in hillbilly elegy, continues to explore it, Peter Teal gives him access to a whole another group. He becomes a venture capitalist, makes enough money that he's independently wealthy, doesn't have to worry about money anymore for the rest of his life. And that sets him up to go back into politics, and you're exactly right, Alex. I talked to him for almost two hours, and he was considering February 2022, very beginning of the war, what to say about the Ukraine war. At the time, nobody that was running for a high office here in Washington, here in America, was willing to challenge that war. I think initially only four or five members of the House even raised any question whatsoever about its funding. This was going to be the first major Senate candidate to say, "I don't believe in this war." But he wanted to go through everything that I thought and he was very thoughtful all the way through. He was similar about the 2020 election. I mean, you can see kind of who he is, but he opposed lockdowns, opposed mandates, was skeptical of the COVID vaccine, was skeptical of the 2020 election, was on the up and up, and came out against the, it was the first major Senate candidate come out against the Ukraine war. That gives you an idea of who he really is. You can tell him by his deeds rather than worry about guilt by association by people who misunderstand certain things. And all of it, he was very thoughtful all the way through. And I remember at the end of the conversation, he had come to the conclusion that not only as a matter of principle, but as a matter of geopolitical realism, a matter of tactics, you know, based on analysis you guys have been given for years, it made no sense for the US to support the war. It made no sense for Ukraine to be involved in the war. It made no sense what the, what the EU and NATO were suggested. It was not even going to work, even if you believed in it as a matter of moral or political principle. And you sit there and say, okay, he goes, but you know, as soon as I do this, there's going to be donors who pull money from my campaign. I'm going to be, you know, I'm going to lose $10 to $20 million in potential donations. I'm going to get $10 to $20 million spent against me right away because of this. I'm going to get hit pieces on both the left and the right Wall Street Journal is going to write a hit piece on me, Politico is going to write a hit piece on me. And at that point, he was fourth in the primary polls and he said, but you know what, I already have fame. I already have celebrity. I already have money. The only reason I'm running is that some kid like me doesn't end up at another dumb ward, some foreign location that dies for no reason other than a politics of lies. So the next day, he was the first major candidate to say, we shouldn't be supporting a no-fly zone. We need to be involved in Ukraine. This is not going to go anywhere. He famously said in a later interview, I don't really care about Ukraine. God bless it. But it's not America's problem. It's not America's problem. What happens to Ukraine or the people of Ukraine? It's up to the people of Ukraine to worry about the people of Ukraine. Not the people of America to worry about the people of Ukraine. He became the number one critic of the Ukraine war in all of Congress, the going after it again and again and again and again in terms of its money and its finding and its funding. Even after railroad companies for what happened in the major spill, an accident, chemical spill in Ohio, very openly overtly pro-union, openly overtly pro-worker. So he comes from a sort of, and he's been trying to borrow from a range of intellectual influences that are about what's wrong with the administrative state, what's wrong with government, what's wrong with government is these bloated bureaucracies that are corrosively corroding America's constitutional liberties and fundamental ideals. And that's why John Bolton hates him more than anyone else. Because it's not just that he has these deep, pop instincts, comes from part of the country that's very oppositional to war by generation after generation, I mean West Virginia exists because they were the mountain folks of Appalachia that said we will not support the Civil War. And so they literally created a whole new state over it. The same almost happened in Tennessee, where I'm from, Eastern Tennessee, same thing. I went out fighting no planters war. You know, that's the long line he comes from and he's articulated well in the campaign, he articulated well from the Senate, and he's very intelligent about it. He understands how you need to take apart this machinery piece by piece by piece by piece. And that's why he terrifies so many people in Washington. That's why, I mean, it was the leak that I think part of what pushed it over the edge of them trying to take Trump out is about three weeks before it had come out that Vance was his likely pick. He had said before the debate that he'd actually made his pick. But they were worried because Vance would be even more Kennedy than Kennedy when it comes to John Kennedy when it comes to questioning the national security apparatus. He personally experienced friends who died in a war, built on a lot. That's an unusual person to be in this position of power and he's now the successor to the entire Trump mega movement in the United States, to the populist right movement in the United States. So it was an extraordinary achievement. I mean, Don Jr. was through the clouds when I talked to him, Tucker Carlson was through the clouds when I talked to him. They consider JD Vance being on the ticket the most significant victory they've had since Donald Trump won in 2016. So there's no JD Vance's of the real deal in terms of his populist instincts. No, he's not going to be a fan of Hamas. He's not going to be a fan of Iran. He's not going to be a fan of China. Don't necessarily confuse that with wanting war. I mean, he has said repeatedly doesn't want to be involved in war. He's like Trump, but even more so when it comes to war, when it comes to trade. People probably shouldn't be surprised if Trump pushes harder towards peace and has more success with it in terms of Israel, then Biden never could be. Trump has not forgiven Netanyahu for endorsing Biden right after the election when it was being disputed. That's prime. He'll be nice with Netanyahu when they meet down a Mar-a-Lago, but there's a reason why he puts out the Palestinian leader's letter right before Netanyahu's coming. That's Trump's way of signaling where he's going. But Vance is probably the most war skeptical, pro-worker, Republican in office in more than a century if he's to be elected vice president and I think future president. I'm going to say I think people who want to be skeptical about Vance, they have a right to be skeptical about Vance. They shouldn't just listen to his speechism, which are very interesting by the way, and he doesn't know how to speak, but I mean, these members that I was talking about were not meant for the Biden public in the United States. They were meant for other people in Congress, for the people around him, that he was spending his time studying a problem and clearly seeking advice from experts and going out and talking to people who were managing the companies or the factories that make these things and talking to the military people and absolutely listening. That is very impressive. That may not, that's sort of an even, you know, a right-left-type political judgment. I know one British politician who was exactly the same, and that was John Smith, who was briefly leader of the Labour Party, and who I think would have made an excellent Prime Minister for the same reason, except that he tragically died. We weren't getting to a discussion about that, but the fact was that I know for a fad because I know people who knew him, that he was exactly the same, that he, before he took a stand, before he made a decision, before he committed himself to a policy, he actually sat down and actually went through and understood what the policy was and why it was the correct policy to have on this particular issue. And that main people expect, by the way, that Smith would have been a very, very good manager. And I think the same about Vance, by the way, because if Vance is prepared to work in that kind of way, if he thinks in that kind of way, well, that actually is impressive. And he doesn't talk and think in clichés, which is not so many other politicians, obviously in America, but in Britain also and across the West, and in Germany and the EU and wherever, do. I mean, they just repeat the same talking points all the time. And Vance doesn't do that. I mean, he's even in favour of unions, which is quite a radical thing I would have thought for a Republican to be. So I mean, I think that's when I get to say about Vance. Just one question, what do JFK and Vance think of each other, do they know each other? So the Kennedy doesn't know Vance at all. So his initial take on Vance was based on, like, Whitney Webb's conclusions, and God bless Whitney Webb, but basically everybody who's successful is really part of Deep State. Everybody has a government contract part of Deep State that, you know, in my view, those people become, like, useful fools, because what happens is they paintless such a broad brush that they actually help people like the institutions like the Deep State because they make sure that potential allies never become allies and that the Deep State's adversaries never align with each other against corrupt insiders, that you need dissident members of an elite political hierarchy to be able to really succeed in overthrowing these kind of corrupt power structures. It's kind of the lesson that Putin has provided in Russia. And I think people like Webb and others kind of miss the boat on that. But so Robert Kennedy's never personally talked to him. And so he believed that he was just assumed that Peter Teal and its CIA connected, etc. And that's because that part of the political world, he hasn't known very well. He doesn't, he hasn't met, and our Teal, for example, got politically active briefly. He thought that 2016 would be sort of a guttural scream that something was wrong in America, that whole working-class populations were losing power and cultural sustenance. And he's written about this from a very diverse intellectual perspective. I mean, he's as likely to quote a 20th century philosopher as a 14th century pope. I mean, that's Peter Teal's. We can just go and watch any of his interviews, fascinating mind. But he backed out of politics altogether after 2022, because he concluded, oh, this just makes everything radioactive. And now no one's willing to have the conversation or the conversation is being filtered through the love Trump, the hate Trump, not is our society stagnating or not. Why isn't the economic benefits translating to ordinary people? Why aren't we finding the cures to cancer? Why is there such a war machine? Why are we addicted to nuclear weapons, and so forth? And so, but Vance and Kennedy really don't know each other at all. I mean, I mean, one of the only conduits between both of them. But to give an example, when I reached out to various political people, there were a lot of these senators and congressmen and their staff, they'll send me stuff they want me to retweet and push and promote and discuss. So, you know, I'll ask for a little reciprocity when cases like Amos Miller's came, the Amish farmers case came up. It's like we need public attention on this case. Now, it may be gifted with that soon if Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania is Kamala Harris as nominee. I'm kind of hoping and cheering for that, because then these cases might end up being publicly discussed in a VP debate. But the three people who responded, and there are also the people that are the most curious, the most inquisitive, the most wanting real solutions, the most willing to change their mind, if you present evidence to it, were Congressman Thomas Massey, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. and Senator Vance. They were the only ones three people that say, "Yeah, tell me more. I want to know more. Let me inquire more. Give me sources that I can dig into so I can really get understanding." And was there not like any kind of politician? Kennedy's not running for name or fame. He's already got all that or money or any of that. Same with JD Vance, same with Congressman Thomas Massey, whose wife tragically just passed away about a month ago. They're all in it because of the ideas that they believe in and wanting to improve the world and solve the problems they see in their local community. Not coincidentally, there's overlap. Robert Kennedy's father was deeply concerned with Appalachia, traveled to Appalachia. JD Vance is from Appalachia, Congressman Vance, Congressman Massey represents part of Appalachia in Eastern Kentucky. So that there are people that are aligned in the same way. I think Robert Kennedy will, I am curious now that Biden is out. I don't know if you noticed in the debate, I mean in his White House statement that was made whenever it was actually made, doesn't seem to have been really live, but putting that aside because his watch seems to contradict the time and what he was supposedly talking. They forgot to fix the watch thing, but he has a bunch of busts behind him. The main one has always been Robert Kennedy's senior. That's the one he did not mention in his White House statement. I think he is still enraged. He Joe Biden thinks of himself as Robert Kennedy, senior. Now he's really LBJ, but retarded, but he thinks of himself as Robert Francis. I think it enraged him personally that the namesake son was challenging him in ways that he was more committed to excluding Kennedy from the debates than any other reason. I think the main reason he did the early debate was to try to push out and push down Kennedy. They rigged the primaries just to preclude and exclude Kennedy. But Kamala Harris doesn't have, Kennedy doesn't like Harris at all. He gave a great indictment over. So he doesn't really know Vance well, but I think there he has some misapprehension of Vance. And Vance may have some misapprehension of him. Trump did talk to Kennedy multiple times for hours over that weekend leading up to the convention. I think there's alignment there that can be made in time. We'll see what happens. But I think that Kennedy still has the possibility to search. If he gets included in the debates, that right now if the key swing voter group in America, the most unanchored group in America, it's similar. Actually, it was interesting to see that it started to show up and the French elections showed up in the UK elections is what was supposed to be the future of the neoliberal neoconservative political order anywhere in the world was going to be millennials and zoomers. That this whole generation had aligned with that ideology, educated and sort of inculcated in those ideologies from the educational institutions, from the cultural institutions, social media, mindset, culture of conformity, and TV and Hollywood and that part of culture. But instead, they're divorcing from the neoliberal neoconservative alignment, whether they're in France, whether they're in the UK or whether the United States. And disproportionately, it's working class minority millennials and zoomers. So it's African American and Latino or black and Hispanic if you're going to take the polling demographics terminology. And that group really, when they see Kennedy in any one form presentation, he wins about half of that voter group that is extraordinary. So the question is, if he can get full reach, how much can he go and could he be a completely surprised third factor? I think he absolutely still can be what he minimally does, especially if you were to be included in the debate, is he moves the Overton window in a more populous direction about central finance, about health, about food freedom, about war, about global engagement and involvement. And he's already had an impact on Trump. Trump went from being a skeptic of Bitcoin to being a big cheerleader of Bitcoin. Kamala was experimenting because it probably thanks to Willie Brown wanting to get tapped that Bitcoin cash with going to the Bitcoin convention this upcoming week. And he decided not to because the problem is the Biden administration is waging war on Bitcoin on a daily basis. They even tried to suggest that the crook, the supposed Trump attempted its acid. Not only had encrypted accounts, but maybe he had some crypto money too, just to further sort of defame and smear that part of the world. And the Winkle Boss twins came out and said, unless and until the Biden administration gets rid of the SEC director and gets rid of their operation choke point, which has been meant to crush independent finance and Bitcoin, then we're not interested in backing Harris and Harris Coley doesn't have the political dues to get that done. So I think even though there isn't a personal alignment between Kennedy and Vance, they are very similar political personalities, very similar approaches, very similar shared dissident opinions on a lot of establishment issues and are much more naturally compatriots, much more ideologically compatible on those dissident populist issues than they are adversaries. They just don't know it yet. I, I, I, by the way, agree. Let's, let's talk about the political together, go back to the via bit to the Democrats. You absolutely right, by the way, about the fact that he didn't mention Kennedy, Biden didn't mention Kennedy. In fact, the last, I noticed that the last president he mentioned, you know, chronologically was FDR. He didn't really go beyond FDR. And one person he conspicuously did not mention was Barack Obama. Now what is Barack Obama's role? And why is he remaining silent about Kamala Harris? What is the game he's playing? Is he actually even playing a game? I mean, everybody said that he was the art plotter and the big conspirator and, you know, the chairman of the Pollard Bureau. But what is he actually up to? I think, my view on Obama's has been that he's mostly a figurehead who's driven by ego that, you know, he spends as much of his time, you know, smoking pot, playing video games as he does in engaging intellectually. He's intelligent, but not quite an intellectual. You know, it's like he's not a nearly, like if he sat down with Peter Thiel, Peter Thiel would run corner, run circles around him on a wide range of philosophical and religious and social material conversation. Even though he has the rationale like a high IQ, he's not well read in that way because he's not naturally curious. The, however, he does have a big, big ego. And I think he has always felt insulted that Donald Trump succeeded him. And I think he's still insulted that Donald Trump is there. And he was never a big Biden fan. And he picked Biden because Biden was a connection to the old Democratic political machines, the old urban, like Tammany Hall style political machines. He put Hillary in the Secretary of State for her political machine, that family, and Biden represented the other political machine that he wasn't personally connected to outside of Chicago. And but he always viewed Biden with contempt. Like where Biden is right, he's like LBJ in this respect. Both of them always thought that, you know, the best in the brightest, the brain trust, all those people, they thought they always were looked down upon. They're driven their whole life by a certain sort of spite and bitterness about, oh, these people think they're better than me. These people think they're special. You know, I only went to East Texas Community College, Teachers College, or I only went, you know, I'm Biden and, you know, he always talks about this, you know, I'm seven years old and people are picking on me. My mom says, you know, you don't worry, Joe, you're smart. Joe wasn't smart, but, you know, his mom's trying to help him out. But he's always felt overlooked and looked down upon by this crowd. And so there's that underlying animosity between Biden and Obama, where Obama doesn't really like even Biden as his successor. He went along with it because he was desperate to have Trump not continue in office as a personal embarrassment to Obama's legacy, that it was an implicit indictment, and it was by the American people of Obama's policies that they chose Trump. I mean, you couldn't choose a more opposite character, personality, and persona. So I mean, Obama wouldn't have had a problem if it was a Bush or somebody like that that would play it. It was like, that's so fun. But that it was Trump was such an insult that it's that I think it's been a nurse to grievance, but he never really liked Biden being a successor either because he always thought Biden was an idiot and he was always looked down on Biden. So I think he's always had his own reasons to want to replace Biden, but he wanted to replace him with someone he had confidence could actually be Trump. And he's known like anybody who's paid any attention to the polling data or Kamala Harris' career that she has almost no chance of beating Trump. She is the least likable in all the area, like where people like her as upper middle class suburbs on the West Coast. But even in California, she, the only contested race she ever ran in was for state attorney general. And this was a democratic state, I mean, plus 20 democratic state. And she almost lost that attorney general's race. I mean, I, I, I, I always said she was the dumbest lawyer ever dealt with in court, absolutely is. Failed the bar multiple times. She's not bright. And she has all the downsides of Obama. She's not connect, you know, it was like Obama was mostly raised outside the United States. The difference is she was raised by people who weren't American citizens didn't grow up in the U.S. You know, she, she, she feels culturally foreign to middle America because she is culturally foreign to middle America. It'd be like me running for office in London or something, you know, there's just a natural disconnect and you can feel it, you can sense it. But she doesn't have Obama's smoothness and Obama's charisma to counterbalance it. She tries to do that with her crazy cackle laugh, but that just comes across as kind of scary sounding. So he, so Obama knows this and but the, the, to the credit of the Clintons and Buttigieg and everyone else, I think Joe Biden chose to nominate Kamala. Originally, the rumor was he wasn't going to nominate anyone, choose anyone. But I think that was it trying to get Kamala to back off of getting him replaced and it just didn't ultimately work enough people put pressure on him that he folded. I think he's picking Kamala almost as a, as a thumb in the eye to Obama representing because he knows Obama doesn't want Kamala to be the nominee. Also, I think Biden believes Obama Harris will lose and lose badly and he wants to be able to say, see, you guys should have stuck with me. All you smarty pants people, all your fancy degrees, you know, you got it wrong. I mean, it's just, I mean, that speech kind of said it that way, right? I mean, 95% of the speech was, why am I not running for reelection? I should be running for reelection. But the, so I think that's part of what's going on. I think, oh, but I think Clinton's cut a deal. I think Kamala is smart. What Kamala is good at is backroom maneuver. Now, her staff hates her. She has lost 92% of her staff as a vice president. I mean, she had similar high turnover when she was in the Senate, similar high turnover when she was attorney general, similar high turnover when she was district attorney. She's, there's some corrupted Peter Schweitzer is going to talk about some corruption issues that I raised with him eight years ago in 2016. But then Kamala Harris was just, you know, going to be running for the Senate. So he wasn't that interested. But what I, I represented people that Kamala Harris covered up a $1 billion California pension scam where the Lanar Corporation basically ripped off the state's pensioners for a billion bucks and got out and got away with it. And when we brought a key to false claims act claim to expose it, Kamala Harris's office intervened to shut it down, much as the Biden administration is currently intervening to shut down Brooke Jackson's case against Pfizer on the COVID-19. So she's got all these skeletons in the closet, bad candidate. I mean, there's her whole history and her history is she, you know, comes down to Howard to try to get connected to the American Black experience because she's raised by her mother from India and Canada. So it's not like she has a natural, I mean, once again, only in America could the first black president have no slave ancestors, but have lots of slave owning ancestors and the first black vice president have no slave ancestors, but only have slave owning ancestors. Donald Trump doesn't have any slave owning ancestors. He's only one like other than Kennedy, who had dozen in our modern era. But the, so Obama knows this, but now the Clintons don't care. They want to deal. And Kamala was smart. She got to deal quickly with the Clintons, got a quick deal with Buttigieg, got a quick deal with some other high power people that, you know, they, that she's promised them whatever she's promised them to say, Hey, you'll have this, you'll have this. Maybe she's going to make Bill Clinton the ambassador to St. James Island so he can go back and occupy Epstein's prop place like he used to the whatever the dynamic is promised Hillary probably maybe a position on the Supreme Court for the last 10 years. He's going to be alive, something like that the, but Obama, there was nothing to negotiate with Obama. There was nothing Obama, she could give Obama and Obama sees her as someone's going to lose. So that's why he, he's been wanting a contested convention, but she has outmaneuvered him with everybody else that between Biden's delegates and almost all the delegates were Biden loyalist anyway from the old Democratic political machine between them and Buttigieg and the Clintons, they were able to shove Obama out of the way. I think Obama was hoping for some that he could go out and recruit a big celebrity to step in at the last minute. My hypothesis was somebody like the rock who's been running around telling everybody in D and in Hollywood for the last decade, he wants to be president somebody that he thinks could shake up the race, could out McKee's Mo or at least match the McKee's Mo of Trump, someone who could reach back like one of the big groups they're losing here in the Democratic Party is Mexican American and Puerto Rican votes. Those are disappearing. Kamala gets crushed. I mean Kamala may be the first Democratic candidate to lose outright Latino voters to a Republican. That's never happened in the history of the country and she's on pace to do so because they never liked her. They don't like her going back to 2020. They just see her with that hyena laugh and all the rest is someone they don't relate to, not someone they don't connect to. She's the borders are who the media is trying to pretend is wasn't called the borders are for about a year because the borders are a disaster. So I think there is a back story, but it looks like Obama, even though he had a convention in his backyard in Chicago, will not be able to rig this convention because Kamala in Biden outmaneuvered him to Kamala's political ambition. Willie Brown is still one of the best political. People that don't know him, he was one of the greatest political machinators and manipulators of all time in the state of California and he has that skill on a national level and he knows he would cash in big if Kamala makes it to the White House. But because of those components, Barack Obama is going to be left out in the cold when it comes to picking another successor. Why use Biden's still president? This is a question I've been asking, I see several people, I'm advanced as I said, others have asked it to people in, I've spoken to in London are asking the same question. Surely, and if the democratic party really wants Kamala to win, it would be, she would be fighting from a stronger position if she actually was the president and if Biden isn't really up to being the candidate, then he's clearly not up to being president either. So it doesn't make any kind of logical sense. Is it because Biden wants to remain there so that he can make sure that Kamala doesn't win? Just asking. Biden's ego should not be underestimated, there was no way he was going to have to literally carry him out for him to give up the power of the presidency. They could get him to not run for re-election, but they can't get him to step down because to him that would be an embarrassment, a humiliation on who he is in his legacy. And here he can say, well, I gave myself, I gave them the opportunity of me, they picked somebody else and they screwed up and looked at what happened in the election. But that wouldn't damage the fact that he was president for four years. He doesn't have to, oh, I had such dementia and a mental illness that I had to resign the presidency. He can't even fathom doing that. The second aspect is if they were to give her the presidency, they have an issue with the vice president, which is they have to get the approval of the Republican House. She probably wouldn't be able to get the approval of the Republican House. So it created an embarrassing side show where there's no vice president where it can matter in the Senate. All of a sudden Democrats effectively lose a decisive vote in the Senate because the vice president can be the decisive vote and has been on a good number, a big number of votes over the last two years. So it's the practical limitations for Harris that it would create these distractions that would weaken the Democratic Party's position in the Senate, and you would have this absent vice presidency, and Biden, of course, doesn't want to leave, I think he will. Now, the interesting thing is, since he's no longer, the only thing that's keeping him limited in his policy proposals is his legacy. But I mean, LBJ towards the end was trying to do a peace deal with Vietnam at the end of October 1968. And Henry Kissinger and some other people went over there and were supposed to be helping it. You know, really sabotaging it, but putting that little October surprise aside, what it reflected was you might see the same dynamics with Biden, right? It was interesting to me that as soon as Trump picks JD Vance and Biden announces he's not running, Zelensky for the first time in forever is out saying, "Oh, you know, but peace deal sounds good." Yeah. And I've been thinking about it. Let's do a little piece. Now that the grift might be coming to an end, let's all lead with our heads up and our bank accounts sound. It was how I interpreted it. So I think that I think for all of those reasons, Biden will have, they'll have to carry him out on a stretcher for him to walk out of the White House on his own. I do think he's going to some, I do think he's going to pardon his entire family. The only question is whether he waits to do it until after election day or not. Yes, I have to say, I mean, from an electoral political view, point of view, Kamala is running as a candidate for the Democratic Party, but she's still vice president to an administration led by Biden, who is quite capable of making a complete mess of things. And how does she, how does she deal with that problem, with that problem arises? And can I say things are not going well? Now, you mentioned Ukraine. You absolutely right. Zelensky, one of the reasons Zelensky is suddenly talking peace is because he understands that Trump Vance are there on the horizon and the grift is likely to end. But he's probably also, at least to some extent, affected by the fact that the war is going disastrously. I mean, we haven't talked about the war very much, but Ukraine is now being smashed. If you've been reading the Ukrainian media, not the Russian media now, they're starting to talk about it. Ukrainian websites are starting to fill up with this. They're losing territory now, I don't know, six villages in a day, their forces, they're losing people at the rate of 2000 a day, I mean, it is not even a slow motion collapse any longer. It's a collapse that's gaining in speed. And obviously, it's good for Zelensky to be talking peace. But I would have thought it'd be also good for Kamala Harris as well in some ways, because the very last thing she needs going in and to run up to the election is a Ukrainian collapse, which I think is now becoming possible. I thought myself it would come at the end of the year, but it's looming towards us much more quickly than that also it seems. And Biden is hardly the man to be handling this situation in Ukraine, given the kind of background and the kind of views he has. And he's not the person to be running things in the Middle East either. I mean, we now have Netanyahu comes to Washington, he's going to meet Biden, Biden's been giving Netanyahu and the Israelis a lot of support recently. You yourself talked about the fact that they've been hardening their position on Iran. Kamala seems to want to appeal to others, she wants to take a more distant view from Israel. I mean, she wants to distance herself from Israel because she wants to appeal to some of these people who are critical of Israel. She wants to reach out to the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party. How can she do that as vice president of an administration which might be doing the opposite? So I mean, I can see all kinds of problems presenting themselves to the Democrats from the fact that the administration itself is not really united. I mean, Humphrey and Johnson back in '68 were united, they were basically united. They were working together, Humphrey and Johnson got off. Kamala and Biden, I don't think they get on anything like the same kind of way. And as I said, they quite likely that they will be working in opposite directions. How is that going to be explained to the American people? I mean, I've been trying to think of anything that's historically analogous. You know, a little bit maybe Eisenhower Nixon at the end of Eisenhower's term because Eisenhower felt he was, Nixon was forced on him on the ticket with his famous coat, you know, we're going to keep the dog speech. But you know, even there, I mean, that would only be by small margins that Eisenhower didn't care whether Nixon won or not and kind of sabotaged him in little ways. But you're right. I mean, LBJ was desperate for Hubert Humphrey to win and went to great lengths to try to get something done in Vietnam, knowing that the war was the driving issue along with civil rights and other issues in that election. And that was sort of animating the success or the challenge that the Democratic Party had. Here, you're right. Just the opposite. I don't think Biden cares at all whether a policy he pursues helps or hurts Kamala Harris. He will only be pursuing what he thinks will make him look good in the legacy. And the reality is a failed war would be a disaster. A peace deal was generally seen as good, whether it's involving the Middle East or involving Europe. Like, I think he would have been gung-ho to pursue war if he was running for reelection because war is a good rally around the flag moment as you're approaching election day. Now that he's not running for reelection, the Democratic Party in the deep state no longer have the same control over, and you guys have been talking about for four years. There's been an internal war waging inside the State Department, inside the Defense Department, between, you know, there's some, there's still not a lot, but there's still some geopolitical realists like Kissinger was saying, hey, early on recognizing the Ukraine debacle for what it was. And let's, you know, salvage what we can salvage and let's get out of dodge what we can get out of dodge. There were, within the State Department, there's people that are Israeli skeptics that want the administration to be much harsher on Netanyahu and don't want to get entangled and are much more conciliatory towards Iran, reflecting the original Iran deal that was done by Barack Obama. And then you've got sort of the neoliberal neoconservative wing that just wants war and dominance everywhere. So it's, how did these internal divisions work out when now the president and the vice president have opposite interests and electorally Kamala may be looking at it like we broke it down before. It's kind of a wash between Jewish and Arab votes because where there's a lot of Arab Muslim votes, there's a lot of Jewish votes, but historically Jewish voters of state of the Democratic Party, no matter what's happening in Israel, it'll, you know, cling a few people off but not tons, there are plenty of anti-Israeli Jewish voters that because of how they perceive that issue and historically the left has been Israeli skeptical ever since they decided not to be pals with Soviet Union will go to the U.S. route. I mean, originally when they were, you know, seeing a socialist and all of that dynamic, the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel, but then they end up kind of picking the U.S. and the Cold War route kind of borrowed our nuclear weapons technology, you know, without permission exactly, but it is what it is. So I think we see Harris trying to do that while Netanyahu is in town. So Netanyahu comes in town, he's supposed to meet with Biden initially, Biden doesn't show up, maybe Biden's sick, whatever the deal is, and then he's going to meet with Kamala and then Kamala bags on the meeting. And then he speaks in front of Congress, Kamala Harris isn't there for that meeting. Massive protest outside because of the sort of young progressive left that is on the Israeli skeptic, Israeli critic side of the equation, became a problem amongst young people in certain urban cores, certain academic centers, and of course the Arab Muslim vote, which is mostly concentrated in New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. You have a substantial Somali population in Minneapolis. You have an old Palestinian and Arab population in Dearborn. I think that, you know, she was holding up her, you know, war criminal, little sign during Netanyahu's speech. They were massive protest outside of the White House and outside of Congress when Netanyahu spoke, and Kamala Harris would rather not be dragged down by those protests everywhere she goes. They don't want those protests happening in the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August because they don't want to repeat of 1968, they don't want anything that looks like that. They've avoided part of it by cutting off the potential for a contested convention. They're trying to avoid the other by extending the protest zones of, you know, they're nowhere near the media cameras, but otherwise, but that's still an ongoing problem. How does she, you know, Michigan is now close, Minnesota is now close. All of a sudden that Arab vote, if it shows up or doesn't show up, or if they decide to vote in the Cornell West or Jill Stein, all of a sudden is a problem for Kamala Harris. I mean, the Arab Muslim vote in Michigan and Minnesota is typically 80, 20, 85, 15 Democratic. Over half of them refuse to vote for Biden and protest over the Israeli war. So it would be in her best political interest if that war would deescalate. But Netanyahu shows absolutely no signs of it. I mean, that was a, let's go to war speech in front of Congress. And let's go to over in Iran for some reason, so I still think Iran's in the opposite direction of God's about the, that's kind of the message coming from him. So I agree with you. It's another place where there's, they don't have a solution where Obama Biden wants one thing, Harris wants another thing, the deep state might want a totally different thing, and they're not all aligned, and there'll be people in positions of power that can derail it at any time in any other direction. So that's why I think we're in for even more foreign policy chaos for the next four months, where anything is truly possible. Any thoughts about who she's going to pick as her vice president? Because I mean, you know, there was a very interesting group of people that would be suggested for Trump and it was interesting that he did go for J.D. Vance. And by the way, I should say good for Trump that he did. I mean, some of the other names I would have been very worried about, but he chose the best one. Who is Kamala going to go for? I mean, I've now, you, about any of these people, they all seem to be much the same as each other. But what do you think is going, who do you think is most likely to be the big? And what is Kamala looking for? I think the first part is who's really going to be picking it? My suspicion is it's going to be Willie Brown's machine giving her the direction as to who to pick. The, you know, some people in the chat had asked you what the issue with her is she's intensely insecure. So that she's described as a bully to her own staffers. She doesn't have a ton of self-confidence. The every position she's ever been put in, including the vice president and running for president was heavily backed by Willie Brown and a certain group of big money people that he's associated with over the years that those that don't know, San Francisco has this weird democratic political split on one side, you have the Pelosi Feinstein Newsom machine. And then within San Francisco, you have the Willie Brown Kamala Harris political machine. And I mean, she was famously his mistress. That's how she got introduced to that politics. Became VA Attorney General, Senator of the vice president, now seeking the presidency. I think that if I'm thinking that Willie Brown is really making the decision, then he's going to look at which state could we steal and which candidate could raise us the most money. That's what he'll look at for VP. And so they'll include initially a long list that's solely meant to flatter certain people. So Buttigieg will be on the list. I don't think she's really thinking about Buttigieg. She might be thinking a little bit of it because Buttigieg is deeply tied to the deep state. He was the one behind all the opponent smear campaigns in the 2020 democratic presidential primary. I heard that straight from people in D.C. He is juiced politically on the deep state side runs deep. He would be able to raise lots of money. And you'd know it would be the DEI ticket, right, it'd be the first mixed race woman president along with the first openly gay vice president. That would be kind of the campaign thing. However, both Harris and Brown don't trust Buttigieg because Buttigieg is the kind of person that you might not be president for long if you get elected, somehow you may end up being president in one way, shape or form. I think that's what will keep him out of that position, but he's been promised something because he quickly endorsed her. So maybe it was just consideration. Maybe it was a higher position in, you know, Secretary of State, something like that in the next administration, I mean, Harris administration would be even deeper, deep state administration than Biden's was, than Obama's was, than the Clinton's was. I mean, it would be, it would be like if, you know, Vander Crazy was running the American White House. I mean, it's that kind of disconnect on ideological policy, deeply EU oriented, deeply NATO oriented, deeply globalist and inspiration. But so I think that if you're looking at it from a Willie Brown perspective, you're looking at what could we steal a state with a VP? So you could look at the governors of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, really only those four states because you could look at somebody from like Kentucky. He thinks he's going to become, I think she's told lead people to believe they could be vice president as long as they got their delegates to endorse her so she could lock it up. But there's almost no chance he picks the Kentucky guy because Democrats have no chance in Kentucky. So I think ultimately, and this is what I'm personally cheering for, of course, for my own political and legal reasons, she picks that the governor who gives her the best chance to win a state and it's the number one state that's in jeopardy now that Biden's no longer on the ticket is Pennsylvania, Biden, you know, campaigned for a long time. If you, you run in her office in Delaware, you campaign, you put a lot of TV ads in the Philadelphia market and he always called himself Scranton Joe, that he was from Scranton, a northeastern industrial section of Pennsylvania. I mean, they've got like a dozen streets up there, highways named for Joe Biden, they really that bought into the idea. So that's why Biden was likely to win Pennsylvania against Trump despite his other weakness in the industrial Midwest and across the country because there's this residual goodwill to Biden individually. Now, Harris has none of that Pennsylvania, she's way behind now, Shapiro is at least on paper a popular governor in Pennsylvania, I don't think he's as popular if put under a microscope as people think, but at least on paper, he would be give her the best chance to win the biggest state. I hope he runs because then I get that invite all of my legal cases in Pennsylvania and, you know, it'll be a fun prep with JD Vance that, you know, we might see the name Amos Miller come up in an actual vice presidential debate. You know, why a governor's Shapiro, you trying to lock up an Amish farmer, why are you trying to bankrupt Amish farmer, why are you trying to put them out of business, why are you trying to say people shouldn't be able to buy the food that they want that they consider as safe and good and better for them, why are you putting illegally imprisoning farm workers in Pennsylvania as he is done, why are you trying to go after the Amish and all these other capacities, why are all these crazy smart meter rules that are causing people health problems and other problems, you won't even let them opt out. You know, the why is your what your state so corrupt so corrupt that the attempted assassination of President Trump took place where in Pennsylvania. So I think there's a I would love to see him on the ticket. My guess is I would if I was setting odds, I would make him the odds on favorite because he comes from a state she needs comes from a state where there's a big drop off between Biden and her comes from a state where on paper he's popular and has a strong political machine, Whitmer in Michigan, by contrast, doesn't get along with Harris and has purportedly already said she doesn't want to be on the vice presidential nominee. She's got her own scandal related issues that have stayed suppressed. If you have to pick a Minnesota governor, you're already in trouble because Minnesota should not be in play as a Democrat. So Walt's only offers something marginal, not something major. And that's what I think ultimately if Willie Brown has a lot of influence, look for Shapiro to be the VP choice of Harris. Well, that actually segues quite well into the legal cases, which I'd like you to turn to. First of all, what is going on with the case with your amish from because I've been continuously asked questions about this by people in Britain. Tell us what's the situation, the state of play there. I mean, we advanced at all, are we making any progress or are we still caught in the legal case? It's getting crazier and crazier. So in the Amos Miller case with the, the judge at the trial court level, they tried not once, not twice, not three times, but four times to prevent Amos Miller from being able to ship food outside the state to people who want his food. And for those don't know, Amos Miller, fifth generation Amish farmer in Lancaster County, they explained to me repeatedly, it's pronounced Lancaster, you know, okay, apparently that's some sort of English thing, by the way, apparently there's some part of England, it's a Lancaster that's both, I mean, here you spell it, it looks like Lancaster, but no, it's Lancaster. But the tried over and over again to prevent him, he's distributed millions of food products to tens of thousands of Americans over a quarter century, never had one single person ever have any complaint about any aspect of his food, not the labeling of the food, not the quality of the food, not the delivery of the food, not any health issue of any kind with the food, they've historically lied and tried to say somebody had a health problem, it turned out always to be lies, despite that they're obsessed with shutting him down, because they want him to have to get a special license and permit to even to sell in the way that permit works, it takes away his rights to actually sell and distribute most of the food that he makes, because their raw milk permit actually takes away the ability to make any other food with raw milk, which is what most people are seeking, whether it's cheese or butter or other items. So the trial court judge recognized that the state laws could only apply inside Pennsylvania and that as long as he was distributing outside the state of Pennsylvania, that was a federal issue that the state of Pennsylvania had no constitutional right to regulate and their laws don't even attempt to regulate it. Well they're still unhappy with that state of Pennsylvania, so they are now seeking the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which is this special appellate court that handles any issue involving the government, and that court has now scheduled, we file our opposition to their request to shut down Amos Miller on July 31st, there's going to be a telephonic court hearing on August 7th, this is the same Commonwealth court where I am suing one of the judges on that court, because one of the judges ordered the illegal imprisonment of two farm workers who work on Amish farms, even though he has no right of criminal contempt, no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever, didn't follow any of the contempt procedures constitutional, they were even never even named parties to the case, he just typed up orders of imprisonment, sent it to the local sheriff, he dragged him off through him in jail for 30 days, because he didn't have personal jurisdiction, because there's an argument even if you have subject matter jurisdiction, because he couldn't start criminal contempt, that he may not even be immune from monetary damages, but that gives you an idea for the Commonwealth court. So the Commonwealth courts are supposed to be a court supervising and limiting and the abuse of power of the state, and instead the Commonwealth court has become a rubber stand for the state, because it's just the way the nature of those courts tend to operate, they tend to favor their repeat actors, and the only real repeat actor before them is the state itself. So that's why we have an uphill battle, even though legally, constitutionally, Amos Miller is absolutely within his right to distribute food to people around the country outside the state of Pennsylvania, because the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause both prohibit states from governing food distribution globally, but the claim of the state of Pennsylvania is that if food ever comes through their borders, if it's on a truck, it's on a train, it's on a boat, it doesn't matter where, why, or how, if it ever comes through their borders, they can go and physically arrest the person that has it, that it's carrying that food, is in possession of that food, unless they have a special permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and that guy, by the way, thinks that if Shapiro is going to be vice president, he thinks he's going to be the US Secretary of Agriculture. I'd call him Pope Reading, because until he blesses your food, you can't eat it, he thinks you can go into your kitchen and take it out of your refrigerator, this guy is on pace to be running all of United States agriculture policy. So that's how Amos Miller's case is not just about Pennsylvania, it's about all of America and the future of America, or are we going to have food freedom or not? Do we decide what goes into our body or does the government, and are we going to have access to direct farmer-made food, farmer-produced food, or are we going to be stuck with these industrialized, monopolized, and the big corporatized food supply that 98% of our food supply already comes from, and it's contaminating our bodies, and it is a big issue that Robert Kennedy Jr. is running on in terms of food freedom and is becoming a popular issue across the country. 1776 Law Center did a survey, a poll of all Americans, to try to figure out are these issues popular or not? Do Americans resonate or connect to them or not? And it's a similar story to what you experienced, Alex, in the UK. Americans overwhelmingly believe they should have a right to buy food directly from the producer of that food, Clarkson's farm or otherwise, without regard to government permits or government licensures, that's one of the most fundamental liberties that we have enjoyed in America from our very founding, and Thomas Jefferson always said that the freedom and independence of the small farmer is essential to the survival of a constitutional republic. But the attack on food happening in the United States, we're seeing it, of course, around the globe in different ways in different forms. And Amos Miller's case is just the tip of the of the sphere in that regard. These other cases representing multiple other Amish farmers under attack from some regulatory angle. You know, you got to have your animals this way or got to have done this way or done that way. And if not, they're trying to put people in jail left and right. I have a case of a woman who just tape recorded her own court proceeding. That's all she did. She recorded her own court proceeding. They criminally prosecuted her because they said she could that only the court reporter could keep her court reported. What she documented was that a corrupt law firm that was connected to the Biden family was had the court reporter was doctoring the transcript in a favorable way for them that her take proved a lot. And instead of investigating that fraud, they they put they try to put her in jail and it turns out the conditions of probation in America that's a scandal I just kind of stumbled into because she was put on probation ultimately we're appealing her case for violating the First Amendment, all these other constitutional rights. But it turns out that the normal probation and 1% of all Americans, one out of every 100 Americans are on probation, adult Americans are on probation and they've been increasing the number of people they put on probation. They are using probation to take away all of your other constitutional liberties. If you're on probation, you have no Second Amendment rights. If you are on probate of self defense or to to be on, you have no First Amendment rights. They're taking away your rights to associate with whom you want to gather from who you want to go to political rallies to in her case, they punished her for petitioning the courts for filing suits in the courts for petitioning for redress of grievances protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. They take away all your Fourth Amendment rights. If you're on probation, they can do wantless searches anytime they want. They can monitor your phones or your emails or your communications anytime they want. They all take away your Fifth Amendment right of bodily autonomy. As a conditional probation, you have to sign away and give releases of all your medical records to give to the government. So it's extraordinary, I mean, with what they're getting away with, and they take away your right against self-incrimination. They make you take psychology tests. They even are basically instituting Soviet-style re-education camps through the probation system of America's criminal justice system, because they require you, they order you in many cases to certain mental health treatment. You have to disclose whatever information the psychologist wants you to disclose, and you have to take whatever the treatment is. So that means you have to take whatever pharmaceutical they're wanting to stick into your body. You have to follow whatever their advice is about who you can associate with, how you conduct yourself. I mean, literally, these are re-education camps. I'm erasing for the judge, I was like, well, when did re-education camps become constitutional in America? And the judge was like, oh, I do this all the time. I'm like, that's more disturbing, that's not less disturbing. So Pennsylvania is like this hot, pot location as a sort of a microscopic example of a macroscopic problem throughout the United States' legal system in terms of food freedom, in terms of medical freedom, in terms of political freedom, and all these cases keep intersecting and keep exposing deeper and broader and wider problems that are only that if Shapiro ends up being on the ticket, many of these cases will be discussed in the vice presidential debate. Absolutely agree, because I mean, an awful lot of what you've described is struck more with the unconstitutional liberty of the person, the First Amendment, as you've rightly said, the free speech issue, the interstate commerce clause, that's the immediate, I mean, Pennsylvania wanting to stop exporting food to other states, that's clearly unconstitutional, I would have thought. But all you have to do is to read the constitution itself, and you see quite clearly who is said that, what mod is set out there, quite astonishing, and I hope it does all come up in the vice presidential debate, because well, it seems to me that so it should. Let's just sort of talk quickly to the other cases as well, because as you've been, I think, almost completely vindicated, in fact, completely vindicated about these cases. We've had two absolutely critical decisions, we've had the decision of the Supreme Court on the immunity issue, where I can correctly say that you predicted the decision exactly. I think I'm right in thinking that you think that the Supreme Court might have gone a bit further than they did, but you never thought that they would do, and that they turned out that they came to the decision that they were likely to do, and the other decision is the one in Georgia, where Jack Smith's in diaposition of Special Counsel, Judge Cannon, in a 98-page judgment, decided that he hasn't been properly appointed. And again, I have to say, I mean, there's been much mockery and ridicule of this. But reading the regulations, she's surely correct, I mean, he's performing the functions of a federal prosecutor, but she hasn't been appointed in the way that a federal prosecutor ought to be. And there are specific regulations and rules and procedures for appointing a special federal prosecutor, and it seems that the Attorney General has basically said, well, I can just override those, I can just ignore all of that, all of those procedures makes it. I can just appoint Special Counsel as and when I please, and I don't have to apply any of that. Well, that has to be wrong, or so it seems to me. So am I getting this right? That's the first point. And the second point is, where does this leave the cases against Donald Trump? My instinct is shot to pieces. The cases in New York seem to be hopeless, they're bound to collapse on appeal sooner later, probably sooner rather than later, especially with the immunity decision. And all of the other cases, it seems to me, are just collapsing now and collapsing much the same way that you said they would. Yeah, I think, I mean, you know, we've discussed from the get-go, and we're probably one of the only geopolitical channels out there broadcasting that these cases were nowhere near as strong as the institutional media and legal media tried to pretend they were. They were unprecedented, they were unparalleled. I think that we unnecessarily in America crossed multiple Rubicon's by even bringing these criminal prosecutions. But because they went so far, what predicted was the Supreme Court would push back, and they did, and they found a creative way to push back. So first, they said, the president has official immunity for any of his constitutional duties, that he can never be criminally prosecuted for acting out any constitutional duty. Secondly, they said he's probably and presumably immune from anything that's even within the outer perimeter of his duties, such as where he is overlapping obligations and responsibilities with members of Congress. And for those that don't know, they were borrowing from America's civil law, where the civil law has always said he can't sue the president for damages for anything within the outer perimeter of his duties, and if you read what is in the outer perimeter of duties, it's almost anything. It's extraordinarily broad. It's very difficult for them to get through that. So that mostly, and then they, on top of that, they said the obstruction statute that was being used in January six cases, but also in Trump's D.C. case, was being interpreted in a ridiculous way that would make it a crime to simply protest Congress and consequently threw that out. So they effectively eviscerated the D.C. charges. That then just left the federal Florida charges, state Georgia charges and state New York charges. Now Justice Thomas, thanks to Jeffrey Clark, a really smart lawyer who they're trying to do this bar for bogus grounds. I knew him from the 2020 election challenge, one of the only people trying to do his job in the Justice Department during that 2020 election issues. He had brought up immediately with me as soon as Trump was indicted, and then we discussed whether Jack Smith had legal authority since he was never appointed by the president directly and he was never confirmed by the Senate, nor was he in a position that Congress had specifically created that said, "Hey, you, the Attorney General, you could appoint this person without it being the president, without us affirming it." They had taken away the independent counsel statute after all the disasters of the 1990s independent counsel. And so it was always like, how the heck did they pick this guy up from the Hague no less where he's busy covering up for money launderers and war criminals and bring him over here in a political hit job because no other DA US attorney would touch it or the 10-foot poll. And it was always constitutionally questionable. And just the federal judge in Florida recognized it, especially once Thomas sort of gave her the political permission slip here, by the way, is why this person is not constitutionally appointed. He's like, "Okay, I'm going to run with that," and that eviscerates the Florida case. It also eviscerates the D.C. case, though the D.C. judge might try to contradict her, but that will just raise the issue back to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it's going to get tossed. So the federal cases against Trump are D.O.A., and it's only a matter of time before they're formally announced dead. The Georgia case, the Georgia Court of Appeals has now said they'll hear whether that prosecutor was even ethically involved in the case to begin with, that case is probably going to get tossed. That leaves the New York case, and we're one of the few people to talk about how unlike what a lot of doomers and gloomers were saying, or the people that hate Trump were saying, Trump was not going to go to prison on July 11th. I mean, there's still just on the assassination attempt, there's some people were trying to say that it related to the sentencing. There was some very unusual activity in Wall Street, shorting Trump's truth stop that one company came out and said, "Oh, that was just that there was an accidental error. We were only trying to short a small number of stocks." But the activity in the stock suggests somebody was shorting stocks right before Trump's assassination. And it's the nature of these corrupt, deep-state type apparatus that they always got to get and always got to get a little bit of their own. It's like all those Ukrainian generals that can't help themselves, it's like if you're going to steal all the money, you have to keep your license plate on and go down to Monaco right outside the casino and walk inside with your 320-year-old models, still with your Ukrainian general uniform on, it couldn't even at least pretend that it was going to the front line. But that sort of mindset. But so in the New York case, that judge, I think his whole goal was just to convict Trump hoping it worked in the court of public opinion. Biden spent $50 million on U.S. advertising after that conviction saying, "Donald Trump has now been found guilty of sexual abuse, guilty of fraud, guilty of these major 31 felonies." And it didn't get anywhere, the polling didn't result. And I think the judge, once he saw the Supreme Court pushback, the judge in New York, despite how political and partisan he's been, decided, "Well, I'm just going to kick this down to September and see if maybe I can get out of it then," because the other thing the Supreme Court said, and I think they went there deliberately to eviscerate the New York case because they were bothered by how political these cases made the judicial system of the United States look bad. I don't think Roberts or Kavanaugh care one, Iota, about Donald Trump. They do care about the perception of the integrity and impartiality Roberts has been obsessed with this. There are no liberal judges, there are no conservative judges, there are no Republican or Democrat. I mean, things everybody knows their lives, but he wants people to think of them as these Socratic philosopher kings and the overt political partisan nature of the D.C. courts in the New York courts, both on the civil and criminal side, was making that impossible to maintain to the whole world. Most of the world perceived at some level America's legal system as an ideal or better than average legal system, and instead they were seeing a system as political as any system in the world has ever been. Now, if you dug under the hood, that's always kind of been the case. We have a higher conviction than Iran or Russia to legal systems that are widely criticized in the academy in the United States, our system is worse by those metrics and measurements. But it wasn't known to the ordinary person because that only happened to five, six percent of the people ever had to experience the civil or criminal justice system in detail. Now they were seeing it on broad scale, and they're like, this is a disaster, this is an embarrassment, this is what the rule of law looks like, this is what justice looks like, these are what impartial judges look like, this is what impartial juries look like, they're shocked, and the rather than lead to a bunch of people distrust and dislike Trump, it led people to distrust and dislike the American legal system. And that's what bothered Roberts, I suspect Roberts and Kavanaugh the most. So they're like, let's make sure we throw a wrench into that New York case too. And what they said was you cannot even use as evidence anything the president didn't his official duties. And of course, that's all over the New York case, which means the judges got to throw out the New York case. Now did he go back and retry the case without that, I suspect not, because our whole goal was just to get a conviction. So I think fortunately the Supreme Court did enough that the nonsense is finally over, that the law fair is done. My only criticism is I said from the get go, I would prefer that they go the impeachment route as the definition of immunity. Part of the reason for that is it would shift power from the judicial branch and the executive branch to the elected representative of the people. They would decide if some behavior was so offensive it required criminal prosecution or punishment. And secondly, it provided that a means by which you could have immunity until they took action. But if a president really did horrifying things, he could be criminally prosecuted and punished for it through the impeachment process. The court of course didn't want to do that because they want to keep the power. They don't want the power in the hands of House members and senators. They don't want it even in the hand really of the executive branch. They want in the hands of we, the judges will decide whether this was part of his official duties or not. We, the judges will decide whether or not it's in the outer perimeter of his duties. We'll decide whether or not the evidence comes in or not. And because they want to control the downside of that is now the president of the United States truly is immune from anything he does within his official duties. And I would have preferred the impeachment route as a practical pragmatic political policy approach. But also it's the only part of our constitution that actually talks about criminally prosecuting the president is in the impeachment part of the constitution. So I thought it was more texturally supported than just complete immunity, but they went to complete immunity route because they want the judicial branch to have more power. And but they were always going to do something because the New York courts and the DC courts made a mockery of American justice. It's almost like aspects of how well Julian Assange and his and the people supporting Julian Assange started to make the American and British legal systems look bad at how that was progressing and proceeding to where they felt the necessity of doing something to have, but all go away. I think the US Supreme Court wanted all the law fair against Trump to go away, not because they care about Trump, but because they want to maintain the illusion of the impartiality and integrity of the American legal process. Your point about Julian Assange is absolutely right if they had not been a swing, a major backlash against what was happening, the court, the court process in Britain would have been completely different. He'd been extradited to the United States and he'd been convicted there. And about the decision of the Supreme Court on the immunity issue, I think the solution that you suggested, the impeachment solution, not only is the more textually convincing one, it is the more elegant one. But there it is, it's the Supreme Court, it's the law now. One has to, it's a fact people never quite understand. But when the Supreme Court decides this, this is now binding authority for the time being until the Supreme Court in his wisdom says otherwise. So, we have to accept it, for the rest, I'm going to just quickly finish, this is my very last point today, I think that one of the reasons why we've seen the events of the last couple of weeks, this extraordinary churn and chaos in the political system, is precisely the assassination, the coup against Biden, the coronation of Kamala Harris, the agonizing about who her Vice President is going to be, the threats of the Secret Service, all of that. I think it's because the entire election went wrong in the court cases, because the court cases were the way that they thought they would win the election and stop Trump. They got it completely wrong, another side signed by the way, of how disconnected they are from the true feelings of people. They really thought that getting him called a convicted felon, which by the way I understand he isn't, technically he isn't, you can just explain that, but I understand he's not actually a convicted felon. But anyway, they thought that calling him a convicted felon, hanging some kind of crime on him would be enough to disqualify him and would make people turn away from him. And of course it hasn't worked out that way and instead what has happened is that the court cases have collapsed and have collapsed in the most humiliating way. And I think that it was this more than any other single thing that has landed us in the situation which we are in today. Anyway, this is where I'm going to finish. I'm just going to ask you to comment on that just last point, Robert, and then I'm going to suggest we hand over to Alex, who probably has a few questions to ask. Yeah, I mean there's no doubt that their entire campaign was built on the law fair. And they thought, the American legal system has always been about setting an example. I explain this to clients when they first come in, like the justice system doesn't really care about justice. The law enforcement doesn't, the judges don't, nobody does. They care about setting an example for everybody else for a method and mechanism of intimidation and coercion, more often than not. And in that capacity, they have had great success convincing the American public when a civil or criminal case goes through, most by the outcome on a jury concluded it. I guess we can't challenge it now. And what they underestimated was that when people see this system up close and personal, they actually become more skeptical of the results because they don't like the process. And when they saw them rigging juries, rigging, I have judges rigging trials, rigging evidence, manufacturing cases that had no precedent, that had no victim, it was like, who exactly was the victim in the Florida case, the CIA, is that who the victim is in the documents case? Who's the victim in the, in the January 6 case, the member Nancy Pelosi, is she, is she supposedly the victim? Who's the victim in the Georgia case? There's no apparent reference to who the victim is. Georgia is where the court systems were so corrupt, they didn't allow Trump's only brought election contest to come to trial prior to January 6, because they violated their own laws and the scheduling of it. Who's the victim in New York? The banks? Big banks are victims? Even the banks were saying that everything was great and they would do the deal again. The same with the, I mean, the sort of loony lady who's saying she got sexually assaulted and all you have to do is listen to her for about 30 seconds and you're like, this chick is way gone. No one was going to buy that story. And then the same with the criminal case that, you know, him Trump being the victim of extortion somehow makes stormy Daniels, the victim of the, who's the victim of New York or some other, but it made no sense. So the, they just believed that the pro, it was like, I always try to explain to people why did, why were there show trials, whether it was Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Stasi West Germany or East Germany or, or in Cuba, it's because they had seen in the West, they would do a trial and people would believe in the outcome. And that's what our pilot burrow controlling American politics has come to believe. They thought, Oh, we'll put on a show. We'll put on like we did with Alex Jones, we put on trials where he wasn't even allowed to say he was innocent, but nobody else knew that and then we make HBO movie about it. And people will buy the outcome. And the problem is, it was precisely because they didn't have confidence in the process. There was no confidence in the outcome. It's the reason why show trials didn't work because they saw them as go trials. They had no confidence in the outcome. And Americans just got a cracked course and how show trials really work and the deep state just got a cracked course and how much the American people are not as foolish and susceptible and gullible as they thought they were, and buying their lives. Robert Barnes, thank you very much, Alex, over to you. All right, we are on two hours, Robert Alexander. We have a lot of questions, but you know, Robert Alexander, I think you guys answered a lot of them through the through the discussion, but what we'll do, Alexander tomorrow, we'll go through all the questions one by one and we'll answer all the questions. But very quickly, Robert, something that you did not address in the two hours. Any plans in a Trump cabinet? And who do you think would be good picks for Trump? Should he win in November? I think he needs a real, I think he's decided to take a much more populous tact. I think he was Wayne. Could I work within the system, try to sort of moderate things to show that, hey, I've got a smarter path and have thus less confrontation and conflict, less law fair, so forth, or should I just go, you know, balls to the wall? And I think the moment that bullet missed his head, he made a choice. And you see it in that fight, fight, fight, iconic moment, American flag and background blood coming down his face. And that was represented in JD Vance, represented in reaching out to Robert Kennedy. I think you'll see it start to show up in policy decisions, he announces the, I'm hoping that he publicly embraces food, freedom, and medical freedom, more political freedom as he has already with financial freedom. I think you'll start to see that, some of them make agriculture great again, for example, starting to branch out into those different places. You know, I ran into Tucker Carlson and Don Jr. at their public and national convention. They were very excited about the path things were going. JD Vance is an easy conduit for both personnel and policy amongst everybody in the sort of the populous intellectual world. He reaches out to all of them, keeps up to date with all of them. So a great cabinet would be, you know, put Thomas Massey in as Secretary of Agriculture, put Robert Kennedy in, either as head of the FDA and the CDC, or maybe make him head of the CIA. That might be very interesting and fun. Declassified, as he's promised, this goes to an earlier question, Trump is now saying he will declassify all documents concerning his assassination attempt, and he will declassify all the things he had not yet concerning the Kennedy assassinations. So the, definitely do that. In fact, try to start taking apart this classification state that we have, that Trump almost became the victim of law fair related to, we need to declassify tons of stuff. But the, and then look at other populist people in those key positions. Robert Kennedy will make a great Attorney General as well. There are others that kind of fit that role. You know, make Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of Defense, make Rand Paul, Secretary of State. Bring in a real, you know, trade populist for the, for the commerce, secretary of positions. The, in the finance secretary of positions, put some, and maybe make Ron Paul, Secretary of Treasury. I mean, the start to be bold and brazen. He has already promised, by the way, behind the scenes, the Libertarian Party, Angela McCardle is doing great work there. They end up with a horrible nominee because of the way that certain parts of the party rigged that part of the process. But there's other parts of the party, Dave Smith, other people, Tom Woods, do a lot of great work. He has told them that he will make a Libertarian a member of the cabinet. So, you know, what better place than either state or Treasury, because it came out, somebody leaked that he was going to put Jamie Diamond in or he's going to put Larry Fink in, Trump came out and publicly said, "There's zero chance. I'm not putting either one of those guys in." So that gave you a sense, like, before he would have let that rumor stay out there, now he quashed it right away. I mean, I think that them missing him, it'd be like, what would the world have looked like if John Kennedy would have ducked that day? What might have happened to the rest of the future of the country and the administration of government if he happened to need a tie issue or something? Well, that's kind of what we're experimenting with. We're going to experiment this alternative path that Trump is on. I believe a much more populist path, a much more reformist path. And I think that will be represented in the policies he announces and the personnel he chooses. And if we get people like Rand Paul and Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard and Thomas Massey, Rand Robert Kennedy and those kinds of people in key positions in the cabinet, well, we're going to have some mighty fun the next four years. That would be an amazing cabinet. Yeah. I agree with you. Snowy says your three channels are superb. Thank you for that. Snowy. And we're going to wrap up. Alexander, we'll get to these questions tomorrow. We will. We'll have all the questions in a dedicated video on over the weekend. But you guys answered a lot of the questions that you guys covered a lot of ground. Talk about great work, Robert, great work, Alexander, thank you to everyone for the comments of the questions. Once again, Robert, where can people find you? Yeah, if you want to keep up to date on any of the legal cases, you can in terms of food freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, political freedom, you can find out about those, the Amos Miller Amish farmer case and many others at 1776 law center dot com. And for any of the other content, including a lot of hush hush, as you can go back and watch the Ukraine hush hush from March of 2022 and see how appreciate it ended up becoming. Thank God. When I talked at JD Vance, all the things that was predicted, thanks to the all the information you guys have provided, turned out accurate. If it turned out wrong, I don't think that he would have deleted my phone over from his account. But instead, he looks like a genius because he was following the advice of the Durant, you know, Robert Kennedy is also a thing. So the, so for all that fun content, beva Barnes law dot locals dot com. Those links are in the description box down below. I will add them as a pin comment in about five minutes. Alexandra, thank you very much. The great Robert Barnes. Thank you very much. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Robert. Thank you very much. Sweet. Thank you. a lot of you.