is there a supplement in the customer of like i forgot, like in the quarter, like major a constitutional lawyer as a bar joined by robot barnes and american barnes. this is not the 1st episode having being involved in sex track and concerning far worse. the . the

welcome back to was the parts, vis rovers, barnes and american constitutional. lawrence, mr. barnes. going back to the store mcdaniels case. you've been privy vocal that donald trump's indictment is very weak on both legal and factual grounds. in fact, it doesn't even mention what federal law trump supposedly violated. and yet this

was brought involved in a very forceful, very conspicuous way in the pre election years. so i assume people who are behind it, i'm really confident about what they're doing. how do you understand the rationale as a lawyer? i mean, i think the rationale is, is power is there is an appeal to power rather than appeal to principle. so the new york district attorney's office knows that his office has a lot of power. the new york judges tend to be very differential to the new york district attorney's office. and the new york appeals courts have been very hostile to trump individually. he's got a jury pool that pretty much dissipate, despises. trump voted against them, 90 to 10 as a you know, about 80 percent of them have a very unfavorable view of trump. so i think that's what he's betting on. now trump remove the case from state court to federal court and he's asking united states federal district court to take control over the case if that happens, that throws a big wrench into the state prosecutor, because all of a sudden it's a different jury polled different judicial different appeals process and in all of

its unparalleled and unprecedented american legal history. but they're willing to break all the norms to go after trump. do you think the justice or traditional uh, branch is independent enough or invested enough in its independence said to go buy the book rather than political considerations because it's one thing, whatever they think about trump. uh they, they, they surely must have some, you know, loyalty to that own profession and to the law as such that they should, but not often in the city in new york. and my experience. i mean, i represented amy cooper, the so called central park karen in new york. and my experience with the system is that it's very political. in fact, new york is probably one of the most political jurisdictions in the country other than the district of columbia. they're probably the 2 most political jurisdictions where you have a lot of jury's judges prosecutor's lawyers. too many that just don't care about the rule of law and they care about how it looks politically in the quarter public opinion. and so i think that's the risk trump faces. i don't think you didn't get

a fair trial from a state court in manhattan. i think they should either remove it either the federal court should take the case or you should remove it to staten island and then i think you could get a fair jury. i heard you say in another interview that even if a trump have paid storm mcdaniels through his campaign coffers, that constitutionally protected under us law was the point of channeling money and this way then i there it's, it's basically for saving yourself from political embarrassment. but you know, we do gag orders every day in america and settlements in a ride range of cases, entirely constitutional and legal. and then from a campaign perspective, you're allowed, if you're spending your own money, you're allowed to do whatever you want. and there's many people who believe it, even if it, that the mere fact that it's an indirect benefit on the campaign is not enough to make it a campaign donation. this came up in the john edwards case. it would have been

litigated up on the court of appeals, but they couldn't secure convictions in the john edwards case. in the john edwards case, you had a presidential candidate who somebody else was paying off as mr. here you have trump paying off of the legs, mistress? well, that's entirely under the us constitution under the 1st amendment. no campaign lock and limit what you spend on your own behalf. and so that's why as a constitutionally protected right, to do whatever he wants, that's why they're going through some procedural shenanigans to try to escape the constitution's restrictions on their charges. mister barnes campaigns and nations and billings have been used by previous democratic administrations in a pretty laser fair way. it's no secret here in russia. the, the prior to these huge fallout between moscow and washington and number of russian bags. and steve connected enterprises made contributions to the clinton foundation . i think that it was also raised as a concern, then the cables were released by we could leaks. why do you think the this issue of

campaign financing is only becoming an issue now? they're basically looking at hyper technical ways to go after them, and it is a case a confession through projection because they look at the crimes they committed and try to accuse trump of them. and this is, that's a pattern going all the way back. because hillary clinics, you did commit this crime in 2016, she procured the so called russia gate dosa through low as laundered as a kid that was not listed as a campaign expand. so as low it was listed as a legal expense at the perkins co law firm. and, and so that secret hide and per fingerprints in it that ended up in a federal court record because there was a separate ation of perjury, installs affidavits submitted to a federal court saying that it was not a campaign part of the process. so that's an example of a real campaign crime. and instead of prosecuting hillary clinton, they just accused trump of something gets us on a much smaller scale than what hillary clinton actually did right there in the city in new york right now. uh, as has recently immersed brock obama also may have benefited from some very

questionable donations uh which compared to um, elijah payoff to stormy daniels. it seems to be far more well um from speaker is because uh in the case of trump he is accused of using his own money. but the indication for bottom of the talk is about some shady fund finance here from god knows where do you think given a bomb as venerated status among the liberals? do you think that case will be given a go? and i don't think there's any chance of that other brock obama or hillary clinton will ever face the same degree of scrutiny or criminal prosecution that trump is done. the trump's true crime has been to be an independent this an invoice on american foreign policy. and that almost every president who is ever voice that the most prominent one being john kennedy, has faced the hardest consequences from sort of the deep state apparatus. all of

trumps charges have that fingerprint on it. and there's no better example of that. then the disparate treatment brock obama committed real campaign crimes. they'll be no prosecution. hillary clinton committed real campaign crimes. they'll be no prosecution. a bite has been committing crime for 40 years. in his whole family, they'll be no prosecution. that was speaking about by the assembly. uh, you alluded to that before and it's well known in this part of the world of his son and a couple of his associates. also, all springs of permanent democratic families has been involved in the deals that involved, if not enough, it isn't done clear influence trading there, that there are proven records on that. do you think the american justice system can deal with that? i'm not asking about fairness here. or blindness of the american justice system. but given that there's has to be a lot of in finding a political and finding even within the biden administration between various camps

. do you think that the case could be used by the democrats themselves in fighting for power? i think if they had somebody they could replace by miss vice president, they would use that as extortion to get biden to resign from the white house site health grounds. but basically use the because everybody in washington is known that the buy and buy news is whole family is sisters as brothers, as son you name it. in some cases, nieces and nephews to engage in met. it's a basically enrich his family through public office. and so there's, and then a 100 was just off the chain in terms of the scale of corruption and crimes that he was involved in, whether it was task for the public behavior. i'm in uh, let's not forget the all he's doing says with prostitution and you know, i'm user sent the addictions, etc. exactly. and so you add that. i mean, if there's all kinds is, are, there's already a suspicion from the arkansas court where he has a 100 by, as

a child support proceeding involving a child that he had at an out of wedlock. that he's biting income from his art dealing in a lot of his are dealing looks like money laundering to a lot of people services. but as soon as his dad is president, all of a sudden he's is art is worth tons of money. art, of course, is infamously known for its money laundering capacity. so there's so many places in cases that they could bring against them. i think the problem they have is a simple one, even though by this kind of a dementor candidate in the white house, with all these corruption issues, they could easily use as leverage. who's going to replace them? nobody likes, kamala harris. nobody likes any other democratic candidate who could replace them. so right now the democratic party in the deep state is kind of stuck with a notoriously corrupt president. well, it's not just notoriously corrupt them in mr. barnes. i mean, it's just my, my personal remark, but when we look at his cognitive ability, it's really scary to think about what's going on behind the scenes. because the man

is entrusted with the most powerful weapons on this planet. and you know, in every other public appearance, he barely knows where he is as that's, i don't know why that doesn't bother the americans. i mean, i have no personal uh, investment and whoever wins, i think it would be still bradford russia, but it's pretty scary on on. when do you consider the global security and no doubt, i mean the recent abc washington post poll found that 60 percent of americans believe that by does not have the mental capacity or, or cognizance level to be present united states. and that his health suggest he can't be president, that's what everybody can witness. it shows how bad the democratic party has fatigue, that they don't have an easy replacement if they were conscientious, they would embrace robert kennedy's campaign, but they despised robert gabby's campaign, a democratic party establishment, much as they did his father. so consequently, they're stuck with this a corrupt idiot in the white house. now mister barnes,

going back to your point that the democrats favorites way of operating as confessions through projection as a student of collective psychology. i think it's always been a that's way with the, with the american. so you just like, projecting your shadow on to other nations or a group of people. but i think it was never as blonde and primitive has it is right now. there was a degree of sophistication and even elegance in the previous political counts. like, let's say, what are gabe? why do you think it's becoming so crude? it's the degradation of our lee, so that we've gone from kissinger types those moral compass. it was probably always broken, but at least was intellectually competent and capable. now we have the same lack of a moral compass, but people whose intellect is severely damaged. you're talking about people of 34 generations of upper middle class privilege backgrounds. they grow up and save

space as well as kids. they don't serve of the military. they don't serve in law enforcement. they have little connection to those. who do? they don't know the working class and the working populations of the country and so they're, they're there. but they're a lot like the british colonial leads of the early 19th century, late the early 20th century, late 19th century where they're just decaying. that they're part of an apparatus that just needs itself and is parasitic towards its own population. now finally, i know that if you one almost half a 1000000 of yours after betting on trump to win the 2016 elections, are you placing any that's for 2024? uh yeah, so the, i mean i, my bet would be on trump again. de santis will not be a meaningful challenger to him in the primaries. i think all these indictment and lost their efforts will only strengthen him constitutionally they can't prohibit him from being on the ballot. i think that there's a lot of the supporters that every time they see an attack on them,

they see even more reason to support them. they're like, well, we're clearly we're right, we're right there is going to challenge the system. we're right. there's gonna be better the 2nd time around or otherwise the whole system wouldn't be trying to take him out. i will allow that him to govern properly because uh, the last time she one here struggled great deal. that's going to be the most interesting aspect because it's a lot like 1968 where the, you know, if robert kennedy one, what was the system going to do, given that he planned on implementing the rest of his brother's agenda and going into very dramatic direction hopefully, we don't see that outcome here, but the idea, but that's where kennedy's challenge to trump also, i mean, to abide and also presents options. they're kind of each others. so security of a sort, the better kennedy does, that helps trump and vice versa. and so i think the, the yeah, i don't know how the systems gonna react. i mean, the all efforts to take out trumpet failed. what happens if trump is the one that takes the, you know, you're ation, what do they do next?

a if they're smart, they're looking at where they can go and there's no extradition. mr. barnes, we have to leave it here. thank you very much for this fascinating conversation. thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see her again. on the was part of the the at the end of the 18th century, great britain began to conquer and colonize australia. from the very beginning of

the british penetration to the continent. natives were subjected to severe violence and deliberate extra patient. according to modern historians. in the 1st 140 years, there were at least $270.00 massacres of local be both. any resistance to the british was answered with double cruelty. hundreds of natives were killed for the murder of one settler. indigenous australians were not considered complete people. no wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. men, women, and children are shot when ever they can be met with squatter. henry myrick wrote in a letter to his family in england, in $1846.00 plus strategy as fast as these rightly described as blood soaked in races. if at the beginning of colonization, there were one and a half 1000000 indigenous people living on the continent, then by the beginning of the 20th century, their number had degrees still 100000 people. despite the indisputable historical

facts, the problem of old recognition of the crimes of white australians against aborigines has not been resolved so far. the, the people in so okay, head to the polls to choose the next president's own oxy, we bring you special coverage from us to do any assembled. also this our, the people in garza celebrates patrice, declared after a week of his rarely, at times on gaza. unresponsive from palestine inscribed to live at the least that the public opinion on the investigative to south africa, sensitive by track of just offering a diplomatic scandal like using south africa as applying on to the restaurant. the.