Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our very system, with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today. We've got a lot to get into happy Monday, by the way. I hope everybody had a very lovely weekend. And I know that I did excited to be here with you today because we're going to be talking about space force, which is obviously one of the most important things to talk about these days kind of reminds me of being an eight year old boy again, space force. Sounds very cool. And we're going to talk about it because unfortunately for one member of the space horse, Oh, he's in a little bit of hot water over a book that he wrote. There is a Lieutenant Colonel goes by the name of Matthew lo Meyer, who was a suspended fired actually after his superiors supervisors, his chain of command, the higher ups got wind that he was on a podcast talking about Marxism and about how Marxism is actually wrecking America, the world, and even potentially the military. So this guy wrote a book about it, then went on a podcast to talk about it. Military didn't like that. So he is no longer with the space force. We're going to take a look at what's going on there. We have a clip from the podcast that he was on and we have a excerpt from his book that I purchased occurred you to do the same thing. If you want to support the man, and we're going to read through some of that, and then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about what is feeling like a lot of excitement, a lot of, uh, sort of really a lot of vigor out there in the media, in particular wings. We're talking about the Trump
Speaker 2:Potential indictment week.
Speaker 1:Now talking about not impeaching Donald Trump. Couldn't think of the word there for a minute. We're talking about indicting Donald Trump. Now he's got two potential indictments that are floating around. We're going to go through a couple of them today. We're talking about what's going to happen in Palm beach. If Donald Trump is in fact indicted out of New York, and a lot of people are very excited about this. So we're gonna going to go through that. Then we're going to talk about Kim Potter. Remember Kim Potter, she's the officer who accidentally discharged her firearm, thought it was her taser, but ended up shooting and killing Dante, right? This was during a traffic stop. That was very close to Minneapolis during the Shovan trial. And the shooting happened and Dante writes sort of drove off, but then died shortly thereafter. Kim Potter, the officer who thought that she was tasing, the young man actually shot him. Well, she had court today had her arraignment and not too much exciting there, but we are going to go through some of the new documents that are out because the government, the same prosecution, the same government office that was prosecuting Derek Shovan is now prosecuting Kim Potter. And they just released some disclosure documents that detail some of the information that they're handing over to the defense. So we are going to go through a lot of that as well. We're excited to have you here and a part of the show. If you want to join in on the program, you can do so by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, that is our support community, where if you are a supporter of the program, then you can ask a question. We have a live chat that's happening right there right now. And so if you want to ask a question, drop a comment or LABA criticism, feel free to do that over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. A lot of other things you can download there as well. You can get a copy of all the slides that I'm about to go through, download a free copy of my book, meet some great people. It's kind of the place to be right now. So check that out, watching the watchers.locals.com. All right, so let's get into the news of the day space force. Colonel was let go. He is on holiday. He got a call from Donald Trump, uh, previously during his time in the space force. But now because he is speaking out decrying Marxism, he has sort of been asked to not be in the military anymore. So we're going to talk about this. Uh, here, this story comes over from military.com. So as a commander of the U S force unit that was tasked with detecting ballistic missile launches has been fired for comments that were made during a podcast, promoting his new book, which claims that Marxist ideologies are becoming prevalent in the United States military. The guy goes by the name of Matthew Lomeyer. He's the commander of the 11th space warning squadron at Buckley air force base in Colorado. He was relieved from his post Friday by Lieutenant Stephen Whiting, the head of space operations command love these names over a loss of confidence in his ability to lead military.com has exclusively learned. The decision was based on public comments that were made by Lieutenant Colonel Loma in a recent podcast. A space force spokesperson said in an email Lieutenant general witting has initiated a command directed investigation on whether these comments constituted, prohibited, partisan political activity, low mayor's temporary assignment in the wake of his removal was not immediately clear. So, uh, it looks like, you know, he was fired, but then maybe not fired because he was potentially being removed and then relocated somewhere else. Apparently he got a call from Donald Trump at some point in time. So, you know, this guy is being bounced around, is what it sounds like. And we're going to go through the article. We had got some clips about what the actual conduct is here, that the military is not happy with, but I think mostly people are sort of comparing this to some of the other information that we have seen come out of the department of defense. I mean, we've been spending some time on this channel talking about some of the sort of recruiting ads that we've been seeing from the CIA in particular last week, we had the, I think the homosexual man who likes to play magic, the gathering, I think previous to that, we had the, uh, CIS, uh, uh, gendered woman who was Latina and went through this laundry list of certain, uh, you know, check, check marks that she checks off. And then she proceeded to tell us that she is not just a list of check marks. So, you know, interesting stuff coming out of here, but very, very provocative. A lot of it is very political. We have people who are sort of, you know, out there saying that they are of a particular political persuasion and they have all of these ideologies and they use a certain type of language. And then when somebody else does it kind of from the other side, when you have maybe this Lieutenant Colonel who comes out and says, well, I think that maybe Marxism is a problem and I'm going to speak my political mind while then he's just fired. Right? So people are looking at this and saying, this is the double standard that happens. We have the government itself endorsing via its recruiting ads. A lot of stuff that looks like critical race theory that looks like it is promoting these different labels and these different language, you know, the particularities and it feels like what's happening now with this Lieutenant is a little bit different. He writes a book, goes on a podcast and boom, without any hesitation he's gone, he's fired earlier this month, low Mer, a former instructor and a fighter pilot who transformed it, transferred into the space force, self published, a book titled irresistible revolution. Marxisms goal of conquest and the unmaking of the American military irresistible revolution is a timely and bold contribution from an active duty space force. Lieutenant Colonel who sees the impact of a neo-Marxist agenda at a ground level with our armed forces, a description of the book reads lower Mir sat down with L Todd would have the podcast information operation. We have a clip of this next hosted by creative destruction or CD to promote the book. He spoke about us institutions, including universities, media, federal agencies, including the military that he said are increasingly adopting leftist practices. These practices such as diversity and inclusion training are the systemic cause for the divisive climate across America. Today. He said from his perspective, as a commander, Luma said he didn't seek to criticize any particular senior leader or publicly identify troops within the book. Rather, he said, he focused on the policies that service members now have to adhere to, to align with certain agendas that are now affecting our culture regarding defense secretary, Lloyd, Austin. He said, I know demonize the man, but I want to make it clear to both him and every service member, this diversity and inclusion agenda. It will divide us. It will not unify us. So, you know, he's speaking his mind now and you know, we're going to go through some of the rules in a little bit. Obviously I did not serve in the military. So I'm not intimately familiar with some of these rules and regulations, but generally speaking, right? If you are somebody who's running a business or an organization or a team or a high school or any of those things, right? You want people to adhere to a certain code of conduct when they're a part of that institution, the military is no different. And so we want to ensure that there are standards across the board that are being enforced across the board.
Speaker 3:This Lieutenant Colonel was in violation.
Speaker 1:One of those protocols was in violation of those rules. Well, maybe there be some repercussions for that. And maybe the firing wasn't fact justified if that standard is equally applied across the board. In other words, if all political commentary is prohibited because we have a prohibition against that because we want to maintain cohesiveness and unity within the armed services. And so in order to facilitate and foster that environment, maybe we say certain type of conduct is not allowed. Certain types of language. Certain types of speech is just going to, we're going to leave that at the door. You may do that in your place of business or, and your sports team or your card club or whatever, right. There are certain rules conduct that you adhere to. And we all pretty much accept that. But the problem here becomes when it's a different standard. When we have different agencies of the department of defense promulgating and pushing forward political ideologies or interpretations of, you know, sort of applying procedure internal procedure that is within the DOD, running them through, let's say the CRT filter, just saying, well, we're going to, we're going to modify all of our trainings and protocols and introduce all these diversity trainings, uh, because of, uh, we've identified this as, as necessary and important priority for the armed services they can make, can make their justification for that. Now, if it looks very political, if it looks like this is something that is being done to sort of ring out certain ideologies from the armed services, which many people are speculating about. I don't think that this has been forgotten. We saw what happened after the January six Capitol Hill riots, which I have never endorsed or ever supported any violence of any capacity. But back then, there were many people who were sorry in our elected Congress who were saying, well, maybe we need to question in the national guard. Maybe we don't know if some of those people are still, you know, Trump, mega maniacs. Maybe we have to start purging that and start inquiring as to whether or not they voted for the man or they, they, they donated any monies or funding or anything like that to an extremist cause. And there was a lot of discussion about that, about vetting the armed services and making sure that they were all in alignment with one party killer concern. So here, if now we're going to be criticized or condemning, or even firing somebody who is a part of the armed services for maybe, you know, offering an alternative perspective here. One that many Americans think is perfectly valid and is in fact, a better ideology, something that our military should adhere to. Well, now we can have a legitimate policy discussion about that because it feels like we're not prohibiting all political conduct. We're prohibiting some political conduct. And we have seen this as a problem when the government does this, it is content prohibitionist. It's limiting what you can say in what you can do. And when we have the government getting in there and sort of tipping the scales on the free speech conversation, that's when the courts have a lot of problems about that. They can place time, manner in place restrictions on your speech and your ability to participate in civic life. But when they start doing content moderation, now when they start saying, well, you can say these things, but not those things. That's when it becomes problematic. So let's listen in and look at this gentlemen, Matthew lo Maya, look at this guy, this guy's a handsome man. Look at this guy. Oh my goodness, what a handsome man, look at this face. He looks like captain America over here. So if anybody's going to be fighting Marxism, we're happy that Matthew lo Myers at the forefront of this, let's listen to this handsome fella. My goodness.
Speaker 4:So you're in command of a unit and you see this, uh, ideology start to be, uh, permeated through the department of defense and in your service and in your command, I assume. So, uh, you decided to write a book and to get the message out and you did, but tell us that about that process. Um, and what, how, what drove you to that process? Yeah, I suppose it never hurts to say a book's name more than once. So the book's name is irresistible revolution. Fantastic. Uh, and, uh, there's a couple of books up here shortly. That's great. Yeah. Uh, subtitle is Marxism school of conquest and the unmaking of the American military. It's a bold topic. It's not just about the U S military. Uh, Marxisms goal of conquest is not specific to the military either. It's a, it's a, uh, it's got Western civilization, uh, as a target, it's got capitalism as a target. It's got the nuclear family as a target. And, uh, Marxism does an exceptional job ever since it was first penned by marks and angles in 1848 and the communist manifesto creating what many people have come to hear as the oppressor versus oppressed narrative, victimhood mentality and ideology, familiar to everybody today,
Speaker 1:Beauty and brains there. Folks, we're looking at a very handsome man who happens to have some pretty good ideas about Marxism, making sure that it is eradicated from this country. So let's go back to the article. This is once again, from military low Mer told, would the podcast host that the beginning chapters of the book explore the history and the foundation of the United States and how critical race theory is study, how race and racism impact or are impacted by social and economic power structures and institution. How that plays a role. He says the diversity inclusion and equity industry and the trainings we are receiving in the military is rooted in critical race theory. Something we've been talking about a lot here. He says, which is rooted in Marxism, adding that it should be seen as a warning sign in the segment on the podcast. He said, his book is not political. It's meant to alert the readers to the increasing politicization of today's armed forces, which we have seen and documented here. Some of which he said he'd seen or experienced firsthand the defense department policies that spell out all the nuanced do's and don'ts surrounding politics or political discourse for active duty service members says Jim, Golby a senior fellow at the Clement center. He said for self published work, the policies that may apply include DOD directive, one, three, four, 4.10, and the associated guidelines discussing political activity in uniform, according to the services standards, personnel may express their views freely, but they are still expected to uphold their branches core values, both on and off duty. And we have looked at some of this, we've talked about some of this on the show and you know, I've been kind of skeptical about this. Uh, when we see it from government agencies, remember we saw, I think it was SISA. It was SISA or one of those other agencies when Tucker Carlson was having that spat with the, uh, the, the woke Marines. I think this is what we call them here on the show. There was some story we covered. I can't remember what it is, but there were the woke Marines. They were talking about, you know, how amazing they are and we don't need men or whatever. And there was a picture of a woman carrying a body or something, you know, running down the beaches and Tucker had a segment about it. And he said that this is kind of insane. Maybe we should be talking about, I don't know, winning Wars and killing people and breaking things and being an effective, lethal force for good in the world by rooting out, you know, enemies of democracy or whatever, or whatever, the, whatever, the purpose that we, as an, as a nation decide, we want the military to be, we should be talking about those things. And instead we're talking about, you know, uh, you know, uh, CIS genders and, and things like that, uh, and whether or not we should be using their proper pronouns throughout the military, in the armed services. And Tucker I, in my opinion, rightfully was a, you know, critical of a lot of what he is seeing out there. And when that happened, major pushback, and on Twitter, there was somebody who was sort of somebody who on a, an official government website or official government Twitter account who has just dunking on people and sort of, uh, we took screenshots of it back then, but it was really inappropriate. And you're thinking, this is a, this is an official government agency. This is somebody running their Twitter account. And it says like[inaudible] dot gov or something. And they're just dunking on people on Twitter. And this, this doesn't feel right. It feels like maybe this has gotten a little bit too politicized and the military was supposed to be, it's kind of the last apolitical branch. You know, they are country first. They are not Democrats, not Republicans. They are duty bound, and they're supposed to be, you know, America first at all costs. We know that in practice, that's not the reality of how this works, but there's supposed to be. And so we all liked that little facade and this little white lie that we told ourselves. And so now that we're starting to see that fall apart, many people have issues about this. So if I was unhappy that we have other government agencies that were doing it, and now we have potentially a private citizen, somebody who is a, uh, who is a, was a private citizen in this capacity, he was on a podcast. He was writing a book. He was not speaking at an official off an official government Twitter account, or speaking off, you know, any, any official event. He was actually, you know, sort of promoting a book that he wrote in private. So we just want to keep those things in context, the policy guide, who we talked about previously said, those are fairly broad. They would not prevent publication of the book, but it might impose some minor limitations on the content of the book. Golby said on Friday also policies associated with the service members, security clearance or policy related access are usually governed by nondisclosure agreements. The defense office of pre-publication and security review, for example, requires all former and retired defense department, employees, contractors, and others active or reserve. If they had access to the DOD information, then they have to submit a DOD information for public release for review and clearance. So they've got a procedure that they follow before they published stuff. DOD information can include any work quote, any work that relates to military matters, national security issues, or subjects of significant concern to the department of defense in general, to include fictional novels, stories of biographical accounts and operational deployments and wartime experiences. Subject matters about hobby, like activities like cooking sports, gardening. It really don't even need to be reviewed pre-publication since it's not associated with an author's work at the Pentagon. So if you read the rest of this article, you're going to know that we don't, they go further and they say, we don't know whether he got approval or clearance or, or really kind of what the context was. We just sort of have the information that we went through very long articles. So I would encourage you to go read that if you want the rest of the story, if you would just want to buy a copy of the book, because you don't like Marxism either. You'll find it over on Amazon doing quite well. In fact, it's the number one bestseller in books. So he is, um, selling a lot of copies. This was published May 10th. So he's got a couple of reviews over here. Some people probably love Marxism, all these one stars here, Marxists just, you know, Lenise. Trotskyites just the worst. So they are probably, you know, knocking that down, but that's all right. I got a self ourselves, a copy. Let's take a look at what's going on here. We can read, we're going to read four pages of the introduction to slides. It says here written by Matthew lo lo Meir from irresistible will. Revolution says to appreciate just how disproportionate ugly or evil a thing is. Sometimes one must first comprehend. What is balanced, beautiful, and good to recognize approaching danger or impending chaos is often to have first been properly oriented to safety in order, thus opposite serve an important educational purpose, provide a necessary contrast, both enabling and requiring human discernment as well as constructing a context for the exercise of free will. That's some heavy stuff. I like it. I recently attended a weekend series of lectures on geometry that drove home. These ideas to me, the simple use of a straight edge encompass allows the geometer to construct basic geometric shapes. They become building blocks for the construction of other common and even more complex shapes and symbols from circles, triangles, and squares. For example, I constructed perfect pentagons and hexagons using those same basic building blocks of the circle, triangle and square. I conducted various root rectangles and measured the proportion of the golden section. The ratio of one to 1.6 1-803-398-NINE, which was used in the monumental architecture architecture of Egypt and elsewhere in the ancient world. My brief exposure bestowed upon a heightened perception of the beauty and symmetry throughout nature and improve my discernment of disunity and the disproportionate. It was like I had acquired better eyes by which those things that were before unrecognizable to me became apparent. This book is largely about Marxism, something that is, and which can
Speaker 2:Even be appropriately
Speaker 1:Associated with evil aims and ends, but it is unlikely. The reader will fully appreciate or see its ugliness for what it is. Unless this book begins with an examination of something that is beautiful and writes something Marxism seeks to dismantle, disrupt and destroy. The three-part framework of this book has been constructed with that. In mind, it begins with a discussion of the greatness of the American ideal transitions to an examination of the history and overarching narrative of the Marxist ideology and concludes by looking into the ongoing transformation of America's military culture. While also providing a warning about where this country is headed. If we choose not to make an immediate
Speaker 2:Course, correction, Marxism
Speaker 1:Has begun its destructive conquest of even the United States, military its most alarming manifestation in the United States to date, this reality will likely come as a surprise to many Americans, including our military service members. This book, however, is not so narrowly focused as to only discuss the appearance of Marxists ideology within uniformed services, becoming aware of the marks is conquest of American society. One will never again look at things the same way. Mainstream media, social media, the public education system, including the university, as well as federal aid
Speaker 2:Agencies have all become vessels of various schools,
Speaker 1:Thought that are rooted in Marxist ideology, an ideology bent on the destruction of America's history and founding philosophy of Western tradition, specifically Judeo-Christian values and of patriotism and conservatism. The problem has become
Speaker 2:Systemic a tragedy considering
Speaker 1:That the defeat of Marxist communist ideology was the very cause against which our nation spent great treasures of blood and iron during much of the 20th century. At the very same time that we see the proliferation of Marxist ideology, there have arisen multifarious accusations of other forms of systemic injustice,
Speaker 2:Such as racism that are wrecking civil society. That was beautifully written.
Speaker 1:Matthew lo Meyer in the new book, irresistible revolution available for your purchase and support
Speaker 2:On Amazon. Right now, I didn't get paid for this. Just want to support a fellow.
Speaker 1:Hi Marxist, let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. First in the house. It is noro Vajra says here. I partially agree with loss of confidence because of such an essential part of being in the space force is not talking about space force. If he talked about this and even wrote a book, it would be reasonable to lose confidence in his ability to keep things private. And there are a lot of things to keep private when it comes to space for us, it is unlikely that he was fired for his ideology. He was fired for not keeping his mouth shut.
Speaker 2:That's good. It's a good opinion on that, Nora right. Could have easily been that.
Speaker 1:So I want to take a quick look at this question also from Ryan, we have here, he
Speaker 2:Says, could the ex commander
Speaker 1:Of the space force have a legal case against the armed services for employer retaliation for whistleblowing on unconstitutional activity, which I would argue arises to the level of an actual conspiracy to overthrow the government, which last time I checked this treason, the insurrection hashtag. Yeah. So Ryan, you know, I think it's a good question and I think it's absolutely worth investigating. So I'll tell you this, right? I am not a military code of conduct person or a, you know, uh, what do they call JAG, right to justice advocate general. They have their own military code. They have their own laws and their own regulations and their own rules. And so it's hard for me to opine on whether this was allowed or not. Uh, but I can tell you that. I think that if the government decided that this was a violation of the protocol, then they're probably going to be perfectly fine against any lawsuits. Now, you know, th this, this guy legally, I think may or may not have been in the wrong, but it at least in terms of civilian free speech, but in terms of military code and military law, I couldn't speak to that also. Couldn't, couldn't, couldn't really speak to employment law because I don't do any of that either. But, you know, I think fundamentally the, the bigger question really to me is whether this was political or legitimate. I know, I think we all know which way I'm leaning on that Davis park says, see, I don't think any active member of our government should be able to profit profit off of books related to their occupation. But if we're going to set a standard, it should be held consistently. Drive me nuts when these laws are used to target only certain people. And that's really my part in this too, right? Davis parks. I agree with you. You know, if he, if the military says you're not allowed to write books and he wrote a book, all right, well, you broke the rules. You know what the rules are, can't break the rules. If the military says, well, that's kind of a gray area, go write a book. And he goes and writes a book and it happens to be conservative and he gets punished. But other people who are pro Mark's pro CRT, pro liberal ideology, they don't get punished is the standard being saliva applied selectively. And if so, that's a problem. And I have a problem with that. I don't have a problem if the military says no books or all books or some books, but we're going to draw a hard line at what that means here. I'm going to guess that that's probably not the case. They probably did not like the content was not in alignment with some of the vision that the, this current administration has. And there were some punitive repercussions that were divvied out as a result, Liberty or death says, I remember when I was in the army, we weren't allowed to be political. This is to campaign our disagree. That is to campaign our disagree with the president while in uniform or protest in uniform. But this seems so much more really, it looks like a signal of the military political purge of conservatives in the military. And I think that's what most people are concerned about. You know, they just don't want it to be an overly one-sided assault against anyone political ideology. And, you know, and I went to, uh, I went to a, uh, an all boys high school when I was younger. And one of our rules was, is that, you know, we were sort of men for others. We had to live under that code. And that, that included being outside of high school. Right? So our conduct, if we were going to make a commitment to this high school, then we had to make sure that our conduct was being maintained even outside of the school. And so you could get in trouble if you, you know, went out drinking and, you know, did something reckless got in trouble, the school might throw you out for that. And I thought that that was kind of a good way to create culture
Speaker 2:And a lot of, um, camaraderie to some degree, it was sort of, we were all, we were all
Speaker 1:Held to a higher standard. And I think that is a good thing. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing. I'm also a huge proponent of free speech. And so we have to balance these things out. And I'm totally great with that. I love the conversation, right? We want to balance and weigh the different factors that all go into this equation, because it is an important equation. We want cohesion in the military. We want unity, but we also want people to be able to speak their minds. We want, you know, conscientious objectors, and we want a lot of different opinions in the military. So long as it doesn't interfere with their primary duty, their primary course where they're, they're going to serve the primary function of the military. And so if we have some rules and regulations and some different policies and procedures in place to regulate all that, the next question then is, is it being equally applied or is it looking like what we've been seeing out of this new administration where it's looking like it is aggressive against one particular group? Last question on this segment is here from Jack. Elia says, I hold all currently serving military personnel to be derelict in their duty to defend the United States so long as they observe and obey the insurgent demo, fascist government occupying
Speaker 2:The halls of power. That's a big order. You're going to have a lot of, uh, uh, that's like the whole military, right? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, Jack Elia, I think that, I think a lot of people probably agree with,
Speaker 2:But it is current environment.
Speaker 1:It's a good reason to go vote in 2022 and 2024, maybe to change the administration. So again, all of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com really appreciate your support. And a quick reminder that I am a criminal defense lawyer in the state of Arizona. So if you're watching this and you know, anybody in our state, that's been charged with a crime, we offer free case evaluations. I would be honored and humbled. If you sent them our way, we'll be sure to help them out. All right. So we're going to change gears. Now, let's talk about,
Speaker 2:About Donald Trump. Donald Trump is potentially in hot war.
Speaker 1:We're talking about theoretical indictments that are being floated around in two different parts of the country. We're talking about what's happening in New York. We're talking about what's happening in Florida and other places, because there are a lot of people who are very excited about in Donald Trump. They want to see him arrested. They want to make sure that he is not allowed to come anywhere near the levers of power again. And even though the election is done and over, and Joe Biden is firmly ensconced in the white house, there are still people out there in this country that are just salivating at the thought that Donald Trump is going to get indicted and theoretically arrested. Let me give you a pro tip on this one. It's not going to happen. He's not going to get arrested. You're not going to haul them out anywhere in handcuffs because presidents of the United States don't get arrested. Right? That's just not something that happens. Uh, most of the people up in that upper echelon, they're immune from any of the rules that you and I have to subscribe to. They just kind of walk around and do whatever they want. So get used to that. Now, if you are somebody who is excited about seeing that happen to Trump, well, don't get your hopes. If you're excited about seeing that happen to Biden or Kamala or, uh, Hillary we've played that game, nothing happens to these people. They are in a higher echelon of power, both of them. And so if you think that they care about you and that somehow they are without any fault, well, I actually envy that. I think that's a nice way to live. Uh, fortunately, unfortunately I can not get there, but more power to those of you who, uh, who think that. So anyways, I want to get into this story. We're going to be talking about the white house council. So if you recall this, there's a guy named Don McGahn who was a, a white house counsel for some period of time during the Trump administration. And so we're going to talk about two different potential issues for Donald Trump. We have a potential investigation that might uncover something related to what's the Russian collusion hoax, right? This idea that he was improperly impeding biasing the investigation against him during the first go round. And so when Donald Trump was in the white house, we had Don McGahn who was white house counsel. And so McGahn now is sort of being hauled back into Congress in front of the house judiciary committee, because these Democrats just can't get enough of wanting to, I guess, impeach or diet or whatever. Donald Trump run our like 50th attempt and here they are, they keep going. So this article comes over from cnn.com written by Caitlin poll. Lance says the ex white house counsel McGahn to testify behind closed doors about Trump efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation. Again, again, former Trump white house counsel, Don McGahn will testify before the house judiciary committee behind closed doors about then president Donald Trump's attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation. So we had the Mueller report. I mean, we had, we've gone through all right, we're going to go through it again. I guess the interview will happen as soon as possible. And a transcript will be released in the days after said the court filing the committee members who interview McGahn can ask him about the incidents documented in the Mueller report. So you see how excited they are. They're going to haul him in. He was named in the Mueller report. So they're going to get to ask him questions about this specifically about Trump's attempts to fire special counsel Mueller and block the Russia investigation. So Don McGahn was white house counsel. So if he was privy to those conversations, then theoretically they can ask him about that. The justice department can assert executive privilege or McGahn can decline to answer on the topics. Oh, all right. So you mean he doesn't have to answer anything or the executive branch can assert privilege. All right. So I mean, nothing's going to come out of this. Got it. Which would essentially block house Democrats from learning the details. Okay, great. McCann served as the top lawyer in Trump's 2016 campaign and the white house counsel until fall 2018. So this was updated. It looks like a Wednesday, May 12th. So a couple days old. Uh, but here we had, I think this was from this morning, we have looks like Katie Fang joins American voices
Speaker 5:With Alicia Menendez, who
Speaker 1:Is over here on the left. And then we have Katie Fang who apparently is a trial lawyer. And you know, this is on MSNBC, you know, take it with a grain of salt, but they're very excited about this, Katie, you know, she's a news anchor, so she's got to get excited. Hey, turn it up to a level 11 and go bananas about Trump's impeachment. So I don't know if she's actually this excited or if this is just MSNBC, uh, we're about to indict Donald Trump. Excitement could be something in between. I don't know, but they're excited about it. So let's take a watch.
Speaker 6:Well, Don McGahn, he did a little bit of a Dodge in terms of being able to have to be compelled to testify. And ultimately federal judge told him that he had to, but this is an actual agreement that's been reached by Dom McGann's defense counsel, as well as members of the house judiciary committee or the lawyers for the house judiciary committee. A joint case report was filed a couple of days ago. It says that they've reached quote and agreement in principle to be able to have Mr. McGann testified to information that's personal to him as well as information that's publicly available in the Mueller report. So a lot of people are saying, what Katie, is there really a value to this? Well, of course there is because the transcript will be made available. Even if it's limited to the testimony of just what is publicly available in the Mueller report, he can be asked whether or not Donald Trump tried to obstruct the Russia investigation and whether or not the information that is contained within the Mueller report that is attributed to Don McGahn is accurate and correct. And you know, people are going to unearth their Mueller report. They're going to dust that thing off, but it is. And they're going to want to check it out and see whether or not they're going to cross reference whether or not the GAM testimony to Congress is exactly what is, what, what was included in the report.
Speaker 1:I also want to ask, all right, so super excited dust out. Those Mueller reports, everybody get your copy, bring it back out. It's Mueller time again. How much fun is this? So Donald Trump theoretically could get indicted again. If Don McGahn goes in front of the house judiciary committee and answers a bunch of questions that he doesn't have to answer, or that the executive branch can just invoke privilege to preclude him from answering the questions in the first place. So they have some sort of agreement they're going to go behind closed doors. MSNBC is very excited about it, but I have a pro tip. Nothing's going to come to this. We have more coming from the real deal. We're talking about another incident that is taking place regarding Trump's CFO. So Donald Trump, the Trump organization has this guy who's named Allen Weisselberg okay. He's the CFO of the Trump organization. So we have Don McGahn that's issue. Number one, everybody's excited Donald Trump's going to get impeached. Don McGahn is going to rat him out the whole thing. All right, got it. So we'll put a pin in that. See if anything comes of it, then number two, we have Donald Trump's CFO. So we have the Trump organization and the CFO's name is Allen Weisselberg. And so the, uh, the Manhattan attorney, New York attorney district attorney Cyrus, Vance is going hog-wild on this case. So we've got Congress going in and then we have this happening out of Manhattan. So it says here, tuition that was paid to a Manhattan. Private school is the latest target in a New York prosecutors, probe of former president, Donald Trump and his real estate firm. What, so why is the Manhattan district attorney digging into a private school and funding of tuition that was paid to that private school? Did Donald Trump send his kids to a private school in Manhattan? No, because he didn't write. He was in the white house. We know where Baron was the office of the Manhattan, subpoenaed Columbia grammar and preparatory school over tuition payments made for the true grand children of Trump organization, CFO, Alan Weiss, Weisselberg wall street journal reported. So we have the Manhattan district attorney now going after two grandkids of the Trump organization that are the CFO's grandkids. Okay. So not even Trump, we have Trump. Then we have the CFO. Then we have his kids. Then we have their kids, grandkids. Okay. So we have somebody who wants to get Donald Trump, this guy, Cyrus, Vance, who's going after the grandkids. Why is he doing that? Well, he wants to see whether Donald Trump's sort of funneled money down to the grandkids. And then that really should have been taxed as compensation to the CFO. Okay. If there was some sort of, let's say the CFO made a million dollars a year. All right. Well, if he made, if he paid him 1.5 million a year, he'd get taxed on that. Well, what if he just paid 500,000 to tuition for those two grandkids? Really nice school, let's say so he gets a$500,000 benefit to the kids going to the school. Doesn't get that money as income. So he doesn't get tacked, gets taxed at it. What's the misclassification of your finances. And so if the government finds that out, well, maybe they can go back reverse engineer that and go get Donald Trump. So they're going literally down to the grandkids. This is the CFO's grandkids to go get the president former president. All right. So Katie Fang very happy about this. Very excited here. She is again.
Speaker 6:Okay. Manhattan prosecutors are also still going after Trump's CFO Allen. Weisselberg the wall street journal revealing. They've subpoenaed his grandchildren's private school. When your sense of what records authorities are looking for and how they potentially tie back to Trump. Well, it's a twofold answer for you. One, this is a total pressure point move, right? We're going to go after the grandchildren's records. And for those people that may be turning their nose to that. Guess what? You're going to try to push and push and push, to be able to get what you need from a possible target or a possible criminal defendant. Also, they're going to see where did the money come from for things like these to be paid. And that's an important thing because you want to follow the money. And if the money can be tied to Weisselberg, who could then be tied to Trump in some way that maybe the Trump organization and Donald Trump himself will be looking down the barrel of a federal indictment,
Speaker 1:Looking down the barrel of a federal indictment. Here's another pro tip on that. Donald, Trump's not going to be looking at a federal indictment for paying his grandkids or allegedly paying the CFO's grandkids some money. That's also not a thing, but very excited about it. And we're seeing a lot of this just sort of floating around on the internet. Politico. This back on the 13th, said political playbook, how Palm beach is preparing for a possible Trump indictment. A lot of people over the weekend were talking about this as well. Palm beach now makes a contingency plan in case Trump is indicted. So they're all like super excited about it, honey, we're going on a picnic. Get the kids, everybody Trump's getting indicted. Law enforcement officials in Palm beach County have actively prepared for the possibility that Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance could indict former president Donald Trump while he's at Mar-a-Lago. According to two high ranking County officials among the topics discussed at those meetings are how to handle the thorny extradition issues that could arise. If an indictment moves forward and obscure clause and Florida's statute on interstate extradition gives governor Ron DeSantis, the ability to intervene and even investigate whether unindicted person ought to be surrendered, which means that as Mar-a-Lago prepares to close down for the season, trumps go into New Jersey. It isn't just Florida heat. He's leaving behind. He could also lose a key piece of political protection because if Trump, of course, if he leaves, if he goes to New Jersey, cause it's hot now in Florida. So he leaves for the summer, goes up to New Jersey in Bedminster. And if he gets indicted out of New York, well, he doesn't have a governor in New Jersey. Who's going to protect him from extradition, according to this article. But if he's in Florida still, while Ron DeSantis is going to protect him, of course. So we, we now know that Donald Trump is escaping Florida to escape the heat, but he may be putting himself into the lions trap, into the depth death grip of[inaudible] a New York Manhattan prosecutor. The statute leaves room for interpretation that the governor has the power to order a review and potentially not comply with the extradition notice says Joe Abruzzo clerk of the circuit court, who is a meaningless public figure. We're going to see that in a minute, the official, who would be in charge of opening a potential fugitive at large case folks, this is pornography is really what this is. This is Trump indictment, pornography. It's all it is. And we're seeing MSNBC. We're seeing, uh, uh, a trial lawyer, Katie Fang, very excited about this. Now the Politico's excited about this. Oh my gosh. Ron DeSantis might have to invoke executive privilege to save Donald Trump. That maniac monster, that anti-American insurrectionists from ruining American democracy. He might have to step in and save him. Otherwise these heroic prosecutors are going to move forward with this indictment and make sure that justice is done. Then we go to Joe Abrazo who's up, who's down. He is the court clerk for Palm beach County. Apparently he's the person who's going to open a fugitive at large case because if the New York Manhattan prosecutor does in fact indict Donald Trump, well now he's going to be a fugitive at large that's right? The 45th president of this country who is responsible. And what do you have? 75 million votes. He's going to be a fugitive at large in America, uh, under this current effort, his current attempt from these knuckleheads one wrinkle in a Brazos potential role in all of this while he's a former close associate of president Joe Biden's younger brother Frank, Oh, Abrazo tells playbook that despite his friendship with the Biden family, the full extent of the law will be followed and carried out appropriately without bias yet. Right? So no conflict of interest there. If an indictment comes down while Trump is at Bedminster for the summer, this could all play out differently. New Jersey's extradition statute is similar to Florida's given the governor the power to investigate, but the governor in New Jersey is Phil Murphy. He's a Democrat. He's not a fan of Trump. So he's not going to stop the extradition. An attorney for Trump declined to comment because it's an asinine article. It doesn't make any, or make any sense at all. It's just basically masturbatory. This is pornography and you have a bunch of Democrats, uh, enjoying themselves over it. The Washington examiner says the Mueller prosecutor says Trump could be imprisoned in Florida if he's indicted in New York. So another, you know, bizarre, bizarre thing here says, looking ahead, Andrew Weissmann, former justice department official, and FBI counsel also suggested such a situation could limit Trump's ability to inhabit the white house. Should he run for presidency again? Which is really what this is all about, right? That's the entire basis for the second impeachment. It was to make sure he could run again. And there was probably some, you know, corrupt bargain that went down there about, I dunno, not pardoning Snowden or not partying outside, which in exchange for not giving the votes to the Republican senators. Lot of, lot of disgusting stuff I would imagine happened back then during that second impeachment, but they didn't get what they wanted. Ultimately Trump can run again in 2024. And so now they want to bring down the hammer of criminal law in order to basically wipe out their political opponents, which is just a bizarre thing. But that's where we're at now. Uh, this, uh, this, uh, former justice department official says, this happens all the time in foreign countries, where essentially you have people who are sort of imprisoned in a country here. Donald Trump would be imprisoned in Florida. Okay. Wiseman said during an appearance on MSNBC, during his masturbatory appearance, if he went overseas, he went to, to any other state who would be subject to those laws. He would really have to stay in Florida. It would certainly be quite an interesting issue if you were to, for instance, this is way down the road, but if you were to try and run again for president, he would not be inhabiting the white house in that situation because there would be papers seeking his extradition to New York. So they are just really excited about this. Wiseman played an instrumental role in winning convictions, against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates amongst others. We have district attorney Cyrus, Vance looking for bake bank tax or insurance fraud. The examiner story goes on and says that a Florida statute gives Ron DeSantis. Some of the ability to prevent him from being excluded. He's a ref. Uh, the Santas is a former Republican congressmen whom Trump has floated as a possible running mate. If he runs for the white house again, while he might be opposed to extraditing Trump to New York, the situation gets more complicated with Trump expected to send his summer in a different state in New Jersey. Uh, Bruzzo was identified as somebody who will use the law to go against him. Now, Washington examiner is telling us that Trump's legal team could negotiate a condition of surrender if he is indicted, Oh my gosh, give me a break folks. You know, if, if Donald Trump is hauled anywhere in handcuffs, a lot of people in this country are gonna be very angry about that. It's not a good thing. And it's, this is not sort of an implied veiled threat, right? There's a lot of people who would be very upset about that. If he's carted off in handcuffs or he's indicted, it would not be good for the country. It would not be good for the Biden diminish. They have no interest in doing that really, in my opinion, because it would really undermine their legitimacy would undermine their credibility. It would now be a Biden versus Trump thing. So there's no way that he wants his dust justice department or any of these low-level district attorneys to go and prosecute the former presidents. It's too hot. So it's just not going to happen. All of these people are making political careers about this, right? We're going to go get him. Yeah. We all hate Trump. Orange man. Bad. Yeah. So that's about as far as it's going to go. I, I would guess, uh, if I'm wrong, I'll come back here and eat my shorts on it. But I doubt that that is the case. We have Trump organization is also under investigation by New York attorney general Latisha, James Trump denies any wrongdoing in February says that this is a new phenomenon of headhunting prosecutors and AGS. I'm not sure that it's, that it's necessarily new. I think this has always been the situation, but
Speaker 2:Now it's just been, it's sort of more
Speaker 1:In our faces, right? We can all see it. It's very obvious because it is so transparent. We can see that one side of the country is being treated one way as it comes to a whole sort of a whole variety of different issues, whether it's, uh, you know, getting arrested for protesting or whether it's getting access to the vaccine. If you are a certain demographic, if you're a certain political ideology, you get certain benefits that the other side just doesn't get. And I've documented this. We still have people who were not even in the Capitol building who were still in custody as a result of the January six riots, because the judges there are prosecuting them and they're applying political standards, not legal standards. We have now
Speaker 2:Another story, we're going
Speaker 1:To follow this up. What is going on with this Abrazo guy? I mentioned earlier that a Brazeau is out there doing this. Hey, we're going to extradite Donald Trump and we're going to law and order and all this stuff. I'm the clerk of the court.
Speaker 2:What does that mean? Not much.
Speaker 1:We're going to look here from Palm beach post. We've got some information from some other attorneys, courts, clerk Bruzzo plans for the Trump indictment, but legal experts call the speculation of surg. Well, there it is. It is absurd. This was posted today may 17, 2021 clerk of the court. Joe Abruzzo re reiterated on Friday that he has been involved in discussions outlining contingency plans. So is that a good use of their time in the event that former Donald Trump is indicted in Florida, even as legal experts, sniped at the speculation is premature. If not, quote, absurd in an interview with the Palm beach post following one televised nationally by CNN. Okay. They're putting these people all over the media, all over the internet, all over the TV screen, just to sort of have a lot of enjoyment out of this, Donald Trump indictment, how exciting they have got nothing else to talk about their, their overlays Cheney. They sort of beat that horse to death for some reason, nobody even cares about any of that. But all right, now, we're, we're, we're, we're back to set we're back to Trump again, cause they can't let it go. We have, it says here it is unprecedented uncharted territory. This is coming from a Bruzzo, which is why initial preparation and conversations are extremely important to make the scales of justice stay balanced. And beyond reproach said a Bruzzo. Those talks of Bruzzo said include how to handle a request by another state to extradite the former president from Palm beach County. If he is charged while he's here or how to respond to governor Ron DeSantis to intervene. So he's sort of like war gaming this out. I, you know, planning all the different strategies, probably as a corkboard up in his office with all the lift of the, this, the yarn and the strings and the pushpins and the images. What if all this happens? Okay, thank you, mastermind for, uh, investigating something. That's not going to happen. He says someone not as well known. Usually an extradition will go to their home state where they're a resident a Brazeau said in this case, the world knows where the former president is. It'd be the first of its kind in the entire process may see some events that have never happened before. Yeah. Like, like the indictment, like that's, that's the first event. That's not going to happen. Good job. We have a Brazeau he has no knowledge of Trump's potential indictment. So he's a close associate of Biden's younger brother, but he said he has no knowledge of a potential indictment. Right? Cause he doesn't, he's the clerk of the court, particularly in New York, Trump is expected to spend the summer in New Jersey with all the variables at play. We need to okay. Local defense attorneys, Scott, that, both the timing of the talks and speculation about what would happen if Trump is indicted in New York, as well as the person raising the issue while political described a Brazeau as quote, the official who would be in charge of opening a potential fugitive at large case, they said a Brazos role as clerk is simply to store court records and added. He is not in a decision-making post.
Speaker 2:It's not up to the clerk to do anything said, attorney Greg Berman, he just holds the records, which is true legal. So, which is absolutely true. He's the clerk of the court.
Speaker 1:He's just like a clerical person. Like he's, you know, they, they stamped the documents that come in. They make sure the records are being maintained. This guy's out on CNN, literally on scene.
Speaker 2:We're going to go and we're going to extradite Donald Trump. And we're going to make sure he has no authority to do any of that. He's just enjoying himself. And the media are enjoying themselves along with him. So
Speaker 1:It's kind of a fun little ride for him. I guess, legal experts doubt the scientists would impede or deny the extradition requests attorneys from both ends of the spectrum. So they wouldn't, they couldn't imagine one of the scenarios Abrazo suggested. No, cause it's asinine. The Santa's stepping in to impede the process in any way. They said
Speaker 2:Governor is a Harvard educated lawyer, not the clerk of the court and doubted he would take
Speaker 1:The unprecedented step of blocking Trump's extradition. And listen, I got nothing against clerks of the court. Okay. Happened to love. Many of them, uh, follow many of them on Twitter. Uh, not many of them, one in particular who I am a big fan of. And you know, there's, there's, uh, it's just hysterical that this guy is out there now basically sort of giving himself a promotion. Like he's going to be the champion of the cause in order to go indict Donald Trump, he has no authority to do that. And everybody else knows that everybody else who's working on
Speaker 2:On the ground goes, what is he like the governor, this guy's out there making legal concoctions about DeSantis coming in. And they're all
Speaker 1:War gaming. This just having a lot of fun. I've never seen a situation where the governor of the state of Florida interferes with a warrant. Lurman said like all 50 States, Florida as part of an interstate extradition pack that boils down to what the governor want to turn this into a political fight said, Lurman, he's not a Trump fan. I don't think he would look very good except to ultra right-wing cultist. Trump's supporters said the attorney. So the attorney is not even the Trumper attorney doesn't even like Trump, but he says abrazos kind of a moron. He says, attorney Michael Sao attorney Michael Sonic over here says he likes the former president called the entire notion of serves. That's the stuff movies are made of. I don't think the governor would block a lawfully, extra executed extradition order from another state. I think it's crazy. I think it's another shot at Mr. Trump. I think it's absurd. Lawyers also questioned whether DeSantis could block the extradition. Extradition hearings are typically perfunctory, which is accurate. We talked about this with the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Remember Kyle Rittenhouse, uh, went back from Kenosha, Wisconsin into Illinois and they extradited him. Extradited him
Speaker 2:Almost. Uh, well, not, not immediate.
Speaker 1:It took about two months. So he sat in custody there cause his attorneys were idiots and they had no idea what they were doing. Anyways. He got extradited. It was totally formula.
Speaker 2:And um,
Speaker 1:We've been talking about this further. Even if the Santas blocked the extradition, in most cases, high profile people, arrangement arrangements are made. So they simply just turn themselves in. He could hop on a plane show up in lower Manhattan, plead not guilty, post a bond, go home, let the case run its course, which is exactly how it happens with high profile people Lehman agreed that someone of Trump's stature would he be afforded that opportunity? You would think, no matter how big ahead he has, you would not want law enforcement to walk in the Mar-a-Lago
Speaker 2:Or whatever and drag them out
Speaker 1:In custody. Neither does the country. Okay. Do you imagine, can you imagine how angry a lot of people would be if you saw Donald Trump walking out in handcuffs would not go well noted, constitutional lawyer, Bruce Rogan said he reads political story and then he quickly dismissed it. He said, it's too weird. Too many things would have to happen for me to even
Speaker 2:Bother with it. But they are excited about it. They love the idea Donald Trump
Speaker 1:Indicted. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 2:A lot of, lot of, uh,
Speaker 1:A lot of people on the other side of the aisle are all a Twitter right now. We have Sarah Smothers says, I like how they have nothing to report. Now that Trump is out of Austin office. So they're bringing him back. That's there's nothing to talk about. What are you going
Speaker 2:To talk about?
Speaker 1:Kamala Harris is border successes,
Speaker 2:Stock market. You know, that's looking good
Speaker 1:Up, up and down. It's looking good until it isn't good. I guess we have Liberty or death as these dorks should research president Trump. He had paid tuition for private undergrad had and law and medical school for a lot of people he never met.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. He did it there. They're just trying to find
Speaker 1:An angle. They need any angle where they can show a direct connection. So they're literally investigating grandkids at a private school or maybe not them specifically, right? They're not going in there. Hey little Johnny, we're going to check your bank account to see if Donald Trump
Speaker 2:Put any bad money in there. They're just going to go and request all the records. But you can just see the extent
Speaker 1:To the, to what they're trying to do. Is this, is this a legitimate prosecution anymore? Is this a political prosecution? I think we know we have Mestizo quick Quixote in the house says they are still trying everything they can to keep him from running again in 2024, I'm not a Trump fan, but the current democratic power trip is making Trump and increasingly appealing candidate for 2000 and yeah,
Speaker 2:24. Yeah. People may miss him. People may start to miss him sooner rather than later,
Speaker 1:We're going to see Liberty or death is in the house says, so do they actually think that the secret service would allow this or do they think the secret service will go to jail with him? He pays tuition for his workers kid, but president Clinton can sell Chinese missile technology through Johnny Chang. Yeah. Well Clinton can do a lot, right? Clinton can actually
Speaker 2:Change where she can actually be in total
Speaker 1:Well violation of government policies regarding storing her emails on a server. There are very important reasons why we do not allow that to happen. Things like public transparency, number one, so that we can see what you're doing. It's all public record, but also things like, I don't know, national security so that they don't hack in. We already know that they shut down a pipeline. They wrecked a lot of different facilities through solar winds. Maybe they could access, you know, Clinton, email.com and a storage, a server. There was stored in a closet somewhere. But as I said, these upper echelon people, they do not get in trouble. They just, they, they escape it because we saw what happened. Remember James Komie, he was investigating Hillary Clinton and he kind of wrote a memo that said that what she was doing was extremely reckless or, or something that was criminal. Right. It was extremely reckless. It was the, it met that threshold. Ben, when he had to write his memo, just went back in there and changed. It, deleted the extremely reckless and made it like largely careless. So, so criminally, it would have been extremely reckless. Well, that's the standard that the law set. And he said that she met that standard, but then modified the motion a little bit, modified his memo and said, Oh no, no, it wasn't extreme carelessness. It was just, uh, it wasn't extreme recklessness. It was just largely careless or whatever the language was. I'm mixing up the words, but just adjusted the standard. And then when he sent that over to the DOJ, they go, Oh, well that language doesn't meet the standard. So we can't charge her with anything. So, um, darn it. Well, well now, you know, Hillary don't do that again. And so she just gets to go away. Scot-free now you can say that, you know, Trump, uh, is on a, is, is not the same thing. You can say that Trump is in a different category and this is a political prosecution,
Speaker 2:But the point remains people at this level of power, they don't know,
Speaker 1:Have anything to worry about. We have Nadar Bluss Sierra says, at what point is it considered harassment? When the government is constantly trying to find a new way to indict someone without any. Cause you know, it's a really good point. And it's a good question. I think that we're probably going to be getting close to that pretty soon. You know, I don't know what the legal standard is because I've never seen actually something like this happen. I've never seen this come down the pike where, you know, the government is overly harassing one client just constantly. We haven't seen anything like that. I've seen stocking, I've seen police, stock people and follow people. And you know, we have to sort of, uh,
Speaker 2:Right,
Speaker 1:Really worded letters to different entities throughout Arizona about what to do about that. And then some things will happen.
Speaker 2:What do you do if it's the federal government
Speaker 1:And it's the administration and the DOJ that say, well, we're just going to sink all of our resources
Speaker 2:Into this effort. Scary.
Speaker 1:This is why elections have consequences sharing Queenies in the house. As if anybody had any doubts that we are witnessing a communist takeover in purge. We have your first and second segments. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Exhibits a and B.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I hope not. Well, we're going to do what we can to push back against that. Sharon, we have Mestizo. Quixote says, I suspect they want an uprising of some kind gives them an excuse to label all Trump supporters, domestic terrorists. That would be like the worst thing that could happen. Donald Trump gets put in handcuffs and you have an uprising in this country that would not be good, which is why it's not going to happen. They're not going to let that happen. Our last question on this says it's coming from Patriot Musk's as Rob, still think there won't be a full-scale civil war. I think we'll be seeing rockets flying a new Anthem and a new flag in the future. Yeah. Patriot. I don't want a civil war. Right. And we don't want any civil war. We want no violence. No.
Speaker 2:If we have a soft decoupling, right? If we say, well, we don't like how some of these things are going. Maybe we just pick up and move and relocate
Speaker 1:Two different locations. Call it soft, decoupling, not a civil war. We don't want that. That's too violent. We don't want any violence, no violence here, but good to see you. Patriot Musk. I'm really hopeful that we're not going that direction, but we'll see. Thank you for those questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com, love the support. Really appreciate it. And lastly, we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about Kim Potter, Kim Potter, the former police officer who was accused allegedly of shooting and killing Dante. Right? Pretty sure she did. We saw it happen. This was happening right in the middle of the Shovan trial. If you recall this Kim Potter was an officer who stopped Dante. Right? Very young man who was in his teens. I believe 20 years old, Dante right. Stopped on the side of the road. And they were about to make an arrest. And as Dante right, was sort of, uh, you
Speaker 2:Know, they
Speaker 1:Were trying, the officers were trying to get him to comply. He threw his arm out and tried to get back in the vehicle and flee on the side of the road. Kim Potter, who was a training officer at the time thought that she was pulling out her taser to shoot and detain him, pulled out her gun shot killed him. So he drove off. Further, basically died right there on the side of the road and his girlfriend, I think in the car. So this was happening right in the middle of the Shovan trial. And this was a problem for the Shovan trial because there were a lot of people who were angry about this. There were protests that were taking place. This was in the national news yet again. And it caused a lot of turmoil in Minneapolis because it happened right outside of Minneapolis. Well, Kim Potter was in court today. She had her first court date. She had what's called an arraignment today. And it was an omnibus hearing. So a lot of activity, a lot of flurry of, of, of court documents being sent back and forth. We're going to go through some of them today. So we can kind of get ourselves caught up to speed on where the Kim Potter case stands today. Now the trial is not going to be scheduled at least now until the end of the year, judge said, it's going to be loosely tentatively scheduled for December. We'll see whether or not that happens. We know that there is still a lot of chaos. That's I don't know if it's chaos anymore, but a lot of let's say tension that is in Minneapolis as a result of the Shovan trial. We know that judge Cahill continued out the cases extended those, push those back for the other three officers that were with Derek. Shovan on the date of the may incident in 2020 involving George Floyd. So the question then becomes, is this going to be something that can take place in December? Or is the scene going to be true to tumultuous? Is there gonna be too much turmoil in Minneapolis? That's going to require Kim Potter's case to also be continued just like the other three officers. We also have to ask ourselves this question in Minneapolis, they're going to be running out of police officers pretty soon because we've got now five of them who are being charged with crimes right outside of Minneapolis. We've got the four Shovan and Floyd officers. Now we have Kim Potter. Kim Potter was in court today. She of course is an ex police officer who fatally shot the motorist Dante. Right? Judge said, trial's going to go forward. Very, very preliminary court date today. Hennepin County judge, we have Regina[inaudible]. So we're going to have some new faces here. She said during a virtual omnibus hearing on Monday that she found probable cause to support the charges against Potter set trial date tentatively for December six. We'll see if that goes after a brief delay over technical difficulties, choose started the hearing the judge by offering condolences to the right's family who were there in virtual attendance, we have special assistant Hennepin County prosecutor. Emron Ali, which we did not hear from in the Shovan trial. So this is somebody else they're bringing in. Raise concerns about the trial start date, citing the amount of discovery and the witness selection that the state has ahead of it. And I'm going to show you this. We're going to look at the discovery documents. These are called disclosure documents. I've got a list a lot. There is a lot here, a lot more than I was even expecting. We have all sorts of change, training records and a lot of different witness statements, actually more than I was expecting. I'm going to show you what all is in there. We have like four pages of it. I have a list of just documents. Then we have audio. We have video. We have, uh, some other exhibits that are being disclosed. I'm going to show you all of that. But the point here is that the special assistant Hennepin County prosecutor Emron Ali is saying there's a lot and we need some more time to get through it. Not so sure that December six is going to work out for us. The article continues again, this comes over from where did I get this article? A Washington post says, I think it's to the benefit of everyone to try to expedite this case and to try to come up with a resolution or trial as quickly and as reasonably as possible. So that the judge and I would expect if I had to guess I would expect that there will be a plea deal in this case. I'm not so sure that this is going to go to a trial. I'm not really sure what the tribal issue is unless she is going to be claiming that, uh, we, we did a defense video on her. We did, uh, you know, defending the indefensible ish type of video on that. And she, there, there, I think, I think that the only defense in this case is really that she was entitled to shoot him at that time. That even though she used the taser as a mistake, if she would have used her gun, that would have been legal. And the, the legal theory there is that he was fleeing, right? And he was driving a car. So he would have been somebody who could, could have theoretically been a danger to other persons, to other parties out there in society. And so if the police just let him get away, because he's fleeing, he is now fleeing in a car, which turns the car into a deadly weapon, which could theoretically kill somebody who is innocent out there on the roadway. So Kim Potter, then by extension, as a law enforcement officer, in order to stop that threat can use deadly force to protect a third party. That's the legal theory that I think is probably her best. Maybe her only shot at overcoming, uh, at least one of the charges. Uh, I'd have to look at the charges again. But back when we did our analysis, that was the defense that, yes, this was a mistake, probably negligent, but she could have shot him. She actually could have done that. And the fact that she did, even though it was a mistake, wasn't unlawful because she was stopping him from killing hypothetically, somebody else. I know it's a stretch, but that's one theory. The Potter 48 was dressed in a black shirt. She appeared from the office of her defense attorney, Earl gray. She did not speak apart from acknowledging that she consented to the hearing taking place virtually here's her mugshot from back in the day, Potter who is white, has not appeared in court since April 15th. The day after she was charged with second degree manslaughter for the shooting of Wright, who is black during a traffic stop in Brooklyn center. And you recall there were protests there, right? The previous week Shovan was still there. A Potter had been a police officer for 26 years until she resigned over the shooting, she's remained free on bond. Monday's hearing Mark the latest development in a case that drew significant national attention just as the trial of Derrick, Shovan played out 10 miles away in the days after the death, suburban Brooklyn center was rocked by days of protest that at times unschooled in a violent clashes
Speaker 5:With police. And we know this
Speaker 1:Because we know that that alternative juror, the woman who came out and gave that first interview, the first juror to come out and publicly speak. She also gave us a bunch of her notes, right? And she was traveling back and forth between the courthouse in Hennepin County and Brooklyn center, where all the protests were taking place. And so people who were watching the show Shovan trial or throwing their arms up in the air saying, see, this is why this is not a fair and impartial trial trial. The venue should have been moved. It should have been relocated because what's happening here is we have jurors traveling to, and from the courthouse who are being improperly influenced by these riots, by these external protests that are obviously political and they have a direct correlation to what is taking place in the Shovan trial. It's about police brutality. It's about police who happened to be white killing a man who happens to be black, or if you want to take it further, it's intentional. It's a racist white cop killing a black man. Intentionally. We have a very similar set of facts in the Dante, right? Kim Potter shooting, taking place 10 miles away away from the Shovan trial might be worth during the jurors. Again, might be worth investigating what is happening here and whether it ultimately in bias or improperly and biased the final verdict. So the question that I had since we're in the same County, we're still in the same court. We're in Hennepin County, we're in the state of Minnesota. We're in the fourth judicial district. Where are we going to watch this whole thing? Are we gonna able to see everything like we did with the Derek Shovan trial? Well, maybe, but not quite yet. So first all, uh, we have an objection from Kimberly Potter. You can see this here. This was filed on May 10th. So we're just getting caught up here. Kim Potter says that through her counsel, she gives notice that she objects to cameras in the courtroom for the hearing that took place today. Right? So no cameras in the courtroom, she objected, signed off on by her or attorney Earl gray. Now we know that the judge accepted that. So this was the order that came out on May 11th. It says the above matter came before judge Chu on the request by various media. Yeah. Let's and so a lot of the media want to come in and watch this whole thing. Of course two says, yeah, we can allow that with the consent of all the parties, defendant here objected during a scheduling call the state, however they consent it there. The state's perfectly okay with this. The omnibus hearing then shall be open to the public. And media is welcome to attend zoom, but no audio visual coverage that is denied. So we're going to see if that continues. The judge did say that, uh, that, that audio visual coverage or the state today filed a request that the trial is open. We're going to see if the defense objects to that. And we're going to see what the judge says about it. So let's take a look at some of this disclosure that just came out. This came out today, early this morning, nine 53. I am back in Minnesota. We're talking about disclosure. So quick framing of what this means, how this works. When you are a criminal defendants, you're somebody who's being charged with a crime. That means the government is prosecuting you. Okay? The government has all of the evidence. Literally they have the police department, they have all the crime labs. They have all the forensic kits. They have all of the Evans, but in locker rooms, they have it all. It's all in their possession. All the body cameras are recorded to their devices. They own all the police vehicles, everything. So if you're a defendant, well, you need the government to tell you what they have. And they better be honest about it. They better tell you everything. They better give you everything that they've got. And if they don't, if they keep out, if they don't give you something that might be exculpatory, meaning it might show that you're innocent. It might tend to prove that you didn't in fact commit the crime. If they have possession of that and that they're supposed to give it to you. If they don't, that's a huge problem. So we have these really strict rules surrounding discovery and the defense by the way, also has to disclose stuff to the government. We have to tell them, these are our expert witnesses. This is who we're going to call in. This guy is going to come in and talk about blood results. This guy's going to come in and talk about, uh, a sex kit, a sex exam. We have all different expert witnesses, forensic accountants, and digital technologist, and all sorts of all sorts of different people that we used. And so we have to disclose that to the government so that they know what evidence we have and what we're planning. We want to know the same thing from the government. So pretty standard stuff. Now, in this case, there is a lot of it. Let me show you what's happening here. We have supplemental prosecution disclosure. This was sent over this morning, five 17, 9:53 AM County of Hennepin, Minnesota versus Kimberly and Potter pursuant to rule nine, which is, must be their sort of disclosure rules. Uh, please find supplemental disclosure incorporating all previous disclosures. Okay? So this is just one additional supplement. So there's, you have sort of an initial round of disclosure and then everything after that is supplemental, supplemental supplemental. So we're going to see a ton, a ton of discovery coming out in this case. But remember what happened here? Again, this was a side of the road shooting. There was a girlfriend in the car, Dante, right? Was there. We have the officer Kim Potter. We have her partner. We have body cameras from a couple different angles and this was on the side of the road. So presumably we have other people who stopped and saw, and it was a shooting. And so we're going to have, you know, medical exams, uh, autopsy reports, lot of information here. Let's take a look at what the government is disclosing today. You're going to see a lot here. We have it. This is from, uh, subsection eight. We've got crime scene, receipts, photographs, Kim Potter, Sergeant Johnson. We've got property receipt handguns. We have, uh, body-worn cameras from an officer. We have evidence receipt of a blood kit. Okay. So, uh, they, they, they must have drawn blood from, uh, maybe both officers. We have a laboratory. Oh, no blood kit, maybe from Dante. Right? So a laboratory analysis, medical personnel search certificate transcripts from an Aaron Long team interview. So look, we look at all these different interviews. We have Jason Blansky D foul, Brandon tau. We have Leanna mob, cob Brandon thousand, a disc of the surety video clips. Look at this stuff, Carrie Blansky do vain, lots, lots of stuff. Then we get over here. We've got, uh, additional statements. We have a Diane loader Meyer interview. We have blood prep, kit card, medical, examining evidence, evidence receipt, mobile video recorders. So we have all these different policies. Look, we have the BC. So that must be the Brooklyn center police department policy. So we've got video recording policies, officer involved, shootings and deaths. This is 11 pages conducted energy device must be the taser policy control devices and other sort of a less than lethal use of force. And we have the use of force policy. So we have a lot of documents here that are all Brooklyn County policies. We've got iPhones, SS, max X S max radio, traffic of the incidents, officer Dan Irish interview. We have Casey Abu car supplemental report. Look at that. It's just goes on. And on North Memorial health EMS, we have USB drives list goes on and on. Look at all these different officers hater Dunwell buck Donohoo Lazenby, man, Nana, we've got a call logs. We have taser logs. We have property and application and search warrant receipt. So they went through everything interview of all these different officers. Look at all these different officers who were involved. We have Sergeant Johnson, more search warrants and folks, this is still on documents. This is still documents. Look, we have PO uh, Potter took some performance evaluation. So this'll be interesting. We've got some Mississippi miscellaneous information about her. We have an application evaluation, 52 page evaluation of her 46 pages for one performance evaluation, 34 on another training certificates back from 2017, 2019 one, uh, then all the way back to 1996, she was disciplined. We got nine pages of discipline records. Oh, we got 29 pages of commendations training certificates, more conduct, uh, commendations. We have performance evaluations, cell data, photos of her taser and duty belt. I'm just reading a list at this point. But the point is there is a lot here. Let me show you, we'll wrap this up. We have some audio. So we've got some radio audio. We have a different, the reports. We've got time codes at the end here. So all audio recordings, then we have body-worn cameras. So we've got lucky Potter, lucky Potter, lucky Potter. So we'll have two officers who have that. Then we have photos of the gun belt, photos of the scene, photos of the two cops, doorbell videos. I wonder what that's from surveillance videos and from the crime scene. So yeah, they must've gotten here signed off on by Emeran Ali. Must've gotten warrants, probably went and searched her place. Dante is place who knows how extensive this whole thing was, but lots, lots of discovery. Let's take a quick look over@somequestionsfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And this was a short segment. We'll see if we have any first one. Here is Mestizo Quixote, sorry. As the public comments from juror 52, forget his name is Brandon Mitchell from the Shovan trial. Should clinch the argument for changing the venue of every trial of a Minneapolis police officer. It seems increasingly unlikely that they will be able to assemble an impartial jury in that city. Yeah. I mean, maybe even the foreseeable future, it is really, really volatile right there. And we now know this because the judge granted a continuance for the other three officers, which of course begs question. If those three officers got that continuance, why didn't Derrick Shovan good question. Isn't it. Judge is going to have to answer that. And I think that the prosecutors will as well. And we'll see what the judge has to say about it. So want to say welcome to a couple of new members who joined us over watching the watchers.locals.com what's up and am welcome to the community and fair lady as well. Welcome to you, both aunt em and fair lady. They signed up over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com to support the community and the show. And I really appreciate that. I mean, we have some people who ask some great questions today. Thank you to all of you. You know who you are, and if you are not already a subscriber over at locals, well, what the heck are you doing? Go get it. Go look. There's a great stuff over there. I can't even speak. That's how excited I am. We have beginning to winning. It's a book that you can download. I wrote it. It's for free. Download the PDF. If you join up over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, you can also download a copy of the slides that we went through. A copy of the impeachment party documents. Copy of my existence system is a personal productivity device. We have links and conversations that you can share and you can meet great people. When you get over there. A couple of quick dates. I want to ping. We have our monthly locals meetup, which is happening via zoom. So we're going to meet face to face, but you can keep your camera off if you want that's happening on Saturday, it's going to be this Saturday, May 22nd, 7:00 PM. Eastern time. We're going to go for one hour. We're just going to say hi. Okay. No pressure at all. We're just, Hey, how's it going? Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you Liberty. Good to see you pinkie. Good to see you. We're just going to say hello. That's all. No pressure. Come join us. Saturday. This Saturday 7:00 PM Eastern time. Then next month, June 12th at 12 noon Eastern time, we're going to have law enforcement interaction training totally free. If you are a supporter over@locals.com on our watching the Watchers page, we're going to talk about the basics of interacting with law enforcement. What happens if they pull you over? What happens if they come to their house at your house? What happens if they call you on the phone a lot that we can get into. And so we're very excited about that. Saturday, June 12th at noon Eastern time. So hopefully you can join us. And lastly, one of the most important things that I do of course is I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I am a founding partner here at the RNR law group. We're located in Scottsdale, Arizona. And we are very passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges to find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and hopefully in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing a criminal charge, we would be honored and humbled. If you sent them our weight, we're very good at what we do. We can help anybody who's facing criminal charges in the state of Arizona with anything, any type of criminal charge, DUIs, drugs, domestic violence, felonies, misdemeanors, traffic cases, doesn't matter. Old cases. If you have an old warrant you want to quash. If you have a, an old conviction that you just want to expunge, if you want to restore your rights so that you can vote again or go possess a firearm or go apply for some federal benefits, if you just want to clean your record up. So the next time you're applying for a job, you don't have to check that box that says, yes, I've been convicted. We can help with that. We can remove mugshots off the internet. We can do it all. We're very good at it. We're passionate as hell about it. And so if you happen to know anybody who could use some of those services, I mean, it, I would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send them our way, we'll make sure they leave our office better than they found us. They can grab a copy of my book and
Speaker 2:We'll do our very best to make sure
Speaker 1:Or that we can move them beyond this difficult and tumultuous time in their lives and onto the next episode, just like we're going to do here, because we're going to be back here tomorrow. Same place, same time. It's going to be at 4:00 PM Arizona time, which is 5:00 PM mountain, which is 6:00 PM central, which is 7:00 PM on the East coast. And for that one, Florida man out there, everybody thank you so much for tuning in today on this lovely Monday. I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
Speaker 2:Have a great night. Bye-bye.