Biden Cancelled Wuhan Investigation, Veritas on Facebook “Hesitancy”, Seattle Loses 1/3rd of Police

Incoming President Biden cancelled the Trump Administration’s inquiry into the origin of the Coronavirus – why? Project Veritas reveals new internal Facebook documents that show company guidance on vaccine “hesitancy”. Police departments across the country are having to adjust considering the new justice environment and we look at the fall out in Chicago and Seattle. And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Upon taking office, President Biden cancelled an outgoing Trump Administration inquiry into the origin of the coronavirus.​
🔵 ICYMI: Rob’s Lab Leak Deep Dive with Nicholas Wade Article - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDbS7Q98Qw​
🔵 Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initiated the investigation which was later shut down in February.​
🔵 Biden officials says the evidence was suspect and the way they did their work was “suspicious as hell.”​
🔵 Now, after cancelling the inquiry, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra calls for an investigation into the origin of COVID.​
🔵 Many in the media are backtracking, forgetting they originally ridiculed the lab escape theory: see e.g. Glenn Kessler of Washington Post.​
🔵 Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe releases new documents from Facebook insider purporting to show ​
🔵 The document identifies “vaccine hesitancy” as a problem and proposes solutions.​
🔵 The goal of “drastically reducing user exposure” is accomplished by reducing engagement in the forms of likes, creates, replies, etc.​
🔵 The Facebook insider says the company is trying to control what you see before you see it.​
🔵 One year after Floyd’s death, we check in with elected officials around the country to see how they are doing on justice reform.​
🔵 Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot unveils her plan for a civilian police oversight board, while ultimately retain control of the Chicago Police Department.​
🔵 Seattle President of Police Officer’s Guild Mike Solan said on a podcast that Seattle is going to lose between 288 to 300 officers.​
🔵 The large exodus, which accounts to 1/3rd of the agency.​
🔵 In August, Seattle City Council defunded the department and crime has spiked across the city and in other places like neighbor Portland.​
🔵 Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 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/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 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

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us, we've got a lot of news to get into today. We're going to be talking about Joe Biden and the Biden administration's cancellation of the Wu Han Corona virus, lab leak inquiry that was taking place back under president Trump's administration. There was a transition, of course, we all know we were there for that. And it was a long one and quite a doozy, but it happened. And apparently as soon as Biden walked in there just said, well, everything that Donald Trump, everything you're doing is bad because you're an orange maniac. And we're just going to reverse course on most stuff, which he proceeded to do. One of those things was canceling the investigation into the origin of the Corona virus. And so we've got to break down, what's going on with all of this in case you missed it. I actually did do a deep dive on this on channel. Number two, have a video that's about an hour and 20 minutes long that goes through the Nicholas Wade article. So we're not going to go through that here, but that is, I would say, required viewing. If you want to know what's going on. I think this is one of the most important questions that we have currently, and I think it's important that we're all up to speed on it. So we're going to go through, we're going to hear from Trump. He gave an interview last night. We're going to hear from the human health, uh, health and human services, secretary Xavier Besera, he's calling for a new investigation into COVID. So the, this administration came in, canceled the investigation. Now they want to start it up again because Nicholas Wade and many other people like Rand, Paul and others have been asking a lot of questions did Fowchee. In fact, help facilitate the funding of the gain of function research that ultimately caused the Corona virus might be good to know that. So we don't have to go through this nonsense again. Then speaking of the Corona virus, we're going to change gears and we're going to talk about project Veritas. James O'Keefe is back in the news. He and his organization received some documents that were leaked from Facebook. That detail how that organization is going to be dealing with some of the vaccine. They're calling it hesitancy. People are asking some questions about it, and we're not going to do that here on this channel. I don't even really care about that. I don't care about people's position on the vaccine. You know, that's sort of their personal position. I'm not a medical doctor. This is not a medical channel. What we are about though is what Facebook and some of these big social tech media companies are doing to guide the conversation, to steer the conversation in directions that they want them to go. And we now have some documents that unveil what they're talking about, what they think they are responsible for facilitating on their platforms. Because of course, we all have a hard time thinking for ourselves and we need them to do it for us. So we want to know how they're going to help us help ourselves because we're too dumb to do. So then we're going to finally finish by talking about what is going on with police departments all around the country. Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the George Floyd death. We recalled that on May 25th, 2020, and there was kind of a shift in this country. A lot of people were waking up a little bit woken up out of their sort of apathy as it relates to justice issues. And we saw a lot of momentum. We had saw a lot of CEOs yesterday. We talked about their failures on failing to fulfill their promises. And a lot of people said, we're going to make changes. We saw what happened with Florida. We're going to make some changes here. We're going to fix these problems in America. And so we want to fast forward and see how that is going. It's been a year. We want to check back in what's happening in Chicago with mayor Lori Lightfoot, because she's creating a new civilian police accountability board. Now we're going to change gears and look at what's going on over in Seattle, because you may recall Seattle wanted to defund their police. And now we have somebody who represents sort of a police organization out of Seattle saying that they may be losing one third of their entire police department. You're kidding. You're telling me that if they start to defund an industry, that people might not work in that industry anymore. Wow. Groundbreaking news here on this channel folks. So we're going to break into that and a lot more want to invite you to be a part of the show, the way to do that is by going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, it's not on YouTube. It's a little platform that is sort of its own entity, which is why it's so cool that you're over there. And what we're doing there is building a separate, you know, social media kind of pillar, where those of us who are interested in real conversations can have them outside of the purview of YouTube and some of the other big tech platforms that make sure that we are playing by the rules that they set. So every single time that somebody goes over there and supports the show, whether it's our show or another channel or whatever, anytime that you're just sort of bouncing off of these big tech platforms and speaking with your wallets to any creators alternative or not, you're, you're literally building the next platform brick by brick. And so we're very appreciative of that, whether it's our channel or another channel, it's that the point is, thank you for the support and for supporting creators out there. Other people who want to talk about real issues, we really do appreciate it. Then a couple of quick other things before we get into the news, several new channels that we're starting. I mentioned before YouTube doesn't really like us on this channel. So we're sort of, uh, diversifying a little bit on some other channels. We have a crypto channel, we have a, an updated, uh, upload channel. We have our RNR law, Arizona channel, if anybody needs criminal representation in our state. So we've got a lot, I appreciate all the support. And now enough of that let's get into the news sometime ago,

Speaker 2: 5:58

President Donald Trump was still

Speaker 1: 6:00

The president. There was a transition that took place and Donald Trump, when he left office, some interesting things happen. I don't know if you remember seeing this, but I certainly do. We saw starting to see a lot of sort of fact sheets come out of the state department. We saw a lot of reports and analysis coming out of the white house because they knew that their time was up. They knew that they were going to be transitioning out and all the work that they had done my opinion. They wanted to make sure that the American people knew about it. So we started to see some interesting claims about what was happening in Wu Han in China and how it relates to the Corona virus. Because if you recall, now, if we fast forward or I'm sorry, rewind the clock back to, let's say March of 2020, we kind of remembered that there was a little bit of a different response. It could, we've been through pandemics. We've been through health scares before. We've seen how the government and the world health organization and how all of these entities respond on a regular basis. We had swine flu. We had bird flu. We have Zika, we have a Bola. The list goes on and on. We've seen how the government responds. They sent some people in some suits, you know, bubble, wrap them up. All right. We kind of clear it all up. Now. I'm not saying that it's, it's, it's something to be minimized, but it we've seen how they deal with it. When coronavirus came, it was an entirely different response. It was a military response. We saw the entire world comes screeching to a halt. We saw government officials go in a room and come out with a, go in a room with a smile, come out without one, because everybody started to sort of recognize that this was not the same old thing that we're used to. This is something much more dramatic. And so in my mind, my first thought was this doesn't this, this, this doesn't seem like, uh, anything like that

Speaker 2: 7:30

You're telling us feels accurate because the, the, the language

Speaker 1: 7:35

That they were speaking, oh, this is just a natural virus. It just came out of a bat out of a cave. And China didn't match that narrative that we had seen previously, all of these other viruses also came out of bats or swine flus or birds or whatever. And the response was what we saw. Then this one comes out of a bat, out of a wet market in China. And the whole freaking world stops China locks down their city. They're walking around with these big gas humidifiers. These fogging machines just wasting their entire cities under a cloud of fog. It was a very, very dystopian response. And many of us notice that. So as Donald Trump then was transitioning from the white house, he had a lot of information coming out, a lot of statements, and he started to sort of pound the sand about China, China, as he calls it with that really hard. Why in there? So we knew that this was something that was, was the focus of his presidency. He talked about it a lot. He talked about it in the campaign every day. It was keeping the pressure on China. And, you know, some people might say, well that's because Donald Trump is an egomaniac. And that was a campaign promise. If you're like me, I think that it probably is a reasonable way to, to approach international governance. If you're the president of the United States, China does seem

Speaker 2: 8:45

Like a very significant

Speaker 1: 8:48

World actor on the world stage, and it might make sense to engage with them from a position of strength, what we saw Donald Trump doing sort of made sense to me. And when we saw that the, the, the world response to the Corona virus was really, really magnified. It was really aggressive. Well, it, it started to make me ask questions about it too. And so the, the Trump administration was of course investigating it all the way up until the point of the transition. January 20th, something happens while Joe Biden is inaugurated and he gets sworn into office and he takes over. So what happened when he inherited all of that work that the Trump administration was doing, there was already an investigation well underway. What did they do with that? Well, we now know that Biden shut down the Pompeo led effort to prove the theory that COVID originated from the Wu Han lab. Trump says it was obvious. That's where the virus came from. So this article came over from the daily mail written today, or yesterday by Harriet Alexander. It says Joe Biden's team ended a state department investigation into the Wu Han lab. The investigation was began by Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state at the time it started in fall and ran until spring. And we've actually talked about this a few times, this fact sheet that came out from the secretary of state's office. And it said specifically, we've talked about this, that there were some scientists from the Wu Han Institute of virology that actually got sick. I think it was October of 2019. And so a lot of smoke leading people to think that there may have been fire there. Well before China ever formally acknowledged it, senior state department officials were unaware of the existence of the inquiry. So sort of this was being done at the highest levels. In January, they asked an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the findings. A three hour meeting was held with the panel, concluding that the F the probe was flawed. So, all right, so it looks like there's a transition here. So we have Biden administration comes in in January. They ask an independent panel of scientists to evaluate it. Three hour meeting is held. Critics of the effort, said it was overtly political, and it was designed to burnish Trump. So they convened this organization. They convene this panel with these scientists. They conduct this three hour BS meeting, and they say, well, no, th the, the analysis and investigation by the Trump people was flawed. Critics who were there, say, nah, this was purely political. They basically just, you know, death by committee. They created a committee, sent this issue over there. Gabe came back with the answer that they wanted, that what Trump, what Trump was doing was, you know, racist and xenophobic or whatever. Then Trump says that he had long claimed that the Wu Han theory for COVID-19 was likely many scientists initially disregarded the theory, but they're now accepting it. You're kidding. I wonder what changed? Why would that be supporters of the investigation insisted it was genuine. And well-executed talking about that death by committee Biden's team in February and March decided to end their research. When theory is gaining traction, Trump on Tuesday said that he felt vindicated, and we have a clip from Trump here in a minute. We have, well, let's finish the story though. Joe Biden's team shut down a state department investigation into Wu Han last fall. Palm PEO led an investigation. The probe was met with internal opposition because it was claimed by those concerns that it was part of a political effort by Trump to blame China for the virus, which if they're responsible for the virus, shouldn't we be blaming them for that. I mean, shouldn't, we, if this came from a human source, is it, is it not inappropriate to find who's responsible for it and assess blame on that? Even if it is the United States, even if it is Dr. Fowchee through the NIH, through the NIH ID, through EcoHealth Alliance, through Dr.[inaudible], then we end up in China with Dr. [inaudible] lab of virology. If it takes all of those different connections to find out what happened here, what we should get to the bottom of that. If the United States government is funding gain of function, research that caused the Corona virus, we should know about that. And if we didn't and China did well, then we should know about that. And we should absolutely blame China for the virus. What, why wouldn't we, when Biden's team was briefed on the investigations, finding in February and March, they shut it down and made concerns about the legitimacy of the evidence. The way they did their work was suspicious as hell. It says one department official of the probe, the revelations will lead to uncomfortable allegations for Biden, that his team politicized the public health effort harmed the nation by shutting down a useful inquiry that was begun by his predecessor, right? It's entirely political. The theory of the virus coming from the land lab was promoted by Trump heavily. He blamed China for unleashing the virus on the world. CRI critics said that Trump was blaming trynna to distract from his own Ms. Handling of the pandemic. Yet. Now the idea that the virus came from a lab is gaining mainstream support with leading scientists who previously expressed skepticism like Anthony Fowchee now saying it's possible. Trump on Tuesday night told news Newsmax that he always believed the virus stemmed from the Wu Han research facility. He felt vindicated that the scientific opinion in the mainstream media was finally coming around to his point of view. Isn't that nice? You know, once he's no longer a threat, once he's no longer in office, then suddenly well he's, he was pretty reasonable about that. And maybe we should listen to his position here. He is. Last night on Newsmax.

Speaker 3: 13:52

I want to ask you about the Wu Han lab, new reporting this week from the wall street journal about workers there being so sick. And as far back as November of 2019, that they were hospitalized the corporate media. Now the shameful bias corporate media is starting to come around to recognize that perhaps that is the origin. In fact of the China virus, even Dr. Fowchee is changing his tune. Do you feel vindicated?

Speaker 4: 14:14

Well, I said it right at the beginning, and that's where it came from. I think it was obvious to smart people. That's where it came from. I have no doubt about it. I had no doubt about it. I was criticized by the press because China has a lot of people taken care of. They took care of hunter. They took care of Joe. They took care of everybody. Didn't they? And people didn't want to say China. Uh, usually they blame it on Russia. It's always Russia, Russia, Russia. But I said, right at the beginning, it came out of Wu Han. And that's where all the desks were also, by the way, when we first heard about this, they will body bags, dead people laying all over Wu Han province. And that's where it happened to be located. To me, it was very obvious. I said it very strongly and I was criticized and now people are agreeing with me. So,

Speaker 1: 14:57

Yeah. Yeah, because, because it certainly looks like it let's go back to the article May, 2020 Palm PEO following Trump's lead said there was enormous evidence and a significant amount of evidence to support the claim. The virus escaped from a lab, his allies convened an independent panel of scientists to probe the theory. They had a three hour meeting to discuss the data. They found that there were significant flaws with the research. They were concerned about methodology. Our scientific consulting process involve the scenting perspectives on purpose. It was a meeting with deliberative disagreement. David Fife, a former senior state department official who briefed was briefed on the efforts said Palm PEO was the only investigation taking the theory. Seriously. People in the U S government were working on the question of where COVID-19 came from, but there was no other effort we knew of that. Took the lab lake possibility. Seriously enough to focus on digging into certain aspects. Others were more critical than others. The former state department official who was familiar with the investigation was suspicious of at secrecy. He said they basically conducted it in secret, cutting out the state departments, technical experts and the intelligence community. And then trying to brief certain senior officials in the inner agency on their tentative conclusions. Even before they'd let the department leaders know they worked no on an investigation was underway at all. It smelled like they were just fishing to justify predetermined conclusions and cut out experts who would critique their science. The reason for all this became clear when real scientists finally got a chance to see their analysis. Senior officials in the state department did not know of the existence of the inquiry after the January session, Chris Ford, who was at the time assistant secretary set a memo to handful of department officials, including top leadership, urgent caution Ford called the suspects aspects of the analysis. Gravely flawed urged officials against suggesting that there was anything inherently suspicious and suggestive of biological warfare activity about the people's liberation army at the Wuhan Institute of virology. Eventually the provost shutdown after Biden officials were briefed on the findings. Earlier this year, a source told CNN the investigation was shut down because Biden team had doubts about the legitimacy of the findings. Those involved also told CNN the questioning of their evidence was unfair and unwarranted insisted. They were objective state department spokesman conferred. The inquiry confirmed the inquiry had stopped saying, even though this discrete project has concluded, the state department continues to work with the inter agency to look into the COVID origin issues. So now we have the CDC director, Rachel Lesky who, you know, there, you know, Trump got a lot of grief for his coronavirus response, but this has just been sheer and competence in my opinion, uh, one after the other, they change the rules all the time, mass Snowmass up, you know, wearing mass vaccines up and down. Everybody is just sort of playing a political spectacle at this point in time, uh, including the CDC director. Here's Rachel Wollensky saying. Yeah, well actually, you know, it is possible. In fact that COVID escaped from a lab.

Speaker 4: 17:41

What, in your opinion was the origin of the virus? Um, this has been studied by the I'm

Speaker 5: 17:50

I'm I'm asking your opinion. I don't believe I've seen enough data, individual data for me to be able to comment on that. What are the possibilities? Certainly the possibilities of that most Corona viruses that we know of are of origin from that have infected the population, SARS cov one, um, MERS generally come from an animal origin. Um, and are there any other possibilities? Certainly a land-based origin is one possibility.

Speaker 1: 18:17

Oh, oh, there it is. Oh, that probably hurt. Didn't that hurt. He had to really grind that out here. Yeah. Oh, all right. All right. Like came out of a lamp. Might've come out of a lab. Yeah. It's a possibility. All right. Jerk, stop asking those questions. Now we are seeing sort of a pivot from the administration to their credit, right? They are talking about investigating this a little bit further. Shouldn't have I, in my opinion, stopped the inquiry in the first place, but they did. And now we have the health and human services. Chief. The secretary goes by the name of Xavier Baserra. He's out there telling the world health assembly that we need to look into this. This story comes over from Axios health and human services. Secretary, best Sarah said on Tuesday, there needs to be a transparent science-based follow-up investigation. Oh, I wonder if he's going to farm that out to world health organization, the original investigation at the world health and by China return inconclusive findings in March, it was criticized by top officials, including our secretary of state Blinken blink and told CNN at the time that Biden and the administration have real concerns about the methodology and the process that went into that report, including the fact that the government in Beijing apparently helped her write it. Oh my gosh. So bait. So it's folks, this is like, it's like the police investigating themselves and finding they did nothing wrong except on a global scale involving nation states. So now we have the world health organization that says, Hey, we're responsible for the health of the world. Okay. We're going to facilitate all you knuckleheads countries banging into each other. Then when it becomes evident that something may have happened in China, that warrants an investigation, what the world health organization does is basically says, well, China, uh, would you like to help us write this report? China says, yeah, we, we would actually, we're going to take over that whole thing for you. Thanks. Take it over. Write the whole report, send it over to the Biden administration. Biden says, well, we got to take their word for it because we stopped our investigation. So that sounds as reasonable as anything. What they're saying now, phase two of COVID origin studies must be launched with terms of reference that are transparent science-based and give international experts. The independence of fully assess the source of the virus and the early days of the outbreak there, Sarah said at a virtual meeting. So I think that's great. I would love to, I would love to see some government resources sunk into it. I would like to see something that is transparent and science-based and gives the, I don't actually really care much about the international experts. I don't care about them. I care about what the United States experts have to say. In other words, if China says that it did not come from China, well, that's their prerogative, but we have our own experts that should be investigating it for, we don't need to take their word for it or the world health organization's word for it. So maybe that's worth an inquiry. And I aid director, Anthony Fowchee said at a white house briefing

Speaker 2: 20:56

On Tuesday that he believed the coronavirus

Speaker 1: 20:59

Came from a natural occurrence, but that further investigation was needed, which is a little bit of a change for him. Right? Remember that this guy sort of flip-flops on every issue, humanly possible ma don't where mass. Then we're a mass

Speaker 2: 21:11

Then where two masks then where one, we

Speaker 1: 21:15

Vaccinated, then you don't need to wear one. When you're vaccinated, then it stays on surfaces for 30 days. Then 14 days, then that's kind of a couple hours. And you know, th it just keeps changing, changing, changing, changing, and it changes yet again. Now he's saying that maybe it didn't in fact, come from a lab. Well, where were, where was that? A year ago? Their doctor wasn't anywhere of note for Sara also address the Chinese government's opposition to the world health organization, granting recognition of Taiwan.

Speaker 2: 21:40

We have a flashback,

Speaker 1: 21:41

The report identified four possible origins of the virus. We have a direct zoonotic spillover, which would be something from an animal to a human, through an intermediary introduction through an intermediate host. They say this one's likely to very likely the introduction through cold food chain products also possible introduction through a laboratory incident, which the world health organization team said was extremely unlikely. All right, well, if you have not read the Nicholas Wade

Speaker 2: 22:06

Article, that he also goes through

Speaker 1: 22:08

Four factors, including geography and affirming cleavage site, and some other very interesting factors that I think are

Speaker 2: 22:13

More, more relevant than,

Speaker 1: 22:16

Uh, then this analysis. So I'd encourage you to go read that article or watch the video that I made about it. The other sides out Louisiana spokesman from China said the following the U S has been speaking out on the report by doing this isn't the U S trying to exert political pressure on the members of the world health organization, expert group. So China doesn't take crap from anybody, including the United States, including this administration. I'm not sure that we got the same type of language from them with this, with the prior administration, but they are openly thumbing their noses at this administration. And we we've seen, this is a second example of this. We saw this when Blinken tried to go in there and scold the Chinese during, during that, that, uh, delegation that they sent over, I think they met in Hawaii. He goes out there

Speaker 2: 22:56

And says, you, you P

Speaker 1: 22:59

Government is doing bad things to the weavers in China and that's racist and xenophobic. And we don't stand for that. We are humanitarian nation and the Chinese

Speaker 2: 23:08

Just, he just said, excuse me, how dare you talk to me like that. How about before you

Speaker 1: 23:14

China, you get your own house in order, we've been watching the BLM riders wreck your entire country for the entire month. So Mr. American, don't tell China about human rights violations until you get your own

Speaker 2: 23:25

Racial problems in order,

Speaker 1: 23:29

Then they basically left. That was the end of that conversation. And so Blinken looked like a fool getting his handed to him by the Chinese. They're doing it again. So Blinken is now saying, Hey, we're going to look into this a little bit further. The Chinese say, oh, you're exacting political pressure

Speaker 2: 23:43

On us. Hmm. It like, you're trying to influence

Speaker 1: 23:46

The world health organization. You manipulative Americans, you guys are the worst and what are they going to do about it? Nothing. They're just going to roll over. They're going to say, oh no, they're going to go back. And they're going to say, here's what Besera says. We need to give international experts, independence to fully assess the source of the virus. Hey, jerk. We already did that. We already did that. We already gave the world health organization and China and everybody a lot of time to go in there and guess what happened? They put together this report, that's a bunch of BS as is to be expected. So we're going to let them do that again. Is that what you want? Meanwhile, they're making you all look dumb and they're making America look bad. And it makes me mad because I happened to be an American and I love this country a lot. And so when you blow foreign affairs and you can't get to the bottom of what is happening with the, the biggest pandemic that that will probably ever see in our lives, that's a man. That's a major failures. All right. So here's what he said. Specifically, 74th world health assembly. He goes there yesterday, says, uh, assembly president on behalf of the United States. I want to extend thanks to the leadership of the world health organization, for what, and the staff who have worked tirelessly. I want to thank the pan American health organization for leading efforts to combat the pandemic, deliver supplies and vaccines. Oh, I also want to expect our gratitude and support express our gratitude and support for the frontline workers. And I, we can agree with that for sure. COVID-19 pandemic, not only a steer stole a year from our lives, it stole millions of lives. Yes, it did. It's a big deal. This is a big deal. Now we must honor our departed by taking urgent action this year to strengthen health security, pandemic preparedness, and to better prepare ourselves for the next global health crisis, nothing wrong with that. This means improving, improving global triggers. So the countries take swift action, global health security financing mechanism. They want more money, accountability, and oversight. We got to develop surge capacity. We cannot forget that people are the backbone of our response. We've got to have a healthy workforce, and we must do more to understand our current pandemic and look forward to detecting more biological threats. Phase two of the corridor, a COVID origin study must be launched with terms of reference that are transparent. Science-based give international experts the independence, right? So we already read that now, again, I don't care about the international experts as member states of the world health organization. We need to come together and finish this fight against COVID. We need to fully implement and adhere our obligations. We need to improve transparency, share critical information. Rest of this is pretty basic. We must invite Taiwan to be a part of the world health assembly as an observer, not as a country, because that would anger. China challenges are before us, but they're not insurmountable. We begin by ensuring resilient global health systems together. Oh, here we got equity here can't ever get out of any statement from this administration without equity together, we must address racial gender and other forms of inequality, promote sexual and reproductive health rights and strive for equity across society. Uh, and an inclusive global public health approach must also include, of course, minorities, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex populations. Uh, those, those gotta go in there. Gotta make sure that's in there. Otherwise it's not a, an official address. We must continue promoting critical nutrition in vaccinations, fighting HIV, tuberculosis, and addressing climate change, which is a very important thing for, uh, for health. Did you see anything in here about exercise or like physical fitness or getting, getting out and doing anything? Uh, I didn't, but I saw a lot of other stuff. We will do things together, strong and agile world of health. We'll beat the pen down. Alright. So whatever. All right. So there you go. That's what our health and human services director is out there saying

Speaker 2: 27:20

In front of the world. Well, let's look into this and let some other

Speaker 1: 27:24

Independent experts who've already done their due diligence and found nothing. Do it again, I guess. So now the media is flipping

Speaker 2: 27:33

Back and forth a little

Speaker 1: 27:34

Bit on this stuff. Kind of fun. Here is Washington post head fact checker. So Glenn Kessler is on Twitter and you know, the COVID stuff has been so fun because people were very aggressive one way when this all first happened. And so Glenn Kessler was out there really unhappy with Ted Cruz in the early months and weeks and days of the pandemic, unhappy said, well, you know, everything you're saying is stupid. You're an idiot. How dare you be? So anti-science. And then of course we fast forward. And what, what Glen was talking about previously was the lab bleak theory. And that was an asinine concept.

Speaker 2: 28:07

Now that's not a bad concept. So we got to, we've got to rectify those two positions. You called everybody

Speaker 1: 28:14

Moron. And now you're saying it's might be possible.

Speaker 2: 28:17

What's going on here? Tyler Durden

Speaker 1: 28:19

Over at zero hedge says that with the COVID lab leak theory, finally gaming, gaining mainstream legitimacy, following reports from the wall street journal in an admission by Fowchee that he's now open to the possibility of iLab league theory, formerly smug establishment fact-checkers are now scrambling to salvage their reputations after categorically dismissing a lab leak as a Dave debunked conspiracy theory right now, Glenn Kessler is a fact checker. Okay. He checks facts and he's over at the Washington

Speaker 2: 28:48

Right now. He is somebody who tends to lean one direction or another, right. Typically

Speaker 1: 28:53

Lean towards the left. So just keep that in mind, as we go through this, the latest fact checker to bend the knee is Washington post John Glenn Kessler, who last year issued a snarky tweet to Senator Ted Cruz in response to Cruz accusing the WaPo of quote. So Ted Cruz is saying, Hey, Washington, post and Glenn Kessler, you are abandoning all pretenses of journalism to produce CCP, propaganda, CCP. Propaganda is Chinese.

Speaker 2: 29:16

I mean, it's partying. So Ted Cruz says

Speaker 1: 29:19

You're abandoning journalism and you're producing propaganda. What was he responding to, to a video suggesting that an accidental lab leak was doubtful. So here's what this is

Speaker 2: 29:28

Look like. Right? We have, there is a

Speaker 1: 29:31

Very loud car outside of my window right now. I don't know if you can hear that, but there's some loud music going on. Uh, not sure what that's about. So anyways, carrying on, we have from Glenn Greenwald over here on, uh, Twitter, he's sharing this concept of basically what happened here. So we have, so, so Rob Omari says, I never want to hear about political fact ever, never. I'm going to use these two screen caps if anyone ever cites that source. So here's what we've got over from PolitiFact archived. Fact-check Tucker Carlson guest air's debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab. So PolitiFact goes through there, right? And they, they debunk this. So Tucker brings a guest on the show and the guest comes on and says, yeah, no, there's a theory out there that it might have been created in a lab. There's a Wu Han lab of virology. It's right there in the middle of Wu Han. It's a level five lab. There's only so many of these in the world. And we think that this is maybe where it came from. So PolitiFact comes out and says, oh no, that we, uh, a fact check, you know, false. We don't buy that. Then they sort of archive it. So once this information comes out, they archive it. And on May 17th, they write when this fact check was first published in September PolitiFact sources included researchers who asserted that the virus could not have been manipulated well, that assertion is now more widely disputed for that reason, we are removing this fact-check from our database because it's not a fact check because they're not a fact checking organization. That's not what they do. They just sort of look at things

Speaker 2: 30:53

And they say, well, we're going to just say this

Speaker 1: 30:57

Because this serves our political ends. It's a political organization, not a fact organization. Glenn Greenwald said fact checking like virtually everything. The corporate media does to feign superiority, pure periodicity is a total scam. Just another way for them to smuggle their own ideologically driven disinformation and conspiracy theories under a more elevated facade, right? Oh, we're fact, Hey Washington, post fact checker said, that's not true. Okay. Everybody goes, oh wow,

Speaker 2: 31:23

There you go. W they, they, uh, they, they checked into that for us. Here's Glenn click Kessler. This is back in may one, 2020. So this is the tweet Ted Cruz has amazing is

Speaker 1: 31:35

The right word for this video. Washington post abandoning all pretenses of journalism to produce CCP. Propaganda would be another way to put it. If this reporter is submitted this video in a freshman logic class, it wouldn't receive a passing grade. Let's review the facts. So Ted Cruz posts this, then Glenn Kessler posts this. He says, I fear Ted Cruz missed the scientific animation in the video. That shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts. He says, and viewers can judge for themselves. Well, we are, yeah,

Speaker 2: 32:07

We are in your, and you're actually

Speaker 1: 32:09

Not dealing in facts. Are you? Because facts are pretty consistent. Like they don't really change all that much. It's a fact that two times two

Speaker 2: 32:17

Equals four, right? That's effect. I think I'm bad at math. Pretty sure I got that one though. We have one year later here is Glenn Kessler now. So this is what

Speaker 1: 32:26

He said in may. I fear Ted Cruz missed the scientific animation. You know, if you also, if you have a scientific in animation that also makes it official. So now we fast forward Kessler is the proud owner of a highly ratioed tweet and means that you have more comments than you do retweets or likes. So you've got a lot of comments. I mean, nobody likes the tweet, but they're certainly talking about it. He says, they're being forced to eat Crow over his fact checking. So then he comes out and he says, new fact checker timeline, how the wool Han lab leak Siri theory suddenly became credible written by the same guy who won basically one year ago, said it's virtually impossible for this virus to jump from 11. Right? And I understand that people make mistakes and the new evidence comes out. But what I just really detest is when people come out and they, they, they should know, or they know better that they don't know what the answer is on this. And, you know, we didn't know what the answer was on that. And for somebody to come out and just be, be definitive about this, especially in a position like he's in, where he is supposed to be this objective fact checker. And he's holding himself out as that, he's saying, I'm objective. I am somebody that you can trust. Anytime that there are these claims that are being made out there, I'm going to be the person who can get to the bottom of it, dissect it and give you the right,

Speaker 6: 33:36

The answer. And he's totally disingenuous about it. There was plenty of it,

Speaker 1: 33:42

The evidence last year. But they, as a, as a decision Washington post wrote an article and made a coherent decision that they were going to take this side of this issue when there was no evidence

Speaker 6: 33:53

To support it. And it

Speaker 1: 33:55

Went it's more than that. Okay. It wasn't like they just said, listen, we've done our analysis. And we

Speaker 6: 34:00

Don't think that this came from a lab, but it's, but it's reasonable to sort of think different.

Speaker 1: 34:06

We're just, we're, we're just skeptical of it. That's not what they said. They said, it's virtually impossible.

Speaker 6: 34:12

Actual

Speaker 1: 34:13

Scientists. We deal in facts. We also have an animation. We animated it. Ted idiot. We we've got an animation. Where's your animation there at cruise?

Speaker 6: 34:23

Well, it turns out the whole thing was, was totally fraudulent. They had no real evidence about anything. It was all propaganda, just like Ted Cruz talked about. It said it didn't suddenly become credible Glenn.

Speaker 1: 34:34

And it was always credible. It literally always made the most sense. I understand the desire narrative media always wanted, but didn't anyone think that the most likely scenario was that the virus originated from the feet, from the lab that

Speaker 6: 34:47

Works with it. So Donald Trump

Speaker 1: 34:50

Jr. Put that, posted that Stephen Miller posted this as, yeah. You should probably read that

Speaker 6: 34:54

This one, right? Ted Cruz missed the scientific animation.

Speaker 1: 35:00

This goes on here's Karen McLaren says, we deal in facts, mocking this guy. I liked the line about actual scientists, but now I'm curious how it could be virtually impossible for a virus to get out of a lab. This studies viruses.

Speaker 6: 35:11

So he should be, he should, who are those

Speaker 1: 35:15

People? Who do they talk to? Who were these actual scientists that he mentioned, who drafted that animation? Where are these people like, do they,

Speaker 6: 35:21

Do they, do they get called?

Speaker 1: 35:24

Do they get held to that standard? I guess not speaking on the issue of destroyed credibility or only over early Wu Han reporting CCP apologist is retired. New York times editor, Nicholas Wade. He slammed the mainstream media on Sunday for failing to investigate the origins. Wait said the media failed to take off its political glasses because it was political season. They only had one thing in mind that was beating Donald Trump. They didn't, they don't care about any of this other stuff. I think we see a sustained Chinese propaganda effort at work said, Wade. He went on mark Levin show. He says quote, but you know, more than that, it was just the blindness. If I could put it that way of our media, we're too polarized to see scientific issues for their own sake, without putting a political gloss on them. We don't know for sure the origin of the virus is just, we've explained to, you know, these two possible scenarios. But if you look at all the evidence and ask yourself, well, which scenario explains all these facts better on the present evidence? It seems to me at least that the lab escape hypothesis explains it a lot better. And if you read the article, you'll see how obvious it is. But it's sort of a complicated conclusion to arrive at. I can only assume the media was blindsided. They didn't do the work that was necessary because they

Speaker 6: 36:25

Are not reporting information.

Speaker 1: 36:28

They are activists, journalists who are trying to achieve a political outcome. It has nothing to do with the truth at this point. And at least during last year had nothing to do with that. We saw right through it. Let's not mince words. Wade, the media oppose the lab leak theory because president Trump promoted it. Yes, the CCP has its tentacles deeply embedded in American propagandists who breathlessly pedaled their talking points, which is, I couldn't have said it better myself. So I won't we'll stop there. We have some questions coming over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's jump into them. We've got John Delara is in the house. He says how convenient the virus gave Biden. The election Trump's calling card was his great economy. Uh, he wouldn't have lost without it. While abracadabra here comes a virus from China, Trump's biggest enemy. It tanks the economy, most convenient, timely virus in history. Give me a break. The, the virus was a bio weapon. The Democrats don't want to investigate it because it gave by in the election. It's so obvious. It does feel like that. Doesn't it. You couldn't plan it better if you tried. Donald Trump has this roaring economy. America is hustling and bustling. 2019, our business was booming, rocking and rolling. Everybody's growing. Things are going great. Low taxes is kind of a golden age. How do we stop that? How do we take the power out of a booming economy? How do we take Trump's strongest strength, which is his in-person rallies, he's mega rallies and just put a tamper on those downs. Just, Nope, can't do those anymore. Virus is pretty convenient for both of those things. Isn't it kind of puts the economy at a rolling stop and then

Speaker 6: 37:54

Make sure that the big

Speaker 1: 37:56

Mega rallies that got him elected last time, can't really do those anymore. And really suck the air out of the room. We have pinky. Number two says it was true about the virus coming out of China. The entire time Trump through the space force has eyes on many areas. Be tried to shut it down, supposedly

Speaker 6: 38:11

Win, but not, not that he did. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 38:16

Space for us. We have shared Queenie says science-based are they kidding? This is the same outfit that doesn't believe in the science of biology and genetics. Good to see you, Sharon. We have[inaudible] says the international component to the Biden. Miss investigation is China, which was invited to participate, right? It's they're investigating

Speaker 6: 38:32

Themselves. Oh no, we didn't do anything wrong.

Speaker 1: 38:36

We checked, what? Can we go? Check your work? No, you cannot go check our work, but we don't trust you. Well, what are you going to do about it? Nothing, nothing. They're not gonna do anything about it. We have Liberty in the house as this is crazy. As you know, I cheat, I teach Chinese Kung Fu and we have a family in Hong Kong and, and we have family in Hong Kong and all over China. It was common knowledge that there was an issue out of UConn in October, 2019, especially after the disappearance of 20 million people in China. There used to be videos of the Chinese military, walking through a city and shooting people, sitting on their stoops. We even purchased 500 mass to send back to a family in Hong Kong. At that time, this is very irritating. Wow. That that's uh, yeah, that's scary stuff. I mean, I don't, I don't remember seeing the videos of, you know, military shooting people, but I remember some very disturbing imagery coming out of China. I mean, the streets were just locked down. There were people, you know, in, in hazmat suits, fogging entire streets, just, I mean, just fogging, like shooting like a flame thrower, except I don't know, you know, alcoholic mist or whatever, to disinfect the air and disinfect this, the streets and the sidewalks just going through buildings, just mowing everything. It was, it was a wild scene. And who knows? I mean, what, what can you do trust them? I don't pinky number two says be owes China for their bribes. B is not going to try hard to convince anyone that China is involved. Let alone responsible. Yeah, no, no. The whole thing is just to show the whole thing. We'll just kind of, you know, flow over Sasha. Sasha is in the house as hi, Rob ma and miss faith Biden is canceling the Wu Han investigation and encouraging a white supremacy investigation. I'm still waiting for Aston cooker to come out and say, you've been punked while don't hold your breath, Sasha. Uh, that would be nice. You know, Ashton Kutcher. Oh, got you. Don't think that's happening. This is real we're in real life. As Rachel Maddow said, remember when she said that this is real, this is real life. This is our reality. Now after Trump won, all right, here's the Darla Sierra says, can we please point out that she actually said these words, isn't that what she is saying? Isn't what she is saying. A bad thing. Or am I missing something? And we have administered over 250 million doses without any concern for safety. Uh, yeah. I mean, I, I would think that you would think that the CDC director would be concerned about safety, but maybe she's not. I don't know. I don't know. We have Jeremy Machida says the only facts these fact checkers have proven is that they are not actually checking facts. Yeah, that's right. And that's obvious that that is a fact that you can take to the bank. Okay. These fact checkers don't actually check any facts. That's a fact, very circular. See how you can do that. Anybody can be a fact checker. You don't even have to do anything meaningful. You can just say, I'm, I'm checking facts. Now start a website, create a blog, do whatever, check some facts. That's about what

Speaker 6: 41:35

They did. And people

Speaker 1: 41:38

Listened to them. For some reason, tree Mendez is in the house. As I've reached the point when they use the word debunked about something. I assume there's at least some truth to the claim, unfortunately, because all we have is the mainstream media giving one extreme story and the right wing media, giving the opposite, extreme story. I'm stuck with digging for the facts, from both stories, seeing what matches and then using common sense to come up with a conclusion. It can be exhausting. Tell me about a tremendous, I know it is exhausting and

Speaker 6: 42:02

You got to sort of go,

Speaker 1: 42:04

You got to have one, put one foot in both pools a little bit, just to see what are these people talking about? What are these people talking about? And then we try to mash it together here and dice

Speaker 6: 42:14

The truth, which is why I'm a,

Speaker 1: 42:17

I'm so grateful that you're here because we have a group of people working kind of through all of these things together. It's good to have some friends going through it because you're right. It is exhausting. And we're having some fun while we're doing it. We got Liberty or death says, let's not forget how woke this virus is. Mega rallies are super spreaders. George Floyd riots were, were protected by the first amendment.

Speaker 6: 42:36

Yes, yes, yes.

Speaker 1: 42:39

The virus had a very weird modification. So, you know, this also leads me to think of that. The lab leak theory is true because there's a special site in there. What you're doing when you talk about this foreign cleavage site, it's really a sort of where we're cutting off different parts of virus, RNA, you know, uh, uh, cells or whatever. We're sort of mashing them together.

Speaker 6: 42:57

And what we, what we have here is an exception on infection for George Floyd riots. So at your

Speaker 1: 43:05

Protected, it's a genome exception. So if

Speaker 6: 43:07

You're, you're basically COVID immune, as long as you're okay.

Speaker 1: 43:12

Attending one of these, uh, supported, uh, provable rallies

Speaker 6: 43:15

As a joke. No COVID advice on

Speaker 1: 43:18

This channel. Lastly, we have[inaudible] says Biden stopped investigations to appease XE and protect hunter. Did you see the Chinese professor boasting that China won the biological war? No, I didn't. You know what I,

Speaker 6: 43:31

I did see though, I saw, um, John Cena out there making that video for the Chinese, which is really, really, uh, cringy, but that was interesting. You know, the, uh,

Speaker 1: 43:44

I've got another, uh, anyway, we're gonna, we're gonna leave it there. Thank you for those great questions. All came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And, uh, we're going to continue to talk about this story. I think this is going to be

Speaker 6: 43:57

One of the bigger

Speaker 1: 43:57

Stories of the year. I think that we're going to really see a lot of people curious about where this happened, you know, where this came from, because we're called, you know, we're just on the other side of this thing, but the bill has not become due yet. Okay. We've been printing money. We've had a lot of kids, not in school. We've got a lot of people staying home. We've got a lot of people with brand new addictions, brand new, you know, social anxiety disorders. We've got all sorts of loneliness and codependency issues that we have to deal with. We've got, you know, booming inflation. We've got all sorts of, uh, some, a lot of problems coming down the pike. And depending on how you, you know, you sort of view glass half full or half empty, we could be just, you know, kind of skimming through this thing, coming out the other end with a lot of deflationary pressure. That's not going to cause a cataclysmic economic problem that we see, or it could be the opposite. It could be that there is something that's really problematic coming down the line

Speaker 6: 44:49

And we need to, to, to stick together and sort through it on this channel. We'll continue to do that. All right.

Speaker 1: 44:58

All right. So let's change gears. Let's talk about Facebook now. Shall we project Veritas? James O'Keefe is back in the news. Somebody leaked some documents to him and his organization from Facebook. Very interesting documents. We're going to go through them. They are purporting to tell us a story about what Facebook intends to do. As it relates to monitoring content on their platform surrounding COVID surrounding the vaccines. They've identified a problem. They're saying that some people out there, some of their users are in fact vaccine hesitant. They're a little bit skeptical. And so this segment,

Speaker 6: 45:29

Not to comment about anything really

Speaker 1: 45:32

Please about the vaccine or not. It's about sort of the interface between Facebook and their users, because you know, many people think that they should have the freedom and the ability to get on the internet and sort of see information from the people that they connect with. So for example, if I were to get on Facebook, uh, you know, and I connected with you or my mother or my friends or my brother or whatever, I would expect to see updates from them. I would expect to connect with them. That's sort of the agreement of getting on there. That's why we're using the platform, but what happens if now I'm trying to interface with a group of my friends or a group of my colleagues or my coworkers,

Speaker 6: 46:05

And I want to engage

Speaker 1: 46:07

About a specific topic, but Facebook says that's too dangerous. That sounds like something

Speaker 6: 46:11

That we don't want

Speaker 1: 46:14

You to talk about on our platform. You sound like you might be hesitant about something that we don't want you to be hesitant about. So what we're going to do now kind of without, without really telling you is we're going to start modifying our playground. When you come into play, we're going to change the rules, but you're not even going to know the rules are changing so that we can sort of manipulate the way that you think and the way that you are interpreting data, that we're shoving down

Speaker 6: 46:34

Your throat. Well, that's actually

Speaker 1: 46:37

Happening. So James O'Keeffe got, has the documents, Facebook whistleblowers leaked, internal docs, detailing new efforts to secretly sensor vaccines,

Speaker 6: 46:46

Or let's say this, let's

Speaker 1: 46:47

Say secretly sensor, vaccine concerns. So if people are expressing concerns, Facebook then wants to secretly sensor them to Facebook insiders. Two of them have come forward with internal company documents, detailing a plan to curb quote, vaccine hesitancy. So there short labeling that VH on a global

Speaker 6: 47:05

Full scale, they want to change the perception of the world regarding vaccine hesitancy. This is why

Speaker 1: 47:15

When I say that our, our senators and our house representatives that they're, they're just kind of peons in this whole thing. I mean it right, because they don't have the power to do that. Facebook does. They can just go in there and change some algorithms, you know, lift up some content, push down some other content. And they changed the entire conversation of the world. And our senators

Speaker 6: 47:33

Know that. So when Ted Cruz

Speaker 1: 47:36

Or a Bernie Sanders or anybody calls in mark Zuckerberg in front of the house or in front of the Senate judiciary committee and they sit them down there and they say, Hey, why are you wrecking free speech? Why are you doing things that are monopolistic? Why are you, you know, causing all of this grief in our country? We want some answers. Zuckerberg just says, no, we're not doing any of that. And they go, oh, well, thanks for clarifying that appreciate you showing up here, mark. And they send them right back out of the room. Nothing happens, nothing changes because they know who's really in control. It's them, it's they, they control the narrative. And if they control what people think, well then guess what? You need those people to vote for you if you want to be an elected official. So you certainly don't want to anger the people who control what the people think that you need to vote for you. Do you, you definitely don't. The stated goal of this feature is to quote, drastically reduce user

Speaker 6: 48:20

Exposure to the vaccine, hesitancy comments. So don't

Speaker 1: 48:26

Show other people other comments that have any VH in there. Another aim of the program is to force a decrease in other engagement of comments, a VH comments, including things like creating likes reports and replies. So if somebody expresses a VH comment and

Speaker 6: 48:43

Facebook doesn't want you to

Speaker 1: 48:44

Engage with that. Well, they'll just going to sort of, oh, we're going to take that, take that comment out of your timeline. We're just not going to show that to you. Now, this is according to project Veritas, such a shocking revelation that it moved, not just one,

Speaker 6: 48:55

But two whistleblowers to come forward. One face

Speaker 1: 48:59

Whistleblower said the company uses a tier system to determine how a comment should be censored or buried comments that include quotes, shocking stories. Describe describing potentially, or actually true events or facts can raise safety concerns.

Speaker 6: 49:11

Those are demoted. So they're going to

Speaker 1: 49:13

Push those down and we see this happening all, you know, this, a lot of this is natural, right? A lot of the, the algorithm is sort of set to operate based on engagement. That's why when you watch YouTube shows, everybody says, comment, comment, comment, comment, right? The more comments that you get, the more likes you that you get. The more the algorithm says, oh, people are engaging with this content. They're plugged in, Hey, by the way, drop a comment. And like this video, but the point here is

Speaker 6: 49:36

It typically that activity, the algorithm would work

Speaker 1: 49:41

And say, a lot of people like this, a lot of people are commenting on this. So we're going to boost that. We're going to show that more often to more people. We're going to give that more impression so that it contributes to more engagement because that keeps people on the platform. They like these controversial comments. They want people to be in the comment section, killing each other over these issues, but not for this, right? Not for the vaccine. So when that is happening, when they identify, one of these comments is sort of bubbling up and there's a lot of engagement and people are hot over this topic. They're just going to demote that. They're going to say normally we would elevate that according to the algorithm, but because this is a topic that we disfavor, we're just not going to do that anymore. Project Veritas says that they reached out to Facebook for the comments about these documents. They received only a brief and broad statement in reply that failed to our dress address. Our biggest questions. One Facebook insider said, they're trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it. If I lose my job, it's like, what do I do? But that's less of a concern to me. So they're, they're just basically censoring information before it even gets to you. The authors of the plan are credited as John who Yow. We have Nick Gibson, we have Hendrick Townley. We got Ameet ball. We have Matt Giles, uh, presumably all Facebook employees. So this is the document. This is the vaccine hesitancy comment, demotion document, uh, project Veritas, of course, you know, is, is, uh, stamping their seal all over this. But here's the executive summary. What is your goal drastically? Reduce, use your exposure to vaccine hesitancy in comments. So stop people from seeing anybody who's skeptical about it. What is the product change? Utilize the existing V1 VH classifier in English. So basically what it sounds like they're saying is they're identifying some code, a version, one of the VH classifier. So something that's going to sort of scrape all of the texts.

Speaker 2: 51:25

That's on a comments or on a Facebook page and analyze that

Speaker 1: 51:30

Texts up. This is a, this is a, you know, a one out of 10 VH scale, or this is a five out of 10 VH. So it's just taking the identifier and then demote those comments on ranked comments, meaning they are filtered from the most relevant, but they're still visible in other tabs. So like the most recent tab. So they're going to, they're not going to delete the comment. They're just going to pull it out of where people see it and put it where most people do not see it from the most relevant tab, into the most recent tab. What are the benefits of this launch? Well, uh, we're going to have English comments plus plus a 10.6 plus or minus 2.1. So it looks like they're measuring sort of this, the VP's on vaccine posts. What's going to happen the projected impact. Well, we're gonna have a minus 19

Speaker 2: 52:14

And 34,000. What does that? I don't know. Views. Maybe let's see this views per VM.

Speaker 1: 52:19

I'd say views views per V some vs. You know, I don't know what that means. That's sort of internal talk, but it's

Speaker 2: 52:25

Trick. We're going to have less one, almost one,

Speaker 1: 52:28

1 million less. VPV S whatever that is, CEP on the vaccine post, we're gonna have it

Speaker 2: 52:33

English comments. It looks like 11% less, right?

Speaker 1: 52:37

What are the costs of this launch? Nothing there's going to change the algorithm risks of this launch. Well, not all comments are actually vacc vaccine hesitancy, but we'd align with the health policy on this risk. So yeah, we're going to have some false positives. We're going to catch some people who are just legitimately talking about things, which vaccine hesitancy. I personally think that's a legitimate thing to talk about, right? But I'm a free speech person that they're not, they don't want other people to be having these conversations. How could this be made more aggressive? They could use a lower threshold. They could make a higher threshold to make it more conservative. So in other words, they're saying we could, we could identify more VH language, more vaccine, hesitancy language, and then increase the filter up so that it filters more out. Or we could lower that so that it doesn't catch as many

Speaker 2: 53:18

False positives comments are a major surface relevant to our B2B efforts.

Speaker 6: 53:26

We estimate that the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy comments,

Speaker 1: 53:30

Authoritative health health pages is 25%. And for other pages, 20%, there's a lot. Okay. A fourth to a fifth of the comments are all about this. Now that the V1 health vaccine health hesitancy classifier has been cleared for this use case, reducing the builds visibility of these comments represents another significant opportunity to remove barriers to vaccinations that users on the platform may potentially encounter. All right? So they've got a very

Speaker 6: 54:00

Strong opinion about this. They want that

Speaker 1: 54:02

Your user's not talking about that in a hesitant manner. The goal of the framework is to identify into your categories. We've seen this already, right? We want to, uh, this is the borderline vaccine framework. So this is the barriers to vaccination. The B2B is what we're talking about. The vaccine hesitancy content. They have to moderate this. So how are they going to do

Speaker 6: 54:25

Facebook COVID night,

Speaker 1: 54:26

Teens, vaccine offense, and defense work. The goal is to understand how using the apps can contribute or detract from vaccine

Speaker 6: 54:33

Uptake. We've got some,

Speaker 1: 54:35

You know, health behavior framework. Uh, you know, there was that movie, I think on Netflix, the social network or something, there was a project, there was a video.

Speaker 6: 54:46

What was it? It was kind of

Speaker 1: 54:48

Showing us through the lens of a person what's going on in their brains. They sort of personified, uh, you know, the inner workings of Facebook as a person and how they're trying to send you notifications to, you know, bring you back onto the platform and stuff. What they're actually doing right now. Like literally they're talking about health behavior change. Okay. They're actually talking about changing

Speaker 6: 55:10

Behavior. Okay. The COVID-19

Speaker 1: 55:12

Health behavior change framework illustrates two types of drivers, drivers of intent, drivers of action, both contribute ultimately to vaccine behavior. So if you think that these social media companies are not actually changing people's behaviors, they're acknowledging it. They're telling you right here that we can do that. We can actually change people's behavior. And we're going to, we're going to do it using two different drivers, uh, intent and drivers of action. And we know that if we spam this call to action on your face and your timeline long enough, maybe you'll do it and be like going and registering to vote. Remember, remember we saw that

Speaker 6: 55:43

A lot of that, remember Google was reminding some people say

Speaker 1: 55:46

Everybody, some people say only certain people were getting those reminders. Same with Facebook. And some of the others go vote, go register to vote. What happens if one group got those and another group didn't, maybe some of them will register. Some of them will won't. Maybe some of them will vote. Maybe some of them won't, maybe some of them will take the vaccine. Maybe some of them won't, but Facebook is acknowledging right here. They can kind of control your behavior. In fact, we have entire frameworks for it. It's called the behavior

Speaker 6: 56:08

Change framework to defensively

Speaker 1: 56:10

Connect these categories of problematic vaccine related content to potential harms. The framework below directly ties these types of non-violence and content to potential drivers of vaccination behavior. So what they're saying, even if you have content that doesn't specifically encourage people to not vaccinate, it may not violate their content guidelines, but it may in fact, contribute to non vaccination. While these drivers relate to the larger area of vaccine hesitancy, this document describes factors that contribute to health behavior, change the policy. Workstream reflects concerns that exposure can negatively impact these drivers. In other words, they're trying to remove barriers to vaccination, right? So we're going to go through the rest of this document. Here's just a couple of little pieces of it. Facebook established a vaccine hesitancy scoring system. So we've got different thresholds. So when they see something right, they're going to run it through an algorithm and it's going to return a return response. We've got just a whole table here talking about the adjusted precision variable, the adjusted recall variable, the precision lower variable right there. They're identifying language

Speaker 2: 57:16

And they're codifying it. The company

Speaker 1: 57:18

Instituted tiers, we've got different policy tiers. So tier one up here is violating. We got, uh, COVID vaccine, M and H there. They're going to remove these posts quickly, right? Just remove them all automatically. If it's explicit vaccine discouragement. Well, we're going to remove those on escalation. So a flag that somebody else will remove it. Anything here, you can just remove, we're going to the B to V reduced. So we've got tiers one and two. If you're a sensational or alarmist, if you're criticizing the choice, if it's an indirect discouragement, like it's a shocking story. Or if you're even just promoting alternatives, you're a tier one or two, everything from inform only to your plus.

Speaker 2: 57:56

So it's basically everything down here. Plus these two things be to Jesus

Speaker 1: 58:02

If as needed. So I guess that probably means remove it. Then we just have the inform only we've got three tiers, personal objections, skepticism, neutral discussion, and in and debate, they're going to inform, so they're going to put one of those little labels on there, and then they're going to Institute some reshare friction. So you can, you can have some skepticism, but they're not going to make it easy to share that. And they're also going to label the hell out of it. Like they've been doing on everything for a long period of time. So they're there

Speaker 2: 58:29

Categorizing your content saying this is acceptable. This is not acceptable. And we're going to make those changes across our platform so that we can encourage behavior change, which is our framework that we are now revealing to you. We have another document, it

Speaker 1: 58:44

More data points. So it looks like here, they're saying the, this was like something from an internal sort of intranet that takes, you know, that a lot of corporations have and we have here. Comments are only being demoted. If they appear under posts with the vaccines subtopic, if they have a VAX, one V one hesitancy classifier

Speaker 2: 59:02

Score, if they're written in

Speaker 1: 59:04

English and if they're longer than five characters, so they're only being demoted. If you know, those things are set up. So a lot of people over at Facebook are working on it. One part of the documents admits to demoting comments and reducing the rate of likes

Speaker 2: 59:17

While conducting a test

Speaker 1: 59:18

Of 1.5% of the company's. So they're rolling this out. Here's the change in likes for the vaccine, hesitant comments. We are demoting. We are reducing a minus two minus 2.6, 4,000 likes. So about half, which could be 176,000 likes. Since the test is 1.5%. So they're actually just moving the numbers. Okay? These are people just moving dials around

Speaker 6: 59:42

To, to adjust the, the, the outcome. We move this dial, we get less likes. All right,

Speaker 1: 59:48

We want, that's the, that's the narrative that we want here on our platform. So we're going to raise that up a little bit, drop that down a little bit in order to encourage people to do things.

Speaker 6: 59:56

One of the other posts discussing

Speaker 1: 59:58

The unique double dose of certain vaccines. Those are described as objective high and outlined a positive change. So here it looks like why the push for two doses when the CDC itself published an efficacy of 80% after two weeks with just one dose flu shot is 40 to 60% effective, blah, blah, blah. So they, we have sort of a, uh, here's what happened. This is what the algorithm says. Metric tags position changed. So we're going to move it, you know, move it positions. We've got some white listed features. We've got a comment score here.

Speaker 6: 1:00:27

So they're just analyzing it, right? So maybe this comment would have been considered by some people to be hesitant. So Facebook demotes it. An enforcement document shows the goals.

Speaker 1: 1:00:38

So we've got enforcement action coverage by surface, we've got pages, Facebook pages, Facebook groups, Facebook profiles, Instagram accounts.

Speaker 6: 1:00:46

What are we going to be doing while we're going to do the goal,

Speaker 1: 1:00:48

Reduce the prevalence, reduce the distribution. So reduce the prevalence. What does that mean? You know, they're gonna remove the actual

Speaker 6: 1:00:54

Jen Facebook queries. We're going to improve

Speaker 1: 1:00:57

Attitudes and behaviors. Look at this, the goal, look

Speaker 6: 1:01:00

At this, the goal. So it reduced

Speaker 1: 1:01:02

Prevalence to me, sort of means that you're not going to say it as much. We're going to reduce the prevalence of this concept. You're just worried. We're going to sort of encourage you to not say those things so that they don't even make it onto the platform. Then number two, our second goal is we're going to reduce the distribution. So stuff that does make it onto the platform. We're not going to show it to as many people.

Speaker 6: 1:01:19

Then we get down to number three. We're going to

Speaker 1: 1:01:21

Actually, if you can see this here, it says improve attitudes and behaviors. Okay, we're going to actually improve attitudes and behaviors. We're going to inform people. We're going to give them all the vaccine safety, all the efficacy, all the friction, all the, uh, you know,

Speaker 6: 1:01:34

Treatment benefits. We're going

Speaker 1: 1:01:37

To actually change attitudes and behaviors.

Speaker 6: 1:01:40

So there you go. They are going to be

Speaker 1: 1:01:43

Detailing how many language their policy will be in. So we have the vaccine safety and efficacy. We have, uh, you know, this is

Speaker 6: 1:01:49

Global. We've got the calendar,

Speaker 1: 1:01:52

Global tests. Things are currently running. Here's the tiering summary. We've got the alarmism. We already talked about that. We have tier two indirect vaccine discouragement. So just defining what these are, shocking stories, labeling guidelines, look at the post. This is how they're supposed to sort of run through these. So look at the post, spend 30 to 60 seconds. Make sure you understand it. It's, uh, it's important to consider any texts in conjunction with any media. So you want to put it in context, right? A photo, a text, a video, including emojis.

Speaker 2: 1:02:22

Then they tell us what tier two looks like, right? Just skip the vaccine and trust. And herd immunity is an example here of indirect discouragement. Here's another example of some data that's being analyzed found 653 cases where vaccine targets COVID-19 and the patient died, right? So here's an example of a comment. So, uh, they, they, they presumably would not want that on here. How is this scary? It's not populated in every new source. So this is a post, right? Here's a vaccine hesitancy comment, shocking stories. In other words, they're giving us examples of what they're going to be removing. Here are some shocking stories, examples, things like fevers, chills, things that are labeled neutral are going to be like those, those generic, uh, symptoms. All right, here is James O'Keeffe.

Speaker 7: 1:03:13

We have just obtained multiple leaked documents from inside Facebook. This time detailing a plan to curb quote, vaccine hesitancy on a global scale. It was so concerning. It brought us not one, but two whistleblowers from inside Facebook who are ready to speak out on what this means for free speech and public discourse on their own platform,

Speaker 8: 1:03:35

Facebook users, classifiers, or algorithms to determine certain contents, to be what they call vaccine hesitant or the color vaccine hesitancy. Without the user's knowledge, they assign a score to these comments. It's called the VDH score. The vaccine hesitancy score based on that score will devote all the recruitment world. You probably don't have the content.

Speaker 7: 1:03:56

Our first Facebook insider is a data center technician, lead desk, multiple internal documents, detailing an algorithm test being run on 1.5% of Facebook. And Instagram's nearly 3.8 billion users worldwide. The goal to quote drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine.

Speaker 2: 1:04:19

Yeah, I think it's actually worse than that. I mean, they actually want to change the behavior. So here's one more clip of somebody.

Speaker 7: 1:04:25

In fact, the next inside of you're about to meet felt so compelled to come forward. He goes so far as to compare the new policy to an abusive relationship. What are you doing?

Speaker 8: 1:04:37

I'm going to do this on our engineer. I would say that in a sense, it's pruning people from being walled off about issues that affect her personal security. Somebody signs the portions of the comments that are being presented, you know, from people that have concerns about proportional, proportional, security. It's kind of like having a relationship with somebody that's controlling and abusive and assaults and abusive.

Speaker 2: 1:05:03

Yeah, he's right. It is. Isn't it, it does feel like that. Uh, and it's not just Facebook. It's also the platform that you're probably watching this on right now does feel a little bit abusive, but that's all right. We have more leaks coming from project Veritas. They reveal the filter

Speaker 1: 1:05:18

For Liberty based and religious based and objections and skepticism. Okay. So it's not going to be limited to just vaccine folks. Are you kidding me? Did you think that it was just going to stop there? You nuts there. They're doing the social credit score in China. Why wouldn't we be doing something like this here, we already have it. You're already going to be put into your VH score, whatever that number is now, they're going to be adding that to Liberty based and religious based objections and skepticism also on vaccine passports. So on the heels of the bombshell,

Speaker 2: 1:05:46

That project Veritas released

Speaker 1: 1:05:49

On Monday, there's more information about this. So they've also got tier one and two for vaccine hesitancy. There's also tier three category about filters that express objections to skepticism about vaccines for personal beliefs or opinions. Things like Liberty based objections. So they're classified. It's not just

Speaker 2: 1:06:05

Objections. It's the types of objections that they want to classify you at under Armour

Speaker 1: 1:06:12

Free speech person, a free choice person. Are you an anti-government individual like a libertarian?

Speaker 2: 1:06:18

Are you a dangerous insurrectionists? Well, you're gonna be

Speaker 1: 1:06:23

Labeled on Facebook. So they've got different categories now, Fort religious based objections or skepticism, personal objections or skepticism political institution based vaccine objections or skepticism and development based vaccine objective. Okay. Expressing objections or concerns, ranks comments as a tier three, tier three comments are not demoted, like tier two comments instead of T3, comments are going to receive action. So they're going to actually be filtered from the preview or inline. Meaning Facebook is not going to show them at all. Facebook was forced to comments on these documents. They said that we proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information. So Facebook is saying, oh, we told you we were going to do this.

Speaker 2: 1:07:04

Uh, of course, I wonder how many of their 2.5 billion users go to

Speaker 1: 1:07:08

Their blog or go to their help section? Did they

Speaker 2: 1:07:10

Post this on your timeline? They could have, right? They could have said, Hey FYI,

Speaker 1: 1:07:14

AI, we have a platform that allows us to update 2.5 million people. It's kind of the reason people use it so we can stay up to date and they post it on their blog rather than telling you about it because they don't really want you to know. They'd rather just identify you, just slap a label on you and then filter you out while you keep using their platform. And they keep serving you ads. So they want you to still use it so they can continue to make money. Because if they told you that they were labeling you as a, let's say a religious skeptic for vaccines, you might say they're doing what? And you might just jump right off the platform. They don't want that to happen. So they're not going to tell you about it now.[inaudible] policy. So here are the different categories. It

Speaker 2: 1:07:52

Looks like we've got tier zero

Speaker 1: 1:07:54

Is violating. We've got tier one, alarming, alarmism and criticism. Then we've got high severity over here. We got more ambitious and greater connection to personal expression. Yeah,

Speaker 2: 1:08:03

Down here, we've got these different categories, you know, removal, removal, all right.

Speaker 1: 1:08:11

Looks like a lot of the same stuff. We've already seen. Tier three levels. Here are some of the objections. We've got a personal objections and skepticisms here. So like I'm worried about giving it to my child, right? That's that's a personal objection. We have a political objection or institutional base. That would be like a hesitation about it because it creates inequities or discrimination. Okay. We have other violations for coordinating harm, alarmism and criticism, indirect discouragement, objections and skepticism. Very, very, very long and robust policy. We've got some other Liberty based objections and skepticism. So like, for example, if you are somebody who says it is my right only, I decide, well, now that's a, that's a Liberty based objection. And also I warned you. This was coming. They're going to have vaccination passports to get into the supermarket. Well, that's a Liberty based objection then. So these are tier threes. So they're going to limit those tier four posts are neutral remarks and has no action. Whereas tier one comments get removed and reduced. So it looks like they're going to leave some of those up tier three. We're going to say, what do we do? We're going to leave those up. Tier three over here, inform, add friction and sort of make sure that selected viral and salient subtopics, uh, inform, add friction, filter from preview and inline on the comments. So yeah, they're taking some pretty good action on those. So if you are a liberty-minded person, not on Facebook, you're not anymore. Now you are on your book. It's just you, they're just gonna put you just on your own personal page. It's like that creed thing from the office member, creed, uh, Brandon, the side of his name creates something creed from the office and they gave him a blog. It was just a word document that somebody put on his computer to save the internet from his thoughts, kind of like that. Facebook is just going to throw you in the corner of their platform and you don't get to talk to anybody. You'll feel good about it though, because they don't tell you. You'll you'll have no idea. So, uh, let's take some comments over from watching the watchers.locals.com says Facebook steered. The VAX conversation right into censorship honestly, is to start a communism. Facebook is highly at fault, so much censorship. It really is kind of a dumpster fire of a platform. In general, we have boxy punk chick is in the house. What's up box. He says, you would think that people would petition to fire the head of the CDC. Stop using social media and fight with how they are using social media. The way they have. It's scary though, how much people talk, but no actual actions are taken. It is right. It is, you know, a lot of people, they th they, they would watch this video and they would know that Facebook is actually categorizing them and labeling them. And they'll just go well, that's, that's crazy. Anyways. What's for dinner, honey. What's on Netflix. Just move on to the next thing now, to be fair. What are you supposed to do? I'm on Facebook. I use Facebook. We use it for our business. We're streaming on Facebook right now. What the hell are you supposed to do? Because they own all of the internet. They own all of the platforms. They own Instagram, they own WhatsApp. They own everything. So does Google. So you kind of have to be on it to a certain degree, which is why I am so excited about blockchain and the idea that we can have decentralized platforms that exist without these centralized companies. So, I mean, you can actually go on blockchain right now and buy whatever amount of money you want without even creating

Speaker 6: 1:11:18

A profile. You know, I mean, I mean, true,

Speaker 1: 1:11:20

Like in, in some exchanges and things, once you kind of get set up and start getting into cryptocurrencies, it's amazing. How, how little information about you is actually necessary to do things in this world. You have to understand the power of your information. It is what funnels, these companies, Google and Facebook and Twitter and YouTube and Amazon, all these companies are data companies. Data is the new oil and gas, and they have it all. They are the new monopolists. So if we want to, you know, sort of break their stranglehold on every single facet of society, including our own government, since they control those people too well, it's time to bail. It's time to start thinking about some other alternative platforms and other areas to congregate like locals, like watching the watchers.locals.com and like blockchain, like a lot of these new interfaces that allow people to really be kind of pseudo anonymous and not have to worry about these things so that we can have a conversation without Facebook tagging you as being a lunatic, Liberty loving,

Speaker 6: 1:12:16

Right? And

Speaker 1: 1:12:19

It's, it's going to be death by a thousand cuts. And it's going to take a long period of time for the transition to be successful, but we're doing it right now. And those of you who are subscribed are helping us do it at locals, whether it's us or any other platform. I really, I just want to see people sort of think about leaving some of these big organizations we have pinky. Number two is in the house. As I had many photographer friends around the world, I was de platformed. We need to de monopolize Facebook, just like we did at and T I'm sorry to hear that pinky, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a weird feeling. Isn't it? I got thrown off of a discord,

Speaker 6: 1:12:53

Weird, whatever

Speaker 1: 1:12:56

We have high desert says, Rob, it's interesting. The timing almost a year ago to the day Zuckerberg proclaimed. I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. Zuckerberg told Fox news, private companies probably shouldn't be, especially these platform companies. Shouldn't be in the position of doing that. Yeah. Well, I think they all say that, right? They all say that Zuckerberg says that Dorsey says that everybody says it, but they don't mean that at all. Okay. That's their entire fortune. Their entire company is built on sort of allowing, allowing people to get on their platform, making this network effect and then pulling up the, the, pulling up the ladder behind them so that nobody else can do what they've done. And I mean that in terms of startups, so it's not, you know, not other people it's like, we're going to just think about all the power

Speaker 6: 1:13:38

That they have right now. They threw the president off of the internet.

Speaker 1: 1:13:44

That's power folks that you can't buy. You can use theirs. Do you think they're going to give that up? The arbiter of truth. That's their stranglehold on the entire system is the fact that they control the information and they control the data and they get to see and they get to dictate who sees it and who doesn't. So, but they go in Congress. Oh no, we, we support free speech. Absolutely. Well then why

Speaker 6: 1:14:05

You, it's your platform mark? Right?

Speaker 1: 1:14:08

You're the CEO of the company still, I think same with Jack Dorsey. Why don't you guys put your money where your mouth is, are, if you really believe in free speech and free ideas and free prosperity, and a lot of exchanging of, of new ideas, even some that happened to be controversial. Well, you have the power and the ability to do that, but that's not what you want to do. You would rather default to power and control. That's why people are abandoning ship. That's why blockchain is the next big thing. And I know that, uh, I've been really kind of going off on the crypto stuff here, but I mean, it, it, it is the answer to this problem. We're going to be talking a lot more about that. On my second crypto channel, we have angel two, two, nine, nine is in the house as do you think there would be such a push by the socials to silence opposing opinions on the vaccine. If Trump were still president, I think if you were still president, you would see the vaxxers silence. Do you think so? Uh, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what I think about that. I think that, you know, I think that if Donald Trump were still in office and he got the vaccine, would you, would you have a lot of the, I mean right now the vaccine hesitancy, I think if, if, if the numbers are still the way that they were a month ago, when I looked at them, the hesitancy is more on the side of the Republicans, right? It's sort of, the conservatives are a little bit skeptical about the government, uh, naturally speaking, which is kind of the situation with Republicans and conservatives were skeptical about the government. And we don't like it when they tell us that we have to do certain things. So if Donald Trump now is the figurehead there, right? If he's the person up there saying, listen, conservatives, listen, Republicans, we need you to go get the vaccines. And I mean that, and we had, you know, Mike Pence doing it and we had, uh, Donald Trump doing it and all the whole, the whole sort of cabinet, you know, going through this big spectacle of vaccinating, everybody would adoption be higher with Republicans, maybe, probably, but you know, would they, would they be silencing anybody? We know what the pro-vaccine is, be silence. I don't, I don't, I don't know that. I see that. I mean, it was Trump's silencing, I don't know that he had the power to do that. I think, I think that the, the, the, the power of the silencing lays in the hands of the media and the tech companies. And I think that they had a side on this in general, we have the DOB says we have to make these companies open up their code, sorry, but they lost their privacy privileges when they ruined my privacy rights, free the code. So in the dark, my friend, I'm telling you there they're all going to be replaced. I made a very good video on crypto that talks about this protocol called internet computer protocol. And at the very end of that video near the outro, there's a clip from a guy. I can't remember his name right now, but he's the founder of fleek, F L E K. And he has this brilliant, brilliant takeaway. He says, how do you defeat the big tech companies? He says, it's very obvious. And we're going to recognize this. I don't know, 10 years from now, once they actually fall, he's going to go, oh yeah, it's so obvious how he did this. And it's already being built out right now. And so let me try to summarize this for you briefly. It wasn't prepared to talk about this, but I'll try to summarize it. So, you know, right now, the way that this works is you have a tech company, they raise up a bunch of capital. They really kind of, you know, they, they care about users, but the users are part of the product, right? So they, they are creating an entity like a Facebook. They start filling it with a bunch of users, the founders, the people who, who sort of build the project, they, you know, take a bunch of stock and they, they make a bunch of money and they, they, they do a ton of, uh, advertising, marketing to build up the platform. So then once Facebook is now is now big. They deliver an initial public offering. They go public, everybody gets rich on the stock, okay. But they spend a lot of time advertising. Now they've gotten to the point where they're big enough, they have this network effect where everybody's on the platforms. So they don't really need to kind of advertise anymore. They have enough power to go and buy all of the smaller companies up. So rather than saying, Facebook is better than Twitter, they just go buy the next Twitter clone. Right. And they, and they've done that. And they've just gobbled up everything. Facebook goggled up, gobbled up WhatsApp. They gobbled up Instagram and all of these different things. And so in that capacity, in that model, the business owners maintain all of the power. They have all of the stock. That's why they're all billionaires. And they, they make money sort of on the backs of users. Users are the information that they're seeking. They're, they're taking your information, they're selling it to advertisers and that's how they're generating their revenue. So what happens if you don't do that? What happens if there's a different way about, you know, kind of going about this and we can use the Bitcoin example as a model. So Bitcoin, nobody owns Bitcoin. Nobody owns a company. It's just a computer code. It's just algorithm, an algorithm that is running. And a lot of different people are working on the project, but it is a huge, huge organization. I mean, at one point it had a market cap of almost a trillion dollars, right? So it's, it's, it's as big or bigger than many of these other organizations like Amazon or like Facebook. And it is totally in mostly decentralized it's, it's decentralized, decentralized, and it sort of censorship resistant because of the decentralization. And it's a bunch of random, pseudo anonymous people, all sort of working together in this beautiful dance of harmony that is all being done in an anonymous fashion across the blockchain. So what he says is, you know, think about Bitcoin, how did that, how did it get so big? I mean, everybody's talking about it. Everybody's heard about it. It's not even a company. It's just a protocol it's to use Joe Biden's language. It's just an idea out there. And it's working and it's sort of creating this entire ecosystem built around that. And so the model is these new tech companies, the people who really want to sort of provide value to the world, they're going to build applications on the back of blockchain. And they're going to do these initial coin offerings, where if you are a part of helping build that community, if you say, you know what, I want to go and help build Facebook, you have a strong incentive, because if you contribute to the project, you're rewarded in coin, you're rewarded in the ecosystem for the, for the content you create. So think about this every time you post a picture on Facebook, maybe you earned a little bit of a token. You earned a percent of what you contributed to that. And if you were one of the first people on Facebook, you're gonna earn a bigger portion of that because they're handing out these tokens for all the content that you're creating. So you create this little bit of an economy that happens in these new applications. Well, what ends up happening is the users become the advocates for the distribution. The users become the distribution model, just like Bitcoin. Now everybody's talking about it, Ethereum and all these cryptos, nobody marketed those things. These are people who are getting value out of being in the project. And they're talking about it in a way, showing other people value and saying, Hey, come in and come in and be a part of this. You can already go see how this is starting to flush itself out on odyssey.com. We have a channel there it's a YouTube replacement. It's all powered on the blockchain. Every time you watch a video, somebody gets up a portion of a token called the LBC token. And so you can actually, uh, sort of, you know, generate these tokens based on the content based on you watching videos, you didn't have to do anything, just watch a video and you're engaging in the economy. So what happens then? Long story, all of these people start using the ecosystem and the founders now, because they were there at the beginning. They have a lot of coins because they've been creating and delivering a lot of value. So their exit strategy, it's not to go public like mark Zuckerberg and bank$50 billion. You can do that by going public with your coin, you sort of deliver the project to the community. The community runs itself. Nobody can be censored. Nobody can be thrown off of it because it's a decentralized blockchain that anybody can plug into. There is it's basically censorship resistant because you don't have people like Zuckerberg and others telling you what you can say and not say on the platform. So rather than, you know, demanding that Facebook and Google open up their code, they're gonna, they're gonna be gone in 10 years or there'll be around. There'll be in different, you know, uh, permutations of my, my helper device just woke up the, you know, they're, they're, they're, they're, they're going to sort of fall collapse in on the weight of themselves because of this stuff. Okay. When they start censoring speech, when they start labeling people, it's going to turn into this horrendous echo chamber. Nobody's gonna want to be a part of it. And these new technologies are coming. They're five, 10 years down the road, and they're going to be way better. You're gonna have a lot more freedom, a lot more anonymity. You're gonna be able to not worry about being thrown off the back of, you know, off these major platforms. And it's right around the corner. And I'm super excited about it as you can tell. All right. I all right. Enough, enough, enough. Let's move on. We have Jeremy Machida says the real question is, does Facebook have stock in any vaccines? If so, when this warrant and investigation, by the sec, probably. I mean, I don't know what kind of, um, blind trusts or whatever Zuckerberg has, but, uh, I'm sure there, I'm sure they're well plugged in with all of the different industries around tech, media, military. All of them we have Sharon says this segment is why I will have nothing to do with farce book. Mine control. Yeah, that's a good point. We got rained. Princess is here. Hey, what's up? Rain says, did you hear about the interview with Nobel prize winner, Luke Monta engineer, who argues that the RNA vaccine has created Mo mutant variants meant to produce extreme symptoms and death? If so, wondering your thoughts on that? I have not seen that, right. Obviously we've gotta be careful about some of the medical advice on this channel. I don't, I can't speak to that one way or the other loop Monta Genea though, is the name of the guy he's a Nobel prize winner. So I would, uh, I'm actually very curious in watching that. So I will go seek that one out. That sounds curious. Uh, but you know, YouTube, doesn't like you talking about any of that stuff. And so we're going to respect their rules. We always try to play by the rules here on

Speaker 6: 1:23:46

YouTube.

Speaker 1: 1:23:48

Cause we got to Liberty or death says, oh no Liberty based objections. I'm screwed. Yeah. Liberty

Speaker 6: 1:23:53

Is just kind of you're in your own category. It's it's the Liberty category for you, just for you because they know you're you're troubled brother. We got Jack,

Speaker 1: 1:24:05

It says, does the new law passed in Florida, do anything to protect us from this kind of Chinese social credit system? Uh, you know, I haven't read that yet. So Ron DeSantis passed this new bill and it was really funny. I think he, I think the bill, I read the headline imposes a$250,000 penalty for anybody who's running for state office in Philly.

Speaker 6: 1:24:24

That is deep platforms. So somebody said, well, Trump should run for mayor.

Speaker 1: 1:24:29

Just see what happens. I just haven't run for city council. Donald Trump could go run for a house of representative for the small district of whatever. Right. It doesn't even matter.

Speaker 6: 1:24:38

And then when Twitter doesn't let him back on boom,$250,000 legal claim filed under[inaudible].

Speaker 1: 1:24:44

This is new bill. Uh, could another state make it illegal for fascist book to seek control behavior outcomes?

Speaker 6: 1:24:52

You know, I mean, I guess, but what are they going to do? Who cares? Like what Facebook, what does Facebook? They own it,

Speaker 1: 1:25:00

All of the states and all of the politicians. So what are they going to do about it? We'll see what happens coming from Florida, but I'm not holding my breath folks. I think honestly, on this issue with Facebook, I think that the answer is technological superiority. I don't think that a digital look, listen. I was my idea. I had, I had this idea for a digital bill of rights, where I was thinking we're going to rewrite the bill of rights in the, in the vein of, of 2021. Okay. In, in, in the 17 hundreds, the bill of rights was appropriate because we were all out in public conversing in the public square. While in 2021 coming on the back of 2020, we were all locked down. We were all in home. The internet became the public space. They became the public square. And so the people who control the public square have to, in my opinion, abide by the same principles that we would abide by in the real world, which of course would be free speech, free expression, free assembly, and on and on and on. So the idea would be that we need a digital bill of rights to apply to these big tech companies, because there is sort of this private company exception to free speech that exists right now and in religion and expression and assembly and all of them, you just kind of just say, oh yeah, you're right in America. We do have free speech and freedom of religion. Unless it's a private company that's robbing you of those rights, then that's okay because it's not the government doing it. It's a private company doing it. And we

Speaker 6: 1:26:14

Say, well, there is no public

Speaker 1: 1:26:16

Company that allows us to get on the internet and post memes and, and watch cat videos. Okay? These are all private companies. There's no way for us to engage in the public conversation, but through these companies. So what happens if they're now violating your constitutional rights? Well, the Democrats and even many Republicans just say, well, it's a private company. We're not going to regulate them. And I said, well, but they're violating your civil rights. Aren't they? Aren't. They violating your freedom, freedom to, to participate and to speak politically. That sounds like a violation of your civil rights. They say, no, it's a private company.

Speaker 6: 1:26:48

Well, the segregationists in a different

Speaker 1: 1:26:52

Era in the United States, we're also private businesses. And what do we say to them when they said black people over here, white people over here, we said, that's unacceptable. We're not going to allow that to happen in this country. We're going to raise the baseline. We're going to say that as grotesque behavior. And we're going to say, you can't do that anymore. It's now illegal. We have the 1964 civil rights

Speaker 6: 1:27:10

Like that. Okay. Because of the country,

Speaker 1: 1:27:12

It was sick of it. But now the country just doesn't really care all that much about, I don't know what the first amendment Facebook and all these companies can just say, we've had enough of your opinion. Thanks for playing. You have nowhere else to go. You can go stand on the corners,

Speaker 6: 1:27:24

But nobody's going to listen to you. Uh, so I think that the final way that they fall is under the weight of their own,

Speaker 1: 1:27:35

Honestly. And you're going to see these, these new tech platforms, these new blockchain protocols that are going to come out in five years. And they're all gonna just wet the bed because it's going to come quickly. They're all already trying to get in on the game a little bit, but they're so plugged into the Fiat system, into the old world. That's going to be difficult for them to do that. We're seeing this already with Facebook, Facebook is trying to start their own crypto. It's called diem and it's a stable coin. That's tied to the dollar. And so they're, they're getting into the crypto space, okay. Amazon is going to be close behind them. Google is going to be closed behind him. They're all going to throw their weight onto this technology because if they don't, they're gonna, they're gonna evaporate. And they can see the writing on the walls. Even the fed is seeing this come down. He said that the federal reserve chairman Powell came out and said, they're going to release a report on cryptocurrencies and this summer, because they're seeing China's releasing their own crypto, uh, called it's the digital UN.

Speaker 6: 1:28:25

And they're going, holy smokes. If the Chinese

Speaker 1: 1:28:30

Take control of the cryptocurrency space, we're in deep duty. So they are moving very quickly to answer and respond to this. And that's really what I think is going to take to, to break the stranglehold of big tech. It's not going to be section two 30. It's not going to be these Republicans, not going to be these Democrats, you know, screaming at Zuckerberg on the floor of the house. They don't care. They own all of those people. So it has to be something else. And in my opinion, it's blockchain. We have doodle doo says, honest question. Are there any laws in place yet this country or anywhere else that prevent or punish as a company like Facebook from intentionally using a form of mass, psychological manipulation that aims to influence behavior toward one direction only. So, no, I haven't seen anything like that at all. I mean, I think that that is kind of, it's kind of the basis for a lot of things in this country, massive psychological manipulation. I mean, everybody that you'd have to sort of ban all of the major news companies you'd have to ban, uh, you know, Disney radio shows YouTube. I mean, everything is sort of in that category to some extent, even the show, right? We're all sort of, you know, talking through things, somebody could make that argument that I'm trying to manipulate people, right? So it can be ridiculous going in a number of different directions. But you know, there's no criminal law out there from mice, mass, psychological manipulation that we can charge mortgages, mark Zuckerberg with, you know, there's other, a lot of other different statutes and criminal laws on the books that say that you can't, you know, do fraudulent things. You can't, uh, uh, uh, what's the word you can't convert to use an old torch tortious term. You can't convert something from, from, that's not lawfully yours into something that you're sort of using illegally unlawfully. So there are all sorts of rules in place for that. But this is like a legitimate business. This is Facebook. This is a a hundred billion dollar company that has a lot of investment from a lot of people who have a lot of power throughout the country, including politicians. So of course that's not going to be illegal. That's sort of how they run the game. We have Liberty says I would love it when the GOP takes the house back. If they elect Trump as speaker, nothing in the constitution requires the speaker of the house to be a member of Congress. Did you imagine that we've got speaker of the house, Donald Trump in the house of representatives? Uh, after two years they get two years of, uh, some peace and calm and then Donald Trump right on the house floor. Listen punks. All right. We have Jack Elia says, how about a law requiring any entity with a license to do business issued by the government must protect the unalienable rights of consumers using their services? Yeah, I mean, we, we sort of have that, I guess is my point in the, in the bill of rights we have that it already says that the government can encroach on this. You know, so, so my, my, my sort of thesis on this is that Facebook really isn't a private company anymore. Neither is Amazon. They are so incestuously intertwined with the government that it's sort of pseudo fascism, really. I mean, fascism is the, the combining of the government with really the private inter enterprise, the private space, sort of this, this unholy Alliance between the government and business. And then they use the power of the government to grow their businesses. And we're seeing that already in place, right? We've seen that a lot of, a lot of interface between the CIA and many of these tech companies, including Facebook and Google. We also know that, you know, the, uh, Amazon web services houses, the servers of the CIA within, within their, you know, their homes, uh, Google was part of all this stuff that Snowden revealed, you know, they're monitoring everything. So there's this unholy Alliance between them. So it's not really like they are private companies. Okay. This isn't like grandma with her cake shop down the street, baking cakes. These are pseudo governmental entities. They interface directly with the governments and they're, they're the ones that are relieving you of your rights and your freedoms because the government can't do it. They're using this private exception rule to do so. And it's not appropriate. So I guess, I guess if we needed a law, it would say the bill of rights should apply to everybody, right? Not just the government, the government can encroach on those rights. Can't relieve you of those rights. Neither can a private corporation. I think that's maybe where you're going and that might be worthwhile. All right. So we've got one last segment today. We're going to be talking about the police yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the George Floyd death at the hands of Derek Shovan. And a lot of people after that happened have been screaming about justice reform, yours truly included. I've been wanting to see some positive changes in our society. And so now that one year has elapsed, it's kind of time to take a look back and see what have we done? Where are we coming from? And where are we going so that we can see some real justice reform in America? Are we closer or not? We're going to turn our attention over to Chicago, mayor Lori Lightfoot. So she unveiled a new plan for civilian police oversight. She's going to create a commission, but she's also going to keep the ultimate control of the Chicago police. So mayor, mayor, Lori Lightfoot, we have a picture of her. Ah, darn it. We don't, but she, uh, you'd recognize her. We've seen her before. We've talked about her on this channel. The very, I would say eccentric mayor of the city of Chicago comes out and gives a lot of very, you know, very aggressive speeches. Doesn't like Donald Trump. And she has been promising for a long time justice reform, kind of one of the reasons she ran for mayor on the back of justice reform. And so people are scratching their heads saying, Hey, you've been in office for some time now going to get to that justice reform issue that you campaigned on. Here she is. So now she's out the mayor, according to CBS two Chicago staff, this was posted a couple of days ago, Todd Feuer CBS Chicago web producer writes the mayor repeatedly has said quote, because she wears the jacket for crime in Chicago. She's not willing to essentially hand over control of Chicago police to a civilian oversight board. So, you know, this is sort of the, the rub right here in the beginning, right? A lot of people say, we need civilian oversight. We don't need elected politicians to be beholden to the P the police agencies. So essentially what they're, what they're trying to break when they talk about civilian oversight boards is sort of police control of the politics. But what a lot of people think happens. And we see this a lot with people like Latisha James, the New York attorney general, she came out and said that she was all about justice reform when she was running for office in particular, she wanted to, uh, well, one of her main campaign talking point was to go and investigate and prosecute Donald Trump and his family. But closely related to that, she talked about justice and justice reform. And lo and behold, we have a case that lands on her desk involving Daniel prude, which is one of the most insane killings by police that I've seen. They actually put a black man lying naked in the road, in a hood, uh, uh, four or five white guys standing around him, put them in a hood and then do a full body plank on his neck until he dies. Right. Uh, he died like three days later, basically collapsed his head and his skull and his wind pipe in a way that he could not regain breathing functions because an officer was, was like doing a full body plank on his head for a long period of time. So, right. A case like that, you would think, yep, absolutely. We're going to charge that person with a crime for that, because it was as bad as Floyd easily.

Speaker 2: 1:35:55

And this case lands on Latisha, James, his desk, she promised justice reform. What does she do?

Speaker 1: 1:36:01

Nothing. She kicks it over to a grand jury. They choose not to indict those cops who knows what was presented at the grand jury, whether her office kind of through that or not, who knows? I would guess probably we've seen this historically. We saw the same thing happen with Daniel Cameron in the Brianna

Speaker 2: 1:36:17

Taylor case. Clearly a case that

Speaker 1: 1:36:19

In my opinion should have been prosecuted. It wasn't because the attorney general covers for the cops and people are sick of this crap. So what they want is a division there. They want some civilian oversight of the police department and the police, uh, you know, agencies and they want to create some divisions so that the police don't rain rough shot or run rough shot over the mayors and over these attorney generals, cause they've got huge unions, a ton of money, a lot of political power. And so we're sort of

Speaker 2: 1:36:45

Tired of their weight and their, their, um,

Speaker 1: 1:36:49

Ability to create momentum in a political race. Gone. We want to evaporate that. So how do we do that? We create a civilian oversight board to create some separation so that the civilian oversight board theoretically, is not scared to death of the police and the police unions that are going to be waging war against them in the court of public opinion. So the question for mayor Lori Lightfoot was, are you going to create that division? Are you going to create a civilian over

Speaker 2: 1:37:14

Board and handoff power to them rather than you, the mayor retaining that power, but what politicians do they want power? She said, or let's see who says this? The mayor.

Speaker 1: 1:37:27

He said, she wears the jacket. She reiterated that stance on Monday. She said, quote, public safety, I think is one of the most critical responsibilities of any mirror. Me and anybody who will

Speaker 2: 1:37:34

Come from me, the relationship

Speaker 1: 1:37:37

Between the mayor and the police superintendent is critically important because the buck stops with me. I will ultimately as mayor and any other subsequent mayor be making that decision on hiring or firing the superintendent. However, the commission would have the power to assess performance of and set goals

Speaker 2: 1:37:52

For those officials. When any of these becomes vacant,

Speaker 1: 1:37:56

The commission would be empowered to conduct a search for new candidates, provide the mayor with a list virtually identical to the current process. The police board already uses the panel would have the authority to cast a vote of no confidence on the fitness of the superintendent. So while the commission would be able to weigh in, on setting policy for Chicago, the police board, the seven member panel would not have the final say on policy. Oh, that's weird. Rather if there were any policy disputes between the commission and the Chicago police Copa or the police board Lightfoot would review the party's positions and either direct the superintendent, chief admin or police policy to take appropriate action and explain in writing why no action is warranted. So she creates the board, but retains ultimate power. So it's sort of another death by commission, which is very, very common in this space, politicians and criminal justice, as if you've been a part of the channel for a long period of time, you know this, they love to talk, uh, lots of times. Oh yeah, we're gonna form a commission. We're gonna investigate this. We're gonna get to the bottom of this. We're going to mandate and make changes. Nothing ever happens. They create commissions, they move things around. They move a bunch of shuffle, a bunch of papers around on the desk. Nothing changes. Likewise, the new commission would also be given a chance to weigh in on the annual budgets. Oh, that's nice. They're going to be given a chance rather before the annual city council votes on department budgets, the commission would prepare a budget submission and then they're going to review it. The commission would also have the authority to direct Copa, to investigate specific complaints of misconduct. The first members of the commission would be appointed by the mayor and the city council Lightfoot would nominate five members. City council would nominate to subject to confirmation by the full council with a limit, uh, four year terms. The ordinance would establish a three member district council once elected. One of the three council members of each district would be chosen to serve on a panel. We allow for this process to be really engaged. Lightfoot proposal does not specifically say when the first district councils would be elected. Rather the ordinance tasks, the appointed seven member commission with recommending a process. As soon as practicable, once the commission is in place in 2022. Oh, here she is. There's Lori Lightfoot recognize her folks. We all know what she looks like. Faith added that. Thanks Smith, miss faith, the mayor's announcement for her plan for a civilian police oversight commission comes just days after the safety committee told Taliaferro that he plans to hold a vote on the issue. Next month, a more sweeping proposal is being dubbed. The empowering communities for public safety act. The E C P S is a compromise. That's going to push for competing plans of civilian oversight. Lightfoot pulled her previous support from the plan. We've got a civilian oversight committee. They're going to veto such policies by two thirds vote. All right. So here's, let's see here we have with, with Lightfoot now finally unveiling her own plan. She now has a little more than three weeks to win over. Alderman who might support this public safety is a vote is supposed to be held on January 18th. So, all right, so we've got one, one attempt. We got Lori Lightfoot from Chicago trying to create this civilian board, going to put seven people on. They're going to have a very, very,

Speaker 6: 1:41:04

Hmm.

Speaker 1: 1:41:04

I was going to use a word that I'm not going to use. We're going to call it, uh, less than four to five results. Let's say, right? Not a lot of, a lot, a lot, not a lot of energy going on in this proposal, but we'll see if anything comes of it. Now, there is an alternative proposal. Okay. We talked about this yesterday. Somebody asked a question about civilian agencies and one of my proposals was maybe we take, I don't know, three defense lawyers, three judges, and three prosecutors. We put them on sort of like the Supreme court, you know, or get a panel of nine people. And you can rule on these issues. Sounds like they're trying to kind of go that route with a civilian oversight committee. We'll see what happens now. There's another way to do this. You could also just defund the police. Can, we've talked about that on this channel. One of the dumbest ideas I've heard

Speaker 6: 1:41:47

In recent, uh, maybe in my lifetime it's that, that, uh,

Speaker 1: 1:41:51

But they're still running with it. And what happens when you defund the police? When you actually stop paying people to do things, what want to take a stab at what happens? Guess what? The people stopped doing things. They just say, Hey, oh, well, if you're not, if you're not gonna fund me, I'm not gonna do that. That doesn't make any sense. And we're actually seeing that happen now, unfortunately in Seattle. So Seattle police are expected to lose 300 officers by the end of the month. And that's not a drop in the bucket folks. That's a third of the agency. Okay? 300 officers from Seattle are bailing out in a heartbreaking and revealing inner interview on the airy Huffman show. President of the Seattle police officers Guild. Mike Solange said regarding police officers leaving at the end of the month, we'll be close to 300 officers leaving. That's a third of the agency said he told Hoffman that the loss of the officers was, uh, from last year to date could range from 288 to 300. He described the departing officers as quote, great human beings that do the job. And they just want to serve some of the officers opted for early retirement. Others took law enforcement jobs in other cities or switched to alternate careers.

Speaker 6: 1:42:55

This came over from

Speaker 1: 1:42:56

The post millennial. They say that morale on the force is at an all time low. Last month, Seattle police officer and trainee refused was refused service at a local chocolate shop. The incident revealed the pattern of behavior by employees and that chains in

Speaker 6: 1:43:08

Other locations, same day female

Speaker 1: 1:43:11

Officer was walking past beat at a local public school. When, uh, approximately ten third grade students raise their hands in the hands up. Don't shoot referenced the Michael Brown incident

Speaker 6: 1:43:21

Ferguson K ten third grade students BLM.

Speaker 1: 1:43:25

This claim. Brown was a victim of police brutality after he was shot, but investigators revealed that he had attacked the police officers. And so there's a very, very curious narrative that's happening. You know, police are being dumped on all the time and by the way, I do a lot of the dumping here. That's the part of, that's the sole reason for this channel. I'm a criminal defense attorney.

Speaker 6: 1:43:42

And even I can tell

Speaker 1: 1:43:44

You that I have seen the pendulum swing way too far, the other direction. And it really is a sad thing. I was very excited that we were going to talk about meaningful justice reform. Talk about some common sense approaches. Like I don't mandatory body cameras, maybe revisit,

Speaker 2: 1:43:56

Uh, more complete reporting

Speaker 1: 1:44:01

Requirements for police misconduct and

Speaker 2: 1:44:03

Keeping it, you know, keeping more robust information

Speaker 1: 1:44:06

About officers as they move around between different departments. I've talked about ending qualified immunity. I've talked about issues with police unions and all of that,

Speaker 2: 1:44:14

But I've also tried my best to stay pretty close to

Speaker 1: 1:44:18

Reality on this topic that most cops I think are good people. Many of them are just like you and you and I, we just want to live our lives. Do some good in the world, have a nice family and be of service to our fellow man. And when we start to villainize them and we start to say that everything that they do is wrong and every single one of them is a racist maniac. And every single one of them wants to murder

Speaker 2: 1:44:39

Black people. Well, we start to communicate and create sort of a cultural environment that is problematic. And it really,

Speaker 1: 1:44:47

If you're going to be scolding anybody or any industry,

Speaker 2: 1:44:51

Would you expect to happen less of that? It doesn't matter

Speaker 1: 1:44:54

If it's the police or anybody. If you scold lawyers or doctors or anybody, eventually the entire industry is going to get pretty sick and tired of it. And they're just going to say, all right, it's fine. Look, you don't want us. We don't want you. No problem. We're going to pick up and we're going to move. We're going to leave. We're going to go to a place that does want us where we are appreciated. And there are a lot of places in this world that will appreciate good cops. I'd appreciate them right here in Arizona. So Seattle, come on down here. Let's see what we can work out. If we have openings, I've done. I'm sure we do. But

Speaker 2: 1:45:22

The point is good for them. Good for them for leaving.

Speaker 1: 1:45:26

If they're going to be defunded and villainized, I would

Speaker 2: 1:45:28

Leave to crime

Speaker 1: 1:45:30

Spiked exponentially across the city as have the length of nine 11 response times last month, it took police almost an hour to respond to the reports of a gun on a public school campus. What, what do you expect? They're not funded the Seattle homicide rate in 2020 doubled from 2019. It's continuing the same upward climb in 2021. So Lon said one year ago, city officials were praising. The department is a model of police reform for the country. Isn't that nice? That all changed. Following the death of Floyd and the riots riots ultimately led to the decision to abandon

Speaker 2: 1:46:00

And SPDs east precinct, which resulted in the creation of the infamous Capitol hill autonomous zone, right on Sunday, a podcast was released featuring Seattle police,

Speaker 1: 1:46:10

Chief Carmen, best who said that the decision to abandon the precinct was not her own was made collectively by her command

Speaker 2: 1:46:15

Staff. She said they did not

Speaker 1: 1:46:18

Even consult with her. So I said, we're not going to evacuate that precinct. We're not going to evacuate the precinct. I wasn't at the precinct at the time. So I didn't see what was happening. Boots on the ground. That was my last word. She hung up. I hung up a couple of hours later. It was like they evacuated the precinct.

Speaker 2: 1:46:30

Like what happened when asked about

Speaker 1: 1:46:33

The claim of command staff, ignoring a direct order from the police chief. Solanas had the ultimate authority in the city of Seattle is the executive, which is the mayor. And then those orders come down to the police, to the chief of police and then subordinates under her. Be very difficult for someone underneath the chief to do something that is counter to what the chief of police has directed her subordinates to act on. So it's either the chief of police or it's the mayor who said abandoned the precinct. So LAN also discussed the decision by Capitol hill pride, banning Seattle police officers from participating in this year's March, but still wanting their protection for the event. Right? So Capitol hill pride there. They're saying police, you can't come. We don't want you here at our rally, but we want your protection, right? We don't, we don't respect you. We don't like you here, but we still need your protection. Seattle city council unanimous vote on Monday to move nine 11 dispatching operations out of the control of Seattle police into the hands of a, yet to be established. Civilian led community safety and communication center. So it's the police. Don't get to do that anymore now as community safety. So what does that mean? Who knows it's up to our community, recover this city and take it away from the activist crowd. So Lon said it's up to the community to get Seattle back to a moderate community. Yeah. Right. So here is a quick clip of this listen, Seattle PD to lose 300 officers by the end of may. This is now kind of a want to just make a quick pause on this issue. So Seattle police, officer Guild, Mike salon right now, you know, these are, these are very, very common sort of prolific, very pro police organizations. So take that with a grain of salt. And I'm not saying what the, what this guy is saying is dishonest. But if he is, he's trying to make a political statement here, right? He's trying to say, Hey, your policies are going to cause a lot of problems. So he has it. He has a motivation here. Just want to point that out here is the cliff bar. I mean, at this point, if you guys said, oh, we're not going to protect the parade because they're boycotting us. They'd call you a bunch of bigots and racists. You guys are in a no win situation.

Speaker 9: 1:48:34

Well, we know based upon the fact that we're human beings and want to do the job of policing to serve others, we have to serve others. That hate us, that loads us. And those obviously that support us. We swear to that oath of service and then all of service doesn't discriminate against anybody.

Speaker 1: 1:48:55

And I think that's the amazing thing. That's

Speaker 9: 1:48:58

Well, it's exactly what it is. It's about the amazing people as human beings that do the job of policing and that's his fit we're humans, right? And I think that's what gets lost here is that people equate us as just being these robots that people can discriminate against. Well, no, you can't. We're human just like you. And we do a difficult job when we serve you. We're willing to give our lives to you, but don't for a second, we're going to allow you to just district discriminate against us because we're police officers, police officers should be adhered to as heroes. People willing to live late on their lives, in the service of others. Anybody else that shouts otherwise, guess what? The Seattle police department is currently hiring. Why don't you come join our community based agency and take part. And if you want change, come be a part of the change process and see how policing is really conducted. And this is the most progressive agency in the United States of America. And our elected officials recently said, such said such that we are the modeled reformed

Speaker 1: 1:50:18

Doesn't matter. They don't care. It's never going to be good enough, never. So you can just keep playing the game. This is, this is the thing, you know, you hear people all the time say, never apologize. Donald Trump did this. If you start apologizing and playing this game, it's never good enough, right? Apparently the most progressive police department in the country, now they want to defund it. Now you don't get to do nine one, one calls. You don't get to show up at our pride parade. We got eight. We got third graders now freaked out of you because of what we're teaching them in schools. And he's frustrated as hell. I don't blame him. Now, a couple of points on this. Now he says, you know, we're not all, all robots. Well, a lot of, a lot of you are actually, which is part of the problem. Whether we're saying we want to see more humanity out of you, we don't want to see robotic police officers that show up, grab a 73 year old Karen Garner and just throw her down. Like, like it's just business as usual. And it wasn't just one guy. He goes back, his partner was doing the same thing. He went back, his supervisor did the same thing. There's a cultural problem with police departments that I've got an issue with that being said, I totally agree with this guide, right? Not every one of them is a, is a rotten maniac that deserves to be discriminated against if you don't like discrimination against any demographic in this country, but you're suddenly okay with it when it comes to police officers, maybe, maybe it should be asking yourself about that. Maybe you're you are a discriminatory person than at that point, right? You're you're, pre-judging people based on their profession or their skin color or their badge in this case, it's not appropriate. And so, you know, we're, we're, we're trying to come to the center here. We're trying to, to, to, to rectify the issue, but how can you do so when you're dealing with an unreasonable opposite side, I talked about this yesterday. If BLM wants, according to their own demands on their own website, I'm not making this up to literally defund the police. How do you start a conversation with that? I understand negotiating. I understand starting with a big ask and sort of the, the concept of persuasion, you know, go in. I want a million dollars. You're not gonna get a million dollars. All right, well, I'll take 500. Well, that's perfect. Cause that's what I was thinking too. And you start to start big and ask small. That's not what they're doing here. They want the police defunded and they are moving aggressively in that manner. And they're proving that they're going to be successful. Police are leaving 300 officers leaving. Now. He says, you know, well, we're, we're not leaving. We're going to protect everybody. You know, all this raw stuff. We're the police. We we're, we protect people. Whether they like us or not. I can appreciate that a lot. I'm a defense attorney. Most people don't like me. Right? A lot of people look at me and go you human debris. How could you even possibly what a monster you are. So get that. I understand what that feels like. And I understand,

Speaker 2: 1:52:49

Uh,

Speaker 1: 1:52:51

Working and being of service in the face of that. It's sort of a, kind of a badge of honor to some degree. But at the same time, if, if I was working for the government and the government said, we're not going to pay you for this work anymore.

Speaker 2: 1:53:01

Like, all right, well, so long there are other

Speaker 1: 1:53:04

Governments that will, and there are other people that will appreciate my work. I don't have to, you know, succumb to the doctrine of self sacrifice and just, you know, prostrate myself over the entire Seattle city because I'm a Seattle resident and I'm a police officer. Who's just going to give it all up in the name of honor and duty. No man,

Speaker 2: 1:53:22

To pick it up, they don't want you there. Take your family.

Speaker 1: 1:53:25

Come down to Arizona, go over to Texas, go to Tennessee. There are different cities that will happily have good officers. We'd love to welcome you. So pick up and get the hell out of there. And if they want to continue down this road, let them keep the funding. The police see what happens, folks. It's going to be so bad. You're going to see, you're going to see, uh, what I'm envisioning is sort of a repeat of what happened in 19. In the 1990s, we had this really bad crime wave, allegedly that all the politicians went haywire over Joe Biden in particular, and many would argue that Kamala Harris got her her start in politics by being this very aggressive prosecutor and prosecuting crime. And so we have this crime wave. We have the cycle of crime wave. We're going to defund a bunch of police 10 years. We're gonna see the consequences from that. We're going to see a lot of crime. We're going to see a bunch of, you know, uh, elected politicians get out there. Bloviating 10 years after that saying, well, we've got to crack down on all this crime. We got drugs in the streets and blah, blah, blah. Then they're going to the, you know, Joe Biden, Jr. Hunter, Biden's going to be running for president. And he's going to come out here and say, well, we got to crack down on these criminals. You know, I'm a former drug addict and we're going to do all this crap and we're going to fix the system and they're going to pass all the same laws that Joe Biden passed when he was doing the same thing back in the eighties and nineties, 84 crime bill, 88 crime bill, 86 crime bill, 1994, crime bill, mandatory sentencing, crack cocaine, five years automatic, first defense. Those are Joe Biden's rules. More black people are in custody because of him and Kamala then Trump or any other

Speaker 2: 1:54:48

Republican living or dead. So we'll look w w w the,

Speaker 1: 1:54:54

Well, we're going to be hurt as a result of this defunding. The police are the same people who are upset. Now, when we have another really aggressive crime wave and an aggressive response from our useless politics,

Speaker 2: 1:55:04

Who's going to be hurt. It's the same

Speaker 1: 1:55:07

Communities that are trying to solve the problem right now. They just don't see it yet. Right now. It feels really good. They're very angry and they want to defund the police. And they think that that's going to be something meaningful, but it's not, and there's going to be a backlash and it's going to hurt the justice reform movement. And it's going to hurt people who are going to be going to prison because we can't get our crap together in our justice system. All right. So let's take a quick look at some questions. We've got, oh, no. Before we get there, here is, uh, Andy, Andy. No. So, so this is what's going on in Portland. Uh, Portland Antifa tried to burn down the justice center tonight to commemorate their burning of the same occupied facility a year ago. So we got, we got a lot of places we're checking in at Chicago. They got a civilian oversight committee that sounds like it does nothing. Then we go over to Seattle, 300 cops, there are leaving and they can't go to the pride parade and they can't walk by a third grade class without getting, uh, sort of, um, let's say interesting reactions from the kids. Then we go over to Portland and they're burning down the same building that they are, that they burnt down a year ago. So good progress there. And it looks like they tried to burn it down. So I'm not sure if that actually was accomplished or not. Uh, but here it is. So this is a video that Andy

Speaker 10: 1:56:27

[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 1:56:29

One year, one year, it's been one year, it's still the same thing nothing's changed. They tried to burn that down in may of last year. They're burning it down again. So really good progress that out there in Portland, that mayor should be really proud of himself. Jack Elia says, how could I feel comfortable with a civilian oversight board that is utterly ignorant of being on the frontline of having to decide in a split second, whether to fire a weapon or not. If someone that has never put their body, uh, between a victim and their abuser to get hit so that they can make an arrest because the abuse will not testify. It's a good, it's a great point, Jack. A it's a great point, very well written. I appreciate that. And I think you're expressing a lot of the frustrations that a lot of people have with this, you know, and a lot of cops do, and I've been, I've been somebody who watches a scene, watches police. And I say, that was a bad shoot, but I wasn't there. Right. I don't know. I'm, I'm, um, armchair, quarterbacking, this like the rest of everybody. And so, you know, we're always trying to do that. We're always trying to ask people to put themselves in other people's shoes and pass judgment. And we do it every day in court. We asked judges who were not there to make rulings. We ask jurors who were not there to make rulings. And so we're always trying to decide how to do this the opposite, right? So if I, if I take your perspective on this, which I think is extremely valid, by the way. And I, if I reverse that and I said, okay, well, what if we just put a bunch of cops on there? What if we just filled up this, this, this oversight board with a bunch of cops, like it kind of currently is, well, the downside to that is that they review it and they go, yeah. I mean, shoot, man, I would've shot him too, because it was a very, they're sort of primed the other direction. I'm primed more towards the, I believe the police are our experts and should be considered, you know, heroic when they wait. Not necessarily that they're all by default heroes. They're just regular people doing the job. Like all of us are, but when they do heroic things, we should reward them for that. And one of the heroic things is waiting. If that split-second wait, it's that gray area. Okay. I'm not a trained police officer. So if somebody feels like a threat to me, first thing, I'm doing shooting, right? Asking questions later. But the police, we say, we need you to wait a split-second because of you have this training, you have this power, you have this ultimate responsibility. We need you to wait a split second. So that's part of the job. It's part of the training. They agreed to that. They accept that. They recognize that they're gonna be put in these situations and that they got to wait a little bit. That's why their police, we expect them to wait. That's where the power is. So, you know, we're, we're trying to find a balance. Do we put some civilians on there? Do we put former police on there? Do we split it? We put half former police, half civilians.

Speaker 2: 1:58:56

How do we balance this out? But a lot of people are not happy with the current system we got

Speaker 1: 1:59:00

High desert is in the house. As Phoenix city council voted to create the office of accountability and transparency for civilian investigations of alleged police misconduct,

Speaker 2: 1:59:09

A G a Z alleged. Oh my gosh, you got it.

Speaker 1: 1:59:12

Numbers here. A house bill that requires all boards to have two thirds were an officer's HB. Another one requires 80 hours of post. What happens when the city council thumbs its nose at states

Speaker 2: 1:59:24

At state legislators. All right.

Speaker 1: 1:59:27

There's one at 80 hours. What happens when city council thumbs its nose at state legislatures? Um, I don't know. I actually don't. I apologize. I'm not understanding this question for some reason, civilian investigations. So I think, I think you're asking what happens when the city council says that we're okay. I think, I think I see what you're saying. I think the question is why, what happens when the city council says we're not going to comply for our local police departments with, with Arizona law that says that you have to comply by these rules, 80 hours of post-training two-thirds of sworn officers. I'm not familiar with these bills to be honest. So I'm not, I'm not really sure how these all interface with each other. But if you're saying that this was passed, Arizona's telling the cities that they have to comply with certain things and the state, I'm sorry. The city does not do that. Uh, ultimately what I think you'll see are lawsuits. You'll see, um, uh, injunctions, you'll see orders from the judges. You'll see the state government saying

Speaker 2: 2:00:20

We have passed the law, your city government,

Speaker 1: 2:00:24

Or under jurisdiction of this law. If you're not complying with the law, we're going to file a lawsuit. We're going to basically be demanding that the court order, you, you know, grant an injunction, demanding that you do these things. And if not that there are repercussions that the city has to pay. So it's going to be a state versus city and the state will win on that, but I'm not familiar with those bills. So I'll have to take a look at that. Those are, uh, those are, those are interesting bills that are coming down the pike. Thank you for that comment. High desert high desert must be an Arizona fellow. Good to see you. My fellow Phoenician or Arizona, we have leafy bugs in the house. As we already have civilian oversight of the police, its elected officials. The civilian oversight board is not a solution. It'll end up stuff with activists who will make things worse. We already have the structures in place that could deal with the problem. We don't need more civilians need to engage more with these structures to drive the change they seek. You know, I'm actually, I'm actually, uh, sort of in alignment with that. You know, I, I, I don't want to create a bunch of solutions that make people feel good, but don't actually solve anything. You know, we could create these civilian oversight boards, but if it's a bunch of people out up on those boards who are just screaming about, you know, whatever, and it's not a real, it's not connected to reality. Well then that's just as useless as what we already have.

Speaker 2: 2:01:33

So I

Speaker 1: 2:01:36

Agree that we don't need to start taking a bunch of action just to solve, you know, w but there are already a lot of issues

Speaker 2: 2:01:42

That we can, you know, there, there

Speaker 1: 2:01:44

Are existing institutions and procedures

Speaker 2: 2:01:46

And ways of doing things that are okay. We can improve them. We don't need to necessarily just throw them out. We're going to defund the whole thing. Just get rid of the entire police department. We're going to start from scratch. That doesn't make any sense at all. We've invested a lot of time in trying to figure a lot of this out. Not every aspect of policing is bad. There's a lot of very good stuff there that we figured out over the years. Keep some of that, take the stuff we're unhappy with, raise it up a little bit. We can, all, we can all compromise somewhere in the middle. We have Liberty or deaths, as I understand the police baling. Why should they stay? If this is a, if this is how good they're treated,

Speaker 1: 2:02:22

Um, Marine Corps JAG recruiter asked me if I wanted to sign. I told him a JAG recruiter is a,

Speaker 2: 2:02:26

Uh, uh, judges advocate

Speaker 1: 2:02:28

General. So it's sort of a lawyer in the armed services. I told him I was retired from the army and that I joined the army because even Marines need heroes. When we were done laughing, I told him that there was no way I could serve this president. After he's initiated this woke surge in the military, he says he was retiring for that reason going to happen in the military to folks.

Speaker 2: 2:02:49

Yeah. I mean, look, people don't want to go people, uh, police, officers, and soldiers to go, you know, right on unicorns and build rainbows around the world. We have Jeremy

Speaker 1: 2:03:00

Treat us as doesn't the constitution mentioned, the government will provide for the common defense. I would guess it is not constitutional for a city to not provide enough protection from harm for its citizens. Just the thought. Yeah. So you're sort of seeing,

Speaker 2: 2:03:12

Well, a common defense, I think of the nation, but the, uh, the federal government doesn't have any religion

Speaker 1: 2:03:19

Diction over local law enforcement. So, which is why it sort of trickles down to state and then city, uh, and even county levels.

Speaker 2: 2:03:26

So they don't have an affirmative duty to go provide

Speaker 1: 2:03:30

Police services to you. There's actually a Supreme court case that is directly on point on this. I think we've talked about it before, on the sh on the show, I can't recall the name, but

Speaker 2: 2:03:39

There was a case where the police showed up. Let's say 10

Speaker 1: 2:03:42

Minutes late. I, I read this back in law school, not since then. So it's been quite some time, but let me, uh, let me try this

Speaker 2: 2:03:49

One. There was a case where somebody called the police police got there

Speaker 1: 2:03:53

They're late, right? Maybe they should have been there in five. They got there in 30 minutes, or maybe they didn't come at all. I don't remember

Speaker 2: 2:03:59

Whatever police didn't get there in time. The person who called the police sued the government.

Speaker 1: 2:04:04

I said, the police should have come. So-and-so wouldn't have been killed. They would have lived. They, whatever major damages the government has an affirmative duty to come

Speaker 2: 2:04:12

And help. I pay my taxes. I'm a good citizen. I called nine one one. They didn't get there. They owe me an affirmative duty to respond and provide help. Guess what the court said? No, they don't. They don't know you anything. Okay. You can call them if they show up. Good, good for you. Glad they came. If they didn't come, nothing you can do about it. You don't have a claim. You can't Sue them for that. There are no repercussions.

Speaker 1: 2:04:38

So people think that the police are sort of, you know, they have to come and help and do something they don't, unless something's changed recently. But that case law says that the government doesn't have an affirmative duty to come in,

Speaker 6: 2:04:49

Help you if they do, that's great, but they don't have an obligation to, and you can understand

Speaker 1: 2:04:55

Why, right. You can understand why that is. It's actually a good rule. Okay? I don't, I don't want that rule. I don't want people to say that every time they call the government, that they got to show up and come fix their brakes and change their tire and mow their lawn. I don't want that at all.

Speaker 6: 2:05:07

Government says, no, we're not coming to your problem. Fix it.

Speaker 1: 2:05:10

There should be more, more of that. Not less. All right. We got tremendous is in the house, says, here's what makes me sad. The narrative encourages black people to be scared to walk to the store. I admit there have been arrest gone bad. There have been situations where they are trying to arrest the wrong person that have gone bad. And when was the last time you heard of a person of any race walking to the store being shot by the police? It bothers me. The black people have been living in fear due to the false narrative. Both parties use fear as a tool and it disgust me. Yeah. You know, I, I hear a lot about that. You know, I hear people say things like I was reading something and I heard somebody say that they're teaching their son and it's an African-American author. And they were writing that they were teaching their son

Speaker 6: 2:05:53

That walking down

Speaker 1: 2:05:55

The street is dangerous as a black man in 2021 right now, obviously. And I've never walked down the street as a black man. I don't know. But based on my

Speaker 6: 2:06:02

Experience, I have seen a lot

Speaker 1: 2:06:05

Of black people walking down the streets. And in my opinion, I've not seen never, not one time danger for, for a black person, walking down the streets, walking down Scottsdale road, going to a park, going to a football game, walking down Bino between bars when I was drinking and all, a lot of it. I've never seen that. Not once. I've never seen a black person be in a situation where there's a bunch of white guys, you know, running them down and, and lynching them up is doing, I'm not, I've never seen it now. I'm not saying that that, that that's

Speaker 6: 2:06:34

Not something

Speaker 1: 2:06:37

That never happens. Okay. Obviously that stuff happens. But when I was reading somebody, teaching their son, that this is the default in life, that this is just how it is as a black person in America. I have a hard time buying that narrative. Okay. Now I know

Speaker 6: 2:06:54

In

Speaker 1: 2:06:55

General, and I'm saying that there are different pockets around the country. We're certainly this is happening, right. And it's happening for all sorts of people, black people, white people. There are, there are dangerous pockets of the world. Their life is not sunshine and rainbows for everybody. There are situations where that is the reality. And I get that and I, I didn't have that great of an upbringing either as a young boy. So I understand

Speaker 6: 2:07:14

These environments, but the default

Speaker 1: 2:07:19

Being for somebody who's a middle-class person to say that, you know, my son is now walking around on a daily

Speaker 6: 2:07:24

Basis, walking,

Speaker 1: 2:07:26

Watching out whether the police are going to just show up and kill him. I'm thinking that is just such a sad way to live. You know,

Speaker 6: 2:07:32

Gosh, I mean, even if that were true, why would

Speaker 1: 2:07:36

You want to teach your son that from three years old and have them living in this world where that's what they think now you might be sitting there listening and saying, well, I think that's actually accurate. I think that is the perspective. Okay. George Floyd, for example, police just showed up and he's dead. So how about that, Rob? How about that example? Well, you're right. There are examples of this and there are many, many thousands and millions of examples of that not ever happening. So if we're going to be, you know, I don't, I don't have kids, but if we're going to be teaching our children and, and conducting ourselves in a way that encourages one of those two lenses on the world, one of those two paradigms, which one is more productive and which one is more connected to reality, is it that every time that you're a black person and you step out of your building, that a cop might kill you, or is it that, you know, mostly life is pretty good. And if you do a couple things, it's really good. And as long as you sort of, you know, live on the straight and narrow, the possibility of you ever dealing with the police is virtually zero, right? It just, it honestly, it breaks my heart. It makes me so sad for these kids. Thinking about these kids just being taught like white people are going to kill you, right? White people are racist. Every single white person in America is a, you know, a descendant of slavery or, you know, some sort of, you know, plantation owner or something like that. It's just really sad. It breaks my heart because it's not true. All right. Liberty or death says scary, right? We all know creepy Joe. Isn't going to serve as full term. What if they force Kamala? I say Kamala on that word to retire. And he appointed hunter for VP then resigns. Oh, why not put hunter Biden up there? Hey man, at least he knows where he is. So that would be fun. We have Chris. I want to thank all the questions from locals and I want to welcome Cristiana into the house. Welcome to the community Christiana. I appreciate you being here. And if you want to sign up and ask questions like we have seen today, and you want to just get a lot of other great things. You can go to watching the watchers.locals.com. We all a lot of great questions today, longer show. I appreciate all the great questions. We also have some things you can download. If you go over to watching the watchers.locals.com, things like my PowerPoint slides that we just went through today, that Ms. Faith helped to craft up. You can download a copy of my book here. It's called beginning to winning. It's free over on locals. You can download the PDF. You can download the impeachment party documents. You can download the existence systems, personal productivity template for free, right on over there@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. You can share links throughout the day and meet with some great people. We also have an event coming up on Saturday, June 26, mark that down. It is going to be our second monthly locals meetup. Oh, it's going to be fun. The first one was really good. We had that last week on May 22nd. And so we're gonna, you know, we're gonna do it again, cause it was so much fun. But before we do it, we're gonna meet on June 12th for our law enforcement interaction training, which again, excuse me, is available and free. If

Speaker 2: 2:10:34

You are a supporter@locals.com. So you can learn how to deal with law enforcement respectfully. And in a way that's going to diffuse the situation, not turn into something worse and most importantly

Speaker 1: 2:10:48

Protect your rights, which is what we really care about. So the, the available June 12th and that is it for me, my friends, before we sign off and get out of here for the day. Quick reminder that I am a criminal defense lawyer here at the R and R law group. And we love to help good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and their lives. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona or if they live outside of the state of Arizona, but they have a case in Arizona, we can help. We can help them clear up old records. We can quash warrants, we can restore the right to vote. We can help them restore their right to possess a firearm again, and apply for other federal benefits. And the list goes on and on. There's a lot that we can do to help. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who does need that help, we would be honored and humbled if you sent them our direction so that we can provide an opportunity to help, we'll make sure that they leave our office better than they found us before we head on out of here. Quick reminder that the contact information for our firm is down below, along with some other links to some other channels that I have

Speaker 2: 2:11:43

Started. So I am now now

Speaker 1: 2:11:45

Discussing cryptocurrencies, which I'm very fast

Speaker 2: 2:11:47

And about, uh, you know, got into that a little bit today, but there was a new video that I posted on that channel that came out

Speaker 1: 2:11:53

Today that involves the IRS. The IRS is now they posted what's called an RFI. It's called a request for information on their website, on the government's website, where different contractors will go. And they're looking for security experts who can hack your crypto wallet. So the IRS is now trying to build their own sort of data center, where they can crack into your wallets

Speaker 2: 2:12:15

When they seize your,

Speaker 1: 2:12:16

Your cryptocurrency. So very interesting stuff going on in this space. If you're interested in the cryptos, please check out my channel below, uh, Robert griller, crypto, and then there's some other channels as well that I'd encourage you to go plug into. We're going to be diversifying some of the content

Speaker 2: 2:12:30

A little bit and, uh, experimenting with that, to see how YouTube responds,

Speaker 1: 2:12:34

Check some of that out. I know it's a, it's a lot of different channels and I spent a lot of time plugging stuff, but I appreciate the support. We're trying to experiment and play around a little bit.

Speaker 2: 2:12:42

So I, uh, thank you for your help in that. So that is it from me.

Speaker 1: 2:12:46

Hi, everybody we are done for the day. We're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on that east coast for that one, Florida man out there. Good luck to him. Everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep. Very well. Have a nice hearty dinner. I'll see you right back here tomorrow.

Speaker 2: 2:13:04

Bye-bye.