Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Day 17, Capitol Hill Police Attack, DOJ Drug Cartel Arrest & Criminal Complaint

April 02, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 17, Capitol Hill Police Attack, DOJ Drug Cartel Arrest & Criminal Complaint
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Day 17, Capitol Hill Police Attack, DOJ Drug Cartel Arrest & Criminal Complaint
Apr 02, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

More offices testify against Chauvin in trial today. Capitol Hill is attacked by a man with a vehicle and a knife. Department of Justice makes announcement regarding arrest of major cartel players. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Judge Cahill cuts the trial short today and releases the jury early.

• Two officers are called by the government and testify against Derek Chauvin.

• Senior Lt. Zimmerman damages the defense calling Chauvin’s use of force “totally unnecessary.”

• Capitol Hill attacked by a man with a vehicle – we review the latest breaking news.

• U.S. Department of Justice announces major cartel arrest in drug smuggling case.

• Review of the criminal complaint including the details of the drug smuggling investigation by the FBI.

• As always, your questions and live Locals.com chat after the news!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:

• No Clubhouse today!

• Join the Club: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/watching-the-watcher

Connect with us:

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB

Other tips? Send to [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #CapitolHill #CapitolHillAttack #CHPD #DOJ #TrueCrime #Cartels #Drugs #USAttorneys

Show Notes Transcript

More offices testify against Chauvin in trial today. Capitol Hill is attacked by a man with a vehicle and a knife. Department of Justice makes announcement regarding arrest of major cartel players. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• Judge Cahill cuts the trial short today and releases the jury early.

• Two officers are called by the government and testify against Derek Chauvin.

• Senior Lt. Zimmerman damages the defense calling Chauvin’s use of force “totally unnecessary.”

• Capitol Hill attacked by a man with a vehicle – we review the latest breaking news.

• U.S. Department of Justice announces major cartel arrest in drug smuggling case.

• Review of the criminal complaint including the details of the drug smuggling investigation by the FBI.

• As always, your questions and live Locals.com chat after the news!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

CLUBHOUSE AFTER PARTY DISCUSSION:

• No Clubhouse today!

• Join the Club: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/club/watching-the-watcher

Connect with us:

• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq

• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/

• Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/

• Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy

• Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq

• Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv

Don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB

Other tips? Send to [email protected] or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.

#WatchingtheWatchers #DerekChauvin #ChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd #CapitolHill #CapitolHillAttack #CHPD #DOJ #TrueCrime #Cartels #Drugs #USAttorneys

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and getting sunnier, Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and I to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. And so that's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system. With the hope of finding justice. We're grateful that you are here and with us today, we're talking about Derek Shovan it's days , 17. We had a half day to day , not a good day for the defense in one man's humble opinion. And so what we're going to do is go through this and I got it framed out a little bit differently today. I think we'll have some fun. We're going to do direct examination, cross examination , point by point for one particular Lieutenant. So that'll be interesting. And we're going to learn a little bit about how I think the strategies work. At least it's how it's being implemented in this particular trial. So that'll be good. Then we're going to change gears. Big news. This afternoon, there was an attack over at the Capitol Hill building at the whole facility, there was a sort of a maniac who rammed his car into a Capitol Hill police officer, two of them and turned into the shootout. He jumped out with a knife he's been killed, an officer has been killed. And so this was sort of a volatile afternoon. If you were over at Capitol Hill, got some interesting imagery. There was a helicopter that just landed right in the mall there. And so I want to break down what's going on with that story, then we're going to finish up very interesting announcement from the U S department of justice, big arrests and bus in a cartel case. So there was a number of very high profile people who were allegedly smuggling, something like 1100 pounds of methamphetamines across the border, talking about a border crisis. And now they have been arrested. They've been indicted. We've got a copy of the complaint. And it's interesting. This is an interesting one, reminds me of a Netflix series or like , uh , you know , uh , a season of breaking bad, how this whole thing went down. So we're going to break that down, stick around for that portion of the program. Now, typically at this part of the broadcast, I say, Hey, we're going to take questions at the, in the middle of the segments as we transitioned from topic to topic, but the trusted and loyal miss faith is not here today. Unfortunately, she's at the vet because her beautiful dog, penny swallowed a suck . And so she was not doing well this morning. And so she is dealing with that right now. So penny is supposedly is going to be fine. Hopefully she's going to be fine and say, your prayers hurts our beautiful golden retriever. So go take a look at her profile on Instagram. If you want to see the dog that that is , uh , not doing well right now, but young little puppy, somehow a to sock, it happens, you know, these things are confusing. So she is not here to take clips for me to answer as we go through the program. And so we didn't even set up the live chat over on locals.com. I apologize. So I was kind of skidding in here at the last minute, prepping a bunch of stuff. So we're just going to go through the content today. We'll get back to some Q and a on Monday. All right. So let's get into the news. Oh , by the way, before we jump into it, you can still go over to locals and support us. If you'd like, there's a platform is called locals.com. We have a community over there called watching the Watchers and ordinarily, we do take questions from there, but we're just not going to be doing that today, but we are we're posting links and getting to know people. So if you want to support the show, you can go over there and do that. And we'll get back into the routine starting on Monday. So, all right, we're going to talk about the news now that we have that settled and cleared up. All right , Derek Shovan day 17, we had two new witnesses who came out today and took the stand two police officers. One is a Sergeant. One is a Lieutenant and not a really good day for the defense. If I can be candid about this, a lot of the testimony today had some very good sound bites . Some good clips kind of left a Mark. When sometimes you get these witnesses who come into court and the way they testify, it just leaves a sting, some of the language that they use. And then it's up to the person who's doing the cross-examination to unring that bell. And so we saw that today. Remember, we're still at the moment in this case where the government is presenting their side of the story, it's called their case in chief. And so if we go over to the trial board, it's going to look like this. We saw a lot of activity today from prosecutor, Matthew, Frank, we're still on this side of the board. The government is presenting all of their evidence. And right now they're going through a , a big, a big, big list of witnesses. Eric Nelson is the defense attorney and he is cross-examining all of these witnesses. And so today we saw these two gentlemen testify in court. Yesterday. We saw the girlfriend to paramedics, fire, captain, and a Sergeant. And then in the days proceeding, you know, many other witnesses. So we're going to fill out this board, you're going to see there's going to be a lot of people who are testifying on behalf of the government. So today Sergeant Edwards is this gentleman here. And he, his testimony, I can't say was really even relevant. I mean, it was relevant. Of course he was somebody who responded after the scene, but he sort of talked about some of the nuts and bolts and sorta was still framing out a lot of what happened there on May 25th and two of 2020. And so not really consequential testimony, sorta , you know, just , just kind of adding a little bit of meat on the bones there, but nothing that I thought was even worth, really commenting on. And neither did Mr. Nelson, the defense attorney, because he didn't ask him any cross examination questions. So he must not have thought that there was anything there. That was a true threat. And so we're going to spend , we're going to going to skip over him and we're going to spend most of our time today, actually all of our time today on this gentlemen , this is Lieutenant Zimmerman, he's a police officer. And if you look at him, he kind of looks like a, like a one of those guys who's been around the police department for a very long time, kind of looks like somebody who would be in a movie like, Hey, Lou, you know, that's Lou back there. And so he kinda came off that way, and this is an important part of witnesses and how they testify . You know, they , they gotta be likable and relatable otherwise what they say doesn't ever land on the jury. If they just don't like you, the words that are coming out of your mouth can kind of be irrelevant. You probably know how this feels with somebody in your life, even, hopefully not, but maybe you do. And so this guy was doing that sort of, he's very affable, kind of somebody likable also at times, seemed a little bit confused. Like he was sort of straining to answer the questions or having difficulty hearing the questions are having a difficult time understanding it. But the way that I structured this analysis of this witness today is we're going to sort of go back and forth. We're going to do a one-to-one connection. And so I had a little bit extra time today. So I wanted to sort of match this up, but the way it's going to work, we're going to hear from the direct examination first. And we're going to go point by point. So it'll go direct

Speaker 2:

Am cross exam on the same point, then we're going to do it again.

Speaker 1:

Typically the way this works is, you know, you go through a whole series of questions. The government comes out, they'll ask him 50 questions about 10 different topics. And so it's all mashed into one long narrative. Then the defense attorney comes out and he's got to go through that point by point, you know, 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5. And so sometimes for the jurors, or even for us watching it, you kind of forget about what they're talking about. Nelson is the defense attorney. He's responding to one particular issue, but because it happened so long ago, nobody really remembers what they're even talking about. So what I did is I kind of split them up. So we're going to hear the direct examination first. Then we're going to hear the cross-examination and we're not going to hear the rehabilitation where the government comes back out and fixes it. Cause you can, [inaudible] , we'd be here all day. If we just kind of did that format.

Speaker 2:

So it will be point rebuttal, point rebel

Speaker 1:

Point rebuttal. And I just want to show you how this works. And so what's what's happening right now is the prosecutor is going to try to get him to

Speaker 2:

Be unequivocal. There's

Speaker 1:

No doubt about this, right? The government has to go beyond a reasonable doubt. They got to show that how this works is this is just clear. It's unequivocal. There is no doubt at all. And certainly not anything that's reasonable doubt. There would be, there might be doubt, but that's not even reasonable. It's unreasonable doubt. And so we've already met our burden. So the government wants this guy

Speaker 2:

To be hard to be by the ,

Speaker 1:

The book to just say, Oh 100%, absolutely not, no justification

Speaker 2:

For anything. And so he's going to run one direction and be very, very strongly opinionated, say this just without any doubt, because that's the standard they got approved. And what is Eric Nelson, the defense attorney going to do during the day

Speaker 3:

Cross-examination he's going to drag him back. He's going to pull him back towards this direction. So it's going to go from the , there

Speaker 2:

Of absolutely not even humanly possible. There's no doubt about this. This was the wrong thing to do. Can't even fathom an alternative explanation to Eric Nelson, pulling him back. Okay. So it is maybe a little bit possible

Speaker 3:

Could be interpreted this way. There are alternative explanations here and you're going to see this tension. And so when you frame this out one to one , you can see it in real time. You can see one statement. Now he's making his cross-examination statement, maybe half an hour, two hours later, because I think they even took a break in here. So he's not even re recognizing how off these things might be. And you can be the one who decides, you know, whether, how to interpret this. And this is ultimately what the jury is going to do. They're going to listen to the cross examination . They're going to see him during the direct exam, going one direction, coming back the other direction when Eric Nelson now takes the questioning of the podium. And so the jury is going to have to decide what to do,

Speaker 2:

How that feels to them. Does it matter? Does the cross-examination matter at all? Are they gonna find that he's more credible over there where he's unequivocal or

Speaker 3:

He's more credible where he does have some equivocation? Maybe it does open up the possible

Speaker 2:

And introduce some doubt about something else

Speaker 3:

Being the cause of Floyd's death. All right. So enough of that, let's take a look at who this gentleman is. This is him right here. He's Lieutenant Zimmer Zimmerman. And he started as a police officer, I think back in 1985. And then he became a Sergeant back in 1993. And you know, just for some context, right? So this guy became a police officer. When I was born. He's been a practicing as a police officer, my entire life. So he's been doing this a long time and this was a big part of their testimony and probably a big reason. This guy was a witness in the first place as he's going through there , they're laying a bunch of foundation. They did it almost for like, I don't know how long, but it felt like an hour just about all the experience . This guy has training and the testing that he completed and sort of the , the evolution from becoming an officer to being promoted to a Sergeant to now being up to a Lieutenant now, what is his daily responsibility? What are those entail? And he flushed it all out for us. And he was even kind of jovial about it. They said, well, you've been around forever in 1985. That must be like one of the longest police officers in the Minneapolis police department. Right. And he

Speaker 2:

Goes, yeah, yeah, I'm sort

Speaker 3:

Of up there. He says, well, do you know what, what level of seniority you are? And he says, well, yeah, you know, I do I'm number one,

Speaker 2:

The one I'm the most senior guy here, I've been doing it a long time. And so that lends credibility. As you say,

Speaker 3:

Everybody on the jury goes, Oh man, this guy's like the most senior top dog there. He's not, he's a Lieutenant. He's not a commander or chief or a deputy chief or any of those things. But he's been around a long time. I'm not, if it's the oldest, if he's the oldest law enforcement or the most senior law enforcement on the entire force. But I would guess certainly the most senior Lieutenant he's been around and that gives him a lot of credibility. So you're going to see why they brought him up because he's a good witness for them. Wow . The guy who's been doing it, the longest says all of this stuff, it must have some weight to it. So let's figure out what he says. I just wanted to give you that framework. This is, he's got , we've got three clips from him. And so once again, we're going to go point rebuttal point rebuttal point rebuttaled. So this first clip is where he's talking about handcuffs. We're dosing the threat to zero. If somebody is in handcuffs, they're no longer a threat. And he's talking about the use of force scale. We've talked about this on the channel. There's sort of this continuum, you know, you show up at a scene, you've got some physical presence there. If they know you're an officer that is technically some level of use of force and it escalates from there all the way up from something that's benign, maybe to physical contact all the way up to deadly force. So they're talking about that sort of this, this kind of pyramid, this hierarchy of force. And he saying, when handcuffs go on, it requires the necessary use of force to go all the way down. And that's what he says. So let's listen to him. And then we're going to listen to how Eric Nelson walks that back with him, how he , he sort of walks him through walking that back. So here is Mr. Zimmerman, Lieutenant Zimmerman from the Minneapolis police department.

Speaker 4:

Once you handcuff somebody, does that affect the amount of force that you should consider using? Absolutely. How so? Um, once you person is coughed , um, the, the threat level goes down all the way, you know, to , uh, they're cuff tall , can they really hurt you? You know? Um, and , uh , well certainly there could be certain circumstances when a cough person could still be combative. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. But you getting injured is way down. What do you mean by that? Well, you know, if you're , uh, you could have some guy tried to kick you or something , um, but you can move out of the way that person is handcuffed, you know? And they , um, um, the , the threat level is just not there. So by handcuffing somebody you've taken away, some of their ability to harness . Absolutely.

Speaker 3:

Okay. So for the government, that sounds pretty good, right? It sounds, Hey, George Floyd was in handcuffs. Derek Shovan saw him in handcuffs. That means that from Chauvin's perspective, when we're talking about this use of force and perception of dangerousness relationship, if you see a lot of danger, then that justifies more use of force in order to protect yourself. But if you see no danger or no threats, well, then you can't still use deadly force because it needs to be relative they're they're relational. So if there is no real threat, then you can't use deadly force. So what this guy is saying, the Lieutenant is once Floyd went in handcuffs that dropped it from a scenario where maybe deadly force would be justified, but when he's in handcuffs, it drops it all the way down. I think that was his language verbatim. Now he does acknowledge that there is some potential that somebody might be injured, but basically he's kind of talking to the jury like, look, he's in handcuffs. What can you do right there , there, there's no more threat in other words. And so what the, what they're trying to frame out here is that this is, this is what Shovan did is so egregious it's. So beyond the pale , because the use of force standard had dropped to zero, or basically all the way down, as he said, and remember, they're talking about this in the context of the use of force hierarchy saying it's going all the way down. So no , almost no force is justified because he's no longer a threat. So then Nelson comes back out and sort of walks that back a little bit. So here he is talking that somebody can in fact, still be a threat in handcuffs and Nelson walks us through sort of a very, very targeted series of cross-examination questions, where he is, he's doing a lot, but really the nuts and bolts of , of the end goal is to re reduce his credibility and introduce some of this doubt. So we talk about beyond a reasonable doubt. And as we just heard, you know, he said, no, and the use of force goes all the way down, always every time. Are there certain instances when maybe it doesn't go all the way down? And isn't it also true that what you saw is just from the body cam footage, just from the bystander video, you weren't in fact there. So before we get to this part of the questioning, he's talking about that saying, well, you know, body cameras are not going to pick up everything. They're not going to get all of what, you know, what an op , what an officer on the scene would be observing all of the different motion, all of the angles of peripheral vision, the sights, the sounds, the smells, whatever, right? When you're physically there, you've got an, a different interpretation of the event than if you're just watching it on camera. So he's sort of trying to tease out and watered down a lot of these definites , a lot of these absolutes that he just came out with and just walk that back. So now that we have that framed out a little bit, this is where he's saying that you can in fact, still be a threat if you are in handcuffs.

Speaker 5:

So testified that once a person is handcuffed, the threat, I think you said is gone. It's at the lowest threat level, right? Yes, that's correct. Now that obviously , um, a person who's handcuffed can still pose a threat. Right. Um, I suppose I could. Yeah. So an officer who is handy , even though he has someone handcuffed, that person could continue to kick the officer. Um, yeah, I suppose that off, that person could continue to thrash his body around. Agreed. Sure. And part of the reason police officers restrain people is for that persons on safety agreed. Absolutely. Yeah.

Speaker 3:

So you can see even a little bit of that, that physical discomfort there, because he knows that he's sort of having to admit to something that he was almost , uh , opposite to just just an hour ago, right. Free, previously came out and said, well, it's not necessarily, once somebody is in handcuffs, they're no longer a threat is , is sort of the snippet of the summary of what he said previously. Then he comes back out and says, well, they can be a threat and you can see him just kind of square him going. Yeah. I mean, they can, they can still be a threat, I guess. Right. And so he's just like just breaking open a little bit just to show. Okay. So there are certain situations it's not an absolute. And so from a Nelson perspective, you know, legally that is , is, is nice. It's, it's a job well done. Whether the jury picks up on that, whether they internalize that or whether that matters is a whole different story. I mean, technically yes, this guy is saying, you know, judges and prosecutors typically don't like these arguments, if you say, well, it's possible. Yeah. But that , that doesn't mean anything, right. There are a lot of things that are possible. And just because something is illegally possible doesn't mean that it's legally probable. And so if you, if you are making arguments based on just mere possibility, sometimes those just don't carry any weight. People want to see corroborating evidence. They don't want to see something. That's just, you know, an abstract, very possible possibility. They want something that they can sort of add some weight to and see how that feels in their hands. So, you know, he's sort of squirming, as he's saying , uh , yeah. I mean, technically they can still be a threat. So Nelson gets a little bit there, but we just don't know how effective that's going to be as it lands with the jurors. All right. So the next clip from him is he talks about his training. So once again, this guy's a Lieutenant, he's been a part of the department for 35 years, since 1985 in a number of different capacities. And he's worked his way up to a Lieutenant. So it's , you know, an officer kind of officer, most police departments are officer detective. Then you go to a Sergeant, then a Lieutenant, then typically a commander or some sort of deputy commander. Then you sort of work your way up to chief, deputy chief. And that hierarchy goes that way. So this guy's a Lieutenant, so he's significantly up there. I think he talks about managing a five different sergeants who then manage their own teams . So he's got a nice sort of a group of people under him that he is managing. And so presumably he's up to speed and trained on what use of force policies are because he's managing a lot of other officers who are part of the department. So here he's talking about this says that basically I've never been trained to kneel on the , on the neck. I , I that's, that's not even in the manual anywhere and I've been doing it for 35 years. I'm the number one, most senior guy here. What, so that sticks, if a juror hears that this is what he said today in court,

Speaker 4:

Have you ever in all the years you've been working for the Minneapolis police department , um, been trained to kneel on the neck of someone who is handcuffed behind their back in a prone position? No, I haven't. Is that if that were done, would that be considered force? Absolutely. What level of force might that be? That would be the top here, the deadly force. Why? Because of , uh , the fact that , um, if , if your knee is on a person's neck that can kill them. And in your training with , uh , with the Minneapolis police department , uh, over the years, have you received training on restraining people? Yes. Uh, including the use of handcuffs. Yes. And when you are handcuffing somebody, when you handcuff them, what is your responsibility as an officer with regard to that person? Um, well, could I give you an example? Um, okay. Um, well let me ask you this. Um, again, if, if you, as an officer, according to the training, you handcuffed somebody behind the back, what's your responsibility with regard to that person from that moment? Um, that person is yours. Um, his , your responsibility , uh, his safety is your responsibility , uh, his wellbeing and , uh, is your responsibility.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. So that obviously sticks, right? If the juror hears that never been trained, never been trained to use a knee on the neck. And you'll notice that the prosecutor was very careful with his words. He said, specifically, have you ever been trained to, and you may not have heard it, but he was very clear about it. He said, when they're in handcuffs, laying on their set on their side, in a prone position. So he's being very clear about that because he probably knows that there are actual knee in the neck conversations happening in the Minneapolis police department that were justified. Probably not when somebody in handcuffs in a prone position on their side, but it's, it is in the manual. Right. So if he would have come out with a more open-ended question and said something like, well, I , is there, is there any discussion of knees on the neck, in a , in the department at all? He'd probably say, yeah, there is, there has to be, right. So he's being very clear so he can get the right answer that he wants back out. Now, Eric, Nelson's going come back out on this next clip and dig into that a little bit. Okay. So you just said that you've never received any training for neon the neck when somebody is on the side in prone position, any , and you're going to hear how this sort of opens up a little bit. So we're learning that in fact, maybe there is something about a knee somewhere when somebody is putting handcuffs on, but it's not that it never happened. So here it's an absolute, never been trained to have any on the neck. And if , and if so, that would amount to deadly force. So you kind of get a twofer on that. Now Nelson's going to come and help him walk that back a little bit. What do you think? Let's see how he does

Speaker 5:

Minneapolis police department policy allows a police officer to use whatever means or NES are available to him to protect himself and others. Right. So if there's a paint cans sitting on the table and someone is attacking, you can use that pink can as a weapon. Yes . And in fact , uh, you have been trained in the prone handcuffing techniques, correct? Yes. And it's your testimony that Minneapolis police department has never, ever trained anyone to put their knee across the shoulder and to the base of the neck, other than to say that. Okay. So w you would agree then that pursuant to Minneapolis police department training, when a suspect is arrested and in the process of being handcuffed or being restrained, it would be consistent with the Minneapolis police department training you've received to place your knee across the shoulder, to the base of the neck. Um, I don't know if I've , uh , part of your question was hand company and we've certainly been trained to put the knee on the shoulder, but I don't know about just restraining a person. I don't recall being trained in that, but okay. Again possible based on the circumstances. Right ,

Speaker 3:

Right. Possible based on the circumstances, right. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Is what he says. So direct examination comes out. Nope . Never been trained. It's a deadly use of force, not reasonable. He's your responsibility comes back out. Are there maybe instances where the knee does go on the shoulder somewhere? Yeah. Yeah. There are during a , an arrest when we're putting somebody in handcuffs and , uh , any other scenarios while it's possible, there might other actually be other, some, some other areas where it's possible for that . So from an absolute run in a way, one direction, just pulling them back just a little bit more. We've got another clip here where he says this thing was totally unnecessary. So once again, this is back during the direct exam, the government is, this is the government's witness. So they're friendly. They are building their case. And this is the government. I think it was, this was , uh , Mr. I can't remember what name is, but he is doing the direct examination. And this is the big clip that is getting a lot of headlines today where he says it was totally unnecessary. So what does that mean? He's talking about the use of force analysis, right? This is a guy who's been practicing for 35 years. I say practicing, but he's been serving his community or whatever. They call it in law enforcement for 35 years. And presumably he knows use of force when he sees it. He knows how to talk about these issues. So here he comes out. What's his conclusion. What's the takeaway from all this testimony. Totally unnecessary. And we're going to see what Eric Nelson does to cross-examine that one. So here he is today in court

Speaker 4:

And directing your attention to that moment when Mr. Floyd is placed on the ground. Yes. Um, what is your , uh, you know , your view of that use of force during that time period ? Totally unnecessary. What do you mean? Um, well, first of all , uh, pulling him down to the ground face down and putting your knee on a neck for that amount of , uh, that amount of time. It's just , um , uncalled for. Um, I saw no reason why the officers felt they were in danger, if that's what they felt. Um, and that's what they would have to feel to be able to use that kind of force. So, in your opinion, should that restraint have stopped once he was handcuffed and prone on the ground? Absolutely. And I should add to that question then also that it appeared he had stopped resisting I'm sorry . And appeared that he had stopped putting up any resistance. Absolutely. I would stop. I have nothing further.

Speaker 3:

Right? And so the prosecutor smartly stops questioning. He got what he needed out of that done. Right? Totally unnecessary. I would have stopped. That's it? That kind of is a home run. You want to leave on that high note, you'd leave them wanting a little bit more. You don't want to keep asking questions about a bunch of minutia when you just hit your Mark and the prosecutor just did that totally unnecessary. He said, now you'll notice the cross-examination clip that we just played from. Eric Nelson was also sort of rebuttal to that clip, where he was explaining that maybe there are other possibilities and , uh , an officer who's at the scene has a lot more ability to vet the information he's saying, we're getting a lot of information coming in rapidly. We have to process it. So here , uh , during the direct examination Lieutenant was saying specifically that I didn't see anything about whether or not the police should have felt in danger . They must have felt in danger because that was the justification for the lethal use of force. Now he's saying, I didn't see anything, but Nelson came out and then said, well, there's a of information that you didn't see you can't see, right? Because you're there. And there's other ways that information is getting to you, including shouting and sort of your peripheral vision and all those other things. So he says it's possible. Totally unnecessary yet , but it's possible. But then what Eric Nelson does to finish this up and this closes up his, his cross-examination , as he's basically trying to undermine the credibility of this guy entirely, he's saying that, yes, we know you're a Lieutenant. Yes. We know you've been doing this for 35 years, but what you're being asked to comment on here is outside of the scope of your normal duties watch as he does that saying, essentially, this guy should not even be commenting on this stuff. This is outside of what he would ordinarily comment on. They asked him for special opinion on this, why, why would they do that? Is he because he would be a very good witness? Is it because this guy doesn't really know what he's talking about? And they just needed to drag somebody into this analysis. Why would they suddenly ask him to do something that's not a part of his normal job duties? This is what Eric Nelson argues before he walks off. This is him.

Speaker 5:

And you did that because you wanted to make sure the scene was secure. Right. And to make sure that the officers who had responded to the scene were doing the things that they should be doing in connection with a critical incident. That's correct. Such as roping off or tying off the , off the tape or taping off the scene, I should say. Right? Um , putting up crutches . Yes . Yes . Um , not permitting citizens to come wandering through the scene. Right. Um, canvassing the area, I think you said, and ultimately , um, your role in this particular case was limited to a couple of hours of time making sure those things were done and until , um, uh, BCA agents arrive in and you hand it off the seat, right? Yeah . That's good. All right . And it was, it was not until later that you were asked to review the , uh, body-worn cameras of the officers and , uh , consider the use of force. Right. And it would not be within your normal role , uh , of your job duties to do such a use of force analysis. Right. Does correct. I have no further questions.

Speaker 3:

So he does the same thing. He kind of leaves that there says, all right. So normally, look, we know that you're a Lieutenant. That's great. Thanks for your service for 35 years, but you're kind of just a bureaucrat, really? What do you do? Oh, you show up, make sure that they're doing their job. Make sure they're doing their job. Make sure somebody's canvassing the neighborhood. Make sure somebody puts up the crime tape, but the detectives they're doing the work and you have the other officers who are uniformed regularly, they're out doing their work. And so you just kind of make sure it's all going, according to plan, you don't even ordinarily weigh in on use of force. Right? That's correct. So you looked at it after the fact, right? Yep . That's correct. And so ordinarily,

Speaker 1:

You wouldn't even look at this use of force

Speaker 3:

Stuff. That's right. Nothing further, right. You're off.

Speaker 1:

And that is how you start to undermine his credibility. Now, why, you know , why then why is he being asked? Why is he being called in to testify about the use of force stuff ?

Speaker 3:

If ordinarily that's not his job duty now it might be totally his job duty. I don't know.

Speaker 1:

Maybe, maybe it is. He gets called in on the special, big cases. Cause he's been doing it for so long. But the point is, the argument from Nelson was going that direction. Oh, they called this guy he'd or he ordinarily wouldn't even weigh in on this. So what are they doing that for now? Is it because he's biased? His credit

Speaker 3:

Ability is in question who knows, we'll see what the jury has to say about it, but this guy was off , uh , uh, this morning he was done. So they closed court

Speaker 1:

Early today at 1130, I think maybe because it's good Friday, maybe because they're ahead of schedule in the trial, but they are going to be back on Monday with the next witness. And so we're going to be back here ourselves on Monday and beyond following the Shovan trial. So stick around if you want to participate in that, when we get back to our questions, we'll be taking those over from watching the watchers.locals.com. So go join us over there. And of course, if you're on YouTube subscribe so that you can stick around on our channel. All right. So we're going to change gears and talk about the next news story of the day. Us Capitol police notified the country that there was a critical incident this afternoon. There were two us Capitol police officers who were in an altercation. One of them was killed. There was a maniac who slammed his car into a barricade and then got out with a knife and started charging at the officers he was shot and killed. And so this was all unfolding today on Twitter. And it was kind of a wild scene. I want to show you how this was unfolding today. So this tweet came about from the U S Capitol police said, they're responding to the North barricade vehicle access point along independence Avenue. And I think they got that wrong. I think it's constitution Avenue for reports. Someone rammed a vehicle into two us Capitol police officers . A suspect is in custody. Both officers are injured, all three had been transported to the hospital. And it was kind of a weird scene because I was on Twitter, you know, doing some show prep, just kind of just, you know , as I normally do scrolling around, seeing what's going on. And there was a lot of videos of just activity around the Capitol. And a lot of people scrambling around vehicles. And this gentleman , Jake Sherman, the founder of Punchbowl news posted that there was a helicopter that just landed in the East front of the Capitol, right near the Capitol building. He said, I've never seen anything like this before. And so if you want to go check out the video, I'm going to play it right here, but give him a good follow because he was doing a lot of reporting from there on the scene. And what you'll notice that this is actually from within a bathroom. So apparently I've never been in this, obviously this part of the Capitol building, but you can look out, apparently this is a bathroom and you can see, you know, I think the Supreme court's over there and there's some other, you know, this is in the middle of it all. This is where a lot of our Congress people are walking in and out of right by the Capitol building. And so kind of the big deal. This is the video you're going to watch this helicopter just fall in here. That's the Supreme court right there. I think that's , I think this is the national archives. And then this is the Capitol building that he's shooting in from. And you've got the whole, I mean, it's just a, it's a, it's a weird scene. I've been there. I've walked all around there and to see sort of this , uh, you know , emergency response, if it was pretty interesting. So here's his video.

Speaker 6:

This is unusual. I'm taping this. This is a helicopter, literally landing on the East front of the Capitol. Um , I've never in my life seen this before. I've been up here a long time, again, a helicopter landing on the East front of the Capitol and us park police helicopter. Oh my Lord. Oh my God. Oh my God. He better be a good pilot with that maneuver. I don't know, man.

Speaker 1:

So pretty wild scene. And you know, this was still in a moment where everybody's like, what the heck is going on is that Ethan Hunt, they're just helicoptering into the Capitol building and you saw that little helicopter move, right? He's going in between the trees there in the grass and was , uh , you know, this is kind of crazy. It turns out it was just one guy. It sounds like. So the U S Capitol police posted this update and we can see here, here is the latest information they notified us said that we are devastated to share the sad news that one of our officers involved in this afternoon's incident passed away. Us Capitol police is working to notify the officer's next of kin before it releases additional information just after 1:00 PM, a man in a blue sedan, rammed his vehicle into the North, barricade at the us Capitol striking to us Capitol police officers. The department immediately locked down the Capitol campus. The man exited the vehicle with a knife and ran towards our officers. At least one officer drew their weapon and shot the suspect. One us Capitol police officer was transported by the cruiser to the hospital. Second USP S a U S CP officer was transported by fire and EMS. The suspect was also transported by DC fire and EMS to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries around 1:30 PM. The investigation is still ongoing. And we now know that one of those officers did in fact die. And it's this gentleman here, his name was officer William, Billy Evans, and rest in peace. You know, the us Capitol police have had a very tough year. Obviously we had the January 6th stuff. They , somebody died in that and they, the , they lost another officer. So , um , I'm sure for this type of agency, this is not a common thing. And so our hearts go out to anybody , uh , over there, who, and of course, to Mr. William and his , uh, Mr. Evans and his family, this is just obviously tragic. So this is , uh , the U S Capitol police posted. The statement says the loss of officer William Evans, April 2nd, press relief . It is pro. It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the passing of officer William, Billy Evans. This afternoon from injuries. He sustained following an attack at the North barricade by a lone assailant. Officer Evans had a member has been a member of the us Capitol police for 18 years. He began his service on March 7th was a member of the first responders unit. Please keep him in your family, his family, and your thoughts and prayers. This is from the acting us Capitol police, chief Yoganonda Pitman , who we've talked about on this channel a lot. So of course our hearts and prayers go out to his family. This is a little bit of the aftermath of the scene from the New York post. This is what it looked like. And you can see that they're sort of wheeling don't know who that is, but they're wheeling somebody on a gurney. It looks like an officer or potentially the suspect, but a lot of activity on the scene. So loading somebody up right there,

Speaker 6:

You can see it's definitely an officer in that on a stretcher.

Speaker 1:

All right . So that will , that was going on most of the afternoon. And it, the , uh, media of course, was trying to identify this guy. Everybody was trying to come up with their predictions. You know, is this a white guy? Is this , uh , some other race or whatever, so they can go , uh , moral ape bananas, but this is who it turned out to be. So this is the suspect you smashed into the barrier at the U S Capitol. He's identified as a gentleman by the name of Noah Green. This was posted over at the New York post by Craig McCarthy said the driver who killed the U Capitol cop before he was gunned down by the, by police is a nation of Islam devote from Indiana, according to reports. And from his social media, I know a green 25 who may have been living in Virginia, described himself as a follower of Farrakhan on his Facebook page in reference to the nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan. He appeared to have come on hard times from his Facebook page reviewed by the post, before his account was taken down, I was on the right track and everything I had planned was coming into existence. He said they required long hours, lots of studying and exercise to keep me balanced while experiencing an array of concerning symptoms along the path, I believe to be the side effects of drugs. I was intaking unknowingly. He wrote on March 17th signing the message brother, Noah X. And so, you know, we just don't know necessarily what that means. Law enforcement sources said that green recently lived in Virginia in postings, on social media. He let his friends and family know that the past few years have been tough in the past few months, tougher currently now unemployed after I left my job partly to afflictions, but ultimately in search of a spiritual journey, he wrote Green's page featured several recent postings that referenced the teaching of the nation of Islam, a black separatist movement that does not follow the traditional teachings of Islam and its leader. Louis Farrakhan nation of Islam has been classified as a designated hate group by the Southern poverty law center, due to what the SPLC calls, the deeply racist antisemitic , anti LGBT rhetoric of its leaders. The postings do not vindicate. Why green , who is black noted here would target the Capitol . He posted about the end times in one post and another on March 17th warned about the last days of our world. As we know it is final Facebook post for March 21 was a YouTube video , uh, w uh, called the crucifixion of Michael Jackson. I 150 minutes sermon in which Farah Khan defends Michael Jackson. And so we actually have a copy of that Facebook post. Let's take a quick look at it. You know, I don't really have a policy against reading these things. I don't know

Speaker 3:

That it, it really does much, especially in this case, I did read through it. No , I've certainly don't.

Speaker 1:

You want to promote anything that is not appropriate, but most of this stuff is pretty benign. I did read through it. One interesting thing I thought that was worth noting was he talks about the COVID crisis. He says, there's much confusion in this day and age, from my perspective, he said the ongoing COVID crisis, unemployment rising national debt division within the political sphere, rumors of war and the like, but one thing I'm assured everyone can lean on as I've leaned on is the faith in the honorable minister, Louis Farrakhan, as a man who can carry us through the dark hours written in the Bible, you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. So if you questioned this man as Jesus, I recommend taking a look at his life work and his blessings Allah has filled him with the razor of the dead to life, making the blind, see, and the deaf hear , I bear, witness preaching the multitudes and so on and so on. And so he kind of goes out, says it , it kind of checks out

Speaker 3:

The, yeah,

Speaker 1:

It's an , it's an interesting, you know, it's hard to, it's hard to sort of glean anything from this. I typically don't like it when people

Speaker 3:

Actually, I actually don't like it when people instantly jumped

Speaker 1:

Then and try to politicize these things, obviously they're tragic. I think that most of them are probably explainable by somebody who is just not mentally well, but instantly everybody likes to politicize these things. So whether it's the Trump people, whether it's the BLM people, people, whether it's a white shooter, a black shooter, a white supremacist individual, a black separatist individual, everybody wants to make a political spectacle about it. And I'm just not sure how appropriate that is. I think that a lot of these people just need some help

Speaker 3:

And we'll leave it at that. Now I'm sure that there'll be people clamoring

Speaker 1:

On a , on a number of different issues here. Good thing is this guy didn't use a gun. So maybe they're going to be trying to ban knives now. So that's good. All right . Ban cars and ban knives. Anyways, I couldn't resist that. All right . So we're going to change gears one more time before we wrap up. Oh my gosh. It's going to be a short show. This is crazy.

Speaker 3:

All right. So lastly, we're going to be talking about drug cartels. So this'll be fun. The department of justice just recently announced that the leader of Mexico's United cartels have been arrested and charged with training

Speaker 1:

To import 1100 pounds of crystal meth. That's a lot 1100 pounds is a lot of drugs. These guys were apparently trying to do that. DOJ posted

Speaker 3:

A press release yesterday on Thursday, April 1st

Speaker 1:

Sailing . What happened here? So we're going to go through the press release. Then we're going to go through the criminal complaints because it is an interesting one. I think it's about 20 something pages. We're not going to go through the whole thing, but it is interesting because it does read if you've ever seen the movie or the TV show

Speaker 3:

Breaking bad, almost like that. The way that all of this was unfolding was just fascinating. And so typically, you know, you read these DOJ announcements and it's like, well, you know, they were

Speaker 1:

Coming through somebody's computer files and it's a lot of bland, boring stuff. This was not because they were desolving the crystal meth in a regular house paint, and then extracting it out of the paint.

Speaker 3:

We're putting it in concrete barriers so that they can

Speaker 1:

Crack open the concrete and sort of smuggled this stuff in. Very interesting. So we're going to get into it. Let's start off though,

Speaker 3:

With the press release, you can see

Speaker 1:

Here. It says the leader of Mexico's United cartels and others have been charged in the South Florida federal court with importing over 1100 pounds of meth. South Florida, federal prosecutors have charged

Speaker 3:

The leader and five others

Speaker 1:

For their alleged roles in importing into the U S over 500 kilos, which is 1100 pounds of Mexican methamphetamine and the largest meth seizure in the Miami Dade County County history law enforcement agencies, over 1100 pounds of meth before it ever hit

Speaker 3:

The streets, the defendants are charged in

Speaker 1:

Two separate complaints. And so I'm going to show you both of these. I'm gonna show you what I got for both of them. At least several, several different charges, drug conspiracy. We have drug trafficking, drug importation, other crimes, one complaint names we're gonna use , uh, initials for last names too, because they have very long names and it's difficult to pronounce. So we have somebody named

Speaker 3:

CR who is Fruto, that's easier. Who is the former mayor of [inaudible] Mexico. According to the allegations, we also have , uh , we have a restaurant. We have CR

Speaker 1:

Restaurant, they were arrested, arrested

Speaker 3:

In Guatemala. Let's put it that way. We've got a lot of people who were arrested in Guatemala on March 30th, a second criminal complaint charges another four defendants with their roles. So we have compromised , but Dola , we have a sewer Cotto , Gonzales , Valdez law enforcement

Speaker 1:

Officers arrested these four defendants in Miami on March 30th. So we had two arrests happening simultaneously, both in two different locations. We had two people in Guatemala. We had four people in Miami, both went down on March 30th. So presumably that was sort of a bang and day for law enforcement. They have made their initial appearances are scheduled for detention hearings in a federal magistrate court in Miami, on April 7th. So very interesting case. Now, when you try to look up the first one, here's what you get. It's been sealed already. Isn't that interesting? So I plugged this in and you'll notice already sealed off judge each EGT sealed it versus sealed, sealed case. So we're not going to see anything about that one, which is too bad, but the other one is not sealed. So we can go and take a look at this. And here it is, you'll notice that this is the complaint against Alberto comprehension by dolia, but Doyle Badea filed out of the Southern district of Florida. This is the case number, criminal complaint by telephone. And you'll notice it wasn't just telephone. It was actually FaceTime. So they got their arrest warrant. Their criminal complaint filed by FaceTime. This was signed off by special agent shad Ashelman from the DEA drug enforcement administration signed off on by honorable Jonathan Goodman , the U S magistrate judge. And we got a whole slew of charges, all filed out of the Southern district of Florida ranging on or about January 21st to March 20th. So all this was happening this year, very recently, conspiracy to import 500 grams or more containing a detectable amount of meth , another importation, another math charge, conspiracy to possess. We've got possession of intent to distribute and on and on. We've got another one conspiracy to launder money. So they filled out this affidavit and we're going to read through it. Now , as I mentioned, this is a pretty long document in terms of these criminal complaints. Well, not really, but we're not going to read the whole thing because we're just going to clip through some of the good stuff. So here is the affidavit that says I've been a special agent with the us department of DEA assigned with them for a long period of time. I am good at what I do. I respectfully submit that there's probable cause for these people to commit these crimes and port 500 grams, another 500 grams, and tend to distribute 500 grams or more. So we're going to skip over all of that. We're going to go down to paragraph four for the probable cause statement beginning in January of this year, a confidential source. So we're going to use initials, as we said. So CS is confidential source. That's going to be a big one. We're going to see a lot of that. So it's somebody who's undercover feeding them information and it's not. So when I say undercover, it's not part of the FBI or the DEA or a law enforcement agency. It's somebody who's a confidential source. Who's already in that side. An undercover agent is going to be somebody who's , who's a noted differently for this document. So just want to declare that up. So this is somebody who's acting at the direction of law enforcement. Somebody who's a confidential source. They conducted a series series of meetings in Columbia with members of United cartels from Mexico. Those individuals included [inaudible] and Rodriguez. And according to restaurant, he was a Cali based money launderer and a cocaine broker that regularly distributed 25 kilos of cocaine from Columbia to Mexico and ultimately into the States. It's a lot, it's a lot of cocaine. He's a criminal associate of someone else named compound Rodriguez, who is the person who's being charged in this complaint? No, it's not him. It's a different comprehend. So you can see a hard this half. The heart of this stuff is to keep track of copper on , but Dola is the person we're talking about over here. This is copper on Rodriguez. So we're, we're , we've got two compounds in here. The former mayor of the, of the Munis keeping track of the names by the way, is not important for this. According to rusty and compa Rhone is a leader of the United cartels in Mexico. He's a former member of the Knights Templar cartel, according to somebody else, Rodriguez, there is a , he's a distributor of heroin and meth from Mexico into the U S through Houston, Texas, Atlanta, and Georgia. All right , so on or about January 21st at a restaurant in Cali,

Speaker 2:

Rusty and introduced the confidential source to copper on Rodriguez, that meeting,

Speaker 1:

It was audio and video recorded. Thank you. Confidential source during the meeting, the confidential source toll copper on that, he worked with a group of Lebanese people that were looking to fund political campaigns of government officials in Mexico. The confidential source further explained that he was a representative of Hezbollah and the Hassan Nasrallah family, and they had handled their distribution of cocaine in the United States. The CS toll compound Rodriguez that he wanted assistance in Mexico, so that Hezbollah operatives could enter the United States in order to commit

Speaker 2:

I'm. There Rodriguez replied by

Speaker 1:

Explaining that he had created an auto defense group in the town of ag [inaudible] in Mexico, based on my training and experience, I know that auto defense groups are in Mexico, created by prominent local citizens. And they're formed to fight back against the violence of drug cartels. So these are citizen defense groups. However, in this case, the auto defense group that was funded by compra and Rodriguez eventually also became a drug involved in drug trafficking. According to Rodriguez, he wanted to use an organization of auto defense groups to eliminate a competing cartel. The El Mentos cartel, based on my, whatever we move on to paragraph 24 on or about March 19th. So just recently there was a plan for delivery of methamphetamine

Speaker 2:

That changed. And the CS was

Speaker 1:

Informed that the initial shipment of meth would not arrive in paint, but in large concrete tiles

Speaker 2:

The same day,

Speaker 1:

But Dola told CS that two truckers had been hired by the organization to transport the concrete tiles containing the meth to Miami. This was the methamphetamine that CS had previously negotiated with restaurant and copper on . So they're now going to be putting these in concrete containers and sending them in, in these tiles, the tiles containing the method come from Mexico and they were stashed by the organization in Texas. The two drivers then would drive the tiles, containing the meth on a truck from Texas over to Florida of note. About a week before this change in plans, a hunt 1000 kilos of meth in paint were seized after crossing a bridge from Mexico to Texas, based on my training and experience, I believe this interception caused Rodriguez and his conspirators to change their plans. So they were putting it in paint.

Speaker 2:

They would dissolve the math, the crystal meth into paints .

Speaker 1:

Can't tell what it is in there. Then they would bring it back here into the United States and then extract it almost like in breaking bad when , uh , they're bringing in the chicken, the chicken, right? Wasn't it . Wasn't the , the chicken Carrying on the truck transporting the meth arrived in South Florida on the evening of March 20th, the truck drove undercover to I'm sorry. The truck , the truck drove to an undercover law enforcement warehouse in the Miami area. So they're setting up a sting when the truck arrive copper on , but Dola called his father and told him that the drivers had arrived at the warehouse and additional undercover agent. You see to use a forklift to remove four crates of concrete tile from the truck's trailer. The tile was placed into the warehouse and the drivers left the area after the drivers left undercover one undercover two , and the CS and comprehend, but Dola broke the tiles open using hammers from within the tiles law enforcement recovered approximately 200 kilograms of wrapped methamphetamines. The methamphetamine was field tested, which confirmed that it was in fact methamphetamine. The undercover warehouse was wired to record audio and video. And the removal of the meth from the tiles was recorded by law enforcement

Speaker 2:

Early on

Speaker 1:

The morning of March 27th confidential source. You see one and you see two arrived at the warehouse and unloaded the paint buckets into the warehouse after unloading the paint bucket . So we skipped a little bit. You'll notice we went from the twenties paragraph 26 to paragraph 31. So we're talking about the paint buckets. Now, after unloading the paint buckets, they left the warehouse in order to meet with two chemists. What had been sent by compra and Rodriguez to help with the extraction of the methamphetamine from the paints, the confidential source and comprehend, but Dola drove to the hotel where the chemists were staying and they had the chemist follow in their own vehicle. Back to the warehouse. The chemists were identified as Silvano, Gonzalez, Aguilar and Valdez

Speaker 2:

On

Speaker 1:

Tuesday, March 30th, both undercovers continued to extract meth with them. With the chemists at the warehouse, the undercover cops are extracting meth from paint . That's been smuggled into the country. They ultimately were able to extract roughly 18 pounds of methamphetamine from two buckets of paint. Those are five gallon buckets. I would, I would imagine, right?

Speaker 2:

What are those weigh ? Probably about

Speaker 1:

40, 50 pounds, 60 pounds, eight times, about 50 pounds, maybe.

Speaker 2:

So they got 18

Speaker 1:

Pounds about nine, nine pounds per bucket. And the undercover cops are working in the meth lab, helping them extract this out of the paint. It's straight into breaking bed. The same day, the confidential source had arranged undercover one and copper on the Dola and CODO to meet at a local hotel to transfer the expected 4.15 million in drug proceeds that afternoon. You see one and Bedolla met with Kodo after brief introductions with all CODO said that he would move his vehicle closer. He moved the car two spaces and open the trunk undercover one, and Bedolla removed a large suitcase from their trunk and they placed it in CODOs vehicle. Undercover one then opened the suitcase and displayed a , displayed a large amount of fake currency. Koto agreed that it looked good. Shut his hatch at that point, both CODO and, but Dola were arrested. Wow. Conclusion based on the information contained in the affidavit, I say that there's enough probable cause for the issuance of a criminal complaint, charging them with all of these charges and possession and so on all signed off on by special agent shad . Ashelman DEA signed off on by FaceTime and the honorable Jonathan Goodman . What a complaint. All right . So let's see if we can hop into the live chat just a little bit and see what's going on over on YouTube before we call it a day and it looks like we can get this going. Let's see what's going on here. All right. We've got couple, a couple comments we can bring in. We've got Dan that says no, that's a , that's a conversation. All right . Carnival Barker says I was captivated by the breaking bad series. So well put together that's right. It was a good show. We have Danette says breaking bad was a pretty good showing of the industry. We've got Wolfgang. Dayo says, don't come into the chat. You don't want to see this. We have, let's see what else is going on? We got AIG Millis in the house as a Rob . My man, what's up. Hey Jay . Good to see you. We have don't mind me says, while you might find that strange, the chemicals used in the manufacturing of legal drugs. Wouldn't sound healthy, easy either. That is from don't mind me. We have David M says, Senator at the border claimed there were 250 miles of unfinished wall already paid for that . Doesn't sound good. We have Greg and Houston says Robert is going to the live chat. It's been a long time since he has done that. What's up, Greg? I know it's been a long time. You know, I've been kind of throwing a temper tantrum at YouTube because they have demonetized us. And so I've been neglecting the YouTube chat, but I love you all too . Don't don't get me wrong. There's no doubt about that, but we've just been sort of prioritizing over at locals and because we didn't start a live chat in locals. My fault here we are. We have Rivera says, stay out, Rob don't want to be in there. We got lean . Jay says, Robert, how are you? I'm good. Lean . It's good to see you. We have Charlie Howard says one thousands of tons of drugs a year who cares? Biden's happy. Wolf gang Dayo says any news on corn pop . Has he been discovered? You know, I don't know where corn pop is. He might just still be roaming around the mountain sides causing havoc, that old corn pop we got Renee says, hi, Rob, happy Easter, happy Easter, Renee, Beth Coddington . Hey Beth. Good to see you. We have Ryan Jackson says, go to Portland. Everything is legal and there are no more illegal drugs we have Rob. You don't want to see what's. But what we've been saying, you know , listen , we gotta, we gotta get back into it. At some point we have , uh, Beth cottage set tents has been on. Local's not been here for a while . Yeah. We've been going on over there. Procrastination station says

Speaker 2:

Discord. Well, we have discord. We had a discord, we got canceled off discord. They called me a white supremacist. I think they said we were contributing

Speaker 1:

To hate speech or something like that. I don't know what it was.

Speaker 2:

We tried to appeal it. And they , um, they said you're off. We're dangerous. I'm a dangerous man. Very dangerous. We have

Speaker 1:

[inaudible] says my existence system abides. He's finally talking to the chat. Yeah, of course. Could I shake your hand on vacation? Yeah . If I see you around. No problem. Wolfgang Dayo says, how about an IRC server? Maybe, maybe we could do IRC. We've also thought about Slack. We've also thought about there's another one that I think somebody recommended, but we'll see where it goes. We've got,

Speaker 2:

Why were you demonetized ?

Speaker 1:

That's from M ball. You know, they didn't really tell us a whole lot. They said that

Speaker 2:

We were harmful. We had harmful

Speaker 1:

Content that was dangerous to viewers. And I don't really know what that was all about. I thought that our stuff was pretty benevolent really? And we just got an email one day that said, Nope, you're off. So we applied. We reapplied actually on March 5th. And they said it would take 30 days and they would notify us. And so literally on March 5th, we reapplied

Speaker 2:

30 days.

Speaker 1:

Maybe Monday we'll get an answer, but I'm not holding my breath. We have Beth Cottington says

Speaker 2:

You are the worst, Rob. I know. I know it. I know . I know. I know

Speaker 1:

You have a difficult time living with myself. It's just brutal. It's a lot of work . It's a lot of work. We have Rob, what ham radio channel do we chat on? Yeah . Oh my goodness. Curtis Bartel said you made them feel dumb. Wolfgang says, I guess clubhouse is better. Yeah. Clubhouse is fun. You know, I th I just saw on Twitter that they have Twitter spaces now. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

I haven't really figured out. I saw it on

Speaker 1:

My app on my Android. And it said that it's available, but now I don't know how to get it or use it, but there are, you know, I think Facebook's working on one. YouTube is probably working on a stage stop type space, just like clubhouse. So clubhouse, I think was just temporary, but we'll end up moving to whatever platform is a little bit more inclusive. And one that of course supports

Speaker 2:

Free speech. That's what I kind of liked

Speaker 1:

About clubhouse. More so than some of these other spaces, places like Twitter, you know, we already know how they fall, as it relates to these issues. And we want to support the new platforms that are a little bit more inclusive of a lot of ideas. We have somebody saying, let's see classic. It sounds

Speaker 2:

Like Soviet Russia. Should we be careful with this chat content? We have

Speaker 1:

Robert. I think my super chats were too spicy for YouTube. I think, I think this is a very polite,

Speaker 2:

Very polite. Everybody keeps it very civil here. We have cases

Speaker 1:

Being said that Rob works out. I do. I try to, got to stay healthy. Got to look good. That's what it's all about. David M says Floyd was passing out in the car. Passengers told him to rabbit. We have Phil gang says Trump is usually in the clubhouse. Yes, I would join . I would join. I would at least poke around on Trump's new platform. No question. Right?

Speaker 2:

I mean, how would you not a lot of

Speaker 1:

The news will be made on that platform. And so you have to be there. If you're somebody who comments on this stuff, we have, Christine says, I think you missed your calling as a comedian. I don't know about that.

Speaker 2:

Aye . Aye. Aye . Like, aye . Aye, aye.

Speaker 1:

Personally like my own jokes. I laugh at myself all the time. I have conversations in my head. I'm like, that's

Speaker 2:

Just brilliant. But, but I , uh,

Speaker 1:

A lot of other people in my life just don't necessarily agree with that, nor

Speaker 2:

Should they on second thought we have

Speaker 1:

Rob, how come no Narcan for Floyd? Yeah. That's a good question. Yeah .

Speaker 2:

I don't know. We have playing hooky. He says, Rob, buy more shirts. The chat

Speaker 1:

Full of themselves about your wardrobe. Oh yeah. You know, I have, I have sort of a routine. I'm a simple guy. I like to keep things relatively simple. I have some

Speaker 2:

Shirts that I just wear, you know, I think Steve jobs

Speaker 1:

Had that thing right. About just wearing the same outfit every day. There's something to it, which is why I just I'm a polo slacks kind of guy.

Speaker 2:

That's it. We have, we have, yeah,

Speaker 1:

You were in , in the chat earlier, Rob, you were such a great commentator. You're intelligent and sound of sound. Mind you beat the media by a million miles. Well, that's so nice of you. JC JC. Blazek says that. Thank you, JC. That's very nice of you. Uh, you know, I'm trying my best. I think we're having fun here and it's, I'm learning a lot. I'm enjoying it a ton. So thank you for supporting this. Thank you for being here and allowing us to have this conversation. I appreciate it. We have Bianca Perez says you are handsome everyday . No matter what you wear. Thank you.

Speaker 2:

Very sweet. Thank you. I'll keep going with this. Rob, would you date AOC? Absolutely. Yes. Let's just, let's go. Let's try it. Let's see what happens. You know, it probably lasts, well, I don't know. You know,

Speaker 1:

I , I I'd give it a shot. I think it probably lasts about 30 seconds as soon as we say ,

Speaker 2:

But you know,

Speaker 1:

I happened to be in a nice, very happy relationship right now. So that wouldn't work. Of course we have Robert hope. Penny is okay. At least her poop will come pre-baked

Speaker 2:

Oh my gosh. Oh, that's too funny. Yes. So

Speaker 1:

Penny's just great. Uh , faith has brought her into the office a few times and uh , she just goes, you know, she she's a puppy. She just has so much energy jumping all over the place and having a lot of fun. So , uh , w you know , I was like, well , what the heck happened to her? She's she's young. She's healthy. What, what , what went wrong? And then of course face

Speaker 2:

Said, well , she swallowed a sock. And I thought, Oh

Speaker 1:

Yeah, I know this dog. I know the personality of this dog. That's absolutely perfect for her. So it makes total sense. We have Wolfgang says don't date crazy. I , you know, that's a good lesson. I haven't learned that quite yet. So maybe one day I'll wise up a little bit. We have, we have don't mind mean says even things like Narcan, you need to be careful what drugs they are taking these pills, looking like Percocet, might've thrown them off.

Speaker 2:

AOC

Speaker 1:

Looks like one of the witches in the wizard of Oz.

Speaker 2:

Yeah. You know, AOC, it would be worth it .

Speaker 1:

Like , that's, it that's really what I'm getting down to. Right. It would be worth the story. And some things you just got to do

Speaker 2:

The story , even AOC.

Speaker 1:

All right. We'll take a couple more questions. Let's see what else is going on Canadian. Watch you every night that comes from Dunkin Bard . Great show. Thanks Duncan . I appreciate that. You know, I was , uh , I was looking at some pictures, I think in 2018, I was in Quebec. I went dog sledding up there. I had a great time. Great people had a lot of fun traveling around up there. And I, and , uh, are , are very outstanding. My Fox hails from there. So it good people up there in that part of the world. We've got Wolfgang says there are various levels of crazy, but it's better to pick bed crazy and not mind crazy. That's a good point.

Speaker 2:

Okay. That's valid. Very valid. All right. Well ,

Speaker 1:

Dang Wolfgang is asking that not all Canadians are communists.

Speaker 2:

I don't think so. I don't know Veeva . Viva's from Canada. He's not a communist. Where are we going?

Speaker 1:

And a good track record here of no communists from Canada. So that's all fun. How's the weather in Scottsdale. The weather is warm today. It went, it was like up to like

Speaker 2:

90 degrees in April. I'm not ready for it.

Speaker 1:

Not ready, not ready for it, but we're going to , uh, we're going to enjoy a little bit of pool weather coming up pretty soon. So I'm excited about that. All right . Well, let's go ahead and leave it at that. My friends, I want to thank you so much for joining us today. I'm going to hop out of the chat and we're going to thank those of you who support us [email protected] We have these great people in the house. We're going to say, thank you to Sarah Smothers. We're going to say thank you to on my knees. We're going to say thank you to Nord spin and Sarah Hagar. We've got Jay bone in the house. We got Zuck signing up, noro Vajra and some new people signed up. We got Colby 2020 in the house we got in Texas, Laurel . Welcome. And we have big Jonno all over here, signing up and supporting the program [email protected] So if you want to join a great community on the internet and help support a platform, that is really in my opinion, pretty, pretty nicely focused on some of these issues about free speech and free idea and free expression. I think locals is a good place to do that. So go on over there and sign up and support us if you can, and really good reasons to do so. Grab a copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. Take a look at the slides. I will go ahead and post the slides that we went through today on locals, you can get a, grab a copy of the impeachment party documents, the existence system program, and share links. And of course, mate , meet great people [email protected] And before we wrap up and get out of here, quick reminder, that I am a criminal defense lawyer here at the RNR law group, where we help good people charged with crimes. We have a passion to help them find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our way, because we can help. It doesn't matter what it is. If it's a DUI, domestic violence, drug crime, something like a disorderly conduct, leaving the scene of an accident, urinating in public, any of these things that are happening now that the society is starting to open back up a little bit. If you happen to get in trouble, we can help. We're passionate about what we do and we offer free case evaluation. So if you have anybody, you know, who needs some help, we would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send them our direction, we'll make sure we take very good care of them. And that is it from me. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place on Monday 4:00 PM, Arizona time, which is Pacific time. 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM on the East coast. Everybody have a very lovely weekend. We've got a lot to get back to here next week, right back into it with Derek Shovan and many other things. So rest up unplugged from politics a little bit. We'll see you right back here on Monday. Bye-bye

Speaker 6:

[inaudible] .