Foreign Hello hello I truly appreciate you joining me. Mr Viva Frye I'm excited for this conversation to clear up some of the confusion and murkiness surrounding this. Trump Indictment, arraignment, potential arrest, and what's going on in the world of politics? How are you doing today? Very good at yourself man. I'm having a good one I I'm so excited for this interview.

like because I think we're gonna get some actual truth out there which is a thing that I'm seeing missing a lot in media. Speaking of that, I think this might be the perfect way to start the interview. I'm going to read you a tweet from the former: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and I want to get your thoughts on this. The Grand Jury I think I know which which.

Oh, you know this one. Oh yes, let's hear it. Let's Okay The Grand jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.

Hopefully the former President will peacefully respect the system which grants him the right. The thing: I found confusing and I think a lawyer such as yourself will as well as the trial to improve innocence now I'm no lawyer I don't speak legalese but I I kind of assumed we were all innocent until proven guilty. now. did I miss something? Did they update the Constitution or like what's going on there you didn't miss anything I don't know I don't want to sound hyper partisan.

You didn't miss anything except for the fact that Nancy Pelosi said the quiet part out loud. They've revealed their inner communism. Uh, look. I'm a Canadian lawyer I'm a Quebec attorney.

Uh, so you know I've learned a lot about American law and politics, but a A A A grade school child knows about the presumption of innocence which is not specifically outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America Due process is which implies the presumption of innocence. You don't go to a trial to prove innocence. You go to a criminal trial where the crown or the prosecution Crown is Canadian has the obligation to prove guilt. Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Nancy Pelosi is basically outing herself as the Communist that many people feel that she is that you know the power lies in the accusation.

Let him prove his innocence to trial is exactly the inversion of what is supposed to happen has to happen. but I like to say it's a bit of persuasion or um, what's the word laying the groundwork for a prospective jury. They're going to now come into this thing and say well, he's got to prove his innocence so the burden is on him which is a complete inversion of the process. Yeah to me, uh my when I read that and I I Love the community notes on Twitter but my jaw hit the ground because to me this is so much of the political theater.

if it happened like obviously when this was read people who supported her like yeah and then people who don't or maybe particularly against Trump like they're like this is how we should be doing like it just blows my mind because if it was inverted someone else saying this like let's just like flip the sides the other half is going to be losing their mind and to me this is just a dangerous game to be playing because ideally the law should be applied equally to everyone. it shouldn't matter your political affiliation. And my biggest concern and a lot of the confusion I see out there about this whole craziness right now. The political legal Saga with Trump is okay.

Is there legal questions going on or is it more political theater? And right now we seem to be in like, in some sort of gray area. Where is it, uh, like kind of a political hit job? or are we actually just looking into someone potentially breaking the law? So I feel very honored to speak with someone with legal knowledge of this situation just to get through some of these basic questions. And I'll preface this by just making sure everybody understands. I'm not an American lawyer and not a criminal lawyer.

but I've made sense of this to myself and I'm able to understand the legalese behind this and I've had the same questions: Is this politics? What are the basis of the charges? How do you get 34 indictments out of what amounts to one act and I've made sense of it to myself. Uh, statute of Limitations the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. So I I've made sense of this to myself. so I think I can probably explain it to other people who have similar questions, but just to answer the first one first.

This is pure political theater. It's Kabuki theater. It is a political Witch Hunt if and we'll discuss it in more detail in a little bit if this is what they go after. Trump for everyone should bear in mind that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid a fine to the FEC for having mislabeled mischaracterized their payment for the steel dossier in the 2016 election.

The steel dose of everyone bearing in mind was that false fabricated bogus opposition research financed by Hillary Clinton and the DNC That Was Then leaked to the FBI via their attorney who charged the Clinton campaign for that meeting. The FBI leaked that uh, Bogus steel dosage to Yahoo news who published an article that the FBI then relied on to get unlawful Fisa spy warns they mischaracterized their payment for that. They're financing that. so if this is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.

and I don't even mean to equate both of those in terms of culpability because one is far worse than the other. but this all amounts to the allegation that Trump made a posh payment to a porn star. Stormy Daniels It was in fact a disguised campaign contribution and he falsified business records by passing it off as legal services to be paid to Michael Cohen Okay, so with that lawyer, I would love to get into the details of it so late. March of 2023, we find out the former president Trump is indicted and then early April We found out he's being arraigned.

so can you tell us a little bit about that process? You referred to the 34 felonies that he's being indicted on I Was reading a little bit before this that, um, some legal minds are referring to this as stacking and to them that makes it seem like the It doesn't like carry enough oomph. Like they're worried that maybe the case is actually light and like that kind of makes people lean a little bit towards this being political theater rather than a a proper legal exploration. But could you clear up? Maybe the timeline Who's involved I'm reading about Alan Bragg and apparently he was running for D.A His whole campaign was essentially like I'm gonna bring Court to Justice like that seemed to be his thing I'm reading a little bit about the judge who's assigned case I believe I read that the daughter worked on the Biden Administration like uh, I just want to Wade through what's fact and what's fiction. That's all fact I mean it's so.

it's so absurd you'd think it was fiction Alvin Bragg Is this vigorous D.A Who was indirectly subsidized by George Soros Now people were saying the idea that Soros funded this da it's fake news. Uh, the fact Checkers I say are wordsmiths of the Devil because George Soros didn't directly fund Alvin Bragg with a million dollars. he funded it indirectly through it's a Pack political action committee called The Color of Change. As far as I understand, he gives a million dollars to the Color of Change The Color of Change as a political action committee then turns around and and vigorously supports Alvin Bragg's um election campaign that he gets elected um to District Attorney.

So the people are going to say it's not true that Soros backed this D.A It is true. it's just done, um, indirectly. What they can't really do directly in the same way you know fauci funded gain a function in Wuhan China but not directly through a third party. NGO Uh, Eco Alliance whatever it's called so that that is true Alvin Bragg Literally ran on a campaign of going to prosecute persecute Donald Trump for something.

They had looked into this a couple of years ago and decided not to prosecute it because it didn't get prosecuted federally. They They determined that there was no basis to go after Trump federally for this. Hush payments are not illegal. We'll get there in a second.

Uh. Two of the Uh assistant attorneys I figure out what their titles were within Bragg's office resigned out of protest because they were so gung-ho about going after. Trump Two years later, Bragg Reopens this investigation or continues to look into it and decides that they can now bring charges. um, on what is referred to as a novel Legal Theory Jonathan Turley Someone who is far from right wing says that this is a novel legal theory that is not baseless, but very dubious.

And if you're going to test a novel theory for an indictment, you don't do it for the first time ever against a former president leading candidate for the GOP. The novel legal theory is this. It is all premised on this hush payment to Stormy Daniels in particular, but they lump together in the statement of fact in support of the indictment, three other payments made. They're called catch and Kills, so pay for the story, acquire the rights, sign an NDA and then don't publish it.

Hence, catch the story, kill the story. Uh, it's pretty, uh, standard in Paul. It's pretty standard everywhere. There's any number of reasons why you might want to buy a story, sign Ndas, and then make sure that people can't go blabbing them out about something which might be true, might not be true, but might be prejudicial either way.

So there were three of these. One of the three. Even as per the statement of fact in support of the indictment, which is this long longer document detailing the facts, one of the three. was a fake story.

It was a doorman that used to work for Trump or with Trump or in the building who said that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock. they paid this guy to be quiet. Turns out that story was false, but this is one of the three catch and kills that the Uh statement of Fact mentions the big one is. Stormy Daniels uh Stormy Daniels alleges although she admitted at one point it didn't happen, she alleges they had an affair and Trump paid her 130 000 to shut up about it.

The statement of fact goes on to detail and the indictment is based on this idea that the payment of 130 000 was then disguised. Instead of saying okay, this is a NDA hush payment We're going to call this Michael Cohen Legal Services and structure it in a way that Donald Trump can pay the amount and then some to Michael Cohen without having to disclose that it was a hush payment to a porn star to silence her on an alleged Affair that they had. okay, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty already and went to jail. uh for um I Think it was basically having lied about this.

He said he made the payment personally unbeknownst to Trump and it therefore exceeded campaign contributions to a campaign. That would be a crime. That's what he pleaded guilty to, which thus makes this entire claim uh, totally illogical. because if it wasn't Michael Cohen Making this payment unbeknownst to Trump for the benefit of Trump thus violating campaign Finance laws.

It means that Trump actually made the payment to Stormy Daniels and the D.A Now is trying to say well, that violated Uh limit limit limit laws campaign Donation limit laws. but Trump is not bound by limits to his own campaign. So there's an argument that if it was in fact Trump who made the payment to Stormy Daniels for the benefit of his campaign. Well, the the Campaign Finance laws as as relates to the caps for donations doesn't apply to the individual himself.

He can donate as much as he wants to his own campaign. When Cohen admitted to this, he was implicitly and specifically stating that he made the donation he made the campaign. uh payment. Uh, unbeknownst to Trump and therefore he broke the law.

So they're sucking and blowing legally here. But bottom line, they're saying Trump made this payment to Stormy Daniels They concocted a scheme with Michael Cohen which was to say uh, how do we disguise this 130 000 bucks we want to pay to his legal services So let's take this amount of money. let's lump it together with another fifty thousand dollars. we're up to 180.

Let's double it So we'll pay you Michael Cohen 360 000 and then we're going to pay you a monthly retainer. Uh, to reimburse you this amount or to pay you on a retainer This amount it'll come to the equivalent of 420 000. And the reason why they doubled the amount was that to the extent it was going to now become income for Michael Cohen They were basically compensating him for the taxes he would have to pay on that deemed income. whereas if it was in fact just a reimbursement of an expense, it wouldn't be deemed income.

So Michael Cohen wouldn't have to pay tax on the reimbursement of an expense that he incurred the way I see it from an onlooker with the legal aspect of it seems so tied up in the intricacies of like, oh, it's payment classification all that, and right away I Just think that the average person loses interest. I'm not saying that it's not interesting like I think politically, it's important to track what's going on here to like: make sure that our legal system isn't like you know, just becoming, uh, almost like a political hit tool, but right there. like I look at it from the house and I'm like it's the classification of a payment. As you alluded to, it's not illegal to pay someone off for a story, to not get out there.

like if you want to own the rights to a story like whatever, let's say that you or I did it. That's fine. But that does bring up a question. Um, and I just thought of this: Is it different If you're running an election like the way you and I could buy a story.

Is there a difference there there? There is a difference from what I Understand, from what you know. legal. Minds with expertise in this area have specified If it were in fact bona fide solely exclusively for the purposes of impacting a campaign, then it might be treated differently. If there's any other consideration to this, then the payment is not exclusively for the benefit of a campaign.

It could just be to prevent the wife from getting upset about, you know, public debate. So there might be a Nuance there in terms of whether or not the payment was intended to be specifically exclusively for the benefit of a campaign. But when you say you know like it's complicated and people lose interest, that's what they want because people are going to lose interest. and if depending on their partisan alignment, they're going to say I don't care what it was, he's being charged with 34 indictments.

It's got to be serious. You don't indict someone with 34 charges if it's not serious I Don't get into the accounting I Just want the Top Line He's been charged with 34 indictments. That's where they intend to make it complicated for those who who don't want to or can't understand it. So they just come away with the Top Line 34 indictments.

But listen to this because it's Preposterous okay for anybody who goes through it I'm going through the indictment and all that I'm seeing is count one. Uh, invoice. count two, entry in the books, count three, writing a check, count four, and it's all relating to a payment made on the same date. Oh, these were February Okay, then count five is March the same charges, invoice, payment, uh, entry in the ledgers, and another one count.

Then you get to where are we at now? Count 13. No for February March for April for me. So they've taken this one payments, which was, um, devised to be reimbursed over the course of nine months. They've taken each of the monthly installments, the invoice as one indictments, the uh writing of the check as its second indictment, the entry, and the ledgers of the books as the third indictment, and the vouchers.

I don't even know what the vouchers are as before. So you get four indictments per payment on a nine month installment, give or take for the one 135. It's it's trumped up is not the ironic, uh, pun intended way to describe this. It's Preposterous And it's so Preposterous that even rabid, frothing at the mouth Trump Haters are saying this is weak.

It's going to look political, and it's going to actually end up helping his campaign. Yeah, I Mean you could argue from a financial standpoint, which is like more of the aspect I've been personally tracking I Think he's already raised multiple millions of dollars off of it. Like, to me, it's that same mindset of almost a little bit of what we saw with Andrew Tate and like we could talk about that like later in a different interview. But this concept of If people really don't like them and you want to break them down.

they seem to be doing the things that are making them bigger like it. It blows my mind. like psychologically, they just need a better PR team like this. If you're gonna come after someone like you, have to make it juicy, where the public can bite into and be like yeah.

But as you're saying now, it's this headline driven thing where it's apparently they took one payment and stacked it up. And like people, the more they talk about it, they're like that's that's boring, stacked it up and then also had to circumvent Statute of Limitations. Yes, well, they've turned it into so they turned it into a felony as opposed to what it would have otherwise been a misdemeanor Because a misdemeanor from what I Understand, statute of Limitations is two years. A felony is five years and so how do they? How do they upgrade it to a a felony? Well, they they pre, they charge it.

Um, under this other provision where the underlying fraudulent aspect of the payment had to be a crime in and of itself. So therefore, they can up it to a a felony which gives them a five-year statute of limitations which is still going to pose its own problems. Okay, the problem is. and I put together this highlight of Alvin Bragg's press conference Afterwards, everybody's asking what is the underlying crime of the payment.

Hush payments are not illegal. So they say the payment made to defraud or in furtherance of another crime And everyone's like, what is the other crime And so you have Alvin Bragg Now suggesting, although it's not specifically stated in the indictment that the underlying crime is some election for election laws, then the question becomes: can the underlying crime for State charges be a federal election law And that too is by no means answered. Um, you know clearly in the affirmative, can a state law that's predicated you know, a state felony that's predicated on an underlying Commission of a crime? Can it be a federal crime? Um, especially with the Federal decided not to prosecute for this very same fact pattern alleged crime. So there's that.

even if you get past the felony aspect of this and you accept that it's upgraded to a felony stature, limitations is five years. The last payment was December 2017. which would bring us into the statute. limitations would be set to expire December 2017.

They've they've they've uh, indicted him Mark give or take March 2023. How do they get there? Well, the last payment was made in December 2017, but apparently they did. You know they filed the papers in 2018 thus ratifying the last nine months of payments. therefore all get swept up into sort of a renewed A Renewed Um, uh or not really suspended, but they get ratified in 2018.

So five years runs from 2018. So that's even if you accept all of this and you get to the felony. There's still a problem with the Statute of Limitations, even under the theory of the case. Now another theory as to how they're going to get past or an argument they're going to raise to address the statute of Limitations problem is that the Statute of Limitations was told it's the the American term for suspended while Trump was out of the state.

So if he was not in the state for uh, the authorities to serve to prosecute statute of Limitations is sort of suspended. So while he was off in Washington being president, the statute of Limitations had been told. therefore they still have some time left. Sorry, go for it.

Oh no like I've never heard of that so I appreciate you sharing it. Uh, very quickly. just to rewind to the concept of this of like maybe making it I believe is called a classy felony to hide a larger crime that quote unquote larger crime as we're filming this now is that publicly known is that something that we find out in December which I'm reading is the next time this will be in court and publicly discussed. Do we have any concept of what that truly is? Uh, we have a concept because brag sort of alluded to it, although he did also say it doesn't specify the indictment because by law we're not legally required to do it.

Bullcrap I Mean for goodness sake, you're going after the President specify what the underlying crime is. They're alluding to either state election law or federal election law. and again I I He alluded to this: I don't know how state election law could work for a federal election? I Mean these are some new is that as a Canadian attorney I I will appreciate I may have you know, may not be understanding, but he's alluded to the fact that it's federal election laws. Um, potentially Uh.

exceeding campaign finance, a campaign donation to one's own campaign. And then there's the argument as to who made the hush payment. So if it wasn't Donald Trump Personally, and it was done through a company, which it seems to be, well, that company would be bound by uh, donation caps. So maybe that's where the underlying federal crime is.

But the bottom line is, you know the Fed. The feds had already looked into this and declined to prosecute and Bragg himself declined to prosecute. Two years ago, he had two lawyers whatever assistant Adas or whatever resigned from his office and one of the questions they asked him during the press conferences. What changed between two years ago and today? Oh well, we've got new evidence.

Bullcrap. You know what their new evidence probably is the words of a proven admitted perjurer. Liar. Michael Cohen So Michael Cohen is now on the record of as having said Bo both A and not A on two separate occasions he's a confirmed liar.

Uh, so they're relying on the presumably the the testimony of a confirmed admitted yeah, he went to jail for liar Michael Cohen That's their new evidence that's absolutely ridiculous. So I mean please I don't want to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like not just you, but I'm reading a lot of more like this doesn't just seem to have the gust so behind it, it doesn't really seem to be maybe the strongest case. And of course this could change but a couple questions here.

So is it true that the next time we'll get any major update related to this is in December And also second question is if you had to play Devil's Advocate to your current understanding of the situation like where how do you think this could go like is there a particular aspect of it that you think could bite the former President in the ass? Like is there a part that you're like oh, this is actually kind of interesting or like across the board are you like no Your money would be betting on the fact that this is just dismissed or whatever the proper legal term would be the The um. First things first: Yeah, from my understanding, the next hearing date is in nine months like they're gonna, they're gonna I Think go for scheduling for a trial which is expected to be next year or it'll take a long time. There's going to be preliminary emotions I Don't know if they fleshed out all of the interim stuff. Uh, as of now, there will be interim motions to dismiss.

Uh, because there's legal issues here that don't need to be Tried by a jury that might off the bat. Uh, dismiss this lawsuit just before we forget actually the judge. uh, what's his name Juan Juan Mercy I Remember I keep pronouncing his name as a it sounds French but it's he is. In fact the judge who has presided over other cases involving Trump Trump Enterprises Uh, Trump Allies To say that he um, to say that one can predict his, his political, or you know, ideological inclinations is an understatement.

Look, it's it's It's obvious it's a con. It's a massive coincidence how this judge just randomly assigned this case. uh, the Twitter dispute that occurred the other day where AOC who's this other guy Kevin not um, not green. There's another.

There's another journalist who's accusing Donald Trump Jr of intimidating the judge by posting a picture of the judge's daughter online and I was I was shocked by that I was like, why would they be posting I I presume the kid. You know they're posting pictures of the I thought the kid was a young kid in school I Didn't realize the judge's daughter is a politically active individual who worked on the the Um Biden Kamala Harris campaign uh, supported. Kamala So yeah, the the daughter of the judge is politically active and vehemently anti-trump The judge is quite clearly anti-trump Um, so there's there's partisan issues going on with the appearance of Justice or objectivity with the judge himself. So set that aside.

Yeah, the next date is it a long time and expect there to be a lot of interim motions to dismiss for legal for legal grounds. The second part: Playing Devil's Advocate, It's it's impossible to steal man this the other way because it's it's frivolous on its face. The idea is that Trump Um, I Mean it's it's it's just imp. Very difficult because statute of limitations is a problem.

Uh, past decisions not to prosecute is a problem. Timing is very convenient. The the massive trumping up of this indictment to 34 charges which all stem from one alleged hush money payment. Uh, it's It's transparently bogus.

The only issue is that the power lies in the accusation. You get the headlines in the interim, even if it's dismissed at a later date. If I'm on a steel magnet, it's going to a jury trial if it gets there in the state of New York in a district which is clearly anti-trump Uh, so it doesn't even matter how baseless the lawsuit is. It's sufficiently complicated that a jury might not even understand the nuances and just convict because there's so much there, there has to be some.

There has to be some fire behind all the smoke. Um, it's sort of. It's sort of like the Washington prosecutions of the January 6th defendants. Do you think these jury members know what seditious conspiracy is? a charge that has barely been tried in the history of the United States And they can convict in a matter of hours? It's it's politics.

It's jury pool and so you can get lucky. just so long as you know you get a jury that says uh, I don't understand it but me? no like Trump and this looks bad. Uh, I might not be using the right term, but inherently this is political and the judge has a political bias or clears ties to it isn't the right word. recuse like like maybe I'm just missing something here but I Thought: if there was like a clear but or even for jurors like that's a common thing always shown in like movies and sitcoms or whatever of like hey, do you know about this if you do like, you're not going to be a jurored, you already have a bias.

but like I I thought that was the same thing with judges that they clearly had a bias I Thought they had to go to the next judge Am I missing something? No, that's it. You know you know which judge determines whether or not they recuse a judge from a file. No, the judge accused of a bias. The judge who is asked to recuse himself determines whether or not he or she recuses himself.

You know how often you succeed. On Emotion For a judge, the only judge that would recuse themselves is one that is sufficiently conscious of their bias to do it. Um, now you know in a jury trial, people should understand this. Um, the judge adjudicates on matters of law and the matters of fact are are submitted to the jury for consideration.

So a lot of the legal questions are going to be decide. Well, not a lot. All of the legal questions are going to be decided by the judge. The judge will never recuse himself.

They can make a motion. Uh, it won't get nowhere. What might get somewhere is a motion for change of venue or change of change of venue. So they can maybe get to a venue where they can.

Maybe hope to get a less biased jury pool one that's been less tainted by the media. Uh, but even good luck with that. They tried that in January 6. It didn't work.

They tried it with Alex Jones I think and it didn't work. Um I'm not sure if they did. I I Might be getting confused with Alex Jones but they've tried it in a number of cases. it.

oh, it was um, where they asked for a change of jurisdiction because how are they going to get a fair trial in that area? So that's that's the motion that might be more likely to succeed. but uh, you know the judges determine themselves whether or not they recuse themselves and and doesn't happen very often. Interesting. Well, truly thank you for your time here.

Uh, when there's any other updates, you're more than invited to come back. I Appreciate the conversation before. I Let you go just for people who want to say like a little bit more in tune with any of the legal developments obviously in Canada and the US where's the best place to find You shout out your socials just because I'm sure a lot of people are going to want to track you down. I Happen to be wearing our own merch of Vivabarnslaw.locals.com that's Viva Barnes Es uh Eva Barneslaw.locals.com That's on Locals.

That's where we discuss all of this stuff weekly. Live streams on Rumble Um and I Do I mean I'm Almond? Rumble Vivofry Twitter Viva Fry because some old account has Vivofry? Uh, and then you know I I'll be doing updates as these things, um, progress. It'll probably be a little quiet right now. now.

it's going to be political Spin and this and that, but we talk about a bunch of other stuff. So Vivofry on rumble Vivofry on Twitter Vivabarnslaw.locals.com where you can support us and and get all the latest and a ton of exclusive stuff. Awesome! Thank you and could you give us a little bit of a taste? So when you do content is it always related to like everything going on on the political scene but through illegal lenses that like the best way to describe like their content. It started off as just legal analysis uh and I I'm still objective, but I would be reluctant to give my opinion five years ago.

Uh, I Never appreciated how much law and politics were, uh, fundamentally intertwined until 2020. So it's it's legal analysis, political commentary. um, and just some, you know what, wild news and and culture War commentary because that also seems to be absolutely unavoidable these days. Man, that sounds great everyone.

definitely check it out. We for me and also all the audience we appreciate your time. Thank you so much and I hope we can talk again soon! Absolutely thanks a lot.