Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Chauvin Trial Closing Arguments, Pentagon Confirms UFOs, Ofc. Brian Sicknick Cause of Death Revealed​

April 19, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Closing Arguments, Pentagon Confirms UFOs, Ofc. Brian Sicknick Cause of Death Revealed​
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Chauvin Trial Closing Arguments, Pentagon Confirms UFOs, Ofc. Brian Sicknick Cause of Death Revealed​
Apr 19, 2021

Closing arguments finished in the Derek Chauvin trial – we review the last words from both sides as the jury takes the case. Pentagon confirms footage of unidentified flying objects is real and we review the video. Officer Brian Sicknick, who was widely reported to have been killed by the January 6th riots, actually died of two strokes. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Prosecutor Steve Schleicher complete the states first portion of closing arguments, taking us back through the entire timeline of events.​

• Defense attorney Eric Nelson tries to provide context to the entire altercation, explaining the case is much bigger than the video.​

• Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell delivers the state’s rebuttal closing and says Chauvin’s “heart was too small”  before ending his remarks.​

• Democrat Congressperson Maxine Waters urges supports to get “more confrontational” in the wake of the Chauvin trial.​

• National Guard says soldiers shot at in North Minneapolis with two suffering from minor injuries.​

• In anticipation of the Chauvin verdict, Minneapolis Public Schools will return to remote learning to “keep students safe”.​

• After over 3 months, Officer Brian Sicknick’s cause of death is finally released.​

• Officer Brian Sicknick, widely reported to have been killed by the riots on January, died after suffering two strokes.​

• Prosecutors likely to have trouble seeking a murder conviction for Officer Sicknick’s death.​

• Pentagon confirms images of unidentified flying objects are real.​

• Jeremy Corbell, UFO research and filmmaker, goes on Tucker Carlson to explain the phenomenon.​

• Review of UFO photos “The Metallic Blimp”, “The Acorn” and “The Sphere”​

• Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough confirms the images were taken by U.S. Armed Forces.​

• U.S. Intelligence agencies are due to provide a report about what they know to Congress in June.​

• 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 #JuryInstructions #ChauvinJury #JuryDeliberations #Chauvin #Floyd #Guilty #NotGuilty #Acquittal #BrianSicknick #CapitolHill #OfficerSicknick #Autopsy #CapitiolHillRiots #CapitolHillChauos #CapitolHillProtests #UFOs #Spaceships #BeamMeUp #Tucker #Believe #Pentagon #SpaceAliens

Show Notes Transcript

Closing arguments finished in the Derek Chauvin trial – we review the last words from both sides as the jury takes the case. Pentagon confirms footage of unidentified flying objects is real and we review the video. Officer Brian Sicknick, who was widely reported to have been killed by the January 6th riots, actually died of two strokes. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Prosecutor Steve Schleicher complete the states first portion of closing arguments, taking us back through the entire timeline of events.​

• Defense attorney Eric Nelson tries to provide context to the entire altercation, explaining the case is much bigger than the video.​

• Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell delivers the state’s rebuttal closing and says Chauvin’s “heart was too small”  before ending his remarks.​

• Democrat Congressperson Maxine Waters urges supports to get “more confrontational” in the wake of the Chauvin trial.​

• National Guard says soldiers shot at in North Minneapolis with two suffering from minor injuries.​

• In anticipation of the Chauvin verdict, Minneapolis Public Schools will return to remote learning to “keep students safe”.​

• After over 3 months, Officer Brian Sicknick’s cause of death is finally released.​

• Officer Brian Sicknick, widely reported to have been killed by the riots on January, died after suffering two strokes.​

• Prosecutors likely to have trouble seeking a murder conviction for Officer Sicknick’s death.​

• Pentagon confirms images of unidentified flying objects are real.​

• Jeremy Corbell, UFO research and filmmaker, goes on Tucker Carlson to explain the phenomenon.​

• Review of UFO photos “The Metallic Blimp”, “The Acorn” and “The Sphere”​

• Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough confirms the images were taken by U.S. Armed Forces.​

• U.S. Intelligence agencies are due to provide a report about what they know to Congress in June.​

• 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 #JuryInstructions #ChauvinJury #JuryDeliberations #Chauvin #Floyd #Guilty #NotGuilty #Acquittal #BrianSicknick #CapitolHill #OfficerSicknick #Autopsy #CapitiolHillRiots #CapitolHillChauos #CapitolHillProtests #UFOs #Spaceships #BeamMeUp #Tucker #Believe #Pentagon #SpaceAliens

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 and the always beautiful and sunny 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 me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. 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 very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are with us today. We've got a lot to get into. We've got the final day of evidence in the Derrick Shovan case. We had closing arguments, closing remarks from both the prosecution and the defense. And we have some fireworks that took place after all of that occurred today. Many people thought, ah , as soon as Eric Nelson sat down, that was it. Well, no , the government had a rebuttal closing. Then we had some, a little , uh , some , uh, you know , some tense moments after the closing arguments as Eric Nelson moved for a mistrial. So want to break down what happened there? Then we're going to change gears a little bit and talk about officer Brian sickening . Been following this story ever since January six, been a little bit critical about what is going on with this whole investigation. Been wondering for three months now over that what actually killed Bryan sickness , because we saw that his name was being bandied about by people who wanted to make a political point. We saw that his name came up in the Democrats trial brief during their impeachment of Donald Trump. And the list goes on. Well , we learned today that he wasn't killed by the mega maniac mob or whatever they're calling it. Now. He was, he died by natural causes. So we got to break down what happened there. And then before we wrap up with the broadcast today, we got to finish by talking about aliens space aliens, not the other ones that people coming across the border we're talking about. UFO's because I'm not kidding you. The Pentagon is confirming that the some new imagery that we're seeing, some new videos is in fact authentic. What , what does it mean to be authentic is a whole separate question, but we have some really strange things flying around our atmosphere these days. And our government is actually confirming this. And there is a report that is due to be delivered to Congress by our intelligence agencies here in June, summarizing all of the things that they're seeing out there floating around the skies. So it's an actual thing. We're actually going to be talking about aliens and UFO's because our government is now checking this stuff out. So we've got a lot to get into before we do get into it. Of course, I want to invite you to be a part of the show. We're going to take questions in between every one of those segments. And if you want to ask a question, leave a comment, throw out a criticism, feel free to do that. You do that over on our locals.com platform. So go over to watching the watchers.locals.com. You can sign up to be a part of the show can also get a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. It's also available on Amazon. It's how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system, as well as download a copy of the slides that I'm about to go through. Cause there are clips in here and links and other articles. So if you want any of that information, it is available to support the [email protected] And so let's get into the news of the day. Derek Shovan trial getting really close to wrapped up. We don't have a verdict yet might be tomorrow, might be two weeks from now who knows it's up to the jurors, but we did finish closing arguments today. And we've got a lot to break down. The closing arguments, generally speaking were about what we'd expect. There was nothing really groundbreaking. This entire case has really followed that theme. Some people were waiting for that smoking gun for somebody to pull a gun out of the briefcase. Oh no, that didn't happen here. This was pretty much a scripted trial. We had a couple little surprises around the margins, but everything else went pretty much according to plan. And so closing arguments followed that same trajectory, nothing really explosive. We do have some good and some bad things to say about both sides, but we are going to go through it. I have clips a lot of different clips from the closing arguments, but then also after the closing arguments. So after the jurors heard everything they needed to hear from both sides, they were relieved for the day. And judge Cahill came back out and started to address some issues that both parties had. So we were going to save that for the end of the conversation. And then we're going to talk about now that the jurors have this, now that it's sort of sitting in their hands, what are they supposed to do? Now we have Maxine waters out over the weekend, basically threatening additional violence. If a particular verdict is not reached, we have Minneapolis is now responding by closing their schools and doing remote learning again, because they're concerned about the verdict and we have some issues with how this is going to be settled by the jurors in the jury panel , uh , in the deliberation room. Now that they're sequestered. So we've got a lot to get to. So as always, let's start with the trial board, see who was playing today. We know that this was closing arguments. And so both sides were making their pitches over to the jurors are gonna be focused on the jurors here. Now, moving forward and as is always the case in criminal law, the prosecution goes first. We saw that that was headed off this morning by Steve [inaudible] , who made his initial round of closing arguments to the jury. Eric Nelson of course made his closing arguments. And then the government they get what's called a rebuttal close. So they get a second shot at closing. And that was done today by Mr. Jerry Blackwell. And so we have these , uh, these three or two that go what happened there? We have these three people, Mr. Blackwell, Mr [inaudible] and Mr. Nelson, all appearing in court today, all making a closing arguments to the jurors. And this is our little representation of the jurors who are on the panel. And this is representative as best as you can get with emojis. This is what the jury panel looks like. So , uh, by, by demographic, age, gender, all of that stuff, that's what they look like. Here is a better breakdown. And so this is who now has the case. I think somebody was excused. I forgot who, who was excused? Uh, actually, no , w w we do know who was excused. It was the 15th juror who is no longer with us. I, I believe I could be mistaken about that. Anyways, this is the jury that we have seated. And now they're going to have to decipher all of the evidence quick refresher. These were some of the people that we saw , uh , that the government presented big, big witness here was Dr. Tobin. Also this law professor near the end. We had Floyd's brother. We had a lot of different people coming in and talking about use of force. Uh, we had the chief of police over here. This was another use of force expert. This was the LAPD guy. We had another inspector basically saying that she thought it was [inaudible] . We had a lot of people who came in and made the government's case compared to the defense. Not as many. We saw that Dr. Fowler was the last witness to testify. And , uh , not, not, not as much right now , not that many people there. We have some, some sort of last minute ingestion theories and all this stuff, but I want to show you now sort of the summation of the closing arguments. And so closing arguments, you know, it's, they're , they're intended to be argumentative, right? You're supposed to go out there and deliver a compelling rationale and an explanation for the evidence, right? This is our theory. This is how it all fits together. This is why you have to convict this person or quit this person. And so largely this morning, it was really just a summation of everything we had already seen. Thus far. We saw a lot of the timeline be fleshed out by prosecutor , Steve Slusher . We also saw a lot of graphics, the same sort of charts and imagery that we saw. They played snips and bits from Floyd himself. Right? We saw a lot of the imagery, a lot of the photographs, we heard a little bit about Floyd's personal story. And there was a, there was a lot of emotion in this. And so we're going to start with the prosecutor, Steve Schluter this morning, very emotional, you know , kind of pitch kind of goes through, opens up and talks about Floyd and where he came from and his family and his mother, when he heard from his brother. And we heard from the nine-year-old girl, who said, she didn't know what to do. When she saw this happening , we were supposed to just call the police, you know, cause we wanted the police to respond because we knew that there was a crime happening right here. And he sort of frames this out a little bit. And I thought he did a nice job where he's saying, this is not a war against the police. This isn't, we're not fighting the police. We love police. We love the good police. There's nothing worse than a, there's nothing more than a good police officer hates than a bad police officer, kind of that framing. And I thought it was effective, right? Because a lot of people are sort of making this a cop versus a particular demographic right now, a war between the two sides. And so what he came out, he said, no, it's not really like that at all. In fact, we love the police. And so if you're somebody who is pro police on the jury panel, we're not trying to screw the police. We're just trying to screw Derek. Shovan he's a bad police officer. He deserves this. So it's not really screwing, right? He deserves this. He's guilty of this offense. And so that's, that's where this whole thing kind of goes. Now he goes through, it gets very mechanical again. Right? We're refreshing out everything we've already seen. He's just condensing it and making sure that he's going through all of the different elements of the jury instructions, which are now available, that N E he's showing the jurors as they're reading through this. So he's, he's almost like doing a like assisted reading, right? We're going to read this paragraph together and I'm gonna explain this to you so that you know how to interpret this and he's going through reading this. Okay. Cause right. We got to know that Derek Shovan caused the death of Floyd and here's how you analyze it. And then he's going out and he's giving all the best facts from the government. This is what this witness said. This is what this experts at and on and on and on. And so this is at the, this next clip is at the end of his testimony or his argument today, his remarks during closing. And you're going to see once again, it's a little bit, you know , it's emotional and he's just saying, listen, you know what you saw in that video. Okay. You know how you felt when you hit it, when you watched that all of our stomachs turned and that's it. And so, as I've been saying, and this entire trial, I've been talking about this for 20 something days now, but what the government is trying to do is narrow this puppy right down on that nine minutes and 29 seconds. And, and the prosecutor in this case said that a lot, nine minutes and 29 seconds, like a hundred times up, up, up, up about repeating it. Right. Cause it's a long time. And it's a very damaging fact to the defense. So why wouldn't you just beat that into the ground? Like a dead horse. And he did, he, he did a good job doing that, but what you're going to hear is he saying, that's it, that's all that really matters. These nine minutes and 29 seconds. How did that make you feel? How did that land on you emotionally? That's all you need to know. It's just a gut reaction. You know, he committed this crime and so it's sort of emotional and compelling and you're going to see, they end it. They do the same thing with their rebuttal clothes , with a picture of George Floyd. So you're gonna see George Floyd's face comes up. That's sort of the last thing that they leave you with. And when Jerry Blackwell comes out and does his rebuttal close , it's going to be the same thing, right? He ends with the same picture because it's a very emotional argument and they're using that to their advantage. So here is the prosecutor now saying, just trust your gut. You know, what you saw was gross .

Speaker 2:

Disproportionate. It is not an excuse for the shocking abuse that you saw with your own eyes. And you can believe your own eyes. This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it. First, when you saw that video, it is exactly that you can believe your eyes. It's exactly what you believed. It's exactly what you saw with your eyes. It's exactly what you knew. It's what you felt in your gut. It's what you now know in your heart. This wasn't policing, this was murder. The defendant is guilty of all three counts, all of them. And there's no excuse here . It was Floyd. There it is.

Speaker 1:

All right . So he leaves that up as he walks away. So the jurors just have that imprinted right on their brains. Now there's a, there's a concept called a primacy and recency, right? Primacy and recency sort of me mean the first thing you heard and the last thing you heard, those are going to have a lot of effect on you. They're psychological studies. And so you always kind of want to do that mic drop, right? You want to walk out, boom, leave them , wanting more, leave them, you know , just sort of dazed and confused. What the heck was that? And so that's what they're doing here with Floyd , right? Leave them without leaving with that. Memories are walking back into the deliberation room. And the other thing that you saw the prosecutor do here is make it emotional. Okay. We've heard a lot about , uh, pulmonary this and uh , you know, depressant this and phentenol this and ratios and all, you know , arterial sclerosis. All right, great. A lot of technical stuff. That's kind of hard to decipher. So what Mr. Slusher did before the jury clause , before his closing arguments close and before he had to hand it off, is he wanted to just sting them, right. Connect them, drill into their body, that emotional feeling, make sure they remember that may ask them to dig back down. Remember when you saw that, remember when we saw it, remember when you saw it? I did. I made a video about it here on YouTube. I think we might've talked about it that day and the , the emotion there that you can feel. I mean, I was, I was angry. I was upset. I was sort of, you know, about the whole thing about what I saw and to ask me to go back and get in touch with that is asking me to dig that sucker up. I might have buried it away back in may of last year and forgotten about it. But now before I go into the deliberation room, prosecutor just asked me, pull that sucker off the shelf, bring that back, carry it with you right into the jury room. And so that's effective, right? He's bringing up their emotions, asking them to connect with that . And it's very effective primacy and recency. It's , it's the last thing that he left him with. And so pay attention to that as we go through these next clips. So as I mentioned, right, remember what he said, you don't even need to think about anything else. Just use your eyes. He said, eyes, eyes, eyes, eyes, use your eyes, use your eyes. You know what? You saw narrowing that down. We don't want to hear about the training, the reasonable force. We don't want to hear about fentinol methanol 2019 heart disease, a carbon monoxide. None of that, just what you saw on the video. It's all you needed to know. Use your eyes. So then Eric Nelson comes back out and says, wait, wait a minute, guys. Yeah . Nine minutes and 29 seconds. You heard them repeating that like a broken record. This is not about that. This is about the 16 minutes before that. And about everything else that you heard in this case, because those are all necessary in your analysis. So this is Eric Nelson now coming out and doing his close . So we're going to go. We did one from Schluter . We're going to do two from Nelson. We're going to do one from Blackwell on the rebuttal. And so the government closes first, the defense closes second . And then the government gets to go again and sort of stack on top of it and people go, what? That's not fair. Well, the justification, the rationale for that is that the government has the burden of proof. They've got to meet that very high burden, pushing it way beyond that standard. I'm going to show you the chart here in a minute, but it is a very tall order. So they get two cracks at it because it's the , the standard is supposed to be so high. Now, in my experience, practically, the standard is quite low because most people think your client is guilty, not innocent because the presumption has been topsy turvy in this country so badly. But the point is that it's still a very high burden and the government, as a result of that is supposed to get two cracks at it. So here is Eric Nelson. Once again, the government is narrowing. This puppy in Eric Nelson is expanding this out it's way bigger than those nine minutes and 29 seconds.

Speaker 2:

And so we get into the nine minutes and 29 seconds at this point, Ms . State has really focused on the nine minutes and 29 seconds, nine minutes, 29 seconds, nine minutes, 29 seconds. It's not the proper analysis because the nine minutes and 29 seconds ignores the previous 16 minutes and 59 seconds. It completely disregards it. It says in that moment, at that point, nothing else that happened before should be taken into consideration by a reasonable police officer. It tries to reframe the issue of what a reasonable police officer would do. A reasonable police officer would in fact take into consideration the previous 16 minutes and 59 seconds, their experience with the subject, the struggle that they had, the comparison of the words to actions. It all comes into play. Why? Because human behavior is unpredictable. Human behavior is unpredictable, and nobody knows it better than a police officer. Someone can be compliant one second and fighting the next someone can be fighting and then compliant. Nobody knows it better

Speaker 1:

Then a police officer. And so what he did in the rest of his closing argument is he went through and he actually played a lot more of the Floyd video than I thought he was going to. I sort of thought that maybe he might gloss over a lot of that. Just, you know, they see in the video, it's kind of a bad video. Even if you are trying to make positive points by playing the video, it's still just an ugly video. It's an ugly scene. You know , it's not something that is, is people in their best light, right? It's Floyd, it's, officer's , everybody's getting into a brawl . It's just an ugly situation in general, no matter what side you're on and on this thing. So he actually was playing more of that and he was showing sort of frame by frame that Floyd was actually fighting, right. He was resisting. And he, so he sort of having this con continuity of resistance that is following the cops along throughout the entire scene, right? He's, he's, he's sort of combative and there's sort of a little bit more combative and it's sort of a little bit more combative and it's a slow progression that's taking place over the prior 16, 16 minutes. The government wants you to just focus on the nine after it's convenient for them after they, you know, they can sort of throw out all of Floyd's prior behaviors like saying he couldn't breathe. Right. He was complaining breathing when he was in the back of the vehicle and the black back of the police vehicle before he was ever on the ground in a prone position. And so is that that's pretty relevant. Don't you think Eric Nelson seems to think so when he's saying to the jurors, we got to expand this whole puppy out and analyze the entirety of the case. That's reasonableness, that's objectivity. It's saying that an, an officer would come here and make a decision based on the totality of the circumstances, not on the nine minutes that you conveniently want them to focus on. It does require a broader analysis. And so he does a nice job going through that, you know, a little bit, if I had to , if I had a critique, I , I sort of , uh, questioned the playing of the video because it is a little bit ugly, but just, you know, full, full , uh , deference to Eric Nelson in those things. I think that, that, that it may actually have worked in his favor because there are little bits and pieces of that video where Floyd does seem to be a little bit aggressive actually. And when he, the way he did it today was somewhat effective. I thought he was actually pausing a little clip here, a little clip here, a little clip here, and it's sort of this, this, this passive aggressiveness. And I thought he tied it all together, you know , relatively nicely. And you'll notice his demeanor in court today was a little bit more animated, right? He was kind of moving around back to back on the podium and , uh, you know , uh , voice, voice tonality was up and down. So clearly got some rest. This weekend sounded like he was very well prepared for it and came out and delivered it. Now, this is the, this is the, the , uh , final three minutes of his closing argument. I wanted to play this because he sort of tying it all together again. And he's really making a good point on causation. And this is where I've said the , the entirety of this case is about causation. You know, we were talking a lot about police use of force and reasonableness and all of that stuff, the objectively reasonable officer, and whether the prone position matters and all of that stuff, that's all, that's all relevant. It's all very pertinent. But I think it's sort of secondary in the analysis. The first question on all of the charges is, did Shovan caused the death that he did. He cause Floyd's death. It's about causation. Causation is where everything hangs. And so Nelson is sort of, kind of tying it back in into that right here. And he's saying, listen, you know, there are multiple variable variables in a case, in any case, right? It's multi-variate, we can have a lot of different things interfacing with one another simultaneously. Government wants you to think that it was the knee and just that, you know, a hit B a went to B knee killed Floyd, that's it? He say , there's a lot of other things out there. We got fentanyl heart disease prior Matthew's 2019 case on the list goes on and on. So here he is now sort of re wrapping it up. This is this, this is the final thing we're going to hear from him. At least the jury's going to hear from him. They're not going to hear from Nelson again, unless there are a jury questions or something else. I mean, this is the wrap-up of the official case. So this is the last three minutes. So let's give it to Mr. Nelson and see what he has to say. We're going to do the same thing to Mr. Blackwell on the rebuttal, although his time shorter, because he has that little mic drop moment. All right. Here's Mr. Nelson,

Speaker 2:

More importantly, in this analysis in this analysis is it shows that human means make decisions in highly stressful situations that they believe to be right in the very moment it is occurring. There's lots of what ifs, what could have happened. What could have happened, what should have happened. Lots of them in lots of regards, we have to analyze this case from the perspective of a reasonable police officer at the precise moment, with the totality of the circumstances, when it comes to the use of force, we have to look at the cause of death to determine did Mr. Floyd die exclusively of a [inaudible] or were there other contributing factors that were not the natural result of Mr. Chauvin's acts, right? Things that happened that were set in motion before Mr. Shovan ever arrived, the drug ingestion, right? The bad heart, the disease , heart , the hypertension, all of these things existed before Mr. Shovan arrived. The struggle. What role did the struggle play? We know based on a prior incident that Mr. Floyd's heart was beating at 219, over one 60 in a , in a situation where he was confronted by police and had ingested drugs, he didn't die that day. All of this ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all of this, when you take into consideration the presumption of innocence, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would submit to you that it is nonsense to suggest that none of these other factors had any, any role that is not reasonable. And when you, as members of the jury conclude your analysis of the evidence, when you review the entirety of the evidence, when you review the, the law as written, and you conclude it all within this, all within a thorough, honest analysis, the state has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And therefore Mr. Shovan should be found, not guilty of all counts. All right . Thank you. All right .

Speaker 1:

So good close there. And exactly, I think hit the Mark that it needed to hit. This was about causation. And he said that he said, listen, we have to ask ourselves here, did Shovan did the knee? Is that it? Is that what killed Floyd R or are there other things that contributed to it? It's an interesting frame. And he says, listen, was it the natural was , was what killed Floyd? The natural result of Chauvin's knee? Or was it some w w were these things that existed before Shovan was even there that day? And then he goes back to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So I wanna , I wanna , we're going to revisit this. So put a pin in this right now. We're going to wrap up with Mr. Blackwell, and then we're going to do some analysis, but from Nelson's I want to , I want to remember two things. Number one, the natural results , or sort of something that happened simultaneously with the knee or after the knee, or was this something that happened before the knee? We're talking about causation, right? Something bumps into something else that causes something else to bump into something else, right? It's sort of like physics. If you go back to high school physics or whatever, we're talking about what happens first, what interacts with something else that causes something else to happen? It's all about causation. So we're gonna, we're gonna re revisit that with Mr. Nelson. But before we do, here is a clip that is getting a lot of play now on Twitter. It is that mic drop moment. This is Mr. Jerry Blackwell , who is going through and doing the rebuttal close . So we have Steve [inaudible] comes out first. Eric Nelson government gets to go the second time. And so here's Mr. Blackwell coming out and saying, it's not about George Floyd's heart, his big heart. It's about Derek Chauvin's little heart. Ooh, it's good. Here is Mr. Blackwell.

Speaker 2:

I thought that was the largest departure from here. The evidence I'll show it to you. You were told , um , for example, that Mr. Floyd died that Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big. You heard that testimony. And now having seen all the evidence, having heard all the evidence, you know, the truth and the truth of the matter is that the reason George Lloyd is dead is because Mrs. Sheldon's heart was too small. Just let that one. Hang

Speaker 1:

Judge says, jurors grabbed your instructions. Get outta here. You just heard that Mike dropped with a thud. And so that was Mr. Blackwell. Now we now know kind of what the arguments are, right? Where the prosecution wants to really get really tight on what they saw her, what you felt that particular day Nelson wants to expand this thing out. And so I've been trying to think about how to communicate some of these concepts in a way that I can , uh, can, can translate on YouTube and video. And so a concept that we talk a lot about is Domino's right. And especially with causation, you got one domino who goes into the next domino, which goes into the next domino. And so, as I was thinking about the Floyd case, I want to share with you something that I put together and we'll see how this works out today. But here is a set of dominoes that we've got. We've got them sort of labeled. And this is really my interpretation of what the government is trying to communicate in their case. We're talking about causation here. So on the far right where the domino is ultimately going to end up, we've got death, right? This is George Floyd's death. We know that the whole scene started with a $20 bill, right? $20 bill led to the cops get called. Cops got called. They came back out , uh, Floyd was under arrest, right? He was sort of resisting arrest as they were trying to get him back into the vehicle. They put them in handcuffs, try to, you know, throw them in the vehicle. There was law enforcement, sub dual of course. And there was a position that Floyd was put in on the ground. All of that was, was okay, may not have caused the death until we got to Chauvin's knee . This is sort of the , the key domino here. That's why it's in , in red there. And so Chauvin's knee . If we would have removed Chauvin's knee, arguably you can make the, you can make the case that, right. The positioning on the ground, law enforcement, sub dual , all of that stuff is the Domino's. They wouldn't have continued to fall, but for Chauvin's knee, if Chauvin's knee is there, then the sequence continues. We've got the resisting arrest. He's breathing heavily. Floyd is he's, Floyd's in handcuffs. Floyd's , Floyd's been subdued by law enforcement officials. And then in conjunction with Chauvin's knee . Now, what do we have? We have low oxygen because of the knee that leads to can't breathe. Then we have a fixation which leads to death, right? And this is something that we've seen sort of fleshed out in this scenario. Now you can, you can go through there and make it quibbles about that. Domino doesn't go there. But the point here is if Chauvin's knee is not in existence, if Shovan does not put the knee there, then we do not have this sequence of events. We don't go from the $20 bill over to death. We just have somebody who gets arrested. Chauvin's knee is necessary in order to get to death. Now, if you're the defense, you're going to take the same concept and come back out. And you're going to say, yeah, kind of maybe, but there's a lot of other things that were going to be causing this death anyways. And so it might look something like this, right? Same chart, same concept. But now let's say we get rid of Chauvin's knee. Let's do our same analysis. So on the right side, we've got death over here. We still have the same $20 bill. But the defense now is saying, well, the $20 bill prompted the police to come. So that was resisting arrest. George Floyd was hyperventilating there, right? He was put in handcuffs. Uh, we know all of that. We've got , uh , Floyd's arterial sclerosis, which was already happening before Shovan got there. We already know that there was prior meth use, which was before Shovan got there. We have fentanyl use, which was before Shovan got there. And so you could take this entire thing out and this domino is still going to hit this next domino, right? W we're we're going to keep moving forward. We also have, which is not Chauvin's fault. We also have law enforcement subdued . Right? We saw that from the

Speaker 3:

Death certificate.

Speaker 1:

Yep . So other officers were there. We had Kung and lane and foul . They were also involved in that. We have hypertension in the heart, right? And so that's going to necessarily trigger into death. At some point we have cardiopulmonary arrest. The heart just basically gave out. And so you can say that even without Chauvin's knee, all of these things are just going to happen. Anyways, the fentanyl use the prior math , the arteriosclerosis, the subdural from law enforcement, hypertension, all of it. It's all moving that direction. Whether or not we have Chauvin's knee. Now Shovan could have put the knee on the neck. Maybe that was a contribution. Maybe that was a contributing

Speaker 3:

Factor, but all of these

Speaker 1:

Things are , are heavier. Domino's they're bigger dominoes and they are all contributing to the death. So now we have something that looks like this for the defense , something that looks like this for the prosecution, where Chauvin's knee is necessary in the government's case to cause death it's required for death here in the defense case, it's not, it's not really required. Floyd is probably going to die with, or without the knee. Shovan might have been there while Floyd was dying because he was being subdued, but it could have been any other officer, right. Floyd might've just died in general. And so a different way to frame this out is to talk about it in terms of a pie chart, right? What does this look like? If we

Speaker 3:

Go through and in our

Speaker 1:

Little mental gymnastics gymnasium, we start flushing out the entire universe of potential causes of death for George Floyd. If

Speaker 3:

We say, listen, yeah, it could have been Chauvin's

Speaker 1:

Knee . We saw the video looks like Chauvin's knee . Right? We saw it on there for a long period of time. Floyd's head is crunched down there between his neck and his knee and the pavement awful situation kind of obvious, right. And human beings. We , we kind of know what we see when we see it. And we saw

Speaker 3:

What we saw. That's one option.

Speaker 1:

You could have another option, right? You could have just been a heart attack or heart, heart disease that caused cardiopulmonary arrest could have been arteriosclerosis could have been hypertensive. Heart disease could have been. Fentanyl could have been. His heart just gave out because of his prior methamphetamine use could have been, his heart gave out as a result of his 2000, 19 prior could have been a lot of different things. Could have been other officers didn't intercede on behalf of Shovan . There were three other cops there. Why didn't they step in? Are they contributors to this entire scene? Arguably what about the Passerbuys? What about the witnesses on the side they didn't

Speaker 3:

Or where they were being aggressive. Maybe that caused the officers

Speaker 1:

To hesitate, to provide aid and to render assistance and their interpretation of the threat on that, on that day was mirrored in court by officer Chang, who testified that he feared for the officer's safety. And we also saw the paramedics when they showed up at the scene, they were concerned about the safety. So could you, could you ascribe some of this to the crowd?

Speaker 3:

Very remotely? Yeah. A little bit, maybe

Speaker 1:

1%, 2%, 5%.

Speaker 3:

I don't know. Right. But I'm sure

Speaker 1:

The officers might say that the reason, and we heard them say that the reason they didn't start rendering aid, because they were threatened. We heard the paramedics

Speaker 3:

Say that from the government's own case. Right. They presented them. I think. So

Speaker 1:

You've got evidence that there are multiple causes. And the question is, if we lay all of those out ,

Speaker 3:

Out on the table,

Speaker 1:

Which ones can we pick up and say, that is the one that calls

Speaker 3:

Was Floyd to die in front of us on that particular date .

Speaker 1:

Again, this has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is something that Eric Nelson just mentioned. And I want to show you this chart that we have sitting around our office , uh, and this is an old one. So excuse the scuffs, but this is something that defense attorneys often use

Speaker 3:

In court. And so Eric Nelson today in his arguments was

Speaker 1:

Talking about the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And I want to just show you this briefly, so you can see sort of a graph that we use.

Speaker 3:

Reasonable doubt, it's the highest standard .

Speaker 1:

So when Eric Nelson was talking about this today,

Speaker 3:

He was talking about , uh ,

Speaker 1:

Ponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence. These were the two standards that he ,

Speaker 3:

You mentioned reasonable doubt. It's the highest standard affirm belief that the allegations are true is for clear and convincing. If,

Speaker 1:

If somebody is found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means

Speaker 3:

Beyond the greater

Speaker 1:

Weight or the amount of the evidence affirm belief that the allegations are true is this standard. It's got to be even above that very, very high standard. So Eric Nelson was only talking about clear and convincing and preponderance standards, but these are all of the other standards that we often see in criminal law. We see reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop, for example, probable cause to make an arrest. These are different standards that you'll see

Speaker 3:

Throughout the practice of criminal law, but beyond,

Speaker 1:

Well, that is the highest one. And this is a chart that, you know , we'll often bring around in court, just show to the judge show to the jurors , uh, in court as an exhibit. And this is an old one. You can see it's kind of banged up, but we have, you know, we have this stuff lying around the office. And this is,

Speaker 3:

That is something that Eric Nelson

Speaker 1:

Was trying to communicate to people that if you are going to be saying or analyzing these factors, multiple different factors, arteriosclerosis hypertension, heart disease, all of these,

Speaker 3:

The things that's the standard that you're applying. Can you say

Speaker 1:

Beyond a reasonable doubt that that did not contribute or cause

Speaker 3:

The death beyond a reasonable doubt that fentanyl had nothing to do with it. Arterial sclerosis had nothing to do with it. It's a pretty high standard. That's kind of where he's going with this and let's flush this out in terms of

Speaker 1:

Hi charts. Okay. So here is an example. If you were somebody who says that George Floyd's death was caused by the knee,

Speaker 3:

100%, nothing else factored in, then this is what

Speaker 1:

Your chart would look like. And in fact, this is what Dr . Tobin's

Speaker 3:

Start looks like, right? He said,

Speaker 1:

Almost exclusively this, I think he said it is exclusively. This and Dr. Tobin is not alone here. He has a lot of other people who are on his team. We heard, I think from three other expert witnesses on the government side, who said , who agree with him?

Speaker 3:

Who all said pulmonary , uh , low oxygen and [inaudible] was the cause of death. So that's that if you're in that camp, that's what you think. If you are somebody who says, well, maybe, maybe it was

Speaker 1:

Mostly the knee, but there were some other things going on there. We know that there was a fentanyl toxicology. We know that Dr. Baker said that he had heart problems. Maybe there are other things, but I still think that Shovan was the primary cause, right? The knee on the neck was the primary

Speaker 3:

Mary cause then they would look something like this. The knee would take up

Speaker 1:

A lion's share of the pie chart. The heart might take 10%.

Speaker 3:

Drugs might take 10%.

Speaker 1:

And so in a situation like that, right,

Speaker 3:

You'd say, well, Chauvin's guilty

Speaker 1:

Because the knee is something that is the substantial causal factor in

Speaker 3:

This case. And on

Speaker 1:

The domino chart, it's sorta just sort of say that you were more on the government side of this thing. The ne triggered the other dominoes to fall. The knee triggered the fentinol reaction. The knee triggered the methamphetamine heart problems. All of it.

Speaker 3:

I started by the knee . The defensive ,

Speaker 1:

No , no , no . All those things, just hat were , were already in his body, right? He was already intoxicated. Already had heart problems already almost died in 2019, the knee was just something that was happening while all of these other things were interfacing with each other. So this is the government's case, or this is people who are sort of in this camp, they're going to be leaning towards guilt. Now you can sort of divide this thing up

Speaker 3:

Into different segments.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So now if you were somebody who thinks, well, the drugs probably played a pretty significant causal factor. The heart also played a pretty significant causal factor, but the knee played a bigger factor than either one of those two individually. Right. See how this kind of gets messy. So now you've got drugs plus the heart at 60%. And now you have the knee at 40%. So is Derek Shovan guilty under this circumstance?

Speaker 3:

Okay . It

Speaker 1:

Depends. Right? You're you're the jurors. So you get to sort of delineate what is a substantial causal factor here

Speaker 3:

And is this causation okay ,

Speaker 1:

Because here you have drugs and heart really are the bigger cause at 60%, but the knee might be 40%. Right? And so, you know, the reason why I'm going through these, this is just a way to sort of interpret and process this information for yourself. Probably some of the same stuff that the jurors are going through right now, they're trying to weigh all these different factors. Now, I don't know if they're using pie charts or , uh , dominoes , but you know, it's these concepts, they've got all these different factors and they're trying to piece them together. And so, you know, in a situation like this, yeah, maybe you kind of, you've got, you've got some jurors to work on. You've got some people who say the drugs mattered, the heart mattered, the knee mattered. And so this might be right. This chart might be sort of adjusting dynamically in one direction. Remember when we sort of ,

Speaker 3:

You saw the grass during the election night, or , you know, you have the pipe

Speaker 1:

Moving all over the place. That's kind of happening right now in real time. And so you can rely on Dr. Tobin say it's just the knee. It was low oxygen and a [inaudible] or there were other contributing factors. Now we also heard from Dr. Baker. And so what happens if you take this same analysis? Right? What if we take the information that we're hearing from the expert witnesses, we're digesting it. And we're trying to just go off of the primary exhibit . So now let's

Speaker 3:

Take a look at the certificate

Speaker 1:

Of death. So that remember this, this was one of the exhibits exhibit 193. And it says here, the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating, law enforcement, subdued , restraint, and neck compression. So let's break this down into separate parts. We've got neck compression,

Speaker 3:

That's one. We have restraint. That's another one. We have sub dual, which is another one. See, there's a comma here. We have cardio cardiopulmonary arrest. Then we also have arterial

Speaker 1:

Sclerotic and hypertensive heart disease. We're going to count those as two, two separate diseases. We got fentanyl intoxicated

Speaker 3:

And we have recent methamphetamine use. Okay? And so

Speaker 1:

We heard from Dr. Baker that these are contributing factors, right? These actually did continue

Speaker 3:

To the death. He's not going to put them on there if they're not on that, if they don't contribute to the death. So we know that it's a greater than zero, that dose

Speaker 1:

Contributed to the death. If you want to break it up in a pie

Speaker 3:

Chart analysis. And so what happens if you just went off of their own medical certificate and you just broke it up, it might look something like this, tell you, now here's a pie chart. Where are we looking? If you'll notice I took each one of these clips directly from the death certificate. So you see this here. I just clip this out. A law enforcement , sub dual right there. So we clip this out. Now I'm just sort of ballparking these numbers. And this is all , uh , to scale. So let's say law enforcement's Abdul was just 10%, right? That's a foul Kung and lane. They're all there. It's not just Shovan. Do they get 10% of that? I don't know . You can be the judge. What about

Speaker 1:

Right ? They are , they were all pulling on him. They were all laying down

Speaker 3:

On him on his back. Multiple of them were so weak

Speaker 1:

And give them that we have neck compression. So we're going to give that one to

Speaker 3:

Shovan let's say give that

Speaker 1:

One 20% if you, if you want, or we can just say, we'll give that leftovers, right? So we can go around the other way. We can say, how about Matthews ? We'll give that 10%. We had 19 nanograms per milliliter. If you think that's a causal factor, I'll give it a small one, 10%. Phentenol may be 20%, let's say, right? And that is, we know that this came from the toxicology report, 11 nanograms per milliliter over here,

Speaker 3:

Fentanyl 19 nanograms per milliliter. We know that

Speaker 1:

Dr. Baker gave the heart disease a significant weight

Speaker 3:

To what if we just gave that 15% because his

Speaker 4:

Arteries were 90% clogged. And then we have hypertensive heart disease because they weighed his heart

Speaker 3:

And it was big. Right? So what if you gave that?

Speaker 4:

Let's say 15%. Cause we're going to wait. We're going to make that a little bit higher. According to the government's own witness, we're going to get 15% to the hypertensive

Speaker 3:

Part disease. And what does that leave us with? Leaves us with 20% for neck compression. Okay. And if you go through all of this, there's some pretty good evidence that the government presented

Speaker 4:

And the defense presented. Some of this came from the government's own witnesses, especially about the heart disease. So now if you break this down and you can say, all right, well, we can go off of the death certificate itself. What is Chauvin's responsibility here is that this 20% is the 20%, a significant, substantial causal factor

Speaker 3:

In the death. And so what

Speaker 4:

You can see, what we're doing is the same thing that Nelson is doing right now. We are expanding this out and you could even go one step further, right? You could even, you could have another pie chart and you could add in all of the

Speaker 3:

Other factors on this chart, there's nothing about the 2019 prior. Okay. He was in the hospital for that.

Speaker 4:

When your blood pressure is that high that's causing significant damage, that's a largely white ,

Speaker 3:

The judge, let it in to talk about it because

Speaker 4:

The long lasting impact of having a blood pressure

Speaker 3:

That is through the roof can

Speaker 4:

Have long-term consequences, right? That's not in there. What about the medical? Uh , the paramedics failure to render aid. That's not in there. What about the crowd? Maybe they contributed 5%

Speaker 3:

If you want it. Let's

Speaker 4:

If you want to be very reasonable, if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to Shovan remember in this country, you still have the presumption of innocence. So you've got to look at it in a light, most favorable to that side. Well, if we said the crowd may be contributed to it, maybe Genevieve Hanson contributed to it. Now you can have a pie chart that has a lot more slices in there. The more slices you throw in there, the smaller the share Shovan gets, which is exactly what Nelson's trying to do. Sort of defray some of the causation and lump it all right back

Speaker 3:

In here. And it's not the domino

Speaker 4:

Where Chauvin's knee caused all of this other stuff to happen. All this stuff was happening regardless of the knee , the meth use 2019 prior, neck compression, restraint, heart disease, arterial sclerosis , blah , blah , blah, blah. That was all happening before Derek Shovan even showed up that day.

Speaker 3:

So those dominoes are already falling. Shovan just put his knee in the middle of it while they were falling, versus the government saying it all started with Shovan. He is the, but for cause. So what do you think, what camp do you fall in?

Speaker 4:

We're going to take some questions, but before we do, we got a little bit more work to do. So we've got a wrap up on what happened after this. So now all of this has been handed off to the jury. The jury is now out of the room. So , uh , judge Cahill then says, I think I heard

Speaker 1:

Some objections out there. And Eric Nelson says, Hey, I'm going to move for a mistrial, which is pretty standard. Right. I was expecting that to happen. And I was expecting a claim of prosecutorial misconduct to happen. Here. It is.

Speaker 5:

All right. A couple of things. I know , uh, the defense was all right . A couple of things. I know , uh, the defense was in the process. I think of making a , uh, expressing a concern or an objection to counsel's argument, belittling the defense. Is that what I correctly at correctly perceived that objection. I think we dealt with it sufficiently during the objections during the rebuttal. So there'll be no additional instruction in that regard.

Speaker 6:

I do believe that it constitutes prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct and is potentially basis for grounds from this room .

Speaker 5:

Yeah , I, that, I think these, the word nonsense , uh, is what you're talking about originally,

Speaker 6:

Originally, your honor, but then in rebuttal, there were repeated repeated comments about how we were an implications that we were , um, that we were shading was one example that we were creating. Halloween stories was another example that these were stories. And that was a repeated comment , um, stated that we misrepresented facts and put words into Dr. Baker's mouth , uh, that we made several statements that they put forth as stories , uh, after the court instructed him to use the stop using the word stories. He clarified that it's just fabricated facts. Uh, and so there were multiple references to that , um, that we were shading the truth, right? I mean, and again, so multiple objections, this is , uh, essentially , uh, governed by , uh, state versus McDaniel and the final argument to the jury of prosecutors governed by a unique set of rules, which differ significantly from those governing council and civil suits. And even those governing defense counsel and the very same criminal trial, the special rules follow directly from the prosecutor's inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor.

Speaker 1:

All right . So he goes on and he keeps reading some of the rules, but yeah, there's a, there's a, there's a problem. There's a problem here. Right? He's saying that during the rebuttal that , uh, Mr. Blackwell got a little bit loose with the language, and it was sort of saying things like , uh, you know, they're telling you Halloween stories and they're misrepresenting the facts and they're shading the truth and all of those things. And if I'm not mistaken, I think Mr. Blackwell is actually a private attorney who is sort of volunteering for the government in this case. And what you just heard Mr. Nelson say is that the rules are a little bit more strict for the government as to some of these things because they are prosecutors, right? They swear an oath. They've got a duty to enforce justice, not necessarily to go and seek convictions. And so their , their responsibilities are a little bit different than defense, right? The defense has to represent our clients , private citizens. And so, you know , some of the , uh, the defense does not have the entire weight of the government behind them, right? We do not control the levers of power, which are massive in any one of these agencies, hun tens, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars or billion dollar agencies are these , uh, prosecuting agencies, especially in , uh, here in Arizona, right? It's a massive, it's. One of our biggest agencies in this state is the County attorney's office. So it's a big, it's a big deal, right? And so prosecution, because they have that very, very, very heavy sword that they can just swing around. They have a little bit more responsibility in the form of not committing prosecutorial misconduct. So Mr. Blackwell may be used to some of this stuff flying in the defense world where you can kind of come out of here. Oh, the government's trying to, you know, do a bunch of nonsense.

Speaker 3:

We can say those things, but the defense kind of, or the prosecution kind of has a little bit stricter rule .

Speaker 1:

So Mr. Nelson comes back out and says, yeah, they're calling us , uh , Halloween stories, fabricated facts, shading, the truth, misrepresenting facts, you know, essentially

Speaker 3:

Belittling the defense moves for a mystery

Speaker 1:

Trial. Judge Cahill says, no, not so fast. You know, we issued a curative instruction during the closing, basically telling the jurors, you know,

Speaker 3:

Nudging, nudging them to behave

Speaker 1:

And , and be a little bit more diplomatic, but also telling the jurors to disregard some of those statements. So the last thing that Cahill's going to do today is declare a mistrial over some, you know,

Speaker 3:

Some in polite

Speaker 1:

Language in closing remarks,

Speaker 3:

But there is more, may not

Speaker 1:

Be a mistrial here, but maybe we're talking about

Speaker 3:

An appeal. Why Maxine waters? Of course,

Speaker 1:

There are problems in this country. Largely you can connect it back to Maxine waters. It's like that what's that like seven degrees of Kevin bacon, right? Where you're like, everybody knows Kevin bacon through like seven people or three people or whatever. It is kind of the same thing with Maxine waters.

Speaker 3:

Anything goes bad. It's her fault, right? It's raining out well,

Speaker 1:

Rains in California. Guess what else is in California? Maxine waters. See how that works. We have Democrat Maxine waters on if Derrick Shovan is acquitted. This comes over from the daily wire says get more confrontational.

Speaker 3:

He said, get on the street. She said on Saturday night, first off let's back this up, who is

Speaker 1:

Representative Maxine waters. It's this woman over here. We're going to play a video of her shortly. But she is a representative from California. She said on Saturday night that if Shovan is not found guilty of murder for the death of Floyd, that activists must quote, get more confrontational on the street because the activists need to make sure that they know

Speaker 3:

You mean business. So she set that on Saturday night, like two days ago. Okay. Closing arguments were Monday. She is saying that

Speaker 1:

On Saturday night. Guess where else she's saying it? Is she saying it from California? No

Speaker 3:

Guests , Minnesota. She flew

Speaker 1:

From her jurisdiction as a representative in California

Speaker 3:

To a different district where she is not

Speaker 4:

A representative, unless I'm mistaken to go out there and rally a bunch of people to take to the streets and get more confrontational so that people know they mean business. If she does not get the verdict that she wants. Now, judge Cahill is not happy about this, nor should he be, this is insanity, but let's take a quick look and see what else is going on. Water's made the remark alongside protesters in Brooklyn center, Minnesota, where police shot and killed Dante, right ? Who had a warrant out for his arrest? We're looking for a guilty verdict. She said, this is a quote. We're looking for a guilty verdict. And we're going to see if all of this that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd. If nothing does not happen, if nothing does not happen, which is a double negative, then we know that we've got to not only stay in the street, but we've got to fight for justice, but I'm very hopefully, and I hope that we're going to get a verdict that they will say guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away. All right. So I liked the congressperson. Okay. When asked what protesters should do, if they do not get the verdict, they want waters responded. Well, we got to stay on the street. Okay. So here is representative Maxine waters. Now this is a video of her , uh, comes over from , uh, from , uh, this group over here. That's nice Maxine waters calls for rioters to stay in the street and fight for justice again against police, unless Shovan is declared guilty for murder, not just manslaughter, which is funny because he's not being charged with like a premeditated murder. He's got a couple of the other ones, but she said, we gotta get more confrontational. We gotta make sure they know. We mean business.

Speaker 7:

Get what you just told. Why should the people do ? What's the protesters on the seat ? I couldn't hear you. What happens ? What should protesters do? Well, we got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active. You got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that. We mean , what are you thinking about this curfew? Whoa,

Speaker 4:

Stay in the street. Did she say the word fight? Did she say fight ? Let's listen to that one more time. I think she said the word fight, because if you were called Donald Trump said, fight like hell and he got impeached for that. Let's listen to it.

Speaker 7:

All right , go get what you just told. Why should the people do ? What's the protestors on the seat I get near you. What happens ? What's your protesters do? Well, we got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active . You got to get more confrontational to make sure that they know that. We mean , what do you think about this?

Speaker 4:

All right . So I didn't hear a fight for justice in that one. Let's see if she's got it. This one.

Speaker 7:

I don't think anything about pension . I don't think any about curfew. I don't know what parachute means. Carefree means that I want y'all to stop talking. I want you to stop meeting. I want you to stop that . I don't agree with that. You're going to stay out here. I'm not gonna stay out here. I came here for Washington just to be here to make sure that I let my voice be heard among all of those who have been so much time

Speaker 6:

On the street. And so I'm hopeful that the podcast will continue.

Speaker 4:

All right . So she's , uh, she's actually encouraging lawbreaking and she's encouraging people to take to the streets so that people know that they mean business. This is a sitting congressperson who is elected to the federal us. Congress does a very powerful organization in this country. And she is weighing in on a co-equal branch of government and a , well , we can say a smaller branch of government. This is a state government, right? This is a state court low-level court for a felony, not a federal district court, nothing like that. Right? This is a state local court. We have the supremacy clause says that the federal government is Supreme to a lot of the state rules. And so this is a , an elected federal Congress person coming down, trying to interfere directly with the trial that's happening of national interest on the ground, flies out from her district into Minnesota to make her voice heard and says that if they don't get the verdict that they want, that's a problem. It sounds like insurrection. To me, it sounds like it clearly. Now, Eric Nelson also heard this clip as did the judge as to Derek Shovan as did the prosecutors. Is this a problem when your trial is not even over yet? Okay. The jurors are set to deliberate and you have Maxine waters out there saying hit the streets and we're going to get more confrontational unless we get a verdict and it has to be guilty, guilty, guilty. Okay . Now you might think Maxine waters is a joke I happen to, but it's still a sitting congressperson who is carrying a lot of power and a lot of heft and a lot of voices, a lot of people out there with her and they see her as a legitimate person, as a legitimate vessel to carry their grievances. And so if she says that the only just outcome here is guilty, what does that, what , what, what else can you glean from that? That anything else is, is illegitimate. What happens if you have an illegitimate verdict, because you have just undermined a coequal branch of government called the judiciary. You have a lot of angry people who just took their statement from you that says, well, this thing is illegitimate unless we get a specific outcome. Right? So all of the people who are hyperventilating about Donald Trump getting a little bit mouthy with his statements, hopefully they're getting a little bit mouthy with her statements. Now I agree with that. She's got the right to protest and all of that stuff, very irresponsible, actually joining in on the protest on the ground and nobody cares. All right. So let's see what Eric Nelson has to say about this. He is not happy either .

Speaker 6:

So , um, I mean , but my phone gives me alerts on things that just happened. I mean, you can't avoid it and it is so per pervasive that it is, I just don't know how this jury. So , um, but my phone gives me alerts on things that just happened. I mean, you can't avoid it. And it is so pervasive that it is, I just don't know how this jury, it can really be said to be that they are free from the taint of this. Um , and now that we have us representatives , uh, threatening acts of , of , uh , of violence in relation to this specific case, it's, it's mind boggling to judge .

Speaker 5:

Yeah . Well , I'll give you the Congresswoman waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned, but what's the state's position.

Speaker 1:

That's what this whole trial being overturned. Judge Cahill just said that Maxine waters may have given you something that is going to result in this entire trial. Coming back down, we say, coming back down, it goes up on appeal. Nobody wants to come and back down, right? Trial court judges. They , they, it's sort of something that we all say, nobody wants us coming back down. So we want to make sure we do it right right now, because if we screw something up, it's going to be appeal . And it's going to come back down. We're going to do the whole frigging thing over again. Maxine waters just said , uh, some, some stupid stuff on Saturday, specifically targeting this case, right? This is a separate co-equal branch of government, specifically targeting Derek . Shovan a private, a private person now on trial interfering with his, with his specific case, not talking about police reform, generally not talking about, you know, the justice system, Derek Shovan. We want guilty. Otherwise there's going to be more protests and problems in the street. Don't don't get out, you know , don't leave and get more confrontational. Judge goes, yeah, that's a problem. We might be appealing. This whole thing might see you back here again in a, in a year here he goes again. Here's the judge giving her another scold. We'll see what, what comes of it? Once again, Eric Nelson is moving for a mistrial. Here's judge Cahill saying, no , it's not going to happen.

Speaker 5:

Whatever media reports I'm aware of the media reports. I'm aware that Congresswoman waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of , uh , anything less than a murder conviction and talk about being confrontational. But you can submit the press articles about that. This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful, and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government, their failure to do so I think is a Hornet , but I don't think it is prejudice with additional , uh , material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way, a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we're talking specifically about the facts of this case. A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot.

Speaker 1:

Cheers. Cheers on that judge. You're right. Her , uh, any congresspersons opinion really in my book carries very little weight, generally speaking, but that's just my personal disposition. What about the jurors? What about people who are living there when you have Congress people flying in from elsewhere around the country to come in and stoke division and anger and outrage in your town, you live there, you're got to go home. You're you're sequestered. Now. Now I think the judge is right, that this thing is a gigantic problem. And that maybe this does open the door for an appeal down the road or post-conviction relief or something to that effect. I don't know, but it is a problem. And I think the judge is a little bit naive on this whole thing. So I told them not to watch the news. So I guess that they're not watching the news and they can't be prejudiced. I would bet if you call those jurors back in and voice dared them, that they would say, I heard about that. Yeah. I heard about it and I'm seeing what's going on right now. I know you told me not to watch the news, but I literally am there. Right? I'm in Minneapolis. How , how I , how am I supposed to avoid it? Everywhere you go, you get the notifications on your phone, see stuff on the TVs. Uh , when you're walking down the street for crying out loud, right? Everywhere you go , it's on TVs at restaurants and you're going to see it. Especially the Maxine water stuff. It's everywhere. Everybody's talking about it. So it's a big problem. Now what's so funny about this entire thing is if Maxine waters really wants to see Shovan convicted, she should have not said anything because now what happens? What happens if Shovan is convicted? He appeals. It says I did not get a fair trial because Looney tunes like Maxine waters and others, like the , the people on the city council and elsewhere, or doing a bunch of stuff to interfere with the trial in the middle of the trial, the city settlement came out during [inaudible] right in the middle of jury selection. Maxine waters now comes out and is dropping these types of threats, right? In the middle of closing arguments. The, the, the official government now is expressing its opinion from , from other branches on the one specific case, one specific defendant, one specific individual in the judiciary. I don't think the appeals courts are gonna like that at all. Now, if that, you know , if that comes back down, then Maxine waters may have just given Derek Shovan a second bite at the Apple. Can you believe that a woman out there screaming for , uh , you know, convictions may ultimately help Derek Shovan get acquitted, or if he's here, get another

Speaker 4:

Bite at the Apple because of her insane comments. So you're just, okay.

Speaker 1:

If you think you're being helpful, if you're think you're adding to your cause, go hog wild, but I'll tell you this as a defense attorney, that if I , if I'm married

Speaker 4:

Nelson, I'm gone . Love it. Go ahead, Maxine, keep going, go home

Speaker 1:

While bringing everybody else, bring in AOC, bring in , uh , uh , you know, Rashida, whatever, whoever you want, pop your, run your mouth off, because this is something anytime in a criminal defense case where you can sort of see a deviation from the norm where you can see stuff go a little bit unusual for the

Speaker 4:

Government. That is typically

Speaker 1:

A good thing. The government likes to sort of run their prosecutions by the book. It's like paint by numbers, right? You know , put one here and two there and whatever. And this gives them the opportunity, the defense, the opportunity to introduce new arguments, how many other criminal defense cases do you have? I'm speaking to other like criminals,

Speaker 4:

Pencil lawyers out there. My really talking to myself here currently.

Speaker 1:

But you know , if you are out there, it is

Speaker 4:

Kind of a gift. How many

Speaker 1:

Times do you have a criminal defendant where you , you suddenly get the argument that a sitting congressperson is trying to interfere in your case? Never. How many times do you get a settlement for $27 million in the middle of jury selection for your client? Never, never happens. And so this is something that is,

Speaker 4:

Is a new variable that opens it up

Speaker 1:

Or for a whole bunch of new arguments. What's so interesting here is that the people who are causing these rifts think that they're doing so to the detriment of Derek Shovan, but legally it may come back and actually

Speaker 4:

Help him in the end. Now,

Speaker 1:

The cases with the jurors, what is happening in Minneapolis while national guard

Speaker 4:

Apparently says that there was a drive-by shooting or something to soldiers with the name

Speaker 1:

National guard suffered injuries. When someone shot at them early Sunday morning in North Minneapolis minute , and this was after, right ?

Speaker 4:

I think Maxine waters was sort of out there running her mouth.

Speaker 1:

Uh, Minnesota national guard in Minneapolis police team were fired upon by a light colored SUV. Early Sunday morning, two national guard members did sustain minor injuries from the incident. One national guard member was taken to the hospital to receive care for lacerations from shattered glass, soldiers and police were providing neighborhood security

Speaker 4:

Area of West Broadway and Penn avenues gunshots rang out for 19.

Speaker 1:

I am relieved to know that none of our guardsmen were injured. Dispatch audio reveals shots came from a white SUV members of the guard in the twin cities as part of Minnesota's operations , safety nets, response to civil war

Speaker 4:

Related to the shooting of Dante, right ? And the Derrick Shovan murder trial. Now Minneapolis schools are not, you know , not, not fair in any better, really. They are

Speaker 1:

Going back down to remote learning because

Speaker 4:

Of the Shovan trial and the civil unrest. So the kids now are also being sheltered in place because the people who are

Speaker 1:

Running the schools and the local governments are concerned for their safety, but the jurors apparently well they're , they're fine. They're all good. They're not

Speaker 4:

Watching the news. We have Minneapolis public schools were returned to remote learning for the verdict out of their desire to keep students safe. Anticipating unrest. After the jury delivers a verdict in the former officer Chauvin's trial minister , Minneapolis public schools said that they're going to return to remote learning at the end of next week. This is what we got here on April 16th says dear MPS students and families, our community is moving through an extraordinarily challenging time. As we react to the killings of Dante Wright, who is a former NPS student by a Brooklyn center police officer, just as testimony in the trial. Former officer Derek Shovan concludes. We anticipate that a verdict in the Shelby case could impact in-person learning in Minneapolis public schools in order to give families as much time as possible to plan for changes in their daily routine. We want to share the following information in person learning next week will be impacted by the trial specifically. So we have a trial in this country. Now displacing students, the Derrick Shovan jury will begin deliberation Monday. The same time that NPS middle grades are making in-person learning available for the first time. In more than a year. After speaking with Hennepin County sources, we believe that we can best serve students and staff through changing the learning format next week. So Monday Tuesday is going to be in-person Wednesday to third, Wednesday through Friday, all in-person students are going to return her home for distance learning. And they , uh, they're noting when they're there they're bracing for impact, their students may be impacted by the ongoing public protests . And race may be a topic of conversation in your child's classroom, the racism and violence that has been highlighted in these tragic incidents, maybe widely discussed among some students in our schools as appropriate, and as they are comfortable, teachers will give students the opportunity to process their feelings, how this feels to them personally, and how they're impacted by having the eyes of the world on Minneapolis. That's a big deal. And I was sympathetic to this last week. Remember I said this, I mean, these people are trying to save their city. You have Maxine waters, you have CNN, you have all these people parachuting in to Minneapolis to just cause division and report and just wreck, you know, wreck the local environments. You're seeing mobs and , and the groups of people chase the reporters out there , running CNN out of there . Cause they know what they're doing. They know they're going to come in here, you know, manipulate all of the conversations, agitate a bunch of people. And then they're going to pull this escape hatch, go home in their little bougie apartments. And they're gonna watch Minneapolis burned from afar, knowing that they contributed to it from their ensconced robes, whatever. All right . So understanding that every educator will approach this differently. All right . So that's it from the school, let's go over to some questions, long segment on the show and stuff, but boy, it has been a trial. And so we just got through with something like 20 something days closings were there. Jury's deliberating. Let's hear from, let's go over to the questions. Once again, these questions come from watching the watchers.locals.com . If you want to ask, you can support the show, download a copy of the slides, ask a question and join the program [email protected] . All right , we got news. Now Wyoming says, if they find him guilty of all three charges, would they typically set his sentences to concurrent or consecutive since they are all three for the exact same three same thing. So, so look typically consecutive, I'm sorry. Uh , concurrence typically concurrent for something like this. So what he's talking about is concurrent sentences or consecutive sentences. So do they run one after the other? So let's say he's convicted. Let's say the judge sentences him 10 years a piece on all three charges. I know that's not how the sentencing works, but let's just say 10 years of peace. If he's convicted three years, times 10, what does that mean? Does he do 10 years finishes? One does another 10 years finishes two does another 10 years and finishes the third one that's consecutive sentencing versus concurrent, which would mean he serves all three, 10 year sentences at the same time. And because this all happened on the same date of offense should be concurrent. If it was, you know , multiple offenses, the judge might want to run them consecutively, but it typically depends on depends on a lot. Uh, it depends on a lot. So it's a complicated question, but I would , I would guess concurrence for Shovan . So we have Todd trout says, do you think the decision by the jury will come down to if the jury makes decision with emotions and consideration or just makes decisions based on the facts? Yeah, I think it's probably going to be a combination of the two Todd. I think that you're going

Speaker 3:

To see, you know, different

Speaker 4:

Personality types in there who are leaning on different justifications and rationales and they're fake because is for why they're going to vote the way that they're going to vote. And so you're , you're, you're absolutely going to have the people who are very highly emotional and that's sort of the tack that I think the prosecution took as they should, because they have a more emotional case. We saw a lot of that today. Steve [inaudible] and Jerry Blackwell were both out there using a lot of colorful, emotional language that I think will resonate with those types of people on the jury panel. Uh, but they also had a lot of facts in there. Right? We have a , we have a ton of expert witnesses. We had a lot of corroboration. Uh, we had some disagreement amongst the government's witnesses, but mostly they were in alignment with themselves. And so, you know , that's going to appeal to the people who are fact-based on the panel. We have HLB in the house says , do you think it's possible for the jury to kind of gather that carbon monoxide would be on the officers ? Arguably. So with any adrenaline caused by the prone positioning fear of death situation,

Speaker 3:

Or is that kind

Speaker 4:

Of out of their bounds when assessing how much damage Shovan cause let me read that one more time. Do you think it's possible for the jury to kind of gather that carbon monoxide would be on the officers ? Arguably, so would any adrenaline caused by the prone positioning

Speaker 3:

Fear of death situation?

Speaker 4:

So, you know, HLB, I think that the , uh, the carbon monoxide thing is really kind of a throwaway here. I think that it's sort of, so we we've talked about this on the show, right? We talk a lot about this concept called a shiny object. I think that's what that was. The shiny object is the thing that you just kind of throw out there so that everybody talks about. And remember how much time we spent talking about carbon monoxide. And I even thought when this even came out, when , uh , Dr. Fowler was testifying, I'm thinking where the heck did this come from carbon monoxide? We haven't been talking about nobody. Nobody even mentioned that in the government's case, why is that? Well, they missed it because they didn't read Dr. Fowler's report and the judge scolded them over that. So it sort of felt like something that was really unrelated. I don't think you'd need it. Doesn't add anything. Doesn't really take anything away, but we spent time on it. The government spent some time on it. So it was kind of the defense shiny object. It's Hey, look over here. Look what we're doing over here. And they did, they bid it, they bid on it. They had , uh , Dr. Tobin come back out to rebut Dr. Fowler. And they also had , uh , they mentioned it in closing, you know, it wasn't a car that killed them. So it sort of to , to, to we , to, to knock them off of their standard routine a little bit. But I think that for Nelson is inconsequential. It was all about the other causes in cumulation, adding up to being more substantial than Shovan good question though. We've got CP Miller VW WV in the house says , do you think the defense should have pressed that he had held until EMS arrived for safety since they also waited until they left also the claim drugs wouldn't have caused it because he was too awake. Well, that could have been what happened is he went and passed out with the above. He held for safety. Also. Guess what? With COVID we prone our patients to improve oxygenation. Yeah. So, yeah. So I think the pros there there's there's argument over the proning position, whether it's, you know, act like legitimate prone or not. Um, do you think that, so, yeah, I, I do think that maybe Nelson, I didn't hear it today. I listened to it like double speed today, but Nelson, I think, I think could have probably spent a little bit more time on, on that concept. Right? I think one of the lingering questions, a lot of people are still gonna have after closing arguments today is why, why specifically didn't, Shovan render more aid. I think a little bit more time on that segment or on that answer would have been, would have been good. See, the veil says the prosecution lied during closing argument several times. So since winter prosecutors allowed to lie and make up evidence or selectively edit video skipping, what led the officer to draw the gun? This is not a cause for a mistrial or disbarment. Um, well, a lot of that's good to see you see the veil . Uh, no, it's, it's not a cause for a mistrial or disbarment. Remember a lot of this stuff was settled before the trial even started. So they have what are called motions eliminate about what evidence can come into court. And so a lot of this stuff was fleshed out before that. And so whatever they played today was approved , uh , you know, four weeks ago. So at this moment in time for them playing something that they've already played a number of times, not going to warrant a mistrial or a disbarment, why you may feel like it's a little bit underhanded, but they're allowed to do that. We have HLB says, what is , what a good takeaway for bystanders be to definitely film officers and maybe keep in mind how to give officers even more space for more options on how to handle what they are handling. Almost like a crowd could help the escalate, a risk or threat can't get over that they were in the street the whole time while arguably the crowd was being managed and could have been directed to give space for more options to give medical care. Yeah. So I see what you're saying. And so like, would law enforcement be better served by communicating with the crowd in a way to sort of onboard them into assisting you at the scene? Uh, I'm sure there's a lot of reasons that the police have as to why that would not make sense. Probably, you know, once a situation goes hostile, it's probably not worth the time to try to flip the scene. It's probably just worth the time to wait until reinforcements arrive. We have HLB says, how do jury questions happen? So they'll typically just round them up. So they'll all ask questions, I'll write it down on a piece of paper. They'll give it to somebody who's managing the deliberation room and the sequester process. Uh, you know, somebody from the, from the court whoever's assigned to do that bailiff court clerk, whatever. And then she'll , uh, gather those questions, bring them back up to the judge. Judge will notify , uh, the attorneys about them. And then they'll, they'll, they'll typically, I think they're going to , they should read them on the record so that we get to see them. And then every time one of those comes out, everybody's going to have a meltdown. What do they ask? It's a lot of fun Liberty or death says, thought it was odd that AIG Ellison did not at least do the closing. I think he was banking on Shovan testifying. Yeah. The, the, the big attorney general didn't seize the mantle and go and deliver the closing arguments, which is, which is the right thing to do. Right. That would look super petty. I think if he did that, like you guys do the whole trial, I'm just going to show up, you guys cook the whole meal, but I just want to eat it. Right. And it's kind of not good. The guys that you're going to that are, that are actually doing the guy and female, right. Who were actually doing the underlying trial. You want to let them have it. I think, see the veil says there were video clips used by the prosecution that kept showing the underwrites child. Isn't there a law against that? Um, I don't think so. Just having kids on video, like in a very legal way. I think that's okay. Uh, on YouTube, there are problems with that. We have HLB says, I think I saw a thing saying a verdict in two hours about an hour ago, does the head juror person to relay a verdict every day at a time? So people can just know if they have, or have not made one? Um, not, not, not in my experience, you know, it's sort of, they, they, they get to it when they get to it. So we're just going to be on notice. We have, my Fox says, no people aren't going to like this. I'm going to like it, mom. I haven't even read it, but I'm going to like it. And I can only do it because I'm not a lawyer. It's most likely show Shovan gets manslaughter, feel that that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the negligence aspect, you could argue it wasn't the causation, but it's definitely a neglect of duty to custodial charges. That's a , that's a fair read

Speaker 3:

Mo . I told you

Speaker 4:

I was going to like it. I like it. I think that's a very, very reasonable

Speaker 3:

Interpretation.

Speaker 4:

Right. And, and the murder, you know, murder versus manslaughter. Yeah . I think that's probably, yeah .

Speaker 3:

Likely ish outcome. If I could be candid about it

Speaker 4:

That we have , uh , Oh, sock says

Speaker 3:

Rob. So back

Speaker 4:

In the day, my dad was a juror on the Bob crane trial here in Phoenix. So my dad had one other, it was a holdout for a guilty, but the judge stepped in and said, go back and tell you have a unanimous decision. How can a judge do this? Because that's just how it works. I know it's crazy. Right. And the judge just said, yeah , go , no ,

Speaker 3:

I know, I know that's what you think, but it ,

Speaker 4:

So you go convince them or they can convince you, but you're not leaving. And we're going to see that happen in the Shovan case as well. HLB says, is this not a solid example of a bad teacher in their training, in the field? Shovan apparently was a field trainer for one of the two puffs also on Mr. Floyd, how could we find prevent and clean out these types of officers? Yeah. We had a bad couple of trainees. I think trainers out there. We had Shovan on his case. We had Kim Potter on the Dante right case. Right. I think she was training somebody else. And so that's a good question. I think the answer there is accountability and transparency. We need more of both of those in our law enforcement agencies. The big problem that is impeding a lot of progress in both those areas, the police unions, which are largely garbage. I had a , Oh my gosh. I was going to include, I saw a tweet the other day that I was going to include, which I forgot about. I'll try to find that. Yeah. But that's, that's the problem. If we have more accountability, more transparency. If we have less unions in place that are propping up bad officers, I think we'd see some dramatic improvements across the country, across our law enforcement agencies. Best saved me. Anto says, I would ask if George Floyd did not suffer from an enlarged heart. If he had not ingested a high level of fentanyl with a knee on the shoulder

Speaker 3:

Or neck, kill him. If not, the Shovan

Speaker 4:

Is not guilty. Now that's a good question, right? I mean, that's sort of what we're trying. That's what the jurors are going to tell us.

Speaker 3:

They're going to try to tease out

Speaker 4:

Some of the causation we have farmer's daughter says if he is found guilty, do you think he'll have to be put in solitary, can't see him safe in a prison population. I would say yes, probably at least for the short term , until he finds any more permanent home, you know, normally these things sort of step up in, in phases. Um, so you , you sort of we'll transition over the next month or two. I don't know, actually, I can't speak to that. I can't speak to how it works in Minnesota. HLB says the three other former officers will apparently be charged with accessory.

Speaker 3:

It ,

Speaker 4:

Uh, of Shovan gets charged with just one or all. Would they legit all get charged together? Like in one Swift trial ,

Speaker 3:

Um, they all already

Speaker 4:

Have been charged and their trials are scheduled for the end of the year. I just don't know.

Speaker 3:

So what's , uh, what order they're scheduled for, or,

Speaker 4:

Or even scheduled simultaneously or what the deal is with them. I haven't really been paying that much attention to the others yet. We'll see what happens here. We have HLB says, if the jury goes off, the facts presented and not the word ,

Speaker 3:

Then why would shade matter? Uh, why would shade matter? I don't know. I don't know

Speaker 4:

Why , why shade would matter? Justice first says I liked your pie chart. Nelson should have used net compression goes to zero, according to the two pathologists because no blood flow or air flow is blocked. I still think Dr. Baker was pressured into his wording on the report. Well, justice first, thank you for the nice little pie chart. Compliment. I appreciate that. You know, something like that probably would not be allowed to be used in trial. Something like the one I specifically use , because those were just a sort of, it was demonstrative, right? It was to show you that there are these other things, but you know , it would be totally speculative for me to say, yeah, 10% hypertension, 10% arterial sclerosis or something like,

Speaker 3:

You know, it's more about communicating an idea, but yeah.

Speaker 4:

And could have used some other demonstrative , uh ,

Speaker 3:

You know, tools to communicate that concept,

Speaker 4:

That specific chart he could not have used if he would've gotten rid of the percentages. I think arguably he could have used that. I would have been questioned. I would have been curious to see what the judge would have allowed. We have Gregory, Nicholas said, who paid for Maxine's flight? Can we Sue or file some type of audit of misconduct or fiduciary responsibility? Maxine's flight? I don't know. You know, she's probably just been grifting off of the population for so long. She just got caught

Speaker 3:

Money , just, you know, it's, it's probably the

Speaker 4:

People of California. It's probably their money. Are they upset that she's

Speaker 3:

Minnesota making threats that

Speaker 4:

Might warrant an appeal and a second trial for Shovan HLB says, if they can appeal a quit or mistrial or even found innocent, they could go for charging, murder level stuff. I don't know , double jeopardy applications

Speaker 3:

Or rules, murder level stuff. Uh, so they, yeah, they , they can't try him again just because , uh, it's, he's already been tried, right? They can't, unless it's a , it's a very, very minor

Speaker 4:

Or Mr . If a juror does something wrong there . So I was reading some rules in Minnesota about some of the mistrial rules. And I, I think we're beyond that now. I think we're sort of in that safe zone, unless one of the jurors does something totally bananas, but they're sequestered now. Right? So there's sort of a shielded off in a little bit of a bubble until they reach a verdict. That's kind of the point of sequestrations. So I , I think we're past really the mistrial danger and key woe in the house as the prosecution's closing was too repetitive, repeating the same phrases over and over while I realized it was done for emphasis, it was overkill. And quite frankly, annoying, I felt he was overcompensating due to a weak case. Interesting point there inky . Whoa . And I actually agree with, I thought that Steve Solutia

Speaker 1:

In particular was very, very slow this morning. I was listening at two speed and it felt normal. I mean, he was

Speaker 4:

Going , uh, you know, really

Speaker 1:

Long pauses and just, just taking forever to get through it. And it was annoying. Typically I don't listen to things that two-speed , I listened to in a one and a half , uh, or even 1.25 if somebody speaks rapidly, but he was going so slowly to , it's not even a big deal. And I'm thinking if I'm a juror, I'm like, can you get to the point, pick it up. My man, we got, you know , we got, we got some deliberating to do here. Pinky number two, last question on this segment,

Speaker 4:

It says, Rob, do they have standard procedures for training that they make public,

Speaker 1:

Maybe a good idea, especially with these cases. So , uh, I don't think so. I think some of that is protected information, of course, for law enforcement security. Like they don't want to tell you all of their training protocols, right. Uh, if you're, if you're gonna commit this crime, this is what we're going to do in response to that. Like, they don't want to make that available for you. Right. That's obviously not good information, but , uh, but yeah, I mean, there should be ,

Speaker 4:

Um, I think some , some better conversation between the public and law enforcement about, you know, about how to handle these situations better, whether it's more true

Speaker 1:

Different responses or what, you know, there there's, there's a lot of room for improvement. So I think you're onto something pinky too . Right .

Speaker 4:

Thank you for that. Nice comments. All right . So those are the question

Speaker 1:

Students that came over from locals.com. Check us [email protected] If you want to ask a question or be a part of the show, that's the place to do [email protected] All right. So that's it for the Shovan stuff. We are going to change gears. January six feels like an eternity ago. A lot has happened since then, but we just now learned how officer Brian sick Nick was killed. We were wondering, we've been scratching our heads going what the heck happened here, because we know that many people in the media, even the Democrats in their own impeachment trial brief, their memorandum that they submitted in front of Congress mentioned that officer Brian Signac was killed. He was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the January six riots. And we saw this hyperventilation all over the media about what a bunch of monsters Trump's supporters are. And not just the people who were there at the Capitol building that day, like everybody, all 70 something million of them throughout America. And it's not true. The whole thing is not true. Officer Brian Signac was not killed by being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. Uh , it doesn't even look like it had anything to do with the mob that day or any of the writers. In fact, it sounds like it was a stroke, not just one, two strokes. And so we gotta be very cognizant of this right. Officer Brian Signia is not with us anymore. He is somebody who served the country. We want to have as much empathy and compassion for him and his family for the good work that he did for all of us

Speaker 4:

In this country, as well as grieve

Speaker 1:

And mourn with his family, for losing somebody, right? It's awful. Our country has lost

Speaker 4:

A lot of people in the last 12 months. And this is just as awful as all of them, right? Every time somebody dies. It's a catastrophic thing. My irritation with this story is the fact that they exploited this man's death. And if I were his family, I would be so disgusted by, by our politicians and by the people in this country who exploited his death for their personal gain. It wasn't to honor Brian's sickness . It was to manipulate his death to their political benefit. They wanted to say, look what our political enemies did to this brave officer. And then they just spun it around , uh , ran with it to the moon. It made it into the impeachment documents that I'm about to show you. So let's take a quick look and figure out what is actually going on here. Article comes over from law and crime.com written by Adam class field posted today. Capitol police officer Brian sickening died of natural causes after suffering two strokes. They , after on January six , and we've been wondering where this information has been. Remember Christopher Ray was hauled in front of Congress. They asked him a question. I can not confirm or deny anything. All right . They cremated his body. They had his ceremony in capital , in the Capitol building. It was an open ceremony. Everybody went over there and we've been scratching our heads for three months about what actually killed him. Well, it's strokes two strokes. He died of natural causes suffering two strokes. The day after January six , siege first reported by the Washington post. The newly public ruling was revealed a little more than a month after two members of the pro-Trump mob, George Tonya's and Julian Cotter were first charged with assaulting signific by spraying him in the face with chemical irritants. All right . So they were charged

Speaker 3:

With that. They never alleged that the bear spray allegedly used places .

Speaker 4:

The role in his death, DC medical examiner, Francisco Diaz told the post that the autopsy found no evidence. A Cigna had an allergic reaction to the spray and disclose to the paper that he did not find evidence of internal or external injuries. Okay? That's not what we were told. Diaz added that sickness , having been among the officers who engage in the Capitol mob, played a role in his condition. His office did not immediately respond to law and crime reports release highlights the shifting understanding of the officer's death. Since the day after the riot early reports attributed sickness, death to being hit with a fire extinguisher. Investigators subsequently shared their suspicions with the New York times that a chemical irritant like bear spray may have been to blame speculation, led some to express surprise. The prosecutors stopped short of accusing Tanya's and Kotter of causing sickness , death, despite charging assault with the chemical spray. Yeah . So they were on the verge of charging

Speaker 3:

You people with murder on the verge of it didn't happen. Give me that bear stuff. Katara

Speaker 4:

Allegedly told Tonya's in justifying pretrial detention, magistrate judge, John alloy avoided the question entirely and spoke only to the suspects alleged attack on the Capitol. It's too hard for me to look at this as anything other than assault on this nation's heart, a lawyer . I said, all right, these people so dramatic. Congress held a tribute to the officer, having him lie in honor in the Capitol rotunda on February 2nd. So this is a , you may recall some of the little clips here, Tucker Carlson put a good one together on sickness . So here's a little montage of all of the hyperventilating over this. We'll find it

Speaker 8:

Opposite . Brian sick , Nick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. During the hours long attack, they beat a capital police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. Officer Brian sickness died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the fight he died at the age of 42 after he was a bludgeoned, the fire extinguisher will find it. Officer Brian sick .

Speaker 4:

We , uh, we heard a lot about it. And the Washington post is the original story engaged with rioters suffered two strokes. The ruling released on Monday likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer's death. Two men are accused of spraying that bear spray on him in an interview with the Washington post Francisco Diaz, the medical examiner said the autopsy found no evidence. The 42 year old officer suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. So no evidence, all right , said he would've caused it would have caused sickness throat to quickly seize . He said there was no evidence of internal or external injuries, medical exempt , which is w why wasn't this noted? Why wasn't this noted to us earlier? Medical examiner noted sickness was among the officers who engage in the Capitol mod mob . He collapsed after returning to his office during the riot died about eight hours later, Diaz said he suffered two strokes at the base of the brainstem caused by a clot in an artery that supplies blood to that area of the body DSN . He could not comment on whether Cigna had a pre-existing medical condition, citing privacy laws. So did it take him three months to figure that out? Could we have known about that sooner or was this useful to them? Let's see what Jeffrey Rosen has to say about it. So this is the acting attorney , uh, attorney general tell Merrick Garland gets in there. I think it says our thoughts and prayers are with the family and fellow officers of the Capitol police. Oh, this was the statement back on January 8th. Okay. So that's an old statement. Uh, let's see what they said back then, who succumbed last night to the injuries he suffered defending the U S Capitol against the violent mob who stormed it. They're going to jointly investigate the case to the injuries he suffered defending the Capitol . So that's just not accurate, right? That's not accurate at all. We got over here, we have Frank Thorpe says Capitol police responds to the medical examiners findings. We have the medical examiner finds the us Capitol police officer Brian Signa died of natural causes. The us Capitol police accepts the findings from the office of the medical examiner. But this does not change the fact that he died in the line of duty it, but it does though. Yes, but it does , uh , courageously defending

Speaker 3:

Chris in the Capitol . He didn't die defending

Speaker 4:

Congress or the Capitol. He died of a stroke.

Speaker 3:

Two of them, the department

Speaker 4:

Continues to mourn the loss of our beloved colleague. The attack on our officers, including Brian was an attack on our democracy, working with the us attorney's office, the FBI field office, and everybody else signet 42 joined in 2008, Julie Cotter was arrested. So as George Tonya's for assaulting officer signific , there each charged one count of conspiracy to injure an officer three counts of assault, blah, blah, blah, us Capitol police will never forget his bravery nor the bravery of others and the family wants privacy. Yeah. So I look, I agree with all of that. I agree that officer SIGNiX brave. I commend him for protecting the Capitol building. I love all of our good officers in this country who do good work and uphold justice and a lot of the values that I hold to be dear in,

Speaker 3:

But he didn't, he didn't die defending the Capitol building. He died from it

Speaker 4:

As the medical examiner just said, good Lord. All right. So not a good situation. We're going to say our prayers for officer's sickness.

Speaker 3:

The question being what's took them so long to get there .

Speaker 4:

This information out to us, this happened back on January six , we had the medical examiner apparently come out today, three months later, body's already been cremated.

Speaker 3:

I wonder if it was

Speaker 4:

Politically useful to them to let this thing

Speaker 3:

Just simmer at a slow boil for political expediency. We got one question in the house from Sharon. Courtney said ,

Speaker 4:

So now that they found that sick Nick died of two strokes, what kind of charges are they going to drum up for the political prisoners they're trying to persecute? I can't imagine they would let the truth get in the way of continuing to pursue their political agenda. Well, they're going to have to find a new victim now, apparently. So they'll find some

Speaker 3:

What else , uh, who they can milk for their political narratives. And I thought I posted the, the , uh, it's in the impeachment documents. Didn't sync

Speaker 4:

From my computer, but all right, good questions. That's it for that segment. So if you want to ask a question in any of our segments, the place to do that is that watching the watchers.locals.com and we're going to move on. We've got one last thing to wrap up today. One final segment

Speaker 3:

Space aliens are

Speaker 4:

They hear the Pentagon is now confirming that these videos we're seeing of these little blobs flying around the skies are in fact legitimate. They are unidentified flying objects. So I saw this clip from Tucker Carlson and a guy named Jeremy Corbell over the weekend. And I did a little bit of digging. I wanted to sort of piece this together, and I wanted to share this with you because we, of course on this channel are watching the Watchers, but there are apparently Watchers who are watching the Watchers, watching the Watchers, which are the aliens that might be here. Here's Tucker Carlson from just this past week. And then I'm gonna show you what I'm gonna show you is this video. We have a little bit of an explanation. Then we do a little bit of a deep dive onto Jeremy Corbell. And some of the other sightings that we're going to be looking at, and this is not just like a conspiracy segment. Okay. The U S Pentagon spokesperson, Susan go is her name. She came out and confirmed that these images are actually authentic. So I'm going to show you that. And we also know that the Congress is set to be delivered a summary of all of the intelligence agency findings as it relates to UFO's. So that's coming up in June. It's going to be due here soon. Are we going to see it? Probably not, but let's poke around. See if we can find what's going on with ITI out there. Here's Tucker Carlson

Speaker 9:

So much for coming on. Tell us where this was shot. Um, what are we looking at here? Yeah, so I obtained and released videos and photographic evidence of UFO's swarming our warships. So the green video is night vision that's from the USS Russell. It wasn't just one pyramid shaped craft. It was multiple. These were swarms. I also released with my mentor in journalism. George Knapp also released from the USS Omaha, which looks like thermal imagery. He released three photos the day prior to mine. So we're trying to get this out, to continue elevating the conversation. Cause it's very important. We have it right now.

Speaker 4:

Uh , yeah. So you see this little pyramid thing out there. So this is actually floating around the U S Navy had somebody who was taking imagery through a night. Vision Goggle probably recorded this on their cell phone. Don't really know the specifics on it , but you saw this little pyramid thing floating around the sky, rotating around right over one of our near Navy carriers. And you know, if you've seen these in the past, we're like, ah , whatever, right? That's a balloon. That's something I don't buy it. Well, the defense department confirmed it is real here. It is over from cnn.com. The defense department confirms the leaked video of an unidentified aerial phenomenon. Israel. This was taken in 2019 defense department says they are indeed legitimate images of unexplained objects. So that's the first one. Are they aliens? Well, the Pentagon's not confirming that. They're just confirming that they're unexplained objects. Okay. We have photos and videos of a triangle shaped object blinking and moving through the clouds or taken by Navy personnel says, and that was confirmed by Pentagon spokeswoman. Susan go . She gave a statement to CNN. She also confirmed that photos of three unidentified flying objects, one sphere, another acorn shaped, and one characterized as a metallic blimp were also taken by Navy personnel. And I'm going to show you those here in a second. She said,

Speaker 3:

As

Speaker 4:

We have said before to maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries. DOD does not , uh , does not publicly discuss the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP, which I believe stands for unidentified aerial phenomena. Excuse me. All right. And so Pentagon spokesperson, Susan go is confirming it. She also said that the UAP taskforce , which is the unidentified aerial phenomenon task force was created

Speaker 3:

In August to investigate UFO sightings observed by the military. It has included

Speaker 4:

These incidents in their ongoing examinations. So this is new folks, unidentified aerial phenomenon task force

Speaker 3:

Created in August. Like last year,

Speaker 4:

Photos and videos were published by mystery wire and on extraordinary

Speaker 3:

Beliefs. Last week,

Speaker 4:

They been circulating online since last year. There've been a number of reports of unauthorized and or unidentified aircraft entering various military control

Speaker 3:

Ranges and designated airspace in recent years, the Navy sent in 2019. So

Speaker 4:

What the heck is going on there last year? The Pentagon released three videos showing unidentified aerial phenomenon clips . The U S Navy has previously confirmed, were real U S intelligence agencies have been directed to give unclassified reports to UAPs, to Congress in June. Okay. So, All right , let's dig in a little bit further. Let's go over to Jeremy Corbell we just heard from him on Tucker. Here's what he posted on April 8th. It says the U S Navy filmed pyramid shaped UFO's on May 1st, 2021. There was a classified briefing, right? So let's put some context around this last year, right before the Floyd stuff, right in the middle of COVID. We had a classified briefing

Speaker 3:

That was generated

Speaker 4:

About UFO on identify flying objects and unidentified aerial phenomenon presence via the office of Naval intelligence. So the O and I , they generate this briefing, those familiar with the briefing articulated to me, to Jeremy, that the goal was to de-stigmatize the UAP problem, the phenomenon problem, and to promote more intelligence collection regarding incursions and encounters with active military deployments. So Jeremy, Corbell got a leak from somebody who was a privy to this briefing, and this is what they're telling him. The UAP briefing was built on a previous Oni briefing, which is the office of Naval intelligence generated in 2019, both were distributed across a wide range of intelligence, networking platforms like SIPRNet and J Wix and other interlinked systems. I was able to obtain information regarding these and other related briefings, as well as to unclassified slides and some of the most intriguing military captured UAP footage I've ever seen. We just saw that

Speaker 3:

On Tucker. So let's

Speaker 4:

Go through some of this mystery wire is another website that sort of , uh , uh, congregates all of these different claims. And they have independently verified that the visual images obtained by Corbell or prepared by

Speaker 3:

The task force . So they're confirming

Speaker 4:

Core bell . CNN is confirming core bell and mystery wire is also confirming Corbell Pentagon Pentagon responded on Friday last week, April 9th, or two weeks ago for a request to comment on the images. They said, I can confirm that the reference photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel, the UAP TF has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations. As we have said before to maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP. So we've got a couple things we can consider, you know, is it, is it our government that is testing our own equipment on our own ,

Speaker 3:

Uh , defenses? Are we doing

Speaker 4:

Games , right? This is not an uncommon thing. We are constantly testing ourselves. We have war games all the time where we're sort of playing with it with, with ourselves. The U S government is constantly playing with itself. So what is, what is this right? Is that , is that this is this

Speaker 3:

A foreign power that has

Speaker 4:

Hyper sophisticated technology that's sort of poking at us or is it actually aliens? Like, are these actual devices and , and creatures from another world, or is it just our government, you know, experimenting with some stuff and not telling us about it. Now you might, you might sort of want to lump into lump yourself into that

Speaker 3:

Bucket, but there are some questions then about why

Speaker 4:

Our government is concerned about incursions into our training ranges. And they're sort of notifying other people about that, right? Hey, we want to gather more intelligence about this because there are people in executing incursions onto our territory, onto our properties. That's a problem. If it's a war game, we don't need to gather information about it yet .

Speaker 3:

So that might ,

Speaker 4:

They lead you to be more in that bucket. Like this is a somebody else. Maybe it's not the U S

Speaker 3:

We don't know.

Speaker 4:

Let's go through and take a look at some pictures. We have two , we have briefing and event series. Number one, this is from Jeremy Corbell. He says our first one we're going to look at is something that takes place aboard the USS Russell. This unidentified aerial phenomenon event took place July of 2019 involves strike group nine, within warning areas off of San Diego, the USS Russell observed and recorded multiple pyramid shaped craft observations of this encounter series were noted in detail. So you're going to see, this is what we're talking about. This is one of those slides from that Oni briefing that Jeremy is privy to USS Russell observed three UNK, UAS, seemingly triangular in shape. So three it's not just one, right? One, two, one, two. We've got one. They're all over the place. Seemingly triangular in shape from the angle of observation hovering approximately 700 feet over the fantail . Two of the UAS is, are pictured above. All right ? So that's that? Let's take a look. What we have here. Go check them out. Extraordinary beliefs.com. And you saw those little pyramids floating through the sky. What the heck were those things? Were those weather balloons were those the Egyptian aliens? I don't know. Next event we've got briefing. Number two, this involved, the USS Omaha observed and recorded a sphere. Sickle shaped craft. It was noted that the spherical craft was suspect was suspected to be a trans medium vehicle. Okay. This leads me to believe that it is not us and they might not even be China unless they have trans medium vehicles was observed descending into the water without destruction. Okay? So it's going from the air into the water at a high rate of speed without exploding. It just shifts mediums physical matter, almost doesn't matter. It is noted that the spherical craft could not be found upon entry to the water submarine was even used in the search observation of this encounter series or noted in detail. Here's a slide from that. The USS Omaha observed a possible UAS spherical in shape, moving towards the surface of the water, then disappearing. Oh , I may assess the object, had sunk attempts to search the water for the wreckage or ineffective. So you see this, this little orb. Let me move myself over there. You can see, I just read from this yellow box down here. This org is being tracked by whatever technology. This is just goes right into the water. Disappears. Navy goes and tries to find it. Can't find it cause it's a trans medium vehicle. Hello. Our last event series involves an F 18 pilot and a weapons systems officer on March 14, 2019, the event series took place in the w seventy-two warning area off the coast of Oceana series involves WSO personal

Speaker 3:

Mobile phone images of UAPs out of the cockpit. So these are pilots, right? F F 18 pilot and a weapons system. Officer intelligence briefing clarifies that they captured three different craft on the same sorting with the same cell phone. We have three of them, the acorn UAP, the metal blimp with the payload. We have the sphere. All right, so let's take a look at them. This first one, this is the metallic blimp. Now see something like this. It actually looks like a metallic blimp , right? I'm not real sure. I'm not real sure that this is a space alien. Maybe it could be, I don't know, but it looks like a blimp. It looks like something that we have seen. Now. I am not an airline pilots, a weapons system officer, and I'm also not an F 18 pilot would be cool if I was though, I would guess that they would know the difference between this and an actual blimp, right? I'm a lay person. This looks like a blimp to me, but I'm going to guess that if you're in an F eight F 18, probably not used to seeing blimps at whatever altitude or location that they're in. So if that's not the case, what is that? Well, it could be a weather balloon could be a Russian spy, satellite, whatever, right? It could be something that is of this planet. Then we get this little thing that gives this. This is the sphere right now. This looks a little bit different. This looks like something that doesn't fly. The blimp looks like you fill it out with some hydrogen. Throw that up in the air. All right. This thing looks like a cell or like a cloud or like something that's , uh , Conex like a condom, actually think about it, but it's, doesn't look like something that flies does. It looks like cloud maybe could be aliens. This last one we have here is the acorn. So let's take a look over here. You're going to notice down here, we have this little floating acorn over here and very far off image, but you can see there they're quite high. You can almost see the curvature of the earth up here. So I'm not sure what altitude that is, or if there are any other explanations, I'm sure some pilots and people who fly can articulate an alternative explanation, but these are fighter pilots, right? These are people who are up here regularly and they're going, ah, I don't know what that is. So, Hey, John, grab your cell phone. Take a picture of that. Take a picture of that. Take a picture of that little strange. What is going on up there? Who knows us intelligence agencies. They have 180 days from December. So this is coming up when president Donald Trump signed 2.3 trillion into law in December, that'd be

Speaker 4:

Again 180 day countdown. So Donald Trump is delivering on aliens

Speaker 3:

From the grave. Congress needs to tell or

Speaker 4:

Agencies need to tell Congress what they know about. UFO's the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense have a little less than six months now to provide the congressional intelligence and armed services committees with an unclassified report about unidentified aerial phenomena. It's a stipulation that was tucked into the committee comments section of the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2021, which was contained in the massive spending bill report must contain detailed analysis of UFO data and intelligence collected by the Oni, the office of Naval intelligence, the unidentified aerial phenomenon task force, and the FBI. According to the Senate intelligence committee's directive. Does anybody think that we're going to get any of that data? I certainly do not. It should also describe in detail, an inter-agency process for ensuring timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomenon reporting for the federal government and designate an official responsible for that process. Maybe they'll put Kamala Harris in charge. Finally, the report should identify any potential national security threats posed by UFO's and assess whether any of the nation's adversaries could be behind such activity. The committee said,

Speaker 3:

So we'll see, we'll

Speaker 4:

See what we get June coming up pretty soon.

Speaker 3:

E T might be , um, might be here

Speaker 4:

Sooner than you think. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And we've got our first from norovirus , Rob, you know, you are the, you are only looking down the rabbit hole, read this UFO issue like 95% of the population. You are not even putting your foot in that rabbit hole. Not to mention sticky ,

Speaker 3:

Nora, Nora Vajra. I'm sure

Speaker 4:

You gonna educate me about the aliens and I'm looking forward to it. I love these rabbit holes. They're so fun to go down. All right. So , uh, Sharon Courtney says, I'm just wondering how much the folks involved have invested in the movie industry. I can see a whole slew of new movies, serials , et cetera. Let's shake that moneymaker . X-Files 2.0 3.0, et cetera. Yeah. I'm I'm I , I happen to love. I happen to love those TV shows. I'm okay. With that. We have Patriot Musk says, Rob, do you think it's wise to reach out to extra terrestrials and blink bring them into our planets? You know, in 2019, I probably would have said no, probably not a good decision, but in 2021, why not? What else? Let, let let's just, yeah, I think it's a good

Speaker 3:

Idea. Why not? What

Speaker 4:

Else can they do? What else can they, can they harm ? Let's just, let's give it a shot.

Speaker 3:

Let's roll the dice. Yeah. All right . Sharon Courtney says, yeah. Okay. Unidentified

Speaker 4:

Aerial phenomena. Instead of unidentified flying objects, I guess that's more precise. And now includes incandescent swamp gas, meteorites, bowline, fireballs. Instead of implying that they were man or unmanned manufactured objects. I know it's a , it's a lot of , a lot of possibilities out there in this world. What, Oh, what could it be? We have underscores shades. It says it's a UFO, not UAP. Why did they change the name for 60 years? UFO? Yes . It's probably some consultant. You know, somebody, probably somebody, they probably paid somebody like a hundred thousand dollars to make that decision. And I'm not even kidding. Right ? Uh, we have norovirus says me , maybe I shouldn't have made this comment, but the 5% people know what they are, why they are doing this now, all I see where this is going, there has been a plan in place for quite some time to reveal the existence of aliens over the last 10 years. And to do it now after the pandemic, this is part of the plan slowly leaks of info, not to freak people out. Yeah. You know, there's, there's something to that. Um, it is weird. Right. Have you, have you noticed that we're having a lot more talk just in general? It is, is almost becoming a little bit acclimated, like Tucker has on somebody who says, Hey, the Pentagon just confirmed that there's UFO's here or UAPs or whatever. And like the big news is Maxine waters. Right? It's okay. We have inky , woe says color , me skeptic. But I tend to think that convenient release of this is most likely some scheme to distract the public from some other nefarious project. They need to petition printing tons of money for, to give to the DOD. I think that's probably the most accurate analysis of what's happening here. Right? The government is just being the government. The government is government . We have it's ed said misdirection. They are just trying to get the public's attention away from something else. Probably something the public wouldn't approve of happens all the time. Yeah. And so you notice that, right? Like you notice that they just dangle things. They throw some red meat out there so that everybody gets fixated on it . Then they pass multi-trillion dollar spending bills and wreck the public. In other ways, while we're all focused on whatever happened in Hollywood that day Liberty or death says these UFO's are not from our government or any other nations government. I have it on good authority. They, from there , they are from Maxine anus. All yeah. Maxine anus is, is the origin story from these UFO's, there's a lot of stuff coming out of a Maxine anus. These days, we have inky wo who says, I also think that if there are alien beings that can travel across galaxies would be too primitive for them to be interested in most likely this will be another excuse to implement a mass surveillance program, to monitor all of them. Yeah. It's for our own safety, they have to protect us from the fictional aliens. You see, maybe Dr. Faulty will come out and say, these, these pyramids are a public health emergency. You need to wear three masks because the aliens also have COVID and you need a social distance from the aliens. Otherwise you will die of COVID. Uh , Liberty or death says, looks like the aliens from

Speaker 3:

Pow enter the fist. Which one was that? I can't say I've ever seen that one. So I, I don't get the reference. I apologize. Liberty

Speaker 4:

Bianca Realty sounds like part of the takeover, the great reset printing. Oregon's going to Mars, et cetera. Very convenient that after all these years they choose to release these triangles. Now, please. Yeah. Yeah. I've seen a lot of that sort of out there. It's like,

Speaker 3:

They're there , they're leaking

Speaker 4:

Little bits of information to us in order to distract us from

Speaker 3:

Some of the more pernicious problems we have,

Speaker 4:

Joe Snow says that sphere looks like the dish that appears when the [inaudible] break [inaudible] break Sonic barrier. Oh, all right . See. So there you go. Yeah. And that's the question, right? Is, are there other sort of reasonable explanations for some of these things? The reason why it's easy for me to kind of dismiss the reasonable explanations is because these are fighter pilots. You know, they're flying around the sky as they see a lot of stuff they see, and they know how things move. If you are interested in this, there was a great , uh, Joe Rogan podcast back when

Speaker 3:

There was really , really , uh , uh ,

Speaker 4:

Available on YouTube. I'm not sure if it's available on

Speaker 3:

YouTube now, any more , but

Speaker 4:

He had a great episode with somebody. I can't remember the guy's name, just look it up. Uh , Joe Rogan, UFO guy, he comes in and he talks about the pill and about how he was moving so rapidly all over the place. And these are guys with, you know, a decade of fighter pilots experience. And so if they're telling you, something's out of the ordinary, it might be worth listening to, you know, and so that's what kind of leads me to be curious about this pinky to says, Rob, what about Roswell? UFO has had been cited for many decades. This is not new. It's not new. I think, but I think, I think what's new about this is that the government is sort of confirming this and we have now conversations about it. This is why I'm talking about it is because we have a coming up in June. There's supposed to be a report that gets delivered to Congress,

Speaker 3:

Unclassified, that detail

Speaker 4:

Sales what's going on here. So I think that is new. I think that the, the, the fact that our government is sort of opening themselves up to having a conversation about some of this stuff is why this is new

Speaker 3:

Worthy. We have at Bieber .

Speaker 4:

Dave says, are you saying the Biden administration should be transparent? That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that they should, all of our government should, they should all be transparent because how can we know how corrupt and broken they are? If we can't see inside,

Speaker 3:

There are governments. We are not their subjects. Okay.

Speaker 4:

Operate off our taxes off our legitimacy. We empower.

Speaker 3:

So they should be telling us what they're doing. Not

Speaker 4:

The other way or what ? Not like, Oh, Oh, are you going to give that to us government? Thank you. We've been very nice here. We've been, we've been good children. Can you tell us a little bit more about what you're doing please? Oh, that's okay. You don't want to tell us this time. That's all right. We'll wait until next year. Okay. Thanks. Norovirus says UAP name change is part of a big, not freak people out part start fresh with new terminology. Okay?

Speaker 3:

Okay. We've got

Speaker 4:

Chairman of the board. The last one on the Q4 of the day says the truth is out there watching, watching the Watchers. U F w T WWT w

Speaker 3:

Oh, maybe they're watching this broadcast. Maybe they're coming. Beat me up. I'm ready. All right. Great questions. Good

Speaker 4:

Stuff today from , uh, everybody over on locals.com. Thank you for that. Thanks for supporting the show and asking great questions. Want to welcome the new arrivals who signed up over the weekends? We've got newbie of death. Welcome to the community

Speaker 3:

Of leafy bug leafy bug. Wasn't that from Shrek leafy bug, was it? I think it was. We have queen Gorgo

Speaker 4:

What's up queen Gorgo welcome. We got Taylor 45 in the house. Big, welcome to truth reigns . We have paged who signed up. We have the tea lover. We have star scream, 1540, and we have pepperoni who signed up. You can all go and join and support the [email protected] Big thank you to those of you who asked questions and left great comments today. You know who you are, you're on the list. And as always want to say, thanks to everybody else who is a part of the community. You know, we talk about building a separate pillar where we can go as people and have conversations with each other. Connect with people. You may have noticed that as I have been doing this show, I've gotten to know many of you, right? Many people on this list. I sort of feel like we know each other. Like I know some things about you and that's the power of community by creating a different platform over on

Speaker 3:

Locals.com. We are sort of

Speaker 4:

Insulating ourselves a little bit against some of the other big tech platforms. If YouTube says you're gone, Twitter says you're gone. Or if any of these other platforms just say, we're not going to let you know anybody talking conservatives or , or free speech or any of those things. They

Speaker 3:

Don't want us on the platform. And that's all right.

Speaker 4:

We have our own community. You know, we're sort of building things elsewhere. Watching the Watchers is where we are doing that. And that's happening over on our locals community, which is [email protected] . If you want to check out the community, you can grab all of this stuff. First and foremost is the book beginning to winning. It's a free PDF that's available for download over there and watching the watchers.locals.com can also check out my slides. All of the slides I went to, you can download those. The impeachment party documents are available at my existence system. Personal productivity template is over there. We share links and conversations throughout the day, but the real reason to be over there is the great people you saw. Many of them you heard from any of them today during the show. And so head on over to watching the Watchers dot locals com sign

Speaker 1:

Up, support the show, get to meet some new people, download a copy of the book, download a copy of the slides and have a lot of fun while you're doing it. It's a good place to be. And before we finished the show, I got one final thing I want to tell you about. I happen to be a criminal defense lawyer here at the R and R law group, where my team and I we've helped thousands of good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and in their lives. We're very good at what we do. We have a passion for helping people. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, we can help. We help people with DUIs, domestic violence, drug cases, misdemeanors, felonies, old mugshots, old warrants. If you want to restore your rights so you can vote again. So you can possess a firearm. Again, go apply for federal benefits, go get a house somewhere, or apply for an apartment building without having to check all those boxes off, we can help with all of it. And we offer free case evaluations we're in Scottsdale. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who needs a little bit of help, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our weight so that we could have the opportunity to help. And we'd be forever grateful. And that my friends is it for me, got to figure out what the heck we're talking about tomorrow. Since we're not going to have a lot of activity in the show trial, or will we, we don't know. We never know, but we are going to be back

Speaker 10:

To cover that and more

Speaker 1:

We're going to be diving into all of it. There's a lot to get to. I know it. So I want to invite you to be back here with us tomorrow at that time, same place, same time, 4:00 PM, Arizona, which is the same time in California. 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM in texts in , uh , East coast and Florida for Florida, man, everybody have a tremendous night's sleep. Well, have a hearty healthy dinner. I'll see you right back here

Speaker 10:

Tomorrow. Bye bye .