The rebel capitalist show all right guys. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome someone back to the rebel capitalist show he’s my good buddy he’s the official lawyer of the rebel capitalist show. By the way, his name is robert barnes robert welcome back to the show my friend glad to be here now you are one of my favorite people to talk to, because i always learn something new and i want to start off by talking about a really hot Topic here – and i want you to kind of give me the legal background on on kind of what reality is and where the probabilities lie. First, tell me: what’s going on with the the trump ordeal and uh then kind of from a legal standpoint. You know i’ve been hearing. People say that, oh well, you know he’s never going to be able to do business again, he’s going to go to jail, he’s going to have all his bank accounts see. So i i’m trying to sift through the you know. The sensational information out there and kind of what is real and what we should pay attention to. Well, let’s say a couple things if i was talking to the president – and i did talk to him uh about a couple of months ago after the election uh, you know sort of laid back. He was in good spirits, so he’s not worried. He wasn’t worried, then he’s not worried now about anything that anybody may be planning in terms of coming at him. He’S always that you know playing for the worst hope for the best uh, but idealistic optimistic guy, sometimes to a fault, maybe uh, but he’s not affected by anything. That’S coming, though, if i were talking to him, i’d probably tell him that brazil looks really nice this time of year, uh the just in general. He has political protection down there and, if he’s actually worried about the system coming after him, the place to go would be to hang out in brazil. I’M sure the president would give him an extended visa or even second citizenship, uh, which i’m telling everybody now is a good now’s as good a time as any to have your backup plan in place, because this is what you have a backup plan in place for Even if you’re the president of the united states, because you can see if they can take away his bank accounts overnight, cut off his credit overnight, cut off his capital overnight, cut off his contracts overnight, cut off his social media access, while he’s still, president of the United states overnight right uh, you get a sense of what they can do to any ordinary, joe or schmo out there, and so, if you don’t have a backup plan, now is the time to get one. So the uh and that’s true for everybody, including uh. I think i have reason to believe the president has various backup plans ready to go so uh yeah what you uh talked about. I think yesterday, the day before it definitely was in motion before everything that’s happened, which was, he was going to help start his own social media platforms. Uh twitter may been aware of that, so they may have been sort of jumping the gun. By saying you know it’s the old, no, no! I dumped you before you dumped me routine, because i think he was planning on using twitter to say uh by the way i’m leaving twitter, and this is the new platform to go to, and he just wasn’t endorsing another platform until uh the trumpster had a piece Of it uh, so you know you know it’s trump being trump, so he’s gon na wait till after he’s out of office, he says: hey you, you guys want me to monetize your platform. Why don’t you give me an ownership piece or normally what he likes? He doesn’t like ownership pieces. He like you, you look at his real estate structures. He likes just a percentage of gross revenue for branding so that he doesn’t have any legal liability or responsibility for the property itself. Um – and you know that’s an old trump tactic, because it allows him to get out of dodge if he needs to rather quickly now it also facilitated people dumping him when it was convenient, but he gets paid either way um, you know so in the you know, Panama or other places when they had to take the trump name off the off the hotel uh he still gets paid under his contract. Whether the name is still there, they’re, not there over the next five ten years um. So i think he he uh absolutely is planning on a trump tv network, so you know the uh. You were ahead of the curve at predicting that uh. That at least was the plan two months ago. So i don’t anticipate that changing. That’S why over the last year he’s been building up criticism of fox man fox is terrible. Man fox is awful man, it wasn’t just a political point, it it’s classic trump. I mean ever since art of the deal he said. Always it was my favorite thing. I was a little kid. My two favorite books, one was bobby kennedy’s old book to a newer world, his campaign text from 1968 and now i’m working with his son on lockdown lawsuits, which is fascinating uh and my other one was uh donald trump’s art of the deal which my favorite quote In there was always plan for the worst, but always hope for the best. So those have a mindset that the best thing is going to happen, but have a preparation plan in place so that if the worst thing happens, you’re prepared either way all right. Yeah. That’S very trump yeah. That’S a common phrase we used to use in in the business world was my entrepreneurial days so as far as the the whole impeachment process, what what is going on with that and and why am i hearing these people on social media, saying that trump is going To jail, what is the rationale for that, or is that just sensationalism? So i don’t think the feds are going to do anything. But what you have is these very democratic jurisdictions, weaponizing the prosecutorial process to take out their political adversaries and there’s always been some degree of that, but it’s taken a whole different level, the trump era so trump’s, post uh, president uh presidency. Criminal exposure is from the city of new york, the state of new york and the district of columbia, because they’re extremely democratic jurisdictions, they would bring a prosecution either in the city of new york or d.c, where you’re talking 90. 92 percent of the voters disagree with trump and the prosecutors like, for example, new york. The city prosecutors are about to have an election come this next year, all right. So what do you think they’re going to run on i’ll, put donald trump in prison? That kind of nonsense: okay, um! So that’s where you’re hearing that from there’s really no there’s no basis to bring a tax prosecution. That would be a complete crock uh, the under the i do a lot of criminal tax cases and you have to prove that the person acted either in bad faith and it was, they didn’t think what they were doing was legal and you or that they did Not have any attorneys or accountants they relied upon if it’s called a reliance defense. So if you have a good faith defense, i thought what i was doing was legal in wesley snipes case. He got acquitted of half the misdemeanors and all of the felony charges uh for believing that he didn’t have to pay taxes period. So that gives you an idea for the scope of what a good faith defense can and just to be clear. And you know that, because you’re representing him, yes, i was his counsel exactly and the uh a guy. We both know uh peter schiff’s, father uh irwin was one of the famous people who helped put a lot of that into motion. They were never able to successfully prosecute him on his own tax structure because they knew he had a good faith. Belief that the tax laws did not require him to file or pay an individual income tax based on his interpretation and understanding of the law. So the good faith belief is very, very broad and the best way to think of it is our our founders recognize that there’s two areas we don’t want people to be in prison, for as it relates to taxes, given how our country was founded, which is either Debt or dissent, just the fact that you owe a tax bill, doesn’t make you a criminal and just the fact that you disagree with the irs about the meaning of the tax laws, doesn’t make you a criminal or our founders were all a bunch of criminals uh, Because all of them had various degrees of tax debt and all of them believed that the tax laws meant something different than the colonial authorities thought they meant. And so it’s a recognition of our history that we don’t put people in prison for those sort of things. So why does it find in the sand like what what happened with with uh irwin, so uh? The way they’re ultimately able to target irwin is two ways for selling his book was one of the ways uh they they. They came up with an exception to free speech based on commercial speech, which was a complete misapplication, the uh that was part one part two was connecting other people that had taken irwin’s advice, and the idea was that irwin had advised other people to do things that Were illegal and thus they’re able, what happens is the jury is sitting there and not asking the question? Does irwin really believe it they’re asking the question? Is it fair that somebody listened to irwin and did what erwin suggested, and so it changes the moral perspective of the jury away from what the legal constitutional filter is supposed to be um, though the only person i’ve ever been on the phone with that talked more Than donald trump was erwin schiff, the uh yeah – god bless him. He just goes and goes and goes and goes. He makes trump look like a slow talker by comparison, the uh. Well, that’s where peter gets it from then huh yeah. Exactly absolutely i mean just boom boom boom boom boom, uh great guy, very conscientious guy. So the in trump’s context all he. He didn’t file a single tax return that wasn’t prepared by all of his accountants or attorneys. So, in order to prove that he did anything wrong, they’re going to have to prove that he donald trump deliberately and knowingly hid information from his attorneys or accountants. That was material for tax purposes. Trump has no incentive to do that. Not only that, because he’s in the real estate business he has a hundred loopholes that are designed to facilitate uh real estate investment in the united states, as you know. Well, so that’s mostly the the left thinks they can criminalize anything related to tax, because it’s so complicated they can just stick a criminal label on anything that they want to and get away with it. The court system, however, is very careful about that because of how easily it can be politically abused and misused. My hunch is that they ultimately don’t prosecute him in new york for anything related to either they’re. Looking at his taxes, they’re looking at his charities, they’re looking at bank structures, there’s no way they can go at trump without implicitly indicting half the real estate industry in the city of new york and when new york real estate is taking a tank. Is that the message they really want to send hey, don’t come and invest in new york, don’t be any part of real estate in new york or you’re going to get trumped because they’ll criminally prosecute you for some part of your real estate deal that has been Common industry practice for a better part of a century, so there’s a lot of incentives for them not to actually go as far as they’re bluffing yeah. Do you think they’ll come after him, or can they come after him legitimately for anything that was done with the protests? Uh? No, the very as as both professor dershowitz has said, as professor turley, both of whom are on the left. Everything trump did was completely politically protected, so in the united states in order to be prosecuted for incitement of a riot, they have to prove that you said you asked for express unlawful activity that could be imminently conducted. So, to give an example, the most famous case is brandenburg v ohio clan rally where they said we’re going to go. Do all these terrible things to the black community right down the street and the supreme court said nine to nothing unanimously. That’S not a crime, because, even though they expressly called for illegal activities to occur, they could not be done imminently. It’S another part of another part of the jurisprudence is called true threats, jurisprudence. So people say a lot of dumb and crazy things all the time right. The reason why uh madonna couldn’t be prosecuted for saying she dreams of blowing up the white house is because it did not have an imminent risk of actually happening. So in order for a true threat to matter, it has to have imminent risk. So it’s this combination of. Did he do trump expressly call for illegal activities? No, he didn’t did he call did he call for it in such a way that it could imminently occur? No, that was not the case either. So the lack of express calling for illicit activities and the lack of imminent action means he couldn’t be blamed. In fact, he said just the opposite. He asked for a peaceful protest to occur. Not only that there’s also a but for causation problem. Proximate causation trump was still speaking when they started storming. The group that started storming the capital did so the group that stormed the capitol and started the capitol hill riots had were not even at trump’s speech because they started it 30 minutes before trump even finished. His speech – and they were more than a mile away from where trump was giving his speech so uh it appeared so there’s no causal connection, there’s no uh. First amendment, conforming violation that could be alleged here, independent legal professors, have come to the same conclusion. Now. There’S an ugly history in america of us using sedition laws to do bad stuff, so eugene v debs was put in prison solely for giving a speech against the war. So the fact that they are trying to weaponize this capitol hill riot into not only attacking the president’s first amendment rights instead of precarious precedent that your first amendment no longer protects you of within six degrees of separation. They can blame you for something i mean they’re. Now trying to say, if you simply question the election, you incited a riot, i mean that’s a d and they want to call that conspiracy to commit sedition. The the criminal sedition laws have an ugly history in america of using it. You combine conspiracy, language with sedition, language and all of a sudden speech is a crime and a 20-year federal prison crime, um, and so it’s scary and terrifying that they’re even talking about doing this. But it’s where the government is going. I wanted to circle back quickly to that uh trump news network to get more of your opinion on that, and maybe what you’ve heard some insider information. Let’S do that and then i want to circle back to what you’re just saying about free speech, so yeah the trump has been looking at it for a while, in fact, his thought process was to build an entire network social media network of his own too right. So that you had, you know trump twitter rather than twitter trump facebook, rather than facebook, uh, trump uh, and then trump tv trump podcast trump radio trump youtube. You name it. The easiest place for him to take over or to have that influence was never parlor, which was sort of isolated as just a twitter imitation but was actually gab. Now uh kushner and other people in the white house don’t want him associated with gab, because gab has everybody on it. Good and bad gab really doesn’t censor and suppress speech, though it does report people for illicit actions such as stalking doxxing, criminal harassment, uh calls for illicit incitement, uh, contrary to conventional wisdom. They are quick to criticize those actions, but they won’t criticize any form of speech. So that means the alt-right and other people that are not really that likable do have platforms on gap um, but gab is the gaba. It has its own browser. Gab has its own servers. Gab has its own version of youtube. Gab has its own versions of twitter. Gab has its own versions of social media sites, so gab is the most well equipped. If you wanted a one-stop shop independent place that you could buy today and transform tomorrow, it would be gab now i don’t know if gab is going to be up for sale, but that would be an interesting component, but he was thinking of something like that. Basically, replacing twitter, replacing facebook, replacing google uh and replacing uh youtube, and so the as well as replacing fox news and replacing rupert murdoch in newspapers too. He would like to own a few newspapers in the same way murdoch. Does a new york post a washington times? Maybe a london or australian newspaper, you know some and global influence and trump in reality, even before he went to the white house, trump had started to move into global branding. So you know you had trump hotels, more hotels, trump hotels were being built overseas than they were being built in the united states, though almost all of those deals, contrary to conventional wisdom, usually were simply branding deals. He didn’t own the land, he didn’t own, the building. He had no liability for the construction cost, it was just his name and then he provided the managerial service, at least in my experience, i always liked trump hotels, because i got consistent service, no matter what i’m always top five star level consistency in a way that, Frankly, no other brand other than your more high high end more expensive. You know your ritz’s, your four seasons were able to consistently deliver uh, so i think, but i think trump tv network makes eminent sense. Fox is getting crushed because of the decisions that they made. They’Re trying to move change their entire schedule around because they think they can. The the entire republican establishment, including the board of fox, which paul ryan, sits on, really believed that the country was really a 2014 u.s country, usa country, and that trump was an interloper. That had just confused things that they could just purge the party of trump. They would go right back to 2014 overnight. The republican senators think this republican house members think this. The rnc thinks this, and so they were uh fox has been shocked that since they’ve tried to do any distance of trump, their ratings have cratered and they’ve been getting crushed over the last three months because they didn’t embrace trump late in the campaign, uh said he Was going to lose arizona when it was very close, you know the first ones to call that the then were basically mostly critical or didn’t give a platform for his election challenges, and so you know people like martha mccallum. They move to the afternoon they’re, trying to change all their trying to go to a pure opinion structure and the whole tv show succession is loosely based on the murdoch family. The murdoch, kids, don’t don’t like their father’s politics at all. Their wives really don’t like their father’s politics, so they wanted to get out of that of their of papa murdoch’s shadow and they thought the best way to do so was to disassociate from trump which murdoch himself wanted to do. The problem now is they’re discovering their brand is they people murdoch convinced himself that the brand was bigger than roger ailes and and then bigger than donald trump and bigger than conservatism, because sky, tv and other networks of his in in england and australia have been able To be more establishment, couture conservative than populist conservative and survive, he doesn’t understand the american audience and he now he’s witnessing he should have when trump was critical of fox. In february of 2016 uh trunk uh fox took a 40 hit in their brand uh overnight. Uh. In public opinion polling of the brother brand quality, so he they knew they knew they couldn’t go at trump, and yet they convinced themselves that once he was really going to be gone, they could they’re discovering otherwise. So there’s a massive opening uh one american news network and newsmax have only they’re, basically the default, because there’s nobody there really to compete with fox, but them if trump tv stepped into the place and and with the modern ability of streaming with the ability to get Around the regular uh broadcast channels, he doesn’t need to have even control of those broadcast channels. He could build a media network overnight and he knows it and he knows that he could have two million. He could have a half to two-thirds of fox viewers watching him. Also, there’s a part of his ego going what you made the point in both ego and revenge or factors with trump and trump has been open about this go back to his charlie rose interviews, other interviews, he says one of his favorite things to do in life Is to get back at people, that’s great, like he said he said his bankruptcy didn’t really mind because he said you know it taught me and well. I can tell you it’s what he told me on the phone he said bobby. This teaches you who your friends are and who aren’t your friends and he’s the kind of guy who just remembers that and so uh he’s always had a little bit of an ego clash with rupert murdoch, put a revenge factor for him. He believes murdoch helped cause his loss by how mur fox handled him during the during the general election. Oh see. I know i thought about this. I was just thinking about the cnn twitter angle, it’s across the board so, but he particularly wants to crush fox and punish fox and pay fox back, and so he had. In fact, there was whispers that he and roger ailes were thinking about doing this. All the way back in 2016 in case he lost and then roger ailes, died and then trump won, so it all got put on hold, but trump trump won. He knows tv two, he has tons of contacts and connections in tv. Three he’s got the built-in audience that the fact that so many people have left fox to watch newsmax and one american news network, both of whom are decent. I, like some people on there, but they’re nowhere near what trump could put on in terms of broadcasting quality and branding. Uh trump could have over a million views a night right away and the belief is well he’ll be limited by corporate advertisers. The my pillow guy will just quit advertising on fo. All of the same people are advertising on fox. Now that advertise on say, bongino and rush limbaugh and others. The other factor is, he wants to ultimately replace. Have somebody replace limbaugh, because there’s going to be this other big vacuum, is that limbaugh is not ex. His life expectancy is not expected to last another year uh he might, but his health is really deteriorating fast. You have the guy that’s dominated that space of media broadcasting for 25 years right, uh and the other like mark 11, laura inger. These people are not really up to that level at all, so uh, whereas trump could find somebody, maybe even himself to some degree who could step right in and replace him. So, and you know – and you know that’s a guy that was making 25 50 million a year depending on where you put his estimates, so you combine, you know he wants to basically dominate it. Also, the point you made what’s more powerful than owning your entire media and social media network, so the uh the presidency, in my opinion, exactly he could he could let he could have leaders fall and rise just by the push of the button and he’s willing to Be much more aggressive than murdoch ever was willing to be so uh the he could. He doesn’t need to help fundraise for a bunch of primary candidates that he wants to challenge people who uh undermined him or sabotaged him or betrayed him. He can just have his social media networks, tv networks and radio networks and newspapers do it for them and that’s what all those other people would pay money for. So the he wants to make a major major difference and that’s where they think, if they indict impeach him totally unconstitutional impeachment. Now we’re going to have our first ever trial after impeachment for someone who’s not in office, so the uh, which is completely unconstitutional by both dershowitz and turley’s recognition, um, and you have a situation in circumstance where their admit they’re, not even going to have justice roberts Preside over the trial because it’s not a real impeachment trial because he’s not in office. Well, then, why are you having a trial period? There is no constitutional right to tr impeach private citizens. So but let’s say they succeed and let’s say the supreme court doesn’t set it aside like they should and says. Okay trump is forever barred from running from office that even gives him more motivation to own and run a media network, and that gives him more ammunition. I think it gives him more viewers. That was one of the things that that i was thinking through if you’re to ban trump from twitter or, if you’re, going to ban him from xyz social media or that’s just going to make his following even stronger. If or when he decides to move on to the next to this media company that we’re talking about absolutely and the and you look at twitter, i mean they’ve taken a a huge 12 percent hit in their stock and the and it’s only holding on because there’s Not an easy competitor available right. What happens when trump announces i’m going to have my own twitter when trump announces i’m going to have my own facebook when trump announces i’m going to have my own tv network, my own radio net? All of that, at that point i mean i i i could see twitter’s value just completely collapsing and then a foreign government starts saying we don’t like that twitter thinks they can take. Our head of government off twitter, like uganda, decided we’re just gon na ban twitter entirely, maybe ban him forever, not just for a couple of weeks uh. You know it shows the megalomania that consumes jack dorsey is a threat to its long-term stock value, and i know that there are shareholder class action lawyers right now, already planning uh major suits against both twitter and facebook. Twitter is the easiest one, because twitter promised in their sec statements that they would not discriminate based on political beliefs or political actions or political activities, and we’re actually going to go out of their way to make sure they protected the maximum range of free speech. Well, clearly, removing the guy that half of the twitter interacted with on a daily basis, it does not is not in conformity with those material statements. So there’s allegations of material fraud on the market and that’s going to mean the damages are the same amount of damages that they’ve already lost in stock value. So that’s going to double the scope of damages that twitter may suffer. So i it’s not even clear to me how much twitter even survives economically in a in a world uh without trump, given the actions that they took, especially if trump decides to start his own twitter, which that was what i was hearing just several months ago. It was to launch a huge trump media brand trump recognized. He could no longer do the golf courses uh because they were going to discriminate against him as soon as he was out of office. He no longer could do high-end real estate, at least in the u.s. Internationally trump’s brand is still not damaged in the way it is in the u.s. Um you’ll see more international focus by trump uh, particularly the middle east and in latin america uh, but the uh that’s part of the like. Maybe it might not have been coincidental that trump focused on improving his latin in his hispanic appeal in the united states. It wasn’t just about the us. It was about being able to get access to mexico, central america, latin america, potential markets for trump real estate branded project, but the big one is he’s always seen it as he’s always liked media, and he sees this as his perfect opportunity and everybody’s helping him. Facebook banning him is helping him because now, if you want to get to trump you’re, probably only going to be able to see him on his own network or his own social media platform yeah, where he takes 400 cents on the dollar, exactly he won’t be available Anywhere else and he’s got a hardcore following of somewhere around 30 to 40 million people that you know are just trumpist at heart. They care more. They did a recent poll and these people said they’re more trump republicans than republicans so uh, and he can leverage that politically, with extraordinary ease. I think you’ll see him set up into he’ll, use the pretext of the banking exclusion to set up new banking relationships like what would a trump bank look like, there’s nothing that could stop trump from becoming a part shareholder or name brander on various banks that already Exist, including banks that are more free, would say, crypto and all of a sudden how many customers, how many small businesses might go, use a trump bank uh. Not only that i’m about to bring suit. In a couple of weeks against a major bank in the united states that politically just that discriminated against a guy that made them close to a hundred over a hundred million dollars, really a net profit invested in inner city communities. That uh was one of the best. Most successful inner city investors from an inner city perspective of anybody in the last 20 years and solely because he’s associated with trump. They went to great efforts to discriminate against him in all of his contracts and cost him and his partners up to 100 million dollars. So i’m going to bring suit and when people realize, if a bank’s willing to do what they did to trump, and if a bank’s willing to do it to this guy, who is a nice quiet, sweetheart political guy, who’s, investing in the communities they claim to care About what will they do to your line of credit at your local small business? So if you’re, anybody that needs capital and ever fear political bias being uh used against you in the banking or capital access world? Well, who could step into the gap a trump bank? The all of a sudden you could have and that that could be worldwide. That could also use crypto as a potential mechanism and means of currency exchange. So uh trump is going to look at everything where his branding could have potent be monetized and give him political influence and that’s primarily right now, the media space, but that includes the tech, media, space, social media space and it includes the banking finance space yeah. So, let’s go back to what you’re saying about your your client: that’s having a hard time with the bank there that they’re discriminating against him for his views on on trump. Let’S say that was one talking point i wanted to address and take a real, deep dive on and it’s i don’t even know if i can use the words, because i’m sure you two will kind of ban it but uh. How can i get around this? Look? We’Ve got something uh that happens at home and we say that it’s domestic and uh we’ve got the the acts of uh 911 that were um terrorist attacks. Let’S say so. If you take domestic and that’s we’ll call it dt here for for youtube. What we’ve seen over the past few years is this term racist being used to describe quite literally anybody? I i mean we’ve broadened the term so much that it really doesn’t even have meaning anymore, and we put so many people into that category. Do you think that we could put people who have, let’s say the austrian view, so sound money, free market capitalism and and the more libertarian view people who want to stand up for individual liberty, freedom and people who value that personal liberty, maybe more than they value Safety, or maybe more than they value other people’s feelings, do you think that we could label them the dt word and what type of problems do you think that would cause for those individuals in the future whether it comes to banking, whether it comes to their maybe Their nine to five job, maybe getting a loan, i mean, do they see this turning into a social score, that’s uh, that’s managed by the central planners who have a political narrative or a narrative or a vision of the world that someone who’s a libertarian or austrian Kind of uh who leans austrian, who they don’t share that same world view or you see what i’m trying to say, i’m trying to tap dance around and not get in trouble with youtube. But you see what i’m saying: yo no question i mean what’s happening is they’re going to politically weaponize everything they have access to, whether that’s access to education, access to employment, access to capital, access to credit, access to ultimately homes and everything else. I think the ultimate objective is what you’ve been talking about, is a government-controlled digital currency right that allows them to do all those things overnight. They want to have a one-stop shop where all of your assets and all of your access to capital and credit is controlled. They don’t they want that to be monopolized and then, if you’ve been uh politically bad, if you voiced a dissident form of behavior, no rent for you this week, no food for you tomorrow, no taking an uber. In fact, it’s like that x-files episode, where the more recent x-files where they did like six new episodes where they go to an automated future and they walk into this uh sushi restaurant. It’S all done by automated chefs and he doesn’t like the the mulder character, doesn’t like the way his sushi came out. So he doesn’t give him a good review and because they didn’t get a good customer review. All of a sudden, the automated taxi tries to kill one of them. The automated uh vacuum cleaner tries to put the house on fire. The automated uh security system locks them in. While the house is on fire, then these the automated drones start to attack them like the birds movie from hitchcock. So it’s all the ways in which automated society can ruin your life. Well, the same thing is: is they’re trying to weaponize all the forms of power and what they’ve come to realize is the best way to do so is not do it through the state formally now i think they’re setting it up for the state to do it. Ultimately, but right now, if you can get private tech companies, if you can get private banks to do a private businesses to do it for you in the name of originally racial discrimination. But now because any belief you have somehow supports the racial oppressive hierarchy and whatnot or sexist patriarchy, they found it’s much easier for a broad generic label. That sounds terrifying, where we have a bunch of law like there’s a bunch of law about, aiding and abetting and enabling and financially what they call materially supporting various movements that have that label attached to it all of a sudden, all your rights vanish and disappear, but Historically, that’s only been allowed in the foreign context, because the theory is, it doesn’t apply to u.s citizens and it’s only being applied to under the guise of foreign relations and there the executive branch has much broader carte blanche authority constitutionally than it does over domestic citizens. They have always wanted to take the patriot act and have part two: the sequel apply entirely to domestic citizens. What people don’t know is the first patriot act was drafted in 1995, trying to use oklahoma city as the political pretext to push it through, and its initial targets were not foreigners or those enabling people from outside the united states, but was entirely domestically because it led To a outrage it didn’t pass. Well guess who the author of that first patriot act was a senator from delaware named joe biden, so it is now patriotic number two has already been written a day after january 6th. They it got leaked through some think tanks. They already had a 20 000 page patriot act, number two ready to go and they’re going to use the t word because the t word has this legal history of basically eviscerating all of your constitutional rights and restrictions right right right now. Theoretically, the reason for that was that it was foreign, so once it’s domestic, the constitution’s supposed to kick in, but you already have congressmen and senators talking about merely attending a mega rally means you should have the t word put on your head. Yeah see, that’s that’s where i’m going. So, let’s just let’s take the the viewer the listener through the thought process here, so we’ll just go ahead and say it. I will let youtube do what they want to do so we’re talking about labeling people as a domestic terrorist, so going back to 1995 oklahoma that what happened there, that that’s an act of what some people would consider domestic terrorism. But we’ve gone from that to looking at what happened at the white house the other day with the protests riots, whatever you want to call them now: that’s domestic terrorism and it’s being labeled domestic terrorism. In my mind, by some just because those individuals who were protesting, i’m not saying what they did was right, but those individuals had one political belief system that was contrary to their own. And so my point is now that that window is kind of moving in what we consider to be domestic terrorists is really that’s uh broadening dramatically. So at what point do we say? Okay, someone that believes and someone that believes in maybe um that there shouldn’t be mask lockdowns or are they now a domestic terrorist, someone that believes in uh in the value of gold? Let’S say as as sound money or are they a domestic terrorist? Where, where are we going to draw the line or is it like the word, racism is going to continue to expand and expand and expand, and then is there going to be d platforming? Is there going to be legal ramifications for people who believe in small government and personal liberty that we we’ve got to punish these people because they’re a threat to our domestic society? And yet that’s where i was really going with? It was tap dancing around there. Yeah. Absolutely well, there’s no ques, i think it’s absolutely where they plan on going so you’re right. It goes to alice in wonderland, where uh humpty dumpty says a word is what i say it is it’s. That kind of you know brilliant foresight of where language was going to go and that’s because the communist left was very good at double speak. You know. We now call it orwellian language for a reason, because orwell was describing it. He was really just describing it. He wasn’t even even predicting it. He was just seeing what he was seeing and reporting it back sometimes disguised as fiction. The way james, elroy or john le carre, uh or le carre will write in a way that is actually just reality, but disguised in a fictional narrative to get the truth out. So they’re absolutely going to go that route to how they defined race and how they they became. So elastic is how the word terror is going to be used and there’s no better example than what they’ve done to the president. So they’re resurrecting legal doctrines like insurrection and sedition that most people thought were dead and buried because they’d be yeah. So what does that word mean? I’Ve heard that being thrown around on on all the news networks, and what does that mean? Exactly all insurrection is very limited, so you know the 1808. The insurrection act passed and it meant when there was literally an insurrection so like the whiskey tax, rebellion of western pennsylvania after the constitutions passage or actually after the articles of confederation and the american revolution phrase. Before the constitution was an insurrection where they were actually trying to overthrow the government, so that’s what insurrection meant? That’S where it came from a an armed resistance, the only other time it really applied in the united states. History is really 1860 in the civil war. People have a, but you can imagine how politically that’s a very elastic word, potentially in its definition, because you look at the and the same thing is true of sedition laws. So sedition laws have an ugly history going back to the 13th century. The king basically decided anybody who criticizes me should go to prison, so he called it criminal sedition. In fact, you could go to prison in england. It didn’t even have to be false statements about the king. It could be true statements about the king and it was considered sedition if it would lead to people not having confidence and trust in them and there’s language like that in the sedition statutes. So we used criminals. So john adams passed him in 1798, alien and sedition acts to try to put people who printed press against him in prison. Thomas jefferson and others hated the law. Ultimately, jefferson gets elected, so they throw out the law and he pardons everybody who was ever fined under the law. It doesn’t come back until in world war, one. It’S always during these so-called crises that these uh massive usurpation of civil liberties occurs. We pass some more sedition acts. Eugene v debs went to prison for a speech under the sedition act. That’S how ridiculous these speeches, i mean that’s a ridiculous. It was if you oppose the war that meant you were trying to have an insurrection against the country and hence you were guilty of sedition and he went to prison, and so we’ve always recognized that these are bad laws, but that the courts basically cave and capitulate. During times of perceived political crisis, the whole new york times versus sullivan decision, that was a state version of a sedition law that it wasn’t just libel, and that was the first time the u.s supreme court made clear sedition laws violate the first amendment. You cannot put people in prison for their speech. You cannot punish people for their speech, but they’re about to do it to the president of the united states. He said have a peaceful and patriotic rally, and somebody else 30 minutes earlier was doing something illegal and now he’s being blamed for conspiracy to commit incitement and insurrection, and so it’s uh, especially to relay you, could label every single riot. That’S ever occurred in insurrection because the law, the read the language of it, it’s anything that brings the government into disrepute in the sedition context. In the interaction context. It’S anything that challenges the authority of the government. That’S i mean yeah. Everybody challenges the authority of the government every day in some capacity politically yeah when you’re talking about this edition. I’M what’s going through my mind, is the issue i had on on uh this platform, where they took down uh one of my videos, because, according to to them, it conflicted with their policy about uh disagreeing with, let’s say local policy about how they were handling the Cerveza sickness and i was just presenting facts, and my takeaway was that i just felt as though the government should be out of it and it should be left up to the individual and they took it down now to their defense. They put it back up and they apologize. They said that they had made a mistake, but they pointed out that that was a certain component of that was against their their policy, so where i’m going with, that is i’m just when you’re you’re talking about the sedition stuff, i’m talking i’m thinking about, maybe in The future, because our economy is so reliant now upon stimulus. If you came out and and disagreed or opposed a new stimulus package it could you could see how people that were on the extreme uh? I don’t want to say extreme left, because i don’t want to miscategorize any anyone or be too general, but you could see how people that felt as though there needed to be a more authoritarian approach to how we’re handling freedom of speech. Let’S say how they could say that that should be categorized as as sedition. You know just the fact that you’re disagreeing with stimulus, because it’s so vital to the american economy right now i mean: do you think we could get to that point? Oh absolutely because it’s an extension of safe space idolatry, so you know what jonathan hate and other people have talked about is the safe space culture. These kids grew up in the in the mid late 90s because of the kidnapping scares that took place and the child abuse scares that took place that that you know you only went on play dates. You didn’t you didn’t play in the street. You didn’t play in the park, it’s that it’s, if you do it’s extended to, if you do anything that makes me feel triggered, that makes me feel sad or angry, then that must be punished and prohibited, and when you take that ideology and apply it to the State and basically it’s easy for them to say. Oh that seems like terrorism to me. What you’re doing is you’re terrorizing me because you’re saying something that deeply offends and upsets me. So that can be anything that can be any degree of disagreement with those in authority and those in power and it’s where they’re gon na go and if people want the best analogy, go back and look at the way. Uh orwell described the rising communist empire in the east uh and in russia, and the way they use language, especially that’s the world, we’re going to you’re going to keep getting shocked until you say, i’m sorry, two plus two does equal five yeah right and i want To be very clear here, robert, i know we’ve had this discussion before, but maybe some of the listeners and viewers haven’t listened to all of our previous interviews where you talked about, because i know what’s going through probably a lot of people’s minds right now is all That’S never going to happen because that’s against the law, that’s against the law and the law protects me as an individual american. The constitution protects me and therefore that’s never going to to happen like uh. Maybe robert is describing or how george is talking about potentially happening in the future. Again, i’m not saying that any of this is going to happen. We’Re just thinking this through, so that we can all kind of uh be prepared, as as to what the uh variables that we’re dealing with are here. But my point was you and i have discussed it and i’d like you to expand on this – that it’s really not about the law anymore. It’S not about your constitutional rights, it it. We we’ve gone from being a country in a society of laws to a country in a society of men and that whatever the, however, the wind is blowing that day. As far as the political narrative in that local jurisdiction is how you’re going to be either found guilty or innocent, can you expand on that absolutely so i was gon na give two analogies uh. It’S like the indian tribes waving their treaties. As the cavalry came. Those were nice pieces of paper. They just didn’t work particularly well to stop the calvary or, as they say in mexico, constitution made of paper blade made of steel, and so we’re always at some level, uh governed by people who it’s only the degree to which they believe that people in power believe That the constitution, restrains them and the rule of law restrains them that it actually restrains them, and we are entering an era and have been for the last two decades. It’S just been escalating where the people in positions of power do not care about these restraints. I mean we see a president of the united states. People had told me, facebook and twitter will never block the elected president of the united states from communicating to his own citizens, especially during a crisis. Yet that’s exactly what both of them just did. They also told me, don’t worry, congress will never uh consider something like objecting to elections and objecting to electors. Well, members of the house and the senate have been doing that since 1809. For more than 200 years, they objected in 1809 and they objected to the 1808 election, the 1816 election, the 1820 election, the 1836 election, the 1872 election, the 1876 election and the 1968 election and nixon had to deal with issues in 1960 and yet the senators well-regarded Senators in holly and cruz considered future presidential candidates they’re now asking that they be expelled from the senate solely for casting a vote objecting to an electors and they’re, asking that their colleges and law schools revoke their degrees and that the bars that license them revoke their Law licenses: these are things that have never been considered constitutional and yet they’re under serious contemplation and consideration right. Lawyers who had two lawyers well respected well-regarded cleda, mitchell and john eastman, who simply helped the president deal with the constitutional issues concerning the election. Both of them lost their jobs at law, firms that were generally considered to the right of center law firms simply for representing their client. So a lot of things that people have said: don’t worry that can never happen. We’Ve witnessed actually happen and we think well you’re supposed to be protected by the law and you just aren’t where it’s it’s mob rule. It’S it’s not rule of law. Absolutely it’s the rule of politicians uh and that’s who you’re governed by whoever happens to have the badge at the time. It always reminds me of that uh that the movie uh, where the clint eastwood comes back into town, to get revenge uh and you know, paints the whole town red and all that. But at one point he makes the little [ __ ] the mayor and the sheriff and he’s standing on the bar and he’s saying i’m the mayor, i’m the sheriff and and the point of it is to sort of mock the idea of power and how power Is dependent on the whim of a person at the end of the day and we’re just seeing that at a different scale, it was once they’re willing to illicitly punish the president of the united states for his speech. Why in the world? Wouldn’T they do it to some ordinary, joe or schmoe, the i’m representing a librarian city of flagstaff in arizona, it’s almost a decade-long service what’d he get fired for. He just asked for libraries to quit being overtly political with their jobs. He didn’t even ask him to support trump he’d. Now the law is clear. First amendment says you can’t do that, and yet they did anyway. Why? Because they believe courts won’t, do anything about it and we witness courts. Not do any. I mean we just had a presidential election which had more controversy attached to it than any presidential election since 1876. But now, if you even talk in detail about it, you’ll be banned and censored calls for your law degree and college degrees to be revoked. College calls for you to be expelled from any office position of power that you hold calls for banks to know not allow you to use their systems for credit or capital uh and basically calls to completely sort of blacklist you from civil society right now. There are people that worked in the trump administration who are being blacklisted from any form of employment, even low-level medium-level jobs, so they they have weaponized every aspect of the private justice system and what happened to all the courts during these election challenges. All of them found a way not to rule on the substance of merits for the most part. So what does that tell you if the court, if trump’s own appointees, wouldn’t come to trump’s rescue to deal with major constitutional questions about something as important as the constitutionality of the election? Why in the world, are they going to enforce the constitution for mom and pop shop on on some street in scranton, yeah and they’re, obviously trying to control with fear? And that’s my point: whenever someone talks to me about the the freedom of speech that we have in the constitution and how that’s a huge benefit to the united states, i i agree, but in practice, if even if you have the legal right to say something, if You’Re afraid to say something is that legal, how much value does that legal right actually have well that’s chomsky’s whole point that self-censorship is often uh as effective or more effective than state censorship. If you can induce people to not and look at that was the whole experience of the soviet union for the most part, they didn’t have to punish people for their speech because they got people scared to make speech, and the soviet constitution also had fantastic protections for Freedom of speech and freedom of association fidel castro spoke in defense of freedom of speech and freedom of press. How did those societies turn out to be so? It comes back to a constitution is only as good as the people who have positions of power in it. Right, that’s a great point. Okay, so i know we’re running a little short on time, we’ve kind of painted the picture for most people and and gone over what we believe could or what we believe the future could look like from standpoint of personal freedom, um laws or or lack thereof, and How the people watching this, if they believe that we should have smaller government more personal liberty, if they believe that the the government should uh not spend as much money as their spending? If they maybe say, i would like a business to have the right to determine whether or not they want to open that could be. That could fall under a category where you could get some serious blow back in your in your actual life as a result. So so we’ve gone over that i want to go over what people can do, if anything, at all, focusing on americans to protect themselves and maybe circling back, i mean in my whiteboard video the other day i i went over some drawbacks to potentially the trump news Network, i did go over one positive thing and that’s that i think they would be completely opposed to the great reset agenda with the world economic forum but uh. So my question is: what can people do to protect themselves, and do you see maybe the trump news network um being a a way to combat the uh, the direction that we’re headed from a standpoint of personal liberty? I see it as a bifurcated approach and fitting within the donald trump strategy of playing for the best hope for the worst. I’M sorry hope for the best plan for the worst, and that is on one step. People can make a strategic contribution to pushing back in a wide range of ways, uh, whether that’s supporting a sort of legal onslaught on the system to fight back at everything, every meaningful way, conceivable to try to find a honest judge or a honest jury that will Do something about it, but merely fighting back sends a message to the system. Once they hear a certain amount of noise, they tend to fall back because at the end of the day, the fifth pillar of power is the perception of the other four pillars of power. And if that, if you remove that fifth pillar of power, the other four pillars of power collapse – and this is what the einstein institute, which was cia back – used to teach the color revolutionaries in eastern europe in the 90s and 2000s. So they know it and – and they know that the perception of power, the reason why they do so much gaslighting is they need public compliance and acquiescence, the more pushback the better, whether that’s supporting independent content creators, whether that’s uh, supporting independent technol, technological means of a Distribution of information, distribution of resources, whether that’s cryptocurrency, whether that’s uh, whether that’s gab, whether that’s anything, whether it’s locals, whether it’s anything like that, whether that’s participation in helping primary opponents, helping crowdfund or spread the message of challenging institutional narratives. All of that, i think there are ways to push back and fight back that are meaningful and could be successful. So i recommend that strategy on the one hand, which is depend on each individual, what they feel they can do and should do, and the other is prepare for the worst and plan for the worst and have a born identity package sitting in a in a suitcase. In the back of a car, that’s not necessarily titled in your name or an rv that has a uh. You know a a phone, that’s completely detached from google and isn’t trackable or traceable. That has a laptop that has independent communications means it isn’t an ipa associated or attached to you that has currency in four or five different, different uh countries, so you can get to where you need. When you need that has a you know. Uh definitely have some bitcoin cryptocurrency that cannot be as easily shut off and shut down, as is the case with our u.s banking account systems, multiple identities where possible, and there are more – or i should say, multiple passports, means of travel and access to other countries. Uh in other nations – and there was plan like if you were in berlin and you’re jewish and it’s 1929
And the plan accordingly so hope that the world turns into a great paradise like that, like babylon berlin kind of looked to be in 1929, the nazi party prior to 1928 1929 had never achieved more than five percent of support. When horror, when horrible change happens, it tends to happen very, very fast and we’re right we’re seeing the early warning signs of it so one way to to to defeat it is to resist it and push back, but for the protection of your individual liberty. I mean why is bill gates, the guy that owns the most farmland in the world right now and you think bill gates with all of his patent. Developments for artificial foods and genetically modified foods is uh is where you want to go for your future food supply. You know, and as you’ve talked about you know, having your own little farm, operation or connection to an independent uh farm. Those kind of all of those kind of things are useful: independent land, independent means of travel, independent means of citizenship, independent means of access of communication, independent means of exchange in the forms of currency or other vulnerable items or having as much state what i call jurisdictional Diversification right, you’re not dependent on any one state’s governance for your freedoms and liberties. If you are, you are extraordinarily and exceptionally vulnerable, especially right now yeah and then do you think that the trump news network is is going to push back and hopefully um decentralize things. Do you think they’re going to fight against those who want to take this authoritarian approach to free speech in the future? I think it’ll be even more populous than orientation, because that’s where his audience is so like when he was president, he had to balance his populist wing and conservative traditional wing. Now the traditional wing will stay with the fox foxes of the world, so his he will double down and be more aggressive on his populist libertarian wing. That’S where he has the most growth from a pure marketing perspective and that that’s the way trump thinks trump goes. Wherever the votes are, trump goes wherever the dollars are, trump goes wherever the audience is, and the audience is going to be very populous, independent and liberty oriented. So i think you’ll see him double down on that like when he was running for office. He focused on who was most popular amongst uh, the broadest range of independent voices on the right, and he found it was alex jones and michael savage, so you’ll see him repeat and replicate, and his initial campaign structure was built off alex jones. So, like his core audience, initially overlapped in demographically, extraordinarily with jones’s audience. So i think if you see that he’ll replicate something like that, he’ll build something: that’s very populist, very independent, uh, very uh, the uh. It will have a probably a bigger cross-section of people than jones. Audience does and be broader, but it will be similarly situated in mindset so be also, i think, you’ll see. People like jones and savage and the rest returned to their more hardcore, populist, independent roots, and it was very anti-surveillance state, anti-empire, anti-wall street anti, the washington establishment anti-fed. All of those things you’ll start to see really reinvigorated, like a lot of criticism of the fed really got buried during trump’s era, because trump dominated so much of the dialogue and debate with trump gone and people are now just starting to realize how much money got Printed over the last year, uh and with biden and he’s so openly, cravingly corrupt in his method of operation and who he’s putting into his cabinet in his announcement last night that hey, we need at least another 2 trillion just to start. Let’S get those printers up and burn um, i think that they’ll be more attention back to the real core institutions of problematic areas of power, and i think trump tv will help facilitate that trump has no trump used to be more anti-fed when he ran he backed Off because he needed their cooperation economically to not do too much harm to him for his re-election prospects. I think you’ll see him now return to more anti-fed politics. Anti-Bank politics i mean the banks are giving him every motivation. I mean if deutsche bank thinks this is the end of the issues relating to trump it’s just beginning. Does anyone think trump is going to forget what they just did to him, and these other banks did to him he’s going to build trump tv network to do every investigative reporting analysis on deutsche bank in the last 20 years and deutsche bank has some scandals sitting There so the uh so that they have just unleashed some they’re hoping they can attack him so much that he will go gently into the good night. But if anybody knows uh trump uh, he wouldn’t need a dylan thomas poem to tell him not to go gently into the good night and to rage against the dying of the light, because trump was born raging against the dying of the light. Yeah that that’s yeah. That’S what i tried to hit in in that video i did is, i just don’t think, that’s a part of his personality at all. Moving into the future so bottom line is it’s going to be fascinating to see how this plays out and the world is changing quickly and everyone needs to be cognizant of what’s going on and they need to have a plan b. I think that’s the real takeaway. So robert, as i said at the very beginning of the interview, i just really look forward to the time that we get to talk, and i i learned so much and uh. This interview is the exact same thing. I i’ve learned a lot and you really got me thinking whenever i talk to you the next. You know four or five hours, i’m just thinking about our conversation, the whole the whole time. So, thank you very much for that for my uh viewers or listeners who want to find out more about what you do. Where can they go sure one of two places uh or one of three places uh the website for the law. Firm is barnes law, llp, dot com, uh, the uh there’s also. I started a law center to deal with a lot of these issues or help start. It called the free america law center uh, that’s preameric www.freeamericallawcenter.com and i started a locals page to curate a community. That’S independent of big tech, censorship and suppression, where we provide independent information uh and that’s veva, barneslaw.locals.com, fantastic, all right, buddy i’ll. Let you get back to what you’re doing and appreciate your time can’t wait to do it again, absolutely always good [, Music ]! You
Read More: Announcing The Trump News Network!! (Shocking Intel Revealed)
