Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

CDC Unmasks & Rand vs. Fauci, Bipartisan Capitol Hill Investigation, Garland on White Supremacy

May 16, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
CDC Unmasks & Rand vs. Fauci, Bipartisan Capitol Hill Investigation, Garland on White Supremacy
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
CDC Unmasks & Rand vs. Fauci, Bipartisan Capitol Hill Investigation, Garland on White Supremacy
May 16, 2021

Congress seems to be moving forward with an investigation into the Capitol Hill Riots on January 6th. The Center for Disease Control now says fully vaccinated people can take their masks off. U.S. Government orients against “white supremacy” and “domestic violent extremists” with new intelligence team. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• House Democrats unveil response to Capitol Hill Riots in the form of $1.9 billion emergency funding bill.
• House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro wants to provide additional funding for the Capitol Hill Police and the national guard.
• Review of the “Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6th” briefing from the House Committee on Appropriations.
• The Dangers of the 1/6 Commission as told by Techno Fog: https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-...
• Stacey Abrams considers voter integrity efforts to be extension of the January 6th riots.
• Attorney General Merrick Garland says white supremacists are the most dangerous threat to our democracy.
• Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas announces a new dedicated intelligence team to focus on domestic terrorism.
• Review of the March 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence Domestic Violent Extremism Threat Assessment
• CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky unveils new guidance on masks for those who are fully vaccinated.
• Review of the April 27th CDC guidance vs. the May 13th guidance.
• Did CDC update the guidance based on the science or based on incentives?
• Sudden shift in federal policy leaves states scrambling to adjust local rules according to the New York Times.
• Nancy Pelosi says the House Rules regarding masks are not changing because House members are not all vaccinated.
• Fauci tells CBS that he is not a fan of Rand Paul after Congressional testimony.
• Rand Paul tells Fox News that Dr. Fauci is “parsing words” over the COVID origin story.
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 
• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
• Saturday, May 22, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)
• Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)
• Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)
Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ 

WATCH LIVE ODYSEE:
• MAIN: https://odysee.com/@RobertGrulerEsq:c

WATCH LIVE ON RUMBLE!
• LIVE NOW: https://rumble.com/vh1st3-cdc-unmasks...
• MAIN: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq

Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
• 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

NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

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

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

Other tips? Send to [email protected] o

Show Notes Transcript

Congress seems to be moving forward with an investigation into the Capitol Hill Riots on January 6th. The Center for Disease Control now says fully vaccinated people can take their masks off. U.S. Government orients against “white supremacy” and “domestic violent extremists” with new intelligence team. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:

• House Democrats unveil response to Capitol Hill Riots in the form of $1.9 billion emergency funding bill.
• House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro wants to provide additional funding for the Capitol Hill Police and the national guard.
• Review of the “Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6th” briefing from the House Committee on Appropriations.
• The Dangers of the 1/6 Commission as told by Techno Fog: https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-...
• Stacey Abrams considers voter integrity efforts to be extension of the January 6th riots.
• Attorney General Merrick Garland says white supremacists are the most dangerous threat to our democracy.
• Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas announces a new dedicated intelligence team to focus on domestic terrorism.
• Review of the March 2021 Office of the Director of National Intelligence Domestic Violent Extremism Threat Assessment
• CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky unveils new guidance on masks for those who are fully vaccinated.
• Review of the April 27th CDC guidance vs. the May 13th guidance.
• Did CDC update the guidance based on the science or based on incentives?
• Sudden shift in federal policy leaves states scrambling to adjust local rules according to the New York Times.
• Nancy Pelosi says the House Rules regarding masks are not changing because House members are not all vaccinated.
• Fauci tells CBS that he is not a fan of Rand Paul after Congressional testimony.
• Rand Paul tells Fox News that Dr. Fauci is “parsing words” over the COVID origin story.
• Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: 
• https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!
• Saturday, May 22, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)
• Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)
• Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)
Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ 

WATCH LIVE ODYSEE:
• MAIN: https://odysee.com/@RobertGrulerEsq:c

WATCH LIVE ON RUMBLE!
• LIVE NOW: https://rumble.com/vh1st3-cdc-unmasks...
• MAIN: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq

Connect with us:
• Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com
• Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprou...
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq
• Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrule...
• 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

NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394
Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!

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

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

Other tips? Send to [email protected] o

Speaker 1:

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. 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 politics, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they, 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 yours help, we can shine that big , beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into been a busy week, but it's Friday, we made it. And we're going to talk about a car Congress people , cause there's a lot of stuff going on with these people. We are going to start by going back to January six, we have the Capitol Hill riots we learned today that the house Democrats have now unveiled a proposal for an emergency funding bill that is going to address and look back into what happened on January six . So we've got a new appropriations bill by the appropriations chair. Rosa Deloro we're going to talk about what's in it. They're talking about $1.9 billion to go and figure out what happened here, where , you know , where are the misconnect was disconnect was. And it was curious. So we're going to see what the Democrats are proposing. We're going to take a look at techno fog . He's got a , an analysis that he posted over on his sub stacks. So we're going to take a look at that. And we're going to also revisit connect with Stacey Abrams because she is still talking about the January six stuff in a different context. And so we want to make sure we see what she's up to. Then we're going to talk about attorney general Merrick Garland mayor Garland. Now is back in the news, talking about this white supremacy issue. And we've seen a lot of this out of the Biden administration that they're talking about, this domestic violent extremism concept. Now as a result of the January six riots, and this has been something that we've seen all over the place we've seen , uh, John Brennan and many others out there talking about libertarians and about people who are sort of questioning the government as being some sort of threats or dangerous to democracy. So now they're out there, the attorney general , uh , as well as the director of Homeland security, talking about new intelligence groups and things that they're going to be doing to combat what they consider to be the biggest threat to American democracy, which of course is white supremacy and these domestic violent extremists. So we're going to talk about this. Uh , we've been saying this for a long time. The consequence of January 6th was going to be a very, very aggressive over enforcement by the feds. And here it is. So that's going to be a lot of fun. Then we're going to talk about what's going on with the CDC, because for a long time, we've been told that masks are critical. They have to be on your face at all times. Otherwise you're going to kill your grandmother. And now the CDC came back out and said, well, if you're fully vaccinated, you don't in fact need those little bit of a change from where they were just about 16 days ago on April 27th, they released an entirely different set of guidelines. And so a couple of weeks have gone by now. They modified them. And so we want to break down what is going on there. Now this sudden shift has caused a lot of confusion in the States because there was guidelines that came out from the feds two weeks ago that had an entirely different perspective. And so now States are sort of scrambling saying, wait, what, where did this come from? Because we were told that we should have been wearing masks for a long time. Now we don't need to.

Speaker 2:

So we're sort of at a loss,

Speaker 1:

Nancy Pelosi, however, is going to be keeping the mask mandate for the house of representatives. So the Congress people are going to not be exempt. And then we're going to check in with the Rand Paul versus Dr. Fowchee debate. That is still going on. If you recall, earlier in the week, we talked about a debate they had when Rand Paul was questioning Dr. Fowchee inside of the congressional building about the origin story of the Wu Han coronavirus . And now these two have a little bit of bad blood between them. They're not really happy with one another. And so they were sort of

Speaker 2:

Trading barbs

Speaker 1:

On some of the news shows. And so we're going to check in with that as well. Now, if you want to be a part of the show, I would love for you to do that. You can go over to our locals community. It's at locals.com find watching the watcher. So just type that into your browser and you can join our community. We've got a couple, I think we're nearing 500 people over there, which I'm just shocked at. I'm forever grateful for that. But if you want to be a part of the show, that's the place to do it. If you are a supporter, then you can ask questions. You can lob comments, throw criticisms our way in between the different segments that we're about to go through right now. So you can also download a copy of the slides. You can get a free copy of my book. You can join us for our monthly meetup, which is coming up on May 22nd. And then we've got some other cool stuff coming up in June. So I'd invite you to go check that [email protected] . And of course you're supporting the show for which I am forever grateful. All right. So enough of that, let's get into the news of the day house Democrats now unveil a sweeping new bill. They want to fund a very deep dive, a thorough investigation into the January six Capitol Hill riots. Now for a long time, I was somebody who was supporting this, right, as soon as this happened, I said, where did this go wrong? How is it possible that in our nation's Capitol , we have, I don't know, 10, 20 different alphabet agencies that are responsible for securing our Homeland for making sure that this stuff doesn't happen. They all drop the ball. Every single one of them on a very important day when they were going to be counting the electoral votes back on January 6th . So the idea that, that every single one of them, that there was a systemic failure from department to department was kind of baffling. How could our government be so incompetent? I mean, I know they're incompetent, but that incompetent that every single person dropped the ball. Metro PD, Capitol Hill police Sergeant in arms for both houses, national guard . We have the FBI,

Speaker 2:

All these people, DHS, all these different agencies, you know, allegedly warning us that this was going to happen and then they all failed. So that's great. So when I was sort of excited about the investigation that may or may not have been happening back when we were analyzing this right after January 6th , I was excited to find out where the investigation would lead in terms of government failure. Are we going to find who was responsible for this massive boondoggle for the catastrophic failure across the board? Are we going to go find some names? Was it the Capitol Hill chief of police? Was it the, it was, you know, some FBI, U S attorney, some department of justice official. Was it the national guard? People we don't know, right. Is there anybody responsible for this who made the decision, or if it's multiple people, we should know that because this was a catastrophic problem. This was, you know , regardless of politics, the fact that the Capitol building could be breached when everybody is inside of it , that is embarrassing for the entire country and in particular for our intelligence apparatus and for all of our lives law enforcement agencies that are supposed to prevent against this from happening secret service. And everybody, I mean, the prestige of all of these agencies just went down like 10 points in my humble opinion for it. And there should be repercussions for it. We should get to the bottom of it. But is that what this is going to do? Is this investigation going to be focused on those questions or giving us answers on those issues? Or is this going to be something that we are going to just, I don't know, spend $1.9 billion to blame Donald Trump and every single person who voted for Donald Trump, whether they were there or not, whether they supported the Capitol Hill protest or not whether they supported the, the riots or not, whether they were actually in the building or not. Everybody's just been lumped into this thing. Even people who are not Trump supporters, if you're a libertarian. Now, now suddenly according to former CIA director, John Brennan, you're somebody who is of concern. You could theoretically be a danger to this country, given your anti-government views. So we're seeing a lot of this sentiment bubble up and it is concerning. So now we know we now know that the Democrats sure were going to investigate this. They say, let's see what it looks like. So this first article comes over from politico.com and we're going to see written here by Nicholas Wu . Sarah Ferris says that they are a , they unveiled a long way to details on the Congress's response to the January six insurrection at the Capitol. They want billions to address security flaws that were exposed by the siege. And they want to bipartisan September 11 style commission to investigate the root of the attack. So is it, is it going to be the route of the attack or is it going to be the root of the failure? Okay. Because those are very different questions. We have the house appropriations chair , uh, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. She released a $1.9 billion emergency funding bill 1.9 billion. Do you know what that, what that is? I mean, do you want to do how , how big of a resource that is? You know, many police departments, their budgets are like a billion dollars, right? And for , I don't know, tens of thousands of employees for the year. So do they need that to investigate what happened here? Really. All right . I guess so we, it here , she says that it's complex. They want to authorize funding for also future security needs such as our retractable fence system among other provisions. The needs are urgent. So it is imperative. We swiftly pass this legislation to protect the capital and those who work in visit here, the bill would set aside 200 million for a quick reaction force to assist the Capitol police, which will receive body cameras for the first time. So that's correct. So our federal police over there at the Capitol on Capitol Hill, they don't even have body cameras. Nice. The bill also includes millions of dollars for mental health assistance and overtime for Capitol police force long understaffed and still reeling from the deaths of several officers in the aftermath of the insurrection. Okay. Uh , sickness died of natural causes. Uh, if I'm not mistaken , uh, one officer Howard Livengood died by suicide in the days after the attack and the bill would rename the Capitol police wellness center for him. So, yeah, I mean, look, the Capitol Hill police certainly are reeling. They've had two deaths this year, right? One by suicide, terrible one by a natural death, Brian sickness , both terrible. And I think that this was the , the first sort of , uh, you know, end of watch for Capitol Hill police in quite some time. And they had to this year, so certainly, you know, sympathetic to them and we'll, we'll, you know, we'll see, we'll see if the investigation uncovers any, you know, any problems within their department amongst any others, theoretically, they should also be a part of the inquiry, right? Lawmakers are also moving ahead with a bipartisan commission to investigate the events leading up to the attack. So there it is. The plan has the backing of the GOP's top negotiator on the issue though, not house minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, who was still arguing that the panel's scope should expand beyond the January 6th attack. So we're going to have a lot of this back and forth, and it sounds like there is some agreement and actually this may in fact move forward. So it'll be very curious to see what the structure looks like and where the monies are going. And so we're going to take a look at that. Let's finish this article, says the two major developments cap , an intense week in the house. They ripped apart on Oak unhealed wounds from the Capitol siege. So dramatic certain Republicans have downplayed the inner insurrection in public comments. All right , the it's imperative that we seek the truth of what happened on January six , with an independent bipartisan commission to examine and report the facts causes and security relating to the terrorist mob attacks as Nancy Pelosi. So the Bill's going to establish the January six commission. It could come to the floor as soon as, as next week, noting that the panel is modeled after a bipartisan study of events leading up to the September 11th attacks, Democrats are powering ahead with their response. Meanwhile, McCarthy said Friday, he had not formally signed off on the commission agreement. The deal between the , uh , house Homeland security committee chair and others include some concessions in changes sought by Republicans. They proposed a 10 person commission, including an even split between members chosen by Republicans and Democrats. So five Republicans, five Democrats on a commission ensures that the members of the commission can only issue subpoenas in a bipartisan manner. Commission is only able to issue subpoenas through a majority vote. So would need one from the party to cross over at least, or by an agreement between its chairs. Democrats can choose the chair. Its report will be due by the end of the year, McCarthy and other Republicans wanted to the commission to investigate left-wing violence. But its focus is only going to be on the January 6th attack. So, so they're going to be, you know, battling out the formalities here about what the commission looks like. Five person , uh , make-up five Republicans, five Democrats, you gotta have a majority vote. So one from either side has to cross over in order to issue a subpoena, looks like it looks like actually this thing may in fact happen, GOP leader told reporters this morning that he hadn't seen details of the agreements . As I know Nancy Pelosi played politics with this for a number of months, months, you've got to look at the buildup and what's been going on after in a statement, cat-cow says that unfortunately, the Capitol remains a target of extremist of all ideologies as we witnessed. That's why we must do something to ensure nothing like this can ever happen. Again, Democrats can still proceed without Martin. McCarthy's explicit backing as several other house Republicans, including those who voted for impeachment are expected to back it on the floor. Who could that be in action or just moving on is simply not an option. Thompson said Democrats will also be able to pass the security funding bill, even if they don't secure any support from Republicans could be tricky before the bill was released. Some Democrats raise concerns with the components of the bill Pelosi first announced plans for the commission in February. And now they're just talking about the scope. So it's a lot of money, right? 1.9 billion to investigate the prior . You know what happened here and then also to provide for some funding for the future. It sounds like $200 million will then be applied for sort of a quick reactionary force to come back out the next time this happens, I guess they're expecting it to happen again. So let's take a look at what the summary says so that we can tease out where the money's going. Cause that's a lot of money. It's basically like a full-time massive police force that they're just going to stack on there for, for some time it says here, house committee on appropriations, this is the chair. Her name is Rosa Deloro apparently she's from Connecticut. So she drafted this emergency security supplemental to respond to January six . And so this is a summary of the bill. And I want to just point out how big this bill is. I mean, it's, it's a , it's a big bill. We're going to go through the summary of it. But you know, the rest of the bill , uh , obviously is , is more robust than this. So it is intending to respond to the January six address in insurrection. We already know 1.9 billion we're acting on the recommendations of all these people. So task force , one through six capital security review, all retired general, long overdue recognition of the work of the Capitol. Police got all that responding to the insurrection. So the national guard, they want $520 million, 521, really for unanticipated pay and operations costs, which they write they should be compensated for that. I would imagine that they would, they put them in the Capitol building, sleeping on cots and sleeping on the floors and they throw them in the parking lot before anybody sort of, you know, raised a stink about it because were they really there for security or were they there for the political spectacle? You can be the judge of that DC, the district of Columbia emergency planning and security funds . So another 67 million for them going to be reimbursement for the insurrection Capitol police, another 44 million. You like how they look, how they do this. The let's see they rounded down, you know how you go to the grocery store? It's like nine 99, right? You don't want to pay $10, nine 99. Oh, that's reasonable. It's less than $10. They're doing that here with these billions check this out. You've got 520.9 billion, not 520, not , not 521 million. Sorry. It's millions, not 521000520.9. Oh, that's a bargain, sweetie. Let's get two of those. Okay, great. Uh , 31.1 million , uh , for salaries to backfill overtime and other 3.3, 2 million for the intelligence division for human and technical resources. Another 5 million including , uh , what's this for gas mask, tactical vests , body armor, other equipment, $900,000 for cell phone capability. And so, and so part of this I think is really just so the Democrats have a receipt so that they can go back and say, you know, at the next election, in 2022, they can say the Republic, that damage costs 1.9 billion. We know it didn't. I mean, they were, they, they were in and out of the building by that night. And they had all the Congress, people were back in, all of the, everybody was back. They were counting the votes by like 8:00 PM that night. And we had , we had a president selected , uh, by, I think like two in the morning that night. So not even a big deal, it was like a 12 hour delay in the processing. All right . That's, that's fine. But now they want to come back and say, Oh no, it was 1.9 billion look, which you made us do. We had to literally build a second army with gas, mass and tactical vests and a hundred thousand for legal services. And we also have wellness and trauma support, including six new mental health counselors. Look at that six new mental health counselors for all of the trauma that these maniacs caused. We also have the architect of the Capitol . So we've got 40 million to backfill accounts that were used by the architect to pay for costs directly related to the January six insurrection. So they cost $40 million. Wow. That's a lot funding is in response to a request from the architect of the capital . Are they going to put any upgrades in there? I wonder if Congress is going to cram in any , any upgrades as a result of this prosecution support. So the prosecution needs this, obviously because they can't prosecute crimes out of the DC , uh , federal agencies there , the us attorney's office because they, they, they need delays. They need 60, 60 day delays. And they're just overwhelmed with a few extra couple hundred cases there. So they needed another $40 million in order to hire some more lawyers to squeeze that through. They need prosecution support to process the hundreds of prosecutions , uh , of perpetrators. All right. So like, like how many is that? So $40 million divided by three, 400 divided by 400, let's say prosecutions 40 million. Okay. That's a lot of money per prosecution. The library of Congress now is going to be 113 million . So our 13 million, then we have the FBI and other 5 million for them. So that cost them 5 million to respond. Bureau of prisons. 1.8 million ATF is going to get another million national park service, 1 million us marshals , 1 million. And then we , uh, what else do we have? That's a lot of money going out, just being doled out as a result of those insurrectionists, the architect of the Capitol . So future capital security, another two 50, for that to address future needs, let's see, window and door hardening 162 million for that. Well, so they're going to upgrade the accessible windows and doors. So they basically have to turn that into a bunker kind of surprised that wasn't already a thing you'd imagine that you would imagine that the Capitol building that houses, the Senate house of representatives, the vice-president , the president comes over there. They would have hardened doors, but I guess not security screening vestibules, we've got a hundred million for screening vestibules. We got cameras, 17 million to install new cameras, quick reaction force, 200 million for them. How Sergeant at arms, the, the person who is a catastrophic failure, it's going to get another 21 and a half million. We also have Capitol police, also a catastrophic failure. They're going to get another 18 million. So that's great. We have the judicial security, 157 million to address security threats to federal judges. So, all right, so a bunch of people who weren't even involved in this are now going to get beefed up security. So the judges are going to get that a hundred, almost 160 million. It would 160 million would be too much, but 157 and a half that's it's a smoking deal. It's a , that's a, that's a, that's a discounts like a Groupon deal. The national park service, 7.6 million us secret service also failed 6.8 million. The general services administration also failed another 5 million for them. We have the architect of the Capitol . What does this? Another 99.6 million for reimbursements and other costs of the response to COVID-19 the hell does that have to do with the capital COVID-19 Hance , enhanced cleaning, personal protective equipment, telework equipment. This is for all right . We have house of representative expenses. They're going to give themselves a bunch of money for what, for reimbursements and other costs for the response of COVID-19. So this is now it's becoming a COVID bill. Look at this COVID here. We have another COVID here. Another COVID bill here, another COVID bill here, death gratuities. What's this we have for the families of late representatives. Ron writes Elsie Hastings. Death gratuities are consistent with congressional tradition. So about 400 grand for that, a lot of money, lot of money, you never, never, never, never let a crisis or a problem or a issue go to waste. And they're making full advantage , taken full advantage of that. Here. It turns into a COVID bill along with , um, uh, you know, new cameras , new gear, new , uh, new, new money for everything. Everybody's getting new stuff. So it's good. It's good. It's good to be a congressperson. You get, you know, you get attacked and you just go on a spending spree, get the credit card out, go hog wild. And the Republicans will just support it because what are they, what are they doing anyways? And , uh , let's take a look at some of this analysis here. So as I mentioned, I was excited about , uh , you know , three months ago about an investigation, because I would like to get to the bottom of it. This doesn't look like anything, resembling an actual investigation. I can basically tell you what they're going to come up with. It's going to be a bunch of white supremacists and anti-government people probably more libertarians, these DVDs , whatever that are all going to be lumped into this Trump category. It's the same people they've already, we've already seen what they're doing. So not going to be much of a surprise there, but this is why it's problematic. Now, when you form a commission with that end in mind, is it going to be an independent commission or is this going to be a political commission and are the Republicans going to really care that it goes one way or the other? Is this really about getting to the bottom of what caused the Capitol Hill riots or is this about just sort of twisting the knife in the back of Donald Trump and the Donald Trump supporters, anybody who is sort of in that camp is now going to have to sit through this commission, listen to the whole thing. And I know a lot of people on the other side are going to be saying, you , you, you should, you know, you should sit through it because you supported that maniac. That's fine. If you want to say that, but there there's a whole contingent of the country. It doesn't support anything that happened at the Capitol building. It doesn't support anything that that was involved with the riots doesn't condone any of that behavior. I'm one of those people. I don't condone any of it, but at the same time, I believe in due process, I believe in the presumption of innocence. And I believe that an investigation should be had to just to find out where the government failed as much as anything else, as much as what caused the underlying incident in the first place. Okay. That's important. But just as important is the government failure, which is, which is my point. And if we have a commission that is not equally investigating both sides, well, then it's just a political investigation, a political commission that is now going to just kind of slam dunk all day long, every opportunity they can on one particular political demographic in this country. And the Republicans are not going to support that demographic because the last thing that they want is Donald Trump to run again. So if they can keep the pressure and the focus on this incident, remember, remember how this is all working. The January 6th incident was caused. Remember because he was impeached for this by Donald Trump, by his language. And it was festering because Donald Trump is a white supremacist based on a lot of these other , uh, sort of , uh, outstanding issues that we saw throughout the last four years. You know, the, the , uh, find people hoax and all of these other allegations that he's a racist bubbles into white supremacy, bubbles into the Capitol Hill riot as a result of his speech that particular day, and by extension, anybody who supported Donald Trump was in part responsible for that. We, it it's guilt by association times 75 million. And the last thing that the establishment Republicans want coming into 2022 and 2024 is a powerful Donald Trump. So if the Republicans can agree with the Democrats here and set up a commission where all day they can just explore together, Oh, Donald Trump. Oh, he did that. Oh, his supporters did that for the next 60 days. Well, that's great, right? It serves both their interests. Republicans are happy about it because Donald Trump is weakened. And the Republicans who are currently in power still are slowly aligning against him. They're making a record against him and his constituents. So it is effective for them. And so we'll see if it ends up going that way. That's my interpretation of it. Let's see what techno Fogg has to say. He calls this article. He posted this over at sub stack and by the way, his subjects great. I would encourage you to go check that out. He posted this article, says the corrupted one, six commission says also known as the Democrat 2022 re-election campaign. He says today, house Democrats unveiled their bill to establish a national commission to investigate the January 6th attack. We previously warned about this, the roadmap to use their investigative authority, to further their political goals, right ? Something I've been screaming about here. We advise the Democrats take, make the investigation broad enough to subpoena records from conservative groups and websites and their investors. We warned that they would seek donor lists and personal communications from those having little to do with the events on January six , the Democrats bill, which elevates the January 6th quote riots to a quote domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol proves this right. Bill establishes a commission of 10 members, five appointed by Democrats five by Republicans. It will be a chaired by a Democrat nominee. He clips out a portion of the bill, says the commission will have the powers to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and the testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence relating to any matter which the commission is empowered to investigate. Here's where it says that commissioner may issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony production of evidence. Got it. From the bill. Domestic terror is the name of the title we have here from the language. We look to what the commission is. Quote, empowered to investigate power is extremely broad. He says, this is where the trouble lies. It includes, it includes the power of the facts and causes relating to the January 6th domestic terror attack upon the United States complex. See how that they switched that language. You see how that happened there. The influencing factors that fomented such an American representative, such such attack on American representative democracy while engaging in constitutional process.

Speaker 3:

So it goes from being a riot to now the, in quotes from the bill to a domestic terrorist attack, pretty easy, kind of a quick, quick swap . Didn't even notice like a magician. Now you see it. Now you don't, it was a riot. It was an insurrection. Now it's domestic terrorists terrorism. It's a domestic terrorist attack from their bill. What all right ?

Speaker 2:

The influencing factors that fomented, those are also subject to their power. The influencing factor .

Speaker 3:

There's that fomented this

Speaker 2:

The danger of the dangerous part of all of this as techno is that all the subpoena power is limited to the, of the democratic appointees. We assumed the likelihood that at least one Republican member of the committee will go along with anything. The Democrats want giving them a majority for the subpoena. So that's the danger. We also know that the commission has given the power to obtain information from the intelligence community to further its investigation. So the commission may secure directly from any federal department or agency information, including the underlying information that may be in possession of the intelligence community necessary to function

Speaker 3:

Massive

Speaker 2:

Power for this commission. Massive. So techno wraps up his article. He says, we cannot strongly stress enough.

Speaker 3:

The danger of such power

Speaker 2:

House Democrats who have leaked false intelligence to the press, lied to the public about the Carter page. FISA applications will have access via their appointees to raw intelligence data. And so if you haven't been following techno, he's done a lot of work on the Carter page, the FYSA stuff, all of the Michael Flynn , all of the Russia collusion hoax, he's been doing a deep dive on it. And he is ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, quite, quite observant about what's going on.

Speaker 2:

All this just proves the commission will be their instrument to inflict massive political harm on the right. Remember , pull up Pelosi's occupation of the Capitol . And so techno said, and I said this earlier, too, he said, he said, back on March 5th, if you question the seriousness of the game , they're playing, just look at the security around the Capitol. Currently over 5,000 national guard troops, along with fencing and razor wire protect against a non-existent threat, the occupation is theater to make January six more than what it was to justify what is to come, okay, it's this long extension of it. It's we're going to take that one bad incident. And we are going to ring out every single ounce of political momentum that we can, anybody who said was even remotely connected to Donald Trump. If you even said his name, you know, in, in, in, in favor, any moment in your life, you're connected to this thing. And they're going to try to make that stick as long as they can and squeeze all the mileage that that is possible out of it. And I want to give you one example of this right here is one example of this from Stacey Abrams, Stacey Abrams is now out there saying that what is happening here in Arizona regarding our recount , she's calling that a continuation of the insurrection. And you're thinking what? Arizona's like 3000 miles away. What are you talking about? We're just counting some ballots here, or we're not even counting them. We're just sort of checking them to make sure that they're all legitimate. It's an audit. It's not a big deal. What's the problem. What's the problem with looking? I don't know, but she's saying that this is an extension of the insurrection. Oh my goodness. That was such a big deal. That was a

Speaker 3:

National tragedy that day. And yeah ,

Speaker 2:

What we're what's happening in Arizona is an extension of that. All right . She says here, Stacy Abrams, the recount is a continuation of the insurrection. This article comes over from Breitbart, says they failed the Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidates. Stacey Abrams said Thursday on Anderson Cooper that the recount was a continuation of the Cooper,

Speaker 1:

Asked her first on the news, given all your work with voting rights. When you see the so-called audit in Arizona with cell phone jammers and UV lights, what conspiracy theories about bamboo ballots brought in from Asia? What's what's happening there? She says, it's a continuation of a big lie. We have the clip next. So let's just go ahead and watch this one

Speaker 4:

Representative Abrams. I want to ask you about your new book in a moment, but just first on the news, given all your work on voting rights. When you see this so-called audit in Arizona with cell phone jammers and UV lights and conspiracy theories about bamboo ballots brought in from Asia, what is happening there?

Speaker 5:

It's a continuation of the big lie, but more importantly and more concerningly it's continuation of the insurrection of this attempt to disengage dissident franchise voters, and to dismiss the legitimacy of our elections. And we know that this is only part of a larger intention. Uh , just today there leaked audio from heritage action for America, where they admitted that this is model legislation being promulgated across the country through a vast Republican intention of limiting access to the right to vote, because they think it's the best way to win. And according to the leaked audio, they've been meeting with secretaries of States, with governors, with legislators, all with the intent of putting forward legislation that will restrict access to the right to vote and make it easier for Republicans to win. And we should all be concerned because our elections are not about partisanship. It should not be a question of Republicans or Democrats gaming the system, but everyone being able to participate and make their own choice .

Speaker 4:

What's so kind of Orwellian about all this is at the same time. This is happening. Kevin McCarthy is saying that no one is contesting the legitimacy of the last election, which is exactly what they're doing

Speaker 5:

Well, they're not only is not only is there this hypocrisy, but it's gaslighting. They are saying aloud that there's nothing wrong. And at the exact same time, they're pushing forward legislation to fix something they say is broken either they're lying then are they relying then? Or they're lying now. And the reality is the lie that continues to weave its way through our democracy is one that turns this issue of partisanship, this naked partisan grab it distracts us from the fact that this is about citizenship who has the right to vote in our nation. And should that vote be impeded because someone doesn't like the choice you're going to make.

Speaker 1:

Oh, wow. All right . So a very interesting clip there. Now I could go off on that for about two days. We're not going to do that in this segment. Let's jump into some questions first and foremost though. I just want, I just want to say that it, it, it, it's not an insurrection. The , the audit is not an insurrection. Let's just, let's just leave it at that. All right. So let's go to our questions [email protected] . First and foremost comes from, want to know, says, Rob , if they investigate this, there are a lot of Facebook bids at the Capitol that got deleted off people's phone news organizations to most vids came back up from cam cards. What about vid showing everyone standing around like waiting on a bus after she was shot to death, fence stopped further disturbances. So government didn't get thrown overthrown. Palencia a Pelosi can guard capital adequately to keep her safe. Only thing that matters. Uh , yeah. So

Speaker 3:

I'm not sure

Speaker 1:

About some other , some of those other videos or what happened there. But I imagine that there is

Speaker 3:

A lot of evidence

Speaker 1:

That's out there. I know the FBI is going through a lot of it. Thank you for the comment we have. Jessica says this investigation has all the hallmarks of a set up for massive government overreach, like the Gulf of Tonkin weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Explain how the NSA or CIA hasn't been able to identify queue with all their billions of dollars in their budgets. Yeah, that's a good question.

Speaker 3:

Right? Maybe, maybe they're

Speaker 1:

Involved in it. I don't know. I don't, I don't know about, about the Q stuff or why that just kind of went away. Kind of feels like that was the biggest problem in the country. And then it kind of shifted into this white supremacy thing now, and now it's, they're going to spend $1.9 billion arming up and making sure that the investigation is very, very aggressive in every direction we have chairman of the board says, I don't understand the 1.9 billion for an investigation, but I do very much support in an investigation. We have some that took the protest for lack of a better word too far. And others seem to be being waved in and welcomed by security personnel. Something doesn't smell, right. Just doesn't make sense. I think we need answers. I also think it's unacceptable to lump everyone together who happened to be there that day, which is being done currently. Totally agree with you on that chairman. Good comment. And I agree with you that there should be an investigation I would love . And I mean, this, I really do want to end an investigation. I hope this thing is fruitful. I hope that this is not just a political inquisition into one particular party, but I really do hope that we get call everybody in their right call. Every single person who was in the chain of command, who was even remotely connected to security and installing security and making sure that everything went off without a hook that day, they all should be questioned. And we should have a very extensive inquiry here because I would like to make sure it doesn't happen again. And if there was any malfeasance here, if there was anybody who was

Speaker 3:

Just like, well, you know, if they

Speaker 1:

Get in there, that's not so bad for us. That's not so bad for our side. You know, if Donald Trump's supporters are seen storming the Capitol , maybe that's a pretty big win for the opposition party. And if there's any malfeasance or any hint of that, I want to make sure that is rooted out. We have Liberty or death in the house, as I thought they wanted to defund the police. Oh gosh. Good point. I didn't even think of that. That's that's how that's. That's brilliant. I thought they wanted it to defund the police. Weird how they don't mean the federal police forces. I am sure there is no ulterior motive here. Nothing to worry about. Brilliant, brilliant. Their Liberty loved that. Yeah. A lot of money, $200 million, new masks gear, all of this

Speaker 3:

Stuff for the feds, not for the other police. I guess the feds are not the racist ones. It's the local cops who need to be defunded

Speaker 1:

Because they're the racist ones we have. It's ed says, I must admit. I'm getting aggravated and angry. Just listening to the amounts of your listening. This is crazy how the government is just dishing out our money. It's a free

Speaker 6:

For all. And what are you supposed

Speaker 1:

To say? Uh , no, I don't support that this money. Oh, so you're an insurrectionist. So you support Donald Trump and his minions wrecking American democracy.

Speaker 6:

I see how that is. Hmm , no, no. Just kidding. All supported . Let's do one

Speaker 1:

Investigation. He , Don test says I'm actually not surprised that we have not previously turned the Capitol into a bunker. I think that the vast majority in America still act like and expect that people can control themselves and act like a civil society. Where

Speaker 6:

Are we headed? Hard military

Speaker 1:

Installations for all government building and public spaces. Nine 11, attacks that a lot to make our country look like a war zone. Now this is going to push the feel of military zone. More everywhere.

Speaker 6:

DC

Speaker 1:

Is going to change. Yeah. $1.9 billion of security installations. There. I think there are still Fen . The fences are still up there right around the Capitol building. I think last I heard they were, we have, I'm not gas in the house says perhaps they expect so much unrest and sieges on the Capitol because they are planning to put the boot on our neck

Speaker 6:

Harder than ever before.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that's a, that's an unpleasant thought. Isn't it

Speaker 6:

Gearing up for unpleasant times.

Speaker 1:

Hopefully that's not the case. We have inky. Whoa says I can believe the cost of the capital damage being 1.9 billion. You have to chalk it up to the government, inefficiency, waste corruption going to that price. My father was a civil engineer in New York, working for a suburban County. 1980, the County would pay $50 about one 50 in current dollars for each reflector. Think reflectors on bicycle wheels in the street, not including the installation of it. Times thousands in quantity. It's just corruption. I mean, it's just pure corruption. And you see this all over the place in our government and any bureaucracy, really anytime where you can shift the skin in the game, when you can sort of take that

Speaker 6:

Out, it's ripe

Speaker 1:

For people to just turn that dial up a little bit. Oh, these reflectors $5. I got to ship them. That's another $5. I got to put a label on them as another $5. You know, the envelopes are $5. I had to get up to get off of my desk and go put it in the mailbox. That's $10. All right . 50. That sounds right. And they all just, the government pays it because there's no accountability. There's no transparency. That's why we started this channel because it irritates me. We have Liberty or death says, I think they think this will be effective for them, but I think it will only serve to make Trump's supporters more excited for 24. And let him join president Cleveland in history. Should he run again? Yeah. I, you know, I , I think, I think he might be onto something there. Liberty. Like a lot of this Dogpile is , is probably going to backfire. You're going to see that the Trump people have more enthusiasm than the other primary candidates. And we've got a lot of potential good candidates coming up for the Republicans. I mean, DeSantis is thinking about it. We've got , uh, who else? Uh, uh, Mike Pence, you know, there , there there's, there's some good names there that are, that are floating around to go take on uncle Joe. But if Trump throws his hat in the ring, I mean, he's going to have

Speaker 6:

A very, very, very ,

Speaker 1:

Very , uh , enthusiastic base of support. Let's just say that sharing Courtney says, what do you think they will set up as a loyalty test or loyalty oath to make sure everybody is on board with the current regime, you know, that kind of, they have in the totalitarian dictatorships. I wonder if we're going to have police coming into our homes to see if we have pictures of our dear leaders on the wall. Like they do

Speaker 6:

Korea, Joe Joe , up there.

Speaker 1:

Uh , I hope not. We have LT. 13 is in the house as did she miss the New York

Speaker 6:

Times article what? New York times article? Uh, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what

Speaker 1:

Article you're talking about. I'm not sure what you're talking about there LT, but that's probably my fault, not yours because I lost my train of thought, but great questions. Nonetheless. They all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com and we'd love your support. Thank you so much for keeping us in your thoughts and your support of the show. And also if you happen to know anybody in Arizona who has been charged with a crime, our law firm, the RNR law group, we help with that stuff. And we would appreciate a referral. We have our phone numbers right down in the description below. So if you know anybody in Arizona that needs help, we'd be very appreciative of that. Send them our direction. All right . So that's the end of that segment. Let's change gears. We're going to talk about masks. The CDC director came out and told us that we don't have to wear masks anymore, as long as you're fully vaccinated. And so there's a lot of reaction to this because little bit of a change of policy, we know that just about two weeks ago, they said that even if you were vaccinated, you still had to wear a mask. And so people were scratching their heads on this thing saying, well, that doesn't make any sense. What's the incentive to get vaccinated. Then if it doesn't change anything for us, if we have to wear a mask pre VAX vaccine and post vaccine, well, what's the point. Well, lo and behold, the CDC came out and modified the guidelines. So now as long as you're fully vaccinated, you don't have to wear a mask according to the government. So let's take a look at what's going on here. According to C-SPAN , the CDC director came out and said, anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, larger, small, without wearing a mask or physical good distancing. If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic. Isn't that nice of them. I love that . So nice that they can tell you that they can tell us that we can go do things again. We can go outside again. We can participate in indoor and outdoor activities. We can do things that we stopped doing because of the pandemic. Thank you, CDC. We're so grateful for you. You kept us safe. You gave us good information and now you're allowing us to live our lives. Again. We're just so appreciative of all your hard work. And we have here. She is. This is Dr. Rachel Wollensky, who is now going to give us two minutes of the CDC ,

Speaker 2:

Sees a guidance. Here she is.

Speaker 7:

I want to provide you an update regarding CDC guidance for fully vaccinated people. Over the course of the pandemic, we are continuously gathering data and evidence to inform our guidance. And decision-making, we now have numerous reports in the literature that demonstrate the safety and real world effectiveness of the authorized vaccine. On this slide, there are three recently published studies. One from Israel published in the journal of the American medical association or Gemma on the top. And two from the United States, both published in CDC , morbidity and mortality weekly report, which all show that COVID-19 vaccines work in Israel. There was a demonstrated 97% vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic and 86% effectiveness against asymptomatic infection in over 5,000 healthcare workers in the United States. That seems where 90% effective against any infection in nearly 4,000 healthcare workers and 94% effective against hospitalizations from COVID-19 in an evaluation across 24 hospitals in 14 States. Additionally, we are accumulating data on that are authorized. Vaccines are effective against the variants that are circulating in this country. On this slide, you can see a study published just last week. That demonstrates how effective the Pfizer vaccine is against the common circulating variants in the United States. The one, one seven, as well as other variants, like B one 45 , one additional studies confirm that the Madonna and Johnson and Johnson vaccines are also effective against circulating variant . Finally, we know that in the rare event that people get infected after a vaccine, the resulting infection is more likely to have a lower viral load, be shorter in duration and likely less risky of transmission to others. Considering all of these factors, the data on vaccine effect ,

Speaker 2:

Look at those dates, March 29th, March 21st

Speaker 7:

Circulating variance and our growing understanding of the low risk of transmission to others combined with universal access to vaccines for those 12 and older today, CDC is updating our guidance for fully vaccinated people. Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small without wearing a mask or physical distancing. If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic. We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy based on the continuing downward trajectory of cases, the scientific data on the performance of our vaccines and our understanding of how the virus spreads that moment has come for those who are wholly vaccinated,

Speaker 1:

A long clip there , not a lot of , you know, some information there. I wanted to play that just so we could sort of get a timeline on what was going on with their studies. So I made a note of it. I didn't screenshot this, but the two studies that she was referencing were actually , uh, pre uh , preceded the April 20 April guidelines that we got from the CDC. So if you recall, we had this update from the CDC back on April 27th, or right around that time. I'm sort of ballpark in these days, but I think it was April 27th, about 16, 17 days ago. And this is the guidance that we got, right? This came directly from the CDC and they said, this, if you are vaccinated, you're here. If you are an a , if you're, if you're unvaccinated you're over here, if you're vaccinated, you're over here on the rights . And what was so shocking about this is that if you're vaccinated per CDC guidelines, you basically still had to wear a mask anytime you were inside. So as you'll notice here, if you were attending a crowded outdoor event, like a live performance, even if you're outside, got to wear a mask inside visiting a barber hair salon, attending a shopping center , uh, going to a movie theater, worship service, all of this, got to wear a mask. And also if you're unvaccinated , guess what? You still have to wear a mask. So if you're, whether you're vaccinated or not, doesn't matter, there's basically no good reason to go get vaccinated. I mean, you know, the, the not dying thing is , is a good reason. Uh, if you are a pro-vaccine person, right, there are good reasons for that, but this is really more for the skeptics. It's for the people who say, ah , I don't need it. I'm healthy. I don't, you know, I'm not, I'm not somebody that needs to go and sort of rush out and get this thing. Well, maybe you go get it just so that you don't have to wear the mask anymore. You feel okay? Getting on, going to a restaurant and not having to wear that thing. So people were saying, well, there's no incentive at all. This is a horrible idea. And now we know that today or yesterday, we got a new update. So I want to show you what this one looks like. This is the new guidelines from the CDC. Very, very different. Isn't it look, no masks, zero masks over here. So if you'll notice, when we went over here, very, very different. So about two weeks from April 27th, over to May 13th, and you will notice that they actually deleted something in here. So they deleted this one ride public transport with limited occupancy. So that is not there anymore. Uh, they just got rid of this one together altogether. That's gone. So , uh , slight modifications, right? Mostly stayed the same, actually all entirely stayed the same on the unvaccinated . And if you're vaccinated, no masks anymore. So people were scratching their heads and also wanted to point out, look, these numbers came out April 27th, that came out after the two studies that she referenced. So she went through two other studies that came from March. So the CDC had the numbers, or they knew the studies, presumably. So maybe they needed a couple of weeks to process this, or could it have been something else? So we have a couple of doctors weighing in here is , uh , uh, Dr. Jeremy says the risk assessment, the CDC made with its new max mask policy says they're betting possibly correctly that the quote vaccine equals no more mask incentive will be enticing enough to the undecideds. That'll increase the rates of vaccination more than any possible increase in a vaccine breakthrough speed. So in other words, if you tell people that they can take their mask off, that will cause them to go and get vaccinated. That's the hypothesis here. And this is shown in the numbers. We have the incentive of going mask lists. So how likely would you be to get the vaccine when it was available to you? If it meant that you could no longer have to wear a mask Republicans, they're happy about that. 53% say, yeah, maybe I'll go get a vaccine. If I can take the mask off. If I still had to wear a mask, though, that number goes down to 35% and the net rise in vaccine eagerness and per sec perception in percentage points, 18% for Republicans. Okay. Same with white people, black people, the, the height it's , it's considerable that they will be more likely to get vaccinated. If they are allowed to take their masks off. We also have another incentive that is being thrown around all upon it . Over at hot air called this one to my attention, says a shot for shot in Ohio. They're going to hold a million dollar lottery for vaccinated residents and not just one lottery. Five lottery is actually a million bucks each every Wednesday until may 26, it's going to be a separate lottery for vaccinated teenagers. And it's kind of working. If the following incentives were offered to them, would you get a vaccine, a small financial incentive, like a $50 savings bonds. And you look at all these. Yes, definitely. We're talking like over 20% for most people for 50 bucks, they'll go and get that shot. And if you lump in, probably you're looking at almost half in some, some , uh, some numbers 44% would probably go get it. You give them 50 bucks. If you give him a thousand bucks, that number goes way up. Okay. Now we're well over half for a thousand dollars. So if you are somebody in my age, you are, what is that? Uh , that's that's well, over half, let's just leave it at that. I'm not going to do math on the fly . I'm terrible at math. We don't do that here. We don't do that here. Now let's take a quick look over here, Ohio. This is the governor talking about his, a lottery program.

Speaker 8:

Everybody's kind of in a different place. And so it's the people at the margins that we think that this will maybe push some people over and look, you can say, it's a waste of money. Uh, I talked to the people of Ohio last night and I said, look, some people are going to say, Mike DeWine is crazy. And that this is a big waste of money, but I'll tell you what the real waste is. What the real waste is, is when somebody at this stage, when we have the vaccine, that will pretty much a hundred percent protect you, but you don't take it. You get the COVID and you die. Dakota's a waste. The COVID,

Speaker 1:

You get the COVID and you die. And that's a way. So I like the idea that States are trying different things and seeing what works. We just think this is a beautiful thing of the American experiment. We have these little laboratories of democracy that exists throughout the country. And if you want to try a lottery and Ohio, and these other places maybe want to offer some other smaller incentives, all right, try it, see if it works for you. And you can of course, make your personal decision about whether to do that or not. Now this change, this masculine change has really caused a lot of issues locally. And I want to show you what's going on. This is from the New York times, they're saying that the CDC mask chains sets off a scramble across the U S at a local level. They're saying that the in Minnesota, the state mask mandate is over, but Minneapolis, the state's largest city face coverings are still required. On Friday. We have Rhode Island, North Carolina, Michigan. They joined the ranks of States where officials say that fully vaccinated, people could go mask list , but in New York, New Jersey, California mask mandates are still in force.

Speaker 3:

The CDC said, though, that you don't have to have them

Speaker 1:

Vaccinated. So now we've got sort of a conflict amongst the different States. We've got Missouri mayor Quintin Lucas in a matter of about seven hours said he would not change his mask order. Then he would think about it. Then he was getting rid of it altogether, because there was no good way to know who

Speaker 3:

Was fully vaccinated and who was

Speaker 1:

Not. It says, well , I understand the CDC theory that they could just create a rule that says vaccinated folks go anywhere without a mask. And everybody else who's un-vaccinated will follow. I don't know if that's the type of rule that was written in coordination with anyone who has been a governor or a mayor over the last 14 months. Oh, so he's not happy about this saying that basically they should have consulted with him. It could have been a different story. The abrupt decision by the CDC and prevention to free fully vaccinated. People from guidance set off a scramble on Friday across the country to update local rules and redefine social norms, major corporations, and local shopkeepers weighed whether to take down the masks required signs on their doors. And I went and got a salad

Speaker 3:

Today for lunch in the middle of

Speaker 1:

My seminar that I went through today. And I was confused. I didn't know what to do. Should I bring a mask? Should I not? Because this place that I go to, they're kind of mask intents in there. And it was a little bit of a uncomfortable situation. There was some people mask , Snowmass, mass , snow masks. I had my mask handy just in case

Speaker 3:

I'm following the CDC guidelines. We have this here

Speaker 1:

That says in Texas, which lifted mask rules in early March, Chuck Massey in San Antonio said on Friday that he was comforted by the sight of people wearing masks, even after both state and federal officials continue to ease restrictions. Mr. Massey, who suffers from high blood pressure said he's taking a wait and see approach in Massachusetts Joseph's skin Darien . One of the owners of the skin Darien apothecary pharmacy in smiled on Friday when asked about the agency's new guidance visibly, because he was unmasked. As he worked with employees, he said that his workers would continue wearing masks with customers and tell officials. And people say they no longer are needed. He said, he trusted the CDC was being guided by science here , right. And data. And he took the new policy as a sign of how far things have come personally ecstatic about it says for more than a year, masking had been urged by public health. It was , uh , but after it wasn't okay. Remember they told us don't wear masks for a very long time. Then they said, Oh yeah, we were actually lying to you so that we could keep up inventory capacity for the medical professionals. So they lied and they reversed the lie and we're supposed to trust everything they say now. Okay, got it. Just a few weeks ago, the CDC said fully vaccinated. Americans could usually forego masks outdoors, but should continue wearing them inside public spaces. They changed course on Thursday. As we know, were reversal left officials at all levels of government scrambling with fast moving series of announcements, many public health experts and local officials said they were puzzled about how to implement the new advice since there was no national system for differentiating people between those who are fully vaccinated. Now 36% of Americans, and those who are not. So most people are not in Congress. The Capitol attending physician said fully, fully vaccinated members could resume activities that you did prior to the pandemic speaker Pelosi, however tells CNN, Manu , Roger , you know, she isn't changing the rule requiring masks on the house floor. She says, no. She says , uh , are they all vaccinated then no. Then we're keeping masks on the floor. So we're , uh, we're still sorting through a lot of this. Here is Dr. Fowchee. Now talking to , uh, CBS this morning, getting into it with Rand Paul A. Little bit. Remember we talked about this earlier in the week, there was a congressional hearing where Rand Paul was going after Dr. Fowchee specifically about the origin of the Corona virus saying, well, it seems like maybe it went through the national Institute of health over into the national Institute for allergy and infectious diseases down into the , uh , eco Alliance health, which then transmitted it over to Dr. [inaudible] , who then sent it over to Dr. Shi , who is the bat lady who was working in the Wu hand lab of biology in Wuhan in China. Sounds like you were the head of the NIH. Maybe you're involved in this very long chain. How about that? Dr. Fowchee he's Oh, no, no. And he's parsing words as we're going to hear from Ron Paul here in a minute, but first let's take a look and see how Dr. Fowchee feels about Rand Paul, after that little interaction

Speaker 9:

Tense up every time in my body, you know what I mean? Yeah. You know, Gail , I just don't want to get into that tit for tat. I just don't understand what the problem is with him, but, you know, well just going to do my job and he could do what he wants to do and we'll see what happens.

Speaker 1:

What was she going to say that you're still Dr. Anthony Fowchee in your word is Supreme. You are infallible. Nobody should ever question anything that you have to say. So now he doesn't like that. Now Ram Paul is doing his job. Okay. He's a Senator, he's on these different committees. And he has an obligation to his constituents and to America to investigate what was going on. If the U S government was funding some gain of function lab, that actually it's a research in a lab that caused the coronavirus . Shouldn't we get to the bottom of that. Isn't that something that is worth investigating. And I think the answer of course is a resounding yes. Which is exactly what Ron Paul is doing here. He is saying that basically Fowchee was just sort of parsing his words, which is exactly the point that I was making when we covered it earlier this week, Dr. Fowchee was doing exactly that, you know, saying, Oh, no, we didn't fund gain of function. Research in [inaudible] in 2019, right, right on March. Okay. Well what about an April? Well, no, we didn't do it in Wu Han. Well, what about in China? No, we didn't. So it's like, well, did you fund, did you fund the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance? Okay. Well, we'll see , because they were then the ones who picked up the ball and move forward with it. And so yes, you do have some sort of connection to it. So don't act like you don't because we know you do. And here is Ron Paul now making that point

Speaker 10:

And H did your specific division of the NIH give money to the Wu Han lab? That's incontrovertibly true. What he's arguing is he's parsing his words. He knows his group gave money, but he's saying, Oh, it wasn't for juicing up the supervisors . We gave it for other research. It's sort of like the planned Parenthood argument. Yes. We give taxpayer money to planned Parenthood, but it's not for abortion. Dr. Fowchee is arguing. Yeah. We gave it, you know, the NIH in my group specifically gave it to the Wu Han lab, but they weren't supposed to be juicing up. The money is fungible, as you say, on Capitol Hill, but it's even worse than that. The doctor, she, the bat scientist, that's the most famous one for the Wu Han Institute. When she published her papers, which scientists across the board are saying are gain of function. They were juicing up viruses. She gave credit to Dr. Fowchee. She said the funding came from, we have this in black and white from a peer review journal. She said, the funding came from Dr. [inaudible] national Institute aid, NIH ID. This is Dr. Fowchee baby for 40 years. She listed him in the credits. He can't escape this. He did the funding. And by other question is China's a rich country. They're kicking our butt in so many places. Why would we be giving them money for their research? Can't they spend their own money on their own research. Senator Paul duck .

Speaker 1:

There's Rand Paul. Yeah. Wrapping up with the money argument, which I happen to love. Well, w w you know , Hey, Hey, not only did they release a virus that wrecked the world, well, why do we help pay for it? You know , he's a fiscal conservative to the end of the earth, which is to his credit. So , uh, yeah. W why, why did we fund it? It's a good question. So let's take a [email protected]om want to start with it's ed today. It's ed says, how do you prove you're fully vaccinated without a vaccine passport? How is that not a HIPAA violation asking people if they are vaccinated. So I think that you're right. I think that it is, I think that you really can't ask people that, and I think that this is going to lead

Speaker 3:

To maybe some uncomfortable

Speaker 1:

Conversations, right? People just have to sort of

Speaker 3:

Assume that you are following

Speaker 1:

And the rules. And I think Rachel Maddow, I saw somebody posted a tweet of her today, sort of having a little bit of a breakdown, you know, sort of going well, the worldview is changing. You know, many people for many people, the mask was sort of this symbolic , uh, indicator of whether you were a good person or not. You know, whether you cared about society and whether you cared about life and whether you had any humanity, humanity in you at all, based on whether you were putting something on your face or not. And so for many people, I mean, this is how they have been living their lives for the last 12 months. If somebody is not wearing a mask, they're a murderer. I mean, like, literally we were seeing this throughout society, people in grocery stores would just flip their carts over and go almost murder somebody because they had the mask under their nose. And we saw this all throughout the pandemic, lot of that stuff all over the country. So the question then is, well, you know , if people are sort of pre-programmed in that direction, if they're predisposed to think that people who don't have masks on are a threat to them, and now there's a bunch of people that don't have masks on Rachel Maddow was saying something like, well, I got to reorientate myself. You know, I'm used to sort of this instinctual reaction when I see somebody without a mask . Now I have to think that, well, maybe they are vaccinated. And so she's going through this like, stream of consciousness thing on her show where you can see this

Speaker 3:

Diet , that where you can see it almost

Speaker 1:

As flip happening in her brain, where she was

Speaker 3:

Saying, well, if I'm vaccinated, why do I care if they're not vaccinated? Because

Speaker 1:

I'm not going to get sick. If they get sick, then that's , that's their problem. That's their personal decision. I made my personal decision. They're making their personal decision. Oh, you can kind of see her going . Yeah. Well, that makes sense. I'm just going to have to get used to it and you're going, yeah. Hey, we've been all saying that for like the last year. Okay. Make your own personal decisions about a lot of this stuff. If two people want to go and hang out together, that's their prerogative. Okay. They know the risks they're allowed to do that stuff if they want to, but we were all told that no, it's about, you know , uh , increasing capacity and making sure that our medical system doesn't get overwhelmed. And we have this shared responsibility to do all this stuff and not get all of it. But the , you know, the point here is that Matt Aus perspective was sort of changing, going, Oh, I guess I made my decision. If they want to make their decision, then I guess we're just going to have to live in this world of personal responsibility. And I'm just going to have to get used to it. And you're going, that's how it's supposed to be. Okay . It's not supposed to be the other way. We're not supposed to be walking around society, looking at everybody wondering if they're going to kill us with spittle. You

Speaker 3:

Know, I mean, I know it's sort of a wild reality that this is how things are shifting, but

Speaker 1:

Go watch the clip of her. It's kind of a sad thing. Honestly. It's sad that people live that way for a full year, but it's add , I don't know. People are gonna have to trust each other. And people are going to have to do the right thing and exercise and personal responsibility. And the system will sort itself out. But certainly I don't think people can be asking each other about it because that is a HIPAA violation. We have LT. 13 said I had COVID and my positive antibody test , nothing is mentioned about natural antibodies. Something is real fishy about that. And the exact reason I will never get that thing. Yeah. I mean, right. If you , cause I think your natural anybodies give you some natural immunity. We have not an , I'm not a medical doctor. That's not medical advice, but that's, I think the consensus we have Sharon quit and he says, so what are we going to have vaccination certificates? Show me your papers,

Speaker 3:

Comrade, maybe, maybe, maybe, or QR

Speaker 1:

Codes or something. We have LT. 13 says maybe people get it for the free crispy cream and fries and burger for the virus that kills obese people. Did you see that from mayor de Blasio in New York city? That was the most condescending thing I've seen from a politician in recent memory. Uh , if you haven't seen this clip, it's mayor DeBlasio

Speaker 3:

In front of a person

Speaker 1:

That's conference setting. I mean, he's actually, you know, the presses there, he's sitting at a table , uh , talking to the press, all the lighting and cameras are there and he has some hamburger and some fries and he is cramming them into his face in a

Speaker 3:

High capacity

Speaker 1:

Microphone that is picking up all of the different slurps and slops . And it is amplifying them. And you get to see this disgusting man, cramming, this disgusting food, which is delicious. I love that food by the way, but it's terrible for you. We all know that. And it , that's why it's so good. And he's cramming it into his faith face. And he's saying, if you get vaccinated, you get a , you get to eat this, you get to partake in this. For some reason, I couldn't even watch the full clip. I lasted like five seconds. And I thought this guy is so condescending. He's telling people that you get to go out and enjoy a little bit of freedom. And he's sort of, you know, nudging you along because you are

Speaker 3:

Such a dumb animal. You are such a dumb farm animal. That the only thing that this elites, you know,

Speaker 1:

Elected official this mayor, this person who knows way better than you, he, the only way he can communicate with somebody who is just so stupid. I mean, just like fundamentally idiot, idiotic. He , he has to dumb it down. So he has to talk about French fries and hamburgers,

Speaker 3:

Stupid people out there. You, you now

Speaker 1:

And eat this food. Look, you can eat it. Just go get your vaccine K morons. So it is something that when I watched it, I just thought, I don't know how this guy is the leader of the biggest city in the United States, how he's elected. I mean ,

Speaker 3:

You know, I don't know it is

Speaker 1:

So sad really that that's what we got. So we've got, you know, we've got Andrew Yang, don't agree with most of his policies, but if he's going to maybe not shove hamburgers

Speaker 2:

In his face for the next term where that's, that's a definite improvement and LT 13, you're exactly right. The, you know, the, the, the obesity part of this whole concept, this whole thing was really never discussed. And so the fact that he's on camera now, shoving grease burgers in his face is not a good message for a public figure. Liberty

Speaker 3:

Says you don't have to wear

Speaker 2:

A mask if sounds like the perfect setup for vaccine

Speaker 3:

Passports . Yeah . Just get your

Speaker 2:

Passport. Don't need to wear one. Then we have chairman of the board says Erie County and Buffalo area did a program where they gave away a free beer to anyone who got the vaccine and they called it a shot and a chaser. They said they got 10 times people, more people vaccinated than they would have at one of their clinics in the same period. It's interesting approach. Yeah. I mean, I think that's a great idea, right? I mean, if people are , are wanting to do that, that's their medical decision. I'm not pro or anti any of that stuff. I mean, if I think it's , it's a personal conversation that people should be having with their doctors. And if they feel like they're in a category that they need to go do this, then go do it. And so that, that sounds fun, right? That sounds kind of engaging in a creative way to do that. And I support that. I like, I like when our government is effective and efficient, I don't like it when they waste a bunch of stuff. If our government would be a little bit more productive and more useful, we wouldn't have so many bad things to say about it. Boxy punk chick is in the house. What's up. Boxy says something that gets me is how they don't have Fowchee admit that they gave that they give money to organizations that turn and give money directly to the Wu Han lab and not a direct deposit from the government. He should have changed the wording of his questions. Yeah, I think so

Speaker 3:

With, with, with Rand, you know, it is hard to kind of get people pinned down

Speaker 2:

Down , and I didn't listen to the full exchange between Rand and Fowchee. So I don't know if he asked him anything specific about that, you know, like Dr. Fowchee, isn't it true that on November 8th, 2018, the federal government sent over a , uh , uh , you know , a check or whatever, transferred monies over into the NIH

Speaker 3:

And that money was ,

Speaker 2:

Uh , attributed to be delegated out to this agency and that it just sort of trace the funds

Speaker 3:

Well throughout the entire chain. And if you , yeah ,

Speaker 2:

If you were to do that, right, what about , are you going to say, well, I don't recall. Right? That's , that's outside of my wheelhouse, I'm just a CEO person. That's a finance person. You know, these decisions are made by committees and boards, and I have no idea. Right. So he's just going to deflect that all day long. And so what, what Rand was trying to do was to get, you know, w was to try to get specific about it, that the money flow sort of flowed through the NIH, NIH D all the way back down into, through EcoHealth Alliance, back into Wu Han. And it's just, it's, it's hard to pin people down. It's very frustrating. And Rand , Paul, I think you could see it in his face on that next clip. So he's just parsing words. So I actually have a, I have a, about a hundred slides that I have been assembling on the , uh, COVID origin story . So I'm going to be working on that here very soon. We have N Y renal says, don't judge me. I have to work tonight. I still have to wear a mask. I am vaccinated. We need to move on. Uh, no, I would never judge you

Speaker 6:

Doc . I would never judge you doc. No, never. I appreciate you being here and you're out there doing good work. So we're going to try to move on.

Speaker 2:

All right. And we're going to add , we're going to do that right now, in fact, so thank you for those great questions. They all came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And we already kind of talked about this today, but we're going to get back in.

Speaker 6:

We're going to talk about , uh, uh, the threat to American democracy. So let's get it . Let's get into this, our new

Speaker 2:

Bernie general guy by the name of Merrick Garland was almost a Supreme court judge, but now he is Biden's attorney general. The attorney general is kind of the lawyer of the government, kind of the chief attorney for the entire United States. And he is out now saying that white supremacists are quote the most dangerous threat to our democracy. So above everything else that exists out there and anything

Speaker 6:

Like, you know, China or Russia, or a global

Speaker 2:

Well warming or anything like that, right? This is the most dangerous threat to America. It is white supremacy. And he's very specific about this. He says in my career as a judge in law enforcement, I've not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol . So he's kind of conflating a couple of things here. This comes over from legal insurrection posted by Mike Lee chance . Great blog. If you like legal news, attorney general Merrick Garland told Congress that white supremacist represent the greatest danger to America right now, his testimony was a gross distortion of reality. According to Mike, he says it is nothing more than an attempt to reinforce the narrative pushed by the Democrats. And the media sends to January of this year. White supremacy is a top security threat. So on Wednesday he said that the violence that was incited by white supremacists poses, the most dangerous threat to our democracy. And that's a quote, the assertion reflects near universal consensus among security experts, including those who work for the Trump administration. Garland's warning came during a Senate appropriations committee hearing on January six riot. So we're going to talk about him too. They're also talking about a white supremacist groups like the oath keepers and the proud boys. Five people died as a result of the attack. Ashley Babbitt ,

Speaker 6:

Who shot Brian

Speaker 2:

Sick , Nick died of natural causes. Another officer died by suicide. And two people

Speaker 6:

Had heart attacks in my

Speaker 2:

Career as a judge in , in law enforcement. I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol.

Speaker 6:

Cool . Calling it

Speaker 2:

In an attempt to interfere with the fundamental element of our democracy. The attorney general went on to say that there has been a hierarchy of things that we prioritize. This would be the one that we'd prioritize. So the one, okay. So again, the attorney general, this is a very, very high position

Speaker 6:

In our government, extremely powerful. So he is telling us right now, where are they?

Speaker 2:

We are orienting all of this stuff, you know, does BLM fall on this list? Does Antifa fall on this list? It doesn't sound like it. Okay. It's , it's the white supremacists . It is the Capitol Hill rioters . And let's see what else we have in a video of his testimony. He lumps the January 6th rioters in with the KKK, which he fails to mention. It was an outgrowth of the democratic party, the Unabomber and Oklahoma city bombing at the four 15 Mark Garland says when someone tries to promote or impose an ideology through acts of violence, those acts can be the most dangerous crimes we confront as a society. Here he is. During the interview with the appropriations committee in Congress.

Speaker 11:

Yes, the 2019 was the deadliest year for violent domestic extremism since 1995. In March of this year, the intelligence community in a report drafted by DHS, the FBI and the national counterterrorism center under the auspices of the director of national intelligence, assess that domestic violent extremists posts a elevated threat in 2021. And in the FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated, violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.

Speaker 2:

All right. So racial division only from the white folks in particular. So that's very fun. Now. It's not just Merrick Garland, right? And this is going to be folks is going to be the framework for all sorts of new laws and investigatory powers. They're going to be asking for new permissions to go in and investigate even further. We already had the Patriot act. We already know the government can, you know , literally, you know , Jack themselves into every orifice of your body. And it is horrendous now that that was sort of exposed and dealt with under the guise of, you know, nine 11 and international security and foreign terrorism. Well, now we're hearing this as all domestic terrorism. So now it's the Capitol Hill people in conjunction with the KKK, the white supremacists that are going to be wrecking America and they need more enforcement power. This is the new attorney general just sworn in a month or a month or two ago, who is now laying out the framework for what the next three years look like in terms of enforcement. So I don't endorse or support or, or even, you know, I don't want anything to do with white supremacists or any of that stuff, but I'm just looking at the state of affairs in our nation. And I'm not real sure that that is the biggest problem that we face in terms of national security, even in law enforcement security. I see a lot of other unrest around the country on a nightly and daily basis. And it doesn't look like the proud boys to me. Okay. It doesn't look like , uh , who , who else did they, what else were they talking about? The oath keepers, right? Are they out there throwing Molotov cocktails every night or are they out there, you know, setting up autonomous zones? Not that I have seen, and I may just have missed it, but it has been two other groups, Antifa and BLM that have been causing havoc for the last 12 months. Now, the, the, there is without a doubt, absolute that there were other

Speaker 1:

Groups involved in the capital Hill riots. No question about that. Many groups were, but the distinction here is which one is an ongoing continual threat to the United States of America. One to me felt like it was a lot more temporary. It just

Speaker 3:

Kind of popped up diffused

Speaker 1:

Itself. It was based around a very volatile event, which was the counting of the electoral votes. This other issue that is in our country has been just bubbling for months and years now. I mean, we had the summer of unrest last year and we have it again this year, right. And it's going to keep continuing on for the foreseeable future. And for some reason, our country, our government's top attorney is just not even, not even concerned about it, just as it's all about white supremacist , uh , it's about racial issues, but in particular about the white supremacists and it's not just him, this is the federal government orienting in this direction. And so just, you know , just keep in mind that , that there are gonna be some serious enforcement powers that they're going to justify on the backs of investigating the white supremacists and the neo-Nazis or whatever they want to classify them as, and those enforcement powers are going to spill over into the rest of our lives into, into the lives of those of us that have nothing to do with that ideology that think it is reprehensible, and that it should be extinguished from a polite society. But the government is now going to say, Nope, we're going to focus on them. And we're going to create this massive umbrella. That's going to capture a bunch of other innocent people in it, and we're going to have to pay the consequences for it. The civil liberties that we already see eroding on a daily basis are going to continue further as the courts, the prosecutions attorney generals around the country all fall in alignment with more enforcement, with more power. And it's hilarious that that the Democrats largely are now sort of branding themselves as this defund , the police movement. What they are talking about here is such a massive extension of the security state of the intelligence state that exists in this country. They are going to sort of consume as many powers as they can, that traditionally are protected by the constitution. If you're a citizen here, right? You have the fourth amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and all of these things. But if we can justify the watering down of those rights, because of the fact that the white supremacists are so dangerous, that they almost literally destroyed America on January six , then the stakes are so high that we can't be bothered by those constitutional barriers. We have to start watering those down a little bit and don't think that I'm just making this stuff. I've read about it in case law. So have many other law students and lawyers out there, they know that there once was a fundamental right against certain government overreach that the courts over the years have just slowly started chipping away at. This is another slice in that long history of slices. The government's going to sort of reorient themselves to focus on this newly created domestic violent extremism category. That just very uniquely happens to be focused on a demographic that is exactly opposed to them. Politically, they're not going to lump in any of the other racial unrest that come from BLM or Antifa or any other organizations that are on the side of the political spectrum that supports their cause. This is all about politics and they are rallying the troops. We have a , another story comes over from the Epic times saying here that the us department of Homeland security is now establishing a new intelligence unit to focus on domestic terrorism. Okay. Department of Homeland security now saying we're going to focus on domestic terrorism. This is secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. He announced this on May 11th. A couple of days ago, we have a new dedicated domestic terrorism branch within the department office of intelligence and analysis. Ina it's designed to ensure that DHS develops the expertise necessary to produce the sound timely intelligence needed to combat threats posed by domestic terrorism and targeted violence. So Mike , what we need, we need a whole new branch. We need DHS. And within DHS, we then need a domestic terrorism branch that is within the office. Uh, even though we already have the FBI, we have local law enforcement. We have ATF, we have all sorts of agencies, many different alphabet agencies that already do this work that are already supposed to stop bad things from happening in our country, but it's not enough. They need another one. So, well, the new administration is going to create one. Here. It is called the office of intelligence and analysis. So there it is. Here is the press release over from Homeland security. Let's take a look at what they have to say. DHS creates a new center for prevention, programs, and partnerships and additional efforts to comprehensively combat domestic violent extremism DVDs

Speaker 3:

From Washington,

Speaker 1:

Building on the Biden Harris administration's commitment to combating all forms of terrorism, the targeted violence secretary. My orcas announced today, DHS was establishing a new center for prevention programs and partnerships to improve the department's ability to combat terrorism and targeted violence consistent of course, with privacy protection, civil rights, civil liberties, and blah, blah, blah. They're going to help build local prevention frameworks. They're going to replace the office for targeted violence and

Speaker 3:

Terrorism. He announced a new

Speaker 1:

Dedicated domestic terrorism branch within that department,

Speaker 3:

The national

Speaker 1:

Network of fusion centers and our deployed intelligence professionals who collect and analyze threat information alongside our state are going to share this information in a dynamic threat environment.

Speaker 3:

Oh , okay. So we have CP three. We have ina

Speaker 1:

Since January 20th, 2021, DHS has increased the development production and sharing of intelligence and other information central to countering what domestic violent extremism now poses the most significant and immediate terrorism related threat to the United States. So,

Speaker 3:

You know, not pipelines or anything like that. It's DVS on January 27th, the department home

Speaker 2:

Security security issued , which is like seven days after inauguration. So they issued a national terrorism advisory system bulletin due to the heightened threat environment.

Speaker 3:

Secretary

Speaker 2:

Of New York has directed DHS to embrace a whole of society approach to combating domestic violent extremism. So we have Merrick Garland.

Speaker 3:

We have may York us there they're all in, in March.

Speaker 2:

A report was released by the office of the director of national intelligence. They were warned that racially motivated extremists and militia, violent extremists pose the most lethal domestic terrorism threat

Speaker 3:

To the United States. The report noted that

Speaker 2:

That recent political and social developments, including claims by former Donald Trump and president about fraud in the election and restrictions related to COVID-19 fall out from the Capitol breach and conspiracy theories will almost certainly spur quote some domestic extremists to quote , try to

Speaker 3:

Engage in violence this year. So you see who the problem is. So you have the problem is anybody who questions, the election got that one. Anybody

Speaker 2:

Who has a problem with COVID restrictions got that one. Anybody who has any issues with fallout from January six, like it , like if you have a problem with the fact that certain defendants who are not even there have been arrested and not release , they're being held without bond for not even being there. Like if you have a problem about that, and you talk about that, you're on the list. If you are somebody who has conspiracy theories definitely got those, then you're on the list. All right. So

Speaker 3:

I kind of, I'm not going to be violent.

Speaker 2:

I have no, no, no indication of being violent at all, but it sounds like what they just did was list off their opposition. It's like a lot of people who questioned them on those topics. So isn't that convenient. They just get to say, Oh, anybody who disagrees with me is

Speaker 3:

Dangerous, right? Try that with your spouse. Okay. If

Speaker 2:

I agree with me, I think you're a threat to this household and you

Speaker 3:

Need to leave very

Speaker 2:

Nice way to argue. You could win every argument because ,

Speaker 3:

Because any response to you is a dangerous threat and that person should be removed. All right.

Speaker 2:

Curious , the order or the , uh , uh, analysis from the office of the director of national intelligence. This was posted back on March 20 , uh , March, 2021. We want to run through this quickly. You're going to see

Speaker 3:

Here that the IC ,

Speaker 2:

So the intelligence community now, quick reminder on what the DNI is, the it is the office of the director of national intelligence. So we've talked about it a lot on this channel, but if you do a diagram, you're going to see that this is kind of the hub and the, all of the other intelligence agencies throughout the country are kind of the spokes. So the ODI and I is in the middle, and they're sort of communicating with all of the other different intelligence agencies throughout the country, sort of as the hub and spoke model. They're , they're the clearing house for all of the data from all of these ,

Speaker 1:

Uh , agencies. So the executive summary from the DNI, which is the hub of all of these different agencies is as follows. They say that domestic violent extremists who are motivated by a range of ideologies and galvanized by recent political and social events, they pose an elevated threat to the Homeland in 2021. They also assess that lone offenders or small cells of DBEs adhering to a diverse set of violent extremist ideologies are more likely to carry out these violent attacks. They assess that racially or ethnically motive,

Speaker 3:

Violent extremists , and militia present the most Liesel lethal threats against

Speaker 1:

Saying that they're going to be focusing attacks against civilians and against the government. The intelligence community says that U S R M V

Speaker 3:

Ease , who promotes

Speaker 1:

The superiority of the white race are the DVE actors with the most persistent and concerning transnational connections. Because individuals with similar ideological benefits exist

Speaker 3:

Outside the United States. I see

Speaker 1:

The, the intelligence community says that they're going to exploit a VAR variety of social media platforms. So we're already seeing those

Speaker 3:

Things get limited, right? In Canada. They're talking about that new bill that is now going to essentially sensor and monitor and monitor certain online communities like YouTube channels. Not good for our friend Veeva . Maybe he should move to the States. We've

Speaker 1:

The IC assesses that several factors could increase the likelihood of lethality. DVE. Lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges. We all have a scope note, so, Oh , DNI is expected. I've got a scope. Here is the categories of different domestic violent extremists extreme as is that they say we have a racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists . We have animal rights, environmental violent extremists. Oh, we have abortion related violent extremists. Okay. Let's take a look at this one. Racially or ethnically motivated. Let's see. It says DDS with ideological agendas, derived from bias often related to race or ethnic, ethnic ethnicity held by the actor against others, including a given population group . So that doesn't

Speaker 3:

Say anything about white supremacy,

Speaker 1:

Which is curious. We have anti-government anti authority , violent extremists. Oh no.

Speaker 3:

Is this all?

Speaker 1:

Anybody who questions? The government are they in this category? So this says, this is DVDs with ideological agendas derive from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment. Who are they talking about? I love the government and Joe Biden.

Speaker 3:

You want a good

Speaker 1:

Job out there? We also have it says here, social or racial hierarchies perceive government overreach, negligence or illegitimacy. Oh no. Oh no. What happens? We have militia violent extremists. So DBEs who take over overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow. The government don't want that. And our KIS violent extremists. How about sovereign citizen ? Violent extremists. So we've got those. Then we have all the other domestic terrorism threat. So it's like ideological agendas that they can't really categorize. So personal grievances beliefs that they're going know problems with religion, gender, or sexual orientation and

Speaker 3:

The likes . So if

Speaker 1:

You're anti-government now you're in a you're on the list. It's all right . You're in good company. There's a lot of us on there. We have Nadar Bluss here says, this is where Congress should be doing their jobs. And calling this AIG in to a hearing to ask him to bring the proof of his statements, they have oversight. Where is the data? They don't have it. Yeah. That's a good question. Right ? Where is the data? I mean, honestly, if somebody could just show me the data, if somebody is like, Hey Rob, look, man, look, w w we have, you know, we have a thousand incidents of white supremacists every year, going out there and torching buildings or killing people. And we have these little organizations that have, you know, logos and signs and they're out there marching on this

Speaker 3:

Streets. Then I would say, you're right. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. But I don't see that happening. The only real damage

Speaker 1:

Image that I see are, are sort of these intermittent sporadic incidents. No question about those, right? You can easily go through and pick a shooting where some was some racist, white supremacists shot and killed somebody. That's not what I'm talking about. Talking about these organized movements. I'm talking about this, you know, these, these terrorists cells they're talking about that are out there. Now, this might happen. Something might happen down the road and I might have to come back here and eat my shorts. But the point is that for the last 12 months, we've been seeing a different type of protest . We've been seeing a different they're setting up their autonomous zone

Speaker 3:

In , uh , in, in, in all sorts of different locations, their own countries. Okay. Is , are the proud boys doing that? I haven't seen it. They just say, no, this is our territory now. And they're the people who want to overthrow the government. You have, you have other contingencies that just take over pieces of a city and that's not

Speaker 1:

Danger to American democracy. I must be missing something here. I'm , I'm asking for help. I need some help on it. I don't know what's happening. We have, I'm not gas as I hate how they keep calling every group, a white supremacist group, oath, keepers, and proud boys, maybe idiots, your word says, but their members have all races. And none of them espouse, any racist, racial supremacist, ideals. Just kidding it. Not my guests . Listen, I, we , we talked about this. I know it's so stupid. We talked about, I think one of the oath, one of the proud boys, I think it was an African-American guy who was a group of it , uh, uh, Enrique Tario. He's like, he's like an African-American guy, right? He's not even, he's not even a white guy. And so the, the response was from the Washington post and you can Google this. It's called multi-racial whiteness. It's the idea now that even if you are not a white person, if you are a Hispanic or an African-American male or any other demographic, any other race or ethnicity, if you still a spouse, a certain political ideology or believe a certain way, like if you're a proud boy and you love America and you love small government and you like, whatever, whatever they believe in, I don't know. But if , if you're of that country

Speaker 3:

Agency, then you're, you're a, multi-site

Speaker 1:

Racial, white supremacist. You're a white supremacist, even though you're not white because you have this multi-racial

Speaker 3:

Tightness in your brain. There's an actual

Speaker 1:

Article about this. It's called multi-racial whiteness because there was some response they were saying, well, you know, if Trump's such a racist, how come all of these

Speaker 3:

Minority groups

Speaker 1:

Are supporting him in the last election? Why do his rallies not look like a bunch of neo-Nazis? Why do they look pretty diverse? In fact, well, their response was, is cause they're multiracial . The whites, they , they are sort of , um, inheriting a lot of the same problematic ideology. The white people have. They're taking that and incorporating it into their own and that's problematic. And so they needed to do something about it. So you had a Washington post or some journalists who had to write about it and inform us that this is a big problem. Liberty or death says pretty cool. How Antifa and BLM don't make the list. It is white supremacist . So not China, not Russia, not people who hack into pipelines and nearly shut half the nation down. Nope. A bunch of Democrats in white hoods are the worst people ever. The, yeah, the KKK former Democrats, Robert KKK at Robert Byrd , right? KKK guy we have eat on test says you have gone over and over this as well as so many other commentators, there is zero evidence that the people who breached the Capitol were white supremacists. And also our Republic does not live in the Capitol. If the entire building were to sink into the earth with everyone in it. Not that I wish that would happen, but if it did, we could have the government up and running in a few days, a new representatives elected within a month. America is its ideals, not representatives 100%. Yeah. 100%. And what is this idea that , uh , I think I heard this first from Scott Adams or somebody, I can't recall who, but it was the idea that the person, one of the defendants who was carrying the podium out , you know, out of the Capitol building, like that was the new person in charge of our government. Like in Lord of the rings, he sees the ring, which I never even saw that movie or movies. But apparently if you have the ring, you control the world, something like that. If, if, if you have the podium of the Capitol building, you get to run the government you're president. Now, in fact, because apparently that's what happened is they seized control of America first four hours. I , you know , I don't , they didn't, they, they weren't really effective leaders, but apparently American democracy is that fragile. It's like a game of capture the flag. If you capture that territory, it's yours. Now you get to

Speaker 2:

Run the country. Pretty cool. Didn't know that's how it worked. I thought we had a constitution and elections and a system of federal

Speaker 6:

Where we've got a federal government and state governments and we're sort of distributed

Speaker 2:

And, you know, moderately decentralized

Speaker 6:

Kind of, part of the reason we have different States all spread out across a , a great country.

Speaker 2:

So a lot, a lot more kind of goes into it than just walking out with a gavel and a podium and a laptop from Nancy Pelosi's office. Doesn't make you president

Speaker 6:

And ruler of the free world. All right , sorry. Sorry.

Speaker 2:

We have Jeremy [inaudible] says I would argue that these self-righteous self-important ideologues are the biggest threat to our representative Republic. These people irritate me to no end they overinflate situations and downplay their own indiscretions. Oh, that's , that's beautiful there, Jeremy, they overinflate situations and downplay their own indiscretions.

Speaker 6:

So I like that kind of, kind of poetic

Speaker 2:

Who was it that said that they would rather be governed by

Speaker 6:

The first 400 people out of the phone book versus the first 400 people who ever graduated from Harvard. I think it was Buckley. Think

Speaker 2:

It was William Buckley who said that I'd rather be governed by the first

Speaker 6:

400 people out of the phone book in the first 400 people out of Harvard.

Speaker 2:

And I think there's something to that. You know, all of these really, really intellectual people think that they can sort of solve all these problems for the rest of us peasants. And it doesn't always work like that because they're not that smart. They think they are, but they don't really recognize all of the unintended consequences. They can't think it through because they're actually not that intelligent. They just think they are. And they like to puff themselves up with their own moral

Speaker 6:

Superiority by telling the rest of us,

Speaker 2:

Talking down their noses at us, telling us that we have to do all of these things in the world else, society failed .

Speaker 6:

And it's our fault. It's not how that works. So w w

Speaker 2:

There are many of us who I think are connected a little bit more to reality, and oftentimes it's not the intellectuals. It's not the people with their heads buried in the books because they don't know what it's like to go out into summer and dig a ditch. I dug an entire swimming pool by hand on the side of a mountain one summer. Okay. I know what that feels like. It is a big part of the reason I went to law school and said, I'm not going to be digging anymore. And a lot of these, you know, Harvard, billionaire, you know , intellectuals who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth , their whole lives, they never experienced that. They don't know what hard work is. They know what it's like to just be born into a trust fund. They get elected. They, they , uh, fraternize with all of the same other intellectuals, all high society. And what do they do? They get elected. And they pass a bunch of bureaucratic laws that don't actually help the little people. They don't actually do much to enhance society other than to help them accumulate and gobble up more power and make themselves feel more relevant for the foreseeable future. And quite frankly, we're all sick of it. And Donald Trump to, you know, to his credit sort of shook that up a little bit. And I'm not, I don't agree with all his policies. I got a lot of issues with a lot of things that he has done, but what felt so good about that is finally, it was kind of somebody who, who didn't play that game. And you could say, arguably, that he was part of that same class, right. Hobnob and up with Clinton and all of these other people. He was really part of that, but he didn't really govern that way. And we could see that because both parties hated his, and they're both doing everything they can now to make sure that he does not get back in there. And when that happens, it kind of makes me want to go, Oh , well, if you hate him and you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If you guys hate that, man, well, maybe it's something that we want. We will , we want to investigate a little bit further the next go round. So it , it , it , it is it's , it's very condescending. It's very ego maniacal. All of these elected people think that they're way smarter than us. And they're just not, I mean, and you can just watch them for about 10 minutes and you can pick that up. A doctor renal MD in the house says Merrick Garland. He was pretty moderate before his nomination, by Obama for the Supreme court for him. Trump is the symbol of the people who stole his legacy. He will never be a Supreme court judge. I'm not surprised he has a grudge. That's a good point. He is biased. And he is the last person who should be the age. The country needs an AIG who follows the law and was not almost a Supreme court judge. Yeah. So the good doctor is telling us a little bit about what happened back during, when was that? Yeah, it was back during the Obama years. So it was Obama's last term and Doug Scalia died and they were going to nominate Merrick Garland, but they didn't control the Senate. The Senate was controlled by Mitch McConnell, who said, Nope, you're not getting a nomination in. And there was a lot of time left. I think it was like eight or nine months until the next election of Donald Trump. And so they basically stalled the nomination of Merrick Garland, who now is the attorney general, the Republicans did this. And so Merrick Garland of course, is not on the Supreme court. And he's now too old in my opinion, to be nominated to the Supreme court. So he's got to settle for the next best thing, which is the attorney general, still a very, very high, highly prestigious position, but it does give him the opportunity now to exercise a little bit of that influence. And if he doesn't like one particular demographic in the country, he's got a lot of power to go in that direction. Now we haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that he is doing that. But the , the point is well-made nonetheless, last question in, from I onion says the boldness of the current administration is disgusting. HR , one SB , one calling everyone a terrorist is like the war on terror. It is nebulous and never ending . That is the point total control, no credible threats. Truth is the enemy to these people . Thoughts. Well, I think what you're seeing right now is it's a good point and they are being extremely aggressive. I mean, they are shooting for the fences with some of this stuff. In particular, the voting bill they're talking about sort of, you know , uh , working their way around the filibuster in order to get a lot of this stuff passed. And there was an article I saw yesterday that was talking about , uh, Democrats are getting a little bit frustrated that they're not getting more accomplished because the clock is ticking folks, right? They've got until December, I'm sorry. Uh , 2020 until we have another election that could easily change the balance of power in both houses. And so they've got until November, 2022 between now and then to start cramming stuff through, and they've got a very tight margin and they've got some democratic senators who aren't playing ball. They've got Joe Manchin , they've got Kiersten cinema here from Arizona, God, her for, you know, not rolling over on everything. And we've just got a lot of Democrats who were expecting this to be sort of this cascade of progressive reform. And they're just not getting much done. So they're going to get frustrated about it and they're going to get aggressive. And they're going to have to use phrases like this, you know, to , to pull out the stops to say, well, if you oppose this, like Stacey Abrams said, while you're an insurrectionist, what do you mean? We're talking about an audit in Arizona. What do you mean that has anything to do with anything that happened on January 6th ? Well, she's going to make that extension and they're going to continue to investigate these domestic violent extremists and, you know , hound everything, anybody who is anti-government or who questions, anything that the bureaucrats are doing somehow is a danger and a threat. And that's going to open up Pandora's box. They're going to grant themselves all, you know , a whole new slew of , of , of , uh , of authority here. And we're going to Chronicle it. It's not allowed. It's not, you can't do that.

Speaker 3:

Things might change in

Speaker 2:

2022 and they might change dramatically and they might change quickly and they might change even more in 2024. So get, get it while the getting is good, as they say, and the Democrats know that this is their time to go out there and really reform America. And they're going to try hard to do it. Great questions. Thank you so much for those. And thank you. I onion for that. One. Want to also welcome. We have some new people who joined up on our , watching the watchers.locals.com community. If you want to sign up, you can go check this out, down here, but big, big, big, big welcomes over to fatty. Patty is in the house. Love that name and got Marty. Oh three, seven, eight. Welcome Marty. We have Fox on locals. So Fox is here. Now we have no

Speaker 3:

Man, which is very mysterious. The no-name man

Speaker 2:

Is here joining us over at locals. And it's a great platform. I want to thank those of you who ask questions today. They all came exclusively from locals. Big. Thanks to want to know, we got chairman Liberty in the house, eat on tests , all of you on there really, really appreciate it. Good stuff. Good thoughts. Good questions today. If you want to sign up as well and be a part of this tremendous community, you can do that by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com , you can also get a copy of all this, all this, all these goodies, when you get over there. So first and foremost, you can download a free PDF of my book. It's called beginning to winning and it is free. Just go and download it. You can download all a copy of the slides. We went through copy of my impeachment party documents. So you can impeach anybody in the country. If you want, you can download my existence system document. That's for free as well, share links throughout the day, meet some great people. And then I want to remind you, we've got some cool stuff coming up. So on Saturday, May 22nd, we're going to do a monthly locals meetup via zoom. You can have your camera's off. Kay . Keep this in mind. It's seven to 8:00 PM Eastern time, which is going to be a 4:00 PM. Arizona here camera's are allowed off. That's no problem. I would appreciate you talking though, because I certainly don't want to be talking to myself, but we'll come up with some questions. Uh , basically I just want to kind of meet everybody. You know, we kind of did this on clubhouse back in the day and was a lot of fun. We got to sort of connect with each other, put a name to a face and hear from other people talking, not me. So , uh, I, I would love to hear from all of you. I mean, I think, I think we're, we're having fun here and clubhouse was fun. And so we kind of want to open that up, make it a little bit more intimate. So it's only for the supporters over at locals and we've got two dates, May 22nd and June 26. So about a month apart, then we also have law enforcement interaction training. This is coming up on Saturday, June 12th. That's going to be from 12 to two, the seminars really going to be about 90 minutes. I have about , uh , I think I have, I don't want to go overboard. I want to make it sort of interactive or we can pause and ask questions. And I think two hours ago I'll go , uh , people's eyes will glaze over. So we'll keep it interactive. We'll do 90 minutes and then we'll stick around for another 30 minutes. That's coming back on June 12th. We're going to talk all about interacting with law enforcement. What happens if you get pulled over? What do you say? What happens if they knock on your door? What happens if they call you on the phone? What happens if they're at your kid's dorm? What happens if your kids get pulled over a lot of things that we can talk about. So come prepared for that June 12th, once again, free for all local supporters. And so if you want to get on in, on that head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com to do that. And lastly, before we get out of here, one quick reminder that my name is Robert Mueller , and I am part of the RNR law group, which is right here. And we help people who have been charged with crimes. We're very passionate about it. We like to help provide safety and clarity and hope in their cases and in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody who has been charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, whether it's a DUI, a drug offense, a misdemeanor, a felony, anything, and everything in between, we can help with that. We can also help with closing out old warrants. So if you have a case that you forgot a court date on, we can help you clear that up. We can make sure that you can get your license back, restore your rights, to possess a firearm resort, the story, your rights to vote. Again, there's a lot of benefits that you can get by having a clear record. So we want to help you get that done. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is in need of any of those services, we offer free case evaluations. We're located in Scottsdale. We would love the opportunity to help you. I have a book. We can give him a copy of the book. We'll send them any, any information. The only thing we want to do is help. If we can work together great, if not, we're going to send them out of our office better than we found them. And so if you happen to have any referrals, all of our contact information, phone number is in the description below. We would very, very much appreciate it. And I want to show you, show you this. So I want to show you this little

Speaker 12:

Tunnel . So if you're confused and

Speaker 6:

You don't know who to call, call our in our law

Speaker 12:

Tunnel, look at that. It's like the heaven

Speaker 2:

And shine shining the beautiful spotlight

Speaker 6:

Of justice, the RNR law group today. All right . So enough of that.

Speaker 2:

So that's it for me, everybody. Thank you so much for indulging me on that little fun thing. I want to thank you so much for being here. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place. Next week. It's going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the East coast for that one, Florida, man, everybody have a tremendously lovely weekend. Hopefully unplugged from politics a little bit because we're going to be back. Ready to go next week. I'll see you then have a great

Speaker 6:

Weekend. Bye-bye .