Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Fauci Emails Scandal, Kamala Harris Border Crisis & Voting Rights, Capitol Hill Riot Plea Deals

June 02, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Fauci Emails Scandal, Kamala Harris Border Crisis & Voting Rights, Capitol Hill Riot Plea Deals
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Fauci Emails Scandal, Kamala Harris Border Crisis & Voting Rights, Capitol Hill Riot Plea Deals
Jun 02, 2021
Robert Gruler Esq.

New emails from Dr. Fauci are released showing his response to the Coronavirus and we look inside. President Biden puts Kamala Harris in charge of Voting Rights (after she finishes with the border). Updates on the Capitol Hill Riot cases, including one plea deal and one dismissal (!). And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Over 3,200 pages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails have been released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request.​
🔵 Refresher on the Dr. Nicholas Wade Article, which Rob covered in depth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDbS7Q98Qw​
🔵 Jason Leopold from Buzzfeed joins the Washington Post and others covering Fauci’s response to the coronavirus pandemic from January to June of 2020.​
🔵 Fauci was emailing high-profile people like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.​
🔵 Review of Fauci’s emails, many of which discuss the origin of the coronavirus and the lab leak theory.​
🔵 Nicolas Wade, the journalist who moved the needle on the Lab Escape Theory, addresses the controversy.​
🔵 Biden ordered U.S. Intel to further probe the origins of COVID-19, raising questions for China.​
🔵 The Chinese respond with threats of nuclear war and “strategic deterrence” for China in the face of further inquiry.​
🔵 Biden names Kamala Harris to address “voting rights” in Kamala’s second big appointment.​
🔵 President Biden had previously appointed Kamala Harris to handle to border crisis – we review updates and progress months later.​
🔵 White House confirms no plans to visit the border by Kamala as of May 24, 2021.​
🔵 CNN and others confirm Vice President Harris and her team appear to be running away from the border responsibilities – what gives?​
🔵 Fox News shows unlawful immigrants overwhelming Border Patrol near the border.​
🔵 A plea deal is accepted in a January 6th, Capitol Hill Riot case, in the case against Paul Hodgkins.​
🔵 Hodgkins is the second to accept a plea deal in connection with the 1/6 cases.​
🔵 Judge Moss said that according to sentencing guidelines, the recommendation would be between 15 and 21 months in prison.​
🔵 Surprisingly, the Department of Justice also dismissing another January 6th cases in the interests of justice, the case against Christopher Kelly.​
🔵 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

Show Notes Transcript

New emails from Dr. Fauci are released showing his response to the Coronavirus and we look inside. President Biden puts Kamala Harris in charge of Voting Rights (after she finishes with the border). Updates on the Capitol Hill Riot cases, including one plea deal and one dismissal (!). And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Over 3,200 pages of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails have been released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request.​
🔵 Refresher on the Dr. Nicholas Wade Article, which Rob covered in depth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEDbS7Q98Qw​
🔵 Jason Leopold from Buzzfeed joins the Washington Post and others covering Fauci’s response to the coronavirus pandemic from January to June of 2020.​
🔵 Fauci was emailing high-profile people like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.​
🔵 Review of Fauci’s emails, many of which discuss the origin of the coronavirus and the lab leak theory.​
🔵 Nicolas Wade, the journalist who moved the needle on the Lab Escape Theory, addresses the controversy.​
🔵 Biden ordered U.S. Intel to further probe the origins of COVID-19, raising questions for China.​
🔵 The Chinese respond with threats of nuclear war and “strategic deterrence” for China in the face of further inquiry.​
🔵 Biden names Kamala Harris to address “voting rights” in Kamala’s second big appointment.​
🔵 President Biden had previously appointed Kamala Harris to handle to border crisis – we review updates and progress months later.​
🔵 White House confirms no plans to visit the border by Kamala as of May 24, 2021.​
🔵 CNN and others confirm Vice President Harris and her team appear to be running away from the border responsibilities – what gives?​
🔵 Fox News shows unlawful immigrants overwhelming Border Patrol near the border.​
🔵 A plea deal is accepted in a January 6th, Capitol Hill Riot case, in the case against Paul Hodgkins.​
🔵 Hodgkins is the second to accept a plea deal in connection with the 1/6 cases.​
🔵 Judge Moss said that according to sentencing guidelines, the recommendation would be between 15 and 21 months in prison.​
🔵 Surprisingly, the Department of Justice also dismissing another January 6th cases in the interests of justice, the case against Christopher Kelly.​
🔵 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

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the RNR law group in 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. 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 beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we have got a lot to get into and I mean a lot. And then we're going to spend a lot of that time of our time here today on the first segment, talking about Dr. Fowchee, because 3,200 pages of emails from him and the people he was conversing , just hit the interwebs. And so Twitter and other platforms have been going. Hog-wild dissecting what is in there. There was a freedom of information act request that has been satisfied and fulfilled. We have a number of different news agencies that have these emails. We're talking about Buzzfeed. We have Washington post and many others that have gone through with a fine tooth comb. And we want to look through these. We want to see what is going on here. I've had a lot of issues with Dr. Fowchee for a long time now, and now we're starting to sort of take a look behind the curtain. See what was really going on. We're going to do a refresher on the Nicholas Wade article very briefly. But if you have not, if you're not up to speed with this entire controversy, really it's sort of this , uh , uh , debate that's happening between whether the Corona virus originated from a lab or whether this thing sort of evolved from a bat in a cave somewhere in China. And we're really opening the can of worms here, we're diving into this debate. And so if you missed the original article that was written by Nicholas Wade , uh , go take a look at that video that I made about that on a second channel. So the link is in the description below it's an hour and 20 minutes, but it really does a deep dive into this debate about where the Corona virus came from. And he does an excellent job in the article. And this is really what sort of cracked the shell here that is leading to a lot of questions being asked about Dr. Fowchee. So we've got some emails from Fowchee and Zuckerberg. We've got a lot that we're going to get into in that story, as well as the Biden administration is now asking for a further inquiry here, and China is responding. They're saying , uh, how about we just nuke you into oblivion. If you ask questions about where the Corona virus came from. So that's good development in international affairs. So we've got a lot to talk about there. Then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about Kamala Harris because she , he has been put in charge of another very big issue. You may recall some time ago, Joe Biden said that Camilo was going to go and fix the border, the solve this border non-crisis that we were all paying attention to. And so some time has elapsed since she was appointed to that crisis. Now she's going to be reorienting herself and focused on addressing voting rights problems. So we're going to check in on that story and see what is going on with that. It's been some time since we've taken a look at what's going on at the border, then we're going to give an update on the January six cases. It's been some time since January six coming up on six months now, and we have some dispositions. In some cases, we're going to talk about a couple of them. One, we have a plea deal. So a person who was there on January 6th is pleading guilty to a charge. I want to show you what's happening with that. And then surprisingly, the department of justice, the U S attorney's office is in fact dismissing another case, what is happening there. So we're going to go through those cases as well. And you can tell we've got a lot to get into here. So if you want to be a part of the show, you can, the place to do that is by heading over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our separate platform where we share and communicate throughout the day, we post links to things and you can download a free copy of my book. You can download a copy of the slides that we're about to go through. You can join us for a monthly meetup. On June 12th, we have a law enforcement interaction training that's coming up. There are great people over there, but one of the main features is that you can participate in the show that we're doing right now. Literally you can go there. There's a live chat. As long as you're a supporter and a member of that community, then you can ask questions, lob comments, throw out criticisms, whatever you want to do to be a part of the show. We encourage that and welcome it in . And of course we appreciate all your love and support over there. All right? So let's get into the news of the day. Dr. Anthony Fowchee has been a household name for a long time, almost too much of a household name for a long time. And now he's in a little , a little bit of hot water because we are finding that there were something like 3,200 emails that he was sending back and forth during the height of that pandemic. Last year from January to June 3,200 emails are now out and part of the public record. And these are emails that Dr. Fowchee was sending back and forth between him and other medical professionals and other medical non-professionals people like mark Zuckerberg and many others. And so these emails have now come to light. Twitter has been going wild, dissecting all of them. You can understand that this is a very kind of , uh , a tense situation here, right? We're balancing a lot of interests. And so on this channel, we have spoken about giving people a little bit of a benefit of the doubt in these types of situations, right? We've talked about governors and other politicians and said, gosh, you know, they were faced with a set of circumstances here that was unprecedented. I mean, the world has never seen anything quite like this. And so as we've been talking through COVID and coronavirus here for the last year or so, we've been doing our best to be cognizant of that, to recognize that there are a lot of people who are in a very, very difficult situation, technically doing their best, trying to, you know , help the American , the world, the country, presumably save live lives. I am somebody who likes to default and naturally believe that people want to try to be productive, want to help their fellow person, their fellow man, and woman, and move the needle in a positive direction. And so I sort of like to approach every story that way. And we're going to do that here with Dr. Fowchee. There is a little bit of a, you know, there's a sort of a sense of uneasiness when we go through this type of stuff, because we're looking through somebody's emails. Okay. And I know that I personally wouldn't want somebody to go through all of my emails and just throw them on the internet. And I would guess that most people would be in that same position. And so I have a little bit of empathy for this, right? This is a person that we want to be able to do business and communicate candidly without mincing words. And we want them to be able to do their job without having somebody look over their shoulders. And so when you go through somebody's emails, it kind of feels a little bit icky, doesn't it? But at the same time, he knew that these are all public record. He's a public official. These are partners as part of the deal. If you get into government, most of your emails are public record or in any of the official ones should be. So, you know, Dr. Fowchee knows what he's getting into. And every time he sent one of those emails, he should have known that this was going to be public record. And that's kind of a rule that I have, right. If I'm sending any email from my business email account, I think to myself, what if the judge just laid that email out right in, in open court or showed that to a client or showed that to the state bar? I'm very cognizant of that. I'm also on a board here in the city of Scottsdale. So I actually do work and interface with the government. And I know that they have very strict rules about these open meeting laws and, you know, they , they have on the bottom of every email I get from the government, Hey you , to be careful about what you do with this email and about where it goes and about even who you respond to, you know, don't click reply all cause you might violate some of the open meeting rules and some of the open meeting laws. And that is on a low level, you know, advisory committee that I'm on. I'm not running the national pandemic response team or anything like that. So Dr. Fowchee, I think, you know, we want to afford him a modicum of humanity and decency and privacy, but at the same time, he's somebody who needs to be held accountable. He's been out there on TV a lot for the last year, scolding us and wagging his finger in our faces about what we should be doing and how we should be living our lives. And his commentary is not without consequence. Okay . He's not out there. Uh , sort of just spitballing he's, he's making decisions that have very long lasting consequences that trickle down to everybody. And depending on what side of the aisle you're on, you might categorize the consequences differently, right? You might identify people who have been, who died as a result of the coronavirus or medical consequences, you know, saying that had we listened to Fowchee maybe more, maybe we would've saved more lives, or maybe you're looking at it from a different perspective of saying maybe this guy was just being dishonest with us. And yeah , we have a lot of suicides alcohol deaths. We have a lot of businesses that aren't coming back. We have a lot of lives that are destroyed. We have children who basically lost a year of their time and the list goes on and on. I mean, the consequences are severe. And so as a country, as a nation, I think it's absolutely appropriate for us to look backwards and say, you know, hindsight affords us the opportunity to look back and , and make some adjustments because everybody's telling us that there's another one coming that this is just sort of preparation for the next future pandemic. And that we got to sort of get used to this. This is , was just one repetition that we're going to see more of. So I just want to be cognizant of this, that we're we're, we are sort of asking our elected officials, the people that we put in power to do a good job for us and to do the best. And with some of that, I think that there is a little bit of leeway and margins where we can give them a little benefit of the doubt, but at the same time, not too much doubt, okay. He has, his performance needs to be measured. He is somebody who has been very unequivocal in a lot of his positions. And so we want to make sure that he gets a fair shake as we go through the data. But just because it's looking like we're coming out of the pandemic, doesn't mean that now it's time for him to publish a book and do a book tour. We absolutely, as Americans have the right to look back to reflect on what we just went through and identify who was responsible for that, because if somebody was responsible and this wasn't just some natural leak that just manifested itself out of some bat, out of a cave in Wu Han. Well, we want to know about that so that we don't have to go through this garbage again. So I want to show you the tweet that sort of started it all off today at , for this segment. This is Jason Leopold, he's over at Buzzfeed. He says that Natalie Brett and I are joining Wapos foyer party, which is a freedom of information act party on Anthony Fowchee is COVID-19 emails, but we're adding 2,400 more pages and we're releasing all of the docs so everyone can read them. He posted this today covers January through June of 2020. And so 3,200 pages were , were there in total. It sounds like the Washington post and some others, they had about 800 pages. Buzzfeed got another 2,400 pages and just said, it's all going on the internet. So I can tell you, I've not read all 3,200 pages, but a lot of people have combed through it. And we're going to go through some of the highlights that I was able to pick out off of Twitter before we do, though, I want to explain why this is such a , an important topic, such an important concept. This is the diagram that we went through in a different video , uh, on the Wu Han video that I did on my second channel, where I walk you through all the different players in this kind of equation. And this is really based off of the article from Nicholas Wade. And you can see down here, we're talking about Dr. Fowchee, okay. Dr. Fowchee is somebody who is obviously integral. He was the point person here in the United States for our coronavirus response. And he's also basically the head of these organizations, the NIH, the national Institute of health and the national Institute of allergy and infectious diseases. And so, as we know, if we walk through the Nicholas Wade article, I'm going to summarize a hour and 20 minute video in a couple, a couple of seconds here. But Fowchee of course, is the director of the NIH, the NIH they funded through EcoHealth Alliance, which is run by Dr. [inaudible] basically research that was being done by Dr. Xi , Dr. Batt lading from the NIH. And they issued a contract to EcoHealth EcoHealth is run by Dr. [inaudible] , Dr. [inaudible] , then funds Dr. Xi bat lady. Who's also affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance. And then she does her experimentation in China, in Wu Han, which as we know, basically owns the world health organization. They went and did their investigation, and they were not able to find anything in world health. They just got turned away. And now the world health organization is basically saying , um , yeah, maybe we should have been able to inquire further in this prompting as sort of a second round of questions. And so you, so you just kind of see how this chain will just connect itself over to what's been going on. But yeah , that , that only explains the research well is kind of the money and the contracts and all of that. There was also a lot of public relations that was happening early on in the pandemic. We were hearing this, we're saying, you know, conspiracy theories, if you thought it came out of a lab and the list goes on and on, we heard a lot of equivocation about masks and no masks. And then, you know , uh , this can stay on a surface for 30 days and then suddenly not anymore. And there was a lot of information darkness that was happening at that time. And so we had people at the forefront in the media every day, talking about what we should be doing. And so it's sort of, you can call it public relations. You can call it propaganda if you want. I mean, it's really not far off from that, but who was doing that in the United States? Although of course it was Dr. Fowchee and Dr. Fowchee then was communicating as we're going to see with a number of people in the media, right. And he was giving a ton of interviews. This one here is Dr . [inaudible] . Who's giving an interview on this podcast, but Fowchee was doing the same thing. He was making the rounds all over the place. And he was also sending emails with people like Dr. [inaudible] and discussing articles that were published in art organizations. Like the landset , the landset is one of the articles that Nicholas Wade talks about. That was part of this public relations push this propaganda campaign. And I took a screenshot here from the article itself that you'll you'll notice. And this was written by Dr. [inaudible] who I think we're going to see one of his emails here shortly, but I just want to give you some background on this quickly. This section here is from Dr. Wade's article, and he's pointing out that back in, on February 19 , 2020, we have Dr. Dan Zack here, who is the author. You can see listed here. He joins these other professionals, these medical professionals, and they draft this statement in support of the scientists , the public health professionals and the medical professionals of China combating COVID-19. So this gets published February 19th, very early on in the pandemic. And you can see underline here. It says we stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theory , suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin, right? And then the rest of this is just a big puff piece. Hey, China, we love you so much. We're going to help you with everything, whatever. And that's one of the initial articles. It comes out February 19th, that has all of these heavy hitter medical doctors behind it. Dr. Dan Zack ,

Speaker 2:

We got Charles Calisha, Dennis Carol , Rita, Colwell, whatever, all of these people now joining hands and saying, this was a natural virus. And we stand together too strongly

Speaker 1:

Condemn conspiracy theories, suggest

Speaker 2:

Testing . Otherwise when in the article, this article went out and it lit the fire, right? It , it , it , it was the spark that set the media off. They ran with this because this was their science that they could pin their hat on and say, oh, no, look, Dr. [inaudible] and all these other medical doctors, these people who are the scientists, you really know what they're talking about. They would never come up with some sort of propaganda article to cover their traces because they were the ones that were actually doing the gain of function research on the wound , hand Institute, lab of virology taking place in China. They, that would never happen. So we're just going to follow and take their word for it. That anything that is suggesting that this was maybe manmade is a conspiracy theory. So this article went out from the landset . Then we also have another article that comes out here from Christian Anderson . K. This is another doctor. This was published March 17th. Okay. Just a couple weeks later, the proximal origin of SARS COVID two. This is Dr . Anderson. And we're going to hear his response to this , uh, this email

Speaker 1:

Awful , because he posted a response on Twitter. Here's from him ,

Speaker 2:

The article that's backing up the landset article. It says to the editor, since the first reports of the Corona virus , there has been a considerable discussion on the board .

Speaker 1:

Origin of the virus cases

Speaker 2:

Affirmed all over the place. And then he goes through, he says, well, we've known this is the seventh Corona virus . Blah-blah-blah we offer a perspective on the notable features. Our analysis clearly show that this is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus, right? So we've got some background. Now we've got two stories from the Nicholas Wade article. I go into a lot more detail on that entire story in the separate video link down below, but we've got two stories

Speaker 1:

Now that are fleshing out

Speaker 2:

The public relations aspect of this entire campaign. We've got the science we've got, of course, the , the technical transmission of the virus and where it was being conducted in the lab. And you know, what the mode of transmission is and all of that stuff. But we're also talking about public, the public relations campaign. And we've got these two doctors communicating with Dr. Fowchee about this, all saying and telling us that the science is unequivocal. Absolutely did not come from a lab, which is kind of interesting because science is supposed to be, you know, sort of come up with an, a hypothesis. You test the hypothesis, and then you come to a conclusion and we're going to hear that. It sounds like maybe they were jumping the gun a little bit. Maybe they really didn't know what the hell they were talking about. So let's start by going to Buzzfeed. As we know, Jason Leopold on Twitter, we can see him listed here on the byline. He's a Buzzfeed news reporter, and he's being joined by

Speaker 1:

Natalie Bettendorf here that this was posted yesterday, June one, 1:59 PM.

Speaker 2:

It says Fowchee, his emails revealed the pressure that fell on one, man. So , uh , right. So that's , uh , I would say a

Speaker 3:

Pleasant headline for Foundry ,

Speaker 2:

Right? The , the , the pressure that fell on the one, man. Oh my gosh. So much pressure. And you start thinking, well, that's kind of his job, right? I mean, this was the guy who was the head of the NIH. The head of NIH has been doing this for the last 50 years. This isn't his entire career. And when I saw him on the media, I didn't see him sweating, you know , uh, uncontrollably. He kind of liked it. And he was out there just kind of shoving himself in front of the cameras at every opportunity. And many of us were saying, what that's, what is he doing? What is he talking about every day ? What do we need to hear from him from , for everyday ? But Buzzfeed says that , that that was a lot of pressure, which I don't doubt. Look, you know , anybody in a position like this is obviously facing a lot of pressure. The entire country was facing a lot of pressure. So Fowchee I'm sure is not immune from that. The woman's email arrived in faculty's inbox, February 28th, the story starts with a one word subject line. Urgent

Speaker 3:

Coronavirus crisis

Speaker 2:

Was still in its early stages. Fowchee, the U S government's top infectious disease. Scientist was already under tremendous pressure, both because of the health threat facing the country and the political climate fostered by the Trump administration. So, all right , so we're going to start by blaming Trump. I understand vice president Pence has ordered you to not inform the public about the coronavirus without approval. That is quite terrifying, especially since Trump has already shown his desire to spread false and incomplete information about this public health crisis. The woman wrote,

Speaker 3:

Which is it's . So

Speaker 2:

This is some email that Fowchee got, but right. False or incomplete information, it sounds like nobody had any information. She had tracked down to use email, which is not easily accessible on government websites. She says I'm planning to fly domestically tomorrow.

Speaker 3:

Is it safe course fall . She

Speaker 2:

Had urgent matters to attend to. He replied back to the stranger anyway, said there's much information. I actually have not been muzzled at all by the vice-president . And by the way, it is safe to fly domestically. There you go. More than 3,200 pages of emails obtained through the foyer freedom of information act lawsuit that was filed by Buzzfeed cover the period from January to June last year, rare glimpse into Fowchee his approach, showing him dealing directly with the public health officials reporters and even celebrities, Washington reposts received 800 more pages of email and published a story about them. Emails reviewed by Buzzfeed reveal him sparring with an antiviral drug with over an antiviral drug with somebody named Ezekiel Emanuel , former Obama health official. He was taking questions about vaccines. He got an update from Zuckerberg, which we're going to look at about a Facebook information. Hubs Zuckerberg also asked whether the social media company could provide resources to accelerate vaccine testing, Fowchee even responded to an offer from an actor Morgan Fairchild to use her Twitter count on his behalf. Okay. So we know a lot of people are reaching out and I think that's a beautiful thing about America. Whenever there's a problem,

Speaker 3:

People just sort of jump in

Speaker 2:

Actions spring into action. I remember when I was a kid, the first time that I really sort of recognize this, I forget, I forget what year this was, but it was back when there was that massive in India. And I think, I think there was a, the way that the United States responded at that time, I forget who was in charge or how it happened. I don't even think it had anything to do with the government at all. There were sort of this beautiful jumping into action from, I think the American people, there was a, there was some website to raise , you know, like a hundred million dollars like overnight or something like that. I forget what the details were, but this is, this is what I'm talking. This is a good thing. When there's something that we need to solve, we just aren't , let's go do it. Right. And this is sort of been a tradition that we've had in America for a long time back during world war II, Japanese comm sink, a bunch of ships in Pearl Harbor. Guess what is America down for the count? Nope . We just go down. We patch them up, float them back up, send them over to Japan and take care of business over there. Right. That's just sort of the nature of how we do things. So we're going to hear from Zuckerberg right here. Who's jumping in trying to , to lend a hand. Let's see what he has to save . Says, Tony, we can see here from mark Zuckerberg and you're going to notice these redactions B6. We're going to see before down here, these are just foil redactions. It's to protect confidentiality. So this was sent Sunday, March 15th to Anthony Fowchee says subject, thanks and ideas, Tony , this is coming from Zuckerberg. You can see down here, mark. I wanted to send a note of thanks for your leadership and everything you're doing. Also wanted to share a few ideas. I understand you're busy. Don't need a reply. This isn't public yet, but we're building a coronavirus information hub. We're going to put at the top of Facebook for everyone like 200 plus million Americans, 2.5 billion people worldwide with two goals, one to make sure people can get authoritative information from reliable sources, which I guess they're counting on Fowchee for. And number two, to encourage people, to practice social distance and give people ideas for using internet tools. This will be live within the next 48 hours part of this hub. I think it'd be useful to include a video from you. It could be done in a number of ways. If you're open to it, I'm also doing a series of live streams. You can jump in on those as well. Finally. And then we have this big redaction. Now this redaction here probably has to do with the vaccine testing that the article in Buzzfeed mentioned here, they're talking about accelerate vaccine testing here. So we can't see what that is, but maybe that's what they're talking about. He says, you're busy. Here's my cell phone number. If you need anything. So here is he he's responding back. So from Fowchee over to , uh , Courtney bill that says per the email below from Bella to Fowchee, we have per the email bill are , you know, mark has extended a few offers. We should definitely look into these. He says, but an even bigger deal is , is his offer to whatever this is the sooner we get that offer up the food chain. The better I gave bill hall , a heads up about this opportunity he's standing by to discuss. I didn't want him to do anything without you being aware. Is it okay if I hand this aspect off to bill to determine who the best point of contact would be? So the administration could take advantage of this offer soon. So this must be the , the vaccine suggestion, you know, about helping to speed that up here. So right. That's that's great. You know, mark Zuckerberg, he is, is doing what he can, I will write to or call mark, tell him I'm interested in doing this. I'll tell him you're going to get the USG point of contact. I agree. It should be bill hall. All right . So, you know, that's sort of kind of vanilla stuff and you can have a lot of criticisms about mark Zuckerberg. You know, I certainly do of course, but nothing in there that sounds

Speaker 1:

Nefarious or evil or like, like intentional manipulation. Okay. It's look, you can say what you want about mark Zuckerberg. He said, I want reliable information healings on Fowchee, which the government said is as reliable as we can get. So where else is he supposed to go? Nothing really. I think to even raise any eyebrows in that email, let's take a look at what's going on here. Here's another one we've got Fowchee says , uh , we've got an email from Morgan Morgan Fairchild, February 26 Wednesday. Hey Dr. Fowchee, I'm reaching out to see if I can help in any way. Get information out to the public. As I tried to do with aids, I have almost a hundred thousand followers and tweeting articles to them. If you have any info I can disseminate. Let me know. I'll help. Thanks for the note. It'd be great. If you could tweet to your many Twitter followers that although the current risk of Corona virus to the American public is low. The fact that there is community spread in places like China, Italy poses, a great threat, it occurs that many more cases could come properly isolated, right? Nothing , nothing, nothing really even significant there be aware of that behavioral adjustments may need to be made if a pandemic occurs. Right. So, okay. So if somebody writes in, Hey, I've got a a hundred thousand followers he responds. Yeah. Just tell him , you know, stay calm. We got it under control, social distancing, teleworking prepare yourself because there may be changes coming. So the rest of this article from Buzzfeed says the emails show that Fowchee , she received a flurry of correspondence. One such email said that , uh, the director of national Institute of health was under the subject line, conspiracy gains momentum. It contained a link to a news story that said Fox news said that the allegation of the lab

Speaker 2:

Escape had a merit

Speaker 1:

Records, also lay bare Fowchee, his ambivalence towards his new found celebrity status, but also his embrace of a documentary crew who would tell his story. So we had a documentary crew following him around for the entire pandemic in that nice. Additionally, the emails hint at the personal toll this past year is taken on him . In one email. When COVID 19 was declared a global pandemic, he wrote that he had only been able to see his wife for 45 minutes in the past 10 days. Voucher has been the director, director of national Institute of allergy and infectious diseases. Since 1984 has declined to comment for this story. So, you know, one of the, one of the responses has been a layoff Fowchee. Okay. You know, he did his best. I don't know, since 1984, he's been in this position he's been preparing for longer than I've been alive

Speaker 2:

Actually for this. This is what he's been doing for

Speaker 1:

36 years. So he should be prepared, right? He should be ready to go and rock and roll on this stuff.

Speaker 2:

And he actually looks like thus far in this,

Speaker 1:

The segment that he knew what he was doing. Now, let's take a look over at the Washington examiner key figure in the Wu Han research. Thank Fowchee for downplaying the lab leak hypothesis. Do you notice a difference in the headlines there? Do you notice how Buzzfeed kind of communicated their headlines, that the intense toll, the pressure of the pandemic, all of the weight of the world down on vouches shoulders, we're just trying to empathize with the man who was just sending emails back to people who were concerned. I have followers. Oh, shirts. Tell your followers, Hey, it's mark Zuckerberg. Hey mark. Just thanks for the help. We're doing what we can. Then we take a look at the other side. Thanks. Fowchee downplaying the lab leak hypothesis hump . So it's , it's a different tone. Let's see what this article says. This was written by Sarah Westwood over at Washington examiner. A key figure in the Corona virus research at Wu Han lab personally thanked Dr. Fowchee for downplaying. The likelihood that COVID-19 originated in a lab, even though the possibility remains more than a year later. And it's under investigation. Who are we talking about? I already talked to you about him. His name is Dr. Peter [inaudible] . He's the president of EcoHealth Alliance. He's the research group that secured a grant to perform Corona virus research in Wu Han, before the pandemic. He wrote to 5g in April of last year to quote, to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and our collaborators after Fowchee dismissed . The idea that the pandemic started in a lab voucher , you replied to the email, which came April 18th, April 18th, to thank dazzle for his kind note earlier in the day, Fowchee was asked directly about the lab leak hypothesis during your Corona virus briefing. And he said, the scientific evidence is totally consistent with the jump of a species from an animal to a human right. That happened on April 18 , 2020. So he says the science is consistent. It's totally consistent, right? And so he uses that language a lot. It's very sort of waffley language it's consistent. While the current science is consistent with a natural origin of the Corona virus. Well guess what happened? Six months fast forward. Oh, we've got new evidence. And so now my new science is that it's consistent that maybe this did come from a lab, right? It's that language, it gives them a lot of wiggle room to move around and have a lot of flexibility, which of course he is now using. So the article continues the exchange between DASA and foul . She was part more, more of a 3,200 trove of documents. It was posted online. Fowchee has publicly since shifted. His tone says acknowledging in recent days that the virus may indeed have come from a lab. Wow. What a change Daz X role in quietly steering public opinion away from the possibility of a lab leak has come under scrutiny. I made a dramatic shift in the media coverage of the hypothesis, the media. Yeah. Th th because this all came about as a result of Nicholas Wade's article, that that man really opened up a new conversation, which is just incredible. As the pandemic was just beginning, dazzle, orchestrated a letter from several scientists that rejected the idea of a lab. We just, I just showed you that letter right at the beginning of the show, if you missed it, he did not disclose his conflict of interest when signing the letter just signed it. Okay. And didn't sign this letter saying that the virus did not come from a lab along with a number of other doctors showed you the title page of that article. Didn't disclose that his company EcoHealth Alliance had gotten a contract from the NIH to do gain of function research in Wu Han. Didn't it didn't disclose that at all. It didn't say, Hey, look, we did our science here. And we know that this did not come from a lab by the way, just so you don't think there's any shady business going on. I actually do work in that lab. Okay. I got a contract from the federal government. We're doing all sorts of crazy crap in there, but we checked that we had nothing to do with this. Okay. And you here, look here, look at Wilco , whatever you want. Go find the bats from the caves down in China. That's where they came from. It wasn't. That was not the conversation. The conversation

Speaker 2:

Was we've done the science, nothing to see here, not mentioning any of that other important data, lying by omission, president Joe Biden.

Speaker 1:

I'm sorry. Let's back up the letter here ultimately informed a significant amount of media coverage of the lab leak theory. President Joe Biden has said that he has ordered his intelligence community to probe the origins of COVID-19 and report back in 90 days, only after people started to raise their eyebrows about this. Right ?

Speaker 2:

I recall that as soon as he went into office, they should

Speaker 1:

Down the Trump investigation that was already underway. Secretary of state Pompeo under the Trump administration came out the fact sheet. I think it was on January 15th, detailing what they had found thus far, because they knew that they were on the way out the door and Biden was coming in. Biden comes in, says, what were you guys looking into over there? And we'll hunt . Oh, we'll hon no, we're shutting down that investigation. Then Nicholas Wade comes out, posts an article implicates Dr. Fowchee doc , uh , Dr. Dan Zack , we got Dr. Christianson Anderson and the list goes on and on from bat lady and Wu Han. And beyond that, now Biden comes out and says, oh, I'm going to need to report on all that over there, Mr. Or Mrs. Intelligence community. Go take a look into that. William last week EcoHealth Alliance told the Washington examiner. He had received no requests from information from the Biden administration.

Speaker 2:

Hm . Previously dazzle ,

Speaker 1:

Publicly resisted requests for information about eco health activities at the Wu Han lab from Fowchee his agency, the national Institute of health, despite his position leading the research group that back the Curvo coronavirus research at the epicenter of the pandemic dazzle was tapped as a member of the world health organization's investigative team. And he was actually dispatched to look into the origins of COVID-19. So it's kind of like

Speaker 2:

When I go off on the police investigating themselves, you know, they say, Hey,

Speaker 1:

Officer so-and-so did something wrong. So we're going to get officer Smith to come here and investigate officer Jones. And then officer, Smith's going to do a great job. He's going to work really hard and he's not going to be biased or unethical. He's going to investigate officer Johnson over here. And he's going to give us a full report about whether he broke the law or not. And we're going to do all of this behind closed doors. And if you need any information about it ,

Speaker 2:

We're not going to give it to him . Then officer Smith or whatever hit the first one's name was he comes back up, did nothing wrong. We all go, oh,

Speaker 1:

That's great. That's good. So just put them back out there on the force

Speaker 2:

And we'll just leave things be

Speaker 1:

Same thing happening here. We have Dr. [inaudible] . We have somebody diving deeply into all of this gain of function research. Somebody who's been doing it for a long time, had official contracts with the NIH, through the NIH ID, worked with Fowchee, sending emails back and forth to Fowchee. He writes an article saying, I know that you have some questions about the origin of the virus. Didn't come from my lab. Okay? Here's the article media runs wild with it, published in the land set . Then the world health organization comes in and says, Hey, we've got some questions about that. We want to go take a look. Is there anybody out there that can us go investigate? What's happening here? About the origin of the virus, Dr. [inaudible] back in the corner, he's raising his hand. I can help. Yeah. Bring me over there. Take me back to the lab. I'll show you around. I'll show you whatever you want to know. I'll give you all the information I have cause he wants to be in the investigation and guess what? He investigates himself and finds nothing wrong. There . Folks, nothing there at all. The joint world health organization, China team report, they ultimately faced widespread skepticism, including from the Biden administration themselves because it drew strong conclusions about the start of the pandemic. Based on very little evidence, Chinese authorities did not fully cooperate with the investigation. Datech then admitted during a 60 minutes interview in March that he and the rest of the world health organization team had taken Chinese officials at their word during the investigation. So it wasn't even an investigation. This guy is so reprehensible. It's just sickening. Let's take a look and see what Nicholas Wade has to say here. This is him. He's being, this is from there an interview on the Washington.

Speaker 4:

Is there equally compelling evidence at this point to support the natural origin theory?

Speaker 5:

I think the way to look at it is to say, first we have two closable scenarios on the table, lecturer , legend stem lab leak. And the second thing to say is there is no direct evidence either. We don't have any direct proof that either. So what we can do is look at the available evidence and ask which scenario explains the evidence better. And in my article, I argued that lab escape provides much, much easier, more plausible explanations for the data that we have so far that I'm not sure how much in stars .

Speaker 1:

So what he's saying here, and I think this is a very important point that it's kind of easy to gloss over. He's saying that when they went in , they did the investigation in China, that the Chinese said, look around. It did not come from the lab. Okay. And you might, you might be able to actually look around and come to that conclusion because they cleaned it all up. Right? They swept everything. There's nothing to find there. And everything has been covered up by the Chinese. If you suspect that maybe the lab escape theory is plausible. Let's, let's sort of jump off there. So we go and we investigate it and the Chinese say, Hey, there is nothing here, right? So either way you want to go with this, let's say that they're being dishonest. There's nothing here. They clean house. Okay. That's fine. We're going to investigate. We're going to continue our investigation. Thanks for letting us take a look around. Or let's say that the Chinese are being in fact honest, that the virus did in fact, not come from this lab. So the Chinese say, come on in and look around. So Dr. [inaudible] Dr. Fowchee, world health, everybody goes through, they look around the lab and they say, you're right. We don't see anything here. There's nothing here. Thank you for all the information. Thanks for showing us. First of all, it sounds like it didn't even go that far. They just kind of showed up the Chinese, walked out and said, Hey, we did our investigation. Here's what you can have world health organization. You're not looking at anything turn around and walk away. And they did. So it never even got that far. But I digress.

Speaker 2:

Let's say that they, they actually did walk around the lab. They couldn't find anything. Is that the end of the story? Oh, it didn't come from a lab. Do you just stop your inquiry there? Well, no.

Speaker 1:

Wait is saying, he's saying, okay. So we have ruled out that possibility that it originated from a lab, according to the Chinese, according to people with all these conflicts of interests , like Dr. [inaudible] and Dr. Fowchee and Dr. Anderson and Dr. Xi bat lady and the world health organization and the Chinese everybody's got a conflict. So do we take their word for it and just trust them on this or, and just say, oh, well, it didn't come from the lab. So that means we don't need to investigate any of them .

Speaker 2:

Natural theories. Yeah .

Speaker 1:

The Chinese want us to believe that it didn't come from a lab and it came from a cave in China. Well,

Speaker 2:

Where's the evidence for that? It's their

Speaker 1:

Country. They've got jurisdiction over it. So they should be able to connect the dots. If it didn't emanate from a lab, then where did it come from? Did it come from a bat? And if so, who was the intermediary host or one was the intermediary host that was able to make it jump from a bat to the intermediary,

Speaker 2:

Post into a human. Okay. And the weight article

Speaker 1:

And the video that I did on that goes into that in depth. It's a complicated process, but he actually breaks it down very nicely. So if you're going to go and investigate the lab escape theory, and they rule that out, that's not possible that it came from there. They should be giving us an alternative explanation. If it's not the lab,

Speaker 2:

Where then where did it come from? They have not done that. And there's been no evidence to support that as the article goes on. So go , go, go

Speaker 1:

Watch that video or read that article. It's well worth it. Trust me. It's very good. There is so much information and it makes, it just shows you

Speaker 2:

What , uh, what , uh , what a public relation

Speaker 1:

Campaign we have all been through. All right . So let's get back to the emails. We're going to go to Dr. Fowchee, his emails. We're going to comb through these. I have a lot of them, but we're not going to spend a ton of time on each one. I just want to show you what's going on here. So Sarah Westwood, who we just heard from

Speaker 2:

Speaking to Dr. Nicholas Wade,

Speaker 1:

It says that Peter [inaudible] , who was deeply involved in the wool Han research and in misleading the public about the likelihood of a lab leak, thank Fowchee for helping him dispel the myths. So this is that email that we were talking about previously here is to Peter [inaudible] . This is coming from Dr. Fowchee. He says many. Thanks for your kind note. What's he talking about? Well, previously, Saturday, April 18th, we have Peter [inaudible] . Now the doctor sending an email to Tony, Tony CC and David. So you might pass this on to Tony. He says as the PI of the [inaudible] grant publicly targeted by Fox news reporters at the presidential press briefing, just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat to human spillover, not elaborate lease from the Wuhan Institute of virology. All the rest of this has been blanked out. As you can see, he says from my, your comments are brave. They are brave. Aren't they coming from your trusted voice will help dispel the myths being spun around the viruses origins. So of course , uh, you know, he didn't put a disclaimer in there saying, oh, I work at that lab, but he doesn't need to because Dr. Fowchee already knows that Dr. Fowchee knows, huh? Hmm . Well, I'm the head of the NIH, the NIH ID. I remember signing off on that grant that went to the Dr . [inaudible] that went to the EcoHealth Alliance. That was funding gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of virus .

Speaker 3:

Oh , shoot. Huh. So,

Speaker 1:

So Bouchie knows that he can't say anything. He doesn't say he doesn't respond and say, yeah, you're right , right. He doesn't say, oh, no problem at all. You know, anybody contesting the opposite obviously is misinformed. He doesn't say anything,

Speaker 3:

Anything like that, he doesn't respond to this at all. Cause he knows he can't because he's

Speaker 1:

Oh, shoot. I can't believe you sent me that, that email . So he just says , uh, uh , many thanks, many. Thanks for your kind note. Cause he can't say anything. Cause he knows that there's a massive conflict of interest and this is all public record part of his public emails. We have another one here. This is coming from the other doctor. So we mentioned him previously, Christian G. Anderson. So he wrote that second article saying that it was naturally occurring. This was posted earlier, sent earlier February 1st and a Fowchee sends back to us. Thanks Christian. Talk soon on the call. Don't put it in writing. So he says down here on Friday, January 31st, this is look folks. This is before we have the national declaration of emergency or anything like that. And it says, this just came out today. You may have seen it. If not, it is of interest to the current discussion. Christian says, Hey Tony, thanks for sharing. Yes. I saw this earlier and it looks like mining. The Corona virus genomes for clues to the outbreaks. Origin is the subject here. So there's some science there passing an article around from Greg Folkers over to somebody. And here's what they're talking about. It's a great article. But the problem is that our phylogenetic analysis aren't able to answer whether the sequences are usual unusual at the individual residues, except if they are completely off, we have got some more science talk here and he says the unusual feature of the virus make up a really small part of the genome, less than 0.1%. So one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see the , some of the features

Speaker 3:

Potentially look engineered.

Speaker 1:

Hmm . So they're talking about potential engineering on the

Speaker 3:

Genome of the , uh, of the virus itself. All right . We said , we have a good ,

Speaker 1:

The team lined up to look very critically at this. So we should know much more by the end of the weekend. I should mention that after discussions today, with some other people, we all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory, right? The genome is inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory, but we have to look at this much more closely. There's still further analysis to be done. So those opinions could still change. Now I am not a, an evolutionary biologist or anything like that. But if a genome is inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory, to me, that means sounds like somebody got in there and was manipulating some things evolutionary theory to me would mean that something evolve naturally

Speaker 3:

It's evolution and what they are seeing in the genome is inconsistent with what they expect to see on a naturally evolving virus

Speaker 1:

On February 1st, 2020. Hmm . We have another email. This one is coming over from Ian miles . Chung here says China played Fowchee like a Phil .

Speaker 3:

This was

Speaker 1:

Sent Monday, March 16th. Great advice from a Chinese expert. So we have Michael Lou here sends this over to Fowchee. He says, dear Dr. Fowchee, Dr . When Hong Zang very famous in China, Dr. Zang is the director of the infectious disease department in Shanghai. Very good. According to Dr. Zang video.

Speaker 3:

So he sends him some Chinese propaganda

Speaker 1:

COVID-19 can be prevented with three measures, social distancing, wash your hands frequently and wear masks. All right , strongly suggest the American people do this, which is basically what Fowchee did. Maybe he took this and ran with it. I think we were doing that before March 16th, though . Dr. Zang said, if a person is still infected, he or she takes three above measures plus a concentrated isolation. I , uh, he says, I strongly suggest that the American government should learn precious experience from mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea, with an open mind, if you need any help, contact us. I'm confident. The U S government will lead the American people through this science expertise and great learning are the best medicines. God bless you. God bless America, China in the whole world. Best regards. All right . So again, not much here, right? This is somebody sending an email to him in email, into Dr. Fowchee. Okay. He probably got a lot of emails. He's not responsible for those. And we have another one. He says, Michael, thank you for your note. We indeed have learned much from our Chinese colleagues except the origin of the virus. Apparently I appreciate your bringing these issues to our attention and again,

Speaker 3:

And best regards. Okay? So

Speaker 1:

Diplomatic, not , not much consequential. Let's see what else we have here. We have, this came over from Justin Hart on Twitter. He said, here come the smoking guns on February one, Fowchee exchanged emails with Hugh. Auchincloss a big cheese at the national Institute for allergy and infectious diseases says I'm still trying to thread through these, but here are a series of emails with the subject line important, the real subject gain of function research. And so, as we know, I , this is an unfolding story. This is a breaking story. There are 3,200 pages that are just being released today and late yesterday. So people are going to be combing through them and assembling them as this individual Justin Hart is doing. So give him a follow. If you want to follow his work, it sounds like he is going deep on this stuff. So we've got, we've got an email that he uncovered for us today. It says here from Anthony Fowchee posted since February 1st, 2020 sent over to hue option clause

Speaker 3:

Important. We're talking about,

Speaker 1:

About , uh , we've got an attachment here. Nature medicine, SARS gain of function, PDF. What is that?

Speaker 2:

It says you, it is essential. We speak this morning. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at 7:45 AM with Azar . It will likely be over at eight 45. Read this paper as well as the email that I will forward to you. Now you will have tasks that must be done today. Dr. Fowchee, the director of the national Institute of allergy and infectious diseases. The NIH ID sends this email over to this gentlemen . Who's also over there. So he sends the email. It looks like here it is right. And we got this. So whatever this article, Barrack, she at all nature medicine, SARS gain of function research, then it looks like he responds. Okay. Uh, or this is from Fowchee to him. He says the , uh , Hugh outshine gloss response as the paper you sent me, it says the experiments were performed before the gain of function, pause , but have since been reviewed and approved by the NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no coronavirus work has gone through the P three framework. She will detract . She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad. So that read to me like Fowchee goes, oh shoot. He sends it's essential. We speak this morning. Keep your cell phone on. I have a conference call at seven 45 is gonna be over at eight 45, read this and the email. We're going to talk about it. What is it about? It's about gaining a function and it sounds like it's been performed and maybe even approved and reviewed by the NIH K right here by the NIH. Hmm , no wonder. I wonder if she wants to talk about that kind of a problem. If his organization is funding gain of function research, isn't it? No wonder he wants to talk to somebody about it. Here is a little bit more about what's going on here. We have as per my prior email here is it looks like some of the article let's hear mining Corona virus genomes for four clues to the outbreaks origin. Another email from Greg bulkers January 31st part of a long running effort to see what viruses beets, bats, Harbor research has collect one from a cave in Guandong. We have looks like here , uh , snippets from a DNA sequence, pathogen dub, the 2019 Corona virus. That is the overwhelming China and frightening. The entire world scientists are publicly sharing and ever-growing a full sequences. So it looks like, yeah. So, you know , they're actually going and pulling viruses out of bats, I think is what that article says. We have here. We have a bioproduction weapon, a bioweapon production method that has been identified by cultural husbandry over here at this address on Twitter, Wednesday, March 11 , 2020 posts to the NIH, public inquiries, Corona virus, bio weapon, production method. Right now I've talked about this a lot. And I've said this before on this channel that the governmental response, the nation response from not only the United States, but around the world, felt more like a military response than it did a health crisis. We've been through many health crisises before crises before we've talked about the bird flu and swine flu and Ebola, and the list goes on and on. There's a , there's a million of them that we've , hadn't in my lifetime and we've seen how they respond to that. They just send over some, some people in some rubber suits and they clean it up and it sort of has a slow boil for a certain period of time until it fades it's way out this time though was different before this even became something that, in my opinion, warranted the Cannonball explosion nuclear response that our government had shoved it down our throats. We didn't know much about this. And so my initial thought was, why are they responding this way? We see how they respond to normal health crises. It's not that big of a deal because those are natural health crises. This isn't something entirely different. This is something that feels like it warrants a bigger response from our government, which is why they responded the way they did. We're sitting here as Americans going, oh, I guess it's just a natural virus. It's strange though, to us, because we've seen how they respond to other natural viruses. And this feels a little bit differently. Maybe this is not what they say it is. It turns out maybe that's true. We says, we have an email here from Adam Gardner , March 11th. He sends an email. He says to Fowchee, this is how the virus was created. Now again, who is this guy? Adam Gardner, no idea who that person is. Okay. And so how has 5g responsible for any of this? I don't know, interferon fusion. It was mixed with 1000 nanograms of HIV. The particles incorporating the envelope, SARS, cov protein, both envelopes PBS at four degrees Celsius for 30 minutes to allow the bindings. So it's like a , it's like baking a cake. It's a recipe samples were raised to 37 degrees Celsius for 15 minutes to allow for confirmational rearrangements. The virons were adjusted to the desired pH of 0.1 M citric acid. If you, if you go higher than 0.1 moles of citric acid, it's gonna be a very bad tasting virus. So we have TPC K trips in final concentration, and you see what's going on here. The cells were spit infected and incubated at 37 degrees for five hours. Once you, once you to five hours, 37 degrees, that is going to be a delicious Corona virus . So somebody sent that over to , to Dr. Fowchee and , uh, you know, who knows what he did, but again, you know , uh, to, to defend Fowchee here a little bit, people send emails all the time. I get emails all the time from people that, you know , that I, that I will skim through some of them. I actually read some of my, I read the first couple paragraphs and I know where this is going, and I don't necessarily need to read the rest of it. So, you know, for a public figure like Fowchee, I'm gonna guess that he gets a lot more emails than I , uh, probably, and CA doesn't have the opportunity, respond to all of them. So is this the smoking gun that Fowchee, you know , manufactured this virus? Not that I can tell, unless we know more about this Adam Gardner person, you know , who , who is that person? All right, next up, we've got features that potentially look engineered genome

Speaker 1:

Inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. We already read this one. So this is coming from Dr. Anderson Saturday, February 1st, 2020. Thanks Christian. Talk soon on the call flagged this one more time. He says, we have to look at this much more closely. There are still further analyses to be done, but the genome is inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. And so th I think the , the important point on this,

Speaker 2:

This was said on Saturday, February 1st, 2020, right. We don't really know yet. It's not

Speaker 1:

Assistant with evolutionary theory. Well, for the rest of the year, we heard that anybody who was talking about a lab escape theory was a conspiracy theorist and a whack job. And we saw people fighting each other in the streets over the Corona virus stuff. It was crazy,

Speaker 2:

But it sounds like the

Speaker 1:

Science wasn't exactly settled quite yet. So you still have a little bit of disagreements

Speaker 2:

On evolutionary

Speaker 1:

Theory and whether the genome is consistent with it or not. Next up, we've got Justin hearts saying here that Fowchee knew about the aerosol transmission in February of last year. And yet it was all masks to go go for 15 months. Right? We have an email from Robert Geller

Speaker 2:

Says, Tony, thanks for everything

Speaker 1:

You were saying and doing, I am writing to ask for them .

Speaker 2:

Thanks Bob. Thanks, Bob. What about general

Speaker 1:

Care of a patient suspected or confirmed COVID 19 and 95 or surgical mask? Any news on how this disease is being transmitted, anything new on vaccine or treatment February 26 , 2020. He says, Bob, thanks for the note. Hope all is well with you. Use an N 95. If you have them available, transmission is similar to in influenza, respiratory droplets and likely a bit more as aerosol then with influenza. People can transmit even when they are asymptomatic,

Speaker 2:

No approved therapies.

Speaker 1:

However, we are doing clinical trials on repurpose drugs, such as [inaudible] vaccine going into phase one trial in six weeks will not be ready for at least 1.5

Speaker 2:

Years. Right? So it was wrong

Speaker 1:

On that because we got vaccines by the end of the

Speaker 2:

Last year , uh, by , uh , I think even right around the election time is when the first one started rolling out. All right . So kind of wrong on a lot of things there. Uh, but

Speaker 1:

You know, telling us about transmission here's another one said many times, this is from Christian Anderson, the doctor that we spoke about briefly. Okay. And he wrote this email, the evolutionary theory email. So he said, as I've said, many times, we seriously considered a lab leak, a possibility, however, significant new data, extensive analysis, and many discussions led to the conclusions in our paper, what the email shows is a clear example of the scientific process. And so, you know, you're going to hear a lot of people about this and talking about this, like, you know, I heard that she filed , she gave an interview to some,

Speaker 2:

You know, some softball interview that was absolutely boring , uh , today.

Speaker 1:

And he said something like, well, you know, science is dynamic and science changes, and we have to sort of adjust with the science

Speaker 2:

It's and I'm going, that's kind of, not really what I thought. I thought it was, you know,

Speaker 1:

Theoretical. And, you know, you can, you can do science.

Speaker 2:

And part of the scientific method is coming up with a theory and then testing the theory and then coming up with a conclusion, I mean, has that changed since like fifth grade or whenever the hell we learned what the scientific method was? It wasn't w the , the scientific method

Speaker 3:

Wasn't you go out and you come

Speaker 2:

Up with a conclusion that you think is right. And then you go and you do a bunch of science and try to, you know, work your way back into your conclusion. That was not what I thought the process was. It was about, Hey, we have a couple of different hypotheses . Uh , this could be transmitted through aerosol. This could be transmitted , uh , just through surfaces. This could be something that stays alive on surfaces for one day or three days or seven days or nine days or 30 days. We don't know. So we're going to test them all. We're going to come up with a hypothesis. We're going to say probably seven days, because we've got other viruses that we can compare it to. And,

Speaker 3:

You know, do analysis

Speaker 2:

On that, come up with a hypothesis, perform some experiments, come to a conclusion. And then we've got an answer on that. You know, more or less. I know it's more complicated than that, but the point here being, we didn't hear that from faculty or from anybody. We heard a lot of conclusions, a lot of definitives, a lot of wear don't wear a mask first, right? We heard that for months, don't wear a mask, then suddenly wear a mask. This can live on surfaces for 30 days, then suddenly not so much anymore. Then you know, you , you lose immunity. If you've already had COVID immediately. Now you might be having it for a lot longer, no vaccines for 1.5 years in March, 2020. Well, here, we got them . We got them by the end of the year, in like nine months operation warp speed.

Speaker 3:

So that sounds more like science than just raw speculation. So I don't know

Speaker 2:

No. What this doctor is talking about here. A clear example of the scientific process. You have sort of a half-baked conclusion, actually, to be fair, this guy's doing science here. This actually looks more to me, more like science, okay, he's doing an analysis. And he says that those opinions can change. We don't really know. We don't actually have a conclusion. Dr. Fowchee comes out then and Dr. Lansette comes out or Dr. [inaudible] , who's a part of Dr. Lancet. And they come out and they call them conspiracy theories. It's not appropriate. They're not conspiracy theories science. Hasn't proven it one way or the other, the Chinese have not given us any information one way or the other. They say it didn't come from the lab, but they're not telling us that they got information about where it did in fact,

Speaker 3:

From then, if you didn't do it, who did no idea, no information there. So,

Speaker 2:

You know, the , the big winner in all of this really

Speaker 3:

Ran Paul, he posted on Twitter today, told you fire 5g,

Speaker 2:

Right? This guy has been on Fowchee for

Speaker 3:

A long time. Rightfully so.

Speaker 2:

Do you know why? Because he's a doctor because he also understands the risks and how this stuff works. So you've got an actual doctor versus a doctor like Dr. Fowchee, who is essentially a politician in a doctor's coat while wandering around saying whatever is a politically expedient at that particular time, not based on the science acting as cover for some of the more nefarious stuff. And at least we don't know if it's in the various yet, but at least the conflict of interests , not acknowledging and not communicating appropriately to the American people about the real threat. If you wanted compliance from Americans, what would have caused more compliance than Dr. Fowchee coming out there and saying, Hey folks, this thing might've come from a Chinese virus, ology lab. This might be a weaponized virus. Do you think that anybody out there in America who is scratching their heads saying this COVID thing feels like a whole, a whole scam or whatever many people were saying that out there in, in America. And you know, we know that that's not the case, right? People are dropping dead all over the country, but something felt off. People felt like something was dishonest. Like the government was not telling us something. We all knew it because the response didn't match our prior experiences. And now we know there's more to the story and it Fowchee or Trump who was , you know, one scale , one level above, above him. If they would've come out and told us with their intelligence that, Hey, maybe this thing came from a , uh , literally this could be a bio weapon from China. Oh my gosh. Talk about compliance. Talk about mass compliance. Talk about social distancing. Okay. The entire country, I think, would have responded differently to that, to that statement. And I'm not so sure in a bad way either. I'm not so sure that people would freak out about that and start, you know , killing each other or riding in the streets. I think, like we said , the start of the show, I think that people would probably have said, oh, okay, well, we're going to knock this thing out quickly. And we're going to make sure that we decouple from China and that this doesn't matter ever happen again. And we would have come out stronger. But now what we've got is sort of this band-aided, you know, this half assed investigation that may not show us anything and the people really responsible for it may never pay the consequences. We'll see Biden though is asking some questions. I think this is a little bit too little too late, but we'll see. This was posted by Liddy Cathy . So he announced back on may 26, we're gonna S we're gonna skim through this quickly. It says that Biden orders, the U S Intel to further probe. The origins of COVID raises questions for China. So he said that he's gonna , you know , redouble their efforts to investigate and has specific questions for China, whatever Biden's directive is a significant change in how the white house is dealing with the theory that the virus might have originated from Wu Han one elevated last year by president Trump and Mike Pompeo and other hawkish Republicans by an administration had until now. So the world health organization should leave a more until now had said that the world health organization should lead a more intensive investigation and put pressure on China. So today, all right , so we've got all that story. Trump says I'm right . Biden sides with China world health organization and the liberal media on Wu Han virus. Pompeo tweeted this isn't political America must lead on this. So we're going to start asking some questions . We'll see if anything comes of it. China's not happy about this. China said, oh, you want to investigate our country? How about we just , uh, turn the planet into a nuclear oblivion. What do you think about that? China state media says the country must prepare for nuclear war with the U S after Biden asked for a COVID probe, right? It's coming over from Newsweek. We have, who's using the editor of the Chinese state run newspaper called global times considers enhancing China's nuclear program as being vital to the country , to strategic deterrence against the U S the increasingly confrontational rhetoric and military maneuvers coming out of the two countries have raised concerns about a potential war. This is coming on the back of the conflict over the weaker Muslims we've got Beijing is one of America's top concerns who wrote, he said, we must be prepared for an intense showdown between the China and the U S number of China. Nuclear warheads must reach the quantity that makes the U S elites shiver. Should they entertain the idea of engaging in a military confrontation with China? Oh my gosh. They are. They are like, actually poking. Wow. All right . So who advocated for rapidly increasing the number of commission nuclear warheads, Intercontinental ballistic missiles, and so on the editor posted the same comments on Weebo Chinese social media platform. They've been sparring over a range of issues. The U S and China who's op-ed came one day after Biden announced. He instructed the intelligence community to quote doubled down on their efforts. Teligent community has not ruled out the possibility that COVID came from a lab. Officials have said that , uh, the, the attempted to shift the blame from, to the United States setting, no evidence. Yeah. Trump was not happy about that. When they tried to say it was American soldiers who went over to China and brought the coronavirus . Oh man. So , uh , so China's got some nukes, they're going to point our direction. So that's good. All right . So let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com . We have first in the house, LT 13 says, who decides on the redactions, those redactions in his email are very convenient. So it's the agency that has them. So here, this would be , uh , who is the clearing house for the NIH ID , right? W whoever submitted the foyer requests , there's a specific set of rules. Wherever the four year request went to the people who are processing that they've got to comb through it. And it's , it's personal information really is what it is, but you're right . You're right. It's the most interesting stuff in these foil documents. It's always redacted. We can't ever see the good stuff we have Sharon. And he says, you need to go no further than the name Zuckerberg. I suspected that somebody was pulling his strings all the way along and always knew that it was never Trumpers in the Democrats. Now we know. Yeah . A lot of, lot of , uh , bad actors back there. Aren't there. We got LT. 13 says there should have been an email in there saying, Hey, Fowchee, don't do a magazine cover with sunglasses on by the pool would be a bad look while people are dying. Or maybe I just missed that one. Yeah. You honestly like Fowchee turned into this little solo ,

Speaker 3:

You know, like you've been waiting for this moment, his whole life, 15 minutes of fame, we got farmer's daughter says, good evening.

Speaker 2:

One of the things I appreciate about you is your willingness to give people the benefit of the doubt. It also annoys the heck out of me, the sources I watched credible scientists and doctors with no agenda said, what is coming out now? And we're silenced .

Speaker 3:

Yeah. You know, I know also

Speaker 2:

When in the past history have governments working with the media to control the news and silence, the opposition ever been the good guys, Lenin Hitler, Marx , Castro, Chavez, you know, I think you're right. Farmer's daughter. You know, I try, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, honestly. And I really do think that people are sort of trying their best, you know, a great lesson on this comes from the book, how to win friends and influence people. If you read that it was written by Dale Carnegie, back in the 1930s, one of the most transformational books I've ever read. If you pick it up today, you'll read it. And you'll probably, you'll probably think to yourself, this is very simplistic. You know, he's talking about rule. Number one is about never criticize, condemn or complain, right . Just don't do that. Don't condemn people, don't criticize anything and don't ever complain about anything. And he goes through this rule and he explains why. And he pulls this example out from some mob boss. I forget who it was, you know, back in the 19 third , some mob boss, somebody, you know, killed a bunch of people, stole a bunch of stuff, you know, dealt a bunch of drugs and caused a bunch of mayhem in the 1920s or thirties, whatever. So they arrest that guy and they put him through the trial and he said, all of these bad things, and you know, he's going to , they're going to give him the death penalty or whatever. And right before they execute this guy, they say any last

Speaker 3:

Words. And he says , uh,

Speaker 2:

I only thought I was trying to do what was best. You know, I was only trying to do my best. I thought what I was doing was right. You know, something like that. I could only ,

Speaker 3:

This was the best that I could do. And you go, what

Speaker 2:

The best you could do. And you're like this murdering mob person, dealing drugs, like wrecking America, how that's the best you could do? What kind of piece of garbage are you? And the point here is that

Speaker 3:

People internalize

Speaker 2:

Their own lives to such a degree that they can't see what's happening outside. Right. So, you know, so the point here is that this mob boss person, not that we want to condone or, or encourage that type of behavior, but the point here is, well, what is condemning that person do? What is criticizing that person do? What does belittling that person or going after that person actually accomplish ? Did it do anything? No. We've put this guy through a trial. We're going to put him in jail. We're going to kill him . We're going to execute them . He's going to be in custody for the rest of his life. And still at that last minute, did he finally stand up and say, you're right. I was wrong. I'm sorry. I should have done better. No, he didn't. He doubled down. And he said, I tried my best. It's all I knew how to do. It's the only thing I can .

Speaker 3:

All right . And when I, when I

Speaker 2:

Watch that in people, when I see that in people like Dr. Fowchee, you know, he may be manipulated. He may be just a little pawn in grand scheme of things, all of these other people who are doing their very best to control and sort of, you know , herd the sheep that they consider us to be in certain directions.

Speaker 3:

And he's just a small component of that. You know, I think that

Speaker 2:

It'd be easy for me to come out here and just rag on Dr. Fowchee as a liar and as somebody who is not honest with America, who was intentionally manipulative and all of that stuff. And I think it would be easy to do that. And I want to do that actually a lot of the time, but I try to make it less about kind of the person and more about the bigger picture here. I have a lot of problems with Fowchee . I have a lot of problems with anybody in the government that just tells us what we should do think and how we should act and how we should feel and how we should live our lives. It , it ,

Speaker 3:

It is grotesque to me, but when we're , I try to talk about issues rather than people, if I can, I know that sometimes I break that rule and I'm not always good at that,

Speaker 2:

But it's just like, what's, you know, what's the point. If we, if I come out here and blast Dr. Fowchee, what's that, is that gonna change anything? Not, not really. What I'm more interested in is sort of showing this steady pattern of government in competence and government malfeasance, and just how rotten and awful really the entire structure of the entire system is. It doesn't matter. Who's in there, it could be Fowchee, it could be anybody else. And they're all going to be corrupted. They're all going to be part of the bigger problem. And so I just have

Speaker 3:

Sort of just, that's just my default rule is that I try to

Speaker 2:

Recognize the humanity in the people who are on the other side, I have a bigger problem with the institution than I do with the people behind it. Certainly there are bad people and they need to be called out, but we gotta, we gotta make sure that we're, we're, we're keeping, I think our humanity in context, I always try to remember that. I don't know what other people are seeing or how they are living their lives .

Speaker 3:

And it's not a good idea for me to presume otherwise, okay, maybe file

Speaker 2:

Wakes up every morning and he thinks he's saving lives. Maybe he is. I don't know,

Speaker 3:

But certainly doesn't look like it. Right ?

Speaker 2:

And these, from these documents, it looks like he was spinning a lot of BS for us. All sharing Whitney says, so the who his own or the world health organization is owned by the CCP. Then why the heck should we believe one word from them? We shouldn't and science don't make me laugh. These are the same folks who don't believe in genetics and biology. It's true. Actually give me a break. And by the way, most scientific disciplines have been totally co-opted and had become just another part of the propaganda machine. Anybody who says the science is settled is spouting propaganda. Totally agree with that. I don't even know what that means. And that's kind of my point, you know, the science is settled. If it's settled, then you can show me a research paper or the , the equations that show that this happens every time it should be repeatable. Right. That's kind of the process is that we can, we can say that we can, we can reproduce this experiment and we have a hypothesis. A theory gives us a conclusion and we can repeat it. If it's settled, if we're debating over the science, it doesn't sound like it's settled at all. It sounds like we're still discussing it in other , what do they call it? A consensus, right? Scientific consensus. Hmm . It sounds like you're just, that sounds like an opinion to me. So a bunch of scientists have an opinion, not a scientific conclusion or a scientific fact. Okay. It's just , it's an opinion. But until it's been proven, don't tell me about your consensus. Joe. Snow says he did his best. I think , I think, I think he's mocking mocking me. That's okay. I'm a machine designer and a machinist and I could have offered better guidance and Fowchee at pretty much every point during this pandemic Gitmo , for those who participated in this scam, I know, I know Fowchee is going to , you know, they pulled his book off of all of the retailers. He was on Amazon. He wrote a book, Fowchee blew this. He should have written a book earlier. Cuomo wrote a book earlier in the middle of the pandemic. You got to celebrate before it's over. Before people look back at what you did and all the people that you're responsible for killing Sharon. Whitney says, when will all these folks wake up and realize that China is not our friend, they were planning to take us over in the next decade or so as evidence I offer the threat of nuking us. If we ask questions, I know the state media, Hey, oh, you got questions about UConn . How about we cram a couple of nuclear warheads up your rear end America? And we just go, I guess, whatever you want to do, China, we're sorry for offending. You. And the Darby says on top of all this, one of the organizations that flip-flop runs has a stake in modern evacs . I think it's that one. Not if, if not, it's one of them, for sure. But that's why you never heard flip-flop talk about treatment. It was always test, test, test, cure, cure, cure, never treat money, money, money, money, money. A lot of money. Lot of money was made here. And a lot of consolidation of wealth as you'll notice, right? All the billionaires around the world, they all got a lot richer. All the tech gurus, the people who are sort of set up with the infrastructure to handle a pandemic. They're all. Okay. But the people who are more middle-class , you know, the servers, the plumbers, the people who are out there building houses, digging ditches, like I did, it was something that you're , you're out of luck. Sorry. You're you're on your own now for a certain period of time. And there's a big segment of this country that I feel like has been forgotten about in the last 12 months, boxy punk chick is here. She says, why is it that when they had all the podcasts about studying microbiology for viruses, then why would they turn around and deny it to me, that means they are guilty of the leak they claim it was for making vaccines for preparedness yet. Remember how they said Trump was anti-science yet . They made sure he put money into the vaccines, then Biden campaigns as pro science. Yeah. So the gain of function, the gain of function research was intended allegedly to not make weapons or anything that would be harmful to humans, but it was just so that we could see what the natural progression of the viruses looked like. So we could anticipate the next deadly virus so that we could start preparing vaccines for that. There was a mission, impossible movie about this. I think it was mission impossible, too terrible, but it was, you know, they talked about that. Tom cruise is trying to save the world by getting the vaccine or whatever. Patriot Musk says the, with claiming the virus originated from a bat. What only makes sense if you found several other bats that carry the same virus, if you don't find that, then one can assume that it was a freak accident. That one bat found its way to a human, to transmit the virus. Unless a genetically engineered virus inserted into a bat was released the public, which is more plausible. Yeah. So, so yes, that would be more plausible if they genetically engineered a virus, put it into a bat and then release the bat. If you read the Nicholas Wade article Patriot, you'll see. And I covered this in the video, two things here that he talks about, he talks about a total of four factors and he goes through four factors. And then in my video, I just put a check in one of the two boxes he goes through there , one geography. We talk about geography. What is, what is the geography ? The geographical analysis, tell us lab escape, natural origin, which one? Well , the geography, according to Nicholas, Wade would show that it's a lab leak because all of this originated in woman . If this came from a bat out of a cave in China, there was a, a location that I covered in the video. I forget the name of it, but there are a bunch of caves sort of in the south west part of China. And it's about 1500 miles away from Mohan. So if the virus originated there in bats, it would've jumped to a human population somehow through a host. Uh , some , some sort of transmission would happen there and you'd be able to identify people infected with coronavirus near that area, geographically, not 1500 miles away in Mohan . So how did the virus somehow come from the caves in China, 1500 miles Southwest of , uh, Wu Han magically appear in Wu Han in fact , a bunch of people and then not leave any traces in the caves. How , how does that, how does that work? So if you analyze all the factors, it looks pretty, pretty clear to Nicholas Wade and myself that the lab escape theory has a lot of merit. Jeremy Matree does in the house, says information is so readily available and communication is nearly instant. It makes my head explode. When I see people trying to make claims or denials, contrary to the information currently available the media, et cetera, make themselves look like morons when they try to deny the truth. I think that, yeah, they also end up later admitting the previously denied information with make, which makes them look even worse. I'm surprised anyone pays attention to the media anymore. I agree with you completely on this, Jeremy and it's so, you know, it's so fun. It's not as enjoyable as it should be, because what we do is we move so fast as people , uh, I'm reading another book from , uh , Nicholas Nassim to lab and it's called, what book is it? He's got four of them. I think it's, I think I'm in the one called , um, fooled by randomness. No, it's black Swan. It's the black like Swan book in it. He talks about the triplet of opacity. And he's talking about this concept, that history is opaque. So when we look back historically speaking, it doesn't matter when it is. We can look back to the civil war. We can look back to , uh , you know, the Roman era when Jesus was walking the planet, or we can look back six months ago, history is opaque. We can only see what's on the outer shell of that wall. We can't see beyond the wall. We can't see what the S the, the, the process was for coming up with

Speaker 3:

Final conclusion. We only see the conclusion

Speaker 2:

Orally speaking. So when we look backwards, we're only sort of seeing kind of what we want to see. We're only sort of seeing what history has told us that we can see. And a lot of the, the, the behind the scenes stuff, we just kind of forget about just generally naturally speaking. So we have all of these journalists and all of these people now who are coming out and saying, wow, this Wu Han lab escape theory has got some merit to it. Doesn't it? And you go, you go back on their timeline. One year ago on Twitter, they were saying they were calling people, conspiracy theorists , and whack jobs. And they were condemning Ted Cruz for even suggesting a lab leak hypothesis. And you're saying, how do these people

Speaker 3:

Who are in the journalism business? How do they sleep at night, waking up and not recognize

Speaker 2:

That their position one year ago was completely different than it is today? And it's because they, it's sort of a combination of that. History is opaque. Plus that condemnation criticism and complaining rule from Dale Carnegie kind of mashed together. You can go after them, but they're just going to say, well, I just did the best I could with the information that I had, and I did nothing

Speaker 3:

Wrong. Meanwhile,

Speaker 2:

Those of us who are, who are not on that side, on that side of that error, or that we would call an analytical mistake, we say, yeah, but we were right , and you were

Speaker 3:

Wrong. And they say, why

Speaker 2:

I was acting on the information that I had. And we say, well, so were we? And so we just have this sort of round and around we go. And the thing that stands out to me is the pattern here about how often the media is wrong and how often it feels like to me that they are just actually dishonest. Like they've got a , an agenda. I don't watch any of it anymore. I mean, I don't even have cable for that reason or, or spend almost any time watching it because it is that dishonest. In my opinion, we have farmer's daughter says that there are vaccine creators coming forward saying that they have been working unsuccessfully at creating a SARS COVID vaccine for 20 years. Neither has a, an M RNA vaccine been tested on humans for a virus. I will post, I will post the sources here. That's from farmer's daughter. So she's going to post some stuff over up locals watching the watchers.locals.com. We have Nadar says, these guys like dazzle and Fowchee have been doing this type of work longer than I have been alive. So they know the right procedures. They know what the scientific method is. So I do not buy that they were mistaken or confused, or it was some kind of, because this is a new thing. They lied and people died, lock them up. Yeah. That's the other point of this

Speaker 3:

Is, is , uh ,

Speaker 2:

They knew better. These, these are the most prestigious people. These are the people that we put in charge of these situations. They know what they were doing. Don't act like this is just, you know, like, like, look, if you put me in charge and I'm like, I don't wear a mask. Sounds good. Okay. This is Dr. Fowchee. You've been doing it since 1984, 36 time . Farmer's daughter says I have read it . Great book. Guess it didn't take no, I really appreciate you. We need people like you to keep people like me in check. I do just laugh a lot at the absurdity. It is absurd, you know, and, and don't get me wrong. Farmer's daughter. There are times I want to get on here and just go, let me tell you what I really think about that. Okay. Brace yourselves. And then I'm not going to do that. Uh, it would be therapeutic. It would feel good, but it's not, you know , it's not, it's not really what I want this show to be. And it's, and it's honestly, it might feel great. You know, a lot of the times people like to engage in politics, cause it just feels good. You know, you just want to be mad at something. And politics is very easy to get mad at somebody, you just open up the news and you go, wow, that's, that's horrible. I can't wait to just rant and rave about that. And I'm just going to let myself get really angry about it because it almost feels good. And so I know that, and , and I , as somebody that comes on the show every day, I know I have to be cognizant of that because sometimes, you know, like I kind of go that direction a little bit. So when I see a story like Fowchee or like Kamala, we're going to talk about next, try to pay some money a little bit. So we got one more question here from Jack. Sparrow says, you seem to think mark Zuckerberg's email was a nothing burger. Does it not show Facebook coordinating with the government on messaging and what did not give first amendment claims to people who were censored on Facebook as Facebook was acting in coordination with the government? So Jack, you know, I , I, I do think that it is a , the problem that we have this government tech complex or this government media complex, or this government military complex. I really don't like the idea that the government is so imbed with all of these major institutions. And it's not like Zuckerberg is just, you know, a baker who did , Hey, Hey, you know, or a pizza delivery guy, we got some extra pizza that we can go deliver to the vaccine workers down there. Uh, care for that. No , right. This is somebody who says, Hey, I've got an audience of 250 million Americans and a billion people. What do you need from me? And so, you know, I understand that there is a real, real danger there. And I really do not like the coziness of that relationship. I don't like the idea that we have anybody in this country that can just sort of flip a couple switches and shift the entire conversation. And that it's basically the power that Zuckerberg has, which is why every time I get on here about the senators calling Zuckerberg into the Senate and asking them hard questions, the whole thing is just a big fraud because we know who really has the power here Zuckerberg does. And he just demonstrated it by telling Fowchee, I can literally shift minds of a significant portion of the American population we're already working on. It's going to be done in 48 hours. Right. That's a real power. And the fact that he , he sort of, you know , uh, interfacing with the government that closely to change people's opinions or to shift the narrative. I am , I have a lot of it she's with that. So I'm not, I'm not really on that. I think I'm more commenting on the fact that he just sends up what I would consider to be a relatively benign email on its own, right. That email on its own kind of stands by itself. Now, if Zuckerberg is doing this, which I suspect he is with all other different pillars of our government, I got a big problem with that. And we're, you know, there's, there's a lot going on there. We saw how much money he gave during the elections. We saw how much funding he supported , uh, with all of these different, very, very convenient battleground states about, you know , uh, ballot collections and all sorts of stuff. We've covered that in depth, the Chan Zuckerberg initiative, which donated like $400 million running elections around the country, it's a huge problem. I have a huge problem with Facebook and these big tech companies and how close they are , uh , in bed with our government. I think it's a huge problem when I was commenting on Zuckerberg's email. It was just that, that email standing on its own. But I , I absolutely understand your point that this is a little bit too uncomfortable for me. We have a private CEO of a big company that we all know has very, very close proximity to the federal government in many ways, coordinating with the government about ma managing American response to the pandemic, scary when that is happening. So I have a problem with that, Jack. All right. So great questions, such a long segment. All right . Long show. We're going to move on. Thank you for those. I , um , what are we talking about next? Almost an hour and a half on that segment. Oh, Fowchee terror . Funky . All right . We're going to talk about Kamala Harris. Of course, vice-president Kamala Harris is going to solve even more problems for America. You may remember when Joe Biden appointed her to solve the border crisis. It's kind of a surprising little event, and we're going to show you the clip when they were in the white house. And Joe Biden says, Hey, you know that problem down at the border that nobody has ever been able to solve for the last, as long as I've been alive over 35 years, we've had Republicans in charge. We've had Democrats in charge. We've had congressional leaders try to solve this. Nobody can get it done. Joe Biden takes office. He says, Kamala can do it, puts her in charge. So now that she has solved that problem once, and for all in her brilliance, he's going to put her in charge of another problem. And it's voting rights. We're going to make sure that Americans are not dispossessed of their voting rights. This story comes over from NBC news says here written by darter two to neuro. That is a name right there, dark to noro Clark written June one. It says that Joe Biden said on Tuesday that vice president Kamala Harris is going to lead the administration's push to protect voting rights as federal election reform legislation faces steep hurdles in remarks commemorating the 1921 Oklahoma race massacre. He said with her leadership and support, we're going to overcome again, that that Harris is in charge and that she can address what re what remains on the strain. The soul of America, stain soul of America. Harris said it in a statement that she's going to work with organizations and lawmakers alike in the days. And weeks ahead, she said, I will engage the American people work on. And with voting rights organizations, community organizations, and the private sector to help strengthen and uplift efforts on voting rights nationwide, we will also work with our members of Congress to help advance these bills. Our administration will not stand by when confronted with any effort that keeps Americans from voting the assignment expands Harris's portfolio by and selected Harris in March day in March to lead the administration's diplomatic efforts in Northern triangle of countries. That's not what he said, right? He said , uh , immigration let's while we have the clip next we'll we'll hold off countries of Guatemala, El Salvador on Honduras as an effort to curb migration. All right . So let's see, we have the clip next, but he said Biden selected Harrison March to lead the diplomatic efforts in Northern triangle countries. Okay. When I heard it, I thought it's kind of about the border crisis on a bigger scale, but let's take a listen. Here is Joe Biden,

Speaker 5:

The VP today because she's the most qualified first to do it , to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern triangle and the countries that we're going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks stemming into migration to our Southern border. And , uh, you know, back when I was vice president, I got a similar assignment, but one of the things we did was we made sure that we got a bi-partisan agreement with Democrats and Republicans to provide over $700 million to the countries in the Northern triangle to determine the best way to keep people from coming is keep them from wanting to leave. Um, and , uh, and the reason why so many people were leaving, we learned was that , uh, not only gang violence and trafficking and cartel, natural disasters, hurricanes earthquakes, and , uh, and so it's not like someone sits around a Hanuman Hanuman table or somewhere and watched them all and says, I got a great idea. Let's sell everything we have given the money to a coyote, have them take our kids or us to the border of America, take the cross , leave us in a desert. We don't speak the language. It won't be fun. Give it to Kamala. One of the ways we learned is that if you deal with the problems in country, it benefits everyone. It benefits. The people grow with the economies there.

Speaker 2:

All right, well, we didn't get that clip. It was, he gives it over to Kamala Harris and he says, and that's why we're going to put Kamala Harris in charge of all of this. And she goes, yeah, thanks, Joe . She doesn't look good receiving that. Now of course, her face is hidden behind a mask and she looks sour that she just got handed a big dumpster sandwich right on her desk and she's going to have to eat it. So the question has been, is she going to do anything meaningful on the border white house? This was posted back on May 24th, 1255. Couple about the , what does that seven, eight, nine days ago, we have the white house says no plans for Harris to visit the border despite a disturbing illegal immigrant video. Hmm . So she was put in charge of that. And if you listen to the clip, it doesn't just say the Northern triangle countries. That's not what he said, right? So this is a little bit dishonest here from NBC news, which is not surprising. Biden selected Harris in March to lead the diplomatic efforts in the Northern triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. That is not what Joe Biden said. Joe Biden said in charge of dealing with Mexico and the other Northern triangle countries. So that was just not accurate. So why wouldn't she go down to the border? Joe Biden went off and rambled about hurricanes and whatever, which I don't know. I guess other hurricanes like in Mexico city, I guess maybe. I don't know, but still there are no plans for Kamala to come and check out the border white house on Monday said, yep , Nope, no plans. New video showed a group of 50 illegal immigrants overwhelming the border in Texas, despite the alarming footage, press secretary. Jen Sacchi said , uh , that Harris who was appointed by Biden to oversee the border in March has made no arrangements to surveil the situation in person or talk to local officials said, quote, I expect she will make a trip to the Northern triangle at some point soon so that we would be there and she would travel given her purview. All right , well, so not Mexico because Joe Biden just said Mexico, the video taken by a drone by Fox news shows one agent in a pickup truck trying to capture more than a dozen migrants running along a dirt road. Two of them are fleeing the road. They appear to be handcuffed together indicating they had escaped custody. Eventually the agents were able to capture about 20 of them group made up mostly adult males. Another group of migrants, 53 people came from Venezuela. Guam got a Venezuela Guatemala, governor Abbott warned let's see, Mexican president Obrador has blamed the new president for the crisis. Arguing that quote, the expectations he set left migrants with the perceptions that they would be let into the U S yeah, this is exactly the point, right? And we've been saying, I've been saying this for months now. It's about incentives. When you tell people that you can come into the United States, they're going to believe you surprisingly believe that or not Donald Trump's policy was if you want to immigrate into the U S and access our immigration system and our court of law, you can do that. You can apply for asylum, but you got to wait in Mexico while you do it. Joe Biden did . That was basically his first day said, oh, you don't have to wait Mexico anymore. That was racist. So now if you want access to our country and our system and our courts just come right on it, just come into America. No problem at all. You don't have to wait over there. We're going to deal with you. What do we have? We've got entire facilities filled with children, women, and men, and a bunch of people in squalid conditions. That is a humanitarian crisis that they're not calling a humanitarian crisis. They're saying that this has to do with the Northern triangle countries. Not people dragging their four-year-olds across the desert in June and July in 120 something degree weather, people are going to be dropping dead. People are going to be killing each other. We're going to see this video next, where there's there's madness with border patrol agents, right? Somebody is going to get killed. Somebody is going to get hurt if not already happening. And the byte administration wants to blame hurricanes. And they want to say that it's it's cartel violence. Okay? The Mexican president himself has said, no, it's your fault. They're sleepy, Joe. You said that they can come into the United States. You said. So during your campaign, you said , so through your laws that you're changing in the white house. Now people are actually listening to you and you're going to put Kamala Harris in charge. Who's not even gonna go down to the border and see what's going on. Doesn't even consider Mexico to be a part of the issue. She wants to go deal with the Northern triangle countries. And do you know why that is folks? I don't blame her for a second. Are you kidding me? I wouldn't want that problem either. Nobody can fix it because it's not supposed to be fixed. We have both parties who are very happy with the current situation. They don't give a wit , uh , against, you know, some mom dragging her kids across the desert in the middle of July. They don't care at all about that because it serves them. It serves the Democrats with , uh, with, with cheap labor and a whole new class of voters. And the Republicans, it's the same thing, cheap labor. And they want them to vote for him . So nobody wants to fix this. Meanwhile, we have people who are , who are dying and getting taken advantage of and being raped and being trafficked because this administration has created perverse incentives. And it's not about, look, it's not about these migrants. I love the, I love people who want to come to America and be a part of what we have. It's a beautiful thing. And I think that a lot of these people have a lot more love for the country than many, many Americans. And here, unfortunately, these people are willing to leave everything behind drop everything, pick up their kids, pick up what little belongings they have walk a thousand miles to go be a part of something that's in it . That's a miracle. Unfortunately, you know , the country just doesn't have the capacity to handle all of the world at any given time. But I am somebody who is in favor of reasonable conversations about immigration into this country. It's a great country. We want excellent people to come and be a part of it. I don't have any problems with that. I do have a problem though, when our government is incompetent and they create perverse incentives that result in a humanitarian crisis and result in people being trafficked across the border and being raped by criminal elements of, I guess, drug cartels. This is the clip over from Fox news.

Speaker 6:

So let's, let's take a look at it again, because this is what border patrol deals with every day. Uh, this is a large group of migrants not turning themselves in. They decide to run away from border agents, 30 to 40 people scattering into a field. If you take a look, it's mostly young men and two of the guys are handcuffed. As they're running, suggesting maybe they were in custody before you see a single border agent trying to chase this group down in his pickup truck. But he's completely outnumbered that this happens down here at quite a bit. Uh , the migrants continue running scattering in the field . Some of them kind of fall into what appears to be a stream group keeps going. One guy stays behind again. Another border agent is trying to keep going after them. The group continues running. Some of them go scale, a fence trying to get away. Uh, ultimately some border patrol units did end up up with that group of migrants. They took about 15 to 20 of them in a custody. But as you mentioned, it did appear from what we saw that some of that group did end up getting away and escaping into the brush.

Speaker 2:

It's just terror . It's just terrible. It's just, it's just ridic . This is, this is something that we, we are causing this, like, this is, we are causing this problem by saying, come on in. This is a policy change that happened and it's going to continue to get worse. So why is Kamala Harris not particularly interested in solving this problem because she can't, I , I really don't blame her for not wanting anything to do with it. And she's making the right political move by just trying to abandon ship looks like here. According to CNN, that vice-president Harris's team tried to distance her from the fraught situation at the border obvious. Right? I said this when it was happening. I said it when, during that meeting with Biden and Kamala , oh gosh , she is not happy about this. And now we know that that is the truth. This was written by Priscilla Alvarez, Natasha Bertrand, over at CNN posted yesterday in the week , since the president asked her to take charge of immigration, one thing , uh, and her staff has sought to make one thing clear. She does not manage the Southern border. So sorry, jail . She does not manage the Southern border. Okay. That's one thing her staff and Camila have made clear to white house officials, familiar with the dynamics at Harris and her aides have emphasized internally that they want to focus on conditions in central America, that pushed migrants into the U S as president Joe Biden tasked her to do. That's not what he said, emphasize in central America, he just said, Mexico folks. I heard it. I played it. We , you heard it too . A record number of unaccompanied children crossing the U S this spring and the throngs of desperate miners present a heart rending problem, as well as a political one. Biden's announced that Harris's new assignment on March 28th ahead of an immigration meeting, telling reporters that he had asked the vice president quote , because she's the most qualified person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico up there it is. And the Northern triangle and the countries that can help the need in stemming the movement. So many of the folks Deming the migration to our Southern border Southern border. So she wants to go and deal with central America where the problem is as the Southern border and Joe Biden, didn't tell her to go just to central America. He said, you've got to deal with Mexico. Also after the announcement, Harris's aids appeared to panic, and we didn't have that clip today, but she, you can see it in her face. One of the, one of the officials out of concern, that her assignment was being mis-characterized and could be politically damaging if she were linked to the border, which at the time was facing a growing number of arrivals, another white house official push back on the sentiment saying that the team wasn't panicked, one of the officials said Harris appears eager for a portfolio that will allow her to achieve political victories, especially in foreign policy where an area where she's far less experienced in Biden what's Biden's experience with foreign policy. I hate, I hate that crap, all these senators. Why? Because you're a Senator. Instead Republican critics in the media have portrayed her new immigration role as a border assignment, potentially opening her up to criticism for attempting to handle it. Yeah, so she was absolutely panicked and it makes sense. I think it is the right political move. You do not want to be anywhere near the border, especially if you've got future ambitions for political office. So if Camila had accepted this and not drawn a hard line, the Republicans can run against her on that when she inevitably runs in 2024. So now she's trying to distance herself. So when that line of attack comes, she's just going to turn around and say, oh no, I was only talking about the Northern triangle. Okay. We need to deal with the systemic causes, right? Not the, not the actual causes, which is our administration. We've got to deal with the other garbage that we're making up, because we don't want to deal with the political consequences of having to revert back to competent policies that Trump had. We don't want to go back to that. So we're going to blame other things like , uh , drug cartels, which of course are a big problem, but also things like hurricanes and climate change. And I wonder if , uh, the , the white patriarchy systemic racism issue is going to come up down there and those central American countries also, because why not? We have Harris and her staff they've made clear that they want to focus narrowly on the diplomatic efforts. They recent commitments, Harris Harris secured from 12 private companies to invest in the Northern triangle are one example. Oh good. So we're going to have some investment down there, which presumably is going to stop. I guess, the crisis at the border former and current officials, along with immigration experts, stress, the causes of migration and the surge are inextricably linked and argue that while addressing the reasons people decide to migrate is critical. It can't be divorced from what's happening at the U S Mexico border. No kidding. You can't divorce the border from Mexico or central America or the interior. It's all one system. Everything you were doing in central America is an I up on the border. All right . So yeah. So, all right , let's finish this article here. Tens of thousands of migrants from central America arrive every month. As of April, there were 170 to 178,000 migrants picked up by us customs and border patrol. 79,000 or 44% of those were from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. So less than one half of the immigrants were actually from the Northern triangle countries. Everybody else came from, I guess , Mexico Harris's role, which mimics that of Biden under Obama is intended to target. What's driving people to the U S Harris is thought to be a leading Democrat for a candidate for 2024. Obviously she and her staff appeared wary of becoming a scapegoat for Republicans, not so unfounded concern after a GOP lawmaker, photo-shopped her face onto a milk carton and accused her of being missing at the border. See that down here, missing at the border vice-president Camila Harris. Okay. The fraught politics as why immediately after the president announced Harris's new role. Harris aids seemed dismayed when they saw some Republicans in media outlets, trying to characterize her as the new boarders are, she was not happy about it. Biden's announcement, both the president and the vice-president clarified repeatedly that she's focused solely on the diplomatic efforts to stem the current flow of migrants. Oh . And her her role is to address the root causes. So in other words, folks, she's not going to solve anything. Okay? Just get that out of your, out of your mind. They don't even intend to do that. It was a political spec . They needed, they needed to do something. If you recall, when this announcement happened, there were just throngs of people coming over. We kept seeing imagery of kids in cages, lots of kids, way more kids in cages than anything that we saw under the Trump administration. And they all had the space blankets on and they were limiting access. We had people wanting to go down there and take a look at what's happening inside these facilities. They were not allowing access. And so they just needed to throw something out there. Biden doesn't really know where he is. Most of the time he says, ah , Kamala Harris. She can fix this for us . For me. Uh , Obama did this when I was vice-president. So I'm going to do it to her. Now. She goes, that is an awful idea. I want nothing to do with this. Why, why, why, why daily caller is confirming that her team panicked staffers to the president say that she panicked, concerned about being labeled as somebody who was weak on the border. CNN says in the weeks, since the president asked her to take charge vice-president and her staff have sought to make one thing clear, she does not manage the border. Here is a quick clip here from, it looks like burn of which on Harris, no response is allowed response. I think this might be mark Barnovich from Arizona, who is our attorney general here. Let's take a look at this clip.

Speaker 7:

You think this indicates about what this administration's priorities are, Chris?

Speaker 8:

Well, I don't know about priorities, but it doesn't seem that they have much of an answer to the crisis at the border. And maybe that's the reason that they're not, they're not pushing it. And , and, you know, it's so interesting because when the president first said that he was putting Kamala Harris, as vice-president in charge of the border , uh, there was the sense was that he was putting her in charge of the border, the whole issue, and then a day or so later, the clarification came well, no, she's not in charge of the border. She's in charge of diplomacy, ah , with Mexico and with the Northern triangle countries to try to stem the flow to the border. Uh, and she's had a couple of phone calls with , uh , top officials in those countries. She hasn't gone to the border and she hasn't gone to the Northern triangle and she hasn't gone to Mexico, which kind of makes you wonder whether she knows this as a medicine . Doesn't want her fingerprints on it.

Speaker 2:

Yes. Chris Wallace home run well done, Chris. She does not want her fingerprints on it. And she did not want it from day one. When I watched the original handoff there, it felt like she had no idea. It was even coming like Joe Biden , just a character. Just come in and sit down here. I got a surprise for you here. Kamala . Let's take a [email protected] that addresses right down here at the bottom. If you want to check that out, also subscribe to us over at rumble because we're building up a little bit of a nice following over there. Appreciate all the support. So Nadar is here, says, have you seen these pictures or heard about federal contractors being paid to transport these kids all over the U S like in Tennessee, where the Tennessee government called out the byte administration for bringing people into the state, without them even knowing odd, weird? Uh , no, I have not heard about this story or seen this. It says, please help me. I do not speak English. What plane do I need to take? Thank you for your help. Huh? I have not seen that. Now . I have seen signs like this. I've seen , uh , paperwork like that, you know, in, in airports before. So, you know, maybe that's just, oh , somebody or maybe this is a thing that's happening. I don't know. Thanks for flagging that though. Nadar. Appreciate it. Interesting little interesting. We got Jeremy [inaudible] is here, says anytime someone offers so many reasons why something had happened is happening. It usually means they're making things up. Yeah . Yeah. It's like, Hey, let's see if we can identify why people might be coming into the United States is it's hurricane season. Are there earthquakes down there? Do we have rampant out of control fires , uh , Corona virus . Wha what could be possibly making them all want to come suddenly? Is there anything that happened in the last six months that could have caused a change? Hmm . Well, we got a new president who came in and changed a bunch of immigration rules. Could that be it? Yeah, it is it's and they don't want it to be that because it's a political problem for them. If, if that's the problem, if the problem is their politics, that's, that's like the worst outcome, because that means they have to change their politics. And then they're gonna look like a bunch of idiots for having to say , uh , Trump was right. You're right. We actually need, you know, stricter immigration or, or, or more controls at the border or what if they said, yeah, you're right. We should probably start building that wall again. Huh? I would not go well for them . So rather than ever accept responsibility, they're taking a little tip from Trump's playbook here. It's double down on it. Oh no. Not our pilot . Our policies are great. It has nothing to do with the incentives that we created here. Mexican president, no idea what he's talking about. All the immigrants who say, oh, we're coming here because Joe Biden said that he'd give us a nice little place to stay. Don't listen to them either. We know what it's about. Do you know how we know this? Because we put Kamala Harris in charge and she's so smart that she can go in there and this for us. So I would like to see some momentum. I would like to see her go down there and actually work on these Northern triangle countries and address, I guess, climate change and the hurricanes and everything that's causing the real problem.

Speaker 3:

Is that going to happen? No, it's not intended to. They just ,

Speaker 2:

They just needed to kick the can down the road for the next administration to deal with. All right. So good questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com.

Speaker 3:

We got one more segment then we're out of here for the day. All right.

Speaker 2:

January six Capitol hill riots happened almost six months ago almost to the day. And we are now seeing some conclusions start to work their way through the justice system. We're going to talk about to today. We've got two cases , uh , about two individuals who were there

Speaker 3:

Or close to the congressional

Speaker 2:

Buildings on January 6th , their cases are now being resolved. We have one where the gentleman took a plea deal, so pled guilty to a crime. And then in the other case, we actually believe it or not to have a dismissal. The department of justice, the us attorney's office said , uh , you know, in the interest of justice, we have to dismiss these charges. What is going on? We're going to go through it. Let's take a quick look at the first article over from the Huffington post

Speaker 3:

Florida, man. Hey, I always

Speaker 2:

Talk about that guy here on this channel. That one, Florida man, there he is. Here. He is. We've got Florida man who stormed the Senate floor with Trump flag reaches a plea deal in a capital attack. A Florida man who wore a Trump 2020 shirt carried a Trump flag. As he stormed the Capitol . He pled guilty on Wednesday. He became the second defendant to reach a plea deal in connection with the capital attack. So this is this guy, Paul Allard, Hodgkin's 38. And uh , lets him right there. Got the Trump shirt on, got the Trump flag on pled guilty to one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. Okay. So that's the charge on Wednesday, four other charges were dismissed as part of a plea deal. Hodgkin's told judge Moss that he had been in counseling through his employer since his arrest, which is good because you always was that that's good. That's actually great that he did that. So let's, let's flush out. What's going on here when you're charged with the crime,

Speaker 3:

Normally throw a bunch of charges at you here . It sounds like there were five of them, including

Speaker 2:

Obstruction of an official proceeding, probably all the same charges, the trespass charges we've covered many of these cases here.

Speaker 3:

And as part of the plea deal,

Speaker 2:

I always talk about this is that if you're going to be taking a plea deal, there should be some incentive that you get. You should get some benefit because you're giving up your right to a trial, your right to present evidence, your right to cross-examine other people. Those are very important rights, including your presumption of innocence and the demand that the government prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you're going to give up all of those things, you better be getting something out of it. And that often comes in the version of a plea deal. So in this case, he is getting something out of it. They're dismissing four other charges, and he's only going to be pleading guilty to one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, which doesn't even sound like that big of a deal. Really. Now Hodgkin's said that he's been in counseling, which is also, this is what we call mitigation. Okay. So counseling, right? As soon as, as soon as you're involved in a sort of a highly political high eyeball type of a, of a case might be a good idea to start thinking about mitigation, counseling, treatment therapy, volunteering church men's groups, women's groups, whatever, so that you can go and start building up a portfolio of good things to counteract the bad thing. Then we have the agreed upon statement of the offense. Okay? So this is what we do in a plea deal. Sometimes you'll call this a factual basis. So when somebody pleads guilty, they actually have to plead guilty to a crime and you can't just plead guilty for something that you didn't do. And so if you know, let's say this guy said, well, I don't want to plead guilty to that. I want to plead guilty to murder. And they said , well, did you murder anybody? No, but I want to plead guilty to murder it. Wasn't well, you didn't do it. W we can't let you do that. We need a factual basis. What , what you have done needs to be based. In fact, now that is going the other way, right? That is going from a less severe crime to a more severe crime. But what if you want to go the other way? What if you want to go from, let's say a class four felony lower into a class, six felony here in Arizona, the higher the numbers, sort of the less severe it is. So four is more serious than six. Well, what if I find a statute or a crime that is a class six that I want to plead my client down into? Well , I have to come up with a factual basis for that. There needs to be a somewhat similar offense. That's a class six that somewhat resembles a class four. It can't be an entirely different offense. And so that's how, that's what we're talking about with the factual basis. So here, this is what was sort of agreed upon by all parties and then submitted to the court to say, this is what we say happened here. So it reads that Hodgkin's entered the us Capitol building with a dark t-shirt with the word Trump in white letters carried a red flag with Trump 2020 in white letters and took a selfie style photograph inside the Senate chamber. All right . Under the agreement, Hodgkin's admitted that he entered the Capitol building, knowing he wasn't allowed inside. And that he did. So with the intention of obstructing the proceeding inside, right? So they went through the elements of the offense. They said, okay, did you go into a building? Yup . Got that element entered into a building. Was there an official proceeding going on? Yep . Did you obstruct it? Yes, I did. All right , there you go. Right. That's obstruction of an official proceeding. And so the facts very, you know , nuts and bolts, don't hear much else about what actually happened. And that's pretty standard. Theoretically, the maximum sentence is 20 years. The ultimate sentence is going to be determined by the judge. Who's going to consider his criminal history and other factors, things like counseling. Judge Moss said that based on what he knows today, the sentencing recommendation under the guidelines would be 15 to 21 months in prison. All right . So put a pin in that 15 to 21 months in prison, he has not been sentenced yet. He is going to be sentenced. And the way that this traditionally works is you have a, a recommendation from all the parties involved. So you'll have the defense makes a recommendation. Of course, the defense is going to say probation. We don't want any jail time. We just want the absolute minimum amount. And this is why we think it's appropriate. We've got counseling, we've got therapy, all of this mitigation. Plus, you know, our clients sort of accepting responsibility here. He's not fighting anymore. He's got, you know , support from his employer and the list goes on and on. So judge, all these factors, we think probation should be most likely and don't give him any jail. The government comes back and says, oh gosh, you know, this was crime of the century. Uh, you know, this was the undermining of America. This was an insurrection. Uh , basically they almost seize control of the entire government. And , uh , we're asking for, I don't know , 20 years, right? Whatever the highest is, then the defendant goes over and meets with the probation department or the sentencing department. However, it's structured

Speaker 3:

In that entity, in that state. And they meet with somebody who's supposed to be somewhat independent.

Speaker 2:

They draft a pre-sentence report. So you've got these three different people, all sort of chiming in on what the sentence should be. The judge is going to hear from all of the parties and then ultimately lay out what the verdict is or what the sentence is. Not the verdict he's already pled guilty. So there really isn't a verdict. Hodgkin's is the second January 6th defendant to plead guilty. We had John Schaefer , he's a heavy medical tourist . He pled guilty on two counts in mid may federal authorities. They charged more than 400 defendants. The FBI receives hundreds of thousands of tips from the Capitol attack while they're posting on Twitter. So of course, most federal cases and in plea deals, especially given the strain that the capital cases have put on the federal courthouse in DC, it's likely that many more plea deals are in the pipeline. Government is indicated. It is discussing plea offers and a number of capital riot cases. Government attorney said Tuesday. They hope to extend plea offers, offers to a number of defendants charged in the

Speaker 3:

Keepers cases in the coming weeks. And so I've been saying this that I expect most of these to be resolved. If not all of them with plea deals,

Speaker 2:

I don't know that we're going to see a trial on any one of these cases, because they're just not that great trial cases. You know, I think a lot of these cases are pretty cut and dry. Somebody was in a government building.

Speaker 3:

They shouldn't have been. There you go. Right. It's it's, it's pretty easy.

Speaker 2:

Now there are defenses, of course. And if somebody wanted to hire our firm to represent them, it wouldn't be as cut and dry of an analysis on this, but there's a different way to approach these cases. And this is one way to approach it. It's to say, listen, I was involved in something that got out of hand, but I'm not a criminal. I'm somebody, who's a good person. I have a lot of mitigation. I've , I'm doing counseling and all of these other things. And you hope that the court has some leniency and then you, and you also hope that you're able to work out with the government, that they don't recommend the max . Okay. They don't have to recommend the max. You can go talk to them and say, what's your recommendation going to be, listen, our guy's going to plead guilty. He doesn't want to spend two years in prison. What's your recommendation going to be? I know what the opening, the, the range is . I know that the judge could go from this to this. Will you agree to cap it here? Or will you agree to just recommend the minimums? And then I can recommend the minimums and, or your probation or, you know , six months or whatever time served , whatever, and then to go and negotiate that out.

Speaker 3:

So that is, is happening. It's well

Speaker 2:

Underway as we speak. And I'm going to show you another case where they actually don't even want to go that far, but let's quickly take a look at the complaint here. So this is Hodgkin's. This is from the original charges. January 22nd. We've got FBI agent interviewed confidential witness number one regarding Hodgkin's . He took a selfie style photo here. That is he also , uh , FBI agents reviewed video footage that was published by the new Yorker. So they went through all of that. Here's another image here's Hodgkin's right here. Big red arrow, new Yorker footage depicts a man. I believe to be Hodgkin's there he is. Caucasian male standing in the Senate. Well, right. So there he is, right, right on the Senate. So what is he going to take this case to trial based on the forgoing your file . It says there's probable cause to believe that he violated us code. There is there he is. Uh , your finance says there's probable cause to believe that he violated these laws knowingly or entering a building restricted grounds without permission to do so signed off on, by hang the P lie . Federal bureau of investigation signed off on February 21st, February 9th, 2021. So we , we have that here is the press release from the department of justice, man, pleads guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding. So, you know , they're very happy and excited about these cases. They posted this today and according to court documents, we've gone through all of this. Let's see, they're saying a maximum of 20 years, fine of $250,000 or twice the monetary loss he's scheduled to be sentenced on July 19th at 10:00 AM. Federal district court. Judge is going to determine the sentence after considering the U S sentencing guidelines and other factors. So I've been following this case and also the Molotov cocktail lawyer's case. If you recall this situation, there were two , uh, two attorneys who threw a Molotov cocktail, I think, into the back of a police vehicle. I don't remember the specifics of that case happened a long time ago. Uh, I think, well, over a year ago, at this point in time, during the summer of unrest in 2020 and their case is also working its way through the system. So , uh, the last I heard they were considering a plea deal, but I don't know what the context of the plea deal is. So we have these two lawyers, or I think we're sort of loosely affiliated , uh, with, you know, some of the protest movements and they'd been charged with crimes and they're working out a plea deal. So my big question is going to be, what kind of deal are they getting versus what kind of deal is this guy getting? Uh , we know that he took a plea deal with what sounds like an open range for sentencing, but what is the actual sentence going to be? We're going to look at it for the other Malatov cocktail lawyers as well, because we've seen some of the other dispositions in a lot of the Antifa cases. Remember, we've talked about this on this channel as well. That a lot of the Antifa cases after about a year of , of being in the justice system are getting diversion deals where they just basically have to complete a class, don't break any new law, break, any laws or commit any new crimes, and they're going to dismiss the charges against them. So that's a good deal. That's a pretty dang good deal. If you're charged federal crimes and they just dismiss them as part of a

Speaker 3:

Version deal. I want to know if these

Speaker 2:

Capitol hill riders are going to get similar deals and we're not going to know until we start to work our way through the ,

Speaker 3:

At the time of sentencing. But we also have another case

Speaker 2:

That was actually dismissed. And this one was flagged by red state over here from Shipt rec crew he's over on Twitter. He's a good follow . If you want to give him a follow here, shipped rec crew posted this today over at red state, says the department of justice moves to dismiss the case against the January six protester . It always begins with the trickle. He says, so this is a great article. I actually go read the whole thing. He goes through and details what actually happened here. It says that Christopher Kelly

Speaker 3:

On January 20th

Speaker 2:

Was charged and the government now filed a motion to dismiss the criminal complaint. He was charged in connection with the January six protests. So this is a copy of the unopposed motion to dismiss. The hearing date scheduled looks like

Speaker 3:

Second and filed yesterday. Us district court for the district of Columbia USA

Speaker 2:

Versus Christopher Kelly. The United States moves this court with the consent of the defendant, Christopher Kelly through counsel ed McMahon Jr. Moves to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and end of this matter. Now without prejudice technically means that they can

Speaker 3:

And bring this, this, this back again. They obviously they will not, but they could, you know, if they, if the government woke up and said,

Speaker 2:

Oh gosh, Christopher Kelly, we just opened up this file. We didn't realize this, but he also did this crime and this crime and this crime, they could come back and charge him again, but they're not going to do that. Of course, the defendant was arrested on a complaint in this matter on January 20th, 2021, he had his initial appearance on this court, February 9th. The matters may continued several times next court date, June 2nd for a preliminary hearing and a status conference. So it sounds like what's been happening here. Just a lot of negotiation back and forth. A lot of just sort of, you know , continuance, continuance, continuance, the government and defense counsel have discussed the merits of the case. And upon reflection of the facts currently known to the government. The government believes that dismissal without prejudice at this time serves the interest of justice. The defendant consents to this motion to dismiss the case

Speaker 3:

Without prejudice. So we have a dismissal, sounds like a reasonable,

Speaker 2:

The conversation was had prosecutors looked at the case and said, we don't have anything here. So they dismissed it. Now, you know, Christopher Kelly, unfortunately had to hire a lawyer, had to go through this entire process, probably a number of different court dates

Speaker 3:

And not going to be compensated

Speaker 2:

For any of the lost time, money, or effort or anything

Speaker 3:

Or any of that stuff. Now, sometimes that happens. But my

Speaker 2:

Question on this story for the longest time has always been, is, has this been about justice or has this been

Speaker 3:

About moving a political football for forward ? Feels like the latter, unfortunately. All right .

Speaker 2:

So I want to thank everybody for your great questions. All of those came in from you here, the board, you know who you are. They came over from watching the watchers.locals.com , which you can see down here is the address below watching the washers.locals.com . If you head over there, you can download a copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning for free. It's a PDF that you can download can also download a copy of the slides. These are all the PDF. I'm sorry. All of the PowerPoint slides we went through are available for you for free. You can download a copy of my impeachment party template . So where I drafted up a resolution to impeach really any politician that you want, you can download a copy of my existence systems. This is my productivity tool . It's a template. You can download this and modify it to your heart's desire. You can also buy a course. I created a course for that. That's [email protected] If you wanna check that out, you can share links throughout the day and meet great people. We also have an event coming up here on June 26, which is our second monthly meetup. And it's free for all locals [email protected] . I do not have the registration link up for that yet, but I will get it up soon. Next up we have on Saturday, June 12th, our law enforcement interaction training, which is going to be a lot of fun. We're going to talk about traffic stops and roadside investigations and residential searches and seizures. We got a new case that just came out from the Supreme court that we're going to talk about. So we're going to go through about 90 minutes of content and we'll hang out for half hour from 12 to 2:00 PM Eastern time, Saturday, June 12th, once again, free for all locals supporters. And I really do mean it. When I say thank you for your support over there. It means the world to us. You, as you know, were demonetized here on YouTube for the foreseeable future, and you help keep things on the track over [email protected] really means the world to me. So thank you for your support over there. And , uh , lastly, before we get out of here, a couple of quick reminders, I've got some other channels that are down linked in the description below, check out my crypto channel, having a lot of fun with this very interesting stuff. Yesterday I posted a video about there were , there were these guys called the BitConnect boys and they were a part of this 2 billion crypto scam. It was wild anyways, the sec just charged them. And a lot of these guys, I can tell you this, they don't have $2 billion to their name. They got a lot of Bitcoin, a lot of cryptocurrency and this, this massive scam. And the sec, this is all back in 2017, 2018 finally charged them. So I covered that in detail today, I got a video coming out about , uh, who, who, what am I talking about today? Uh, some, some regulatory thing I recorded it last night. I can't remember, but check that out. Crypto channels, a lot of fun. Also have a live chat , a non-life channel for recorded videos where my Wu Han video is also linked below. If you're interested in RNR law group, Arizona law, we're putting out a lot more content on that channel as well. So most people aren't going to be interested in that last one,

Speaker 3:

The others , maybe because if you

Speaker 2:

Don't already know this, I am a criminal defense lawyer here at the R and R law group. And we love to help good people who are facing criminal charges. We like to provide safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and hopefully their lives, because these can be trying times for them and we want to help them get things back on track. And so if you happen to

Speaker 3:

Know anybody in the state of Arizona

Speaker 2:

Facing criminal charges, we would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send them our direction so that we could have the opportunity to help. If they've been charged with any type of crime, anything in the state of Arizona, we can help, could be minor. Misdemeanor offenses could be things like DUIs, domestic violence, drugs, the old town crimes, people are out there. Again, you know, sort of engaging in a lot of these fun things that , that some people like to do. And a lot of criminal charges can stem from those things like disorderly conduct or criminal damage or criminal trespass, or even things like urinating in public. You know, it happens. So if anybody is charged with any one of those offenses, we can help. And there's a lot that we can do minor misdemeanors, major felonies, everything in between. And we would love the opportunity to just speak with your referral, to see if we can help. If we can't, we're going to point them in the right direction, if we can. And they want to work with us, we're happy to do that as well. And so that is it from me, my friends, we have all of our information down in there . The description below, if you want to connect with us or call us, I am looking forward to seeing you all here tomorrow. Want to ask everybody to have a tremendously restful evening sleep very well. I will see you right back here. Same time tomorrow. It's going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM. Eastern for that one, Florida man, that one guy out there always in Florida. Everybody. Thanks for joining me today. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .