Facebook Upholds Trump Ban, DHS Mayorkas Calls for No Borders, BLM Issues Demands

Facebook’s Oversight Board upholds Trump ban from the platforms. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas calls for open borders. Black Lives Matters issues new list of demands while Ron Desantis funds the police. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

• Facebook upholds Trump ban after Oversight Board reviews Trump’s infractions.​

• Review of Case Decision 2021-001-FB-FBR from Facebook’s oversight board.​

• Donald Trump reacts to the news and the big tech companies in new post on his social media desk.​

• Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas calls for open borders.​

• Vice President Kamala Harris links lack of climate resilience as a major problem in the migrant crisis.​

• Kamala Harris has not been to the border but is instead holding virtual meetings, although she is scheduled to visit Guatemala next month.​

• Black Lives Matter issues new list of demands on their website available at blacklivesmatter.com/demands​

• In addition to banning Donald Trump, Black Lives Matters now fully supports defunding the police.​

• Ron Desantis does the opposite and delivers a check to law enforcement after promising to fund the police.​

• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

NEW! EXISTENCE SYSTEMS ONLINE COURSE!​

• www.robertgruler.com/existence-systems​

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 tips@rrlawaz.com or tag @RobertGrulerEsq on twitter.​

#WatchingtheWatchers #FacebookBan #Mayorkas #BLM #BorderCrisis #BlackLivesMatter #RonDesantis #Facebook #Instragram #OversightBoard #Orwell #1984

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the R and R 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 here in with us today because we've got some stories to get into. We're going to start off by talking about the new kind of pseudo government that we have, that controls a lot of what happens in this country. I'm talking about Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg because today the Facebook oversight board came out and are they're upholding the ban. And if you recall, right after the January 6th Capitol Hill riots, there was this, uh, this massacre, anybody who was connected to Donald Trump and Donald Trump himself, or just thrown right off of the internet and they don't, we don't want you anymore is what the big tech bros said. And so there was a, an appeal kind of process that went on between Facebook and this organization. They created called the oversight board. And the oversight board has almost this, uh, this almost like a court proceeding, where they were going to validate and determine whether or not Donald Trump could be on their platform. And of course today, the ruling came out, ban has been upheld. Facebook does not like Donald Trump anymore. And that is going to be something we talk about. We're going to go through the oversight board opinion. We're going to look at the case, how did they come to this conclusion? What went into their mindset as they were sort of, uh, you know, regulating free speech in their own little pernicious way. So we've got a lot to unpack there, including Donald Trump's response, because he has a new platform now where he has almost, it's almost like a Twitter clone kind of thing, where he has these like little micro blog post. So he responded, he has now access and available availability to do that. So we're going to go through his response as well. Then in the next segment, we're going to talk about the department of Homeland security secretary guy by the name of Alejandro Mayorkas gave an interesting interview very recently that a lot of people are sort of scratching their heads about talking about borders. And in particular, we don't really need them so much anymore, or why they shouldn't in fact, be a dividing line between nations. They should sort of be sort of like a boundary that maybe we just think about in the abstract. And they don't actually divide, you know, I don't know political systems or certain types of resource distribution or anything like that. Instead, it should just be kind of one of those things that we just acknowledge exists, but trade and the, uh, the, the meshing of countries is really kind of an afterthought. According to him, then we have an update from Kamala Harris, and we want to know what she has to say about the border situation, because she was appointed, the borders are, and she was going to be somebody who was supposed to solve this problem for us sometime ago. So we got an update on what she has been up to. And then in our final segment today, you know, I have been somebody who has been questioning what BLM wants with their entire movement for a long period of time. Those of you who've been around this channel since the beginning, know that we have been really beating the drum about criminal justice reform. And so when BLM came into the picture, I was thinking, well, maybe there's some good momentum here. Maybe we'll see some actual justice reform in this country. Finally, after my entire life of not seeing much done about anything. And I was always wondering, what do they want? What, what, what is going to make them happy and going to sort of satisfy the outcome that they want and a good news. They released the list. So if you go to black lives matter.com, you can see their list of demands. We're going to go through some of those and see what they are. And then we've got somebody who is doing the opposite of their demands. We're talking about Ron DeSantis out of Florida, who is kind of, um, well doing the opposite. And so we're going to talk about that as well. We've got a lot to get into. We are going to move a little bit quickly today because I got a hard stop at about an hour and a half from now. So if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is by going over to our community@awebsitecalledlocals.com. We have a, we have a platform there community, and it's called watching the Watchers. And so if you want to be a part of the show, and by that, I mean, ask a question, leave a comment, throw out a criticism. If you want to just chat with other people, as the show is happening, you can do that by going to watching the watchers.locals.com, just type that into your web browser, go on over there. You do have to support the show, but it's very inexpensive and you get a ton of benefits. If you do that, you get a copy of my book for free. You get a car, you can download my existence systems. You get all of the updates. We're going to be producing a lot more content. We're talking about, you know, things like book clubs and monthly meetups, and a lot of good stuff is coming down the pike. So that's where you want to be watching the watchers.locals.com. We'd very much appreciate it. All right. So let's get in to the news of the day, because there is a lot of it. As we all know, Donald Trump is persona non grata on the internet. These days he's basically been banned from everywhere, everybody and everything. After the Capitol Hill riots just said, well, we're done with you. And they eliminated him in a fell swoop disc sort of decimating the entire social media presence of a former president of this country. And so many people thought that that was highly problematic. Given the fact that this is an elected official, something like 80 million Americans rely on conversation and communication from this gentleman, he's a leader of a significant portion of this country. Well, that's all right, Facebook. And a lot of the big tech companies said we don't care about any of you people. Donald Trump is too dangerous. So we were throwing them out of here. Well, there is been sort of this, this, you know, response. People are not happy with that. And so what we're seeing is Facebook, some of these other tech conglomerates are now sort of outsourcing some of their responsibility to these boards that they set up. So Facebook did that. They have what's called the oversight board. And we went through this on Monday. We were looking at the makeup of the board who are all these people sort of, you know, intellectuals from all over the world, free speech people, you know, professors and blah, blah, blah. So they're all on this board. And what happened here is they needed to vet and verify and sort of double check Facebook's decision because on January 7th, Facebook eliminated Donald Trump or suspended him. Then they sent this over to their oversight board, the oversight board supposed to be independent. They're going to do their own analysis and then tell Facebook what to do about this. And so that happened today and it was very bizarre. It's almost like a Supreme court case. I mean, they have a case number and everything. And in this, this case worked its way up the court, essentially in Facebook. And they issued a ruling and it felt like we were waiting from a ruling from the Supreme court. I mean, we've done that here. You know, the Supreme court issued a ruling or they grant sushi, Rory on a certain case, we come late. Hey, look at that. Judge Thomas signed off on something. That's great. And same type of situation here, except this isn't a government. This is a private company. And we're talking about a public conversation space in the form of Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp and everything else they own. And they're talking about whether people who are American citizens and not just you or me, you were talking about former presidents, whether they can get access to that public forum. So very, very curious that we now have sort of pseudo governmental bodies making decisions about our free speech. And I think this is a, a interesting dynamic that we're going to have to, I guess, get used to or do something about, but none of our elected officials seem to be in the latter category, unfortunately. So I guess get used to this. It's not going anywhere. Facebook upholds a ban, but we'll reassess the decision over coming months. This comes over from Lauren finer and Salvador Rodriguez published over@bc.com said that Facebook's independent oversight board ruled on Wednesday today to uphold company's January decision to suspend Facebook and Instagram accounts of Donald Trump. The board said the indefinite timeframe of the suspension quote was not appropriate. The board effectively punted the decision on the length of the suspension back to Facebook saying it insists the company review this matter and determine and justify a propo proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of the platform. The board asked Facebook to complete the review within six months and made suggestions for how to create clear policies that balanced public safety and freedom of expression. We will now consider the board's decision and determined an action that is clear inappropriate. They said it in a blog post, uh, Facebook responded, uh, in the meantime Trump's account is going to remain suspended. So Facebook creates this oversight board. They say, Hey, we've got this problem. We have a former president that many people are saying are dangerous. We don't know what to do about it. So out of an abundance of caution, we're going to suspend the president. I think that happened on January 7th, right after the Capitol Hill riots. And then they don't know what to do about it. So they create this board, Hey, you guys help us solve this decision and we're going to pass it on over to you. The board receives the ball, catches it. Okay, we're going to analyze this thing. And then just while, all right, we're going to throw it right back over to you there, Facebook, uh, you need to come up with these policies. You need to justify proportionate response. You need to determine policies and procedures that are applicable in this case that are also consistent with your, uh, administration of other users on your platform. So, you know, it's one big bureaucracy punting to another big bureaucracy and then punting back to another big bureaucracy, which is pretty much how the courts work anyway. So that's great right there. They're in alignment with a lot of our other methods of governmental operations in this country. Meanwhile, the people who are being kicked around like Donald Trump, uh, are, or are not allowed to be on these platforms. And many American citizens are not able to engage with their elected leaders because of this, because we have tech companies now dictating what types content can be communicated on their platforms. And so I think really this is what they want. You know, they don't really want to come up with a decision one way or the other. This is kind of the best outcome for them because what happens practically speaking, these bureaucracies can kick the can to each other until the end of the world, right? Make these little modifications, little adjustments and play this game. Like they're pretending that they're doing something well, we're investigating this. We, we, we do care about freedom of expression, but we've got to balance public safety. And as you know, it's a very difficult thing to balance. And so we're just going to keep passing the ball back and forth until the end of time. And in the meantime, of course, Donald Trump is not going to be on the platform. So it's just sort of this, this fake legitimacy, you know, we're, we're working on this issue, but we just can't, we can't flush, flush it out. Meanwhile, Trump continues to become marginalized, any ability for him to sort of rally his base around any particular cause whether they, you know, my thought process here is yes, they're going to send this back over to Facebook. They're going to say reassess it in six months, they're going to make some policy changes, kick it back over to the board. All right. Well, here are the policy changes. What do you think about these policy changes? Well, that sounds reasonable. We suggest these changes and then kick it back and back and back before you know it, right. Midterms come and go. Trump has been muted. He's been effectively just sidelined as this continues on because now he has no platform to communicate on. And we're seeing that he's starting to build his own, you know, little communication platform. If you go to Donald J trump.com/desk, I think is the URL. You'll see that right. He's got his own version of Twitter there. And maybe that is the right solution. Anyways, you know, we talked about this on Monday. Why would Donald Trump get back on Facebook? Well, you know, they, they, they hold the keys to the castle. At that point, if you want to play on their playground, you got to make certain concessions to them. And you know, I'm not so sure that that is what Trump wants to do. The converse of that of course, is they have the platform. They have essentially a monopoly on the social media space, in the form of Facebook and Instagram. So a very complicated issue, but it doesn't matter now anyways, because they're not going to let him back on for the next six months. All right. So let's take a look at the board's findings. The board found that Donald quote, severely violated Facebook's community standards with this post on January 6th, but it also said the platform seeks to avoid its responsibilities by applying a vague penalty, and then referring it to the board to review Trump's declaration on Facebook. When he said, quote, we love you. You're very special referring to the people, right? It around the U S Capitol. I'm not sure that that's what he was referencing. Uh, maybe he was talking about the protestors who were there, but not necessarily those who were rioting calling the rioters great Patriots, telling them to remember this date forever. Right? And so I'm not sure that that, that he was specifically talking about the people who were inside the Capitol building, but that's how this article is, uh, is phrasing it that's right to be expected, uh, violated the Facebook's rules, that prohibited praise of people engaged in violence, the board wrote. So I think you can make an argument for that actually, right? If you say that he wasn't being specific, and if, if you demand specificity about this stuff, then that's fine. I guess that is one standard. My point here being Donald Trump is saying, we love you. You're very special. I guess he theoretically could have been talking about the guy in Nancy Pelosi's office with his feet on her desk, or he could have been talking about the protesters. We'll never know, but if he didn't clarify it, I can see how one side will pick the pick. The argument that best serves their political ends. The board found that in maintaining an unfounded narrative like of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where the very serious risk of violence. Well, as possible, the board wrote, they said Trump posted his statements quote, when he did it, there was a clear and immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots.[inaudible] they're violent action. So again, right there, they're sort of presupposing the premise there, supposing that what Trump said, we love you. You're very special that he was referring the writers who was referring to the people inside the Capitol building. I don't think that's facts in evidence. I don't think that Trump meant that you can imply that you can extract that from that, but you're, you have to understand and recognize that you're doing that for a political band, right? You have an outcome that you want. You're looking at a set of words. You're coming to a conclusion based on your interpretation of that. And you're applying that in a broader context. So then they're passing rules based on a premise that they're essentially establishing. So you could easily do the opposite of this, right? So you can just see how you come in and be like the words it's it's so transparently obvious. It's not even, it's not even attempting to hide it, right? It's obvious Facebook's decision to make the ban indefinite was not justified the board. It said since it did not follow a clear published seizure. So they just want him to formalize it a little bit more rather than applying vague standard lists penalties. Then referring the case to the board, to resolve the board declines Facebook's request and insists Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty. So, so if you're Mark Zuckerberg and you get, you know, you create a board, you fund it with all this money, you send them over a task to do something. They send it back and say, no, we're not going to do it. It's you guys. We're going to do that. All right. I guess that's one way to do it on a call with reporters, following the decision oversight board co-chair, uh, heli thorning Schmidt said the group was basically telling Facebook that they can't just invent new unwritten rules, which I agree with when they find it convenient. Co-chair Michael McConnell said, it's far from the first time Facebook has made up ad hoc rules. They all do this, right? We've we've seen this. They all do it. And uh, and you know, YouTube is not without sin in this, in this conversation. They all do it. Twitter does it. They'd Oh, we don't like that now. So we're going to add a context box. All we don't like that now, so we're not going to let you retweet it, right? We're going to add certain algorithmic penalties that stop the distribution of the content because they don't like it. They change the rules. After the fact, they set the rules, you come onto the platform, you play ball. They don't like the rules. They change them after the fact. And they throw you off, even though you're somebody who's contributing content and helping to support the platform by engaging it. Right. And what there's, what the, the, the, the downside to this is that that can happen. And, you know, you've seen this on YouTube and elsewhere where these platforms will have a content creator. Somebody come out here, you know, work on the channel for years and years and years contribute their heart and soul to the place. And then they're just deleted without any warning, or they get demonetized with very little explanation. And there's almost no ability to converse with anybody on the other side of this. Meanwhile, it's not just about dollars and cents. We're talking about free speech issues. It's not just about, you know, some, uh, you know, guy with a small YouTube channel being demonetized. It's that times a thousand, that chills speech it's that times, you know, a hundred thousand potential people who want to hear from somebody who might be voters who want to get information who need access to this stuff in order to participate in America. And the tech platforms are saying, no, you don't, you don't get that. Sorry, we're going to manipulate the rules enough that it's going to tip the scales ever so slightly in our favor, not enough that anybody pounds their hands on the table about this, not enough that the Congress people are getting phone calls from their constituents to the level that they start taking action on this, just a slow simmer, just ever so slightly tip the scale in their favor. You take, you take one of the most famous, powerful, provocative, uh, volatile, entertaining, engaging leaders in the history of America. And he doesn't get access to communicate with other people who are also Americans, who also want to communicate with that person. It's a troubling time. And, and, you know, these are unelected people. This is just a board of people who just created this, uh, out of, out of the private sector, bunch of Stanford, you know, Columbia, whatever intellectuals coming out there and telling Facebook how to control speech in America. And if you're one of these people, that's a private company. They can do whatever they want. All right. Well, we'll see where that leads because we tried that back then, back in the 19, early 1940s, fifties, we had segregation. We had all of these private businesses just violating civil rights across the board, because it was a private business. Well, in America, we don't like that. We don't like when you treat people like garbage, when you undermine and, and wash away some of the most fundamental principles of American life. And, you know, we, we, we don't like when you discriminate against people, it's not okay when you do it racially or on gender or on sexual orientation, not okay when you do it based on political ideology either. And we're going to see how this flushes out, down the line. Let's take a quick look at the decision. As I mentioned, there is an actual case number here. So we have case decision two zero two one zero zero one F B F BR. And it is an actual case summary. So it's kind of surreal. You know, there are all a lot of big companies that have pseudo legal processes, right? You see this all the time. You have arbitrations, you have mediations. A lot of having a pseudo legal process ended up itself is not anything that's particularly interesting, but the fact that this involves a former president on an access to essentially what is like a, how many, how many hundreds of millions of users are on Facebook? I mean, it's like almost access to a country in some degree or to a state. It is so such a big entity. It's almost even hard to fathom. It's bigger than countries. So it is a, it is a big thing here. We're talking about a very big Liberty interest is in battle right now, we're talking about free speech. We're talking about political association, free assembly on and on and on. And we have a private company, pseudo private company, right? I mean, it's a publicly traded company. And we basically know that they own large portions of Congress as it is. So I would say it's a sort of a pseudo government, you know, complex where these two mega industries have just sort of merged together to create this really, really, uh, uh, disgusting thing that's happening in this country. Anyways, enough of this, the point here is this is this resembles a legal process. This resembles something that you would see coming down from the Supreme court, and you would say, wow, this is a big deal. This is a decision that is impacting free speech across this entire country. This would be a big deal. If this came out of the Supreme court, of course it didn't. But practically, this is going to have a massive impact on people in this country, much the same way, or even more so than a Supreme court decision, because remember a Supreme court decision in free speech, a lot of these issues are, are, are, you know, academic issues when people are talking about free speech and free expression in the court of law, when they're filing lawsuits over denial to certain rights, you know, we're sort of talking about stuff that most people don't engage in on a day to day basis. You know, most people are not out there, uh, getting arrested for protesting and then having to file for their civil rights being violated and sort of attacking that on that, on that, on that basis, working its way up the courts all the way up to the Supreme court, until we get a decision that gives us some guidance on this issue. It's not what we're talking about. Right? Most people don't go that route. Most people they're on Facebook. They're on Instagram, they're on Twitter every day. So when these decisions come down, people arguably are going to be more impacted by Facebook's decision than they would from a Supreme court decision, because that decision is regulating conduct, that they don't really engage in frequently, but they are on Facebook 50 times a day. They are on Instagram morning, evening, and afternoon and night. That's where they live. So, so what if you have free speech in the court of law? That's great, right? We want that, but we also need to be very clear that a lot of the conversations are taking place on other platforms in these other tech comp countries, really. And if they are excommunicating elected leaders that has very serious ramifications for free speech today and down the line for the four kids and kids, his kids children's, children's, children's, children's huge, huge ramifications. And this is now what looks like to be just kind of commonplace, just all right. Well, here's a case summary. The Facebook Supreme court has decided that former president can't be on your platform. The board upheld the decision from Facebook on January 7th to restrict president Donald Trump's access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account. They said it was not appropriate. The board insists that Facebook review the matter to determine and justify a proportionate response. They must complete the review within six months, the board also made policy recommendations to develop clear, necessary, and proportionate responses that promote public safety and respect, freedom of expression, key findings. The board board found that two posed by Mr. Trump on January six, violated the Facebook guidelines specifically where he said, we love you. You're very special in the first post post and quote, great Patriots. And remember this day forever in the second post. And again, you can have arguments about that. You can say your, who who's he talking about? Is he talking about the protestors? Is he talking about his voters? Is he talking about, you know, the people outside the Capitol building or the people inside the Capitol building who knows, but Facebook determined, you know, sort of looked at it in the worst possible light and then made a judgment based on that decision, the board found that maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. At the time Trump posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots, legitimize their actions as president, he had a high level of influence. Post was large, 35 million followers on Facebook, 24 million on Instagram. And I think he had like 80 million on Twitter, given the seriousness of the violation, the ongoing risk of violence, they were justified. The board said, however, not appropriate for an indefinite suspension. So they got to come back and take a look at it again, not permissible to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period. Now with no criteria on whether or when the account will be restored, which is good. I actually agree with this. I think that this is good. It makes sense for users to know what the boundaries are. We do this in law often to K you know, if they're there, it's very difficult to prosecute somebody for a crime that they didn't know it was a crime. Now I know ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's not what I'm talking about here, but if you sort of engage in certain, certain conduct, and then you sort of criminalized that conduct after the fact, you just change the rules and it's difficult to know how to behave in a society when you don't know what the rules are. And so it's sort of a fundamental concept. Now, again, don't look, don't miss here. Me. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can't get, you can't break the law. I didn't know that. And they, Oh, Oh, you didn't know. Well, there you go. You're set to go free, not guilty there. That's not how that works, but it's a sort of a more fundamental principle that in society, we want to know what the rules are so that we can operate within them. That just creates good, smooth discourse between people in applying the penalty. The board says that Facebook did not follow a clear published procedure. Indefinite suspensions are not described in the company's content policies. Their normal penalties include removing the violating content and posing a time bound period of suspension and permanently disabling the page. Facebook's role it to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations. The board's role is to sure ensure that Facebook's rules and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values and its human rights commitments. So it says here no vague standards and Facebook is not going to the board is not going to allow Facebook to escape its responsibilities. So it says here within six months, Facebook must re-examine the arbitrary penalty and impose on January 7th and decide the appropriate penalty. This penalty must be based on the gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm. So we have two elements. It sounds like the gravity of the violation and the prospect of the future harm. So you'll see this in courts when they will actually, we went through this with the Derek Shovan trial. Remember causation, we've got to prove that George Floyd died got to prove it happened within the jurisdiction, got approved, that there was a significant substantial injury, whatever the language of the statute was, different elements. If you check all the boxes, boom, you get a conviction. The jury did that. They say that's that's enough. So same thing here, essentially, but we're talking more about a balancing test. We're saying, okay, we have certain factors that we need to consider in connection with one another one, the gravity of the violation. What was the violation while it's Trump's statements that you know, your great Patriots or whatever. All right. Was that, is that serious? If you are in the camp that says he was talking about the people with their feet on Pelosi's desk, then yeah. That's a pretty serious violation because somebody was inside the Capitol building when they shouldn't have been it's a criminal violation. If you think Trump was talking about them, then you would weigh this factor high. You would say the gravity of the violation was very high. Then you balance that against the prospect of future harm. Is this going to happen again? If Trump gets up there and says, Hey, you guys are great Patriots and this whole, you know, last thing that happened on November 4th was the F-word. Well, are we going to see another storming of the Capitol again? I don't know. Maybe if you're on the Facebook board, you probably think so. Yes. If you're on CNN, you're sort of on edge. Do you think that might happen tonight? It could happen tomorrow any minute now, more national guard, right? So it just sort of depends on how you want to phrase this and they're going to phrase it in a way that meets their end goal. It must also be consistent with Facebook's rules for severe violations. If Facebook decides to restore Trump's account company should apply its rules to that decision, including any changes made in response to the policy recommendations, BOLO, a minority of the board emphasized Facebook should take steps to prevent the repetition of adverse human rights impacts and ensure that users who seek reinstatement after suspension recognize their wrongdoing and commit to observing the rules in the future. What does that sound like? It sounds like they want an apology. They are offended that you were offensive. And so you got to formulate an apology. So I'm sorry, Facebook, I'm sorry, Mark. I know I'm not going to do that again. All right. So when it referred to this case, the board to the board, Facebook specifically requested observations or recommendations from the board about suspensions. When the user is a political leader in a policy advisory statement, the board member made a number of recommendations to guide Facebook's policies. The board stated that is not always useful to draw a firm distinction between political leaders and other influential leaders. When the same rules should apply to all users, context matters when assessing the probability and the imminence of harm. So we've got some other factors, right? The eminence of harm. How, how likely, or how quickly is it going to happen? So we've got probability, which is how likely is this thing going to happen? And then the eminence, how soon, right, do we need to act quickly as this like a, a new threat, something that we can expect to happen quickly? Or is it a distant threat that maybe we can, I can make some other modifications and changes because remember that throwing somebody off a platform is a pretty immediate and drastic action. It's it's, it's not missing, right. A small suspension is a different conversation or a limitation of certain features is a different type of penalty. But when you boot somebody off probably should have a pretty good reason to do that. When posts by influential users pose a high probability of imminent harm, Facebook should also act quickly. Facebook should publicly explain the rules that it uses when imposing account level sanctions against influential users. I, I think this is absolutely necessary. And when we were playing around with the digital bill of rights ideas, this was one of those that was in there. This was one of those that said specifically that if you're going to be penalized or sanctioned or disciplined, there needs to be an appeal process. You need to have some due process in this because you may, you know, many people like us, I've been working on our channel here for years. And if, you know, if that guy just deleted, that would be awful. That would be a terrible thing. I would be very upset about that because I've invested a lot into it. And so I think that because of this relationship that we've created, that we have, we should be entitled to some level of due process in particular, when it comes to political speech, which is a highly protected form of speech in this country. So the users should have a little bit more protection. They should know about what the violations are, so that they can modify their behavior. You know, if, if you don't know, then you can't follow the rules. And that is a very big problem. The recommendations that came out from the board said to rapidly escalate content, containing political speech from highly influential users to specialize staff who are familiar with the linguistic and political context. So we have some sort of, it sounds like who are going to be watching anything

Speaker 2: 29:43

That comes from hype, highly influential users. It's going to go to a board, another sort of internal user

Speaker 1: 29:51

Specialized staff. Who's going to assess what to do with it. Dedicate adequate resources and expertise to assess risks of, of harm, produce more information to help users understand and evaluate the newsworthiness allowance, including how it applies to influential accounts. The company should also clearly explain the rationale standards and processes of the crosscheck review and report on the relative error rates of determinations made through crosscheck compared with ordinary enforcement procedures. Okay. So it sounds like Facebook has some sort of process whereby if they, if somebody flags something as a problem, they may have a, another user just crosscheck it. So person a says, Oh, Trump said that that's offensive to me. It goes over to person B Oh yeah,

Speaker 2: 30:30

That's offensive to me too. Boom. Trump gets that tweet gets removed or eliminated or whatever, versus if they disagree,

Speaker 1: 30:38

Maybe that goes to a third person who breaks the tie. We do stuff like that in the lobby as well, undertake a comprehensive review of Facebook's potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud. Right? And most of the people, I, the last time I heard that were actually there at the Capitol building, we're organizing largely on Facebook, right parlor. And some of these other platforms bear the brunt of the blame for that. But when everybody looked into it, I think even the FBI corroborated it, that this was all sort of being organized on Facebook, but they got rid of parlor. Okay. So make clear and its corporate human rights policy, how it collects and preserves and all of this other stuff explains it strikes in penalties process for restricting profiles include the number of profile page and account restrictions in its transparency, reporting with information broken down by region regions. So I'm good. I'm good with that. Yeah. More transparency definitely provides users with accessible information on how many violation strikes and penalties have been assessed against them. I totally agree with that. Develop and publish a policy that governs Facebook Facebook's response to crises or novel situations where it's regular processes would not prevent or avoid

Speaker 2: 31:42

Imminent harm. All right. So I think that sounds

Speaker 1: 31:46

Reasonable. The full case decision. We can go through it. I'm not going to read through this cause we spent enough time on this, but I just want to show you, I want to show you sort of the, the framework, how this works because it resembles a court and opinion.

Speaker 2: 31:56

We're going to go through this quickly here. We can see full case decision that

Speaker 1: 32:01

It says here, we're going to answer two questions considering Facebook's values specifically its commitment to voice and safety. Did it correctly decide that Donald Trump should be banned for an indefinite amount of time. So we've got two issues. You see this all the time in, in law, right? Two questions say, it looks just like a Supreme court opinion kind of, uh, in addition to the board's determination on whether to uphold or overturn the indefinite suspension, Facebook welcomes observations or recommendations from the board about suspensions when the user is a political leader. So we talk about this right issue, rule application, conclusion, Iraq. It's a, it's a very common way to do a legal analysis. What are the issues? Well, we got them right here. Did we make right decision on January 7th?

Speaker 2: 32:40

And if we want to, you know, move forward

Speaker 1: 32:43

In the future, how should we act when it comes to political leaders who are saying bad things, those are our issues. Well, well, how are we going to determine what to do about this? So let's take a quick look, decision summary. It says that they're going to uphold it. However, you know, blah, blah, blah. We went through what they're saying,

Speaker 2: 32:56

The relevant standards. So what is the rule? What are we doing? What are the rules that we,

Speaker 1: 33:00

It should be applying, right? We know what the issues are. What's the rule. While the rule is Facebook community standards, they have already written the rules out. So they got to go through these and apply them to the facts. We also have the violence and incitement section. We have Facebook's terms of servants. These are the rules. We have the introduction to the community standards. Those are the rules. Then we go to Facebook's values. Okay. So you're sort of within an organization, you want to establish values so that you know how to operate. These are sort of your guideposts. And so here we talk about safety, clarity and hope at the R and R law group. Those are our guiding values. Those are our guiding principles. Here's here. They got voice safety and dignity. Let's take a look over here, voice safety and dignity. Those are their values. And so the question is, is Facebook's conduct in alignment with one of these values. They described voice as wanting people to talk openly about issues that mattered to them. Does the band contribute to voice? Does it embody their values? Same thing for safety, same thing for dignity. And we do that here at the firm, right? If, if one course of action does not provide our clients with more safety, well, we're not going to do that. Right. And so we have to always keep those things in mind. Then we have some other standards that they run through. We have human rights standards, so they have a corporate human rights policy. They are in accordance with the UN guiding principles. Then we also look around at other different documents. We have the, uh, what is this, the international covenant on civil and political rights. So now we've got some international organism

Speaker 2: 34:23

Nations that are being basically being, you know, kind of brought into the United

Speaker 1: 34:26

It States, you know, like for me, an analysis, if we want to go to the rural section would be very simple. First amendment says free expression, free association, and a lot of other very important things. And we got a million different cases that can all support that rule. So you just apply the rule. Oh, Oh, you threw up a political leader off of a public forum, essentially because you own everything in this country. It's essentially a monopoly on social media.

Speaker 2: 34:49

You are below the line on the free speech standard. You're you're dropping below the

Speaker 1: 34:57

Desires or the intentions of the first amendment. It was meant to allow,

Speaker 2: 35:02

Uh, free speech in this country. Okay. And in particular political speech, what you're doing

Speaker 1: 35:07

Coming here is not adhering to those principles. Now what you are intending to do is go around the world and dragging a bunch of other stuff, like an international covenant on civil and political rights. All right. Where'd that come from human rights committee. Okay. We have the robot plan of action, which is great. We got the UN special rapporteur on freedom. All right, good job. We got the joint statement of the international freedom of expression monitors on COVID 19 crate. K. We got a bunch of other articles, the right to life, the right of a security of a person, non discrimination, participation, public affairs, the right to our remedy all from the UN and all of these other organizations.

Speaker 3: 35:41

Right. Okay. Right.

Speaker 1: 35:43

I know Facebook is an international organization and they're talking about this from international perspectives, but not in this case. We're talking about the U S president in the United States of America, not being able to communicate with his constituents and with American citizens. So, all right. If they want to bring in the UN special rapid tour, if they want to bring in the general international covenant on civil and political rights, find they can look to that stuff as a reference tool. But the point here is that the first amendment is pretty clear and Facebook's conduct here falling below that line, in my opinion, because the effect, the impact here is a dominion diminution diminution of the word. Then I'm trying to say that starts with a D you know what it is. It means that our rights are being diminished and it is not a good thing. So let's finish out. This segment says here, we want to know about the context the posts were made during a time of high political tension centered on the unfounded claim that the November, 2020 election had been the S word. Okay. So this is, they're giving us some context. What are the facts of the case? We have the status of the speaker. We have the intent of the board. The board is not in the position to conclusively assess Mr. Trump's intentions. You don't say the possibility of violence linked to Trump's statements

Speaker 3: 36:53

Was clear. Okay.

Speaker 1: 36:55

And the board considered that he knew, likely knew, or should have known that these communications would pose a risk of legitimizing or encouraging violence. While he said peacefully, you were in a March down there peacefully. So,

Speaker 3: 37:07

Uh, I guess it was implied or he

Speaker 1: 37:11

Should have known. I think that is probably should have known maybe is where they're going to stick on this. Even though I disagree with that content on the forum, he made two posts that were, that were posted later, large following. So they're analyzing the extent and the reach. These are the different factors, right? That they're analyzing. So they're going to say, well, we're going to, we're going to try to determine whether we should ban someone. How should we go through this analysis while we're going to look? These are the factors, what's the status of the speaker influential or not? What's the intent of the speaker? Well, we don't know, but we're going to pretend that we know what's the content and the form. What did they actually post? Was it a video? Was it a picture? Was it written texts? What form did it take? How did it land on our platform? What was the extent? And the reach to 10 people hear this, or did 35 million people hear that because that is going to be relative to the potential for violence or potential for harm. Then the imminence of the harm. How soon is this going to happen? And how quickly do we need to act? So it says by analyzing all of these different factors, the board concludes that the violation in this case was severe

Speaker 3: 38:09

In terms of its human

Speaker 1: 38:10

Rights, harms Facebook's imposition was necessary and appropriate the imposition of the ban. So this is the final conclusion. Now big Dani T now is responding. And I think we're allowed to read this cause I don't think this is, uh, anything illegal. This is Donald Trump over on his new platform. It says what Facebook, Twitter, and Google have done is a total disgrace and embarrassment to our country. Free speech has been taken away from the president of the United States because the radical left lunatics are afraid of the truth, but the truth will come out anyway, bigger and stronger than ever before. The people of our country will not stand for it. The corrupt social media companies must pay a political price, political price, okay. Must pay a political price. Okay. He said political price, no other type of price at the ballot box. Good Lord. Just got to clear that up. It must never be allowed. Okay. We're going to not read that last sentence, but the rest of this is, you know, it's just Donald Trump. We got questions coming in from watching the watchers.locals.com. So we're going to jump in and we're going to ask LT 13. What's going on? He says the national pulse did a story on this. And the independent panel is full of never Trump Trumpers, who openly posted about it. Well, that sounds obvious, right? We all, we all kind of expected that I think we have shared quitting in the house says, would it be totally out of line to consider these technocratic oligarchies, Facebook and big media as a kind of shadow government? I'm thinking of how they influence elections, shape public opinions, et cetera. I actually completely agree with that, Sharon. And so I think a lot of people in this country have sort of been indoctrinated to think that what, what exists in America is sort of this hierarchy of power. You know, you've got the government at the top, then you've got sort of the corporations next. Then you maybe have, uh, you know, some of the social institutions knacks like the churches, or maybe those are ahead of the, the corporations, but you've got this hierarchy, then you've got, you know, big business, small business. Then you've got, you know, some of the cultural institutions that exist throughout society, like organizations, sporting events and all these, and it's all structured in this hierarchy and it's a top down approach. And I think largely that's a pretty good representation of American society, except for the fact that the government is really at the top. I don't really even necessarily agree with that. I mean, legally, technically, uh, practically. Yes. You know, if the government wants to, uh, to wield the sword any which way. Yeah. It's going to crack the head right off of any one of these corporations. I mean, really because they, they, they ultimately wield the biggest sword, but practically speaking, it doesn't really operate like that. You know, at the top of the pyramid, I'm not so sure that I would say that it is a, a us Senator right over, or at least relative to a Mark Zuckerberg or a Jeff Bezos that controls so many more assets that the relative power of a Bezos to a Ted Cruz, even, I don't think there's a really in any even comparison, honestly, because he controls a huge part of the infrastructure of the entire country, arguably the world one man, through the extension of Amazon and Zuckerberg, same thing through the extensions of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, he's a global force for power. And so really those people, I think have more power than most of our elected officials. Now, if the government, you know, got in unison and they said, all right, that's it, we're going to wipe out Facebook. They could do it. But I don't think that they will because Fe I mean, I mean, I practically they could do it. Will they

Speaker 2: 41:34

Politically, could they do it? I don't think so, because I think that they are basically bought and paid for they're owned by the, the real power brokers in this country. And, you know, many people, I just don't think that they, they understand the scope, the size of these places, the size of these organizations. I mean, Facebook, how many employees do they have? How many, how many billions, what's their GDP relative to some other countries in the world they're bigger than many countries. You know, they have more employees than other countries have standing armies. You know, it's, it's a massive, massive operation and they have massive power as a result of that. So when we are all just sort of, you know, uh, smashing our heads against our desks, because we're mad at the government retro, remember, yeah, they're, they're technically at the top of this thing, but you have big influence from many, many other variables that are also interplaying here. And we have to consider those things because like I said, you know, you might have a Supreme court case that comes out of the U S Supreme court that really doesn't impact you because it's not applicable to you. Yes. It technically changes the law, but you're not going to be somebody who gets arrested and cares about your Miranda rights violation, right. That's probably not going to happen to you. Most people in this country are not going to be arrested and have any Miranda violations that they have to worry about. So what do they care if the Supreme court comes and changes that they don't. But if Facebook comes out and eliminates a certain politician or a certain ideology or a certain political group from even participating, that's going to impact you all day, it's gonna impact millions and millions of Americans. Whereas another Supreme court decision wouldn't. So you have a bigger effect from one of these organizations. And I agree with you, Sharon, it is almost like a pseudo government. Like let's sort of layered it, you know, when you talk about programming code and, you know, sort of layers of, uh, instructions and interfaces it's, I think it's more analogous to that rather than a triangle Paula M K in the house says, so Trump praised the violent protesters and got banned, but Kahmilah can have a go fund me for violent BLM protesters bail. And that's totally okay. Can we start that new network country yet? Yes, we can. Paula MK. And your questions as is so closely connected to Sharon's on the last one, right? This is already kind of happening. So there are these sort of crypto network States that we talked about some time ago, the guy's name, who is really the voice that got it, then introduced me to this whole concept is biology Sreenivasan. And the more and more I've been toying around with this idea, the more and more I'm starting to recognize that a lot of this is kind of in existence already, right? I mean, think about this, you know, how much time do you spend out of your house in physical spaces versus how much time you spent on the internet in digital spaces? Right? It's no, no comparison for me, not, not at all. I'm on the internet way more time than I'm out at a restaurant or out at a park or out at a, you know, at a public facility anywhere. Most of my time is spent digitally. A lot of it's on YouTube. A lot of it's elsewhere on locals, in different places. So we're already kind of moving a lot of our lives online, digitizing a lot of it. And so, you know, I, you know, I,

Speaker 1: 44:32

I don't, I don't, I don't personally, personally, in terms of me getting out there and using my free speech, I am not going to be a person with a Bullhorn on the side of a corner. So I don't, you know, if, if I have free speech there, that's great. Nobody can hear me. Nobody cares. Nobody wants to listen to a guy with a bull horn on the side of the corner. But if we want to get on the internet and express ourselves, that is the new forum, because our lives have gone digital we're online. Most of the time, most people are working from home still. You know, a lot of people are so COVID has really accelerated this. We are all going digital. And we're all taking around and looking at these countries that we're visiting like Facebook and like Amazon and like Twitter, and we're going, these countries are dumps. This is awful. They don't let us express ourselves. And so other platforms are now cropping up and we're saying, all right, well, we're going to, we're going to pack up our stuff and go over there. And right now these are social media companies right now, these are just entities where we post pictures and cheer and chat and comment and watch videos and engage with each other. But in the future, okay, you might be doing business. We might have watching the Watchers, whatever, right. We're a store and a brand and the whole thing. And it's it's happening digitally because we're all communicating digitally on these platforms that allow us to express ourselves without fear of reprisal from the current state of tech bros. Paula MK. Good question. We got ATB. Kelly says, how can we balance the importance of allowing private companies to monitor their own channels? Which seems they have a right to do with the right of, to free speech. That seems to be in pent impeded by the actions of these entities. It wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for these media channels being relatively monopolized by a few individuals. And so I, uh, ATB Kelly 100, I think that you're absolutely right. And I think that really is the problem. It is this monopolization of it because I agree, you know, I, it's a very delicate balance and I am also not somebody who wants, you know, I'm, I'm very, very in support of free speech. I think it's fundamental to our country and it's very important for us to improve society. We can't improve anything if we can't talk about things. And so when it comes to the big tech companies, I also agree that they should be able to have some sort of limitations against violent threats. You know, they don't want to be held liable for that. I don't want, you know, a tech company to be required to have somebody who gets on there and makes active, violent threats. That's not what I'm talking about, but I am talking about the same free speech protections that we apply in the public square, I think should also apply on the digital square largely due to the fact that they are monopolized. You don't have the ability to just pick up your ball and go to a different platform. There aren't any, and the ones that have tried to have been propped up have been eliminated because there has been this secret cabal of the tech companies that colluded in order to make that happen. As soon as everybody bailed over to parlor, what happened? Twitter calls up Amazon, Twitter hosts their servers with Amazon. That's a, multi-million maybe billion dollar deal over the course of who knows how long. And so if Fe, if Twitter doesn't like that, Amazon is also hosting parlor. Twitter picks up the phone, says Amazon, they're doing dangerous stuff over there says, Hey, yeah, you're right. We look at our terms of service. They are, they get deleted. So you've got this collusion of the current tech companies or

Speaker 3: 47:36

Working against the, the opposition

Speaker 1: 47:39

The day deemed to be dangerous. And they are using their power to silence an entire political demographic in this country. And so that type of behavior is reprehensible that drops below the line of the first amendment. All I'm asking for is first the same first amendment protections, the same first amendment concepts that we experienced in America be applied to the tech companies. And I think that's a pretty fair balance. And we have tons of case law, tons of supporting documents and tons of historical context to do this because we've done it many times when civil rights have been violated elsewhere, we've done it during the civil rights movement under MLK and that entire, obviously a very big movement, but we're seeing it even more recently, we're seeing it in terms of gay marriage, right? That was a civil right. That that was not recognized until the Supreme court recognized it and said, you can't discriminate against people on that, on that basis anymore. You can not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or,

Speaker 3: 48:30

Or gender or race, or how about political expression. And I don't mean that you, that you have to

Speaker 1: 48:38

Allow people to sort of, you know, get out there and say whatever they want, but they need to be the least guaranteed the same opportunity somewhere, because that is the first amendment freedom of expression without the curtailment of the government or without the curtailment of a pseudo government like Facebook. We also have Paula MK says when they ban someone like Trump, not only are they infringing on his freedom of speech, but they take everyone's freedom of speech away. They effectively have taken away our ability to communicate with that person, which is an infringement on our own

Speaker 3: 49:10

Well that's excellent point, Paula, excellent point. And you're a user of their platform, but they don't care. No doubt says how will

Speaker 1: 49:18

Laws like what Florida is considering preventing social media companies from censoring or banning elected officials affect decisions by Facebook and their court. So I don't know, actually, you know, this is going to be an interesting question.

Speaker 3: 49:32

I don't know what

Speaker 1: 49:33

They're going to do about this. Uh, we've seen other, we've seen some precedent for some of this stuff with other companies. Remember when Uber and Lyft, there was a, a bill that was working its way through California, where they were going to say that Uber

Speaker 3: 49:46

Lyft had to characterize their employee, their drivers as

Speaker 1: 49:50

Employees versus independent contractors. I think that ultimately failed in California, but it was very close to passing. And basically Uber and Lyft were threatening. Say, okay, if you're going to make them employees, we're just going to pull out. There's not going to be Uber. There's not going to be Lyft anymore. We're just going to pick up and go because we're not going to be profitable under that business model, we can't afford it. So we're just going to get up and leave. Well, as soon as that source that word spreads a little bit. Guess what happens, voters? Don't like that idea. Hey, we use Uber all the time. It's great. Love that platform. You're kidding me. They call their congresspeople congresspeople. Then suddenly make some changes or loses the political willpower, the political momentum. And it never actually becomes law. So you might see something like that, right? If Florida passes this, the governor signs it, maybe Facebook says, all right, well, we're just gonna shut off Facebook and

Speaker 3: 50:33

Your state. And people say, well,

Speaker 1: 50:35

We love Facebook. I got my group on there. I got my business on there. Uh,

Speaker 3: 50:39

Are you out of your mind? That's insane. Then you have a lot of money,

Speaker 1: 50:42

Political pressure to reverse course. T spec says with Facebook, having a board to decide to ban people, would they not 100% be stepping up as a publisher and no longer fall under section two.

Speaker 3: 50:55

So arguably

Speaker 1: 50:58

Yes. I mean, this is the, this is the conversation about this. Whether they should be characterized one way or the other, but section two 30 is still giving them full basically immunity for anything that people post. Now the, the, the, the response to that is yeah. If they are going to be, you know, censoring stuff, there's an editorial process. It's not now the reason they're shielded from liability is because how can you expect Facebook that has a billion users to manage and monitor every single one of those posts you can't, it's insane. It's impossible. So you shield them. You give them some liability protection, but now they are. Now they've got algorithms. They've got boards, they've got an oversight board. They've got all these different moderators. So the question is, did the nature of the company that justified section two 30, did that change? Section two 30 was great. Back in the 1990s when it was passed, I believe is when it was, but a lot has changed. Now. Now they can moderate. Now they are monitoring people. Now they are kicking people off the platforms. They are censoring people. So it is editorial. They are now publishers and they should be regulated. And outside under the purview of two 30, we have leafy bug in the house

Speaker 3: 51:57

Says, does anyone

Speaker 1: 51:59

Seriously believe this laughable Supreme court of Facebook, the scoff? Ooh, that's fun, whatever quote, issue, a ruling that it's management doesn't approve of, or haven't previously signed off on. Imagine the scoff determining that Facebook needs to break up or the duck needs to sell his stock or whatever. Yeah. Right. It's a grift for the scoffers and existence exists solely to provide a veil of accountability to an unaccountable organization.

Speaker 3: 52:24

Is Bravo, leafy buggy.

Speaker 1: 52:29

Well done. Let's read that again. Does anyone seriously believe this laughable Supreme court of Facebook, whatever issue, a ruling that it's management doesn't approve of, or hasn't previously signed off on, imagine scoff determining that Facebook needs to break up or the duck needs to sell his stock or step down or whatever. Yeah. Right. It's a grift for the scoffers

Speaker 3: 52:45

And exists solely to provide

Speaker 1: 52:47

A veil of accountability to an unaccountable organization. That is good stuff. There really good stuff. And last question comes in from the dark says, why isn't couldn't Trump file a suit against fake Facebook for defamation? Well, he's a public figure. And I don't think that there was any actual malice there on that first one. Oh, that's not true. Right. So there, of course there's actual malice, but is it legally actual malice? No, but do they hate Trump? Yeah, they do. They are saying that he is a danger to society. Therefore he can't be on their platform, even though he was found, not guilty. Couldn't be convicted of any court of inciting a second, uh, inciting a riot in his second impeachment. That's just

Speaker 3: 53:26

Part of the process. You know, when you're president, people can say

Speaker 2: 53:28

A lot of things about you courts are just going to say, that's fair game. This is not even a bad thing. I mean, this is a bad thing that, uh, that they're trying to do to Trump. But people have said a lot of bad things about Trump and he cannot Sue them over it. All right. So we've got, uh, two more segments. We've got to pick up the pace just a little bit. All right. So let's change gears. The department of Homeland security secretary guy by the name of Alejandro Mayorkas raising some eyebrows just gave an interview very recently where he's talking about national borders as quote lines that

Speaker 3: 54:00

Mark national boundaries and divide us.

Speaker 2: 54:04

You shouldn't be seen as boarders. So it's sort of a lines that are just national boundaries, but not as borders. So we're going to break this down and then we're going to take a look at what's Kamala Harris doing about all this, because, uh, you know, this has been going on for some period of time. Several months ago, she was appointed by Joe Biden to come out here and solve this problem for us

Speaker 3: 54:20

Not happening. What's the deal. Let's take a quick look.

Speaker 2: 54:23

We're from breitbart.com. This says that the department of Homeland security set chief says that we should not see borders as lines that Mark national boundaries and divide us. That's very unifying. It says rather than viewing borders solely as the lines that Mark national boundaries and that the us from one another, we should see borders as a point of connection. It's beautiful as the place where the flow of people and goods from different countries interact, intersect. Wow, that's profound. Uh, Mayorkas declared during an annual conference hosted by the council of America's on Tuesdays. Comments came and made a border crisis at the U S national border fueled by a migrant Serge, primarily from central America's Northern triangle reading region like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The flow of migrants is overwhelming DHS resources and the border agents who operate under the apartment, forcing the release of migrants into us communities, not to mention that there are still kids in cages, way more kids in cages than Trump had kids in cages. And, uh, here we have the department Homeland land security, which is supposed to be protecting the Homeland, securing the Homeland. They have an entire department for that in fact, and he supposed to be doing that. But now he's talking about this as they're not even really, you know, borders, they're just sort of national boundaries, sort of like, you know, the difference between when you cross the border between Arizona and California, it's not even a big deal, just kind of driving

Speaker 3: 55:42

Same deal. It's just, it's just the border here. He is

Speaker 2: 55:46

The actual quote from him. This is him. Uh, today America's society,

Speaker 3: 55:51

We already read

Speaker 2: 55:52

That quote. He says, we should see the borders as a point of connection. This view recognizes the good that we can offer each other. And the connection between international exchange and economic vitality, our vision for migration management and our immigration system is rooted in the belief that people should be treated with dignity and respect. This is not inconsistent with enforcing the law and securing our border. So I don't even know what that means. I don't know if you understand what that means with dignity and respect because this administration has them in, in, uh, in space blankets, stacked on top of one another. I don't know what that means.

Speaker 1: 56:25

Their

Speaker 3: 56:26

Decisions on changing the immigration policies,

Speaker 1: 56:30

Bolted in the current conditions in one man's humble opinion. When you say that, well, you know, w

Speaker 3: 56:36

W come into America, we're not gonna

Speaker 1: 56:38

Require you to stay in Mexico under the Trump administration. That was their policy.

Speaker 3: 56:42

Well, people listened, Oh, we don't have to wait next. We can just come right into America. Yeah, you can. So

Speaker 1: 56:48

There was a surge, my opinion, it's a direct result of the policies that they have implemented. So their own policies now are resulting in people being treated without dignity and without respect, then this guy comes out and says, well, it's migration management. It's rooted in dignity and respect. We all see the pictures jerk. We can all look at them on CNN, anywhere else. You want not good images. So you can tell us how you're handling the situation, but you're not doing a good job of it because we all see the images. We all see these little children being dragged across the desert. It's about to get really hot really soon. And people are going to start dropping dead. So rather than you getting out here and telling us how much your migration management system is rooted in dignity and respect, how about you just do it? How about you just start making some policy changes that will lead to actual dignity and respect, or do you just want to keep talking about it? We also have, uh, some more here from this article. It says many of the migrants reaching the border are unaccompanied children and families from central America. Republicans have confused the accused, the Biden administration of pushing an open borders agenda. Biden keeps insisting the border is closed. He struck a more welcoming tone as a candidate migrants keep coming in with some released into U S communities by an administration messages, falling on deaf deaf ears in part due to online ad campaigns by human smugglers who promise guaranteed entrance into the U S under the current

Speaker 3: 58:09

President human smugglers,

Speaker 1: 58:12

Including those who rape women and girls during their journey benefit financially from the influx of migrants. So they're creating a new market. The policies are creating a market that is allowing people to be exploited by these people who are,

Speaker 3: 58:25

Who are raping women

Speaker 1: 58:27

And bringing children across Republicans have blamed Biden, undoing Trump era immigration policies for the border crisis. Mayorkas indicated that the Biden administration is working on creating an immigration system where people are treated with dignity and respect, except for today. This is not inconsistent with the law and securing the border governments of Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador have directly and indirectly blamed the byte. Administration's welcoming tone for the surge at the U S Southern border. And we have talked about this repeatedly. I've played clips from migrants coming across. So yeah, I mean, basically we were scared under Trump, but now, because they are telling us that they're going to let us in we're coming

Speaker 3: 59:07

And this current administration still wants to blame Trump.

Speaker 1: 59:12

Chris mentioned that DHS is working to ensure a robust and safe movement of goods and people across the Western hemisphere. So, okay. That's great. So is the problem here? Why

Speaker 2: 59:22

Is this still ongoing? Because everything was supposed to be rainbows and sunshine under this new administration. We were going to return to normal return to decency because Donald Trump was a racist white Cheeto monster who was a supremacist in all regards. And he was responsible for every single ill in America, not to mention the world and theoretically the universe.

Speaker 3: 59:41

So Kamala Harris now,

Speaker 2: 59:43

According to Joe Biden was the right person for the job at the right time. And she's going to come in here and clean this whole thing up.

Speaker 3: 59:49

So where is she? What is she doing? When, what is she

Speaker 2: 59:51

Blaming this on? Well, here's Kamala Harris says that the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience is part of the root causes of migrant crisis. Okay. Sounds good. So nothing that you guys did, but it has to do with the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience, whatever the hell that means. Okay. So here it goes on Tuesday, she claimed that the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience in Northern triangle countries was one of the root causes of the migration crisis at the Southern border, along with the list of other things, including violence in government corruption. Okay. So we'll just going to add those down at the bottom of the list. So Republicans have pointed to the rolling back of the Trump era border protections, like the construction of the border wall and the migrant protection protocols for the surge in migration at the Southern border of this year, which has left the Biden administration scrambling to house them and has seen migrants being released into the interior without court dates. So article comes over from Fox news, but the white house has doubled down on its emphasis on root causes, such as violence and poverty. For the reason for the surge Harris who has gone 41 days without a press conference on the border, since being given the task of leading the diplomatic effort with Mexico and central America has repeatedly made a similar emphasis. And I remember this Kamala Harris was sitting there next to Joe Biden. And when that happened that day, we came here on this channel and I was like, Oh boy, this is like the biggest bag of garbage that anybody has ever handed to Kamala Harris in her whole life. Hey, you know, this border crisis that we haven't been able to figure out since the history of history for the last 30 years, I've been alive my whole life, we've always been talking about the border problem, always because we have a bunch of politicians and nobody wants to do anything. Why would they they're politicians? They don't, they don't get reelected. If they accomplish things they need stuff to do. So they don't ever solve it. We're still talking about it. When, when Joe Biden got first sworn in and he was sitting there, Oh, we've got Kamala Harris here, here you go, dear solve this problem that no other party or person or anybody has been able to solve

Speaker 3: 1:01:53

Ever, you're going to handle it.

Speaker 2: 1:01:54

And you could see it in her face like, Oh God,

Speaker 3: 1:01:58

Oh, your time is coming there old man, tell you can tell Kamel is going all right, I'm going to handle this one for now, but better. Watch your step there, buddy boy, white house.

Speaker 2: 1:02:12

It says double down already read that on Tuesday in his speech to the Washington conference on the Americas, she made a distinction between acute causes, such as

Speaker 1: 1:02:20

Drought, food insecurity and COVID-19 and longstanding root causes. She says, I'm thinking of corruption, violence, and poverty, the lack of economic opportunity, the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience and the lack of good governance.

Speaker 3: 1:02:32

Okay. Harris has cited

Speaker 1: 1:02:35

They're in climate issues before when talking about the quote root causes recently at a Northern tribal round table in April, she spoke extensively of the list of issues. She believes are root causes. We're looking at extensive storm damage because of a extreme climate. We're looking at drought in an area, in a region where agriculture is one of the most traditionally important bases for their economy. We're looking at what's happening in terms of food scarcity, as a result of in fact, incredible food insecurity, well call hunger food insecurity. We're looking there for an, a number of issues that also relate to poverty, extreme poverty. There is no violence coming out of those regions. We look at the root causes. We're also looking at issues of corruptions. We're looking at the issues of climate resiliency and the lack of economic opportunity. So basically everything is a problem. Is there anything that she missed on this? Can we talk about, is there anything else? Is the United States responsible for that is, is Kamala Harris. Is this part of her job duties as the border solution? Are, is she going to go fix all of these things? Climate resilience, we have lack of economic opportunity, droughts, food, scarcity, agriculture, food insecurity. She

Speaker 3: 1:03:36

Going to fix all of those things. Cause that is

Speaker 1: 1:03:38

A lot of work to do. And there's a lot of countries out there that could use her hand in solving all of those issues. In fact, America could use some of her help. Can she solve this for Americans

Speaker 3: 1:03:49

Or, or not? Somebody else got that ball is that Joe.

Speaker 1: 1:03:54

And then Kamala Harris is going to go fix all of these problems for other people. I want everybody in the world to have food. I want everybody in the world to have what they need

Speaker 3: 1:04:01

And do well, but

Speaker 1: 1:04:04

America can't handle that. K America doesn't have the ability to save the entire planets. We do have an ability to create some pretty clear policies that will encourage people to immigrate into this country the right way, not being dragged across the border by coyotes and people who are raping women and children and bringing over unaccompanied minors, just as collateral, just as like a suitcase, a human being like a suitcase so that some drug trafficker can work their way into the country because they brought little Tommy with them to sneak across the border. Oh, it's a kid and Biden administration just has policies that allow this to continue forward. And it is a humanitarian crisis. Kamala Harris running around the world. Well, a hunger food insecurity, agricultural problems. Okay. How about you just change your policies that are creating incentives that are causing those people to put themselves in

Speaker 3: 1:04:53

Harm's way. Just a thought on Tuesday,

Speaker 1: 1:04:55

Harris touted a$310 million investment that U S was making in central America, part of a massive$4 billion investment, the Biden administration is promising to, uh, to tackle the root causes in the region. Yeah, I mean, okay. That's great. I know there are people hungry in America, but that's good. She's going over there. She also said that she has spoken to world leaders, including Canada, Finland, Ireland, Japan, to try to help them get them to

Speaker 2: 1:05:18

Help the Northern triangle. Recently, the Biden administration has said is considering sending cash to central America, to dissuade migrants from making the journey North, or you just change. The freaking policy. Harris has come under fire for not visiting the border or holding a press conference. She has held virtual meetings with leaders of Guatemala and is planning a trip to Baltimore next month. Big. Yeah. Yeah. Good job. Virtual meetings. That's great. Good job there. Kamala Harris. And we also know that this is folks. This is not like a hundred people coming across the border on a regular basis. Okay. This is a posted Monday over from CNN says here from Geneva sands that nearly 6,000 undocumented immigrants are apprehend daily, not a month daily at the U S Mexico border in April, after a spike in apprehensions of undocumented immigrants in March raised alarms, CNN shows the numbers remains elevated, but if to have plateaued, Oh, that's good. So we're just, we're leveling out about 6,000 people a day. The continued influx of people at the border reveals an ongoing struggle for the administration that is rushed to increase capacity for the thousands of migrant families, children, and adults crossing into the U S each week throughout April customs and border protection encountered an average of just under 6,000 every day, which is in line with the March average of 5,500 every day. Very, very big numbers. And they're going to just allow it to happen. And this is a big problem. Let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. If you want to support the show, we would really appreciate it. That's the place to do it. It's watching the watchers.locals.com type that into a web browser. And then you can ask questions just like this, as well as get a copy of my book, download the slides that we just went through and get a lot of other goodies, including meeting with and connecting with other people who are interested in free speech and free expression, watching the watchers.locals.com. All right questions. First one is from it's. Ed says, Milton Friedman recognize that you can't have open borders and a welfare system. Like the one we have at the same time, also Honduras does not have the safety risks that America has. You can't really compare the two countries. Yeah. Right? Because people will just come and get on the welfare system. Right? And then it's going to bankrupt the welfare system, which is going to wreck the, the host country. And this is also a problem, right? Think about, think about that 5,000 people a day. What if those 5,000 or 6,000 people a day stayed in their countries and petition their government for a redress of grievances said, Hey, we're not going to uproot our family and take our families across thousands of miles into the United States. We want our own Liberty. We want our own country. When our own economic opportunities, we want our own freedoms. They have a ton of land down there. They have a ton of resources. It's a beautiful country, all over the place. All you know, North America, the Southern part of North America, South America never been, would love to go spend a lot of time in Mexico and elsewhere, beautiful resources, but they have a corrupt government. They have just like Kamala Harris pointed out. They have a lot of problems internally. If the people who are immigrating into the United States, stayed there and said,[inaudible], we're going to demand changes. We're going to demand democracy. Or we were to create our own Republic. We're going to hold you people accountable. But instead they don't need to do anything because the United States is a pressure release valve. As soon as there's anything bubbling up. As soon as you have hundreds of thousands, millions of people who are in economic strife, who are in the world-class hardship because of their own government, rather than them demanding a change democratizing and becoming a first world country, they don't, they just say, okay, well then they don't have to because all of the disaffected, all of the people,

Speaker 3: 1:08:58

Well, they just get on the road and they come into the United States. And so

Speaker 2: 1:09:03

Many people in America are sitting here, you know, patting themselves on the back, going God. We're just really great people. We're awesome. We're outstanding because we're humanitarian. We care about people in the world. We care about these poor migrants coming across the desert, into the United States. And guess what I do too. So do I, I want those people to have a good opportunity. I want their kids to, and I want their kids, kids too. And I want the whole world to, to participate in the same beautiful thing that we have in America. A lot of it is rooted, I think, in our economic system and our political system. And so if we can help other countries get to that status, that's a good thing. But if we just allow them to continue to be corrupt and continue to just export their disaffected citizens to a different country, that will happily take them. W what happens? Yeah. Very nice that all of those, you know, the people who are willing to uproot their lives and make the change, we're grateful that we can help them as a country. But what about the other people who are still just sitting that? So you'll see that down there in these corrupt bastions of economic oppression, and there is no incentive to reform the place because everybody who was there just bails, they just leave. Guess what folks it's going to happen in America too. People are just going to say, I'm sick of this crap. All of the rich people, the people, you know, all of these people that are stigmatized and are, are, are scapegoated. Every turn. They're just gonna say enough enough already, right? If you want to take 53% of their taxes, whatever the new tax plan is. And then you're printing$4 trillion on top of that. So the inflation

Speaker 3: 1:10:33

Also, it's basically, uh, reduced

Speaker 2: 1:10:35

The value of the dollar in addition to taxing it. And we have all, you know, an overly burdensome society,

Speaker 3: 1:10:40

People who, who are the engine of the world, they're just going to say, I've had enough of this stuff, right? And, and we're out.

Speaker 2: 1:10:47

The people who can move, will move and guess who gets, who gets hurt? The people who stay behind. So all of these liberals congratulating themselves, like we're helping migrants. You made maybe a small segment of them, but it's like, you know, give a man a fish. He eats for a day, teach a man to fish. He can eat for a lifetime. It's the same concept. And by creating incentives that encourage people to leave their bad environment and come to our environment. You're creating a pressure relief valves that only encourages more corruption and more hardship and more economic oppression for all of those people still living in the country. So how about we create some incentives, then we can talk disincentives. Then we can have some real conversations about what we can do as America to help these foreign countries, but not well, they are exporting. They're the strong people that they didn't need to stay in those countries to enact real change. All right? No doubt in the house says Biden and men found they didn't have decision authority on all laws affecting the border and face planted into them for two people who have spent years in government, their ignorance of how the laws work is astounding. Yeah. I agree with that. Jeremy retreat in the house as the border is exactly as the current administration wants it to be. I agree with that. When any representative speaks about fixing the border, they are only paying lip service. They wasted no time in destroying many parts of our economy in the first day in office. And couldn't fix, fix things. If they actually wanted to action always speaks louder than words. Good to see you, Jeremy. Good point on that one. Yeah. You know, I agree with you. I think that both parties really have no interest in solving the border. I think that they both have strong incentives for keeping it open. I think Democrats largely in terms of votes Republicans, largely in terms of labor. And so we're not going to see a solution other than if it was a real problem, we would have seen a solution like the cryptocurrency, right? They're going to come out, come after that heart because both parties are angry about that, but both parties are happy about a broken border Liberty or death says amazing on any given day, there are roughly 500,000 people living on the street. Two thirds of that are veterans 23 veterans kill themselves every day. But Hey, let's take care of these illegal aliens for us. Let's send them money to central America. On top of money, we are sending them already absent a treaty ratified by the Senate. Good call. Nicely done Liberty. Nice summation. There we have underscore shades says appreciate your extra spunkiness today. Voicing all of our frustrations in spicy humor. More pleased, LOL. I'm on one today. I get so irritated with this, you know, I get, all right, we've got one more segment and then we're gonna get outta here. Uh, good to see you underscore shades. And once again, if you want to support the show, that's at watching the watchers.locals.com. All right, last segment of the day black lives matter. We've been wondering on this channel for some time, what they stand for and really what they want to accomplish, because this is a movement that has gotten a lot of steam. And I have been critical of it for some period of time, because I really have not been able to wrap my head around what they want. When I first became acquainted with this movement, I was kind of excited because I am a criminal defense attorney. And I like the idea that we have justice reform taking place in this country, that we have people rowing in the same direction. We're going to actually talk about some meaningful solutions, things like ending qualified immunity or things like mandatory body cameras, or how about, you know, a national registry of all Brady violations or something like that, right? Just ideas. Not saying I endorse any of that. Don't particularly agree with a national registry on, on anything, but you get my point talking about concrete examples, should we have, you know, more, uh, more training or more standards or

Speaker 3: 1:14:17

Whatever, actual solutions. Cause there are

Speaker 2: 1:14:20

A lot of them and I've gone through probably 50 of them over the course of this channel and this program. But I had a difficult time understanding what does BLM want? What's going to make them satisfied because I I'm open to a conversation about that. And I mean that genuinely because I am on the side of justice,

Speaker 3: 1:14:37

But I really couldn't. Couldn't get it.

Speaker 2: 1:14:39

Any idea. Fortunately for me though, black lives matter, released a list of their demands. So we know what they want. It's clear. There are seven of them and they put them on their website. If you want to go look it up, you can check it out, go to black lives matter.com/blm-demands. The link is in our slide below. If you want to take a look, you can see it, let's go through them so that we can wrap our heads around how we can solve all of these problems in America because black lives do matter, right? We say that all the time, but is this, is this what we're talking about? Are we talking about the value of human life or are we talking about a political movement that is sort of steeped in one particular ideology because it's looking like the ladder let's get into it. These are the list of seven demands from blm.com. It's at black lives matter.com. So number one, well, and we want to frame out what is, what was black lives matter really? Where did it sort of come into the national limelight as a result of what the

Speaker 3: 1:15:35

Floyd death? Okay. We saw that the whole country was unified police,

Speaker 2: 1:15:40

The reform. We don't like the idea that there's this, this concept that there are white officers who are racist or killing black men that concept behind black lives matter was to say black lives matter, right? That there's this, this dynamic that exists in law enforcement that needs to be addressed. Whether you agree with that or not, whether you agree that that is the solution, that was the original framing of this whole thing. Justice reform, this interaction between law enforcement and certain demographics in this country. So w you would expect that their solutions, their demands would address that problem. Wouldn't you? I mean, that's what I was hoping for, but let's see what we've got. Number one, the first thing that they want to do that they demand happens. Convict and banter

Speaker 3: 1:16:22

Trump. Okay. Convict

Speaker 2: 1:16:25

And ban Trump from future political office.

Speaker 3: 1:16:28

Okay.

Speaker 2: 1:16:30

So, wow. What does that have to do with BLM? I don't know, but let's find out we are joining reps, Omar Presley, Cory Bush, Jamal Bowman, and others who are demanding Trump be immediately convicted in the United States Senate. He also must be banned from holding

Speaker 3: 1:16:46

Elected office in the future, call your Congress people and tell them number one,

Speaker 2: 1:16:52

Ban Trump from everything. Okay. Well, you guys tried that twice. It didn't work either.

Speaker 3: 1:16:57

He can run for office again, not

Speaker 2: 1:16:59

Going to get impeached again, so that's not going

Speaker 3: 1:17:01

To happen. So, uh, okay, good

Speaker 2: 1:17:06

To a good start though. We have number two expel Republican members of Congress. Okay. So this is great. So, uh, remove Trump so that doesn't really talk about justice reform at all. Uh, or anything about black lives. It's just Donald Trump. Then we also have expelled Republican members of Congress who attempted to overturn the election, what? Oh, and incited, a white supremacist attack. Um, so now it's coming together more than half the Republican representatives and multiple senators, stoked Trump's conspiracy theories and encourage the white supremacists to take action and overturn the election. We are supporting Corey bushes resolution to expel them from Congress for their dangerous and traitorous actions. We also support steps to bar them from seeking another office. Okay, well, I guess it's the white supremacist now. So, so rather than justice reform, now it's an anti white supremacist movement because the cops are white supremacists and the cops are part of the American system. And the American system was created by white supremacists. And we reverse engineer. All of that. Donald Trump was at the top of America. So he is sort of the leader of the white supremacist movement. So we got to get rid of him and okay, so there you go. So that's how it makes sense. They want a full investigation of the ties between white supremacy and the Capitol police and law enforcement and the military. So again, all January six stuff, they want to permanently ban Donald Trump from all digital media platforms. Okay. Does that have anything to do with George Floyd, Brianna Taylor, a model Arbery Ray shard, Brooks, Jacob Blake, any of those throwing Trump off Twitter? I don't know. Maybe they will also want to defund the police. Oh, the police that met our BLM protesters this summer with assault rifles, tear gas and military grade protective gear where the same police that on Wednesday met white supremacists with patients and the benefit of the doubt going so far as to pose for selfies with writers, the contrast was drawing, but not for black people. We've always known the police truly protect and serve. DC has the most police per capita in the country, more funding is not the solution. So officially de fund the police. Hmm. And, um, I wonder if Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, do they support that? Do they support defund the police? Because I know they support BLM. Now that BLM says we want to defund the police, the pertinent question, that any competent person in our American media, what asks the president or the vice-president. Do you still support BLM? Given the fact that they have actively saying that they demand the defunding of the police? Yes or no. Pick a side on it. Next up, we have this that says don't let the coup be used as an excuse to crack down on our movement. In response to the coup politicians have already introduced domestic terrorists, terrorism prevention act of 2021. We've seen this playbook before the laws are used to target black women and, and, and, uh, black and Brown communities for heightened surveillance. Republicans are already trying busy, okay, whatever. And then they want to pass the breed act. Police were born out of slave patrols. They say, we cannot reform an institution. Built on white supremacy, need a new radical approach to public safety and community investment. President Biden has already drawn on the breath act in his executive actions, calling for racial equity screens in federal programs, investing in environmental justice at historic levels and engaging with system impacted communities. The breathe act paints a vision of a world where a black lives matter through investments, housing, education, health, and environmental justice. So there you go. You've got the seven things they want to do. They want to end white supremacy and support BLM demands. They've got seven demands. You know what they are? One of them is about defunding the police. Now governors, some of them are not having it. Ron DeSantis over from Florida says that some want to defund the police, but in Florida we're funding them. And then some, by providing all of our heroes,$1,000 bonuses, this represents more than 174001st responders across the state. So governor DeSantis posted this and you can see this. He is funding the police. So he is just rubbing salt in the wound, uh, for all of the Democrats. And he's doing a great job as you can see, and you've got the, you know, uh, defund the police. We're going to Mark that out and says fund the police areas with the police, handing them a check, just, just, just being a thorn daily caller says he announces his$1,000 bonuses to law enforcement. So someone to defund the police were funny.

Speaker 4: 1:21:28

The legislature in this legislative session, we need to do bonuses. Uh, for law enforcement, somewhat defined, some wanted to fund the police were funding the police and then some,

Speaker 2: 1:21:47

All right. So there is Ron. We've got one quick question before we get outta here comes over from Sharon. Quinny says that BLM has nothing to do with and no interest in justice reform. What they want is a Marxist revolution like they had in Russia. I agree with that. You know what else they want new houses, many of them, nice big ones in areas that you know, might not be their demographic that we know of. So great questions. Again, those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And I want to thank all of you who are there and supporting us. I want to start by welcoming some new people to the program. We have a big welcome to lanky underscore operator. Welcome to you. Welcome to Alexi in the house. We also have Liz zero five, two four, who signed up very much. Appreciate all of you. Welcome to the community. We're grateful that you're here in supporting the show. Also want to say thanks to all of you, ask great questions and left some great comments today. You see who you are up there on the screen, and a big thanks to all of our other, watching the Watchers, uh, community supporters. And so we're going to call out some of them. Now, if you want to join us, it's over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com great platform. We got Gurley zero nine, nine in the house. We have estimated lots. We have rags who signed up. We got I Ocho bace. Welcome to you. We got tweaked in the house. We got Lisa lemon. Welcome to hello to Sandy pause. Hello? To serenity eight, we have LT 13. I said, hello to you. Roadtrek girl is also in the room. We've got officer warrior. We have tutes. Macoutes Dr. EMB. We got Carl, we got AC whack. We have Al Huber, Larry light. We got ice Wolf. No doubt. Drag John[inaudible], Lou Walker, chairman of board, a few SKO and Paula MK and others. All of you. Thank you so much for your support@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. If you're not already over there, you can get a lot of good stuff and there's more stuff coming. I am finishing up my second recording area, and I'm very excited about that. So I'm looking forward to, uh, doing some, some fun stuff. Some, some stuff that's maybe a little bit more fun, right. Then what we talk about on the show. Although I have a ton of fun here with you. I hope you do too, but you know what I'm saying? A little bit more non YouTube is stuff that we can, uh, we can get into over at local. So I'm excited about that. I've got some ideas percolating around up there, and I look forward to sharing them with you very soon. If you want to be a part of that, it's at watching the watchers.locals.com. You can also, when you go over there, get a copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. You can download it for free. There's a PDF version available slides are also available over there. So download those as well. We've got a copy of my impeachment party document. If you want to impeach anybody in this country, I've done the heavy lifting for you folk. You can just download the template, fill in these little yellow boxes and you can impeach the hell out of whoever you want. It's a lot of fun. I tried it for a couple of people. If you look back on the channel, I think we got Schumer and Harris both have impeachment documents. So those were fun. We also have a copy of my existence system. Personal productivity tool, uh, is available for download at locals. You can share links and have conversation throughout the day, including being a part of the live chat that we just took questions from. And you can also meet and converse with great people, which is really what it's all about. It's about building that community where we can have some fun going through the news. We can learn a little bit more about what's going on. We can meet each other, support one another in our projects, and we'll see where it goes from there. So my friends, I want to thank you so much for your support and for being here today, before we get out of here, one final reminder that I am a criminal defense attorney here in Scottsdale, Arizona, my team, and I, we love to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and beyond that in their lives. So if you happen to know anybody who's been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we could lend a hand, we can help people with any type of criminal charge, low level misdemeanors, high level misdemeanors, felony offenses, drug offenses, domestic violence, DUIs, anything, and everything. In between even traffic cases, we help people get points off their license, restore their driver's license so that they can get to work and pick up their kids and all of that stuff. So if you need help with any of that, we offer free case evaluations. We would love a referral from you. We'll make sure that anybody who connects with us or comes in our office leaves better than we found them. And we are very humbled that you would even consider us in, uh, providing the opportunity to help, because it keeps us going. I mean, we have a whole team of people here that are energized about justice as a I, so we would, we would appreciate it. And that is it from me. My friends, we're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. It's at 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is Pacific 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM, central in Texas and 7:00 PM on the East coast for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a tremendous night sleep eat well. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.